LEGISLATORS’ REPORTED iNFORMATlON SOURCES
FOR EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATlON

Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D.
MlCHlGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CLIFFORD J. BEDORE. Jr.
1968

17,11)1\41J\ L

W Ml \ ; “in. 111 8:393
:1” Un... crsity

“W A.”

THESIS (

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

LEGISLATORS' REPORTED INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION

presented by

Clifford J. Bedore Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Jim—degree in_E.dn£La£i_0nal Administration

1? M
\

Major professor

Date .1111}: m? 1968

0-169

ABSTRACT

LEGISLATORS' REPORTED INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION

by Clifford J. Bedore, Jr.

This study was designed to identify sources of infor—
mation which legislators considering educational legislation
recalled as having been useful, creditable and worthy of
consideration. The study proposed to be descriptive of
communication patterns identified by legislators.

The theoretical framework assumed for the study
proposed that: the people of the State of Michigan (a
functional group) must act through a recognized channel
within the society (the channel of legislation) to provide
part of the means of fulfilling a recognized obligation
(public education). A further assumption that this pro—
posed act (the state school aid act) was dependent upon
the decisions of a group (the legislature) located at a
strategic point in the recognized channel for action was
required. If these two assumptions are acceptable then it
may be assumed that legislators were subject to such
influences as were brought to bear. Which of these influ-
ences did legislators recall as useful and creditable?

Structured interviews with all members of the
appropriations committees and education committees of

both houses of the Michigan legislature provided the bases

Clifford J. Bedore, Jr.

for the results. Responses from one hundred per cent of
the population selected were tabulated. A questionnaire
type of interview guide was used to structure the inter-
views. The results were tabulated and described. No
statistical interpretations were attempted. The inter—
views were focused on the Michigan state school aid act
of 1967.

Legislators most often reported local school district
personnel as creditable informants regarding the local
effects of state financial support for education. The
legislators reported greatest reliance upon stage agencies
and staffs for financial implications of state school aid
as it would affect the whole State of Michigan. The state-
wide organizations concerned with education were generally
deemed to be creditable informants on matters of financing
education. The professional legislative agents provided
information which legislators accepted as reliable. The
pattern of reported informants varied as the topic varied.

A summary of the conclusions expressed in terms of
the purpose of this study is that local sources of infor-
mation are creditable and useful for the consideration of
local effects, state agencies and staffs are creditable
for state—wide fiscal information, state-wide organizations
with legislative agents are respected as creditable infor-
mants, and the relative ranking of usefulness and credi-

bility may vary with the topic being considered.

Clifford J. Bedore, Jr.

The study suggests further study of the identified
informants to determine leadership among them. A study of
the potential role conflict where a single agency is
charged with both regulatory and advisory roles was sug-
gested by this study. A study to investigate any correla-
tion between organizational financing and effectiveness
as a creditable informant should provide important infor-
mation to those interested in influencing educational

legislation.

LEGISLATORS' REPORTED INFORMATION SOURCES

FOR EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION
By

Clifford J2 Bedore, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Department of Educational Administration

1968

 

2533‘ A /
A; 7-. A ‘7

Copyright by
CLIFFORD J. BEDORE, JR.
1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study was dependent upon the willingness of
legislators to take time from their extremely busy
schedules to permit an interview. The c00peration of
the Senators and Representatives of the Michigan Legis-
lature was a key to the completion of the study and the
author acknowledges this.

The author is indebted to Senators Emil Lockwood
and Raymond Dzendzel and Representative Russell Strange
for their support. Without the endorsement of key
legislators the study would have been difficult, if not
futile.

The encouragement of members of the faculty of
Michigan State University serving in the Department of
Administration and Higher Education is deeply appreciated.
The tolerance and encouragement on the part of Dr. Donald
Fink, President of Montcalm Community College, helped the
author through many of the low points.

The patient encouragement of Dr. James Heald who
served as chairman of the author's doctoral guidance com-
mittee must be recognized as providing the impetus, his
needling commentary as providing the stimulus, and his
knowledge of task as the basis for the guidelines for
this endeavor. The acknowledgment of his assistance is
difficult to express only because any expression would be
inadequate.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND A FRAMEWORK FOR
THE STUDY . . . . . . .

Rationale for the Study

Review of Literature

Summary of Review of Literature

Assumptions for This Study

Need for This Study

Proposed Theoretical Framework for the
Study

METHODOLOGY.

Identification of Influence Agents

Sources of Influence . .

Functional Groups

Population for Study .

Challenge of State Board Leadership

Other Leadership Potential . .

Implications of State School Aid Act
of 1967.. . . . .

Question Design.

Time of Interview

Support for Study

Problems of Interviews

FINDINGS.

Sequence of Legislative Action.

Characteristics of Population

Examination of Responses.

Identification of Responses.

Initial Tabulation of Responses

Findings for Question Number Two

Findings for Questions Three and Fourteen

Findings for Questions Number Four and
Thirteen

iii

Page

ii

vi

Chapter

Findings for Questions Number Five and
Fifteen.

Findings for Questions Number Six, Seven,
and Seventeen. .

Findings for Questions Number Eight and
Sixteen. .

Findings for Question Number Nine.

Findings for Questions Number Ten and
Nineteen . . . . . k . . .

Findings for Questions Number Eleven and
Eighteen .

Findings for Question Number Twelve

A Total Sociometric Score

IV. SUMMARY

Legislative Operations .
Interpretation of Responses.
Conclusions

Operational Aspects
Suggestions for Further Study

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES.

iv

Page

63
6A

66
67

68

69
7O
72

77
77

79
81

83
8A
86

89

Table

10.

ll.

l2.

13.

1A.
15.

LIST OF TABLES

Tabulation of results of comparison of
answers of paired questions

Informants ranked by number of respondents
reporting them .

Quantitative data regarding responses

Summary of responses to question number two
by source .

Number of responses by questions number three
and fourteen and source . .

Number of responses by questions number four
and thirteen and source

Number of responses by questions number five
and fifteen and source. .

Number of responses by questions number seven
and seventeen and source

Number of responses by questions number eight
and sixteen and source. .

Number of responses by question number nine
and source.

Number of responses by questions number ten
and nineteen and source

Number of responses by questions number
eleven and eighteen and source

Number of responses by question number twelve
and source and topic

Total sociometric score

Summary of responses by question and source

Page

45

56
58

59

61

62

63

65

66

67

69

7O

71
75
99

Appendix
A.

B
C.
D

LIST OF APPENDICES

Introductory Letters
Interview Guide and Questions
Summary of Responses

How a Bill Becomes Law

vi

Page
90

9A
98
100

CHAPTER I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND A FRAMEWORK

FOR THE STUDY

Rationale for the Study

 

The responsibility for public education rests with
the individual states of The United States of America.
Exercise of this responsibility varies from state to
state and from year to year. As the search for improve—
ment continues, constant changes in the methods and means
of state control and support of public education occur.
Change requires decision and in many cases the decision
is related to legislative action. The legislatures of
the various states asserting their responsibilities for
providing for an educated citizenry may exercise effec-
tive control over the public education of that state.
They may, by the legislation which they enact, determine
for what purpose public education may be provided; what
education shall be provided; and for whom this education
shall be provided.

The legislature of the State of Michigan is one of
the bodies exercising effective control over the public
schools of Michigan. The Michigan Constitution of 1963
provides for education in Article VIII. The legislature

is directed to maintain and support a system of free

public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law.
"As defined by law" is the phrase that establishes control.
The legislature provides the law which defines what public
education in Michigan shall be. Legal determinations are
made by the legislature of the State of Michigan each year
as it "defines by law" the scope and purpose of public
education in Michigan. The annual "state aid act" is a
major vehicle in that it provides funds and establishes
limitations.

The processes of legislation are complex. The
formal and informal aspects of law-making have many facets.
One criterion for a proposal to become law is the test of
passage. One of the many "moments of truth" in the legis-
lative process is the vote of record which provides suf-
ficient margin for approval to be recognized. This vote
may be on the floor of the legislative branch wherein the
action exists, or this vote may be in committee. Regard-
less of which of these two situations applies, the decision
of the group will be the resultant of individual decisions.

Accepting that all decisions need not be the result
of a rational process, if one has faith in our representa—
tive system of government and a belief that there has been
some reasoning process involved in the decision which
prompted the vote, one could also assume that the legisla-
tor has had access to some relevant information which

affected his decision. Using Barnard's model of analysis

and synthesis,1 the analysis of information precedes the
synthesis of decision from the acceptable information.
Assuming that one of the criteria for acceptable infor-
mation is credibility, whom do legislators use as
creditable sources of information regarding the needs of

education?

Review of Literature

 

Scott and Hunt undertook a study to shed light on
the relationship of interest groups to Congressional
decision-making.2 The accent of the study was centered
on the way that Congress views interest groups. One of
the findings stated:

The function performed by interest groups that is
most highly rated b§ congressmen is that of pro-
viding information.
One of the primary sources of information available to a
legislator is the interest groups. Latham defined an
interest group as a group actively trying "to influence

the course of public policy."u He further defines pres-

sure groups as interest groups moved into the political

 

1Chester 1. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 239.

2Andrew M. Scott and Margaret A. Hunt, Congress and
Lobbies (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1965), pp. xv + 106.

31bid., p. 88.

“Earl Latham, "Interest Groups in the American
Political System," American Politics and Government,
edited by Stephen K. Bailey (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1965), pp. 1u2-154.

 

arena. Pressure groups at their best were described as
links between citizens and government and at less than
their best as potential distorters of the legislators'
view of public opinion.1
The public display of interest groups is most often

made through that representative commonly called lobbyist.
DeVries reported that the popular image of lobbying in-
cluding favors and bribery is a false image.2 He studied
the role of lobbists as perceived by lobbyists, legislators
and news correspondents. His review of literature revealed
that most studies had been confined to group activities and
influence. This findings was supported by the literary
search of Scott and Hunt.3 DeVries' statement:

Organized group interests are the energizing forces

in our political process, and any understanding of

American decision-making requires a knowledge of

their interest, organization methods, and role in

public policy making.
not only credits interest groups with the ability to over—

come legislative inertia, but emphasizes the need for

studies of influence within the legislative process.

 

lIbid.

2Walter Dale DeVries, "The Michigan Lobbyist: A
Study in the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness" (unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science,
Michigan State University, 1960), p. 1.

3Scott, op. cit.

”DeVries, o . cit.

Blaisdell was one of the authors who did not fear
the lobbyist. As editor of a book composed of material
written by several authors, he stated, "The 'new lobby' is
everywhere respected, accepted and causes few editorial

"1 Bailey and Samuel2 in describing

writers to thunder.
Congress at work played down the influence and pressure
of party, constitutency, and interest groups on congress—
men.

In contrast the view credited to Health, Education
and Welfare Secretary John W. Gardner is that education
lobbyists have "immense" influence and that it "amounts to

"3

veto power. The same article continued with the state-

ment that:
Education lobbyists, reveals one of the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare's own chief
lobbyists, represent an amazing tangle of interests,
often working at cross-purposesuand frequently fail-
ing to unite in a common front.

The situation appears to be comparable to situations in

Michigan where'fihe Department of Education has been unable

to reconcile all of the views of active interests groups

 

1Donald C. Blaisdell (ed.), Unofficial Government:
Pressure Groups and Lobbies, The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 319 (Phila-
delphia: 1958), p. ix.

 

2Stephen K. Bailey and Howard D. Samuel, Congress

at Work (New York: Holt, 1952), p. x + 502.

3"Up the Up Staircase," Newsweek, May 15, 1967,
p. 70.

“Ibid., p. 70.

striving to influence education legislation at a state
level.
Emanuel Cellars in writing about "Pressure Groups in
Congress"1 focuses on the congressman's need to be informed.
In its very nature, effective legislation is the
fruit of compromise. The 'good' representative
. . is he who effectively accommodates conflict-
ing interests . . . and harmonizes his responses
to the demands made upon him within the dictates
of his conscience.

Harmon Zeigler's study Interest Groups and American

 

Society3 evaluates the interest group's effect as slight
except as they reinforce concepts which the legislator
(individual) already has. His work supports an approach
to the study of influence via role expectations. The
inter-related memberships which legislators hold in a
variety of groups all affect the role which the legislator
will play as he makes decisions. The importance of one
such group, the legislative committee, is set forth later
in this writing.

The Legislative Struggle“ is a presentation of an

 

individual with first hand experience with the Congress—

ional writings. The book points out the power of the

 

lBlaisdell, op. cit., Emanuel Cellars, "Pressure
Groups in Congress," p. 2.

21bid., p. 2.

3Harmon Zeigler, Interest Groups in American Society
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1964), p. 343.

 

“Bertram M. Gross, The Legislative Struggle: A Study
in Social Combat (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc.,
19537} p- 372.

 

 

committee in legislative procedure. A committee may let
a bill languish in the files. "The most decisive form of
action a committee can take on a bill is inaction."l In
writing of lobbies Gross states:
The leadership for a legislative campaign involves
many kinds of knowledge and activity. It calls for
skills in such specialized fields as law, public
administration, public relations and publicity,
economics, statistics, and governmental procedures.
One aspect of influence discussed by Gross is that of the
agencies of the formal government that have perogatives to
influence legislative action. That the President, legis-
lative leaders, majority and minority party leaders, and
other leaders in formal leadership positions in the
government have a duty to influence legislation is not
always clearly recognized.

Political science provides much literature regarding
the influences which may or may not be effective on the
legislators as a group or as individuals. Sociology pro—
vides literature regarding opinion, public opinion, and
the influence of opinion. The study of innovation and its
dissemination has been a favorite subject for rural
sociologists.

Everett M. Rogers attempts to answer some questions

about how ideas spread in Diffusion of Innovations.3 In

 

 

1Ibid., p. 312. 2Ibid., p. 328.

3Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), p. 367.

 

discussing how an individual adopts a new idea and the
role of opinion leaders in the adoption process, the author
cited over five hundred separate pieces of diffusion
research. The chapter dealing with opinion leaders and
the flow of ideas1 was judged to be pertinent to the pur-
pose of this study. In this chapter the term "opinion
leader" is used to refer to individuals who are influential
in approving or disapproving new ideas. The concept of an
influential informant being an opinion leader appears
relevant to the research being proposed and pursued in
this paper. Some other concepts discussed were: active
and passive roles for adopters and rejectors, importance
of personal influence and measuring opinion leadership.

