UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A political systems approach to the study of demands on an urban school board Brayne, Robin Charles 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A2 B79.pdf [ 4.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055664.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055664-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055664-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055664-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055664-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055664-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055664-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055664-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055664.ris

Full Text

A POLITICAL SYSTEMS APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF DEMANDS ON AN URBAN SCHOOL BOARD by ROBIN CHARLES BRAYNE B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1966 B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1969 M.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE" UNIVERSITY '-OF'BRITISH:-COLUMBIA December 1978 (c?) Robin Charles Brayne 1978 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f r ee l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or publication of th is thes is fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Educational Administration The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date January 11, 1979 ABSTRACT This study was concerned with the identification o f the properties of formal demands made of one urban school board during a nine-month period from January 1977 to August 1977. Within the framework of Easton's (1957; 1965) theoretical approach to the study o f p o l i t i c a l activity, the study attended to five specific purposes. The f i r s t purpose was to describe the substantive nature or topic of formal demands made of the school board during the nine-month period. The second purpose was to determine what action was expected by the school board in their responses to these formal demands. The third purpose was to identify what individuals or groups were responsible for articulating, or bringing to the attention of the school board, these formal demands. The fourth purpose was J t o identify relationships between the nature of formal demands and the articulators of these demands. The f i n a l purpose was to estimate, using the properties, of formal demands, the openness or closedness of the school board. Data for the study were collected from the o f f i c i a l minutes and agendas of the Pacific School District's thirteen formal meetings held during the period from January 1977 to August 1977. i i The formal demands were a l l items on these agendas for which action by the school board was expected. Using variations of typologies developed by Ziegler, Tucker, and Wilson (1977), Almond (1965), and Almond (1960), each formal demand was classified according to topic, type (expected action), and articulation structure respectively. The major findings of the study may be summarized as follows: 1. The Pacific School Board received 164 formal demands during the nine-month period. 2. Most of these formal demands were extractive, that is calling for the provision, by the school board, of particular goods and services. 3. Most of the formal demands related to the business affairs of the school d i s t r i c t and personnel management. These business affairs consisted of the school district's financial affairs and physical plant. The personnel management demands concerned the assignment of teaching staff. 4. Most formal demands were articulated by the school d i s t r i c t ' s senior administrative o f f i c i a l s . 5. Most formal demands of the school board were routine, that i s , occurring in much the same form from agenda to agenda. The typical routine formal demand involved the school d i s t r i c t ' s business i i i a f fairs, was extractive, and was articulated by the school district's senior administrative o f f i c i a l s . 6. Typically, non-routine formal demands, that i s , demands that had not been encountered in quite the same form during the period of observation, were either related to the di s t r i c t ' s business affairs or school programs and student services. 7. Actors other than the school di s t r i c t ' s senior administrators were more active in the advancement of non-routine demands than in the making of routine demands. 8. When a l l formal demands were used as the criterion, the school board is relatively closed. When routine demands are used the : school board i s very closed. When routine demands are excluded from the data, the school board is relatively open, that i s , in receipt of demands from individuals and groups from outside the school system. Based on the findings of the study, different individuals or groups (actors) appeared to be associated, with qualitatively different demands. For this reason, the Pacific School Board i s neither open nor closed. Rather, i t is closed in some respects and open in others. The basic image of the school board was that of receiving, for the most part, routine demands from the senior administration. This image is interrupted only occasionally by non-routine demands from actors outside the school system. The lack of demands for participation in the decisional activities of the school board suggested that, for whatever reasons, there i s no overt dissatisfaction on the part of the citizenry, with this image. V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. , 1 Introduction .... 1 The Research Focus 5 The Design of the Study 6 Organization of the Thesis 7 II. CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION AND TWO VIEWS OF EDUCATIONAL GOVERNANCE . . . . . 9 Introduction "9 Elements of the P o l i t i c a l System 11 Functions of a P o l i t i c a l System 15 Overview 15 The Nature of Inputs 15 How Demands Enter the P o l i t i c a l System . . . . 16 The Conversion of Demands 18 The Nature of Outputs . 18 The School System as a P o l i t i c a l System . . . . 20 Summary 24 Two Views of Educational Governance 26 Overview 26 The Closed-System Thesis 28 The Open-System View 30 The Closed-System Thesis and the Open-System View Considered 32 Educational Governance - A Short Summary . . . 37 v i CHAPTER PAGE I I I . THE RESEARCH DESIGN 38 I n t r o d u c t i o n 38 S e t t i n g f o r the Study . . . / / . . 38 The P a c i f i c S c h o o l D i s t r i c t 38 O r g a n i z a t i o n of the P a c i f i c S c h o o l D i s t r i c t . . 39 The C o m p o s i t i o n o f the S c h o o l Board 41 The S c h o o l Board M e e t i n g 41 Data Source 44 A n a l y s i s o f the Data 45 R o u t i n e n e s s of the Demand 45 S u b s t a n t i v e Nature o r T o p i c of the Demand . . 45 Type o f Demand 46 Demand A r t i c u l a t i o n 47 IV. FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSES 49 I n t r o d u c t i o n 49 G e n e r a l Overview o f F i n d i n g s 51 Nature o f Demands 57 R o u t i n e Demands 57 Non-Routine Demands 59 A r t i c u l a t i o n o f Demands 62 Overview 62 R o u t i n e Demands , 63 Non-Routine Demands 64 v i i CHAPTER PAGE The Relationships between the Nature of Demands and Articulation Structure 66 Routine Demands 67 Non-Routine Demands 69 Internal Non-Routine Demands . . . . 69 External Non-Routine Demands 72 V. THE STUDY IN PERSPECTIVE 75 The Purpose and Methodology 75 The Purpose 75 Conceptual Foundation and Treatment of the Data 75 Significant Findings 78 Discussion of Findings 81 Conclusions and Speculations 89 Conclusions 89 Speculations 96 Implications . 101 General 101 For Further Research 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 0 6 APPENDIX 1 1 1 v i i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2.1 T o p i c s D i s c u s s e d a t S c h o o l Board Meetings 21 2.2 Demand A r t i c u l a t i o n S t r u c t u r e s 22 4.1 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Formal Demands by Month 51 4.2 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f A l l Demands by T o p i c and Type . . . 53 4.3 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Demands by A r t i c u l a t i o n S t r u c t u r e . 54 4.4 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R o u t i n e Demands by T o p i c and Type . 58 4.5 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Non-Routine Demands by T o p i c and Type 61 4.6 D i s t r i b u t i o n of A l l Demands by A r t i c u l a t i o n S t r u c t u r e 68 4.7 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Non-Routine Demands by I n t e r n a l A r t i c u l a t i o n S t r u c t u r e 70 4.8 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Non-Routine Demands by E x t e r n a l A r t i c u l a t i o n S t r u c t u r e 73 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V a r i o u s p e o p l e , through t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n s and s p e c i a l t a l e n t s , have c o n t r i b u t e d to the s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y . In p a r t i c u l a r , I would l i k e to thank my program a d v i s o r and d i s s e r t a t i o n committee chairman, Dr. Ian Housego, f o r h i s cogent a d v i c e , c o n t i n u o u s encouragement, and o c c a s i o n a l p r o d d i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , I am g r a t e f u l t o Dr. Jamie W a l l i n f o r h i s c o n s t r u c t i v e s u g g e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the format and r e a d a b i l i t y o f the stu d y and to Dr. Lorne Downey f o r h i s h e l p f u l comments c o n c e r n i n g the c o n c e p t u a l f o u n d a t i o n of the s t u d y . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to extend my a p p r e c i a t i o n to M a r j o r y P e l l s f o r her s k i l l f u l t y p i n g o f the m a n u s c r i p t . CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM I. INTRODUCTION The operations of school boards, because of their v i s i b i l i t y and direct effect on large numbers of the citizenry, command considerable attention in the educational governance literature. Characteristic of the voluminous literature on the study of the school board is the diversity of study approaches. School boards, for example, have been examined from the perspective of the personal and socioeconomic characteristics of individual trustees (Charters, 1954), the relationships between school boards and their appointed senior o f f i c i a l s (Kerr, 1964;," Lutz and Iannaccone, 1969; Boyd, 1976; Cooper, 1973), the existing community power and influence configurations and the relationships of these configura-tions to school board composition (Hunter, 1953), the influence of identifiable interest groups on school board actions (Peterson, 1974; Kratzmann, 1974), the patterns through which school boards identify, respond to, and represent constituent interests (Zeigler and Jennings, 1974; Boyd, 1975; Jennings, 1974), the kinds of demands for action made upon school boards (Scribner, 1966), the •shifting power and influence relationships between school boards 2 and teacher a s s o c i a t i o n s i n the c o n t r o l of schools and teaching c o n d i t i o n s (Coleman, 1977), r o l e preferences and perceptions of i n d i v i d u a l school board members ( Z e i g l e r and Jennings, 1974), the content of school board meetings (Holdaway, 1969), and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a community's s t r u c t u r a l and p o l i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and school board behaviour (Minar, 1966). Despite the high i n f o r m a t i o n y i e l d of the above and other research e f f o r t s , at l e a s t one obs t a c l e has confounded e f f o r t s to develop a systematic body of knowledge of the school board o p e r a t i o n , namely, the conceptual and methodological d i v e r s i t y of the e f f o r t s . There appeared to be, as K i r s t and Mosher (1969) lamented, no s i n g l e paradigm,,simple or complex, to guide e f f o r t s at d e s c r i b i n g what school boards do or - i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s . o,f-: these d e s c r i p t i o n s . ; In recent years attempts have been made to apply the concepts of systems a n a l y s i s to the study of school board operations and t h e i r r o l e i n educational governance. Applying Easton's (1957) systems framework f o r p o l i t i c a l a n a l y s i s , Wirt (1970), Mazzoni and Campbell (1976) , Minar (1966), and Scribner (1966) viewed the school system as the focus of inputs i n the form of demands from an environment which a school board converts, under some c o n d i t i o n s , i n t o outputs i n the form of a l l o c a t i o n s that i n f l u e n c e the operation of the school system. This s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n of the concepts of 3 systems ana lys i s to the study of school system governance has l ed to two qui te d i s t i n c t conceptions of the character of educat ional governance. The f i r s t concept ion, which came to be c a l l e d the c l o s e d -system thes i s (Ze ig l er and Jennings, 1974), i s the view of educat ional d e c i s i o n making, at the l o c a l l e v e l , as the processes and outcomes of i n t e r a c t i o n s among a group of core a c t o r s , which Lutz and Ianhaccone (1969) termed "the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n s i d e r s . " In t h i s : c o n c e p t i o n , Iannaccone. (1967) and Burges (1977) argue that teachers and t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n s , school system senior admin i s t ra t ive o f f i c i a l s , and school trustees have e f f e c t i v e l y locked the c i t i z e n r y out of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n educat ional d e c i s i o n making. The second concept ion, which i s termed the open system view i n the present study, v i s u a l i z e s inf luence i n school system d e c i s i o n making to be widely d i s t r i b u t e d . In t h i s concept ion, educat ional governance i s l e ss the r e s u l t of re lat ionships .among core actors than i t i s the consequences.of a web of i n t e r a c t i o n s among var ious i n t e r e s t groups, i n d i v i d u a l s i n the community, and school system o f f i c i a l s , a u t h o r i t i e s , and employees (e .g . Coleman, 1975; K i r s t , 1976; Campbell , 1975). The element of Easton's (1957) systems framework that has been p a r t i c u l a r l y use fu l i n guiding e f f o r t s at the determination of of school systems openness or closedness is environment. The environment is the setting of the school system and i t is from this environment that pressures, in the form of demands for the allocation of resources and values, originate. Easton (1957) distinguished between two types of environment, the internal and external. The internal environment consists of the various individuals, institutions, groups, and activities within the school system and the external environment comprises the school system's immediate community and larger society. Clearly, not a l l demands from the school system's, two environments can be converted into outputs in the form of a l l o -cations of resources and values. Consequently, the society develops internal structures to select, screen, and process demands. In the case of the local school system, provincial legislatures create school boards, establish these school boards as the authoritative focus of demands from the environment, and empower the school boards to allocate resources, and values to the environment. The identification of demands made to one urban school board together with the determination of their properties, is the concern of the present study. 5 . I I . THE RESEARCH FOCUS Demands of the school system are v a r i a b l e s that merit the a t t e n t i o n of an a l y s t s of school system governance because i t i s these demands that profoundly i n f l u e n c e the operation of the school system. They i n f l u e n c e the school system to the extent that they d i r e c t and circumscribe the energies and d e c i s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s of the a u t h o r i t i e s i n the school system. The deter-mination of the volume of demands and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the most frequent a r t i c u l a t o r s of demands provide one i n d i c a t i o n of what i n d i v i d u a l s or groups i n f l u e n c e the d e c i s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s of the school system. A comparison of the frequency of demands to the school system a r t i c u l a t e d by i n d i v i d u a l s and groups i n the i n t e r n a l environment w i t h the frequency of demands by i n d i v i d u a l s and groups i n the school system's e x t e r n a l environment describes the degree to which the school system i s e s s e n t i a l l y open or c l o s e d . The Problem The concern of t h i s study i s the a p p l i c a t i o n of Easton's (1957) c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the p o l i t i c a l system to the study of a p a r t i c u l a r school system w i t h the i n t e n t of determining whether t h i s school system's d e c i s i o n making, at the school board l e v e l , e x e m p l i f i e s the closed system t h e s i s or the open system view. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the study addresses the f o l l o w i n g questions: 6 1. What i s the nature of the p o l i t i c a l claims or formal demands d i r e c t e d toward the urban school board under study during the nine-month p e r i o d from January 1977 to August 1977? 2. Who are the groups or i n d i v i d u a l s (actors) who a r t i c u l a t e these formal demands? 3. Are there r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the nature of formal demands and the a c t o r s a r t i c u l a t i n g these formal demands? 4. In what respects and to what degree does ed u c a t i o n a l governance, at the school board l e v e l , i n the school system examined t y p i f y the close d system t h e s i s or the open system? II'T. THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY The agendas and minutes f o r the r e g u l a r meetings of the P a c i f i c School Board were used as the source f o r i d e n t i f y i n g demands upon the school system. Formal demands, that i s , demands enunciated i n w r i t i n g and which s p e c i f y expected a c t i o n by the P a c i f i c School Board were i d e n t i f i e d during the nine-month period from January 1977 to August 1977. An attempt was made to document the p r o p e r t i e s of these demands. Each demand was ( C l a s s i f i e d as to type of a c t i o n expected, substantive nature, sponsor, and routineness according to working d e f i n i t i o n s and typ o l o g i e s developed i n the conceptual foundation. The study then sought r e l a t i o n s h i p s among these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w i t h the view of determining to what degree and i n what respects school system governance, at the school board l e v e l , was open or closed. IV. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS The present chapter has introduced the study. I t has defined the purposes of the study and described b r i e f l y i t s t h e o r e t i c a l foundations. The second chapter presents the complete con-ceptual apparatus of the study i n the form of an e l a b o r a t i o n of P o l i t i c a l Systems A n a l y s i s and the d i s p l a y of the va r i o u s t y p o l o g i e s used i n d e s c r i b i n g the p r o p e r t i e s of demands followed by an examination of each of the 'closed-system t h e s i s " ' and the open system view of educational governance. The research design, i n c l u d i n g data sources, data c o l l e c t e d , and the treatment of the data together w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of the s e t t i n g f o r the study i s advanced i n the t h i r d chapter. The f o u r t h chapter presents the f i n d i n g s of the va r i o u s analyses. A d i s c u s s i o n of 8 the findings, conclusions, speculations, and implications are offered i n the f i f t h and f i n a l chapter. 