RELATING GUIDANCE PHILOSOPHY TO FUNCTION: A STUDY OF THE LOCATION OF GUIDANCE FACILITIES WWI-EN THE SCHOOL PLANT Tincsls for the Degree OI Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Kenneth H. Parker 1956 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Relating Guidance Philosophy to Function: A Study of the Location of Guidance Facilities within Date 0-169 the School Plant presented by Kenneth H. Parker has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ‘___j$fll__dqpceinAdministrative and Educatign- Services(Guidance and Counseling) 7/4/52 fl We Major proles/ or August 1, 1956 H'fl’j: Vi. RELATING GUIDANCE PHILOSOPHY T0 FUNCTION: ‘A STUDY OF THE LOCATION OF GUIDANCE FACILITIES WITHIN THE SCHOOL PLANT BY Kenneth H; Parker AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services Guidance and Counselor Training 1956 Approved“ _ :fl/flzgjqxfi é] . RELATING GUIDANCE’PHILOSOPHY TO FUNCTION: A STUDY OF THE LOCATION OF GUIDANCE FACILITIES WITHIN THE SCHOOL PLANT by Kenneth B. Parker This study attempts to compare the attitudes of high school principals, counselors, and professional counselor- trainers and state guidance supervisors toward the location of guidance facilities within the school plant and especially the relationship of the guidance area to the main adminis- trative office. This was done by using mailed material which included (1) a set of six plans, showing six possible locations for the guidance area in relation to the principal's office, (2) a personal data sheet, (3) a rating sheet, and (4) a questionnaire. Each respondent was asked to rank the plans from one to six, in order of his preference. Two philosophies of guidance were established, labeled "authoritative, directive"z and ‘permissive, non-directive“. The questionnaire was used to determine which of these two philosophies each respondent held. The study shows that there is a definite relationship between the philosophy held and the type of plan preferred. The plans were dichotomized into two groups, of three each, which seemed to fit the two philosophies. Two stat- istical tests, a Critical Ratio and a Chi Square, were used to validate the two philosOphies (as measured by the question- naire) against the dichotomized plan groups. Both tests were Kenneth B. Parker Abstract significant and justified labeling one set of plans ”permiss- ive" and the other set mauthoritative". In the three “per- missive' plans, the guidance offices are widely separated from the main office, while in the 'authoritative" plans, the guidance suite is within, or adjacent to, the main office. Counselors and counselor-trainers are more likely to prefer the plans related to the “permissive“ philosophy while prin- cipals are more likely to prefer plans related to the “auth— oritative‘ philosophy. ‘Younger persons, those who received their latest degree since 1945, those with.more training in guidance, those with experience in guidance, and those with experience in planning a guidance area, all tend to prefer the “permissive” plans more often than the other respondents. Three-fourths of both the principals and counselors reported dissatisfaction with their present physical facilities for guidance. The results indicate that principals and counselors have different preferences for the location of the guidance offices, that neither are satisfied with their present plans, and thus careful, cooperative planning is necessary before locating the guidance area in new secondary school buildings. RELATING GUIDANCE PHILOSOPHY TO FUNCTION: A STUDY OF THE LOCATION OF GUIDANCE FACILITIES WITHIN THE SCHOOL PLANT By Kenneth H. Parker A DISSERTATION Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services Guidance and Counselor Training 1956 Kenneth H. Parker Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Date of Examination: August 1, 1956, 8:00 a.m., Room 17, Morrill Hall Dissertation: Relating Guidance Philosophy to Function: A Study of the Location of Guidance Facilities Within the School Plant Outline of Studies: Major area - Administrative and Educational Services (Guidance and Counseling) Minor areas — Educational Psychology, Sociology Biographical Items: Birthdate - August 25, 1924 - Cortland, New York Undergraduate studies - University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois; Hamilton College, Clinton, New York Graduate studies - University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1948-1949; Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1950-1956 Degrees - Bachelor of Science (Mathematics, Physics), University of Illinois, Feb., 1948 Master of Science (Guidance), University of Illinois, Feb., 1949 Experience: Sault Ste. Marie High School, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, 1949, Mathematics teacher Buckley Rural Agricultural School, Buckley, Michigan 1949-51, Principal, Mathematics-Science Teacher, Counselor Birmingham High School, Birmingham, Michigan, 1951- 1954, Counselor, Teacher Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1954-56, Counselor (Instructor): Summers, 1952-53, Guest Counselor, Summer Counseling Clinics Membership: National Vocational Guidance Association (Professional), American College Personnel Association, Michigan Counselors Association ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to give special thanks to Dr. Walter F. Johnson who served as his Guidance Committee Chairman and, in this capacity, offered invaluable aid and encouragement as this thesis progressed. In addition, he wishes to eXpress his appreciation to the other members of his Guidance Comm- ittee--Dr. Buford Stefflre, Dr. Donald Lou, and Dr. Charles Hoffer--for their helpful criticisms and suggestions relat- ing to this project. Dr. Stefflre, especially, offered several invaluable suggestions which were incorporated in the study. The author also wishes to acknowledge the important contributions of Dr. Harry H. Scales (who was originally the Chairman of his Guidance Committee) to the development of this thesis in its earliest stages. Dr. Scales' enthusiasm for the project encouraged the author to follow through with his original plans even when it became impossible for Dr. Scales to continue as Chairman. Dr. Walter F. Johnson, who replaced Dr. Scales as Committee Chairman, was most cooper- ative in permitting the author to proceed with his original thesis. The writer wishes to thank Mr. Glenn E. Smith, Chief, Guidance Services Division of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction and Dr. Arthur A. Hitchcock, Executive Secretary of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, for furnishing lists of names from which a part of the sample was drawn. The author is indebted to Dr. Willard Harrington and Dr. James Hannan for their assistance in the experimental design of the study, and in the application and interpretation of the statistics used in the study. Finally, to his wife, Ruth Gale Parker, the author wishes to express his gratitude for her part in tabulating the data and for typing the entire thesis. Without her help, and her willing sacrifices during the time this pro- ject was underway, this thesis would never have been com- pleted. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM: ITS SCOPE AND JUSTIFICATION......... IHtPOdUCtioneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Statement Of the Problem........................ The Need for the StUdyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Limitations 0f the Study........................ Definition Of TerS............................. Plan or Organization............................ II. THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................... IntrOdUCtioneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee The Authoritative, Directive Philosophy Of Gu1danceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee The Permissive, Non-directive Philosophy Of Guidance.................................. Literature Pertaining to the Design and Location Of the GUIGance F30111t1630eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE......................... Introduction.................................... The Instruments................................. The QUOStlonnaireeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee The PlanS.................................... The Rating Sheet............................. The Personal Data Sheeteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee The Letter................................... The Sample...................................o.. Counselors................................... PrincipaIS................................... Counselor-Trainers........................... State Guidance Supervisors................... Methods of Analyzing the Data................... Iv. ANALYSIS OF TEIE DATAOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. validation of Questionnaire and Plans........... Analy518 Of the Plane........................... Analysis of Plans by Individual Criteria........ Satisfaction with Present Plans................. PAGE meslmCflF' ll 11 14 21 26 46 46 54 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................... The Problem..................................... The Findings.................................... COnCIUSionSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo Implications for Further Research............... BIBLIOGRAPI'IYO0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00. APPENDIXOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...00....0.00.0...0.00.00.00.00... PAGE 76 76 77 80 81 84 88 TABLE I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. LIST OF TABLES Replies to Questionnaires........................ Validation of Questionnaire Against First Three Choices from Among Plans A, D, and F.......... Comparison of Questionnaire Scores to Choice of Plan From Dichotomized Groups................. Validation of Questionnaire Against Choice Of P1ans...................................... Distribution of Scores on Questionnaire.......... Comparison of Principals, Counselors, and Counselor-Trainers............................ Comparison of Counselor and Counselor-Trainer GrOUPSOOOOOOOOO0.00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Comparison of Principals, and Combined Counselor, Counselor-Trainer Group....................o.. Average Rank 0f ERCh Plan........................ Average Rank by Dichotomized Groups.............. Percent of lst, 2nd, and 3rd Choices from Plans A, D, and F (Principa18)oo9.00....900000000000 Percent of let, 2nd, and 5rd Choices from Plans A, D, and F (Counsalors)...................... Percent of let, 2nd, and 5rd Choices from Plans A, D, and F (Counselor-Trainers and Guidance superv180r8)000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... PAGE‘ 40 47 48 50 52 62 62 63 65 65 69 70 71 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Smoothed Curves--Questionnaire Scores............. 2. First Choice of Each Plan by Percent.............. 3. First Three Choices for Each Plan, by Percent..... 4. Percent First Choice From the Dichotomized Groups. 5. Percent of First, Second, and Third Choices from the Dichotomized Groups................... 6. Average Rank for Each Plan Shown Graphically...... 6O 66 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM: ITS SCOPE.AND JUSTIFICATION A . INTRODUC TION New school buildings are being constructed at a rate unprecedented in the history of American education. There is no sign that this building activity will let up for at least another decade. For the past few years this accelerated building program has been concentrating on producing new facilities for elementary school pupils. However, as the children resulting from the high post- war birth rate move on into high school, this building activity will follow them, resulting in many new or enlarged high schools. The philosophy that guidance of secondary school youth is an integral part of modern education is accepted by most educators today. Therefore, the majority of these new secondary school buildings will make some provision for housing the guidance services. Even the most superficial survey of existing high school buildings will show a great variety of plans for providing space for the guidance and counseling activities of the school. There are even schools which have used lavatory entrances for counseling offices! Other schools have converted a corner of the library, an old boiler room, an unused classroom (if they have one), and dead- end corridors into rooms which might serve at least the temporary function of counselors' offices. There must be some better justification for the location of guidance facilities than the fact that "this was the only space available”. If guidance is important, then facilities for guidance should be included in the initial planning of the school. The location, or place- ment, of these facilities in relation to the other areas within the school should be planned with all the consid- eration that goes into the planning of the library, shop facilities, gymnasiums, or science laboratories.. In an article discussing the inadequacies of present guidance facilities, Joseph A. Bedard writes: The fact that school buildings are built for a long period of time and are planned to meet the needs currently pressing quite often means that they cannot easily be converted for the establishment of new types of educational services. This presents three points for consideration. First, new school building planning should consider adequate facilities to house the guid- ance services. Second, where pupil personnel services are organized under designated leadership, and the guidance services is one of these services, consideration must be given to the provision of physical facilities of the other activities coordinated with the guidance services. Third, if physical facilities for guidance services must be improvised from available building space specific plans should be made to meet this problem in the most satisfactory manner. (1:354) Although the above quotation comes from an article published in 1951, very little has been done since that time to add to the meager information in this area. B. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study is an attempt to compare the attitudes of principals, counselors, and university counselor- trainers and state guidance supervisors toward the physical location of the guidance facilities within the school plant; particularly with respect to the relationship between the guidance area and the main administrative offices. The study is further concerned with relating these attitudes to the philosophy of guidance held by these persons. This has implications for all those involved in planning such facilities for new or remodeled school plants. Guidance areas are not to be located because "here we have some extra space", but rather are to be placed in the building only after due consideration has been given to the school's and community's philosophy about the function of guidance in modern education. Locating counselors' offices in boiler rooms or in lavatory entrances certainly does not enhance the program in the eyes of parents, students, or faculty. If counseling, and meeting the needs of individual pupils, is as important as educators say it is, then it must be made to appear important to others. Thus the location and design of the guidance area has a direct bearing on whether the community, the students, and even the faculty will come to accept guidance as an important part of the total educational program of the school. The basic hypothesis of this study, then, is that different philosophies of guidance (that is, different conceptions of the function of guidance) exist, and the way in which one plans, or locates, the facilities for guidance will depend, to some extent, on which of these philosophies one believes. It is difficult to design or locate any area within a school unless one understands the function of that particular part of the program in relation to the total educational program. Yet philosophy of guidance has been almost totally neglected, except in an accidental way, in most of the writings about planning facilities for guidance services. The following remark by Fladseth, appearing in a 1946 issue of Occupations, is one of the few which definitely link the design of the guidance facilities with the philosophy of education held by those responsible for the guidance program. Fladseth says: Counseling is a complex process; therefore, any- thing that will contribute to setting the counselees in the proper frame of mind for the interview is a valuable aid. The character and philosophy of the school's administration and its guidance program.are continually reflected by its physical facilities.