ELLIOTT, William Edward, 1934- * A MODEL FOR THE CENTRALIZATION AND i DECENTRALIZATION OF POLICY AND AEMINISTRATION 1 IN LARGE CATHOLIC DIOCESAN SCHOOL SYSTBtS.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 ■J Education, administration u
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan |
(&j Copyright by
William Edward Elliott
I 1971 j A MODEL FOR THE CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION
OF POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION IN LARGE
CATHOLIC DIOCESAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
William Edward Elliott, Ph.B., M.A
* * * * *
The Ohio State University 1970
Approved by
Adviser College of Education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Doctor
Donald P. Anderson, his major adviser, and to the members of his dis sertation committee, Doctors Carl Candoli and Jack R. Frymier, for their invaluable counsel and assistance throughout this study.
Special thanks are owed to the experts and to the many public schoolmen, diocesan superintendents, and religious who took time from their busy schedules to read and react to the model proposed in this study.
He is especially indebted to Bishops Clarence G. Issenmann and
Clarence E. Elwell, at whose request and under whose patronage he began the doctoral program; and to Msgr. Richard E. McHale, the Episcopal
Vicar for Education, and Msgr. William N. Novicky, the Diocesan Super intendent of Schools, for their encouragement and support..
He wishes to acknowledge also the warm hospitality of the admin istration and faculty of the Pontifical College Josephinum during hiB years of residency in Columbus, and the thoughtfulness of his colleagues in Cleveland during the final months of the dissertation. He would be completely remiss if he failed to mention the many helpful tasks per formed by the professional and secretarial staffs of the Cleveland Dioc esan School Office, especially the generosity of Mrs. Dorothea Gambrill and Miss Lynne Keegan who devoted several Saturdays and even vacation time to the typing of the manuscript. Finally, to his parents and to his brother, he wishes to express his heartfelt thanks for their patience and understanding, their encour agement and support, in this endeavor— as in all others.
iii VITA.
June 9, 1934 ...... Born - Cleveland, Ohio
I960 ...... Ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood
1961-1965 ...... Director, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, St. Angela Parish, Fairview Park, Ohio; Instructor, Magnificat High School, Rocky River, Ohio
1965-1967 ...... Director, Our Lady of Lourdes High School, Cleveland, Ohio
1967 ...... M.A. in Educational Administration, John Carroll University, University Heights, Ohio
1968-1969 ...... Instructor, Pontifical College Josephinum, Worthington, Ohio
1970 ...... Assistant to the Superintendent, Catholic Diocese of Cleveland
PUBLICATIONS
"Confrontation in Metropolis," with Gary Buskirk and Jean Emmons, in Student Unrest in the Public Schools, edited by Raphael 0. Nystrand. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company [at press].
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Educational Administration. Professor Donald P. Anderson.
Minor Fields: Curriculum K-12. Professor Jack R. Frymier.
Educational Psychology. Professor Philip M. Clark.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ii
VITA ...... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...... vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... viii
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM AND THE P R O C E D U R E ...... 1.
The P r o b l e m...... 7 Importance o£ the s t u d y ...... II Definition of t e r m s ...... 15 The Procedure...... 19 Methodology ...... 20 Limitations of the study ...... 22
II. THE ADVANTAGES OF CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION IN ORGANIZATION THEORY AND P R A C T I C E ...... 28
Advantages of Centralization ...... 30 Lower costs ...... 30 Improved control ...... 32 Greater expertise ...... 35 Advantages of Decentralization ...... 36 Reduction of the executives' burden ...... 37 Better decisions ...... 38 Quicker action ...... 40 Improved community relations ...... 40 Improved m o r a l e ...... 41 Development of personnel...... 45 Increased innovation and adaptation ...... 46 Summary...... 48
III. CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS...... 57
Historical Background ...... 57 Local c o n t r o l ...... 57 Centralization within the States ...... 59 Federal rol e ...... ■...... 63 v Size, Cost, and Program Considerations ...... 66 Size criteria for elementary and secondary schools ...... 67 Criteria for school districts ...... 82 General c r i t e r i a ...... 82 District size and e ffici e n c y...... 89 District size and community involvement ...... 96 Equalization of support ...... 104 Conclusions...... 105
IV. REACTIONS AND RESPONSE...... 121
The Establishment of R e g i o n s ...... 122 The Role of the Bi s h o p ...... 130 The Role of the Diocesan Bo a r d ...... 135 The Role of the Diocesan School O f f i c e ...... 139 The Role of the Regional Bo a r d ...... 143 Hiring and Assigning Personnel ...... 149 Provisions for Curriculum Services ...... 154 Provisions for Financial Support ...... 157
V. A MODEL FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF LARGE DIOCESAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS ...... 164
Rationale...... 164 The Present Organizational Structure ...... 167 The Proposed M o d e l ...... 169 The diocesan l e v e l ...... 169 The regional l e v e l ...... 181 K-12 attendance a r e a ...... 191 Equalizing educational opportunity ...... 196 Adjustments to the m o d e l ...... 203
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES...... 208
Implementation of the M o d e l ...... 209 Implications for Future Studies ...... 212
APPENDIX
A ...... 215
216
C ...... 217
D ...... 218
E ...... 219
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 220 vi LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Six-year Elementary Schools...... , ...... 79
2. Four-year Secondary Schools...... 80
3. Six-year Secondary Schools ...... 81
A. School District Size Factor (The Administrative Unit) . . 90
5. Recommended District Enrollments ...... 107
6. Reactions to the Establishment of Regions ...... 123
7. Reactions to the Role of the Bis h o p...... 131
8. Reactions to the Role of the Diocesan Bo a r d ...... 136
9. Reactions to the Role of the Diocesan School Office . . . 140
10. Reactions to the Role of the Regional Bo a r d ...... 145
11. Reactions toArrangements for Hiring and Assigning Personnel ...... 150
12. Reactions to Provisions for Curriculum Services ...... 155
13. Reactions to Provisions for Financial Support ...... 158
14. Differential Parish Assessments ...... 202
vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page 1. Relationships among Administrators in Parish Schools . . . 5
2. Relationships among Staff Members in Diocesan Schools . . 6
3. Relationships in Private Schools...... 7
4. Relationships in Various Kinds of Catholic School .... 9
5. Present Table of Organization ...... 168
6. Proposed Table of Organization ...... 182
viii CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND THE PROCEDURE
The history of Catholic schools in the United States parallels in many respects that of the public school system. In fact, long before ecumenism was the vogue, some proponents of Catholic education were also very active in the establishment of non-sectarian and public schools. In
1784, for example, John Carroll--later the first Catholic bishop of the
United States— served on the board of directors of St. John's College, a non-denominational institution in Annapolis.* Two years later, Carroll chaired a public meeting in Baltimore called to raise funds for a non- j sectarian academy for that city.
In the territory of Michigan, from the time of his arrival there in 1798 until his death in 1832, Father Gabriel Richard worked closely with public officials to establish elementary and secondary schools.
Though histories of the university frequently fail to mention them, Father
Richard and the Catholic Indians of the Territory played a major part in the founding of the University of Michigan.^
Throughout the Nineteenth Century, a number of attempts were made to incorporate Catholic schools into the then-emerging public school sys tems. The arrangements, where successful, usually called for the admin istration of the schools by public school officials, with religious in struction before or after school hours Such plans were encouraged by
1 liberal Protestants and Catholics a l i k e . ^ The more conservative members jaf both groups, however, eventually prevailed and Catholic schools soon became a system apart.® In 1884, under pressure from the bishops of the
Province of Cincinnati, certain Catholic laymen, and Vatican authorities, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore mandated the establishment of par ish schools within two years in every parish where they did not already exist.^
Parochial or "parish" schools even today constitute the largest single segment of what is usually termed the Catholic school "system."®
According to many authorities on Catholic education, the term itself is really inappropriate when referring to the Catholic schools of the United
States. Bowling called it a "misnomer," since there are several kinds of Catholic schools, "each of which may or may not be described as a system."^ Lee made the same point, perhaps somewhat more critically:
The so-called Catholic "system" of educational institutions is not very systematic. It is more a loosely organized, poorly connected network of schools under the auspices of one or other Church group than a well-integrated, unified complex. Catholic schools are basically atomistic organizational structures. They enjoy a unity only In ultimate commitment. There is little ver tical articulation between schools on different levels. . . . Also, there is little horizontal articulation among Catholic schools of the same educational level. Each Catholic school is operated with almost total independence; each is a little empire unto itself. ^ .
This "atomistic" organisational structure is made up of private, parochial, and dioceasan schools. A definition of these terms may prove helpful to those unacquainted with Catholic education.
Diocesan school system, as used in this paper, refers to all and only the diocesan and parochial (parish) elementary and secondary schools in a single diocese.
Diocesan schools are schools financed by the diocese and adminis- tered by diocesan officials. Practically all such schools are on the
secondary level. Usually, but not always, the chief administrator of
the school is a diocesan priest appointed by the bishop. Occasionally,
a diocesan school is administered by a religious or a layman.
Parochial schools, properly so-called, are schools built and ad ministered by individual parishes. Ordinarily the pastor is the chief
administrator of the school, since he is the administrator of the parish.
In the past decade, however, some parishes have established parish boards
of education to assist the pastor in the administration of the school.^
Private schools are schools owned and conducted by a religious com munity (priests, brothers, or sisters) or, rarely, by a lay corporation.
In mandating the establishment of parochial schools, the bishops
were not unaware of the need for organization. In fact, one of their de
crees showed singular foresight, far in advance of the educational thought
of the day: the same Plenary Council that mandated the establishment of
parochial schools in 1884 also decreed that diocesan and regional boards
of education be appointed. Had these boards been given real authority
beyond that of teacher certification and school visitation, a truly inte
grated' system of Catholic schools might have evolved well before the turn
of the century. Unfortunately, for reasons not directly relevant to the
present study,^ the boards remained merely advisory and, therefore,
failed to develop into really effective forces in the administration of
Catholic schools.
Late in the Nineteenth Century, the position of "inspector” or
"superintendent of schools" evolved in Catholic education, DeWalt com
pared the early diocesan superintendent to the State superintendent of schools. 13 His principal duties were the examination of teachers and pupils, the gathering of statistics, and the preparation of an annual . report to the bishop. In effect, he assumed the duties formerly per- 14 formed by the diocesan school board. He functioned in a line relation ship to the bishop and a staff relationship to the pastor.*■*
There is yet another important authority figure in the management of Catholic schools: the major religious superior.*® The term "religious \ superior," as used in this dissertation, refers to the ranking member of a religious community who exercises line authority over members of that community throughout the entire diocese. If the community is a diocesan community, the superior functions in a line relationship subordinate to the bishop of the diocese. If the community is a "pontifical institute," the superior functions in a staff relationship to the bishop. Figure 1 illustrates the typical line and staff relationships among bishop, superi ors of pontifical institutes, superiors of diocesan communities, pastors, and principals of parochial schools.
It is at the principals' level that the relationships in parish schools become somewhat more complicated. Typically, the principals of such schools are in a direct line relationship— and, therefore, directly answerable to--three distinct superiors: the religious superior, the pas tor, and the superintendent of schools. These three, however, function only in a staff relationship to one another: each has his or her own more-or-less discrete area of responsibility in the administration of the school. The responsibilities of each will be explained below on pages eight and ten.
The structure is usually less complicated in the case of diocesan and private schools— at least when considered individually. Control is 5 Superior Pont. Inst Bishop
Supt, of Superior Pastor A Pastor B Schools Dioc. Comm.
_l______I
Principal Principal School A School B
Legend: ------line relationships - - - staff relationships ———— shared line and/or staff relationships •
Fig. 1.— Relationships among administrators in parish schools
more often unitary, that is, personnel at each level are in a direct line
relationship to only one superior. The exception, when it does occur,
usually involves the religious faculty: frequently enough, the religious
personnel are responsible to the principal in academic matters and, in
"the internal affairs of the community," to a local superior, appointed by the major religious superior. When the principal serves in both ca
pacities, unitary control is maintained.
Figure 2 shows the various relationships in a diocesan school. The
diagram assumes that the religious superior assigns only the religious
members of the faculty. An alternate, less frequent arrangement calls for
the religious superior appointing the principal as well as the religious
faculty. When this occurs, the principal is in a line relationship to two
superiors: the religious superior and the superintendent. 6
Superior Bishop Pont. Inst
Supt. of Superior Schools Dioc. Comm.
Principal Principal Diocesan Diocesan School A School B
Religious Lay Lay Religious Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty
Legend: ------line relationships - -- - - staff relationships ...... appointment of personnel
Fig. 2.— Relationships among staff members in diocesan schools
Figure 3 shows the line of authority in private schools owned by either a pontifical institute or by a diocesan community. The illustra
tion assumes that the principal is also the local superior. If he or she is not, the local superior may be in either a line relationship
above the principal in all matters or in a mixed-line relationship above
the principal in matters related to the religious community but subordi nate to the principal in academic matters. The latter arrangement calls for considerable tact on the part of both parties, the principal and the local superior. 7
Superior Bishop Pont. Inst
Supt. of Superior Schools Dioc. Comm.
Principal Principal Private Private School School
Religious Lay Lay Faculty Faculty Faculty
------line relationships ______staff relationships ...... appointment of religious personnel
Fig. 3.--Relationships in private schools
The Problem
The organizational structure for each kind of school may not seem overly complicated in itself. Nevertheless, when one considers that most dioceses have all three kinds of school (private, parochial and diocesan) and that there may easily be a dozen or more private and diocesan schools and a hundred or more parochial schools--staffed by a score of religious communities--the complexity of the entire ”system” becomes evident. Figure 4 on page 9 presents the organizational structure of a
typical diocesan school "system," that is, of the various kinds of ele mentary and secondary schools within a diocese. For greater clarity,
only one example of each kind of school is given in the illustration.
There are over 150 Catholic dioceses in the fifty States. Each
diocese constitutes a school."system." The largest, Chicago, has over
330,000 pupils; the smallest, Juneau, 84 pupils.^ Obviously, the dio
ceses of Alaska are exceptions. Twelve of the dioceses in the forty-
eight contiguous States have enrollments of 100,000 or more; ninety have 18‘ at least 15,000 students. Any attempt to generalize across such wide
ly disparate systems is admittedly dangerous. Nevertheless, a pattern
of centralization and decentralization does emerge in the areas of per- 19 sonnel, program, and finance.
Administrative personnel.— Bishops rarely if ever consult the
diocesan superintendent of schools regarding the appointment of pastors.
Since pastors in the present structure are the ex officio chief adminis
trators of all parish programs, the superintendent has no voice in the
selection of the chief administrators of parish schools.
Although this need not be the case in diocesan schools, since
they are not attached to parishes, often enough bishops choose even then
to by-pass the superintendent of schools in selecting the school's ad
ministrators. Thus, the superintendent frequently is charged with ad ministering a system whose key personnel have been selected and appoint
ed without his advice or consent.
Religious personnel.--The administration of religious personnel--
whether in private, parochial, or diocesan schools— is centralized, but Superior Bishop Pont. Inst
Supt. of Superior Pastor Schools Dioc. Comm.
Principal Principal Principal Principal Private Parochial Diocesan Private School School School School
Lay Religious Lay Lay Religious Religious Lay Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty Faculty
Legend: ------line relationships staff relationships ——————— shared line and/or staff relationships ...... appointment of religious personnel
Fig. 4. — Relationships in various kinds of Catholic school 10 almost without exception, not in the superintendent's office. Rather,
each religious community administers its own personnel from the commu nity's central office.^® » lay teaching personnel.— The appointment of lay teachers, on the other hand, is more likely to be decentralized. Although the superin
tendent or religious superior may be involved, often enough the decisions are made at the building level by the chief administrator of the school and/or the principal. 21
Maintenance and service personnel.--Generally, these positions are filled at the building level by the chief administrator of the plant. 22 In parochial schools, the chief administrator is the pastor.
Program: Curriculum and supervision.--Although teacher commit
tees may be involved in the development of programs and the selection of text-books, the responsibility for curriculum and supervision is usu ally centralized in the office of the superintendent and/or that of the 23 religious superior.
Finance and school plant.-rThe financing of parochial schools iB almost universally a decentralized function. The pastor, as chief admin istrator of the parish, is responsible for raising funds and for build ing decisions.^ The initial funding for diocesan and private schools, however, is usually provided by the central office of the diocese or religious community. Operating expenses are met by the individual school--sometimes with the assistance of subsidies provided by the dio cese or the religious community.
The present status of Catholic school organization is the result of the inter-play of canon law, tradition ("We've always done it that 11 way"), and the personalit5.es involved.25 Like Topsy, the Catholic school system "just growed."
In spite of its complicated and clearly unwieldy structure, the
Catholic school "system" in the United States continued to expand at a phenomenal rate until 1965. In that year, the enrollment in Catholic elementary and secondary schools reached its peak: 5,662,328 students were enrolled in the 13,399 Catholic elementary and secondary schools of the United States.^®
Importance of the study
Even as the Catholic school enrollment continued to swell, some educators— perhaps stimulated by the movement in public education towards consolidation and reorganization--pointed to the need for centralizing the administration of Catholic schools. In 1960, in an address to the
Conference of Diocesan Superintendents of the National Catholic Educa tional Association, Neil G. McCluskey, S.J., warned that size In itself is no guarantee of survival. He pointed to the brontosaurs and tyran- nosaurs of the Mesozoic Era— monsters with "tiny brains and huge bodies"-- which became extinct because they could not adapt to new conditions.
"Those responsible for leadership," he insisted, "must be keenly aware 27 of present challenges and make required adaptations." One such adap tation, according to McCluskey, was the transfer of the control of parish schools from parish to diocesan authorities. As McCluskey put it;
The parochial school as an independent, parish-controlled and parish-financed operation is an anachronism. For the greater good all parochial schools should become diocesan schools.^8
Monsignor D'Araour echoed the same view in an article in the June 1966 issue of Catholic School Journal. D ’Amour wrote
The parochial school must cease to be and the Catholic school system come into being. . . . Unless.there is a basic structural reform within Catholic education, the Catholic school . . . will find itself unable to meet the demands of the future. . .
The following year in another address to the Superintendents*
Department, NCEA, Robert Mooney, a member of the Lansing Diocesan Board of Education, stressed the need to change structures to meet current needs. According to Mooney,
[Today'-s complex society require^ systems and intricate struc tures in organization . . . With these systems and structures . . comes an inevitable centralization. Centralization in itself is not a bad thing. We can be too centralized, but we also can be too decentralized.
One of the recommendations DeWalt made dealt with the centraliza- . tion of finance. Superintendents, he thought, should be given new au thority "in the most delicate area of all . . . school finance." Some parishes, he noted, can afford "luxurious equipment and the payment of far better than average salaries," while newly established parishes and thc^e in the inner-city often find it impossible to provide adequate support. 31
Two years later, John J. Gaffney, director of the Department of
Education of the Michigan Catholic Conference, told the superintendents
There is real need today for investigation of the development of an equalization formula of support. . . . developed to meet the needs of a particular diocesan educational system . . . and so constructed that it distributes the financial and human re sources in such a manner that there is development of equal edu cational opportunity for every child within the diocese. *
Alarmed by the repeated calls for the centralization of admin istration of Catholic schools, Jerome A. Petz, S.J., made a plea for schools that "are neither parochial nor diocesan but independent . . . 13
The pattern here, in brief, favors decentralization." Although he thought financial subsidies from the diocese necessary, Father Petz insisted that the educational program in each school should be determined solely by the religious community or lay corporation that conducted it.33
Bowling saw the development of diocesan and parish boards of ed ucation as an attempt "to find that delicate balance between centraliza- 34 tion and decentralization considered vital by educators of vision."
This was, perhaps, too optimistic a conclusion. A careful reading of the recommendations made by the Superintendents' Committee reveals that all decisions of consequence were either reserved to the diocesan board or subject to its approval.^ The "Suggested Constitution for a Diocesan
Board of Education" stated that
[The diocesan board is to governj all matters pertaining to the Diocesan Office of Education; the location, opening and closing of schools; the location, opening and closing of catechetical centers; the determination as to. whether schools or catechetical centers shall be operated in given locations; classes; teachers; salaries; educational, athletic and related programs; finances; standards of education; application of Christian principles to the educational programs; and all formal courses of religious ed ucation. All decisions, of the Boardof Education shall be binding upon the Superintendent of Education; the Office of Education; all subordinate Boards of Education; and the pastors, principals and staffs of the schools and catechetical programs within the Diocesan system.
Area and parish boards of education were to have competence in matters not pre-empted by the diocesan board. It is clear from the above passage that there would be very little not so pre-empted. The committee, moreover, "hoped that the very operation of Parish Boards will lead the entire community to recognize the need to abandon the parochial structure in education and replace it with an area structure."37 ' In view of the great difficulty the public schools have experienced in attempting the 14 voluntary consolidation of small school districts, the superintendents'
"hope” seems ill-founded.
Another strange feature of the report was that it said very little about the administrative structure, even though the committee was termed the "Superintendents' Committee on Policy and Administration." The rec ommendations were concerned almost exclusively with' the centralization and decentralization— if it can be considered such— of policy-making.
Most of the studies of Catholic school systems to date have been either status studies or histories: descriptive, rather than prescrip tive. None have tackled the problem of organizational centralization and decentralization. This is not surprising. Until quite recently the organizational inter-relationships in public school systems also had received very little attention. As late as 1962, Griffiths and his colleagues wrote
Organization as an administrative function of education has been largely ignored in the literature and research of education .... This has definitely not been the case in the literature of business and public administration. In these fields the stand ard definition of the executive has alx*ays included that of organization. . . . Failure to consider the function of organization in education has resulted in the development of school systems which have been organized seemingly without purpose--at least not the purpose for which one would assume institutions of this type are organized.^8
Recently, however, the study of school district organizational patterns has received considerable attention in the public sector. The
Master Plan for School District Organization in Ohio, the Report of the
Mayor's Advisory Panel on Decentralization of the New York City Schools, and the Report on the Merger Issue in Louisville-are but three of the 39 reports recently completed. Others are currently under-way. "Reor ganization" no longer implies simply "consolidation." Centralization 15 has ceased to be regarded as the panacea for the public schools. Educa tors are striving to build adaptability and accountability— as well as economy— into the school systems they structure. This requires de centralization as well as centralization.
The answer to the problem of school district organization will not be found, most probably, at either end of the centralization-de- centralizatlon continuum. Rather, each of the significant aspects of school district organization must find its proper place on the continuum in order to contribute most to "the purpose for which one would assume institutions of this type are organized,"^® that is, to help children learn.
An article written in 1969 by the director of the Department of
Christian Formation of the United States Catholic Conference, Father \ Raymond A. Lticker, stated
Bishops, education leaders, pastors, education board members, Religious and laypeople everywhere are asking: How can we best use the resources that we have, personnel, financial and physical, for the best possible Christian education of all the people of God? Evidence shows that by far the majority of the Catholic people want to continue and strengthen Catholic schools. And they want their schools to be among the best, providing quality education in an atomosphere of faith.
Definition of terms
March and Simon, in reviewing the literature of organization theory, reported their impression that "not a great deal has been sold about organizations, but it has been said over and over in a variety of languages."^ If this can be said of organization theory as a whole, it surely can be said of the centralization-decentralization issue as well. Dale observed that 1,1 Decentralization' like 1 politeness1 means 16
different things to different people.Smith considered centralization
and decentralization "two overworked and general words [which] have sub
stantially different connotations to almost all who use or hear t h e n . "^3
Baum, fpr example, insisted that "administrative decentralization
. . . is not to be, confused with geographic or strictly functional de
centralization." He then defined administrative decentralization as
"the distribution, through delegation, of decision-making authority within a bureaucracy."^ This is substantially the same definition
that Kruisinga applied to functional. decentralization.^-* Baum probably was trying to point out that work may be divided geographically or
functionally without necessarily involving more of a share in decision making authority. Unfortunately, he did not define precisely what he meant by "geographic or strictly functional decentralization."
Becker and Gordon saw decentralization as "related to the degree
of autonomy across organizational units." This decentralization, they explained, may be either functional or parallel. Functional decentral- '
ization, as they used the term, referred to the "organization of auton
omous units around sets of different subgoals." Parallel decentraliza
tion, on the other hand, signified the establishment of parallel bur
eaucracies so that each bureaucracy can deal with a segment of the en
vironment." This segmentation of the environment may be made "on the basis of population or geographical differences, or any other relevant
characteristics.
Gulick included population ("persons") and geography ("place")
among his four categories for the "division of work." In his treatment of the geographical division of work, Gulick presented the interesting 17 possibility of "centralized geographical subdivision" and "decentral
ized geographical subdivisions." By the former, he meant the establish** ment within the central office of a number of subdivisions, each of which would have responsibility for a particular geographical area. In the
latter instance, divisional offices would be set up in the field. Gulick implied, moreover, that the division of work on a geographical basis carries with it some measure of decentralized decision making: he noted that there is a "greater tendency to adapt the total program to the needs of the areas served, not alone because of the discretion resting within the divisions, but also because the needs and differences of the areas will be more vigorously represented at headquarters in the general con- sideration of broad policy." 4 8 If geographical divisions are allowed
"discretion" of this sort, they can be said to enjoy to some degree what
Baum called "administrative decentralization" and Kruisinga. termed
"functional decentralization," that is, a share--however small— in deci sion making authority.
Truman's study of administrative decentralization in the Depart ment of Agriculture focused more on the level at which functions were Aq performed than on the level at which decisions were made. His exam ples of centralization and decentralization make this clear. Truman
indicated that punitive action was frequently "centralized," that is,
complaints against licensees were drawn up locally but referred to the
general field office for action at that level. Reports, on the other hand, were "decentralized," that is, they were drawn up locally accord
ing to rigidly standardized forms.
Baker and France used the same term as Truman (administrative
decentralization) but they used it to refer to the decentralization of 18 decision making. They stated
Decentralization is used in this study only in relation to administrative decentralization, and is specifically defined as the minimization of decision making at the highest central point of authority and the maximization of the delegation of re sponsibility and authority in the making of decisions to lower levels of management.-^-
Their use of "administrative decentralization" agrees with what
Argyris called simply "decentralization":
Fundamentally, decentralization means pushing down authority and responsibility to the lowest possible level. The aim is to have decisions made at the lowest possible point in the organization.
Dale noted that "decentralization" may be used "to denote the physical separation of production oi* sales activities away from the head office" or to refer "to the nature of the company’s management. '1-fore precisely , . , the delegation of responsibility and authority from higher management to subordinates down the line."^
Hage and Follett both seem to have abstracted from the levels of decision making and to have used instead the number of participants as the criterion of decentralization. Hage measured centralization
(and, consequently, decentralization) by "the proportion of occupations or jobs whose occupants participate in decision making and the number of areas in which they participate.""’^ Follett, on her part, discussed centralization and decentralization in the context of responsibility.
"I believe that collective responsibility and decentralized responsibil ity must go hand in hand," she wrote..
Glaser preferred to use "concentration" and devolution" in the context of administrative power. He discussed "two conflicting im pulses: that toward concentration (centralization) of administrative power and that toward its devolution (decentralization)."^ R* Gregoire, 19 on the other hand, thought "concentration” and deconcentration" were more appropriate when discussing the governmental structure in France. ^
Villers touched on virtually all of the above when he discussed ' t \ decentralization of decision making, decentralization along geographical lines, decentralization by products manufactured, decentralization by 58 management function, and so forth.
In view of the multiplication of terms used by the various writers and the differential use of the same terms by some of them, it seems advisable to specify the use of the terms "centralization" and "de"- centralization" in the study at hand. Two aspects of centralization/de- centralization are considered in the present study: vertical central ization/decentralization and horizontal centralization/decentralization.
The first is related to the various levels in the chain of command at which each kind of decision is made and/or administrative function performed. The second is related to the size (enrollment) and geographical expanse of the school system. Both aspects— vertical and horizontal— necessarily are involved in any discussion of consolidation or subdistricting.
The Procedure
Because of their very limited financial resources, Catholic school systems must operate with minimal supervisory and service staff.
The present study focused on centralization and decentralization within
Catholic school systems in an attempt to use the resources that are available— physical, financial, and human— as efficiently and effectively as possible. The model developed in this study identifies those decisions and functions which should be centralized and those which 20
should be decentralized, and suggests the proper level for each.
Methodology
The methodology of the dissertation was clinical rather than sta
tistical or actuarial. This means simply that, in a very real sense,
the research instrument for the study was the researcher himself. Books,
.l&dtures, and articles by organization theorists and psychologists were
studied in order to identify the advantages attributed to centralization
and decentralization respectively and the areas in which each might prove
the more beneficial. Ueports suggesting optimum enrollments for elemen
tary and secondary schools and criteria for the reorganization of public
school districts were also studied.
After assimilating the information culled from the above sources,
the writer developed a model organizational structure which incorporated
recommendations regarding the centralization and decentralization of
decision making and of administrative functions. The model was submitted
to five experts in school district organization: Luvern L. Cunningham,
Roald F. Campbell, Richard L. Featherstone, Donald J. Leu, and John 0.
Niederhauser.^ Besides the experts, nineteen public school superintend
ents and assistant superintendents,thirteen diocesan superintendents
and assistant superintendents from the twenty-one largest Catholic school
systems in this country,^ nine major religious superiors or their dele
gates, arid two experts in canon l a w 6 3 were asked to respond.
Each of the respondents received the complete text of the model
(Chapter V) and— with the exception of the canon law experts— a form con
taining forty-four propositions based on the model. They were asked to
indicate their judgment regarding the advisability of each of the propo- 21 sitions and whether or not they considered it possible. They \*ere encouraged, moreover, to reply with extended comments regarding the model itself or the propositions.
Consultation with the experts was undertaken and the opinions of the other respondents solicited not primarily to compare the views of one group with another, as is common in attitudinal studies, but to gain ad ditional insights into the problem. Nor did the respondents constitute a "jury” in the usual sense, since the judgment of the majority was not regarded as the final criterion for the model. Rather, their views were accepted or rejected on the basis of their argumentation.
To encourage comments and criticisms from the reactors and thus reveal the bases of their judgments, the propositions were stated in rather blunt, absolute terms and, generally, without qualifying clauses.
Furthermore, all of the respondents other than the experts were assured that, although their participation in the study would be acknowledged, their remarks would be reported anonymously. Seven public school admin istrators, seven diocesan superintendents and assistant superintendents, and five of the religious replied in some detail.
Each of the experts returned the form with his reactions noted.
Campbell, Featherstone, and Niederhauser recorded some of their comments on the form. Leu replied on a cassette tape. In addition, this writer arranged personal interviews with Campbell and Cunningham and held ex tended telephone conversations with Leu, Niederhauser, and Featherstone to discuss their reactions to the model.
The reactions of the respondents were tallied on one of the reply forms. A notation was made after each proposition indicating which of 22 the respondents had commented on that item. Those making more general comments were also noted.
The comments and criticisms of the experts and other respondents were considered and corrections xcere made in the model where, in the judgment of this writer, such changes were warranted. The corrected model is presented in Chapter V. Where additions or changes of a sub stantive nature were made, the addition or change was indicated by ital ics. In the latter case, the original text was given in the footnotes.
Limitations of the study
This dissertation was directly concerned only with the centraliza tion and decentralization of decision making and of administrative func tions in large diocesan school systems. The model organizational struc ture proposed herein ..was intended specifically for a school system en rolling 120,000 pupils. Nevertheless, the recommendations made in the study are stated in terms generalizable to other large diocesan school systems, that is, to systems enrolling 40,000 or more pupils. They can be adapted to smaller systems as well. 23
CHAPTER I
REFERENCES
^A. M. Melville, "Carroll, John," New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967, III, 152,
^John Gilmary Shea, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll 1763-1815 (New York: John G. Shea, 1888), pp. 266-287,
3j. A, Burns, The Catholic School System in the United States, . (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909), pp. 180-198. For the Indians' donation of land to endow the University, see Article Sixteen in the Treaty of Fort Meigs, 1817, quoted by George Pare, The Catholic Church in Detroit: 1701-188 (Detroit: Gabriel Richard Press, 1951), p, 630,
^For the arrangements in Lowell, Mass., in 1835, see Robert H, Lord, John E. Sexton, and Edward T. Harrington, History of the Archdio cese of Boston:1604-1943, Vol. II (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1944), pp. 314-319. For Poughkeepsie, N. Y., in 1873, and Faribault, Minn., in 1891, see J. A. Burns, Growth and Development of the Catholic School Sys tem in the United States (New York: Benziger Brotjers, 1912), pp. 253- 267. Similar arrangements had been suggested by Archbishop Hughes of New York in 1840 and Bishop Gilmour of Cleveland in 1873, both unsuc cessfully. For Hughes, see Burns (1908), pp. 368-370. For Gilmour, see George F. Houck, A History of Catholicity in Northern Ohio and in the Dio cese of Cleveland (Cleveland: Press of J. B. Savage, 1903), pp. 114-115.
■*Gov. Seward of New York, after consulting with two prominent Protestant clergymen, recommended the establishment of schools in \diich the children of immigrants might be taught by "teachers speaking the same language with themselves, and professing the same faith." See Ed ward M. Connors, Church-State Relationships in Education in the State of New York (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1951) n. 1, p. 16; and B u m s (1908), p. 362.
^Thomas T. McAvoy, "Public Schools vs. Catholic Schools and James McMaster," Review of Politics, XXVIII, (January, 1966), pp. 19-46; James Michael Reardon, Catholic Church in the Diocese of St. Paul (St. Paul: North Central Publishing Company, 1952), pp. 290-303; Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade 1800-1860 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1938), pp. 151-152; and John R. G. Hassard, Life of the Most Reverend John Hughes. P.P., First Archbishop of New York (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1866), pp. 243-245.
^Burns (1912), pp. 186-187 and 189-196; McAvoy, pp. 43-46.
80fficial Catholic Directory (New York: P. J. Kenedy fie Sons, 196.9), general summary; and Reginald A. Neuwien, ed., Catholic Schools in Action: The Notre Dame Study of Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the 24
United States (Notre Dame, Infl.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), pp. 44 and 46. 9 Sister Ann Virginia Bowling. "Two Emerging and Evolving Adminis trative Structures in Catholic Education in the United States: Diocesan and Parish Boards of Education," (unpubl j-ihed Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1968), p. 17.
James Michael Lee, "Catholic Education in the United States," in Catholic Education in the Western World, ed. by James Michael Lee (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967), pp. 266-267.
**Bowling, pp. 40-42. 12 Ibid., pp. 29-32; Report of the Superintendents' Committee on Policy and Administration, National Catholic Educational Association, The Voice of the Community: The Board Movement in Catholic Education, O ’Neil C. D'Araour, chairman (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1967), pp. 3, 6-7; D'Amour, "The 'Control' Structure of Catholic Education," National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, LXIII (August, 1966), p. 268; James R. Deneen, "Status of System-Wide School Boards in the Catholic Dioceses in the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1968), pp. 18-26.
^Homer Clement DeWalt, "An Analysis of the Status and the Func tions of the Diocesan School Superintendency in the United States," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1965), p. 19.
^John M. Voelker, The Diocesan Superintendent of Schools: A Study of the Historical Development and Functional Status of His Office, (Washington, D.G.: Catholic University of America Press, 1935), pp. 6-23.
^DeWalt, p. 29. DeWalt termed the relationship "staff" in both instances. The term is not an accurate description of the superintendent's relationship to the bishop, however, since he acts as the bishop's dele gate and is answerable to him.
*®Daniel R. Davies and James R. Deneen, New Patterns for Catholic Education: The Board Movement in Theory and Practice (New London, Conn.: Croft Educational Services, 1968), p. 4.
^ Official Catholic Directory (New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1969), pp. 172-375, and General Summary.
^®"Here*s What Is Happening to Catholic Schools in the U.S.A.," U.S. Catholic, XXXII (April, 1967), p. 17.
19DeWalt, pp. 72-78, 84-99, 117, and 122-128.
^ I b i d ., pp. 91 and 94. 21 Ibid., pp. 87-88, 94, and 243; Davies and Deneen, p. 4. The 25 high percentage of appointments of parochial school teachers by religious superiors (reported by DeWalt on p. 87) may be accounted for by schools staffed almost exclusively with religious personnel.
22DeWalt, pp. 242-243. 23Ibid., pp. 72-77. 24" 'Ibid., p. 242; Bowling, p. 18.
25DeWalt, p. 84 26 Official Catholic Directory (1965), General Summary.
27Neil G. McCluskey, "The Dinosaur and the Catholic School,” Catholic Mind, LVIII (July-August, 1960), pp. 323-331.
28Ibid., p. 115.
^O'Neil, C. D'Amour, "Structural Change in Catholic Schools,” Catholic School Journal, ,LXVI (June, 1966), p. 28. Emphasis in original.
^Robert Mooney, "Evolution in the Catholic School System," Nat ional Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, LXIV (August, 1967), p. 103.
^DeWalt, pp. 203-204. See Bowling, pp. 148-150.
J John L. Gaffney, "Changing Concepts for Financing," National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, LXIV (August, 1967), p. 95. 33 Jerome A. Petz, S.J., "Independence vs. Centralization," National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, LXV (February, 1969), pp. 29-30.
^^Bowling, p. 147. .
33Report of the Superintendents' Committee on Policy and Adminis tration, National Catholic Educational Association, The Voice of the Community? The Board Movement in Catholic Education (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1967), pp. 20-22.
38Ibid., p. 14.