9 CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL'FOUNDATION AND TWO VIEWS OF EDUCATIONAL GOVERNANCE I. INTRODUCTION At one time, a prevailing view among schoolmen and p o l i t i c a l scientists alike was that the realms of po l i t i c s and educational decision making were separate. Such a view, based on a restrictive and often cynical view of the meaning of p o l i t i c s , has been, in recent years eschewed as both unrealistic and naive. Scribner and Englert (1977) for example, in chronicling the development of the po l i t i c s of education as a stream of inquiry, noted that the increasing synthesis of politics and educational decision making has coincided with an increase in the kinds of phenomena that might be considered " p o l i t i c a l . " The study of politics,long associated with the analysis of formal government,has expanded to the study of concepts such as conflict and i t s resolution, struggles to gain and maintain power, pressure and interest group ac t i v i t i e s , policy making, the activities of p o l i t i c a l parties, and attempts to influence others. With the proliferation of phenomena considered p o l i t i c a l and the application of these phenomena to the study of educational 10 decision making came the need for unifying definitions and conceptual frameworks. Easton (1965) provided both. He referred to pol i t i c s as the set of interactions in any society that influence and shape the authoritative allocation of values (Easton, 1965: 50). The set of interactions referred to by Easton (1965) pertains to the interplay of particular ideologies, individuals, institutions, and interest groups (Kirst and Mosher, 1969). Allocation is taken to mean the distribution of valued things among a group and an allocation i s thought to be authori-tative when considered by members of a society for a variety of reasons, to be binding (Easton, 1965: 50). The theoretical approach to the analysis of authoritative allocations, (Easton,,-1957; 1965), a leading systems theorist termed P o l i t i c a l Systems Analysis. Based on the now familiar input-conversion-output nexus, Easton (1965) conceptualized p o l i t i c a l activity as a system of behaviour in which inputs in the form of those things valued by a population are converted into outputs in the form of rules, regulations, and policies governing the behaviour of members of that population. The p o l i t i c a l system he considered to be the object of the inputs from the population and the mechanism for converting those inputs into outputs. Scribner and Englert (1977), Kirst and Mosher (1969), Wirt (1970), Mazzoni and Campbell (1970), and Scribner (1966) have a l l suggested 11 that Easton's (1957; 1965). approach to analysing input-conversion-output.relationships or transactions is applicable to the study of educational decision making for three main reasons. F i r s t , educational decision making does involve the. allocation of values to a large segment of the population. Second, this allocation is performed by institutions legally authorized to do so. Third, since values are both scarce and a potential source of conflict among individuals and groups in a population, educational decision making is a possible focus for individuals or groups to influence allocations. II. ELEMENTS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM The term system has become increasingly common in the language and literature of a variety of.disciplines including sociology, economics, p o l i t i c a l science, and education. In the simplest terms, a system is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes or properties (Von Bertalanffy, 1956).. Four major objects or components enable skeletal description of a system. From an (1) environment, (2) inputs enter a system to a (3) conversion or transformation process, resulting in (4) outputs to the environment. Easton (1957; 1965) thought i t useful to conceptualize the 12 processes through which values are. authoritatively allocated for a society as a system. In this particular system, inputs are the demands to the p o l i t i c a l system and the manifestations of support afforded the p o l i t i c a l system. The environment i s the setting of the p o l i t i c a l system and is the source of demands and supports. The conversion machinery is the'institutions and roles set up by the society to make the allocations. The outputs of the p o l i t i c a l system.are the various allocative rules, regulations, and policies that influence activities in the environ-ment. A more complete description of the major elements of a p o l i t i c a l system follows. Environment. Easton (1965: 21) argued that a p o l i t i c a l system can be designated as "those interactions through which values are allocated for a society;" this designation is what distinguishes a p o l i t i c a l system from other societal systems such as the ecological system, the social system, and biological system. The environment in which the p o l i t i c a l system functions consists of two parts, the intrasocietal and the extrasocietal. The intra-societal environment comprises those systems that l i e in the same society as the p o l i t i c a l system but.are not part of the p o l i t i c a l system. The extrasocietal environment includes those systems that l i e outside the society i t s e l f . 13 Inputs. The intrasocietal and extrasocietal environment constitute the sources of influence on the p o l i t i c a l system. Further, stresses in these environments shape the patterns that give a p o l i t i c a l system i t s character. When these stresses cross the boundary between the environment and the p o l i t i c a l system in the form of. claims for authorative allocation, they become part of the p o l i t i c a l system. The concept of boundary is nicely illustrated by Almond (1960: 8): "The murmurs and complaints in the bazaar in Baghdad are not in the p o l i t i c a l system ... unt i l Haroun-el-Rashid, dis-guised as a water bearer, overhears the murmurs and translates them into p o l i t i c a l claims. As the diffuse and inarticulate murmur is translated into a claim on the use of public authority, i t passes the boundary and enters, the p o l i t i c a l system." Stresses in the environment that cross the boundary between the environment and the political.system in the fashion described above are what Easton (1965) termed inputs to the p o l i t i c a l system. Withinputs. Easton (1965) employs the neologism "withinputs" to conceptually separate an input from the environment from an input from within the p o l i t i c a l system i t s e l f . Unlike inputs, which must flow across the boundary of the p o l i t i c a l system, withinputs, or internally shaped inputs just flow from a sub-system within 14 the p o l i t i c a l system. Actors. Actors of the p o l i t i c a l system.are the individuals or groups involved in the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society. Actors play p o l i t i c a l roles and this p o l i t i c a l role of a person is distinguished from other roles, such as economic, religious, or family, that that person may play,in terms of the conceptualization of p o l i t i c a l activity. Interactions other than those implied in the concept-ualization of the p o l i t i c a l role are not part of the p o l i t i c a l system. Authorities. Authorities are individuals, groups, or organizations occupying roles in the p o l i t i c a l system;and invested wi.ttu accepted powers to make authorative allocations. Such authorities, according to Palmer, Sterne, and Gaile (1974), may be a single individual such as a king or dictator; an oligarchy or a military junta; a town meeting in which the.total community participates; or one of the almost i n f i n i t e variety of representative systems found in the world today. Authorities may be, as Massialas (1969) has observed, an Eskimo"headman" invested with the powers to decide about such matters as hunting places and new settlements or an Eskimo "shaman" invested with the power to punish those who violate taboos or traditions. Scribner (1966) describes a school board as ah authority inves.ted'with: powers -'to"1 allocate resources ;• j.In a community. 15 Conversion. To avert chaos, most s o c i e t i e s e s t a b l i s h mechan-isms f o r the transformation of inputs from the environment i n t o a u t h o r i t a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n s (Scribner and E n g l e r t , 1977). These mechanisms are what Almond (1965) c a l l e d the governmental or conversion elements of the P o l i t i c a l System. Outputs. The outputs are the d e c i s i o n s , that i s , the a l l o c a t i o n s , of the p o l i t i c a l system. They are the r e s u l t of the conversion, by the p o l i t i c a l system's a u t h o r i t i e s , of the inputs to the system. I I I . FUNCTIONS OF A POLITICAL SYSTEM Overview The major elements of a p o l i t i c a l system have been i d e n t i f i e d i n the previous s e c t i o n . To r e c a p i t u l a t e , they are (1) env i r o n -ment, (2) i n p u t s , (3) conversion, (4) a u t h o r i t i e s , and (5) outputs. The purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n i s to describe the p r o p e r t i e s or nature of inputs to the p o l i t i c a l system, the means through which inputs penetrate the p o l i t i c a l system, the processes i n which inputs are converted i n t o outputs, and the p r o p e r t i e s or nature of these outputs. The Nature of Inputs. Easton (1957) d i s t i n g u i s h e d between two c l a s s e s of inputs i n t o the p o l i t i c a l system, demands and supports. Demands are defined by Easton (1965: 120) to be " a r t i c u l a t e d statements, d i r e c t e d 16 toward the authorities, proposing that some sort of authoritative allocation, ought to be undertaken." Almond (1965: 190) classified demands under four headings: (1) Extractive: demands for goods and services (2) Regulative: demands for the regulation of behaviour (3) Participative:.demands for participation in the p o l i t i c a l system (4) Symbolic: demands for the affirmation of values. Supports are the behaviours of individuals or groups that strengthen and afford legitimacy to the p o l i t i c a l system (Palmer, Sterne, and.Gaile, 1974). Almond (1965: 190) identified four classes of supports for. the p o l i t i c a l system: (1) Material: support in the form of the payment of taxes and.the provision of services (2) Obedience: support in the form of obedience to policies, laws, and regulations (3) Participation: support in the form of voting, joining organizations, and communicating about p o l i t i c s (4) Deference: support in the form of manifest deference to public authority, symbols, and ceremonials. How Demands Enter the P o l i t i c a l System: Demands have their birth as diffuse wants in the p o l i t i c a l system's intrasocietal or extrasocietal environment. Easton (1965) uses the term "wants" generically, and means i t to represent 17 a t t i t u d e s , e x p e c t a t i o n s , o p i n i o n s , m o t i v a t i o n s , i d e o l o g i e s % i n t e r e s t s , and preferences. Demands are those wants that s o c i e t a l members would wish to see implemented through p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n (Easton: 1965). When wants cross the boundary between the environment and the p o l i t i c a l system as p o l i t i c a l claims they become demands. How they cross the boundary i s conceived as the a r t i c u l a t i o n f u n c t i o n of the p o l i t i c a l system. Almond (1960: 33) i d e n t i f i e d four main s t r u c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n of demands: (1) I n s t i t u t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Groups: o r g a n i z a t i o n s which perform other s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l f u n c t i o n s but which, as corporate bodies, may represent t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s . t o the p o l i t i c a l system. (2J N o n - a s s o c i a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Groups: k i n s h i p , l i n e a g e , e t h n i c , r e l i g i o u s , c l a s s groups which i n f o r m a l l y and i n t e r m i t t e n t l y a r t i c u l a t e i n t e r e s t s through i n d i v i d -u a l s , c l i q u e s , r e l i g i o u s heads and the l i k e . (3) Anomic I n t e r e s t Groups: spontaneous breakthroughs i n t o the p o l i t i c a l system from the s o c i e t y such as r i o t s . a n d demonstrations. (4) A s s o c i a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Groups: s p e c i a l i z e d and for m a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e s of i n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n such as trade unions, c i v i c groups, o r g a n i z a t i o n s of businessmen and i n d u s t r i a l i s t s and the l i k e . I n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n of a s s o c i a t i o n a l groups, i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being a p a r t i c u l a r l y e x p l i c i t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s of a p a r t i c u l a r group. 18 The Conversion of Demands The conversion functions of the p o l i t i c a l system pertain to those ac t i v i t i e s , performed by the authorities, whereby inputs are transformed into outputs. In every p o l i t i c a l system there is a set of p o l i t i c a l structures which processes inputs, and converts them into outputs (Almond, 1965). In the p o l i t i c a l structure, the articulated demands are converted into policies, rules, and regulations, and are applied, enforced, and adjudicated. Almond (1965: 194) suggested a classification for conversion functions: (1) Rule or Policy Making: the conversion of articulated demands into rules or policies (2) Rule or Policy. Application: the application of general rules or policies to particular cases (3) Rule or Policy Adjudication: the adjudication of rules in individual cases (4) Communication: the transmission of information concerning the above three events within the p o l i t i c a l system and between, the p o l i t i c a l system and i t s environments.' The Nature of Outputs Parsons (1960: 181) asserted the major functions of the p o l i t i c a l system to be "the mobilization of societal resources and their commitment for the attainment of collective goals, for the formu-19 lation and implementation of public policy." To accomplish this functional requisite Almond (1965: 197) observed that any p o l i t i c a l system - simple or complex, must through some means "extract resources from, regulate behaviour in, distribute values in, respond to demands from, and communicate with other intrasocietal and extrasocietal environments." Almond (1965: 197) concluded that p o l i t i c a l systems, in processing demands and supports, perform the following output functions: (1) Extractive: extract resources from the environment (2) Regulative: regulate behaviour in the environment (3) Distributive: distribute resources and values in the environment (4) Responsive: respond to demands from the environment (5) Articulative: the articulation or representation of interests or demands (6) Aggregative: the combination of- interests into policy proposals. Outputs are exemplified in the form of decisions, actions, decrees, rules, and other explicitly enunciated policies on the part of authorities in the p o l i t i c a l system (Easton, 1965: 126). The impact on the environment of the outputs of the p o l i t i c a l system, through the process of feedback, serve to regulate both the volume and nature of the demands on the p o l i t i c a l system and the magnitude of the support afforded the system. As Easton (1965: 128) has suggested the concept of the circular input - conversion - output nexus "brings us to the core of the p o l i t i c a l system conceived as a self-regulating, self-directing set of behaviours." 20 I I I THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AS A POLITICAL SYSTEM S i m i l a r t o Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s of p o l i c y making f o r American s c h o o l s , the p r e s e n t s t u d y views a s c h o o l system as a p o l i t i c a l system. F u r t h e r , and l i k e S c r i b n e r (1966) i n h i s a n a l y s i s o f s c h o o l b o a r d o p e r a t i o n , t h i s p r e s e n t i n q u i r y views the f o r m a l s c h o o l b o a r d meeting to be a c r i t i c a l c o n v e r s i o n mechanism i n the s c h o o l system and the s c h o o l b o ard t o be the a u t h o r i t i e s . I n t h i s c o n c e p t i o n , the s c h o o l system i s a f o c u s f o r demands from the environment and the s c h o o l b o a r d , as -a "recognized.-authority 'in the s c h o o l system, i s seen-to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f demands i n t o o u t p u t s i n the form o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t the o p e r a t i o n of the s c h o o l system. Environment. Demands come to a s c h o o l b o a r d i n the form o f e x p l i c i t and e n u n c i a t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s p e c i f i c a c t i o n . These demands may have t h e i r b i r t h i n two s e c t o r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , the e x t e r n a l environment and the i n t e r n a l environment. The e x t e r n a l environment c o n s i s t s of the community and the l a r g e r s o c i e t y and the i n t e r n a l environment comprises the i n t e r a c t i o n s and r e l a t i o n -s h i p s w i t h i n the s c h o o l system i t s e l f . T o p i c o f Demands. Z i e g l e r , T u c k e r , and W i l s o n (1977) devel o p e d from d a t a c o l l e c t e d i n e l e v e n s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s , a t y p o l o g y f o r 21 the substance of topics discussed at school board meetings that is useful for classifying the substantive nature of demands directed at school boards. Their topic categories are listed in Table 2.1. TABLE 2.1 TOPICS DISCUSSED AT SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS 1. Curriculum 7. Local Schools 2. Student Services 8. Students 3. Parents 9. School Board 4. Teachers 10. Discrimination 5. Administrators 11. Other Government 6. Finance 12. District Operation Type of Demands. Using Almond's (1965) typology, and in a fashion similar to Scribner (1966), demands may be classified in terms of what action is expected from the school board. That i s : (1) Extractive: demands for the provision of goods and services (2) Regulative: demands for the management or regulation of programs, personnel, funds, f a c i l i t i e s , and equipment (3) Participative: demands for participation in the decision making activities of the school system (4) Symbolic: demands that the school board affirm or reaffirm i t s intentions regarding school system operation 22 Demand Articulation. In the tradition of Haroun-el-Rashid, a demand of the school system and to the school board must be articulated, that i s , carried from the community or the school system i t s e l f to the school board. An expansion of Almond's (1960) classes of demand articulation is useful for identifying actors involved in the articulation function. These classes, together with the specific actors considered in the present study are presented in Table 2.2. TABLE 2.2 DEMAND ARTICULATION STRUCTURES General Classes Specific Actors 1. Institutional Interest Groups 2. Associational Interest Groups 3. Non-Associational Interest Groups (i) public organizations ( i i ) private organizations (i) senior administrative o f f i c i a l s ( i i ) the local teachers' association ( i i i ) the provincial trustees association (iv) school—community associations (v) the school trustees (vi) the provincial government (i) teacher groups ( i i ) individual teachers ( i i i ) community groups (iv) community citizens Specific demand articulation structures may be, using Easton's (1965) conceptual separation of inputs and withinputs, further 23 classified. The school system's senior administrative o f f i c i a l s , the local teachers' association, school trustees, teachers, and teachers' groups are in the school system's internal environment and are termed core actors, and their demands are withinputs. On the other hand, public organizations, private organizations, the provincial trustees' association, the school-community associations, the provincial government, citizens, and community groups are in the school system's external environment. 24 IV. SUMMARY The f i r s t purpose of this study was to determine the prop-erties of demands articulated to an urban school board during a nine-month period. To this end, the complete conceptual apparatus of Easton's (1957; 1963) theoretical approach to the study of p o l i t i c a l activity is not used. Only the elements of (1) environment, (2) demands, and (3) demand articulation were utilized. The school board, at i t s regular formal meetings, receives demands from the environment. This environment includes both the community or the larger society (external) and the school, system i t s e l f (internal). The demands are articulated, that i s , brought to the attention of the school board, by actors in either environment. Actors in the internal environment include the school system's senior administrative o f f i c i a l s , the local teachers' association, individual teachers and teacher groups, and school trustees. The external actors are institutional interest groups, the provincial school trustees' association, school-community associations, community groups, and individuals in the community. The demands of the internal and external articulation structures may relate to a number of topics, such as business affairs (finances and f a c i l i t i e s ) , personnel, programs, school board behaviour, and the activities of other governments. Further, these demands may 25 c a l l for the provision of goods and services (extractive), the regulation of behaviour (regulative), participation in the school di s t r i c t ' s decision making (participative), or the affirma-tion of beliefs by the school board (symbolic). The second purpose of the study was the use of the properties of demands to describe the conditions under which the school system, at the school board level,was open or closed. In terms of the conceptual foundation of the study, a;school system i s open i f demands received by the school board are articulated by a variety of actors, that i s , actors in both the internal and external environment and closed i f the majority of demands are articulated by actors in the internal environment. Part of this purpose involved the determination of whether the degree of openness or closedness varied with the topic or type of demand. The next section of this chapter expands upon the question of openness or closedness. 