Community Power, School Board Structure, and the Role of the Chief School Administrator

Abstract

Concerning themselves with the effects of community power structures on educational decision making, the authors derive and test twelve directional hypotheses from their model containing four descriptions of community power, four descriptions of school boards, and four descriptions of the role of the superintendent.

Capacity and Control: Superintendent-School Board Relations in Locally Controlled Districts

“…The foundational theory of school board and superintendent relationship dynamics was developed by McCarty and Ramsey (1968, 1971). The research predates national educational reforms that centralized and professionalized aspects of educational governance, yet McCarty and Ramsey's (1968, 1971) seminal framework explains the intersection of community context and educational governance. McCarty and Ramsey (1968) conceptualized relationships between the power structures of communities, school boards, and superintendents (see Table 1).…”

“…The research predates national educational reforms that centralized and professionalized aspects of educational governance, yet McCarty and Ramsey's (1968, 1971) seminal framework explains the intersection of community context and educational governance. McCarty and Ramsey (1968) conceptualized relationships between the power structures of communities, school boards, and superintendents (see Table 1). McCarty and Ramsey (1968) tested their hypotheses using a stratified sample, correlating types of school board structures with types of superintendent roles.…”

Friendly Habitat, Endangered Species

“…) Following the presentation of this two-part narrative, additional inferential evidence is offered to support our argument linking the Mandarin initiative's failure primarily to gradual political climate change, rather than to the fiscal reasons offered by the board members who voted against its funding. In essence, our analysis highlights how the emergence of politically charged and polarized climate produced a setting on the board in which rationalistic policy arguments were used to provide cover for political motives and, to paraphrase McCarty and Ramsey (1968), "voting became more important than discussion" as a means of signifying a new board majority's power and authority.…”

“…Such factionalism is often marked by ideologically driven voting patterns (McCarty & Ramsey, 1968) and an emphasis on power maintenance over civic interest (Viteritti, 2005). Thus, at a time when thoughtful discussion and decision making are among the precision tools necessary for economically and equitably supporting a diverse range of civic educational values and interests, factionalized school board governance relies more on blunt instruments, for example, the use of rhetoric, slogans, or votes aimed at constricting the expression of divergent ideas and controlling normative understandings regarding legitimate knowledge, curriculum, or strategic goals.…”

“…As school boards around the country face formal accountability demands, declining fiscal resources, and increased complexity and uncertainty regarding the most appropriate ways to distribute those resources, their decisions are likely to become more controversial and the potential for community and school board factionalism would seem likely to increase. Such factionalism is often marked by ideologically driven voting patterns (McCarty & Ramsey, 1968) and an emphasis on power maintenance over civic interest (Viteritti, 2005). Thus, at a time when thoughtful discussion and decision making are among the precision tools necessary for economically and equitably supporting a diverse range of civic educational values and interests, factionalized school board governance relies more on blunt instruments, for example, the use of rhetoric, slogans, or votes aimed at constricting the expression of divergent ideas and controlling normative understandings regarding legitimate knowledge, curriculum, or strategic goals.…”