INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

UniversiV Micrdfilms International

3IWN /EEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WCIR 4EJ, ENGLAND 8100131

C o d y, F r a n k Jo s e p h

POLICY BOARDS IN JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1976

The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1980

University Microfilms I nternetion el 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. MI 48105

Copyright 1980 by Cody, Frank Joseph

All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark _k< .

1. Glossy photographs 2. Colored illustrations 3. Photographs with dark background 4. Illustrations are poor copy ____ 5. °rint shows through as there is text on both sides of page

6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print 9. Page(s) _____ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author 10. Page(s) ______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows n. Poor carbon copy______12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type 13. Appendix pages are poor copy ______14. Original copy with light type ______15. Curling and wrinkled pages ______16. Other

U niversi^ MicrdFilms Intemanona! 300 \ :=== PD. ANN AR30P Ml iS'OO '3131 761-4700 POLICY BOARDS IN JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, I976

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

by Frank Joseph Cody, B.A., M.A., Ph.L., M.Div.

*****

The Ohio State University

1980

Reading Committee: Approved By

Walter G. Hack

George Ecker

Lonnie F. Wagstaff Adviser Faculty of Educational Administration DEDICATION

To my godmother and aunt. Dr. Edith Dowley.

Her love, encouragement, advice, and willingness to help see me through some hard times. Her own career as a distinguished educator provides me with inspiration for the future.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Any list of acknowledgments for a work that has been so long in the accomplishing must necessarily fall far short of being all-inclusive. But there are some people who have been very much a part of the labor who deserve at least this recognition. My thanks to the following in particular: to

Pat and Wally Kurnik for seeing that I didn't give up before

I ever began; to Dr. Walter Hack for his continual patience, splendid advice, and painstaking care through the many revi­ sions: to my Aunt Edith Dowley for her editorial suggestions; to Fr. Ed McDermott, S.J., Fr. Paul Siegfreid, S.J., the staff of CORD, and all my other Jesuit brothers involved in the secondary school apostolate for their various con­ tributions to the instrumentation and data gathering; to those who took me in when I was a ’stranger" on my many visits to Columbus, especially, the Paulists, the Jelineks, the Kerschers, and Fr. James Smith, Fr. Richard Huelsman,

S.J., and Sr. Marie. To a number of very special individ­ uals who contributed much free time to assist me on typing, tabulation, editing, and other tedious tasks--Ron Kelly,

Sally Stevenson, Fr. John McManamon, S.J,, Geri Raddell,

Jane McManamon, Susan Gwynne, I4ary Frances Bechtel, Br.

iii John Barrett, S.J., and many students from St. John's and

St. Ignatius High Schools; to Mrs. Enid Bordner who not only proved to be a fine typist but a wonderful source of advice on the final format of the text. Finally, 1 want to thank my family, my mother, father, sister, and Jesuit brothers for continually encouraging me, prodding me on and providing the atmosphere of love that was so necessary to see the work through to completion.

iv VITA

September 13, 1940 Born, Detroit, Michigan

1962 B.A., Loyola University of Chicago (Latin)

1 9 6 3 -6 4 Instructor, St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland); John Carroll University (University Heights, Oh.)

1965 Ph.L., West Baden College, West Baden Springs, Ind.

1 9 6 5 -6 7 Instructor, University of Detroit High School, John Carroll Uni­ versity

1966 M.A., Loyola University of Chicago (Philosophy)

1 9 6 9 -7 1 Research Assistant, Southeast Mich­ igan Council of Governments (Detroit)

1 9 7 1 -7 3 Instructor, St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland); Walsh Jesuit High School (Stow, Oh.)

1 9 7 3 -7 4 Research Assistant, Faculty of Educational Administration, Ohio State University (Columbus, Oh.)

1974 M. Div., Loyola University (Chicago)

1974-75 Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Curriculum and Foundations, Ohio State University (Columbus, Oh.)

1 9 7 6 -7 7 Assistant Principal, St. John's High School (Toledo) VITA (continued)

1977-80 Principal, St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland)

Fields of Study

Major Field Educational Administration Adviser Walter Hack, Ph.D.

Minor Field Organizational Theory Adviser Randall Bobbitt, Ph.D.

V i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii

VITA ...... V

LIST OF T A BLES ...... x

LIST OF F I G U R E S ...... xii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Purpose of the S t u d y ...... 29 Assumptions and Limitations of the Study 31 Significance of the S t u d y ...... 33

II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ...... 36

A. School Boards in non-Public Schools 37 B. Boards of Trustees in Colleges and Universities ...... 44 C. Public School Board Literature . . . 62 D. Studies on Best Practices for Boards of Trustees ...... 65

III. METHOD OF THE STUDY 79

1. Selection of the Descriptive Method 86 2. The Function of the Review of Litera­ ture and Other Preliminary Investi­ gations in Determining the Research Variables and T a s k s ...... 87 3. Respondent Technique ...... 89 4. Limitation of Respondent Technique . 91 5 . Choice of the Questionnaire Technique 92 6. What Models Were Used for the Devel­ opment of the Questionnaires? . . . 93 7. How Were the Questionnaires Composed in Order to Elicit Answers to the Research Questions? ...... 94 8. How Were the Questionnaires Validated? 101 9 . The Research P r o tocol...... 103

vil TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page

Chapter

III. (Continued)

10. % a t Decision Rules Were Determined and Formulated for Discriminating Between Types of Boards and How Were These A p p lied?...... 105 11. Analysis of D a t a ...... 112

IV. ANALYSIS OF D A T A ...... Il6

What Are the Major Characteristics of Bona Fide Policy Boards in Terms of Composition? ...... Il8 What Are the Major Characteristics of Bona Fide Policy Boards in Terms of Structure?...... 139 What Are the Reasons for or Determinants of Significant Changes in Composition, Structure, and Function of These Bona Fide Policy Boards in the Perception of Chief Executives? ...... 153 Wh«.t Have Been the Results of These Changes (Significant Changes in Com­ position, Structure, or Function of These Bona Fide Policy Boards) in the Perception of the School Communi­ ties? Have They Been Perceived as Advantageous or Disadvantageous? . . . 155 Characteristics of Restructured Boards Correlated with Perceptions of Advantage or Disadvantage ...... l66 What Are the Major Ways in Which the Superiors of the Society of Jesus Impact upon the Decision-making Process? I69

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 174

Summary of Findings ...... 176

General Findings , 176 Specific Findings 178

Conclusions . , 189

Recommendations 222

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page

APPENDIXES...... 232

A. List of Respondents to the Questionnaires . 233 B. Research Instrumentation ...... 238 C. Research Correspondence ...... 268 D. Frequency Table for Sources of Items in Questionnaire ...... 275 E. Histories of Board Restructuring ...... 278 F. Functions Exercised by Policy Boards by Individual Schools ...... 282 G. Standardized Item Alpha for Sub-Scales of Questionnaire on Relative Board Advantage 287 H. Question-by-Question Responses to Question­ naire on Relative Board Advantage .... 288 I. Mean Summative Scores on Questionnaire on Relative Board Advantage by Individual Respondent ...... 301 J. Mean Scores of Responses to Questionnaire on Relative Board Advantage by School . 304

GLOSSARY ...... 305

LIST OF REFERENCES 308

REFERENCE NOTES ...... 313

Ix LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Size of Boards, Jesuit Secondary Schools, 1 9 7 6...... 119

2. Number of Jesuit Trustees with Comparison to Number of non-Jesuit Trustees, Jesuit Secondary Schools, 1976 121

3. Proportion of Jesuits Allowed or Required on Jesuit Secondary School Boards of Trustees, 1 9 7 6...... 123

4. Number of Faculty Trustees Allowed and Required on Boards ...... 125

5 . Percentage of Jesuit and Lay Trustees on Jesuit Secondary School Boards of Trustees, 1 9 7 6...... 129

6. Number of Members of Boards of Trustees Selected by Various Methods, Jesuit Secondary Schools, 1 9 7 6...... 132

7. Functions of Ownership Boards ...... l4l

8. Number and Type of Standing Committees by School, Jesuit Boards of Trustees, 1976 . . . l46

9 . Percentage of Boards Enjoying Corporate Functions Alone or in Conjunction with Another Entity, Jesuit Secondary Schools, 1976 .... 15I

10. Board Functions by Number of Schools and Percent of Total Population, Jesuit Secondary Schools, 1 9 7 6...... 152

11. Response Rate to the Questionnaire (#3) on the Relative Advantage of the Refashioned Boards by Position of Respondent ...... 157

X LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

12. Mean Scores of Sub-Populations on Sub- Scales of Questionnaire on Relative Board A d v a n t a g e ...... 162

1 3. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores of Sub-Populations of Respondents to Sub- Scales of Questionnaire on Relative Board A d v a n t a g e ...... 163

14. Comparison of Mean Scores of Sub-Populations of Respondents to Sub-Scales of Question­ naire on Relative Board Advantage ...... l64

1 5. Correlations Between Board Characteristics and Degree of Perception of Advantage of C h a n g e ...... 171

xi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Jesuit Religious Governance ...... 20

2. Traditional Jesuit School Governance .... 20

3- Contemporary School Governance ...... 21

4. Chronology of Major Events ...... 28

5. Actual Number of Trustees per Board - Jesuit Secondary Schools - 1976 ...... 128

6. Age of Trustees...... 137

7. Occupation of Trustees ...... 137

8. Salaries of T r u s t e e s ...... 137

9. Number of Earned D e g r e e s ...... 137

10. Place of R e s i d e n c e ...... 137

11. Length of Term of O f f i c e ...... l44

12. Attendance at Board Meetings ...... l44

1 3. Number of Meetings per Y e a r ...... 144

14. Length of Board M e e t i n g s ...... l44

1 5. Agenda Preparation ...... 144

1 6. Frequency of Executive Committee Meetings . . l44

xii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Catholic education has a long history in America. Over three hundred and fifty years ago, in St. Augustine, Florida, the first American school was founded by Franciscan brothers in 1 6 0 6, one year before the landing at Jamestown. It was not much later than this that the members of the Society of

Jesus founded their first school in the colony of Maryland.

St. Mary's City, Maryland, became the home of the first Jes­ uit school in 1640, and the second Jesuit educational insti­ tution was founded in Newton, Massachusetts in 1673 (Koob,

1969). Although enrollment in Catholic schools has been declin­ ing during the past ten years, the number of students re­ ceiving their education in Catholic primary and secondary schools in the United States is still substantial. In 1974,

9 1 1 ,7 3 0students were enrolled in Roman Catholic secondary schools, over 6% of the total secondary school population in the United States (Fay, 1976).

Frequently, in the popular mind. Catholic schools are identified with parochial schools. But, as Packman has pointed out in trying to arrive at a definition of the in­ dependent school, "Although the 'parochial' classification is usually taken to mean Roman Catholic schools, not all

Catholic schools are parochial, and not all parish schools are Catholic' (Parkman, 1964, p. 633). A Catholic parochi­ al school is one sponsored by a single Catholic parish. It is operated to serve, as its primary clientele, the children of that parish. In addition to parish schools, there are also diocesan schools. A diocese is the territory governed by a bishop and includes many parishes. The diocesan school, which draws from some or all of these parishes, is an in­ creasingly common phenomenon in Catholic education. Sepa­ rate and distinct from parochial and diocesan schools are

Catholic schools that are sponsored by and operated under the auspices of a religious order, sometimes called commu­ nity schools. The governance structure of these schools is separate from that of parishes or diocese. Although the bishop of the diocese in which they are located has some jurisdiction over them, it is indirect and sometimes merely limited to permitting their existence. It is in this lat­ ter category that the secondary schools of the Society of

Jesus in the United States are included.

The Society of Jesus sponsors forty-six secondary schools in the United States. (The term secondary is used deliberately. At least three of these schools are 7-12 grade schools rather than the usual 9-12 high schools.) Al­ though these schools enroll less than 4$ of the total Cath­ olic secondary school population, their influence on Catholic secondary education and on the nation generally is greater than this number would indicate. The Jesuit schools have typically been considered educationally elite schools.

Thus it was no surprise when, in 19Ô5 , three of the ten schools in the country with the most National Merit semi­ finalists were Jesuit. Eighteen of the twenty largest stand­ ard metropolitan areas in the United States have Jesuit secondary schools within their boundaries. Some of their prestige is a reflection of their former glories. Jesuit schools began in Europe in 15^3 and, during the seventeenth century, by the admission of many historians of education, had no equal. This former lustre still causes contemporary religious orders to look frequently to Jesuit schools for leadership.

The Society of Jesus is an international religious order of men with headquarters in Rome. There are currently

2 9 ,0 0 0 members of whom more than 6,000 reside in the United

States. The governance structure of the Society is quasi- monarchical. The primary authority in the Society of Jesus is a legislative body known as the General Congregation.

Though this representative body possesses supreme legisla­ tive authority, its governance is more occasional than habit­ ual. It has met only thirty-two times in the four hundred and thirty six year history of the order. Between congrega­ tions, full authority under law is placed in the hands of the Father General of the order, who is elected for life. The Society of Jesus throughout the world has been divided into geographical regions called provinces, and the

General appoints provincials to assume the governance of these regions. Although these units have certain rights in church law, the General exercises direct authority within

the provinces at times and can remove the provincial from office at will. At the next level of governance are the

religious houses established by the provincial. Each of

these houses has a religious superior appointed for its

direct governance whose relationship to the provincial is analogous to the provincial's relation to the general. Most

Jesuits are subject to the superior of a religious house

even though they are not physically living within the four walls. Some, however, are immediately under the authority

of the provincial. The United States of America is divided

into ten provinces: New England, New York, Maryland, New

Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oregon, and

California. Each of these provinces is a separate corpora­

tion under United States civil law. So too are many of the

religious houses and most of the Jesuit institutions, educa­

tional or otherwise. In the New York province alone, there

are thirty-five separate corporations affiliated with the

Jesuit order.

The primary work of the Society of Jesus, internation­

ally, is surprisingly, missionary. The primary work of the

American Society, however, is educational. More than a third of all American Jesuits work in Jesuit educational

institutions. Sixteen percent of American Jesuits are in­

volved in secondary education, within Jesuit secondary

schools (Jesuit Conference, 1974). Who governs these insti­

tutions in which Jesuits work? Ten years ago the question would have seemed a foolish one to ask. The answer would have been quick and definitive, "The Jesuits themselves 1''

The typical pattern of governance of the schools par­

allels the governance pattern of the Society. The General

Co igregations established certain basic policy considerations

for all the schools of the Society. The Father General

added from time to time to these consiaerations with more

specific policy directions either for all the schools of

the Society or for American schools in particular. One im­ portant example of intervention by the General occurred in

1934 when the then Father General Ledochowski issued his

Instruction for the American Assistancy on Conducting Uni­

versities , Colleges, and High Schools and Preparing Teachers

for Them. This legislation, with a few minor changes from

Ledochowski's successor. Father General Jansens, in 1949,

remained substantially in effect for many years afterward.

Another mode of the General's involvement in the school gov­

ernance process was his appointment of provincials. Although

the provincials were held by vow to obey the General, spe­

cific orders from him were rare. One specific directive, however, from the General to a certain American provincial some years ago that occasions a chuckle was the request that he see that schools in his province not employ Jesuits prior to their ordination to the priesthood as chaperones at school dances !

In actual practice, the provincial exercised greater control than the General over the schools in his province.

By appointing the local superior of the Jesuit community, he was also appointing the chief executive officer of the school. If one were to travel back a few more years into the history of Jesuit school governance, he would find the provincial, of course, had immediate authority over the chief executive, whatever his other titles, as his religious superior. The law of the Society of Jesus specified that the superior of the religious house appoint a board of mem­ bers of the house as an advisory body to him. Usually these consultors, as they were called, became the trustees of the high school corporation if, indeed, it were incorpo­ rated at all, on an ex officio basis. No doubt these men had a significant advisory influence on the direction of the school; but it also seems that the corporate board meet­ ings, at which, according to civil law, they exercised a deliberative function, were mainly pro forma.

The local superior in presiding over the affairs of the school had the right to appoint the principal, which he usually exercised in concert with the provincial. The

Ledochowski instruction spelled out these relationships in an article entitled ''Authority of Principals." "The academic principals...should be under the authority of the provincials and rectors, as is only right; nonetheless, it would be very helpful for them to be accorded as much power as they need to efficaciously carry out the demands of their position"

/translation my own/ (Ledochowski, 193%, p. 936).

In retracing the line of authority from General to pro­ vincial to superior to principal, we have not considered an important staff member, the prefect of studies, a provincial assistant. Each provincial appointed a prefect of studies to assist him in the direction of the schools and the super­ vision of the Jesuit teachers who taught in them. He proba­ bly was responsible to a great extent for maintaining the similarity between the schools of a given province. He alone, among provincial officials, was charged with the care within the separate schools of the province of operational areas such as curriculum and textbook selection and usually had more advanced academic training in education than the local school officials. The very fact that there was a single "expert" within the province charged with definite responsibilities to each of the schools contributed to uni­ formity among them. A symbol of this uniformity, and, in some ways, a cause of it, were the so-called "province examinations." These were standardized tests, usually administered in all the schools of the province at the end of the semester. Much of the classroom instruction 8 during the first semester was directed at doing well on these examinations. The tests became a form of competition between schools, teachers, and students. Lists of results were published. A great uniformity of curriculum over and above the use of standardized textbooks resulted from this practice. A relationship between the practice of standard­ ized tests and the success of Jesuit students in scholarship competition by standardized testing might fairly be posited.

Thus far the governance of Jesuit schools has been described as if it were past history. However, much of the same structure and function are apparent today. There is still a line of command in the Society that runs from the

General to the provincial to the local superior. However, even here, significant changes are occurring. In most Jes­ uit schools today, two different individuals fill the offi­ ces of religious superior and president. Although this change was due in part to the increased demands of the two positions, there is reason to believe that such a change in the governance structure made a more adequate distinction between the religious community and its personnel and budget­ ary needs and the educational institution that this community served and its personnel and budgetary considerations.

Through an organizational structure providing different heads for school and religious community, the security of the community was protected from the economic vicissitudes of the school. The individual Jesuit experienced greater clarity in his professional life through the distinction between his quasi-contractual relationship with the school administration in contrast to his mystically based relation­ ship of religious obedience with his religious superior.

Religious obedience no longer appeared to throttle a Jes­ uit's freedom to dissent from particular administrative directives concerning his work-life. Fewer prefects of study were appointed and the influence of those remaining declined to a significant degree during the late 6 0's and early 70's as many provincials allowed more autonomy in the individual Jesuit schools. School visitations by represen­ tatives of the provincial and province examinations grad­ ually ceased. (The recent revival of the position of pre­ fect of studies In some provinces may, however, indicate a reversal of this trend.)

It is evident how thoroughgoing the linkage between religious and educational governance has traditionally been.

The Society of Jesus considered its schools as instruments of its apostolic mission and as such they were quite natur­ ally located within the basic religious governance pattern.

Complexity seems to have been the major reason for the di­ vision of labor that occurred as the office of religious superior was gradually limited to governance of the relig­ ious subjects and executive control of the schools passed to distinct individuals filling the positions of president and principal. The same complexity was probably the initial 10 reason for the reduced involvement of the superior-president in the operation of the school. Even while the relig­ ious superior had the simultaneous responsibility of chief executive of the school, it became rarer with time that he would interfere with the quasi-autonomy of the principal he had appointed to see to the internal affairs of the school.

Although a division between religious and school author­ ity came about due to complexity, there was still no question where control of the institution lay. For the most part the school administrative positions were filled with Jesuit occu­ pants. Even today it is an exception that the principal or his equivalent in the Jesuit school is not a Jesuit. In 38 of the 46 Jesuit schools operating in the Fall of 1975» a

Jesuit occupied the chief academic administrative position, the equivalent of the principal's post no matter what the title. Only one Jesuit school appeared to have a chief executive officer (president) who was not a Jesuit. The majority of assistant administrators continued to be Jes­ uits. Governing boards of the institutions, as noted, were traditionally either non-existent or corporate boards, com­ posed of Jesuits from the local religious community, meeting rarely and exercising meager deliberative functions. By the line authority proceeding from General to provincial through local superior and thence to other administrative officers, Jesuits themselves preserved an extremely strong

Jesuit control linked with the religious order structure 11 over their secondary schools, extending even to fine details.

So complexity in itself would be insufficient as an explanation for the movement away from such total Jesuit control that we are hypothesizing. Instead, determinants of lessened religious order control will be sought in phe­ nomena such as the decreased percentages of Jesuits involved in secondary schools in comparison to their non-Jesuit col­ leagues, the need to share power in order to retain these non-Jesuits in productive service, the need for increased financial support, the change in outlook on lay participa­ tion in governance sanctioned by Vatican II and recent theo­ logical analyses, the societal movement toward increased participatory governance, and the need for increased tech­ nical expertise.

The most important shift that occurred in Jesuit school governance during the last fifteen years would seem to be what could be called the "board movement." This term sug­ gests the trend to depart from the situation where the cor­ porate board functioned almost exclusively as an advisory body to school administrators to a situation where either this board or another board specifically constituted for the purpose served as a policy-making body for the school.

It also refers to the extension of deliberative voice in school governance to a wider public including lay persons.

Though no study of the dimensions of this movement has yet been undertaken, even a cursory examination of boards in 12 the Detroit province provided evidence of significant change from the pro forma boards of a decade ago. Two schools had boards composed of both Jesuits and laymen entrusted with major policy responsibility for their schools. The other two schools, while retaining what seemed to be the tradi­ tional governance structure, had set up active lay advisory boards. One school, while deliberately withholding policy­ making authority from the board, added a clause to the by­ laws to the effect that "the Board's recommendations will carry great weight and will be rejected only for clear and cogent reasons." Such governance changes did not take place in a heremetically sealed environment. Significant changes in the culture, the Church, and the Society of Jesus, as has been suggested above, in addition to the needs of the spe­ cific school situation prompted this change from governance by administrators alone to a wider sharing of policy-making authority.

From what is known of Jesuit schools and their past and current governance structure, it would not seem appropriate to speak of these schools as a "system" in the same way that we could speak of the public school "system" of a particular locale. Yet, in some respects, the term is not altogether misplaced. It has already been pointed out that despite the appearance of local and regional autonomy, the general has, in the final analysis, overarching control, though he seldom exercises his prerogatives. Besides this. Father General 13

Ledochowski's Instruction of 193^ created a national asso­

ciation of all Jesuit educational institutions, the Jesuit

Educational Association. It would be going too far to say

that the JEA was the policy-making body for Jesuit schools, but many policies which it recommended were put into effect by the provincials and the schools under their control. JEA was the provincials' organization; they sat on its governing board. Although there was no surrender of authority by any of the provincials singly, the fact that the provincials in concert governed the association made its recommendations more official.

In 1 9 7 0, a major adjustment took place in this quasi­ legislative organization. Many Jesuits in positions of authority had become convinced that the JEA, which included

in its scope seminaries, colleges, and universities, as well as secondary schools, was no longer an appropriate instru­ ment. Many factors contributed to this judgment, all cen­ tering on institutional change. Among those cited by a study commission were the "growing number of non-Jesuit faculty and administrators, the advent of functional Boards of Trustees for the institutions, the increasing separation of the offices of rector and president, varying degrees in which schools were no longer under direct province juris­ diction, greater complexity, diversity, and uniformity of

individual institutions" (Jesuit Conference, 1974, p. 7 8). 14

On examination these considerations display a unifying theme. An historical development was taking place, as al­ luded to above, through which the unity of the religious structure and the institutional structure of the schools was disappearing. Jesuits originally became involved in the business of operating schools to train young men for the Jesuit priesthood. The subsequent extension of the intent of involvement in the work of education to the edu­ cation of lay persons on all academic levels was in itself an increasing secularization of purpose and a consequent occasion for the increasing secularization of the process itself. While for many years this inherent secularizing tendency did not make its mark on the predominance of the

Jesuits' hegemony over both operation and governance of the educational process, the final result of the expansion of

Jesuit educational institutions in number and scope resulted in the need for greater involvement of lay persons as pro­ fessional staff. Jesuits were no longer able to personally supply total institutional needs quantitatively or qualita­ tively.

The movement away from the dominant Jesuit involvement in the operatic:: of the schools in faculty positions event­ ually found its counterpart in the reduction of Jesuit con­ trol of governance of the institution. As the personnel became less and less Jesuit and the scope of education in­ creased far beyond the specifically religious, this 15 development too seemed an inescapable one. The separation of educational governance from religious order governance took place at a different pace in the different types of institutions; most quickly at the college and university level, least quickly at the seminary level. It was appro­ priate that to match this varied pace, dissolution of the umbrella structure of the national Jesuit organization tcok place.

Prior to this dissolution, however, the Commission on

Secondary Schools, one of four permanent JEA commissions, proposed the formation of a national association for second­ ary education alone. This new organization, the Jesuit

Secondary Education Association, came into formal existence on November 20, 1970 with the approval of its constitutions by Father General Arrupe. The JSEA has considered itself from its inception a service organization with the following objectives :

Realizing initially that the critical issue facing our schools in our contemporary setting is the act of faith of the adolescent and its concomitant call to service, the Association will seek primarily to promote the unique and typically Ignatian approaches to this issue. Cognizant on the other hand that Jesuit schools must be sound and authentic educa­ tional ventures, JSEA also aims to promote the exceptional academic potential of our Jesuit schools (Constitution and Bylaws, 1976, p. 1).

The JSEA then has as its purpose the continuance of

Jesuit concentration on the growth in faith as the primary purpose of education and the continued employment of Jesuit 16 approaches to accomplish this growth without the sacrifice of traditional Jesuit academic ideals. In a climate of greater autonomy for the individual institution and growing lay involvement in the schools, the JSEA was to be the cham­ pion of the Jesuit tradition.

Another recent addition to systemization on a national basis has been the formation of a national organization, the

Jesuit Conference, to direct nation-wide planning of all

Jesuit efforts. In one sense, the Conference is made up of the totality of American Jesuits working together to reach common goals. In a more restricted sense, it is the ten American provincials who form the Jesuit Conference board. There has been no new level of authority introduced between the General and the provincial. The Conference operates extra-legally as a planning and policy-making organization. It has taken under its wing other national

Jesuit organizations involved with specific ministries, such as the Jesuit Secondary Education Association. It took upon itself as its first project after becoming estab­ lished in late 1972 a comprehensive study of Jesuit educa­ tion for the purpose of setting guidelines for the future.

Such organization and activity on the part of the leaders of the Society shows an unwillingness to completely divorce the educational institutions from the religious governance patterns of the Society. The situation of control by the provincials of a service organization, the JSEA, through 17 the Jesuit Conference puts the major religious authorities at a greater remove from national educational policy deter­ mination, than they were when they served as the governing board of the more authoritative JEA.

All this organization on a national level would suggest a relative uniformity among the units on a given educational level. There is certainly some truth in this in reference to Jesuit schools. But, just basing judgment on a limited study of Detroit province schools, there certainly seems to be a luxuriant garden of variant governance strains present, springing, it would seem, from the various special local conditions that constitute the school's environment.

Project 1, the Jesuit Conference's study on education, provides some indication of what might be discovered from an intensive study of governance types in American Jesuit schools, though it was never undertaken. The article on governance states:

The term ''trustees' is used here simply as a shorthand word for whatever body it is which has ultimate responsibility for the Jesuit high school. This responsibility is partaken of in a great variety of ways throughout the Assistancy, and in some instances seemingly within the same province. No attempt has been made to gather by means of a questionnaire data on these varying forms of ultimate governance, and neither is such data available in material annually sent to the JSEA. Rather, the available information was fathered in the course of the visits by the staff of Project 1 to the several provinces. Some few of the high schools have a legally constituted and actively engaged Board of Trus­ tees, vested with full ultimate responsibility for the institution, to which the president of 18

the school reports and to which he is responsible for the over-all administration of the enterprise. (By board in this instance is meant something actually functioning as such, and not simply the corporate structure required by state governments for non-profit corporations, often in this latter instance constituted by the rector and his con­ sultants. ) Secondly, in schools where the presi­ dent and rector are the same person, he and his consultons often form the "Board” to which admin­ istrators of the school are responsible, although in this instance one and the same person is the administrator reporting to himself as chairman of the Board. Some schools see themselves as responsible to and reporting directly to the Jesuit provincial offices, usually through a person designated as Vice-Provincial or Assist­ ant to the Provincial for Education. In some instances, finally, it is not at all clear to whom the administration of the school is respon­ sible other than to itself (Jesuit Conference, 1 9 7 4, pp. 1-10).

No study then of boards responsible for the governance of Jesuit secondary schools has been undertaken. What lit­ tle has been done seems to point in the direction of four patterns of governance: (1) an active board of trustees, in the sense in which it operates in colleges and universi­ ties, with a president responsible to it; (2) a lack of dif­ ferentiation between religious order and school governance with the same individual serving as religious superior, chief executive of the high school, and chairman of a board which is primarily advisory: (3) a situation where local authority looks for detailed policy guidance to the pro­ vincial level; or (4) a situation where school administra­ tors are nearly autonomous in policy determination. The implication is that Jesuit schools are diversely governed: 19 either by educational administrators, or by religious super­ iors on either the local or the provincial levels, or by genuinely independent local boards of control. So, while

Project One advances an interesting, tentative typology of governance and the impact of the movement toward boards, accurate information is lacking.

Three figures displaying most of the organizational structures described above may prove helpful in graphically delineating lines of authority and influence. Figure 1 shows the authority flow from the infrequent General Con­ gregations through the regular governance descending from

General to subject. The figure indicates the advisory role of the consultors for both provincial and rector. Since the Jesuit Conference does not possess the power of command as the rest of the functionaries in a line capacity do, it has been placed to one side in the figure. But since it is a policy-making body for all the American provincials and consists of them individually, it is linked to the provin­ cial .

Figure 2 presents a simplified version of the tradi­ tional governance pattern of schools. It may be noticed that, in this model, the rector is considered to have direct governance over the staff. The consultors are placed in parenthesis because of the advisory nature of their role. A broken line connection is made between pre­ fect of studies and principal because of the pervading 20

General Congregation (General Counsellors)

— Father 'General (Consultors and Staff) Jesuit " — Conference . Provincial (Consultors)

Rector

Jesuit Subjects

FIGURE 1

JESUIT RELIGIOUS GOVERNANCE

'Father General Jesuit Educational. Association Provincial- refect of Studio

Rector (Consultors Principal

FIGURE 2

TRADITIONAL JESUIT SCHOOL GOVERNANCE 21 influence of the prefect of studies on the life of the school through the principal and because of his operating independently of, though commissioned by, the provincial.

Figure 3 represents the new central role of the board of trustees. Direct lines are still present from the pro­ vincial to the president and principal because it seems the provincial still has the perquisite of the appointment or at least concurrence in the appointment of these officials.

The board of trustees supplies policy direction to both president and principal and is frequently immediately respon­ sible for their appointment. Missing from this figure is the rector of the Jesuit community. Insofar as president, principal, and staff are members of the Jesuit community.

^'Father General Jesuit Secondary ^ Education Association ^^>^Pro vine ial-...^ irector of Studie

Presiden Board of Trustees Principal

Staff

FIGURE 3

CONTEMPORARY SCHOOL GOVERNANCE 22 the rector will exercise some power over school policy be­ cause of obedience owed him by Jesuits in his community.

In reality, however, obedience very rarely impinges upon activities carried on within the walls of the school. The

JSEA provides input both at the province level and the local level through the individual high school presidents and prin­ cipals. No direct line connects provincial with board of trustees. It seems the exception that the provincial ap­ point trustees. However, he does exercise influence through the superior-subject relationship he would have with most

Jesuit members of the board. Finally, it should be noted that to give a thorough picture of governance, the occasion­ al influence of diocesan government (bishop, diocesan super­ intendent of schools, diocesan board of education) would have to be taken into account. The day-to-day influence is meager enough to justify the omission of this from the present simplified version. So Figure 3» though accurate in its broad lines, misses some of the finer nuances.

Figure 1 is a model which has had perennial validity as a description of Jesuit governance. Figure 2 should not be considered to have been definitively superceeded by another governance model. Some schools would presently correspond more to this model than that given in Figure 3*

However, most Jesuit schools possess or are moving toward a structure closer to that portrayed in Figure 3- 23

Generally, as one surveys governance trends in Jesuit high schools, one can perceive two powerful forces seemingly operating at cross purposes. On the one hand, during tl i past ten years, there was a definite trend toward extending participation in governance to an ever-widening segment of the community, usually through the instrumentality of the policy board. The reasons for this would appear to be cul­ tural, religious, and practical. On the other hand, there was a tendency to restrict the control of Jesuit schools to

Jesuits.

Culturally, we have recently lived through a period which might be considered a renaissance of participatory democracy. Evidence of this can be culled from such di­ verse areas as regionally organized school systems such as

Detroit's and experiments like Ocean Hill-Brownsville with their local and regional boards, federal programs like

Model Cities with their built-in requirements for citizen participation, and the reform movement for the selection of delegates adopted by the Democratic party. One would expect that Jesuits also would rethink and redesign their governance structures in keeping with contemporary move­ ments toward greater sharing of control.

A second impetus is the religious-ideological one

springing from the Jesuits' religious commitment as it has been authoritatively interpreted in recent yoars. Father

General Arrupe (1971, p. 3) in a letter addressed to all 24

Jesuits engaged in the secondary school apostolate reiter­ ated the need "to be more keenly aware of the importance of

the state and vocation of laymen and their apostolate." He

emphasized the position of the layman as a member of the

educational community along with the Jesuit. The conclusion of these reflections is a significant one for governance.

Arrupe writes: "See your entire educational activity as communitarian. Each lay teacher, in accordance with his

talents and willingness to serve, should share responsibil­ ity for the school on an equal footing with yourselves"

(Arrupe, 1971, p. 3)* The U. S. Bishops pastoral message,

To Teach As Jesus Did, makes the desirability of greater lay involvement and control explicit:

Under the leadership of the Ordinary and his priests, planning and implementing the educa­ tional mission of the Church must involve the entire Catholic community. Representative structures and processes should be the norma­ tive means by which the community, particularly Catholic Barents, addresses fundamental ques­ tions about educational needs, objectives, pro­ grams, and resources. Such structures and processes, already operating in many dioceses and parishes in the United States, should be­ come universal. Vatican Council II urged the establishment of agencies by which the laity can 'express their opinion of things which concern the good of the Church.' One such agency, long a part of the American experience and in recent years increasingly widespread in Catholic education, is the representative board of education, which, acting on behalf of the community it serves, seeks patiently and conscientiously to direct the entire range of educational institutions and programs within the educa­ tional ministry (National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1973, P* 33). 25

An example of this ideological trend with practical ramifications was the very specific directive of the Detroit provincial that appears to have been honored more in the breach than in the observance. Walter Farrell, S.J., in his "A Statement of Secondary Education for the Detroit

Province," mandated, "As a condition for continued Jesuit presence, the Jesuit community should require that a Board of Trustees (lay and Jesuit) be formed which assumes in fact the direction of the school. This should be done at the latest by the end of the first semester of the next year"

(Note 1, p. 4).

A third impetus to governance sharing resides in the increasing need for expertise in the schools. There is no doubt that the practice of education is becoming increas­ ingly more complex. One of the major contributors to this increasing complexity for Jesuit schools, in particular, is the problem of where to get financial support. Also the need to employ lay persons to fill staff positions left vacant by a reduced number of Jesuit personnel, besides having financial and ideological repercussions, places a tremendous demand on the Jesuit educational system to ac­ commodate itself to the increased presence of lay persons in the decision-making process. These internal demands stand a Letter chance of being met if the governance struc­ ture is expanded to include those who can provide the es­ sential cognitive and financial resources demanded by the 26 contemporary situation. It would mean sharing with the lay­ man as much participation in the organization as is given to his Jesuit colleague.

The second and opposing powerful force is one of re­ stricting the governance of Jesuit schools to Jesuits, both the locel Jesuit community and the Jesuit province. An un­ published paper by the secondary school principal, John

Libens, S.J., "The Way of the Colleges" (Note 2), expressed the fears of many Jesuits. During the late 1960s, a revo­ lutionary change took place in the governance patterns of

Catholic colleges and universities from control by their sponsoring religious orders to control shared with lay per­ sons, involving at some times even complete lay control.

Jesuit universities participated as much as others. The "way of the colleges feared by Libens and others means that Jesuits no longer exercise plenary authority in their institutions of higher education. Consider what this means, for example, in areas relating to basic program and hiring policies. Hie traditional Jesuit education with its empha­ sis on philosophy and theology, a program which was required of all students, has become a thing of the past in most Jes­ uit colleges and universities. The provincial no longer has the ability to assign Jesuits to academic or administrative positions in a Jesuit institution. Jesuit candidates com­ pete with lay persons in obtaining and holding faculty ap­ pointments. The purpose of a recent paper commissioned by the Jesuit Secondary Education Association, "The Legal 27

Status of Jesuit High Schools: Relationships with the Pro­ vincial and the Province Corporation," the author, Charles

M. Whelan, S.J., states, was that "Father General and the

Provincials want to know what legal steps should be taken under American law (especially with respect to the charters and bylaws of our high school corporations) to prevent a repetition at the high school level of what has already hap­ pened with respect to some of our Jesuit colleges and uni­ versities (i.e., the loss of control by Father General and the Provincials over the orthodoxy, personnel, curriculum, discipline, and finances of these institutions)" (Whelan,

1 9 7 5, p. 1). If, as there is no reason to doubt, Whelan is correctly expressing the concern of the superiors of the

Society in 1975, they have taken a clearly different posi­ tion in respect to governance than that advocated by Father

Farrell in 1970. In the light of the impact of the Whelan memorandum on future governance of Jesuit schools, it might prove useful to review the chronology of events in Jesuit governance contained in Figure 4 on page 2 8.

Two recent studies have documented the movement away from clerical and religious domination of policy making on various levels of Catholic education. Bowling (1 9 6 8) speaks not only of the increasing movement toward a board structure for educational governance by parishes and dioceses but also documents the increasing participation of the laity on these boards. Hasenstab (1971) studied the status of 286 Catholic 28

l64o - First Jesuit school in United States (St. Mary's City, M d .)

193^ - Instruction of Father General Ledochowski Founding of Jesuit Educational Associa­ tion

1949 - Revision of Ledochowski Instruction by Father General Janssens

1968 - Peak year for movement toward lay control in Jesuit colleges and universities

1970 - Dissolution of Jesuit Educational Asso­ ciation Founding of Jesuit Secondary Education Association Directive of Detroit Provincial to give control of province's secondary schools to mixed (Jesuit and lay) policy boards

1971 - Father General Arrupe's letter encourag­ ing greater lay governance

1972 - Formation of Jesuit Conference

1973 - Publication of To Teach As Jesus Did Beginning of Project One

1975 - Commission of Fr. Whelan to draw up study of means to preserve Jesuit control in secondary schools

FIGURE 4

CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS

colleges and universities and found the majority of them

since the late 6 0 's had adopted an extensive board restruc­

turing and a marked reduction of governing power by the

sponsoring religious body. While the evidence of increased

lay participation on the governing boards of parish schools. 29

diocesan school systems, and Catholic colleges and univer­

sities has been clearly documented, comparable studies have

not been made of the private, religious-order sponsored

schools. There have been no definitive studies made for

Jesuit secondary schools.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study will be to describe

the current status of policy boards in the Jesuit secondary

schools in the United States. For one sub-set--those boards which haye full and ultimate responsibility for the

institutions and to which the president of the school is

responsible for the administration of the school— the rea­

sons for changing to this pattern of governance will be

explored and advantages and disadvantages as perceived by

members of the school community will be examined. In deter­

mining the status of policy boards, the variables of composi­

tion, structure, and function will be particularly examined.

Composition involves such elements as the personal

characteristics of board members, the method of their selec­

tion, the criteria employed for their eligibility, the

length of their terms of office. The researcher equates

structure with how the board is organized and how it oper­

ates. Items considered will include the number of meetings

in a year, the requirement to hold regular meetings, the

number of members in attendance at meetings and their 30 average length, the openness of the board meeting to visi­

tors, the procedure for the selection of the chairman, the types and numbers of committees and officers. By function, the researcher intends what activities the board reserves for itself and actually puts into practice.

Because of the confusion inherent in distinguishing a bona fide policy board from a board that merely exercises the pro forma functions of corporation directorship, because some schools may exhibit a dual board structure--a corporate board that exercises the functions incumbent upon ownership of the institution and a management board that sets institu­ tional policy, and because some boards, while officially consultative, may actually engage in more substantive policy­ making than officially deliberative boards, it was essential to explicate a typology of boards that would adequately respond to these and other possible contingencies.

The study will be guided by the following questions:

1. Can boards be classified as strictly advisory to the chief executive, strictly corporate boards, combinations of ownership and management boards, and bona fide policy boards with full ultimate responsibility for the institution and to which the chief executive of the school is responsi­ ble for the administration of the school? If so, which boards fall into each category?

2. What are the characteristics of the bona fide policy boards in terms of: 31

a. composition;

b. organizational structure and standard mode of operation;

c. function (major areas of policy responsibility)?

3. What were the reasons for or determinants of these

changes, in the perception of the chief executives?

4. What have been the results of these changes, in the

perception of the school communities? Have they been per­

ceived as advantageous or disadvantageous?

5 . What are the major ways in which the superiors of

the Society of Jesus impact upon the board decision-making

process?

6. In the light of the information gathered and recom­

mended best practices from the literature reviewed, what

recommendations toward the implementation of these recom­

mended best practices in respect to board composition,

structure, and function can be made to Jesuit secondary

schools?

Assumptions and Limitations of the Study

This study will be descriptive and not experimental in

nature. Hence, the conclusions drawn from it cannot be in­

ferred to apply to any other population than the one actual­

ly being studied. The only other study of boards of trus­

tees in private schools was made through a sampling limited

to California private and parochial schools by Richard

McCune (1971). 32

As a descriptive study, it is a beginning from which any other studies of more empirical nature might be made.

It will provide the bases for correlational and causal studies.

Information was sought primarily from the current chief executives of the schools. The assumption is that they are the best informants to describe the status of the school boards and present the rationale for board restructuring.

This, however, might, in some cases, not be true. In any event, the only check on the accuracy of their perceptions will come from an independent reading of the charters and by-laws, which might not be available from all schools.

A further limitation of the study was the adequacy of the questionnaire technique to elicit the data desired. In the composition of the questionnaires, simplification of response will frequently limit all possible optional answers from being presented in pre-stated forms. Hence the ques­ tionnaires were structured to allow for some open-ended responses which are difficult to adequately code. Responses not hypothesized as likely to be given, therefore, will appear only if they were offered unsolicited in these open- ended responses.

It was assumed that some secondary schools would not have changed from traditional Jesuit governance patterns and hence not have true policy boards. It was further assumed that a functioning policy board is a presumption of 33 relatively recent restructuring and, therefore, that the question of why the board was restructured would be a rele­ vant one.

Finally, the evaluative component of the study will be limited to a sub-set of the total population of Jesuit secondary schools. In the absence of empirically based instrumentation, it was made on the basis of perceptual data garnered from members of the school communities them­ selves. It is assumed that these perceptions will provide a basis on which to judge board effectiveness.

Significance of the Study

The study is important because it takes a critical look at a hitherto unexamined area of school governance, the board status of a significant educational system, namely the

Jesuit secondary schools in America. The Jesuit schools are significant not only because of their own unique contribu­ tion to American education but because of their status among private schools generally and, more particularly, of religi­ ous-order sponsored secondary schools. Besides the need for examination of governance patterns in this segment of Ameri­ can education, the study broaches larger questions of how the Catholic Church coped with the problem of change in the

1 9 6 0's and early 1 9 7 0's by its modification of traditional structures and how it dealt with the problems caused by the dialectic between the desire for increased representational 34 participation and the fear of reduced religious control.

