M: AN INVESTIGATION OF PARENT ATTITUDES AND TEACHER MORALE IN. RELATIONSHIP TO‘ COMMUNITY UNREST Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MALCOLM FRANK HALLIDAY 1970 IIIIIIIIILIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIISIIIIIIIIIIIIHIHHIHI ; 28 1400 This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Investigation of Parent Attitudes and Teacher Morale in Reiationships to Community Unrest ‘ presented by Malcolm Frank Halliday has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Pho Db Administration and Higher Education Major prolevssor Dme 11/12/70 0-169 degree in The Degartment of mm.»' 3-1" {Lia-'2'? LIB Lug RY Michigaz’i State University7 {FENSMI ,/115 "‘_‘ ‘ irn F‘V v‘~ AA 4.! .’.. r1 .lwrbl A“ "R‘V‘VA. U IT‘S?" 01.: on V."“¢v ‘grq'rg Q ciaov‘.‘ ~ :“l"":gn \ .0’.U“~~ . t \ 'Ngc ‘ 'Q . ‘ h hunt! a. , -' e“fi ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF PARENT ATTITUDES AND TEACHER MORALE IN RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY UNREST By Malcolm Frank Halliday The problem of the study was to conduct an inves— tigation of the internal—external environment of schools identified as having community unrest and schools not exper- iencing such unrest regarding selected variables of parent attitudes and teacher morale. The major purpose of the study was to provide community school leaders with one basis for assessing the internal-external environment of the com- munity schools. Also the study was conducted to determine the validity of using negative correspondence as a measure for school evaluation. Furthermore, the study had as a pur- pose the examination of the relationships between parent attitudes and teacher morale. I The population for the study was 611 parent and 191 teacher members of ten schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. Five schools were selected which had the most negative cor- respondence received from the community by the Office of the superintendent of schools. Five schools were selected at random from a population excluding all high negative 'b‘l+o\f:c s-A' --b‘~£-- F"‘“‘AFA l 'h-os-'vlna.... . 7‘ "l‘ on. 'vu S‘U.d\ e g a. ' Hose 5:. 41.5.5 '~&“nflh one... iv. V“cr+ U "'N~t. V Malcolm Frank Halliday correspondence schools. Data concerning the study's two variables, parent attitudes and teacher morale, were gathered by the use of two instruments. The Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument, designed to measure general parent attitudes regarding school approval-rejection level and five subfactors of par— ent attitudes about various aspects of the school program, was administered to a random sample of parents stratified by grade level for the sample schools. The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire, designed to measure general teacher morale and ten subfactors of morale, was administered to all teachers of the sample schools. The data gathered were analyzed for differences between group means by analysis of variance, and intercorrelations among variables by the Pearson Product— Moment Method. Major Findings 1. Parent general approval-rejection level differs significantly between unrest and no unrest schools. The difference is one of a lower level of parent approval for the program of unrest schools, as compared with no unrest schools. 2. Parent attitudes are significantly lower for unrest schools than for no unrest schools on the following areas of the school program: (a) courses, work habits, and discipline; (b) school-parent interaction; and (c) school board relations. .u‘u‘,‘ FA I“ .04“ ADV . I A'- :izer':& Via. a ., 'R'FAA. . Dn‘VV. v (7\ eve Vy‘v‘.‘ \ Gq‘ A "“‘vv v. I 0 :‘pl L,a‘,"c "“r v... c a 9 "HAF ”a he i‘o a.“ ”.c . v 5...“; .1 In“ ”A vu‘v-ab‘ .‘.~ Ar+ J .- h: :a" ‘r:' I \ ,H I. h .V; 59,.8153 Malcolm Frank Halliday 3. Parents of children in unrest and no unrest schools generally agree on the areas of positive and nega- tive concerns regarding the school program; the difference between the two groups is primarily one of intensity of rating for these areas. A. There is no significant difference in the over- all teacher morale level for unrest schools, as compared with no unrest schools. 5. Teacher perceptions of teacher status, one dimension of morale, are significantly lower for unrest schools than for no unrest schools. 6. There is a greater feeling of community pressure for teachers in unrest schools than for teachers in no unrest schools. 7. For no unrest schools there is a strong relation- ship between the level of general approval toward the school program manifested by parents and the level of overall teacher morale. 8. For unrest schools there is a_strong relatione ship between teachers' perceptions of teacher load and the following variables of parent attitudes: (a) school- parent interaction, (b) school board relations, and (c) general approval-rejection level. 9. For unrest and no unrest schools, teachers' perceptions of community support strongly correlate with parent attitudes regarding school—parent interaction and general parent approval of the school program. Aralnnbn. .H‘av‘vy. 'W" ‘“:~ " '5. a... Q . ’“Rhy‘p” " 'L- 1... ‘ V ,n 5 “‘Aon ‘. :‘V‘VSS.‘ (A) “HA3‘ .5. v~-em 0 Parents 1] ’r.°“c mist < R n "a ‘ fl — In T‘-‘d rt“: I '6. ~“creel s 5. A "4 .. ‘ui fine {2' \ I “A": . u. . l s VI‘Q‘r-‘E 5,_~ 'U“ES O l. :‘51.. ‘ ' «VT‘NG d ‘8 Malcolm Frank Halliday ; J 10. For_unrest and no unrest schools combined, “strong relationships exist between parent general approval level and the following variables of teacher morale:-+ (a) teacher status, (b) community support, and (0) community pressure . Conclusions 1. Negative correspondence appears to be a valid indicator of widespread low parent approval of the school program. 2. When parents hold expectations for the school program of their children which differ from those held by professional educators, unrest is likely to occur. 3. In regard to school-community interaction, the problem of the educator is not merely one of how to get parents involved and interested, but how to channel their interest toward constructive ends. A. Negative correspondence does not appear to be a valid measure of overall teacher morale, and its use for internal school evaluation is not supported. 5. Strong relationships exist between the school and the community, and the school's responsibility for providing programs directed toward improved community atti- tudes. Recommendations 1. There should be continuous assessment of parent_ attitudes and teacher morale to help the educational leader .,b{ 41:2 3.0!". " 'f‘ "AW?“ “1 V‘l'". 1‘ gnuffi uv‘taV-‘ .3,“ as . u‘UOLV I ' 1 . ,- pA sfiflp vuv v-av 'fl'-Jr" n‘y- ‘ \ Oumonlgu v. “shay-5 “A roe-OAU v- "a th-l .., in. "V‘L_ T\ “*a el- ‘ Io.‘ Sv.;fifi '- H J o Qa' ‘ ‘I‘A Ivasv'.-CCW “‘~’ “\ ‘ \ .UU‘SU tro ‘» ‘. y- "‘e 2A-”.‘r V...‘ "‘e. V 0 ’IA" v.“ Malcolm Frank Halliday anticipate school-community unrest and to develop measures to control the dysfunctional aspects of this unrest. 2. The community survey and citizens' advisory council should be instituted to provide relevant school publics with an opportunity to express their views about the school program. 3. Teachers should be given the freedom, time, and administrative encouragement to have meaningful and frequent parent contacts. A. The educational leader should consider the development of the community school concept, embracing the goal that public school facilities should be available to the citizens for extensive and continuous programs during the school day and in the evenings. 5. For schools faced with community unrest, a school-community relations expert should be assigned to assist the educational leader in working cooperatively with the community. 6. The ombudsman concept should be given serious consideration for implementation at the local school level. he AN INVESTIGATION OF PARENT ATTITUDES AND TEACHER MORALE IN RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY UNREST By Malcolm Frank Halliday A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 wu- n u q u‘unpo ‘U ’“l'lgv-Ag L‘aiuonvv U ‘I‘F’TH—n yu 4. fl “-0.. h-A“. q ~- .. . g 1 " 2 en ‘H-ugv .- . TSTQWFI “Y: lb 3'. ‘5‘-.‘~ ‘ P‘Qv“ .. V .~ -3“ fl.“ f L» @7291 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many persons in Maryland and Michigan cooperated in numerous ways to make this dissertation project possible. It is with much gratitude that I acknowledge the guidance and encouragement of Dr. Richard Featherstone, chairman of the doctoral guidance committee. His kind and unfaltering support, deliberate advice, and patience were determinate factors in making this study a reality. The direction provided in matters of research design and statistical analysis by Miss Jo Lynn Cunningham of the university's Research Consultation Office was invaluable. A sincere expression of appreciation is extended to Dr. Clyde Campbell, Dr. George Myers, and Dr. James McKee for serving on the doctoral guidance committee and for their helpful suggestions and encouragement. A warm expression of thanks goes to a good friend, Dr. Larry Lezotte, for his many helpful suggestions. The most important acknowledgement goes to my wife, Ingigerdur, for the many hours of assistance, understanding, love, and support during my pursuit Of a goal held for many years. Finally, to Malcolm, Erik, and Hildur, our three children, thanks for their patience; now they will have a full-time father. 11 I'vqu'u vv F“ I " u- n invau‘v nu...- '.:~ Op m D -05. . . ’Qvaber ; 'Mar \- T r- 4 o ‘ - ‘ O ‘- ‘ “‘. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. III. Introduction to the Problem. . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . Purposes of the Study. Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . ; Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Overview . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . Community Conflict and SchoOl- COmmunity Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parent Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . Morale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . The Setting - Monthmery County, Maryland. The Montgomery County Public School System . Selection of Sample Schools. . . . . . . The POpulation and Sample Selection. . Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . Administration of the Surveys. . . . Type of Study and Method of Reporting and Interpreting the Data. . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Page ii \OGJNO‘tU'IUTJtfl-J I-‘ H F‘ H H‘ J='T\)I\)I—‘ (DKONN U"! 0 O\U1U'IU'IU1U'IU'I I—‘Nm-CNOO O\O\ U'IW SSstwm SAI’. .i' ' ’ And-o” 0.1". S Js’ae f‘“-“ VILD a ~'>-;ter V. ifnv “- Lady; A. Jol‘ C. ml Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Research Question 1. . 72 Research Question 2. . . . . . . . . 73 Research Question 3. . . 78 Research Question A. . . . . . 80 Research Question 5. . . . 81 Research Question 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8U Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 94 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9“ Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 96 Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 A. SAMPLE LETTER AND PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . 116 B. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 iv Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.A “.3 14.1: A.5 “.6 “.7 LIST OF TABLES Page Test-Retest Correlations for Purdue Teacher Opinionaire Factor Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Split-Half Correlation Coefficient of Revised Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Numbers and Percentages of Teacher Respondents Returning Completed Opinionaires. . . . . . . . 62 Numbers and Percentages of Parent Respondents Returning Completed Instruments . . . . . . . . 6U Individual School Means, Group Means, and Standard Deviations on all Variables of the Bullock Parent Attitude Instrument for Unrest Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Individual School Means, Group Means, and Standard Deviations on all Variables of the Bullock Parent Attitude Instrument for No Unrest Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Individual School Means, Group Means, and Standard Deviations on all Variables of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire for Unrest Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O Individual School Means, Group Means, and Standard Deviations on all Variables of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire for No Unrest Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Analysis of Variance of Group Means for Parent General Approval-Rejection Level . . . . 73 Means and Standard Deviations of Parent Approval-Rejection Scores for Unrest and No Unrest Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Differences in Means on Bullock Variables for Unrest and No Unrest Schools, F Values, and Significance of the Differences . . . . . . . . 75 V t P e e» P I. b E e Isl... a. T....: E K. n. t e w.” ru 9 .C T e A: nv no; my a 1.. he aw e t h. Av ad nu he AV O» H. Lu 0 he 5b Av ha «y C P; V." 0 a 0:; "HI D H. ”to pm A “a C D; I “L C G ha A M r A M he A IMH i 0 av C O O O D C C C C C C 2 3 U. PA) 6 7 8 l u. o ‘I. QII¢ WI‘ 1 l n An -Ws- :Uio HIV- he I; Table u.8 A.9 4.10 A.1l ”.12 H.13 u.1u 4.15 A.l6 4.17 4.18 Page Ranked Parent Responses for Unrest and No Unrest Schools to the Statement: "Please List What You View as 'Good' about Your School". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Ranked Parent Responses for Unrest and NO Unrest Schools to the Statement: "Please List What you View as 'Bad' about Your School" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Analysis of Variance of Group Means for Total Teacher Morale Level . . . . . . . . 79 Means and Standard Deviations of Total Teacher Morale Scores for Unrest and No Unrest Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Differences in Means on Purdue Variables for Unrest and No Unrest Schools, F Values, and Significance of the Differences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Correlation between Total Purdue Teacher Morale Score and General Approval- Rejection Score for the Bullock Parent Attitude Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Correlation between Teacher Perceptions of Community Support of Education and Parent Attitudes Regarding School— Parent Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Correlation between Teacher Perceptions of Community Support of Education and General Parent Approval-Rejection. . . . . . . 85 Correlations between Bullock Parent Attitude Variables and Purdue Teacher Morale Variables for Unrest Schools. . . . . . 86 Correlations between Bullock Parent Attitude Variables and Purdue Teacher Morale Variables for No Unrest Schools . . . . 87 Correlations between Bullock Parent Attitude Variables and Purdue Teacher Morale Variables for All Ten Schools . . . . . 89 vi '3.“ Ar; u."$‘c CU-ok W 64's.; “-5-.“ a... :fififillq‘zF-T Q ‘ duvv.