37Ibid., p. 36. OQ ...... JODaniel E. Griffiths et al.. Organizing Schools for Effective Education (Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1962) p. 3.
3 9 • ■ ...... - - ... Project Staff, A Master Plan for School District Organization in Ohio (Columbus, Ohio: State Department of Education, 1966); Report of the Mayor's Advisory panel on Decentralization of the New York City Schools, Reconnection for Learning: A Community School System for New York City 26
(New York: The Advisory Panel, 1967); Luvern L. Cunningham, et al., Re port on the Merger Issue to the Louisville Public School System and the Jefferson County Public School System ([Louisville, Ky.:] Louisville Board of Education and Jefferson County Board of Education, 1966).
^Griffiths, et al., p. 3.
4lRayraond A. Lucker, "Changes in Catholic Education Policy," Mod ern Society, XXI (September-October, 1969), p. 66
^James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley £ Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 5.
43Ernest Dale, "A Study of the Problems of Centralization and De centralization in Relation to Private Enterprise," in The Balance Between Centralization and Decentralization in Managerial Control, ed.by H. J. Kruisinga (Leiden: K. E. Stenfert Kroese N.V., 1954), p. 27.
^Geo. Albert Smith, Jr., Managing Geographically Decentralized Companies (Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Ad ministration, Division of Research, 1958), p. 13.
^ B e r n a r d H. Baum, Decentralization of Authority in a Bureaucracy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 22-23.
^Functional decentralization, according to Kruisinga, refers to "the authority relationships existing between various management levels of the organization and implies as such the process of delegating mana gerial powers and responsibilities from the top of thehierarchy to exec utives down the line." Kruisinga, p. 3.
^Selwyn W. Becker and Gerald Gordon, "An Entrepreneurial Theory of Formal Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, XI (December, 1966), pp. 337 and 339-340.
^®Luther Gulick, "Notes on the Theory of Organization," in Papers on the Science of Administration, ed. by Luther Gulickand L. Urwick (New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1937), pp. 28-30. Emphasis added.
^Perhaps this is what Baum meant by functional decentralization.
^^David Bicknell Truman, Administrative Decentralization: A Study of the Chicago Field Offices of the United States Department of Agricul ture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 122 and 82. He concluded, moreover, that although the Department espoused a policy of decentralization, the rigid standardization of practices and the require ment of "approvals" actually resulted in a highly centralized operation.
-*^Helen Baker and Robert R. France, Centralization and Decentral ization in Industrial Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Industrial-Relations Section, Department of Economics and Sociology, Princeton University, 1954), p. 20. 27 •^Cliris Argyris, Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Ef fectiveness (Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962), p. 3.
-^Ernest Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, Research Report Number 20 (New York: American Management Association, 1952), p. 149.
-^Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," Administra-- tive Science Quarterly, X (December 1965), p. 295.
^-*Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1942), p. 79.
56constock Glaser, Administrative Procedure: A Practical Handbook for the Administrative Analyst (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1941), p. 50.
^?R. Gregoire, "A Study of the Problems of Centralization and De centralization in Pvelation to Government Organization," in Kruisinga, p. 74.
^ R a y m o n d Villers, "Control and Freedom in a Decentralized Company," Harvard Business Review, XXXII (March-April, 1954), p. 89.
59The experts consulted for this study have written major works dealing with school district organization, served as consultants to school systems, and/or did their doctoral research work In this area. Their present positions are indicated in Appendix A.
60See Appendix B. 61 See Appendix C.
^See Appendix D.
^See Appendix E CHAPTER II
THE ADVANTAGES OF CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION
IN ORGANIZATION THEORY AND PRACTICE
Centralization and decentralization are antithetical movements along a continuum running from absolute centralization to total decen tralization. Neither is found in its purest form in any formal organi zation since a formal organization is, by definition, a "system of consciously coordinated activities of forces of two or more persons."*
"Coordination" implies at least a measure of centralization; the division of work among "two or more persons," some measure of decentralization.
The degree and kind of each, of course, differ from theory to theory according to the perspective of the theorist.
Some theorists have insisted on a very high level of centraliza tion in regard to decision making. One such theorist was Max Weber.
Weber approached absolute centralization in his emphasis of the "ration al" character of monocratic bureaucracies possessing a strict hierarchy of authority. Victor A. Thompson has described Weber's stereotype of the ideal bureaucratic organization as
A great hierarchy of superior-subordinate relations in which the person at the top, assumed to be omniscient, gives the gen eral order that initiates all activity. His immediate subor dinates make the order more specific for their subordinates; the latter do the same for theirs, etc. . . . All authority and ioi- ation are cascaded down in this way by successive delegations.
The largest number of theorists are found toward the middle of
28 29
the continuum. Among them is the group March and Simon have labeled the "administrative management theorists." Luther Gulick, Henri Fayol, and Lyndall Urwick are representative of this position. These theorists recognize the need for both centralization and decentralization. Henri
Fayol's observation has been repeated frequently in the literature of
this school:
Centralization is not a system of management good or bad of itself . . . The question of centralization or decentralization is a simple question of proportion, it is a matter of finding the optimum degree for the particular concern.**
The proponents of "human relations theory," "democratic adminis tration," and "participative management" are strongly in favor of decen
tralization, although most recognize that some "rationality" is essential
to organization structure. This group includes Mary Parker Follett,
Elton Mayo, Victor A. Thompson, Warren Bennis, and Rensis Likert. Their
theories are concerned mainly with factors of morale and/or profession alism.
The present chapter is a summary of the many advantages claimed for centralization and/or decentralization in the literature of all
three schools. A great deal has been drawn from the practical experi ence of executives. Very little as yet has been "subjected to the rig orous scrutiny of scientific method.""* This is not surprising. The problems considered in the structuring of large, complex organizations do not lend themselves readily to rigidly controlled laboratory experi ments. On the other hand, there has been, a kind of "validation," par
ticularly of those examples drawn from the business world. Businesses not enjoying a total monopoly must be sufficiently responsive to the in
ternal demands of the organization and to the demands of the environment 30
if they are long to survive.® Historical research, when coupled with
the practical experience of successful executives, can provide valuable
insights into the relative benefits of centralization vis-a-vis decen
tralization. Chandler expressed it very well when he wrote
Historically, administrators have rarely changed their dally routine and their positions of power except under the strongest pressures. Therefore a study of the creation of new administra tive forms and methods should point to urgent needs and compel ling opportunities both within and without the firm.7
Advantages of Centralization
Lower costs
Since the turn of the century, executives of large corporations have identified volume buying as a major economy resulting from large-
scale centralized operations.® Weber made the same claim for the centra
lized handling of government finance. "Bureaucratic administration," he wrote, "is usually more 'economical' in character than other forms
of administration"— even though, on the surface, it may appear more
9 costly. Economies of this sort are frequently called "complementari
ties" or "economies of scale." Morris explained that "a complementarity
exists when it is more profitable to perform a group of activities to
gether in the same organizational unit than it is to perform them
separately in different units."*'® Centralized purchasing and warehousing
are among today's most widely accepted complementarities.*'*’
Economy may also be achieved through the centralization of serv
ices and equipment vdiich could not be put to full use in the individual
divisions of the organization. 12 Morris listed "equipment pools, central
inventories, secretarial pools, and centralized computer facilities" as 13 typical examples. 31
Henderson suggested another economy: the use of lower-salaried personnel to perform tasks after decisions about the "best" methods had 14 been made by central office experts.
All of the above economies are subsumed in the second corollary of Hage’s axiomatic summary of organization theory: "the higher the 15 centralization, the higher the efficiency.” By "higher efficiency”
Hage meant lower cost per unit produced.*® He warned, however, that the relationships stated in the axioms and corollaries were "curvilinear," that is, that once the optimum level of each was reached, the relation ship would be reversed.*^ To put it simply: centralization reduces cost, but only to a point. Once the point of optimum centralization is reached, efficiency diminishes.
A major factor limiting the benefits of centralized purchasing and warehousing, for example, is the cost of delivery. Smith noted that once a company reaches carload volume, it has achieved the maximum bene fit from centralized purchasing: ordering in larger quantities will not reduce the cost, since the transportation cost of carload shipments is already at a minimum. The added cost of delivering smaller lots to scattered geographical locations, moreover, will also limit the benefits gained from central purchasing.*® Morris made a similar observation in regard to centralized inventory. The advantage of complementarity asso ciated with centralization assumes that delivery costs and the cost of delays are negligible. When such costs are sizeable, the savings ex- pected from centralized operations may be negated. 19 One might make the same observation about costs in time and transportation for the delivery of services as well. A final consideration is the effect on public relations. Smith
observed that "the economies of central purchasing may be obtained at
too high price if they impair local good will in the community where
the branch is located." One company, he noted, deliberately purchased
some items locally, even at higher cost, just to maintain local good 20 Will.
Improved control
Another benefit consistently attributed to centralization by
theorists and practitioners alike is the tightening of control. Weber
stated that the ideal exercise of control is found in the monocratlc, hierarchical bureaucracy which is "capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense formally the most rational 21 known means of carrying out imperative control over human beings."
Glaser considered control, "seeing that the work is actually done accord ing to plan," one of the three most important phases of "administration,"
Henri Fayol included control, "seeing that everything occurs in conform ity with established rule and expressed command", in his definition of 23 "management."
Even the proponents of decentralization have stressed repeatedly
the importance of centralized control. In 1933, an international con
ference was sponsored by the Netherlands School of Economics at Rotter dam to consider the "balance between centralization and decentraliza tion in managerial control." H. J. Kruisinga, in the introduction to
the papers presented at the conference, stated simply that the "process of decentralization requires at the same time centralization of control."
Schleh pointed out that "if sound decentralization is to be 33 effected . . . [there is a] need for centralized control." He insisted, 25 however, on the importance of allowing "leeway" in this control.
Baum stated simply that "there can be no decentralization of authority without [centralized] control," since the central authority "cannot rid itself of the responsibility for accomplishing the function for which 26 it was created." Morris stressed the need for centralized control In decentralized organizations when he wrote
[The trick] is to permit the divisions to operate as virtu ally independent business units . . . and yet assure that the divisions operate so as to advance the objectives of the firm as a whole.*7
Glaser observed that "control should be high in quality and low in quantity." 28 He considered properly planned delegation essential to effective control. To achieve this, he made the following recomen- dations:
As much as possible should be handled as far down the line as possible, and yet the administrator and each division chief should retain personal supervision over matters which involve over-all or divisional policy or which transcend the competence of subordinates.^®
Villers considered centralized control a "prerequisite” to de centralization. "The concept of centralized planning and control," he wrote, "reconciles the organization's need for coordinated action with the legitimate aspirations of individuals; and it is applicable to large, small, and medium-sized companies."30
Although they did not use the term "control," Becker and Gordon were discussing essentially the same activity when they referred to the
"legal and societal sanctions" which owners employ in order to "impart 31 direction to the system." They and the other writers have suggested a number of ways in which this can be achieved. 34
The explicit statement of policy may be considered the most com prehensive of controls. It is within this framework that the individual units of the organization perform. Policy establishes whether or not individual units will be autonomous, the degree of autonomy allowed, and the matters in which they will be autonomous. Such statements of policy are expressed in "organization and policy manuals, methods and 33 procedure manuals, authority limitation manuals," and the like.
The control of resources, both capital and human, is another very effective means of imparting direction to the organization.^ By allo cating capital for certain projects and not for others or by requiring approval for expenditures above an authorized maximum, management can exercise considerable control.
"Goal-setting" or "target-setting" is still another device. Van der Schroeff included "sharply defined tasksetting of executives" in his 35 list of controls. Several other writers, however, have suggested that •ac their be collaboration in task-setting. According to Villers, the planning and control department should act as a service department only, identifying the goals that have been set by top management and estima ting the time necessary to accomplish them. Each department manager, then, would be responsible for accepting the goals and the time-limits as stated, rejecting them for a valid reason, or suggesting reasonable 37 adjustments of either the goals or the time-limits.
Among the more traditional control methods listed were visits, 38 inspections, and reports. The most modern method proposed was the use of high speed computers. McCreary observed that "computers are starting to work their way out of the payroll departments to take over the paperwork functions that permit even greater centralization of 39 control." Beaumier, in his discussion of centralized planning and
control in the Chrysler Corporation, also pointed to the use of the high
speed computer, with this caution, however: "there has actually arisen 40 the problem of too much of a good thing." Apparently, more data were
available than the top executives could use effectively. Wagner, on the
other hand, saw the computer as an aid to the centralized control of
decentralized corporations. The system he recommended called for com puter access to data files by both the central office staff and the de
centralized units, "but for different purposes."^
Greater expertise
Related to the issue of control is the matter of expertise. David
E. Henderson, in an article reminiscent of Frederick W. Taylor's task-
oriented "scientific management," listed "improved accuracy or quality" as one of the benefits accruing from decisions by "an expert group" in a highly centralized organization. 42 Morris also included "better" deci
sions among the benefits usually attributed to centralization, although he noted as well that "savings in communication through decentralization
[are thought to] more than offset any decline in the 'goodness' of deci
sions" and that "component managers . . . have more information and are 43 more effective in using it than centralized-system managers." Never
theless, he recognized a general tendency to centralize decisions which are likely to have greater consequences.^ Dale's position was con gruent with that practice, but he added an interesting condition:
The more costly a mistaken decision, the higher up it should be decided (provided the higher-ups make fewer mistakes in the matter under question).^* 36
Blau and his associates, on the other hand, noted that when the lower levels of. the organization are lacking in professional qualifica tions, downward communication becomes particularly Important. "A cen tralized hierarchy of authority," they wrote, "facilitates such coordi nation . . A number of theorists have approached the same problem, but from the perspective of decentralization. Dale observed that the degree of effective decentralization possible within an organization is
"a function of ability and trust on the part of the delegant and 47 delegee." In other words, decisions are (and, perhaps, should be) centralized in organizations which lack either competent lower-rank personnel or confident, trusting higher-level executives. Argyris made the same point: "For decentralization to work," he stated, '?one needs, 48 at all levels, technically and professionally competent individuals."
Advantages of Decentralization
Even advocates of decentralization recognize the need for central ization of at least some decisions or functions. Follett wrote that one of the gravest problems was "to foster local initiative and at the same AQ time get the advantages of centralization." Becker and Gordon stated that "total independence of organizational components would be indic ative of separate organizations rather than one decentralized organiza tion."50
Villers recognized that the concept of "centralized planning and control in conjunction with decentralized authority" was only a tool of management and could be misused "if excessive emphasis is placed on
* control*; or . . . if, on the contrary, *decentralization' is over- Cl emphasized.''^’1' 37
Wagner, in outlining the use of computers at the Northern Natural
Gas Company of Omaha, stated that "the concept of decentralized authority is a well-accepted and respected principle at Northern. So, however, is the idea of over-all corporate control.1152
In short, advocates of decentralization do not deny many of the advantages claimed for centralization. Indeed, they recognize some of them as essential to the proper management of virtually all large-scale 53 complex organizations. They do suggest, however, that a number of advantages may be gained from the decentralization of certain kinds of decisions or functions, especially In large, complex, or widely dis persed organizations. Among the many advantages they propose, the fol lowing seem the most relevant to the present study.
Reduction of the executives1 burden
One of the most frequently cited reasons for decentralization was the need to reduce the burden of top executives. Schleh observed that, as an organization grows, the chief executive attempts to keep Informed by establishing "a stronger and stronger centralized control on all operations. Inevitably, this leads to an excessive number of decisions 54 that come to the chief executive's doorstep."
Williams noted that most companies that have grown from internal expansion (as opposed to those that have grown from mergers or acquis itions) have tended to retain a relatively high level of centralized decision making and control "until span of control problems or executive 55 turnover problems . . . started to plague their leaders."
Simpson reported that the British Government has been forced to 38
decentralize the ministries because they have grown beyond a reasonable
span of control. "A Ministry in these days," he wrote "may have fifty
or more divisions and it is clearly impossible for the Permanent Sec retary to exercise coordination over so wide a span . . ."56
According to Parks, some executives in the United States, "over burdened by the sheer magnitude of their management work load, have re
sponded by spawning an increasing number of 'multiple management* ar rangements
Kruisinga noted that
In medium-sized and large-scale undertakings (and also where there is a geographical dispersion of the operations of the company) maintaining the "unity of authority" becomes a major organizational problem. The reason for this is to be found in the limitations of human abilities and capacities \tfiich comprise the "span of control." . . . One-man management is replaced by "management by the many" through decentralize- ^ tion of decision-making powers over executives down the line.
Morris, on the other hand, thought that the "span of control prin ciple" gave insufficient attention to the information-handling and deci
sion-making load of supervisors. Nevertheless, his position was similar
to Kruisinga's in asserting that the limited "information-handling and decision-making capacities of the chief executive" was a major cause 59 for the delegation of some of this work to subordinates.
Better decisions
Some of the advantages cited by the proponents of centralization were also claimed by advocates of decentralization, but for different reasons. One of these involved the quality of the decisions. The pro ponents of centralization claimed that centralization resulted in "better decisions" because the decisions then could be made by "experts." Those 39 favoring decentralization also have claimed "better decisions," but in
this case, it was because of the availability of more complete data
upon which the decisions could be based. Morris stated that "the more
centralized the control, the more general become the bases upon which
decisions are made and the fewer details and relationships that can be
taken into account.. .
March and Simon took a similar stance in their "proposition" re
garding the effects of limited human cognition on information-handling
at the higher levels of organization:
The "real" situation is almost always far too complex to be handled in detail. As we move upwards in the supervisory and executive hierarchy, the range of interrelated matters over which an individual has purview becomes larger and larger, more and more complex. The growing complexity of the problem can only be matched against the finite powers of the individual if the problem is dealt with in grosser and more aggregate form.
Later, in commenting on Hayek's argument for decentralization, they made
the following observation:
Because the decentralized scheme makes very, much smaller de mands of information and computation than does the centralized scheme, . . . optimal decisions can practically be attained under the decentralized scheme, and cannot under the centralized one.
Among the several advantages alleged for the low-level resolution of conflicts in Etzioni's review of organization theory was that of per mitting "the executive who must serve as judge or arbiter to have rela tively full command of the facts and . . . personal knowledge of the 63 conflicting parties."
Simpson saw "no alternative" to the geographical decentralization of British ministry offices. Their duties, he noted, "require an inti mate knowledge of local conditions and local affairs and they could not conceivably be conducted efficiently or effectively from a remote head- 40 quarters."®^
Quicker action
Dale included "better and speedier decisions" among the internal economies possible if there is decentralization while maintaining "the existing scale of operations."®® Baker and France surveyed a number of top executives who favored decentralization. Among the principal reasons for decentralization cited by the executives was the facilitation of
"daily operations by prompt on-the-spot decisions."®®
Shanks of Prudential Insurance reported "improved service to policyholders."®^ In the context of insurance, "improved service" pre sumably would mean better advice and/or quicker service.
Becker and Gordon considered "parallel decentralization" on the basis of population, geography, or the like a very effective means for reducing the time required to respond to the complexities of an unstable environmen t. ® ®
Morris, in his summary of Chandler’s study, made the same point:
"the decentralized structure," he observed, "tended to respond both more quickly and more effectively to changes in each division’s environ ment."^
Improved community relations
Among other factors encouraging decentralization, Truman included the "necessity for treating with numerous individuals."^® Shanks said decentralization resulted in "greater knowledge of and interest in Pru dential in each geographical area."^ Simpson thought decentraliza tion was necessary in British Government agencies "because so much of their business requires an intimate knowledge of local conditions and 72 involves frequent contact with the local business community," Dale considered the smaller administrative units established through decen tralization beneficial because "there are likely to be closer and better employee-management and community relations." 73
Improved morale
Although earlier claims of a direct relationship between morale 7 / and production now are questioned by some writers, concern for improving employee morale has not diminished. No doubt, this is related to what
Bennis has called "Western civilization's notion of a scientific humanism: concern for our fellow man, experimentalism, openness and honesty, flexi bility, cooperation, and democracy."^**
A number of writers have claimed that decentralization improves morale. White and hippitt have suggested that "democratic leadership"
(one involving a kind of decentralization of decision making) effects 76 better morale than does "autocratic" (one-man) leadership. Argyris considered decentralization an important means of improving morale, 77 particularly at higher levels in the chain of command. McGregor, on the other hand, included "opportunities to participate in the solution of problems and in the discussion of actions which may effect him" and
"the opportunity to assume responsibility as he becomes ready for it" among the minimal conditions necessary for a successful subordinate-su- 78 perior relationship at every level of the industrial organization.
Urwick*s observation concerning the deleterious effects of an excessive "span of control" has implications for decentralization as well.
Urwick noted that "there is nothing which rots morale more quickly and 42 more completely than poor communication and indecisiveness." When the
executive’s span of control is excessive, "subordinates will line up in
his secretary's office and will be constantly frustrated when they want
a word with him." 79 Obviously, the problem could be solved by the addi
tion of another administrative level in a centralized organization, as
Urwick suggested. However, it can also be resolved by decentralizing much of the decision making.
Worthy’s study of decentralization at Sears, Roebuck and Company
reported that
decentralization of administration] develops initiative and self-reliance and generates a far more powerful driving force than could ever be imposed from the top down. This pattern of administration not only gets today's job done better but permits the individual to grow and develop in a way that is impossible in more centralized systems. Furthermore, it con tributed strongly to morale because employees work in an atmo sphere of relative freedom from oppressive supervision and have a sengg of individual importance and personal responsibility • m •
If a "close relationship" and greater "group identification" can 81 be considered indicative of good morale, then the following observa
tions are relevant. Shanks reported that the decentralization of The
Prudential Insurance Company into geographical divisions resulted in a 82 "closer relationship between management and employees." This would
seem to be supported by March and Simon's assertion that "physical pro- 83 pinquity is an important base for group membership."
Several other "hypotheses" advanced by March and Simon also would
seem relevant to decentralization, although the authors themselves did not relate them to that issue. March and Simon hypothesized that the
perceived prestige of the group, the number of individual needs satisfied
within a group, the frequency of interaction between group members and 43 an individual, and the extent to which goals are perceived as shared are all directly related to the degree of identification of the individ ual with the group. The degree of competition between members of the group and the individual, on the other hand, is inversely related to the 84 degree of identification.
These hypotheses would seem to suggest that the decentralization of large, widely dispersed organizations into somewhat autonomous self- contained divisions would result in greater identification of members with the organization. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to assume that executive positions having some measure of autonomy will be perceived
(in our culture, at least) as more prestigious than those lacking auton- 85 omy. Since decentralization increases the number of relatively auton omous executive positions, it would tend to increase the perceived pres tige of the group or subgroup. The authors noted that "the higher the average status level . . . of group members, the higher the position of the group in the society" and "the greater the number of high status occupations and/or individuals in the organization, the stronger the identification of individual participants with it.86
Regarding need satisfaction, they stated that "the greater the group's permissiveness toward individual goal achievement . . . , the more individual needs will be satisfied within the group." Argyris ob served that "healthy human beings in our culture . . . would prefer to be relatively independent, to be active, and to use many of their deeper 88 abilities." Decentralization would seem to allow satisfaction of these needs and, therefore, to encourage identification with the group.
According to March and Simon, size is related both to interaction and to prestige. The smaller the group, the greater the interaction; the greater the interaction, the greater the tendency of the individual 89 to identify with the group. On the other hand, the larger the group, the greater its visibility; the greater its visibility, the greater its prestige— and, therefore, the greater the tendency for the individual to 90 identify with it. Parallel decentralization of large organizations into smaller self-contained geographical units would seem to promote identification both with the individual division (because of increased interaction) and with the parent organization (because of increased vis ibility).
In regard to the perceived sharing of goals, Morris observed that
"the members of an organizational unit are more likely to share a percep- 91 tion of a common, immediate, and operational set of goals." This should be even more likely in professional (or semi-professional) organ izations which, presumably, have the same professional goals at every 92 level. Indeed, the increased interaction among the various hierarchial levels possible in a decentralized organization, if extended to the social sphere, may even enlist the support of the members' families for the 93 attainment of organizational (or professional) goals.
Competition for individual rewards, March and Simon noted, impedes identification. When individual rewards are independent, however, compe tition is extinguished and the tendency to identify with the group is 94 increased. Parallel units serving particular geographical areas (or populations) would seem to be more conducive to the reduction of compe tition for rewards than would units based on specialization. In the former case, a few Individuals from each of several different specializa- U5
tions would be brought together in the same group: individuals could
interact with most of the group members without feeling threatened by
them as competitors for the same rewards (promotions). In the latter
instance, all of the members of the group would possess the same spe
cialization and so would be in competition with one another for the same
rewards (promotions).
Blau and Scott studied a Federal agency in which the agents were
allowed considerable freedom in deciding how to proceed, provided that
their decisions conformed to the requirements of law. "Because agents
were free to arrive at their own decisions," they observed, "their work
satisfaction was high. The discretion they exercised made their jobs
challenging and interesting." The agents' concern about possible mis
takes led them to seek advice among their peers. This, in turn, "trans
formed an aggregate of individuals who merely had the same supervisor
into a cohesive group.
Development of personnel
Although one might be hard put to establish a logical connection
between morale and the development of personnel, the two were frequently mentioned together— often in the same sentence. Dale sandwiched ^'greater
incentive" between "better utilization of lower and middle management"
and "improved training opportunities" in his list of benefits derived
n e 9 7 from decentralization. Worthy did much the same thing. George
Albert Smith, in reporting conclusions drawn from over twenty years of
study of decentralized organizations, stated that
The costs of delegation [decentralization of authority] might well be regarded as a long-term investment--in management train ing, in improved morale, In increased energy and initiative among 46
all ranks that should pay off in an abundance of new yet crit ically scrutinized ideas.
Baker and Smith reported that executives who favored the decen tralization of general management included the faster development of
go men among the reasons they offered. Truman indicated that decentral ization was favored in bureaus that wanted to provide "a careful program of in-service training” through the horizontal and vertical movement of , 100 personnel.
Increased innovation and adaptation
The last two advantages claimed for decentralization that will be treated here are innovation and adaptation. Although innovation may involve the introduction of new goals, more frequently it is concerned with the development of new means to attain already defined organiza tional goals. Adaptation, as Harvey has noted, involves an adjustment to changes in the environment. If an individual or a social system is to adjust to "deviant or pressureful environments," it must be able to distinguish between means and ends and to generate and/or recognize multiple ways of attaining the more important goals. The real danger, according to Harvey, is that the means will become so specific and the commitment to them so great that the individual (or group) will be un able to discover and use alternate means to attain the goal. Systems requiring extreme uniformity will prevent, at all costs, the "explora- 101 tion of means and even the slightest questioning of ends."
Etzioni also considered the means-ends issue. His discussion of the implications for organization design deserves to be quoted more fully: 47
By patterning the organization in such a way that it will emphasize direct service of its goal over service of its means, and by structuring its division of labor and hierarchy of au thority accordingly, the founders [of an organization] can lessen the probability that the organization will grow to devi ate from its original purposes. . . . Means activities might be distributed among various units that service goals directly. This assures that executives in charge of the goal activities also control the means activities. . . . The physical location of divisions in the organization may also strengthen the prior ity of goals over means. The effect of locating some civilian advisers on military affairs in the White House vs.. locating them in the Pentagon illustrates this point.
Data from a study by Barton were cited in support of Etzioni's "intui tion" that centralized organizations allow less local experimentation 103 and unit-flexibility than do centralized ones.
Becker and Gordon based their assertion that parallel (decentral ized) bureaucracies are more effective in dealing with unstable environ ments on the assumption that "knowledge of changes in the environment enters the organization through the bottom layers and travels through 104 the intermediate ones to the top layers. Thus, a decentralized organ ization can take account of changes in the environment and respond to them more quickly than can a highly centralized one.
Thompson indicated that monocratic (centralized) bureaucracies generally depress creativity because they suppress conflict:
Conflict implies pluralism and forces coping and search for solutions, whereas concentrated authority can simply ignore ob stacles and objections. Conflict, therefore, encourages innova tions. 05
To stimulate innovations, Thompson recommended freer communication in all directions and greater decentralization of assignment and resource i decisions, in addition to "structural looseness" and professional-type 106 job descriptions.
Kline and Martin considered "freedom to act" an essential charac- 48
tcristic of true decentralization. "Where there is freedom," they wrote, "there is individual growth; creativity and innovation are natu>r ral, perhaps inevitable."*-®^ •
Worthy suggested that administrative decentralization tends to 108 develop individual self-expression and creativity. Shanks reported
that decentralization at Prudential resulted in the development of new
ideas and methods in the branch offices. These innovations then spread
throughout the entire organization. 109 Indeed, Morris pointed out that
some organizations deliberately decentralize search activities (planned 110 innovation and research) in order to spread the risk of failure. In other words, they avoid "putting all their eggs in one basket" by carry ing on search activities simultaneously in several "opportunity environ ments."
Summary
The principal advantages cited for centralization in the litera
ture of organization theory and practice were the reduction of costs
through economies of scale, the tightening of control to maintain co
ordination and to assure that organization goals would not be subverted by individual units, and better decisions because of the greater exper
tise of the decision makers. The advantages claimed for decentraliza
tion included the reduction of the decision making burden of top execu
tives, better decisions because they could be based on more complete
information and first-hand knowledge, quicker response to changes in
the environment, better community relations, improved morale, increased
opportunity to develop lower and middle management personnel, and the
stimulation of innovation and adaptation. These advantages— whether claimed for centralization or for decentralization--are, of course, subject to the "limits proposition" advanced by Hage, namely, that the relationship is curvilinear: once the optimal level of centralization
(or decentralization) has been reached, the relationship will be re versed.
The next chapter surveys recommendations made concerning central ization and decentralization in a number of studies of public school sys tems. In the context of school district organization, "centralization" frequently includes consolidation; and "decentralization," the subdis- tricting of extant school districts. CHAPTER II 50
REFERENCES
^Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, X938), p. 73.
2Victor A. Thompson, "Bureaucracy and Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly, X (June, 1965), p. 3.
^James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 22. 4 Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management, trans. by Con stance Storrs (New York: Pitman Publishing Company, 1949), p. 33.
”*March and Simon, p. 5.
^Barnard, p. 82.
^Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1962), p. 2.
8Ibid., pp. 32-33. q Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. and ed. by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 224.
*®William T. Morris, Decentralization in Management Systems: An Introduction to Design (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1968), p. 28.
^ I b i d ., p. 32; W. Vonk, "Conditions for an Equilibrium: A Busi ness Point of View," in The Balance Between Centralization and Decentral ization in Managerial Control, ed. by H. J, Kruisinga (Leiden: H. E. Stenfert Kroese N.V., 1954), p. 54; Raymond Villers, "Control and Free dom in a Decentralized Company," Harvard Business Review, XXXII (March- April, 1954), p. 89; Richard Beckhard, "An Organization Improvement Pro gram in a Decentralized Organization," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, II (Jan.-Feb.-March, 1966), p. 7; Selwyn W. Becker and Gerald Gordon, "An Entrepreneurial Theory of Formal Organizations," Adminlstra- Science Quarterly, XI (December, 1966), p. 340. .
l^Helen Baker and Robert R. France, Centralization and Decentral ization in Industrial Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Industrial Relations Section, Department of Economics and Sociology, Princeton University, 1954), p. 31; Luther Gulick, "Notes on the Theory of Organization," in Papers on the Science of Administration, ed. by Luther Gulick and L. Urwick (New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1937), p. 20. 51
^Morris, pp. 32-33.
l^David E. Henderson, "Centralized Control of Multiplant Opera tion-Some Benefits," National Association of Accountants Bulletin, XLIII (September, 1961), pp. 92-93. It is interesting to note that some proponents of decentralized decision making also claimed "economy*1 since it reduces the work load of the more "expensive" executives. See Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations. Foundations of Modern Sociology Series, ed. by Alex Inkeles (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Frentice-Hall Inc., 1964), p. 27.
ISjerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations, "Adminis trative Science Quarterly, X (December, 1965), p. 300.
16Ibid., p. 294.
17Ibid., p. 307.
7®Geo. Albert Smith, Jr., Managing Geographically Decentralized Companies (Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Ad ministration, Division of Research, 1958), p. 49.
^Morris, p. 37.
^®Smith, p. 49.
2*Max Weber, "The Essentials of Bureaucratic Organization: An Ideal-Type Construction," in Reader in Bureaucracy, ed. by Robert K. Merton, et al. (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1952), p. 24. 22 Comstock Glaser, Administrative Procedure: A Practical Hand book for the Administrative Analyst (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1941), p. 9.
2 3 Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management, trans. by Con stance Storrs (New York! Pitman Publishing Company, 19&9), p. 6 .
^Kruisinga, P. 5.
^Edward C. Schleh, "The Essence of Decentralization," Advanced Management, XXIV (September, 1959), p. 9. 26 Bernard H. Baum, Decentralization of Authority in a Bureaucracy (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 153-154.
^7Morris, p. 7. 52
^®Glaser, p. 120.
2 9 Ibid., p. 123.
30Villers, pp. 89-90.
^Becker and Gordon, pp. 316-317.
3 ^J. Van der Schroeff, "Conditions for an Equilibrium: Decentral ization of Authority and Responsibility with Centralization of Control," in Kruisinga, ed., p. 48; Villers, p. 90; Glaser, p. 119; and Morris, p. 45. 33 Ernest Dale, "A Study of the Problems of Centralization and Decentralization in Relation to Private Enterprise," in Kruisinga, ed., p. 31.
3^Becker and Gordon, pp. 316 and 321; Morris, p. 45.
Van der Schroeff in Kruisinga, p. 4 9 .
3®Douglas M. McGregor, "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business Review XXXV (May-June, 1957), p. 89, cited by Warren G. Bennis, Changing Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), pp. 75-76; Bennett E. Kline and Norman H. Martin, "Freedom, Au thority, and Decentralization," Harvard Business Review XXXVI (May- June, 1958), p. 74; Villers, pp. 91-92; and Beckhard, p. 16.
3A 7illers, pp. 91-92. Once agreed upon, targets and deadlines serve later as bases for evaluation.
3 ®J. R. Simpson, "A Study of the Problems of Centralization and Decentralization in Relation to Government Organization," in Kruisinga, p. 72; Dale, ibid., p. 38; Van der Schroeff, ibid., p. 49; and Morris, p. 45.
39Edward McCreary, "Countertrend to Decentralization: Top Manage ment Tightens Controls, Duns Review and Modern Industry LXXIV (July, 1959), p. 32.
^®F. B. Beaumier, "New Tools, Old Ideas Lead Shift Back to Cen tral Control," Iron Age CXCVI (July 8 ,. 1965), pp. 43-45.
^*L. G. Wagner, "Computers, Decentralization, and Corporate Con trol," California Management Review IX (Winter, 1966), p. 26.
^2David E. Henderson, "Centralized Control of Multiplant Opera- tions--Some Benefits," National Association of Accountants Bulletin XLIII (September, 1961), p. 93.
^^Morris, pp. 19-20. ^Morris, p. 19. 53 45 Ernest Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, Research Report Number 20 (New York: American Management Association, 1952), p. 153.
4®Peter M. Blau, Wolf V. Heydebrand, and Robert E. Stauffer, "The Structure of Small Bureaucracies," American Sociological Review XXXI (Aprii, 1966), p. 187.
47Dale (1952)', p. 164. 48 Chris Argyris, Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Ef fectiveness (Homewood, 111.: Dorsey ?ress, Inc., 1962), p. 3.
^%lary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. ed. by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1942), p. 80.
^Becker and Gordon, p. 337.
^Villers, p. 96.
^Wagner, p. 27.
CO "For a discussion of the need for centralized control in decen tralized organizations, see pp.32-33 above.
^Schleh, p. 8 . 55 Edgar G. Williams, "The Influence of Managerial Decentraliza tion on Personnel Relations," Advanced Management. XXIV (October, 1959) p. 24. Cg Simpson in Kruisinga, p . 60.
-*7Newton Parks, "Group Management, European Style," Business Horizons IX (Fall, 1966), p. 83
”*®Kruisinga, p. 4.
S^Morris, pp. 26 and 3. In reply to critics of the span of control principle, Lyndall Urwick noted that Graicunas1 suggested limit of six subordinates applied only to "subordinates whose work interlocks." (Ur- wick’s emphasis.) When their work does not interlock--as in the case of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and companies with autonomous subsidiaries— Urwick saw no reason for not increasing the number to 20, 30, or more. See Lyndall Urwick, "The Manager's Span of Control," Harvard Business Review XXXIV Olay-June, 1956), pp. 39-47.
®®Morris, p. 25.
^Hlarch and Simon, p. 150. 54
^ Ibid., p. 204. Their emphasis.
^Etzioni, p. 27.
^Simpson in Kruisinga, p. 64.
^ D ale in Kruisinga, p. 39.
®^Baker and France, p. 31.
6 ?Carrol M. Shanks, quoted by Lawrence M. Hughes in "'Localized* Management Pays Off for Prudential," Sales Management LXVIII (January 15, 1952), p. 120.
®®Becker and Gordon, p. 340.
®%orris, pp. 8-9. Chandler studied the organizational histories of du Pont, General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Sears, Roe buck and Company.
^David Bicknell Truman, Administrative Decentralization: A Study of the Chicago Field Offices of the United States Department of Agriculture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940, p. 96.
71Shanks, quoted by Hughes, p. 120.
^^simpson in Kruisinga, p. 59.
^ D ale in Kruisinga, p. 39.
