ED 120 912

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATEPOT?.

AVAILABLE FEOH

!DRS PRICEDESCPIPTORS

DOCUSENT NESURE

El 008- 048

Cuban, LarryThe Urban School Superintendency: A Century and aHalf of Change. Fastback Series, No. 77. BicentennialSeries.Phi Delta Kappa, Bloomington, Ind.7632p.Phi Delta Kappa, Eighth and Onion, Box 789,Bloomington, Indiana 47401 ($0.50, quantity andmembership discounts; payment must accompany ordersof $5.00 of less)

NF -$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus PostageBoards of Education; *Educational Change;*Educational History; Ethics: Leadership Styles;Political Influences; *School Superintendents;*Superintendent Role; *Urban Education

ABSTRACTThe job of superintendent is tough and demanding.

Although conditions seen to be getting worse, the job has always beendemanding because of its origins and its relationship with the boardof education. As the job developed, dominant conceptions ofleadership developed. The three dominantconceptions -- teacher - scholar, administrative chief, andnegotiator-statesman-have waxed and waned as time passed, yet theyare all still present. They aros-J from the nature of the .

superintendent-board relationship- and from the competing role demandsof that beset the superintendent who has to be chief executive,professional expert on education, advisor to the board, andsupervisor. Practices and beliefs grew up around these leadershiprole conceptions that seemed to succeed in increasing thesuperintendents prestige, salary, and tenure. However, thesuperintendent has always been citcumscribed by a complexorganizational role, the historical vulnerability of the position,and the particular set of larger environmental forces touching thelocal school system. This latter aspect was dominant during the1960s. At a time when sharp external pressure strikes the schools,the leadership pattern with the strongest survival power is thenegotiator-statesman. (Author/IRT)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

*,materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ** reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *

* of the microfiche and harelcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *A via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) . EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by !DRS are the best that can be made from the original. ************************************************************************

THE URBAN SCHOOLg; SUPERINTENDENCY:2 A CENTURY AND

A HALF OF CHANGELarry Cuban

M"..1c

PlaMoSSor TO aismoruCE THIS COPYwow *memos Km. BEEN GRAKicp BY

FASTBACK

77BICETTTENNIAL

99

ed..

TO TWO MD CsamilAt:siai SATirao$SEFI AGPEWEMS *MS T14 NA 04,/.mute of EcoucAlios FuRTHEA AWN)vuction Cu-..DC E P: 5.IsTN REDolls AgaubsuoN Of DIC comratcHtOWNER

el.setnelatias..

U S DEPARTMENT OONIA LTIO,EDUCATIONS WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONONS DOCUMENT HAS BUM REPRODIKED EXACTLY AS NECEIVE0 PITON,THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINAtm° it POINTS OF maw OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY RETIREINC °mon NAtiDNAL NstiTu TEO,

EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

li

'OW' .47-:4".

,-

,...11.._

LARRY CURAN

Larry Cuban is the author of To Make a Difference: Teachingin the Inner City and Black Man in America. A former teacher andadministrator in Washington, D.C., he is now superintendent ofschools in Arlington, Virginia.

Series Editor. Donald W, Robinson

3

THE URBAN SCHOOLSUPERINTENDENCY:

A CENTURY AND A HALF OF CHANGE

By Larry Cuban

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75.28645ISBN 0- 87367.077 -9

Copyright e 1976 by The Phi Delta Kappa Educational FoundationBloomington, Indiana

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword 5

The Problem 7

Origins of the Superintendency 9

An Emerging Profession 13Dominant Conceptions of Leadership, 1870-1910 15Why These Conceptions? 19Emergence of Codes of Ethics: Serviceable Myths 22

The Challenge of the 1960s and 1970s 25

75

FOREWORD

So-called cycles in education provide, in retrospect, invaluableopportunities to examine the shifting interplay between key forcesfor cooperation and contention in school and society. Today aswe observe many developments aimed toward democratizing andattaining locally centered schools, we are well advised to ex-amine carefully the changing demands upon the central adminis-tration. How far should we turn back to elements of individualschool and neighborhood controls that until the mid-nineteenthcentury were a hallmark of our schools?

The historical background of the evolution of centralization isintriguing. The American school superintendency has frequentlybeen compared to the position of an executive in the world ofbusiness. During the past fifty years the depersonalization, grow-ing bureaucratic isolation, and unbending forces- for compart-mentalized authority have_all been challenged by those who wantto restore local identity. These factors have all been disparaged asmore than counterbalancing such virtues as efficiency, organiza-tion, and unity which have been lauded in defense of centraliza-tion ever since New Orleans provided its first city director in the1820s and Buffalo, the first titled superintendent, a decade later.These professional managers seem in their origins to have beenan indigenous development of the American scene; the positionprobably arose as a response to fragmented districts in a systemestablished first in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the lateeighteenth century. As towns grew into cities, as many as twentylocal districts might exist within the corporate limits. Articulariza-don and regularization seemed increasingly necessary and thesuperintendency spread rapidly, paralleling the industrial andurban growth of the nation.

Dr. Cuban is now experiencing the actualities of the back-ground he has researched; one is led to speculate on how differ-ently he might approach this topic after several more years be-hind the executive desk. Meanwhile, we can profit from this moreobjective inquiry which must have helped convince him of theworthy challenge of his present pursuits.

65

Richard E. GrossStanford, California

THE MOSLEM

Few people question the importance of the superintendent tothe future of a school system. A superintendent somehow influ-ences directly and indirectly the board of education, the bureau-cracy he manages, the staff he heads, and the students he is re-sponsible for. What a school chief does and does not do in theseareas affect the community. In short, most educators, board mem-bers, teachers, and members of the community believe that a su-perintendent makes a difference in their children's education.

Furthermore, few people question that the job is a tough,demanding one. During-the last decade, one city superintendenthas been murdered, many have suffered heart attacks and ulcers,and scores have been fired. The job has always been tagged asa difficult executive post.

Consider turnover rates. In the twenty-five largest schoolsystems, twenty-three new superintendents were appointed be-tween 1970 and 1973. While superintendents leave office for manyreasons, there is little doubt that they are leaving sooner. In1953, for the twenty-five largest school systems, the averageterm in office-for incumbent superintendents was six and a halfyears. A decade later it had slipped to five and a half years, in1971 it was just over four years.

Consider the attractiveness of the job. By 1970, salaries for big-city school superintendents were in the mid-thirty thousands.Fringe benefits ranged from liberal leave and retirement plans toa personal car, often with a chauffeur. Contracts had lengthenedto three and four years. Yet when Pittsburgh, a school system of

7 7

75,000 students, advertised for its top post, only fifty candidatesapplied. Two hundred miles away, York, Pennsylvania, a schoolsystem of 8,000 children. advertised fur d school chief and receivedover 160 applications. In northern California, a small, affluentdistrict like Los Gatos received over 200 applications for its vacantsuperintendency. With salaries reaching levels comparable to urbanmayors, judges, and state officials, with ample fringe benefits,with the longest contracts schoolman have enjoyed in this century,big-city school systems find it tough to recruit the best for thesuperintendency.

