'. I= m 4314 l I I . 3’3 ‘ui’filg; 44 3’ I ' " ”H?* y f C . 3’ . ‘7 I LI g?! l ’ '13354' 7 L I? ' :IIE". ‘L‘ C ‘2 J 34:34,."3‘ 7;} . :4 ' 4 I 443.33 IJII=1§3§II 4- 1).. “WHY: ) .: ! ' ,_- t u m—wu‘ - .‘I a..- my. “ {tum—.Ffl' 4.4 W ‘ «a ‘ . '0 ‘ 4! I :0” n, .4 4- . . .,. .1 ‘. ° . d': 544 l n‘ ' 3 31 3.23331 31:34 .4344: 34' ’3' I3 3334444344 I D' 1 g, u. 9'35 'I " ‘ .‘ 1:" 4 44444414 434. 3414' .4 3'4 . 44 4,444 4... 4,4443. 4.44;. , 3 3'11”“ 4-7.3; 44.41: ',3 *" 3‘3 44' 4 ~. »—~v *_:- ~.__. . a... 5..”3 n..‘.‘ 4'3 43.33%, 434 333. . 4 4:4' :4 14: 4: . .33 .4, -'33 4,3 -3.'.' '41 ,,.. :4, ' 3 ,,'.,,,,I1-,,," 11,—, 31:, 3:425 4. ,3, :1 ,3; ‘1. 'ft' .:3:' 3;: . . 3I'444443‘4444.4444434444443' " ' 4' '4’ 44244444443 44 "'4‘ . 3434444" 44 3’74»: - 44 .3 '3 ' 3'3"3J3"'""3‘3'3'"I""'""34 333': '4 ,,"'I,‘ 474334333" 4434'." 32' 44.‘ 'ZI"? 3'4" "'3" 33" '3'“ "' parief "31-" ',333;I."3,3,'313313,,4I 3443' "'3'3"3343‘4I3I4 '3'33'13‘3' "5'" "3:; ,44 43 '3 "4"" '3'U’3' 33,3333'14... 'E.I ’Vf’"'3§‘ I "’4‘ . 4 : 4:4 ...I . 4:,13 3.3-“ $33!...'§‘;", 41;, 3 I 3 I: 3 33333343343433 444 I434: ”43.1.33 '3 44'1"“ -" i 3" 44,343 ,J II 3333' 1:133'13‘,,3‘35"3;43,3'3”,“33.3 f'1'l:4333I",,’3:" ,3 ’31,, ”4'3: ,IJ'J', 33,3!31‘1‘ '1?’:;i{:3]'l.'i ' 4 £3.23: '3'333‘4’313‘; :I I 4443.41443444514'4, "4‘4,’I'4'.'I4,’3I443,I44234444 . _4 3.24444 ",3" 4.‘. 24'" ..ITI?234:444;.;I‘42I;§4‘:‘43 " ' 33333333333133 14"33’I'3'3 '3'4""3‘443'3"7‘4.3'4'2'532'53 33’ . “‘34" .33". 3' 3'3 4 3"?“ iii ' "33343334333333?-3593332: 4-Iw"w&344‘H4~444444443-I”4 ' 3 I'w' 44%? 'vwww 3 333WW'”3”3M“3“' 333'W4m3 4 ,4. 4 HI3 ’ HU'“'“" '31“‘”L”3mF ecu mew mommgpcmcma cw mowumwpmum ache mo.w.a.<. Ammo.v Ammp.v Ammm.v Avmp.v Aww¢.v A—pp.v Amoo.v .xuap mo mmzmumn aaogm upmm.1 mam—.1 opmo. Nme.1 mp0. mpm.1 «Pmm¢.1 mwgp :w new: H was: pwm H pocpcou mucosa Amup.v AFoo.v Ammo.v A~_o.v Ampm.v Amwe.v Aem.v mumeempew Lao mewpuepoea ~_.- temem.- oeom.- emoem.- eumo.- mmmo. Nemp.- to eueeee epppc_ e>ee upmmxs oxmp mpqoma .n Apoe.v Ake_.v Ammo.v Awo.v Amo.v Aomm.v Ammo.v m_eweee=_tee An emcee mmeo.- me~_.- mmom.- momN.- em~m~.- memo.- «Ammm.- -Lmume meeeaee “an: .e mcmsuo Fawcozoa Am-.V Aemm.v Amom.v Amm_.v AAmF.V Aemm.v “NAN.V spwpmae as :6 meeeaee «mop. mmop.u Pmo_.1 w~om.- mmwp. ompp.u nmpp. scam; wFOmzs mcwxmz .n ANwN.V Apeo.v Ame.v Apeo.v A_Ao.v Amoo.v aflooo.v op emememw_ wpop. wNMFm. Nowo. mmkm. comm. «came. «ammo. mew mpcwoqzmw> x: .m ft n S nt n ..T n S P u n S r. S r Fogucou pmchucH O n O n 0.C O O O 9.9. S 0.. e n e e .10 .gl..l..l :1 cw roulew ow Ym t1 tit et r0 etnO 10 +.p. C S C.T U 0.8 Unr hununub. +CD. .TV a...- anli d9 0 t9 D. .31 fC fOO 68 Sf 00f. en n O S e SAL S .1 r e O r O C w CV .10 .1. 3 W9 R 9 r0 .t n +L +» on 0 e D. e n.I a a n S D.$. I S S Km 0 uu_Pw:oo use cmzog cu wcwpmpmm mmpnmwgm> .mcowumpmccou Pocpcou to mace; .op Oanh 120 greater respondents perceived their own power to be, the less likely they were to believe that what happened in the group was determined by influentials. For "resources of power," a correlation coefficient of -.2975 and significance level of .05 suggests that the higher re- spondents rated their power resources, the less likely they were to believe that influentials determined what happened in the group. The item "people like myself have little chance of protecting our own interest" was significantly correlated in the expected nega- tive direction with (a) knowledge of desegregation, with a correlation coefficient of -.3709, significant at a level of .017; and (b) satis- faction with decisions made by the group, with a -.5797 correlation coefficient and a high level of significance, .001. The more satis- fied respondents were with decisions made by the DAC and the more they knew about desegregation, the less likely they were to feel that "people like them" had little chance Of protecting their interests. Chance Item The item "I get what I want because Of luck" correlated strongly in the expected negative direction with only one item, "per- ceptions of one's own power" (correlation coefficient of -.4361, sig- nificance level of .009). This result indicates that the higher re- spondents viewed their own power, the less likely they were to attri- bute their success in getting what they wanted in the group to chance. 121 Presentation of Clarifying Data, Discussion of Hypotheses andFConCTUSions In this section, the results of hypothesis testing are further analyzed and discussed through an examination of the supporting infor- mation obtained from interview questions. Hypotheses are grouped into four different sections. The first section includes hypotheses 1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, and 7.2 which all relate to respondents' perceptions of power and power resources. The second section examines hypotheses 9 and 10, which relate to inten- sity Of involvement. The third section deals with hypotheses 2 and 8 which pertain to perceptions of conflict and its resolution. The fourth section analyzes hypotheses 3.1, 3.2, and 4, relating to satis- faction with issues and decisions made by the committee. Perceptions of Power and Power Resources Hypotheses 1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, and 7.2 were all significant at the .05 level, while hypothesis 5.1 was not. There was relatively strong support for the hypothesized relationship between perception Of one's power resources and perception of one's own power (H6.l)' This relationship is not surprising, given Blalock's definition of power resources as "properties . . . which can provide power potential." In other words, the particular resources or properties are the parts that make up the potential power "whole." It would seem logical that respondents asked to rate their influence (power) in decision-making would rate the components of this influence (speaking ability, contacts with influentials, etc.) at a similar level. The correlation coeffi- cient of .6418 supports this assumption. Following is a discussion of 122 the variables "perception of one's own power" and "perceptions of one's power resources." Perceptions of one's own power. Respondents gave a variety of reasons as to why they rated their power in decision-making as they did. The most frequent reasons for a particular rating were respondents' perceptions of their roles in the group and of consensus decision- making within the group. Respondents made reference to their roles throughout the inter- views. Roles were explained in terms of positions held in the school district (36% mentioned these positions as reasons for how they got involved in the DAC in the first place) and in terms of functions respondents chose to perform on the committee. The following quotes give an indication of respondents' role perceptions and their relation- ships to power ratings. In parentheses after each quote is the rating that respondent chose to indicate on his or her power in the group. I saw myself as the staff resource person on the committee. (2) A fair amount of influence would be the administrators and natural leaders in the group. The only person who could say a "great deal" would be the superintendent. He is the leader, the one who made sure all were heard, and who planned meet- ings. (3) - (As principal) I was influential in that I was informational . . . what is important in this committee is that parents do a great deal of decision-making and that administrators give information. (4) I was vice-chair . ... I had a lot of influence because I'm very verbal. (no rat1ng) My influence (as chair) was in facilitating the processes of the committee . . . for example, the process of discussion. (4) I was spokesman back to the schools. (2) 123 Some respondents made a conscious decision not to exercise much influence because of their roles. Because of my background in group process work, if I had made a decision to be more influential, I could have been . . . but that wasn't a role I thought I should be playing. (3) As school board president, it was important for me to be there to clarify things; I didn't want to influence the group . . . I wanted to clarify, to help them understand. (2) I didn't see my role as there to influence--my role (as school board president) was observer-participant more than active par- ticipant. (no rating) My role as (school district) staff person . . . was not to have influence . . . in some cases I was working more on a one-to-one basis. (no rating) It was give and take, not whether I influenced them (others on the committee) into believing my way. (no rating) There were some respondents who indicated they would have made more of an effort to influence decision-making in the group if it had been necessary. But, in the absence of a compelling reason for strong influence, they were content with the amount of power they had. I'll speak out only when it hits home--otherwise, in a crowd, éallke(§? sit back and watch. (In the DAC) I'm still sitting In a group, I would say fair . . . (although) there are some things I'll wave a flag high for . . . . (3) . a great deal (because) I mostly agreed with the majority . . . but if there was an issue I didn't agree with, I let them know. (4) I had as much as I needed . . . I wasn't directly involved (child was not in one of the affected schools) so I didn't try to have more influence. My contribution was to listen, to try not to be negative. (2) Respondents frequently mentioned that everyone should have an equal chance to influence decision-making and that consensus was 124 desirable. For example, respondents described their power in decision- making as: . the same as the others. . equal to anyone else's. Everyone active had a fair amount of influence . . . we all re- spected one another. In sum, roles both enhanced and inhibited power. The guideline for how much influence in group decision-making was "enough" for a par- ticular respondent. appeared to be the amount needed to help the group arrive at a consensus and to allow each member to be heard. Any indi- vidual desires for power had to complement the larger group need for consensus and communication. Perceptions of one's power resources. Table 5 (p. 104) listed the percentages of respondents in each of the four rating categories for resources of power brought to the group. Table 11 lists resources in order of percentages of affirmative (ranking 2-3) responses, start- ing with the highest percentage. Respondents had the opportunity to elaborate on their ratings of power resources. Following are some Of the comments made by respondents about these resources. Common sense You have to look at both sides. I'm able to leave emotional objections aside. Practicality, yes. I wanted to make sure things got done, so had to volunteer. I'm a practical lady; I look for simple solutions. Some people make life so difficult. Hope so--theories don't often lead to the simplest solution. 125 Table 11. Ranking of Resources of Power. (N = 32) Combined Ratinge O = no 2 = yes 1 = a little 3 = a great deal Resources Of Power % (N) % (N) Common sense 6.1 ( 2) 90.9 (30) Commitment to DAC goals 9.1 ( 3) 87.9 (29) Viewpoint of others 15.2 ( 5) 81.8 (27) Knowledge of community 18.2 ( 6) 78.8 (26) Own influence 18.2 ( 6) 78.8 (26) Skills with people 18.2 ( 6) 78.7 (26) Enthusiasm 21.2 ( 7) 75.7 (25) Problem-solving skills 30.3 (10) 66.7 (22) Sense of humor 33.3 (11) 63.7 (21) Planning skills 36.4 (12) 60.6 (20) Speaking ability 42.4 (14) 54.6 (18) Knowledge of desegregation 42.4 (14) 54.6 (18) Ability to organize 48.5 (16) 48.5 (16) Contacts with influentials 51.5 (17) 45.4 (15) Discontent over desegregation 84.9 (28) 12.1 ( 4) Respondents spoke of common sense in terms of Objectivity, practicality, and the need for simple solutions. It could be argued that people in similar situations would want to perceive themselves as having common sense. However, the high percentage of respondents who felt they possessed and used this resource to a considerable extent in the DAC is reinforced by comments made at other points in the interview about the history of desegregation in Springfield. It appeared that after 12 years, the emotional appeal of desegregation had waned con- siderably and a practical approach to the task of the committee was sought. 126 Commitment to DAC goals Yes--it was a passion that I wanted to see it work. I'm ideal- istic about that maybe, not practical. I would always say some- thing about . . . "maybe we can achieve things that have never been achieved." Yes. I'm proud of our community. We've been written up in papers across the country because of how this went. Yes, once we had to do it, I wanted it to be the best experience possible for the children. Positively. I'm going to stick with it until it's handled prop- erly and thoroughly and the government gets off our backs. Yes, some were personal things I would have sought anyway. I went along with them (goals); not mine to criticize. SO far they're working nicely. Comments about the pride respondents felt for their community and the challenge posed by desegregation are found in Appendix E. The high percentage of respondents who stated that they were committed to DAC goals reflects their determination to make desegrega- tion a positive experience and their community pride. At worst, several respondents felt that these goals were good enough to "go along with." Own influence, knowledge of the community, bringing the view- points of others. When respondents spoke of their own influence in the community, their knowledge of the community, and the extent to which they brought the viewpoints of others in the community to the commit- tee, they provided details about whose viewpoints they represented and the segments of the community in which they were influential and knowl- edgable. Fifteen respondents mentioned the particular schools and community roles and/or organizations in which they exer- cised influence. 127 Nine respondents referred to themselves as community leaders, as peOple others looked to for information, knew, and respected. Thirteen respondents mentioned specific geographic areas of the school district, groups of people they were knowl- edgable about, or the length of time they had lived in the area. Four mentioned that knowledge of the community was not necessary or important for them on the committee. Eighteen respondents mentioned bringing the viewpoints of particular segments of the Springfield School District, both school and non-school, to the DAC. Three respondents said they represented only themselves on the committee. Skills in working with peopJe. Six respondents referred to their past experiences working with groups; for example: Yes, I know how to run meetings, get people involved. Yes, seems like I'm always taking part in little exercises . . . I've been in 10,000 seminars like this . . . feel very comfortable . . . . Two mentioned that they used their skills in working with people "behind the scenes." Four others mentioned they had always got- ten along well with people. Another comment was: Guess so--that's what desegregation and the DAC are all about . human relations. Enthusiasm. Six respondents mentioned the specific time period at which they became enthusiastic: Yes, I worked hard during the move (Of students and teachers to new schools). I was enthusiastic in the beginning, frustrated toward the middle--couldn't contribute as much as I wanted to. Yes, although not in the beginning; the more I got involved, the more I enjoyed it. 128 . . after the smooth implementation (of the desegregation plan), not when I first joined. Two attributed their enthusiasm to the fact that Springfield was finally desegregating, as they believed it should have done years ago. The chairperson mentioned that if anything, enthusiasm was dampened by the fact that the board of education and district adminis- trators had "done their job so well that there was not a crucial, de- cisive role for the DAC." Problem-solving skills. Five respondents mentioned that their problem-solving skills were not very good or that they were not per- ceived as being very analytical and wanted to improve this skill. Five respondents mentioned that everyone on the committee had problem solv- ing skills or learned them there. Three mentioned that they had problem-solving skills but didn't use them in the large group. Two respondents mentioned that they used these skills in their professions. Five mentioned specific ways in which they used these skills. For example: I like to break things down into steps. . it goes back to being able to listen . . . . I used them to guide the comnittee on a couple of occas- sions. One needs to get as much information as possible and then throw it out to the committee. Sense of humor. Comments from,respondents on how humor was used in the committee varied: Yes, they needed humor sometimes. As a professional meeting attender, if you can't laugh, they become difficult to sit through. 129 This (desegregation) was a serious issue--nobody was too humorous. Yes, a lot of people did--that's why they got along. No, I don't think of myself as having one. Planning skills. Eight respondents mentioned particular skills they used in planning or participation in particular planning bodies within the committee: Yes, through the subcommittee. Yes, on the steering committee; I helped set the agenda. I wouldn't think of going to meeting without a written agenda. I went to meetings to approve the grant, worked on setting up tapes for rumor control. Speaking ability. Eight respondents expressed confidence in their speaking ability within the group: Yes . . . I am able to express myself very well. . I've got a deep voice--everybody can hear and understand me. Definitely . . . I can grasp an issue, organize my feelings, present it to the group . . . it's my job at work. Yes, because they'd listen. They knew there were people out there who supported me . . . people could speak through me. Five respondents had reservations about their ability to speak in the group: Yes, but not until I was comfortable with the group. . in small groups not large . . . unless I felt no one was going to say what needed to be said. Yes, although I'm not a great orator. Two said they did not speak much in the DAC because they were not good speakers, and three others were content just to do more 130 listening in the group. One respondent characterized the DAC as a "group Of leaders" where the majority were public speakers. This helps explain why over half the respondents felt comfortable in speaking out in the group. Knowledge of desegregation. Five respondents mentioned that they brought their own experiences as students in desegregated schools to the group, not necessarily knowledge of the legal aspects Of the issue. Three respondents mentioned that they learned about desegrega- tion through the committee rather than bringing any knowledge with them. Ability to organize. Six respondents mentioned that they didn't feel there was much of a need for them to organize, as the school district office had already done most of it, or that organiza- tion was the responsibility of the chair and vice-chair. Two said that since this was a group of leaders, they didn't need to organize to any great extent. Six respondents suggested ways in which they had used organiz- ing skills in the committee. For example: I organized students at the high school (to help in desegre- gated schools). This is the kind of knowledge I used in my job; I knew how to organize the group when the rest floundered. . I had to call on DAC members to help us (principal). . I co-chaired our subcommittee, helped organize the group at the retreat. Contacts with influentials. Eleven mentioned specific influen- tials in the school system, city government, or churches. Other com- ments included: 131 Couldn't not do that (bring contacts with influence to the committee). It is just part of living in a community. . we had that all the time . . . it's a small town. NO . . . they (the influentials) were already on the com- mittee. Discontent over desegregation. The majority of respondents said they did not bring a feeling of discontent over desegregation to the committee. On the contrary, respondents mentioned frequently that they were glad that the district was finally desegregating its schools. Three people said they were excited that the district was finally going to be implementing desegregation. Six said they were not discontent, but somewhat frustrated about federal funds being held up, about the court order to desegregate, or about not getting desegrega- tion underway sooner. Four were more or less resigned to desegregation, describing it as " a job that has to be done," "nothing you can do but go ahead once the decision is made." Three mentioned that they were somewhat frustrated, but felt they could not bring that frustration to a committee and expect the committee to accomplish anything. The only reason given for genuine "discontent“ over the issue of desegregation was that "it's taken so long that now my kids can't take part in the plan." Many respondents mentioned at other points in the interviews that discontent over desegregation was the item that had divided the community for 12 years. The common feeling was that the court order, whether or not committee members agreed with the judge's decision, 132 provided citizens with the opportunity to mend differences and to build a unified community. At the same time, references were made to the ef- fect that negative feelings about desegregation were probably still present within both the committee and the community at large and were "on hold" . . . for the time being. Respondents' comnents about race relations and desegregation in general are found in Appendix F. In examining the 15 resources of power respondents were asked to relate to their participation in the DAC, comnon sense and conmit- ment to goals on the committee were rated highest. Given the commonly- held opinion that "desegregation is an idea whose time has come" in Springfield and given the nature of a committee brought together for the purpose of advising the school district on how to desegregate, it is not surprising that respondents brought a common sense approach to ad- visement. Also, given that respondents had made up their minds about the issue involved, as evidenced by the lack of discontent expressed over desegregation within the group, they were willing to commit them- selves to committee goals. Three resources that respondents brought to a great extent to the committee--the viewpoints Of others, respondents' own influence in and knowledge of the community--are essential to the communication function Of any community advisory group. The resource ''contacts with influentials" was not rated as highly, possibly because while almost one-half of respondents brought to the committee the influence of more powerful people in the community, their viewpoints were not the only ones voiced. 