7^March and Simon, p. 48: Rensis Likert, "Developing Patterns in Management, "Strengthening Management for the Hew Technology (New York: American Management Association, 1955), p. 13, quoted in Bennis, pp. 69- 70. In a recent book, however, Likert does associate high production with participative management: see Rensis Likert, The Human Organiza tion: Its Management and Value (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967, pp. 13-46.
^Bennis, p. 169.
^Ralph K. White and Ronald 0. Lippitt, Autocracy and Democracy: An Experimental Inquiry (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), pp. 26-27, cited in Jacob W. Getzels, James M. Lipham, and Roald F. Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social Process (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), pp. 36-38. For a discussion of the methodology of the original study, see Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White, "An Experimental Study of Leadership and Group Life,” in'Readings in Social Psychology, ed. by Theodore M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley (co-chairmen) (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1947), pp. 315-330.
^Argyris, p. 3. 55
Douglas McGregor, "Conditions of Effective Leadership in the Industrial Organization," Journal of Consulting Psychology VIII (March- April, 1944), pp. 55-63, reprinted in Readings in Social Psychology, ed. by Newcomb and Hartley, p. 435.
^Urwick, pp. 43-44. 80 James C. Worthy, "Organizational Structure and Employee Morale," American Sociological Review XV (April, 1950), p. 178.
8^For "indices of good morale," see Ralph Currier Davis, The Fun damentals of Top Management (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1951), pp. 552-557, cited by Loyce Adams, Managerial Psychology (Boston: Christopher Publishing House, 1965), p. 341.
Shanks, quoted by Hughes, p. 120.
®^March and Simon, p. 80.
^ I b i d ., pp. 65-66.
®^Chris Argyris, "The Individual and Organization: An Empirical Test," Administrative Science Quarterly, IV (September, 1959) pp. 147- 149. 86 March and Simon, pp. 67-75. They also observed that "the more a given task reflects individual autonomy in making decisions, the stronger the identification with the task." Ibid., p. 77.
®^Ibid., p. 70. Their emphasis.
88Argyris (1959), pp. 148-149.
8%Iarch and Simon, pp. 68-69, and 6 6 .
8 ®Ibid., p. 67.
^Morris, p. 49.
^March and Simon, pp. 70 and 79; Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962), pp. 61-63.
^^March and Simon, pp. 68 and 79-81.
^ T b i d ., pp. 6 6 , 70 and 76.
®^Blau and Scott, pp. 129-130. Freedom, responsibility, and dis cretion are generally considered prerogatives of a "professional." For a discussion of the characteristics of a "professional," see Etzioni, p. 87; Blau and Scott, p. 63; and March and Simon, pp. 70 and 79. ^8Dale in Kruisinga, p. 39. 56
^Worthy, p. 178, quoted above on p. 42.
^Smith, p. 18.
^Baker and France, p. 31.
lOOlruman, p. 98.
1010 . J. Harvey, "Ends, Means, and Adaptability," in Experience, Structure & Adaptability, ed. by 0. J. Harvey (New York:. Springer Pub lishing Company, Inc., 1966), pp. 3, 8 , and 11.
lO^Etzioni, pp4 27-28.
103Allen H. Barton, Organizational Measurement and Its Bearing on the Study of College Environments (Princeton: College Entrance Examina tion Board, 1961), p. 26, cited by Etzioni, p. 29.
^^Becker and Gordon, p. 340.
^ - ’Thompson, p. 4.
106Ibid., p. 13.
lO^Kline and Martin, p. 71.
*®®Worthy, p. 179.
^O^Shanks, quoted by Hughes, p. 120.
H®Morris, p. 1 2 2 . CHAPTER III
CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION
IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS
The centralization of educational systems, like that in business organization and government, involves either (1) the reservation of certain kinds of decisions to higher levels in an extant organization or (2) the merger of two or more organizational units into an integrated organizational structure. Conversely, decentralization may be achieved either (1) by the delegation of some of the decision-making to lower levels in the organization or (2) by the division of an organization into two or more somewhat autonomous organization units. Pressures for centralization or decentralization have been present in American public school education since its inception. These pressures can be found at every level of government: local, state, and federal.
Historical Background
Local control
New England.-<-For three centuries, the public schools of New
England and the Midwest were influenced in no small measure by prece dents set in Massachusetts.^ In 1647, the General Court (Legislature) of the Massachusetts Colony enacted a law making It obligatory for every township of fifty or more householders to employ a teacher for the in- 2 struction of its children.
57 58
The term "town” in Colonial New England did not refer to popula
tion centers as such. It was, rather, a subdivision of the Colony, usually of some twenty to forty square miles. As the Colony grew, new villages were established within the townships. Since the law required each town, not each village, to maintain a school, the requirement frequently was met by having the schoolmaster spend some time in each of the villages within the township.3
Eventually, citizens in the several villages petitioned the
townships to allow them to use their portion of school taxes to estab lish schools within their own villages. This practice of decentralized responsibility for education was recognized and approved in a statute passed by the General Court of Connecticut in 1766 allowing the towns
"to divide themselves into proper and necessary districts for keeping their schools, and to alter and regulate the same from time to time."4
Massachusetts passed a similar law in 1789.3 And so, by the close of the eighteenth century, much of the control of the public schools of
New England lay with the village community.
Middle Colonies.— Early attempts to establish public schools in the Colonies of New York and Pennsylvania were unsuccessful, for the most part, largely because of the heterogeneous character of the settlers.
Prior to the American Revolution, the schools of New York and Pennsyl vania were supported and controlled by religious and private groups.6
The South.— Throughout the Colonial South, education generally was considered the prerogative of the Established Church, that is, the
Church of England. Most of the legislatures in the Southern Colonies 59 concerned themselves only with the supervision of the education and apprenticeship of orphans and of the Indigent. Maryland was perhaps somewhat of an exception in that itprovided for the establishment of a quasi-public corporation composed of high government officials and officials of the Established Church.7
Butts and Cremin, commenting on this corporation, noted that
[The corporation was] to secure funds and formulate policy for the governing of schools, one in each county of the colony . . . here was a plan for a state system of schools somewhat like that of New England but even going further in centralized control. The corporation has a vague resemblance to the idea of a state board of education which appeared in many states in the nineteenth century.8
For the most part, however, education in the South remained the concern of private and philanthropic groups until well into the nineteenth century.9
Centralization within the States
The constitutions drafted by Pennsylvania and North Carolina in
1776 and Georgia in 1777 clearly set forth the state’s responsibility for education. The New England states, in the closing decades of the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century included similar provisions in their laws and constitutions.10
In 1805, New York established a permanent school fund. It was not until 1812, however, that interest from this fund was actually dis tributed among school districts raising equal sums by local effort.
The maintenance of school buildings remained the responsibility of each district. Thus, as Butts and Cremin noted, "a pattern developed where the state subsidized what was principally a local effort to maintain schools. 60
The authors also credited New York with being the first state to establish a governing body responsible for the development of a school system from the elementary grades through higher education: the Univer sity of the State of New York and its Board of Regents, created in
1784.^2 Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, on the other hand, have sug gested that the Board was not given authority over the public (elementary and secondary) schools until 1904.13
In any event, New York is recognized in both works as the first state to establish the state superintendency of schools. This toolc place in 1812.14 According to Butts and Cremin, the tendency in New
York to centralize authority over the schools can be traced to the in fluence of the F r e n c h . 13-
In 1837, Massachusetts established an eight-man board of educa tion with authority to appoint its own secretary. Horace Mann was named to the post in 1837 and served in that capacity until 1848. The princi pal duties of the board and secretary were to gather statistics and to prepare an annual report for the state legislature. In the twenty years prior to the Civil War, several other states followed Massachusetts’ example.16 By 1860, twenty-eight of the thirty-four states had chief school officers.17 By establishing state boards of education and state superintendents of schools, the state governments reasserted their authority over education. However, much of this authority "remained principally in the form of powers delegated to towns and districts."!®
In the century following the Civil War, state governments grad ually exercised more and more authority over elementary and secondary education. By 1960, all but two of the fifty states had state boards 61
of education. In a few states, the boards were given real power. In most instances, however, the legislature reserved to itself most of the
authority exercised at the state level.19 In either case— whether
functioning through state boards of education and executive officers,
or directly, through legislation and budgetary controls— the several
states now wield great influence over decisions on education program,
personnel, school buildings, and financial support. Research reported by Marconnit in 1966 revealed that only one state, Hawaii, had no cur riculum requirements prescribed by the state legislature. In most of
the states with curriculum prescriptions, the regulations required that
courses be offered; in only 11% of the cases, did they require that the subjects prescribed bg studied.20 Regarding certification, Burke re ported that all fifty states have enacted certification laws.21 In all but a few large city districts, the right to award teaching cer
tificates Is reserved to the state.22
The trend towards increased centralization within the various states was evident in the efforts made throughout the country to con
solidate small school districts into larger, more efficient units.^
Bateman's study showed a lapse of forty-four years between expressions of need for larger school districts in Utah in 1871 and "the complete diffusion of county-unit district by mandatory law [In] 1 9 1 5 ."24 Data presented in a report of the American Association of School Adminis
trators in 1965 and in a bulletin Issued by the Research Division of
the N.E.A. in 1970, give ample testimony to the "rapidly accelerating
pace" at which consolidation took place in the thirty-seven year period
from 1932 to 1969:25 62
Tear Number of Districts 1932 ...... 127,649 1948 ...... 105,971 1963 ...... 31,319 1969 ...... 18,904
Butts and Cremin attributed the remarkable upsurge of consolida tion to improved roads and the availability of bus transportation. 26
The Reports of the Great Plains Project and of other groups a g r e e . 27
Niederhauser, writing in 1961, reflected the views of many school administrators at that time:
It seems manifestly evident that a far greater problem exists in the creation of larger basic school districts than in the decentralization of the limited number of such dis tricts which may be too large for the most effective admini stration. 28
According to the Education Directory, sixty per cent of the operating public school districts in the United States had enrollments of fewer than 300 pupils in October, 1961.29 This, no doubt, explains Nieder— hauser*s concern. Nevertheless, the enrollment of such districts was less than four per cent of the national total.30 By 1968, the situation had improved considerably: the number of districts enrolling fewer than
300 pupils had been reduced to forty-one per cent of the total; and the number of pupils enrolled in such districts, to less than two per cent
(1.6%). In fact, less than eight per cent (7.8%) of the total public school population was enrolled In districts having fewer than 1,000 pupils each.31
Furthermore, even in 1959-1960, there were fifty-five school districts with enrollments of over 50,000 students each. Sixteen of these had more than 100,000 pupils each. Some were enormous: New
York City enrolled almost one million pupils; Chicago and Los Angeles, 63 over a half-million, each; eleven more school districts had enrollments of between 100,000 and 180,000 p u p i l s .32 .
By the 1968-1969 school year, the number of public school dis tricts with enrollments of 50,000 or more pupils had grown to seventy- nine. Twenty-five of these had more than 100,000 pupils each. Four districts reported more than 500,000 pupils each. The New York City public schools grew by over 113,000 pupils, attaining an enrollment of
1 ,100,222 pupils.33
Federal role
Although education has remained, technically at least, the re sponsibility of the several states, the Federal Government has exercised considerable influence on educational policy. This has been done largely through the allocation of federal lands and monies for specific educational purposes. In 1785, four years before the drafting of the
United States Constitution, the Federal Government set aside land for the support of public schools throughout the Northwest Territory.3^
Later legislation extended such grants to a total of thirty states. In
1862, the Morrill Act set aside land for the endowment of colleges "to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." In 1907, this act was amended to include the education of teachers. Since that time, additional monies have been allocated to stimulate and support special programs in vocational education, science, foreign language, and other subjects deemed essential to national defense and the "general welfare."33
The Department of Education was established in 1867 "for the purpose of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the con 64 dition and progress of education in the several States and Territories, and of diffusing such information . . . as shall aid the people of the
United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems."^ For some time this department had no real power. In recent years, however, the Office of Education has been given authority over the disbursement of certain federal monies. The. Elementary and Second— dary Act of 1965, for example, empowered the Office of Education to ap prove or disapprove programs submitted by local and state agencies for funding. As Burke has pointed out,
The 1965 Act extends the list of federally endorsed activi ties which state and local units are being directed to sponsor in order to obtain federal money. The use of federal school funds to enforce other federal laws [e.g., civil rights] is being attempted through the threat of withholding. The grow ing national interest in education will develop controls de signed to advance it; it also may develop controls which are not in the national interest.37
For a hundred years, the role of the Federal Government in educa tion has been debated heatedly.38 Some Americans decried it as undue interference in the legitimate activities of the states. Others in sisted that federal intervention was absolutely necessary if equal edu cational opportunity were to be afforded Americans no matter where they might live.^ In recent years, however, more and more citizens have accepted federal involvement almost as a given.
The enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 did much to win acceptance of some kind of federal aid to educa tion. As Beckman put it,
Once the issue has been fought out and Congress acts, a new and highly stable framework of public opinion is established that accepts the government*s new role. . . . Enactment and implementation create legitimization.40 65
This does not necessarily imply complete satisfaction with the measure or manner of federal involvement. Congressman Albert H. Quie
addressed that issue when he wrote:
With federal programs in education increasing, the debate on federal aid to education has shifted from the question of whether we should have it to what form it should take. Uppermost in my mind is the question: Are we to continue to move in the direction that is shifting educational deci sion making away from its traditional base at the state and local levels and toward the federal level? Phrased in another way: Must the cost of attaining our national goal of equality and excellence of educational opportunity be at the expense of state and local autonomy, diversity, and creativity?^!
Many professional educators, while calling for added funding from
the federal government, have x^arned against the use of these fundsto
control educational programs. The solution they most frequently pro posed to resolve this dilemma was that of granting general rather than categorical aid to education.42 Among the resolutions submitted by the
Resolutions Committee of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development at the 1969 convention was the following:
When the federal government provides aid to education, it should determine only the general conditions under which this aid is to be administered. The conditions should be in the statement of broad policies designed to interpret and safe guard the legislative intent.
Additional federal aid to education should be provided. Much of this aid should be general in nature, distributed directly to states with only the broad limitations necessary to assure the appropriate expenditure of f u n d s . 43
Several speakers at the American Association of School Adminis
trators* convention that same year also called for more federal money.
James R. Kirkpatrick, Associate Secretary of the Association, said:
’'We’re now talking about 33% when many used to say not any percent."
Other speakers also suggested the figure "one-third 66
Comments made at the AASA convention a year later reflected both,
the low level of federal funding actually received during that year and
the large part that funding had played in determining educational
policy— at least, as the speakers saw it. William J. Sanders, Com
missioner of Education for the State of Connecticut, said:
For the little part that the federal government puts in (8% in the average state and only 3% in Connecticut), they’re getting an awful lot of muscle. The state education depart ments are expected to work to suit the federal government.45
Calvin Gross, dean of the School of Education of the University
of Missouri, made the same point:
The federal government is doling out bits of money with stringent requirements as if they gave a lot of support to education and it ’taint so. The relatively small federal support exerts a tremendous l e v e r a g e . 46
These statements, and others like them, make it quite clear that many educators are willing to allow— and, indeed, encourage— greater
centralization in the gathering and disbursement of educational monies, but not in the determination of educational policies.
Nevertheless, there has been considerable centralization of the
control over education. Within states, this has been done through the
imposition of state-wide certification requirements and minimum standards
and through conditions attached to the allocation of state foundation monies. Nationally, categorical aid from the federal government has
resulted in further centralization of policy and control. Both of these,
no doubt,'were attempts to guarantee educational opportunity and to meet
the needs of the student, the state, and the nation.
'i Size. Cost, and Program Considerations
According to the AASA Commission on School District Reorganlza- 67 tion, one of the most frequent motives for legislation regarding school district reorganization has been the desire to improve the efficiency of school operation.47 This docs not mean, of course, lower total cost.
Rather, an "efficient operation" in this context means producing a product of equal quality at lower cost per unit, or a product of better quality at the same cost per unit. In the words of the Commission:
The real reason for reorganization is to obtain better edu cational opportunities . . . [that is] to get more and better education per dollar spent. Savings that result from the re duction in the high per-pupil cost of small schools is usually offset by needed improvements in the school program in order to bring it up to desirable standards in scope and quality. Then, too, reorganization often calls for new school plant facilities or for extensive improvement of those already in use.48
Size Criteria for Elementary and Secondary Schools
Because the adequacy and the efficiency of a school district are determined by the adequacy and the efficiency of the educational program and supporting services it provides in its-elementary and secondary schools, any discussion of the minimum, optimum, and maximum enrollments recommended for school districts must begin with a consideration of the relationship of size to cost and to quality in elementary and secondary schools. One such consideration is that of economies of scale.
In a paper delivered at the Eighth National Conference on School
Finance in April, 1965, Nels W. Hanson discussed the size-cost relation ship in the operation of s c h o o l s . 49 Hanson began with a very concise explanation of the factors effecting economies of scale. The first such factor is the Indivisibility of some inputs. Hanson cites as an example the need for at least one teacher per classroom unit, "whether it holds 68
one pupil or 30." Larger enterprises allow these inputs to be mixed
optimally to achieve maximum efficiency. A second factor effecting the
economy of scale is the larger organization’s increased capability to make use of specialized personnel and equipment.50
These two advantages, he pointed out, have a price: larger, more highly specialized organizations are more complex. Complex organizations,
in turn require greater supervision and coordination than do simple or
ganizations. The costs involved in increased supervision and coordina
tion rise slowly at first. As the organization continues to grow,
however, these costs begin to rise more sharply.
On the other hand, the savings achieved through the improved
mixture of inputs and greater specialization are greatest during the
early stages of growth. As more and more of the indivisible inputs
achieve an optimum mixture, the cost per unit begins to level off.
Finally, a size is reached at which the added costs of supervision and
coordination equal the savings obtained from large-scale operations. Be
yond this point, either the equilibrium will continue to infinity or
diseconomies of scale will arise.51
A number of studies have attempted to make use of the principles
of economy of scale to identify the "optimum" enrollment for either
elementary or secondary schools. Two such studies were reported in dis
sertations submitted to The Ohio State University in 1960 and 1962. They
are discussed below. Other studies and reports, having relevance for
subsequent recommendations regarding the centralization or consolida
tion of Catholic schools, also are treated. 69
Sollars* dissertation on elementary schools
In 1962, Sollars completed a study relating the size of elementary schools to their operational cost and program quality.^2 reviewing earlier studies, he singled out two for special attention; the disser tation by Louis E. Teets at the University of Florida in 1956 and that of David L. Basler at the State University of Iowa in 1960. Teets studied a sample of ninety six-year elementary schools in six Florida counties.
The schools were divided into eight size ranges. The instructional cost per pupil for each group was determined by dividing the total expenditures for the salaries of instructional personnel by its average daily member ship. A checklist was used to establish the extent of educational oppor tunity provided in each size-group. The per-pupil cost for a unit of ed ucational opportunity in each group was determined by dividing the mean instructional cost per pupil by the score obtained on the opportunity checklist. Tests concluded that the minimum enrollment in six-year elementary schools should be the 200 to 299 pupil range, with the opti mum enrollment in the 600 to 699 range.^
In 1960, Basler interviewed sixty-nine principals of six-year elementary schools in Iowa. The schools, were classified as single sectioned, double-sectioned, and triple-sectioned. Single-sectioned schools employed six to eight teachers for grades kindergarten (or grade one) to six; double-sectioned schools employed twelve to fifteen teachers; and triple-sectioned schools, eighteen to twenty-two teachers.
From the opinions expressed by the principals, Basler concluded that the double-sectioned school enjoys both the advantages of the large school and most of the advantages of the small school. ^ 70
For his own study, Sellars collected data on thirty elementary schools in Ohio from the official reports of the principals to the state department of education and from interviews with them and with some seventy teachers. The total sample of thirty schools was divided into ten size-range levels, with three principals and seven teachers from each level: 0-99, 100-199, and so forth, concluding at the 900 or more level. A number of factors were considered relative to cost and program quality. Among them were the per pupil cost for each of the following: principals' salaries, certificated teaching staff salaries, certificated special staff salaries, library books, audio-visual equipment available, etc.
Regarding cost per pupil, Sollars observed:
In general, the total of all cost indicators decreases as school size increases, except for the 400-499 and 900-more strata. The decrease is less sharp in the upper ranges of school size than in the lower ranges.55
The major conclusions reached by Sollars in regard to six-year elementary schools was that
When all indicators are considered, the 300 to 499 pupil range is the size category in which the favorable indicators approach the maximum and unfavorable approach the minimum.*?®
Smith's dissertation on secondary schools .
Clifford B. Smith conducted a rather extensive study of secondary 57 schools in Ohio in 1960. His review of the literature included similar studies in New York and in Florida. The New York study was made in 1959 by Gerald T. Kowitz and William C. Sayres for the New York State Depart ment of Education. One hundred six-year secondary schools were studied.
Enrollment in these schools ranged from 87 to 1,338 pupils. Kowitz and 71
Sayres noted that
Schools with an enrollment of less than 500 appeared in general to be at a disadvantage in attempting to provide the opportunities represented by [institutional, library, and teaching staff] characteristics. In the degree to which these schools were able to provide these opportunities, they were paying a premium for them. The analysis further indi cated that paying a premium was not enough to boose [sic] the opportunities provided to the level of the larger s c h o o l s . 58
The general conclusion of the New York study was that
The most economical size for the secondary school would seem to be between 600 and 800 pupils. In this interval, also, the indices of educational opportunity showed general ly to greatest advantage relative to cost."
In the Florida study, Woodham developed a mathematical formula
to measure the Inter-relationship of size, cost per pupil and breadth of educational opportunity in 290 of the 305 public secondary schools of
Florida. He concluded that the cost per pupil decreased until the
schools reached an enrollment of 350, after which there was little
relationship.^® Smith suggested that the lack of relationship beyond
350 may have been "due to improvement In quality that takes place In many schools with larger enrollments." In any event, Woodham concluded
If the adequacy of school size is based upon cost per pupil unit of opportunity, the minimum size necessary for six-year [secondary] schools to provide a broad program at a reasonable cost is five hundred pupils. A more de sirable minimum is 750 p u p i l s . 5 ^-
According to Smith, Uoodhamfs study "showed a sharp increase In educa
tional opportunity as size increased to three hundred, with less in
crease from three hundred to five hundred, and considerable leveling off
beyond 5 0 0 ."52
The secondary school enrollments recommended in both the New York. 72
study and the. Florida study approximate that suggested by Conant as the minimum necessary to provide a limited degree of comprehensiveness, that
is, a high school graduating class of at least 100 students.*3
For his own study of 352 three- and four-year senior high schools
in Ohio, Smith obtained data from the principals’ reports to the state department of education for the 1959-1960 school year and from a questionnaire returned by each of the principals.64 Raw data ’’were processed into averages, percent of the total, per-unit value, or in proportion to each 1,000 pupils of total enrollment" to allow comparisons across the various size intervals of two hundred pupils each, that is
0-199 pupils, 200-399 pupils, 400-599 pupils, and so forth up to the
3,200-3,399 pupil level.6*
Smith found that the cost per pupil for professional salaries was markedly curvilinear, declining sharply up to the 200-400 level, followed by only a slight decrease up to the 1,200-1,400 level. From that size
interval to the 1,800-2,000 interval the cost per pupil for professional
staff salaries increased. The data for schools enrolling more than 2,000 were "too limited and variable to suggest any definable relationship."66
The cost per pupil per unit of educational opportunity was de
termined by dividing the cost per pupil for professional salaries by
the number of course offerings available at each grade level. Smith
found a "curvilinear reciprocal" relationship. There was a sharp decline
in the cost per pupil per unit of educational opportunity up to the
400-600 level. From that level to the 1,000-1,200 interval, there was e much less rapid decline. Beyond the 1,000-1,200 interval there apparent
ly was only a very slight decrease.67 In regard to certification and professional preparation of the
teaching staff, Smith found that the percent with professional or
permanent certification and the percent with a master’s degree or beyond
increased substantially up to the 800-1,200 interval. Beyond that en rollment, there was a leveling off, followed by a possible decline.®®
Smith noted a sharp decline in the number of audio-visual teaching
aids per 1,000 pupils up to the 200-400 level, followed by a much less
rapid decrease up to the 1,000-1,200 interval.He did not attempt to
interpret this finding. The present writer believes that the number of
audio-visual aids available is not necessarily indicative of more ef fective instruction. Hanson’s discussion of the "indivisibility" of
some factors (cited above) is certainly applicable to many kinds of
teaching aids— movie projectors, for example.
Bata concerning administrative, guidance, psychological, remedial, and special teaching personnel were reduced to the number of units pro vided for each 1,000 pupils enrolled. This allowed a comparison across
the various intervals. Little, if any relationship was reported up to
the 800-1,000 size interval, followed by a decrease up to the 1,600-
1,800 level. Beyond that point, Smith observed little if any relation
ship .
From the above data, Smith concluded that
When all the factors are considered, 800 to 1,000 is the size range at which favorable-factors approach the maximum and unfavorable factors approach the minimum. The data also shew that schools with enrollments of less than 200-400 pupils are paying a premium for an inferior program. . . . Therefore, it is concluded that the optimal size range for three- and four- year secondary schools in Ohio is 800 to 1,200 p u p i l s . 74 Other studies and reports
Besides the dissertations by Sollars and Smith, a number of stud
ies and reports on school district reorganization also have included recommendations concerning the minimum and/or optimum enrollments of elementary and secondary schools. Host of these reports were based on
the judgments of professional educators, not on quantitative data.
The 1948 report of the National Commission on School District Re organization, chaired by Dawson and Reeves, recommended that elementary schools with kindergarten (or grade one) to grade six have enrollments of at least 175 pupils with at least seven full-time teachers. The pre- ferred minimum enrollment was 300 with twelve or more teachers. 7 2 Six- year secondary schools, according to the same report, should have at least 75 pupils of each age group and a total enrollment of 300 or more 73 with at least 12 full-time teachers.
That same year, the Conference of Ohio Deans of Education, after quoting several studies including that of the National Commission on
School District Reorganization, recommended that Ohio elementary schools have at least one grade per teacher with a pupil-teacher ratio of 30:1.
Consequently, the recommended minimum enrollments were 180 for six-year elementary schools and 240 for eight-year elementary schools. The mini mum enrollment for six-year secondary schools was set at 300 and for
four-year secondary schools, at 225. The recommended enrollment in
secondary schools was 500-600. Nevertheless, the Deans recognized that
sparsity of population and transportation difficulties might necessitate adjustments to these criteria.^ The report of the Committee for Economic Development, published 75 in 1959, called for elementary schools with at least one teacher for each grade level. A school having a kindergarten and six grades, the
Committee suggested, should have an enrollment of over 200 students.
The suggested minimum enrollment for three-year senior high schools was
300, with at least fifteen classroom teachers. Four-year secondary schools and six-year secondary schools should have 400 and 600 students respectively.
In a dissertation submitted to Pennsylvania State University in
1965, Stanley Walker reported the replies of a jury of experts regard ing criteria for school district reorganization. Castetter, Dawson,
Fitzwater, Kreitlow, Lonsdale, and Morphet were among the twenty-six experts replying to Walker’s questionnaire.^ Among the questions asked were several concerning the optimum enrollments for six-year elementary schools, junior high schools, senior high schools (grades 1 0 -1 2 ), and six-year secondary schools.
Fifty-three per cent of the experts suggested that the optimum enrollment for a six-year elementary school was 540 pupils. The remain ing experts were split evenly between a recommendation of 360 pupils and that of more than 540 pupils.^® ,
For junior high schools, the largest block of experts (forty-two per cent) recommended an enrollment of 750 pupils. Twenty-seven per cent recommended 1,000 pupils. The remaining experts were split evenly be tween a recommendation of 500 or fewer students and that of more than
1,000 students.
Thirty-eight per cent of the experts suggested a senior high school enrollment of 1,000 pupils. Another thirty-eight per cent 76 recommended that senior high schools enroll more than 1,000 pupils.
Fifteen per cent suggested an enrollment of 750 pupils; and eight per cent, 500 pupils.®®
Sixty-nine per cent of the jurymen recommended that six-year secondary schools enroll more than 1,000 pupils. Twenty-three per cent considered 1,000 pupils the optimum enrollment. The remaining eight per cent suggested an enrollment of 750 pupils.®^-
The Master Plan developed in 1966 for the reorganization of Ohio school districts stated that
[Elementary] attendance centers should have at least two sections per grade. . . . In most instances five sections per grade, or 900 elementary pupils, are usually considered to be sufficient to concentrate in one building.®^
Based on the thirty-to-one pupil-teacher ratio assumed in the 900 fig ure, two sections per grade would require enrollments of approximately
360 pupils in grades one to six. For high schools, the Master Plan suggested an enrollment of 1,000 or more pupils in schools with grades
9 to 12.83
Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens cited several studies relating school size to academic achievement. Street and his associates found
that the verbal and arithmetic skills of pupils in elementary schools of
300 or more pupils were definitely superior to those of students in schools enrolling fewer than 300 pupils.®^ Hieronymous reported that
the basic skills of upper elementary school students Increased signifi cantly with the size of the school. He recommended that each grade en roll at least 90 pupils.®3
Gray studied the relationship of high school size in Iowa to col- 77 lege achievement. Forty schools with enrollments of from fewer than 150 students to over 1,000 students were studied. A statistical analysis revealed that students from high schools enrolling fewer than 150 students earned a lower grade-point average than students in the larger schools.
The highest achievers, were from schools enrolling between 400 and 999 students. Furthermore, the grade-point averages of these students were significantly higher than were those of students from schools enrolling over 1,000 pupils.86 student participation in extra-class activities also was greater in schools with enrollments of between 150 and 999 pu pils than in those with fewer than 150 or more than 1,000 students.®^
The enrollments suggested in the Great Plains Project Report made allowances for differences in population density. The eight guidelines of the Report Indicated that "size must be a variable in school district organization, never an absolute."®® With this in mind, the Report made specific recommendations for elementary and secondary school enrollments, then suggested adjustments appropriate for more sparsely or more densely populated areas. Elementary attendance centers should have two or more sections per grade. In sparsely settled areas, however, one section per grade might be both "justifiable and necessary." In more densely popu lated areas, three to five sections per grade might be allowed.
For four-year secondary schools, the Great Plains Project recom mended an enrollment of 1,000 or more students. Sparsely settled areas, on the other hand, might have only 100 students in the graduating class; and more densely settled areas, as many as 300.89
In 1969, a State Committee appointed to study the regionalization and consolidation of school districts in New Jersey cited recommendations 78 by a team of educational consultants, Engelhardt, Engelhardt, and Leg gett, calling for high school graduating classes of 250 or more students*
According to the Committee, an enrollment of this size would allow high schools to offer up to 80 courses without increasing the per pupil costs.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the recommendations of the disserta tions and reports cited in this chapter. To facilitate comparisons among the studies, the median enrollment is cited for those studies re porting recommendations in ranges. For example, Sollars recommended a minimum enrollment for six-year elementary schools of from 300 to 499.
Table 1 reports this recommendation as 400, the median of the range Sol lars suggested. Recommendations made in terms of the number of sections per grade have been given a numerical equivalent by applying a pupil- teacher ratio of 30:1. This is the ratio assumed in the Ohio Master
Flan. It was thought better to apply this ratio somewhat arbitrarily rather than to attempt to-make comparisons across different scales. i
79 TABLE 1
SIX-YEAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Minimum Enrollment
Nat. Comm, on School Dist. Reorganization (1948) 175a
Deans of Education (Ohio, 1948) 180
Teets (Florida, 1956) 250^
Committee bn Economic Development (1959) 200c
Hieronymous (1960) 540^
Street (1962) 300
Master Plan (Ohio, 1966)’ 360e
Great Plains Project (towa, Missouri, Neb., S. Dakota, 1968) 180^
Optimum Enrollment
Basler (Iowa, 1960) 360®
Sollars (Ohio, 1962) 400h
Walker (1965) 5401
Great Plains Project (towa, Missouri, Neb., S. Dakota, 1969) 360. or more^ Maximum Enrollment
Master Plan (Ohio, 1966) 900 k Great Plains Project (iotfa, Missouri, Neb., S. Dakota, 1968) 720
^preferred minimum* 300. range: 200-299. ^kindergarten and grades 1-6. 90 per grade. etwo sections per grade. ^one section per grade in sparsely settled areas. Btwo sections per grade. ^range: 300-499 for grades K-6 or 1-6. ^recommended by 53% of experts. 3 two or more sections per grade. kfour sections per grade: the median of the 3-5 sections suggested in densely settled areas. 80
TABLE 2
FOUR-YEAR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Minimum Enrollment
Deans Conference (Ohio, 1948) 225
Committee on Economic Development (1959) 400
Conant (1959) 400a
Great Plains Project (Iowa, Mo., Neb., S. Dakota, 1968) 400b
State Committee (New Jersey, 1969) over l,0 0 0 c
Optimum Enrollment
Smith (Ohio, 1960) l,00Cd
Master Plan (Ohio, 1966) 1,000 or more
Great Plains Project (Iowa, Mo., Neb., S. Dakota, 1968) 1,000
Maximum Enrollment
Great Plains Project (Iowa, Mo., Neb., S. Dakota, 1968) l,200e
aat least 100 in graduating class* bin sparsely settled areas* Minimum of 250 in graduating class* drangei 800-1,000 in a 3- or 4-year high school. ein densely settled areas. Minimum Enrollment Minimum Optimum Enrollment Optimum aWoodham gave 750 as the "desirable minimum." minimum." the"desirable as 750 gave aWoodham ag: 400-999. range: range; 600-800. Greatest educational advantage relative to cost, to relative advantage educational Greatest 600-800. range; range: 500-600. Listed as "highly recommended," not "optimum." "optimum." not a recommended," "highly as Listed 500-600. nirrange: oizad ars NwYr, 1959) (New York, Sayres and Kowitz ry Iw, 1961) (Iowa, Gray en ofrne Oi, 1948) (Ohio, Conference Deans 1951) (Florida, Woodham (1948) Reorganization Dist. Sch. on Comm, Nat. en ofrne Oi, 1948) (Ohio, Conference Deans omte nEo. eeomn (1959) Development Econ. on Committee I-ERSCNAY SCHOOLS SECONDARY SIX-YEAR TABLE 3 TABLE 550b -» 600 300a 700d 500a 300 700c 81 Criteria for School Districts
General criteria
Since Dawson's classic study in 1934, many committees and individ uals have developed lists of criteria denoting what they considered to be adequate school district organization. Some of these lists were quite lengthy, often describing in minute detail the programs, services, and personnel deemed necessary in the specific situation under study. A few attempted to identify the fundamental principles underlying adequate dis trict organization. The latter approach would seem to be better suited to the needs of the present study: general criteria applicable to quite dif ferent situations.
One such study was conducted by the National Commission on School
District Reorganization in 1948 under the co-chairmenship of Howard A.
Dawson and Floyd A. Reeves. The Commission identified three general cri teria indicative of an effective administrative school district:
1. The administrative unit should have enough pupils so that the educational needs now existing and those likely to arise in the immediate future can be met effectively at reasonable cost. 2. It should be large enough to attract and use to good ad vantage a high type of educational leadership. 3. It should be small enough and should have a type of social organization that will permit people to participate effectively in the support and control of the school and to share in its acti- . vities.91
In 1954, Ralph C. Swan, after submitting several criteria derived from the literature to a panel of educators and sociologists, identified four as fundamental to properly organized school districts:
1. The administrative unit should be organized in terms of the function to be performed. 2. The administrative unit should conform to the minimum size necessary for efficiency. 3. The administrative unit should conform to the sociological community. 83
4. The administrative unit should have the ability to finance an adequate educational p r o g r a m . 92
Four years later, the Commission on School District Reorganiza tion of the American Association of School Administrators proposed ten criteria for an effective school district. The total organization, the
Commission stated, should be such as to
1. Encourage experimentation with new techniques and methods 2. Facilitate articulation between levels of the school system .... 3. Enable the local school to be sensitive to local con ditions and, thus, to meet local needs 4. Foster school-community relationships in the school unit. 5* Assist the local school in concentrating its energies upon the problems at hand 6 . Develop leadership within the school and responsibility for the local program 7. Design an over-all educational program for local adapta tion within the framework 8 . Provide local programs with supporting services and special programs 9. Supply staff and facilities as needed locally 10 . Finance the program for the district at l a r g e .93
Daniel Craver, in a dissertation submitted to the University of
Texas in 1959, listed six "fundamental considerations" in the establish ment of school districts: (1 ) the purpose of education in the society to be served, (2) the educational program necessary to achieve these purposes, (3) the sociological base for the organization, (4) accessibi lity, (5) the economic base, and (6 ) the equilization of educational o ppo r tuni ties•94
Blanke, writing in 1960, charged that educational leaders had been "either unwilling or unable to agree upon criteria for measuring school district adequacy." He then suggested "five areas appropriate to the consideration of school district adequacy" and discussed each brief— 84 ly: (1) the scope of the program, (2 ) the administration and school staff, (3) the student population, (4) the community, and (5) the econo mic base.95
In a dissertation submitted to the University of Arkansas in
1963, Don. W. Casey presented criteria he had drawn from the professional literature:
[1.] Each local school district shall be a community of people who possess a common interest in providing for their educational needs, who are able to project those needs into educational objectives, and who are willing to utilize com munity leadership and other resources in the amounts neces sary to achieve these objectives. [2.] Each local school district shall be designed to satisfy the concept of common schooling for all educable people and provide . . . facilities for each attendance area that are both safe and within accepted tirae-distance limita tions . [3.] Each local school district shall provide an educa tional program which subscribes to the district1s responsi bilities to the individual and the community which it serves. [4.] Each local school district shall maintain the quan tity and quality of personnel needed to perform the various tasks which are requisite to an adequate educational program. [5.] Each local school district shall be financially responsible, economically sound unit, able to subscribe to its responsibilities to the individual and to the complex of communities in which it exists.®^
Cunningham, Dykes, Kinchelow, and Ostrom served as consultants to the Louisville and Jefferson County Boards of Education in 1966.
