I

I

I

I

71-18,316
VAUGHAN, Thomas Junior, 1928A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORTENED
SCHOOL DAY SESSIONS IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
SELECTED FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, administration

University Microfilm s, A XEROX Company , A n n A rbor, M ichigan

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORTENED
SCHOOL DAY SESSIONS IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AND SELECTED FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
By
.f 1

Thomas J. Vaughan

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
College of Education
1970

I

PLEASE N O T E :
Thesis is tightly bound. Some
print lost in spine. Tilmed
as received.
University Microfilms

x

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORTENED
SCHOOL DAY SESSIONS IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AND SELECTED FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
By
Thomas J . Vaughan

Summary
Purposes of the Study
This study was undertaken to determine if school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions have common financial charac­
teristics which, when compared with the financial character­
istics of school districts on full-day sessions, would
reveal significant differences.
1.

It was expected that the analysis of financial

variables would show a relationship between inequality of
educational opportunity evidenced by shortened sessions,
and inequality of educational opportunity as reflected by
school district expenditure and income patterns.
2.

It was also expected that a relationship would

exist between the outcomes of elections

(to increase the

operational millage rate and/or to bond for the construc­
tion of facilities), and the decision by the local board
of education to initiate a shortened school day.

Thomas J , Vaughan
Limitations of the Study
1.

Analysis was limited to specific financial

variables including:

expenditures

(average teacher's

salary, instruction salary expenditure per student, and
total general fund expenditure per student) , millage rates
(total for all school purposes, operational, and debt re­
tirement) , and wealth (state equalized valuation per
student).
2.

Sources of data restricted the study to Michigan

school districts offering kindergarten through twelfth
grade programs.
3.

The study does not provide findings for all

variables for the school year 1969-70, as the data required
for analysis were not available.
4.

A consistent pattern of findings in each of the

years analyzed was established as the criterion to reject
or not reject the null hypothesis.
Review of Literature
The general areas of interest in this study were the
adequacy of the Michigan State-Aid Formula to equalize edu­
cational opportunity, the financial implications of teacher
militancy on school district expenditures, and the lack of
state assistance in the financing of school facilities.
The review of literature consisted of a discussion
of state responsibility for financing public education,
studies contributing to the present structure of financing

Thomas J. Vaughan
public education in Michigan, the economic implications of
teacher militancy, and studies relating wealth and expendi­
ture to equality of educational opportunity.
Design of the Study
The sample.— Three test samples of school districts
on shortened sessions were selected.

The samples consisted

of 20 school districts in 1967-68, 17 school districts in
1968-69, and 22 in 1969-70.
Procedure.— The financial characteristics of districts
on shortened sessions were first compared with a control
sample of school districts on full-day sessions, where
school district size and geographic location were controlled,
and second with the state mean representing all school dis­
tricts in the state.

Matched pair analysis was used to

eliminate two variables, size and geographic location, which
could influence the validity of the findings.
Instrumentation.— The instrument used was designed to
obtain data related to school district elections.
mation required was the outcome of elections

The infor­

(to increase

the operational millage rate and/or to bond for the con­
struction of facilities), and the influence of the election
outcome on the board's decision to shorten the school day.
Analysis.— The following methods were used in the
treatment of data:
1.

The correlated t test was considered the statis­

tic appropriate to measure the difference in means between
matched pairs.

Thomas J. Vaughan
2.
ure

The t statistic was used in computations to meas­

the difference between the mean of each characteristic

in the test sample and the state mean used as a population
parameter.
3.

Independence between categorical characteristics

in mutually exhaustive classes was measured by the use of
the phi correlation coefficient.
4.

Linear relationships between variables were com­

puted using the Pearson product-moment correlation coef­
ficient .
Findings were considered significant on all tests at
P < 0 .05 .
Conclusions
The comparison of the means of financial variables
in the test sample of school districts on shortened sessions
with the means of the control sample on full-day sessions,
when school district size and geographic location were con­
trolled, revealed that the mean average teacher's salary in
the test sample was significantly lower than that of the
control sample in 1967-6 8.

Replication of the analysis

using data for 1968-69 did not show significance.
Comparison of the means of six other variables in­
cluding instruction salary expenditure per student, total
general fund expenditure per student, total millage rate,
operational millage rate, debt retirement millage rate,
and state equalized valuation per student indicated no
significant difference.

Thomas J. Vaughan
The distribution of the variables in the control
sample approximated that of the test sample.
When the same financial variables in the test sample
were compared with state means it was found that the mean
instruction salary expenditure per student in the test
sample was significantly lower than the state mean in
1968-69, but no significant difference in means was found
in 1967-68.
Analysis of data supported the hypotheses that the
means of the average teacher's salary, total general fund
expenditure per student, total millage rate for all school
purposes, and operational millage rate in the test sample
are significantly below the state m e ans.
The hypothesis that the mean debt retirement millage
rate in the test sample would be found to be significantly
higher than the state mean was also verified.
The mean state equalized valuation per student in
school districts in the test sample was significantly lower
than the state mean in 196 8-69.

Surprisingly, no support

was given this finding in either 1967-6 8 or 1969-70, when
the analysis of data showed no significant difference.
Data collected on school elections supported the
hypothesis that a positive dependent relationship exists
between election outcomes

(operational millage and/or

construction bond proposals), and the decision by local
school boards to place students on shortened sessions.

Thomas J. Vaughan
It was also observed that there was a weak linear
relationship between operational millage rates

(local

effort) and the total general fund expenditure (educational
opportunity provided) in 1967-6 8.

However, the analysis of

data in 196 8-69 showed the two variables to be independent.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express gratitude to Dr. Louis
Romano, chairman of his Doctoral Committee, for his pa­
tience, encouragement, helpfulness, and interest from the
beginning of this project to its culmination.

Dr. Richard

Featherstone, Dr. Lawrence Borosage, and Dr. Philip M.
Marcus completed the committee.

Their assistance and con­

structive criticisms are gratefully acknowledge.
A debt of gratitude is due Dr. Andrew C. Porter,
Mr. Fredrick R. Wilson, and Mr. John Schweitzer for their
assistance in the development of the research design and
analysis.
Thanks must also be extended to the Michigan Depart­
ment of Education for their cooperation in providing data,
and particularly to Mrs. Shirley Waldron, who was as helpful
to a graduate student as she has been to school adminis­
trators through the years.
Words alone can never express the appreciation earned
by my family.

For cheerfully fulfilling her role as wife,

mother, typist, and part-time father, I extend my deepest
thanks to my wife, Mickey.

And, finally, my thanks to two

great teenagers, Jeffrey and Julie, wise beyond their years,
for knowing how to handle an often disgruntled and irritable
father.

TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................. ii
LIST OF T A B L E S ..........................................

v

LIST OP FIGURES............................................ vii
LIST OF APPENDICES........................................ viii
Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION ....................................

1

Significance of the Problem ................
3
Statement of the Problem ...................
8
Research Questions
..........................
10
Teacher Salaries
..........................
10
State Financial Support ....................
11
Local Financial Support ....................
12
Definition of T e r m s ............................. 13
Procedures and Limitations....................... 16
General Research Hypotheses
................
17
Overview of the S t u d y .......................... 19
II.

REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E .............................. 21
Introduction
................................
21
Educational Opportunity: A Function
of the State.................................... 22
Equalization of Tax and Educational
Opportunity in Michigan ...................
34
Teacher Militancy and Its Economic
Implications.................................... 41
Related Research .............................
55
S u m m a r y .......................................... 67

III.

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY.......................... 70
Introduction
................................
70
Sources of D a t a ................................ 71
Test Sample....................................... 72
Control Sample....................................75
Instrumentation
.............................
76

Chapter

IV.

Page
Statistical Hypotheses
...................
Hypothesis I .............................
Hypothesis II.............................
Hypothesis I I I ..........................
Hypothesis IV.............................
Hypothesis V .............................
Hypothesis V I .............................
Hypothesis V I I ..........................
Hypothesis V I I I ..........................
Hypothesis IX.............................
Hypothesis X .............................
Hypothesis X I .............................
Hypothesis X I I ..........................
Hypothesis X I I I ..........................
Hypothesis X I V ..........................
Hypothesis X V .............................
Hypothesis X V I ..........................
Analysis Procedure..........................
Correlated t Statistic...................
t S t a t i s t i c ......................
Phi Correlation Coefficient .............
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient.............................
Limitation on D a t a ......................
Generalized Conclusions
................

87
87
88

DATA PRESENTATION AND A N A L Y S I S .............

89

Introduction................................
Analysis of R e s u l t s ....................... ‘
S u m m a r y ...................................
V.

78
79
80
80
80
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
83
83
84
84
84
85
85
86
86

89
89
109

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND
R ECOMMENDATIONS.............................

118

S u m m a r y .......................................
Purposes of the Study......................
Limitations of the Study...................
Review of Literature ......................
Sources of Data.............................
Design of the S t u d y ......................
Conclusions...................................
Implications
................................
Recommendations
.............................
Reflections...................................

118
118
118
119
120
120
122
124
130
132

A P P E N D I X .............................................

134

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................

152

iv

LIST OP TABLES
Table
2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

4.1.
4.2.

4.3.

4.4.
4.5.
4.6.

Page
Comparison of Selected Financial Factors in
Districts where Fact Finding Occurred
with State-wide Averages...................

46

The Ten Highest and Lowest School Districts
in Michigan, Ranked According to State
Equalized Valuation Per Resident Pupil,
1965-66

68

The Ten Highest and Lowest School Districts
in Michigan Ranked According to State
Equalized Valuation Per Resident Pupil,
1968-69

69

Average Teacher's Salary:
A Comparison of
Test Sample and Matched-pair Means
. . .

91

Instructional Salary Expenditure Per Stu­
dent : A Comparison of Test Sample and
Matched-pair Means................

93

Total General Fund Expenditure Per Stu­
dent: A Comparison of Test Sample and
Matched-pair Means..........................

93

Total Millage Rates: A Comparison of Test
Sample and Matched-pair Means . . . . .

94

Operational Millage Rates: A Comparison of
Test Sample and Matched-pair Means
. . .

96

Debt Retirement Millage Rates: A Comparison
of Test Sample and Matched-pair Means
.

96

4.7.

State Equalized Valuation Per Student: A
Comparison of Test Sample and Matchedpair M e a n s .................................... '97

4.8.

Average Teacher's Salary: A Comparison of
Test Sample and State Means.................... 100

4.9.

Instructional Salary Expenditure Per Stu­
dent: A Comparison of Test Sample and
State M e a n s .................................... 100
v

Table
4.10.

4.11.
4.12.
4.13.

4.14.

4.15.

Page
Total General Fund Expenditure Per Stu­
dent: A Comparison of Test Sample
and State M e a n s ..........................

102

Total Millage Rates:
A Comparison of
Test Sample and State M e a n s .............

103

Operational Millage Rates:
A Compari­
son of Test Sample and State Means .

104

.

.

Debt Retirement Millage Rates:
A Com­
parison of Test Sample and State
Means.......................................

105

State Equalized Valuation Per Student:
A Comparison of Test Sample and
State Means................................

106

Selected Election Outcomes and Their
Influence on Board of Education
Decisions to Shorten Sessions.............

108

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.

2.

Page
Relationship of Operational Millage Rates
to Total General Fund Expenditure Per
Student (1967-68)

110

Relationship of Operational Millage Rates
to Total General Fund Expenditure Per
Student (1968-69)

Ill

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

Page

Districts Reported on Shortened Sessions
and Their Matched Pairs ....................

135

B.

Letters and Questionnaires.....................

139

C.

Financial Variables Used in Calculations

151

viii

.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
What the best and wisest parent wants for his own
child, that must the community want for all its
children.
Any other ideal for our schools is
narrow and unlovely; acted upon destroys our
democracy.^
— John Dewey
Statistical data provided by the Michigan Department
of Education indicate that during the school year 196 7-68
a total of 10,901 students in Michigan public schools were
attending school on a shortened school day program.

In

the following year 196 8-69, the total number of students
attending shortened sessions had increased to 15,938, which
constitutes a 46 per cent increase in one year.
fall

This past

(19 69), three of the larger districts in the state

announced that several grades in their districts will be
attending shortened school days during the 1969-70 school
year, which should push the total of students attending
shortened sessions to a number in excess of 20,000.

Offi­

cial data to support this estimate will not be available,
however, until the fall of 1970, when the school districts
of Michigan file their Annual Statistical Reports for the
prior year.
^John Dewey, The School and Society
versity Press, 1900) , p. 10.\
1

(Chicago:

Uni­

2
It does not appear that the 1969-70 school year will
be the peak year for shortened sessions, but rather a
continuation of a trend.

School districts throughout

Michigan are notifying teachers by the hundreds that their
services will not be contracted for the 1970-71 school year
unless additional revenues are found to meet contractual
obligations.
School boards in Michigan which have implemented
shortened sessions argue that they had no choice, citing
a State law that prohibits deficit financing by school
districts.

Efforts by residents of the Livonia and

Waterford school districts to initiate court suits against
their local school boards to require full-day schooling
for all students were unsuccessful.

The Michigan Supreme

Court ruled that actions by local boards of education to
shorten the school day were not illegal, due to the non­
existence of a statutory definition of what a school day
should encompass.
Since the Supreme Court ruling, the Michigan State
Board of Education at its April, 1970, meeting revised the
State School Code to specify what constitutes the length
2
of a school day.
However, under the provisions of the
2

Michigan Department of Education, State of Michigan
General School Laws (Lansing:
State Board of Education,
1966), 19 70 Supplement to the "Child Accounting Rules"
340.14.
Rules approved by the Michigan State Board of
Education require a minimum of 900 hours of student
instruction, or 99 0 hours including a maximum of two study
halls, spread over a required 180 days.
Board action was

3
code the State Board of Education may approve shorter
student instruction days upon finding that an "emergency
situation" exists in a school district.

An "emergency

situation" is defined as the "existence of extreme
financial condition or a severe classroom shortage."
The Michigan State Board of Education has ruled that
every student in the State of Michigan in the first through
twelfth grades is entitled to the educational opportunity
of attending a school providing a minimum of five hours of
student instruction each day.

The State Board recognized,

however, that because of the inadequate financial structure
supporting public education in Michigan, all children will
not receive this minimum program; thus the "emergency
situation" clause.
Significance of the Problem
There is common agreement that education is important
and the quality of education provided should be the best.
Though critics of education may disagree with the present
structure, subject content or methodology used in our
schools, there is agreement that t o d a y 1s children need a
full education of the highest quality.

Today's generation

of parents is no different than prior generations, in that
they seek the "better life" for their children and they
view education as the means of obtaining this objective.
taken after a public hearing on the rules was held February
24, 1970, with more than 300 persons in attendance, and
testimony was taken from 54 persons.

4
The pattern of education in the United S t a t e s , for
more than a century, has been a system of public supported
and operated "common schools."
Though the principle of public support and operation
of education has been challenged many times, the most com­
pelling argument for maintaining the present system is the
imperative of social mobility.

Conant

3

writes that there

is a "devotion to the ideals of equality of opportunity
and equality of status" in this country.

An ideal exists

that every child should have an equal start in life.

In

our affluent society, education is becoming the most
important determinant of an individual's income and status.
Though this ideal of equality has not been totally attained,
public education has been the most influential instrument
we have toward that g o a l .
As early as 1906, Cubberley

4

recognized that a wide

variation of educational opportunities existed among
communities, and devised the "Cubberley Plan" for "the
apportionment of school funds," whereby educational oppor­
tunity would be equalized by subsidizing local school
districts with state funds.

Cubberley summarized his views

as follows:
3
James B. Conant, The American High School Today
(New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1959) , p*H
4
Ellwood P. Cubberley, School Funds and Their
Apportionment (New York:
Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1906).

5
Theoretically all the children of the state are
equally important and are entitled to have the same
advantages; practically this can never be quite true.
The duty of the s t a t e 'is to secure for all as high a
minimum of good instruction as is possible, but not
to reduce all to this minimum; to equalize the
advantages to all as nearly as can be done with the
resources at hand; to place premium on those local
efforts which will enable communities to rise above
the legal minimum as far as p o s s i b l e ; and to encourage
communities to extend their educational energies to
new and desirable undertakings.5
Cubberley went on to emphasize the importance of the
state, in that:
. . . Any attempt at the equalization of the
opportunities for education, much less any attempt
at equalizing burdens* is clearly impossible under
a system of exclusively local taxation.
Some form
of general aid is a necessity if anything like
common advantages are to be provided for all.6
Though C u b b e r l e y rs efforts opened the way for
participation by the state in assisting local districts in
financing their schools, his plan was far from equalizing,
in that it consisted of a "flat grant."

In essence, each

district received the same sum of money from the state
for each child in attendance, regardless of the ability of
the local district to provide its own funds.
In the early 1920's, Strayer and Haig pointed out
the deficiencies in the "Cubberley Plan" in a report pre­
pared for the New York State Department of Education by
the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission.
5I b i d ., p . 242.
^ I bid ., p . 54.

This report

6
became the conceptual basis of the "Strayer-Haig formula'1 or
"foundation program," which is the most commonly used
present-day practice in equalizing educational opportunity.
The report stated:
There exists . . . a movement which has come to be
known as the "equalization of educational opportunity"
or the "equalization of school support" . . . the
interpretation is somewhat as f o l l o w s : The state
should insure equal educational facilities to every
child within its borders at a uniform effort through­
out the state in terms of the burden of taxation:
the tax burden of education should throughout the
state be uniform in relation to taxpaying ability,
and the provision of the schools should be uniform
in relation to the educable population desiring
educati o n .
However,

this did not preclude any community from providing

a particularly costly education program if it so desired.
The primary responsibility of the state is to:
. . . insist that there be an adequate minimum
offering everywhere, the expense of which should
be considered a prior claim on the state's economic
resources.7
. . . The essentials are that there should be
uniformity in the rates of school taxation levied
to provide the satisfactory minimum offering and
that there be such a degree of state control over
the expenditure of the proceeds of school taxes as
may be necessary to insure that the satisfactory
g
minimum offering shall be made at a reasonable cost.

George D. Strayer and Robert M. Haig, Financing
of Education in the State of New York (New Y o r k : The
Macmillan Company, 1923), p^ 173.
8Ibid., p. 175.

7
Though Mort and his associates

9

made a number of

refinements in the "foundation p rogram," such as applying
weighted-pupil measures to compensate for the cost dif­
ference between educating elementary and secondary
students, the following principles from the work of
Strayer and Haig are incorporated in most state aid plans.
First, the grant may be used to reduce extreme differences
among districts in local tax burden; second, it should
afford relief from local taxes; and third,

it should

stimulate local expenditures to insure continuous improve­
ment in education.
The present study supports the premise that the
regulation and support of public education is a state
function and responsibility.

If education is, indeed, a

state function and responsibility, where does the State
of Michigan stand today in providing educational oppor­
tunity?

The position is clearly given in a statement

presented to the State Board of Education by State
Superintendent of Public Instruction,
1.

Ira Polley:

The State of Michigan is committed to the
proposition that the young people in all
Michigan communities are entitled not only
to educational programs equal to the best
now provided in the State but second to
none in the Nation.
g

Paul R. Mort, Walter C. Reusser, and John W.
Polley, Public School Finance (3rd. ed.; New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), p. 109.

8
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The availability of high quality comprehensive
programs and services should not— indeed cannot—
be dependent upon fortuitous factors and
circumstances.
Educational programs and services provided by
the school districts in Michigan vary tremendously
from district to district, not only in the quality
of these, but in the degree of comprehensiveness
of these program offerings.
The variation, from school district to school
district, in the quality and comprehensiveness
of program offerings is due mainly, although not
exclusively, to the variation in all financial
resources available to the d i s t r i c t s .
Financial assistance to school districts from
state appropriations is one variable in the
total financial resources available to these;
thus the amounts and means of providing state
financial assistance to school districts must
be viewed as an important factor in the provision
of high quality comprehensive programs and services
in all school districts in Michigan.
Since all state financial assistance to the public
schools since 1957 has been made by "piece-meal"
amendments to Act 312 of the Public Acts of 1957,
which is commonly known as the "State School Aid
A c t , " the time has arrived for an objective
study of the means, the kinds, and the extent of
financial aids provided to public school districts
from that source in relationship to all other
s o u r c e s .10
On the basis of the preceding introductory data, the

problem with which this study is concerned can be stated.
Statement of the Problem
The Michigan Department of Education considers
shortened school sessions as substandard and representing
inequality of educational o p p o r t u n i t y .^

This study

Prepared statement of Ira Polley, State Super­
intendent of Public Instruction, which was presented to
the State Board of Education on July 27, 1966.
^ S e e Footnote 2, pp. 2-3.

9
investigates the possibility that school districts on
shortened sessions have common financial characteristics
which are reflected in selected variables related to
expenditures, millage rates, and wealth.

When these

variables are compared with those in a sample of school
districts on full-day sessions, and with all school
districts in the State, significant differences will be
found.

It is the expectation of this study that the

analysis of financial data will reveal that there are
relationships between inequality of educational oppor­
tunity as projected in shortened sessions, and inequality
of educational opportunity as reflected in school district
expenditure and income patterns.

The general areas

studied will include the adequacy of the Michigan StateAid Support Formula to equalize educational opportunity,
the implications of teacher militancy on school district
expenditures, and the lack of State assistance in the
financing of school facilities.
The specific variables to be analyzed include:
expenditures

(average teacher's salary, instructional

salary expenditure per student, and total general fund
expenditure per student), millage rates

(total for all

school purposes, operational, and debt retirement), and
wealth

(state equalized valuation per student).

10
Research Questions
The selection of the general areas of investigation
was influenced by observations made by Thomas in the
Michigan School Finance Study

(1968).

12

Though the

problems of education in Michigan as they relate to the
"inequalities in educational expenditures,"

"the absence

of direct state contribution to the financing of school
construction," and "the recent wave of militancy on the
part of teachers in regard to salaries" are less well
publicized than many other problems,

they are among the

urgent problems of educational finance which face the
State of Michigan.
The following related statements and questions were
drafted to direct the design of this research.

They

represent the focus of inquiry and were used by the
researcher as a logical approach to realize the purpose
of this study.
Teacher Salaries
Since the passage of Public Act 379, an amendment to
the State Labor Law, the Hutchinson Act of 1947, school
boards in Michigan are required to negotiate salaries and
other conditions of employment through collective
bargaining.

The demands of teachers for higher salaries

12
J . Alan T h o m a s , School Finance and Educational
Opportunity in Michigan:
Michigan School Finance Study
(Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1968), p . 2.

11
through the collective bargaining process must be con­
sidered as to their possible effect upon allocation and
expenditure of funds:
1.

Is there a significant difference between

average t e a c h e r s 1 salaries in school districts on
shortened sessions when compared with average teachers'
salaries in school districts maintaining full-day
programs?
2.

Is there a significant difference between the

instructional salary expenditure per student in school
districts on shortened sessions when compared with the
instructional salary expenditure per student in school
districts maintaining full-day programs?
State Financial Support
State Grants-in-Aid Programs in Michigan and other
states are based on the principle of equalization of
educational opportunity.

The measure, then, of how

effective a state's Grants-in-Aid Program is, can be
determined by the degree of equalization of educational
opportunity it provides.

Such questions must be raised

in any consideration of state financial support.
1.

Is there a significant relationship between

the local operational millage rate levied

(local eff o rt),

and the total general fund expenditure per student
(educational opportunity)?

12
2.

Is there a significant difference between the

state equalized valuation per student in school districts
on shortened sessions when compared with the state
equalized valuation per student in school districts
maintaining full-day programs?
3.

Is there a significant difference between the

total general fund expenditure per student
opportunity)

(educational

in school districts on shortened sessions

when compared with the total general fund expenditure
per student

(educational opportunity)

in school districts

maintaining full-day programs?
Local Financial Support
The accepted criterion for determining the degree
of local school district effort is the total millage
levied by the school district to support its school
system.

