MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE: A N ANALYSIS OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS' UNDERSTANDING OF, AND PARTICIPATION IN, THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY MAKING PROCESS By Kenneth R. De Pree 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 1971 PLEASE NOTE: S o m e pa g e s m a y have i n d i s t i n c t print. F i l m e d as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ABSTRACT MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE; AN ANALYSIS OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS' UNDERSTANDING OF, AND PARTICIPATION IN, THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY MAKING PROCESS By Kenneth R. De Pree Statement of the Problem In recent years, the role of the state legislature in educational policy-making has become increasingly visible and significant. The rising cost of education and pressure to shift part of the cost from local property taxes to other forms of taxation, wide disparity of resources for education in the various local school districts, the increased mobil­ ity of population within and among the states, and dissatis­ faction with the quality of education are among the reasons. The purpose of the study was to determine the under­ standing which Michigan public school superintendents have of the policy-making process of the Michigan Legislature, the frequency with which the superintendents use the various tactics and techniques available in their efforts to influ­ ence educational legislation, and whether there is a relation­ ship between their understanding of the policy-making process of the Michigan Legislature and the frequency with which they use the various influential behaviors. Kenneth R. De Pree Design of the Study The sources of data for this study were a group of randomly selected Michigan public school superintendents and the state representative and senator identified as the principal legislative representatives of his school district by each superintendent who had been in position during the entire period studied„ Three instruments were constructed to collect the required data; Legislative Decision Making Inventory (LDMI) , Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form), and Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to determine the relationships between the knowledge and influential behavior variables considered. tion coefficients were tested by making a 2 All correla­ or t-test using the .10 level of significance and the appropriate degrees of freedom. Findings The data suggest that; 1, Michigan school superintendents are deficient in their understanding of the policy-making process in the state; legislature- Aspects of the process considered important for them to know are not understood by many. 2. The superintendents, as a group, are not highly organized or systematic in their efforts to influence Kenneth R. De Pree educational legislation. Many superintendents make little effort to become involved in the legislative policy-making process. 3. Superintendents prefer working through intermedi­ aries to personal contact with legislators. Discussing legislative topics with other educators and board members, and attending meetings at which legislative topics are dis­ cussed are the most frequently used tactics. contact with legislators, In their direct letters are the favored means of communication. 4. Few superintendents are asked by the Department of Education to express their views on educational legislation. 5. Most superintendents have little, if any, contact with the governor or his staff regarding educational legis­ lation. 6. Although some communication regarding educational legislation takes place between superintendents and their state professional associations, asked for, or offer, 7. not all superintendents are their views. State legislators perceive the superintendents as making little use of the various tactics and techniques in an effort to inform and influence them regarding educational legislation. 8. There is no significant relationship between the superintendents' level of understanding of the legislative decision-making process and the frequency with which they Kenneth R. De Pree use the various tactics and techniques available in their attempts to influence educational legislation. 9. superintendents' There is no significant relationship between the level of understanding of the legislative decision-making process and the frequency with which they use the various tactics and techniques available to influ­ ence the legislators representing their school districts, as perceived by those legislators. 10. There is a significant positive relationship b e ­ tween the frequency with which superintendents use techniques to influence legislators and the legislators' this use. perception of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, Committee, Chairman of m y Doctoral for his insightful suggestions and his continual support and encouragement; To Dr. Clyde M. Campbell and Dr. Charles A. Blackman for their support and their willingness to serve on my com­ mittee ; To Senator Robert VanderLaan, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate, for the opportunity to serve as his Executive Assistant throughout the research project; To Dr. Lawrence W. Lezotte for his invaluable assistance with the methodology of this study; To the many Michigan legislators, members of the staff of the legislature and executive office, reporters, legislative agents, and superintendents who must remain anonymous but without whose cooperation and kindness this dissertation would not be possible; To my wife, and Jeffrey, Barbara, and my children, David, for their patience, encouragement, standing throughout the entire doctoral effort; I owe a deep debt of gratitude. iii Steven, and under­ TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Page THE PROBLEM................................... Need for the S t u d y ...................... Purpose of the S t u d y .................... Objectives ............................... Hypotheses to be Test e d.................. Deliminations of the S t u d y ........... . Definition of Terms...................... Assumptions............................... Overview of the Study. . . ............. 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . Introduction ............................. Need to Become involved in Legislative Process............................... Legislators Seek Information Regard­ ing Education.................... Competition for Legislative Atten­ tion and S u p p o r t ............... Access to the Legislative DecisionMakers ............................... Nature and Extent of Superintendents' Involvement in Legislative Process . Proposals Regarding Superintendents' Involvement...................... Failure of Superintendents to Get I n v o l v e d ........................ Summary................................... 3. DESIGN OF THE STUDY............... Source of the D a t a ...................... The Sample ...................... Instrumentation........................... Legislative Decision Making Inven­ tory (LDMI ) ................... ." . Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form)" [ 7 . . . Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) ............... iv 1 6 8 8 9 13 15 17 18 20 20 20 23 27 32 37 37 44 53 57 57 58 62 64 69 70 TABLE OF CONTENTS— continued Chapter Page Collection of the Data. . . . . . . . . . ............... Endorsement . . . . . . . Treatment of the D a t a .................... Phase One ............... Phase Two ............. Phase Three ............. Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. REPORTING THE DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective Three ........... . Objective Four. ^ . Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3. . . . . . ........... Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ob]eCtlVe 3 e o o . o o o o e a o a o Objective 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION. 73 78 78 79 83 85 87 89 90 90 94 Ill 114 118 128 132 141 141 141 142 142 . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background of the Study . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . Findings of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Objective One . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective Two . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective Three . . . . . . . . . . . Objective Four. . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Findings . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . . Reflections and Implications. . . . . . . Implications for Colleges of Educa­ tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Professional Associations. . . . . . . . . . . Implications for High Schools . . . . 144 144 145 145 146 146 149 160 165 170 178 180 187 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 v 185 TABLE OF CONTENTS— continued Appendices A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. Page Letter of Transmittal Sent to Superintendents with the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) . . ......... . ............. 200 Letter of Endorsement Sent to Superintendents Invited to Participate in the Study . . . . . 202 Follow-Up Letter to Superintendents Regarding the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superin­ tendent Form) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintend­ ent Form) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintend­ ent Form) Items Grouped by General Category. 218 Letter of Transmittal Sent to Legislators with the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) . . . . . . . . ........... 225 Follow-Up Letter to Legislators Regarding the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) ........................ 227 Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) Items Grouped by General Category . . . 234 Letter of Transmittal Sent to Key Non-Legis­ lators with the Legislative Decision Making Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Letter of Transmittal Sent to Legislative Leaders with the Legislative Decision Making Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 239 Letter of Transmittal Sent to Superintendents with the Legislative Decision Making Inven­ tory. ...................... 241 Follow-Up Letter to Superintendents Regarding the Legislative Decision Making Inventory . . 243 Legislative Decision Making Inventory . . . . 245 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS— continued Appendices 0. Page Legislative Decision Making Inventory Ques­ tions Listed in Order of Difficulty . . . . . 253 P. How a Bill Becomes a Law. . . . . . . . . . . 261 Q. Passage of a Legislative Bill . . . . . . . . 263 R. News Releases The Legislative Process. . . . 265 S. News Releases The Legislative Process. . . . 270 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Page Number and Percent of School Districts in Population, by Stratum. .................... 59 Number and Percent of School Districts Chosen in Each Stratum........................ 60 Number of Superintendents Completing Que s ­ tionnaires, by Stratum........................ 61 Scores of Superintendents on Fifty-Two Item Legislative Decision Making Inventory . . . . 91 Frequency With Which Superintendents Reported Using Various Tactics and Techniques in Attempt to Influence Educational Legislation During Twelve Month Period. . . ............. 96 Tactics and Techniques Superintendents Reported Using Most Frequently During Twelve Month Period. . . . . . . . . ................ 106 Tactics and Techniques Superintendents Reported Using Least Frequently During Twelve Month Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Number of Superintendents for Whom Legisla­ tors Completed the Influential Behavior Inven­ tory (Legislator Form) . . . . . . . . . .< ■. . 113 Frequency With Which Legislators Reported Superintendents Used Various Tactics and Techniques in Attempt to Influence Education­ al Legislation During Twelve Month Period . . 115 Correlation Coefficients' Between Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents' Reported Direct Personal Communication with Members of the Legislature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Correlation Coefficients Betwpen Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents' Reported Communication with Members of the Legislature Through Intermediaries. . . .................. 122 viii LIST OF TABLES— continued Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Page Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents' Reported Efforts to Keep Channels of Communication Open with Members of the Legislature ............. 127 Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents' Perceived Direct Personal Communication with Members of the Legislature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents’ Perceived Com­ munication with Members of the Legislature through Intermediaries . . ......... . . . . . 131 Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents' Perceived Ef­ forts to Keep Channels of Communication Open with Members of the Legislature. . . . 1 . . . 133 Correlation Coefficients Between the Superin­ tendents' Reported and Perceived Direct; Personal Communication "with the Legislators Representing Their School Districts........... 136 Correlation Coefficients Between the Superin­ tendents' Reported and Perceived Communica-; tion with the Legislators Representing Their School District Through Intermediaries . . . . 138 Correlation Coefficients Betw|e|en the Superin­ tendents' Reported and Perceived Efforts to Keep Channels of Communication Open with the ; Legislators Representing their School Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 139 Correlation Coefficients (Significant at the .01 Level) Between the Reported Influential Behavior Initiated by Superintendents and the Reported Requests from Legislators for the Superintendents’ Views on Education Matters Requiring Legislative Action .................. 172 ix Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM Public education has traditionally been considered a function of the several states as derived from interpreta­ tion of the Tenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The history of the authority and legality of the control over public schools by the several states is well accepted and established. As Usdan stated: ... it must be remembered that state responsibility for education is firmly imbedded in state constitutions, national traditions, and court decisions. The power of state legislatures over public education is plenary, except as limited by the federal or state constitutions. A state legislature can pass any statute or take any action relating to public education which is not express­ ly forbidden by the federal or state constitution. A school district, its board members, and its administra­ tors are legally agents of the state legislature.1 In most states .the legislature is required by state constitution to establish and maintain a system of free public education. Michigan is no exception; the constitution states it thus: The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as de­ fined by law. Every school district shall provide for 1Michael D, Usdan, The Political Power of Education in New York State (New Yorks Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963), p. 9. 1 2 the education of its jpupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin.2 The phrase "as defined by law'r assures the legislature con­ tinuing control since it is the legislature which adopts the laws which define what public education shall be. Although a state responsibility, early state legis­ latures generally elected to exercise this duty by creating local school districts and delegating considerable discre­ tionary authority to them. Laws governing education were generally permissive rather than mandatory, and most vital decisions concerning public school policy were made at the local district level. "decentralized, American education was, state-authorized, in effect, a locally functioning under­ taking. "s As time passed, however, it became apparent that legislation that was almost entirely permissive left many communities without adequate provision for education. society became more complex, as highly urbanized settlements developed throughout the country, as the machine reduced the number of men needed to feed the nation, more industrialized, As the as society became and as transportation and communication systems decreased the isolation of the rural settlements, it became increasingly difficult for the people in many communi­ ties to support schools and the educational needs of the ^Michigan, Constitution of 1963, Article 8, Section 2. •" sHarlan L. Hagman, Public Schools (New Yorks The Administration of American McGraw-Hill, 1951), p. 65. 3 nation.4 The states began to assume increased responsibility for the financial support of the public schools, for prescrib­ ing basic courses of study to be included in the curriculum, and for establishing requirements for the certification of teachers. Mandatory legislation gradually replaced permis­ sive provisions. In recent years, the role of the state legislature in educational policy-making has become increasingly visible and significant. Evidence of the trend toward centralization of control within the state was cited by Grieder: Recent biennial surveys of state educational legisla­ tion reveal increasing assumption by the state of educa­ tional responsibilities. Three tendencies may be noted: 1. Increased state centralization of control in such matters as textbook adoption, courses of study, teacher tenure and budgetary control. 2. Increased state support of education, reflected in greater appropriations, expanded aid for school plant construction in an increasing number of states, and modification of tax systems. 3. More emphasis on efficient management, as shown by legislation for statewide standards of budgeting and accounting, district reorganization, and pupil transportation.5 4Keith Goldhammer, "Local Provisions for Education: The Organization and Operation of School Systems and Schools, 11 Emerging Designs for Educations Program, Organization, Operation and Finance, eds. Edgar L. Morphet and David L. Jesser (Denvers Designing Education for the Future Project, 1968), p. 75. 5Calvin Grieder, Truman M. Pierce and William E. Rosenstengel, Public School Administration (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961), p. 8. 4 Reasons for this continuing shift to state support and control were many and varied, including those put forth by Mast e r s s The cost of erecting and maintaining physical plants, libraries, and laboratory facilities have increased to a point where very few school districts can meet their needs out of local resources.... Sharp increases in property taxes for city, county, and school purposes have brought great pressures to shift part of the educational costs to other forms of taxation ... the financial re­ sources of school districts in terms of ability to support public -schools vary so widely that action at the state level has been required to produce greater equality of educational opportunity ... In addition to the fiscal problems, the increased mobility of population within and among the states has increased the demands for more uniform standards of educa­ tion in all districts.... A growing professional con­ sciousness among teachers has been accompanied b y greater pressure to standardize and raise formal qualifications for certification.... Finally, federal aid to education ... has increased the responsibilities of state govern­ ments, since by federal law the chief state school agency must insure the maintenance of prescribed standards at the local level— as well as distribute the money.6 Among those strongly encouraging the states to assume greater responsibility for the support and control of public education was Allen. Addressing the third annual meeting of the Education Commission of the States, States Commissioner of Education, Allen, then United stated? It is ... imperative that the states give full com­ mitment to a thorough overhaul of their own structure and practices and markedly accelerate their efforts to accomplish such things as strengthening their state educa­ tion departments, eliminating inefficient school districts, updating school finance patterns, revising and simplifying 6Nicholas A. Masters, Robert H. Salisbury and Thomas H. Eliot, State Politics and the Public Schools; An Explora­ tory Analysis (New York? Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), pp. 6-7. 5 education laws, raising and enforcing educational standards, initiating incentives for better school per­ formance, etc. ... this is an obligation that the states cannot escape both to maintain the power of their position and to function effectively as partners in a properly balanced system of federalism in education.7 In Michigan, the increasing role of the state legis­ lature in education is apparent. During the decade of the 6 0 's, the Michigan Legislature mandated statewide teacher tenure; gave public school employees the right to negotiate regarding wages, hours and conditions of employment; ordered the state's largest school system to decentralize and prodded the smaller systems to consolidate. close, As the decade drew to a it was meeting in special session to consider prof posals for sweeping changes in education recommended by Governor William G. Milliken and The Governor1s Commission on Education Reform, 1. namelys Reorganization of the state's educational struc­ ture at the state, intermediate, and local school district levels to make it more directly responsive to the governor and legislature. 2. State determination of basic operating expendi­ ture requirements for elementary-secondary public education. 3. State responsibility for raising the revenues required to support the operating costs of elementarysecondary public education. 7James E. Allen, Jr., "New Impact for the Federal Partner," Compact, August, 1969, p. 48. 6 4. Establishment of a statewide system for assess­ ing and evaluating educational achievement. With 2,164,386 public school pupils from kindergarten through grade twelve, and a state school aid budget of nearly $900,000,000,® it seemed clear that in Michigan educa­ tion had become one of state government's most important functions. NEED FOR THE STUDY Until recently research in the politics of public education has been generally neglected. However, with the increasing role of government in public education, educators and social scientists are beginning to turn their attention to the politics of the educational policy-making process. Although there is a growing list of studies that may in time permit a better understanding of the politics of education, additional research is needed, as Kimbrough made clear s .o. anyone familiar with the complex process of es­ tablishing educational policies appreciates the need for additional research. Knowledge is needed both about the process of decision-making and the ways of dealing with the elements of the process in the improvement of educa­ tion. Much research is needed for the development of a con­ cept of political leadership in education. Agency, 8Information obtained from the Legislative Fiscal Lansing. Figures are for the 1969-70 school year. 9Ralph B. Kimbrough, Political Power and Educational Decision Making (Chicago; Rand McNally and Company, 1964), p. 292. 7 The role of the local school administrator in the educational decision-making process at the state level was identified by Wiley as a subject particularly in need of further study. Literature on the topic, he reported, was "conspicuous by its absence.1,10 The focus of this study is the local school superin­ tendent and the educational policy-making process in the state legislature. State level educational policy decisions, particularly decisions requiring new taxes or new programs, usually require some legislative action and thus whenever policy decisions are to be made (or blocked), the legislature cannot be by-passed.11 Previous studies on education and state government have focused on legislative prescription of the curriculum, educational policy-making in selected states, of organized interest groups, bills. ical the influence and case studies of particular Many have concluded that though education is polit­ (that schools and politics do m i x ) , local school super­ intendents generally attempt to exert little influence upon educational legislation, avoiding involvement in even those -legislative decisions which vitally affect their programs. Lack of understanding of the legislative process is 10Eldon L. Wiley, "A Study^of the Role of the School Administrator in State-Level Politics" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1966), p. 22. 11Albert E. Starkey, "State Level Educational Decision-Making in Texas" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, 1966), p. 63. 8 frequently suggested as a major reason for this failure on the part of superintendents to develop effective approaches to political decision-makers. However, though these studies emphasize the need for school superintendents to understand the workings of the legislature, policy-making process, and to participate in the they have not assessed the extent of the knowledge superintendents generally hold regarding the legislative process, nor demonstrated that understanding how the legislature works really makes a difference. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is tos (1) estimate the relationship between the types of behavior engaged in by Michigan public school superintendents in an effort to in­ fluence educational decisions which are made by the Michigan Legislature and the understanding which they have of the legislative decision-making process, and (2) estimate the degree of congruence between their stated influential be ­ havior with respect to the members of the legislature repre­ senting their school district and the perceived influential behavior experienced by those legislators. OBJECTIVES Objectives provide a guide for an organized approach to a research project. This study has four major objectives: 9 1. To determine the relative level of understanding which Michigan public school superintendents have of those aspects of the legislative decision-making process deemed important for them to know. 2. To determine the frequency with which Michigan public school superintendents use the various methods and tactics available in their attempts to influence educational legislation. 3. To determine the frequency with which Michigan public school superintendents use the various methods and tactics available to influence the legislators representing their school districts, 4. as perceived by those legislators. To estimate the relationship between the reported influential behavior of the superintendent, the superinten­ dent' s relative level of understanding of the legislative process, and the superintendent's attempts to influence the . legislators representing his school district, as perceived by those legislators. HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED The relationship between the understanding which Michigan public school superintendents have of the legisla­ tive decision-making process and the types of behavior en­ gaged in by the superintendents in an effort to influence educational decisions which are made by the Michigan Legisla­ ture is the issue to be explored in this thesis. 10 Since Milbrath12 and DeVries13 concluded that the tactics and techniques of lobbying can be grouped into three broad categories: (1) direct personal communication, (2) communication through intermediaries, and (3) efforts to keep channels of communication open,14 the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) Behavior Inventory and the Influential (Legislator Form) were specifically de ­ signed to include a series of questions reflecting each of the three categories.15 Ho^: There is no significant relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form). H°ia° There is no significant relationship b e ­ tween scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and the superintendents' reported direct personal communication with members of the legislature. H°lbs There is no significant relationship 12Lester W. Milbrath, "‘Lobbying as a Communication Process," Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1960, pp. 32-53. 13Walter D. DeVries, "The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study of the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960), pp. 142-209. 14Milbrath called this category "opening communica­ tion channels"? De Vries called it "achieving and maintaining access." 15See Appendices E and I. 11 between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and the superintendents’ reported communication with members of the legislature through intermediaries. H°ic: There is no significant relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and the superintendents' reported efforts to keep channels of communi­ cation open with members of the legislature. HO 2 s There is no significant relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and b e ­ havior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form). Ho : There is no significant relationship be- tween scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and the superintendents' personal com­ munication with members of the legislature repre­ senting their school districts, as perceived by those legislators. Ho 2 ;b° There is no significant relationship b e ­ tween scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and the superintendents' communication with members of the legislature through inter­ mediaries, as perceived by the legislators repre­ senting their school districts. H° 2 c s There is no significant relationship ber tween scores on the Legislative Decision Making 12 Inventory and the superintendents' efforts to keep channels of communication open with the legislators representing their school districts, as perceived by those legislators. Ho.j: There is no significant relationship between behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) and behavior as reported on the Influ­ ential Behavior Inventory Ho.ja s (Legislator F o r m ) . There is no significant relationship b e ­ tween the superintendents' reported direct per­ sonal communication with the legislators repre­ senting their school districts, superintendents' and the direct personal communication as perceived b y those legislators. Ho^s There is no significant relationship b e ­ tween the superintendents' reported communication through intermediaries with members of the legis­ lature representing their school districts, and the superintendents’ communication as perceived by those legislators. Ho^s There is no significant relationship b e ­ tween the superintendents' reported efforts to keep open channels of communication with members of the legislature representing their districts, and the superintendents' those legislators. efforts as perceived by DELIMINATIONS OF THE STUDY 1. This study deals only with Michigan public school superintendents and the decision-making process of the Michigan Legislature- Although it is recognized that others outside of Michigan may see similarities in their own situation, the population reported here is a fixed population and generalizations can only be made to Michigan. The temptation to talk about state legislatures col­ lectively is inescapable. All legislatures pass laws, respond to and resist interest groups, ernors, bureaucrats, gov­ and others who urge the approval or rejection of particular measures.16 clear, party leaders, Yet, as Lockard makes the differences among state legislatures are striking: Legislatures reflect different sets of political and social forces, traditions, and practices. The legisla­ ture is always the focus of the law-making process, but there is nothing inevitable about the character of the demands made, the way in which they are made, or about the kinds of bargaining and maneuvering in response to them. The questions posed, and ways of seeking solu­ tions, the distribution of power within the legislature vary greatly from state to state.17 And, since each state has its own public school system, the process of making educational decisions at the state level varies from state to state.18 16Duane Lockard, The Politics of State and Local Government (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963), pp. 272-273. 17Ibid. 18EJmanuel Hurwitz, Jr., "The Illinois Educational Decision-Making System: Some Predictions and An Analysis" 14 i How can one analyze the involvement of public school superintendents in the educational policy-making process of the state legislature if each of the fifty states has a dif­ ferent pattern of educational decision-making, and if the legislative policy-making process varies from state to state? One alternative is to study and report each state separately on a state by state basis. Another, until information on all of the states is complete and readily available, is to con­ centrate sufficiently on a few states so that in time it may be possible to evaluate generalizations about local school superintendents and state legislatures in general— for'such generalizations will be offered, whatever the state of our knowledge. 2. This investigation includes only those Michigan public school districts which are not represented at the legislature by registered legislative agents employed exclu­ sively by the district. Therefore, the results of this study are not necessarily generalizable to the Detroit, Flint, Garden City, 3. and Grand Rapids public school districts. This study is concerned only with the lawmaking process in the Michigan Legislature. Lawmaking, defined as the passing of statutes by a legislative body, festation of public policy. is one mani­ Public policy can also emanate from the executive and judicial branches, however these (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1966), p. 5; see also Starkey, "State Level Educational De ­ cision Making in Texas," p. 8. 15 expressions of public policy are outside the scope of this investigation. 4. This study is limited to those aspects of the process for introduction, consideration, and enactment of a legislative bill deemed important for Michigan public school superintendents to know. 5. This study deals only with the lawmaking process during 1970, and attempts by superintendents to influence educational decisions of the legislature during the same year. 6. This study is limited by the degree to which the instruments are understood by the respondents, and b y the accuracy of their response to them. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms are defined so there will be common understanding among readerss Public school superintendent; The chief administra­ tive officer employed by the board of education of a K-12 school district which is classified, organized, regulated and maintained under provisions of Act 269, P.A. 1955, as amended (otherwise known as the School Code of 1955). Legislature; The elected body, of Representatives and a Senate, of proposing, consisting of a House that engages in the function deliberating and deciding about public policy. Legislator; A member of the legislature. 16 Legislation; Any matter for decision that requires the attention and consent of the legislature and governor and takes the form of law when adopted. Educational legislations Legislation that has an impact on aspects of the programs of K-12 public school districts. Legislative decision-making process; of the legislature in initiating, considering, The total act and enacting of new public policies in legal form. Decision-making and policy-making, and decision­ maker and policy-maker are considered synonomous. Influence; To persuade or guide legislative action.19 Influential behavior: Efforts to influence, as described by the Influential Behavior Inventory. Reported influential beha v i o r ; Response to the items on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent F o r m ) . Perceived influential behavior; Response to the items on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . Level of understanding; The number of correct answers on the Legislative Decision Waking Inventory. LMDIs Legislative Decision Making Inventory. 19Charles F. Niess, "A Study of Some Forces Which Tend to Influence State Legislators in Decisions on Educa­ tion Legislation" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1962), p. 10. 17 Congruences The similarity between the response of the superintendents to the items on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) and the response of the legislators representing those school districts to the cor­ responding items on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator For m ) . ASSUMPTIONS The following basic assumptions underlie this study: lo Although many vital decisions concerning public school policy will continue to be made at the local district level, based on authority delegated b y the state, the state legislature is assuming an increasingly active role in edu­ cational policy-making. 2. Legislators need, and seek, factual information on which to base decisions regarding educational policy questions. 3. Michigan legislators accept the public school superintendent as a knowledgeable source of information regarding the effects of educational legislation upon his school district. This assumption is supported by Bedore's findings that Michigan legislators most often reported local school superintendents and board members as credible inform­ ants regarding the local effects of state financial support.20 20Clifford J. Bedore, Jr., "Legislators' Reported Information Sources for Educational Legislation" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968) p. 12. 18 4. The extensive commitment of virtually all groups within society to the maintenance of a system of public education assures easy access on the part of local school superintendents to their representatives in the legislature. 5. Educational biTls face the same formalities of the legislative process as any other group of bills: duction, referral to committee, recommendation, intro­ floor debate and vote, repetition of these steps in the other house, negotiations by conference committee if necessary, and sig­ nature of the governor. 6. The instruments will be understood, the partici­ pants will respond as they believe the situation to be, and their responses will describe the situation as it does in fact exist. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY In Chapter 1, the purpose, were stated. objectives and hypotheses The scope and limitations of the study briefly outlined, and terms defined. Chapter 2, which is a selected ture, were is divided into three sections. review of the litera­ The first discusses the need for superintendents to become involved in the legis­ lative policy-making process. The superintendents' potential for access to the legislative decision-makers is explored in the second. The third considers ways in which superin­ tendents might participate in the legislative decision-making process and the extent to which they are doing so. 19 In the third chapter, the study is presented. the method used in conducting The source of data, used in collecting the data, the procedure and the method of presenting the data are discussed. In Chapter 4, the data conclusions, are analyzed. The summary ahd as well as recommendations and implications for further research, are presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION The focus of this research study was public school superintendent involvement in the legislative decision­ making process. Specifically, the study sought to determine whether there is a relationship between the types of behavior engaged in by Michigan public school superintendents in an effort to influence educational decisions which are made by the Michigan Legislature and the understanding which they have of the legislative decision-making process. In order to provide a foundation on which to build the study, the review of literature for this study concentrated on: (1) the need for superintendents to become involved in the legislative policy-making process, (2) the superintendents' for access to the legislative decision-makers, potential and general nature and extent of the superintendents' (3) the participa­ tion in the legislative decision-making process. NEED TO BECOME INVOLVED IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Numerous educational proposals are considered by legislators each year, and many of them are passed into law. 20 21 Although some are relatively minor in nature, intended to correct or clarify existing law, others control significantly what educators can do: (Legislators) control the purse strings of the prin­ cipal sources of financial support. They frame the limits of local school board actions. They ... facili­ tate or stymie educational change. They ... initiate new educational programs and alter or abolish existing programs. They establish priorities in the use of public resources. All permanent progress in the field of educa­ tion depends fundamentally on their decisions.1 The sources of these proposals and programs are many and varied, as Miller makes clear: If education was of special concern during the elec­ tion campaign, a governor may have made certain public commitments with respect to increased support of educa­ tion generally or to special features of education, and his office will be one source of proposed legislation. State teachers' associations, state associations of school administrators, state school board associations, probably all have committees on school legislation and will have specific proposals to be advanced for legislative consider­ ation. They will also be prepared to oppose some kinds of legislation. Some organizations may seek to enhance patriotic fervor by legislative requirements or restric­ tions on courses to be taught or materials to be used. News media may seek the requirements that certain reports and information be published. The variety of possibilities is endless. The state legislature is the happy hunting ground for all such interests in that it is the real point of legal control of education and it is accessible to the variety of groups of citizens.2 With direct participation by the state legislature in educational policy-making on the increase, the need for 1Forrest Rozzell, "The Politics of Education: To Lobby or Not to Lobby" (paper read at the American Association of School Administrators convention, February, 1968, Atlantic City, New Jersey), p. 6. 