Rogers and Burdge found that opinion leaders (those
whom they defined as "individuals sought by others for
information and advice"2) conform to the norms of their
community much more closely than the followers. These
researchers considered all members of a group who were not
leaders as followers. The norms of friendship, cliques,
special interest organizations, families and other groups
are important influences affecting decisions.

Rogers wrote that impersonal sources of information

are most important at the awareness stage of the adoption

 

lIbid., pp. 209—253.

2Everett M. Rogers and Rabel J. Burdge, Community

Norms, Opinion Leadership and Innovativeness, Research
Bulletin 912 (Wooster, Ohip: Ohio Agricultural Experiment
Station, June, 1962),pp. l8.

 

 

process, but that personal sources are most important at
the evaluation stage.1 The personal sources would appear
to be important close to the time of decision where
credibility becomes an essential factor in evaluation.
According to Katz and Lazarsfeld:

All interpersonal relations are potential networks

of communication [and] an opinion leader can best

be thought of as a group member playing a key

communications role.
The person who becomes sufficiently interested and an
active participant in any area may become an opinion
leader because of displayed knowledge. Leadership in one
area has no bearing on leadership in other areas. These

3

concepts are set forth in Personal Influence.

 

In a study of opinion leadership Rogers and van Es
defined "opinion leadership" as "the ability to influence
other people's attitudes in a desired way and with a rela-
tively high frequency.“4 All respondents in the study

were asked where they would go for advice on a number of

different tOpics. A total sociometric score was computed

 

lEverett M. Rogers, How Research Can Improve Practice:

 

A Case Study, Reprinted from Theory into Practice, I, no. 2
(April, 1962). pp. 89-93.

2Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence

 

 

 

(New York: The Free Press, 1955), pp. AOO.

3Ibid., p. 325.

“Everett M. Rogers and Johannes C. van Es, Diffusion
of Innovation Research Report No. 2 Opinion Leadership in
Traditional and Modern Colombian Peasant Communities (East
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Communication, College
of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, 1964),

p. A.

 

 

 

10

by adding the number of times that an informant was named
for each question. This score was regarded in that study
as the best single measure of overall opinion leadership.

Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudetl stated that
opinion leaders are found in every area and for every
public issue. These leaders are persons most concerned
as well as most articulate about the issue. The authors
proposed that often the flow of ideas is from radio and
print (the mass media) to the opinion leaders and from
them to less active persons.

March2 is credited with defining influence as that
"which induces a change in the state of the organism dif—
ferent from that (which is) predictable." He further
points out that the measuring of influence has not advanced
to the stage of providing comparable answers. While the

possibility that interpersonal influence has occurred may

 

be established, it is difficult to establish that no influ—

ence has occurred. The problem appears to be that of de-

 

termining how much of a change has occurred because of
influence. These observations merely specify the lack of

developed techniques for measurement of influence.

 

1Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel
Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Columbia University
Press, 19AM), Reprinted in American Social Patterns, edited
by William Petersen (Garden City; New York: Doubleday,
1956), pp- 119—170.

 

 

2James C. March, "An Introduction to the Theory and
Measurement of Influence," The American Political Science
Review, A9 (1955), pp. A31—A51.

 

ll

Merton wrote of patterns of influence and the inter-
personal nature of influence.1 He also discussed the local
or cosmopolitan characteristics of influentials, the
seekers and the sought, and the polymorphic influential and
the monomorphic influential. The definition of influence
of primary concern to Merton was concerned with influence
in the form of clarification, advice and as a prototype
for imitation. Merton called for definition of the term
"opinion leader" and the need for systematic attention to
the problems of interpersonal influence.2

A theory of three processes by which persons respond
to social influence was advanced by Kelman.3 Compliance,
identification, and internalization were the assumed proc-
esses. If the agent has control, either potential or
actual, over the rewards and punishments, his influence
will take the form of compliance by those influenced. If
the agent's power is based on attractiveness (providing a
satisfaction from a self-definition with reference to the
agent), influence will tend to take the form of identifi-
cation. To the extent that the agent's power is based on
his credibility, influence will take the form of internal—

ization. Kelman concluded from his study that there is

 

1Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure

 

(revised and enlarged edition; Toronot: The Free Press
Collier MacMillan Canada Ltd., 1949), pp. 387—“20.

2Ibid., p. 415.

3Herbert C. Kelman, "Processes of Opinion Change,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Spring, 1961), pp. 57-78.

l2

enough evidence to suggest that the distinctions made
between the three processes are valid.1

Blumer2 notes that public opinion is a function of
society in operation; that society is organized into func-
tional groups; that such functional groups must act through
channels controlled by key individuals who must approve
the proposed action of the group; and that the key individ-
uals are almost inevitably confronted with the necessity of

assessing the various influences, claims, demands, urgings

and pressures brought to bear upon the key individuals.

Summary of Review of Literature

 

The literature cited in the preceding review seems
related to legislators and influence. There does not
appear to be a study of the legislators' reported credit—
able sources of information for any particular problem or
issue. Caution must be exercised in order that the lobby
be not the only source of information considered. Some
legitimate formal positions of the government require that
influence on legislation be part of the rights and duties
of that position and incumbents in these positions must be
considered as potential informants. Constituents, either
individually or in groups, may also be sources of informa—

tion. For the purposes of this study information is

_

 

lIbid., p. 77.

2Herbert Blumer, "Public Opinion and Public Opinion
POlling," American Sociological Review, 13 (October, 1948),
pp. 542-559.

 

13

defined as timely and specific knowledge meaningful to

 

the recipient.

 

The literature of political science has provided
support for the assumption that legislators do receive
information. The relationship between credible informa-
tion and influence is supported by sociologists cited.

That education and its control are of rightful concern

to educators has been expressed. It remains to examine

the responses which legislators have made regarding sources
of information related to education issues.

Ferguson's finding, that eighty-two per cent of the
state legislators questioned in his study viewed the prob—
lems of school needs as financial, support1 the use of the
Michigan "State School Aid Act of 1967" as the specific
piece of legislation suited to the purpose of this study.
One aspect of the study reported by Ferguson was that
legislators were asked where they got their most reliable
information on the subject of school needs. Comparison
of the reported findings in California, New Jersey, Ohio
and Tennessee showed local school officials, state or local
educational associations, and state school agencies or

officials ranked consistently high.

—_;

lLeRoy Craig Ferguson, How Legislators View the
E330blem of School Needs, Cooperative Research Project No.
532 (8166) (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of
Political Science, Michigan State University, 1960), p. 7.

 

 

1A

Assumptions for This Study

 

One basic assumption necessary for this study is that
legislators do receive information which they recognize as
worthy of consideration. Support for such an assumption
is tacit in the money, time, and effort spent by interest
groups both in providing information and in providing an
effective environment for attempting to transmit informa-
tion. The full-time professional lobbyist has a function
of providing information and this is the function most
highly rated by legislators.

For a legislator is not elected in order that he
may function exclusively by Divine guidance or
personal intuition. He is a message center and
reagent within a vast communications system
through which the electorate make known their
needs.

Any message center must receive information. Infor-
mation received by a legislator may be provided by local
constituents, state and national organizations, local,
state, or national governmental agencies, or many other
potential informants.

Information may be sought by legislators in an
attempt to fill a need. Information may be doled out to
legislators in an attempt to make a need known. Informa-

tion may be heaped upon legislators in the daily routine

Of business or in the subtle and sometimes not—so-subtle

¥

lBlaisdell, op. cit., p. 2.

15

routine of projecting the amount of concern regarding an
expressed need.

The legislative process provides a formal procedure
for transmittal of information in the "hearing." However,
there are those who report that the "hearings" are nothing
more than a window dressing.

Most lobbyists are sophisticated enough to realize

that the committee hearings and the testimony

therein are of doubtful value in the communication

of influence. Most legislators have already made

up their minds and little can be done to cause a

sudden change of heart.1
However, much of the testimony placed on the record in this
formal arena has already been transmitted to the legislator
by way of informal channels. The information provided in
the hearing does become a matter of record.

If the assumption that legislators do receive infor—
mation is acceptable, then a further assumption that some
of this information is creditable is required. If legis-
lators do not accept ggy information as creditable, then
there is a question of representation, for example, if no
communication is acceptable, then legislators represent
only themselves and their own predispositions. That
legislators do accept some sources of information as
worthy of belief appears to be supported by the letters

written to constituents and the tedious daily calendars

of appointments with purported informants.

 

lZeigler, op. cit., p. 254.

16

If it can be assumed that legislators receive infor-
mation which they will accept as creditable, because they
have a need to know and because they must give credence
to some source if they are to represent, then it can be
assumed that legislators may seek information. When an
individual seeks information and advice from another, the
other may, by providing such information or advice, become
an influence. The one from whom information and advice is

sought has been said to be an "opinion leader."l

Need for This Study

 

Thomas H. Eliot, writing in an article titled "Toward

2

an Understanding of Public School Politics," stated:

That state action, especially in the legislatures,

is not significant and will soon have a crucial

impact on educational development, and that useful

findings can result from a comparative study of

state influence, management, or control.
One aspect of state influence in the financial aid provided
by the state. Another aspect of state influence is the
regulatory function, usually assigned to the state depart-

ment of education. Special state assistance for specific

programs is another aspect of state influence of education.

 

lRogers, Diffusion of Innovations, op. cit., p. 208.

 

2Thomas H. Eliot, "Toward an Understanding of Public
School Politics," The American Political Science Review,
LIII, no. A (December, 1959), pp. 1036-1036.

 

3Ibid., p. 1035.

17

This study does not intend to be a comparative study of
state influence, management or control. This study is
related to influence as perceived by state legislators
and was designed to discover how legislators credit
informants from various interest groups, including state
agencies.

Yet in spite of the critical importance of the

relationship between interest groups and law-

making institutions, research offers surprisingly

few cumulative or empirical data about this phase

of the representative process.l

Scott and Hunt2 claimed that "Thus far, very little

research has been done on the perceptions that congressmen
have of interest groups." They further claim that this
may be explained because the advocates of the group theory
have interpreted the views of the individual congressman
as almost irrelevant. The discussion of their findings
provide a key for the current study. Their interpretation
of the data indicated that, "The function performed by
interest groups that is most highly rated by congressmen

n3

is that of providing information.

Prgposed Theoretical Framework for the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine which
sources of information are judged to be useful and credit—

able or worthy of consideration. The study proposes to

‘

1John C. Wahlke, William Buchanan, Heinz Eulau, and

LeRoy C. Ferguson, "American State Legislators' Role Orien-
tation Toward Pressure Groups," Journal of Politics, 22
(1960), p. 204.

 

2Scott and Hunt, 0 . cit. 3Ibid., p. 88.

l8

identify creditable influences recalled by those individ-
uals who were involved in making a decision which resulted
in a form of social action.

It has been proposed that there exists a framework
within which all functional groups must act through the
channels available in the society.1 Whenever proposed
acts are dependent upon the decisions of those individuals
or groups located at strategic points in the channels of
action, then said individuals or groups making required
decisions are subject to influence.

It becomes necessary for the decision makers to
assess the various influences brought to bear. Kelman2
suggested three processes of social influence, namely:
"compliance" (identified as accepting influence in the hope
of achieving favorable reaction), "identification" (result-
ing in the adoption of the proposed induced behavior be-
cause the individual sees the behavior as fitting his
self-image), and "internalization" (occurring when the
influence is accepted because the proposed induced be—
havior coincides with the internalized values of the in—
dividual). These three cannot be completely separated,

but credibility is essential to the process of internal—

ization.

lBlumer, op. cit.

2Kelman, op. cit.

19

If an agent's statements are accepted as worthy of
consideration because they are believed to be valid and
truthful, that agent is said to possess credibility. Two
bases for credibility designed by Hovland, Janis, and
Kelley,1 were "expertness" and "trustworthiness." While
other traits such as overall respect, recognized lack
of vested interest,and likemindedness may be attributes
of credibility, "an agent is perceived as possessing
credibility because he is likely to kppw_the truth or
because he is likely to tell the truth."2 "The credi-
bility and/or the affection in which he is held in any
community, the kinds of interpersonal relations he is
capable of establishing, are crucial factors in effecting

"3

change.

4 discusses the decision making process in

Barnard
terms of analysis being the beginning of the process. The
necessity of assessment of the factors of influence is
reinforced by this concept. That the decision itself is
a synthesis of acceptable information is also important.

For the purpose of this study, however, the synthesis

aspect of decision making is not of prime importance.

 

1C. I. Hovland, I. L. Janis, and H. H. Kelley, Com—
munication and Persuasion (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1953), p. 21.

 

2Kelman, op. cit., p. 68.

3Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert
Chin (editors), The Planning of Change (New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1962), p. 531.

 

”Barnard, op. cit.

20

Analysis is important to this study only to the extent
that it be recognized as related to a determination of

useful and creditable sources of information.

 

The concept of statistical comparison of some aspect
of the perceptions of a group of legislators in the light
of some "intervening variables" as they view a variety of
informants from an unaccountable number of circumstances
does not appear to be likely to provide useful information.
Rather it is proposed that useful evidence can be obtained
from interviews with individual legislators who are con—
cerned with a common problem.

Assuming that the peOple of the state of Michigan
(a functional group) must act through a recognized channel
(legislation in the form of the state school aid act) to
provide part of the means of fulfilling a recognized
obligation (public education), and further assuming that
this prOposed act is dependent upon the decisions of a
group (the legislature) located at a strategic point in
the channel for action (state general fund monies can be
appropriated only by the legislature), then it shall be
assumed that the legislators are subject to such influ—
ences as are brought to bear. Assessment of the credi-
bility of the agents of influence is assumed to be a
necessary part of assessment. Acceptance of the foregoing
assumptions is the basis for setting the theoretical

framework for this investigation.

21

As we review this complex of subsystems, each
exerting influence on educational innovation,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it
constitutes a listing of all the significant
aspects of American culture. This is only half
true, of course: 1

This statement of Miles, as he discusses the nature
of the problem of educational innovation, is indicative of
the wide range of potential sources of influence which
might act on decision makers concerned with education.
Education by its function in the culture is of concern to
many facets of society. The fact that many persons in
the American culture have had experience in the processes
of education may have some relationship to the number of
persons who perceive themselves worthy of making decision
as to what education should be.

Legislative consideration of any proposal implies a
reaction to change. If the proposal be to maintain the
status quo, it must have involved the consideration of
possible change, in order for concern to have arisen. It
appears that all considerations related to decisions must
involve some aspect of change.

If one accepts from Bennis2

a definition of leadership which involves
three major components: (a) an agent who is

typically called a leader; (b) a process of induc—
tion or the ability to manipulate rewards that will

'lMathew B. Miles (ed.), Innovation in Education
(New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 196A), p. 39.

