,E‘.r:(r/'!/'r

 

 

 

 

.- 5,. 4'
. ’33-’51: yr.’ ,,,......,»,~n~;az. . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

’2’.‘ .,
3,1,, M", . .4." le-I
. va’."y-w w, .4 I
o u 11.. . r-
a

 

,,.
.—

.. 2 r ..ri;:r.

w'u-g I .pp’.- ”I.— J»..- +r
raavm l"~’

, ;r.v;.rrr—

”first" "47'; av ... 3

n-'..-"tar"uv' vrrmuru r- .

’1,,., ," 1—1" 4-,”:

, v
rt-r ”1’.— ”urn
0- roar r—M' a rr'law
,. ,L'" :1‘ r . y A . _ ,.’ _" a - ,3... a... a- -r--rrr.-' (ff;r';1I-’H*r .-.- 'zr !~'~rvA:-~ I"
.21....“ pal/Ir. 1' I 3.. l w” ”1.; inf r ,1 n . .. I .. :::..«-.-, J; r-v-‘rwtr 1'»? .4- pm plw’f’:rt (r4-4<a fly.
4H,“,C", \,... r , , ._. . ... 1W1». Wmvm
" ,.' -_v~.~'lrul"fi'~f ytm - . . r .: l-V-ar "u. .n- I) v vrpr warrawv
'..I." :r’ r . r > p «3,; tr».
r

a?
a, ,... ..‘;,-
r;”" .m- Pry- a. .1 Vrfrrrv-r‘raacrvtr‘a-
.... arr. r.f4rt.~...—..u-—- :"Nrrhr-nr'tvtt fr, nu PtOi‘p‘”
,',. .a-r ”lockup-M1,!

rv. r

.«- . ., .- I - ~n..-—.—~n rp’
....-.'rr If..,_':,i.:-, m 3-. yaw-t .arar
rl<lrltarv-r/-." r’-rl_’;1.':-d‘.—-r-AFI 1
“.,§..._... .. __ ,._, . .. «,4- errorr—x» rut

 

'3 away...
It.
”
.

university

    
   

H mm; [Hymnal flll (Ii 1y Milli lljfljllfl n

  

 

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

A COMPARATIVE STUDY
of OECENTRALIZATION in SELECTED 1
SCHOOLS and INDUSTRIES 1

 

 

 

presented by

william Lamont Austin

of the requirements for

has been accepted towards fulfillment )
Ed. 0. degree in Educational Administration ;
l

WWW

Major professor

Date March 18, 1970

 

0-169

.___ —-~9v~-—~ x i ,

-:——-—--—-r

. , .fjs'bwrh
, '-_,_ -,

 

    

 

 

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DECEHTRALIZATIOd
IN SELECTED SCHOOLS AND INDUSTRIES

By

William Lamont Austin

In this study a selected number of public school systems has
.been compared to selected industrial organizations specifically in the
area of decentralization. In each instance, the school system and its
counterpart in industry at one time had been a centralized unit that
had seen fit to decentralize. The study encompasses research into the
reasons why decentralization took place. The scope of the study
includes the following questions to be answered:

l. Does communication improve for employers, employees, the
public, and the customer, as decentralization takes place
in industry and in schools?

2. Is operating within the framework of a centralized
industrial or school setting cumbersome and unwieldy for
the employee and the employer?

3. Does the bureaucratic, centralized system operate in such
a manner that the employer and the employee must move
through endless steps in the chain of command as ideas
are handed from the bottom up, or from the top down?

Also to be examined in the study will be evidence to support or

deny that decentralization as compared to centralization

William Lamont Austin

l. Increases profit to industry
2. Gives a better climate for learning in the schools
3. Improves working conditions under decentralization.

In the organization of the study, the writer first reviewed
the literature available on centralization and decentralization and,
secondly, conducted a series of interviews with business, industry and
school district personnel, both employees and employers, to determine
the reaction of these people as they are employed in a decentralized
plant or school.

Briefly the summary of the findings on decentralization could
be stated as follows:

l. Communications are improved as schools or industry move
toward decentralization; the centralized Operation is
cumbersome and unwieldy; a bureaucratic centralized
system, as compared to a decentralized system, results
in confusion to employees, and it is unwise to create a
business or a school system in which the employee must
move through an endless chain of command in order that
his ideas reach the top.

2. As represented in this study, industry concedes that
decentralization took place as the industry became too
large to control from one center. Industry was forced

into decentralization as they feared losing central control.

William Lamont Austin

According to industry, decentralization is more costly

than centralization. Increase or decrease in profit

cannot be solely attributed to decentralization.

Decentralization in industry has been done in an orderly

and carefully worked out program. In no instance has the

industry studied decentralized due to outside pressure

groups.

The school districts studied are decentralized due to

outside pressure groups. An exception to this would be

the Chicago public schools who were directed to decentral-

ize in the early 50's by directives of the school board

to the superintendent.

The three industries studied have operated a decentralized

program for a long enough period of time to draw some

definite conclusions as compared to centralized programs:

a. Program works more effectively decentralized than
centralized.

b. Costs are greater.

c. Employer-employee relations are improved.

d. Central control must be maintained for certain
segments of the operation.

Productivity, high morale and improved labor relations

are greater under decentralization than under centralization.

Decentralization, as contrasted to centralization,

William Lamont Austin

generally speaking, improves the relationship of employers
and employees and cuts bureaucracy and red tape.
9. There is no specific pattern for the areas held under
the centralized administration of the business or the
school district studied.
The specific school districts, industry and businesses included
in the study are the Ford Motor Company, Sears, Roebuck and Company,
Union Carbide Corporation, Detroit Public Schools, Chicago Public

Schools, New York Public Schools, and the Milwaukee Public Schools.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DECENTRALIZATION
IN SELECTED SCHOOLS AND INDUSTRIES

By

William Lamont Austin

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
College of Education

l970

H.710”?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No study such as this can be completed without the writer's
being indebted to many people. I should particularly like to single
out Or. Clyde Campbell, chairman of the committee, and other members
of this committee, Dr. Harold Byram, Dr. Kenneth Hance, and Dr. William
Rowe (initial committee member) as they have assisted me in setting up
the limits and determining the direction for my graduate program. Dr.
Campbell has been an inspiration to me for many years. Without his
constant help and encouragement, this study could not have been
completed. Officials of the Ford Company, Union Carbide Corporation
and Sears, Roebuck were most generous of their time as were school
superintendents in Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and New York.

I also wish to thank Bradley Henson and Craig Schmidt, who
aided me in collecting the data, and Dawn for her patient proof
reading and direction to the typist. Also, my wife Virginia, and
family have been most patient and understanding through the many months

that this study has been in the writing.

1'1

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .

The Purpose of the Study

The Need for the Study

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . .

Scope of the Study: Questions to be
Answered . . . . .

Limitations of the Study . . .

The Organization of the Study .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

Industry Looks at Decentralization
Summary .

THE DESIGN .

The Sample .

Separation of the Instrument
Types of Interviews .
Summary of the Findings .

PRESENTATION OF DATA FROM SELECTED
INDUSTRIES . . . . . . .

The Ford Motor Company

Sears, Roebuck and Company

The Union Carbide Corporation .
Summary .

PRESENTATION OF DATA FROM SELECTED SCHOOL
SYSTEMS

Chicago Public Schools
Detroit Public Schools
Milwaukee Public Schools
New York Public Schools .
Conclusions .

Page

—-'

—-'OCO\

l3

41
45

47

47
48
59
6O

68

68
75
86
9T

96

97
ll2
l2l
I32
I42

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . T45

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l45
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l49
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table , Page
l. Employees' questionnaire on four areas of
decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2. Management rating of employees‘ (or teachers“)
productivity under decentralization . . . . 64
3. Degree of decentralization necessary to cut
through bureaucratic red tape . . . . . . . 65
4. Industrial areas of decentralization . . . . 66
5. Controls of central board of education under
decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6. Reasons for industrial decentralization . . 92
7. Relationship of decentralization to
productivity and cost . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8. Use of organizational charts in public
schools under decentralization . . . . . . . lll
9. Philos0phy of decentralization promoted
within and without public school system . . ll2
lO. Decentralization in public schools prior to
l957 and after l965 . . . . . . . . . . . . l20
ll. Initiation of decentralization due to racial
or subcultural tensions, other pressure
groups, or outside influence . . . . . . . . 120
12. Percentage of school budgets paid for in
federal titles under decentralization . . . l42

Exhibit
1.
2.

I0.

II.

I2.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Questions asked of 70 employees . .

Types of questions asked of administrative
personnel (Chicago Public Schools, Detroit
Public Schools, Milwaukee Public Schools,
New York Public Schools)

Sample letter written to Kenneth Rush,
President of Union Carbide Corporation
establishing request for interview

Organization Chart - Union Carbide
Corporation . . .

Organization Charts - Chicago Public
Schools . .

District superintendents' districts -
Chicago Public Schools

Map of Administrative Area ”A" - Chicago
Public Schools . .

Map of Administrative Area "B“ - Chicago
Public Schools . . . . . .

Map of Administrative Area "C” - Chicago
Public Schools . .

Organization Chart - Detroit Public
Schools . .

Copy of original letter setting interview
with D. B. Emmert, Director of
Organization and Management Personnel -
Ford Motor Company

Original letter setting interview with
R. E. Barmeier, Director of Personnel
Planning and Research .

vi

Page
l57

I59

I60
I6I
I62
I65
I66
I67
I68

I69

I70

I7I

Exhibit
I3.

I4.

I5.

I6.

I7.

I8.

I9.

20.

2I.

22.

Copy of original letter setting interview
with R. E. Barmeier, Director of
Personnel Planning and Research - Sears,
Roebuck and Company . .......

Original letter setting interview
with John Shanklin, Vice-president and
Secretary - Union Carbide Corporation .

'Letter of appreciation to D. B. Emmert,

Director of Organization and Management
Personnel - Ford Motor Company

Letter of appreciation to R. E. Barmeier,
Director of Personnel Planning and
Research - Sears, Roebuck and Company .

Letter of appreciation to John F. Shanklin,
Vice-president and Secretary - Union
Carbide Corporation .

Letter of appreciation to Kenneth Rush,
President - Union Carbide Corporation .

Copy of original letter and memo to Dr.
Charles J. Wolfe and Dr. Norman Drachler,
Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent .
of Schools, respectively — Detroit

Public Schools .

Copy of original letter establishing interview
with Dr. Richard P. Gousha, Superintendent of
Schools - Milwaukee Public Schools

Copy of original letter from Dr. Bernard E.
Donovan, Superintendent of Schools - New
York Public Schools .

Copy of letter of thanks to Thomas Cheeks,
School Community Relations - Milwaukee
Public Schools

Page

I72

I73

I74

I75

I76

I77

I78

I80

I8I

I82

Exhibit Page

23. Copy of letter setting interview with Dr.
William M. Lamers, Assistant Superintendent
of Schools, Division of Relationships -
Milwaukee Public Schools ...... . . . . I84

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION I

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare a selected number of
school systems in the United States with a selected number of
industrial corporations, where both groups have decentralized all,
or some parts, of their organization.

In order to examine decentralization intelligently, one must
first understand the basic reasons for centralizing programs. For
the past several decades, public education and industry alike have
been consolidating into larger units. As an example, primary schools
in the United States have all but disappeared and in their place are
larger and much more complicated school districts. Industry, likewise,
from the early l900's has brought more and more of its operation under
one roof. Generally speaking, the public has been led to believe
that once several operations have consolidated, they can operate more
efficiently and probably more productively. This has been assumed to
be true both in the areas of industrial organization and in the
consolidated schools.

Today, selected industrial organizations and school systems
have reversed their position and are decentralizing.

The Need for the Study

 

Since industry and schools alike moved into the large centralized

type of Operation many years ago, questions have been raised.
‘7 I. When does an operation become too large to be effective?
/ 2. What happens to the controls of an organization once
such control is centered in a single office?

3. Does the individual become lost and subsequently
ineffective as he finds himself so far removed from the
administrative unit which controls his activity?

As school districts have found themselves centralizing through the past
three decades, many educators have raised the question as to how many
students and how many teachers should be employed to make the unit an
effective unit for learning. There have been as many answers to this
question as there have been educators doing the research. Some
educators have said that a high school of more than 2,000 cannot
Operate effectively, others have felt that this number could be
increased to as many as 5,000. The Michigan legislature upon two
occasions (I964 and I968) has proposed legislation Such that a school
system with fewer than I200 in grades kindergarten through twelve
should not be an operating unit.

Sizeable school districts and industries alike are operating
both centralized and decentralized programs. A significant number of
centralized industrial organizations are now moving in the direction
.of decentralizing a part of the central control; setting up organizations
within an organization, with the secondary units at least partially
autonomous. There is a need to study each change and examine the causes

for Such change. It shall be the attempt in this study to take a close

look at selected schools and industry alike, those who have already
taken definite steps to return a part of the power to a local group,
and see if the evidence supports the change.

In the past thirty years, school districts have been centralizing
at a rapid rate. The State of Michigan has less than one fourth of the
total number Of districts that were in operation in I945. Such central-
ization in Michigan was voluntary. During this same period, New York
State mandated consolidation resulting in large central units. Cities
found themselves pressured by state departments and local citizens'
groups to include suburban areas in their planning as a part Of the
central school district. At the same time, small communities were
urged to join in a larger more compact unit. During this time, the
efficiency expert in industry was also telling industry to move in this

direction.

 

Definition of Terms

Both education and industry have terminology that is applicable
only to that business. In this study, two terms must be understood:
number one, centralization; and number two, decentralization. To
understand the meaning of these terms will be to more fully understand
the directions that this study will take. A centralized form of
Operation is understood better if we look at the word central. Central
control indicates the control that emanates from the center of the
business. To visualize a circle with the centermost point Operating
as a control unit for that entire circle, then each branch or vein

moving from the center must return to the center for its control.

is?
55”"

    
  

<::> ..................... Emponee
Ojélt :vj‘EQ ———————————————————— Central Control UDIt

--------------- Decisions and directives from
Central Control to employee
and return decisions from
employee to Central Control
for approval

The company, with a singIe board of directors, a single president, and
a central administrative staff, would be Operating a centralized type
of business. “Any decision that was made would necessarily come from
the Office of the president. These, perhaps, would be handed down
through vice-presidents, supervisors, and eventually to departmental
supervisors or foremen. In the centralized program no final decisions
could be made without clearing through the office of the president, and
he, in turn, possibly would need to clear through his central board.|l
Centralized school systems would Operate in much this same manner.
The superintendent of schools, no matter how large the school system,
would have the ultimate authority and would relinquish little Or none
of his power. It is true that this superintendent might delegate some

authority to a subordinate, but this authority could not be exercised

without clearing each step with the superintendent. Also, all

responsibility would remain with the superintendent of schools as he

is responsible to a central board of education.

{ Decentralization, as it is referred to throughout this study, will

up

refer to a fOrm of administrative structure that is allowed to relinquish
a part of its control, a part Of its power, and even a part of its
responsibilities. The significant words in this definition would be the
two words ”in part“. In other words, the truly decentralized program
would be giving away ”in part” its responsibility, its authority, and
ultimately its control.) Should it give these away entirely, the question
could be raised as to whether this is a decentralized mode of operation
or is merely a dividing of the company or school districts into several
completely independent units.

It is therefore conceivable that in the decentralized form of
operation, industry or school districts alike could give away complete
segments of its operation. As an example, the hiring of personnel
could be given to a subordinate officer, a separate division of the
company, or perhaps a building principal. The central office would
relinquish its authority, its responsibility and its control of the
hiring Of any of the company officers in the future. This would not
imply that the centralized Office has relinquished accompanying
responsibilities. The central office might still be handling the pay-
roll, might still be setting up the pay scale, adopting the salary
schedules, determining the fringe benefits, paying the insurance, all
Of which could ultimately affect the employee who has been hired by a

supervisor who is decentralized from the main operation.

For the purpose of this study, no decentralization will be
defined as an annulment, which would be a complete breakaway from the
parent organization. Decentralization, as herein considered, while
tied closely with local autonomy, will always evidence ties centrally,
perhaps in such areas as finance, budget control, personnel, or in
school districts, that of certification. A decentralized operation may
allow a district superintendent of schools to be responsible to a
general superintendent in executing broad school policies of the local
board Of education, but for the development of an instructional program,
the placement of staff, and the general operation of schools, the

district superintendent shall have local autonomy.

Scope of the Study

 

In attempting to settle upon the scope of this study, only
terminology that can be understood by both the industrialist and the
educator alike is used. Initially, an attempt was made to hypothesize
that decentralization is a more effective way of operating a business
or school than in a centralized program. The word effective, however,
is too vague and difficult to prove. What is effective to one does not
seem to be effective to another. Within each industry and school
district, there are those who conclude that the decentralized program
is more effective, but others in the same organization conclude
decentralization is an ineffective tool. Consideration was given to the
Centering of the study on efficiency of operation. If the decentralized
industrial plant is a more efficient plant, this certainly will support

‘the change from centralization to decentralization. Efficiency, however,

as defined by the industrialist, is many times sacrificed as the company
moves toward decentralization.

Also, to test an hypothesis requires an adequate sampling, and
in this study, the sampling is purposely limited. The research to
follow is in the form of in—depth case study which is an acceptable form
Of research according to Leon Festinger.I The problems of central-
ization versus decentralization need to be answered, and such case
studies appear to be the only way to get at the answers. In the place
Of hypotheses to be tested, this research considers the following
questions to be answered:

I. Does communication improve for employers, employees, the

public, and the customer, as decentralization takes
place in industry and in schools?

2. Is operating within the framework Of a centralized
industrial or school setting cumbersome and unwieldy for
the employee and the employer?

3. Does the bureaucratic, centralized system Operate in such
a manner that the employer and the employee must move
through endless steps in the chain Of command as ideas
are handed from the bottom up, or from the top down?

As a by-product of answering these questions, an examination of

both school and industrial plants will be made in an attempt to determine

 

1Festinger, Leon and Katz, Daniel, Research Methods in the
Behavioral Sciences. New York, New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
I953, PD. 7l-72.

 

if there is any evidence that the decentralization form of operation

as carried on in their organization gives them:

I. Increased profit in the case of industry.
2. Better climate for learning in the schools.
3. Improved working conditions.

The comparison Of industry and education will also be made to determine
whether those who profess to be decentralized are in truth actually

I decentralized.

Limitations of the Study

 

Historically it would be much easier to move in the direction
of studying the advantages of decentralized industrial or school
operation if a comparison could be made with the past. In the early
l900's, many individual small companies, and likewise small school
districts, existed. These were completely separate units and in no
way cOnnected one with the other. In the late l920's and early 30's
the direction began to change. By this time, it was concluded that
local business and one room schools were not the answer. The consolidated
and combined units of central control would give us the efficiency needed.
From the 30's on into the mid 60's, in the case of school districts,
centralization continued almost without bounds. By mid 40‘s, through
the 50's and into the 60's, industry started to make some changes back
toward a decentralized form of Operation. It would be much easier to
conduct this study if the early l900's had been operating a decentralized
program. This is not true, however, as during these years a completely

separate, individually controlled unit, quite different from the

decentralized operation, was the direction taken. The pressures for
centralization have now been countered by equally strong pressures for
decentralization in certain areas, but much of this has been done in‘
the past five to seven years. In fact, in many school districts,
decentralization has been only since about l965, and then only
experimental programs have been put into effect.

While large business has effectively decentralized throughout
the nation, very little has been written on this mode of operation.
Industry has had reason to move, but no particular reason to publicize
its reasons for such change. School districts have but recently come
under the attack that has caused them to move toward decentralization.
While several significant projects are under way at present, it is much
too early to conclusively say that one plan is superior to the other.
The possible exception to this would be the Chicago Public Schools
which moved into a decentralized form of education in the mid 50's.

Also, this study is limited by the amount of literature
available for study. Specific texts deal with the theory and the
possible economics of centralization as opposed to decentralization,
but present very few facts as to the effectiveness and possible survival
Of a decentralized form of business.

Because there is so little written that outlines the advantages
and disadvantages of centralization and decentralization, and also
because there are relatively few organizations that have effectively
decentralized, one is limited in the scope of the number of schools

and businesses to be studied.

 

 

IO

Also, even in the case of industry where the decentralized
program has been in operation for several years, there is very little
concrete proof that would substantiate the questions raised in the
study. Probably the most concrete evidence would be found in the fact
that large industry, as it has moved toward decentralization, has seen
fit to continue its operation in this direction. There is little
evidence that any industry that has moved cautiously to a decentralized
Operation wishes to return to its former status of centralization.
School districts, however, at least those in the current news as
advocating or having others advocate for them a decentralized form of
program, have scarcely had time to evaluate the effectiveness of such
change.‘ For the most part, schools are in their infancy as they begin
to decentralize (with the exception of the Chicago Public Schools).
Therefore, while they can give the objectives of why decentralization
was started, it is difficult to draw conclusions at this date.

A further limitation of the study comes as one examines the
questions that can be asked. In numerous studies it is possible to
ask a specific objective question that can be answered clearly with a
response that could be considered either black or white. This study,
on the other hand, is faced with many questions of a subjective nature.
In response to a question, “Are the lines of communication open much
more clearly as you are decentralized over and above when you were a
centralized operation?”, the person interviewed could reply by saying,
"While I feel we have good lines of communication in our organization

at present, it is difficult to conclude definitely that this is due to

II

.a decentralized form of Operation.“ In the design of the study which
will be discussed in Chapter III, it will be noted that the questiOns
were many times subjective in nature and were rephrased frequently in
order to make certain that the person being interviewed was not being

led to make a specific response due to the type of question.

The Organization of the Study

 

This study is basically organized to:

l. Review the literature available on centralization and

decentralization, and

2. Write seven indepth case studies following a series of

interviews with business, industry, and school district
personnel, both employers and employees, to find the
reaction Of these people as they are employed in a
decentralized plant or school.

The reading was completed prior to any of the interviews in
order that a more comprehensive background would be available. In
the matter of time, the review of literature was completed in
approximately four months, and the remaining eight months were given
to personal interviews and the compilation of the materials.

Chapter I defines the problem together with explaining its
purpose, defining its terms, and stating the scope of the study and
the questions to be answered. In Chapter II, the literature is reviewed.
Chapter III outlines the design of the study and explains the sample

and how this sample was selected. Chapter III also suggests how the

I2

instrument was prepared and in what framework it was used. This

chapter also outlines the procedure of the study, the specific types

of interviews and a summary of the findings. Chapter IV concerns itself
with the presentation Of the data from the selected industries, and
Chapter V deals with the same type of data from the school systems.

The final chapter of the study contains the summary, conclusions and

recommendations.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

As one reviews the literature on decentralization, it is
significant to note that practically all of the writings concern
themselves with some phase of educational programs. While a few books
refer briefly to a specific American industry, and may even mention
the word decentralization, there is no evidence that authors single out
industry to write in support of either a centralized or decentralized
mode of operation. 0n the other hand, several prominent educators and
others closely connected with education have taken occasion within the
past ten years to write articles in support of a decentralized form Of
administration. These findings are reviewed in Chapter II.

(The American Association of School Administrators' Commission on
School District ReorganizationI reported in I958 that there were certain
goals that should be considered in all of education today. It was the
feeling of this commission that we had to put together an educational
program in the United States that would bring services to bear on the

educational needs. In order to achieve this, the total organization

 

IAmerican Association of School Administrators Commission on
School District Reorganization. School District Organization.
Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators
Commission on School District Reorganization, I958.

I3

I4

will be as such to:
l. Encourage experimentation with new techniques and methods.
2. Facilitate articulation between levels of the school
system so that each child may have a maximum of continuity,
breadth, and depth in his experience.

3. Enable the local school to be sensitive to local

conditions, and thus to meet the local needs.

4. Foster school community relations in the school unit.

5. Assist the local school in concentrating its energies

on the problem at hand.

6. Develop leadership within the school and responsibility

for the local program.

7. Design an overall educational program for local

adaptation within the framework.

8. Provide local programs with supporting services and

special programs.

9. Supply staff and facilities as needed.

l0. Finance the program for the district at large.

This commission is not advocating either a totally centralized
or a totally decentralized program. It will be seen, however, that the
first six criteria are conCerned with local initiative and a fair share
of independence. The seventh relates these to the system wide need
for stability, consistency, and similarity; the last three provide
areas that can possibly use central control. At the beginning Of the

review of literature, as this commission in I958 was specifically

I5

concerned with the reorganization of school districts, these ten
criteria were their recommendations to effect such organization.
Later in the report, the commission went on to say:

”A fundamental principle in administrative organization is

that any given function should be assigned to that level

closest to the people which is capable of performing it

effectively. That is why teacher's certification is a state

level function, for neither local districts nor intermediate

districts, with rare exceptions, are large enough to do it

as well as the state can.”I
The commission also concludes:

”Even though public education is a state function, the

American people have the firm conviction that their schools

must be maintained as local institutions under their close

oversight and control.“2

As education in the United States has developed principally
from a system of rural education, the large city school system actually
came into being only in the last 25-year period. Prior to this, the
majority Of schools in this country were one—, twO-, or possibly three—
room schools. While a few cities had many youngsters enrolled, the
total school population far outnumbered the city enrollment as the
rural population of each state centered its youngsters into one—room
schools. It was soon after the reorganization of the one-room school

districts that certain pronouncements were being made as to the

specific size of administrative units.

 

IIbid., p. 72
21bid., p. 64

I6

”It has been amply demonstrated by experience and research

that in order to have an educational program at reasonable
cost, with efficient operation, it is necessary to have
administrative units with at least l200 pupils. It has also
been found that gains in efficiency and economy can be expected
as the size of the school district unit increases up to
approximately l0,000 students.”I

This same article goes on to say:
”Local autonomy has been one Of the principal issues in the
conduct of the public schools, especially in the reorganization
Of school districts, and seldom have the educational leaders,
or legislators been willing to circumvent it ..... The extent
to which citizens actively and intelligently participate in
the reorganization in the local school unit has come to be
expected as one of the chief measures of satisfactory
reorganization.”2
The National Convention on School District Reorganization, in
its report, mentions time and time again that there is a strong
sentiment for local control of public schools. They go on to say
that this is readily understandable to the people everywhere in our
nation, particularly in the rural areas, as the public schools at
this level have been a cradle of democracy.
It is interesting to note that most Of the literature reviewed,
even the studies that strongly advocate centralization in education,
face an almost unanswerable question; how one preserves initiative and

proper motivation if one removes from the individual his administrative

unit and makes of him but a member Of a bureaucratic system. Chris

 

INational Convention on School District Reorganization, Your
School District. Department Of Rural Education, National Education
Association of the United States I948, p. 24.