This total millage rate is normally comprised

of an operational millage which provides revenue to
maintain the schools, and a debt retirement millage which
provides the funds required to meet bonded obligations.
Though it would seem that school facilities and the
instructional program would be inseparable, in Michigan
there is no legislative provision for state financial
assistance, recognizing the ability to pay, that would
equalize the burden of providing school facilities.
Such questions must be raised in any consideration of
state financial support.

13
1.

Is there a significant difference between the

total millage rates levied in school districts on
shortened sessions when compared with the total millage
rates levied in school districts maintaining full-day
programs?
2.

Is there a significant difference between the

operational millage rates levied in school districts on
shortened sessions when compared with the operational
millage rates levied in school districts maintaining
full-day programs?
3.

Is there a significant difference between the

debt retirement millage rates levied in school districts
on shortened sessions when compared with the debt retire­
ment millage rates levied in school districts maintaining
full-day programs?
4.

In school districts on shortened sessions, was

the action of the board of education influenced by the
outcome of an election which would have increased the
operational revenue, or authorized the selling of bonds
to construct new facilities?
Definition of Terms
The definitions which follow are provided so that
the content of this study can be explicitly understood
and accurately interpreted.

Some of the terms will be

restated in research form in Chapter III to give greater
clarity to the statement of the statistical hypotheses.

14
School d i s tr ic t.

A legal entity created by the

Michigan State Legislature for the purpose of operating
and maintaining public education within boundaries
established by law.
State equalized val u at io n.

The final appraised

value by the Michigan State Commission as to the worth
of real property in the State of Michigan.

The

appraised value, as adjusted, represents 50 per cent of
the property's resale value.
State equalized valuation per s t u d e n t .

The total

state equalized valuation of a school district divided
by the number of students in membership on the fourth
Friday following the opening of school.
Mill.

Equal to one-tenth of a cent.

For school

tax purposes, one mill represents a one dollar levy on
each thousand dollars of state equalized valuation.
Total millage for all school pu rp o s e s .

The combined

millage levy spread on the total state equalized valuation
of the school district to meet debt retirement obliga­
tions and provide funds required to operate the s c h o ol s.
Debt retirement m i l l a g e .

Only that portion of the

total millage levied on state equalized valuation used
to retire bonded obligations incurred through borrowing
to construct or renovate school facilities.

15
Operational m i l l a g e .

Only that portion of the total

millage levied on state equalized valuation used to
maintain and operate the s c h o ol s.
Contiguous school di s t r i c t s .

School districts that

share a common b o u n d a r y .
Shortened se ssions.

A school day comprising less

time than the State minimum requirement of five hours of
classroom or laboratory instruction. 13
T e a c h e r s 1 organization.

The legally recognized

representatives of the teaching, staff selected by
petition or elected under the provisions of Public Act
379, 1965.
Public Act 3 7 9.

An amendment to the Michigan Labor

Law, the Hutchinson Act of 1947.

This amendment

authorizes employees in the public sector to organize
into unions and requires employers

(school boards)

to

negotiate wages and other conditions of employment with
the union's designated representative.
State Grants-in-Aid

(state-aid).

Those public funds

which are allocated by the state to local school districts
to equalize state-wide educational opportunity, to com­
pensate for the highly visible property tax, and to
14
stimulate local educational efforts.
13

tion

See footnote 2, pp. 2-3.

14 Charles S. Benson, The Economics of Public Educa­
(Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961) , pi 223.

16
Equality of educational o pportunity.

"Without real

measures of quality difference, attention is focused on
variations in expenditure level."

Equality of educational

opportunity assumes "that the expenditure level in no
district falls below a certain level, which is described
15
as the minimum satisfactory offering."
Procedures and Limitations
On the basis that this study can only be considered
as one point of view in the investigation of the relation­
ships between shortened sessions and selected financial
characteristics,

the research q u e s ti on s■and general

research hypotheses are dependent upon the following
research assumptions:
1.
valid.

That the major sources of data were accurate and
They include:

Michigan Department of Education:

Ranking of Public Schools by Selected Financial D a t a ,
1967-68, and 1968-69; Michigan Association of School
Administrators:

Selected Administrative Information and

Millage Levies Relative to Michigan Public School
Districts, February,
Education:

1970; Michigan Department of

Analysis of Michigan Public School Revenues

and Expenditures, 1967-68, and 1968-69; and computer
printouts of selected data on school districts reporting
students on shortened sessions.

15I b i d. , p. 241.

17
2.

That the questionnaires designed to gather

additional data from school districts in the sample
population were completed by the respondents in an
accurate and unbiased manner.
3.

That this study used only selected financial

and enrollment data, and therefore is not comprehensive
of all possible statistical analyses.
4.

That the findings of this study as to relation­

ships between districts on shortened sessions and selected
financial characteristics should be considered as associational rather than causal.
General Research Hypotheses
This research study assumes that relationships
exist among school districts on shortened sessions, when
measured by selected financial variables.

It is further

assumed that when these selected financial variables are
compared with their counterparts in school districts on
full-day sessions,

significant differences can be observed.

With these generalized assumptions serving as a guide, the
following general research hypotheses were developed:
1.

Financial characteristics, including average

teachers’ salaries and average instructional salary
expenditure per student,

in school districts on shortened

sessions will be lower than similar financial character­
istics in school districts on full-day sessions, if school
district size and geographic location are controlled.

18
2.

Total general fund expenditure per student in

school districts on shortened sessions will be lower than
the total general fund expenditure per student in school
districts on full-day sessions,

if school district size

and geographic location are controlled.
3.

Financial characteristics related to the support

of schools, including operational millage, debt retirement
millage, and total millage for all school purposes, in
school districts on shortened sessions will be higher than
similar financial characteristics in .school districts on
full-day sessions,

if school size and geographic location

are controlled.
4.

The wealth measured in state equalized valuation

per student in school districts on shortened sessions will
be lower than the wealth in school districts on full-day
sessions,

if school district size and geographic location

are controlled.
5.

Financial characteristics,

including average

teacher salaries and instructional salary expenditure per
student, in school districts on shortened sessions will
be lower than the State mean.
6.

Total general fund expenditure per student in

school districts on shortened sessions will be lower than
the State mean.
7.

Financial characteristics related to the support

of schools, including operational millage and total millage

19
for all school purposes, in school districts on shortened
sessions will be lower than the State mean.
8.

Debt retirement millage in school districts on

shortened sessions will be higher than the State mean.
9.

The wealth measured in state equalized valuation

per student in school districts on shortened sessions will
be lower than the State mean.
10.

There is a positive relationship between

election defeats of proposals to increase operational
millage, or to bond for the purpose of constructing new
facilities, and the decisions of boards of education to
initiate shortened sessions.
11.

In school districts on shortened sessions,

equal local effort

(measured in operational millage rates)

does not provide equal educational opportunity

(measured

in total general fund expenditure per student)

under the

Michigan

(Grants-in-Aid)

formula.

The specific research hypotheses can be found in
Chapter III, in which the design of this study is treated
in detail.
Overview of the Study
It has been the purpose of this first chapter to
present the problem.

This study investigates the finan­

cial characteristics of school districts on shortened
sessions as they are reflected in selected variables of
expenditure, millage rates, and wealth.

Analysis of these

20
variables is expected to provide grounds for making
generalized statements related to inequality of educa­
tional opportunity.

In addition to developing the

problem, research questions have been posed, terms have
been defined, procedures and limitations have been
described, and the general research hypotheses have been
sta te d .
In Chapter II, studies and related literature are
reviewed in three areas related to this study:

the func­

tions of state and local financing of public education,
the economic implications of teacher militancy, and the
principle of equality of educational opportunity.
In Chapter III the specific design of the study
is covered.

This chapter includes the sources of data,

the method of sample selection,

instrumentation,

the

statistical hypotheses, and the techniques of statistical
analysis employed.
Chapter IV presents the findings of the study, and
discusses the results of this research.

Chapter V

summarizes the conclusions and implications, as well as
recommending possible areas of future research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This research is confined to a study of districts on
shortened school day sessions,
istics.

and their financial character­

Equality of educational opportunity has been

researched using many v a r i a bl es , both in and out of school
{i.e., class size, geographic location, teacher experience,
socio-economic background, etc.).

In this study the vari­

ables will be restricted to those related to wealth
ized valuation per student), income

(equal­

(millage r a t e s ) , and

district expenditures, including teacher salaries.

Short­

ened sessions are considered by the Michigan Department of
Education as being substandard and representing inequality
of educational opportunity.’*"

This review of literature

will attempt to establish a rationale to relate shortened
sessions statistically to inequality of educational oppor­
tunity, through analysis of characteristics involving
wealth and selected expenditures.
Since the research design involves the relationship
between finance and equality of educational opportunity,
■^See Chapter I, footnote 2, pp.
21

2-3.

22
the review of literature will include a discussion of state
responsibility for financing public education, studies
contributing to the present structure of financing educa­
tion in Michigan,

the economics of teacher militancy, and

studies relating wealth and expenditure to equality of
educational opportunity.
Educational Op p or tu ni ty ;
A Function of the State
Education in the United States, by tradition, has
been a function of the state.

The Federal Constitution

contains no specific reference to education.

As a result

of this omission,

the Federal Government is prohibited from
2
assuming control of education by the Tenth Amendment,
which r e a d s :
. . . The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.3
Though the pattern of education in early American
history was left largely to the discretion of the church or
local governments, as each state adopted a constitution
education was included as a state function.

Cubberley

asserted that the writers of these constitutions demon­
strated foresight,

in that the interest of all the people

2

Raleigh w. Holmstedt, State Control of Public
School F i n a nc e, Bulletin of the School of Education, Vol.
167 N o . 2 (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1932), p. 12.
^Constitution of the United States, 10th Amendment,

23
can only be served when the state exercises its authority
through constitutional provision to control and regulate
the schools.
. . . The fact that schools arose with us largely
as community undertakings, at first without state
permission and later under the provisions of
permissive laws, in no way has altered the funda­
mental principle that the state, and not the
locality is the ultimate source of authority and
the unit for legislative action.
It is the people
of the state as a whole who are supreme, . . .
The state thus stands in the matter of education
as an expressed will of all the people, and not
a part of the people, and in consequence the
expressed opinion of all must be superior to the
expressed opinion of a part.4
Moehlman made reference to this principle of state
control by pointing out that individuals and groups have
continually challenged the constitutionality of state
statutes governing education which have been enacted by
the various state legislatures.

The courts, however,

without exception have held that education is a state
function and that state governments have the right under
the Federal Constitution to regulate the school programs
provided in local school districts.

5

A report of the Educational Policies Commission con­
sidered the regulatory function of education a vested
interest of the state and all the people of the state.
^Elwood P. Cubberley, State School Administration
(New York:
Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1927), p p . 121-122.
5
Arthur B. Moehlman, School Administration (New York:
Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1946) , p^ 23.

24
The Commission considered education too important to be
left totally to the discretion of local communities.
It is sound policy which designates education as
a function of the state.
Since education is a
matter of general concern and not one which may
be left safely to the complete control of local
communities, the state has the right and the
obligation to mandate a general program of educa­
tion.
It is even more important to recognize
education as a function of the state in order
that there may be no doubt with respect to the
independence of this function from other govern­
mental arrangements in the area . . . [the state]
. . . may never safely overlook the failure to
provide adequate education for all children.6
Burke noted that control and regulation of public
education are not the only functions that have been
assumed by the state.

He contends that "by constitutional

enactment, legislation, and practice" the states have not
only assumed control of education; they have assumed the
responsibility for education.

7

Chase and Morphet concurred with Burke's observation
in their report to the Council of State Governments, in
which they stated:
State responsibility for education is firmly
embedded in the constitutions of the several
states and buttressed by tradition and court
decisions.
. . . This responsibility of governments of the
several states for education of their citizens is
£

Educational Policies Commission, The Structure and
Administration of Education in American Democracy
(Washington D . C . : Educational Policies Commission, 1938) ,
p . 44.
7
Arvin J. Burke, Defensible Spending in the Public
Schools (New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University,
1943), p . 18.

25
much more than a theory or a legal convention.
An examination of the efforts of the states to
strengthen their public schoolgsystems indicates
that it is a living principle.
The Michigan Constitution, like the constitutions of
most states,

limits the constitutional provision for public

education to a statement charging the legislature with the
responsibility for an adequate and uniform system of educa­
tion.

The Michigan constitutional provision for education

reads:
The legislature shall maintain and support a
system of free public elementary and secondary
schools as defined by law.
Every school district
shall provide for the education of its pupils
without discrimination as to religion, creed,
race, color or national origin.9
This wording in the Michigan Constitution of 1963 is much
stronger than that which was written in the Constitution
of 1908.

The Constitution now requires the legislature to

"maintain and support" the school system rather than to
"continue a system," as it was stated before.
Edward, an eminent authority on school law, noted
that as long as the state acts within those limits provided
by the Federal Constitution, it has wide plenary power to
regulate matters of educational policy within the local
school district.

Edward contended that:

O

Council of State Governments, The Forty-Eight State
School Systems (Chicago:
Council of State Governments,
T9T5T7--

q

Michigan Constitution, Article VIII, Sec.

2.

26
In the absence of constitutional prohibition the
ends to be obtained and the means to be employed
. . . [in educational matters] . . . are wholly
subject to legislative determination.
The
legislature may determine the type of schools to
be established throughout the state, the means of
support, the organs of their administration, the
concept of their curricula and the qualifications
of their teachers.10
According to Hamilton and Mort:
The most universal element of conceptual design
in the American school system is the maxim that
education is a concern of all the people.
As it
is usually stated, education is a state function.
As commonly interpreted the federal constitution,
by failing to provide specifically for it, left
public education either to the states [in this
sense, state governments] or to the people, to be
handled as they saw fit.
The conclusion is that
education is a state function, not a federal
function.
But the state constitutions commonly
charge the legislature with the duty of setting
up an adequate and uniform system of public
education.
The conclusion from this is that
public education is a function of legislative
responsibility.11
In Michigan, then, the responsibility for maintaining and
supporting education resides in the legislature.

This

being the case, what can be said for the authority and
responsibilities of local school boards?
Hamilton and Mort, in a discussion of the powers of
local school districts, emphasized that the courts have
been consistent in holding that school districts are
Newton Edward, The Courts and Public Schools
(rev. e d . ; Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1955),
pp. 27— 28.
11

Robert R. Hamilton and Paul R. Mort, The Law and
Public Education (2nd e d . ; Brooklyn, N.Y.:
The Foundation
P r e s s , 1959) , p T 16 .

27
instrumentalities of the state, created by legislative
action to carry out the constitutional mandates to provide
educational opportunities for the children of the state.
School districts are agencies of limited power, having
only those powers which have been expressly or by necessary
implication conferred on them by the legislature.

12

Though school districts do not have the inherent
power to tax, in that they are instrumentalities created
by the state legislature,

the financing of public education

is considered to be a joint enterprise in every state.

The

total funds made available to support education consist of
local funds, usually derived from a local property tax,
13
and a state subsidy in the form of grants-in-aid.
The
concept of separation of tax sources to support public
education has evolved through practice rather than by law.
Technically,

that portion of the local property tax

collected to support the schools is not a local tax but a
state tax.
The power of a district to levy taxes is not
indispensable to the operation of its school
system.
It is entirely possible for the legisla­
ture to levy the taxes and apportion them among
the districts of the state in any manner it deems
to the best interest of the schools of the state,
assuming there are no constitutional limitations
on the legislature in this regard.
In fact, state
12I bid., p. 1 G 6 .
13
Hawaii is an exception.
In Hawaii the schools are
financed by a state appropriation with other departments
of government.
No property taxes are used to support the
schools; all money comes from state revenues.

28
aid plans are administered in this way.
Other
plans of financing the schools might be conceived.
However, as a matter of general practice in this
country, the power to levy taxes is delegated to
the districts under legislative and constitutional
restrictions.
School taxes are state and not local in nature,
even though they are levied by the local district.
This result follows logically from the concept
that education is a state and not a local function.
Whereas the existing practice of separating tax sources
does not offer great hope

in solving the problem of

fiscal need, a program of

centralized

local

taxing does. Strayer

and Haig made the following statement on this point:
The simplest method of financing the
system to achieve the aims of the
. . . of equalization . . . would
uniform statewide taxes based on the
to pay.15

school
principle
be through
ability

The constitutionality of the centralized collection
of taxes which,

in effect,

levies tax on the wealthy part

of the state to provide for school expenditures in poorer
sections, has been challenged many times in the courts.
The courts have held, however,

that legislatures are

within their rights to levy taxes "uniformly" and to
allocate funds to equalize educational opportunity if they
determine it is in the best interest of the s t a t e . ^
Benson saw centralization as a means of readily
obtaining equalization in the distribution of tax burden
14

Hamilton and Mort, op. c i t . , p. 167.

15 Strayer and Haig, op. c i t ., p. 174.
■^Benson, op. cit. , p. 226.

29
and equalizing educational opportunity in the schools.
Me was concerned, however, with the possibility that
centralization of the fiscal structure would mean loss
of local control.^7
Commissioner James E. Allen, of the United States
Office of Education, emphasized that local control and
local finance are not necessarily inextricably tied
together.

He maintained that local boards should be

involved with important decisions related to the hiring
of staff and providing a program to meet the local needs.
Too many boards are preoccupied with b u d g e t s .
And let's be realistic:
For most districts,
local control is a myth.
It doesn't exist,
beyond their having the privilege to try to make
the most out of a mediocre situation.
Any
district with a high school of only 500 students,
or with a community that is unwilling or unable
to vote necessary operating funds or bond
issues, is very limited in what they can do.
It may have "local control"— but control over
what?
Once these restrictions are removed,
local control can begin to mean something.18
Fowlkes and Watson 19 surveyed the state educational
support patterns in 11 midwestern states.
17
18

Their findings

Benson, o p . c i t ., p. 226.

Theodore J. Miller, "The Case for Fiscal Reform
Now," School Management, Vol. 13, No. 11 (November, 1969),
53-54.
19
John Guy Fowlkes and George E. Watson, "A Report
on State Financial Support and Local Educational Planning,"
University of Chicago, 1954 (mimeographed).

30
supported Allen's observation that there is no justifica­
tion for the assertion that an increase in state support
results in an increase in state control.
Bailey et a l .,

20

in their study of school districts

in the northeast section of the United States, found no
relationship between the percentage of the local educa­
tional budget supplied by the state and the amount of
state control.
Thus far in the review of literature,

it has been

established that education is a function of the state,
and the state has the authority and responsibility for
its support and finance.

Further,

the local boards of

education, being instrumentalities of the state, have
only those powers specifically designated by the state.
Also, it has been established that the state or the state
legislature, within constitutional limitations, has the
right to centralize the tax structure to equalize
educational opportunity for all children if it is deemed
in the best interest of the state.
is,

The remaining question

"What shall constitute equality of educational

opportuni ty?"
It is Wise's

21

contention that before equality of

education can be defined it is necessary to formulate a
20

Stephen K. Bailey, et a l ., Schoolmen and Po li ti cs ;
A Study of State Aid to Education in the Northeast
(Syracuse, N .Y .: Syracuse University Press, 1963).
21

Arthur E. Wise, Rich Schools Poor Schools
The University of Chicago Press, 156B ) , pi T~,

(Chicago:

31
legal basis for equality.

The first consideration must

be given to the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United S t a t e s , which
states:
No State shall . . . deny to any person within
22
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The second consideration must be given to the United States
Supreme Court's specific interpretation of the equalprotection clause in Brown v. Board of Education, in which
the opinion stated:
The opportunity of an education, . . . where the
state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which
must be made available to all on equal terms.23
Wise developed a hypothetical case to be presented
before the United States Supreme Court, in which he
argued that the civil rights guaranteed to children under
the Constitution are being violated if they are being
deprived of an equal educational opportunity.
Precedents established by recent United States
Supreme Court decisions in cases related to civil rights
would indicate that if such a case as proposed by Wise
were to come before the court, they would rule that states
must provide equal educational opportunity to all
children.

If states were issued such a mandate, Wise

believed:
22

25-28,

Constitution of the United States, 14th Amendment.

23Brown v. Board of Education,
190.

347 U.S.

2D4

(1955),

32
. . . that the states would choose a basic standard
of equal dollars per pupil in order to alleviate
the agonizing burden of deciding whether students
of lower ability or students of higher ability
should receive higher expenditure on their
education.24
There are those who contend that educational
resources should be distributed to students according to
ability, so that each student can reach his maximum
potential.
Anderson and Foster, 25 however, stated that
this approach to the allocation of educational resources
is based on efficiency and has no relationship to provid­
ing equality of educational opportunity.

A child's

"native ability," they contended, is as inherent as his
race, and he has as little chance of changing one as the
other.

It follows that to allocate educational resources

on the basis of a child's ability is as discriminatory as
allocating those resources on any other inherent character­
istic.

Though education may favor students with higher

ability, as many studies have shown, it should be
recognized for what it is, an investment in the future of
society and not equality of educational opportunity.
The concept of equal disbursement of educational
resources on a per-pupil basis receives support from many
writers.

This support is not necessarily a result of

24 Wise, o p . c i t ., p. 159.
25
C. Arnold Anderson and Philip J. Foster, "Dis­
crimination and Inequality in Education," Sociology of
Education, XXXVIII (Fall, 1964), 5-6.

33
educational expenditure being the ideal criterion for
evaluating educational opportunity, but rather that
educational expenditure is a measurable factor.

Keppel

stated:
If "equality of quality" in education is to have
meaning, it necessarily applies to the poor as well
as the rich, to the Negro as well as the white, to
the bright as well as the average.
It applies to
every student without favor and without regard to
the place in which he happens to live.
There can
be no inequity based on accident of g e o g r a p h y . 26
Benson made an almost identical observation:
. . . [Equality of educational opportunity] . . .
implies that any two children of the same abilities
shall receive equivalent forms of assistance in
developing those abilities, wherever they live in
a given state and whatever their parental circum­
stances a re .27
In a review of related studies, which will constitute
the last section in this chapter,

the investigator will

view equality of educational opportunity in the terms
expressed by G a r v u e , recognizing its limitation:
A bench mark for a state to use in judging whether
departures from equality of educational opportunity
are sufficiently serious to warrant the state's
taking action to correct them is the expenditure
per pupil expressed in dollars.
An assumption,
then, is that those districts spending an equal
amount per pupil are essentially offering equal
educational opportunities.28
2 fi

Francis Keppel, The Necessary Revolution in
American Education (New York:
Harper and Row, 1966), p. 75.
27
Charles S. Benson, The Cheerful Prospect:
A
Statement on the Future of Public Education (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1965) , p"I 62.
2 fl

Robert J. Garvue, Modern Public School Finance
(Toronto:
Collier-MacMiilan, C a n a d a , L t d . , 1969) , p"I 131.

34
Equalization of Tax and Educational
Opportunity in Michigan
Over the y e a r s , equality of educational opportunity
and equity in tax structure have been major concerns in
Michigan.

The Report of the Tax Study Commission

(1939)

29

is one of the earlier studies focusing on bringing equity
to the Michigan tax structure.

The Commission reported

findings that were revolutionary in that day, but are
incorporated in most current day proposals for tax reform.
The Commission reported:
It is entirely possible, . . . that if the tax on
real property were administered throughout . . .
[the state] . . . with uniformity and precision at
every step, much of the present dissatisfaction with
the tax would be eliminated.
Present inequities may^Q
yet threaten the very existence of the property tax.
. . . The state has large responsibilities which have
been assumed only in small part.
They involve not
only the interest of the local taxpayers in due
execution of tax laws, but information by the State
as to alleged need for further centralization of tax
administration, or extension of more State g r a n t s - i n ^
aid, or perhaps State assumption of local functions.
The Commission went on to state:
This Commission is of the opinion that a personal
income tax would contribute to a more equitable
distribution of the tax burden. . . . While considera­
tion of equity is of great importance, there are other
circumstances which speak with equal eloquence against
a personal income tax.
The most significant of these
29 The Report of the Tax Study Commission was carried
out for the State of M i c h i g a n , persuant to Act 195, Public
Acts of 19 31, under the direction of Lent D. Upson, Director
and Chairman, 1939 (Detroit, 1939).
3^Ibid. , p . 4 .
31I b i d. , p. 10.