The study is of importance to the Society of Jesus of which this researcher is a member. The Jesuit Secondary

Education Association has expressed a specific interest in this study and has supported it throughout its term. A pilot series of interviews with presidents of Jesuit second­ ary schools in the Detroit province revealed a unanimous interest in the study for greater understanding of contem­ porary problems and possible solutions. The same reasons hold for the Association as a whole. Without knowing what is actually happening and why, the various schools that make up the Association would be at a real disadvantage in any future planning. Of special interest is any information that might prove helpful to the schools in avoiding govern­ ance patterns which contribute to a lack of control and in designing those which would enjoy the advantages of increased lay and community participation. The present study should be helpful in implementing the April 1975 decision of the pro­ vincials :

The provincials request that the JSEA study and make available alternative methods of sponsorship for schools which will allow for continued Jesuit impact and justice for all parties concerned. These models will be useful for consideration in the event that the Society of Jesus chooses not to continue full sponsorship for a school (Jesuit Conference, 1975, P* 7).

For the researcher himself, who anticipates a career as an administrator in the Jesuit secondary schools, the study 35

has special importance. It will provide him with the knowl­

edge of a variety of approaches to governance and their rel­

ative merits which should prove helpful in directing the

particular school at which he will be employed and in offer­

ing consultant help to other schools through the JSEA. As

a current member of a policy board of a Jesuit secondary

school, his contributions to its improvement are most wel­

come .

In the succeeding chapters, the study will be developed

according to the following framework:

1. A review of the relevant literature will be made

(Chapter 2).

2. The method of research for the entire study and the specific decision rules that provide an answer to the first research question will be presented (Chapter 3)*

3. The data garnered from the questionnaires and aux­ iliary techniques will be analyzed to provide answers to the second through the fifth research questions (Chapter 4).

4. The study will be summarized by the presentation of the general findings and those specific to each research question, conclusions will be drawn with special attention to providing an answer to the sixth research question, and recommendations for action and further study will be made

(Chapter 5). CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Before investigating specific areas of the literature concerning boards in educational settings, it is appropriate to recall briefly the functions of boards in general. Le­ gally, a board of trustees has complete and plenary author­ ity over an institution. The board delegates much of this authority to others within the institution. Specifically, boards are concerned with the following functions: (1) selection of the chief executive officer: (2) evaluation of the management of the institution; (3) custody and dis­ bursement of the financial assets of the institution: (4) authority to act as a court of last resort in the case of grievances: (5) policy formulation; (6) selecting long- range objectives: (7) long-range planning: and (8) main­ taining relationships with the board's environment (Hartnett,

1 9 6 9; Henderson. 1971; Herron, 1969: Rauh, I9 6 9).

The first seven of these functions pertain to internal organizational management. But to consider the board as uniquely a management body may be an excessively limited notion. The fact that the administration of an organiza­ tion often appoints the board would argue that the board is

36 37

managed more than manager. Secondly, the primary function

of the board may be extrinsic to the organization— con­

cerned for "the organization's external environment."

Evaluation of the effectiveness of boards, in keeping with

this perception, would necessarily be of wider scope than

a survey of internal management success (Pfeffer, 1972).

The literature of policy boards in educational insti­

tutions is characterized by many who have studied it as

limited. This may have been true in the early years of

educational research; but, in recent years, studies of

boards have become much more prevalent in the literature.

The present review does not pretend to be exhaustive.

Bather it is limited to those studies which cast signifi­

cant light upon the subject at hand, namely, policy boards

in religious order sponsored secondary schools. Four areas

of the literature have some bearing on this topic: (1)

studies of policy boards in the non-public, K-12 schools;

(2) studies of boards of trustees in colleges and univer­

sities, primarily those which deal with Catholic colleges

and universities: (3) studies on public school boards: and

(4) the essentially hortatory literature which encourages

those practices which are considered best for policy boards

on both the K-12 and university levels.

A. School Boards in Non-Public Schools

This is obviously the most relevant area of the lit­

erature because it bears directly on the subject matter 33 under consideration in this study. Little attention has been paid to it by researchers. Only four studies were found that are empirically-based descriptions of the situ­ ation in non-public secondary schools.

Bowling (1 9 6 8) focuses on the parochial schools within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. In the parochial system, governance is exercised on two levels, the diocesan, or system-wide level, and the parish, or in­ dividual school level. She considers the establishment of boards on both the parish and diocesan level as the most significant governance developments within this system dur­ ing the 1 9 6 0’s. Hers is a status study of diocesan boards as a changing or emergent phenomenon and of parish boards as a contemporaneous recent development and concentrates on the role of these boards, the extent of their authority, their responsibilities and membership. To this basically descriptive account, she adds the results of an open-ended questionnaire addressed to superintendents and board presi­ dents asking them to respond to evaluative and predictive questions concerning their own boards. She gives relatively diminished attention to the reasons for the emergence of these new or reformed board structures within the parochial system.

Contemporaneous with Bowling's study is the similar work of Deneen (I9 6 8). Deneen's contributions are limited to the study of the diocesan board and he discusses some of 39 the same developments as Bowling. He finds that only 56^ of the diocesan boards have constitutions and by-laws, 52# meet monthly or more often, 25# are strictly advisory, 53# are Jurisdictional with the approval of the bishop, and 15# are autonomously Jurisdictional. Examining board functions, he mentions that 60# or more of the boards occupy themselves with legislating qualifications, salaries, and benefits for the lay faculty, selecting salary schedules for religious teachers, approving the calendar, and setting admissions and disciplinary standards for the schools. More than half of the members of the board are appointed by the bishop. More than half of board members have terms of three years. The portrait of the average diocesan board member is that of a white. Catholic male between thirty and fifty-nine years of age with at least four years of college; 48# are diocesan priests. In addition to this factual material, Deneen offers the opinions of superintendents and board chairmen on ideal board structure and offers recommendations for changing the present structure.

Scanlan's developmental study of the diocesan board

(1967)5 though related to the two previous studies, is con­ siderably different because it is historical rather than descriptive. He hypothesizes that the diocesan board has developed as it has in response to various needs, specifi­ cally educational, cultural, and ecclesial needs. He dis­ cusses the foundation of the original diocesan boards and 40 the patterns of development of the phenomenon as it changed to correspond to the current priority among the three needs mentioned. Starting with a critical presentation of the historical origins of the board, he graphically portrays the extrinsic development of the board through history, describes the development in the types of activities engaged in by the board, and examines two particular boards in depth. He discovers that the actual functions of diocesan boards are: (1) determination of teacher qualifications:

(2) teacher certification; (3) approval of salary schedules;

(4) approval of the school calendar; (5) approval of cur­ riculum; (6) approval of testing programs; (7) deciding to found new schools; (8) deciding to close schools; (9) hiring professional personnel; (10) hiring non-professional person­ nel; (11) specifying contracts for non-professional person­ nel; (12) specifying contracts for professional personnel:

(1 3) approving building plans; (14) responsibility for gen­ eral policies in administration; (1 5) control over appoint­ ments and transfer of priests (diocesan); and (l6) determi­ nation of tax for school support. Two of his most important recommendations are: (1) that boards should begin as advis­ ory boards but should quickly rise to the level of policy­ making boards, jurisdictional in scope; (2) that the dio­ cesan board should be truly representative of American edu­ cation and the American Catholic Church and hence should include in its membership: the general public, parents, 41

other interested laymen, students, pastors, assistant

priests, representatives of religious and lay teachers.

The work of Bowling, Deneen, and Scanlan influenced

the present study through providing methodological guidance

as well as by its specific descriptive findings. Bowling

and Deneen both suggest questions which must be asked to

obtain an adequate picture of what a policy-making board

is in its composition, structure, and function. In many

Instances, these questions are specific to boards serving

Catholic educational institutions. Scanlan's study (1 9 6 7)

reflects the usefulness of viewing boards as an emerging phenomenon. His hypothesis that the diocesan board devel­ oped according to the priority at any time of different

needs provides an heuristic framework for a similar study of the development of other boards. Since the boards con­

sidered in all three studies were involved in the movement

from clerical control to a wider sharing of authority or,

in some cases, have been new developments supplanting pre­

vious modes of school governance, they provide interesting points of comparison and contrast with a similar develop­ ment within the non-parochial Catholic educational world,

the change in Jesuit secondary school governance. The

functions of the diocesan board as discovered by Scanlan provide a model for the study of the functions of other boards. His recommendations for board improvement focus

on questions important to religious-order sponsored boards: 42 who should he represented on the board and how much power should it have.

These studies are concerned with the diocesan and parochial system, mainly the former, and touch only periph­ erally on the private school of which the religious order sponsored schools such as the Jesuit schools are a subtype.

One status study of private schools at the K-12 level was completed by McCune in 1971. The population for this study consisted of the universe of private schools in the state of California. McCune's purpose in studying these schools was to describe the composition and structure of the school boards, to determine the personal characteristics and qualifications of board members, to see the effect of size on board structure, and finally to analyze the relation­ ship between the social and economic background of the board members and their attitudes about board structure and effectiveness. In examining board member qualifica­ tions and characteristics, he considers such variables as; sex, age, marital status, educational background, occupa­ tion, and financial status. In treating of organization and structure, he considers variables such as selection pro­ cedure for members, size of board, terms of service, number of meetings, etc. McCune's study more closely parallels the present study in population and design than do the other three studies. His work is limited to the private schools in one state, California, while the present 43 research is limited to the private schools of a single spon­ sor throughout the United States. Both studies are descrip­ tive and analytical treatments of data obtained through questionnaires.

In the course of his study, McCune touches on some issues of concern to this study: citing Monsignor D'Amour, he comments on the difficulties inherent in clerical control of boards of Catholic schools and recommends the formation of lay boards despite the fear of pastors and principals that this would spell a loss of their power; he points out the confusion between policy and administration that plagues many boards and the lack of defined qualifications for board members in non-public schools. He agrees with Toy in his belief that, while professional educators should determine the means of education, laymen should settle upon the goals.

He also agrees with Newbury's conclusion that schools can only function as well as the boards that govern them. He is quick to point out, despite the fact that he thoroughly treats the relevant public school literature, the great difference between public school boards and private school boards. Some of this difference he explains through the involvement of the private school with a "closed or selected community" as opposed to the broader community served by the public school. Private boards are heavily weighted with ex officio members, a fact that makes impartial, objective decisions difficult to make. He senses a growing conflict 44 between the democratic ideology behind the more democrati­ cally-oriented trends of current church polity and the elit­ ism of existing church boards of education, a conflict he believes had its counterpart in other private, non-Church- related schools.

B. Boards of Trustees in Colleges and Universities

1. General

An area of the literature that is surprisingly germane to the consideration of boards of trustees in private Cath­ olic schools is the growing body of literature pertaining to college and university boards of trustees. Although boards of trustees in colleges and universities govern a different type of institution, the governance structures are similar. A sample of general studies was made with con­ centration on those that examined the status of boards in some detail. Specific studies examined carefully were those of Berg (1 9 6 9), Burns (I9 6 2), Griffin (I9 6 3), Farmerie

(1 9 6 4) and Reavis (I9 6 7). The substance of these studies, which treat of different situations and consider different populations, consistently focuses on composition, organiza­ tion, and functions of various boards with the concentration sometimes greater on one of these variables and sometimes on another.

Farmerie's study on Pennsylvania liberal arts college boards of trustees (1964) explores the various names given to boards, size, methods of selection, terms of office of 45

trustees, and length of service actually rendered. In con­

sidering the social and economic characteristics of board

members, factors such as sex, age, place of residence, occu­

pation, education, marital status, number of children, and

religious affiliation were considered. A long list of pos­

sible functions for boards of trustees is offered and an

analysis is made of how frequently these functions were

actually assumed by the Pennsylvania liberal arts college boards. Reavis (I9 6 7) in his study of the North Carolina

college and university boards concerns himself with state provisions for constituting the board, personal character­

istics of board members, board members' conceptions of their functions, the degree of inclination of board members to become involved in administrative affairs, and the degree of participation of trustees in functions they do accept.

He checks to what degree trustees would want to take upon themselves functions that are usually considered to be of an administrative rather than a policy-making nature.

The most elaborate study of college and university

trustees is the one undertaken by the College of Education at the University of Indiana during the late 1960's. Five dissertations issued from this comprehensive study: Male's

(1 9 6 9) on institutions affiliated with Protestant churches and other non-Catholic bodies, Murphy's (1 9 6 8) on local public institutions, Hornback’s (I9 6 8) on public, state- supported institutions, Miltenberger's (1 9 6 8) on private 46

institutions, and Moroni's (1 9 6 8) on Catholic institutions.

Male's study (p. 2 3 8) includes the overall purposes of the

Indiana study:

1. To compile a comprehensive body of data con­ cerning the composition and function of the policy boards of institutions of higher edu­ cation in the United States;

2. to attempt to determine the extent to which certain differences in board membership, organization, and operation may be related to such institutional factors as size, date of founding, accreditation, denominational affiliation, and the degree of institutional church-relatedness ;

3. to relate some of the data collected with certain ideas that have been expressed re­ garding desirable practices in the selection of board members and the organization and function of policy boards.

The study surveys the entire population of colleges and uni­

versities in the United States.

2. Catholic Colleges and Universities

Five major studies of Catholic college and university boards of trustees were thoroughly examined. Moroni (1 9 6 8) and McGrath and Dupoint (I9 6 7) are primarily status studies.

Langan (1 9 6 8) combines an historical treatment with a case study approach to project the future of the board movement in Catholic colleges and universities. Hasenstab (1 9 6 8) fo­ cuses on the determinants of board restructuring. Fox (1974) documents the scope of the movement in a highly empirical,

developmental study. With these different approaches and using different populations, the authors contributed to a 47

significant corpus of literature on the transition period of

the mid-sixties to early seventies.

Moroni's study of Catholic institutions is an overview of Catholic college and university hoards of trustees.

Other studies of these boards have had more specific con­ centrations. Taken as a whole, this literature is of spe­ cial relevance to the present study. Langan and Moroni's studies are descriptive studies ranging over the entire list of descriptive questions that could be asked about boards.

The major difference between the studies is methodological.

Hasenstab uses the research of Roman (I9 6 8) and McGrath and

DuPont dealing with the presence of laypersons on boards of trustees as a lead into the study of the reasons for and the causes of board restructuring that took place in the late 60's. Fox documents this extensive restructuring and focuses on the specific issue of the change in relationship between the sponsoring religious body and the institution, which resulted from this plethora of restructuring. An important background study referred to by all of these authors is McGrath's (I9 6 8) seminal monograph concerning the ownership of church institutions, principally colleges and universities. Maida (1975) has more recently offered a counter-position to McGrath. Each of these studies will be considered in turn.

Moroni's (I9 6 8) study is a status study in which she investigates the entire population of Catholic colleges and 48 universities. Her basic concerns are those expressed by

Male, cited above: "To compile a comprehensive, current, up-to-date body of data concerning the membership, organ­ ization, and operation of these boards (Catholic colleges and universities)" (pp. 23-24). In addition to her study of the composition, organization, and operation of the boards, she also directs her attention to the issues of the relationship of the president to the board, and rela­ tionship of faculty, students, and alumni to the board, and how board members perceive the distinction between policy and administration. She identifies the following trends in Catholic higher education: greater lay partici­ pation on boards, a growing amount of reorganization of boards, and the reconsideration of legal bases for board operation and membership. This is certainly the most com­ plete study of Catholic policy boards extant.

Langan s (1 9 6 7) study, which precedes hers by a year, is limited to a consideration of a population of thirty-six

Catholic colleges and universities in the Mideast as a "con­ venient sample." Langan's avowed intent is "to review the history of Catholic colleges and universities and their boards of trustees...and to examine through the case study approach what the scope of the board's authority presently encompasses, and, finally, to conjecture about what present and pending changes in function, structure, and composition portend for the future" (p. 48). Langan provides a good 49

deal of the background for the movement from boards consist­

ing of members of religious orders exclusively to lay boards or a mix of religious and lay-persons. This movement, which was just beginning at the time Langan's study was written, is taking four directions: (1) toward total secularization;

(2) toward less religious order control but continued pres­ ence; (3) toward shared control; and (4) no change in con­ trol.

Langan devotes significant attention to the considera­ tion of the ownership of the Catholic colleges and univer­ sities and seems to accept McGrath's theory that the insti­ tutions are a public trust, "While there is overlapping in terms of people to whom the colleges owe allegiance, such as alumni, the faculty, present students, prospective stu­ dents, the community at large, the religious body that has maintained it, the state and the Church itself, the clien­ tele is definitely more variegated than it was earlier thought to be: it includes society writ large" (p. 6l).

One of Langan's important findings is that of the discrep­ ancy between the legal responsibilities of the boards and their actual modes of operation. This would tend to make one wary of expecting to get an adequate picture of boards solely from a consideration of documents such as constitu­ tions and by-laws.

Hasenstab (1971) also undertakes a status study of boards of trustees but only under one aspect— whether they 50 had restructured, were in the process of restructuring, or had not restructured their boards of trustees. In this he updates the work of Langan in general and McGrath and

DuPont and Roman in particular. He finds that the height of board restructuring in Catholic colleges and universi­ ties was reached between I967 and 1969 and that the major problem in restructuring was how to provide for the rela­ tionship between the sponsoring religious body of the in­ stitution and the governing board. Hasenstab presents a thorough review of the literature pertaining to property rights in Church and civil law that religious bodies have in respect to the institutions they sponsor and points out many of the disadvantages of religious order domination.

He allows, however, that a variance in degrees of govern­ ance influence for religious orders is a legitimate form of pluralism.

As the title of his dissertation suggests, Hasenstab is interested primarily in the relative priority of the determinants of board restructuring and the determination of their interrelationships. He discovers six major deter­ minants of board restructuring: (l) Board restructuring is prompted by the need to seek lay expertise as a broader base of talent; (2) by the desire to share control with all in­ terested constituencies of the institution: (3) by the need to obtain requisite financial resources and business exper­ tise; (4) by the need to distinguish institution from 51

supporting religious community: (5) by the need to separate

the policy board from those who have the responsibility for

implementation of decisions: and (6) by the need to improve

the educational quality of the institution.

Fox's (1 9 7 4) study is the only longitudinal study of

the board restructuring movement. She attempts to find an

answer to the question: What changes occurred between 1966

and 1972 which significantly altered the relationship be­

tween the institution and the sponsoring religious body as

this related to the composition, structure, and powers of boards. She also explores how individuals associated with a changed institution view the results of the change. Her

results manifest a great deal of modification in the rela­

tionship between religious body and institution: (1) SRB

(sponsoring religious body) members occupy a much lower per­

centage of board seats than they formerly did; (2) those

SRB members who are trustees are less likely to be SRB superiors or official representatives of the SRB; (3) fewer boards of trustees are chaired by SRB members ; (4) SRB mem­ bers are less likely to chair board committees; (5) SRB groups exercise less power over boards of trustees partic­ ularly in such areas as: (a) nomination, approval, and selection of the college president; (b) decisions concern­ ing long-range planning, fund raising, major investments, the borrowing of large sums of money, the college budget, and tenure and promotion of faculty: (6) SRB groups provide 52 a lower percent of funds for the operating budgets of col­ leges and universities: and (7) the vast majority of boards of trustees are legally independent of the SRBs. Fox at­ tributes the addition of laypersons to the boards to three principal factors; the influence of Vatican II, pressing financial considerations, and the general acceptance of the concept of public trusteeship replacing the conviction for strict religious order ownership of the institutions.

Fox's emphasis on the importance of the relationship of sponsoring religious bodies to institutions is shared by other observers of Catholic higher education. In 1967,

Greeley called this relationship the "most critical aspect of the institution's organization and operation" (p. 143).

He reiterated this in I969 when he suggested that the de­ velopment of church-related colleges and universities was related to policies that "would give the governing boards and administrative officers of the colleges greater inde­ pendence from the sponsoring bodies" (p. 111). Fox (1974) and Roman (1 9 6 8) identify this as a key issue in the minds of Catholic educators.

The literature on boards of trustees in colleges and universities is important because it was from the colleges and universities that many of the models for boards of trustees as found in Jesuit secondary schools today were prob&bly acquired. The studies provide methodological guidance in devising comprehensive methods of investigating 53 the status of their counterpart boards on the high school level and the reasons for current changes in them. The lit­ erature on Catholic college and university boards of trus­ tees is especially germane because of the parallel concern on secondary and collegiate levels for extending participa­ tion in governance while retaining the influence of the sponsoring religious bodies. The similarities between higher education and the secondary schools mean that knowl­ edge concerning board status and the reasons for board re­ structuring on the college and university level would pro­ vide direction for a study of secondary schools.

To complete the review of literature pertaining to

Catholic colleges and universities, we turn to studies of a quite different nature. McGrath's study was brief but has had an influence altogether disproportionate to its length on Catholic institutions, especially colleges and universities. Jacqueline Grennan (1969)1 the much publi­ cized president of Webster College during the 1 9 6 1's, tes­ tifies to the extensive influence of the study:

As winter turned into spring, the scholarly voice of John J. McGrath began to penetrate the Roman Catholic community. Father McGrath, as an expert in canon law, maintained that all such Roman Catholic institutions have indeed— with or with­ out ecclesiastical permission— alienated (or made legally secular) the property at the moment the institutions were reincorporated as separate legal corporations. And so, it is now more and more generally maintained that the orders do not own the institutions and, therefore, that the institutions are no longer subject through them to hierarchical control (p. 104). 54

The extensive citation of McGrath’s work in all the studies mentioned above and their reference to his growing accept­ ance among both practitioners and scholars in higher educa­

tional governance is further evidence of its importance.

McGrath (I9 6 8) faces the problems of change in Catholic

institutions occasioned by Vatican II. Some of the ques­

tions he sees that have arisen have to do with whether the

composition of a board as predominantly lay compromises the

Catholic nature of an institution, whether Catholic insti­ tutions are in violation of church law by giving effective control of an institution to laymen on the board of trus­ tees and have thus alienated (transferred authority over) church property, or whether this alienation had occurred when the institutions were first established in civil law as corporations separate from their sponsoring religious body. There were even more basic questions: who owned the institutions, did civil or canon law govern them? McGrath feels that these questions can only be answered through a legal study of the status of these institutions. They are subject to both civil and canon law because they serve both the general public and the Catholic Church. The composi­ tion of boards of trustees depends to a great extent on the attitudes taken by the institution towards its duties in both legal systems.

Through an analysis of civil and church law distinc­ tions in the matter of moral persons, property, and 55

institutional sponsorship, the following conclusions are submitted. Because of a civil law distinction established in litigation, it is clear that the institutions are dis­ tinct from their sponsoring religious body (e.g., diocese, religious order) eind hence that the institutions are not subject to canon law. Because of this it can be affirmed that according to both church and civil law the corporation and not the sponsoring religious body has legal title to the institution. As regards ownership, McGrath would say that the assets belong, if to anybody, to the general public

What then makes the institution Catholic? The influ­ ence of the sponsoring body over the institution. How is this influence achieved? Through the charter and by-laws, the board of trustees, the administration, and the staff of the corporation. The courts will enforce the governance of the institutions in accordance with the charter and by-laws.

Usually there are specific provisions instigated by the sponsoring body in the by-laws and a provision for predict­ able representation from the sponsoring body on the board of directors. Furthermore, the by-laws require the board of trustees to manage the institution in keeping with

Catholic tradition and usually demand the appointment of certain officers of the institution from the sponsoring body. McGrath (1 9 6 8) emphasizes that the mission of the board of trustees is to fulfill a public trust. Hence, the members should be representative of the general public 56 and appointment of staff members of the institutions to this board should be prohibited. The administration must be ap­ pointed by the board from among people capable of fulfilling the mandate to carry out board policy in an integral manner.

Finally, the staff must be educated in the "philosophy, goals, and policy of the institution as it is envisaged by the board of trustees" (pp. 35-6).

The concept of "cooperative separateness” demands there be a clear determination of the demands of cooperation and separation in the relationship between the institution and its sponsoring body. McGrath spoke of four ways by which this concept could become operational: (1) property of the institution must never be construed as property of the spon­ soring body; (2) members of the sponsoring body must be treated equitably with other employees in employment and dismissal; (3) compensation to religious body employees should be equivalent to their lay counterparts with con­ tributions to the institutions made from their salaries: and (4) separation between the administration of the insti­ tution and the local religious community should be absolute.

One of the questions that McGrath’s analysis left open was the status of educational institutions on the K-12 level. Could these too be considered as public trusts or are these institutions the property of the sponsoring body"

McGrath fails to treat this matter adequately. He con­ cludes : 57

Those hospitals and educational institutions conducted under Catholic auspices in the United States which have been incorporated under state statutes as separate entities and defined in their charters as secular corporations are not transformed into sectarian or religious corpo­ rations by the influence exerted upon them by sponsoring bodies (o. 3 7).

The question remains which K-12 corporations have indeed been defined as secular corporations.

Maida (1975) assumed a much different posture toward the control and ownership question than McGrath. Where

McGrath sees the trustee of a college, university, or hos­ pital, incorporated by the state, as principally exercising a public trust for the general public, Maida sees the same functionary as principally responsible to the ecclesiasti­ cal authorities who are the ultimate owners of all church property as determined in church law. He is ''responsible and accountable for his actions in law and ultimately ans­ werable to those whom he serves or those in higher author­ ity for his stewardship'' (p. 21). He considers it patently ridiculous to assume, as McGrath seems to, that by allowing the incorporation of an institution separately from the principal religious body, the intention was to relinquish the previously held rights over that institution. The heart of McGrath's argument is that most Catholic institutions are not moral persons in the eyes of the church and hence receive this moral "personality" solely from the state.

They would be fit objects for civil but not ecclesiastical 58 law. Maida's rejoinder is that "these institutions are part and parcel of the moral persons known as the diocese or religious order which brought them into existence in the beginning" (p. 3 7).

Church law does not permit the alienation of church property without obtaining the requisite ecclesiastical permission. McGrath states that if alienation occurred it was at the time of civil incorporation and, hence, is a fait accompli so that further shift in institutional authority to a lay board is of no import in law. Maida disagrees totally.

Whenever a moral person in the church is also incorporated under the civil law of the state and the moral person effectively transfers com­ plete control, authority, management, and ulti­ mate administrative responsibility to a lay board of trustees or a mixed board of trustees wherein a religious order loses effective con­ trol of such a moral person, such a situation the moral person has, in fact, alienated and transferred its ecclesiastical property to another legal entity" (pp. 48-^9). ^mphasis my o w ^

Maida provides alternative models of the relationship be­ tween the religious body and the institution to preserve the body's control and urges in all models that if separate civil incorporation of an institution should occur care should be taken in four areas: (1) The statement of pur­ pose in the charter should clearly convey the Catholic and religious nature of the institution; (2) the members of the corporation should be exclusively limited to the major 59 superior and his council: (3) the charter and by-laws must be approved by the members of the corporation; and (4) the dissolution clause in the charter should see to it that the assets of the institution revert to the religious body.

Whelan's (1975) study of the legal status of Jesuit high schools, though it also is related to the first cate­ gory of literature on non-public schools, is mentioned here because of its linkage to McGrath's (1968) and Maida's

(1 9 7 5) treatment. His summation of McGrath's and Maida's treatments is that "the author has a particular axe to grind" (p. 15)* Whelan's position is clear, "It is the corporation (not the directors) that owns the corporate property and is responsible for corporate debts and tort liabilities" (p. 2). He describes the incorporation situ­ ation within the Society of Jesus today. There are corpo­ rations separate from the province corporations. Why?

So that the province will not become liable, to facilitate the public funding of the institution (not very applicable considering the current legal prohibition of aid to relig­ ious schools), to facilitate private funding of the insti­ tution, to relieve the province of the burdens of conform­ ing to requirements for school corporations, and to paral­ lel in civil law the division of rights and responsibilities found in canon law.

Whelan also treats of the societal forces that make sharing of control of Jesuit institutions advantageous. 6o

The first force is the fact that the Jesuits need the devo­

tion of time, money and energy of laypersons to make the schools viable. Since they are in competition with other schools for people who can accomplish this, they must be able to reward these people with the standard reward of a position on the board of trustees of the institutions.

Besides, policy statements of Vatican II and the 3Ist

General Congregation of the Society of Jesus clearly ex­ press the acceptance of a heightened role for the laity in the Church. Secondly, there is pressure from both the lay faculty and from Jesuit faculty and administration of the institutions to achieve greater control. Thirdly, state and federal laws impose limitations on the high schools which must be taken into account by sharing control.

Whelan's ultimate purpose in the writing of the memo­ randum is to offer a plan to allow the Society of Jesus to retain control over its secondary schools, parallel to

Maida's concern for continued church control over eccle­ siastical institutions in general. He sums up:

The best course to follow is: (1) to incorpo­ rate certain minimal protective clauses in the corporate charter and by-laws; (2) to scrutinize prospective trustees or directors carefully on the basis of their loyalty, integrity, and com­ petence ; (3) to review frequently and carefully the actual performance of the corporate boards of our high schools; and (4) to use Jesuit dis­ cipline firmly and promptly when Jesuit members of the corporate boards of our high schools do not respond properly to provincial directives and suggestions (p. 1 5). 61

Whelan's suggestions for further study of the board charters and by-laws contain the following steps: (l) col­ lection of authenticated, dated, and conformed copies of all charters and by-laws of high schools; (2) analysis of documents and tabular summaries of the following factors: type of corporation, date of latest charter amendment, date of latest by-laws amendment, number of members, directors/ trustees, officers, and chief administrators, number re­ quired to be Jesuits, number required to change charter and by-laws, Jesuit references in the "purpose clause," Jesuit references in the "dissolution clause," and Jesuit refer­ ences in other clauses of charter and by-laws; (3) careful study of "Jesuit clauses” to determine effectiveness and efficiency of clauses: and (4) drafting of a "model minimum charter" (pp. 1 9-2 0 ).

The studies of McGrath, Maida, and Whelan bring to our attention the knotty problem of ownership and control and the consequent effect different opinions on these issues would have on the structure and functions of boards of trustees. Many authors hold McGrath's thesis of the Cath­ olic university as a public trust and hence owned by no one except the public as cogent. But others hold for a posi­ tion a lÆ Maida. A second question is how applicable

McGrath's conclusions would be to secondary education.

Whelan, in arguing a position for Jesuit control of the secondary schools they sponsor, forces us to consider what 62 the present state of affairs is and whether and how boards are currently structured to retain this control. In this concern for religious order control, Maida finds his main theme echoed.

C. Public School Board Literature

In recent years there has been a significant number of studies dealing with school boards as an educational phe­ nomenon. Articles, books, monographs, and several disser­ tations have explored many of the variables of the school board in local public school districts, county and inter­ mediate boards, and state boards of education. The board phenomenon has been of interest in recent years not only to students of education but to sociologists and political scientists as well. However, an exhaustive review of this literature would not only prove to be extremely lengthy but would be only minimally relevant to the present study of school boards on an individual school level in the private

Catholic sphere.

The review is limited to a few references which we cite to give the sense of the research that has been done and to present the important linkages with the literature already cited. Tuttle, Spears, DeBeer, Smith and Smittle, and Moffit, as cited by McCue (1971), while treating of the composition of boards speak of qualifications that are a prerequisite for the effective school board member: (1) ability to represent all the peoples of the school district: 63

(2) eagerness to learn and to understand the scope of edu­ cational problems; (3) willingness to give freely of per­ sonal time; (4) ability to work closely and cooperatively with the superintendent; (5) susceptibility to change when conditions warrant; and (6) dedication to American idealism and its development. Sorenson (1950) lists the following as basic functions of the board:

(1) determination of the basic educational phil­ osophy and objectives of the school system;

(2) basic policy making;

(3) to inspire community confidence in the school programs;

(4) to assume financial responsibility for the accumulation and distribution of adequate financial resources;

(5) to provide for the selection, supervision, and satisfactory working conditions of the personnel of the school system;

(6) to interpret the work of the school pro­ gram to the community and the needs of the community to the school administra­ tion;

(7) to study and provide for long-range planning;

(8) to provide periodic evaluation of the whole program;

(9) to provide experienced leadership so that staff changes will not weaken the effect of the educational agency (p. 3 1).

These findings should be contrasted and compared with the findings of this study on the actual composition and func­ tion of Jesuit secondary school boards. 64

A recent political science-oriented study of the pub­ lic schools merits special attention. Max Abbott in his introduction to Ziegler and Jennings with Peek (1974) briefly reviews the difference between this type of research and that which has been so prevalent in the study of school boards in the United States. The emphasis in the latter has been on demographical and structural considerations.

Their study concentrates on the ''actual functioning of the boards" (p. 31). Abbott identifies Neal Gross and his

Massachusetts studies of the late 1950's as the cutting edge of this new work but considers the present work, be­ cause of its national scope, to be of greater importance.

The three aspects of governance studied by Ziegler, et , through their nationwide interviews, are selections to the board, linkages between boards and citizens, and conflict and cooperation between boards and superintendents. Par­ allel concerns to these three aspects include selection to the Jesuit school board, linkages between the boards and the various school publics, and relationship of the boards to the chief executive officers. The present study is closer in method to traditional research than to this behaviorally-oriented study though it is hoped that the emphasis on actual functioning will find a place along with the demographic and structural considerations, albeit on a less sophisticated analytical level than Ziegler, et ^ . , achieved. 65

As one can observe, these studies in the literature of

the public schools are concerned with the variables of board composition, structure, and function. The studies

do provide help in seeing that the elements relevant to

the thorough status determination of Jesuit secondary school boards are not overlooked. Since the research deals in both instances with educational policy and governance boards, the parallels would be anticipated. Moreover, comparison between results of public school studies and those of private schools could provide insight into the distinctive qualities of both.

D. Studies on Best Practices for Boards of Trustees

It would be a travesty of the important contributions of the literature now to be reviewed to describe it as a series of cookbooks for education. Undoubtedly, there are books extant that serve as cookbooks for trustees; and some of them play an important role in educating a trustee to his responsibilities. The books examined here are, rather, books on boards of trustees at different levels of the edu­ cational enterprise that have as a guiding motif the making of recommendations for the betterment of the current prac­ tice of boards of trustees. This is not to imply that an empirical base is completely lacking. As a matter of fact, the studies we cite are almost universally composed by men of great experience in the field of education and, in some cases, based on questionnaires and interviews of other experts. But these books are not so much concerned with 66 what has been or is, as status or descriptive or historical studies, but rather with recommendations of what should be.

Because of the desire to make the present study productive of this type of recommendation, this fourth division of the literature has served a valuable function in its conceptu­ alization.

1. Colleges and Universities

On the college and university level, Rauh's two books

(1 9 5 9, 1 9 6 9) are outstanding. His first study (Rauh, 1959) has as its research base interviews with 70 trustees, presidents, and faculty members. It is a compilation of the ideas and experiences of men who have served and faced the challenge of trusteeship in the colleges and universi­ ties. The purpose of the study is to clarify the responsi­ bilities of trustees and to furnish information on the problems boards face. In a summary statement, he compiles his own judgments on the functions of a successful board of trustees.

It assures continuity by appointing the presi­ dent, fulfilling the legal requirements, adju- citating disputes, and holding and maintaining the assets. It serves as a review board by maintaining an overall supervision, balancing the interests of the various constituencies, and asking discerning questions. It counsels by providing impartial judgments and serving as a source of specialized skills. It sup­ ports by financial contribution, interpreting to the public, and upholding the rights of staff and students (p. 9 8 ). 67

Rauh's second book (I9 6 9) had an even more extensive empirical foundation. The appendix of the book contains a detailed study of trustees based on a population of 11,030.

Over fifty interviews were made in addition to those men­ tioned in his first study. But the purpose of the book is to help trustees better fulfill their office, not to provide a scientific study of boards. In addition to sections on general composition, organization, and especially functions of boards of trustees found in the earlier study, he adds chapters dealing with trusteeism in various types of educa­ tional institutions. His treatment of Catholic colleges calls attention to the difficulty in finding qualified lay trustees and the "schizophrenia" that could result from trying on the one hand to remain Catholic and, on the other, to create institutional autonomy from church control. He refers to a phenomenon that creates confusion for the stu­ dent of boards on all levels of Catholic education, a prob­ lem which he considers unique to Catholic institutions.

Some evidence of the degree of confusion is found in the very names of the governing bodies. In the process of securing the rosters of the boards of Catholic colleges for the trustee survey, we asked that the respondents distin­ guish between governing and advisory boards. The following examples indicate the variety in nomenclature:

College A: Board of Directors--clerical only Board of Retents— lay only

College B: Board of Directors— clerical and lay Board of Trustees--lay only 68

College C: Board of Trustees— clerical only Board of Regents— clerical and lay.

Even if the respective functions of these bodies are quite clear to the institutions which they serve, the indiscriminate use of names commonly associated with full legal authority is asking for confusion. Names like trustees, 'regents,' and 'directors' should be confined to boards having the governance authority. Groups which advise should be designated by names which sug­ gest the limited advisory functions (p. 1 1 5).

Martorana's study on boards (I9 6 3) in higher education has a different bent. The back is written both for the trustee and the student of boards. It is a compilation and review of the research on boards with the intent of provid­ ing both a description of existing boards and suggestions on how they might be made more effective. Although in its descriptive elements, this book could be categorized with the other descriptive accounts, its major emphasis has led us to include an examination of it at tnis point in the review. The fact that in itself it provides a thorough review of other literature prompts an extensive account of its contents.

After a chapter dealing with the historical develop­ ment of the board and another providing a typology of Amer­

ican college and university boards, Martorana offers chap­

ters on the characteristics of boards, in which he consid­ ers both composition and organization, and a second on board operations which includes data and recommendations on what is presented in the present study as the variables 69 of structure and function.

Martorana cites earlier research on the relationship of board composition to institutional excellence. This

research considers the following board attributes to be

significant:

(1) length of terms:

(2) provision for overlapping terms;

(3) occupational distribution of board membership;

(4) avoidance of board members on the salaried staff of the institution; and

(5) functions performed by the board and board committees.

The following are considered not significant:

(1) number of members on the board;

(2) method of selecting members;

(3) number and kind of committees:

(4) frequency of regular meetings; and

(5) age of members (p. 35).

Martorana, always relying on previous research, finds that the board characteristics most frequently prescribed are related to occupation, age, sex, religion, and resi­ dence. Occasionally there is a prescription that all or some be alumni. In fact, there is a high percentage of leaders of finance among board members, militating against the principle of representativeness of differing view­ points, background, sex, and age. 70

Board members are selected by election, appointment, cooptation (self-perpetuating board), and ex officio. Cit­ ing the studies of Eels and Beck, he concludes that the usual mode of selection in public institutions is appoint­ ment by state officials, while in the private sector it is cooptation. He quotes Tasch in respect to Roman Catholic institutions :

"Membership may be determined according to char­ ter provisions: a) by cooptation, if the char­ ter empowers it to perpetuate itself by filling vacancies due to death, resignation, removal, or retirement; b) by appointment through eccle­ siastical or religious superiors; c) ex officio. Corporation law permits such membership, but in the interest of stability there should be as few ex officio members as possible (p. 43).

Time and again he inveighs against the practice of having the president of the institution as a voting member of the board. He is in complete agreement with the state­ ment of Eels on this matter:

"In a certain sense this is an anomaly, since theoretically the function of the board of control is to determine institutional policies, while the president is the executive officer who carries them out. One of the chief func­ tions of the board is to select the president of the institution. In most institutions, the president regularly meets with the board but is not a voting member of it. This is usually considered the better administrative practice (p. 6 7).

Martorana describes the practice as "a point of confusion in the administrative structure" (p. 6 7). Although he admits that the practice of business and industry argues in favor of the president as member, to keep him informed 71 of board actions and attitude, he argues vehemently for the totally lay board.

He considers presently existing boards as being neither qualified nor representative. One problem is ex officio representation which he generally eschews. He is in favor of overlapping terms of at least six years. While over­ lapping terms are now the rule, terms are frequently less than six years.

Board size proves a hard issue to settle. Representa­ tiveness argues a large board, efficiency a small. Hard measures as to when these limits are reached are not avail­ able. Public boards average between ten and eleven members; the median of Roman Catholic institutions is seven.

The board should be occupied with broad policy issues and leave day-to-day management to administrators. The actual power of boards over the institutions they govern is extensive. Knowing what they should preserve for their own decision and what should be delegated is difficult.

The literature speaks of board hegemony 'over the main policies within which the institution will operate" (p. 6l).

Board officers are less frequently chosen from among the professional staff, though Martorana feels that this tendency should be reversed in the case of the board secre­ tary. Length of terra of board members is considered an important variable because of its effect on board stability and responsiveness to and instigation of change. 72

The practice of using standing committees varies widely from institution to institution. "The preferred practice is for the board of trustees to act as 'a committee of the whole on all except strictly temporary matters’" (p. 6 9).

The usual standing committees deal with investments, budg­ etary matters, and physical facilities. He cautions against the overuse of both standing and ^ hoc committees.

Martorana considers the selection of the president to be the most important function of the board. This officer should provide the agenda for board meetings. Besides electing the president, Martorana details the following board functions: formulating institutional purpose; deter­ mining programs of instruction, research, and service; staffing the institution; acquiring and protecting needed physical facilities and equipment; budgeting and financing; and interpreting the institution to the public.

More recently than Martorana, Heilbron (1973), in a practical treatise addressed to board members, makes recom­ mendations for best practices based on his own experience and that of other trustees, particularly for the public university. He suggests that board members' terms should be staggered and long enough to encourage independent action. Twelve years is a suggested term length.

Trustees should retire at 70. The board should be large enough to be adequately representative. Specifically he speaks of a membership of between 11 and 24. Members 73 should adequately represent the "establishment," education, and community service. Alumni, women, and minorities should be represented both as a matter of justice and because of the importance of their specific contributions to the in­ stitution. Both faculty and student interest is better served by presence at board meetings as advocates rather than as members.

The committee structure sould not be allowed to inter­ fere with board sovereignty over important decisions.

Heilbron is opposed to an executive committee making major policy decisions, because he fears that a small clique making these would lead to a decline in board morale and decisional representativeness. The board should conduct its business in public.

2. Private Schools

Independent schools are defined by Parkman as schools supported chiefly by non-public funds, controlled by a non­ public body, relatively independent of state control, free to incorporate religious teaching in their curriculum and to encourage discussion of controversial topics but where church control is minimal or non-existent, usually incor­ porated not-for-profit, but occasionally proprietary. As we can see, this definition serves in distinguishing the independent school not only from public schools but from church schools such as the Society of Jesus would sponsor because of the lessened degree of church control found 74

among the independents. Two volumes by Springer provide

useful guides for best practices for boards of trustees in

independent schools. The Handbook (1974) is not devoid of

an empirical base. A rather rigorous study is accomplished

discussing the membership on school boards of school heads and the types of contracts these same heads enjoyed. But

the major thrust of the work is in the area of suggested best practices. Parkman and Springer (1974) institute a

rather thorough treatment of board composition and respon­

sibilities. These latter are identified as concern for

institutional policies, long-range planning, and financial

resources. Much attention is devoted to the relationship

of the headmaster to the board including his responsibili­

ties and the causes of satisfactory or unsatisfactory

relationships between them. Special problems discussed

include the matter of a contract for the headmaster and

the selection and orientation of a new "head.'' Springer's

study (1 9 6 7) does not break any new ground but does provide a succinct summary of most of the material found in the

Handbook. The most important consideration for Springer is that "good board-head relationships should be the first

concern of every board of an independent school and of its headmaster. A clear understanding of areas of responsi­ bility, mutual respect, and good will, and tact on both

sides are the necessary ingredients" (p. l4). 75

3. Catholic School Boards

Tliere is a small body of literature which is devoted to recommendations for parish and diocesan boards. Part of this literature has as its aim to encourage the formation of boards and to adduce cogent reasons for their founda­ tion. Two major works in this category are the Voice of the Community (National Catholic Education Association,

1 9 7 3), and the monograph on the board movement by Davies and Deneen (1 9 6 8). The first study establishes a ration­ ale for boards on the basis of the increasing complexity of education for diocesan and parish school boards and the changing nature of the Catholic community. The increased complexity demands more expertise; and the current Catholic community is ready to provide it through an educated, articulate, and willing constituency. Vatican II with its new emphasis on thorough lay participation suggests a more democratic model than before, one much closer to the model of the board that was traditional to public education.