Why this shying away from big cities? The answer is compli-cated Racial politics, increasing poverty, declining school popula-tion. combined with the problem of reduced budgets because thepublic is increasingly reluctant terspend dollars on schools, sug-gest part of the answer. Nor should one overlook the cross-cutting, demanding nature of the job itself. "For catastrophes,disorders, demonstrations and strikes," veteran Columbus, Ohio,school chief Harold Sibling wrote (shortly before retiring), "allhave become part of the new order of reality for the large citysuperintendent,"

Is it, however, a "new order of reality"? A half-century ago, aschoolman familiar with the battles of superintendents, describedthe position in these words: .

He knows from statistics, observation, and experience that heis in the most hazardous occupation known to Insurance actuaries.Deep sea diving and structural steel work have nothing on the busi-ness of school superintending. Lloyds will insure the English clerkagainst rain on his weekend vacation, but no gambling house wouldbe sufficiently reckless to bet on the chances of re-election for schoolsuperintendents three years or even two years ahead....

The Veteran Battler, as the schoolman called himself, wenton to list the reasons for dismissal of superintendents by boardsof education.

He smoked, he couldn't make a speech, he talked too much, hewas unmarried, he was married to the wrong kind of woman, hewas too old, he was too much of a MAC', he was too much occupiedwith his own affairs....

88

ORIGINS OF THE SUPERINTENDENCY

1 n the beginning there were boards of education and teachers.Boards begat principals and superintendents. And superintendents(among others) begat expert school executives.

In the colonial and revolutionary periods there was a be-wildering variety of schools. Few public and mostly private, theseschools, found in rented rooms, in cottages, lofts, and the like,were most_ often a teacher or master and a number of studentsfrom families that paid for the teacher. In the larger towns,espeoally in New England, the common practice was for thepublic school trustees (or board of education) to hire the teacher.In 1645, for example, Roxbury (Massachusetts) citizens agreedto erect a free school and allot twenty pounds annually for theschoolmaster and set up a governing board of seven townsmenwith the power to "put in or remove the schoolmaster, to see tothe well-ordering of the school and scholars, to receive and paythe said twenty pounds."

Most formal schools were smallone teacher and two or threescore students. The larger, private academies and church-spon-sored schools had headmasters whose chief function remainedteaching. Principals and superintendents, as we know them, hadto wait for the swollen villages bursting with immigrants thatmarked the early decades of the nineteenth century. Once schoolsswelled in size, administrators came on the scene.

For most cities in the mid-nineteenth century, state legisla-tures and city councils had chartered local school boards to hireteachers, buy books, build schools, and supervise instruction.

9

9

1

When cities were no more than large villages, the unpaid, popu-larly elected (or politically appointed), part-time trustee provedworkable. But as city population swelled and soaring numbersof children crowded classrooms, harried, unpaid board. memberstrying to squeeze in school affairs while working full time else-where found it increasingly difficult to perform all their man-dated duties.

As early as 1837 in Buffalo and increasingly during the follow-ing decades, city boards hired principals and superintendentsto ease their offidarburdens. What lay boards needed most helpwith was supervision. When a motion was introduced in the NewOrleans board in 1847 to abolish the position of superintendent,a committee reported that,

a board of directors,-composed of gentlemen retired from busi-ness, who were familiar with the general subject and who were will-ing to devote their time and attention to the supervision of theschools might dispense with the services of a superintendent.

But the committee concluded that "those who are now directOrs... do not constitute such a board."

Boards needed help. As mushrooming school populationsforced them to seek help in supervision, they turned to principalsand superintendents. The princiRalship grew with the size ofschool.

With the growing practice of teaching children by levels,schools of 100 or more children had two or more teachers. Thecommon practice in the early nineteenth century was for theboard to designate one of them, usually the male, as the PrincipalTeacher. With the rapid growth in enrollment, it was only amatter of time before administrative duties began crowding outteaching responsibilities. Consider the duties of Cincinnati prin-cipals as early as 1853:

The Male Principal, as the local superintendent, is responsiblefor the observance and enforcement of the rules and regulations ofthe Board ...

He is to classify the pupils in the different grades above theprimary department.... He shall employ half an hour each day invisiting theSchool ... and shall announce to the other departments,by the ringing of a bell, beginning and closing school, for the recitation of classes and for recess. He shall promulgate to all theTeachers such rules and regulations as he may receive from theBoard. . . . He shall transmit to the Clerk, at the close of each

10

10 .k

school month. all bills for salaries of teachers and report monthlyto the Board according to blank forms furnished him.... Any fail-ure, except sickness, to file with Clerk the reports ... will debar himfrom reception of his salary until the same is rendered to the satis-faction of the Board.

He shall also at the close of each school year return to the Clerkthe keys to the rooms of the house over which he has had charge.He shall see.to the safe keeping and protection of the house, furni-ture, apparatus, fences. trees and shrubbery and maintain the strict-est cleanliness in the school and out houses.. ..

By the Civil War, large urban school systems had begun to re-duce teaching responsibilities of principals. In 1857, for example,Boston Superintendent John Philbrick reported that in some of thelarger schools, when a portion of the day was set aside by prin-cipals for inspection and examination of primary classes, the headassistant in the school took charge of the principal's classes.

While similar in development, the office of superintendent didnot evolve from the classroom, although many early appointeeswere drawn from the ranks of teachers. As one former schoolmatereminded his readers, the first superintendent's duties "originatedin the delegation to him of powers every one of which belongedto the board and that the board still often exercises." Child ofthe school board, the superintendency would mature, strugglewith its parent endlessly, and never escape that fact of ancestry.

Most nineteenth-century superintendents had little troublekeeping busy. Listen to a Portland (Oregon) superintendent de-scribe what was expected of him in 1888.

The ability not only to supervise and direct the legitimate workof a city system of schools, to examine and estimate the work donein every department from the infant class to our eighth grade to thehigh school, but also to turn his attention to the condition of thesewers and water pipes. to inspect furnaces and heating apparatus;to repair streets and sidewalks; to prepare plans and details forschoolhouses, to prepare the specifications for and take charge ofall the supplies used and see to their distribution and economicaluse. to attend all board meetings and keep detailed duplicate ac-counts of the entire income and expenditures of the department. . . .

Our harried Portland superintendent did not mention (al-though he did them) inspecting classes, examining applicants forteaching positions, conducting faculty meetings, helping selecttextbooks, determining which pupils would be promoted, sus-

11

1 1

I

pending troublesome children, and keeping late office hours tomeet with parents and teachers.

But hiring and firing of teachers, letting of contracts, purchas-ing of bookspotent sources of political and economic influencewithin the communityremained the privileged domain of schooltrustees. Some boards asked their superintendents for advice inthese areas; most did not. By the 1880s, with the superintendencya bare generation old, supervision of pupils. teachers, and physicalplant were the mainstays of the urban schoolman's job.

