Abstract
The Problem. This study sought to determine the percentage of representative items of California school laws, regulations, and court decisions perceived by superintendents as restricting local educational decision making and the percentage of the same items seen by teachers as interfering with pupil learning in the classroom. The study also sought to determine if there was any marked correspondence in these perceptions. Research Methodology. The research methodology was that of an opinionaire sent to nine superintendents and 108 teachers in a stratified sample (by pupil population) in Southern California school districts. Findings. (1) For 50 representative items of California school laws, regulations, and court decisions, superintendents perceived slightly more than 50% as restricting local educational decision-making concerning pupil learning. Only about 33% of the same items were perceived by teachers as interfering with pupil learning. (2) There was low correspondence of the perceptions of superintendents and teachers thus collaborating the principal hypothesis. Conclusions. (1) There still remains a relatively large area where local communities can make educational decisions regarding pupil learning. (2) Relatively few of California's educational laws, regulations, and court decisions seem to affect pupil learning in the classroom. Recommendations. (1) California school districts should take advantage of the relatively large area in which they are apparently free to make educational decisions regarding pupil learning. (2) There were 12 specific items which a majority of superintendents viewed as restrictive and teachers viewed as interfering with pupil learning. Consideration might be given to modify or abolish these items. (3) Considering the implications of the investigation, further study could be made of the problem in the light of educational governance. If pupil learning in California does indeed proceed, in the main, unhampered by the plethora of State laws, regulations, and court decisions, is the maintenance of freedom of educational decision-making at the local level as critical as some have maintained?