 

2Bennis, Benne, and Chin, op. cit., p. 441.

22

here be termed power; and (c) the induced
behavior, which will be referred to here as
influence,

 

then there may be a case for those who question whether
leadership of Michigan education does not in fact rest in
the legislature. Does not the agent legislature manipulate
rewards to produce a desired induced behavior? One
Illinois senator was quoted, "The most important thing

to remember is that in education matters the legislature

l The control of education does lie in

is all powerful."
the realm of the state legislature. The Constitution of
the State of Michigan of 1963 states that, "The legislature
shall maintain and support a system of free public and
elementary schools as defined by law." The law itself is
the product of legislation.

The leadership being sought in this study is that
which induces the desired behavior in the group known as
legislators. Who exerts influence and leadership in legis—
lative action concerning education? Are the members of
the legislature aware that they may lack the necessary
expertise to recommend and produce positive legislation?
Assuming that they recognize the need for additional eval-
uation of proposals by those who must implement them, or
by those who must live within the laws established, whom
do they hear?

This study does not seek to discover why any of the

reported sources of information are heard. Whether a

¥

lMiles, op. cit., p. 185.

23

source is reported as creditable because the respondent
sees himself required to report that source in order to
maintain his self image, or whether the response is made
as a reaction to an assumed threat to the respondent, or
whether the source was reported creditable because it
recommended an induced behavior compatible with the
values of the respondent is not within the scope of this
study. However, failure to recognize that these and
other factors of the situation of the interview affect
the responses would be contradictory to present expres—
sions of behavioral scientists. It is the objective of
this study to identify reported creditable sources of
information, not to evaluate the quality of the sources.
The "system" within which the action for this study
occurred may be compared to a "temporary system." Milesl
described "temporary systems" and named two attributes
of these systems, termination of system membership (as
time—linked, event-linked, or condition-linked) and
temporary membership (held by all persons or clients only).
Any temporary system can be examined in terms of its focus
of attention and in terms of its major function. One of
the functions described by Miles2 for such a system was

short term task accomplishment.

h;

lMiles, op. cit., Chapter 19, pp. A37-A90.

2Ibid.

2A

The annual operation of the Education Committee and
the Appropriations Committee of both the House of Represen-
tatives and the Senate of the Michigan Legislature and the
informants who function in hearings as well as in other
circumstances might be considered as temporary system
whose function is to produce an acceptable state school
aid act for a given fiscal year. The meaningful communica—
tion related to the primary function of the group may
occur between legislator and informant in a variety of
informant in a variety of circumstances. The focus for
this current study is not only the committee hearings, but
all communication outside the hearings as well. Influence
is considered to be the result of all forces effective at

the time of decision.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Identification of Influence Agents

 

The methodology of identification of creditable
sources of information has been summarized by Rogers and
Cartano under the title, "Methods of Measuring Opinion
Leadership."l This report contained some generalized
characteristics of "opinion leaders" and identified three
main methods of measuring influence.

One method, the "key informant" method, was described
as requiring a subjective judgment as to who is most likely
to know who opinion leaders are. The "key informant" has
also been used in social stratification studies. This
technique was judged to suffer from lack of applicability
to those sample designs where only a portion of an audi-
ence is interviewed.

The "sociometric technique" consists of asking group
members where they seek information or advice regarding a
topic. This method has been popular, especially in the
agriculture-sociology studies. It was judged more appli—

cable to a research design in which all members of a social

¥

lEverett M. Rogers and David G. Cartano, "Methods of
Measuring Opinion Leadership," Public Opinion Quarterly,
26 (Fall, 1962), pp. 435—941.

 

25

26

system are interviewed than one in which a relatively small
sample within a larger universe is contacted.

The "self designating technique" consists of asking
a respondent a series of questions in order to determine
his self perception of his role as an opinion leader.
Rogers and Cartano in their report, recommended the "self
designating technique" as "reliable, valid, and unidimen—
sional" and adaptable "to studies of any type of opinion

leadership."l

Sources of Influence

 

Personal sources of influence were reported by Beal
and Rogers2 to be more effective in establishing a new idea
than were impersonal sources. Katz and Lazarsfeld3 pointed
out that interpersonal relations provide a potential net-
work of communication and set forth the idea that "an
opinion leader can best be thought of as a group member
playing a key communication role."u Katz suggests that

sources may be personal or impersonal as long as they em-

manate from a technically competent source.5 These

 

1Ibid., p. 4A1.

2George M. Beal and Everett M. Rogers, The Adoption
of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Community, Special
Report No. 26 (Ames, Iowa: Agricultural and Home Economics
Experiment Station, Iowa State University of Science and
Technology, June, 1960), pp. 3-20.

 

 

3Katz and Lazarsfeld, op. cit. uIbid., p. 33.

5Elihu Katz, "The Two—Step Flow of Communication: An
Up-to-Date Report on an Hypothesis," Public Opinion

Quarterly, 21 (1957), pp. 61-78.

 

27

references provided a basis for referring to both personal
(individual) sources and impersonal (organizational)

sources in seeking responses.

Functional Groups

 

The use of the term "group" is recognized as not
providing a definitive, clear-cut population, but rather
a temporal boundary within which individuals may function
during a specific circumstance and which boundary does not
serve as a limit for the scope of the activities of these
individuals. Individuals may function as components of
more than one group. Legislators as a group divide into
sub—groups according to assignment, to party, and to per-
sonal desires. "To attempt to change an individual's
attitudes without taking into account his group loyalties
and attachments would be useless."1 The influences which
are applied in one segment of living do not remain effec-
tive solely in that segment if they have been internalized.
However, influences induced by compliance may well be
effective only within the segment where the pressure is
felt. Likewise, identification may be effective only in
that sphere where the self image assumed for that sphere
demands that identification. Credibility is the dimension
necessary for internalization, and for this reason credi-
bility was included as a qualification for reported sources

of information.

-.._

lBennis, Beene and Chin, op. cit., p. A86.

28

Population for Study

 

The sociometric technique consisting of asking mem-
bers of a functional group to whom they go for advice and
information about a topic of concern seemed adaptable to
this proposal. The population, consisting of the members
of the education and appropriation committees of both the
Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan Senate
(having concern with a common problem), appeared to be
small enough to be interviewed in its entirety.

The series of questions making up the interview guide
sought to have the legistator reveal the informants whom
he remembered and those from whom he would seek specific
information. It was felt that the need for recall would
identify those informants who made more than a fleeting
impression. Reference to either individuals or organiza-
tions was permitted. Most of the questions were designed
to identify creditable informants. Two questions sought
identification of unreliable informants. This series of
questions was considered to be the basic instrument for
this study. The total interview guide appears in the

Appendix.

Challenge of State Board Leadership

 

This research, subject to the usual limitations of
descriptive studies, is restricted both temporally and geo-
graphically. The findings may be of use during the current

years while Michigan is searching for educational leadership

29

for Michigan education. The Michigan Constitution of
1963 in Article VIII, section three, charges the State
Board of Education with leadership, but vested leadership
assures neither instant nor continuing leadership in fact.
The leadership and authority of the State Board of
Education have both been challenged during the time when
it has been supposedly trying to assume both of these
roles as prescribed in the Constitution of 1963. A recent

1 stated that the Board was expressing

newspaper article
concern that it had not been asked for advice and concur-
rence on the state school aid act which had passed the
Michigan.House of Representatives. The Michigan Constitu—
tion prescribes that "It [The State Board of Education]
shall serve as the general planning and coordinating body
for all public education, including higher education, and
shall advise the legislature as to the financial require-
ments in connection therewith." The same newspaper report
stated that although the Board was aware of the basic
provisions of the bill, it waited six months to debate
them and expressed indignation when it realized that the
bill could become law without anyone asking the Board's
advice. "In order for people to accomplish any kind of

task together they must have a certain level of regard

for each other, which is usually reflected in the degree

 

1Grand Rapids Press, March 28, 1968, p. 73.

 

30

l
." Do members

of attention they give to each other
of the legislature who are most directly concerned with
education respect the leadership of the State Board of
Education, its appointed executive (the Superintendent of
Public Instruction), and/or the agency by which the
policies and duties of the State Board of Education are
executed (the Michigan Department of Education)? Do
legislators who occupy the strategic positions for educa—
tion respect the information and advice available from

this segment of state government which has been charged

to provide leadership and advice?

Other Leadership Potential

 

Recognition of formal bargaining units, teacher
strikes, and the wide—spread publicity resulting from
these activities have increased the public exposure of the
Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation
of Teachers. Both of these organizations have defined
their positions on a number of legislative proposals con-
cerned with education. How great a leadership role do
these organizations or their agents have as perceived by
those legislators concerned with problems of education in
Michigan? Is this information sought by legislators?

The legislature deemed it necessary to formally

establish a Legislative Fiscal Agency. The Bureau of the

.—

lBennis, Benne and Chin, op. cit., p. 518.

31

Budget of the Department of Administration indicates con-
cerns for education through its budget proposal. The
Legislative Service Bureau has "research" as one of its
stated functions. Do these agencies provide creditable
information used by legislators?

The May 30, 1967 listing of organizations represented
by legislative agents totaled 218 organizations represented
by 220 legislative agents. Twenty of the organizations
were directly concerned with education. What degree of
influence do these organizations or their agents exercise?
Do members of the legislature concerned with education

consider these to be sources of creditable information?

Implications of State School Aid Act of 1967

The "State School Aid Act of 1967" was selected as
the focus for this study because of its fiscal importance
for the State of Michigan as well as its relation to the
education of Michigan people. It might be supposed that
an act which affected all populated areas of the state and
which required an estimated one-third of the grand total
expenditures of the state, should have been considered
seriously and in detail by those persons who enacted it.
Presumably the act would be examined in detail. The com-
ments of all education leaders in the state should have
been considered by those who made recommendation for its

passage.

32

Although any legislation is the result of the combined
action of all members of the legislature, the legislative
system of Michigan is dependent upon standing committees to
examine legislative proposals and make recommendations re-
garding them. Any proposed legislation regarding education
is usually referred to the Education Committee of that
branch of the legislature in which the proposal was intro-
duced. The working arrangement in operation in the
Michigan legislature at the time of this study provided
that the House of Representatives should be the house of
original introduction of the "State School Aid Act." The
typical route of this bill would require that once it was
introduced, the bill would be referred to the Education
Committee. This bill might be one of several proposals
for state aid. After the Education Committee has consid-
ered the proposal(s) in a preliminary manner, formal
hearings are held. After formal hearings, the committee,
by a series of amendments to one of the proposals, may
reach a majority agreement and forward the agreed—upon
proposal with recommended amendments to be reported back
to the House.

Every bill appropriating public money or property
when reported back to the House by any standing
Committee other than the Committee on Appropria-
tions, together with amendments that may be recom—
mended by such standing Committee, shall be

referred directly to the Committee on Appropriations
for consideration; and when favorably reported back

to the House by the Committee on Appropriations,
(whose Committee report shall also include the

33

amendments, if any, that were recommended by the

standing Committee which first considered the

bill), the bill shall be referred to the Committee

of the Whole.1
Upon passage by the Committee of the Whole the bill is
forwarded to the Senate where the entire procedure would
be repeated including action by the education and appro-
priation committees. Where the Senate version of the
bill as passed does not agree with the House version, a
conference committee usually achieves compromise accept—
able to both the House and the Senate. This bill is sent
to the Governor for signature and becomes law, after his
approval and dependent upon the effective date.

Because of the fiscal implications of "The State
School Aid Act," this legislation would normally be moved
through the Education Committee and Appropriations Commit-
tee of both the House and the Senate. It appeared that
members of these four committees would have been more
involved than any other groups of legislators concerning
the passage of the "State School Aid Act of 1967." For
this reason these four committees provided the population
of the legislators to be questioned.

It was proposed that communication patterns might
be identified from the recalled sources of information

regarding the "State School Aid Act of 1967," such sources

as would be reported by the members of the four committees

 

lMichigan Legiislative Handbook 1967-1968 (Lansing,
Michigan: Speaker-Hines and Thomas, Inc.), p. 117.

38

designated in the previous paragraph. The researcher
assumed that this was a definable population, representa-
tive of the legislature, and yet a group of manageable
size. The Senate Education Committee consisted of five
members, the Senate Appropriations Committee consisted of
eight, while the House Education Committee and Appropria-
tions Committees each had thirteen members. The deaths
of two members of this group between the time of passage
of the act and the period of the interview reduced the

number of interviews to thirty—seven.

Question Design

 

The following plan for structuring the interviews
was based upon the assumptions that, first, such a series
of structured interviews could result from asking the same
questions of each proposed respondent, and second, the
less detail required for each answer, the more comparable
the responses would be.

The questions to be used should be direct. Questions
requiring yes or no answers should lead to other relevant
questions. Since the purpose was limited to identifica-
tion of individuals or organizations, questions should not
encourage description of reasoning or any other form of
elaboration. Precise answers were desired.

The interview guide as proposed consisted of twelve
questions considered to meet the above criteria. Question

two could logically evoke an answer only if question one

35

were answered in the affirmative. The same relationship
was true between question six and seven. Where no one
was recalled no names could be given, but where recall was
avowed possible, the naming seemed to be a natural, smooth
flowing response. Seven of the questions were recorded .
and placed in the list for the purpose of providing the
possibility of a reliability check.

An introduction to the questions was provided as an
attempt to indicate the expectations of the interviewer.
A further purpose of the introduction was to attempt to
place information sources into the categories recognized
as necessary to decision making. If a significant number
of respondents were to report reliance on the same sources

for information, a communication pattern might be defined.

Time of Interview

 

It was felt that responses should be obtained prior
to floor debate on the 1968 state school aid bill in.
either house. The responses should be gathered in as short
a span of time as possible. More reliable responses would
probably be made prior to the heavy pressures felt by most
legislators as the various deadlines approach. Prior to
the latter part of January, the irregular schedules of
individual legislators would make it difficult to reach
them in their Lansing offices. Many of the legislators
wish to see only their local constituents when they are

in the home district. By mid—February the legislative

36

process is usually at peak operation and the legislators
find it inconvenient to give up time for an interview.
The time selected for the proposed interviews was late

January, 1968 and early February of 1968.

