THE KNOWLEDGE AND OPENEON BASES ABOUT EATON iNTERMEfliATE SCHOOL DISTRECT SERVECES AMONG THE FACULTiES AND STAFFS OF THE CONSTlTUENT SCHOOL DESTRECTS: A SYSTEMAYEC SURVEY 'E‘hesls for the Degree 6f M A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BARBARA JEAN DAVIS 1:97 5 '3' “3““ Mai I L?“ Edda-Amt w-ub§}v \\\\\\\\\\\\‘$\ ‘ I ' .2 a... '1 r—-—.W‘; r. a :7: ":3; 2.43m t ‘7'"- '3? A 35"” . .1, .. -,~ § ("it I '1' ‘ ‘ni‘v'd C J: 531.3: ,i : Wfsfis 800K awnznv mc. ‘ UBRAR» BINDERS SPR [LFuéiJriadHlfill 1V‘53I_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from ”In. your record. FINES W111 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. ABSTRACT THE KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION BASES ABOUT EATON INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT SERVICES AMONG THE FACULTIES AND STAFFS OF THE CONSTITUENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS: A SYSTEMATIC SURVEY By Barbara Jean Davis Intermediate school districts (ISD's) in Michigan have existed just l2 years. They offer support services to local school districts such as special education, area vocational education, media center, data processing and recently, programs for talented and gifted. During that time, they have been unable to establish adequate communi- cation systems with local school districts or with the general public. Such communication is essential to adequate functioning of Michigan intermediate school districts since state law dictates that 180 services may be provided only at the REQUEST of local districts. This study examines one typical ISD, Eaton Intermediate, located southwest of Lansing, in an effort to determine present levels of knowledge and opinions held by constituent school faculties and staffs about Eaton Intermediate School District, and to propose suggested journalism and mass communication efforts that would inform local schools and the public about such services. Barbara Jean Davis Such a study is particularly relevant during a time when taxpayers are revolting against school taxes and education costs con- tinue to rise. ISD's offer support services that can provide sophisti- cated services at minimal expense. A survey questionnaire was administered to all faculties and staffs within Eaton Intermediate School District, with a 64 per cent return rate. Survey results showed that about 50 per cent of constituent faculties and staffs have a knowledge of Eaton Intermediate School District services, that special education services are the best known, that regional vocational education is attitudinally more acceptable to administrative staffs than to teachers, that considerable discrepancy exists among faculties and staffs regarding appropriate classroom models for special education (and all) students. Regarding media usage, the study pointed out that local radio listenership is almost exclusively during the preschool hour, that newspaper readership is more extensive than assumed, and that TV is definitely a resource that should be tapped. The scope of this study was necessarily generalized in nature. It is hoped that it will be succeeded by a number of more specific studies of knowledge and opinion bases regarding each support service offered by intermediate school districts. THE KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION BASES ABOUT EATON INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT SERVICES AMONG THE FACULTIES AND STAFFS OF THE CONSTITUENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS: A SYSTEMATIC SURVEY By Barbara Jean Davis A Thesis submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1975 Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. :rqu fA/JQ? Director of Thesis ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful thanks to my husband, James, who provided the moral support and child care without which I could not have completed this study. Thanks also to Stephen A. Hayden, superintendent of the Eaton Intermediate School District, who allowed me to survey faculties and staffs with his blessing and who waited patiently for the results. LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. II. III. IV. V. APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS The Questionnaire ........... FINDINGS ................. General . . . . ............ Warm Up Questions ........... Classroom Models ............ Evaluation of Students ......... Evaluation of Special Education Services Attitudes and Opinions About Vocational Programming ............. Attitudes and Opinions About Talented and Gifted Students ........... Media Use . . ............. Some Additional Observations and Conclusions ............. Summary and Suggestions for Further Research .............. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BIBLIOGRAPHY ................... iv METHODOLOGY ...................... CONCLUSIONS ...................... Page 13 I4 20 20 20 23 4O 43 49 55 63 67 71 73 Figure 10. ll. 12. I3. 14. LIST OF FIGURES Special Education students (EMI) should be taught in self-contained classrooms .......... Special Education students (EI) should be taught in self-contained classrooms .......... Total segregation of the educable mentally impaired is not good because "he needs to learn to tolerate the system and the system needs to learn to tolerate him". . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . I feel uncomfortable around handicapped people Special Education students should be integrated into the regular classroom programs . . . . . . . . . . Talented and gifted should be taught separately from other more average students ........... Students should be tracked according to ability . . . . Ungraded classrooms allow best for individual differences . ...... , ....... . , ..... Talented and gifted should be taught separately from other more average students . . ......... Special programs for talented and gifted are not necessary ..................... Evaluation systems. Performance, effort or both as criteria for evaluating students ........... Evaluation of special education services provided by Eaton Intermediate ................. Evaluation of special education services provided by Eaton Intermediate . . . . ......... . . . . Evaluation of special education services by entire group of respondents ................. Page 26 28 29 31 33 34 35 36 38 39 41 44 45 Figure 15. 16. I7. 18. Page Vocational education programs are inadequate ...... 50 Vocational programs are designed primarily for the low achiever . . ............ . ..... 52 Adequate vocational education is financially impossible at the local level ............. 54 Talented and gifted will learn "in spite of the teacher ........................ 57 vi Appendix A. B. C. D° LIST OF APPENDICES Faculty and Staff Questionnaire ............ Cover letters ..................... Composition of Survey Respondents ........... Responses by Question ................. vii Page 75 81 84 86 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Eaton Intermediate School District is one of 58 regional school districts in Michigan. Eaton Intermediate, like other inter- mediate districts in the state, "operates at a regional level giving coordination and supplementary services to local school districts and serving as a link between these basic administrative units and the state education authority."1 To implement the above, Eaton Intermediate provides such services as audit functions, school hot lunch programs, and certifi- cation of teachers for the local districts within its boundaries. Additionally, it is annually expanding such support services as special education, vocational education, a media center and most recently, programs for talented and gifted. Intermediate agencies such as Eaton Intermediate School District are fast taking on activities and tasks earlier left to the discretion of individual districts, a situation in some ways paralleling what happened with the consolidation of rural school districts. Increasingly sophisticated technology, expensive teaching and learning aids, and improved individualization of instruction have 1Better Education through Effective Intermediate Units (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1963), pp. 3, 4. l all contributed to an ever increasing tax burden on the already be- sieged taxpayer. Consolidation has been one means of cutting the costs of providing quality educational opportunity, while maintaining the use of modern methods and materials. The regional support system, such as that provided by Eaton Intermediate School District, further reduces duplication of expensive facilities and services. This is true particularly where limited numbers of children require a service. The General School Laws of the State of Michigan limit functions of intermediate school districts to two general areas. They can perform those duties required by law and the superintendent of public instruction, and provide support services at the request of the local district. These limitations show the need for free flow of communication between the intermediate agency, its constituent school districts, and the public. The intermediate school district can law- fully provide only those services specifically requested by constituent schools. Requests will not be made for such services if local school districts are unaware of the intermediate school district or if they possess attitudes and opinions unfavorable to such regionalization. This study focuses on one typical intermediate school district, the Eaton Intermediate, its services, some areas of potential expansion, and the attitudes and opinions of constituent faculties and staffs to- ward that intermediate school district. Survey results can be used to assist Eaton Intermediate School District and other intermediate school districts in establishing improved communication patterns. Equally important, it can point up areas where attitudes and opinions might be generated that would be favorable to use of these services. More specifically, the study aims to: 1) Determine the present attitudes and opinions held about services provided by Eaton Intermediate School District. 2) Determine the present level of knowledge of intermediate facilities and services. 3) Identify what are the services of Eaton Intermediate School District most generally misunderstood by constituent school faculties and staffs. 4) Identify what are the areas of information necessary to knowledge that are not being communicated. 5) Determine appropriate means of communicating with‘ faculties and staffs of constituencies so that a knowledge base can be formed from which attitudes and opinions can be made. Attitudes and opinions delineated in this study pertain to the theoretical and philosophical bases for special education and other intermediate school district services, rather than to specific services supplied by Eaton Intermediate School District. Although Eaton Intermediate School District services are used by the constituent districts, maximum use of the Services remain problematic. For example, teachers and administrators in the district nay tend to hold attitudes and opinions that are non-supportive of the facilities and services. Additionally, teachers and administrators may be unaware of what services are available or potentially available. This concern is augmented by the projected expansion of the services.1 In this context it is useful to point out that the Eaton Intermediate Vocational Education Department has been operative for just two years and is expanding rapidly. Additionally, state legisla- tion has made the special education of exceptional children mandatory.2 If appropriate special education services are not provided by local schools, intermediate schools are obliged by Michigan law to provide them. The legal mandate can easily be viewed by local schools as intermediate police services, the state's "Big Brother." Such a climate is not conducive to favorable attitudes and opinions. Addi- tionally, further state mandates are not altogether unreasonable. Other states right now have legislation requiring appropriate educa- tional opportunities for talented and gifted children. This may happen in Michigan, and logically full implementation will again fall on the intermediate agency. Intermediate schools tend to be the most misunderstood elements of Michigan's public education system, and because of this misunderstanding, a new focus for journalism and communications study is opened. Additional survey research pertaining to specific services provided needs to be conducted to determine levels of knowledge, 1For a complete discussion of both basic and expansionary intermediate school functions, see Chapter 8 of the General School Laws, secs. 340.29l-340.330. 2General School Laws, sec. 340.2989. attitudes and opinions. Further, journalists need to be employed to communicate clear messages to constituent schools and publics, based on the results of such findings. The present general survey is pre- liminary to full utilization of journalism, mass communications research and message production. Messages need to be conveyed first to the utilizers of the services and further to the public. As stated earlier, Michigan law requires that intermediate school districts provide those services requested by constituencies. Such requests will not be made without a knowledge base from which opinions can be formed regarding appropriate utilization. Neither can intermediate schools provide services not requested, except where mandated by law. Thus, improved communications systems are obviously needed. It is hoped that this study will contribute some insights into appropriate communication patterns for use by Eaton Intermediate School District and other intermediate agencies as well, and will initiate a whole series of model communications research studies in- tended to bring about free flow of communications between the two interrelated educational systems, and ultimately optimum use of both to provide quality education for Michigan children. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE While intermediate school services are expanding, they re— main, for all practical purposes, non-existent in the mind of the public. This was graphically shown in a formal telephone survey in the summer of l974 in which of l02 contacts made, only one person had full knowledge of intermediate school functions while five additional contacts demonstrated a partial recognition. The other 96 contacts knew nothing.1 While such public ignorance of intermediate school functions is perhaps understandable, professional faculty and staff members of local schools, or those who have a direct relationship with inter- mediate school services, should certainly have a knowledge of what these services are, their quality, and why they exist. This apparently is not the case in Eaton Intermediate. "We are a nonentity," Stephen A. Hayden, Superintendent of the Eaton Intermediate School District, said. Other intermediate school employees have similar difficulty conveying to constituent school employees and the public just what their function is. Unless 1Barbara J. Davis, unpublished survey questionnaire adminis- tered through the Eaton Intermediate School District to l02 contacts within the geographical boundaries of the district. For more informa- tion, write Mrs. Davis, c/o Eaton Intermediate School District, 1790 E. Packard, Charlotte, Michigan 48813. “ 6. local school faculties and staffs have had a direct relationship with intermediate school district staffs they are likewise unaware of inter- mediate school district services. ' Hayden explained that Michigan intermediate schools came into existence in 1963 with the reorganization of the old country schools into intermediate districts. with new geographical lines aimed at better meeting the needs of local systems within intermediate boundary lines. This new structure of Michigan schools is known as a three echelon state system of education.1 One would think a system eleven years old would have been thoroughly covered in Michigan educational periodicals, but outside of scattered primary sources and house organs created by the inter- mediate school administrators and staffs, little is available. The function of intermediate schools has been defined by Alvin E. Rhodes as: . . an agency that operates at a regional level giving coordination and supplementary services to local school districts and serving as a link between these basic adminis- trative units and the state education authority.2 Beyond this definition, generalizations about intermediate school dis- tricts are hard to make because state school laws require only a minimum of functions. 1Interview with Stephen A. Hayden, Eaton Intermediate School District Superintendent, April, 1974. 2Better Education through Effective Intermediate Units (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1963), pp. 3, 4. The General School Laws of the State of Michigan, as indicated in the introduction, limit functions of intermediate school districts to the following: l. Perform such duties as required by law and the superintendent of public instruction but shall not supersede nor replace the board of education of any school district, nor shall it con- trol or otherwise interfere with the rights of constituent districts except as provided in this chapter. 2. Furnish services on a consultant or supervisory basis to any district upon request of that district.1 [italics added by author] ' These two limitations demonstrate graphically the need for information services for intermediate school districts in that only those services that are requested by constituent schools can be law- fully enacted. Suggestions for expanded services are made in consider- able detail in the General School Laws but requests cannot be made for services about which local school districts are unaware.2 General School Laws is not the most popular reading for Michigan school faculties and staffs. Requests from local schools are sometimes made under pressure from the community. If community leaders realize local schools cannot alone financially administer the most modern and comprehensive career education programs, for example, they may push for participation in regional centers. Funds pooled to serve several local districts could 1General School Laws, sec. 340.298a. and sec. 340.2989. 2For a complete discussion of both basic and expansionary intermediate school functions, see Chapter 8 of the General School Laws, secs. 340.291-340.330. provide greatly expanded career education programs, for example, whereas at the local level, these services may be unnecessary dupli- cation of mediocre programs. The above two step communication of innovation from the intermediate school district to its constituencies and from local schools to their public requires a knowledge base and favorable attitudes and opinions regarding intermediate school districts among local faculty and staffs for this community involvement to take place. Accurate appraisal of this knowledge and opinion base is not avail- able in present literature. Michigan's goal in educating its citizenry is to provide the opportunity for each person to educate himself to his capacity, with equality of opportunity throughout the state. Intermediate school districts are one means of bringing this ideal closer to reality. Intermediate school districts can help show constituent systems and other intermediate districts what equality of education for all Michigan people is. If one school system discovers a new, workable method of stimulating gifted students, the intermediate school district is a logical medium for communicating the innovation to other districts. Some areas in which intermediate school districts have already made gains in upgrading equality of opportunity are: . Special education, mandatory by state law. Staff and curriculum development. Educational diagnostic and remediation centers. Educational research operations and systematic studies. Testing services. Ln-th-J O O C O 10 6. Cooperative purchasing and quality control. 