2Van Miller, The Public Administration of American School Systems (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 119-120. 22 educators to develop effective approaches to thd political decision-makers has likewise increased. though offered forty years ago, Carr's admonition, is particularly appropriate today: Every time a state legislature convenes, events are likely to occur which will profoundly effect education in that state for many years to come. The encouragement of wise school legislation should therefore be regarded as a legitimate responsibility by every school board member and as a professional responsibility by every teacher and every teachers organization.3 On the one hand, legislators need information on which to base decisions regarding the educational proposals they are asked to decide. "The quality of a legislator's vote can hardly be better than the quality of the information he possesses concerning the issue at hand."4 On the other, educators must compete within the legislative arena for the attention and support of the legislators. Every major de­ cision involves choices between or among alternatives, legis­ lative bodies do not operate either in a vacuum or a sterile environment s Those concerned with changing the pattern of educa­ tion or with introducing major innovations (which normal­ ly involve increased expenditures) are compelled to negotiate with political officials who are pressured by other interests that desire other goals— such as 3William G. Carr, "School Legislation as a Factor in Producing Good Schools," American School Board Journal, December, 1930, p. 37. 4Philip S. Wilder, Jr. and Karl O'Lessker, Introduc­ tion to Indiana Government and Politics (Indianapolis: Indiana Sesquicentennial Commission, 1967), p. 86. 23 increased expenditures for mental health or reduction in taxes.5 This is particularly true with regard to financial support. Just as hard pressed school districts have turned to the state for greater assistance, so, too, have other agencies and groups. Both— furnishing information and competing for scarce resources— are considered by students of educational policy­ making to be important aspects of the "encouragement of wise school legislation"s One of the inescapable responsibilities of the school administrator is to provide legislators with first-hand facts and reliable arguments upon which sound legislative decisions can be made.6 ... educators should recognize that they have the duty to engage in political activity for gaining resource allocations that will be educationally productive.7 Legislators Seek Information Regarding Education In his study of the search process of the Education Committee of the California Legislature, Lowery found that legislators generally recognized their limitations in the area 5Nicholas A. Masters, Robert H. Salisbury, and Thomas H. Eliot, State Politics and the Public Schools; An Explora­ tory Analysis (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), p. 4. 6Rozzell, op. c i t ., p. 7. 7W. W. Wayson, "Political Concepts and the Development of Educational Administrators" (paper read at the conference on "Designs for Incorporating Concepts from Social Sciences into Preparatory Programs for Educational Administrators," spon­ sored by the University Council for Educational Administration, March, 1967, Columbus, Ohio), p. 14. 24 of education and sought information regarding education ques­ tions from sources they considered to be reliable; Legislators, although being generally intelligent and perceptive men, are not well informed about the subtleties of educational problems and issues. There­ fore the details, the ramifications, and the full effects of complex educational legislation are not visible to them. Thereby in their decision-making process they generally look beyond their own experiences for data. Typically, they want to know four things; 1. What is the demonstrated need for this legisla­ tion? 2. What is the logic of this legislation in meeting the demonstrated need; what are the full effects of this proposal? 3. What are the financial implications of this legislation; how much from whom to whom? 4. What are the political ramifications of this legislation, in the local school districts and in the total legislature.8 Since legislators are expected to have a judgment on all matters from livestock disease to minute details of a multi-billion dollar budget, it is not particularly surpris­ ing that they should seek information. They cannot, after all, be expected to be thoroughly knowledgeable regarding all legislation coming before them for consideration. theless, as the legislator is well aware, Never­ the penalty for numerous or conspicuous decisions made in ignorance or in neglect of relevant knowledge is a loss of support among his 8Leroy R. Lowery, "A Study of the Search Process of the Education Committee of the California State Legislature" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1966), p. 182. 25 constituency which may result in his abrupt retirement from office at the next election.9 Nor is it surprising when one considers that much of the legislator's time is spent on non­ legislative works (Legislators) are frequently torn, by time pressures and also by the uncertainties of politics, between the many legitimate functions that seek their attention. Their primary function is to legislate, yet the clearly meritorious demands of constituents may severely limit their capacity to do so. The situation is complicated by the fact that the less legitimate requests from constituents may be far more important to success at the polls than careful scrutiny of legislation.10 There is so much to be done and there are so many conflict­ ing pressures that no legislator can safely rely solely on his own information and vote intelligently. Even when a legislator attempts to specialize in some limited area, "he is literally swamped with undigested material— and has not the time, the inclination or the means to assimilate it."11 As Lowery reported, legislator is of two types? the information sought by the technical information regarding the content of the policy proposal; and political informa­ tion regarding the specific benefits and disadvantages dis­ tributed b y the proposal to"various citizens and groups, as 9Albert E. Starkey, "State Level Educational Deci­ sion-Making in Texas" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, 1966), p. 18. 10Charles L. Clapp, The Congressman; His Work as He Sees It (Garden City, N.Y.s Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 56-57. 11Stephen K. Bailey, Congress Makes a Law Columbia University Press, 1950), p. 62. (New York; 26 well as the probable reaction of citizens and groups to the proposed distribution. If the decisions were left solely to the professional educators, strictly technical grounds. they might b e reached on However our form of government requires that decisions have favorable public sentiment, and that they fit the pattern of personnel and materials which can be made available, the time allowable, and politics of the period. and the economics Even though a decision may be technically correct from the standpoint of educators, it will be unworkable if it does not have favorable public sentiment. At the same time, however, a decision that has only favorable public sentiment and is defective technically will be of little value, and may, in fact, have serious consequences; Some of the most disastrous failures occur because attempts to initiate educational policies are made with­ out factual support.12 It is to the educator that legislators must be able to look for information on which to base their decisions; The increasing demands for the lawmaker to consider a wide variety of legislation and the increasing pres­ sures being exerted on him by special interest groups have mpde his decisions and the process of making them extremely complicated. Educator's with their first-hand knowledge of educational problems are responsible for presenting evidence that will support their views and gain the understanding of the harassed lawmaker.13 12Ralph B. Kimbrough, Political Power and Educational Decision Making (Chicago; Rand McNally and Company, 1964), p. 278. 13Charles F. Niess, "A Study of Some Forces Which Tend to Influence State Legislators in Decisions on Educa­ tional Legislation" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1962), p. 4. 27 Unless the legislators are provided imaginative and construc­ tive ideas by professional educators, look to other, they will most certainly less competent sources for information.14 Competition for Legislative Attention and Support The world of the legislator is filled with competing interests and conflicting demands. All kinds of organized interest groups and many ad hoc groups formed to fight temp­ orary battles come to the legislature in an effort to influ­ ence the outcome of legislation. interests, labor unions, sional organizations, Commercial and industrial ethnic and racial groups, profes­ citizens' groups and agencies of the executive branch and of local government— all, time and some continually, from time to attempt by one method or another to exert pressure on the legislature in order to gain special advantages-or to protect vested interests? A major demand on the legislator’s time comes from contests between interest groups to which the public pays little attention but which demand considerable time and attention from the legislator for the simple reason that the contestants are so embroiled and embattled that they will not leave the legislator alone.... Their pleas are not stated in terms of relative arguments but are put in terms of public safety, health standards, free enterprise, or fair trade, and the legislator is subject to a drumfire of telegrams, letters, telephone calls, personal pleading, and propaganda on such bills.... Not only does this bring forth vigorous pleas from the (interest group members) in the legislator's district, but a legislator who has no connection with either busi­ ness soon notices that his colleagues who do have 14Rozzell, ojd. c i t ., p. 7. 28 connections frequently become unashamed lobbyists within the legislature....15 It is within this "arena of swirling conflicts among interest groups"16 that public policy is made. Public policy is the outgrowth of the process of accommodating the various major interests having a stake in particular issues. In general, the process of policy making is as described by Bailey; Some people want something from government and build a coalition of influence to get it; other people want something different and build a coalition of influence to block or modify the designs of the first group; strategic and tactical campaigns are fought; constitu­ tional wielders of power determine winners and losers by laws passed and executive and judicial action taken. The process is never-ending. As soon as a governmental decision is made a new dialectic begins.17 However, to fully understand the process one must recognize that often no clear answer to the competing interests and conflicting demands appears to guide the lawmakers to an un­ ambiguous choice among the several available; ... are constantly dealing with distinctions in shades of gray, not with simple blacks and whites, and ... fur­ thermore, there are many sides— not merely two— to every political question.... Given their particular sets of values, each group has a plausible case. Sometimes the l5Duane Lockard, The Politics of State and Local Government (New York; The Macmillan Company, 1963), p. 283. 16Duane Lockard, "The State Legislator," State Legis­ latures in American Politics, ed. Alexander Heard (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 118. 17Stephen K. Bailey and others, Schoolmen and Poli­ tics ; A Study of State Aid to Education in the Northeast (Syracuse; Syracuse University Press, 1962), p. 57. 29 arguments support one side, sometimes the other. they balance in the gray area in between.18 The politics of state educational finance, observed, Often as Bailey "runs a course similar to the politics of any other controversial issue in a democratic society." Some people want something from government; other people want something different. Frequently the fiercest competition which education must face— particularly for the tax dollar— is with other governmental services? Education is not the only item on the agenda of a state's budget. At any one point in time, the demands for additional appropriations for highways, welfare, conservation, prisons, police courts, or any of the other responsibilities of state government, may be insistent. The very competition for state money is frequently, at a given time and place, a major depressant upon additional state aid to education. Even when a governor and a leg­ islature are reasonably friendly to the cause of educa­ tion, the essence of governance is the allocation of resources to a variety of functions of which education is only one. The more sophisticated and insistent the demands for increased state spending for non-educational purposes, the more difficult the problem for the school­ men and their allies.19 Evidence that such competition exists within the Michigan leg­ islative arena was offered by veteran Michigan capitol corre­ spondent Longstaff; Education has been plopped into the center of legis­ lative politics. The topic for years has been on the fringe of politics, always managing to maintain a "Mr. Clean" image and a respect akin to motherhood and patriotism. lsCharles A. Adrian, Governing Our Fifty States and Their Communities (New York; McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1963), p. 121. 19Bailey and others, Schoolmen and Politics, pp. 50- 51. 30 But the entry into politics was made official by Sen. Charles 0. Zollar, R-Benton Harbor, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, when he asserttd: "The School-aid bill is the budget balancer this year." This means that the amount of dollars finally appro­ priated by the state to assist the operation of public schools from kindergarten through high school will * depend on the political forces at play in the Legislaon ture. Longstaff then went on to make clear what some of the "political forces" ares Education has competed for larger and larger amounts of state money to supplement the amounts raised locally from property taxes, and usually won. But other state programs have been growing, too. Welfare, for instance, has increased its share of state spending by nearly 200 percent since 1963, compared to a 125 percent increase for the K-12 programs. And right now, the taxpayer is an influence. His groans have reached the ears of some lawmakers in Lansing. He is tired of paying out more and more in taxes, especially during the economic pinch. And Zollar hit this point squarely when he invited lawmakers to tell him how much they are willing to in­ crease taxes.21 In other areas of educational policy-making, educa­ tors also face competition from outside groups in securing the attention and support of the legislators. Niess, in his study of forces which influence the Missouri Legislature, found that the legislators frequently perceived non-education groups as being among the most active and influential in the 20Robert H. Longstaff, "Politics Engulfs Question of Michigan Education Appropriations," The Flint (Michiqan) Journal, March 22„ 1970, p. 51. 21Ibid. 31 area of educational legislation. Approximately 91 percent of the legislators identified the Missouri Farm Bureau as an active lobby in the area of educational legislation; while 94 percent identified the League of Women Voters, and 80 percent identified the Missouri Public Expenditure Survey--a group often referred to by the legislators as a "watchdog" on the tax payers poeketbook— -as active. Other groups identified as being active in the area of educational legislation were the State Chamber of Commerce, and the Missouri Farmers Association, 83 percent, 77 percent. Less active, but still influential, were such groups as the Women's Christian Temperence Union, 37 percent, American Legion, 29 percent, 17 percent.22 Ness, and Daughters of the American Revolution, in a similar study in Colorado, the situation there to be much the same. found Approximately 85 percent of the Colorado legislators identified the State Chamber of Commerce as an active lobbying group on educa­ tional issues, while 79 percent so identified the Cattlemen's Association, and 70 percent the Colorado Farm Bureau.23 Recognizing that the legislature has a vital hand in the distribution of important human values in society— to a 22Niess, "Forces Which Tend to Influence State Legis­ lators in Decisions on Educational Legislation," pp. 31-33. 23Paul F. Ness, "Forces and Techniques Which Influ­ ence Educational Legislation in Colorado" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1966), pp. 45-55. 32 large extent, it decides who gets what from government, and who pays the bill— and that education groups have no assur­ ance that their proposals will be enacted or even considered in a highly competitive political system in which the legis­ lature has taken over the reigns of decision making,24 Bailey concluded that educators must become active partici­ pants in the legislative policy-making process. The future of public education will not be determined by public need alone. It will be determined by those who can translate public need into public policy— b y school­ men in politics.25 Supporting this view is Hurwitz, who predicted that: The educational decision-making pattern will be one which emphasizes competition for the limited resources of the state. The increasing costs of education are going to force educators to compete actively for scarce resources in the future.26 ACCESS TO THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION-MAKERS If educators are to participate effectively in the legislative policy-making process— as educational advisors, as competitors for scarce resources, or both— it is essential 24L . F. Fahey, "The California Legislature and Educa­ tional Decision-Making" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School and University Center, 1966), p. 186. 2 5Bailey and others, Schoolmen and Politigs, p. 108. 2 6Emanuel Hurwitz, Jr., "The Illinois Educational Decision-Making System: Some Predictions and an Analysis" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1966), p. 91. 33 they have the ear of the decision makers; ... power of any kind cannot be reached by a polit­ ical interest group, or its leaders, without access to one or more key points of decision in the government.... Toward whatever institution of government w e observe interest groups operating, the common feature of all their efforts is the attempt to achieve effective access to points of decision.27 Although the legislature does not formally restrict access, access is not just a matter of initiative on the part of the petitioner, mythology to the contrary.28 Some groups achieve highly effective access almost automatically, whereas it is denied to others in spite of their most vigorous efforts. The evidence seems to indicate that educators have potential­ ly greater ease of access to the legislature than most other groups. Masters, Missouri, lature, for example, found that educators in Illinois and Michigan had ready access to the legis­ and generalized his finding to the nation as a whole; ... education groups have a considerable symbolic advantage that-virtually insures access.... Moreover, the presence of professional educators in every local community, coupled with the fact that many local superin­ tendents and educators are prominent in their communities and are backed by fairly active and prestigious groups such as the local PTA, League of Women Voters, etc., insured the education groups to which they belong virtual­ ly guaranteed access to elected officials who represent these areas in the state legislature.29 27David B. Truman, The Governmental Process Alfrecl A. Knopf, TB6b) , p. 264. (New York; 2 8Ibid.. pp. 265-266. 29Masters, Salisbury, the Public Schools, p. 271. and Eliot, State Politics and 34 Somewhat similar findings were reported by Starkey,30 and by Lowery; Education is an area in which legislators have a high commitment, higher than that generally found in most other legislative areas. This high commitment is partially explained by the fact that legislators have all had personal experiences with the formal educational process. Further, education affects almost every citi­ zen and voter within the state through the highly emo­ tional avenues of children and youth. And finally, education is an area squarely involved in the ferment of our times.31 One important determinant of access to the legisla­ tive process is the legislator's need for information, and i the ability of a group to supply information considered reli­ able by the legislator.32 The problems faced b y the busy legislator as he attempts to cope with the flood of issues and problems that a session involves have been vividly derscribed by Adrians The greatest dilemma confronting legislators today lies in a conflict between the need for information and the inability or unwillingness to trust those who pos­ sess it. The legislator is a generalist making policy in an age of specialization. With some exceptions, he is an amateur whose best skill is that of reflecting the values and wants of his constituents— values and wants that may be regarded by the experts in particular fields of governmental activity as obstacles to what is re ­ garded in their professional fields as sound policy. The legislator may wish to be a wise policy maker, but he feels that both the expert lobbyists of various interest groups and the spokesmen for the state's 30Starkey, "State Level"Educational Decision Making in Texas," pp. 149-150. 31Lowery, "Search Process of the Education Committee of the California State Legislature," p. 182. 32Truman, op. cit., p. 333. 35 increasingly skilled bureaucracy are untrustworthy. He sees them as people trying tb sell him a "bill of goods." Are they asking for thd ultimate? Or are they being reasonable? Is their "bedrock minimum" really a minimum, given the expectations of most citizens? Is the expert, be he a lobbyist or a bureaucrat, properly respectful and understanding of the legislator's diffi­ cult task? Is his "expertise" forthrightly presented as a reflection of professional conviction, or is it de­ signed merely to support a particular program or to whitewash administrative errors? The legislator wishes he knew. The legislator fears that everyone is asking for the moon on a platter, hoping to get at least the platter. But he cannot be sure. How can he tell? Whom can he trust? He does not know. He is so disenchanted with "experts" that he does not even feel sure that the legis­ lature should hire its own to give loyal opinions on what other experts say. Yet all of society is expecting him to take effective action to meet the demands of citizens. His job is a difficult one.33 Because of the high cost (in time and energy) of gaining all the requisite information and because a legislator must have an eye to the possible political consequences of a wrong choice, the harried legislator looks for someone to give him proper cues, to guide his behavior in areas in which he is not well informed. These cues can help resolve the ambiguity in many decisions he has to make. Although each legislator is concerned with the general good of the state, he is specifically concerned with the effect of possible state programs on his immediate constitu­ ents— the people who elected him in the last election and will decide whether or not to reelect him in the future.34 3 3Adrian, Governing Our Fifty States and Their Communities, p. 72. ■^Wilder and O'Lessker, ernment and Politics, p. 28. Introduction to Indiana Gov­ 36 The advantages of access are potentially available to the local school administrator because of a willingness on the part of the legislator to accept him as a credible and use­ ful source of information regarding local effects. Jennings and Milstein, in a study to determine the sources of information and advice which provide the basis for the legislator's decisions on educational issues, found that the legislators rated educators back home and the people in the district as being the most important sources of influence on their views. By contrast, the education interest groups were virtually bypassed as sources of facts and influence. Based on their findings, the investigators recommended that interest groups get local schoolmen to tell their needs to their legislators.35 Ferguson, in his investigation of legislator's attitudes regarding education in California, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, asked the legislators what sources of advice and information they would trust the most. Here, too, local school officials headed the list.36 Bedore interviewed all members of the Michigan House and Senate Appropriations and Education Committees during 1968 and found that Michigan lawmakers consider local school superintendents 35Robert E. Dennings and Mike M. Milstein, "Education­ al Policy Making in New York State: Sources of Information and Advice Used by Legislators" (paper read at the American Educational Research Association convention, March, 1970, Minneapolis, Minnesota), pp. 10-17. 3 6LeRoy C. Ferguson, How State Legislators View the Problem of School Needs (Washington, D.C.: USOE, Cooperative Research Project No. 532 (8166), 1960), pp. 17-19. 37 and school board members credible sources of information r e ­ garding the local effects of proposed educational legisla­ tion.37 However, his findings seemed to indicate that local education leaders were taking little advantage of their opportunity to influence education issues. The lawmakers reported very little communication from these local sources on topics other than state financial aid. NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUPERINTENDENTS' INVOLVEMENT IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Proposals Regarding Superintendents' Involvement Although there is general agreement among students of educational policy-making that local schoolmen h a v e an important role to play in the legislative decision-making process, makers, and evidence to indicate ready access to the decision­ there is considerable uncertainty as to what the nature of their involvement should bes What is the role of the local school administrator at the state level of decision making in a program for improvement of educational opportunities for boys and girls? Is his role simply to ’’administer" a program established by other political forces of the state, i.e., legislators, tax lobbyists, etc., or is it to be one of those forces which formulate and execute the program of adequate educational opportunities? Is he to become involved in the decision-making process at the state level? If so, to what degree and with whom? 37Clifford J. Bedore, Jr., "Legislators' Reported Information Sources for Educational Legislation" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968), p. 82. Gf all the activities by which a school administrator may take part in making decisions of policy at the state level, which^are possible for the typical school admin­ istrator. . .?3 8 Literature on the role of the school administrator in statelevel politics is conspicuous by its absence;39 however, numerous courses of action, conflicting and contradictory, have been proposed. Direct and forceful action by the local superintendent is advocated by Rozzell. He argues: ... there is no alternative to the compelling re­ sponsibility of school administrators to lobby. ... "to lobby" means to attempt to influence a legis­ lator or legislators in favor of one's own point of view. ... There are, of course, sinister ways of lobbying; however, the kind of lobbying I am advocating is open, forthright and persistent.40 Others oppose the idea of lobbying on the grounds that it is below the dignity of the profession.41 Anderson,42 and Wiley43 recommend group action— believing local superintendents will be most influential if 38Eldon L. Wiley, "A Study of the Role of the School Administrator in State-Level Politics" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1966), pp. 1-2. 3 9Ibid., p. 22. 40Rozzell, 41Niess, lators, " p. 6. "The Politics of Education," p. 1. "Forces Which Tend to Influence State Legis­ 42William Anderson, Clara Penniman, and Edward W. Weidner, Government in the Fifty States (New Yorks Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 129. 43Wiley, pp. cit., pp. 97-98. 39 they are represented at the legislature by spokesmen for a strong state-wide professional association. support for this view, Bedore gave reporting that state-wide educational organizations were considered reliable sources of informa­ tion by Michigan lawmakers.44 Sarvis, however, found that in the State of Washington "fragmented bipartisan alliances of educators and legislators are more effective units of legislative influence than are strongly united school forces exerting strong pressure tactics 'against' legislators." Many of the legislators interviewed during the course of his study spoke of the confidence they placed in some educators with whom they had discussed educational problems.45 And the initial findings of Jennings and Milstein seemed to "indicate that New York State legislators ma y not be as open to the blandishments of the education interest groups as they were in the past."46 Similarily, Ferguson reported that although legislators in California, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee identified educational interest groups as a general class as being one of the most powerful interest groups or lobbies in their respective states, when asked which interest groups were particularly worth listening to, whether or not they happened to be powerful, 44Bedore, educational interests ranked loc. cit. 45Robert E. Sarvis, "Legislative Specialization: A Study of the Effect of the Legislative Interim Committee on Education" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1968), p. 80. 46Jennings and Milstein, op. c i t ., p. 17. 40 quite low. "It seems plain," reported Ferguson, particularly in comparison with business, "that, educational groups were not regarded as 'particularly worth listening to" by a very large proportion of the lawmakers in any of the states in our study.47 Outright political action as a means of influencing decision makfers is also proposed. Tatroe is a case in points Next month is primary_election time in Michigan. It's time for administrators and board members to make certain that able candidates are competing for legisla­ tive district and statewide offices; some school offi­ cials should even become candidates. best whom ting tion help All of us can be part of the process of urging the possible candidates to run for office; helping those we support with our time, and our money and by get­ our friends to do likewise. This type of participa­ in government may well be one of the better ways to the children of public schools of this state.4 Sharing this view is Baileys It is evident that political leadership is the key­ stone to the arch of state educational finance. Political leadership establishes the effective climate within which intellectual, private interest group, and bureaucratic leadership operates. It is for this reason that school­ men cannot ignore the ballot box if they wish to advance their causes.49 A Chicago newspaper political analyst expanded on this notion when he urged that schoolmen get actively involved in parti­ san politics. He said that "the needs of education are going to force a new tax structure. 47Ferguson, For this reason a new revenue oja. c i t ., pp. 37-42. 4 8Donald O. Tatroe, "It's Time to Participate," Michigan School Board Journal, April, 1970, p. 9. 49Bailey and others, Schoolmen and Politics, p. 108. article must be written with the needs of education in mind. The political party that takes the leadership in this will be rewarded.50 Lowery in an a. posteriori hypothesis, agreed: .„o legislators ... will increasingly attempt to become identified with those legislative issues which will receive wide public acclaim and thereby reap the rich political harvest contained therein. As educational legislation becomes more of a partisan issue and political parties, per se, become more involved in the development and determination of such legislation, groups, such as professional educators, who desire to effect legislation will have to expend their efforts and resources working within the party structure.... Successful candidates will look more and more to the "educational experts" withiri the ranks of their party for guidance and help in the development of major educational legislation.51 Kimbrough, however, takes a different views The leaders of some school systems deliberately in­ volve schools in a highly partisan form of politics. The observed consequences have not been good; in fact, the results have often been deplorable. Consequently, the educator would do well to heed with suspicion any suggestion that he attempt to make the schools into Republican Party Schools or Democratic Party Schools. The decision upon this matter requires more research evidence than is now available.52 Professional rather than political activity is recom­ mended by Marsolais s Professional rather than political activity holds the greatest promise for increasing the educator's influence over educational legislation.... s0Hurwitz, S ystem,"p. 90. "Illinois Educational Decision Making 51Lowery, "Search Process of the Education Committee of the California State Legislature," p. 191. 5 2Kimbrough, Political Power and Educational Decision Making, p. 273. Educators can assist legislators in viewing proposals in the light of what is best for children and youth. Effective performance of this professional responsibility will result in the production of statutes which prescribe justice for schools. .o. educators as a whole can best serve their profes­ sion by working with committee consultants and legislators (especially authors) to produce good education bills. In the final analysis the best bill wins in compromise situa­ tions.53 Toward this end, he urged local schoolmen to; 1„ Innovate and participate in attempts by profes­ sional associations to influence educational legislation. 2. Respond promptly to requests from professional associations for action concerning legislation. 3 = Form and participate in committees of educators to discuss legislative topics. 4. Develop personal contacts with "their" assembly­ man and senator. Attempt to become his educational advisor by; a. Sending him brief written evaluations of bills. b. Describing effects of proposed statutes on district programs. c. Inviting him to discuss educational matters with groups of educators.54 Marsolais also recommended that educators and profes­ sional associations "direct major efforts to improve instruc­ tional effectiveness. Much prescriptive legislation results from dissatisfaction with current results."55 53Robert J. Marsolais, "Forces Which Produce Educa­ tional Legislation in California; An Exploratory Study of the Miller-Unruh Basic Reading Act of 1965" (unpublished Doc­ toral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1969), p. 202. 54Ibid., pp. 208-209. 5 5Ibid., p. 204. Others stress the importance of working through boards of education and other local citizen groups to gener­ ate legislative support.*56 Dodson made a study of the 1960 session of the Kentucky Legislature and of the 1961 Delegate Assembly of the Kentucky Education Association. Based on questionnaires completed by the members of both groups, he reported a total of fourteen selected procedures that were effective in securing favorable legislation. High on the list was the establishment of citizens' committees in the school districts. "The development and According to Dodson, promotion of a state-wide school legislative program through local committees makes it easier to secure legislative enactment, since legislators are responsive to the wishes of their constituents. 1157 The American Association of School Administrators included among the responsibilities of super­ intendents ; ... (keeping) the board informed about discussions and actions which may affect local policy, whether they are taking place in state and national capitals or in agencies and associations outside the district. ... (encouraging) the board to make its voice heard wherever matters affecting the district1s budget and 56Worksheets on Legislative Action (Washington, Youth Conservation Clearing House, 1950), p. 6. D.C.: 57James M. Dodson, "A Comparative Study and Analysis of Selected Procedures in Achieving Desirable School Legisla­ tion" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1962), p. 74. 44 program are under consideration, lest the freedom and strength of local action are lost.59 Typifying the uncertainty regarding the proper role for local school administrators in state level decision­ making is Conanto In his widely acclaimed book on educa­ tional policy-making, Shaping Educational Policy, Conant put forth the following recommendations In most states what is required for those interested in improving education is to make their views heard at the state capital, not to get the legislature to enact laws dealing with specific issues (this is just what ought not to happen), but in order to have a strong department of education. What is needed are strong state boards of education, a first-class chief state officer, a well organized state staff, and good support from the legislature.59 More recently, however, he had this to says ... if I were twenty years younger, and had the ideas that I have now, I would go up and sit in Albany as a lobbyist, and see to it that the bills to support public schools and reform teacher education got through the legislature. Political action is what's needed.60 Failure of Superintendents to Get Involved Though seemingly unable to agree on the specific role school superintendents should play in the legislative 58American Association of School Administrators, Roles, Responsibilities, Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent, and Staff (Washington, D.C. s American Associ­ ation of School Administrators, 1963), p. 12. 59James E. Conant, Shaping Educational Policy (New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 31. 