26 IV. -TWO VIEWS OF EDUCATIONAL GOVERNANCE Overview School boards, as formal authorities within the p o l i t i c a l system, are invested with powers to process demands and to either satisfy these demands, ignore them, or postpone their satisfaction u n t i l more pressing demands are met (Massialas, 1969). Obviously not a l l wants, interests, aspirations, and expectations f i l t e r through the boundary of the p o l i t i c a l system as demands for reduction by school boards. Affecting what wants become demands in the school board's p o l i t i c a l system for trans-formation into authoritative.decisions is the degree of openness or closedness of the p o l i t i c a l system. The concepts of system openness and system closedness provide useful devices for o orienting oneself to the conceptually, methodologically, and substantively diverse literature on school board operation. P o l i t i c a l systems, like other systemic modules can be conceived of as being open or closed. An open system is a system in constant interaction with i t s environment (Kast and Rosenzweig, 1974). Characteristic of the open system is the flow of material, energy, and information into and from the transformation or conversion machinery of the system. The closed-system is a self-contained and deterministic system and not characterized by the steady flow of material, energy, or information. The distinction between an 27 open and closed system, though not absolute, is an important and useful distinction in the comparison of p o l i t i c a l systems. Upon examination of the literature on educational governance, two viewpoints on the character of educational governance emerge. One view sees the school board as an open system, the second view, a closed system. The f i r s t view has become known as the open system view and the second, view, the closed system thesis. The following sections of this chapter present an expansion of these two perspectives together with a survey of some of the literature i l l u s t r a t i v e of each of the two major viewpoints. Prior to this however, a short section on power, influence, and authority,designed to present some terminological c l a r i f i c a t i o n , is offered. Power, Influence, and Authority. A digression at this stage is necessary i n order to provide definitions for authority, power and influence. Authority generally refers to the occupancy of a formal leadership role, such as Prime Minister, Premier, Mayor, Minister of Education, or School Board Trustee. These are roles accepted as constitutionally legitimate or sanctioned by other actors in a p o l i t i c a l system. Power, as Dahl (1957) conceived i t , i s a relationship between two system actors where one is able to effect a change in the other. Influence,.^ is power when exercised by 28 those actors not having authority. Power i n this context i s seen as systemic. That i s , i t defines a relationship between actors that i s not necessarily transferable from one context to another. A school board, for example, has power over the a l l o c a t i o n of resources and services i n one pa r t i c u l a r school system, but does not have power i n the affirmation of foreign policy although itj:,. may have influence. An interest group may have influence i n the establishment of school system.policies but does not have authority. Unlike authority, influence i s transferable over different concepts. In this study, unless otherwise specified only school boards and M i n i s t r i e s of Education have power. That power i s by v i r t u e of authority. A l l other system actors mentioned are said to have influence. The Closed-System Thesis The closed-system thesis of educational governance suggests the view that educational governance i s not open, on a continuous basis, to influences from the environment. As Burges (1977)concluded, educational decision making i s dominated by a core of system actors including school boards, senior administrators, and teachers' associations. Citizens, or those actors i n the p o l i t i c a l system's general environment, are locked out of educational decision making by those actors i n the p o l i t i c a l system's immediate environment or intrastructure. 29 An important derivative of the closed-system thesis i s the argument advanced by Kerr (1964), Zeigler and Jennings (1974), and Peterson (1974) that relative to other actors in the p o l i t i c a l system's intrastructure, the senior administrators have the lion's share of influence in educational governance. School boards, according to Zeigler and Jennings (1974) and Kerr (1964) do not now govern nor represent the various segments of the community, but merely legitimate policy recommendations of the superintendent and his staff. A second derivative of the closed^-system thesis is the argument, advanced by commentators such as Coleman (1977), and Kirst (1976), that recent times have seen a redistribution of influence and there-fore power within the school board p o l i t i c a l system intrastructure, in educational governance in which teachers, through the increasingly militant postures of their associations, are the net gainers and administrators and school-boards are the net losers. A more complete understanding of the closed-system thesis may be achieved.through consideration of how school boards see their function in the p o l i t i c a l system. Jennings (1974) approaches this question through examination of the two dimensions of the conception of p o l i t i c a l responsiveness. He argued that p o l i t i c a l responsiveness by trustees may mean attending to the needs of constituents regardless of whether constituents perceive or express these needs. On the 30 other hand, he said p o l i t i c a l representation may mean reflecting the expressed preferences of constituents. The f i r s t conception, as i t relates to school boards, Boyd (1974) termed the civic duty orientation to responsiveness and the second, the populist orientation. It would be impossible to imagine any but the most autocratic or chaotic p o l i t i c a l systems exemplifying any of these conceptions to the extreme but the distinction does help c l a r i f y trustee orientation in the clo.sedr-system thesis. Three empirical studies by Zeigler and Jennings (1974), Iannaccone (1967), -and Lipham, Gregg, and Rossmiller (1969) presented findings that supported the closed-system thesis of educational governance and a civic duty orientation of trustees. The Open System View The open system view is the image of educational governance that describes the school board to be a relatively open system. The perspective conceptualizes the school board to be a group of local authorities that are pressured by demands on many sides as they attempt to institute decisions, policies, rules, and regulations that govern educational programs in their school d i s t r i c t . These pressures come from provincial legislation, provincial departments of education, local interest groups, other levels of local govern-ment, senior administrative o f f i c i a l s , and teacher and employee unions and associations. Despite these pressures, as Lutz (1975) 31 noted, school boards are ultimately the educational deciders. Lutz (1975), in an address to the American Educational Research Association, described the role of school boards in the open system view to be that of metamediators. He defined metamediators as: "a decision making system that processes a l l the competing demands; organizes, reorganizes, modifies, generalizes, eliminates, emphasizes and, in general reshapes, these demands into an operational decision involving usually, the distribution of limited resources." Lutz's (1975) point i s that school boards do not act independ-of':the various pressures, but that they are the body that f i n a l l y decides. Campbell (1970) and McCarty and Ramsay (1971) provided an interesting comparison, between the role of the senior administration in the open-system view and the closed-system perspective. Campbell (1970), for example, noted that, in actual fact, rather than dominating educational decision making, senior administrators are more li k e l y to be seen struggling with a variety of interest groups and forces that not infrequently threatens to neutralize their a b i l i t y to provide any kind of effective leadership. McCarty and Ramsay (1971) concluded that only in communities found to be p o l i t i c a l l y inert were senior administrators discovered to be the 32 most influential in educational decision making. Wilhause (1976) suggested that some school boards do not, in metamediating demands, view senior administrators to be, relative to other groups, a significant interest group. In the open system view, Williams (1976) argued, the senior professionals are considered by trustees and the public to be but one voice to. be acknowledged in the educational decision making process. Coleman (1977), in commenting upon the p o l i t i c a l perspective, suggested that decisions in education are less frequently c r i t i c i z e d because they are wrong than because some individual or group with an interest in the issue •was^not consulted. Decision making, concluded Lindblom (1968) consists of displeasing the fewest interest groups possible. Such a state of affairs , suggested Erickson (1972), is contributing to a feeling of powerlessness among administrators. Senior administrators dissatisfied with the fact that community protests \..-: and disagreements among means and ends in education are preventing them from being reliably influential. The Closed-System. Thesis and the Open-^System View-Considered The two polar views of educational governance, namely,.the picture of the school board as a relatively closed and deterministic bastion of unresponsiveness and the perspective on the school board as being a system continuously open: to influences from the environ-ment, dominate the literature on school board operation. Existing 33 knowledge indicates however that both viewpoints exemplify an oversimplification of educational governance. There is some evidence to suggest that the degree to which a local school board models the closed-system thesis or the open system view varies considerably with the kind of environment in which the school board is surrounded (e.g. Kirst, 1970; Ziegler and Jennings, 1974; Minar, 1966) and the type of issue involved (e.g. Zald, 1969; Mitchell, 1969; Weeres, 1971; Peterson, 1972). Type of Issue or Demand. Various analyses of organizational decision making (e.g. Simon, 1960; Minsky, 1961; ; Cyert _ and March, 1963; Cyert and MacCrimmon, 1968; Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret, 1976) identify two categories of decision occasions confronting decision makers. The terms issues, demands, and decision occasions are used synonymously. First are routine issues which are characterized as being repetitive and well structured and for which i t is known that the application of specific operators w i l l yield predictable results. These operators are called standard operating procedures by Simon (1960). Second are strategic or non-routine decision situations which are ill-structured issues not previously encountered in quite the same form by decision makers and for which no specific operators exist. A second scheme for the classification of issues was identified by Boyd (1976) to be internal and external issues. Internal issues 34 involve matters directly related to the operation of the educational program and "the consequences of which are generally perceived (however correctly) to be largely.confined to the school system i t s e l f , at least in the short run" (Boyd, 1976: 566). Many studies of school governance provide evidence consistent with findings advanced by Zeigler and Jennings (1974) that external rather than internal issues most often precipitate community concern and participation in school governance. Mathews (1967), for example, in a study of school board decision making in a small Alberta community, concluded that participation by individuals and groups in the community was highest in issues that affected the community as a whole. Educational issues of limited scope are generally resolved predominantly by public o f f i c i a l s directly involved in the issues. Weeres (1971), in an analysis of educational governance in Chicago, found that most p o l i t i c a l l y active individuals, community groups, and organizations were only peripherally interested in education, but were very concerned and active about consequences of school policies that affected the ecology of neighbourhoods. How the routineness or non-routineness of an issue affects the degree to which a school board is open or closed can be understood through McGivney and Moynihan's (1976) concept of the "zone of tolerance." The zone of tolerance is the latitude or maneuver-abi l i t y granted to the school boards' intrastructure in governing 35 the schools by the local community (McGivney and Moynihan, 1972). Within the zone of tolerance, the actors in the intrastructure are free to manage the school system according to their pro-fessional desires and beliefs (McGivney and Moynihan, 1972). However, as Boyd (1976) noted, when actors of the intrastructure exceed the boundaries of.the zone, they may face opposition from the community. That this i s often the case causes Boyd (1976) to characterize community involvement in educational governance as episodic rather than continuous in nature. Routine issues appear to be well within the zone of tolerance and their resolution i s dominated by the intrastructure. Non-routine or. strategic issues invite community participation. Zald (1969) identified three types of strategic decision occasions: (1) f a c i l i t i e s expansion programs, (2) choosing a chief executive officer, and (3) l i f e cycle problems such as identity crises and identity transformations. Boyd (1976), following a review of related research, concluded that the school board is characteristically.a closed system in issues of an internal and routine nature, but an open system for issues of an external and strategic character. Kinds of Environment. Advocates of community control of educ-ational governance argue that educational governance is closed, that i s , dominated by the school board intrastructure, in large city school systems. Evidence compiled by Iannaccone and Lutz (1970) 36 and Ziegler and Jennings (1974) support this argument. Ziegler and Jennings (1974) data, as interpreted by Boyd (1976), suggest that larger urban communities, unlike smaller less urban or rural communities, require formal "channels for community demand articu-lation at the board table and this effectively thwarts an openness in educational decision making. Relative to other actors in the p o l i t i c a l system, this state of affairs benefits the superintendent, since he can operate in what Easton (1965: 122) termed a "gate-keeping function." Gatekeepers, said Easton (1965: 122) are "regulators of the volume of demands;" they are individuals or groups who stand athwart the admission channels to the system. Minar (1966) argued that communities differ in respect of the degree of p o l i t i c a l dissent and participation. Defining dissent as the ratio of number of votes cast for losing candidates in school board elections to the total number of votes cast and participation as the proportion of the number of votes cast in an election to the total eligible vote he concluded that: (1) where dissent is low, intrastructure decision latitude is high, (2) -. dissent and participation are directly related, and (3) aggregate community socioeconomic status and dissent are inversely related. The findings, as Minar (1966: 833) stated, are "tantamount to saying that, as far as school affairs are concerned, some communities are more susceptible to leadership than others." The findings of McCarty and Ramsey's (1970) study of community power structures were consistent with Minar's (1966) conclusions. 37 Educational Governance - Short Summary The debate over the closedness or openness of educational governance continues. Kirst (1976), in a recent paper, summarized the status of research findings to date by citing Iannaccone's (1967) view of educational governance as a relatively closed policy making system not open on a continuous basis to influence from i t s environment and characterized by periods of s t a b i l i t y under the domination of the school board intrastructure with l i t t l e influence from the community with shorter, episodic periods of abrupt change where community influence persists. A useful organizing concept in considering the debate is McGivney and Moynihan's (1972) notion of the "zone of tolerance" or degree of latitude and maneuverability granted the p o l i t i c a l system's intrastructure by the local community in governing the schools. This zone, amoeba-like in nature, appears to contract or expand in relation to the character of the issues considered and the p o l i t i c a l and socio-economic nature of the community. Contractions appear in issues of an external and strategic nature and expansions are evident in issues of an internal and routine character. Affecting the dynamic of the zone are also the structural and demographic characteristics of the community with less frequent contractions in urbanized, low dissent, and higher socio-economic communities. 38 CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH DESIGN I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to describe where and how the data for the resolution of the problems were collected. Included in the chapter is a description of the Pacific School Di s t r i c t , or the setting in which the study was conducted, the source of the data, the type of data that were collected, how these data were analyzed, and the time interval of the observation. II. SETTING FOR THE STUDY The Pacific School District The Pacific School District i s located in a large metro-politan area on the west coast of Canada. At the time of the study, the school d i s t r i c t provided educational programs for just under 20,000 students in 45 schools. Relative to other school dis t r i c t s in the province, this school d i s t r i c t ranked very near the top in local m i l l rate and enjoyed one of the 39 lowest p u p i l - t e a c h e r r a t i o s . Employing approximately 1090 teachers, the school d i s t r i c t had an annual operating budget of j u s t under 37 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . The school d i s t r i c t encompasses two l o c a l government bound-a r i e s and serves a t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of 100,000 persons. L i k e many urban areas i n North America, the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t i s w r e s t l i n g w i t h the short and long range i m p l i c a t i o n s of a d e c l i n i n g student enrolment. The spectre of p o s s i b l e school c l o s u r e s and the need f o r the development of long range personnel p o l i c i e s f o r coping w i t h the e f f e c t s of d e c l i n i n g enrolment are pervasive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the development and maintenance of the school d i s t r i c t . R e l a t i v e to most of the other urban school d i s t r i c t s i n the area, the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t i s low on Minar's (1966) p o l i t i c a l v a r i a b l e s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and d i s s e n t . That i s , both the r a t i o of t o t a l votes cast i n school board e l e c t i o n s to the t o t a l number of e l i g i b l e v o t e r s and the r a t i o of t o t a l votes cast f o r l o s i n g candidates to t o t a l votes cast were low. L i t t l e coverage of school system events or school board behaviour i s evident i n any of the l o c a l newspapers. Members of the l o c a l press are not u s u a l l y i n attendance at formal school board meetings. Organization of the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the school d i s t r i c t f o l l o w s t r a d i t i o n a l democratic theory. The p u b l i c e l e c t s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 40 body to make, under policies determined by the provincial legislature, policy governing the affairs of the school d i s t r i c t . This representative body appoints a staff of senior o f f i c i a l s or administrators and charges these senior administrators with responsibility for execution or administration of policy. This staff of senior o f f i c i a l s , termed the Administrative Team, consists of a Superintendent of Schools who i s , in a l l matters, the chief executive officer of the school board, four Assistant Superintendents, the Secretary-Treasurer, and a Superintendent of Works. The Superintendent of Schools, in consultation with the Administration Team, establishes the parliamentary agenda for the school board meeting. In establishing the agenda, the Superintendent together with the Administration Team performs,in Easton's (1957) terms,an interest aggregation and an interest articulation function. In so doing, they also perform a "gatekeeping" function, determining what demands appear on what agenda. As a body, the Administration Team is in contact with the school board, the schools in the system, the provincial Ministry of Education, the local municipal councils, the local teachers' association, members of the public, and school d i s t r i c t personnel and i t is from activities in-these.cohtexts that the:'agendajis developed. 