7 Staff development programs for cooks, bus drivers and the like. 8. Instructional materials centers. 9. Data processing systems. 10. Public information services. 11. Vocational education.l Equality of services in most of these areas, however, is at best spotty and at worst, non-existent. With an adequate knowledge base from which appropriate attitudes and opinions can be formed, local and intermediate schools can cooperate to work toward improving and increasing the services in those districts that show inadequacies. Research evidence indicates that information input through various channels of interpersonal and mass communication is the key to developing knowledge bases about new services and technologies. This is particularly true in the field of diffusion of innovations in ideas, products and services.2 The information thus provided may help in the formation of attitudes and opinions that are favorable to the innovations or may help modify unfavorable attitudes and opinions toward the innovations. It is axiomatic, then, that the significance of the role of information here be realized. 1Interview with Stephen A. Hayden, other intermediate school administrators, passim. For additional information, write Stephen A. Hayden at Eaton Intermediate School District, 1790 E. Packard, Charlotte, Michigan 48813. 2Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), passim. PThé author suggests that this text be used as background reading for intermediate school district personnel who are in the position of communicating new educational programs to their constituencies. 11 The central proposition, therefore, for the proposed study is that the relationships between the knowledge base and utilization of services are a function of the information and attitudes that the utilizers possess toward the services. The proposition presupposes that at least a minimal information flow about the facilities and services is a precondition to their utilization. Beyond this, the relationships between the knowledge base and utilization are con- comitant, reciprocal and cumulative. Present constituent school faculty and staff knowledge, attitudes and opinions regarding intermediate school districts are not known. Neither have they been surveyed in the past in Michigan. This is a vital and necessary step for initiating appropriate communi- cation patterns. Numerous texts are available both on attitude measurement and on survey design techniques. The basic text on survey research design and analysis methodology is probably Earl R. Babbie's Survey Research Methods. This was helpful for the present study as background reading, as was Herbert Hyman's Survey Research Design. Methodology for this survey was derived from a number of background readings and from class experiences at Michigan State University. Specifically, these classes were the Journalism 801, "Seminar in Journalism and Mass Communications Research", taught by Professor V. M. Mishra, and Advertising 850, "Problems in Public Relations", taught by Professor John Simpkins. The emphasis in the latter was on segmentation strategies in survey design. 12 Rensis Likert has developed a semantic differential scaling device which was adapted in this study to determine levels of intensity in attitudes and opinions regarding Eaton Intermediate School District services and other attitude surveys. Likert has written texts on his methodology, but basic information on Likert scaling can be drawn quickly from Babbie's text mentioned above. Basically, Likert proposes a five point scale including, for example, strongly agree, agree, undetermined, disagree and strongly disagree. Based on the hypothesis that Eaton Intermediate School District services are presently little known in constituent districts, this study uses a seven point scale to allow for mildly held attitudes and opinions. Given a minimal knowledge base from which an attitude and/or opinion can be formed, respondents would then have the option of indicating a mildly favorable or unfavorable attitude or opinion. It is hoped that further communications strategies can build on this mild attitude or opinion and that in further studies, respondents will choose to express stronger agreement or disagreement. Most literature concerned with attitude studies and survey research suggest sophisticated methodology in analysis of data. Since the intent of this study is to demonstrate to the Eaton Intermediate School District and constituencies general attitudes and opinions and present level of knowledge of services available, this study does not include such sophisticated measures in the interest of maintaining read- ability. Data analysis is in percentages only, incorporating segmenta- tion techniques to demonstrate differences within the various populations represented in the survey. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Survey research techniques were employed in execution of the study. To supplement the data, the author also utilized the analytical and documentary techniques of historical research. A mail survey questionnaire was devised and sent to all administrators, faculties and staffs of the five constituent districts of the Eaton Intermediate School District. Full representation on the questionnaire was chosen over a sample because the method intended for getting faculties and staffs to complete the form was initially to have them do it during pre-school conferences, and using only a sample would have been more difficult than the method used. Additionally, administrative staffs were too small to segment into samples, as were two of the districts. The return rate was maximized by a variety of techniques: 1. The questionnaire was mailed to the five school super- intendents with a cover letter (See sample in Appendix B). The contents of the letter varied due to different personalities of the administrators and different prior contacts made by the author. Each was visited prior to the mailing so that each would have an opportunity to pre-test the form and to make suggested changes. Success of this technique is reflected in the percentage rates of return. 13 l4 2. The author volunteered to personally appear at staff meetings to explain and answer questions regarding the intent and use of the questionnaire. Charlotte Public Schools was the only school that availed itself of this option. Readers should note, then, that while Charlotte represents 21 per cent of the total staffs surveyed, the percentage of return in that district was 88 per cent of their total staff or 29 per cent of all responses received. See Appendix C for percentage rates on the other school districts polled. 3. The survey form was filled out anonymously in an attempt to encourage honesty. 4. A deadline given administrators for return of surveys helped assure return of survey forms at a relatively early date. Nonetheless, forms continued to trickle into the intermediate office for two months following the initial mailing. These delinquent sur- vey forms were discarded as unusable since the rest had already been sent to the Ingham Intermediate Data Processing Center to be analyzed. 5. Follow-up calls were made to superintendents and building principals two weeks after the initial mailing encouraging them to get their forms returned to the intermediate office. Without these calls, the return rate would have been considerably lower in several of the schools. When called, some principals did mail the surveys after be- ing reminded and told it was not too late. THE QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire was designed to elicit certain demographics, such as length of teaching or administrative experience, level taught l5 and district affiliation. Additionally, questions regarding media use were included. The main portion of the questionnaire, however, was devoted to attitudinal and opinion based questions regarding evaluation systems, teacher expertise, intermediate school services, various aspects of special education philosophy, programming for talented and gifted, and vocational education. The above questions were all scored on a seven point Likert scale. The seven point scale allowed respondents to indicate mildly held opinions and attitudes, either favorable or unfavorable although the respondent might generally feel neutral on a given issue. In scoring the Likert, responses 1-3 were grouped as "agree" responses, 4 was considered neutral, and 5-7 were considered unfavor- able. This method of clustering responses was chosen with the view toward capitalizing on agree or disagree responses in future communica- tions methods, hopefully building on a mildly felt opinion by providing an information base from which knowledge might be gleaned, reinforcing that mildly held opinion until it might become either “strongly agree“ or "strongly disagree". Respondents were also asked to check those services provided by Eaton Intermediate from a list of real and imaginary services. Additionally, they were asked to fill in the name or title of the person they would most likely turn to for advice re- garding how they could improve educational programs. (See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire). The fill in question was ignored by about 90 per cent of the respondents. Those who did fill it in put 16 such things as ”principal" or "immediate supervisor". Therefore, the responses are of negligible value. Before mailing the questionnaire to the various school dis- tricts the form was pre—tested by representatiVes of the five school districts and administrators on the Eaton Intermediate staff. All persons asked had some modifications, expansions or deletions to suggest. Those who pre-tested the form generally became excited about seeing the completed study and in most instances, the pre-tester was one of those who would eventually be instrumental in maximizing the return rate. Ingham Intermediate Data Processing Center in Mason was chosen as the avenue for compiling the data. The center was directed to process separate printouts for: First year teachers. Teachers with one through five years of experience. 1 2 3. Teachers with over five years experience. 4 First year administrators. 5 Administrators with one through five years of experience. Administrators with over five years of experience. Those with direct involvement only with elementary schools. 8. Those with direct involvement only with middle school/junior high schools. 9. High school only. 10. Other. 11. All teachers. 12. All administrators. l7 13. Charlotte. 14. Eaton Rapids. 15. Grand Ledge. 16. Maple Valley. 17. Potterville. 18. Other (later interpreted to be Eaton Intermediate School District) 19. Entire group. Separate printouts for the nineteen areas were requested so that in the analysis stage, specific segmented groups might be studied for differences in attitudes and opinions that might derive from degree of experience, function, level taught or geographical location. Initially, the survey was to be completed by just the five constituent school districts, but after it had been printed, the de- cision was made to include Eaton Intermediate staff members also. Not having a specific line item for Eaton Intermediate, those questions re- lating to geographical area, level taught, and function wherein the respondent filled in "other" are generally interpreted to refer to Eaton Intermediate. In some cases this may be local counselors, guidance persons or other individuals not specified in line items. Basically, then, the study was conducted to discover just what are the attitudinal and opinion bases of the administrators, faculties and staffs of the five constituent school districts within the Eaton Intermediate School District as they relate to the use of the services of the Eaton Intermediate School District. 18 The related purposes were: 1. To delineate a profile of information and knowledge bases about the intermediate district's services among the adminis- trators, faculties and staffs of the five constituent districts, and within the Eaton Intermediate School District itself. 2. To assess their attitudes and opinions toward these services and toward the kinds of individuals who qualify for such services. 3. To examine the indicators of these attitudes and opinions. 4. To propose a set of communication strategies whereby utilization of the aforesaid facilities and services might be generated or significantly increased. Some of the basic concerns of the study were: 1. To what extent do professional classification,_age group served, length of service, and/or district affiliation affect attitude, opinion and knowledge bases about the facilities and services, and ultimately, utilization of the same? 2. What are the interpersonal as well as mass communication usage patterns of the administrations, faculties and staffs in the constituencies and how can these patterns be utilized to disseminate information about Eaton Intermediate School District services so knowledge bases can begin to be formed? 3. What attitudinal and opinion barriers impede utilization of the facilities and services and what are the indicants of these attitudes and opinions? l9 4. What kinds of communications strategies can be formulated for the dissemination of information regarding appropriate utilization of the facilities and services? CHAPTER IV FINDINGS SECTION I: GENERAL Survey results from the Ingham Intermediate Data Processing Center were printed on 38 sheets of computer paper yielding a total of 10,032 bits of raw data. Breakdowns of data by clusters of re- spondents are given in Appendix 0.1 Examination of data by question is given in percentages in Appendix D. The rate of return on the questionnaire came to 64 per cent with Charlotte Public Schools the highest at 88 per cent and Grand Ledge Public Schools lowest at 44 per cent. SECTION 2: WARM UP QUESTIONS No. 3: I WORK WELL WITH OTHER FACULTY AND STAFF. No. 4: I WORK BEST WITH BRIGHT STUDENTS. No. 5: I WORK BEST WITH SLOW STUDENTS. No. 6: I WORK BEST WITH ALL STUDENTS. Question 3 was asked to get respondents thinking about them- selves and how they relate to other professionals--how they view them- selves as educators, and how they think others relate to them. 1For examination of original raw data computer printouts, please write Barbara J. Davis, Eaton Intermediate School District, 1790 E. Packard Hwy., Charlotte, Michigan 48813. 20 21 Responses to this question were far more emphatic than ex- pected. Ninety per cent of all respondents demonstrated a level of certainty that they were indeed well accepted and that they accepted other faculty and staff. Looking at the question as segmented in Appendix D, the teacher's level of confidence remained consistently high, but the administrator's level of confidence tended to fall off with experience although most responses remained in the agree columns. In the geo- graphic segmentation, "other", interpreted to be Eaton Intermediate, demonstrated the highest level of confidence, with Potterville falling lowest. Today's educators as represented by these teachers tend to have well formed positive opinions regarding their ability to relate to other educators. Experienced administrators are either more real- istic or they tend to lose their ability to relate to teaching staffs as they continue to administer educational programs. The other three warm up questions, lumped together as a cluster, try to get at which groups of children teachers feel most comfortable with. What is their level of acceptance of the slow student? the bright student? all students? In the questions designed to elicit attitudes and opinions regarding teaching bright or slow students, answers tended to cluster around the neutral response, whereas responses clustered around agree in the question on working with all students. It's interesting to note that discrepancies appeared on examination of second and third 22 highest percentages. Secondary and tertiary clusters appeared toward the "agree“ end of the scale in the responses to the question on work- ing with slow students. Looking at geographical segmentations in answers to the question on slow students, "other", interpreted as Eaton Intermediate, manifested the greatest discrepancies from the norm in that 39.4 per cent (the sum of l, 2 and 3) responded with agrees and 21.4 per cent (the sum of 5, 6 and 7) with disagrees. This is not surprising in that most Eaton Intermediate staff members have been trained to work with special education students. Adding the "other" column, in the "level taught" cluster, the percentage of agrees moves up to 44.4 per cent, indicating that educators in reading, guidance, administration and other specialized fields who work with all ages of children, attitudinally favor serving the needs of "slow" students. It must be added that 18.5 per cent of this same category strongly disagreed with the statement, indicating a small but attitudinally strong group who disagree with this emphasis on working with slow students. Administrative and teaching faculties and staffs tend to have strong opinions regarding their competency. They generally be- lieve they can meet the needs of all children they serve. This attitude is consistent throughout questions 4, 5 and 6. The reader is requested to bear this attitude in mind as data regarding services provided by Eaton Intermediate are examined. Is this general attitude of competency consistent with attitudes por- trayed in subsequent clusters? 23 SECTION 3: CLASSROOM MODELS Keeping in mind the general statement made in Section 2, the reader is directed to study responses to several survey questions as a group, but before going into these directly, it is necessary to make some preliminary comments regarding the information to follow. Most respondents had well formed attitudes and opinions regarding special education for exceptional students. However, these attitudes and opinions must be interpreted to be based on a knowledge of special education services provided in their home building rather than Eaton Intermediate services only. Therefore, this information does not reflect specific attitudes toward the facility that houses the Eaton Intermediate Trainable School, nor does it address itself directly to Eaton Intermediate special education services only. General education faculties and staffs do not necessarily know the difference between special education services provided by their own building and those provided by Eaton Intermediate. The overlap is primarily technical and therefore not relevant to them, nor to this study. With the above qualification, focus of the study moves to a basic concern of all special education services offered in local school environments--mainstreaming, or what kind of class environment best serves the needs of all students, including, among others, slow learners, emotionally impaired students, and gifted children. One premise for this section is that if teachers and adminis- trators tend to hold attitudes and opinions unfavorable to a particular 24 student population or means of serving their educational needs, that population and the classroom model in question will not be best served by forcing either on the teacher. To examine attitudes and opinions about classroom models, the following questions in the survey will be treated as a cluster, and the reader is directed to refer to the tables in Appendix 0 giving full response patterns to these questions. Students should be tracked according to ability. Ungraded classrooms allow best for individual differences. 12. Special education students (educable mentally impaired) should be taught in self-contained classrooms. 13. Special education students (emotionally impaired) should be taught in self-contained classrooms. 14. Total segregation of the educable mentally impaired is not good because ”he needs to learn to tolerate the system and the system needs to learn to tolerate him." 16. I feel uncomfortable around handicapped people. 