A Brooklyn paper remembered long-time superintendent J. W.Bulk ley, who industriously visited classes daily for his eighteenyears, as one who was not consulted by his board:

There are members of the board who are ranged as old memberswho try in vain to remember ever having heard any suggestion fromthe superintendent touching public school management. Of themerits of the school books, the construction of school buildings,the grading of school studies... . The board never thought of con-sulting its superimendent and the superintendent never-hazarded hisown peace by troubling the board on such matters.

Not all schoolmen, of course, were like Bulkley. William T.Harris in St. Louis (1868-1880), James W. Greenwood in KansasCity (1874-1914), Aaron Cove in Denver (1874-1904), and John Phil-brick (1856-1878) actively worked with their boards to bringorder out of the chaos of mushrooming school populations layeredonto archaic forms of governance designed for village schools.

But most superintendents lacked the skills, charisma, or goodfortune that permitted these veterans to serve such long tenures.Too often an urban schoolman who offered unsolicited advice orimplemented a pet idea without gaining full board approvalfound himself unemployed. Most superintendents at this timeserved under one-year contracts and went about their supervisoryduties circumspectly, hoping to win reelection, as it was called,at year's end.

1212

AN EMERGING PROFESSION

in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, when captainsof corporations were shaking down their organizational behemothsinto trimmer, more efficient operations, and when evangelicalfaith in scientific rationality gripped the intellectual community,a loosely allied coalition of corporate-minded reformers, univer-sity professors, and concerned superintendents found urbanschools slothful, inefficient, andhopelessly mired in corrupt poli-tics. These reformers felt there was a mindless order to the fac-tory-like city schools presided over by drill sergeants called super-intendents. They felt that school boards of thirty and forty mem-bers with standing committees were cumbersome and grossly in-effiaent. School trustees elected by ward were too vulnerable topolitical chicanery and boondoggling. Too often office was soughtby "patientless doctors and clientless lawyers." To reformers thefault rested with how schools were governed.

Boards of education should be smaller and drawn from upper-class gentlemen interested in partisan politics. Rather than thetwenty-stx board members in Cleveland or forty-two in Philadel-phia there should be five or seven successful businessmen andprofessionals transacting school affairs. Smaller, citywide (ratherthan ward-based) boards composed of the "better" classes would.they .felt, eliminate the ''depth of cupidity and cold-blooded self-ishness manifested by the partisan politicians."

The other half of the governance problem was persistent laymterference in a superintendent business. As it stood, accordingto reformers, board members haggled over which grammar book

13

13

I

to use, whether to mandate a sloping or vertical method of pen-manship, whether the board president's uncle would sell his lotfor a new school building, or whether the new desks shouldbe maple or oak. These matters, reformers argued. were bestleft to the experts, the superintendents.

Given their experience and scientific approach to problemsolving, superintendents could deal with these matters in a pro-fessional manner. "The most notable examples of marked pro-gress in city schools," three schoolmen concluded in an 1890report to their colleagues, "have been due to the wise commitmentof their management to a superintendent selected because of hisknown ability, not merely to 'run the schools' but to devise, or-ganize, direct. and make successful a rational system of instruc-tion."

Thus small centralized boards under expert leadership, re-formers concluded, would insulate school operations from corruptpolitics, leaving sufficient flexibility to professional schoolmen toroot out inefficient. archaic practices while installing sound oper-ating procedures. Left to the leadership of superintendents andsmall boards. business would be calmly and quickly transactedthrough rapid approval of the executive's recommendations. Thiswas how a school system should properly operate.

By 1910, reform efforts were largely successful. Urban schoolboards had shrunk from an average of sixteen in 1895 to ninein 1915_ The annual reports of the Department of Superinten-dence were filled with praise of "expert" leadership, "efficiency-minded" schoolmen. and the rapid development of professionalleadership. While the one effort urban schoolmen made to graspcomplete independence from school boards in 1895 failed, theirdetermined drive to gain greater authority met with success. Asurvey of urban superintendents in 1910 found almost half of thetop administrators in twenty large cities satisfied with their powers.Al handful made no comment and only three clearly wanted more.And finally, Columbia. Stanford, Yale, and other universitiesundertook graduate programs for the training of school adminis-trators.

Exactly what did these schoolmen have in mind when theyspoke and wrote about professional leadership? How did theyview themselves as educational leaders? What range of leader-ship roles did they see as available to them?

14

Dominant Conceptions of Leadership, 1170-1910

Three ideal-types of superintendent leadership existed: Teacher-Scholar, Chief Administrator, and Negotiator-Statesman. As withall descriptions of ideal-types, no description of individuals isintended. The purpose is to call attention to pure traits thatcharacterized a conception of leadership role. In the writings andspeeches of top urban superintendents. these three types wereclearly evident.

Teacher-ScholarThe Teacher-Scholar surfaced early and vigorously in the

thinking of schoolmen. St. Louis Superintendent W. T. Harris, avirtual prototype for this conception, bluntly stated that thesuperintendent is a "specialist in matters of education." The mostimportant job of the urban schoolman, he said, was "how tomake good teachers out of poor ones." Veteran superintendentlames W. Greenwood of Kansas City divided a superintendent'sjob-into office work, school work,.and outside work. He saw hisjob clearly: "I do not trouble the members of the board. . . .

They watch the business matters and I look after the schools."Between 7:30 and 9:00 he took care of clerical and administrativework such as "sending out substitutes to readmitting mischievousboys." The bulk of the day was spent on "visiting schools andinspecting the work." When schools closed, he returned to hisoffice and remained until 6:00 doing office work and interviewingteachers. Greenwood must have sighed as he said, "In one sense,I am a sort of millgrinding out everything."

To Horace Tarbell, Providence superintendent for almost twodecades, the dangers before a city superintendent were that"he may become a business man, a manager of affairs, ratherthan continue to maintain the attitude of the scholar and becomemore and more the teacher." Worse yet, "he may become thePolitician."

Indianapolis, and later Cleveland, schoolman Lewis Jones sawthe proper function of supervisors and administrators to studywith his teachers psychology, child study, and methodology. "ifthe superintendent," he said to brother schoolmen, "can come tobe the acknowledged leader in such broad consideration of . . .

education he will have done much to enlarge the horizons of histeachers."

15 .

15

Each of these superintendents wrote extensively on the historyand philosophy of education, as well as how best to teach. Theirview was summed up in an 1890 report on urban superintendentsthat defined specifically the job of city schoolmen.

It must be made his recognized duty to train teachers and in-spire them with high ideals. to revise the course of study when newlight shows that improvement is possible; to see that pupils andteachers are supplied with needed appliances for the best possiblework; to devise rational methods of promoting pupils....

In short, the concept of Teacher-Scholar was deeply rooted in-thethinking of leading superintendents.

