0".

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 071 169 EA 004 756

AUTHOR Cook, Paul W., Jr..TITLE Modernizing School Governance for Educational

Equality and Diversity. Summary Report.INSTITUTION Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education, Boston.;

Massachusetts Univ., Amherst.PUB DATE Sep 72NOTE 34p.

EDRS PRICE MF-S0.65 HC -$3.29DESCRIPTORS Boards of Education; *Equal Education; Equalization

Aid; *Governance; Instructional Staff; PropertyTaxes; *Regional Cooperation; Regional Programs:School Districts; State Action; State Aid; StateBoards of Education; *State School DistrictRelationship; *Superintendents

LBSTRACTThis pamphlet summarizes a study made by the author,

which focused on investigating the problems of the way our schoolsare financed, the arrangements for delivering educational resourcesto our students, the developing problems of collective negotiations,and the way our school systems are organized and interrelated. Theauthor also examined State funding obligations as they relate toequality of educational opportunity. As a result of his studyfindings, the author recommends that the State of Massachusetts (1)redefine school district tasks, removing the more unmanageable ones;(2) .mandate staffing levels in order to remove a major manifestationof inequality; (3) adopt Statewide approaches tothe determination ofappropriate salary levels; and (4) provide more support for districtmanagement through policy guidance and through encouragement ofvoluntary regional associations. .A related document is EA 004 757.(JP)

modernizing school

governance for educational

equality and diversity

S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

0000.11P0 4A5 oitE% RE PROOurlD E t ILA AS VELE A( 'R('.7..E PF :ISO% 014...7.%717t0h Om+,0.1:47.1R; .7 POINTS. 0' II t. IR r..()%S S:4E: DO .0% ESSAQ'tREPRESS N. OF OF'IL E 0. EDUCATION POS7710 Pknic

11SUMMARY

REPORT

wAs4

A Study for the

Massachusetts Advisory

Council on Education

1 he MANsacluNetts Adtisot C mine', on Aluc.:tion Nindependent \tati agen:y et...ated by 1pct.m1

t ( t n e i a l 1 a%.. Chaptei 1 5 . Section IIII t o t the pm pose 01let pOISCIC tk.igned to imp! kAk. the n ;Ioiili.in veof all public education systems !l the Commonwealth Assuch the V.1% Nor), Count_il piovide, support to, studies %%InchAN III 1s:commend pt hoe. promotmr and taoluating the.00idination. offectienes,. and et li,tenc of these edtka-fowl s stems.

It pohi, y of the Massachusetts Ad%Nol Court It onI'dtk..it ton that its studies should he disseminated and utilizedm a manner %ditch %%ill hest wri.: the PtihIIL int:teNtAc,ordingl... permission is granted to teptoduce whole orpart the test of this report.

O`

modernizing schoolCD governance for educational

equality and diversity

by paul w. cook, jr.DirectorAssisted by %V. Barry McNiff

A Study for theMassachusetts Advisory Council on Education

182 Tremont StreetBoston, Mass. 02111

Principal Advisor to the StudyDr. Robert C. Wood, President

The University of Massachusetts

University CoordinatorProfessor Maurice A. Donahue

Director of the Institute for Governmental ServicesThe University of Massachusetts

Council Liaison to Study StaffDr. William C. GaigeDirector of Research

Dr. Allan S. HartmanAssociate Director of Research

Contracting AgencyThe University of Massachusetts

September 1972

---

MASSACHUSETTS ADVISORY COUNCILON EDUCATION

Members of the Counci:

Mr. Philip C. Beals, Chairman, Trustee, WorcesterMrs. Mary Warner, Vice Chairman, Engineer, SunderlandMr. Morton R. Godine, Vice President, Market Forge Co.,EverettMrs. Shirley R. Lewis, Attorney, Lewis & Lewis, TauntonMr. Patrick E. McCarthy, Acting Chancellor of Higher

Education, ex officioMr. Verne W. Vance, Jr., Attorney, Foley, Hoag & Elliot,

BostonMr. Felix H. de C. Pereira, Financial Consultant, Retired

Senior Vice President, First National Bank, BostonMr. Walter J. Ryan, Business Manager, International Union of

Operating Engineers, Local No. 4, RoslindaleDr. Nina E. Scarito, Obstetrician, MethuenDr. Thomas J. Curtin, Acting Commissioner of Education,

ex-officio

Legislative Consulting Committee

Mary L. Fonseca, State Senator, Fall RiverKevin B. Harrington, State Senator, SalemJohn M. Quinlan, State Senator, DoverWilliam L. Saltonstall, State Senator, ManchesterRobert A. Belmonte, State Representative, FraminghamMichael J. Daly, State Representative, BostonPaul H. Sheehy, State Representative, LowellThomas C. Wojtkowski, State Representative, Pittsfield

Staff

Dr. William C. Gaige, Director of ResearchDr. Allan S. Hartman, Associate DirectorDr. Ronald B. Jackson, Associate DirectorMrs. Judith Pippen, Administrative Assistant

TABLE OF CONTrNTS

FOREWORD 4

1. THE SCHOOL GOVERNANCE CRISISIN MASSACHUSETTS 6

Problems Facing Education 7Needed Strategies 7

11. A FRESH LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS 9Built-in Fragmentation 9School Committee Overload 11Superintendents' Overload 12

I III. A FRESH LOOK AT SOLUTIONS 15"Management Development" vs. Strategic

Change 15The Old Rationale: Homogenization and

Inequality 16Equality of Educational Opportunity: The

Inadequacy of the State Aid Formula 18Diversification of Educational Offerings 20The Need for New Organizational Strategies 22

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE 23Equalizing Staff Levels: Utilizing the

Mandate 24Easing Collective Bargaining Problems 26Organizational Changes: Professional Growth

and Long-Range Planning 27Conclusions 28

FOREWORDChanges in our society demand changes in the laws and

the governance of our schools which developed in a differentand simpler time. For nearly three years the AdvisoryCouncil and its staff in collaboration with committees of theSchool Committees and Superintendents Associations con-sulted on a governance study with each other and with someof the most distinguished scholars and administrators in theCountry.