17. Special education students should be integrated into the regular classroom programs. 30. Talented and gifted should be taught separately from other more average students. 33. Programs for talented and gifted are not necessary. Generally, the above questions were asked to determine atti- tudes and opinions regarding separation of exceptionalities from other more average children. To do this, an attempt was made to differentiate between real and socially acceptable attitudes. For example, a compari- son and contrast of the number pairs 12 and 14, 12 and 17, or 12 and 30 tend to demonstrate an inconsistency in respondent attitudes. 25 Given that Eaton Intermediate has a mandate from the Michi- gan Department of Education to provide special education to all exceptional children not being served by their local school, these types of questions should provide Eaton Intermediate with input re- garding present teacher attitudes toward special education. It is upon this base, then, that communication patterns should be formulated. Diffusion of innovation literature has long advocated surveys of existing attitudes and opinions before trying to introduce new ideas or products. Innovators need to be able to relate in a positive and constructive fashion with their audience by means of messages ideally built on a common attitudinal base. Eaton Intermediate is interested therefore in what faculties and staffs think about mainstreaming and other possible classroom models. Figure 1, page 26, implies that administrators have a more favorable attitude toward mainstreaming than teachers. Self-contained classrooms are those in which a student is assigned one classroom as his, whereas the mainstreaming or resource room model assigns a student to regular classrooms for major parts of the day with special help available in subjects that are difficult for him. Figure 1 shows teachers and administrators about evenly split for and against contained classrooms for educable mentally impaired children, with administrators disagreeing with the model more than do teachers. Looking at years of experience, Figure 1 shows that first year teachers have a more favorable attitude toward mainstreaming than do those with more experience. 26 .mEoocmmm—u um:_mpcoo epwm cw “gone“ on npzogm aHva mpcmuzpm cowpmuzum FmFUmam Axu.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.xvv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axp.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AMm.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Afio.¢mv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A&m.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AMw.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A&_.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.mvv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Afim.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A&N.m¢v xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A&o.opv xxxxxxxxxx ANO._FV xxxxxxx Axm.m_v xxxxxxxx Axm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AMw.¢¢V xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AN_.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.nmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axp.oqv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cop om ow on 00 om ow om om o~ O .F mgzm_d cmcpo »m_Fm> mpqmz m___>cmppom «mum; ucmgo muwamm :owmm mquFEmcu "mmcmmmwo cospo mmF—m> m_amz mppw>cmpuoa move; ucmcw mvwamz :oymm mppochgu "mmcm< mcos use memo» N .mcmsummp mcmsummp .c» umgwm ”mmcm< Apmcocpm mcopmgpmwcw5u< mcmzummh "socx p.:oo weepmcumwcw5u< mcmgommh ”mmcmmmwo weepmcumwcwec< mcmgummh ”mmcm< 27 Geographically, Charlotte agrees with contained classrooms more than other districts while Maple Valley is most against them. It is interesting to note that Eaton Intermediate indicated less opposition to contained classrooms than does Maple Valley, one of the smallest, most rural of the constituencies. Eaton Intermediate (other) showed fully 25 per cent of its staff favoring contained classrooms, a classroom model not in keeping with the mainstreaming philosophy. Looking at Figure 2, page 28, the same pattern emerges. Attitudinally, teachers and administrators look at both EMI's and EI's as best served by the same classroom model, with administrators taking the liberal edge again. Contrasting the results of Figures 1 and 2, with Figure 3, page 29, the reader is directed to look at overwhelming agree- ment with the statement that "total segregation is not good." Over 70 per cent of all respondents agreed. This is inconsistent with the less than 50 per cent who disapprove of contained classrooms as appropriate for EMI's and EI's. With increased experience, teacher attitudes become more conservative, indicated by increased numbers who strongly favor con- tained classrooms for emotionally impaired children: First yr. teachers who strongly favor COHtalDEd for EI's ----------------------------- 11-5 One - five years experience favor contained for EI's .................................. 16.5 More than five years experience favor contained for EI's ------------------------------ 23.8 28 .mEoocmmMFU umcwmpcou mem cm pcmzmp ma v_=o;m AHMV mpcmvzpm cowpmuzum Fawumam .N mczmwm A&N.NPV xxxxxxxxxx weepmcumwcwsn< Axm.m_v xxxxxxxxxxx mcmsommh ”zocx u.=oo Axm.FwV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcopmcpmwcwsu< Axm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcmcommh ”mmcmmmwo Axm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcopmcpmwcw2u< Axp.o¢v xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcmsommh "mmcm< OOF om ow on on om ow om om o— o 29 =.EF; opocopop op scoop op momma sopmxm mg» oco soumzm mop mpocopop op scoop op mooo: mg: omooooo ooom no: mm oocwoosw AF—opoms opooozoo mop mo cowpommcmom Fopoh .m ocomwu got ANNE “No.m v xxx Axm.¢_v xxxxxxxxxx A&N.NFV xxxxxxxxxxx Axp.w_v xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cop om ow ox om om ow om om OF 0 mcopocpmw2FEo< mcocoooh "zoox p.:oo mcouocumwcw5o< mcocoook "omcmomwo mcouocpmw:PEo< mcosoom» Homem< 30 Looking at the same EI figures (see Appendix D), another pattern emerges regarding level taught: Level Strongly agree (l)_ Agree (1,2,3) Elementary 18.9 41.3 Middle 24.5 49.6 High School 13.5 50.0 These figures show that mainstreaming of EI's finds less favor in the middle school than in other levels although all groups generally favored contained classrooms more than they disfavored them. As with EMI's, Maple Valley staff indicated the most open attitude toward EI's with fully 47.3 per cent disagreeing with Question 13 while the whole group showed 29.2 per cent disagreeing. "Other" (Eaton Intermediate) showed ambiguity with a surprising 35.7 per cent favoring the statement, 21.4 neutral and 26.7 per cent disagreeing. Figure 4, page 31, shows again the response that is socially acceptable. Such responses are inconsistent with the type of thinking that causes teachers to prefer contained classes over resource rooms. Length of service and level taught did not affect the responses indi- cating degree of comfort felt by faculties and staffs around handicapped people. The reader is directed to look at Question 16 in Appendix D, "I feel uncomfortable around handicapped people." While clusters of responses are similar, significant differences can be seen in the Clusters of respondents checking No. 7, "strongly disagree." In the entire group 32.8 per cent of the population checked No. 7 while "other" 31 .opoooo oooooowoco; oooogo mFQoacomEooco Fmom H .v ocomwm xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx Axo.mm xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &_.o~ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Amm.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx fi&_.n v xxxx ARF._PV xxxxxxxxxx ANN.N_V xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oop om ow on om om oo om om OP 0 Aommv coguo 7.... .we .Po cospv cospo mcopocpmwcwso< mcocoooh "zocx u.coo Aowmv cogpo a... .wE .Fo oocpv cwcpo mcopocumwcwso< mcmsoomh ”mocmomwo Aoomv cospo 1...; ..2 .Fo eagov Logoo mcopocum_:PEo< mcmsooop Homem< 32 (level) made up 63 per cent and "other" (geographical) made up 64.3 per cent. This is consistent with the expectation that "others" work with exceptionalities more than the average respondent. Figure 5, page 33, shows attitudes and opinions that are consistent with Figure 3 also. Figure 6, page 34, supports the same attitudes and opinions about mainstreaming but with talented and gifted segmented out as the exceptionality. Figure 7, page 35, pictures attitudes and opinions toward tracking as a means of providing for individual differences among students. Tracking is certainly not new and has been in and out of favor among educators. This figure shows that more teachers in Eaton Intermediate agree with tracking as a model than disagree. Adminis- trators are split, with all extremes represented among respondents. Generally, the figure shows that as teachers gain experience, they tend to favor tracking less. While Eaton Rapids has probably the strongest example of nongraded elementary classes (Southeastern Elementary), their responses were not significantly different from others (40.9 per cent agreed with the statement in Figure 7). Maple Valley recorded the most significantly different response from the entire group (agree--51.4 per cent, disagree-- 25 per cent). Figure 8, page 36, pictures attitudes and opinions toward un- graded classrooms as models. Comparing these results with Figure 7, teacher responses are surprisingly similar, while the models are 33 .msocmoco EoocmmoFU co_:moc ago one? oopocmopcw mo opoocm mpcmoopm cowpoooom Fowomom .m ocomwm $883 3:.on $35 $3.03 :38 v $55 $33 :2; v 3383 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ooF om ow on om om oe om ON 0— o ooogm upon: mcouocpmwcwsoo ~F< mcozooou FF< "zoo; u.coo oooxm upon: mgopocpmwcvsoo PF< mcogooop __< ”omcmomwo ooocm oposz moouocpmwowsoo ~F< mcosooop FF< "mocm< 34 .mucooapm omoco>o ocos Loguo soc» apouogoomm “canon on opoocm oopewm oco oopoo—oh .o ocomwm Axm.o—v xxxxxxxxx “Rm.m_v xxxxxxxx Axo.mpv xxxxxxxxx Axm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.~mv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ANN.Nov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.w_v xxxxxxxxxxx A&N.~Fv xxxxxxxxxxx Axo.wpv xxxxxxxxxxxx oop om ow on 00 cm oq om om OF 0 ooocm o_o;3 mcopocpmwcwsoo __< momsooou pp< "zoo; p.:oo ozogm upon: mcouocumw:_soo __< mcocooou __< ”omcmomwo ooocm oposz mcouogumwzwaoo pp< mgogoomp _—< ”mogm< 35 .xppppoo op mcpocoooo ooooocp mo opzoom mpcooopm xxo.mov Apo.xpv Ao_.mpv xpm.mmv “om.oev Apo._mv pm.mmv oem.xmv op_.eev opo.m_v Apo.pmv oeo.mmv oxo.opo opo.emv Aoo.mmv ooo._~v Ap5.mmv oxopv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .m ocompo poooum omp: po>op mpoopz po>op acopcosopm ”zoex p.=oo poooom omp: po>op opoopz po>op zoopcmeopm ”mocmompo poooom cop: po>op opoopz po>op xcopcoeopm Hoocm< mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< mcooooop pp< ”zoco p.coo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.oxo .mcx m coop ocoz xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mocopcooxo .mcz mup oxov .cpsoo .c» pmcpm xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.oxo .mg» m coop moo: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oocopcooxo .mox m-p xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcooooop .cz poop; ”mocmompo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.oxo .mca m coop woo: xxxxxxxx mocopcmoxo .mcx mup Apoopvxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .cpsoo .cx pmcpo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.oxm .mc» m coop moo: mcooooop .c» poop; ”wocm< App.omv Apu.mov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mocopcooxm .mc» mup Apm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cop om on om om co om om op o .moococopppo pooop>pocp com pmoo zoppo mEoocmmopo oooocmc: .m ocompo ppm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oxo .mcz m coop moo: ocozv oocopcooxo .mca mup ocozv mcopocpmpcpsoo .c» pmcpm Apo.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oxm .mg» m coop moo: Apn.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mocopoooxm .mc» mlp ppm.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcooooop .c» pmcpo "zoco p.coo App.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcopocpmpcpEoo pp< ppm.m_v xxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcooooop pp< ApN.F—V xxxxxxxxxx .oxo .mcx m coop ocoz Apo.oov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oocopcooxo .mc» m-p ,6 ApoopVxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcopocpmpcpeoo .cz pmcpo .3 ppm.¢mv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oxo .mg» m coop moo: ppm.mpv xxxxxxxxx mocopcooxo .mg» m._ Apm.p_v xxxxxxx mcooooop .c» pmcpo "mocmompo App.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< App.pmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcmoooop pp< Apo._mv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx coopo ppm.mov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx poooom ompo ppm.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx o—oopz ppm.vmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xcopcoeopm Apo.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oxm .mcz m coop moo: Apo.oov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oocopcooxo .mc» m-— Aocozv mcopocpmpcpsoo .ca pmopm Apo.mov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oxo .mc» m coop moo: Apo.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mocopcooxo .mc» m-p ppm.wov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcooooop .c» pmcpm Homem< oop om cm on on om ow om om op o 37 different. More research would need to be done to find out how teachers can support both models simultaneously. Moving on to Figures 9 and 10, pages 38 and 39, an apparent inconsistency appears. While fully 80 per cent of all respondents want special programs for the talented and gifted, they do not want them taught in separate classrooms. Tracking or contained class- rooms are apparently not considered appropriate classroom models for providing for the educational needs of talented and gifted children. That leaves the question, "What is the appropriate classroom model for education of gifted and talented children?" While discrepancies appear between teacher and administrator responses, their total statistics reflect similarity. Geographically, ungraded classrooms find similar levels of support in all districts (see Appendix D). To summarize findings regarding classroom models, contained were the kinds most favored by teachers for special education students while tracked and ungraded classrooms were favored as models for the rest of the population, including talented and gifted. Faculties and staffs think special education children should be integrated into regular classroom programs, an apparent inconsistency with their support of contained classrooms. 38 .mpcooopm omoco>o woos coopo Eocp apopocooom pomoop mo opooom oopppm oco oopcopop .m ocompo ppm.opv xxxxxxxx ppm.mpv xxxxxxxx Apo.mpv xxxxxxxxx Ap~.Nov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.~ov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ppm.mov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.m_v xxxxxxxxxxx ANN.NFV xxxxxxxxxx Apo.mpv xxxxxxxxxxx ooF om cm on 00 0m 0? cm ON OF 0 ooocm ocppcm mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< mcmoooop pp< ”zoco p.coo ooocm moppcm mcopocpmpcpaoo pp< mcooooop pp< Hoocmompo ooocm ocppcm mcopocpmpcpeoo pp< mcooooop pp< Hoocm< 39 .zcommoooc poc woo ompppm oco oopcopop cop msocmoco popooom Apo.oov oom.pv xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm.ev xxxx oop cm on on om ov om om op .o_ ocsmpo ooocm moppcm ”zoco p.coo ooocm ocppcm ”omcmompo ooocm moppcm Hoocm< 40 SECTION 4: EVALUATION OF STUDENTS Faculties and staffs showed a surprising agreement regard- ing how they think students should be evaluated. The reader is directed to look at the responses to questions 9 through 11, Appendix D, and at Figure 11, page 41. Evaluation of all students should be based on some combination of effort and performance. Given this basic premise, what are the indicators of faculty and staff attitudes and opinions on how effort and performance can be combined to arrive at an equitable grade? Regarding special education students, note that administra- tors tended to put greater emphasis on performance as a criterion for evaluating students than do teachers. See Figure 11, page 41. Addi- tionally, as teachers gain more experience, they tend to place greater emphasis on performance as a criterion. Educators who work at the high school level indicate a greater emphasis on performance as a criterion for evaluation than do those at the elementary and middle school levels. Contrasting evaluation of special education students with evaluation of talented and gifted students, respondents showed the following differences: Performance Effort Both_ Don't Know Special Ed. 3.5 13.2 69.2 12.9 Talented and Gifted 10.2 4.2 80.1 4.7 While a combination of performance and effort is obviously preferred as a criterion, scores indicate that attitudinally, respondents tended 41 ooN.mov oxm.~ov oom.oov xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.m V xxx Aocozv Apm.m v xxx A&N.v v xxx Amcozv Apo.o v xxx ppm.mpv xxxxxxxxx Amcozv ppm.mpv xxxxxxxxxx pr.m v xx Apm.mpv xxxxxxxxxxx Axm.m v xx ApN.opv xxxxxxx Apm.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxx Apn.m v xxxxx ppm.m v xxx pr.mpv xxxxxxxxx Apo.m v xxx oop om cm on 00 cm oo om om OF 0 .oEoo mpcmocoomoc pp< mcopocpmpcpao< mcoooomp mpcooopm .oooo popooom ”poopmu a mucoscopcoo .oEoo mpcoocoommc pp< mcopocpmpcpso< mcooooop mpcooopm pp< .oEoo mpcmocoomoc pp< mcopocpmpcpso< mcooooop mpcooopm oopppo o oopeopop .oEoo mpcoocoomoc pp< mcopocpmpcp5o< mcooooop mpcooopm .oooo popooom ”pcoppm .osoo mpcoocoomoc pp< mcopocpmpcpso< mcooooop mpcooopm pp< .oEoo mpcoocoommc pp< mcopocpmpcpso< mcooooop mpcooopm ompppm a ompcopop .osoo mpcoocoomoc pp< mcopocpmpcpsoc mcooooop mpcmoopm .ocoo popooom ”mucoscopcoo 42 oxm.mov xxx.mov xxo.omv xxp.oov xxm.mxv xxp.oov .mpcoozpm moppoopo>o cop opcmppco mo opoo co pcoppo .oocoecopcoo .mEopmxm coppoopo>m .pp ocompo oop om ow on om om ow om om o_ o xxm.e v xx Aocozv Axe.s V xx Apm.~_v xxxxxxx Axe.m v xx Apo.m—v xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oEoo mpcoocoommc pp< mcopocpmpcpso< mcooooop mpcmoopm oopopm o oopcopop .oEoo mpcmocoomoc pp< mcopocpmpcpso< mcmooomp mpcoozpm .oooo popooom ”coco p_coo .oeoo mpcoocoomoc pp< mcopocpmpcpso< mcooooop mpeoospm ppc .osoo mpcmocoommc pp< mcopocpmpcpEo< mcmooowp mpcooopm oopopm o oopeopop 43 to favor performance as a criterion for evaluating bright students while they tended to favor effort as a criterion for evaluating slow students (See Figure 11). How respondents suggested “general" students should be evaluated poses some interesting questions: Performance Effort Both Don't Know 2.8 5.0 89.9 1.3 Performance plus effort is obviously favored (See Figure 11) but note the 1.3 per cent in the I'don't know" column. Figure 11 shows that 12.9 per cent say they don't know how to evaluate special education students and 4.7 per cent say they don't know how to evaluate talented and gifted children. The problem of evaluation bears further research. Geographically, Eaton Rapids consistently rated performance significantly higher than did the other school districts. SECTION 5: EVALUATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES Before looking at the statistics listed in Figures 12 and 13, readers should remember the caution given earlier about the know- ledge base from which teachers make their evaluations. They form opinions primarily from what they see. Unlike teachers, administrative personnel deal almost daily with some representative from Eaton Inter- mediate. Therefore, their evaluations of special education services reflect a broader knowledge base than do those of the teachers. Now, looking at Figure 12, page 44, we note first that adminis- trators evaluated Eaton Intermediate special education services generally as "adequate", with 69 per cent; other responses were evenly distributed (aver the other three categories. 