(179169) Therefore, this study has two primary objectives: (1) to establish that different philosophies of guidance do exist, and (2) to show that one chooses the location of the guidance area with reference to which of these philos- ophies one believes, C. THE NEED FOR THE STUDY It has not been intended to create the impression that good guidance facilities will, per se, create a good program of guidance services. However, such facilities will help to make the guidance program more effective. In an article written for the Encyclopedia gfgyocational Guidance, Walter F. Johnson begins as follows: ’ A guidance program cannot be adequately described in terms of its physical facilities and equipment. Nor can its effectiveness be evaluated in terms of the presence or absence of these physical factors. They constitute only one aspect of the program. Consequently description and evaluation must include consideration of other aspects such as the attitude, cooperation, and participation of the administration and faculty, the flexibility and adaptability of the curriculum, and the active role of the counselor and other guidance workers. Effective guidance can be carried on with indiv- idual cases where there is no organized program or where the organized program is limited in physical facilities and equipment, but the effectiveness of the guidance worker in the efficient utilization of his time and in the number of individuals with whom he can work is thereby limited. Thus, the factors of physical facilities and equipment become important in planning and instituting an effective guidance program. (25:1069) Despite the obvious need for some kind of basis, or guide, for planning the guidance area of a school, very little has been written on it. As recently as 1948, Joy B. munson, in writing a doctoral dissertation on this subject (32) found that the School Plant Division of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction "had not one blue print of a school building which calls for special guidance or counseling facilities, nor could it refer to any such plans!” In an "Editorial Comment" in the Novem- ber, 1954, Personnel and Guidance Journal, Robert 0. Stripling wrote of the lack of information about the architectural design of the guidance area and proposed much more research in this area, especially at the national level. (42) Even professional journals devoted to school building design do not appear to consider guidance as an area of the school which needs special consideration. For example, the ”Editorial Index by Subject Classification" of Volume 27 of American School and University, a public- ation dedicated to school building design, does not list ”Guidance Facilities" although Arts and Crafts, Business Education, Auditorium.and Stage, Libraries, Lunchrooms, Physical Education, Science Facilities, and Swimming Pools are all indexed. This Index, covering all articles from 1951 through 1955 (Volume 23 through Volume 27) contains only three references to "Administrative Offices", and none of these specifically mentions or involves plans for the guidance offices. Despite this lack of information about planning the guidance area, Walter D. Cooking, the editor of American School and University, has this to say about this problem: All new secondary schools have an area labeled ”guidance”. Here again, we have recognition of an emphasis on a program. There seems, however, to be a lack of imagination and information regarding the amount and character of space needed for specialized guidance services. More room than formerly is designa- ted for this purpose. Ordinarily it consists of small offices and conference rooms, all made a part of the administrative suite. It is felt that the lack of definitive information concerning the purposes and character of guidance areas will continue to hamper their design. Continued and detailed study of these areas will provide much needed information for school planners. (7:190) Further evidence of the paucity of information in this area, justifying the present study, will be found in Chapter II -- The Review of the Literature. D. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This study is not an attempt to come up with the “ideal” plan for a guidance office. Rather, it is an attempt to show various possible locations of the guidance area and how one's philosophy of guidance might influence which of these several locations one prefers. It is limited further, to the attitudes of high school counselors, high school principals, and college counselor trainers and state supervisors of guidance, toward the location of the guidance area in relation to the main administrative office suite. There is a geographical limitation in that the sample was drawn from schools and colleges in the nineteen states constituting the North Central Association. Two important groups are not included in the present study. They are the teachers and the pupils. The pupils, especially, have much at stake in this problem, and it is hoped that some future study will attempt to discover their feelings toward this problem. E. DEFINITION OF TERMS Principal -- The term ”principal" refers to a junior or senior high school principal, or administrator. All the principals in this study were members of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals. Counselor -- The term "counselor", as used in this study, refers either to a public secondary school counselor or to a director of guidance in a public school system. All the persons who were included in the counselor sample were members of Division 5 of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. This division, the American School Counselors Association (ASCA), has as a requirement for membership that the person have some released time each day to perform guidance duties at the secondary school level. Counselor-Trainers and Guidance Supervisors -- This term includes two groups of people: (1) counselor-trainers in colleges and universities, and (2) state supervisors of guidance. They are all persons who would be eligible for membership in the National Association of Guidance Supervisors and Counselor-Trainers, a division of the American Personnel and Guidance Association which is commonly referred to as NAGS. For brevity, on charts and graphs, this group will be abbreviated “c. T. a G. s.” or will be referred to simply as "counselor-trainers". Guidance Area -- The term "guidance area” refers to that space, within the school plant, which has been set aside or allocated to house the guidance services. Although it refers to the location and amount of space, the term does not necessarily have reference to the location of specific offices and other facilities within this space. Guidance Facilities -- For the purpose of this study, the term "guidance facilities" is used almost synonymously and interchangeably with "guidance area“. However, there is a slight difference in the two. "Guidance facilities" is a more inclusive term. It includes the contents of the space devoted to guidance--such as offices, waiting rooms, conference or testing rooms, bulletin boards, desks, chairs, and file cabinets-~within the scope of its meaning. F. PLAN OF ORGANIZATION Chapter I has included an introduction to this problem of planning the location of the guidance area within the school plant and has attempted to justify the importance of such a study. Chapter II, The Review of the Literature, is divided into two main parts. The first will establish, 10 using examples from the literature, that two basically different and opposite philosophies of guidance exist. In the second part, the rather skimpy literature on the subject of design and location of the guidance area will be reviewed. Chapter III outlines the procedures and method- ology used in this study. Chapter IV consists primarily of a statistical evaluation of the data.’ In Chapter V the data are evaluated and summarized, along with suggestions for further research in this area. CHAPTER II THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Chapter II will be divided into four parts. The first part, an introduction, will attempt to show that philosophy and function are mutually dependent. Part B will use examples from the literature to illustrate the older philosophy of guidance which, in this study, will be referred to as the "authoritative, directive” philos- ophy of guidance. Part C will cull excerpts from the literature that will establish the newer ”permissive, non- directive” philosophy of guidance. In Part D, the exist- ing literature concerning design of guidance areas will be reviewed. A. INTRODUCTION Philosophies change. As they change, they bring about changes in the ways things are done. Conversely, the ways in which things are done may affect, or change, philosophy. Thus it may be said that philosophy and function are mutually dependent. A change in one brings about a change in the other. If one stagnates, the other is likely to stagnate, also. 12 Translating this into terms of the present study, it can be shown that educational philosophy determines school plant design. Schools built fifty years ago were cold and austere. They reflected the philosOphy of educa- tion that went on between their stone walls. Strict dis- cipline was of paramount importance. Learning consisted primarily of rote memory and repetitious drill. As education freed itself from this rigid, stereotyped, disciplined methodology, the pendulum swung the other way. From about 1920 through 1940, progressive education was the vogue. The pupils determined the curriculum. Core classes came into being. Mental hygiene and social factors became more important in the total learning process. Likewise, the school buildings began to look less austere. They were "fitted" to the site. The site was beautifully landscaped, so that the children might enjoy their school. Munson, in a doctoral dissertation, sums up this inter-relationship very well, as follows: Philosophies determine function. As philosophies of education change, adapting themselves to current social and economic needs, so muSt come changes and adaptations in our school plants. Thus our philosophy of education becomes translated into our physical facilities. (32:11) Alice Barrows continues in this same line of thought in a U. 8. Office of Education Bulletin published in 1940, where she says that school buildings may "help to perpet- uate past practices or facilitate the operation of new 15 developments in the curriculum." (47:5) This has implications for the design and location of the guidance area in modern secondary schools. It can be established that guidance philosophy is changing. The design and location of the guidance area can reflect this change in philosophy, can grow with it; or it can, as Barrows says, ”help to perpetuate past practices". In a recent article in American School and University (27), K00pman urges educators to look to the future and carefully examine their philosophy of education before designing a new school, so that it will not be out of date before it is finished, and so that it will be truly functional. Neutra and Alexander, in an article entitled "Design the Space to Fit the Function” (54), give emphasis to this same point. Cooking compares the school plant to a fine tool or piece of equipment. He says the school plant, like a tool, "has merit to the extent that it helps in getting a good job done.” (6:21) In this same article, Cooking adds: We accept the view that education is a process that is concerned with the growth and development of people. We also know that growth and development involves the total person, not some one part of him. Hence the school as an educational agency is concerned with the intellectual, social, civic, physical, and emotional development of people. A good school lant is one which helps to attain all-around growth. 6:21) 14 In writing from an architect's point of View for Progressive Education Magazine, Yountz (53), looks at the school plant as an aesthetic aid to learning. He says that the design, appearance, and arrangement of the school affects how much and what the student learns. Ruth Strang, in her book‘gupil Personnel and Guidance, also emphasizes the points raised by Cooking and Yountz. She says, in a chapter appropriately entitled "A School Environment Conduoive to Child Development”: The best development of every pupil presupposes an environment conducive to all-around growth. To this end the schools are financed, buildings are plan- ned, the essential heritage of the past is imparted, and guidance programs are put into operation. If education is to be effective...the physical environ- ment of the children during school hours must be such as to make effective personnel work possible. (41:75-74) In Chapter I, Fladseth (17) was quoted as saying that the character and philosophy of the guidance program is continually reflected in the physical facilities for guidance. What is the character of guidance? What are the various philosophies of guidance? How are these philosophies reflected in the design of the guidance facilities? It is around these questions that the rest of this study is based. B. THE AUTHORITATIVE, DIRECTIVE PHILOSOPHY OF GUIDANCE The "authoritative, directive" philosophy appears to be the older philosophy of the two. Furthermore, this 15 philosophy seems to be gradually disappearing, although remnants of it still remain. This can be partially estab- lished by the dates of the articles which are quoted in this section. The most recent is 1942. The others were written in 1929, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1940, and 1941. Nothing more recent, reflecting this philosophy, could be found. That this philosophy was beginning to disappear about 1940 is shown by the articles dated 1940, 1941, and 1942. Although these articles are being used to establish the existence of the so-called “authoritative, directive” philosOphy, they tend to discourage and criticize this aPproach to guidance. What are the criteria by which one can identify the "authoritative, directive” philosophy of guidance? There seem to be several common factors, most of which were quite prevalent before World war II, but which are now becoming less and less common. First, the principal either did all the guidance work or was directly responsible for it. Thus, guidance was thought of as an administrative function. Principals were at first reluctant to give up this function. Note what Brewer has to say about this problem in his History 23 Vocational Guidance. It must not be supposed that this necessary first tool, the counselor, was introduced without reluctance. Attempts often were first made to adapt existing tools to its function; deans and vice-principals were many 16 times so used. But it was early discovered that those in charge of discipline...could hardly secure the confi— dence of pupils sufficiently. Likewise the principal, especially in small schools, tried giving educational and vocational guidance. "If this is as important as you say it is”, asked a Pennsylvania principal in a conference of administrators in 1922, “why shouldn't the big-boss himself do it?" The form of the question gives the answer. A counselor is the one adult who takes and must take a student-eye view of the school. 