‘ V‘U‘J P‘Iv V“ “9" M»: ~ ”dung m: ha‘ v “Want pu Tarn-5° ~. H‘- t“ vyyuior‘s CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction to the Problem Every age brings its own kinds of pressures upon the school. Today the number of rejected school referendums, public concern for quality education, student unrest, and higher education costs all reflect a public demand for accountability in education. Furthermore, increased scru- tiny by relevant publics of the school, its purposes, and its products has resulted in criticism of the school and unrest in the school community. Current writers have suggested that one basis for relating more effectively to the school community, especially at the time of unrest, is the educational leader's under- standing of the attitudes of teachers, parents, and other relevant publics regarding the school's program. With these perceptions as a foundation, the community school leader can plan for those activities and strategies which may result in better internal-external human relationships. Without such an approach the school may be faced with surmounting community unrest and resultant interference with the teaching- learning enterprise. , sans t3 I he VF. Rt «bl: e a CI}! '\.7 l , es Whil - S 1 l C n I o.-----"‘“ av ‘ t8 Fe 1 .e been ~':41 .327ng p ing a .rlbov ~ On . “V " 0P p In; \ \ q wt in" :5 v. I‘E‘e .4. n‘ r H' ’5 .1 flaw~‘ by to mm 2013 . =fin ~... Griffiths, emphasizing that it is necessary to have accurate perceptions in working with the faculty and the community, said the following: One must know the group he is to work with. This means that the school administrator should know the facts about the community, as well as the feelings and opinions of the community.1 Doll, concurring with Griffiths' statement and sug- gesting a means for assessing community attitudes, expressed the following concern: What a community expects and will tolerate from its schools can be indicated roughly by surveys of commu- nity opinion. Responses to questionnaires have limited value unless the meanings which respondents intend to express are explored. Determining meaning can be accomplished . . . which confirmEs] support for certain projects and provideEs] warnings against launching others. Inevitably, the curriculum is based firmly in home- school-community relationships, and school-community planning is therefore much needed.2 However, one of the areas about which the public schools have been most backward is that of measuring the opinions of relevant publics. Educational literature contains few studies which have been undertaken to determine just what school publics are thinking and what they want from their schools. Griffiths elaborated on this problem as follows: Too often we are apt to listen to the small vocal groups instead of making a greater effort to determine just what all of the people think and want. The techniques for polling public opinion have been known 1Daniel E. Griffiths, Human Relations in School Administration (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956), p. 291. 2Ronald C. Doll, Curriculum Improvement: Decision- Making and Process (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 196”), p. 62. (‘1‘ V6, () '3 (I) U) (f .(‘D iireoted the school syste school Cline the organiza warned that which they Cc ties with w? ‘ . "twan‘ 7' H. and». vajfien t: 5.695 about t for some time. Certainly in education we should begin to use them.1 Over the years, school men and lay boards have directed their attention to internal cOnditions within the school system and local school to determine the nature of school climate and interpersonal relationships of staff within the organization. Although Harold Hand, writing in 1945, warned that teachers can be effective "only to the degree to which they continuously increase their knowledge of the atti- tudes with which they are confronted," few studies have been undertaken to determine the specific non-teacher group atti- tudes about the school environment.2 Parsons, a sociological theoretician, concerned that most recent literature in the field of formal organization tends to deal with internal structure and process, advocated examining external relations of organizations. He stated the following: One control is universal: the operation of the organization is subjected to generalized norms, valid throughout a wider community. These range from the rules formally codified in the law to standards of "good practice" informally agreed upon.3 Thompson, of Indiana University, has stated clearly the need for concern with both the internal and external lGriffiths, op. cit., p. 292. 2Harold 0. Hand, What People Think About Their Schools (New York: World Book Company, 1945), p. 2. 3Talcott Parsons, "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organization," Administrative Theory in Education, ed. Andrew W. Halpin (LOndon: The Macmillan Company, 1969), p. A5. arY'IrCT‘JIQDt I i pe: inter a1 : fail to s‘ the inter ies. .— i '<3 .— t Lfintified as flexing such afiitudes and Sohoc ifigsohools y "Respondem 1 “Jun" i- Jar: N4?*S~Pata a.“ 5W w ,‘L y! 37 0 he environment: My personal belief is that we tend to stress internal relations and structures to the point where we fail to see the significance Of external relations or the ipteraction between internal and external activi- ties. Statement of the Problem The problem of the present study is to conduct an investigation of the internal-external environment of schools identified as having community unrest and schools not exper- iencing such unrest, regarding selected variables of parent attitudes and teacher morale. School officials receive unsolicited feedback regard— ing schools within their districts. Much feedback is nega- tive correspondence in the form of complaints from parents, and represents one manifestation of community unrest. Such correspondence variously concerns program, staff leadership, student discipline, and staff responsiveness to community concerns. Furthermore, such correspondence has been a factor in school evaluation which has resulted in the transfer of some school principals and teachers, and much pressure brought upon the schools. There has been little systematic examination of var- ious factors which may relate to negative criticism, and whether such criticism is held generally or limited to a few parents. The dimension of teacher morale, its various - 1James D. Thom son, "Modern Approaches to Theory in Administration " Admin strative Theor in Education ed. Andgew W. Halpin (London: The MEEMIIIan COfifiafiyT—I969), p. o my w. ‘ad “I daisy 5:110 01 inzernal-exte “ . ‘ 1 1 ICE stuot W11 evaluation. ’1 3 s J.-I’.g wnat I :34 + “a VeaChers: {has “my conceit hwy: Part1. w’m‘nity un‘ relation subfactors, and its relationship to parent attitudes, has been given cursory notice by school system personnel. Purposes of the Study The major purpose of the study is to provide com- munity school leaders with one basis for assessing the internal-external environment of the community schools. Also, the study will include an examination to determine the valid- ity of using negative correspondence as a measure for school evaluation. Furthermore, the study takes purpose in deter- mining what relationships exist between parent attitudes and teacher morale. By examining the attitudes and opinions of parents and teachers, educators will be encouraged to develop care— fully conceived plans and to make recommendations which will insure control of the dysfunctional aspects of community unrest, better teacher morale, better school-community rela- tions, and improved education programs. The findings may help the professional staffs of schools participating in the study, particularly the staffs of the schools experiencing community unrest, in their staff develOpment and community relations activities. Finally, the study of the relationships between parent attitudes and teacher morale will provide an added dimension to the many studies of teacher morale. Research Questions The following questions were selected as being most pertinent to the study: 1. Row scrotal-re: e ct i unrest compare v :::..:ur.ity unrest 2. How en: attitudes f: 3::pare with the , ce'ran I ”Wis experie for schools not II. How teacher morale more with tk west? 5. WEI-E a.I.DI‘0'»-'al-re: ect 3‘“ .‘H Sal“ \2haoj .nJ * Experi The FA 6 1. How do parent attitudes regarding general approval-rejection level for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? 2. How do certain specific characteristics of par- ent attitudes for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? 3. How does the general level of teacher morale for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? A. How do certain specific characteristics of teacher morale for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? 5. What relationship exists between parent general .approval-rejection level and teacher general morale level for schools experiencing community unrest, as compared with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? 6. What relationships exist between certain specific characteristics of parent attitudes and teacher morale for schools experiencing community unrest, as compared with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? Procedure The population for the study will be parent and teacher members of ten schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. Five schools will be selected which have the most negative correspondence received from the community by the office of the superintendent of schools. Five schools will be selected at random from a population excluding the high negative cor- respondence schools. The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire, designed to measure teacher morale, will be administered to all teach— ers of the sample schools. The "Your School" section of the Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument will be administered to a random sample of parents stratified by grade level from the sample schools. The research questions will serve as the basis for grouping and reporting the data. Recommendations and con- clusions will be drawn from the information obtained and the examination and interpretations made from the data, as related to the purposes of the study. Limitations of the Study 1. This study involves the teachers and parents of ten Montgomery County, Maryland, public elementary schools in an in-depth descriptive study of teacher morale and parent attitudes on certain variable factors. Any applicability of the conclusions and recommendations to other districts should be assessed carefully by those wishing to use the findings. 2. Attitudes and Opinions of persons are largely dynamic and can change quickly. Therefore, this study should be considered applicable to the time and setting in which the instruments were administered. m. 3. 1. relationships :aie. The d the limited 8 r s 1883? needs are sat perceives thg situation .1 torale 13 big will be Opera ‘. N 3. The findings of the study will be viewed as relationships and therefore no causal inferences can be made. Definition of Terms The definitions which follow express the terms in the limited and specific sense used in this study. Teacher morale - The extent to which an individual's needs are satisfied, and the extent to which the individual perceives that satisfaction as stemming from his total job situation.1 If satisfaction outweighs dissatisfaction, morale is high. Teacher morale is a result of attitudes and will be Operationally defined as measures from the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire. Parent attitudes - Psychological constructs, inferred from observable responses to stimuli. They may be inferred from expressive or symbolic behavior in which overt choices are implied or indirectly expressed, as in questionnaires.2 Parent attitudes will be operationally defined as measures from the Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Edu- cational Administrators instrument. COmmunity - A concentrated settlement of people in a limited territorial area, within which they satisfy many 1Robert M. Guion, "The Problem of Terminology," Readings in Human Relations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 63. 2Chester W. Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educa- tional Research (New York: The Macmillan Company, I960), p. 103. .0 tI‘PlI‘ ('33 in 00' relationshi rated as ex defined on fro. the co: ”MIMI Cf . Cor. individuals or ETO‘dpS a: fin v . to pretvve: It I Imposed st; ‘n‘riHr , . Us .88 an: Mk ~VT‘O ' ‘- Ol SJSLE IQL ”Pators . be of their daily needs through a system of interdependent relationships.l Community unrest - A troubled or disturbed state, restlessness or disquiet among people having like interests and sharing a geographically defined area. Schools desig- nated as experiencing community unrest will be operationally defined on the basis of amount of negative correspondence from the community received by the Office of the superin- tendent of schools. Conflict - A clash of incompatible interests between individuals and/or groups, in which two or more human beings or groups actively seek to thwart each other's purposes and/ or to prevent satisfaction of each other's interests.2 Summary and Overview It has been the focus in Chapter I to introduce the proposed study. Concepts vital to the understanding Of the study have been explained and defended on the basis of the writings and studies of several authors. There have been many studies concerned with the internal environment of the school system and involving attitudes of teachers, admin- istrators, and supervisors, but few studies of attitudes have been concerned with the external environment involving parents 1George A. Theodorson and Achilles G. Theodorson, A Modern Dictionary of Sociology (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1969), p. 63. 2Henry P. Fairchild, Dictionary of Sociology (New York: Philosophical Library, 19AM), p. 56. ,4 the relati 3:” parent atti by examining t ers, educators :ei'zed plans I control of co: tion , and it: have been sug :orale, paren a ‘gni'fi “Mrs of te tor the study 4- at?" .5 define: In C! "111 be explc Chapter III, TIN “.5 trunentat. ":11 be revi M V‘ the re SUI \ :1 Chapter V and 1mplicat 10 and the relationships of parent attitudes to teacher morale. The problem to be studied is the examination and comparison of schools identified as having community unrest and schools not experiencing such unrest, regarding selected variables of parent attitudes and teacher morale. It is intended that, by examining the attitudes and Opinions of parents and teach- ers, educators will be encouraged to develop carefully con- ceived plans and make recommendations which will insure control of community unrest, better school-community rela- tions, and improved educational programs. Research questions have been suggested dealing with community unrest, teacher morale, parent attitudes, and relationships between various factors of teacher morale and parent attitudes. The procedure for the study has been outlined, limitations stated, and terms defined. In Chapter II, the literature related to the study will be explored for its pertinence to the study. In Chapter III, the procedure will be discussed, and the sample, instrumentation, type of research, and techniques of analysis will be reviewed. Chapter IV will contain the examination of the results and relate them to the research questions. In Chapter V, the study will be summarized, and conclusions and implications will be discussed. “a 1 A . ‘ .y ‘ pH" at C‘ V "V Ova“ . . ’r-u ”.5". .2... my O;‘.J‘-~. $.