 

21bid., p. 45.

I7

Argyris wrote a most interesting article entitled ”The Individual
and Organization”. In this article, Mr. Argyris differentiates
between-infantilism and adulthood. He explains that societal pressures
exerted on the individual to obtain the vestiges of adulthood run into
direct conflict with organizational restrictions that are placed upon
individuals.

According to Argyris, the following are developmental trends in
behavior, as associated, in this culture, with infantilism and adult-
hood:

Infantilism

 

I. Passivity (lack of initiative).

2. Dependency.

3. Few abilities in behavioral patterns.
4. Shallow, casual interests.

5. Short-time perspectives.

6. Subordinate status.

7. Lack of awareness Of self.

Adulthood

l. Increasing activity (self-initiative).
2. Relative independency.

3. Many ability and behavioral patterns.
4. Complex, deep interests.

5. Long—time perspectives.

6. Dominant status.

I8

7. Feeling of self—worth.I
Taking these two areas singly, Argyris concludes that the lower
the status in the scaler chain of command, the greater the identification
with infantile behavior. Of course, it would follow that the lower the
status, the less the opportunity to exercise initiative and the greater
the dependence Of the individual on the institution. Therefore, it is
difficult for an individual in a subordinate state in a chain of command
to develop real interest in his work. Further, it is equally difficult
to develop a feeling of self—worth to the institution. This is not to
say that there are not highly effective schools in a centralized program.
The system of organizational centralization may be infantile through
its requirements for dependence, but the classroom teacher may emerge 7'
" ---. new-K
above this dependence and teach adult values.
The administrator also has his share of difficulty, the more
complicated the organization becomes. Taking a look at the elements
of administration in their simplest form, these could be explained thusly:
”If a_supervises two persons, b and 3, he can deal with them
individually, or as a pair. The behavior of b_in the presence
Of g_and of g_in the presence of p_will differ from their
behavior when each is with a_alone.
Furthermore, what b_thinks of g, and what g_thinks of p,
constitutes two cross relationships which a must keep in mind
when delegating work on which p_and g must collaborate in als
absence. In other words, even in this extremely simple unit of

organization, with two subordinates, a superior must keep up
to six relationships constantly in mind.

IArgyris, Chris, “The Individual and Organization”. Administrative
Science Quarterly, Volume IV, Number 2. September I959, pp. 47-l48.

l9

Then when a third subordinate d is added, a direct relationship

with individuals increases by Only one (a—d), but the various

groupings he may have to deal with increases by seven (a-b-d,

a-d—b, a-c-d, a-b-cd, a-c-bd, a-d-c, and a—b-dc), and the

various cross relationships he may have to reckon with increase

by four (b-d, d-b, c-d, d—c), mak1ng a total of l8.

Here Urwick points out, in a very elementary fashion, that
administrative control becomes increasingly complicated with the
addition of each person. The conclusion that is drawn in this book
leads one to believe that administrative structure should be kept on
the simplest level possible for the best possible communication.

In reviewing the literature on decentralization, it is evident
that the term is not defined uniformly. There are many references to
the fact that the separation of government into smaller autonomous
units is nothing new. Within our large cities, many authors conclude
that experimentation with centralization as well as decentralization
has been going on for many years. As an example, Philadelphia at one
time was divided into more than 80 independent districts with their own
boards. Prior to I896, New York City was similarly fragmented, which
led to an almost chaotic situation and eventually to the present
centralized structure. Because some authors defined decentralization
in this manner, it was necessary to set up the definition of term of

centralization and decentralization as referred to in Chapter I. The

reference in this instance to both Philadelphia and New York would not

 

1Urwick, Lyndall, The Elements of Administration, New York and
London, Harper and Brothers I943, p. l26.

 

20

be decentralization in the framework of this particular study. At

this point in history, these cities were operating independent school

districts and not decentralized in the definition of our term.

Community control has several clear cut motivations:

I.

There is a commitment to the idea that citizen participation
is in itself good and should be encouraged.

Black militant arguments currently are fashionable. These
say that the black children are victimized by a white
bureaucracy.

The professional bureaucrat rules in his own interest only.
There is a belief that neighborhood residents can discern
particular local needs better than a non-resident.

Because there are so many frustrations with the current
system, almost anything would appear attractive and could

hope for some success.I

It is LuVerne L. Cunningham's considered judgment that there is

a great deal of fuzzy thinking about decentralization and community

control.

He feels that the concepts are frequently confused, or

sometimes treated synonymously, and believes further that they are not

the same.

He goes on to say that many forms of decentralization have

been implemented or proposed thus far, but no genuine form of community

control has been achieved.

 

ICunningham, LuVerne L., ”Decentralization: A Forward Step?”
Nation's Schools, Volume 83, Number 5. May I969, pp. 6l-64.

 

2l

”Decentralization most often is considered as an administrative

device — a way of delegating authority and responsibility

closer to the grassroots, but within a larger defined authority

system. Community control means peOple control, constituent

control, client control. In community control, the citizens are
responsible for decisions about educational matters ranging

from the trivial to the most fundamental policy questions.

Citizens then retain the right and obligation to negotiate

personnel matters, estabiish curriculum. set calendars,

determine who has the right to attend public schools, and to
secure and expend public monies.”'

This particular article mirrors most of today's writing on
decentralization. The decentralized form of operation seems to be
leading more and more to a compIete divorce from the parent organization.
Of course, it must be reCOgnized that much of the publicity gained in
discussing decentraiization is coming from the larger cities that
operate complicated school systems and higth organized bureaucratic
administrative units. As an example, practically all of the writing
of the local citizens pertinent to the New York Public School System
claims that the schools, if they are to become truly decentralized, must
be divorced in every part from the central system. They not only wish
their own board, their own policyvmaking group. their own personnel and
administrative units, but they are asking for their own taxing powers.
Were one to truly understand the direction in which we have moved over
the past three decades in attempting to bring larger units together as a
basis for equalized levy of taxes, one would understand that a good deal

of ground would be lost were a neighborhood to resort to the taxing

structure Of the early 20's. Of course, some advocate leaving the

 

IIbid.

22

larger unit intact for the equalization of taxes and then a division
of funds, perhaps on a per pupil basis, in each segment of the city.

Wallace Roberts commented recently:

”If anyone walking the streets of New York was under the

impression that the teachers are on strike over an educational

issue, he is grossly misinformed. The issues are politics

and labor.“I

Mr. Roberts was directly quoting Rhody A. McCoy, unit adminis~
trator of Brooklyn's embattled Oceanhill—Brownsville decentralized
school district, an organization that has come to symbolize the spreading
struggle for community control Of an urban school. The struggle in
Oceanhill-Brownsville involved not only demands by a minority group
for a direct hand in insuring a better education, but also a complex
social and political battle that includes the drive for Black Power,
for tenure rights of the teachers, black and white racism, and
ultimately the prerogatives of organized labor.

Even before the New York crisis reached any major proportion,
it seems that there was ground work being laid in the ghettos of about
thirty other major cities across the country to provide for greater
participation in the school by the parents and the community leaders.

It must be recognized further that the real problems in urban

education are compounded in a city such as New York. New York City,

operating with a l.4 billion dollar school budget and 57,000 teachers,

 

IROberts, Wallace, “The Battle for Urban Schools“. The Saturday
Review. New York, N. Y. November l6, I968.

23

is in a community that supports a population in excess of eight million.

As the New York Public Schools are more in the news today than
-any single school system in the nation, it is pertinent to review the
literature as it is recorded in the Bundy Report. Shortly after the
tax commission report in New York State, the Board Of Education of the
City of New York endorsed the principle Of decentralization, and in
July Of I967, the Ford Foundation announced that with the approval Of
the Board Of Education, it was going to finance the planning for three
decentralized “demonstration districts”. These districts would be P.S.
20l in Harlem; Oceanhill—Brownsville, Brooklyn; and the Two Bridges
District, in the lower east side of Manhattan. Each district would
contain at least one intermediate school and its feeder elementary school.

Meanwhile, the State legislature of New York had appropriated an
extra 54 million dollars for the New York City Schools on the condition
that Mayor John Lindsay would develop a decentralization plan for the
entire city school system. The legislature was thinking in terms of the
five—borough plan. However, the panel appointed by Mayor Lindsay was
headed by McGeorge Bundy, President of the Ford Foundation, and it
proposed a more radical program of organizational reform.

The report of the committee entitled Reconnection for Learning;

 

A Community School System for New York City, was released about a year

 

ago, and it called for the creation Of thirty to sixty semi—autonomous
school districts, each with a governing board composed of eleven members,

six selected by the community and five appointed by the mayor. It

24

should be noted that the Bundy Report sparked the immediate Opposition
of many groups, including the United Federation Of Teachers, the New
York Legislature (which was under heavy pressure from both the Teachers'
Union and the City's Central Labor Council), and even many of the local
school administrators. The legislature approved a bill Of delaying
effective decentralization for a year, and directed the New York State
Board of Regents and the City's Board of Education to produce a
temporary decentralization plan.1
The mayor's advisory panel on decentralization in New York City
recommended:
I. The New York City Public Schools should be reorganized
into a community school system, consisting of a federation
Of largely autonomous school districts and essential
education agencies.
2. From thirty to no more than sixty community school districts~
should be created, ranging in size from about l2,000 to
40,000 pupils, large enough to offer a full range of
educational services and yet small enough to promote
administrative flexibility and proximity to community needs
and diversities.
3. The community school district should have authority for

all regular elementary and secondary education within its

 

1Bundy, McGeorge; Giardiano, Alfred, Keppel, Francis; Pantoja,
Antonia; and Sviridoff, Mitchell; Washington, Bennetta. I967.

25

boundaries and responsibilities for adhering to state

educational standards.

A central education agency, together with a superintendent

of schools and his staff, should have operating responsi-

bility for special educational functions and city-wide

educational policies. It should also provide certain

centralized services to the community school district and

others on the district's request.

The state commissioner of education in the city's central

education agency shall retain his responsibility for the

maintenance Of educational standards in all public schools

in this city.

The community school district should be governed by the

boards Of education selected in part by the parents and

in part by the mayor from lists Of candidates maintained

by the central education agency, and membership on the

board should be open to parents and non-residents of the

district.

The central education agency should consist of one or the

other of the following governing bodies:

a. A commission with three full-time members appointed
by the mayor.

b. A board of education that includes a majority of

members nominated by the community school system.

IO.

ll.

I2.

I3.

26

The mayor should seIect these members from a list
submitted by the assembling Of chairmen of community
school boards.
Community school districts should receive a total annual
allocation of operating funds determined by an objective
and equitable formula which they should be permitted to
use with the widest possible discretion.
Community school districts should have broad personnel
powers, including the hiring Of community superintendents.
All existing tenure rights of teachers and supervisory
personnel should be preserved as the reorganization system
goes into effect.
The process of qualification for employment and promotion
in the system should be so revised that community school
districts will be free to hire the teachers and other
professional staff from the widest possible sources, so
long as they meet state qualifications.
Community school boards should establish procedures and
channels for the closest possible consultation with parents,
community residents, teachers and supervisory personnel.
The central education agency should have authority and
responsibility for advancing racial integration by all

practical means.

 

27

IA. The main responsibility for supervising and monitoring

the transition from the existing system to the community
school system should rest with the state commissioner of

education.

l5. The transition period should include extensive programs

with discussion and orientation on operations and responsi-
bilities under the community school systems and on

educational goals generally.

One idea that seems to recur throughout the Bundy report states

that the staff of a large city public school system can no longer feel

that the educational program in the schools must be left solely to the

professional educators who are accountable to no one but themselves.

The chi

ldren belong to the parents, the parents pay the taxes to support

the school, so therefore the parents have a right to know what is going

on inside the school. As to the board of education, the Bundy report

states:

”The members of the board of education are able, dedicated
citizens who devote an extraordinary amount of time to their
duties without pay. However, the pressures Of the present
system constantly divert from their policy making and long
range planning. They must mediate issues that have not been
resolved in the fields because the local school boards of
the system's thirty districts have no legal decision-making
authority. The board's power to influence policy and
administration through the superintendent of schools is
diminished by the fact that he, in turn, is faced with
operating a l.l billion dollar, ninety thousand staff
enterprise with insufficient delegation of decision—making
authority.”

 

IIbid.

28

Chairman Bundy recognizes that the New York schools have been
decentralized over the past several years. The Bundy committee,
however, claims that this decentralization has been administratively
ineffective. While local school boards provide useful forums for
discussion of school sites, selection of personnel, and other subjects,
they can exert no decisive influence except in the most routine matters.
They lack effective decision—making power and they cannot hold anyone
responsible, neither the district administrator nor the central
authority, for performance of the schools in their districts. The
committee goes on to say that much Of the enthusiasm and dedication
and potential of the local boards up until now have been hindered by
an unresponsive and resisting school bureaucracy. They add, also,
that they have had archaic legalistic concepts as to the ”advisory
only” nature of the local school boards.1

Martin Mayer, a former school board member of five years'
service, who served on a local board described the board in this way:

“There was almost nothing that I could do for the people who

called upon me. There was little of substance that could come

from our meetings. This giant empire is almost completely
insulated from public control.“

The most significant aspects of personnel policy in the
proposed community system would be:

I. Choice of community superintendent.

2. Recruitment, selection and employment Of an adequate

 

IIbid.

29

staff.

3. Positive interaction between the community and professional
staff within the framework of professional skill and
integrity of the educator.

It is interesting to note that in the Bundy report, it is the
feeling of this committee that decentralization would cost no more than
the present centralized form of Operation of the school system. In
the final analysis, the report indicates that, if accepted, it should
be presented to the state legislature for implementation. The
legislature should also, at the end of the three—year period, have the
right to set a referendum to change any part of the program in such a
way that it could be improved. Such improvement, however, should be
at the wish of the local community leaders.

With all of the discussion that has been going on in the past
three-year period on decentralization, school men have been turning
toward those interested in research to see whether they would be in
agreement that the decentralized plan would benefit local school
districts. Dr. C. Tayler Whittier, Executive Director of the Central
Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory in Washington, D. C., has
been called upon many times to give his opinion of the impending
decentralization.

In the research that the Regional Laboratory in Washington has
done in the area of decentralization, Dr. Whittier claims that one word

appears more than any other and that is the word control. The schools

30

today, he says, are caught in a power play for control.

"The basic question is how to resolve the position Of authority

in control. In decentralization plans, the central authority

retains its power of review and final approval, while community
boards are seeking freedom from such restraint. Protection of
recently won rights by teacher groups is viewed as being in
conflict with the development of community control, as in

New York City where the United Federation of Teachers has Opposed

the delegation of power to the community board. The Washington,

D. C. Teachers Union, however, has taken a supportive position

on this issue. The conflict represents the Old problem of

innovation in change vs. protection of vested interests.”

Dr. Whittier goes on to say that as we attempt to realign power
we find that not only is this a painful process, but that as we are
doing so we recognize that we have no guarantee of improvement. There
seems tO be evidence that changes must be made to better serve all of
the citizens and particularly those who find the present systems Of
education inadequate.~ It is quite apparent that we must utilize the
professional and the lay citizens together to bring about improvement.
It would not seem wise to give either group exclusive decision-making
power.

Dr. Clyde Campbell, of the Mott Foundation and Michigan State
University, edited and published in the Ford Press in October of I968,
an article entitled “The Community School: A Social Imperative“, which
was written by Dr. Ernest 0. Melby. Dr. Melby contends:

”Cities and urban areas will be redistricted on something like

the park plan, permitting the poor to go to school with the

rich, as was the case in the little town and still is true there
to some extent.

 

IWhittier, C. Tayler, ”A Look at Decentralization and Community
Control“, The School Administrator AASA I969, p. l5.

 

3I

The administration Of our city school districts will be
decentralized. The reaIly important educational decision will
be made by teachers and principals. Budgets for schools and
districts will take account of the problem to be met in the
‘\\\ school and with each group of children the largest allocation
//) going to inner city and perhaps remote rural areas. When this
is done, no_heavy:handed bureaucracy will hang over the
teacher and the child. When decisions are made as to what can
be done, the teacher will answer most questions herself, and
any she cannot decide can be decided by the principal of the
building, without waiting for a slow moving bureaucracy.”I \

Both Dr. Melby and Dr. Campbell have steadfastly maintained through the \(j 3
years that(public education suffers as we are constantly stifling the :

71> decision-making powers of those who should be rightfully making such
decisions.) Even as far back as June of I957, Dr. Campbell said in a

letter to Dean Melby?)

”When work cannot be determined by detailed specifications,
then it is necessary for staff members to be in on the planning
so that they can learn what needs to be done, accept whole-
heartedly the program Of action agreed upon, and give strong
support to such programs. Creative workers need to be in on
planning to reach agreement and understanding, as well as to
solicit their loyalty and support for a COOperative action
program."2

Many editorals and news articles have been written over the past
two— to three-year period as attempts were made in major cities to
reorganize the support of education in local school systems. Sometimes,

it may be concluded that all such attempts are met with an almost

 

1Melby, Ernest 0., “The Community School: A Social Imperative“.
Community School Publication, Ford Press, Inc. October I968.

 

2Letters to Dean Ernest Melby by Dr. Clyde Campbell, Professor
Of Education, Michigan State University.

32

complete upheaval of the school system. Such is not necessarily the

case. The Chicago Sun Times, in March of I969, reported on at least

 

one experiment in community control for schools which was achieved
without such upheaval.
Washington, D.C., apparently has a successful experiment in its

Morgan Community School. This school, Operated by a local board and
an assistant superintendent, while fraught with some opposition in
early days, has proven itself by giving full community support and
improving education in the youngsters attending this school. It now
appears that the experiment will be expanded to other schools in the
Washington system. It is also interesting to note that the Washington,
D.C. public school teachers supported decentralization. They endorsed
it by a vote of more than 2—l, at the same time that the New York
teachers, who belong tO the same national union, were striking against
such decentralization.1

«77 There are many activists in the world of education today. It
should not be assumed that each is advocating decentralization as the
answer to its prayers for a better school system. Decentralization
is but one of the many programs that the school-oriented activist is
advocating today. Those following the dictates of the federal govern-
ment are moving in the direction of the answers to the nation's

educational problem being in the direction of preschool programs for

 

1Young, Whitney M. Jr., ”Decentralized Schools are Best for
Children“, Chicago Sun Times, March I969.

 

33

the disadvantaged. Educational parks are also discussed. Black
teachers for black schools has become a common phrase in the inner
city. Alternative educational systems to the public schools are
proposed by the armed forces. The United States Office of Education
has been promoting activists' programs through its Title III funds in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As in all new programs
in the field Of education, the major weakness lies in our general lack
of being able to systematically evaluate the results of our experimental
work. Several major large city programs Of compensatory education for
the disadvantaged, as an example, have been given wide publicity as
successful on the basis of-preliminary inadequate evaluations, only
to withdraw their claims after a more systematic study of the outcome.
Decentralization takes its place among all of these other activists'
ideas. In most instances, it is defined in the literature as placing
the responsibility and decision—making more in the hands of the parent
than in the local community leaders.1
As one studies the trends in decentralization, it is evident
that the large cities are approaching this problem quite differently.
The city of Cleveland, Ohio, as an example, through its pamphlets and
organizational charts, presents very clearly the picture of a

centralized school system. More than this, they take issue with the

 

IHavighurst, Robert J., ”Requirements for a Valid New Criticism”,
Phi Delta Kappa, Volume XL, September I968, pp. 20-26.

 

34

common definition of decentralization and claim they cannot see any
advantage to moving in this direction. The Detroit Public Schools,
while Operating a portion of the city's system under a decentralized
plan paid for through federal funds, have adopted a ”go slow”

approach. At present, Detroit is discussing more community involvement
in its schools, but not a true decentralizatiOn where local cOmmunities
have actual control over the schools. One member Of the Detroit Board
of Education said,

/ I"There is a touchiness about the term decentralization.
We don't wish to use it for fear it will polarize people.“

At the time this was reported, Detroit school officials had a
task force at work studying how to implement some form of community
involvement and a report was expected before the end of I969. There
are members of the Board of Education who believe that using this
modest community involvement approach as a starting point could lead
in time to a more orderly decentralization of the entire school system.1

As members of minority groups in the City of Detroit read what
is going on in other school systems, however, they find this approach
much too timid. ”I have been very hopeful of the experiment in Detroit
in increased community involvement“, United States Commissioner Of
Education Harold Howe 11 said in an interview with the Detroit Free Press.

Howe continued that he believes where people are involved with the

 

1Grant, William, ”Who Will Control Detroit Schools“, Detroit
Free Press, Volume I38 Number I96, November l7, I968.

35

schools the quality of education is better. This has been a factor
in the general quality of suburban schools.I

In reviewing the position of teachers' organizations,
particularly the United Federation of Teachers, and the AFL—CIO, one
finds that their officers and other executive members do not agree
completely with the statements made about them through administrative
groups. Albert Shanker was a former junior high mathmetics teacher
and at one time studied for his doctor's degree Of philOSOphy at
Columbia University. He has headed the United Federation of Teachers
since I964, and, in additiOn, is vice—president of the AFL-CIO, the
Affiliated Federation of Teachers. Mr. Shanker, in a recent interview

with the educational editor of the Phi Delta Kappa stated,

 

“In the brief chronology of events in Oceanhill-Brownsville,

there has been no discussion of decentralization, and this

has not been an issue in the dispute. The United Federation

of Teachers has stated repeatedly that it is in favor Of
decentralization. Personally, I think it has great constructive
potential, particularly those aspects of it which should enhance
both parents' concern for the learning of the children and
creative community participation in matters of educational

policy. Parents have a legitimate grievance against the rigidity
and the remoteness of the central bureaucracy to the extent

that these difficulties have increased the alienation and apathy
of parents to the extent they must be remedied by bringing in a
decision-making power closer to where its effects are felt .....
more fundamentally, I favor increased parent community
participation. I know from my experience in the trade union

,«* movement that the individuals cannot have human dignity until 5
“’\_ they participate in decisions affecting their lives. The United 7
Federation Of Teachers therefore has supported (and lobbied for);

 

 

IIbid.

36

a decentralization plan that would give locally elected
boards, among other things, the power to hire and fire their
district superintendent and guaranteed funds over and above
centrally mandated costs for use as they see fit in developing
innovated programs.”

Later, Mr. Shanker went on to comment that the unions with
which he is involved have also supported the establishment of a
'civilian review board to which parents could bring complaints against
teachers and which, in turn, would guarantee those teachers a fair
hearing.

In reviewing the literature Of decentralization in America, it
is impossible to keep from placing the experiment in New York City out
in front. It is premature to be drawing conclusions and giving
supporting evidence that the decentralized form of school system has
proven itself as of this date, yet it is impossible to ignore some of
the claims that are being made. The fact that Oceanhill has a
waiting list with candidates seeking employment, while many vacancies
occur in the New York City System, should tell us something. Also,
this is in sharp contrast with the personnel records prior to the

establishment Of this district. According to a recent article in the

Phi Delta Kappa, anyone who has visited the schools will note a

 

sensitivity and enthusiasm among the staff which has been sensed by

most Of the 3,000 visitors, including numerous reporters. The school

 

IShanker, Albert, ”The Real Meaning Of the New York City
Teachers Strike“. Phi Delta Kappa, Volume L, Number 8. April I969.
pp. 434-44l.

 

37

is developing an Afro and Latin American Curriculum Center which is
planning to emphasize the Afro—American experience in the regular
curriculum. The article goes on tO say that the local board is quite
protective Of its powers. It has been constantly concerned with the
need to be consulted in all matters. In fact, one of the problems
that should be worked out is the proper use of professional talent.
Public meetings in the district have attracted upwards Of 600 which
was unheard Of in the past. There is an increased need for the use of
professionals in most functional roles and this indicates a serious
movement for greater participation and more meaningful involvement.

Further than this, there are some tangible results in the
Oceanhill—Brownsville district.

I. Governing board meetings indicate greater emphasis on

quality education.

2. A strong desire to bring educational standards to new
heights.

3. The myth Of the black parent apathy has been completely
destroyed.

4. Local governing boards and staff have become important

community symbols.
5. Middle and lower class black work together with others,
forcing them to interrelate the mutual interests Of the

entire community.I

 

1Fantrni, Mario and Gittell, Marilyn, ”The Oceanhill-Brownsville .
Experiment“. Phi Delta Kappa, Volume L, Number 8 April I969. pp. 442—445.

 

38

”If the confrontation and strike has produced nothing else,

it has made Oceanhill—Brownsville a community. Once apathetic
and politically powerless, Oceanhill has emerged as a symbol of
a black man's desire to control his own deveIOpment. He has
become the arena from which to attach the entire educational
malaise which has gripped the public school system.“I

As one reviews the literature, it becomes necessary to sift out
the writer who understands but a part of the total picture. In a

recent book by David Rogers, entitled llO Livingston Street, Dr.

 

Rogers spends a good deal of time talking about the problems that the

New York Board Of Education can get into if it moves into the area of

decentralization. He mentions for instance, that ”conservative parent
groups in small towns and suburban areas perennially vote down school

bond issues and millage votes and protest against higher taxes for

2 He thereby concludes that decentralization would not

public schools”.
be possible as it would lead only to millage defeats. Dr. Rogers also
sees definite contradiction between program budgeting and decentralization.
Program budgeting could well be the centralized form of handling the
finances for several districts that are decentralized.

Most of the reports dealing with the Chicago Board of Education
and that of Milwaukee, are reports published directly by the Board Of

Education. The general superintendent of the City Of Chicago, as an

 

IWielk, Carol A., The Oceanhill-Brownsville School Project: A
Profile Community Issue, Institute for Community Studies, Queens
College, Volume I, Number 2, February I969.

 

2Rogers, David, llO Livingston Street: Politics with Bureaucracy
in the New York City School System. Random House, New York I968.