Their report listed three interrelated "sets of values to be considered in creating organizational arrangements for educational government."
The sets of values were labeled: (1) program or learning values, (2) financial or support values, and (3) consumer or public values. By consumer or public values, the consultants meant values that were "Im portant to those who have a stake in education." .Chief among these were the opportunity to affect educational policy and to obtain recognition 85 of and response to variations in consumer demands for education.®^
Responsiveness and adaptability, they suggested, could be best achieved through the establishment of community school districts. Re garding criteria for such districts, they wrote
The establishment of community districts should be based upon criteria such as "natural" communities, size, resource base, clusters of existing schools, location of non-public schools, and concerns for the range of population character istics to be incorporated within a given district.®®
Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens in 1967 discussed four criteria they considered "prerequisite to the establishment of guidelines for district reorganization." The criteria they proposed were (1) the educational quality of the program, (2) the scope of the educational programs, (3) the school personnel and special services provided, and (A) the effic iency and equity of financial outlay.®®
McCann and Delon, writing in the NCPEA 1967 publication The
Theory and Practice of School Finance, identified basic notions about school districts that have been repeated from time to times
1. Local school districts satisfy the principle that government is best if its control is kept close to the people being governed; similarly, government Is more economical if the people who pay the taxes also control their expenditure. 2. The local school district is an institution in which is preserved the American concept of democratic gov ernment; similarly it is an institution in which the ordinary citizen has an opportunity for participation in group decision and in the general practice of demo cratic citizenship. 3. The local school district maintains the opportunity for face to face relationships between school board members, administrators, teachers, pupils, parents, and citizens at large which in turn contributes sig nificantly to the vitality of the educational process. A. The operation of the local school district provides an opportunity for the development and maintenance of the sense of community and identification with s social group which is a satisfying human experience generally elevating the quality of living. 5. A local school district properly organized is cap able of offering an educational program (including learning experiences and pupil services) of adequate scope to satisfy the demands of all important groups of pupils within the community. . . . 6 . Within this range of program, the existence of local school districts makes it possible to provide pro gram specialization to satisfy needs peculiar to the local community. It further makes it possible for a local district to choose the level of quality of edu cation which its citizens desire. 7. One function for a school district, properly organized, is to furnish specialized and expert services for pupils or in support of teacher efforts in social and psy chological services, in-service and curriculum ac tivities, and the general area of research. 8 . The existence of autonomous local school units en courages experiment and innovation in educational practice which in turn has a significant effect upon school improvement. 9. A chief function of the local school districts is (with whatever assistance from central agencies pub lic policy may make available) to provide financial support for all of the functions described. 10. In carrying out this responsibility, school districts should be so organized to take advantage of ’scale* in the economical provision of the services already described.100
The Great Plains Project Report, prepared under the direction of
Ralph D. Purdy, also proposed certain criteria ,fas a basis for the deter1 mination of guidelines" for school district organization. Sixteen cri teria were suggested:
[1.] Needs to be met give direction to the total educational program .... Programs, services, and the supporting struc ture (school district organization) are established for the purpose of meeting the defined needs. [2.] Educational opportunities must be provided by the state for all, regardless of where they may live in the state, and regardless of their socioeconomic status. [3.] Educational opportunities must be equitable for all. Equitable educational opportunities provide for differences in- individual pupil needs, interests, and capacities, and in re lation to the needs as defined at the [federal, state, and local] levels .... 87
[4.] Comprehensive educational opportunities must be pro vided by the state for all the students of the state .... [5.] All educational programs and supporting services must be provided at an acceptable level of quality or excel lence, Successful education prepares students for life— as individuals and as members of society .... [6*2 All programs and services at all educational levels should be appropriately coordinated and articulated, both, vertically and horizontally. Especially is this true for programs . . . from the pre-school level through the twelfth grade. [7.] The structure for education must provide for an ef ficient organization and utilization of all' appropriate human and material resources in support of comprehensive educational opportunities for all .... [8 .] Economy of operation, or maximum education returns on the dollar invested, must be facilitated by the structural organization .... [9.] Size of attendance units and size of administrative service districts have relevancy to the degree that the num ber of pupils and the geographic area served have a direct re lationship to the quality or excellence of comprehensive edu cational opportunities for all children, and to the degree ... that such programs can be provided with efficiency of organi zation and economy of operation. [10.] Education must have stability in structure to ensure continuation of desirable programs and services. . . . The structure (school district organization) should possess those characteristics which give it stability, thereby eliminating the frequently recurring need to rebuild (reorganize) that structure. . . . [11.] School district organization must provide the struc ture and the framework whereby the human and material resources of the state can be brought to bear constructively, creatively,. efficiently, and economically in the provision of comprehen sive programs and services. . . . Among other things, this includes a fair and equitable tax base .... [12.] Demographic factors influence and give direction to structure (school district organization) for education. . . . Concentrations of people, or lack of concentration, influence and affect the way in which comprehensive educational op portunities are to be provided for all children. ... . The . structural organization must have the capacity for flexibility and adaptability for the mobility of the people it serves. [13.] Time/distance factors influence and affect structure and attendance centers within that structure. Historically, the determining element has been one hour's travel time. Whereas this was three to six miles for general travel during the years - of our early ancestors, it has become 50 miles in many areas of all states today. Normally, travel time should not exceed 88
one hour one way for approximately ninety percent of trans ported pupil enrollment, for services to be performed by ad ministrative, supervisory, and service personnel, and for personnel rendering services in special education.... [14.] There must be flexibility for change .... School district organization must have the capacity for flexibility in adapting to and meeting the changing needs and demands of the times. . . . [15.] There must be adaptability to change. . . . Flexi bility relates to the capacity of the structure to appropri ately provide new programs and services . . . and to the mo bility of the population. Adaptability relates to . . . adapting the structure to such changes when and where it is desirable and advisable to do so. [16.] Public education must be responsible to the people. This responsibility should be exercised by and through the elected or appointed representatives of the people. . .
The-Great Plains criteria, this writer believes, can be categorized un der six general classifications: criteria related to (1 ) educational program, (2) equal educational opportunity, (3) finance, (4) size,
(5) structure, and (6) citizen participation. When these categories are reduced to a paradigm, their inter-relatedness becomes evident:
Equal opportunity - Program
Equality of opportunity depends upon the adequacy of the program in meeting the needs of all students within each district and among all districts. This, in turn, is' contingent upon the amount of financial support provided and the efficiency with which that support is used
(economies of scale). Citizen participation in educational policy making, moreover, is affected greatly both by the size of the district
(in geographical area and in population) and by its organizational struc ture. Size would seem to be the pivotal factor: a school district 89 should be large enough to provide an adequate educational program at a reasonable cost, yet small enough to allow citizen participation in ed~ ucational policy-making.
Large enough to Small enough to provide an adequate DISTRICT be adaptable and and equitable program SIZE to allow citizens at reasonable cost to affect program decisions
District size and efficiency
Many individuals and groups have attempted to identify the district enrollment requisite for an adequate and efficient educational program.
The earlier recommendations were framed in the context of school district consolidation and were concerned chiefly with the economic advantage of economies of scale. The more recent ones, on the other hand, frequently have dealt with the decentralization or division of large city school districts. Their major concern has been the political disadvantage of bigness.
The following table, reproduced from the position paper Inman prepared for the Great Plains Project in 1968, reports the recommenda- 102 tions of a number of individuals and organizations. All were pre sented in the context of consolidation. They differ, as Inman observed, because they reflect "vastly different assumptions about what the basic school district should attempt to accomplish."103 Those recommending smaller enrollments frequently assumed that'specialized services and personnel will be supplied by an intermediary district of some sort.
Others assumed that all services and specialists will be supplied by the district itself. 90 TABLE 4
SCHOOL DISTRICT SIZE FACTOR? (THE ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT)
Individual/organization Minimum Optimum Maximum
National Comm, on School Dis trict Reorganization (1948) 10,000 - -
Harvard [sic] Dawson, Nat. Educ. Assn; Dept, of Rural Educ. (1948) 1,600 9,800-12,000 -
Harlan Beem, Midwest Educational Research Center . — 11,000 -
Edgar L. Morphet, Univ. of Cal. 1,200 10,000 - • Ronald [sic] Campbell, University of Chicago 2,000 - -
R.M. Eyman, for Ohio County Supterintendents’ Association 2,500 10,000 -
Institute of Admin. Research, Teachers’ Coll. Columbia Univ. (1961) - 20,000-50,000 .
William P. McLure, University of Illinois 5,000-6,000 -
Committee for Economic Develop ment (1960) -- 25,000
Organ, of School Systems in Ga. (study by Geo. Peabody Coll) (1965) 10,000 15,000-20,000 -
Ohio Master Plan (1966) 3,500 20,000-35,000 -
State Bd. of Education Study in • Vermont Range of 2,000 to 6,000
Stephen Knezevich, American Association of School Admin. - 1 0 ,000-12,000 - . * • St. Louis County, Mo. Study (1962) 2,000
Connecticut Department of Education 5,000 for regionalized school districts
aInman, pp. 16-17. (Titles used by Inman have been abbreviated by the present writer.) 91
The recommendation attributed by Inman to the Committee for
Economic Development as the recommended maximum enrollment is perhaps better understood as an approximate optimum enrollment. In 1959, the
Committee had stated
The educational advantages of a large school system may be largely attained when enrollment reaches as little as 25,000, although no great significance can be attached to the partic ular figure and financial advantages continue to accrue to larger systems. Really huge size may bring some administrative disadvantages.104
The Master Plan, moreover, distinguished between enrollment rec ommended for districts providing limited educational programs and ser vices and districts providing comprehensive programs and services. For the former, the minimum enrollment recommended was 3,500 and the optimum enrollment, 10,000 or more. For districts organized to provide compre hensive programs and services, the minimum recommended was 20,000 and the optimum, 35,000 or more.10-* Inman's table does not make this dis tinction clear.
In addition to those cited by Inman, a number of other groups and individuals also have made recommendations concerning minimum, optimum, and maximum enrollments. In 1948, the Conference of Deans of Education in Ohio recommended that the standards for administrative districts in
Ohio require a minimum enrollment of 1,500. For better superlvsory serv-
i ices, the Deans recommended an enrollment of from 5,000 to 6,000 pupils.
For complete supervisory services, they suggested 10,000 to 12,000 pupils.106
Grieder and Rosenstengel, in 1954, advised a total school popula tion of between 10,000 and 15,000 pupils in order to provide a full pro- 92 gram of specialized services most efficiently. However, they thought an enrollment of from 2,000 to 3,000 would be sufficient to provide a good instructional program exclusive of the special services identified with the best school systems.107
Although he admitted that a district of 2,000 pupils would prob ably be adequate if provided special services by an intermediary dis trict of approximately 11,000 pupils, Blanke recommended that a district enroll from 10,000 to 15,000 pupils in order to provide independently the services of psychologists, reading consultants, etc.
Niederhauser completely rejected any kind of intermediary unit, whether "an administrative, supervisory, or service agency." Each dis trict, he suggested, should be large enough to provide all of its own services. The recommended minimum enrollment was 5,000 pupils; the 109 optimum enrollment, 10,000 to 30,000 pupils.
Packard suggested that the "optimum enrollment for a school dis trict was "within the range of 4,000 and 25,000." These figures probab ly would be better termed "minimum" and "maximum." Earlier in his arti cle he had stated
The K-12 district of 10,000 has the opportunity to make maximum provisions for the education of the children of its district. . . . When districts reach 25,000 pupils, some di vision or subdivision appears necessary.HO
Eighteen of the twenty-six experts polled by Walker suggested an optimum K-12 enrollment of more than 5,000 students. Four replied that
5,000 would be "optimum." The remaining four suggested 3,000. Unfor- tunately, although Walker*s questionnaire allowed choices below 3,000, the largest category Walker provided was "more than 5,000." How much more than 5,000 the experts would have preferred was not indicated.
Hanson, in 1965, reported a study in which the principles of 93 economy of scale outlined above, were applied to 577 twelve-year school districts in nine states. Data used in the study were for the 1958-1959 school year. Each state was analyzed separately to determine the opti mum enrollment in relation to cost. Hanson found that the optimum size ranged from an enrollment of 20,000 in Nebraska to 160,000 in the State of New York, Enrollments in excess of the optimum resulted in dis-econ- omies of scale, that is, in an increase in the cost per pupil. Hanson's criterion clearly was an economic one. Political considerations did not » enter the picture. Even so, he concluded that the consolidation of school districts can achieve economies of scale to a certain point. Be yond that point, continued consolidation will bring no further economic advantage. Indeed, continued growth beyond the point of equilibrium may even result in positive disadvantages economically.112
The South Dakota legislative Research Council that same year re ported recommendations made earlier by Dr. Harry Dykstra of South Dakota
State University. Dr. Dykstra had suggested an enrollment of from
10,000 to 15,000 to provide specialized services economically. An en rollment of 2,000 to 3,000 would be sufficient for a good educational program exclusive of the special services. The absolute minimum, he thought, would be 1,000 to 2,000 pupils.
Faber, in 1966, reviewed a number of earlier studies. He con cluded that
The ideal size of a school district appears to be between . 10,000 and 20,000 pupils. No school district can provide ef ficiently a full range of educational services if it has an enrollment of fewer than 10,000 pupils.
Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens also recommended a minimum of ten thousand pupils, at least "if quality special services are to be provided.”^** 94
E. R. Stephens and John Spiess, in the Conference Report on the
Area Educational Service Agency, indicated that 10,000 students in grades K-12 is "generally accepted as the optimum size of an administra tive unit."^-® Richard D. Sparks, the Supervisor of the Bureau of School
District Organization of the New York State Department of Education, was quoted in the same publication as stating that an enrollment of 5,000 to
6,000 pupils was sufficient for an adequate educational program, but not for the provision of specialized services.H7
The final statement of guidelines proposed by the Great Plains
Project suggested the following enrollments:
Selected programs and services— 3,500 pupils or more. Comprehensive programs and services— 20,000 pupils or more. Sparsely populated areas— 1,500 pupils, grades K-12, with spe cial situations to be approved by the State Board of Edu cation. More densely populated areas— 10,000 or more pupils, grades K- 1 2 , with provision being made for some form of decentrali zation of administrative authority and responsibility in large metropolitan areas into units of 35,000 to 60,000 pupils^®
The Guidelines suggested further that the structure for education within the states consist of three echelons: state, area-service units, and local districts. The area-service units should include 35,000 to 50,000 or more pupils.
A number of other studies also have recommended the establishment of intermediate units to assist smaller school districts. Campbell,
Cunningham, and McPhee suggested the establishment of intermediate units to perform special planning, financial, and service functions. The mini mum enrollment in such districts, they suggested, should be 10,000 pu pils with a preferred enrollment of from 20,000 to 30,000 pupils. Large 95 metropolitan areas, they thought, would be better served by breaking up the large city districts into legally autonomous districts of 20,000 to
40,000 pupils. They suggested further that "in each metropolitan area we should establish an intermediate unit to include all school districts in the entire area."*20
Levine and Havighurst, writing in the NSSE Yearbook on Metropoli- tanism in 1968 stated
School administrators are now generally agreed that some sort of administrative unit is desirable which operates in an area between the state and the local school districts in size, except in the case of large cities. This intermediate unit can provide services and facilities on a co-operative basis that some of the smaller school districts cannot afford. A strong case can also be made for co-operation between central city and suburban school systems.121
Warren E. Gauerke, reacting in the "Introduction" to other arti cles appearing in The Theory and Practice of School Finance, stated
With the purpose to strengthen realistic local boards— and not to usurp power or control— state lawmakers should create Intermediate school units that wodld have administrative and supervisory staffs capable of working closely with local school units. These units could then look to the intermediate school district for a broad variety of services, both human and mechanical.122
Among the resolutions adopted by the American Association of
School Administrators at the 1969 Convention was one concerning school district reorganization. The resolution stated t We recommend continued district reorganization .... We further recommend that regional educational service agencies be established to conduct programs jointly that exceed the capabilities of single systems.123
A similar recommendation was made later that year by the New Jer
sey State Committee appointed to study the regionalization and consoli
dation of school districts. The Committee suggested that 96
Intermediate Service Units be established on a county or multi-county basis (determined by pupil base necessary to pro vide desired services) to offer such special services as are needed by local districts and are beyond the capability of the local district to provide.124
Legislation of this sort was considered in Ohio during the 108th
Ohio General Assembly, 1969-1970. Senate Bill 461 called for the crea tion of Educational Resource Centers, enrolling a minimum of 35,000 pu pils and each consisting of at least one whole county. Several counties or portions of counties might be joined, subject to the approval of the
State Board of Education, The Bill would require ordinarily an enrollment of 100,000 pupils (in one or several contiguous centers) to provide data processing services, facilities planning services, and educational tele vision.*^
Criteria suggested for Service Districts in Iowa, a far less popu lous state, called for a minimum enrollment of 30,000 pupils in such dis tricts. For data processing, an enrollment of 50,000 pupils was con sidered the m i n i m u m . 126
District size and community involvement
During the 1960's, the emphasis in discussions about school district reorganization shifted from concern simply for district consolidation to a new concern: the decentralization of large city districts. This transi- . tion.was gradual. Early in the decade, the possibility of decentralization of the administration of such districts was merely touched upon lightly in discussions about consolidation. Blanke, for example, in 1960, did mention the "unique" condition of large city districts, yet devoted his entire arti cle on school district "reorganization" to the problem of consolidation.
The importance of preserving "natural communities" of interested'citi- 97 zens was, In his mind, an unproven assumption.-*^
The following year, Niederhauser, roo, while alluding to the pos sible need to decentralize the administration of large districts, di rected his full attention to the need for district consolidation.128
Others had written earlier about the need for administrative de centralization. Cillie discussed the problem in 1940; Westby, in
1947.^-^ The Committee for Economic Development, in 1959, listed a num ber of disadvantages associated with excessive size. They wrote
Really huge size may bring some administrative disadvant ages, including the loss of contact of top. school management with the school principal and teacher, and its greater Inac cessibility to parents of pupils, as well as the difficulty of adjusting to the varying needs of children with different backgrounds in various sections of the d i s t r i c t . ^ 0
Three years later, Griffiths, Clark, Wynne, and Iannaccone d e a r ly recommended the internal decentralization of large city districts:
As a municipality increases in size from 100,000 to 500,000 population or more, the district should be divided into areas and the central office should decrease in slze.-*-^-
"A Large city," they noted, "is composed of many communities which, while they have much in common, also differ in many ways from *• each other."132 Because of the real differences among the various com munities within a big city, the authors suggested that the basic unit or area in the division of a large city school system be the local communi ty. Concerning this, they wrote
Each area should be coterminous with a specific community within the city. One factor which should be applied to this division is size. The area should have approximately 25 school units of elementary, secondary, and vocational education.133
Three years later, Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee expressed a like concern: 98
We suspect that in city districts of more than 40,000 pupils, size becomes a potent variable in creating a bureaucracy almost impenetrable by citizens and unwieldy to professionals.
They, too, make rather specific recommendations:
In our central cities, particularly those over 200,000 in population, we may need to break the city school district into several legally autonomous school districts. Each of these might contain one or more high schools and several elementary schools, represent a recognized division within the city, and contain a population of 100,000 to 200,000 people or 20,000 to 40,000 pupils in elementary and secondary schools. . .
Though their observations were similar in many respects to the recommen dations made by Griffiths and his associates, the suggestion of "legal ly autonomous" school districts added an entirely new dimension. The authors felt that mere administrative decentralization, such as had been attempted in Chicago and New York, would not be sufficient to break down the bureaucratic mentality of the professional staff nor enough to re- 136 store "a feeling of local responsibility among lay citizens."
In the 1966 Louisville-Jefferson County Study, Cunningham and hiB associates recommended that a range of from 10,000 to 20,000 pupils be considered the criterion for new school districts in the reorganization 137 of metropolitan school governments. The purpose was to make the dis tricts small enough to allow real community control.
This was not an entirely new issue. Many individuals and com mittees long had expressed the conviction that "natural communities" and local control should be respected--or at least consldered--in planning school districts. In the past, however, they wrote in the context of consolidation. As early as 1898, when the schools of the several com munities that now make up New York City were being consolidated to form
5 one system, the mayor protested that it was "a radical move in the 99 wrong direction" which would "destroy all local interest . . . landj practically exclude the people from all management of the schools."^®
Dawson observed that "the American people have become committed to the community unit type of school d i s t r i c t ."139 Numerous studies have included consideration for the "natural community" and "local con trol" among the criteria they proposed for effective school district or ganization. George D. Strayer, writing in 1938 for the Educational
Policies Commission, stated
Centralized administration of education is likely to result in mediocrity and in the lack of local adaptability .... With well-developed local units for administration of schools, it is certain that some communities will develop leadership which will be effective in improving education. . •
That same year, the New York Regents' Inquiry into the Character and Cost of Public Education included the criterion that school districts
"coincide as far as possible with the natural community boundaries and where possible, with local government units so that cooperative services may be arranged."^^-
In 1948, the National Commission on School District Organization in dicated that school districts should be "large enough to attract. . . . educational leadership" and "small enough [to] permit people to partici pate effectively in the support and control of the school and to share in its activities." 1 4 2
Pennsylvania's Department of Education, also in 1948, published
"guides" for school district reorganization which indicated that "local initiative should be encouraged and local autonomy should be preserved to the greatest possible extent consistent with economy and efficien c y p "143 100
Criteria proposed for Wisconsin in 1949 suggested that the school district "comprise an area in which the people have common ideals, cen ters of interest, similar modes of living and in which they depend on one another for their general welfare."*-^
Swan submitted a number of criteria to educators and sociol ogists for evaluation. Among the final criteria he adopted was one ad vocating that "the administrative unit . . . conform to the sociological communi ty . "1^5
A special report on school district reorganization submitted to
Pennsylvania's State Council of Education in December, 1961 indicated that
Consideration should be given to whether a geographic area has developed characteristics of a community. Community, as used here, includes one or more municipalities and the surround ing territory from which people come for business, social, rec reational, fraternal or similar reasons.146
In 1963, the Michigan State Department of Public Instruction pub lished a pamphlet was one that "the boundaries of the school district should conform as closely as possible to those of the natural community area.
Eutterworth, even when discussing intermediate school districts, suggested that they include "an area sufficiently large that it can pro vide challenging opportunities in educational leadership [and yet] suf ficiently compact and cohesive that citizens can be made to feel a keen sense of responsibility for the educational program provided."^®
Louis F. Weschler, in an address to the Fourth Annual Institute on Regional Planning at the Davis Campus of the University of California, stressed the political scientist's concern that the "sense of community" 101 might be lost through excessive centralization. On this point he said
The U.S. today is marked by a steady increase in apathy to ward community affairs at the local level. We often complain about this. Yet, when we re-organize and go helter-skelter upon programs of centralization we cause people to have lesB interest in local affairs by structurally impeding their in terest arid activity. In other words, we take away a potential point of access for the citizen; a point of interest for him.
There seems to be a great deal of feeling in California for the idea that centralization is good; that it achieves scale economies and scale economies are good; generally,, largeness has become a good thing in its own right- . . . I think we must balance the anticipated financial gains against the po litical, administrative and social costs when we reorganize school districts.^®
Jarvis, Gentry and Stephens, while noting that the "natural com munity" criterion had been questioned by Blanke and some other writers, concluded that
In spite of the decreasing attention being paid the community criterion, if in fact that really is the case, it is believed that insofar as possible a reorganized district should be more than a mere melange of completely independent areas where people have no particular sense of responsibility for their schools.150
Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee also stressed the Importance of consolidating inadequate educational agencies, but pointed as well to the danger of over-centralization. In this vein, they wrote
We believe that every effort must be made to resist unneces sary tendencies toward centralization. This attitude rests on a false sense of democratic idealism but rather on the firm be lief that citizens need the opportunity to participate in de cisions which affect the welfare of their children.1^1
Suburbanites apparently feel rather strongly about retaining
their voice in education. According to Zimmer and Hawley, one of the major causes for the opposition of suburbanites to consolidation with the central city school district was their fear that they would lose
the opportunity to influence educational decisions. This was true even 102 though they did not often choose to take advantage.of this opportunity.
The authors made an interesting point:
Uhile the weight of evidence throughout this study sug gests that suburban residents rarely if ever exercise more control over school issues than city residents, the signi ficant point here is the more general belief {they have] that they could effectively exert control if they wanted to. Ap parently they feel that this would not be possible in a larger system.152
Havighurst considered the desire to be able to affect educational policy one of the major reasons underlying the movement to decentralize massive urban school districts. His observations, written in the con text of equal educational opportunity for all, Included the following:
The move for local community control in slum areas, and radically segregated areas, is really an attempt by heretofore powerless groups to secure the same degree of control over their local schools as exists in practice for middle income groups.
To achieve really effective local control, Havighurst thought, each more- i or-less autonomous local district should consist of no more than 5,000 to 10,000 pupils.Big cities would also need some sort of "central power working for integration against the segregative tendencies of de centralization."^^^
Fischer, writing in the same work, also stressed the importance of effecting a balance between the internal autonomy each subdistrict of the city might enjoy and free access for the members of any group to the larger community. Continued communication and cooperation would be in order. "This balance," he suggested, "should be no more difficult to at tain within a large city than within a state."156 Quite clearly, Havig hurst and Fischer were not talking about ineffectural advisory groups.
"Power to the people!" has become a familiar cry. It should not be sur prising that citizens in a democracy are unwilling to accept a merely 103 advisory role in the operation of their schools. They want a part la the significant decisions that affect their schools, Mrs. Helen Kerwin,
Past Chairman of the California Commission on School District Organiza tion, stated it very succinctly when she said
We should not labor under the delusion that decisions on administrative details such as signing warrants or determining .when and if a school building is to be painted is the essence of local control. True local control rests in policy deci sions on significant issues and in the earned respect for those decisions.157
The importance of involving the community in significant educa tional decisions was stressed in the Final Report of the Task Force on
Urban Education, submitted to the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare on January 5, 1970. The Task Force declared
The community residents and students who are to be the di rect participants in urban education programs must have an ac tive role in the critical decision-making concerning such pro grams. Whether this role should include full control by the community residents or a partnership arrangement with whatever educational agency is affected will be a matter which each ur ban area will need to work out on its own .... Regardless of the particular form which community involvement takes, this role must include policymaking in the areas of: (1) priorities for spending the available monies; (2 ) design of the curricu lum and implementation of program components; and (3) employ ment and evaluation of key personnel.*58
The above statements by economists, knowledgeable educators and civic leaders make it quite clear that school districts cannot be organ ized on one or the other criterion alone. Americans are committed to democratic government— especially in the operation of their schools. In determining the size of school districts and, therefore, the degree of centralization or decentralization achieved, the advantages offered by economies of scale must be weighed not only against the disadvantages of dis-economies, but also against the citizen1s sense of community and his 104 desire to retain (or re-gain) the opportunity to affect significant
decisions regarding the education of his children. In our American cul
ture, both efficiency and democracy are valued.
> —
Equalization of support
Yet another criterion must be considered in the organization of
school districts: the equalization of support among the several dis
tricts. Alkin discussed this problem in the 1968 NSSE Yearbook.Cit
ing two districts in the Los Angeles standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), Beverly Hills and Duarte, Alkin noted that Beverly Hills could provide a program costing $860 per unit from a tax rate of $1 .6 6 , while Duarte could provide only $475 from a tax rate over twice as great
($3.44) . 160
Furthermore, the state foundation programs, in his judgment, have not been really effective in equalizing support across district lines.
Dr. Alkin wrote i Most foundation programs do not provide enough funds to pay for what would be considered even a minimum level of education. Indeed, the level of most foundation programs is so low that there is gener ally a need to exceed it, and the wealthier the district, the easier the task of raising the expenditure level. Moreover, foundation programs are characterized by an additional feature--the provision of a flat grant, in which even the wealthy districts are guaranteed a minimum grant from the legislature. 161
Alkin suggested three possible solutions to problems of this sort.
The first involved cutting the metropolitan area into pie-shaped sectors.
A second possibility was the establishment of a large metropolitan dis
trict with more-or-less autonomous subdistricts. The metropolitan dis
trict in this arrangement, would provide services to the subdistricts
and co-ordinate activities with non-school governments. The third sug
gestion involved the levying of a metropolitan-wide tax and its distri- 105
bution to the districts on a per-pupil basis. 162
Whatever the solution eventually decided upon, an observation by
Cunningham would seem to catch the gist of the problem faced by design
ers of school systems: there are today two simultaneous thrusts. One
is in the direction of centralization; the other, in the direction of
decentralization. Pressures to decentralize grow out of the need to
create districts that are responsive to the demands of their constituen
cies: districts that will remain "close" to the people. Pressures for
centralization (that is, for the establishment of metropolitan or region
al districts) arise from recognition of the fact that some problems must
be faced on a large scale. We are, indeed, faced with the problem of 163 "maximizing the virtues of bigness and smallness simultaneously,"
The American Association of School Administrators recognized
both these thrusts in the resolution it approved in 1970 regarding
school district reorganization. The Association stated
School consolidation, decentralization, and community con trol are inter-related problems. Excessive smallness, over powering bigness, and inadequate responsiveness to the needs and concerns of local communities may be remedied through con solidation or decentralization. Four factors should be considered in the search to achieve an optimum size school district: resource potentiality, ac cessibility, accountability, and flexibility. The district should have tax base resources sufficient to ensure a top quality education program, and an organizational structure that will ensure genuine responsiveness to the concerns of pupils, parents, teachers, and patrons. ^
Conclusions
Although the particular perspective or bias of the individual writer, committee, or organization may have caused them to emphasize one
or the other criterion and perhaps even to ignore others, three criteria 106 have appeared repeatedly in the literature dealing with school district reorganization. Considered collectively, the above studies would seem to suggest that the ideal or optimum school district should meet the following criteria:
1. It should have a large enough enrollment to benefit from the economies of scale necessary to provide a quality program and the de sired supporting services at a reasonable cost.
2. It should be small enough, geographically and in population, to allow citizens ready access to the organization and a real opportuni ty to affect educational policy.
3. It should have a large enough base for revenue to assure a more equitable distribution of the monies available for school support.
The first of these criteria favors the consolidation of districts- at least until the economies of scale that consolidation allows are off set by dis-economies or by the limitations imposed by criterion two.
Table 5 summarizes the criteria reported in this chapter in addition to
those reported by Inman. 107 TABLE 5
RECOMMENDED DISTRICT ENROLLMENTS
Comprehensive Program and Services: Minimum Optimum Maximum
Ohio Conference of Deans (1948) 1 0 ,000- NA 12,000
Grieder & Rosenstengel (1954) 1 0 ,000- NA 15,000
Committee for Econ. Dev. (1959) 25,000 NA
Blanke (1960) 1 0 ,000- NA 15,000
Niederhauser (1961) 5,000 1 0 ,000- NA 30,000
Dykstra (1962) 1 0 ,000- NA 15,000
Walker's Panel (1965) MORE THAN NA 5,000
Faber (1966) 1 0 ,000- NA 20,000
Ohio Master Plan (1966) 20,000 35,000+ NA
Jarvis et al. (1967) 10,000 NA
Great Plains Project (1968) 2 0 ,000+ NA
Program and Services Unspecified: Minimum Optimum Maximum
Packard (1963) 4,000 10,000 25,000
Campbell et al. (1965) 2,000 10,000 40,000
. Hanson (1965) Low (Nebraska) 2 0 ,000E Median 50,000E High (New York) 160,000e
E. Stephens & Spiess (1968) 10,000 108 TABLE 5 - Continued
Limited Program and Services: Minimum Optimum Maximum
Ohio Conference of Deans (1948) 1,500 5,000- NA 6, 000
Grieder & Rosenstengel (1954) 2 ,000- NA 3,000
Blanke (1960) 2,000 NA
Dykstra (1962) 1 ,000- 2 ,000- NA 2,000 3,000
Ohio lias ter Plan (1966) 3,500 1 0 ,000+ NA
Sparks (1968) 5,000- NA 6,000
Great Plains Project (1968) 1,500 3,500 NA
Adequate Program, Yet Allowing Community Control: Minimum Optimum Maximum
Campbell et al. (1965) NA 10,000 2 0 ,000- 40,000
Cunningham et al. (1966) NA 1 0 ,000- 20,000
Havighurst (1968) NA 5,000- 10,000 10,000
Key: + indicates "or more" E indicates "efficiency." Criterion was lowest cost per unit. NA indicates "not applicable" to the category in question. 109
A study of both tables Indicates that an enrollment of approxi mately 10,000 pupils is generally considered sufficient to provide a relatively comprehensive program and yet permit community involvement in the educational process. Some services might be provided by an inter mediate service unit.
A smaller enrollment might be allowed if additional services were provided by the intermediate unit. On the other hand, a larger unit might be in order if it represented a "natural community" or a relative ly compact group sharing common interests.
Criterion three, for its part, calls for a revenue base that is broader than even the largest city district: one that encompasses at least an entire standard metropolitan statistical area.
These three criteria were the bases for. the model developed in this study. The model is presented in Chapter V. 110
CHAPTER III
REFERENCES
Freeman Butts and Lawrence A. Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953), p. 254.
Newton Edwards and Herman G. Richey, The School in the American Social Order (2nd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963), pp 51- 52 and 57.
3 Ibid., pp. 98-99.
^The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, quoted by Ed wards and Richey, p. 100.
3Roald F. Campbell, L u v e m L. Cunningham, and Roderick F. McPhee, The Organization and Control of American Schools (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965), p. 8 6 ; Butts and Cremin, p. 246.
^Butts and Cremin, pp. 107-108.
7Ibid., pp. 104-106. 8 Ibid., p. 106.
9Ibid., pp. 250-251. 10Ibid., p. 108.
11Ibid., p. 248. 12Ibid.
^Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, p. 52.
3 ^Ibid., p. 51; Butts and Cremin, pp. 255-256.
^Butts and Cremin, pp. 243 and 255.
16Ibid., pp. 256-257.
^■7Edwards and Richey, p. 336.
^®Butts and Cremin, p. 257.
^9 Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, pp. 56-57.
3®George Donald Marconnit, "A Study of the Current Curriculum Re quirements by the Legislature In Each of the Fifty States," Research Digest, Number 27 (Iowa City: Iowa Center for Research in School Admin istration, State University of Iowa, 1966), pp. 6 , 7, and 5.
2^Arvid J. Burke, "Fifty State School Systems" (Mimeographed) . cited in Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, pp. 65-66. Ill
22campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, p. 66 .
23Butts and Cremin, pp. 430-431.
24gdward Allen Bateman, Development of the County-Unit School District in Utah: A Study in Adaptability, Teachers College, Columbia University Contributions to Education, No. 790 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940), pp. 86-87.
25AASA Commission on School Administration in Newly Reorganized Districts, School Administration in Newly Reorganized Districts (Wash ington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1965), p. 24 (adapted). Data for 1969 are from "Facts on American Education," NEA Research Bulletin, XLVIII (May, 1970), p. 38.
2®Butts and Cremin, p. 573.
2^Great Plains School District Organization Project, Guidelines for School District Organization: A Project Report, Ralph D. Purdy, project director (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1968), Number ED 024 155, p. 116; Frank W. Cyr, Arvid J. Burke, and Paul R. Mort, Paying for Our Public Schools, Mo dem School Series (Scranton, Penn.: International Textbook Company, 1938), p. 144; and Committee for Economic Development, Paving for Better Public Schools: A Statement on National Policy (New York: The Commit tee, 1959), p. 59.
2®John 0. Niederhauser, "Criteria for the Establishment of Basic School.Administrative Districts, With Particular Reference to Ohio" (un published Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961), p. 298. Emphasis in the original.
2®U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education Directory 1962-1963: Part 2. Counties and Cities (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 1.
30Ibid.
31U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education Directory 1968-1969: Part 2, Public School Sys tems (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968)*
32R. Allan Spanjer, "An Analysis of Certain Organizational Fac tors Which Relate to the Administrative Decentralization of Large School Districts" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Washington State University, 1964), pp. 4-5.
33Education Directory 1968-1969: Part 2, Public School Systems.
3^Butts and Cremin, p. 245. 112
^Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, pp. 22-24 and 27-34; Federal Role in Education (2nd edition; Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quar terly Service, 1967), p. 16.
^®Quoted in Butts and Cremin, p. 426.
37Arvid J. Burke, "Local, State and Federal Financing of Locally Operated Elementary and Secondary Schools," in The Theory and Practice of School Finance, ed. by Warren E. Gauerke and Jack R. Childress (Chi cago: Rand McNally & Company, 1967), pp. 176-177.
38campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, p. 475.
•^Ibid., p. 523; Butts and Cremin, pp. 370-375.
**®Norman Beckman, "Metropolitan Education in Relation to State and Federal Government," in Metropolitanism: Its Challenge to Education. Sixty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educa tion, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 191.
^Albert H. Quie, "The Case for Block Grants," The School Admini strator, January, 1970, p. 15. Enphasis added.
^Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, p. 478.
^3"ASCD Resolutions," News Exchange, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, XI (February, 1969), p. 3.