35
is the . . . refusal . . . of the electorate to
approve an amendment to the constitution.32
What the Commission called for was complete fiscal
reform, whereby the state would provide tax equity by
levying a uniform and equitable property tax and/or a
uniform state income tax.
These progressive ideas were eclipsed, however, by
33
the recommendations of the Michigan Tax Survey (1952).
Michigan, at that time facing a deficit state budget,
viewed equity from a different prospect.

Though the com­

mittee reported that a fair and equitable tax system was
necessary,

they contended that local units had a sub­

stantial reserve of unused taxing power and recommended
that state allocations be held in check.

The committee

report r e a d s :
The State of Michigan has so widely separated the
responsibility for taxation from the power to spend,
as to be wasteful of much of the tax money collected
from the people of the State.
The diversion of State tax collection to local
government has been carried so far that it often
tends to destroy the local sense of responsibility
at the same time that it has impaired the State
governm en t’s capacity to pay its own way.
It is none too soon to institute a moderate
policy for recapturing for State use a reasonable
32

I b i d ., pp. 42-43.
The amendment to which the
Commission referred was the 1934 amendment, which provided
for an income tax levy at any rate set by the legislature,
with all proceeds earmarked for public schools.
The
proposal would have abolished the property tax, except for
debt service.
33
The Michigan Tax Survey was submitted to Michigan
Legislative Interim and Revenue Study Committee by Chairman
Allen L. Gornick, Paul E. Curran, and Stark Hickey (Detroit:
1952) .

36
part of State tax collections which this State
has diverted to local government far beyond
its need . . . .34
The Michigan Tax S t u dy , ^

completed in 1958, is

considered a landmark in state financial studies.

This

study, prepared by a c i t i z e n s ’ advisory committee appointed
by a special legislative committee of the House of
Representatives, recommended a blueprint for total tax
reform.

The proposals included the adoption of individual

and corporate income taxes, and suggested relief in the
area of the regressive property tax.
study Governors Williams,

As a result of this

Swainson, and Romney recommended

to their legislatures fiscal reform programs containing the
basic recommendations of the study report.

Though none

of the Governors was successful in passing the legislation,
state leadership now recognized that fiscal reform was
essential.
Fiscal reform gained greater acceptance with the
findings of Cline and Taylor, reported in Michigan Tax
36
Reform (19 66).
Their proposals included relief in the
34TU
I b i d ., p . x v .
35
The Michigan Tax Study was prepared under the
direction of Harve E. Blaker, Director of the Research
Staff; Rollo G. Cunlin, Chairman, Legislative Committee,
House of Representatives; and Frank E. Seidman, Chairman,
C i t i z e n s ’ Advisory Committee (Michigan:
Speaker-Hines
and Thomas I n c . , 19 59).
36
Denzel C. Cline and Milton C. Taylor, Michigan Tax
Reform (East Lansing:
Institute for Community Development
and Services, Michigan State University, 19 66).

37
property tax through improvement of assessment practices,
37
and the enactment of a state income tax.
This investi­
gation also pointed out the need for reform in education
due to the obvious inequities revealed by their research. 3 8
Education thus became the focal point, as educational
expenditures represented the largest single expenditure in
the state's budget.

Many legislators were also appre­

hensive as to the impact the recently passed collective
bargaining legislation would have on the state's school
budget.
In 196 6, the Michigan Board of Education requested
that the Michigan State Legislature authorize a compre­
hensive study of school finance.
reasons for this request:

There were two apparent

first, action toward educational

and fiscal reforms was receiving greater acceptance by the
legislators and the general public; and second, the State
Aid Act of 1957, with its extensive amendments, was no
longer a desirable vehicle for state aid legislation.
The legislature approved the request with the passage of
Act. No. 285, Public Acts of 1966.
39
The Michigan School Finance S t u d y ,
released in
19 6 8, researched all aspects of educational finance from
the kindergarten through grade twelve.
37Ibid. , pp. 13-15.
38
Ibrd., p . 31.
39
Thomas, op. c i t .

In addition,

the

38
study included the financing of pre-school p r o g ra ms ,
adult education, and vocation education.
The assumption underlying this study by Thomas et a l .
was that the quality of educational opportunities and
services available to the children of the state should not
depend on either the geographic location or the local
property tax base of the district in which the child
r e s i de s.
In evaluating the present state aid program, the
analysis of data showed:

(1) the program is inadequate,

in that poorer districts cannot finance minimum programs
even after levying above-average taxes;
tion formula is inadequate,
educational opportunity;

(2) the equaliza­

since it does not equalize

(3) the present formula does not

stimulate local effort; in fact, state aid serves as a
substitute; and

(4) the yearly amendments to the old 1957

act have made it a complex instrument, too complicated
40
to allocate state funds effectively.
The Michigan Association of School Administrators
was critical of the report, because it gave alternate
recommendations rather than a precise course of action.
However,

some of the alternatives presented in Thomas'

study were to have an impact on the future course of
educational finance in Michigan.
40Ibid., pp. 193-199.

For example,

the report

39
recommended:

(1) a state-wide income tax, or a combination

of a state-wide income tax and property tax, could be
levied by the state to support a "basic educational pro­
gram" to insure greater equity in educational offerings;
(2)

the state should participate in the cost of providing

school facilities;

(3) consideration should be given to the

centralization of finance and services on a state or
regional basis;

(4) the number of school districts should

be drastically reduced,

since the unit cost of educational

programs is reduced as the result of the economics of
scale;

(5) financial assistance should be given to non­

public schools to relieve the financial pressure of
increased cost and inflation; and

(6) the state should

adopt a regional concept in the operation and administration
41
of special education and vocational programs.
The report of The Governor's Commission on Educa­
tional Reform,4 ^ released in October,

1969, made recom­

mendations that emphasized the effect the Michigan School
Finance Study had made on educational thin ki ng .

The com­

mittee recommended legislative action and a constitutional
amendment to implement the following reform m e a s u r e s :

4 1 Ibid., pp. 322-347.
4 ^The Governor's Commission on Educational R e f o r m ,
Robert J e w e l l , Executive Director; James P h e l p s , Assistant
Director; Governor William G. Milliken, Chairman (1969).

40
(X) The abolishment of the existing State Board
of Education and the position of Superintendent
of Public Instruction to be replaced by a
Director of Education appointed by the
G o v e rn or .
(2) The replacement of the present system of
intermediate school districts by 10-15
regional districts responsible for budget
review and service functions (e.g.r transporta­
tion, special education, vocational and
technical education, business services, etc.).
(3) The state should require a further consolidation
of school d i s tr ic ts .
(4) The variations in educational opportunity should
be reduced by shifting the responsibility for
providing educational revenue to the state.
(5) Constitutional amendment is required to provide
for the levy of a statewide uniform property
tax for school operational purposes.
(6) The development of a budgeting system based
on a classroom unit to guarantee that all
children will receive fair treatment in the
allocation of financial resources.
(7) The initiation of a statewide assessment program
to evaluate the needs of the children of the
s t at e .
(8) State support should be approved for salaries
of certified lay teachers of nonsectarian
subjects in the non-public schools.
The committee report stated that it concurred with
Bryant, Chairman of the National Advisory Commission of
Intergovernmental Relations, who said:
State assumption of substantially all financing
of local schools is the most practical way of
coming to grips with local educational disparity
while at the same time shielding the local
property tax base from crippling pressures.
States
have the responsibility to eliminate significant
variations in educational opportunity that stem
from difference in local tax resources.
Neither
the financing nor the quality of education should
bo shaped by the accidents of local property tax
geography.43

43Ibid., p. 9.

41
The committee stated it further concurred with
Thomas, Director of the Michigan School Finance S t u d y ,
who said:
The most effective way to guarantee that the
educational opportunities of children in Michigan
would be equitably distributed would be through a
shift toward state responsibility in providing
revenues for operating s c h o o l s . 4 4
Commissioner Allen cited Michigan as the state that
is most likely to set the pace for major educational
reform.

Allen made this assumption on the basis that

Governor Milliken believes so strongly in the necessity
for an overhaul of the school financial structure that
he is staking his political future on it.

The Commissioner

emphasized that:
. . . [educational opportunity] . . . is the nub
of the problem.
As long as we have the gross
disparities in opportunity that exist in virtually
every state today, we have an inequitable and
indefensible school system.
We know there is a
direct correlation between poor educational
opportunity and low ability to pay for education.
Therefore, whatever we do to develop a more
effective, efficient structure for financing
education must contribute toward solving this
problem of equal educational opportunity— or we
have not solved any problem at a l l . 4 5
Teacher Militancy and Its
Economic Implications
Within the traditionally complacent ranks of the
teaching profession a growing dissatisfaction has become
^Thomas,

o p . ci t ., p. 326.

^ JMiller, o p . c i t ., p. 52.

42
evident, and it has been manifested in strikes, sanctions
and other overt

forms. This review will include studies

and literature related

to two aspects of teacher militancyi

teacher salaries and teacher professionalism.
In the 40-year period between 1925 and 1965, teachers'
salaries in urban centers increased at the rate of 3.2 per
cent each year. During the same period,

teacher salary

increases moved

faster than the consumer index and their
purchasing power increased by more than 90 per cent. 4 6
The main source of teacher concern is not that their
salaries have not increased nor kept pace with the cost of
living, but that compensation for teachers has failed to
keep pace with that for other occupational g r o u p s .

Teachers

are sensitive to the relative changes in compensation for
other workers and the factors affecting those changes.
Between the years 1939 and 1965 teacher salaries
tripled, while the salaries of factory production workers
quadrupled.

In eight broad occupational fields the average

increase was 350 per cent and salary increases of all
groups were proportionately higher than the increase in the
average salary of t eachers.47
In the post-war period, the proportional increases
in teachers' salaries matched and in some cases exceeded
46

Arthur Sackley, "Long-Term Trends in Urban Teachers'
Compensation," Monthly Labor Review, LXXXIX (November, 1966),
1223-1229.
47Ibid., pp. 1227-1228.

43
those of industrial workers, only to be left behind again
by other occupational groups between 1963 and 1965.

The

Monthly Labor Review r e p o r t e d :
The recent slackening of the upward thrust in
salaries was accentuated by deterioration in the
economic position of teachers relative to many
other occupational g r o u p s . The advance in t e a c h e r s'
salaries from 19 63 to 196 5 was outstripped by gains
in annual earnings . . . [in other occupations].
Although teachers' work stoppages are still rare,
an upsurge in such stoppages, usually centering on
pay, accompanied the declining rate of advance in
average [teachers1] salaries.48
Teachers are indignant, and the result has been
displayed in increased militancy in the teaching ranks to
improve their economic condition.

Teachers'

salaries

started at a very low base and they had a long way to go.
Only a generation ago teachers were paid less than industry
49
workers, whose jobs required only an elementary education.
A recent survey conducted by the National Education
Association indicated that the disparity between salaries
of teachers and those in other fields is widening.

In

1965, the difference in salary for beginning classroom
teachers and college graduates entering private industry
was $1,867.
48

By 1968 it had climbed to $2,430.

Arthur Sackley, "Change in Teachers' Salaries, 1963
to 1965," Monthly Labor Review, LXXXVIII (December, 1965),
1460-1464.
49
Paul Woodring, "On the Cause of Teacher Discontent,"
Saturday R e v i e w , L (October 21, 1967), 61-62.
50
National Education Association, Economic Status of
the Teaching Profession, 1 967-68, Research Report 1968-R4
(Washington, d T c . : National Education Association, 196 8).

Goergen and Keough 51 researched 40 teacher strikes
that occurred in the decade 1955 to 1965.

This investiga­

tion considered issues and demands of striking teachers
and the ultimate outcomes and settlements.

It was found by

the researchers that all strikes studied could be grouped
into six categories, based on the issues involved.

Wage

demands were the key issue in seven of the districts
studied.

Eleven of the strikes fell into a pattern of

protesting the poor state tax structure to support educa­
tion.

In all but one of these strikes,

primary issue.

salary was a

In eight of the strikes the pattern con­

sisted of a combination of salary increases and collective
bargaining.
strikes;

Salaries were not the only issue in these

teachers also demanded that they be permitted to

negotiate with the board as equals.

Five strikes reported

in the study were caused by unpaid back w a g e s , an issue
which occurred more frequently in earlier periods of
history.

Dismissal of personnel in what was considered an

arbitrary manner was the cause of the other three strikes.
It should be noted that in 75 per cent of the strikes,
salaries were a major issue.
The finding of Goergen and Keough,

that economic

issues are at the root of most militant action, was
51
Joseph II. Goergen and John J. Keough, "Issues and
Outcomes of Teachers' Strikes, 1955-1965" (unpublished
Ph.D. and Ed.D. dissertation, St. Johns' University,
Jamaica, New York, 1967).

45
substantiated by a study conducted by Pikulinski et a l .52
of the 118 cases that came before the Michigan Employment
Relations Commission for mediation or fact finding
following the passage of Public Act 379, covering a
period through 19 68.

Responses were collected from all

fact finders, me d i a t o r s , employees' g r o u p s , and emp l o y ers.
The result of the study showed that fact finders found
salaries and related economic issues of first importance
in 88 per cent of the cases.

The mediators reported that

92 per cent of the cases in which they were involved
centered on economic i s s u e s , nearly all of which were
salary.

There was no significant difference in the

responses from the parties who were at an impasse, with
84 per cent of the employees and 9 0 per cent of the
employers listing economic issues, including salary, as
being of primary importance.

The report stated that:

. . . clearly, the only significant factors cited
were salary and general "money" issues. . . . We
can logically expect cases going to fact-finding
to be revolving around financial issues as the
critical factor.53
Keeping the financial issue in mind, the researchers made
some comparisons among districts where fact finding
52

Jerome R. Pikulinski, et a l ., "Fact-Finding in
the Public Employment Sector within the State of Michigan,
1966-1968," A Report of a Joint Study; The Michigan
Department of Labor, The Employment Relations Commission,
and Michigan State University, 1969 (mimeographed).
53I b i d ., p. 9.

46
occurred, against state-wide averages for the one year,
19 6 7-68, covered by the study.

The results of their

findings are recorded in Table 1.

TABLE 2.1.— Comparison of selected financial factors in
districts where fact finding occurred with state-wide
ave r a g e s .
Average— All
Districts
in State
Local Sources per pupil

Average--Districts
where fact­
finding occurred

$271.74

$297.98

General Fund Expenditure
per pupil

540.52

315.67

Instructional Salaries
per pupil

447.76

266.34

7,510.00

4,327.00

Average T e a c h e r ’s Salary
Source:

The Michigan State Board of Education, Ranking of
Michigan Public High School Districts by Selected
Financial Data, 1967-68 (Lansing:
Michigan
Department of Education, 1968).

In a study conducted by Kite,

54

an attempt was made

to identify decisive factors in potential strike situations.
The study population for this investigation included every
strike and averted strike in the United States between 1952
54

Robert H. Kite, Sr., "A Study to Determine the
Degree of Influence Selected Factors Had in Causing Teacher
Strikes and to Determine the Degree to Which These Factors
Were Present in School Districts in Which Teacher Strikes
Were Averted" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Mississippi, 1964).

47
and 1963.

Strike votes, published threats, or verbal

threats by acknowledged leadership were criteria for
identification of potential strikes.

Responses from 181

teachers indicated significant differences in organizational
structure of local school districts which had strikes and
those which averted them, but both groups agreed that
economic issues had contributed to the strike or strike
s ituation.
Kite's study further disclosed that two of the major
causal factors of overt action were the low economic status
of the teacher in the community and the failure of the
public to understand the financial needs of teachers.
Knapp agreed with Kite's findings in an article
which appeared in the Phi Delta K a p p a n , in which he
supported the conclusion that the biggest problem in
teaching is that:
. . . [The male teacher's] . . . family . . . leads
an "upper-lower class" existence in a world which
assumes that all teachers represent middle-class
v a l u e s .55
Stinnett^** also agreed that socio-economic factors are at
the bottom of teacher—community strife.

It was his assess­

ment that teachers are paid better than ever before, and
^ H e n r y Knapp, "A Tribute to the 'Real' Fathers,"
Phi Delta Kap p a n , LXIL (June, 1968), 575-577.
r£

T. M. Stinnett, Turmoil in Teaching
MacMillan Company, 19 68)^ p"I 34 .

(New York:

48
are still unable to keep pace with their neighbors in other
occupational fields.

"Teachers want to keep up with the

Joneses," and "they demand the right to share equitably
57
in the fruits of an affluent society."
As Woodring
sums it up,

"What do teachers want?

The obvious answer

to the . . . question is more money."
58
A recent study by Kilkenny
was directed at estab­
lishing teacher priorities in negotiations.

The sample

consisted of 822 elementary and secondary teachers in
overseas dependent schools.

Of this number,

514 teachers

indicated they were members of a teachers' organization
or union.

The instrumentation of the study was a list con­

taining 72 items to be rated on a six-point scale.
Kilkenny's finding was that regardless of organizational
affiliation,

the economic aspects of negotiations are of

high importance to teachers,

in that items relating to

salaries received the largest percentage of high priorities.
It is interesting to note that the study also revealed
that teachers place little priority on organizational
strength.

57 Woodring, op. c i t ., p. 61.
58
Roy O. Kilkenny, "Teacher Priorities for Pro­
fessional Negotiations" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Colorado State College, 1969) .

In a regional research study conducted by Love, 59
an investigation was made to determine the extent to which
teachers participate in decision making through the nego­
tiation process.

Data were collected by means of question­

naires sent to 170 school districts, extensive interviews
with school board members, administrators,

and teachers in

six districts, as well as the analysis of a number of
"master agreements."

It was observed that collective

negotiations were not only used by teachers as a means of
improving salary and working conditions, but also as a
means of securing meaningful involvement in decision
making.

The study pointed out that teachers in districts

that engage in collective negotiations participated more
in decision making than did those teachers who were
employed in districts without collective negotiations.
Love concluded that the greatest pressure from teachers
for involvement in decision making was in the area of
personnel policies.
salary schedule,
policy,

The items listed most often included:

leave policies, class size,

and teachers'

transfer

supervisory duties.

Though Conner believed that the improvement of
teacher welfare has been long overdue, he warned that he
was concerned with the welfare of students.
59

He contended

Thomas M. Love, "The Impact of Teacher Negotiations
on School System Decision-Making" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1968) .

50
that higher salaries do not necessarily provide a better
educational program:
There has been an upward trend in the compensation
of all educational personnel. . . . The decade of
the sixties can be characterized by an upsurge of
salaries, increased supplemental benefits, and
improved conditions of work.
Long overdue, these
general improvements in economic remuneration can
be attributed, . . . to the impact of collective
negotiation in education.
It may be tempting . . . to assume that staff
members will work harder and produce more as extrin­
sic rewards are increased. . . . It is not neces­
sarily so, however.
These expected outcomes may
not occur.60
Moscow,

in discussing "employee interest" in conflict

with "employer interest," emphasized:
Maximum benefit for the teacher can only be
obtained when leadership of his organization is
devoted exclusively to his i n t e r e s t . 61
Lasker

62

was concerned about the possible emphasis of

teachers' benefits over student welfare.

He questioned, in

a situation where money is short, whether salaries would
continue to be raised at the expense of adequate services
(i.e., programs for the emotionally disturbed, curriculum
Forrest E. Conner, "Higher Pay-Greater Productivity:
Don't Bet on It," Hot L i n e , Vol. II, No. 11 (November, 1969),
3.
^ M i c h a e l II. Moskow, "Teacher Organizations:
An
Analysis of the Issues," Teachers College Record (February,
1965), 455.
G2
Morris E. Lasker, "The Influence of Teacher Col­
lective Bargaining on the Quality of Education:
Observa­
tions of a Board Negotiator," The Changing Employment
Relationship in Public Schools (A Publication of the New
York school of industrial a n d L a b o r Relations, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York, 1968), p. 32.

51
development,

integration programs, etc.).

If, as Moskow

stated, the teachers' welfare is the exclusive responsi­
bility of teacher organizations, there is reason for
concern as to who is responsible for improvement of
education and the equalization of educational opportunity.
Benson pointed out that the " . . .

effects of

unionism on the distribution of education resources cannot
be neatly isolated from . . . [other]

. . . programs."

. . . We must admit that we have no evidence that
bargaining units will be predominantly successful
in districts where expenditure increases are most
urgently needed.
Indeed, if just the opposite
happens— that is, if teachers are especially
effective in exercising bargaining rights in what
are already high-expenditure places— disparities
of provision could be worsened, not improved, by
the spread of collective negotiation.63
Perry and Wildman 64 made a comprehensive study to
determine the impact of collective negotiations on the
schools, especially in the decision-making process.

After

making case studies on the negotiation process between
teachers and boards in 22 communities, they concluded that
in many of the districts studied the negotiation process
involved compromise by the board to group power.

Many

63
Charles S. Benson, "Economic Problems of Education
Associated with Collective Negotiations," The Changing
Employment Relationship in Public Schools (A Publication of
the New York School of Industrial and Labor Re l a t i o n s ,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1968), pp. 1-2.
64
Charles R. Perry and Wesley A. Wildman, "The Impact
of Teacher Bargaining on the Schools," Collective Action by
Public School T e a c h e r s , Vol. IV (Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, Office of Education, U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968).

52
outside observers questioned whether the politically and
economically motivated short-run decisions would promote
quality education in the long run.

Teacher economic demands

had placed stress on the local economic resources.

It was

noted that additional revenues coming into school districts
usually went to support increases in teacher sa l a r i e s .
There was also evidence that resources were being shifted
within the local school budget to meet salary demands.
The danger cited in the study by Perry and Wildman
65
was also illustrated in a recent study by Steele.
The
purpose of the study was to determine if collective
bargaining by Michigan teachers has contributed to educa­
tional improvement in Michigan schools.

From data acquired

from 30 instructional provision controls in Michigan
"master agreements" in 1966-67 to 1967-68,

it was found

that there were more instructional items negotiated in
1967-68 than in the previous year.

However,

the study

also showed that the instructional supply budgets for all
districts, large and small, MFT or MEA, rich or poor,
declined significantly the second year of collective
bargaining.
While the major concern of teachers in collective
negotiations has been directed toward salary improvement
65
Marilyn H. Steele, "Has Bargaining Contributed to
Instructional Improvement in Michigan Schools" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969).

53
and working conditions, teachers, whenever possible, have
included a wide range of other items.

If school officials

are to deal effectively with negotiations, they must be
cognizant of the fact that teachers expect to have a
greater voice in shaping the decisions that affect them.

66

Dr. Bernard E. Donovan, Superintendent of Schools in New
York City, speaking at a symposium on "Collective
Bargaining vs. Professional Negotiations," said:
Negotiation is here to stay.
I think in the long
run that if the voice of teachers is heard— if the
voice of the teacher is admitted to the councils
of administration— it will be good for the school
system . . . .
It is with difficulty . . . (for school boards
and superintendents) . . . to yield a little
authority . . . .
. . . As the t e a c h e r s 1 organizations mature— and
maybe as we mature with them— education as we
argue it will be more than salaries and working
conditions.67
James had this to say to the White House Conference on
Education:
The teaching profession is now engaged in a nation­
wide struggle to promote its interests directly
with boards of education, . . . My own conclusion
is that it is . . . a struggle by professionals
to achieve the right, rather generally accepted
in western civilization, to be governed by written

Charles M. R e h m u s , "Public Management and Collective
Negotiations," in Collective Negotiations and Educational
Administration, ed“ by Roy B . Allen and John Schmid
(Columbus, O h i o : The University Council for Educational
Administration, 1966), pp. 61-72.
67
Bernard E. Donovan, "Speaking for Management," at a
symposium on "Collective Bargaining vs. Professional Nego­
tiations," School Management , Vol. VII (November, 1965), 71.