2:122 In an article describing a special room for counselors, Harris also indicates that counseling was once thought of as primarily the principal's job. She writes: The majority of our school plants were built when counseling meant merely programming students and dealing with discipline cases. Therefore the administrators took care of such matters in their own offices behind closed doors. (22:106) About the mid-thirties, there seems to have been a movement away from the principal's handling all guidance duties and a delegation of this function to others. Eyen so, the titles used by these persons continued to connote administrative control of guidance functions. Treacy writes: Principals have primary responsibility for guid- ance...while in larger schools deans of girls and deans of boys seem to perform more guidance work than prin- cipals, while counselors were mentioned with about the same frequency. (45:27) Cox and Duff also indicate that during the thirties principals were beginning to delegate guidance duties to others, usually persons with the title ”dean” or ”assistant principal”. 17 In high schools of one thousand to two thousand pupils, the administration and supervision of the guidance program, and often that of student activities and discipline, is frequently delegated by the principal to a dean of girls and a dean of boys, one or both of whom may be assistant principals. (9:210) In this book, it is clearly indicated that the deans who were responsible for guidance were thought of as members of the administrative team, and included discipline among their other duties. Lawson, in writing about the duties of a high school principal (28), clearly indicates guidance as a function of the administration; that is to say, a function of the principal. In a small school, says Lawson, the principal does all the guidance. As the school increases in size, responsibility for guidance is delegated as follows: The assistant principal becomes the chief guidance officer so far as general vocational and educational adjustment are concerned, regardless of whether or not there may be a special counselor. (28:339) A second criterion for use in identifying this type of guidance philosophy can be found in the titles used by those responsible for guidance. They will often contain words which imply administrative position or authority. Note in the quotation above, by Lawson, the use of the term ”guidance officer". Fitch (16) found forty-two different titles being used by those respons- ible for guidance in high schools. Among them were dean of boys (or girls), principal, vice-principal, assistant principal, administrative assistant, and advisor. All 18 these titles reflect the philosophy being discussed. The title "advisor", for example, denotes "directiveness"; while "guidance officer" denotes authority. A third criterion of this philosophy can be found in the type of duties assigned to the counselors. In this philosophy, counselors are assigned administrative and clerical duties, such as discipline, attendance, office work, and acting as principal in the principal's absence. Fitch (16) says, on page 58, that “it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that...the principal is making use of the counselor as a general-utility, or handy, man”. Several of the 106 respondentsin Fitch's study mention- ed that administrative duties or clerical work were a part of their job. (16:31-33) The titles "dean of girls” and "dean of boys" seem to be disappearing. But in 1930-1940 they were rather common titles for those assigned the responsibility for guidance. Simley (38) and Brewer (3) both discuss the duties of the dean of girls. From these articles, one can clearly perceive of the "dean" as a protective, authority figure. Simley says the dean of girls gives advice (again denoting a directive approach to guidance), acts as moral guardian to the girls, checks attendance, and metes out discipline. Brewer says much the same thing. Among the duties of the dean of girls in 1929, says Brewer, were (1) decides all discipline cases, (2) signs all notes 19 for absence or tardiness, (3) is ”school mother" with moral, physical, and social supervision of pupils' activities, (4) has charge of assemblies, and (5) supervises class elections. Here one sees an emphasis on the word "super- vision",again connoting administrative function. The deans lectured, gave advice, and kept an eagle-eye open for evidences of infractions of school rules. Cox and Duff, in Guidance by the Classroom Teacher, give further evidence of the variety of duties performed by the counselor, or teacher-counselor. Again, the term ”guidance officer" is used. In any case the special guidance officers find many and diverse aspects of student welfare for which they must accept a large Share of reaponsibility: health, discipline, tests, records, student activities, pupils' scholarship tardiness and absence, parental relations... (9:211) Table 4, on pages 14-15 of Kefauver and Hand (26), shows types of guidance activities carried on during individual interviews with pupils as reported by eighteen participating schools. The table indicates that thirteen of these eighteen schools had counseling interviews with students about attendance and punctuality-~ordinarily considered an administrative function. During these early days of guidance, almost no mention was made of the necessary office space. However, Meyers (33:133), in discussing the setting for the inter- view, advocates a ”private office” that is ”orderly, well 20 kept, and businesslike in appearance". Here again is an example of the formal, authoritarian setting for guidance . Contrast this idea of the counselor's office, for example, with the informal setting advocated by Munson (32:148) or Hatch and Dressel (23:124). The fifth criterion is the emphasis on vocational and educational guidance. In many of the references given, vocational choice and educational planning are listed as guidance functions. However, almost no mention is made, in these earlier writings on guidance, about counseling students with personal, interpersonal, or emotional problems. Thus it can be seen that a philosophy of guidance has existed, rather recently, which can be labeled the "authoritative, directive" philosophy. It is character- ized by the following: (1) the principal either does all the guidance or is directly responsible for it, (2) titles of those doing guidance have administrative or advice- giving connotations, such as assistant principal or advisor, (3) counselors perform administrative duties, usually discipline and attendance, in addition to their guidance duties, (4) the guidance office is formal, businesslike, austere, and usually forbiddingly close to the principal's office, and (5) there is an emphasis on vocational--educa— tional problems accompanied by the exclusion of counseling about personal--social and emotional problems. 21 Since there are still active, educators who taught and worked under this philosophy during the two decades preceding World War II, there still exist remnants of this philosophy today. C. THE PERMISSIVE, NON-DIRECTIVE PHILOSOPHY 0F GUIDANCE The ”permissive, non-directive" philosophy of guidance might be described as almost the antithesis of the "authoritative, directive” philosOphy. Emphasis is on the complete separation of guidance and counseling activities from administrative functions. Counseling itself no longer consists of moralizing and advice-giving, but is an attempt on the part of the counselor to help the student gain insight and knowledge which will help him to solve his own problems more adequately. The "permissive, non-directive" philosophy can be thought of as the newer, emerging philosophy of guidance. Just as most of the references to the "authoritative, direct- ive” philoSOphy were pro-World War II, most of the references for this section are post-World War II. One of the most obvious factors relating to this philosophy is the separation of guidance from administra- tive activities such as discipline and attendance. Cox (10) found in her study (begun in 1940) that although more than half of the counselors in her sample had discipline respon- sibilities, most of them said that discipline and counseling did not mix. 22 In their book, Ag Introduction to Guidance, Lester and Alice Crow present a strong plea for the separation from counseling of discipline functions. They say: One function that should not be included among a dean's responsibilities is that of disciplining recalcitrant pupils. The fulfillment of the avowed purpose of guidance leadership is defeated by this practice. The attitude of pupils toward the guidance staff, especially the dean, should be that of confi- dence, friendliness, and a desire to seek help from these adults who are kindly disposed toward them and interested in their welfare. (11:92) One of the unusual features of the above quotation is the use of the word ”dean". Very few texts on guidance written since 1950 use this title. However, Crow and Grow obviously do not think of the "dean" in the same way that educators thought of him from 1920 to 1940. Part B of this chapter indicated that discipline was often a duty of the pre-World War II dean. Chisholm explains the present-day conception of a counselor very well in his book_§uiding_Youth in the Secondary School. (5) The following statement from this book indicates the permissive character of post-war counseling. The counselor is neither parent nor judge. He is not there to scold or punish the student. He is not there to criticize. Neither is he there to nag. He is there to help the student in the solution of his problem in a critically constructive and intelligent manner. (5:163) This permissive and informal feature of present- day guidance philosophy is very evident in much of the recent literature. The emphasis is upon making the pupil 23 feel at ease by accepting both the child and his prOblem without ridicule and without giving the impression of a domineering, "holier-than-thou" attitude. Leona Tyler is very concerned about this factor of acceptance. Without it the counseling process gets off to a very poor, if not an impossible, start. In her recent book, The Work 23 the Counselor, she says: 0f the two underlying attitudes we have stressed, acceptance is more fundamental at the beginning than understanding and must somehow be communicated first. This is because the people with whom we are dealing are likely to have mixed feelings about being understood. They must be sure that understanding can in no way constitute a threat before they can welcome it. (46:24) Tyler goes on to explain how this initial impress- ion of acceptance can be fostered by the counselor. She says it is important that the receptionist begin the process by making the counselee feel at case, that the counselor greet him by name if possible, that the office should be comfortable and not too bare, and that the interview itself should be free from interruptions. (46:27-28) Crow and Crow also emphasize the factor of permissive- ness and acceptance. They say that it is difficult for pupils to associate counselors with permissiveness and acceptance if they are also associated with discipline and reprimands. ”The guidance office”, say Crow and Crow, ”should be a room to which pupils come willingly, even eagerly.” (11:92) In another part of their book they re- emphasize this point. 24 No matter how many, how few, how large, or how small guidance offices may be, they should b3 friendly rooms to which young peOple or adults come willingly and with a feeling of confidence in the sincerity and oooperativeness of the members of the guidance personnel who are there to welcome them and to render service in their behalf. (11:77) At a recent conference, reported in The Nations Schools (50), educators were discussing the topic, “What's Needed in Administrative Spaces?“ The following remark, quoted from this report, indicates the change in thinking that has occurred since pro-World War II. Separate waiting rooms for the principal's office and for the health and guidance office are being con- sidered in many school designs. The thinking is that children waiting for voluntary conferences, those called in for disciplinary reasons, and youngsters who might be seriously 111 should not be thrown together. (50:66) Fladseth also advocated a separate entrance to the counselor's office. Since some students regard their business with the counselor as being more highly confidential than with other staff members, they prefer to avoid direct contact with a secretary while entering or emerging from the counselor's office. (17:169) Anna‘Reed devotes a full chapter to "Material and Psychological Factors which Condition Interviewing” in her book, Guidance and Personnel Services lg Education. She feels definitely that the design and location of the guidance office is one of these factors. The setting for the interview, or the environment in which it takes place, is an important factor in success. Provision for a suitable location easily accessible and free from the implication of disciplin- ary functions... is desirable. (36:288) 25 Here again the emphasis is on the separation of guidance and administrative (discipline) functions. Hatch and Dressel also give recognition to the factor of the interview setting in establishing a permissive atmosphere. They express the importance of the setting in giving the counselee "a sense of acceptance, of well—being and relaxation“. (23:124) Undoubtedly the work of Carl Rogers has given momentum to the trend toward a non-directive, permissive philosophy of counseling. That this philosophy is currently prevalent is quite obvious. Almost no present writer in the field of guidance, save perhaps E. G. Williamson, considers discipline a function of those responsible for guidance. Even Williamson considers discipline an educational learning process rather than a punitive process. -It is almost impossible to find, readily, a recent reference referring to secondary school counselors as deans. Almost without exception, except in the smaller high schools, the principal has delegated the responsibility for carrying out guidance functions to the counselors. Thus it is no longer a strictly adminis- trative function. Counselors, more and more, express the desire to disassociate themselves from the administration in the hope of making their guidance efforts more fruit- ful. There is less emphasis on purely educational-vocation- al guidance and more on personal-social adjustments. 