32 u.» .133“. I3»... , q?“ .u .7 in A: f . x .3. .31 23...! hr hxfieix Ar.“ s. n-..:...u tit! .‘n: .32....» 3‘13} 2 - i351»... 9&3. V nab. .m....f. J? . O! 9 V ILIrJr) an. n I... u. .1! 3.1.3.045 131‘ .x ,1 . .htv!§¥.sv5|afi : .S.nl «I |u1u2lt§v332cl§av I .1710. .i .- 34 El. . 17.5 v. {I}; u: ,um.€i§.i.uuue 2.3.3.9.: if. ’I’I’\!A O. y 41-;- 1‘: a. A? .. col .IQiInll... an“. J“. Influxfirlét firth} vi .i215 .3333).-. it? .Vi (I . c¢ . X.‘ .. 1.7))? .3! ‘96.. .9 ir‘lq . \nl:!\O.|. . “.ata'ikxt vl. u‘t 9919:: \‘N Ivol Ni..§‘7‘1\.‘ 5‘}. .\.|t1!t, . THESIS .~/ ’ .2 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 3 PW? 2 9 20% [1g 1 1. 2003 ‘2‘ in 1, m g a; gas q '2 219.qu 2'05 11m mmw-pfl THE ROLE OF THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD IN 1999, THE SUPERINTENDENTS’ VIEW By Michael V. Johnson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 2000 ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD IN 1999, THE SUPERINTENDENTS’ VIEW By Michael V. Johnson Purpose The researcher’s purpose was to describe and explain the role of the Michigan public school board. The historical account of school boards demonstrates that two factors primarily account for their altered role. They are progressive legislation and professional administrators. The researcher’s investigation sought to determine the role of the school board in 1999, the relationship between the superintendent and the school board authority and the effects of the education reforms on the role of a Michigan public school board. By blending these three areas of questions together, the researcher was able to describe and explain what a public school board does and to understand its central role in the governance of its school district. Sample and Method The sample consisted of 25 superintendents that met the researcher’s criteria of being a superintendent in a Michigan public school district since 1989. The technique of theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss 1967) was used to determine the role of the school board. The method was interview. All superintendent interviews were taped and transcribed. Subsequently, transcriptions were analyzed and data recorded. The researcher used the data to make assertions about the role of school boards in these experienced superintendents’ school districts and supported these assertions with the evidence he obtained from the respondents. Findings Using Thompson’s framework of open-system organizations as a referent, the data provided by the experienced superintendents suggested the role of the school board is to buffer the public school organization from the “uncertainties of its environment.” The school board buffers by hiring the superintendent, by legitimizing policy, by serving as change agents, by representing its constituents and by negotiating with its employees. The school board also serves as a “check and balance” on the professional administration by providing oversight of personnel, finance, and curriculum. The evidence supports the assertion that the superintendent was responsible for running the school district. The experienced superintendent initiates and writes policy, communicates with the stakeholders and makes recommendations. Michigan’s 19905’ education reforms have had a minimal effect on the role of its school boards. The reforms affected school boards indirectly. Recommendations Similar studies using a less-successful sample of superintendents or interviewing school board members may provide very different results. Copyright by MICHAEL V. JOHNSON 2000 DEDICATION To My Three Sons, Brett, Keefer and Cole ACKNOWLEDGMENTS These acknowledgements are of a personal and professional nature, sometimes both .. First, thanks to Dr. Philip Cusick, chairperson of my dissertation committee and also my program advisor. I first met Dr. Cusick when I enrolled in the K-12 Educational Administration program eight years ago and he was assigned as my initial advisor. The support and encouragement he gave me throughout this dissertation work have been invaluable. His gift of many hours of reading proposals, data transcriptions and rough drafis helped shape this dissertation. He challenged me to stretch my thinking and learning and gave me the confidence to continue on. His willingness to guide me through the process made doing this work possible. The dissertation is the response to Dr. Cusick’s challenge and guidance. I am truly grateful. To the other committee members, Dr. David Plank, Dr. Suzanne Wilson and Dr. Brian Pentland, thank you. Both you and your efforts are appreciated. To the twenty-five superintendents who willingly responded to my request for an interview and answered all of my questions, I couldn’t have done it without you. To my two transcribers, Anne Cook and Marcia Pogoncheff, who listened to hours of tapes and prepared pages upon pages of transcriptions, thank you. To my editor, MS- Karin Peterson, who put the work into proper dissertation format, special thanks. Finally, personal thanks go to my wife, Kelly. She was the one who most inspired the to complete this work. Without her, this dissertation would never have become reality. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM/HISTORY OF SCHOOL BOARDS 2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 2 THE BIRTH OF LOCAL CONTROL (1647-1785) ................................................................. 4 AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL CONTROL (1785-1827) ........................................................ 4 THE GROWTH OF BUREAUCRACY (1827-1890) ................................................................ 6 PROGRESSIVISM ............................................................................................................. 12 TH E SUPERINTENDENT ................................................................................................... 15 THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRESSIVES (1890-1940) ...................................................... 16 FEDERAL LAWS, COURT DECISIONS, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND MORE (1940- PRE SENT) ........................................................................................................................ l9 EDUCATION REFORMS IN MICHIGAN .............................................................................. 24 P- A. 25 OF 1990 ............................................................................................................ 30 P- A. 335 AND P. A. 336 ................................................................................................ 33 P - A. 289 (MICHIGAN REVISED SCHOOL CODE) ............................................................ 38 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 40 OPEN SYSTEMS THEORY ................................................................................................ 41 THOMPSON’S MODEL As IT DESCRIBES AND EXPLAINS A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ...... 43 ORGANIZATIONAL RATIONALITY IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ................................... 45 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 46 RECENT SCHOOL BOARD ROLES .................................................................................... 47 PILOT STUDY ................................................................................................................. 50 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 51 RESTATEMENT OF PURPOSE ........................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER H: METHODOLOGY 54 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 54 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 54 SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................... 57 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................... 59 Interviewing .............................................................................................................. 59 EXPLORATORY RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................... 62 FIELD PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................... 63 Respondent Characteristics ...................................................................................... 65 Interview Meeting ..................................................................................................... 