54
rules developed with their involvement and consent
and not by the caprices of m en.6 8
Corwin's study of the professional characteristics of
teachers in seven high schools in Michigan and Ohio indi­
cated that teachers are attempting to change their tradi­
tional image of "public servant" to an image with "profes­
sional" status.

Two hundred fifty-six teachers were

evaluated on a "professional and employee role conception
scale"

to determine how they would respond to organizational

characteristics
specialization).

(e.g., standardization, centralization,
Corwin concluded that professionalism

must be a militant p r o c e s s :
Professionalization . . . is a drive for status.
It represents the efforts of some members of a
vocation to control their work.
In order to
monopolize a type of w o r k , a vocation in the process
of professionalization will seek to wrest power from
those groups which traditionally have controlled the
vocation.
Professionalization in this sense appar­
ently must be a militant process.
. . . The weight of evidence supports the thesis
that professionalism is a militant process.
While
it can not be said that militant teachers in the
sample are necessarily professionally-oriented,
the more professional teachers are militant.69

68

H. Thomas James, "Can Urban Schools be Managed?"
Consultants' Papers, The White House Conference on Educa­
tion, July 20-21, 1965, p. 156.
69
Ronald G. Corwin, "Militant Professionalism,
Initiative and Compliance in Public Education," Socioloqy
of Education, XXXVIII (Summer, 1965), 313-314.

55
Related Research
In a review of related studies,

this investigator

will view equality of educational opportunity in the
70
71
72
terms expressed by K e p p e l ,
Benson,
and Garvue,
equating equality to expenditure, and recognizing its
limitations.
The relationship between school district expendi­
tures and educational opportunity has been researched for
more than half a century.

In each of these studies wealth

(as measured by the valuation of property and/or
expenditure per student)

has been related to a select

number of educational variables,

in most cases including

achievement.
Johns and Morphet, after reviewing numerous studies,
noted several factors that were related to educational
opportunity.

Though leadership, class size, and teacher

performance were seen to have an impact on the quality of
the educational program,

they concluded that the level of

educational expenditure was the most important variable.
Johns and Morphet emphasized:

70
71
72

Keppel, op. c i t . , p. 75.
Benson, The Cheerful Pr o s p e c t , p. 62.
Garvue, op. c i t ., p. 131.

56
The quality of education provided in the school
system where expenditures are low is far less
satisfactory than that in systems where expendi­
tures are above the national average.
Low
expenditures tend to mean inadequate leadership,
large classes, poor teachers and teaching, and
many other features that contribute to low
quality.
Even in the higher expenditure level school
systems, there seems to be a strong relationship
between expenditures and quality of education.
The districts which spend more appear generally
to contribute more per dollar to individuals and
to our national life than those who spend l e s s . 73
It is obvious from the above statement the degree of
importance Johns and Morphet placed on educational
expenditures.
Just as there is disagreement in defining "quality,11
not all authorities agree that educational expenditure is
all important in measuring educational quality.

Burkhead,

after reviewing several studies, made the following
statement:
It would appear that perhaps one-third of the
factors affecting the quality of the schools have
some relation to expenditure levels; but if all
schools in the United States had the same
expenditure level, there would still be enormous
differences in the quality of education.
In fact,
there are some reasons to believe that quality
differences would be reduced very little even if
expenditure levels were equated.
We are a very
long way from a complete understanding of the causal
factors that explain variations in the quality of
e d u c at i o n .74
73
Roe L . Johns and E. L. Morphet, Financing the
Public Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall,
I n c . , 1960) , p . 15.
^ J e s s e Burkhead, Public School Finance— Economics
and Politics (Syracuse, N .Y .: Syracuse University Press,
1 9 64) , p . 87.

57
Factors affecting the quality of the schools, other
than expenditures, to which Burkhead alluded were:
good teachers, administration and supervision, community
interest, and the socio-economic level of parents.
Though it might be reasonable to assume that
increased expenditures may have little influence on
factors such as community interest and the socio-economic
level of parents,

it would seem that increased expendi­

tures would attract and hold competent staff, which in
turn would improve the educational program in the long
run.

It would also appear that though variance would

still exist if expenditure levels were raised in all
districts,

the variance would be at an over-all higher

level.
Ayers,

in 19 20, made one of the early contributions

equating educational returns for money spent.

Using an

index made up of five items of a financial nature and
five other items which were non-financial in character,
he computed a correlation coefficient of

.78.

Ayers

commented he found "convincing evidence that there is a
real relationship between expenditure and results in
75
education."
In 1926, Norton used five objective measures of
educational efficiency, with the major focus of interest
75 Leonard P. Ayers, An Index Number for State School
Systems (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1920), p. 23,
as cited by Ross, op. c i t ., p. 364.

58
directed toward the holding power of schools.

Though

the study was not intended to measure the relationship
between expenditure and quality, the findings showed that
as the per capita expenditure increased in the state, so
76
did the measure of educational efficiency.
Ross reviewed two studies by Mort in the states of
New Jersey and Maine,, in 1933 and 1934, respectively. 7 7
In the New Jersey school study Mort classified the school
district into three expenditure levels, to compare the
efficiency and effectiveness at each level.
ture level increased,

As expendi­

significant differences were found

in the quantity and quality of administrative and super­
visory services,
buildings,

service to atypical children, school

instructional staff, classroom procedures,

course offerings, and home-school contacts.

The high

expenditure schools surpassed the schools in the two
lower expenditure classifications in all factors studied.
Mort used the same system of classifying schools in
his study of the financing of the public schools in Maine.
The report of the research indicated that improvement
76
John K. Norton, The Ability of States to Support
Education (Washington, D . C . : The National Education
Association, 1926), as cited in Ross, op. c i t ., p. 364.
77
Donald H. Ross, Administration for Adaptability
(New York:
Metropolitan School Study Council, Institute
of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1958), p. 365.

59
was noted in all of the educational factors as they were
measured at the lowest, the middle, and the highest
expenditure levels.
reported:

As he went up the scale, Mort

instruction in the traditional subjects

improved, educational opportunities broadened, and there
was greater individualization where children could
discover and develop their abilities.
Another early study relating expenditure levels to
educational efficiency was conducted by Ferrell in 1936. 78
Two groups of schools in Kentucky were used in the study
and the findings were conclusive in both.

It was found

that when educational efficiency was measured in terms of
attracting and holding power, training and experience of
teachers, pupil-teacher ratio, and length of the school
term, the correlation between educational efficiency and
expenditure in one group of schools was

.92, and .77 in

the other.
Wealthy districts have been the focus of several
informative studies.

In 1942, 28 school districts in

the suburban districts in the New York metropolitan area
conducted a study of their schools.

All the schools that

took part in the study were well financed.

Not long

after the study began, the districts became aware that
the Mort-Cornell Guide for Self-Appraisal, the evaluative
78

D. T. Ferrell, Relation Between Current Expenditure
and Certain Measures of' Educational^ Efficiency in Kentucky
County and Graded School Systems (Nashville: George Peabody
College for T e achers, 1936), as cited in Ross, o p . c i t .,
p . 365 .

60
instrument used in the study, was inadequate to
evaluate this select group of schools.

Researchers

working in the field were therefore instructed to take
notes as to practices they observed during their evalua­
tive process.

Analysis of the more than 900 notes that

were taken revealed that there was a pattern of schoolcommunity interaction, high quality personnel, democratic
operation, dynamic administration, and a concern for
the importance of individuals.

The final report of this

study of better supported schools emphasized the finding
79
that increased expenditures buy a better education.
In a study by Vincent

80

(1945) of high expenditures

in the state of New York, a significant correlation was
found between expenditures and Vincent's index of educa­
tional factors.

The factors were derived from the

earlier New York study and were eventually to become
the instrument known as The Growing E d g e .

This particular

study consisted of three samples, which included:

(1) 52

districts which received personal interviews by field
workers,

(2) 71 districts that were interviewed by

questionnaire,

and

(3) 216 districts that were analyzed

by a review of New York State Department r e c o r d s .

The

findings of the study indicated there was a 73 per cent
79
William S. Vincent, Emerging Patterns of Public
School Practices (New Y o r k : Bureau of Publications,
Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia University, 1945), pp. 8-9.
80Ibid., p. 56.

61
correlation between expenditure level and the index
score in those districts interviewed, a 99 per cent cor­
relation in districts questioned by mail, and a 88 per
cent correlation in districts where the data were secured
from the New York State Department r e c o r d s .
Ross reviewed a rather unique study conducted by
Wollatt

(1949), in which 33 extremely high expenditure

schools in the New York and New Jersey suburbs were
surveyed.

81

Wollatt was exploring the possibility that

there may be a point of diminishing returns in educational
expenditures, or a point at which more money does not
produce measurable improvement in education.

Using only

the best supported schools in the New York metropolitan
area, he could find "no such point for school quality as
a whole."

Wollatt contended that such a point must exist,

but no schools in his study had approached that level of
expenditure.
Horton's study of high school districts in Indiana
analyzed the relationship between the North Central
Association of Colleges and Secondary S c h o o l s 1 evaluations,
82
the scho o l ’s size, and the educational expenditures.
Horton found that school size had a significant effect
81
82

Ross, o p . c i t ., p. 370.

Daniel B. Horton, J r . , "An Analysis of the
Relationship of Per Pupil Expenditure Levels and School
Size with North Central Evaluations" (unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, Indiana University, 1968).

62
upon the evaluative criteria of school p r o g r a m s , as did the
expenditure level.

His data indicated the highest rela­

tionship was between expenditure level and the qualifica­
tions of school staff and administration.

He concluded

that the educational program could be improved by
increasing the size of the school,

increasing the expendi­

ture level, or a combination of both.
A study was conducted by Benson et a l ., to corre­
late the educational achievement of students enrolled in
24 9 of California's unified elementary school districts
83
to 34 school and non-school variables.
The study's
findings were that the non-school v a r i a b l e s , including
home environment, educational background of parents, and
socio-economic status of the family, were the strongest
indicators of school achievement.

Benson pointed out,

however, that there is a significant relationship between
the educational opportunity provided in the school
district and the performance of pupils.

The group was

"led to the conclusion that caliber of teacher is the
single most important school related factor."
C o l e m a n 's s t u d y , Equality of Educational Opportunity,
also reported that non-school factors had the strongest
83
Charles S. Benson, State and Local Fiscal Rela­
tionships in Public Education in California' {Sacramento:
Senate of the State of Califo r n i a , 19 6 5), pp. 41-42.

63
correlation to achievement.

84

He concluded that the

school brings little to bear on the child's achievement
that is independent of his home, neighborhood, and peer
environment.

Children are faced with inequities

resulting from their environment,

that are carried

through their school years into adult life.

The only

school factor Coleman noted as influencing achievement
85
was the characteristics of the teacher.
Coleman's study has been criticized on the basis
that non-school variables were emphasized,

and because

of the statistical methodology of his design.

When

Mayeske et a l . used regression analysis on Coleman's
data, it was discovered that when socio-economic factors
were held constant, there was an overlap in student
body and school-related variables.

86

More detailed

analysis demonstrated that for given achievement, the
student body variables had a high correlation to school
personnel and personnel expenditures.

Mayeske suggested

that these two variables may be the most important
factors in promoting educational achievement.
84
James S. Coleman, et a l ., Equality of Educational
Opportunity (Washington, D.C.:
CJ.S. Government Printing
O f f i c e , 196 6).
85I b i d ., p. 325.
pc

George W. Mayeske, et a l .,
Regression Analyses of Differences
Levels of Ninth Grade Schools from
Opportunities Survey" (Washington,
for Educational Statistics, 1968),

"Correlational and
Between the Achievement
the Educational
D . C . : National Center
pp. 54-55 (mimeographed).

64
In the spring of 1960, the United States Office of
Education funded a massive research undertaking which
has been labeled PROJECT TALENT.

ft7

The investigation

was carried out through the research facilities of the
University of Pittsburgh.

More than 400,000 students

from a representative sample of 1,353 of the nation's
high schools were administered a battery of comprehensive
t e s t s , and exhaustive data were gathered related to the
schools the participants attended.

One of the purposes

of the study was to determine what relationships existed
between selected background variables and school outcomes.
Following the analysis of data from several subsamples of
high schools, Flanagan et a l ., wrote:
The Project Talent data indicate that four of
the most important treatment factors closely and
uniquely associated with school outcomes such as
achievement and going to college and staying in
school are:
a.
Teacher salaries
b.
Teacher experience
c.
Number of books in the school library
d.
Per-pupil expenditure.
These four factors remain important even after
region, rural-urban status, and such socio-economic
factors as median family income and quality of
housing are held constant.
It is possible that
teacher salary schedule may be a good general
indirect index of teacher quality.
A school
with a salary schedule above average for its
87

John C. Flanagan, et a l ., A Survey and Follow-up
Study of Educational Plans ancf~Dec3Lsions in Relation to
Aptitude Patterns:
Studies of the American High SchoolT
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1962).

65
teacher recruiting area can have better teachers
and hold them easier than a school with lower
salaries.88
Further analysis of the study's findings reveals
the background factors demonstrating the strongest cor­
relation to school outcomes are the starting salaries of
both men and women t e achers, and average per-pupil expendit u r e .89
It is interesting to this researcher that all
factors found to be related to school outcomes are
directly related to school district expenditures.
Harrison and McLoone conducted a study for the
90
United States Office of Education.
The purpose of the
study was to survey the inequities of school expenditures
throughout the United States.

The findings of this study

are of particular interest to this researcher,

in that a

portion of the data relates specifically to the inequal­
ities of educational opportunity observed in Michigan.
The data indicate that the ratio of high to low expendi­
ture districts in this state
percentile)

is 3.5.

(between the 98th and 2nd

That is, the highest expenditure

district in the state is spending three and one-half
times as much to educate a student as is the lowest
expenditure district.

In 19 60, when these data were

88Ibid., pp. 10-11.
Ibid.
90

Forrest W. Harrison and Eugene P. McLoone,
Profiles in School Support (Washington, D.C.:
U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office
of Education, 1965).

66
compiled, only one state in the United States, Missouri,
91
had a wider variance in educational expenditures.
Financial data released by the Michigan Department
of Education for the 1968-69 school year support Harrison
92
and M c L o o n e 's findings.
The lowest per-pupil expendi­
ture reported by a high school district during the
1968-69 school year was $255.37, and the highest was
$1,178.79.

Though these figures are not necessarily

between the 98th and 2nd percentile,

they represent a

ratio of 4.5, which shows a tremendous variance in
educational expend!ture.
T h o m a s ’ study, School Finance and Educational
Opportunity in M i c h i g a n , referred to previously, used the
school and the school district as the primary unit of
93
analysis.
Schools were evaluated on the basis of
the programs and the services they provided;

school

districts were examined because it is at that level that
resources are obtained and dispersed.

In his report,

Thomas compared the 10 Michigan districts ranked highest
in state equalized valuation per student with the 10
districts ranked lowest in state equalized valuation per
student.

An analysis of the data indicated that:

91I b i d ., pp. 70-71, Tables 6 and 7.
92
State Board of Education, Lansing, Michigan
(1968-69), op. c i t .
93
Thomas, o p . c i t ., p. 19.

67
It is easy to document financial inequalities
among school districts in Michigan.
In general,
districts with a relatively high state equalized
value per pupil tend to spend more money on the
education of each child and to have a lower tax
r a t e .94
The data used in T h o m a s ' study were for the school
year 1965-66.

This researcher replicated the study,

using current data for the school year 1968-69, to test,
and either support or reject his conclusion.

An

analysis of the current data parallels T h o m a s ’ findings
and supports his conclusion.

There is no significant

difference in the distribution of tax burden or the
allocation of educational resources between the data
used for the 1965-66 school year and those for the
1968-69 school year

(see Tables 2.2 and 2.3).
Summary

This review of literature related to the financial
responsibility for public education, and studies con­
ducted in Michigan focusing on equalizing the tax
burden and educational opportunity, places the current
study in perspective.

Literature and research were

searched to justify the inclusion of factors related to
teachers'

salary expenditures as part of this study.

Finally, a survey of related studies confirms the validity
of using school district wealth and/or expenditures in the
analysis of equality of educational opportunity.
94

I bid., p . 19.

TABLE 2.2.— The ten highest and lowest school districts in Michigan, ranked according
to state equalized valuation per resident pupil 1965-66.
State
Equalized
Valuation
Per Resident
Member

Rank

County

District

Total
Per Pupil
General
Fund
Exp.

Millage
Rate
Total
Operation

Debt
Retire­
ment
Millage

53,156
48,391
41,909
37,946
37,569
36,686
35,379
34,137
33,295
32,889

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Wayne
Wayne
Iron
Huron
Alger
Ontonagon
Leelanau
Saginaw
St. Clair
Wayne

River Rouge
Riverview Comm.
Mastodon
Caseville
Burt Township
White Pine S.D.
Leland Pub. Sch.
Frankenmuth
East China
Ecorse

741.16
835.54
869.89
605.41
764.70
813.49
653.56
562.52
527.31
683.85

11.00
12.90
16.67
11.50
13.86
17.47
12.00
9.53
11.00
16.40

—
1.75
—
3.99
—
—
3.30
4.00
2.40
-

5,073
5,015
4,946
4,829
4,810
4,722
4,685
3,829
1,395
1,319

524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533

Clinton
Saginaw
Houghton
Muskegon
Wayne
Alger
Ontonagon
St. Clair
Chippewa
Marquette

Bath Comm. Sch.
Birch Run
Adams Twnshp.
Holton Pub. Sch.
Inkster
Rock River Twn.
Trout Creek
Memphis Comm.
Rudyard Twnshp.
Forsyth

419.13
352.78
489.90
379.27
475.63
466.37
541.43
497.50
473.94
400.07

14.35
9.53
17.15
15.53
24.90
15.06
23.47
*
8.00
12.20

8.00
8.00
4.00
7.50
7.00
9.00
—
*
9.00
3.67

Average Expenditures
Ten Highest SEV/REM Districts $705.75
Ten Lowest SEV/REM Districts
449.60
*

Average Millage Rate (Total Operation)
Ten Highest SEV/REM Districts $13.23
Ten Lowest SEV/REM Districts
15.58

—

Not Available
Source: The Michigan State Board of Education, Ranking of Michigan Public High School
Districts by Selected Financial Data, 1967-68 (Lansing: Michigan Department of.
Education, 1968).
Approval to reprint obtained from the Office of Public Information:
of Education, Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan Department

TABLE 2.3.— The ten highest and lowest school districts in Michigan ranked according

to state equalized valuation per resident pupil 1968-69.
State
Equalized
Valuation
Per Resident
Member

Rank

County

District

Total
Per Pupil
General
Fund
Exp.

Millage
Rate
Total
Operation

Debt
Retire­
ment
Millage

57,284
52,034
48,039
44,673
40,838
40,107
38,438
36,091
35,946
35,009

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Wayne
Leelanau
Bay
Huron
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
St. Clair
Otsego
Roscommon

River Rouge
Leiand
Essexville Hampton
Caseville Pub. Sch.
Riverview
Ecorse
Dearborn City
East China
Johanneburg-Central
Gerrish Higgins

878.39
795.86
683.55
870.68
888.54
946.40
1079.63
684.91
842.67
684.28

14.90
14.00
13.00
15.25
18.90
18.40
22.90
12.50
15.30
12.39

1.71

5,988
5,673
5,433
5,375
5,137
4,912
4,751
3,879
2,442
1,993

516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525

Newago
Delta
Muskegon
Alger
Muskegon
Alger
Houghton
Muskegon
Marquette
Chippewa

Hesperia
Bark River Harris
Holton P/S
Rock River Township
Fruit Port Comm.
Mathias Township
Hancock City
Oakridge
Forsyth
Rudyard Township

624,51
612.65
542.12
643.15
533.58
611.80
650.48
562.73
696.13
705.70

18.00
12.86
15.35
15.86
22.35
26.86
21.05
20.00
10.00
10.00

9.00
8.20
7.50
8.00
7.00

Average Expenditures
Ten Highest SEV/REM Districts’ $835.49
Ten Lowest SEV/REM Districts
618.28

Source:

—

2.75
1.24
3.00
—

.75
1.40
5.00
—

—

—
10.00
1.90
7.77

Average Millage Rate (Total Operation)
Ten" Highest SEV/REM Districts 515.75
Ten Lowest Sev/REM Districts
17.23

The Michigan State Board of Education, Ranking of Michigan Public High
School Districts by Selected Financial Data, 1967-68 (Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Department of Education, 1968).

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The major objective of this study was to analyze
selected financial characteristics of Michigan school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions, and to compare these financial
characteristics with their counterparts in districts which
have maintained full-day sessions.

It was anticipated that

the analysis of data would reveal differences between dis­
tricts in state equalized valuation per student, average
teacher's salary,

total general fund expenditure per student,

instructional salary expenditure, operational millage, debt
retirement millage, and total millage for school purposes.
It was also expected that a relationship would exist between
the outcome of elections to raise operational millage or
elections to bond the district to construct facilities,

and

the local board's decision to have students attend shortened
sessions.

Differences and patterns were tested for, statis­

tically.
This chapter will discuss the sources of data used in
the study, the selection of the sample of school districts
to be studied, the procedure of selecting control districts,
the instrumentation,

and the statement of the statistical
70

71
hypotheses to be tested.

The final section of this chapter

will explain the statistical treatment of the data, and the
specific statistical technique used to test each of the
research hypotheses.
Sources of Data
The initial step in the design of this study was to
identify those districts in Michigan which had students on
shortened sessions during the three years,

1967 through 1970.

The Michigan Department of Education furnished the required
data for the school years 1967 through 1969, but only a par­
tial list of schools known to be on shortened sessions was
reported for the 1969-19 70 school year.

Through the assis­

tance of the Wayne County 11ASSIST" Center,

and the responses

to telephone calls to intermediate school district offices
covering over 50 per cent of the school population of Michi­
gan, a list of districts on shortened sessions was compiled.
Questionnaires were mailed to all districts in the
tost sample to secure data concerning the influence of elec­
tion results on board of education decisions to initiate
shortened sessions.
Selected financial data on wealth, expenditures, sal­
aries , and millage rates used in this study were obtained
from the following sources:

Michigan Department of Education:

Ranking of Public Schools by Selected Financial D a t a , 1967G 3, 1968-69; and Michigan Association of School Administra­
tors :

Selected Administrative Information and Millage Levies

72
Relative to Michigan Public School Districts/ F e b r u a r y ,
1970 .
Additional data were required to carry out the phase
of analysis comparing the financial characteristics of the
sample being studied with state-wide means.

These data

were acquired from the Michigan Department of Education:
Analysis of Michigan Public School Revenues and Expenditures/
1967-63,

1968-69.
Test Sample

The Michigan Department of Education was requested to
submit a data printout of all school districts in Michigan
which reported in their annual fall statistical reports that
they had students on less than full-day sessions during the
1967-68, and 1968-69 school years.

It was also requested

that the department furnish a list of school districts known
to be on shortened sessions during the 1969-70 school year.
The Michigan Department of Education furnished the
data requested for the 1967-68 and 196 8-69 school years, but
was unable to provide a complete list of districts for the
1969-70 school year.

Using the partial list furnished by

the Department of Education, the researcher requested the
assistance of the Wayne County "ASSIST" Center in identifying
districts not included.

Through the cooperation of the

"ASSIST" Center and several intermediate school district
offices,
piled.

a list of districts on shortened sessions was com­
The resulting list for the 1969-70 school year

73
comprised a larger number of districts on shortened sessions
than were officially reported to the Michigan Department of
education in either of the two previous years.
A cursory review of the data indicated that there were
more than 150 school districts in Michigan that did not pro­
vide full-day programs to all students at one time or another
over the three-year period covered by this study.

It was

also observed that many districts had reported only one or
two students on less than full-day programs.
Recognizing that school districts often design programs
to meet the individual needs of atypical children
physically handicapped, mentally handicapped,

(e.g.,

and emotionally

dis turbed), it was evident there was a need to delimit the
sample.
The focus of this study is to compare the financial
characteristics of school districts on shortened sessions
with the financial characteristics of districts that have
maintained full-day programs;

therefore,

the following limit­

ing criteria were set:
(1)

Districts in the sample must be Michigan school

districts which offered kindergarten through twelfth
grade programs during the 1967-68,

1968-69, and 1969-

70 school y e a r s .
(2)

The number of students on shortened sessions

must constitute seven per cent of the total student
membership.