^Editors of Education U.S.A., AASA Convention Reporter (Washing ton, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1969), p. 3.
^Editors of Education U.S.A., AASA Convention Reporter (1970), p. 10. *6Ibid.
^American Association of School Administrators, School District Organization, Report of the AASA Commission on School District Reorgan ization (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1958), pi. 212.
4 8Ibid., p. 213.
^ % e l s W. Hanson, "The Size-Cost Relationship in Public Schools,*' Committee on Educational Finance, National Education Association, Trends in Financing Public Education. Proceedings of Eighth National Confer ence on School Finance (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1965), pp. 125-133.
50Ibid., p. 126.
51Ibid. 113
5%talph Damon Sollars, "The Relationship of Size of Elementary Schools to Operational Cost and Program Quality” (unpublished Ph.D. dis sertation, The Ohio State University, 1962).
^Louis Edward Teets, "Relationships in the Elementary Schools Between Size, Per Pupil Cost, and Extent of Educational Opportunity” (unpublished D.Ed. dissertation, University of Florida, 1956), cited by Sollars, p. 25.
^David Daryl Basler, "An Investigation of Certain Factors Influ encing the Optimum Size for Elementary School Attendance Units” (unpub lished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa), p. 218, cited by Sollars, p. 27.
^Sollars, p. 62.
56Ibid., p. 135.
■^Clifford Basil Smith, "A Study of the Optimum Size of Second ary Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1960).
5®Gerald T. Kowitz and William C. Sayres, Size, Cost, and Educa tional Opportunity in Secondary Schools (New York: The University of the State of New York, State Department of Education, Division of Re search, 1959), pp. 30-31, quoted by Smith, p. 29.
• ^ K o w i t z and Sayres, p. 71, quoted by Smith, p. 30.
8®William J. Woodham, Jr., "The Relationship Between the Size of Secondary Schools, the Per Pupil Cost, and the Breadth of Educational Opportunity” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1951), as reported in Smith, p. 32.
^Woodham, quoted by Smith, p. 32.
^Smith, p. 32.
88James Bryant Conant, The American High School Today; A First Report to Interested Citizens (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), p. 77.
6^Smith, p. 10. 89Ibid., p. 12.
66Ibid., p. 37. 67Ibid., p. Al.
68Ibid.. p. 67. 69Ibid., p. 83.
70Ibid., p. 84.
7^Ibid., p. 146. According to Education U.S.A., principals of large high schools attending the NASSP Convention agreed that "good edu- 114 cation can be destroyed by making a high school too big." See Education U.S.A.. Feb. 2, 1970, p. 134.
7^?ational Commission on School District Reorganization, Your School District, Howard A. Dawson and Floyd W. Reeves, co-chairmen (Washington, D.C.: Department of Rural Education, National Education Association, 1948), p. 81.
73Ibid.
^Conference of Deans of Education, School District Reorganiza tion in Ohio, A Report to' the Ohio Association of School Administrators, Ohio County Superintendents' Association, Ohio Exempted Village Super intendents' Association (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for Edu cational Service, 1948), p. 27.
73Commlttee for Economic Development, Faying for Better Public Schools: A Statement on National Policy (New York: The Committee, 1959), p. 61. As early as 1934, Dawson had recommended a minimum of one teacher per grade level. The pupil-teacher ratio he applied at that time was 40:1. If adjusted to a 30:1 ratio, the enrollment would be approximately 180 pupils in a six-year elementary school. See Howard A. Dawson, Satisfactory Local School Units: Functions and Principles of Formation, Organization, and Administration. Field Study No. 7 (Nash ville, Tenn.: Division of Surveys and Field Studies, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1934), pp. 25 and 27.
^Committee for Economic Development, p. 61.
77Stanley Earl Walker, "Criteria for School District Reorganiza tion" (unpublished Ed.D dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1965), pp. 180-182.
78Ibid., p. 136. 79Ibld.
80Ibid. 81Ibid.
83The Project Staff, A Master Plan for School District Organiza tion in Ohio (Columbus, Ohio: State Department of Education, 1966), p. 116.
83Ibid., p. 117.
8^Paul Street, James H. Powell, and John W. Hamblen, "Achieve ment of Students and Size of School," Journal of Educational Research, LV (March, 1962), pp. 261-266. This study was restricted to rural and mining areas of Kentucky. See Oscar T. Jarvis, Harold W. Gentry, and Lester D. Stephens, Public School Business Administration and Finance; Effective Policies and Practices (West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1967), p. 146. 115
85a . N. Hieronymus, Achievement in the Basic Skills as Related to Size of School and Type of Organization (Iowa City: State Universi ty of Iowa, £1960]), cited by Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens, p. 146. Also cited in Walker, p. 44.
8®Stuart Calvin Gray, "A Study of the Relationship Between Size and A Number of Qualitative and Quantitative Factors of Education in Four Sizes of Secondary Schools in Iowa" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, State University of Iowa, 1961). For abstract, see Dissertation Abstracts, XXII (1962), p. 2631. Cited in Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens, p. 146*
®^Gray, cited in Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens, p. 147.
. ®®Great Plains School District Organization Project, Guidelines for School District Organization: A Project Report, Ralph D. Purdy, project director (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1968), Number ED 024 155, p. 5.
8^Ibid., pp. 6 and 126.
^Report of the State Committee to Study the Next Steps of Region alization in the School Districts of New Jersey, Ruth H. Mancuso, chair man (Irenton, N.J.: State of New Jersey Department of Education, 1969), p. 43 and Appendix B. Unfortunately, the Engelhardt Report, at least as quoted in the Appendix, does not distinguish clearly between school sys tems having an enrollment of 250 in grade ten and individual high schools with enrollments of 250 in that grade.
^%ational Commission on School District Reorganization, Your School. District, Howard A. Dawson and Floyd W. Reeves, co-chairmen (Washington, D.C.: Department of Rural Education, National Education Association, 1948), p. 86.
^Ralph C. Swan, "Application of Selected Criteria to the Prob lem of School District Reorganization*,* (unpublished doctoral disserta tion, Pennsylvania State University, 1954), quoted in Stanley Earl Wal ker, "Criteria for School District Reorganization11 (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1965), p. 82. Walker’s work is a useful compilation of many earlier lists of criteria.
^ A m e r i c a n Association of School Administrators, School District Organization, Report of the AASA Commission on School District Reorgan ization (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1958), p. 303.
^^Daniel Troy Craver, "School District Reorganization: Feasi bility of Methods for Locating Boundary Lines of Sociological Trade Area Communities" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1959), p. 61.
^Virgil E. Blanke, "Reorganization: A Continuing Problem," Administrator*s Notebook, IX (October, 1960), pp. 2-3. 116
98Don William Casey, "Identification of Criteria Which Denote Adequate District Organization and a Description of Procedures for Eval uation of Those Districts" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1963), pp. 138-139. 97 Luvem L. Cunningham, et al., Report on the Merger Issue to the Louisville Public School System and the Jefferson County Public School System (Louisville, Ky.: The School Systems, 1966), pp. 1-7, 1-14, and 1-15.
98Ibid., p. 6-16. QQ Oscar T. Jarvis, Harold W. Gentry, and Lester D. Stephens, Pub lic School Business Administration and Finance; Effective Policies and Pracitices (West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1967), pp. 145-154.
■^Lloyd E. McCann and Floyd G. Delon, "Governmental Structure for School Finance," in The Theory and Practice of School Finance, ed. by Warren E. Gauerke and Jack R. Childress (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1967), pp. 105-106. 101 Great Plains School District Organization Project, Guidelines for School District Organization: A Project Report (1968), pp. 113- 116.
lO^William E. Inman, Size and State School System Organization (Lincoln, Neb.: Great Plains School District Organization Project, 1968), pp. 16-17. Available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company,' Number RC 001 424.
103Ibid., p. 8.
^^Committee for Economic Development, Paying for Better Public Schools: A Statement on National Policy (New York: The Committee, 1959), p. 64.
105The Project Staff, p. 146.
lO^Conference 0f Deans of Education, School District Reorganiza tion in Ohio, A Report to the Ohio Association of School Administrators, Ohio County Superintendents' Association, Ohio Exempted Village Super intendents' Association (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for Edu cational Service, 1948), p. 22.
lO^Caivin Grieder and William Everett Rosenstengel, Public School Administration (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1954), pp. 22-23.
10®Blanke, p. 3.
l^John 0. Niederhauser, "Criteria for the Establishment of Basic School Administrative Districts, With Particular Reference to Ohio" 117
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961), pp. 274 and 297.
Upjohn C. Packard, "School District Size vs. Local Control," American School Board Journal, CXLVI (February, 1963), p. 10.
UlStanley Earl Walker, "Criteria for School District Reorgani zation" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State Univer sity, 1965), p. 136. For a list of the experts, see Walker, pp. 181- 182; for a partial list, see above, p. 75.
112jjels W. Hanson, "The Size-Cost Relationship in Public Schools," Committee on Educational Finance, National Education Associa tion, Trends in Financing Public Education. Proceedings of Eighth National Conference on School Finance (Washington, D.C.: The Asscia- tion, 1965), pp. 125-133.
H^State Legislative Research Council, School District Reorgani zation: The 12 Year District Proposal and Revenue Sources for Educa tion, Staff Memorandum (Pierre, S. Dak.: The Council, 1966), p. 11, citing Dr. Harry Dykstra, "What Constitutes a Good School District," SDEA Journal (May, 1962).
H^Charles F. Faber, "The Size of a School District" Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIXI (September, 1966), p. '35.
H5Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens, p. 159.
H^Great Plains School District Organization Project, Conference Report: The Area Educational Service Agency (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1967), p. 1. Number EA 001 822.
117Ibid., p. 7.
118creat Plains School District Organization Project, Guidelines for School District Organization: A Project Report (1968), pp. 6 and 126.
119Ibid., pp. 3 and 6.
l^^Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, pp. 129-132.
l^lpaniel Levine and Robert J. Havighurst, "Social Systems of a Metropolitan Area," Metropolitanism: Its Challenge to Education, Six ty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 70.
122warren E. Gauerke, "Introduction," in Theory and Practice of School Finance, ed. by Warren E. Gauerke and Jack R. Childress (Chi cago: Rand McNally & Company, 1967), p. 22. 118
123American Association of School Administrators, Official Re port, Your AA5A in Nineteen Sixty-eightaSjbcty-nine (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1969), p. 145.
^2^Report of the State Committee to Study the Next Steps of Re gionalization in the Schools Districts of New Jersey, p. 18.
1250hio, Senate Bill No. 461, 108th General Assembly, Regular Session, 1969-1970, sections 3312.01 and 3312.02.
^•2®Iowa Center for Research in School Administration, College of Education, The University of Iowa, The Multi-County Regional Educational Service Agency in Iowa, Part III: Summary Report, prepared for the Linn County Board of Education, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1967), pp. 14-15. Number EA 001 336.
*2^Blanke, p. 3.
•*-2®Niederhauser, pp. 297-298.
22^Francois S. Cillie, Centralization or Decentralization? A Studv in Educational Adaptation (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940); and Cleve 0. Westby, Local Autonomy for School-Communities in Cities (rev. ed,; New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947).
130cOmmittee for Economic Development, p. 64.
ISlpaniel E. Griffiths, et al., Organizing Schools for Effective Education (Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1962), p. 139. Emphasis in original.
132ibld., p . 141. 133ibjd.
134Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, p. 532.
135ibid., p. 131. 136ibjd., pp. 131-132.
137cunningham, et al., p. 6-17.
138^egionai Survey of New York and Its Environs, Vol. II, Popu lation, Land Values, and Government, quoted in Cillie, pp. 7-8.
139Howard A. Dawson, "District Reorganization," School Executive, LXXIV (January, 1955),' p. 87.
140george p. Strayer, for the Educational Policies Commission, The Structure and Administration of Education in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: The Commission, 1938), p. 79, quoted by Cillie, p. 5. 119
^Luther Gulick, Samuel P. Capen, and Sterling Sanders, Education for American Life, Report of the Regentsr Inquiry into the Character and Cost of Public Education in the State of New York, quoted by Walker, p. 79.
l^^ational Commission on School District Reorganization, Your School District, Report of the Commission, Howard A. Dawson and Floyd W. Reeves, co-chairmen (Washington, D.C.: Department of Rural Education [NEA], 1948), p. 86.
^^Department of Public Instruction, A Guide to School Reorgani zation in Pennsylvania, Bulletin 101, quoted by Walker, p. 76.
*^State Superintendent of Schools, A Guide for County School Com mittees , quoted by Walker, p. 81.
^■^Ralph C. Swan, "Application of Selected Criteria to the Prob lem of School District Reorganization" (unpublished doctoral disserta tion, Pennsylvania State University, 1954), quoted by Walker, p. 82.
^ ^ The Challenge of the Sixties, A Guide to the Reorganization of Pennsylvania School Districts, quoted by Walker, p. 89. 147 Michigan State Department of Public Instruction, A Statement of Philosophy (pamphlet), quoted by Walker, p. 102. 148 Julian E. Butterworth, Improving Educational Opportunities in Rural Areas, quoted by Walker, p. 80. 149 Louis F. Weschler, in Regional Goals in School District Re organization, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Institute of Governmental Affairs, sponsored by Chancellor's Committee on Regional Planning, Uni versity of California Extension (Davis, Calif.: Institute of Govern mental Affairs, University of California, Davis, 1965), pp. 113-115.
^^Jarvis, Gentry, and Stephens, p. 162. 151 Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee, p. 187. 152 Basil George Zimmer and Amos H. Hawley, Resistance to Reorgan ization of School Districts and Government in Metropolitan Areas, Co operative Research Project No. 1044 (Providence, R.I.: Brown University, 1966), p. 306. Emphasis added. 153 Robert J. Havighurst, "Metropolitanism and the Issues of So cial Integration and Administrative Decentralization in Large Cities," in Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Large Cities of America: The Relationship Between Decentralization and Racial Integration, ed. by Carroll F. Johnson and Michael D. Usdan (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1968), p. 134. Available from the ERIC 120
Document Reproduction Service, National Cash. Register Company, Bethesda, M d . , Number ED 029 388.
15AIbid., p. 135. 155Ibid., pp. 135-136.
^■-^John H. Fischer, "Urban Schools: Issues In Responsiveness and Control," in Johnson and Usdan, p. 21.
l**^Mrs. Helen Kerwin, in Regional Goals in School District Re organization, pp. 74-75.
•*-^®Task Force on Urban Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Final Report of the Task Force, Urban School Crisis; The Problems and Solutions Proposed by the HEW Urban Educa tion Task Force (Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1970), p. 7. Emphasis In the original.
■^Marvin C. Alkin, "Revenues for Education in Metropolitan Areas," Metropolitanlsm: Its Challenge to Education, Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 123-147.
160Ibid.. p. 126. 161Ibid., p. 137.
162Ibid., pp. 135-136.
^ ^ L u v e m L. Cunningham, "The Magnificent Pandora of Decentrali- . zation," The School Administrator, June, 1970, pp. 5-8.
^ AAmerican Association of School Administrators, Official Report, Your AASA in Nineteen Sixty-Nine=Seventy (Washington, D.C.: The Associ ation, 1970), p. 128. The resolution as published in the Official Re port of the Association omitted a phrase of the original draft calling for "a geographical area not so extensive as to require an inordinate amount of time for pupils and professional personnel to get to and from school or their places of assignment, ..." See "Draft of AASA Reso lutions Presented; Committee Requests Membership Suggestion," The School Administrator, February, 1970, pp. 5-6. CHAPTER IV
REACTIONS AND RESPONSE
Five experts on school district organization, nineteen public school superintendents and assistant superintendents from every section of the country, thirteen diocesan superintendents and assistant superin tendents from the twenty-one largest Catholic school systems, and nine major religious superiors or their delegates reacted to a model proposed by this writer.*- Each of the respondents received the complete text of the model and a form containing forty-four propositions based on the model. They were asked to indicate their judgment regarding the advis ability of each of the propositions and whether or not they considered it possible. They were encouraged, moreover, to reply with extended com ments regarding the model itself or the propositions.
In order to evoke comments and criticisms from the reactors, the propositions were stated in rather blunt, absolute terms and, generally without qualifying clauses. Had all of the respondents replied merely by indicating their judgments regarding the propositions and without of fering any comments or criticisms, the bases for their judgments would not have been clear. Fortunately, seven of the public school superinten dents commented, some rather extensively. Seven diocesan superintendents and assistant superintendents also returned extended remarks. Five of the religious replied in some detail.
Because all of the respondents other than the experts were assured
121 122
that their remarks would be reported anonymously, the term "superintend
ent" is used in this chapter for both superintendents and assistant
superintendents, and the masculine pronoun for all religious, male or
female. To distinguish between superintendents and assistant superin
tendents, and between men and women, might disclose the identity of the
one replying.
On the reply form, the order of the propositions followed the text
of the model. They have been re-grouped here according to eight general
categories: as they relate to the establishment of regions, the role of
the bishop, the role of the diocesan board, the role of the diocesan
school office, the role of the regional board, arrangements for hiring
and assigning personnel, provisions for curriculum services, and finan
cial support. Replies regarding the possibility of each proposition have been omitted from the tables since, in most instances, less than
ten per cent of the respondents judged them impossible. The few propo
sitions termed impossible by twenty per cent or more of the reactors are
reported in the text of this chapter. ,
*''■ The Establishment of Regions
Reactions
The propositions dealing with the establishment of regions with
in diocesan school systems received wide support. The replies of the ex
perts and other respondents are presented in Table 6 on page 123. Inter
estingly enough, although the diocesan schoolmen were the group least
supportive of the propositions in this category, at least fifty per cent
of even that group supported each of the propositions.
The diocesan superintendents were almost evenly divided on the TABLE 6
REACTIONS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONS
Key: E = Experts P = Public school respondents C = Catholic school respondents R « Religious inadvisable inadvisable advisable advisable highly (N) = Number responding to the proposition neutral highly ' (N) Per cent* E (5) 40 60 0 0 0 1. A level (or levels) should be introduced between the diocesan and P (19) 37 47 11 5 0 the building level. C (12) 33 42 17 8 0 R (7) 43 43 0 14 0 E (5) 20 40 20 0 20 2. There should be only two policy-making levels: the diocesan level and P (17) 35 41 6 12 6 the regional level. C (11) 27 27 0 36 9 R (7) 57 14 0 14 14 E (5) 40 20 20 0 20 3. Boards of education should not be established at the building level. P (19) 47 26 5 16 5 C (12) 25 25 17 25 8 R (5) 60 40 0 0 0 E (4) 50 50 0 0 0 4. Large diocesan school systems should be divided into regions, each P (19) 21 47 26 5 0 with an enrollment of 10,000 to 20,000 pupils (approximately). C (12) 25 50 8 8 8 R (7) 29 57 0 14 0 E (5) 60 20 0 20 0 5. The regions should have the major responsibility for the development P (18) 56 22 0 22 0 of policy regarding educational programs. C (12) 17 42 8 25 8 R (7) 29 57 0 14 0 E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 6. The diocesan board should intervene only when the activity cannot be P (17) 59 29 6 0 6 provided at the regional level, when uniform policy is necessary for C (12) 25 50 17 0 8 the diocese, or when basic rights are being violated or ignored. R (7) 43 43 0 14 0 *Rounded to nearest full per cent. 124
issue of policy levels in diocesan school systems: fifty-four per cent
thought it advisable that there be only two levels of policy-making, the
diocesan and the regional levels. Forty-five per cent thought this in
advisable. Whether they supported fewer or more levels was not clear,
since only two explained their views. Both of these favored only one
level of policy-making. The first stated that there can be only one
policy level if one is to have "a 'school system’ rather than a 'system of schools."' The only public school superintendent to comment on this
proposition also insisted that there be only one policy-making board
for the system.
The second diocesan school officer to comment on this point in dicated that he was not sure that restructuring was worth the effort.
Nevertheless, he thought the proposition had ,fone redeeming feature in
the doing away with parish school boards, and the establishing of only
the two levels of boards— diocesan and regional— thus eliminating boards with nothing to do." His real preference, however, was to eliminate all
boards and to limit decision making to the superintendent and his advi
sors. He considered boards simply "a device borrowed from public
schools" without any real advantage.
One of the religious also seemed to reject any suggestion of a
board. He spoke of each school maintaining the educational tradition
of the religious community that staffed it. Parents, he suggested,
should be entirely free in the selection of the schools to which they
V. could send their youngsters. Their involvement in decision making was
limited to the selection of the programs they wanted from among those
offered by the various religious communities or lay corporations. They 125 would not have a direct voice in determining the programs themselves.
The experts reacted differently. Niederhauser considered it highly advisable that there be only two policy making levels. Leu, on
the other hand, thought it highly inadvisable, since policy decisions
are made at many levels. In his comments on this proposition, Leu
stated
Local parents should be involved in a number of policy making decisions affecting their school. Yet the basic social policy should, I think, be centralized. . . . There are certain card inal policies that need to be made at a central position.
Campbell deleted the word "only,1' perhaps to indicate that pol
icy decisions should be made at the levels mentioned and at other levels as well. Featherstone took a neutral position, indicating that he
thought the second of the two levels should be lower in the structure, perhaps at the K-12 area level or even the building level. This is
clear from his reply to proposition three: he was the only expert to
favor the establishment of boards at the building level. Leu and Camp bell, on the other hand, stressed the importance of involving parents at the building level, but did not favor formal boards. Even Feather-
stone recognized that there were more dangers in lay control at the building level than in greater professional autonomy at that level. He was willing to accept the K-12 area as an advisable level for the board, but thought the regional level too large and too diverse internally to be sufficiently responsive to the needs of the many subcommunities.
Seventy-three per cent of the public school administrators
thought it advisable that boards not be established at the building level. The three who commented on this proposition expressed strong opposition to boards at that level. All of the religious also indicated 126 that they did not favor boards at the building level.
Although fifty per cent of the diocesan superintendents replied that they did not favor boards at the building level, a surprisingly large number (33%) indicated support for such boards. The diocesan superintendents also differed in their response to the advisability of assigning to the regional boards the major responsibility for the devel opment of policy regarding educational programs. Only fifty-nine per cent of them thought this advisable. One of those rating the proposi tion inadvisable apparently mis-read it. He replied that "major policy" should be decided at the diocesan level. The proposition had stated merely that "major responsibility for policy" should be assigned to the regional level, not "major policy." This proposition received wider acceptance among public schoolmen and religious: seventy-eight per cent of the former and eighty-six per cent of the latter judged it advisable.
The experts were not of one mind on this issue. Their comments, help to clarify their positions. Niederhauser and Campbell both thought it advisable that the regions have the major responsibility for policy regarding educational programs. Campbell added the qualification that over-all goals should be established at a higher level. Cunningham also thought that there should be some accountability at the diocesan level.
Leu seemed to take "policy" in a broader sense, not limited to formal policy. Furthermore, in commenting on this proposition, he omitted the phrase "regarding educational programs." This phrase was intended to specify the kinds of policy to be decided at the regional level: . those directly concerned with the educational program. If one takes into ac count Leu's comments above concerning the proper level for decisions in- 127
volving social policy and that for decisions affecting the schools them
selves, it would seem that he does indeed favor a shift in decision
making regarding educational programs from the diocesan level to a low
er level. His objection to this proposition may reflect his preference
for decisions of this sort at even lower levels. Featherstone stated
this explicitly: he thought that decisions regarding educational pro
grams should be made at the K-12 area level.
The proposal that large diocesan school systems be divided into
regions was supported by the four experts who replied to it and by siz
able majorities among the other reactors, but not without qualifications.
Niederhauser indicated that he would have preferred a larger enrollment:
30,000. Featherstone, on the other hand, thought that 10,000 to 20,000 was perhaps a bit too large. He cited Pontiac, Michigan, as an example
of a school district of 15,000 that has begun to move to subdistricting
because of the great diversity among the communities within that district.
The only public school superintendent who indicated that he
thought this proposition inadvisable stated that the enrollment should
reach 80,000 to 90,000 before subdistricting should be considered. He modified this position later, however, stating that his comments assumed
a heavy concentration of pupils: regions with smaller enrollments might be advisable, he thought, in dioceses covering large geographical areas.
Another public school superintendent indicated that it had been his experience that districts of 25,000 were the optimum size for pro viding a wide range of service. "Under 10,000" he noted, "we found our
resources were inadequate both fiscally and in personnel. . He thought
the suggestion that resources be pooled by smaller dioceses or regions of 128 a diocese offered "greater possibilities."
The Catholic school superintendents were quite vocal on this issue. The superintendent of one very large school system remarked:
I like your idea here. Have six or seven school systems in one diocese, all independent. I realize that you favor diocesan board structure also. I am not all that sold on its role.
Another diocesan superintendent took a very different view. Although he favored the establishment of regions to administer policies decided at the diocesan level, he did not favor the establishment of regional boards with policy-making power. Concerning this, he said
My greatest concern about the implementation of what is pro posed is that it would result in multiple school systems in a diocese. . . . I'm ready to admit that maybe dioceses should be made smaller, but, so long as they stay as they are, the principle of diocesan control must be maintained.
All of the experts and large majorities of the superintendents and religious thought that the diocesan board should intervene only when an activity could not be provided at the regional level, when uniform policy was necessary, or when basic rights were violated or ignored.
Featherstone stressed the qualification "when uniform policy is'neces sary." He did not favor the establishing of uniform policy in most mat ters, however. None of the diocesan superintendents or public school administrators commented on this proposition. Again, the diocesan super intendents were the least supportive, although this amounted to seventy- five per cent in favor of the proposition. Only eight per cent of the diocesan superintendents thought it advisable.
Response i The few differences of opinion among the experts seemed to center on the purpose of school district reorganization. Niederhauser’s study 129 a decade ago was concerned principally with identifying criteria for the efficient operation of an effective educational program. Leu and
Featherstone, on the other hand, have been grappling with the problem of community involvement in the schools. Cunningham also seems to be concerned with this problem and so of late, tends to support smaller units. Like Campbell, moreover, he seems convinced of the importance of affording greater autonomy to the lower echelons of the professional staff.
Although efficiency, professional competence, and community in volvement must be considered in restructuring Catholic school systems, no one criterion can be the sole basis for reorganization. The advan tage of community involvement must be weighed against the disadvantage of social and racial isolationism. Establishing boards too low in the structure can result in the isolation of socio-economic, ethnic, and racial groups from one another.
The model did provide for a curriculum council in each K-12 area to serve as a vehicle for involving the professional staff, students, parents, and community leaders in the development of educational pro- 2 grams (p. 184). Apparently this writer did not make its function suf ficiently clear in an earlier section of the model (p. 184). The model, therefore, should be corrected to explain the role of the cur riculum council in the development of educational policy. Furthermore, it should indicate that a single K-12 area in itself might constitute a region when this is economically feasible and where it would not result in the Isolation of segments of the population within the larger com munity (p. 174). 130
A correction regarding the establishment of K-12 areas also is
in order. One diocesan superintendent pointed out that Catholic elem entary schools are often isolated from Catholic high schools and thus do not fit easily into any K-12 area. The present writer believes that feeder patterns to public high schools should be considered as well as
those to Catholic high schools. In any case, and especially under cir cumstances of this sort, Catholic school officials should strive to main
tain channels of communication with local public school officials, to develop educational programs in cooperation with the public schools wherever possible, and— when necessary— to adjust the programs of the
Catholic schools to improve articulation with the public high schools.
Page 174 of the model, therefore, should be corrected to include this recommendation.
The Role of the Bishop
Reactions
The suggestion that bishops become less involved in policy making
for the secular aspect of education received broad support. A very high percentage of the religious and a clear majority among public schoolmen and diocesan superintendents thought the proposition advisable,. None of
the public schoolmen and only fourteen per cent of the religious and
twenty-five per cent of the diocesan respondents thought it inadvisable.
However, forty-five per cent of the Catholic superintendents thought this
impossible to achieve. Whether they were reflecting conditions in their own dioceses and the attitudes of their bishops or a mistaken understand
ing of canon law is not clear. Actually the model has been referred to TABLE 7
REACTIONS TO THE ROLE OF THE BISHOP
Key: E = Experts P = Public school respondents C = Catholic school respondents R = Religious advisable inadvis ab le ab inadvis inadvisable advisable highly (N) = Number responding to the proposition highly neutral (N) Per cent E (5) 0 20 60 20 0 1. The bishop should disengage himself from the development of educational P (19) 42 26 11 11 11 policy in secular matters. C (11) 55 36 9 0 0 R (5) 80 0 0 0 20 E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 2. The bishop should retain direct responsibility for the religious P (19) 26 42 32 0 0 education program. C (12) 25 33 17 17 8 R (7) 57 29 0 0 14 E (5) 20 0 40 20 20 3. The bishop should retain veto power over the decisions of the P (19) ' 11 26 42 11 11 diocesan board. C (12) 33 42 25 0 0 R (7) 14 29 14 14 29 E (5) 60 20 20 0 0 4. The board's decision should become binding after 30 days unless P (18) 11 22 44 17 6 vetoed by the bishop. C (12) 50 8 33 8 0 R (6) 17 50 17 0 17 E (5) 40 60 0 0 0 5. Some provision should be made for over-riding a veto. . P (19) 5 42 26 11 17 C (10) 0 50 10 30 10 R (6) 50 33 17 0 0 E (5) 0 20 20 40 20 6. The bishop should have the right to veto the resolution a second P (19) 5 5 26 37 26 time and to dissolve the board. C (11) 9 18 27 27 18 R (7) 14 14 14 29 29 132
3 several canon lawyers, two of whom are recognized experts. All assured this writer that this section of the model complied with the provisions of canon law.
The term "religious education" apparently caused some misunder standing among those less well acquainted with Catholic educational jar gon. Several of the experts understood it as a generic term, embracing the whole educational program sponsored by the Church. Apparently a number of public schoolmen also understood it in this way. This would account for the relatively high percentage of public schoolmen who thought
4 it inadvisable that the bishop retain "direct responsibility for religi ous education." What was really surprising was that twenty per cent of the religious, who clearly should have understood the term as referring to that segment of the curriculum which concerns the Catholic faith, also judged this inadvisable. Perhaps the comments of some, who sug gested that the bishop delegate this responsibility, might explain the position of those who thought "direct responsibility" inadvisable.
The experts were divided on whether or not the bishop should re tain veto power. Leu thought this advisable. He even granted that some vetoes (presumably) those dealing with religious matters or, perhaps, human rights) should not be subject to reversal. Campbell, on the other hand, replied that it was both inadvisable and impossible. By the sec ond observation, he apparently meant that the retention of veto power by the bishop would make the establishment of an effective board impos sible.
Although forty-two per cent of the public school superintendents took a neutral stand on the retention of veto power by the bishop, thirty- 133 seven per cent of them thought it advisable— almost as high a percent- ageas was found among the religious. Seventy-five per cent of the dioc esan superintendents thought it advisable that the bishop retain this power; none of they judged it inadvisable. One stated expressely that checks and balances are important.
The highest percentage of those replying negatively to this prop osition were the religious: forty-three per cent thought it inadvisable that the bishop retain veto power. They did not explain their reasons.
A public school superintendent was the only person to comment on the proposal that the decisions of the board should become binding after thirty days unless vetoed by the bishop. He noted that many matters are too urgent to allow a delay of thirty days. Actually, the proposition omitted an important phrase found in the text of the model. The model stated that the board's decisions should "become binding immediately upon the approval of the bishop or after thirty days if not vetoed by y him." (p. 172) The inexact character of the proposition may account for the low level of support it received from public schoolmen. Then again, since forty-four per cent of them remained neutral, it may be that they thought this a purely internal affair. Sizable majorities among the
Catholic schoolmen and the religious supported «the proposition.
All of the experts and a very high percentage of the religious thought it advisable that there be some provision for over-riding an episcopal veto. The diocesan superintendents were split 50/40 on this proposition. Forty per cent of them also indicated that they thought it would be impossible to make such a provision. The canon law experts, however, did not think it beyond the scope of even the present canon law, 134 since the bishop's rights in religious matters were clearly protected.
The proposal that the bishop have the right to veto a resolution a second time and to dissolve the board received the least support and the greatest opposition: Sixty-three per cent of the diocesan super intendents and fifty-eight per cent of the religious thought this inad visable. Less than thirty per cent of the public schoolmen thought it advisable.
Response
The veto power suggested for the bishop may seem undemocratic to some. Actually, public boards of education are also subject to the con trol of other authorities: the state legislature and the courts. The decisions of the legislature, in turn, are subject to the veto of the governor of the state. If no veto power were provided in diocesan school systems, a simple majority of the diocesan board could take action of major consequence that might prove irreversible. An episcopal veto, if exercised prudently and only in matters of far-reaching significance, could serve to temper the action of the board and to assure that major decisions of lasting consequence truly had broad support. For example, a simple majority of the diocesan board might vote to discontinue elemen tary education. Once this has been done and the teachers released or re assigned, it would be very difficult to reopen schools at that level. An episcopal veto in this case might serve to call attention to the irrev ocable character of the action and to inform the general public of the consequences of the action. This would establish whether or not the board's action had broad support in the community. If indeed it did, the bishop could do well to accede to the wishes of his people: he certainly 135 could not maintain the entire system without their support.
Provision for a second veto was suggested more to allay the fears of bishops than because of any real need. By assuring the bishops of the right to a second veto and to call for the election of a new board
(a kind of popular referendum), more might be willing to disengage them selves from day-to-day educational policy making. Without reserve power of this sort, the specter of a "renegade board" might dissuade bishops from allowing boards to become truly deliberative bodies. After a time, even the most wary of the bishops should come to recognize the work of the board as a help and not as a threat to their real work as bishops.
Nevertheless, to make it clear that the second veto is proposed as an accommodation and not as the ideal, the model should be changed on page 172 to read: "Some bishops may insist upon the right to a second veto. If so, the constitution might require that, after a second veto, the bishop dissolve the board and call for the election of a new board.
The exercise of the veto a second time would clearly indicate a real breakdown in the relationship between the board and the bishop. To attempt to continue under those circumstances would seem unwise."
The Role of the Diocesan Board
Reactions
The replies of the reactors to the six propositions concerning the role of the diocesan board are reported in Table 8 on page 136.
Four of the propositions were termed advisable by all of the experts and by sizable majorities of the other groups. * The proposition affording the diocesan board power to dissolve regional boards received the greatest opposition. Leu and Campbell TABLE 8
REACTIONS TO THE ROLE OF THE DIOCESAN BOARD
Key: E = Experts P =* Public school respondents C = Catholic school respondents R = Religious inadvisable advisable inadvisable advisable neutral highly (N) = Number responding to the proposition highly (N) Per cent E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 1. The diocesan board should have authority to act in matters P (18) 28 61 6 6 0 affecting the total system. C (12) 83 17 0 0 0 R (7) 43 57 0 0 0 E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 2. The diocesan board should develop a fundamental "Bill of Rights" P (18) 28 50 11 0 6 binding on all regions. C (12) 50 33 17 0 0 R (7) 29 57 14 0 0 E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 3. The diocesan board should hear appeals regarding the violations of P (18) 50 50 0 0 0 basic rights. C (12) 33 58 0 8 0 R (7) 29 57 14 0 0 E (5) 20 0 0 60 20 4. The diocesan board should have authority to dissolve regional boards P (18) 0 28 28 39 6 when it deems it necessary. C (12) 25 42 8 25 0 R (5) 20 40 20 20 0 E (5) 40 20 20 0 20 5. The diocesan board should be the only body authorized to speak P (18) 44 39 11 0 6 for the diocesan school system as a whole. C (11) 73 9 18 0 0 R (5) 60 40 0 0 0 E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 6. The diocesan board and school office should act as a service agency P (19) 53 32 11 5 0 in relation to the regions. C (12) 58 25 8 8 0 R (7) 43 29 14 14 0 137 rated that proposition inadvisable. Leu stated that if regional boards were dissolved every time their action did not meet with the approval of the diocesan board, the whole regional structure would be destroyed.
He suggested rather that the parameters of regional decision making be clearly spelled out so that drastic action of this sort would not be nec essary. One of the religious made the same point, suggesting that re gional boards be dissolved "only as a last resort after all sides of the issue have been clarified and after repeated warnings."
A public school superintendent suggested that this kind of deci sion should be made by a "'religious/lay court1 which can decide on the basis of petition to allow for a recall election."
The experts who replied to the proposition describing appeals re garding the violation of basic rights thought it advisable that the dioc esan board perform this role. All of the public schoolmen and over ninety per cent of the diocesan superintendents agreed.
Although fifty-eight per cent of the religious thought it advisable that the diocesan board hear appeals of this sort, two of them (28%) termed this inadvisable. One of these explained
i I don’t feel that either regional boards or the diocesan board should take on the function of a Board of Appeals. This could be come very time-consuming and prejudicial to other work undertaken by the board.
The other religious indicated that he failed to see how the board could act objectively. He suggested, instead, "a totally independent unit, preferably elected" as "the only acceptable method."
Response
The model envisions the diocesan board as performing three kinds 138 of functions, analogous to those performed by a constitutional congress
(drafting a statement of basic rights), a state legislature (exercising sovereignty over the regions), and a supreme court (hearing appeals re garding basic rights).
Although the proposition stated simply that the diocesan board should have authority to dissolve regional boards "when it deems it ne cessary," the example cited in the text (p. 175) involved the violation of basic human rights guaranteed by the board’s "Bill of Rights." Two courses of action were mentioned prior to that of dissolving the region al board: the voiding of a decision of the regional board and the remand ing of the decision to the regional board for further action. The dis solution of the regional board was to take place only if it failed to correct the matter, that is, if it remained recalcitrant in the viola tion of basic rights.