 

39

example, has published material on plans for reorganizing the Chicago
Public Schools into three administrative areas, as well as the report
entitled ”A Design for the Future”. In each of these reports, evidence
is given that further decentralization is needed.1 In Milwaukee, a
sub—system approach to the problem Of the large city school system
explains the present clusters of Milwaukee as it attempts to decentralize
a portion of its public schools.2

As the United States is considering the direction to move in
operating its large school systems, other nations are thinking in much
the same manner.

In studying the cost of education in England, a report given by
Dr. John Vaizey says,

”Our conclusion is that there is too much administration and

that it arises from a too-detailed interference by the ministry

of local affairs and from too great a gap between the local

administrator and the schools. Our remedy is a three-fold one.

The teachers should be more closely concerned with administration.

There should be regional educational authorities concerned with

major planning and policy developing and the bulk of local

administration should occur very locally.”3

Budgets in the English schools have been under scrutiny for years. All

 

1Redmond, James F., Plans to Reorganize the Chicago Public
Schools in Three Administrative Areas. Published by the Chicago
Board of Education.

 

2A Subsystem Approach to the Problems of the Large City School
System, Milwaukee Board of Education, March I968.

3Vaizey, John, The Costs of Education. London, England: Ruskin
House. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., I958.

 

r.\
\ ‘l I
.M’, \

4O
,///

{budgetary items are approved and enacted solely through the minister

‘ of education. Many times the approved financial expenditures have

little relationship to local needs:\ Local teachers' unions strongly
support Vaizey in his contention that the bulk of local administration
should occur very locally.I
At the same time that these pronouncements are being made in
England, the schools in Bombay, India, are looking at their adminis—
trative units, not referring to decentralization as such. The Bombay

schools, as studied through Professor L. Nukeherge, draw the following

conclusions:

XI. The central administration in schools is too far away
V// from many of the local units and hence does not know the
CC‘ local requirements. It ignores the local traditions and
aspirations and imposes a system of education which is not
properly suited to local conditions.
3;. As all policies are directed from the center, the local

participation is limited to carrying out the policies
dictated from the center. This does not invoke a feeling
of enthusiasm for the local community which no longer
feels that it owns the schools.) The apathy of the local
community is detrimental to the program of the schools.

3. A centralized system brings a sort of dull uniformity

 

IIbid.

4l

which for the sake of uniformity, dampens the spirit of
free experimentation, and very Often the centralized agency
discourages it in the name of efficiency and economy.1
Education in England and Italy could not pass Urwick's test for an
effective administrative unit. “Central administration - too far away
from the local units simply cannot operate efficiently due to the
number of relationships to be reckoned with ..... “2
In the instance of Bombay, the apathy referred to would be
supported by Chris Argyris, who would contend that an infantile world

is always an apathetic world, and that any world stifling individual

initiative through central control has not reached adulthood.3

Industry Looks at Decentralization

 

As was mentioned in Chapter I, decentralization of industry has
been taking place over the past three decades. Industry has done this
quietly and independently. It is difficult to track down the specific
reason for industrial decentralization. One of the more significant
books was written by Ernest Dale, in which he discusses planning and

developing the company organizational structure. Many of the ideas

 

IMukherjee, L., Problems of Administration of Education in India.
Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta: Kitab, Mahal, Allahabad I960.

2Urwick, Lyndall, The Elements of Administration, New York and
London. Harper and Brothers I943. p. l26.

 

3Argyris, Chris, ”The Individual and Organization". Administrative

 

Science Quarterly, Volume IV, Number 2. September I959. pp. l47-l48.

 

42

discussed in this book have been endorsed by the American Management
Association. They tie up directly with the concern of America for a
sound democratic system. Mr. Dale explains that there is good reason
to believe that the gained productivity achieved by overspecialization
and its twin brother, overcentralization of authority, has been lost in
the debilitating and innervating effects that they have had on employee
morale and willingness to cooperate.'
Industry gives many reasons for moving to a decentralized form
of operation. Usually they do not include employee morale or COOperation
as prominent among these reasons. It is Dale's belief, however, that

such problems play an important role in the change. He notes that when

the degree Of managerial decentralization is greater the following things

happen:

I. A greater number of decisions are made lower down the
management level.

2. The decisions made at these levels are more important
decisions.

3. More functions are effected by the decisions made at the
lower level.

4. Less checking is required to make certain that these

decisions are correct.2

 

IDale, Ernest, Planning and Developing the Company Ogganization
Structure. New York. The American Management Association I955.
pp. 52-53.

 

21pm.

43

Decisions such as Dale describes would be evident at the time
the Ford Motor Company reorganized from the centralized company to a
semi-decentralized operation following the death of the founder, Henry
Ford. Not realizing exactly what direction the company was destined
to move, the central administration determined to involve directly the
local plant managers, supervisors, foremen, and even some set-up men,
in the decisions Of the company. Initially, the central administrators
posed some questions to their subordinates:

I. DO you see a need for changing the Operation of your
department or division?

2. What suggestions do you have to improve personnel, working
conditions, etc.?

3. In your estimation, is the Ford Motor Company the type of
company that you can respect and support in your conversation
with friends and associates? If not, why not?

The response was immediate and encouraging. Many suggestions were made.
Interest was heightened and suggestions were implemented. According to
Henry Ford II, the initial move to hand the man in the plant some
decision-making powers was most gratifying.

As one studies the process of decentralization in industry, there

are certain advantages and disadvantages. Four advantages are:

l. The people most concerned are those making the decisions.
Since they often know more about the factors affecting the

decisions, they may be able to make these decisions more

44

adequately and without delay.

The expense of money in time of central coordination is
reduced.

The number of decisions made without all the facts is
reduced.

The opportunities for those further down the organizational
hierarchy to assume responsibility and act creatively may

improve the calibre of work all along the line.1

The disadvantages would be:

I.
2.

Lack of uniformity of decisions.

Failure to use the advice of available specialists.
Possibility of duplication of effort.

Difficulty of executives to accept decentralization which

is traced to:

a. Tradition - the history of one-man direction.

b. Expense - wrong decisions and duplication of effort.

c. Power and prestige — seeming loss of these symbols
of status.2

In the reading on decentralization in industry, it is evident

that neither absolute centralization nor absolute decentralization is

the answer to the problem. It would appear that it would be useless

for industry to contend that anyone in theory supports an extreme. In

 

IIbid.

21bid.

45

practice, no man heading an organization involving other people can
possibly make all or none of the decisions. The relative emphasis in
delegating decision-making, however, can be extreme.

The centralization—decentralization issue causes us to focus
attention on the importance of maintaining coordination among the

various levels Of people.

Summary

In summary, it would only be fair to say that the literature
available in the area Of decentralization should be considered far
from conclusive. For the most part, the books that have been written
about school decentralization are reports of activities that have
happened to date in an experimental part of the school system. In no
instance is there a report showing a total school system decentralized.
Also, there is no report of findings that would allow the reader to
draw conclusions as to the adequacy and success Of the decentralized
program. The most extensive report, that Of McGeorge Bundy, is
principally theory at this point. While the New York Schools have
documented additional reports that are implementing either a part Of
this report or a modification Of it, the literature can only conclude
that ”this is what is anticipated” and not ”this is what is concluded”
from an evaluation Of a successful program. It is significant, however,
that writers on educational issues are turning more and more toward
decentralization as a possible aid to the local school system in

solving its problems.

46

A much more conclusive study could be written were material
available on a specific industry. In Chapter IV, Union Carbide Company,
as an example, draws_some very specific conclusions as evidence of the
success of the decentralization of that company.

There is considerable literature available on centralized
educational units. The entire era of reorganization Of schools causes
much to be written. These writings are now far beyond the stage of

theory. Centralized schools were built for:

l. Economy of operation.
2. Decrease in number of administrative personnel.
3. Combinations Of students that would give loads heavy enough

to offer a comprehensive program.

4. An opportunity to make use of an equalized tax base.

5. Uniform school policies.

The theory of the centralized district has now been proven. The
parent, the child, and even the teachers were apparently forgotten in
the move toward centralization. If the writers Of today are as accurate
in predicting what will happen as we decentralize the schools, we will
no doubt be able to devise a system of education that coincides with
industry; to operate an efficient unit while still maintaining local
autonomy and control; and in turn, to maintain high morale and make

each individual feel a part Of the decision-making.

CHAPTER III

THE DESIGN

The Sample

 

In considering this study, it would have been possible to move
in one Of two directions. A large sample Of educational institutions
and industrial and business organizations could have been examined.

Had this been the direction, perhaps an objective questionnaire could
have been used to send to each institution. The results of the
questionnaire could then have been compiled and conclusions drawn. A
second method of sampling would be to study a select group of school
districts and business and industrial organizations. The second method
was considered to show the most promise for this study. As was noted
in Chapter II, there was but a small number of central school systems
that have decentralized their school operation. Business and industry,
for the most part, are centralized. By using this select group, a more
detailed account can be given of each organization together with the
reasons for decentralizing.

According to Dr. Daniel Katz, in his review of case studies and
field study, this design has three principal advantages:

l. A case study can be more analytical as it continues over a

period of time.

47

48

2. There is an Opportunity for direct observation of interaction
and social relationships.

3.. It is important to go beyond information gained from a

single measurement.1
The school systems selected to be studied were the public schools

of the cities Of Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee and New York. In each

instance, the school district has stated publicly that a part of its

school system is carrying on a decentralized program. Three industries

were used in the study, all Of which have a long history of operating

a decentralized program. The companies selected were the Ford Motor

Company of Detroit; Sears, Roebuck and Company of Chicago; and the

Union Carbide Corporation of New York. Each of the companies professes

a completely decentralized program.

Separation of the Instrument

 

As the main portion Of this study has to do with questions to
be answered by members of school systems' administrations, administrative
officers of business or industry, or similar questions to be answered by
employees, it was necessary in preparation of the instrument to think
through the questions carefully ahead of time. As the study was
anticipated, a test run was set up locally. Using Muskegon Public School

administrators and teachers, together with local business administrative

 

1Festinger, Leon and Katz, Daniel, Research Methods in the
Behavioral Sciences. New York, New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
I953. p. 8I.

 

 

49

Officers, twenty— to thirty-minute interviews were held. In these
interviews, questions were asked that would explain the extent of
decentralization. The purpose Of the total study was explained to
each one participating in the test run. During the test, the concern
was to determine if the questions raised were definite and delimiting.
As a result of the answers given and the general reaction to the
questions, they were modified, restated, and generally overhauled.
The questions to individual employees would be difficult to structure.
An experimental group of eighteen employees was tested. All of these
were from local industry or business considered partially, at least,
decentralized. Six Of the employees were members of a local Sears,
Roebuck store. Although none of these responses are used in the final
study, it was a result Of the answers given by the eighteen in the
experimental group Of employees that six questions were rephrased and
used for employees, and finally tabulated on Table I listed on the next
page. Refer to questions 4 through 7 of Exhibit I listed on page l57.

In discussing decentralization with administrators, the following
areas were referred to:

l. Management's analysis of productivity under decentralization.

2. The degree of decentralization that the management Officials

thought to be necessary for the success of a business or
school district.
3. The relationship of decentralization to better working

conditions.

 

N

 

wade meg 0p pumice acme

ncmw_ampmm wco meepzmww

psocp_3 cowpmmzc Lao»

no on cpzmcm may acre
.5 x_xu_sc cmo cowcmasm
mpmvamgz_ Lao» page

:cmpmcmacs so» on

NAquwzc nmcmzmcm

mcowpmpsc ago»

one ..m.w .maap soc

cmsoccp mcwppao cw

mu>o_aem ca mm 30>

ave a__muwmwomqm

:owpaww_mcpcmomv

mo gmpmxm ego moo:

ommw_mcpcmowj
poem c? we
Empmxm Foogum
Lo mmmccmsfl
page mm>o_aem
eo mmmcmcm3<

avgmcoepm_mc
_mcomcmm mmXo_QEm
-cm>o_QEm mm>ocaev
cowpmNTFacpcmumo

qwzmcowpe_mc
mmmcamzn mmxoraem
-cmxofiaem mm>ocqew
cowpeNTchpcmomo

 

Aso_ u n .pmmcm>m n
n cmsoccp F mum; use coepmmsc oo mmcoqmmc mm>o_aEm

m

.mcwpmc “manor;

:

muoo

 

 

cowpmN__mcpcmomQ to mmmc< Leon co mcwmccowpmmzo .mmmAOFQEm

_ m4m<~

 

0’)

m a m?
a z m:
m z 5
m Q @—
m u m—
_ 3 3
m m 2
m n_ Nfi
a z :
_ z S
F a m
m u w
m 3 m
m m o

 

 

Aeazcaacoav _ msmqe

52

 

z

2

mm
mm
em
mm
mm
Fm
om
mm
mm
Fm
mm
mm
em
mm
mm

Fm

 

 

ill." I'll

 

 

Fumschcouv F whm<F

53

 

0")

’\I

2

mm
Fm
om
me
we
3
we
we
3
me
me
Fe
ow
mm
mm
mm

 

 

 

Aeaacwpcoov F msm<c

 

54

 

C")

2

z

2

mm
B
mm
we
we
mo
No
Fm
om
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
am
mm

 

 

FeaseFoeoav F msmac

55

 

 

 

mFoozom OFFaza xco> 382 u z
coFchoacou mancmu coch u 3 mFoogum OFFnza mmxsszFz u z
chaeou ace xoznmom .mcmmm u m mFoocum OFFnza FFocpma n D
AceQEou Lopez need n a mFoogom OFFnsa ommoFgu u u
meow
meF.F meF.N mea.F mmm.m amcoamaa
mmmcm><
F N F m 2 ON
N F F F m mm

 

 

Feachucoav F msm<F

56

TABLE I (continued)

Conclusions

 

Decentralization improves employer-employee business relationship -
total average 2.357.

Comparison was average-good

Chicago Public Schools 2.500 Ford Motor Company 2.900
Detroit Public Schools l.7OO Sears, Roebuck and
,Milwaukee Public Schools l.6OO Company 2.200
New York Public Schools 3.900 Union Carbide
Corporation l.7OO

Decentralization improves employer—employee personal relationship —
total average l.943.

Comparison was high—good

Chicago Public Schools 2 000 Ford Motor Company 2.600
Detroit Public Schools l 300 Sears, Roebuck and
Milwaukee Public Schools l.3OO Company l.500
New York Public Schools 3.600 Union Carbide

Corporation l.3OO

Awareness of employee that business or school system is in fact

decentralized - total average 2.l43.

 

Comparison was average-good

Chicago Public Schools 3.IOO Ford Motor Company 3.000
Detroit Public Schools l.9OO Sears, Roebuck and
Milwaukee Public Schools l.600 Company 2.400
New York Public Schools l.OOO Union Carbide

Corporation 2.000

57

Table I (continued)

Does the system of decentralization specifically aid you as an
employee in cutting through red tape; i.e., are your questions

answered quickly?

Do you understand that your immediate superior

can quickly find the answer to your question without fighting the

establishment to get to the top? - total average l.743.

Comparison was good

Chicago Public Schools l.6OO Ford Motor Company
Detroit Public Schools l.9OO Sears, Roebuck and
Milwaukee Public Schools 2.300 Company

New York Public Schools 2.400

l.400
2.000
2.400
3.000
3.400
4.000
4.400
5.000

t0

t0

to

to

to

to

to

to

.000
.I00
.500
.I00
.500
.I00
.500
.I00
.500

Union Carbide
Corporation

Key to Computation

 

high

good to high
good

average to good
average

poor to average
poor

low to poor

low

l.500
I.4OO
l.I00

I0.

II.
I2.

58

The viewpoint of the employer relative to decentralization
and its ability to cut through bureaucracy and red tape.
The relationship of decentralization to size of particular
business, industry, or school district.

The relationship of decentralization to productivity and
cost of Operation.

A discussion of the areas of decentralization, particularly:

a. personnel
b. budget and finance
c. fabrication or procurement

The types Of things that central boards Of education
maintain control of during decentralization.

The financing of decentralization in school districts.
The study of the history of decentralization prior to
I957 and since I955.

Philosophical reasons for the starting of such programs.

Policies established for decentralization.

Questions were also devised for each administrator. Exhibit

Number 2 gives the sample questions asked of administrative personnel

in the Chicago Public Schools. Modifications of these questions were

asked of school administrators in Detroit, Milwaukee and New York State.

The interview with company presidents, while concerned with collecting

many pertinent and related facts, was not formalized by a specific

group Of questions other than those referred to in the numbered points

59

above. The procedure followed in each instance was to write a letter
Of introduction to the president of the company or the superintendent
Of schools. In each instance, the first contact was with the chief
administrative officer whereby a request was made for an interview with
him or his selected representative. In this way, personal interviews
were conducted in each of the seven localities where the schools,
businesses, or industries were located.

Types of Interviews

 

Basically, there were two types of interviews used in this
study.

First, a prolonged informal interview usually with the president
or his delegate Of a company or the general superintendent of schools
or his first line assistants. These interviews were completed in
somewhere between two to four hours each. The general format of the
interview was determined prior to meeting the company representative.
NO written answer was taken down during the course of the interviews
as they were conducted in an informal, relaxed atmosphere. An attempt
was made to set the stage in such a way that the person being interviewed
would feel free to give an historic approach to decentralization in
his business or community. An attempt was made to think through with
the company head the orderly process that had been used by boards Of
education and company officials in arriving at the decentralized program
that was being implemented. It was found in many of these interviews

that the conversation became repetitive as management found it necessary

60

to retrace its steps as it thought through the sequence Of operation
that led toward decentralization. A short time following the interview,
notes were taken and data compiled that could be used in the study.

Once such data were compiled, they were returned to the person who was
interviewed with a request that they be proofread in order that
accuracy could be maintained.

The second type of interview was that used with employees. The
very nature Of these interviews was quite different from those with
company management. Here the individual was asked brief specific
questions: did he understand the meaning of decentralization? did
he feel it actually was of help to him? was he satisfied that the
industry and/or school in which he was employed could cut through the
bureaucratic red tape? and similar questions. Many times the answer
was a yes or no, and usually such an answer was qualified by giving a
reason, or perhaps an example, to support the answer. Answers given
by these 70 employees were rated on a scale one through five with
numbers 2, 3 and 4 being assigned to the answer in each instance where
the yes or no was qualified.

Summary of the Findings

 

A summary of the findings of the study on decentralization
follows:
I. Generally speaking, communication is improved in a
decentralized Operation, and it is concluded that the

centralized operation is cumbersome and unwieldy. A

6I

bureaucratic centralized system results in confusion to
employees, and it is unwise to create a business or school
system in which the employee must move through a seemingly
endless chain Of command in order that his ideas reach the
top.

,The managements of the Ford Motor Company, Sears, Roebuck
and Company and Union Carbide Corporation are quite
definite in their contention that decentralization was

not started particularly to satisfy number one above.

The presidents Of these companies were in agreement that
their company was decentralized as it became too large to
control from one center. Industrialists had not wished to
decentralize, but were more or less forced into it as they
found themselves in a position of losing control.

Industry is in general agreement that decentralization is
more costly than the centralized form of program.

The Union Carbide vice-president maintained that with I400
different and totally unrelated products, it was neither
feasible nor profitable to consider operating a centralized
program. The Sears, Roebuck and Company, on the other hand,
explained that there was great similarity in the products
sold in each of its stores, that the incentive factor
played an important part in determining that the local

stores should have autonomy through the general manager.

62

The Ford Motor Company was influenced greatly by Ernest
Breech, who was hired from General Motors. Mr. Breech,

as president of the Ford Company, convinced Henry Ford II,
who owned the controlling stock, that the company would be
better advised to decentralize its total operation, allowing
the central management to select carefully the personnel who
would operate the decentralized unit.

In each instance where industry has decentralized, it has
been done in an orderly and carefully worked out program.
In no instance is there a pressure group from without. The
decentralization has come about as the company had studied
its own operation and determined that it was losing control
(of certain segments in trying to Operate everything from a
central Office. Management of the three companies studied
is in complete agreement that it is impossible to go from
centralization to decentralization or from decentralization
to centralization overnight.

School districts are decentralizing due to the pressures

of outside groups who are demanding more control of the
schools. An exception to this would be the Public Schools
of the City Of Chicago, who were directed to decentralize
in the early 50's under Superintendent of Schools Dr.
Benjamin Willis, who maintained that it was impossible for

a central office to control some l9,000 teachers.

63

Nineteen district superintendents were thereby appointed
who had local autonomy over such things as curriculum,
general course of study, pupil control, and recommendations
for staff appointments.

Industry has operated a decentralized program for a long
enough period of time to draw some definite conclusions:

a. The program works more effectively decentralized

than centralized.

b. The costs are somewhat higher.
c. The employer—employee relationship is improved.
d. Central control must be maintained for certain

segments of the Operation.
Productivity, high morale, and improved labor relations

are greater under decentralization.

64

TABLE 2 Management rating of employee (or teacher) productivity under
decentralization

 

Employee produces more
under decentralized
program (I). NO way
to measure and compare
productivity (2).

Morale, labor
relations, collective
bargaining rated under
decentralization

(l) highest (2)

above average

(3) average (4) below
average

 

Chicago Public
Schools

Detroit Public

 

Schools 2 2
(Decentralized -
program not
standardized for
comparison)

Milwaukee Public
Schools 2 2
(Same as Detroit)

New York Public

Schools l 3
Ford Motor

Company 2 l
Sears, Roebuck

and Company I I
Union Carbide

Corporation I l

9. Decentralization, generally speaking, improves the

relationship of employers and employees and cuts

bureaucracy and red tape.

65

 

ocooo Focpcoo
Eocm Foogom oFFooo
mooco>Fo FFopoFoEoo

 

 

oocp omFod :oFFoNFFocpcoooo oFooconmooo mFoo:om oFFooa
xFFoFocoa FF AFco oocF xcoF 3oz
mono oocu oocooF>o oFoFoEoocF .mFoocom oFFooo
o>FmoFocoocF AFFoFFLoo o>FmoFocoo oz opoo ooxoozFFz
:oFmoFocoo
opoo opoo op ooLF o goom geco op mFoozom
o>FmoFocoocF oocp uoz opoFoEoooF opoo OFFooa pFoLFoo
oocF oocF oocF oocp FFoFFcFFoo mFoogom
oFFasa ooaoFeo
ooLF mono oocF xFochFFoo oocp FFochFFoo :oFFocoocou
sFFaFoaea aeFaaao eoFco
ooLF mono mono xFooFcFFoo oocp xFochFFoQ Acoogou oco
mFFoncoo xooooom .mcoom
mocF oocF ooco FFoFFcFFoQ oocp xFoFFcFFoQ xcooeou
copo: ocod
ooaoFQEm LoonmEm
oozoF>coFcF mcoooco
mconFocOo -chFEoo Focucoo op
ochcoz ocFocoooo.poFcmeo
ooop ooc Loppoo coF Foogom co mmocFmoo

oco xoocoooocoo smoocso
mpoo FoFLFmFo Foogom co
mmocFmoo ooNFFocpcooog

moxoe :oFFoNF

-Focuooooo pogo
mopopm ooonoEm

o Fo mmoooom on» op
xcommoooc mF conoNF
-Focpcoooo Fo oocooo <

 

 

m m4m<F

66

IO. There is no specific pattern for the areas held under
the central administration of the business or school
district studied.

TABLE 4 Areas of decentralization

 

 

Personnel Budget and Fabrication/
Finance Procurement

 

Yes NO Partial Yes NO Partial Yes NO Partial

 

Ford Motor
Company X X - X
Sears,
Roebuck and X X X X
Company Gen Adm
Union
Carbide X X X X

Corp. Adm

 

TABLE 5 Under decentralization,
maintains control of:

67

the central board of education

 

 

 

 

Budget Personnel Certification
Yes NO Partial Yes No Partial Partial
Chicago
Public X X X
Schools
Detroit
Public X X X
Schools Adm Staff
Milwaukee
Public X
Schools
New York
Public - X X X X
Schools Screen Individ.
adm. board can
recomm.
non-

certified

 

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA FROM SELECTED INDUSTRIES

In this chapter, a close examination will be made of the
decentralized programs of the Ford Motor Company, Sears, Roebuck and
Company, and the Union Carbide Corporation. In each instance, company
officials were interviewed, organizational charts studied, and questions
asked to ascertain the extent of the decentralization. At the con-
clusion of the chapter, a comparison will be drawn pertaining to the
three companies studied.

The Ford Motor Company

 

On April 2l, I969, the writer met with D. B. Emmert, Director
of Organization and Management Personnel, in the Planning Office of the
Ford Motor Company at the American Road, Dearborn, Michigan. Mr.
Emmert has worked with the Ford Company for the past nineteen years.
Prior to this, he was in government work with the S.E.C. In Opening
conversation in the interview, Mr. Emmert replied that he was with
Ford for several years before he felt that he was making a direct
contribution. His reason given for this statement was the number Of
channels that must be checked through in contrast to the doors that
were immediately open to him in government work.

It should be initially pointed out that the Ford Company was

68

69

founded by Henry Ford, Sr. and was probably the best example of a
completely centralized organization in the United States. Of course,
Mr. Ford, Sr. did not realize the extent to which this company would
be expanding through the years, but even in his later years, he kept a
close account of all employees at the Ford Motor Company plant in the
Detroit area. He believed in a centralized form of operation, felt
this was the most expeditious, the most economical, and certainly the
most efficient. Edsel Ford, Henry Ford, Sr.'s son, guided the destiny
of the Ford Company for but a short time before his father's death.
The Ford Company then found that there were certain problems
that needed to be solved. The company had unprecedented growth. The
logical man to take over the company upon the death of Edsel Ford was
Henry Ford II, Henry Ford, Sr.'s grandson. At this point, young Mr.
Ford was in his thirties. He was an intelligent young man, and one of
the first decisions that he made was to seek a competent president of
the company who had the experience Of operating in the automotive or
allied field. Young Mr. Ford concluded that he would some day be
president of the company, but felt that he was too young to assume the
presidency at this time. Ernest Breech, president of the Eclipse
Pioneer Division of the Bendix Aviation Corporation in Teterborough,
New Jersey, was contacted. Bendix Aviation was a division of the
General Motors Company, and General Motors was a close competitor of
Ford. He was an intelligent man in his early fifties, and Mr. Ford

knew that Ernest Breech had many years of productivity ahead Of him.

70

Mr. Breech was hired as president of the Ford Motor Company. This was
the beginning of the move to decentralize Ford. Breech had experience
in a modified decentralized operation; that of General Motors. It was
Obvious to him that the Ford Motor Company was now too large to manage
from a central office. A logical division for the company was the
Lincoln-Mercury, Continental, Ford, and Philco divisions.