44 .opopooacoch copom xo coop>oco coppouooo popooom x2: Mo: Mos x2: $53 xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx $2: £33 £33 £33 xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Aocozv A&0.m©v xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm.mmv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.omv xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “Rm.opv xxxxxxx Axp.p V x Axp.p v x Axw.o v x Nm.m v xx cop om ow ON 00 om ow om om OF 0 mo coppoopo>u .N— ocompo mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< mcooooop pp< .oxo .mcz m coop moo: oocopcooxo .mcz mup mcoooomp .cx pmcpm ”socx p.coo mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< mcooooop pp< .oxo .mg» m coop moo: mocopoooxo .mg» m-— mcooooop .c» pmcpo ”opoooooocp mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< mcooooop pp< .oxm .mcx m coop woo: mocmpcooxo .mcx mlp mcoooomp .ca poop; ”opooooo< mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< mcooooop pp< .oxo .mc» m coop ocoz mocopcooxm .mcx mup mcooooop .ca pmcpm no>pmmooxm 45 .opopooscopcp copom xo coop>oco moop>omm coppooaoo popomom :35: $883 xxm.oeV xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ANw.m©V xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.o V xxxx Axm.m V xxx Axo.m V xxx oxmo V x Apm.mpV xxxxxxxxx Apm.-V xxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.m~V xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.m V x App.NoV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.NmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.pNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.ppV xxxxxxx Axm.o V xxxxx Axm.o V xxxx Axx.m V x Axm.m V x OOF om ow on om oo om ON 0— o co coppoopo>m .mp occmpo mcopocpmpcpaoo pp< .oxo .mg% m coop moo: mocopcooxo .mg» m._ mcooooop .c» pmcpo "zoco p.coo mcopocpmpcpEoo pp< .oxo .mcx m coop ocoz oocopcooxo .mg» m._ mcooooop .c» pmcpo ”coon mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< .oxo .mcx m coop moo: oocopcooxo .mca mnp mcooooop .c» poop; "cpoo mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< .oxo .mcz m coop moo: mocopcmoxm .mc» mnp mcooooop .ca poop; "ooou mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< .oxo .mg» m coop moo: oocopcmoxo .mcx mup mcmoooop .cx pmcpo "pcoppooxm 46 Teacher responses cluster in the "don't know" response section. Note that 40.5 per cent of all teachers do not have an opinion about quality of special education services. With more experience, teacher awareness of special education services increases, but not significantly. A full 35.8 per cent still have no opinion after having been in the system more than five years. This is further indication of an insufficient knowledge base. Looking now at Figures 12 and 13, pages 44 and 45, dis- crepancies appear in the "good"/"adequate" and "don't know" responses. Those with some knowledge rate the services as "good"/"adequate", those without knowledge check "don't know". Figure 14, page 47, graphically shows where the greatest numbers of clusters with unformed opinions are found. The whole chart cries out for MORE INFORMATION. While the largest group with an opinion rated special education services as good, that cluster represented only 27.8 per cent of the entire group. "Don't knows" represented 38 per cent. The most surprising percentage of "don't knows“, occurs in the geographical "other" category, interpreted in this survey to be faculties and staffs of Eaton Intermediate. How can Eaton Intermediate staff members have no opinion regarding special education services? This would tend to say that Eaton Intermediate staff members are not informed among themselves of what special education services are offered and their quality. For additional analysis, refer to Charts 19 and 20 in Appendix D. 47 .mpcoocoomoc po ooocm ocppco mo moop>com coppooooo popooom Apo.w~V xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.NoV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apn.poV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Amcon Axo.ooV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm.poV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.m V xxx A&F.FNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx pr.m~V xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.m V xx oop om om on om om ow om ON 0— o co coppoopo>m .op mcompm coopo moppo> opooz oppp>coppoo omomo ococo mopoom copom oppopcoou Loopo poooom oap: poooom opoopz xcopcoEm—m "zoco p.coo ”coon ”cpou “oooo uo>pmmooxm 48 Before leaving evaluation of special education services, the reader is directed to refer to Chart 18 in Appendix D. This whole chart shows the ambiguity of thinking among faculties and staffs. This is a YES/NO question. Either there is a county plan or there isn't.1 Look at the levels of opinion indicated in the chart, though. Visualize the respondents trying to decide on an answer: . ah, I think I heard something about it in that staff meeting last spring . . . (He checks "agree-2"). There is that big fat stack of reading with a blue cover in my stack of things to read. That must be it. But wasn't that a proposed plan? . . . (He checks "agree-3"). Responses made by the entire group of respondents to this question show the level of this ambiguity. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree 40.9 12.9 8.4 14.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 A straight YES/NO/DON'T KNOW question would definitely not have told as much. 1Information about this county plan for Special Education has been sent to every administrator in the district. Often such weighty volumes of reading get shelved in the “to read", low priority agendas of busy administrators. Likewise, teachers who have not re- ferred children for special services have been told in faculty meetings and inservices about this state required plan, but that information has not yet become real knowledge. 49 SECTION 6: ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS ABOUT VOCATIONAL PROGRAMMING Earl Willmarth, director of the Eaton Intermediate vocational education department, said in an interview held in September, 1975, "The State Department of Education says every secondary education student should have a minimum of 15 areas of vocational studies available to him." This is a policy published by the State Board of Education. Only big districts can fulfill this policy, Willmarth said. Keeping this state policy statement in mind, an examination of Figure 15, page 50, "Vocational education programs are inadequate", is well worth studying. It is an opinion question. Responses to that opinion question reveal some strongly held attitudes about both local vocational education and supplementary programs offered by Eaton Intermediate. This figure shows that experience both in teaching and in administration tends to increase the number who regard vocational programming as inadequate. Elementary and high school faculties and staffs hold favorable attitudes and opinions about vocational pro- gramming that are similar but similarity breaks down at the "disagree" end of the scale. While 15.9 per cent of the elementary respondents disagreed, implying that vocational programs are adequate, 17.7 per cent did not respond to the question at all. Among high school respondents, 33.1 respondents disagreed or rated vocational programs as adequate. 50 .oposoooocp oco msocmoco coppoooom pocoppooo> .mp occmpm Axo.~NV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< Axw.pNV xxxxxxxxxxxxx mcooooop pp< "zocx p_coo Axo.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A.ooscmpcp copomV coopo Apm.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xoppo> opooz xx.mNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oppp>coppoo App.opV xxxxxxxx omooo ococw Axo.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxx mopoom copom Apm.mpV xxxxxxxxxxxx oppopcoou Axp.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx poooom omp: Axo.opV xxxxxxxxxxx «poop: Axm.m—V xxxxxxxxxx xcopcosmpm ANQ.NNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< Axo.pNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcooooop pp< "oocmompo ppm.oNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A.ooELoch copomV coopo App.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xoppo> opooz Apm.an xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oppp>coppoo Axm.me xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx omooo ococu Axo.poV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mopoom copom Axm.ooV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oppopcooo xo.an xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx coopo Axm.ooV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx poooom omp: Apm.NmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx opoopz Apm.NoV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xcopcosopm Apm.ooV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oxo .mc» m coop moo: Apo.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx oocopcooxo .mca mup Aocon mcopocpmpcpsoo .cz pmcpu Apm.ch xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .oxo .mcz m coop moo: A&N.NoV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oocopcooxo .mc» mup Apm.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mcooooop .cx pmcpo ”mocm< ocp om ow on on om ow om om Op 0 51 Geographical distribution shows that the smaller districts rated the adequacy of present vocational programming higher than larger districts. Grand Ledge, largest of the districts, had 57.8 per cent agreeing that vocational programming is inadequate and only 10.1 per cent disagreeing. In contrast, Maple Valley, one of the smallest districts had 23.1 per cent of their respondents rating vocational education as inadequate and 37.9 per cent disagreeing. Maple Valley schools allign most closely with Eaton Intermediate faculties and staffs. Responses by the entire group of respondents show the ambiguity of opinions regarding adequacy of vocational programming: Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11.1 7.4 18.5 11.1 14.8 18.5 11.1 Although most vocational programs train the non-college bound student for employment following graduation, it is hoped that these programs provide the practical experience necessary for employ- able skills to all students. Figure 16, page 52, was included in the study to find out how faculties and staffs see target populations in vocational programming. Responses to this question suggest that for the most part faculties and staffs believe vocational programming is not just for the low achiever. Grand Ledge showed the greatest discrepancy from the norm here with 31.6 per cent agreeing that vocational programs are designed for the low achiever and 36.9 per cent disagreeing. All respondents combined answered the question with 25.0 per cent agreeing and 47.8 per cent disagreeing. 52 ApN.o—V xxxxxx Apu.wFV xxxxxxxxxxx Apm.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm.pmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ppm.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axw.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ax¢.pmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axx.me xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axp.moV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm.ooV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.NoV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axp.xoV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm._NV xxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.mpV xxxxxxxxxxx Axx.mNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.pmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axo.oNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ppm.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxx Apx.opV xxxxxxxxxx Apo.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxx Amcon Axp.oNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.mNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apm.omV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00— cm ow Om om om CV om ON OF C .co>opooo 3op mop cop Appcospco omcmpmoo moo mEocmoco pocoppooo> .op ocompo mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< mcooooop ppc "Zoco p.coo A.ooscopcp copomV coopo xoppo> opooz oppp>coppoo omomo ococw mopoom copou oppopcoou poooum oopo opoopz xcopcoso_m mcopocpmpcpEoo pp< mcoooowp pp< Hoocmompo A.ooscmpcp copomV coopo aoppo> opooz oppp>coppoo omooo ococw mopoom copou oppopcooo .oxo .mg» m coop ocoz mocopcooxo .mc» mup mcopocpmpcpeoo .cx pmcpo .oxo .mc» m coop ocoz oocopcooxo .mg» m._ mcooooop .c» pmcpo Hoocm< 53 Figure 17, page 54, was included to determine faculty and staff attitudes and opinions toward area or regional vocational pro- gramming. Eaton Intermediate Vocational Education is such a regional plan, presently considered by the state to be an exemplary model of contracted vocational education services. The breakdown of those agreeing with the statement that adequate vocational education is financially impossible at the local level shows almost a diametrical split. Among teachers, 21.6 per cent agree, whereas, among administrators, 68.9 per cent agree. Looking at the breakdown by levels of experience, teachers with more experience have stronger opinions with a few more in the agree side, but generally they still disagree with the statement. Note that more teachers with 1-5 years of experience and more faculties and staffs in middle schools disagree with the state- ment than other segments. Geographically by district, "other" interpreted as Eaton Intermediate, is in greatest agreement with the statement with 35.8 per cent, but since Eaton Intermediate provides the regional vocational programming in question, more research needs to be done to find out why the other 64 per cent did not agree with the statement too. Of the local districts, Eaton Rapids and Maple Valley were most in agreement with regional programming with 28.7 per cent and 29.7 per cent, re- spectively, while Charlotte, Potterville and Grand Ledge had the greatest levels of disagreement (45.8 per cent, 45.9 per cent and 53.0 per cent). 54 .po>op pooop oop po opopmmoosp appopococpp mp coppooooo pocoppooo> mpooooo< xxo.NxV xxm.omV xxx.mmV xxm.meV xxo.mmV xxm.mmV xxo.meV xxm.meV xxm.omV xxo.omV xxo.p_V xxo.o~V xxo.mmV xxx.mNV xxm.o_V xxo.o~V xxp.oNV xxm.omV xxo.mNV xxm.moV xxo.opV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx Aocon xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.ooV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AxoopV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apn.mNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx App.m—V xxxxxxxxxxx Axo.mpV xxxxxxxxxxx ooF om om on om om ow om om OF o .x_ aczmpo A.ooscopcp copomV coopo moppo> opooz oppp>coppoo omooo ococw mopoom copom oppopcoou poooom gap: opoopz xcopcmsopu .oxo .mg» m coop ocoz mocopcooxm .mc» mup copocpmpcpsoo .cx pmcpo .oxm .mg» m coop ocoz oocopcooxo .mc» mup mcooooop .cx poop; ”oocmompo A.ooscopcp copomV coopo xo—_o> opooz oppp>coppoo omooo ococw mopoom copom oppopcoou poooom gap: opoopz xcopcoeopm .oxo .mg» m coop moo: mocopcooxo .mcx mup mcopocpmpc_Eoo .cx pmcpo .oxo .mg» m coop ocoz oocopcooxo .mcz mup mcooooop .c» pmcpu HomLm< 55 In analyzing the level taught and geographical percentages of Figure 17, the reader should keep in mind that these figures in- clude administrative representatives. Generally, regional vocational education finds favor among administrators but not among teachers. Both faculties and staffs agree that vocational programming is for all students, not just low achievers. More research would be needed to determine the adequacy of present vocational programming and how to get faculties to agree on this. SECTION 7: ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS ABOUT ‘ TALENTED AND GIFTED STUDENTS Talented and gifted children receive increasingly more attention each year as educators try to focus on students as individuals rather than groups. Talented and gifted children are not formally recognized as exceptional students by Michigan Department of Education definition, but parents, teachers and others who work with children know experientially that giftedness is an exceptionality too. Chart 25, Appendix 0, takes a look at the gifted student as an exceptional segment of the student population. This and other questions about talented and gifted paint a picture of faculty and staff attitudes and opinions about this segment. When asked to respond to the statement, "Many talented and gifted children go unidentified," responses were overwhelmingly con- sistent among all respondents: Agree ---------- 82.2 Disagree ------- 7.6 Don't Know ----- 6.7 .1 b 56 Question 26 asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement "Talented and gifted children are self-motivated." Responses were more dispersed than in No. 25 as can be seen in Chart 26, Appendix D. To summarize responses to the question, though, the entire group of respondents broke down as follows: Agree ---------- 19.8 Disagree ------- 57.5 Don't know ----- 19.6 Comparison and contrast of these above responses with Chart 27, Appendix D, "Talented and gifted will learn in spite of the teacher", shows a dispersion over all possible combinations. Grouping responses into "agree", "disagree" and "don't know", Figure 18, page 57, yields a more visible pattern. While some children will indeed learn "in spite of the teacher," this can never be made a dogmatic statement. The high per- centage of administrators agreeing with this statement indicates a dogmatism that is in contrast with responses to other questions in this series, i.e. numbers 25, 28, 29 and 33. Chart 28, Appendix D, lists responses to the statement, "Talented and gifted need special education in career possibilities.“ Again, the answers in all segments are pretty much the same, with largest clusters checking number 1, the next largest clusters checking number 2 and the third largest checking 3. Entire group responses were: Agree ---------- 75.6 Disagree ------- 8.2 Don't know ----- 11.1 57 ..cooooop mop Lo oppam op. scoop pppz oopopo oco oopeopop .o_ ocsmpo ppm.mpV xxxxxxxxxx Axm.moV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Axm.mmV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.m V xx ppm.xNV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Apo.moV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Aao.xpV xxxxxxxxxxx pm.oo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx po.mm xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx oop om om on on om ow om om OF 0 coco p.coo oocmompo oocm< ”ooocm mpooz soco p.coo ooxmompo mocm< ”mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< zoco p.coo oocmompo oocm< "mcooooop pp< 58 If administrators believe talented and gifted "learn in spite of the teacher," why do they need special education in career possibilities? Chart 29, Appendix D, lists responses to the statement, "Many talented and gifted children are underachievers." All answers in all segments are again consistent: Agree ---------- 76.0 Disagree ------- 6.3 Don't know -f--- 13.1 These responses are inconsistent with Figure 18, especially adminis- trative responses. If talented and gifted children learn "in spite of the teacher", how can they be considered underachievers? Chart 30, Appendix D (See Figure 6, page 34) has been dis- cussed before in the section on classroom models. The reader is reminded that according to Figure 6, faculties and staffs do not want talented and gifted children taught separately from other more average children. Questions 31 and 32 are knowledge questions: 31. Michigan programs for the talented and gifted are nationally known for their excellence. 