ED 123 712

AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTO?S

D06UJEIT REMISE

EA 008 261

Lutz, Frank W. ')

ducation, Public Policy, andPolitics.10 Apr 7613p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of thglNational School boards Association (36th, SanFrancisco, California April 10-13, 1976)

MF-S0.83 BC-$1.67 Plus Postage.*Boards,of Education; Citizen Participation;Educational Policy;.Elementary Secondary Education;*Governance; *Models; *Policy Formation; PoliticalAttitudes; Political Influences

IDENTIFIER Elite Arena Model; *Sacred Secular Model

ABSTRACTThis paper examines the political behavior of local.

school boards in terms of two models of political governance. Thefirst model discussed is the "sacred vs: secular" model thatdistinguishes between "sacred" governing bodies that reach consens9sin private and generally support4he sociocultural status quo and"secular" bodies that make policy dedisions In public and generallysupport sociocultural change.'Also discussed is the "elite vs. arena"model that distinguishes between "elite" politicians who considerthemselves guardians of the public and typically make policydecisions in.private, based on their personal views, and "arena" ,

politicians, ,who consider thetselves representatives of the publicand typically sake policy decisions in public, based on publicdebate. The author argues that most American-boards are sacred andelite and that they express normlessness and anxiety when forced tobehave in secular-arena fashion. He also concludes that.the publiccorrectly perceives its lack of influence on school policy anddesires to participtte were in educttional policy-making. (JG)

***********************************************************************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acquired by' ERIC include many informal unpublished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 hardcopy reproductions ES.IC sakes available *

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRSr. EDRS is not *

' # responsible for the quality of, the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. ************************************************************************

it

NSBA C FPX.:;;S:0, 16113.

."

)IDROO.P

-

.

Remarks By

Frank W. Ldt-z

The Pennsylvania Stare University

4

U.S IIIIIPARTMENT OP HEALY*EDUCATION 4 WELFARENATHISLAL tosirtrwro OP

osvornooTHIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPROOuCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATVE ORIGIN*TING IT POINTS OF VIEW CIE OPINIONSSTATED p0 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

4 EOOCATJON POSITION OR PQUCY

"Ufa School Board Member a Poli:ician or Above Politics?"

(Clinic D-5S)

-Annual Convention Clinic Session

National School Boards Association

San Francisco, California

April 10, 1976

11:00 A.M. at Polknall

civic Auditorium

%

I -Dn,ft a Preseatation forThe.National.Vlsociiition, San FranciscO,

137c) -

if . . f

-:

3., . r ,'1'Educati4q; Public Policy, and'Folitics

11

Ey

,

FrankW. LutzThe ennsylvaiia State University-

.

4

I

The title'of this session is, "Is a School Board Member a Politician or

Above Politics ?,' It is interesting to ask,. "Is the question a matter of

sematics?" I hope to raise t,he discussion "abo4e seiatics"! The very title'

of this presentation is an ottempt to do jest that.

can al l agree that setting public policy for local education is what

one is about as a person, elected or appointed, performs the role of school

board member. That position is stated asa given in. the` following presentation:

Now the prior question canbe restated. Can public policy be formulated "above, -

politics?". The obvious answer FOrallating public policy is the heart

t .

. of the political process and thosewho engage:in it are politicians. The only-

-.,--,

question that remains is what is the style of the politics of edixationJancr4

how effective are the pebple (or politicians) ho,engage in it?

This ,presentation will not attempt to evaluate how effective are 'the

1 , ' ,

politicians who, engage in thelormulation of public policy in -education A4 : , .

few data evaluative,'of that role krfonceweill be recalled; however. The

. % -%. .

National Committee for Citizens in Educ'at n whiCh works for more citizen. .

. r -

.,participation in educ4t licy makir4 says, "Now-more,than ever, there Lists

,.. ...

no .mechaMsms for putaic concerns to be e;kpressed.it,any-sysiematic, meaningful0

. .