‘4J anuuue Swan. ‘ I 1”” ‘n. L.v4.tu for LI... 2 p- - H I ‘ ‘ “Myth: 2“ ‘- fiv: '.VA_U0ner‘v A “Q'z ‘ a .2 ., : V . ‘.*.,QflOPK fl.‘i€ 3 ‘c.K -_O ”Cr-~14: 1:“ k V J we be 1 ext:— "~ I We; vf “.9Patum £‘F J v.‘~ ‘h “Vortex: S‘Rq' O y ' I ‘ . ~vl§13a1i‘ t. Exthh K CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction A review of literature for the study necessitates a look at previous research in community conflict, attitude, and morale studies. In a section on community conflict and school community relations, the literature is reviewed to provide background information for assessing community unrest. Attitude studies are reviewed in order to provide a back— ground for the information which is to be collected and ana- lyzed about the parents. Morale studies are reviewed to provide a background for the use of the Purdue Teacher Qpinionaire and its component subfactors. A review of the literature presents a conceptual framework whereby the subsequent examination of data pertain- ing to community unrest, parent attitudes, and teacher morale can be viewed with greater clarity. Furthermore, the review of literature is intended to serve as a basis for looking at the importance of human relations in an organization, and specifically the relations pertaining to the internal- external environment of the community school. 11 b paw-””411 ‘ Weber c as"asacial re :a: the actor': ;a::y or partie Ti:‘.e:t confli _:ea:ef"al confl attezpts to el :: the develop Thomps increases With Parent gr» heateP oppor' wonrl “fabil 12 Community Conflict and School-Community Relations Weber described conflict as empirically inevitable, as "a social relationship oriented intentionally to carrying out the actor's own will against resistance of the other party or parties."1 Conflict may be peaceful or violent. Violent conflict involves the use of physical force, while peaceful conflict resorts to other means. Weber argued that attempts to eliminate conflict are forms of conflict and lead to the development of further conflict. Thompson explained that the potential for conflict increases with the following variety of factors: increased interdependence, increased pressure by external forces which require internal compromises on outcome preferences, and increased variety in the groups involved within an organi- zation.2 The essence of education implies interdependences which are subject to conflict. Lately, increased participa- tion, advocated widely in the literature, has been a source of increased stress. The increased participation of teacher and parent groups, as one set of examples, is indicative of greater opportunities for conflict. Conflict can be viewed as destructive of social stability or as a breakdown of social control.3 It can also 1Max Weber, The_Theory of Social and Economic Organi— zation (New York: The Free Press, 196A), pp. 132-135. 2James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), Chapter 10. 3Robert Dubin, "Approaches to the Study of Social Conflict: A Colloquium," Conflict Resolution, Vol. I, No. 2 (June. 1957). viewed as 'ec qv (”’21 system uvvaa 1+ name of v“ ‘5 :i view, com enlained wit rises. In 19 Auv a 01 «‘7 01 con; i W ‘lyfifi “me which theories of S Hughe Sime some men . IOKGH, dp combinati. 01‘. bette; in the sea and of th. Simmel is Instead 0 Stable th. 9-5 some t. and force; “fly in t. ‘ .9 u 13 be viewed as necessary in fostering "the stability of the "1 social system. An in-between view can be conflict as a source of vital, creative action.2 Irrespective of the point of view, conflict is vital to structural changes and can be explained within the context of the situation in which it arises. In 1950 Bernard asked, "Where is the modern sociol- ogy of conflict?"3 An examination of the literature reveals little which had been done before 1950 to extend the conflict theories of Simmel (1859-1918). Hughes, writing about Simmel, said the following: Simmel sees conflict as part of the dynamic by which some men are drawn together (and others by the same token, driven away from each other) into those uneasy combinations which we call groups. The inter-weaving or, better, the entangling of social circles is viewed, in the same way, as part of the dynamic both of groups and of the individual personalities who compose them. Simmel is thus the Freud of the study of society. Instead of seeing change as disturbance of a naturally stable thing called society, he sees stability itself as some temporary balance among forces in interaction and forces are by definifiion capable of being described only in terms of change. Basic to Simmel's theory is his statement: lRalf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959), p. 207. 2Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964), Pp- 5-7- 3Jessie Bernard, "Where Is the Modern Sociology of Conflict?" American Journal of Sociology, LVI (July, 1950), pp. “ll-”2”. “George Simmel, Conflict:_ The Web of Group- Affiliations (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1955), p. 9. have been deve . Paar-fin! y- :Vvv‘oVo-A‘CS ’ soc 515d Peculiar: Over a F33 exaniz Kinds of . pants; tfu ”.6”an attri‘l «.Gncmvus P Q 7~lai . «EEd, CO ‘Ciient 1“ Conflict is thus deSigned to resolve divergent dual- isms; it is a way of achieving some kind of unity, even if it be through the annihilation of one of the con- flicting parties. This is roughly parallel to the fact that it is the most violent symptom of a disease which represents the effort of the organism to free itself of disturbances and damages caused by them.1 More recently, applications of Simmelian postulates have been developed not only in sociology, but in psychology, economics, and political science. Of particular importance is the monograph by James Coleman, commissioned in 195“ by the Twentieth Century Fund as an exploration of the state of affairs in the field of opinion formation and community con- flict. Drawing on the existing literature, Coleman identi— fied peculiarities to each different case of community controversy studied. He had the following to say: Over and over again, as one case study after another was examined, the same patterns appeared: the same kinds of feelings were generated between the partici- pants; the same kinds of partisan activity occurred.2 Coleman attributed the emerging similarities to the apparent autonomous nature of conflicts. Once set off, Coleman explained, controversies develop quite independently of the incident. Early stages generate later ones; conflicts which began quite differently end up alike: the community divided into Opposing factions, angry and adamant, argu- ing about old quarrels which have nothing to do with the original issue.3 1Ibid., p. 13. 2James S. Coleman, Community Conflict (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), p. 25. 31bid. .-i ‘ 1m ,, Ye: controvers: 2.1 an even keei Kathe cutccnu are calling. :3: elements '- 0.‘fi , . 35e~-$CKS, ' wh‘ viduals’ v on either de 3. In “aking p3: erece4VeS ”% t . ' *- e °0nf1; 15 Yet controversies are not determinate things which continue on an even keel to the end. They may take a number of courses, and the outcome may range from amicable resolution to bitter name calling. As determined by Coleman, the five most impor— tant elements in the "way of looking at" a controversy are as follows: 1. Individuals are seen as an aggregate of attach- ments of various kinds of strengths: attachments to persons, to groups, to beliefs or ideologies, to status, to power, etc. 2. When an incident with a potential for creating controversy occurs in the community, then certain indi- viduals, values, and interests are immediately aligned on either side because of their direct involvement in the incident. 3. Individuals attempt to maximize their action- taking potential, that is, the consistency of their directives to action in daily affairs. 4. The group is consistent or inconsistent relative to the controversy and depending upon the consistency between different members' "attachments." 5. Groups and organizations as well as individuals attempt to maximize directives for action in those situations relevant to their areas of functioning. 6. The social structure of the community is simply the configuration of attachments of individuals to one another and to groups, and the resulting interlocking of groups. Since Coleman's study of community conflict, educators have experienced a proliferation of school-community tensions. In the state of Massachusetts Gross found 71 percent of the superintendents pressured on two sides by groups making demands incompatible with one another.2 Recently, conflict has been observed over a variety of events such as community lIbid., pp. 25-26. 2Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander McEachen, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), pp. 261-262. :catrol, studen‘ 1:1. Corwin c: There 1 teachers an Professions A revie flict is here t ties will cont: are coming to a and are express iealing with CC 2in school lee fitations of c ”Pris-Ire to 1 COser, Study to clan: 3.39 pertinent ‘ Our d 16 control, student unrest, segregation, finance, and curric- ulum. Corwin cited another area of conflict investigation. There is a consistent pattern of conflict between teachers and administrators over control of work. Professionalization is a militant process.1 A review of the literature suggests that social con- flict is here to stay and that tensions of complex communi- ties will continue to grow. Presently, educational leaders are coming to an awareness of the inevitability of conflict and are expressing a willingness to seek viable methods of dealing with conflict situations. The examination by commu- nity school leaders of the functional and dysfunctional mani- festations of community unrest should more adequately contribute to its control and management. Coser, a contemporary interpreter of Simmel, in a study to clarify and to consolidate conceptual schemes which are pertinent to data of social conflict, concluded: Our discussion of the distinction between types of conflict, and between types of social structures, leads us to conclude that conflict tends to be dysfunctional for a social structure in which there is no or insuffi- cient toleration and institutionalization of conflibt. The intensity of a conflict which threatens to "tear apart," which attacks the consensual basis of a social system, is related to the rigidity of the structure. What threatens the equilibrium of such a structure is not conflict as such, but the rigidity itself which permits hostilities to accumulate and to be channeled along one major line of cleavage once they break out in conflict.2 1Ronald G. Corwin, "Professional Persons in Public Organizations," Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. I (August, 1965), p. 15. 2Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 196”), p. 157. \ Minar, :e. .tary school s.:i".ar st at 8:25 re; rted: Ihe pr: data report flict level conflict-tr 2 it would a; :eehanisrns public Ian :35. occupa‘ of skills iivision o thEly pie} numbers of Others 9X9 pI‘Oble'js 8 Sta anding C‘ q Closur e on CVTL unitie Rd people low-con; 11 COTf1Jr~i+ 1° skills and a“ also an grant t‘“ deoisi l7 Minar, in his study of forty-eight suburban ele- mentary school districts in Cook County, Illinois, made a similar statement which relates to school system politics. He reported: The proposition that seems best supported by the data reported in this article is that status and con- flict level are linked by the differential presence of conflict-management skills. Some political communities, it would appear, are better able than others to develop mechanisms for conflict resolution or control at the sub- public level. These are communities in which educational and occupational characteristics are such that resources of skills in communication, negotiation, persuasion, division of labor, and delegation of function are rela- tively plentiful. They are communities with larger numbers of people who are used to exercising or seeing others exercise the kinds of social control that get problems solved, people educated in the use and under- standing of verbal symbols, people accustomed to seeking closure on problems through the use of such tools. Communities with higher levels of better-educated peOple and people in professional-managerial occupations are low-conflict communities, we prOpose, because they are communities with larger supplies of conflict-management skills and the attitudes that go along with them. They are also . . . communities that place more reliance on and grant more latitude to hired technical expertise in the decision-making process.1 According to Gamson, the absence of rancorous conflict is no necessary sign of an "ideal community." In his study of eighteen communities he concluded: Many of the conventional communities are rather dull and stagnant, while some of the rancorous ones are among the most vital. Some of the conventional towns not only have an absence of rancorous conflict but a general absence of change; the rancorous towns have the strains 1David W. Minar, "The Community Basis of Conflict in School System Politics," American Sociological Review, XXXI (December, 1966), pp. 827-828. zl-u that accorr. advantage Both 8 elements of co "the negative the role in t destruction t? was less enp‘ng that conflict the following Far certain element 1 8min lif L). to, LaWne "filing with "Gilded her a :C‘F‘flict: Construgt l PElatiOnE ° C the othEI 18 that accompany change but some of them also have the advantage of stimulation and growth.1 Both Simmel and Coser supported the more favorable elements of conflict relationships. According to Simmel, "the negative and dualistic elements play an entirely posi- tive role in this more comprehensive picture, despite the destruction they may work on a particular occasion."2 Coser was less emphatic than Simmel and more willing to acknowledge that conflict might be negative and dysfunctional. He had the following to say: Far from being necessarily dysfunctional, a certain degree of conflict is an essential element in group formation and persistence of group life. Lawner, in an examination of two hundred studies dealing with social conflict issues between 1919 and 1953, divided her analysis into constructive and destructive conflict: Constructive- 1. People gain experience in democratic human relations. 2. Opposing groups will explore the viewpoint of the other end. 3. People share in problem solving attitudes. A. Not destructive to the opponent. 