32. Michigan has very few programs for talented and gifted. Note that several respondents gave opinion answers to factual statements. Actually, Michigan is behind other states in special programming for talented and gifted. Lack of knowledge among Eaton Intermediate faculties and staffs of Michigan's status relative to other states was to be expected. Programming for talented and gifted, outside of scattered districts, has been an unknown in Michigan. Only one university in the 59 state (University of Michigan) offers an education class specifically addressing itself to the needs of the talented and gifted. To the statement, "Michigan programs for the talented and gifted are nationally known for their excellence,“ responses were: Agree ---------- 4.5 Disagree ------- 42.8 Don't know ----- 29.5 And to the statement, "Michigan has very few programs for talented and gifted," responses were: Agree ---------- 44.0 Disagree ------- 9.2 Don't know ----- 26.6 The reader is reminded again to contrast these responses with those in Figure 18, page 57. From the survey, Eaton Intermediate found that programs for talented are strongly supported in the districts, that respondents do not want these programs isolated from regular classes, that respondents do not have a knowledge base regarding Michigan programs for talented, and that most respondents do not carry with them stereotyped attitudes that gifted and talented are self-motivated nor that they will learn in spite of the teacher. Knowledge of Eaton Intermediate services has been touched on earlier in the discussion of questions 19 and 20. Refer to Figures 12, 13 and 14, pages 44, 45 and 47, to recall the levels of knowledge of special education services indicated there. Knowledge of the Eaton Intermediate county plan for special education services (Chart 18, Appendix D), is an indicator of some serious lack in communication patterns. "Other" (educators serving 60 all levels) had 74.1 per cent checking number 1, "strongly agree". Apparently there was some hesitancy or lack of knowledge among the other 25 per cent. More surprising is the 64.3 per cent among the geographical "other" (Eaton Intermediate) who checked number 1, "strongly agree" and they are the coordinators of the plan. Additionally, the reader is requested to think again about Section 6, VOCATIONAL SERVICES. The large number of respondents who do not see the utility of providing regional vocational education is another indicator of lack of knowledge. Question 35, "Check those services you know to be provided by Eaton Intermediate Schools" was intended to give a picture of the knowledge level among constituent faculties and staffs. Results were more favorable than expected after examining the results of the tele- phone survey administered during the summer of 1974 (see the reference to footnote 1, page 6). General responses to Question 35 follow: Audit ------------------- 21.6 Special Ed. ------------- 77.7 Vocational Ed. ---------- 51.5 Media Center ------------ 55.9 Additionally checked were the following: Junior High ------------- 13.6 Skills Center ----------- 13.2 Data Processing --------- 8.9 Programs for talented --- 6. Don't know -------------- 13.6 For a complete breakdown of responses, please see Appendix D, Chart 35. Audit functions, the historical service provided by intermediate school districts are virtually unknown (21.3 per cent). Levels of knowledge 61 about vocational education, the newest service in operation, breaks down by level taught, as follows: Elementary -------------- 42.9 Middle ------------------ 43.6 High school ------------- 71.6 What happened to the other nearly 30 per cent of the high school staff? Geographically, Grand Ledge showed the lowest levels of knowledge about intermediate school services with the following statistics: Audit ------------------- 14.1 Special education ------- 68.5 Vocational education ---- 38.9 Media ------------------- 49.0 Eaton Rapids had the least knowledge of media center services with 43 per cent. Potterville had the highest percentage aware of special education functions with 91.9 per cent. Maple Valley had the highest percentage aware of vocational education services with 68.9 per cent and of the media center with 70.3 per cent. As longevity increased, teachers' knowledge of intermediate services increased also, as would be expected: Knowledge of special education services among First year teachers ----- 44.2 1-5 yrs. experience ----- 78.5 More than 5 yrs. exp. --- 80.0 Administrative staff members were generally more knowledgable than teachers (100 per cent checked special education) but still only 55.2 per cent knew audit functions are performed by the intermediate district. 62 Some additional comments are necessary about the responses to imaginary services listed in question 35 (see Chart 35, Appendix D). 1) Junior High--Some special education students are in junior high which might have made appropriate response confusing. Also, by stretching the point, some staff members might have checked junior high because the media center serves all schools, junior high included. 2) Skills Centerg-Eaton Intermediate does not have a skills center. However, to the average teacher, Lansing Community College, where most vocational education courses under Eaton Intermediate supervision are taught, might have been interpreted to be a skills center. 3) Data Processing--Not all educators understand the term. Eaton Intermediate does a lot of paperwork that might have been con- strued as data processing by some respondents. Likewise, some data processing services are contracted by the Eaton Intermediate office, giving the impression Eaton Intermediate has such services. However, Eaton Intermediate does not have a bona fide data processing center. 4) Programs for talented--At the time the survey was con- ducted, a half-time employee had been hired by the Eaton Intermediate School District to serve as coordinator for programs for talented and gifted. Some faculty and staff members might have heard this and checked programs for talented as a service. Technically, no programs were in operation at the time of the survey. 63 Given the above qualifications, a summary statement regard- -ing knowledge of Eaton Intermediate services must include the suggestion that to have more validity, the question should have been open ended. It can be said with good reliability, however, that most faculties and staffs are aware of Eaton Intermediate special education services and at least 50 per cent know about vocational education and about the media center. SECTION 8: MEDIA USE While an understanding of faculty and staff opinions and attitudes toward services provided by Eaton Intermediate is important in determining what kinds of messages would be read and would be instrumental in disseminating information that will help establish a knowledge base from which appropriate use of Eaton Intermediate services is increased, the channels for such messages are equally as important. Therefore, the survey asked basic questions regarding media use. Use of random communication channels may not only miss the intended population, it is often an expensive duplication of messages. The survey produced some basic information regarding the best communication channels for use by the Eaton Intermediate School District. Question 38 gives information about newspaper readership by Eaton Intermediate and constituent faculties and staffs. Li 64 38. Which One 0 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 100 Local xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (52.6%) State Journal xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (74.5%) Btl. Cr. Enq. xx ( 4.4%) Other xxxxxxx (14.2%) Although the Battle Creek Enquirer got only 4.4 per cent of the reader- ship, the geographical segment revealed that 21.6 per cent of the readership in Maple Valley School District read the Battle Creek Enquirer rather than the State Journal; therefore, both papers need to be included in news releases. Question 40 gives information needed regarding radio stations listened to by faculties and staffs: 40. What stations A O 10 20 30 40 50‘ 60 70 80 90 100 WCER xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (31.7%) WILS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (45.9%) WITL xxx ( 9.9%) WJIM xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (45.1%; WKAR xxx ( 9.5% WOOD xxxxxxx (15.1%) WFMK xxx ( 9.7%) WVIC xxxxxxxx (18.8%) CKLW xxx ( 6.2%) Other xxxxxx (10.9%) On closer examination of the statistics listed in Chart 40, Appendix D, the following data need to be considered in writing for radio stations: 1) Established teachers listen to WCER more than do the newer ones (46.4 per cent). 2) Administrators have a higher percentage who listen to WCER than does the total group (51.7 per cent). 65 3) WILS and WJIM must be included in the list of radio stations who receive news releases as well as the local station (WCER). The time a radio runs Eaton Intermediate news is crucial, as can be seen from the following percentages taken from Question 41, Appendix D: 41. Time of day 0 10 20 30 4O 50 .60 7O 80 90 100 Before school xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (78.2%) After school xxx ( 6.7%) Evening xxx ( 6.7%) Weekend x ( 3.4% Never x ( 1.8% Obviously, to reach faculties and staffs by radio, news releases must be aired during preschool hours. Question 42 on professional journal readership shows that 62 per cent of all respondents read journals regularly. Segmenting the administrative staff from this the percentage increases to 75.9. Therefore, expenditure of time and effort to get material published in journals might be worthwhile, but more information is needed. Which journals? 42. Professional Journals: How often do you read professional journals? O 10 20 30 4O 50 6O 7O 80 90 100 Entire group Never x ( 1.5%) Seldom xxxx ( 9.0%) Occasionally xxxxxxxxxxxx (26.8%) . Regularly xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (62.0%) Question 44 gave information needed regarding TV stations most commonly watched, with the following results: hm. 66 44. What channels do you listen to most often for local news? 0 10 20 3O 4O 50 6O 7O 80 90 100 Channel 3 xxxxxxx (13.7%) Channel 6 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (79.9%) Channel 8 xxxxxxxxxxx (21.8%) Channel 10 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (47.1%) Channel 12 xxxxxxx (12.6%) Channel 23 xx ( 4.5%) Channel 41 xxx ( 7.9%) Obviously channels 6 and 10 would make the best target for getting television coverage. Note that Channel 23, public broadcasting, has a particularly small audience, which might be accounted for by having phrased the question as, "What channels do you listen to most often for lggal_g§w§? Channel 23 does not carry regular local news programs. This is probably not an accurate portrayal of Channel 23 viewers for such things as educational programming. A knowledge of media and mass communication listening and readership patterns is essential to any geographical unit of a size comparable to the Eaton Intermediate School District if it is to have an impact on its public. Furthermore, personnel skilled in: 1) Writing news releases 2) Newsworthy photography 3) Serving as contact persons for the media 4) Speaking to news personnel are needed for optimum use of media as a disseminator of information necessary for creation of an appropriate knowledge base among local faculties and staffs, as well as the public. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS 1. Only six out of every ten faculty and staff members are aware of at least some of the services provided.1 Since Eaton Inter- mediate services are for all educators, this fact demands action. There is no excuse for such lack of communication between Eaton Inter- mediate and its constituencies. If knowledge bases are broken down to reflect administrative responses versus teacher responses, adminis- trators have a much broader knowledge base regarding services. 2. Present attitudes and opinions regarding Eaton Intermed- iate services are either not formed or are mixed. Depending on which question from the survey a reader might wish to analyze more specific- ally, his response to this would be different. If a large percentage of the staff does not know about services offered, they cannot be ex- pected to have an opinion about their quantity or quality. The statistics on Figure 14, page 47, reflect this. Again, communication patterns must of necessity be initiated to accurately provide informa- tion which is a precondition to attitude and opinion formation. Attitudinally, administrative staff persons in all five districts tend 1Special education is best known, with 77.7 per cent check- ing that as one of the services provided in response to Question 35. For complete breakdowns, refer to Appendix 0, page 117. 67 Elm 68 to hold more liberal ideas about educational strategies than do the teachers. Therefore, communications with administrative staff can be written with this in mind. Experienced and upper level teachers tend to be conserva- tive in educational strategies and therefore might be very easily alienated by Eaton Intermediate staff members who "barge in" with new ideas for changing their classrooms. The new ideas should be sold first to those most receptive, the administrators (given funds), the new teachers, some elementary teachers, and then the entire staff. 3. Area vocational education is the Eaton Intermediate service most misunderstood of the services about which constituent faculties and staffs are aware. The split between administrators and high school teachers most graphically showed this in Figure 16, page 52. Given that administrators are better informed of Eaton Intermediate vocational education services, their more favorable attitudes toward area vocational programming has more credence than does the opinion expressed by the teachers. Another service provided by Eaton Intermediate about which constituencies are not generally aware is that of audit functions. Whether knowledge of such services is necessary to adequate coopera- tion between the intermediate school districts and local districts is difficult to say. Certainly messages about such administrative services would be acceptable, if not priority. 69 4. The areas of information necessary to usable knowledge that are not now being adequately communicated include: A. Vocational and career education at all levels. Within this context, the delivery system presently in operation needs to be explained in a straight- forward manner. It is useful to point out that Eaton Intermediate area vocational education is served by means of a contracting system with a nearby community college and other schools, none of which are within Eaton Intermediate boundaries. Faculties and staffs who tend to hold unfavorable opinions about area vocational education might change their minds if these services were offered in one centrally located facility operated coopera- tively by Eaton Intermediate and its constituencies. Mandatory special education services and the county plan that is presently operative is an effort to implement this 1973 law. Basic facts about Michigan programs for talented and gifted. Their rationale, their utility, their potential should be explored. A free flow of communi- cation between Eaton Intermediate and its constituents is necessary to determine how this educational need can be met cooperatively. 5. might include: 70 Appropriate means of communicating with constituencies A. Regular news releases during prime listening times on the radio stations found to hold the highest listening audiences among faculties and staffs. Greater efforts to attract coverage of intermediate school district services on area TV networks, as dictated by the viewing habits of respondents. Regular news releases to all area newspapers regard- ing services provided by Eaton Intermediate and about proposed or possible services. Efforts by Eaton Intermediate faculty and staff members to get articles about intermediate school district facilities and services into general pro- fessional journals and magazines such as Today's Education, a magazine delivered to the home of every association member. Efforts on the part of all Eaton Intermediate faculties and staffs to touch base with local faculties and staffs informally on every occasion possible. Invitations to local school faculties and staffs to visit intermediate school district facilities. Media exhibits, preview showings of movies, university sponsored classes, and the like might be scheduled in intermediate school district facilities. 71 G. Identify opinion leaders in the community. Work with them to develop cooperative efforts with the community to better serve trainable school children, EI's, EMI's, and the like. Local businessmen might be invited to come to intermediate school district facilities to talk about the potential in hiring EMI high school graduates, or trainable school A students who have mastered simple vocational skills. H. Consider a cooperative intermediate school district sponsored newspaper that would include local school news, intermediate school district news, student work, editorials on current educational issues peculiar to the area, photography and graphics that visually tell the story of the intermediate school district and local services, as well as exemplary educational services from outside the district that might be adapted by the Eaton Intermediate School District. SOME ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Faculties and staffs of constituent schools generally be- lieve they can meet the needs of all the children they serve. Although this positive attitude about their own competence is good, the survey findings tend to show that such opinions might get in the way of allow- ing support services to be provided even if such services would be of 72 real help to a child. Therefore, intermediate school district staff members need to be made aware of the defensive position faculties tend to have and learn to work with and through it. 2. The debate over contained versus resource rooms for impaired children remains unresolved. From a practical standpoint, the difference between the two may be more semantic than real. Mean- while, Eaton Intermediate staff members should talk to school districts using the jargon attitudinally acceptable to them. For example, they should talk with Charlotte Public Schools about how their contained classrooms might be improved, while the same Eaton Intermediate staff I might go to Maple Valley Public Schools and help them make their resource rooms more useful. A communicator needs to know what jargon a respondent will relate to positively to establish a productive flow of communication. If this can be done realistically, ethically and with consistency, both districts will benefit. ‘ 3. Regarding talented and gifted, it should be noted that: A. Faculties and staffs want to keep their talented and gifted children in their own classes. B. Faculties and staffs do want special services for talented and gifted children. Therefore, classroom models should allow for the total development of the talented and gifted in the regular classroom. No contained classroom for them: but_resource rooms might have fully as much potential for talented and gifted as they have for the slow learners. 73 4. Summaries of the findings on evaluation of students is pretty straightforward. A combination of performance and effort is preferred, with effort given more weight in evaluation of special education and performance in evaluation of talented and gifted.1 SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This descriptive survey gave Eaton Intermediate some specific data from which they can initiate communication patterns more effectively in the future. At a regional level, communication must of necessity utilize mass communication forms for quick dissemina- tion of information. Supporting that, personal messages that are supportive of local faculties and staffs, should be made at all opportunities. Some suggestions for further research which became apparent during the course of the study are as follows: 1. The classroom model portion of this survey was devoted primarily to E1 and EMI children. Further study of attitudes and opinions regarding special education services provided by Eaton Inter- mediate such as school social work, school psychologists, various consultant roles, and the trainable should be made. This study should focus exclusively on special education services and the effectiveness of the delivery system. 