Administrative ChiefThe man-in-charge image generated an enormous range of an-

alogies and metaphors in superintendent speeches. Consider"prime minister;" or "he is the helmsman who must considerwind, steam, storm, and tide;" or the superintendent is "the gov-ernor and the fly-wheel of the educational system," or the simple"chief executive officer." Taking initiative, exercising authority,scientific planning of instruction and curriculum, and careful man-agement were themes that vibrated resonantly in speeches andreports of urban schoolmen in these years.

Former superintendent and editor E. E. White chaired a com-mittee that reported to top administrators. The "one essentialcondition of progress for a city superintendent," it said, is that"the taking of the initiative be his right and duty." Andrew Drapercampaigned aggressively for a strong superintendency. "I am notin favor of limiting the authority of city superintendents," he arsued at one national meeting. "If I could . . . 1 would give themalmost autocratic powers within their sphere of duty and actionand then I would hold them responsible for results." His ideasshaped the committee report on "organizing of City School Sys-tems" that he chaired. "The superintendent of instruction," the re.port concluded, '`. . . should be charged with the responsibilityof making that (Instruction) professional and scientific and shouldbe given the position and authority to accomplish that end."

The model held up for all schoolmen to admire was theCleveland Plan inaugurated in 1892. There a small school councilhired a director and gave him complete executive authority. TheSchool Director appointed a Superintendent of instruction who

16 16

hired and fired all of his assistants and teachers without inter-ference from the Council or School Director. Chairman Draper,superintendent for two years under this structure and the manwho dismissed almost a hundred teachers for incompetence(a fact that he often mentioned publicly) fervently believed thatthe superintendent was the expert who directed, planned, and ex-ecuted school affairs.

With few reservations, fellow superintendents enthusiasticallyadopted the Draper Report as well as his phrase that soon becamea maxim among urban administrators: "bodies legislate and in-dividuals execute." So, too, did veteran superintendent FrankSpaulding gain approving nods from his listeners when he saidthat "what the school administrator has to do (is) . . . projectideas ahead, then work up to them." But urban schoolmen werealso conceived as administrators. The concepts of economicallymanaging buildings, fiscal affairs, and personnel, caught aptly inthe often used phrase that the superintendent should-be "a manof affairs," emerged early in the superintendency. Or as onewriter defined the phrase,

By this t mean not only that he should know the details of theschool plant and equipment, from pens and ink to plumbing fix-tures and vacuum cleaners, but that he should be an expert inwarming, ventilating, school seating, decorating and landscape gar-dening and engine rooms and toilets.

By 1890 disagreement over the nature of the superintendencywas expressed in speeches, articles, and heated discussions (con-ducted, however, with genteel courtesy). The lines of argumentcrystallized over whether the functions of a big-city superintendentshould be separated into two distinct jobs, i.e. business managerand superintendent of instruction, a position recommended in theDraper Report, or that the superintendent simply surrender to theinevitable impact of largeness upon school systems and becomeefficient managers.

Former Cleveland Superintendent B. A, Hinsdale saw twoclasses of schoolmen. Leaving out the "nobodies, there are now

. two classes of superintendents, the line of division, which isby no means a hard and fast one, running between business andprofessional duties." He concluded that superintendents are either"men of the office' or they are "of the schoolroom," Given thissplit, one he had written about as early as 1888, Hinsdale pre-

17 17

dicted /hat in large cities the "superintendent will more andmore tend to machinery and adrriinistration; that he will becomeeven more an office man than he is now."

Thus, well before schoolmen spliced on the technology of sci-entific management to school affairs in the World War 1 yearsand after, competing views of the superintendent as administratorhad stitched themselves tightly into the thinking of urbaneducators.

Negotiator-StatesmanSome superintendents, sensitive to the impact of the commun-

ity, the diversity of groups that schools needed for both financialand moral support, and the inherent vulnerability of the position,evolved the Negotiator-Statesman conception. The taint of cor-rupt politics, jobgrubbing teachers, and venal trustees, however,curbed the rhetoric about the political side of superintending.

"While every year new men come upon the school board forthe sake of keeping in employment certain teachers," WilliamCreery, Baltimore superintendent in 1873, said, "it is the part ofwisdom for us not to claim power but to create a popular senti-ment." A decade later, a brother schoolman concluded that the"work of a superintendent is also political in its character. Heought to be a politician." Quickly, he assured his listenersthat he didn't mean partisan ones or "in the common accepta-tion of that term," only "one versed in the science of govern-ment." A few decades later, another superintendent addressinghis colleagues reminded them that,

When we can secure the cooperation of a few Influential menand women of the community. the support of two or three newspapers to whose opinion the public listens. the influence of clubsclubs of the gentler sortthe endorsement of a chamber of commerce perhaps we have taken a long step in the direction of making outside conditions favorable to successful management.

Evidence drawn from speeches and articles of respected big-city superintendents in the decades following the Civil War sug-gests the existence of these three conceptions. Some schoolmensaid the nature of the superintendency dictated one of theseleadership roles, others urged various combinations of these roleconceptions, and some, like R. W. Stevenson, coalesced all intoan ideal: "As the superintendent of instruction, scholarly, judi-cious, systematic, and comprehensive, as the manager of finance,

1818

shrewd, economical, and liberal; and as a. politician, discreet,active, fearless, and patriotic."

A shift away from the Teacher-Scholar conception toward theChief Administrator and Negotiator-Statesman took place be-tween 1900 and 1920. Second, while dramatic in a few categories,the shift was a slow, steady drift from one view to the others.

By 1910, many schoolmen felt their powers had increased.Of fifty big-city chiefs, surveyed in their areas of concern (ap-pointment power, determining the budget, course of study,etc.), almost 90 percent felt that the superintendent's power haddefinitely increased. However, over half of those who answeredthe question felt that the increased power was due to "apprecia-tion of expert administration" or the "necessity of effective ad-ministration in a large business" or "the need for expert manage-ment."

And by 1920, most big-city administrators could appoint Anddismiss principals and teachers, determine new programs andpolicies in both curriculum and instruction, select textbooks, andprepare the budgets. All ofthese initiatory powers, of course, re-quired board approval for implementation. Still, the power to acthad passed from the board room to the superintendent's office.

So, too, by the 1920s and 1930s, more and more school execu-tives moved into community activities. One study reported that 41percent of urban superintendents were officers in the local Rotary,Kiwanis, Chamber of Commerce, and similar groups. A decadelater, the figure soared to 68 percent.

Why These Conceptions?

The Teacher-Scholar conception derived directly from the man-date of school boards to their first appointees. Consider furtherthat part-time elected (or appointed) boards of education author-ized by law to make policy could hire and fire their superinten-dents. From the very birth of the superintendency, then, therewas a fundamental layman-schoolman split as well as insecurityof tenure.

