A factor analysis of the education laws of Pennsylvania

Abstract The aims of this investigation were to undertake an analysis of the education laws of Pennsylvania through the utilization of computer technology and the technique of factor analysis in order to uncover underlying concepts around which the law is organized; to generate hypotheses regarding the use of factor analysis to produce classification systems; and to uncover methods for increasing the effectiveness of results of law searches via computers. The magnetic tape library of the Health Law Center, University of Pittsburgh, contains the entire statutory compilation of Pennsylvania; all statutory enactments pertaining to education included under Title 24, Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated (EDUCATION) were inspected and it was determined that 1341 sections of the law comprised Title 24 . Listings of all words included in these sections (minus common words) were generated according to alphabetic and descending frequency. Criteria were chosen in order to objectify the selection of words to be included for investigation, resulting in the acceptance of 313 words grouped into 113 variables. A word-document matrix (113 × 1341) was created on magnetic tape representing the occurrence of each variable within each section of the law and the degree of association of each variable within each section was determined by the product-moment correlation method. Twenty Eigenvectors were extracted from the 113 × 113 intercorrelation matrix by means of a principal components factor analysis program. By means of the varimax method, rotations were made of five, six, seven, nine, ten, eleven and twenty Eigenvectors. Meaningful interpretations could be made of the factors obtained from the five, six and seven Eigenvector rotations. However, the five Eigenvector rotation was chosen as being most meaningful and most consistent throughout the remaining rotations. On a basis of the frequency and density word approach used in this study, the chief concerns which the legislature has decided to deal with are: 1. Eligibility for, attainment of, and administration of retirement benefits. 2. Responsibility for, and the authority of local and county school officials in providing for, the educational programs and for adhering to legal procedures in doing so. 3. Bases for determining teachers' salaries. 4. Retained powers of the state in setting educational policy and for the approval of reimbursements by the state for local plant and instructional costs. 5. Bases for the Commonwealth's levying and collecting school revenues. It would thus appear that the paramount concerns of those responsible for the enactment of the education laws of Pennsylvania are largely monetary and administrative in nature. Implications of the study include: (1) with only two exceptions, the procedures involved were based upon computer technology, and even in the two exceptions judgement of the investigator was largely predicated upon empirical evidence; (2) names given to each factor were not dependent upon the inclusion of all variables since sufficient factor loadings of 0.500 and above were derived; (3) names given to factors were not an entirely subjective decision as independent judges were in basic agreement with the labels and the variables included within each factor; (4) a tentative classification system of education law could be derived on the basis of the factors extracted with some additional computer operations; (5) a potential use could be made of the word clusters within factors in the framing of legal inquiries by those engaged in information retrieval activities in the Health Law Center; and (6) high speed electronic computers are effective instruments for managing large quantities of written information and for locating conceptual structures by means of statistical analysis of language.