5. The necessary, wholesome, and desirable contro- versy of opinion. 6. Positive rather than negative attempts to influence the thought of others. 1William A. Gamson, "Rancorous-Conflict in Community Politics," American Sociological Review, Vol. 31 (February, 1966), p. 81. 2 Simmel, op. cit., p. 17. BCoser, op. cit., p. 31. 7, The increased 1 involved if 8. Wil 15A annn+1 76 .::S v. ‘VV‘ azahts have bee » 1 1 Eaton and .nt £3.93“; persons CT As cont reGille- brea CPPCSltion , “’h‘l 1““ usans 4 ‘ . I, 7" O‘a‘;{ a ‘ Q'v U .ient 1 .“"'58ti~:t '~~‘ 6* «on 1 .“':-13‘4. ’:'- “Shed D ‘14:) O 3 p. 20 l9 7. The conflict is educational, in that it leads to increased knowledge and understanding of the facts involved_in the controversial issue. 8. Will lead to improved aspects of community life. Destructive— l. Verbal or physical attempts to subvert opponent. 2. Curtail opponent's access to information, his freedom of thought, and freedom of action. 3. Lack of democratic processes because both sides are not permitted equal time. A. It is non-educational because it breeds confu— sions and distrust. l 5. It intensifies existing undesirable conditions. Contrary to the belief of the Simmelian school, doubts have been raised regarding the nature of group inte- gration and interaction through participation in conflict. When persons or groups discover that their values are not accepted by the community as a whole, the result may be devastating. Coleman had the following to say: As controversy develops associations flourish within each group, but wither between persons on opposing sides. People break off long-standing relationships, stop speaking to former friends who have been drawn to the opposition, but proliferate their associations with fellow- partisans . . . . Polarization is perhaps less pronounced in short-term conflicts, and in those in which the issues cut across existing organizational ties and informal relations. But in all conflicts, it tends to alter the social geography of the community to separate it into clusters, breaking apart along the line of least attachment.2 Manifold, in a study to determine measures to help prevent the occurrence of criticism or attacks designed to harm public education, reported the following: thoda L. Lawner, "Social Conflict as a Subject of Investigation in American Research from 1919 to 1953" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, New York University, 1956), p. 20. 2Coleman, op. cit., pp. 11-12.»- u ‘ ho. 393‘ .._) ' w + r EJneSVJ' ”I" the C a 0“ k 4 "I n' Ta; J. order to i: "5-‘6 carried c 'i'h‘ ‘e a U pea“ been E "511‘ local h: A h 5 774‘! A w: 1 4 min, ‘*J..; Q "V‘ S H" a m or ~. buxgn « :‘F ‘1'» yvx. Ives 20 Unfortunately, not all criticism is good or even healthy. It often assumes the form of definite dis- honesty. It becomes dishonest because the real reasons for the criticism represent vested interests. Such critics . . . make free use of subterfuge.l Nussel, in a study to understand the resultant atti- tudes of people who become involved in school-community conflict, raised the following questions in an attempt to ascertain whether or not the experience had been beneficial to them: 1. Can both parties be satisfied with the results of a conflict although the process implicitly contains the hope of destroying the opposition? 2. Is it possible for school officials to quell the incompatible demands of dissident parent groups in such a way that the malcontents can withdraw from the conflict that they had been recalcitrant? [sic] 3. Is it possible for defeated dissident groups to divest themselves of their residual bitterness in defeat and support their schools without further bias?2 In order to investigate these questions, in-depth interviews were carried out with fourteen leaders of metropolitan groups who had been active in five separate conflict situations with their local boards of education. Nussel estimated these leaders to have the support of about two thousand families. It was the plan of the study to discover how the leaders per- ceived the situation, not only for themselves, but how the conflict actively affected the cohesiveness of their respective 1William Dean Manifold, "A Consideration of Those Criticisms or Attacks Designed to Harm Public Education and Some Suggested Measures to Help Prevent Their Occurrence in Maryland" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Maryland, 195”), p. 2A9. 2Edward J. Nussel, "Conflict Theory and School- Community Relations," Occasional Papers, Vol. 1, No. 18 (1969), pp- 8-9. 4 zroaps. A t0~ :‘erents was 6 iert replies. fiassel found < :‘acive to imp: :1 seeing othe l 1 fifiay‘q J snowing to 1 b I9 ““r‘ " :'- «mte C11 1. «Prove rap V . a... a 3...e:ents: and Cont“ 0 Co" WI“. 0 'u 21 groups. A total of nineteen negative and eleven positive elements was extracted from the interviews in terms of respon- dent replies. In the school community conflicts studied, Nussel found conflicts did not result in interactions con- ducive to improved rapport between the disputants. Further- more, conflict failed to improve cohesiveness. In fact, Nussel reported one interviewee said she "got sick and tired of seeing other people under conditions of stress."1 According to Nussel, conflict situations seemed more likely to promote cleavages between neighborhood groups than to improve rapport. He concluded his study with the following statements: The findings of this study indicate that conflict between the schools and their communities should be avoided because of the dominance of dysfunctional elements.2 Conflict must be accepted in our modern society. Parsons calls it "endemic" as it exists similar to dis- eases. It is with us so we must learn to live with it and control it. The schools would seem to be better off without it but since it is impossible to annihilate, the schools, too, must learn to live with and control conflict processes. Citizens must always have the right to eXpress opinions and offer recommendations for cor- rective action by the administration. When such con— ditions present themselves, school authorities need to have avenues of approach to implement in order that the dysfunctional elements are kept from predominating. If and when this happens, school-community conflict might be regarded as an aid to educational progress. 1Ibid., p. 12. 21bid., p. 13. 31b1d., pp. 13—1u. The re1 seemed to indi: school leauer ‘ :orale. Since Inf! n+- an+ + Y" Iapc. v v v L. it. order to id :fconnunity u :easures, as u assessing the Once y place a DUI ins the c; ated , can begin liaent he and the I‘ trator Ca is the ri to try f: While Mr importang CQnsi relatiOne 22 The review Of literature related to community conflict seemed to indicate tO the writer the need for the community school leader to assess carefully parent attitudes and teacher morale. Since community unrest appears inevitable, it is important to measure the attitudes Of relevant school publics in order to identify and control the dysfunctional elements Of community unrest. Parent attitude and teacher morale “measures, as used in the present study, afford one means for assessing the extent and nature Of school-community unrest. the the Parent Attitudes Once we begin to think about it, the values Of plumbing community opinion become obvious. In the first place, public-Opinion polls give us information concern- ing the climate in which the schools are being Oper- ated . . . . The second value is that once the administrator knows the opinions Of his community, he can begin to communicate with the community in an intel- ligent manner . . . . With a knowledge Of the community and the results Of communicating with it, the adminis- trator can plan for action. He knows whether or not it is the right time to start a new program in reading or to try for a favorable vote on a bond issue. While Griffiths in the above statement pointed out importance Of using public opinion surveys, Charters had following to say: Considering the emphasis placed on the assessment Of public Opinion in the philosophy Of school—community relations, it is surprising that so little research has been conducted on matters Of methodology or so little sophistication has been imported from the social sciences. While the techniques Of population sampling seem to be familiar to public relations researchers, the 1Daniel E. Griffiths, Human Relations in School Administration (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955), Do 292- (n ~~r"“"n‘ “mead. “V \I ahl'lfil-g’ 1 Inc... v.) "Ii-9‘ F} o “u;‘¥ Dqu Jrvvanbonl ‘ ‘ ou'vhcb i den " *6 JUAce AS'JFV‘ A ‘hb-bl0v>u A.“ " “e 911.138: new“ { u“" Jun "4‘13 no- 3“ ‘ 3‘ ‘.a.. 'et: ['1 L). /‘ t (1() ‘ «tfi‘ HAL; ‘ 2’”... ~ . I .‘v Q”.- V "‘VW for 23 methodological developments in Opinion and attitude measurement for the most part are not. Some substantial efforts, however, have been made tO construct questionnaire instruments which have general applic- ability in measuring what people want from their schools and what they think they are getting. In 19A8 Hand designed inventories for pupils, parents, and teachers to measure the extent to which the three groups agreed as to "what ought to be done" regarding the school program.2 Ross, in 1958, designed instruments tO test the level Of public understanding of education.3 In 1958 Kerlinger looked at "progressive— traditional attitudes" of the community toward education.“ Downey, in 1960, was concerned with assessing public views on various "tasks Of public education."5 Other instruments have been developed with the spe- cific intent Of generating citizen interest in the school program. Yardsticks for Public Schools, developed by the National School Board Association, is an instrument designed 1W. W. Charters, "Public Relations," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel (London: The Macmillan Company, 1919), p. 1031. 2Harold Hand, What People Think about Their Schools (New York: World BOOk Company, 19MB), p. 6. 3Donald Ross (edQL Administration for Adaptability (New York: Columbia University Press, 195871 “Fred Kerlinger, "Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Factors Of Educational Attitudes," Journal Of Social Psychology, VOl. A8 (1958), pp. 111-135. 5Lawrence Downey, The Task Of Public Education (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1960), p. 88. uéwi for enabling Cl is to provide 1 which measure 5 czncern on the :: rake Judge: of the school, 1.; buildings : and administra' 3.“ a school or if combined ar- The Na an instrument 2A for enabling citizens to evaluate their schools. The purpose is to provide for the response Of relevant publics tO factors which measure school quality, and to encourage interest and concern on the part Of these publics. Participants are asked tomake Judgments regarding the following areas: (1) goals Of the school, (2) school program, (3) teachers and teaching, (A) buildings and equipment, (5) finances, (6) organization and administration, and (7) citizens' action. An assessment Of a school or total school district is made from the results of combined areas.1 The National Education Association has also designed an instrument tO stimulate interest in the school. The How Good Are Your Schools instrument asks relevant publics to evaluate several parts Of the school program: (1) the school program, (2) the elementary school program, (3) the Junior high school program, (A) the senior high school program, (5) adult education, (6) competency and qualification Of teachers, (7) materials for instruction, (8) buildings and equipment, (9) administration, (10) adequacy Of finance, (11) board Of education, and (12) citizen interest.2 I It is important tO discuss Bullock's School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument, as the "Your Schools" section Of the instrument was selected 1National School Board Association, Yardstick for Public Schools (Evanston, Illinois: The Association, 1959). 2National Education Association, How Good Are Your Schools? (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1958), pp. 1-31. use 0" .‘,.:1” sh ‘.ové‘ V “ .‘ A J.‘ I!!! a u?“.', ",1 "ans: 3“. V U. "*0 nee-o tub 1":p" CIA ‘uJ:¢ U: :fihamwgr adivs..h as. l C r ‘ka‘y .00 Ush‘v‘.‘ :‘il'f‘fi.’ bv:.Vu.‘. J DGEAA‘: 0‘ AEI'”‘ir 1' # V'Q.“‘“& I ‘\ U‘J" O‘na U C (D (f" r* 0 D: (D () I: U (f‘ f r: a) 25 for use in the present study to assess parent attitudes about their schools. The staff of the School-Community Development Study, an agency cooperatively supported by the Ohio State University and the Kellogg Foundation, was acutely aware of the need for leaders to be cognizant of the change in thought, understandings, and values which are either antecedent to or accompany the institutional changes which the people support. In their study of administrative behavior in numerous Ohio schools, they found school administrators knew that the atti- tudes of the people Of the communities in which they worked made a significant difference in the decisions made about school affairs. However, frustration and anxiety arose among community school leaders because they had no effective means for determining community attitudes. Therefore, Bullock was asked to develop a measure of community attitudes as a means of providing school leaders with an instrument to assist them in analyzing what factors may lie behind community action. Bullock, in assessing the validity of measuring com- munity attitudes, had the following to say: Few people in a school-community are able to evaluate the manifold aspects of an educational institution objectively and summarize their judgments in a single estimate of merit. School patrons and community members do, however, become aware of, and render judgments about, certain specific aspects Of the school: its personnel, its policies and its program. These judgments may be verbalized as statements Of opinion similar to the fol- lowing: "TOO much foolishness is taught in our schools," "There should be more strict discipline in our schools," "Our schools are doing a good job in health education." Opinions such as the first two can be assumed to er‘ fl inokv : Ina-0w- . .1 U Aflo- 3. ..,.~1 firn.“ Jayson. a O Q. Q . an f5 dd-‘Uv s v .i-‘ngnvy .‘oM‘OQ‘. J :aen test ”1'76 "“h‘. r c-ouv .g‘ ‘ nVJ 1“ re “I ‘u -“.h" :v:.'e of “a -\":n¢- “F‘va 1 “23-H- “‘~. I v..-..“"i -: Q Q ‘u‘x‘WF ' fl 14cc“ 26 indicate aome degree of disapproval or favorable judgment. After pre-testing statements similar to the ones mentioned above for ambiguity and differentiating power, Bullock combined forty statements of opinion to form the pre— liminary school approval-disapproval scale. ,Each item was 'theh tested against a general total score criterion to deter- mine-which would combine to form a general school approval- rejection scale. Subsequently, each item was further tested against each of six subgroups of items relating to different aspects of the school program, for the purpose of identifying items which would combine in usable specific subscales. While the details of data analysis will be presented in Chapter III, it must be noted here that the data were used in selecting and regrouping items to form one general school-approval scale of twenty items, and five subscales relating to specific aspects Of the school: (1) courses, discipline, and work habits; (2) personal guidance and social skills; (3) school- community interaction; (A) school board; and (5) building adequacy and maintenance.2 The above factors were found to correlate highly with parent attitudes regarding general approval or disapproval of the school program, and five specific aspects of the school program. Therefore, the "Your Schools" section of the 1Robert P. Bullock, School—Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University-C.P.E.A. in Ohio, 1959), p. 11. 