The original plans for the study called for examination ofthe roles, organizational relationships and responsibilities ofthe superintendent of schools and their school boards,examination of the relationship of local districts to theDepartment of Education and other state agencies effectingeducation and the examination of appropriate relationships,organization and strategies for statewide organizations in-volved in public education. As the study director, Dr. Paul W.Cook of M.I.T., progressed with the study, his investigationsled him to the conclusion that the way our schools arefinanced, the arrangements for delivering educational re-sources to our students, the developing problems of collectivenegotiations, and the way our school systems are organizedand inte related that from these four elements derive themost pressing demands on our school committees andsuperintendents. Dr. Cook then set about investigating theseproblems and ways for solving them.

The Council regrets that a study, focused on the roles,relationships and responsibilities of school committees,superintendents and governmental agencies could not beundertaken. However, it believes Dr. Cook is right in hisidentification of the fundamental problems facing those whogovern our schools. If sufficient funds and other provisionsmake possible the equitable delivery of educational resourcesto all of the children and youth under a system thatdiminishes the competition between the governments of ourcities and towns and our school committees, then those whogovern our schools can devote their attentions to basiceducational problems and to communicating more effectivelywith their local constituencies.

On behalf of the Advisory Council on Education I

extend our gratitude, particularly to Mr. Hugh Boyd,President of the Massachusetts School Committees Associa-tion, and Dr. John Connor, Superintendent of Schools inWorcester, and Chairman of Ad Hoc Committee for Revision

4

of Structure of the Massachusetts Association of SchoolSuperintendent's Association, who led their respective com-mittees in all of our planning efforts and finally in participat-ing in the study. We extend our gratitude to Dr. RobertWood, President of the University of Massachusetts, forassisting us in planning the study, getting it underway andmaking available the facilities of the University of Massachu-setts. We also express appreciation to those who served onthe study committee and to the many others who madethemselves and their resources available to Dr. Cook and hisstaff.

On behalf of the Council I tranEmit this summary reporton the governance of our schools to the Governor, themembers of the legislature, those who govern our schools andour cities and towns and all thoughtful citizens, I urge themto read Dr. Cook's analyses and recommendations and thento associate themselves in developing the important stepswhich will lead to a more efficient, more equitable and moreeconomical school system.

William C. GaigeDirector of Research

5

The State's cities and towns do not necessarilyneed new school committees, nor do those schoolcommittees necessarily need new superintendents.Rather, the study that follows argues that whatboth need is a new set of conditions in which towork ...(we) need to redefine the roles commit-teemen and superintendents must fill so thatwhat is to be done can be accomplished by thosechosen to do it.

... the faults are not with the actors; instead,they are with the institutions.

Robert C. Wood, in hisForeword to the Report

I. THE SCHOOL GOVERNANCE CRISIS IN MASSA-CHUSETTS

Local school districts must transfer some of their mostburdensome responsibilities to the state, and the state in turnmust change its present approach to school aid, if theCommonwealth is to solve the problems now causing greatstress in local school districts and blocking increased educa-torial equality and quality.

There are the major conclusions of our 15-month studyof the problems facing school governance in Massachusetts.*Our findings and conclusions are based on several types ofresearch: extensive interviews and use of questionnaires withmore than 100 school committee members, superintendentsand teachers from twenty-seven school districts including richand poor, as well as rural, suburban and urban districts;analysis of the politics of education in the Commonwealth;examination of Serrano v. Priest and other recent court casesdetailing state obligations regarding equality of educationalopportunity; and study of the budgetary problems facinglocal school districts and the relation of these problems tothe state's school aid programs.

*Copies of the complete report are available at state andcommunity college libraries, the Boston Public Library, theState House library and libraries of the Department ofEducation and its regional centers. In addition, the report isbeing entered in the ERIC system.

6

Problems Facing Education

I

Our study makes clear that the problems facing educa-tion in the state are so complex that many of them cannotpossibly be solved at the local level. They include suchphenomena as: I) inflation and other factors leading to a"tax crisis"; 2) the lack of an effective school aid formulaand the elusiveness of the goal of equality of educationalopportunity; 3) development of new knowledge and con-cepts, including new uncertainties, about how young peoplelearn and what they need for meaningful maturation; 4)increasing alienation of youth; 5) increasing bureaucracy ineducation; 6) stress due to tense collective bargainingrelationships; 7) overload on local school committees andsuperintendents; and 8) high turnover among these last twogroups, resulting in an instability that often exacerbate-existing problems and further decreases opportunities fordeveloping overall strategic policies.

Management development techniques which emphasizeimproving the capacity of school officials cannot possiblybegin to deal with so many problems, several of which arebased in the larger society. Even the best qualified schoolcommittee members and superintendents are unable to solveproblems that are Nit of their own control.

Needed Strategies

It is clear that overall strategies will be essential if theCommonwealth is to deal with its educational problemseffectively and economically. The need is to make fundamen-tal changes in the organizational relationships; better copingis not enough. But it is also apparent that school districts andeducational interest groups are so fragmented in Massa-chusetts that such problems also cannot effectively beresolved by waiting for overall strategies to develop from thegeneral statewide political process. Thus, we consider iturgent that the State Board of Education exercise itsmandating powers and lead the way toward the fundamentalchanges that are needed.

After examining the strategies implicit in the presentsystem of education in Massachusetts we find that there are

7

three explicit priorities th:lt the Commonwealth must pursueif it is to meet the Constitutional, political, social andeconomic challenges that it faces. The first strategic priorityis moving toward real equality of educational opportunity.The second is to provide much more diverse and appropriateeducational programs for the youth of the Commonwealth.And the third is to make the organizational changes necessaryfor these first two larger priorities to become feasible.

More specifically, our major recommendations are that:

1) Massachusetts should move forcefully to reduce theunequal and burdensome effects of local resourceson local school decisions, especially by

a. mandating professional staff levels, andb. adopting statewide approaches to the determina-

tion of teacher salaries.

2) Thz question of financing schools adequately andequitably should be addressed in terms of how toshare the burden of actually equalizing the availabil-ity of educational resources to all children not interms of equalizing the potential capacity of a schooldistrict to raise revenues which it may or may notchoose to raise and spend.