81.8% of respondents brought the viewpoints of others who were not necessarily "influential" in terms of being community power- holders (for example, neighbors, high school students, PTA-PTO members) 133 Also, many of the committee members were already very influential in school affairs in the district, thus contacts with other community influentials may not have been necessary. Planning and organizing skills, while substantial contribu- tions to the group for one-half or more respondents, were on the lower end of the scale in Table 11. As many respondents suggested, much of the planning and organizing had already been done by district adminis- trators and by the committee leaders. Knowledge of desegregation was also ranked rather low compared with other resources. This may point back to the committee function again: knowledge of the community was felt to be more important than knowledge of an issue. Also, "expressed interest and concern in issues and schools" was the seventh and last criterion for selection of DAC members; "special knowledge or skills regarding issue(s)" was the fifth and last of the "special" or supplementary criteria for selection (see Appendix B for further details on selection criteria for DAC members). In summary, the relationship between perception of one's own power resources and perception of one's own power can be explained in terms of the power each respondent felt was necessary to enhance con- sensus decision-making within the group and the resources he or she used to bring about this consensus. In general, the ways respondents tried to arrive at consensus involved contribution of a practical ap- proach and commitment to committee goals. The focus on common sense and practicality was not exclusively on "task-orientation," however. Other important resources were communication between the community and the rest of the community. Only one person mentioned bringing a 134 feeling Of discontent to the group. Contributions were generally phrased in positive terms. Others' Perceptions of One's Power Less Obvious than the relationship between perception of one's power in group decision-making and of one's power resources are the hypothesized relationships between perceptions of one's own power and others' perceptions of one's power (H1) and perceptions of one's own power resources and others' perceptions of one's power (H6.2). Table 12 lists in descending order the total power scores each respondent received from the other members of the group. In paren- theses after some scores is the respondent's position in the school district or in the committee. Not surprisingly, those ranked highest in power as perceived by others have positions within the school dis- trict or the committee. In the second column is the rating each re- spondent gave for his or her power in group decision-making and any reason given for this rating. Table 12. Relationship Between"Perception of One's Own Power"and "Others' Perceptions of One's Power"(H1). Own Perception Perceived Others' Perception Score of Power Score Reason for Own Power 86 (Superintendent) 4 85 (Chairperson) 4 Good facilitator of dis- cussion process 76 (Principal) 3 One of administrators 73 (Vice-chairperson) 3 Vice-chair, verbal 73 (Deputy superintendent) 2 Resource person, set goals and helped reor- ganize for next year 73 65 65 64 64 63 57 53 51 50 43 39 38 33 32 3O 27 26 26 22 22 21 20 135 Table 12, continued (Public information director, district) (Principal) (School board president) no answer no answer 3 3 3 No answer 2 2 Reassured people frus- trated with their roles, worked one-on-one Informational, spoke up when necessary Have known people in this community for a long time Knew feelings of commun- ity, had the time (out of work) Not question of influ- ence--give and take Didn't want influence-- wanted to clarify Everyone had influence Had influence in lots of areas, especially as teacher Everyone had great deal of influence Could recognize when people are paying atten- tion Everyone had influence Everyone had influence Didn't try to influence Everyone had influence Had more influence in small groups--didn't try to influence, listened Everyone had influence Had influence in high schools Hard to influence when not directly involved Didn't push people 136 Table 12, continued 15 2 Worked on consensus 15 2 l4 2 l3 4 Agreed with majority-- if not, let them know 11 2 Wasn't on committee from beginning In Table 13, the first column lists the total power scores each respondent received. The second column lists the total score for re- sources Of power, and the third column lists the power resource each respondent considered most helpful in getting viewpoints across to others on the committee. Although there is a correlation (r = .4482) between the variable "others' perception of one's power" and "percep- tions of one's power resources," it is difficult to see any pattern between these two variables. Respondents' choices of their most helpful power resources did not necessarily coincide with the score for others' perceptions of their power. For example, three people said speaking ability was most helpful, and others rated the power of these three as 73, 39, and 26; three said their ability to get along with others was most helpful, and they were rated 72, 27, and 13. It would appear that while the aggregate score for respondents' power resources relates to the score for others' perception of power, a description of which power resources was most helpful does not clarify this relationship. The relationship between the score for others' perception of one's power and the explanations each respondent gave for the power 137 they perceived themselves as having in the group is clearer (Table 12). It may have been easier to describe the power one had in group decision-making than to choose the power resource most helpful in get- ting viewpoints across to a group. Table 13. Relationship Between"Perception of One‘s Power Resources'I and Others' Perceptions of One's Power (H6.2). Others' Perceptions Total Power Most Helpful of One's Power Resource Score Power Resource(s) 86 (Superintendent) 35 Planning, presenting things clearly; enthu- siasm--telling others past is dead; making them feel important 85 (Chair) 42 My credibility in com- munity--people trust me; good communication-- peOple feel I'm fair 76 (Principal) 39 Sense Of humor; position as principal 73 (Vice-chair) 25 Speaking ability; enthu- siasm and passion for committee goals 73 (Deputy superintendent) 23 Expressing viewpoint that it can be done; prior reputation; job function external to de- segregation 72 (Public information director) 36 Ability to get along with people 65 (Principal) 35 Being able to communi- cate with people in friendly way; common sense 65 21 Knowledge of community and people in it 64 32 Humor; ability to act decisively 64 37 People know where I stand on issues; can re- flect feelings of com- munity back to committee 63 57 53 51 50 43 39 38 33 32 30 27 26 26 22 22 21 20 138 Table 13, continued NO 33 29 20 36 25 32 29 27 answer 36 26 22 25 21 26 25 37 17 Humor Representing school board; providing clari- fication; my stand on issues Organizational skills Good listening skills; able to give feedback on meetings to chair Planning, knowing what next logical step should be Common sense; speaking ability; humor Speaking ability, repu- tation in community; in- volvement in schools, commitment to goals Knowledge of community-- city, schools, and prin- cipals Ability to say whatever I feel, regardless of whether anybody else likes it Common sense Voicing my viewpoint Human relations skills Speaking ability Don't know--I throw out ideas; either they're used or they're not Influence I have with high school students Prior experience with civil rights group; put_ wouldn't matter--"ma- chine would just chug along with or without me ll Just being there 139 Table 13, continued 15 21 Previous involvement with schools; tonal quality of voice (good projection) 15 22 Bringing in viewpoints of others 14 23 Analyzing situation be- fore speaking 13 42 Ability to get along with people 11 9 Just being there In looking at the differences between blacks and whites' rat- ings for the variable "others' perceptions of one's power," a curious pattern emerges. The five blacks in the study sample of 33 were ranked 19th, let, 24th, 26th, and 33rd by others. However, the list handed to each respondent for rating of the power of others was the original population of 40 DAC members. Included in this list were the seven nonrespondents, five of whom were black. The five black nonrespondents were ranked by others as follows: two fell between the 2nd and 3rd rankings of the study sample, one was ranked 12th, one fell between 15th and 16th, and one 34th. Thus, DAC members' perceptions of blacks in the total study population were not limited to either the high or the low end of the power scale. Perceived Knowledge of Desegregation There was a somewhat higher correlation between perceived knowledge of desegregation and perceptions of one's power by others (r = .5007, H7.l) than between knowledge of desegregation and perception Of one's own power (r = .4277, H7.2). 140 Knowledge of desegregation appeared as one of the resources of power. Over half Of all respondents (54.6%) indicated they used this skill to a moderate degree or to a great degree, although it ranked only 12th out Of 15 in terms of resources used most frequently within the group. Even though it was not viewed as a crucial resource by respondents when they were asked to describe its use, it was an impor- tant contribution to the group in terms of individual respondent in- fluence and especially in terms of how respondents viewed others' in- fluence. Seventeen respondents (51.5%) said they knew a lot about deseg- regation, compared with others in the group. Of these 17, four (the superintendent, deputy superintendent, and two principals) had taken part in a class taught by the Program for Equal Opportunity (PEO) on school desegregation. This class addressed legal and historical aspects of desegregation, along with the experiences of other school districts in trying to accomplish desegregation. Administrators in- dicated that the course was extremely helpful in getting them to anti- cipate problems, and that perhaps is a reason why so few problems occurred during the implementation of desegregation was that this course encouraged them to think of potential problems and solutions.1 In addition to knowledge gained through this course was the practical experience Of the administrators. All had been working and/or living in the Springfield School District between 10 and 35 years and were well acquainted with the history of desegregation in the community. 1For comments of administrators and other DAC members about PEO training, refer to Appendix G. 141 Comments by others who felt themselves knowledgable reflected both long-time involvement in the community and the school district and, more important, active efforts to learn about desegregation: I read, attended a lot Of meetings. I read for over 11 years. Got training for the school board as student representative; talked to the school district attorney. Attended meetings; lived here all my life. Used to write letters regarding desegregation to HEW. Deliberately studied it; elected to school board after deci- sion was made not to appeal. Had done personal research on desegregation in the state. Lived in district since the beginning; my children are in- volved; followed accounts in the papers. Sat in courtroom, heard some of the trials; read briefs and the judge's decision. Went to desegregated schools in Springfield. School board president; helped organize Citizens for Better Schools. Learned as a professional. Actual Power and Desired Power There was support for the hypothesized relationship between high power and desire to maintain or increase that power. The results of the survey show that, in general, those who felt they exercised a fair amount or a great deal of power in the group--the "high power" group-- attributed this power to their positions or roles within the group or the school district or to the fact that their influence in group decision-making was essentially the same as everyone else's. 142 All except two wished to maintain the same level of power they possessed during the course of the DAC's first year. One person indi- cated she would have liked to have had more. She elaborated by saying she would have liked to have had the superintendent of school's job. Another individual indicated he would have liked to have had less power and that he got "more than he bargained for" for someone not having children in the affected schools. The acceptance of the hypothesis that those in high power will want to maintain or increase that power would appear to support Deutsch's contention that those who are dominant in a group would want to maintain dominance. Yet, three people whom others indicated were somewhat powerful in the group (ranking 8th, 11th, and 20th in their scores for perception of power by others) declined to answer either of the questions about actual or desired influence because they felt that exercising influence was not a good reason to be involved in the com- mittee. In addition to those people who were "holding back" influence were those who said they had as much as they wanted, or that anyone was free to be as influential as he or she liked. Perhaps there is a distinction here between power in a group and dominance. As mentioned earlier, "enough" influence was determined by whether or not respon- dents were able to say what they wanted to say and were listened to by others and whether or not they had the opportunity to contribute to consensus decision-making. This was generally true for those with high power as well as those with low power. 143 The hypothesized relationship between low power and wanting to have more power in group decision-making was not supported. This re- sult can be partly explained by the mission of the committee, as per- ceived by members: --42.4% (14) said the goal of the committee was to implement the desegregation plan as smoothly as possible. --30.3% (10) said the goal was communication to the community: rumor control, public relations, act- ing as a "rally mechanism." --24.2% ( 8) mentioned providing quality education to children. --15.2% ( 5) mentioned learning to work, learn, and live together as a community. --l5.2% ( 5) said that integration was the goal-- .helping kids relate to each other. Other goals Of the committee as perceived by respondents were protect- ing the rights of children, monitoring desegregation, making the admin- istration accountable to the community, speaking out against busing, providing programs for kids, keeping anger in the community down, get- ting schools to work together, continuing the progress toward integra- tion already made. The motives of DAC members were not the redistribution of powen even though that was the "raison d'etre" of the larger issue of school desegregation. Rather, the most important goals of the committee, as indicated by respondents, were insuring that school desegregation was implemented smoothly and that there was sufficient comnunication within the community. Respondents gauged their power in the group according to these goals. 144 Intensity_of Involvement Neither of the hypotheses including intensity of involvement as a variable (H9 and H10) proved to be significant. A discussion of these hypotheses must take into account the different measures Of in- tensity of involvmenet: importance Of membership in the DAC to respon- dents, importance of desegregation, and importance of others' agreement with respondents' viewpoints. Those who indicated that membership in the DAC was important or very importance (84.9%) to them did so for the following reasons: --25.9% ( 7) said that they liked to know what was .going on in the community. --25.9% ( 7) said they were representing their school and that they saw membership in the DAC as their role as school representatives. --18.% ( 5) said they felt a sense of responsibility to their schools and community. Other reasons included: hoped my input would be of value, love to be involved, felt free to express my opinion, boosted my ego, deci- sions made would affect me, because of my feelings about integration, interested in the process, brought together past efforts, my feelings about kids. Those who indicated that the issue of school desegregation was important or very important to them (90.9%) gave the following reasons: --55.2% (16) said it was important because it was time for racial attitudes to change. --l7.2% ( 5) said because desegregation "was a reality." --13.8% ( 4) said desegregation was important because community strife needed to be avoided. 145 Other reasons included: how desegregation was handled would affect everyone, because Of their personal feelings for the community, because of their feelings for kids, if desegregation fails we won't be able to focus on school finances, quality education is more important than desegregation, I like the results of desegregation. Of the four who gave reasons as to why membership in the DAC was only somewhat important: One said it was only somewhat important to her at the time Of the interview because her school was not directly involved. One said she hoped her input would be of value, though it wasn't the most important thing she'd ever done. One said it was only somewhat important because his kids were not directly involved. One said her membership on the committee was only somewhat important because she would be involved in school desegregation in Springfield regardless. Again, the them Of communication arises: it was important to many respondents to be DAC committee members because they liked to know what was going on in the community and they felt a sense of responsi- bility to their neighborhood schools. The only reasons respondents gave as to why desegregation was not important were: neighborhood schools are the way it should be, quality education is more important. Almost half of respondents felt that desegregation was long overdue in Springfield. Others were perhaps less enthusiastic in thinking that desegregation was a welcome event. They stated simply that desegregation was a reality, referring to the court order for desegregation of Springfield Public Schools or that desegregation was 146 important because community strife would only continue if it were not dealt with and distract attention from other education-related issues. 