-1 1

en. 4

2

an..1 pL-oluttive way on tile i.osue ofliCucational changes..... Despite ti}e

sLatistical dominance of education -[in increased allocations of tax dollars]; in

recent years citizens have become frustrated over their inability to-influence

/.

decisions concerning it." (N.C.C.E., 1975,-h: 1-2).

But perhaps this is merely one d runtle group or a nponal-gathering

N !place for many suchi groups and individuals. (It is in this-manneeducation

, ,--:-

politicians usuAlly pUt off prote'stS about policy, 'stating the group represents.

oc,a disehntled -minority and not the "public as a whole'!). flowever,,the.

.

/

1975 Gallop poll og.school boards reported -that most Amer cans do not Under-.

e `I

Stand what, their_local_school boards ark abouc and only A percent of parents -

. ---.--

..,,,,

of pu-blic,school children felt their school boards-were/doing a good job of -.,-,...

,.. .

representingthe public. (N.S.B.A., 1975.? These data do'not appear to be a--,

/vergood repOrt card'for the politicians setting edOcation publid policy.

/ _.,

'yodels of Political .Behavior in EduOa4on Pubic Policy Making,

4

The remainder of this presentation w411 di cuss various.polititfl models-

of education,governance at the local level, icating the political process

' /--_

defined by the model and point to some crite la that might:a-Mow one assess

,4

.

whether one or agottlye, ypolitical proCess is likely tOrovide the politician "'

':. -

(the school board member) an opportunity,to' ction in a manner that promotes, ..

or corrects the-public perceptions indicated above. 1

'

(

-The folrowing wilr discuss two o, the many possible models of governance..%

in local education and: attempt ;to .diaw a conclusio s abOut eheir appr4riatenes.S,

for govetnityelocal education-under specified conditIons within the ;respective. -,

* constitue'0rncy,

../

.

,

4-

3

Sacr-2.1-vs. Secular

Ma sacred-4ecular continul taas dev.i,lopa as a local school board

governance' model by Iannaccone tua(7/0)i In doing so they drew upon

the,community type continuum of Becker (1950).1 A sacred community is a less

complex form of society where' kinship linka are important. One thinks of

a small rural town as.an example of a sacred community. Communication often is

by informal gossip and not public means. :nsiders know it outsiderg do not.

Valuft re shared by the community-as nor:-.;:s are shared by the small group.

The,status,quo is valued and, any change be couched in the mit on that

it represents a very slight modification cf tried and true practice.

Status and rank is provided in this system by informal trial and error evaluation,

of known insiders. The outsider is at a disaC.-antage, looked qp-with suspicion

and fear and at be may be seen as an "alien expert."- 7

A secular communityls more complex a7d Ciffereniated. Rules are public and

----universalistically applied. Rank and offize are given to the most qualified as

judged by publically stated and applied criteria. Access to the decision making

system is open ant public rather than along informal "kinship" lines. Change .

. is sought almost for the-sake of Change bezau'Se change is valued. The ou.taistef---

expert is 4alued and sought after.

Applying these descriptions:to local school governance a sacred school

_board would exhibit the following characteristics.

1. doncensus-woald be sought in private sessions and decisions enactd

into 'public policy in a ritualistic - fashion by a unanimous public

the.concensus obtained in private.

Values demonstrated by-policy deci.sions would enhance the star 'quo

within the.,sociallultural.

A.

5

1.fr

'3. Te most effective lines of communication and influence would be-

informal and depend largely and "knowing someone" rather than or in

-addition to "knowing something."

4 Status, rank and promotion would depend upon various sets of criteria

some of which are known only to insiders and accomplishable largely

within that society as opposed to outside of it. Most promotions,

would go to insiders and.the outsider would be seen, as the alien

expert required by an unusual situation.

-.A secular school board would exhibit the opposite characteristics:

1.- Decisions would be made publicly and the avenues for influenci

those decisions would be public rather than private.

2. Values demonstrated by policy decisions would,enhance change*withinI

that society.

3. Lines pf communication and influence would to public and available..................

to any person.