Support for Study

 

Preliminary to the actual interviews it was neces-
sary to establish support for the proposed study. The
help of the senate majority leader was solicited. After
having read the prOposed questions and listened to the
proposal, this senator called upon the senate minority
leader and suggested that they both endorse the study on
a single letter. The letter of endorsement suggested that
senators grant an interview in the near future. A cover
letter from the researcher indicating that the senator's
secretary would be called upon to attempt to schedule an
interview was enclosed with a c0py of the letter of en—
dorsement, a copy of the questions proposed, and a copy of
the introduction to the questions. Copies of endorsements,
cover letters, questions and introduction may be seen in
the Appendix. This packet of materials was then sent to
each senator on the education or appropriations committee
of the Senate.

Support in the House of Representatives was secured
from a former causus leader who had rapport with members
of both political parties. The thirteen members of the

House Appropriations Committee and twelve members of the

37

House Education Committee each received an original
letter of endorsement typed by his secretary on his
stationery. He provided the only endorsement used and
the one hundred per cent response may indicate the scope

of his influence.

Problems of Interviews

 

Obtaining responses from all of the members of all
four committees required consideration of the time which
they could make available. The length of an interview
varied from eleven minutes to one—half hour. The ques-
tions so structured the interview that little time was
spent except pursuing or clarifying answers. The inter-
views were often conducted between other appointments as
a means of fitting them into the busy schedules of the
legislators. During the time of these interviews, several
other interviewers were at work on other projects, most of
whom were paid researchers. The short, well-defined
interview was readily received at the time of this study.

The schedule of the legislators was another consid-
eration. Few legislators were available on Monday. The
first session of the week was usually scheduled at eight
P.M. on Monday. The legislative sessions might convene
at any designated time, but were usually called for ten
A.M., two P.M., or eight P.M. (A knowledge of each day's
activity was helpful in literally catching up with many

of the proposed respondents.) Friday morning sessons were

38

common, but sessions on Friday afternoon were rare.
Legislators were not readily available between noon of
Friday and eight P.M. on Monday.

The responses were grouped with the organization
represented whenever this identification could be made.
It was presumed that all persons representing an organiz-
ation to the legislature would present the point of view
of that organization. Some of the responding legislators
offered the statement that they considered all persons
representing an organization as one.

After each interview, the interviewer reviewed
the answers and clarified notes taken during the inter-
view. At this point, many of the personal names used
were given connotative significance. Each question sheet
with interview notes was coded and numbered. When all
of the members of both committees in both houses had been

interviewed, examination of results began.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS

Sequence of Legislative Action

 

Only the education committee in either house held
hearings on "The State School Aid Act of 1967." This
unusual procedure was reported to be the result of the
long delayed, much debated state income tax passed during
that session. The Constitution of the State of Michigan
requires in Article IV, Section 31, that revenues to the
various funds shall be not less than the appropriations
from those funds. The state school aid act provides funds
for elementary and secondary education. The estimated
costs of the 1967 bill as enacted ranged from about six
hundred sixty—two million dollars to about seven hundred
eleven million dollars out of an estimated grand total two
and three-tenths billion dollar state expenditure for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. Until the level of
estimated revenue was established by passage of the state
income tax legislation, the bill was kept in committee.
The rush for adjournment following the last passage of
revenue bills caused or permitted this state school aid
bill to bypass formal hearings in appropriations committees,
although sub-committees did give the bill some considera-
tion, if only to fit it into the total expenditure con—

siderations of the state.

39

MO

The preceding paragraph indicates that witnesses
were not available to all respondents. However, because
the purpose of the study was to explore the communications
patterns used by legislators, all answers given were con-

sidered.

Characteristics of Population

 

The pOpulation of Michigan legislators who served
as respondents in this study was compared to the whole
Michigan legislature. Nineteen per cent of the respondents
were first term legislators, while twenty-six per cent of
the members of the legislature were serving their first
term. Second term respondents made up thirty per cent of
the group compared to thirty-five per cent of all the
legislators serving a second term. Third term comparison
showed that sixteen per cent of the respondent group fit
this category compared to ten per cent of the total legis-
lature serving a third term. The respondents with more
than three terms of legislative experience comprised thirty—
five per cent of the sample compared to twenty-nine per
cent of all persons serving in both houses who had com-
pleted three or more terms in the Michigan legislature.

The population had a slightly higher per cent of
Republicans than the total Michigan legislature. The
Republican legislative majority was evident on the Senate
Appropriations Committee (five to three) and the House

Appropriations Committee (eight to five). The Education

 

Al

Committee of each body had one new appointee to replace a
deceased member, leaving these committees with equal
numbers of Republican and Democrat members qualified to
respond.

Neither experience nor partisan affiliation appeared
to have any regular consistency of effect on responses.
It was noted, however, that Democrats made reference to
the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State
Board of Education more often than to the Department of
Education while Republicans more often referred to the
Department of Education. Some Republicans even used
"D.P.I." or Department of Public Instruction, which had
been the name prior to implementing the Constitution of
1963. The "non-partisan" State Board of Education members
are elected in a "non-partisan" election, but are nominated
by the political parties. The Superintendent of Public
Instruction was appointed by a Democrat majority of this
body. However, the interviewer could report no stated
references to party affiliation by any of the respondents
during the interviews.

The references to individual Representatives and the
one Senatorl were interpreted as subtle indications of
party affiliation and loyalty. Each respondent who named

a fellow legislator as an informant was of the same

 

1These persons are named on the initial tabulation
Table 2, p. 56.

A2

political party as the legislator so named. Four of the
five legislators named by their fellows as creditable
sources of information were Republicans.

Another facet of party affiliation was apparent in
the more frequent reference of Democrats to the Legisla-
tive Fiscal Agency where Republicans named the Bureau of
the Budget (which was responsible to a Republican
Governor).

Nine of the thirty—seven legislators interviewed
indicated previous affiliation with education as a voca-
tion. The nine had experience as either teachers or admin-
istrators in education. Others may have had teaching
experience, but it was not mentioned. No questions
regarding the attitude toward or experience in the field
of education were asked of any respondent.

The thirty-seven legislators interviewed comprise a
fraction slightly greater than one-fourth of the members
of the Michigan legislature. The four committees selected
for this study do represent those committees which are
charged to consider the state school aid act before it
reaches the floor of the legislature. These committee
members should have been expected to have more knowledge
of the implications of the bill than any other legislators.

The study was dependent upon the willingness and
ability of the respondent to recall events from a prior
year. The "freshmen" legislators interviewed had all

served at least one year of a two year term. The lack of

‘43

response by a few legislators might have indicated an un-
willingness to identify informants. One respondent stated
that he had heard so many witnesses that he feared to
identify any lest he forget to name some and be accused

of favoritism.

Any attempts to interpret the results must be within
the limitations of the data. The data are subject to view-
ing from a number of aspects. Several tables were compiled.
All were based on variations of the frequency of some of
the forty-three identified responses to the nineteen ques—
tions by the thirty-seven respondents. The purpose of
gathering the data was to identify information sources
which legislators consider worthy of consideration. Each
tabulation identifies results of the interviews and where

applicable, further identifies information sources.

Examination of Responses

 

Examination of responses required knowledge of who
represented what organization, if any. Several of the
persons mentioned were no longer representing the organiza-
tion whom they had represented while the bill was being
considered. Legislative agents (commonly known as lobby-
ists) apparently make real contributions of information
concerning legislation. One legislator stated that, in
his opinion, the professional lobbyists were very reliable
sources of information. He elaborated that one must listen

carefully to what the lobbyists said, or read and consider

AM

the point of view which they were representing. Because
lobbyists are paid to present a point of view for the
purpose of influencing legislation, they must be reliable
or they cannot be effective for long. Individuals who
were not professional lobbyists and the members of pressure
groups were reported as not always rational and factual.

The first tabulation was performed in order to deter-
mine what sources of information had been reported. At
this stage all answers mentioned were recorded, as well as
the fact that no answer had been given if that were indi-
cated. Because answers of "all," "no," "none," "more than
one," "depending on what we want," "will not name," and
"self—serving" did not identify any specific information
source, these answers were eliminated from the tables (but
not from the interview record). The list was then examined
and further condensed by grouping under single headings
organizations and the persons named who represented the
organizations. Although the study was attempting to dis-
cover which sources were mentioned most often, all answers
were still kept as part of the record. This consolidated
tabulation provided the basic materials for the check of
reiiabiiity.l

The effort to establish reliability of the answers
provided was begun by comparing the answers recorded for

each question of the split pairs of questions. Where the

 

lThis tabulation provided the information used to

develop Table l as shown on p. “5.

A5

TABLE l.-—Tabulation of results of comparison of answers
of paired questions (tabulation by question pairs).

 

 

Question Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent
Pair Complete Part No
Numbered Pairs Pairs Pairs
3 & 1A 70 19 11
A & 13 60 8 32
5 & 15 62 3 35
7 & 17 22 22 56
8 & 16 A9 19 32
10 & 19 Al 27 32
11 & 18 32 32 36

 

answers were the same for both questions, there was said
to be a "complete pair." Where parts of the answers coin-
cided, there was said to be a "part pair." "No pairs" was
the term used to indicate no coincidence of answers. The
tabulation showed that the per cent of complete pairs
varied from a high of seventy per cent for one pair of
questions to a low of twenty—two per cent for another of
the seven pairs of questions. The part pairs varied from
thirty-two per cent to three per cent on the same basis.
There were no paired answers in fifty—six per cent of the
cases answering questions seven and seventeen (which was
the high figure for the "no pairs" category). Questions
three and fourteen drew answers fitting the "no pairs"

classification from eleven per cent of the respondents.

A6

Some of the respondents recognized the pairs to the
extent that they said the same answers should be used as
in question number . . . Other respondents gave no answer
to the first encountered half of the pair, but answered
the second half. Generally as the interview progressed,
the responses were more fluent.

The findings of this study do identify information
sources which legislators reportedly recognized as being
worthy of consideration. The term "reportedly" is used
here for the purpose of identifying one of the many limi—
tations upon the results of this study. The legislators
did report to the interviewer in response to questions.
The legislators did name organizations and/or persons whom
they recalled as informants. The findings drawn from the
data must be viewed as dependent upon the respondent having
made a truthful response (or report).

The findings of this study must be judged as data~
accumulated under circumstances the effect of which had no
bearing upon the responses if general conclusions are.to
be made. While the interview guide was designed to evoke
specific answers to specific questions, circumstances and
personalities involved may have influenced responses.

These two aspects are not the only limitations which
might have influenced the results. They are stated only
for the purpose of example. For the purposes of this study

they shall be ignored. This implies the assumptions that

 

A7

respondents reported the truth as they recalled it and
that the data collected was comparable. Acceptance of
these assumptions permits the responses to be used to
identify creditable information sources.

Only one legislator made no responses which could
be classified under the category of local superintendent
or board of education. It was assumed that a professional
legislative agent paid from local district funds and re-
ported to be an agent of the district belonged in this
category. The tabulated responses showed this category
accounting for the second highest total for any response
category when all answers to all questions were considered

(see Table 3).

Identification of Responses

 

All references to State Board, Ira Polley,l Depart-
ment of Education, State Department, Harold Brown,2 or any
other departmental personnel were grouped under the heading
of Michigan Department of Education or State Board of
Education. Table 3 shows that this category was named one
hundred and ninety-eight times, almost twice the score of

the second ranking group. This must clearly identify this

 

lIra Polley was State Superintendent of Public Instruc-
tion. This position is the executive position of the
Michigan Department of Education.

2Harold Brown had served many years in the division
of the state educational agency which was concerned with
financial records and the determination of payments of state
school aid. Several of the respondents stated that he was
the most knowledgeable person available in the area of Mich-
igan school finance.

A8

category of informants as recognized and creditable for
sources of information. However, this does not insure
respect for the Opinions. One legislator specifically
stated that because "they had the records" there was no
choice of where to get factual data, but he could not
"swallow" some of their ideas. Others, however, did ex-
press confidence in the opinion of some of the persons in
this category.

The Michigan Education Association is one of several
state—wide organizations interested in education as the
primary purpose of the group. This organization has a
highly respected professional lobbyist named Richard Adams
as well as three other registered legislative agents.

While the Michigan Education Association ranked third on
both Table 2 and Table 1A much of the information supplied
to legislators from local sources also coincided with that
supplied to any interested group by that organization.

The organization has a history of gathering data and organ-
izing information at a rate that generally keeps it in a
lead position with proposals for making changes in Michigan
education.

The Budget Bureau of the Department of Administration
is usually the author of the governor's state school aid
bill which is presented in support of the governor's budget.
This agency has developed a reputation for a fiscally sound

proposal. As an agency of the state government, the Budget

A9

Bureau has an implicit duty to attempt to influence such
legislation as will not imperil any of the legislative
proposals which the governor seeks to have'enacted. The
proximity of the Budget Bureau to the records of fact and
the origin of many legislative proposals may be factors
in its high ranking among creditable informants.

The Legislative Fiscal Agency is a creature of legis-
lative necessity. It appears to serve the Senate Appropri-
ations Committee more frequently than any other group. The
function of this agency is to serve the legislature by
developing fiscal analyses as requested. The physical
location of the agency is literally surrounded by the
offices of members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Specifically the appropriations committees employ this
agency in the development of cost estimates of the many
legislative prOposals.

The Michigan Association of School Administrators is
a state-wide organization of persons engaged in education
administration. Historically the organization was an out-
growth of the Michigan Education Association. The M.A.S.A.,
as it is most often called, maintained one registered leg-
islative agent during the time that the legislature was
considering the "State School Aid Act of 1967." However,
other members of the organization supplemented their lobby-
ist's efforts according to some respondents interviewed

during this study. This reportedly occurred when local

50

superintendents quoted positions on points of legislation
which coincided with the legislative goals of the M.A.S.A.
About one-third of the respondents named this organization
in answer to one or more of the interview questions.

The Intermediate School District Superintendents
were named as informants by twelve of the thirty-seven
respondents. Because this organization had no registered
legislative agent identified at the time of consideration
of the legislation of concern to this study, identification
was made by use of various directories and the personal
knowledge of the interviewer and respondents. The individ-
uals names were also members of the Michigan Association of
School Administrators. Because both groups are state-wide
any combination of the findings would only reinforce the
conclusions drawn from the findings as related to these
two groups.

The Michigan Association of School Boards reported
three registered legislative agents in the May 30, 1967
listing of legislative agents as printed by the Office of
the Michigan Secretary of State. Being a state—wide organiz-
ation representing the views of the local boards of education
as they could best be agreed upon by those policy—makers of
the organization identifies this association with a general
category of organizations of state-wide nature concerned
with education. The Michigan Education Association, the
Michigan Association of School Administrators, and the Inter—

mediate School District Superintendents are others which fit

51

the category. The M.A.S.B. was named by eleven respondents
and ranked eighth on the initial tabulation.