36.4% (12) stated that it was either important or very impor- tant that others on the committee agreed with their viewpoints: when they felt strongly about an issue, although it was important to reach a decision without hard feelings, because they liked to feel they're getting sup- port from others, when their egos were involved, and because if people disagreed all the time nothing would get done. A higher percentage Of respondents, 63.7% (21), felt it was not important at all or only somewhat important that others agreed with them because: it was more important to reach a decisions without hard feelings; the issue was understanding why others felt the way they did, listening to others; it was important to voice one's opinion; he wasn't directly involved; it would be dull if people agreed all the time. This measure of intensity of involvement turned out to receive less support than the other two (importance of membership in the DAC and the issue of desegregation to respondents). As stated, most re- spondents perceived the goals of the committee as fostering communi- cation and implementing desegregation smoothly. Thus there was little disagreement on goals and, consequently, respondents had few positions they were adamant about defending within the group. Also, respondents 147 indicated that it was more important to listen to others' viewpoints and to reach decisions without hard feelings than to have others agree with them. Both of these reasons reflect the major task of the commit- tee--communication and a smooth, non-disruptive desegregation process. Statistical tests showed no difference between intensity ofirr- volvement and expecting the DAC to succeed and intensity Of involvement and not expecting the DAC to succeed. The primary reason for this re- sult is the fact that out of 33 respondents, only one did not expect the DAC to be successful. Reasons given by respondents as to why respondents believed the DAC would be successful were: concern of DAC members about the community as a whole (13 responses), . leadership of the committee was excellent (10), members wanted desegregation to work (9), and comMuMication--the fact that everyone was listened to 8 . Other reasons included: the support of the community, the positive in- fluence of the DAC in the community, the fact that the time was right for desegregation to take place in Springfield, human resources brought to the community. In looking at intensity of involvement scores, 51% (17) of re- spondents were above the median score of nine and 24% (8) were below. It can, therefore, be stated that respondents were generally intensely involved in the work Of the committee. This is certainly the case with the measures of importance to respondents of their membership in the committee.and the issue of desegregation. Respondents wanted to be involved in anything that affected their community and their school, and the issue of desegregation was very important to them. The reason 148 why it was not so important that others agreed with their viewpoints was because maintaining a harmonious group process was more important than advocating any particular viewpoint. Thus, respondents were intensely involved in the work Of the committee and expected it to succeed primarily because of their feel- ings for the community. However, no causal relationship between these two variables has been established. There was also no correlation between intensity of involvement and perceived representation on the committee. An equal number (12) saw themselves as representatives of other groups in the community or as representing only their personal reasons and seven respondents could not choose between these two categories and stated that they repre- sented both others and their own personal reasons on the committee. Those who said they primarily represented other groups identi- fied these groups as school-related: either a PTA or PTO, the neigh- borhood,or their school. Of those who said they represented their own personal concerns, half (6) mentioned their feelings of pride or con- cern for the community, for kids, or their negative feelings about busing. Only four mentioned non-community related personal concerns: wanting a viewpoint on desegregation to be publicly known, the personal "ego" challenge of helping a group work out the best desegregation plan, wanting to observe the conflict resolution processes of the group, or wanting to act as a "sounding board" for the group. In general, the groups mentioned by respondents who saw them- selves as group representatives did not represent particular factions within the community. Respondents saw their role as group representa- tives more in "liaison" terms--they were there to communicate the 149 feelings and actions of the DAC to a school-based group, and vice- versa. If there were groups in the community whose viewpoints were of a more militant persuasion, either their representatives were not on the committee or they were not mentioned by respondents as reference groups. Perceptions Of Conflict Both H2 and H8 relate to respondents' perceptions of conflict and itsresolution. Neither of these hypotheses proved to be signifi- cant. When asked to describe any issues over which there were dif- ferences Of Opinion (conflict), 75% (25) of respondents mentioned what they referred to as the "button incident." A composite description of this incident emerged from respon- dents' accounts. At one Of the earlier meetings of the committee in the fall of 1980, before the desegregation plan was implemented, it was suggested to committee members that a button be designed that would symbolize the unity of the community over the school desegregation tak- ing place on January 5, 1981. This button would be distributed to all schOol children in the district, their parents, and other sectors Of the community. The staff artist for the school district created several de- signs, as did the director of public information, a member of the com- munity. These designs were then submitted to the committee for final selection. One design that provoked discussion depicted a child with straight hair on one side of the button and curly hair on the other. Committee members could not agree on which design best symbolized their intentions, and discussion continued for three "endless" meetings, in 150 the words of respondents, before a design was finally chosen. The final selection was a smiling face with the words "together we will'I forming the smile (see Appendix H). The importance of the issue to respondents lay in its symbolism of the theme of desegregation. School desegregation was the process of integrating black and white children so that both had the Opportunity for quality education. Hence desegregation is about racial differences that have historically been the basis of inequity. But whether or not these differences should be recognized or minimized was a debatable issue for DAC members when it came to pictorially representing desegre- gation on a button. The chairperson summarized feelings about the button: It was the first time people (on the committee) really talked about different people (racially and socio-economically) having different feelings about things . . . the button was a nice, safe thing to surface these differences. Appendix I contains further descriptions by the respondents regarding the button issue. Other issues brought up by respondents as creating at least some conflict were the safety of children on buses, "chaotic" lunchroom situation in two of the elementary schools after desegregation took place, whether or not real estate agents should take bus tours of Springfield schools and neighborhoods, whether or not monitors were needed on the bus, and, perhaps most significant, the case in which the PTA of the formerly all-black school did not want to let new parents in as members after the desegregation plan was implemented. The Reed-Oak PTA issue was mentioned five times by respondents as an area of conflict and ten times as an issue that would need 151 further attention from the DAC. This issue surfaced gradually during the year of the committee's existence and came to a head in the last few meetings of spring, 1981, before the committee adjourned for summer vacation. The crux Of this issue was the PTA membership of parents from two of the three schools affected by the desegregation plan. When their children were moved as part Of the plan to Reed School, parents formerly at Oak School made a request to join the Reed School PTA. Up until this request the Reed School PTA was comprised of an all-black membership and had occupied a key position in the black community of Rogers Township. When the request for membership came to the PTA pres- ident at Reed, a member of the DAC, she refused the admittance of the former Oak parents. The superintendent, deputy superintendent, and other members Of the DAC steering committee were aware of this problem, but did not bring it to the attention of the committee in the hopes that it would "work itself out." At the time of the last DAC meeting in May, 1981, it had not been resolved. During the interview with the superintendent in July, he stated that the state PTA board might have to make a final decision as to whether the Reed PTA had the right to refuse former Oak parents membership. When asked why the committee did not address the PTA issue, the following reasons were given: we decided to let the two schools work it out, we didn't think it would be a problem, we didn't know how to address it, and 152 we didn't have enough time (the issue surfaced at DAC meetings too late in the school year for the committee to act). It was evident to many respondents that since the organization most directly involved--the Reed PTA--had not resolved the issue yet, the DAC would have to take part in the search for a solution when the committee reconvened in the fall Of 1981. A further description of the PTA issue by respondents is found in Appendix J. None of the conflict issues mentioned were viewed as threaten- ing to the survival of the committee. Respondents described the button incident, the conflict issue mentioned most frequently, with a mixture of feelings--embarrassment, amusement, and seriousness: embarrassment that so "trivial" an incident could go on for three meetings without being resolved, amusement in retrospect at the situation, and serious- ness in realizing that the differences symbolized by the button were what desegregation was all about. Of those who indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with resolution of conflict (45.4%), the following reasons were cited: the final decision on the issue was made by a consensus process and everyone was satisfied, the button got the "point" (united effort to de- segregate) across, and the design of the button was satisfactory. 0f the 39.4% who indicated they were only somewhat satisfied or not satisfied at all with the resolution of conflict, reasons cited included: the design of the button was not satisfactory; and 153 not satisfied with the decision-making process (reasons included "too many personal feelings went into the decision," "we should have dealt with more differences between black and white," "we who didn't like the design didn't stand up for our opinion"). - Results of correlational analysis showed no relationship be- tween respondents' perceptions of their own power in group decision- making and their satisfaction with the resolution of conflict in the group. Respondents contributed influence in accordance with their per- ceived roles and in accordance with the influence others contributed; they were sensitive to giving everyone an equal Opportunity to exercise influence. The goal of the committee was described as insuring community involvement in a peaceful school desegregation process. The DAC had most control over the first phase of this process--ensuring community participation. The actual desegregation implementation plan was de- signed and carried out by the school district administration and school board--thus, the DAC could only advise on how this plan could be made successful. The conflict issues that arose from the interview were viewed by respondents as small in scape. Reasons for satisfaction or dis- satisfaction related tO satisfaction with the decision-making process or with "personal preference" concerns such as the design of the but- ton. The similarity between the two variables'perceived power in decision-making'and"satisfaction with the resolution of group conflict' is that both related to desires for community involvement. However, the conflict issues themselves were not related to respondents' reasons for involvement, their perceptions of committee goals, or of their own 154 power within the group. For this reason no relationship was estab- lished between these two variables. A similar conclusion can be made for the relationship between perceived size of conflict and satisfaciton with conflict resolution. Most (57.6%) respondents described conflict, in the button incident especially, in terms of a small, isolated issue. Those who described it as a large issue of principle (27.3%) referred to the issue of de- segregation which the button symbolized. The button was about "how people saw themselves and others, differences between people." There was a tendency for those who described conflict in terms of large issues of principle to be less satisfied with conflict resolu- tion: of the nine who indicated this view, four said they were not at all satisfied, two said somewhat, three said satisfied, and one said very satisfied. Similarly, there was a tendency for those who described conflict in terms of small, manageable issues to be more satisfied with conflict resolution: out of 19, 12 said they were satisfied, four said somewhat satisfied, and two said not at all satis- fied. Nonetheless, these figures represent no more than a tendency and were not large enough to establish a relationship between the variables "perceived size of conflict" and "satisfaction with conflict resolution." Respondents referred to conflicts within the committee, or of the potential for conflict at various points in the interview, not only in response to specific questions about conflict. Descriptions of other conflict issues are found in Appendix K. 155 Satisfaction with Issues and Decisions Made py the Group The hypotheses examiningrelationships between perceived power and satisfaction with range of issues dealt with (H3.1) the way in which new issues were introduced (H3.2), and decisions made by the group (H4) were not significantly correlated. The 54.5% (18) of respondents who said they were not satisfied with the range of issues addressed by the group identified the follow- ing issues as needing future consideration: the Reed-Oak PTA issue (10 responses); and other: the benefit of desegregation to children, insufficient parental involvement, different cur- ricular standards for blacks and whites, other community problems, the role of the committee, disproportionate representation of uninvolved schools on the committee, children's fear in moving to new schools. As indicated, respondents felt that the primary reason issues were not addressed by the committee was lack of time. This does not coincide with Bachrach and Baratz's "mobilization of bias" in which the dominant forces in a community determine which issues are deserv- ing of consideration by decision-makers. Nor does lack of attention to these issues stem from the "nondecisions" of dominant institutions; that is, the refusal to take seriously the claims of a new group. Whether there were other issues that did not come out during interviews that were due to mobilization of bias is not known. The 84.8% (28) of respondents who indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the way new issues were introduced to the group gave the following reasons for these opinions: we felt we could bring anything up, everything was out in the Open; 156 the meeting format was well-orgnized, allowed for expression of viewpoints; and everything was well-explained. The 15.2% (5) who were somewhat satisfied gave these reasons: I felt we got issues after they'd been settled, I resented the people on the committee who were not from the three schools involved, and more time was needed for general discussion. The reasons respondents gave for feeling satisfied with the way in which new issues were introduced corresponded to their perceptions of committee goals of providing a format for community participation regarding desegregatiOn. Respondents generally felt that a climate of Open communication existed within the committee and that anyone was free to bring up any issue. Also, respondents did not present any con- flict issues that would indicate the presence of factions or power struggles within the committee. Similarly, respondents indicated that they were not dissatisfied with their own degree of power in decision-making and that they wanted their power to parallel the power of others on the committee. For these reasons, one could not state a relationship between perception Of one's own power and satisfaction with the way in which new issues were introduced to the group--one could not say that "the greater (or lesser)a respondent perceived his or her power in group decision-making to be, the more (or less) satis- fied that person would be with the introduction of new issues into the group." 81.8% (27) of respondents indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with decisions made by the group considering: 157 . the DAC really didn't have much influence on decision- making regarding desegregation, . the different factions we had to work with (referring to those on the committee who were Opposed to desegregation and those who were for it), . . . we didn't have any federal guidelines as to how desegre- gation should take place, . . . there weren't enough representatives from the three schools involved, and . we were inexperienced. Some respondents gave conditional responses to this question, pointing out the advisory, rather than decision-making nature of the committee. Other reasons for satisfaction were: decisions were made through a reasonable consensus process; decisions made were positive and thus a good focus for the committee; and the committee sometimes had to struggle with deci- sions, and this was good experience for them. Respondents were satisfied with decisions made, even though many Of the "decisions" were actually reaffirmations or elaborations upon decisions already made by school administrators and school board members. Appendix L contains respondents' comments about the nature of decision-making in the DAC. Satisfaction was perhaps as much a re- sult of the process of decision-making as with the decisions them- selves. This "group dynamics" orientation was also present in respon- dents' feelings about their personal power in decision-making: con- tributing to a positive, open process was more important than any indi- vidual's power within the group. There was no relationship, however, between the variables "perceptions of one's own power in decision-mak- ing" and "satisfaction with decisions made by the committee." 158 Summary Results of hypothesis-testing and locus of control correla- tions were presented in Chapter IV. Testing of hypotheses revealed significant relationships between: --perceptions of one's own power and others' perceptions of one's power (H1), --perceptions of one's own high power and the desire to maintain or increase one's power in decision-making (H5.2), --perceptions of one's own power resources of one's own power (H6.1), --perceptions of one's power resources and other's per- ceptions of one's power (H6.2), --perceptions Of one's knowledge of desegregation and others' perceptions of one's power (H7.l), and --Derceptions of one's knowledge of desegregation and perceptions of one's power (H7.2). Hypothesized relationships between the following variables were found to have no significance: --perceptions of one's own power and satisfaction with the resolution of group conflict (H2), --perceptions of one's own power and satisfaction with the range of issues dealt with by the group (H3.1), --perceptions of one's own power and satisfaction with the way in which new issues were introduced to the group (H3.2), --perceptions of one's power and satisfaction with de- cisions made by the group (H4), 159 -- perceptions of one's own low power and a desire to increase power in group decision-making (H5.1). -- perceptions of small, manageable conflict issues and satisfaction with the resolution of group conflict (H8). -- perceptions Of intensity of involvement in the work of the group and expectations of group success (H9). -- perceptions of intensity of involvement in the work Of the group and self-perception as a group representative (H10). Locus Of control correlations indicated that respondents who felt their viewpoints were listened to by other group members tended: -- to have higher power in group decision-making, -- to be rated by others as having high power, -- to be more satisfied with comnittee decisions. (a) The greater respondents perceived their own power to be and the higher they rated their power resources, the less likely they were to believe that what happened in the group was determined by influentials. (b) The more satisfied respondents were with decisions made and the more they knew about desegregation, the less likely they were to feel that "people like them" had little chance of protecting their interests. (c) The higher respondents viewed their own power, the less likely they were to feel that getting their way in the group was a matter of luck. Unanticipated Results Results of data collection for some of the variables used in hypothesis-testing were unexpected, that is, they were different 160 from anticipated results based on the review of literature. Following is a discussion of some Of these variables. Satisfaction with decisions made by the group. There was no correlation between perceptions of one's own power and satisfaction with decisions. This may be because decision-making was not a major function of the group. More important were the advisory functions of the committee (e.g., making suggestions, or approving decisions already made regarding desegregation implementation). Intensity of involvement, expectations ofigroup success, and self-perception as a group representative. While respondents generally scored high on this measure, intensity of their involvement was not related to specific instances of conflict. Rather, intensity was another reflection of respondents' desire to be active in their schools and communities, to increase community harmony, and to settle the issue Of school desegregation once and for all. It was expected that the more intensely involved respondents were in the work of the connfittee, the greater would be their expecta- tions of committee success. Yet there was such a high degree of commitment within the committee that all but one respondent felt that the DAC would be successful in its task. Thus there was almost no variation in the variable expectations of group success with which to correlate intensity of involvement. Again, it had been expected that intensity would focus on a particular issue, and that groups would be formed around positions taken on this issue. However, intensity was not focused on issues 161 and, although half of the respondents saw themselves as representing groups, these groups were predominantly school-related rather than advocacy-related. Mobilization of bias measures included satisfaction with the range of issues dealt with by the group, and the way in which they were introduced to the group. Neither Of these were significantly correlated with perceptions of one's own power. It had been expected that issues would be related to intense conflict, and that distinct high and low power groups would form around positions on these issues. Instead, issues related generally to concerns such as bus routes, lunchroom management and other "manageable" problems, and power related not to issues but to group process. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS This study has explored the relationships between conflict and power as perceived by members of a community organization. This topic is important because of the increasing emphasis on encouraging members of subordinate groups to participate in organizational decision-making. Participation of those who have previously been outside decision-making circles is widely believed by leaders and participants of community groups to be a first step in a redistribution of power between dominant groups and subordinate groups. The Desegregation Advisory Committee to the Springfield School District was chosen as the population for the study because it was com- prised Of members of dominant and subordinate groups and because the committee was assembled for a specific purpose related to social change. In this case, ethnicity based on race was the criterion for division into the dominant-subordinate dichotomy. Members of the domi- nant group were white, members of the subordinate group black. While hypotheses were not formulated in terms of ethnic groups, it was impor- tant that there be some reason to believe that high and low power would be found in the committee. The social change toward which the DAC directed its energies was school desegregatiOn. The DAC was fOrmed to advise the Springfield School District on how to implement a court-ordered desegregation plan to the satisfaction of the community at large. Given this task and given the 12-year 162 163 battle over desegregation in Springfield that had preceded the court order, it was felt that conflict would be present in the group. The issues around which conflict occurred, along with the disparities in power among group members, provided the framework through which data were collected and hypotheses were tested and analyzed. Results of the study revealed that DAC members perceived the concept of power in terms of resources that could be used to maximize the constructive effects Of any conflict occurring in the group. In this sense, power was viewed more as an "enabling" resource rather than as a source of domination. These results were somewhat surprising in three respects: Focus of conflict. It had been expected that group conflict would be directly related to desegregation and hence to the basic ques- tion of redistribution of power within society. But the issue of desegregation had already been decided by the courts, and after 12 years of community strife, committee members were anxious to turn their energies toward more manageable issues. The conflict that was ad- dressed within group meetings was around isolated issues such as which button to choose as a symbol of school desegregation in Springfield. Group goals. It was also expected that the approach to con- flict resolution would be more competitive than cooperative. This ex- pectation was based on literature that stressed the conflicting goals of groups consisting Of dominant and subordinate groups within the DAC were similar. Furthermore, respondents viewed the resolution of group conflict more in terms of preserving and promoting group harmony than advocating the adoption of a particular position on a conflict issue. 164 This harmony was an example of a "convergence of beliefs and values" (Deutsch, 1973) on the part of DAC members. Power groupings. A further expectation was that high and low power groups, as perceived by respondents themselves or by others in the group, would correspond to racial groupings. Again, this assump- tion was based on literature that suggested that blacks, as members of subordinate groups, had little power in contrast with the dominant white group. However, respondents' perceptions of their high or low power did not correspond to racial groupings. This chapter will include (a) a discussion of study results on specific perceptions of power and conflict, (b) an exploration of the characteristics Of the DAC as a community development group, (c) con- clusions about the nature of power and conflict, (d) questions for group facilitators working with groups in conflict, and (e) recommen- dations for further research. Perceptions of Power and Conflict Bee: Hypothesized relationships among perceptions of one's own power, of one's power resources, and of others' power all were at least moderately correlated. Perceptions of one's power resources can be viewed as an elaboration of perceptions of one's power. Respondents were consistent in their view of their own power in decision-making and in their views of the resources that they brought to the group. The more a respondent used particular resources within the group and the greater the number of resources he or she used, the greater that respondent viewed his or her power within the group. 165 Group members used resources on an individual or "competitive" basis, to use Deutsch's terms, rather than on a collective basis to "pressure" powerholders. Members were not polarized on issues and did not form distinct high or low power groups. As a result, there was little need to exert subordinate orlow power group pressure to support a particular viewpoint. There was also a correlation between the power an individual respondent saw himself or herself as having in the group and the power others attributed to that individual. These "shared perceptions" could indicate either that others explained the respondent's power in the group in the same way as the respondent or that they attributed this power to other causes. In any event, both parties received the power "intent" in the same way. Similarly, since power resources are an elaboration of the com- ponents of power, there was a correlation between perceptions of one's own power resources and others' perceptions of one's power. The similarity in these views of power within the group can be explained by several factors. Open communication. Voicing one's own opinion and listening to opinions of others were important committee goals, according to respon- dents. Locus Of control correlations support this contention. Respon- dents who believed that their viewpoints had been heard tended to per- ceive themselves as having more power and to be rated by others as having a higher level of power. This would indicate not only a conver- gence of beliefs about which group members were powerful, but also a positive relationship between Open communication and a feeling of im- portance and power in the group. 166 Commonigoals. Respondents shared a common view of committee goals, namely Open communication and a peaceful desegregation. Sense of mission. These two factors combined to create a sort Of "group life," as one respondent described it. Members rallied to support the mission of the group, and the use of power by group members was directed toward maintaining the solidarity engendered by open com- munication and common goals. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the higher the rating by respondents on their own power in decision-making and their power resources, the less likely they were to feel that those who were "more influential" determined group happenings. Similarly, the higher the rating on powen the less likely respondents were to attribute their success in the group to luck. Respondents perceived their power in the group as de- pendent on their own efforts rather than on powerful others or chance. Given all the potential uses of power in a community group, it is useful to examine the reasons why power was used in the "enabling" sense described by Kieffer (1981), providing the group with the "abil- ity to" arrive at a consensus about how desegregation could best be implemented: Function of an advisory committee. The committee was called together by the board of education for the purpose of advising the district on how best to implement a desegregation plan. Many respon- dents indicated that they were frustrated by this role in the beginning and had hoped to more actively participate in policy making and in activities to move students and teachers from one building to another. But the advisement role was eventually accepted by the group after members had worked together for several months. (Refer to Appendix L 167 on the nature of decision-making in the DAC for comments regarding the committee's advisory role.) Lack of polarity on issues. The conflict over the choice of a button (the manifest group conflict) took place within the consensual framework of desegregation. This lessened the intensity of respon- dents' involvement in the conflict. Also, the button conflict was generally viewed as a small, manageable issue and as such was rela- tively easy to resolve. Any divergence in views around the button con- flict, the PTA conflict, or any other conflict issues centered on re- spondents' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the conflict-resolution process. Related to the lack of polarity around issues was the lack of a clear distinction between high power and low power groups among respon- dents. An individual's choice of a power rating reflected the degree to which he or she wanted to advise the committee regarding the imple- mentation of desegregation. It also reflected that individual's desire to increase communication within the committee and the larger community This power rating did not coincide with race or other social classifications. As noted previously, literature on ethnic conflict 'frequently assumes a power relationship between subordinate and domi- nant ethnic groups (Gelfand & Lee, 1973; Deutsch, 1973; Schermerhorn, 1978). But, of the population of five blacks in the study, three rated themselves as having a fair amount of power, and two rated themselves as having a little--not significantly different from the white popula- tion. Ratings for blacks on the variable "others' perception Of one's power" revealed more extreme differences. The five blacks in the study 168 sample were ranked on the lower end of the power continuum, which would appear to indicate that blacks were generally perceived as having low 1 power in the group. However, power ratings of other black DAC members outside the study sample contradict this assumption. Of the seven non- 2 in the survey, four of the five black nonrespondents were respondents ranked at the higher end of the power continuum. While this information may say something about the blacks that agreed to be interviewed, it does not support the existence of power groupings based on race.3 Because of the lack of distinct power groupings, Deutsch's con- ditions as to when a change in power relationships might occur have little relevance to the DAC. Deutsch hypothesized that changes in this relationship will occur when the lower power group (a) is effectively organized, (b) has a high level of frustration, (c) possesses a sig- nificant degree of Optimism about the possibilities of change, and (d) has considerable freedom from fear of the high power group. All of these conditions assume the existence of a distinctive low power group. Although for purposes of hypothesis testing a 1Similarly, scores for the four black respondents on resources Of power were below the mean score for the sample of 32. 2The reasons that seven DAC members out of the total DAC popu- lation of 40 were not interviewed are discussed in Chapter III. 3Although not much dissent was evident in specific questions to blacks about power and conflict, it would be a mistake to assume that the five blacks interviewed were in complete agreement with each other or with whites on the goals and activities of the DAC. One notable exception was a black woman who expressed a great deal of anger about the racial situation in Springfield and in society in general. Her comments are found in Appendix F, Section b. 169 distinction was made between those who considered themselves as having little or no power in decision-making (low power) and those who per- ceived their power as moderate or high (high power), the respondents within the low power category had little in common with one another. Thus the concerns of the committee were not overtly related to the re- distribution of power. This finding is important in looking at how DAC members addressed group conflict. Conflict Conflict in the DAC revolved around two key issues: choos- ing a button and Parent Teacher Association (PTA) membership. The first issue, choosing a button to symbolize the Springfield School District's commitment to desegregation, is an example of conflict that was "manifest" in the group; that is, conflict that was dealt with within the structure of DAC meetings. The second issue, the refusal of Reed (PTA) officials to admit former Oak parents to their organization after desegregation, was "latent" in that it did not occur as part of group meetings, but was perceived as potential conflict by group members. The way in which these issues varied was an important factor in how members viewed power. 170 The button. The chairperson summarized the "button conflict" as a "nice, safe thing to surface (racial and socioeconomic) differ- ences." Indeed, respondents' descriptions at the most simplistic level seemed to indicate that conflict was over a preference--which button design respondents felt was most appropriate as a symbol of desegregation efforts. Based on these descriptions, the issue would fit Deutsch's category of "veridical conflict," a conflict that is perceived objectively and accurately by the parties involved. Veridical conflict may be resolved through "sufficient coopera- tion." In the DAC, this cooperation was evident through the mechanism of consensus decision-making. Consensus was used to resolve the button issue to the satisfaction of most respondents. The button was intended to symbolize a community unified in its approach to desegregation. This goal was similar to the goals of the committee at large; i.e., to act as a sounding board between the school district and the community so as to insure a smooth implementation of desegregation. By cooperating with one another to resolve the conflict over the button design, members of the DAC increased the communication necessary to effectively address other committee goals. Although the button controversy was generally perceived by respondents as a small, manageable conflict, some larger issues were implicit in the conflict. The question over whether or not racial differences should be portrayed reflected some whites' misperceptions of the intent of black respondents. Black respondents spoke of the button controversy only as an issue that provoked a lot of disagreement among committee members, whereas white respondents gave not only their own opinions on the issue but also their perceptions of blacks' 171 opinions. For example, there were discrepancies in white respondents' accounts of who was offended by the button depicting a child with straight hair on one side of the button and a child with kinky hair on the other (see Appendix I). Some whites felt that blacks objected to the button because they didn't want differences to be shown. Other whites felt that these whites had misinterpreted blacks' feelings on the subject of differences and had "goaded" blacks into admitting they felt stereotyped by the depiction. Thomas and Pondy's (1977) "intent" model of conflict may explain those misperceptions. Whites may have been ignorant about blacks' feelings about the button. There might also have been cogni- tive dissonance,1 in the sense that whites may have been unwilling to entertain the possibility that blacks were not offended by a portrayal of blacks with kinky hair. The button conflict, while hinting at some deeper ethnic con- flicts, was resolved cooperatively within the structure of the DAC. Positive benefits from the conflict resolution process provided respon- 2 and to dents with an opportunity to use consensus decision-making learn more about how other community members felt about issues relating to racial differences. 1Parties in conflict who experience cognitive dissonance in attributing conflict intent are likely to construe their own behavior in relatively cooperative terms and to construe the other party's behavior as relatively uncooperative (Thomas & Pondy, 1977, p. 1096). 2Respondents unfamiliar with consensus decision-making indi- cated that the DAC provided them with the opportunity to learn how to make decisions through consensus. 172 PTA membership. An issue that touched more deeply upon ele— ments of ethnic and community conflict was the question of whether or not former Oak parents should be admitted into the membership of the formerly all-black PTA at Reed School. Unlike the button conflict, which was a manifest conflict within the committee, PTA membership was not a DAC agenda item. The conflict which arose over this issue corre- sponds with Deutsch's definition Of a "latent conflict" (i.e., one that should be occurring, but is not). Members of the DAC steering commit- tee, as well as other respondents, mentioned that they knew the problem was developing throughout the 1980-81 school year. These respondents did not bring it to the attention of DAC members during monthly meet- ings because they hoped that the two parties would work out their own solution. The PTA conflict reflected issues of principle. Respondents described the conflict in terms of a "power struggle" between a black group's control of an organization that had been a focal point for community activity in Rogers Township and a predominantly white group that had previously been very active in the Oak PTO. Descriptions of the PTA conflict came only from whites. The Reed PTA was described as "loosely run, inactive, with poor parent participation." The Reed community as a whole was described by several whites and one black as one that had "always had problems, been dis- organized." On the other hand, the Oak PTA was depicted as an "extremely active," "strongly 'cliquey' organization producing leadership for the whole community." White respondents stressed the threat the Oak par- ents posed coming from a background of well-organized participation in PTA affairs to the Reed parents. 173 The PTA conflict had not been resolved by the DAC or anyone else at the time of the interviews. Although the issue was not Openly discussed at DAC meetings, DAC members associated with Oak and Reed schools and with the school district administration made informal attempts at resolution of the conflict. However, using Deutsch's terminology, these efforts could be characterized as more "competitive" than "cooperative." Communication between parties had been unreliable, available channels such as the DAC for conflict resolution had not been utilized, and a low level Of threat had been introduced by a third party: the superintendent indicated that if the two parties were not able to resolve the issue, a final decision would be made by state PTA Officials. The goals of the two parties were inversely related--as the Reed PTA members' chances for goal attainment increased, the chances of the Oak parents decreased. Despite the presence of competition, there were elements of cooperation present in the PTA conflict. White respondents recognized the legitimacy of the Reed view: You have a traditionally black PTA that suddenly finds itself split into three schools . . . there's obviously no way they can have a majority . . . so they'd like to keep their PTA at Reed School; they feel threatened; I can understand why. Respondents felt that resolution of this issue would have high priority on the committee agenda when they reconvened the next fall. The PTA conflict contains some Of the characteristics of com- munity conflict outlined by Coleman: Differences in economic structure. There was a significant difference between race and income within the study population. Also, 174 Rogers township, in which Reed School was located, was considerably poorer than surrounding cities within the Springfield School District. Changes in time, values, social, and political climate. Deseg- regation itself was a change that struck most forcefully at Reed School, a formerly all-black school that had been ordered to desegregate by the courts. The political change represented by desegregation may have presented a threat to the ethnic identity and the status Of the PTA within the Reed community. Population shifts and heterogeneous values. Along with deseg- regation came a shifting in the population of schools for both children and their parents. Values accompanying this shift would be increasingly heterogeneous. Existing cleavages, the residium ofipast controverey. The 12 year history of court desegregation cases had produced cleavages throughout the Springfield School District, including the community around Reed School. The effect of these characteristics over time is not known. Coleman also outlined the changes that occur in issues as controversy develops: at the time of this study, it was not known whether or not the PTA question would be transformed from a specific to a general issue, whether new and different issues unrelated to the original con- troversy would emerge, or whether the issue would shift from disagree- ment about the question of admitting Oak parents to the Reed PTA to antagonism. In looking at the future of this conflict, certain "varia- tions in the social structure of the community itself" might prove more crucial than others. For example, the Reed PTA members' identification with Reed School, their lack of identification with the larger 175 Springfield School District, and/or cross pressures resulting from the "interlocking" memberships in organizatons of parties on both sides would have a great deal of influence in the resolution of the conflict. Despite the belief of some DAC members that the controversy over PTA membership reflected a power struggle between the Reed and Oak School communities, this struggle did not surface as conflict within the DAC meetings. Conflict around choice Of a button was ( limited in terms of either its positive or negative effects on the group. The DAC was definitely not a group that had been "torn apart" by conflict, as one might expect Of a group charged with helping a school district to desegregate. Following is an examination of why conflict was limited. Intensity of conflict. Important to an understanding of the low intensity of conflict within the DAC are three concepts: the DAC as an integrative structure creating bonds between blacks and whites, the role played by the DAC in legitimizing ethnic conflict, and the occurrence of conflict within a basic agreement over an issue. Schermerhorn's (1978) concept of "mutuality" provides a key to understanding both the button issue and the PTA issue from the perspec- tive of ethnic conflict. Holding members of both ethnic groups together in Springfield were a series of "integrative bonds" which con- tinued despite and because of internal conflicts in both black and white groups. Structures such as the PTAs and PTOs, the DAC, and the schools kept blacks and whites in contact with each other while, at the same time, leading to the development of conflicts. 