3) The St Itte, Board of Education and local schoolcommittees should cooperatively seek to introduceappropriate degrees of stability and strategic direc-tion, especially by stimulating voluntary regionalassociations. These could reduce the burdens onlocal school administrations and improve resourcesharing among school districts and between thedistricts and the State Department of Education.

This summary is intended to present the highlights of thefull-page report. In the three sections that follow we discuss1) the complex nature of the problems, 2) suggested generalstrategies toward solving these problems, and 3) more specificrecommendations for policy actions.

8

H. A FRESH LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS

Beyond the large societal changes that affect educationsuch as inflation t< A widespread cultural shifts there aretwo distinct levels at which to examine the specific problemsfacing school districts in Massachusetts: First, the dilemmascreated by the relatively fragmented and static statewidepolitical structure within which the state's educationalpolicies must develop; and second, the more dynamic set ofproblems currently facing school committees and superinten-dents at the district level.

Built-in Fragmentation

Despite long-term familiarity with the Massachusettssystem of government, we are once again struck by the greatnumber, strength. and independence of geographic andorganizational sub-divisions within the Commonwealth.

The geographic-political fragmentation involves the stategovernment, 351 cities and towns. and district municipal andschool governments in each community. The organizational-political fragmentation includes the eight groups that makeup the Massachusetts Educational Conference Board, as wellas groups representing minorities, students, business, teachertraining institutions, and taxpayers. The results of these twotypes of divisions are similar. The hallmark is both thepoliticization of social, technical, economic and administra-tive decisions, and the consequence is that very few effectivepolicies can be agreed upon. The compromise solutionsresulting from this process often resemble the proverbialcamel that is alleged to be a hcrse designed by a committee.

The various groups tend to act as veto groups, oftenhaving the power to stop new policies without having thepower to develop substitutes for them. Given such deadlocks,ea,;11 group comes to consider the larger issues facing the state

9

less and less meaningfully, and to concentrate more onlimited gains for itself. Once limited gains become a priority,it is common for leadership to shift to those who enjoy suchactivities; the statesmen move out and the generals move in,creating still more possibility of division rather than coopera-tion.

School finance problems are a particularly onerous andfrustrating example of the results of this fragmentation.Given lack of an effective policy at the state level, financialissues consume vast amounts of energy on a continuing basis.The cities and towns are forced to raise revenues in the lightof local resources and politics. Furthermore, they are forcedto rely on the property tax, which is regressive and has theadditional unfortunate consequence of placing the interestsof education in direct opposition to other "bread and butter"interests in each community. The policy of "fiscal autonomy"may be an advantage for school systems in this situation, butit is clearly a benefit at the cost of more harmoniousrelationships with municipal officials and the at-large com-munities.

State school aid goes to the cities and towns as areimbursable expenditure, meaning that its amount is deter-mined by what districts have spent in a prior year. No oneknows for certain to what extent the Legislature will actuallyfund state aid entitlements, and since entitlements aredetermined in part by averages that are unknown until it istoo late, no one can make adequate educational plans. Localproperty taxes also cannot be fully determined until thesereimbursements are known. Thus, the state aid program isespecially ineffective as a policy instrument to encouragelonger-term educational planning. .

Meanwhile, school policies must sometimes be deter-mined by municipal policies, since the processes of municipalgovernment generally control construction of new schoolfacilities. Lack of space may prevent the opening of akindergarten, or force a half-hearted adoption of an opencampus program in the local high school.

In addition to prolonging problems of school finance, thefragmentation in Massachusetts school politics also makes itdifficult to identify various statewide problems and deal withthem. Major dilemmas tend to appear as if they were a seriesof disconnected local problems because they arise at different

10

times, in somewhat different ways, and among distinctpolitical units. For example, the decline of private schools, orracial imbalance or taxpayer revolts, never quite get thesustained attention they deserve because they arise only inparticular communities at separate times.

Given such an enormously complex power structure, it isan organizational fad. of life that neither authority norresponsibility can be fixed in public education, except uponthe system as a whole. Despite this fact, it is traditional forvoters to believe that the authority and responsibility to solvesuch problems rests with their local school committees andsuperintendents. But these groups now have much reduceddiscretionary power and are already overburdened withseveral tasks they cannot adequately fulfill.

School Committee Overload

The general environmental stresses outlined above havecontributed to many incidents at the local level that aresymptoms of stress increased school committee turnover,superintendent firings, budget and bond issue rejections,student strikes, and tedious, sometimes acrimonious, rela-tions with teachers, especially in collective bargaining.

In the American political system environmental changesare expected to stimulate adaptive political changes, so theexpectation for school politics might be that a communitywith new problems and needs merely elects a new schoolcommittee which introduces new policies. Indeed, our surveyindicates that in the 27 communities studied there were 50out of 116 school committee members who were in their firstterm of office. Furthermore, of the 27 Committee Chairmen,only II would say that they would run again for office. But adeeper analysis of the causes and consequences of thisturnover indicates that the expectation of effective changesmust be substantially modified.

For instance, virtually every school committee reportedthat budget constituted a major problem, and many alsoreported that it was one of the areas in which their energieswere least effective. Capital spending and collective bargain-ing also were frequently cited as major problems, although itwas felt that positive results in these areas tended to be more

11

attainable. Members reported that they devoted an average of80 hours of work just to the issues of budget and collectivebargaining. with most of the latter time devoted to salarynegotiations. Some members reported spending more than150 hours apiece on these topics. These time factors, coupledwith the wearing controversies that often accompany them,contribute to a loss of interest on the part of incumbents.They compete with the earning of livelihoods, and producegrowing recognition that the problems faced are often notthe fundamental questions that committee members wishedto work on.

The school committee turnover that results, unfortu-nately, do-es not often produce widespread effective gains forthe school districts involved. In fact, the process of copingwith the problems of budget and collective bargaining isoften further complicated by this turnover. New members aregenerally more skeptical that existing budgets are based onfacts, and newer committees are also more likely to have torequest supplementary appropriations after collective oar-gaining. Since both budgets and salary levels have enormousbuilt-in momentum, in many cases there is little substantialchange that takes place due to the energies of new members.This is especially true in the many cases where new membersrun on platforms that are not substantially different in termsof educational philosophy from those of incumbents whohave chosen not to seek re-election. In general, turnovertends to produce more noise than fundamental educationalchange.