The term "Self" deserves some comment. The fact that
ten of the respondents judged themselves to be the best
source of information for a specific need represents some—
thing besides egotism. A legislator with more than
ordinary concern for the problems of financing education
should have developed an understanding of the problem that
would qualify him to provide information for others. This
truly is the function of the committee system to provide
opportunity for committee members to become well informed
in order to advise and recommend to fellow legislators
specific action regarding legislation that has passed
through the committee. The use of the term "Self" identi-
fied legislators who felt that they had really prepared for
the role of advisor.

The State of Michigan contains only one School
District of the First Class, namely Detroit Public School
District, and only three School Districts of the Second
Class, Flint, Lansing, and Grand Rapids. Detroit, Flint,
and Grand Rapids had registered legislative agents func-
tioning during the 1967 legislative sessions.

Appropriations Committee was a response which indi-
cated to the interviewer that the experience of this body
in dealing with the needs of education was recognized by

the respondents. This committee in either house must

52

review all legislation involving expenditure of money from
state funds. Such a requirement places a tremendous work
load upon the committee and therefore a member of this
committee serves on no other standing committee.

Representative Clifford Smart, a former superinten-
dent of schools, demonstrated a deep knowledge of the
practical problems confronting Michigan educators. As a
member of the Education Committee of the House of Repre-
sentatives he was in a position to inform, advise, and/or
influence other committee members as well as those legis-
lators who sought his advice outside the committee.

The Michigan Federation of Teachers (M.F.T.) is an-
other of the state-wide organizations concerned with
education. The May 30, 1967 listing of legislative agents
shows two agents for this organization.

Friends of Michigan Schools is an organization best
known for its active stand against consolidation of school
districts. It has also been called "The Association for
the Preservation of the Little Red School House." Harmon
Cropsey was registered as the legislative agent for this
group. The same person has represented this group in court
cases contesting actions involving consolidation of school
districts.

Representative George Montgomery had been a teacher
and a research assistant. His years of experience in the

legislature (eleven years) and his service on the Education

53

Committee of the House appeared to provide acceptable
qualifications to fellow legislators seeking information
on education.

The Thomas Report was mentioned by several respon—
dents. It is a voluminous report of a study performed
at the request of the legislature and deals with education
in-Michigan. At the time of the current study the Thomas
Report was not available to the researcher. The inter—
viewer was shown only the exterior of one copy of the
report as one of the legislators mentioned it during an
interview. He used the figure of eighty thousand dollars
worth of report in his reference to it. The date of the
report, its purpose, and usefulness were not clarified.
The full report was not available during consideration of
1967 legislation which would limit its potential as a
source of information to be reported in this study.

The reference to the Parent Teachers Association
combined reference to local and state officers. The five
respondents who made reference to this organization were
enough to keep it in the ranks of the top twenty on the
first tabulation.

The term "Lobbyist" did not identify an individual
or an organization, but was used by respondents in what
appeared to be a show of respect for the professionals.
The suggestion that the lobbyist might also inform the

interviewer was also evidenced. This coincided with the

5A

information function ascribed to this group by legislators
as described in literature on lobbying cited earlier.

The Educational Council is a group of representatives
of organizations of agencies with state-wide interest in
education. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Detroit Educa—
tion Association, The Metropolitan Association for Improved
School Legislation, and the Metropolitan Educational
Research Association all are Detroit area organizations,
but do have state-wide interest in education. Michigan
State University, the University of Michigan, and Wayne
State University also have membership. The Michigan
Association of Intermediate School Administrators, the
Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan
Association of School Boards, the Michigan Association of
Community College Administrators, the Michigan Association
of School Business Officials, the Michigan Congress of
Parents and Teachers, the Michigan Education Association,
the Michigan Federation of Teachers, the Equalization Group
(organization of low valuation school districts), the Re-
tired Teachers' Association, and the Michigan Department of
Education complete the list of eighteen organizations with
regular representation to the Educational Council. The
discussions of this group are held primarily to air views
on needed or proposed legislation concerned with education
for the purpose of providing a united front wherever

possible.

'1

 

T ...,_ _, ,

55

Initial Tabulation of Responses

 

After the interview records had been examined and
those answers indicating related sources had been identi—
fied, a preliminary tabulation was made. This table was
examined for possible regrouping. Names and organiza-
tions were checked for further correlation. Each respon-
dent's home district was identified to permit grouping of
responses in the category of "local superintendent or
board of education" where true. It was also necessary at
this time to examine the listing of kgislative agents for
the purpose of grouping reported agents and their organi-
zation under a single heading.

Table 2 is the result of ranking reported informants
according to the number of respondents who reported the
named source. The table provided a basic listing of in-
formants which was used in other tabulations.

The local superintendent or board of education
appeared as a response on thirty—six of the thirty—seven
interview reports. The two questions (number eight and
sixteen) which asked in effect, "Whom do you believe would
be most likely to know the effect of a state school aid
act on a specific district in your constituency?" received
answers indicating that the respondents believed that the
local superintendent or board of education was aware of
the local effects of the state school aid act.

The Michigan Department of Education or the State

Board of Education was rated as informant by thirty—three

 

56

TABLE 2.--Informants ranked by number of respondents reporting them.

 

Number of Respondents

 

Informant Naming Informant
1. Local school official (Supt. or Bd. of Ed.)* 36 = 97.3%
2. Mich. Dept. of Ed. or State Bd. of Ed. 33 = 89.2
3. Michigan Education Association 21 = 56.8
A. Budget Bureau, Mich. Dept. of Administration 17 = A5.9
5. Legislative Fiscal Agency 15 = AO.5
6. Michigan Association of School Administrators 13 = 35.1
7. Intermediate School District Superintendents 12 = 32.A
8. Michigan Association of School Boards 11 = 29.7
9. "Self" 10 = 27.0
10. Detroit Board of Education** 10
ll. Appropriations Committee 9 = 2A-3
12. Grand Rapids Board of Education** 8 = 21.6
13. Michigan Federation of Teachers 6 = 16.2
1A. Representative Clifford Smart 6
15. Friends of Michigan Schools 5 = 13.5
16. Representative George Montgomery 5
17. The "Thomas Report" (A Legislative Report)*** 5
18. Flint Board of Education** 5
19. Parent Teachers Association 5
20. "Lobbyists" A = 10.8
21. Local People A
22. Education Committee A
23. Michigan Council of Community College Admin. 2 = 5.A
2A. Citizens Research Council 2
25. Parochial School Representatives 2
26. Teachers 2
27. Individual Colleges 2
28. Dr. John Hannah, President of Michigan State Univ. 2
29. Representative Martin Buth 2
30. Representative Louis Schmidt 2
31. Organization of Low Value School Districts 2
32. Legislative Service Bureau 1 = 2.7
33. Vocational Education Directors 1
3A. Faculty of University of Michigan 1
35. Michigan State Police 1
36. Michigan Public School Retirement Fund Board 1
37. County Allocation Board Chairman 1
38. Senator Robert Vander Laan l
39. Michigan Library Association 1
A0. Mrs. Mills (Private person for pre-school ed.) 1
A1. Michigan Department of Treasury 1
A2. Farm Bureau 1
1

A3. Michigan Association for Retarded Children

 

*This includes those identified as "local" for regislators from Grand
Grapids, Detroit, and Flint.

**This does not include those identified as "local" where this was local
with respect to the legislator responding.

***This was the report of a study of education needs done at the request
of the legislature and paid for with legislative funds.

There was a total of thirty-seven respondents.

57

respondents. The Michigan Education Association was re-
ported by twenty-one of the thirty-seven persons inter-
viewed. The range of forty—three reported informants and
the concentration of high ratings appears to correspond
to Rogers' reported findings in his 1955 study.1 One of
the conclusions which was reported for that study was that
the large number of choices indicated a widespread opinion
leadership, but the few high ratings showed that opinion
leadership is especially concentrated in a few individuals.
This conclusion is supported by at least two other aspects
of the current report. The composite rating emphasizes
the wide range of reported informants and the high number
of references to a relative few. This is repeated in the
tabulations by question or by pairs of questions.

It should be noted that while thirty-seven legisla-
tors were interviewed and responded, all respondents did
not answer all questions. Seventeen answered "no" to ques—
tion one which automatically eliminated seven questions
(numbers two, three, four, five, thirteen, fourteen and
fifteen) from their potential totals. In addition, one
other did not answer question three; two others did not
answer question four; one other did not answer question
fourteen; two others did not answer question fifteen. One
did not answer either six or seven. Four responded to
number six with "no." This answer eliminated the possi-

bility of an answer to question seven. However, one who

 

lRogers, Diffusion of Innovation, pp. 226-227.

 

58

had answered "no" to question one and given no answers for

most of those dependent upon a "yes" answer, did interject

an answer for number thirteen.

TABLE 3.——Quantitative data regarding responses.

 

 

Respondents Answering

 

 

 

Fourteen respondents (38%) answered 19 questions' (100%)
Three respondents ( 8%) answered 18 questions ( 95%)
Two respondents ( 5%) answered 17 questions ( 89%)
One respondent ( 3%) answered 16 questions ( 8A%)
One respondent ( 3%) answered 13 questions ( 68%)
Eleven respondents (3 0%) answered 12 questions ( 63%)
Three respondents ( 8%) answered 11 questions ( 58%)
Two respondents ( 5%) answered 10 questions ( 52%)
Thirty-seven respondents answered 568 questions ( 98%)
Potential answers numbered 580.*
Questions Evoking Responses

Nine questions (A7%) were answered by 37 respondents ( 00%)
One question ( 5%) was answered by 36 respondents ( 97%)
Two questions (10%) were answered by 32 respondents ( 86%)
One question ( 5%) was answered by 21 respondents ( 57%)
Two questions (10%) were answered by 20 respondents ( 5A%)
Two questions (10%) were answered by 19 respondents ( 51%)
Two questions (10%) were answered by 18 respondents ( A8%)

Ninteen questions received 568 answers.

 

*All ninteen questions could not be answered by some

of the respondents.
inated 123 potential responses

"No" answers to prior questions elim-

Findings for

Question Number Two

 

Question number two

all witnesses recalled as

mitte

responses to this question (see Table A).

e. Nineteen sources

requested that respondents name

having testified before the com-

were identified and listed as

They account

59

for less than half of the informants listed in Table 2.

It appears that all recalled sources of information were

not recalled as having been witnesses.

Table 2 was a

ranking of all informants mentioned by any of the respon—

dents in answer to any of the questions in the interview.

TABLE A.——Summarycfl‘r€5p0nses tC>question number two by

source . *

 

Source Named

Number of
Responses

 

Local Supt. or Board of Education
Michigan Department of Education
Michigan Bureau of the Budget
Michigan Education Association
Michigan Association of School Admin.
Intermediate School District Supt.
Michigan Association of School Boards
Detroit Board of Education

Grand Rapids Board of Education
Michigan Federation of Teachers
Friends of Michigan Schools

The Thomas Report

Flint Board of Education

Parent Teacher Association
"Lobbyists"

Education Committee of House of Rep.
Individual Colleges

Dr. John Hannah

Mrs. Mills (Pre-school Education)

r—J H
l—‘NHF—‘l—‘MtMU‘IKfiU‘IwCDU‘ICDUlHU‘IkO

 

*Seventeen legislators did not respond to question
number two. Question number two: "Would you name all of
those witnesses whom you recall, regardless of the value

you might place on their testimony?

If you do not recall

the name could you recall whom or what the witness repre-

sented?"

The three most frequently recalled informant group-

ings were the Michigan Department of Education or State

Board of Education personnel, Michigan Education Associa—

tion personnel, and the local school district personnel.

60

Fifteen of the twenty legislators who responded to ques-
tion number two named the Michigan Department of Education
or State Board of Education. Fifteen of the twenty also
named the Michigan Education Association. The third most
frequent response to the second question indicated local
school district officials. It is assumed that each
response to this question named only those informants re-

called as witnesses.

Findings for Questions Three and Fourteen

 

Questions three and fourteen were intended to be the
split halves of a pair of questions requesting the same
answers. Both questions did ask that the respondent recall
the best prepared witnesses.l The Michigan Department of
Education ranked highest (Table 5) with a combined total of
twenty-five. The Michigan Education Association had twenty,
the Local Superintendent or Board of Education had twelve.
The Michigan Association of School Administrators, the
Intermediate School District Superintendents, and the
Michigan Association of School Boards ranked fourth, fifth,
and sixth. The sum of the number of times each source was
indicated as a response for question three or question
fourteen established the rank. A quick comparison of
Tables 1, A, and 5 show similarity among the top ten on
all three tables. It may be that well prepared witnesses

were recalled most readily.

 

1Table 5 provides tabulation of responses to ques—
tions three and fourteen.

61

TABLE 5.-—Number of responses by questions three and
fourteen and source.

 

 

Question Question
Source 3* 1U**

 

Local Supt. or Board of Education 5
Michigan Department of Education 11
Michigan Education Association 10
Michigan Bureau of the Budget 1
Legislative Fiscal Agency ——
Michigan Association School Admin.
Intermediate School District Supt.
Michigan Association School Boards
Detroit Board of Education

Grand Rapids Board of Education
Michigan Federation of Teachers
Friends of Michigan Schools

The Thomas Report

Flint Board of Education

Parent Teacher Association
"Lobbyists"

Parochial School Representatives
Dr. John Hannah

Representative Louis Schmidt
Michigan State Police

FJH

WNHNWNNU‘IQOH:O£\1

l I

I F—‘I l—‘l—‘F—‘I—JNNMEESW
I
I

HFJFJH

—_l

*Question Number 3 "Which of the witnesses do you
remember as being best prepared to testify?"

**Question Number 1” "Would you name those whom you
would rate as the best prepared witnesses?"

Findings for Questions Number
Four and Thirteen

 

 

The goal of questions four and thirteen was to
identify those witnesses believed worthy of supplying
further information if it should be required. Tabulation
of responses showed twenty—two of those interviewed as
responding the same for both questions. Three respondents
had parts of the answers the same, but twelve gave entirely
different responses for each of these two questions (see

Table 6).

62

TABLE 6.-—Number of responses by questions four and
thirteen and source.