1(Given a hypothetical school, what would happen if all students were evaluated on only one criterion: effort. That would mean that the impaired child would be capable of being rated fully as favorably as a gifted child. Should not the gifted child be challenged to work as hard for his "grade" as does the average child?) 74 2. Classroom models pose some interesting questions for further research. Covered in this survey were four basic types: contained, resource, open and tracked. Further study of specific definitions of these and modifications of the same would be helpful to curriculum planners within Eaton Intermediate. Teaching styles and classroom models need to be compatible if they are to work. Like- wise, learning styles of children should be researched to determine in what kind of model he would function best. 3. The whole concept of regional vocational planning and implementation would require extensive study of attitude and opinion bases regarding appropriate vocational education. Knowledge gained from such an attitude study might be utilized in communications strategies. Then, given the establishment of a knowledge base among faculties and staffs, a move to initiate an area skills center might be advisable. This cannot work without appropriate advance prepara- tion, using mass communications and local information dissemination procedures. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FACULTY AND STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE .L. APPENDIX A FACULTY AND STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONNAIRE, DESCRIBING AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE HOW YOU FEEL CONCERNING THE SUBJECTS INDICATED. SIGN YOUR NAME. DO NOT Check the description which most clearly describes you: Check the ____(1) ____(2) ____(3) ___(4) first year teacher teacher, 1-5 years experience teacher, more than 5 years experience first year administrator administrator, 1-5 years experience administrator, more than 5 years experience level at which you work: elementary middle school/junior high high school other CIRCLE THE NUMBER MOST ACCURATELY REPRESENTING YOUR FEELINGS CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING: I work well with other faculty and staff. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree I work best with bright students. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree I work best with slow students. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree I work well with all students. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree 75 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 76 Students should be tracked according to ability. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Ungraded classrooms allow best for individual differences. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree The best evaluation of students in special education should be based primarily on: (1) performance (2) effort (3) both performance and effort (4) don't know The best evaluation of talented/gifted students should be based primarily on: (1) performance (2) effort (3) both performance and effort (4) don't know The best evaluation of students in regular classrooms should be based primarily on: ______(1) performance _____(2) effort _____(3) both performance and effort (4) don't know Special education students (educable mentally impaired) should be taught in self-contained classrooms. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Special education students (emotionally impaired) should be taught in self-contained classrooms. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Total segregation of the educable mentally impaired is not good because "he needs to learn to tolerate the system and the system needs to learn to tolerate him." Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree *5. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 77 Mandatory Special Education (Act 198) was written primarily for black under-achievers. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree I feel uncomfortable around handicapped people. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Special education students should be integrated into regular classroom programs. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree There is a county plan for special education programs and services. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Special education services provided by Eaton Intermediate are: _____(1) excessive _____(2) adequate ______(3) inadequate (4) don't know Eaton Intermediate special education services are: (1) excellent (2) good (3) fair _____(4) poor (5) don't know Vocational education programs are inadequate. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Vocational education programs are designed primarily for the low achiever. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Adequate vocational education is financially impossible at the local level. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 78 "Experience is the best teacher." Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Many talented and gifted children go unidentified. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Talented and gifted children are self-motivated. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Talented and gifted will learn "in spite of the teacher." Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Talented and gifted need special education in career possibilities. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Many talented and gifted children are under-achievers. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Talented and gifted should be taught separately from other more average students. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Michigan programs for the talented and gifted are nationally known for their excellence. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Michigan has very few programs for talented and gifted. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Programs for talented and gifted are not necessary. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree If you have a question or problem regarding improvement of your educational program, who would you most likely go to for advice? Name Don't know 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 79 Check those services you know to be provided by Eaton Intermediate Schools: ______(1) Audit, administrative ______(6) Skills center _____(2) Special education _____(7) Data processing __(3) Vocational education ___(8) Programs for ______(4) Media center talented ____(5) Junior high ____(9) Don't know Check the school district with which you are employed: (1) Charlotte (4) Potterville (2) Eaton Rapids (5) Grand Ledge (3) Vermontville-Maple Valley (6) Other (specify) Do you read the newspaper for local news? (1) Yes (2) No If yes, which ones do you read? (1) Local (3) Battle Creek Enquirer (2) State Journal (4) Other (specify) Do you listen to the radio for local news? (1) Yes (2) No If yes, what station do you listen to? _____(1) WCER ____(5) WKAR ____(9) CKLW __(2) WILS __(6) woop ____(10) Other ____(3) WITL __(7) WFMK ___(4) WJIM ____(8) wvxc What time of day are you most apt to listen to the radio? (1) Before school (4) Weekend (2) After school (5) Never (3) Evening 80 42. How often do you read professional journals? ___(1) ______(2) _____(3) (4) Never Seldom Occasionally (a couple times a year) Regularly (once a month or more) 43. Do you watch TV for local news? ____.(l) Yes (2) No 44. What channels do you watch most often for local news? ___(1) _.__(2) ___(3) _.___(4) Channel 3 _____(5) Channel 12 Channel 6 _____(6) Channel 23 Channel 8 ‘ ______(7) Channel 41 Channel 10 THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION APPENDIX B COVER LETTERS APPENDIX B COVER LETTERS August 7, 1974 Elwood Larsen, Superintendent Charlotte Public Schools 378 State Street Charlotte, MI 48813 Dear Elwood: Enclosed are 200 copies of the questionnaire to be administered on pre-school conference day, September 3. Let me know what time you would like me there to administer it. Would it be possible for you to put me on your mailing list for "The Beacon", your staff newsletter, and to tell me ahead of time when it will be published so I can contribute to it? Sincerely, Barbara J. Davis Awareness Specialist Eaton Intermediate School District jev Enclosure 81 82 August 7, 1974 Dr. Carl Holbrook, Superintendent Eaton Rapids Public Schools 501 King Street Eaton Rapids, MI 48827 Dear Dr. Holbrook: Enclosed are the 200 questionnaires we went over in our conversation of July 25. Thank you again for your help in making it a better tool for measuring opinions, levels of awareness of Eaton Intermediate School District and media use. As it turns out, I will be on vacation until September 3, but should be at my home on August 29. I have left directions with Janet Vanderstow, the receptionist here to call you on August 26 to confirm the date and time of your pre-school conference. Feel free to call me at my home (543-0745) August 29 with instructions on when you want me there to administer the questionnaire, (or have Jan call me). Make it sometime in the afternoon, the 29th, unless you wouldn't mind administering it yourself. May I suggest that you direct your secretary to write the U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., for a copy of their publication "Education of the Gifted and Talented, Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education," No. 72-5020. This is a comprehensive 324 page document which should answer most of the questions you may have regarding programming for talented. Sincerely, Barbara J. Davis, Coordinator Public Awareness and Program for Talented Eaton Intermediate School District jev Enclosure 83 August 7, 1974 Tom Mateer, Curriculum Coordinator Maple Valley Public Schools 11090 Nashville Hwy. Vermontville, MI 49096 Dear Tom: What a pleasure it was to meet you and your Finnish secretary, Pat Kivela. Any office with Finnish staff members has something going for it. With you working on curriculum, Tom, I am sure the staff at Maple Valley will find service on curriculum study committee much easier to take. Enclosed are 100 copies of the questionnaire we discussed in our conversation of July 30. Please see that all teachers and adminis- trators fill it out. Have them sent back to me, at the intermediate office by September 6, if possible. Let me thank you again for offering to serve on the steering committee on programs for talented. I am sure you will be an asset to the committee. The date and time for that first meeting has not been set yet, but should work out to be in the third week of September as we discussed. Keep in contact. Sincerely, Barbara J. Davis, Coordinator Public Awareness and Programs for Talented Eaton Intermediate School District jev Enclosure P.S. I suggest you have Pat write the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., for a copy of the document, "Education of the Gifted and Talented," No. 72-5020 as background reading for the steering committee. It's 324 pages of research which should answer many of the questions you may have. BJD in APPENDIX C COMPOSITION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS APPENDIX C COMPOSITION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS Segmented by Experience 1. DOOM mVChU'I First year teachers Teachers, 1 to 5 years experience Teachers, over 5 years experience First year administrators Administrators, 1 through 5 years Administrators, more than 5 years All teachers All administrators Segmented by Level Taught 9. 10. ll. 12. Elementary respondents, Middle School respondents High School respondents Other (counselors, consultants, school social workers, trainable school staff) 84 Number Responding 43 260 265 10 18 568 29 259 163 148 27 Percentage of Total Respondents 45. 44. —.l MONONO-§m 43.3 28.9 24.8 85 Composition of Survey Respondents. Continued. U) D: D 0 Li.) I'— W Z 32 E g (f) l— LIJ [— a: U') 0 Lu Lu H 2 Oil— II— 21— 01-- 0 Lu QC.) l-IIU ELL) LLIH (p (H ZH (Di-I on: <_l Lao: no: me: (I— r-<: P-F- <:r- 01F: F-U) a: 21— U) (I) V) Zl—C LIJ LUO _IH _lH _IH LIJD on 01-- <0 <0 <0 U 2 a: l— l— I— an: 3 LIJI-I- 02 02 OZ LLIO 2 no l--H l—H F—H mu. Segmented by School District 13. Charlotte 177 27.9 186 15 201 88% 14. Eaton Rapids 132 22.1 175 13 188 70% 15. Grand Ledge 149 24.9 317 19 336 44% 16. Potterville 37 6.2 54 3 57 64% 17. Maple Valley 74 14.4 99 6 105 70% 18. Other District (Eaton Intermediate) 28 4.7 37 3 4O 70% Entire group 597 100.2 868 59 927 64% Date Items Raw data items on 38 pages of computor printout 5,016 Percentages for each item 5,016 Total data items collected 10,032 Of 868 teachers polled (including "other"), 568 responded, for a return rate of 65 per cent. Of 59 administrators polled, 29 responded, for a return rate of 51 per cent. Of 927 faculty and staff members polled, 597 responded for a total re- turn of 64 per cent. APPENDIX D RESPONSES BY QUESTION APPENDIX D RESPONSES BY QUESTION Question No. 3. I work well with other faculty and staff. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yrs. 48.8 32.6 7.0 2 3 -- --- 2.3 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 46.5 32.2 8.5 3 l 1.5 .8 0.8 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 47.5 33.6 7.2 4 9 2.3 0.8 0.4 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 70.0 20.0 10.0' --- --- --- --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 22.2 27.8 33.3 11 l --- 5.6 --- All teachers 47.2 34.7 7.7 3.9 1 8 0.7 0 7 All administrators 37.9 27.6 24.1 6.9 --- 3.4 --- Entire Group 46.7 34.3 8.5 4.0 1.7 0.6 0.7 Elementary 49.4 33.2 7.3 3.5 0.8 5 0.8 Middle School 49.7 33.1 8.6 4.3 0.6 --- 0 6 High School 39.2 39.9 8.1 4.7 4 7 0 7 --- Other 44.4 22.2 22.2 3.7 --- --- 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 42.9 31.1 10.7 7.3 2.3 l 7 0 6 Eaton Rapids 43.2 40.9 6.8 2.3 --- --- 1.5 Grand Ledge 53.7 35.6 7.4 1.3 0.7 --- --- Potterville 35.1 37.8 8.1 10.8 2.7 --— --- Maple Valley 50.0 29.7 9.5 6.8 1.4 --- --- Other (Eaton Intermediate) 57.1 25.0 7.1 --- --- 3.6 3.6 86 Question No. 4. I work best with bright students. 87 Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 4.7 14.0 23.3 32.6 7.0 9.3 2.3 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 8.1 15.8 24.6 31.5 5.8 4.2 5.8 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 10.6 13.2 17.0 31.3 7.2 5.3 8.3 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100 0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 10.0 30.0 --- 30.0 --- 10.0 10.0 Admin. 5+ yrs. 11.1 —-- 22.2 38.9 5.6 --- 5.6 All teachers 9.0 14.4 21.0 31.5 6.5 5.1 6.7 All administrators 10.3 13.8 13.8 34.5 3.4 3.4 6.9 Entire Group 9.0 14.4 20.6 31.7 6.4 5.0 6.7 Elementary 7.3 9.7 20.8 32.8 6.2 5.4 9.3 Middle School 8.0 16.0 23.9 33.7 6.1 3.7 3.7 High School 12.8 21.6 18.2 28.4 6.8 5.4 4.1 Other 11.1 11.1 11.1 25.9 7.4 7.4 14.8 Districts: Charlotte 7.3 11.3 23.2 33.9 5.6 6.2 6.2 Eaton Rapids 9.8 18.2 18.9 28.8 6.1 6.1 6.8 Grand Ledge 10.1 14.1 25.5 29.5 5.4 3.4 6.7 Potterville 10.8 21.6 18.9 32.4 8.1 2.7 2.7 Maple Valley 8.1 14.9 14.9 37.8 9.5 2.7 6.8 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 10.7 7.1 3.6 25.0 7.1 10.7 14.3 88 Question No. 5. I work best with slow students. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 2.3 11.6 25.6 27.9 11.6 7.0 7.0 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 10.4 10.8 14.6 33.1 16.2 7.7 4.6 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 7.5 8.7 13.6 36.2 10.9 6.8 7.5 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. --- 10.0 --- 20.0 10.0 20 0 30.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 5.6 11.1 5.6 44.4 5.6 --- 11.1 All teachers 8.5 9.9 15.0 34.2 13.4 7 2 6 2 All administrators 3.4 10.3 6.9 34.5 6.9 6 9 l7 2 Entire Group 8.2 9.9 14.6 34.2 13.1 7.2 6.7 Elementary 10.8 12.0 15.4 32.8 10.8 2.7 8.1 Middle School 8.0 6.7 16.0 37.4 14.1 8.6 3.7 High School 2.7 8.1 12.2 35.1 17.6 14 9 5.4 Other 14.8 18.5 11.1 22.2 3.7 -—- 18.5 Districts: Charlotte 7.3 10.7 18.1 36.7 13.6 4.0 4.0 Eaton Rapids 6.8 8.3 9.8 31.1 17.4 12.9 7.6 Grand Ledge 10.1 6.7 16.8 34.9 9.4 9.4 6.0 Potterville 8.1 5.4 18.9 32.4 21.6 2.7 8.1 Maple Valley 5.4 16.2 12.2 36.5 9.5 4.1 10.8 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 17.9 17.9 3.6 25.0 7.1 3.6 10.7 Question No. 6. 89 I work well with all students. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 32.6 39.5 14.0 9.3 -- -- --- Teacher — 1-5 yrs. 25.0 31.9 17.7 18.1 1.9 1.9 1.2 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 24.5 29.8 24.2 10.9 3.0 1.1 2.3 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- -—- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 20.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 --— --- 20.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 27.2 27.8 16.7 11.1 5.6 5.6 ___ All teachers 25.4 31.5 20.4 14.1 2.3 1.4 1.6 All administrators 20.7 27.6 17.2 10.3 3.4 3.4 6.9 Entire Group 25.1 31.3 20.3 13.9 2.3 1.5 1.8 Elementary 31.3 30.9 18.9 11.2 0.8 1.9 1.9 Middle School 21.5 35.6 21.5 12.9 3.7 --- 1.8 High School 18.9 25.7 23.6 21.6 2.7 2.0 1.4 Other 22.2 40.7 7.4 3.7 7.4 3.7 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 25.4 30.5 16.9 17.5 2.3 l 7 1.7 Eaton Rapids 18.9 36.4 14.4 16.7 3.8 1.5 3.8 Grand Ledge 29.5 32.2 24.8 8.7 2.0 --- 0.7 Potterville 10.8 27.0 37.8 10.8 2 7 8 l 2 7 Maple Valley 31.1 24.3 24.3 16.2 --- --- --- Other (Eaton Intermediate) 32.1 32.1 10.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 90 Question No. 7. Students should be tracked according to ability. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr: 18.6 20.9 16.3 18 6 4.7 9.3 7.0 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 15.0 14.2 13.5 18 l 8.5 6.9 19.6 Teacher - 5+ yrs. - 13.6 12.8 11 7 l9 6 5.7 8.3 20.0 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- -—- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. --- 10.0 --- 20.0 30.0 --- 40.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 11.1 5.6 16.7 5.6 5.6 16.7 16.7 All teachers 14.6 14.1 12.9 18.8 6.9 7.7 18.8 All administrators 6.9 6.9 13.8 10.3 13.8 10.3 24.1 Entire Group 14.2 13.7 12.9 18.4 7.2 7 9 19.1 Elementary 17.0 14.7 12.4 15 l 5.4 5.4 20.8 Middle School 12.3 12.9 12.3 17.8 9.8 9.2 21.5 High School 9.5 14.9 14.9 23.6 8.1 9.5 14.9 Other 25.9 3.7 11.1 25.9 3.7 14.8 11.1 Districts: Charlotte 14.1 13.0 14.1 18.1 5.6 11.3 18.1 Eaton Rapids 13.6 16.7 10.6 14.4 7.6 8.3 19.7 Grand Ledge 14.8 10.7 10.7 20.1 9.4 6.0 21.5 Potterville 10.8 16.2 13.5 21.6 8.1 8.1 18.9 Maple Valley 16.2 14.9 20.3 17.6 6.8 2.7 16.2 Other (Eaton Intermediate 14.3 14.3 7.1 28.6 3.6 7.1 17.9 I" 91 Question No. 8. Ungraded classrooms allow best for individual differences. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 18.6 18.6 11.6 34.9 4.7 4.7 2.3 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 25.8 17.7 13.5 22.7 6.2 3.5 5.8 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 17.7 10.2 17.7 20.4 6.8 8.3 9.4 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- --- 100.0 --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 40.0 20.0 --- --- 20.0 --- 20.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 22.2 16.7 16 7 33.3 5.6 5.6 --- A11 teachers 21.5 14.3 15.3 22.5 6.3 5.8 7.2 All administrators 27.6 17.2 10.3 20.7 13.8 3.4 .9 Entire Group 21.8 14.4 15 1 22.4 6.7 5.7 7.2 Elementary 25.9 15.4 13.5 18.9 5.4 3.9 9.3 Middle School 23.3 12.3 15.3 26.4 4.9 6.7 6.7 High School 12.2 14.2 16.9 27.7 10.1 7.4 4.7 Other 25.9 18.5 18.5 3.7 11.1 7.4 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 18.1 8.5 19.2 24.3 4.5 10.7 6.8 Eaton Rapids 22.7 17.4 7.6 21.2 7.6 3.0 11.4 Grand Ledge 24.2 18.8 16.1 20.8 6.0 4.0 6.0 Potterville 24.3 13.5 8.1 35.1 8.1 2.7 2.7 Maple Valley 21.6 13.5 20.3 21.6 8.1 4.1 5.