65 LIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 67 IMTATIONS OF THE STUDY. ......................................................................................... 69 RESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ....................................................................... 71 S UMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 72 vii CHAPTER III: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................... 73 PART I : WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD DOES ..................................................................... 73 .Bufler by Hiring the Superintendent ......................................................................... 74 Bufler by Legitimizing Policy .................................................................................... 77 liufler as Change Agents ........................................................................................... 81 Iufler through Representation .................................................................................. 84 flufler as Negotiators ................................................................................................ 97 Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 04 S C I-IOOL BOARD OVERSIGHT ........................................................................................ 105 What does the school board do regarding personnel? ........................................... 105 Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 12 PVhat does the school board do regarding finances? .............................................. 113 Summary ................................................................................................................. 121 PVhat does the school board do regarding curriculum? ......................................... 122 Summary ................................................................................................................. 128 PART III WHAT THE SUPERINTENDENT DOES TO BETTER EXPLAIN THE ROLE OF THE SC H OOL BOARD ............................................................................................................ 13 0 Initiates policy ......................................................................................................... 131 Writes Policy ........................................................................................................... 133 Summary ................................................................................................................. 138 Communicates with Stakeholders ........................................................................... 1 3 9 Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 46 Makes Recommendations in Decision-making ....................................................... 148 Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 53 PART III: WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE EDUCATION REFORMS ON THE ROLE OF SCHOOL BOARDS? ....................................................................................................... 155 How did P. A. 25 aflect what school boards did? ................................................... 155 Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 62 How did P. A. 335 and P. A. 33 6 aflect what school boards did? . ......................... 163 Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 90 How did P. A. 289, the Revised School Code, aflect what School Boards did? ..... 191 Summary ................................................................................................................. 199 CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 200 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 200 1. What is the role of the Michigan public school board in 1999? ......................... 201 2. What does the superintendent do relative to the school boards’ authority? ...... 202 3. Has the role of the school board changed in the past 10 years due to the legislative education reforms? ................................................................................ 206 THE EFFECT OF P. A. 25 .............................................................................................. 206 THE EFFECT or P. A. 335/336 ..................................................................................... 206 THE EFFECT OF P. A. 289 ............................................................................................ 208 UMMARY OF THE EDUCATION REFORMS EFFECTS ...................................................... 208 THE CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 209 HE STUDY IN RELATION To PREVIOUS WORK ............................................................ 212 STATEMENT OF THE THESIS ..................................................................................... 214 viii S UGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 215 APPENDIX A A PILOT STUDY .................................................................... ‘. ...................................... AN ANALYSIS OF THE MINUTES OF ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT ......................................... Conclusion .............................................................................................................. APPENDIX B INTERVIEW PLAN OUTLINE .......................................................................................... APPENDIX C APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS ........ APPENDIX D LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND THE SCOPE OF THE INTERVIEW .................................. APPENDIX E THANK YOU LETTER .................................................................................................... APPENDIX F RESPONDENT’S CONSENT FORM ....................................................... -. .......................... APPENIDIX G LETTER To DISSERTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS ...................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ix 219 219 220 230 231 23 1 234 234 240 240 242 242 244 244 246 246 250 LIST OF TABLES TA BLE l-THE EDUCATION REFORMS OF THE 19908 IN MICHIGAN ..................................... 27 TA BLE 2- MOTION ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 222 TABLE 3- COMPARISON OF 1987-88 AND 1997-98 SCHOOL BOARD MOTIONS ................ 225 TA ELE 4- PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 229 INTRODUCTION Overview The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the role of Michigan public school boards in 1999. The researcher argued that during the past 160 years, progressive educational reforms in the organization and administration of Michigan’s local schools have continually altered the school board’s role. By progressive educational reforms, the researcher means those actions that increase: (a) financial equity between school districts, (b) the amount of district resources coming from the state, (c) the surveillance by the state over matters formerly left to the local districts, ((1) the administrative and bureaucratic efforts necessary to comply with state and federal mandates. The progressive nature of educational reforms and the growth of administrative bureaucracy continued in the 19905 and therefore the school board’s role may have changed. Thus, an up-to-date assessment Of the school board’s present role was both desirable and important. This study undertook that assessment. Chapter One begins with an overview of the study and follows with the historical description of how the organization and administration of public schools evolved nationally and specifically in Michigan. This account demonstrates how the roles of SChool boards in public education have changed through the years. Chapter One Continues with an overview of the open systems theory that posits that subsystems change as inputs from the environment change. This chapter concludes with a summary of how the role of the school board has evolved during the past two centuries. CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM/HISTORY OF SCHOOL BOARDS Background The school board is the legal entity that governs the local public school district. As such, school boards have become an important part of American tradition, if not an important part of our democracy. It is the unit of government that people feel closer to than any other, perhaps because the board member may be the next door neighbor. State government is more distant. Additionally, the fact that lay people