Superintendents' Overload

Both the built-in fragmentation in the Commonwealth'seducational power structure and the increasing controversyand turnover on school committees have had especiallyimportant effects on superintendents. The general public andcommittee members often overestimate the power of superin-tendents, despite the fact that their discretionary powergenerally has been shrinking. Thus, community expectationsfor superintendents are very high, even though many superin-tendents recognize their own limitations and are trying toregard themselves more as advisory staff officers than as

12

operating line officers. As one superintendent stated, superin-tendents "are charged with responsibilities no longer withintheir control. Collective bargaining, teacher militancy, stateinvolvement, pupil involvement, etc. is such that the superin-tendent's power is based on moral persuasion, not law orauthority. Unfortunately, as yet, the public and most schoolcommittees don't understand this.

One consequence of increased school board turnover isthat the typical superintendent works for a committee mostof whose members did not appoint him. An average of 2.2current members were on their boards when their superin-tendents were appointed, less than half of the membership ofthe average committee in our sample. There is modestevidence that new members tend to judge superintendentsmore severely; on measures of seven areas of professional.competence, committees with more first term members hadlower evaluations of their superintendents than committeeswith higher seniority. There was also evidence that superin-tendents experience less job satisfaction where there is morecommittee turnover. Of course some of this decreasedsatisfaction occurs because the systems experiencing the moststress have the most turnover, and the stress, rather than theturnover itself, makes the superintendent's job more difficult.Some of the decrease in satisfaction, however, can beattributed to the simple fact that new members tend to takeup more of the superintendent's time.

We suspect this result has more operational significancethan might at first be apparent. Within the six weeks or sofollowing our survey, four of the 27 superintendents in oursample resigned or were fired. Our conclusion is that sheerexhaustion is taking its toll, that new members contribute tothis, and that this factor may be at least as important aspolicy disagreements. This is especially true insofar asexhausted people both superintendents and committeemembers are more susceptible to conflicts.

We believe this human overload is an important elementreducing the adaptive capacity of school districts. The factthat there often appears to be relatively little basic policyconflict between committees and superintendents paitlyreflects Li? fact that some superintendents have becomemore circumspect. A few volunteered that their objective wasto survive. Others seem to be practicing issue avoidance,

13

..

taking their cues from the committee and keeping in line. Ofcourse this tends to make the committee the de factoexecutive officer for the district, and given the rapidity ofchanges on the committees, it is easy to see the problemsinvolved in trying to develop middle and long-range educa-tional policies.

14

III. A FRESH LOOK AT SOLUTIONS

Our study and others have found little evidence ofstrategic or long-range thinking at the local level. It is clearfrom the previous section that this is partly due to theturnover of school committees and superintendents, and totheir preoccupation with their next deadlines the budget,collective bargaining, bond issues, and so on. It is also clearthat this lack is due to the large number of problem areasthat are beyond the control of local districts. Providing fororderly long-term change is a principal top managementresponsibility, but it is now being borne by the least stablecomponent of the system, the school committees, which doesmuch to explain why there is so much need for crisismanagement.

There is a substantial amount of attention paid to generallong-term goals for education at the statewide level, but wefound a lack of effective middle-management, middle-timespan mechanisms for essential intermediate planning andimplementation. At present there is a huge vacuum betweenthe statewide goals and the overburdened local schoolcommittees and superintendents. Two instances of the effectsof this are the recent difficulties encountered in involvinglocal districts in implementing the Education Goals forMassachusetts and in debating the proposed changes in thestate's financial aid system.

"Management Development" vs. Strategic Change

These gaps in organizational structure lead to gaps instrategic planning and we regard them as the fundamentalorganizational weaknesses in public education in Massachu-setts. In searching for solutions to these weaknesses we havereconsidered the assumptions that prevailed when we beganthe study. We thought there might be different behaviors andskills that might be taught to school district managers so they

15

could solve the major school governance problems. While wecertainly do not oppose management development tech-niques, it is now obvious that by themselves these techniquescannot seriously relieve local school district burdens, and thatthey are even less plausible as solutions to those keyproblems challenging the state as a whole.

We are convinced that the development of "organization-al manuals" will not really help unless they evolve from arecognition that structure must be derived from strategy, notvice versa. First, there must be some new agreement on whatthe state's strategic priorities are, and then the organizationmust be altered .to relieve current burdens while at the sametime improving the chances of achieving those priorities. Wemove now to our consideration of these strategic require-ments, and then to our recommendations, which are designedto meet these challenges as well as the more specific problemsnow facing local school districts.

The Old Rationale: Homogenization and Inequality

We believe that there has been a gradually developedstrategic rationale operating in Massachusetts education forsome time. Its basic assumptions appear to be that

education is a social investment, rather than a socialservice or a right;

the ability to benefit from education has close, ifindirect, associations with wealth; .

society needs only a relatively small elite with morethan the basic components of literacy;

private charity can be used to skim the high academicachievers from the ranks of the poor and provide them withhigher education opportunities;

children and adolescents should largely be kept out ofthe labor force;

it is essential to avoid shaping the young in ways thatmight be responsive to collectivist ideas; and

cities and towns are stable enough in their socialcomposition to provide family and cultural continuity acrossthe generations.

In simpler times, in poorer times, in more stable times,this system worked in significant ways. It created an

16

internationally respected cultural life. It created a leadershipclass and, for a time, the moral leadership of the entirecountry. It led to significant progress in the sciences andother professions. And if it tended to reinforce those who werewere privileged, it also provided some entry to that class forsthose who could and would play by its rules and meet itsstandards.

But today it is clear that this educational system, whenrelated to broader trends in our society, has also producednumerous adverse consequences. First, the dominance ofmiddle and upper class values permeated the system andcreated a forced homogenization; the acceptance of thosevalues became a virtual prerequisite for even modest success.It is significant that approval of these standards and theresulting standardization is now much less supported by theelite, on the one hand, and by the culturally deprived on theother. Many in the upper middle class are seeking more openand emotionally satisfying learning experiences for theirchildren; while many among minority groups also seek newlearning experiences for their children that have morerelevant end satisfactions.