21bid., p. 21. ‘ I; \4" yvab! vnfl‘ «gm U50 9 Fe: I .V H, u '-‘I ID‘1 ‘9 v: q a. h- ‘b 27 School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Adminis— trators was developed. While there have been.few studies specifically con- cerned with parent approval-disapproval attitudes regarding the schools, the following statements represent summary con— clusions of some of the related studies regarding parent attitudes in general: 1. Parent attitudes do not seem to be influenced by school organization. Rather, the influence seems to stem frOm parent perceptions Of what is actually happening to children.1 2. Significantly more teachers than parents approve of constructive disciplinary measures; the parent con- féfence as a reporting device; and isolation as a form of discipline. Significantly more parents than teachers favor parent conferences for behavior problems; lecturing and scolding; tighter disciplinary actions; and drill as a teaching method.2 3. Parents appear to be generally satisfied with their schools and their teaching methods. Ninety-two percent answer yg§_to the question, "Are you in general agreement with what you think your school is trying to do?" and eighty-six percent answer 122 to the question, "DO you agree with most Of the teaching methods being used?" However, fifty-five percent answer yes to the question, "DO you think your school should spend more time in teaching the fundamental subjects?"3 lRoderick B. Groshong, "An Exploratory Study Of Factors Contributing to Parent Attitude in a Graded and an Ungraded Elementary School" (unpublished Doctor's disserta— tion, University of Oregon, 1967). 2Dorothy L. Bladt, "A Comparison of the Attitudes of Parents and Elementary Teachers toward Elementary School Problems" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1968). 3Lois R. Mathis, "An Investigation of Selected Fac- tors Affecting Communication Between Teachers and Parents of Elementary Pupils" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1965). 28 A. The majority of parents rate the over-all quality and courses of study as excellent or good, the amount Of school work required of students as reasonable and two- thirds of the parents indicate dissatisfaction with the amount and quality of discipline.1 5. Citizens view a broad academic program supple- mented with varied activities conducted En adequate physical surroundings as most important. 6. Teachers "doing a good job" using a structured parent—teacher conference are shown in some instances to change parental attitudes toward the school to a sig- nificant degree.3 7. Parent contacts with school personnel are apparently not effective in changing the attitudes of parents, yet such contacts are effectfive in increasing parent participation and cooperation. 8. Attitudes toward the public schools are a func- tion Of an individual's sociO-economic position; citizens who relate themselves positively to their community, and participate in community and school affairs, will express favorable attitudes toward the schools.5 1Robert E. McNelis, "An Investigation of Parents' Opinions, Attitudes and Knowledge of Selected Aspects of the Public Schools of St. Mary's County, Maryland" (unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation, The George Washington University, 1968). 2Charles A. Parker, "An Analysis of Public Attitudes Toward Education in Selected Districts of Associated Public School Systems" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University, 196“). 3Robert T. Grant, "The Effectiveness of Structured Parent-Teacher Conferences on Parental Attitudes Toward Schools" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1963). “Herbert J. Schiff, "The Effects of Personal Con- tactual Relationships on Parents' Attitudes Toward and Par— ticipation in Local School Affairs" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, 1963). 5William D. Knill, "An Analysis of Attitudes Toward the Public Schools" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Oregon, 1960). '1‘. and V‘ '7 i (l) (I! '.v I1. h...' '0“. ‘5- v ”A. '0 A0 \u h c“ .5». 1. 29 A review Of the literature revealed that the commu- nity has become increasingly important to the school adminis- trator as he has come to realize the school is not something outside of nor apart from the community. Furthermore, recent events have indicated that the quality of relationship between an educational institution and its constituents is determined in large measure by the extent of effective interaction achieved between the two. An effort to understand the rela— tionships which exist between the school and community or to determine the channels of interaction is not simple, due to the many informal structures present in the total social sys- tem. Although P.T.A.'s or other school-community groups exist, there is no assurance of effective communication taking place between the various groups involved. While the stable commu- nity may have patterns of life well established and roles Of groups well defined, a community which may be undergoing rapid transition may experience conditions of open conflict, neces- sitating an all-out effort to bring about community inter- action and understanding. It is therefore important for the community school leader to assess the external environment of the community school, particularly the attitudes of parent members of the community. One means Of doing this is the public opinion poll. .Morale A review of the literature revealed that a real interest in morale commenced about the turn Of the century. 5‘) (n v“ CI) 'V VI. .A. “‘U. :7" Ui.| 'AI .w‘ Q.“ (1) rs» I.. 30 The beginning of systematic inquiry into the subject of morale began with World War I or shortly thereafter. Findings discovered at this time have since become funda- mental in personnel management. . . . By the fall of 1919 there appeared in this country and abroad no fewer than thirteen books on the subject Of morale.l Much of the first morale information was related to the pressures of World War I and the military. The military aspects Of health, pugnacity, adventure, gregariousness, work, cooperation, and justice as they related to morale were studied by Hocking,2 Goddard,3 and Munson.Ll It was not long before morale studies had an impact on industrialists and businessmen, and after World War II morale studies were applied tO education. In 1933 Mayo explored the relation of morale to fatigue, boredom, and social maladjustment.5 A study which gained world-wide notice was one conducted at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company; it was a research project aimed at determin- ing the effect Of varying illumination upon production. In this study no matter what was done relative to the increase or decrease Of illumination, the rate Of production showed 1John H. Suehr, "A Study of Morale in Education" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Colorado, 1961). 2William E. Hocking, Morale and Its Enemies (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1918). 3Harold c. Goddard, Morale (New York: J. H. Doran Company, 1918). “Edward L. Munson, The Management Of Man (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1921). 5Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization (New York: Macmillan Company, 1933). 1 v 4 x ‘un a: 3. . 31 consistent and general increase. According to Etzioni: Increased production was the result of the changed social situation Of the workers, modifications in their level of psychological satisfaction, and new patterns of social interaction, brought about by putting them into the experiment room and the special attention involved. The discovery of the significance of "social factors" was to become the major finding of the Hawthorne studies. Etzioni has noted the following as major conclusions of the Hawthorne experiments: 1. The level of production is set by social norms. 2. Non-economic rewards and sanctions significantly affect the behavior of the workers and largely limit the effect of economic incentive plans, and 3. Often workers do not act or react as individuals but as members Of groups.2 The Hawthorne studies were summarized in Roethlisberger and Dickson's book, Management and the Worker. The essence Of their comments, and the foundation of the human relations movement in management, was the description of the functions Of an organization as being twofold: "producing a product and . . . creating and distributing satisfactions among the individual members of the organizations."3 Upon the completion of this twelve-year project, which contributed a new dimension to employee morale, Roethlisberger wrote the following: lAmitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 33. 2 3F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press, 1939), D- 552- Ibid., pp. 3u—35. AH! QM th‘ 32 It is our thesis that what physical health is to a physical organism, morale is to a cooperative system. Lack Of morale, like lack of health, cannot Often be reduced to some one simple cause. Just as problems relating to health require a simple and useful way of thinking about the physical organism as a physical- chemical system, so an understanding of problems relat- ing to morale require a simple and useful way Of thinking about human beings in their association with one another as a social system.1 Sears, Roebuck and Company, building upon the Hawthorne studies, conducted a study among its 12,000 employ- ees to determine the general level Of morale. According to Worthy, the most important conclusion reached in this study was that there was no simple explanation for any given state of employee morale. Rather, the study showed the existence of highly complex interdependent factors which, when combined, produce a particular level of employee satisfaction or dis- satisfaction.2 Factors relating to financial compensation and time worked were shown to be low on the list of factors influencing employee attitudes. The study also provided evi— dence that pleasant surroundings and good equipment do not by themselves contribute to high morale, while the absence of such factors can be a source Of difficulty. The publication of The Motivation to Work, in 1959, presented the field Of industrial psychology with a new 1F. J. Roethlisberger, Management and Morale (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 19A1), p. 192. 2J. C. Worthy, "Factors Influencing Employee Morale," Harvard Business Review, XXVIII (January, 1950), pp. 65-67. 33 approach for looking at job attitudes and morale.1 It was acclaimed by Dunnette and Kirchner as ". . . an important step forward in our efforts to understand human motiva- tion . . . ."2 Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman did an exten- sive review of literature on job attitudes spread over a period of fifty years. An important finding emerged from their review: . . . that there was a difference in primacy of factors, depending upon whether the investigator was looking for things the worker liked about his job or things he disliked.3 The study reported in The Motivation to Work was designed to test the implication that certain factors were satisfying, while other factors were dissatisfying. Two hundred engineers and accountants, representing a cross- section of Pittsburgh industry, were interviewed. From the interviews emerged a clear picture of two distinct sets of factors which had their basis in the content analysis Of cate- gories of "thought units" resulting from the interviews. One set of factors related to the actual doing of the job or intrinsic components of the job. The other set Of factors related to the environmental setting of the job or extrinsic 1F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.; New York: John Wiley and Sons, 19597. 2M. Dunnette and W. Kirchner, Psychology Applied to Industry (New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1965), p. 1A8. 3F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, R. Peterson, and D. E. Capwell, Job Attitudes: Review of Reggarch and Opinion (Pittsburgh: Psychological services of Pittsburgh, 1957). 3A aspects of the job. The intrinsic factors (achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement) were found to contribute to periods Of satisfaction and were related to getting the job done, feelings of psychological growth, and positive feelings about the job. They were labeled "motivators." The extrinsic factors (company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working conditions, and salary) were found to contribute to periods of dissatisfaction and were related to poor job atti- tudes. They were labeled "hygiene factors," a concept anal- ogous to the medical use in which health hazards are removed from the environment to prevent diseases, as Opposed to curing them.l Subsequent to the publication of these find- ings, the authors were criticized for generalizing the results beyond the narrow range of jobs investigated. While criticism at the time may have been valid, due to the limited number of samples treated, many replications using a wide variety Of populations have since been done, making it one Of the most widely replicated studies in the field.2 From the findings of Herzberg and others emerged the motivation-hygiene theory, which holds that factors which account for job satisfaction and factors which account for job dissatisfaction are not arranged along the same conceptual lHerzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, Op. cit. 2D. A. Whitsett and E. K. Winslow, "An Analysis of Studies Critical of the Motivator—Hygiene Theory," Personnel Psychology, XX (Winter, 1967), p. 393. 35 continuum but are mutually exclusive. Therefore, certain job factors which produce satisfaction when present do not produce dissatisfaction when absent. Similarly, the elimina- tion of dissatisfiers does not result in positive motivation and high morale. Herzberg identified two levels of needs, hygienic needs and motivator needs, with the former focusing on dissatisfaction factors and the latter focusing on satis- faction factors. Hygiene factors Operate on a continuum running from dissatisfaction to no dissatisfaction, and moti- vator factors Operate on a continuum from no satisfaction to satisfaction. Whitsett and Winslow, reporting in 1967 on their analysis of many studies critical Of the motivation-hygiene theory, had the following to say: It would appear, because of the numerous misinter- pretations of the M-H theory, the general weaknesses in methods and the frequent misinterpretations of results, that, taken as a group, the studies reviewed Offer little empirical evidence for doubting the validity of the theory. We conclude that the theory has clearly retained its utility and viability.1 Of particular importance to education was Sergiovanni's test of the Herzberg hypothesis with teachers, which he con- cluded ". . . was most supportive of the motivation-hygiene theory."2 Using the sixteen Herzberg factors, eight showed significant differences for teachers. The contributors to lWhitsett and Winslow, Op. cit., p. 410. 