26 These are the evidences for claiming the second, "permissive, non-directive” philosophy of guidance. D. LITERATURE PERTAINING TO THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE GUIDANCE FACILITIES The literature pertaining to the design and location of the guidance area in secondary schools is very scanty. Much of that which does exist is elementary and superficial. Before Werld War II, there were almost no references to this problem. The one quotation from Myers, given earlier in this chapter, and an article by Harris (22) were the only pro-war references found. There has been at least one doctoral dissertation written on this topic, in 1948, by Joy B. Munson. (32) Lou included some reference to the guidance area, in a rather incidental way, in his dissertation on administrat- ive areas written in 1953. (29) Deepite the anticipated building boom in secondary school buildings, the guidance area has been grossly neg- lected. Several writers have noted this fact, but few have done anything about it. Stripling (42) wrote an editorial pleading for more research in this area. Cocking (7) also says that lack of research and information about the purpose and character of guidance areas will hamper their design for some time to come. In one of the very most recent books on guidance, 27 Professional counselors and other guidance workers have yet to describe their needs in terms of building standards. Many schools are attempting to carry on counseling functions with little or no provision for the basic requirements of privacy, comfort, the physical features of a proper psychological climate, and the storing of necessary records and materials. In the next decade or so Americans will be spending billions of dollars for new school plants. The question arises: what kinds of counseling offices and other guidance-service facilities will be provided in this vast program? Host school systems, of course, do aspire to the development of an adequate guidance program: but the data so far available do not permit the establishment of standards in either the area of personnel or the area of space reguirements. School administrators and boards of education need help in identifying the speci- fics which constitute an adequate program. The solution to this problem requires keeping complete records, thorough evaluation, and more effective reporting of the findings of guidance studies in the general litera- ture of educational research. (31:467-68) This then, is the situation in 1956. Very little published research is available to those who are concerned about the proper design of adequate facilities for guidance. This means that both professional consultants, and local administrators, counselors, and architects, must face the issue rather blindly. The available literature, besides being scarce, is also very sketchy and elementary. Much of it consists of statements such as "'each counselor should have his own private office"; or, "guidance offices should be equipped with a desk, two or three chairs, a file cabinet, bookcase, a bulletin-board, adequate lighting, and perhaps a rug"; and, "the counselor's office should be about seven by nine feet, as a mininun, and should contain 60-100 square 28 feet of space". It is quite difficult to find anything more detailed, or more specific, than this. There are a few references which show some more or less detailed plans for the guidance area. Some of these include only the guidance office itself, and do not indicate the location of the guidance area in relation to other areas within the school. Some of the references which show actual floor plans are: Cass (4), Daly (l3), Deardon (14), Fladseth (17), Harris (22), Leu (29), Mathisen (30), Munson (32), Shear (37), Warters (48), Weber (49), and the special reports numbered (43) and (44) in the biblio- graphy. Munson (32), Leu (29), and Corre (8) all indicate findings that suggest that the guidance offices should be located in, adjacent to, or very near the main adminis- trative office. Leu's study, which showed almost 100 per- cent in favor of this location, consisted almost entirely of replies from school administrators. Counselors, as has already been noted (36, 17) have a tendency to favor a central location, but one which is at least somewhat separated from the principal's office to avoid the implication that the counselor is an administrator or disciplinarian. Warters shows a very elaborate floor plan (48:259) for the guidance facilities in a large high school. In this school (El Monte Union High School, California), the guidance and research offices even have their own building, 29 completely separated from the rest of the school plant. Warters remarks that having a separate building for the guidance services "apparently has not contributed to separ- ation of guidance and instruction in this school". (48:258) The National Association of Guidance Supervisors and Counselor Trainers (NAGSCT) devoted an entire work- shop to this problem in Chicago in April, 1955. The results of this workshop are mimeographed in three reports, numbered (35), (44), and (52) in the bibliography. This group plans to continue their work in this area in an effort to arrive at some kind of standards which can serve as a guide to those planning new facilities for guidance. Another meeting on this same topic is being planned for the near future. Thus, there are indications that the literature in this area will gradually improve. Educators, especially those concerned about guidance, recognize a need for more information of this kind. The fact that the need is recognized should do a great deal to promote more thorough research in this field. Those responsible for planning guidance facilities in the future should find more of this type of material available to help them. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE A. INTRODUCTION The basic hypothesis of this study is that the location of the guidance area tends to reflect one or the other of the two philosophies established and de- scribed in Chapter II. To test this hypothesis, materials were developed which would accomplish three things: (1) a questionnaire to determine which of the two philosOthes each respondent held, (2) a set of plans by which each respondent could indicate his preferences for the location of the guidance area, and (3) a personal-data sheet to collect other pertinent information about each respondent which might have some relationship to which of the philoSOphies he held, and hence, which plans he would prefer. B. THE INSTRUMENTS The Questionnaire -- The questionnaire (see Appendix B) was included as a check to determine whether there was, in fact, a relationship between the plans and the two opposing philosophies. Originally, twenty statements were developed which seemed to reflect the ”authoritative, directive“ philosophy of guidance. A typical statement 31 of this kind was "Counselors should be responsible for attendance and discipline.” An "Agree" response indicated that the respondent would tend to hold the "authoritative, directive“ philosophy of guidance. To check the adequacy and appropriateness of these twenty statements against the philosophy which they were intended to represent, seven judges were asked to read the statements and to respond to them with this philosophy, as described in Chapter II, in mind. These seven judges were all professional persons in the field of counseling and guidance. They included three college counselor-trainers, two college counselors, and two high school counselors both of whom have completed most of the requirements for a doctorate in counseling and guidance. Although there was some disagreement on five of the statements, at least six of the seven agreed on each of the fifteen statements which were included in the final questionnaire. On the recommendation of the judges, five of the final fifteen statements were reworded so that a "Disagree" response would reflect the "authoritative, directive“ philosophy. The judges suggested this because they thought that the purpose of the questionnaire was too obvious the way it had originally been set up. The final scoring of the questionnaire was based on agreement with the items to reflect the ”permissive, non—directive" philosophy of guidance. That is, ten of 32 the items demanded a "Disagree" response, while five demanded an "Agree" response. Thus, a perfect score of 15 indicated that the respondent's answers conformed with the answers the judges felt were most in accord with the "permissive, non- directive“ philosophy. Conversely, a low score indicated that the respondent probably held a more "authoritative, directive" attitude toward guidance. The Plans -- The two philosophies, as described in Chapter II, suggest that the major difference between them is that guidance either includes administrative functions or that it does not. Furthermore, there is indication in the literature that there is a trend, representing the ”permissive, non- directive" philosophy of guidance, to separate the guidance offices from the principal's office in order to avoid the ”dragon's lair" impression that some students have of the counselor's office when the guidance personnel have dis- ciplinary functions. Therefore, six plans were developed (see Appendix B) which showed the guidance area being gradually removed further and further from the administrative office. Each plan had the guidance area somewhat more separated from the main office than the preceding plan. The two extremes, Plan B and Plan D, most clearly reflect the two extremes of philosOphy. In Plan B, the counselors' offices and the principal's office are in the same area, with a common waiting room. In Plan D, guidance and administration are two distinct and separate areas, visually removed from one another and some distance apart. All six plans, arranged along a continuum from the most authoritative to the most permissive, would appear in this order: B, E, C, A, F, D. Rather than mailing them in this sequence, thus making the differences more obvious, they were rearranged, according to numbers drawn from a table of random numbers, into this order: A, B, C, D, E, F. That is, the original Plan 1 was relabeled B, and placed second; the original Plan 2 was relabeled E, and placed fifth; et cetera. From a close scrutiny of these plane, it appears that there are three basic arrangements that the location of the guidance office can assume in relation to the main administrative office. First, the guidance office and administrative office can be integrated. This relationship reflects the "authoritative, directive” philosophy of guidance. In the plans, this extreme is represented best by plans B and E. Schematically, this relationship might be shown thus: ADMINISTRATION and GUIDANCE AREA 34 At the other extreme, the guidance office and the administrative office are completely separated. This arrangement most closely represents the ”permissive, non- directive” phiIOSOphy of guidance. Plans D and F are both this type. This relationship can be graphically portrayed in this manner: ADMINISTRATION GUIDANCE AREA AREA Plans A and C represent a compromise situation. Although near the administrative area, and sharing with the administrative area the common vault, the two areas are visually separated. They have separate entrances and each has its own waiting room. Of these two plans, Plan A is more completely separated visually, being around the corner, and thus might be more appropriately grouped with Plans D and F in a dichotomized grouping. Likewise, Plan C, with its entrance on the same corridor as the entrance to the adndnietrative office, and obviously the adjoining area, might be appropriately grouped with Plans B and E. However, Plans A and C do represent a rather in-between type of arrangement and can be thought of as the third 35 possaible basic type of grouping. Again using a graphic repxresentation, this type might be indicated as follows: ADMINISTRATION GUIDANCE AREA AREA An attempt was made to keep as much of these plans constant as possible, so that choice would be based on the relative location of the two areas. All total areas (in square feet) are the same, with the exception of Plan A, which is very slightly larger. In each plan, the arrange- ment of the principal's and assistant principal's offices have been kept identical. Also the size and arrangement of the counselors' offices and the group testing and con- ference room have been kept as nearly alike as possible. The same seven judges who verified the questionnaire were also asked to arrange the six plans in order, ranking them from the plan which most nearly represented the "per- missive, non-directive” philosophy to the plan most closely representing the "authoritative, directive" philosophy. ‘ All seven of these judges agreed with the order of the plans, as follows: D, F, A, 0,3, B 56 In c>ther words, all seven judges arranged the plans in the :same order, and this order agreed with the order in whi<3h the author had originally drawn up the plans. Dicfinotomized, Plans D, F, and A represent the ”permissive, horn-directive” philosophy, and Plans C, E, and B represent ‘mae ”authoritative, directive" phiIOSOphy. 13KB Rating Sheet -- A rating sheet was included in the mailing on which the respondents were asked to rank the Six plans according to their choice from one (1) through Six (6). This Rating Sheet included complete directions as well as a form with spaces for the ranks.(See Appendix B) 252 Personal-Data Sheet -- In order to get information which would enable the data to be grouped into different categories, a personal-data sheet (see Appendix B) was also included in the mailing. Preliminary thinking, based on the two philOSOphies, suggested that factors such as age, experience as a school administrator, training in guidance, date degree was received, and experience in planning for guidance facilities might have some influence on which of these philosophies one holds, and thus, on which of the plans one would prefer. Also information was requested as to which of these plans was most nearly like the location of the guidance area in their school, and whether or not they were satisfied with the plan they now have. Counselor-trainers were asked if they spent any time 57 in 'their classes teaching or discussing apprOpriate location znui design of the guidance area. The Letter -- A letter (see Appendix B) was included as a paxrt of the mailing. It briefly outlined the purpose of' the study, requested the c00peration of the respondent, arufl gave general instructions as to what was to be done. C. THE SAMPLE The sample was limited to counselors, principals, counselor-trainers, and state guidance supervisors from the nineteen states comprising the North Central Association. This was done because the North Central Association has certain requirements for member schools, as far as guidance services are concerned, and thus it was thought that there would be more homogeniety in the sample. Since counselor- trainers in these states prepare counselors to work pri- marily within these states, the course content of the guidance courses, and therefore the training of counselors, would be somewhat similar. Counselors -- There is only one nation-wide organization which has as a criterion for membership that the individual have released time for guidance, and some training in the field of guidance. This organization is the recently formed American School Counselors Association (ASCA), a division of the American Personnel and Guidance 38 Asss of plans, two statistical tests were carried out. One tested the difference of the mean scores on the question- naire , by means of a Critical Ratio test, of these who chose all their first three choices from Plan Group A, D, F, and Plan Group B, E, C respectively. The other test was 9. Chi Scinare testing the difference in choice of plans of those scoring high and those scoring low on the questionnaire. These 1:ests are explained more fully in Chapter IV. 4A separate tabulation was made for the two items numbered 10 and 11 on the Personal Data Sheet. These two items Were tabulated only for principals and counselors Since, in general, they were not applicable to the counselor- trainer, this guidance supervisor sample. The breakdown for t8l'bulation was as follows: (1) Those whose present 45 guidance facilities are most like Plan ________, (2) Are they satisfied with this plan, yes or no?, and (3) Which plan did this respondent choose as first choice? This break- down was made separately for principals and counselors. The tabulation for this data is in Appendix D. The statistical formulas which were used are shown in Appendix A . i/C CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA A. VALIDATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND PLANS Up to this point, the relationship of the question- naire and plans to the two philosophies of guidance has been of a subjective, judgmental nature. In order to test whether there is, in fact, such a relationship, two different statistical checks were carried out: o In the first of these, the questionnaires were scored and those scoring high were put into one group, while those scoring low were placed in a second group. A high. score was one which showed 14 or 15 agreements with the 15 statements which reflect the “permissive, non- direc ti ve" philosophy of guidance. A low score was one Which had only 8 or fewer agreements with the scoring as determined by the seven judges. There were 42 individuals With a high score and 50 with a low score. Then the Rating Sheets were checked to determine the nul'nber of let, 2nd, and 3rd choices which had been made fPom among the three plans (A, D, F) which supposedly reflected this "permissive, non-directive" philosophy. Among the group which had a high score on the questionnaire, 8 8 of the 126 possible first three choices had been made 47 TABLE II \IALIDATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE AGAINST FIRST THREE CHOICES FROM AMONG PLANS A, D, AND F, Ratio of lst, \ 2nd, and 3rd % or Number Scoring Choices from A, F, D Group 14 or 15 (high) Among Plans Choices A, D, and F to Possible Number of 1, 2, 3 Choices Principals 3 2/9 22.2 c ounse lors 18 57/54 68. 