The purposes of this study were to 1) compare the characteristics between the elections that were successful and unsuccessful; 2) identify the purpose of the school bond issue (demographic characteristics); 3) identify the financial resources and structure of the school districts (economic characteristics); 4) analyze the public relations and publicity techniques used in the school bond campaign (communications variables); 5) determine the degree of responsibility assumed by individuals and groups for the educational, building, and bond needs of the school districts (group involvement); 6) ascertain personal and professional information about the district superintendent as it related to voter influence in the bond campaign; 7) determine prior bond election experience. The major conclusions were that the trend of large or small eligible voter turnout was inconclusive, urban districts had more difficulty than rural or suburban districts in passing bond issues, and bond issues were passed mainly for new facilities. School districts with large assessed valuation per resident student had better results than others. The newspaper, "general talking it up," speakers, public meetings, and telephone committees were effective means of communication. The superintendent, board of education, faculty, principals, P.T.A., and lay groups assumed the most responsibility in the elections.

Thesis (M.S.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / The development of public education in the United States is largely dependent upon the attitudes of the public and its desire to provide revenue for the improvement and maintenance of the schools. Since the citizens of a community are both the owners and the consumers of public education, they are fully responsible for keeping their local school system moving forward with the times. Providing revenue from tax levies and other sources for the schools is a key factor in citizen support of public education. Through legislation and bond issues, the public is able to fulfill its responsibility of financing local educational institutions. The bond issue is the most common means of raising revenue for public school expenditure. However, the percentage of public school bond proposals that have been recently defeated at the polls has been alarmingly high, more than 30 percent in 1963. Many educational observers believe that certain conditions and elements are present repeatedly in school bond campaigns that fail, but they disagree on how some of those factors actually affect the outcome of the election. There are contradictions and inconsistencies concerning the use of pupils and teachers in the campaign, the size of the voter turnout, lay citizen leadership, treatment of the opposition, and other areas. This lack of agreement among educational authorities is very evident in the educational literature and is not of substantial assistance in the planning of a strong school bond campaign. A school official or interested citizen who is attempting to develop a campaign program would soon be mystified when faced with the contradictions and inconsistencies that appear in the educational publications. In an effort to clarify the direction in which these significant factors do operate, a research project elicited responses concerning those factors from 188 public school superintendents who had participated in a public school bond campaign in 1963. Based on the results of the research survey and additional supplemental research, 14 common guidelines were established for use by school officials and interested lay citizens. By following these guidelines, they can adapt to a single campaign the techniques and information that have been successfully used by others on a large scale. The guidelines include conducting pre-campaign research, timing the campaign for an October election climax, obtaining unanimous endorsement from the local Board of Education, soliciting lay citizen participation and leadership, welcoming faculty support, discouraging pupil activity, attempting to win over or neutralize potential opposition prior to the campaign, treating the remaining opposition fairly, concentrating campaign toward potential "yes" voters, stressing the benefits not the cost of the bond without using threats, engaging in campaign activities involving maximum personal contact, sending speakers to civic organizations, and maintaining a continuous year-around public relations program. / 2031-01-01

The purpose of this study was to determine the community power structure and its influence on the outcome of bond elections in four selected school districts in the State of Texas. The investigation of the following subproblems was necessary: 1. To determine the involvement of power structure in the decision-making process of the school district. 2. To determine the community people who have exercised the greatest influence in school matters. 3. To determine the educator's need to become cognizant of the nature of power structure. 4. To determine to what extent leaders in school bond elections are also leaders in non-school issues.