Mr. Breech, in discussing the matter with young Mr. Ford,
pointed out that in his judgment, a company should decentralize as soon
as this company finds it unwieldy to manage itself centrally. “The
company gets SO large“, he says, ”that management does not know what is
going on in the various divisions. At this point we must submit to the
training of local management and division teams, and we must give them
varying amounts of latitude.“ He cautioned the Ford management that
decentralization will never work unless it is a gradual process. A
company that gives away the store without building in limitations and
responsibilities to the main office will find itself in serious
difficulty, and in the words of Mr. Breech, will subsequently fail.

It was here that Mr. Emmert Offered the example of the General Electric
Company, a company that should lend itself very well to decentralization
as it produces a great number of unrelated products. At the time Of

the price-fixing scandal, it was apparent to all industrialists that

the central administration of General Electric did not know Of the
activities of its decentralized units.

Ernest Breech has now retired as the president of the Ford Motor

7I

Company and Henry Ford II has taken over as its fourth company president.
According to Mr. Ford II, the Ford Company now is decentralized in
practically all areas other than fiscal responsibilities. Monies are
accounted for centrally. In addition to this, there is a select group
of personnel, the top management, about 300 in number, that must be
approved by Henry Ford II prior to hiring for any change in position.
Initial employment and salary adjustments are handled through the
central office for these 300. While each of the 300 has definite
responsibilities and acts almost totally autonOmously in his own area,
the company feels that the decentralized program has central training
and direction due to the stamp of approval given by Henry Ford II upon
initial employment of the ”select” three hundred.

The company also has an authority manual which is carefully
worked out and gives in detail how far each plant manager, director Of
subsidiary, division manager, and others may proceed. Even though the
division manager of the Ford Company is considered to be autonomous as
he handles his division, Mr. Emmert cautioned that at any time the
central office could move into a specific plant and make changes. As
an example, in the area of personnel, should the central office feel
that a person is not competent to continue in his position, he could be
removed by directive. Operating in this way would be most infrequent,
and even when done would be with the understanding of the plant or
division manager. The central Office is concerned more with the

training of the top management, but also concerns itself with the

72

movements of these persons from plant to plant.

The Ford Motor Company operates under one central board of
directors who are elected yearly from the stockholders. This is a
board Of eighteen members. At one time, the Ford board of directors
was elected totally from within the company. Today it is mostly made
up of those outside the personnel of the Ford Motor Company. It is
interesting tO note that this board is not generally a policy—making
board as would be thought of in school districts. The board has
direct control over capital expenditures in excess of five million
dollars. It also determines the Operational investment of certain
funds. The laws of the state make it necessary for certain subsidiaries
of Ford to also have a board of directors. As an example, Ford of
England, Ford of Canada, and Employer Insurance Company, all have
separate boards. In all such instances, the local board is required by
law and is subordinate to the general company board of directors. Many
times, Mr. Ford points out, it is difficult to write the legal language
and set up the subsidiary boards. The company does not wish to give
the impression that the subsidiary board is merely a rubber stamp, and
yet it appears that the only reason for having such boards is to meet
the legal requirement. In reviewing the duties Of the subsidiary
board, it appears that in each instance they can only make recommen-
dations to the central board and cannot proceed until these recommen-
dations are approved.

Officials of the Ford Motor Company are quick to point out that

73

each time decentralization takes place, expenses increase; a duplication
Of administrative personnel would be the prime cause for this increase.
This increase, therefore, must be offset either by:

l. Greater efficiency in operation, resulting in higher

profits, or

2. A smoother operation of the ”peOple business”.

Ford officials conclude that the prime reason for decentral-
ization of this company came as they concluded that the Operation was
much too large to be managed from Dearborn, and they attempted to
imitate, in part, their chief competitor, the General Motors
Corporation.

Upon completing the interview with Mr. Emmert, the writer was
‘referred to three divisions; the Ford Division, the Mercury Division,
and Lincoln Division. Interviews were held with executives in each of
these areas. The questions asked of each division manager or his
delegate were:

I. How effective do you find the decentralized operation to

be? In other words, how much latitude are you given in
the operation of your particular division?
2. Would you see the company going to further decentralization
in the future? I
The response to these questions was to the point and quickly given. In
the first place, each pointed out that he was well aware that the Ford

Motor Company was a decentralized company. Considerable latitude was

74

given in many areas. The hiring of subsidiary help was completely
within their hands, and two of the division managers claimed that

they had never had any such hiring countermanded from the central
authority. Each company makes up its own budget which is submitted

to the central administration. Other than particular Operating costs,
the general budget is approved by the central administration, without
going to the central board. They request capital expenditures, and

if such expenditures are less than five million dollars each year,

they may be approved from the central Office of Henry Ford II. These
division managers were a part of the select 300 and were trained well
in the company policy and the general direction that Ford is taking.
Each one made it clear that the aim Of business is to show profit. NO
matter how complete the decentralization might be, the division manager
claimed, once there becomes difficulty in the profit and loss column,
decentralization is quickly set aside. You are given the latitude and
that latitude gives you the right to produce. If you do not produce,
you lose the latitude. As the Ford Division manager stated, decentral-
ization was slow in taking hold in the Ford Motor Company. It was
carefully thought through, and those in management are in agreement
that it is effective. For something slow in being initiated, there is
no doubt but that it can be quickly withdrawn. This has happened in
two instances over the past 25 years. The Philco Company management
was completely overridden upon three different occasions by the central

Office. In one instance, a company Official was given a temporary job

75

Of division manager until the Operation could be straightened out to
run in the manner that the Ford Motor Company dictated.

The secret to a wise program of decentralization comes in the
clear-cut objective of the central Office of exactly what it wants
done. If the guidelines are not clear, decentralization can waiver,
the staff can become upset, and generally speaking, this mode of
Operation will not work. With clear guidelines, though, this makes for
a much smoother Operation and one in which the manager and many Of his
subordinates feel that they have a personal interest in the company
and its direction.

There is a real advantage to the central office and its control.
The umbrella of the Ford Motor Company that covers each of its
divisions gives a sense Of security, of sound financial backing. No one
would prefer to override the wise control of the experienced hand at the
top.

Sears, Roebuck and Company

 

If one wished to study decentralization in the United States,
the Sears, Roebuck and Company would probably be the outstanding
example of a company that has prospered under this plan. For some
forty—three years, the Sears Company has been decentralizing, re-
organizing, and reevaluating the direction which it is taking.
General Robert E. Wood joined the Sears Company on November I, I924,
as vice-president. Prior to this time, he had been employed by the

Montgomery Ward Company. In his dealing with Montgomery Ward, he had

76

constantly made mention of the fact that he wished the company would
work toward decentralization. It was his feeling that Montgomery Ward
could not succeed in future years if it were to continue with nothing
but central power. The Montgomery Ward Board Of Directors could not
understand the thinking of General Wood, and it was in November of I924
that they parted company and he sold his ideas to Sears, Roebuck.

During the year that he joined the company, sales were two hundred
million dollars. The profit after taxes was fourteen million and the
shareholders' equity was one hundred million. Forty-three years later,
as General Wood retired as chairman of the board, the Sears sales
represented $7,330,000,000. The net profit after taxes of $384,000,000;
a shareholders equity of $2,94I,OO0,000; and a profit-sharing fund
valued at $2,349,000,000. General Wood was considered an imaginative
leader of the Sears, Roebuck Company, and his board Of directors had
named him honorary chairman of the board. This action was taken in I968.

In the long run, his most telling contributions may be the

principles of management that he has always espoused:

I. That an organization which is structured to place
reliance on men, rather than systems, will create a
structure and the leadership that will continue to make
the most Of every opportunity.

2. That the decentralization of decision—making is essential
(to the success of large organizations.

3. That employees who share the profits of a business have

77

incentive that will make that enterprise prosper.
4. That Sears merchandise must be based on volume buying
and mass distribution to bring the best values to the
consumer.1

During his career, General Wood brought to bear a warm under-
standing and appreciation of people.

Sears and Roebuck officials are willing to admit that the
results of their company through the years reflect the continuing
teamwork and dedication Of an entire organization, but they attest
that to a large measure the leadership and vision that General Wood
provided them, the directions that he established, and the Skill of
the men he trained to perform in a tradition of aggressive growth had
a great deal to do with the type of company that Sears, Roebuck
Company is today. This tribute to a single man in an organization
that operates many decentralized programs strengthens the words of
Henry Ford II who mentions that a decentralized program is as
effective as are the guidelines that hold it together. These guide—
lines, Mr. Ford says, and certainly General Wood would agree, must be
clear cut, well defined, and simple enough to be understood by all.

The interviews with the Sears, Roebuck and Company were handled

in reverse of those with Ford Motor Company. In this instance, local

stores were contacted. Questions were asked of individual employees

 

1Sears, Roebuck and Company, Annual Report, I967.

78

and Mr. C. S. Wolfe, manager of the Toledo, Ohio store, was contacted
for personal interview. Mr. Wolfe has been with the Sears, Roebuck
and Company for thirty years. He is a youthful—looking man and most
enthusiastic as he explains the Sears, Roebuck policy. The Sears,
Roebuck Company operates with five divisions in the United States.
Each division has a vice-president. The divisions of the company in
which vice-presidents are in charge are the Pacific Coast Region,
Southwestern, Midwestern, Southern, and Eastern. The central Offices
of the company are located in Chicago, Illinois, together with the
offices of the Midwestern Division. Mr. Wolfe is a group manager and
has headed Toledo stores, along with the stores in East Toledo and
Monroe, Michigan. Each store has a general manager and departmental
managers. The department manager has considerable latitude in
operating his store. The Toledo manager reports directly to the vice-
president in charge Of his division. He has little contact with the
central Office in Chicago. Sears and Roebuck operates a profit?
sharing plan, and each employee tends to feel that he is close to the
grassroot Operation, and looks upon his store manager as one having
considerable knowledge and influence in total operation of the company.
The Toledo store is known as an A—type store. This means that
several smaller stores could be grouped under the A manager. Each of
their managers, in turn, would then report to the Toledo manager, and
the Toledo manager to the vice-president. A B-type store would be a

Sears store in a town of five to ten thousand population. Several B

79

stores would be grouped under a zone manager. The zone manager then
would report directly to the vice-president. A C—type store would
_Operate under one Of the A stores. It would be a smaller store and
would not carry the complete Sears, Roebuck line.

Since the catalog of Sears, Roebuck is nationally recognized
and is published out of the Chicago Office giving specific prices, etc.
one would assume that it would be a bit difficult to decentralize.
Mr. Wolfe explained that the Sears, Roebuck Company individual store
is not bound by the prices listed in the catalog. I'Our store can set
its own price”, he said, ”we do not have to use catalog prices if we
do not wish to.“ The decentralized Operation has specific guidelines.
On the corner Of his desk laid a four—inch thick book. “In this book”,
he said, l'all policies of the Sears, Roebuck Company are contained. It's
all vital, and we must study it well and live within the confines Of
these directions”. According to Mr. Wolfe, the policy manual, while
giving general principles, does not hold the company manager to a
specific way to run his store. The Sears, Roebuck and Company is in
business to make a profit. Over the past forty years this profit has
doubled and redoubled many times. The Toledo store may determine that
the need of the public is for a specific item. The manager may then
requisition any number of these items through the central procurement
Office in Chicago and the company is autonomous even in its local store
on a formula for profit-sharing. Should the Toledo store prove that

it can do a much better job in selling particular products, it will

80

have a larger share than its neighbor in perhaps Detroit, or Sylvania,
Ohio.

Promotion in the Sears, Roebuck and Company comes from within.
At one time, in the early days, it was determined that the Sears,
Roebuck and Company would hire managers from other stores. Some 300
managers were hired from businesses with similar background of the
Sears, Roebuck and Company. Sears experienced the most chaotic year
it_had ever had. General Wood then issued a directive that all
employees in executive roles of the Sears, Roebuck Company would be
promoted from within the organization. Mr. Wolfe claimed that this
promotion from within acts as a real incentive to many. He conceded,
however, that because of the select number of management positions, and
- because executives are far outnumbered by the regular employees, many
employees become discouraged and think there is no road to the top.
This would possibly be even more true in a centralized organization
where the employee felt no personal relationship to his department
head or store manager. Each store has its own personnel department.
It is not uncommon for a store manager to reassign someone from the
personnel department to Operate temporarily as a department head or
even a floor salesman. In this way the personnel manager understands
the type of person that is needed to work in the store and some of
the responsibilities of the department head.

The capital expenditures are recommended by the manager and the

vice~president. The vice-president may approve a capital expenditure

8T

within the framework Of total capital funds that have been allocated
to that division for a particular year. Capital expenditures for
expansion Of the store, or perhaps for the addition of a new store in
an area, are recommended from the area itself. The store manager
studies his own Operation to see if more room is needed. He is also
charged with the responsibility Of knowing the general area in which
his store is located. As an example, were a subsidiary store to be
built in the Toledo area, it would probably operate under the manager
of the Toledo Sears, Roebuck. Mr. Wolfe, as manager of this store,
would have the responsibility of interviewing and hiring the new
manager to operate in the subsidiary store. In inquiring as to
whether such hiring was completely autonomous, the answer was that it
would be considered such for a department head or any clerical position.
Usually the new store manager is subject to the approval of the vice-
president of the division. It is decentralized, however, to the point
that the Chicago Office, while informed Of the hiring, has nothing to
do with the actual decision that is made. The Toledo manager feels
that morale, and the company policy that provides for allowing the
clerk in the shoe department to feel a part Of the family, has a
great deal to do with the success Of the Sears, Roebuck and Company.
He mentioned that ten percent of all retail sales in the United States
is done by the Sears, Roebuck and Company.

The interviews with Mr. Wolfe and various personnel of the Sears

store were completed on December 23, I968. On December 30, I968, the

82

writer met with Mr. R. E. Varmeir. Mr. Varmeir is vice-president Of
the Sears, Roebuck Company central office in Chicago, in charge Of
personnel planning and records. His office is in Room 500 of the main
administration building. Mr. Varmeir also came up through the ranks
of the Sears, Roebuck Company and is now in his 32nd year with the
organization. He is crisp in his speech, very much to the point, but
seemed friendly and cordial and happy to discuss the virtues of the
company as he sees them.

One need talk with Mr. Varmeir only a short time until a
different view of the total picture of decentralization starts to
unfold. In the first place, Mr. Varmeir uses the words delegate and

decentralization synonymously. To decentralize is simply to delegate

with authority and responsibility wisely. ”Never let anyone be fooled,
however”, he says. “There are many parts Of the Sears, Roebuck
Company that are still centralized in Operation.” He claims that all

large businesses must be decentralized. They have to be. You cannot
run a large business from the main office.

In Mr. Varmeir's judgment, the Sears, Roebuck Company was not
decentralized under General Wood until the central management insisted
that each Of the five vice-presidents move into the territory that he
controlled.

Mr. Varmeir also stressed the human variable saying that the
individual really determined the degree of decentralization. NO matter

what the policy of the store might be, and how autonomous one could

83

make a store manager or department head, if the vice-president in
charge Of the territory did not wish the operation to be so decentral-
ized, he will constantly call for things being checked through his
office. Also, if the store manager is told that he may delegate a
certain amount of authority to a department head, but in his personal
judgment he does not wish to do this, or he feels that the department
head could not make wise judgments, he will insist that the deciSions
be reviewed by him before being handed down to the store clerk. The
Sears, Roebuck Company has carefully written directions. For the most
part these directions are followed, but there are notable examples
where the decentralization falls apart due to the person who is
employed to implement the program. Even in the case of the five vice-
presidents who are carefully screened, there will be differences as to
how they handle their territory. At one time there was a vice-
president in charge of the Pacific Region who would not make a move
without clearing through the central office. In spite Of this, this
particular individual allowed his store managers to Operate quite
independently.

The Sears Company is very centralized, according to Mr. Varmeir,
in the areas of finance, capital expenditure, printing, and purchasing.
He did not agree with Mr. Wolfe's contention that capital expenditures
can go only as far as the vice—president. ”Every capital expenditure
of any size,” he said, “clears through the central Office in Chicago.

Perhaps it is wise that the store manager feels things are as

84

decentralized as they are, but Chicago has a tighter rein than the
store manager believes.“

Mr. Varmeir conceded that there is much more of a chance for
decentralization to work where the personnel are concerned. The
product itself is controlled. While it is true that the Toledo store
may make some definite decisons relative to its need for the sale of
pencils, it can decide how many pencils it wishes; whether it wishes
to sell pencils at all; or whether it wishes to double its pencil
sales. The Toledo store could also complain about the quality Of
pencils. In all instances, however, once the decision is made, the
pencil delivered is decided upon at a central location, meaning that
only one pencil is available to all Sears, Roebuck stores throughout
the world.

Mr. Varmeir was asked whether or not any work was done through
the Sears, Roebuck Company and its personnel offices to determine by
test, or other means, if the morale of the employees was high, and if
so, what caused the morale factor to change. He commented that he did
not know of any personnel department through the stores that carried
on such tests. Further than this, he was not too certain that such a
test would do the company any good. The main motive of the Sears
Company is profit. This, he said, would not be true in education.
Sears, Roebuck Company has something definitely measurable to sell.
He contrasted this to industry. The Ford Motor Company, as an example,

cannot always explain what a specific part of the car has to do with

85

the sale of the total car. In Sears, Roebuck, the products are separate
and individual. If they do not sell, the product is exchanged for
something that will. In I939, Sears tested attitudes of sales employees.
The company does believe that certain kinds of attitudes are good in
sales people on the floor. It is certainly to their advantage to have
good communications, but such communications are not necessary for the
store to make a profit. As an example Of this, Mr. Varmeir said one
Sears store near a new army base has particularly low morale in its
staff, but shows the most profit of any store in the area. He did not
discount the fact that the attitude of employees is an important
attitude, but claimed their testing through the years had proved this
to be one of many factors and many times not the most important. Each
store manager and division manager is given refresher courses at which
time the philosophy of General Wood is reemphasized. General Wood saw
decentralization as necessary to good public relations. The adminis—
tration Of the Sears, Roebuck Company today certainly has never lost
sight Of this directive from its former president. Sears officials
now conclude, however, that even were morale and personnel attitude to
move to an all time low, they could not think of centralizing their
operation. The program is far too vast for any one man or group of

men to control. Sears, Roebuck must remain decentralized just to exist.

86

The Union Carbide Corporation

 

In studying the decentralization of the Ford Motor Company and
Sears, Roebuck and Company, both were excellent examples of an orderly
process of decentralization evolving through the years. In the case
of Sears, Roebuck, the mark of General Wood is still much upon the
company and one feels that policies that have been set by General Wood
are sacred to the successful operation of Sears, Roebuck. Officials
of both these companies explained that decentralization is the only
practical way to make the company Operate. In each instance, the
possibility of returning to a centralized Operation was ruled out.

The Officials Of the Union Carbide Corporation, however, present the
most clear-cut picture of the workings of the decentralized-centralized
operation. Exhibit Number 4 on page I6I shows one of the most recent
organizational charts of Union Carbide. Of the fourteen vice—
presidents listed, six on the left hand side of the chart are the ones
in direct charge of the decentralization operation. All other vice-
presidents are responsible to the central Office of the president and
the board of directors.

In April Of I969, Mr. Kenneth Rush, president Of the Union
Carbide Corporation, was contacted. An appointment was made with Mr.
John Shanklin, executive vice-president and secretary Of the company.
Mr. Rush also Offered to spend some time with the writer. On April
25, I969, Mr. Shanklin presented the case of the Union Carbide

Corporation's plan for decentralization as follows: The Union Carbide

 

87

Company has been decentralized for many years. It remains central in
its financing and procurement as well as some phases Of its personnel.
The company spends over one billion dollars per year on procurement.
There is also a centralized committee that reviews all capital
expenditures in excess of $250,000 annually. A committee controlling
such expenditures meets weekly in the central Offices in New York City.

There are three major divisions of the company and three
additional foreign power divisions. Each of these divisions is headed
by a company vice—president who is responsible for the total division.
Under the vice-presidents are the various company presidents with an
almost completely autonomous organization. Each president has a
decentralized company from the parent company and some are even
decentralized within the local president's company. The parent
organization would have no objection to a local president determining
that he wishes, as an example, four vice-presidents under him to
operate four decentralized programs within that division of the
company.

There is a central board of directors of twelve members who
are elected from the stockholders each year. In addition, there are
boards Of local companies. This would be true as with the Ford Motor
Company, whenever the peculiarities of the law would so require. It
is particularly true in any company that Operates Outside Of the
continent of the United States. The local boards are a bit more

autonomous, however, than with the Ford Company, and although it is

88

true that the Union Carbide central board could overrule them, this
would seldom be done.

The products of the Union Carbide Company are varied. There
are well over I400 products that are completely different in type.
Group presidents control such things as chemicals and plastics, carbon
electronics, gases and metals, consumer and related products,
pharmaceutical supplies, fibers and fabrics, and many others. Some-
times even a like product is much diversified. This would be true in
the case of batteries, where twenty-seven different batteries are
developed by the company.

In developing a philosophy of decentralization, Mr. Shanklin
and President Rush both stressed that the efficient use of manpower is
the most important aim of any company. The Union Carbide Corporation
is able to get much more from the manpower if they do not go through
endless channels in a bureaucratic system. Mr. Shanklin defines
bureaucracy as the process that inhibits change through its very
structure and complexity. The companies that are too centralized or
too decentralized are overreacting to a far left or right swing of the
pendulum. The General Electric Company held very close reins on the
company until a new president was elected and he determined to loosen
the reins. Within a short time, each division was looking for short
term loans, and the parent company found itself millions of dollars
overexpended.

Union Carbide Officials suggest that the key to effective

89

decentralization is to be certain that change is gradual and orderly.
Also, it is not necessary that each division be equally decentralized
or even that the decentralized program be constant. The Union Carbide
Corporation completely decentralized a portion Of its activities in
Canada. It found the president of the Canadian branch did not handle
the decentralized program to the liking of the parent company.
Profits were not stable and the Operation was not effective. The
parent company had but two alternatives; one, to remove the president
and continue the decentralization under a new president; or second,
to analyze the weakness and work with present personnel. Company
officials determined to go the route Of an analysis of the weakness
of the decentralized plans under the current president. The parent
company then assisted the local president by centralizing the portion
Of his Operation that was causing the company to be ineffective. This
support to the local president could be for a short time or it might
be indefinitely. It is perfectly possible that no other company of
Union Carbide would be subject to this form Of central organization
”required“ help.

Union Carbide Officials are in agreement that the principle
of decentralization is sound but there is nothing sacred about it. A
division of Union Carbide directly related to the central office is
constantly studying and revising organizational charts. Even the most
recent chart included with the study in Exhibit 4 was outdated when it

was given to the writer, even though it had been prepared within the

90

past six month. Personnel changes are a part of the outdating, but
more than this, new personnel, new company presidents, will many times
dictate the extent and areas that the decentralized program will work.

The Union Carbide Corporation Officials insist that all
management-employee programs must be a two—way street. The most
elaborate program for decentralization on paper will not work if
management refuses to Operate within the framework of the plan.

Central administration Of the Union Carbide Company is located
on the fifty second floor of the Offices in New York City Uptown
Plaza. All lower floors of this building house one division Of the
company. The afternoon and next morning were spent in interviewing
employees who were responsible to the eastern division president.
For the most part, Union Carbide employees are graduate engineers with
master's and doctor's degrees. Secretarial help is carefully selected,
and the pay scale for such employees demands the top pay in the field.
Division employees understand that they are a part of a parent company,
but their latitude within their own division is almost unlimited. They
look to the parent company more as an adviser than as a boss. They
need the expertise and the experience of the president and the various
vice-presidents of the parent company. The vice—president Of their
division becomes a link between their own company and the central
office. Their “boss” is the president of their company. While Union
Carbide does not have a profit-sharing plan similar to that of Sears,

Roebuck and Company, employees understand that the profits of their

9I

division reflect directly to salaries, fringe benefits, and their
general welfare. Lines of communication between employees, immediate
supervisors and even company presidents appear to be open. While they
are encouraged to proceed through channels. they also are not condemned
for speaking directly with company officials. This is particularly
true if employees have ideas pertaining to overall company policy. or
perhaps a suggestion for the improvement of the division of the Union-
Carbide Corporation.

The Union Carbide Corporation does an excellent job in giving
local units autonomy and responsibility As it gives these to the
employee, it defines the role of the central office as one Of service.
Here the fine line is drawn that such service could quickly turn to
centralized control if the local responsibility and autonomy are
misused. The company has committed itself to a general phiIOSOphy Of
decentralization. This means that any time a particular division must
return to centralization in order that the company division operate
effectively, employees understand that this is only ”temporary”.

Summary

Table 6 shows that in the case of the three companies studied,

each decentralized due to the size of the business, but only one was

aware that this would improve the employer-employee relation.

92

 

 

 

 

TABLE 6
Decentralization due
to
Size of Number Of Employer-Employee relations
Business Products improved '
Ford Motor
Company X Yes (by—product)
Sears, Roebuck
and Company X Yes
Union Carbide
Corporation X X Yes (bynproduct)

 

Note: In each instance, company administrators feel that employer-
employee relationship has improved. Sears, Roebuck and Company was
the single company that initiated decentralization with this end in
mind.

'It is significant, however, that all of the companies agree that the
decentralized plan works to their advantage in labor relations.

As big business considers profit its number one Objective, a
direct question was asked as to the relationship of productivity and
cost of Operation. Table 7 answers this question.

Here, again, it is significant that even with increased costs
as reported by the Ford Motor Company and Union Carbide, the

centralized mode of Operation is not considered as a possibility in

any future reorganization.

93

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7
Principle reason Relationship of decentralization
for to productivity and cost of
decentralization operation

Ford Motor The size of the l. Cost of decentralization much
Company company made higher than centralized

central adminis- organization. .
tration unwieldy 2. Higher morale leads to higher
and cumbersome. productivity. ‘

Sears, Same Definitely causes individual
Roebuck Sears stores to sell and move
and more goods; attitude of clerks,
Company local decisions for type of

goods.

Union Same Decentralization is a costly
Carbide operation. No alternative when
Corporation company produces I400 different

products.