176 These school-related organizations, in particular the DAC, played an important role in regulating conflict. To use Jackson's terminology, they served to "institutionalize" or legitimize ethnic conflict. An organization that performs the institutionalization func- tion provides a formal means for the expression of conflict by both sides. For example, the DAC served as a potential forum for discussing conflict related to desegregation and may have reduced the level of militancy from both blacks and whites. The task of advising a school district on how to successfully implement desegregation coincides with Jackson's concept of a conflict within a basic consensual framework, as opposed to conflict over a basic lack of consensus. Disagreement over whether or not school de- segregation should take place is an example of conflict over a lack of consensus. Due to the court order, this was not an issue; the DAC had a basic consensual framework: "Given that we have to desegregate, what is the best way to go about it?" The button issue was far enough removed from ethnic considera- tions to be considered within the basic consensus on desegregation. It is not as easy to determine whether or not the PTA conflict took place within this framework. Even though everyone appeared to agree that desegregation was a reality and no longer a debatable issue, the ques- tion Of whether or not parents in schools ordered to desegregate would want to integrate their organizations could be interpreted as conflict over basic consensus. However, if the conflict reflects a "community power struggle," as was reported, it may have been divorced from any discussion of desegregation. Respondents cited the latter as one of 177 the reasons for not bringing the issue to the attention of the commit- tee before late spring. Regardless of whether the PTA controversy took place within or outside of the basic consensual framework, it would still be considered latent ethnic or community conflict due to the differences in authority power, and other forms of advantage associated with black and white social categories (Deutsch, 1973) and because of demand for organiza- tional change. Summary At this point is is useful to go back to the original assump- tions about the role of conflict in community groups of unequal power. Figure 2 illustrates the ideal results of conflict within groups con- sisting of dominant and subordinate subgroups. Conflict occurs Openly and leads to a redistribution of power within the group itself and eventually in the larger society (neighborhood, community, etc.). Manifest Group Power Conflict Redistribution between 4; between dominant 7' dominant and and subordinate subordinate groups groups Figure 2. Ideal results of conflict within groups comprised of dominant and subordinate subgroups. 178 Figures 2 and 3 represent the reality of group conflict within the DAC. The committee was comprised of dominant and subordinate (racial) sub- groups, and theoretically was working toward a goal of redistribution of power between these groups. Power sharing would take place not only within the committee, but also within the school district and through a "desegregating" of the larger society. Neither of the two conflicts referred to most frequently by respondents led in the direction of power redistribution. In Figure 3 the manifest conflict as represented by the button issue was confined to issues that were relatively safe; that is, within the basic consensual agreement over desegregation. "safe" Power Manifest conflict Redistribution Group between Eonflict "’ ""9 Dominant Button . and Issue) potepglal Subordinate Groups Figure 3. Results of manifest conflict within the DAC. Figure 4 illustrates the latent conflict over PTA membership which addressed issues that were fundamental to the redistribution of power between racial groups. Because this conflict was brought to the committee's attention late in the first year and because it was con- sidered to be the domain of the two parent groups involved, it cannot be considered as conflict occurring within the group. Both the manifest and latent conflicts could potentially lead to power redistribution between dominant and subordinate groups. I 179 Power Latent Redistribution Group ____________ 9 between Conflict potential Dominant (PTA link and Membership) Subordinate Groups Figure 4. Results of latent conflict within the DAC. In order to summarize results, it is important to return first to the original assumptions and questions guiding the inquiry. The rationale for research was based on the assumption that the community group would be committed to broadening its base for organizational decision-making by including groups that had previously been excluded from this process. This assumption proved correct. The DAC's member- ship was 15.2% black, 84.8% white, reflecting the racial balance in the Springfield School District. Efforts were also made to include non- school representatives from the community, including cities and town- ships within the district. Given a community group that has attempted to broaden its base of participation in decision-making through the inclusion of a subor- dinate group, the following questions can be asked to determine the relationship between conflict and power within the DAC: Was there a concern for group harmony and a consensus approach to decision-making? Yes. In the DAC, consensus decision-making was encouraged by the leaderShip of the committee and was a part of the formal group process training conducted by PEO. 180 Was conflict avoided by the grppp in an effort to promote con- sensus decision-making? No. Conflict was not avoided, but its inten- sity was lessened by factors such as the nature of an advisory commit- tee, an "institutionalizing" of conflict through the DAC structure, a basic consensual framework within desegregation, and agreement on the goals of the committee by members. Does conflict of relatively low intensity reflect a "disregard" for underlyingpconcepts? Yes, for two different reasons: (a) some reapondents mentioned that they had the feeling many problems and issues had not been brought out into the open, but were still present (see Appendix M); and (b) desegregation, the overriding purpose for the DAC's formation, is an ethnic conflict. Since the group was com- prised of both blacks and whites, any conflict dealt with by the group was also a potential ethnic conflict. Dahrendorf (l959) noted that even though issues may be resolved, some form of conflict will continue as long as there is a power differential between two or more parties (as in the case in Springfield). Were the underlying concerns that were ignored or not addressed for some reason related to a redistribution of power? Yes. The issue that was not addressed by the committee but that was frequently men- tioned by committee members was the PTA conflict, an example of both community and ethnic conflict. The black PTA was not willing to give membership and, hence, a share in power, to the new predominantly white parent group. At the same time, the black PTA had traditionally been perhaps the only power base for a small black community, located as it was within a larger, predominantly white school district. l8l Parallel to this study's exploration of the link between per- ceptions of power and conflict has been an examination of the DAC as a group engaged in learning and action. The Desegregption Advisory Committee as a Learning and Action Group Community development groups have been defined as collections of individuals involved in learning that leads to action directed at social change. The DAC was indeed such a group; conceived from a state of tension over desegregation, the committee engaged in learning and action aimed at preparing the Springfield community for school desegre- gation. ' The learning in the group was primarily attitudinal, although learning in the domains of knowledge and skills went on simultaneously. Respondents indicated that they spent a good deal of time simply learn- ing more about each other, both personally and relating to issues. Barriers needed to be broken down before this could happen: members made frequent reference to the fact that when meetings first started, blacks sat on one side of the room, whites on the other. There was also antagonism dating back to group members' previous stands on desegregation and the affiliations of some members with schools con- sidered "upper class" and "snobbish" by others in the group. Learning about others also took place through dealing with conflict issues. In the accounts respondents gave of the controversy over choice of a button, it became obvious that there was not a lot of agreement as to who was offended by the button and who initiated dis- sent. But respondents indicated that as a result of this controversy, l82 they learned more about the Opinions of others on the subject of racial differences.1 While respondents learned about each other, they also said that there was still a lot to learn in the interpersonal realm. Some felt committee members were uncomfortable in dealing with racial and socio-economic differences between people and that many of the "meat- ier" issues below the surface were not brought out because members were hesitant to approach discussions about differences. These respondents suggested that overt conflict--"screaming at each other"-- f might have been helpful in bringing "gut" issues to the surface. On the other hand, several respondents mentioned they were particularly proud of the fact that they got to know and like people whom they first thought of as antagonists. While no attempt has been made to measure learning about atti- tudes, it seems safe to say that attitudes--in particular attitudes about what others in the committee were like and what they valued-- reinforced the need for the communication skills that the group learned. Opinion was divided on the usefulness of learning these skills; some felt they needed much more training in group dynamics while others were annoyed at having to participate in group communica- tion exercises. Consensus decision-making was a skill that many felt they had learned and used effectively in the group. This technique, along with 1Knowledge of one another's opinions parallels.Kieffer's (l98l) category of "maintaining openness to critical feedback," one of the "participatory compentencies" deemed important by adult learners in citizen organizations. 183 the skills in group communication and setting long range goals and objectives, were stressed by both PEO trainers and the co-chairs of the group.1 Knowledge, in the sense of facts, concepts, and perceptions, was most important as part of respondents' communication roles. Pass- ing on information about how the plan would be implemented and who would be involved depended on learning this information from administrators and others knowledgable in the group. Individual members moved from the teacher to learner role as their experiences and needs dictated. Those who had a greater knowledge of the desegregation plan, of group process skills, or of the feelings of particular segments of the com- munity served as "teachers" on that particular subject. As the commit- tee moved on to subjects when members were less knowledgable and experienced, these individuals moved into learner roles. The learning engaged in by DAC members fits the second clause of Roberts' description of the role of learning in community develop- ment, learning that is required for, rather than a direct cause ofi behavior aimed at changing social relations. The actual behavior or actions engaged in by the group included such activities as helping teachers move, establishing a desegregation "fact phone line," organiz- ing bus tours of the district for community members and real estate agents, advising on the theme "together we will" to rally the community behind desegregation, and serving as a. clearinghouse for parent activities in the three schools. 1These skills correspond to the participatory compentencies "cultivating skills in public relations, multi-media utilization, and community communications" and "cultivating skills in political or community advocacy" (Kieffer, l98l). 184 While more radical kinds of learning and behaviors could have been undertaken by members of a group calling itself the "Desegrega- tion Advisory Committee," the history of desegregation in Springfield and the "crucial and decisive" role performed by the board administra- tors in leading implementation established certain unspoken parameters on the extent of learning and action taking place. School desegrega— tion itself was the direct object of the group's activities, and no one. regardless of his or her view on the issue, wanted to re-open the divisive arguments about the issue that had plagued the community for l2 years. Also, administrators and board members had done a thorough job of "second guessing" any problems, learning from other successful desegregation plans, and planning for community involvement so that many of the more obvious pitfalls to implementing a plan were elimi- nated by the time the DAC formed. The desire to avoid a factioned community may have been the more important motivation in determining the group emphasis on harmony and its avoidance, at least for the first year, of the issue of desegrega- tion. The thorough preparation of the school board and administration was secondary. If members had felt a strong desire to leave the mechanics of desegregation, which took most of the committee's time, and get on to the deeper, "philosophical" issues which were alluded to as needing attention eventually, it is possible that group conflict would have been more intense. It almost appears as if conscious, yet unspoken, decisions were made by each member of the group about how far he or she would go in approaching conflict. "Too far" would have disrupted the goals of l85 group harmony. "Not far enough" would have meant a group so unani- mously agreeable that there would have been little reason for its exis- tence. The kinds of learning that group members will deem important in the second year of the DAC's existence might be different that what was important in the first. Respondents indicated that although members had made a lot of progress in learning about the attitudes of others in the group, there remained a great deal of "unknown territory" in the group, especially between blacks and whites. Evidence supports this viewpoint: the refusal by half of the black members in the group to be interviewed, comments by respondents about the reluctance of members to talk about racial differences and about the angry comments of one of the black respondents about race relations in general. The group will decide whether learning during the DAC's second year should focus more on attitudes--specifically on increasing commun- ication between the races and among DAC members in general--or on knowledge and/or skills. Decisions about the purpose of the DAC in its second phase will determine what kinds of learning individuals will seek. Conclusion The DAC was created primarily by members of the dominant white social group in the Springfield School District. While the committee was successful in fulfilling its advisory function, it was not as suc- cessful in bringing blacks and whites to a closer understanding of the imbalance of power between the two groups. Perhaps the "safety" of a 186 committee limited to advisement and a basic consensual agreement on de- segregation made it more difficult for subordinate groups to bring up dissatisfactions and easier for dominant groups to adopt defense mechanisms. A strong push for consensus is acHsincentive for either side to bring up any issues that might disrupt this consensus. At the same time, the study has shown the constructive results of a consensual approach to conflict. Dominant and subordinate groups have established a structure for communication that may be the basis of future explorations into more sensitive, deep-rooted issues. This study points to a lack of knowledge on the part of whites about how black members of the DAC felt about race relations. But the study also reveals attempts on the part of whites to analyze the racial situation in the DAC and in the Springfield community. This desire to understand black-white dynamics could transcend any charges of "phony liberalism" and indicate a commitment to action for changes towards power redistribution. 0n the other hand, whites' good intentions toward understanding the racial situation may have been merely "con- venient" in that the ll% black population in the Springfield schools was not large enough to present much of a threat to the general pat- tern of white dominance. As mentioned in Chapter I, a limitation of the study was the small number of blacks interviewed. Because of this small sample and for any number of other possible reasons, a clear picture of blacks' feelings about white members of the DAC and about the racial situation in Springfield in general did not emerge. 187 An examination of the DAC as a community development group revealed that learning from and about others on the committee was a meaningful aspect of respondents' participation. Respondents indicated that communication was facilitated by the DAC chairperson and by PEO trainers. The role of "facilitators"--people from outside or inside a group who can help members attain their goals-~is growing in importance especially among community groups that are looking for ways to manage conflict. The next section looks at the implications of this study for facilitators. Considerations for Group Facilitators The DAC is representative of groups that have good intentions about including subordinate groups in decision-making, but that may not be prepared to handle the conflict that often results when the concerns of subordinate group members are different from those of dominant group members. When conflict occurs, facilitators (or leaders, adult educators, community development agents, or trainers) are in the posi- tion to act as "third parties" who can work objectively with the two (or more) parties in conflict. This study of power and conflict led to the development of some questions for consideration by facilitators working as conflict managers with community groups comprised of domi- nant and subordinate group members. - It often happens that groups become wedded to a particular view of their mission, their activities, or their membership. Con- flict can call into question any one of these "givens." Is a facili- tator willing to address the possibility of structural change in order to accommodate the group's need for increased learning 188 of skills, knowledge or attitudes, or action? These changes could be directed at organizational goals and objectives, decision-making bodies, activities, bylaws, division of responsibility, or leadership. The possibility of structural change may be a prerequisite for use of con- flict management models. Before a third party can effectively "nego- tiate differences" between conflicting parties, an important aspect of Robinson's (l979) model, there has to be a feeling for the alternatives for change that exist within the group or surrounding organizations. Group trust--from both subordinate and dominant group members--can quickly turn to a feeling of betrayal if efforts at conflict resolu- tion are accompanied by an unwillingness to make the changes deemed im- portant by the parties involved. 