are in charge of professional educators is very Comforting to many. Historically, there has been an inherent mistrust of professional educators. The sense of "local control" makes school boards so attractive that Finn (p. 21) says. . ."to suggest that it (local control) may be obsolete or harmfirl is like hinting that Mom's apple pie is laced with arsenic." Yet, as important as local control of the school district is for so many, its role in education has changed from its earlier beginnings over 200 years ago. While many factors have contributed to the changing role of school boards, perhaps the two factors that have most affected local control are state reform efforts and the professionalism of administrators. By definition, the former was ofien progressive in nature. The following chronological record describes and explains the important events that initially authorized local control. It describes the two major events Callahan (1975) argues redefined school board authority and altered the role of school boards. Further, the Chronology explains how an ideological shifi in the US. from its grass roots and "rugged individual" beginnings toward the social movement called Progressivism affected all aspects of life. A natural outgrowth of Progressivism was the development of bureaucracy, an org anizational structure Weber described as, “a parallel phenomena to democracy” (p - 225). The representative democratic nature of school boards is no exception. Weber continued by explaining that “the characteristic principle of bureaucracy is the abstract regularity of the execution of authority.” Altemately, democracy is a way of providing a “check” on the authority or governing body, but does not ensure the standardization of administrative authority. Existing social, material, or honorific preferences and rank are connected to office-holder functions and duties. Weber believed that bureaucracy accompanies modern mass democracy (pp. 224-225). Thus, a natural tension evolved between the democratic tendencies of the school board and the bureaucratic organization of the superintendent to run the day to day operations of public schools. The result was the role of the school board was forever altered. In fact, Zeigler and Jennings went so far as concluding in their work of 1974 that “that administrative staffs typically rule school districts.” Not every researcher agreed with their account, however (N SBA Research Report, p. 11). This study continues with an account of three educational reform packages signed into law in Michigan since 1990. A description of Michigan’s new policies and an analysis of the possible impact each has had on the role(s) of Michigan public school boards are also included. The open systems theory discussion suggests why the school bCard's role is likely to be affected by the education reforms. The role of the public SChool board in Thompson’s theoretical model of an Open systems organization is presented. This model helps to explain how the school board brings rationality to a public Sch“)! organization. Recent studies of the role of school boards are reviewed. A pilot study using school board minutes to determine role change is discussed. The chapter is concluded with a presentation of this study’s theoretical framework. The Birth of Local Control (1647-1785) School boards trace their origin back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1647) and its Old Deluder Law. This colonial statute, passed on behalf of the prevalent Calvinist heritage, forced every township (town) to establish a school in order for children to learn to read the Bible, and thus guard themselves against Satan (the old Deluder). Towns, out of compliance with this law, were to be fined. First and Walberg (1992) report that "while this law was not strictly complied with it is an important law because it introduced the principle that education is a function of local government (p. 4)." Early common schools reflected their localities and were autonomous. A law passed in the colony in 1693 further strengthened the sovereignty of local control when it decreed that schools were to be maintained through local taxation. The "school business" was transacted at town meetings (the early school boards) where the role of the public input and decision making administered, maintained, and controlled everything related to the local school (Goldhammer 1964). Like the early colonial society, local control was grassroots. Until the end of the Revolutionary War, however, churches ran most of the schools. These schools were oriented toward classical learning and preparing their students to become ministers or lawyers (Miron and Wimpelberg, pp. 154-155). Authorization of Local Control (1785-1827) As the US. expanded westward, the New England system of control of the schools followed. Goldhammer declares, "It (New England style of control) appealed to them (the pioneers) as consistent with their spirit of independence and desire to manage their own affairs apart from the dictates of a central government authority” (p. 3). There was also the growing recognition of the need for an educated citizenry if the new republic was to survive (Campbell, Cunningham, et a1 and Miron and Wimpelberg, p. 155-56). Two salutary, education-related, congressional acts defined local control. One called for the locals to support schools and the second later delegated it to state control. The first, the Northwest Land Ordinance of 1785, set aside one section of land (number sixteen) in each township of the old Northwest Territory (the land north and west of the Ohio River). The money raised by the sale or use of this section went directly to the township and was to be used to support the local school(s). According to Tyack, James and Benavot (1987), the Northwest Land Ordinance was the beginning of the federal government's involvement in promoting public schools. This ideological position was further stated two years later in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that included the clause, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." (Tyack, James and Benavot, p. 47). The second piece of legislation was the 10th amendment of the Constitution (1791) which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Reutter and Hamilton, p. 2) With it, the federal government effectively removed itself from the direct control of public education. Since public education was not an expressly reserved power under the provisions of the Constitution, it became a firnction of the state under this amendment. This does not preclude federal involvement in education, however. Later, it will be described how the federal government expanded its role in public education in the second half of the twentieth century. This increased federal role continues and subsequently impacts the roles of school boards today. Over time and in keeping with this amendment, each state delegated "administrative authority to local school boards. . .(Russo, p. 6). This is not to say that the states relinquished complete control to local school districts. Russo adds, “A local school board and the district in its charge are creatures of the state; they may be created and abolished by the will of the legislature. Concomitantly, state legislatures exercise plenary power over education through statutory enactments and law.” Thus, absolute local control was tenuous from its very beginning. The Growth of Bureaucracy (1827-1890) As towns grew, their way of governing schools had to change since the communities were too big to meet in a town meeting forum. The task of running each school went to a committee of citizens appointed by the town’s public officials to whom the committeemen owed their allegiance. The roles of the school committees were to hire teachers, to provide school buildings and to obtain supplies (Callahan, 1975; Bendiner, 1969; First and Walberg, 1992). The promoters of the common school movement “believed that a common school controlled and financed largely by local trustees and public taxation was essential to the realization of a millennial vision of a righteous republic (Tyack, Kirst, and Hansot p. 255). AS the early American society grew and more schools were begun, the absence of a coordinated school system was felt. The Boston school system is an example of the effect the decentralization of school committees had on educational efforts. Primary schools (elementary-type) were established in 1818 as feeder