Second. the traditional educational system, even when itallowed for some equality of opportunity, did so within avery narrow conceptual framework. Equality of opportunityOnly existed for the very few who could excel in thetraditional learning styles and subject matter. The-principalstrategy of the state has been to establish minimum standardsof educational commitment, while encouraging localcommunities to do more. Those that do more tend to bethose who share the dominant socio-economic values andhave the wealth to support more. Thus, there are still greatinequalities across a wide variety of educational dimensions.For instance, in 1971 there were 106 communities withbetween $600 and $799 of reimbursable school expendituresper pupil, while there were another 83 communities wellabove them in the $900 to $1,500 range. Some schooldistricts report pupil-teacher ratios of 30:1; others reportratios of 16:1. Similarly, the rate of college attendance isover 80 percent in some districts and below 30 percent inothers.

All this becomes particularly important now because theconsequences of this system are no longer acceptable, and the

17

fact that they are no longer acceptable constitutes a majorenvironmental change to which the educational system mustadapt. Many of the young no longer accept the system;neither do an increasing number of their parents. The stateand federal governments will not tolerate tile inequities andfailures that have resulted, if only because of the costs to thesociety in violence and alienation. Racial minorities,supported by the courts, will not accept continuingdiscrimination in education. Add to this the increased needfor a more highly trainedlabor force, in irY.'ew of increasedinter-state and inter-national competition, and an increasingtaxpayer reluctance to spend money on a system that isproducing many poor results, and it becomes obvious thatmajor changes are both overdue and imminent.We distill from this general unacceptability of existingconditions two major interrelated needs that require strategicplanning. The first is to equalize educational opportunity, toeliminate the current discrimination in educational resourcesprovided to children. The second is to foster educationaldiversity, to the end that public schools can moreappropriately serve all children, not simply those who comeprepared to prosper in the traditional system. Both of thesestrategic needs are discussed below.

Equality of EducationalOpportunity: The Inadequacy of theStateAid Formula

Unfortunately, many in Massachusetts have come tobelieve that the problem of edu. nal inequality is beingdealt with through the state's finant .1 aid formula. The greatpolitical clamor with which this formula developed gave theimpression that its implementation would mean that perpupil expenditures in various districts would tend to convergetoward the middle or upper end of the prevailing expenditurerange. It was assumed that increased state aid incentives tolocal communities, with provisions that poorer communitieswould get proportionately more aid for any given levels ofexpenditures, would induce those laggard communities toincrease their educational efforts. But, in fact, thisconvergence has not taken place: the state aid programs servemore as a moderate source of property tax relief for local

18

communities than as an incentive toward increased equalityof educational opportunities for children.

Though the state made the policy decision thateducational resources should be equalized, the accompanyingdecision to leave the level of commitment up to the localcommunities has acted against achieving this policy. Thefinancial potential of a poorer community may be increased,but the actual spending and actual resources available tochildren may not change significantly if that potential is notexercised, as it has not been in numerous communities. On arelative basis, wealthy communities and people tend to spendmore for education and the state aid formula has not beenvery effective in closing the gap between rich and poor schoolsystems. Indeed, the state has never faced the problem; theWillis-Harrington Report of 1965 was somewhat self-contradictory in advocating pulling the lowest commitmentcommunities up to a minimum while encouraging the otherswith the means to run ahead as fast as possible.

Better results are unlikely to occur even if the levels ofstate aid are substantially increased under the presentconcept of "incentives." Much of the current debate disregardsthis possibility. Our analysis, however, indicates strongly thatvolunteerism and incentives will not produce the necessaryequalization of resources actually delivered to children. Thisidea was tested by examining the differences amongcommunities with relatively equal public school burdens butunequal percentages of their children in private schools.Under the financial aid formula those communities withhigher proportions of students in private schools receivesubstantially more aid for any given level of expenditure. Thestatistical analysis indicated that in such communities theextra incentive produced no increase in actual expenditurescompared to increases in comparably wealthy systems whichdid not have the extra incentive. Thus on a relative basis thegap was not closed between the high commitment and lowercommitment districts.

Educational interest groups in Massachusetts mustrecognize that they have actually done little to effectivelyequalize educational opportunities. The present definition ofequality in terms of fiscal potential is simply not adequate. Italso seems clear, from recent court cases and writings in thisarea, that both equalization of educational results and

19

complete equalization of per pupil expenditures are unrealis-tic and in some ways inherently inequitable goals.

What new concepts can we offer? We conclude thatequalization should be sought in terms of the actualeducational resources that are provided for children,regardless of the wealth of their parents or theircommunities. In our view, children should have access toapproximately the same level of professional staffing, supportmaterials, and building quality, or at least substantiallyequivalent combinations of these things. This criterion ofsubstantial resource equalization is perfectly compatible withthe possibility of different groups of children receivingdifferent levels of support, although the discriminationswould no longer be on a class or racial basis. For instance,different levels of support do not raise Constitutional issueswhen they involve such possibilities as high school childrenreceiving more than elementary students, or disabled childrenreceiving special funds.

Addressing the problem of program realities, rather thanfiscal potential, brings the state more into line with recentefforts of the federal government. In the administration ofsome of its programs the federal government requires allschools within a district receiving certain types of federalfunds have substantially equal resources, including numbersof teachers, similar materials and supplies budgets, and so on.This means that schools in wealthy neighborhoods are notencouraged to do more while the others stay behind.Basically, the wealthy are prevented from doing more untilthey can convince the larger community to give a higher levelof support for education across-the-board.

We believe it is inevitable that the criterion of resourceequalization will become widely accepted, because no otherstandard withstands detailed analysis. The only question iswhether in the long run it will be necessary or desirable to gobeyond this to attempt to equalize peer group influences byintentionally mixing student populations, which is of coursea far more explosive issue than mere resource equalization.

Diversification of Educational Offerings

The strategy of diversification intends to provide more

20

appropriate educational experiences for the state's studentpopulation, thus reducing the extent to which the systemforces children to fit its programs, instead of fitting theprograms to the children. This policy should have benefitsnot only for the pupils involved but also for the larger societyin terms of reduced alienation, violence and crime.