60Terry Ferrer, March 18, 1967, p. 73. "Conant Revisited," Saturday Review, decision-making process, students of educational policy­ making are in accord regarding the need for the superintend­ ents to be involved* state government, Since education is a major function of the educator should consider involvement in the production of desirable legislation a primary profes­ sional responsibility; Among the major responsibilities reposing on the school superintendent today are those of shaping public policy to accommodate the peculiar needs of education and the securing of sufficient public support to bring the policy into realityThe process involved in achiev­ ing both objectives are wholly political in character. In a society increasingly characterized by powerful and competing forces, the marshalling of political power to achieve educational objectives is crucial.61 The evidence, however, seems to indicate that the educators have made very little effort to do so. Marty's research revealed a "leave others do it for us" attitude among secondary school administrators. This group responded that the state department of education should be responsible for informing elected officials about school problems and for initiating legislation when necessary.62 Marsolais stated that most, administrators seem content to permit the few active members of their professional 61Archie R. Dykes, “The Dilemma of the School Super­ intendent" (paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the National School Boards Association, Miami Beach, Florida, April 13, 1969), p. 5. 62Ralph E. Marty, "State Departments of Education and Their Influence on Secondary School Curriculum Improve­ ment" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, .1958), p. 40. 46 association to perform this duty for them.63 Parrish r e ­ ported that superintendents avoid involvement in legislative decisions, even those which vitally affect their programs. In his study of the behavior and practices of Oklahoma school superintendents in communicating with governmental officials, he found little communication from local superin­ tendents to state officials regarding legislation even though the Oklahoma Legislature was in session at the time and con­ sidering many bills pertaining to the public schools.64 Following a study in California, findings.65 Lowery reported similar Few California superintendents submitted evalua­ tions of the Miller-Unruh Basic Reading proposal even though requested to do so by their professional association. Even provisions which had great impact on local school programs elicited little or no correspondence.66 Ness, in his study of the forces which attempt to influence the decisions of the Colorado Legislature, reported that approximately two- thirds of the legislators considered the Colorado Associa­ tion of School Administrators as being non-active in the area of educational lobbying. 63Marsolais, The legislators reported that they o p . cit., pp. 2-3. 64Lonny R. Parrish, "A Study of the Communication Behavior of the Local Superintendent of Schools" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma Graduate College, 1968), pp. 49-50. 65Lowery, "Search Process of the Education Committee of the California State Legislature," pp. 99-100. 66Marsolais, op. c i t ., p. 195. 47 had little personal contact with school districts on the subject of educational legislation, and also received few letters or telephone calls.67 Failure on the part of school administrators to participate in the development of educational legislation is not without its consequences. Studies in a number of states indicate instances where legislation concerning the adminis­ tration of public schools or teacher welfare was defeated or difficult in passage because educators were not only unaware of the process of educational policy-leaking but were also reluctant to "play politics" in attempting to achieve their objectives.68 A related consequence is the passage of legislation not in the best interest of educators or educa­ tion i Politicians get involved in education obviously— no one can dispute their right and, really, their responsi­ bility to do so. Obviously there have be;en times when unenlightened politicians have made a mess of education. 6'Ness, "Forces and Techniques Which Influence Edu­ cational Legislation in Colorado," pp. 42-45. 68S. J„ Mantel, Jr., "The Politics of Public Educa­ tion in Vermont" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1951) . Edward E. Battles, "Preparing, Promoting and Enact­ ing School Legislation in Oklahoma" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1949). Victor 0. Hornbostel, "The Formulation of State Public School Finance Policy in Wisconsin, 1927 to 1951" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1954) . John S. Johnson, "Leadership Process in the Develop­ ment of Missouri School Reorganization Law" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1953). 48 This should not happen if educators played the political role that they should.69 In an a^ posteriori hypothesis, Marsolais argued that failure on the part of educators to influence educational legislation has been a major factor in the increase in educa­ tional decision-making by the legislature. Lacking informed guidance from educators on complex and costly education proposals, legislators are increasingly employing their own educational advisors.70 Similarly, the American Association of School Administrators called attention to the fact that the failure to participate in the policy-making process was resulting in a steady diminishing of local controls The state and national governments, and to a minor extent nongovernmental agencies are providing a growing ~ portion of the money used by local school districts, and their influence on expenditures is increasing. Local school boards have tended to focus attention primarily on local problems, including problems of school finance. Other groups with special interests have too often had the field to themselves in presenting educational and financial needs or programs before state legislatures and other state and national agencies. The result has been a steady diminishing of local control over important budgetary and the consequent educational decisions.71 Support for this view comes from outside the field of education s 6 9L t „ Governor James Goetz, Minnesota (excerpt from address to the 1967 convention of the National Education Association), Phi Delta Kappan, February, 1968, p. 340. 70Marsolais, "Forces "Which Produce Educational Legis­ lation in California," p. 200. 7•''American Association of School Administrators, School Board, Superintendent and Staff, p . 6. 49 One Congressman observed in the Harvard Business School Bulletin that often important segments of the economy fail to participate fully in the process of enlightening legislators, with the result that their fortunes suffer„ Addressing himself to small business­ men, he observed that they were facing a critical period, beset by many problems but "what we know about these problems, with a few notable exceptions, comes from prac­ tically every source but the businessman himself...."72 Failure of educators to participate in the "encourage­ ment of wise school legislation" is widely attributed to their lack of political know how and naivete regarding the dynamics of public policy determination— in short, a general lack of understanding of the process of educational policy­ making. Starkey, following a study of state level educa­ tional decision-making in Texas, concluded that: The main drawback with the public school lobby has been political naivete. In Texas, the teacher is noted for his lack of political sophistication, and failure or refusal to recognize the realities of politics.73 Likewise, James,54 Crane,75 Walker,76 and Grieder77 present /j2Clapp, The Congressman, pp. 201-202. J 3Starkey, in Texas," p. 150. "State Level Educational Decision Making 74H. Thomas James, "Schools are in Politics," The Nations Schools, October, 1958, pp. 53-55. ?5Wilder Crane, Jr., "Politics of Education," Education Forum, January, 1959, pp. 201-204. 76Robert A. Walker, "Political Science and the Edu­ cator, " Educational Leadership, May, 1956, pp. 474-47 9. 7 'Calvin Grieder, Truman M. Pierce, and William E. Rosenstengel, Public School Administration (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961), pp. 137-138. evidence that, educatois are generally unaware of the polit­ ical facts of life. In a study of the efforts of schoolmen in eight New England states to achieve educational progress through political activity, Bailey found that professional educators have too often been indifferent or inept in regard to tech­ niques of participating successfully in public affairs.78 Wayson is even more harsh in his criticism. Educators, he stated? o.o tend toward idealism and naivete about how political decisions are m a d e . ... They tend to be apathe­ tic about policy development, and they leave important policy considerations to others. They are uncomfortable when confronted with conflict. Above all, they have taken too literally the statement that education should be free of politics. To act as though education is free of politics (and ought to be) is to let every member of society except educators determine the allocation of resources to education.79 The problem is not new, as Azzarelli makes clear: Spokesmen of the past decade have focused their at­ tention on the educator’s understanding of the political process by which policy concerning the public schools is promulgated in the state legislatures. They pointed out that professional educators have ignored the political process by which critical decisions about education are made. Preoccupied with a self imposed isolation and administrative techniques they failed to recognize that political decisions are consummated only after broad con­ sensus has been achieved on a problem, never before. To make matters even worse, they often failed to provide the support that education needed in competing against 7 sBailey and others, Schoolmen and Politics. 79Wayson, "Political Concepts and the Development of Educational Administrators," p. 12, 51 other pressing demands of society in the larger arena when political decisions were m a d e . 80 Evidence of the failure on the part of educators to "recognize that political decisions are consummated only after broad consensus has been achieved on a problem" can also be found in the actions of many who do seek to influ­ ence the legislative policy decisions. This was noted by Pierces (Politicians) are distressed by failure on the part of educators to understand the political processes and to recognize that decisions affecting education by gov­ ernors and legislatures must be weighed politically as well as educationally.81 Legislators questioned by Wiley perceived local superinten­ dents as being unwilling to accept anything less than his total educational proposal.82 sponse to the question, Fahey reported that in re­ "What is the major obstacle confront­ ing the legislature in policy-making with respect to educa­ tion?", virtually all members of the Education Committee of the California Legislature answered, man. " "the professional school­ One prominent State Senator spoke for many of the respondents, according to Fahey, when he said the professional schoolmen compose a "closed fraternity, they have their own 80J. J. Azzarelli, "'Decision Making and the Politics of Public Education in New York States A Research Plan" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1962) , p. 2 o 81Wendell H. Pierce, "The Politics of Education," Phi Delta Kappan, February, 1968, p. 335. 82Wiley, "Role of the School Administrator in StateLevel Politics," p. 66. 52 jargon, they speak a few words in educationeese and expect us to follow blindly." The chairman of the Assembly Educa­ tion Committee described the professional schoolmen at all levels in the educational system as major obstacles to a good educational program. They are, he said, preoccupied with self interest and empire building. A third respondent "summed up the views held by most members of the Senate and Assembly Education Committees when he said that 'the narrow self interest of the professional schoolmen, and holier-than-thou attitudes, their superior and their condescending ap­ proach to Legislators, ' have the negative effect of creating animosity between schoolmen and the legislature. 1,83 also reported that collectively, Lowery professional educators, especially administrators, had a "terrible image" in terms of testimony before the Education Committees of the Cali­ fornia Legislature and in "lobbying discussions" with indi­ vidual legislators. One lawmaker said of administrators, "They're parochial. They can't seem to see beyond education in their own local districts. We have got to consider the needs of the whole state in all areas."84 Since education is surely one of the most genuinely political undertakings in American life,85 the need of esFahey, "California Legislature and Educational Decision-Making, " p. 58. 34Lowery, "Search Process of the Education Committee of the California State Legislature," p. 188. 85Bailey and others, Schoolmen and Politics, p. 6. 53 educators for more assistance in developing effective ap­ proaches to political decision makers is quite apparent. "A single important need of education is to develop the covert orientation of policy-makers to education needs. Reciprocally, legislative policy-makers need the sharpened understanding of educational leaders in politics."86 SUMMARY Since the early 1930's, the education profession has been urged to become more sophisticated regarding the policy­ making process. Early spokesmen included Granrud,87 Carr,88 Judd,89 and Staffebach,90 to name a few. Students of educa­ tional policy-making recognized that if education were to advance, the state legislature would need to b e informed and advised on school problems. However, educators generally have practiced considerable restraint in approaching law­ makers with their petitions, 86Sarvis, even though they have recognized "Legislative Specialization," p. 5. 8'John Granrud, The Organization and Objectives of State Teachers Association (New York: Bureau of Publica­ tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1926). 88Carr, "School Legislation as a Factor in Produc­ ing Good Schools." 89C. H. Judd, "Education and Politics," Educational Record, July, 1931, p. 253. 90Elmer H. Staffebach, "Policy Making by Teacher's Organizations: State Associations' Standpoint," The Anna l s , 1935, p. 182. 54 that the lav/makers were frequently far behind in their think­ ing on educational matters.91 Some educators, motivated by concern over the practice of making educational decisions in a political arena, have even attempted to reverse the trend toward g^pater involvement by the legislature in edu­ cational policy-making. politics, This denial that education is in coupled with the educators' lack of sophistication regarding the legislative decision-making process, are be­ lieved by many students of educational policy-making to have hampered the profession’s attempts to influence educational legislation and have allowed other forces to assume a major role in the formation of such laws. Clearly stated or implied in most studies dealing with the role of the legislature in educational policy-making is the proposition that increased'knowledge of the legisla­ tive decision-making process will concomitantly increase the professional educator's willingness to participate in, and ability to exert an influence on, the legislative policy­ making process. Lowery is a case in point. In his report / of a study of the California Legislature, he was quite explicits The researcher is firmly convinced that it is crucial to the future vitality of public education within Cali­ fornia for professional educators to recognize and understand the processes and procedures which are used 91A. F. Corey and R. H. Strickland, "Legislative Policies and Procedures Used by State Educational Associa­ tions" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1956), p. 3. 55 in the legislative consideration of educational is­ sues . 92 Likewise Womack, in Tennessee, on the basis of his study of legislation concluded that those interested in public edu­ cation need better and more useful techniques of working with legislators, the area.93 and recommended that studies be made in And Harrington, in a list of political guide­ lines for school administrators, included the following: Be thoroughly acquainted with the steps of the legislative process such as the stages through which a bill is developed and introduced, how it can be amended, and what can happen when the measure reaches the gov­ ernor' s desk.94 Particular plans for the solution of major education­ al problems may issue full blown and crystal clear in the minds of college professors, teachers. lobbyists, superintendents or But under our American system of government, these plans must usually pass through the legislative gauntlet b e ­ fore they become an official part of state educational policy. What can happen to an idea between the time it is conceived and the time it becomes law is of no little significance to the future of education in the state.95 9*Lowery, op. c i t ., p. 192. 93Bob Womack, "The Enactment of a State School Pro­ gram in Tennessee" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College, Nashville, 1956), p. 232. 94John H. Harrington, "Lessons from Legislators," The American School Board Journal, January, 1968, p. 7. 95Bailey, Congress Makes a Law, p. viii. 56 However, though numerous students of educational policy-making have emphasized the need for school adminis­ trators to participate in the policy-making process, and have cited lack of understanding of the policy-making process as a major reason for their failure to do so, what superintendents do understand, literature on and the extent to which this understanding affects their behavior and influence is conspicuous by its absence. demonstrated, It has been assumed, not that understanding how the legislature works makes a difference. Chapter 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY This chapter contains a description of the sample; a discussion of the development of the instruments; and an explanation of the procedures used in the collection and analysis of the data. SOURCE OF THE DATA The sources of data for this study were: 1. A group of randomly selected Michigan superin­ tendents employed by public school districts offering a program of instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade. 2. Representatives and senators identified by the superintendents as the principal representatives of their school districts in the Michigan Legislature. The data for this study were gathered from three questionnaires constructed by the researcher. pleted by the superintendents, legislators. 57 Two were com­ and one was completed by the 58 THE SAMPLE Of the 528 public school districts in Michigan offer­ ing instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade during calendar year 1970,1 four were excluded from this study be­ cause the board of education of each employed a registered legislative agent to represent that district, at the Michigan Legislature.2 exclusively, These districts were excluded because the employment of a registered legislative agent by the district presumably assured that the superintendent would be represented at the legislature, while relieving him of much of the personal effort and involvement that might otherwise be required. Consequently the researcher did not believe the response of the superintendents of these districts to questions regarding their personal attempts to influence educational legislation would be a true indication of those efforts. Five hundred and eighteen school districts estab­ lished the population of superintendents from which the sample was selected.3 These districts were listed and then 1Data obtained from the Michigan Department of Educa­ tion, Lansing. 2These districts were Detroit Public Schools, Flint Community Schools, Garden City Public Schools, and Grand Rapids Public Schools. Data obtained from the Michigan Department of State, Lansing. 3Six districts were excluded because their superin­ tendents were members of the Board of Directors of the Michi­ gan Association of School Administrators and examined the instruments during the course of participating in the board's decision to officially endorse this project. 59 grouped into five strata on the basis of student enroll­ ment.4 Table 1 gives the strata divisions and the number of school districts in each. Table 1 Number and Percent of School Districts in Population, by Stratum Strata Divisions (Student Enrollment) Number of Districts Percent of Total Under 500 38 07 500 to 999 77 15 1,000 to 1,999 142 27 2,000 to 3,999 137 26 4,000 to 9,999 97 19 10,000 and Over 27 06 518 100 From this stratified list of public school districts, a proportional stratified sample of sixty-four school dis­ tricts, approximately 12 percent, was drawn (see Table 2). The table of random numbers found in Games and Klare5 was 4Data obtained from the RTichigan Department of Educa­ tion, Lansing. Enrollment as of October 2, 1970. 5Paul A. Games and George R. Klare, Elementary Statisticss Data Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), pp. 484-488. 60 Table 2 Number and Percent of School Districts Chosen in Each Stratum Strata Divisions (Student Enrollment) Number of Districts Percent of Total Under 500 4 07 500 to 999 10 15 1,000 to 1,999 17 27 2,000 to 3,999 17 26 4,000 to 9,999 12 19 10,000 and Over 4 06 64 100 used in the selection process„ The superintendents of the districts thus selected constituted the sample used in this study. Each of the sixty-four superintendents invited to participate was mailed two questionnaires during the course of the study. Sixty, both (see Table 3). 94 percent, completed and returned One superintendent completed only one of the questionnaires,6 and two of those invited to partici­ pate were dropped from the study when it was learned that they had not been Michigan public school superintendents during the twelve-month period under consideration. 6The superintendent completed and returned the Influ­ ential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) but not the Legislative Decision Making Inventory. 61 Table 3 Number of Superintendents Completing Questionnaires, by Stratum Number Asked to Complete the Questionnaires Strata Divisions (Student Enrollment) Number Who Completed the Questionnaires Under 500 4 4 500 to 999 10 10 1,000 to 1,999 17 17 2,000 to 3,999 ~17 15 12 10 _4 _4 64 60 4,000 to 9,999 • 10,000 and Over Fifty of the superintendents were identified as hav­ ing been in position during the entire twelve-month period. A questionnaire was mailed to the representative and senator identified by each of these fifty superintendents as the principal representatives of his school district in the Michigan Legislature. A total of one-hundred questionnaires were sent to fifty-four legislators: and thirty-three representatives. twenty-one senators Most of the legislators were identified as a principal representative by more than one superintendent, at least four. and several senators were identified by 62 A total of seventy-two of the one-hundred question­ naires, 72 percent, were completed and returned by the legis lators. Forty were received from senators, from representatives. legislator's time, In view of the demands made on a including questionnaires from interest groups and doctoral candidates, response. and thirty-two this was considered a good Included in the returns were twenty-six pairs of questionnaires, that is, questionnaires were completed by both the representative and the senator identified by twenty six of the superintendents as the principal representatives of their school districts in the Michigan Legislature. It had been hoped that there would be more pairing of legisla­ tive returns, however, as indicated above, the overall response on the part of the legislators was considered good. The somewhat better cooperation on the part of the senators was attributed to the fact the researcher was an employee of the Senate at the time and thus better known by the senators than by the representatives. INS TRUMENTATION Three types of data were required for the studys (1) the knowledge which Michigan public school superintend­ ents had of those aspects of the legislative decision-making process deemed important for them to know, (2) the frequency with which Michigan public school superintendents used the various methods and tactics available in their personal attempts to influence educational legislation, and (3) the frequency with which Michigan public school superintendents used the various methods and tactics available in their at­ tempts to influence the legislators representing their school districts on educational legislation, as perceived by those legislators. As there were no known instruments available for the purpose of collecting the required data, three questionnaires were constructed by the researcher for this purpose. The instruments are the (1) Legislative Decision Making Inventory (LDMI), the (2) Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form), and the (3) Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) . y?he questionnaire method was chosen for this study for several reasonss (1) it allowed greater coverage in a shorter period of time than would have been possible using personal interviews , 1 (2) the expense involved in the use of questionnaires was less than would have been required had it been necessary to interview a like number of subjects, and (3) its standardized form insured at least some uniformity of measurement.8 cation 203. 7Henry L. Smith, An Introduction to Research in Edu­ (Bloomingtons Educational Publications, 1959), p. 8Claire Selltiz and others, Research Methods in Social Relations (New Yorks Holt-Dryden Company, 1959), 239. p. 64 Legislative Decision Making Inventory (LDMI) 9 The instrument used to collect the data regarding the knowledge which Michigan public school superintendents had of those aspects of the legislative decision-making process deemed important for them to know was a fifty-two item questionnaire. The first page gave instructions for completing the instrument, asking the respondent to answer each question by drawing a circle around one of the four letters (A B C D) following the item to show the answer he had selected. ass The four response categories were identified A = Very Frequently, B = Often, C = Occasionally, D = Rarely. As the first step in constructing the instrument, the researcher reviewed the literature regarding state legisla­ tures and the Congress, to determine what the writers in the field generally believed were the most important aspects of the legislative policy-making process. The author also drew on his own experience as Executive Assistant to the Majority Leader, Michigan Senate, decision-making process. as a source of items regarding the A preliminary questionnaire consist­ ing of one-hundred and twenty-five items was the result. The tentative instrument was given to eight employees of the legislature and executive office known by the re­ searcher to be familiar with the organization of the Michigan 9See Appendix N. 65 Legislature and the process of legislative policy-making. Each was asked to complete the instrument, the suitability, and to react to clarity and accuracy of the items, as to the format of the instrument. as well The instrument was ex­ tensively revised on the basis of the reactions and sug­ gestions received. In addition, the responses to each of the items were compared for evidence of disagreement. found, Where the items were rewritten in an effort to clarify their meaning. The revised instrument was then given to fourteen key non-legislator participants in the legislative policy­ making process. of the house, Included were aides to the governor, senate majority leader, speaker senate minority leader and house minority leader; several legislative agents, a Department of Education official; a capitol correspondent for a major Michigan newspaper chain; and the capitol bureau chief for a national wire service. At least three of the group were former Michigan legislators. Each of those in­ vited to participate was asked (1) to complete the question­ naire by circling one of the four response categories for each item, and (2$ to indicate whether each item was "very important," "important," or of "little importance" for Michigan public school superintendents to know.10 of the fourteen complied. 10See Appendix J. Eleven 66 When completed, the eleven questionnaires were scored by collapsing the four response categories often, occasionally, rarely) and occasionally/rarely. (very frequently, to two— very frequently/often, Items receiving less than 70 per­ cent agreement on this collapsed two choice scale were eliminated. Also, the opinions of the participants regarding" the importance of the individual items were weighted. “very important" given a 2, With "important" a 1, and "little importance" a 0, an item could be given a maximum of twentytwo points if each of the eleven non-legislator participants believed it was very important for superintendents to know. All items receiving a total of eight or less of the possible twenty-two point maximum were eliminated. A few items r e ­ ceiving nine or ten points on the importance scale were also eliminated in order to further reduce the number of items on the instrument. The length of the questionnaire was con­ sidered important in securing the cooperation of legislators in the next phase of the development process. A revised instrument consisting of sixty-four items, each of which had received at least nine points on the importance scale, and for which there had been at least 70 percent agreement on the collapsed two choice answer scale, was given to eighteen members of the leadership of the Michigan House of Representatives and Senate. Each of the legislators invited to participate had been placed in his leadership position by his fellow legislators in the chamber 67 or his party caucus., The legislative leaders were told that the instrument would be given to a group of school superin­ tendents, often, and asked to indicate which answer— very frequently, occasionally, for each item.11 responded. rarely— should be accepted as correct Eleven of the eighteen legislative leaders Included were legislators from both chambers, and both parties within each chamber. When the completed questionnaires were received, the four response categories were collapsed to two--very frequently/often, and occasionally/rarely. Items receiving less than 75 percent agreement on the two choice scale were eliminated. The remaining fifty-two items were keyed using the response on the two choice scale considered correct by at least 75 percent of the participating legislative leaders. Finally, the LDMI was mailed to each superintendent participating in the study. Each was asked to complete and return the questionnaire in the stamped, self addressed en­ velope provided for that purpose. The process of statute lawmaking in the Michigan Legislature, as in most legislatures, involves passage of a specific bill by both the House of Representatives and the Senate and approval by the governor, or, alternately, passage by each house by an extraordinary majority notwithstanding the disapproval of the governor.12 1;LSee Appendix K. 12See Appendixes P and Q. The process for the 68 consideration and enactment of legislation b y the Michigan Legislature might appear to be one of relatively simple and direct dimensions,, limited tos issue, For example, such a process might be (1) the gathering of data pertinent to the (2) an analytical evaluation of such data, and (3) the making of an impersonal judgment to pass or reject based solely on the results of the data. In actual practice this process is far from simple or impersonal. It is most often a complex process involving many subtle relationships. Further, just as each of the fifty state legislatures is a separate and distinct insti­ tutionalized group, with its own established w a y of doing business, so do differences exist between the two houses of the Michigan Legislature. teristics, Despite certain common charac­ each house has a life of its own. Differences in the pattern of operation can also b e found among the standingcommittees within each house. The complexity of the legislative process, ferences that exist between houses, and the fact that the history of each bill is unique make it difficult, impossible, the dif­ if not to generalize precisely regarding the frequency with which the various aspects of the legislative process will occur. This was quite evident in the responses of the key non-legislators and the legislative leaders to the items on the LDMI. Although there was general agreement that an item frequently occurred as described— evidenced by selection 69 of "very frequently" or "often" as the correct response by 75 percent of the participants— or infrequently occurred— evidenced by selection of "occasionally" or "seldom" by 75 percent of the participants— in only a few instances was one of the choices on the four choice answer scale desig­ nated as the correct response to that item b y at least 75 percent of the key non-legislators or the legislative leaders. Influential Behavior Inventory (Super­ intendent Form)13 The literature regarding methods and tactics employed by individuals and groups to influence legislation was re­ viewed by the researcher. A preliminary questionnaire was constructed based on the methods of influence identified in the literature. The instrument consisted of a series of I statements about ways in which a school superintendent might become involved in educational decision-making at the state level. Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they had acted as described during the past twelve-months by drawing a circle around one of the five response categories (0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+) following that item. The five response categories were identified on the instruction page ass 0 = Never, 1-3 = One to three times, 4-6 = Four to six times, 7-9 = Seven to nine times, times. 13See Appendix D. and 10-+ = Ten or more 70 Six members of the Board of Directors of the Michigan Association of School Administrators were asked to react to the appropriateness, ment. clarity, and completeness of the instru­ Several suggestions were received and were incorpor­ ated into the final form of the instrument. The Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) was mailed to the sixty-four superintendents selected at random to participate in the study. Each superintendent; was asked to complete and return the questionnaire in the stamped, self addressed envelope provided for that purpose. Each was also asked to furnish the name of "his" representa­ tive and senator, the representative and senator the super­ intendent considered the principal representatives of that school district in the Michigan Legislature. In addition, each was asked how long he had been in his present position. Influential Behavior Inventory (Legis­ lator Form)14 The third type of data required for the study was the frequency with which participating public school super­ intendents used the various methods and tactics available in their attempts to influence the legislators representing their school districts on educational legislation, as per­ ceived by those legislators. The Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) was reviewed and items which described efforts by the 14See Appendix H. 71 superintendent to influence the legislators representing his school district were identified* These items served as the basis for the construction of the Legislator Form of the instrument. The instrument consisted of a series of state­ ments regarding ways in which a school superintendent might attempt to influence his legislator on educational legisla­ tion. Each corresponded with an item on the Superintendent Form. The first page gave instructions for completing the instrument. Respondents were asked to indicate how fre­ quently the superintendent in question had acted as described by each item during the past twelve-months by drawing a circle around one of the five response categories 10-+) following that item. were identifieds Four to six times, 0 = Never, (0 1-3 4-6 7-9 The five response categories 1-3 = One to three times, 7-9 = Seven to nine times, 4-6 = 10-+ = Ten or more times. A legislator and several employees of the legislature and executive office were asked to review the instrument, and to react to its clarity and format. Several changes were suggested. The refined instrument, Influential Behavior Inven­ tory (Legislator Form), was then mailed to each representa­ tive and senator identified by a participating superintendent as being "his" representative in the Michigan Legislature. Each legislator was asked to complete and return the question­ naire to the researcher in his capitol office. A self 72 addressed Inter Department envelope was provided for that purpose. Initially, items. the instrument consisted of thirty-six Included were questions regarding direct contact by a superintendent with a legislator representing his district as well as questions regarding efforts by the superintendent to influence legislative decisions by working through inter­ mediaries, such as faculty members, a professional association. district residents, or The legislators were asked to respond from their own knowledge to the items based on direct contact with the superintendent, and to indicate what they believed the superintendent had done in the way of wor k ­ ing through intermediaries. Early returns revealed that many of the legislators were unwilling to respond to those items not based at least in part on direct contact with the superintendent. Consequently the items which the legislators could not answer from first-hand knowledge were eliminated when a follow-up instrument was sent to those legislators not yet responding. Since many legislators were not answer­ ing those questions anyway, it was decided to drop them in the hope the shorter instrument might elicit greater coopera­ tion. items. In final form, the instrument consisted of twenty 73 COLLECTION OF THE DATA The Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) was mailed in early December, 1969, to each of the superintendents selected to participate in the study. By means of a cover letter,15 the superintendents were advised that this questionnaire was the first of two they would be receiving. There were two reasons for separating the questionnaires. First, the second questionnaire, was still in the process of being developed. more important, the LDMI, Second, and it was believed that in view of the combined length of the two instruments— each required ten to fifteen minutes to complete— the superintendents would be more likely to cooperate if they were distributed separately. Based on his own experience as a public school superintendent, the researcher felt two widely spaced intrusions of ten to fifteen minutes each would seem less of a burden than one requiring thirty minutes of the superintendent's time. The high rate of return of the two instruments seems to indicate this may be the case. A complete questionnaire was sent in late December to those who had not responded.16 A third contact was made shortly thereafter with those still not heard from. The sixty-first questionnaire was received approximately one and one-half months following the first mailing. 