This would indicate that at least one

74
full grade or a portion of several grades was being
subjected to a shortened school day.
From the universe including all the kindergarten
through twelfth grade districts in Michigan,

20 school dis­

tricts met the sample criteria during the 1967-68 school
year.

Seventeen school districts in the school year 1963-69

met the sample criteria, of which five were repeaters, having
had students on a shortened school program the previous year.
The results of the search for districts on shortened sessions
during the 1969-70 school year produced 22 school districts
that met the required criteria,

14 of which had not reported

students on shortened sessions either of the two preceding
years.
The statistical treatment employed in this study
requires the independence of variables.

Statistical analysis

was therefore applied to each year independently to remove
the possibility of dependence caused by school districts that
were repeaters.
Because school district audits were not completed for
the 1969-70 school year, the sample for that year was not
included in testing hypotheses related to expenditures and
salaries.

Data were available, however, to use the 1969-70

sample in tests related to differences in millage rates, and
state equalized valuation per student.

The 1969-70 sample

was also included in the mailing of questionnaires which
provided the data to test hypotheses related to election
patterns in districts which initiated shortened sessions.

75
Control Sample
After the test sample of districts on shortened ses­
sions was selected for each of the three years covered by
this study, any of the remaining 500-plus districts theoret­
ically would be equally acceptable as control districts with
which to make comparisions.

However, in an empirical study

in which specific characteristics are being compared, in
this particular case financial variables,

the validity of

the study is enhanced if other variables that might influ­
ence the findings are controlled.
Though many empirical studies illustrate the relation­
ship which exists between financial characteristics and edu­
cational opportunity, other studies demonstrate the relation­
ship between educational opportunity and other characteris­
tics

(e.g., school district size, geographic location,

socio-economic status of pare nt s) .

and

The design of this study

attempted to limit the influence of those factors related to
school district size and geographic location through the
selection of the control schools on the basis of matched
pairs.

No specific technique was employed to moderate the

effect of socio-economic status of parents,

though this may

have been accomplished by the random sampling technique
employed in the selection of the matched pairs.
The matching of the control districts and the test
sample districts to compensate for the variable of geographic
location was accomplished by the following method.

A master

76
map was constructed, outlining all of the school districts
in Michigan.

All school districts that were reported to have

students on shortened sessions were located.
of all districts that were contiguous

A list was made

(shared a common boun­

dary) , and were maintaining their students on full-day ses­
sions.

Some of the school districts in the test sample were

matched with as many as eight districts.

At this point the

number of possible school districts corresponding to each of
the school districts in the test sample was reduced to no
more than four, by the use of random sample tables.
The school districts in the control group thus far were
controlled as to geographic location.

The final step in the

selection of the control school district to be matched with
the test sample district was accomplished by selecting that
district on the list whose school enrollment most nearly
approximated the school enrollment in the test sample dis­
trict .
When selection of the control sample was completed,
there existed three sets of matched pairs, one for each of
the years 1967-68,

1963-69,

and 1969-70.

Further,

in each

of these pairs the variables of school size and geographic
location were controlled

(see Appendix A ) .

Instrumentation
A questionnaire was developed to secure data not avail­
able from any source other than school districts that were
actually on shortened sessions.

The questions prepared were

77
of a nonstatistical nature, and it was expected that they
could be answered by most school superintendents without the
necessity of referring to filed reports or records.
Three questionnaires were prepared, one for each of the
three years covered by the study.

Information requested per­

tained to elections held in these districts to raise opera­
tional millage and bonding for the construction of facilities.
Data required included the outcome of the election and the
influence of the election outcome on the board of education's
decision to initiate shortened sessions.
A few specific items of data were required which
enabled the respondent to complete the questionnaire in a
minimum of time.

The original draft of the questionnaire was

reviewed by staff members from the Michigan State University
College of Education and their recommended revisions were
included in the instrument.
Appointments were made with three school superintendents
who were in the test sample of school districts on shortened
sessions.

These superintendents were asked to fill in the

questionnaire,

and to make comments as to any recommended

changes that would improve the instrument.
for change were made.

No recommendations

The maximum time required by any of

the superintendents to fill out the questionnaire was 15 min­
utes, and it was noted that no reference was made to reports
or records.

With minor modification in the introduction, the

instrument was considered ready for research use
dix B) .

(see Appen­

78
Appropriate questionnaires were mailed to each of the
46 school districts in the test sample.

Districts that were

repeaters received questionnaires for each of the years they
were reported to have had students on shortened sessions.
One week from the date the questionnaires were mailed, phone
calls were made to those districts which had not yet replied
to the questionnaire,

requesting their immediate response.

Personal visitations were requested by two school districts
to discuss problems unique to their districts in filling
out the questionnaire.

The visitations were made and the

problems were resolved.
A cut-off date was set at the end of three weeks, with
an 85 per cent response.
Statistical Hypotheses
The following terms are defined to clarify the state­
ments of the statistical h y p o th es es :
Average teacher's s a l a r y .

The full-time and prorated

portions of regular t e a c h e r s ' salaries for all teaching ser­
vices provided to pupils.

The average salary is computed by

dividing the total salaries of regular teachers in elementary,
secondary and special education by the related number of
teaching positions.
Instruction salaries.

The salaries of all employees

involved in instructional activities.
General fund.

The fund used to record all operating

revenues and expenditures of the district pertaining to

79
education except the purchase of sites, construction of build­
ings, or the retirement of bonded debt.
Debt retirement millage r a t e .

The tax rate in mills

applied to the state equalized valuation of the district to
produce revenue to pay the principal and interest on bonds.
Operational millage r a t e .

The tax rate in mills

applied to the state equalized valuation of the district to
produce revenue for the operation of the schools.

It is

made up of two parts, a millage rate allocated by the county,
and a millage rate voted by the local school district.
State equalized valuation per s t u d e n t .

The ratio

arrived at by dividing the taxable value of all real estate
in the district,

(assessed value as finally equalized by the

State Tax Commission), by the number of pupils officially
enrolled in the school district.
The following are the statistical forms of the hypoth­
eses that were presented in Chapter I.

They are stated in

both the null and alternate form.
Hypothesis I
There will be no difference between the average teach­
e r ’s salary in school districts on shortened sessions
and the average teacher's salary in school districts
not on shortened sessions when school district size
and geographic location are controlled.
II. :— The average teacher's salary in school districts on
shortened sessions is less than the average teacher's
salary in school districts not on shortened sessions
when school district size and geographic location are
controlled.

80
Hypothesis II
There will be no difference between the average
instruction salary expenditure per student in school
districts on shortened sessions and the average
instruction salary expenditure per student in school
districts not on shortened sessions when school dis­
trict size and geographic location are controlled.
li2 a

:— T*ie avera9e instruction salary expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions is less than
the average instruction salary expenditure per student
in school districts not on shortened sessions when
school district size and geographic location are con­
trolled.

Hypothesis III
There will be no difference between the average total
general fund expenditure per student in school districts
on shortened sessions and the average total general
fund expenditure per student in school districts not
on shortened sessions when school district size and
geographic location are controlled.
H^a :— The average total general fund expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions is less than
the average total general fund expenditure per student
in school districts not on shortened sessions when
school district size and geographic location are con­
trolled .
Hypothesis IV
There will be no difference between the average total
millage rate for all school purposes in school districts
on shortened sessions and the average total millage rate
for all school purposes in school districts not on

81
shortened sessions when school district size and geo­
graphic location are controlled.
11. :— The average total millage rate for all school purposes
3
in school districts on shortened sessions is greater
than the average total millage rate for all school pur­
poses in school districts not on shortened sessions
when school district size and geographic location are
controlled.
Hypothesis V
There will be no difference between the average opera­
tional millage rate in school districts on shortened
sessions and the average operational millage rate in
school districts not on shortened sessions when school
district size and geographic location are controlled.
H,- :— The average operational millage rate in school districts
3
on shortened sessions is greater than the average oper­
ational millage rate in school districts not on short­
ened sessions when school district size and geographic
location are controlled.
Hypothesis VI
There will be no difference between the average debt
retirement millage rate in school districts on shortened
sessions and the average debt retirement millage rate
in school districts not on shortened sessions when
school district size and geographic location are con­
trolled .
II

:— The average debt retirement millage rate in school districts on shortened sessions is greater than the aver­
age debt retirement millage rate in school districts
not on shortened sessions when school district size and
geographic location are controlled.

82
Hypothesis VII
There will be no difference between the average state
equalized valuation per student in school districts on
shortened sessions and the average state equalized
valuation per student in school districts not on
shortened sessions when school district size and geo­
graphic location are controlled.
H_
a

:— The average state equalized valuation per student in
school districts on shortened sessions is less than
the average state equalized valuation per student in
school districts not on shortened sessions when school
district size and geographic location are controlled.

Hypothesis VIII
There will be no difference between the average
tea ch e r’s salary in school districts on shortened
sessions and the average teacher's salary in the
state.
IJ„ :— The average teacher's salary in school districts on
a
shortened sessions is less than the average teacher's
salary in the state.
Hypothesis IX
There will be no difference between the average
instruction salary expenditure per student in school
districts on shortened sessions and the average
instruction salary expenditure per student in the
state.
H g :— The average instruction salary expenditure per student
a
in school districts on shortened sessions is less than
the average instruction salary expenditure per student
in the state.

83
Hypothesis X
There will be no difference between the average total
general fund expenditure per student in school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions and general fund expend­
iture per student in the state.
Hi0 a :--The average total general fund expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions is less than
the average total general fund expenditure per student
in the state.
Hypothesis XI
There will be no difference between the average total
millage rate for all school purposes in school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions and the average total
millage rate for all school purposes in the state.
II..

:— The average total millage rate for all school purposes
a
in school districts on shortened sessions is less than
the average total millage rate for all school purposes
in the s t a t e .

Hypothesis XII
There will be no difference between the average
operational millage rate in school districts on
shortened sessions and average operational millage
rate in the state.
H . 2 :— The average operational millage rate in school disa
tricts on shortened sessions is less than the aver­
age operational millage rate in the state.
Hypothesis XIII
There will be no difference between the average debt
retirement millage rate in school districts on short­
ened sessions and the average debt retirement millage
rate in the s t a t e .

84
II-^3a :— The average debt retirement millage rate in school
districts on shortened sessions is greater than the
average debt retirement millage rate in the state.
Hypothesis XIV
There will be no difference between the average state
equalized valuation per student in districts on short­
ened sessions and the average state equalized valua­
tion per student in the state.
H , . :— The average state equalized valuation per student in
districts on shortened sessions is less than the
average state equalized valuation per student in the
state.
Hypothesis XV
The decision by local school boards to place students
on shortened sessions is independent of the outcome
of elections (operational millage and/or construction
bond proposals).
H._
a

:--The decision by local school boards to place students
on shortened sessions is dependent upon the outcome
of elections (operational millage and/or construction
bond proposals).

Hypothesis XVI
There is a positive linear relationship between
operational millage rates

(local effort)

general fund expenditures per student

and the total

(educational

opportunity p ro vided).
I!., :— There is no linear relationship between operational
a
millage rates (local effort) and the total general
fund expenditures per student (educational opportu­
nity provided).

85
Analysis Procedure
In order to analyze the statistical hypotheses pre­
sented in the previous section, several statistical tech­
niques were required.

To avoid confusion the statistics

used are presented in the same sequence as the statistical
hypotheses were stated.
Correlated t Statistic
The design of this research requires the study of
differences between selected financial characteristics in
school districts on shortened sessions and school districts
on full-day sessions.

To improve the validity of the find­

ings, known variables were compensated for by sampling the
school districts in pairs.

According to Hays;

This matching of pairs is one form of experimental
c o n t ro l, since each member of each experimental group
must be identical (or nearly so) to his pair-mate in
the other group with respect to the matching factor
or factors, and thus the factor or factors used to
match pairs cannot be responsible for any observed
differences in the group.1
Though each school district is experimentally different in
one respect

(nominally, the independent financial variables)

from its matched pair-mate,

the observations are not inde­

pendent, in that each has the distinct dependency of school
district size and geographic location.
The appropriate statistical technique employed in
testing Hypotheses 1 through 7, which involves the
^William L. Hays, Statistics
hart and Winston, 1963), p. 334.

(New York:

Holt,

Rine­

86
measurement of differences in means between matched pairs,
was the correlated t statistic.

2

An alpha level of 0.0 5

was adopted as the criterion for significant results.
t Statistic
Hypotheses 8 through 14 called for the analysis of
differences between selected financial characteristics in
school districts on shortened sessions,

and the character­

istics of the population of all kindergarten through twelfth
grade school districts in the state.
selected as the most powerful,

The t statistic was

appropriate model because it

allowed state mean values to be used as population param­
eters.

It was assumed that the variable of financial

characteristics in the population from which the sample of
school districts on shortened sessions was selected followed
3
a normal distribution.
Results were considered significant
at an alpha level of 0.05.
Phi Correlation Coefficient
Hypothesis 15 required a determination as to the extent
of independence

(or lack of statistical association)

categorical characteristics:
selected elections,

between

the passage or failure of

and their influence upon board of educa­

tion action to initiate shortened sessions.

The interest in

this hypothesis was focused on the measure of the degree of
2I b i d . , pp. 333-335.
^I b i d . , p.

311.

87
relationship;

therefore,

a phi correlation coefficient 0 was

calculated as a convenient index of strength of association
4
in population.
The calculation of the phi correlation
coefficient requires the use of the chi-square X

2

statistic,

which according to H a y s , required inferences as to the independence between mutually exclusive and exhaustive classes.
In this analysis the classes were:

5

elections passed or

failed, and their influence or non-influence on board of
education action for shortened sessions.

An alpha level of

0.05 was adopted as the criterion for significant results.
Pearson Product-Moment
Correlation Coefficient
The statistical analysis of Hypothesis 16 must deter­
mine the extent of linear relationship between the variables
of local school district effort

(total operational m i l l a g e ) ,

and financial ability to provide local educational programs
(total general fund expenditure per student).

The Pearson

product-moment correlation coefficient was selected as the
test statistic because of its ability to measure linear
relationships.^
Limitation on Data
Data were available,

and statistical analysis were

made on all variables for the school years 1967-68 and
^I b i d . , pp. 604-605.
5I b i d . , pp. 589-592.
6I b i d . , pp. 496-499.

88
196 8-69.

It was impossible, howeVer, to secure data on all

variables for the school year 1969-70,

as school district

audits, which are the source of the data, were not completed.
Data were available for the year 1969-70 on total millage
rates, operational millage rates, debt retirement millage
rates, and state equalized valuation per student,

and in

those cases where data were available appropriate analyses
were m a d e .
Generalized Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to identify financial
characteristics of the test sample which are significantly
different from the control sample,

and the total population

of all school districts in the state.

Hays points out that

"if the situation in which the researcher finds himself is
so vague that he has no conception of the risk of loss
through error,

then how does he know that deciding among the

hypotheses is better than suspending judgment?"

The

researcher is not required to
decide against the hypothesis simply because some
conventional level of significance was met.
Other
options, such as suspending judgment, may actually
be better actions under the circumstances regard­
less of the result of the conventional significance
tes t .7
Rejection of the null hypothesis in all years tested has,
therefore, been set as the criterion for general acceptance
of the alternate hy p othesis.
7I b i d. , p. 265.

CHAPTER IV

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter analyzes the statistical hypotheses,
using the procedures described in Chapter III.

Each of the

16 hypotheses is analyzed separately, though grouped accord­
ing to the statistical treatment used.
Analysis of Results
A table will accompany the presentation of findings
for each of the hypotheses tested.

The symbol NS used in

the table will indicate that the findings were not signifi­
cant.

In those cases where significance is found, the

probability level of significance will be stated.

The table

will also indicate whether data were available for the
school year 1969-70.
A complete tabulation of all variables used in per­
forming the required calculations for significance of the
(t) and
C.

( IT~xy) statistical treatments is found in Appendix

Data required to test the significance of

(0) in Hypoth­

esis 15 can be found in the contingency table accompanying
the presentation of results.

89

90
A five per cent level of significance was chosen as
the criterion for rejection of each of the null hypotheses
presented in this study.

Inasmuch as all relationships were

hypothesized to be directional, a one-tail test of signifi­
cance was used.
Hypothesis I .— There will be no difference between
the average teacher's salary in school districts on
shortened sessions and the average teacher's salary
in school districts not on shortened sessions when
school district size and geographic location are
controlled.
In Hypotheses I through V I I , selected financial charac­
teristics in school districts on shortened sessions were com­
pared statistically with corresponding financial character­
istics in school districts maintaining full-day programs.
Each school district on a shortened session was paired with
a school district of comparable size and geographic location
on a full-day session.

The correlated t statistic was used

to analyze the difference in means between pairs.
The correlated t values are presented in Table 4.1.
Null Hypothesis I was not rejected in the school year 1967-68,
but was rejected at P<0.05 in the school year 1968-69.
were not available for the school year 1969-70.

Data

Though the

mean differences in 1967-68 were in the same direction as
hypothesized,

findings in the two years were data which,

where available, conflicted.

In 196 7-6 8 the average teacher's

salary in the test sample was not significantly different
than the average teacher's salary in school districts on fullday sessions.

This was not the case in 1968-69, however,

91

TABLE 4.1.— Average teacher's salary:
a comparison of test
sample and matched-pair means.

Actual Meana
Difference
Expected Mean
Difference
Unbiased
Estimator

md

E (Md )

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

-25 .25

-281.35

Data not
available

.0
264.14

est.

.0
141.36

D

t

-.097

-1.987

df

19

16

P

NS

-.05

Difference in mean average tea c he r’s salary in dollars.

92
when average teacher's salary in the test sample was found to
be significantly lower than the control sample.

On the basis

of mixed findings, no generalized conclusion has been drawn.
Hypothesis I I .— There will be no difference between
the average instruction salary expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions and the
average instruction salary expenditure per student in
school districts not on shortened sessions when school
district size and geographic location are controlled.
The correlated t values are presented in Table 4.2.
Null Hypothesis II was not rejected at P<0.05 in either the
school year 1967-68 or 1968-69.
the school year 1969-70.

Data were not available for

Though computations indicate that

the mean differences were in the same direction as hypothe­
sized in both years,

the differences were not significant

between the instructional salary expenditure per student in
school districts on shortened sessions and similar expendi­
tures in the control group on full-day sessions.
Hypothesis I I I .— There will be no difference between
the average total general fund expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions and the
average total general fund expenditure per student in
school districts not on shortened sessions when school
district size and geographic location are controlled.
The correlated t values are presented in Table 4.3.
Null Hypothesis III was not rejected at P<0.05 in either the
school year 1967-68, or 1968-69.
1969-70 were not available.

Data for the school year

The mean differences were in

the same direction as hypothesized, but findings were insig­
nificant.

No significant difference was found between the

general fund expenditure per student in school districts on

93

TABLE 4.2.— Instructional salary expenditure per student:
comparison of test sample and matched-pair m e a n s .

Actual Mean a
Difference

md

Expected Mean
Difference

.
D

Unbiased
Estimator

md

1967-68

1968-69

-5.02

-16.72

.0

a

1969-70
Data not
available

.0

est. a„

t
df
P

12. 83
-.416
19
NS

17.01
-.977
16
NS

aDifference in mean instructional salary expenditure per student in dollars.

TABLE 4.3.— Total general fund expenditure per student:
comparison of test sample and matched-pair means.
1967-68
Actual Mean
Difference

1968-69

a

1969 -70

a
MD

Expected Mean
Difference

E (Md )

Unbiased
Estimator

°M
"d

est.

t
df
P

-6.06
.0

17. 89
-.338
19
NS

-32.80

Data not
available

.0

31.54
-1.039
16
NS

Difference in mean total general fund expenditure per stu­
dent in dollars.

shortened sessions and the general fund expenditure per stu­
dent in school districts on full-day sessions.
Hypothesis I V .— There will be no difference between
the average total millage rate for all school pur­
poses in school districts on shortened sessions and
the average total millage rate for all school pur­
poses in school districts not on shortened sessions
when school district size and geographic location
are controlled.
The correlated t values are presented in Table 4.4.
Null Hypothesis IV was not rejected at P<0.05 in any of the
school years 1967-68, 1968-69, or 1969-70.

The calculated t

values in all cases were in the same direction as hypothe­
sized, but no significance was found.

There was no signifi­

cant difference between total millage rates in school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions and those in school districts
on full-day sessions.
TABLE 4.4.— Total millage rates:
a comparison of test sample
and matched-pair m e a n s .
1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

£

Actual Mean
MD
Difference
Expected Mean
e (m d )
Difference
Unbiased
est. o
Estimator
D
t
df
P

.871

.391

.385

.0

.0

.0

1.01

1.65

1.91

.863
19
NS

.237
16
NS

d i f f e r e n c e in mean total millage rate in mills.

.323
21
NS

95
Hypothesis V .— There will be no difference between the
average operational millage rate in school districts
on shortened sessions and the average operational mill­
age rate in school districts not on shortened sessions
when school district size and geographic location are
controlled.
The correlated t values are presented in Table 4.5.
Null Hypothesis V was not rejected at P<0.05 in any of the
school years 1967-68,

1968-69, or 1969-70.

Findings were

mixed in direction, with no indication of significance.
There was no significant difference between the operational
millage rates in school districts on shortened sessions and
comparable millage levies in school districts on full-day
sessions.
Hypothesis V I .— There will be no difference between
the average debt retirement millage rate in school
districts on shortened sessions and the average debt
retirement millage rate in school districts not on
shortened sessions when school district size and
geographic location are controlled.
The correlated t values are presented in Table 4.6.
Null Hypothesis VI was not rejected at P<0.05 in any of the
years 1967-68, 1968-69, or 1969-70.

Again the findings were

in the same directions as hypothesized for all of the three
years studied, but lacked the required level of significance.
The debt retirement millage rates levied in school districts
on shortened sessions were not significantly different than
the debt retirement millage rates levied in school districts
on full-day sessions.
Hypothesis V I I .--There will be no difference between
the average state equalized valuation per student in
school districts on shortened sessions and the average
state equalized valuation per student in school

96
TABLE 4.5.— Operational millage rates:
a comparison of test
sample and matched-pair m e a n s .
1967-68
Actual Mean3
Difference
Expected Mean
Difference
Unbiased
est.
Estimator

«D
e

(m d >

°m d
t
df
P

.433

1968-69

1969-70

1.101

-.686

.0

.0

.0

1.07

1.42

1.07

.405
19
NS

.775
16
NS

-.638
21
NS

-a

Differences in mean operational millage rate in mills.

TABLE 4.6.— Debt retirement millage rates:
a comparison of
test sample and matched-pair means.
1967-68
Actual Mean
Difference
Expected Mean
Difference
Unbiased
est.
Estimator

1968-69

1969-70

M
“d

.464

.906

.852

E(Md )

.0

.0

.0

°m d

.515

.726

.567

t
df
P

.901

1.248
16
NS

1.502
21
NS

19
NS

aDifference in mean debt retirement millage rate in mills.

97
districts not on shortened sessions when school dis­
trict size and geographic location are controlled.
The correlated t values are presented in Table 4.7.
Null Hypothesis VII was not rejected at P<0.05 in any of the
three school years included in the study.

The calculated t

values were directional as predicted in 1967-68,

1968-69,

and 1969-70, though none was at the level stipulated as the
minimum limit for significance.

No significant difference

was observed between the state equalized valuation per stu­
dent in school districts on shortened sessions, and the state
equalized valuation in school districts on full-day sessions.
TABLE 4.7.— State equalized valuation per student:
a compar­
ison of test sample and matched-pair means.
1967-68
Actual Mean
Difference

1969-70

a
md

Expected Mean
Difference
Unbiased
Estimator

1968-69

992.05

E ( Md )
.