Take the job insecurity. Until the early twentieth century theusual practice had been for a board to offer an annual contract toits administrator. Many schoolmen viewed their job as a delicateexercise in satisfying their employer. Diplomatic skills, a bent for

1 9 19

negotiation, and a high tolerance for compromise were necessaryto survive annual reelection by the board. That nasty word"politics" that so many urban superintendents detested describedsignificant pieces of the behavior of superintendents who stretchedannual or indefinite contracts into two or more decades of service.

Reform efforts between 1890 and 1910 successfully shrankschool board size and duties while turning over more and moredecision-making authority to professionals. Accordingly, contractsoffered to superintendents lengthened. Still veteran schoolmen re-mained insecure. When an AASA president, a respected superin-tendent with a sterling record in a number of cities, was sum-marily booted out of office, as Willard Gos lin was from Pasadenain 1950, an electric shock crackled through the ranks of schoolexecutives. it was no secret that after eight decades, profes-sional schoolmen remained vulnerable and insecure.

If job insecurity helps to explain the growth of the conceptof a Negotiator-Statesman, then professional insecurity may alsohelp explain the further development of the Teacher-Scholarleadership conception and the seeds of the Chief Administrator.

The conception of superintendent as expert can be found inDepartment of Superintendence proceedings as early as 1873. Bythe 1890s the belief was entrenched and often expressed in writ-ings of urban schoolmen, it was buttressed by a belief systemholding organization, rationality, and efficiency as a new trinityfor an emerging profession. If superintendents could convince layboards of their expertise, professionalism, and the rational ap-proach to decision making then few boards could challenge theexperts in an era of almost unanimous agreement that organiza-tions should be run scientifically and efficiently. Professional ex-pertise gave urban school executives a pedestal on which theycould stand apart from and above the messy politics that invari-ably occurred within boards of education. Furthermore, it gavethem a major resource to bargain with in dealing with theboard. In doing so, administrators lessened somewhat their jobinsecurity.

To put the argument another way, the concept of professionalexpertnessspreading as it did from the larger Progressive move-mentprobably was embraced passionately by schoolmen as muchto decrease their vulnerability to lay interference, as out of asincere belief in scientific rationality as the solution to educationala

problems. It would not be the first, nor the last, time that ferventideals and occupational self-interest marched to the same tune.

From the image of professional expert grew the conception ofChief Administrator who conducted the school machine like anexpert engineer. The Chief Administrator .planned, initiated, andexecuted decisions with dispatch. The Chief was conductor andengineer. Leaning heavily on management skills, the school bossstrove for a smoothly humming operation. Consider Ellwood P.Cubberley, the professor who saw the superintendency in pre-cisely these terms.

His (that is, the superintendent) is the central offrce rn the schoolsystem up to which and down from which authonty, direction and in-spiration flow. He is the organizer and director of the work in theschools in all their different phases, and the representative of theschools and all for which the schools stand before the people of thecommunity. He is the executive officer of the school board and alsoas eyes and ears and brains.

It should, then, come as no surprise that after 1910 a variety ofschool experts developed within the profession.

Graduate schools of education began- introducing administra-tion courses. And with the frenetic burst of city school surveys,both movements interacted with the introduction of scientificmanagement a la Frederick Taylor to produce a bewilderingvariety of professional experts. In the 1920s and 1930s, no facetof school administration escaped the scrutiny of education pro-fessors, survey teams, and efficiency experts. Everything thatmoved (and didn't move) was counted, numbered, categorized,and costed out. Superintendents won reputations as Adminis-trative Leader, a Plant Man. Good Personnel Type, Solid BusinessAdministrator, or Dependable Budget Man.

In short, then, three basic leadership conceptions of superin-tendents were uncovered between 1870-1950. Each one waxedand waned as time passed, yet none disappeared. They com-peted; they were durable. They arose-from the very nature of thesuperintendent-board relationship. Competing role demands besetthe superintendent. He was to be chid executive, professionalexpert on education, advisor to the board on the staff, and super-visor. Around these competing demands of the superintendentgrew, as pearls around grains of sand, diverse views of the posi-tion.

2121

.Since boards determined employment, since boards andschoolmen could seldom clarify the blurred lines of authoritybetween them, and since schools operated in a fluid environmentthat often placed conflicting demands upon both sets of actors,the conceptions of Negotiator-Statesman, Chief Administrator, andTeacher-Scholar emerged inevitably as superintendents sought tosurvive annual reelection and, ultimately, to separate themselvesfrom lay interference.

The reader should be reminded that these conceptions areideal-types and-no single superintendent, past or present, fits anyone conception completely. The use of types is to call attention torole demands that emerged from the very nature of the position.Most superintendents combined two or more of these role concep-tions into their dominant leadership patterns.

Emergence of Codes of Ethics: Serviceable Myths

The need to survive in a job beset by. conflicting demands bothoutside and within a complex organization were constants overthe century that helped each generation of schoolmen develop de-fenses and patterned responses to external pressure. From exper-ience grew a folk wisdom worn smooth and polished .into prin-ciples. Each generation of schoolmen contributed behaviors, tem-pered by the crucible of experience that hardened into acceptedpractices. Some may call these principles and accepted practicesthe core of professionalism; others may call them myths. What-ever the label, past experiences of big-city superintendents can-not be ignored.

The core of the new code was- the integrity and independenceof the office of superintendent, meaning primarily its freedomfrom community pressures to influence what schoolmen consid-ered strictly professional matters. Consider, for example, an 1895resolution passed by the Department of Superintendence.

The public schools should be absolutely free from the dominationof those who would prostitute them to political or personal ends.The management of.the schools should be in the hands of educa-tional experts clothed with adequate power, protected in theirtenure of office and held responsible for results.

Almost two decades later, another resolution-condemned out-siders investigating school systems "whose obvious purposes are

22 "

to debase the system or exalt the investigators." in the late 1920s,the annual convention commended school superintendents whowere called upon "to take a stand for what they know to beright and necessary for education in the face of hostile politicaland partisan activity." And in 1940, a resolution warned superin-tendents that from "innumerable groups come demands that theeducational program serve some special or selfish interest." Theassembled schoolmen resolved to "defend the integrity of ourschools and keep them free from the control of all special interestgroups." What must guide educators should be the "soundestavailable scientific thought and usage."

So, too,by the time top urban administrators assumed office,much of the folk wisdom and accepted practices had been ele-vated into ethical principles. The American Association of SchoolAdministrators "Code of Ethics" adopted in 1962 laid out specificexamples of ethical and unethical conduct for superintendents.These suggest the strength attained by some key principles andpractices from schoolmen's past experiences that were seen as soessential as to be graven into a Thou Shalt Not. No inferenceshould be made that school chiefs needed a printed list ofethicalrules to guide their behavior.

These ethical rules as well as organizational routines are citedto suggest that superintendents saw themselves as acting in thehest traditions of the organization and the highest ideals of theoffice. When they were attacked by the press, professors, civilrights activists, outraged parents for what they did or didn't do, akeen sense of injustice rankled them. They were being attackedfor acting not only in what they saw as the best interests ofthe children but also within the framework of ethical principles ofa proud profession.