41 The Composition of the School Board The Pacific School Board consists of seven elected trustees. The manner in which these trustees are elected is il l u s t r a t i v e of what Jennings (1974) termed the rational-activist conception of representation. In this conception the citizenry elects trustees directly without the intervention of p o l i t i c a l parties, interest groups, or electoral wards. The seven trustees at the time of this study consisted of five males and. two females. Three trustees were businessmen, one a community college instructor, one a technical employee of a large u t i l i t i e s company, and two were homemakers. The Board chairman was with the u t i l i t i e s company. Five were experienced trustees, one newly elected in a by-election and one was in his f i r s t term as a trustee. Only infrequently does the school board manifest a divided vote on an item. The School Board Meeting The Pacific School District normally holds bimonthly meetings during the school year and monthly meetings during the summer months. Additional meetings, such as budget meetings, are scheduled as circumstances demand. Unlike many school d i s t r i c t s , the Pacific School Board has no committee structure and so a l l matters coming before the school board do so during these b i -monthly or monthly meetings. During these meetings provision is-42 made for the board to adjourn to "in-camera" session to consider land acquisition and personnel matters of a confidential nature. The organization of the school board meetings usually conforms to the following pattern: 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Routine Action Items 4. Non-Routine Action Items 5. Question Period 6. Administration and Other Reports 7. Future Business Routine Action Items are well-structured and recurring demands for which i t is known that the application of specific decisions w i l l yield predictable results. Simon (1960), Cyert and March (1963), and Cyert and MacCrimmon (1968) termed items such as these routine items and the actions taken the organiza-tion's standard operating procedures. These items are, in virtually a l l instances, accompanied on the agenda by a recommended action from the Superintendent of Schools. Non-Routine Action Items on the other hand are demands of a typically non-recurring nature. These items too are usually accompanied by a recommended action by the Superintendent of Schools. The 43 Question Period i s that stage of the meeting where o r a l and written questions from the public i n attendance are in v i t e d . Few questions are usually raised and those that are generally request information or c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Occasionally such questions are i n the form of a demand that the board take some action but the board infrequently takes action choosing to take such demands under advisement. Administration and Other Reports are status reports to the school board which may be accepted and intended as either information or requiring action. Such items may or may not be accompanied by a recommended action. Included i n this section of the agenda are correspondence from the public, d i r e c t i v e s , n o t i f i c a t i o n s , and information from various private and public agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s , and reports from trustees. Future Business directs trustees to upcoming events, sensitizes trustees to future non-routine action items, and e l i c i t s from trustees information and action items to be included on future agendas. I I I . DATA SOURCE 44 The concern of the present study is with the description of the nature of demands made on the Pacific School Board during the period from January 1977 to August 1977. The formal written records of the Pacific School Board, namely, the minutes and agendas for the public meetings, were used to reconstruct these demands. For purposes of the study a complete agenda is intended to mean a l l items for which some form of action by the school board is expected and a l l items, of an informational nature for which no action is expected. On the other hand, a partial agenda is considered to be only those items for which a particular action or decision i s expected. Only the partial agendas are within the purview of the present study. Throughout the study, items of the partial agenda are termed formal demands. During the period from January 1977 to April 1977 the Pacific School Board met in formal session on thirteen occasions. From the partial agendas of these thirteen meetings the formal demands were identified and form the data base for this study. These demands were expressions of expectations that the school board, in public view, take some action in respect of some matter. Demands made in contexts of situations other than the formally constituted public meetings, such as demands made privately to individual trustees or to the superintendent, were not considered. 45 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Each of the formal demands was classified in four ways according to (1) the routineness of the demand, (2) the substantive nature or topic of the demand, (3) the type of action expected, and (4) the actor, that i s , the individual, group, or organization articulating, or bringing to the school board's attention, the demand. The classification schemes are described in the following sections. Routineness of the Demand Simon (1960) and Minsky (1961) described decision situations confronting organizational decision makers to consist of two general types, routine and non-routine. Routine decision situations are those that are.repetitive and clearly understood by the decision makers and non-routine decision situations are non-repetitive, not having been confronted by the decision makers in quite the same form before. Formal demands were classified according to whether they appear repeatedly on school board agendas or whether they are unique. Substantive Nature or Topic of the Demand Ziegler, Tucker, and Wilson (1977) developed, using survey, interview, and observational data collected in school dis t r i c t s in the United States a typology of topic categories for school board agenda items. Ziegler, Tucker, and Wilson's (1977) 46 exhaustive typology consisted of twelve categories. The present study employed a l l but one of Ziegler, Tucker, and Wilson's (1977) twelve categories but combined some into broader categories. Curriculum, Student Services, Parents, Local Schools, and Students were subsumed, in the present study, under the general category of Programs. Teachers and Administrators were placed in a category t i t l e d Personnel. Finance and District Operation became the broader category of Business Affairs. The categories of Other Governments and the School Board were each considered discrete and were retained. The category Discrimination which consisted of Affirmative Action;and, JBusing are not ~ relevant to this Canadian context and were not used. In summary, each of the formal demands made of the Pacific School Board during the nine-month period was classified according to whether i t related to (1) Business Affairs (finances, f a c i l i t i e s , sites, and equipment), (2) Personnel, (3) Programs (curricula, student services, school organization, parent behaviour., and student behaviour), (4) The School Board, (school board routines, a c t i v i t i e s , and actions), and (5) Other Governments. Type of Demand Demands were classified in terms of the typology advanced by Almond (1965). The formal demands of the Pacific School Board were classified according to whether they were: 47 1. Extractive demands for the provision of goods and services such as educational opportunities, personnel, f a c i l i t i e s , and monies. 2. Regulative demands for the regulation of behaviour such as procedures, rules, and regulations. 3. Participative demands calling for representation or p a r t i c i -pation in the affairs or decision making activities of the school d i s t r i c t , and , 4. Symbolic demands calling for the affirmation or re-affirmation of norms or the communication of procedures and policy intents from the school board. Demand Articulation The third major analysis called for the identification of those actors bringing a formal demand to the attention of the school board. An expansion of the three major classes of demand articulation described by Almond (1960) was used for this analysis. The specific categories of demand articulation used in the present study were: 1. The School District's Senior Administration Offi c i a l s 2. The Local Teachers' Association 3. Individual.Teachers or Teacher Groups 4. Individual Trustees or the School Board 5. Individuals or Groups in other levels of government, public or private organizations 6. The Provincial Trustees Association or School-Community Associations 7.' Citizen, Taxpayer, or Parent Groups 8. Individuals other than senior administrators, teachers, trustees, or members of institutional interest groups 48 Using the d i s t i n c t i o n described by Easton (1957), the categories of Senior Administration, the Teachers' Association, Trustees or the School Board, and Teachers or Teachers' Groups were categorized as Internal Actors and demands from these actors were termed Internal Demands. The remaining actors were termed External Actors and t h e i r demands c a l l e d External Demands. 49 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSES I. INTRODUCTION The description of formal demands directed toward the Pacific School Board during the nine-month period from January 1977 to August 1977 was the.concern of this study. Using variations of typologies originally developed by Almond (1960; 1965) and Ziegler, Tucker, and Wilson (1977), a l l formal demands made of the Pacific School Board were classified according to: (1) type of demand and (2) topic of demand. This two way classification was employed to describe the nature of each formal demand. Additionally, each formal demand was classified, using an expansion of Almond's (1960) typology, in terms of the actor or actors articulating, or bringing to the attention of the school board, the demand. This classification was represented in two stages. F i r s t , each formal demand was classified according to whether i t was articulated by actors in the school system's internal environment or by actors in the external environment. Second, and more specifically, each formal demand was classified according to which actors in either the internal or external environment articulated the demand. Actors in the internal environment consisted of: (1) the senior administrative staff of 50 the school d i s t r i c t , (2) the l o c a l teachers' association and groups speaking on i t s behalf, (3) i n d i v i d u a l teachers or groups of teachers, and (4) trustees. Conversely, actors i n the external environment included: (1) i n d i v i d u a l s or groups i n other l e v e l s of government or i n various public i n s t i t u t i o n s ( I n s t i t u t i o n a l Interest Groups), (2) the p r o v i n c i a l school trustees' a s s o c i a t i o n or school-community associations, (3) groups i n the school d i s t r i c t ' s constituency but not formally associated with or employed by the school d i s t r i c t , and (4) i n d i v i d u a l s i n the school d i s t r i c t ' s constituency but not formally associated with or employed by the school d i s t r i c t . The remainder of the chapter presents the findings of the various analyses and i s presented i n four sections. The following or second section presents a general overview of the major fi n d i n g s . The t h i r d section describes the nature (topic and type) of the formal demands. Section four describes the actors involved i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n of the formal demands. The f i f t h section presents the r e s u l t s of attempts to describe' r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the character (topic, type, and a r t i c u l a t i o n structure) of the formal demands. The s i x t h and f i n a l section presents, i n point form, a summary of the major fi n d i n g s . 51 I I . GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS During the p e r i o d from January 1977 to August 1977, the P a c i f i c School Board met, i n formal s e s s i o n , t h i r t e e n times and on these occasions r e c e i v e d 164 formal demands. These 164 formal demands are presented i n APPENDIX A. The. d i s t r i b u t i o n of the 164 formal demands by month i s presented i n Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1 DISTRIBUTION OF FORMAL DEMANDS BY MONTH Month Number Percent of T o t a l January 30 18.3 February 24 14.6 March 19 11.6 A p r i l 23 14.0 May 36 22.0 June 12 7.3 J u l y 8 4.9 August 12 7.3 T o t a l 164 100.0 As Table 4.1 i l l u s t r a t e s , May was the b u s i e s t month f o r the school board i n terms of demands r e c e i v e d . Only one meeting was 52 h e l d i n each o f J u l y and August compared to b i - m o n t h l y meetings i n the r e m a i n i n g months. I t was no t e d i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r t h a t the format of the s c h o o l board agenda d i f f e r e n t i a t e d among r o u t i n e a c t i o n items and n o n - r o u t i n e a c t i o n i t e m s . The 164 f o r m a l demands c o n s i s t e d of b o t h r o u t i n e and n o n - r o u t i n e demands. When:the r o u t i n e demands are. e x t r a c t e d from the d a t a p r e s e n t e d ' i n APPENDIX A the r e s u l t i n g n o n - r o u t i n e demands numbered 59 and accounted f o r 36.0 p e r c e n t o f a l l f o r m a l demands. C o n v e r s e l y , j u s t under t w o - t h i r d s (64.0 p e r c e n t ) o f a l l f o r m a l demands concerned m a t t e r s o f a r o u t i n e and r e c u r r i n g n a t u r e . The n o n - r o u t i n e demands a r e no t e d i n APPENDIX A by the accompaniment o f an a s t e r i s k . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the t o t a l number of f o r m a l demands by t o p i c and type and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f these demands a c c o r d i n g to a r t i c u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 4.2 and 4.3 r e s p e c t i v e l y . As T a b l e 4.2 i l l u s t r a t e s , the most f r e q u e n t demands, i n terms o f t o p i c , concerned the b u s i n e s s ( f i n a n c e and f a c i l i t i e s ) a f f a i r s o f the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t and the most f r e q u e n t type o f demands were e x t r a c t i v e demands c a l l i n g f o r the p r o v i s i o n by the s c h o o l b o a r d , o f p a r t i c u l a r goods or s e r v i c e s . The most f r e q u e n t demand a r t i c u l a t o r i s shown i n T a b l e 4.3 to be the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ' s s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f . T a b l e 4.2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t demands of the e x t r a c t i v e - b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s n a t u r e (30.5 p e r c e n t ) , e x t r a c t i v e -p e r s o n n e l n a t u r e (17.7 p e r c e n t ) , and r e g u l a t i v e - p e r s o n n e l n a t u r e 53 TABLE 4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL DEMANDS BY TOPIC AND TYPE (N = 164) Extractive Regulative Participative Symbolic Total Business Affairs 50 (30.5) 10 ( 6.1) 1 (0.6) 15 (9.1) 76 (46.3) Programs 13 ( 7.9) 4 ( 2.4) 5 (3.0) 22 (13.4) Personnel 28 (17.1) 28 (17.1) 2 (1.2) 3 (1.8) 61 (37.2) School Board 3 ( 1.8) 1 ( 0.6) 4 ( 2.4) Other Governments 1 (0.6) Total 94 (57.3) 43 (26.2) 3 (1.8) 24 (14.6) 164 54 TABLE 4.3 DISTRIBUTION OF DEMANDS BY ARTICULATION STRUCTURE ROUTINE NON-ROUTINE TOTAL ARTICULATION GROUP 1. Senior A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 81 (77.1)* 19 « (32.2)** 100 (61.0)*** 2. L o c a l Teachers' A s s o c i a t i o n 6 (10.2) 6 (3.7) 3. Teacher or Teacher Groups 19 (18.1) 2 (3.4) 21 (12.8) 4. Trustees or School Board 1 (0.9) 4 (6.8) 5 (3.0) 5. T o t a l 101 (96.2) 31 (52.6) 132 (80.5) 6 I n s t i t u t i o n a l I n t e r e s t Groups 4 (3.8) 11 (18.6) 15 (9.1) 7. P r o v i n c i a l Trustees Assoc-i a t i o n s or School-Community A s s o c i a t i o n s 8 (13.6) 8 (4.9) 8. Non-school System groups 6 (10.2) 6 (3.7) 9. I n d i v i d u a l s 3 (5.1) 3 (1.8) 10. T o t a l 4 (3.8) 28 (47.5) 32 (19.5) 11. Column T o t a l **** 105 (64.0) 59 (36.0) 164 (100) 3 w H S3 3 m H X w * Figures i n parentheses i n t h i s column represent percentage of r o u t i n e demands ** Figures i n parentheses i n t h i s column represent percentage of non-routine demands *** Figures i n parentheses i n t h i s column represent percentage of t o t a l number of demands **** Figures i n parentheses i n t h i s column are precentages of t o t a l number of demands 55 (17.1 percent) to be the: most frequent in occurrence. The regulative-personnel demands relate to particular aspects of personnel management such as staff, assignment, transfer, and resignation. The extractive-business affairs demands are expressed wishes that the school board provide monies or f a c i l i t i e s and extractive-personnel demands are illustrated by demands for the provision of particular personnel. Table 4.3 shows the difference in frequency of occurrence between routine and non-routine demands by articulation structure. Routine demands accounted for. 64.0 percent of a l l formal demands and non-routine demands made up the remaining 36.0 percent. Sixty-one percent of a l l demands were articulated by the school dis t r i c t ' s senior administration but their prominence is more pronounced in the routine demands (77.1 percent of a l l routine demands) than in the non-routine demands, where they accounted for only 32.2 percent of a l l . non-routine demands. Employing the internal-external environment dichotomy, Table 4.3 illustrates that 80.5 percent of a l l explicit demands made of the school board were articulated by actors in the p o l i t i c a l system's internal environment, that i s , individuals or groups formally associated with, or in the employ of the school system. • This imbalance between the frequency of internal and external demands is particularly pronounced in the case of 56 routine demands. As Table 4.3 illustrates, internal environ-ment actors account for 96.2 percent of a l l routine demands. In the articulation of non-routine demands, internal environment actors accounted for just over one-half (52.6 percent) of the non-routine demands. The most active external articulation structure was the institutional interest groups. These groups, which consisted of municipal governments, offices and ministries of the federal and provincial governments., and other public institutions such as universities, community colleges and police departments, accounted for 9.1 percent of a l l explicit demands. Their involvement in demand articulation i s most noticeable in the case of non-routine demands; they accounted for 18.6 percent of a l l non-routine demands. More articulation structures were represented in the advance-ment of non-routine demands than routine demands. Demands from only four of the eight articulation structures were in evidence in the case of routine demands, whereas a l l eight groups were in evidence in the articulation of non-routine demands. 