15See Appendix A. 16See Appendix C. 74 A stamped, self addressed envelope was included with each questionnaire. The researcher had anticipated a possible reluctance on the part of superintendents to complete this instrument, particularly if they felt their efforts to influence legis­ lative decision-making had been less than adequate. reluctance was evident, however. NO Only a few comments, none negative, were made by the sixty-one superintendents complet­ ing the instrument. One noted, plished no other purpose, ,rIf this survey has accom­ it has brought to.my attention the need for me to take a more active part, the state level, locally and on in legislation related to education." The second instrument, the LDMI, was mailed to the superintendents in late January, 1971.17 A stamped, self addressed envelope was included. In early February, a complete questionnaire was sent to those who had not responded,18 and further follow-up ef­ forts were made as late as mid-March. Based on comments offered by several of the participating superintendents, it appeared that this questionnaire was greeted with much more resistance than the first. pleting the questionnaire, One superintendent, stated, ridiculous for superintendents. lators. although com­ "This questionnaire seems It should be sent to legis­ I feel as though I am being tested on my knowledge 17See Appendix L. 18See Appendix M. 75 of legislative procedure." your last 'questionnaire', Another wrote, "After reviewing I find or would consider it a test on one's knowledge on the workings of the legislature. Therefore please excuse us for not filling it out." Although a detailed letter of explanation subsequently secured the cooperation of the aforementioned superintendent, his com­ ments, and those of others, indicated some resistance to the "test" nature of the instrument. A total of sixty of these questionnaires were ulti­ mately received, the last arriving in late March. In January, 1971, the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) was distributed to each representative and senator identified as a principal legislative representative by the fifty superintendents who h a d been in position during the twelve-month period under study.19 distributing the questionnaire, Before and after the researcher made direct personal contact with many of the legislators or their staff members in an effort to obtain cooperation. Personal con­ tacts and other follow-up efforts20 continued until mid-March. In all, seventy-two of the one-hundred questionnaires were eventually completed and returned. One of the difficulties involved in studies of the legislature is obtaining the cooperation of the law-makers. Throughout this phase of the study, there were many 19See Appendix F. 20See Appendix G. 76 indications that had the researcher not been an employee of the legislature the rate of return would have been consider­ ably lower. For one thing, the volume of paper which crosses a legislator's desk, coupled with the demands which his legislative and non-legislative responsibilities make on his time, are such that questionnaires from doctoral candidates are not seen as particularly important. This may be partly due to the fact that the typical legislator receives a great many questionnaires during the course of a year. Interest groups question him regarding his views on issues of particu­ lar importance to them. Doctoral candidates and other stu­ dents send questionnaires as part of studies they are conducting. Newspapers and radio and television stations poll the legislator on various issues and solicit his views on a variety of topics. As a result, many have adopted the policy of discarding all questionnaires not coming from persons or groups in their legislative districts, others known by them. or from Being known is no assurance the questionnaire will be completed, however. Cooperation was promised b y many legislators known by the researcher, but the completed questionnaires were sometimes not received. Although the legislators in question had every intention of completing the questionnaires, time. they never seemed to find the After observing the legislators in action for more than a year, the researcher could understand the problem— although still hoping for 100 percent return. 77 A more disturbing problem was the reluctance of legislators to answer questions which could prove embarrass­ ing to them if anonymity were not maintained. Although the researcher purposely stressed that no names would appear in the study, this question was frequently raised. legislators, A number of including some well known by the researcher, wanted additional assurance that "their responses would not get back to the superintendents in question. Unfortunately, tors' concern. there is some basis for the legisla­ Recently, for example, legislators were asked to complete a questionnaire as part of another doctoral study. In the cover letter, the legislators were promised that their responses could not be identified with them in any way. Later, when a follow-up questionnaire was sent to the legislators, one legislator could not understand how the researcher knew, if the responses were anonymous, had not completed the first questionnaire. read, or did not believe, that he He either did not the researcher’s assertion that the follow-up questionnaire was bei n g routinely sent to all who had received the first one. In any event, convinced there must be some identifying mark on the questionnaire, set out to find it. He did— under the stamp. say, this information quickly made the rounds. he Needless- to Instances where information considered confidential by the legislator was shared with a researcher he knew, only to have it come back to haunt him, were also mentioned during the course of the study. 78 The right of anonymity of all respondents, superin­ tendents as well as legislators, was respected r Personal Presentation of Views— Volunteered 5. a Expressed mv views on certain bills then before the legislature to representatives or senators other thaxr those representing mv school districts 48 48 54 .24 .24 .23 58 .23 .35* 47 47 53 .24 .24 .23 .25* .20 .22 Informed "my" representative or senator of the effects of certain laws on loeal_school programs. 58 .23 .18 Without being asked, m a d e suggestions to "my repre­ sentative or senator regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 58 .23 .09 a. b. c. u> o 0 26. Went to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular education issue. 41. -.02 .13 .15 Without being askedr informed "my" representative or senator of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have, on local school programss a. b. c. 36. By telephone.By personal contact By letter. By telephone. By personal contact By letter continued * Statistically significant. aNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) Table 10— continued Reported Influential, Behavior df a =.10, r> r Personal Presentation of Views— Reguested 32 = 38 = 56 = 64 = .23 .21 Was asked by "my" representative or senator for inform­ ation regarding the.effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. 58 .23 .16 Was asked by my professional association to express mv views on certain bills then before the legislature to my representative or.senator. 57 .23 -.04 Was asked by the State Department of Education to express mv views on certain bills then before the legislature to my representative or senator. 58 .23 .13 Testifying at Hearings 19. 58 .23 .21 Was invited by a committee of the legislature to present testimony regarding an educational issue. 57 .23 Average Correlation Coefficient = .17 o Presented unsolicited testimony regarding an educa­ tional issue before a committee of the legislature. CM 0 9. 121 Was asked by "my" representative or senator to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 5l8 Table 11 H O II df • Reported Influential Behavior Q Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents' Reported Communication with Members of the Legislature Through Intermediaries r± r Constituents ls. 1516. 22. .23 Encouraged school district residents to be present in. the chamber on the day. the legislature voted on a certain education issue- 58 .23 .11 Promoted the establishment of a local citizens' mittee to seek legislative action. 58 .23 .04 Sought the endorsement of local civic groups for an education issue requiring legislative action. 58 .23 .21 Stimulated district residents to write letters to the., governor about certain education issues. 58 .23 -.10 Asked particular individuals to call upon specified legislators to discuss certain education issues. 58 .23 -.11 Ul 58 0 Conducted grassroots campaign to inform and arouse district residents regarding the need for particular school legislation- com­ continued * Statistically significantaNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) 122 Il­ .23 i o 6. 58 H O0 1 3 -a Encouraged district residents to petition the legisla­ tors representing our school district regarding an education issue requiring legislative action. Table 11— continued Reported Influential Behavior 23. 34. 35. 44. a =.10, r> r Stimulated school district residents to write letters about certain education issues to the legislators representing the school district. 58 .23 .08 Requested "my" representative or senator to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were discussed. 58 .23 -.14 Publicized the voting record of "my" representative or senator on certain education issues. 58 .23 .24* Publicized the governor's position on certain educa­ tion issues. S8 .23 .07 Invited the governor or members of his staff to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were discussed. -5.8 .23 .11 Discussed with members of the school staff the effect of certain bills then before the legislature on local school programs. 58 .23 .17 Discussed with my board of education the effect of certain bills then before the legislature on local school programs. 58 .23 .05 Asked members of .the school staff to express their views on certain bills then before the legislature to their representative or senator. 58 .23 -.06 Asked members of the board of education to express their views on certain bills then before the legisla­ ture to legislators representing the district. 57 .23 -.04 Board and Staff 2. 8. 14. 20. continued 123 46. df Table 11— continued Reported Influential_Behavior 25. 28. 42. df a =. 10, r_> r Asked members of the school staff for suggestions regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 58 .23 .05 Asked members of my board of education to express their views on certain bills then before the legisla­ ture to their school board association. 58 .23 .02 Invited "my" representative or senator to discuss legislative topics with the board of education. 58 .23 .03 Colleagues Met with other educators to discuss legislative topics. 58 .23 .22 7. Served on a professional association or state depart­ ment committee seeking legislative action. 58 .23 .06 Attended meetings.at which legislators, the governor, or members of his staff discussed legislative topics. 58 .23 .04 Attended meetings-at which State Department of Educa­ tion representatives discussed legislative topics. 58 .23 .01 Invited "my" representative or senator to discuss edu­ cation matters with other educators. ,58 .23 .00 Informed my professional association of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 58 .23 .01 Was asked by my professional association to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 57 .23 .22 12. 27. 33. Professional Association 53. 54. continued 124 1. Table 11— continued Reported Influential Behavior 55. 57. 58. df a =.10, r£ r Without being asked, informed my professional associ­ ation of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. 58 .23 .06 Without being asked, made suggestions to m y profession­ al association regarding possible legislation to solve. particular school problems. 58 .23 .00 Was asked by my professional association for informa­ tion regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local programs. .58 .23 -.06 Informed the governor or his staff of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. .57 .23 .11 Was asked by the governor or his staff for information regarding the effects of certain bills then before the legislature on local school programs. 58 .23 .03 Publicly endorsed a candidate for election to the office of governor. 58 .23 .24* Without being asked, made suggestions to the governor or his staff regarding possible legislation to solve. particular school problems. 58 .23 .06 Visited the Capitol office of the governor or members of his staff. 58 .23 .29* Without being asked, informed the governor or his staff of the effects certain bills then before the legisla­ ture would have on local school programs. 58 .23 .02 Governor 45. 47. 48. 49. 50. continued 125 43. Table 11— continued Reported Influential Behavior -df a =. 10, r > r 51. Took members of the governor’s staff to lunch. 58 .23 .08 52. Was asked by the governor or his staff to suggest pos­ sible legislation to solve particular school problems. 58 .23 -.24* Was asked by the State Department of Education to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 58 .23 -.10 Informed the State Department of Education of the effects of certain laws on local school proqrams. .58 .23 -.19 57 .23 -.11 Without being asked, made suggestions to the State De ­ partment of Education regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. .57 .23 .00 Without being asked, informed the State Department of Education of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would h a v a on local school programs. 58 .23 .05 Sought the support of area Republican or Democrat Party organizations for an education issue requiring legisla­ tive action. 58 .23 -.09 Joined with representatives of other interest groups (e.g., Farm Bureau, labor groups, etc.) in an effort to influence legislation. 58 .23 .07 State Department 59. 60. 61. 63 . 126 62. Was asked by the State Department of Education for information reqardinq the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school pro­ grams. Other Groups 4. 17. Average Correlation Coefficient = .09 Table 12 Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI and the Superintendents' Reported Efforts to Keep Channels of Communication Open with Members of the Legislature Reported Influential Behavior a = .10,r > 10.a Contributed to the election campaign fund of candidates for election to the legislature. 58 .23 .07 Publicly endorsed candidates for election to the legis­ lature. 58 .23 .16 Circulated nominating petitions for candidates for election to the legislature. 58 .23 -.12 24. Became a candidate for election to the legislature. 58 .23 b 29. Invited "my" representative or senator to visit our schools to view certain programs in operation. 58 .23 .10 31. Took "my" representative or senator to lunch. 58 .23 .05 37. Attended social activities at which "my" representative or senator was present. 58 .23 .03 Visited the Capitol office of "my" representative or senator. 58 .23 .22 Invited "my" representative or senator to speak to a class or other group of students. 58 .23 .18 18. 21. 39. 40. Average Correlation Coefficient = .12 Statistically significant. aNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent For m ) . No superintendents reported becoming candidates for the legislature. r 127 df 128 Subhypothesis 1c was retained since the average correlation coefficient (r = .12) for this category was not significant. Summary. No relationship was found to exist between scores on the LDMI and the behavior categories called for by Subhypotheses la, lb, and lc. Therefore Hypothesis 1 was retained. Hypothesis 2 Ho~ s z There is no relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form). Ho0 ; There is no relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and the superintendents’ personal communication with members of the legislature representing their school districts, as perceived by those legislators. ^2^5 There is no relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and the superintendents' communication with members of the legislature through intermediaries, as perceived by the legislators representing their school districts. Ho2c: Th ere no relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory 129 and the superintendents' efforts to keep chan­ nels of communication open with the legislators representing their school districts, as per­ ceived by those legislators. Each of the subhypotheses was analyzed separately (see Tables 13-15). Subhypothesis 2 a . The correlation coefficients that were calculated to determine the relationship between scores on the LDMI and the superintendents' personal communication with members of the legislature representing their school districts, as perceived b y those legislators, are displayed in Table 13. The average correlation coefficient for this cate­ gory (r = .20) was not significant, therefore Subhypothesis 2a was retained. Subhypothesis 2 b . Table 14 displays the correla­ tion coefficients that were computed to determine the rela­ tionship between scores on the LDMI and the superintendents' communication with members of the legislature through inter­ mediaries, as perceived by the legislators representing their school districts. The average correlation coefficient this category was not significant, (r = .08) for therefore Subhypothesis 2b was retained. These findings can only be considered suggestive. It was found that legislators were unwilling to respond to those items not based at least in part on direct contact Table 13 Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LMDL and the Superintendents' Perceived Direct Personal Communication with Members of the Legislature df a =. 10, r > r 23 .36 .11 23 23 23 .36 .36 .36 .18 .31 .12 Was asked by me for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the leqislature would have on local school programs. 23 .36 .13 Was asked by me to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 23 .36 .26 Without being asked, made suggestions to m e regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 23 .36 .07 Came to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular educa­ tion issue. 23 .36 .37* Perceived Influential Behavior 2. a Informed me of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 3. Without being asked, informed me of the effects certain bills then before the leqislature would have on local programs: a. By telephone. b. By personal contact c . By letter. 6. 9. 13. 17. Average Correlation Coefficient = .20 * Statistically significant. aNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . Table 14 Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI- a*id the Superintendents' Perceived Communication with Members of the Legislature through Intermediaries Perceived Influential Behavior 4. a 11. 15. a =. 10, r Invited me to discuss legislative topics with his board of education 23 .36 .06 Requested that I take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action wer e discussed. 23 .36 .03 Publicized my voting record on certain education issues. 23 .36 .23 Invited me to discuss education matters with other educators. 23 .36 .08 Average Correlation Coefficient = .08 * r> Statistically significant. aNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . 131 14. df 132 with the superintendents, therefore a number of the items comprising the "communication through intermediaries" category on the Superintendent Form of the Influential Behavior Inventory were not included on the Legislator Form. Subhypothesis 2 c . The relationship between scores on the LDMI and the superintendents1 efforts to keep channels of communication open w ith the legislators repre­ senting their school districts, legislators, as perceived by those is displayed in Table 15. Subhypothesis 2c was retained since the average correlation coefficient (r = .23) for this category was not significant. Summary. No relationship was found to exist between scores on the LDMI and the behavior categories called for by Subhypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c. Therefore Hypothesis 2 was retained. Hypothesis 3 H9 3 : There is no relationship between behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintend­ ent Form) and behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . Ho3 a : T^ ere no relationship between the superintendents' reported direct personal com­ munication with the legislators representing their school districts, and the superintendents' Table 15 Correlation Coefficients Between Scores on the LDMI' and the Superintendents’ Perceived Efforts to Keep Channels of Communication Open.with Members of the Legislature df Perceived Influential Behavior l.a Invited me to visit his district's schools and view cer­ tain programs in operation. 5. 7. 8 . a =. 1 0 ,x£_ r 23 .36 .14 Publicly endorsed my candidacy for election to the legislature. 23 .36 .06 Visited my office in the Capitol. 23 .36 .28 Invited me to speak to a class or other group of students. 23 .36 .38* .03 1 0 . Took me to lunch. 23 .36 1 2 . Circulated my nominating petition for election to the legislature. 23 .36 16. Contributed to jay election campaign fund. 23 .36 .34 18. Attended social activities at which I was present. 23 .36 .33 Average Correlation Coefficient— .23 Statistically significant. aNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . - . 2 2 134 direct personal communication as perceived by those legislators. H°3 b S T^ ere is no relationship between the superintendents' reported communication through intermediaries with members of the legislature representing their school districts, superintendents' and the communication as perceived by those legislators. Ho^s There is no relationship between the superintendents' reported efforts to keep chan­ nels of communication open with members of the legislature representing their districts, the superintendents' and" efforts as perceived by those legislators. Each of the subhypotheses was analyzed separately (see Tables 16-18). The Superintendent Form of the Influential Behavior Inventory consisted of sixty-eight statements about ways in which a school superintendent might become involved in thelegislative decision-making process. The Legislator Form was composed of twenty items drawn from the Superintendent Form, each describing a tactic or technique which a superin­ tendent might use in an effort to influence the legislators representing his school district. Subhypothesis 3 a . The correlation coefficients that were computed to determine the relationship between the superintendents' reported and perceived direct personal 135 communication with the legislators representing their school districts are displayed in Table 16. The average correlation coefficient this category was significantly positive, (r = .42) for therefore Subhy­ pothesis 3a was rejected. A significant positive correlation was found to exist between reported and perceived influential behavior for five of the eight behavior variables comprising this section. Found to be significant were: informing district legislators regarding the effects of certain bills by tele­ phone (.64), by personal contact (.53), and by letter (.46); being asked by district legislators to suggest pos­ sible legislation (.45); and informing district legislators of the effect of certain laws on local school programs (.47). A positive, but non-significant correlation was found between reported and perceived efforts on the p^rt of superintendents to "lobby" at the legislature on particular education issues (.25). Two other behavior variables were also found to be non-significants (1 ) making suggestions to district legislators regarding possible legislation to solve school problems (.2 0 ), and (2 ) being asked for informa­ tion regarding the effects certain bills would have on local programs (.09). However, due to the fact that a relatively strong correlation was found between reported and perceived behavior for the remaining variables, the average correlation coefficient for this category was significant and the subhypothesis therefore rejected. Table 16 Correlation Coefficients Between the Superintendents’ Reported and Perceived Direct Personal Communication with the Legislators Representing Their School Districts df Influential Behavior 26.a Went to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular educa­ 24 tion issue. (I? ) * 3 30. 38. 41. , r> .25 20 .38 .37 .36 .64* .53* .46* 24 .35 .45* Informed representative or senator of the effects certain 24 laws would have on local school proqrams. (2 ) .35 .47* Was asked by representative or senator for information reqardinq the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. (6 ) 24 .35 .09 Without being asked, made suggestions to representative or senator regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. (13) 24 .35 .20 Without being asked, informed representative or senator of the effects certain bills then before the leqislature would have on local school programs: (3) By telephone. By personal contact. By letter. 18 19 Was asked by representative or senator to suggest pos­ sible legislation to solve particular school problems. (9) Average Correlation Coefficient = .42* * Statistically significant. Si r Number of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent For m ) . Number of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . 136 36. 0 .35 a. b. c. 32. a =. 1 137 Subhypothesis 3 b . Table 17 displays the correlation coefficients that were calculated to determine the relation­ ship between the superintendents’ reported communication through intermediaries, and the communication as perceived by the legislators representing the district. The average correlation coefficient this category was significantly positive, (r = .41) for therefore Subhy­ pothesis 3b was rejected. Relatively strong positive correlations were found to exist between reported and perceived efforts on the part of the superintendents to get district legislators to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were discussed (.54), and to publicize the voting record of the legislators on education issues (.52). Positive, but non-significant correlations between reported and perceived behavior were found for the remaining two variables in this category § inviting the legislators to talk with the board of education tors (.28) and other educa­ (. 26) . Subhypothesis 3 c . The relationships between the superintendents' reported efforts to keep channels of com­ munication open with members of the legislature representing their districts, and the superintendents' efforts as per­ ceived by those legislators are found in Table 18. The average correlation coefficient this category was significantly positive, pothesis 3c was rejected. (r =* .36) for therefore Subhy­ F Table 17 Correlation Coefficients Between the Superintendents' Reported and Perceived Communica­ tion With the Legislators Representing Their School District Through Intermediaries Influential Behavior df 33.a Invited representative or senator to discuss education matters with other educators. (4)^ 34. 35. 0 , r> r 24 .35 .26 Requested representative or senator to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were discussed. (1 1 ) 24 - .35 .54* Publicized the voting record of representative or senator on certain education issues. (14) 24 .35 .52* Invited representative or senator to discuss legislative topics with the board of education. (15) 24 .35 .28 Average Correlation Coefficient = .41* Statistically significant. a Number of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent For m ) . Number of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form). 138 42. a =. 1 Table 18 Correlation Coefficients Between the Superintendents' Reported and Perceived Efforts to Keep Channels of Communication Open with the Legislators Representing- their School Districts Influential Behavior df a =. 1 0 ,r >_ r 24 .35 .49* Publicly endorsed candidates for election to the legis­ lature. (5) 24 .35 .02 Circulated nominating petitions for candidates for elec­ tion to the legislature. (1 2 ) 24 .35 .53* Invited representative or senator to visit district schools to view certain programs in operation. (1 ) 24 .35 .45* 31. Took representative or senator to lunch. 24 .35 .43* 37. Attended social activities- at which representative or senator was present. (18) 24 .35 .36* Visited the Capitol office of representative or senator. (7) 24 .35 .30 Invited "my" representative or senator to speak to a class or other group of students. (8 ) 24 .35 .30 18. 2 1 . 29. 39. 40. (10) Average Correlation Coefficient = .36* Statistically significant. aNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent For m ) . Number of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator For m ) . 139 .a Contributed to the election campaign fund of candidates for election to the legislature. (16) 1 0 ! 140 Significantly positive correlations were found to exist for five of the eight items comprising this section: circulating nominating petitions (-53), contributing to an election campaign fund (.49), inviting district legislators to visit the schools (.45), taking the legislators to lunch (.43), and attending social activities at which area legis­ lators were present (.36). A positive, but non-significant correlation was found between reported and perceived visits to the Capitol office of district legislators. It is recognized that a legislator is out of his office much of the day— in the chamber, in committee, and "mending fences" in the district— and it is quite possible that some visits by the superintend­ ents might not be made known to the legislators. A n on­ significant correlation was also found between reported and perceived public endorsement at election time. What consti­ tutes "public endorsement"' may differ between superintendents and legislators. Finally, a positive but non-significant correlation was found between reported and perceived invita­ tions to speak to a class or other groups of students Summary. (.30). A positive relationship was found to exist between behavior as reported on' the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) and behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator For m ) . therefore, Hypothesis 3 was rejected. Since the N was small (26), these findings are in­ tended to be suggestive rather than conclusive. Of the 141 seventy-two questionnaires completed by legislators, were twenty-six pairs. there That is questionnaires were completed and returned by both the representative and senator identi­ fied by twenty-six of the superintendents as the principal representatives of their school districts in the Michigan Legislature. Therefore these findings are based on twenty- six superintendents and their legislators. SUMMARY In this chapter, the data relative to the four major objectives which served as the basis for this study were presented. Objective 1 Determine the level of understanding which Michigan public school superintendents have of those aspects of the legislative decision-making process deemed important for them to know. The Legislative Decision Making Inventory was the instrument used to determine the superintendents' understand­ ing of the decision-making process in the Michigan Legisla­ ture. Data gathered by means of this instrument were summarized. Objective 2 . Determine the frequency with which Michigan public school superintendents use the various methods and 142 tactics available in their attempts to influence educational legislation. The data gathered by means of the Influential Behavior Inventory analyzed. (Superintendent Form) were presented and Means and standard deviations were reported for each of the influential behaviors. Obj ective 3 . Determine the frequency with which Michigan public school superintendents use the various methods and tactics available to influence the legislators representing their school districts, as perceived by those legislators. The influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form) was the instrument used to gather the data called for by Objective 3. The findings were presented and analyzed. Objective 4 . Determine the relationship between the reported in­ fluential behavior of the superintendent, the superintendent's level of understanding of the legislative process, and the superintendent's attempts to influence the legislators representing his school district, as perceived by those legisla­ tors . In this section, were analyzed. the hypotheses stated in Chapter 1 143 Hypothesis L There is no relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and b e ­ havior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent F o r m ) . On the basis of the statistical data gathered, the hypothesis was retained„ Hypothesis 2 . There is no relationship between scores on the Legislative Decision Making Inventory and behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . No significant relationship was found. Therefore the hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis 3 . There is no relationship between behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) and 'behavior as reported on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator F o r m ) . A significant positive relationship was found to exist. The hypothesis was rejected. The final chapter will be devoted to a summary of the research, further study. h a .. conclusions, implications, and suggestions for Chapter 5 SUMMARY A ND DISCUSSION This final chapter will be devoted to a summary of the study, followed by a discussion of the findings, and concluded with suggestions for further study. SUMMARY Background of the Study In recent years, the role of the state legislature in educational policy-making has become increasingly visible and significant. The rising cost of education and pressure to shift part of the cost from local property taxes to other forms of taxation, wide disparity of resources for education in the various local school districts, the increased mobility of population within and among the states, and dissatisfac­ tion with the quality of education are among the reasons. Despite increasing participation by state legisla­ tures in educational policy-making, previous studies have reported that local school superintendents attempted to exert little influence on even those legislative decisions which vitally affected their programs. 144 Lack of understanding of 145 the legislative decision-making process was frequently sug­ gested as a major reason for their failure to get involved. A review of the literature, however, revealed no studies attempting to assess the knowledge which superintendents have of the legislative decision-making process, nor studies attempting to determine whether a relationship does exist between the superintendents’ knowledge of the process and their efforts to influence it. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the under­ standing which Michigan public school superintendents have of the policy-making process of the Michigan Legislature, the frequency with which the superintendents use the various tactics and techniques available in their efforts to influ­ ence educational legislation, and whether there is a rela­ tionship between their understanding of the policy-making process of the Michigan Legislature and the frequency with which they use the various influential behaviors. Design of the Study The sources of data for this study were a group of randomly selected Michigan public school superintendents, and the state representative and senator identified as the principal legislative representatives of his school district by each of the superintendents who had been in position during the entire period studied. 146 Three instruments were constructed to collect the required datas Legislative Decision Making Inventory (LDMI), Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent (Form), and Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to determine the relationships between the knowledge and influential behavior variables considered. All corre­ lation coefficients were tested by making a z or t-test, using the .10 level of significance and the appropriate degrees of freedom. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY Objective One One objective of this study was to determine the level of understanding which superintendents have of those aspects of the legislative decision-making process deemed important for them to know. For purposes of this study, "level of understanding" was defined as the number of cor­ rect answers on the LD M I . Finding. Scores on the fifty-two item LDMI ranged from a low of twenty-two to a high of forty-seven. score for the sixty superintendents was thirty-eight The mean (see Table 4 and Appendix G ) . Discussion. The study revealed that Michigan school superintendents are deficient in their understanding of the policy-making process in the state legislature. Aspects of 147 the process considered important for superintendents to know if they are to participate effectively are not understood by many. In this respect, the "typical" Michigan superintend­ ent may be much like the "average" voter described by Jewell: From the viewpoint of the average voter, the legis­ lative process is complex and confusing. The route that a bill must follow to passage is so tortuous that even the attentive citizen may lose track of it along the way. There are so many points at which critical decisions are made, sometimes behind the scenes, that even the best informed voter may be unable to determine who was r e ­ sponsible for blocking or amending a bill that interested him. ... the average voter is woefully ignorant about the state legislature. He does not know w hat important bills are being considered or have been passed, and the subtle complexities of the legislative process are beyond his understanding and interest . 1 Examination of Appendix 0 suggests that the superin­ tendents are best informed about those aspects of the process which might be considered "common knowledge," or which are self evident. For example, the fact that the choice of sponsor is important for interest groups desiring to have proposals introduced is generally understood, as is the fact that legislators consider the political ramifications of their vote. Aspects of the process mentioned with some fre­ quency by the news media are also understood by most. For example, the power of committee chairmen is frequently referred to in the press— particularly in regard to the Congress— -as is the fact that the legislative body seldom forces bills out of committees. xMalcolm E. Jewell, "The Political Setting," State Legislatures in American Politics, ed. Alexander Heard (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 95. 148 Less well understood are those aspects based on the interaction between participants which is at the heart of the legislative process 3 On most bills majorities are the result of the legislative process, not the precondition for it. It is during the legislative process that the wide variety of interests and personalities bargain and compromise on a bill, and its provisions, which make it acceptable to at least a majority of the m e m b e r s . 2 Many superintendents are not aware, for example, that legis­ lators often encourage competing interest groups to reach a friendly resolution of differences and then return to the legislature for ratification of the agreement. The ‘fact that legislators prefer to look to the governor to recommend ways of securing needed revenue rather than offer tax bills on their own is not well understood, nor is the fact that bills frequently "die in committee" because their sponsors make no effort to bring them to the floor. Also not well understood by many superintendents is the process by which committees screen and reach decisions regarding legislative proposals. In view of the central role of committees in the legislative process, an understanding of the workings of the committee is very helpful— often indispensable-— to those who desire to influence legislations The state legislatures could not operate without heavy reliance on their standing committees. The hundreds or thousands of bills introduced each session are normally referred by the presiding officer of each house to supposedly appropriate standing committees. 2Lewis A. Froman, Jr., The Congressional Processs Strategies, Rules, and Procedures (Bostons Little, Brown and Company, 1967) , p. 19. 149 Except in those few states where committees must, under strict rules, report all bills back to their houses, most of these bills die in committee. If this were not true our legislatures would be in more nearly continuous session. Committees are at the heart of the deliberative process as the legislatures participate in it. Here is where the notions about desirable policy changes on a subject are collected, where decisions are made on what is "important enough" to consider. Here is where rele­ vant knowledge and impressions are exchanged and values compared in accepting or criticizing given bills or in choosing the words, phrases, and numbers for statutory language., Leaders may learn of relevant factual claims previously unknown or f sentiments previously uncon­ sidered, but now expressed forcefully.3 Committee hearings are an important part of the committee process. Generally stated, hearings are efforts to get at the facts, hear all sides of the controversy, the committee. and educate Hearings are committee sessions for listen­ ing to witnesses. Personal notice is frequently sent to individuals, organizations, and agencies of the government known to be interested in the subject matter. Many super­ intendents are not aware of this. Obj ective Two A second objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which the superintendents use the vari­ ous methods and tactics available in their attempts to influence educational legislation. Examination of the re­ sponses to the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintend­ ent Form)— see Tables 5-7— revealed the following. 