Consider outside participation. Save for PTAs, unstructuredgroups of citizens coming to board meetings, parent associations,and the usual Rotary, Kiwanis, chamber of commerce groups, the"Code of Ethics" prescribed that the "ideals of his professionrequire a school administrator to resist ideological pressures thatwould contravene the fundamental principles of public education."Furthermore, the ethical administrator "resists all attempts byvested interests to infringe upon the school's program as a meansof promoting their selfish purposes." In other words, what a civilrights representative saw as the rightful participation of his

23 23

group M a public enterprise, a big-city school chief may haveseen as an interest group seeking private gain at public expense.

For conflict inside the organization, an ethical administrator"has an obligation to support publicly the school board if eitheris unjustly accused." Nor should he "permit himself to -becomeinvolved publicly in personal criticism of board or staff mem-bers." Nor may he "make derogatory statements about a col-league or a school system 'unless compelled to under oath." Andeven if the board adopted policies that the schoolman opposed,it is "not just cause for refusal by the administrator to support andexecute them." However, if there was a bad law, the superinten-dent should not avoid controversy; he should work to revise orrepeal the law. Unity was inscribed as the ethic. Conflict, especi-ally if it comes to public notices was proscribed.

On equality, superintendents must be "impartial in the execu-tion of school policies." It is unethical to "give preferential con-sideration to any individual or group because of their specialstatus or position in the school system or community." Yet theethical administrator "recognizes that equal educational oppor-tunities for all pupils may require greater or different resourcesfor some than for other." Compensatory programs for disad-vantaged children is in the highest ethical tradition of schoolmenbut a racial census of transfer of children to achieve racial balancewould be, within the superintendent's view, contrary to ethics ofhis profession.

These rules for professional conduct end with the statementthat "what happens M and to the public schools of Americahappens to America." Thus, in less than a century and a half, froma hired hand to supervise teachers in frail buildings and exam-me pupils for promotion, the superintendency had become, inthe profession's eyes, the linchpin for the rise or decline of anation.

24

24

THE CHALLENGE OF THE 1960s ANO 1970s

From the origin and growth of the superintendency grew thefundamental insecurity of the position. From the very birth of thejob, competing role demands upon the superintendent arose, con-tinuing unabated until the present. Historically vulnerable to out-side pressure, urban schoolmen created conceptions of leadershipcrystallized around these expectations. These views nourished be-liefs and behavior that superintendents were experts possessingthe special competence necessary to manage public schools.

Around these leadership role conceptions grew up practicesand beliefs that seemed to succeed in increasing prestige, salary,and tenure. Each generation-of urban schoolmen reinforced thesepractices and beliefs through their professional associations, edu-cational journals, and periodic meetings, coming to believe thatsuch traditions were essential for professional conduct and sur-vival. In other words, a series of rights and wrongs, acceptableand unacceptable practices, legitimate and illegitimate choicesin a word, normsdeveloped around the position of the superin-tendency. Refined and polished by experience, these normsformed the core of a professional ideology firmly embedded inhistorical experience of vulnerable schoolmen trying very hard tosurvive a most complex, demanding job.

The ideology was deposited in codes of ethics, in organiza-tional structure and rules within each large school system, and inan intricate web of professional expectations of colleagues andboard of education members. Even had they willed it, few big-city

25 25

superintendents could escape the embrace of this pervasive, pro-fessional ideology.

Consider also the conflicting demands of a large organizationupon its top executive. Most big-city superintendents since the1920s, for example, headed organizations of hundreds of admin-istrators and thousands of teachers. They were responsible toboards of education and often took oaths to obey the laws of thestate as well as offering public pledges to serve the educationalinterests of millions of parents and children without ignoringtaxpayers' concerns.

For most urban superintendents there was a perpetual cross-fire of expectations, requests, and demands from board members,middle-level administrators, principals, teachers, students, andcivic groups. With crises breaking daily and enormous demandsplaced upon the chief's-limited time, schoolmen were often forcedto adopt the traditional Stances and strategies that had workedfor predecessors and colleagues to avoid conflict while trying tomaximize consensus within the organization. Such cross-cuttingpressures upon executive; shoved them into playing out roles(each historically defined) that wovid gain and retain supportwithout sacrificing their claim to expertness. Much like a jugglerwho keeps a dozen objects in the air on a windy day, he con-stantly moves about keeping his eyes rovingvery uncertainwhether he has the whole dozen but fearful of stopping to findout.

Still unexplained is why many urban schoolmen resignedunder fire, eagerly sought early retirement, or simply fled theposition in the 1960s and 1970s. One factor may be the substan-tial influence of the larger environment.

When the impact of the larger environment is inserted into theequation. an element critical to explaining why superintendentssurvived or departed is added. Larger environment refers to thedominant socioeconomic trends, intellectual climate, and politicalmovements that create the setting within which the large urbanschool system operates.

The 19505 had been years of national political conservatism,population shifts from farm to city and city to suburb, the re-assertation of humanitarian concern for racial minorities, and theexpansion of schooling. Even if the Kennedy years were not as

26 26

left of center as initially thought, active federal concern for so-cial issues, the rising tide of popular protest against racial in-justiceNorth and Southcontinual economic prosperity, and theexplosion of Great Society programs following the death of Presi-dent Kennedy brought different actors, different. interest groups,different expectations, and most important for our school chiefs,different demands at the urban classroom door.

Save for the Sputnik controversy, which lasted but a few years(1958- 1960), the perspective of the 19505 had schools as an ex-panding, essential operation highly regarded by most urbanites.Criticism there was, of course, but the general view of urbanschools was positive, still accepting the belief that schooling wasthe path to national greatness and personal success. Typical ofthe criticism was the highly respected James Conant who issuedsober reports to the nation on education. His reports pointed outthe weaknesses but mirrored these affirmative beliefs in the rec-ommendations offered to strengthen the schoolsmany of whichwere fervently embraced by schoolmen.

In the early 1960s, however, the situation in urban schools be-came more frequently defined as critical. Whether city schoolshad declined in quality as critics claimed, is hard to assess. Cer-tainly, more information was available than before. More groups,especially in civil rights, were making more demands thanpreviously. "Integration," "culturally deprived," "slum schools,""de facto segregation" became the new magic words. Probablythe most important phenomenon was the increasing numbers ofcitizens who were losing confidence in schools. Old belief sys-tems came under attack. Questioning of education as the "greatequalizer" or vehicle for individual success increased. If JamesConant's studies reflected the faith of the 50s in schools, IvanIllich's Deschoofing Society harvested the growing despair witheducation t grew throughout the 1960s.