\

.0

1,211.16

-2,209.63

-250.18

.0

2,270.62

-1.19

.0

1,441.25

-.17

t

.810

df

19

16

21

p

NS

NS

NS

aDifference in mean state equalized valuation per student
in dollars.

98
The first seven hypotheses attempted to find financial
characteristics that school districts on shortened sessions
have in common, which are different from their counterparts
in school districts on full-day sessions.

The school dis­

tricts between which the comparisons were made were con­
trolled as to size and geographic location.

Of the seven

hypotheses tested, none was found to be potent in a predic­
tive sense.

The financial characteristics of the two sam­

ples were found to be similar.
There was, however,

another observation worth noting.

It was mentioned in the presentation and analysis of data,
that the findings were in the direction hypothesized, though
not significant.

The alternate hypotheses predicted that

those financial characteristics related to expenditure and
wealth would be lower in the test sample than in the control
sample, and those characteristics related to millage rates
would be higher.
emphasis was made.
formed,

Tables 4.1 through 4.7 explain why this
Of the 18 t statistic calculations per­

16 resulted in values that were in the direction

hypothesized.

To test the significance of the number of

differences going in the hypothesized direction, the sign
test was used, where p(X a <X,to) = p(X a >X.to ) = 1/2.
hypothesis was rejected at the alpha level 0.05.

The null
The accept­

ance of the alternate hypothesis implies that though the
magnitude of the differences was not large enough to be sig­
nificant,

the number of cases in which the differences were

in the hypothesized direction was significant.

99
Hypothesis V I I I .— There will be no difference between
the average teacher's salary in school districts on
shortened sessions and the average teacher's salary
in the state.
Hypotheses VIII through XIV compared differences in
means of financial characteristics in school districts on
shortened sessions and the corresponding means for the char­
acteristics in the state used as population parameters.

The

t statistic was selected as the appropriate test in finding
the difference between the mean of the characteristic in the
test sample and the state mean.
The t values calculated in testing Hypothesis VIII are
presented in Table 4.8.

Null Hypothesis VIII was rejected at

P<0.05 in both school years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
not available for the school year 1969-70.

Data were

Findings were

significant at P<0.001 in 1967-68, and at P<0.005 in 1968-69.
Therefore, null Hypothesis VIII was rejected and the follow­
ing hypothesis accepted:
llga : The average teacher's salary in school districts
on shortened sessions is less than the average
teacher's salary in the state.
Hypothesis IX.--There will be no difference between the
average instruction salary expenditure per student in
school districts on shortened sessions and the average
instruction salary expenditure per student in the state.
The t values are presented in Table 4.9.

Null Hypothe­

sis IX was not rejected at P<0.05 in the school year 1967-68,
but was rejected at P<0.05 in the school year 1968-69.
were not available for the school year 1969-70.

Data

Though find­

ings were not significant in 1967-6 8, the t value calculated
for 19G8-69 was significant at P<0.001.

Data on repeating

100
TABLE 4.8.— Average teacher's salary:
a comparison of test
sample and state means.
1967-68

1968-69

Sample Mean

X

7,287

8,438

State Mean3
j_
Difference
in Means

y

8,238

9 ,134

(X - y)

-951

-696

Unbiased
Estimator

g

1,121.9

956. 3

t
df
P

-3.79
19
.001

-2.91

1969-70
Data not
available

16
.005

3Michigan Department of Education:
Analysis of Michigan Publie School Revenues and Expenditure s for 1967-68, 1968-69.
^Difference in mean average teacher* s salary in d o l la rs .
TABLE 4.9.— Instructional salary expenditure per student:
comparison of test sample and state means.
1967-68

1968-69

Sample Mean

X

438.37

395.98

State Mean3

M

423.63

473.04

Difference^
in Means

(X - y)

14 .74

-77.06

62.55

53.96

Unbiased
Estimator

a

1969-70
Data not
available

A

s
t
df
P

1.052
19
NS

-5. 89
16
.001

Analysis of Michigan PubaMichigan Department of Education:
lie School Revenues and Expenditures for 1967-68, 1968-69.
^Difference in mean instructional salary expenditure per
student in dollars.

101
districts,

those that had students on shortened sessions both

y e a r s , revealed that some school districts expended less for
instructional salaries in 1968-69 than they expended the pre­
vious year.

This would suggest cuts in instructional staff

resulting from tightened budgets, or lack of school facili­
ties.

In 1967-68 the instructional salary expenditure per

student was not significantly different than the mean instruc­
tional salary expenditure in the state.

However, in 196 8-69

the instruction salary expenditure per student was found to
be significantly lower than the state mean.

On the basis of

the criterion established in the study design, no generalized
conclusion has been drawn.
Hypothesis X .— There will be no difference between
the average total general fund expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions and general
fund expenditure per student in the state.
The t values are presented in Table 4.10.

Null Hypothe­

sis X was rejected at P<0.05 in both school years 1967-68,
and 1968-69.
1969-70.

Data were not available for the school year

Findings were significant at P<0.005 in 1967-68,

and at P<0.001 in 1968-69.

Null Hypothesis X was rejected

and the alternate hypothesis accepted.
II q : The average total general fund expenditure per
student in school districts on shortened sessions is
less than the average total general fund expenditure
per student in the state.
Hypothesis XI.--There will be no difference between
the average total millage rate for all school purposes
in school districts on shortened sessions and the aver­
age total millage rate for all school purposes in the
s tate.

10 2
TABLE 4.10.— Total general fund expenditure per student:
comparison of test sample and state means.
1967-68

1968-69

Sample Mean

X

574.87

671.51

State Meana

y

624.77

707.21

Difference*3
in Means

(x - p)

-49 .90

-89.70

74.64

64.95

-2.99

-5.74

Unbiased
Estimator

A

s
t
df
P

19
.005

a

1969-70
Data not
available

16
.001

aMichigan Department of E d u c a t i o n : Analysis of Michigan
Public School Revenues and Expenditures for 1967-6 8, 196869.
U
Difference in mean total general fund expenditure per stu­
dent in dol la rs .
The t values are presented in Table 4.11.

Null Hypothe­

sis XI was rejected at P<0.05 in both the school years 196768 and 1968-69.
1969-70.

Data were not available for the school year

Significance was established at the level of

P <0.025 in 1967-68, and at P<0.01 in 1968-69.

Null Hypothesis

XI was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted.
H... : The average total millage rate for all school
purposes in school districts on shortened sessions is
less than the average total millage rate for all school
purposes in the state.
Hypothesis X I I .— There will be no difference between
the average operational millage rate in school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions and the average opera­
tional millage rate in the state.

103
TABLE 4.11.— Total millage rates:
a comparison of test sam­
ple and state m e a n s .
1967-68
Sample Mean

X

23. 34

25. 28

State Mean

V

26.21

29.11

-2. 82

-3. 83

38.68

5.68

Difference13
in Means
Unbiased
Estimator

(X - u)

1969-70

1968-69

Data not
available

/\

s
t
df
P

-2.03
19
.025

-2.77
16
.01

Ranking of Public
aMichigan Department of Education:
Schools by Selected Financial Data for 1967-68 , 1968-69;
Analysis of Michigan Public School Revenues and Expenditures for 1967-68, 1968-69.
b Difference in mean total millage rate in mills
The t values are presented in Table 4.12.

*

Null Hypothe

sis XII was rejected at P<0.05 in both the school years
19G7-68 and 1968-69.
year 1969-70.
P<0.005.

Data were not available for the school

Findings were significant at P<0.001 and

Therefore, null Hypothesis XII was rejected and the

following hypothesis accepted:
II-_ : The average operational millage rate in school
districts on shortened sessions is less than the aver­
age operational millage rate in the state.
Hypothesis X I I I .— There will be no difference between
the average debt retirement millage rate in school
districts on shortened sessions and the average debt
retirement millage rate in the state.

104
TABLE 4.12.— Operational millage rates:
a comparison of test
sample and state means.
1967-68

1968-69

1969-70
Data not
available

Sample Mean

X

17.89

20. 87

State Meana

\i

22.66

25. 38

Difference13
in Means

(X - p)

-4.97

-4.51

4 .35

5. 35

Unbiased
Estimator

S
t
df
P

-5.11
19
.001

-3.48
16
.005

aMichigan Department of Education:
Ranking of Public
Schools by Selected Financial Data for 1967-68, 1968-69;
Analysis of Michigan Public School Revenues and Expenditures for !
1 967-68, 196 8-69 .
^Difference in mean operational millage rate in mills.
The t values are presented in Table 4.13.

Null Hypoth-

esis XIII was rejected at F<0.05 in both the school years
1967-68 and 1968-69.
year 1969-70.

Data were not available for the school

The t value computations established signifi­

cance at P<0.005 in 1967-68, and P<0.025 in 1968-69.

Find­

ings resulted in the rejection of null Hypothesis XIII.

The

alternate hypothesis was accepted.
II, ^ : The average debt retirement millage rate in
school districts on shortened sessions is greater than
the average debt retirement millage rate in the state.
Hypothesis X I V .— There will be no difference between
the average state equalized valuation per student in
districts on shortened sessions and the average state
equalized valuation per student in the state.

105
TABLE 4.13.— Debt retirement millage rates:
test sample and state means.
1967-68

1968-69

Sample Mean

X

5.43

4 .99

State Mean3

y

3.56

3. 72

(X - p)

1. 87

1.27

A

s

2.52

2.42

t

3. 33

2. 38

Difference
in Means
Unbiased
Es timator

df
P

a comparison of

19
.005

1969-70
Data not
available

16
.025

aMichigan Department of Education:
Ranking of Public Schools
by Selected Financial Data for 1967-68, 1968-69; Analysis of
Michigan Public School Revenues and Expenditures for 196768, 1968-69.
^Difference in mean debt retirement millage rates in mills.

The t values are presented in Table 4.14.

Null Hypoth­

esis XIV was rejected at P<0.05 in 1968-69, but was not
rejected in either 1967-68, or 1969-70.

Though the level of

rejection was at P<0.01 in 1968-69, the analysis of data for
1967-68 and 1969-70 did not provide significant findings.
In 1968-69 the state equalized valuation per student in the
test sample was significantly lower than in school districts
on full-day sessions.

This was not the case, however,

the

the year preceding or following, when no significance was
found.

Findings were found to be mixed and unstable, making

it impossible to state a generalized conclusion.

106
TABLE 4.14.— State equalized valuation per student:
parison of test sample and state means.

Sample Mean
State Mean3
Difference*3
in Means
Unbiased
Estimator

X
M
(X - Vi)

a com­

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

12,707
14,459

12 ,987
15 ,198

15 ,101
16,218

-1752

-2211

-1.017

5,421.84

3,519.58

A

s
t
df
P

-1.45
19
NS

-2.59
16
.01

4 ,105.41
-1.14
21
NS

Michigan Department of E d u c a t i o n : Analysis of Michigan
Public School Revenues and Expenditures for 1967-68, 196869.
Mean for 1969-70 secured from the Michigan Department
of Education.
^Difference in mean state equalized valuation per student
in dollars.
Hypothesis X V .— The decision by local school boards to
place students on shortened sessions is independent of
the outcome of elections (operational millage and/or
construction bond p r o p os al s) .
Hypothesis XV sought a relationship between election
outcomes and their influence on decisions by boards of edu­
cation to initiate shortened sessions.
with the chi-square statistic

Data were treated

2

(X ) which was converted to a

phi correlation coefficient 0 to measure the strength of
dependence.
Questionnaires were mailed to 46 school districts com­
prising the test sample of school districts on shortened
sessions.

There were 39 responses,

36 of which reported

elections were held in their district either to increase

107
operational millage or to bond for the construction of facil­
ities.

The respondents provided the required data as to the

election outcome

(passed or failed )

,

and the influence of

the election outcome on the board to shorten the school day
(yes or no).

The calculated values of chi-square,

and the

phi-correlation coefficient are presented in Table 4.15.
contingency table is also presented,
bution of responses.

A

containing the distri­

The computed phi correlation coeffi­

cient rejected the null hypothesis at P<0.05, indicating
significant dependence between election outcomes and board
decisions to initiate shortened sessions.

The phi-correlation

coefficient, calculated at .680, reflects the degree to which
there is dependence between categories.
Null Hypothesis XV was rejected and the alternate
hypothesis was accepted.
II, 5 : The decision by local school boards to place
students on shortened sessions is dependent upon the
outcome of elections (operational millage and/or con­
struction bond proposals).
Hypothesis X V I .— There is a positive linear relation­
ship between operational millage rates (local effort)
and the total general fund expenditure per student
(educational opportunity provided).
The test of Hypothesis XVI required the analysis of
the linear relationship between local school effort

(total

operational m i l l a g e ) , and financial ability to provide local
educational programs
student).

(total general fund expenditure per

The strength of linear relationship was arrived

at by applying the Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi­
cient txy.

108

TABLE 4.15.— Selected election outcomes and their influence
on Board of Education decisions to shorten sessions.

Election Outcome

Did the results of the election influ­
ence the board of education decision to
place students on shortened sessions?
Total
Yes
No

Failed

23

4

27

Passed

1

8

9

24

12

36

x2

-

16.66

df

-

1

0

—

.680

P

-

.01

109
The calculated values of the Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient V^xy, and the t value are found in
Figure 1 for the school year 1967-6 8, and in Figure 2 for
the year 196 8-69.

The tables also include a scatter diagram

of the points used in the analysis.

The Pearson product-

moment correlation coefficient calculated for the school
year 1967-68 was

.407

(t = 1.93, df = 18, P<0.05), indicat­

ing a statistically significant though weak relationship
between operational millage rates and total general fund
expenditure.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi­

cient calculated for the school year 1968-69 was

.314

(t = 1.279, df = 15, P < 0 . 0 5 ) , indicating a statistical rela­
tionship too weak to be statistically significant.
though in 1967-68

Thus,

a slight indication was found for the

existence of a relationship between operational millage rates
and total general fund expenditure per student, in 196 8-69
it was found these variables were independent.

Operational

millage rates levied in a school district on shortened ses­
sions were found to be invalid pre

.ctors of the total gen­

eral fund expenditure per student.
Summary
In this chapter the hypotheses stated in Chapter III
were stated in their null form and analyzed.

Those which

were rejected in the null form were restated as directional,
or alternate hypotheses.

A summary of the results follows:

110

35 **

in
.-t

30 ■■

t-i

*H
SJ
o>
■M
rtf

25 "

a>

err

rtf

t-i
i-H

■r4

20

"

rtf
C
o
•H
-U
rtf
U
a>
a,

o

10

400

500

600

700

800

Total General Fund Expenditure Per Student in Dollars
Figure 1.— Relationship of Operational Millage Rates to
Total General Fund Expenditure Per Student
(1967-1968).
df
xy
t
P

18
.407
1. 893
.05

Ill

35 *-

in
30 -s
c
•H
0)
4->
10
« 25
a>
tn
(0

-

•H
S
20
fO
C
O
•H
-P
(0
n
0)
cu
o 15

■*

---------------1-------------- 1---------------1-------------- H

400
500
600
700
800
Total General Fund Expenditure Per Student in Dollars
Figure 2.— Relationship of Operational Millage Rates to
Total General Fund Expenditure Per Student
(1968-1969).
df
xy
t
P

15
.314
1. 279
NS

112
Hypothesis I .--There will be no difference between the
average teacher's salary in school districts on short­
ened sessions and the average teacher's salary in
school districts not on shortened sessions when school
district size and geographic location are controlled.
The difference in means was not significant in the
school year 1967-63, but was significant at P<0.05 in the
school year 196 8-69.
no findings,

Data were not available, resulting in

for the school year 1969-70.

Findings were

inconclusive and judgment as to a generalized conclusion
has been withheld.
Hypothesis I I .— There will be no difference between the
average instruction salary expenditure per student in
school districts on shortened sessions and the average
instruction salary expenditure per student in school
districts not on shortened sessions when school dis­
trict size and geographic location are controlled.
The observed difference in means was not significant
at P<0.05 in either the school year 1967-68 or 1968-69.

Data

were not available to test the hypothesis for the school year
1969-70.

The null hypothesis was not rejected-

Hypothesis I I I .— There will be no difference between
the average total general fund expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions and the
average total general fund expenditure per student in
school districts not on shortened sessions when school
district size and geographic location are controlled.
The difference in means was not significant at P<0.05
in either the school year 1967-68 or 1968-69.
the hypothesis was made in 1969-70,
able.

No test of

as data were not avail­

The null hypothesis was not rejected.
Hypothesis I V .— There will be no difference between the
average total millage rate for all school purposes in
school districts on shortened sessions and the aver­
age total millage rate for all school purposes in

113
school districts not on shortened sessions when school
district size and geographic location are controlled.
The difference in means was not significant at P<0.05
in any of the school years 1967-68, 1968-69, or 1969-70.
Null Hypothesis IV could not be rejected.
Hypothesis V .— There will be no difference between the
average operational millage rate in school districts
on shortened sessions and the average operational m ill­
age rate in school districts not on shortened sessions
when school district size and geographic location are
controlled.
The analysis of data resulted in finding no significant
difference in means at P<0.05 in any of the school years
1967-63, 1968-69, or 1969-70.

The null hypothesis was not

rejected.
Hypothesis V I .— There will be no difference between the
average debt retirement millage rate in school districts
on shortened sessions and the average debt retirement
millage rate in school districts not on shortened ses­
sions when school district size and geographic location
are controlled.
The analysis of data resulted in finding no significant
difference in means at P<0.05 in any of the school years
19G7-68,

1968-69, or 1969-70.

The null hypothesis was not

rej ected.
Hypothesis V I I .— There will be no difference between
the average state equalized valuation per student in
school districts on shortened sessions and the aver­
age state equalized valuation per student in school
districts not on shortened sessions when school dis­
trict size and geographic location are controlled.
The analysis of the difference in means in the school
years 1967-68,

1968-69, and 1969-70 resulted in no signifi­

cant findings at P<0.05.
rejected,

Null hypothesis VII could not be

114
Hypothesis V I I I .— There will be no difference between
the average teacher's salary in school districts on
shortened sessions and the average teacher's salary
in the state.
The observed difference in means was significant at
P<0.05 in both the school years 1967-68 and 1968-69.

No

test of significance was made in 1969-70 because data were
not available.

Null Hypothesis VXII was rejected,

and the

following c.lternate hypothesis was accepted:
Hga : The average teacher's salary in school districts
on shortened sessions is less than the average teacher's
salary in the state.
Hypothesis I X .— There will be no difference between
the average instruction salary expenditure per student
in school districts on shortened sessions and the
average instruction salary expenditure per student in
the state.
Analysis of data revealed that the difference in means
was not significant in the school year 1967-6 8, but was sig­
nificant at P<0.05 in the school year 1968-69.
not available for the school year 1969-70.

Data were

Findings were

inconclusive, and under the criterion of the design,

judgment

has been withheld as to a generalized conclusion.
Hypothesis X .— There will be no difference between the
average total millage rate for all school purposes in
school districts on shortened sessions and the average
total millage rate for all school purposes in the state.
The analysis of the difference of means in the school
years 1967-68 and 1968-69 resulted in significant findings at
P<0.05.

The data required to make calculations for the

school year 1969-70 were not available.

Null Hypothesis X

was rejected and the following alternate hypothesis accepted:

115
H , Q : The average total general fund expenditure per
stuaent in school districts on shortened sessions is
less than the average total general fund expenditure
per student in the state.
Hypothesis X I .— There will be no difference between
the average total millage rate for all school purposes
in school districts on shortened sessions and the
average total millage rate for all school purposes in
the state.
Findings were consistently significant at P<0.05 in
each of the school years 19 67-6 8 and 196 8-69.

No calcula­

tions were made for the school year 1969-70, as data were
not available.

Null Hypothesis XI was rejected and the

alternate hypothesis was accepted.
H l l a : T*ie avera9e total millage rate for all school
purposes in school districts on shortened sessions is
less than the average total millage rate for all
school purposes in the state.
Hypothesis X I I .— There will be no difference between
the average operational millage rate in school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions and average operational
millage rate in the state.
The difference in means was significant at P<0.05 in
both the school years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
available for the school year 1969-70.

Data were not

Null Hypothesis XII

was rejected and the following alternate hypothesis accepted:
H 12a : The average operational millage rate in school
districts on shortened sessions is less than the aver­
age operational millage rate in the state.
Hypothesis X I I I .— There will be no difference between
the average debt retirement millage rate in school
districts on shortened sessions and the average debt
retirement millage rate in the state.
The observed difference in means was significant at
P<0.05 in the school years 1967-68 and 1968-69.

No analysis

116
was made for the school y ea r 1969-70,
able.

as data were not avail­

The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternate

hypothesis was accepted.
H 1 3 a : T he average debt retirement millage rate in
school districts on shortened sessions is greater than
the average debt retirement millage rate in the state.
Hypothesis X I V .— There will be no difference between
the average state equalized valuation per student in
districts on shortened sessions and the average state
equalized valuation per student in the state.
The difference in means in the school year 1968-69 was
significant at P<0.05.

However,

analysis of data for the

school years 1967-68 and 1969-70 provided no significant
findings.

Findings were inconclusive and a generalized con­

clusion has been withheld.
Hypothesis X V .— The decision by local school boards to
place students on shortened sessions is independent of
the outcome of elections (operational millage and/or
construction bond p r o p o s a l s ) .
The phi correlation coefficient calculated at
significant at P<0.05,

.680 was

showing dependence between election

outcomes and board decisions to initiate shortened sessions.
Null Hypothesis

XV

was rejected and the alternate hypothesis

accep t e d .
^15 * The decision by local school boards to place
students on shortened sessions is dependent upon the
outcome of elections (operational millage and/or con­
struction bond proposals).
Hypothesis X V I .— There is a positive linear relation­
ship between operational millage rates (local effort)
and the total general fund expenditure per student
(educational opportunity p r o v i d e d ) .

117
The Pearson product-moment correlated coefficient cal­
culated for the school year 1967-6 8 was
significant correlation at P<0.05.

.407, a weak though

Replication of the experi­

ment for the school year 1968-69 showed an insignificant cor­
relation of .314.

Though significance was not found in 1968-

69, findings strongly question the linear relationship
between operational millage rate and the total general fund
expenditure per student.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Purposes of the Study
This study was undertaken to determine if school dis­
tricts on shortened sessions have common financial charac­
teristics which, when compared with the financial character­
istics of school districts on full-day sessions, would reveal
significant differences.
1.

It was expected that the analysis of financial vari­

ables would show a relationship between inequality of educa­
tional opportunity evidenced by shortened sessions,

and

inequality of educational opportunity as reflected by school
district expenditure and income patterns.
2.

It was also expected that a relationship would

exist between the outcomes of elections

(to increase the

operational millage rate and/or to bond for the construction
of facilities), and the local board's decision to initiate a
shortened school day.
himitations of the Study
1.
including:

Analysis was limited to specific financial variab
expenditures

(average teacher's salary,
110

instruction

119
salary expenditure per student, and average total general
fund expenditure per s tudent), millage rates
school purposes, operational,
wealth

(total for all

and debt r et i re me nt ), and

(state equalized valuation per st udent).
2.

Sources of data restricted the study to Michigan

school districts offering kindergarten through twelfth grade
programs.
3.

The study does not provide findings for all vari­

ables for the school year 1969-70, as the data required for
analysis were not available.
4.

A consistent pattern of findings in each of the

years analyzed was established as the criterion to reject or
not reject the null hypothesis.
Review of Literature
The general areas of interest in this study were the
adequacy of the Michigan State-Aid Formula to equalize edu­
cational opportunity,

the financial implications of teacher

militancy on school district expenditures, and the lack of
state assistance in the financing of school facilities.
The review of literature consisted of a discussion of
state responsibility for financing public education,

studies

contributing to the present structure of financing public
education in Michigan,

the economic implications of teacher

militancy, and studies relating wealth and expenditure to
equality of educational opportunity.

