The lannaccone-Lutz Model of School Board Change: A Replication in New Mexico

Abstract

This study reports efforts to replicate and extend understanding of a portion of the total Iannaccone-Lutz framework. As part of the Claremont work, Kirkendall attempted to find social, economic and political indicators that would predict the defeat of incumbent school board members.2 Since this study seemed an important element in the Iannaccone-Lutz framework, our efforts sought to replicate Kirkendall's findings in New Mexico school districts as well as to extend the model by exploring districts in which decreases in socio-economic and political indicators had occurred.3 The Kirkendall study utilized only a sample of California school districts which had undergone increases in socio-economic and political indicators. The Explanatory ModelThe Iannaccone-Lutz explanatory model4 suggests that as a

Superintendent and School Board Member Turnover: Political Versus Apolitical Turnover as a Critical Variable in the Application of the Dissatisfaction Theory

“…However, more recent research attempting to show a relationship between incumbent school board defeat and superintendent turnover has been less supportive of the theory (Chance & Capps, 1992;Hosman, 1990;Rada, 1984;Weninger & Stout, 1989). Questioning some assumptions about the universal application of the Dissatisfaction Theory, Ledoux and Burlingame (1973) found no clear relationship to previously identified indicators of community change and school board member and superintendent turnover. They suggested that gathering a combination of varied and interrelated factors unique to each community may be important to reach a more complete explanation of the data on school board and superintendent turnover.…”

“…Change in community participation has been studied by analyzing the number of candidates running for the school board, the distribution of votes cast for incumbents versus challengers, and the number of votes cast against incumbents (Burlingame, 1978;Mitchell, 1978;Walden, 1978). Research studies have investigated interfaces between all four events or attempted to confirm important variables evidencing these events with varying success (Ledoux & Burlingame, 1973;Lutz & Iannaccone, 1978;Mitchell & Thorsted, 1976;Rada, 1984;Weninger & Stout, 1989). Research studies have investigated interfaces between all four events or attempted to confirm important variables evidencing these events with varying success (Ledoux & Burlingame, 1973;Lutz & Iannaccone, 1978;Mitchell & Thorsted, 1976;Rada, 1984;Weninger & Stout, 1989).…”

Does school board turnover matter? Revisiting critical variables in the Dissatisfaction Theory of American democracy

“…Studies attempting to confirm relations between school board defeat and superintendent turnover have met with varying success (Ledoux & Burlingame, 1973;Lutz & Iannaccone, 1978, Mitchell & Thorsted, 1976Rada, 1984;Weninger & Stout, 1989).…”

“…Early studies focusing on the relation between incumbent school board and superintendent turnover indicated a significant connection (Carlson 1972, Ledoux and Burlingame 1973, Mitchell and Thorsted 1976, Lutz and Iannaccone 1978, Anderson 1989, while more recent research has been less supportive of the theory (Rada 1984, Weninger and Stout 1989, Hosman 1990, Chance and Capps 1992. Ledoux and Burlingame (1973), while finding no clear relation between a change in community values , and school board member and superintendent turnover, suggested that the problem might be the inability of researchers to select cogent variables to identify the phenomenon. This problem may be resolved by what they called a gathering of a wider combination of variables, unique within each district context, and made possible by current qualitative data collection methods.…”

“…They confirmed the importance of defeat versus apolitical turnover in their study but were unable to take the matter further, as they had no way to determine the reason why each board member left, and, thus, could not disaggregate the data. Mitchell and Thorsted (1976, p. 33) indicated that 'only two studies involving statistical probability samples have been reported in the literature: the original study by Kirkendall (1966) and a modified replication of his study done by LeDoux and Burlingame (1973)'.…”