57 III. NATURE OF DEMANDS Routine Demands Of the 164 explicit demands made of the Pacific School Board during the nine-month period from January 1977 to August 1977, 105 (64.0'percent) were of a routine, recurring nature. These routine demands are those that appear on the agenda of most of the school board meetings during the nine-month period. The distribution of these routine demands is presented in Table 4.4. The most common routine demand topics relate to the business operations (purchasing, allocation of funds, and physical plant) of the school d i s t r i c t . Such demands accounted for 51.4 percent of a l l routine demands. Second in frequency were demands concerning the recruitment, assignment, transfer and resignation of personnel in the school d i s t r i c t (46.7 percent). Together, demands relating to the business operation and personnel management of the school d i s t r i c t made up 98.1 percent of a l l routine demands. The remaining two routine demands concerned the operations and activities of the school board (1.9 percent). The most frequent type of routine demands were extractive. Such demands, calling for the provision of something, accounted for almost two-thirds (63.8 percent) of all^routine demands. Regulative demands and symbolic demands accounted for 25.7 percent and 10.5 58 TABLE 4.4 DISTRIBUTION OF ROUTINE DEMANDS BY TOPIC AND TYPE (N=105) Extractive Regulative Participative Symbolic Total Business Affairs 39 (37.1) 4 (3.8) 11 (10.5) 54 (51.4) Programs Personnel 27 (25.7) 22 (21.0) 49 (46.7) School Board 1 (1.0) 1 (1.0) 2 (1.90) y Other Governments Total 67 (63.8) 27 (25.7) 11 (10.5 105 59 percent of the total number of routine demands respectively. No routine demands calling for participation, with the school board, in various spheres of the decision making activities of the school board were observed. The term nature of demand refers to the two-way classification of a demand according to topic and type. Table.4.4 illustrates the nature of routine formal demands encountered by the Pacific School Board during the nine-month period. Most demands were extractive- business in nature, that i s , demands calling for the allocation or expenditure of funds or approvals for the use maintenance, or modification of the physical plant. Such demands accounted for 37.1 percent of a l l routine demands. Next came demands for the provision of personnel or personnel services (25.7 percent) and demands for the assignment, transfer, or resignation of personnel (21.0 percent). Routine demands calling for affirmation by the school board of their intentions regarding f a c i l i t i e s expansion or modification accounted for 10.5 percent of a l l routine demands. Occurring on two occasions only were demands relating to the duties of or remuneration for school board members. Nori-Routine Demands Fifty-nine of the total number of formal demands made of the Pacific School Board during the period of the study were of a non-routine, non-recurring nature. These are demands not encountered 60 i n s i m i l a r form during the pe r i o d of observation. The d i s -t r i b u t i o n of the non-routine demands i s presented i n Table 4.5. Table 4.5 i l l u s t r a t e s that the most common t o p i c s of non-r o u t i n e demands encountered r e l a t e d to school programs and the business a f f a i r s (finances and f a c i l i t i e s ) of the school d i s t r i c t . These two t o p i c s were each the substance of 37.3 percent of a l l non-routine demands.. Demands concerning personnel or personnel s e r v i c e s were represented i n 20.3 percent of a l l non-routine demands. Demands w i t h respect to the operation and a c t i v i t i e s of the school board i t s e l f and demands about the a c t i v i t i e s of v a r i o u s other l e v e l s of governance occurred i n f r e q u e n t l y and accounted f o r only 3.4 percent and 1.7 percent of a l l non-routine demands r e s p e c t i v e l y . As the v e r t i c a l columns of Table 4.5 i l l u s t r a t e , the most frequent non-routine demands were e x t r a c t i v e . - E x t r a c t i v e demands accounted f o r almost one-half (47.4"percent) of a l l the non-routine, demands. Regulative demands were next i n frequency of occurrence and made up 27.3 percent.of a l l non-routine demands. Symbolic demands followed at 20.3 percent. P a r t i c i p a t i v e demands were in f r e q u e n t , r e p r e s e n t i n g only 5.1 percent of the non-routine demands. Table 4.5 provides some informa t i o n about the s p e c i f i c nature of non-routine demands. The d i s t r i b u t i o n shows that non-routine demands were n o t i c e a b l y i n favour of p r o v i s i o n of p a r t i c u l a r programs 61 TABLE 4.5 DISTRIBUTION OF NON-ROUTINE DEMANDS BY TOPIC AND TYPE (N=59) Extractive Regulative Participative Symbolic Total Business Affairs 11 (18.6) 6 (10.2) 1 (1-7) 4 (6.8) 22 (37.3) Programs 13 (22.0) 4 (6.8) 5 (8.5) 22 (37.3) Personnel 1 (1.7) 6 (10.2) 2 (3.4) 3 (5.1) 12 (20.3) School Board 2 (3.4) 2 (3.4) Other Governments 1 (1-7) 1 (1-7) Total 27 (45.8) 16 (27.1) 3. (5.1) 13 (22.0) 59 ( 62 or student s e r v i c e s (23.7 percent) and the p r o v i s i o n of funds or f a c i l i t i e s , s i t e s , and equipment (18.6 percent). Less f r e -quent, but n o t i c e a b l y evident, were demands f o r d i r e c t i o n s f o r the use or management of monies and f a c i l i t i e s (10.2 percent) and demands f o r the ' d i s p o s i t i o n and assignment of school d i s t r i c t personnel (10.2 percent). I n f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r i n g were demands f o r : the board's i n t e n t i o n s regarding f u t u r e use and d i s p o s i t i o n of monies and f a c i l i t i e s (6.8 .percent), the board's b e l i e f s concerning p a r t i c u l a r programs.and student s e r v i c e s (6.8 p e r c e n t ) , procedures regarding the conduct of programs or student s e r v i c e s (6.8 p e r c e n t ) , the board's b e l i e f s concerning s t a f f i n g (5.1 pe r c e n t ) , the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of t r u s t e e s i n p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s (3.4 p e r c e n t ) , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the s e l e c t i o n and assignment of personnel (3.4 percent). Occurring only once during the p e r i o d of observation were demands f o r the p r o v i s i o n of personnel and demands f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r business a f f a i r s of the d i s t r i c t . IV. ARTICULATION OF DEMANDS Overview As Table 4.3 i n d i c a t e s , a l l e i g h t a r t i c u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e s employed i n the study were represented i n formal demands presented to the P a c i f i c School Board during the pe r i o d from January 1977 to 63 August 1977. Clearly, the school d i s t r i c t ' s senior adminis-tration was the most prominent actor in the articulation of both routine and non-routine demands. Individuals in the constituency of the school d i s t r i c t were the least prominent, making only three demands in the nine-month period. Actors in the p o l i t i c a l system's internal environment, namely, senior school d i s t r i c t administrators, teachers and teacher groups, the local teachers' association, and trustees accounted for 80.5 percent of a l l formal demands. From theexternal environment, the most prominent demand articulators were Institutional Interest Groups such as other levels of government or various public institutions. Routine Demands As Table 4.3 demonstrates, the advancement of routine demands was dominated by the group consisting of the Pacific School District's eight member senior administrative staff. In fact, this group accounted for over three-quarters (77.1 percent) of the 105 routine demands. It is the prominence of this group in the articulation of routine demands that accounts for their overall v i s i b i l i t y in the articulation of a l l explicit demands of the school board. Table 4.3 shows that only three of the remaining seven articulation structures contribute to the representation of routine demands. Individual.teachers and teacher groups account for 19 (18.1 percent) of a l l routine demands. A l l of these demands were 64 advanced by individual teachers and they always related to demands for board approvals or rulings on their employment or assignment status. Four routine demands were articulated by institutional interest groups. Specifically, these four demands were articulated by the provincial department of education, the local community college, a department within a Ministry in the federal government, and one of the local universities. It is in the advancement of routine demands that actors in the internal environment, particularly the senior administration, were particularly dominant. As Table 4.3 demonstrates, actors in the internal environment of the p o l i t i c a l system accounted for 101, or 96.2 percent, of the 105 routine demands. Non-Routine Demands The distribution of non-routine demands by articulation structure is also presented in Table 4.3. As Table 4.3 illustrates, the distribution of non-routine demands is more spread than the dis-tribution of routine demands. In fact, a l l eight demand articulation structures were represented in the articulation of non-routine demands. One out of every three non-routine demands came from the senior administration. The involvement of institutional interest groups is also noticeably evident in the non-routine demand category. 65 These offices and departments of the municipal, provincial, and federal government and other public institutions accounted for 18.6 percent of a l l non-routine demands. Four of the demands ) were articulated by the municipal government; two from the federal government; two from the neighbourhood community college; and one each from a church, a police department, and the provincial education department. The provincial trustees' association and four school-community associations accounted for eight (13.6 percent) of the 59 non-routine demands. Six of the eight demands were articulated by the four school-community associations. Inactive in the advancement of routine demands, the local teachers' association constituted 10.6 percent of a l l non-routine demands. Of the six non-routine demands advanced by the local teachers' association, four were articulated by the association's executive on behalf of the membership and two from a particular task force commissioned by the teachers' association. Groups in the school di s t r i c t ' s constituency (the community) accounted for six or 10.2 percent of the 59 non-routine demands. Two of the demands were articulated by a group of parents of secondary school students and one articulated by each of a group of two taxpayers, a resident's association, and a group of parents 66 advocating a p a r t i c u l a r school programming arrangement. The school d i s t r i c t t r u s t e e s a r t i c u l a t e d f o u r , or 6.8 percent, of a l l non-routine demands. Three of the four demands were a r t i c u l a t e d by three i n d i v i d u a l t r u s t e e s . The remaining demand was by the school board as a group. On three occasions during the nine-month p e r i o d of study a demand was a r t i c u l a t e d by an i n d i v i d u a l i n the school d i s t r i c t ' s c onstituency and on two occasions an e x p l i c i t demand was a r t i c u l a t e d by i n d i v i d u a l teachers or teacher groups. In the case of the l a t t e r , one demand came from a group and one from an i n d i v i d u a l . V. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE NATURE OF DEMANDS AND ARTICULATION STRUCTURE This s e c t i o n describes the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the nature of demands and a r t i c u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e . The s e c t i o n i s presented i n two p a r t s . The f i r s t p art describes the nature of r o u t i n e demands made by i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l a c t o r s . The second p a r t describes the nature of non-routine demands made by i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l a c t o r s . 67 Routine Demands Table 4.6 illustrates the domination of internal actors in the articulation of routine demands. A l l but four of the 105 routine demands were advanced by either the senior administrative staff, individual teachers or teacher groups, the local teachers' association, or trustees. The exact breakdown, by group, was presented in Table 4.3. These demands, in descending order of frequency, were for: 1. the provision of funds, f a c i l i t i e s , or equipment (39) 2. the provision of personnel (27) 3. the management of personnel (22) 4. the board's intentions regarding the provision of monies or f a c i l i t i e s (11) 5. the provision of programs (8) 6. procedures regarding the use of monies or f a c i l i t i e s (4) 7. regulations concerning trustee behaviour (1) No routine demands regarding other governments were, in evidence during the nine-month period nor were any routine demands calling for participation in the decision making activities of the school boaiid. More specifically, a l l 39 routine demands for the provision of monies, f a c i l i t i e s , or equipment were advanced by the senior administration as were a l l but one of the demands for the provision of personnel. Individual teachers or teacher groups accounted for 68 TABLE 4.6 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL DEMANDS (N=164) BY ARTICULATION STRUCTURE TOPIC TYPE INTERNAL ! 1 EXTERNAL Routine Non-Routine! Routine Non-Routine BUSINESS AFFAIRS E x t r a c t i v e R egulative P a r t i c i p a t i v e Symbolic 39 4 0 11 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 4 1 i 0 TOTAL 54 8 - 0 14 !' tn E x t r a c t i v e 0 10 0 3 PROGRA R e g u l a t i v e P a r t i c i p a t i v e 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 Symbolic 0 2 0 3 TOTAL 0 17 0 8 PERSONNEL E x t r a c t i v e R egulative P a r t i c i p a t i v e Symbolic 24 22 0 0 1 2 ! o i 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 TOTAL 46 1 5 3 5 SCHOOL BOARD E x t r a c t i v e R egulative P a r t i c i p a t i v e 0 1 0 i 0 | 0 i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 I Symbolic 0 I 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 0 0 1 OTHER GOVERNMENTS E x t r a c t i v e Regulative P a r t i c i p a t i v e Symbolic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 1 0 0 COLUMN TOTAL 101 31. 4 28 69 most of the demands c a l l i n g f o r personnel management d e c i s i o n s . The l o c a l teachers' a s s o c i a t i o n made no r o u t i n e demands and t r u s t e e s made one demand and t h i s concerned the r e g u l a t i o n of t h e i r own behaviour. Non-Routine Demands .Table 4.6 i l l u s t r a t e s that the non-routine demands were almost evenly d i s t r i b u t e d over the i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l a r t i c u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e s . I n t e r n a l a c t o r s accounted f o r 31 or 52.6 percent of a l l 59 non-routine demands whereas e x t e r n a l a c t o r s accounted f o r the remaining 28 or 47.5 percent. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of non-routine demands i s presented i n Table 4.7. Table 4.8 describes the d i f f e r e n c e i n the nature of non-routine demands between the i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l a r t i c u l a t i o n demand s t r u c t u r e s . In the a r t i c u l a t i o n of non-routine demands concerning programs, the i n t e r n a l a c t o r s were more.active than e x t e r n a l a c t o r s . In non-routine demands r e l a t i n g to the business a f f a i r s of the d i s t r i c t , such as finances and f a c i l i t i e s , the e x t e r n a l a c t o r s were more prominent. I n t e r n a l Non-Routine Demands A more p r e c i s e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the non-routine demands advanced by i n t e r n a l a c t o r s i s presented i n Table 4.7. As Table 4.7 i l l u s t r a t e s , the most demanding a r t i c u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e was the sen i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . T y p i c a l l y , what t h i s group expected of the school TABLE 4.7 DISTRIBUTION OF NON-ROUTINE DEMANDS BY INTERNAL ARTICULATION STRUCTURES 70 TOPIC TYPE Senior Administration Teachers and Teacher Groups Teachers' Association Trustees Extractive 1 0 0 1 BUSINESS AFFAIRS Regulative Participative Symbolic 2 0 4 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7 0 0 1 RAMS Extractive Regulative 5 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 ROG Participative 0" 0 0 0 PM Symbolic 2 0 0 0 TOTAL 8 1 4 1 ONNEL Extractive Regulative 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 ERS Participative 0 0 0 0 P M ' , Symbolic 0 0 1 0 TOTAL 4 1 0 1 Extractive o 0 ' 1 0 Q O Pi Regulative 0 0 0 0 O <! EC O c_> p q CO Participative Symbolic 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 1 0 CO H Extractive 0 0 0 0 OTHER GOVERNMEN Regulative Participative Symbolic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 0 0 0 1 COLUMN TOTAL 19 2 6 4 71 board were the affirmation by the board of i t s intent regarding finances and the district's physical plant, the provision of particular programs, and decisions of personnel deployment. Unlike the case with routine demands, individual teachers or teacher groups were relatively inactive in the articulation of non-routine demands. This articulation structure demanded the provision of a particular program and a particular personnel regulation. A l l but one of the five non-routine demands by the local teachers' association concerned school d i s t r i c t programs or student services. One of these demands requested that the board prescribe certain parameters for the content and procedures of a particular program and three demands called for the provision of particular programs. The f i f t h demand concerned the appointment of a trustee to a particular study group. Individual trustees made only three demands of the school board. The f i r s t was for an additional stipend for one of i t s members; the second called for the provision of a particular program in the d i s t r i c t ; the third called for a gesture of protest by the school board, to the provincial government. 72 External Non-:Routine Demands Table 4.8 presents the d i s t r i b u t i o n of non-^routine demands over the four external a r t i c u l a t i o n structures. Most (39.3 percent) of the non-routine demands a r t i c u l a t e d by external actors were by i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t groups - l e v e l s of government, community colleges, or other public i n s t i t u t i o n s . These.demands were t y p i c a l l y requests f o r the use of school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t i e s . The p r o v i n c i a l trustees a s s o c i a t i o n and various, school-community associations made eight demands. The school-community associations' demands consisted of requests for the pro v i s i o n of f a c i l i t i e s , the provision of programs, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the s e l e c t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l for a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n while the trustees a s s o c i a t i o n c a l l e d f o r the job de s c r i p t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r personnel and a s t a t e -ment of intent regarding the competencies required by personnel. Various community groups made s i x non-routine demands over the nine-month period. These demands re l a t e d to the management of school d i s t r i c t p h y s i c a l plant, the pro v i s i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r program, and e x p l i c i t board support f o r a p a r t i c u l a r secondary school programming arrangement. Three i n d i v i d u a l s each made a demand of the school board. One c a l l e d f o r the pro v i s i o n of a release from a zoning r e s t r i c t i o n ; the second c a l l e d for regulations governing the conduct of teachers TABLE 4 .8 DISTRIBUTION OF NON-ROUTINE DEMANDS BY EXTERNAL ARTICULATION STRUCTURES TOPIC TYPE Institutional Interest Groups Trustees Association and Community School Association Community Groups Community Individuals BUSINESS AFFAIRS Extractive Regulative Participative Symbolic 7 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 10 1 2 1 CO Extractive 0 2 1 0 PROGRAM Regulative Participative Symbolic 1 0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 TOTAL 1 2 4 1 PERSONNEL Extractive Regulative 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 PERSONNEL Participative Symbolic 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 0 4; o 1 Extractive 0 1 0 0 SCHOOL BOARD Regulative Participative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Symbolic 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 1 0 0 OTHER GOVERNMENTS Extractive Regulative Participative Symbolic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 COLUMN TOTAL' 11 8 6 3 74 offering a particular program, and the third, a statement of policy regarding future staffing practices. 