3Charles L. Clapp, The Congressman; His Work as He Sees It (Garden City, N . Y . % Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 242-243. 150 Finding;- The superintendents, as a group, were not highly organized or systematic in their efforts to influence educational legislation- With the exception of "becoming a candidate for election to the legislature, 11 each of the various methods and tactics was used by some superintend­ ents during the twelve-month period. Many superintendents made little use of the various methods and tactics available. Discussion. This finding is perhaps not surprising in view of the lack of agreement regarding what the nature of the local superintendent's involvement in state-level policy-making should be. fied in the literature, ents. A number of approaches were identi­ each with its proponents and oppon­ Each of these diverse and often conflicting recom­ mended courses is followed by some Michigan superintendents. These include direct and forceful action (e.g., lobbying) by individual superintendents, working through a professional association, involvement in partisan politics, working through the Department of Education, becoming the education­ al advisor of an area legislator, and working through a board of education or other community group. The study also revealed that many Michigan superintendents follow no particular course of action, making little effort to become involved in the legislative policy-making process. Evidence in the literature suggests that teachers may be better organized than superintendents in their efforts 151 to influence educational policy-decisions. about the constituents who contact them, California, New Jersey, members. legislators in and Tennessee were more likely to mention contacts by local teachers organizations) When questioned (including teachers' than by local school administrators and board In California, 40 percent of the legislator respondents were contacted by teachers, while only 24 per­ cent reported being contacted by school officials. In New Jersey it was 54 percent to 24 percent, while in Tennes­ see 56 percent reported being contacted b y teachers while only 13 percent were contacted by administrators and board members. Of the four states included in the study, only in Ohio did legislators report more contact from local school officials than from the teachers.4 Parrish noted the in­ crease in organized activity by teachers in Oklahoma, and speculated that it might cause superintendents there to become more actives Teachers are becoming more insistent and militant. They are demanding a larger and more meaningful share in the shaping of educational policies ... which may in turn alter the superintendents behavior regarding professional activities.5 Finding. The methods and tactics which the superin­ tendents reported using most frequently involved discussing 4LeRoy C. Ferguson, How State Legislators View the Problem of School Needs (Washington, D.C.; USOE, Cooperative Research Project No. 532 (8166), 1960), pp. 31-32. 5Lonny R. Parrish, "A Study of the Communication Be­ havior of the Local Superintendent of Schools" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma Graduate College, 1968), p. 87. 152 pending legislation with educators and board members, and attending meetings at which government officials discussed legislative topics. Methods and tactics involving communi­ cation through intermediaries, e.g., asking members of the board and staff to express their views to their legislators, were also favored. In their personal communication with legislators regarding educational legislation, the superintendents wrote letters more frequently than they telephoned or talked with the lawmakers in person. Luncheon invitations and visits to the capitol offices of their representatives and senators were limited, as were invitations to visit schools to view programs in operation. Discussion. These findings suggest that Michigan school superintendents are making little use of what may be the most effective techniques for gaining legislative sup­ port for their point of view. Although little research exists concerning techniques most effective for local school superintendents, literature in the field of lobbying and interest groups provide some clues. One of the few studies that attempted to weigh the relative effectiveness of tactics of interest groups was based on interviews with nearly one-hundred lobbyists in Washington. Personal presentation of views was the tactic the lobbyists believed to be mo®t effective.6 Marsolais, 6Lester W. Milbrath, "Lobbying as a Communication Process," Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1960, p. 37. in 153 a study of forces which produce educational legislation in California, found that long term efforts to build a per­ sonal image of a knowledgeable, dependable and willing source of information on educational matters was the tech­ nique most effective for lobbyists attempting to influence the Miller-Unruh Basic Reading Act of 1965. Personal con­ tact with legislators and staff members was the essential component of the four most effective techniques. Writing unsolicited letters to legislators was the technique least effective in influencing decisions about the Act . 7 Niess identified fourteen methods of influence employed by pres­ sure groups to influence state legislatures in decisions on educational legislation. He concluded that methods involv­ ing personal relationships or personal contacts with legis­ lators are the most effective methods used by groups in securing support from the legislature. Though stimulated mail was used quite frequently by some of the groups studied, he found that this method apparently produced no positive results. effective, Petitions and resolutions were not generally either.8 In a similar study, Ness found that 'Robert J. Marsolais, "Forces Which Produce Educa­ tional Legislation in California? An Exploratory Study of the Miller-Unruh Basic Reading Act of 1965" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1969), pp. 197-199. 8Charles F. Niess, "A Study of Some Forces Which Tend to Influence State Legislators in Decisions on Educa­ tional Legislation" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1962), pp. 212-215. 154 personal contacts by group members from the legislator's home district was the most effective technique, and that direct contact with the lawmakers was the essential compon­ ent of the other techniques also considered quite effective. Resolutions, stimulated mail, and petitions were well down the list in terms of effectiveness.a The importance of gaining the confidence of the law­ makers— preferably well in advance of the legislative session— is also stressed in the literature. Milbrath, in his study of the Washington lobbyists, noted that it was just as important to the lobbyist to keep his channels of communication open as it was to transmit the communications' themselves.10 In other words, the lobbyists believed it was not enough just to be able to talk with a legislator, was also necessary to establish rapport with him. it Merriam and Goetz expressed a similar views Citizens are frequently baffled and distressed b e ­ cause they do not seem to b e able to make a dent on official action. They watch with bewilderment, disap­ pointment, and irritation the way in which lobbyists and other old hands confidently accomplish their objec­ tives. The inexperienced citizen-politician is likely to jump to the conclusion that "there is something phony going on." But the controlling fact may be that pro­ fessional suggestions are accepted because past associa­ tions and carefully built rapport have smoothed the path.11 9Paul F. Ness, "Forces and Techniques Which Influ­ ence Educational Legislation in Colorado" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1966), p. 139. 10Milbrath, o p . cit., p. 47. 1:lRobert M. Merriam and Rachel M. Goetz, Going Into Politics (New Yorks Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 106. 155 Developing a favorable legislative image prior to the legis­ lative session was also emphasized by Rozzell: Before you ask a legislator to support or oppose a particular measure, prove to him that your judgment is competent in some other area. This, of course, requires that you become acquainted well in advance of the time you wish to communicate with h i m . 12 And Sarvis offered evidence supporting this advice. interview with the Honorable Herome Waldie, Leader of the California Assembly, In an then Majority the lawmaker stated: The real impression is made by the school administra­ tors in continued personal contact, not by their contact during pressured times, and not by their lobbyists.13 Truman made clear that early establishment of access is as important with legislative committees as it is with indi­ vidual members of the legislatures To be most effective, both direct and indirect access to the committee must have been established before, pre­ ferably long before, the executive deliberations begin.14 The tactics and techniques employed by Michigan superintendents in an effort to influence educational legis­ lation are generally not those which the literature suggests 12Forrest Rozzell, "The Politics of Educations To Lobby or Not to Lobby" (paper read at the American Associa­ tion of School Administrators convention, February, 1968, Atlantic City, New Jersey), p. 8. lsRobert E. Sarvis, "Legislative Specializations A Study of the Effect of the Legislative Interim Committee on Education" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1968), p. 180. 14David B. Truman, The Governmental Process Alfrdd A. Knopf, 1965), p. 371. (New Yorks 156 are most effectiveo Communication through intermediaries is favored over direct personal contact, and efforts to open and maintain channels of communication with the lawmakers appear to be limited. Finding. Few superintendents were asked b y the Department of Education for their views on educational legis­ lation. What communication did take place between superin­ tendents and the Department was more likely to be initiated by the superintendents than the Department. Discussion. Educational policy proposals introduced in the Michigan Legislature are analyzed by the Department of Education. These analyses discuss the effects of the bills on local school districts, and have an influence on the thinking of many legislators— both in committee and on the floor. Many of these bills, in fact, originate in the Department and are introduced by a sympathetic senator or representative. In Michigan, the Department of Education, Indiana, state departments, including operate much like those in as described by Wilder and O'Lesskers Agencies of state government constitute ... one of the most important sources of information for the law­ maker. Virtually every bill that is proposed will either have to be administered by or have some impact upon an existing state agency. Those who will be affected in this way will quite properly want their positions clearly understood, and as favorably as possible, by the General Assembly. Moreover, a great many of the bills proposed actually originate in one or another of the state agencies and are sponsored by friendly members in each house. Hence, it has been customary for department heads and their principal assistants to prepare information h a n d ­ outs, testify before committees, and generally to conduct 157 themselves during the session pretty much as representa­ tives of private interest groups d o . 15 This study has revealed that local school superin­ tendents contribute little to the Department's legislative program, or to the analysis of the educational proposals which are initiated elsewhere. Although each proposal "will have to be administered by or have some impact upon" local school districts, the superintendents are seldom consulted by the Department. Of the sixty-one superintendents completing the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form), thir­ teen reported being asked by the Department to suggest pos­ sible legislation to solve particular school problems; seventeen reported being asked for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. Only seven of the sixty-one superintendents reported being asked by the Department to express their views on pending legislation to their repre­ sentative or senator during the twelve-month period under consideration. The Department of Education prides itself on the leadership it provides Michigan educators s ... The Department functions to guide and coordinate educational developments throughout the state, and it does this mainly by offering- services to those persons who are directly responsible for providing all of the 15Philip S. Wilder, Jr. and Karl O'Lessker, Introduc­ tion to Indiana Government and P o l i t i c s (Indianapolis: Indiana Sesquicentennial Commission, 1967), pp. 88-89. 158 pre-school-through-adult education in Michigan. This is really what the Michigan Department of Education is all about— leadership and services to those people who are themselves responsible for directly providing edu­ cation to Michigan citizens.16 In the area of educational legislation, however, this leader ship was not evident. Finding. Most superintendents had little contact with the governor or members of his staff regarding educa­ tional legislation. Many had none. Communication that did take place was more likely to be initiated by the superin­ tendents than the executive office. Discussion. The governor's role in the legislative process is very important, as Jewell makes clear: The point cannot be too strongly made that in the American states today the governor holds the initiative; he proposes and the legislature disposes. It is rare that an important legislative measure is passed that has not been initiated by the executive. The governor's monopoly in this area is probably greater than the President's; a closer comparison might be with the President's initiative on foreign policy legislation.17 That Governor William G. Milliken's position is enormously important in formulating Michigan educational plans and policy is obvious. Through his legislative pro­ gram, with its emphasis on "educational reform," his budget message, his control over state finance, attention given his opinions, and the statewide the influence he exerts on educational legislation is potent. 16Michigan Department of Education, Annual Report: 1968-69 (Lansing, Michigan Department of Education, 1969), p. 1. lvMalcolm E. Jewell, The State Legislature Random House, 1966), p. 108. (New York 159 Of the sixty-one superintendents completing the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form), eight reported being asked by the governor or his staff for in­ formation regarding the effects of certain bills on local school programs. Only two of the sixty-one reported being asked to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems= Superintendent initiated contact with the executive office was also quite limited. In view of the importance of the governor and his staff in determining, developing, and influencing the enactment of educational legislation in Michigan, the seeming lack of communication between local superintendents and the executive office is quite significant. Finding. Although some communication regarding educational legislation took place between superintendents and their professional association, were asked for, or offered, Discussion. not all superintendents their views. Some students of the educational policy­ making process believe local superintendents are most effec­ tive if represented at the legislature by spokesmen for a strong statewide professional association. Although the study made no effort to judge the merits of this approach, the findings suggest that strong association led group a c t i o n , on the part of superintendents is not the practice in Michigan. The findings further suggest that the state associations to which Michigan superintendents belong are much more inclined to react to proposals initiated by others 160 than to develop educational policy proposals for considera­ tion by the legislature. Fourteen of the superintendents completing the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) reported being asked by a professional association to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. Thirty- eight of the sixty-one superintendents reported being asked for information regarding the effects certain bills then b e ­ fore the legislature would have on local programs. Superin­ tendent initiated communication to a professional association was more likely to be about the effects of certain laws on local school programs than about either the effects of cer­ tain bills on their programs or suggested legislative solu­ tions to particular school problems. Based on the data gathered, it appears that superin­ tendents ' associations in Michigan may be much like those described by Corey and Stricklands ... educational groups in this country generally have practiced considerable restraint in approaching lawmakers with their petitions, even though they have recognized that the lawmakers often were far behind in their thinking on educational matters.18 Objective Three A third objective of the study was to determine the frequency with which the superintendents use the various 18A. F. Corey and R. H. Strickland, "Legislative Policies and Procedures Used by State Educational Associa­ tions" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1956), p. 3. 161 tactics and techniques available to influence the legisla­ tors representing their school districts, those legislatorso as perceived by Examination of the responses to the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form)— see Table 9— -revealed the following. Finding. The legislators perceived the superintend­ ents as making little use of the various tactics and tech­ niques in an effort to inform and influence them regarding educational legislation. Representatives perceived the superintendents as making more frequent use of the various tactics and techniques than did the senators. Discussion. ents, That legislators perceived superintend­ in general, as making little use of the various tactics and techniques was evident not only in their responses to the items on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Legislator Form), but also in the comments they volunteered during the course of the study. questionnaire, saying, One attached a note to the completed "If all the kids failed their tests like the superintendents we should forget education. I would appreciate knowing the results." Another wrote, "I don't want this to sound derogatory, but I have ha d no con­ tact with this gentleman to the best of my knowledge." Several reasons were offered b y senators as possible explanations for the lack of contact. These legislators were quite anxious to give the superintendents the benefit of the doubt. The possibility that the superintendent's 162 contacts may have been handled b y staff members was suggested by several. One wrote? ... I did not have very much direct communication with (superintendent). Among the superintendents in (area of state), he is among the newest. Also, during part of his tenure as superintendent, I was Minority Leader with the help of staff. I believe that the executive assistant to the Senate Minority Leader handled most of the calls from (superintendent), rather than my doing so personally. One senator who was asked to complete questionnaires for several superintendents returned them with the recommendation that the author of this study talk with a member of his staff ? None of these names are particularly familiar to me. Perhaps you should check with (assistant) on some of these questions. He might have handled them. The size of the legislative district was also offered as a reason for the limited contact between superintendents and legislators. One wrote? Please be advised that I have tried to work out the data for (superintendent) and gave up. The senate dis­ trict is vast and comprises many school districts; hence I am able to provide meaningful information on only a few selected individuals without reference to my files, which are not accessible to me. He then went on to mention, by name, several superintendents who had been actively interested in educational legislation and to describe their activities in some detail. This ex­ perience was repeated many times during the course of the study. Legislators, both senators and representatives, would apologize for their vagueness in describing the activ­ ity of a particular superintendent, then go on to discuss in 163 detail the efforts of another. Each made a point of saying that he'd been asked about the wrong superintendent or superintendents. Most likely to be discussed b y the legislators were superintendents who had maintained direct personal contact with them over a period of time. The response of the sena­ tor whose "district is vast and comprises many school dis­ tricts" is a case in point; ,,, the (area) superintendents have rather consist­ ently worked through (superintendent), He has contacted me in their collective behalf on practically all educa­ tion issues. To a lesser extent (superintendent) was active on an individual basis. In the (area), (superintendent) has acted for the several superintendents; and to a lesser extent (superintendent) occasionally contacted me on an indi­ vidual basis. This further suggests that the relatively impersonal tactics and techniques favored by many Michigan superintendents may not be the most effective technique for gaining support for their point of view from their representatives in the legis­ lature. The meetings which ranked high among tactics and techniques reported by the superintendents were referred to by several of the legislators. One representative wpote; I have met with school officials of my three counties at least 10 times per year. At these meetings all air their views and ask about present and proposed legisla­ tion, I would say that they are well informed— maybe not happy, but informed. In fact the meetings start again this session— February 1st, And one representative spoke for many legislators, I suspect, 164 when he indicated that h e ’d prefer to generally limit his contact with his superintendents to these monthly meetings: I have fourteen school districts in my legislative district. All of my superintendents keep in touch, but it is impossible for m e to single out any one of them as to their individual activity. I meet regularly, once a month, with an informal educators group made up of all school superintendents, including the intermediate superintendents of (two counties)» This year (county) has joined the group. Almost all my contacts with (superintendent) have been through this group— a highly satisfactory arrangement. The last comment, in particular, suggests that stud­ ies on the effectiveness of the various superintendent initiated influential behaviors should be based on more than the evaluation of legislators. That representatives perceived the superintendents as making more frequent use of the various tactics and techniques than did senators is perhaps not surprising. There are a number of factors which tend to promote closer contact with the representatives. For one, approximately three times more people, a senator serves and generally his district includes a greater number of school districts. Also, a representative has less staff than a senator; and must run for election every two years while senators serve for four. Nevertheless, approval of both chambers is r e ­ quired for passage of a bill, and educational legislation is introduced and debated in the senate as well as the house. Therefore efforts to inform and influence senators are no less important than like efforts with representatives. r 165 Objective Four The fourth and final objective of this study was to determine the relationship between the understanding which Michigan public school superintendents have of the legisla­ tive decision-making process in the Michigan Legislature and the types of behavior engaged in by the superintendents in an effort to influence educational decisions which are made by the legislature. Finding, No significant relationship was found b e ­ tween the superintendents' level of understanding of the legislative decision-making process and the frequency with which they reported using the various tactics and techniques available in their attempts to influence educational legis­ lation (Tables 10-12>„ Discussion, Stated or implied in many studies deal­ ing with the role of the legislature in educational policy­ making is the proposition that incg-qased knowledge of the legislative decision-making process will increase the educa­ tors' willingness to participate in, and ability to exert an influence on, that process. to support this belief, Although no studies were found the proposition has the "ring" of logic. One important aspect of participation in the policy­ making process is the frequency with which the person desir­ ing to influence that process uses the various tactics and techniques available. This study sought to determine whether 166 a significant relationship existed between understanding of the legislative process, as measured by the LDMI, and the frequency with which the superintendents utilize the various influential behaviors. For purposes of this study, the b e ­ havior items on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superin­ tendent Form] were grouped into three broad categoriess (1) direct personal communication, intermediaries, tion open. and (2) communication through (3) efforts to keep channels of communica­ These groupings rather than the individual b e ­ havior items were used to determine the relationship between understanding and action. No significant relationship was found. A significant positive relationship was found to exist between knowledge and several of the individual influ­ ential behaviors? (1) going to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular education issue (.35), (2) visiting the capitol office of the governor or members of his staff (.29), (3) telephone contact with district legislators regarding bills then before the legislature (.25), (4) publicizing the voting record of district legislators on certain education issues (.24), and (5) publicly endorsing a candidate for election to the office of governor (.24). However the corre­ lations were low, and the number of behaviors too few to satisfy the requirements of the study. Further, a significant negative relationship was found between scores on the LDMI and being asked by the governor or his staff for suggestions r 167 regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems (-.24). In light of this finding, one might wonder whether the executive office solicits suggestions for pos­ sible legislation from those superintendents least familiar with the realities of getting legislation passed. However this correlation was also quite low. Other instruments, other designs, have yielded different results. other samples may However on the basis of this study it would appear that factors other than understanding of the legislative decision-making process determine the frequency with which Michigan superintendents use the vari­ ous tactics and techniques available in their efforts to influence educational legislation. Finding. No significant relationship was found b e ­ tween the superintendents' level of understanding of the legislative decision-making process and the frequency with which they used the various tactics and techniques available to influence the legislators representing their school dis­ tricts, as perceived by those legislators Discussion. (Tables 13-15). This finding lends support to the tenta­ tive conclusion discussed above, i.e., factors other than understanding of the legislative process determine the fre­ quency with which superintendents utilize the various tactics and techniques available in their efforts to influence educa­ tional legislation. Although a significant positive rela­ tionship was found between scores on the LDMI and two of the 168 perceived influential behaviors— coming to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular education issue (.37), and inviting district legislators to speak to a class or other group of students (.38)— there were too few items to satisfy the requirements of the study. This finding also tends to suggest that understand­ ing of the legislative process does not cause a "halo" effect--with legislators perceiving knowledgeable superin­ tendents to be more active in the use of various tactics and techniques than those with less understanding of the legis­ lative decision-making process. Finding. A significant positive relationship was found between the frequency with which the superintendents reported using the various tactics and techniques available to influence the legislators representing their school dis­ tricts and the frequency with which they used the various tactics and techniques as perceived by the legislators representing their districts Discussion. (Tables 16-18). Caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions from these findings. The N was small (26), therefore the findings are intended to be suggestive rather than conclusive. appear that, However, in general, on the basis of the data, it would the tactics and techniques which are- based at least in part on direct contact with the legislators they are intended to influence are recognized and remembered by those legislators. Support for this tentative conclusion can be found in the comments of participating legislators reported else­ where in this chapter. Representatives and senators fre­ quently apologized for their inability to provide informa­ tion regarding the activities of a particular superintendent, then went on to discuss in detail the efforts of another. Without exception, the superintendents discussed by the legislators were those who had maintained direct personal contact with them. This finding also lends support for the belief that the tactics and techniques generally favored b y Michigan superintendents may not be the most effective for gaining the support of the legislators representing their school districts in the state legislature. Communication through intermediaries was seemingly preferred by the superintend­ ents, however when questioned about the superintendents' utilization of these techniques most legislators refused to respond, pleading ignorance. legislators did respond, Of the items to which the the strongest correlations between reported and perceived behavior were generally those which brought the superintendent in direct, personal, and purpose­ ful contact with legislators as opposed to those which could involve discussion or questions at meetings, intercep­ tion of the superintendent's communication b y the legisla­ t o r ’s staff, or contact through other intermediaries. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 1. Further examination of the data yielded some additional clues regarding the possible effectiveness of the various tactics and techniques used by Michigan school superintendents in an effort to influence educational legislation. Included on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent Form) were two items which sought to deter­ mine how frequently the superintendents’ views on education matters requiring legislative action were solicited by the legislators representing their districts in the Michigan Legislature. These items were: Was asked by "my" representative or senator to sug­ gest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. Was asked by "my" representative or senator for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school pro­ grams o The frequency with which a superintendent's views were solicited by a legislator was assumed to be an indication of influence with that lawmaker. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to determine the relationships between the various superintendent initiated influential behaviors and reported requests from legislators for their views. The obtained correlation coefficients were tested by making a z-test, using the .01 level of significance and the appropriate 171 degrees of freedom. The tests were two-tailed since it was desired to know whether there was a significant positive or negative relationship between the variables under con­ sideration, A significant positive relationship was found to exist between reported requests from the legislators and many of the superintendent initiated influential behaviors. These findings are reported in Table 19. The .01 level of significance, rather than the .10 level utilized elsewhere in this study, was purposely selected by the researcher for purposes of analyzing the data. Since the evaluation of the effectiveness of the various reported influential behaviors was not one of the objectives of the study, the researcher believed it neces­ sary to be more conservative in analyzing and reporting these findings. Examination of Table 19 suggests that the superin­ tendents whose views are sought by area legislators are those who actively work at establishing and maintaining a close relationship with them, the legislators informed. and who make an effort to keep A strong positive relationship was found to exist between legislator requests for the superintendents' views and superintendent initiated efforts to inform the legislator of the effects of various bills and laws on local school programs. In terms of method of con­ tact, personal contact and telephone calls had a stronger Table 19 Correlation Coefficients (Significant at the .01 Level} Between the Reported Influential Behavior Initiated by Superintendents and the Reported Requests from Legislators for the Superintendents’ Views on Education Matters Requiring Legislative Action Superintendent Initiated Influential Behavior Superintendents' Views Requested Regarding Bills Possible Legislation df r df r Personal Presentation of Views 5.3 Expressed my views on certain bills then before the legislature to representatives or senators other than those representing my school districts a. b. 26. 30. By telephone. By personal contact. Went to the Legislature to lobby on a particular education issue. 48 49 .42 ,65 59 ,33 47 48 53 ,64 ,67 ,50 49 ,46 47 48 53 ,57 ,41 .39 Without being asked, informed "my" repre­ sentative or senator of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs; a. b. c. By telephone. By personal contact By letter. continued aNumber of the item on the Influential Behavior Inventory (Superintendent For m ) . Table 19--continued Superintendent Initiated Influential Behavior 36. 41. Superintendents' Views Requested Regarding Bills Possible Legislation df r df r Informed "my" representative or senator of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 59 .55 59 .44 Without being asked, made suggestions to "my" representative or senator re ­ garding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 59 .44 59 .48 Presented unsolicited testimony regard­ ing an educational issue before a commit­ tee of the legislature. 59 .34 59 .41 Was invited by a committee of the legis­ lature to present testimony regarding an education issue. 59 .48 59 .48 .34 59 .36 Testifying at Hearings 19. 173 9. COMMUNICATION THROUGH INTERMEDIARIES Constituents 6. Conducted grassroots campaign to inform and arouse district residents regarding the need for particular school legisla­ tion. 59 continued f Table 19— continued Superintendent Initiated Influential Behavior 15. 35 o 44. 46. Superintendents' Views Requested Regarding Bills Possible Legislation df r df r 59 .40 59 .54 Publicized the voting record of "my" representative or senator on certain education issues. 59 .38 59 .40 Publicized the governor's position on certain education issues. 59 .42 59 .46 Invited the governor or members of his staff to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were discussed. 59 .39 59 .47 Asked members of the board of education to express their views on certain bills then before the legislature to legisla­ tors representing the school district. 58 .38 Invited "my" representative or senator to discuss legislative topics with my board of education. 59 .44 59 .48 Without being asked, informed my profes­ sional association of the effects cer­ tain bills then before the legislature 59 would have on local school programs. .39 174 Sought the endorsement of local civic groups for an education issue requiring legislative action. Board and Staff e o CN 42. Professional Association 55. continued Table 19— continued Superintendent Initiated Influential Behavior Superintendents' Views Requested Regarding Bills Possible Legislation df r df r Governor 47. 49. 51. Publicly endorsed a candidate for elec­ tion to the office of governor 59 .42 Visited the Capitol office of the gov­ ernor or members of his staff. 59 .41 59 .39 Took members of the governor's staff to lunch. 59 .56 59 .68 Sought the support of area Republican or Democrat Party organizations for an education issue requiring- legislative action. 59 .36 Joined with representatives of other interest groups (e.g., Farm Bureau, labor groups, etc.) in an effort to influence legislation. 59 .48 59 .43 Invited "my" representative or senator to visit our schools to view certain pro­ grams in operation. 59 .55 59 .56 Other Groups 4. 17. EFFORTS TO KEEP CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION OPEN 29. continued Table 19— continued 37. 39. Took "my" representative or senator to lunch. 59 .42 59 .65 Attended social activities at which "my" representative or senator was present. 59 o 31 = Views Requested Regarding Possible Legislation df r 0 Superintendent Initiated Influential Behavior Superintendents' Bills df r 59 .35 Visited the Capitol office of "my" representative or senator. 58 .59 58 .55 176 177 relationship than did letters. Strong positive correlations were also found between legislator requests for the super­ intendents" views and efforts by the superintendent to keep channels of communication opens tor’s capitol office, (1) visiting the legisla­ (2) inviting him to visit district schools to view certain programs in operation, ing him to lunch. Generally, and (3) tak­ those tactics and techniques which involved communication through intermediaries found to have a significant relationship to requests from the legislator were those which required the superintendent to take overt action which the legislator was apt to become aware ofs (1) publicizing the governor's position and the legislator's voting record on certain education issues, (2) inviting the legislator to discuss legislative topics with the board of education, (3) joining with representa­ tives of other interest groups in an effort to influence legislation, and (4) seeking the endorsement of local civic groups for an education issue requiring legislative action. 2. Behavior Inventory Superintendents completing the Influential (Superintendent Form) were asked how long they had been in their present position. sponded to this item. Fifty-nine re­ Length of service in present position ranged from several months to twenty-eight years. The mean and standard deviation were 5.7 and 5.6, respectively. Examination of the data revealed no significant relationship between length of service and being asked by 178 district legislators for either information regarding the effects certain bills would have on local programs, or sug­ gestions for possible legislation to solve particular school problems. This finding suggests that length of service in their district is not considered by legislators to be an important criterion when deciding which of the available sources to turn to for information regarding the effect of educational legislation on the schools they represent. No significant relationship was found between length of service in position and either the superintendents' level of understanding of the legislative process or the frequency with which they used the various tactics and techniques in an effort to influence it. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 1. In view of the limited research on the relation­ ship between the superintendent's understanding of the legislative process and his efforts to influence that process (no other studies were identified in the literature), further investigation seems warranted. Do superintendents with "high knowledge" utilize different methods of approach­ ing the lawmakers than do those with "low knowledge" of the legislative process? Does a course or seminar on the legis­ lative process stimulate greater participation? Is there a significant relationship between the superintendent's under­ standing of the legislative decision-making process ands 179 His belief in his ability to produce desired behavior on the part of members of the legislature? His image and expectation of members of the legislature? His image in the eyes of his legislator, on a positive-negative dimen­ sion? The likelihood of a legislator acting upon informa­ tion provided by him? 2. What should be the role of the superintendent in the educational decision-making process at the statelevel? A number of diverse and often conflicting recommen­ dations were identified in the literature. Given the pattern of educational policy-making that exists in Michigan, what is the most appropriate behavior for Michigan superin­ tendents? 