5 c. T. a c. s. 21 49/65 77.8 Totals 42 88/126 69.8 Number Scoring Ratio (same % of Group 8 or Less (low) as above) A, F, D Principals 21 14/63 22.2 Counselors 8 11/24 45.8 C. T. & G. Se 1 1/3 33.5 N. L‘AA .1 i _ i ._AA in“ ‘Totals so 26/90 28.9 48 from plans A, D, and F. This represents approximately 70% of the possible number of choices. From among the group that scored low, only 26 out of a possible 90 choices had been made from plans A, D, and F. This was about 29% of the possible choices. See Table II. This relationship was set up in a 2x2 table and a Chi Square test was applied. (Table III) There is only one chance in one thousand that such a Chi Square value, with one degree of freedom, will exceed 10.8. In this case, the Chi Square value was 55.3. Hence, there appears to be a very definite relationship, which cannot be attributed to chance, that a high score on the questionnaire is accompan- ied by a greater tendency to choose plans A, D, or F. TABLE III COMPARISON OF QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES TO CHOICE OF PIAN FROM DICHOTOMIZED GROUPS No. of Choices No. of Choices from A, D, F from B, E, C Totals High Score 88 68 126 Low Score 26 64 90 T 0t els 114 102 216 z e . X = 85.55 (significant beyond the .001 level) 49 In the second test, the Rating Sheets were sorted and divided into two groups. One group, containing 42 replies, consisted of all replies that had rated Plans A, D, and F as first, second, or third choices. That is, I in these 42 replies, Plans A, D, and F received no rank lower than third. The other group, which included 28 replies, consisted of all the replies which had rated Plans B, E, and C as first, second, or third choices. This second group included all replies in which Plans A, D, and F had not been rated higher than fourth. (Table IV) Thus the first group had chosen all their first three choices from among the plans (A, D, F) which repre- sented the "permissive, non-directive" philosophy of guidance, while the second group had chosen all their first three choices from among the plans (B, E, C) which represented the ”authoritative, directive” philosophy of guidance. A distribution of the questionnaire scores for each of these two groups was then made, and the mean score and standard distribution were determined. A Critical Ratio (CR) test was then made to test the diff- erence cf the means. The null hypothesis was that the A means were equal (M.=y,). The distribution of these scores, the means, standard deviations, and resulting Critical. Ratios are shown in Table v. With a "CR“ of this size (8.37), this test again proves a definite relationship exists. between choice of plans and score on the questionnaire. TABLE IV 50 VALIDATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE AGAINST CHOICE OF PLANS A. THOSE MAKING ALL FIRST mass CHOICES FROM AMONG A, D, F LJ 4 ___- I J Sum of Scores Average Group N on Score on Questionnaire Questionnaire Principals 5 29 9.67 Counselors 21 265 12.52 C.T. & 6.3. 18 257 15.17 Totals 42 529 11:12.6 61= 1.9 B. THOSE MAKING ALL FIRST THREE CHOICES FROM AMONG B, C, E _: -:‘_ Sum of Scores Average Group N on Score on Questionnaire Questionnaire Principals 24 214 8.91 Counselors 5 54 11.35 C.T. & G.S. 1 14 14.00 Totals 28 262 11:9.56 d’=2.95 51 The graph in Fugure 1 shows a smoothed curve dis- tributi on .for all the questionnaire scores, broked down into scores for principals, counselors, and counselor- trainers - From a visual analysis of these curves it can be seen that a relationship exists, in the direction expected, between the amount of training and/or experience in guidance and scores on the questionnaire. Again a CR test was used to test the hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal (fl¢=/U-.r=/‘“p)° The teS t indicates a significant difference exists between the me ans of these three groups. However, it is much greater. between counselors and principals (CR=6.29) and between counselor-trainers and principals (CRT-8.95), than it is between counselors and counselor-trainers (CR: 3 .89). Thus the judges' Opinions that a high score on the questionnaire and choice of Plan Group A, D. F “01115 b9 related to the "permissive, non-directive” philosophy 0f 8111cLattice is borne out by statistical tests. It is signi- ficant that of the 42 persons who scored high on the test: 59 Of them were counselors or counselor-trainers, while only three were principals. Conversely, those who scored low on the test were mostly principals (21 out of 50). s ( 3° Table II) TABLE V DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON QUESTIONNAIRE Number Right C.T. a. G.S. c P Total 15 5 5 2 1o 14 15 15 1 52 13 14 20 5 57 12 16 16 8 4o 11 s 22 11 41 10 2 1o 5 18 9 2 '7 15 24 8 1 5 7 15 '7 - 5 4 '7 6 .. .. '7 '7 s _ .. - o 4: - - 5 5 3 - - l l "\ N= . 54 101 68 255 Mean 2 12.61 11.61 9.55 11.36 0‘: 1.47 1.75 2.59 2.41 \ ¥ . n ' _4 012273139 on: 3:29 ‘4 L “238.95 -Frequency- FIGURE 1 55 T KEY Principals - ————————— '3 251_ Counselors - o o o ; :3 {g C - T - i T oi . & G‘s. G H . g n 2 2 a ? 3 f 2 20 *—~—-.11_“___1_1_ 1.1 1 E3 11:42:3‘H_m..m1~._~ C, o .. , 0/ \ § / ° ° \ E Q 0 15 \ 1. .. .. .. ...__ II I / / I I / J I 10 N ._ . l.’ ~Score- SMOOTHED CURVES -- QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES 54 Likewise, counselors and counselor-trainers were much more likely to make all their first three choices from among Plan Group A, D, F. Here again, 59 out of the 42 Pei-“80118 making such a selection were counselors or counselor ~trainers. On the other hand, of the 28 who made all their first three choices from among Plan Group B, C, E: 24 We re principals and only 4 were counselors or counselor-trainers. (Table IV) Thus, principals seem to represent the "authoritative, directive” approach to guidance Whil° <3 Ounselors tend toward the "permissive, non-directive" philoaophy. 3- ANALYSIS OF THE PLANS; Although there was no intention to find a perfect, or best plan; one plan (A) did appear as a strong over-all favor-1 to. Ninety-three (55%) of the 267 reapondents chose Plan A as first choice. No other plan received more than 48 first votes. Thus, Plan A received about twice the number. of first place votes as the next nearest plan. Plan A represents the ”permissive, non-directive” phi losophy but in a ”middle-of-the-road" way. It was much MOPS popular among counselor-trainers (47% first choices) and c=ounselors (37% first choices), than it was among print: lipals (18% first choices). Plan B represented the most extreme end of the co . Iltimuum in the ”authoritative, directive" direction. 55 If the hypothesis is correct that principals, rather than counselors hold this philosOphy, then one would expect this plan to be more popular with the principals. It was. Twenty-three (23) percent of principals made this plan their first ch01 ce (second only to Plan E, the next most "author- itative” plan, which had 29% of the principals' first (”101098) - 0n the other hand, counselors and counselor- trainers both avoided this plan (B) and gave it only 7% and 4% ch 01093, respectively. Plan D, on the other hand, represents the extreme ‘. ”massive" and of the continuum. It is far removed from the administrative offices. This plan had the dis- advantage of being far removed from the record vault in the plan, as it was shown, and thus was not as popular as it might have been. wrot e 1 n 9 Several counselors and counselor-trainers as a remark, that Plan D might have been their first Choice if it were feasible to duplicate the records. As far» as first choices were concerned, there was not much diffeI‘ence between the three groups. Counselors and owns elor-trainers gave Plan D 8.5% and 113% or their fir s1; votes, respectively, while principals also gave Plan D 8 ‘4% of their first choices. However, Plan D was a much nor 9 popular second and third choice among counselors (18 ‘79“ and counselor-trainers (27.3%), than among prin- ci pals (7.0%) -Percent- FIGURE 2 50 56 Principals - 40*——--~“l__ Counselors - C.T. & GQSO - 30'—--‘.__ 20 U O -Plans- FIRST CHOICE FOR EACH PLAN BY PERCENT 57 FIGURE 3 4O Ipsoohomn -Plans- FIRST THREE CHOICES FOR EACH PLAN, BY PERCENT 58 Figure 2 shows the percent of first choices of each Plan for each of the three groups of respondents. For each of the three plans representing the "permissive, non- dir’ective" philosophy (Plans D, F, A), principals made fewer first choices than either counselors or counselor- trainers, while for the two plans (E and B) representing the "authoritative, directive" philosophy, principals Chose more first choices, by far, than either counselors or couns e lor-t rai ners . Figure 3 shows the percentage of first, second, and third choices made for each plan by each of the three groups . The same trend is indicated here as described above for fir-s 1: choices. Counselors and counselor-trainers make more Choices from Plans D, F, A than principals do, while prin- oipals prefer Plans C, E, B more frequently than do the counselor, counselor-trainer groups. These two plan groups were then dichotomized and considered only as two groups: Plan Group D, F, A representing the "permissive, non-directive" phiIOSOphy and Plan Group C, E, 3, representing the "authoritative, directive" philosophy. Figures 4 and 5 show how counselors and counselor- trainers tend to choose from Plan Group D, F, A while principals-prefer Plan Group C, E, B. Figure 4 shows the percent of first choices from 68. Ch or these two plan groups for counselors, counselor- tr a in 31‘ s , and principals . 59 FIGURE 4 75.7%q 7G- 61.9%. 50 -Percent- ow 40‘ 52.9%. 5‘ E i 26.5% : Q 2c; .. .1__J r—-"\“‘~ PLAN ‘ PLAN ‘ GROUP GROUP D,F,A C,E,B IPEBCENT FIRST CHOICE FROM THE DICHOTOMIZED GROUPS FIGURE 5 so so z- 71.7% 7 50.6% 1 so 3 . 54.9% . ' 43 G 8 g 501 n. . I L 45.1% 4" P 59.4% / / / / / q / UV / 28.5%1‘ 2U ”A {A PLAN GROUP LAN GROUP D.F.A 0,3,3 PERCENT OF FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CHOICES FROM THE DICHOTOMIZED GROUPS 61 Figure 5 shows the percent of first, second, or third choices made from each plan group by counselors, counselor- trainers, and principals. It is clear from a visual analysis of these graphs that the counselor and counselor-trainer groups have very similar choices but that these differ considerably from the plans preferred by principals. To test these visual differences more formally in order to establish levels of significance, Chi SQuare tests were applied. The number of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth choices from Plan Group D, F, A was tabulated for each of the three groups in the sample. The following 3 x 6 table was set up from this data, and a Chi Square tea 1: was applied. This preliminary test indicated that Significant differences do exist between these three groups. (Table VI) To discover just where these differences existed, “'0 more Chi Squares were worked out. The first of these t631366 the difference between the counselor and counselor- trai nér groups. This test proved to be insignificant, indi cating little difference between the preference of th°se two groups. (Table VII) Since there appeared to be very little difference between the counselor and counselor-trainer groups, those tw o gJr‘cbups were combined for the third test and compared TABLE VI 62 COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS, COUNSELDRS, AND COUNSELOR-TRAINERS Actual Freqpengy Group 1 2 5 4 5 6 Total Principals 24 21 17 57 58 62 219 Counselors 75 6O 61 54 62 64 554 C. T. & G. S. 56 58 44 25 52 55 228 Totals 155 119 122 94 152 161 801 2 )(::55,02 (significant beyond the .001 level) TABLE VII COMPARISON OF COUNSELOR AND COUNSELOR-TRAINER GROUPS Actual Frequencyg Group 1 2 5 4 5 6 Total Counselors 75 60 61 54 62 64 554 C. T. & G. S. 56 58 44 25 52 55 228 Totals 129 98 105 57 94 99 582 a X =2.95 (not significant) 65 with the principal group. This Chi Square test indicated a very significant difference in the plan preferences of these two groupings. (Table VIII) TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS, AND COMBINED COUNSELOR, COUNSELOR-TRAINER GROUP Actual Frequency Group 1 2 5 4 5 6 Total Principals 24 21 17 57 58 62 219 Counselors 129 98 105 57 94 99 582 & C. T. & G. S. Totals 155 119 122 94 152 161 801 z 1K,==55.02 (significant beyond the .001 level) A third method used to analyze the relationship between plan preferences and the three groups of respondents was the average rank of the plans. Average rank was figured in the following manner: for each plan, the number of first choices times one (1), plus the number of second choices times two (2), pins the number of third choices times three (5), et cetera was determined. The resulting sum was then divided by the N for that group to obtain the average rank. Thus a low average rank indicates a tendency for the plan to be preferred; that is, ranked one (1), two (2), or three 64 (5) more often than four (4), five (5), or six (6). The results are shown graphically in Figure 6, and numerically in Table IX. Plan B, the most "authoritative" received an average rank of three (5) from the principal group, while both counselors and counselor-trainers ranked this plan six (6). The plan most preferred by counselors and counselor- trainers, Plan A, as evidenced by the lowest overall average-rank (l), was ranked fourth (4) by the principals. In the principal group, the top three plans, by average-rank, were the three ”authoritative" plans B, E, and C. The three ”permissive" plans A, F, and D were ranked four (4), five (5), and six (6) by the principals. There was less agreement of this kind among the counselor, counselor-trainer groups. However, counselor- trainers made two of their first three choices (by average rank) from among plan group A, D, F. Counselors made only one of their first three ranks from this grouping. A close visual inspection, however, indicates that there was a virtual_tie between the average rank of Plan B (5.441) and Plan F (5.491) for the ocunselor sample. Had the average rank for these two plans been reversed, counselors and counselor-trainers would have given identical overall rankings to the plans. The "average-ranks" were then averaged for the dichotomized Plan Groups. That is, the average ranks for AVERAGE RANK OF EACH PLAN TABLE IX 65 r.— —-:‘._ PLAN C.T. & G.S. Rank Counselors Rank Principals Rank B 4.908 6 4.619 6 2.918 5 E 5.658 4 5.441 5 2.726 2 C 2.882 2 2.720 2 2.656 1 A 2.184 1 2.155 1 5.152 4 F 5,265 5 5.491 4 4.466 5 D 4.105 5 4.576 5 5.082 6 TABLE X AVERAGE RANK BY DICHOTOMIZED GROUPS “- PLAN . GROUP C.T. & G.S. Rank Counselors Rank Principals Rank B,E,C 5.816 2 5.595 2. 2.767 1 A,F,D '5.184 1 5.407 1 4.255 2 66 FIGURE 6 + 2.0 nv—.'——-. ' -.o—.-.—-*.—.‘H-._..