0 Facilitators need to be aware of the purpose for which the group was formed and the expectations of group members for the group: Is the group's role primarily advisory or decision-making? Are members strongly issue-oriented or are they more concerned with processes of communication between group members and in the community? If issue- oriented, are positions taken based on ethnic or other considerations/ groupings? Are issues related to broader concerns of power redistribu- tion in society? If process-oriented, does the resultant communica- tion allow for expression of dissatisfaction between conflicting parties? A broad view of the purpose of the group, the background of group formation, and values of participants are important to under- stand what kinds¢rftraining and leadership are needed. - Dominant group members are often not aware of the defenses, biases, and assumptions they bring to community groups. Especially when subordinate group participation occurs on dominant "turf," the 189 temptation exists for dominant group members to hear only what they are comfortable in hearing from minorities. Facilitators may want to spend some time conducting "consciousness-raising" activities in order to encourage dominant and subordinate group members to reflect on their own values. . Bringing out issues that relate to underlying concerns about redistribution of power within the group can be risky if the group is not ready to address these concerns. At what point might a group confront power imbalances? If these deeper concerns are brought out before group members have gotten to know and trust one another, the group risks destruction. A facili- tator would have to be sensitive to whether or not the climate of trust was such that issues could be brought to the surface or whether better group communication would first need to be established. Results of this study have led to the identification of other areas for research. The next section examines questions relating to specific findings on perceptions of conflict and power and to the nature of future research on groups such as the DAC. Recommendations for Future Research This study has shown the value of a cooperative approach to conflict, but leaves unanswered the question of when and how power re- distribution within the group and the community could take place. In what ways can a cooperative approach to group conflict lead to power redistribution? Studies that would help in answering this question are: . An exploration of the perceptions of conflict and power within a group where conflict is of high intensity; 190 . An exploration of the circumstances under which high power groups will agree to cooperate with low power groups. Circumstances may include when the high power group consists of community leaders and conflict is threatening the reputation of the community, when the high power group is given no other choice as a result of decisions made by third parties, or when the high power group has relatively little to lose; 0An exploration of the defense mechanisms of the powerful and how they differ between groups with low intensity conflict and high intensity conflict; and "An exploration of the strategies used by the less powerful and how they differ between groups with low intensity conflict and high intensity conflict. A follow-up study of the DAC might be undertaken to determine: - How long the consensual model of conflict management could continue before being disrupted by concerns related to power redistri- bution; -'The kinds of resources used by subordinate groups if conflict over redistribution of power became manifest, whether they could be considered competitive or pressure, and the nature of motivation to employ these resources; -‘The future of the DAC as a "temporary halt between opposing forces of unequal power." Did relationships between dominants and subordinates change within the group over time, were structural changes within the DAC made to accommodate conflict, or were conflicts over power imbalances taken over by other groups?; and 191 . The nature of the defense mechanisms used by members of domi- nant groups in the DAC. Studies related to the study of perceived conflict and power in the DAC could examine: ' An exploration of the perceptions of conflict and power in a community group that had a higher percentage of subordinate group mem— bers than did Springfield; and 0 An exploration of institutions or structures besides the public schools that could provide blacks and whites (or other dominant and subordinate groups) with "integrative bonds"; i.e., what other structures could provide subordinates with access to the dominant system and vice versa? Further research should consider the following methodologies for studying a community group: - including qualitative as well as quantitative data. The data that proved most meaningful in explaining the relationship between power and conflict in this study came from the "how” and "why" questions, rather than questions designed to gather information for hypothesis testing; and . devising strategies to obtain greater participation from sub- ordinate groups in the study, either through an interviewer from that group, or other ways consistent with the concerns of validity and reliability. Concluding Remarks Results of this study have demonstrated a constructive use of power and some of the positive benefits of conflict. Through an 192 examination of conflict, group members learned more about their values and those of others; they decided which was more important-- their feelings about other people or their feelings about issues; they looked at the past and decided what was worth preserving and what was best forgotten; through a look at the future, they decided what changes would have to be made in order to reach their goals. Conflict also taught group members about the power they each possessed. Power was consistent with the desired outcomes of con- flict; a desire for a harmonious and peaceful community was facili- tated by a cooperative use of power. In the future, conflict may teach group members that the kinds of power they possess are not sufficient to bring about the desired conflict outcomes. At that point, decisions will be made about how to get the power needed and then how to use it. UPDATE Integration Committee, l98l-82 A visit was made in May of 1982 to the deputy superinten- dent of the Springfield School District to find out what activities and issues the former DAC had worked on the second year of its existence and what the general "tone" of the committee had been during this time. The Reed-Oak PTA issue was resolved early the previous summer, l98l, before the start of the school year. The matter was settled quietly by PTA officials and others from the Reed community, and all those who wanted to purchase membership cards for the upcom- ing year were allowed to do so. The same slate of officers that had been elected the year before remained. The deputy superintendent reported that no further mention of the "PTA issue" was made during the committee's second year. The work of the committee focused on monitoring desegrega- tion in three schools. The newly-named "Integration Committee" was described as more "work-oriented" than it had been the previous year. A central steering committee worked closely with consultants from the Program for Equal Opportunity to develop a model for moni- toring, which it brought to the larger committee. The larger group divided up the activities of site monitoring, phone interviews, record analysis, and other related tasks among members. 193 f 194 Discussion at meetings was more "focused" than it had been the first year, and meetings followed the agenda outlined by the steering committee closely. The committee plans to continue activities for a third year, again concentrating on the monitoring of desegregation efforts in the three schools. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DESEGREGATION IN THE SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION IN THE SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT The Springfield School District is comprised of most of the city of Springfield itself (population approximately 26,000), all of one adjacent city, and portions of another neighboring city and one township. Total enrollment in the school district was 5096 students in 1980, spread among eleven elementary schools, two junior highs, and one high school. Black student enrollment in the district was 11%. The most recent phase of the school desegregation issue dates back to 1968. On December 30 of that year, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare charged that the Springfield School District built Reed Elementary School in Rogers Township in 1926 for the purpose of segregating black children. The school district maintained that Reed was built to provide a convenient neighborhood school fOr children who lived close by, as were all other district elementary schools. As reported in a press release by the district's public information director, "almost from the beginning there was a division between those who felt the school board should establish a desegre- gation plan to end the dispute, regardless of guilt or innocence. and those who believed that because the district was not guilty of the charge, the legal appeals should continue." In 1969 the board of education announced its intent to contest Department of Health, Education and Welfare findings. The 195 196 case moved to the courts, and in June 1972, federal funds to Springfield schools were terminated. The Justice Department rejected the district's voluntary plans, and filed several suits in federal district court in 1975 and 1976. In 1978, a federal district court judge conducted the first trial on the merits of the case. She ruled in September of that year that Reed was "de facto", rather than "de jure" segregated, "noting that had the school board denied a school within a half mile for Rogers Township students while providing such schools for white students, that action would have been discriminatory." This decision was over-ruled in January of 1980 by a circuit court of appeals and the case was assigned once again to a federal district court and another judge. After reviewing an update of plans prepared by a board- appointed Desegregation Task Force and conducting public hearings, the board voted at this time not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it did not admit to the court's charges of deliberate desegregation. The May 1980 plan was rejected by the federal district court judge, as was a subsequent plan in October 1980. The plan ordered by the courts in October was scheduled to begin on January 5, 1981. This plan is referred to as a "three school cluster", linking Reed, James and Oak elementary schools. Under the plan: Each school kept its kindergarten. All Ist, 2nd, and 3rd graders attended Reed. 197 All 4th, 5th, and 6th graders attended James and Oak, with Reed children assigned to either school based on where they lived. The alternate first graders then at James were moved to Reed to be with the other first graders. Open Classroom (kindergarten through 6th graders) went to Oak because there was no room for it at Reed. For the same reason, the Later Elementary Academic Program (LEAP) was moved from Oak to James. A total of 337 children transferred schools as part of the plan. Busing to achieve desegregation was not part of the court order, but rather was the decision of the Springfield Board of Education. In June of 1980, the board invited the participation of the Program for Educational Opportunity (PEO), a university-based organization funded under Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. PEO assists school districts in the mid-west with their desegregation efforts, without charge. In the Springfield district, PEO conducted workshops to sensitize school personnel to the upcoming desegregation, offered a course on the history of school desegregation to school administrators, and provided training to the Desegregation Advisory Committee. APPENDIX B FORMATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE DESEGREGATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FORMATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE DESEGREGATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE The idea for the Desegregation Advisory Committee (DAC) came from several sources, according to the superintendent: (a) the Program for Educational Opportunity (PEO) had provided the board of education with examples of districts that had successfully desegregated. Much of this success was attributed to community involvement, and specifically the existence of a "structured committee" that could monitor that involvement; and (b) staff members from Columbus Ohio Public Schools, where school desegregation was implemented success- fully, collaborated with the PEO in conducting a workshop for Springfield school personnel. The Columbus district had involved community members in the process through a community advisory committee. The DAC was charged with the fOllowing major tasks: 1. To serve as a communications network between the board and the community. 2. To provide reactions to the district's desegregation implementation procedures. 3. To provide a forum for community members to contribute ideas which will enhance desegregation efforts. 4. To monitor the desegregation plan fOr the 1980-1981 school year. The board of education selected the chairperson of the committee and committee members. Selection criteria for the comnittee members were based on the "need to ensure the active involvement and participation of the diverse population to which our school district 198 is responsible". 1. 2. "Special 199 These criteria included: geographic distribution racial/cultural representation socio-economic diversity role group affiliation (parents, teachers, administrators, board members, etc.) associational/organizational representation (PTA, PTO, PTA Council, FEA, AFSA, etc.) governmental representation (city commission, council or township supervisors. etc.) expressed interest and concern regarding the issues and schools. criteria", characteristics to be "represented on the committee as a whole, but not reflected in each or any one member", included: 1. 2. 5. ability to plan and coordinate group processes willingness to devote a reasonable amount of time to committee activities ability to comnunicate effectively with different groups and the public at large knowledge of school operations and politics of education special knowledge or skills regarding issue(s) A list of individuals was developed by the superintendent for selection of advisory committee members in consultation with: building administrators, PTA/PTO presidents, city and township governments. In addition, an announcement of the committee's formation was meant to reach all sections of the population and invite "citizens at large" to make their interest in being appointed to the committee known. From this list, approximately fifty members were selected. 200 The committee met approximately every two weeks as a body and organized three sub-committees which met as needed to address the mechanics of the desegregation move, community organizations, and human relations and communications. APPENDIX C INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Respondent Number Male Female Black White INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1. How many years have you lived or worked in the Springfield School District? 2. Do you have any children in any of the schools affected by the desegregation plan? How many? 3. How did you get involved in the Desegregation Advisory Committee? 4. Why did you get involved in the Desegregation Advisory Committee? 5. Would you say you got involved in the Desegregation Advisory Committee primarily because of personal concerns or because you saw yourself as representing other groups in the community? If primarily because of personal concerns, what were they? If primarily because you saw yourself as representing a group, what group(s) did you represent? 201 202 6. In your opinion, what are the goals Of the Desegregation Advisory Committee? 7. In your opinion, is the Desegregation Advisory Committee working (are these goals being accomplished)? If yes, what's making it work? If no, what's preventing it from working? 8. How important is it to you to be a member of the Desegregation Advisory Committee? (Look at the chart and indicate your choice.)1 VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT If very important, important, or somewhat important, why? If not important, why not? 1All choices in bold face throughout the interview schedule were displayed on a small 6”x9'l flipchart to respondents. 10. 11. 12. 203 When you first got involved in the Desegregation Advisory Committee, how much did you feel you knew about the issue of desegregation in Springfield compared with others on the committee? A LOT (MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE) A MODERATE AMOUNT (THE SAME AS ANYONE ELSE) A LITTLE (LESS THAN ANYONE ELSE) How much do you feel you know about desegregation in Springfield ppg, compared with others on the committee? A LOT (MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE) A MODERATE AMOUNT (THE SAME AS ANYONE ELSE) A LITTLE (LESS THAN ANYONE ELSE) What else about desegregation in Springfield would it be helpful to know? How long have you been involved with school desegregation issues in Springfield? Describe your involvement. 204 13. How important is the issue of school desegregation to you? VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT If very important, important, or somewhat important, why? If not very important, why not? 14. Generally speaking, how satisfied have you been with decisions made by the corrmittee? VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED SOMEWHAT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED If very satisfied, satisfied, or somewhat satisfied, why? If not satisfied, why not? 205 15. I am going to ask a few questions about issues in the Desegregation Advisory Committee where there may have been differences in Opinion. First, could you tell me about several such issues? 16. What was the final decision made on: Issue #1? Issue #2? 17. How satisfied were you with the final decision made on: Issue #1: VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED SOMEWHAT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED Why, or why not? 17. 18. 19. 206 Issue #2: VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED SOMEWHAT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED Why, or why not? During the Course of your involvement with the Desegregation Advisory Committee, were there any issues you would have liked to have seen addressed that were not? Yes No If yes, what were they? Why do you think they were not addressed by the committee? How satisfied were you with the way in which new issues were introduced to committee members? VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED SOMEWHAT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED Why, or why not? 20. 21. 22. 23. 207 You have told me about some of the issues addressed by the Desegregation Advisory Committee. How important was it to you that others on the committee agreed with your viewpoints on these issues? VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT When was it most important to you that others agreed with your viewpoints? Generally speaking, how much influence would you say you have had in decision-making within the Desegregation Advisory Committee? A GREAT DEAL 0F INFLUENCE A FAIR AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE A LITTLE INFLUENCE N0 INFLUENCE How much influence in decision-making would you like to have? A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE A FAIR AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE A LITTLE INFLUENCE NO INFLUENCE 24. 25. 26. 208 I am going to hand you a list of the names of the forty Desegregation Advisory Committee members. After each name there is a space where you can describe how much influence each of these individuals had in decisions made, issues discussed within the Desegregation Advisory Coonfittee. Put a 3, 2, 1, or 0 beside each person's name to describe the amount of influence. 3 = a great deal of influence 2 = a fair amount of influence 1 = a little influence 0 = no influence If you feel you do not know an individual well enough to rate his or her influence, leave the space blank. Looking at the same list, who on the list would you say has given you the most support within the committee over the past year? Put a + by those names. How have these peOple shown their support? Please describe. 209 27. The next question relates to the resources, skills, and attitudes you feel that you brought to the Desegregation Advisory Committee. I will name a resource, and then ask you to tell me if you used that resource, or brought it to the committee, and describe how you used it. I am not interested in knowing if and how you used a particular resource in other settings, only within the Desegregation Advisory Committee. your speaking ability your contacts with influential people in the community your knowledge of school desegregation your ability to organize people - your sense of humor - your influential position in the community — your skills in working with people - your commitment to the goals of the Desegregation Advisory Committee - your common sense - your problem-solving skills - your discontent over school desegregation in Springfield - the viewpoint of people outside the committee - your enthusiasm - your planning skills - other skills, resources: 28. Which of these resources has helped most in getting your view- points across to others on the committee? 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 210 What would you have to do to become more influential in the Desegregation Advisory Committee? What is your profession? What is your age? What was your last grade in school, or last degree? Could you please tell me in what category your combined family income falls? ‘ O - $10,000 $11,000-$20,000 $21,ooo-$30,000 $31,000-$40,000 $41,000-$50,000 $51,000-$60,000 $61,000-$70,000 211 34. Next, I would like to read six statements. Could you tell me for each statement whether you: STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NOT SURE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 1. When I set out to express my viewpoints in this group, I am almost certain to get people to listen to me. 2. I feel that what happens in this group is determined by those who are in more influential positions within the group. 3. I can pretty much determine what will happen in this committee. 4. People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they conflict with the interests of stronger, more influential people on this committee. 5. Whether or not I make myself heard in this group depends mostly on my ability. 6. When I get what I want in this group, it is usually because I am lucky. 