2Thomas J. Sergiovanni, "New Evidence on Teacher Morale: A Proposal for Staff Differentiation," The North Central Association Quarterly, XLII (Winter, 1968), pp. 259- 266. 36 job satisfaction were achievement, recognition, and respon— sibility. Such needs, if not met or if absent, did not cause teacher job dissatisfaction. The contributors to job dissatisfaction were interpersonal relations (students), interpersonal relations (peers), supervision (technical), school policy and administration, and personal life. Such factors, if met or if present, did not cause job satisfac- tion, but if not met or not present were sources Of consid— erable job dissatisfaction for teachers. Therefore, Sergiovanni's study provided support for the hypothesis that satisfiers and dissatisfiers tend to be mutually exclusive. Furthermore, factors listed above as satisfiers, which accounted for high attitudes of teachers were found to relate to the work itself, and factors, listed above as dissatis- fiers, which accounted for low attitudes Of teachers were found to relate to the conditions Of the environment of work.1 McGreal, in a study of organizational variables affecting teacher satisfaction, concluded as follows: Even though the results of this study did not substantiate the applicability Of the Herzberg theory to a teacher pOpulation, enough evidence was presented to support the idea that the classifying of factors causing satisfaction and dissatisfaction into motivator factors and hygienic factors provides a theoretical framework from which the relationships between educa- tional organizations and the teachers making up those 1F. D. Carver and T. J. Sergiovanni, Organizations .and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools (New York: McGraw— —¥ Hill Book Company, 1969), pp. 249-260. 37 organizations can be viewed in a significantly more sophisticated manner.l According to Maslow the individual is activated by the following needs: 1. The need to define for himself the amount of activity or passivity (autonomy); 2. The need to feel that he has the respect of his fellow workers (recognition); 3. The need to express feelings of interdependence with others in the organization (affiliation); A. The need to feel respect; and 5. The need to Obtain from his job a degree of creativity (self-actualization).2 The above needs comprised the theoretical substance for Maslow's theory Of motivation and are placed within a conceptual hierarchy. Maslow ordered his "needs levels" according to a prepotency of human needs. Physiological needs and security needs are the lower level needs; they may be considered closely related to the need for food and pro- tection. The basic assumption of Maslow's theory is that man is a wanting animal; as soon as one need is satisfied, another takes its place. The individual's needs move in successive order from the basic to higher level needs. The higher level needs include affection, independence, self- esteem, peer approval, prestige, and self—actualization. The lower order needs Of Maslow's hierarchy, physiological and security needs, are similar to Herzberg's hygienic needs. 1Thomas L. McGreal, "An Investigation Of Organiza- tional Variables Affecting Teacher Satisfaction and Dis- satisfaction" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968). 2A. H. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review, L (19u3), p. 370. 38 The higher order needs are similar to Herzberg's motivation needs. McGregor, drawing on Maslow's premises, has argued that many of management's efforts to motivate workers are lost because most efforts to satisfy needs have been directed toward the lower order, more tangible economic needs. The lower level needs have been largely satisfied in modern soci- ety and therefore are no longer useful in motivating behavior. McGregor has further maintained that higher level needs are the motivating factors of most industrial and business employees.1 Porter used a modified Maslow-type categorization of needs in investigating perceived deficiencies in fulfillment and perceived importance of various needs. The five areas of needs studied from lowest order (most basic or prepotent) to highest order (least basic or prepotent) were security, social esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization needs. He measured the difference between how much of a particular need an individual had met in his work and how much he thinks he needs. The difference between actual and desired need fulfillment, he called a perceived need deficiency. The larger the discrepancy, the greater the need deficiency, and vice versa. Furthermore, the larger the discrepancy, the more dissatisfied the respondent. The results of Porter's initial study showed that level of position was related to the amount of perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment, lDouglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960). 39 with the lowest levels indicating larger deficiencies than the levels above them.1 Trusty and Sergiovanni modified Porter's instrument and used it to measure perceived need deficiencies of teach- ers in suburban Rochester, New York. Their interest was in differences in perceived need deficiencies Of teachers when grouped by age, years of experience, sex, and professional roles. They found teaching as an occupation appeared to have much potential for providing need fulfillment for women. The largest deficiencies appeared for junior-senior high school teachers, while elementary school teachers and admin— istrators, by comparison, reported smaller need deficiencies. The professional role variable, however, may have been con- founded by age and sex variables. Regarding years of exper- ience, the largest deficiencies were reported for those with five to twelve years of experience.2 A review of the literature has revealed that efforts to date have focused on aspects of the reward structure which appeal to the hygienic needs of man. Community school lead- ers have been concerned about salaries, benefits, and working conditions. They have emphasized policies and regulations, and have been concerned about the quality of interpersonal lLyman W. Porter, "A Study of Perceived Needs Satis- faction in Bottom and Middle Management Jobs," Journal Of Applied Psychology, XLV (February, 1961), pp. 1-10. 2F. Trusty and T. Sergiovanni, "Perceived Need Deficiencies Of Teachers and Administrators: A Proposal for Restructuring Teacher Roles," Educational Administration Quarterly, II (Autumn, 1966), pp. 1684181. MO relations that exist in schools, the quality of supervision, and the group life Of teachers. Yet, from the evidence of the studies reviewed, such factors apparently have little potential to provide for job satisfaction and for higher level needs fulfillment. Sergiovanni said the following: . . The present emphasis on "teacher-centered" behavior . . . is an important prescription for effective administrative behavior. The "teacher- centered" approach, however, is limited in that it tends to concentrate on the elimination of dissatis- faction factors and thus does not contribute directly to teacher job satisfaction.1 Redefer explained that high morale exists: . . . to the degree that teachers freely and con- sciously released and focused what skills, knowledge, and abilities they possessed to achieve known and accepted educational Objectives which they have actively participated in formulating.2 This Observation resulted from Redefer's synopsis of group research, based on twenty doctoral dissertations and other studies, completed by fifty graduate students over a period of seven years. The study of organizational climate has developed in the past ten years as a method for assessing morale. As a movement it has been closely related to a desire to view morale as a multifaceted term encompassing not only the atti- tudes of individuals but their impact upon other individuals within the organization, as well as the organization itself. In the models of organizational climate, morale has been lCarver and Sergiovanni, Op. cit., p. 258. 2Frederick L. Redefer, "Studies of Teacher Morale," School and Society, XCII (February 22, 196“), pp. 63-6“. Al retained as a concept but subsumed under a larger framework which simultaneously studies the individual and the organi- zation in which he is interacting. Discussions of organi- zational climate have centered on the need of organizations to maintain organizational health and effectiveness, with the primary focus being the relationships between maximizing the goals of the organization while satisfying the needs of individuals. Furthermore, the concept of organizational climate has been based on the belief that emphasis on the internal relationships of complex organizations must precede broader analyses of external relationships. Lewin had the following to say thirty-four years ago: Every scientific psychology must take into account whole situations, i.e., the state of both person and environment. This implies that it is necessary to find methods Of representing person and environment in common terms as part of one situation . . . in other words our concepts have to represent the interrelationship of conditions.1 An organizational climate study which has attracted much interest and widespread application in recent years is one conducted by Halpin and Croft. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) was developed as a result Of an exploratory study, funded by a grant from the United States Office of Education, to explore the organizational climate of schools through teacher attitudes about the school's environ- ment. Halpin provided the rationale for the study as follows: 1George G. Stern, People in Context (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970), p. 5, Citing Kurt Lewin, Principles of Topological Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936), pp. 12-13. A2 Anyone who visits more than a few schools notes quickly how schools differ from each other in their "feel" . . . each appears to have a personality of its own. It is this "personality" that we describe as the "organizational climate" of the school. Analo- gously, personality is to the individual what "organi- zational climate" is to the organization. The OCDQ was developed by Halpin and Croft and con- tained sixty-four items, by means of which a teacher could describe how he perceived the school. The instrument was administered to 1,151 teachers in seventy—one elementary schools in six sections of the country. Using the factor analysis method, the following sub-factors were developed: Characteristics of the group (teachers)- 1. Disengagement--refers to teachers' tendency to be "not with it." 2. Hindrance--refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties. 3. Esprit--refers to morale. This factor measures the extent to which the teachers feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment in their job. A. Intimacy--refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. Characteristics Of the leader (principal)- l. Aloofness--refers to behavior characterized as formal and impersonal. 2. Production emphasis-~refers to behavior char- acterized by close supervision Of the staff. 3. Thrust--refers to behavior characterized by principal's attempt to motivate the teachers. A. Consideration--refers to behavior characterized by inclination to treat the teachers humanely.2 By factor analysis of the teachers' attitudes on the above subtests, Halpin and Croft defined six school climate profiles: 1Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Administra- tion (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), p. 131. 2 Ibid., p. 151. A3 1. The Open Climate--depicts a situation in which the members enjoy extremely high morale; it is an energetic organization which gives its members satis- faction and provides for their social needs. 2. The Autonomous Climate--depicts a climate of freedom for leadership to emerge primarily from the group. 3. The Controlled Climate--depicts a climate marked by a press for achievement. A. The Familiar Climate-—depicts a climate that is conspicuously friendly but under control. 5. The Paternal Climate--depicts a climate marked by ineffective attempts of the principal to control teachers as well as to satisfy their social needs. 6. The Closed Climate--depicts a climate in which group members Obtain little satisfaction in respect tO either task-achievement or social needs.1 The ranking of the six school climate profiles was based pri- marily on the school's score on Esprit (refers to morale). Halpin had the following to say about the ranking: The ranking of the climates on Openness roughly par- allels the scores which the schools receive on Esprit, the best single indicator of morale. As we trace the loadings on Esprit through the six climates, we note that these loadings become increasingly smaller as we move from the more Open to the more Closed Climates. We therefore have chosen to regard Esprit as the key sub-test for describing a school's Organizational Climate. We infer that high Esprit reflects an "effec- tive" balance between task accomplishment and social- needs satisfaction.2 While Halpin and Croft chose to examine the inter- relationships of teachers and principals as reflected in "organizational climate," they recognized that other pos- sible factors, such as the environment in which the school 1Ibid., p. 180. 2Ibid., p. 170. AA happens to exist, would need to be examined at some other time.1 It is important that the study of Bentley and Rempel be reviewed here, as its theoretical approach Of factor analysis and findings provided a basis for the selection of the morale instrument to be used in the present study. Bentley and Rempel endeavored to identify the factors which were the ingredients in the concept "teacher morale." They had the following to say: Many investigators of teacher morale have treated total scores as though morale was unidimensional and yet one of the few points Of agreement among recent investi— gators of morale is that morale is multidimensional. Also, the practice Of measuring morale in terms of an a priori definition assigned by the investigator is inade- quate as a means Of identifying and measuring the various dimensions of morale. The multidimensional nature of morale suggests the use of factor analysis methods in identifying and describing such dimensions.2 A review Of the literature seemed to indicate that the most promising approach to the problem of measuring teacher morale involves the use of factor analysis methods. Such an approach involves placing what is believed to meas- ure morale into a correlational matrix, and then using approp- riate factorial methods to identify various factors or dimensions. Item factor loadings may be considered approxi- rnations of construct validity. While there have been a number 1Robert Owens, Organizational Behavior in Schools (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 176. 