Specific recommendations concerning the composition, struc­ ture, and functions of both diocesan and parish boards are also made. Diocesan boards should be composed of both clerics and laity with the majority being lay and the board consisting of a maximum of 1 2. The superintendent should be considered the chief executive officer of the board but should not be a member of it. The composition of the board should be representative of the community it 76 serves. Clerics from the diocesan curia (parallel to the council of the religious orders mentioned by Maida) should be excluded. Various professional, educational, and eco­ nomic backgrounds should be represented, though the mono­ graph endorses the recommendation of the Midwest Adminis­ tration Center that of "all the demographic data included in this study /showed/ the item most closely related to effective performance as a school board member was the amount of formal education /emphasis added?" (p. 12).

Structurally, there should be an agenda prepared for each meeting by the chief executive officer. Meetings should be open to the public for the most part, with an invitation extended to the media. Significant actions should be well publicized. Thorough records of all meet­ ings should be kept and available. Functionally, the greatest need is for an adequate distinction between policy making and administrative rule making. The board should confine itself to policy.

In general, the same recommendations are applied to parish boards where the former clerical policy setters are urged to avoid "presumptive paternalism." Because there is a greater need on this level, boards are urged to move beyond advisory capacities into policy-making ones. The principal should assume the analagous executive officer role of the superintendent in the parish context. Certain people should be excluded from membership--educators from 77 other schools and employees of the parish whether educators or not.

The study of Davies and Deneen (1963) has a somewhat different purpose. The intention is to offer a guide to the sitting member of a Catholic board of education. After a general history of Catholic education and its legal sta­ tus and organization, the study concentrates on the emer­ gence of the board movement, discusses board authority, and enumerates qualifications for board members. The basic functions of the board are considered as establishing ner- sonnel policies, financing the educational program, and evaluation and planning. Practical suggestions that are considered to be beneficial to the individual board member and the board as a whole include: improved board-adminis- trator relations, use of written policies rather than rules, careful planning and direction of board meetings, and the importance of the function of the board in educational as­ sessment. The authors advance a theory of the emergence of the board in Catholic education based on the perennial con­ cern of Catholic philosophy that education is primarily the responsibility of the parent, combined with the Vatican II emphasis on increased lay participation. Practical reasons cited for board expansion include the potential for more support from people involved in the decision-making process, possibilities of increased tax support if there are lay pol­ icy makers, and the realization on the part of pastors and 78 bishops that they cannot steer the ship themselves. They point to the tendency of boards once formed to become both more representational and truly deliberative.

These studies relate in various ways to the present research effort. First, they provide useful suggestions for possible recommendations of best practices for Jesuit boards. Secondly, within their empirical element, they do provide guidelines for carrying on a comprehensive study of policy boards and. specifically, serve as hedges to ensure that important elements in such a study are not lacking. The four studies relating to college and uni­ versity boards, the two on independent schools, and the two on parochial and diocesan school boards ensure that the basic types of boards that are most relatable to the boards considered in the present study are examined for instances of best practices. CHAPTER III

METHOD OF THE STUDY

In attempting to answer the research questions of this study, it has been necessary to adopt a methodology that would adequately study its object, the status of policy boards in Jesuit secondary schools. Since very little re­ search had been done on governance, in general, and policy boards, in particular, in Jesuit secondary schools, the methodology elected was descriptive rather than experi­ mental.

Sax (1 9 6 8) gives approval to this approach when he remarks :

"Most investigators generally--and wisely--study the current status of a field before they attempt to control or modify its practices. Research involving the collection of data for the purpose of describing conditions as they exist is called descriptive or status research in contrast to studies which attempt to manipulate or control the environment called experimental research (p. 2 8 8 ).

Sellitz, et point out certain procedures common to this research:

"The research questions presuppose much prior knowledge of the problem to be investigated as contrasted with the questions that form the basis for exploratory studies. The investi­ gator must be able to define clearly what it is he wants to measure and must find adequate

79 80

methods for measuring it. In addition, he must be able to specify who is to be included in the definition of a 'given community' or a 'given population.' In collecting evidence for a study of this sort, what is needed is not so much flexibility as a clear formulation of what and who is to be measured, and techniques for valid and reliable measurements'" (p. 66).

Mowley (cited in Fox, 1 9 6 9), summarizes the descriptive method when he states:

"No category of educational research is more widely used than the type know variously as the survey, the normative-survey, or descriptive research. This is a broad classification com­ prising a variety of specific techniques and procedures, all similar from the standpoint of purpose--namely, to establish the status of the phenomenon under investigation. In his discus­ sion, Fox pointed out that descriptive research usually includes some form of representative sampling (or the use of entire populations) and uses some form of instrument such as the inter­ view and/or the questionnaire" (p. 234).

The first step in a descriptive study is a review of the literature. The literature on Jesuit and even private secondary school governance was extremely limited, but there existed a more extensive body of descriptive and status studies of college and university boards of trustees. Spe­ cifically, there was a body of literature describing Catho­ lic college and university policy boards during a parallel period of change from pro forma corporate boards, composed entirely of religious order membership, to boards that exercised plenary deliberative authority and most fre­ quently were composed of a mix of religious and laity. 81

The review provided methodological guidance in partic­ ular. First, it suggested specific decision parameters for arriving at a typology of boards, a necessary condition for an answer to the first research question: Can boards be classified as strictly advisory to the chief executive, combinations of ownership and management boards, and bona fide policy boards with full ultimate responsibility for the institution and to which the chief executive officer of the school is responsible for the administration of the school? If so, which boards fall into each category?

Secondly, the review contributed to the framing of the questions to be asked in order to determine the 'character­ istics of bona fide policy boards," (the second research question). The review revealed three variables, which, if determined, would give a comprehensive answer to the ques­ tion regarding the characteristics of these boards. The three variables were identified as composition, structure, and function. It also provided guidance in developing instruments which would provide answers to these questions.

Thirdly, the literature provided methodological guidance in arriving at means of ascertaining the reasons for changes in governance and perceptions of the relative effectiveness of the current board in comparison with the previous gov­ ernance pattern (third and fourth questions).

The first research task was to examine the governance of the 47 Jesuit secondary schools and determine which 82 boards were genuine policy boards and which were other types— pro forma corporate or advisory. It was also impor­ tant to discover whether the dual ownership-management boards discovered in preliminary studies of Jesuit second­ ary schools and found frequently at the college-university level should be classified as bona fide policy boards.

Referring again to Sax (I9 6 8), "He (the researcher) must be able to specify who is to be included in the definition of a 'given community' or a 'given population'" (p. 2 8 8 ).

To accomplish this it was necessary to establish certain decision rules to determine whether a board was a bona fide policy board or not and to gather the information necessary to make these decisions.

The first phase of fulfilling this task was to dis­ criminate between policy boards and non-policy boards on the basis of explicit criteria. The initial source of data for making this determination was a brief preliminary study issued by the Jesuit Secondary Education Association (Note 3)

It was necessary to verify this data by means of a question­ naire (Questionnaire 1) sent to all chief executives of schools which did not appear to have policy boards to make sure that none would be overlooked. As a result of respon­ ses to this initial questionnaire, some boards that would have been eliminated were kept under consideration.

While continuing to pursue the first research question,

the second research task was to determine board 83 characteristics and the third to determine perceived rea­ sons for governance change. A second questionnaire was sent to all 39 schools that were still presumed to have a policy board. This questionnaire was designed not only to more precisely discriminate between policy and non­ policy boards and raise the board typology to a higher level of precision but also to approach the answers to the second and third research questions. The researcher sought to discover the basic characteristics of the bona fide policy boards, establish answers to the questions concerning the major variables of policy boards (char­ acteristics, structure, and function) and determine the perceived reasons for significant change from more tra­ ditional patterns of governance. Non-parametric statis­ tical techniques were used to achieve a modal profile of the characteristics of Jesuit policy boards along with frequency tables to give a more comprehensive view of the boards individually.

The results of this second questionnaire and the analysis of the responses to it, along with clarifying interviews with some of the respondents, further reduced the number of boards to be treated as bona fide policy boards to 32. It also provided answers to the questions concerning board characteristics and determinants of change. Interviews with chief executives and a study of the charters and by-laws of the various schools 84 were conducted to clarify ambiguous written responses. A rank ordering of perceived determinants of change was ac­ complished through a process of weighted means.

The fourth research task was to determine perceptions of school communities of the relative advantage of change in governance patterns. A third questionnaire was address­ ed to members of the several school communities who had experienced both the original traditional and the later repatterned governance structure. The method employed to gain this information was the use of selected members of the school community as informants. The procedure of em­ ploying the informant technique in survey-type investiga­ tions of organizations has been established in organiza­ tional research (Seidler, 1974). Two problems arise, how­ ever, for the researcher in using this methodology: the problem of representativeness and the problem of standard­ ization. The solution to these problems was sought in the present study by selecting persons occupying identical positions in each school community. Informants selected in this way could be presumed to have similar access to information and similar organizational perspectives. The persons holding the following positions in the school com­ munities were employed as informants for this study: board chairperson, faculty organization chairperson, president of the alumni association, superior of the Jesuit community resident at the school, chief executive, and president of 35

the student body (this latter, only if the restructuring

occurred during the proceeding three years).

The fifth research question, what are the major ways

in which the superiors of the Society of Jesus impact uoon

the board decision-making process, was answered from the questions concerning the actual composition, structure, and functioning of the boards, especially those concerning

Jesuit presence on boards and impact of superiors on board functions.

Finally, the sixth research question was answered by comparing board composition, structure, and function of

Jesuit secondary school boards with recommended best prac­ tices from the review of the literature.

The rest of the present chapter will treat in detail the method just described and attempt to answer the follow­

ing questions: (1) Since other methods than the descrip­ tive might conceivably have been employed, why was this particular method chosen? (2) How did the review of the literature along with some preliminary investigation lead to the determination of the major variables to be investi­ gated in determining board characteristics? (3) Why was the respondent technique used as the main source of the data? (4) What was the limitation of the respondent tech­ nique? (5) Why was the questionnaire used as the instru­ ment of choice rather than the interview? (6) What models were used for the development of the questionnaires? 86

(7) How were the questionnaires composed in order to ar­

rive at answers to the research questions? (8 ) How were

the questionnaires validated? (9) What was the chronolog­

ical sequence of the research? (10) What decision rules were formulated for discriminating between types of boards

and how were these arrived at? (11) How was data from the questionnaires analyzed in order to provide answers to the

research questions?

1. Selection of the Descriptive Method

As observed in the introduction to the chapter, the descriptive method is appropriate to describe conditions as they exist. No comprehensive study of policy boards in

Jesuit secondary schools has been undertaken. It seemed

to be possible to 'define clearly what it is he /the re­ searcher/ wants to measure." A survey taken by the Jesuit

Secondary Education Association in 1976 (Note 2) helped with the initial identification of policy boards, although

the population as manifested in the results of this survey had to be modified in accord with the findings of this study to finally arrive at a determination of "who and what is to be measured" (Sellitz, et al., 1959)* This survey, however, did not provide any description of these policy boards or their interrelationship with other gov­ ernance structures. Hence the appropriateness of a status study with descriptive methodology. 87

2. The Function of the Review of Literature and Other

Preliminary Investigations in Determining the Research

Variables and Tasks

The preliminary investigations of the phenomenon of policy boards were important in establishing the parameters of the study. Interviews with the chief executives or

their representatives from four near-by Jesuit high schools,

utilizing a regular interview schedule, contributed to a

clarity in conceptualizing the major types of board struc­

tures and the variables that should be investigated (AppendixB).

Further aid to this end was garnered from a review of

the literature. Although there had been little research

done on boards in private Catholic elementary and secondary

schools, the study of boards of trustees in colleges and

universities was extensive enough to provide a model for

a descriptive study of this kind. The major variables

employed in the present study parallel those found in stud­

ies of higher education; studies of boards were frequently

divided into a consideration of the variables of."composi­

tion, structure, and function," or something conceptually

similar. Other studies provided aid in determining how to

go about discovering the reasons behind change and an eval­

uation of the relative advantage of the new governance

structures in comparison with the traditional.

More specifically, the review enabled a distinction

to be made between boards that were actually deliberative 88 and purely consultative bodies. Hence, the study was able to be limited to that sub-set of boards which could prop­ erly be considered deliberative and which, for the sake of uniform terminology, were designated as "policy boards" whether they were actually called boards of "directors,"

'regents," "trustees," etc. The variables of composition, structure, and function were neither arbitrarily nor slav­ ishly imitated from other sources. They proved functional in reference to the four boards that were the object of the preliminary investigation by answering the basic ques­ tions necessary to describe these boards and, by inference, others of their kind. The answers to the questions of what is the composition of the board, what is its internal organization, and what does it do, seemed to be the an­ swers that adequately characterize a board and allow a differentiation from another board similarly titled. The answers to these questions are what is meant by composi­ tion, structure, and function. The ordered pursuit of these variables, linked with a constant care that the boards considered were actually in the population of pol­ icy boards and were not advisory or corporate boards, guided the study toward its goal of an adequate descrip­ tion of policy boards in Jesuit secondary schools.

The review also proved helpful in discovering a method tc ascertain the reason for the presumed change in governance in many schools from traditional governance by 89

administrators to board governance. It was assumed that,

although some secondary schools would not have changed from

traditional Jesuit governance patterns, a functioning policy

board in a school presumed relatively recent refashioning.

Hence, for a better understanding of governance patterns

in a time of transition, the reasons for the change occur­

ring would add to the adequacy of the description of the

policy boards, in addition to the value it would possess

in itself. Finally, the review suggested a methodology for

determining the perceived relative advantage of the new

governance structure over the prior one. Although modified

extensively for the particular function, the method and

instrument of Sr. Marie Fox (1974), employed to explore the

same phenomenon in Catholic colleges and universities, pro­

vided guidance for this research task.

3. Respondent Technique

Two methodologies for ascertaining the data on which

to build a descriptive study of policy boards seemed feas­

ible. Organizational studies in general choose between a

reliance on documents or on informer/respondents. Relevant

documentation in the case of policy boards would consist primarily of their current charters and by-laws and, second­ arily, of official minutes of meetings of the boards and other similar secondary documents. Informants and respond­ ents would consist of those individuals concerned with the

schools and boards being investigated who would be able to 90 supply accurate information on the variables under consid­ eration.

Several reasons militated against an exclusive reli­ ance on a documentary approach. An earlier attempt (Whelan,

1 9 7 5) on an official basis to collect the charters and by­ laws of the Jesuit schools enjoyed only partial success.

Despite the moral force of a request from the Jesuit Second­ ary Education Association, some school executives did not offer the documentation for an earlier legal study on school ownership. The researcher was advised that it was highly unlikely that he could achieve better results for his less official study. Some school executives were not even com­ pletely sure how to obtain the documentation in question.

Secondly, since board status was in flux in many institu­ tions, change had been made that had not been entered in certified form. Thirdly, while the documentation might describe the situation as it should be, it would not supply answers to all questions concerning the actual situation.

For instance, although a charter or set of by-laws might specify the minimum number of members the board must have to function, it would offer no information on how many board members there actually are; though it might allow for the formation of standing committees, it would not indicate how many there actually are and their fields of competence. The difficulty of collecting adequate second­ ary documentation to complement what primary documentation 91 was available provided additional reason against relying exclusively on documentation to determine board status.

Chief executives of Jesuit secondary schools were in an optimal position to answer the questions necessary for the intended study. They were presumably able to refer immediately to documents that might be necessary to answer questions. Because of their position, they would be better informed than any other individuals to describe the board and the reasons for governance change. They could be easily contacted and were interested enough in the results of the research to give the time demanded to the study.

However, inability to rely completely on documentation did not preclude the reliance on documentation as a correc­ tive to the informant/respondent methodology. Confusion as to the meaning of the responses could in some cases be clarified by investigation of the documents. As a result the researcher tried to gather as much of the appropriate documentation as available, mainly from the archives of the Jesuit Secondary Education Association.

4. Limitation of Respondent Technique

The major limitation of the respondent technique is that it places such heavy reliance on perceptions. Data on the composition, structure, and function of the boards, though submitted to some degree of verification against documentation, is based on the perception of chief execu­ tives . The consideration of determinants of change from 92

traditional to policy board governance patterns relies entirely on the perception of the chief executive, and, of course, is, of its very nature, concerned with opinions as opposed to the facts sought concerning the previous

three variables. Finally, the relative advantage of the

restructured boards is judged according to the perceptions of the members of the school community. This has been mentioned previously in this study as one of its basic limitations.

5 . Choice of the Questionnaire Technique

With the methodology of employing informant respond­

ents settled by the demonstrated inadequacies of sole reli­ ance on the documentary approach and the positive advan­

tages of the informant approach, the next question to be

answered involved who should be questioned and how they

should be questioned. The decision was made to question

the chief executives of the schools. It was assumed that

they, more than any other identifiable population, would

possess the information sought concerning the boards. Al­

though more accuracy could conceivably have been obtained

by seeking information from others in a position to know

something about the boards, the decision was made to limit

the population of respondents to chief executives. First,

a certain amount of confusion would have arisen that might

have proven very difficult to resolve if information sought

from different sources was given. Secondly, other possible 93 populations of respondents such as board chairpersons were judged on the basis of preliminary investigation to have less information on the variables in question than the chief executives. Thirdly, the number of questions that any thorough status study would require to be answered by the respondent population and the consequent amount of time necessary to answer them, whether by interview or question­ naire, demanded a high degree of motivation thought unlikely to exist outside of a population as interested in the results of such study as chief executives of the institutions might be presumed to be.

The method of questioning resolved itself. Limitation of funds and time made any plan of interviewing chief exec­ utives spread out geographically from Puerto Rico to the state of Washington impossible. Though interviewing would have avoided much of the risk of misunderstanding what information was desired, inherent in the questionnaire method, it would likely have netted a poorer response

"rate" considering the great amount of interview time an attempt to attain a complete status study would have necessitated. The problem of lower reliability of inter­ view technique was also avoided.

6. What Models Were Used for the Development of The

Questionnaires?

In composing the questionnaires, especially the second questionnaire, emphasis was placed on getting as complete 94

and accurate information as possible about the variables

under consideration. Included in this concern was framing

questions not only so they would cover the material thor­

oughly but so they would be as easily answered as possible

by the respondents, thus encouraging a favorable response

rate and high validity. Guidance in the composition of

the actual questions came from the research questions of

the study and questionnaires that had been used in the

study of similar phenomena in higher education. Principal among these were the questionnaires constructed by Moroni

(I9 6B), Roman (1 9 6 7), Hasenstab (I9 7I), and especially.

Fox (1 9 7 4). Moroni and Fox were used as primary models for the construction of the questionnaire items on compo­ sition, structure, and function. Hasenstab was used pri­ marily for his questionnaire on reasons for board restruc­ turing. Fox's questionnaire on board effectiveness in colleges and universities was used as a model for the third questionnaire. Other studies cited in the review of the literature variously contributed to specific items in all three questionnaires.

7. How Were the Questionnaires Composed in Order to

Elicit Answers to the Research Questions?

Although an item-by-item analysis of the reasons be­ hind the construction of each instrument item and its rela­ tionship to the research would be prohibitively lengthy, a certain justification of the general categories of questions 95

will be presented for each of the three questionnaires in

turn. The actual questionnaires and an item-source fre­

quency table is presented in the appendices (Appendix C

and D).

1. The major concern of the first questionnaire was

to see that no policy board would be overlooked by the

study. The first research task— the typology of boards

and the second— the characteristics of bona fide policy boards-demanded it. Because it was presumed that the

school as an incorporated entity would have some form of

corporate board, an accompanying feature of every corpora­ tion, the concern was not to overlook corporate boards that were functioning as bona fide policy boards and not just, according to the traditional mode of Jesuit governance, as bodies meeting only to fulfill legal requirements without any substantive influence on policy-making. A series of questions asked directly and indirectly whether a policy board existed, in case the preliminary information from the JSEA was erroneous or outdated. Further questions encouraged the chief executive to analyze this board to see if the respondent understood the concept of "policy board" in the same sense as the researcher. These further questions enabled the researcher to eliminate from consid­ eration, for instance, a board designated as a "policy board" by the chief executive but possessing authority considered by him to be advisory only, despite the name 96 he assigned it. Additional information was also sought to see if there was an impending change from an advisory board to a policy board. Different terms were used, such as "legislative body" and "corporate board" to ensure that exclusion of boards from consideration in the second part of the study would not be on a semantic basis. Sufficient space for open-ended answers was provided to allow for con­ siderations overlooked by the researcher. This question­ naire was sent to nine schools.

2. The second questionnaire consisted of five sections

One section each was devoted to composition of boards, structure of boards, and functions of boards, including board authority. These sections were designed to answer the second research question: What are the characteristics of bona fide policy boards. A fourth section dealing with determinants of board restructuring, a response to the third research question: What were the reasons for deter­ minants of significant change in board composition struc­ ture, or function. A fifth section asked for names and addresses of informants, to help answer the fourth research question. It was sent to 39 schools.

The first section on the composition of the boards was concerned both with the stipulations of charter and by-laws concerning composition and the actual composition of the

1976 boards. The inquiry focused first on the requirements for composition demanded by the charter and by-laws 97 including the requirment of Jesuits, faculty, alumni, stu­ dents and women being represented on the boards and the allowance for such representation (Questions 1-15). It then turned to the actual composition of the boards with special attention to how Jesuit, how clerical, and how

Catholic they presently were. In a similar fashion, ques­ tions were asked to determine the presence of faculty of various kinds on the board as a measure of the board’s potential for conflict of interest (Questions 16-24).

The questionnaire also probed the method of selection of the board members whether by election or ex officio, and, if the former, by whom the selection was made (Ques­ tions 26-33). The linkages between policy-making and ad­ ministration and between policy-making and religious com­ munity control were checked by questions dealing with the requirement of educational and religious administrators serving on the board (Questions 39-42). The linkages between the board and what might be described as Jesuit interlocking directorships were explored further by ques­ tioning the nature of linkages between board membership and Jesuit institutional affiliation (Questions 43-48).

Finally, the basic demography of the actual boards was explored with attention to variables such as age, profes­ sion, salary, and geographical proximity to the institution

(Questions 49-55). 98

The second section of the questionnaire dealing with board structure began with questions aimed at determining the possible distinctions that existed between the legal corporate board or its equivalent and the policy board, if such a distinction exists. This was of the utmost impor­ tance in determining the actual power that the Society of

Jesus exerted over policy determination, since there was a possibility of a sharing in policy determination between a board composed strictly of religious order membership and tlie normal policy board with broader representativeness.

If only the ordinary policy board were examined, the relig­ ious community control might have seemed to be much less than it actually was. This series of questions not only identified the existence or lack thereof of a dual board structure but asked for the functions of the ownership board (Questions 1-13). Within this sub-section, the in­ fluence of the religious order governance structure on the institutional structure was pinpointed by a series of questions (Questions 6-9).

The remainder of the section treated structure alter­ nately in a ^e jure and ^ facto mode. For instance, must the chairman be a Jesuit or must ^ ^ a layperson is a de jure question, while Ij. the chairperson a Jesuit or a lay­ person is a de facto question. The structure of board of­ ficer constitution and appointment was explored in ques­ tions 1 1 -2 9with stress again placed on linkages with school 99

and religious order administration. Questions 30-36 dealt

with succession to membership on the board. Questions 37-

43 treated the question of plenary meetings of the board,

while the remaining questions explored both the ^ facto

and ^ jure committee structures and raised the question

of the complexity of the board structure, the power of

committees vis-a-vis the board as a whole, and the Jesuit

influence on committees.

The third section dealt with the functions of the board. The first issue that was investigated in questions

1-5 was the power of the board in relation to other legal

entities. The questions sought to discover the degree of

autonomy of the board from the governance structure of the

religious community. Questions 6-l6 investigated the spe­

cific functions of the board relating to fundamental cor­ porate powers. Then, after a more detailed look at the

actual authority of the board over independent selection

of the chief executive (1 6-lS), question 19 explored the

actual functions of the board in matters generally consid­

ered to be appropriate to the chief policy-making body in

an educational setting. Certain options that are adminis­

trative rather than policy oriented were offered to deter­ mine if the board overstepped policy bounds into adminis­

trative functions.

The fourth section, responding to the third research

task, listed a number of determinants of change, from the 100

traditional governance patterns to those of the board model,

culled from interviews and parallel literature on board

restructuring in Catholic colleges and universities. Op­

portunity was given for the respondent to identify other

reasons specific to his institution.

The option was given to the respondent not to answer

the questionnaire at all if the determination were made

that there was no policy board operative in the school.

The preliminary material from the JSEA suggested that all

the schools to which the second questionnaires were sent had operative policy boards, but the possibility existed

that they did not have them in the sense in which such bod­

ies were defined in this study. In fact, several chief

executives opted to return the questionnaires unanswered with explanations appended that they did not have policy boards of the sort being examined in this study.

3. The third questionnaire was concerned with the

fourth research task of determining the relative effective­ ness of the present policy-making board as compared with the previous governance structure. It presupposed that the board had undergone a recent significant change in composi­ tion, structure, or function. Questions 1-9 probed to determine the composition elements— were the board members more effective than those on the previous board in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and experiences. Questions 10-12 were concerned with the relation of the board to the continuing 101 existence and general stability of the school. Questions

13 -2 2explored the relation of change in the board to the

"religious" issues of the Jesuit school--adherence to cur­ rently normative religious ideals, continuance of religious influence and control by the religious order, clarity of relationship between the Society of Jesus and the school.

Questions 23-26 were concerned with the board's responsive­ ness to and representation of the various school publics.

Questions 27-32 addressed the issues of the effect of board change on the lives of those immediately within the school community. Questions 33-35 explored the effect of the new board on the school's financial position. Question 36 ad­ dressed the perennial problem of improvement of separation of policy-making from administration. Finally, questions

3 7 -3 9addressed whether the board was generally considered to have improved the overall functioning of the board and school.

8 . How Were the Questionnaires Validated

Questionnaires were tested for validity through the use of a panel of experts. Questionnaires #1 and 2 were sent to former chief executives of Jesuit high schools, the executive secretary of the Jesuit Secondary Education Asso­ ciation, and the Coordinator of Secondary Education for the

Detroit Province. The researcher believed that the latter two would possess an expertise that would enable them to judge the questions as to their potential to obtain the 102 information desired because of the panel's broad experience with many Jesuit schools. It was also judged that the four former chief executives would be able to check the ques­ tionnaires to see whether the questions were applicable to situations as they actually existed in high schools and whether they possessed a clarity of statement and potential to be easily answered.

Each of these six offered general advice on the compo­ sition of the questionnaire as a whole and specific advice on individual questions. Advice was also sought from other individuals from outside the field for general readability.

Input was obtained from persons working in graphic arts and professionals in educational research for linguistic and layout advice on the detailed second questionnaire in par­ ticular.

The third questionnaire was submitted for expert ap­ proval to associates of the Committee on Research and De­ velopment of the Jesuit Secondary Education Association, men with broad experience in education in addition to great familiarity with Jesuit education in particular. This questionnaire was also submitted to the Executive Secretary of the JSEA and the Detroit Province Coordinator of Second­ ary Education. It was also field tested with the counter­ parts of the recipients by submitting it to the chief executives, faculty chairperson, etc. of a Jesuit high school which was not being examined for its policy board 103

changes. This test group was asked to answer the questions

in terms of the change in an "advisory" board, a situation

that had actually occurred at their school. It seemed to be an adequate simulation of the situation at those schools

to which the questionnaire actually applied. Responses

from these various sources were used to improve the ques­

tionnaire and give it final form. Certain statements were added, others deleted; the order of statements was rearrang­

ed; the directions were clarified; and the possibility of alternative hypotheses was eliminated by the use of the

clarifying phrase, "because of the change in governance."

9 . The Research Protocol

The first questionnaire to chief executives was mailed

in late May 1976, with returns of 1000 made by the end of

June 1 9 7 6, after follow-up phone calls. The second ques­

tionnaire was sent in the middle of June with returns com­ plete by the end of July. The original mailing was followed

up by a letter sent two weeks after the original mailing

requesting speedy return. One week after that, in both

cases, a telephone call was made and, in a few cases, mul­

tiple phone calls. The return rate was helped by enclosure

of a promotional memorandum from the Executive Director of

the JSEA. The product of these promotional activities com­ bined with a promise of a return of the original question­

naire results seemed responsible for the heady return rate

of 1000 which was finally achieved by September 1976. 104

The third questionnaire was mailed to persons holding

various positions in the school community in early April

1 9 7 7, with a follow-up letter to non-respondents two weeks later. Besides the formal cover letter to all respondents,

the chief executives received a second letter thanking them for their initial efforts in filling out the second ques­ tionnaire and requesting the chronology of board changes at their school. This third questionnaire did not have as high a response rate as the first two.

The initial explanation for this lowered rate is that, although there were a potential 192 respondents, counting

6 respondents from each of the 32 schools, in actuality, lists were submitted by only some of the schools and com­ plete lists by even fewer. Two schools which had boards composed of only Jesuits from the local school community did not fill out either the fourth or fifth part of the questionnaire, implying that there was no change in the board. Five other schools declined to supply names and addresses of key respondents. This automatically elimina­ ted 55 potential respondents. Only 8 names of presidents of student bodies were submitted, perhaps as a result of the fact that board restructuring had occurred before the students had begun attendance at the school. (This possi­ bility had been noted in the questionnaire, and chief exec­ utives were asked not to submit names of students who had not been in attendance at the high school during board 105

restructuring.) One hundred eleven questionnaires were

eventually sent out and 86 returned for a response rate of

77.5*. The third questionnaire also asked chief executives to

send brief histories of their board restructing process.

Thirteen of the 23 responding chief executives complied with this request (Appendix E).

10. What Decision Rules Were Determined and Formulated for Discriminating Between Types of Boards and How Were These Applied?

As mentioned earlier in the study (cf. Chap. I, p. 10), in the era before the conclusions of Vatican II (I9 6 3-6 6), "Governing boards of the institutions were traditionally either non-existent or corporate boards, composed of Jes­ uits from the local religious community, meeting rarely and exercising meager deliberative functions." Although this state of affairs was not documented in scholarly literature

(none really existed), it was still remembered by members of the Society of Jesus who had been active in the second­ ary schools at that time and was still the case in some schools, as confirmed by the initial investigations of the four Detroit Province secondary schools.

The preliminary study undertaken by the Project One

(Jesuit Conference, 1974) tentatively identified four gov­ ernance models. First was a policy board actually function­ ing as such and "not simply the corporate structure required by the state governments for non-profit corporations,' often 106 in this latter instance constituted by the rector and his consultants. This model is to be differentiated from three other models: (l) Where the rector and president are one person and where he and the other administrators are respon­ sible to a board consisting of him and his consultons which really possesses minimal deliberative authority; (2) where the chief executive reports to the provincial or his dele­ gate; and (3) where the administration is really not held accountable to anyone.

In the leading questions of the dissertation the prop­ osition was offered that the boards as analyzed would yield a typology consisting of: (1) boards strictly advisory to the chief executive; (2) strictly corporate boards: (3) ownership and management boards; and (4) bona fide policy boards with full ultimate responsibility for the institu­ tion and to which the chief executive of the school is responsible for the administration of the school.

As the data from the first two questionnaires along with supporting documentation and written and oral comments from various chief executives was analyzed, it became clear that this projected typology was not completely adequate.

Although strictly advisory boards could be identified and ruled out as objects of consideration in a study of policy boards, there were other boards that exercised some type of deliberative function that proved more difficult to classify. It was not always easy to discriminate between 107

(1) the board of consultors, (2) the corporate board exer­ cising pro forma functions, and (3) the policy board that was exercising full ultimate responsibility but not taking on as many specific functions or holding as frequent meet­ ings as might be expected of a supposedly fully responsible policy board.

Research by the JSEA (Note 3) had indicated what schools probably did not have bona fide policy boards. These schools, which seemed to have nothing more than advisory or pro forma corporate boards, were checked by means of the first questionnaire to make sure that they did not have a deliberative board that was overlooked by the JSEA study.

Ten questionnaires were sent out and, on the basis of the responses, 7 governance structures were identified as being without boards exercising a full deliberative function.

The second round of questionnaires was sent to 39 schools with the request that chief executives eliminate consideration of their boards if they judged that they were not exercising a policy function. As a result of this self­ elimination, 35 boards became the object of further study.

It was presumed that boards which had changed in composition from all Jesuit (the original state of all boards) to a com­ bination of Jesuit and lay were exercising a policy function and this was further confirmed by the responses to the ques­ tionnaire items on functions and power. With the remaining ten boards that were composed of only Jesuits, an indicator 108

of actual policy function was garnered from the facts that

(1) The chief executive perceived the board to be a policy board from the very fact that he returned the questionnaire

despite the caveat in the introduction, "It has been pre­

sumed in sending you this report that there is an operating policy board at your school... If there is no board that

exercises policy-making authority, please return the ques­

tionnaire unanswered." (It must be admitted that the chief

executive may have avoided returning the questionnaire be­ cause of the effort involved in filling it out, but follow- up calls were made.) (2) The chief executive filled out the

"Determinants of Change" section which was prefaced "The pre­

sumption of this study is that the existence of an active policy board is a sign of a change from a situation where governance was primarily exercised by the rector and the administrators." (3) The section on functions and power showed considerable board functioning. (4) Members of the policy board were not only members of the local Jesuit com­ munity but came from other Jesuit institutions. The pres­ ence of two or more of these criteria created a presumption in favor of the board being a bona fide policy board. De­ spite these criteria, it was still questionable whether six boards were bona fide policy boards or not. Reliance was then placed on a study of the constitutions and by-laws and correspondence and telephone communication with the chief executives in making a determination. Three more boards were eliminated from the study as a result of this communi­ cation. In Case A, the chief executive indicated that he 109

really considered the board to be advisory to him and not

deliberative. In Case B, the chief executive stated that

the board did not function any differently than it had in

1 8 6 8, the year of supposed incorporation. In Case C, the

chief executive also indicated that the board had not aug­

mented its meager deliberative role in the school since

1 8 9 5• However, the decisions were not easy to make since:

(1) The chief executives had indicated the boards were pol­

icy boards because they returned a completed questionnaire.

(2) Inspection of answers to questions on board function

and power indicated that these boards had "ultimate legal

responsibility and authority for all aspects of the school's

operation." On the other hand: (1) The executives did not

fill out the section on determinants of change. (2) The

latter two boards (B and C) met only annually. (3) The num­ ber of functions exercised by the boards was noticeably less

than those exercised by most other boards.

Other boards considered doubtful were accepted as bona

fide policy boards. An especially problematic classifica­ tion was one where the board had been identified as not going through a significant change. Its membership also consisted solely of members of the home Jesuit community. However, this school, D, had a board which met monthly, which had been separately incorporated from the board of the parent institution, the college of the same name, and took part in many policy functions. Another board, E, had 110 members only from the community and seemed to exercise meager functions but had been identified specifically by

the chief executive as a policy board by the following

statement: "This year the board of trustees began to func­ tion more as a policy board." Board F also was question­ able because it consisted of only Jesuits, was quite small

(about the size of a consultors group), and because the chief executive did not submit names of members of the school community to judge the relative effectiveness of the board on the basis that this was "not applicable."

However, the board did exercise many functions, met quar­ terly, had an outside Jesuit on the board, and the chief executive ranked the "determinants of change." Further follow-up was made by telephone with the presidents to con­ firm the data.

In reexamining a typology, these determinations and the difficulty in making them convinced the researcher that there was more of a continuum than discrete types of policy boards. Certain marks could be placed on the con­ tinuum to identify different types of boards, but boards might actually be more or less deliberative. The following are reasonably identifiable points on the continuum. (1)

Superior-president and his consultors. The consultors are a merely advisory body. They also serve as the corporate board, but may in fact not even meet annually as this body.

(2) President and corporate board. The board is composed Ill of members of the Jesuit community but may be appointed or elected and consist of different people than the consultors and hence is not strictly identical with the governance of the religious community. They have some deliberative power but basically exercise a pro forma function. (3) Function­ ing policy boards, distinct from the house consultors, which exercise ultimate policy authority.

Point 3> in turn, can be subdivided into boards which are in no way connected with another legal corporate entity and those which are part of a tandem ownership-policy board structure. Certain functions as ownership, the right of self-perpetuation, and power to amend the by-laws and char­ ter are among the powers usually withheld from the manage­ ment wing of these dual boards. So although the assumed distinction between management-ownership boards and bona fide policy boards has some validity, it would be misread if it was interpreted to mean that the policy function exercised by management boards was not a bona fide policy function. Hence, in an analysis of the composition, struc­ ture, and function of policy boards, ownership-management boards are treated as bona fide policy boards, while boards of types 1 and 2 are eliminated from consideration.

In summary, the question resolves itself into whether or not a board is a bona fide policy board. Although self definition by the chief executive of the school is the major decision rule, this is modified by other considerations: 112

(1) The board should actually exercise a range of policy functions in a deliberative and not merely consultative sense. (2) Its composition should ordinarily differ from that of the governance of the religious community. (3)

There should be a clear indication of some sort of modifi­ cation in the recent history of the school away from relig­ ious community governance. These conditions were all met in the case of boards deemed in this study to be bona fide policy boards.

11. Analysis of Data

After the determination on decision rules to identify bona fide policy boards, the second research task was to describe the characteristics of bona fide policy boards in terms of: (a) composition; (b) organizational structure; and (c) function. Tabulations of data were made of respon­ ses to all questionnaire items. These tabulations were then studied to provide ways of summarizing the data that would highlight its most important features. Many questions were treated so as to provide a portrait of a 'modal" board by extensive use of analysis of means and modes. Other questions were analyzed so as to give not just a picture of the modal but the entire population of Jesuit policy boards. For this purpose, frequency tables became the most important instrument. Specific questions guided the study of data on each of the three variables. These questions are indicated in the section: How were the questionnaires 113

composed in order to arrive at answers to the research

questions? (Cf. Section 7.) The third research task,

the reasons for or determinants of significant changes in

the perception of chief executives, was answered by an

analysis of the data in the fourth section of the second

questionnaire, "Determinants of Board Change." The respon­

ses were tabulated and a process of determining weighted

means was used to arrive at the reasons that had the most

valence for change in the boards in general.

In selecting the chief executives to rank-order the

determinants of change, a presupposition has been made that

they were in the best position to determine whether one

reason was more responsible for the change than the other.

This presupposition seems justified because the president

would have been the executor of board changes even if he were not the individual responsible for the initial impetus

toward board change. If there were any bias on the part of

the president in answering such a question, it would be the

same type of bias toward idealism that any perceiver would have. The problem with broadening the base of inquiry to other individuals in the school community would be that,

since their sources of information for making a judgment would be more limited, the chances would be greater of in­ accuracy in discovering the real reasons for change. Per­

ceptions, though admittedly not reality, are still as close to reality as one can get in the case of arriving at the 114

determinants of change in the absence of extensive and com­

plete documentation of specific cases.

The fourth research task employed the results of the

third questionnaire to answer the question: What have been

the results of these changes, in the perception of the

school communities? Have they been perceived as advantag­

eous or disadvantageous? The statistical data were analyzed by the aid of the SSPS package. Tabulations were made of

the entire population of respondents and by position of

respondent, and on a question by question basis. Mean

scores were developed for individual respondents, by each

school and by each position. The seven sub-sets of ques­

tions were also analyzed by school and position to arrive at a school and position score for each sub-set of ques­

tions. Mean, modal, and median responses were determined for the entire population of respondents, by school, and by position. Responses were investigated to determine the

significance of difference in scores between schools and between positions.

The fifth research task, determining the major ways

in which the superiors of the Society of Jesus impact upon

the board decision-making process, was completed by the analysis of all data showing superiors impacting on policy­ making through determination of the composition of the board, through the internal structure that allowed for the

intervention of superiors in the committee structure and 115 officers' structure and through policy functions exercised by the superiors as opposed to the board. Analysis of a number of questions from the second questionnaire was de­ terminative of these conclusions. CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Previous chapters have provided an introduction to the study, a review of the relevant literature, and an account of the method followed to accomplish the study.

In this chapter, the data gathered, particularly from the second and third questionnaires as supplemented by per­ sonal interviews and consideration of the charters and by­ laws of the boards, will be analyzed to provide answers to the major research questions. Since the first research question has already been answered in the third chapter, it will not be part of this fourth chapter. It will be recalled that the answer to this question identified the different types of boards as a continuum on which three major points could be identified. It is the third major point, bona fide policy boards, distinct from the house consultors, which exercise ultimate policy authority, which is the object of inquiry for the rest of the research questions. Boards consisting of superior-president and his consultors and president and corporate board exercis­ ing merely pro forma functions have been eliminated from consideration at this point in the study.

116 117

Specific answers, then, will be sought to the remain­ ing research questions:

2. What are the characteristics of the bona fide policy boards in terms of: a) composition; b ) organiza­ tional structure and standard mode of operation; c) func­ tion (major areas of policy responsibility)?

3. What were the reasons for or determinants of sig­ nificant changes to bona fide policy boards in composition, structure, or function in the perception of the chief executives?

4. What have been the results of these changes in the perception of the school communities? Have they been perceived as advantageous or disadvantageous?

5 . What are the major ways in which the superiors of the Society of Jesus impact upon the board decision-making process?

Question 6 will be treated in Chapter V since it has to do with recommendations of best practices based on an analysis of the data from Questions 2-4. A summary, con­ clusions and recommendations based on this analysis will also be presented in Chapter V.

The data will be presented and analyzed according to three modes of treatment. Some attention will be given to the individual boards (n = 32). Secondly, the char­ acteristics of a modal board will be developed, relying on an analysis of means, modes, and medians. Finally, 118

summations of all boards will be given. These three types of presentation and analysis will be used selectively, depending on their appropriateness to the specific ques­ tions considered.

An example of a use of all three forms of presentation and analysis can be drawn from Question 15 from "Questions on Composition." According to the first method of treat­ ment, a table is provided that actually shows how many trus­ tees each of the 32 schools employs. According to the second method, a mean-median-mode is arrived at based on the entire population of policy boards. According to the third method, the number of trustees on each policy board is added together to indicate the total number of trustees on Jesuit secondary school policy boards in the United

States.

What are the major characteristics of bona fide policy boards in terms of composition?

A. Board Size

On the accompanying table, the size of each of the school boards is shown. The size here concerns: (1) num­ ber of trustees allowed on the board; (2) number of trus­ tees required for the board to be functional (Cf. Table 1).

Questions about actual board size will be answered in a later section of the present study.