What fa uch respected school chiefs as Washington's CarlHansen, Chid 's Benjamin Willis, and San Francisco's HaroldSpears in the 1960s were unfamiliar demands, expectations, andgroups. The world seemed to have changed on them. Whatworked for Philadelphia's Allan Wetter, Milwaukee's Harold Vin-cent, and Detroit's Samuel Brownell in the 1950s seemingly faileda decade later. Carl Hansen, darling of the liberal, integrationistcommunity in the 1950s was tagged as a racist in the 60s.

2 7"

As new crises erupted. as external pressure escalated, super-intendents responded in familiar ways that had seemingly workedpreviously, ways they had learned through experience and sharedwith colleagues, ways they believed in. But their responses wereoften misinterpreted, criticized sharply. They seemed inappropriatenow. For Harold Spears or Benjamin Willis to reject a demandfrom civil rights activists for a racial censusa request that repre-sented a shocking denial of-equality in the two men's frame ofreferencefurther inflamed passions rather than defusing them.They were saying the right things, pulling the right levers, andpushing the right buttons, except that the expected responsesseldom turned up. They had played- the game properly, but nowsomehow, someone had changed the rules and neglected to tellthem. In their terms. the world had gone awry.

Circumscribed, then, by the complex organizational role ofsuperintendent, the historical vulnerability of the position, and,finally, by the particular set of larger environmental forces touch-ing the local school system. the personality, intelligence, andstyle of urban superintendents seemingly wrought little influenceupon what ultimately happened.

While that, indeed, is the explanation offered, it is not to arguethat big-city school chiefs were wholly programmed by experienceand current situations to play out a sequence of moves that werepreordained. Nor is it meant to argue that what did happenhad to occur. This is not a scenario for a Greek tragedy. Personalstyles. leadership role, or some other factor may well have madea difference in response patterns and survival- ratios. After all,while many superintendents were coerced into resigning, somesurvived the 1960s. Harold Eibling served Columbus, Ohio, schoolsfor fifteen years, 1956-1971. Others survived the 1960s intact.Some margin for the ambiguous quality of leadership remains.How large that margin is, whether it is porous or rigid, continuesto taunt researchers.

One variable that may explain the survival of some schoolexecutives is that in times when sharp external pressure strikesthe schools, especially from well-organized interest groups, andin times when public opinion of school leadership becomessharply skepticalin such times (e.g. 1910-1919,1960s, and 19705),the dominant leadership pattern with the strongest survival poweris the Negotiator-Statesman.

28 28

The Rational School Chief conception is bound to ideals, norms,and strategies that minimize conflict and sees all problems- assoluble. When conflict escalates, especially when it comes fromoutside the organization, superintendent .efforts -to minimize _and.eliminate it may seriously misjudge and underestimate the sourcesand direction of that conflict. The Negotiator-Statesman concep-tion at least embraces the notion that either. external or organiza-tional conflict is inevitable, even basic to human affairs. Differentinterest.groups are legitimate and somehow must be dealt with.It seems that for the 1960s in big cities, this leadership role hadmore survival power than other ones. The next decade is likely tosee more urban superintendents approach the-role of Negotiator-Statesman.

In other periods, when public confidence in school leadershipis unshaken, when criticism of schools is unorganized andsporadic, other leadership conceptions seem to have made abetter match with the climate of the times, although one couldjust as easily argue that under those conditions any conceptionof leadership would work.

What is suggested is that any given superintendent is not aman of all seasons. Respected professional to friend and stub-born bureaucrat to critic, the big-city school chief could not easilyadjust to seasonal changes. The fit between the times, the localpolitical context, and the dominant concept of leadership may welldetermine whether a schoolman can do an effective job. Thereare fall, summer, spring, and winter superintendentsto stretchthe metaphornone for all seasons.

Studying big-city administrators historically leaves one with areduced sense of the heroic in superintending. The supermanimage summoned up by AASA literature and boards of educationsearch committees testify more to aspirations than to reality.More modesty, a surer sense of humility about the claims forsuperintendent leadership seem to be in order.

While modest, perhaps even humble, views of what a big-city superintendent can achieve as a leader of a school systemseem in order, the chances of either occurring is slim. A publicwhose confidence in schooling has eroded over the last decadeand a profession still anxious to minimize its historic vulnerabil-ity seem unlikely to reduce their high expectations.

Those big-city school chiefs aware of the narrow margin of

29 29

leadership potential available to them as executives of massiveorganizations may be able to parlay the multiple, conflicting rolesinto a leadership constellation that delivers both symbolic andreal gains. For them to do so, would be, in a word often favoredby schoolmen, a challenge.

3 0

30

This book and others in the series are made available at lowcost through the contribution of the Phi Delta Kappa EducationalFoundation, established in 1966 with a bequest by George H.Reavis. The Foundation exists to promote a better understandingof the nature of the educative process and the relation of edu-cation to human welfare. It operates by subsidizing authors towrite booklets and monographs in nontechnical language so thatbeginning teachers and the public generally may gain a betterunderstanding of educational problems.

The Foundation exists through the generosity of GeorgeReavis and others who have contributed. To accomplish the goalsenvisaged by the founder the Foundation needs to enlarge itsendowment by several million dollars. Contributions to theendowment should be addressed to The Educational Foundation,Phi Delta Kappa, 8th and Union. Bloomington, Indiana 47401.The Ohio State University serves as trustee for the EducationalFoundation.

You. the reader, can contribute to the improvementof educational literature by reporting your reactions tothis fastback. What is the outstanding strength of thispublication? The glaring weakness? What topics doyou suggest for future fastbacks? Write to Director ofSpecial Publications, mi .DELTA KAPPA, Eighth andUnion. Box 789, Bloomirigton, IN 47401.

Ail seventy-eight titles can be purchased for $23.00 ($19.00 for paid-upmembers of Phi Delta Kappa).

Any six titles $3.00 (only $2.00 for members), twelve titles $5.00 (only$4.00 for members).

Discounts for bulk orders of the same title are allowed at the rate of 10 to25,10%; 26 to 99, 2%;100 to 499, 30%; SOO to 999, 40%; 1000 or more 50%.Discounts are based on a unit cost of 504 per copy (351 for members).

MONEY MUST ACCOMPANY ALL ORDERS FOR LESS THAN S5.00 ORADD $t.00 FOR HANDLING.

Order from: PHI DELTA KAPPA, Eighth and Union, Box 789, Bloomington,Indiana 47401 31

The fastback titles now available are

E 301001S .1111201 PROPERIT 1/VIS-ROPE OR 11013101"03 0.4ties Oen:4r "I TsonatA tO,W+Ca

2 INE MT (OH MKT 01 111E PAP S000 !EARSMIEN ARE REMY 101 IEMERSHII IN [DUCIDIDObyEllabettAartV

3- 0111 EVOCATION: PADVISI AND 11011105,OVIOMAIKE CONINACTING; IMO PROMS NOWby ts.atbs(Aost

5. 1 0 0 UAW 11ACTIEM TACIM U*1001 Dy *0(1E. NOV mow cm OPP 51511115 11111515

ley /swot( SI1BONO. A NOM ISSUE. Sr 116110 O.as std Tel etore

S. OWN* ON DiSAVERT q ,ftri 09, trAnNAO Organ 101 1111 fUTURI. ti Ron Rest,

10 *110 SIOXI30 00 10 60131411eII Ati[1111191 NO0015 IR ACTION, by lbw it $1:01..