2Ralph R. Bentley and Averno M. Rempel, Manual for jgge Purdue Teacher Opinionaire (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1967), p. 3. “5 of studies of morale in industry and in the military using factor analysis, few such studies have been available in the teacher morale area. It is interesting to note the relationship between Halpin and Croft's studies and those of Bentley and Rempel. The factorial approach to analysis used in the Halpin and Croft studies identified certain factors in morale which appeared to be quite similar to the arbitrary categories established in the Purdue Teacher Morale Inventory developed in 1961.1 In light Of Halpin and Croft's findings and the generally promising results Obtained by using factor analy- ses in morale studies, Bentley and Rempel decided to factor analyze the present Purdue Teacher Opinionaire. While the details regarding the study will not be reviewed here, the factors found by Bentley and Rempel to be related to teacher morale are as follows: 1. Teacher rapport with principa1--How the teacher feels about the principal, his professional competency, his interest in teachers and their work, his ability to communicate, and his skill in human relations. 2. Satisfaction with teaching--How the teacher feels about students and the teaching process. 3. Rapport among teachers--How the teacher feels about his relationships with other teachers. Of-impor- tance is the teacher's Opinion concerning COOperation, preparation, ethics, influence, interests, and compe- tency of his peers. A. Teacher salary--How a teacher feels about salary and salary policies. 5. Teacher load--How a teacher feels about record keeping, clerical work, community demands on time, lAverno M. Rempel and Ralph R. Bentley, "The Measure— ment of Teacher Morale: A Factor Analysis Approach," Educa- tional and Psychologlcal Measurement, Vol. 2A (196A), p. 632. A6 extra-curricular activities, and keeping up to date professionally. 6. Curriculum issues--Teacher reactions concerning the adequacy Of the school program in meeting student needs. 7. Teacher status--Teacher feelings about prestige, security, and benefits afforded by teaching. 8. Community support Of education--How a teacher perceives community willingness to support education. 9. School facilities and services--How adequate are the facilities, supplies, and equipment. 10. Community pressures--Community expectations with respect to the teacher's personal freedom to discuss controversial issues in the classroom.1 The above factors were found by Bentley and Rempel to correlate highly with teacher morale. The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire, designed to measure teacher morale, was developed and has had wide usage by researchers. Important to the present study are the relationships between teacher morale and parent attitudes. Francis Chase, in.a study of factors for satisfaction in teaching involving 1,78A teachers of 200 systems in A3 states, provided insights into ways in which satisfaction with the system is related to personal characteristics of teachers, administrative poli- cies and practices, and community influences on morale. He had the following to say: The relationships of teachers to the community are important factors in determining enthusiasm for the sys- tem and the general state of teacher morale. It appears to be of the utmost importance to teachers to feel that the people of the community believe in and support edu- cation and value the work of the teacher. Recognition by the community of the professional status and compe;' tence of the teacher adds greatly to teachers' pride in their work. Community acceptance of teachers for their worth as persons is likewise important to teacher morale. Teachers respond appreciatively to friendliness on the 1Bentley and Rempel, Op. cit., p. A. “7 part of groups in the community; they resent any arbi- trary restrictions on their personal life or being put in a category which segarates them from normal social life of the community. Lolis, in a study of teacher morale and teacher atti- tudes toward parents, found a positive relationship between general teacher morale status and teacher attitudes toward parents. She noted that teachers who reported parents as cooperative had higher general morale scores than those who reported parents as not cooperative. Lolis also found higher parent attitude scores earned by teachers who said their administrators supported them in differences with parents, and by teachers who reported they lived in the community where they taught.2 Suehr, in his study Of teacher morale in Boulder, Colorado, Public Schools, found low morale teachers more Often teaching in schools where parent dissatisfaction was 3 greater. A review Of the literature supported the need to examine the environment of the organization and to assess teacher morale and its various component subfactors. The theoretical considerations of Herzberg and Maslow and the findings of several researchers that morale is lFrancis S. Chase, "Factors for Satisfaction in ffeaching," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIII (1951), p. 131. 2Kathleen Lolis, "Teacher Morale and Teacher Atti- tzudes Towards Parents" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, PQew York University, 1962). 3John H. Suehr, Op. cit. A8 multidimensional supported the selection of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire for use in the present study. The few studies which have related community attitudes to teacher morale seemed to indicate that community attitudes do affect the morale of teachers. Features of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire are designed to measure for the present study teachers' perceptions regarding community support and com- munity pressure. Summary In Chapter II studies relevant to the present investigation were reviewed. A section on community con- flict and school—community relations provided varying points of view regarding a definition of community conflict. Some writers viewed conflict as destructive, and others viewed it as a source of vital creative action. Coleman's monograph, which had drawn upon existing literature regarding community conflict, concurred with those who viewed conflict as poten- tially destructive for communities. Several of the studies reviewed concluded community unrest to be inevitable and supported the need for built-in mechanisms to control the dysfunctional features of conflict. The review of the lit- eerature supported the writer's belief that measures of parent attitudes and teacher morale may provide the community school 1.eader with a basis for assessing the nature and extent of <2ommunity unrest. In a separate section, attitude instruments were Ireviewed to provide background information regarding “9 assessment measures available to community school leaders. The Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educa- tional Administrators instrument was discussed in depth, since it was selected for use in the present study to assess parent attitudes about their schools. Bullock designed his instrument to provide community school leaders with a means of analyzing what factors may lie behind community action. Finally, summary conclusions of completed attitude studies were listed. The review of the literature on morale was included for the purpose Of substantiating the use of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire and to point out the multidimensional nature of morale. The history of morale studies was traced from its development by the military to its adaptation to the education setting. The theories of Herzberg and Maslow were described, as they provided theoretical considerations for the selection and use Of the morale instrument of the study. Also discussed were Halpin and Croft's studies on organizational climate and Bentley and Rempel's studies on teacher morale. These studies identified certain factors in morale which appeared to be quite similar and provided vali- dation for their use in the development of the Purdue Teacher SQpinionaire. Finally, studies showing relationships between 'teacher morale and community attitudes seemed to indicate that (community attitudes concerning the school do affect the morale of teachers. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The writer's purpose in this chapter is to describe the community in which the study took place, define the selection of the sample schools and the population Of the study, describe the procedure used in selecting the respon- dents, explain the instruments employed to gather data for the study and their administration, and finally, explain the methodology that will be used in the presentation and analy- sis Of the data in Chapter IV and Chapter V. The Setting - Montgomery County, Maryland Montgomery County was organized by vote of Maryland's first constitutional convention on September 6, 1776. Selec- tion Of the name Montgomery was a definite break from Older methods of selecting names for counties. All earlier coun- ties in the United States took their names from some connec- tion with the Old World or Officials there. When the names were chosen for the two new Maryland counties, American names were needed and two heroes then in the popular mind were written on the map. George Washington, the living hero, 50 51 and Richard Montgomery, the recently martyred one, were the first Americans to be thus honored. For 1A0 years little changed in Montgomery County. The population increased very slightly, and agriculture remained the only industry. A county—wide school system began in 1865. The decade 1910 ushered in suburban development as Montgomery County received the overflow from Washington, D.C. The areas around the District of Columbia increased in popu- lation much more than did other parts of the County, and, as the Bethesda and Silver Spring areas became more and more like cities, new governmental procedures were needed. Through the 1930's Montgomery County had the county commissioner form of government usually found in counties throughout most of the United States. A new form of charter was adopted and made effective by the election Of 19A8. This provided for a new board, known as the County Council, to be elected immediately and to take over the county govern- ment. Outside the province of the County Council are several departments still reserved under state control. Among these is the Board of Education, with responsibility for the school system. Montgomery County is one of twenty-three widely dif- ferent counties which, with Baltimore City, are the major subdivisions of the state Of Maryland. It covers an area Of approximately five hundred square miles, with a population 52 Of well over four hundred thousand, and an average family income of about $15,000. Montgomery County is a rapidly growing community. In the last decade the total pOpulation has doubled and the child population has tripled. Since Montgomery County is located adjacent to the District of Columbia, many government workers reside in the County. Recently the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Bureau of Standards, and the National Institutes Of Health have established their head- quarters in Montgomery County, and new research and develop- ment companies are locating there. The Montgomery County Public School System The Montgomery County Public School System is a county system, one Of twenty-three such in Maryland, with Baltimore City a separate jurisdiction. By a county school system is meant that the local school district covers the entire county and the 180 elementary, middle, junior high, and senior high schools are administered as a single system. In addition to the kindergarten through twelfth grade pro- gram, the County Operates the Montgomery Community College. Once an integral part of the public school system and under the direction of the Board of Education, the college now has a separate administrative structure and its own Board Of Trustees. The seven members of the Montgomery County Board of Education are elected for four-year terms. Terms are staggered so that three board members are elected at one 53 general election and four members at the next election two years later. Montgomery County's Board is the only elected county board of education in Maryland; the others are appointed by the Governor. Student enrollment for September, 1969, was slightly over 126,000, and these students were served by about 6,600 professional and 3,500 supporting services employees. Approx- imately 27,000 mature citizens attended day and evening adult classes, and an additional A00 adults who had not completed high school enrolled in evening classes. Although 70 percent of the county's high school graduates continue their educa- tion, the school system also Offers vocational and technical programs for those not bound for college. About 7A percent of the cost of operating the school system comes from local prOperty taxes and the income surtax. The remainder comes from the state of Maryland and the fed- eral government. For the fiscal year July 1, 1969, through June 30, 1970, property taxes amounted to $2.17 per $100. Of assessed valuation for school Operating costs, and $.385 per $100. of assessed valuation for debt service. Property is assessed at about 60 percent of market value. The operating budget for the kindergarten through twelfth grade program in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, was $116,A30,152, an increase of $17,98A,066 from the preceding fiscal year. This level of support provides a per-pupil expenditure Of $913 for the kindergarten through twelfth grade program. 5A Citizen participation is extensive in Montgomery County. Citizens are encouraged to vote for school board members and to attend the public hearings and regular semi- monthly meetings of the Board of Education. Each school has a Parent-Teacher Association and parents are encouraged to join and participate. The Montgomery County Council Of Parent—Teacher Associations coordinates the efforts of the 180 local PTA's and is a potent force in efforts to improve the County's educational opportunities. Five of the twelve administrative areas into which the school system is divided have Area Advisory Councils. Others are presently being formed. These groups, created by the Board Of Education, are designed to represent widely the communities they serve, and include teachers, students, parents, and other relevant pub- lics. Meetings of these groups are regular and are scheduled to consider educational problems and practices and to recom— mend changes. Selection Of Sample Schools Two groups of Montgomery County public schools were identified, from which the sample schools for the study were selected. One group contained sixteen schools identified as schools experiencing community unrest. The determinant factor for community unrest schools was much negative cor- respondence received from the community by the office of the superintendent of schools for the school year 1969-1970. The other group contained Montgomery County schools identi- fied as schools experiencing little or no community unrest. 