 

It certainly could be concluded by studying the three companies
.referred to in this survey, that for the Ford Motor Company, Sears,
Roebuck and Company, and Union Carbide Corporation, decentralization

is a true and tested part of their operation. The company approach to
this way of doing business is logical, orderly and with a fair share of
time given for implementation. It must be remembered that in each
instance the company started with a handful of employees not too many
years ago. If there is one thing that we can be certain of in America,
it is that, industrially, we hold a place equal to none in the world.
We would be well advised to study industry to determine the methods

used that work towards efficiency, good judgment, and balance Of

94

Operations. Industrialists are quite different from the educator.
While educators can measure the learning potential and, in part, what
is actually learned of the youngster, they are too many times faced
with a delayed reactor, and it takes many years to measure the good
of the product.

American industry builds, it builds quickly, and it builds
well. Mistakes cannot be tolerated over long periods Of time or the
industry will fail. While bureaucracy can continue in the lives Of
government officials, schools, and universities, it can continue in
industry only if industry finds that it profits by this mode of
Operation.

In each instance, the industry studied voluntarily moved to a
decentralized form of Operation. There was no pressure group from the
outside saying that this must be done. Had General Motors been
included in the list studied, one might have concluded that pressure
groups from the strikes of the 30's were instrumental in initial
decentralization. This was not true with Ford, Sears, Roebuck, or
Union Carbide. In each instance, the company made a simple judgment.
We cannot continue to control a business where management is removed
from the employee.

In each instance, industry has held onto central reins in
specific segments of the business. It is possible that the profits
system has dictated it thus.

In Chapter V, an analysis of the same type of data analyzed

95

in Chapter IV will be made and selected decentralized schools will

tell their stories.

CHAPTER V
PRESENTATION OF DATA FROM SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS

For this study on decentralization, the public school systems
of the Cities of Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee and New York were used.
Each one of these systems would be considered a large city school
system in the United States. It would be the type of system that would
conceivably decentralize for much the same reasons as industry; its I
size would almost dictate thus. In the tables that will be presented
(later in the chapter, it will be noted that the reasons for decentral-
ization in the case of public schools are quite different from those
which dictated industry to decentralize.

The word decentralization, while to industry indicating an
orderly process, has certain overtones in relation to public schools
that would cause some educators and many school oriented laymen to be
somewhat wary of the term. Also, it must be recognized that decentral—
ization Of school systems, for the most part, has been taking place
only over the past three or four years. The decentralization has been
dramatic, and in some instances almost traumatic, as in the case of
New York City.

In this chapter, an attempt will be made to analyze each school's

system, particularly establishing the steps that were taken toward

96

97

decentralization, the reason behind this move, and an examination of

the results that are available.

Chicago Public Schools

 

Were one to take a look at educational programs in the great
cities throughout the United States and particularly focus the
attention on decentralization, it is not impossible the City Of
Chicago and its public school system would go completely unnoticed.

In looking at decentralization today, we are finding in the news media
many more dramatic moves toward decentralization than would be found
in the Chicago schools.

A prejudice of the writer must be pointed out with the Chicago
Public Schools. The industries and school systems made a part of this
study have been analyzed over the past twelve- to fourteen—month
period. In the case of the Chicago schools, however, the writer has
been making a study that started back in the early 50's. The Chicago
Public School system is possibly the best example in the nation today
Of an educational program that is truly decentralized, and that has
been thought out over a number of years, and that operates much without
public comment due to the orderly progression that brought about the
changes toward decentralization.

To understand the Chicago Public Schools, it is necessary to
go back quite a few years in the history of the school system. It also
is necessary to examine the schools, not as a decentralized unit, but

as a large centralized school system with many Of the problems that

98

come with this size school district. Under the direction of Dr.

Herold Hunt in the early years of his superintendency, the Chicago
Public Schools Operated as a centralized school system, equal to none
in the United States. It attempted to administer the lives of its
sixteen to seventeen thousand teachers and administrators from a
central office. It was not possible for Dr. Hunt to aSsume all of this
responsibility. Consequently, many assistant superintendents were
appointed. For the most part, these superintendents concerned them-
selves with specific divisions of the school system. _There was an
assistant superintendent in charge of plant operation, one in charge

of instruction, one in charge of the financial program, and another in
charge of personnel. In all, ten assistant superintendents to Dr. Hunt
assumed the responsibility of attempting to run specific phases of the
program as it was administered to the thousands of teachers and

hundred of thousands of youngsters. In addition to this, the phiIOSOphy
of Dr. Hunt and the Chicago Board of Education at that time was one of
considerable student freedom of choice. It was possible for secondary
school students from the tenth through the twelfth grade, and even some
eighth and ninth grade students, to make selections early. They could
not only select the type of course work that they wished to follow,

but also it was possible to select the school they wished to attend.
During the 40's, there was not the racial and minority group tension

in the United States, but there still was a definite feeling of a need

for segregation in our large cities. School boundaries were necessarily

99

changed as population shifted from one section of the city to another
and thus minority grodps were found taking part in areas that were,
generally speaking, totally set up for the majority. As the minority
group moved in, parents became alarmed, and under the system of free
choice, were directing their children to other schools. A program
that Dr. Hunt had envisioned as allowing students to have the choice
of their schools, their teachers, their subjects, particular
curriculum, as well as the geographical area, moved steadily forward.
It gradually became almost a monster on the shoulders of the Chicago
Board of Education. Schools that were partially segregated now became
completely segregated. Large high schools on the north side of
Chicago found themselves overcrowded with completely white population.
'Teachers went on double shifts. Students were coming in as early as
7:30 a.m. and going until 5:00 p.m. All of this was taking place
while some south side high schools had extra rooms with no one in
attendance. Schools in the southern sections of the city were able
to open peaceably at 8:30 in the morning and close at 3:I5 in the
afternoon. Many rooms stood empty. Parents, nOt realizing exactly
what was happening, were demanding of the Board of Education that new
buildings be constructed. They concluded with double and triple”
shifts going on in the high schools and some junior high schools.
The city was groWing at such a rate that it could not contain its
student body. The Chicago Board of Education and the superintendent

knew what was happening, but did not know the immediate answer. It

IOO

was easy to give permission to attend any school that one wished; it
was somewhat difficult to take this permission away. Other factors
were becoming clear to the Board also. The system was much too large
to administer from one superintendent's office. The assistant
superintendent of schools had charge of but one phase of the local
program. The principals found themselves in an almost autonomous
society, but being hemmed in on every side by assistant superintendents
who controlled at least a part of their day's activities. There were
no adequate guidelines to explain to the principal exactly how far he
could go in administering the program autonomously. Members of the
Board of Education recognized an emergency.

A wise group of eleven men and women, however, knew that to
press the panic button at this time would cause even further troubles.
They directed School Superintendent Hunt to think through an
administrative setup that was different from the present program.
While they did not like the idea of losing the power, and were no
different from many boards of education in this respect, they
recognized that such power was already lost for all intents and
purposes in many areas. It was therefore at the end of Dr. Hunt's
tenure of office as Chicago's school superintendent that the plan for
possible district superintendents was devised. To some degree, it
was implemented prior to his leaving Office. The real job, however,
of operating the new school system under a decentralized plan of

eighteen school districts, became the responsibility of Dr. Willis

IOI

as he assumed the general superintendency Of the Chicago schools in
the mid 50's. One must not conclude that the administration of Dr.
Herold Hunt was unsuccessful. He had arrived in Chicago as general
superintendent Of-a centralized school system at a time that this
school system had as one of its major problems the articulation of

its curriculum. There was an apparent inability of the administration
to communicate with the general public. Dr. Hunt did much to
alleviate these conditions. He was a strong educator, and in the
field Of curriculum, he initiated many changes in the school program.
Citizen groups were freely employed on a voluntary basis to work with
classroom teachers and school administrators. It could well be
concluded that it was Dr. Hunt who pointed the way to eventual
decentralization, as it was through his community groups that it
became most evident that the Chicago Schools were made up of many
communities within the large city community. Many times the

community groups, in talking with Dr. Hunt, expressed the thought that
Chicago should re-think decentralized programs of its administrative
structure. Parents frequently asked if it would not be possible to
have some local autonomy; to have some of the decisions that they make
bear direct fruit and be implemented and established as a policy of
the central board of education. Dr. Hunt gave much thought and study
to areas of mobility, to racial minority, to non-English speaking
students, and many others. Further, he recognized that to allow the

public to come in at the decision-making level, it was necessary to

I02

give them resource personnel for help. By I954, the Chicago School
System found itself with thirty-one bureaus, each one having to do
with a-different extension of the schools. All of these bureaus were
headed by competent personnel who could be looked upon as resource
personnel by citizens' groups. While these were initiated under Dr.
Hunt in the fields of curriculum, research, and extension of program,
they soon moved into the field of educational expenditures, equipment
Operation and control, health services, lunchrooms, maintenance and
repair of buildings, plant engineering, architectural services,
purchasing, and many others.

It was in l955-56, however, that the Board of Education faced
the word decentralization and looked the program squarely in the eye.
The eighteen district superintendents, a program only on paper at the
time but now being implemented by Superintendent Willis, was soon
expanded to nineteen such districts. Each district employed a district
superintendent of schools. In each instance, this district superin-
tendent had one thousand or more teachers under his direct supervision.
As Dr. Willis pointed out to the Board of Education, this meant that
each one of the nineteen district superintendents was Operating a school
system that was equal to or larger than the city of Denver, Colorado.
He pointed out to the Board that the district superintendent could
study his own area, make recommendations to the general superintendent,
and implement a program that could be quite different from other

programs in the city. In effect,.this meant that there were now

I03

nineteen smaller school districts Operating under the jurisdiction of
the general superintendent of schools, but each with as much latitude
to Operate the small district as the superintendent saw fit. The
district superintendent, as he grew in stature, affected directly the
fiscal budget of the Board of Education. These superintendents no
longer Operated from the central Office. They now had offices set up
on their own areas. This necessitated additional personnel, office
Space, furniture, and equipment. The plan had been carefully worked
out,.however, and the real advantages of the central board office were
not lost. Central purchasing allowed the schools to take advantage of
the best possible price under competitive bidding. The central
personnel office aided in setting up procedures in a single interpre—
tation Of policies, salary schedules, leaves of absence, etc. The
idea thus generated by Dr. Hunt and enhanced by Dr. Willis was
directly related to the financial and budget allocation of the public
school system. In an attempt to take full advantage of the broad
equalized base, centralized purchasing personnel were maintained in
the central office. The motto of Dr. Willis at this time was ”quality
and flexibility must be emphasized for a progressive school system."
Such a school system was in evidence in the City of Chicago at this
time.

The monster of free student choice was still upon the schools
as Dr. Willis took office. Thousands of families each year were

requesting permits in order that their children not attend schools with

I04

minority groups. Teachers were being paid overtime to teach extra
classes. Financially this “favor“ was costing some nine million
dollars per year. Under the new administration, the program was
discontinued. Students were required to attend schools in the district
in which they lived. District superintendents were asked to certify
the number of buildings needed to house the number of students living
within their area, and a real effort was made to solve the problem of
inequality. During the I959 school year, only nineteen transfer
permits were issued, and the request came from a total of 450,000
children enrolled. Had the previous system continued, it is conceivable
that it could have partially bankrupt the school system. Dr. Willis
was directed to make the change, not so much in the light of segregated
or non-segregated schools, but in the light of the pure dollar and
cents financial deficit that was being incurred by allowing the freedom
of choice in the school system. It is somewhat ironic to note that the
very problem that plagued Dr. Willis as general superintendent in his
later years, the establishment of the decentralized units and the
adherence to strict geographical boundaries, was the phase of his
administration that caused him to be commended coast to coast during
the early years of his school administration.

On January ll, I960, the Chicago Daily Tribune quoted R.

 

Sargeant Shriver, Jr., who was then president of the Chicago Board of
Education, as saying that the schools in Chicago would Open the second

semester of I959-6O school year short l5,000 classroom seats. Mr.

105

Shriver, in an attempt to outline for the Chicago public what was
happening to growth of the city schools, went on to say that 72,000
seats had already been added in the last five-year period and there
was still unprecedented shortage. Students in the city were increasing
some twelve to fourteen thousand each year. Five hundred additional
teachers were employed each September. The general budget was showing
a ten per cent increase per year. The $l00,000,000 Chicago School
budget in 1955 had been presented in T960 as a $294,000,000 budget.
Teachers in the United States were grossly underpaid and the Board of
Education in the City of Chicago had taken definite steps to correct _
the situation. Chicago had risen from thirteenth to first in a study
of sixteen big cities in the year l960. All of these problems,
according to the Board president in the year l960, were definitely
tied in with increased population, cities within cities, inner cities,
and a need to interpret schools to the public. Mr. Shriver contended
at this time that the most significant single move of the Chicago
Schools was to decentralize its program, placing the administration
under district superintendents, who, while they still had a large
school system to maintain, could be somewhat closer to the general
public than could the LaSalle Street office in downtown Chicago.

On May 22, T969, a second survey of the Chicago Schools was
made. Dr. James Redmond, general superintendent of the schools on
this date, set up appointments with the writer and administrative

assistants, headed by Dr. James D. Moffat, who is first assistant to

T06

general superintendent of schools. A continuity of the work of

Dr. Hunt, Dr. Willis, and now Dr. Redmond, was very evident. Chicago
boards of education have been consistent in their approach. There
has been no dramatic overhaul of the total organizational programs
since decentralization began in the mid 50's. Today, in place of the
nineteen original districts, there are 27 districts in the City of
Chicago. In May of T967, Superintendent Redmond recommended to the
Board of Education that the system further decentralize into three
areas. The purpose of this reorganization was to make it possible
for decisions to be made in the local area they affect. Subsequently,
the detailed plan was drawn up and the twenty—seven school districts
were divided into areas A, B, and C.

The major factors in determining the geographical area
boundaries were pupil membership and attendance, ethnic background,
professional staff, pupil performances, and facilities to create a
balanced workload and to take into consideration socio-economic
conditions. These plans were reviewed with a number of citywide, as
well as local community, groups to insure better understanding and
acceptance.

Each area has a similar organizational staff. Administrative
personnel work in the area and the schools they serve. Broad, long-
range planning with appropriate feedback to the central board and
administration is planned.

Certain innovated features or plans, such as magnet schools

T07

and metrOpolitan intercommunications, have been put into effect;
area associate superintendents and their staff began full scale
Operation with these new programs in September of T968.

IThe associate superintendent in charge of an area now
replaced the general superintendent relative to the hiring of staffs,
and he may submit a total area budget to the Board of Education.

Once this is approved, it is returned to the area superintendent who
can control expenditures, and decide changes, etc. within the frame-
‘work of the total money approved. 7

The central personnel office now has the sole function of
screening applicants and giving tests. Once this work is complete,
the personnel file is sent to the area superintendent. He may then
be selective in his hiring. Areas are pointing out that, in most
instances, they hire only home-grown applicants from Chicago.

When asked the reason for the further decentralization over
and above the eighteen and nineteen original districts, all adminis-
trators are in agreement that the Chicago School System, as it was
set up in T959 with its nineteen district superintendents, became
unmanageable, with too much bureaucracy, too much delay, and answers
not filtering either down or up fast enough to effect prOper changes.

The new area approach has also required additional buildings.
For the most part, old schools that have been abandoned as regular
school buildings have been used for administrative offices. There

is now an attempt being made to centralize services in each of the

l08

areas.

In the mid 50's when Dr° Willis took office, the Chicago
Board of EdUcation determined that it shou1d meet as a board in
individual school areas, in elementary schools throughout the city.
This plan was started during that year. In the year T969, the central
Board of Education still follows the policy of meeting in various
parts of the city. Usually these meetings are for specific purposes.
Sometimes a small committee for the central board will meet. Meetings
are informative, to answer questions of the local citizen on his own
home grounds. In addition to this, the Chicago Board of Education
holds three regular board meetings each month. The Chicago Board is
appointed by the mayor. Board members are appointed at large, and
in most instances they are retired from regular work, usually are well
to do and can give the proper time to the position. The Chicago
boards, according to administrators, have always had a sympathetic
understanding of the City of Chicago and its problems.

In order to.better understand the new area concept of
decentralization, the Exhibits 5a,.b, and c, pages T62, T63, and l64
should be studied. It will be noted on Exhibit 5c, page T64,
that the district superintendent now has an intermediate staff. Prior
to 1967, the district superintendent had a direct line to the deputy
and general superintendents of schools. This also graphically presents
the new offices that have been created under the area superintendent;

that of pupil personnel, area programs, curriculum services, community

T09

and human relations, administration and plant operations. It should
also be noted in studying these exhibits that no additional policy-
making boards at the neighborhood level have been formed. One board
decides the policy for the Chicago Public Schools and this is the
central Board of Education. In interviewing administrators, however,
it is quite evident that this Board has long since concluded that the
recommendations of the administrative officers and community groups
should be followed in establishing policies. In studying the map of
the City of Chicago, reference is made to Exhibit 6, page l65. On
this map the twenty-seven districts are outlined. Each district
operates under the jurisdiction of a district superintendent. These
specific area maps follow on Exhibits 7, 8, and 9, pages T66, T67,
and T68. Each area has over T60,000 students, area C having over
200,000. Approximately 7,000 to 7,500 teachers are employed in each
area, and all areas contain T30 to T80 elementary schools feeding
into nine to ten junior high schools and twelve to twenty-four senior
high schools. These are in addition to the special services of
hospitals, special education, etc.

As Chicago continues its orderly decentralization, a review
of the program in l969 shows it to be very little different than at
the beginning of Dr. Willis' administration in the mid 50's. The
magnet school would be considered one of Dr. Redmond's contributions
to the new Chicago Schools of today. The concept of this building is

embodied in the name itself. Special curriculum, staff, resources,

TTO

and facilities of the school would act as a magnet to draw children of
many differing racial, socio—economic, and cultural backgrounds to a
stimulated learning environment. This also could be done in a setting
of willing integration. The first magnet school is to be located on
the Marine Drive Campus. One of its outstanding attractions will be

a communications art center where high quality programs will be
developed in writing, art, music, theatre, photography, and television.
The focus of the magnet school is experimental at the present time.
Two other magnet schools have now been recommended for the inner city
schools. Each would be located in different parts of the city. It
is the present plan that magnet schools will still fall under the
jurisdiction of area superintendents.

As the section on the Chicago Schools is concluded, attention
is drawn to Tables 8 and 9 listed on the following pages. It is
significant that the Chicago Public Schools, as they formed their
program for decentralization fifteen years ago, developed it with a
totally new organizational chart. It was this chart that devised the
original eighteen districts and directed the general superintendent,
in effect, to decentralize the school system. In each of the cases
following, Detroit, Milwaukee, and New York, a decentralized program
was put into effect in but a part of the school system. Table 9
partially explains the reason for this difference. In the case of
both the Milwaukee and the New York Public Schools, the philosophy

that dictated the purpose of decentralization was more or less

TTT

superimposed upon the board of education. These boards consequently
”were not prepared to decentralize the entire Operation of the public

school system.

 

 

TABLE 8
Decentralized program New
superimposed on organizational
centralized chart

organizational chart

Chicago Public
Schools X

Detroit Public
Schools X

Milwaukee
Public Schools . X

New York
Public Schools X

 

TABLE 9

TT2

 

 

PhiTOSOphy of program
of decentralization
promoted from without
the system

Philosophy of program
of decentralization
promoted from within
the system

 

Board of education
directed
superintendent

Chicago Public
Schools

Detroit Public Administration and

Schools board in accord
program should be
initiated.

Milwaukee Partially

Public Schools racial

New York Principally

Public Schools initiated by groups
outside the board
and administration
(Mayor's office

played a major role)

 

Detroit Public Schools

 

The Detroit Public School System, while not as large as that
of the City Of Chicago, has inherent in it the problems of all large
city school systems today. One factor is that the trend of the
student enrollment in Detroit is not quite parallel to that of other
cities in the United States. We are hearing that the population is
decreasing in most of our large cities. In T943, school census of the
City of Detroit was 399,724. In T967, this had increased to 428,429.

Other than T945, T946, T947, and T967, all other years have shown

TT3

increases in student population. In T952 and T953, the increase was
in excess of l2,000 children. In T967, there was a decrease of 8,555
students, which was almost two per cent of the enrollment figured
from l966. Other than this, the City of Detroit population showed a
bit more stability than some cities of its size.

On April 22, l969, interviews were held with administrative
staff members of the Detroit Public School System. Dr. Charles Wolfe
and Dr. Al Skelley directed the interviews and further directed the
writer towards teachers and administrative personnel in decentralized
sections of the city. Dr. Wolfe is the executive deputy of the public
school system and Dr. Skelley has been given specifically the
assignment of establishing the guidelines in the field of decentral—
ization. Miss Julie McCarthy also works in the area of decentral-
ization and was available for the interviews. She is specifically
charged with the assignment of decentralization in the elementary
schools. Dr. Skelley also works as attorney for the Detroit Board of
Education.

As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Chicago Public
School System and its administration are well established in the total
pattern of decentralizing its schools. It does not feel at all
threatened by anyone talking to administrative personnel. A parallel
could easily be drawn between the interviews with the Chicago
administrators and similar interviews with business and industrial

leaders.

TT4

Detroit administrators parallel in their thinking much of the
action-that has been taken in Chicago over the past fifteen years.
Semantics becomes a bit cumbersome as one discussed decentralization
with specific administrators. According to Dr. Wolfe, decentralization
began in the Detroit Public Schools in T929. At this point, such
decentralization was confined to the elementary schools only.
Principals were then assigned a constellation of elementary schools
and several principals would be responsible to one supervising
principal. Dr. Wolfe defines this as decentralization. It was
somewhat difficult to ascertain just how autonomous was this super-
vising principal, although it was generally conceded that many
decisions could be made particularly in the area of curriculum, the
teaching of basic reading, arithmetic, and social studies, without
going through the central office, other than for a rubber stamp type
of approval. At this time, the supervising principal was responsible
to an assistant superintendent of schools.

Decentralization of elementary schools in Detroit as early as
T929 came about principally because of the number of schools; there
were too many children, teachers, and administrators to manage from
a central office where each principal was responsible to an
assistant superintendent.

It was in the early 30's that the junior and senior high
schools were added to the program of decentralization. By the mid 30's

there were eight regional superintendents appointed to handle specific

TT5

geographical areas of the city. In T962, this number was increased
to nine.

Under General Superintendent Dr. Samuel Brownell, the central
office was reorganized in the late 50's and at this point it was
patterned somewhat as the Chicago system. It had assistant superin-
tendents in areas of administration, personnel, and finance, with each
regional superintendent operating through the assistant superintendent
in the area of the assistant's assignment. (Note: Dr. Brownell and
Dr. Willis were close personal friends and it followed that Detroit
schools might pattern, at least in part, after schools in Chicago).

The regional superintendents maintained their Offices in the
region over which they had control. In the late 30's, 40's, and
early 50's, the regional superintendents and their principals had a
good deal of latitude in the selection and placement of personnel and
the type of curriculum that was offered. It was quite possible that
curricula in geographical boundaries of the city were markedly
different.

The Detroit Board of Education officials admit that up to the
present they have found no satisfactory way to decentralize the budget
or any of the financial structure. Personnel is actually less
decentralized today than it was fifteen years ago.

Dr. WOTfe mentioned that approximately ten years ago Officials
of the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company were sent into the Detroit

School System to study the personnel policies. A and P was trying to

TT6

determine if it could decentralize in the same way that the Detroit
schools had decentralized. He pointed out that the A and P Company,
even prior to this, was known as one of the more highly decentralized
companies in the United States. A local manager of A and P
established his own personnel practices. The only way to move up in
the organization is to start from a stock boy, and such positions are
usually filled by relatives or friends of good customers of the
company. The personnel department of A and P initiated the study at
the time that there was a Negro boycott throughout Detroit and the
NAACP charged unfair hiring practices. At the conclusion Of this study,
the A and P Company set up a series of standards in which they copied
fourteen of seventeen hiring practices of the Detroit Public Schools,
claiming that this was more truly decentralized than was their own
operation.

Today the decentralized programs in the City of Detroit that
show the most promise seem to be those aided by federal monies. The
Butzell Complex is a program of elementary schools surrounding the
Butzell Junior High School where a large portion of a six million
dollar Title I grant is being used. According to Dr. Wolfe, this
would be the most significant decentralized school program in the
city today. The project is written with one purpose; to compare the
achievement of students of this section of the city as they operate
their program with smaller classes and much para-professional help.

In response to questions, are the teachers happier or do they get

TT7

more work done in a decentralized setting, do teachers feel closer
to the administration, is the bureaucracy broken down, administrators
feel that there is no conclusive evidence that this would be true.

Citizens' groups in the City of Detroit, especially in the
NAACP, are requesting complete decentralization. They wish appoint-
ment or election of separate boards, complete autonomy in the
staffing and administration of schools, selection of all personnel,
and the right to hire and fire. The Detroit Board of Education, at .
this point, is studying the matter, and they have asked for opinions
of their counsel.

The decentralization definition of the late 20's and mid 30's
no longer fits the definition as it is used by the public today.
Today it means separate school districts within the city. The NAACP
claims that the central administration is irrelevant, disfunctional,
and specifically inappropriate for the Negro.

It is significant to note that in T968, the Michigan
legislature considered the Montgomery Bill which would be the
establishment of nine separate school districts within the city
limits.

The administration has considered the possible function of
locally elected boards that would be responsible to the central board.
The minority groups reject this thinking as they are fearful that local
boards will become “advisory only”.

Dr. Wolfe mentions that, in his judgment, under the pressure

ll8

for decentralization, the schools are actually Tess decentralized in
some of their functions than they were in the late 30's. An example
of this would be in personnel selection. The Board of Education has
not completely discarded the notion that it might consider screening
of four qualified applicants for a position as principal and then
allow a local board to do the final screening and recommending for
appointment. Board officials point out that one of the deterrents to
making this kind of selection comes in the percentage of disadvantaged
living within the city. The boundaries of the City of Detroit have
been the same for forty years. The housing area Of the disadvantaged,
however, has increased, and in l969, instead of covering fifteen per
cent of the area, homes for the disadvantaged are covering seventy to
seventy-five per cent. Board officials, therefore, are skeptical as
to how much decision-making can be handed over to local groups.