The model should be amended, therefore, to make it clear that this power is to be used only as a last resort and only in matters in volving basic human rights. The purely discretionary actions of the regional board should not be subject to appeal.
In regard to the appeals function of either boards, presumably it could act objectively in judging whether or not its policies were being implemented properly and equitably. Obviously, if the appeal con cerned the policy itself— and not merely its implementation— the board would be somewhat less objective. Since the diocesan board would func tion mainly to establish policies regarding basic rights, it is not very likely that there would be an appeal from its policies. (In civil law, one cannot appeal the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.) 139
In any event, sooner or later, after grievance procedures have been ex hausted and lower boards of appeal (regional boards) have heard the matter, it might finally reach a court of last instance beyond which
their can be no appeal. Presumably, this would be the diocesan board.
Since it was suggested that the diocesan board be an elected body rep resentative of all segments of the population, the election of a reli gious/lay jury would seem to be superfluous. However, if such a jury were established to serve other structures in the diocese, it might well serve as a final court of appeal.
The model therefore should be amended on page 175 to clarify the judicial function of the diocesan board.
The Role of the Diocesan School Office
Reactions
All of the propositions in this section were rated advisable by at least fifty per cent of the respondents: four of them received sub stantial support. Even so, the only "inadvisable" ratings given by any of the experts concerned two of these four. Leu thought proposition two, stating the kinds of curriculum services to be provided, was inadvisable.
Although he considered the services mentioned among the major functions of the diocesan school office, he stated
Curriculum services also may very well be in terms of purchase of materials, diagnostic and prescriptive support services and personnel. . . . The computer center may be part of the curric ulum services. Perhaps you'd define that as "resources"— I don't know.
One of the public school superintendents added the remark "also planning," then indicated that the proposition was inadvisable, presumably because of this omission. Nevertheless, eighty-six per cent of the religious, TABLE 9
REACTIONS TO THE ROLE OF THE DIOCESAN SCHOOL OFFICE
Key: E = Experts P = Public school respondents C = Catholic school respondents R = Religious advisable advisable inadvisable inadvisable! highly neutral (N) = Number responding to the proposition highly (N) Peir ceifit E 5) 20 60 0 20 0 1. Curriculum services should be coordinated at the diocesan level by P 19) 37 53 5 5 0 an officer with at least the rank of assistant superintendent. C 12) 58 42 0 0 0 R (7) 43 43 14 0 0 E 5) 20 60 0 0 20 2. The curriculum services provided should be primarily of the "resource” P 19) 16 58 16 11 0 and "process” kind. C 12) 50 33 8 8 0 R 7? 43 43 14 0 0 E 5) 60 40 0 0 0 3. The diocesan school office should provide (or arrange to have P 19) 63 37 0 0 0 provided) data-processing services on a diocesan-wide basis. C 12) 33 50 0 8 8 R 7) 29 57 14 0 0 4. The diocesan superintendent should serve mainly to gather information E 5) 40 60 0 0 0 for the diocesan board, to offer it counsel, and to coordinate the P 19) 26 32 5 26 11 services provided by the diocesan school office. C 12) 17 33 0 42 8 R 7) 43 43 0 14 0 E 5) 60 40 0 0 0 5. A superintendents1 council should be established to improve P 19) 63 37 0 0 0 comnunication and to share expertise. C 12) 42 33 17 8 0 R 7) 43 43 14 0 0 141 eighty-three per cent of the diocesan superintendents, and seventy-four per cent of the public school superintendents thought it advisable--all substantial majorities.
The proposition to receive the least support from both public school and diocesan superintendents was the one dealing with the role of the diocesan superintendent, proposition four. The diocesan school men were split evenly on the proposition, with none remaining neutral.
Fifty-eight per cent of the public schoolmen thought the proposition advisable; thirty-seven per cent thought it inadvisable. A very high percentage of the religious (86%), on the other hand, thought it advis able. There would seem to be quite different expectations concerning the role of the superintendent on the part of those who hold the office and those who are to be served by the office. One of the diocesan super intendents may have given an indication of why only fifty per cent of his group supported this proposition. He said "This would certainly dilute the Diocesan School Office."
Campbell added the comment that the diocesan superintendent should also offer "leadership." Three of the public schoolmen made similar re marks, one calling for "a strong 'stimulative* role," another suggesting that superintendent also should "make recommendations," and the third adding that he should "recommend action."
Although only one Catholic school superintendent judged the estab lishment of a superintendents' council inadvisable, his comments on the subject deserve to be reported. He felt that better decisions could be made by a group of central office specialists rather than by a council of regional superintendents who pool only their experience as general 142 administrators.
Response
Four of the five propositions dealing with the role of the dioc esan school office received substantial support from every category of respondents. The proposition concerning the role of the diocesan super intendent received the support of all of the experts and a very high per centage of the religious. The ambivalence of the superintendents may in dicate that some of them found the proposition threatening. In any event, in view of the general support afforded these propositions, no major changes would seem to be called for.
In regard to the leadership role of the superintendent, stressed by some of the respondents, one might reply that it is subsumed under the expression "offering counsel." This writer considers offering counsel not an entirely passive function, merely replying to questions when and if they are asked. Rather it is a dynamic role that includes the "making of recommendations" and "recommending action." Furthermore, it should be noted that the model envisions the regions as the basic school districts, with the diocesan school office in a service relationship to the regions.
Therefore, although leadership should be exercised at every level from the diocesan level through the building level, primary responsibility for leadership would rest with the regional superintendents who work with the
■v professional staff in each K-12 area.
Leu's critique regarding the kind of curriculum service to be of fered would seem to be directed more to the statement of these services in the proposition than to the recommendations made in the model itself.
The text of the model did call for data processing and for central pur 143 chasing, when the latter cannot be obtained from other service agencies.
Again, a central point of the model was that the diocesan school office provide only those services that cannot be obtained more conveniently and more economically elsewhere. The limited financial resources available
to Catholic school systems make this a necessary consideration. The model calls for "restraint" at the diocesan level in order to shift em phasis ("decision-making" or "power", if you will) from the central of
fice to the regions, (pp. 169 and 170) It is an attempt to bring the services provided "as close as possible to the classroom level--but al ways in a service relationship to it"(p.203). The problem would seem to be "How can we--with the limited resources at our disposal--be of greatest
service to our schools?" The replies of the religious who staff the schools would seem to indicate strong support (86%) for this kind of service.
Regarding specialists vs. generalists: the model called for a superintendents' council made up both of regional superintendents and specialists (pp. 180-181). Indeed, even the regional superintendents might have areas of special expertise: the model stated "and/or."
Council members might divide tasks among themselves, each one as suming responsibility of a particular problem: for example, one might
study minimum standards for elementary schools; another, those for high
schools, or guidance programs. Each, then, would serve as a resource person for the others. That is precisely what is understood in the model
(pp. 180-181).
The Role of the Regional Board
Reactions
Of all the proposals in this section, the one suggesting that 144
regional boards have complete authority over all of the diocesan and
parish schools in the region met the greatest opposition. Sixty-nine
per cent of the diocesan superintendents thought it inadvisable; forty-
five per cent of the public school superintendents agreed. One public
schoolman explained that he replied "inadvisable" because he thought
the bishop should retain ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals.
Leu was the only expert to rate this proposition inadvisable.
Although he did not comment on this particular item, Leu's general re marks would seem to indicate that his opposition was based on the word
"complete." He had stated elsewhere that authority must be shared at every level.
A high percentage of the religious (83%) thought the proposition
advisable. One, though rating it advisable, added the phrase "in accord with the diocesan board" after the words "complete authority." The only religious to rate the proposition Inadvisable, circled the same two words and stated that it "sounds autonomous."
The religious were the most supportive group, frequently record
ing over eighty per cent in favor of the propositions. In only one in stance, proposition seven (dealing with the appeals role of the board), were the religious evenly divided concerning its advisability. The diocesan schoolmen were the least supportive group. Besides proposition one, which better than two-thirds of them rated inadvisable, proposition two also met with considerable opposition: forty-six per
cent of the Catholic school superintendents considered it inadvisable
that all diocesan and parish schools be reconstituted as regional schools.
Fifty per cent stated that they thought this was impossible. That may TABLE 10
REACTIONS TO THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL BOARD
Key: E = Experts P = Public school respondents C = Catholic school respondents R = Religious advisable advisable inadvisable inadvisable highly highly (N) = Nuniber resnondine to the DroDOsition neutral (N) Per’cent E (5) 40 40 0 0 20 1. Regional boards should have complete authority over all of the diocesan P (18) 22 17 17 39 6 and parish schools within their territories. C (13) 8 15 8 54 15 R (6) 50 33 0 17 0 E (5) 60 20 20 0 0 2. All of the diocesan and parish schools in the regions should be re P (18) 17 50 22 6 6 constituted as regional schools. C (13) 8 23 23 38 8 R (6) 67 33 0 0 0 E (5) 40 0 40 0 20 3. Schools should be administered independently of the parishes. P (18) 22 28 28 11 11 C (13) 23 23 15 23 15 R (7) 43 43 0 0 14 E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 4. Regional boards should have authority to determine K-12 area P (18) 22 39 11 22 6 boundaries. C (13) 8 30 38 23 0 R (6) 50 33 0 12 0 TABLE 10— Continued
Although the Catholic school superintendents were evenly divided on proposition seven, very large majorities of public school and reli gious respondents favored it. Four of the five experts also thought it advisable that programs be subject to the approval of the regional board.
Leu thought it inadvisable. He did indicate, however, that he would have agreed had the proposition stated "most educational programs." He said
I would give local school systems complete freedom to develop some facets of their educational programs without approval. Other wise, you’re going to reduce innovation and change.
The experts and a sizable majority of the public school and reli gious respondents thought it advisable that regional boards have authority to determine K-12 area boundaries. Although only thirty-eight per cent of the diocesan superintendents gave an affirmative reply, none of them commented on the proposition. The only comment was made by a religiouB who thought this should "be done cooperatively on a diocesan-wide basiB."
The remaining propositions treating the role of the regional board received a moderate to high level of support from all of the groups but did not evoke comments of any note.
Response
To interpret the propositions correctly, each must be read in the context of the other propositions and, indeed, of the whole model. The statement that regional boards should have "complete autonomy," there fore, must be understood in the light of the other propositions, includ ing those stating the bishop's responsibility for religious education 148 and the diocesan board’s role in drafting a statement of basic rights and in hearing appeals concerning alleged violations of those rights.
The model calls for a shift of emphasis from the diocesan and building levels to the regional level so that the regions become in fact basic school districts. The proposition, therefore, assigned a qualification that should have been expressed explicitly: regional boards should have
’’complete authority . . . without prejudice to the rights of the bishop or of the diocesan board.” This would seem to be clear in the model, if not in the proposition. The religious who stated that the board "sounds autonomous” was quite correct— but autonomous within the limits just described.
The diocesan superintendents' lower level of support for prop osition favored by the experts, the public school superintendents, and the religious may indicate either some hesitancy on their part to accept major changes in their own roles or their judgment that other authority figures (the bishop, the diocesan board, and the pastors) will not accept such changes. In either case, the criterion should be providing the most effective service to the schools, not the preservation of personal priv ilege or prestige.
Leu was quite correct in insisting that local school systems be allowed complete freedom to develop some of their programs. In fact, the model allows each of the local systems (the regions) and their sub divisions (the K-12 areas) the freedom to develop all of their programs except, perhaps, instruction in religion. The model states
The most important reason for Introducing the K-12 attend ance area . . . is to allow each of the subcommunities suf ficient autonomy to develop programs suited to the youngsters of the area. (p.192) 149
Whether or not programs developed at the building or classroom
level should be subject to approval is a debatable point. This writer
would opt for some accountability for all instruction. Each region
surely could develop policy statements broad enough to accommodate ex
perimentation and innovation.
The suggestion that K-12 boundaries be determined "cooperatively
on a diocesan wide basis" rather than by regional boards is in order at
» the outset of regionalization (pp. 173-174) but not once the regions have
been established (p. 186). In the latter case, it would constitute undue interference in the internal affairs of the region. The one ex
ception, of course, would be cases of gerrymandering in violation of
basic human rights. The diocesan board clearly would have the right
to intervene in such cases (pp. 175-176).
Hiring and Assigning Personnel
Reactions
Three of the five propositions concerning the hiring and assign
ing of personnel received high levels of support from all of the group.
Several of them deserve special attention.
Seventy-five per cent of the diocesan schoolmen, almost all of
the religious, and thirty-nine per cent of the public school superin
tendents thought it inadvisable that personnel policies for the non religious sraff be developed at the regional level. Leu was the only expert to reply in the negative. He objected, however, not because he
thought this should be handled at a higher level, but because he con
sidered it "a joint or shared responsibility. . . . All of the affect- TABLE 11
REACTIONS TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR HIRING AND ASSIGNING PERSONNEL
Key: E = Experts P = Public school respondents C = Catholic school respondents R = Religious (N) = Number responding to the proposition advisable advisable highly inadvisable inadvisable neutral highly ...... 00 Per cent E 4) 25 50 25 0 0 1. The diocesan board should enter into agreements with the religious P 18) 11 44 33 6 6 communities regarding'the hiring and assigning of religious. C 12) 50 33 0 17 0 R 5) 60 40 0 0 0 E 5) 40 40 0 0 20 2. Personnel policies regarding the non-religious personnel (including P 18) 28 28 6 33 6 negotiations, hiring, and tenure) should be developed at the regional C 13) 0 23 0 69 8 level. R 7) 43 14 0 43 0 E 5) 40 40 0 20 0 3. New employees should be hired only with the approval of the regional P 18) 50 33 0 11 6 superintendent and building principal C 12) 17 58 0 25 0 R 8) 50 38 13 0 0 E 5) 40 20 0 20 20 4. The regional superintendent should nominate all subordinate admini P 19) 37 42 5 11 5 strators and other professional staff. C 12) 8 58 25 0 8 R 7) 29 57 0 0 14 E 5) 60 40 0 0 0 5. A regional administrative council should be established to improve P 19) 42 47 5 5 0 communications and to share expertise. C 12) 17 58 8 8 8 R 6) 50 33 17 0 o 151 ed agencies and individuals ought to be involved in the development of this. It may be finalized at the regional level.” A public schoolman replied ''inadvisable” because he thought "negotiations and tenure should be handled on the diocesan level.” One of the diocesan superintendents made the same point. Twenty per cent of this last group indicated that they thought it impossible to develop personnel policies at the regional level.
Leu, again, was the only expert to reply in the negative to the proposition that new employees be hired "only with the approval of the regional superintendent and the building principal." He noted that emer gencies arise which require that positions be filled immediately at the building level. He indicated, further, that positions in the regional office might be filled by the regional superintendent without consulting the principals. The only public school superintendent to comment thought the proposition advisable because it would increase accountability.
The experts were divided on the related proposition regarding the nomination of all administrators and professional staff by the regional superintendent. Campbell rated the proposition advisable, but questioned the use of the word "all," indicating that perhaps this should refer rath er to the nomination of personnel for the regional office. Leu made a similar observation. He suggested that nominations for positions in the schools be made at the building level, although they might be finalized at a higher level.
One of the religious gave a qualified "yes" to the proposition, provided that the regional superintendent work "in consultation with a personnel board or a regional administrative council." The only reli- 152
gious to reply in the negative to the proposition stated that the ap
pointment should be made by the religious superior with the concurrence
of the regional superintendent, since there are many considerations that
go into the placement of religious who have to live together as well as
work together." (Emphasis in original.) The same religious also ques
tioned the suggestion that the principal have a voice in the selection of
personnel (p. 188), stating
Religious obedience is under attack from many sides. This seems to be just one more attempt to do away with it. Are we doing the religious life a real disservice in the name of ef ficiency?
Two other religious took positions quite different from that of
the one who objected to the proposal. The first stated that there would
be no objection to assignments of this sort provided that the religious
superior had the right to approve or disapprove them. The second also
expressed no objection and added
In hiring religious teachers, the central or regional office might give consideration to the prevalent desire to live in small groups rather than "convent style." (Emphasis in original).
Response.
Leu's point regarding the development of personnel policies is well
taken. Surely, all concerned parties should be involved in the develop ment of those policies. The model should be corrected on page 187 to make
this clear.
In view of the support it received from the experts and from the majority of public Bchoolmen and religious, it would seem that the only
change required in the recommendation regarding negotiations and tenure would be the addition of the words "wherever possible" to the phrase "on 153
a regional basis" (p. 187). Eighty per cent of the diocesan superin
tendents either thought it possible or at least were not sure whether
or not it was possible.
The comments by the experts regarding the nomination of profes
sional staff do require a few changes in the text. The changes are re
quired primarily to clarify the point the model intended to make, namely,
that the administrators responsible for the implementation of education
al policies and programs have a decisive voice in the selection of their
co-workers. Pages 187 and 189 of the model should be amended to indicate more clearly that the regional superintendent should have the right to
nominate persons for positions on the regional office staff and for principalship in his region and that the principal should have the right
to nominate persons to serve at the building level.
The recommendation that the regional superintendent consult with-
a personnel board or with his administrative council deserves to be in
cluded in the model as a recommendatlon (p. 189 ).
The conflicting views of the religious respondents regarding the
appointment of religious to the schools point out sharply the need to
enter into agreements with communities on an individual basis so as to
respect the philosophy and rule of life of each. However, this writer must reject the suggestion that the regional superintendent assume only
the passive role of approving the principals appointed by the religious
superior. Nor can he agree that principals— even if religious--should be deprived of an active role in the selection of their staffs. The problems of community living are very real indeed, and require tact on
the part of those in authority. Nevertheless, the quality of educa- 154
tional service in the schools must remain the prime criterion in the se lection of personnel. Dare we do children a disservice in the name of
religious life?
Provisions for Curriculum Services
Reactions
The propositions concerning curriculum services received very strong support from the experts and from every category of respondents, but very few comments. Their replies are reported in Table 12 (p.- 155).
The only public school official to comment on the proposal that ed ucational programs be developed at the K-12 area level remarked that
"This may be too much of a dream to realize— but it's *7orth a good try!"
Although Campbell rated the proposition advisable, he pointed out that major curriculum projects, such as PSSC physics, certainly cannot be achieved at that level and probably not even at the diocesan level: projects of that sort are much too expensive.
A religious amended the third proposition to include the prov- sion that programs developed by the professional staff of a K-12 area be "approved by the regional office."
One of the diocesan superintendents replied that, although he considered it highly advisable that smaller dioceses cooperate in estab lishing an umbrella service agency, he thought that geography precluded much success. He pointed out, quite correctly, that the dioceses with smaller enrollments are usually the geographically larger ones.
Eight of thirteen diocesan school officials thought it advisable that curriculum services be duplicated for every three-to-five regions; ft
TABLE 12
REACTIONS TO PROVISIONS FOR CURRICULUM SERVICES
Key: E = Experts P = Public school respondents C = Catholic school respondents R = Religious advisable advisable inadvisable inadvisable neutral highly (N) = Number responding to the proposition .highly ---- (N) Per cent 1. The regional superintendent and his staff should be responsible for E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 coordinating the services provided to the K-12 areas by the diocesan P (19) 53 47 0 0 0 office and/or by other agencies. C (12) 33 42 17 8 0 R (6) 50 33 17 0 0 2. Educational programs should be developed at the K-12 attendance area E (5) 80 20 0 0 0 level, with the assistance of resource and process persons from the P (19) 37 53 11 0 0 diocesan school office (the regional office, where feasible) and C (13) 23 62 8 8 0 other agencies. R (7) 29 57 14 0 0 3. Program should be developed through the cooperative efforts of the E (5) 80 20 0 0 0 professional staff of both the elementary and secondary schools of P (18) 56 44 0 0 0 the K-12 area. C (13) 46 46 0 8 0 R (7) 71 29 0 0 0 E (5) 40 60 0 0 0 4. Where possible, curriculum services should be provided on a P (18) 33 44 17 6 0 regional (or even K-12) basis. C (12) 8 75 0 17, 0 R (6) 50 33 17 0 0 E (5) 60 40 0 0 0 5. Smaller dioceses should cooperate in establishing an umbrella P (18) 22 72 6 0 0 service agency. C (13) 31 54 8 8 0 R (7) 29 57 14 0 0 ' E (4) 0 75 25 0. 0 6. Very large diocesan systems should duplicate the curriculum P (18) 11 33 39 17 0 services for every three-to-five regions. C (13) 23 38 8 23 8
. R 0.). 14 57 29 0 0 155 156 four thought it inadvisable. Two of this latter group also indicated that it would be impossible.
Response
Considering the high level of support given the propositions and the very few comments made by the respondents, an extended reply to their reactions regarding the proposals for curriculum services would seem unnecessary and almost impossible. Even so, the remarks by Camp bell and by the diocesan superintendent do require some response.
Campbell pointed out that major curriculum projects such as PSSC physics are far too expensive to be undertaken by an individual region or diocese. Goldman and Pfluger made the same point regarding public school systems in the April, 1969 issue of Educational Leadership.^ They suggested that school systems instead select fromamong the numerous materials available commercially "those that will best meet the needs of a local school system." To do this, they suggested
School administrators, curriculum consultants, teachers, and other involved individuals . . . [should] reduce to in telligible criteria the goals of the local school system, thus making it possible for members of curriculum committees to select from among the available packages those which most closely meet the predetermined objectives.**
They suggested, further, that thecurricula thus selected allow
"gaps" for individual teacher input and adaptation. The present writer suggests that the Goldraan-Pfluger proposal might be adapted easily to accomodate the relationship between curriculum specialists in the dioc esan or regional offices and the curriculum councils in each K-12 area.
The specialists might review, critique, and catalog curriculum materials available commercially and provide, on request, an annotated list of 157 materials best suited to the "criteria and goals" defined by each K-12 area. Consultants providing this kind of informational service are termed "resource persons" in the model (pp. 178 and 193).
The comment made by the diocesan superintendent about the rela tionship of geography and enrollment (small enrollment/large territory) is a point well taken. However, even though the proposition did not state clearly enough with whom the smaller dioceses "should cooperate," the text of the model did make it clear that this might be done "by several neighboring dioceses— or by one or the other of them in coopera tion with public school districts." (p.204) In all but religious ed ucation, the latter would probably be the more feasible because of the large geographical areas involved.
Provisions for Financial Support
Reactions
Again, the propositions in this section received a very high level of support. Even with approximately forty-five per cent of the public schoolmen taking a neutral stance on the second and third pro positions Tthe redistribution of contributed services), at least fifty per cent of them replied that the suggestions were advisable. Support from the other groups was even greater.
Four diocesan superintendents were the only ones to add comments regarding the centralization of diocesan finances. Three of them favor ed some centralization of finances but added the qualification that local effort also should be maintained. One remarked: "As long as local in itiative continues. Self-help is also important." Another stated that TABLE 13
BEACTIONS TO PROVISIONS FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT
Key: E = Experts P = Public school respondents C - Catholic school respondents R = Religious advisable advisable inadvisable neutral inadvisable (N) = Number responding to the proposition highly nigniy (N) Per cent E (4) 25 75 0 0 0 1. Diocesan finances should be centralized to allow an equitable P (18) 44 39 11 6 0 distribution among all schools. C (13) 31 38 15 8 8 R (7) 43 43 14 0 0 2. The "contributed services" of religious should be used to establish E (5) 20 40 40 0 0 a scholarship fund for differential distribution in tuition grants P (18) 22 33 44 0 0 according to the need of the student. C (13) 23 54 15 8 0 R (7) 29 43 29 0 0 3. "Contributed services" should be used to establish a scholarship E (5) 20 40 40 0 0 fund for differential distribution among parishes according to P (18) 11 39 44 6 0 a parish-need formula. C (13) 15 62 23 0 0 R (8)' 13 63 25 0 0 158 159
he did not think diocesan finances should be centralized completely, but
that there should be "some equalization procedure." The third remarked
"I favor an equalization formula but not a complete centralization of
funds.'1 The fourth diocesan superintendent to comment stated that he
thought it was a "good idea" but that he didn't think it would happen
in the near future: in fact, he rated the proposition advisable but
impossible. Four of the eleven superintendents to reply regarding the
possibility of the proposition, thought it impossible. Two of them
thought it advisable but impossible; two others, inadvisable and impos
sible.
The religious were asked to reply especially to those sections of
the model that affected them directly. The redistribution of contributed
services was one such area. One religious, after indicating that his com munity already was doing this somewhat successfully at one of its high
schools, stated
Students to whom grants-in-aid are given bring in that much less money. But cash is needed to pay bills. An individual school may be able to survive financially on this plan. I doubt that a diocese can.
The same religious added
The religious who provide the "fund" for the grants-in-aid at the school level can know the students who are being helped and can verify first-hand that the poor are being aided to some degree. I am not so sure that religious who can not verify at first hand that their contribution is going to needy students will be so con tent with the situation.
The rest of the religious seemed to find this no great problem.
One stated: "This policy would build the morale of the religious teach
ers, giving them a feeling of making a direct contribution to the poor."
(Emphasis in original.) Another said: "Your plan . . . seems to have
great merit." Still another replied "We strongly favor some form of 160 equalization." (Emphasis added.) Not entirely unexpectedly, however, one religious asked why the contributed services had to be "tied to one purpose." It is not clear whether the "purpose" referred to was educa tion in general or, specifically, aid to needy students.
Response
Local effort is an important consideration, but so is the ability to finance education. Many parishes today simply lack the means to pro vide the staff and to maintain the facilities needed for an acceptable educational program; others are well-fixed with both.
The plan included the suggestion that the school facilities be rented from the individual parishes for two reasons. First, this would adjust the burden of parishes that already have expended funds for school buildings vis-a-vis those parishes that have not. Second, it would al low more flexibility in the assignment of students to the various build ings and would put control of the use of the buildings in the hands of the educators who control the educational program. Obviously,compensa tion for the use of the buildings should reflect the age and condition of the buildings. This would encourage parishes to maintain their build ings to the best of their ability. Expenses incurred by the regional board in improving facilities would be included in the "total cost of the educational program (per pupil)" shown on page 202. The education and finance committees of parish councils or similar parent groups in parishes without councils might reasonably be expected to stimulate in terest in education and to promote its support.
Whether or not any equilization formula is possible depends, of course, on the willingness of those who have more of this world’s goods-- 161 and the willingness of their shepherds--to use their surplus to the ad vantage of the needy. The Gospels and Epistles clearly state what the answer should be. It would seem to be the responsibility of the bishop of the diocese and of the pastors of the parishes to counsel their people accordingly. This paper can do no more than point out one way in which this might be achieved.
The question as to whether or not a diocese can survive on this plan is certainly a valid one. The model stated clearly that "complete equity cannot be achieved as long as the contributed services of reli gious remains the only source of equilization monies. A real solution to the problem will require considerable sums of money— probably govern ment money— especially in the inner city." (p. 197) It certainly should be much easier for an individual high school that serves a suburban cli entele to provide a large scholarship fund for the few needy youngsters who attend that school than for high schools that draw heavily from the inner city and offer more costly vocational education programs. That is a major reason why an equilization formula among schools is needed also at the secondary school level.
Probably the religious would find more personal satisfaction in knowing first-hand who the youngsters are who are benefitting from their contributed services. But this would seem to be at too great a cost: the embarrassment of the youngsters themselves. Even vdien the formula is used for individual students within a single school, the names of those youngsters should not become general knowledge even among the fac ulty. This is not to say that there should be no accounting made to the religious of the use of their contributed services. An accounting of 162 the fund is both advisable and necessary. The religious as a group should be given a dollar by dollar account of how their contributed services were used. However, the names of the youngsters who benefit ed from the program should be made known only to members of a scholar ship committee elected by the religious and to the major superiors of the participating communities. Respect for the privacy and self-respect of the poor would seem to dictate this.
Whether or not the contributed services should be tied to educa tion and/or to grants-in-aid to the needy depends, of course, on one's value system. Those who enter a religious community devoted to the educa tion of youth would seem to consider education a very important aposto- late. It would seem appropriate, therefore, that their contributed services be used to further this work. It would also seem advisable that those services be used to aid the needy rather than to increase the educational opportunities of those who are already advantaged. This, is, however, a philosophical question that centers in the commitment of the religious to education. Only the religious themselves can answer this question. 163 CHAPTER IV
REFERENCES
^■The respondents are listed in Appendixes A to D. 9 References to pages in the model (Chapter V) are presented in the text of this chapter, enclosed in parentheses.
The experts are listed in Appendix E.
^Harvey Goldman and Luther M. Pfluger, "Multiple Curricula: Strategy for Selection," Educational Leadership, XXVI (April, 1969), pp. 688-692.
^Ibid., p. 691. CHAPTER V
A MODEL FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF LARGE DIOCESAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS
The modal discussed in the previous chapter is presented helm* The comments of idle experts and of the other respondents have prompted a few additions end changes of a substantive nature. Where this has oc curred, the addition or change is presented in italics. In the latter casej the original text is given in the footnotes.
Rationale
The organization theorists quoted In Chapter II suggested that some measure of centralized control is necessary in every organization if the goals of the organization as a whole are to be safeguarded. This is true even of decentralized organizations, although such organizations do allow the exercise of a large measure of discretion at the local or divisional level.
One of the most effective means of maintaining the over-all con trol of an organization is the establishment of broad policies binding on all its levels. Laws regarding compulsory school attendance, teacher certification, and the like are examples of control-through-policy in public education.
Another control lies in the allocation of resources. State leg islatures have used foundation monies, for example, to induce districts
164 1 6 5 to consolidate. The federal government, moreover, has used the monies at its disposal to encourage programs thought important to national goals.
Nevertheless, many organization theorists and educators as well consider the decentralization of some kinds of decision-making and of some administrative functions essential to the establishment of a truly adaptive, innovative, and responsive organization.
Large diocesan school systems, this writer believes, have suf fered from undue concentration on the extremes of the centralization-de- centralization continuum: the central office (and/or Chancery) and the individual building unit. The model proposed in this chapter is in tended to establish a balance between the two: to gain, in effect, the advantages attributed to centralization (control, expertise, efficiency) as well as those claimed for decentralization (adaptability, develop ment of personnel, community involvement, accountability, etc.). To achieve this balance in large diocesan school systems, that is, in sys tems enrolling 40,000 or more pupils, this writer proposes three organi zational levels: the diocese, the region, and the K-12 attendance area.
The suggestion that a new level (or levels) be introduced between the diocesan level and the building level is not an entirely new idea.
In 1967, a superintendents’ committee of the NCEA suggested that region al and area boards of education be established.^ There are, however, a number of important differences between the recommendations of the com mittee and those of the present writer.
The committee's recommendations dealt almost exclusively with levels of policy-making: no table of organization was suggested. All 166 decisions of any real importance, moreover, were reserved to the dioc esan board. The present model calls for a shift in emphasis from the diocesan board and its superintendent to regional boards and their superintendents. In this plan, the regions would constitute the basic school districts.
Another very important difference in the present model is its complete rejection of the committee majority's suggestion that each parish school have its own board of education. There are a number of reasons for rejecting that suggestion.
If on the one hand, boards of this sort were vested with real power, even the semblance of a diocesan "system" would be destroyed: each school would become a district in itself. A large diocese of say
200 or more elementary schools and a score-or-two of high schools would disintegrate into as many separate but unequal school districts. Swank suburban parishes would be richly endowed with both leadership potential and material resources; urban and rural parishes might well lack both.
Leadership needed at the regional level would be drawn off at the parish level.
Co-ordination on a diocesan-wide basis would become a nightmare.
Articulation between levels would break down if each of the parish elem entary schools feeding into a high school— and the high school itself— were governed by its own virtually independent board. As Spanjer put it
Decentralization carried to the utmost limit would be cha otic and would result in less, not more, articulation and communication.2
The consolidation of small, inefficient units, moreover, would be retarded and racial isolationism encouraged. Even if a parish school 167 board were to recognize that its operation was too small to provide an
acceptable educational program at a reasonable cost, it might be unable
to find parishes in the area willing to consolidate with it.
On the other hand, if all matters of importance were reserved to
the diocesan board, as the model constitution proposed in The Voice of
the Community seemed to suggest,3 parish boards would be left with lit
tle to do but while away their time on trivia or meddle In the admini
strative duties of the professional staff.
This Is not to deny the importance of involving laymen in the
democratic determination of educational policy. Rather, it is to stress
the importance of involving them where their efforts will have the
greatest Impact. In the judgment of the present writer, this is at the
regional and diocesan levels.
The Present Organizational Structure
The present structure of large diocesan school systems makes un
realistic demands on the superintendent and central office personnel.
To cite an example: the elementary and secondary schools of one large
diocese enroll more than 120,000 pupils. There are 198 elementary schools, 11 diocesan high schools, and 24 private high schools in the system. Although there is a very heavy concentration of pupils in one
county, the diocese itself consists of eight counties and covers over
3,400 square miles. This vast school district is serviced from the cen
tral office with the assistance of one regional office consisting of two professional staff members.
The table of organization now in effect in that diocese is pre sented on page 168. It requires a span of control for the superinten- ADMINISTRATIVE s t a f f
BISHOP
[ Superintendent 1
Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Asst. Supta. (2) Regional Religious Ed Elen. Schools High Schools Spec. Projects Supt. (1)
A d *1(1 Asst,
Consultants Elementary Diocesan Private Office Mgr. Director of Director of Director of Director of for Schools High Schs High Schs Central Off Psych. Ser. Gov't. Prog, Raldo & T.V, Central Pur Religious Ed (198) (11) (24) Director of Director of Registrar Archivist Library Ser Teacher Per Service
Fig. S.— Present table of organization 168 169 dent and assistant superintendent for elementary schools that is clear ly excessive. Sixteen staff members report directly to the superintend ent; nine of these hold positions below the level of assistant superin tendent. The assistant superintendent for elementary schools is re sponsible for 198 elementary schools in the eight county area.
The diocesan superintendent, the assistant superintendent for elementary schools, and other central office personnel attempt to main tain communications with their public school counter-parts in almost ninety public school districts. One of the major functions of the lone regional superintendent in the present structure is to deal with offi cials in an additional twenty public school districts located in the second most populous county of the diocese. Apart from that, the region al office serves mainly as a clearinghouse for communications to and from the central office.
The Proposed Model
The model presented in this chapter calls for a shift of em phasis from the diocesan level to the regional level. In this plan, the regions would constitute the basic school districts. Regional boards would make policy in significant matters and the regional superinten dents would have the major responsibility for the administration of the schools. The characteristics of these districts will be described in greater detail later in this chapter.
The Diocesan Level
The relationship of the diocesan level to the regional level, in
the model being proposed, would be similar to that of the National Gov- 170 eminent In regard to the States. The criteria for federal action pre sented In the 1955 report of the Commission on In ter governmental Rela tions are apropos to the present situation: we need only substitute the word "diocese” for "National Government” and "region" for "State." The authors of the report thought federal action was justified:
1. When the National Government is the only agency that can summon the resources needed for an activity. 2. When the activity cannot be handled within the geo graphic and jurisidictional limits of smaller governmental unit. . . . 3. When the activity requires a nation-wide uniformity of policy that cannot be achieved by interstate action. 4. When a State, through action or inaction, does injury to the people of other States. 5. When the States fail to respect the basic political and civil rights that apply throughout the United States.^
The present model assumes like restraint at the diocesan level and suggests action at that level only under very similar circumstances.
At the diocesan level, the bishop, the diocesan board of education, and the diocesan school office (central office) all have roles to play. *
The Bishop
The model being proposed here reserves to the bishop those func tions recognized as proper to him in the decrees of the Second Vatican
Council. That Council spoke of bishops as teachers of the Gospel, mini sters of the sacraments, shepherds and fathers to the faithful.-’ All matters concerning the teaching of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the spiritual care of the Catholic faithful are within the exclusive competence of the bishop. This model, therefore, provides for direct appointment by the bishop of the assistant superintendent for religious education. 171
In the past decade there has been a marked trend toward the es
tablishment of truly deliberative lay boards of education. This recog
nizes not only the proper role of the laymen in the Church and the
rights of parents to supervise the education of their children— both
clearly stated in the decrees of "Vatican 11^— but also the impossible burden that heretofore has rested on the shoulders of the bishop. The
present model assumes that the bishop will gladly disengage himself al
most completely from the development of educational policy in secular
matters and from the direct management of the schools.
This, of course, does not preclude the exercise of the bishop's prophetic role in the Church, that is, his duty to serve as conscience
to the Catholic faithful. The exercise of that role could be of inesti mable benefit to the Catholic school system by pointing out, for exam ple, instances of discrimination, selfish lack of concern for others,
and neglect.
Nor does the model imply the complete absence of all checks on
the action of the diocesan board and superintendent. Checks and bal
ances are important safeguards to good government. The bishop most probably should retain veto power over the decisions of the board. In
such an arrangement, the decisions of the board would become binding
immediately upon the approval of the bishop or after thirty days if not vetoed by him. Thus, in the latter case, a decision properly within the
competence of the board might become law without requiring the bishop
to take a public stand on the matter.
Furthermore, a resolution vetoed by the bishop might be passed a second time by a two-thirds (or perhaps four-fifths) affirmative vote 172 of the board. Some bishops may insist upon the right to a second veto. If so3 the constitution might require that, after a second veto, the bishop dissolve the board and call for the election of a new board. The exercise of the veto a second time would clearly indicate a real break down in the relationship between the board and iihe bishop. To attempt to continue under those circumstances would seem unwise. Furthermore, an election at that point would allow the people of the diocese the op portunity to make known their will in the matter by their selection of the members of the new board. ?