4. Status, rank and promo on would be based on personal worth evaluated

universalistically, according to publicly known criteria. Thus

the outsider would often be sought. and employed because of knowledge

and ability gained elsewhere.

Elite vs. Arena

,,-

Tbe-blite7arena model allows a complimentary while.4ame4hat. different

.analysis of local-governance. Developed by"Bailey, f1965r-to desciibe an&

analyze the Polny making,behavior'qf giverning counci1sft-has' been u d

/

chiefly by, political anthropologists in their war

and English,councils. An Elite council:

African, East Indian

5

4:!iReaches concensus in private sessions where the minority excee& to

the dajority will making public enactEleiit of the private consensus.

.

,tir \ . y.

. a unanimous matter in"public.

.. Council, members think o themselves as separate from and guardians

i

;.. of the people. ,''. .,

f4.'s- Vr .

J.z,3. The executive function is part .of the council and nothing can be done

'i:I

,

.

unless there is concensus for anyona can impeed the decision as it

0\ .

.-

, -

-')is operationalized.by he coun\if they do nqt agree with it. ',.

.i v

\-.,

\\4. .

Ark arena council on eke other hand: -41:oi.

,/,-

\\,

J. 1. Makes policy decisions by the process\of public debate and counter,

debate coming to final policy decisions\by majority vote.

, \

2. Council members think of themseivesNe_tgkesentatives of specific

;I- Aki.

aftdiffefent factions or groups and,the uncil is fashioned as. ,..

the "community in council."

1%'"

.

3. The executiVe function is Separate from but re Onsible to the council

and the majority decision is carried out by the adMinistrator as an

1"

executive at operationalizing the policy_decision of\thecouncil.

O

A Sacred-Elite School Board

Councils that are elite also tend tO\opArate in a sacred fashion.- Most

decisions are made in private,sessions; NOrk,ing se5,4onsq as they are called

by school boards. It is there wheTe disagre ents are worked out and'a on- c,

census is reached. The board comes to the public meetingKhichis consti uted:'po make decisions aboyt public policy, with theirinds made up. Here the'n

public is allowed to express their different views aer a deesiOn has beenir-04-

made. Then the school, board, in4t!enced earlier perh4s by privileged groups'

. .

through Informal channels,.enactS byruildni=ous vote the ecision_agreed upon

earlier.

a ,

i.lembers.,..,of sacred-elite school boards think of themselves as

6

guardians of

.and separate from the people. They do not represent nor do they think they

should represent public groups) Blanchard (1974).reported that 87 percent of

board members surveyed in Kentucky felt they should vote their own judgement

regardless of what the public wanted. Whittmer -(1976Y-found a stmilar-trend

in PennsylVania, indicating an-extremely low identificati of-schOol boardsi*

members with their constituent public. Edgren (1976) found that citizens in

Pennsylvahia thOUght the school administrators listenedto them but neither

administrators nor board members actually made an effort to use such public in-,

put when formulating4ducation policy.

These data tend to) confirm other findings indicating that schbol boards

.

are generally perceived by the public as: making decisions in priiate;

viewing themselves as separate from the public rather than as the body repre-,

_senting,the public; making decisions as guardians of the people; basing de-

cisions8

cisions on their own judgementirather than on the will of the peop e; and -,-

en only to informal influenczjas opposed to public influence at Public

meetings. Whether school boards agree or not there is overwhelming evidence

that the public views them as sacred-elite bOdies and not as secullr=atena councils-,

repre&enting the people. Thereris separate and additiona videnci based on,

empirical observation and "third party". data gathering that

-----TPialre-ts-eer-r-e-ot.---in their perception of school board policy

counc type. These inclut-descfiptions of large city,school boa

1968)aswellassller-UoardsOlidichandBensmon1960, and Iann

Lutz,

that the

and

ds (Rogers,

Occone and

v.

14

.