 

Source Queigion Quiggion

 

Local Supt. or Board of Education
Michigan Department of Education
Michigan Education Association
Michigan Bureau of the Budget
Legislative Fiscal Agency -—
Michigan Association School Admin.
Intermediate School District Supt. A
Michigan Association School Boards 3
"Self" __
Detroit Board of Education 1
Appropriations Committee -—
Grand Rapids Board of Education 1
Michigan Federation of Teachers 1
Friends of Michigan Schools 1
The Thomas Report 1
1
1

l—‘O\\OJ:'

Flint Board of Education

Parent Teacher Association

"Lobbyists" ——

Letters or Local Taxpayers --

House Education Committee --

Parochial School Representatives 1 —

I—Ir—JHI—II—w—Izmr—Jle—memmmkoww

 

*Question Number A "Which of the Witnesses would you
ask to testify now if you felt that more information
was needed for any reason?"

**Question Number 13 "If you were to conduct a personal
search for information prior to hearing on the proposed
'State School Aid Act of 1968', which of last year's
witnesses, if any would you wish to question?"

The Michigan Department of Education personnel or
the State Board of Education, the Michigan Education Asso-
ciation, and local school officials ranked as the three
most frequent responses. These answers support the same
informants who were reported for questions three and four—

teen where the query sought the best informed witnesses.

One might suppose that if further information were to be

 

63

obtained, it might best be sought from these Judged to be
best prepared. In this respect these findings appear to
be consistent.

Findings for Questions Number
Five and Fifteen

 

 

Questions five and fifteen were each answered by ten
respondents with answers other than "no." The Michigan
Department of Education was indicated as unreliable in six
of the twelve responses which specified an unreliable
source. Answers "All O.K." and "none" were deemed not to
indicate any source which could be identified. The Friends
of Michigan Schools organization was the only other inform-
ant which drew more than one identifying response naming it
as unreliable.

TABLE 7.-—Number of responses by questions five and fifteen
and source.

 

Source Question Question

 

5* 15**
Michigan Department of Education 1 A
Michigan Education Association —- 1
Friends of Michigan Schools 1 2
Dr. John Hannah 1 —-
Mrs. Mills (Pre-school education) -- 1
"All O.K." l —-
"None" 6 1
"All except Michigan Dept. of Edu. —- l

 

*Question Number 5 "Do you recall which of the witnesses
were not well enough informed to have provided you with
useful information?"

**Question Number 15 "Do you recall any witnesses whose
testimony you felt you could not use as a basis for
Judgment? If so, which witnesses?"

Ten respondents answered each of these two questions.

6A

Findings for Questions Number
Six, Seven, and Seventeen

 

 

Question number six served only to lead up to ques-
tion number seven and,fkn°purposes of tabulation, six and
seven were considered as seven only. Question seventeen
was intended as a split half for questions six and seven.
The correlation of answers was not good. Question number
seven had eighty-eight responses compared to only forty-
eight responses for question seventeen. While this pair
of questions may not have produced the intended results,
the responses tend to reinforce the previous tabulations
(Tables 1, A, 5, and 6). It had been expected that these
two questions would provide a means of reference to those
informants excluded in prior questions. Only eight of
the forty-three responses listed in Table 1 were intro-
duced in question seven and an additional two were intro-
duced in question seventeen. "Teachers," "Faculty of the
University of Michigan," and "County Allocation Board
Chairman" were responses that occurred only for one or
both of these two questions and no other place in the
responses. None of these appears to be a frequently used
source of information as compared to other named sources.
Table 8 shows a record of the results of questions seven

and seventeen.

65

TABLE 8.-—Number of responses by questions seven and
seventeen and source.

 

Question Question

Source 7* 17**

 

Local Supt. or Board of Education 21 13
Michigan Department of Education 10 2
Michigan Education Association 5
Michigan Bureau of the Budget —-
Legislative Fiscal Agency

Michigan Association School Admin.
Intermediate School District Supt.
Michigan Association School Boards
"Self" ‘

Detroit Board of Education
Appropriations Committee

Grand Rapids Board of Education
Michigan Federation of Teachers
Representative Clifford Smart
Friends of Michigan Schools
Representative G. Montgomery Sr.
The Thomas Report

Parent Teacher Association
"Lobbyists"

Local Taxpayers or letters

House Education Committee

Local Teachers

Representative Louis Schmide
Equalization Group

Legislative Service Bureau -- 1
Vocational Education Directors -- 1
Faculty of University of Michigan -- 1
County Allocation Board Chairman -- 1
Mrs. Mills (Pre-school Education) 1 --

WNI'U-I:

HHHHHmwwHHm:wr—Im+—I:\owmr—J\o

 

*Question Numbers 6 & 7 "Do you remember any person or
organization who provided valuable information outside
of committee hearings? Would you identify such person
or persons?"

**Question Number 17 "Would you name any person or
organization which, though not a formal witness, pro-
vided you with information of value?"

66

Findings for Questions Number
Eight and Sixteen

 

 

Knowledgeable sources of information regarding the
effect of the "State School Aid Act" upon one of the respon-
dent's constituent school districts was the response sought
for questions eight and sixteen. The respondents all
answered both of these questions. Although more than one
response was given by some, the local superintendent or
board of education was most often named as the most likely
source. The State Department of Education was rated as
second and the respondent rating himself as a source (the
term "self" was used for this grouping) ranked third.

TABLE 9.--Number of responses by questions eight and
sixteen and source.

 

Question Question

 

Source 8* 16**
Local Supt. or Board of Education 23 31
Michigan Department of Education 1A A
Michigan Education Association 1 -—
Legislative Fiscal Agency -- 2
Michigan Assoc. School Admin. 1 --
"Self" 6 A
Representative Clifford Smart 3 1
Representative G. Montgomery Sr. 1 1
Flint Board of Education 1 —-
Representative Louis Schmidt 1 ——
Equalization Group 1 1
Legislative Service Bureau 1 ——

 

*Question No. 8 "If you had wished to know how the
'State School Aid Act' would affect a specific school
district in your constituency, whom might you have
asked?"

**Question Number 16 "Whom do you believe would be most
likely to know the effect of the 'State School Aid Act'
on a given school district in the area from which you
were elected?"

67

Findings for Question Number Nine

 

Question number nine was not paired with another ques-
tion. The question asked whom the respondent might have
asked about "how the 'State School Aid Act' Would affect
all of the school districts in the state." Forty-six
answers were tabulated from the responses of thirty-seven
legislators. The Department of Education or the State
Board of Education was named twenty—five times. The next
highest ranking was shared by the Michigan Education Asso-
ciation, the Legislative Fiscal Agency, and "Self." The
latter was a common response to the questions which dealt
with creditable sources of information regarding the cost
of "State aid." This second place tie was achieved with
only four respondents naming each. There were seven other
responses naming individual legislators by name. Only
five of the responses did not indicate a legislator or a

state agency.

TABLE 10.——Number of responses by question nine and source.

 

 

Source Quesgion
Michigan Department of Education 25
Michigan Education Association . A
Legislative Fiscal Agency A
Michigan Association of School Admin. 1
"Self" )4
Representative Clifford Smart 3
Representative George Montgomery Sr. 2
Representative Martin Buth 1
Representative Louis Schmidt 1
Legislative Service Bureau 1

 

68
Findings for Questions Number
Ten and Nineteen

Questions number ten and nineteen both asked the
respondent to name the source of the best estimate of the
cost of funding any section of the proposed "State School
Aid Act." While the Department of Education received more
than twice the number of responses given for any other in-
formant, second and third place were occupied by two other
agencies of government. The Bureau of the Budget of the
Department of Administration of the State of Michigan,
better known as the "budget bureau" and the Legislative
Fiscal Agency ranked second and third. The Michigan Educa-
tion Association was not mentioned and the local superin-
tendent or board of education received a single mention
for each question.

Forty-seven responses to question number ten were
tabulated and forty of these identified with state govern-
ment. If the legislators themselves were classed with_
state government, then forty-six of forty—seven responses
indicated state governmental agencies. Question number
nineteen received forty-eight responses of which forty-
four were state governmental agencies. Legislators appear
to believe that the agencies of the State of Michigan
could give the most reliable estimates of the cost of any
section of a proposed "State School Aid Act." The results

are consistent with those credited to question nine.

 

69

TABLE ll.--Number of responses by questions ten and
nineteen and source.

 

Question Question

 

Source 10* 19**
Local Supt. or Board of Education 1 1
Michigan Department of Education 22 23
Michigan Bureau of the Budget 7 9
Legislative Fiscal Agency 10 5
Michigan Association of School Admin. -- 1
Intermediate School District Supt. -— 1
"Self" 2 l
Appropriations Committee 3 2
Representative Clifford Smart 1 2
Representative G. Montgomery Sr. —- 1
Citizens Research Council -- 1
Representative Martin Buth -— 1
Michigan Department of Treasury 1 --

 

*Question Number 10 "If you had wished to know the
estimated dollar cost to the State of Michigan for
any section of the proposed 'State School Aid Act of
1967' whom do you think could have given the most
reliable answer?"

**Question Number 19 "Whom do youthink could give the
best estimate of the cost of funding under any given
section of the bill?"

Findings for Questions Number
Eleven and Eighteen

 

Questions eleven and eighteen both asked the source
of the total dollar cost of a proposed State School Aid
Act. Again, the Department of Education was named in the
greatest number of responses, with the Bureau of
the Budget and the Legislative Fiscal Agency following.
The appropriations committee ranked a close fourth when
combined scores were used. These two questions received
a combined total of one hundred three answers, of which

six were not legislators or state governmental agencies.

70

Table 12 shows only three responses which were non—govern-
mental. The respondents appear to believe that the state.
government could provide the dollar cost figures best.

TABLE l2.-—Number of responses by questions eleven and
eighteen and source.

 

Question Question

 

Source 11* 18**
Michigan Department of Education 17 2A'
Michigan Education Association 2 1
Michigan Bureau of the Budget 7 11
Legislative Fiscal Agency V 9 5
Michigan Association of School Admin. 1 --
"Self" 3 __
Appropriations Committee 5 8
Grand Rapids Board of Education 1 --
Representative Clifford Smart 1 --
Representative G. Montgomery Sr. 1 l
"Lobbyists" -- 1
House Education Committee 1 2
Citizens Research Council -- 2

 

*Question Number 11 "If you had wished to know the
total dollar cost of the proposed bill, whom do you
think could have given the most reliable answer?"

**Question Number 18 "Where should one seek the total
dollar cost of any of the State Aid proposals?"

Findings for Question Number Twelve

 

The purpose of question number twelve was to take
attention away from the "State School Aid Act."
"Would you identify some other piece of education
legislation and the sources of information which
proved to be of value in making your decision re-
garding this legislation?"
Thirty-two respondents named twenty-two different inform-
ants and identified sixteen topics (see Table 13). Eight

of the informants named in response to question twelve had

71

TABLE l3.--Number of responses by question 12 and source.

 

Source

*Question 12

 

Local Superintendent or Board of Education
Michigan Department of Education

Michigan Education Association

Michigan Bureau of the Budget

Legislative Fiscal Agency

Michigan Association School Administration
Intermediate School District Superintendent
"Self"

Grand Rapids Board of Education

Letters of Local Taxpayers

Michigan Council Community College Administration
Parochial School Representatives
Individual Colleges

Representative Martin Buth

Legislative Service Bureau

Vocational Educational Directors

Michigan State Police

Michigan Public School Retirement Board
Senator Robert Vander Laan

Michigan Library Association

Michigan Farm Bureau

Michigan Association for Retarded Children

H
hawrahdpwaydk4pwakamuv+4+4uihnatouio.:

 

Responses by TOpic

Question 12

 

Vocational Education Act

State of Michigan Scholarship Awards
Wayne County Community College
Intermediate School District Programs
Inner City Aid

School Bus Law

Aid to Parochial School Students
Higher Education Appropriation
Funding Teacher Retirement
Post-Secondary School Guidelines
Special Education

Aid to Libraries

Community College Tenure Act

180 Day School Bill

Reorganization Bill

Property Tax Substitution

HvaJHFHRDHFHUJOWJFJHF4FJH

 

*Question Number 12 "Would you identify some other piece of
education legislation and the sources of information which
proved to be of value in making your decision regarding this

legislation?"

72

had not been named prior to the response to that question.
Some legislators did receive information regarding other
education legislation from sources different from those
which provided information about the "State School Aid
Act." Six of the responses to question twelve did not
appear as responses elsewhere in the study. Of the forty-
two answers naming sources, ten identified the Department
of Education or the State Board of Education. Of the
twenty-five answers naming topics, six related to aid to

parochial school students.

A Total Sociometric Score

 

In one study by Rogers and van Esl a score was com-
puted for each respondent on each question and a total
sociometric score was also computed for each respondent
by adding the total number of choices received for all
questions. This score was regarded in that study as the
best single measure of overall opinion leadership. The
above method of measurement was adapted for this study by
scoring for each reported informant or source of informa-
tion, rather than for each respondent. The purpose of the
current study was to identify informants and advisors
wherever they were reported to exist. Therefore, the
scoring was not limited to respondents. In fact, the
respondents received few ratings from fellow respondents.

In this study the total sociometric score was devel-

oped without consideration of responses to questions

 

1Rogers and van Es, op. cit., p. 13.

73

numbered one, two, five, six, and fifteen. Questions num—
ber one and six were designed to evoke a "yes" or "no"
answer and served as conversation stimulators only. Ques-
tion number two requested mention of all informants re—
called regardless of the value placed upon their testimony
and invited mention of creditable and noncreditable
witnesses. Questions number five and fifteen were asking
identification of witnesses whose testimony the respondent
did not accept. Assuming that influence is related to
credibility (for either rational or irrational reasons)
of the source, questions five and fifteen should not be
counted in a sociometric measure of opinion leadership.
The high score of the Michigan Department of Educa-
tion or State Board of Education appears to indicate'that
it is a source of information respected by many of the
respondents. One possible concern with considering this
source as an Opinion leader requires elaboration. Much
of the information which is used to establish a state
school aid proposal is taken from records. The Michigan
Department of Education is custodian of the most complete
collection of records of information regarding Michigan
public schools. History is often used to provide data for
projection of future data. If the Department of Education
serves the legislators only as a bookkeeping agency, it
may provide information without expressing opinion. If

the advice of the Department of Education is also heard

7A

it may be an opinion leader in which leaderShip is concen-
trated.

The total sociometric score recorded for the local
superintendent or local board of education was slightly
more than half of the score recorded for the Michigan De-
partment of Education of the State Board of Education,
but was almost double the next lower score. While almost FM?
half of these answers were in response to questions of 7
specific local concern, elimination of those responses ;

would not remove the local superintendent or board of edu-

 

cation from the second highest rank of sociometric scores.

The Michigan Education Association (scoring third
on Table 1A) ranks as a leader also. The organization
maintains four registered legislative agents and has been
actively involved in education at local, state, and
national levels.