schools for the grammar schools (secondary). The number of primary schools, each governed by separate boards of selectrnen, were seemingly out of control. Tyack (1974) tells how these primary school trustees, nominated and under the control of the main Boston committeemen, "were largely an independent, self-nominating, and self-perpetuating body; by the 1850's their number reached 190, and they supervised that many schools” (p. 33). As a result, Boston's public schools were rife with an "ambiguity of authority and diffusion of control (p. 34)". Tyack attributed this to the system of governance (local control) that had grown from its grass roots beginnings (1647) and still appealed to many of the state's citizens. The result was the absence of an efficient, coordinated educational system. The decentralization brought on by grass roots local control was blamed. In 1837, the Massachusetts legislature created the first state board of education. Horace Mann was its first secretary. He was very concerned about the decentralization of instruction present in the traditional New England school boards (NASB Research Report, 1975). Mann was influenced by the Cousins Report, a report describing the educational organization of Prussian schools. Mann recommended Prussia's bureaucratic educational system after he Visited Prussia and studied the education system there. He liked the idea of having one "school commissioner or inspector" for each school district. This bureaucratic position fit what Weber describes as, “the principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority...” (p. 197). Mann felt this was desirable for Boston so he encouraged like-minded supporters to run for a seat on the Boston School Committee. It was these reform candidates who eventually recommended that one person (SUperintendent) be put in charge of its public school system. It wasn’t until 1851, fourteen years later, that Boston Committee hired its first superintendent, however. ‘ o ‘o-y .F as. -~ -1- ‘ . Q " .7. . ‘1“. , .- a. s“ “. . "'<_ ‘a . ‘ .‘ k ' w }‘-. . .Q n I \ .\ '4 L . \.,-~ ‘5 ‘ X. . . §\ u. During this period, Michigan was an early leader in promoting education for all. The territory’s leaders felt public education for everyone was important. As it prepared for statehood in 1827, the Legislative Council of the Michigan Territory passed a law that provided for a system of common schools. Dain (1968) calls it the "beginning of educational consciousness in Michigan." It placed the onus of educating the children of the new territory on the inhabitants of the townships in which they lived. While this law was shortly thereafter abandoned, this act and the one that followed in 1829, were really the models from which Michigan’s local control can be traced In Education in the Wilderness, Dane writes: ...Both the acts of 1827 and 1829 asserted the authority of the territory to legislate common schools into existence; but they placed the control and administration of the schools largely in the hands of local officials subject to the will of the electorate. So strong was the belief that education was a matter of community interest that, in all probability, those who wrote the Act of 1829 would have been content to allow school control and administration to remain completely under local authority had not circumstances forced them to provide for a degree of territorial supervision. (p. 139) The circumstances mentioned, however, greatly increased the State's role in public education. These factors included providing incentives for the inhabitants of the scattered townships to begin common schools and collecting revenue from the reserved school lands, section sixteen, as provided by the Northwest Ordinance (Dane, 1968). The historical record is clear that even while Michigan was still a territory, progressive actions seeking equity in resources between the local schools increased the State's control. The funding acts of the legislative council, Michigan’s early legislature, meant a change in the role of the local school board from the earlier ones in the New England grass roots traditions. Miron and Wirnpelberg (p. 157) quote Cubberly and his . v ' O 0 sub ‘I . . -.u . V... recognition of what the impact of receiving money from the state means to local control. Cubberly noted: “The acceptance of state aid inevitably meant a small but a gradually increasing state control. The first step was the establishment of some form of state aid, the next was the imposing of conditions necessary to secure this state aid.” Isaac Crary and John Pierce wrote much of the educational language for the State's Constitution (Dunbar and May 1995). Michigan’s first Constitution had an article drafied and adopted with respect to education that had never been used before in any state constitution. It read: The Governor shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Legislature, in joint vote, shall appoint a superintendent of Public Instruction, who Shall hold office for two years, and whose duties shall be prescribed by law (Jackson, p. 25.) The duties of Superintendent of Public Instruction were intentionally designed with John Pierce in mind. Since Pierce was the man selected for this position, many of his ideas about centralizing Michigan's education system prevailed (Dane 1968). Section 3 of the duties of the appointed superintendent was to “prepare and digest a system for the organization and establishment of free, common schools” (Jackson, p. 26). John Pierce believed that all children needed an education, not just the elite. He also felt that the only way to ensure this was by having it included in the state’s policy and to provide the support for it. Pierce’s organization of the school system resembled the Prussian system described by Cousins and favored by Mann. The state superintendent played a central role (Pierce 1877, Hoyt and Ford 1905, Dain 1968, Dunbar and May 1995). Hoyt and Ford write: It was Mr. Pierce's idea that, while the schools were always to be kept as an organized unitary system under the control of a central authority (the state), much l‘ a) I 14 power should be retained and exercised by the people, and the will of the majority in the unit should always prevail, so long as the will did not conflict with the will of the great majority (the state). (p. 117) Issac Crary and John Pierce felt the State should control the money raised by the sale of section sixteen lands to ensure equity between school districts and to ensure the money would go for education. The implication is that Crary and Pierce knew the value of the sixteenth section in each township would vary and they didn’t feel all of the townships would value public support of education as they did. Pierce (1877) writes, "Hence it was deemed of essential importance to us that these sixteenth sections reserved from sale Should be given in trust to the State, and not to the surveyed townships (p. 40)." Since Michigan was not yet a state, Crary, the state's unofficial representative to Washington, submitted Michigan's ordinance of admission language to Congress in 1835 that omitted an important clause in the education article that allowed the State to control the money coming from the reserved section (sixteen). Congress naively accepted it. Crary's proposal read: That Section numbered sixteen in every township of the public lands, and where such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, Shall be granted to the State for the use of schools. According to the Land Ordinance of 1785, it should have read: 'Ihat Section numbered sixteen in every township of the public lands, and where such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to the State for the use of the inhabitants of such township-for the use of schools. Crary's action to create funding equity diminished local autonomy Since the money raised by the sale of section Sixteen lands went to the State to become part of the State school fund, not directly to the township as the Land Ordinance of 1785 had 10 intended. The interest from this fund was to go to the schools under the auspices of the newly established position of State Superintendent (Dunbar and May, 1995). This act was the first official one in Michigan that sought equity in resources between schools and increased the State’s role over matters formerly left to the local schools. As such, it may be described as the new State of Michigan's first progressive educational reform. Less