DOCOSEIT BENNE ED 088 167 80 El 005 899 AUTHOR Siegel, Peggy N. TITLE State Policy Making for the Public Schools of Massachusetts. INSTITUTION Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Educational Governance Project. SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DREW), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Feb 74 GRANT OEG-0-73-0499 NOTE 198p.; Related documents are EA 005 798-799, EA 005 833-834, EA 005 875-876, and EA 005 898 EDES PRICE MF-60.75 BC-$9.00 DESCRIPTORS Administrative Change; Anti Segregation Programs; Decision raking; Educational Finance; * Educational Policy; Elementary Schools; *Governance; Organizational Change; *Policy Formation; Public Schools; Racial Integration; Seccndary Schools; *State Departments of Education; *Statewide Planning; Teacher Certification IDENTIFIERS Elementary Secondary Education Act Title V; ESEA Title V; *Massachusetts ABSTRACT This study of Massachusetts focuses on policyaaking for the elementary and secondary schools at the State level. A systems framework is used to illustrate the impact of the govermental structure on and the economic, social and political context of the policies, roles, and relatioiships within the political process known as Massachusetts government. Issues discussed include school desegregation, reorganization of education at the State level, school kinance, and teacher certification. The study describes an educational system of governance influenced by a strained econcay and largely dependent on local funding; favored by political pluralism and ethnic heterogeneity; productive of highly politicized issues; and focused on the State legislature as the principal decisionsaker. (Author/WM) U$ O MINT Of 001/DON, EDUCAtIONVi NAtiONAL MOUNTS OR EDUCATION DOCUMENT sAS fifth EINND DuCED ESACILT As NECEIvED SIOM IN( Pt NSON O4 04GA0vitAtoOft ODGIN good& ,t POW ts Ot vat., OPohoOM %WED DO NW httESSAamv flEOME Aid Orr ofiAt NAIIONAL INStitutE Ot f OuCAtiON POST rm.. off POI /Cy STATE POLICY MAKING FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MASSACHUSETTS Peggy M. Siegel Prepared for The Educational Governance Project The Ohio State University 29 West Woodruff Avenue Columbus, Ohio, 43210 This report is one of twelve case studies growing out of the Educa- tional Governance Project. In addition, two major reports, a comparative analysis across states and an explication of alternative models of state governance of education, are in preparation.The Governance Project began in January, 1972 and is to be completed in August, 1974. The work was funded by the U. S. Office of Education under Title V (Section 505) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (OEG-0-73-0499).The Policy Board for the Project was composed of three chief state school officers: Martin W. Essex of Ohio, Jack P. Nix of Georgia, and Ewald B. Nyquist of New York, with the State of Ohio serving as fiscal agent. An Advisory Committee composed of eleven persons concerned with general and educa- tional governance also served the Project. Contract for the work was let to the College of Education, The Oh:o State University and Roald F. Campbell and Tim. L. Mazzoni, Jr. were the directors. February, 1974 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SECTION I- THE CONTEXT A. Economic Conditions 2 B. Demographic and Social Characteristics 5 C. The Political Milieu of Massachusetts 7 Footnotes 17 SECTION II - THE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE A. State Educational Stru4tures of Governance 21 B. Formal Elective Structures of Governance 28 Footnotes 38 SECTION III - THE PROCESS: SELECTED POLICY ISSUE AREAS A. School Desegregation 41 B. Reorganization of Education at the State Level 67 C. School Finance 86 D. Teacher Certification 109 E. Conclusions 122 Footnotes 124 SECTION IV - THE PROCESS: POLICY ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS A. The General Court 138 B. The Office of the Governor 147 C. The Educational Interest Groups 151 D. The State Education Agency 160 The Massachusetts Department of Education 160 The Commissioner of Education 166 The Board of Education 174 E. Conclusions 180 Footnotes 182 SECTION V - RFCURRING THEMES 189 Footnotes 194 APPENDIX 195 INTRODUCTION Since the United States Constitution does nomention education, this function was left to the states under the Tenth Amendment. It was, there- fore, predictable that each state would develop its own unique ways to execute responsibilities regarding education. This has certainly been the case in Massachusetts. When the "Indians" dumped the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773, they seemed to be signaling the methods with which educa- tional decisions would be made in the Bay State: Massachusetts' residents would have education (tea) their way or no way. Because they cherished both education and participatory democracy, "their way" usually meant retaining