It is well documented,that citizens in the United States believe they

. .

should have an opportunity to participate.,

in the governance function of public

policy development. There are sev

. .. . . -7----

whether they.do_ox not. --These .-ixciude but a-re-not-limited to4_.(1) casting..,.

a votd for the representative of their choice, (2) providing-money or aCtiye (

'I

,

. _

support campaigning for the election of a candidate, (3) writing, calling or .4i

Means,through which they may participate,

personally meeting withthe elected official in order to express one's vieWS-4...>4

on a public policy, (4) assessing the enacted policies and the. represenGative's

vote and based on a determination of whether or not the representative has

behaved in a fashion ,supportive of the.constituenG's valuesr_votint'or failing

ti,vote for'the r...yresentatives re-election. If it is correct that the public

does not view the school board as representint it and that_board members do

_ _not even think'they should vote as the public desires but as they, tht board

members, believe correct - then it is not likely that the assesSMent suggested,

in item four will result in rablereaction. The result of prolcinged

frustration, as predicted in stem four, is incumbent defeat.

Thee "fact of the matter is that one would expect much more incumbent de-.

/feat of shcoOl board members, given the feeling expressed in the research cited.

' V,/ , There are other data that/

0 ,

. .

d to mediate that predicted teSult, howeVer.....,

,. The National;ISchool Boars}- Association (1975) also discovered

.

that most of the

public interviewed could;not name a single member of their board, and could

. not reCall one issue decided-by hat school board. One might' speculate that

1

.

if there is.frustration about pu lic participation in education policy making

the public is at a loss 0 know what to do-about it.

It has alSo been pasta that under tert in circumstances sacred-elite

,

, school board-council behavior is desired and valued by the constituent public.%

c.

4

ti

01 0

J .,/ /

-__ .'

.

Lutz 975) predicted that more communities would valqe elite .

.

coup behavior',,,while more hetroge eons communities would value more arena

council Wit ter (1976) found ev'dence to support this contention./

,

Perh ote important to this grbup, however, is the notion of\r://

. -c .school board. First proposed in a participant observer study of two

local-school boards (Gresson 1976) and demonstrated statistically" by Wittmer

(1976) an anomie board,is one whose behavior is,normless or in conflict'with

the norms it proport hold. The notion was developed based on the. idea

that school boards .ar sociocultural systems and have Values and "norms,ti

shared by the'large majority, of local boards, and used to reaulAe their be-

.'haviors (Lutz 1975a). These norms, and values are commensurate with the be-, -/ ,

Hhaviors of d-elite councils.°

Following Seem- when one finds himself in a normless condition,

are behavibrs do not- coincide with. norms, the situation is anomie and

tidal ,behavior.becomes more common. Given the "Curture of School Boards"

local school beard membdrs believe they should behave in sacred-elite fashions;

they ,come 6 concensui, vote u iouSly and avoid influence by spe,Cific

'community g oups.- Occassiona ly situations arise in a schdol district that

fnrae.srhno1 into'public debate and. non-unanimous behavior. When thisA

occurs the board membersexpreis even more strongly their belief, in the sacred-

elite norms and their unhappiness and unpredictability with their own behavior.

It appears that the usual result of this anomie situation i's incumbent defeat%,

and/or'involuntary superintebdent.,turnovet. ''Irpe Oftious recommendation is 'to1 . %

'4, A

provide norms that .allow board members to represent constitnencets,ied vote.-.. ,,,,, . , , , v

. I .

accordingly; and in non-unanimous fashion under giVen conditions.

10

4

,y.

Conclusioas

a

Based-on the above thefollowin& conclusions-appear warrsnAd._ -

1. School bOard memberS ale ,politicians who lnact

education.

9;

2. School boards ard generally sacred-elite councils whose members think,"- -

of themselves as separate from and guardians of the people.

a) Boards arrive at a concensus about policy in private sessions.

b) Thea-enact these.Prior decisions in public 1y unanimous vote.

3. The public perceives-correctly that they do not have Teich influence

in that decision-making proce'ss and express a desire -for more, A

participation.

a) Board members bn the otheihand,think they should not be

.

rt

,a;

influenced" by community groups and should vote their own

donsci%nces when lhatis in conflict with public wishes.