35. Is there anything else you would like to add about your role in the Desegregation Advisory Committee, or any questions or comments you have about this interview? Thank you very much for your participation in this study. APPENDIX D LEVENSON'S (1973) I, P, C SCALE LEVENSON'S (1973) I, P, AND C SCALE ITEMS P = Power Others Control I = Internal Control C = Chance Control Item I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people. PeOple like myself have very little chance of protecting ourpersonalinterests when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others. Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me. I am usually able to protect my personal interests. My life is determined by my own actions. I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. When I get what I want, it's usually because I worked hard for it. To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings. Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interest from bad luck happenings. When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky. It's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune. 212 Scale 213 Item Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I'm lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am. Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power. If important people were to decide they didn't like me, I probably wouldn't make many friends. It's chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability. In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people who have power over me. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver. APPENDIX E RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: COMMUNITY PRIDE AND THE CHALLENGE 0F DESEGREGATION I (a) (b) (C) (d) (e) RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: COMMUNITY PRIDE AND THE CHALLENGE 0F DESEGREGATION We want to look positive to other communities. We don't want people to pull away. You need a kind of personal link...I really care about that school and about these peOple. Many of them are my very good friends. Some are kids I went to school with. This is my neighborhood. I think communities are great, and I'm the second generation on that street in that house. Springfield maintains that, you have hundreds of second, third, and fourth generation families living in the Springfield school district. I've always been attached to my neighborhood in the James school area. People around James always assumed that the government would opt fOr the easy way out, and pair Reed and James as a final solution. I felt that would not be a fair solution...not that it would not be fair, it would be economically disastrous for the whole Springfield school area. All it would do would be to resegregate, based on patterns of other cities. It would just enlarge the segregated blaCk community - not a solution, just a new problem. I was intent on doing everything I could not to let that happen. If I had any criticism, it was that it was not broad enough, it should have involved a couple of more schools. But that would be unfair to black families, because you're spreading them out over such a broad area. They're sensitive to that, and I think they have a right to Object. I think this is the most important thing that's happened in Springfield in the last 25 years. I'm so proud of our community, I wanted to see this thing come off. Springfield's been written up in papers across the country because of how this went. Neat bunch of people. 214 (.0 (g) (h) (i) (3') (k) 215 I'm so proud of our whole community, they came through with flying colors. I've held my head up high to my friends in other communities, saying "hey, it worked," I'm proud of that. They even wore the button in (another suburb) and everybody asked about it - I felt great saying it was going well. (Question: "what has made the Desegregation Advisory Committee work?") Community-oriented peOple who didn't want to see Springfield in a bad light regardless of their feelings about the desegregation plan. A lot of them felt this would be the turning point for the community, and actually save the community. The whole business could be saved by something going well. ...I practically grew up in Springfield. I left the district in the 11th grade...but when I went to one of the meetings (school district's open meetings on desegregation plans in spring, 1980), it was interesting to note all the people I had left, hadn't seen for many years, and I was with them again...felt like this is a community I belonged in, wanted to stay with. It was important to me that Springfield retain what it had. How desegregation was handled would eventually affect everyone in the school district. Springfield's been getting bad press for years...we did such a good job with desegregation, it was really nice to see the good press they got. Number 1 concern was preservation of the community. Given all the anger some parents feel, they're not going to let it stand in the way of integration. It's been neat, to see parents who don't like any of it trying to make sure it works. PeOple in the community have been able to put the success of their children above their own feelings. We haven't had anything nasty. This is a community that has so many economic groups in it. it's not homogeneous: all different ethnic groups, different economic levels, eeucational levels. Put all that together, you're going to have a lot of problems coming to consensus on anything. I would like to see peOple moving in because the schools are so great. I want to see people motivated to move in, send kids to Springfield schools because they have so many good, exciting things going on, both educationally and socially. And the whole racial issue doesn't enter into it. The good things outweigh fear. I think it could happen in this small community. The resources and talents are available. (1) (m) 216 There was a part of me that really liked the idea of a small community fighting the federal government, but I knew in the back of my head that we needed to get on with it, we weren't winning anything...just cutting Off our noses to spite our faces. We don't do a good job in schools helping people understand the richness of different people and cultures. In theory, we believe in it, but not in practice, so when it came to our trying to solve problems in this community, if the leadership had taken a strong position towards desegregation, they would polarize the community...and then there would be white flight. We tried to avoid that, and that's why it took us so long to accomplish what we were trying to do. Springfield, sociologically, has all the symptoms of a declining community: a high rate of older people, blue- collar workers, ADC mothers, etc., a lot of absentee land- lords in the business district. A situation like this could precipitate white flight, which we were trying to avoid. Springfield is small enough, we hoped we could manage those factors. So far we have...an interesting experiment. APPENDIX F RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: RACE RELATIONS/DESEGREGATION I" (a) RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: RACE RELATIONS/DESEGREGATION To become more influential I would probably have to lose some individuality, agree more with those who are influential. The Desegregation Advisory Committee was basically a very conservative group of people, a bunch of black and white people that are trying to be nice to each other. If people say it (desegregation) was difficult and would have preferred not to move (schools), they are immediately branded as racists. I wanted to see more open relationship between blacks and whites, wanted to see people being able to communicate better. I had had a lot more experience along that line, was more liberal than a lot of peOple here not because I am college-educated, but because I have lived in (nearby large industrial city) for many years, and had been president Of a block club. I felt I was going in there with credentials, and could not be considered racist. I felt somebody had to say to the black people that "our kids are having a rough time because they aren't used to a black dialect and can't under- stand the black lunch room mothers"....so I said something to one of the more liberal blacks and she said, "You're probably right, I never thought of it.“ I think for many Of them it's their first dealings with blacks, and vice versa for blacks. It's a big cultural shock for a lot of peOple, and it's going to be for a lot Of years. All over the world, it's racial -- it's not about equal education. The Lord didn't make the world in one day, but we had to do it and have it come out right. They pass a law that says "bus 'em." Me and my children are the victim of circumstances. It's not just blacks that are being hurt. Moving bodies doesn't mean they're getting good education, why not move teachers? My own experience in Springfield High School was that if you were black, they didn't want to teach you. There weren't as many blacks then. You were just the token black, so if they didn't want you to get it, you didn't get it. I talked to the counselor about college prep classes, she told me "Oh, I don't think you qualify." I know the fear that black children and parents have. 217 (C) 218 The little kids now are on a battlefield, although they don't realize it. Kids that are on the battlefield now are going to be stronger, because they're desegregated now. They used to have to wait until high school. All the things they don't want to flourish in society are going to flourish. The system is forcing people together, but they did not want to be that way. Out of that comes a lot of interracial marriages. People who grow up together have feelings for each other. Society calls this "creating a monster." If there's a brilliant kid that might be black, Chinese, Korean, we will not let him "supercede." It's happening right now. In order to get a good education, you've got to go back to school and re-educate yourself. The system can't. (I presented my knowledge of desegregation to the group in a) gutsy, frustrated way. When they said stuff, I said "Lady, you can't tell me that, because I went through the Springfield School District." We used to have riots coming home from school. Black and white kids fighting, nobody knew. They only let you be acceptable in those kinds of groups when they want to. I think it should be left totally to the parents. We don't need anybody dictating, we can read. We learned one Saturday (PEO retreat in March) that if we didn't get it through the Springfield School District, we had to learn ourselves. Don't think we should need to use the professional. We need to regroup the whole teaching staff in Springfield as to what our expectations are in order to remain employed in the district. A lot of them are in it just for the paycheck. A key thing to education is parents' involvement. What made the Desegregation Advisory Committee different from other committees is that people decided to put their differences aside for the good of the children. But the differences didn't go away, they were just put aside. Also, desegregation was an important issue with important consequences. We had a strong desire to make desegregation work, not to be "another Boston", and believed that because Springfield was small, there was a chance of succeeding. This is the key: you can say the problems are really racial, but what can you say after that? (d) (e) (f) 219 The desegregation plan was overdue, should have been implemented years ago. I always went to integrated schools in (nearby large city)...kids in the township have been deprived of a lot of things.. Lots of parents were born and raised here, they can only communicate what's here in the township, can't really relate to what's outside. The children have seen a one-sided life. It's advantageous for kids to go to other schools -- they have different techniques of teaching. equipment than we have been used to. I feel I have an advantage -- most parents out here went to all black schools, really didn't start mixing until junior high (I had been through an integrated system). Kindergarten through third grade, that was my fight to enter school. I was to go to an all-black school. Instead, my mother put me in another school...they said I couldn't come because of the boundary line -- we forced the issue. It affected me very much. You have to come out of your bubble. If you never venture out, you never find out what is really out there. To start in an all—black school until sixth grade, then go to an integrated school at 12 or 13 years old is sometimes very traumatic, to switch from one atmosphere to another. Yet if you did it from the beginning, it's like a normal cycle Of ife. My husband went to Reed and he feels like he didn't get a very good education there. I went to an integrated school. We found that when we got to high school, we have two different sets of problems. Our relations to students were entirely different. (Improvement in race relations) happened at surface level. But all is possible in time and through the educational process we're going through. It needs more work. We haven't done it as a larger society. Maybe we even got a little below the surface -- if nothing else was accomplished, there was talking and confrontation. We might not have listened to everything, heard everything as the other person wanted them to, but they heard something and it started. It could collapse or progress -- I feel it will progress. We're a small community, and kids are already mixed at the junior high and senior high, so parents do get together. Now with elementary schools being mixed and people involved in committees like this, we're going to have to hear things, have to deal with things. It's going to be more Open than it was. APPENDIX G RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: PROGRAM FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (PEO) TRAINING ( (b) (d) RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: PROGRAM FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (PEO) TRAINING Smartest thing we did was to get involved with PEG. They were able to predict problems I, at least, would not have anticipated...they were the most skillful group, and were federally funded. They had all kinds of things to offer, and they were all free. I had the feeling that the committee was uncomfortable with differences; this is probably true with all groups. It takes a long time before they are really comfortable dealing with issues like this in the presence of peOple of different colors. The retreat was a big help; it seemed to bring the group together. It's a shame we didn't have some kind of social activity earlier in the game so that people could begin to know one another. I saw a difference one or two meetings after that workshop, a feeling of the group working together. At the workshop, several ideas emerged. There was a suggestion that the task forces in each of the three schools be enlarged to include parents and support staff, two teachers and the principal, and meet once a month. Also, there was a sugges- tion that there be a tri-school committee, better coordination and information on what each school was doing. Teachers really resented the time it took to hold sessions with the PEO, "we need to pack, to move." Teachers and principals were not as receptive to new ideas. (At the second meeting) they were trying to do a little trust- building. It was apparent that there was a lot of mistrust from the black community toward the white at that point. Tried to build trust in a very token kind of way that night...but it didn't really happen again until "after the fact" (of desegregation), our meeting (PEO training) in March. That really should have been at the beginning. When we were planning March retreat...still very important to me that there be processes for people to get to know each other. Some...wanted to be sure that there was a lot accomplished at the retreat. Still very important to me that there be processes for peOple to get to know each other...that's where I was coming from, but a lot of people 220 (e) (f) (9) 221 were “General Motors", "we gotta make sure decisions are made.” There was some tension. I felt that task orientation could not take place unless people were more open. I seemed to feel that the strongest but didn't feel anyone was saying that wasn't important. It worked out that it was necessary for both to happen. I have a strong feeling that we would have been much more effective if we had been in existence longer, gotten up-front training from the beginning. Think we could have dealt better with issues that are coming up now: Reed-Oak PTA issue, black-white issues. Although I'm not sure how that would have worked...maybe the group wouldn't have been receptive earlier. Couldn't get a group of strangers together and say "hey, we're going to go for a weekend in the Ramada Inn." We will be more effective because of the training. It's a good idea to have trained facilitators with us when we have our meetings. Too bad (the weekend away) couldn't have been in September or October, but maybe it wouldn't have been as valuable as it was in March. It was an invaluable experience for me; our committee became very close. We got to know each other better than from September to March, but can look at it backwards too; it might not have worked in October because we didn't know each other...PEO helped us a lot, we needed their direction. A group of 53 people needed to be brought together. During the workshop weekend, we were working on goals, what was important to us in schools and in the whole district. In smaller connfittees during the weekend, the greatest difference Of opinion was how children were going to be accepted. One woman felt her kid was going to be ridiculed and called terrible names, and yet white people from district felt the same way. Consensus decision-making was the fun part of that weekend. They had us list things we thought were important, and then we were supposed to come up with a consensus with other people at our tables. We did that a lot without realizing it during the year...like the "huggers": some people thought that was real stupid, but after they heard other people's point of view...we decided it wasn't so bad. And the button...I think we had two long meetings on that, and yet that was a consensus too -- we heard other people's points of view. APPENDIX H "TOGETHER WE WILL" BUTTON I "Together We Will" Button Poster and button design: black on bright yellow. 222 APPENDIX I RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: THE BUTTON ISSUE (a) (b) (C) RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: THE BUTTON ISSUE That was one of the few times when we had to say, "hey, wait a minute -- there's a minority group here that has some pretty strong feelings about this", we had to say, "I didn't know you felt that way; if that's offensive, we're going to have to adjust." Couldn't just barge in saying you were the majority -- that's the way they've been told all along. Think they went away saying "we've been heard." If we had bulldogged that one, we'd have lost. Would have been possible for the committee to disintegrate, as far as blacks' leaving. I was fascinated with button issue. Could see people trying to line up, lining up in funny ways. Funny to see who was siding with whom, and who couldn't choose which side to be on. Interesting -- blacks with afros were pretty noncommital. Lot of black pride involved. Issue became one that was a lot deeper, more involved. Whole issue of where black population is today in Springfield. There are those who really want to integrate the system, and those who still are in the stage of "black is beautiful." Whole social thing that has happened in last twenty years is phenomenal; we went from stage where the population seemed to be saying, "we really want to be part of you, what we want is integration into the white community", then population went back to "no, we have to stop and regroup our forces, keep our good leadership, and do black is beautiful, have to develop our own pride before we want to move in another direction." Now we're back to the point where we are again talking some integration, and that faction isn't ready to move out into that direction. Like kids in school go into social groups, sororities, etc., have to be just like everybody else before they have enough courage to step out and be different. Minority groups have to find out who they are, and then move out. The button...was almost a non-issue, about whether one side of button should be curly, one straight, etc. What it brought out was the feeling level. First time peOple really talked about different peOple having different feelings about things. The button was a nice, safe thing to surface these differences. 