The Diocesan Board of Education
Membership on the diocesan board of education should be repre sentative both of a cross-section of the people of the diocese and of
the several regional districts. Each diocese, of course, will have to develop its own guidelines to achieve a proper balance on the Board.
One possible arrangement would be to elect a representative from each
region, a representative of the clergy, and a representative of religious
communities.
It would probably be preferable to have each regional board se
lect its representative from its own membership. This would assure that
the representative was somewhat knowledgeable about the educational pro
gram, the problems, and the aspirations of the region. It would also provide a direct link between the regional and diocesan boards. If membership on the diocesan board should prove too demanding— and this is
really unlikely— the regional boards might ask outgoing members to serve
at the diocesan level.
The representatives of the clergy and religious communities might 173 be elcted by the priests' senate and sisters' senate, respectively, if indeed those bodies are truly representative of all the priests and sis ters of the diocese. (Male religious who are not priests should be in cluded with them when balloting.) Clerical and religious representation is suggested to establish a "good mix" on the board, representative of two distinct groups within the diocesan family. Presumably, the laity would have ample representation on the board as representatives of the sev
eral regional boards. The non-Catholic parents of children attending
Catholic schools and other patrons of the schools certainly should be eligible for election to both regional and diocesan boards. Although an election of board members ordinarily is more in keeping with the dem ocratic process, it may be necessary to provide for the appointment of a small number of members-at-large in order to assure that minority groups have a voice on the board.
As the deliberative body having ultimate responsibility for ele mentary and secondary education throughout the diocese, the diocesan school board should have authority to act in any matter affecting the total system. Specifically, this would involve the following matters.
Establishing regions.— Authority to establish regions within the diocesan school system— and to adjust their boundaries when necessary--
'should be a prerogative of the diocesan board.
In establishing regions, the board must be careful to assure that each not be "a mere melange of completely independent areas where people have no particular sense of responsibility for their schools."® Dio
ceses that are not already districted at the high school level would do well to take into account the natural feeder patterns that may have al- 174 ready developed rather than to attempt to impose an artificial structure from above. Quite simply, this means identifying the elementary schools from which a high school (or group of high schools) draws most heavily.
Together, they would consititute the nucleus of a K-12 attendance area. In areas lacking Catholic high schools or where the Catholic high schools draw only a very small percentage of the Catholic youngsters, the feeder patterns to the local public high schools should be used to identify idle K-12 area. In such cases, Catholic school officials should make an even greater effort to establish and maintain channels of com munication with the local public school officials, to develop education al programs in cooperation with them whenever possible, and— if neces sary— to adjust the programs of the Catholic elementary schools to im prove articulation with the public high schools.
Ordinarily, a region would consist of two or more of these at tendance areas. Limitations in human and financial resources would make this necessary in most cases. However, when personnel are available and where it is economically feasible, a single K-12 area might constitute a region, if this can be done without isolating the socio-economic, ethnic, and racial groups within the larger community. In either case, the . structure would be built from the bottom up, not from the top down, and thus would respect quasi-natural communities already established. Be sides public school districts, common interests and political boundaries also must be considered.
Since each region should constitute a true school district re sponsible for providing a full educational program, it should have an 175 enrollment of approximately 10,000 to 20,000 pupils.^ The exact size of each region, however, must be considered a "variable," since the density of the student population will vary greatly within a single diocese.
Policy-making.— A major task of the diocesan board at its incep tion should be the drafting of a fundamental "Bill of Rights" applicable to educational programs throughout the diocese. This "Bill of Rights"— drawn from the precepts of the Gospel, the decrees of the Second Vati can Council, and the American democratic tradition as expressed in the
United States Constitution— is to serve as the standard whereby the ac tions of the regional boards and of the professional staff are to be judged. Since direct responsibility for the operation of the schools in any given region would rest with the regional board, policies drafted by the diocesan board should treat only the most fundamental of issues and be couched in the broadest of terms, or concern matters that cannot be handled regionally. Agreements with religious communities staffing schools throughout the diocese would be an example of the latter. Both are discussed below.
Hearing appeals.— Once the "Bill of Rights" has been drafted, the diocesan board should assume responsibility for hearing appeals made from regional board decisions when the appeals are based on the alleged violation of these rights. The purely discretionary actions of regional boards should not be subject to appeal.
For example, the "Bill of Rights" presumably would state the special (though not exclusive) right of the poor and the disadvantaged to the educational services of the Church. Should the diocesan board 176 find that a region was acting in violation of basic rights^ it could take action against it. This might involve voiding a decision of the regional board or remanding it to the regional board for further action.
Should the regional board refusell to correct the matter, the diocesan board as a last resort could exercise its sovereign authority over the district by dissolving the regional board and arranging for a new elec tion, or by suppressing the region and either re-assigning the schools to other districts or administering them (for a time) at the diocesan level.
Hiring and assigning religious personnel.— It is suggested that agreements with religious communities be on a diocesan-wide basis be cause their work frequently extends into several regions of a diocese.
It would be both unrealistic and unwise to attempt to establish differ ent salaries for members of the same religious community serving in dif ferent regions of the same diocese.
Another matter for diocesan-wide policy involves the assigning of religious personnel. It is strongly recommended that the diocesan board enter into an agreement with the religious communities concern ing the assignment of religious as principals or teachers. This agree ment should call for the concurrence of the religious superiors and the regional superintendents in the appointment of religious as principals or teachers. The religious superiors quite naturally are very much con cerned about the community-life at the convents attached to the various schools. The regional superintendents, on their part, must show a like concern for the academic life of the schools in the region. The con-
s currence of both thus is in order. 177
Speaking for the system.— Another aspect of the board's policy function is its right to speak on behalf of the total system in educa tional matters. This includes resolutions addressed to officials of the national, state, and local governments regarding educational policy affecting the entire system, as well as reports issued to the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops and other national groups, to patrons of the diocesan system and to the general public, or to segments of the general public dispersed throughout the diocese.
Servicing the regions.— Besides matters of policy, the diocesan board should have responsibility for providing services to the regions.
Its role in this matter would be very much like that suggested for in termediate school districts. However, it should not be considered the only service agency to which the regions might turn. Dioceses frequent ly cover several thousand square miles and include numerous political and educational jurisdictions and agencies. Where more economical or more convenient, regions within a diocese should be encouraged to obtain the services needed from those agencies, if permitted by law. Services obtained locally from public agencies might be better suited to the par ticular needs of students in the Catholic schools of the area than would services provided by a more remote diocesan office. Moreover, coopera tion of this sort could do much to improve articulation between public and parochial schools.
In any case, the diocesan board should continue to provide those services which all or some of the regions cannot obtain elsewhere. Con sultants for religious education, for example, obviously could not be obtained from public agencies. The diocesan office might also assist 178 the regions by providing for the centralized processing of teacher cer tification forms. Central purchasing, on the other hand, might be an example of a service provided by public agencies in some areas but not in others.
Curriculum services.— Ideally, the full scope of curriculum ser vices should be provided by each regional district. Realistically, how ever, in view of the very limited resources of the parochial schools, one can expect that these services— where provided— will continue to come from the diocesan office. The problem, then, is to use the re sources that are available in the most efficient and effective manner.
The assistant superintendent for curriculum services should be responsible for coordinating all of the services relating to the educa tional program. These include the services of consultants for the various disciplines, library specialists, instructional media special ists, guidance and counseling specialists, and the like. The word "ser vice" is very important: the role of central office personnel, in this structure, is seen as one of service to those in the field. They serve in two capacities: as "resource persons" and as "process persons."^
Their role as "resource persons" means simply that they attempt to make available to the professionals in the field a wealth of information from which they may make selections. As "process persons," the central of fice personnel work to develop the expertise of the professionals in the field through effective inservice programs.
The real locus of curriculum development in this plan is the K-12 attendance area. A lean central office need not be a bad thing— at least not if it encourages more innovation and greater adaptability In 179
the schools.
Auxiliary services.— Services not directly related to the educa
tional program but necessary for the effective operation of the schools
are termed "auxiliary services" in this study. Auxiliary services pro
vided by the diocesan central office should include system-wide data processing and central purchasing, if the latter is not available else where .
Data processing could be an invaluable tool both in assessing the present condition of the professional staff and in projecting staff needs in the future. Information in the data banks, as L. 6. Wagner has pointed out, would be readily available both to individual decentralized units (in this case, the regions) and to the corporate staff (the cen-
1 Q tral office). Furthermore, the computerizing of payroll preparation,
class scheduling, and student reporting would greatly reduce the cleri
cal time and effort now expended at the building level.
In addition to the above, the central office should provide legal
counsel to the regions; information concerning government regulations
and programs; and assistance in the planning of educational facilities, if this were not available elsewhere. Some dioceses may not need to provide all of these services; others may require still more.
In order to provide these services to the regions, the diocesan board of education clearly would need an executive officer and support ing staff, as well as authority to levy assessments on the regions to
finance central office operations.
The Diocesan Superintendent
The diocesan superintendent's role in the proposed structure 180 would change radically from its present form. At present, the superin tendent of a large diocesan school system is at the apex of a huge pyra mid, responsible for the supervision and control of his subordinates.
Often, the span of control is excessive.
In the proposed model, each region would become a basic school district with its own board and its own superintendent. The diocesan school office then would assume a service relationship to the regions.
The diocesan superintendent no longer would be responsible for the
"supervision and control" of the regional superintendents but rather for the co-ordination of the services provided to them and to the regions they head. He would become almost a primus inter pares who would chair the superintendents* council and manage the central office staff.
Becker and Gordon described this type of relationship as an "in ternally coupled bureaucracy," that is, "a formal organization which contains two or more authority patterns, one in service to the other."
The example they cited was that of a hospital where the administrative group operates in a service relationship to the collegial group of doc tors .
Superintendents’ Council
To Increase the communication and assist the superintendent in
Identifying the educational needs of the diocese as a whole, the model calls for the establishment of a "superintendents' council." Besides the diocesan superintendent, membership on the council should include the regional superintendents, the assistant superintendent for curri culum services, the assistant superintendent for auxiliary services, and the assistant superintendent for religious education. 181
Very large systems may require, in addition to the above, one
or more deputy superintendents to assist the superintendent in co-ordi
nating the services provided by the central office and by other agencies.
The structure proposed here is similar to the linking-pin rela
tionship suggested by Likert.^® If allowed to function as a true coun
cil, the advantages attributed by Thompson to multiple group membership
and by Bennis to the "circle" pattern in communication networks (crea
tivity, flexibility, and high morale) might also be expected.^-®
Each of the members of the council would be responsible for knowl
edge of the personalities and problems peculiar to a specific region
and/or for a special area of expertise. The regional superintendents would be responsible primarily for providing the former; the assistant
superintendent for curriculum services, auxiliary services, and reli
gious education, the latter.
Members of the council would serve as resource persons to one
another, each benefiting from the experience and expertise of the
other.This organizational structure should be especially beneficial
to diocesan school systems where limited financial resources necessitate
minimal staffing of the central office.
By making the diocesan superintendent responsible for devoting
his "full attention to general management affairs," many of the short
comings Parks found in European collegial managment patterns could be
avoided.^-®
The Regional Level
At a conference on centralization and decentralization sponsored
by the Netherlands School of Economics In 1954, H. W. Ouweleen reported [ BISHOP j_
Diocesan Board SUPER1NTEHDEHTS' COUNCIL
Diocesan Supt Xr Deputy Supt.
Regional1 / Boards(6) I / \ \
Asst. Supt. Regional Asat. Supt. Asst. Supt. Religious Ed. Supts^(6) Currie. Services Auxll. Services
Adninistratlve Principals Consultants Accountant(s) Co>ordinator Co-ordlnator Co-ordlnator Office Assistant (a) of Area(a) Special Ed. Psych. Services Gov't. Progs Data processing Mgr. \ 7 6 Accounting Central Office
Consultants urrlculun Professional CurriculConsultants Co-ordinator Co-ord Lnator Director for Council Subject Areas Library Services Teacher Central Bellgloua Area A Personnel Services Purchasing Education
Fig. 6.— Proposed table of organisation 182 183
on the results of restructuring the Netherlands postal system. Prior to
its restructuring, many local units of the system exercised what he
termed "negative independence." The postal company, he said, had singly become "too large, the communication lines too long, decision-making too
far removed from the spot to integrate the post offices in one smoothly working organization."^-®
A similar situation seems to exist in many large diocesan school
systems. Most diocesan systems claim to reserve policy-making authority
to the diocesan board of education or to the bishop. The application of policy is said to be the prerogative of the individual school. And yet many of these systems are so large, communication lines so long, and
decision-making so far removed from the school that policy decisions
frequently are made at the building level. (The decision not to observe
a diocesan policy, for example, is in itself a policy decision.)
Ouweleen noted that the decentralization of the system through
the introduction of district offices actually resulted in an opposite movement at the local level. Decision-making formerly assumed— or more
accurately, usurped— by personnel at the building level was re-assumed by company officers acting at the district level. Decentralization at
the top of the organization resulted in centralization at the bottom.^0
The Regional Board
The model proposed in this chapter is intended to achieve the
same result. The establishment of effective regional boards of educa
tion should create a kind fulcrum in the organization producing a bal
ance between centralization and decentralization. 184 Many of the duties assigned to the regional board in the present model are similar in name to those performed by the diocesan. The sub
stance of these duties, however, is really quite different.
Policy-making.— The diocesan board of education has responsibili
ty for developing very broad policies concerning fundamental human
rights and the goals of the system as a whole. The regional board, on
the other hand, is reponsible for developing policies which are direct
ly concerned with the educational program and the management of the schools. This shift of decision-making authority from the remote of
fice of a smaller regional district should help to encourage more ap propriate and better articulated programs.
Heretofore, most diocesan school systems have attempted to de velop curricula at the central office level. Occasionally, teachers (or principals) were allowed to select the text from a list of approved
titles. The assumption was that this would enable each school to adjust
its program to its particular, circumstances. Though obviously well-in
tentioned, this approach is disappointingly inadequate: a textbook hardly constitutes a program. Nor does the Introduction of multiple
texts, grade by grade and school by school, serve to promote articula
tion between grade levels and especially between elementary and secon
dary schools.
The present model assumes that curricula will be developed on a
K-12‘basis at the attendance area level by a team made up of elementary and secondary school principals, department chairmen and teacherst and parent and student representatives. Curricula developed at that level should be submitted to the only policy-making body directly responsible 185 to the people involved: the regional board of education. This require ment should help to improve the quality of the educational programs in the schools. It is one thing to develop a program and to implement it on one's own authority. It is something else entirely to have to "sell" the program to an interested but uncommitted group.
Controlling school operation.— Regional boards should have com plete authority over all diocesan and parish^ schools within their terri
tories. In fact, the model assumes that all of these schools be recon stituted as regional schools. This could be achieved simply be reas signing responsibility for educational policy making and for the ad ministration of the schools to the regional board of education and to the regional superintendent of schools, respectively. It need not in volve transferring ownership of the school buildings.
School buildings now owned by parishes could be rented from them for an equitable fee. This fee should be computed from an amortization of the actual cost of construction and not from the building's commer cial value: the parishes surely did not build the schools to produce income. The rent-value of the facilities then would be credited toward the parish's share of the cost of operating the school. For example, the per pupil cost for a parish not providing buildings might be confut ed at $250 and that of a parish providing school facilities at $175
($250 less $75 rent). This arrangement would seem to fulfill the re quirements both of equity and of canon law*
The suggestion that responsiblity for school programs be with drawn from parish control found support among prominent lay men and women surveyed by the National Council of Catholic Men in 1969. The 186
N.C.C.M. reported that 80% of its "National Consultants" thought that . *■ i "too much control over Catholic education is exercised at the parish level."21
Those familiar with the control and administration of Catholic schools, particularly at the parish level, probably would concur with
James Michael Lee's assertion that they are "atomistic," lacking in both vertical and horizontal articulation, and operate with almost total in dependence of one another.22
Assigning control of the schools to a representative policy-mak ing body intermediate to the diocesan and parish levels would constitute decentralization at the diocesan level (to allow community involvement) and centralization at the parish level (to improve coordination and or ganizational control). Small, inadequate schools could be consolidated more easily if all the schools were under a regional authority. Fur thermore, the choice of sites for new schools then could be made on the basis of purely educational criteria, with only incidental concern for parish boundaries.2^
Determining attendance areas.— A plan for establishing the boundaries of regions on the basis of K-12 attendance patterns was ex plained above. Once the region has been established, however, the re gional board should have the authority to adjust the boundaries of these areas and to establish new areas as needed. Transfers of territory from one region to another, on the other hand, should require approval of the diocesan board.
Speaking for the region.--The regional board should speak for
Catholic education within its territory. In so doing, it may properly 187 address its remarks to the bishop of the diocese, to the diocesan board or superintendent, to other regions within the diocese, to city and county governments within its territory, and to any or all of its con stituents.
Hearing of appeals.— The regional board, like the diocesan board, should establish policies regarding the hearing of certain kinds of ap peals. Ordinarily, appeals heard by the regional board should concern only matters of greater consequence, such as the violation of human rights or the dismissal of a pupil or tenured employee. Less serious matters should be heard by grievance boards, student courts, and the like.
Personnel.— Responsibility for the educational program implies responsibility for the professional staff employed to develop and im plement it. Ideally, all personnel policy matters (other than those dealing with human rights) should be developed cooperatively^^ at the regional level, if they concern the non-religious professional staff.
Host dioceses cover several thousand square miles. It is unrealistic to suggest diocesan-wide negotiations under such circumstances: the work situation, the educational climate, housing conditions, and the cost of living may differ greatly from region to region within a diocese. Ne gotiations and the granting of tenure, therefore, should take place on a regional basis whenever possible. Only routine clerical tasks, such as issuing the payroll and processing applications for certification, should be handled through the diocesan office.
All school personnel in the region, both professional and non professional, should be considered employees of the regional board of 188
education. As such, they should have to meet whatever criteria for em
ployment the regional board might establish over and above the standard
certification requirements. Furthermore, with the exception of employ ees hired on a temporary basis during an emergency, all new employees should be nominated by the principals in whose buildings they are to
serve and approved by the regional superintendentThe principal is
responsible for the educational program in his (her) building; the re
gional superintendent, for the program throughout the region. Both
should have a voice in the selection of their subordinate personnel.
Granting tenure.— At present, membership in a religious communi
ty is frequently tantamount to instantaneous tenure. Religious teachers
not acceptable to any regional superintendent should be retired from
service in the classroom. Although they amount to only a very small
percentage of the community, there are some religious who simply do not have the skill or temperament requisite for successful classroom per
formance. Each region should assume its share of the responsibility for
providing for those thus retired from classroom posts. They should be
assigned to other positions within the system such as teacher aides, re
search specialists, research librarians, and the like, and paid the
regular modest salary paid to other religious.
Lay teachers already on tenure who are found to be incapable of
effective classroom performance also should be assigned to other duties
for which they are better suited. Responsibility for those admitted to
tenure by the diocesan board prior to the establishment of regions
should be shared by all of the regions on a percentage basis. Subsequent
to the establishment of regions, each region should be responsible for 189 finding posts for all whom it has admitted to tenure.
The Regional Superintendent
As the executive officer of the regional board of education, the regional superintendent should be responsible for gathering information for the board, offering it counsel, and seeing to the implementation of its policies. By serving on the superintendents' council at the dioce san level, the regional superintendent is in a position to advise his colleagues of the needs of his region, to share his experience and ex pertise with them, and to seek the benefit of theirs.
It should be the duty of the regional superintendent to secure from the diocesan office or from other service agencies whatever assist ance is required for the development of educational programs suited to the needs of the children in each of the region's K-12 attendance areas.
As chief executive for the region, the regional superintendent should nominate all subordinate administrators and approve the nomina tions of other professional staff. His first responsibility in his re
gard would be the selection of his own regional office staff. In mak ing his selections, the regional superintendent would do well to con sult with a regional personnel hoard or with his administrative coun cil.
Ideally, the regional office should have a complete staff of specialists for curriculum and auxiliary services. Since this is not possible in most dioceses, the regional superintendent should have one or more administrative assistants, with supporting clerical staff, to assist him in co-ordinating the services provided to the K-12 areas by the diocesan office and other educational agencies. These services 190 should consist largely of intensive inservice programs to develop the full potential of the staff of each K-12 attendance area.
In addition to the administrative assistant(s), the regional of- I fice should also have an accounting department to handle bookkeeping for all of the schools of the region and to prepare the payroll list for data-processing at the diocesan level.
In accord with an agreement worked out by the diocesan board, re ligious communities should submit a list to the regional superintendent indicating the personnel they wish to recommend for principalships. The regional superintendent should be free to make his nominations from that list or to nominate others, perhaps non-religious personnel. If a re gional superintendent is considering nominating a religious who is not on the list submitted by the religious community, the prior concurrence of the religious superior should be required. Obviously, this concur rence should be sought through confidential correspondence before the nomination is made public. (Individual communities, according to their own rules and customs, may or may not allow the regional superintendent
to notify the prospective principal that he or she is being considered
for the post. The present writer believes that this should be allowed, but he recognizes the right of each community to establish its own way of life.) In any case, the actual nomination to the prlncipalshlp of
any but private schools should be made by the regional superintendent-— not by the religious superior— since it is he who is responsible for im- plementing the policies of the regional board and for the educational program of the region. 191
The Regional Administrative Council
Each region should have an administrative council similar in
structure to the superintendents' council. Besides the regional super
intendent, membership should include his administrative assistant(s) and
an elected representative of the principals from each of the K-12 at
tendance areas in the region. The purpose of the regional council would
be the same as that of the superintendents' council: to maintain a
channel of communications and to share experience and expertise. Again,
the emphasis would be on "council."
K-12 Attendance Area
The purpose of the K-12 area
Of the three organizational levels in the proposed model, only
the diocesan and the regional levels have policy-making bodies. Each
of these has its own board. The third level, the K-12 attendance area
level, is an administrative or functional level. The model does not propose policy-making bodies at that level for basically the same rea
sons that the suggestion of parish boards was rejected: they are con
sidered divisive and wasteful of leadership potential needed on a broad
er scale. Furthermore, policy bodies representing relatively small, homogeneous constituencies more easily succumb to pressure groups.
Bodies representative of the larger community, on the other hand, are more likely to establish and maintain an ideological balance.
■ - Each area is not an island but a distinct subcommunity within the
larger community. Its relationship to the larger community should be maintained. Regions of 10,000 to 20,000 pupils would seem to be small 192 enough to allow a large measure of citizen involvement in policy-mak ing, without.at the same time fragmentizing the system. However each
region almost certainly is not small enough to reflect differences in educational expectations.
The K-12 attendance area, on the other hand, constitutes a quasi natural community. Since each is a more-or-less distinct community or sub-public, its needs, its goals, and the emphases in its programs will differ greatly from those of other such areas.
Just as the introduction of regions into a diocesan system will
cause centralization and decentralization at the regional level, so the establishment of K-12 attendance areas will result in the same kind of antithetical movements at its own level.
Educational programs.— The most important reason for introducing the K-12 attendance area as a formal part of the structure is to allow each of the subcommunities sufficient autonomy to develop programs suit ed to the youngsters of the area. This is a kind of decentralization.
At the same time, to develop an effective program it is essential that there be articulation from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. This suggests a K-12 structure which would draw the individual schools to gether for the development of the program. This amounts to centraliza tion.
John I. Goodlad has insisted repeatedly on the importance of building curriculum from the bottom up rather than from the top down. A
K-12 structure would encourage teachers, parents, and administrators to think of curriculum in this way and to work with a view to the total pro gram. 193
In the past, diocesan school officers frequently have called personnel from the field into the central office to assist staff mem bers there in the development of curricula for use throughout an en tire diocese. Their help was essential because of the very limited re sources of the central office.
This model suggests reversing that action. It requires, rather, i that central office personnel (and personnel from other service agen cies) go into the K-12 area to assist the people there, in the field, to develop programs suited to the specific needs of that particular sub- community of the diocese. Central office personnel would function not as experts with "the answer," but again, as process persons and resource persons. Their role would be to lend support to those who are directly involved in the classroom endeavor. Elementary and secondary school principals, department chairmen and teachers, parent and student repre- ■ sentatives would constitute the teams responsible for the development of educational programs in each area, each individual sharing with the oth er his own experience and inBights.
This is suggested on a K-12 basis, rather than at the building level, since the elementary school youngsters will be entering the secondary schools of the area. A well-articulated program requires con tinuity from pre-school classes through high school graduation.
By working to develop programs on a K-12 basis in a. given area, the groundwork can be laid for the consolidation of undersize elementary and secondary schools. Several small elementary schools might merge to form a large, non-graded school with each of the buildings housing youngsters of a given age bracket. 194 For example, Building A might provide a non-graded program for
the five-to-seven year olds; Building B, for the eight and nine year
olds; Building C, for the ten and eleven year olds, and so forth. The
achievement levels provided at each building should overlap so that each youngster could continue to advance at his own pace, and yet always be with youngsters of his own age. (An exception should be made, of course,
for the youngster who is physically and/or emotionally very much more or less mature than his age-mates.) The criterion for advancement from building to building, then, would be age and social adjustment. The non-graded program in each building should accommodate all of the levels of achievement possible for that age group. 27
An arrangement of this sort would seem to provide the advantages of non-gradedness, while avoiding the social and'psychological disadvant ages sometimes attributed to the placing of youngsters in either over age or under-age groups. Furthermore, the advantages of the small school
(300 or fewer pupils) could be achieved, while enjoying the academic and economic benefits associated with largeness.
High schools would be more inclined to meet the youngster where he is academically and to continue the non-graded program through the high school years if planning were done on a K-12 basis. Again, such planning would encourage small high schools within the same area at
least to share faculties and, perhaps, to allow cross-registration.
The present practice of "rugged individualism" rampant in Catho
lic education frequently results in a number of small schools offering
limited programs. To attempt to provide a truly comprehensive program
under the present arrangements, a Catholic high school must expand to 195 ungainly size. It must attempt to do for itself what the systern should be doing. The K-12 structure assigns responsibility for the develop ment of a comprehensive program to the entire K-12 area, not to the in dividual school.
Auxiliary services.— Some of the auxiliary services provided by the diocesan office, the regional office, or other service agencies . might be co-ordinated at the K-12 area level. Transportation and food services are likely possibilities. An accountant, working out of the regional office, might be assigned to service all of the schools in a particular K-12 area. This could reduce unnecessary duplication of ser vice personnel.
Private schools.— Although the model is intended primarily as a table of organization for what are now diocesan and parish schools, pri vate schools can be incorporated at the K-12 area.level. In some dio ceses, all of the secondary schools are private schools. Ideally, these schools should be introduced into the system— again, by the purchase or rental of the school facilities.
If this cannot be done, then the voluntary association of these schools with the regional (or parish) elementary schools should be en couraged. In this case, the regional superintendent and his staff should serve at the K-12 level in much the same way as the bishop does at the diocesan level, that is, he (they) should exercise a kind of
"prophetic" office, encouraging the best efforts of the schoolmen and pointing incessantly to needs that the schools, as a group, have failed to meet. Although this probably would not be as effective as a totally integrated system, it would do a great deal to improve horizontal as 196 well as vertical articulation.
Equalizing Educational Opportunity t One of the most difficult problems in Catholic education today is that of school support. The decentralized method of support estab
lished a century ago is no longer adequate. Communities were smaller
then. Rich and poor frequently attended the same churches. Today, wealthy and middle class Catholics live in the suburbs and contribute to
the support of their suburban parishes. Inner city parishes are faced with dwindling membership and lower per capita income. As a result more and more Catholic schools in the inner city have been forced to close.
This situation is especially ironic in view of the position enun
ciated by the Second Vatican Council in 1965. The Council declared:
This Sacred Council of the Church earnestly entreats pastors and all the faithful to spare no sacrifice in helping Catholic schools fulfill their function in a continually more perfect way, and especially in caring for the needs of those who are poor in the goods of this world or who are deprived of the assistance and affection of a family or who are strangers to the gift of Faith.2®
Responsible Catholic laymen also have expressed their concern about providing for the poor: ninety-one per cent of the consultants surveyed by the National Council of Catholic Men expressed sympathy for
the sharing of the funds of wealthier parishes with poorer onesr29
Establishing a formula
The problem has been to establish a formula within the restric
tions imposed by the present canon law. Canon taw has strict regula tions regarding the Malienationn of church goods ^ that is, the transfer of property from ecclesiastical to secular ownership. Some canonists 197 hold that these norms apply also to the transfer of property from one church to another. Since the issue is controverted and3 therefore, the more favorable interpretation may be followed, one may assume that the norms do not apply. Nevertheless3 to avoid controversy 3 it would be bet ter to attempt to develop a formula that complies with both interpreta tions
A real solution to the problem can be achieved only with a revi sion in canon law that clearly would allow dioceses to centralize the financing of their activities. Data processing equipment makes the pro posal feasible. The new code of canon law, now being developed, may in deed take this into consideration. In the meanwhile, we must struggle to achieve some sort of adjustment within the provisions of the present canon law.
Equalization at the building level The principal and faculty of St. Joseph's High School, a large
Catholic high school in Cleveland, have introduced a plan to provide for the differential distribution of the dollar value of the contributed services provided by the religious faculty. 3 1 "Contributed services" are determined by computing the difference between the modest salary1 paid to a priest or religious and the value of that service based on the lay teacher salary scale. In developing the budget, the salaries of everyone on the faculty (religious and lay) are computed according to the scale for lay teachers. The total cost of operation, then, is di vided by the enrollment to establish the cost per pupil. This becomes the maximum tuition charged. The dollar value of the contributed ser vices of the religious faculty then is assigned to a scholarship fund
i 198
for differential distribution to the students according to a need formu
la ■
Any parent may apply for a scholarship for his son, if he chooses,
simply by filing a confidential financial statement developed by Educa
tional Testing Service. This form is used to determine the relative need
of each student.
A very important aspect of this formula is that tuition is not
padded in order to provide scholarships for the needy. Each parent pays
only what would be the real cost of educating his son if all of the
teachers in the school were laymen. It is the religious faculty who sub
sidize the needy through a scholarship fund established from their con
tributed services.
The beauty of this plan is that it allows the religious to con
tinue to serve the spiritual and educational needs of all youngsters, while contributing the dollar value of these services to those who need
it most. It is far more reasonable than the current practice of most
schools. They generally use the contributed services of the religious
faculty to reduce by a small amount the tuition paid by all, rich and
poor alike.
A diocesan-wide plan
The plan inaugurated at St. Joseph Higji School, this writer sug
gests, can be adapted for use on a diocesan-wide basis to reduce some of
the inequities among the schools. Quite clearly, complete equity cannot
be achieved as long as the contributed services of religious teachers
remains the only source of equalization monies. A real solution to the
problem will require considerable sums of money— probably government 199
money— especially in the inner city.
In order to adapt this plan for diocesan-wide use, the payroll of
all the schools would have to he centralized at the diocesan level. Al
though religious teachers would continue to serve both in the suburbs
and in the inner city, a high percentage of their contributed services would be assigned to the more needy parishes. In order to Implement a
plan of this sort, mathematical computations would be required at each
of three levels: the diocesan, regional, and parish levels.
Diocesan level.— Officials at the diocesan level would be respon
sible for establishing the total dollar value of the services contribu
ted by religious throughout the diocese. Contributed services would be
determined by subtracting their actual salary (including room and board, * if provided) from what their salary would be on the lay teacher scale of
that particular region. The total of the contributed services would con
stitute a diocesan-wide scholarship fund.
The co-operation of the religious communities would be absolutely
essential not only to establish the scholarship fund but also to assure
that the equalization plan would not be circumvented. To put it quite
frankly, the religious would have to agree, as a body, to teach only in
schools participating in the plan. It would have to be made very clear
that parishes could not work out "special arrangements" with the indi
vidual communities. Some suburban parishes ndght be tempted to try
this. If a well-to-do parish wanted to have the educational services of
religious teachers, it would have to be willing to pay them according‘to
the equalization formula. Otherwise, it would have to staff the school
entirely with lay teachers. 200
Regional level.— Officials at the regional level would be respon sible for computing either the total cost per pupil (if the schools were regional schools) or the cost per pupil for professional services (if the schools remained parish schools). The total cost per pupil would include the cost of providing building facilities, equipment, supplies, etc., as well as the cost of professional salaries. The cost per pupil for professional services would include only the salaries of lay and re ligious teachers, principals, and other professional staff. In both in stances, the salaries of all— religious and lay— would be computed on the region's lay teacher scale.
Each parish in the region then would be billed at this per-pupil rate. If a parish rented its school building to the region for use as a regional school, the per-pupil rate would be adjusted accordingly.
Parish level.— After receiving its bill for the educational ser vices provided to its youngsters, the parish could make application to the diocesan scholarship fund for assistance according to its need.
This would seem a more satisfactory arrangement than the St. Joseph High
School plan for at least three reasons. First, many individuals are too proud to seek financial assistance even if it remains entirely confiden tial. Second, those who need assistance the most are frequently the least able to understand and complete the application form. Some may not apply for this reason. Third, it would certainly be easier and far less expensive to process applications from 200 parishes than from
100,000 youngsters.
As one might expect, there is a complication: no strict formula for establishing the financial condition of a parish has yet been de- 201
vised— at least, not to the knowledge of this writer. The development
and refinement of a formula of that sort would constitute a disserta
tion in itself. It certainly cannot be attempted here. When a formula
of this sort is developed, however, it probably will include such fac
tors as the parish’s income per family in relation to its expenses per
family, the adequacy of the parish plant, its age and physical condi
tion and the like.
The table on page 202 applies the suggested equalization plan to
several kinds of parishes. For the sake of the illustration, the es
tablishment of a parish need formula is assumed.
One might add in passing that a great psychological advantage
could be gained from notifying each religious monthly of the contribu
tion he or she had made that month to the education of needy youngsters. This does not mean that they should be notified which youngsters have
benefited from the fund. Sensitivity to the feelings of the poor would
rule this out. However, the names should be available upon request to ~members of a scholarship committee elected by the religious and to the
major superiors of the participating religious communities. Religious
serving in the suburbs might find new inspiration in this. 202
TABLE 14
DIFFERENTIAL PARISH ASSESSMENTS
REGIONAL SCHOOLS
Parish A - Suburban (no school building)
Total cost of educational program (per pupil) $300. Adjustment for rental of parish buildings (per pupil) - 0. Scholarship assistance (per pupil) -20. Assessment per pupil: $280.
Parish B - Suburban (providing school building)
Total cost of educational program (per pupil) $300. Adjustment for rental of parish buildings (per pupil) -75. Scholarship assistance (per pupil) -25. Assessment per pupil: $200.
Parish C - Inner City (no school building)
Total cost of educational program (per pupil) $300. Adjustment for rental of parish buildings (per pupil) - 0. Scholarship assistance (per pupil) -250. Assessment per pupil: $ 50.
Parish D - Inner City (providing school building)
Total cost of educational program (per pupil) $300. Adjustment for rental of parish buildings (per pupil) -60. Scholarship assistance (per pupil) -230. Assessment per pupil: $ 10.
PARISH SCHOOLS
Parish E - Suburban
Cost of professional services (per pupil) $240.
Scholarship assistance .(per pupil) -30. Assessment per pupil: $210.
Parish F - Inner City
Cost of professional services (per pupil) $240.
Scholarship assistance (per pupil) -215. Assessment per pupil: $ 25. 203
Adjustments to the Model
The model presented In this chapter attempts to reconcile the ideal with the real. It recognizes the very real fiscal restraints with in which Catholic school systems must operate. The limited monies avail able to Catholic education allow only a very limited supervisory and serv ice staff. The model, therefore, attempts to use the resources that are available— physical, financial, and human--as effectively as possible.
To do this, the school system must have a structure that will centralize some decisions and functions (to achieve over-all control and efficiency, and to use expert personnel to the best advantage) and decentralize others
(to release Initiative, promote innovation, increase communication, and allow adaptability). The model is an attempt to identify the decisions and functions which should be centralized and those which should be de centralized, and to suggest the level for each.
A school system enrolling 120,000 pupils and covering 3,400 square miles was used as an example. Several adjustments would have to be made to apply this model to different circumstances. A few suggestions would seem to be in order.
Less limited resources
In districts of about the same size, but with less limited re sources, this writer would suggest transferring most of the curriculum services to the regional level. Once this has been done, if more money is still available, the staff assigned to service the K-12 areas should be increased. The suggestion, quite simply, is to bring the resources of the system as close as possible to the classroom level--but always in a service relationship to It. 204
4 Smaller districts
School districts with enrollments of fewer than 20,000 pupils
and covering relatively compact geographical areas might consider elect
ing a panel to draft the fundamental "Bill of Rights" and to hear appeals
from the actions of the diocesan board said to be in violation of those
rights. In this structure, the diocesan board would assume responsibility
for policies relating to the educational program. With the exception of
matters dealing with basic human rights (now performed by the elected
panel), the diocesan board would perform all of the duties assigned both
to the diocesan board and to the regional board in the model.
An umbrella service agency might be established cooperatively by
several neighboring dioceses--or by one or the other of them in coopera
tion with public ischool districts--to provide services suggested at the
diocesan level in the model.