While on paper it appears that the Detroit Public Schools is
a miniature Chicago school system in some respects, closer analysis
does not bear this out. In referring to Exhibit l0 on page T69,
you will note the organizational chart. 0n the extreme left hand side
of the chart the regional superintendents (nine in number) are listed.
These superintendents also have assistants, physical plant managers,
and principals reporting to them. In effect, this is much the same
role as the district superintendent in the City of Chicago. The
Detroit program, however, does not give the degree Of autonomy to the

regional superintendent as does Chicago. Building principals in the

ll9

City of Detroit are very directly responsible to the deputy superin-
tendent in charge of curriculum. This is a central office function
and even the regional superintendent finds himself in a position where
many of the decisions are made centrally.

The truly decentralized program in the city is the Butzell
District. In this instance, every effort is being made to divorce
the operation from the regular program of the public school system.
It is an attempt for this area to become independent through the use
of federal funds. A separate office for curriculum planning and
evaluation has been established within the Butzell District. Were
4 this type of program to spread throughout the city, Detroit would
then possess a decentralized program more nearly approaching that
used in the City of Chicago. It can only be concluded that the
Butzell District is the only area actually representing the type of
decentralization discussed in this research. Decentralization prior
to this time has apparently been an attempt to give some authority to
local principals and regional superintendents without the accompanying
responsibility of making the program operate. Tables number T0 and

ll answer this question in part.

l20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE l0
Decentralized New programs (decentralized)
programs prior since l965
to T957
Yes No
Detroit Public
Schools X Two areas added
Chicago Public
Schools X Essentially unchanged
Milwaukee
Public Schools X .Clusters formed
New York
Public Schools X Three experimental areas
TABLE ll
Decentralization Other reasons
initiated due to
racial or sub-culture
tensions, pressure
groups, or other
outside influence
Chicago Public School system re-
Schools structured in l950's
mainly due to financial
problems

Detroit Public

Schools Partially
Milwaukee

Public Schools Partially
New York

Public Schools Yes

 

l2l

As the decentralization of industry and of the Chicago Schools was
discussed with Detroit school officials, they concluded that Detroit,
in fact, was not decentralized prior to T957. Two areas Of
decentralization programs have been added as late as l965. Table ll
further clarified this position as all schools other than the City of
Chicago conclude that their program of decentralization is due to
racial or other pressure groups who cause outside influence to dictate
a portion of the school's program. School authorities point out that
these pressures have come about suddenly in many instances and have
made it next to impossible for administrators and policy boards to set

programs in motion in an orderly manner.

The Milwaukee Public Schools

 

The Milwaukee Public School System, number ll in the total
number of large school districts in the United Staes, shows student
enrollment of 24l,484 in the year T968. A city census of approximately
750,000 with the greater Milwaukee area of an excess of one million
people, places this city in the setting that should be considering
4 some form of modification for its school program to meet today's needs.
Milwaukee is a typical large city with the solid inner city core. ,
Community groups have been interested in education through the years,
and within the last five-year period, the voice of minorities has
been heard frequently at meetings of the Board of Education.

While Milwaukee has been ripe for a change over the past five

l22

to ten years, it has been fortunate that no unusual demands have been
placed upon it. The school system has not been forced to act at the
whim of pressure groups. In addition, a relatively new superintendent
of schools, Dr. Richard P. Gousha, was employed by the Board of
Education with the express directive to make some specific recom—
mendations for the reorganization of the schoOl system administratively.
Many educators have viewed the Milwaukee schools with envy.

Dr. Gousha's office has sent several detailed reports to the
Milwaukee Board of School Directors. (This Board is comparable to the
board of education in Michigan cities). The initial reports were
concerned with central management only. Milwaukee Operates a dual
system of administrative services. The superintendent of schools and
the secretary—business manager are both responsible to the Board of
School Directors in a parallel administrative function. Dr. Gousha,
while not recommending any immediate change in this form of adminis-
tration, indicates in several of his messages to the Board of
Directors that he favors the single administrative approach over the
dual one now in Operation.

The organizational chart of the Milwaukee Schools is not too
unlike that of other large cities. In reviewing the chart, it would
appear that it is almost completely centrally autonomous. A deputy
superintendent reports to the superintendent of schools and assistant
superintendents report to the deputy. Departments of personnel,

planning and long range development, relationships, administrative

l23

services, curriculum and instruction, pupil personnel, and municipal
recreation and adult education, all report directly to the deputy
superintendent of schools.

A special academy study committee evaluated the school system
and on January 23, T968, Dr. Gousha reported to the Board of Directors.
The panel's judgment was that “ ..... in many respects Milwaukee Public
Schools equal or exceed schools in other large cities....there is in
the panel's judgment, however, much which needs to be done in
Milwaukee to provide an educational quality equal to that which would
meet the needs for today's pupils.” That quotation summarized,
according to Superintendent Gousha, what the study meant to him. He

then outlined his plan to the Board of Directors:

l. The schools must identify their basic needs.
2. They must reorganize to meet these needs.
3. They must decentralize certain program operations to

 

insure greater staff participation and citizen

 

involvement.

 

4. They must improve communications in order to promote
real understanding of the ”big city” problems in public
education today.

5. _ They must strengthen relationships on many fronts.

6. They must seek to gain support of all kinds in order to
get the job done.

It will be noted at this point that the decentralization was mentioned

l24

as but one of six possible areas to be studied. While the Board of
Directors and the superintendent felt some pressures to have some
things done in the Milwaukee Schools to better meet the needs of the
students, there was no particular pressure to decentralize or to ”give
away“ parts of the school system, at least not to the extent that has
been evidenced in other cities.

Dr. Gousha emphasized to the Board that there must be more
long-range program planning in the development in our large cities.
More than this, there should be a closer coordination for education,
business, and recreation Operation; improved articulation between
elementary, junior and senior high school; a broader flexibility in
the planning and programming and budgeting operation; greater
recognition of the growing importance of the principal's role; and a
better and more direct communication within the school system and in
the metropolitan community at large. He went on to say that without
increased staff involvement in school system planning, evaluation and
community relations education in today's large cities will fail.
There must also be, according to Dr. Gousha, a wider opportunity for
experimentation within the schools at different grade levels and
various subject fields. These must be guided by the pupils' needs
in that particular area. Certain supervisory assistance and supporting
services that are provided by the board must be decentralized.
Administrative supervision and ancillary services, together with

business Operations, are maintained for the purpose of facilitating

l25

‘classroom instruction. Supervisory and supporting services should be
organized in a closer relationship to elementary and secondary schools
and in different areas of the city. '

Dr. Gousha is pointing toward the area of decentralization;
however, he is proceeding in quite a different way.than has been done
in the schools of Chicago, Detroit and New York. When the Milwaukee
superintendent talks about decentralization, he is using the term
synonymously with deploying groups of peOple out into the community.
~ In other words, send a team in the field of art, music, physical
education, and perhaps even social studies into one area of the
community; send a second team into a second area, etc. At this point
there is no indication that he plans to do more than add to the teams
that are now available for services in the field of education. It
does not seem to be in his thinking, at least in the early reports,’
that decentralization would mean to give away authority and responsi-
bility. The superintendent's basic philosophy is to study the need
of the student in the particular community in which the schools are
located. Once these needs are determined, then send to these areas
specialists to work with these specific groups of youngsters and
parents. In this way, in the terms of Dr. Gousha, you are decentral—
izing your school system by making your specialists available to
special areas.

While this is a different approach than is used in decentral-

izing other cities, it could ultimately lead toward the same end.

l26

While Detroit and New York have decentralized but small areas of the
total school systems, the Milwaukee Public Schools, under the
directives of Dr. Gousha, are anticipating the reorganization of the
total school system under a plan called “cluster“.

The Board in control of the schools approved the superintendent's
recommendation and fourteen clusters were in operation in May of l969.
Each cluster contains a high school, its feeder junior high schools,
and, in turn, the feeder elementary schools. Two clusters are combined
to make up what is known as a program service area. There are now
seven program service areas in Operation in the City of Milwaukee.

The program service area contains two district senior high schools,

at least two feeder junior high schools, and from fifteen to twenty
feeder elementary schools. Such an arrangement spans K through l2
education, recreation programs and deveTOpments, and serves to
strengthen articulation between the three levels in Milwaukee's 6—3-3
plan of school organization. Each program service area would contain
a senior high school and its feeder schools from different sections of
Ithe city, both inner and outer. Because the socio-economic charac-
teristics of Milwaukee's many neighborhood communities vary, it is
their plan to pair groups of schools so that personnel involved may
retain a city-wide perspective to gain a better understanding of the
different educational need of social problems, and share varying ideas
about the education and recreation programs. It is also their hope

that such an approach within the school system will work against the

T27

polarization of community attitude toward education in general and

toward programs planned to meet individual needs of children in

 

particular. This is an important objective of the proposal.

 

School principals and recreation directors from each of the
program service areas will meet regularly with the superintendent and
his staff. It is the hope that communications will thus be improved,
and it will stimulate a cross fertilization of ideas about K-l2 and
the adult education and recreation program across the state. Such
meetings were held in the T968-l969 school year on a trial basis.
They are found to be fruitful, according to administrators, as far
as the l'feedback" from the field. In addition to this, elementary,
junior high, and senior high principals continue to meet in their
respective groups to discuss other matters of common concern at their
grade level of operation.

It is not the plan of the superintendent that the service
areas remain static. He wishes them to be fluid and flexible. He
feels for this plan of school clusters to work, the organization must
change from time to time, schools must be shifted from one school
cluster to another and program service areas must be altered whenever
such change is deemed desirable. I

It is at this point that the superintendent uses the word
decentralization as he reports to the Board of Control. He speaks of
program services area teams and then uses the word decentralization

almost synonymously. It is his intent to build upon a supervisory

T28

plan that has been in operation in the elementary schools in Milwaukee
for several years. This is a plan whereby a team of generalists in
kindergarten, primary and intermediate education, and specialists in
art, music, and physical education, work with the school staff. These
teams are organized as needed. The secondary school supervisors would
relate the teams as much as it is possible to do this within a limited
number of supervisors that are now available. Consideration is being
given to a two—step approach.

T. Modifying of the present policy with respect to

released time for department chairmen.in secondary
schools whereby each department chairman, whose
responsibility so warrants, would be provided at least
one period of released time per day and

2. Providing in each program service area for one

department chairman in each required subject field
to be released a portion of each day to serve as a
supervising teacher in the program area of the
secondary schools for the subject concerned.

School psychologists and social workers would also be employed
to work on these team structures. Each team would have a team leader.
This person would be responsible for calling the meetings and working
with the building supervisors to make certain when the team is needed.

This use of the word decentralization is quite different

from the decentralized program as envisioned particularly in the

l29

schools of New York and Chicago. There is no attempt in the Milwaukee
Public School System, nor through outside groups of parents, to define
decentralization as the giving away of authority from the central
office. Dr. Gousha, on the other hand, feels that it would be much
more appropriate to tie together your service area planning group with
a central office in order that meetings may be established centrally
to examine the various points of view in divergent service areas. This
possibly explains the fact that while the City of Milwaukee Schools
are being quoted in many magazines as working toward decentralization,
in talking with individual teachers in the city, they were not too
much aware that decentralization had actually taken place. It must

be recognized that such a program has been initiated within the past
two years, however. If the story of industry is to be duplicated in
education, the direction taken by the Milwaukee Schools could well
prove to be one of the wiser ones of the day. Milwaukee is first
reorganizing its central administration, then appointments of area
leaders, and then moving to teachers and community groups. At present,
the area leader would probably be the only person who would recognize
that a program of decentralization is being initiated. Dr. Gousha, in
one of his bulletins to the Board of Control, mentions that I'we are
seeking to make a reasonable beginning that will enable us to evaluate
the success of increased decentralization in our program. It is our.
aim to organize and operate with the main focus upon local needs of

the more than l50 schools in Milwaukee while we retain those

T30

centralized activities which are essential to a system wide operation.”

It is significant also to note that the administrative
officers heading the Division of Relationships in the Milwaukee
Schools, under the direct supervision of Dr. William M. Lamers, are
most enthusiastic about the plan that is being initiated in Milwaukee.
Dr. Lamers pointed out that in his many years of experience with the
universities and public schools in the City of Milwaukee, he felt
the approach now being taken by the superintendent and Board of
Directors was sound and would lay the foundation for a fine adminis-
trative unit in the future. Dr. Lamers also added that as much time
is being taken at present to assure a sound reorganization of central
facilities as is being taken to consider what mode of operation should
be decentralized. When the question was raised as to the feasibility
of local advisory boards advising the clusters of apprOpriate
activities, Dr. Lamers said that the plan was to make use of local
citizens wherever possible, as well as school student groups,
particularly in the secondary schools. These will be ad-hoc
committees set up to make the specific studies and recommendations.
The committee will then be thanked for their services, and new
committees will be formed. This will do two things:

T. It will give large numbers of lay citizens and students

a chance to participate in specific recommendations to
area leaders and

2. It will not place the emphasis upon single advisory boards.

l3l

Advisory boards could be the final outcome of such clusters of city
schools, but this is several steps ahead of the thinking of
administrators and board members at the present time.
Dr. Lamers further stated that inasmuch as the Milwaukee
Schools are operating a large per cent of the cluster program under
federal grants, it is imperative that central direction be given. He
used as an example his own department, the Division of Relationships
of the school system. This department is designed to:
l. Track legislating policies and trends of thinking.
2. Communicate and interpret the needs to all agencies
and to all members of the Milwaukee school staff.
3. Make considered judgment as in the availability of
such funding and its relevance to programs in the

Milwaukee Schools.

4. Keep the school system informed concerning all such
matters.
5. Assist in the preparation of interpretive reports of

programs funded.
The Milwaukee School System, as it studies the feasibility of
decentralization in the future, together with many other phases of
its new cluster program, does have a central advisory board which is
appointed. In the case of both Chicago and Detroit Public Schools,
no such board aids in the decisions of the school system. New York

City school administrators, under pressure, appointed three such

T32
boards. The group of citizens used in Milwaukee is purely advisory.

The New York Public Schools

 

As one studies the great cities of the United States, and then
includes New York as one of these, it is immediately recognized that
while all of the cities included in this study are close to l,OO0,000
people in total population, the City of New York, with its in excess
of 8,000,000, presents an entirely different set of problems. Also,
one cannot examine the public school system without examining the
parallel governmental function. Through rivers, canals, bays, and
the Atlantic Ocean, New York City is divided into five boroughs.

These combined boroughs are referred to as the City of New York and
operate under the political structure of a single mayor. Each borough,
. however, has a borough president, and it is found that this president
refers to local councils for many problems that are solved within the
boroughs of Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, etc. Geographical
boundaries are separate as well as the sociological grouping of the
particular communities. The part of New York referred to as Manhattan
is made up principally of the downtown Wall Street area, the uptown
business and theatre section, and literally hundreds of thousands of
people in apartments. Brooklyn, taken by itself, might make up a
second Detroit or Milwaukee. The Bronx, with its large middle class
society, has a quite different set of problems than the Borough of

Manhattan. In effect, the five boroughs of New York have been

T33

decentralized politically for many years. The size of the city units
of government have made it impossible to operate under a single unit.
The Board of Education of the City Schools of New York has
toyed with phases of decentralization for the past twenty—five to
thirty years, but never has taken any one phase seriously enough to
operate in the manner in which the Chicago schools decentralized in
the late 40's and early 50's. Politics dictated that certain divisions
of the public school system be given some autonomy. This autonomy was
not structured through board policies, however, and many times was
removed or reshuffled as new political parties took power. The mayor's
office had always been influential in the selection of candidates to
the board of education. Assistant superintendents and building
principals have seen fit through the years to form organizations to
act as pressure groups upon the central administrative offices. Unions
have so dictated the powers of the non-instructional group that the
custodians of the city, with their publicity in l965, reached national
headlines as their contractual arrangement with the school system was
revealed to the public. 4 -
The magnitude of the New York Public School System made it
most cumbersome. Here is bureaucracy operating at its height.
Individual initiative was stifled, and motivation was at an all-time
low. In addition to this, the teaching personnel were faced with a
volatile student body who, due to sheer numbers, blasted forth to

make teaching an almost impossible task.

l34

The one redeeming feature of the entire system was the number
of children whose parents were not American born. The Europeans who
had established their residence in New York City were most anxious
that their children have an American education, and in many instances,
even in the midst of turmoil, were able to insist that these young
people study and obey the rules.

For many years following the policy of the structure of the
city, local advisory boards worked with a central board of education
or with the borough chief of affairs. The general superintendent of
the New York Public Schools leaned heavily upon the assistant super-
intendent for recommendations in handling the business of properly
running the school system.

This report was discussed in an earlier chapter in the review
of the literature available on decentralization.

The Board of Education and the mayor of the City of New York
pleaded for several years for the New York State legislature to
provide temporary financial assistance to meet the needs of the schools
within the city. In the spring of T968, the legislature took action
and provided such relief. In doing so, it requested the mayor to
submit a plan which would encourage the community and the parents to
participate in the creation and redeveTOpment of educational policy.
The mayor submitted such a plan. His plan dealt in a great measure
with the administrative structure. The Board of Education disagreed

with the mayor's recommendation as it was their Considered judgment

T35

that the schools could be reorganized without a drastic change of
administrative structure. The Board, its president saiu, has long
committed itself to decentralization and parent involvement. The
Board therefore submitted its plan to the state legislature.

In the plan submitted for decentralization by the New York City
Board of Education, the first and most important feature, as they
termed it, was for an increase in the permanent state aid basic
allotment. The flight of the middle class and the influence each
year of tens of thousands of deprived children into the city are
aggravating the problem. These youngsters demand different techniques
and more money. There is an urgent need for better coordination with
other basic services such as health, housing, employment, and
recreational opportunities. Such changes would not be possible without
additional state support. At one point the local board requested:

“It will do no good for the legislature merely to replace

old rigidities with new straight jackets. Flexibility is

essential.”

The legislative proposal specifically submitted by the New
York City Board of Education contained the following pertinent points:

T. Local school boards should be made Operating bodies with

the right to exercise any powers granted to them by law
and delegated to them by the central board of education.
2. Appointment of the district superintendent should be by

the local school boards subject to compliance and state

certification.

T36

Local boards should be given specific authority to

grant or deny permanent tenure upon the recommendation
of the district superintendent to the local board.

Amend the present law so as to permit elementary school
principals to be appointed on the basis of a qualifying
examination, rather than a competitive examination.

The central city board of education should be vested
with the authority to delegate any of its power to

local school boards as from time to time it shall
determine to be in the best interest of education.

Note: The central board of education would plan to give
to local school boards specific authority to determine
their own priorities consistent with city—wide standards
within the funds of resources allocated to them by the
central board of education.

The central board recognizes the primary rights of the
legislature to determine how members of the board of
education should be appointed. It is desirable to
increase the panel that selects board members by permit-
ting the mayor to add up to four additional members to
reflect the diversities of views and background of the
people of New York City.

The sections of the law that inhibit the ability of the

central board of education to allocate authority to

T37

local school boards should be repealed.

It is apparent that the central Board of Education was
sincerely dedicated to a plan of decentralization as it presented the
seven points referred to in the previous paragraph. The Bundy Report
had already been received and reviewed. It was determined that three
districts would be set up experimentally in the City of New York with
full powers to act as a decentralized district. The districts
selected were Public School 20l, near the Harlem area of Manhattan;

Two Bridges in lower Manhattan, not far from the Chinatown area; and
the Oceanhill-Brownsville District in Brooklyn. It should be pointed
out that prior to the plan for decentralization, Public School 20l had
been fraught with problems. The central Board of Education had
constructed the building, an air conditioned modern structure, and

had told the public in the district that it would be an integrated
school. When the local community was told that the integration would
mean fifty per cent Negro and fifty per cent Puerto Rican, they refused
to allow their children to attend school in the new building and it was
boycotted for many months prior to the plan for decentralization. Two
Bridges was in an area where the delinquency rate was high, and the
Oceanhill-Brownsville District had also been fraught with racial
problems prior to being selected as one of the areas for decentralization.

Each one of the three districts selected established a local
governing board elected by the people. These were, for the most part,

lay peOpTe, with few educators on the boards. The unit administrator

T38

was appointed by the local board subject to the approval of the central
Board of Education of New York.

Even though decentralization had a history as far back as l96l,
the central School Board of New York had never written clear cut
guidelines that would limit the powers of the local board Of education.
Each local board asked for such clarification. In the midst Of
preparing the guidelines which were finally made available in December
Of T968, the Oceanhill-Brownsville District local board decided to
test its power. It found there were nine teachers in the school
system who should not be a part of the school district's decentral-
ization plan. These particular teachers were vocally opposed to
decentralization, and it was the unit administrator's and the local
board‘s judgment that they could not help the system, but instead
would hinder it as it moved forward to decentralize. The central
board was requested to effect transfers for these nine teachers.
Receiving no directive from the central office, the local board
dismissed the teachers. The United Federation of Teachers moved in at
this point and called for a city-wide strike of all school teachers in
New York.

The New York Board of Education had been dealing with local
boards for several years, but they had stressed community involvement,
not community control. In changing to control, the board worked
through its attorneys and felt that it needed legislative action.

Board members claimed, and rightfully so, that under the New York

T39

statutes they had no power to give away their authority to other local
groups for decision-making.

Mr. Norman L. Bronbacker, special assistant to the superin-
tendent of schools in charge of the decentralized programs, says that
even today purchasing and finance are very much centralized in the
New York system. “Personnel is subject to the central board; however,
it is very infrequent”, he says, ”that anyone is turned down." A
recent case was cited where a principal was not qualified but was
approved merely because the local board and unit administrator
requested that he be named the principal.

Due to the number of personnel problems, both with teachers
and local citizens, together with the attitude of the teachers' union
during decentralization, it is difficult to draw conclusions as to
the final outcome of decentralization in the nation's largest city.
Mr. William Grenne, an assistant unit administrator for the Oceanhill-
Brownsville District, said in an interview that in his estimation,
they're merely talking decentralization, but holding onto the purse
string so the central board has the ultimate power. Mrs. Washington,
in a similar position at the Two Bridges School, is in agreement.

She claims that the local district must control its own finances. In
response to the question whether decentralization is working in the
Two Bridges area, Mrs. Washington says, ”Yes, it is limited at this
point, awaiting further legal action.”

Mr. Rhody McCoy, the unit administrator for Oceanhill-Brownsville,

T40

claims that any legislation that is considered currently in Albany is
merely fooling the people.

It was the general consensus in all three districts, from an
administrator's point of view, that the teachers would rather be
responsible to local boards even though they realize at present that
they are under much heavier scrutiny and must perform better.

It is really not fair to draw conclusions from three experi-
mental districts in a city the size of New York. The very fact that
these districts are operating in a glass cage will cause them to
operate much differently than they will in future years if they are
allowed to move in on their own.

For the most part, the decentralized schools in the City of
New York are operating under federal funds. During the last school
year, Oceanhill-Brownsville received $674,620 from the federal govern-
ment; Public School 20l complex $696,724; and Two Bridges $285,3l8.
There are additional federal funds available through Titles 11 and III
of the ESEA. During the same period of time (approximately one year)
that the above funds were made available, the Ford Foundation also
gave $l8l,000, plus an additional $l8,000, for a summer project in
industrial arts in Oceanhill. The question as to the anticipated life
of the demonstration district is academic since the New York State
legislature decentralization bill passed on April 30, l969. This bill
Specifically states that the three districts now decentralized in

New York will be absorbed into the newly—created districts on

l4l

February l6, T970.

The New York legislature, in passing the bill that is currently
law in the State of New York, has recognized the prOblems originally
outlined by the New York Board of Education. The new legislation
defines the authority of the central Board of Education. It gives it
the power to delegate to local boardspractically complete authority
in the operation of a school system. The new local boards will
Operate with a superintendent appointed by the local boards. These
superintendents, after a given period of time, will be empowered to
appoint the general superintendent of the New York Public Schools.

It is next to impossible to evaluate the program of decentral-
ization in New York during the years T968 and T969. It is clear,
however, that the power structure controlling the schools, the city
and the legislature, are all in sympathy with the decentralization of
the New York Public Schools. As one unit administrator put it, ”I
have been in the New York system for twenty—seven years, and it is
impossible to operate a system of this size from a central office or,
for that matter, from five borough locations.”

It is the feeling of some educators in New York City that the
central office should be little more than an office to evaluate,
provide budget direction, test and screen. Once these activities are
taken care of, all other controls should be at the local level.

Before concluding the section discussing the decentralization

in the three school districts, it is significant to note Table l2.

T42

In this table, the Chicago Public Schools are the only school system
to date that are carrying the burden locally of supporting greater

than fifty per cent Of the decentralized program from local funds.

 

 

 

TABLE l2
75-l00% of budget of 50% or less under
decentralized program federal titles
under federal titles
Chicago Public TO% federal
Schools 90% local
Detroit Public
Schools 80%
Milwaukee
Public Schools 75-80%
New York
Public Schools 90%

 

Conclusions

 

In studying the school districts of Chicago and Detroit,
Milwaukee and New York, there is no doubt but that these school
systems are trying to implement long range educational plans which
can make some major contribution toward improving the quality of life
in their particular setting. It is their hope that this will reduce
the critical backlog of overcrowding and obsolescence. Each school
district, it appears, is attempting to provide a long range plan to
guide the school system in its future decision-making. In each case,

they are underscoring community involvement as imperative for success.

 

T43

Each school system is clearly documenting the tremendous backlog of
human, physical, and fiscal needs existing in their city, and they
conclude that such is true in every large urban school district
throughout our nation.

It is certainly true that no public school system can solve
by itself the major educational socio-economic human problems facing
the cities today.

Massive commitments by business and industry, by local citizens, ’”
together with federal and state money are needed; a metropolitan or
{regiOnal system of education is certainly needed; major decentralization
T of certain decision-making powers is needed; a total “system" approach
Ito coordinating all of the variables impacting the urban schools is T
needed. Most of all the people of the city need to thoroughly under-
stand the critical nature Of urban problems and to commit them to
solution.
Human despair, deprivation, and decay cannot be tolerated
within American society. Alienation and polarization between city
and suburbs, black and white, high income or low income, represent a
self-defeating strategy within our democracy.
While school systems generally appear to be on less firm
footing than is industry, they are following a path dictated by
industry over the last two decades. As we discarded the one-room red

brick schoolhouse, we are now aware that we discarded not only its

shortcomings, but its virtues. Our giant move to centralize all

T44

education and bring it under one roof, and hence to make it pay its
own way, appears to have been a bit short sighted. To return to the
one-room school is unthinkable. To re-examine some of its virtues
is sound.

