Drawing largely on data from Los Angeles, but with reference to other cities where appropriate, this paper attempts to clarify the distinctive posit.i.ans taken by advocates of community control as opposed to proponents of administrative decentralization. While community control is ek;sentially a political demand, oriented toward citizens influencing actual policy making, most decentralization plans, though responding to demands in the political arena, are primarily organizational, facilitating local .participation in the ipPlepentation of policies already decided. Though different, both approaches represent attempts to deal with the relatively low levels of achievement and high dropout rates characterizing schools in minority areas. Whereas proposals for community control regard the poor outcoges of schooling as centering on the guestion pf staff accountability, an organizational system perspective suggests that school ineffectiveness results from local administrators lackipg both adequate resources and sufficient discretion in the use of such resources as are available. It is argued here that at issue are alternative definitions of the situation, one based on the theoretical perspectives of a political system model, the other on those of an organization as an open system, responsive to environmental constraints and contingencies. (Author/LIM) LISADEPARTMeNTOPHEALTH, SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICE. EDUCATION S. wELFARE NATIONALINSTITUTEOFThe ERIC facility has assigned EDUCATION this 7. DOC ..;.' E ', 1 ,,,,:, BEE` ;E!',,C, to: CluCED EX,C:1_,, ,S PECE.ED Rc.,. 4 3 Ti 2 F...0% CP Okr.,,N.2,. T :0,4 0..CIN .7,rtrir.', i, P03,i Ts OF ,,E4'. 3,4 0.,N,ONS InouriuclgerneM,thisaocu(mM ,,E 0 DO NO1 NIICE5S,...,v aE PPE is also of intefest to the cilaringSEN., of. ,c,,,,,. NA r:oN.,.; ,r4S771-u7E. Or houses noted to the right. I ode.E: I.:u C_ , r ,Tr,PO ..: 1 , C/N :,' PIA 'CY ing should reflect their special points of vi ew: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SCHOOL DISTRICT DECENTRALIZATION David O'Shea Department of Education University of California Los Angeles Paper for Symposium on School District Decentralization: Annual Meeting, AERA, Chicago, Illinois, April 15-19, 1974. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY. RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY David O'Shea, UniveTsity of Calif., L. A. TO ERIC AND ONGANIZATIONS 3PERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE. 'CD OUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER .' NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR QUOTATION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR Decentralization has been one of the major developments in urban education in the past decade.1 Appearance of this type of structural change is associated with the emergence, since 1966, of demands from minority sectors of the population for community control of the public schools. While community control is an essentially political demand, oriented toward citizens influencing actual policy-making, most decentralization plans, though responding to demands in the political arena, are primarily organizational, facilitating local participation in the implementation of policies already decided. Changing the organizational structure serves to preserve the existing political structure. Though different, the political and organizational approaches to school district reform both represent attempts to deal with the same problem; the relatively low levels of achievement and high dropout rates characterizing schools in minority areas. Proposals for community control, for example, derive logically from a political definition of the achievement problem which views the poor outcomes of schooling as centering the the question of staff accountability. However, an organizational system perspective leads to*an alternative, and somewhat incompatible, conclusion. This is that the ineffectiveness of many schools in low income minority communities results from local administrators lacking both adequate resources, and sufficient discretion in the use of such resources as are available. Consequently, administrative decentralization is seen as the solution; i.e., the passing out of increased authority to local principals, rather than to parents, for decisions concerning school program, personnel, and budget. Drawing largely upon data from Los Angeles, but with reference to other cities where appropriate, this paper attempts to clarify the distinctive positions taken by advocates of community control as opposed to proponents of administrative decentralization. It is argued here that at issue are alternative definitions of the situation, one based upon the theoretical perspectives of a political systems model, the other upon those of an organization as an open system, responsive to environmental constraints and contingencies. To date, of course, the organizational perspective remains dominant, with school systems decentralizing administration rather than policy-making. Whether or not policy-making becomes decentralized, as advocates of a political analysis of the educational problem suggest, depends largely on the ability of educational organizations to meet those academic needs which have generated community control demands in minority communities.