The challenge of providing diversity is similrr to the goalof individualizing instruction so that learning ex; eriences anddevelopment experiences are linked appropriately for eachchild. There is mo.e to it than that, however. A truly diversesystem would include more than a collection of schoolsoffering individualized instruction. Many of the schoolsthemselves might have diverse missions: some might becommunity centers; some might be youth advocacy centers,perhaps placing psychological support and acceptance above"instruction ;" some might lead in coordinating communityresources toward the integration of young people into adultsociety through job placement and training. Each institutionwould need to re-examine its stereotyped role and ask whatits local environment really presents as a total challenge.Many schools and neighborhoods would undoubtedly wantto stay with the traditional school environments. but othersmight want to individualize instruction more, and quite a fewmight find that distinct tasks such as those mentioned aboveare much more essential and desirable in their particularsettings.

Much of what has been happening in the state's leadingschool systems recently has involved the generation ofoptions. This represents a subtle and interesting change in theactual and potential roles of local school committees inaddition to creating options this also involves the essentialtask of seeing that each of the options is given relativelyequal support.

Simply offering options is not enough, however. Toooften the option chosen proves to be a blind alley, eventhough a pupil might have a valuable learning experiencewhile finding out that his or her long-term interests lieelsewhere. The schools must work hard to see there are asfew dead ends as possible, that there is always a way back, oracross, so another program can be pursued.

Insofar as British experience is relevant, it may well bethat developing diverse programs requires less imposed

21

change than expected, and more of a simple letting go afreeing up of schools, and especially teachers, to respond tothe needs in the best ways they can find. The greatestchanges in elementary education have occurred in GreatBritain, where teachers are by law given total discretionwithin their classrooms. Out of this freedom came the mostsignificant "open classroom" developments: and also out ofthis freedom came the right of other teachers who opposedsuch classrooms, or who would have difficulty operating inthem, to retain their more traditional teaching styles. Thissystem recognized that teachers cannot be forced to teacheffectively when they think the wrong things are beingattempted by the wrong methods.

The Need for New Organizational Strategies

The strategies of equalization and diversification clearlyrequire much improved arrangements for the governance ofpublic schools. Equalization will require keen imaginationand great energies at the state level, among regions, in localdistricts, and even in neighborhood communities in some ofthe larger cities and towns. Diversification requiresdecentralized decision-making, which in some instanceswould involve the school committee, and in other instanceswould involve groups representing smaller districts within thelarger school systems in the Commonwealth. Thus, a chiefpriority is relieving the school committees from theirimmobilizing burdens in the areas of collective bargaining andbudget, giving them more time and energy to relate to theircommunities and to address themselves to the fundamentaleducational challenges which demand their attention. Therecommendations that follow are intended to pursue theseessential organizational strategies, while at the same timeadvancing the state priorities of equality and diversity.

22

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE

How arc the jobs facing the state's educational systemand local school districts to be made more manageable? Bylooking at strategic requirements, on the one hand, andaspects of the jobs that are mc,bt unmanageable, on the other.

These considerations have brought us to the followingrecommendations:

I. Massachusetts should move forcefully to reduce theeffect of local resources on local school decisions,especially by

a. mandating professional staff levelsb. adopting statewide approaches to the determination

of teacher salaries, andc. strengthened and more uniform systems for

provision of adequate school facilities.II. The question of fiscal equity should be addressed in

terms of how fairly to share the burden of substantiallyequalized educational resource availability for children,not in terms of how to equalize the ability of a district toraise revenues which it may not choose to raise and spend.

III. The Board of Education and local school committeesshould cooperatively seek to introduce appropriatedegrees of stability and strategic direction at all levels,especially by stimulating voluntary regional associationsthat would facilitate useful pooling of informationamong peers and better vertical communication betweenthe State Board and the district school or associatedcommittees.

These recommendations are discussed below, exceptthose dealing with school facilities, which is the subject of a1971 study sponsored by the Advisory Council onEducation.

13

Equalizing Staff Levels: Utilizing the Mandate

We believe that the state's educational leadership shouldredirect much of its effort to achieve equality away from theconcept of fiscal potential and toward a much simpler, moredirect, and more easily traveled route. That route is for theState Board of Education to use its mandating powers toguarantee the substantial equalization of educationalresources actually provided to public school children. Inessence, this is what the state already does in highereducation, where faculty positions are al!.cated on the basisof student enrollments.

Such an approach would have the additional benefit offreeing school committees for responsibilities they shouldand can fulfill. Once staffing levels are mandated, budgets aresubstantially determined; staff costs iun about 80 percent ormore of operating budgets, leaving many fewer issues to beargued about.

The State Board of Education can mandate maximumclass sizes under its present powers. It is not difficult tomodify this mandate for maximum class size, through waiver,changing it to a mandate which establishes a moresophisticated ratio of pupils to professional staff (not onlyteachers). This would eliminate the vagueness of how variousdistricts meet the maximum class size regulations, and wouldalso provide a more direct way of equaliting resources 'ayestablishing staffing minimums that were substantially abovecurrent levels in the lower commitment systems in the state.Such a practice would still permit all manner of localvariations among ratios of clasiroom teachers, non-teachingspecialists, para-professionals, etc. The order would onlyapply to staff hired with funds for regular educationalprograms. Cities and towns with exceptional needs, such as ahigh proportion of disadvantaged students, could still receivecategorical aid from other programs.

The fact that this power can be exercised by the Board atits convenience and in pursuit of equality of opportunity cansolve many of the political problems of implementation.Poorly staffed districts might complain bitterly if there are tobe some extra local costs, but in the current judicial andpolitical climate it seems likely that any attempt to nullify bylegislation a ruling issued in pursuit of equal protection of the

24

law would either fail, be vetoed, or be nullified by the courts.In addition, we would recommend that any district staffedbelow the mandated level could receive a waiver from theruling on a showing that its educational results were such thatits children were not being discriminated against.

Since understaffed districts generally receive a highproportion of state aid at present, the state would pick upmuch of the cost of these improvements. The cost would,however, be likely to be less than any across-the-boardincrease in state funding, and all other current proposals forincreasing aid would do so without simultaneously producingequality of opportunity.