223 (d) 224 Most interesting -- a couple of white people who felt there should be some differences, who felt blacks should Object to curly hair. The blacks on the committee weren't making too much fuss. People who have been long-standing believers in integration felt blacks should have taken a stronger stand, and when they didn't, prodded them, almost challenged them. I don't understand that dynamic. I don't think blacks really gave a damn. They were goaded into having to say, "well, yeah, you can't stereotype us." Couldn't believe logo would cause that much chaos, but it did. I didn't see the committee as that capable of working together efficiently to get that consensus decision, either because we didn't meet often enough, or weren't trained enough in problem solving and those kind Of techniques. We needed facilitators to help us more with that kind of thing. I was unhappy with the way we handled the whole thing. I felt it was resolved because people were tired, wanted to go home, rather than because they bought into the decision. Don't know if it was important, but leads me to believe that if there were an important decision, how would we handle it? Can't take forty people in a room and come up with a decision on a button. I can understand consensus decision-making, but have to do it in smaller groups. Being a black and white organization to begin with, and having an issue raised that was definitely black-white issue -- curly hair vs. straight hair, which offended somebody who was black, it became a black-white thing. Then it became apparent to me, as a white person, that some of the white community were getting very sticky about the whole thing, "we can't offend anybody in the black community"; my reaction was that I hadn't heard the whole black community, just one person. At that point it was pointed out to me that there wasn't much being said by anybody in the black community, no one was saying "hey, that doesn't bother me." They didn't say they didn't like it, but it was perceived by whites that we had better not accept something that some black people won't like. The issue got way out of hand, but maybe it was a sympton of deeper things, I don't know. But I wondered: if we had another issue to solve, how would we go about it? My feeling is that today, black people will not speak against one another in a public forum. I can understand that. All the objections were raised by white peOple. This was never tested with any other issue. We talked most about buses, problems of bus drivers, lateness of stops, nothing about inter-racial area. When we have our seminar, we went through an exercise where we listed things -- public housing, education, free medical help, policy brutality -- issues (e) (f) (g) 225 that would be important to black community. We were supposed to rank them as a group. One Of the objectives was to show how forcefully a verbal leader could sway peOple, even though they may be wrong, or how you could see group giving into someone who dominates. I thought it was interesting; one of the things on there people in our group (no blacks) put down was that "black peOple wanted white peOple's respect." It was number 1 or 2 on the list. I argued that "I think you're way too important fOr them." But I gave in on that, changed my vote. I turned out that respect of the white man was way low on blacks' list Of priorities. A lot of people voted towards the end just to get thing moving. I didn't feel it was offensive, neither did a lot of others, but we backed down. I think people were afraid to stand up and say to a black person, "you're full of wet hay", because they didn't want to offend them. At that time, we hadn't been together as a group long enough. At that point we were still sitting with blacks here, whites here at our meetings. Had we had that weekend away (PEO seminar) prior to that meeting, we would have handled it completely differently. Very frustrating, although good came out of it; we found out where we all stood. Button issue...funniest thing, we laughed. Slogan was never the issue, but the pin itself. PeOple voted once, then turned around, discussed it again, voted again. Didn't think we could ever come to consensus. Blacks objected to having kinky hair on one side, straight hair on the other. I'm sure they didn't object simply because it had kinky hair -- they didn't want to be different. What I saw in that was that they were not sure enough of themselves to say "we are different”, because let's face it, they are, and I am, etc. I think there was a little insecurity there. They didn't want to be set apart, different, but wanted to be accepted as the same. My only point on the button is that there shouldn't have been any race issue there. Put a black child on one side, white on the other. There's always somebody who is going to read race into that, so fine, let them. If they want to make something of it, let them. On this committee, they did recognize differences, which was why we had such a big hassle. They should have. That's the point -- there were differences, they weren't held inside, but brought out on the table. \ 226 There was racism there, on both sides. They would never Openly admit it, but it was there. It's still there. You could tell by the way they spoke, what they spoke about, how they were anxious to state their opinions. It was hard for some people to understand why this was an important issue...it's possible the real issues behind it were never discussed. A lot of people think the white community all thinks alike, the same with blacks. This was one issue where it was very dramatically shown that there are differences everywhere, and that symbols are very important, they're what we stand for. There was conflict between those who said, "we want to show that kids are kids, and we should treat them all alike, forget color differences"...and... (those who said) "this is what we're doing, mixing black and white kids, and we have happy faces and it's going to work." APPENDIX J RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: THE REED-OAK PTA ISSUE (a) (b) (C) RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: THE REED-OAK PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION (PTA) ISSUE Oak parents applied for membership in the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and were refused, told membership was closed. We (Oak) have very active parents in the Parent Teacher Organization (PTO). It finally surfaced in May. Mrs. X said "absolutely not." Can't be members, all the executive officers have been chosen for the next year. Unfortunately it has been somewhat confused by the news- papers. PTA official on state level assumed that reason there was a problem was because these peOple were PTO and not PTA. But that had nothing to do with it. They want to join the PTA, or whatever parent organization is at Reed. Hopefully that whole mess will be settled. School board has decided that no parent organization can withhold membership... they'll have to solve it in-house, which they will do. Too bad...it never should have happened. ...our famous PTA problem...is a good example of strictly an adult problem, not a darn thing to do with kids. Example of adults that aren't functioning as adults. It will probably end up on the agenda in fall. PTA/PTO issue is still hanging over us. Still not resolved at Reed. It's an adult issue. Again, whites are going to have to understand, you have a traditionally black PTA that suddenly finds itself split into three schools as a result of court-ordered desegregation. Obviously there is no way they can have majority in three schools, so they would like to keep their PTA at Reed school. On the surface that could sound all right. (But) now we have white parents coming in, wanting to be members. That also seems logical. So blacks are saying, "so, we lose." It was surfacing out there all year. We thought it would work itself out, but it hasn't. It will be worked out, but by dictum. I obviously can't allow them to use school buildings if they're not going to let whites in. It's a nO-win situation. Again, everyone agrees what the purpose of the PTA is: "to work for the benefit of children." (d) (f) 228 Basically, they (Reed PTA officials) think that letting us in will mean no longer a black PTA. Well, they are no longer black...unless they're scared we will want to organize a PTO, which we don't want to do -- we want to be part of that school. I don't know what they'd lose, because they're no longer considered a black school. This started the last month of school (1981); to us it's not a desegregation problem. We tried to form our own PTA at Reed, and they wouldn't allow it. The last I heard on that the state PTA council was going to make them accept all of us. Either that or a separate PTA would be established, because they do not want to join. They (Reed parents) feel threatened. I understand why. New members would be predominantly Oak parents -- very active, extremely active school. They intend to turn Reed into an extremely active school. Reed has been very inactive, with poor parent participation for years and years. It's a very loose-run organization, where meetings start an hour late, principals don't arrive on time. At the end was the Reed school issue. They wanted to continue their power -- it's a power struggle. It's hard to handle, because parent-teacher groups are not part of the system, not controlled by the school board or administration. We have policies that say any parent-teacher organization that we will allow to use space in our schools must allow anyone to join who qualifies as parent or teacher or just participating member of that organization. That will probably become part of the coming year's committee agenda —— we can help the state PTA handle this. The biggest hassle now (with PTA issue) is that PTAs usually elect officers in the spring (for coming year). The state PTA sold 12 of us membership. We had another meeting in which 30 more people wanted in, and they wouldn't sell it to us. We had a meeting with (superintendant, and 4 members Of the Desegregation Advisory Committee who were also black parents at Reed). They gave us a set of their by-laws. They are not on file with the state, have yet to be filed. As far as I'm concerned, the ink wasn't quite dry when they gave them to us. They set up their by-laws the way they I wanted to. Before they refused us membership, (the Superin- tendant) told them that when election fOr officers was held, they would have to let us in. (Reed PTA president) said elections had already been held previous September for this year and next year. No by-laws will state that, so right now we're in limbo. The board has backed us, saying they won't recognize a PTA from Reed with closed membership. The Desegregation Advisory Committee has already addressed this, and backed us. (h) (i) (J') 229 I think what's happening is "hey, I've been king of the world over here, and whether or not you like my world, this is the way it's going to be...now you're going to come in here and take over." Let's face it, more white peOple are going to go to those (PTA) meetings than black on a regular basis. And they will become the people who take over and do things. I'm sure that makes you angry. Don't know how you solve that. Bet we'll address that -- one of the first things that happens when we reconvene. Don't know if you can force somebody to obey your rules. It's a power struggle. Kids lose, though. I've often thought that maybe we ought to get the three affected groups of people -- Reed, Oak, and James parents -- and put them off together in an off-site (workshop). Maybe they ought to work out their issues, they have more at stake. Mrs. X (Reed PTA president) should have dealt with the problem at hand, instead of whitewashing it, stating why she didn't want to deal with the PTA. I feel it doesn't have anything to do with race; Oak was a PTO, didn't have state representa- tion. I think Reed is worried that if enough of these Oak parents get in there, they're going to change the school into a PTO. We didn't deal enough with it, made it into a race issue, which it wasn't. Oak peOple brought it to the group -- they were not allowed to buy PTA cards. I was on steering connfittee (of Desegregation Advisory Committee). We backed out on Reed and Oak parents on PTAs. We saw it coming, but didn't address it at meetings. We decided to let the two schools try and work it out themselves. Desegregation Advisory Connfittee had to...walk on eggshells because we didn't want the committee to go in and say "you guys do this, that, we're going to help you, but we're going to do it all for you." (Vice-chair) wanted to address it. Reed people felt Oak people would take over -- there prejudice was coming out. They let their feelings come across in this PTA issue. Only thing I'm worried about is that we will get some bad feelings coming through that -- if there wasn't that issue, there wouldn't be any negative things, it would be positive. But I don't know if we could have done anything as a group to prevent that. (The superintendant) tried to the PTA council to get involved in it, but they backed away for whatever reason. Think we failed on that. I really agreed that we shouldn't bring it to the Desegregation Advisory Committee at that time. 230 Some issues were shifted from pillar to post...this is one of the reasons we now have problems with PTA-PTOs. It was brought up on a committee I served on. A member of the Reed PTA had said, "PTA is going to stay PTA." I knew right then and there there was going to be problems. No way for me, as an individual, to bring this out to say something -- they wouldn't have listened. This person was Reed PTA Officer. I wasn't surprised when the problem developed. The board doesn't have jurisdiction over the PTA -- we want parents to work it out. But we can tell them they can't meet in our building. APPENDIX K RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: OTHER ISSUES OF CONFLICT RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: OTHER ISSUES OF CONFLICT Relationship Between Schools in the District (a) (C) (d) Committee members from three schools (in desegregation plan) were interested in little "knit-picking" issues, school lunch program, etc.; whereas members who weren't in the three schools were more into human relations issues for the whole school district. ...didn't have feeling of fairness...one particular school had so much representation (on committee). There was an explosion from parents there when their name was mentioned as possibly being part of plan (before court's final decision), but afterwards, once they weren't involved, they turned out to be a bunch of do-gooders. Once decision was announced, someone said they saw a sign in front of this school saying "we won." That bothered me about that committee -- it was composed of at least 20-25% Of people, quite influential people from that school. My disillusionment with the committee was that I think it's not very representative of the entire community. The fact that only three schools were involved kind of split up the community...I think a lot of outsiders resent the committee because they feel it is the establishment. Why are the people from Elmwood predominating in the committee when their children are not involved? They have no idea what's going on, they're there because they want to be seen and heard. This is the feedback I've gotten from certain groups. They're primarily a much better-educated group than the area I was representing. A lot resented that, and felt these people were in it for personal gain, for exposure, for the federal monies that are becoming available for jobs. ...in Springfield School District, there's always been an area of conflict north Of particular road...kids that went to Elmwood were "better than everybody else." I only became aware of this conflict my second year as PTA president, and it's been there for 10 years. I was shocked that it was there...going into committees with people from other areas, certain people have prejudices against us without even knowing us. One typical comment heard from another PTA president: "oh, you guys aren't so bad -- you're pretty nice"; to be able to work with that factor successfully in this committee was a big point, a personal goal with me. 231 (e) (f) (g) 232 ...some schools not affected had the most number of represen- tatives on the Desegregation Advisory Committee. I proposed that we have some kind of committee now besides monitoring connfittee where we would work with all other schools not involved, so that these three schools are not the only ones. I don't like the idea that because they're , affected, the rest of the district isn't. It's important that all the kids get to know each other. ...trying to deal with dilemma of three out of eight schools being involved, those three feeling put upon, somewhat unhappy with the other five. The other five saying "we want to help, be supportive"...there's still sort of an unspoken rift there. We're trying to make the whole process more of a community effort. One frustration we had was how to get elementary schools that were not involved, involved. It became the basis for some hostility. Especially at Elmwood, which was more of an upper- income schools. The Elmwood people were feeling concerned, somewhat guilty, but not knowing exactly what to do about it. APPENDIX L RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: THE NATURE OF DECISION-MAKING IN THE DAC RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: THE NATURE OF DECISION-MAKING IN THE DESEGREGATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DAC) (a) There were some suggestions from the committee that schools make booklets for the kids, plan bus rides for the parents, but these weren't decisions, just suggestions that were then carried out. (b) We did a reasonably good job with decision-making consider- ing the fact that it was a group Of people not used to being involved in committee work. (c) I didn't see us as being decision-makers. I saw this group as a way the administration could assure people within the community that things were being thought out...allay any fears within groups of peOple that supposedly had voices or were respected in the larger community. (d) If anything dampened enthusiasm, it was that the board and administration had done their jobs so well, the committee was not playing a crucial and decisive role. In communities where the board didn't perform their role, citizens' commit- tees became extremely important. A lot of committees generated spontaneously, without board sanction, because the board had a negative attitude about the whole thing. We have positive leadership. (e) We did an awful lot of approving what the superintendant and administration proposed, not making decisions. (f) The DAC didn't really make decisions -- we acted on them, helped implement them. We were an excellent sounding board. (9) It took a while for the committee to find out what it's role really was -- it wasn't action in the schools as much as it was advisory. It became an effective clearinghouse. Members were able to answer questions on a one-to-One basis. (h) I felt sometimes that we got issues after the administration had discussed them and settled them; but it's limited as to what a group can do when you don't meet every week. (i) A couple of meetings I felt decisions had been made before we even got there. 233 (.i) 234 Often the DAC got off into school procedures that were really staff or administrators' prerogative. At times it degenerated into everybody on the committee deciding how kids ought to be supervised, when they ought to come into the building, etc. Of course that never works. because they're into an area they shouldn't be in. Suppose it's the responsibility of committee leadership to try and head that kind Of thing off when it's occuring, reroute a committee and help them see what their real responsibility is. I don't think the commfittee has been much of a decision- making body. I think it's been a training ground for people. I wanted to serve on it to meet more people from my community I otherwise wouldn't have had the Opportunity to meet -- people I used to perceive as political opponents. But now I've found a lot of commonality. The committee served as a way of harmonizing -- Springfield's so neat that way because it's small, that can happen. APPENDIX M RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: ISSUES NOT YET ADDRESSED (a) (b) (C) (1‘) (g) RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS: ISSUES NOT YET ADDRESSED Although the Desegregation Advisory Committee (DAC) kept anger and tension in community down by talking to peOple in community, we still have problems "in the closet"-- nothing has sparked them off yet...anger just hasn't been set off yet. I had the feeling issues were right below the surface -- maybe we should have name-called for a while, put issues on charts, get down to fact that "I think your kid is gonna beat my kid up and talk funny." No one ever name-called, but you could see flaming of tempers (though not over any one thing). In formation of any group, you don't get deeper discussion until group goes on. At the moment we needed more to problem-solve. Other problems were not discussed because we tried to anticipate by teacher training, parent training, by allowing children to know each other ahead of time, workshops for custodians and bus drivers...so we could minimize situations that might have arisen, feelings of differences. Maybe they haven't really emerged either because they're being handled well already, or because they are being pushed back, then on a gradual basis they'll be dealt with. I think we tend to see problems where there aren't any. But I'm not sure they aren't there either. Hopefully we'll be open enough so if they are, then we'll be able to spot them. It's possible there were issues we didn't think about because we were under time pressure. ...I would have wanted the committee to deal with some of the more meaty issues, yet they couldn't deal with those until the mechanics were taken care Of. Those are issues they'll get into next fall. It would have been more valuable to go through (PTO) workshop training at the beginning. Lots of undercurrents - black and white issues, power struggles, etc. I don't know if they're going to be resolved. They're potentially very dangerous, damaging problems. 235 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alinsky, S. 0. Rules for radicals: Appractical primer for realistic radicals. New York: Random House, 1971. Babbie, E. R. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub- lishing Co., 1973. Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. Two faces Of power. American Political Science Review, December 1962, 56, 947-952} Bhattacharyya, G. K., & Johnson, R. A. Statistical concepts and methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977. Blalock, H. M., Jr. Toward a theory