The responses to questions number five and fifteen
were used to establish the negative score shown in Table
1A. The score was the total of responses to those quesp
tions where the informant was named. A newspaper article
reported, "Many legislators have said the Board's four-
year history has convinced them that the Board is not an
effective body to advise the Legislature on financial
matters because of the Board's tendency toward pro-

"1‘

Crastination and unrealistic proposals. The few

‘_

lGrand Rapids Press, March 28, 1968, p. 73.

 

75

TABLE lA.-—Tota1 sociometric score.

 

Positive° Negative°
Source

 

Score Score

1. Michigan Dept. of Ed. or State Bd. of Ed. 198 5

2. Local Supt. or Board of Education* 119 --

3. Michigan Education Association 60 l

A. Budget Bureau, Michigan Department of Admin. A6 --

5. Legislative Fiscal Agency A5 --

6. Intermediate School District Superintendent 35 --

7. Michigan Assoc. of School Administration 28 ~-

8. "Self" 23 --

9. Michigan Association of School Boards 21 -—
10. Appropriations Committee 20 --
11. Representative Clifford Smart 15 --
12. Michigan Federation of Teachers 1A --
13. Detroit Board of Education** 12 --
1A. Grand Rapids Board of Education** 12 ~-
15. Parent Teachers Association 11 --
16. Friends of Michigan Schools 10 3
17. Representative George Montgomery 10 -—
18. Thomas Report 8 ——
l9. "Lobbyists" 7 —-
20. Flint Board of Education** 6 --
21 Local People 6 ——
22. Education Committee 5 --
23. Teachers A ——
2A. Representative Louis Schmidt A --
25. Legislative Service Bureau A --
26. Citizens Research Council 3 ~-
27. Parochial School Representatives 3 --
28. Representative Martin Buth 3 --
29. Organization of Low Valuation School Dist. 3 —-
30. Michigan Council of Community College Admin. 2 --
31. Dr. John Hannah 2 l
32. Vocational Education Directors 2 --
33. Michigan State Police 2 --
3A. Michigan Department of Treasury 2 --
35. Individual Colleges 1 --
36. Faculty of University of Michigan 1 --
37. Michigan Public School Retirement Fund 1 ——
38. County Allocation Board Chairman 1 --
39. Senator Robert Vander Laan l --
A0. Michigan Library Association 1 --
Al. Mrs. Mills 1 --
A2. Farm Bureau 1 --
A3. Michigan Association for Retarded Children 1 --

 

°The positive score is the sum of all reportings for the informant
except reportings answering questions one, two, five, six, and
fifteen. '

The negative score is the sum_of all reportings for the informant

in answer to questions five and fifteen.

“Includes those identified as "local" after interview for legislators
from Detroit, Grand Rapids and.Flint.

**Does not include identification of this source where this was
"local" with respect to legislator.

76

respondents who answered either of the questions desig-
nating noncreditable sources do not provide adequate
numbers for definite proof, but the score of the Michigan
Department of Education and the State Board of Education
does exceed the negative score of all others reported.
Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance cited by Du-
Boisl states,
Through the process of rationalization the
individual attempts to re-establish consonance,
i.e., consistency, by changes of cognition, or
changes of behavior, or changes of values.
However, if the discrepancy between established
and new information is too great, one way of
maintaining consonance is to reject the new.
The negative score and the newspaper report may indicate

that leaders must maintain effective communication with

those whom they would lead.

 

lCora Dubois, "The Public Health Worker as an Agent
of Socio-Cultural Change," Health Education Monographs,
No. 5, 1959, pp. 3-19 (Oakland, California: Society of
Public Health Educators, Inc.) as printed in Bennis, Benne,
and Chin, op. cit., pp. 528—5A2.

 

 

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY

 

Legislative Operations ‘1
The members of the Michigan legislature are organ- {A
ized for the division of some of the multitude of duties

which befall the body of each house. The committee system A

segregates, to an extent, the spheres of influence which _§

 

individual members of the legislature may occupy. As a
part of the legislative activity, it is the assigned duty
of the committee to assemble information, evaluate informa-
tion and make recommendations to the legislative parent
body.

Legislative proposals regarding education, regard—
less of origin, will be referred to the education committee
of the house of origin. The most decisive action that the

"l. A

committee may take has been described as "Inaction.
committee may decide the form of the proposal to be re-
ported out and can, by virtue of prior preparation and
relative expertise, exercise great influence on the floor

decision. The committee may truly be a government within

a government.

 

lGross, op. cit., p. 312.

77

78

Any proposal involving expenditure of funds must also
survive the appropriations committee of the body of the
legislature considering it prior to progressing to the
other legislative body, where the same tests must be met.
The education legislation providing for financing the public
elementary and secondary schools of Michigan must survive
the education committee of each body (House of Representa-
tives and Senate) and the appropriations committees of the
two bodies. While the bill must pass on the floor of each
chamber, this is less likely to prove a block to passage
than committee action or inaction.

It is viewed as an improbable contingency that the
legislature would not pass a bill providing financial sup-
port for the public schools. The annual question is not
related to the possibility of being killed in committee,
the common hazard for many other proposals, but rather that
what shall be its form and amount and will it permit the
advance of the Michigan public school system in the quest
for improvement?

Act Number 2A0 of the Public Act of Michigan of 1967,
cited as "The State School Aid Act" is the vehicle by
which the legislature exercised one of its constitutional
duties. This act describes in detail the method and bases
.for distribution of the funds appropriated in the act.

'The act limits the funds to be expended for the various

fxxrms of categorical aid which it provides. Definition of

 

 

 

79

terms used and/or circumstances affecting the operation of
Michigan public schools is another function of the state

school aid act.

Interpretation of Responses

 

The legislators who responded to the various ques—
tions in the study recalled state school agencies, state
educational associations, and local school officials most
frequently. These findings correspond with the findings
of one section of a study reported by Ferguson which was
conducted using state legislators of Ohio, California, New
Jersey, and Tennessee. Legislators responding to the cur-
rent study did place a relatively high credibility on
those sources at the state level who had formal positions
which dictated that they attempt to influence legislation.

The individuality of the legislators questioned was
evident during the interviews in the wide variety of re-
sponses which they deemed appropriate. The strongest
evidence of independence, however, was the use of the term
"self"1 in response to questions requesting the most
reliable source.

With the exception of the agencies of the legislature

and the state government, the recalled informants most

 

1The term "Self" was Judged to be the best term suit—
ed for summarizing those responses where the respondent
stated that he Judged himself to be the best source. One
legislator stated that he felt that he was obligated to
know more about school finance proposed in the legislation
than anyone else, and was confident that he did.

 

Di

80

often identified were members of the Educational Council.
This association of interest groups concerned with educa-
tion meets weekly during the legislative session to discuss
proposals. One of the goals of the council-has been to
present a united front to the legislature on pertinent
legislation.

While the Michigan Educational Council provides one
potential grouping which encompasses many of the creditable
informants identified in this study, it must be realized
that, except for the Michigan Department of Education, the
council membership does not include representation of
those agencies of the State of Michigan which have a formal
prerogative to influence legislation. The legislators,
however, appeared to recognize the Legislative Fiscal
Agency, the Budget Bureau, committees of the legislature,
and individual legislators as the creditable informants
which their formal position implies and demands.

The tabulation of the total reported namings of the
informants allows another interpretation beyond the socio—
metric score. Those groupings nearer the top of the rank-
ing appear to be those with the avowed purpose of influ-
encing education legislation. While this is a secondary
purpose for some of the state agencies and legislators, it
is secondary only with regard to education. Influencing
legislation is still their primary function. Those groups

who present their cases regularly, with competent

 

81

professional legislative agents guiding the presentation
apparently make impressions which can be recalled.

It is difficult to place much significance on the
naming of those informants who received only one or two
mentions. However, the mere fact that they were mentioned
allows for the possibility of even the small voice being
heard and creating some impression on this ponderous
process of government. One might also use the fact of
their mention to re-emphasize the idea that the individual
legislators each function alone as well as in the various
organizations which claim their loyalty and support. One
might imply that all of the united fronts of party, com-
mittee, or clique may be covering many dissenting opinions.
However true any of these possibilities might be, this

study has provided no evidence to establish them as fact.

Conclusions

 

One general conclusion supported by the findings of
this study is that legislators most often reported local
school district personnel as creditable informants regard-
ing the local effects of state financial support. This
conclusion is even more important in View of the limited
opportunity provided for exchange between legislator and
local school district personnel. The distance between the
legislature and the local district and the nature of some
questions both acted against the naming of the local

school district personnel as informants.

 

82

Another general conclusion supported by the findings
of this study is that legislators reported greatest reli-
ance upon state agencies and staffs for financial implica-
tions of state school aid for the whole.state of Michigan.

A third general conclusion supported by the findings
of this study is that the state—wide organizations concerned
with education are generally deemed to be creditable inform—
ants on matters of financing education.

A fourth general conclusion supported by the findings
of this study is that professional legislative agents are
providing legislators with information which the legiSlators
accept as reliable.

A fifth general conclusion supported by the findings
of this study is that the pattern of informants varies as
the topic varies.

A summary of the conclusions expressed in terms of
the purpose of this study is that local sources of informa—
tion are creditable and useful for the consideration of
local effects, state agencies and staffs are creditable
for state-wide fiscal information, state—wide organizations
with legislative agents are respected as creditable inform-
ants, and that the relative ranking of usefulness and
credibility may vary with the topic being considered.

The specific identification of individuals named
would have fragmented the findings to a point where gener-

alization would not have been feasible. The forty-three

 

83

groupings listed in Table 1 could be further consolidated
into local organizations, state-wide organizations, agencies
of state government, and individuals or minor groups. The
general conclusions summarized in.the previous paragraph,
attempt to utilize this broader categorization. The
reported credibility of the informants varied directly with
the organizational scope of the informant, i.e. local for

local effect, state-wide for state-wide effect.

Operational Aspects

 

The operational aspects of this study have convinced
the researcher that a questionnaire dependent upon return
by mail would not have been effective. Most of the legis-
lators did not have available, at the time of the interview,
the original interview guide. Some stated that they threw
questionnaires out. The personal persistent follow—up
seemed to be important to getting the results sought.

Another Operational aspect of the study deemed im-
portant for any degree of success is finding an acceptable
sponsor. Without the supporting letters from legislative
leaders, many of the interviews would not have been granted.
In fact, even with the letters, a few telephone calls and
one personal introduction to the respondent by a legisla-
tive leader were required. Knowledge of the personal image
created by each legislator was helpful. In spite of all

precautions and preparations some few interviews were

 

8A

terse even to the extent of implying that this was being
tolerated but nothing more.

One other operational aspect to be considered in
dealing with legislators must surely be timing. Timing from
the point of being a meaningful issue at the time of inter-
view, timing to avoid the pressures that mount during the

session, and timing of the hour of the day and the day of

 

the week all help to establish the setting of the inter-

view. If the setting is such that a report cannot be

 

established, much of the interview will be a task of .j
y
salvaging what little can be saved and results will not

be complete.

Suggestions for Further Study

 

One suggestion for further study stimulated by activi-
ties of the current study is a role analysis to determine
the role of the Michigan Department of Education as perceived
by personnel of that organization and legislators, state-wide
organizations of the Educational Council, and local school
district personnel. This proposed research might be
broadened or limited for the purpose of investigating the
possible role conflict of the Department of Education,
specifically to determine if there does exist conflict be-
tween the roles of regulatory agency and advisory agency
which are both assigned to the Michigan Department of»

Education.

85

Another suggestion for investigation would be to
examine the finances devoted to legislation by each organ—
ization on the listing of the first table to search for a
correlation of financing with ranking on either list
(Table 2 or Table 1A).

The current study might be expanded to search for

overlapping memberships in the groups.

 

A number of the informants listed in the current

study could be subJected to a self-designating opinion

 

leadership questionnaire. A sociometric type evaluation A}
limited to members of a group selected from sources iden-

tified by this study might be made to identify opinion

leadership within this group as an attempt to determine

leadership among the informants.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey, Stephen K. (ed.). American Politics and Govern-
ment. New York: Basic Books Incorporated, 1965.

Bailey, Stephen K. and Samuel, Howard D. Congress at
Work. New York: Holt, 1952.

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Beal, George M. and Rogers, Everett M. The Adoption of
Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Community.
Special Report No. 26. Agricultural and Home
Economics Experiment Station. Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University of Science and Technology, June,
1960. Personal sources of information for later
adopter categories, impersonal for early adopters.

Bennis, Warren G.; Benne, Kenneth D.; and Chin, Robert.
The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1961.

 

Bentley, Arthur F. The Process of Government. Second
edition. Bloomington, Indiana: Principea Press
Inc., 19A9.

Blaisdell, Donald D. (ed.). Unofficial Government:
Pressure Groups and Lobbies. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Vol. 319. Philadelphia: 1958.

Blumer, Herbert. "Public Opinion and Public Opinion
Polling," American Sociological Review, 13
(October, 19A8), pp. 5A2-55A.

DeVries, Walter Dale. "The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study
in the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of

Political Science, Michigan State University, 1960.

liliot, Thomas H. "Toward an Understanding of Public
School Politics," The American Political Science
Review, LIII, no. A (December, 1959), p. 1035.

86

 

 

a

87

Ferguson, LeRoy Craig. How State Legislators View the
Problem of School Needs. Cooperative Research
ProJect No. 532 (8166). East Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Political Science, Michigan State
University, 1965.

 

Grand Rapids Press, March 28, 1968, p. 73.

 

Grand Rapids Press, April 7, 1968, p. 36.

 

Gross, Bertram M. The Legislative Struggle: A Study
in Social Combat. New York: McGraw—Hill Book “s
Company, Inc., 1953.

 

Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
London: Routledge and Kegal Paul, 1961.

Katz, Elihu. "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up—
to-Date Report on an Hypothesis," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 21 (1957), pp. 61-78. L

 

 

Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfeld, Paul F. Personal Influence.
New York: The Free Press, 1955.

Kelman, Herbert C. "Processes of Opinion Change," Public
Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Spring, 1961), pp. 57-78.

 

Kenyon, Beryl I. and Thatcher, Thomas T. Michigan Legis—
lative Handbook--1967-68. Lansing, Michigan:
Speaker-Hines and Thomas, Inc., 1967.

 

Lazarsfeld, Paul F.; Berelson, Bernard; and Gaudet, Hazel.
The Peoples Choice. New York: Columbia University
Press, 19A8.

 

March, James C. "An Introduction to the Theory and
Measurement of Influence," The American Political
Science Review, A9 (1955), pp. A31-A51.