——»A- 5.0J - 1.01: D F A C E B ¥ 44 L __ .4 V’ v Permissive, Non-directive Authoritative, Directive AVERAGE RANK.FOR EACH PLAN SHOWN GRAPHICALLY 67 Plan B, Plan E, and Plan C were added together and divided by three. This was done for each Plan Group, and separately for each group of respondents. The results of this averaging are shown in Table X. While counselors and counselor-trainers chose Group A, D, F as the overall first choice, principals gave a decided preference to Plan Group B, E, C. Consistently, by all three methods of analysis, counselors and counselor-trainers tend to prefer Plan Group A, D, F, to a greater degree than the principals, while principals show a strong preference for Plan Group B, E, c. 0. ANALYSIS or PLANS BY INDIVIDUAL CRITERIA In Chapter III (pp. 42-45), an explanation of the breakdown for each of the separate criteria from the Per- sonal Data Sheet was given. If the ”authoritative, directive" philosophy of guidance is the older philosophy (as indicated by the publication dates of the literature referring to this philosophy-~see Chapter II), then it might be that the older persons in the sample, or those who did their graduate work before World War II, might have a different philosophy of guidance than the younger persons in the sample. If the statement that the older philosophy is the "authoritative" type, while the newer philosophy is more 68 "permissive", and if Plan Group B, E, C represents this older philosophy, while Plan Group A, D, F represents the newer philosophy; then, one would expect younger persons, or those with more recent training in guidance, to show more preference for Plan Group A, D, F than the older respondents. A visual analysis of Tables XI, XII, and XIII shows a trend in this direction. It is more obvious among the principals than among the counselor and counselor-trainer groups. Younger principals (those under 55 years old) made almost twice as many first, second, and third choices (44%) from Plan Group A, D, F as the older (over 45) principals (who made only 25% such choices). Among counselors and counselor-trainers there was only a very slight difference (2%) between these two age groups and, although it was in the direction expected, it cannot be considered significant. The same trend is evident in the "date of degree” criterion. Among all three groups of reapondents, those who received their latest degree since 1945 chose more of their first three choices from among Plan Group A, D, F than did those whose degree had been granted prior to 1945. The two philosophies also suggested that adminis- trative experience, or counseling experience, might tend to change one's philosophy toward guidance. The data indicates that this may be so. 69 TABLE XI .PRINCIPALS PERCENT OF lST, 2ND, AND 5RD CHOICES FROM PLANS A, D, AND F Criterion: Number of credits in guidance N Percent None ------- (14) 19% Less than 10 - - -(29) 22% 10-20 ------ (19) 57% More than 20 - - -(11) 42% Criterion: Age Over 45 ----- (4s) 25% 55-45 - ----- (15) 51% Under 55 ----- (12) 44% <§riterion: Havegyou ever been a counselor? No - - -- --- -(4l) 22% Yes ------- (52) 56% Criterion: Have you ever helped plan a guidance area? No -------- (45) 24% Yes ------- (50) 54% Criterion: Date latest degree was received Before 1945 - - - (55) 25% Since 1945 - - - -(57) 51% All Principals - -(75) 28% 70 TABLE XII COUNSELORS PERCENT OF lST, 2ND, AND 5RD CHOICES FROM PLANS A, D, AND F Criterion: Number of credits in guidance .E Percent None ------- (1) 53% Less than 10 - - - (4) 67% 10-20 — - - - - — (22) 57% More than 20 — - -(91) 52% Criterion: Age Over 45 ----- (49) 55% 55-45 ------- (51) 50% Less than 55 - - -(58) 58% Criterion: Have you ever been a_principal? Yes ------- (19) 49% No -------- (99) 56% Criterion: flavepyou ever helped plan a_guidance area? Ne -------- (75) 51% Yes ------- (45) 59% Criterion: Date latest degree was received Before 1945 - - - (30) 50% Since 1945 - - - -(ee) 55% All Counselors - (118) 55% 71 TABLEDXIII C. T. & G. S. PERCENT OF lST, 2ND, AND 5RD CHOICES FROM PLANS.A, D, AND F Criterion: Number of credits in_guidance N’ Percent 10-20 ------- (5) 55% More than 20 - - -(73) 62% Criterion: Age Over 45 - - - - - (25) 55% 55-45 - - - - — - (59) 55% Under 55 ----- (12) 55% Criterion: Have xou ever been a principal? Yes ------- (29) 59% No -------- (47) 62% Criterion: Have you ever been a counselor? No -------- (26) 59% Yes - — — - - - - (50) 52% Criterion: Have you ever helpedgplan a guidance area? No -------- (49) 58% Yes ------- (27) 54% Criterion: Do you teach about_planning guidance areas in your Classes? No -------- (21) 62% yes ------- (55) 50% _griterion: Date latest degree was received Before 1945‘- - - (18) 55% Since 1945 - -V- -(58) 52% All C.T. & GeSe" '(76) 61% . (I... .I..P|1IIIDI«I!'1I( I 72 Principals who have been counselors made 56% of their first three choices from Plan Group A, D, F while Indncipals who have not been counselors made only 22% of their choices from this "permissive" group. Thus, experience in counseling seems to have some influence in changing one's philosophy toward the more “permissive, non-directive” vieWpoint. On the other hand, counselors and counselor-trainers who have had administrative experience as a principal both tended to make fewer choices from Group A, D, F than coun- selor, counselor-trainers without such administrative experience. Here again, experience in administration appears to have some effect on one's philosophy in the direction of a more "authoritative, directive" vieWpoint. Those with experience in helping plan a guidance area also showed a slight trend in favor of the A, D, F type of plan. Among all three groups, those who had helped plan such an area preferred more A, D, F plans than those who had not been involved in planning guidance facilities for a school. Among principals, amount of training in guidance also seemed to have a positive relationship to choice of A, D, F plans. As the number of credits in guidance in- creased, there was a corresponding increase in the percent of first three choices from Group A, D, F. Principals who 75 had had no course work in guidance made only 19% of their first three choices from A, D, or F while those principals who had had more than twenty semester hours of work in guidance made 42% of their choices from this group. Thus, a direct relationship seems to exist between plan preferences and age, administrative or counseling experience, amount of work taken in area of guidance, date latest degree was granted, and experience in helping to plan for guidance facilities. In general, younger persons and those with more experience and/or training in guidance are more apt to prefer the "permissive, non-directive" type plans to a greater extent than the older respondents with less counsel- ing training and/or experience, or those with administrative experience. D. SATISFACTION WITH PRESENT PLANS Item 10 (Are you satisfied with the design and location of the guidance facilities you now have?) and Item 11 [Which of these plans (A, B, C, D, E, F) is most nearly like the plan of the guidance facilities in your schoolz7 from the Personal Data Sheet were tabulated separately. (See Appendix D) The most obvious result of this tabulation is that neither counselors nor principals are satisfied with the physical provisions for guidance services which they now “.1 ""“fi 74 have. Seventy-seven (or 75.5%) of the 105 counselors who reSponded to Item 10 were not satisfied with present facil- ities, while forty-five (or 74%) of the 61 principals who answered this item were dissatisfied. Thus, for both groups, the ratio of ”not satisfied" to "satisfied” was about 5 to 1. An analysis of these tabulations indicates the same preference for Plan Groups as has been indicated before. Counselors tend to prefer Plan Group A, D, F while principals show a preference for Plan Group B, E, C. (l) Sixty percent of the counselors who were not satisfied with their present facilities said they would prefer a plan from Group A, D, F. (2) Sixty-four percent of the counselors who were satisfied with present facilities made their first choice from Plan Group A, D, F. (5) Thirty-three percent of principals who are not satisfied with their present set-up for gUidance facilities chose either Plan A, D, or F as their first choice. (4) Nineteen percent of principals who are satisfied with their present plan made their first choice from Plans A, D, or F. (5) Of those whose preSent plan is most like A, D, or F; thirty percent of counselors indicated satisfaction with the present design, while only 17% of principals 75 working with such a plan were satisfied. (6) Of those whose present plan is most like B, E, C; 55% of counselors indicated satisfaction, while 50% of principals were satisfied with this type plan. An interesting fact gathered from this tabulation was that several respondents indicated dissatisfaction with their present plan, yet made this same type of plan their first choice on the Rating Sheet. A possible explanation of this apparent contradiction might be that they like the relative location of the plan they now have but do not like the actual arrangement of office space and other facilities within this area. Plan A again showed up as the over-all favorite among counselors while Plan E was indicated as first choice of principals. 0f the 77 counselors who were dissatisfied with their present facilities, 50 of them preferred Plan A. Of the 45 principals who were dissat- isfied with the present set-up, 15 of them indicated a preference for Plan E. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. THE PROBLEM The purpose of this study was to compare the attitudes of counselors, principals, and counselor-trainers toward the location of the guidance area within the school plant; particularly its relationship to the main administrative office. An attempt was made to show that preference for a particular location is related to the philosophy of guidance held by the respondent. Early in the study, two conflicting philosophies of guidance were established by referring to the literature in the field. One of these philosOphies was labeled ”author- itative, directive” and is characterized primarily by the administrative functions, such as discipline and attendance, performed by the guidance personnel. The other philosophy, which was labeled ”permissive, non-directive” is character- ized by a distinct separation of administrative and guidance functions and generally gives more emphasis to social and Personal problem counseling than does the other philosophy. A questionnaire, containing fifteen forced choice items, was developed to measure the extent of each respondent's aSreement with one or the other of these two philosophies. Six plans were deve10ped which indicated gradual SeParation of the guidance office area from the main 77 administrative office. Seven professional persons in the field of guidance agreed that the plans reflected the two philosophies as described in Chapter II. The mailing sample consisted of 177 principals, 182 counselors, and 115 counselor-trainers and state guidance supervisors from the nineteen states comprising the North Central Association. About 56% of the total sample returned usable replies. An additional 5% of the returns were unusable for various reasons. Counselors and counselor- trainers returned a greater percentage of replies than did principals. Plans A, D, and F reflected the “permissive, non- directive' philosophy while plans B, E, and C reflected the ”authoritative, directive" philosophy. These two ”Plan Groups" were considered as a dichotomy in analyzing the plans. In addition the preferences for each plan were considered separately. In Chapter IV it was shown that a definite relation- ship exists between the two dichotomized groups of plans and scores on the questionnaire. High scores on the question- naire, reflecting the ”permissive" philosOphy, were related to preference for Plan Group A, D, F. B. THE FINDINGS Some of the more significant findings were as follows: 78 (1) Counselors and counselor-trainers had quite similar preferences for the six plans. However, the preferences of the principals varied considerably from those of the counselors and counselor-trainers. (2) The overall favorite plan of the entire sample was Plan A. This plan seemed to be especially popular because it was visually separated from the main office, yet had equal accessibility to the records. (5) There was a significant difference between the questionnaire scores of the three groups; counselor? trainers had the highest mean score, followed by counselors. Principals scored lowest on the question- naire. (4) High scores on the questionnaire were associated with choices from Plans A, D, and F. (5) Low scores on the questionnaire were associated with a preference for Plan Group B, E, C. (6) Those who made all their first three choices from Plans A, D, and F made high scores on the question- naire. These persons were almost all counselors or counselor-trainers. . (7) Those who made all their first three choices from Plans B, E, and C scored low on the questionnaire. Most of this group were principals. (8) Counselors and counselor-trainers showed a greater preference for plans A, D, and F than principals. 79 Conversely, principals showed a greater preference for plans B and E than either counselors or counselor- trainers. Plan C seemed to be about equally popular with all three groups. (9) Younger respondents were more likely to prefer plans A, D, or F than the older respondents. (10) Respondents with more formal education in counseling and guidance were more likely to prefer plans A, D, or F than those with little or no such training. (11) Respondents who received most of their training since World War II were more likely to prefer plans A, D, F than those whose training was completed before World War II. (12) Respondents who had had experience in counseling were more likely to prefer plans A, D, and F than those who had not had such experience. (15) Conversely, counselors who had had adminis- trative experience were more likely to make choices from plans B, E, and C than those who had not had such eXperience. (14) Almost three-fourths of the principals and counselors were dissatisfied with the plan and location of their present guidance facilities. C. CONCLUSIONS The evidence found in this study indicates that counselors and principals feel differently about the location of the guidance offices within the school plant. Generally, principals seem to hold a philOSOphy of guidance which is more "authoritative, directive” than the phil- osophy held by counselors and counselor—trainers. That is, principals seem to think of the counselor as an administra- tive assistant, or assistant—principal. Counselors, on the other hand, prefer to separate themselves from all admin- istrative duties, in-so-far as possible. This has impli- cations for those planning new or remodeled guidance facilities. First of all, it means that the principaIS'and counselors within a given school need to consult with one another, giving careful consideration to the philosophy and aims of the guidance program within their particular school. In doing this, they should keep in mind that the literature Suggests that the ”permissive, non-directive" philosophy is the newer, emerging philosophy of guidance. Whatever is designed and built now, must remain pretty much the same for the life of the school. The long range goals of the guidance PrOgram should be reviewed and planning physical facilities for that program should be given long, careful consideration. Secondly, it was shown that very few counselors or principals like their present plan for the guidance 81 offices. This situation further justifies the need for careful planning. Counselors should be included in this planning since they are the persons who must spend their entire day working in and with these facilities. Generally, all counselors indicated a preference for a plan which had some kind of separate waiting room for guidance. If it is not feasible to have part of the records duplicated, they preferred an area near the administrative office. However, many of the counselors wrote in that they would have chosen Plan D or F (removed from the vicinity of the main office) if it were possible to have duplicate records available. Although there was no intention to come up with an ideal plan, Plan A seemed to be a strong favorite with counselors and counselor-trainers. This plan combined the advantage of being near the central vault, with an "around- the-corner” visual separation from the principal's office. D. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH l. The results of this study suggest counselors lean toward a "permissive, non-directive” philos0phy of guidance. A study might be made to see whether coun- selors become counselors because they fear authority situations. 2. A replication of this study might be made, with additional suggestions such as ”assume it is feasible 3. 4. 