ON* 00 SIMMS NAVY WW1:4 Ore08.4.n13. OHO SNOUTO THE SC1100tS VAMP *Fos arantra11, UM TO ACHIEVE ACCOUNTASIDIT IM 011E PUSUC

SCUMS-4 rarer bra*IS. NIKO: A *1111 MID OF I(ACRER,ty rostra., oII INDVIATION MUNCH ROD SERVICES IN 100611100

by wad* MarasSTSFEITAIIC MIMING 100111 EMCATION. yA.,, 4.1.-Al 4.01 M

II. 31310116 00101113 REATottau It'.19, SEA °OVUM IN 1111011010 READ a I Sl 9,1 110 IS CRJAIMIT TEACH...SIP tor 1 ' < a

fat- eTto.-31 HARNERS AID moms. 7, 4-0- N o9ier1

Pafht Ls141

H 1111 rota scat 0110111 NHAP STOTINITVlatiov-s ARC& us..

2) 10110311 00111 PERISH t. I O. r,' nr31 MOTION FOR A KW Mgr/ 00:-, we-,35 1110 CAMS IN EDUCADON IS 001$101 DIE a AS$R0011

t fe-Ar.10 101 111411111 100 301 0006 51E01 " "I37 DV 11911110 stombe tA OIWN. ;,

21- [DITEATION 101 1 610001 SOcdn I .-30. CAN 1011111610C1 If [MOW y .. - _

r £0.14 Ft PI ^630. ROW 10 RICOGIIIII A 6000 SCHOOL st 1941-

011:1. I.:,30..f31 IN 11134111 111E 1001[56[0I5 :11114*[ 101

IODEP(10(1C1t4r :tra33 111[CTIVE :CACHING IV IKE 01.116110A1E0 SCHOOL

oy tots to er,33 ONE AV Of 101.030111111 a4NA1 N111110(0 10

(NE notals14 Dv Pei.,31 IEA011.1 *III CA15[3, tr 1"ek-1,'H MAISRAkboRG COWNUNIIY tEADIRSIAP 10 TOPON? Al

1111C SC10010 ;r N }111,1..30 PRI/RAMC EDUCAFIONAI LEAD[AS tHAITENCES AND

Hfw 011311C11043. ty 14. . II tor,31 01/111111 EDUCATION PHI *ARM 300 1 RATIONALE

by OM, S 0 ,wir31 101 11111.11/ 111011 t. r1.4,39 1111111111111 1106101111 100101 lIADERINIP

by fa/RONONISNS 011 1001111100.-, ostraniSie:.4

See onsaie back cover for pfife 32

41. 11UOICA11011. ARROW' SME.by IAA Lt.13. 09110111t AtIENIATIVE MOUC SCTIMU. to Yasuo WA

OaARI DO& All Root VolsaiNA1001 100 11110100 TR SCHOOL As trial PIAO

tt wino( ((Atom of *ma rat113 1[01111116 mount A MCNEIL* Metiel NOW/tO 31011111-IN 1111 M00S: 6/1313 10 1E1100.

bi *0.01 Bop13 fig SCO0013 REVONDIRIIT 101 5(1 [COCOON,

oY toten *toe,43, IRO VD* OF COOPETERCILIASED TUCK*

[00001001; 1111011. ty 01001.443 111E0 11E01 01 C011111.11631A310 1EACK11 1011011100.

1 owing, Of 1011$101137W Rawl gusto sof!!1140[ has

SO IllRIMS Cl CONIIIETICT10610 KAMEN fOUCAIION.UNIVINSIIT Of fillItASKA. of 140000

inoYERSIII ION THE *0I1& TN( 11011(0 MOONSPLAN. by Ilato0 ram

St 131103.111 ElmIONNENI 1110 ENICADOIL b1 &ow 011010

53 11A113111/0111 rstOonocr 111 100611101. A ThomasRobe= krattCato.

St. SIOULATIO/ OWES 101100 CIASS10011.0rOm Deattas$5 SOSO% VOLUNTEERS 1010 01105 HEW

270twesDassatsH. EQUITY IN scHoo itbAtiCaNa. ruyi VAT( 11110100,

ir Vim* Sown51 IOW 50 SCHOOT EINANCINO: DISTRICT POWER

EQOATTEPTO. OE faces Pave

SA. 1111 C0111011 IN THE SCHOOL 04 44440As Oahe

50 1511 I1611 onds Of StuO(Ars. ty bony. filisre60 IRE *010 01111 101103106 C0110001eA1013,01 14101 DosNI. PUNNING REST Of 10141 444 Peng sck.Atat02 1111 non( ire nen Indent COITION/IT

PARTICIPATION.. Ey MAAPEAAtes,

SS THE BATIK Of THE 1001T ICARAWIIA COUNTY.ty f.AL-1911144

61 DV 40111111N1/1 AS 11111001. LATAT'AP wow%05 51000415 TEACII SIODENES. by 9110140t11

14 TOW PROS ANO CONS OfAtoOMIT

CROU9040.F.1 tVatt.111.*-my 134 m 0103

63 A C0RS1WN1VE 11111011111 SCNOOL 1151 SCJI001IN CUPERTINO. Gy W v4,0 P1rst4

Et HOW littal Mt ON *UM 110111 daRNINCI 1HEWORT Cl 1111 NADONAt ASSISSIVOL :4aratIl1$13060

69 011E1311Y 14 Mgt 1012CA1101 REFORM i1) 741EC011f6E5.01 1113011 C,Ost

70 DIMIATIC$ IN lid 1I055I000: DARING *SONS COMEAIIl(. Ey toStoo Ref

71 111011 CIAIERS ARV MUM/ [MCADOO.Sr 114+,v Be': ar4 /Os hold

72 REIERNATWES TO GROWII (OurAtiON WMSTAKE Mont n hoot IA Optit totts ou.ttt t hatel

73 MOMS PEfffISON AAV WIE EDUCATION Of A AMNATION, by 1p0001 mono 1,

J1 IMRE RIO C0A1111015 01 EDUCATOR_ IENTMON0,FIANR6,,14111..seit4totont lUSH. 100 NOAH 11015111.

35 1 HISEOWI Of 0001'000n 1011111011 IMML.by S eauSb sot ovum IIACIIER, 1716 1010. 04 A440,4 O0 400,

!Al *O. B 0#1.14

77 IR( U1100 soon suntionaohcr A CENTURY ROOO NAV Cl CHANCE, OltarfiCutos

7$ PRIYAV UNCOIL FROM THE 11.011ANS TO TH1 /MINI0, OW 1 reasur

SI