The maximum number of members allowed ranges from no maximum to a maximum of 30. The modal number of members 119

TABLE 1

SIZE OF BOARDS, JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, I976

School Number of Trustees Number School Allowed Required Actual

1. Bellarmine fSan Jose) 15 7 13 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) 15 9 15 3. Boston College 15 7 15 4. Breboeuf (Indianapolis) 5 5 4 5 . Canisius (Buffalo) 25 0 20 6. Cheverus (Portland) 15 7 11 7. De Emet (St. Louis) 17 17 17 B. Fairfield 30 25 23 9 . Fordham Prep (New York) 25 7 25 10. Georgetown Prep 15 7 13 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) 12 5 12 12. Gonzaga (Washington) 18 - 17 1 3. Jesuit (New Orleans) 9 5 9 14. Jesuit (Portland) 9 9 9 1 5. Jesuit (Sacramento) 13 13 13 1 6. Loyola (Blakefield) 15 3 15 1 7. Jesuit (Shreveport) 26 12 26 1 8. Loyola (Missoula) l4 14 l4 1 9. Loyola (New York) 25 5 17 20. Loyola (Wilmette, 111.) 20 6 18 21. Matteo Ricci (Seattle) 17 9 16 22. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester) 25 5 13 2 3. Regis (Denver) 30 12 19 24. Regis (New York) 15 7 13 2 5. Rockhurst (Kansas City) 7 7 7 2 6. St. Ignatius (Chicago) - 4 6 27. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) 9 9 9 2 8. St. Joseph's (Philadelphia) 15 9 15 2 9. St. Louis University 16 16 14 30. St. Xavier (Cincinnati) - - 8 3 1. Strake Jesuit (Houston) 16 4 16 3 2. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) 12 12 11

Median 15 7 14 Mean 1 6 .1 3 8.1 14.3 Mode 15 7 13 120

allowed was 153 the mean was 1 6.1 3; and the median was 1 5.

Four boards allowed 33 or more members. The minimum number

required for the board ranged from 0 to 2 5. The mean was

8.1; the median was 7, as was the mode. Six boards required fewer than 5 members with 3 having no minimum.

The search for patterns of combination of maximal and minimal size was conducted. The only pattern that was rel­ atively common was the 1 5 -7 configuration which was found in 1 4.3# of the boards. If those boards which had a 15-9 configuration were added, 20^ of the boards had similar patterns of composition. It could be investigated to see whether these similar styles of board composition suggest a similar source or similarities within regions or provinces.

B. Requirements and Allowances

Requirements and allowances were also sought for var­ ious categories of board members.

1. Jesuit Composition

The original form of boards in Jesuit secondary schools was that where only Jesuits were allowed to serve as trustees and, hence, all trustees were required to be

Jesuits. Table 2 shows the number of Jesuits required and allowed on each of the boards.

The mean number of Jesuits allowed on a board was

1 2.4 3. The median was 9 and the mode was I5 . The mean num­ ber required on boards was 4 .5 6 for those boards that requir­ ed Jesuit membership and 2.72 for all boards. The mode was 5 121

TABLE 2

NUMBER OF JESUIT TRUSTEES WITH COMPARISON TO NUMBER OF NON-JESUIT TRUSTEES, JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, I976

Actual School Re- Non- Number School Jesuit Jesuit Total

1. Bellarmine (San Jose)*** 15 13 0 13 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) 5 4 5 10 15 3. Boston College 15 - 15 0 15 4. Breboeuf (Indianapolis) 5 5 4 0 4 5 . Canisius (Buffalo) 25 3 6 14 20 6. Cheverus (Portland)**** - 11 0 11 7. De Smet (St. Louis)* 10 10 10 7 17 8. Fairfield** 30 - 11 17 28 9 . Fordham Prep (New York) 25 0 5 20 25 10. Georgetown Prep 15 0 7 6 13 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) 12 5 7 12 12. Gonzaga (Washington) - - 9 8 17 1 3. Jesuit (New Orleans) 9 7 7 2 9 14. Jesuit (Portland) 3 3 3 6 9 1 5. Jesuit (Sacramento) 4 4 4 9 13 1 6. Loyola (Blakefield) - 8 8 7 15 1 7. Jesuit (Shreveport) 26 2 3 23 26 1 8. Loyola (Missoula) 14 1 1 13 14 1 9. Loyola (New York) -- 7 10 17 20. Loyola (Wilmette, 111.)* -- 10 >c 15 21. Matteo Ricci (Seattle)** -- 6 10 16 22. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester) - - 7 6 IS 23. Regis (Denver)* -- 13 6 19 24. Regis (New York) 15 8 7 6 13 2 5. Rockhurst (Kansas Citv) 7 7 7 0 7 2 6. St. Ignatius (Chicago) 6 3 6 0 6 2 7. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) 5 5 5 4 9 2 8. St. Joseph's (Philadelphia) -- 8 7 15 2 9. St. Louis University -- 8 6 14 3 0 . St. Xavier (Cincinnati) 9 8 8 0 8 3 1. Strake Jesuit (Houston) 3 0 2 14 16 3 2. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) 4 4 4 7 11

Mean 1 2 .4 3 4. 5 6(2.72)7 .1 6 7 .2 5 14. Median 9 4 7 7 14 Mode 15 5 7 7 13

* 51$ Jesuits Required ** 1/3 Jesuits Required *** Variable number of Jesuits Required **** 2/3 Jesuits Required 122 and the median 4.

To understand the population of all boards it is help­ ful to look at percentages. Table 3 shows the percentage of Jesuits allowed and required on boards. Nine boards did not allow all-Jesuit membership. Six allowed less than 50#

Jesuit membership, while one allowed only 19#. This shows a marked change from the former situation of total religi­ ous order policy-control.

Requirements also showed signs of the same change.

Only 3 boards required 100# Jesuit membership: 5 more than

two-thirds Jesuit membership; and 12 more than 50# Jesuit membership. Eight boards did not require any Jesuit member­

ship while 44# of the boards required one-third or less.

Some of these figures could mislead the observer into

thinking that Jesuits are less dominant on the board than

they really are. Although legal requirements may demand no Jesuits or a small percentage on the board, school real­

ities and custom may call for a greater percentage than actually required.

A limitation of the study in reaching percentage equiv­ alents was trying to determine what numbers should be com­ pared to arrive at percentages. In arriving at percentages,

numbers allowed and required in the different categories of

board members (e.g., Jesuit, females, etc.) were reached by

comparing numbers required in the separate categories with minimal requirements for board membership as a whole. 123

Percentages of allowances were arrived at by comparing max­ imum allowances for sub-categories with maximal allowances for total board membership. For example, if 8 persons were required for board membership, and 6 Jesuits were required, then the percentage of Jesuits required would be placed at

75#. Or if 30 persons were allowed to be on the board and

15 Jesuits were identified as being allowed to be on the board, the percentage of Jesuits allowed would be 50#.

Occasionally, too, some obvious errors were discovered in responses, such as the board that required only 3 members in all (though as a matter of fact there were 8) but re­ quired, according to the president's response, 8 Jesuit members. Occasionally a questionnaire answer was given in percentages rather than in numerals.

TABLE 3

PROPORTION OF JESUITS ALLOWED OR REQUIRED ON JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOL BOARDS OF TRUSTEES, 1976

Percent of Jesuits on board Boards Allowing Boards Requiring

81 - 100 23 3

61-80 0 2

4 1 - 6 0 3 9

21 - 40 5 5

0-20 1 13 12k

2. Jesuit Faculty Members

All potential Jesuit board members are not Jesuit faculty but could hold other positions, so the next ques­ tions that were asked were how many Jesuit faculty are required and allowed. Table 4 shows allowances and require­ ments for each of the 32 schools. The difficulty that arises in the analysis of the data is that some respondents counted administrators as faculty and others did not. How­ ever, it is impossible to tell which have and which have not so the responses have been taken as they were presented.

The median number of Jesuit faculty allowed on boards that stipulated allowances was 3* the mode k and the mean 4.875.

The median number of Jesuit faculty required on boards that stipulated some requirement was 0 as was the mode. The mean, however, was 0.84.

Analyzing requirements and allowances together for the entire population of boards, 50 $ of the boards al­ lowed 100# Jesuit faculty membership while 3.4# limited Jes­ uit faculty population to less than 6#: 12.5# of schools did not allow any Jesuit faculty membership at all; 37.5$ boards required Jesuit faculty membership, while the rest did not.

Whether faculty should be members of policy boards has been a debated topic for years on the college and uni­ versity scene because of the fear of conflict of interest.

This question may have been resolved on the Jesuit secondary 125

TABLE 4

NUMBER OF FACULTY TRUSTEES ALLOWED AND REQUIRED ON BOARDS

Jesuit Trustees All Trustees School Re~ Re— Number School Allowed quired Allowed quired

1. Bellarmine fSan Jose) 15 2 15 2 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) 3 2 1 1 3. Boston College 0 0 0 0 4. Breboeuf (Indianapolis) 15 0 15 0 5. Canisius (Buffalo) - 0 - 0 6 . Cheverus (Portland) - 0 - 0 7. De Smet (St. Louis) 6 0 2 2 B. Fairfield - - 0 0 9. Fordham Prep (New York) 1 0 0 0 10. Georgetown Prep 15 0 15 0 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) - 5 0 0 12. Gonzaga (Washington) 1 0 1 0 13. Jesuit (New Orleans) 9 7 9 2 l4. Jesuit (Portland) 1 1 15. Jesuit (Sacramento) 4 1 0 l6. Loyola (Blakefield) 0 0 - 0 17. Jesuit (Shreveport) 0 0 0 0 1 8. Loyola (Missoula) - 0 - 0 19. Loyola (New York) -- 20. Loyola (Wilmette, 111.) - 0 1 0 21. Matteo Ricci (Seattle) - - 22. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester) - 23. Regis (Denver) - 0 0 24. Regis (New York) - 0 - 0 25. Rockhurst (Kansas City) - - 6 6 2 6. St. Ignatius (Chicago) 0 0 0 0 27. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) - 0 — 0 2 8. St. Joseph's (Philadelphia) 29. St. Louis University 4 4 5 5 30. St. Xavier (Cincinnati) - 1 31. Strake Jesuit (Houston) - - 0 32. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) 4 0 12

Mean 4.875 0 Mode 4 0 Median 3 0 127

school scene on the basis of the desire to retain Jesuit

control under the direction of Jesuits familiar with the

local situation. However, the number of Jesuit faculty

required would indicate that few boards were controlled

sheerly by the numbers of Jesuit faculty.

3. School Faculty

A larger potential population of members of the board is that of school faculty, both Jesuit and non-

Jesuit. Unfortunately, the responses to questions in this area were not necessarily accurate. Some respondents con­

sidered the questions to refer to just non-Jesuit faculty and not the total faculty population. Hence, the attempt

to portray the actual situation in each of the 32 schools may have errors. Five schools (l6^) did not allow any

faculty composition while 5 (I6#) required it. Beyond

this, the data are not clear. (Cf. Table 4.)

4. Alumni

Requirements or allowances for alumni membership

were rare. Only one school requires alumni membership.

5. Students

Students were required to serve on 2 boards;

they were definitely not allowed on 16 boards.

6. Women

Women were obviously not allowed to serve on the

male all-Jesuit boards. Female membership was required on

only one board. Unfortunately, in retrospect, no question 127 was asked about the number of females actually serving on boards, but one other respondent did mention the presence of a woman on his school's board.

C. Board Membership

Having determined the allowances and requirements for serving on boards, the next topic to be broached concerning composition is what the actual board membership is, both in terms of absolute membership and broken down by categories of members.

1. Total

Table 1 and Figure 5 portray actual board member­ ship on the 32 boards. The range of board size can perhaps be seen more clearly in the graph in Figure 5* Boards ranged in size from 4 to 28 members. Mean board size was

14.3; mode-13; and the median-l4. In all, 458 individuals served as members on the boards of the 32 schools.

2. Actual Jesuit Membership

Table 2 indicates the numbers of Jesuits on each board. Table 5 indicates the percentage of Jesuits on each board. Nineteen schools had boards that are more than 50%

Jesuit. Only 5 boards had less than 26% Jesuit member­ ship. The total number of Jesuits on boards was 229, exactly 50% of the total board population. The mean of

Jesuit trustees on a board was 7.16, while median and mode were 7. 128

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 Number 21 20 19 of 18 17 16 Trustees 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

2 3

Number of Boards

Figure 5. Actual Number of Trustees Per Board - Jesuit Secondary Schools - 1976 129

3. Actual Lay Membership

Table 2 also indicates the number of non-Jesuits serving on each board. Table 5 Indicates the percentage of laity on the boards. Of the I96 laity serving on boards,

9^ were non-Cathollc (of total board membership, 3.5^)-

Twelve boards had or more lay membership. The mean, median and mode were 6.O6, 7 and 0, respectively.

It Is apparent from this analysis of Jesuit and lay membership what a striking change In the composition of policy boards had occurred since the recent days of all-

Jesuit composition. Especially Interesting Is the fact that 3 7.5# of boards were composed of 50^ or more laymen.

The need and will for numerical religious control seems to have changed significantly In recent years.

TABLE 5

PERCENTAGE OF JESUIT AND LAY TRUSTEES ON JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOL BOARDS OF TRUSTEES, 1976

Percentage of Boards with Boards with Board Members Jesuits Laypersons

100 7 0

6 8 - 9 9 1 5

50 - 67-2 /3 11 7

33 - 1/3 - 49 4 13

0 - 33 9 7 130

4. Religious Membership

(This category Includes diocesan and other relig­ ious order bishops, priests and deacons: women religious: sisters and nuns; and non-Jesuit brothers.) Thirty-five or 7.6# of board members fell Into this category. All religious membership on boards was Catholic. Wlien com­ bined with data on Jesuit boards. It can be seen that 20 boards had more than 50^ religious membership and only 3 boards had less than 25# religious membership. The mean board had 8 .2 5 religious members.

5. Non-Cathollc

Only 19 board members did not profess the Cath­ olic faith. This Is only 4# of the total board membership.

The mean non-Cathollc membership was 0.6 members. Twenty- three boards were 100# Catholic.

There seems to be no great movement toward a greater ecumenical thrust to the composition of boards.

While sharing Jesuit school governance with those of other religions Is a growing phenomenon. It Is still not too significant.

6. Faculty Membership

Attaining data on the number of faculty serving on the boards proved a difficult task for two reasons:

(1) It was not clear In all cases whether the respondent

Interpreted the word faculty to Include administrators:

(2) The question of how many faculty there were on a board 131 was sometimes interpreted to include Jesuits and sometimes not. However, given these limitations on the accuracy of the data, the following facts emerged.

By omitting the answer to the specific question on faculty trustees and adding the total of lay, Jesuit, and religious faculty trustees, the number of faculty trus­ tees arrived at was 79* This amounts to a mean of 2.4? faculty members per board.

Sixty-seven Jesuit faculty were reported as board members, a mean of 2.09. Three boards were composed entirely of Jesuit faculty. Eight boards had no Jesuit faculty membership.

Eleven lay faculty were reported as board members, a mean of 0.34. Non-Jesuit religious faculty amounted to only 1, a mean of .002.

The actual presence of faculty on the board of trustees shows the willingness to contend with the problems of conflicting interests. It flies in the face of many recommendations for the separation from board membership of those directly affected by the board's action in the daily workings of the school.

D. Manners of Appointment to Board

Of the 455 board members accounted for in this ques­ tion, Table 6 shows on a school-by-school basis what body selects each individual. Considering the whole population of trustees, the major selectors were boards of trustees-- 132

table e NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF TRUSTEES SELECTED BY VARIOUS METHODS, JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1976

School ______Method of Selection Number School  B~5 b E P 1T~P. I T Total 1. Bellarmine (San Jose) 2 11 13 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) 1 9 A 15 Boston College 2 13 15 I Breboeuf (Indianapolis) 2 A Canisius (Buffalo) 3 17 20 Î: Cheverus (Portland) 2 11 7 . De Smet (St. Louis) 3 1: 17 8. Fairfield 2 26 25 9. Fordham Prep (New York)* A IB 25 10. Georgetown Prep 1 12 13 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) 1 13 1 12 12. Gonzaga (Washington) 1 15 17 Jesuit (New Orleans) 2 7 9 II: Jesuit (Portland) 1 1 7 9 Jesuit I Sacramento) 1 12 13 ÏÎ: Loyola (Blakefield) 1 Ih Jesuit iShreveport) 8 18 li 16 : Loyola iMlssoula)** 5 lA 19. Loyola (New York) 1 16 17 23. Loyola (Wilmette, 111.) 1 16 15 21. Matteo Rlccl (Seattle) 1 15 16 22. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester) A 13 Regis (Denver) 1 IB 19 U: Regis (New York) 2 11 13 Rockhurst (Kansas City) 3 7 Ü! St. Ignatius (Chicago) 2 6 27. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) 2 9 2 8 . St. Joseph's (Rilladelphla) 1 lA 29. St. Louis University ■3 7 It 33. St. Xavier (Cincinnati) 2 6 B 31- Strake Jesuit (Houston) A 12 16 32. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) 2 9 11 * 1 by Alumni Association; 1 by Parents Club ** 9 by Bishop of Helena

Methods of Selection

A. Selected Ex Officio H. Selected by Rector alone B. Selected by Faculty as a whole I. Selected by Provincial C. Selected by non-Jesuit faculty alone alone D. Selected by Jesuit Faculty alone J . Selected by Members of E. Selected by Jesuit cosBunlty alone the Corporation F Selected by Board of Trustees alone G. Selected by chief executive alone 133

5 7.1#; members of the corporation— 2 0 .6#; and ex officio--

1 5.6#. All but 10 of the ex officio members were Jesuits.

Of course, the fact that a trustee is ex officio does not indicate by whom he has been chosen.

Twenty-one or 66# of the boards had a self-perpetuating character. That is, election of the board members is pri­ marily a function of the board. Two boards had some members elected by the board of trustees and some elected by owner­ ship boards. Seven other boards had membership chosen by the ownership board.

Although the Jesuit provincial, acting alone, appointed only three board members, he had a great deal more influ­ ence. For instance, he is deeply involved in the appoint­ ment of Jesuit superiors or rectors. Nine of these served on the boards. He also appoints or has veto or consulta­ tive power in the selection of people to positions such as president and principal of the schools, from whose number many ex officio members come. Finally, he appoints his central office staff, who occasionally serve as ex officio members of the board.

The ex officio trustees were as follows: 6 provin­ cial assistants, 29 presidents, 12 principals, 3 treasurers,

11 rectors, 1 provincial, plus 1 director--accounting for

62 of the 71 ex officio trustees.

Some of these ex officio trustees were also appointed by the boards themselves and others by other school 134

officials such as principals by presidents. Altogether,

the mean number of ex officio trustees on a board was 2.22,

with a median of 2.

E. Number of Administrators Required to be Jesuits

Since an automatic mode of access to the board is to

have an administrative position that is entitled to an ex

officio position on the board, it was important to investi­

gate how many board members were automatically Jesuits be­

cause of policy limitations on who is qualified to fill a

particular position. This not only indicated how many Jes­

uits would necessarily be board members because of their

position but also leads one to consider the influence of

the governance structures of the Society of Jesus on the

appointment of board members.

Of the 29 administrators required to be Jesuits, 15

were appointed by the provincial. Fourteen of those ad­

ministrators served on the board of trustees.

F. How Interconnected are Jesuit Boards?

In attempting to determine Jesuit control of boards,

more questions must be asked than whether a particular

board member is a Jesuit or appointed by a Jesuit. Serv­

ing on the board of another Jesuit institution, employment

by the school, or having received a Jesuit education are

all factors that would tend to make one behave more like

'*a member of the family." They would also tend to make for

similarities between policies of schools. 135

1. Other Jesuit Institutions

Twenty-nine boards had Jesuit trustees who also served on the board of another educational institution.

Eight boards had the majority of their members serving on another board. In all, 85 Jesuit trustees or 3^^ served on another board. This amounts to a mean of 2.66 per board. Only 11 non-Jesuits served on another board. When this small number is added to the previous figures, the mean arrived at is 2.73.

2. Employment by the School

Only one school did not have at least one trustee employed by the school. One hundred six trustees, or 31/^» were employed by the school on whose board they served.

Ninety-four Jesuit trustees, or 4l% of the Jesuit trustees, were employed by the school on whose board they served.

Actually, this category, adding as it does only 11 non-

Jesuits employed by the schools to the school policy boards, does not indicate a significant influence on board policy­ making emanating from employment of board members at a

Jesuit institution. It does indicate, however, more of the conflict of interest that arises when employees serve on the board of the institution where they work.

3. Jesuit Education

Influence of earlier Jesuit educational policy would impact on board members who were Jesuit-educated.

Of course, all Jesuits on the board had been Jesuit- 136

educated. In addition, 82 non-Jesuits had received Jesuit

education, or 35.3^ of all non-Jesuit board members. Com­ bining Jesuits and non-Jesuits, 67.9% had received a Jesuit

education, or a mean of 10.34 per board.

F. Demographic Characteristics of Composition

What else do we know about the composition of Jesuit policy boards?

1. At least 39 board members served on boards

of other non-Jesuit educational institutions. This amounts

to a mean of 1.19 per board.

2. Age of trustees. Ninety-one percent of the population of trustees was identified by age. Three per­

cent of board members were under 30: 80 were under 43:

61.60 were between 4o and 6O: 7.80 were over 60 (Cf.

Figure 6).

3. Occupation. Ninety-three percent of the population of trustees was identified by occupation (Cf.

Figure 7). Fifty-two percent were educators (though many would have a secondary pastoral occupation); 240 were in­

volved in either finance, industry, or business-related

occupations. Tv;o percent were listed as homemakers, indi­

cating a minimum of 11 women actually serving on the boards

4. Compensation. Eighty-seven percent of the

population of trustees was identified by salary. Although

it would seem that with the 590 Jesuit make-up of the board

and their vow of poverty it would not be possible to give 137 JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS

1976

•H§ U(0 40-60 'O3

M (U rH 0) : X (U tn k H 5 e q iH (U +J S I nJ e (0 •H 0) o (0 æ as n, 30-40 I dP T U l s i l f i n Ib % 10%

Figure 6. Age of Trustees* Figure 7. Occupation of *Some not specified Trustees News Media, Government Labor, Retired = 1%

in in CN

14% 40% 29% 17% Figure 8. Salaries of Trustees

Local

Less than 100-500 100 9% 500+

Figure 9. Number of Earned Figure 10. Place of Residence Degrees 133 a demographic analysis of board membership by salary; how­ ever, compensation in Jesuit schools may not be paid to the individual but is made to the community which, in turn, returns some percentage of its excess of expenditure over income to the school for ordinary operating expenses. Four­ teen percent of board members were receiving less than

$15,000 a year; between $15,000 and $25,000 ; 29$ between

$25,000 and $60,000: and 13$ more than $60,000 (Cf. Figure 6).

5. Education. Ninety-four and five tenths per­ cent of the population of trustees was identified by level of educational attainment. Five percent did not have a college degree; 31$ had one degree; and 64$ had more than one according to the responses (Of. Figure 9)- Because of the way a few responses were filled out, it is likely that the population of trustees with two or more degrees was even greater than estimated.

6. Residence (Cf. Figure 10). Four hundred fifty-eight, or 99$ of the population of trustees, was identified by location of residence. Eighty-four percent were local, and an additional 5$ lay within 100 miles of the school. Nine percent more lived from 100 to 500 miles away, and 2$ lived more than 50O miles from the school.

It should be noted that some of the features of board composition may not have been legally established but are customary as is indicated by one respondent. 139

What are the major characteristics of bona fide policy boards in terms of structure?

A. Dual Board Structure

It was discovered in the review of the literature that policy boards in Catholic educational institutions, unlike public institutions, sometimes had a dual board structure.

In addition to a "board of trustees" responsible for over­ all policy direction, there would sometimes be another board known variously as an ownership, corporate, or mem­ bership board, composed strictly of members of the relig­ ious order sponsoring the institution and reserving certain limited but important powers to Itself, such as the elec­ tion of members to the board of trustees, the power to dis­ solve the corporation, or the power to change debt limits.

This form of structure was considered beneficial because of the ultimate control it kept in the hands of the relig­ ious order.

Twelve of the 32 Jesuit secondary school policy boards were found to be structured in this way from the answer to the question whether there were members or guarantors who might be distinct from the board of trustees. However, only 5 of these situations were characterized as being such that there was a legal distinction between corporate board and board of trustees.

The 12 individual situations as described were dif­ ferent in respect to the corporation's structure and the l4o function of the "ownership board" and the way it inter­ related with the policy board.

The number of members on these boards varied from 3 to all the members of the Jesuit community at a particular school. The mean was 5*89 for those boards that reported an exact number of members while the median and mode were both 5* All boards were made up exclusively of Jesuits.

The Jesuit members of these boards held various posi­ tions as house consultons, presidents, and provincials.

Others were ordinary community members. All told, rectors were the most common members, being on at least 7 of the

12 boards.

The manner of appointment to these boards varied, although it was most commonly, 66.7^ of the time, by the provincial. Three boards were self-perpetuating and one was made up solely of ex officio membership.

Ownership boards carried out different functions.

Table 7 provides a frequency table for those functions carried out by the boards. It is interesting to note that when the rather meager lists of functions is compiled, much power seems to be left in the hands of the management board or board of trustees, the policy boards that are the object of this study. ihi

TABLE 7

FUNCTIONS OF OWNERSHIP BOARDS (n=12)

Functions No. of Boards $ of Boards

1. Disposition of real property 6 50 2. Selection of Trustees 5 42 3. Approval of purchases in excess of corporate limits 4 33-1/3 4. Creation or substantial amendment of leases, con­ tracts, or other major agreements 2 17 5. Approval of plan of con­ struction including expense in excess of corporate limits 2 17 6. Determination to depart from budget by significant amount 1 8.3 7. Any release or cancellation by corporation of a claim against another party in excess of corporate limits 1 8.3 8. Approval of change in by-laws and substantial change in purpose 1 8.3 9. Approval of major borrowing 1 8.3 10. Approval of major loans exceeding the corporate limit 1 8.3

B. Board Chairpersons

Board chairpersons might be either a Jesuit or a lay­

man on 25 boards but must be a Jesuit on the other 7. In

reality, 17 chairpersons were Jesuits. Of the 15 Jesuit

chairpersons identified by occupation, 8 were presidents

of the high school on whose board they served. There were

also 4 university administrators, one university profes­

sor, one province officer, and one who served as both

president and rector of the Jesuit community. The question 142 must be raised of the appropriateness in 9 instances of the president, the chief administrator in the school, simul­ taneously serving as board chairman.

Fourteen boards had lay chairpersons. Of these, 5 were partners in a law firm: 2 were industrial executives;

2 were bank executives; 2 were brokers; 1 was an executive of an auditing firm: and 1 was a government official.

Besides the stipulation in some schools that the chair­ man must be a Jesuit, the only other requirement was that the post, in 7 schools, was ex officio the president's.

In the 25 instances where the chairman was not ^ officio, he was elected by the board. Of these, 19 had the right of succession. In the 7 instances where the president was the ex officio chairperson, the vice-chairperson was chosen in various ways.

C. Board Officers

Board officers might generally be either Jesuit or lay.

However, all Jesuit boards (3) naturally had all-Jesuit officers. As mentioned above, if the board chairman is the president, he must be Jesuit (except for one instance where there is a lay president). The research indicated

21 other instances of Jesuit board officers, but, since no complete listing of board officers was reached; it is im­ possible to tell what percentage of board officers were

Jesuit. 143

School administrators served as board officers in the

17 cases where the president and board chairperson were

identical and in 13 instances besides. If it were pre­

sumed that each board had 3 officers, then at least l/3rd

of board officers would be school administrators.

D. Terms of Office

Figure 11 shows the length of terms of office for board members in general. It should be noted that 750 of

the boards had terms of office of 3 years. Eighty-four percent of the boards had overlapping terms of office.

That is, the board members would not all complete their

terms at the same time. Only one board did not employ this system.

Ninety-four percent of boards allowed a board member to succeed himself. However, l8 boards, or 530 of the

total, placed limits on the number of times a board member might succeed himself. In actuality, 150 of ohe 458 trus­

tees, or 32.30, were in their second term or beyond, 5 trustees having served more than 3 terms; 12.50 of the boards had over 500 of their membership in the second term or beyond.

E. Board Meetings

1. Closed or Open. Twenty-two of the boards

(63.30) held meetings which were closed to the public.

Six (190) held open meetings, at least insofar as they were open to certain groups of people such as administrators. 1 # JESUIT Length of Percent in Number of Term in Number of Attendance Boards Years Boards SECONDARY 50-75 2 1 2 75-90 14 SCHOOL 2 1 Above 90 15 3 2.4 *1 - No response BOARD 4 2 Figure 12. Attendance at Board Meetings Other 1 CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 11. Length of Number of Term of Office 1976 Duration Boards

1*5 hours or less 3 Number of 2 hours 9 Frequency Boards 3 hours 3 Twice a year 2 4 hours 15 Quarterly 15 2 days 2

Monthly 11 Figure 14. L

Figure 13. Number of Meetings per Year Number of Preparer Boards

Number of Chief Executive 10 Frequency Boards Chairman of Board 8 Monthly 2 Secretary of Board 1 Quarterly 4 Chairman & Chief Bi-Annually 2 Executive 9 Executive Committee 2 Special Intervals 9 C.E. & Chairman As Needed 1 5 Principal 1 C.E. & Chairman & Secretary 1 Figure 16. Executive Frequency of Committee Meetings Figure 15. Agenda Preparation 145 faculty, students, and other special groups. Only 2 boards held meetings open to the general public.

2. Attendance. As can be seen In Figure 12,

93-5^ of the boards had attendance of over 75^ of members.

3. Number of meetings per year. Figure 13 shows the modal frequency of meetings to be quarterly.

4. Length of board meetings. Two to 4 hours was the most frequent meeting length. Meeting duration Is shown in Figure l4.

5. Preparation of the agenda. This Is a major exercise in board leadership. In Jesuit secondary schools, as depicted In Figure 15, the agenda Is usually prepared by the chief executive, the chairman, or both In tandem.

F. Committee Structure

This Is an important element of board structure.

Greater complexity of board structure is ordinarily mani­ fested by a larger number of committees. Table 3 lists the types of standing committees by school. No inquiry was made about the existence of ^ hoc committees. Tv;enty- slx schools had standing committees, a mean of 4.5 com­ mittees per board.

Most schools had executive committees. Nineteen or

59'4# fell Into this category. Twenty-six schools or 3l^ had some type of standing committees. Of the 19 schools possessing executive committees, l8 also had standing committees. 146

TABLE B

NUMBER AND TYPE OP STANDING COMMITTEES BY SCHOOL, JESUIT BOARDS OF TRUSTEES, 1976

School Other ______Types of Commlttees______Humber School  B C 5 e T* 5 R Ï 3 K L Total*

1. Bellarmlne (San Jose) 2. Bellarmlne (Tacoma) 3. Boston College X X 4 k. Breboeuf (Indianapolis) 3 Canlslus (Buffalo) X 3 I: Cheverus (Portland) 1 X X 4 7. De Smet (St. Louis) X X 3 S. Fairfield 4 X X 9. Fordhaic Prep(N.Y.) 1 X X 5 13. Georgetown Prep 1 X X 4 11. Conzaga (Spokane) 1 X X 5 12. Conzaga (Washington X X 5 Jesuit (New Orleans 3 Jesuit (Portland) X X 6 Jesuit I Sacramento) X X 9 II: Loyola (Blakefleldl 2 X X c 17. Jesuit (Shreveoort) X 2 . Loyola (Missoula) X 4 1 6 c 19. Loyola (New York) X X 23. Loyola (Wilmette, 111.) X X L 2 1 . Matteo Rlccl (Seattle) X 1 2 2 . Mctuald Jesuit (Rochester X 1 2 Regis (Denver) X I Regis (New York) X X 25. Rockhurst (Kansas City) 3 2 6 . St. Ignatius (Chicago) 0 27. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) XX X 23. St. Joseph’s (Phlla.) X 4 29. St. Louis University 1 X X 33'. St. X/.vler (Cincinnati) 3 31. Strake Jesuit (Houston) X 6 32. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) X X 3 Totals TT ÇÏÔ ÏÏ Z ÏÏT?

Percent 9.3 31.2 15.6 43.3 • .1 12.5 15.6 12.5 34.3 18.' 69. S 59. 4 A=Annual Giving 5-Pacllltles C«Currlculur. Others No. Percent D»Personnel School Educational Policy " T 6 .2 E>Extra-currlculars Nominating 2 6 .2 P»Plannlng Academic Affairs 3 9 .3 G«Development Student Affairs 2 6 .2 H-Publlc Relations Membership 1 3 .1 laAdmlsslons Prep School 1 3 .1 j.Budget and Finance K-Rellglous Affairs listed Above L«Executlve in Aggregate. 147

Six boards were structured so that the executive com­ mittee actually did the work of the board with the full board meeting to approve of what was done. Six other schools said this was not the case. Figure 16 depicts how frequently the executive committees met. Only 8 fol­ lowed a regular meeting schedule. Most boards with stand­ ing committees had committees on budget and finance and development. Although only 10 boards had curricular com­ mittees ^ when the other academic and educational committees were added to this number, the total was 15* Many boards also had planning committees. Table 8 shows the number of committees per school and the number and percentage of schools having each type of committee.

G. Functions of Standing Committees

Questions raised on the composition and functioning of standing and executive committees did not yield many significant results. Of the 32 schools, none stipulated membership for Jesuits on standing committees. Only 2 boards had standing committees which would usually go beyond policy-making into executive or implementation functions. These same 2 boards were the only ones where the standing committees initiate action on recommendations before attaining board approval. Finally, there were only

2 instances where the executive committee usually substi­ tuted for the board in giving approval for standing 148 committee recommendations. The implication is that usually action is taken by the board on the recommendation of standing committees and not by the standing committees or the executive committee on recommendation of the standing committees without approval by the board itself.

What are the characteristics of bona fide policy boards in respect to power and function?

A. Board Autonomy

The majority of boards were not legally responsible to any body other than the state (69^). Six boards (17^) did report some form of responsibility to another body. These other bodies were in four cases the ownership board and, in two cases, persons, the provincial and the Bishop.

These limiting "bodies" limited power in various ways.

Included in limiting factors were : (1) the power to abol­ ish the board of trustees; (2) to dispose assets of corpo­ ration; (3) to make changes in by-laws: (4) to alienate assets; (5) to elect trustees: (6) to retain (in the case of the Bishop) ecclesiastical and administrative jurisdic­ tion.

The reader should also refer to Table 7 to note var­ ious other functions that were claimed by ownership boards.

Although, in response to the direct question, only 4 execu­ tives mentioned legal responsibility to another body, it would seem that at least some of these other 12 boards with ownership components would have had some responsibility to 149 this ownership body.

B. Board Relationship to Provincial

Another limiting factor on board autonomy is the in­ fluence of the chief religious superior in more or less close contact with the board, the Jesuit provincial. As we have seen earlier, the provincial exercises control over the board by the appointment of members. He also has potential for control as the religious superior of the Jesuits in his province in that he can demand obedience from them by vow.

The immediate question here is how much he actually wields authority over formal board functioning. Seven schools, or

21.9^, admitted that the provincial possessed some veto power over board decisions. Only one of these, however, admitted to universal veto power by the provincial. The other 6 schools limited the veto to the following: (1) major policy decisions; (2) election of the head of the school, approval of the principal, approval of amendments, reorganization of the school, alienation of assets; (3) appointment of president; (4) appointment of president and principal; (5) closing the school and major borrowing.

Fifty-six percent of the schools attested to absolute­ ly no provincial veto power. However, the remaining 22^ of schools gave a qualified "no." The following were some of the qualifications: (1) moral obligation to follow the pro­ vincial 's wishes ; (2) process of unofficial consultation:

(3) presence on board as voting member; (4) provincial 150 has power to cancel charter.

C . Board Function

What functions do policy hoards exercise? A list of major functions of policy boards by school is found in

Appendix F. All schools, with the exception of Loyola of Missoula, Montana, claimed that their board had ulti­ mate legal responsibility and authority for all aspects of the school's operation. Ninety-one percent of boards had responsibility for school debts.

Respondents were asked to identify who did have the authority to perform the functions under Items 1-13* Of the two percentages mentioned proceeding each item the one is the percentage where authority is attributed to the board alone, the second percentage where authority is attributed to the board and some other person or group

(e.g., board and provincial or board and state) (Cf. Table

9). Besides these 13 major corporate-style functions,

respondents were asked to identify what other functions

their boards were involved in. The percentage of respon­

ses for each of these items by frequency and percentage

of boards is presented in a separate table (Cf. Table 10).

Some items are obviously not policy items. These were included on the check-list to see how many policy boards were involved in executive or administrative func­

tions in addition to the anticipated policy-making function. 151

TABLE 9

PERCENTAGE OF BOARDS ENJOYING CORPORATE FUNCTIONS ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANOTHER ENTITY, JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, I976

Percentage Exercising of Functions Boards With Other Function Alone Entity

1. Final authority to approve the amendment, alteration, or repeal of the corporation charter or by-laws. 72 78 2. Determines the number or qual­ ifications of the members of the corporation. 56 56 3. Final authority to approve changing the name of the school. 53 62 4. Final authority to approve the sale, transfer, mort­ gage, or disposition of all or a major part of the school's property. 50 62 5. Final authority to approve the selection of the chief executive. 50 66 6. Final authority to nominate the chief executive. 47 53 7. Final authority to approve the merger or consolidation of the school with another educational corporation. 44 53 8. Final authority to apprcrve changing institutional purpose. 41 56 9 . Final authority to approve the dissolution of the corporation. 38 50 152

TABLE 10

BOARD FUNCTIONS BY NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION, JESUIT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1976

Number Percent Functions of Boards of Boards

1. Approval of school budget 31 97 2. Sets tuition 29 91 3. Approval of development and capital improvement plans 28 88 4. Approval of borrowing large sums of money 27 84 5. Approval of major investment decisions 26 81 6. Approval of fund-raising nrograms 25 78 7. Approval of policy for hiring and firing and tenure of administrators 23 72 8. Determine salary schedule for school personnel 23 72 9 . Evaluates the performance of the chief executive 23 72 10.. Approval of policy for hiring and firing and tenure of faculty 22 11. Approves school admissions policy I8 5^ 12. Holds title to school property 17 53 13. Would be vested with school property in the event the school closed 12 38 14. Responds to requests from sources external to the school for change in school policy 12 38 15. Approval of the addition or dele­ tion of courses from the school curriculum 13 41 16. Approves student disciplinary policies 11 34 17. Determines job descriptions for school personnel 11 34 18. Approves policy for use of school facilities by outside groups 8 25 19. Determines the standards for and grants degrees 12 38 20. Approves program of extra- and co-curricular activities 9 28 21. Determines the ratio of faculty to students 6 19 153

TABLE 10 (continued)

Number Percent Functions of Boards of Boards

22. Determines policy for student religious activities program 5 16 2 3. Approves student testing programs 5 I6 24. Approves school calendar 5 I6 25. Approves use of school facili­ ties by outside groups 5 16

A list of other entities that were given as responses to what person or group had the authority to perform these functions was referred to in Section A. It helps fill out a picture of the other sources of authority within the Jes­ uit school structure.

What are the reasons for or determinants of signifi­ cant changes in composition, structure, and function of these bona fide policv boards in the perception of chief executives?

Chief executives were asked to rank order determinants of change if the given board had undergone a "significant change in composition, structure, or function." Twenty-six chief executives chose to respond to this section of the questionnaire. Eleven possible responses were listed with respondents invited to add their own if the set responses were not adequate.

Because respondents did not rank all the alternatives, it was necessary to analyze responses both by mean score of their appearance and frequency of appearance. The following 154 were identified as determinants by over 50^ of those who responded. They are listed according to the frequency with which they appeared. These were in their order of fre­ quency of appearance : (1) to acquire increased business and/or legal expertise for school management; (2) response to a provincial directive; (3) to increase public account­ ability; (4) to increase access to financial resources;

(5) to separate policy-making from administration.

The following also appeared on 50^ of the question­ naires: (6) to better respond to the spirit of the Pre­ amble ; (7) to better respond to the spirit of Vatican II.

However, since they were also rank ordered, the fol­ lowing order prevailed according to weighted means:

1. Response to a provincial directive 1.8 2. To acquire increased business and/or legal expertise 2.6 3. To separate policy-making from admin­ istration 3*3 4. To better respond to the spirit of the Preamble 3*9 5. To better respond to the spirit of Vatican II 4.0 6. To increase access to financial resources 4.5 7. To provide increased representation to the various school constituencies in school governance 4.6 8. To improve the image of the school in the community 4.9 9. To increase public accountability 5*'^ 10. To improve faculty and/or student morale 5 • 2 11. To provide a buffer for administration 7.0

Other reasons offered as determining the change were the following : 155

12. Initiative of the president 13* Separation from university 14. To provide local autonomy to serve needs of particular clientele 15. Insure preservation of school when it went bankrupt 16. To move from one man decision-making 17. To include Jesuits from outside school 18. To separate the office of the president and the rector 19. Response to 31st Congress and the emphasis on community discernment and lay partic­ ipation in governance 20. To respond to lack of Jesuit manpower 21. To better respond to nature of a university

What have been the results of these changes (signifi­ cant changes in composition, structure, or function of these bona fide policy boards) in the perception of the school communities? Have they been perceived as advantageous or disadvantageous ?

A 39-item questionnaire was sent to representatives in the school community, where addresses had been provided by the chief executive in response to the second questionnaire.

Opinions on the relative advantage of the newly patterned boards were sought from six categories of school community members: chief executives, chairmen of the board, faculty chairpersons, superiors, student body presidents and alumni association presidents. These respondents were not selected randomly but were chosen as a purposive sample, as subjects who were aptly situated to know something about the relative advantage of the change that had taken place.

Secondly, people in identical positions in their respective schools were sought so that some valid cross-school analysis 156

could be undertaken. Thirdly, positions were chosen with

different vantage points and perspectives to see if there would be any significant differences from one sub-population

to the next. For example, would superiors of religious com­ munities perceive the change in boards differently from chief executives or alumni?

As mentioned in the third chapter, the questionnaire was composed so that there would be seven sections, each dealing with relative advantage under a different aspect.

The seven categories of the questionnaire were board com­ position, board goals, religious identity, board relation­ ship with the environment, internal school stability, school financial stability, and board function (Cf. Chap. Ill, pp. 100-101).

Table 11 shows the number of respondents in the dif­ ferent sub-populations and the total number of respondents.

The low rate of return on the part of the students and alumni is due not only to the perhaps lessened interest on the part of these sub-groups but to other reasons. First, names and addresses were supplied by the chief executives of the schools and frequently these categories were omitted.

Secondly, chief executives were asked to supply names of students only if the student council president, presumably a senior, had been at the school during the period when the

change from the old governance pattern to the new policy board was made. 157

TABLE 11

RESPONSE RATE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE (#3) ON THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGE OF THE REFASHIONED BOARDS BY POSITION OF RESPONDENT

Absolute Relative Position Frequency Frequency

Presidents 23 26.7

Chairmen of Boards 18 20.9

Faculty 17 19.8

Jesuit Superiors l6 l8.6

Students 4 4.7

Alumni _3 9.3 86 100.0

Although the questionnaire relied heavily on the ques­

tionnaire devised by Fox (1974), it was, nonetheless, a

new questionnaire both in the object of its study and in

its phrasing and ordering of questions. Fox had not

done reliability testing on her questionnaire. In the present study, such testing was accomplished as a result of responses from the population of Jesuit school community members. Using the ordinary means of testing internal re­

liability, the standardized item alpha on all but two of

the sub-categories showed significant reliability. The

two categories in which significant reliability was not evident were categories in which few questions were asked; and, therefore, it was not surprising that the reliability coefficient would not have reached .60. The standardized 153 item alpha for the entire questionnaire is extremely high,

0 .92563. Appendix F lists the standardized item alphas for each of the sub-scales of the questionnaire and for the total questionnaire.