Very large districts
Clearly, the diocesan school office could not provide the services
suggested to more than five or six regions. Even that number is prompted
more by necessity than by conviction. Should a diocese require seven or
more regions, most of the curriculum services suggested in the model
should be duplicated for every three-to-five regions. Some of the auxil
iary services also might have to be duplicated. At least one deputy
superintendent would be needed to assist the superintendent in co-ordinat
ing the services provided by the central office and by other agencies.
i 205 CHAPTER V
REFERENCES 1 Report of the Superintendents’ Committee on Policy and Adminis tration, National Catholic Educational Association, Voice of the Commu nity: The Board Movement in Catholic Education, O'Neil C. D'Amour, chairman (Washington, B.C.: The Association, 1967).
^R. Allan Spanjer, "An Analysis of Certain Organizational Fac tors Which Relate to the Administrative Decentralization of Large School Districts” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Washington State Uni versity, 1964), p. 19.
3Superintendents' Committee, p. 14.
^Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, A Report to the Pres ident for Transmittal to the Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, 1955 [also issued as House Document 198, 84th Con gress, first session]), quoted by Norman Beckman in "Metropolitan Edu cation in Relation to State and Federal Government, "Metropolitanism: Its Challenge to Education, Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Soci ety for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 175-176.
^Second Vatican Council, Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, October 28, 1965, nos. 12-16.
^Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, December 7, 1965, nos. 43-44; and Declaration on Chris tian Education, October 28, 1965, no. 3.
^The passage in the original model read: At this juncture, the bishop might either accept the decision of the board or veto the resolu tion again. The constitution might require that, after a second veto, the bishop dissolve the board and arrange for the election of a new board. Fhis would provide the people of the diocese . . .
®0scar T. Jarvis, Harold W. Gentry, and Lester D. Stephens, Pub lic School Business Administration and Finance; Effective Policies and Practices (West Hyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1967), p. 162. See above, Chapter III, p. 44.
^See above, Chapter III, Table 5.
10The original model read: Should the diocesan board find, that a region was making no real effort to provide for these needs, it could take action against it.
•^The original passage read fail to correct instead of refuse to correct. 206
^2Elmer F. Ferneau, "Which Consultant?” AdministratorTs Notebook, II (April, 1954), p. 2.
-LJL.G. Wagner, "Computers, Decentralization, and Corporate Con- . trol," California Management Review, IX (Winter, 1966), pp. 25-32.
■^Selwyn W. Becker and Gerald Gordon, "An Entrepreneurial Theory of Formal Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, XI (Decem ber, 1966), pp. 335-336.
l ^ R e n s i s Likert, The Human Organization: Its Management and Value (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), pp. 50-51.
■^Victor A. Thompson, "Bureaucracy and Innovation,” Administra tive Science Quarterly, X (June, 1965), pp. 13-14; and Warren G. Bennis, Changing Organizations: Essays on the Development and Evolution of Hu man Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), pp. 42- 43, quoting H. J. Leavitt, "Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVI (1951), pp. 38-50.
17lhompson, PP* 15-16."
18f . Newton Parks, "Group Management, European Style, "Business Horizons, IX (Fall, 1966), p. 89.
^H. W. Ouweleen, "Centralization and Decentralization as Charac teristics of an Act of Changing Existing Organizations," in The Balance Between Centralization and Decentralization in Managerial Control, ed. by H. J. Kruisinga (Leiden: H. E. Stenfert Kroese N.V., 1954), p. 110.
20Ibid.
2^The orginal model read parochial instead of pariah. Cunningham remarked that many people use the term parochial to refer to all church- related schools, not just those sponsored by parishes.
22Andrew M. Greeley, Analysis and Commentary on "Priorities in Catholic Education"; Survey Results Deriving From The National Con sultants Program of the National Council of Catholic Men (Washington, D.C.: The Council, 1969), p. 4.
James Michael Lee, "Catholic Education in the United States," in Catholic Education in the Wes tern World, ed. by Lee (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967), pp. 266-267, quoted above on p. 2.
2^*This would also permit decisions regarding the sites of church es and the size of parishes to be made purely on the basis of pastoral criteria: two or more parishes might send youngsters to the same school. 207
25xhe original read decided for developed cooperatively.
^^xhe original passage read: Furthermore, new employees should be hired only with the approval of the principals in whose buildings they are to serve and on the recommendation of the regional superiten- dent.
27vogel 3^ B0wers considered multi-age grouping as "an integral part" of non-graded programs. Nevertheless, they reported that the experimental (multi-age non-graded) group scored lower on standard con duct and attitude scales than did the control groups. See Francis X. Vogel and Norman D. Bowers, Pupil Attitudes. Achievement and Behavior in a Multi-Age Nongraded School: Final Report (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1968, number ED 025 030), pp. 59,60, and 69-71.
^Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Christian Education, no. 9. Emphasis added. * ^Greeley, p. 3.
^Code of Canon Law, canon 534. The passage in the original mod el read: Canon law prohibits the ualienation" of church goods, that iss taking property from one church to give it to another. A wise provi sion in its day9 intended to protect churches from the plundering of their endowments, it is now very poorly suited to the conditions of the Catholic Church in this country.
^Philip T. Aaron, "Putting Charity in Tuition Aid," Momentum: Journal of the National Catholic Educational Association, I (February, 1970), pp. 27-29. 4
CHAPTER VI
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR FUTURE STUDIES
In his text on the decentralization of management systems, Morris pointed out that it would be naive to think that, in organizational de sign, "someone sits down at the drawing board and draws plans for an or ganization that will suddenly spring into being." It is more realistic, he suggested, to try to learn the directions in which an organization should be "nudged" as it evolves.^
The present dissertation was an attempt to do just that: to learn the directions in which Catholic school systems should be "nudged" in order to become more effective instruments in the education of youth.
Change does not come easily in organizations. Chandler's study of the history of organizations led him to conclude that
Historically, administrators have rarely changed their daily routine and their positions of power except under the strongest of pressures.^
Efforts during the first half of this century to consolidate in efficient and ineffective one-room schools and school districts— and more recent attempts to replace the massive educational bureaucracies in
New York, Detroit, and Los Angeles with smaller, more responsive dis tricts— clearly support Chandler's statement. The restructuring of Cath olic educational systems certainly will be no easy task.
208 209 I Implementation of the Model
For restructuring to succeed, two conditions are pre-requisite.
First, those in positions of power must be aware of the need to restruc
ture the system. This may require an intensive educational campaign to alert the present decision makers and the general public to the need for change. (Dawson, Bundy, and various professional associations performed this function in public education.) Second, they must be committed to doing whatever is necessary to improve the .educational system, even if this means some loss of personal power. This may require considerable soul-searching. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, an effective restructuring of the system is not very likely.
Granted an awareness of the need for structural reform and a willingness to undertake it, the first step in the actual implementation of the model would seem to be the development of a charter or "Bill of
Rights" governing Catholic education in the diocese. The charter should state the purpose of Catholic education: Is Its purpose indoctrination or education with a spiritual dimension? Is it to be selective or should it be relatively comprehensive? Should it be supported by tuition alone or should it be considered the responsibility of all the faithful?
Should it, in effect, be limited to the advantaged or should it attempt to provide for all youngsters?
The charter should spell out rights and responsibilities in the determination of educational policy. Who is to make educational policy?
The bishop? Professional educators? Parents? The whole community?
Should some provision be made for minority groups in policy making and in the development of education programs? 210
These are the kinds of’question that should be answered in the
"Bill of Rights*" Once answered in clear statements of policy, the pres ent structure and proposals for the future can be evaluated on the ba sis of these policies.
Religious communities can play an important part in the develop ment of the basic "Bill of Rights." If, indeed, they are concerned about the gradual closing of inner city schools and the resultant con centration of their own efforts in schools for the advantaged, they can and should make their concern known to the board and insist that the policies include some provision for the care of the poor.
The second step would involve "nudging" the present organization in the direction of K-12 areas. The present central office staff can be assigned responsibility for the various K-12 areas. At this stage, ex periments with feeder patterns can be carried on. The general public should be sounded out to learn if the proposed K-12 areas do respect the
"natural communities." Work with public school officials in districts paralleling the diocesan K-12 areas can be intensified at this stage.
The gradual introduction of K-12 areas and, eventually, of regions is more necessary in Catholic school systems than in public school dis tricts, The public schools already have large central office staffs that can be re-distributed among the subdistricts. Catholic school of fices operate with minimal staffing. The gradual introduction of areas and regions, therefore, is necessary in order to prepare the present staff psychologically and professionally for their new roles and to add the additional staff required.
Some centralization of finance and the reconstitution of diocesan 211
and parish schools as regional schools could take place at this point.
One of the first tasks of staff assigned to the various regions should
he the assessing of the adequacy and rental value of the present school
facilities.
While these activities are being carried on locally, the diocesan
board and school office should be working on the development of a flexi
ble master plan identifying the probable boundaries of regions so that
every area will be provided for. A time-table for the establishment of
regions also is necessary. The time-table probably should not identify
the order in which specific regions will be established, but rather the
frequency with which they can be added. The order in which the regions
are established should depend upon the amount of support for regionali
zation expressed by each of the prospective regions. Both the master
plan and the time-table should be sufficiently flexible to allow adjust
ments as the restructuring process continues.
"Pilot" regions would seem a wise step. They can serve three
purposes: first, the Identification of possible weaknesses before the .
reorganization is full-blown; second, the provision of an opportunity to
develop personnel for use in subsequent regions; and third, if success
ful, the allaying of much of the fear usually associated with changes in
role. The regional structure should be extended to other areas as soon
as they indicate sufficient interest and the required personnel are'
available.
Such might be a plan for implementation that would recognize the
evolving nature of organization development and would gradually build
support for the new structure as it evolves. Obviously, some of the.
i 212 steps will require implementation at the diocesan level. A program for the equalization of support or the reconstitution of diocesan and parish schools as regional schools would require the intervention of episcopal authority, whether exercised directly or delegated to the diocesan or regional boards. For an effective program of equalization, all parishes must participate, the rich as well as the poor. The reconstitution of parish schools as regional schools requires that their administration be transferred from the hands of pastors and parish boards to those of the regional board. This cannot be done without authorization from the bishop.
Implications for Future Studies
The most obvious study to develop from the model proposed in this dissertation would seem to be the development and refinement of an in strument to establish the relative need of parishes for participation in the diocesan scholarship fund. To be completely equitable, the instru ment should involve a mathematical formula with weighted values assigned to the age and condition of the present structures, their adequacy, the per capita income of the parish as related to its per capita expenditures, and the like.
Another study might concern the development and testing of an in strument to measure the effectiveness of the present structure. The at titudes and perceptions of principals and teachers, and of students and parents relative to communication with the central office, the availa bility of services, distances to travel, and the like, also might be studied. 213
A number of follow-up studies would seem to be suggested by the model. For example, a study might be made of the perceptions of teach ers and administrators of their own roles and of the role of the cen tral office staff before restructuring with their perceptions of those roles after. Another study might compare the morale of the central of fice staff and/or the morale of teachers and principals before, during, and after restructuring. Community involvement in the development of educational programs, before and after restructuring, also might be stud ied. The effect of restructuring on the attitudes of parents and stu dents— and their satisfaction with the educational programs developed under the new structure— also might be measured and analyzed. Still another study might consider the effect of the introduction of an equal ization formula on the morale of religious working in the suburbs or its effect on the level of financial support afforded the schools locally.
These are the kinds of study that might follow logically from the implementation of the proposed model. They could be of great benefit in the further development and refinement of the model proposed in this dissertation. Certainly the model proposed here will not solve all of the problems of Catholic school systems for all time. If, however, it serves to "nudge” them in the direction in which they should move, the effort involved in this study will be well rewarded. 6
214
CHAPTER VI
REFERENCES
^•William T, Morris, Decentralization in Management Systems: An Introduction to Design, (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1968), p. vi.
^Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1962), p. 2. APPENDIX A
EXPERTS ON SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION
Roald P. Campbell, Ed.D. Until June 1970: Dean, Graduate School of Education University of Chicago Presently: Fawcett Professor of Educational Administration The Ohio State University
Luvern L. Cunningham, Ed.D. Dean, College of Education The Ohio State University
Richard L. Featherstone, Ph.D. Chairman, Department of Admin istration and Higher Education Michigan State University
Donald J. Leu, Ed.D. Dean, School of Education San Jose State College
John 0. Nlederhauser, Ph.D. Professor of Education California State College, Los Angeles
215 APPENDIX B
PUBLIC SCHOOL RESPONDENTS
Mr. Robert J. Aertker, Supt. Dr. Henry P. Kurdziel, Supt. •East Baton Rouge Parish, La. Canton City Schools, Ohio Enrollment: 65,000 Enrollment: 20,000
Dr. Nelson F. Ashline, Dr. Thord M. Marshall, Supt. Cleveland Public Schools, Ohio Savannah-Chatham County, Ga. Enrollment: 150,000 Enrollment: 41,000
Dr. John J. Connor, Jr., Supt. Dr. Paul A. Miller, Supt. Worcester Public Schools, Mass. Cincinnati Public Schools, Ohio Enrollment: 36,000 Enrollment: 84,000
Dr. Dwight M. Davis, Supt. Dr. Lawrence F. Read, Supt. Des Moines Public Schools, Iowa Jackson Public Schools, Mich. Enrollment: 47,000 Enrollment: 15,000
Dr. George M. Downing, Supt. Dr. Thomas A. Shaheen, Supt. Retired: July 1970 San Francisco Unified School Dist.Cal. San Jose Unified School Dist.,Cal. Enrollment: 96,000 Enrollment: 40,000 Dr. Mark R. Shedd, Supt. Mr. John E. Dwyer, Supt. Philadelphia Public Schools, Pa. Elizabeth Public Schools, N.J. Enrollment: 295,000 Enrollment: 15,930 Mr. John F. Soboslay, Director of Dr. Harold H. Eibling, Supt.* Government Liaison Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pa. Enrollment: 108,000 Enrollment: 73,000
Dr.. Joseph P. Hannon, Asst.Supt. Dr. Thomas B. Southard Chicago Public Schools, 111. Pinellas County, Florida Enrollment: 580,000 Enrollment: 85,000
Mr. Carl Jensen, Supt. Dr. Burtis E. Taylor, Supt. Highline Public Schools, Wash. Glendale Unified School Dist., Cal. Enrollment: 30,000 Enrollment: 32,600
Mr. Howard L. Johnson, Supt. *President, American Association Denver Public Schools, Colo. of School Administrators Enrollment: 96,000 APPENDIX C
CATHOLIC SCHOOL RESPONDENTS
Rev. S. Theodore Berg, Asst, Supt. Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y. Enrollment: 75,000
Mr. John T. Cicco, Supt. Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pa. Enrollment: 90,500
Rev. H. Robert Clark, Supt. Archdiocese of Chicago, 111. Enrollment: 280,000
Rev. Msgr. Edward H. Connors, Supt. Archdiocese of New York, N.Y. Enrollment: 195,000
Rev. Bernard A. Cummins, Supt. Archdiocese of San Francisco, Calif. Enrollment: 55,000
Rev. Franklin E. Fitzpatrick, Supt. Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. Enrollment: 195,000 •
Rev. Louis F. Generes, Supt. Archdiocese of New Orleans, La. Enrollment: 73,000
Rev. John R. Gilbert, Supt. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, Minn. Enrollment: 65,000
Rev. Herman H. Kenning, Supt. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio Enrollment: 85,000
Rev. Msgr. Thomas W. Lyons, Dir. of Educa. Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. Enrollment: 48,300
Rev. Patrick E. Shanahan, Supt. Diocese of Rockville Center, N.Y. Enrollment: 80,000
Rev. John B. Zwers, Supt. Archdiocese of Detroit, Mich. Enrollment: 155,000
Anonymous 217 APPENDIX D
RELIGIOUS RESPONDENTS
Sister Jean Andre, C.S.A. Maj or Superior Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine
Brother Norbert Brockman, S.M. Director of Studies Cincinnati Province, Marianists
Sister Eugene Dragonette, C.S.J. Director of Education Sisters of St. Joseph, Cleveland
Rev. Fortune C. Frenoy, S.M. Provincial Director of Education Marist Fathers
Rev. Jerome A. Petz, S.J. Director of Education Detroit Province, Jesuits
Sister Bernadette Vetter, H.M. President Sisters of Humility of Mary
Sister Carmencita Voisard, C.PP.S. Community Coordinator of Education Sisters of the Precious Blood, Dayton
Sister Marie de Lourdes Whittaker, O.S.U. General Councillor and Directress of Education Ursuline Nuns of Cleveland
Sister Mary Catherine Zeigler, R.S.M. Area Coordinator ;V Religious Sisters of Mercy, Cincinnati rJ... * *
218 APPENDIX E
CANON LAW EXPERTS
Rev. William W. Bassett, J.C.D. Professor of Canon Law Catholic University of America
Rev. Ladislaus Orsy, S.J., J.C.D. Dean, School of. Theology Fordham University
219 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Organization Theory and Practice
Adams, Loyce. Managerial Psychology, Boston: Christopher Publishing House, 1965.
Baker, Helen, and Robert H. France. Centralization and Decentralization in Industrial Relations. Princeton: Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, 1954.
Baum, Bernard H. Decentralization of Authority. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. The 1960 Award Winner, Ford Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Series.
Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House, Inc., 1956. pp. 28-32.
______. Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955.
______, Wolf V. Heyderbrand, and Robert E. Stauffer, "The Structure of Small Bureaucracies." American Sociological Review. XXXI (April 1966), pp. 179-192.
Chandler, A. D. Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: Massachusetts Insti tute of Technology Press, 1962.
Dale, Ernest. Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure. Research Report Number 30. New York: American Management Associa tion, 1952.
Gulick, Luther, and Lyndall Urwick, eds. Papers on the Science of Admin istration. New York: Columbia University, 1937.
Hughes, L. M. "General Electric Under Decentralization." Sales Manage ment, LXXX (March 7, 1958), pp. 34-35.
. "'Localized* Management- Pays Off for Prudential." Sales Man agement, LXVIII (January 15, 1952), pp. 24-27 and 117-120.
Kruisinga, H. J., ed. The Balance Between Centralization and Decentral ization in Managerial Control. Leiden: Kroese, 1954.
McGregor, Douglas. "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal." Harvard Business Review XXXV (May-June, 1957), pp. 89-94. 220 221 March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Merton, Robert K., Ailsa P. Gray, Barbara Hockey, and Hanan C. Selvin, eds. Reader In Bureaucracy. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1952.
Morris, William T. Decentralization in Management Systems. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1968.
Parks, F. Newton. "Group Management, European Style." Business Hori zons, IX (Fall, 1966), pp. 83-90.
Ross, A. D. "Management and the Size of the Firm," Review of Economic Studies, XIX (1951-1952), pp. 148-152.
Schleh, E. C. "Essence of Decentralization*" Advanced Management, XXIV (September, 1959), pp. 8-10. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan Com pany, 1951.
Smith, George A., Jr. Managing Geographically Decentralized Companies. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Admin istration, Division of Research, 1958.
Truman, David B. Administrative Decentralization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.
U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Govern ment. Personnel Management. Washington, D.C.: Government Print ing Office, 1949. Vlllers, Raymond. "Control and Freedom in a Decentralized Company." Harvard Business Review, XXXII (March-April, 1954), pp. 89-96.
Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949. Worthy, James C. "Organizational Structure and Employee Morale." Ameri can Sociological Review* XV (April, 1950), pp. 169-179.
B. Public Schools and School Systems'
AASA Commission on School Administration in Newly Reorganized Districts. School Administration in Newly Reorganized Districts. Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1965. Aikin, Marvin C. "Revenues for Education in Metropolitan Areas." Metro- politanism: Its Challenge to Education. Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. American Association of School Administrators. Official Report. Your AASA in Nineteen Sixty-eightaSixty-nine. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1969. 222
______. Official Report. Your AASA' in Nineteen Sixty-nine=Seventy. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1970.
______. School District Organization. Report of the AASA Commission on School District Reorganization. Washington, D.C.: The Assoc iation, 1958.
"ASCD Resolutions,” News Exchange, Association for Supervision and Cur riculum Development, NEA, XI (February, 1969), pp. 1-5.
Bateman, Edward Allen. Development of the County-Unit School District in Utah: A Study in Adaptability. Teachers College, Columbia University Contributions to Education, No. 790. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940.
Bertolaet, Frederick William. "The Administrative Functions of the Dis trict Superintendent in Chicago as Related to Decentralization.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1964.
Blanke, Virgil, E. "Reorganization: A Continuing Problem." Administra tor* s Notebook, IX (October, 1960), pp. 1-4.
Briner, Conrad, "Organization for Educational Problem Solving." An ad dress presented to the National Association of State Boards of Education, Salt Lake City, October 9, 1968. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1968. Number EA 001 754.
Butts, R. Freeman and Lawrence A. Cremin. A History of Education in American Culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953.
Campbell, Roald F., Luvern L. Cunningham, and Roderick F. McPhee. The Organization and Control of American Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965.
Casey, Don William. "Identification of Criteria Which Denote Adequate District Organization and a Description of Procedures for Evalua tion of Those Districts." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Univer sity of Arkansas, 1963.
Chancellor's Committee on Regional Planning, University of California Extension. Regional Goals in School District Reorganization. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Institute on Regional Planning. Davis, Calif.: Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California, Davis, 1965.
Cillie, Francois S. Centralization or Decentralization? A Study in Ed ucational Adaptation. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940.
Committee for Economic Development. Paying for Better Public Schools: A Statement on National Policy. New York: The Committee, 1959. 223
Committee on Educational Finance, National Education Association* Trends in Financing Public Education. Proceedings of the Eighth ■National Conference on School Finance, Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1965.
Conant, James Bryant, The American High School Today: A First Report to Interested Citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.
Conference of Deans of Education. School District Reorganization in Ohio. A Report to the Ohio Association of School Administrators, Ohio County Superintendents' Association, Ohio Exempted Village Super intendents' Association. Athens, Ohio; Ohio University Center for Educational Service, 1948.
Council for Reorganization of Ohio State Government (Little Hoover Com mission) . Practitioner Panel Feasibility and Implementation Study of Public School Survey and Recommendations. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Department of Education, 1968.
Craver, Daniel Troy. "School District Reorganization: Feasibility of Methods for Locating Boundary Lines of Sociological Trade Area Communities." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1959.
Cunningham, Luvern L. "The Case for Metropolitan Government." Guest Editorial. The School Administrator, Summer, 1969, p. 2.
______. "The Magnificent Pandora of Decentralization." The School Administrator, June, 1970, pp. 5-8.
______. "Organization of Education in Metropolitan Areas." Metropol- itanism: Its Challenge to Education. Sixty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1968.
______, Archie Dykes, James Kincheloe, and Vincent Ostrom. Report on the Merger Issue to the Louisville Public School System and the Jefferson County Public School System. Louisville, Ky.: The School Systems, 1966.
Cyr, Frank W., Arvid J. Burke, and Paul R. Mort, paying for Our Public Schools. Modern School Series, Scranton, Penn.: International Textbook Company, 1938.
Dawson, Howard A. Satisfactory Local School Units: Functions and Prin ciples of Formation, Organization, and Administration. Field Study No. 7. Nashville, Tenn.: Division of Surveys and Field Studiesj George Peabody College for Teachers, 1934,
"Decentralization and Community Involvement in Local School Systems." NEA Research Bulletin, XLVIII (March, 1970), pp. 1-6. 224 Dethy, Raymond Charles. "Relationships Between Educational Program Char acteristics and Expenditure Level, Size, and Kind of School Dis tricts in Ohio." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1963.
Editors of Education U.S.A. AASA Convention Reporter. Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1969.
Educational Research Service. Decentralization and Community Involvement: A Status Report. ERS Circular No. 7, 1969. Washington, D.C.: Educational Research Service, American Association of School Ad ministrators and NEA Research Division, 1969.
Educational Research Service. Structuring the Administrative Organiza tion of Local School Systems. ERS Circular No. 2, 1970. Washing ton, D.C.: Educational Research Service, American Association of School Administrators and NEA Research Division, 1970.
Edwards, Newton and Herman G. Richey. The School in the American Social Order. Second edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963.
Faber, Charles F. "Quest for Quality in School District Organization." Peabody Journal of Education, XLIV (November, 1967), pp. 131-138.
______. "The Size of a School District." Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII (September, 1966), pp. 33-35.
"Facts on American Education." NEA Research Bulletin, XLVIII (May, 1970), p. 38.
Farrar, Roger D. and Ralph D. Purdy, comps. "The Factor of Size and School District Organization." Great Plains School District Organization * Project, II (June, 1968), pp. 1-6. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1968. Number EA 001 823.
Featherstone, Richard L., and Frederick W. Hill. "Urban School Decentral ization, Part I: The Bundy Report— What It Really Means," American School and University, XLI (October, 1968), pp. 44-48.
______. "Urban School Decentralization, Part II: Centralization vs. Decentralization, Pros and Cons," American School and University, XLI (December, 1968), pp. 56-59.
______. "Urban School Decentralization, Part III: The Questions That Need to Be Answered If Decentralization Is to Succeed," American School and University, XLI (February, 1969), pp. 30-32.
______. "Urban School Decentralization, Part IV: Two Models for Decen tralized Districts," American School and University, XLI (April, 1969), pp. 46-48.
______. "Urban School Decentralization, Part V: Model 3 and Future Probabilities." American School and University. XLII (September, 1969), pp. 62-66.
Federal Role in Education. Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congres sional Quarterly Service, 1967.
Fischer, John H. "Urban Schools: Issues in Responsiveness and Control." Equality of Educational Opportunities in the Large Cities of Amer ica; the Relationship Between Decentralization and Racial Inte gration. Edited by Carroll F. Johnson and Michael D. Usdan. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1968. ERIC Document Number ED 029 388.
Gauerke, Warren B. and Jack R. Childress eds. Theory and Practice of School Finance. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1967. Spon sored by the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration.
Great Plains School District Organization Project. Conference Report: The Area Educational Service Agency. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Docu ment Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1967. Number EA 001 822.
______Guidelines for School District Organization: A Project Report. Ralph D. Purdy, Project Director. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1968. Num ber ED 024 155.
Grieder,' Calvin and William Everett Rosenstengel. Public School Admin istration. New York: Ronald Press Company, 1954.
Griffiths, Daniel E., David L. Clark, D. Richard Wynn, and Laurence Ian- naccone. Organizing Schools for Effective Education. Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1962.
Hamilton, DeForest and Robert N. Rowe. "Academic Achievement of Stu dents in Reorganized and Non-Reorganized Districts." Phi Delta Kappan, XLIII (June, 1962), pp. 401-404.
Hanson, Nels W. "The Size-Cost Relationship in public Schools." Com mittee on Educational Finance, National Education Association. Trends in Financing Public Education. Proceedings of Eighth National Conference on School Finance. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1965.
Havlghurst, Robert J. "Metropolitanism and the Issues of Social Inte gration and Administrative Decentralization in Large Cities." Equality of Educational Opportunity in the Large Cities of Amer ica; the Relationship Between Decentralization and Racial Inte gration. Edited by Carroll F. Johnson and Michael D. Usdan. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1968. ERIC Document Number ED 029 388.
Hickey, Michael E. Optimum School District Size. Eugene, Ore.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1969.
"Information Kits on Centralization Sent to All Schools.11 Detroit Schools XXX (November 25, 1969), pp. 29-30.
Inman, William E. Size and State School System Organization. Lincoln, Neb.: Great Plains School District Organization Project, 1968; Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1968. Number RC 001 424.
Jarvis, Oscar T., Harold W. Gentry, and Lester D. Stephens. Public School Business Administration and Finance: Effective Policies and Prac tices. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1967.
Kreitlow, Burton W. Long-Term Study of Educational Effectiveness of New ly Formed Centralized School Districts in Rural Areas: [ Part One ]. Cooperative Research Project No. 375. Madison, Wis.: Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Department of Education, University of Wisconsin, September 1962.
______Long-Term Study of Educational Effectiveness of Newly Formed Centralized School Districts in Rural Areas - Part Two. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, 1966. (Mimeographed.)
______. "Reorganization Makes a Difference." NEA Journal, L (March, 1961), p. 55.
Kristol, Irving. "Decentralization for What?" Public Interest, (Spring, 1968), Number 11.
Leu, Donald J., and Richard L. Featherstone. "Current Forces Tending Towards Major Changes in Centralization and Decentralization of Education in the United States." Position'paper prepared for the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, Program Planning and Evaluation, United States Office of Education, May 1969. (mimeographed.)
McKenna, Bernard H, Staffing the Schools. New York: Bureau of Publica tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965.
Marconnit, George Donald. "A Study of the Current Curriculum Require ments by the Legislature in Each of the Fifty States,V Research Digest, Number 27» Iowa City: Iowa Center for Research in School Administration, State University of Iowa, 1966.
Mayor * s Ad v i s or y Panel on Decentralization>qf;;:the'/.New. . Reconnection for Learning: A Community School System; for/;New-York City. Me George Bundy, chairman. NewYork:n.p., 1967 •
Morphet, Edgar L., Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller. Educational^ Organization and Administration: Concepts.-Practices. ahdAlssuee. Second edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.
National Commission on School District Reorganization. Your School Dis trict. Howard A. Dawson and Floyd W. Reeves, co-chairmen. Wash ington, D.C.: Department of Rural Education, National Education Association, 1948.
"NEA Resolution: C-27. Decentralization in Large Cities." NEA Research Bulletin. XLVIII (March, 1970), p. 4.
Niederhauser, John 0. "Criteria for the Establishment of Basic School Administrative Districts, With Particular Reference to Ohio." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961.
Packard, John C. "School District Size vs. Local Control." American School Board Journal, CXLVI (February, 1963), pp. 9-10.
The Project Staff. A Master Plan for School District Organization in Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: State Department of Education, 1966.
Proposed Plan for a Community School District System in New York City (Conel texto en Espanol). New York: Board of Education, City School District of New York, 1969.
Quie, Albert H. "The Case for Block Grants." The School Administrator. January, 1970, pp. 15-16.
Report: Cincinnati School Survey. Prepared by a Special Staff Organized by the Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, for the Cincinnatians United for Good Schools. Cincinnati: Cincin natians United for Good Schools, 1968.
Report of the Governor's Commission on Educational Reform. Governor William G. Milliken, chairman. Lansing, Mich.: Educational Reform Committee, 1969.
Report of the State Committee to Study the Next Steps of Regionalization in the School Districts of New Jersey. Ruth H. Mancuso, chairman. Trenton, N.J.: State of New Jersey Department of Education, 1969.
Rhodes, Alvin E. Better Education Through Effective Intermediate Units. Washington, D.C.: Department of Rural Education, National Educa tion Association, 1963.
Ross, Donald, ed. Administration for Adaptability. New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958.
Shedd, Mark R. "Decentralization and Urban Schools." Educational Leader ship. XXV (October, 1967), pp. 32-37,
Smith, Clifford Basil. "A Study of the Optimum Size of Secondary Schools.' 228
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1960.
Smith, Richard L. "Board to Set Guidelines for Decentralizing Detroit Schools Under New State Law." Detroit Schools, XXX (September 16, 1969), pp. 1-2.
Sollars, Ralph Damon. "The Relationship of Size of Elementary Schools to Operational Cost and Program Quality." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, The Ohio State University, 1962.
Spanjer, R. Allan. "An Analysis of Certain Organizational Factors Which Relate to the Administrative Decentralization of Large School Dis tricts." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Washington State Univer sity, 1964.
State Legislative Research Council. School District Reorganization: The 12 Year District Proposal and Revenue Sources for Education. Staff Memorandum. Pierre, S.D.: The Council, 1966.
Stephens, E. Robert, John A. Spiess, Eldon D. Archambault, and Dale G. Findley. The Multi-County Regional Educational Service Agency in Iowa. Prepared by the Iowa Center for Research in School Adminis tration, College of Education, The University of Iowa. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, National Cash Register Company, 1967. Number EA 001 336.
Street, Paul, James H. Powell, and John W. Hamblen. "Achievement of Stu dents and Size of School." Journal of Educational Research, LV (March, 1962), pp. 261-266.
Swanson, Austin D. "Relations Between Community Size and School Quality." IAR Research Bulletin, II (October, 1961), pp. 1-3.
Task Force on Urban Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Final Report of the Task Force. Urban School Crisis: The Problems and Solutions Proposed by the HEW Urban Education Task Force. Washington, D.C.: National School public Relations Associ ation, 1970.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office of Education. Education Directory 1968-1969: Part 2, Public School Systems. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
Vincent, William S. "New Light on the Size Question." IARResearch Bul letin, VI (February, 1966), pp. 4-8.
Walker, Stanley Earl. "Criteria for School District Reorganization." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State'University,. 1965. ' ; . r\
Westby, Cleve 0. Local Autonomy for School-Communities in Cities* Re4 vised edition. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col lege, Columbia University, 1947. 229
Wofford, Kate V. "Better Rural Education Through Reorganization at the Administrative Unit and the Curriculum," Education in Rural Com munities. Fifty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Young, William Francis. "Perceptions of Line Administrators, Staff Admin istrators, Members of the Dearborn Board of Education, and Presi dents of Parent Organizations Relevant to the Comparative Effective ness of the Area Administrator Plan in the Dearborn Public School System." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963.
Zima, George C. "A New View of the Relationship Between Cost and Quality in Education. IAR Research Bulletin, X (February, 1970), pp. 1-3.
Zimmer, Basil G. and Amos H. Hawley. Resistance to Reorganization of School Districts and Government in Metropolitan Areas. Co-opera tive Research Project No. 1044. Providence, R.I.: Brown University, 1966.
C. Catholic Schools and School Systems
Bowling, Ann Virginia, Sister. "Two Emerging and Evolving Administrative Structures in Catholic Education in the United States: Diocesan and Parish Boards of Education." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1968.
Breheny, John Patrick. "Diocesan Administration of Catholic Secondary Education in the United States: Its Status--With a Design for the Future." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1954.
Brickell, Henry M. Nonpublic Education in Rhode Island: Alternatives for the Future. A Study for the Rhode Island Special Commission to Study the Entire Field of Education. Rhode Island; The Com mission, 1969.
Burns, J.A. The Catholic School System in the United States. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908.
______. The Growth and Development of the Catholic School SvBtem in the United States. New York; Benziger Brothers, 1912.
______, and Kohlbrenner Bernard J. A History of Catholic Education in the United States. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1937.
Connaughton, Edward A. A History of Educational Legislation and Adminis tration in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Washington, D.C.: Cath olic University of America Press, 1946.
D'Amour, O ’Neil C. "The ’Control’ Structure of Catholic Education," Na tional Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, LXIII (August, 230 1966), pp. 267-274. ______. "Structural Change in Catholic Schools." Catholic School Journal, LXVI (June, 1966), pp. 27-29.
Davies, Daniel R., and James R. Deneen. New Patterns for Catholic Edu cation: The Board Movement in Theory and Practice. New London, Conn.: Croft Educational Services, 1966.
Deneen, James R. "Status of System-Wide School Boards in the Catholic Dioceses in the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1968.
DeWalt, Homer Clement. "An Analysis of the Status and the Functions of the Diocesan Superintendent in the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1965.
Gaffney, John L. "Changing Concepts for Financing." National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, LXIV (August, 1967), pp. 93-97.
Guilday, Peter. A History of the Councils of Baltimore (1791-1884). New York: Macmillan Company, 1932.
"Here’s What Is Happening to Catholic Schools in the U.S.A." U.S. Cath olic, XXXII (April, 1967), pp. 6-18.
Lee, James Michael, ed. Catholic Education in the Western World. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967.
Lucker, Raymond A. "Change in Catholic Education Policy." Modern So ciety, XII (September-October, 1969), pp. 66-67.
McAvoy, Thomas T. "Public Schools vs. Catholic Schools and James McMas- ter." Review of Politics, XXVIII (January, 1966), pp. 19-46.
McCluskey, Neil G. "The Dinosaur and the Catholic School." Catholic Mind. LVIII (July-August, I960), pp. 323-331.
McGrath, John J. Catholic Institutions in the United States: Canonical and Civil Law Status. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1966. Mooney, Robert. "Evolution in the Catholic School System." National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin, LXIV (August, 1967), pp. 103-106. Murphy, Thomas J. "History of Catholic Education in Cleveland." Unpub lished Ph.D. dissertation, Western Reserve University, 1944. Neuwien, Reginald A., ed. Catholic Schools in Action: A Report. The Notre Dame Study of Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the United States. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, i966. 231 Official Catholic Directory. New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1965, 1969, and 1970.
Pet2 , Jerome A., S.J. "Independence vs. Centralization." National Cath olic Educational Association Bulletin, LXV (February, 1969), pp. 29-31.
Report of the Superintendents' Committee on Policy and Administration, National Catholic Educational Association. The Voice of the Com munity: The Board Movement in Catholic Education. O'Neil C. D'Amour, chairman. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1967.
Ritty, Charles J. "Changing Economy and the New Code of Canon Law." The Jurist, XXVI (1966), pp. 459-484.
Shaw, Russell. "Breaking Down the Walls Within Catholic Education." America, CXVIII (January 20, 1968), pp. 72-75.
Spiers, Edward F. The Central Catholic High School: A Survey of Their History and Status in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1951.
Treacy, John P., Justin A. Driscoll, and Sister M. Jerome Corcoran. The Pastor and the School. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1966.
Voelker, John M. The Diocesan Superintendent of Schools: A Study of the Historical Development and Functional Status of His Office. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1935.
Ward, Sister M. Ruth Albert. Patterns of Administration in Diocesan School Systems. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1957.