than two months after Michigan reached statehood in 1837, a new law established primary school districts and a governing board made up of three white, male citizens for each school district. Their positions included Moderator, Assessor, and Director. They each had distinct roles on this board. Interestingly, if a person elected to one of these positions refused or neglected to serve as a Board member, his $10 fine was paid to the township library. In 1849, the law was changed to allow for a larger school board in districts with more than 100 students between the ages of four and eighteen. With two-thirds vote at the annual school meeting, four trustees could be added. This became the historical prototype of a seven-member Board. (Bruin). The governance system actually consisted of two parts: the primary school board and the township’s Board of School Inspectors. The latter’s relationship with the primary schools was similar to the one that exists today between local school districts and Intermediate School Districts (ISDs). The main duties of the primary school boards included levying local school taxes, purchasing or leasing a site to build a schoolhouse, paying the teacher and filling the vacancies on the Board. The township Board of School Inspectors limited the role of the local school boards, however, by the nature and mom of their role. (Bruin). 11 . -. w. a... .g ..‘ «A. .—n u.‘ \ ex "fi‘... "w. The role of the Board of School Inspectors was to establish the school districts, receive the money from the State’s primary school fund, Visit the various schools in the township at least twice a year and conduct an examination of potential teaching candidates. The Board of School Inspectors had a lot of authority and continued the incremental growth of bureaucracy, a natural outgrowth of expanded state control as districts complied with the state mandates (Cohen, 1982). Thus, the role of the local school boards in Michigan was further limited by a legislatively created bureaucracy as compared to the New England schools where its school boards were responsible for all aspects of education. Progressivism Historians typically refer to some time period between the end of the Civil War and the end of World War I as the Progressive Era. Most likely, they will recall the Progressive Era began in the 18905 and continued for the first two decades of the twentieth century. These were turbulent times that caused the citizenry to call on the government for economic and social reforms. Ironically, these reforms required an economic base of tax support. After completing an analysis of historical data, Weber concluded, “a stable system of taxation is the precondition for the permanent existence of bureaucratic administration” (p. 208). Since the US. had recently evolved from a subsistence economy (reliance on agriculture) to a money economy (reliance on industry), it had the constant tax base necessary for maintaining a bureaucratic state. A more powerful central government was the result. A closer look at history, however, suggests the social movement called P r0gl’essivism may have been evolving in our country even earlier. Weber wrote, “In the United States, both parties since Jackson’s administration have developed 12 t bureaucratically” (p. 225). In The Democratic Wish, Morone adds... The J acksonians constructed a party state and a rudimentary national bureaucracy.” Further, he argues... “The American democratic moments introduce new bureaucracies. . .. The irony of the process is that democratic aspirations have been crucial for the development of public administration” (p. 13). In part, it seems bureaucracy resulted from the early efforts by Jackson and his ideology to be “free” of big government. A newspaperman in the first half of the 19'h century suggested a subtle, but very real change in philosophy was occurring throughout our country. It seems that many Americans were looking to government to do things they had formerly done as "rugged individuals." In The One Best System, Tyack quotes newspaper editor Bayrd Still (p. 31) as he described the change in citizens’ attitude prevalent in Milwaukee afier it was incorporated as a city in 1846. Still wrote that the old custom of volunteer services and self-help was giving way, "to a specialization in urban administration which developments in science and increased wealth encouraged and which the growth of population and its attendant problems made inevitable." AS Americans became better off financially and scientific discoveries found better ways of doing things, the role of government was changing, too. Specialization in public services caused an explosion in the growth of government to deal with this phenomenon. An increase in the educational bureaucracy (especially in cities) was consistent with the overall growth of government. The years following the Civil War were marked by a profound change. The Industrial Revolution had made its way from Europe and was causing a transformation Within America. Hofstadter (1965) summarized it when he wrote, “The United States was born in the country and had moved to the city” (p. 23). This not only upset the economic 13 tr balance of the former agrarian age, but it also left its mark on the social and moral order of its past. The small landowners and businessmen were losing their holdings to large corporations. Dionne in They Only Look Dead writes, “The shop was being replaced by the factory, craftsmen by factory workers, local elites by national elites” (p. 46). More and more Americans were concerned with how the large corporations and industry were taking the economic fiber away from the farmer and the small business owner. Many of the fast growing cities were rife with political corruptness and nepotism. Finally, there was the beginning of a distinct caste system within our culture that consisted of the “have” and the ”have-nots.” Many Americans were looking to return to the mythical “Golden Age” of its Jacksonian past. Hofstadter writes, “One of the ironic problems confronting reformers around the turn of the century was that the very activities they pursued in attempting to defend or restore the individualistic values they admired brought them closer to the techniques of organization they feared” (pp. 6-7). He continues, “. . .the Progressive movement was the complaint of the unorganized against the consequences of the organized” (p. 214). Most often, Americans turned toward centralized government to solve societal problems, especially those of inequality or inequity. The researcher describes this major ideological change occurring in the US. as progressive. By definition (The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 990), progressive implies evolutionary changes by moving forward in steps or by stages. The organization of local schools was not exempt from change. The historical account of education in early Michigan demonstrated how legislative actions sought to increase equity between local schools and how these actions resulted in increased state control. This administrative control by the State created a more bureaucratic public school system. Weber recalls that 14 bureaucratic organizations have usually developed into power with the intention of, “the leveling of social differences” (p. 226). Indeed, the bureaucratic growth in public schools was no exception. The organization of the local schools, with their grass roots New England beginnings, had been greatly affected. Now, this national trend toward the hierarchical organizational structure, a part of the bureaucratization of government services, brought further change in the administrative role of school boards as professional educators were hired to oversee the daily operation of the schools. The Superintendent The role of superintendent was in its infancy in Massachusetts about the time Michigan gained statehood in 1837. The reform candidates of Mann’s era recommended a superintendent be appointed. The superintendent’s job would be "to watch over the schools. . .to know the exact condition of everyone. . .This should be his business, his whole business; and he should be adequately paid" (N ASB Research Report, p. 3). Callahan (1975) calls the creation of the office of superintendent of schools the first “significant change” in the school board’s function and role. It was no longer necessary for traditional New England style school boards to handle the instructional supervision and the preparation of curriculum. Many local school boards followed the Boston School Committeemen’s recommendation and hired superintendents, educational experts, to assume this role. Scheerhom (1995) reports that twenty-seven large cities had district superintendents by 1860. Two of the first were Buffalo and Louisville. The superintendent’s role was to centralize instruction and supervision so that one person was responsible for what was formerly done by the city wards operating independently of each other. This resulted in less fragmented instruction and more consistent curriculum within these cities’ schools. 