120
Sources of Data
Selected financial data used in this study were obtained
from the following sources:

Michigan Department of Education:

Ranking of Public Schools by Selected Financial Data for
1967-68, 1968-69; Michigan Association of School Administra­
tors :

Selected Administrative Information and Millage Levies

Relative to Michigan Public School Dis tr ic ts , February, 19 70;
Michigan Department of Education:

Analysis of Michigan Pub­

lic School Revenues and Expenditures for 1967-68,

1968-69.

Also data related to the influence of selected election
results on board of education decisions to initiate shortened
sessions were acquired through questionnaires.
Design of the Study
The s a m pl e.--Three test samples of school districts on
shortened sessions were selected, one for each of the three
years covered by the study.

The samples consisted of 20

school districts in 1967-68,

17 school districts in 1968-69,

and 22 in 1969-70.
P r ocedure.--The statistical design of this study called
for two sets of comparisons to be made.

The financial char­

acteristics of districts on shortened sessions were first
compared with a control sample of school districts on fullday sessions, when school district size and geographic loca­
tion were controlled, and second with the state mean repre­
senting all school districts in the state.

The use of

121
matched-pair analysis was desirable, in that it eliminated
two variables, size and geographic location, which could
influence the validity of the findings.
Instrumentation.— The instrument used was designed to
obtain data related to school district elections.
mation required was

the outcome of elections

The infor­

(to increase

the operational millage rate and/or to bond for the con­
struction of facilities), and the influence of the election
outcome on the board's decision to shorten the school day.
A na ly s i s .--The following methods were used in the
treatment of data:
1.

Hypotheses I through VII required the use of a

statistic appropriate to measure the difference in means
between matched pairs.

The statistic used was the correlated

t test, with the level of significance set at P<0.05.
2.

In Hypotheses VIII through XIV the t statistic was

used in computations to measure the difference between the
mean of each characteristic in the test sample and the state
mean used as a population parameter.

Significance was con­

sidered at P<0.05.
3.

Hypothesis XV tested the independence between cate­

gorical characteristics in mutually exhaustive classes.
Independence was measured by the phi correlation coefficient
with the significance level at P<0.05.
4.

Hypothesis XVI required a statistical test that

would measure the linear relationship between variables.

122
Computations were made using the Pearson product-moment cor­
relation coefficient, with findings considered significant
at P < 0 .05.
Conclusions
From the findings of this study the following conclu­
sions are drawn:
1.

The mean average teacher's salary in school dis­

tricts on shortened sessions was significantly lower than the
moan of the control sample on full-day sessions in 1967-68.
Replication of the analysis using data for 1968-69 did not
show significance.
2.

The mean instruction salary expenditure per student

in school districts on shortened sessions was not signifi­
cantly different than the mean of the control sample on fullday sessions.
3.

The mean total general fund expenditure per student

in school districts on shortened sessions was not signifi­
cantly different than the mean of the control sample on fullday sessions.
4.

The mean total millage rate for all school pur­

poses in school districts on shortened sessions was not sig­
nificantly different than the mean of the control sample on
full-day sessions.
5.

The mean operational millage rate in school dis­

tricts on shortened sessions was not significantly different
than the mean of the control sample on full-day sessions.

123
6.

The mean debt retirement millage rate in school

districts on shortened sessions was not significantly dif­
ferent than the mean of the control sample on full-day ses­
sions .
7.

The mean state equalized valuation per student in

school districts on shortened sessions was not significantly
different than the mean of the control sample on full-day
sessions.
8.

The mean average teacher's salary in school dis­

tricts on shortened sessions was significantly lower than
the state mean.
9.

The mean instruction salary expenditure per student

in school districts on shortened sessions was significantly
lower than the state mean in 1968-69, but no significant dif­
ference in means was found in 1967-68.
10.

The mean total general fund expenditure per student

in school districts on shortened sessions was significantly
lower than the state mean.
11.

The mean total millage rate for all school purposes

in school districts on shortened sessions was significantly
lower than the state mean.
12.

The mean operational millage rate in school dis­

tricts on shortened sessions was significantly lower than the
state mean.
13.

The mean debt retirement millage rate in school

districts on shortened sessions was significantly higher than
the state mean.

124
14.

The mean state equalized valuation per student in

school districts on shortened sessions was significantly
lower than the state mean in 19 68-6 9.

No support was given

this finding in either 1967-68 or 1969-70, when the analysis
of data showed no significant difference in means.
15.

There was a positive dependent relationship between

outcomes of elections

(operational millage and/or construction

bond p ro posals), and the decision by local school boards to
place students on shortened sessions.
16.

There was a weak linear relationship between oper­

ational millage rates
fund expenditure
68.

(local effort)

and the total general

(educational opportunity provided)

in 1967-

However, the analysis of data in 19 6 8-69 showed the two

variables to be independent.
Implications
School districts on shortened sessions are considered
by the Michigan Department of Education as providing inequality
of educational opportunity, in that they are not meeting the
criterion for length of school day established in the State
o£ Michigan General School L a w s , Rule 340.14.

It was because

of this recognition by the state, that these districts were
selected as the focal point of this study.

This study

attempted to identify financial characteristics in these dis­
tricts that are different from school districts on full-day
programs.

125
1.

Possibly the most impressive finding in this study

was the lack of significance that was found between school
districts on shortened sessions when they were compared with
the control sample.

The control sample was selected from

school districts of similar size and geographic location.
Somewhere in the selection process financial characteristics
were also controlled.

Literally no significant differences

were found in the analysis of data that differentiated school
districts on shortened sessions from their matched pair.
Variables in the test sample approximated the distribution
of variables in the control sample in every way.

This find­

ing provides fertile ground for future study.
The significant differences that were found when the
test sample was compared with state means suggests that
though both the test sample and the control sample were
drawn from the school districts of the state where variables
were distributed normally, their financial characteristics
were not representative of that normal distribution.
2.

When the data related to average teacher's salary

were analyzed,

findings revealed that the mean average

teacher's salary in the test sample was significantly lower
than the state mean.

It was also observed that the total

general fund expenditure per student was significantly lower
than the state mean.

These findings strongly supported the

relationship between school districts on shortened sessions,
and educational opportunity, expressed in the terms of

126
Keppel,

1

2
Benson,

3
and G a r v u e , that the most dependable mea­

sure of educational opportunity is reflected in the total
general fund expenditure.
Findings were equally supportive of conclusions in
studies by M a y e s k e , et a l . ,4 and Flanagan, 5 that two of the
most impressive indicators of educational opportunity are
teacher's salary and per-pupil expenditure.
man

Though Cole-

did not find expenditures to be as marked an indicator

of equality in his study of Equality of Educational Opportu­
nity , his findings did show the teacher to be the most
important school-related factor in educational opportunity.
It seems reasonable to assume, to the extent that we live in
a supply and demand economy, higher salaries will draw more
prospective teachers, improving the field of selection.
The analysis of instruction salary expenditure pro­
duced mixed findings.

No significant difference was found

in 1967-68, but significant findings were found in 1968-69.
A possible explanation for these mixed findings was revealed
by the fact that some of the districts which were on shortened
"^Keppel, o p . c i t . , p. 75.
2

Benson, The Cheerful P r o s p e c t , op. c i t ., p. 62.
3
Garvue, o p . c i t ., p. 131.
4
.
Mayeske, o p . c i t . , p. 55.
5
Flanagan, op. c i t ., pp. 10-11.
6Coleman, o p . c i t . , p. 325.

127
sessions both years spent less for instructional salaries in
196 8-69 than they did the previous year.

It is possible that

boards of education held expenditure up to the state mean
until they eventually faced a deficit situation,

and then

increased class size or cut back on instructional services
(e.g., art, music, physical education,

and special education).

Though only speculation, if this is what did happen, it would
be another example of inequality of educational opportunity.
Many writers have expressed concern as to the impact
of teacher militancy on the allocation of educational
resources.
by Benson,

This study, however, emphasized the observation
" . . .

that we have no evidence that bargaining

units will be predominantly successful in school districts
where expenditure increases are most urgently needed.
With the mean average teacher's salary in school districts
on shortened sessions standing significantly lower than the
state mean, it is questionable that teacher militancy had
any influence on the shortened school day.
3.

The fact that the analysis of data revealed that

the mean total millage rates for all school purposes,

and

the mean operational millage rates in school districts on
shortened sessions were significantly lower than the state
mean was not unexpected.

These findings would imply that

one of the major, if not the major reason for school districts
resorting to shortened sessions in their schools is lack of
7

Benson, o p . c i t ., pp. 1-2.

128

g

local financial support.

Whatever the reason for this

reluctance to support education,

it was also characteristic

of the control sample on full-day sessions.
With the additional finding that the mean debt retire­
ment millage rate in the test sample was higher than the state
mean, it is' highly probably that the above average debt
retirement millage rate compounds the already critical finan­
cial problem of these districts.

With the total millage rate

in the test sample already below the state mean,

the districts

are required to use a larger proportion of the total millage
for debt purposes than are districts throughout the state as
9
a whole.
Thomas
observed in his study, that the absence
of state contributions to the financing of school construction
was a failure on the part of the state to equalize educational
opportunity.
4.

The wealth of the school district, measured in s

equalized valuation per student, proved to be the least pro­
ductive financial characteristic as a predictor of the level
of educational opportunity.

Though the state equalized valu­

ation per student in the test sample was found to be signifi­
cantly lower than the state mean in 1968-69, its real signifi­
cance is questioned with the observation of no significance
Lack of local financial support may reflect community
apathy, dissatisfaction, or resistance to increased taxes.
g
Thomas, op. c i t . , p. 2.

129
in either the year 1967-68 or 1969-70.

The findings of this

study do not agree with the findings of V i n c e n t ^ or Wollatt11 in their study of extremely wealthy school districts.
Their findings placed considerable emphasis upon the correla­
tion of wealth to educational opportunity.

The difference in

findings can possibly be attributed to geographic location.
The two studies cited were conducted in specific suburban
areas, whereas this study encompassed the entire State of
Michigan.
Findings suggest that wealthy school districts do not
generally tax their wealth to provide excellence in education,
but rather take advantage of their favorable tax position.
12
The Michigan School Finance Study
brought into focus the
inequities in the sharing of tax burden for public education
throughout the State of Michigan.

Recommendations for the

correction of these inequities through the centralization of
educational financing were proposed by the Governor's Com­
mission on Educational Reform.
5.

This researcher was interested in what part sch

elections played in school districts initiating shortened s e s ­
sions.

In 64 per cent of the elections reported,

the failure

of the election was influential in the b o a r d ’s decision to
^°Vincent, op. cit. , pp.

8-9.

^ ^ R o s s , o p . c i t . , p. 370.
12

Thomas,

o p . c i t . , pp.

19-2 0.

13 The Governor's Commission on Educational R e f o r m ,
o p . c i t . , p. 9.

130
place students on shortened days.

The degree of dependence

is reflected in a phi correlation coefficient of .680.
Inequality of educational opportunity is not the result
of school district wealth, as this financial characteristic
was found to be insignificant.

In general, students were on

shortened sessions because local school districts were unwill­
ing to levy a school tax rate comparable to the mean tax rate
in the state.

These findings give support to the observation

reported above, that the lack of educational opportunity
found in school districts of shortened sessions is largely
due to lack of local financial support.
6.

Theoretically,

a state-aid formula should equate

reward and effort by what is known as the stimulation prin­
ciple.

The scatter diagrams in Figure 1 and Figure 2 visually

present the linear relationship between operational millage
rates and the total general fund expenditure per student in
the test sample.

Ideally, the points should lie in a straight

line, but this is not the case.

An extreme situation can be

observed in Figure 2, where one district is providing a $742.
educational program at an operational millage rate of 18,9,
while another is providing a $588. educational program at an
operational millage rate of 32.0 mills.
In school districts on shortened sessions,

local school

district effort was found to be an unreliable predictor of
the level of educational opportunity provided.

131
Recommendations
This study focused on a test sample of school districts
on shortened sessions.

It sought relationships between

inequality of educational opportunity as it is reflected in
shortened sessions, and as it is observed in school district
financial characteristics.

Though this study revealed rela­

tionships, many questions remain unanswered.
1.

What common characteristics, other than financial,

do school districts on shortened sessions have, that
set them apart from other school districts in the
state?
2.

What reasons are at the root of the apparent lack

of school support observed in the test sample?

Are

school communities apathetic to the needs of education?
Does lack of local support reflect dissatisfaction with
the school system,

administration, school board,

teachers, or curriculum?
attributed to
3.

How much importance can be

'taxpayer'’ revolt?

Is lack of educational opportunity in the test

sample evidenced by low scores by students on the state
administered assessment program?
4.

Is the low average teacher's salary found in the

test sample reflected in the qualifications of the
teaching staff?
The conclusions reached in the exploratory study require
expansion and verification by replication in a number of ways:

132
1.

Using data available in future years.

2.

Using characteristics other than financial ones in

making comparisons.
3.

Employing a modified design capable of measuring

differences between characteristics through multi­
variate analysis.
4.

Using a longitudinal study spanning several years

to test for trends.
Reflections
Study after study has revealed the gross inequities in
opportunity that exist in public education.
ties are found at the national, state,

These inequi­

and local levels.

Considering the wealth of evidence, there is reason for con­
cern that steps have not been taken sooner to provide every
boy and girl in this state with the opportunity to develop
his capacities to their full potential.
In Michigan, as in all states, it is well established
that the responsibility for the support of education rests
in the state legislature.
state function,

Though public education is a

the financing of education is considered a

cooperative venture between the state and the local school
district.

School districts throughout the state must depend

upon voted property taxes, one of the most regressive forms
of taxation,

to provide their share of the financial burden.

Because of this antiquated support structure, each year
thousands of students are deprived of the opportunity to

133

share in the amenities that come through education.

The

people in their communities have simply said ;'no."
The people of this state should also take a closer
look at what is referred to as local control.

With school

boards spending most of their time working on budgets or
planning millage and school bond campaigns,

there is a serious

question as to what they control.
It is incumbent upon the legislators and the public
they represent,

that they pick up the tools that are already

at their disposal, and make the changes that are necessary.
It is the a u t h o r ’s opinion that the time has come to central­
ize the financing of public education at the state level, so
that all children will have equal access to an equal educa­
tional opportunity, and boards of education can start plan­
ning and staffing educational programs to meet the needs of
their local communities, which should be their primary con­
cern .

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

135

Districts reported on shortened sessions and their matched pairs, 1967-68.

Test Sample
No.

Control Sample

School Districts

County

Membership

1.

Elk Rapids

Antrim

911

2.

Harper Creek

Calhoun

3.

Marcellus

4.

No.

County

Membership

1.

Kalkaska

Kalkaska

1,077

3,140

2.

Springfield

Calhoun

1,767

Cass

980

3.

Lawton

VanBuren

854

Mackinaw City

Cheboygan

268

4.

Pelston

Emmet

615

5.

Iron Mountain

Dickinson

1,097

5.

Kings ford

Dickinson

2,223

6.

North Adams

Hillsdale

779

6.

Pittsford

Hillsdale

874

7.

Lake Linden

Houghton

552

7.

Chassell

Houghton

303

8.

Khittemore-Prescott

Iosco

977

8.

Arenac Eastern

Arenac

623

9.

Adrian

Lenawee

5,952

9.

Tecumseh

Lenawee

3,381

10.

Frazer

Macomb

6,246

10.

Warren Woods

Macomb

7,962

11.

Utica

Macomb

16,696

11.

Warren

Macomb

24,779

12.

Bedford

Monroe

6,123

12.

Monroe

Monroe

8,641

13.

Hesperia

Newago

992

13.

White Cloud

Newago

1,139

14.

Troy

Oakland

5,041

14.

Lamphere

Oakland

5,610

15.

Huron Valley

Oakland

6,201

15.

Walled Lake

Oakland

9,696

16.

Hart

Oceana

1,223

16.

Shelby

Oceana

1,383

17.

Mio-Ausable

Oscoda

595

17.

Hale

Iosco

18.

Marlette

Sanilac

1,789

18.

Case City

Tuscola

1,832

19.

Vassar

Tuscola

2,078

19.

Millington

Tuscola

1,928

20.

Chippewa Valley

Macomb

2,337

20.

Clintondale

Macomb

4,493

519

136

School Districts

Districts reported on shortened sessions and their matched pairs, 1968-69.

Test Sample
No.

Control Sample

School District

County

1.

Cassopolis

Cass

2.

Lake Linden

Houghton

3.

Lapeer

4.

Membership

No.

School District

County

Membership

1,925

1.

Edwardsburgh

Cass

562

2.

Osceola Twp.

Houghton

Lapeer

5,703

3.

Oxford

Oakland

2,626

Frazer

Macomb

6,713

4.

Warren Woods

Macomb

8,561

5.

Utica

Macomb

18,431

5.

Warren

Macomb

27,661

6.

Ludington

Mason

3,486

6.

Mason Co. Central

Mason

1,589

7.

Monroe

Monroe

8,903

7.

Jefferson Cons.

Monroe

2,660

8.

Airport

Monroe

2,977

8.

Jefferson Cons.

Monroe

2,660

9.

Bedford

Monroe

6,049

9.

Mason Cons.

Monroe

2,103

10.

Mio-Ausable

Oscoda

658

10.

Hale

Iosco

11.

Hemlock

Saginaw

1,564

11.

Freeland

Saginaw

1,603

12.

Capac

St. Clair

1,424

12.

Armada

Macomb

1,442

13.

Memphis

St. Clair

1,052

13.

Armada

Macomb

1,442

14.

Centerville

St. Joseph

829

14.

White Pigeon

St. Joseph

1,325

15.

Lawton

VanBuren

904

15.

Schoolcraft

Kalamazoo

16.

Taylor

Wayne

19,331

16.

Dearborn

Wayne

21,952

17.

VanBuren

Wayne

6,911

17.

Allen Park

Wayne

6,735

2,150
344

771

137

550

f

Districts reported on shortened sessions and their matched pairs, 1969-70.

Test Sample

Control Sample
School District

County

1.

Buchanan

Berrien

2,512

1,520

2.

Farwell

Clare

1,308

Iosco

1,964

3.

Oscoda Area

Iosco

4,366

Whittemore-Prescott

Iosco

1,070

4.

Standish-Sterling

Arenac

2,094

5.

Lapeer

Lapeer

6,142

5.

Divison

Genesee

5,403

6.

Hartland

Livingston

1,816

6.

Linden

Genesee

2,096

7.

Howell

Livingston

4,856

7.

Brighton

Livingston

3,402

8.

Ludington

Mason

3,429

8.

Mason Co. Central

Mason

1,701

9.

Monroe

Monroe

9,296

9.

Airport

Monroe

2,962

10.

West. Bloomfield

Oakland

4,779

10.

Bloomfield Hills

Oakland

9,443

11.

Waterford

Oakland

18,503

11.

Pontiac

Oakland

24,872

12.

Memphis

St. Clair

1,102

12.

Yale

St. Clair

13.

Centerville

St. Joseph

834

13.

Mendon

St. Joseph

14.

Highland Park

Wayne

8,233

14.

South Redford

Wayne

7,904

15.

Livonia

Wayne

38,134

15.

Wayne Comm.

Wayne

22,911

16.

Plymouth

Wayne

9,549

16.

VanBuren

Wayne

7,085

17.

Redford Union

Wayne

9,710

17.

South Redford

Wayne

7,904

18.

Taylor

Wayne

20,108

18.

Allen Park

Wayne

6,581

19.

Crestwood

Wayne

5,291

19.

North Dearborn

Wayne

2,741

20.

Westwood

Wayne

5,125

20.

Dearborn Heights

Wayne

5,630

21.

Heintzen

Wayne

4,141

21.

Southgate

Wayne

5,214

22.

Lincoln Park

Wayne

12,240

22.

Wyandotte

Wayne

8,472

School District

County

1.

Cassopolis

Cass

1,984

2.

Harrison

Clare

3.

Tawas (East)

4.

No.

Membership

No.

Membershj

850

138

1,811

APPENDIX B

139

APPENDIX B
Letter sent to districts on shortened sessions
requesting their participation in the study.
Questionnaire sent to school districts with
students on shortened sessions in 1967-6B.
Questionnaire sent to school districts with
students on shortened sessions In 1968-69Questionnaire sent to school districts with
students on shortened sessions in 1969-70.

IIAItVtV V IaMUNIL,
(
IHISIUfNI
i
I

i

.IH.

DARLYNE GOLDASICH

H E L E N BE NT L E Y

VICL-l'HESIDENT

CHARLES M. ilHATCHER
nmlilll

I V A N D. A K E Y

SECRETARY

treasurer

H. MILLS
TRUSTEE

W I L L I A M A. CRE UTZ , JR.

DONALD

TRUSTEE

Heintzen Public School District
IHOMAS J. V A U G H A N

siiithint!ndlnt

15100 NORTHLINE
SOUTHGATE, MICHIGAN 48192
TELEPHONE 283-0550

ona cut ■ ctidc
ROB E R T L. STIPE

assistant superintendent

Mr. Phillip E. Runkel, Supt.
Utica Community Schools
52188 Van Dyke
Utica, Michigan U6O87
Dear Mr. Runkel:
This letter is written to request your assistance in
a study I am conducting on the financial factors which lead
to half-day or shortened school day sessions. Specifically
the study will focus on school district wealth and expenditures
in an attempt to find characteristics the sample districts have
in common.

i

(
j
j
i
;
I
;

Each school has been carefully paired with a control
school using the factors of school size and geographic location,
Only forty-six districts in the State of Michigan meet the
criterion of this research and your school district is a member
of this sample. Due to the limited number of schools in the
study sample, it is important that I receive responses from
all districts to give validity to the study.
Recognizing that school district central offices are
busy in the summer as well as when school is in session, I
have pulled data from all other available sources before preparing this questionnaire. I hope that you can fill in the
answers to the questionnaire from your own knowledge in five
or ten minutes without referrring to school records.
This research is to be used in a PhD. dissertation
in Educational Administration. It is, therefore, most neeessaiy that some response be indicated by a return of the question­
naire form.
If you have your Doctorate, congratulationsj if not,
maybe I can do the same for you sometime.
Sincerely,

QUESTIONNAIREi

SHORTENED SCHOOL DAY SESSIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FORM
Thomas J. Vaughan
Michigan State University
The Annual Statistical Report of the

Utica_____________

School District to the Michigan Department of Education
indicates your district had 2,363

students on a shortened

school day during the 1967-68 school year*
A.

Was the reason for putting students on a shortened
day the result of:
1. lack

of school facilities?

yes___ no____

2. lack

of operational funds?

yes___ no____

3* lack

of both funds and facilities ? yes

b*

other reasons not listed?

yes

no

*no____

-w- If students in your school district were placed on a
shortened school day for reasons other than lack of operational
funds or lack of facilities please conment:_____________________

___________________________(write on back if necessary)
B.

Did your board of education submit either an operational

miUage proposal or construction bond proposal to the voters of
the district during the Spring or Summer preceding the 1967-68 school
year?
yes

no___
If the same proposals were presented to the voters of the

district more than once, just give the results of the last election

in "C" and "D" below.
C.

Was the election called for:
1 . an operational millage?
yes, did it pass or fail?
2.

yes
passed

a construction bond proposal?
If yes, did it pass or fail?

D.

no

. If
failed

yes_____no___
passed

failed^

Did the results of the election influence the board of
education's decision to place students on a shortened
school day?

E.

yes

no___

What was/or is the approximate length of the school day
for students on shortened sessions?
Elementary# hours_____ minutes______
Secondary, hours_____ minutes______

F.

Were students on shortened sessions returned to full day
sessions during the 1968-69 school year?
yes

Q.

no___

Did the board of education's decision to return students
to full day come as a result of the passage of:
1. an operational millage 7

yes___ no____

2. a construction bond proposal?

yes___ no____

3. other conditions?

yes

-wno___

*If students were returned to full day sessions for reasons
other than the passage of an operational millage or a construction
bond proposal please comment:__________________________________

(write on back if necessary)
A d d i t i o n a l c o n tin e n ts :

Would you be interested in receiving a summary of the
findings?

yes

Important:

no____
Return this questionnaire in the enclosed self

addressed envelope.