 

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Revised and enlarged edition. Glencoe, Illinois:
Free Press of Glencoe, 1957.

Michigan Legislative Handbook 1967-1968. Lansing,
Michigan: Speaker-Hines and Thomas, Inc., 1967.

Milbrath, Lester. The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1963.

Miles, Matthew B. Innovation in Education. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 196A.

88

Rogers, Everett M. Characteristics of Agricultural
Innovators and Other Adopter Categories. Research
Bulletin 882. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricultural

Station, May, 1959.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

Rogers, Everett M. "How Research Can Improve Practice: A
Case Study." Reprinted from Theory into Practice,
Vol. 1, No. 2 (April, 1962).

Rogers, Everett M. and Burdge, Rabel J. Community Norms,
Opinion Leadership and Innovativeness. Research
Bulletin 912. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricultural
Experiment Station, June, 1962.

Rogers, Everett M. and Cartano, David G. "Methods of
Measuring Opinion Leadership," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 26 (Fall, 1962), pp.“A35:AAl.

 

 

Rogers, Everett M. and van Es, Johannes C. Diffusion of
Innovation Research Report No. 2 Opinion Leadership
in Traditional and Modern Colombian Peasant Com—
munities. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of
Communication, College of Communication Arts,
Michigan State University, 196A.

Scott, Andrew M. and Hunt, Margaret A. Congress and
Lobbies, Image and Reality. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1965.

"Up the Up Staircase," Newsweek, May 15, 1967, pp. 70-71.

Wahlke, John 0.; Buchanan, William; Eulau, Heinz; and
Ferguson, LeRoy C. "American State Legislators
Role Orientations Toward Pressure Groups," Journal
of Politics, vol. 22 (1960), pp. 203-227.

 

Zeigler, Harmon. Interest Groups in American Society.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

196A.

APPENDICES

 

'W‘J'hlfi. :4— ’30“

APPENDIX A

 

INTRODUCTORY LETTERS

IP.W\!V_‘.A'X\.'D w‘E'A' V. . '1' ' 'D

 

‘L. _

90

91

Clifford J. Bedore, Jr. -- Sidney, Michigan 48885

January 30, 1968
Dear Representative Montgomery,

I am enclosing the endorsement of Representative rs
Russell Strange along with the questions which I would
propose to ask of you if you would grant me an interview

in the near future. As you can see from the questions

 

and the explanation of purpose, such an interview would

it

be relatively short. Recognizing that the pace of the
work of legislation increases as the session goes on, I
should prefer to have the interview take place very soon
in order that it would create a minimum of interference

with your work.

Within the next week I shall call upon your secretary
in order to establish a time suitable to your schedule when

aninterview might be possible.

Sincerely,

2‘2

     
 

/.

 

flatworm monum-
EMIL LDCKWDDD
to: m an»
81’. LDUII. MUCH. A
40880

Dear Senators:

 

92

MAJORITY LEADER

January 2A, 1968

 

Mr. Clifford J. Bedore, Jr. is working on a
research project involving a series of brief inter-
‘views with some legislators. Our purpose in
writing this letter is to endorse this project
and to respectfully suggest that you assist
Mr. Bedore by granting him an interview some time
in the near future.

Sincerely,

ZL—«>A\ <LZQT. >\l_ ___

Emil Lockwood
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER

.77

 
  
 

SENATE MINORITY LEADER

- VK

(
\CVI\(” %£\
' nd D. Dzendzel

93

HOUSE- OF REAtESENTATIVES

tum: ”MIC?

RUSSELL H. STRANGE
m u. use". Hausa: pnucv
HT. W. NISHIIIAN 48856 new». HIALTH

“A II‘I—W

MEMBER OF GDMMIYTIEB ON
IL‘OTIONI. CHAIIMAN

 

 

“IIITAN‘I’ IIPUILIOAN
GAUBUS ORA! am

January 2A, 1968

Dear Representative Jowett: 7
Hr. Clifford J. Bedore, Jr. is working on a research

 

é—

proJect involving a series of brief interviews with select
3 members of the Michigan Legislature. ‘
Any assistance you could give Mr. Bedore by granting

him an interview would be most appreciated.

 

 

-rel

  

tate Represen ative

RHS:pmd

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW GUIDE AND

QUESTIONS

9A

 

 

INTERVIEW GUIDE

Introduction

Legislators face many complex decisions involving
common sources of information. Therefore selected com-
mittees of both houses appear to provide a group of
decision makers suited to the purpose of this study.

These questions are to be asked of all members of
the Education Committees and Appropriation Committees of
both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the
State of Michigan. No respondent will be identified
with his responses. It is the purpose of this study to
determine from persons who are involved in decision
making whether the same sources of information regarding
a given problem are Judged to be useful and creditable
by a significant number of respondents.

All questions are intended to be related to con-
sideration of the legislative proposals which eventually
became Act No. 2A0 of the Public Acts of Michigan of
1967 often referred to as "The State School Aid Act of
1967." The questions which follow should provide for a

structured interview which should be brief and relevant.

95

 

 

is

10.

ll.

12.

QUESTIONS FOR SOCIOMETRIC MEASUREMENT TO
DETERMINE OPINION LEADERSHIP

Do you recall any of the witnesses who testified before
the Education (Appropriation) Committee while consid-
ering the "State School Aid Act of 1967" (Act No. 2A0
of the Public Acts of 1967)? Yes No

Would you name all of those witnesses whom you recall,
regardless of the value you might place on their testi-
mony? If you do not recall the name could you recall
whom or what the witness represented?

Which of the witnesses do you remember as being best
prepared to testify?

Which of the witnesses would you ask to testify now if
you felt that more information was needed for any
reason? (If not the same as 3 above, why not?)

Do you recall which of the witnesses were not well
enough informed to have provided you with useful
information?

Do you remember any person or organization who provided
valuable information outside of committee hearings?

Would you identify such person or persons?

If you had wished to know how the "State School Aid
Act" would affect a specific school district in your
constituency, whom might you have asked?

If you had wished to know how the "State School Aid
Act" would affect all of the school districts in the
State of Michigan, whom might you have asked?

If you had wished to know the estimated dollar cost to
the State of Michigan for any section of the proposed
"State School Aid Act of 1967" whom do you think could
have given the most reliable answer?

If you had wished to know the total dollar cost of the
proposed bill, whom do you think could have given the
most reliable answer?

Would you identify some other piece of education legis—
lation and the sources of information which proved to
be of value in making your decision regarding this
legislation?

96

s .
~VIL-"lu

13.

1A.

15.

l6.

l7.

l8.

19.

97

If you were to conduct a personal search for information
prior to hearing on the proposed "State School Aid Act
of 1968," which of last year's witnesses, if any,

would you wish to question?

Would you name those whom you would rate as the best
prepared witnesses?

Do you recall any witnesses whose testimony you felt
you could not use as a basis for Judgment? If so,
which witnesses?

Whom do you believe would be most likely to know the
effect of the "State School Aid Act" on a given school
district in the area from which you were elected?

Would you name any person or organization which, though
not a formal witness, provided you with information of
value?

Where should one seek the total dollar cost of any of
the state aid proposals?

Whom do you think could give the best estimate of the
cost of funding under any given section of the bill?

 

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

98

E99

 

 

as an Hm O: OH «a no me O: a: O: mm mm OH on mm mm H<aoe
OO O O O OO O O OO OI II II II II II H II II SUCO 52“ OOHOZ:
OO OO O OO O O OO O OO O OO OI II II H II II £8039. .HO hc<8
on on on on H on no no on on no H no no on no no ¢.Om do .paoa .aOHz paoonm HH<=
OI .OO OO OO H O: IO II II OO ‘O II II W H II II SUE—oz:
OO O. .O OO 3 s .O O OO O .O O OO H OO O OO Coxoo HH<§
on no on on on. on on H on no no on no no no on on sOuOHHaO Ocuuauom .Oouo< samHsOHz .ms
OO O OO Ibo O OO O. H O- O OO OI II II O II II ”‘gm 3‘“ deHHMOHz 0H:
II In no I). H on on no no to on on H on on on H Ann“ HoonomIOHmv aHHHz .nn: .0:
on no no on. no on on H on on on on no no no on on cOHuaHoonn< anannHH edanoH: .mm
O II OO O O OO OO H OO O. OO II II II II OO O 53 ““65> uhflnom OHOP‘CUW nwm
O O. H O OO OO OO OO O O. O OO OI IO II II II gfl‘go 0”” “OHHGOOHH< “U500 ofim
O n OO O. OO O OO OO H OO O. OO OO II II II II II g‘om ”COEUOHHPom 0:0” spam .50.“: com
on no on no on H on H no on on on on no no on no ooHHom ouapm caanOHz .mm
O OO d OO OO OO O. OO OO O. OO OO IO OO II II II suHHhOHz “a thflh0>HCD HO HUHfl—Uam cam
on on H on on on on H on no on on on on on no on «nonconHa cOHuuosum Huc0Hu¢00> .mm
on on H on on no on H on on H H on no on on on nausea ooH>nom o>HpaHuHmoH .mm
on no In H on no no on no no on H H on no no to cache couuauHHdsvm .Hm
H on no no no on on H on on H on on no on on on Spam cHuhdx 0>Huaucooohaom .mm
II II II II II H OO II II II II OI II H II H N . S‘GCGI 8306 th omN
on no no no on on on H on on on on no on no no H nouoHHoo Hd3OH>chH .sm
II II II II II H IO H II II II II II. OI H II II OO$HHIHBOOOHQOK H0080” HOHfiOOhdm nMN
H N OO IO OO OO O. OO OO OO OO OO II II OO OO OO ,HH03300 nahfionvm QGQNHPHU .3“
II II II IO II II II N II II II II II II II II II cadav< 0H00 .300 .3300 OSOHS nMN
no on ~ on on on H m on on no on H on on no no agendas-s Haooq no uuoumoq .Hm
IO H N IO. IO IO H OO OO OO O. OO N O O H H EOOQHHQQOHS .0“
II II N II II M H II II II II II m II H H N GOHHCHOODQ‘ “OSOUOH HCOHGQ omH
no no no no no. N H on on no on. H on on H H . cOHuaosou do Oauom psHHm . H
II OO H II II H H O OO O O. O M II H H N Phonon “3038 0:8 - H
H H H H on on on H H on m H H on no no on auosouucoz .o o>Huapcouoaaom .mH
on no on no N N a no on no no on H H H N m nHoosom nuanced: ho ooGOHhm .mH
II II N II IO M N II II II II II 3 IO H N m CRC£O..B HO COHflOROUOM CdMHROH: oMH
on on H on on ~ H H H on on on m on H H m OOHOOOanu do Oauom OOHaam OOOaO .~H
m m on no no on H on m n on on H on on no no eouodaaou ncOHpaHnnouaa< .HH
II II II II II N m II II II II II N II H a M couvloflfifl M0 ”fidom “Hahvoa oOH
H OO .OO 3 OO OO H H M N a w H O OO O OO HH0WC cm
OO IO M OO OO m N OO O OO O OO g O m 3 o .050“ H0080” 00°.‘< smHEOH: cm
H no ~ ~ on O . m H on no on H O on O O n .uasm .O-Ha Hooaom nuaHOoauopsH .H
H on m on on O m H H on H H m on m m O . .sHaOH Hooaom .OOOO< suOHnon .O
m m O N on H m H O OH O on m on on on .nn socou< HOOOHm osHuaHOHuoH .m
O HH no on on O m m s H on on H on H H H oceans on» no sagasm sauHsOH: .a
on H m on H OH O m m on O H O on O OH OH OOHpaHOOOO< OOHOOOsOm sauHsOH: .m
HO OH n O O aH mH OH HH mu mw OH OH H O HH mH OOHOOOsOm no usoaunanoa :uuHsOHz .~

on MH Hm on s m a on H 0|. MN .HN no a m m conudosvfl «0 uudom «0 nuasm H.004 .H

jH j H “H HHIIHH «H HH OH a d H m s d w
COHflflflfla

 

.oousoo can cOHpnosa an nonconnou uo anasasmnn.mH mammw

APPENDIX D

HOW A BILL BECOMES LAW

100

A

 

101

“I, . .1 fin 42.5.11}. as: E

2.2.3.5... 333. a... .o :2. 3.2.6... o I 8...:

5.3 c. .3303.
a. =3 ‘82.) .-

                 

6030»: :3qu 0:6: .34 21:2...“ 5.3
6.5.: 02636... 05a. 95 {30:3 22.2% 05 5 vow-693:. Em <
52.32.330.27: no ~26: an. a. $093.02... Em - ova-2 9:50

          

uOZBH>8

3:3: fan

*0

2 2.3 3.3.5.30
3.3.2.39 .o .332.

C7;

2.3.383 .3
«2.93. 32......30
3.3.2.39 :

             

35260 2.. 2 :3.
.23 3:23 2 =3
63.2.2930 33.3

5.3: ‘3- =

       

a...» 3:339 ..
DR. 8108. a...-

 

62050.3 2..
.32.. c. 332.. 2
2522 a. z ....u a...
32o> 3.2306 2

             

 
   

333.30 02 2 :3.
23 $8.23 n. =3

5.2 .0323!
5 3:3: £3
@339 z.- =

     

:3 3:33:30 0
3.5... 3... a «3.3: ohh a...
.3023 3233:...

23.3.. 2 29.320

322.06 2.. 2 :3.

89.23 23.2
8.3... = «22.2.30

3.33.30
0 o. at:
x. 3... =3
0
3.2....
e. v8.2.
:5 ..

.2 0.33... E...»

v.3 v3.2.3

    

3:2. 2 v2.53.
._ ._ .33.. :5 ..

   

3:22:33
35.... o: :33. 3!

:2. o . 3 . C c
. . . .. a t f coca-om .2... .3 20>
0
3:32:33» *0
35.2 o: 2:32 >02

 

3. .35 .2230
.oucoiu .3 .33...

       
  
 

92......30 .o .332.

            

O 0 >2...
0 o 32.2 .2 3......Eou
2 $2.22 on :I

0.080% O. «CUu

=2. 2 5.2
:3 2

 

.023. .2... .3 03>
33.3 :3 =

3...... :2.) 2. .
.3522... o 22.8

f .2 .35 .2230
3....ch .3 ‘30.;
a. 25.3. 2:...
. A\ .

.938. 2.88 a .a:

x O O .

.53... 1.3.1.8.. _. . . . a... 5.5.3.. .. 3 3:2...

.22....30 3 .35:

 

"ITYEEETIMWJ‘VL'TMT‘WMMW“