All the questionnaires returned came from schools where boards had undergone significant changes in composi­ tion, structure, or function of boards within the ten years past. The analysis of the data, first of all, looks at the totality of responses from all schools and all positions of observers. Though the types of changes in structure, com­ position, and function would vary from school to school, this analysis in its totality would seem to be legitimate insofar as the change is generally from a situation of religious administration government to a situation where governance is more widely shared with a board. Appendix

G shows the responses question by question to help us form a general picture of whether the changes were perceived as advantageous or not. In fact, the last statement with which observers were asked to agree or disagree is a sum­ mary statement (#39)3 "The advantages of change in board composition, structure, and/or function outweigh the dis­ advantages." Of those responding, 9^.2% agreed with this statement. This obviously points to a great deal of ap­ proval of change in composition, structure, and function that is constant from school to school and from position to position. Other questions hone in on more specific 159 aspects of change and, hence, are not necessarily as posi­ tively perceived as the general premise. For the purpose of computer analysis all questions, even those that were put negatively in the questionnaire, were given positive treatment so that 'strongly agree" or "agree" always means a positive valuing of a change that has been made. For example, although question 28 originally asked whether unity had decreased, in computer analysis, the question had been treated so that the response of "increasing unity" is put in the "strongly agree" and "agree" column. In this way, an overall analysis is easier to make by just observing the difference between "agree" and "disagree" columns.

Over 50^ agreement with statements in the questionnaire is found in the following: 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, IS, 23, 24, 25,

32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 3 9. In the original form of the questions, the following received a ^0% or more disagree­ ment: 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 38.

Other questions did not receive 50^ agreement or dis­ agreement, usually because of the large number of those who had no opinion on the specific questions. However, respon­ ses to two questions indicated a state of affairs on the board that would seem to not be as positive in the newer governance structure as in the old. First, question 5' asked whether the new membership composition of the board had a better understanding of Jesuit education than members of the previous board. Respondents disagreed with this i6o statement. They also judged that manpower demands of the

Society of Jesus (question 22) had not been reduced because of the change of governance. Neither of these remarks are actually negative judgments about the new board, but they do show that the board did not solve all the problems that may have existed or might have created new ones.

The 39 questions asked to ascertain relative advantage or disadvantage were grouped within 7 categories: board composition, board goals, board religious identity, board environment, board internal structure, board and finance, and board function. No appreciable difference in opinion was found in the respondents' evaluation among the various subscales. With a Likert type scale of 5-1 with 1 repre­ senting strong agreement with advantage, the various sub­ scales received the following mean responses: composition

- 2.39: goals - 2.10; religious identity - 2.30; environ­ ment - 2.24; internal structure - 2.58; finance - 2.00; function - I.98 ; the final average was 2.28. This final was the mean score of all responses. All responses, prac­ tically speaking, had their mean response within the "agree” range--2.00 - 2.99. Least wholehearted agreement was found in perception of advantage of change on internal structure-- a measure of what type of beneficial changes happened within the school community itself as a result of the changes.

Greatest agreeraent--in the range of strongly agree--was the area of overall board function. To compare the differences I6l in response between various sub-populations a code had been determined upon which gave a mean score for each of the respondents in each of the sub-groups both for the sub­ scales and the entire questionnaire. Appendix H takes each sub-population and shows the mean scores for each respond­ ent. Of special importance here is to notice the differ­ ence in mean score between each sub-group. Presidents have the highest perception of advantage of change with a "final" mean score of 2.097. They are followed by chairmen of the board at 2.227, religious superiors at 2.300 , alumni presi­ dents at 2.426, faculty chairpersons at 2.579, sind students at 3.0^5. Because of the low response rate among students and alumni, the scores of these sub-groups should be treated with some scepticism as to how well they represent the pop­ ulation.

Table 12 lists the mean scores for the various sub­ populations on the various sub-scales of the questionnaire.

Amid these statistics, the question arises: how significant are the differences between the various sub-groups? Various significance tests were run on the differences between these sub-populations. The results of these tests (Tables 13 and l4) show a significant difference at the .02 or lower level in the following categories and between the following sub­ populations. At the .0035 level between presidents and chairmen of the board on the one hand and faculty chair­ persons on the other hand as to the effect of governance 162

TABLE 12

MEAN SCORES OF SUB-POPULATIONS ON SUB-SCALES OF questionnaire o n RELATIVE BOARD ADVANTAGE (N=86)

Sub-Scales Executives Chairmen Facultv Superic

Composition 2.11 2.48 2.60 2.44

Goals 1.91 1.96 2.42 2.16

Religious 2.12 2.16 2.64 2.33

Environment 2.03 2.26 2.51 2.23

Internal 2.43 2.48 2.97 2.49

Finance 1.38 1.94 2.04 2.21

Function 1.37 1.81 2.35 1.92

Final 2.10 2.23 2.58 2.30

Key: l=most advantageous

5=least advantageous

change on religious identity. Significant at .017 between presidents and faculty chairpersons on the variable of the internal cohesiveness of the school. A significant dif­ ference at the .011 level between presidents and faculty chairpersons on their perception of the advantage of func­ tion of the new board over the old board. Finally, at the

.006 level between chief executives and faculty chairper­ sons on the overall judgment of the relative advantage of the new board over old governance patterns. The fact that the difference is significant must not overshadow the fact 163

TABLE 13

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN SCORES OF SUB-POPULATIONS OF RESPONDENTS TO SUB-SCALES OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON RELATIVE BOARD ADVANTAGE

Sum of Mean Variable Source D.F. Scuares Squares F Ratio F Prob

Compositionn Between Groups 3 2.7920 0.9307 2.714 0.0513 Within Groups 70 24.0009 0.3429 Total 73 26.7929 Goals Between Groups 3 2.9703 0.9901 2.120 0.1055 Within Groups 70 32.6963 0.4671 Total 73 35.6671 Religious Between Groups 3 3.0610 1.0203 4.966 0.0035 Within Groups 70 14.3833 0.2055 Total 73 17.4443 EnvironmentVL Between Groups 3 2.2861 0.7620 2.237 0.0917 Within Groups 69 23.5101 0.3407 Total 72 25.7962 Internal Between Groups 3 3.4501 1.1500 3.587 0.0179 Within Groups 70 22.4434 0.3206 Total 73 25.8936 Finance Between Groups 3 1.0839 0.3613 1.038 0.3811 Within Groups 73 24.3591 0.3490 Total 73 25.4430 Function Between Groups 3 3.1900 1.0633 3.954 0.0115 Within Groups 70 18.8247 0.2693 Total 73 22.0147 Final Between Groups 3 2.3516 0.7839 4.512 0.0060 Within Groups 70 12.1606 0.1737 Total 73 14.5122 l64

TABLE 14

COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF SUB-POPULATIONS OF RESPONDENTS TO SUB-SCALES OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON RELATIVE BOARD ADVANTAGE

Composition Group Group 1 Group 4 Group 2 Group 3 Mean 2.1111 2.4375 2.4846 2.6078 Goals Group Group 1 Group 2 Group 4 Group 3 Mean 1.9130 1.9630 2.1667 2.4216 Religious Group Group 1 Group 2 Group 4 Mean 2.1217 2.1648 2.3375

Group Group 4 Group 3 Mean 2.3375 2.6412 Environment Group Group 1 Group 4 Group 2 Group 3 Mean 2.0326 2.2333 2.2635 2.5147 Internal Group Group 1 Grouu 2 Group 4 Mean 2.4275 2.4768 2.4896

Group Group 2 Group 4 Groun 3 Mean 2.4763 2.4896 2.9706 Finance Group Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Mean 1.8841 1.9444 2.0392 2.2083 Function Group Group 2 Group 1 Group 4 Mean 1.8148 1.8696 1.9219

Group Group 4 Group 3 Mean 1.9219 2.3529 Summary Group Group 1 Group 2 Group 4 Mean 2.0969 2.2265 2.3005

Group Group 2 Group 4 Group 3 Mean 2.2265 2.3005 2.5793 Key: Gro\ l=Chief Executives Group 3=Faculty Chairoersons Groi 2=Board Chairpersons Group 4=Jesuit Superiors Note: Homogeneous sub-sets are sub-sets of groups whose high­ est and lowest means do not differ by more than the shortest significant range for a sub-set of that size. The position­ ing of a group in a different sub-set indicates a difference by more than the significant range for a sub-set of that size. Thus, it Indicates a significant difference in perception be­ tween one sub-Dopulation and another over the relative degree of advantage of board change. 165 that all groups mentioned perceived the change as favorable.

What is being said is that in these areas there is a sig­ nificant difference in the degree of approval of the change

--basically between presidents and faculty chairpersons.

Appendix I simply lists the mean score of all partici­ pants from each school as averaged out by school on all 39 questions. In other words, the lower the score stated next to a school's name, the greater the perception of advantage of the new governance structure on the part of the observers from that school. Although, with such small sub-populations, tests for significance would not be meaningful, it should be noted that with the use of the parallel respondent technique and the picking of knowledgeable observers, something is being said about the relative perception of advantage be­ tween one school and the next. However, there are some obvious limitations: (l) The number of respondents varied from school to school. (2) Respondents from the same cate­ gory may not have answered at different schools. If at one

school the president answered, while the student body pres­

ident did not and at another school just the opposite pre­

vailed, then it might reasonably be surmised, because of

the tendency across the board for presidents to be more

favorable to the changes than student body presidents, that

the difference could be accounted for by position of the

respondent and not by anything in the boards themselves. l66

Characteristics of Restructured Boards Correlated with Per­ ceptions of Advantage or Disadvantage

On completion of the analysis of data on characteris­ tics of boards and the analysis of responses to the ques­ tionnaire aimed at determining school community perceptions of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the repat­ terned governance system, the question arose whether there was any relationship between the perception to view a board change as more advantageous or more disadvantageous than the former board and particular board characteristics.

Although it was not the intention of the original proposal to explore this area, it was recognized once the data was gathered that such an exploration might provide answers to important questions. Instead of leaving this work to be done by future researchers, some initial attempts were made to see if there were correlations between various board characteristics and perceptions. In analyzing these respon­ ses, no claim is made to any causal relationship being present or absent.

Eleven board characteristics were chosen as being important enough to inquire whether they would have an effect on perceptions of the members of the school com­ munity. These 11 were the following:

1. the actual number of trustees on the board;

2. the percentage of Jesuits on the board; lo7

3. the percentage of faculty members on the board;

4. the percentage of ex officio members on the board

5. the percentage of board members possessing occupations in the business and legal sphere;

6. the combination of ownership and management boards in tandem;

7. whether or not the chairman of the board was Jesuit;

8. the existence and power of the executive com­ mittee;

9. the number of committees;

10. the number of functions exercised by the board;

11. whether or not the major impetus to governance repatterning came from an external source, i.e., the Jesuit provincial.

Questions about the value or lack thereof of each of these characteristics had been raised in the literature having to do with the best practices of boards of trustees and in some cases in literature dealing with boards of trustees in Catholic colleges and universities.

The reasons for these specific characteristics being chosen were the following:

1. Actual number of trustees— questions are fre­ quently raised in literature on boards of trustees what the optimum number of board members might be.

2. Percent of Jesuits— literature on Catholic college and university boards of trustees that boards may suffer from a lack of or surfeit of religious community membership.

3. Percentage of faculty— the literature raises the question whether it is advisable for 163

faculty members to serve on the board because of potential conflict of interest.

4. Percentage of ex officio members— literature on boards of trustees suggests that ex officio membership may link the board too closely with administrative structures and not allow it to ex­ ercise a position of objective judgment.

5. Percentage of membership coming from business- legal occupations— literature on Catholic colleges and universities which changed to a broader membership base suggests that the reason for this was to gain greater legal and business expertise. The current study also shows this to be a significant factor in the change from traditional governance patterns to the restructured policy boards. It was felt that this might be a significant reason for boards to be more approved by the school communities.

6. Dual board structure— literature on boards of trustees of Catholic colleges and universities and also literature on Jesuit secondary schools raises the question whether the way of protect­ ing religious order influence on the governance of the institution might not depend on a spe­ cific structure where certain powers are reserved for an ownership board consisting of membership solely of members of the religious community.

7. Jesuit chairman— the existence of a Jesuit chairman might be considered an advantage by those who perceive Jesuit control and influ­ ence to be of primary importance.

8. Executive committee--the literature on boards in colleges and universities suggests thac an executive committee having fuller powers may be either beneficial or non-beneficial to the board of trustees, depending on the source of the analysis.

9 . Number of committees— the number of committees has been mentioned previously as being a sign of complexity of board organization. It could be that more or less complex board organiza­ tion is more favored by school community members. 169

10. Number of functions--some might consider it better if a board were limited in its scope; on the other hand, others might feel that the more effective board is one that has wide ranging powers and is not hamstrung either by higher governance bodies or by other lower officials having these powers.

11. External influence— it could be reasonably posited that if the restructuring of a board was brought about primarily through reasons extrinsic to the school itself, it would be less acceptable to the school community.

A total approval or disapproval rating based on answers to all 39 questions in the third questionnaire was developed for each of the individual respondents. This total was in turn matched with characteristics of the board from which the respondent in question ceune. Correlational analysis was then done between the summative rating and each of the board characteristics in turn. In this way it could be determined how closely correlated the approval-disapproval rating was with the board characteristics already mentioned. The actual correlations and measures of significance are presented in

Table 15.

What are the major ways in which the superiors of the

Society of Jesus impact upon the decision-making process?

Answers to this research question have been advanced at various points in this chapter. However, the various factors should be brought together at this point.

Superiors of the Society of Jesus impact upon the board decision-making process both indirectly and directly.

Indirectly, they are responsible for the appointment of a 170 number of members of the various boards. Also, in the case of any Jesuit who is a member of the board, there is a relationship of obedience between the individual Jesuit and his religious superior. This obediential relationship may affect his voting on any given issue. This means that

50^ of the board population are in a position in which they can be strongly influenced by the provincial, if he so chooses. Secondly, the provincial actually appoints cer­ tain members to the board. Although only three board mem­ bers were listed as being board members as a result of a provincial appointment, there were many ^ officio trustees whose relationship to the provincial is a closer one.

Among this number were, obviously, in one case, the pro­

vincial himself; in another case, six provincial assist­ ants; and, finally, the 11 rectors or subordinate super­

iors who served as ex officio members of boards of trustees,

Provincials also figured in the appointment of princi­ pals and presidents. The president was approved or appoint­

ed b .• the provincial in 28 of the 32 responding schools.

Even though a president may be formally chosen by the board

of trustees, the provincial at least has a veto effect in

this area. Since the president is not just any member of

the board but commonly, as has been seen in answers to

other research questions, figures as a significant member

of the board, frequently doubling as chairman of the board,

or serving on the executive committee of the board which 171 accomplished much of the work of the board, the position of the president is a very critical one.

TABLE 15

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN BOARD CHARACTERISTICS AND DEGREE OF PERCEPTION OF ADVANTAGE OF CHANGE

Correlation Degree of Board Characteristic Coefficient Sipnificanc

More Trustees r = -.0 6 8 2 s - .533

More Jesuits +.1421 .237

More Faculty +.0912 .456

More Ex Officio Members +.0448 .682

More Businessmen -.0097 .931

Jesuit Chairperson -.0 6 5 5 .549

More Committees +.1431 .208

More Involved Executive Committees +.0259 .813

Dual Boards -.0 1 0 9 .920

More Board Functions -.0 5 1 5 .637

Change Emanated from Provincial Edict -.2 1 9 0 .050

Another way that the superiors of the Society of Jesus impact on the decision-making process is through the influ­ ence that they actually have over specific board decisions.

It has been mentioned earlier in this chapter that (confer pages 149-5 0 ) 4 3.9# of the boards admitted to some veto power over board decisions on the part of the provincial; 172

21.9/® of these admitted that the provincial actually pos­ sessed veto power, while others would testify to quasi­ veto power.

In treating this particular research question, it might seem that the provincial is the only superior of the

Society of Jesus who impacts upon the board decision­ making process. It should not be forgotten, however, that the subordinate superiors or rectors are also superiors themselves and have obediential jurisdiction over members of their community who are board members. Finally, the provincials themselves are in an obediential relationship to the General of the Society of Jesus. However, there was no mention in the questionnaires or in supplementary inter­ views that the General would impact upon the board decision­ making process in any regular way. But it is not unknown that the General would become involved in a major policy question. This happened recently in a midwestern school which was discussing the possibility of moving from an inner city location to a more suburban site. Here, al­ though there was no deliberative board of trustees, the vote of the members of the school community, both Jesuit and lay, strongly in favor of movement toward the suburbs, was overriden by the provincial and his council on the regional level and finally by the deliberation of Father

General as a result of the provincial and council's report.

So it would be overstating the case to say that the General 173 of the Society is totally outside the process of board making decision.

Conclusions and recommendations based on the findings of this analysis will be presented in the final chapter.

The findings will also be summarized both as a whole and in their relevance to the specific research Questions. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was occasioned by the significant histori­ cal changes that have influenced governance of Jesuit secondary schools. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to describe the current status of policy boards in Jes­ uit secondary schools in the United States. In addition to this description, perceptions of the determinants and relative advantages of change from traditional to newer patterns of governance are analyzed. Attention is also paid to the major ways in which Jesuit superiors impact on the board decision-making process. Finally, the boards are examined in the light of the information gathered and recommended best practices from the literature reviewed to determine what implementation of these best practices might lead to more effective and efficient governance.

Pursuing this study demanded an important preliminary step. It was necessary to determine the population of

Jesuit secondary school boards and discriminate between bona fide policy boards and pro forma corporate boards without real policy-making authority or merely advisory boards. Two types of bona fide policy boards were also distinguished--simple policy boards and dual boards which

17(4 175 combined separate ownership and management boards into a single governance structure. These determinations were made through the use of questionnaires and interviews with the chief executives of Jesuit secondary schools and a selective study of charters, constitutions, and by-laws of the school corporations.

Policy boards, so identified, were analyzed in respect to three variables which provided a comprehensive descrip­ tion of their status— composition, structure, and function.

This was achieved through an analysis of the answers to a detailed questionnaire administered to their chief execu­ tives .

The reasons for change from the traditional governance patterns to the repatterned boards were sought by question­ naire from the chief executives. Other significant members of the school community in addition to the chief executives were asked a series of written questions to determine the degree to which the new governance pattern was more advan­ tageous than the old.

The board characteristics as determined by the respon­ ses of the chief executives were compared with the school community's perception of the board's relative advantage to determine if any correlation existed between character­ istics and perceptions. The responses of the chief execu­ tives led to a determination of the major ways in which the superiors of the Society of Jesus impact upon the 176

board decision-making process. Finally, literature on

boards of trustees was examined to discover recommendations

for best practices; and these were compared with the current

status of the boards as described by the chief executives to

determine what recommendations for change in boards should

be made.

Summary of Findings

General Findings

The study uncovered a wide variety of governance pat­

terns in Jesuit secondary schools in the United States.

While there were some schools in which the traditional gov­

ernance patterns of control by Jesuit administrators had undergone little or no change, the majority of boards had undergone significant changes in composition, structure, and/or function. A range of boards was discovered including simply advisory boards, all-Jesuit corporate boards exercis­

ing little or no policy function, all-Jesuit bona fide pol­

icy boards, predominantly Jesuit but mixed-composition pol­

icy boards, and predominantly lay policy boards. Board structure varied from a simple single board to dual boards

(ownership and management) with complex committee structures.

Boards exercised functions ranging from those strictly re­ quired of any corporation under law (for example, holding an annual meeting) to a wide variety manifesting full ultimate responsibility for the policies of the institution (for exam­ ple, determining the tuition). Although enormous variety 177

among boards was the predominant observation, it was still

possible to discriminate between schools with no real pol­

icy boards, schools with dual policy boards, and schools with single policy boards.

Change from traditional patterns of governance was per­

ceived to have taken place for a variety of reasons, but

certain determinants seem to have had more frequent impact

than others on the change process. The school communities perceived that the new governance patterns were decidedly more advantageous than the previous ones, though the degree of perception of positive advantage differed among the var­

ious sub-populations surveyed, with chief executives per­ ceiving the change most positively and faculty chairpersons and students perceiving it least positively. There was very

low order correlation between the school community's percep­

tion of relative advantage of changed board structure and selected board characteristics.

Superiors of the Society impacted on board decision­ making in many ways including appointment of members to the board, sitting on the board of trustees, exercising various forms of veto power, and having ultimate authority over the decisions of Jesuit members.

Finally, given the great variety of boards in composi­ tion, structure, and function, the literature on best prac­ tices revealed that some boards could be adjusted to conform to recommendations, while at the same time, it revealed 178 enough discrepancy in judgment among experts that it could not provide universally valid norms for best practice to individual boards.

Specific Findings

In order to provide more specific findings each research question was examined in turn and the findings in respect to each noted. This constitutes a summary of the analysis of data presented in Chapter IV along with certain methodolog­ ical concerns treated in Chapter III.

1. Can boards be classified as strictly advisory to the chief executive, strictly corporate boards, combina­ tions of ownership and management boards, and bona fide policy boards with full ultimate responsibility for the

Institution and to which the chief executive of the school is responsible for the administration of the school? If so, which boards fall into each category?

The typology presented in the question proved to be inadequate for an analysis of the types of boards existing in Jesuit secondary schools. The question presupposes four discrete types of boards, while the research revealed a con­ tinuum of boards ranging from least deliberative in author­ ity (i.e., involved in the least decision-making and policy setting) to most deliberative. Many schools, even those with deliberative policy-making boards, possessed strictly advisory boards. After establishing the existence of this type of board, it was no longer considered except as a type of board to be discriminated from the boards to be studied. 179

The continuum of boards exercising some deliberative function was broken into three segments of boards. (1)

Boards composed of the Jesuit superior-president and his consultors (i.e., Jesuits appointed by the provincial to advise the superior). Although these bodies were the offi­ cially incorporated policy boards for the school, some met even less frequently than demanded by statutory law and ex­ ercised only an advisory function. (2) The chief executive (president) and corporate boards. These board members were a group distinguishable from the house consultors though, in fact, they were identical in many cases. They served a basically pro forma corporate function but still have some policy-making authority. (3) Functioning policy boards which exercise ultimate policy authority. This third seg­ ment included both single board structure and the dual ownership-management board structure mentioned in the ques­ tion. For the rest of the study, only boards falling within the third segment on the continuum are identified as policy boards. The study revealed that 32 of the 46 Jesuit schools had bona fide policy boards. Of these, 12 had a dual board structure composed of ownership and management boards. The other Jesuit schools had boards that were really advisory or fell within segments 1 or 2 above. 2. What are the characteristics of the bona fide policy boards in terms of a. composition 180

b. organizational structure and standard mode

of operation

c. function (major areas of policy responsi­

bility)?

In general, it was found that there was a wide variety of Jesuit policy boards in secondary schools in regard to composition, structure, and function. The findings for the population of policy boards are summarized below in respect to each variable with special attention directed to modal, median, and mean analysis,

a. Composition

1) Membership Allowances and Requirements

The modal board had a maximum membership of

15 and a minimal membership of 7 to 9* Sixteen of

the boards allowed two-thirds lay participation,

while 12 demanded that one-half or more of the mem­

bership consist of Jesuits. Nine boards required

some Jesuit participation.

Most boards allowed faculty participation.

Most also allowed more than ^0% combined Jesuit and

lay faculty participation. Alumni could serve if

selected on all boards but one. However, students

were generally not permitted to serve on boards.

2) Actual Composition

The mean size of the Jesuit secondary school

board was 14.3. Most boards were composed of more I8l than 50/^ Jesuits. The mean number of Jesuits per board was 7.16. Considering the entire population of trustees, exactly 50$ (229) were Jesuit. The boards had a membership of 1.09 non-Jesuit clergy and religious per board.

The boards were overwhelmingly Catholic in composition: 96$ of trustees were Catholic. The ma­ jority of boards had only Catholic membership. The average lay membership of the boards was 6.O6. There were 12 boards with 50$ or more lay membership.

There was a low percentage of faculty members serving on the boards: 2.47 board members on the average were faculty, 2 .0 9 of these were Jesuit faculty.

3) Appointment to the Board

Most boards had some ex officio membership.

However, self-perpetuation (cooptation) was the ordi­ nary procedure for becoming a member of a board or remaining on a board (election by trustees). Al­ though there were ^ officio members from different governance bodies and levels (such as an occasional provincial or a member of his staff), local level ex officio members were more common. Most boards had the president as an ex officio member. Many principals (11) were ex officio members of the board.

4) Board Demography 182

Twenty-nine institutions had Jesuits sitting on their board who were also serving on the board of other institutions. A mean of 2.66 Jesuit trustees of a given school also served on the board of some other institution.

Forty-one percent of the Jesuit trustee pop­ ulation and 31$ of the total trustee population were employed by the school where the person was a trustee;

6 7.9# of trustees were products of Jesuit education;

62^ of trustees were between 40 and 60 years of age, and 68.4# were over 40.

In respect to occupation, the trustees were mostly educators; 52# were listed as having education as their principal occupation, while 24# were in bus­ iness-related activities. The fact that there were

2# homemakers suggests the presence of at least 11 women among the 458 trustees; 95# of trustees had some college degree, while 64# had more than one;

84# of the board members had local residences,

b. Structure

Of the 32 boards of trustees, there were 25 boards of trustees which were composed of a mix of

Jesuits and lay persons. However, only l4 of the 25 mixed boards were designated as owners of the school.

In the other cases, ownership was vested in an all-

Jesuit ownership board. 183

In this dual board structure, the ownership board can typically perform certain functions that are not allowed to the management board. The owner­ ship board preserves Society of Jesus ownership and, hence, ultimate control. The ownership board can dissolve the corporation. It can also change the by-laws.

Generally, the board chairperson might be either Jesuit or lay. Most were elected by the board and may succeed themselves. In reality, most chair­ persons (17) were Jesuits. Sixteen were presidents of the high school of which they were board chair­ persons. Fourteen were lay persons from a variety of occupations, most coming from the legal profes­ sion (5). Board officers might be either Jesuit or lay, but the preponderance of officers were Jesuits elected by the board.

Most board members (75#) served 3-year terms;

845É of trustees had overlapping terms; 94$ of the boards allowed a member to succeed himself. However,

58$ of the boards limited how often this was allowed to happen; 33$ of current trustees were currently serving at least their second term.

Twenty-two boards (64$) had board meetings that were entirely closed. Others had varying but severely limited degrees of openness, with only two 184

seemingly totally open to public attendance. All but

three boards claimed average trustee attendance of 755^

or more; 22 boards had over 909^ attendance; 26 boards

met either quarterly or monthly, the others less fre­

quently; 27 of the boards had their agendas prepared by the chief executive officer or president or both

together.

Complexity of structure is indicated by the

fact that 19 of the boards had executive committees

and 26 had standing committees. Boards which had com­

mittees had an average of 4.5 committees per board.

Most schools, however, did not have executive com­

mittees doing the legislative work of the board.

There was a great variety of standing committees.

Most schools that had committees had finance or bud­

get committees and development committees. Most also

had some type of academic committee. Most committees

(56%) limited membership on the committee to members

of the board. The boards rarely attempted to desig­

nate specific percentages of Jesuit membership on the

committee to members of the board. Standing commit­

tees rarely operated in any function other than advis­

ory to the board.

c. Functions and Powers of the Boards

Most boards (22) were legally autonomous.

Those which were not were linked to such entities 135

as the ownership board (4) or to ecclesiastical offi­

cials (Bishop and Provincial-2) as alternate sources

of authority. Most boards (56#) claimed a freedom

from provincial veto.

All schools, except for Loyola School (Missou­ la, Mt.), had policy boards with ultimate legal respon­

sibility. Most boards exercised the following func­

tions: 1) responsibility for school debts; 2) appro­

val of the amendment, alteration, or repeal of cor­

poration charter or by-laws ; 3) determination of the

number or qualifications of members of the corpora­

tion; 4) approval of the changing of the name of the

school; 5) approval of the sale, transfer, mortgage,

or disposition of all or a major portion of the

school's property; 6) approval of the selection of

the chief executive.

In addition to these functions, other board

functions engaged in by most boards were the follow­

ing: 1) approves the school budget; 2) sets tuition;

3) approves development and capital improvement plans;

4) approves borrowing large sums of money; 5) approves

major investment decisions: 6) approves fund-raising

programs; 7) approves policy for hiring and firing

and tenure of administrators; 8 ) determines salary

schedules for school personnel; 9 ) periodically eval­

uates the performance of the chief executive; 1 0) 186

approves policy for hiring and firing and tenure of

faculty: 11} holds title to school property: 12)

approves school admissions policy. Certain boards

showed indications of exercising administrative and

not just policy perogatives.

Entities other than the board which posses­

sed authority over major institutional decisions but

to a much more limited degree included: house con­

sultons, the provincial, the state, the Bishop, or a

committee of the board. Eighty-eight percent of the

boards looked to the Jesuit order in some way for

approval of the choice of a chief executive. Over

half of the schools must have the choice approved

by the Jesuit provincial.

3. What were the reasons for or determinants of these

changes, in the perception of the chief executives?

The reasons offered by the chief executives for board

change varied considerably from school to school. Presi­

dents were asked to give the reasons for their own school

and not hypothesize universal reasons. However, certain

reasons seemed most significant by two tests: they were

cited by more than 30% of the respondents and were also

among the five most frequently ranked as most important by all respondents.

1) Response to a Provincial directive

2) To acquire increased business and/or legal 187

expertise

3) To separate policy-making from administration

4. What have been the results of these changes, in the perception of the school communities? Have they been perceived as advantageous or disadvantageous?

Sampled members of the school community manifested an overwhelmingly positive impression that the changed board was more advantageous than previous traditional gov­ ernance patterns; $4.2^ of the respondents considered that the changes were advantageous. Every school response group and most individual respondents perceived the change as advantageous in most respects.

Respondents were most positive in an evaluation of overall board advantage. When the various subscales of the questionnaire were examined, the degree of perceived advantage was observed as being least in respect to the effect of board change on attitudes within and between groups within the school community (e.g., student morale, relationships between Jesuit and lay faculty).

The various sub-populations sampled were generally in agreement on their perceptions. However, significant differences were found in some subscales between chief executives and faculty chairpersons, and, to a lesser extent, between chairpersons of the board and faculty chairpersons. 188

5* What are the major ways in which the superiors of the Society of Jesus impact upon the board decision-making process?

The Father General, the regional assistants (provin­ cials), and the local superior all influenced the process directly or indirectly. Some of the major ways were dis­ covered to be :

A. Father General

1) By his appointment of provincials and

local superiors.

2) By his control over the establishment

of the schools.

3) By his relationship as superior to all

members of the order.

B. Provincial or Local Superior

1) By serving on the board, either directly

or by proxy.

2) By appointment of major school officials

who would be ex officio board members by

their position.

3) By obediential relationships with Jesuit

board members.

4) By veto power over certain major decisions

(only provincial). 189

Conclusions

The conclusions of the study are presented separately for each research question. Conclusions to the first re­ search question are presented in the third chapter (pp. 105

-112). Conclusions to the second research question are arrived at by a comparison of the composition, structure and functions of the boards with the recommended best prac­ tices from literature on college and university, private secondary school and Catholic diocesan and Jesuit secondary school boards of trustees. Thus, the conclusions to the second research question also help provide the answer to the sixth research question, "In the light of the information gathered and recommended best practices from the literature reviewed, what recommendations toward the implementation of these recommended best practices in respect to board compo­ sition, structure and function can be made to Jesuit second­ ary schools?" It would have been impossible to answer this question until the data on board characteristics had been thoroughly analyzed.

A. Composition, Structure and Function of Jesuit

Policy Boards in the Light of Best Practices from the Lit­ erature Reviewed.

1. Composition

a. Allowances for Board Size

The mean requirements for board composition

were a minimal membership of 7 to 9 and a maximal 193

membership of 15. Literature on best practices for

board size suggests creating a balance between repre­

sentativeness, which demands that members represent

different constituencies, and efficiency, which de­

mands conditions that are suitable for careful dis­

cussion and an ability to actually work together on

problems. Martorana (I9 6 3) and Heilbron (1973) sug­ gest that board size for college boards should be

somewhere between 11 and 24. The Voice of the Com­

munity (National Catholic Education Association, 1973)

suggests that diocesan school boards should have a maximum of 12 members. Catholic college and univer­

sity boards have tended to be much smaller (Martorana,

1 9 6 3). On the other hand, some literature would sug­ gest that there is no best practice (Martorana, I9 6 3).

Martorana asserts that there is no relationship be­

tween board size and institutional excellence in his

citation of relevant studies of college boards. In

general, the qualities of representativeness, suffi­

cient expertise, and efficient meetings should all be considered.

b. Allowances for Jesuit Membership

Prior to the 31st General Congregation of

the Society of Jesus in 1965» all Jesuit secondary

schools had boards which consisted entirely of Jesuit

membership. The dramatic nature of the change in this 191

respect is shown by the 25 boards that actually had non-Jesuit members in 1976. Furthermore, half of the boards permitted up to 2/3 of their membership to be lay. However, 12 boards still required that 50^ or more of the membership of the board should be Jesuit.

This difference in requirements manifests the tension that exists between the desire to set limits on lay membership to preserve Jesuit control of the institu­ tion and the desire to share governance on a wider basis, either with the thought that Jesuit control is not as necessary as once believed or the thought that it can be maintained in other ways than by membership requirements (Rauh, I96 9). The majority of boards were permitted of more than 50^ non-Jesuit member­ ship. The question of the trade-off in loss of crea­ tivity and expertise in favor of Jesuit numerical con­ trol must be faced.

c. Allowances for Lay Membership

The increased lay membership on the boards manifests a tendency in all Church institutions during the period following the Second Vatican Council to increase lay participation within the Church, even in positions of governance (Scanlan, 1967; Langan, 1968;

Moroni, 1968; Davies and Dineen, 1968; National Con­ ference of Catholic Bishops, 1973). This increase parallels what has taken place in Catholic colleges 192 and universities as reported during an earlier time frame (Fox, 1974),

d. Allowances for Faculty Membership

Jesuit secondary school boards are heavily weighted toward faculty membership, both Jesuit and lay. Some literature warns against a policy of having faculty on the board at the college and university level because of the dangers of conflict of Interest between the role of member of the staff and governing the Institution (McGrath, 1968; Heilbron, 1973;

Martorana, 1963). There Is room for consideration too as to how specifically representative In nature the faculty membership Is. Trustees seem to have been chosen for other reasons than the fact they are fac­ ulty. There were some Instances, though, of faculty members being representative of the faculty and. In­ deed, even being elected by faculty as their repre­ sentatives. The literature dealing with Catholic boards of education puts emphasis on the governance of Institutions being shared with all members of the community who are Involved with them (Langan, 19^7:

Davies and Dineen, 1968; NCEA, 1973). In contrast to these exhortations, the Jesuit secondary school seems to have opted In favor of expertise and famil­ iarity with the school or avoidance of conflict of

Interest rather than true representation. The fact 193 that considerably higher percentages of Jesuit faculty than lay faculty served on the board argues for a desire to keep control of the school in the hands of those who work in the school and within the Order, pursuing in this way the same traditions that marked earlier governance patterns.

e . Alumni

Alumni were allowed to serve on almost all

Jesuit policy boards. The alumni members, as the fac­ ulty, were not usually representative of the alumni in the strictest sense but persons chosen to be on the board who also happened to be alumni. The literature on board membership, specifically Langan (I9 6 7),

Martorana (I9 6 3), and Heilbron (1973), see alumni as an integral constituent element in any representative governance body. Furthermore, they are considered to be entitled to such membership both because of the demands of justice and the specific services they render to the institution. It is standard operating procedure for colleges and universities to include them on the board.

On the asset side of the ledger, alumni bring a great deal of interest and enthusiasm to their task as board members because of their depth of feeling for their alma mater. On the liability side, they may sometimes lack the objectivity to deal with some 194 issues because of deep emotional attachment. They may want the school to avoid change and remain the insti­ tution they knew and loved during their days there, no matter how many years ago. It is unlikely that a rep­ resentative proportion of alumni who were dissatisfied with the status quo could be enticed to serve,

f. Minorities The only "minority" group investigated to de­ termine membership allowances on the board was women. No school excluded female membership except those which allowed only Jesuit membership (obviously all-male). Female membership seemed to be minimal, considering the fact that only 11 persons were listed as "home­ makers" in the occupational summary. One explanation is the fact that board members tend to be products of Jesuit education, and these have traditionally been male. In the light of the literature calling for more representativeness, the presence of female and other minority membership should be more thoroughly investi­ gated (Heilbron, 1973). g. Students The boards that demanded or even allowed stu­ dent participation were in a distinct minority. In contrast to the experiences of colleges and universi­ ties during the late 6 0's and early 70's in providing student representation, the Jesuit secondary schools appear to have either resisted these pressures or not to have experienced them. The researcher's own ner- ceptions and conversations with administrators at other 195

Jesuit schools lead him to believe that there has been no current movement on the part of the high school student to participate in institutional policy-making on a regular basis. The students' interest seems con­ fined to a few issues of special interest. Heilbron

(1973) notes the opinion that students should not be board members. Scanlan (I96 7) takes an opposite posi­ tion. However, since, as Langan remarks (I9 6 7), the students are a group to whom the schools "owe allegi­ ance, the question of student membership should be considered' (p. 6I). It may be that the relative lack of maturity of high school students should exclude this participation. h. Parents No study was undertaken of the number of board members who are parents. Davies and Dineen (1968) suggest that the emergence of the board was partly a result of a conviction that education, as a primary responsibility of the parent, should in­ clude parents in its governance. i. Actual Jesuit and Lay Membership The trend toward increased lay membership on Catholic college and university boards of trustees has been well documented (Moroni, I968; Langan, 19^7; Fox, 1974). The desirability from a ideological and theo­ logical viewpoint of such a trend within all institu- tuions of the Catholic Church, particularly education, is also a constant theme of the literature (Langan, 196

1967; Whelan, 1975; McGrath, 1 9 6 8; Davies and Dineen, 1 9 6 8). Voice of the Community (NCEA, 1973) insists that the majority of membership on diocesan boards should be lay. The data on actual Jesuit and lay membership showed a significant trend in this direction. It also showed a great degree of difference between boards in

their actual oercentage of Jesuit members. The lay-

Jesuit ratio was around the 50$ mark. It will be In­

teresting to note what future trends will be and if the minority voices warning against much further change

will be heeded (Maida, 1975: Whelan, 1975)- Although these latter studies do not call for a reversal of the

trend, they do advocate certain definite precautionary measures that presume significant continuing Jesuit membership. They are particularly concerned that con­ trol of the institution is not jeopardized by shifts in board composition and offer suggestions to safe­ guard this control amid the movement to increased lay membership. It should be realized, however, that a particular Jesuit may have much more than one-man,

one-vote influence because of his prestige with the other board members and within the school community. J. Boards as Representative Bodies It has been noted that there is a difference between having members of the board chosen from dif­ ferent populations and having actual representation of different populations. For instance, one board 197

is composed of three alumni and six non-alumni; one

parent, three former parents and six non-parents;

eight whites and one black, without there having been

any intent of establishing a representational pattern

let alone election by and/or accountability to some

constituent body.

There was little evidence of deliberate

representativeness in the review of board composition.

Only one school (Fordhara Prep) gave evidence of elec­

tion of representatives from different constituencies.

Only eight of the ^58 trustees were selected by peer groups (Jesuit community, alumni, parents, etc.).

However, so much of the literature on both college and university and secondary school boards (Scanlan,

1 9 6 7; McGrath, I9 6 8; Martorana, I9 6 3: Heilbron, 1973;

Davies and Dineen, I9 6 8) seems to suggest broader representativeness that the question must be raised why there is so little effort toward more explicit representation, while allowing that greater repre­ sentation can be achieved in a less direct manner.

The question still arises whether the more explicitly representative board is a concept which failed or one which was never tried. It does seem strange to compare the actual situation with the data gathered from the chief executives that one of the major determinants of board change was "to provide 198

increased representation of the various school con­

stituencies in school governance" (Chap. IV, p. 154).

k. Ïion-Catholic Membership

Most Jesuit schools allow attendance by stu­

dents of all faiths. The small percentage of non-

Catholics serving on boards would seem to indicate

that no attempt has been made to obtain numbers of

non-Catholic board members in some proportion to the

numbers of non-Catholic students in attendance. It

seems obvious that the ecumenical movement has not

had a great impact on Jesuit policy boards. However,

there was a change from the traditional governance patterns which totally excluded non-Catholics from board membership.

1. Non-Jesuit Religious Membership

Some Jesuit schools are staffed by Jesuits,

laity, and non-Jesuit religious. For example, Loyola

High School, Missoula, Montana and Bellarmine Prep,

Tacoma, Washington, are schools which are the result

of mergers between various religious order schools

besides Jesuit. No study was made of the difference

in levels of non-Jesuit religious membership on boards

of schools that were partially staffed by non-Jesuit

religious and those that were not, but it seems rea­

sonable that there are non-Jesuit religious on the

boards of the latter schools as well. This bears investigation. 199

As more Jesuit schools merge with schools of other religious orders, it is likely that non-Jesuit religious board membership will continue to increase.

It is anticipated that trends toward cooperation be­ tween various religious orders, in a time of declining religious order membership, will also provide the basis for increased non-Jesuit religious membership,

m. Ex Officio Members

A per board mean of 2.22 members were ex offi­ cio members. This heavy ex officio membership is typ­ ical of private schools (McCune, 1971). The litera­ ture of best practices of private school and college and university boards of trustees discourages ex offi­ cio membership (McCune, 1971; Martorana, 1 9 6 3; NCEA,

1 9 7 3). The reason behind this position is that the ex officio board member is generally a member of the school administration and, hence, does not provide an outside check on the performance of the administration and can confuse policy-making and administrative func­ tions for the entire board.

n. Jesuit Education of Board Members

A little more than 2/3 of all board members of Jesuit secondary schools have received education at Jesuit schools. This would indicate that there is a great familiarity with the goals and objectives of

Jesuit education on the part of these board members 200

and might indicate another way in which Jesuit control

would be preserved even without majority Jesuit mem­

bership (Whelan, 1975). The drawback is the same as

in the case of high rates of alumni membership--an

in-breeding that militates against the introduction

of new ideas and practices. How much is too much is

difficult to measure.

o. Members Serving on More Than One Board

There was a per board mean of 2.73 members who serve on other Jesuit boards. The fact would

seem to provide grounds for a similarity among schools

beyond those already provided by the common education­

al background of Jesuits and non-Jesuits and the influ­

ence of the Jesuit Secondary Education Association.

It is remarkable, though, that with the many qualified

persons available for service on boards and the ex­ pressed need to provide further "access to financial

resources" that there was so much overlap in member­

ship (Chap. IV, p. 1 5 4).

p. Employment on the School Staff

Much of the literature that recommends

against the retention of board members from the school

faculty provides the same argumentation against any

school employee serving as a board member (McGrath,

1 9 6 8: Heilbron, 1973; NCEA, 1973). Once again,

though, the question of the representative board 231

must be considered. It would seem that members of

the school staff would have a more intimate, though

not necessarily more objective, viewpoint to bring

to bear on school policy considerations.

q. Occupation of Board Members

In analyzing the occupations of board mem­

bers, it should be noted that there are a significant

number who bring from their occupational background

the increased business and/or legal expertise consid­

ered as one of the goals behind the change from tra­

ditional governance structures (Chap. IV, p. 15^).

However, the occupation of the majority of board mem­ bers was still education, raising the question whether this could lead to a form of myopic decision-making.