much of the control, as well as the burden of financing schools, at the local level. But educational decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they are greatly influenced by socioeconomic conditions, political realities, and governmental structures. Consequently, before considering the process through which Massachusetts determines policies for public elementary and secondary education, it is necessary to briefly examine recent developments in both the economic state of affairs and the political traditions impinging upon state government in the Commonwealth. The information provided in this study will draw from time to time on insights obtained in over seventy confidential, informal discussions and structured interviews in Massachusetts conducted by members of the Educa- tional Governance Project in November, 1972, and February and May, 1973 (see Appendix for a list of those positions interviewed).The focus of this study is public elementary and secondary education structures, pro- cesses, and policies at the state level. 2 SECTION I - THE CONTEXT FOR STATE EDUCATIONAL POLICY MAKING A. Economic Conditions Although forty-four of the fifty states are larger than Massachusetts, the Bay State ranked tenth in population in 1970, with 5.7 million inhabit- ants.1 And while Massachusetts is the eighth wealthiest state (as measured both by per capita personal income and by median family income in Table I), the Bay State has been beset by numerous economic problems in recent years. Table I Measurements of Wealth Massachusetts and the United States Per Capita Personal Median Family Below $15,000 or Income, 1968 Income Poverty Level More Massachusetts $3,835 $10,835 6.2% 25.2% U. S. average 3,421 9,590 10.7% 20.6% SOURCES: National Education Association, Ranking of the States, 1970; 1970 Census of Population, U. S. Department of Commerce, United States, Summary. General Social and Economic Characteristics. Traditionally a center for the fishing industry, trade, textile mills, shoe and leather products, and manufacturing Massachusetts began to decline in economic prominence during the twentieth century. The Depression and World War II delayed any serious redress of such economic problems, but the Commonwealth's outstanding university brain trust offered a readymade industrial backbone foliowing the war. During the late 1940s and 1950s, hundreds of electronics and highly technical research and development companies centered around Cambridge, location of Harvard and MIT. In a few years, Route 128 (an expressway encircling outer Boston) had become a "fore- most world center of space-missiles-electronics technology."2 Bolstered by military contracts and the moon exploration program, Eastern Massachusetts 3 began to experience the greatest economic boom in its history. Boston, itself, accounted for two-thirds of the state's economy. Unfortunately, this era of massive growth was to be shortlived. By 1969, Massachusetts was again in the throes of a recession, with a sharp decline in the demand for aerospace research and equipment, Department of Defense contracts, electronics, and engineers. the Bay State was partic- ularly vulnerable, as Tables 2 and 3 indicate, because of its heavy reliance on the white collar professions, which comprise more than half of the work force, and on manufacturing. Unemployment rose to 8 per cent, a twenty year high and 1.5 per cent above the national average.3 While the Bay State's unemployment rate has declined since 1969, it remains considerably above the national average. In March, 1973, the Commonwealth had an unemployment rate of 6.7 per cent--one-third higher than the nation's 5 4 per cent. Table 2 Per Cent of Employed Persons by Broad Occupation Group, Massachusetts, and the United States: 1970 White Collar Blue Collar Farm Service Workers Workers Workers Workers Massachusetts 52.7 34.2 0.5 12.5 U.S. Average 48.2 35.9 3.1 12.8 SOURCE: 1970 Census of Population, U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Summary, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Table 3 Per Cent of Employed Persons by Selected Industries, Massachusetts and the United States: 1970 Agriculture, Wholesale and Forestry, Retail Public and Fisheries Manufacturing Trade Administration Massachusetts 0.9 29.2 20.1 5.1 U.S. Average 3.7 25.9 20.1 5,5 SOURCE: 1970 Census of Population, U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Summary, General Soc!al and Economic Characteristics. 4 Because Massachusetts is the oldest industrial state in the nation, its companies are particularly vulnerable, due to dated equipment, the high cost of capital, inflation, and conservative management.5 Massachusetts has few natural resources, and consequently, high electric and fuel oil costs. It is also located in an expensive section of the nation's transportation network. Decisions on tariffs and defense cutbacks are made at the