82 and economical to duplicate the records". There was some evidence to suggest that an even greater number of counselors would have chosen Plans D or F if records could be duplicated. Students are the persons who are probably most concerned about the location of the counselors' offices. The offices should be located so as to attract the greatest number of self-referrals, and not because of convenience for the counselors and/or the principal. This suggests at least two studies: a. A replication of a study similar to this one, asking for student opinion about the location of the counselors' offices. b. Take a few schools systems which have Plan B and some others with Plan D. Compare the number of student contacts, self-referrals, and the students' attitude toward the role of the counselor—-especially his relationship to the school administrative authorities. Choose 40 or 50 schools at random, which are large enough to have well defined facilities for guidance. Visit the schools, determine type of Plan, and try to determine which philosophy of guidance exists in‘ each school--among counselors, teachers, and prin- cipals. See if there is a relationship between phil- osophies and the type of plan they have used for their guidance office. 5. 85 This is unrelated to the present study, except in an incidental way, but research is needed on guidance program budgets. What is a reasonable per-pupil cost for guidance? Make a cost-analysis of guidance services --including everything--electricity, clerical help, time spent by teachers doing guidance activities, occupational materials, telephone bills, etc..... BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. BIBLIOGRAPHY . ERROR: met) PM a seam Bedard, Joseph A., ' Fac ” \ Occupations, Vol. 29, Feb. 1951, pp. 554-57. Q DEKK,B Brewer, John M., Histogy of Vocational Guidance: Origins and Early Devegppments, New York::Haner &"Bros., . Brewer, John M., et a1 Cases ig the Admigiptration'gf Guidance, First Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Book 0., 90 Cass, John C.,”Guidance in Maine Schools", Maine Schools, Augusta, Maine: State Dept. of Education, VoI. 25, No. 2, Nov. 1950, pp. 1-16. Chisholm, Leslie L., Guidi YDuth in the Secondar School, New York: AmerIcan Book—Co., 1955. Cocking, Walter D., "Planning Good School Buildings: An Open Letter to Architects, School Administrators, and Citizens”, The School Executive, Vol. 75, No. 1, Sept. 1955, pp. 21-25} Cocking, "alter D., ”Secondary School Design Since World War II", American School and Universigy, v51. 27, 1955.-55*", pp. 1'8‘5-"“191. /’ \ Corggz Mary P. and eiger, Grace M., ”Building for School Counseling", Occupations, V01. 24, Feb. 1946. PP. 266-268. Cox, Philip W. L. and Duff, John 0., Guidance by,the Classroom Teacher, New Yerk: PrentIce-Ball, Inc., 1958 Cox, Rachel D., Counselors and Their Work, Philadelphia: Archives Publishifig Cempany of PennsyIvania, 1945. Crow, Lester D. and Grow, Alice, 52 Introduction to Guidance, New Yerk: The AmericanIBook Co.,'195I. Cyr Frank W. and Linn Henry H. Planning Rural Community School Buildiggs, Néw York: Bureau 0 PuBIIca ons, Teachers 0 ege, Columbia University, 1949. Daly, Leo A., Jr., "Cooperative Planning as an Approach to School Design“, The Nations Schools, Vol. 57, May 1956, pp. 67.76. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 85 Deardon, Eleanor E., Cordier, Alberto, and others "Planning the School Officeo-A Symposium” American School and University, Vol. 15, 1945, pp. 188-I92. "Editorial Index by Subject Classification”, American School and University, Vol. 27, 1955, p. 12. Fitch, John A., Vocational Guidance ip Action, New Yerk: Columbia UniversIty Press, I955. Fladseth, Floyd R., "Streamlining the Counselor's Office", Occupations, Vol. 24, Dec. 1946, pp. 169-171. Ford, W. S. and Winn, H. P., "Planning the Administrative Suite", The School Executive, Vol. 56, Sept. 1956, pp. 9-10. George, N. L., ”How Guidance May Affect Schoolhouse Planning", The Nations Schools, Vol. 42, No. 2, Aug., 1948, pp. 44245. Good, Carter V. and Scates, Douglas E., Methods of Research, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., I954: Hahn, M. E., "What Price Pupil-Personnel Work?2 The School Review, Vol. 47, May 1959, pp. 574-581. Harris, Grace E., ”A Special Room for Counseling", Occupations, Vol. 19, Nov. 1940, PP. 106-110. Hatch, Raymond N. and Dressel, Paul L., Guidance Services in the Secondar School Dubuque Iowa: W5. C. Brown 5571, 9H. """'""'" ' Hereford, Karl T., ”Educational Planning: Comments on Seven Interior Spaces”, The School Executive, Vol. 72, June 1955, pp. 81-95. Johnson, Walter F., ”Physical Aspects of the Guidance Program", Encyclopedia of Vocational Guidance (Edited by Kaplan, Oscar J.) chT II New York: 080phical Library, 1948, pp. 1069-70. Kefauver, Grayson N. and Hand, Harold 0., Appraisigg Guidance in Secondar Schools, New York: T e Wife? , I931 . - Keepman, G. Robert, "Changing Secondary School Programs and their Implications for Design", American School and Universipy, Vol. 27, 1955, pp. 199-204. Lawson, Douglas, "Duties of a High School Principal”, The School Executive, Vol. 54, July 1955. Pp. 558-59. 29. 30. 51. 52. 55. 54. 55. 56. 37. 58. 39. 40. 41. 86 . Leu, Donald J., A Portfolio Presenting Plans of Selected School AdminiEtrative OffiCe Suites{_53ifitifig t Acce ted and Better Practices, An Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Teacfiers‘College, Columbia University, 1955. Mathisen, James D., "Physical Facilities for Guidance Services”, The College 2; Education Record, Vol. 41, No. 5, Feb. I95 , p. 6: Tfie University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. McDaniel, Henry B., with G. A. Shaftel, Guidance in the Modern School, New York: The Dryden Press, 1956. Munson, Joy B., 53 Analysis 2;.Selected Guidance Activities with Recommendations for Housing them‘;§ ‘Large Public School S stems, An Unpu l shed Doctoral Dissertation, Nichigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1948. Myers, George E., The Problem‘gg Vocational Guidance, New York: The fiacmiIIan 30., 1929. Neutra, Richard J. and Alexander, Robert Eu, ”Design the Space to Fit the Function , The School Executive, v01. 72' OOte 1952. pp. 88-90. ’ Physical Facilities for Guidance Services, A Report of the Committee,_National Association of Guidance Supervisors and Counselor Trainers, Chicago, 1955. Reed, Anna Y., Guidance and Personnel Services $2 Education, Ithaca, New Yofk: Cornell University Press, I944. ‘ Shear, Bruce, "Physical Facilities for Pupil Personnel Services", American School Board Journal, Vol. 120, Jan. 1950' pp. 25-27. Simley, Irwin T., “The Dean of Girls in High School”, The School Executive, Vol. 54, June 1955, p. 515. Smith, Glenn E., Princi les and Practices 2; the Guidance Program: §_Basic Texg, New YorkzfiThe RacmiIIEn 50., I951. Stoneman, Merle A. and Broady, Knute 0., Buildi Standards for Small Schools, Teachers CoIIege, University of NeSraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1959. Strang, Ruth, Pupil Personnel and Guidance, New York: The Macmillan Co., 1941. 42. 45. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 55. 87 Stripling, Robert 0., "How About Physical Facilities-- Are We Selling Student Personnel Services Short on Space?", Editorial Comment, Persgnnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 55, Nov. 1954, pp.‘170-71. Suggestions on the Establishmgnt and Furnishigg 9: Guidance Qfiarters pp the Public Schoolsiéfl Penn- s 1vania, Department of Public Instruction, Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, June, 1948. Summaries of Studies 52g Reports pp Physical Facilities f3r Gfiidance, Workshop Data, National AssoEiation 6f Cfiidance Supervisors and Counselor Trainers, Chicago, April, 1955. Treacy, John P., "Some Issues Involved in the Planning of a Guidance Program", American School Board Journal, Vol. 95, July 1956, pp. 27-28. Tyler, Leona E., The Work 2; the Counselor, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1 55. U. 3. Office of Education, "The School Plant: Trends, Present Situation, and Needs”, Biennial Surve pg EducationIEp the Unitgg States, VoI. I, 58-40, Chapter IX. _ Warters, Jane, Teqpni ues of Counseling, New York: McGraw-Hill BIS-0k o. , 1954 . Weber, Harry, ”Physical Provision for Guidance in the Building Program", Reprint from South Carolina Schools, Bulletin Vol. 5, Nov. 1951, pp. Il-15. ”What's Needed in Administrative Spaces?", (A review of a conference by Willard W. Beatty, Earl B. Combs, Jr., and others), Tp3,Nations Schools, Vol. 56, No. 1, July 1955, pp. 62-67. Williamson, E. G. and Hahn, M. E., ggtroduction 33 High School Counselipg, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1940. Workshop Report, National Association of Guidance Supervisors and Counselor Trainers, Chicago, April, 1955. Yountz, Philip N., "School Buildings that Educate”, Progressive Education Magazine, Vol. 9, Mar. 1932, pp. " e APPENDIX A STATISTICAL FORMULAS USED IN THE THESIS STATISTICAL FORMULAS USED IN THE THESIS 1. X2= 21%;}: -N 2 X2 (ad .. 55)2 NW (a+b)(c+d)(a+c)(b+d) M ..'_ 5. CR 1 M2 61 92 N1 N2 88 APPENDIX B THE INSTRUMENTS 89 April 30, 1956 Dear Educator: You are aware of the rapidly expanding school enrollnent and the corresponding increase in school building construction. No doubt you have recently had to add new school buildings in your own com- munity. There has been a great deal of research and writing about plans for school buildings recently. Classrooms, libraries, shop areas, gymnasiums, and cafeterias have received a great deal of attention in journals devoted to school plant design. Unfortunately, very little can be found about the design and loca- tion of ~cad-ance facilities. Yet nearly all new secondary schools are making some plans for guidance services. The National Associa— tion of Guidance Supervisors and Counselor Trainers has devoted some time to this problem and is planning still further research in this area. You are one of a number of counselors, principals, and counselor trainers who is being asked to make recommendations concerning the location and design of the guidance offices and their relationship to the main administrative office. Enclosed are six (6) plans which should be ranked according to your preference on the accompanying Rating Sheet. The Personal Data Sheet and the Questionnaire are also needed to supply information necessary for the analysis of the results. Please return the (1) Rating Sheet, (2) Personal Data Sheet, and (3) Questionnaire in the enclosed, stamp— ed, self—addressed envelop by May Elst. You need not return the plans. A though we realize that this is a busy time of the year for you, we hope you will take the few minutes necessary to complete these forms. With school construction being at an all time high, and with so little information available about the location of the guidance area, your recommendations will make a valuable contribution. Sincerely yours, /7§::;L/r4>2:/f& Kenneth H. Parker Counseling Center Michigan State University East Iansing, Michigan ‘90 .n \fn NTJY‘WPT RAT-I511 DI...J.‘_. Enclosed is a set 3) plans showinp possible locations and l adm'nistrative offices. Assume that you are responsible for deciding which plan will be used for the guidance area in a new high school. These plans have been submitted to you by the architect. The main considera— tion is location and relationship to the administrative offices. Do not concern yourself with minor details such as available closet space, location of filing cabinets, rest rooms, et cetera, as these can be worked into any of these basic arrangements. Rank the six (6) plans in order of your preference. Rank from one (I) through six (6), ranking your first choice as one (I). Use the form below. [-1 In the remaining space, explain briefly why you selected the plan which you ranked number one as your first choice. C‘fi‘lju‘ h m“ vrv‘rjw-wm 91 sJK'-‘.LkI. ‘A;!‘. S ‘42; IICE: The following data is necessary in order to separate respo onses into various categories for statistical purposes. No ider tifjing data of a personal nature will appear in the completed study Please answer all questions. Place a check r“ark in front of the appropriate response. 1. I am presently employed as a (1) Principal (2) Counselor (3) Counselor trainer OR Guidance Supervisor 2. have you been a high school principal? Yes ° No 3. Have you ever been a high school counselor? Yes No [h have you ever had any graduate work in guidance? Yes No 5. About how many semester hours? (1) Less than 10 (2) 10 — 20 (3) More than 20 6. that is the highest degree you hold? (1) Bachelors (2) Masters (3) Doctors 7. When did you receive this degree? (1) Before 1945 (2) Since lQLS 8. have you ever been involved in the architectural planning of guidance facilities for a secondary school? Yes No 9. In reference to Item %8: How recently (what date)? 10. Are you satisfied with the design and location of the guidance facilities you now have? Yes No 11. Fwd.ch.of these plans is most nearly like the plan of the guidance facili- ties in your school? (circle) A B C D E F 12. If you are a counselor trainer do you spend any time in your classes dis- cussing suitable plans and locations for the guidance facilities? Yes ____ No 13. Your age? (1) Under 35 (2) 35 to #5 (3) Over 45 92 QUESTICYNAIRE Directions: Answer each statement. Check whether you agree or disagree. 10. ll. 12. 13. lb. 15. The counselor should be responsible for making sure the cumulative records are kept up to date although he may not do the actual clerical work himself. The assistant principa- should be in charge of the guid— ance program. Counselors should be responsible for attendance and disci— pline. The guidance office should be formal and businesslike to encourage the pupil to be more mature. The titles Dean of Boys and Dean of Girls are not appropri- ate for those who do the counseling for pupils. The teacher who is liked by her pupils and who maintains good discipline in class will make a good counselor. It is often convenient to have a counselor take a teacher's place when a substitute is not available. The counselor should be an informal, easy-going person. Students, being immature, often need to have their counse— lor give them advice on the proper way to act. The cumulative records should be located so as to be equal— ly accessible to both counselors and the principal. The counselor, in order to maintain good rapport with his pupils, should not be expected to report infractions of school rules to the principal. The counselor is the most logical person to assume the responsibility of the school in the principal‘s absence. It is often most efficient to have the counselors operate from a study hall situation where they can see their counselees and at the same time supervise the study hall. It is generally best to assign students to counselors who are of the same sex. Counselors should be considered a part of the administra- tive staff rather than as members of the faculty (or teaching staff). 93 .4. 2,45 HOOTHUOD doc TQMOU wuZmdwuzoo Zen. a W \h $722243 .me4 NUZxx/LFZM .. $2;me uaomw dmvzaou J 2.3». i av... m F43<>— ”.5.qu n—F-cJ KJ . .3 3 IL) QT Rm .‘ 4' WI zsuru : .2300 $2.55,) . .ZDOU .ZDCU mo2 3 222 . ? II. \mI vawflimuzOU I. flew r d MI???) 0 U M .40.. .4 i. M, 3 . a k T. RAWV eszuk J .. H E 30 h; a a at ”3.qu . . .2300 .7500 230M 2. an... 95 .o.zaaa. 524039 2.9.Zgflzi2eq NOQ_EN._OQ .. ExfnmL. Oil. fa v [.1th lt$fl1 .. . W 2,... a $253.72 w 5W4 mu2\ r , .. . . . 4 .I y “3in . 7Zdl \ ,> O 5} K (S— 9'7 \ w UZ304 um. w. mdzqaezm z. 2. 7:42 o .r 3 2300 2300 2:09 APPENDIX C PLAN PREFERENCES TABULATED ACCORDING TO CRITERIA 99 BEULATI ON SHEET —\ O O 7‘- " ‘ O .V 1" r1 . C}I{CWJP: All messeddents (Prin01cals, CUiqgelore, and C. l. a m.”- m g. ) ‘ ___ ’3 ,. U 0 U o C' KITS-:KIO/V‘I 3. rand Totals P I wPEANK LAN 1 3 4 ,1 <3“ E) 25 as so 21 40 155 A as 52 64 :57 1:5 8 E3 28 21 25 71 50 92 CiFUDLJP: C R511: 12:014.? TABLJLATI ON SHEET Principal Total Group PL a co..- 5...... up“ ~.—.-.-..-.—.-.—1. 100 RANK D 6 5 2 5 13 46 ' I: 5 6 3 ‘~ 3 38 13 A 13 '12 12 25 7 3 C 10 24 24 11 4 o E 22 13 16 10 9 :5 B 17 15 16 15 2 8 73 n.” 101 EEQL AT! ON SHEET 9.5.92.9 Principal CRITER’C‘N” No Graduate Work in Guidance PL : RANK , ____ _ , ‘ “W , 1 . AN? 1 2 3 A! I.) o D l 1 o 1 1 5 8 I | 1 .__.