Naturally, no proposal to increase equality can fullyescape the need to allow incentives for those communitieswhich have the desire and means to move ahead of themandated levels of educational staffing. Our examination ofthe size and composition of the leading school districts in theCommonwealth convinces us that to resolve this conflict areasonable percentage of children should be permitted toenjoy the privilege of higher than usual staffing levels.However, the past and future decisions of these leadingcommunities must Ile directly tied to the minimum levelsmandated for the lower-commitment communities. Forinstance, the Board could decide to let 15 percent of publicschool children enjoy higher than mandated staffing levels.This would mean approximately 165,000 of 1.1 millionchildren.

Since this limited privilege would have a direct socialpurpose beneficial to the less privileged districts, a good casefor permitting it could be made in court and elsewhere. Thisis particularly true in the absence of any reasonable andfeasible alternative. Periodic revision of mandated staffinglevels could prevent the gap between high commitment andlow commitment communities from opening up again. Also,if the really poor districts receive categorical aid throughadditional programs, they too would be privileged in thesense of having more resources than the average.

It is therefore possible to move strongly and quickly toget substantially equalized educational resources for children,without first building an immense political grass rootscampaign or engaging the courts and the legislature in a longbattle. It is possible to divert much of the attention of school

25

committees from annual coping with a budget crisis. And bydeferring the application of the order, it is possible to givethe Governor and the Legislature some time to act onappropriate revenue measures based on equalized programs,rather than on unequal programs as at present. Obviously, thefull effects and cost of the program could not be accuratelyestimated until statewide data on personnel are markedlyimproved. A first step, therefore, is for the Board ofEducation to obtain an accurate census of the state's schooldistricts to determine their various personnel ratios in all ofthe relevant sub-classifications.

Easing Collective Bargaining Problems

Our second major recommendation is that statewideapproaches be adopted to determine appropriate teachersalaries. This change would have important consequences forboth the strategic challenges we have been discussing and theoperational difficulties facing local districts. We do not urgestate fixing of salaries, however. Rather, we suggest forms ofmodel negotiations that will produce a rationally determined,fact-based set of guidelines to facilitate negotiations in thedistricts.

Under the present system, negotiations over salariesconsume vast amounts of energy in each local district eventhough no district is really capable of substantially affectingits salary levels by its own discretion. Outside factors arealways crucial in making the final determinations and the useof these factors tends to reinforce existing inequalities. Thetendency of wealthy towns to look to other wealthy towns,and poor towns to look to poor, keeps salary differentialsrelatively constant and therefore reinforces differences instaffing.

There are many real collective bargaining issues whichcan be meaningfully dealt with at the local level, and in somesituations the process of collective bargaining itself producesa significant gain in awareness among various interest groupswithin a community. But it is obvious that the most timeconsuming issue, that of salary levels, could most efficientlyand equitably be researched, if not resolved, at the state level.In addition, if the state is going to be paying an increasing

26

share of local school costs, as seems inevitable, then it is alsoentitled to play a more significant role in guiding salarylevels, which make up the bulk of school operating costs.

The statewide involvement in teacher salaries need notoccur in setting absolute dollar terms, but as a set ofinformative ratios and relationships to variables such asincome in other types of employment, local and state costsof living, national productivity increases, inter-state compari-sons, employment conditions, and so on.

The result of this or some alternative statewide approachwould be a highly informed, fact-based statement of whatcurrent salary policy ought to be and why. This shouldgreatly narrow the range of disputes and the time spent innegotiations at the local level, while at the same timeadvancing the Commonwealth toward the strategic require-ment of equality of educational resources thorughout thestate.

Organizational Changes: Professional Growth and Long-Range Planning

It seems to us that most school superintendents are atleast as capable as managers in private industry withcomparable salaries and scope of authority, and probably agood deal more educated and self-educable. In most cases,the superintendents' job is more demanding, in part becausetheir authority is less clear and their accountability is to amore diverse and often unpredicable set of forces.

Their effectiveness is also limited, however, by certainorganizational factors. They lack the kind of staff supportone would ordinarily find for middle-managers in anydecentralized organizational system. We refer here not tothe kind' of support given by a staff responsible to them, butto the kind that comes from a high echelon that is equippedto pool information, to focus major resources on commonproblems, and to provide an arena for serious peer groupsharing of ideas and problems. Instead of reporting to ahigher level group with more expertise, school superinten-dents presently report only to school committees with lowerlevels of expertise.

We believe Massachusetts needs further development of

27

that layer of management that lies betweent he districts andthe State Board and Department of Education. We proposethe encouragement of more professional peer groupexchanges, a function that already exists in part in regionalassociations of superintendents. This may be a good base onwhich to build; their main weakness has been rotatingleadership among members, breaking continuity and leadingto the avoidance of difficult or potentially embarassingissues. Such organizations should be subsidized by the stateon a reimbursement basis, but be creatures of the districts,building up from them toward the state level. We do notrecommend a line authority relationship between theseregional organizations and the local districts. Leaders for theregional organizations should definitely be selected by theconstituent districts, and they should be expected to servetheir local districts, rather than be in charge of them.

In addition to the clearcut organizational benefits ofsuch an arrangement, we believe that the broadenedperspectives of such agencies would foster diverse educationalprograms in the local districts. Finally, such a proposal mightreduce so far insoluble problem of consolidating morelocal school districts within the state. These regionalorganizations might provide an acceptable half-way arrange-ment, securing at least some of the advantages of a moreoptimal scale of operations.

Conclusions

The recommendations in this report take two approachesto the problems plaguing the state's educational system.First, they redefine the tasks of the districts, removing themost unmanageable tasks, as well as those that cannot behandled in ways that are consistent with the goal ofeducational equality of opportunity. Mandated staffing levelswould remove both a major manifestation of inequality and amajor cause of local conflict. The policy would also assist inthe development of an equitable method of sharing the fiscalburdens of education. Second, the recommendations providemore support for district nvnagement, in the form of betterpolicy guidance on salary le% els, and in the encouragement of

28

11,

inter-district agencies.The two approaches are compatible but independent.

The first would move the state toward its essential goal ofequality of opportunity. The second would help local schooldistricts solve various key problems and work towardeducational progress. Either or both would reduce the weightof certain burdensome local issues while expanding the scopeof other local involvements. Foremost among these newlyemphasized issues, of course, would be the urgent problem ofproviding higher quality educational experiences for ourchildren.