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 25.0 17.9 14.3 10.7 14.3 3.6 7.1 92 Question No. 9. The best evaluation of students in special education should be based on: RESPONDENT Performance Effort Both Don't Know Teacher - lst yr. --- 18.6 65.1 11.6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 2.7 15.8 69.2 12.3 Teacher - 5+ years 3.8 11.3 68.3 14.7 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 10.0 --- 80.0 10.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 16.7 --- 83.3 --- All teachers 3.0 13.9 68.5 13.4 All Administrators 13.8 --- 82.5 3.4 Entire Group 3.5 13.2 69.2 12.9 Elementary 2.7 12.0 71.0 13.5 Middle School 4.3 19.6 58.9 16.0 High School 4.1 10.1 73.6 10.8 Other 3.7 3.7 88.9 --- Districts: Charlotte 2.8 11.9 76.8 7.9 Eaton Rapids 6.8 13.6 64.4 13.6 Grand Ledge 3 4 16.1 63.8 16.1 Potterville --- 10.8 75.7 13.5 Maple Valley 2.7 10.8 68.9 14.9 Other (Eaton Intermediate) --- 14.3 64.3 17.9 Question No. 10. 93 The best evaluation of talented/gifted students should be based primarily on: RESPONDENT Performance Effort Both Don't Know Teacher - lst yr. 7.0 9.3 76.7 2.3 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 7.7 5.0 81.2 6.2 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 12.1 3.0 79.6 4.2 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 20.0 --- 80.0 --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 22.2 --- 77.8 --- All teachers 9.7 4 4 80.1 4.9 All administrators 20.7 --- 79.3 --- Entire Group 10.2 ' 4.2 80.1 4.7 Elementary 8.1 3.1 83.4 4.6 Middle School 9.2 7.4 78.5 4.3 High School 14.9 3 4 76.9 4.7 Other 11.1 --- 77.8 7.4 Districts: Charlotte 9.6 5.1 80.2 4.5 Eaton Rapids 12.9 3.8 79.5 2.3 Grand Ledge 8.1 3.4 83.2 5.4 Potterville 2.7 5.4 86.5 5.4 Maple Valley 14.9 —-- 78.4 5.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 10.7 14.3 60.7 10.7 94 Question No. 11. The best evaluation of students in regular classrooms should be based primarily on: RESPONDENT Performance Effort Both Don't Know Teacher - lst yr. --- 11.6 83.7 --- Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 2.7 6.2 89.6 1.5 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 2.6 3.4 91.3 1.5 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. --— --- 100.0 --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 16.7 --- 83.3 --- All teachers 2.5 5.3 90.0 1.4 All administrators 10.3 --- 89.7 --- Entire Group 2.8 5.0 89.9 1.3 Elementary 1.5 5.4 91.5 0.8 Middle School 1.8 6.1 89.0 2.5 High School 5.4 3.4 89.2 1.4 Other 7.4 3.7 85.2 --- Districts: Charlotte 0.6 7.9 90.4 0.6 Eaton Rapids 6.1 3.0 88.6 0.8 Grand Ledge 2 7 4 7 90.6 2.0 Potterville --- --- 97.3 2.7 Maple Valley 4.1 1.4 91.9 1.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 3.6 14.3 75.0 3.6 95 Question No. 12. Special education students (EMI) should be taught in self-contained classrooms. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 11.6 18.6 16.3 32.6 4.7 2.3 14.0 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 15.8 11.2 10.8 20.8 10.4 16.2 10.4 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 16.6 13.6 11.3 22.6 9.4 7.9 11.3 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 10.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 0.0 22.2 16.7 11.1 16.7 11.1 22:2 All teachers 15.8 12.9 11.4 22.5 9.5 11.5 11.1 All administrators 3.4 20.7 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 17.2 Entire Group 15.2 13.2 11.6 22.1 9.7 11.4 11.4 Elementary 15.8 14.3 11.6 19.7 7.3 11.2 13.5 Middle School 16.6 10 4 11.0 20.2 14.1 14.1 9.8 High School 13.5 15 5 11.5 28.4 7.4 9.5 8.8 Other 11.1 7 4 14.8 22.2 18.5 7.4 14.8 Districts: Charlotte 18.1 14.7 12.4 17.5 9.0 9.0 11.3 Eaton Rapids 15.2 12.1 10.6 21.2 13.6 8.3 12.1 Grand Ledge 13.4 17.4 12.1 28.2 6.0 11.4 9.4 Potterville 18.9 10.8 5.4 29.7 10.8 13.5 8.1 Maple Valley 13.5 8.1 12.2 16.2 10.8 20.3 16.2 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 7.1 3.6 14.3 28.6 10.7 14.3 10.7 Question No. 13. 96 Special education students (emotionally impaired) should be taught in self-contained classrooms. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT 3 4 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 11.6 14.0 23.3 30.2 4.7 4.7 11.6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 16.5 13.1 13.8 19.2 9.2 14.2 10.0 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 23.8 14.3 10.2 18.9 10.6 8.3 6.0 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. 1-5 yrs. 10.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 --- 20.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 5.6 16.7 11.1 22.2 16.7 11.1 16.7 All teachers 19.5 13.7 12.9 19.9 9.5 10.7 8.3 All administrators 6.9 17.2 13.8 17.2 17.2 6.9 17.2 Entire Group 18.9 13.9 12.9 19.8 9.9 10.6 8.7 Elementary. 18.9 11.2 11.2 22.0 9.7 10.4 10.0 Middle School 24.5 14.1 11.0 17.2 12.3 11.7 6.1 High School 13.5 19.6 16.9 18.9 6.8 10.1 8.8 Other 14.8 7.4 18.5 18.5 14.8 7.4 11.1 Districts: Charlotte 19.2 11.9 14.7 20.3 9.0 8.5 8.5 Eaton Rapids 20.5 14.4 14.4 18.2 9.1 8.3 9.1 Grand Ledge 20.1 16.1 10.1 24.8 11.4 10.1 4.0 Potterville 21.6 16.2 8.1 21.6 8.1 13.5 8.1 Maple Valley 13.5 12.2 16.2 9.5 12.2 16.2 18.9 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 14.3 14.3 7.1 21.4 7.1 17.9 7.1 97 Question No. 14. Total segregation of the EMI is not good because "he needs to tolerate the system and the system needs to tolerate him." Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 16.3 34.9 16.3 16.3 4 7 4.7 4 7 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 21.2 19.6 18.6 16.2 5 O 8.8 4 6 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 23.8 18.5 19.2 13.2 6 4 5.3 6 8 Administrator-lst yr. --- -—- 100.0 --- --- --- --- Admin. 1-5 yrs. 30.0 --- 30.0 20.0 --- --- --- Admin. 5+ yrs. 33.3 22.2 22.2 --- 5.6 11.1 --- All teachers 22.0 20.0 19.2 14.8 5.6 6.9 5 6 All administrators 31.0 13.8 27.6 6.9 3.4 6.9 --- Entire Group 22.4 19.9 19.6 14.4 5.5 6.9 5.4 Elementary 23.6 20.1 18.1 12.7 4.2 9.3 4.2 Middle School 21.5 19.0 21.5 16.0 5.5 4.9 6.7 High School 18.9 20.9 18.9 17.6 8.1 4.7 6.1 Other 37.0 18.5 25.9 3.7 3.7 7.4 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 23.7 21.5 18.1 13.6 2.8 5.1 7.3 Eaton Rapids 24.2 19.7 17.4 14.4 3.8 10.6 3.0 Grand Ledge 20.1 18.8 22.8 14.1 10.7 4.7 5.4 Potterville 13.5 16.2 18.9 24.3 5.4 10.8 8.1 Maple Valley 20.3 21.6 21.6 16.2 5.4 9.5 2.7 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 35.7 17.9 17 9 3.6 3.6 0.0 7.1 Question No. 15. 98 primarily for black under-achievers. Mandatory Special Education (Act 198) was written Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. -- 7.0 --- 30.2 4.7 11.6 11.6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 1.5 1.9 1.9 24.6 3.5 16.2 30.4 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 2.3 0.8 2.6 16.6 5.3 10.6 32.1 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. --- --- 20.0 10.0 --- --- 70.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 11.1 16.7 38.9 All teachers 1.8 1.8 2.1 21.3 4.4 13.2 29.8 All administrators 3.4 3.4 10.3 10.3 6.9 10.3 48.3 Entire Group 1.8 1.8 2.5 20.8 4.5 13.1 30.7 Elementary 1.5 1.9 2.3 18.1 3.1 13.1 34.4 Middle School 3.1 1.2 2.5 20.9 3.7 14.7 28.2 High School 1 4 2.0 3 4 27.7 7.4 10.6 22.3 Other -—- 3.7 --- 7.4 7.4 14.8 55.6 Districts: Charlotte 2.3 2.3 4.0 19.2 4.0 13.0 28.2 Eaton Rapids 0.8 0.8 0.8 17.4 5.3 12.9 39.4 Grand Ledge 2 7 2.0 4 O 22.8 3.4 11.4 24.8 Potterville 2.7 2.7 --- 35.1 2.7 21.6 10.8 Maple Valley --- 1.4 1.4 27.0 6.8 13.5 32.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 3.6 3.6 --- --- 7.1 10.7 57.1 99 Question 16. I feel uncomfortable around handicapped people. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 2.3 11.6 9.3 14.0 7 0 23.3 27 9 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 2.7 5.0 10.4 16 2 8 1 23.1 31.5 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 0 4 5.3 11.3 15.1 10 2 14.7 34.7 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 10.0 --- 10.0 --- --- 30.0 40.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. --- --- 16.7 5.6 5.6 33.3 33.3 All teachers 1.6 5.6 10.7 15.5 9.0 19.2 32.7 All administrators 3.4 --- 13.8 6.9 3.4 31.0 34.5 Entire Group 1.7 5.4 10.9 15.1 8.7 19.8 32.8 Elementary 1.5 3.5 9.7 13.1 10.0 20.5 35.5 Middle School 0.6 4.9 9.8 18.4 9.8 19.6 30.7 High School 3.4 9.5 14.9 16.2 6.1 20.9 25.0 Other --- 3.7 7.4 7.4 3.7 7.4 63.0 Districts: Charlotte 1 7 3.4 12.4 15.3 7.9 20.3 31.1 Eaton Rapids 1.5 3.8 8.3 10.6 12.1 23.5 34.1 Grand Ledge 2.0 7.4 12.1 13.4 10.7 18.6 30.2 Potterville 2.7 10.8 13.5 18.9 8.1 21.6 24.3 Maple Valley 1 4 8.1 9.5 27.0 4.1 16.2 32.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) --- --- 7.1 7.1 --- 10.7 64.3 100 Question No. 17. Special education students should be integrated into regular classroom programs. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 18.6 30.2 16.3 16.3 9.3 2.3 --- Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 20.4 18.1 14.6 20.0 9.2 10.0 3.8 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 14.3 11.3 16.2 24.2 8 7 8.3 8.3 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 40.0 30.0 20.0 --- -- --- --- Admin. 5+ yrs. 50.0 16.7 16.7 5.6 5. --- --- All teachers 17.4 15.8 15.5 All administrators 44.8 20.7 17.2 6.9 --— --- Entire Group 18.8 16.1 15.6 20.9 8.7 8 2 5.4 Elementary 22.4 17.0 11.6 20.5 9.3 6.6 5.8 Middle School 12.9 20.2 18.4 17.8 9.8 8.0 6.1 High School 14.9 9.5 20.9 26.4 8.1 12.2 3.4 Other 40.7 18.5 7.4 14.8 --- 3.7 7.4 Districts: Charlotte . 19.8 13.0 11.3 25.4 10.2 5.6 6.8 Eaton Rapids 15.9 14.4 21.2 18.9 6.1 12.1 5.3 Grand Ledge 14.1 24.8 14.8 17.4 10.1 8.7 4.0 Potterville 5.4 16.2 21.6 21.6 16.2 5.4 10.8 Maple Valley 24.3 10.8 18.9 24.3 6.8 9.5 1.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate 53.6 10.7 3.6 10.7 --- 3.6 7.1 101 Question No. 18. There is a county plan for special education programs and services. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 27.9 16.3 4 7 23.3 --- --- - Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 40.8 12.3 6 9 18.1 2.3 2 7 l 2 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 40.4 12.8 10 6 10.2 1.5 0 8 l Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- —-- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 90.0 10.0 --- ---- --- --- --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 55.6 11.1 11 1 5.6 --- --- 5.6 All teachers 39.6 12.9 8.5 14.8 1.8 1.6 1.1 All administrators 65.5 13.8 6.9 3 9 --- --- 3.4 Entire Group 40.9 12.9 8.4 14.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 Elementary 38.6 12.4 9.3 13.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 Middle School 43.6 13.5 6.1 15.3 1.2 2.5 1.2 High School 35.8 14.9 9.5 14.9 2.7 0.7 O 7 Other 74.1 3.7 7.4 7.4 --- --- --- Districts: Charlotte 35.6 13.6 10.7 16.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 Eaton Rapids 45.5 10.6 6.8 12.9 2.3 1.5 l 5 Grand Ledge 35.6 14.8 8.1 14.1 2.0 2.7 --- Potterville 43.2 10.8 8.1 13.5 2.7 5 4 2.7 Maple Valley 45.9 13.5 8.1 14.9 1.4 --- 4.1 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 64.3 10.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 --- --- 102 Question No. 19. Special Education services provided by Eaton Intermediate are: RESPONDENT Excessive Adeguate Inadequate Don't Know Teacher - lst yr. 2.3 20.9 0.0 65.1 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 0.8 25.8 28.5 41.2 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 1.1 33.6 23.4 35.8 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. —-- 90.0 10.0 --- Admin. 5+ yrs. 16.7 61.1 5.6 16.7 All teachers 1.1 29.0 23.9 40.5 All administrators 70.3 69.0 10.3 10.3 Entire Group 1.5 31.0 23.3 39.0 Elementary 1.5 30.9 23.6 38.6 Middle School --- 25.8 26.4 42.9 High School 1.4 32.4 18.2 41.9 Other 11.1 55.6 29.6 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 0.6 29.9 28.8 37.3 Eaton Rapids 3.8 34.8 17.4 40.2 Grand Ledge 0.7 20.1 26.2 47.0 Potterville --- 27.0 35.1 32.4 Maple Valley --— 41.9 10.8 36.5 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 7.1 53.6 17.9 17.9 103 Question No. 20. Eaton Intermediate Special Education services are: RESPONDENT Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know Teacher — lst yr. 2.3 11.6 2.3 2.3 69.8 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 2.7 21.9 23.8 5.0 43.5 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 4.9 32.5 22.3 5.3 30.6 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 10.0 70.0 10.0 10.0 --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 5.6 61.1 11.1 5.6 16.7 All teachers 3.7 26.1 21.5 4.9 39.4 All administrators 6.9 62.1 13.8 6.9 10.3 Entire Group 3.9 27.8 21.1 5.0 38.0 Elementary 2.3 27.8 25.5 5.4 34.0 Middle School 6.1 23.3 22.1 3.1 41.7 High School 2.7 26.4 13.5 6.8 46.6 Other 11.1 63.0 3.7 7.4 --— Districts: Charlotte 4.0 28.8 22.6 7.9 35.0 Eaton Rapids 3.8 29.5 18.9 1.5 41.7 Grand Ledge 4 O 19.5 23.5 6.0 42.3 Potterville --- 21.6 29.7 10.8 32.4 Maple Valley 1.4 33.8 18.9 1.4 36.5 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 4.3 50.0 3.6 --- 28.6 104 Question No. 21. Vocational programs are inadequate. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 4.7 9.3 16.3 37.2 4 7 2 3 4.7 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 18.5 14.2 10.0 20.8 9 6 ll 9 4.6 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 21.1 13.6 12.8 20.4 6 0 6 0 6.0 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 20.0 --- --- 20.0 2 30.0 --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 22.2 5.6 16.7 27.8 11 l 5.6 --- All teachers 18.7 13.6 11.8 21.8 7.6 8.5 5 3 All administrators 20.7 3.4 10.3 27.6 13.8 13.8 --- Entire Group 18.8 13.1 11.7 22.1 7.9 8.7 5 0 Elementary 17.4 13.1 12.0 23.9 6.6 6.2 3.1 Middle School 27.6 16.6 8.6 20.2 5.5 8.6 2.5 High School 12.8 10.1 13.5 23.0 11.5 11.5 10.1 Other 11.1 7.4 18.5 11.1 14.8 18.5 11.1 Districts: Charlotte 20.3 11.9 14.1 22.0 9.0 6.8 3.4 Eaton Rapids 20.5 14.4 6.1 19.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 Grand Ledge 24.2 18.8 14.8 21.5 3.4 5.4 1.3 Potterville 5.4 13.5 18.9 21.6 8.1 13.5 8.1 Maple Valley 12.2 4.1 6.8 31.1 10.8 17.6 9.5 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 7.1 7.1 10.7 14.3 21.4 17.9 10.7 105 Question No. 22. Vocational programs are designed primarily for the low achiever. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 4.7 7 0 18 6 16.3 7 0 23.3 11.6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 9.2 7 7 8 8 18.8 7 7 16.5 22.7 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 8.7 7 5 7 9 18.9 9 1 15.1 21.9 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. --- 10 0 10.0 --- 20.0 30.0 20.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 5.6 --- 11.1 16 7 5.6 38.9 11.1 All teachers 8.6 7.6 9.2 18.7 8.3 17.3 21.5 All administrators 3.4 3.4 10.2 13.8 10.3 34.5 17.2 Entire Group 8.4 7.4 9.2 18.4 8.4 18 1 21.3 Elementary 9.3 6.9 8.5 22.0 7.3 13.9 19.7 Middle School 9.8 7.4 6.1 20.9 3.1 23.3 22.7 High School 2.7 8.1 13.5 10.1 15.5 18.9 24.3 Other 22.2 7.4 11.1 14.8 11.1 22.2 11.1 Districts: Charlotte 6.8 5.6 7.9 20.3 10.7 17.5 23.2 Eaton Rapids 8.3 9.8 8.3 11.4 7.6 18.2 25.0 Grand Ledge l4 8 8.1 8.7 22.8 2.7 18.1 16.1 Potterville --- 10.8 18.9 13.5 8.1 13.5 27.0 Maple Valley 4.1 4.1 10.8 21.6 13.5 21.6 16.2 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 7.1 7.1 7.1 14 3 14.3 17.9 25.0 106 Question No. 23. Adequate vocational education is financially impossible at the local level. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 7.0 2 3 9 3 23.3 7 0 20.9 11 6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 8.5 2 7 6 9 23.5 7 7 12.3 27.7 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 12.5 7 9 5 3 18.9 7 2 12 1 22.6 Administrator-lst yr.100.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 50.0 10.0 --- 10.0 --- 10.0 10. Admin. - 5+ yrs. 33.3 33.3 5.6 5.6 --- 5.6 5.6 All teachers 10.2 5.1 6.3 21.3 7 4 12.9 24.1 All administrators 41.4 24.1 3.9 6.9 --- 6.9 6.9 Entire Group 11.7 6.0 6.2 20.6 7 0 12.6 23.3 Elementary 10.0 4.2 4.6 25.9 5.8 11.7 20.5 Middle School 10.4 5.5 8.0 16.0 6.7 16.6 27.0 High School 12.8 10.1 6.1 18.2 8.8 11.5 23.6 Other 29.6 3.7 11.1 11.1 11.1 7.4 25.9 Districts: Charlotte 9.0 6.8 4.5 20.9 9.6 11.3 24.9 Eaton Rapids 15.2 6.1 6.8 18.9 4.5 13.6 17.4 Grand Ledge 9.4 6.7 4.7 15.4 6.7 16.8 29.5 Potterville 10.8 2.7 5.4 24.3 10.8 13.5 21.6 Maple Valley 16.2 5.4 8.1 33.8 4.1 6.8 17.6 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 14.3 3.6 17.9 14.3 7.1 7.1 25.0 107 Question No. 24. "Experience is the best teacher." Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 14.0 30.2 34.9 9 3 --- 2 3 4.7 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 25.8 23.1 18.8 14 2 3.8 5 8 5.0 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 14.0 23.0 24.9 19 2 3.8 2 6 4.9 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 20.0 --- 20.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 5.6 33.3 16.7 38.9 --- 5.6 --- All teachers 19.4 23.6 22.9 16.2 3.5 4.0 4.9 All administrators 10.3 20.7 20.7 34.5 3.4 6.9 --- Entire Group 18.9 23.5 22.8 17.1 3.5 4.2 4.7 Elementary 20.1 23.2 22.0 16.2 3.1 4.2 3.5 Middle School 20.2 22.1 19.0 20.9 3.1 6.7 7.4 High School 15.5 25.7 27.7 12.8 5.4 2.0 4.1 Other 15.5 22.2 25.9 25.9 --- --- 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 15.1 21.5 20.3 18.6 4.0 6.2 4.0 Eaton Rapids 12.9 19.7 25.8 15.2 4.5 8.3 6.8 Grand Ledge 24.2 28.2 19.5 16.8 4.0 0.7 2.7 Potterville 18.9 27.0 27.0 16.2 2.7 --- 5.4 Maple Valley 24.3 21.6 27.0 15.9 --- 1.4 5.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 10.7 28.6 25.0 14.3 3.6 3.6 7.1 108 Question No. 25. Many talented and gifted children go unidentified. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 32.6 37.2 14.0 7 0 --- 2.3 4 7 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 49.2 22.3 13.1 5 8 2.7 1.9 2 3 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 39.6 26.4 14.3 7 2 3.4 2.6 l 9 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. 1-5 yrs. 30.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10 0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 27.8 22.2 33.3 11.1 5.6 --- --- All teachers 43.5 25.4 13.7 6.5 7.8 2.3 2.3 All administrators 27.6 24.1 24.1 10.3 6.9 3.4 3.4 Entire Group 42.7 25.3 14.2 6.7 3.0 2.3 2.3 Elementary 45.9 25.9 11.2 6.2 2.3 2.3 1.5 Middle School 46.0 22.7 12.9 6.1 3.7 2.5 3.7 High School 35.1 25.7 20.9 8.1 3.4 2.0 2.0 Other 29.6 33.3 14.8 7.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 42.4 26.0 13.0 7.3 2.3 1.1 2.3 Eaton Rapids 50.0 18.2 14.4 5.3 3.0 3.8 2.3 Grand Ledge 42.3 28.9 12.8 4.0 4.7 2.7 1.3 Potterville 29.7 27.0 18.9 10.8 2.7 2.7 5.4 Maple Valley 39.2 24.3 20.3 9.5 2.7 2.7 1.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 39.3 35.7 7 l 10 7 --- --- 7 l 109 Question No. 26. Talented and gifted children are self-motivated. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 2.3 9.3 16.3 23.3 9.3 20.9 18.6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 3.1 6.2 8.8 18.1 16.9 22.7 21.2 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 2.3 5.7 11.7 20.8 17.0 19.6 19.2 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --— --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. --- 20 O --- --- 30.0 10.0 30.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. --- --- 22.2 27.8 33.3 16.7 --- All teachers 2 6 6.2 10.7 19.7 16.4 21.1 20.1 All administrators --- 10.3 13.8 17.2 31.0 13.8 10.3 Entire Group 2.5 6.4 10.9 19.6 17.1 20.8 19.6 Elementary 3.5 6.2 8.9 20.5 15.8 22.8 18.9 Middle School 0.6 6.7 11.7 17.2 19.6 17.8 24.5 High School 2.0 5.4 11.5 20.9 16.2 22.3 17.6 Other 7.4 11.1 22.2 18.5 18.5 11.1 7.4 Districts: Charlotte 2.8 5.1 11.3 16.9 20.9 16.4 20.9 Eaton Rapids 3.0 5.3 11.4 18.2 10.6 25.8 22.7 Grand Ledge 2 7 7.4 10.1 20.8 20.8 21.5 15.4 Potterville --- 5.4 13.5 16.2 18.9 29.7 16.2 Maple Valley --- 9.5 9.5 24.3 13.5 18.9 24.3 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 7.1 7.1 10.7 28.6 10.7 14.3 10.7 110 Question No. 27. Talented and gifted will learn "in spite of the teacher." Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 4.7 16.3 16 3 14.0 4 7 20.9 20.9 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 7.3 11.2 15 4 16.2 11 5 17.3 16.5 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 5.7 10.6 16 6 19.6 15 5 14.0 14.3 Administrator-lst yr. -—- 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. — 1-5 yrs. 20.0 10.0 30.0 --- 10.0 10.0 10.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 16.7 27.8 22.2 5.6 11.1 16.7 --- All teachers 6.3 11.3 16.0 17.6 12.9 16.0 15.8 All administrators 17.2 24.1 24.1 3.4 10.3 13.8 3.4 Entire Group 6.9 11 9 16.4 16.9 12.7 15.9 15.2 Elementary 6.9 9.7 14.7 17.8 11.6 17.0 17.8 Middle School 6.7 14.7 17.8 14.7 14.1 14.7 13.5 High School 4.7 10.1 17.6 18.2 14.9 17.6 13.5 Other 18.5 25.9 18.5 14.8 3.7 3.7 11.1 Districts: Charlotte 7.9 11.9 14.1 16.9 14.7 15.8 11.9 Eaton Rapids 7.6 12.9 16.7 15.9 11.4 13.6 18.9 Grand Ledge 8.1 12.8 20.1 18.8 11.4 14.1 12.1 Potterville --- 10.8 16.2 16.2 18.9 29.7 8.1 Maple Valley 1.4 12.2 12.2 17.6 13.5 18.9 23.0 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 14.3 3.6 21.4 10.7 3.6 10.7 25.0 111 Question No. 28. Talented and gifted need special education in career possibilities. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 25.6 23.3 20.9 4.7 14.0 2.3 4 7 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 33.1 25.0 17.7 14.2 3.1 0.8 2 3 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 33.6 26.4 15.5 9.8 1.9 3.8 2 3 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. 1-5 yrs. 70.0 20.0 --- --- --- --- lO 0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 27.8 22.2 27.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 --- All teachers 32.7 25.5 16.9 11.4 3.3 2.3 2.5 All administrators 41.4 24.1 17.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Entire Group 33.2 25.5 16.9 11.1 3.4 2.3 .5 Elementary 34.4 23.9 17.5 9.3 2.3 1.5 3.9 Middle School 33.1 31.9 14.1 10.4 2.5 4.3 0.6 High School 31.8 20.9 17.6 14.2 6.8 2.0 2.0 Other 29.6 25.9 22.2 14.8 --- --- 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 31.6 24.9 17.5 12.4 2.8 2.8 1.7 Eaton Rapids 34.8 26.5 14.4 9.1 3.0 1.5 3.0 Grand Ledge 30.9 27.5 15.4 10.1 5 4 3.4 2.0 Potterville 18.9 21.0 27.0 18.9 --- 2.7 10 8 Maple Valley 45.9 23.0 16.2 9.5 4.1 1.4 --- Other (Eaton Intermediate) 32.1 25.0 21.4 10.7 -—- --- 3.6 112 Question No. 29. Many talented and gifted children are under- achievers. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 25.6 34.9 18.6 11.6 --- 7 0 --- Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 35.0 22.7 15.0 16.5 2.3 l 9 2.3 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 36.2 27.9 15.1 10.9 1.9 1 9 1.5 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 --- --- --— --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 40.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 --- --- 10.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 33.3 33.3 5.6 --- 11 1 5.6 --- All teachers 34.9 26.1 15.3 13.6 1.9 2.3 1.8 All administrators 34.5 27.6 10.3 3. 6.9 3.4 3.4 Entire Group 34.8 26.1 15.1 13.1 2.2 2.3 1.8 Elementary 37.8 23.9 13.1 13.9 3.5 0.8 1.9 Middle School 36.8 23.9 14.1 14.7 1.2 3.7 2.5 High School 29.1 30.4 18.9 10.8 0.7 3.4 1 4 Other 25.9 37.0 18.5 7.4 3.7 3.7 --- Districts: Charlotte 34.6 26.0 16.4 12.4 1.7 1.1 1.1 Eaton Rapids 40.9 25.8 11.4 12.9 0.8 3.0 0.8 Grand Ledge 30.2 28.9 13.4 14.1 2.7 3.4 2.7 Potterville 27.0 24.3 18.9 5.4 8.1 5 4 2.7 Maple Valley 35.1 24.3 17.6 16.2 2.7 --- 4.1 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 35.7 21.4 21.4 14.3 --- 3.6 ~-- 113 Question No. 30. Talented and gifted children should be taught separately from other more average students. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 2.3 4.7 4.7 14.0 9.3 25.6 37.2 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 2.7 6.2 10.0 14.6 12.3 21.9 28.8 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 2.3 4.9 12.1 15.5 10.6 17.4 32.8 Administrator - lst yr.--- --— 100.0 --- --- --- --- Admin. 1-5 yrs. 10.0 --- 10.0 20.0 --- 10.0 50 0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. --- 11.1 --- 11.1 5 6 33.3 27 8 All teachers 2.5 5.5 10.6 15.0 11.3 20.1 31 3 All administrators 3.4 6.9 6.9 13.8 3.4 24.1 34 5 Entire Group 2.5 5.5 10.4 14.9 10.9 20.3 31.5 Elementary 2.3 6.2 6.2 12.4 10.0 15.9 39.8 Middle School 2.5 3.1 12.3 16.6 9.8 23.3 29.4 High School 3.4 6.8 14.9 17.6 14.2 19.6 20.3 Other --- 7.4 14.8 14.8 7.4 18.5 25.9 Districts: Charlotte 1 7 5.6 7.3 18.1 8.5 18.6 33.3 Eaton Rapids 3.8 9.1 11.4 2.9 12.9 21.2 25.8 Grand Ledge 2.7 2.7 12.1 11.4 11.4 22.8 34.9 Potterville 2.7 5.4 8.1 21.6 10.8 32.4 16.2 Maple Valley 2 7 5.4 12.2 16.2 9.5 13.5 39.2 Other (Eaton Intermediate) --- 3.6 14.3 10.7 17.9 14.3 28.6 114 Question No. 31. Michigan programs for the talented and gifted are nationally known for their excellence. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. --- --- 7 0 41.9 2 3 7.0 14.0 Teacher - l-5 yrs. 1.5 1.5 2 7 34.7 5 8 13.8 20.0 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 0.4 0.4 2 3 23.4 7 9 9.4 30.2 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- --- —-- 100.0 --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. --- --- --- 20.0 --- 10.0 40.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. --- 5.6 --- 27.8 5.6 27.8 22.2 All teachers 0.9 0.9 2 8 29.8 6.5 11.3 24.3 All administrators --- 3.4 --- 24.1 3.4 24.1 27.6 Entire Group 0.8 1.0 2 7 29.5 6.4 11.9 24.5 Elementary 0.8 0.8 1 9 28.2 5.4 10.0 27.4 Middle School 1.2 1.2 4 9 19.4 6.7 10.4 23.9 High School 0.7 --- 2 0 34.5 8.1 14.2 19.6 Other --- 7 4 --- 14.8 3.7 25.9 25.9 Districts: Charlotte --- 1.7 2.8 31.6 8.5 7.3 22.0 Eaton Rapids --- --- 1.5 26.5 4.5 15.9 27.3 Grand Ledge 2.0 l 3 3.4 26.2 7.4 10.1 26.8 Potterville 2.7 2 7 5.4 35.1 0.0 13.5 24.3 Maple Valley 1.4 --- 1.4 37.8 6.8 17.6 17.6 Other (Eaton Intermediate) --— --- 3.6 17.9 3.6 14.3 32.1 115 Question No. 32. Michigan has very few programs for talented and gifted. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. 9.3 18.6 --- 37 2 4.7 2.3 --- Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 18.8 15.8 7.3 29.2 5.4 3.1 2.3 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 24.2 14.3 8 7 22.6 2.6 4.2 1.9 Administrator-lst yr. --- 100.0 --- --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 30.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 --- --- --- Admin. - 5+ yrs. 16.7 33.3 5.6 33.3 5.6 --- --- All teachers 20.6 15.3 7.4 26.8 4.0 3 5 l 9 All administrators 20.7 27.6 10.3 24.1 3.4 --- --- Entire Group 20.6 15.9 7.5 26.6 4.0 3.4 1.8 Elementary 23.9 15.4 7.7 23.6 3.1 3.1 2.3 Middle School 18.4 16.0 4.9 27.6 5 5 4.3 1.2 High School 14.2 17.6 9.5 31.8 4.7 2.0 1.4 Other 37.0 11.1 11.1 22.2 --— 7.4 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 16.9 15.3 7.9 30.5 2.3 2.8 1.1 Eaton Rapids 23.5 18.9 8.3 22.0 4.5 2.3 0.8 Grand Ledge 21.5 16.8 7.4 22.8 4.0 6.0 3.4 Potterville 18.9 18.9 2.7 32.4 8.1 --- 2.7 Maple Valley 17.6 12.2 8.1 35.1 5.4 1.4 2.7 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 35.7 7 l 7.1 14 3 3.6 7.1 116 Question No. 33. Programs for talented and gifted are not necessary. Agree Neutral Disagree RESPONDENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Teacher - lst yr. --- --- 2.3 9.3 7.0 14.0 55.8 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 1.2 1.5 0.4 6.2 6.9 25.8 53.1 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 1.1 1.5 3.0 7.9 7.9 20.4 49.8 Administrator-lst yr. --- —-- --- --- --- --- 100.0 Admin. - 1—5 yrs. --- 10.0 --- --- --- 10.0 60.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. -—- 11.1 --- 11.1 16.7 16.7 38.9 All teachers 1.1 1.4 l 8 7.2 7.4 22.6 51.8 All administrators --- 10.3 --- 6.9 10.3 13.8 48.3 Entire Group 1.0 1.8 1.7 7.2 7.5 21.9 51.6 Elementary 1.5 1.2 2.7 5.4 5.4 21.6 55.2 Middle School 0.6 1.8 0.6 5.5 9.8 19.6 54.6 High School 0.7 2.7 l 4 12.2 9.5 25.0 41.2 Other --- 3.7 --- 7.4 3.7 22.2 55.6 Districts: Charlotte 1.1 2.8 l 7 11.9 8.5 16.9 48.6 Eaton Rapids 2.3 1.5 --- 4.5 9.1 26.5 50.0 Grand Ledge 0.7 2.7 3.4 4.7 4.7 26.8 51.0 Potterville --- --- 2.7 10.8 10.8 21.6 48.6 Maple Valley --- —-- 1.4 6.8 5.4 13.5 66.2 Other (Eaton Intermediate) --- --- --- --- 10.7 28.6 46.4 117 0.5 5.mm 0.5 m.o_ m.5_ m.5o o.m5 p.55 o.om Aopopooscoch copouV coopo c.5p o.p 5.5_ 0.55 w.o m.O5 5.50 m.O5 5.mp xoppo> opooz p.m -- w.op 5.5 m.mp 5.5m w.om m.pm 5.m5 oppp>coppoo o.m_ e.m v.5 p.o_ o.m o.mo m.mm m.wo p.o_ omooo ococu p.55 5.0 m.op m.mp 5.p5 m.mo 5.5m p.55 m.m5 mopoom copom 5.55 m.m_ m.5 c.5p w.m_ o.po 5.mo 0.55 m.p5 oppopcoou "mpopopmpo 5.5 m.p5 5.m m.o_ m.mp o.o5 p.55 0.5m 5.oo coopo m.mp w.m o.5p 5.o— p.05 m.mm o._5 5.m5 o.m5 poooom omp: o.m_ 5.5 0.5 m.55 0.5m o.mo o.O5 o.op poooom o—oopz _.m_ 5.5 o.o o.5— o.m_ m.mm m.5o m.m5 5.05 acopcweopm o.mp m.m m.w 5.m_ 0.55 m.mm o.pm 5.55 m.55 oooco ocppcu o.m 5.o5 m.op 5.05 -- 5.om 5.5m o.oo_ 5.mm mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< p.5p 5.o 5.5 m.5_ m.op o.om o.om m.o5 m.mp mcooooop pp< o.m 5.m_ 5.0p _.p_ -- m.mw 5.55 o.oo_ o.mm .mp5 +m .cpso< -- o.om -- 0.05 -- 0.0m o.oop o.oo_ o.om .mcz m-p - .cpEo< -- -- -- -- -- o.oo— o.oop o.oo_ -- .ca pop-copocpmpcpso< mnpp m.5 m.w o.m_ m.op m.om 5.5m o.ow o.O5 .mcx +m - cooooop m.m_ o.m o.o_ m.mp m.mp m.mm 5.mo m.m5 o.O5 .mcz m-p - oooooop 5.5m 5.5 -- 5.o o.w_ m.mm 5.5m 5.oo o.op .c» pmp - cooooop zocx oopcopop .ooco .cpu om.: .cpu .ooom .ooom ppoo< pzmozoommm p.coo cow .moco opoo mpppom .co opomz .oo> .omom .popcpmpo poooom mpopooccopcp copom xo ooop>oco mo op coco so» moop>com omoop oooou .mm .02 coppmozo Question No. 36. 118 Check the school district with which you are employed. Char- Eat. Maple Potter- Grand RESPONDENT lotte Rap. Valley ville Ledge Other Teacher - lst yr. 30.2 11.6 30.2 4.7 18.6 2.3 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 23.5 23.5 13.8 7.7 26.9 2.7 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 35.1 21.9 7.9 5.7 25.3 2.6 Administrator-lst yr. --— --- 100.0 --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 30.0 30.0 10.0 --- 10.0 20.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 38.9 27.8 11.1 --- 16.7 5.6 All teachers 29.4 21.8 12.3 6 5 25.5 2.6 All administrators 34.5 27.6 13.8 --- 13.8 10.3 Entire Group 29.6 22.1 12.4 6.2 25.0 3.0 Elementary 29.7 25.9 15.1 3.5 25.1 --- Middle School 30.1 17.8 6.1 4.9 38.0 1.2 High School 29.7 23.0 14.9 13.5 12.8 4.7 Other 25.9 7.4 11.1 --- 11.1 33.3 119 Question No. 37. Do you read the newspaper for local news? RESPONDENT Yes No Teacher - lst yr. 76.7 16.3 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 85.8 12.3 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 90.2 8.7 Administrator-lst yr. 100.0 --- Admin.-1-5 yrs. 80.0 10.0 Admin. 5+ yrs. 88.9 11.1 All teachers 87.1 10.9 All administrators 89.7 10.3 Entire Group 87.3 10.9 Elementary 89.2 9.7 Middle School 87.7 9.8 High School 83.1 15.5 Other 70.4 25.9 Districts: Charlotte 82.5 16.4 Eaton Rapids 89.4 9.1 Grand Ledge 94.6 4.7 Potterville 91.9 8.1 Maple Valley 86.5 10.8 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 78.6 10.7 120 Question No. 38. If yes, which ones do you read? State Btl. Cr. RESPONDENT Local Journal Enguirer Other Teacher - lst yr. 41.9 51.2 7.0 15.6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 40.0 74.2 3.1 11.5 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 64.5 78.1 4.9 17.0 Administrator-lst yr. 100.0 --— 100.0 --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 60.0 80.0 10 O 10.0 Admin. 5+ yrs. 77.8 83.3 --- 5.6 All teachers 51.6 74.3 4.2 14.6 All administrators 72.4 79.3 6.9 6.9 Entire Group 52.6 74.5 4.4 14.2 Elementary 57.9 75.3 3.1 13.9 Middle School 52.1 52.2 4.9 11.7 High School 45.3 68.2 6.1 18.2 Other 44.4 55.6 3.7 11.1 Districts: Charlotte 56.5 72.9 4 5 13.0 Eaton Rapids 60.6 79.5 --- 12.1 Grand Ledge 49.0 88.6 --- 9.4 Potterville 24.3 75.7 --- 8.1 Maple Valley 56.8 44.6 21.6 28.4 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 35.7 64.3 7.1 28.6 121 Question No. 39. Do you listen to the radio for local news? 4- RESPONDENT Yes No Teacher - lst yr. 79.1 11.6 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 90.4 8.8 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 88.3 11.3 Administrator-lst yr. 100.0 --- Admin. 1-5 yrs. 80.0 10.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 77.8 22.2 All teachers 88.6 10.2 All administrators 79.3 17.2 Entire Group 88.1 10.6 Elementary 89.2 9.7 Middle School 87.7 9.8 High School 89.9 10.1 Other 70.4 25.9 Districts: Charlotte 85.9 12.4 Eaton Rapids 92.4 7.6 Grand Ledge 88.6 10.1 Potterville 91.9 8.1 Maple Valley 85.1 13.5 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 82.1 10.7 122 5.05 0.m 5.5 m.o5 5.5 0.m 5.05 5.0p 5.mm p.5m AopopooEcopcm copomV coopo 0.0— _.0 5.5_ _.0 0.00 0.0p m.05 m.0 0.05 5.05 com2o> mpooz 0.0p p.0 0.55 _.w m.mp p.0 0.00 5.5 0.05 0._5 oppp>coppoo v.5 5.0 5.55 o.pp 5.0 p.05 5.50 c.0p 5.pm p.0p omooo ocoow o.pp 0.5 5.55 0.5p 5.0p c.5p 0.00 0.0 m._m 0.05 mopooo copom 5.0_ 0.0 0.mp 5.0 0.pp 0.0 0.05 0.5 5.0o p.5m oppo—coou umpupcpmpo 5.55 -- 5.0 p.5p 0.op -- 0.05 5.m 0.05 5.0o Loop0 0.0_ 5.5 m.55 0.5_ 0.0— 0.0 0._o 0.0 0.mo 5.05 poooom ompo «.05 0.0 0.05 o.0p m.5_ ¢.0_ 0.55 5.0 5.5o m._m poooom opoopz 0.05 5.0 0.m_ 0.5 0.0p 0.0_ 0.00 5.5_ 0.05 0.50 5copcosopm 5.0p 5.0 0.0p 5.0 _.m_ 0.0 p.05 0.0 0.05 5.55 oaocw ocppcu 0.mp 0.0 0.m_ o.m 0.55 0.0— 0.50 -- p.55 5.pm mcopocpmpcpsoo pp< 5.0_ 5.0 0.0— 0.0p o.o_ m.0 0.0o o.0_ 0.55 0.05 mcoooomp __< _.p_ 0.m p._— -- m.mm p.pp 0.0m -- 5.55 0.mm .mcx +0 .cpEo< 0.05 0.0— 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.0_ 0.05 -- 0.00 0.00 .mc» m-p .cpEo< -- -- -- -- 0.00p -- -- -- -- -- .cz pop-copocpmpcpso< 5.m_ 0.m 0.0 «.5 _._5 5.05 0.5o 5.m— 0.mo 5.00 .mg» +0 - cmoooop 5.5 5.5 m.55 0.mp 0.0 p.0 5.pm 5.5 m.mm m.5p .mg» 0-5 - cooooop 0.55 0.__ 0.05 m.0p 5.0 0.op 5.0m 0.0 5.00 0.o_ .c» pmp - cooooop coopo 34x0 0H> x253 0003 m<¥3 2503 45H: mop: moo: pzmozoommm 5op copmpp so» on coppopm pooz .mm» 55 .04 .oz coppmoeo 123 Question No. 41. What time of day are you most apt to listen to the radio? Before After Week- RESPONDENT School School Evenings ends Never Teacher - lst yr. 60.5 16.3 9.3 9.3 --- Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 83.1 5.8 7.3 0.8 1.2 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 78.1 6.4 4.9 4.2 2.3 Administrator-lst yr. 100.0 --- --- --- --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 50.0 10.0 30.0 --- 10.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 66.7 - - 5.6 16.7 5.6 All teachers 79.0 6.9 6.3 3.0 1.6 All administrators 62.1 3.4 13.8 10.3 6.9 Entire Group 78.2 6.7 6.7 3.4 1.8 Elementary 77.6 6.6 7.3 3.9 1.9 Middle School 82.8 5.5 4.9 2.5 1.2 High School 77.0 8.8 7.4 2.7 2.0 Other 63.0 3.7 7.4 7.4 3.7 Districts: Charlotte 75.7 8.5 7.3 4.0 2.3 Eaton Rapids 79.5 6.1 7.6 5.3 1.5 Grand Ledge 84.6 4.0 5.4 1.3 O 7 Potterville 78.4 8.1 2.7 2.7 --- Maple Valley 78.4 5.4 8.1 4.1 4.1 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 53.6 14.3 7.1 --- 3.6 124 Question No. 42. How often do you read professional journals? RESPONDENT Never Seldom Occasionally Regularly Teacher - lst yr. 2.3 2.3 39.5 51.2 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 1.5 11.2 32.3 55.0 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 1 l 9.1 20.0 69.1 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- --- 100.0 Admin. 1-5 yrs. --- --- 20.0 80.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 5.6 --- 22.2 72.2 All teachers 1.4 9.5 27.1 61.3 All administrators 3.4 --- 20.7 75.9 Entire Group 1.5 9.0 26.8 62.0 Elementary 0.8 6.9 27.4 64.5 Middle School 1.2 9.2 28.8 60.1 High School 2.7 12.2 23.6 60.8 Other 3.7 11.1 25.9 55.6 Districts: Charlotte 2.3 9.6 22.6 65.5 Eaton Rapids 2.3 7.6 26.5 63.6 Grand Ledge 1.3 12.1 28.9 57.0 Potterville --- 13.5 32.4 54.1 Maple Valley --- 4.1 32.4 63.5 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 3.6 21.4 64.3 125 Question No. 43. Do you watch TV for local news? RESPONDENT Yes No Teacher - lst yr. 81.4 14.0 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 91.5 7.7 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 92.5 6.0 Administrator-lst yr. 100.0 --- Admin. - 1-5 yrs. 80.0 20.0 Admin. - 5+ yrs. 94.4 5.6 All teachers 91.2 7.4 All administrators 89.7 10.3 Entire Group 91.1 7.5 Elementary 91.5 7.7 Middle School 92.0 6.7 High School 89.9 8.1 Other 88.9 7.4 Districts: Charlotte 89.8 8.5 Eaton Rapids 90.2 9.8 Grand Ledge 91.9 7 4 Potterville 100.0 --- Maple Valley 90.5 8.1 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 89. (A) l I I 126 Question No. 44. What channel do you watch most often for local news? RESPONDENT 3 6 8 10 12 23 Teacher - lst yr. 7.0 60.5 32.6 25.6 11.6 7.0 .3 Teacher - 1-5 yrs. 12.3 78.5 13.8 45.8 13.8 4.2 .1 Teacher - 5+ yrs. 15.8 84.5 26.4 51.3 12.1 4.5 .5 Administrator-lst yr. --- --- 100.0 100.0 --- --- .0 Admin. 1-5 yrs. 20.0 80.0 30.0 60.0 10.0 10.0 .0 Admin. 5__yrs. 16.7 83.3 33.3 44.4 5.6 --- .1 All teachers 13.6 79.9 21.1 46.8 12.9 4.6 7.4 All administrators 17.2 79.3 34.5 51.7 6.9 3.4 17.2 Entire Group 13.7 79.9 21.8 47.1 12.6 4.5 7.9 Elementary 13.1 80.3 20.8 52.1 14.7 1.9 8.1 Middle School 13.5 84.0 22.1 44.2 9.2 4.3 3.7 High School 16.2 73.6 73.0 44.6 13.5 10 1 12.2 Other 7.4 85.2 22.2 29.6 7.4 --- 7.4 Districts: Charlotte 19.2 79.1 28.2 48.0 11.3 4.5 9.6 Eaton Rapids 4.5 84.1 12.9 54.5 15.2 5.3 3.0 Grand Ledge 6.0 89.3 14.1 46.3 14.1 2.0 2.0 Potterville 13.5 89.2 13.5 48.6 16.2 13.5 8.1 Maple Valley 32.4 50.0 44.6 33.8 5.4 2.7 21.6 Other (Eaton Intermediate) 14.3 82.1 14.3 42.9 14.3 7.1 14.3 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Babbie, Earl R. Survey Repearch Methods. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973. ‘ Dandapani, S. Fundamenppls of SocialSyrvey and Research Methods. Delhi: Scholars Foundation, 1971. Davis, James Allen. ElementarypSurvey Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1971. Dawes, Robyn M. Eyndamentals of Attitude Measurement. New York: Wiley, 1972. Hyman, Herbert Hiram. Survey Design and Analysis. New York: The Free Press, 1955. Parten, Mildred Bernice. Surveys, Polls and Samples: Practical Procedures. New York: Harper, 1950. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Rosenberg, Morris. The Logic of Survey Analysis. New York: Basic Books, 1968. Schramm, Wilbur and Roberts, Donald F. The Process and Effects of Mass Communication, Revised Ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971. Periodicals "Changes in Faculty Attitudes Toward University Role and Government." Journal of Experimental Education, 41:4 (Summer, 1973), 1-9. "Gaining Acceptance for an Educational Idea or Change." Education. 94:1 (September-October, 1973), 36-37. "How Five Colleges Cooperate." Liberal Education, 59:3 (October, 1973), 298-310. 127 128 "Planning and the Information Exchange Process." Educational Planning, 3:2 (Winter, 1973), 2-8. "To Merge or Not to Merge." School Shop, 33:4 (December, 1973). 39-40- Miscellaneous Davis, Barbara J. Unpublished survey questionnaire administered through "Better General Hayden, the Eaton Intermediate School District to 102 contacts within the geographical boundaries of the district. For more informa- tion, write Mrs. Davis, c/o Eaton Intermediate School District, 1790 E. Packard Hwy., Charlotte, Mi. 48813. Education Through Effective Intermediate Units." Pamphlet Washington, D.C.: National Educational Association, 1963. School Laws. State of Michigan. 1973074. Stephen A. Superintendent of Eaton Intermediate School District. Interview. April, 1974, Charlotte, Mi. For additional informa- tion, write Stephen A. Hayden, Eaton Intermediate School District, 1790 E. Packard Hwy., Charlotte, Mi. 48813. Typed and Printed In the U.S.A. Professional Thesis Preparation Cliff and Paula Haughey , 144 Maplewood Drive : '2-" East Lansing, Michigan 48823 ’ Telephone (617) 337-1527 "11111111111111.1111 I