15 Further, the development of the role of superintendent made it likely that bureaucratic organization of public schools would continue. Again, Weber asserted that, “precision, speed, unarnbiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs-these are raised to the optimum in the strictly bureaucratic administration” (p. 214). Many of these favorable bureaucratic attributes were reasons why Mann believed it was so necessary for the Prussian administrative organization model with one person in charge of the school district to be adopted. A natural tension between the role of the school board and the role of the superintendent emerged as grass roots democracy collided with progressive bureaucracy. The powers of the superintendents varied from city to city depending upon their individual credibility. Since early superintendents were only authorized to supervise teachers and to prepare the courses of study for the district's students, many of the traditional roles of school boards continued. Visiting schools, overseeing all administrative details and making fiscal decisions were retained by the school boards. The stage was now set for a fundamental change in how urban school systems would be structured and how decisions would be made. The Administrative Progressives (1890-1940) When state policymaking began to grow, late in the nineteenth century, government everywhere in the United States was primitive and weak. There was relatively little political organization of any sort, and only modest exercise of power in education. There was, in addition, great suspicion of government. The prevailing political doctrine was a curious blend of Jacksonian and Jeffersonian ideas, which pictured the best government as a modest, neutral umpire in a society dominated and driven by private interests. Government was thought of as evil, or potentially evil, and private interests were regarded as the chief source of political virtue. These ideas were reflected in the fragmented system of education governance (Cohen, p. 476). 16 II ." ...,. O- I h ‘ ‘ .-.n. ‘ \ . «3. a... 1“ (f) The turn of the twentieth century brought a shift in school board organization. While the number of rural districts continued to grow, it was the urban school boards, with their newly created position of superintendent that first saw the major changes in structure and role (Kirst). In an attempt to diminish the negative impact of multiple boards and committees, many cities chose to move away from large, ward-based school boards toward smaller, central boards voted through district-wide, nonpartisan elections. This movement had the effect of de-politicizing school boards. Despite this change, Tyack (1974) writes " . . .the school board remained large, ward boards kept substantial powers, and the whole mode of lay management was diffuse, frequently self- contradictory, and prone to conflict” (p.89). Danzberger (1992) suggests this shift in governance structure was the primary goal of the progressive educational reforms of the early twentieth century. Despite the attempts by states to statutorily govern schools, school reformers were concerned that the education-related laws were having little effect. Progressive education reforms were not having the desired result of a better educational system. It seemed as though practice was prevailing over policy. Many rural, one-room schoolhouses existed in which a weak education was a result of poorly trained teachers, out-of date curriculum, and under funding. Conversely, the urban school systems were described as too political with ". .. corruption, parochialism, and vestiges of an outmoded village mentality” (Tyack, 1974, p. 127). School reformers, known as administrative progressives, sought to change the school board practices described by Tyack. These reformers believed the lay people on the school boards had too much power over decision-making. The administrative l7 “,:~ SJ... ... | .\\._ I.-. F‘ .\ . n. , a ~t. “. o. ‘ - '\ \‘ -‘ § .\- .- - a ., Q I-, \ . ‘-\A s .. " ‘\ - x y no. ‘ ‘s "Ad I ’\ .. . \. \ P _ ‘ul T“ is. D N ‘4‘. p .‘. a \ p . K . \ \ up "I PM I C l" \b p,“ “l.i\‘ u. ‘.\ progressives hoped to transfer all control of education in the urban setting to a centralized school board and an expert superintendent under the quasi-corporate model of governance (Tyack, 1974, p. 196). Earlier it was described how the creation of the office of superintendent was the first significant change in the school board’s role. Now Callahan’s (1975) second significant change in school board authority was about to occur. The issue was whether school boards should turn over their power to the “professional experts.” That is, administrative progressives believed school systems should be hierarchical. As such, the professional educators would be “. .. buffered from the vagaries of locally elected officials” (p. 258 Tyack, Kirst and Hanshot, p. 25 8). Administrative progressives sought to make the schools more efficient. Kirst explains, “One of its (progressives) aims was to emancipate the schools from partisan politics and excessive decentralization.” They believed Frederick Taylor's scientific model, a rational management theory that separated and defined roles and responsibilities would do this. Danzberger (1992) writes, "They (new school board members) began to depend increasingly on the superintendent, placing their faith in the new theory of scientific management” (p.46). The progressives recommended that school boards be made up of non-partisan, business and professional men who Should delegate authority to the superintendent. This meant the representation of the various social classes within a community was most likely diminished, but the efficiency in management was increased. This idea caught on quickly in many states. Many of the states altered their legal framework governing schools to better align themselves with the model suggested by the administrative progressives (Tyack, James and Benavot, 1987). 18 .)_.' i‘..ui a... u...- - ~-.. ‘Ksy I4 ‘. ';' o .J) I a b... v“: 4. .5.“ Just as the nation was undergoing an ideological shift toward an expanded role of central government and progressive policy, the expanding role of superintendents and their growing bureaucracy challenged the school boards to handle even more potential problems. Cohen writes: When policy expanded, government tended to add agencies that reflected the sponsoring interests, and that had Specific responsibility for the policy or program that had been at issue. Education government at all levels grew by adding specialized sub-units, each of which had responsibility for managing a particular program, policy, or problem, and each of which reflected a particular set of Sponsoring private interests. (p. 481) Ellwood Cubberly was one of the best known administrative progressives. His work greatly affected the new role of school boards. He voiced the opinion that "the function of the school board was to set policy, choose an administrator and school sites and decide financial matters. The job of the superintendent was to operate the schools" '(NASB Research Report, 1975). This resulted in the school board adopting a quasi- corporate model as its organizational structure. The new role of the school board was to serve as a buffer between the public and the professional educators and let the superintendent and his staff to determine the majority of the educational decisions. This shift in representation, described by Pitkin (1968) as the trustee model, continued in cities across the US until the 19608 and Danzberger (1992) believes this model is still in existence in many districts Federal Laws, Court Decisions, Collective Bargaining and More (l940-present) The next fifty years brought many events that affected the organization and administration of public schools. Some of these