McCune (1971) points out the dangers of having pro­ fessional educators set educational goals. Martorana discovered a greater preponderance of leaders of finance on college and university boards of trustees

(1963). r. Demographic Characteristics

Jesuit secondary school board members resem­ ble board members of other Catholic educational in­ stitutions and college and university boards of trus­ tees in age, occupation, and levels of educational achievement (Dineen, I9 6B; McCune, 1971; Parmerie,

1964; Reavis, 1967; Moroni, I9 6 8). However, one study 202

recommends a greater variety in characteristics than is usually present (NCEA, 1973). The same study high­ lights the Importance of the high educational attain­ ment achieved by Jesuit policy board members.

2. Structure a. Dual Board Structure Some policy boards, although identified as ex­ ercising ultimate authority in the school, still were

under the influence or even partial control of another board, which, for the sake of uniformity, has been

called the '' ownership" board. This is very common among Catholic institutions of higher education (Rauh,

1 9 6 9). In the 12 instances where this was true, the

ownership board was made up of Jesuits, mainly appointed by the provincial. The question that faces Jesuit schools, in surveying their current governance structure or in making a transition from the traditional modes of governance, has been how much authority to put in the hands of a board that would consist not only of Jesuits but of laity. Many schools have answered this question with a basic lack of concern by not developing any type of control factor. Others, however, seem to be anxious enough about the situation that they have gone to a dual board structure. Maida (1975) sees this as the only feasible approach. Of course, by removing certain im­ portant decisions from the hands of the partially lay policy board, the policy board is weakened. This study does not intend to determine which of the two approaches is the better. However, it is a choice that must be 203 made; and, under state corporate law in the United States, it can be made. On the one hand, by keeping the appointment of trustees and the changing of con­ stitutions and by-laws and other issues of major moment in the hands of certain chosen Jesuits, control by the Order under any circumstances is guaranteed by law. On the other hand, by doing this, the corporate veil is likely pierced to the extent that the Society of Jesus could become liable for the financial difficul­ ties of the school (Whelan, 1975). A question that must be considered seriously by every school is what values are most important in the particular situation in which the school is operating. b. Jesuit Order Control 1) Formal The dual board structure is a device to keep Jesuit control over the board structure. Con­ trol can be viewed in two ways: formal (aliena­ tion) and informal (McGrath, 1 9 6 8). The question of whether the chief executives considered that the school had been alienated from the ecclesias­ tical institution, as discussed by McGrath and Maida (Chap. II, pp. 53-62), was not directly raised by the questionnaire. However, it is an important issue that must be faced by the schools. McGrath's thesis is that alienation had taken

place at the time separate incorporation was ac­ complished according to state law. Maida's thesis

(1 9 7 5) is that such separate incorporation does 204 not alienate property, only putting the corpora­ tion in the hands of a mixed board would accom­ plish this. One way or another, each expert would claim that some type of alienation has been accomplished in the case of colleges and univer­ sities. Can a case be developed to say that high schools, because they are less in the service of a "public trust," are also more difficult to alienate through those particular modes? After all, the courts have bowed to the public service function of the religious colleges and universi­ ties by permitting direct public aid, something not allowed to the secondary or elementary schools. The answer has not been given suffici­ ent attention to allow for conclusion in this study. However, if these institutions have in­ deed become alienated, then it is not surprising to find in the study of the functions of the various policy boards, that the board itself has the power which is described, 'would be vested with the school property in the event the school closed." Twelve of the 32 schools responded

that, indeed, their board would be vested in such a manner. Also, 17 boards, or 53#, were mentioned as "holds title to school property." It seems

that some do not accept either the McGrath or 205

Maida thesis of alienation as applying to high

schools when the numbers are as small as listed

in these percentages.

2) Informal

Alienation may also be considered in the

more generic sense of loss of Jesuit control in

institutions. This can be prohibited by means

other than legal ownership. One is by the state­

ment of the purpose clause of the charter which

makes it clear for what intention the corporation

was founded and, hence, make it inalienable

(Whelan, 1975)- Alienation can also be avoided

by the appointment of members to the board who

would not move the corporation away from its

stated purposes.

c. Chief Executive Membership

One of the strongest suggestions in the lit­

erature on boards of trustees for both colleges and

universities and elementary and secondary schools

level is that the chief executive, whether president,

headmaster, or superintendent, should not serve as a

voting member of the board. However, we find that in

Jesuit schools 29 presidents served as members of the boards of trustees on an ex officio basis (Martorana,

1 9 6 3.: NCEA, 1 9 7 3). It does seem out of place for the 206 person who is being evaluated and who has the respon­ sibility of executing policy to be the one who is also doing the evaluating and formulating the policy. It certainly provides for better discrimination between policy-making and administration if such a situation is not allowed to continue. At the same time the lit­ erature suggests that the president should be occupied with the formation of the agenda for board meetings

(Martorana, I9 6 3: NCEA, 1973). A fortiori, the lit­ erature recommends against the chief executive as board chairperson.

d. Board Officers

In the data garnered on the identity of board officers, it seemed that many were school administra­ tors. This provides a potential conflict of interest of more serious proportions than the mere presence of administrators as simple board members in distinguish­ ing between the administrative and policy-making func­ tions within the institution (Martorana, I9 6 3).

Martorana, however, makes an exception in the case of the board secretary.

e. Terms of Office

Most boards had terms of office of 3 years and allowed board members to succeed themselves, al­ though most boards placed limits on the number of times a board member could do this. The literature 207 on boards suggests longer terms to acquire expertise and less renewal of terms to allow for continual new membership (Martorana, 1 9 6 3; Heilbron, 1973)* Over­ lapping terms were the rule, and this is in accord with the literature on best practices (Martorana,

1 9 6 3; Heilbron, 1973).

f. Board Meetings

Most Jesuit boards had meetings that were closed to the public. The literature on boards gener­ ally recommends the opposite (Heilbron, 1973; NCEA,

1 9 7 3). It is interesting to speculate on why the great diversity exists. It seems to go against the greater spirit of openness found in contemporary Catholicism and in the broader American society. It must be noted that other school policy boards outside Catholic schools have various ways of establishing executive sessions for the business that Jesuit policy boards wish to discuss privately. The Jesuit policy board meeting may not have the sophisticated complexity of these public school meetings. However, the private sphere, in business and industry, has provided a model that might be legitimately followed.

Attendance at Jesuit board meetings was gen­ erally good. Meetings were generally held quarterly from 2 to 4 hours. Best practices would agree on longer or more frequent meetings or both in light 208 of the important functions that boards are called upon

to perform (Martorana, I9 6 3).

The agenda is recommended (NCEA, 1973; Davies and Dineen, I9 6 8) to be the charge of the chief execu­

tive. Jesuit schools tended to follow this practice.

However, the question might be raised as to the appro­ priateness of this major act of board leadership being

removed from the hands of the board members. A col­

laborative preparation could be the answer.

g . Executive Committee

Heilbron (1973) cautions against the use of

executive committees as the maker of major policy de­

cisions. The executive committees of some Jesuit

policy boards (6) followed the opposite practice.

h. Standing Committees

The literature (Martorana, 1963: Heilbron,

1 9 7 3) recommends that standing committees be used

with caution lest power be diffused from the proper

center--the board itself. Most Jesuit boards had

standing committees, an average of 4.5 per board.

A few boards had standing committees with an execu­

tive or administrative function in contradiction to

the recommendation that boards should only exercise

policy functions (NCEA, 1973; Martorana, 1 9 6 3).

3. Function

a. Advisory Boards 209

Although this study is concerned with bona fide policy boards, the initial task was to distinguish these from other school boards, including advisory boards. Some schools continued to operate with boards that performed many of the functions of bona fide policy boards but in a consultative rather than a deliberative mode.

The literature reviewed issues cautions about such an arrangement. Whalen (1975) considers it to be unlikely that the best people would be interested in positions where they were confined to advising the chief executive without being able to make policy.

He also agrees with Davies and Dineen (I9 6 8) that the thrust of recent church policy and philosophy has leaned in the direction of greater sharing of control

(Scanlon, 1967; Davies and Dineen, I9 6 8). The evalu­ ation of relative board advantage revealed that school communities preferred current governance patterns and boards to traditional ones. This also would seem to argue in favor of a shift to a more deliberative board

function, though it does not definitely answer the

question whether a deliberative board is preferred

to a consultative one.

However, the schools that do not have policy boards but highly active advisory boards might argue

that they have the best of both worlds— sound advice 210 and ultimate control. The school administration would not be forced to go along with this advice in every instance. But, in this case, the distinction between policy-making and administration disappears; and the administrator loses the protection of the board in situations where a difficult decision is shielded by a group superior to the administrator who makes the decision.

b . Number and Type of Functions

Thirty-one of the boards had final ultimate legal responsibility and authority for all aspects of the school's operation. This, as a minimum, would seem to be necessary to qualify a board as a policy­ making body of the school. The boards varied widely in the number of functions in which they were involved

--one board was involved in the exercise of only 9 functions, while another board exercised 26 functions.

The literature on board functions shows different types of boards--public school, diocesan, college and university, and independent school boards--exer- cising a wide variety of functions. One should com­ pare individual boards with the recommended functions to see what kinds of additional policy-making func­ tions a board might serve (Hartnett, 1969; Henderson,

1971: Herron, 1969; Rauh, 1969; Scanlon, 1967;

Sorenson, 195^; Parkman and Springer, 1974; Davies 211 and Dineen, 1 9 6 8). What functions a board should exercise proably depends to a great extent on the specific local factors such as acceptance by the com­ munity, the difficulties and problems that arise in the school, the strength of the Jesuit and non-Jesuit constituencies, etc.

c. Administration or Policy Making

Jesuit policy boards exercised a wide var­ iety of functions. Some of the functions exercised by boards, however, are administrative rather than policy-making functions. The questionnaire included these in order to determine whether the board was overstepping recommended boundaries in certain areas.

The following are considered to be of this type:

... approval of the addition or deletion of

courses from the school curriculum: 13

boards or had this as part of their

function.

approval of student testing program: 5

oh 16^.

... approval or use of school facilities by

outside groups: 5 or l6^.

... determining the ratio of faculty to stu­

dents: 12 or 38^.

The literature on boards recommends a strict segrega­ tion of the board from administrative functions 212

(McCune, 1971; Martorana, 1963; NCEA, 1973).

B. Determinants of Governance Change

The third research task was to determine the perceived reasons for changes in school governance. Chapter IV (p.

154 ) listed these perceived reasons and rank ordered them in keeping with their relative importance in motivating change, according to the perceptions of the chief execu­ tives. Since the tables provided in Chapter IV summarize the data, the reader is asked to refer back to these tables as conclusions are drawn from them.

1. Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic

As one looks at the various reasons that were

offered for the change from the traditional board

structure to a new board, some seemed to be more

extrinsic to the operation of the school than others.

The most extrinsic reason, of course, was change that

is mandated by an external source, such as the pro­

vincial of the order. Other more or less extrinsic

reasons had to do with the influence of the Preamble,

Vatican II, and the General Congregations. Some

schools, as is clear from Chapter IV, had been in­

volved in change because of rather idiosyncratic

reasons. For instance, one school made the change

because of the relationship of the high school to

the college; and another school made the change be­

cause of a particular financial credibility situation 213 that had arisen which could only be rectified, in the opinion of the chief executive, by establishing a credible board of regents.

2. Colleges and Universities

One of the interesting aspects in analyzing this question is to compare the results of Jesuit policy­ making board determinants with the determinants of change in colleges and universities as mentioned by

Hasenstab in his study. Had the secondary schools made changes for the same reasons or had a different dynamic been operative? Hasenstab (1971) used an in­ strument similar to the study instrument to measure determinants of change in colleges and universities from traditional governance patterns to repatterned boards. A comparison of results casts light on the similarities and differences in the phenomenon of changed boards on these two different levels of edu­ cation in the Catholic Church. Although the options were not exactly parallel in the Hasenstab instrument and the instrument used in this study, there is some possibility of comparing results. The first and third

ranking determinants of change in the Hasenstab study are comparable in that they indicate a searching for

a broader base of talent from which to draw board

members--especially concentrating on the need for

financial and business expertise. The present study 214 had as the second and sixth determinants, respectively:

2) to acquire increased business and/or legal exper­ tise, and 6) to improve access to financial resources.

Hasenstab ranks "the desire to share control with all interested constituencies of the institution" as the second, while "to provide increased representation for the various school publics in school governance" is ranked seventh in this study. Tlra "distinction between policy-making and administration" was important in both studies, fifth in the Hasenstab study, third in the present study. No comparison is possible with the

Hasenstab determinants of separation of institution from religious community and the need to improve the educational quality of the institution. The present study found that the provincial directive was the major determinant of change. The parallelism is close enough that it seems that the dynamic of change on the two different levels is quite analagous. However, because of the different phrasing of the determinants in the two instruments and the addition of the impor­ tant concern "the provincial directive" in the present questionnaire, conclusions cannot be drawn beyond the point of similarity.

Although the same social and ecclesiastical issues were operative, there was not the need to make changes to provide a legitimacy for federal aid that existed 215

in higher education. It could also be that secondary

schools remained under much more direct control by

the sponsoring religious bodies than universities for

a multitude of reasons including the greater number

of lay persons on the college faculty, the less cate­

chetical nature of the higher education enterprise,

the percentage of religious involved in administrative

positions, the history of the board movement in col­

leges, etc. However, the evidence before us suggests

that similar trends affected both types of institu­

tions but after a lapse of several years.

G. School Community Perception of Advantages of Change

The fourth research question sought to determine the relative advantage or disadvantage of the boards over pre­ vious governance patterns in the. perception of selected observers in the school communities. A general summary of the responses showed an overwhelmingly positive impression that the changed board was more advantageous than the pre­ vious traditional governance patterns; 94.2# thought the changes in general were advantageous. Every school and most individual respondents perceived the change as positive,

Total responses from all respondents were favorable toward the advantage of change on 37 of the 39 questions.

Only two questions, one dealing with the new board members having a better knowledge of Jesuit education, the other asking whether there was an improvement resulting in a 216 lessened need for Jesuit manpower, were answered in the negative. It is not surprising that a shift of board com­ position toward a greater participation of laity might result in a decrease of knowledge of Jesuit education among the members of the board. It is also not surprising that a changed composition, structure, or functioning of the board would not result in an improvement in manpower de­ mands on the Society of Jesus. The fact that fewer Jesuits served on boards did not appreciably free Jesuit manpower for other tasks, and there continued to be a decline in

Jesuit vocations and Jesuits entering or remaining in high school work through the period covered by the study.

In the analysis of the data of the response to the questionnaire, seven scales were established. It was re­ marked that respondents found stronger agreement over the advantages of change on overall perception of board func­ tioning than on any other of the scales. The category per­ ceived as least advantageous (though still advantageous) was that of board effect on internal relations in the school community. This included answers to questions concerning faculty morale and freedom, student morale,

Jesuit morale and increase of unity and decrease of ten­ sions between the various sub-populations of the school community (Jesuits, lay, students). One possible conclu­ sion of this analysis is that the board has its impact on some other areas more than on internal relationships. 217

Besides overall function, financial improvement rated as a

special area where changes in the board generated strong advantage. There is a linkage between this and the reasons for board change as stated by chief executives (Chap. IV, p . 154). The greatest internal impetus to change was to provide better business expertise. The respondents seem to have perceived this as having been accomplished.

An analysis was made to determine if there were any significant differences in the way the various sub-popula­ tions who responded--chief executives, chairpersons of the board, etc.— differed in their perception of the relative advantage of the changed board. Significant differences were found in the degree of favorable response between chief executives and faculty chairpersons and, to a lesser ex­ tent, between chairpersons of the board and faculty chair­ persons .

An explanation for these findings could lie in the fact that the presidents were responsible for the change through their administrative action and in keeping with their administrative perceptions of the needs of the sit­ uation. It would not be surprising to find that they would be most favorably impressed by the results by a kind of self-approval principle, or the "artist favors his own work" principle. It might also point to the tendency of administrators to set more stock on the importance of gov­ ernance change than non-administrators. The fact that 218 others (superiors and chairpersons of the board) ordinarily did not differ in their perceptions to any appreciable de­ gree from the chief executives could be explained by the fact that they too hold positions of authority in the school community. Another explanation is that they too might have been involved in the formation of the new boards.

This would especially be true in the case of chairpersons.

Still another explanation is that the president and the chairmen were in a better position than faculty to see the advantages of the changed board since they dealt with both boards in a very direct manner, while the faculty member's perception was based on indirect evidence. However, the faculty member might well be better situated to see that

the effects of the board on school life are not as positive as those supposedly more removed might surmise. The results also might indicate the perennial difference in opinion between administrators and faculty as to how good anything

devised by administrators is.

Although data is available to compare the Jesuit

schools' respondents' mean scores among each other and thus

obtain an indirect perceptual evaluation of the relative

advantage of one school's changed board from that of the

others, for the reasons presented in Chapter IV, it would

seem to be invalid to draw conclusions about individual

schools on the basis of this relatively limited data

(Appendix J ). 219

Although the discrepancy between the perceptions of chief executives and faculty chairpersons might be looked upon as minor, since all see the boards as advantageous, it is nonetheless statistically significant. To close this gap in perception as much as possible would seem to be advantageous to unity in the school.

D. Correlations Between Board Characteristics and

Perception of Relative Advantage of Board Change

According to the correlational analysis of relative board advantage or disadvantage and board characteristics, the board that would be considered more advantageous should have more trustees and fewer Jesuit and faculty ex officio trustees. It should have more trustees with business, legal or financial expertise. It should have a dual struc­ ture, with a Jesuit ownership board to go along with the management board. A Jesuit should chair the board, and it should have fewer committees than the modal board but more functions that it is responsible for. The executive com­ mittee should not assume the functions of the board. Fin­ ally, the change in the board should be perceived by the chief executive as having taken place for reasons other than a provincial edict, hence more perception that change occurred on the basis of internal needs. However, the only significant correlation at the .0 5 level of significance among all of these stated correlations was the one between perception of relative advantage of change and the major 220

determinant of board change being perceived by the chief

executive as a provincial mandate.

The explanation for this could be that a school which

was influenced to accept a board externally was less happy

about the presence of a changed board than a school which

accepted a new board because it perceived that conditions warranted a change to such a board.

The fact that other correlations between board percep­

tions and board characteristics did not prove to be signif­ icant may be explained partially by the fact that the respondents generally agreed that their changed board was relatively advantageous. Also, on the 1-5 Likert type scale, the difference in perception by each school com­ munity showed a very limited range: 1.769 to 2.7 8 5. Such a small range of difference allows space for only limited differentiation of opinion as to the comparative advantage of one board over another. However, it is more important to realize how the finding that ratings of relative advan­ tage did not correlate with specific board characteristics mirrors the conclusion of the traditional literature on best board practices that in respect to most variables there is no one best form for a board (Martorana, I9 6 3).

The finding of lack of significance would tend to verify the conclusion that such characteristics are not of moment to board effectiveness. The characteristic that is per­ ceived to be of advantage, or, indeed, is of advantage in 221 one specific set of circumstances may be perceived as dis­ advantageous in another set of circumstances.

Certainly this study provides no empirical guidelines for the Jesuit secondary school administrator who is trying to answer the difficult practical questions involved in devising an optimal composition, structure, and function for a policy board at his school. On the other hand, it should not be construed from the results of this study that there does not exist a more or less optimal composition, structure, or function for a board within a specific set of circumstances.

E. Impact of Superiors of the Society of Jesus Upon the Decision-Making Process

Superiors at different levels--local, provincial and world-wide--impact both directly and indirectly upon the decision-making process. The superiors bring the concerns of the Society of Jesus and its educational ideals to bear upon the governance of the school in a way that guarantees that the term "Jesuit" as applied to the schools is never stripped of its meaning. In the absence of controversy over the preponderant role of the Order in governance, it seems to be an excellent situation that this practice con­ tinues. Whelan (1975) mentions the need for strict vigil­ ance over the Jesuits serving on the board by the provin­ cial. 222

Recommendations

Recommendations based on the conclusions of the dis­ sertation have been developed under the following headings: composition, structure, and function of the board; determi­ nants of change to the new board oatterns; advantages and disadvantages of the changed boards; the relationship be­ tween board characteristics and school community approval; and ways in which superiors of the Society of Jesus impact on the board decision-making process. In each of these categories, recommendations for action or policy change will be segregated from recommendations for further study.

A. Composition

1. Action

a. Considering the mean number of board mem­

bers on current boards, a reduction of board member­

ship should be seriously considered, to provide

greater efficiency.

b. There should be a higher nercentage of

lay participation on boards to better reflect the

image of the contemporary Church and the communities

which the schools serve.

c. If there is a reduction in the percentage

of Jesuits on the board, the change should be made in

a way to ensure that a predetermined and desired

amount of Jesuit influence on policy-making be retained, 223 d. The very idea of a policy board speaks to an independence of judgment that is an unlikely attri­ bute of faculty members of the school or members of the school staff or administration because of a con­ flict of interests. Any staff representation on the board should be carefully evaluated lest the good of familiarity with the institution be outweighed by sub­ jectivity of judgment.

e. Provided that extremes are avoided so that the school is not locked into past positions as a result of the alumni's sanguine view of past circum­ stances, alumni should be sought out for service on the board,

f. The question of student participation as board members should be raised and determinations made whether this is feasible and beneficial in some schools.

g . Based on trends toward increased non-

Catholic population among the student body and greater

cooperation between Catholic schools, including merger,

the board populations should reflect these by an in­

crease in the number of non-Catholics and non-Jesuit

religious serving on the boards.

h. The number of ex officio trustees on the

board should be reduced.

2. Study a. Since there are decided similarities be­ tween boards that suggest a common origin of some 224 charters and constitutions, a study should be under­

taken of the historical origins of the different types of board structures to verify the proposition that the high school board structure and charter are basically a by-product of the college board structures and char­

ters which antedated them. The study should also ex­

tend to a typology of boards based on their common points of origin.

b. A study should be made of the effective­ ness and efficiency of boards which have attempted to be representative of the various school communities.

Special attention should be given to see if there have been problems with conflict of interest. The ideal of

representation should be checked to see if it is actu­ ally workable and practiced in other institutional

settings, particularly colleges and universities.

c. Since the desire to increase business

expertise of boards has been such a high priority, a study should be undertaken to determine whether the

increase in members competent in business and finance has actually led to more effective boards.

d. A study should be made to determine whe­ ther the large numbers of professional educators on the boards has detracted from the benefits of lay control and the broader perspective which laymen (non­ educators) bring to educational policy-making. 225

B. Structure

1. Action

a. Charters should be reviewed to provide for the proper reflection of the desire for Jesuit influ­ ence and control and to see that the charter manifests the desires of responsible officials for the actual part the board will play in the life of the institu­ tion. The charter should clearly state who owns the school. It should be kept up-to-date.

b. Chief executives of the schools should be thoroughly familiar with the type of corporation the school is, what state laws apply to its operation, and what these laws imply for the conduct of the business of the board.

c. Because of the potential conflict of inter­ ests, the president should not be a chairman of the board; it is further recommended that he should not serve as a member of the board.

d. Boards which are presently advisory in nature should move toward becoming bona fide policy boards unless compelling reasons argue against it.

e. The terms of board members should be lengthened from the typical three years to six years, and board members should ordinarily not be allowed to succeed themselves. 226

f. There should be more openness to the pub­

lic in the conduct of board business, analagous to

the sunshine practices in the public sector. This,

of course, does not preclude more private executive

sessions.

g. In order to provide for the business of

the school and allow time for the many functions the board must perform, board meetings should be held more

frequently and/or should be longer. Executive commit­

tee action should not, except when absolutely neces­ sary, be substituted for the action of the entire board. Standing committees should be established with the greatest care, and an examination of the need for a standing committee should be made on a bi-annual basis.

2. Study

a. Because of the controversy raised by

McGrath and Maida concerning alienation of other

Catholic institutions, study should be made as to whether the high schools are liable to alienation by changes in board composition, structure, and func­ tion. In the course of this study, special attention should be made to cases in which Catholic high schools have been subverted from their original purpose be­ cause of change. A determination should also be made whether conflict between board members and Jesuit 227 administrators has led the secondary school away from the goals and objectives of Jesuit education, as some have feared.

b. Since, in the light of this study, it is not always possible to tell to what degree a board is deliberative or consultative, each board should under­ take a study to explicate the actual degree of policy control that the board exercises within the school community.

c. A more extensive study should be made to determine the comparative levels of satisfaction at those schools which have a single board structure which embodies both corporate and management functions and those which have a dual board structure in which the Jesuit membership is responsible by itself for the corporate function.

d. A study should be made of the boards that were functioning in Jesuit schools that closed during the last 15 years, asking questions such as: What has been the status of the assets of the corporation after dissolution? Have they reverted to the ownership board, the policy board, or the Society of Jesus? Is this different disposition a result of different state laws or different charters and by-laws? Conclusions should be drawn as to whether the type of board had anything to do with the lack of success of the school. 228

C. Function

1. Action

a. The board should adopt a rationale which delimits and distinguishes its function in the school in contrast to the function of the administrators.

The board should eliminate all functions that are properly in the administrative sphere. Administra­ tors should be familiar with this rationale and aware of where their authority ends and the board's begins.

b. The entire school community should be made aware of the specific functions that the board is responsible for and those it is not, and this in­ formation should be recalled on a timely basis.

D. Determinants of Change to the New Board Pattern

1. Action

a. The purpose that the board is meant to serve should be made specific from time to time, and the board carefully evaluated to see if this purpose is actually being achieved. Specifically, the com­ position, structure, and functions of the board should be periodically examined to see that they reflect the purpose of the board and that they remain closely linked with the school philosophy and the dynamic of change that the school is still trying to accomplish. 229

b. There should be a continual monitoring of the school environment by the board in conjunction with the Committee on Research and Development of the

Jesuit Secondary Education Association to see if dif­ ferent board composition, structure, and functions are called for to meet new developments.

2. Study

a. In order to discover more fully the rea­ sons why board change was actually undertaken, a study should be made of the perceptions of others than chief executives.

E. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Changed Boards

1. Action

a. The gap between administrative and faculty perception of the board's effectiveness and efficiency should be closed, if possible, by the use of the fol­ lowing measures:

(1) The faculty should be kept informed

'f current board composition, structure, and

function.

(2) The faculty should serve on com­

mittees of the board.

(3) Minutes of meetings should be avail­

able to members of the faculty.

(4) Faculty input on matters before the

board should be sought through some type of 230

faculty forum.

2. Study

a. On the basis of the questionnaire devel­

oped for this study, a regular inquiry should be made

within the Jesuit school community to ascertain the

continual effectiveness of the board. If possible,

this survey should take into consideration a wider

sample of the school community than made in this study.

b. Further research should be done on the

history of the movement to new governance patterns

on an individual school basis. Charters should be

used to determine the progress of the official changes,

and data should be gathered about specific boards

while the principals involved in board change are

still available.

F. Relationship Between Board Characteristics and

School Community Perception of the Board

1. Study

a. Studies such as the present one should be

replicated, and an attempt to improve the method used

to gauge board approval or disapproval should be made

by such means as a wider variety of questions asked

and extension of the population sampled. Attempts

should be made to develop a way of measuring board

effectiveness in more objective ways. Other board

characteristics than the ten included in this study 231

should be examined.

G. Ways in Which Superiors of the Society Impact Upon the Decision-Making Process of the Board

1. Action

a. Since the provincial veto raises questions

about where the locus of power in Jesuit schools actu­

ally lies--with the board or at a different level of

governance--each board should clarify, through dialogue

with the provincial or his representatives, those deci­

sions over which the provincial claims veto power.

b. In the present absence of conflict between

the Society and the boards, as much local autonomy

should be allowed as possible, with the only exception

to this being some provincial involvement in the ap­

pointment of Jesuit chj.ef administrators, which allows

for continued linkage between the school and the

Society.

c. The pitfalls suggested by "The Way of the

Colleges' should be avoided while still retaining the

advantages of the increased representativeness and

expertise that the new boards offer by retaining the

major structures through which the Jesuit provincials

influence the governance process (appointment of Jes­

uit board members, appointment of chief executive Jes­

uit administrators, obediential authority over Jesuit

board members, potential veto nower). APPENDIXES APPENDIX A

LIST OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES

Respondents to First Questionnaire

Rev. Richard J. Wolf, S.J. Rev. Robert J. McAuley, S.J. President President Bishop Connolly High School St. John's High School (Fall River, Mass.) (Toledo, Oh.)

Rev. Carl E. Melrose, S.J. President Respondents to Second Ques­ Brebeuf Preparatory tionnaire (Indianapolis, Ind.) Presidents of the Board

Rev. William V. Thom, S.J. Rev. Michael Lavelle, S.J. President Walsh Jesuit High, Stow, Oh. Brophy College Preparatory (Phoenix, Ariz.) Rev. Michael Walsh, S.J. Boston College High School Rev. Thomas K. McKenney, S.J. President Mr. John A. Dowdle Creighton Preparatory High Loyola Academy (Wilmette) School (Omaha, Neb.) Rev. Paul Locatelli, S.J. Bellarmine College Prep. Rev. Peter F. Filice, S.J. (San Jose) President Loyola High School Rev. Patrick J. Ford, S.J. (Los Angeles, Calif.) Gonzaga Prep (Spokane)

Rev. Anthony Dagelen, S.J. Mr. John R. Moran, Jr. President Regis Educational Corpora­ Red Cloud High School tion (Denver) (Pine Ridge, S. Dak.) Mr. Daniel Callahan, 111 Rev. Russell J. Roide, S.J. Georgetown Prep President St. Ignati us College Mr. Lawrence X. Cusack Preparatory Regis High School (New York) (San Francisco, Calif.) Rev. Gregory Lucey, S.J. Rev. James J. Fischer, S.J. Xavier High School President (Cincinnati) St. Peter's Preparatory School (Jersey City, N.J.) Rev. Anthony J. Zeits, S.J. Loyola Blakefield

233 Appendix A (continued) 234

Rev. Joseph P. Duffy, S.J. Respondents to Second Ques­ Cheverus High School tionnaire (Portland, Me.) Faculty Chairpersons

Mr. Edward I. O'Brien Mr. Steve Ryan Fordham Prep (New York) Walsh Jesuit High (Stow, Oh.)

Mr. James B, O'Hanlon Rev. C. P. Pelletier, S.J. Jesuit High (Portland) Boston College High School

Mr. Patrick C. Comfort Mr. Tony Pelosi Bellarmine Prep (Tacoma) Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose) Mr. Robert L. Cahill, Jr. Loyola School (New York) Rev. Curtis E. Van Del, S.J. De Smet Jesuit High School Mr. William H. Collard (St. Louis) Jesuit High School (Sacramento) Mr. Ronald J. Hastreiter Canisius High School Mr. Dexter Delaney (Buffalo) Loyola-Sacred Heart (Missoula) Mr. Albert Pucciarelli Fordham Prep (New York) Mr. William B. Buchanan Gonzaga College High School Mr. Augustine J. Coupe (Washington, D.C.) Georgetown Prep (Rockville, Md. ) Mr. Clark F. Irwin Respondents to Second Ques­ Gonzaga Preparatory (Spokane) tionnaire Students Rev. John B. Woodward, S.J. Gonzaga High School Jim Hanratty (Washington, D.C.) Strake Jesuit High (Houston) Mr. John Maurer Loyola Academy John Niggemeyer (Wilmette, 111.) Gonzaga Prep (Spokane) Dr. Kenneth Martin James P. Connors Loyola Blakefield St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland) Mr. Louis A. Tambini Loyola School (New York) Joe Vaughn St. Joseph's Preparatory Rev. Charles W. Weiss, S.J. School (Philadelphia) Loyola-Sacred Heart (Missoula, Mt.) Appendix A (continued) 235

Rev. Philip Postell, S.J. Rev. Michael Brophy, S.J. Strake Jesuit High (Houston) Loyola Academy (Wilmette)

Ms. Mary Anne Breslin Rev. Thomas E. Ambrose, S.J. St. Joseph's Prep Loyola School (New York) (Philadelphia) Rev. E. P. Holmes, S.J. Mr. Thomas Banning St. Ignatius High School St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland) (Cleveland) Rev. Carl J. Moell, S.J. St. Xavier High School Respondents to Second Ques­ (Cincinnati) tionnaire Superiors Rev. John A. Conlin, S.J. St. Joseph's Preparatory Rev. William J. Snyders, S.J. (Philadelphia) De Smet Jesuit High School (St. Louis) Rev. Clement Metzger, S.J. Walsh Jesuit High School Rev. Christopher Billac, S.J. (Stow, Oh.) Strake Jesuit High (Houston)

Rev. Raymond P. Bertrand, S.J, Respondents to Second Ques­ Boston College High School tionnaire Alumni Rev. John J. Higgins, S.J. Cheverus High School Mr. David G. Riehl (Portland, Me.) Loyola Blakefield

Rev. L. Patrick Carroll. S.J. Mr. Paul J. Smaldone Bellarmine Prep (Tacoma) Canisius High School (Buffalo) Rev. David Klein, S.J. Bellarmine Prep (San Jose) Mr. Filippo Galluppi Loyola School (New York) Rev. Leo A. Murray, S.J. Gonzaga High School Mr. Frank A. Della Torre (Washington, D.C.) St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland) Rev. Thomas J. Madden, S.J. Jesuit High School Rev. Joseph M. Costa, S.J. (New Orleans) Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose) Rev. F. Dillemuth, S.J. Fordham Prep (New York) Mr. C. Jim Stewart, III Strake Jesuit (Houston) Rev. James M. McDonough, S.J. Jesuit High (Portland) Appendix A (continued) 236

Mr. Robert Schaaf Rev. Thomas F. Healey, S.J. Walsh Jesuit High School Matteo Ricci College (Stow, Oh.) (Seattle)

Mr. Louis F. Paulano Rev. Thomas R. Fitzgerald, St. Joseph's Prep S.J. (Philadelphia) Fairfield College Prepara­ tory School

Respondents to Second and ♦Rev. Terrence S. Shea, S.J. Third Questionnaires Bellarmine Preparatory Chief Executives (Tacoma)

Rev. Luke Byrne, S.J. ♦Rev. Robert G. Cregan, S.J. Rockhurst High School Canisius High School (Buffalo) Rev. Carl E. Meirose, S.J. Brebeuf High School ♦Rev. Thomas F. McQueeny, S.J. (Indianapolis) De Smet Jesuit High School (St. Louis) Rev. William Wood, S.J. Xavier High School Mr. Orlando R. Barone (New York City) Loyola-Sacred Heart (Missoula, Mt.) Rev. P. Douglas Keller, S.J. University of Detroit High ♦Rev. James E. O'Reilly, S.J. School St. Ignatius High School (Cleveland) Rev. Larion J. Elliot, S.J. Jesuit High School (Tampa) ♦Rev. Henry St. C. Lavin, S.J. Georgetown Preparatory School Rev. Joseph E. Bowen, S.J. (Rockville, Md.) St. Ignatius College Prep Rev. William E. Hayes, S.J. (Chicago) Gonzaga Preparatory School (Spokane) *Rev. Robert Mathewson, S.J. Bellarmine College Preparatory ♦Rev. Bernard J. Dooley, S.J. (San Jose) Gonzaga High School (Washington, D.C.) *Rev. Raymond J. Callahan, S.J. Boston College High School ♦Mr. Robert H. Ernst Jesuit High School *Rev. Joseph L. Shea, S.J. (Shreveport, La.) Cheverus High School (Portland, Me.) Rev. Paul W. Schott, S.J. Jesuit High School ♦Rev. Mark T. Schuler, S.J. (New Orleans) St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) Appendix A (continued) 237

♦Rev. Gerald T. Wade, S.J. Jesuit High School (Sacramento)

♦Rev. Michael Merriraan, S.J. Jesuit High School (Portland)

♦Rev. James F. Salmon, S.J. Loyola Blakefield

♦Rev. Lawrence Reuter, S.J. Loyola Academy (Wilmette, 111.)

♦Rev. John J. McDonald, S.J. McQuaid Jesuit High School (Rochester, N.Y.)

♦Rev. David M. Clarke, S.J. Regis Educational Corporation (Denver)

♦Rev. Thomas P. Murphy, S.J. Regis High School (New York)

♦Rev. Michael J. Smith, S.J. St. Joseph's Preparatory School (Philadelphia)

♦Rev. Michael Alchediak, S.J. Strake Jesuit College Prep (Houston)

♦Rev. John W. Kelly, S.J. Loyola School (New York)

♦Rev. E. J. Mattimoe, S.J. Walsh Jesuit High (Stow, Oh.)

♦Rev. Eugene J. O'Brien, S.J. Fordham Preparatory School (N.Y.)

Rev. Robert F. Weiss, S.J. St. Louis University High School 238

APPENDIX B

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION

Interview schedule for preliminary survey of Detroit Prov­ ince Schools, October 10-11, 1975)*

1. What type of board of trustees do you currently have?

2. What is the history of your board?

3. What is the scope of its authority?

4. What policy issues has it been responsible for?

5. What methods of selection do you use to the board? What communities do you wish to involve? Do you deliberately engage in cooptation?

6. How often do you have meetings?

7. What major issues are discussed and voted on at meetings?

8. What are the future trends that will affect your board?

9. What problems do you perceive with your board?

10. What method is used for the appointment or election of your president?

11. What reasons are there for the creation and continued existence of the board?

12. What guidance did you have in the formation of the board?

1 3. What interest groups operate on the board or upon the board?

14. What documents do you have available that would be valuable for a student of your board?

15. How would you evaluate your board?

1 6. Would you be helped by a study of boards of trustees in Jesuit secondary schools? 239 Aüpendlx B (continued)

List of those interviewed:

Fr. Robert McAuley, S.J,, President, St. John's High School

Fr. James O'Reilly, S.J., President, St. Ignatius High School

Joseph Palmer, Director, Walsh Jesuit High School

Michael Schouman, Development Director, University of Detroit High School ?>'0 QUESTIONNAIRE #I

Name of Institution^

Location______Post office State Zip Code

Name of Chief Executive

Name and title of person completing this report

Telephone number (with area code)

1. Under what title Is the school Incorporated?_

2. If the school Is Incorporated under another title than that of the high school Instltulon, please explain the relationship of the high school to the corporation.

3. Is the corporate board a policy-making body?......

4. Does the corporation have members or guarantors?......

5. If so, what are their titles In the Society and/or school?

6. Is there a policy-making board distinct from the corporate board (e.g., board of trustees, board of regents, board of directors)?

What Is the name of this board?

3. Does this board consist of? a. Jesuits from local community only ______b. Jesuits only c. laity and Jesuits _ _ _ _ _ d. laity only ______

9. What Is the authority of this policy-making board? a. advisory only ______b. legislative, subject to approval_ c. legislative and autonomous ______

10. Is there an advisory board to the President?.

11. If so, who makes up this board? a. laity only _ _ _ ^ _ _ b. Jesuits only ______c. laity and Jesuits

12. Has there been any attempt to change this advisory board into a legislative body

13. Are there any current plans to restructure current boards? 14. If so, please explain In the space provided below.

PLEASE ADD ANY OTHER INFORMATION TO HELP DESCRIBE YOUR CURRENT BOARD SITUATION PROTOTYPE QUESTIONNAIRE #2 241

Nam# oi lnatltutlon_

Location______Poat office State Zip Code

Name of Chl#f executive______

Name and title of person completing this report

Telephone number (with area coda) ______

DIRECTIONS 1 Please answer as many questions as possible. In some Instan­ ces you will not be able to answer a particular question because of the nature of your policy board. In this case, Insert the sign N.A. (for ■''.ot applicable") In the space provided.

It has been presumed In sending you this report that you have an operating policy board In your school. Although this board may not be called a "board of trustees," this phrase will be used consistently throughout the questionnaire, as It Is the name usually given to such policy boards. Please answer the questions In reference to the policy­ making, deliberative board rather than In reference to a board, that though It bears the name of "board of trustees" does not exercise a deliberative function. If there Is no board that exercises policy­ making authority, please return the questionnaire unanswered.

Since the wording of the questions may place restrictions on a full description of your board, please take advantage of the space at the bottom of the page or the other side of the questionnaire pages to add further comments.

QUESTIONS ON COMPOSITION

1. Maximum size allowed for board of trustees......

2. Minimum size requl.ad for board of trustees......

3. Number of Jesuit trustees allowed......

4. Number of Jesuit trustees required......

5. Number of schoo] faculty allowed to be trustees......

6. Number of school faculty required to be trustees......

7. Number of Jesuit faculty allowed to be trustees......

8. Number of Jesuit faculty required to be trustees...... 9. Number of alumni allowed to be trustees......

10. Number of alumni required to be trustees......

11. Number of students allowed to be trustees......

12. Number of students required to be trustees......

13. Number of women allowed to be trustees......

14. Number of women requlred-to be trustees......

13. Actual number of trustees......

16. Actual number of Catholic trustees......

17. Actual number of lay Catholic trustees......

18. Actual number of clerical and religious Catholic trustees. 2Ü2

19' Actual number of Jesuit trustees......

20. Actual number of non-Cathollc lay trustees......

2^. Actual number of non-Cathollc clerical trustees......

22. Actual number of faculty trustees......

23. Actual number of lay faculty trustees......

24. Actual number of clerical and religious faculty trustees......

25. Actual number of Jesuit faculty trustees......

26. Actual number of trustees selected by school community (i.e., chosen by a group consisting of at least faculty and students)......

27. Actual number of trustees selected by faculty as a whole...... _____

28. Actual number of trustees selected by non-Jesuit faculty alone _____

29. Actual number of trustees selected by Jesuit faculty alone .....

30. Actual number of trustees selected by students alone......

31. Actual numoer of trustees selected by Jesuit community alone..______

32. Actual numoer of trustees selected by board of trustees alone______

33. Actual number of trustees selected by the orlef executive alone

]4. Actual number of trustees selected by the rector alone...... _

35. Actual number of trustees selected by the provincial alone _

36. Actual number of trustees selected by the chairman of the board alone, If the chairman Is other than the Individuals mentioned In questions 33-35...... _

37. Actual number of trustees selected by the members of tne cor­ se ration...... '......

38. list the titles of any Jesuit required to 'oe trustees because of their position In the Society. \e.g., rerector, provincial).

39. list the titles of any school administrators required to be trus­ tees because of their position In the school, (e.g., president.

10. list titles of any school administrators required to be Jesuits.

11f Actual number of Jesuit trustees serving on board of another Jesuit educational Institution......

12. Number of lay trustees servi.ng on board of another Jesuit ouuca- tlonal Institution......

13. Actual number of trustees serving on board of any other educational Institution......

H . Actual number of Jesuit trustees employed by the school...... __

15. Actual number of non-Jeeult trustees employed by the school..._ 2 ^ 1 ?

46. Number non-Jesuit trustees educated In Jesuit-operated secon­ dary schools......

47. Nusher of ex-offlclo trustees......

48. Number of ex-offlclo trustees who are Jesuits......

49 . How many trustees are In the following ago ranges? a. under ]0 ______b. ]0-40 c. 40-60______d. 61-70 ______e. over 70 ■

50. How many trustees are In each of the following professions? (n.b., clerical trustees should be listed according to their major avocation, e.g., a Jesuit teacher under “education.") a. agriculture ______b. pastoral ______0 . education ______d. finance and Industry ______e. government and legal ______f. health professions ______g. Industry and business ______h. labor 1. news media .

51. How many trustees are estimated to have an annual Income within each of the following categories? (please Include clerical and religious trustees "paper" salaries) a. less than 515,000 ^ b. 15-25,000 ______c. 25-60,000 ______1. tore thantO.OCO ______.