The final chapter will summarize the findings of both industry
and school districts in the area of decentralization, draw conclusions

from them, and make recommendations.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

To summarize this study is to understand that the clear-cut
measuring stick that can be applied to many studies is not an
efficient tool to compare decentralization in business, industry, and
education.

X Employees and employers agree that the closer the administration
and management are to the employee, the more nearly they can understand
each other. Central control in a business or school district repre-
senting the size unit studied simply cannot work effectively without

granting a degree of decentralization. Thus the first question could

 

be answered, yes; communications are improved. The reader must bear

 

in mind that decentralization is defined in this study under a somewhat
variable base; Milwaukee schools with their centralized-decentralization
of area services, each reporting back frequently to a central office, is
much different from the New York City Schools where the central Board
of Education has literally given away portions of its school system.
There controls are by local boards and local administrators.

The Union Carbide vice-presidents, who are given unlimited

latitude in decentralizing under numerous division presidents, are

T45

   

 

 

T46
contrasted with the select 300 Of the Ford Motor Company, who are
trained and hand picked by Henry Ford II.
In each instance, though, communications are improved,
according to both employers and employees, as one gives local autonomy,

no matter how it is done.

The second question: Is the time involved in Operating a

 

centralized school system cumbersome and unwieldy? is also substantiated

 

in the study. In answering this question in the positive, the burden of
proof is more with business and industry than with school districts. In
each instance, Ford, Sears, Roebuck and Company, and Union Carbide
Corporation, officials readily admit that there was no second choice.
Decentralization was necessary for company survival. Officials of these
companies would go a step further to say that any company the size of
Ford, Sears, Roebuck, and Union Carbide that claims to be operating a
centralized business either does not understand its own organizational
pattern, or the company is in danger of failing.

The school system that would support this point of view would
be the Chicago district. Here education had the trial period in the
30's and the 40's of attempting a centralized program, and they admit
that curriculum, program, physical plant, and budget all suffered,
practically tO the point of chaos. While the Detroit and Milwaukee
schools support this point of view, they have no positive proof to date
that a decentralized program can cure the ill. *N

Bureaucracy and confusion are spoken of as if the words were

T47
synonymous. Industry, business, and school personnel all agree that a
bureaucratic system is not an efficient system. If one must cut red
tape for results, then time is being used unnecessarily and probably
unproductively. The employee is more sensitive to this than is the
employer, possibly because the employee understands but a part of the
total process. That which some employees define as red tape, employers
may define as sound business procedure.

Of the seventy employees interviewed, each spoke of the "red
tape” phase of business. They wanted answers quickly, and no one seemed
to be happy with a business so large that he could not reach the "boss".

,/~ Employees showed impatience with anything representing the "brush-Off”.

'TIIAS the employees interviewed became conversant with the definition of
decentralization, they were in agreement that there is a direct
relationship between centralization and the level of confusion and
misunderstanding. Teachers in the New York schools pointed out that
they could not be certain at this point whether the improved communications
and lack of confusion were a result of decentralization or merely because
they were part of an experimental program.

This would substantiate the findings of the General Electric
Company in the 30's when they concluded that no evaluation of a program
should be made while the experiment is in progress.

Question number three concerns itself primarily with motivation:

gls there an endless chain of command to reach either the bottom or the

/ftop resulting in the stifling of enthusiasm and productivity? Examples

d

T48

of this are on every front. The teacher is enthusiastic if she knows
her work will be noticed by the student, the parent, the administration,
and perhaps by members of the board Of education. Industry has

Operated an incentive system for years. Recognition by the one in
charge is always a boon to the employee, especially when this
recognition points out the positive, the good, and the productive.

New York teachers in Public School 20l, Oceanhill-Brownsville,
and Two Bridges, claimed in the interviews that they are happy now to
work harder, put in longer hours, take additional university work, and
evaluate themselves much more carefully than before, simply because
they are now a part of the team. They know the unit administrator
personally and are certain that he has a direct interest in them. In
several instances, they now know members of the local board of education.
Union Carbide employees almost feel "ownership" in the company. Sears,
Roebuck officials have done an excellent job in convincing their
employees that the local team determined direct profit, not for some
gigantic enterprise in Chicago, but to a local store, its manager and
employees in Toledo, Ohio. The harder they work, the more profit they
reap.

Business and industry are in agreement that decentralization
does not necessarily lead to greater productivity and it is never a
less-costly Operation. Business and industry are decentralized at the
point that they can no longer be controlled centrally.,’If industry is

convinced that it is not so large as to lose central control, it should

T49

proceed cautiously toward decentralization.

"Working conditions are improved as management becomes aware of
needed changef\ A decentralized school or business will normally have
improved working conditions over a central program, particularly is this
true if the degree of decentralization extends itself to some autonomy
in the area of finance.

As to the improved climate for learning in the schools, the
decentralized school system, according to the teachers, has a more :3?
highly-motivated teacher. If it is true that the degree Of motivation
of the teacher is directly related to learning progress of the student,
then the student could learn more under a decentralized school system.
It would probably be more accurate to conclude that the more highly.
motivated the teacher, the greater number of available experiences for
the student, which in turn would improve students' learning. Also, it
is usually concluded that the highly-motivated teacher will reach out

to bring a greater number of students under her influence.

Conclusion

 

Upon completion of a study of decentralization of a specific
number of large corporations and schools, there is no doubt that business
and industry have moved far ahead of education in determining their
needs. A part of the reason for stagnation of school districts in this
respect is probably inherent in their organization. The United States

Constitution, in giving to the states the right and responsibility to

T50

control education, implied that education should be more of a local
responsibility than of one for the federal government. States, in turn,
gave this responsibility to local districts with practically unlimited
power. Boards of education, whether in Pottersville, Michigan, or
Buffalo, New York, have practically the same power. Each board has
guarded this power zealously and legislative bodies have not been quick
to take away power once it is given. Thus the thirty-five teacher
school system with its counselors, principals, superintendents and
board of education has had no reason to decentralize. It is a grassroot
operation. The same structure of school system, with one-half million
students in attendance, however, finds some good reason to decentralize,
but the same regulations control its board.

Industry has found itself with no such delimiting legislation
to follow. Business and industry, like schools, for the most part,
began small. The Henry Ford Company started in a back yard machine shop.
Mr. Ford, Sr., as late as T920, was going from door to door among
Detroit businessmen asking for handouts (as little as a dollar per
employee was acceptable). This helped him to build a business. The
Ford Company empire that resulted had no restrictions as it expanded.
Other than the federal government legislation prohibiting monopoly, the
automobile manufacturers are free today to build their business,
control or not control specific divisions, centralize or decentralize
their operations in any way that they desire.

It is evident that the Board of Directors of Union Carbide is

T5T

actually not as powerful as the Board of Education of Three Oaks,
Minnesota. This Minnesota School Board can completely restructure its
educational program, fire its twelve teachers, and change its curriculum
overnight. The Board of Union Carbide would have no such power over its
employees. Much more, if Three Oaks, Minnesota, became a world power
industrially, and its school faculty increased from twelve teachers to
twelve hundred teachers, its board of education would still have much
the same power.

It is necessary to understand the primary difference in control-
ling boards of business, industry, and education, to understand the
reason for education clinging to an archaic, bureaucratic, educational
administrative structure long after it has outgrown it. This is true
while those in business and industry made some rapid adjustments thirty
to forty years ago.

It is also evident that in education the stockholders, better
known as the general public, can and are insisting upon some dramatic
changes in the manner in which public education operates. As much as
the public may be criticized for not adequately supporting public schools,
the Cities of Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and New York, insisted that
their schools be administratively structured in such a way that the
citizen has a more direct involvement with his school system. This,
despite the rise in cost as the schools become decentralized.

It must also be concluded that to tie decentralization in only

with increased productivity or a better climate for learning is a

l52

mistake. Productivity does not necessarily increase as decentralization
takes place, and control groups have not been set up in the learning
laboratories to determine whether a youngster learns more in a decentral-
ized setting than in one that is centralized.

IF The focal point of this study might lie in man's ability to
understand man. Primary groups work more effectively than secondary
groups. To go from a_to b_and even from §.to d_is not too difficult,
but to cover from a_to z_takes a much more comprehensive administrative
structure. It is a fine line that tells us when we cannot effectively
administer centrally. As soon as this point is reached, decentralization

should be considered.

Recommendations

 

America is a new nation, and even today in the cultures of the
world, finds itself in its infancy. It would be helpful in building
this new world that a careful study be made of the cultures of the past,
select their strengths, and discard some of their weaknesses.

Education, business, and industry are not three separate entities,
but one. Each is made of the same citizens playing a slightly different
role. Educators must learn from those in business. The educator must
study and re-study, evaluate, and change to make the business Of
education as productive as possible. Decentralization is but one way of

running the store. If the words central control become synonymous with

 

ineffective, bureaucratic, cumbersome, and the like, then central

control is due for restudy and probably for change.

T53

A final word to recommend for the future:

T.

The educator should determine the most effective means to
meet the need of a youngster while holding in balance an
organization whose employers and employees, together with
the public they represent, hold mutual respect for one
another.

Business and industry should continue to use their
practically unlimited resources to give leadership not
only to the business and industry but also to the society
it represents. Many of the decisions made by business
and industry will be applicable to the surrounding society.
Government, municipalities, and particularly schools,
should be encouraged to work with business and industry

to determine the direction for the future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

l TTTITTTT! .A

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

 

American Association of School Administrators Commission on School
District Reorganization. School District Organization.
Washington, D. C. American Association of School Administrators
Commission on School District Reorganization, T958.

 

Argyris, Chris, ”The Individual and Organization". Administrative
Science Quarterly, Volume IV, Number 2, September T959, pp. T47-T48.

 

 

Dale, Ernest, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure.
New York. The American Management Association, T955, pp. 52-53.

 

Festinger, Leon and Katz, Daniel, Research Methods in the Behavioral
Sciences. New York, New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, T953.

 

Mukherjee, L., Problems Of Administration of Education in India.
Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta: Kitab, Mahal, Allahabad, T960.

 

National Convention on School District Reorganization, Your School
District. Department of Rural Education, National Education
Association of the United States, T948.

 

Norman, Loyal, Nevada School Reorganization. Philadelphia: Dorrance
and Company, T964.

 

Urwick, Lyndall, "Executive Decentralization with Functional Coordination”.
Management Review, December T935, p. 356.

 

Urwick, Lyndall, The Elements of Administration, New York and London,
Harper and Brothers T943, p. T26.

 

Vaizey, John, The Costs Of Education, London, England: Ruskin House.
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., T958.

 

T54

 

 

T55

MAGAZINES

Annual Report of the General Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools,
l968.

”A Plan for Educational Policy and Administration Unit", Board of .
Education, New York, New York, March, l968.

”A Subsystem Approach to the Problems of the Large City School System",
Milwaukee Board of Education, March, l968.

Bundy, McGeorge; Giardiano, Alfred; Keppel, Francis; Pantoja, Antonia;
Sviridoff, Mitchell; Washington, Bennetta.

Cunningham, LuVerne L., "Decentralization: A Forward Step?”, Nation's
Schools, Volume 83, Number 5, May l969, DP. 6T-64.

“Decentralization: Statement of Policy”, New York Board of Education,
April l9, l967.

Design for the Future, Volume I, A recommended long-range educational
plan for Chicago, and Design for the Future, Volume 11,
Educational Facilities Data.

 

Fantrni, Mario and Gittell, Marilyn, ”The Oceanhill-Brownsville
Experiment", Phi Delta Kappa, Volume L, Number 8, April l969,
pp. 442-445.

 

Grant, William, ”Who Will Control Detroit Schools”, Detroit Free Press,
Volume T38, Number T96, November T7, l968.

Guideline to Decentralization for the period ending June 30, l969.

 

Havighurst, Robert J., ”Requirements for a Valid New Criticism“,
Phi Delta Kappa, Volume XL, September T968, pp. 20-26.

 

Melby, Ernest 0., ”The Community School: A Social Imperative”.
Published in the Community School Publication edited by Clyde
Campbell, Ford Press, Inc., October l968.

"Projections of Population and School Enrollment by Community Areas for
the City of Chicago, T970 and T975”. Published by Real Estate
Research Corporation of Chicago, April l968.

T56

Redmond, James F., ”Plans to Reorganize the Chicago Public Schools
in Three Administrative Areas”. Published by Chicago Board
of Education.

Roberts, Wallace, ”The Battle for Urban Schools”, The Saturday Review,
New York, N. Y. November l6, l968.

 

Rogers, David, TTO Livingston Street: Politics with Bureaucracy in
the New York City School System, Random House, New York, l968.

 

Shanker, Albert, ”The Real Meaning Of the New York City Teachers
Strike", Phi Delta Kappa, Volume L, Number 8, April, l969,
pp. 434-44l.

 

Whittier, C. Tayler, ”A Look at Decentralization and Community Control“,
The School Administrator AASA l969.

Wielk, Carol A., "The Oceanhill-Brownsville School Project: A Profile
Community Issue”, Institute for Community Studies, Queens
College, Volume I, Number 2, February, l969.

Young, Whitney M. Jr., "Decentralized Schools are Best for Children",
Chicago Sun Times, March, T969.

 

APPENDIX

 

l57

EXHIBIT T

QUESTIONS ASKED 0F 70 EMPLOYEES

 

How long have you worked (or taught) in ?

Note:

 

(Name of school or
industry)

Interviews not included if length of employment was
less than five years.

Are you familiar with the word ”decentralized“ as it is
applied to ?

Note:

 

(Name of school or industry)

If answer to Question 2 is Yes, proceed to Question 3.

What do you understand this to mean?

Note:

If answer to Question 2 was N9, a brief explanation
was given as follows: "The management of your company
(or school board) has adopted a policy that allows
your particular branch of the company to operate at
least partially as an autonomous division; i.e., quite
apart from the main company. You make many of your
business decisions without asking the permission of
Mr. Henry Ford or the Central Office of Sears Roebuck
in Chicago. As a teacher in the Chicago Schools, you
do not need to contact the LaSalle Street Office of
the Board of Education.”

Note: The above explanation evoked one of two responses.
The first and most prevalent was (a) "That's
right. I'd just never heard it referred to as
decentralization”, or (b) ''I guess I don't know
what you're asking me.”

For those who responded with (a), the questions
continued. Others were not included in the 70
employees interviewed.

 

T58

Under the program of Decentralization of your company (or
school) how would you rate the business relationship of the
employee and the employer? (Rate one through five, with one
the highest rating.)

Note: This is not necessarily the individual employee-
employer relationship, but how such relationship
is observed generally.

Under the program of Decentralization of your company (or
school) how would you rate the personal relationship of the
employee and the employer? (Rate one through five.)

Note: Same as Number 4 above.

How aware are you personally that you are employed in a
business (or school) where the policy is for a decentralized
form of Operation? (Rate one through five.)

Can you find answers to your questions easily? i.e., do you
have confidence your immediate superior can give you an
answer without a long wait to go through top management - a
process that might take weeks or even months?

T59

EXHIBIT 2

SAMPLE QUESTIONS ASKED OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL, CHICAGO PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. MODIFICATIONS OF THESE IDENTICAL QUESTIONS WERE ASKED OF
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS IN DETROIT, MILWAUKEE, AND NEW YORK CITY.

TYPES OF QUESTIONS FOR CHICAGO ADMINISTRATOR
l. How many district superintendents? (There were TB in T959.)

2. Is the system still decentralized, allowing the T8 district
superintendents to Operate an autonomous program?

3. Is it decentralized beyond this point? In other words, have
any specific areas within the T8 or more districts been
decentralized similar to the Oceanhill-Brownsville, Two Bridges,
or P.S. 20l districts? How has this been done? Is it through
federal funds?

4. Does the Chicago School System still maintain that Personnel
and Finance, as well as Budget Control and Purchasing, should
remain central?

5. Has there been any pressure by minority groups to Operate a
portion of the city under an elected board?

6. In l959, a budget director was named for the Chicago Schools.
How much local autonomy is there today in the budgeting of
money for a specific district?

7. Are there any advisory boards to the board of education?

8. What is the total school budget? (Perhaps a financial statement
could be procured.)

9. Is there any specific part of the city operating a decentralized
program where a visit could be made?

If such a visit were arranged, the following questions could be
asked:

a. DO you really feel decentralized?

b. Does the system that the central office claims it operates
and the system that you actually operate coincide?

c. 00 you believe in decentralization?

d. How much do you actually have to say about budget control?

T60

EXHIBIT 3

SAMPLE LETTER WRITTEN TO KENNETH RUSH, PRESIDENT OF UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, ESTABLISHING REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW.

THIS LETTER ALSO SENT TO HENRY FORD II, FORD MOTOR COMPANY;

A. M. WOOD, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY; AND THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS
0F DETROIT, CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, AND NEW YORK CITY.

Dear

 

I almost feel apologetic in writing you as I am certain that
industrialists are fully as busy as educators. Having been a
superintendent of schools for the past twenty years, I have a
fairly good idea as to just how busy that is.

We are taking a direction in education, however, that causes me

to feel certain I should be talking to someone in industry, and
specifically in , as your company appears to me to
be a leader in the area of my concern.

 

From what I understand, the Company has
decentralized your operation, and your management apparently feels
it is a sound direction in which to move. We are now finding ,
pressure on us in education to move in this same direction. The
Chicago Schools have decentralized with more than average success.
New York City has tried it in a somewhat different manner, and has
met with some stumbling blocks.

 

I should appreciate it if you could direct me to the person in your
company who would fully understand your policy in relation to a
decentralized operation. I could be in at

and hopefully could get your point of view

by discussing this matter with you.

 

Sincerely,

EXHIBIT

.2.
ORGANIZATION CHART
UNION CARBIDE comm-non
J

ulv. I963

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SONG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H1 A ll Ta :5
T 1 .1
i i a i
l 417 J
E j 3' ii at
g —1 339g
2 _____I
1 1 L,
l _. {a a
g 'j a .55) 3%} g
35 Egg T g3 SE
L__ ___J 1 J
E
3 T__'.'
g T TI TI I5 2%
Let ”r 1 I
H l
E T i 2T lll a;
L I 1 1
I I ’ I ’* i.
ll Th ll‘lillli Till, mg:
l l i
9 a a
1 j
a .
5E ’3" 23" ii Elli Elia. gi'
' ' ' i T ~-!.
'5 TTI'T 3" ‘5" all: Elia TEE! llgll:
as $7 3'! '5 TTTT ii E35
I I J
35 " iii '35 as: alT ill
51“; j l. I . .
93 ii . T
dill; Eli g! _
's .a. _
-' 55E? 9% ill i l
'a , . . all fl
‘5 iii Till ll! Till Ell ill ,3,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.6jL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,.

 

2.2.3.2328 fl
Jdawtuo a
250233.333» 43.wa0 wt» to wUCmO

 

 

 

.o . (2.4 . .o . «mac _ < 3....
23232.53. 5323.....23 5.3.32.5...-
upsuomm.‘ 3.3334 9.2683
0 I '4 ¢
22.583» . 3035. 2.332... . fl .9 a 3:23.... .9 20:42.3 n
at... 4.8.5:: - 42.2.3 «.53 2... . .. zz . ._ .3358.» .38.;
Of‘ J420_._.(00> 107—(zuso m_m>4(2( afluku>m . U 09:” . 13430.1!30 PZUOMMMWMOQ ZO_P<ODOU 03¢ nugguu m
, I I $5.35.. 2.2H
n u m . a m . .I _ m 4 1.
I . , r .
""""l'l||||||ollo'l'|||I|lIl'll'-lII|owrlll|"l"al"I|‘l llll"|'|'||ll
fiI . J
_ a. .
. pzuaéz.¢u.3 _
_ 3...“... .
_ II .
_ _
u - - m .I x n
23:23.. 335 _. 2.2.23 2. a . m .23. _
we 25...... 23.22.. 2:33.: 2.3.23. 9... z
2... .25.. u v .. 2.2.8.... .
u u E .22.... 5.5.3.8 m 2.2.25.3 ma. 422.5... 3...... a... h.» ...:§H3:3 m .
. _
_ ~ ~ u a a . _ a .
2 . ._ _
. _ ._
6 m .
l _ k _
— . “I FZNOZHP2_¢H&36 . a
_ .4550 u:...
L o» “53...”? _
. .
. _
. _
. .
. _
. .
p

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.

I
o

-. m.ooxum u..m:. oo<u.zu
.hm<xu .«zo.p<~.z<cmo

. (Om .. ..
humuzxm

 

 

 

 

 

 

IL
.li L I u
. .- “.2532... 3.2.8.. 29.3.5. ,.
.. I. . . u . a. 322......0 m .6523 .3. at... ”.2“ n a 4.2282... 2.3.6.2.... 302.... 203.4%... ozuuwuuflm...
I . 2 _ (I , U > (Z( 1 P fi .
u... «$190» 0 p . . . 2.22238 4.228.... 2......
IL .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I... I_ d _. _ _ . _ .. _

III

 

 

. hZNOthZEthn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>~aawo
A
3.223..
«20:445. 3.02.442. 2n>4<z< oz :24...“ 62-22(Jt
25...: 3.23.223 30.32.... .5 242.. 3:36.... iumwpo®caaou
O O .
.’

_. _ . _ . .. .. _

 

thOZw #2:;an
J<¢w2wo 9....
Oh mh2(bm_mm<

 

163

 

 

 

 

hlethzathn
4<¢w1wo

c

_ thozwthmem AéwaO NI... .5 wUEmO

 

 

_
_
_
_
_
._
_
_
.
_
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
L.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PI'II||III|"""'|'|'I|"'ll"4l"|l|||'|ll||'|'||'|"|'II'I'
me.>amw >¢<hw¢wa wt.— )4;
29:15.2. .3 3.qu
_ — — A 1 3.2.2.... .o 9...... L
. 3.5.223 2...... .
«:23 wUZ<Othh< I
¢ZO.P(Jw¢ >2232§OU .
nw.:4.u<u .
lOZCUDn—u wUZ<2.u .
.o 9.3.. 3.2.228 9.48

 

 

 

 

 

382.. 8...... 83....
.55.. 2.222225...

can
hnmnzxm

 

164

adtatat

 

 

 

. 5.32.5.3...“
5&5...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2.

nJ¢t.UZ-lt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

- augfl.

 

.<.¢<w
.552...

 

h5.dz.5...u..3

 

..oo:.. u...:. ao<o.zu
...<:. .«zc..<~.z<u.o

unm
:muzxu

3.2.9:... 3.2.5.... 3.262.: 3362... 32.62....
”
Q
0 O 0
1 . u o ‘ w n‘
2 5.92.5.5...» . 5.5.5.5.... 5.3.5.3....
5..”uwnfimo...3 5..”mwnuhwouua 53.2%.».M...m.§ 5&5... 5.5.... 5.5....
— — q _ q _ _ _
, 1 3......
.2 5 .2 2:52 32...... 55.8.... < ..
.20.. 5.... .— am... b.2523 2.3.6:... U $223.. .. .3...
— u ~ ~ _, m

.
fl

165

  
  

         
 
 
 
    
 
  
   
    

c-Iy Luau

EXHIBIT

NOWARD,

TOUN'
1:00 I

DEVON
(‘00 I.

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS'
DISTRICTS,
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

IRVN "AWN
5‘00 I

  

m, m...
”1va PK
Anon-I

E “IVER

.l-m Am

NORTN
1600 r4

   
  
  
     
     

.1’T

MADISON
0

I2 TH ST

22 ND ST

3| ST ST

  

LARAMIE

39 TH 51 PIKE-MING

AREA B

‘7 TN 51'

SIST SY

55 IN

63 RD

YATES

63 IN ST

  

7| 5'

NARLEM

 
    
  
  

NADRAGANSE' 1
BRANDON

79 TH ST

I] IN ST

:1",an

1L£u£~nnv ECNOOL

  

 
   

 

CICEW)
PULASKI
KEDZ|E

VOCAVIONAL l (Du'CAnouu.

‘35 7" awuwcz envy”

      
   
 
  

max acnc 9L

     
   
  
   
    
   
   
   

VO"‘YI0NI. ~IG~ scuoaL

   

   
  
 

      

.03 w
A -R£.‘IDE~714L AREA
I - .1 ADM msuu YIVE AREAS
(IPfliifllflAVS
l
AREA A E
5 o
”7 M S C‘lcngo Jul/1c ‘00’4 ! 3
DISTRICT Sl'PERlNTENDENTS‘ DISTRICTS 5
van Tn 5!

"D o" I.“
um..." Pun-n,

NALSYED

   
   

 

nl u
Ivan

 

mu. m...

47 TH.

55 TH

63 RD.

7a ST

79 TH.

87 TH.

95 TH.

I 03 RD,

|19 TH

|27 TH

I35 TH

TH.

166

 

5T

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST'

ST.

ST.

ST

ST.

 

AREA A

CA (raga pal/l:- Sr‘oo/o

’1

DISTRICT SI'PI'IRINTENDENTS'

IC’ONJ

(LEUINYAlv sCrvOOL

vocn Nona. O
cuvonuct cunt-

~IG~ SCNOOL
VC'CAV ONAL

'(NYta Ono-guy .
~0~ .

IISIDI~7IAL

fl'fiESSWlVS

A RNLN

MCCO'KL I

0 'AN

:1';: B
'IUSABL O

\

EXHIBII
7

MAP OF ADMINISTRATIVE AREA ”A".

ERTON WILI'ARD

   

 

CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

5H0: SMITH

  
  
  
  
 
  
   

 

 

 

 

  

 
     
    

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

.........

