Using data collected in 95 Ohio school districts by Hunt (1980), this study reanalyzed those data, examined the reasons for Hunt's inability to predict school board member incumbent defeat, and developed a model that would have predicted those Ohio school board ekctions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Garberina, W. L. (1975). Public demand, school board response and incumbent defeat: An explanation of the governance of local school districts in Massachusetts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
2.
Gay, L. R. (1976). Educational research: competencies for analysis and application.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
3.
Hunt, B. P. (1980). An inductive approach to the dissatisfaction theory in the governance of local school districts: Predicting incumbent school board member defeat. Unpublished doctoral dissertaion, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
4.
Kirkendall, R. S. (1966). Discriminating social, economic, and political characteristics of changing versus stable policy systems in school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
5.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press.
6.
LeDoux, E. P. (1971). Outmigration: Its relation to social, political and economic conditions and to the governing of local school districts in New Mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
7.
Lutz, F. W. (1962). Social systems and school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
8.
Lutz, F. W. (in press). Review of city managers and school superintendents. Administrative Science Quarterly.
9.
Lutz, F. W. , & Iannaccone, L. (1978). Public participation in local school districts: The dissatisfaction theory of American democracy.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
10.
Lutz, F. W. , & Hunt, B. P. (1982, April). Predicting school board incumbent defeat. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
11.
Moen, A. W. (1971). Superintendent turnover as predicted by school board incumbent defeat in Pennsylvania's partisan elections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
12.
Thorsted, R. R. (1974). Predicting school board member defeat: Demographic and political variables that influence board elections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside, CA.
13.
Walden, J. C. (1966). School board changes and involuntary superintendent turnover. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
14.
Wirt, F. M. , & Kirst, M. W. (1972). The political web of American schools.Boston: Little, Brown.
15.
Zeigler, L. H. , & Jennings, M. K. (with Peak, G. W.) (1974). Governing American schools: Political interaction in local school districts.North Scituate, MA: Duxberg Press.
16.
Zeigler, H. , Kehoe, E., & Reisman, J. (1985). City managers and school superintendents: Response to conflict.New York: Praeger.