52. How many trustees hold no earned degree?......

53. How many truste-s hold one earned degree? (e.g., associate's, bachelor's, first professional.)......

54. How many trustees hold two or more degrees?......

55. How many trustees are estimated to fall within each of the following classifications of approximate distance of residence? a. local b. not local but within 100 miles ______c. 100 to 500 miles ______d. 500 or more miles ______

a d d i t i o n a l COMMENTS ON 30AJÎD CO.MPOSITIONi -kli

QUESTIONS ON STRUCTURE

1. Is the board of trustées legally Independent from the Society of Jeaua?......

2. If not, what Is the nature of the dependency?

3- Is there a legal distinction between the high school corporation and the board of trustees?......

If there Is, explain the nature of the distinction?

5. Does the school corporation have members or guarantors who may may be distinct from the members of the board oftrustees? .....

6. If so, how many are there?......

. Must they be Jesuits?......

8. What Is their major functlon(s)?

9. How and by whom are they selected?

10. .Must this board chairman be a Jesuit?.

11. Must the board chairman be a layperson.

12. Are there any other stipulated characteristics which the chair­ man must possess?......

13. If so, what characteristics?

14. If any board officers must be Jesuits, list their titles on the board and In the Society? (e.g., vice-chairman - rector)

15. If any board officers must be school administrators, list their titles on the board and In the school ( e.g., secretary - develop­ ment director).

16. How many years constitute a term of office for a memoer of tne board?...... -

17. Is a system of overlapping terms used?......

18. Is a board member allowed to succeed himself?......

19. Is there a limit to the number of terms a board member may serve 7 20. Ara board meetings open to anyone other than board meabers and others necessary to conduct bumlness?......

21. If meetings are open Is attendance at then required?.

22. If attendance la restricted, which of the following are permitted to attend? a. administrators other than those required to attend ______b. faculty ______c. students ____ d. news media repre­ sentatives ______

23. Is tne chairman of the board chosen ex officio?.

24. Hy virtue of what office?......

25. Is the chairman of the board elected by the board?....

26. Is the chairman of the board chosen In some other way?.

27. If so, how?

28. hay the chairman of the board succeed himself If he la not chosen ex officio?......

29. If chairman Is ex officio, how Is the vice-chairman chosen? a. not applicable______b._ex officio ______c. elected by board ______d. selected by those present to serve as needed and on an ad hoc basis e. other _ _ _ _ _ (please specify)

JO. Does the ooard have an administrative office and/or administrative personnel outside the office of chief executive of the school? ___

31. If the school corporation has members or guarantors, please list their titles In the Society and/or school?

32. Is the chairman of the board a Jesuit?......

33- If 30, give his title Iq the Society and/or school?

34. Is the chairman of the board a layperson?

35. If so, give the name of the organization with which he Is affili­ ated and his title In It, ______

36. How many board officers, exclusive of the chairman, are Jesuits?,

37. List their board and Jesuit titles. If any?

38. How many board officers, exclusive of the chairman, are administrators of the school?......

39. List their titles on the board and In the school.

40. How many board members are now In their second terms?

41. How many board members are now In their third terras?. 246

^2. Hew a.my board aeabar» have served acre than three terms.

'*3- What Is the estimated average attendance at full board meetings? a. below 50^ ______b. 50-75% ______c. 75-90% ______d. above 909 ______

How often are full beard .leetlajs held each year? a., once ______b. twice o. quarterly d. monthly ______e. other ;?lease specify)

45. How long does the average meeting of the full board last for the consideration of business? a. two hours b. four hours______c. full day or equi­ valent ______d. two_days ______e. other (please specify)

46. Who préparas the agenda for the board meetings? a. chief executive b. chairman of the board______c. sec­ retary of the beard ______d. no agenda Is prepared ______f. other ______(please specify)

47. Is there an executive committee of the board?.

48. How often does It typically meet? a. once a month ______b. twice a month ______c. quarterly _ d. twice a y e a r ______a. at Irregular and highly variable Intervals only on matters of great urgency and on call ______1 . not applicable ______g. other i,please specify) ______

49 . Does the executive committee usually meat to conduct business for the board with the board meeting once or twice a year to approve what the committee has done?......

50. Does the board operate with standing committees?.

51. If there are standing committees, what are they? a. endowments ______b. annual giving ______c. facilities ___ d. curriculum ______e. personnel f. extra-currlculars g. planning ______h. development 1. public relations _ j. admissions ______k. budget and finance * 1. religious affairs ______a. other______(please specify)

52. Is standing committee membership limited to members of the board?

53" How and by whom are committee chairmen chosen? a. chairman of the board ______b. chief executive ______c. vote of the members of the board ______d. vote of members of committee______e.chairman of the committee ______f. other (please specify)

54. Are there any stipulations regarding Jesuit membership on board committees?......

55- If so, explain

56. Do standing committees or their chairmen usually Implement recom­ mendations which they make and which are approved by the board In contrast to delegating them to the chief executive?......

57. Do standing committees and their chairmen usually wait for full board approval before Initiating action on their recommendations?

58. Does the executive committee of the board usually substitute for for the board (i.e.. In giving approval for standing committee recommendations) In situations such as those above?......

ADDITIONAL COWŒNTS ON BOARD STRUCTURE 247

QUESTIONS ON FUNCTIONS AND POVER

1 la tha ioard of trustoaa legally raaponalhia to ao«« body othar than the atate?......

2. If 80. Identify the body.

]. State the limitations on board power proceeding from this responsibility.

a. Does the provincial bave veto power over any board decisions?.

5. Over which decisions?

6.-13. The following options apply to each of these questions.

a. board of trustees b. corporate board o. members of the corpora­ tion d. Jesuit community e . nouas consultons f. other (please specify)

6. '«hat group has final power to approve the amendment, alteration, or r s . 0^ bi.t] cOiaxxon c n a rte r or cy-xawa.'......

7. What group has final authority to approve changing the Institutional purpose?......

8. What group has the final authority to approve the sale, tranafar, mortgage, or disposition of all or a major part of the school's property?......

9. What group has final authority to approve the merger or consolidation of the school with another corporation?......

10. What group has final responsibility for school debts?......

11. What group has final power to approve cnanglng the name of the school?......

12. What group .has final power to approve t.he selection of the chief executive?......

13. W'nat group has ultimate legal responsibility and authority for all aspects of the school's operation?...... _____

lu. Must the chief executive be nominated by a Jesuit or Jesuit group?

15. If so, who? - J :

16. ih* selection of the chief executive be approvwl oy a jeauit or Jesuit group?......

17. If 30, who?.

1Ô. The following functions are frequently the domain of boards of trustees. Check those functions for which your board of trustees aasu.ses responsi­ bility. a. approval of development and capital improvement plans ..... 0. approval of fund-raising programs______0. approval of major investment decisions _ _ _ _ d. approval of borrowing large sums of money _____ e. approval of school budget _____ f. approval of recommendations for hiring and firing and tenure of administrators. _____ g. approval of recommendations for hiring and firing and tenure of faculty______h. holds title to school property _____ i. would be vested with school property in the event the school closed _____ j. approval of the addition or delation of courses from the school curriculum _____ X. approves student disciplinary policies _____ 1. approves program of extra- and co-curricular activities _____ m. determines salary schedule for school personnel _____ n. approves content of contracts for school personnel _____ 0 . approves school admissions policy _____ p. determines job descriptions for school personnel _____ q. approves school calendar _____ r. approves student testing programs ... s. sets tuition _____ t. approves use of school facilities by outside groups _____ u. approves policy for use of school facilities by outside groups__ V. periodically evaluates the performance of the chief executive___ M. determines the standards for and grants degrees _____ X. determines the ratio of faculty to students ____ y. responds to requests from sources external to the school for changes in school policy ----- z. determines policy for student religious activities program _____

PLEASE LIST AUX ADDITIOÎIAL MAJOR FUNCTIONS OF YOUR BOARD OF TRUSTEES! 249

DSTSimiNAHTS OF CHANG:

N.B. I T h e prosuoptlon of t h l a study is that the axistsncs of an activa policy board la a sign of a significant change In school govamanca away from more traditional Jesuit patterns. If there has been a sig­ nificant change in board composition, structure, and/or function during the last ten years, what were the major determinants of that change? Rank order ( most influence-#i, second most <<2. etc.) those determinants which, in your opinion, occasioned the change, in order of the influence you telleve they had. If any of the alternatives listed did not play a part in determining the change, do not rank them. If there were de­ terminants that are not listed, add, and, if possible, rank them in the space provided below the alternatives supplied.

1. Response to a provincial directive ......

2. To better respond to the spirit of the Preamble _ _ _ _

3. To acquire increased business and/or legal expertise for school management...... — — k. To increase access to financial resources......

5. To improve the image of the school in the community...... _ _ _

6. To provide increased representation for the various school publics / in school governance ......

7. To separate policy-making from administration......

8. To increase public accountability......

9. To provide a buffer for the administration ......

10. To impreve faculty and/or student morale......

11. To better respond to the spirit of Vatican II ...... 253

QUESTIONNAIRE #2

Na.ne of In s t i t u t i o n ^______City Name of Chief Executive ______Name and title of person completing this report_

Telephone number (with area code)

It has been presumed in sending you this report that there is an operating policy board at your school. Although ttiis board may not be called a "board of trustees," this phrase will be used consistently throughout the questionnaire, as it is the name usually given to such policy boards. Please answer the questions in reference to this po­ licy-making, deliberative board rather than in reference to a board which, although it bears the name of "board of trustees," does not exercise a deliberative function. If there is no board that exerci­ ses policy-making authority, please return the questionnaire unan­ swered .

DIRECTIONS: Please answer as many questions as possible. In some instances you will not be able to answer a particular question be­ cause of the nature of your policy board. In this case, insert the sign N.A. (for "not applicable") in the space provided. Since the wording of the questions may place restrictions on a full description of your board, please take advantage of the space at the bottom of the page or at the end of the booklet to add further comments.

RESPONSES SHOULD BE FRAMED IN RESPECT TO THE BOARD AS IT EXISTED AS OF JUN E 1, 1976! 251

QUESTIONS ON GOMPOSITtON

1. Maximum number allowed for board of trustees......

2. Minimum number required for board of trustees...... _

3. Number of Jesuit trustees allowed...... _

Ü-. required...... _

5 . Number of Jesuit faculty allowed to be trustees...... •••_

6. required to be trustees...... _

” . Number of school faculty allowed to be trustees...... _

8. required to be trustees...... _

9 . Number of alumni allowed to be trustees...... _

10. required to be trustees...... _

11. Number of students allowed to be trustees...... ••••_

12. required to be trustees...... _

13. Number of women allowed to be trustees...... _

14'. required to be trustees...... _

15. Actual number of trustees...... _

16. lay Catholic trustees ...... _

17. non-Jesuit clerical amd religious Catholic trustees.

18. Jesuit trustees...... _

19. non-Catholic lay trustees...... _

20. non-Catholic clerical trustees...... _

(Item 15 should be the sum of items 16-20)

21. Actual number of faculty trustees .....

22. lay faculty trustees......

23. clerical and religious facultytrustees.... 252

24. Jesuit faculty trustees.

25. Actual, number of trustees selected by entire school community (i.e., chosen by a group consisting of at least faculty and students)^......

26. selected by faculty as a whole...

27. selected by non-Jesuit faculty alone_

28. selected by Jesuit faculty alone.___

29. selected by students alone......

30. selected by Jesuit community alone_

31. selected by board of trustees alone_

32. selected by chief executive alone__

33" selected by the rector alone ..

34. selected by the provincial alone.__

35. selected by the chairman of the boeird alone if the chairman is other than the individuals mentioned in questions 32-34......

36. selected by the members of the.cor­ poration ..

37. Actual number of ex-officio trustees......

38. Actual number of ex-officio trustees who are Jesuits.

39. List the titles of any Jesuits required to be trustees because of their position in the Society (e.g., rector, provincial).

40. Lisx the titles of any school administrators required to be trustees because of their position in the school (e.g., presi­ dent, principal).

♦ In answering items 25-36, DO NOT include ex officio trustees! :53

^1. List titles of ajiy school administrators required to be Jesuits. -

42. If any school administrator-trustee is required to be a Jesuit, by whom is he selected to be an administrator? (State number of Jesuit administrator-trustees after the person or group selecting.) a. provincial ______b. president c. principal di board of trustees e. headmaster______f. rector _

43. Actual number of Jesuit trustees serving on board of another Jesuit educational institution (i.e., secondary school, college, etc. )......

44. Number of non-Jesuit trustees serving on board of another Jesuit educational institution......

45. Actual number of trustees serving on board of any non-Jesuit educational institution......

46. Actual number of Jesuit trustees employed by the school...._

47. Actual number of non-Jesuit trustees employed by the school_

48. Actual number of non-Jesuit trustees educated in Jesuit-ope­ rated secondary schools......

49. How many trustees are in the following age ranges? a. under 30______b. 30-40 ______c. 40-60______d. 61-70 ______e. over 70 ______.

5 0 . How many trustees are in each of the following professions? (N.B., Clerical trustees should be listed according to their major avocation, e.g., a Jesuit teacher under "education.") a. agriculture ______b. pastoral ______0. education _ d. finance ______e. government f. legal ______g. health professions ______h. industry i. labor j. r.e-'.'s media ______k. homemaker ______1. retired_____

51. How many trustees are estimated to have an annual income within each of the following categories? (Please include clerical and religious trustees' "paper" salaries.) a. less than $15,000 b. $15-25,000 ' c. $25-60,000______d. more than $60,000 ______.

52. How many trustees hold no earned degree?......

53. How many trustees hold one earned degree? (e.g., associate's, bachelor's, first professional)......

54. How many trustees hold two or more degrees?. 254

55. How many trustees are estimated to fall within each of the following classifications of approximate distance of residence? a. local ______b. not local but within 100 miles ______0. 100 to 500 miles ______d. 500 or more miles ______.

ADDHIONAL COMMENTS ON BOARD COMPOSITION; 255

QUESTIONS ON STRUCTURE

1. Is there a legal distinction between the high school corporate board* and the boaird of trustees?......

2. If there is, explain the nature of the distinction?

3* Is the board of trustees a legally constituted entity?.

1. If not, explain its status?

5. Does the school corporation have members or guarantors who may be distinct from the members of the board of trustees? ..

(If "no," omit items 6-10)

6. If so, how many are there?.

7. Must they be Jesuits?.....

3. Please list mheir titles in the Society and/or school, e.g., reotor, principal, etc.

9. By whom eire they selected? a. provincial ______b. rector______c. house consultors d. board of trustees e. president f. ex officio g. other (please specify)

10. What are the functions of these members or guarantors? adoption of long-range development plan adoption of capital and operating budgets determination to depart from approved budget by a sig­ nificant amount creation of substantial amendment of a contract, lease, or other major agreement approval of purchase, lease or other acquisition of assets in excess of corporate limit

♦Board specifically designated in charter and not normal policy board. 256

10. (oont.) approval of any sale, lease, exchange, gift, mortgage, option, or other disposition of any real property owned by corporation any release or cancellation by corporation of a claim against another party In excess of corporate limit approval of plan of construction Involving expense in excess of corporate limit approval of the making, retention, or disposition of an Investment approval of major borrowing except from Society approval of major loans exceeding the corpcrate limit approval of substantial change Inemployee fringebenefits or personnel policies application for government grants In excess of corporate limits adoption of long-range fund-raising plans selection of trustees other (please specify)

11. Must -.he board chairman be a Jesuit?...

12. Must the board chairman be a layperson.

13. Are there any other stipulated characteristics which the chairman must possess?......

14. If so, wham characmerismlcs? ......

15. Is the chairman of the board chosen ex officio?.

16. If so, by virtue of what office?......

17. If the chalrmam of the board is not ex officio, how Is he selected? a. by provincial b. by board Itself c. by chief executive officer d. by executive committee______e. other______(please specify)

13. May the chairman of the board suceed himself If he Is not chosen ex officio?......

19. If chairman Is ex officio, how Is the vice-chairman chosen? a. not applicable ______b. ex officio c.elected by board ______d. selected by those present to serve as needed and on an ad hoc basis______e.other ______(please specify)

20. Is the chairman of the board a Jesuit?. 257

21. If so, give his title in the Society and/or school?_

22. Is the chairman of the board a layperson?.

23" If so, vi"e the name of the organisation with which he is af­ filiated and his title in it..______

24. If any board officers must be Jesuits, list their titles on the board and in the Society? (e.g., vice-chairman = rector) Board Society

25. How many board officers, in addition to those above, actually are Jesuits......

26. List their board and Jesuit titles, if any?

27. If any board officers must be school administrators, list their titles on the board and in the school? (e.g., secretary = development degree) Board Society

28. How many board officers, in addition to those above, actually are c.dminlstrators of the school?......

29. List their titles on the board and in the school.

30. How many years constitute a term of office for a member of the boacd?......

31. Is a system of overlapping terms used?...... 253

32. Is a board member allowed to succeed himself?...... __

33. Is there a limit to the number of terms a board member may serve?...... _

34. How many board members are now in their second terms?...... _

35. How many board members are nov in their third terms?...... _

36. How many board members have served more than three terms?..^

37. Are board meetings open to anyone other than board members and others necessary to conduct business?...... (If "no," omit items 38-39)

38. If meetings are open, is attendance at them required? ...

39. If attendance is restricted, which of the following are per­ mitted to attend? a. administrators other than those required to attend ______b. faculty______0. students d. news media repre­ sentatives ______e. other (please specify)

40. What is the estimated average attendance at full board meetings? a. below = 0 % ______b. 30-75%______0. 75-90%______d. above 90% ______

41. How often are full board meetings held each year? a. once ______b. twice______0. quarterly_____ d. monthly ______e. other ______(please specify)

42. How lung does the average meeting of. the full board last for the consideration of business? a. two hours ______b. four hours______c. full day or equivalent ______d. two days ______e. other______(please specify)

43. Who prepares the agenda for the board meeting? a. chief executive ______b. chairman of the board ______c. secretary of the board d. no agenda is prepared______e. other______(please specify)

44. Is there anexecutive committee of the board?...... ______(If "no," omit, items 45-46)

45. Does the executive committee usually meet to conduct business for the board with the board meeting to approve what the com­ mittee has done? ^6. How often does this committee typically meet? a. once a month b. twice a month______c. quarterly d. twice a y e a r a. at irregulaa: and highly variable intervals only on matters of great urgency and on call f. not applicable ______g. other ______(please specify)

^7. Does the board operate with standing committees?...... (If "no," omit W - 55)

48. If there are standing committees, what are they? a. endowments ______b. annual giving ______c. facilities ___ d. curriculum______e. personnel f. extra-cuiriculars g. planning ______h. development i. public relations J. admissions ______k. budget and finance 1. religious affairs ______m. other______( please specify)

49. Is standing committee membership limited to members of the board?

50. How and by whom aire committee chairmen chosen? a. chairman of the board ______b. chief executive c. vote of the members of the board ____ d. vote of members of committee ______e. chairman of the committee ______f. other (please specify)

51. Are there any stipulations regarding Jesuit membership on standing committees?......

:2. If so, explain.

53- Do standing committees or their chairmen usually implement recom­ mendations which they make and which are approved by the boaird in contrast to delegating them to the chief executive? ......

54. Do standing committees and their chairmen usually wait for full board approval before initiating action on their recommendations?

55* Does the executive committee of the board usually substitute for the board (i.e., in giving approval for standing committee recommendations) in situations such as those above?......

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON 30AÜD STRUCTURE 260

QUESTIONS ON FUNCTIONS AND POWER

1. Is the board of trustees legally responsible to some body other than the state (i.e., by church or civil law)......

2. If so, identify the body.

3. State the limitations on board power proceeding from this responsi­ bility.

Does the provincial have veto power over any board decisions?_

5. Over which decisions?

6- The following options apply to each of these questions. a. board of trustees b. distinct corporate board c. members of the corporation d. Jesuit community e. house consultors f. provincial g. state h. other (please specify)

6. What group has final authority to approve the amendment, alteration, or repeal of tte corporation charter or by-laws?......

7. What group has final authority to approve changing the insti­ tutional purpose?......

■3. What iTOup has the final authority to approve the sale, transfer, mortgage, or disposition of all or a major part of the school's property?......

9. What -roup has final authority to approve the merger or consolidation of the school with another educational corporation?......

10. What group has final responsibility for school debts? ......

11. What group has final authority to approve changing the name of the school?...... _____

12. What group has final authority to approve the selection of the chief executive?......

13. What group has final authority to approve the dissolution of the corporation?......

14. What group determines the number or qualifications of the members of the corporation?......

15. What group has ultimate legal responsibility and authority for all aspects of the school's operation?...... 261

16. Vfhat group nominates the chief executive?.

17. Must the selection of the chief executive be approved by a Jesuit or Jesuit group?......

18. If so, by whom?.

19. The following functions are frequently the domain of boards of trustees. Check those functions for which your board of trustees assumes final responsibility. approval of development and capital Improvement plans approval of fund-raising programs approval of major Investment decisions approval of borrowing large sums of money approval of school budget approval of policy for hiring and firingand tenure of administrators approval of policy for hiring and firing and.tenure of faculty holds title to school property ould be vested with school property In the event the school closed approval of the addition or deletion of courses from the school curriculum approves student disciplinary policies approves program of extra and co-curricular activities determines salary schedule for school personnel approves school admissions policy determines job descriptions for school personnel approves school calendar approves student testing programs sets tuivlon approves use of school facilities by outside groups approves policy for use of school facilities by outside groups periodically evaluates the performance of the chief executive _ _ _ determines the standards for and grants degrees determines the ratio of faculty to students responds to requests from sources external to the school for changes in school policy determines policy for student religious activities program

Please list any additional major functions of your board of trustees!

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON BOARD FUNCTION AND POWER 262

DETERMINANTS OF CHANGE

N.3.: The presumption of this study is that the existence of an active policy board is a sign of a change from a situation where governance was exercised primarily by the rector and administrators. If there has been a significant change in board composition, structure, and/or function during the last ten years, what were the major determinants of that change? Rank order (Most influence = #1, second most = #2, etc.) those determinants which, in your opinion, occasioned the change, in jder of the influence you believe they had. If any of the alternatives listed did not play a part in determining the change, do not rank them. If there were determinants that are not listed, add, r.nd, if pos­ sible, rank them, in the space provided below the alternatives supplied.

1. Response to a Provincial directive......

2. To better respond to the spirit of the Preamble...... ______

3. To acquire increased business and/or legal expertise for school management...... _

4. To increase access to financial resources......

3 . To improve the image of the school in the community....___

6. To provide increased representation for the various school publics in school governance......

7 . To separate policy-making from administration..

3. To increase public accountability......

9. To provide a buffer for the administration....

10. To improve faculty and/or student morale....

11. To better respond to the spirit of Vatican II. 263

30ARD EVALUATION

A brief (5 to 10 minutes working time) instrument has been devised to evaluate board effectiveness. Employing a simple research design, the study will enquire of certain strategically placed individuals their perceptions concerning the effectiveness of their current boards in contrast to former governance patterns. The following individuals will be asked to fill out evaluation forms I board chairperson, chief executive, faculty organization chairperson, rector of the Jesuit community, president of the alumni association, provincial director of secondary education, president of student body (this latter only if the restructuring occurred during the past three years), Would you please include names and addresses of these people below. Thank you.

Hoard chairperson ______

address

Faculty organization chairperson______

address______

Rector of the community_

address______

President of the alumni association^

address______

President of the student body_

address______

If there is no faculty organization, please give the name of the senior department chairman (person with the longest service as a chairman). This next instrument will be sent out on receipt of this one. It will be the last!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS! 264

Directions: The following statements should be judged to see how closely they correspond to the situation In your school as It appears to you. uxpress your agreement or disagreement with these In accord with your perception of the situation as It existed as of June 1, 1976.

Hey- 3A- strongly agree A- agree no opinion 3- disagree 33- strongly disagree

i. coard mem'oers have a wider range of knowledge, skills, and experience. ____

ioard members exhibit greater objectivity In making decisions about the school.

Jreater separation of policy making from management and administration has been effected.

A climate of confusion and anxiety concenmlng Institutional objectives has developed.

.New board members have bro'jght greater financial support to the school,

6. Relations between the school and Its publics have generally Im­ proved.

7. The 3oolety has too little power In determining the future of the the school.

5. The composition and structure of the bead more accurately reflect the goals of the school,

9 . The advantages of changes in board composition, structure, and/or function outweigh the disadvantages of these changes.

10. 3oard members are more dedicated to the school.

11. The morale of the lay faculty members has Improved.

12. A.mblguity about the juridical and Institutional status of the scnool vis-a-vls Ohurch and state has been reduced.

13. Soird members have a broader outlook on secular society. lA.. The nature of the roles and responsibilities of the governing board and the iociety have been more clearly defined.

Ij. board members have a better understanding of Jesuit education.

16. Tensions have lessened between the areas of the private and pro­ fessional lives of religious administrators and faculty members.

1^. Too many restrictions have been placed upon the faculty members.

13. Unity among members of the Jesuit community has decreased. 265

I?. Student morale has increased.

20. The school has a weaker identification as a Jesuit institution

21. Accountability has improved, since the board has greater represen­ tation of the constituencies of the school.

22. 3oard members are better informed about the school.

23. The Society has too much financial responsibility for the school.

2b. The disadvantages of changes in board composition, structure, and/or functions outweigh the advantages.

25. Board members are more actively involved in the affairs ofthe school.

26. The school no longer has a uniquely identifiable purpose. ___

27. Overall financial support of the school has Increased. __

28. The quality of board decisions has increased. ___

29. Board members have a better professional understanding of the prob­ lems facing the school. --

30. The morale of religious faculty members has improved.

31. Xanpower demands on the iociety have been reduced.

32. The governing board has assumed too much control over the school.

33- The school has achieved greater fiscal stability.

3b. deligious influence has decreased In the school.

35' The school is more likely to continue in existence.

36. The advantages of changes in board composition, structure, and func­ tions are counterbalanced by the disadvantages of these changes.

37. The school more fully responds to Its committment to the Preamble to the Constitutions of the Jesuit Secondary education Association.

38. The community has a more favorable image of the school.

39. The administration Is freer to make difficult management decisions.

-*û. The school is operated more fully in accordance with the spirit of Vatican II.

-H. lood business policy is more influential in the operation of the school. 26c

Directions: Please indicate your agreenent or disagreement with the following state­ ments. Please express your perception of the situation at your school as of June 1, 1976 In comparison with the situation as it existed under the previous board (or governance pattern). It has been presumed from data gathered from your school that there has been a significant change in the composition (e.g., inclusion of laity), structure (e.g., board members appointed by president and not rector) or function (e.g., board has become more policy-making than advisory to the rector), of your policy-making board in the last ten years.

Key- SA- strongly agree A- agree D- disagree SD- strongly disagree X- no opinion

1. Board members have a wider range of knowledge, skills, and experience then members of the previous board. ______

2. Board members have a broader understanding of the workings of society chan members of the previous board.

3. Board members are better Informed about the school chan members of the previous board.______

4. Board members have a better understanding of the problems facing the school than members of the previous board.______

5. Board members have a better understanding of Jesuit education than members of the previous board. __

6. Board members are more actively involved In the affairs of the school than members of the previous board.______

7. Board members manifest greater objectivity in making decisions about the school chan members of the previous board. __

3. Board members have brought greater financial stability to the school than members of Che previous board. __

9. Board members are more dedicated to Che school than members of the previous board. __

10. The school is more likely to continue in existence because of the change In governance. _

11. The composition and structure of the board more accurately reflect the goals of the school than the composition and structure of the previous board. _

12. A climate of confusion and anxiety concerning Institutional objectives has developed because of the change in governance.

13. Religious Influence has decreased In the school because of the change in governance.

14. The school is operated more fully in accordance with the spirit of Vatican IX because of the change In governance.

15. The school more fully responds to the Preamble of the Constitutions of the Jesuit Education Association because of the change in governance. -67

16. The school no longer has a uniquely identifiable purpose because of the change in governance. 17. The school has a weaker identification as a Jesuit institution because of the change in governance. 18. The roles and responsibilities of the governing board and the government of the Society of Jesus have been more clearly defined because of the change in governance. 19. Ambiguity about the juridical status of the school in relation to the Society of Jesus has been reduced because of the change in governance. 20. Th.e Society of Jesus has too little power in determining the future of the school because of the change in governance. 21. The Society of Jesus has too much responsibility for the school because of the change in governance. 22. Manpower demands on the Society of Jesus have been reduced because of the change in governance.

23. Relations between the school and its publics have generally improved because of the change in governance.

24. The board better represents the constituencies of the school than before the change in governance.

25. The board has greater accountability than before the change in governance.

26. The local community served by the school has a more favorable image of the school because of the change of governance. 27. Too many restrictions have been placed on faculty members because of the change in governance.

28. Unity among members of the community has decreased because of the change in governance.

29. Tensions have lessened between one demands of the private and the demands of the professional lives of the Jesuit administrators and Jesuit faculty members because of the change in governance. 30. The morale of Jesuit faculty members has improved because of the change in governance. 31. Student morale has improved because of the change in governance.

32. The morale of the lay faculty members has improved because of the change of governance.

33. Good business policy is more influential in the operation of the school because of the change in governance.

34. Overall financial support of the school has increased because of the change of governance.

35. The school has achieved greater financial stability because of the change in governance.

36. Greater separation of policy-making from administration has been effected because of the change in governance. 37. The quality of board decisions has improved because of the change in governance. 38. The new governing board has assumed too much control over the school. 39. The advantages of changes in board composition, structure, and/or function outweigh the disadvantages.

Nam*: School: ______268 APPENDIX C

RESEARCH CORRESPONDENCE

May 1 5, 1976

Dear John,

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to help me with my dissertation. The major thrust of the project is a status study of policy boards in Jesuit secondary schools. The purpose of the questionnaires is to determine the present composition, structure, and function of boards of trustees in our schools. I am also interested in dis­ covering the reasons for the movement from the traditional patterns of rector and house consultors to our current situation. Finally, I plan a brief final section that evaluates current board effectiveness. This will be measured by a short evaluation instrument sent to members of the school community occupying key positions. This is the reason for the inclusion of the request for addresses at the end of the present questionnaire.

You will provide me considerable help by examining the instrument from the perspective of your experience as a high school president. What might motivate you to be willing to take the time to filï it out and return it? How could the questions be better worded to avoid ambig­ uity? Are there areas that I have overlooked or that are redundant and should be eliminated? Are there ways of improving the format to make it easier to understand and fill out? Could the directions be made clearer? I am enclosing a copy of the section of my dissertation pro­ posal concerning the purpose of the study that may make it clearer what I am attempting in the dissertation and which could provide you with a better idea of what to look for in critiquing this questionnaire.

I will be contacting you at the time we discussed— for an appointment on Friday. I hope this has reached you quickly enough so that the short lead time will not have caused you undue burdens.

Your brother in Christ,

/s/ Frank

Frank J. Cody S.J, June 131 1976 269

Deax Chief Executive,

Does that title sound strange to you? Perhaps no one has addressed you with that title in a letter before. Ten years ago, if I had been writing a letter to a group with the same functions as you have, I would have written "Dear Father Rector." But that sadutation would certainly be an inappropriate one for the laymen, laywomen, amd even many of the Jesuits among you who presently hold the chief executive responsibilities for Jesuit high schools. This title change is symbolic of many other modifications in the way Jesuit schools are governed today as opposed to the recent past.

I am engaged in a study of one aspect of the tremendous change that has occurred in the governance structure of our schools during the past few years. My interest is in policy-making boards in Jesuit secondary schools, and I am presently engaged in research in this area for a doctoral dissertation at The Ohio State University. The topic was suggested to me by Father Ed McDermott, who has permitted me to inclose his memorandum in my message to you. I hope that X would be able to use the data you supply to present you with a report that would not only be of interest as a testament to where we have been and where we are in school governance today but provide help to establish future directions for "boards of trustees." The major function of my report will be to provide an information base to aid you in planning effective local gover­ nance structures.

The questionnaire I am enclosing is not a short one. However, it has undergone extensive pre-testing by former high school pre­ sidents and should take you no more than 90 minutes to fill out. Many of you will be able to do itin a much shorter period of time because of the many questions you will be able to omit.

I appreciate how busy you are. But I would ask you to complete it as soon as possible. Perhaps, because these are the summer months, you may have some time at your disposal to spend the hour or so this will take. Please mail them back to me by June 28. If you can complete it prior to this date, please do! If you have any difficulties, feel free to call me collect at (6l4)-291- 4521.

Those of you who have boards limited to Jesuit community members may judge that the questionnaire does not apply to you. If these Jesuits are making policy decisions for the school, this is indeed a bona fide "board of trustees"; and I would ask that you fill out the applicable sections of the questionnaire. If your board is strictly advisory, you do not have a policy-making board for the purposes of this questionnaire

To make it easier for you to complete the questionnaire in a reason­ able amount of time, you need not follow the directions in the booklet that ask you to write N.A. (not applicable) in the spaces following those questions that do not apply to your boards. I will interpret your lack of response as an indication that the question does not apply. This could save considerable writing time for some of you.

Thank you very much for your consideration. Your response is critical to the completion of my dissertation. (I am surveying all schools, not sampling.) I hope the information garnered will be most rewarding to you.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Frank J . Cody, S.J. 2 n

JESUIT SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ■717 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW • SUITE «2 • WASHINGTON DC 200M • 202/M7.J5AE

June 15, 1976

To: The Presidents of the Jesuit high schools From: Edwin J. McDermott, S.J. Re: Research on Boards of Directors for Jesuit schools

After the last meeting of the Commission on Planning and Development (COPAD), I reviewed the responses of the presidents to some of my questions about continuing a study of Boards of Directors. Father Whelan's paper started us off in such a study, and he also suggested ways to pursue it. Many presidents felt the need for more research on Boards and for an exchange of information.

I am pleased to recommend your cooperation with Father Frank Cody, S.J. (Detroit Province), by filling out a questionnaire he has prepared on Jesuit high school Boards. He is researching some important details for us and has promised to report to us his findings. I am hoping chat from his study we will have some very specific material for our next meeting of COPAD.

Father Cody has been working with materials in my office concerning Boards of Directors and thereby has been able to shorten his survey instrument. He would greatly appreciate a quick response to the questions; so would X as I look to the November meeting of COPAD.

I wish to thank you for this cooperation. Blessings on you and your work during the summer. 271

July 1. 1976

Otar Chief Executive,

On June 1], I mailed you a request to answer an enclosed questionnaire on policy boards In Jesuit secondary schools. A mémorandum from Fr. Zd McDermott, S.J. was Included, urging your participation In the survey. As of today, I have not received a reply. I realize that there may be ■any reasons why this Is the case. The malls are slow, your time Is at a premium, many of you may have been on vacation or Involved In work outside the school. Worse, the packets may never have reached their Intended recipient.

I am enclosing with this reminder a second copy of the research Instrument In case you say have misplaced the original or It never reached you. I am also enclosing a copy of the original letter which contains some aids In expldltlng the filling out of the questionnaire. Because my research time Is limited, I would ask that you fill It out as soon as possible and return It to me .

The completed questionnaires X have received Indicate that there should be much useful data for our schools. The more complete the study, the better It should be. Again, if there are any problems, feel free to call me collect at 614-291-^521. Thank you very much for your attention to this request In the midst of your many Important duties.

Sincerely yours In Christ,

Frank J. Cody, S.J. 272 April 5, 1977

Dear Chief Executive,

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the work that you did in answering the original questionnaires that were sent out last summer. I must apologize for the delay in completing my study, but the demands of a new Job in Toledo has slowed down the process. I now expect to be completing the work this spring. As you may remember from my original letter, this questionnaire is the last part of my research. The work has proven interesting to me, and I hope the results will prove interesting to you.

One final request is necessary. In tabulating the results of the questionnaires that you filled out last summer, I discovered that I had omitted to systematically gather data on a rather important element, namely, when were the significant changes made in the governing boards of the schools. Would you be able to outline, very briefly, on the back of the current questionnaire, the major changes that have taken place in your school's governance and the dates (approximate if necessary) when these changes took place. It has been my working hypothesis that the policy board in your school is a recent development (approximately the last ten years) and that the original form was a cor­ porate board made up of rector and consultants which oper­ ated mainly on a pro forma basis. I realize now that this hypothesis may not be true in some cases. So I would appreciate a few extra minutes of your time in providing this brief descriptive chronology for me. A second reason why this is important is that some boards have gone through two or three major changes in the last ten years. Any description of these intermediate stages would help to make my dissertation more complete and more accurate.

Hope your work goes well I My best wishes for a happy Eastei season 1

Sincerely yours in Christ, /s/ Frank J. Cody, S.J. Frank J. Cody, S.J. Academic Assistant Principal

St. John's High School 5901 Airport Highway Toledo, Ohio 43615 273

SAINT JOHN’S HIGH SCHOOL 5901 AIRPORT HIGHWAY TOLEDO, OHIO 43615 Pue»»: 865J745

Academic Asslscanc Principal

April 6, 1977

Dear

I am completing a study of the policy boards in Jesuit secondary schools to fulfill my dissertation requirement for the doctorate at the Ohio State University and as an aid, to be employed by the Jesuit Secondary Education Association, for schools in planning their future school governance structures. The study is being undertaken with the encouragement of the J.S.E.A., of Fr. McDermott, S.J., its current president, and of its Committee on Research and Development who assisted in the composition of the instrument.

The enclosed questionnaire seeks the perceptions of various selected members of the school community on the relative advantages of your current board (the one operative on June 1, 1976) compared with the board that the school had prior to the current one. Your name has been scientifically selected for this purpose.

Some schools have gone through more than one governance change in the past ten years. Please use as a basis for comparison the governance system that existed when the policy board at ______consisted solely of the rector and his consultors. It is evident from information I have gathered earlier in the study that your current policy board has a different composition, structure, or function from the one that existed a few years ago.

You may be confused because there is more than one governing board functioning at your school. Compare the current policy-making board with the former rector- conaultant board. The topic of this study is policy boards and does not deal with any of the many advisory boards that some of our schools have, nor with strictly corporate boards set up merely to fulfill the requirements of corporate law.

You may Judge that you are not qualified to answer the questionnaire because you were not involved with the school at the time of the change. Please still answer the questionnaire as well as you cani If you are absolutely unable to do more than guess on a particular item, you may use the category "no opinion."

I hope ro complete the study this spring. So I would like your response as soon as possible. It should only take you 15 minutes to fill it out. Please return it at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for contributing to this project. A report of its findings will be sent to the school on the completion of the dissertation.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

i J u f y ■ ' / Frank J. Cody, S.J. Academic Assistant Principal St. John's High School SAINT XAVIER COLLEGE / 103,d and CENTRAI PARK AVENUE A Coeducational liberal Arts College CHICAGO, / IlLINOISbOOSS • Are* Code 312 779 3300

Office of Development August 25, 1976

Frank Cody, S.J. 42 E. 17ch Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201

Dear Frank,

Please forgive me for not responding sooner. I hope the delay did not cause you undue concern.

Thank you for sending me your proposal and revisions, and your cover letter and questionnaire as well. The modifications you have made In the questionnaire are Improvements and should facilitate Che data compilation.

I do not believe that questionnaires such as yours or mine can measure the effectiveness of boards. I think they can reveal something about conditions which might allow for effective board functioning. They can also point out areas of ambiguity that need attention.

"Perceptual evaluation" seems to be a "non-problem" In your questionnaire. Most of the Information you requested Is factual and should be found In existing docu­ ments. There probably are perceptual differences concerning the extent of authority In certain areas, but I would say the documents are usually lived through the president or principal so you might as well get his perceptions as those of anyone else.

I would expect that you would get good response since this Is a questionnaire going only to Jesuit Secondary schools. The fact that there probably will be some sort of community report should nudge the non-respondents Into action. Also, I would guess that even If the chief executive had a staff member do the background work, that he probably would review It before sending It back. I presume, too, that the enclosure of Father Ed McDermott's memorandum should help. For your sake, I hope he has clout!

One thing I can assure you Is that you will raise many questions In local secondary schools and cause a number of people to reflect on what has happened and Just how well planned It was. This may be the greatest service you will render.

As far as "what kind of questions can be easily answered by the population In question," that Is a problem, but If the chief executives don't have the Information or don’t know where to get It, X don't know who else (as a group) can supply It.

I hope these comments have been of some help. I look forward to reading your final report. In the meantime, I wish you perservance and God's blessing In your work.

Sincerely yours,

Sister Marie Fox 275

APPENDIX D

FREQUENCY TABLE FOR SOURCES OF ITEMS IN QUESTIONNAIRES

Note: The first questionnaire was conceived by the author. The second questionnaire was aided greatly by the instru­ ments of Moroni (1 9 6 8), Fox (1974), and Hasenstab (1971). The third questionnaire was heavily dependent on Fox (1974) Where a question was substantially borrowed from a source, credit will be shown in this table.

Questions on Composition Item Moroni Fox

Item Moroni Fox 36 37 X X 1 X 38 X 2 X 39 X X 3 X 4 0 X X 4 X 4 1 5 4 2 6 X 43 X 7 X 44 8 X 45 9 4 6 10 XX 47 X 11 X 48 X X 12 X 49 X 13 X 50 X 14 X 51 X 15 X X 52 X 16 X 53 X 17 X 54 X 18 X 55 X 19 X 20 X Questions on Structure 21 X X 22 X 1 X 28 X 2 24 X 3 X 25 4 26 X X 5 X 27 X 6 X 28 X 7 X 29 X X 8 X 30 X X 9 X 31 X X 10 32 11 X 33 X X 12 X 34 X X 13 X 35 i 4 X Appendix D (continued) 276

Item Moroni Fox Item Moroni Fox

X 6 X I: 7 X X 17 8 X IS 9 X X 19 10 X X 20 11 X 21 X 12 X 22 X 13 23 X 14 24 X 15 X X 25 16 X 26 X 17 X X 27 18 X 28 X 19 X 29 X 30 Determinants of Ch; 31 32 X Item Hasenstab 33 X X 34 1 X 35 X 2 36 X 3 X 37 X 4 X 38 X 5 39 X 6 40 X 7 X 41 X 8 X 42 X 9 43 X 10 44 X 11 X 45 X 46 X Relative Advantage 47 X 48 X Item Fox 49 50 X 1 X X 51 2 X 52 3 X X 53 4 X 54 X 5 X X 55 6 X 7 X Questions on Functions and 8 X rower 9 X 10 X X 1 11 X 2 X 12 X X 3 13 X 4 14 5 15 Appendix D (continued) 277

Item Fox

16 X 17 X 18 X 19 X 20 X 21 X 22 X 23 24 X 25 X 26 X 27 X 23 X 29 X 30 X 31 X 32 X

ii X 35 X 36 X 37 X 38 X 39 X 273

APPENDIX E

HISTORIES OF BOARD RESTRUCTURING

1. Bellarmine (Tacoma)

Until 19 May 1972 Rector and consultors were the govern­ ing board. May 1972, Rector and consultors = members of the corporation, owners, ultimate control through varied powers. Board of Directors have full authority and responsibility for setting policy, selecting adminis- trator(s), etc.

2. Bellarmine (San Jose)

Bellarmine went from rector/consultors set-up to an all-Jesuit (13 members including some not from Bellar­ mine) and 3 lay consultants - on Oct. 1, 1975.