When,, under cer'edin circumstances, a school board finds it necessary

.

to bdhave in secular-areAllkashiohs(castin on-unanimous vote the

-express normlessnass' and anxiety. This co &don may betermed

and often resultscin incumbent 4eleaea involuntary supe ntend

turpoder.,.

S. To correct

educated to un-

situation it is recommInd a that school oards ,be 4

4

.rstand that noh-unanimous voting beha or is not

only reason but, under'Sbmi.circumstances, ecfu rod, in'order too

_correctly iperform d their elected offices.. Uncle e suc,circumstante'i. _

.

not only ig non-unanim behalior'required`but the nblic ill_

-0,

petc-efve, themselves as

,e

t represented by a u animous.

.

.

a4 rt

6. PreSentlf school, boards are perceived by the Rublic as pnrepresentati

of the people; aloof, uninterested in pi, rlic opiniomv- au in

their policy decision making behavior, Such may be thou of as a

.rather serious indictmerit of a?politiaian in,our'n

1'

centennial year-. --

r

C' .1

.e

's bir_

V

D'

4'c.

'

t

ti

. .-,

16.

f

-

'

Ir

'References411

. "Dees by Concen4us fn CouriciPot itical Systems and the DeStru-:tioa :f

(London: Talleslock Publications Ldt., L.;33).

and CommitObs," inel Wanton (ed.),

2. Becker, Howard P., Through Values to E::ial Interpretatiblio (Durham; N.C.:,Dukec.Uniwersity'Press, 1950),4 .

3. Blanchard, -Paul D., "Most Sch0o1 Board :e-L-ers arid.Their Own Men (and(Womeh)Not. Conduits of the Public Will," The ,..-fe:icart School Board Journal,

(May 1974), pp. 47-48. 1

4. Edgren, David T., "An Analyi).Municipal Governance Issues'

State University, 1976).-

is of Comm=f:y Viewpoint on Education and-WnpUbli-h.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania

r

V.

. 7 .. ,

5. Gresson, Aaron D., III, "External- Tote:-a: nindates and Elite -Arena Behavior inLocal School Boards, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity, 1976).

6.

4iannaccone, Lawrence and Frank W. Lut .z, ?:Litics,Power aad golicy: GoverningLocal School Districts, (Columbugz Ohl:: C'aarles.E. Merrill Publishing Co., ---

) .r-4

Jr'

tz, -Prank W.., "Chltures, CounciLs afia 'S.:I-tool-Boards (a- LibIiSbed-Oapet

wesented at The American Anthropologizal AssociiiiVit Ann 'Meeting,

Sanlluncisco, California, 1975).

.

----__

8. Isptz--;--...p_rank W.,11School Boards as Socio--::::aural Systems",in Un

School Boards, (Ed.), Peter J. Cistone.:Laxijagtorri.:Mats., D.C.

Company, 1975a). . #, . .

erstandinath arid.

Natibnal.Commitiee for Citizens in'Educifln, Public Testimony on PubriSchools, (Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Corporation, 1975Y.

4.',.. . ..

4 10, National School Board UsociationThe Pezale .Look at Thar Schools: ResearchBulletin 19.75 /1, vans:tom, Illinois: :::itional School Board Associaqon; 1975).

11. Rogers, David; 110 LivIngatem Street, York: Randon douse; 1968)-.4.

12. Seeman, Melvin, "On the Meaning-Of AlieLation,"'Aaiefican Sociological Anview,

No.:24 (1959), p; 788.

.. .

13. Vidich, Arthur J. rigiJoseph Bensiminl i:-..-1-1 Mtn and Mass Society, (New York:

Doubleday and Company,,.-1960). . ._

"I

. , .: k.. .

-

14. Attmer, Daniel C., "School Boaft^toutl:LI ,ype-COmmuhity iliveisity .ticl railfc.Attitude Aboft'Schools," (Unpublished 1:,.:7f. dissertation, The-PennsyIvAqia

.

State Universi 1%76). .

.

ty

A

13

+