__._____ __ 1 F 1 o o 1 7 5 A .3 1 1 e 1 o C 1 5 4 J :5 1 o E 5 5 5 1 2 o B 5 :5 5 o o 1 i ,__ .. i; i CrROUP: CR’T‘E'Q’PON’. Less Then 10 Semester Hours in Guidance [53ngle ow SHEET Principal '"U 102 ' I EALNK L , 1 ~ " I — AN 1 2 3 -4 __ O 6 D 1 1 1 2 2 22 i W l i F 1 2 O 4 20 2 A 5 4 4 12 2 2 C 5 '7 15 ‘ 2 0 0 E 10 6 5 2 4 2 B 8 8 4 7 1 1 E ..... EL 103 TATE?) 11:91: ON SHEET .———~» ~. £13933: Principal CTRITERIONJ 10 to 20 Semester Hours in Guidance T ‘ , ”mm PL 5 RANT. _ , . "" , 1' A N l 2 3 4 I.) 6 D 2 2 o o 4 11 l l I F 2 2 2 5 '7 5 A 5 2 4 4 5 1 I C 2 10 2 5 2 o E 7 1 5 4 2 o B o 5 6 5 1 4 _L._ I 104 'Iflfiiil. AT! ON SHEET Q5914?! Principtl C» RITE'QI’C‘NL: More Than 20 Semester Hours in Guidance ‘ ‘7 , A. I L‘...‘ “w...— ._____.. AN 1 2 1 3 M4 1 5 6 D l 2 o o o 4 5 i F 1 2 1 O 4 3 1 A O 5 5 2 1 o C 2 2 5 3 1 o E 2 1 3 5 1 1 B 4 1 1 5 o 2 5 m .1 1 N: -33 EEiQLATIDN SHEET Principal L.R!T:.Q/O/\Jj Bachelor's Degree 105 RANK A l" 2 Q '4 L) E17125: ~~~~~~ —-—-—~ 5.... M -« D F o o o 2 i ._._‘ ‘ F 2 o 1 5 I 1 A 1 5 1 o C 1 5 2 1 E 5 o 1 1 B o 1 2 o fiiRoupz r—— Principal (:RJTERDN} 145114443 I O N Mnster's Degree 106 ’ 21 A ., “m““*11,111.11m P E RANK L, g F‘ ,1 r ,\ f _ ...- AM 1 z 5- 1 5 5 5:11:114 .1 ._.. .. ‘1 1_ .._. _ .___.._.‘_.-_. ‘_.1 [) 5 5 2 5 11 59 i .. _. I F 4 4 5 7 55 12 A 11 11 9 25 6 5 C: 10 22 19 9 5 o 1 E 20 9 15 9 8. 2 E3 15 14 15 12 2 7 N=E. 107 [55151; AT: 045: SHEET .————" ‘- SEW Principal C RIT:.QaO/\Jd: Doctor's Degree 1T __ 1 ., "w *- -~ “4.1 a H RANK ::-__’..~t::-i‘g* ......... . ..- __ “- -—-—~ fi w~.:¢-- .. .-.._1 D I o o o o o 5 i _. 1 I: 1 o o o 2 o I 1 A o 0 £ 0 2 1 o _______.___ t 1 _1 C o 1 2 o o o E 1 1 1 o o o B 1 1 o 1 o o .. _1_ l 108 TABULAII ON SHEET GROUEr Principal f __ ~—--~ ——~--—-~.-1 a z RANK AN 1 4’ J 4 l L) (5 D ’ 4 2 l 3 ' 8 30 C '7 17 1'7 5 2 0 E 15 10 9 5 7 1 B 11 11 15 7 2 4 109 EEULATI ON SHEET Qflflfz Principal LRITERI’ONZ’ 55-45 Years Old p 1 QANK A111 1 /. 3 ‘41 5 6 - -_.',.._. ”.4 - rngfi.‘ ----- -o- F““"‘ Q C 5 4 3 J 5 0 0 E 4 1 5 2 1 1 O B 2 5 2 5 O l .__.‘ 110 R A N K ”1" 3 £1 :5 6 ———-7----- ~ 5 w-~-.:-.::...:;- .1 O O 4 6 2 l 5 l 5 5 O O 4 3 2 O 2 2 l 2 l 3 O 3 Z n '1_QQLAT10N SHEET G- RC) U 82 Principal C, R’Ta'ZR/C‘Nf Have Been High School Counselors 111 r f ,, -. “M “HM-7 P 3 RANK L ; r q 1.. _ AN 1 .11 o“ 44 z.) (3 D ' 4 1 1 1 6 19 { ”Hum“ 1 a g F 5 4 2 1 16 6 A 3 7 10 9 5 o F 11 C 5 11 6 7 3 o E 9 6 6 5 4 2 B 8 :5 8 8 o 5 .1 1 ' 32 p“ N: BEQLAW ON SHEET QEQQE Principal C R’TE'Q/ONL: Have Not Been High School Counselors "U éANK l 15- 1 2 * 3 z; 5 F 2 2 1 '7 22 10 5 2 17 4 5 5 15 18 4 1 o 15 '7 10 5 5 1 9 12 8 7 2 5 T BULATION SHEET ————-.——-— QIEQEE Principal 115 L' R’T'ER'UN'JO Have Been Involved in Planning 9. Guidance Area. r , __._ .. ...__... a 1 RANK A \ 1 2 3 Z1 :3 (D ::::.:.'" m' WM“ 1:21...__..... '" "'4 D 5 5 o o ' 5 16 '1 - F 2 5 2 2 15 6 1 A 4 3 '7 9 4 5 1 C 2 10 10 6 2 o E 10 3 6 6 4 l B '7 5 6 '7 l 4 b -—-———.—-~——o—~ Principal 1: Have Not Been Involved in Planning a Guidance Area 12A N 5 2 __ o “‘1 -9 -9..- O 2 3 7 30 l l 5 2 5 7 9 5 l7 3 O 8 14 14 5 2 O 12 10 10 4 5 2 10 10 1° 8 1 4 115 1:15:1ng AT: ON SHEET .CIEQAEI Principal r“! *A, It L'RiTlK'O/V; Received Latest Degree Before 1945 T W / ““““““ .7 a 1 RANK “SN . - -1 _ 2 3 ‘1 L) 5 D 4 2 l 5 5 25 1 ........ g F 5 5 0 4 19 7 A 8 2 5 16 4 1 E 10 7 6 5 r7 1 B 6 8 12 5 1 4 l i I N=§. 116 EpflLJLATI ON SHEET QROUP: Principal CR1T5RI’ON: Received Latest Degree During or Since 1945 Mw-u—u r / a h RANK D 1 1 o 10 25 F 5 5 4 19 8 A 5 10 7 10 5 ‘ ll C 5 10 12 1 8 E 12 8 10 5 2 B 11 7 4 10 1 4 -.... 1 1 N 5.7. G-ROUE: IgfiuL AT: ON SHEET Counselor C: R 1 TE 1230/3? Total Group P 1 117 RANK :szim .1- . 2 J [1 13 ‘5” D 1 10 11 11 12 17 57 F 19 18 19 18 4o 8 A 44 51 51 8 5 1 C 20 4o 21 29 8 2 E 17 15 5 1 19 54 4 B 8 5 5 58 18 48 118 TABULATI ON SHEET .CIBQEE Counselor C R’T'Z'Q"D"J.: No Graduate Work in Guidance I ‘“ .. / " PL 1 RANK 4 . ' I - - ,- , A11 1 2 O’ 1 O f :-:_._..:-‘:_4 ._....-. .. . .... -.-..-lv-_.._.._l._v..-......... *“ ._..-. -.........---. .-..4 D a o o o o 1 o 1 F o o o o o 1 A o 1 o o o o C o o o 1 o o E O O l O O 0 B l O O O O O .. .11 1 1 L‘.‘.|1‘ ll 119 TAB 1.1L AT1 ON SHEET QROU P: Counselor {7‘ L R1T5RI'ONZ: Less Than 10 Semester Hours in Guidance l ._ m -.. _.-. ..._ ..._...__7 PL 1 HANK _._. 1 - _ ”T. _ AN‘ 1 2 1 .3 4 1 5 c D . o 1 1 o 1 1 1 ‘ ._ _.._.-- F 2 o o 1 1 o A o 2 2 o o o [AQQL AT! ON SHEET Counselor ‘TNV 10 to 20 Semester Hours in Guidance 1 -’ r4 ~wwm~—~w_-fi PL 1 1< A N K 372;:‘71‘ “ " ““”""W‘*"” ..__ ._,‘:..-';;'1 D i 5 2 5 2 8 1 .. .. .. F 8 5 1 5 1 A 8 8 1 o 1 1 C A 8 4 8 2 0 EE 1 4 4 9 2 E3 0 l 5 4 10 1 , f... I- .L G-ROUP: CL111T572“”4:More Than 20 Semester Hours in Guidance TgfggLLATl ON SHEET Counselor P L “a. 121 1 1 1. RANK AN 2 1 .8- 4 1 8 1:93-24 ~~-—--- «»---—~ ..- ---~---~ D 1 8 7 8 9 15 48 1 _ ..-- 1-.-..1----_..--..._ F 11 12 18 14 54 4 A 58 22 21 5 5 o C 18 54 17 18 4 2 E 15 11 25 15 25 2 E3 5 5 4 5o 12 55 N = 91 122 hEfiL—LL AIT ON SHEET $159.14.? 3 Counselor CrRiTI-Z.Q.‘ON} Bachelor's Degree I u _ l , ......._.... PL 1 K AN K A __ ______2 AN1 1 2 3 4 1 :3 O 2:712“-.. ‘ .. -- - -1... 1 .. 5... D 1 1 5 o 2 5 5 1 .11-”... 1.-.- 1 1: 5 1 1 2 4 1 A } 4 5 5 o o o C 2 5 2 4 1 o E 1 2 4 1 4 o B 1 o o 5 o 8 123112.11. All ON SHEET 123 9.39 U P Couns elor C R1751: ON}. Mas ter's Degree :1 M“ .\ ._... 1.1.1.1-...1 P1. 11 K A N K A11 1 2 .3 4 5 8 3::OILTTV: ..... ._..__..,.-.-__.-_...._.._........4........_1_.__ —""" ‘5 " D 1 8 8 11 10 14 51 1 ..-__.,___ 1 _ g 1: 18 18 18 14 55 5 A 58 2'7 26 5 5 1 C 17 55 19 25 5 1 E 16 ll 25 18 50 4 B 7 5 5 3O 15 40 N = 102 (1ROUP: L‘ R 1T3: Q 0N Counselor -—:} ,Doctor's Degree EEQL AT: ON SHEET 124 RANK Au .8 4 :3 8 t:‘.::‘:::.:.‘ 1 1 “:7" “T“... 1-... - .2; :1 D i o o o o 5 a "“1 “““““ F 1 o o 5 o 1 A 1 o 1 o o C 2 o o o E o 4 o o o .. B o o 5 1 o 1; 1 Z N 125 TABQLATIDN SHEET 5 F\ -r;gpLJP: Counselor QJWVZRVOF17 Over 45 Years Old ["1 u—w. nan—~— "Q-MQ—m—“fl P 1 RANK - AN .1 2 3 Z1 :3 1 (:1) .-—.-—~—-—-—- has...” *-...1—.—‘_ -‘-.Q- a... .. . .ci u...- w— m-.—“*u. H. D7 5 4 5 7 25 8 10 6 4 l6 5 15 14 15 4 5 O 9 14 8 14 2 2 6 5 15 6 14 5 6 1 1 18 7 16 BEQLATI ON SHEET £139.29: Counselor L. RITEQJO/‘i: 55-45 Years Old ! i I 126 -._._ m—- .0--- *--——~-¢-.-—1- “—J RANK AN 1 2 o "5”! 1 :3 <6 D 3 1 1 5 5 5 18 .L.__.___-...+L._..._. .. “1-.....1“. _.__. F 7 2 5 4 12 1 A 11 9 7 2 1 1 C 6 11 5 8 1 o E 4 5 8 6 7 1 B 2 5 5 8 5 10 31 .———fi 127 TABEJLATT ON SHEET W: Counselor LRITER-‘O/v‘.’ Under 55 Years Old ‘ __ .,_.... ..... -11..-.7 2 T RANK . .. 1 , 1 AN 1 2 ‘ .3 4 5 6-. D l 2 5 4 6 5 15 F 4 5 8 8 12 o A 20 8 9 o 1 o s C 5 15 8 7 5 o E 7 5 8 7 15 o B o 1 1 10 4 22 A _. __L._ N = .54 Tfifigi. AT! ON SHEET kw! Counselor (—-' R’T'E'Q'ONf Hove Been High School Principals RANK Y ' 7 I i Q U ..._.... .. . J»....-__._.——— i i . n , , g 1 _/ Q '5 l O 1;” H TAE 1-1 L AI! 0 N 4...— Counselor —..-¢ .— I“ SHEET Have Not Been High School Principals 129 RANK .5... :-~_~*~.-- -- ~--.-- - 7...... D . 9 11 8 10 16 45 i F 16 15 17 16 5o 5 A 40 24 26 5 5 1 ._ i I C 15 55 17 25 6 1 E 15 11 27 16 28 4 B 6 5 4 29 14 45 __.=,._ _.._........._..i._.. l £;;RCDUFD: TABULATI ON SHEET Counselor 130 t—-'R-"T’:Q’O"{:Have Been Involved in Planning 1 Guidance Area P : “—- mp a..— '5'”..-.~~-.-.__.-“ RANK F , ..__ ., AN 1 2 Q ’5“- i’) O :1.::LT L7 .. ‘ ' ' .- ' ' ....L ‘- ...._._............_. 4......” . ..:1..:.1 D 4 5 4 9 2 21 -11---- __ F 9 8 9 2 15 2 A 15 12 16 2 2 o C 10 15 9 11 2 o E 8 4 5 6 18 4 B 1 5 2 15 6 18 TfifigL AT! ON SHEET 131 C1- ROU P Counselor 1: RiTERm/{I Have 193 Be en Involved in Planning 8. Guidance Area. : “' - ./ “‘“‘ “““‘"""“ PL ; K A N f\ .2. ' a A. " T .C I AM 1 2 5 4 ;_‘> <6 :22- .tt-‘.‘..';.“* ‘ '“' .- .. __ W'F‘T‘"T":‘_..:.:“t* D ; 6 6 7 5 15 56 i F 10 10 10 14 25 4 A 51 19 15 4 5 1 __ t C 10 27 12 18 4 2 E 9 9 26 15 16 o B 7 2 5 21 10 50 N :: '73 CfROUP: C :2. ; TE ,2 CH4: Egg. AT! ON SHEET Counselor Received Latest Degree Before 1945 RANK .-__ “tn.“fi. 132 P L a.— — -4.— AN 1 a .3 4 L.) C D i 5 2 4 5 14 i _. F 6 4 2 10 4 A 5 1o 11 4 2 o . i 1 C 7 6 8 1 o E s 7 2 a 2 B 5 1 o 10 4 10 N: 50 us TAE‘ZQL AT: ON SHEET giiigflng Counselor L' R f T': IQ:IO/‘J:.r. Received Latest Degree During or Since 1945 :- ., .__,_.__,___ PL 2 RANK A ._.- W 1 2 ‘ 3 i \ 5 6 :_.-:::T“.:.—H L‘ W .._. __ H :- Ih'“-4M:._._~-.-_.__._____.__ .. ‘fif: -._ - D l 7 9 9 8 12 45 i F 15 14 15 14 5o 2 A 41 21 2O 2 5 l .1 t . 1 * C 15 52 15 21 5 2 E 11 8 24 17 26 2 E3 3 4 5 26 12 38 L t 154 LgfigL ATt ON SHEET £13914? 6. T. 8 G. s. LjR'ITEQ’O/‘i’. Total Group a _. 1.1....“ 1...... ' 2 : RANK I I“ w A!" g 1 2 1 3 41 i) O :.:’.:-.. I .. H ._ .. 1: D i 9 14 7 6 10 50 n 1 --—-+——--—---——- F 11 15 16 12 21 1 I A } 56 9 21 5 1 4 ; “- 5 C 8 5o 19 2o 7 1 E 9 7 18 15 25 4 B 3. 1 4 2o 12 56 N = :z... T.,/5.5. QLAJLQB S H E ET 135 £522.93 c. T. 6: G. s. C"R’T':R"ON-: 10 to 20 Semester Hours in Guidance 1 ...... 1., -_ 2...“...1. | A PL 2 RANK - i I“. ’_ 1 D ; 0 O l o '1 ._._.___ I F O l O 2 1 C 2 0 o O E O 2 O l B 0 O 2 o o D-,.-- I b GROUP: 'BEQL AT: ON SHEET C. T. 8cG. S. CRITERr’O/FU More Than 20 Semester Hours in Guidance W ______ ~—--WL RANK 156 V______ _._..,.______.___1. L ‘ , AN‘ 1 2 O 4 b 6 .:;--:.-1—~4 « -— -- -- -- 1 -- D i 9 14 7 5 1o 28 F 11 15 15 12 19 1 A 54 8 21 5 1 4 : C 9 28 10 2o 7 1 E 9 7 16 15 24 4 B 5 1 4 18 12 55 1 .1. ..._._........L_. N z: '73 (3 I11 QR U TAEQL AT: ON SHEET C. T. & G. S. xcuq! Master's Degree R A N K 157 : d , AM I 2 O "-I O 6 d :“111‘1LTI11; -.... " .. --. :1.-. " [> I l l 3 2 5 5 I 1 1. I F 2 2 6 5 5 o A 10 5 2 1 1 1 ___....__ : ' C 1 8 5 5 2 1 E 4 5 5 4 5 1 B o 1 1 5 2 9 CgflRCJUFD: CjierEIRINQ: C. T. & G. S. Doctor's Degree ”~~ .fl. w.“ 138 I I : I I RANK L ,1 f T “A A5 I Z. J [I L.) 6 D I 8 15 4 4 5 24 -~-+-——-—-——~~ I: 9 15 10 9 16 1 I A 26 6 19 4 o 5 _..__. I - C 7 22 7 17 5 o E 5 4 15 9 22 5 B 5 o 5 15 10 27 1 - J. N: .9 139 TABOLAT: ON SHEET QROUW c. ‘1‘. 8c G. s. ‘0 :‘O- ' COIT‘I’VON’ Over 45 Years Old I A . PL I R A N K ____ Aw I 2” 3' "I ‘5 O :5; ’":"..I:.“ h N ’ M ' L11;:L:"”W~ IN”. ; ..-.. :1 ._ I I I D I o 5 4 4 2 12 I I _____ __«____ .. F 5 5 7 4 8 o A ll 5 4 2 l 2 C 6 11 5 5 2 o E 4 5 5 5 6 2 B 1 O 2 7 6 9 TfifigL AT: ON SHEET C. T. &GO So A86 --55-45 .“0— m. .m_._.~._.—~_1 140 AN : :2 3 4 ‘9 9 E) 7 10 2 1 8 11 I F: 6 8 8 8 8 1 /\, 19 5 14 1 o 2 C: 2 14 4 14 .4 1 E 5 5 11 6 15 1 B 2 1 O 9 4 23 N=52 _- - l4 TABLJLAFIQN SHEET 1 1"ROLL?! 0.1.46.3. L., RfTEQ/C’Nf Under 55 Years Old I 4 8 ; RANK 1 __ 1 .Awf 1 2 3 ‘4 i) <5 :::f':"'“t.“ ‘*“" " 1...”. 11---... ";.:‘:::_.::.::...:._,.i [) E 2 1 1 1 o 7 i F 2 4 1 o 5 o /\ 6 1 5 2 o o c: o 5 5 3 1 o E 2 l 2 2 4 1 E3 0 o 2 4 2 4 1 ““1 11 t 142 TABUL ATT ON SHEET RANK 1 1.111-111. 3 T 1:3 8 4 4 3 4 13 “m...- -- "*‘fl" 2 9 6 8 0 7 5 o 1 1 14 1 6 3 0 2 8 6 8 1 o 2 8 5 14 ...._.-_....-_.._ l EEEEE= CfRITER/ON} Have Not Been High School Principals C. T. &G. S. 'EQEULATTON SHEET 143 ' . 1... PL 2 RANK -1 ‘ v - . AN: 1 2 3 ’51 i") O :7::'“” ”7 "" ' “*1 D . 8 1o 5 5 6 17 ’T _.,.__ _1 1 F 7 15 7 6 15 1 A 21 2 16 5 o 5 C 5 16 9 14 4 1 E 5 5 10 7 17 5 B 5 1 2 12 7 22 144 LgfiiJL AT! ON SHEET QZROUP‘ C. T. at G. 8. Have Been High School Counselors { 1.11.11.11.11 PL T *RANK# 1 A ‘ ” 7‘ 2" ‘ T:- ' WNW g _ .3 * 9 E3.-. D I 8 7 5 5 6 19 i ! .11.. 5 12 12 8 13 O 24 6 15 2 1 4 7 19 7 14 2 1 5 5 10 8 18 4 1 l 3 15 10 22 1851:; ATT ON S HEET 145 @3918: c. T. 3: G. s. CjRiT-EQT'ONQ' Have M Been High School Counselors Tr __ '7 / 1.1.--- .__.._......._._. R T KANK L 'T p, 4 ~ .- , ANT 1 .4. :1 El L1) 0 :LTIZTL ‘ -11- ' ' 1- __ I; .11 D , 1 7 2 1 4 11 i T .11.. F 6 5 4 4 8 1 A 12 5 8 5 o o C 1 11 5 6 5 o E 4 2 8 5 7 o B 2 o 1 7 2 14 4 .-.............._.._.L. -_2_6 146 [552th ATT ON SHEET L: R:T:.Q,’O/\{f Have Been Involved in Pltnning :1 Guidance Are: 11 _._... _.__ -11....___._i 1 PL T RANK _ AN1 1 2 3 '4 I :3 6 . :1“::7"'“ "1 ~ '- 1 1 *‘*7‘“~*:‘:::.: D TT 4 4 3 5 5 8 'T .1... F 4 7 8 5 5 o A 12 4 6 2 1 2 C 4 1o 5 7 5 o E 5 2 5 6 9 2 B o o 2 4 6 15 14'7 BEELLATT ON SHEET Q..W= C. T. & G. S. L, R’TER"ON_: Have Not Been Involved in Planning 8 Guidance Area #__ __..-..__ "’""““’“—j I PL T RANK 1 . ‘ T _ ,1 , 1’ , AN: 1 2 J 4 I) O J 2.17::L' 1 _...-.. ”‘” u..-............_ ; '“ "" I D E 5 1o 4 1 7 22 ‘T __ 11 -11-. I F 1 '7 8 8 9 16 1 A 24 5 15 5 o 2 C 4 20 7 15 4 1 E 6 5 13 7 16 2 B 5 l 2 16 T 6 21 44 2.. mg. 3 N=.4.4. gijlculf: TfifigL A‘TT ON SHEET C. T. & G. S. ’\ -—- l. L, R!T:.Q.‘ON , Do Teach About Plans for Guidance Area 148 H P 1% NK L RA f N 1 2 ‘ ‘ 4 I) - ”é“ D l 5 11 6 5 7 25 {T __..__. ! F 10 11 8 9 16 1 A 24 6 18 4 1 2 t T C . 6 22 7 15 7 o E 7 5 15 12 15 5 B 5 o 5 15 1o 26 @15ng = C R T152015: .—__--——~ C. To & G. S. 149 Do Not Teach About Plans for Guidance Area_ 8 g RANK 1 3:31 _T ‘ 2 1... .3 T 3 ‘1 D 4 3 1 5 3 7 F 1 4 8 5 5 o A T 12 5 5 1 o 2 (: 2 8 5 7 O l E: 2 2 5 l 10 1 E3 0 l l 7 2 10 150 '25QULATTDN SHEET QROUP: c. T. a: G. s. L: R:T£.Q,-'ONI Received Latest Degree During or Since 1945 I I - -- .......... .......... ..-.-_-..._...—.....__....._1 " / 2.: RANK _ # “SN 1 ,. V 2 1 3 41 1 5 f? ,1 D 1 s 11 5 5 8 22 F 9 15 12 9 15 o A 28 5 16 5 1 5 C 5 22 9 16 5 1 E 5 6 14 1o 20 :5 B 2 l 2 15 9 28 1 4 T GROUP: (:FZFTETLrw4: C. To & G. S. TABTJLATT ON SHEET Received Latest Degree Before 1945 “m 1-..... fig”... “w “on? 151 u—con—wo—c-JL “.1 -fl-I—I‘ QANK Ala _, -.2:.._...T......-9 4 D C D i 5 2 a 2 8 ‘1 _ F 2 4 5 6 1 A 4 5 o o 1 . i C 8 1 4 2 o E 1 4 5 5 1 B o 2 5 5 7 APPENDIX D TABULATION 0F PLAN PREFERENCES OF PRINCIPAIS AND COUNSEIDRS BASED ON SATISFACTION WITH PRESENT PHYSICAL FACILITIES FOR GUIDANCE 152 T9056 WHOM: PREsEMr pLQN 1:: Mosr LIME PLAN all K“ WOW-D SAT/LFIED Nor JAT/SFIE’D PKEFER v PIJ'AN pK/th'P'QLS COUNSELDKS Pfi/NCIPALS COUNSELOKL A 3 5 6 3 g i i '3 '7 2 8 :5 i C 2 5 v 16 D o 4 5 6 E 4 a 15 l? F 1 9 4 . lO Tongs 15 23 45 7'7 .— ‘ l L.,...u---_..-....i._.fi.- ....... ..C _ .. ..... ..L.....-.-.. ’92 I J 153 P: AN PRII4CIF’,4..S C00 A155 1.912 5 Pig/NC! PALS H355 x-JHose FILE-3.5mm" PLAN 1:, MOST‘ um; pLAN A ‘ . /‘ fiJO‘JL‘D SAT/LIVED NOT“ JAT/splgo PREV-ER Camus 51.01:; w‘""’"wol"~al~ -—...-..-1 n...’ -_‘, _‘ 4' .. Fr... ._.--____T_..._..__.. ......-. -_, ,_..,_ .,,_ ; A E l l l 2 i ~— ~---~: ? x B i -. .4; i C 1 D 1 1 t § E 1 f ""i l- 1 TC; 1'“ L5 ; l 4 2 3 i I ' 1-.-” -L. ---.. -...-....-.-........-.._ _. 1 154 114055 “It-{0.55 PIQE$E~\IT' IDLIJN 1.3 Mogr um; PLAN B r I (r .' O WOULD SAT/grim? Nar JAT/SF-‘IttD 3 pKEV-ER I . P’,AN pR/s'JtiP'Jzi COUAJJELOKS Péwcs PALS Coo/us 51.01:; I v .-...7.; 1 f ..... -....-..._-.._- ........ I A 2 i “1; i B ‘ 5 l 1 ‘ L 1......1. __1 t C 2 g .. A .i I 1 i l E E é I E 2 '“f f- 2 TFT’D L5 J '1 5 1 ; 9 ‘~ .. .___.._.._. 1.1.1-1.. 1.1-1.... .1 774055 155 PREéEur pLaN Ls Mcgr LIKE PLAN Q \VHose WOW-D SAT/.3F'IED NOT SAT/5:150 PREV—ER 1* PaAN PKINCIP,41_< COUNJELOKS Pfi/NCIPALS COUNSELOL’S A 2 3 41 ! 1 l i ? E .‘9 i F 1 TOTALS 1 2 1 4 W .1 .15 ..... -.. -....... -11... «4 1...... -M 156 .THCSE “Mose PRESENT“ psz 1:: Mogr L114; pLAN D r i WOULD SAT/LFIED NOT JATISF-‘IED ’ PREFER E PQAN PRINCIPALS COUNJELDKS Pfi/NcWALs COUNSELOk'Li ...,; .., > 4 H N) 5 1 I f E a E B l 5 2 i j ""i ? C l l 2 7 s .... 4 g 5 2 1 ; § I E 4 5 f TOTALS 2 3 7 . 15 28 x ! , -L‘-a;.¢--o *- U-b.‘”-u' mu.-.- ~H- 4.... u .45.--- -‘L. ~---.-- mm -.o.o._m ---. . . - fi-“fl-~.~—.v‘ J 15'? THcsE x-JHosa PRESENT“ PLAN :5 Mogr LIME pLAN E /‘ “IOULD fl SHT/LF/ED NOT ~.J’A‘T'ISF-"IED ? PREFER PSAN PKINCIPALS COUNSELORS Pfi/NCIPALS COUNSELOL’i A l i t z __ _l 7. I l E) 1 l 1 l ! 1 1 i i i i E 2 4 l 2 i f— 1 TOTAL: 2 6 . 5 5 t‘ .......... LL. .--_. W......._._ .-_.......... in” A... q .m—n. man. —.O‘ I I. ”~I _--.. -. .. 158 THose wHosc-z PRESENT’ PLaN 1;, Mogr LIME PLAN F WOW—D SAT/4mm? Nor SATISFIED PKEFER Par/"N pk/NCIPALS. CouNsaLoxs Pfi/NCIPALS COUNSELOL’JS F _':--v—---—-~1 A 1 2 6 B ‘ 2 I 1 ._JL ! x C 1 1 2 5" .... _i 1' i i i i 3 E 1 1 4‘ 4 ’- F 2 TOTALS 1 8 9 l4: .---- -1--. . _. ll 159 THOSE wHosE Priesaur ppm; [.3 MOST‘ LIME pLANnom—z Of V3933 I (“ o WOUL‘D SAT/LFIED NOT" JATISFIE'D ’ Vienna i Fifi“! pR/NCIPIJLS CouwsaLoxs PI?/NC.IPAI..S Cam/stLOwi r W ,_ 2.11.; A 1 5 t r i “1 «4 f I B ‘ l 1 l g 1 l S i 1 j E “7 ' 3 i , ; C .5 5 g L 41$ é D 1 2 l § 3 E 1 4 1 i k l l 2 TWA“ :5 11 14 ._....._-....-.--....-.é...___... 1.." .-... -. .. ....-_ .-L...-........-._....... -. Ji W. -.---- IlmF. nfifig “ V, A, ”.7 ' 1 ‘ ‘...-"|‘J...J - ' “(L‘J Date Due db— Demco-293