  

 

DISTRICTS DUSABL
'REAVI
N VINcEiI NESM ””000
PARKMAN ARE -‘- i MLIRRI ,
$11; thée ._KOZM|NSI\I
ladcanONAL '
MSELEY _
’ oCARTER- '
~16» SCHOOL ..........
BE-LE AOSExroN.
' L [N6 000 °ROSS(2]
"u ‘ GERSHWl wI HA
m ...... TE ....... t”, M
KERSHA o ILZIIi' DULLES
aAss HILLIARD
. .BANNEKER MCCOSH
LOW 20 9K5? ' B OWNEL L ';'j:‘._" ’ 3
WE ORTH ”AWE“ """" ' O
. c.)
HINION .an .............. Z
: u I n . . o <1
GUGGENHEIM 1. TANNERREVERE BRYN anp ‘1
=:-:';-‘ CI)
meg DENEEN . . 0. eLAC . .~
......... ' CORNEIL- W‘O'CW - [.m- ,H , 53;“:
ocLEsev. HARVARD f BRADWF
8”“) «£56»:
°RquLEq
. wesrcor A c p R MANN
coox CALUM f. ' AV '~ "\ A H
0 ¥ E a. -. OOKWAY I
A onON
:::§.S«Mc 0 V06 .
FOSTER PARK ‘?""'-iii 0
0 ° 'IESHAV IL. PIRIE
ORYDER :13?" ‘MCDADE

   

KELLOG:G

 

57 DE ARBORNéjf; {iii
:IIIIPL IN 9R
' .

   

EW
oGIL LESPIE

BURNSIEIE
O

wARPEN o
EARHAR'

0 ~ .
.......................
...................

 

 

 
 
 

 

   

  

 

 

 

  

 
  
  

 

    

 

 

    
  

 

 

  

 

 

 

  
 
  

  
  
 
  
 
 
  
   
   
   
 
   
  
  
  
  

 

   
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  
 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

I
VANDERFOEL '--WACH:R 49“. AV
0 ' EVERS SHEDD .
' '3:1:1:? .......... '
SUTHERLAND FERNWOOD """""""" 5959-“
° ' BENNETT
o :.:-:-. 7.415 "312'. "
BARNA Q0 . “ l 'GOLDSMITHO. '.‘::'0ALI;ISYEL-
0 :;:“ ' 3' T:
: :5 ' MOUNT VERNON ”0H" '
quGr~.. VA ~ ...........
MIGREENWOOD DUNNE VLISSINGEN
O
SLISSOLD §ATES
.EEFE.ER MORGAN FARK .................
. . . g .....
.SHE-DON . snoop £416! ....
ESMONO
r O n I.
. YHISILER BRFNAN ‘ ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
i """ ° oquN :.\A
— ":‘E . ..... H'GG‘NS ............
x “3 3337-3. ' _ o I
(D N .. J --------- WEST R... M».-
< O z '3‘; WEST RULLMAN BR
5‘ L3: 33 1"." ‘ Luv-r R3
0- *— ...:.
(J)
Lu ......
3 ..........
RIDEHDIL: ““5 R
14.0 '
8 .. ‘4 w: R
*— EWTCN
U') .
_J
.' " .' a .. a 4
W
nut-tofu“... "-""'~‘~“" "" I
0" 0”"! 'u “poo-5'
? i 3 3 g :1 Lu LIJ uJ uJ :
O o o o O 4 o o O o O ‘.'
o o o o o I- o O O O I
O N Q LO 0) U3 0 ‘9 ¢ N I
<7 «I N - " N 'q a

'3 009i
3 009
'M 003$
0009
M 00817
M 0099
M 00v9
M 003/.

0
31VlS
M 008
'M 009l

 

 

l67

 

            
                   

 

3 .1. I. .ln .0 1 “Hum... mm. ...-ms
’28 hi! . “Fm .It—v hm
...I.I..alaa..0l. l...nvc
o . III 1 ~ n ~ 0
. «ammo
AJOKmCU o mw3<o
ngo O ZOMZW>NPM¢$

....hzzumoz .— hm +2. an.

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

  
    

 

 
 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

     

 

N
V
H
.... Mm O W
MAW 3 V H .
3.854 w. N N V pm pm :.
mm“. I. s a
$53. I.\ 8 3 1
Wm. V I. 3
x. . ..: ... .-I. .1- -.. uaI W
mm § mace»... o ”grams .H... ......r...rn.m..... ... .. airway... ...»me
m. Rum mtuaomg o ...................
_ fit hm dz mm
35“? tgmgi kamm t 34m
3.25.60 Um
SoEuzm. $83» I
ow_ mum :_¢1<aowo<c Mm. PL I» no
a; o H... .2053. .
n . on... . .. N256 ....n...
M z<z¢wxw . 446231.052
”53.3:
2w ~>~ I— ..... .
.Lm. ... _ . pm I»:
maq .. .. :

     

 

 

. m3434wzao
33‘ 3 6 “4:33am . 20m. 2 mN. . .
.:. ...qua. 00.0; . : Em.
”$3.209 . «.ij I 06502me

0.3323. . . quhzwmdu.
....q V:5.

 

 

 

     

 

A.“ x . n. .. . . . . .H .......
26.526. 052 .. .

.:....

ozimmwa km E an

 

   

3|WVUV1

9. m
MQQQIDRS “Dozmmwm

 

 

 

hm pm _m
6:30:58 80

”...”..u. .a . . m. u . ..... . . .. .. ....... .. . ...n.. n.1'mwhkliu
...w..x.< . U: . ...... ;

 

 

   

O..W.ZZDD... ...... cutq iiaso out can

batman ..Euxurm»

 

leiIOtA Hyslhl I

1mm... . . . . 1%: mm .33
............. camxlomindro .. ..
Jumwoau

   

..ODXUm 10.2 .180. L100;

 

     

km 02 NN

.....aomu.*<juo.<s

*(

40019“ I.» .l

lN-lho wot~0§5
«nloiuubou I .1loituos t.

x<mo>o 0,:me

_
.JNENr
. _

 

40°!Um btthNINdh I

. ..M WIQQHN!
.. hm IF N.
aura—1.34.:— ..f..—../.M_G./.m—.P./._~—m&.um -—.-:x.—.t=~

GOA-NBA“! U~NVIQ 0...»..fln

 

£23.... 38:8 8.3.: 8526 m <mm<

O
......onummmlsoasfimg ...9. <32 mEEEmSEE .8 .2: 28.2..
.....w........a ... . _ I

 

m
hmmnzxw

 

 

168

 

 

  

          

 

                 

 

           

 
     

  
  

 

 

 

 

      

 

  

   
  

 

 

 

     

 

 

         

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

                  

  

  

 

 

   

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
 

 

 

I. 7v at Q: .L 90 90
m0. 0 O O 0 O O O O
0 V O 0 O 0 O O O O
I.
3. “M M. MM ”M M. M M. M
. .:.... 3:. In... ms<lnrulauu
.... D‘I 60"": u. Hutu. 41_>2~Q.w~l 20! Pm IF N—
. u I 0 o . n I . l .. ... 1 a Z... >moowmnw.... ..Iu.u.t.. 1.0.2:... o
_ lll. r2. .:.... ..»0..2<.2 02:2»00 CF _ .35. .... .:. ...... 4
. 20...... .53». .00. .2. ..
m 2 .05 3v MQVRTW .ozjuo £54030 2...: :2... 2.
J<Iwm..<.§-Io odewuflwr ....o..qu.nou c .qro.:0o) * O
><Odmdu zwmukzuomfill.’ XQ oqwcmdo 3 ...mEEwo .80100 .21401040 . ZOW_O<2
. .. 02022.3 .2824:
I _-.P40.. HKWJO_U. ....... ... 0 o 000
‘09:. 20...: o q N... N...
.200>220.» QM§00 ......... .. uvzwnm .xmbv
.. . ... . ...... .‘00. 303. . _ . 0 2 .... 0. 0.01027027020. ....x. 0.0.0.5....
. . . .2050... 00.31.03.302. . .00.. fr. . . .q. 2. u u. a \ has».
.3020»; ... . . N .N M: .\w R. ..Nw .z 000
PPOUJdH . wmtoz ZOme)m ” 0
3.0.: ..2._..a.m... .. x. 0262'. H 0040.10
. n“ . O
.:.... .. . . 0285 V U <mm<
zoI»...x00_« 0*. 0.... £0.94 0:020: W0
0 .0008 000.. 000809... 200 002100.200 0.. 5&3“. .. m
u :3”
2.3.0.2420. . 0.23.9 .m. E . o .
N} 220.242 2020;) 2.30 »o..0.:_2:x 3030.. 2 000.
.. m. ....... 20>. ........... ....... Ikmoz
J“ O Om30FW..
mzozsgo moo... . ”w
005:, 2902......
.xma::a. .00410 sq.
. ...l . ......
.... O . W.“
. . ... WEB E2002 .... m «...... 2 00.:
.0025. 0429.». . . _ u.
...0 0. zE—zg 25¢ 5.0.00». :23 2002...: 3 2055.33.
+ 0040 Fkoumwm o “5
.L s»» d . .l
- H. . Am. . oz<»20§_ 09.203. .0. . M.
- H N.mm.<o<o ....n. m..Wm....wzxum do»... 00.00.. 00
I . .. . . 003202. w
0.. .....w... 0 2.02 002:0 .. m 50:250. 2 0000.
:/ .mz. -leaflllJ. »zoz:0m
»02 r:0»»02 o.+. ”.0. 0
f6... 022mfi3<x 28:03.
I@00 O
OwZ_<JQ JJWOO I 0
:ammflo » 00050 .2 0000
..kw .0 u $42000 ‘ ,xa 025w:
n. 3 kn. . . .
22 “we. “22.0mm .m”. w.“ a. . .n o :35: o muw>z
41.010000 . 00030203.... 0.0.2050 025.00 .
. z<00<1 ... ....
0 m x
0.0013 :2... 0.0.3. .2 000v
20020232 $300.00 .. . s”... “00me26..
_ .. .naqmmi «50> .
. «0.2.44... ... 0240.0

mgooxum 0:03.. 0908:0000
.20.. <0m<
m>Hh<mwaszo< ....0 mg

m
.5250

 

H. _\<.w\<0\<v_. 020.050.. w...

               

         

0
0233.0“.

 

2m.m3<wm

 

44302.55?—

 

JJwQadIU . o
. >>2qo

   

.. 200..» 0a
0. 00.0._.2<n..

w. 000.00%...

T. ..Hnu O

o . u. IW<2<OD
,. o» 2 :0 . <0
MLWEOJOWO ..w. D<U¢OIk

xmda w40.a0 H.
F .

      

 

 

_
K_k Sir

..u... o
...».an 000; 202

    
    

 

 

 

 

 

zwumo

.0. 0208

  

.2033. 0

 

ozomhms.” a.“
o

.0.de H........~.:»2.00m

 

 

 

2.83 .:.o

.. , , 0:6... 3.0

              

.5054 6:93»:
30:0 0000.2”

z 000
$342 Z>m_

.z oovw
zo>0o.

.z oo-
>IDOF

 

 

 

 

 

 

33:60 232:7. EoEtmaov 22:53

«00— 0:2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33:02:... .hmw<
024 342.025..

 

 

 

E 23552 a — E £24532

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WJOOIUW UZQDL .:OMFmD p23,. 22$}. L _ 20.02.
ml... ”.0
3552.5 m>:<~:m.z_2o< _ 5.2362. _
2203.. m — — «c063. v
w Eamoa 7.8% .23 .52 _ _ .53 .52
1 new 63% now”. ‘
55m .52 ,
n. 6533. _ “292.582 . m
.23 .52 T «2.5 go 3.5 . 9< 26
_ _ _ 55m 0034
_ ‘
.EE *0 .58. _mcc02ma "
.23 .uom? .23 do”? _
_
{ P , u
‘ Illlll ...I. , ,
am?” afimyfimo _. Mafia n u ééé
.23. :23 .:.: time _F .23. :23 I“ .23. :23 u .:3 >5me .53 :23
T _ Xx ._. _ - M w _ w _ ‘
_
_
‘ _
_
— :23 “2585 _ _
_
‘ _
‘ .u I
_ 53232523 will: _— 59252 «32.3: A

 

 

F 20:.<U:Dw “.0 9300

 

 

z<onu~z .hHomhmo
.mdoozuw Umgmam FHomhuo
km<xu onp<~Hz<omo

.SI
.5258

EXHIBIT 170
11

COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER SETTING INTERVIEW WITH D. B. EMMERT, DIRECTOR OF
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL, FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

c34§§i§9ffié¢kn¢2§2vmyazz2{5/,

U S.EMMERT THE AMERPCAN ROAD
{.HJhCT'JR,{-RuAulgAramy AND ‘ DEARBORN. MiCH|OAN

“ANA 5'51! N' PER‘) )NNf... PLANNING OFFICE

pr ) NHL- AND ORGANIZATHJN STAFF

March h, 1969

 

Mr. W. L. Austin
Superintendent

Muskegon Public Svhuols
Muskegon, Michigan h9hho

Dear Mr. Austin:

Your letter of February 25, 1969 to Mr. S. E.
Knudsen has been referred to me.

i would ho glad to discuss with you the Ford

Motor Company's poiiéies wH decentralization on either
pf the dates you in» unte. I would suggest that we
meet either at 9 0"lock or 2 o'clock on whichever

day y-u prefer.

.Sincerely,

 

l7l

EXHIBIT
l2

ORIGINAL LETTER SETTING INTERVIEW WITH R. E. BARMEIER, DIRECTOR OF

Executive Offices PERSONNEL PLANNING AND RESEARCH

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. Chicago, Illinois 60607

December 10, 1968

Mr. W. L. Austin
Superintendent

hoard of Education

3276 Roltwood Drive
Muskegon, Michigan 49441

Dear Mr. Austin:

 

This is in response to your recent letter to Mr. A. M. wood
concerning Sears organization structure. fir. Wood has
referred your request to H . R. E. Barmeier, Director of
Personnel Planning and Research.

I feel certain Mr. Barmeier would be glad to spenfl some mine
with you to discuss our decentralized form of organization.
We is currently, however, out of the office and will not return

until December l7th. Your letter will of course be referred to
lie neon his return to the office. 3 a” sure he will he in
eoniacr with you as soon as pessifiie therewfter to 301 up wu
appoiltflent Convenient to hoth of jou.

I trust this handling will be r3100111c fo you. If it is n01,

.'

however, please let us know ind 3c til. nitompt to bake other
arrangie‘neui :2 .

-.:>r,' "truly yours,

1‘
.n
./< u .1 ‘1‘1/ 4. V- 9 I... k, (i,
, ',/. Yi
/' ~ ,s ‘ ' . n ' - .~ I. " ,
g 1.": o 1" ( 1.1(3 A DINO”: I") ,I .
s' Qtaff Assistant

Personnel Tlnnning & Yeseerch

 

172
EXHIBIT

13

COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER SETTING INTERVIEW WITH R. E. BARMEIER, DIRECTOR OF
PERSONNEL PLANNING AND RESEARCH, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY.

Executive Offices

5 E A RS, R O E B U C K AN D C 0.. Chicago, Illinois 60607
December 16, 1968

Mr. W. L. Austin
Superintendent

Board of Education

3276 Boltwood Drive
Muskegon, Michigan 49441

“car Mr. Austin:

I have Just returned to the office following a vacation
trip and have had an opportunity to read your letter of
December ::h to Mr. A. M. Wood regarding a visit Lo

Sears to discuss our policy of decentralized operation.

I will be in the office December 30th and 3lst and will
be pleased to see you either day. Perhaps you can let
me know which day would fit best into your schedule.

 

For your information, uy office is located in Room 500 of
our Kain Adminis!ratinu Building at 925 So. Homan Avenue,
Chicago, ill.

in case you decide Iw phone me, my number is Area Code 312*
265-279C.

Sincerely,

A? f/W

R. E. Barmeior
Director of
personnel Planning & Research

RFT";V(

 

l 3
EXHI3IT 7

In
ORIGINAL LETTER SETTING INTERVIEW NI'TTJOHN SHANKLIN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY or UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

1370 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

JOHN F. SHANKLIN

VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY

April 17, 1969

Dr. W. L. Austin, Superintendent
Muskegon Public Schools

3276 Boltwood Drive
Muskegon, Michigan uguul

Dear Dr. Austin:

Mr. Rush, President of Union Carbide, has
referred your letter of.April 1%, to Mr. Shanklin.
He is out of the city at the present time, but I have
established that he will be able to see you on Friday,
April 25, at 10:00 a.m., if this time would be con-
venient for you. Mr. Shanklin is located on the “9th
Floor at 270 Park Avenue. His telephone number here
is Area Code 212, SSl-GulZ.

He will expect you at the above time. Hew-
ever, I believe he would appreciate it if you would
drop him a note confirming whether you will be here
at that time.

Very truly yours,

r'

Secretary to Mr. Shanklin
dr

 

 

I74
EXHIBIT l5

LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO D. B. EMMERT, DIRECTOR ORGANIZATION AND
MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL, FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

April 29, l969

Mr. D. B. Emmert, Director
Organization and Management Personnel
Ford Motor Company

The American Road

Dearborn, Michigan

Dear Mr. Emmert:

Just a note to thank you so much for the generous amount of time
that you were able to give me this past week while I was in Detroit.

Your knowledge of your company's operation was most helpful, and it
seemed to set the stage for my week's activities as I studied
industry. Many of the comments that you made were supported by both
Mr. Rush, president, and Mr. Shanklin, vice-president, of Union
Carbide Company.

I have had high regard for the Ford Motor Company through the years,
and the kindness shown to me by a man such as yourself--and other
officers of the company-~in arranging for the interview, has tended
to strengthen my feelings.

Thanks, again.

Sincerely,

w. L. Austin
Superintendent

WLA da

cc: Mr. Henry Ford, II
Mr. S. E. Knudsen

 

 

T75
EXHIBIT l6

LETTER OF APPRECIATION T0 R. E. BARMEIER, DIRECTOR PERSONNEL PLANNING
AND RESEARCH, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY.

January 8, 1969

Mr. R. E. Barmeier, Director

Personnel Planning and Research

Sears Roebuck and Company

Main Administration Building, Room 500
925 S. Homan Avenue

Chicago, Illinois

 

Dear Mr. Barmeier:

Just a note to thank you so much for the time you generously
gave me on December 30. I certainly learned in good detail about
the organization in discussing the Sears Roebuck program with you.

I am particularly impressed, as I discuss the business Operation
of a company such as yours, with the insight that you have into
not only your own business operation, but also business in general.
Of course, it was most helpful to me to know that you had also
been on a board of education.

I will try to keep you briefed if we find more information in the
direction of decentralization. I hope this may open some doors
for public schools.

Thanks, again.

Sincerely,

w. L. Austin
Superintendent

WLA da

 

I76
EXHIBIT l7

LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO JOHN F. SHANKLIN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION.

April 29, 1969

Mr. John F. Shanklin
Vice-President and Secretary
Union Carbide Corporation
Union Carbide Building

270 Park Avenue

New York, New York

 

Dear Mr. Shanklin:

I can't tell you how much I appreciate the time you spent with
me this past Friday in New York. It was most helpful.

Of the several interviews that I held during the week, I look at
my time spent with you as the most beneficial. I believe your
background as a member of the board of education helped bring
the picture more clearly into focus. You understood the direc-
tion in which I was moving, and I felt you were speaking the
same language.

It was most courteous of you to give so generously of your time.

Sincerely,

w. L. Austin
Superintendent

WLA da

Mr. Kenneth Rush

 

I77
EXHIBIT l8

LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO KENNETH RUSH, PRESIDENT, UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

April 29, l969

Mr. Kenneth Rush, President
Union Carbide Company

Union Carbide Building

270 Park Avenue

New York, New York

Dear Mr. Rush:

Just a word to thank you so much for setting up the interview with
Mr. Shanklin this past week.

You certainly are to be congratulated on the fine impression that
your company makes through its top executive personnel. Mr. Shanklin
not only made me feel much at home, but also spent a leisurely two

hours with me in giving me the background of your company and its
work in the area of decentralization.

In these busy days, it always makes me feel most appreciative that
we have our top industries manned by men such as yourself and those
with the knowledge of Mr. Shanklin.

Thanks, so much, for aiding me with the arrangements.

Sincerely,

w. L. Austin
Superintendent

NLA da

Mr. John F. Shanklin

 

 

 

 

l78
EXHIBIT l9

COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER AND MEMO TO DR. CHARLES J. WOLFE AND DR.
NORMAN DRACHLER, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT AND SUPERINTENDENT 0F SCHOOLS,
RESPECTIVELY, OF DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

SIMILAR LETTER TO DR. ALVIN G. SKELLY, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, DETROIT
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

April 29, 1969

Dr. Charles J. Wolfe

Executive Deputy Superintendent
Detroit Public Schools

5057 Woodward

Detroit, Michigan

Dear Dr. Wolfe:

Just a note to thank you so much for the time you generously gave to
me this past week while I was in Detroit. It was just the type of
information I was seeking, and it was most helpful to have it
directly from the man who is in the program.

I hope that I may get into Detroit later to visit one or two of
the schools in your decentralized program.

It seems to me that your approach to this is far ahead of even the
City of New York, where I visited later in the week. You have

some fine things going on in Detroit which might well result in the
direction of the future for education in cities of your size.
Thanks, again.

Sincerely,

W. L. Austin
Superintendent

WLA da

cc: Dr. Norman Drachler

 

 

l79

MEMO FROM W. L. AUSTIN
To Dr. N. Drachler Date 4-29-69

Subject: Interview - Dr. Wolfe

Dear Norman:

Thanks so much for arranging this for me.
It worked out fine. Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Skelly
did an excellent job.

Bill

 

 

EXHIBIT 180

20

COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER ESTABLISHING INTERVIEW DATES WITH OR RICHARD P
GOUSHA, SUPERINTEIDENT OF SCHOOLS, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN. .

MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ADHINIITIATION IUILDINO
8888 WI" VLIIT ITRIIT

MILWAUKEE. WISCONSI N' 63208
April 16), l969

Dr. W. L. Austin
Superintendent of Schools
Muskegon Public Schools
349 West Webster Avenue
Muskegon, Michigan 49440

 

Den r Dr. Austin:

I appreciate your complimarnts.

I Would, of course, he app) to haxc you visit tlu" lvtilwauluw- l’1l‘)l;c
Schools. If you will drop a note to Dr. William M. Lawn-rs, Assist--
ant Superintendent, Division o1 Relationships, tolling him of your
prospective time of arrival .wul (It-“8.1411115 he will make arrange—
ments for you to Ineot 5mm- of the key staff people. responsible tor
our cluster operations.

Meanwhile, for your further information, I cut-lost- (opivs of Iny
rm,ommcndatlons to the Burnt, providing for ratlwr general
I‘Ctrl‘giilllzallttll of the \‘I‘ntra'= offin- .‘ttlfl l'llt‘ schools. The dew-lop-
lllt‘l‘ll of program service .II'rus amt clusters were part of a broader

change pros ram.
Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. GOUSHA
Superintendent: of Schools

 

RPC-IZ

 

l8l

EXHIBIT
21

COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER FROM OR. BERNARD E. DONOVAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS, NEW YORK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

BOARD OF' EDUCATION
OF THE CITY OF NEW r' RK
110 t uVINOSYON Slat! l

antic-n.1,".- . N V ”201

BERNARD E. DONOVAN

55“19|NYLNDENV ’3" SCHOO.7

April 11 , 1909

Mr. W. L. Austin

Superintendent of Muskegon Public Schools
Administration Building

349 W. Webster Avenue

Muskegon, Michigan 49440

Dear Mr . Austin:

In response to your recent letter concerning your
visit to New York City, I would very much like to have you
received by Mr. Norman Brombacker on my staff who has been
handling our decentralization matters for the past two years.
He will also arrange for you to talk to some of our staff who
have been involved in decentralization. If you know the time
of your coming to the Board of Education in April, 1 would
appreciate your writing directly to Mr. Brombacker concerning
this. He can be addressed at 110 Livingston Street, Brooklyn,
New York 11201.

Very truly yours,

'2&~"‘ ‘ V-LL \ \J (\m ¢~’M

Bernard E. Donovan J
Superintendent of Schools

BED :al

.. Mr. Norman Bromlwa. ku-

 

 

I82

EXHIBIT 22

COPY OF LETTER OF THANKS TO THOMAS CHEEKS, SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS,
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.

SIMILAR LETTERS TO: WILLIAM POLLARD
SUB—SYSTEM PROGRAM COORDINATOR
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

VICTOR WERTSCHNIG
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

DR. WILLIAM M. LAMERS
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

 

 

 

l83

May 29, 1969

Mr. Thomas Cheeks
School—Community Relations
Milwaukee Public Schools
5225 W. Vliet Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Dear Mr. Cheeks:

 

Just a note to thank you very much for the time given me this
past Friday while I was in Milwaukee.

It was very informative, and I feel your system is making real
strides. I know it is always using precious time for.the visiting
firemen to descend upon you, but you were most gracious.

Good luck to you in the future. When you take that trip by Clipper
to Muskegon, don't fail to look me up.

Sincerely,

W. L. Austin
Superintendent

WLA da

 

l84
EXHIBIT 23

COPY OF LETTER SETTING INTERVIEW WITH DR. WILLIAM M. LAMERS,
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, DIVISION OF RELATIONSHIPS,
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN. ’

May 6, l969

Dr. William M. Lamers
Assistant Superintendent
Division of Relationships
Milwaukee Public Schools
5225 West Vliet Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Dear Dr. Lamers:

Dr. Gousha has referred me to you for information regarding the
organization of the Milwaukee Public Schools. I know how busy
school men are today, and certainly appreciate your willingness
to meet with me and to refer me to other members of your staff.
I plan to be in Milwaukee on Friday, May 23, and could be avail-
able at l0:30 that morning, or early in the afternoon. Please
let me know if this date is convenient for you, and which time
of day you prefer.

Thanks, again, for your help.

Sincerely,

W. L. Austin
Superintendent

WLA da

Reply envelope enclosed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rr—,v. i'V'rr: .- ~r‘l 'rr

               
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, ’HICHIGQN STQITE UNIV LIB IES ,

312

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 
       

 

 

 

 

 

.s «
w;~\~«~'l .--nm \wv -\ «w van! \.-~ .‘x‘cs - . .
:\\~~»-‘\-~'\‘~1~I»x~:‘:1 vu-‘~\~v-\~n- v'v-‘nww -~ , z - .v .~ . - _ ~ 3“ ‘ .
..-.\,-.~....\...\-..‘ m ‘~ 1 ..»\ ..-. ... » -; - -. vi. .u . >. _ ~ 1.. _ .. ‘ . . . ‘
w...‘ ..- ...- . - . _- i'wi - w} - , . _ . H, .. .. , . .'
, .. . . \ L ._ -. . . . .