include the Brown vs. the Board of Education ruling in 1954, the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the teacher unions gaining the right to bargain collectively in the 19603, and the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary 19 Education Acts) of 1965. The Civil Rights movement and the political unrest of the 19608 caused school boards to become more politicized in cities once again as diverse communities within cities sought representation. Further, PL 94-142 and Title IX of the 19708 were examples of social policy efforts, progressive by definition, to provide equity for all. Meyer (1979) writes, “Since World War II, the Federal Government has come to be more involved, but still in a limited way. And the authority built up has been legitimated, not as an expansion of general Federal educational control, but rather by very special purposes — most commonly, the restriction of inequalities” (p. 2). The creation of the US. Education Department during the Carter years (1977- 1980) made the federal government's role even more prevalent in public education. The increased federal role meant an increase in the states' role as the states were made responsible for implementing and monitoring the federal legislation (Danzberger). Bureaucratic growth was inevitable. Meyer argues that what he calls the “fiagmented centralization in American education” has expanded administrative Size and “. . .has become less and less able to respond to the local systems of control — one of the main loci of legitimated educational authority in the country” (p. 25). In 1996, a local weekly newspaper asked an incumbent board member running for a second term, “What are your top three priorities facing the (school) district and its board over the next five years?” Her response echoed the impact federal and state policies were having on school boards: Meeting the challenges of educational mandates in the 908. The federal government is continually vacillating on educational issues. We comply with a regulation, only to have it withdrawn in a year or two or have the funding pulled away. We just went through this with Title I funding. The state is also providing a volatile environment by holding the purse strings for education, giving the end goal (the new proficiency tests) and putting the responsibility into the lap of the 20 local districts. In other words, telling the districts ‘this is what you must teach the students, this is how much you have to do it with and you had better do it or we will give the money to someone else.’ We see this happening with adult education right now. The state is trying to give most of the proposed dollars that have traditionally gone to adult education to the new Michigan Jobs Commission (Grand Ledge Independent p.20). In their study of the states’ roles in public education, Kirst and Wirt (1992) write that the states have not avoided policy opportunities. They note that from early in the 20th century until the 19608, state education policy was left to the professionals and their lay cohorts (school boards) to initiate any policy recommendations. They call this period of time low-conflict politics. Beginning in the mid-19608, due to the political turbulence of that day, states entered a period Kirst and Wirt call high-conflict politics. Higher tax rates and purported teaching failures helped make education policy and school board membership more political. Thus (historically), the state-local clash has been between two major values: equity versus freedom of choice. More recently states have introduced a third value—efficiency—by placing more controls over testing, budgeting, evaluation and the like. The best assessment of this competition is that today, equity and efficiency are stressed more by state action, but choice has been reduced. This is illustrated in the recent dramatic increase of state control in such areas as the state role in education finance, state requirements for accountability, state programs for children with special needs, and the state efforts to increase local academic standards (p. 1269). Danzberger, Kirst, and Usdan also see the shift of influence on local school boards. They believe the I.E.L’s report in 1986 illuminated the complex web of educational governance that school boards are forced to operate in today. The pattern is for state authorities (legislators, governors, etc.) to increase their influence over funding and policy from the top. Simultaneously, employee unions, parents, interest groups, and private agencies (testing and accrediting) have squeezed the discretionary zone of school board control from the bottom. Local central school authorities are sandwiched in by these contending forces. Clearly the zone of policy discretion at the school district level has grown smaller over the past 30 years (p.31). 21 -.q. *1”, NJ.- —-.5. . 1‘ "— I“"‘-\i \ i. ..v- J. \h.‘ b .b s.) T‘ u 1~ '4 ’2}- 5. K... .n‘ It seems progressive policymaking has exacted a toll on the scope of local control. But, why did states start legislating reforms? The Nation at Risk report released in 1983 was a catalyst for states to take additional legislative actions. This federal government report highlighted how poorly American students were performing on standardized tests in comparison to its global neighbors in competing countries. This report was all that many state legislatures needed to take action. Most ofien, legislators’ educational reform efforts were pointed at improving public education by increasing state curriculum, increasing the hours of instruction students were to receive, and increasing teacher and administrator certification requirements. “The increased role of the states brought more regulations to assure local compliance and inevitably, increased reporting and paperwork” (Danzberger, 1992 p. 53). An increase in state level legislation can also force school boards to make difficult financial decisions. Mandated programs can exact a burden on school districts. Senator Dianne Byrum of Michigan recently recognized this fact. She stated, “When you put mandates in, you tie the hands of school districts and force them to make budget decisions on how they deliver education to the majority of their students,” (Harmon p. 4B). This supports Cohen’s findings that, all too often, state mandates were not accompanied by supporting dollars to allow the changes to occur (Cohen p. 491). The lack of funding to sustain state mandates further affects the ability of a school board to enact policy that benefit students in their local district. The states’ actions also sent the message, whether intentional or unintentional, to school boards that school improvement was not likely to be locally driven. This message was supported by a Rand CorpOration study that found that, “School boards seldom 22 invented or motivated the school improvement efforts... In most cities, the board had been a player in someone else’s leadership strategy” (p.49). As such, the role of the school boards’ policy-making authority was diminished. A recent example of this is the Detroit Public School system. Due in part by the failure of the Board to take definitive actions in improving the failing academic and infrastructure of the district, the Michigan legislature removed the elected Board and replaced it with the state superintendent and members of the business community selected by the mayor. The fact that the State has the power to take over local school districts and remove democratically elected school board members suggests the state legislature/governor do not believe that local school boards have the capacity and/or desire to drive educational reform change. Campbell, Cunningham et a1, (1990) support the fact that some of the control that was once the local district's has been shifted to other levels of government. Perhaps, revenue sources for school finances have caused the biggest Shift in control. Due to court decisions regarding the equity of funding formulas and citizen discontent over high property taxes, the Shift has meant the states have played a much more supportive role in sustaining their public schools. Yaffe’s “The New Golden Rule,” tells of the investment Colorado made toward funding public education and the effect it had on local control. In the article, Yaffe quotes two state legislators. The first states, “The minute the state puts in 50% plus one dime more of school funding then I’m going to feel that I will have an obligation to start having some say-so to how that money is spent.” Another adds, “ The more money we give, the more control we’re going to have.” Yaffe’s summary statement reads, “It seems clear, therefore, that local control of schools, at least in Colorado, is fast being eroded” (pp. 239-240). 