29

Advisory Committee to the Study on School Governance

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID BARTLEY, Speaker of the MassachusettsHouse

MR. HUGH BOYD, President-elect, Mass. School Committees Associa-tion

MR. OSCAR BRIGHT, President, Board of Directors, SpringfieldAction Commission

SENATOR EDWARD BURKE, State SenatorMISS ROSE CLAFFEY, Executive Secretary, Mass. Federation of

Teachers

DR. JOHN CONNORS, Superintendent of Schools, WorcesterREPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL DALY, House Chairman, Committee

on EducationSENATOR MARY FONSECA, Chairman, Committee on EducationDR. WILLIAM HEBERT, Executive Secretary, Mass. Teachers Associa-

tionMR. HENRY HERSEY, First VicePresident, Mass. Selectmen Associa-

tionDR. HEROLD HUNT, Acting Curator, Alfred North Whitehead

Fellowship Program, Harvard UniversityDR. ROBERT IRELAND, Superintendent, Peabody School System, Pea-

bodyMRS. MARGARET JACQUES, Second VicePresident, Mass. School

Committees Assn.MR. ALBERT KRAMER, Special Assistant to the GovernorDR. WILLIAM LOGAN, Regional Commissioner, U.S. Office of

Education

MRS. MARGARET LYNCH, President, Mass. League of Women VotersMR. ARMANDO MARTINEZ, Director, Puente Fund, Inc.MR. CARL NORDSTROM, Chairman, Executive Committee, Mass.

Business Task Force for School ManagementMR. KENNETH PICKARD, Executive Director, Mass. League ofCities

and TownsMRS. CHARLOTTE RYAN, Chairman, Education Conference BoardMR. WALTER RYAN, Member, Advisory Council on EducationMRS. MARJORIE SCHILLER, Special Assistant to the Senate Presi-

dentMR. MELVIN SHEA, Executive Director, Eastern Middlesex Opportun-

ities Cottncil

DR. NEIL SULLIVAN, Massachusetts Commissioner ofEducationDR, THOMAS WARREN, President, Mass. Association of Superinten

dents

MR. RUSSELL WHITE, Deputy Director of the New Bedford ModelCities

DR. RAY YOUNG, Senior Staff Consultant, Arthur D. Little

30

CURRENT MACE PUBLICATIONS

1972

Massachusetts Schools: Past Presentand Possible

Child Care in Massachusetts: ThePublic Responsibility

1971

Massachusetts Study of EducationalOpportunities for Handicapped andDisadvantaged Children

Organizing for a Child's LearningExperience: A Report of a Study ofSchool District Organization inMassachusetts

Quality Education for the HighSchools im Massachusetts: A Studyof the Comprehensive High Schoolin Massachusetts

The People's Colleges: The StateColleges of Massachusetts

A Systems Approach for Massachu-setts Schools: A Study of SchoolBuilding Costs

1970

Organizing an Urban School Systemfor Diversity

The Massachusetts Department ofEducation: Proposals for Progressin the 70's

Compensatory Education in Massa-chusetts: An Evaluation withRecommendations

Continuing Education in Massachu-setts: State Programs for the Seven-ties

Richard H. deLone

Richard Rowe

Burton BlattFrank Garfunkel

Donald T. Donley

Lloyd S. Michael

Evan R. Collinset.al.

Nelson AldrichGeorge CollinsCharles F. Mahoney

Joseph M. Cronin

John S. Gibson

Daniel JordanKathryn H. Spiess

Melvin LevinJoseph Slavet

I he State 1)ollai and the Shook\ Dt\ctisslon of State Aid Plogiamsul Nlassachusetts and pionnsing Re-for,Report Of the Nla\sachusetts

isk Force for School \Linage-men!

1969

A Cost Benefit Analt \h of GenemlPurpose State School Aid Foimulasul Massachuset ts

The Measurement of licritaiReCots of lalticating Catholic Chil-dren in Public School\

Cudelines col Planning and Con-suucting Community College\

Take a Giant Step Ivaluahon ofSelected Aspects of Protect 750

Pupil Set vices for M:isachusettsSchools

1965

'I he Management of (lucationalormat ion

l)Let,11):111011.11 I (location for MANS.1-

ClItIsetis

Teacher Certification and Plepaia-non in Nlassachusetts

1967

The Massachusetts System of High-el Education m hansition

Inequahties of i-ducational Opportunity in Massachusetts

(Thailotte Ilan

1\ an en 1: ins

Asm)ciates

,\ mire 1)anicre

ndie DainereGeorg Madan,

lit the plithinOre

Ilerbert Ilof t man

GoidonAt thus kioll

Informatnin\lanagement.

Carl SchaeferJacobi:Jul man

1 indle J Stiles

Samuel Gore

New I nrland SchoolDeelopmcnt Council

ED 071 169 EA 004 756

AUTHOR Cook, Paul W., Jr..TITLE Modernizing School Governance for Educational

Equality and Diversity. Summary Report.INSTITUTION Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education, Boston.

Massachusetts Univ., Amherst.PUB DATE Sep 72NOTE 34p.

EDRS PRICE MF-40.65 HC -$3.29DESCRIPTORS Boards of Education; *Equal Education; Equalization

Aid; *Governance; Instructional Staff; PropertyTaxes; *Regional Cooperation; Regional Programs!School Districts; State Action; State Aid; StateBoards of Education; *State School DistrictRelationship; *Superintendents

7BSTRACTThis pamphlet summarizes a study made by the author,

which focused on investigating the problems of the way our schoolsare financed, the arrangements for delivering educational resourcesto our students, the developing problems of collective negotiations,and the way our school systems are organized and interrelated. Theauthor also examined State funding obligations as they relate toequality of educational opportunity. As a result of his studyfindings, the author recommends that the State of Massachusetts (1)redefine school district tasks, removing the more unmanageable ones;(2) mandate staffing levels in order to remove a major manifestationof inequality; (3) adopt Statewide approaches to-the determination ofappropriate salary levels; and (4) provide more support for districtmanagement through policy guidance and through encouragement ofvoluntary regional associations. .A related document is EA 004 757.