3. Of all of the tactics and techniques available to influence the legislators representing his school dis­ trict, which are most effective for the typical Michigan superintendent? 4. There are many sources of information and advice available to Michigan legislators. the selectivity of legislators? What is the basis of Being one source among many available, how do superintendents become selected? 5. What are the major sources from which the gov­ ernor and his staff acquire information and knowledge of school problems and needs? through which requests, What are the means or channels demands, and petitions of local school districts are communicated to the executive office? 180 6. What are the major sources from which the Depart­ ment of Education draws the information and knowledge on which to base its legislation program? Its analyses of the effects of legislative proposals on local school programs? How do superintendents go about having an effect on the Department's legislative program? 7o Are superintendents now participating in the state-level educational policy-making process in a manner they perceive to be appropriate? Is there a significant difference between their "actual behavior" and their "ideal behavior"? 8. Is the superintendent's restraint in participat­ ing in the legislative policy-making process due to? of commitment? Lack Idealism and naivete about how political decisions are made? Desire to avoid conflict? Lack of use­ ful techniques for working with legislators? REFLECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS For more than a year the researcher was deeply immersed in the policy-making process of the Michigan Legis­ lature. This was partly due to activities related to the research project, and partly due to personal involvement in the process as the Executive Assistant to the Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate. ences, Reflecting on these experi­ two related observations with implications for this study stand out. 181 First, the Michigan Legislature (and perhaps all state legislatures) has more to do with determining the character of its state's public school systems than any other group, including educators. What the legislators do controls significantly what the educators can do: (Legislators) control the purse strings of the principal sources of financial support., They frame the limits of local school board actions. They can facili­ tate or stymie educational change. They can initiate new educational programs and alter or abolish existing programs. They establish priorities in the use of public resources. All permanent progress in the field of educa­ tion depends fundamentally on their decisions.19 Because of a growing public concern with public education, the legislators are seemingly assuming an increasingly vis­ ible role in educational policy-making. And, as the inter­ connection of education with all aspects of the state's life continues to increase, the significance of legislative actions and attitudes in educational matters will likewise increase. Second, anyone desiring to exert an influence on the legislative policy-making process must have at least a gen­ eral understanding of the factors.that control the passage and defeat of bills in the legislature. Many intelligent people who are interested in seeing good legislation think that it is sufficient to vote for the candidates of their choice on election day. Others go beyond that and communi­ cate with their legislators occasionally. Their actions, 19Rozzell, The Politics of Education, pp. 6-7. 182 however, are oftentimes misdirected because they are not familiar with the procedures of legislation. Schweigert, Senator Thomas then acting lieutenant governor of Michigan, talked to that point; Since many people have either no knowledge, or mis­ guided knowledge, of how to approach a legislator, ... 1 1d like to tell you a little bit about our operation and how you might best go about establishing good rap­ port with your lawmaker. If I wanted to get a sympathetic hearing on profes­ sional problems from a legislator, I would consider personal contact most important— especially if that contact were made when the legislature was not in session. One of the biggest mistakes that professional people make is that they wait until their issue is before the legislature and then they fill the capitol with emotion­ ally-charged telegrams. This is one of the worst ways to do it. By that time, hearings have been held, bills have been discussed in committee, and most legislators couldn't care less whether thousands of telegrams flooded their o f f i c e s .... Pre-printed cards often flood the legislature in like manner. They have even less influence on legislation in most instances.... Lacking good, sincere, personal contact with a legis­ lator, I would say the best bet is a sincere, wellreasoned letter that shows the writer's knowledge of his subject. Such letters, of course, should be written without any sign of threat of retaliation against a legislator if he does not vote the way the writer advocates. Such threats are common to legislators and, I would say, do no g o o d .... One thing I might caution you about— don't scattergun your efforts. If you are interested in pending legislation, work through your own senator or representa­ tive. It will do you little good, I would say, to bombard senators from other districts about your problem. There is one exception, of course. If a bill is in committee, you might score some "brownie points" by 183 getting in touch with the chairman of that committee— or even some committee members o . o All too many people take no active interest in their state government until something affects them adversely— like the income tax, open housing or any of a number of similar topics.... . .. Don't take an active interest in your government only when you want something for yourself. That is the trouble with too many people. They take no interest until it is too late.2® To be effective, citizens must'be informed and their actions carefully thought out. Knowledge of legislative procedure is essential. In this regard, the researcher is firmly convinced that professional educators must recognize and understand the processes and procedures which are used in the legisla1tive consideration of educational issues. Failure to under­ stand the process may not only limit the effectiveness of their efforts to exert an influence on that process, but may also result in poor, inaccurate, and incomplete observation. For example, observers of the legislature will simply miss certain important "plays” and will not understand the sig­ nificance of moves and countermoves unless they are aware of the alternatives which may be used by the participants to achieve legislative ends.21 stand the legislatures' Also, the inability to ^'under­ processes does not necessarily breed 20Senator Thomas W. Schweigert, excerpt from speech to Odd Fellows Lodge, Laingsburg, Michigan, April 26, 1969. 21Froman, The Congressional Process, p. xi. 184 distrust, but it seems likely to stifle interest."22 Some of the consequences of the failure to understand the policy­ making process in the Congress have been well summed up by Clappy his observations apply equally to the state legisla­ ture; Many Congressmen attribute the failure of people to appreciate the congressman and the work he does to w i d e ­ spread ignorance regarding the mechanics of the congres­ sional operation. The public, it is said, tends to oversimplify the process and is incapable of grasping its intricacies. It does not understand that legislation itself is complicated and often not easy to appraise. As one Congressman said; "This government is so compli­ cated and people just don't realize it. They tend to equate legislation as being either good or bad. They oversimplify the problem. All legislation has some good and some bad in it, and it is a matter of determining where the balance is." ... "The public feels that if you understand a problem exists and is acute you can solve it quickly by introducing corrective legislation," stated one member. "People don't understand the parliamentary situation or how things get passed. They think the minute you see the light you can achieve your goal. That just isn't true." 3 Educators who understand the political process are likely to be more effective leaders in educational improve­ ment. They will be considerate of the difficulties involved in gaining legislative support for educational proposals. 22William J. Keefe, "The Functions and Powers of the State Legislature," State Legislatures in American Politics, ed. Alexander Heard (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 61. 2sClapp, The Congressman, pp. 483-484. 185 Implications for Colleges of Education The need for school administrators to understand the legislative policy-making process suggests that in their program of preparation major attention should be given to the reality of politics. There is a need not only to draw on the concepts and research of the social sciences where political behavior has been systematically analyzed, but to extend these concepts from the campus to the real world, well. as In addition to the typical college-based courses and seminars, opportunities must be provided for administrators to meet with legislators and to view the legislative process through their eyes. Although it may not be possible for all administrators to have first-hand experience as legislative employees, alternative experiences designed to give them a "feel" for the legislature should be planned. makes clear, As Dexter it is important to acquire a Capitol point of views I doubt very much whether there is any substitute for learning the Washington atmosphere; only a real political genius can get along as well in government relations without knowing how to handle cues and clues from a Washington point of view.... However, a man who is Washinqton-based will usually find himself, to some extent, in difficulties with his home-based colleagues, clients, or employers. A repre­ sentative of a business firm who acquires Washington view­ points, or who even tries to explain to top management what Washington's viewpoint is, is under suspicion. He is no longer one of the group; he is speaking for an 186 “alien influence," talking "politically" rather than with business sense.24 Internships, or other field experiences for which course credit is given might be arranged. Perhaps some administra­ tors in training could be placed in legislative and other government offices in much the same way teachers in training receive student teaching. Further, given the increasing involvement of the legislature in educational policy-making, it is desirable that those responsible for the training of administrators have had some first-hand experience in the legislative process- This is particularly true of those involved in programs intended to familiarize the administrators with the policy-making process— an understanding of the legisla­ ture 's point of view would seem to be an essential pre­ requisite- As a result of his experience as a member of the staff of the Michigan Legislature, the researcher is firmly convinced there is no better way to develop an understanding of the processes and procedures which are used in the legis­ lative consideration of educational issues than direct par­ ticipation in the legislative policy-making process. Colleges of education are encouraged, therefore, to aggres­ sively seek opportunities for selected members of the faculty to work with legislative committees as consultants and 24Lewis A- Dexter, How Organizations are Represented in Washington (New Yorks The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc-, 1969), pp- 12-13- 187 resource persons, and should also consider offering leaves to permit employment on the staff of the legislature or executive office. It is recognized that all professors may not have an interest in the workings of the legislature, the ability to relate effectively with members of the legisla­ ture, nor an appreciation of the fact that it requires a very special kind of ego to survive the trials and tribula­ tions of the election process. Implications for Professional Associations Professional associations, too, have a role to play in the training of school administrators. ences, conventions, and seminars, Through confer­ these associations— individually and collectively— attempt to contribute to the inservice development of their members. One example of these efforts was a series of association sponsored seminars on "School Management Problems" held throughout the State of Michigan during the spring of 1971. The seminars were sponsored by the Michigan Association of School Boards and the Michigan Association of School Administrators, in coop­ eration with the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, the Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, and the Michigan Congress of School Administrator Assoqiations. Professional associations should join with the colleges in providing school administrators with pre-service 188 and in-service experiences in the legislative policy-making process. One possibility might be a workshop similar to that conducted by the researcher during his period of service as an employee of the Michigan Senates Thirty school administrators from the 19 constituent school districts of the Kent Intermediate School District spent Wednesday, February 10th, in the capitol as guests of Senator Robert VanderLaan of the 31st Senatorial District. Senator VanderLaan arranged the legislative workshop as a service to school administrators in cooperation with Albert L. Deal, Kent Intermediate Superintendent. Mr. Kenneth DePree, Executive Assistant to the Senate Majority Leader, conducted the all day meeting. The first meeting of the morning was spent with Mr. Charles Greenleaf, Assistant to the Governor for Policies and Program (education), who discussed in detail the functions of the executive office in the educational policy making process. Senator Anthony Stamm, Vice Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, Representative Lucille McCollough, Chairman of the House Education Committee, and Represen­ tative Clifford Smart, House Minority Leader, discussed the functions of the Legislature in the educational policy making process. They spent a major portion of their time discussing the functions of the education com­ mittees . A luncheon was held by the Kent administrators for legislators from Kent County. Also attending were the program participants. The afternoon sessions opened with a detailed di s ­ cussion of the process whereby an idea finally becomes law. Senator VanderLaan discussed the process of intro­ ducing legislation, committee review, passage by one chamber and the process followed in the other chamber of the legislature. He covered the conference committee process and the alternatives open to the executive office after a bill has passed the legislature. Senator Milton Zaagman discussed in detail the different methods whe r e ­ by legislators approach legislation that is placed before them. 189 Three legislative agents, representing three Michigan school districts or groups of districts, discussed their functions in determining educational policy and in bring­ ing ideas to laws Jo Co Kolderman, Jr., Grand Rapids; Richard Smith, City of Detroit; and Gerald Dunn, Metro­ politan Detroit Council, stressed the methods which they use in getting information to legislators and maintaining contact with legislation affecting education. The final session of the day was a presentation by Gerald Faverman, Fiscal Analyst of the Legislative Fiscal Agencyo Mr. Faverman discussed the problems in trying to keep all units of government happy and still trying to live within the income of the state. He discussed the process of analyzing budgets, keeping up-to-date with current practices, and spreading the tax dollar where it will do the most good in light of the goals set by society.25 The associations should also take the lead in initi­ ating efforts to determine what the role of the local school superintendent in the educational decision-making process at the state level should be, and to determine which of the tactics and techniques available to influence the legislators representing his school district are most effective for the typical Michigan superintendent. Implications for High Schools The study of state government and politics is essen­ tial to the proper performance of the responsibilities of citizenship. The rapid growth in governmental functions and services during recent decades has made such study of in­ creased importance. The findings of this study, however, 25Donald S. Brumbaugh, "Kent Intermediate School District Legislative Workshop," M.A.S.A. Reflections, February, 1971, p. 3. 190 suggest that the high schools have not equipped their stu­ dents to understand the policy-making process of the legis­ lature. This view is supported by the literature? Jewell is a case in point: ... the average voter is woefully ignorant about the state legislature. He does not know what important bills are being considered or have been passed, and the subtle complexities of the legislative process are beyond his understanding and interest.2 & With the prospect that many high school students will be voting in state and national elections before graduation, the need— and the opportunity— to focus on the policy-making process have never been greater. 2 6Malcolm E. Jewell, Random House, 1962). The State Legislature (New Yorks BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Adrian, Charles R. Governing Our Fifty States and Their Communities. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1963. Anderson, William, Clara Penniman, and Edward W. Weidner. Government in the Fifty States. New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. American Association of School Administrators. Roles, Responsibilities, Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent and Staff. Washington, D.C.s American Association of School Administrators, 1963. Bailey, Stephen K. Congress Makes a L a w . Columbia University Press, 1950. New York; ________ , and others. Schoolmen and Politics; A Study of State Aid to Education in the Northeast. Syracuse; Syracuse University Press, 1962. Bell, George A., and Evelyn L Wentworth. The Legislative Process in Maryland. College Park; Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland, 1958. Berman, Daniel M. In Congress Assembled; The Legislative Process in the National Government. Toronto: Collier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd., 1964. Blair, George S. Process. American Legislatures: Structure and New York; Harper and Row, 1967. Campbell, William G. Form and Style in Thesis Writing. 3d ed„ Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Carr, Robert W. Government of Michigan Under the 1964 Constitution„ Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1967. Clapp, Charles L. The Congressman: His Work as He Sees I t . Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963. 191 192 Conant, James B. Shaping Educational Policy. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1964. Crane, Wilder, Jr., and Meredith W„ Watts, lative Systems. Englewood Cliff s s Inc., 1968. Dexter, New Yorks Jr. State Legis­ Prentice-Hall, Lewis A. How Organizations are Represented in Washington. New Yorks The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1969. Downie, N. M . , and R. W. Heath. Basic Statistical Methods. New Yorks Harper & Row, 1970. Fischer, Floyd C. The Government of Michigan. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Froman, Games, Boston: Lewis A., Jr. The Congressional Processs Strategies, Rules, and Procedures. Bostons Little, Brown and Company, 1967. Paul A., and George R. Klare. Elementary Statistics: Data Analysis for the; Behavioral Sciences. New Yorks McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Good, Carter V. Introduction to Educational Researchs Methodology of Design in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 2d ed. New Yorks Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1963. Granrud, John. The Organization and Objectives of State Teachers Association. New Yorks Bureau of Publica­ tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1926. Grant, Daniel R., and H. C. Nixon. State and Local Govern­ ment in America. Bostons Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1963. Grieder, Calvin, Truman M. Pierce, and William E. Rosenstengel. Public School Administration. New Yorks The Ronald Press Company, 1961. Hagman, Harlan L. The Administration of American Public Schools. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, 1951. Heard,- Alexander (ed.). State Legislatures in American Politics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Jewell, Malcolm E. The State Legislature. Random House, 1962. New Yorks 193 Jewell, Malcolm E. and Samuel C. Patterson. The Legislative Process in the United States. New Yorks Random House, 1966. Keefe, William J., and Morris S. Ogul. The American Legis­ lative Processs Congress and the States. Englewood Cliffss Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Kenyon, Beryl I., and T. Thomas Thatcher (comp.). Michigan Legislative Handbook. Lansings Speaker-Hines and Thomas, Inc., 1969. Kimbrough, Ralph B. Political Power and Educational DecisionMaking . Chicagos Rand McNally and Company, 1964. Legislative Council. Michigan Legislator1s Guidebook. Lansings Legislative Service Bureau, 1969. Lockard, Duane. The Politics of State and Local Government. New Yorks The Macmillan Company, 1963. Masters, Nicholas A., Robert H. Salisbury, and Thomas H. Eliot. State Politics and the Public Schoolss An Exploratory Analysis. New Yorks Alfred A. Knopf, 1964. Merriam, Robert M . , and Rachel M„ Goetz. Going Into Politics. New Yorks Harper and Brothers, 1957. Miller, Van. The Public Administration of American School Systems. New Yorks Macmillan, 1965. Morphet, Edgar L. and David L. Jesser (eds.). Emerging Designs for Educations Program, Organization, Operation and Finance. Denvers Designing Education for the Futures An Eight-State Project, 1968. Press, Charles, and Oliver P. Williams (eds.). Democracy in the Fifty S t ates. Chicagos Rand McNally and Company, 1966. Rigby, Gerald. State and Local Government and Politics. Belmont, Calif. s Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., 1969. Rummel, J. Francis. .An Introduction to Research Procedures in Education. 2d ed. New Yorks Harper & Row, 1964. Selltiz, Claire, and others. Research Methods in Social Relations. New Yorks Holt-Dryden Company, 1959. 194 Smith, Henry L. An Introduction to Research in Education. Bloomingtoni Educational Publications, 195 9. Smith, Rhoten A., and William K. Hall. The Life of a B i l l . Lawrences Governmental Research Center, The Univer­ sity of Kansas, 1967. Steiner, Gilbert Y . , and Samuel K. Gove. Legislative Politics in Illinois. Urbanas University of Illinois Press, 1960. Truman, David B . The Governmental Process. Alfred A. Knopf, 1965. New Yorks Usdan, Michael D. The Political Power of Education in New York Sta t e . New Yorks Institute of Administra­ tive Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Wahlke, John C., and others. The Legislative Systems Explorations in Legislative Behavior. New Yorks John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. and Heinz Eulau (eds.). Legislative Behavior. Glencoes The Free Press, 195 9. Wilder, Young, Philip S., Jr., and Karl O'Lessker. to Indiana Government and Politics. Indiana Sesquicentennial Commission, Introduction Indianapoliss 1967. Pauline V., and Calvin F. Schmid. Scientific Social Surveys and Researchs An Introduction to the Back­ ground, Content, Methods, Principles, and Analysis of Social Studies. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. PERIODICALS Allen, James E., Jr., "New Impact for the Federal Partner," Compact, August, 1969, pp. 48-50. Brown, Charles H . , "How to Get a Bill Through Congress," T od a y 1s Education, March, 1969, pp. 30-31. Carr, William G., "School Legislation as a Factor in Produc­ ing Good Schools," American School Board Jour n a l , December, 1930, pp. 37-38. Crane, Wilder, Jr., "The Politics of Education," The Educa­ tional For u m , January, 1959, pp. 201-204. 195 Ferrer, Terry, "Conant Revisited," Saturday Review, March 18, 1967, pp. 56-57. Harrington, John H . , "Lessons from Legislators," The American School Board Journal, January, 1968, pp. 6-7. James, H. Thomas, "Schools Are in Politics, " The Nat i o n 1s Schools, October, 1958, pp. 53-55. Judd, C. H . , "Education and Politics," Educational Record, July, 1931, pp. 253-264. Leeper, Robert R., "Politics and School," Educational Leader­ ship, January, 1969, pp. 326-327. Maguire, John W . , "Political Action and America's Teachers," School and Society, January, 1969, pp. 22-23. McAndrews, J. Briggs, "The Power Shifts Policy Formulation in Transition," The Clearing House, November, 1969, pp. 161-163. Milbrath, Lester W., "Lobbying as a Communication Process," Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, I960, pp. 32-53. Phi Delta Kappan, February, 1968, p. 340. Pierce, Wendell H., "The Politics of Education," Phi Delta Kappan, February, 1968, pp. 335-336. Rollins, Sidney P-, "Pressure Groups and Their Influence on Public Education," The Clearing H o u s e , October, 1959, pp. 113-115. Staffebach, Elmer H., "Policy Making by Teacher's Organiza­ tions? State Associations' Standpoint," The A n n a l s , 1935, p. 182. Tatroe, Donald O ., "It's Time to Participate," Michigan Association of School Boards Journal, April, 1970, p. 9. Wagoner, David E . , "You are a Politician, All Right," The American School Board Journal, September, 1969, pp. 33-35. Walker, Robert A., "Political Science and the Educator," Educational Leadership, May, 1956, pp. 474-479. 196 NEWSPAPERS Longstaff, Robert H., "Politics Engulfs Question of Michigan Ed Appropriations," The Flint Journal, March 22, 1970, p. 51. _________, and William E. Cote, "Horse-Trading Smooths Legis­ lature's Path," The Flint Journal, June 30, 1968, p. 29. UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS Azzarelli, Joseph John. "Decision Making and the Politics of Public Education in New York States A Research Plan." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1962. Battles, Edward E. "Preparing, Promoting and Enacting School Legislation in Oklahoma." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1949. Bedore, Clifford Joseph, Jr. "Legislators' Reported Informa­ tion Sources for Educational Legislation." Unpub­ lished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer­ sity, 1968. Corey, A. F., and R. H. Strickland. "Legislative Policies and Procedures Used by State Educational Associa­ tions." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univer­ sity of Southern California, 1956. De Vries, Walter D. "The Michigan Lobbyists A Study of the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. Dodson, Edwin Stanton. "A Study of Communication Between Nevada State Legislators and Certain Lobbyists When Related to Financing Public Education." Unpub­ lished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1967. Dodson, James M. "A Comparative Study and Analysis of Selected Procedures in Achieving Desirable School Legislation." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1962. 197 Eisenberg, Ralphs "Local Legislation and the Legislative Process in New Jersey/' Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1961. Fahey, Lawrence J. "The California Legislature and Educa­ tional Decision-Making." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School and Univer­ sity Center, 1966. Goodwin, Harold Irving. "A Framework for Education Policy Formation in California." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1966. Hornbostel, Victor 0. "The Formulation of State Public School Finance Policy in Wisconsin, 1927 to 1951." Unpub­ lished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1954. Hurwitz, Emanuel, Jr. "The Illinois Educational DecisionMaking Systems Some Predictions and An Analysis." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1966. Johnson, John S. "Leadership Process in the Development of Missouri School Reorganization L a w . " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1953. Lowery, Leroy Ramsey. "A Study of the Search Process of the Education Committee of the California State Legis­ lature." Unpublished D o c t o r a l dissertation, Univer­ sity of California, Berkeley, 1966. Mantel, S. J., Jr. "The Politics of Public Education in Vermont." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1951. Marsolais, Robert Joseph. "Forces Which Produce Educational Legislation in California; An Exploratory Study of the Miller-Unruh Basic Reading Act of 1965." Unpub­ lished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1969. Marty, Ralph E. "State Departments of Education and Their Influence on Secondary School Curriculum Improve­ ment." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1958. Ness, Paul Fredrick. "Forces and Techniques Which Influence Educational Legislation in Colorado." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1966. 198 Niess, Charles F. "A Study of Some Forces Which Tend to Influence State Legislators in Decisions on Educa­ tional Legislation." Unpublished Doctoral disserta­ tion, Colorado State College, 1962. Parrish, Lonny Ray. "A Study of the Communication Behavior of the Local Superintendent of Schools." Unpub­ lished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma Graduate College, 1968. Sarvis, Robert E. "Legislative Specializations A Study of the Effect of the Legislative Interim Committee on Education." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1968. Schaeffer, John Robert. "Legislator Perceptions of the Role and Performance of Elementary School Principals in California." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1969. Starkey, Albert Edison. "State Level Educational DecisionMaking in Texas." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, 1966. Wiley, Eldon Lee. "A Study of the Role of the School Admin­ istrator in State Level Politics." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1966. Wiley, Walter Deane. "Political Interaction of Education and the California Legislature 1849-1963." Unpub­ lished Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School and University Center, 1966. Womack, Bob. "The Enactment of a State School Program in Tennessee." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College, 1956. OTHER SOURCES Congressional Quarterly Service. Legislators and the Lobby­ ists . Washingtons Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1968. Dykes, Archie R. "The Dilemma of the School Superintendent.' Paper read at the 2 9th Annual Meeting of the Nation­ al School Boards Association, April, 1969, Miami, Florida. 199, Ferguson, Le Roy Craig. How State Legislators View the Problem of School Nee d s . Washington; United States Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 532(8166), 1960. Iannaccone, Laurence. "The State and Educational Policy Formulations Prospects for the Future." Paper read at the American Educational Research Association convention, February, 1969, Los Angeles, California. Jennings, Robert E., and Mike M. Milstein. "Educational Policy Making in New York States Sources of Informa­ tion and Advice Used by Legislators." Paper read at the American Educational Research Association con­ vention, March, 1970, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Manley, Michael A. "State Politics and Educational Policy: A View From the Legislature." Paper read at the American Educational Research Association convention, February, 1969, Los Angeles, California. Michigan Department of Education. Annual Reports 1968-69. Lansings Michigan Department of Education, 1969. Rozzell, Forrest. "The Politics of Education: To Lobby or Not to Lobby." Paper read at the American Associa­ tion of School Administrators convention, February, 1968, Atlantic City,' New Jersey. Wayson, W. W. "Political Concepts and the Development of Educational Administrators." Paper read at the conference on "Designs for Incorporating Concepts from Social Sciences into Preparatory Programs for Educational Administrators," sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration, March, 1967, Columbus, Ohio. Worksheets on Legislative Acti o n . Washingtons ation Clearing House, 1950. Youth Conserv­ APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS WIT H THE INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (LEGISLATOR FORM) 200 201 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 December 9, 1970 Inside Address Dear______________________ s You are one of 64 superintendents selected to take part in a study regarding superintendents and the legislature. This study has the active endorsement of the Michigan Association of School Administrators, and is being conducted under the direction of the College of Education, Michigan State Uni­ versity. Enclosed is a questionnaire which asks you to describe, as accurately as you can, your activity during the past 12 months with regard to educational decision making at the state level. You are also asked for the name of the Senator and the Representative you consider the principal representatives of your school district in the Michigan Legislature. Since only a small sample of superintendents is involved, every questionnaire is vitally important to the end results. For purposes of this study, you have been assigned a number— your number is marked in the upper left hand corner of the questionnaire. A second questionnaire will be sent you in the near future; this number insures that the results of both will be properly compiled. Please be assured, however, that no superintendent, legislator, or school district will be identified in the results of the study. All replies will be treated statistically. Please complete the questionnaire as accurately as you can. Tests have shown that it will take you about 15 minutes. There are no right or wrong answers; report only your actual activity during the past 12 months with regard to educational decision making at the state level. Upon completion of the study, you will be sent a summary of the results. I would appreciate your returning the questionnaire to me by December 23rd. A stamped, self addressed envelope is en­ closed for your convenience. Sincerely, Kenneth R. De Pree Project Director .APPENDIX B LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY 202 MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 1019 T row bridge R oad East Lansing, M ichigan 4 8 8 2 3 T e le p h o n e 3 5 1 - 9 4 1 0 A rea C od e 5 1 7 Office of th e E x e c u tiv e S e c r e ta r y December 9, 1970 Dear Superintendents As you know, the role of our members in state level education­ al policy making has received major emphasis this year. There was considerable discussion regarding this topic on the Island, and further attention is contemplated for our upcoming conference in Grand Rapids. The enclosed questionnaire is part of a study which may shed further light on this subject. Your Board of Directors has endorsed this study, believing it will assist M.A.S.A. in efforts to become more influential in the educational policy making process in the Michigan Legislature. The study is being conducted by Mr. Kenneth De Free, under the direction of the College of Education, Michigan State University. Formerly superintendent of the Northview Public Schools, Ken is presently serving as Assistant to the Majority Leader, Michigan Senate. You are one of 64 superintendents randomly selected to take part in this study. I hope that you will find it possible to participate. Although the findings of this study will be published, neither you nor your school district will be identified in any way. Consequently, I urge you to complete the questionnaire as accurately as you can. The extent to which the study will benefit M.A.S.A. is directly related to the candor of the participants. Sincerely yours, Austin F. Bates Executive Secretary APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS REGARDING THE INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (SUPERINTENDENT FORM) 20 5 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 December 24, 1970 Inside Address Dear_________ ^____________ ; Several weeks ago you were sent a letter asking you to participate in a study regarding superintendents and the legislature. Included was a questionnaire for you to com­ plete and return. Since your completed questionnaire has not been received, I'm assuming the previous letter (or your response) was either lost in the Christmas mail or overlooked in the ex­ citement of a busy holiday season. Every questionnaire is vitally important; only 64 superin­ tendents have been selected to take part. Will you cooperate in this study by completing the enclosed questionnaire at your earliest convenience and returning it in the stamped, self addressed envelope provided for your use? Happy New Year! Sincerely, Kenneth R. De Free APPENDIX D INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (SUPERINTENDENT FORM) 206 207 INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY Superintendent Form PURPOSE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE; On the following pages are some statements about ways in which a school superintendent might become involved in edu­ cational decision making at the state level. Each item describes a specific kind of activity, but it does not ask to judge whether the activity is desirable or undesirable. Each item should be considered a separate description. Although some items may appear similar, each is a separate statement about how a school superintendent might become involved in educational decision making. There are no right or wrong answers. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, your activity during the past twelve (12) months with regard to educational decision making at the state level. Neither you nor your school district will b e identified in the reporting of the results of this study. All replies will be treated statistically. Directions s 1. Read each item carefully. 2. Think about how frequently you have engaged in the activ­ ity described by that item DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS 3. Draw a circle around one of the five choices (0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+) following the item to show how frequently you have acted as described by the item during the past twelve m o n t h s . 0 Never 1-3 = One to three times 4-6 = Four to six times 7-9 = Seven to nine times 10-+ = Ten or more times 208 4. Mark your answers as shown in the example below. Example; Example s Examples Examples During the past 12 months I never engaged in the described activity........QOy 1-'-3 4-6 During the past 12 months I engaged in the described activity seven times...... 0 1-3 4-6 During the past 12 months I engaged in the described activity two times........ 0 During the past 12 months I engaged in the described activity fifteen times.... 0 -3) 1-3 7-9 10-+ 10-+ 4-6 7-9 10-+ 4-6- 7-9 ^10-+J 5. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH ITEM AS ACCURATELY AS YOU CAN. 6. When you have completed the questionnaire, it to; please return Kenneth De Pree 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 A stamped, self addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience. to. . 209 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS I— Number of Times 1.— -met with other educators to discuss legislative topics..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 2.— discussed with members of the school staff the effect of cer­ tain bills then before the legislature on local school proam s oo.o.o. ...o*.............. 0 1—3 4 —6 7 -*9 10 - + 0 1 — 3 4 —6 7 10- + 4.--sought the support of area Republican or Democrat Party organizations for an education issue requiring legislative ....... action. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 5.