23 Again, the progressive nature of these changes, evolutionary and ongoing, resulted in an increase in bureaucratic specialization to meet the federal and state legislation and the court decisions. All of these have affected the organization and administration of public schools and have resulted in changing roles for the school boards. Education Reforms in Michigan Throughout the history of public education, an account of the progressive nature of our State actions and the more recent federal interventions has shown how the organization and administration of local schools have altered the role of local school boards. No longer are school boards directing as many aspects of its school systems. Often, states have centralized much of the authority earlier granted to local school boards for the sake of equity and to help ensure an educated population. A recent study, completed by Scheerhom (1995), found that education reforms in Michigan from 1969- 1994 expanded the role of the superintendent and forced schools to become more bureaucratic. It would be consistent with Scheerhom's study to find that as the bureaucratic role of superintendent and his professional staff grew, that the role of school boards changed as well. The researcher examined three education reform packages passed in Michigan during the past ten years (1989-1999) that may have affected the role of school boards in Michigan. The brief summary and an analysis of the public acts that follow explain why it was reasonable to expect a change in the role of school boards (See Table 1). P. A. 25 of 1990 was enacted to encourage and support school districts in their efforts to make curriculum changes to improve the achievement of all students. As such, its intent may be described as progressive. P. A. 25 meant increasing educational equity 24 between districts, increasing the amount of district resources and increasing the surveillance by the State over matters formerly left to the local districts. School districts were compelled to comply with this legislative act under threat of a percentage of its state aid being withheld and/or becoming eligible to receive additional school state aid for “quality programs” (Sec 1204a). P. A. 335/336 of 1993 is described as progressive because it increased equity in school funding, it increased the surveillance of the state in matters formerly left tothe local districts and it increased bureaucracy to meet its mandates. Its net effect seemed to limit the role of school boards. No longer could local school boards try to pass individual operating millages to enhance their program offerings as the State now controlled the amount of money going to each school district. Miron and Wimpelberg argue that, “It is through state funding that state control has been historically asserted” (p.159). It is reasonable to believe Michigan’s new state funding policy (Proposal A) expanded the state’s role thereby diminishing the role of its local school boards. Also, MEAP (Michigan Education Assessment Program) testing increased its significance in P. A. 335/336. This had the effect of centralizing curriculum across the state. This, too, extended the State’s purview over the local school districts. Conversely, the third public act, the Revised School Code (P. A. 289 of 1995), seemed to be the legislature’s nervous reaction to P. A. 335/336’s mandates that centralized funding and with it, much of the local option formerly available to school districts. The Revised School Code was intended to broaden powers (more authority) to the local school boards by granting them "general" instead of "limited" powers to enact 25 policy. Did the “general” power distinction increase the role and authority of the school board? What was the net effect of these contrasting reforms on the role of school boards in 1999? A more in depth examination of the three described legislative Public Acts follows Table 1 as well as an assessment of the possible impact each may have on role of the local school boards. 26 OIIQlcn-ui-F.‘ I... lfli‘v‘v- 'Un‘l ‘0' III... N‘r'v. IOAIQ§I\LUQI".I~ r..\ ~ ‘ li‘n.\l‘ ‘ 622886 83 3:053 800m 85 0080—030 003m ton—0M .88: 05 8 380—90 09 8 e0: 0005 80c 008283 >80 85 “08 2:. .802 05 0.03 880080 8208800 080 3008 0.083 05 4058.0 .0300. 0.: 9 e0 e2 83 8202080 @820 0.03 30506 05 8:3 w80080>o 0082:0300 8e been 080008 2 028 2:03 28m 2:. .080 0.2 300:— 308 2003 820050 8208880 80:33 80508 Bop—om .m_0>0_ .002 0.: 83 08cm 05 8 308.008 09 2003 38083 08888 00.5.80 2 e030: 0033:8003 0:80:38; 88 03888883 @0820:— .v “038—0 05 8 e2 380808 80:08 08 0082:0200. 0.88m 05 “00000005 .m 000880. $05.06 e0 8:08...v 05 0000003 toeom e883 :o_§_e0._00< 800,—. wESBE 8080888— _oo:0m 82:0.F80 080 080 05 0:55 088 85 8008 2:03 2:00 .8 38205 .N 08:08 008882 50:2. 85 :33 be 2 ..08 0003 8080. $5 30Em=0 800253 3:80 owe—00m -800 8 3:388 003 e0 008888 05 0880 ch. 18380200 3000805 ._ @8088" 3:000 2E. meson 80:00 .20 0.80 :0 8e 80805200 -83 $.2th e0 03. 05 2 .00.» 80> 80—030 0588— cc mm .< .A— mica 30m w>o0.0 0. 00008 ..m0000 00: .0...0.0 .00:00 ..0:. 0.0000 0. 003 00w.:0..>. .00000: 0.:. 00.08 0. 00......0 0000.00: 0:. 0. 00000 0. 000.0 0.08 .00....0 0.0.0800 0. 0000000 000 08.. ..0 .00080 .0.80.0:00 0 000.0. 000002.000 000. 000:. .0 :00m. 0.00 0.0 00000000 0.0000 0. .00» 0 008.. m .0008 30:0: 0. 3.0.00 00... 80.0.0000 .00:..3 0.0...0.0 .00:00 00.00.00. 00.0 0.008000 0.0 0.0.0 0:. ..0:..0... 0.0800008: 038m 0.00 m0.800000 ..000 .000...000 00 0: 00.0..000000 0.83.0000 0:. .00 8...... .00:00... 008800 00.00008 00.0.80 0. 000000 00000008000 00800020: 000 0>..0..0.0.800 00000.00. .0 .0...0.0 0:. 0. 00. 3.08.0. 0.0..08 .0>0 0000...0>.00 0.0.0.0 0:. 00000.00. .0. 00000.0 .00 .0>0. 8.000... 0.0.0.0 0:. 30.0: 0.03 .0:. 0.0.00.0 .00:00 000:. 3.0.3000. 000.0000. 0.8.00.0 ..0 80080 0:. 00000.00. .N 00.0000.0 3008.00.00 8000.0 0.mmm w0..0000 .00.0000 .00.). o 08000.0 .0. 0080.0.0 000.0000 0.0.0 000.03< o m0..00. 000m: ..0 000000.080 0:. 00000.00. 0 008080.08. 8800.0 00.0.00... .00:00 0.0.0.0002 0 00000.00. 0000000 .00:00 ..0 0:807. o 00.0.>0.0 mud... .008 .03. o 0.0. 00.00 00 0000.8. .900: 0.. :..3 000000 < 80000.0 0 08.0.0. 00.80000 .000...000 000 00.80000 0. 00.00: .00:00 0 .0m00. 00 003 00m0...8 0.0...0.0 .00:00 .0. 00.000 8.000.. 08.0 < 80000.0 00070.0 ..0 000.800.. m0..0.000 8.0000 0.83 0003.0: 0.0.00 00000.00. .. 0:. 00 .8. 3.0090 . -000. ..0 0.0800 0:. ..0 000 .00 > .00 > 00 0000..0. 0.0080... 000.08 .< .0 0.0.. 0.20m. 0>0§00039. 20.00.... .00...0m 7.0 Hummmm $500.0 0m.>.mmm.y.0000 m...<...m 00... 20m...<.m.0m.. €25.08. 50022 a. 0000. 0......U 063.00 8082.0 2....-. oz... 28 :00 0: :00:8 :000: 0:: .:0 3:00:00 0:: :8: .:0>030: .0::_::00 :0:: 3:208 0000 :00:0m 0:: .:0 30:2 .:0>0_ 0:00: 0:: :0 00:00: .>00:0:00::: :0 £38m 0:: 8:00 :0:::£ 0300 820:0: 00::000 30000: 0: 80w:0=0:0 :0m0_ .83. .:0::0:8::_::00 0:88 0:: 55:3 0:::0::8 2:08:85: 0:: 8080:: 0300 0.2,: 83073 00:0E0>0m 0:00: _00:8 00020:: 80::. 0:00:08 :0 3:0: w:_:0:0:0 B0: 0 0:00:0 0: 00000: 8080 30:8 0000: 0:: 80:8 0:0 0:0:: 00:00 0: 02800: 0:0 0088: 0: :0: :05 82:08 80:: ,:0 088 0::? 8:0:08 30:: 00:00:0: 0000 m:_:0:: :08000 083.8% 0 3:0:9: :00:8 .:0 ::0::0w0:0:: 0:0 0:00 a 5:380 :80: 50000030 :0:0:8:::::00 :00:0m 00::00 ..:0::00:00 :89. 5:00:00 :0>::Q 0:80 .:0 :0::0:8_::::0< 80:00:08 00:08:80: =::: o 80:00:80.0 8330 :00:0m o ”0020:: 800:0 80:9 .03: .:0 0000 :00:0m 0:: :0 80:08 30:: 02030: :: .0>:80:m0:: 0: 0: :00::0 .0307»: m:_::0>0w :0_0>00 0: 80:00: .00:8 00:30: :: 8:00:50 .80:00: 60:8 0:: :0 3:00:00 0:: 8080:: 0: 00>:8 :0:00 83:. 0::08 x: 02520:: 080:: ::00x0 :0000 :80 00:0: :00 0:00: .00:08 0 .0: :0:: .0:08 .8030: :0:0:0m.. 0 00:00 0: 0: :: 0030=0 5:0: 30: 0: H :00 0: :: 8:000:30 30: 05008 0 0: :50: 0: 2:0 0: 8:8 :_ .5000 :0 0:0: 0: 0:00: 60:8 0 :0.: .8: :0:: “0:08 .8030: 00:05:: 0 00:008:00 803 :0m::0:2 S20: 0::: 0:0,:0m .0282“ .< .: 0:0 :0 .< 0 58 :o 5:800 _00:8 :0: >:_:0:::0 :00:0m 0830M 0: H :0: 8000 :_ .:0£E.:00 am 0:: :::3 5:00:00 N70: 0000 :00:0m 0:08 03w 0: 803 0:::: :_ 0:0: 8:: 08080:: 0830M 0: H. :0830: 0:: .:0 ::0::_ 0:.0 .::0::00:D .0Z 3:00000: 00: 0:08 0:.H -mmm .< .: mac: 20m 0>0050: 50mm: AOOE0m ZO H093”: maommv mgmmgwom: mhfirm £0: 20351 m>:.—.