Do not return to the Heintzen Public School

District as I am on leave of absence for the summer.
Thomas J. Vaughan
2i|00 Truwood Ave.
Trenton, Michigan

A-3

U8183

QUESTIONNAIRE;

SHORTENED SCHOOL M Y SESSIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FORM
Thomas J. Vaughan
Michigan State University
The Annual Statistical Report of the

Memphis Community____

School District to the Michigan Department of Education indicates
your district had

70£

students on a shortened school day

during the 1968-69 school year*
A.

Was the reason for putting students on a shortened
day the result of:
1 • lack

of school facilities?

yes____ no___

2. lack

of operational funds?

yes____ no___

3* lack

of both funds and facilities?

U*

other reasons not listed7

yes

yes

no

-Hno____

# If students in your school district were placed on a
shortened school day for reasons other than lack of operational
funds or lack of facilities please commentt____________________

(write on back if necessary)____
B.

Did your board of education submit either an operational

millage proposal or construction bond proposal to the voters of
the district during the Spring or Summer preceding the 1968-69 school
year?
yes

no___
If the same proposals were presented to the voters of the district

B-1

more than once, just give the results of the last election in
»C" and »D" below.
C.

Was the election called for:
1 . an operational millage?
did it pass or fail?
2.

D.

yes

passed

no

. If yes,

failed___

a construction bond proposal?

yes

If yes, did it pass or fall?

passed

no____
failed_

Did the results of the election Influence the board of
education's decision to place students on a shortened
school day?

E.

yes

no

What was/or is the approximate length of the school day
for students on shortened sessions?
Elementary, hours_____ minutes_____
Secondary, hours_____

F.

minut os____

Were students on shortened sessions returned to full day
sessions during the 1969-70 school year?
yes

0.

no___

Did the board of education's decision to return students
to full day come as a result of the passage of:
1 . an operational millage?

yes____ no

2. a construction bond proposal?_____ yes____ no___
3# other conditions?

yes____-»fao___

# If students were returned to full day sessions for reasons
other than the passage of an operational miUage or a construction
bad proposal please comment:____________________________________

(write on back if necessary)
B-2

Additional comments:

Would you be interested in receiving a summary of the findings?
yes

no

Important:
envelope*

Return this questionnaire in the enclosed self addressed
Do not return to the Heintzen Public School District as

I am on leave of absence for the summer*
Thomas J. Vaughan
2UOO Truwood Ave.
Trenton, Michigan

U8183

QUESTIONNAIRE t SHORTENED SCHOOL DAY SESSIONS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FORM
Thomas J* Vaughan
Michigan State University

I have received information from either your County Inter­
mediate School District or the Michigan Department of Education
that a segment of your school district's student body were on
a shortened school day during the past school year.
A.

Was the reason for putting students on a shortened
day the result of:
1•

lack of

school facilities?___________ yes____ no

2.

lack of

operational funds?___________ yes____ no

3.

lack ofboth funds and facilities?

yes____ no

It.

other reasons not listed?

yes

» no

If the students in your school district were placed on a
shortened school day for reasons other than lack of operational
funds or lack of facilities please comment:

___________________________ (write on back if necessary)
B.

Did your board of education submit either an operational
millage proposal or construction bond proposal to the
voters of the district during the spring or summer pre­
ceding the 1969-70 school year?
yes

no____
If the same proposals were presented to the voters

C-1

of the district more than once, just give the results of
the last election in "C" and "D" below,
C.

Was the election called fori
1,

an operational millage?
did it paBS or fail?

2.

yea
passed

. If yea,

failed____

a construction bond proposal?
If yes, did it pass or fail?

D.

no

yes
pas Bed

no___
failed____

Did the results of the election Influence the board of
education's decision to place students on a shortened school
day?

E.

yes

no____

What was/or is the approximate length of the school day for
students on shortened sessions:
Elementary, hours

minutes

Secondary, hours _______ minutes______
P,

Will students on shortened sessions be returned to full day
sessions during the 1970-71 school year?
yes

G.

no____

Did the board of education's decision to return students to
full day come as a result of the passage oft
1•

an operational millage?

yes

no

2.

a construction bond proposal?

yes_____ no

3-

other conditions?

yes

-tm o _

-u-If students were returned to full day sessions for reasons
other than the passage of an operational millage or a construction
bond proposal please comment:___________________________________

C-2

(write on back if necessary)
Additional comments:

Would you be interested in receiving a summary of the
findings?

yes

no____

Important: Return this questionnaire in the enclosed self
addressed envelope.

Do not return to the Heintzen Public School

District as I am on leave of absence for the summer.
Thomas J. Vaughan
2U00 Truwood Ave.
Trenton, Michigan

U0183

APPENDIX C

¥

151

»
3ft o
no

C-Samplo, Control
Sample
with school district size

>
£

Q9Q^%JOOp^fflf3^4ai&4^*tJ

- w J - w J C O O O * J C » O v J s j N j v J ^ j L n C \ C O O ’H l [ D U

MU/OLni^SOru(s^|
hOl->«gii^frif«lO
U, M H O L i « j C ^ U 9 9 ' < , r 9 3 ' J ^ [ O U > U

OMDOuOAUtUl^CcDMl^^^HtfOsIB
^OK ^t0^<,un&uit/<ffi»ooou»9)0ti
H
O H U u 4kfrMdVM(DWi»(DA^HfrOR

ooooooooooooooooo

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o q o o

O O O O O O D O O C O O Q Q Q O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

a 7
3ft
tt

' J D ^ ^ ^ D Q O S ^ J O O ' J O

n ’

I—
( ft u

9

* J \ J CO n I

H
I

in

ft*t
4
3f
*
r
j
f
t
*™*n
Ift

of school districts on full^day sessions
and ijuogr aphic location controlled.

QOUOffl(D^HtkJ4dUJOOrj«CO

CfJ*^-fJ^J<-»OK)C10DO^\£>OUiUClX,Oji.

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

M III

£»UJUJ£»Ul4»C>W£»lklfciP^hUi4bJfcXt£hIlu

i-3 M
I 3

HWCDOuU<3 ^ ^ Cl ) f f i 3 I HUt s ] ^ Lf l

f
t
3tt
ft
in

*-»

b Xi UUl L

JU

lu W

''l>iu 1*£ O

-ft *■

*■U I

C' ui 03 -J ►
">I
O M u Mw
S£3 1,7 C O J
c
s^ -ja c *H O O t>I*
CO^OKl «
1
t
—
i
T
i
O
*
.? c>n i
9

C* {7^ CD i

PUil»'4stCD"C'ff'-w4’s|ikiMtEhJljO'ffiUii to a
*
JOt^KJO'j9'slTJ^iCiOC>Uflf09^ftMU 3*
M4Q^{jAB<jUiHOph UI^4Hhw OC ftft
ft rt

*C
i-« (A

ft
n
<
riN

^1
,/i^ui^oocoNMs^uiHMbOMaifj
■jC'OC®H-C'^CLl^ff'^U»itOU>OACCi
OCtOaciuiDPiftifiOui^in^^otouio

-jiT1o r C C t1-j^ Cl*JC*S'jiu,nf1
-en

u'fkt,'.ri*T'JLnLnL1U'C*y'UlL’'U'f'ff,V1^

^ X iO n ^ ^ w rjx js l^ ^ sJ tJ S b i^

M s i ^> M w 9 ? i t « j O ^ O ^ L l U ^ O « J H < i J
c u I * f o ( j i oc 3 H o ? u a ' i ) ^ f i J C D i » ^ , H H a 9 ,d

xl S M >f O ^'1 ^ X f ^ o Q i . y ^ O O ^ K
J L tJ 3 O
^ i - M 1.1* 1* \! 3 I H ^

*- O Si ►
-r

— s l s ) v j 3 ' U ^ ’i J ’J * s l f l \ U l h - U 3
? ' - j O i ‘J » U 7 ’ 7 ' M O O Q f f ' t f i

i cn

m ft

ftc
a
*30f
t
*- 3

ft f t

*4 *4
10
W rt
ft ft
3
■3
N* n
ft o
3

*1J
c
3
n o*
C- l * L .r’ L " l * » e n s j L n C ' ; J ' i L r » i , 7 i . ( w/t l 1/* O N O iv < 7 i- K jU l

sl>lM A^Af-i£K;M OJ,OS0'Cfi
ggO c<aiQ O ^rtN ,»ira»-^M ^H

^ ^ ^ u M ^ ^ ^ A O ^ T i^ O siro p jrg ^ i'O

unN-h-CDOjOKj^MiwjrfcLJC^PCD^DMMCOfO
jiM^H-MUMslOt-sl^LiOufttJWuS)

m n
a X
3*0
*3 4
ft in
ft

Ui
W

153

SCHOOL YEAR 1967-66
Total milage**
T-Satnplo C-Somple
13.03
20.60
23,00
15.50
22.90
20.82
15.30
14.50
25.20
31.69
32.61
21.52
27,80
29.60
30,60
17.20
24.85
2 0.00
20.60
31.61

25.30
15,30
26.02
31.64
33.27
20.75
30.30
16.30
36.73
25.85
21,05
21.26
24.75
23.30
23,57
25,70
28.75

Operations 1 Millage4*
T-Samplo C-Samplc

33.69
19.63
18.00
23.50
22.32
16.05
11.50
21.62
27,10
26.61
20.64
21.00
39.60
27.20
19.10
14.50
19.80
19,82
32,00

12.23
19.80
17.15
13.00
16.60
15.62
15.30
11,50
20,20
24.09
25.61
16.84
18,00
22.60
23.60
10,00
17.85
17,00
14.00
24.61

23.00
18,30
30,11
27.88
33.61
22,50
29.80
29.80
20.30
13.08
24.05
22. 2G
22,26
20.31
28.30
23,iO

1fl„80
15.10
19.02
24.04
26.27
17,75
21 .30
14.60
32.05
18,85
15.05
10.75
17,75
20.80
19,68
11.90
J4.90

16.53

J4 , 0 0

Debt Retirement Hillagef
C-Sor.pio
T-Sample

1.60
11.93
8.80
29 .70
5,12
15.68
2.50
18.00
3.69
19.10
5.00
IB. 32
.00
16.-05
3.00
11.50
5.00
16,50
7.60
17.61
7.00
18.61
17.84
4.60
9.80
13.00
7.00
32,60
7.00
20 ,20
7.20
11.00
12,50
7.00
3.00
14.00
r>,60
10,00
25.00
7,00
SCIinoL YEAR 1968-69
6.50
18.00
.00
18,30
7.00
22.n
7.60
17.61
7.00
25.61
3.00
19.00
16,80
9,00
1.50
16.80
4.(*H
16.80
7,0U
12.00
C.00
17.05
4,50
21,61
7,00
21 ,f 1
2,50
16,00
22,00
3.80
3.80
22,90
3.85
31*90

State £c]. Val./Student*
C-Sample
T-Sanple

4.60
3.99
3.95
.00
4.40
4.00
.00
.00
5,12
9,50
6.00
3.00
a.00
7.00
7.00
6.10
2.00
5.00
9.82
7.00

232.27
75.11
101.43
277.67
133.17
76.Qfr
151 ,98
116.81
131.56
98.77
131,52
76,64
63.65
182.07
100.84
94,74
169.91
104.72
105.40
lofl. n

167.55
138,54
140.56
140.00
104.70
76.10
94 .19
91.29
137.28
90.42
167.13
171.03
86.37
91,02
125,65
71,91
196,53
UO, 19
66.44
76.72

5,00
.00
8.00
10,28
8.00
3.50
4.10
4,18
3,50
1,')U
7,00
♦6j
.65
4,33
ft,10
,75
2,10

111,04
1B1,55
100,49
10 3.00
137,16
164.40
174,22
108,66
HQ .46
I62,n2
146.9 1
105.r>2
81 .5B
12 3.60
142,49
H4.66
105,90

B8.10
97,04
108.99
95.57
166,96
98 ,75
168,36
168.36
1B3,59
295,21
100,92
144,53
144.53
172.72
120.66
384,38
117,00

4.ufj
2,50
1.25
,00
9.Mti
7.70
7.00
1,50
,00
8.01
2.46
5,00
3,30
2.80
7.00
3.85
2.80
2,10
7,00
8,26
7.00
2.86

1:1.ri4
212.j4
215.70
1f>7*f,2
113*j1
148 .(17
140.as
173.t,4
177,HH
1VI,49
114.41
82.63
133.20
229,SB
167.43
219.47
114,36
96.03
134.86
13f>.36
112.40
126 .>10

156.31
234.73
113.40
112.83
91.82
109.22
134.64
100.53
114.B9
2 If,.B3
249.72
111.42
128.00
265.52
117.29
195.SI
265.52
144.66
146.49
75.46
131.57
197.33

V! '|> 1 4*70
25,jfl
17.00
14.54
15.60
26.21
27.75
27.95
23.h0
24.66
30.43
32,63
35.74
29.06
27,05
35.97
35.05
40 ,90
35.58
37,40
29,95
32.45
27.67

29.2 5
27.00
13.25
17,25
2G,21
29.9ft
20.25
23.39
17.HO
39.66
27.09
24,22
25,40
29.20
43.30
27.25
29 .20
34.00
37.90
36,76
35,90
28 ,20

lrt.60
10.on
13,50
12.50
19.21
23.75
21.23
20.HH
21.41
26.2 3
24.63
28.74
20.56
21 .60
2ft,9f)
24.15
33.90
31.88
30.40
24.95
25,90
23,90

25,25
24.3
12,00
17,25
16,33
22 .28
21 ,25
19.K9
17,8(1
J1.63
24 .63
19.22
22.10
26.40
36.30
23.90
20.40
31,90
30,90
27.00
20,90
25.40

1.ou
1,04
3.00
7.U0
4.00
6.69
3.00
J.25
If).2T
8.Cv
7,00
2.50
5.45
7.07
10.90
5.00
3,70
7.00
5.00
6.55
3,77

BIBLIOGRAPHY

154

155

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, C. Arnold., and Foster, Philip J.
"Discrimination
and Inequality in Education."
Sociology of Education.
XXVIII.
Fall, 1964.
Ayers, Leonard P.
An Index Number for State School Syst e ms .
New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1920.
Bailey, Stephen K . , et a l . Schoolmen and P o l i t i c s ; A Study
of State Aid to Education in the N o r t h e as t. Syracuse,
N. Y.:
Syracuse University Press, 1963.
Benson, Charles S.
The Economics of Public Ed uc at io n .
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.
_________. The Cheerful Prospect:
A Statement on the Future
of Public Education.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company,
1965 .
________ . State and Local Fiscal Relationships in Public
Education xn Ca li fo rn ia . Sacramento:
Senate of the
State of California", I"9"65.
________ . "Economic Problems of Education Associated with
Collective Negotiations."
The Changing Employment
Relationship in Public S c h oo ls . Ithaca, N. Y.:
New
York School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell
University, 1968.
Blaker, Harve., Director of the Research Staff, et a l .
Citizens' Advisory Committee.
Michigan Tax S t u d y .
Lansing, Michigan:
Speaker-Hines and Thomas, Inc.,
1959 .
Brown v. Board of E d u c at io n, 347 U. S. 294,
Burke, Arvin J.
New York:

1955.

Defensible Spending in the Public S c h oo l s.
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1943.

Burkhead, Jesse.
Public School Finance— Economics and Politics.
Syracuse, N. Y.:
Syracuse University Press,
196 4.
Cline, Denzel C . , and Taylor, Milton C.
Michigan Tax Refo rm .
East Lansing:
Institute for Community Development and
Services, Michigan State University, 1966.

156
Coleman, James S., et a l . Equality of Educational Opportu­
n i t y . Washington, D.C. : U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1966.
C o n a n t , James B.
The American High School T o d a y .
McGraw-Hill, 1959.

New York:

Conner, Forrest E.
"Higher Pay-Greater Productivity:
Don't
Bet on It."
Hot L i n e , II, No. 11 (November, 1969) , 3.
Constitution of the United S t a t e s , 10th Amendment.
Constitution of the United S t a t e s , 14th Amendment.
Cornick, Chairman, et al.
1952.

Michigan Tax Survey.

Detroit:

Corwin, Ronald G,
"Militant Professionalism, Initiative and
Compliance in Public E du cation .'1 Sociology of Educa­
tion, XXVIII (Summer, 1965), 313-314.
Council of State Governments.
The Forty-Eight State School
Systerns. Chicago:
Council of State Governments, 19 49 .
Cubberley, Ellwood F.
School Funds and Their Apportionment.
New York:
Teachers College, Columbia university, 1906.
_________. State School Administration.
Mifflin Company, 192 7.
Dewey, John.
Press,

The School and Soci et y .
1900.

New York:
Chicago:

Houghton-

University

Donovan, Bernard E.
"Speaking for Management."
Symposium
on Collective Bargaining vs. Professional Negotia­
tions."
School Manage me nt , VII (November, 1 9 65 7^
Educational Policies Commission.
The Structure and Adminis­
tration of Education in American Democracy. Washingt o n , D.C.:
Educational Policies Commission, 1938.
Edward, Newton.
The Courts and Public S c h o ol s. Rev. Ed.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1955.
Ferrell, D. T.
Relation Between Current Expenditure and
Certain Measures of Educational Efficiency in Kentucky
County and Graded School S y s t e ms . Nashville:
George
Peabody College for Teachers, 19 36.
Flanagan, John C., et a l . A Survey and Follow-up Study of
Educational Plans and Decisions m Relation to Aptitude

157
Patterns:
Studies of the American High S c h o o l .
burgh:
University of Pittsburgh, 196 2.

Pitts­

Fowlkes, John G u y . , and Watson, George E.
"A Report on State
Financial Support and Local Educational Planning."
University of Chicago, 1954.
(Mimeographed.)
Garvue, Robert J.
Modern Public School F i n an ce .
Collier-MacMillan, Canada, L t d . , 1969.

Toronto:

G o e r ge n, Joseph II., and K e o u g h , John J.
"Issues and O u t ­
comes of Teachers' Strikes, 1955-65,"
Unpublished
Ph.D. and Ed.D. dissertation, St. Johns' University,
Jamaica, New York, 1967.
Hamilton, Robert R . , and Mort, Paul R. The Law and Public
Education. 2nd ed.
Brooklyn, N. Y.:
The Foundation
P r e s s , 19 59 .
Harrison, Forrest W . , and M c L o o n e , Eugene P.
Profiles in
School S u p p o r t . Washington, D . C . : U. S. Department
of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , and Welfare, Office of Educa­
tion, 1965.
Hays, William L.
Statistics.
and Winston, 1963.

New York:

Holt, Rinehart

Ilolmstedt, Raleigh W.
State Control of Public School F i n a nc e.
Bulletin of the School of Education.
Vol. 16.
Bloom­
ington:
Indiana University, 19 32.
Horton, Daniel B . , Jr.
"An Analysis of the Relationship of
Per Pupil Expenditure Levels and School Size with North
Central Evaluations."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1968.
James, II. Thomas.
Can Urban Schools be Managed?
Consultants'
Papers, The White House Converence on Education, July
20-21, 1965.
Johns, Roe L . , and Morphet, E. L.
Financing the Public
S c ho ol s. Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : P re ntice-Hall,
I n c . , 1960.
Koppel, Francis.
The Necessary Revolution in American Edu­
cation . New York:
Harper and Row, 196 6 .
Kilkenny, Roy 0.
"Teacher Priorities for Professional Nego­
tiations."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado
State College, 1969.

158
Kite,

Robert H . , Jr.
"A Study to Determine the Degree of
Influence Selected Factors Had in Causing Teacher
Strikes and to Determine the Degree to Which These
Factors Were Present in School Districts in Which
Teacher Strikes Were Averted."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1964.

Knapp, Henry.
"A Tribute to the 'Real' Fathers."
K a p p a n , LXIL (June, 1968), 575-577.

Phi Delta

Lasker, Morris E.
"The Influence of Teacher Collective Bar­
gaining on the Quality of Education:
Observations of
a Board Negotiator."
The Changing Employment Relation­
ship in Public S c h o o l s . Ithaca, N. Y. : New York
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell Uni­
versity, 196 8 .
Love, Thomas M.
"The Impact of Teacher Negotiations on
School System Decision-Making."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1968.
Mayeske, George W . , et a l . "Correlational and Regression
Analyses of Differences Between the Achievement Levels
of Ninth Grade Schools from the Educational Opportuni­
ties Survey."
Washington, D . C . : National Center for
Educational Statistics, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)
Michigan Constitution.

Article VIII, Sec.

2.

Michigan Department of Education.
State of Michigan General
School L a w s . Lansing:
State Board of Education, 1966.
1970 Supplement to the "Child Accounting Rules" 340.14.
____________ Analysis of Michigan Public School Revenues and
Expenditures for 1967-6 8 , 1968-69. L a n s i n g : Michigan
Department of Education, 1969.
_________ . Ranking of Michigan Public High School Districts
by Selected Financial Data, 1967-68. L a n s i n g : Michigan
Department of Education, 1968.
Moehlman, Arthur B.
School Administration.
lloughton-Mifflin Company, 19 40.

New York:

Mort, Paul R . ; Reusser, Walter C . ; and Polley, John W.
Public School F i n an ce . 3rd ed.
New York:
McGrawHill Book C o m p an y, 19"60.
Moskow, Michael II.
the Issues."
455 .

"Teacher Organizations:
An Analysis of
Teachers College Record, (February, 1965),

159
National Education Association.
Economic Status of the Teaching Profession, 1967-68. Research Report 196 8-R4.
Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association,
19 G 8 .
Norton, John K.
The Ability of States to Support E d u c a ti on .
Washington, D.C.:
The National Education Association,
1926.
Perry, Charles R . , and Wildman, Wesley A.
"The Impact of
Teacher Bargaining on the Schools."
Collective Action
by Public School T e a c h e r s , IV.
Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, Office of Education, U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 196 8 .
Pikulinski, Jerome R . , et a1.
"Fact-Finding in the Public
Employment Sector within the State of Michigan, 19661968."
Report of a joint study; The Michigan Depart­
ment of Labor, The Employment Relations Commission,
and Michigan State University, 1969.
(Mimeographed.)
Polley, Ira.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Statement presented to the State Board of Education,
July 27, 1966.
Rehmus, Charles M.
"Public Management and Collective Negoti­
ations."
Collective Negotiations and Educational
Administration. Columbus, Ohio:
The University Coun­
cil for Educational Administration, 1966.
Report of the Tax Study Commission. Lent D. Upson, Director
and Chairman.
Detroit, Michigan:
1939.
Ross, Donald H.
Administration for Adaptability. New York:
Metropolitan School Study Council, Institute of Admin­
istrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia Uni­
versity, 1958.
Sackley, Arthur.
"Change in T e a c h e r s ’ Salaries, 1963 to
1965."
Monthly Labor Review.
LXXXVIII, December,
1965.
________ . "Long-Term Trends in Urban Teachers' Compensation."
Monthly Labor Review. LXXXIX, November, 1966,
Steele, Marilyn H.
"Has Bargaining Contributed to Instruc­
tional Improvement in Michigan Schools."
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969.
Stinnett, T. M.
Turmoil in T e a c h i n g .
Company, 196 8 .

New York:

MacMillan

160
Strayer, George D . , and Haig, Robert M.
Financing of Educa­
tion in the State of New Y o r k . New York:
The M a c ­
millan Company, 1923.
The Governor's Commission on Educational R e f o r m . Governor
William G. Milliken, chairman, et a l . 1969.
Thomas, J. Alan.
School Finance and Educational Opportunity
in Michigan:
Michigan School Finance S t u d y . Lansing:
Michigan Department of Education, 196 8.
Vincent, William S.
Emerging Patterns of Public School
Practices. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1945.
Wise, Arthur E.
Rich Schools Poor S c h o o l s .
University of Chicago Press, 196 8.

Chicago:

Woodring, Paul.
"On the Cause of Teacher Discontent."
Saturday Review, L (October, 1967) , 61-62.

The