75 CHAPTER V THE STUDY IN PERSPECTIVE I. THE PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY The Purpose The f i r s t purpose of this study concerned the attempt to describe the topic or content of demands made to the Pacific School Board during the nine-month period from January 1977 to August 1977. A second purpose focused on the description of the type of demands made of the same school board during the same period. A third purpose related to the identification of the individuals or groups (actors) articulating these demands to the school board. A fourth purpose involved the determination of possible relationships between the content and type of explicit demands and the actors articulating these demands. A f i f t h and fin a l purpose concerned the speculation, using articulation groups or individuals as indicators, of the degree of openness or closed-ness to demands of the Pacific School Board during the nine-month period. Conceptual Foundation and Treatment of the Data The conceptual foundation for the study was Easton's (1957; 1965) variant of the now familiar input-output or general systems model. Easton (1957; 1965) termed this variant the P o l i t i c a l 76 Systems Model and he saw the P o l i t i c a l System to consist of the interactive processes through which stresses in a p o l i t i c a l system's internal and external.environment are articulated, in the form of demand inputs, to authorities in the p o l i t i c a l system, with the expectation that some action with respect to some matter be taken. The p o l i t i c a l system has levels of authorities who differ primarily in the degree to which actions they:take are considered, by the majority of actors in the environment, to be binding. The authorities considered in this study were the highest level, namely the school board. The school-board is invested with powers to respond to and rule upon the demands i t receives from the environ-ment. According to Almond (1960), the demands upon authorities of a p o l i t i c a l system are of four types: (1) extractive, (2) regulative, (3) participative, and (4) symbolic. Further, these demands may be, according to Almond (1965), articulated by: (1) institutional interest groups, (2) associational interest groups, and (3) non-associational interest groups. This study expanded and modified Almond's (1965) typology and posited the possible articulation actors to be: (1) the school district's senior administrative staff, (2) teachers and teachers' groups, (3) the local teachers' association, (4) the school board, (.5) other levels of governments and other public institutions, (6) the provincial trustees' association and and school-community associations, (7) groups not formally a s s o c i a t e d or employed by the school system, and'.. (8). i n d i v i d u a l s not f o r m a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h or employed by the school d i s t r i c t . The f i r s t four groups were considered a c t o r s in the p o l i t i c a l system's i n t e r n a l environment and the remaining four groups of actors were seen to be i n the p o l i t i c a l system's e x t e r n a l e n v i r o n -ment. Z i e g l e r , Tucker, and Wilson (1977) suggested that demands made of the school board may, i n terms of content, r e l a t e to a number of t o p i c s , i n c l u d i n g : (1) business operations or a f f a i r s (finance and f a c i l i t i e s ) , (2) school programs and student s e r v i c e s , (3) the recruitment, assignment,.duties, and t r a n s f e r of personnel, (4) the school board's a c t i v i t i e s and conduct, and (5) the a c t i v i t i e s of other governments. Using Simon's (1960) and Minsky's.(1961) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s , demands may be c l a s s i f i e d according to whether they are r o u t i n e , that i s r e p e t i t i v e and w e l l understood, or non-r o u t i n e , that i s not encountered by the d e c i s i o n making body i n q u i t e the same form before. In summary, the study u t i l i z e d Easton's view of the p o l i t i c a l system as the v e h i c l e f o r o r g a n i z i n g the search f o r s i g n i f i c a n t data, a modified v e r s i o n of Z i e g l e r , Tucker, and Wilson's (1977) typology of demand t o p i c s f o r c l a s s i f y i n g demands by content, Almond's (1960) c l a s s i f i c a t o r y scheme to describe.the type of each 78 demand, an expanded form of Almond's (1965) category system to describe who articulated each demand, and Simon (1960) and Minsky's (1961) continuum of decision situation routineness to describe the routineness of each demand, as the primary means for describing the demands made of the Pacific School Board during the nine-month period from January 1977 to August 1977. The Data Source and Data The data source for the study consisted of the parliamentary agendas and formal minutes of a l l formal Pacific School Board public meetings held during the period from January 1977 to August 1977. From these agendas and minutes a l l demands.expressed in written form and explicit in terms of expected action, were identified and lis t e d . These demands constituted the data base for the study. II. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS The significant findings of the study are summarized in this section in point form. 1. During the period from January 1977 to August 1977 the Pacific School Board was the object of 164 formal demands. 2. Most of the formal demands received by the school board were routine. Specifically 64.0 percent of a l l formal demands were routine and 36.0 percent were non-routine. 79 The r o u t i n e demands were t y p i c a l l y r e l a t e d to e i t h e r the business a f f a i r s or operations of the school d i s t r i c t or personnel management i n the school d i s t r i c t . Demands of these two t o p i c c a t e g o r i e s accounted f o r 51.4 percent and 46.7 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y of a l l r o u t i n e demands. T y p i c a l l y , non-routine demands r e l a t e d to e i t h e r the business a f f a i r s and operations of the school d i s t r i c t or school programs and student s e r v i c e s i n the d i s t r i c t / Demands of these two t o p i c c a t e g o r i e s each accounted f o r 37.3 percent of a l l non-routine demands. Most r o u t i n e demands were e x t r a c t i v e . That i s , 63.8 per-cent of a l l r o u t i n e demands c a l l e d f o r the p r o v i s i o n , by the school boardj.of p a r t i c u l a r goods and s e r v i c e s . A d i s t a n t second were r o u t i n e demands c a l l i n g f o r the promulgation of r e g u l a t i o n s governing v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s i n . t h e school d i s t r i c t . As was the case w i t h r o u t i n e demands, the most prevalent non-routine demands were e x t r a c t i v e f i r s t and r e g u l a t i v e second. These two demand types accounted f o r 45.8 percent and 27.1 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y of a l l non-routine demands. Most of the 164 formal demands were a r t i c u l a t e d by ac t o r s i n the p o l i t i c a l system's i n t e r n a l environment. That i s , the school d i s t r i c t s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f , teachers or teacher groups, the l o c a l teachers' a s s o c i a t i o n , and the school board accounted f o r 80.5 percent of a l l formal demands. 80 8. In order of descending frequency, the demand articulators were the senior administration (100), teachers or teacher groups (21), other levels of government and other public institutions (15), the provincial trustees' association and school-community associations (8), the local teachers' association (6), non-school system groups (6), the school board (5), and individuals in the community (3). 9. Four of the eight articulation structures were represented in the articulation of routine demands. In order of descending frequency, they were: the senior administration (81), teachers and teacher groups (19), other levels of government and other public institutions (4), and the school board (1). 10. With the exception.of the senior administration, who account for 32.2 percent of a l l non-routine demands and individuals in the community who account.for only 5.1 percent of a l l non-routine demands, the articulation of non-routine demands is almost evenly distributed over the remaining seven articulation structures. The following section presents a discussion of these and other findings of the analyses. 81 III. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The most noticeable feature of the findings is that most of the demands that appear before the school board are customary and repetitive demands requiring ra t i f i c a t i o n or approval by the school board. These customary tasks are similar to what Braybrooke and Lindblom (1963: 68) termed "the daily business of government" and consist of face to face deliberations of elected o f f i c i a l s and their advisors. Such demands, according to the findings of this study, are typically represented by the school dis t r i c t ' s senior administration and relate almost exclusively to approvals, for the allocation of funds, plans for the maintenance, modification, improvements on and additions to the school di s t r i c t ' s physical plant, and the recruitment, selection, assignment, and transfers of school d i s t r i c t personnel. The general subject of the school di s t r i c t ' s educational programs and business matters dominate the non-routine demands. Demands relating to programs are typically extractive, that is demands that the school board provide particular programs, student services, or instructional resources, or f a c i l i t i e s . 82 The nature of the r o u t i n e and non-routine demands d i r e c t e d toward the school board suggests that the p r e v a i l i n g p e r c e p t i o n of the r o l e of the school board i n e d u c a t i o n a l governance i s that of a c o n t r o l l e r of the a l l o c a t i o n of t a n g i b l e s . That i s , i t s r o l e i s seen to be that of c o n t r o l l i n g the a l l o c a t i o n of funds, personnel, programs, and f a c i l i t i e s i n the school d i s t r i c t . This type of r o l e Zald (1969) termed the inward l o o k i n g f u n c t i o n of a board and Boyd.-(1976) , Lipham, Gregg & R o s s m i l l e r (1969)" c a l l e d the a u t h o r i z a t i o n f u n c t i o n of the board. The P a c i f i c School Board seems to represent t h i s conception of the school board r a t h e r than what Zald (1969) c a l l e d the outward l o o k i n g r o l e of the school board which views the school board as a f o c a l p o i n t f o r community awareness. This outward l o o k i n g r o l e would r e q u i r e that the school board be seen as the object of demands c a l l i n g f o r p a r t i c i -p a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s , of the school d i s t r i c t . No such demands were recei v e d by the P a c i f i c School Board during the nine-month p e r i o d . The f a c t that i n t e r n a l actors occasion most of that which i s considered at the school board t a b l e can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a number of ways. F i r s t , the f i n d i n g provides some support to McGivney and Moynihan's (1972) view that some school d i s t r i c t s d i f f e r w i t h respect to what they c a l l e d a "zone of acceptance". W i t h i n t h i s zone, school o f f i c i a l s are f r e e to manage the a f f a i r s of the school 83 system according to their expertise and beliefs. In the case of the Pacific School District, the zone of acceptance appears to be quite expansive. In Minar's (1966) terms, the Pacific School District constituency is low on the p o l i t i c a l variables of amount of participation and amount of dissent, and this may contribute to the school d i s t r i c t ' s apparent large zone of acceptance. A second interpretation is the more simple one. The imbalance between the frequency of internal and external demands may indicate that the citizenry is apathetic to much of the affairs of the school d i s t r i c t . The fact that participation in Pacific School Board elections and by-elections is low, attendance at public meetings is typically low, board meetings are ;seldom covered by representatives pf the local media, and few identifiable non-episodic interest groups exist in the school d i s t r i c t provides some support to this interpretation. Thirdly, the difference in frequency of explicit demands between internal and external actors suggests that the relationship between the Pacific School Board and i t s constituency typifies what Jennings (1974) called the Rational Activist Model of school board linkages to the community. Through this model-, the school board is seen, by virtue of the electoral process, by the community to be repre-sentative of the polity and responsible, through whatever means they choose, for the management of the school system. The conse-84 quence of t h i s model i s that f a i l u r e on the school board's p a r t to a l l o c a t e i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the expectations of the m a j o r i t y of the p o l i t y w i l l r e s u l t i n defeat at the p o l l s . As Jennings (1964: 240-241) noted, r a t h e r than r e l i a n c e on the i n t e r -v e n t i o n of v o c a l and a c t i v e i n t e r e s t groups or p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s to ensure responsiveness on the p a r t of t r u s t e e s , the R a t i o n a l A c t i v i s t Model r e l i e s on the u l t i m a t e c a p a c i t y of the e l e c t o r a l process to guarantee board responsiveness. A f o u r t h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s d i s s i m i l a r to the f i r s t t h r ee, which are s i m i l a r , and r e s t s on the view that school system governance i s unique among other governance s t r u c t u r e s i n that i n school governance, the c e n t r a l governing f i g u r e i s not an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l or group of e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s w i t h d i r e c t e l e c t o r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the p o l i t y , but an o f f i c i a l (superintendent) appointed by the ' e l e c t e d governing body. Jennings (1974: 246) t r a n s l a t e s t h i s unique view of p o l i t i c a l governance i n t o what he termed the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Leadership Model. This model views the superintendent and h i s s t a f f to be the intermediary between the c i t i z e n r y and the school board. The superintendent, i n t h i s conception, aggregates the various expectations of the p o l i t y i n t o a r t i c u l a t e d demands of the school board. Such a view might account f o r both the imbalance i n frequency, between i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l demands and the prominence of the superintendent and h i s s t a f f i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n of demands. 85 A l l classes of actors were represented in the articulation of demands. In both the articulation of routine and non-routine demands, the school d i s t r i c t ' s chief executive officer and his staff were clearly the most visible. They were clearly dominant in the articulation of routine demands but in relative terms less dominant in the articulation of non-routine demands. The dominance of senior administrator articulated demands on the school board's agendas might be explained in the following manner. The roles and responsibilities of the school d i s t r i c t ' s senior administrators, as described in the school d i s t r i c t ' s policy handbook, their strategic location in the school d i s t r i c t ' s organi-zational hierarchy, and their responsibility for preparing the school board's parliamentary agendas, places them in a potentially focal aggregation role. From each of their perspectives, they are able to discern potential demands or wants in the environment, priorize these wants, and translate .those wants that to them are significant, into explicit demands of the school board. To use Easton's (1965) term, they likely perform a "gatekeeping" function, managing the flow and intensity of demands. Some of the wants can be satisfied without the intervention of the school board, others must, for satisfaction, be represented as formal demands of the school board. Since the senior administration does occupy such a prominent and visible role in the school system, i t is 86 perhaps predictable that most demands of the school board be articulated by them. If you omit routine demands from the data base of the study i t appears that the Pacific School Board receives a significant number of demands from the external environment. In fact, non-routine demands are almost evenly distributed over internal actors (52.6 percent) and external actors (47.5 percent). If senior administration articulated non-routine demands are removed from the data, most non-routine demands are advanced by external actors. However, the image is not one of individual citizens or citizen groups having access to the school board's decision making activities but rather that of formally organized and permanent groups such as municipal councils, universities, other levels of government, the trustees' association, and school-community associations making periodic and self-serving demands of the school board. It is possible that the infrequent appearance of individual or unorganized and impermanent group articulated demands can be explained by the possibility that the wants and expectations from such individuals or groups are satisfied by lesser authorities in the p o l i t i c a l system such as teachers, building principals, or central office o f f i c i a l s . More w i l l be said about this view in the next section of the present chapter. On the other hand, the finding 87 may support Mann's (1975: 73) contention that i f school system •officials are believed to be unresponsive, fewer citizens w i l l bother to articulate demands. If such a state of affairs was the case, i t would indeed provide some support to Burges' (1977), Ziegler and Jennings' (1974) and other "closed-system" theorists' lament that the citizenry is uninvolved in the governance of schools. The findings of the study indicate that different actors are associated with qualitatively different demands. The demands articulated by the senior administration were almost exclusively related to the business affairs or operations of the school d i s t r i c t or the recruitment, selection, assignment, and transfer of school system personnel. Personnel demands are what Zald (1969) termed internal issues and both Zald.(1969) and Mathews (1967) observed that such demands are infrequently represented by external actors. Since personnel matters occupy a significant portion of the parliamentary agenda for each board meeting, i t is predictable that the frequency of external demands..^will'be'systemat'ically .lowered. Teachers, teacher groups, and the local teachers' association demands were exclusively related to the provision of school programs, student services, and personal and self-serving requests for interruption or termination of contractual obligations. It is interesting, in view of frequent assertions (e.g. Corwin, 1968; 88 Corey: 1968) that teachers, through their associations, are confronting school boards with demands for greater participation in the.decision making of the school board, to note that no participative demands were made of the school board, at school board meetings during the nine-month period. The next section comments on this point. The relative inactivity of the school board in making demands of i t s e l f precludes any comment in the characteristic types of demands i t makes. For example, a l l four demands made were different and issue specific. One trustee demanded a personally advantageous allocation of funds, another trustee demanded that a particular program be developed for senior students, a third trustee called for a preferential hiring plan, and the board as a corporate body, demanded that i t c a l l for deferment,Ti by the provincial government, of a particular decision. In a l l four demands, i t does not appear that the trustee was representing the demands of any particular constituent group. Demands from institutional interest groups, that i s , municipal and other levels of government, universities, and colleges usually related to the provision of school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t i e s for their own or their constituents' use. 89 Associational Interest Groups, namely,, the pr o v i n c i a l trustees association and school community associations made infrequent and widely distributed demands. For example, they wanted a f a c i l i t y , two school programs, a personnel management r u l i n g , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the selection of school p r i n c i p a l s . Unorganized groups of community members were concerned with the advancement of demands regarding the delivery of school d i s t r i c t programs. Individuals articulated highly s p e c i f i c and self-serving demands. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND SPECULATIONS Conclusions The imbalance between the number of demands arti c u l a t e d by int e r n a l actors and the number of demands articulated by external actors would appear to provide some support for the position of the closed-system advocates. Additionally, the v i s i b i l i t y of the senior administration i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n of demands would suggest that, because they so frequently occasion decisional a c t i v i t y at" the board table, they are poten t i a l l y the most dominant actors i n a school system's decision making. However, i t should be noted that this study, through i t s conceptual apparatus, focused on only 90 one of the possible arenas in which alternative actions are considered and choices made. The study has focused on only one of the demand processing systems, the school board. Such a narrow focus requires some caution in drawing conclusions relative to the openness or closedness of the system. One of the c r i t i c a l elements of P o l i t i c a l Systems Analysis i s that of the concept of authorities. Authorities can be viewed as demand processing sub-systems within the p o l i t i c a l system. This study examined only one of these demand processing sub-systems, the school board, and did not attempt to re-create activities at lesser demand processing sub-systems through which demands may have passed. Since only particular kinds of demands require processing by the school board, many demands, from both the internal and external environment, may have been treated by lesser authorities within the p o l i t i c a l system. Further, i t is possible that the analysis of demands received at lesser levels of the p o l i t i c a l system would yield a more definitive description of the openness or closedness of the p o l i t i c a l system. One could argue that the image of the p o l i t i c a l system as a series of demand processing sub-systems would be a f r u i t f u l way of approaching the two questions of where demands originate and whether demands from one group of actors are favoured over demands from 91 others. Many demand processing sub-systems exist in the p o l i t i c a l system's internal environment. In the Pacific School System, for example, there is the Administration Committee, the Senior Administration Teachers' Association Consultative Committee, and various other established committees formally linking actors at various levels in the internal environment. Involvement by internal actors may, in fact, be realized through these demand processing sub-systems, and demands from internal actors need not go beyond this level. Consequently, such demands would not appear in the data of this study. Other demands may f i r s t appear in these sub-systems, require processing by higher authorities, and eventually reappear, as explicit demands articu-lated by the senior administration, at the board table for transformation. Lutz and Iannacco'ne-Js(1969: 213) model of organizational control points, for example, illustrates how i t may appear that few internal actors, other than the superintendent of schools and his senior staff, articulate explicit demands to the school board. The model presents classroom teachers, building principals, and the superin-tendent as f i l t e r or gatekeeping points, regulating the volume and intensity of demands from classroom pupils to the individual building staff to the school system's formal organization to the school board. Such a model, analogous to the organizational concept 92 of chain of command, could account for why the superintendent and his staff seem so prominent in the articulation of explicit demands since even i f demands do originate at other levels of the system they are usually articulated to the board through the superintendent. The senior administration, for example, does have frequent face-to-face formal and informal contact with building principals who are in continual association with individ-ual teachers and the school staff who, similarly, are in daily contact with classroom students. In fact, internal demand processing sub-systems in the Pacific School District abound. On the other hand, the external environment has, relative to the internal environment, few demand processing sub-systems since few organized interests groups exist i n the Pacific School District beyond school-community associations. Unless external demands can be processed at the school level by teachers or building principals, or by the superintendent of schools and his senior staff, citizens must look to the school board for satisfaction and expect the board or individual trustees to represent their demands. The findings of this study suggest that either citizens or citizen groups find satisfactory involvement in dealing with schools directly or through their school-community associations or they do not feel a particu-larly strong need to participate in school system governance or they feel that their demands would not be considered by the school 93 board. Observation at school board meetings in the Pacific School District would suggest that the f i r s t and second inter-pretations are more plausible than the last. For example, the school board parliamentary agenda provides the opportunity for citizens to address the board directly through questions or demands. This provision in the agenda was seldom taken advantage of during the nine-month period. The findings of this study suggest that the school board meeting is indeed a closed demand processing sub-system but not for reasons of deliberate or systematic exclusion by core actors, as the closed-system advocates would argue, but for reasons of either satisfactory involvement in organizationally inferior arenas of the school system or apathy. The Pacific School Board does not, as Minar (1966) has suggested, appear to be a "prime focus of community awareness." Further, there is no evidence to suggest that there is dissatisfaction with the degree to which the Pacific School Board is open to public demands. At least, no group was seen to aggregate any such dissatisfaction into p o l i t i c a l claims of the school board. There appear to be, as the number of external explicit demands.suggests, no organized factions of a disenfranchised citizenry seeking to exert pressure on the school board. The study revealed no pressure groups or temporary coalitions of individuals operating to occasion decision making by the Pacific 94 School Board. A more moderate view of the closed-system thesis of educational governance i s perhaps more d e s c r i p t i v e of the state i n the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t . This model sees school board decision making as not open on a continuous basis to demands from the external environ-ment (e.g. K i r s t , 1976). Rather, external demands of school boards are best characterized as both episodic and issue s p e c i f i c . Thus school board meetings are t y p i f i e d as stable and routine and under the domination of i n t e r n a l actors, interrupted only occasionally by s p e c i f i c non-routine demands from i n d i v i d u a l s or groups for s p e c i f i c a c t i o n . Z e i g l e r and Jennings (1974),.Weeres (1971), and Mathews (1967) , for example, found that p o l i t i c a l l y a ctive i n d i v i d u a l s , community groups, or organizations were only p e r i p h e r a l l y interested i n education, but were active i n representing t h e i r demands for issues a f f e c t i n g the ecology of neighbourhoods such as school closure. The findings of t h i s study seem to support t h i s g eneralization since, only one issue, that of placement and financing for a proposed secondary school complex, occasioned much demand a c t i v i t y from representatives of the c i t i z e n r y . This also supports Zald's (1969: 107) view that the c i t i z e n r y i s l i k e l y to be aroused i n decisions r e l a t i n g to f a c i l i t i e s expansion. Zald (1969: 107) also concludes that the c i t i z e n r y i s l i k e l y to make demands i n ;issues "regarding identity-transformation, of Its i n s t i t u t i o n s . 95 This study supports t h i s view i n that one-quarter of e x p l i c i t non-routine demands from the e x t e r n a l programs r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to changes or proposed changes i n the mission or program arrange-ments of some schools i n the d i s t r i c t . Many w r i t e r s (e.g. Iannaccone and L u t z , 1970; Z i e g l e r and Jennings, 1974; Boyd, 1976; Emery and T r i s t , 1965) say that the type or texture of the environment i n f l u e n c e s the i n t e n s i t y of e x t e r n a l demands and the operation of the system. E x t e r n a l demands are l i k e l y to be fewer i n urban school systems than i n smaller r u r a l systems, fewer i n communities c h a r a c t e r i z e d by low e l e c t o r a l d i s s e n t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Minar, 1966). The urban, low d i s s e n t , and low p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i p t i v e of the constituency of the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t . The zone of acceptance (McGivney and Moynihan, 1972) i n urbanized, low d i s s e n t , and low p a r t i c i -p a t i o n communities i s broad, seemingly g r a n t i n g high manoeuver-a b i l i t y to i n t e r n a l a c t o r s i n operating the school d i s t r i c t . The infrequency of e x t e r n a l e x p l i c i t demands r e l a t i v e to the frequency of i n t e r n a l e x p l i c i t demands r a i s e s another question. I t has been maintained that the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t has few e d u c a t i o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i d e n t i f i a b l e community pressure groups. Whether t h i s accounts f o r the infrequency of demands from community groups or i n d i v i d u a l s or whether the infrequency of demands accounts f o r 96 the absence of mediating s t r u c t u r e s such as i n t e r e s t groups i s unclear. I n t e r e s t groups, f o r example, s p r i n g i n t o existence as a response to the need f o r aggregating expectations of l i k e minded c i t i z e n s i n t o p o l i t i c a l demands f o r a c t i o n by the a u t h o r i t i e s . Where no d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e x i s t i n g avenues of demand a r t i c u l a t i o n e x i s t s no such need f o r i n t e r e s t groups develops. This may account f o r both the infrequency of external"demands and the absence of i n t e r e s t groups. Speculations Three elements of Easton's (1965) concept of the P o l i t i c a l Systems were examined i n t h i s study; inputs i n the form of demands, a u t h o r i t i e s , and environment. The demands examined were those described by Almond (1960: 34) as manifest or e x p l i c i t and s p e c i f i c ; that i s , demands that appeared i n the form of e x p l i c i t formulations of claims that a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n w i t h respect to a p a r t i c u l a r matter be undertaken. The a u t h o r i t i e s considered were those at the highest l e v e l i n the p o l i t i c a l system, namely the e l e c t e d school t r u s t e e s as a corporate body, the school board. The environments considered were the p o l i t i c a l system's i n t e r n a l environment, and the e x t e r n a l environment or community. The l i m i t e d conceptual apparatus of the study s y s t e m a t i c a l l y excluded a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of demands made i n contexts other than to •97 the school board at p u b l i c school board meetings. The f i n d i n g s of the a n a l y s i s may, as a consequence, present a view of the P a c i f i c School System that i s only p a r t i a l l y t r u e . For example, a simple comparison between the number of i n t e r n a l demands and e x t e r n a l demands shows an imbalance, i n favour of i n t e r n a l demands. This f a c t demonstrates that the P a c i f i c School Board i s r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e d , that i s , dominated by what Easton (1965) termed " w i t h i n p u t s . " The question not answered i n t h i s i n q u i r y i s whether the determina-t i o n of system closedness, when the school board meeting i s used as the focus, i s g e n e r a l i z a b l e to contexts where other, l e s s e r a u t h o r i t i e s i n the p o l i t i c a l system are considered as the f o c i f o r demands. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y , the P a c i f i c School System appears committed to processes of c o n s u l t a t i o n i n d i s t r i c t d e c i s i o n making. There are many demand processing sub-systems a v a i l a b l e to personnel i n the d i s t r i c t such as s t a f f committees, a teacher a s s o c i a t i o n -s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n l i a i s o n committee, and frequent p r i n c i p a l -s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n meetings. The presence of these and other demand processing sub-systems provide p o t e n t i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s to teachers, p r i n c i p a l s , and the l o c a l teachers' a s s o c i a t i o n to represent demands to the various a u t h o r i t i e s i n the school system and to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the r e s o l u t i o n of these demands.- I t i s p o s s i b l e that many of the demands from the i n t e r n a l environment need not r e c e i v e board a t t e n t i o n f o r r e s o l u t i o n or r a t i f i c a t i o n . ,98 Also, those i n t e r n a l demands that, f o r l e g a l or p o l i t i c a l reasons, require the intervention of the school board, because of the structure and accepted routines of board meetings, are l i k e l y a r t i c u l a t e d , not by the source of the demand, but by the senior administration. I t appears reasonable to explain the v i s i b i l i t y of the senior administration, r e l a t i v e to other i n t e r n a l actors, i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n of demands i n these terms. Reasons f or the discrepancy between the number of senior administration a r t i c u l a t e d demands and other i n t e r n a l actor demands notwithstanding, the p o t e n t i a l influence of the school d i s t r i c t ' s senior administration i s not to be underestimated. A l l members of the senior administration s i t at the junction of a number of communication channels i n the school system and are i n a p o s i t i o n to c o l l e c t and combine demands and, because of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for agenda preparation, are i n a p o s i t i o n to ignore, c o l l e c t , combine, or reformulate demands o r i g i n a t i n g i n the i n t e r n a l environ-ment. Pettigrew (1972), f o r example, observed that, i n an organization demands do not flow randomly; rather, they have a d i r e c t i o n a l force toward the locus of power i n the organization. Actors who s i t at s t r a t e g i c points i n the organization are i n a p o s i t i o n to regulate the flow of demands. 99 Demand processing sub-systems f o r act o r s i n the e x t e r n a l environment are not as p l e n t i f u l as are sub-systems f o r the i n t e r n a l environment. As p r e v i o u s l y noted, t r u s t e e s f o r the P a c i f i c School Board are e l e c t e d at l a r g e by the e l e c t o r a t e . There i s not the i n t e r v e n t i o n of formal e l e c t o r a l groups, a ward system, or p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s . Once e l e c t e d , t r u s t e e s represent the l a r g e r community and are accountable to no s i n g l e group of e l e c t o r s or neighbourhoods.. Lacking l i n k a g e s such as e l e c t o r a l groups, wards, or neighbourhoods between the c i t i z e n r y and the board, the school d i s t r i c t provides few V e h i c l e s f o r the accumu-l a t i o n of c i t i z e n expectations i n t o , formal demands of the school board. As K i r s t (1976) noted, when such l i n k a g e s are l a c k i n g the r e s u l t i s the mi n i m i z a t i o n of c i t i z e n demands of the school board. The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e the c i t i z e n demands of the board are minimal and most of the e x t e r n a l demands recei v e d by the board are advanced by s p e c i a l i z e d groups of i n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n such as the M i n i s t r y of Education, p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s , the p r o v i n c i a l school t r u s t e e s ' a s s o c i a t i o n , and school-community a s s o c i a t i o n s . The v i s i b i l i t y of p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s supports (Mathews, 1967) view that p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s are, r e l a t i v e to other e x t e r n a l environmental a c t o r s , most in v o l v e d i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of demands and the frequency of demands from school-community a s s o c i a t i o n s , r e l a t i v e to the frequency of demands from i n d i v i d u a l s 100 i n the e x t e r n a l environment r e i n f o r c e s Z e i g l e r and Jennings' (1974) c o n c l u s i o n that a most a c t i v e e x t e r n a l demand a r t i c u l a t o r i s the PTA or school-community a s s o c i a t i o n . L i k e students, teachers, and p r i n c i p a l s , c i t i z e n s or non-a s s o c i a t i o n a l c i t i z e n groups may represent t h e i r demands to l e s s e r a u t h o r i t i e s i n the p o l i t i c a l system, such as, to i n d i v i d u a l teachers, b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s , or other school d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s . Mann (1974), f o r example, noted that the school b u i l d i n g v i s i b l y l o c a t e d i n the immediate environment i s the most convenient locus f o r c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In f a c t , the school d i s t r i c t p o l i c y hand-book suggests that community members exhaust these channels p r i o r to r epresenting demands to the school board d i r e c t l y . I t i s p o s s i b l e that many demands from i n d i v i d u a l s i n the community and community groups are d i r e c t e d at these l e s s e r a u t h o r i t i e s and experience s a t i s f a c t o r y c l o s u r e at the l e v e l of these l e s s e r demand processing sub-systems. Such demands would not r e c e i v e school board a t t e n t i o n and would not be represented i n the data f o r t h i s study. This might account f o r the v i r t u a l absence of n o n - a s s o c i a t i o n a l demands of the school board. Mann (1974) and Jennings (1968) provided a d d i t i o n a l reasons f o r the infrequency of e x p l i c i t demands to the school board from i n d i v i d u a l s i n a school d i s t r i c t c onstituency. Mann (1974) reported 101 that the evidence suggests that the p u b l i c has very low l e v e l s of knowledge about education because the p u b l i c has e i t h e r l i t t l e access to i n f o r m a t i o n or l i t t l e m o t i v a t i o n to acquire i n f o r m a t i o n . Education i n v a r i a b l y l o s e s i n the competition w i t h other issues clamoring f o r p u b l i c a t t e n t i o n . In the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t the l a c k of knowledge i s exacerbated by infrequent l o c a l newspaper coverage of e d u c a t i o n a l matters. Having l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n the p u b l i c tends not to i n t e r a c t w i t h the school board i n the form of r e p r e s e n t i n g demands. Jennings (1968) documented that what l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n parents do get about education i s most o f t e n acquired from o f f s p r i n g . Demands r e s u l t i n g from such i n f o r m a t i o n are more l i k e l y to be represented to the c h i l d ' s school than to the school board. V. IMPLICATIONS General The f i n d i n g s of the study suggest that the formal school board meeting i s not a f o c a l point f o r community awareness i n that i t does not appear to be a locus f o r p a r t i c u l a r l y i ntense community re p r e s e n t a t i o n of d e s i r e s and expectations. Rather, the school board meeting appears to be the arena where t r u s t e e s are u s u a l l y i n the p o s i t i o n , of r e a c t i n g to an agenda which i s created by the senior a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the school d i s t r i c t which h i g h l i g h t s 102 routine financial, physical plant, and personnel issues. The agenda seems to maximize what Lipham, Gregg, and Rossmiller (1969) termed the authorization function of the school board. Since the findings of the study showed l i t t l e evidence of the representation of demands by the teachers' association, civic groups, or individ-uals in the community, the school board had l i t t l e opportunity to exhibit what Lipham, Gregg, and Rossmiller (1969) called i t s mediating function or what Lutz (1975: 64) termed i t s meta-mediating role. The infrequency of civic participation in the representation of demands presents a possible threat to the school board in performing Lipham, Gregg, and Rossmiller's (1969) third function of the school board, the representation function. Iannaccone,(1969:17) for example, noted that the absence of an active interest in the community in the educational affairs of the school d i s t r i c t can lead to the establishment of relatively small, vocal, and well-organized factions in school d i s t r i c t s than can potentially w i l l their way upon the school board and disproportionately influence the decisional ac t i v i t i e s of the school d i s t r i c t . The representational function i s , in practice, a d i f f i c u l t function for trustees to perform. In the case of the Pacific School Board the d i f f i c u l t y is exacerbated by the absence of ward or 103 neighbourhood r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the e l e c t o r a l process and l i k e l y maximizes the " t r u s t e e " o r i e n t a t i o n of board members to t h e i r r o l e . In such an o r i e n t a t i o n , noted Mann (1976), t r u s t e e s w i l l approach demands i n a way that i s c o n s i s t e n t with, t h e i r own values r a t h e r than i n a way c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the expressed values or expectations of the represented which Mann (1976) termed the delegate r o l e . In p r a c t i c e , most school board members e x h i b i t the t r u s t e e r o l e r a t h e r than the delegate r o l e i n t h e i r approach ( Z i e g l e r and Jennings, 1964). Z i e g l e r , Tucker, and Wilson (1977) and Kratzmann (1977) equate t h i s t r u s t e e o r i e n t a t i o n to deference to the e x p e r t i s e model of edu c a t i o n a l governance. The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n to be the case i n the P a c i f i c School D i s t r i c t . The superintendent and h i s s t a f f w i l l see themselves as p r o f e s s i o n a l a d v i s o r s to the board i n t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s . For Further Research The study, because of i t s l i m i t e d conceptual apparatus and l o n g i t u d i n a l r a t h e r than comparative nature, generates many questions amenable to f u r t h e r research. The f o l l o w i n g are suggested as u s e f u l avenues f o r i n q u i r y . 