--expressed my views on certain bills then before the legisla­ ture to representatives or senators other than those representing my school district; a. By telephone........... b. By personal contact.... c. By letter.............. 0 0 0 1-3 1-3 1-3 4-6 4-6 4-6 7-9 7-9 7-9 10- + 10- + 10 - + 6.— conducted grassroots campaign to inform and arouse district residents regarding the need for particular school legisla­ tion. . 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 7.— served on a professional associ­ ation or state department com­ mittee seeking legislative action. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 8.— discussed with my board of edu­ cation the effect of certain bills then before the legisla­ ture on local school programs.. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 9.— presented unsolicited testimony regarding an education issue before a committee of the legislature. 0 7-9 10-+ --encouraged district residents to petition the legislators representing our school dig-; trict regarding an education’ issue requiring legislative a l"1 t —T . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 1-3 4-6 9 210 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS I— 10.— contributed to the election campaign fund of candidates for election to the legisla­ ture Number of Times 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 11.— encouraged school district residents to be present in the chamber on the day the legisla­ ture voted on a certain educa­ tion issue. ...... .. . 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 12.— attended meetings at which legislators, the governor, or members of his staff dis­ cussed legislative topics 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 13.— promoted the establishment of a local citizens' committee to seek legislative action....... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 14.— asked members of the school staff to express their views on certain bills then before the legislature to their repre­ sentative or senator..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 15. • — sought the endorsement of lo­ cal civic groups for an educa­ tion issue requiring legisla­ tive action. ..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 16.— stimulated district residents to write letters to the gover­ nor about certain education issues........................ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 17.— joined with representatives of other interest groups (e.g., Farm Bureau, labor groups, etc.) in an effort to influence leg­ islation. ..................... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 18.— publicly endorsed candidates for election to the legisla­ ture. ..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 19.— was invited by a committee of the legislature to present testimony regarding an educa­ tion issue. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 211 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS I— 20.— asked members of the board of education to express their views on certain bills then before the legislature to legislators representing the district. ............ Number of Times 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 21.— circulated nominating peti­ tions for candidates for elec­ tion to the legislature.... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 22.— asked particular individuals to call upon specified legis­ lators to discuss certain education issues.............. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 23.— stimulated school district residents to write letters about certain education isr sues to the legislators repre­ senting the school district... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 24.-— became a candidate for elec­ tion to the legislature...... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 25.— asked members of the school staff for suggestions regard­ ing possible legislation to solve particular school problems .... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 26.— went to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular educa­ tion issue.................... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 27.— attended meetings at which State Department of Education representatives discussed legislative topics. ........ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 28.— asked members of my board of education to express their views on certain bills then before the legislature to their school board association 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 212 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS I— Number of Times Legislators Representing My School District 29.--invited "my" representative or senator to visit our schools to view certain programs in ................... operation. 30.— without being asked, informed "my" representative or senator of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs: a. By telephone............. 0 b. By personal contact.... 0 c. By letter........... 0 31.— took "my" representative or senator to lunch........... 32.— was asked by "my" representa­ tive or senator to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems.... 4-6 7-9 10-+ 1-3 4-6 1-3 4-6 1-3 4-6 7-9 7-9 7-9 10- + 10- + 10- + 01-34-6 7-9 10- + 0 1-3 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + — if asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particu­ lar school problems 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 33.— invited "my" representative or senator to discuss education matters with other educators.. 0 34.— requested "my" representative or senator to take part in public meetings in which educa­ tion issues requiring legisla­ tive action were discussed.... 0 35.— publicized the voting record of "my" representative or senator on certain education issues......................... 36.— informed "my" representative or senator of the effects of certain laws on local school programs.................... 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 01-3 4-6 7-9 10 -+ 213 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS I— 37.— attended social activities at which "my" representative or senator was present........... 0 1-3 38.— was asked by "my" representa­ tive or senator for informa­ tion regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs.... 0 1-3 0 — if asked, informed "my" representative or senator of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. Number of Times 7-9 10-'+ 4-6 7-9 10- + 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 4-6 39.— visited the Capitol office of "my" representative or senator 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 40.— invited "my" representative or senator to speak to a class or other group of students....... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 41.— without being asked, made sug­ gestions to "my" representa­ tive or senator regarding pos­ sible legislation to solve particular school problems.... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 42.— invited "my" representative or senator to discuss legisla­ tive topics with the board of education. 0 The Governor and his Staff 43.— informed the governor or his staff of the effects of cer­ tain laws on local school pro­ grams ......................... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 44.— publicized the governor's posi­ tion on certain education issues................. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 45.— was asked by the governor or his staff for information r e ­ garding the effects of certain bills then before the legisla­ ture on local school programs. 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 0 214 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS I— — if asked, informed the governor or his staff of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. Number of Times 0 46.— invited the governor or m e m ­ bers of his staff to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were dis­ cussed. .S..O.09.90000.®....... 1-3 0 1—3 7-9 10-+ 4 —6 7— 9 10- + 4-6 47.— publicly endorsed a candidate for election to the office of governor. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 48.— without being asked, made sug­ gestions to the governor or his staff regarding possible legislation to solve particu­ lar school problems..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 0 l™ 3 4“ 6 7 """9 10 - + 49.— visited the Capitol office of the governor or members of his S f .. 0.00. . 0.00. 00.00..0.... 50.— without being asked, informed the governor or his staff of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school pro­ grams. ........................ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 51.— took members of the governor's staff to lunch................ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 52.— was asked by the governor or his staff to suggest possible legislation to solve particu­ lar school problems........... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + — if asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particu­ lar school problems.. 0 Professional Association (for example, MASA) 53.— informed my professional asso­ ciation of the effects of cer­ tain laws on local school pro­ grams ........................ . 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 215 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS I— 54.— was asked by my professional association to suggest pos­ sible legislation to solve particular school problems.... Number of Times --if asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particu­ lar school problems......... 55.— without being asked, informed my professional association of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 56.— was asked by my professional association to express my views on certain bills then before the legislature to my representative or senator..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + — if asked, expressed my views on certain bills then before the legislature to my repre­ sentative or senator.......... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 57.--without being asked, made sug­ gestions to my professional association regarding possible legislation to solve particu­ lar school problems........... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 58.— was asked by my professional association for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legisla­ ture would have on local progr ams o.ooooo.ooooo.o.oo....... 0 1—3 4 —6 7— 9 10- + -— if asked, informed my pro­ fessional association of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school progr a m s .......o. .............. 0 1—3 4 —6 7 —9 10- + 4-6 7-9 10-+ State Department of Education 59.— was asked by the State Depart­ ment of Education to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems.... 0 1-3 r~~ 216 DURING THE PAST 12, MONTHS I— Number of times — -if asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particu­ lar school problems...... *. „ . 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 60.— informed the State Department of Education of the effects of certain laws on local school programs ...................... 7-9 10- + 0 1-3 4-6 61.— was asked by the State Depart­ ment of Education for informa­ tion regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs......... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + — if asked, informed the State Department of Education of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school program.. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 62.— without being asked, made sug­ gestions to the State; Depart­ ment of Education regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems.... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + 63.— without being asked, informed the State Department of Educa­ tion of the effects certain bills then before the legisla­ ture would have on local school programs...................... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10- + 64.— was asked b y the State Depart­ ment of Education to express my views on certain bills then before the legislature to my representative or senator.. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - + — if asked, expressed my views on certain bills then before the legislature to my repre­ sentative or senator........ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ Information Please complete the following. 1. Date you began as superintendent of present district________________________ 2. Legislators you consider to be the principal representatives of your school district in the Michigan Legislature; Senator _____ ______________________________ Representative__________________________________ 3. If there are other legislators generally considered to represent your school district, please list them below; Senator _______________________________________ Representative, r" APPENDIX E INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (SUPERINTENDENT FORM) ITEMS GROUPED BY GENERAL CATEGORY 218 219 INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (SUPERINTENDENT FORM) ITEMS GROUPED BY GENERAL CATEGORY Direct Personal Communication 5. Expressed my views on certain bills then before the legislature to representatives or senators other than those representing my school district: a. b. c. 9. By telephone. By personal contact. By letter. Presented unsolicited testimony regarding an educa­ tional issue before a committee of the legislature. 19. Was invited by a committee of the legislature to present testimony regarding an educational issue. 26. Went to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular education issue. 30. Without being asked, informed "my" representative or senator of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs: a. b. c. 32. By telephone. By personal contact. By letter. Was asked by "my" representative or senator ^ „ suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. If asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 36. Informed "my" representative or senator of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 1Milbrath and De Vries divided the total techniques of lobbying into three broad categories: (1) direct personal communication, (2) communication through intermediaries, and (3) keeping channels of communication open. See Lester W. Milbrath, "Lobbying as a Communication Process," Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1960, pp. 32-53; and Walter D. De Vries, "The Michigan Lobbyists A Study of the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness" (unpublished Doctoral disserta­ tion, Michigan State University, 1960), pp. 142-209. 38. Was asked by "my" representative or senator for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. If asked, informed "my" representative or senator of the effects certain bills then b e ­ fore the legislature would have on local school programs. 41. Without being asked, made suggestions to "my" representative or senator regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 56. Was asked by my professional association to ex­ press my views on certain bills then before the legislature to my representative or senator. If asked, expressed my views on certain bills then before the legislature to m y representa­ tive or senator. 64. Was asked by the State Department of Education to express my views on certain bills then before the legislature to my representative or senator. If asked, expressed my views on certain bills then before the legislature to m y representa­ tive or senator. Communication Through Intermediaries 1. Met with other educators to discuss legislative topics. 2. Discussed with members of the school staff the effect of certain bills then before the legislature on local school programs. 3. Encouraged district residents to petition the legis­ lators representing our school district regarding an education issue requiring legislative action. 4. Sought the support of area Republican or Democrat Party organizations for an education issue requir­ ing legislative action. 6. Conducted grassroots campaign to inform and arouse district residents regarding the need for particu­ lar school legislation. 221 7. Served on a professional association or state department committee seeking legislative action. 8. Discussed with my board of education the effect of certain bills then before the legislature on local school programs. 11. Encouraged school district residents to be present in the chamber on the day the legislature voted on a certain education issue. 12. Attended meetings at which legislators, the governor, or members of his staff discussed legislative topics. 13. Promoted the establishment of a local citizens' committee to seek legislative action. 14. Asked members of the school staff to express their views on certain bills then before the legislature to their representative or senator. 15. Sought the endorsement of local civic groups for an education issue requiring legislative action. 16. Stimulated district residents to write letters to the governor about certain education issues. 17. Joined with representatives of other interest groups (e.g., Farm Bureau, labor groups, etc.) an effort to influence legislation. in 20. A.sked members of the board of education to express their views on certain bills then before the legis­ lature to legislators representing the district. 22. Asked particular individuals to call upon speci­ fied legislators to discuss certain education issues. 23. Stimulated school district residents to write letters about certain education issues to the legislators representing the school district. 25. Asked members of the school staff for suggestions regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 27. Attended meetings at which State Department of Education representatives discussed legislative topics. 222 28. Asked members of my board of education to express their views on certain bills then before the leg­ islature to their school board association. 33. Invited "my" representative or senator to discuss education matters with other educators. 34. Requested "my" representative or senator to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were discussed. 35. Publicized the voting record of "my" representa­ tive or senator on certain education issues. 42. Invited "my" representative or senator to discuss legislative topics with the board of education. 43. Informed the governor or his staff of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 44. Publicized the governor's position on certain education issues. 45. Was asked by the governor or his staff for informa­ tion regarding the effects of certain bills then before the legislature on local school programs. If asked, informed the governor or his staff of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school p ro­ grams. 46. Invited the governor or members of his staff to take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were dis­ cussed. 48. Without being asked, made suggestions to the governor or his staff regarding possible legisla­ tion to solve particular school problems. 50. Without being asked, informed the governor or his staff of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. 52. Was asked by the governor or his staff to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. If asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 223 53= Informed my professional association of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 54. Was asked by ray professional association to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. If asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 55. Without being asked, informed my professional association of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would h ave on local school programs. 57. Without being asked, made suggestions to my pro­ fessional association regarding possible legisla­ tion to solve particular school problems. 58. Was asked by my professional association for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local programs. If asked, informed my professional associa­ tion of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. 59. Was asked by the State Department of Education to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. If asked, suggested possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 60. Informed the State Department of Education of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 61. Was asked by the State Department of Education for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. If asked, informed the State Department of Education of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. 62. Without being asked, made suggestions to the State Department of Education regarding possible legisla­ tion to solve particular school problems. 224 63. Without being asked, informed the State Department of Education of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. Efforts to Keep Channels of Communication Open 10. Contributed to the election campaign fund of candi dates for election to the legislature. 18. Publicly endorsed candidates for election to the legislature. 21. Circulated nominating petitions for candidates for election to the legislature. 24. Became a candidate for election to the legislature 29. Invited "my" representative or senator to visit our schools to view certain programs in operation. 31. Took "my" representative or senator to lunch. 37. Attended social activities at which "my" represen­ tative or senator was present. 39. Visited the Capitol office of "my" representative or senator. 40. Invited "my" representative or senator to speak to a class or other group of students. 47. Publicly endorsed a candidate for election to the office of governor. 49. Visited the Capitol office of the governor or members of his staff. 51. Took members of the governor's staff to lunch. APPENDIX F LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SENT TO LEGISLATORS WITH THE INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (LEGISLATOR FORM) 225 226 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 (Name of Senator or Representative) As part of a research project through Michigan State Univer­ sity, I am making a .study of the ways in which school superintendents get involved in educational policy making. 64 Michigan public school superintendents are involved in the study. You have been identified b y a participating superintendent as having represented his school district in the Legislature during the past 12 m o n t h s . The name of the superintendent will be found on the attached questionnaire. In order to complete the study, it is necessary for me to know how this superintendent's activity in the area of educa­ tional policy making at the state level is seen by the legislators representing his school district. That is the purpose of the questionnaire. Included in the questionnaire are some statements about ways in which a superintendent might become involved in the policy making process. Please respond to each statement by indicat­ ing how frequently the superintendent has engaged in the described activity during the past 12 m o n t h s . ALL INFORMATION GIVEN WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. NEITHER YOUR NAME NOR YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS WILL APPEAR AT ANY TIME IN THIS STUDY. If you have questions, or desire more information, please do not hesitate to let me know. You'll find me in Room 123 (Senator VanderLaan’s office), phone 3-0728. I would appre­ ciate having you return the completed questionnaire at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Kenneth De Pree PSs The letter in the lower left hand corner of the question­ naire indicates whether you have been identified by the superintendent as his Senator (S) or Representative (R). This information will be helpful in compiling the results. APPENDIX G FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO LEGISLATORS REGARDING THE INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (LEGXSLATOR FORM) 227 Inside Address Dear_________________: May I have your help? Enclosed is a shortened version of the questionnaire which I sent you earlier. I'd very much appreciate having you take a few minutes to complete it. I don't want to appear to "bug" you, however the project period is drawing to a close and I've about run out of time. I'm hopeful you may see your way clear to complete this shortened version within the next few days. Thanks, Kenneth De Pree PSs I work for Senator VanderLaan. The questionnaire can -be returned to me there. If you have any questions, please give me a call— -30797. APPENDIX H INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (LEGISLATOR FORM) 229 INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY Legislator Form PURPOSE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES On the following pages are some statements about ways in which a school superintendent might become involved in educational decision making at the state level. Each item describes a specific kind of activity, but it does not ask to judge whether the activity is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, each is a separate statement and should be considered a separate description. There are no right or wrong answers. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only pur­ pose is to make it possible for you to describe how you see the activity o f _________________________ , superintendent of the________________________ school district during the past twelve (12) m o n t h s . NEITHER YOU, THE SUPERINTENDENT, NOR HIS SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORTING OF THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY. ALL REPLIES WILL BE TREATED STATISTICALLY. When you have completed the questionnaire, it tos please return Kenneth De Pree 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 A stamped, self addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience. 231 Directions g Draw a circle around one of the five choices (0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+) following each item to show how frequently the superintendent has engaged in the activity described by the item during the past 12 m o n t h s . 0 = Never 1-3 = One to three times 4-6 = Four to six times 7-9 = Seven to nine times 10-+ = Ten or more times Examples Examples During the past 12 months he never engaged in the described activity....... MD J 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ During the past 12 months he engaged in the described activity five t i m e s ..... 0 &-6] 7-9 10-+ 1-3 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, _________________________ Superintendent Number of Times 1.— invited me to visit his dis­ trict's schools and view certain programs in operation.......... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 2.— informed me of the effects of certain laws on local school programs....................... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 3.— without being asked, informed me of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs s a. By telephone.......... By personal contact... b. c. By letter............. 0 0 0 1-3 1-3 1-3 4-6 4-6 4-6 7-9 7-9 7-9 10-+ 10-+ 10-+ 4.— invited me to discuss legisla­ tive topics with his board of ..... education. 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 232 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS,______ Superintendent Number of Times 5.— publicly endorsed my candidacy for election to the legislature 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 6.— was asked by me for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legisla­ ture would have on local school programs....................... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ — if asked, informed me of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 7.— visited my office in the Capitol........................ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 8.— invited me to speak to a class or other group of students..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 9.— was asked by me to suggest pos­ sible legislation to solve particular school problems..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ --if asked, made suggestions to me for possible legislation to solve particular school problems..................... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 10.— took me to lunch............... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 11.— requested that I take part in public meetings in which educartion issues requiring legisla­ tive action were discussed..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 12.— circulated my nominating peti­ tion for election to the legis­ lature. ........................ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 13.— without being asked, made sug­ gestions to me regarding pos­ sible legislation to solve particular school problems..... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 14.— publicized my voting record on certain education issues....... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 233 DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS,_________________________ Superintendent Number of Times 15.— invited me to discuss education matters with other educators.... 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-+ 16.— contributed to my election cam- ^1jEund o . o o o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.— came to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular educaL>1 0 n |LS S VIO O . . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 000 . 0 0. 0.00 18.— attended social activities at which I was present............. APPENDIX I INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (LEGISLATOR FORM) ITEMS GROUPED BY GENERAL CATEGORY $ 234 235 INFLUENTIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (LEGISLATOR FORM) ITEMS GROUPED BY GENERAL CATEGORYi D irect Personal Communication 2. Informed me of the effects of certain laws on local school programs. 3. Without being asked, informed me of the effects cer­ tain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs; a. b. c. 6. By telephone. By personal contact. By letter. Was asked by me for information regarding the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. If asked, informed me of the effects certain bills then before the legislature would have on local school programs. 9. Was asked by me to suggest possible legislation to solve particular school problems. If asked, made suggestions to me for possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 13. Without being asked, made suggestions to me regarding possible legislation to solve particular school problems. 17. Came to the legislature to "lobby" on a particular education issue. xMilbrath and DeVries divided the total techniques of lobbying into three broad categories; (1) direct personal communication, (2) communication through intermediaries, and (3) keeping channels of communication open. See Lester W. Milbrath, "Lobbying as a Communication Process," Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1960, pp. 32-53; and Walter D. De Vries, "The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study of the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness" (unpublished Doctoral disser­ tation, Michigan State University, 1960, pp. 142-209. Communication Through Intermediaries 4. Invited me to discuss legislative topics with his board of education. 11. Requested that I take part in public meetings in which education issues requiring legislative action were discussed. 14. Publicized my voting record on certain education issues. 15. Invited me to discuss education matters with other educators. Efforts to Keep Channels of Communication Open 1. Invited me to visit his district's schools and certain probrams in operation. view 5. Publicly endorsed my candidacy for election to the legislature. 7. Visited my office in the Capitol. 8. Invited me to speak to a class or other group students. of 10. Took me to lunch. 12. Circulated my nominating petition for election to the legislature. 16. Contributed to my election campaign fund. 18. Attended social activities at which I was present. APPENDIX J LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SENT TO KEY NON-LEGISLATORS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY 238 D e c e m b e r 29, 1970 (Name)_________________________ I need your help. As part of a study on school superintendents and the legis­ lature, I am attempting to (1) identify those aspects of the legislative decision making process considered important for Michigan public school superintendents to know, and (2) de­ termine the extent of the knowledge which they have of this process. Enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire being developed for this purpose. I would appreciate having you complete the questionnaire by responding to each item as follows? 1. Select the answer which most nearly describes the situation as it exists in the Michigan Legislature. 2. Indicate how important you believe it is for school superintendents to understand that particular aspect of the decision making process. Directions for completing the questionnaire are given on the cover sheet. Amy comments or suggestions you may have regarding the ques­ tionnaire will be greatly appreciated. Since it may be necessary for me to check back questionnaire has been marked with a number in hand corner. Please be assured, however, that name that goes with that number. You will not in the study. with you, your the lower left only I know the be identified I would appreciate having you return the completed question­ naire at your earliest convenience. You can either send it to my home (1616 Cambria Drive, East Lansing, 48823) or to my office in the Capitol (c/o Sen. VanderLaan). If you have questions, give me a call (373-0728) or stop in. Thanks1 If I can help you at any time, d o n 1t hesitate to call on meSincerely, Kenneth De Pree APPENDIX K LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SENT TO LEGISLATIVE LEADERS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY 239 240 Room 123, Senate January 27, 1971 (Name of Senator or Representative) May I have your help? As part of a research project through Michigan State Univer­ sity, I am making a study of the knowledges which Michigan public school superintendents have of the legislative policy making process. 64 superintendents are taking part in the study; each has been asked to complete the attached questionnaire. The ques­ tions are based on suggestions from staff members of the legislature and executive office, and legislative agents,. regarding aspects of the process the superintendents should generally know. The questions have been asked, the superintendents' answers must now be "scored." In short, I need an "answer sheet." Your help is needed. I would appreciate having you complete the questionnaire, indicating the correct answer for each question. The answer which you and other legislative leaders generally a^ree is correct will be the basis on which the superintendent's response to the question will be judged. If it is the same as yours it will be considered right, if not it will be considered wrong. Please be assured that neither opinions will be identified in of this study. your name nor your personal the reporting of the results I would appreciate having you complete and return the ques­ tionnaire at your earliest convenience. You can send it to me in Room 123 (Senator VanderLaan's office). Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kenneth De Pree APPENDIX L LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY 241 242 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Inside Address Dear_________________: Thank you for completing part one of the study regarding superintendents and the legislature. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. The enclosed questionnaire is the second (and final) pairt of this study. It consists of a series of questions about the legislative decision making process. Please answer them by selecting the response which most nearly describes how you think the situation exists in the Michigan Legislature. For purposes of this study, you have been assigned a number— your number is marked in the upper left hand corner of the questionnaire. Please be assured, however, that neither you nor your school district will be identified in the results of this study. The only purpose of the number is to insure that the results of this questionnaire, as well as the previous.one, are properly compiled. When completing the questionnaire, do not dwell too long on any one item. Tests have shown that it will take you about 15 mi n u t e s . Since only a few superintendents have been selected to take part in this study, every questionnaire is vitally important to the end results. I would appreciate your returning the completed questionnaire by February 5th. A stamped, self addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Again, your cooperation is greatly appreciated. I will send you a summary of the results of this study as soon as they are available. Best wishes! Sincerely, Kenneth R. De Pree Project Director gSS---~ APPENDIX M FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY 243 244 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Inside Address Dear________________ s Recently you received part 2 of the two part study regard­ ing superintendents and the legislature. Included was a questionnaire for you to complete and return. Since your completed questionnaire has not been received, I'm assuming it's been overlooked in the press of a busy school year. Every questionnaire is vitally important; only a few super­ intendents have been selected to take part. Will you cooper­ ate in this study by completing the enclosed questionnaire at your earliest convenience and returning it in the stamped, self addressed envelope provided for your use. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. I will send you a summary of the results of this study as soon as they are available. Sincerely, Kenneth R. De Pree Project Director APPENDIX N LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY 245 246 LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY INSTRUCTIONS: On the following pages are some questions about the legis­ lative decision making process in the Michigan Legislature. Please answer them by drawing a circle around one of the four letters (A B C D ) following each item to show the answer you have selected. A = Very Frequently B = Often C = Occasionally D = Rarely Do not dwell too long on any one item but select the answer which most nearly describes how you think the situation exists in the Michigan Legislature. Each item should be considered as a separate description. MARK YOUR ANSWERS AS SHOWN IN THE EXAMPLES BELOW: Examples Examples Examples The item Occasionally occurs as described. ............ The item Very Frequently occurs as described........... ........ . The item Often occurs as described. A B © D ® B C D A B C A © © c D Please respond to each item. Neither you nor your school district will be identified in the reporting of the results of this study. All replies will be treated statistically. When you have completed the inventory, please return it to s Kenneth De Pree 1616 Cambria Drive East Lansing, Michigan 48823 A stamped, self addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience. 247 A B C D Very Frequently________ Often_______ Occasionally_____ Rarely Bills are introduced in the Michigan Legislature for the purpose of making new laws or repealing or amending exist­ ing laws. Upon its introduction, each bill is given a designation indicating its house of origin and a number. Directions; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Please answer the following questions by draw­ ing a circle around one of the letters follow­ ing each item to show the answer you have selected. Bills introduced by influential legislators are likely to receive serious attention.... A B C D The degree of interest the sponsor commits to a bill is a major factor in determining its chance of passage. A B C D Proposals which are part of the governor’s legislative program are drawn up in the form of ordinary bills and introduced by members of the legislature. ....... A B C D A legislator will not introduce a bill un­ less he believes it will receive the sup­ port of a majority of thelegislators....... A B C D The choice of sponsor is an important one for interest groups desiring to have pro­ posals introduced. A B C D All bills introduced in the Michigan Legislature are re­ ferred to a standing committee by the presiding officer of the chamber. Directions; 1. Please answer the following question by drawing a circle around one of the letters following the item to show the answer you have selected. Bills are referred to the standing commit­ tee that most appropriately deals with the subject matter of the b i l l . ............... A B C D In the Michigan Legislature there are 32 standing commit­ tees in the House of Representatives and 14 in the Senate. Directions; Please answer the following questions by draw­ ing a circle around one of the letters follow­ ing each item to show the answer you have selected. A B C D Very Frequently_______ Often________ Occasionally_____ Rarely 12. Legislative party leaders influence decision making within the committee A B C I Hearings are held by the standing committees of the Michigan Legislature. Hearings are committee sessions for listening to witnesses. Directions; 1. 