RESEARCH TO TEST A MODEL WHICH CORRELATES THE TYPES OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE WITH THE SYSTEM OF EDUCATION IS PRESENTED. INTERVIEWERS GATHERED DATA FROM 23 BOARDS OF EDUCATION IN NEW YORK. THREE PROFESSIONAL JUDGES INDEPENDENTLY CLASSIFIED EACH BOARD ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING THREE-PART MODEL--(1) THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE WAS EITHER DOMINATED (ELITE), FACTIONAL, PLURALISTIC, OR INERT, (2) THE SCHOOL BOARDS WERE EITHER DOMINATED, FACTIONAL, STATUS CONGRUENT, OR SANCTIONING, AND (3) THE ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT WAS EITHER SERVANT, POLITICAL MANIPULATOR, PROFESSIONAL ADVISER, OR DECISION MAKER. THE DATA SHOW THAT A BOARD OF EDUCATION EXHIBITS THE SAME TYPE OF POWER STRUCTURE AS ITS COMMUNITY, AND THE SUPERINTENDENT'S ROLE IS A DIRECT FUNCTION OF BOTH. A DOMINATED COMMUNITY STRUCTURE RESULTS IN A DOMINATED BOARD WHICH CAUSES THE SUPERINTENDENT TO ASSUME THE ROLE OF SERVANT. THIS MODEL IS HELPFUL IN ANALYZING THE FOLLOWING CAUSATIONS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS--(1) DOMINATED BOARDS TURN TO ONE MEMBER FOR DECISIONS, (2) FACTIONAL BOARDS DEPEND UPON THE MAJORITY FOR DECISIONS, (3) STATUS CONGRUENT BOARDS DEPEND UPON EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION, AND (4) SANCTIONING BOARDS DEPEND UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT. AN INTERVIEWER REPORT OF ONE OF THE 23 BOARDS OF EDUCATION STUDIED IS APPENDED. THIS PAPER WAS PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION AT THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (CHICAGO, FEBRUARY 17, 1966). (GB)