POWER STRUCTURES IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES VARY, AND THE MAKEUP OF SCHOOL BOARDS AND STYLE OF SUPERINTENDENTS IN ANY COMMUNITY CAN BE VIEWED AS A REFLECTION OF THESE DIFFERENT POWER RELATIONSHIPS. A COMMUNITY MAY BE CHARACTERIZED BY (1) A DOMINATED POWER STRUCTURE, DOMINATED SCHOOL BOARD MAKEUP, AND SERVANT SUPERINTENDENT STYLE, (2) A FACTIONAL POWER STRUCTURE, FACTIONAL SCHOOL BOARD, AND POLITICAL-MANIPULATION SUPERINTENDENT STYLE, (3) A PLURALISTIC POWER STRUCTURE, STATUS-CONGRUENT SCHOOL BOARD, AND PROFESSIONAL-ADVISER SUPERINTENDENT STYLE, OR (4) AN INERT POWER STRUCTURE, SANCTIONING SCHOOL BOARD, AND DECISION-MAKER SUPERINTENDENT STYLE. NINETEEN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN NEW YORK, AND TWO EACH IN CONNECTICUT, NEW JERSEY, AND PENNSYLVANIA, WERE SELECTED IN WHICH SEPARATE INTERVIEW SCHEDULES WERE ADMINISTERED TO SUPERINTENDENTS, BOARD MEMBERS, AND COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS TO SECURE INFORMATION ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE CLASSIFICATIONS. THE FINDINGS REVEALED THAT TWO TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS COULD BE IDENTIFIED BETWEEN COMMUNITIES, SCHOOL BOARDS, AND SUPERINTENDENTS. FIRST, IN 11 INSTANCES, ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE WAS FOUND TO BE RELATED BOTH TO THE BOARD MAKEUP AND TO THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE. SECOND, IN SEVEN INSTANCES, ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE WAS FOUND TO BE RELATED ONLY TO BOARD MAKEUP, OR THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE AND BOARD MAKEUP WERE CONSONANT BUT WERE AT VARIANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE. THIS PAPER WAS PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 17, 1967). (GB)