1. This study was l o n g i t u d i n a l . I t discerned the r a t i o of i n t e r n a l demands to e x t e r n a l demands over a nine-month 104 period for one school board only. There is a need to replicate this study in other school dis t r i c t s to see whether the imbalance of internal demands over external demands is characteristic of school board agendas. 2. It was noted that the Pacific School District is not characterized by the interposition of ward or neighbourhood representation in the election of school trustees. There i s a need to determine whether such interpositions affect the ratio of internal demands to external demands. 3. Few identifiable civic groups dedicated to influencing educational affairs in the school d i s t r i c t exist in the Pacific School District constituency. There i s a need to determine whether the presence of such groups in a community affect the ratio of internal demands to external demands on the school board agendas. 4. This study considered, as the context, the public school board meeting only. There i s a need to determine the alleged.prevalence of trustee deference to the expertise model of educational governance by observing superin-tendent-board communications in contexts other than the public meeting. 5. A school d i s t r i c t has, in addition to the school board meeting, numerous, demand processing sub-systems. There is a need to identify the number of demand processing sub-systems available to the community and the frequency with which each of these demand processing sub-systems are used by individuals in the community. Further, there is a need to document the results of demands made to these sub-systems in terms of whether these demands-are met, promoted to higher authorities, or disregarded. This study speculated that the most dominant orientation of a school board member is that of trustee rather than delegate. There is a need to determine whether board member orientation differs with respect to the intensity of interest group activity in a school d i s t r i c t . BIBLIOGRAPHY 106 Almond, Gabriel A. Almond, Gabr ie1. Boyd, William L. Boyd, William L. Burges, B i l l Campbell, Roald F. Campbell, Roald F. Charters, W. W. and James S. Coleman (editors). The Politics  of Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Pp 3-65. "A Developmental Approach to P o l i t i c a l Systems," World P o l i t i c s , XVII (January, 1965), pp. 183-214. "School Board-Administrative Staff Relationships". Understanding School Boards, Peter J. Gistone, editor. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1975. Pp. 103-130. "The Public, The Professionals, and Educational Policy-Making: Who Governs?" Teachers College  Record, 77 (May, 1976);,. Pp. 539-577. "Rx for School Governance," Journal of Education 159 (February, 1977), Pp. 43-67. , et a l . Schools. Company, 1971. The Organization and Control of American Columbus: Charles Mer r i l l Publishing and Tim L. Mazzoni Jr. State Policy-Making for the  Public Schools. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Company, 1976. "Research on School Board Personnel: Critique and Prospectus," Journal of Educational Research, 47 (1954), Pp. 321-335. Clark, Terry N. "Social Stratification, Differentiation, and Inte-gration." Community Structure and Decision-Making: San Coleman, Peter Cooper, Bruce S, Corey, Arthur F, Corwin, Ronald G. Comparative Analyses, Terry N. Clark, editor. Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1968. "Power Diffusion in Educational Governance: Redefining the Roles of Trustees and Administrators in Canadian Education." The Politics pf Canadian  Education. The 1977 Yearbook of the Canadian Society  for the Study of Education, J.H.A. Wallin, editor, 1977. "A Staff for School Boards," Administrators  Notebook, XXI (1973). "Educational Power and the Teaching Profession," Phi Delta Kappan, 49 (February, 1968), Pp 331-334. "Teacher Militancy in the United States: Reflections on i t s Source and Prospects," Theory into Practice, 7 (April, 1968) Pp. 96-102. 107 Cyert, Richard M. and J . G. March. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1963. Cyert, R. M. and K. R. MacCrimmon. "Organizations," The Handbook of S o c i a l Psychology, G. Lindzey and F. Aronson, e d i t o r s . Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Dahl, Robert A. "The Concept of Power," Behavioural Science, 2 ( J u l y , 1957), Pp 201-218. Easton, David A Framework f o r P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s . New York: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965. Easton, David A Systems A n a l y s i s of P o l i t i c a l L i f e . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965. Easton, David "An Approach to the A n a l y s i s of P o l i t i c a l Systems," World P o l i t i c s , 9 (1966), Pp 383-400. Emery, F. E. and E. L. T r i s t . "The Causal Texture of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Environments," Human R e l a t i o n s , 18 (1965), Pp 21-32. E r i c k s o n , Donald A. "Moral Dilemmas of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Powerlessness," A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Notebook, 20 ( A p r i l , 1972). Holdaway, E. A. "Superintendents and School Board Meetings," Canadian A d m i n i s t r a t o r , V I I I ( A p r i l , 1969). Hunter, F. Community Power S t r u c t u r e . Chapel H i l l : U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a Press, 1953. Iannaccone, Laurence. P o l i t i c s of Education. New York: Centre f o r A p p l i e d Research i n Education, 1967. Iannaccone, Laurence and Frank W. L u t z . P o l i t i c s , Power, and P o l i c y : The Governing of L o c a l School D i s t r i c t s . Columbus: The Charles M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1970. Jennings, M. Kent. " P a r e n t a l Grievances and School P o l i t i c s , " P u b l i c Opinion Quarterly 32 ( F a l l , 1968), Pp 363-378. Jennings, M. Kent "Patterns of School Board Responsiveness." -Understanding School Boards, Peter J . Gistone, e d i t o r . Lexington: Lexington Books, 1975. Pp 235-251. Kast, Fremont E. and James E. Bosenzweig. Organization and Management: A Systems Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. 108 Kerr, Norman D. "The School Board as an Agency of Legitimation," Sociology of Education, 38 (Fall, 1964), Pp 34-59. Kirst, Michael W. and Edith K. Mosher. "Politics of Education," Review of Educational Research, 39 (December, 1969), Pp 623-639. Kirst, Michael W. Kirst, Michael W. The Politics of Education at the Local State, and  Federal Levels. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Company, 1970. "The Changing Polit i c s of Education." A paper delivered at the Bicentennial Observance of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1976. Kratzmann, Arthur. "Trustees Responsibility and Teacher Power -Understanding the Basic Issues." An Address to the Ninth Annual 0ISE-0STC Spring Conference, Toronto, 1974. Kratzmann, Arthur "Policy-Making: Some Theoretical Perspectives." An Address to the British Columbia School Superintend-ents Seminar, Duncan, British Columbia, October 3, 1977. Lindblom, Charles E. The Policy Making Process. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Lipham, J.T., Russel T. Gregg, and Richard Rossmiller. "The School Board: Resolver of Conflict," Administrators Notebook, XVII (April, 1969). Lutz, Frank W. and Laurence Iannaccone. Understanding Educational Organizations: A Field Study Approach. Columbus: Charles M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1969. Lutz, Frank W. Mann, Dale. Mann, Dale Massialas, Byron G, "School Boards as Meta-Mediators." A paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Washington, D.C, 1975. "Public Understanding and Educational Decision Making," Educational Administration Quarterly 10 (Spring, 1974), Pp 1-18. ' Policy Making in Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1975. Education in the P o l i t i c a l System. Phillipines: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969. 109 Mathews, Neville 0. "Decision-Making in Two Alberta School Boards." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1967. Mazzoni, Tim L. and Roald F. Campbell. "Influentials in State Policy-Making for the Public Schools," Educational  Administration Quarterly, 12 (Winter, 1976), Pp 1-26. McCarty, Donald J. and Charles E. Ramsay. The School Managers. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1971. McGivney, Joseph H. and William Moynihan, "School and Community" Teachers College Record, 74 (December, 1972), Pp 317-356. Minar, David W. Minsky, M. "The Community Basis of School System P o l i t i c s , " American, Sociological Review, 31 (1966), Pp 822-835. "Steps Toward A r t i f i c i a l Intelligence," Proceedings of the I.R.E., 49 (1961), Pp 8-30. Mintzberg, Henry, Duru Raisinghani, and Andre Theoret. "The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes," Administrative  Science Quarterly, 21 (June, 1976), Pp 246-275. Mitchell, William C. "The Shape of P o l i t i c a l Theory to Come, from P o l i t i c a l Sociology to P o l i t i c a l Economy." Politi c s  and the Social Sciences „ Seymour Martin Lipset.,\ editor. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Palmer, Monte, Larry Sterne, and Charles Gaile. The Interdisciplinary Study of P o l i t i c s . New York: Harper and Row Publishers. 1974. Parsons, Talcott. Structure and Processes in Modern Societies. Glencoe: Peterson, Paul E. The Free Press, 1963. Peterson, Paul E. "The School Busing Controversy: Redistributive or Pluralist Politics?" Administrators Notebook, XX (May, 1972). "Community Representation and the Free Rider," Administrators Notebook, XXII (1974). Peterson, Paul E. School Politics Chicago Style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. 110 P e t t i g r e w , Andrew M. "Information C o n t r o l as a Power Resource," Sociology, 28 ( F a l l , 1972), Pp 187-204. Sc r i b n e r , Jay D. "A F u n c t i o n a l Systems Framework f o r Ana l y z i n g School Board A c t i o n , " Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  Q u a r t e r l y , 2 (1966), Pp 204-215. S c r i b n e r , Jay D. and Richard M. E n g l e r t . "The P o l i t i c s of Education: An I n t r o d u c t i o n . " The P o l i t i c s of Education. The  Seventy-Sixth Yearbook of-the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r  the Study of Education, Jay D. S c r i b n e r , e d i t o r . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1977. Simon, Herbert A. The New Science of Management D e c i s i o n . New York: Harper & Row P u b l i s h e r s , Incorporated, 1960. Von B e r t a l a n f f y , Ludwig. "General Systems Theory." Yearbook f o r The S o c i e t y f o r The Advancement of General Systems  Theory, Volume I , 1956, Pp 1-10. Weeres, Joseph B. "School-Community C o n f l i c t i n a Large Urban School System" A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Notebook, 19 (May, 1971). W i l l i a m s , Tom R. "Leaders or Lemmings," Education Canada, 16 (Summer, 1976), Pp 28-35. W i r t , F r e d e r i c k M. "Theory and Research Needs i n the Study of American Educational P o l i t i c s , " J o u r n a l of Educational. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V I I I (May, 1970), Pp 53-87. W i r t , F r e d e r i c k and Michael W. K i r s t . The P o l i t i c a l Web of American Schools. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1972. Z a l d , Mayer N. "The Power and Functions of Boards of D i r e c t o r s : A T h e o r e t i c a l Synthesis," American J o u r n a l of Sociology, 75 ( J u l y , 1969), Pp 97-111. i Z i e g l e r , Harmon and M. Kent Jennings. Governing American Schools, North S c i t u a t e : Duxbury Pr e s s , 1974. Z i e g l e r , Harmon, Harvey J . Tucker, and L.A. Wilson. "Communication and D e c i s i o n Making i n American P u b l i c Education: A L o n g i t u d i n a l and Comparative Study." The P o l i t i c s  of Education. The Seventy-Sixth.Yearbook of the  N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study of Education, Jay D. S c r i b n e r , e d i t o r . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Pr e s s , 1977. 112 INTERPRETATION OF APPENDIX A The f i r s t column (FORMAL DEMAND),represents, in partial verbatim, each of the formal demands (action items) presented to the school board. The second column (TOPIC) represents how each of the formal demands was classified using the topic categories of Business Affairs (B), Programs (Pr), Personnel (Pe), The School Board i t s e l f (SB), and Other Governments (G). The third column (TYPE) represents how each of the formal demands was classified using the type categories of Extractive (E), Regulative (R), Symbolic (S), and Participative (P). The fourth column (ARTICULATION STRUCTURE) represents how each of the formal demands was classified using the articulation cate-gories of Institutional Interest Groups (1), Senior Administration (2), Local Teachers' Association (3), Individual Trustees or the School Board (4), Provincial Trustees Association or School-Community Association (5), Individual Teachers or Teacher Groups (6), Non-school system groups (7), Individuals in the Community (8). An asterisk (*) indicates the formal demand to be non-routine. FORMAL DEMAND Accounts for payment Administrator appointment Teacher appointment Teacher, release Salary reclassification Working Drawings Tender Appointment of Architect Capital Expense Proposal School consolidation proposal Compliance with Anti-Inflation Board Trustee appointments to Community College Administrator appointments Teacher appointments Teacher resignation Salary reclassification Temporary borrowing School Loan Bylaw School Loan Bylaw Variation of CEP funds Working Drawings Preparation of Sketch Plans Preparation of Sketch Plans Working Drawings Format for Core Curriculum Meetings Procedures for District Scholarships Extension of Capital Expense Program Extension of Capital Expense Program Release building restriction from two taxpayers Assignment of Building Contract 115 o E H W < Pi . 1 ' i o M i — J £ 3 H o o 1 — 1 '—i 1 — 1 P H H - l P H ( — 1 H J H Pi Pi E H <tj CO FORMAL DEMAND O H E H 1. Re-negotiation: School Funding Formula B P 1 2. Teacher appointments Pe E 2 : 3. Teacher releases from contracts . Pe R 6 4. Bylaw authorizing, debenture sale B E 2 5. Accounts for payment B E 2 6. Approval of Sketch plans B S 2 7. Acquisition of Site B E 2 8. Preparation of drawings B S 2 9. Expenditures for school equipment B E 2 10. Tender Bids B E 2 11. Change of Board meeting time SB R 4 12. Authorization of principals to suspend pupils Pr R 2 13. Reaction to proposal outlining powers and.duties of secretary-treasurer Pe R 5 14. School Boundary change B R 2 116 a o i—i H W < f*S u u u M W M CD PM PH H PH O >H Pi H H H <C CO Transportation of disabled children Pr E Budget Bylaw B E Trustee child care expenses B E Teacher Appointments Pe E Teacher Releases Pe R Salary Reclassification Pe R Rescinding of motion relative to Anti- Pe Inflation Guidelines Debenture sale Appointment of Secretary-Treasurer Pe Trustee reaction to BCSTA proposal Pe on Teacher Competencies 117 o M H W < Pi rJ !=> !=> H U U U M W H 5 PH PH H PH1 FORMAL DEMAND H H < lo Debenture sale B E Salary reclassification Pe R Teacher releases from contract Pe R Teacher resignations Pe R Revised working drawings B S Fluorescent lighting for schools B E Student petition regarding program Pr S Parent petition regarding program Pr S Conduct of survey of parents Pr S Phase-out of School B S Closing of School B S Proposals by Educational Leave Committee Pe R Religious Studies program Pr E Teacher appointments Pe E Teacher Releases Pe R Reconsideration of Religious Studies Pr proposal 18. Auditor's report M PH O H W PH H 118 o M H W <J PS P P EH C_> c_> M P EH PS PH EH < CO * y17. Designation of School as Community Pr * 19. Expansion of program Pr 119 FORMAL DEMAND M PH O H W PH H 23 O I—I EH W <! Pi HJ E=> E=> EH U U M jD EH Pi Pi EH * 1. Exchange with d i s t r i c t of f u l l y serviced lots for land owned by board * 2. Consent for the abandonment of 19th Street B 3. Teacher appointments Pe 4. Banking arrangements R 5. Debenture Sale 6. School Loan Bylaw 7. School Loan Bylaw * 8. B i l l 33 OG * 9. Extension of bargaining Pe R * 10. Plan for hiring principal of School Pe R 11. Teacher Appointments Pe 12. School Loan Bylaw 13. School Loan Bylaw 14. Accounts for payment 15. School Loan Bylaw * 16. Trustees for task force on adminis-trative needs SB * 17. Use of phased-out f a c i l i t i e s * 18. Use of phased-out f a c i l i t i e s * . 19. Use of phased-out f a c i l i t i e s 23. Budget and Tax Rate Bylaw u H PM O H W PH H 120 !a o M H W <3 Pi != !=> H CJ u H |3 H Pi PH H <3 co * 20. Continuation of program Pr * 21. Status of Women Brief recommendations. Pr * 22. Residents' proposal R FORMAL DEMAND Expanded elementary French program Security procedures for school buildings Transfer of Vice-principals to teaching positions Teacher releases Teacher releases Teacher releases From Ministry for teacher leave of absence Teacher appointment Secondment to Department of National Defence Teacher Appointment Teacher Appointment Teacher Appointment Working Drawings Equipment Non-shareable capital funds Debenture sales Designation of as Community School District Counselling Staff Selection of school Principal Selection of principals Trustee attendance at meetings to which they are invited : Women's Studies Program Community School Staffing Neighbourhood Improvement School Loan Bylaw Accounts for payment Renovations Tenders Money for Reunion Teacher appointment Secondment to Simon Fraser University Teacher Releases Use of phased-out f a c i l i t i e s Compliance with Anti-Inflation Board Preferential hiring for bilingual teachers Expansion:;of alternative school 124 is o M H W < Pi CD H o u u H W H C D P H P H H P H O >n P 4 H FORMAL DEMAND H H < co 1. Accounts for payment B E 2. Variation of CEP funds B E 3. Equipment for school B E 4. Teacher Appointments Pe E 5. Administrator Appointments Pe E 6. Teacher Releases Pe R 7. Salary reclassification Pe R 8. Staff Changes Pe R * 9. Indian Education program Pr E * 10. Locally developed courses Pr E * 11. Counselling in the elementary school Pr R * 12. Portable Buildings B E 125 o i—i H W <U PH • J & !=> H O C_> O H W H & PH PH H PS FORMAL DEMAND ° H ^ w 1. Teacher Appointments Pe E 2. Teacher Exchange Pe E 3. Teacher Releases Pe R 4. Sketch plans B S 5. Debenture sale B E 6. School Loan Bylaw B E * 7. School funding B S Policies and Regulations on Leave of Pe R Absence 126 FORMAL DEMAND Accounts for payment Teacher Appointments Teacher Appointments Teacher Appointments Teacher Transfers Administrator appointments Administrator transfers School Loan Bylaw Tenders Hot water boiler Optional Course Fees program M EH W < Pi !=> EH c_> u c M W I—I I P H P H H f O >H P H E EH EH < c B E 2 Pe E 2 Pe E 2 Pe E 2 Pe R 2 Pe E 2 Pe R 2 B E 2 B R 2 B E 2 Pr E 2 Pr S 2 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055664/manifest

Comment

Related Items