2. 3. 4. Please answer the following questions by draw­ ing a circle around one of the letters follow­ ing each item to show the answer you have selected. Hearings are the principal means employed by standing committees to secure facts and opinions as a basis for committee action on the bills referred to t h e m ............... D A B C D Committees give the appearance of listen­ ing to testimony, of weighing facts, of considering data, but in reality committee decisions are predetermined A B C D Standing committees use hearings tos Generate public support or opposition to '3 bx 1 1 . A S C O Provide interested parties with an opportunity to make their views known A B C D Obtain detailed knowledge and under­ standing of a proposal................ A B C D . . . o * . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . b. c. 6. C Hearings are held at the request of indi­ viduals or groups outside the legislature. a. 5. A B Committees notify persons known to be interested in a bill when a hearing on the bill is scheduled. A B C D Sponsors, proponents and opponents of controversial legislation solicit votes from committee members prior to committee hearings A B C D 250 All bills ready for floor action are listed on the chamber's legislative calendar„ Directions; 1. Please answer the following questions by drawing a circle around one of the letters following each item to show the answer you have selected. Leaders of the majority party determine priorities of bills to be considered on the floor.................................. A B C D The process of statute lawmaking in the Michigan Legislature involves passage of a specific bill^by the chamber. The votes of a majority of those elected and serving are general­ ly required, however action on certain matters requires the votes of 2/3 o Directions; 1. 2. Please answer the following questions b y draw­ ing a circle around one of the letters follow­ ing each item to show the answer you have Selected. On matters not directly affecting their major concerns, legislators rely on the judgment of colleagues they consider in­ formed and reliable........................ A B C D Legislative decisions are essentially agree­ ments between legislators, the governor, and representatives of groups affected by e IdX 1 1 A 6 C O O. 3. O O . O O O . Speeches on the floor persuade legislators llOW to VOte A B C 13 Proponents and opponents of a measure "work the floor" of the chamber in an effort to obtain the votes of their colleagues....... A B C D Legislators consider the political ramifi­ cations of their vote........ .............. A B C D C D C Ij . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... . . 0.00 a. 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . Negotiations between supporters and oppon­ ents of controversial bills are carried on outside of the legislative chambers and committee roo m s A Major controversial issues are decided on the basis of such factors as sectional interests, economic interests, or personal 3»Oy3 ! LlCS . A 0 .0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 00. O . M . 00. Q . . O . . 0 . 0 B 251 A B C D Very Frequently_______ Often________ Occasionally______ Rarely 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Legislators support their colleagues' bills if there is no objectionable effect on their own districts................... A B C D Legislators trade their vote on contested bills for support for their own bills.... A B C D Because of differences in constituencies, legislators have conflicting preferences regarding the best solution to problems on which particular bills are based...... A B C D On matters of other then the highest state importance, legislators vote the way they believe will win them support in their home district...................... A B C D B C D Bills divide the members of the legisla­ ture along party lines A The Michigan Legislature consists of two chambers— the House of Representatives and the Senate. Actions of the Legisla­ ture require the consent of both. Directionss 1. 2. 3. 4. Please answer the following questions by draw­ ing a circle around one of the letters follow­ ing each item to show the answer you have selected. Bills die if not approved by both cham­ bers during the two year term of the House of Representatives................. A B C D The majority party in each chamber is in a position to dominate the legislative process in that chamber.................. A B C D It is easier for a legislator to pass his bill in his own chamber than to have the other chamber pass i t . ................... A B C D Even though the parties take conflicting positions on a bill the vote on that bill may not reflect the disagreement because compromises are devised that make possible a bipartisan or non-partisan vote........ A B C D 252 A B C D Very Frequently_______ Often________ Occasionally______ Rarely 5. When a bill passes the Senate and House in different versions and neither chamber is willing to accept the o t h e r 's version, the differences are adjusted b y a confer­ ence committee........ . A B C D Persons and groups who are not members of the Michigan Legis­ lature may b e influential in the legislative process. Directions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Please answer the following questions by drawing a circle around one of the letters following each item to show the answer you have selected. The legislator solicits the support of interested groups for a bill which he is promoting. ....... A B C D The administration party unites in support of bills to which the -governor is strongly ................. committed. A B C D Legislative agents provide technical infor­ mation on b i l l s ...... A B C D Legislators look to the governor to recom­ mend ways of securing needed revenue rather than offer bills providing for tax in­ creases on their own....................... A B C D The responsibility for stimulating intense legislative activity on a bill rests with the interested group....................... A B C D Ideas for new bills and amendments to old bills come from interest groups............ A B C D B C D A B C D Legislators encourage competing interest groups to reach a friendly resolution of differences and then return to the legisla­ ture for ratification of the agreement Major bills must have the support of the governor if they are to receive serious consideration from the legislature......... A APPENDIX 0 LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY QUESTIONS LISTED IN ORDER OF DIFFICULTY 253, LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING INVENTORY QUESTIONS .L I S T E D .IN O R D E R .OF DIFFICULTY Question Correct Response Number of Correct Responses (N = 60) VF/Oa 60 Legislative party leaders influence decision making within the committee. VF/O 59 Legislators consider the political ramifications of their vote. VF/O 58 Bills introduced b y influential legislators are likely to receive serious attention. VF/O 57 Bills are referred to the standing committee that most appropriately deals with the subject matter of the bill. VF/O 57 The majority party in each chamber is in a position to dominate the legislative process in that chamber. VF/O 57 The chamber forces bills out of committees which refuse to act on them. 0/Rb 56 On matters not directly affecting their major concerns, legislators rely on the judgment of colleagues they consider informed and reliable. VF/O ^ e r y Frequently/Of ten Occasionally/Rarely 254 The choice of sponsor is an important one for interest groups desiring to have proposals introduced. 55 continued APPENDIX O — continued Question Correct Response Number of Correct Responses (N = 60) VF/O 55 Committee work is more important than debate and activity on the floor. VF/O 54 Major controversial issues are decided on the basis of such factors as sectional interests, economic interests, or personal loyalties. VF/O 53 Negotiations between supporters and opponents of contro­ versial bills are carried on outside of the legislative chambers and committee rooms. VF/O 52 The chairman decides which of the bills referred to his committee will receive committee consideration. VF/O 52 Legislative agents provide technical information on bills. VF/O 52 Legislators support their colleagues' bills if there is no objectionable effect on their own districts. VF/O 51 It is easier for a legislator to pass his bill in his own chamber than to have the other chamber pass it. VF/O 51 The degree of interest the sponsor commits to a bill is a major factor in determining its chance of passage. VF/O 51 continued 255. On matters of other than the highest state importance, legislators vote the way they believe will win them support in their home district. APPENDIX O— continued Question Correct Response Number of Correct Responses (N = 60) VF/O 50 Speeches on the floor persuade legislators how to vote. 0/R 50 When a bill passes the Senate and House in different versions and neither chamber is willing to accept the other's version, the differences are adjusted by a conference committee. VF/O 49 Because of differences in constituencies, legislators have conflicting preferences regarding the best solution to problems on which particular bills are based. VF/O 49 The administration party unites in support of bills to which the governor is strongly committed. VF/O 49 Committee amendments are intended to meet the objections of groups affected by the proposed legislation. VF/O 49 Leaders of the majority party determine priorities of bills to be considered o n the floor. VF/O 48 Bills which involve expenditure of state funds are referred to the Appropriations Committee after favorable action in the standing committee concerned with the subject matter of the bill. VF/O 46 continued 256 The legislator solicits the support of interested groups for a bill which he is promoting. APPENDIX O— continued Question Correct Response Number of Correct Responses (N = 60) VF/O 46 Proponents and opponents of a measure "work the floor" of the chamber in an effort to obtain the votes of their colleagues. VF/O 46 Standing committees use hearings to provide interested parties with an opportunity to make their views known. VF/O 46 Even though the parties take conflicting positions on a bill the vote on that bill may not reflect the disagreement because compromises are devised that make possible a b i ­ partisan or nonpartisan vote. VF/O 45 Hearings are the principal means employed by standing committees to secure facts and opinions as a basis for committee action on the bills referred to them. VF/O 44 The responsibility for stimulating intense legislative activity on a bill rests with the interested party. VF/O 44 Sponsors, proponents and opponents of controversial legis­ lation solicit votes from committee members prior to commit­ tee hearings. VF/O 43 Standing committees use hearings to generate public support or opposition to a bill. VF/O 43 257 Ideas for new bills and amendments to old bills come from interest groups. continued APPENDIX O— continued Question Correct Response Number of Correct Responses (N = 60) VF/O 43 Bills die if not approved b y both chambers during the two year term of the House of Representatives. VF/O 42 A legislator will not introduce a bill unless he believes it will receive the support of a majority of the legislators. 0/R 42 Efforts to defeat or modify a bill are confined within the committee itself; once a decision is reached by the committee those members who voted otherwise accept this decision and do not carry their case to the floor. 0/R 39 Proposals which are part of the governor‘s legislative pro­ gram are drawn up in the form of ordinary bills and introduced by members of the legislature. VF/O 37 If it appears there is a better solution to a problem than that proposed by a specific bill, committees trim, polish and tinker with the details of the original bill rather than drop the bill and start over. VF/O 37 Legislative decisions are-essentially agreements between legislators, the governor, and representatives of the groups affected by the bill. VF/O 37 258 Committees expect the sponsor to either demonstrate that his bill has provoked no opposition, or to provide arguments that will serve as justification for his colleagues votes. continued r APPENDIX O— continued Question Correct Response Number of Correct Responses (N = 60) VF/O 36 Committees notify persons known to be interested in a bill when a hearing on the bill is scheduled. VF/O 36 Committees give the appearance of listening to testimony,, of weighing facts, of considering data, but in reality committee decisions are predetermined. 0/R 35 By the time a committee reports a bill to the chamber much of the controversy has been removed from the bill. VF/O 34 Committees negotiate directly with spokesmen for groups affected by the proposed legislation. VF/O 34 The concept "died in committee"- may in fact mean no effort was made by the sponsor to bring the bill to the floor. VF/O 32 Standing committees use hearings to obtain detailed knowledge and understanding of a proposal. VF/O 30 Legislators look to the governor to recommend ways of securing needed revenue rather than offer bills providing for tax increases on their own. VP/O 30 continued 259 Major bills must have the support of the governor if they are to receive serious consideration from the legislature. APPENDIX O— continued Question Correct Response Number of Correct Responses (N = 60) VF/O 22 Hearings are held at the request of individuals or groups outside the legislature. VF/O 16 Legislators trade their vote on contested bills for support for their own bills. 0/R 9 Bills divide the members of the legislature along party lines. 0/R 7 260 Legislators encourage competing interest groups to reach a friendly resolution of differences and then return to the legislature for ratification of the agreement. APPENDIX P HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW 261 262 HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW S te p 1 B ill is filed for introduction with C lerk of the H ouse o r Secretary of th e Senate. Bill is introduced in either house of th e Legislature. S te p 2 B ill receives 1st and 2nd reading in the house in w hich it is intro­ duced (brief reading o f title of the b ill). S te p 3 B ill is referred to proper committee b y House Speaker o r Senate Presi­ dent. (All hills involving the a p ­ propriation of m oney must go to th e Appropriations Committee in th e Senate or th e House, after be­ in g considered b y th e proper com­ m ittee.) S te p 4 Committee considers bill: 1. Public hearings m ay be held. 2. Discussion a n d debate is con­ ducted by com m ittee members. 3. Voting records regarding com­ mittee action are available to the public fo r inspection. S te p 5 Committee m ay act on a bill in various ways: 1. Original bill reported with fa­ vorable recommendation. 2. Original bill w ith recommended committee am endm ents reported out. 3. Substitute b ill in place of origi­ nal bill reported out. °°4. Bill with adverse recommen­ dation reported out. ° ° 5 . Bill w ithout recommendation reported out. ° ° 6 . Bill reported out without recom­ mendation and with amend­ ments. 7. Bill reported out with the rec­ ommendation th a t it be referred to another comm ittee. 8. Postpone action indefinitely. 9. The bill is tabled. 10. Committee m ay refuse to take action on a bill. T h e bill would then die in comm ittee except in odd num bered years when it is considered a carry over hill and would be alive th e next session. H .—applies only to H ouse. S .—applies only to S enate. ° ° I n these cases, th e b ill is tabled on th e floor. A m ajority v o te o f th e m embers elected and s erv in g is required before th e bill m ay b e given further con­ sideration. 11. Bill may be defeated in commit­ tee. In this case, th e bill will not be reported out to the floor. A committee may b e discharged from consideration of a bill and the bill forced to the floor by a vote of a majority of th e members elected and serving th e house in w hich it is being considered. Prior notice of at least one day must be given to the Clerk of the House specifying the date on which the motion to discharge is to be made. S tep 6 If bill is reported out either favor­ ably with am endm ent o r substitute bill, Clerk or Secretary of appropri­ ate house places bill and the com­ m ittee report under the order of business Reports of the Standing Committees.” Bill and the amend­ m ents of the committee (if any) are then placed on the General Orders Calendar for consideration. A bill may also be m ade a special order of business on general orders or 3rd reading at a specified date.H No bill shall be passed by either house or become law until printed and in possession of each house for at least five days. S te p 7 T he Senate or the House then re­ solves itself into the Committee of the Whole. No roll call votes are taken in the Committee of the W hole. Unlimited debate may be conducted on the proposal at this step. The body then proceeds to consider the recommendations of the standing committee on the bill. In acting on the bill, the Committee has the same options regarding rec­ ommended action on a bill as the standing committee. (See Step 5) Amendments to the bill may be offered by any m em ber. A simple majority of members present and voting at the session of the Com­ m ittee of the W hole may adopt amendments to a hill. S te p 8 T he Committee of th e W hole is dissolved and the house returns to formal procedures. A majority of the members elected to and serving in the house is required to concur in recommendations m ade by the Committee of the W hole. The full house may approve the entire bill or accept or reject any or all of the amendments recom mended by the Committee of the W hole. The bill may also be tabled or referred back to the original or another committee at this point. Step 9 The b ill then receives its third read­ ing. E n tire bill is read in the Senate unless unanimous consent is given to consider bill read. T h e bill is read in its entirety in the H o’ unless four-fifths of the member, c .isent to consider bill read. T h previous question may be moved and debate cut off b y a vote of a m ajority of the m em bers present and voting. In the House, a motion to close debate must h a v e a minimum o f ten spon­ sors. Amendments, following third reading, must be approved by a vote o f a majority of th e members elected and serving. In th e Senate, am endm ents on third reading, must be seconded by a m ajority vote and approved by a majority o f members elected and serving. Step 10 Vote h e ld on final passage of the bill: 1. P assed by a m ajority of the m em bers elected to a n d serving in th e house on a roll call vote. 2. D e feated unless a majority of . th e members elected to and serving in the house vote favor­ ably. 3. R eturned to a com m ittee for fu rth e r consideration. 4. Postponed indefinitely or m ade a special order of business on a specified date.H 5. T ab led . 8. Reconsideration. W h e n a legislator gives notice to reconsider a bill, th e bill must b e h e ld in the H ouse or Senate u n til the next legislative day. Step 11 If th e b ill passes, it is sent to the other house of th e Legislature w here th e procedure regarding com­ m ittee assignment, com m ittee con­ sideration, etc. is sim ilar. (See Steps 1-10) A bill m ay be requested to be re­ turned b y the other house at this step b y a majority of those voting. Step 1 2 1. Bill may be passed by both houses in identical form and is o rd e re d enrolled and sent to the G overnor by the house in which th e bill originated. 2. B ill m ay pass in different forms a n d then must b e returned to th e house of origin. a. Amendments or substitute bill m ay be accepted in house of origin and then enrolled and sen t to the Governor. b. Amendments or posal may he n house of origin ar conference comm committee compo tors from both 1 houses must cor conference comml 3. Bill may be rejel S te p 13 1. Conference comm to compromise d tw een the two v bill. It can ( amendm ents not a. Conference c o m reach a compromi a report to both Legislature. If f committee report i both houses, th e 1 and sent to the the report is not there are a num t tives. The joint for various course arrive at agreemei S te p 14 1. Governor may sij will then becom days after session die, or a t some otl fied in the bill, i law at the time signs the bill, if have given the 1 effect by a tw oth e members eli serving in each 1 2. Governor may v bill then returns t w hich it originate sage stating the < jections. 3. T he Governor m to sign or veto then becomes law it has reached t desk. If the Legi adjourn sine die days, the unsignei becom e law. 4. T h e bill may b e r returned for addiI ation upon agree houses. S te p 15 1. Legislature may b y two-thirds vol elected and ser houses. 2. Bill may not rec votes and thus di 3. Bill may he tabl< attem pt to overrid Prepared fay the LEGISLATIVE SERVI 262 [. [ ■ I HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW i f troduction with I or Secretary of I either house of ibd 2nd reading jhich it is intro»g of title of the roper committee or Senate Presiivolving th e apley must go to Committee in louse, after beh e proper com- is bill: :may be held, debate is conmittee members, regarding com­ ae available to ispection. St on a bill in ported w ith falendation. th recommended idments reported i place of origi1out, ;rse recommenout. recommendation t without recomwith amendlt with the reclat it be referred nittee. indefinitely. id. 1 refuse to take ; The bill would inittee except in years w hen it is try over bill and the next session. c. e. U1 is ta b le d o n th e te of th e m em bers is required before liven fu rth e r con- f 11. Bill may be defeated in commit­ tee. In this case, the bill will not be reported o u t to the floor. A committee m ay be discharged from consideration of a bill and the bill forced to th e floor by a vote of a majority of the members elected and serving the house in w hich it is being considered. Prior notice of at least one day must be given to the C lerk of the House specifying the date on which the motion to discharge is to be made. S te p 6 I f bill is reported out either favor­ ably with am endm ent or substitute bill, Clerk or Secretary of appropri' ate house places bill and the com­ m ittee report u n d e r the order of business ‘Reports of the Standing Committees.” Bill and the am end­ m ents of the comm ittee (if any) are then placed on the General Orders Calendar for consideration. A bill m ay also be m ade a special order of business on general orders or 3rd reading a t a specified date.H N o bill shall b e passed by either house or become law until printed and in possession of each house for a t least five days. S te p 7 T h e Senate or th e House then re­ solves itself into the Committee of th e Whole. N o roll call votes are taken in the Committee of the W hole. Unlimited debate may be conducted on th e proposal at this step. The body then proceeds to consider the recommendations of th e standing com m ittee on the bill. In acting on th e bill, the Committee has the same options regarding rec­ ommended action on a bill as the standing committee. (See Step 5 ) Amendments to the bill may be offered by any member. A simple majority of m em bers present and voting at the session of the Com­ m ittee of the W hole may adopt amendments to a bill. S te p 8 T h e Committee of the W hole is dissolved and th e house returns to form al procedures. A majority of the members elected to and serving in the house is required to concur in recommendations made by the Committee of th e Whole. T he full house may approve the entire bill or accept or reject any or all of the amendments recommended by the Committee of th e Whole. The bill m ay also be tabled or referred back to the original or another committee a t this point. S te p 9 T he bill then receives its third read ­ ing. Entire bill is read in the Senate unless unanim ous consent is given to consider bill read. The bill is read in its entirety in the House unless four-fifths of the members consent to consider bill read. The previous question m ay be moved and debate cut off by a vote of a majority o f the members present and voting. In the House, a m otion to close debate must have a minimum of ten spon­ sors. Am endments, following third reading, m ust be approved b y a vote of a m ajority of the m em bers elected and serving. In the Senate, amendments on third reading, m ust be seconded by a majority vote and approved by a majority of mem bers elected and serving. S te p 10 Vote held on final passage of the bill: 1. Passed by a majority of the members elected to and serving in the house on a roll call vote. 2. Defeated unless a m ajority of the m em bers elected to and serving in the house vote favor­ ably. 3. Returned to a committee for further consideration. 4. Postponed indefinitely or m ade a special order of business o n a specified date.H 5. Tabled. 6. Reconsideration. W hen a legislator gives notice to reconsider a bill, the bill m ust be held in the House or Senate until the next legislative day. S te p 11 If the bill passes, it is sent to the other house of the Legislature where the procedure regarding com­ mittee assignment, committee con­ sideration, etc. is similar. (See Steps 1-10) A bill may be requested to b e re­ turned by the other house a t this step by a majority of those voting. S te p 12 1. Bill may be passed by both houses in identical form and is ordered enrolled and sent to the Governor by the house in w hich the bill originated. 2, Bill may pass in different forms and then m ust be returned to the house of origin. a. Amendments or substitute bill may b e accepted in house of origin and then enrolled and sent to the Governor. b. Amendments or substitute pro­ posal may be rejected in the house of origin and then sent to conference committee. (Special committee composed of legisla­ tors from both houses.) Both - houses m ust consent bo each conference committee report. 3. Bill may b e rejected. S te p 13 1. Conference committee attempts to compromise differences be­ tween the two versions of the bill. I t can consider only amendments not agreed upon. a. Conference c o m m itte e m ay reach a compromise and submit a report to both houses of the Legislature. If the conference committee report is approved by both houses, the bill is enrolled and sent to the Governor. If the report is not agreed upon, there are a num ber of alterna­ tives. T he joint rules provide for various courses of action to arrive at agreement. S te p 14 1. Governor may sign bill, which will then become law ninety days after session adjourns sine die, or a t some other time speci­ fied in the bill. A bill becomes law at the time the Governor signs the bill, if both houses have given the bill immediate effect by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house. 2. Governor m ay veto bill. The bill then returns to the house in which it originated with a mes­ sage stating the Governor’s ob­ jections. 3. The Governor m ay choose not to sign or veto bill. The act then becom es law 14 days after it has reached the Governor’s desk. If th e Legislature should adjourn sine die before th e 14 days, the unsigned bill does not become law. 4. The bill m ay be requested to be returned for additional consider­ ation upon agreement of both houses. S te p 15 1. Legislature may override veto by two-thirds vote of members elected and serving in both houses. 2. Bill may not receive necessary votes and thus die. 3. Bill may be tabled pending an attempt to override veto. P repared by the LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU April, 1971 APPENDIX Q PASSAGE OF A LEGISLATIVE BILL 263 264 PASSAGE OF A LEGISLATIVE BILL . . . a complicated procedure Committee / 2 Introduction in the House Reportof Committee Referred to Committee First & Second Reading Ploced on Calendar General Order for Committee Hearing Debate & by Who VTo Committee •m Committee Hearing * Senate! •• Bi llposses First& Second Reading Referred to Committee sent to Senate Vote on Fini May be referred to Committee for further ° study Report of Committee v. •*3 Third Reading for Placed on Colendar General Order for 's i Debate U Amendment by entire Senate v o t e o n F in a l P a ssa g e I f Bill possed in different V To House | fo rm B i l l moy be sent to a Conference Committee Conference Comm.ittee attempts to iron out differences between the Two Houses & may submit a Compromise Bi I fB i l lpasses i ti s returned to House » * And Hou•se • occepts chonges I t House rejects chonges I fBill passed both Houses in identical form enrolled and sent to the C B i l li senrolled and sent to the Governor I f Conference Committee reaches an agreement Report of Conference Committee sent to Both Houses C h a r t t r a c e s a B ill in tr o d u c e d in th e H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s . A B ill i n t r o d u c e d in th e S e n a te fo llo w s th e s a m e p r o c e d u r e sh o w n w ith S e n a te an d H o u se a c t io n r e v e r s e d . I fBoth Houses accept Compromise, B i l li senrolled ond sent to the Governor BILL BECOMES LAW I fGovernor Signs I fVetoed B i l li s repassed in each House by a two-thirds vote of the elected memb< Prepared b y the LEG ISLA TIV E SE R V IC E B U R E A U 264 PASSAGE OF A LEGISLATIVE BILL . . . a complicated procedure Committee / • • • First& Second Reading Third Reading for Report of Committee Referred to Committee Placed on Calendar General Order for C om m ittee H earing Debate & Amendment by Whole House \ j o Committee J \ Senate! r o .f l.. mittee Hearing I fB illpasses first& Second Reading Ito Committee Referred sent to Senate Vote on Fmol Possage fB i l l fails to pass Moy be referred to Committee for further study Third Reading for May receive no further consideration 'Si D e b a te U Amendment by entire Senate Placed on Calendar General Order for Vote on Final Possage * • _ • B i l l may t >a sent to > n re o Confere n c Committee erence Committee impts to iron'out Terences between Houses Cr m a y submit Compromise B i l l / A / / ym _ if Bin fl/g P a s s e d i V To House different IfB illfails to pass May receive no further consideration | posses i ti s returned to House H ou use And H o n r r o n t c h f a c c e p t sc c h anges a I f House rejects changes I fB illpossed both Houses in identical form enrolled and sent to the Governor Billi senrolled and sent to the Governor ference ; ereaches eement fConference tee sent to IfGovernor V e to e s the B i l l ,i ti sreturned to House in which i toriginated. Both Houses B ill in tr o d u c e d in th e H o u se o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s , sd in th e S e n a te fo llo w s th e s a m e p r o c e d u r e sh o w n H o u se a c t io n r e v e r s e d . e LEG ISLA TIV E SE R V IC E BU R E A U I f Both Houses accept Compromise Bill i senrolled and sent to the Governor BILL BECOMES LAW IfG o vern o r Signs GOVERNOR IfVetoed Bil li s repassed ineach House by a two-thirds vote of the elected membership. APPENDIX R NEWS RELEASE: THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 265 266 Rep. Clifford H. Smart Minority Leader Michigan House of Representatives I mentioned, in my last column, March 17, 1971 that today's state legislator must serve his constituents in two basic ways: in a problem-solving, information-providing and red-tape- cutting capacity; and in his traditional role of lawmaker, which has expanded to the point where he is expected to have a "working" knowledge of up to 5,000 bills and resolutions in a single term. Obviously, no individual, could have a detailed, no matter how capable or gifted, in-depth understanding of all the potentialities and ramifications of such a massive amount of legislation. This is why the committee system exists, and why it is frequently termed the "backbone" of the legislative process. The thousands of bills and resolutions that are intro­ duced in the Michigan Legislature are assigned, initial reading, to one of 33 committees in the House or 14 committees in the Senate. mittees, after an (Various additional special com­ joint committees and interim committees exist for other purposes.) At meetings that are open to the public, and at which interested citizens are frequently invited to testify, the individual committee gives each assignment measure the thorough degree of examination, discussion and debate that the entire body could not possibly provide. 267 What must a committee chairman or member look for in studying a proposed piece of legislation? Essentially, he must ask himself three vital questions: 1) What does the bill do? Exactly what does itchange, and what are the ramifications of that change? 2) Why is the bill needed? What problem does it solve? What injustice or deficiency or inequity does it strive to correct? 3) How much will the proposed change cost, and where will the money come from? benefits really worth the price? if anything, Are the predictable Are there hidden costs in the proposal, or fiscal implications for future years? Sometimes the answers to all these questions are obvious enough to be gained from a brief reading Sometimes extensive research is indicated, ofthe bill. and the commit­ tee must postpone its decision on the measure until after the "interim" period between sessions, when the time for more thorough study is available. We sometimes hear or read of a committee chairman "sitting" on an important piece of legislation, being "bottled up" in a committee. or a key bill But the fact is that committee members can vote to overrule a chairman and force consideration of any measure. And either house of the Legislature can vote to "discharge" a committee from further consideration of a bill, bringing it before the full body. When a committee decides to "report out" a measure, most often after striving to improve it with various 268 recommended changes or "amendments," it goes through dis­ cussion and debate in a second and third reading by the full House or Senate, during which both the committee amendments and any others proposed by members are voted upon by the entire body. Once passed in the "house of origin," Senate bills go to House committees and House bills go to Senate committees for a repetition of the same painstaking process. If the two houses disagree on the final form a measure should take, a special "conference" committee containing members of both is appointed to iron out the differences. And when a bill is finally approved b y a majority vote of both houses, the Governor, it can still be rejected or "vetoed" by in which case it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to become law. In this brief review of the legislative process, there are two basic points I might stress; First, the changing of any law or the creation of a new law is, and should be, a lengthy and difficult task, with repeated safeguards against the possibility of hasty or whimsical decisions. Second, your elected legislator can consult with the best expertise available— on the legislative staffs, various departments of state governments, universities, and elsewhere. of his colleagues, in the in our major He can listen to the arguments of the agents and officials who represent 269 numerous groups and professions, zens who write or phone him. and of the numerous citi­ He can determine the opinions of those he serves with questionnaires and polls. But in the last analysis, guided by all of this and by his own conscience, he and he alone must make the decisions that determine the course of state government. It is for this ultimate and essential responsibility, which cannot be subrogated or delegated, citizens he serves, jthat you, the passed judgment upon his qualifications and employed him at the polls last November. APPENDIX S NEWS RELEASE; THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 270 271 Senator Robert VanderLaan Booth Newspapers Column— 5/5/71 For Release Saturday, May 8, 1971 Who does the state legislator really represent? Does he reflect solely the views of the majority in his district or does he represent his entire constituency? If he is a Republican, does he represent the Republicans only in his district? If he is the Republican leader, does he automatically endorse all policies of the Governor? Does he express only the views of those who write in letters or deliver petitions? Does he represent the thinking of the whole state or just his own opinions? How does he finally arrive at his decisions on vital state issues? During meetings with constituents, are frequently asked the legislator. maker's vote is crucial, these questions Aware that each law­ our citizens want to know exactly how their legislators make up their minds on issues that ultimately affect many residents of our state. Although the most politically appealing reply may be, "I always vote with the majority of my constituents," this answer is no longer reliable nor credible in our modern-day representative democracy. As a result of our increased population and the growing complexity of govern­ ment, the New England town meeting democracy in which each citizen was aware of the issues and could cast his vote is 272 no longer possible. Even the legislator, contact with state government, who is in daily finds it difficult to keep pace with the many thousands of bills and amendments introduced each legislative session. Today’s state legislator must be more than solely a reflector of the opinions of the people back in his district. He must b e more than a human adding machine who tallies the "pros and cons" and then jumps off the fence to join the largest group. The crucial issues facing the Legislature today are far too complex to b e boiled down to a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Many viewpoints, in addition to those of the legis­ lator's constituency, must be considered before a final decision can b e reached, such as the general attitude of the citizens across the state, may receive, the petitions a legislator letters and phone calls to his office and, often of utmost importance, his own personal knowledge about the issue. Whether he is a Republican or a Democrat, the legislator will generally ask himself if the issue meshes with the ideology of his respective party and, if he is a Republican, with the policies of the Governor. All of these additional viewpoints offer the legis­ lator a wider perspective on the issues, bringing to light the many ramifications of a decision that might otherwise go unconsidered and making him more confident that his final decision is the right one, residents of our state. one that will benefit all the 273 One particular issue which well illustrates this point is the Governor's sweeping proposal to eliminate the property tax for school operation and to shift the burden of support for education to the state income tax. Basically, I support this proposal, but I cannot allow my final decision to be based solely upon the approval this measure has r e ­ ceived from property and homeowners across the state. I must also consider the inherent problems of this proposal, such as how the state will control and disburse funds to school districts, tuating economy, the possible negative effects of our fluc­ the possible breakdown of competition among school districts, and the general workability of the pro­ gram, brought to my attention by my colleagues in the Legislature, school administrators and my own experience in education. Presumably, the legislator is elected because the people have confidence in his judgment. My colleagues and I cannot expect our constituents to agree with our decision on every issue, just as our constituents cannot expect their legislators always to vote the way they would have voted. A favorable balance, however, reflects a responsive legislator and a well-informed public. The legislator has been given the right to cast his vote on behalf of the citizens of our state. It is his decision^-he has to live with it and oftentimes, defend it. The more knowledgeable he is, the more confident he will be that he has voted in your best interests.