3. Cheverus High School (Maine)

When I, as Rector-President, came here In I968 we were operating actually through my four consultors who were all members of the Jesuit faculty. Our Board of Trus­ tees, some of whom were also consultors, met infrequently and only for legal reasons. In 1972 we split the tasks of Rector and President and began to separate the school and community finances and jurisdiction. At this time we began to rewrite our by-laws and rebuilt our Board of Trustees, whose members today are all outside the school, except the President and Rector who are ex-officio mem­ bers. Our N.E. schools have had meetings with and help from Fr. Charles H. Whelan, S.J. of Fordham University. Though we are now operating with the "proposed" set of by-laws, the laws have not been approved by the Province, and we have not added laymen. Yet the wish to do so is very strong among the Trustees. I have included a set of the proposed by-laws. The sections in parentheses are the points of dispute, and the Society still doesn't know whether or not they want more input in the selec­ tion of the school's Administrative Officers by placing this point in the by-laws. Fr. Whelan seems to be against this insertion. At least we have made some great strides in governance, and our Board is working efficiently— now looking for a new President since I shall leave for an assignment at Boston College in mid­ summer. After nine years at Cheverus and twenty-three in administration 1 'have had it I" 279 Appendix E (continued)

4. De Smet (St. Louis)

February, 1971 to August, 1973. Preparatory work, de­ velopment of guidelines, drafts of documents to sepa­ rate ownership and management of De Smet Jesuit High School.

August, 1 9 7 3. Change in De Smet by-laws which formally established : A. Board o^ Governors - owns corporation, manages only affairs of Jesuit community, composed of Rector and Consultors. B. Board of Trustees - manages all affairs, property and funds of school, composed of President, Prin­ cipal and Treasurer (all three ex-officio), eight (8) additional Jesuits and four lay persons and two lay faculty (elected by Board) - a total of seventeen (17). August, 1973 to present. The only major change we have made is a technical one: the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees meets monthly and the full Board meets four times a year. Otherwise we have experienced good sound growth, even with serious problems.

5 . Fordham Preparatory School (Bronx, N.Y.)

Until 1969 Fordham Preparatory School was governed as a unit in Fordham University by a Board of Trustees which was all Jesuits, but consisted of more members than just the Rector and his consultors.

In 1969 Fordham University and The Jesuits of Fordham, Inc. became two separate corporations. Fordham Prep was thus separated from the Jesuit Community Corpora­ tion, because it was an educational unit of Fordham University.

On June 29, 1970 Fordham University and Fordham Prepar­ atory School separated and Fordham Prep was incorporated under the Education Law of New York State. It was granted its own Absolute Charter at this time as a Membership Corporation.

The original incorporators were seven Jesuits who also became the first Members of the Corporation. There is nothing that stipulates that these members must be Jes­ uits but it is commonly understood that they will remain so. Ex-officio Members are: the Vice-Provincial for Appendix E (continued)

Secondary Education of the New York Province, the Co­ ordinator of Secondary Schools of the New York Province, the Jesuit President of Fordham Prep. Members hold title to the Corporation and elect the Trustees (the Board of Trustees is the governing board of the corpo­ ration and sets policy for it).

The Members elect Trustees, 25 in number, to terms of three years (a second three-year term is permissible - but after that a year must elapse before re-election. Ex-officio Trustees are: the Vice-Provincial for Secondary Education of the New York Province, the Co­ ordinator of Secondary Schools of the New York Province, the Jesuit President of Fordham Prep and the Headmaster of the School (at present a layman). The parents, alum­ ni and faculty each elect one trustee.

For further details cf. copy of our By-Laws enclosed.

6. Jesuit (Portland)

President and a Rector appointed June 1974; Lay Prin­ cipal Jan. 1 9 7 6; first Board of Trustees Jan. 1976.

7. Jesuit High (Sacramento)’

School was opened in September I9 6 3. Jesuit almost closed in 1 9 7 3, because of lack of manpower and finances. In June, 1974— two corporations formed: (1) Jesuit High School, (2) Jesuit Community. At this time, the new Board of Trustees was formed of nine lay people and four Jesuits. Presently the Board numbers 13.

8. Jesuit (Shreveport)

1969 - Board assumed financial control of Jesuit H.S. 1 9 7 1 -7 2 - The Provincial announced the decision to close the school because of personnel shortages. The lay board, with three Jesuits on the board, then accepted the full responsibility for running Jesuit H.S,

9 . Loyola (Blakefield)

Change took place about 8 years ago with gradual increase of lay members so now there are 8 Jesuits and 7 lay - it is an external Board. Appendix E (continued)

10. Loyola (New York)

Present Board of Trustees structure was inaugurated in the beginning of the school year 1973-1974. The previous two years (1971-1973)» there was a Board of Governors who were chosen by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees were (I think) Jesuits - all or most - who sort of supervised the Board of Governors who were mostly lay. I am not clear about this arrangement since I was not here at the time and the documents are difficult to understand. The histori­ cal development, though, seems to have been:

1) All Jesuit Board of Trustees (Rector and four others) 2) A Board of Governors, mostly lay but under the direction of the Board of Trustees 3) A Board of Trustees with the majority lay and completely independent

11. Loyola Academy (Wilmette)

School went from all Jesuit Board run by President- Rector to a board with laymen involved along with Jesuits under a lay chairman of the Board. This occurred in the Spring of 1970.

12. McQuaid (Rochester, N.Y.)

1 9 5 4 -1 9 6 6 Rector and Consultors 1 9 6 6 -1 9 7 2 Rector and Advisory Board (Jesuit and Lay) 1 9 7 2- Legal Board of Trustees (Jesuit and Lay) - Rector-President: chief executive officer of corporation

1 3. Walsh (Stow)

From 1965-7 1, the school had no "board" as such. Our board of trustees began in 1971 and has been operating for six years. That has been our only change in gov­ ernance . 282

APPENDIX F

FUNCTIONS EXERCISED BY POLICY BOARDS BY INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS

School Number School A B c D E F G H I J K L M

1. Bellarmine fSan Jose) X X X XX X X X X X X X 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) X X X 3. Boston College X X X X X X X XX X X X X 4. Breboeuf (Indianapolis) X X XX X X X 5- Canisius (Buffalo) XX X X XX 6. Cheverus (Portland) X X X XX X X XX X X X 7. De Smet (St. Louis) X X X X X X X X 8. Fairfield XX X X X X X X X X X X X 9 . Fordham Prep(New York) X X X X X X 10. Georgetown Prep(Rockville, Md. ;I X X XX X X X X 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) X X 12. Gonzaga (Washington) X X X XX X X X X X X X 1 3. Jesuit (New Orleans) X X X X XX X 14. Jesuit (Portland) XX XXX 1 5. Jesuit (Sacramento) XX X XX X X X X X X X X 1 6. Loyola (Blakefield) XX X XX X X X X X X X X 1 7. Jesuit (Shreveport) X XX X X XX 1 8. Loyola (Missoula) XX XX X 1 9. Loyola (New York) XX X XX X X XX X X X X 2 0 . Loyola (Wilmette, 111.) XX X XX X X XX X X XX 2 1. Matteo Ricci (Seattle) X XX X X 2 2. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester ) X X X X X XXX X X X 2 3 . Regis (Denver) XX X X X X X X X XX X 24. Regis (New York) X X X X X X X X X XX X 2 5 . Rockhurst (Kansas City) X XX X X X X X 2 6. St. Ignatius (Chicago) X X X X X X XXX X X X X 2 7. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) X XX XX XX X 2 8. St. Joseph's (Phila.) X X X X X X XX X X 2 9. St. Louis University X X X X 3 0 . St. Xavier (Cincinnati) X X X XX 3 1. Strake Jesuit (Houston) XX X X X X X XX X X X 3 2 . Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) XX X X X X X X X Total 24 IB 19 3829 22 a 1618 3-38 23 5 Appendix F (continued)

School Number ______School______N 0 p g R s T u V w X Y z 1. Bellarmine (San Jose) XXX X X X X X 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) XX X X X XXX XX 3. Boston College X X XX X X X X 4. Breboeuf (Indianapolis) X XX 5. Canisius (Buffalo) X X X 6. Cheverus (Portland) X X XXX X X 7. De Smet (St. Louis) XXX X XX X XX 8. Fairfield XX X X X X 9. Fordham Prep (New York) X X X X XXX X XX X 10. Georgetown Prep XX X X X X 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) XX X X X XX 12. Gonzaga (Washington) XXX XXX XX XX 1 3. Jesuit (New Orleans) XXX XX X 14. Jesuit (Portland) XX X X 1 5. Jesuit (Sacramento) XX X X X X X XX X X 1 6. Loyola (Blakefield) XXXX X XX 1 7. Jesuit (Shreveport) X X X XXXX XX XX 1 8. Loyola (Missoula) XX X X X X XX 1 9. Loyola (New York) X X XX X X XX 20. Loyola (Wilmette, 111.) X X X X X X X X X 21. Matteo Ricci (Seattle) XXX XXX 22. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester)xX XXX X X X 2 3. Regis (Denver) X X X X X X 24. Regis (New York) X XXX X XX X X X XX X 2 5. Rockhurst (Kansas City) XXXX X X 2 6. St. Ignatius (Chicago) XXXX X X X XX XX 2 7. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) X X XX X XX XX 2 8. St. Joseph's (Phila.) XXXX X X X 2 9. St. Louis University XX XX X XX X X 3 0 . St. Xavier (Cincinnati) X X XX X 3 1. Strake Jesuit (Houston) XXX XX X X X X 3 2. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) XXXX X Total 26273124^171213119221911 Appendix F (continued) 284

School Number School______AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ Total

1. Bellarmine (San Jose) XX 22 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) x XX XX XXX X X 23 3. Boston College XXXX 25 4. Breboeuf (Indian­ apolis ) 10 5. Canisius (Buffalo) X XX 12 6. Cheverus (Portland) XXX 22 7. De Smet (St. Louis) X XXX XX 23 8. Fairfield XXX 22 9. Fordham Prep (N.Y.) x XXXXX 23 10. Georgetown Prep X 15 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) X X 11 12. Gonzaga (Washington) X XX 25 13. Jesuit (New Orleans) X X 15 14. Jesuit (Portland) XX 11 15. Jesuit (Sacramento) x XXX XX X 31 16. Loyola (Blakefield) XX X 33 17. Jesuit (Shreveport) x XX X X 23 1 8. Loyola (Missoula) XX X X 17 19. Loyola (New York) XX 23 20. Loyola (Wilmette, 11.) X X 24 21. Matteo Ricci (Seattle) X XX 14 22. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester) X X 20 23. Regis (Denver) X XX X 22 24. Regis (New York) X 26 25. Rockhurst (Kansas City) XXX X 11 2 6. St. Ignatius (Chicago) XX 26 27. St. Ignatius (Cleve.) X X XX XX 23 2 8. St. Joseph's (Phila.) X X X X 21 29. St. Louis University x XX XXX X X XX 23 30. St. Xavier (Cinn.) X X 12 31. Strake Jesuit (Houston) X X X X 35 32. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh. ) X 15 Total 5 5 29 "3 “8 24 12 “6 Î4 T 285 Appendix F (continued)

Ke^ A. Final authority to approve the amendment, alteration, or repeal of the corporation charter or by-laws. B. Final authority to approve changing the institutional purpose. C. Final authority to approve the sale, transfer, mortgage, or disposition of all or a major part of the school's property. D. Final authority to approve the merger or consolidation of the school with another educational corporation. E. Final responsibility for school debts. F. Final authority to approve changing the name of the school. G. Final authority to approve the selection of the chief executive. H. Final authority to approve the dissolution of the cor­ poration. I. Determines the number or qualifications of the members of the corporation. J. Has ultimate legal responsibility and authority for all aspects of the school's operation. K. Nominates the chief executive. L. Approval of development and capital improvement plans. M. Approval of fund-raising programs. N. Approval of major investment decisions. 0. Approval of borrowing large sums of money. P. Approval of school budget. Q. Approval of policy for hiring and firing and tenure of administrators. R. Approval of policy of hiring and firing and tenure of faculty. S. Holds title to school property. T. Would be vested with school property in the event the school closed. U. Approval of the addition or deletion of courses from the school curriculum. V. Approves student disciplinary policy. W. Approves progreun of extra-and co-curriculum. X. Determines salary schedule for school personnel. Y. Approves school admissions policy. Z. Determines job descriptions for school personnel. AA. Approves school calendar. BB. Approves student testing program. CC. Sets tuition. DD. Approves use of school facilities by outside groups. EE. Approves policy for use of school facilities by outside groups. FF. Periodically evaluates the performance of the chief executive. 286 Appendix F (continued)

Key

GG. Determines the standards for and grants degrees. HH. Determines the ratio of faculty to students. II. Responds to requests from sources external to the school for changes in school policy. JJ. Determines policy for student religious activities programs. 287

APPENDIX G

STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA FOR SUB-SCALES OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON RELATIVE BOARD ADVANTAGE

Q1 - Q9 .73731

QIO - Q12 .57776

QI3 - Q22 .78973

Q23 - Q26 .66679

Q27 - Q32 .77597

Q33 - Q35 .57009 Q36 - Q39 .72532

Ql - Q39 .92563 288

APPENDIX H

QUESTION-BY-QUESTION RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ON RELATIVE BOARD ADVANTAGE

1. Board members have a wider range of knowledge, skills, and experience than members of the previous board.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 45 52.3* Mean 1.671 Agree 31 36.0 Mode 1.000 No opinion 3.5 Median 1.444 Disagree 4 4.7 Variance 0.866 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing 1 1.2 Total 85 100.0#

2 . Board members have a broader understanding of the work­ ings of society than members of the previous board.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 28 32.6# Mean 2.000 Agree 33 44.2 Mode 2.000 No opinion 10 11.6 Median 1.868 Disagree 6 7 .0 Variance 0 .964 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing 2 2.3 Total 85 10 0 .0 #

3. Board members are better informed about the school than members of the nrevious board.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 11 12.8# Mean 2.871 Agree 28 32.6 Mode 4.000 No opinion 12 14.0 Median 2.792 Disagree 29 33.7 Variance 1.424 Strongly disagree 5 5.8 Missing 1 1.2 Total 88 100.0# Appendix H (continued) 289

4 . Board members have a better understanding of the prob­ lems facing the school than members of the previous board.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 24 27.9# Mean 2.179 Agree 37 43.0 Mode 2.000 No opinion 8 9.3 Median 1.936 Disagree 14 16.3 Variance I.I36 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing 2 Total 55 100.0#

5 . Board members have a bett'er understanding of Jesuit education than members of the previous board.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 8 9.3# Mean 3.141 Agree 25 29.1 Mode 4.000 No opinion 6 7.0 Median 3.59] Disagree 39 45.3 Variance 1.456 Strongly disagree 7 8.1 Missing 1 1.2 Total 55 100.0#

6 . Board members are more actively involved in the affairs of the school than members1 of the previous board •

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 8 9.3# Mean 2.940 Agree 30 34.9 Mode 4.000 No opinion 9 10.5 Median 2.944 Disagree 33 38.4 Variance 1.334 Strongly disagree 4 4.7 Missing 2 2 -3^ Total 55 100.0# Appendix H (continued) 290

7. Board members manifest greater objectivity in making decisions about the school than members of the pre­ vious board.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 27 31.4# Mean 1.952 Agree 4l 47.7 Mode 2.000 No opinion 9 10.5 Median 1.866 Disagree 7 8.1 Variance 0.769 Strongly disagree - - Missing 2 2 .3_ Total ÏÏ5 100.0#

8 . Board members have brought greater financial stability to the school than members; of the previous board •

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly Agree 35 40 .7# Mean 1.919 Agree 51 R6.0 Mode 1.000 No opinion 12 14.0 Median 1.753 Disagree 8 9.3 Variance 0.923 Strongly disagree - - Missing - - Total m 100.0#

9. Board members are more dedicated to the school than members of the■ previous board.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 5 5.8# Mean 3.282 Agree 12 14.0 Mode 4.000 No opinion 26 30.2 Median 3.481 Disagree 33 44.2 Variance 0.943 Strongly disagree 4 4.7 Missing 1 1.2 Total BE 100.0# Appendix H (continued) 291

10. The school is more likely to continue in existence because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frecuency Frequency

Strongly agree 27 31.4# Mean 2.129 Agree 36 41.9 Mode 2.000 No opinion 8 9.3 Median 1.931 Disagree 12 14.3 Variance 1.185 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing 1 1.2 Total 95 103.0#

1 1 . The composition and structure of the board more accur- ately reflect the goals of the school than the compc- sition and structure of the previous board.

Absolute Relative Freauency Frequency

Strongxy agree 14 16.3# Mean 2.373 Agree 39 45.3 Mode 2.000 No opinion 16 l3.6 Median 2.205 Disagree 13 15.1 Variance 0.969 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing TT? 3.5^ Total H d 100.0#

12 . A climate of confusion and anxiety concerning insti- tutional objectives has not developed because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 22 25.6# Mean 2.012 Agree 52 60.5 Mode 2.333 No opinion 3 3.5 Median 1.934 Disagree 7 8.1 Variance O.S35 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing - - Total 95 100.0# Appendix H (continued) ^98

13. Religious influence has not decreased in the school because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 26 30.2# Mean 1.884 Agree 49 57.0 Mode 2.000 No opinion 6 7.0 Median 1.847 Disagree 5 5.3 Variance 0.599 Strongly disagree Missing - - Total H6 100.0% l4 . The school is operated more fully in accordance with the spirit of Vatican II because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 9 10.5# Mean 2.655 Agree 34 39.5 Mode 2.000 No opinion 18 20.9 Median 2.471 Disagree 23 26.7 Variance 1.000 Strongly disagree - - Missing 2 2.3 Total 35 100.0$

15. The school more fully responds to the Preamble of the Constitutions of the Jesuit Education Associati on because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 4 4 .7$ Mean 2.706 Agree 36 41.9 Mode 2.000 No opinion 26 30.2 Median 2.596 Disagree 19 22.1 Variance 0.758 Strongly disagree -- Missing 1 1.2 Total B5 100.0$ Appendix H (continued) 293

16. The school still has a uniquely identifiable purpose because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 42 40.8# Mean 1.640 Agree 39 45.3 Mode 1.000 No opinion - - Median 1.526 Disagree 4 4.7 Variance 0.657 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing - - Total 100.0#

17 . The school does not have a weaker identification as a Jesuit institution because of the change in govern- ance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 36 41.9# Mean 1.767 Agree 41 47.7 Mode 2.000 No opinion 3 3.5 Median 1.671 Disagree 5 5.8 Variance 0.745 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing -- Total B 5 100.0# l8 . The roles and responsibilities of the governing board and the government of the Society of Jesus have been more clearly defined because of the change in govern- ance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 8 9.3# Mean 2.477 Agree 51 59.3 Mode 2.000 No opinion 8 Median 2.186 Disagree 16 18.6 Variance 1.029 Strongly disagree 3 3.5 Missing -- Total BE 100.0# Appendix H (continued) 294

1 9. Ambiguity about the Juridical status of the school in relation to the Society of Jesus has been reduced because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Freauency Frecuency

Strongly agree 2 2.3# Mean 2.919 Agree 38 44.2 Mode 2.000 No opinion 14 16.3 Median 2.679 Disagree 27 31.4 Variance 1.053 Strongly disagree 4 4.7 Missing 1 1.2 Total HE 100 . 6%

20 . The Society of Jesus doesi not have tiDO little DOwer in determining the future of' the school because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 25 29.1# Mean 1.847 Agree 52 60.5 Mode 2.000 No opinion 4 4.7 Median 1.837 Disagree 4 4.7 Variance 0.512 Strongly disagree - - Missing 1 1.2 Total H d 100.0#

21 . The Society of Jesus does not have too much responsi- bility for the school because of the change i n govern- ance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 20 23.3# Mean 1.918 Agree 55 64.0 Mode 2.000 No opinion 7 8.1 Median 1.939 Disagree 3 3.5 Variance 0.457 Strongly disagree - - Missing 1 1.2 Total HE 100.0# Appendix H (continued) 295

22 . Manpower demands on the Society of Jesus have been reduced because of the ichange in governance.

Absolute Relative Freauency Frequency

Strongly agree -- Mean 3.635 Agree 16 18.6# Mode 4.000 No opinion 11 12.8 Median 3.S37 Disagree 46 53.5 Variance 0.901 Strongly disagree 12 14.0 Missing 1 1.2 Total ÏÏ6 100.0#

23. Relations between the school and its publics have generally improved because of the change in govern­ ance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree ,? 10.5% Mean 2.376 Agree 46 53.5 Mode 2.000 No opinion 21 24.4 Median 2.228 Disagree 7 8.1 Variance 0.761 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing 1 1.2 Total H 6 100.0%

24. The board better represents the constituencies of the school than before the 1change in governance.

Absolute Relative Freauency Frequency

Strongly agree 20 23.3# Mean 2.083 Agree 47 54.7 Mode 2.000 No opinion 7 8.1 Median 1.968 Disagree 10 11.6 Variance 0.800 Strongly disagree - - Missing 2 2.3 Total 100.0% Appendix H (continued) 296

25. The board has greater accountability than before the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Freauency

Strongly agree 23 2 6 .1% Mean 2.082 Agree 44 51.2 Mode 2.000 No opinion 7 8.1 Median 1.943 Disagree 10 11.6 Variance 0.934 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing 1 1.2 Total "86 100.0%

26. The local community served by the school has a more favorable image of the school because of the change of governance

Absolute Relative Frecuency Frequency

Strongly agree 6 7 .0# Mean 2.682 Agree 31 36.0 Mode 3.000 No opinion 32 37.2 Median 2.672 Disagree 16 18.6 Variance 0.743 Strongly disagree -- Missing 1 1.2 Total 8 E 100.0#

27. Too many restrictions have not been placed on :faculty members because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 22 25.6# Mean 1.882 Agree 56 65.1 Mode 2.000 No opinion 4 4.7 Median 1.866 Disagree 1 1.2 Variance 0.557 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing 1 1.2 Total m 100.0# 297 Appendix H (continued)

2 8 . Unity among members of the community has not decreased because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 13 15.1$ Mean 2.214 Agree 52 60.5 Mode 2.000 No opinion 9 10.5 Median 2.058 Disagree 8 9.3 Variance 0.821 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing 2 2.3 Total BE 100.0#

29. Tensions have lessened between the demands of the pri vate and the demands of the orofessional lives of the Jesuit administrators and Jesuit faculty members be­ cause of the chance in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree -- Mean 3.059 Agree 19 22.1# Mode 3.000 No opinion 42 48.8 Median 3.069 Disagree 24 27.9 Variance 0.508 Strongly disagree - - Missing 1 1.2 Total BE 100.0#

30. The morale of Jesuit faculty members has improved because of the change in goyernance.

Absolute Relatiye Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 2 2.3# Mean 2.952 Agree 26 30.2 Mode 3.000 No opinion 31 36.0 Median 2.952 Disagree 24 27.9 Variance 0.745 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing 2 2.3 Total BE 100.0# 298 Appendix H (continued)

31. Student morale has improved because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 4 4.7# Mean 2.847 Agree 26 30.2 Mode 3.000 No opinion 36 41.9 Median 2.847 Disagree 17 19.8 Variance 0.774 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing 1 1.2 Total BE" 100 . 0#

32. The morale of the lay faculty members has improved because of the change of governance.

Absolute Relative Freauency Frequency

Scrongly agree 6 7. 0# Mean 2.581 Agree 42 48.8 Mode 2.000 No opinion 22 25.6 Median 2.381 Disagree 14 16.3 Variance 0.858 Strongly disagree 2 2.3 Missing - - Total B5 100 . 0#

33. Good business policy is more influential in the oper- ation of the school because of the change in govern­ ance .

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 27 31.4# Mean 1.788 Agree 52 60.5 Mode 2.000 No opinion 3 3.5 Median 1.798 Disagree 3 3.5 Variance 0.455 Strongly disagree -- Missing 1 1.2 Total 100. 0# Appendix H (continued) 299

34. Overall financial support of the school has increased because of the change of governance.

Absolute Relative Freauency Frequency

Strongly agree 14 16.3# Mean 2.341 Agree 41 47.7 Mode 2.000 No opinion 17 19.8 Median 2.195 Disagree 13 15.1 Variance 0.870 Strongly disagree - - Missing 1 1 .2 Total ÏÏ5 100.0#

35* The school has achieved greater financial stability because of the change in1 governance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 23 26.7# Mean 2.081 Agree 43 50.0 Mode 2.000 No opinion 11 12.8 Median 1.965 Disagree 8 9.3 Variance 0.876 Strongly disagree 1 1 .2 Missing - — Total BE 100.0#

36. Greater separation of policy-making from administra­ tion has been effected because of the change in gov- ernance.

Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency

Strongly agree 6 7.0# Mean 2.506 Agree 46 53.5 Mode 2.000 No opinion 15 17.4 Median 2.272 Disagree 15 17.4 Variance 0.838 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing 2 -5. Total 100.0# 300 Appendix H (continued)

37. The quality of board decisions has improved because of the change in governance.

Absolute Relative Freauency Frequency

Strongly agree 17 19.8* Mean 2.165 Agree 47 54.7 Mode 2.000 No opinion 12 14.0 Median 2.043 Disagree 8 9.3 Variance 0.806 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing 1 1.2 Total BE 100.0%

33. The new governing board has not assumed too much con- trol over the school.

Absolute Relative Freauency Freauency

Strongly agree 18 20.9* Mean 1.929 Agree 59 68.6 Mode 2.000 No opinion 4 4.7 Median 1.915 Disagree 4 4.7 Variance 0.447 Strongly disagree - - Missing 1 1.2 Total BE 100.0*

39. The advantages of changes in board composition, struc­ ture, and/or function outweigh the disadvantages.

Absolute Relative Freauency Freauency

Strongly agree 36 4 1 .9* Mean 1.686 Agree 45 52.3 Mode 2.000 No opinion 2 2.3 Median 1.656 Disagree 2 2.3 Variance 0.547 Strongly disagree 1 1.2 Missing -- Total BE 100.0* 301

APPENDIX I

MEAN SUMMATIVE SCORES ON QUESTIONNAIRE ON RELATIVE BOARD ADVANTAGE BY INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT

1 . Presidents

Absolute Relative Mean 2.097 Code Frequency Frequency Mode 2.231 Kurtosis 1.669 1.23 1 4.3^ Minimum 1.231 1.54 1 4.3 Std. Error 0.064 1.74 1 4.3 Std. Dev. 0.308 1.82 1 4.3 Skewness -1.168 1.87 1 4.3 Maximum 2.590 1.95 1 4.3 Median 2.205 1.95 1 4.3 Variance 0.095 2.00 1 4.3 Range 1.359 2.05 1 4.3 2.08 1 4.3 2.18 1 4.3 2.21 1 4.3 2.23 3 13.0 2.28 1 4.3 2.31 1 4.3 2.33 2 8.7 2.36 3 13.0 2.59 1 4.3^ Total 23 100.0#

2 . Chairmen of the Board

Absolute Relative Mean 2.227 Code Frequency Frequency Mode 2.205 Kurtosis -0.571 1.49 1 5.6# Minimum 1.437 1.51 1 5.6 Std. Error 0.102 1.56 1 5.6 Std. Dev. 0.434 1.79 1 5.6 Skewness -0.265 2.03 1 5.6 Maximum 2.949 2.10 1 5.6 Median 2.218 2.15 1 5.6 Variance 0.188 2.21 2 11.1 Range 1.462 2.23 1 5.6 2.31 1 5.6 2.36 1 5.6 2.49 1 5.6 2.54 1 5.6 2.64 1 5.6 2.67 1 5.6 2.85 1 5.6 2.95 1 5.6 Total Ï5 100.0# Appendix I (continued) 302

3. Faculty Chairpersons

Absolute Relative Mean 2.579 Code Frequency Frequency Mode 2.154 Kurtosis 0.500 1.56 1 5.9$ Minimum 1.564 2.05 1 5.9 Std. Error 0.125 2.08 1 5.9 Std. Dev. 0.517 2.15 2 11.8 Skewness 0.245 2.28 1 5.9 Maximum 3.718 2.51 2 11.8 Median 2.538 2.54 1 5.9 Variance 0.267 2.67 1 5.9 Range 2 .1 5 4 2.72 1 5.9 2.85 1 5.9 2.87 1 5.9 2.90 1 5.9 3.00 1 5.9 3.28 1 5.9 3.72 1 5.9 Total 17 100.0*

4 . Jesuit Superiors

Absolute Relative Mean 2.300 Code Frequency Frequency Mode 2.615 Kurtosis 0.213 1.50 1 6.3* Minimum 1.500 1.67 1 6.3 Std. Error 0.104 1.92 1 6.3 Std. Dev. 0.417 1.95 1 6.3 Skewness -0.119 2.13 2 12.5 Maximum 3.154 2.15 1 6.3 Median 2.397 2.38 1 6.3 Variance 0.173 2.41 1 6.3 Range 1.654 2.46 2 12.5 2.62 3 18.8 2.64 1 6.3 3.15 1 6.3 Total 15 100.5* Appendix I (continued) 303

5 . Alumni Presidents

Absolute Relative Mean 2 .4 2 6 Code Frequency Frequency Mode 1.923 Kurtosis ■0.862 1.92 1 12.5# Minimum 1.923 2.10 1 12.5 Std. Error 0.144 2.18 1 12.5 Std. Dev. 0.407 2.28 1 12.5 Skewness 0.654 2.33 1 12.5 Maximum 3.051 2.56 1 12.5 Median 2.308 2.97 1 12.5 Variance 0.165 3.05 1 1 2.5^ Range 1.128 Total “ 8 100.0#

6. Student Council Presidents

Absolute Relative Mean 3.045 Code Frequency Frequency Mode 2.308 Kurtosis 0.232 2.31 1 25.0# Minimum 2.308 2.59 1 25.0 Std. Error 0.402 3.15 1 25.0 Std. Dev. 0.803 4.13 1 25.0 Skewness 1.000 Total “ 4 100.0# Maximum 4 .1 2 8 Median 2.731 Variance 0.645 Range 1.821 304

APPENDIX J

MEAN SCORES OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ON RELATIVE BOARD ADVANTAGE BY SCHOOL

School Number of Number ______School______Mean Score Respondents

1. Bellarmine (San Jose) 2.426 5 2. Bellarmine (Tacoma) 1.795 3 3. Boston College 2.211 4 4. Breboeuf (Indianapolis) 5. Canisius (Buffalo) 1.956 3 6. Cheverus (Portland) 2.094 3 7. De Smet (St. Louis) 2.368 3 8. Fairfield 9 " - Fordham Prep (New York) 2.545 4 10. Georgetown Prep (RockvdJ^^ 2.4lO 3 11. Gonzaga (Spokane) 1.769 2 12. Gonzaga (Washington) 2.705 5 1 3. Jesuit (New Orleans) 2.615 1 14. Jesuit (Portland) 2.333 3 1 5. Jesuit (Sacramento) 2.479 3 1 6. Loyola (Blakefield) 2.407 4 1 7. Jesuit (Shreveport) 2.231 1 1 8. Loyola (Missoula) 2.474 2 1 9. Loyola (New York) 2.251 5 20. Loyola (Wilmette, 111.) 1.702 4 21. Matteo Ricci (Seattle) 22. McQuaid Jesuit (Rochester) 2.300 1 2 3. Regis (Denver) 2.231 1 24. Regis (New York) 1.991 3 2 5. Rockhurst (Kansas City) 2.436 5 2 6. St. Ignatius (Chicago) 2 7. St. Ignatius (Cleveland) 2.626 5 2 8. St. Joseph's (Philadelphia) 2 9. St. Louis University 3 0. St. Xavier (Cincinnati) 2.462 3 3 1. Strake Jesuit (Houston) 2.223 5 3 2. Walsh Jesuit (Stow, Oh.) 2.63I 5

Key: 1 - strongly agree 5 = strongly disagree 305

GLOSSARY

A. Religious Terminology

General; The chief authority in the Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order). Between General Congregations (usually held no more than once every ten years) he exercises supreme authority over the institutions and personnel of the Society. All Jesuits are bound to obey him in all matters because of their vow of obedience.

Provincial: The Society of Jesus is divided into numer­ ous regional sub-divisions. Within this region, the provincial, appointed by the General, exercises the same authority that the General exercises over the entire Society. However, the provincial is always bound to obey the General in case of conflict.

Rector: A Jesuit appointed either by the General or the Provincial to exercise authority over a smaller commu­ nity of Jesuits within a province. Although General, Provincial and Rector are all superiors, the term 'rector' is often used interchangeably with superior.' The individual Jesuit is bound to obey his own superior by his vow of obedience.

Consultors: Jesuits within a religious community ap­ pointed either by the provincial or the rector (usually both in concert) to advise the rector about matters of community policy. In religious communities resident at schools, where the school has not been incorporated separately from the community, the consultors may serve as the corporate board.

President: The chief executive officer of Jesuit secondary schools. Although the role is variously exercised at the various Jesuit secondary schools, the president generally delegates the internal opera­ tion of the school to a principal. His main immediate responsibilities are liaison to the board, community relations, and fund-raising. Some have likened the role of president to that of superintendent in a small public school district. Occasionally, the president is also the rector.

Principal: The chief academic officer in the school. He functions analagously to his public school counter­ part. 306

Religious : A man or woman who has made religious vows or promises, usually of poverty, chastity, and obedi­ ence and Is a member of an ecclesiastically approved religious community. Women religious are known as nuns or sisters: male religious may be brothers, priests, or, prior to ordination, scholastics.

Clergy: A term specific to priests or deacons. Men who have been ordained to the religious ministry in the Roman Catholic Church, or men or women ordained to religious ministry In non-Cathollc denominations.

Laity: Men and women who have neither pronounced religious vows nor been ordained to ecclesiastical office.

Diocese : The territory governed by the bishop and the Roman Catholics resident therein.

Diocesan: The adjective derived from diocese. It Is often used In contrast with religious. A diocesan school Is one that Is under the authority of the bishop and his representatives. A religious school Is under the authority of the superior of the relig­ ious order that Is responsible for Its operation. A religious school Is sometimes called a community school since It Is sponsored by a community of relig­ ious men or women.

Parish: The smallest ecclesiastical unit In the ordinary governance structure of the Roman Catholic Church. It consists of a territory established by the bishop and presided over by a pastor appointed by the bishop.

Parochial : Of or pertaining to a parish. A parochial school Is technically a school affiliated with a spe­ cific parish and to be differentiated from a diocesan or community school which draws from more than one parish.

Vatican II; An ecumenical council of the Roman Cath- ollc Church with membership of all Roman Catholic bishops and the Pope which met In Rome from 1963- 1966 to deliberate on pastoral and dogmatic matters effecting the Church and Its attitudes toward the world. 307

B. Types of Boards

Corporation: A body of persons granted a charter legally recognizing them as a separate entity having its own rignts, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Corporate Board: The organized body of persons charg­ ed by law with the overall management of the corpora­ tion. It has different names in different institutions

Policy Board: The organized body of persons within the corporation that make policy for the corporation and which have full ultimate responsibility for the institution and to whom the chief executive is respon­ sible. It is often identical with the corporate board.

Ownership Board: An organized body of persons who exercise certain corporate functions such as disposi­ tion of property, selection of trustees, and approval of major purchases while at the same time leaving major policy determination to the policy board. It is often referred to as the corporate board.

Board of trustees, board of regents: Frequently used synonyms for policy board.

Advisory Board : An organized group of persons whose purpose is to give advice to the administration of the institution.

C. Special Terminology

Deliberative; of or pertaining to making a decision.

Consultative: of or pertaining to giving advice. A deliberative body makes policy or legislation; a consultative body does not but gives advice.

School Community; An ill-defined group of persons consisting of people closely involved with and inter­ ested in a school, including administration, faculty, staff, parents, students, and alumni.

Alienation: A technical legal term referring to the transferral of property or title to it away from its owner. In Church law, it refers to the transferral of Church property or title to it away from the Church and is a prohibited act without specific ecclesial permission. Informally, divesting a sit­ uation or institution of Church control while it formally remains an ecclesial institution. LIST OF REFERENCES

Arrupe, P. Letter from Father General. Washington: Jes­ uit Secondary School Association, 1971.

Berg, T. G. Responsibilities of presidents and boards of trustees in United Methodist colleges: their importance and appropriateness as perceived by presidents and chair­ men of boards of trustees. (Doctoral dissertation. The American University, 197^). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975, 5J49Â1 (University Microfilms No. 75-469B).

Bowling, A. V. Two emerging and evolving administrative structures in Catholic education in the United States: diocesan and parish boards of education. (Doctoral dis­ sertation, Wayne State University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts, I969, 29, 3362A. (University Microfilms No. 69-06061).

Burns, G. P. The role of the trustees in American colleges and universities. (Doctoral dissertation. New York Uni­ versity, 1962). Dissertation Abstracts, I9 6 3, 24, 532. (University Microfilms No. 63-05342).

Davies, D. R. and Deneen, R. New patterns for Catholic education: the board movement in theory and practice. New London, Conn.: Croft Educational Services, 19b3.

Deneen, J. R. Status of system-wide school boards in Catholic dioceses in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 29, IO68A. (University Microfilms No. -68-13683). Farmerie, S. A. College governing boards: A study of characteristics and functions of trustees serving Penn- svlvania liberal arts colleges. (Doctoral disserta­ tion, The Pennsylvania State University, 1964). Dis­ sertation Abstracts, 1964, 26, 2007. (University Microfilms No. 64-10775)•

Fay, F. M. O.F.M. (Ed.). 1976 Catholic almanac. Hunt­ ington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1975.

308 309

Fox, D. J. The research process in education. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Wilson, 195$.

Fox, Sr. R.S.M. Changes in relationship between govern­ ing boards of Catholic colleges and universities and their sponsoring religious bodies. (Doctoral disserta­ tion, The Florida State University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 2718A. (University Microfilms No. 74-25, 451).

Greeley, A. M. The changing Catholic college. Chicago: Aldire Publishing Co., 19571

Greeley, A. M. From backwater to mainstream. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., I9 6 9.

Grennan, J. Freeing the Catholic college from juridical control by the church. Journal of Higher Education, 1969, 101-0 7.

Griffin, C. C. Functions of trustees of United Presbyter­ ian Colleges. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, I9 6 3). Dissertation Abstracts, 1963, 24, 1046. (University Microfilms No. 63-O6325).

Hartnett, R. The new college trustee: some predictions for the future. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 19&9'

Hasenstab, R. L. The determinants of board restructuring in Catholic higher education in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 9S6A. (University Microfilms No. 72-23,947).

Heilbron, Louis H. The college and university trustee : a view from the board room. San Francisco: Jessey Bass Publishers, 1973.

Henderson, A. The role of the governing body. In J. V. Baldridge (Ed.), Academic governance. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1971.

Heron, 0. The role of the trustee. Scranton, Pa.: Inter­ national 7Pex€ïï5ïïk~Co77^955'^

Jesuit Secondary Education Association. Constitutions and bylaws of the Jesuit Secondary Education Association. Washington: Jesuit Secondary Education Association, 1976. 310

Koob, C. A. Parochial schools: Roman Catholic. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research. New York, N.Y.: MacMillan & "Co., I9 6 9.

Langan, M. D. Catholic college and university boards of trustees in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, I96 8). Dis­ sertation Abstracts, I969, 3772A. (University Microfilms No. 69-08123).

Ledochowski, Rev. V. /An instruction for the American Assistency on administering universities, colleges and high schools and preparing teachers for them_J7 Acta Romana Societatis Jesu, 193%, 7, 930-38.

McCune, R. D. A study of the composition and design of school boards in selected private and parochial high schools in California. (Doctoral dissertation, Uni­ versity of Southern California, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 265lAl (University Microfilms No. 70-25047).

McGrath, J. J. Catholic institutions in the United States : canonical and civil law status. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963.

McGrath, E. and DuPont, G. E., S.S.E. The future govern­ ance of Catholic higher education in the United States. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1967.

Maida, A. Ownership, control, and sponsorship of Catholic institutions : a practical guide. Harrisburg: tenn- sylvania Catholic Conference, 1975.

Male, E. W . Policy boards of institutions of higher edu­ cation affiliated with Protestant churches and other non-Catholic religious bodies. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, I9 6 8). Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 22, 2932A. (University Microfilms No. 69-04783).

Martorana, S.V. College boards of trustees. Washington: The Center for Applied Research in Education Inc., 1963.

Miltenberger, L. J. Policy boards of private institutions of higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, I968). Dissertation Abstracts Internation­ al, 1970. 3245A. (University Microfilms No. 70-01916). 311 Moroni, M. A, Policy boards of Roman Catholic institutions of higher education in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts, I969, 29, 3389A. (University Microfilms No. 69-06759). Murphy, J. J. Policy boards of local public institutions of higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, I96&). Dissertation Abstracts, I96 9, 29, 2898A. (University Microfilms No. 69-04791)*

The National Catholic Educational Association, The National Association of Boards of Education, Voice of the com­ munity: the board movement in Catholic education. Washington: National Education Association, 1973.

National Conference of Catholic Bishops. To teach as Jesus did. Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1973. Parkman, F. Independent schools. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research. New York, N. Y.: Macmillan & Co., I9 6 9.

Parkman, F. and Springer, E. L. The independent school trustee handbook (3rd edition). Boston: National Association of Independent Schools, 1974.

Pfeffer, J. Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: the organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 1%^ 218-228.

Rauh, M. A. College and university trusteeship. Yellow Springs, Oh.: The Antioch Press, 1959*

Rauh, M. A. The trusteeship of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1$69.

Reavis, C. A. Boards of trustees of community colleges in North Carolina: their organization, functions, and activities. (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts, i960, 28, 3436A. (University Microfilms No. 68-02740).

Roman, M. J. The role of the laity on the boards of trus­ tees in Catholic higher education in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation. Catholic University of America, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts. I969, 2^^ 4l99A. (University Microfilms No. 69-9^88). 312

Sax, G. Empirical foundations of educational research» Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentlce-Hall, Inc., I9 6 8.

Scanlan, W. 0. The development of the American Catholic diocesan board of education, 1884-1966. (Doctoral dissertation. New York University, I967). Disserta­ tion Abstracts, 1968, 28^ 4463A. (University Mlcro- fllms No. 68-36184).

Seldler, J. On using Informants: a technique for col­ lecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error In organization analysis. American Sociological Review, 1974, 816-831.

Sellltz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., and Cook, M. Research methods In social relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Wilson, 19$9.

Sorenson, R. The art of board leadership. New York: Association Press, 1950'

Springer, E. L. Independent school administration. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, I9 6 9.

Staff of the Jesuit Conference, Project 1: the Jesuit apostolate of education In the United States : an overview. Washington: Jesuit Conference, 1974.

Staff of the Jesuit Conference. Project _1: the Jesuit apostolate of education In the United States : agree­ ments and decisions. Washington: Jesuit Conference, 1975. Whalen, Rev. C. M., S.J. The legal status of Jesuit high schools ; relationships with the provincial and the province corporation. Washington: Jesuit Secondary Education Association, 1975.

Zelgler, L. H, and Jennings, M. K. with Peak, G . W. Governing American schools : political Interaction In local school districts. North Scltuate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1974. REFERENCE NOTES

Note 1. Farrell, W.L. A statement on secondary education for the Detroit Province. Unpublished manu­ script, April 2, 1973. (Available from Pro­ vincial Office, 7333 W. Seven Mile Rd., Detroit, Ml. 48221.)

Note 2. Llbens, J.F. The wav of the colleges. Unpub­ lished manuscript, February 20, 1970. (Available from St. John's High School, 5931 Airport Highway, Toledo, Oh. 43615.)

Note 3. Jesuit Secondary Education Association. A sum­ mary of the legal status of the Jesuit high schools and communities. Unpublished manu­ script, 19767 (Available from 1717 Massa­ chusetts Avenue, N.W., Room 402, Washington, D.C. 20036.)

313