from members of the community. Community involvement at the building level was the conclusion of a recent New York State commission that reported:

the effective point for expression of citizen and
parent-citizen interest in education is the school,
not the school district, for the school is the
basic operating unit and cost center in the provision
of educational services.28

In any case, local education agencies are responsible for developing plans for the equalization of educational opportunity in schools within their jurisdiction. Building plans are consolidated into LEA plans; LEA plans are consolidated into SEA plans; SEA plans are furnished to the Federal agency and serve as justification for Federal funding. accomplish the goal of equalization requires the involvement of the education profession at all levels of government.

The

At times in our history, States "rights" have seemed to take precedence over individual rights, especially in public education. time for the condition is passed. Federal and State educational leaders must get together and establish collaborative regulations and programs so the educational rights of every child can be honored.

28

Report of the New York State Commission, op. cit., p. 2.43.

REFERENCES

Averch, Harvey A., et al. How Effective is Schooling?:

A Critical

Review and Synthesis of Research Findings. Rand, 1972.

Bowers, C. A., I. Housego, and D. Dyke (Eds.) Education and Social Policy: Local Control of Education. New York: Random House, 1970.

Brown vs. Board of Education, 745 ct., pp. 681, 691.

Campbell, F., and D. H. Layton. Policy Making for American Education.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969.

Cohen, D. K. "Politics and Research: Evaluation of Social Action
Programs in Education." Review of Educational Research, Vol. 40,

No. 2, pp. 213-238.

Fantini, M. D.

The Reform of Urban Schools. Washington, D. C.:
N. & A., 1970.

Gittell, M., and J. E. Hollander. Six Urban School Districts. New York: Praeger, 1968.

McClure, W. P., and V. Miller (Eds.)

Adequate Policy Making.

Government of Public Education for Urbana: University of Illinois, 1960.

McConnell, G. Private Power and American Democracy. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1966.

Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U. S., 390, 399.

Morphet, E. L. and C. 0. Ryan (Eds.) Designing Education for the Future:
An Eight State Project. (a) Implications for Education of Prospec-
tive Changes in Society. Reports Prepared for the Second Area
Conference. Denver: June, 1967. (b) Planning and Effecting Needed
Changes in Education. Reports Prepared for the Third Area Conference.
Denver: June, 1967. (c) Emerging Designs for Education: Program,
Organization, Operation, and Finance. Reports Prepared for an Area
Conference. Denver: May, 1968. (d) Cooperative Planning for
Education in 1980: Objectives, Procedures, and Priorities. Reports
Prepared for a Conference of State Representatives. Denver:
January, 1968.

Ordway vs. Hardgraves, D. C., Mass., Civil Action No. 71-540-C, March 11, 1971.

Orlosky, D., and B. O. Smith. A Study of Educational Change. September

1971. USOE Grant Number OEC-0-71-3958.

551-373 - 74-9

Report of the New York State Commission on the Quality, Cost and
Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education, Vol. 1.

Serrano vs. Priest, L. A., 29820

The Effectiveness of Compensatory Education. Washington, D. C.:
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1972.

Tiedt, S. W. The Role of the Federal Government in Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Urban School Crisis:

The Problem and Solutions. Proposed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Urban Education Task Force, 1970

PART III

Instrumental Variables:

Administrative Competence,

Teacher Competence, School Culture,

Teacher Environment