55 The determinant factor for selecting these schools was lit- tle or no negative correspondence received from the community by the office of the superintendent Of schools for the school year 1969-1970. From the group of sixteen high negative correspon- dence schools, eight were selected as having the most nega— tive correspondence from the community received by the Office of the superintendent of schools. Two Of these schools were not included in the study, due to reluctance of their principals to participate. One school was elimi- nated, due to the fact that the principal had been transferred in January, 1970. All five schools finally selected were elementary schools with the administrative staff and 90 per- cent of the teaching staff employed at the school for the school year 1969-1970. For purposes of the present study, these schools were designated as schools experiencing commu- nity unrest. As validation of the selection of these schools as schools experiencing unrest from the community, it is important to note that a memorandum dated April 21, 1970, was sent to the Board of Education from the Superintendent, which included the five schools selected among eight County schools designated by school Officials as experiencing community unrest. This information was presented to the researcher after the sample schools had been selected. Following the selection of the community unrest schools, eight schools were selected, using a random table of numbers, from a list Of Montgomery County public schools 56 which excluded sixteen high negative correspondence schools. When a secondary school appeared in the selection process, the elementary school which followed was chosen instead. The principals and staffs of the first four and number six agreed to participate in the study. The principal of number five expressed the desire Of his teaching staff not to be included, due to their extensive involvement in a federal program. For each of the five schools selected at random, the administrative staff and 90 percent of the teaching staff had been employed at the school for the school year 1969-1970. For purposes Of the present study these schools were desig- nated as those experiencing little or no community unrest. The Population and Sample Selection The populations for this study were parents and teachers Of the ten Montgomery County public schools men- tioned above. Parents were asked to serve as community respondents, due to the large amount Of negative correspon— dence received from parents by the office of the superinten- dent Of schools. A further justification for looking at parent attitudes was the fact that people with children in school are directly and immediately concerned with school matters. Bullock, when administering the School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators question- naires to the parents Of a test sample, wrote the following: They (parents) are the school's clients and custom- ers. They are likely to be close and critical observers of school practices. Their judgments are usually based on more complete information, take into account a wider 57 variety of factors, and constitute a more potent influ- ence upon administrative behaviir than those of persons who have no children in school. While it was decided to involve the entire teaching staff of each of the ten schools, the parents of seventy students for each school were included. A master student file, arranged by grade level for each school, served as the basis for parent selection. Using the stratified random sampling technique and working from a table of random num- bers, ten students for each grade level were selected, to comprise a total of seventy students for each school in the study. For each student selected, a parent questionnaire was designated for his parents. Instrumentation Two instruments were used in the present study: the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire, to measure teacher morale and various subfactors of teacher morale; and the "Your Schools" section of the Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument, to meas- ure parent attitudes on a general approval-rejection scale and various subfactor scales. There have been two basic approaches to the process of measuring teacher morale. The first technique has the individual estimate his own morale or job satisfaction, and ‘was used first by Hoppock in his study of job satisfaction 1Robert P. Bullock, School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators (COIumbus, Ohio: Ohio State 'Ufiiversity, 1959), p. 17. ..‘_kW 58 in 1935.1 The second technique consists of: . . . asking the individual to make qualitative judg- ments and express his feelings about the persons and things in his environment that may be related to his morale. These responses are appropriately weighted and quantified so that a total score or index can be assigned.2 The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire was developed from this latter approach. The instrument was validated against peer judgments made by teachers at the time they responded to the Opinionaire. The reliability of the instrument was determined by the test-retest method, and the reliability for the total test was found to be .87. Table 3.1 indicates factor reliability scores for the ten subfactors which Bentley and Rempel considered as essential components of the multidimensional nature of morale. The Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument was validated by com- paring the level of approval manifested by the teaching staff with the level Of approval shown by the remaining sample of lay citizens, and testing for a statistically significant difference between mean scores for these groups. The relia— ‘bility ofthe instrument was determined by selecting and regrouping items to form one general school-approval scale and fivesubscales relating to specific aspects Of the school. lR. Hoppock, Job Satisfaction (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1935). 2Ralph R. Bentley and Averno M. Rempel, Manual for the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1967), p.42. 59 TABLE 3.1 Test-Retest Correlations for Purdue Teacher Opinionaire Factor Scores Factor Correlation 1 Teacher Rapport with Principal .88 2 Satisfaction with Teaching .8A 3 Rapport Among Teachers .80 A Teacher Salary .81 5 Teacher Load .77 6 Curriculum Issues .76 7 Teacher Status .81 8 Community Support of Education .78 9 School Facilities and Services .80 10 Community Pressures .62 Total Score .87 lRalph R. Bentley and Averno M. Rempel, Manual for the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1967), p. 2. 60 Twenty items selected in terms of the general criterion and combined as a general scale yielded a Pearsonian split-half correlation of .91. Table 3.2 indicates factor reliability scores for the general school approval-rejection factor and for the five subfactors which Bullock considered most essen- tial in measuring parent attitudes about the school. TABLE 3.2 Split-Half Correlation Coefficient of Revised Scalesl Scale r General School Approval—Rejection .91 Courses, Discipline, and Work Habits .68 Personal Guidance and Adjustment .73 School-Parent Interaction .91 School Board .81 Building Adequacy and Maintenance .66 1Robert P. Bullock, School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational AdministratorsITColumbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1959), p. 38. For purposes of the present study, two open—ended questions were combined with the Bullock instrument to have respondents express attitudes about the school which might not be covered by the formal instrument. They are as follows: 1. Please list in order of preference what you view as "good" about your school. 2. Please list in order of preference what you view as "bad" about your school. 61 Administration of the Surveys The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire was administered dur- ing the period June 3 - June 15, 1970, to members of teaching staffs present at group meetings prearranged with the prin- cipals of the participating schools. It must be noted here that teacher substitutes and those recently assigned to a school were not included in the study. Teachers not present at the meetings were given instructions and opinionaires individually and their completed opinionaires were mailed in sealed envelopes directly to the researcher. Complete anonymity was maintained to insure frank and honest expres- sions of attitudes from the teachers. Table 3.3 represents the teacher population returns. The "Your Schools" section of Bullock's School— Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument was sent to 700 parents during the period June 3 - June 9, 1970, and all responses used in the study were received by June 30, 1970. For nine schools, students acted as liaison agents to distribute and collect the instrument. The use of students offered the most rapid and expeditious method of getting data returned. The principal of one school requested that the ques- tionnaires be sent through the mail. Enclosed within each packet mailed was a return envelope addressed to the Mont— gomery County Public Schools' Department of Research. Extensive follow-up was done by telephone to encourage a large response. While the questionnaires sent with the 62 TABLE 3.3 Numbers and Percentages of Teacher Respondents Returning Completed Opinionaires Number Of Number of % of School Opinionaires Opinionaires Returned Number Administered Returned Opinionaires 01 l9 17 89% O2 12 12 100 03 18 17 9A 0A 20 20 100 05 l9 19 100 O6 29 29 100 07 2A 23 96 08 18 16 89 09 ’25 25 100 10 1A 13 93 63 students were not coded, lists were made of student partici— pants and retained in the classroom. Once the sealed enve— lopes were returned to the school, students' names were marked Off a list by the teacher. The parents who had not returned questionnaires were called by the researcher. The mailed responses were coded, and a letter which assured the respon- dents Of anonymity was enclosed. Follow-up telephone calls to parents whose mailed questionnaires had not been returned were also made by the researcher. Table 3.A represents the parent population returns. Type of Study and Method Of Reporting and Interpreting the Data The study is a descriptive survey using a selected county school system. It will provide information regard— ing the attitudes Of teachers and parents about the school program; the findings will be examined and related to the purposes of the study. Two authorities, Best and Good, defined and identified the characteristics of descriptive research. Best's definition is: Descriptive research describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist; practices that prevail; beliefs, points Of view, or attitudes that are being felt, or trends that are developing. The process of descriptive research goes beyond mere gathering of data. It involves an element of interpretation of the meaning or significance of what is described.1 1John W. Best, Research in Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), pp. 102— 103. 6A TABLE 3.A Numbers and Percentages Of Parent Respondents Returning Completed Instruments Number Of Number of % of School Instruments Instruments Returned Number Administered Returned Instruments 01 70 63 90 02 7O 58 83 03 7O 60 86 0A 70 58 83 05 70 61 87 06 70 60 86 07 70 61 87 O8 70 68 97 09 70 61 87 10 '70 61 87 65 Good identified the purposes and uses of survey investiga- tion with the following statement: The more analytical school surveys of the past two decades tell us not only where we are in a particular school system, but also recommend next steps by way of progress and suggest the methods of reaching the goal of an improved instructional program. This View is one answer to critics of the descriptive survey method who sometimes say that it is not a forward—looking approach to the solution of educational problems. Certainly ade- quate survey data in the hands of an investigator of insight can be used for forward-looking purposes. The research questions stated in Chapter I will serve as the basis for the grouping and reporting of the data. The analysis of variance method will be used to analyze the data generated from research questions one through four. The Pearson Product-Moment Method will be used to show the relatedness of variables stated in research questions five and six. Findings and recommendations will be drawn from the information Obtained and the examination and interpre- tations made from the data, as related to the purposes Of the study. Summary In the present chapter Montgomery County, the setting for the study, was described briefly and information about the school system was provided. Also included was a defini— tion of the population for the study and the process of selecting the sample schools and the teacher and parent respondents for these schools. An explanation of the lCarter V. Good, Essentials of Educational Research (New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1966), p. 192. 66 research instruments, their reliability scores, and admin- istration was provided. The type of study and the method of reporting and interpreting the data were also included. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The problem of the study has been to conduct an investigation of the internal-external environment of schools identified as having community unrest and schools not exper- iencing such unrest, regarding selected variables of parent attitudes and teacher morale. Six research questions were presented in Chapter 1. Each research question has been treated separately, and the data obtained, along with approp- riate explanations, will be reported in the present chapter. Analysis Of variance was selected as the most apprOp- riate technique to analyze the data generated from research questions one through four. The procedure is applicable to the testing for significant differences between the group means of the two groups of schools selected for the study. The experimental unit for the analysis of variance was the school. For each school, mean scores on the measurement scales for the two instruments of the study were computed from the individual parent and teacher scores. These means were used in the computations for the analysis of variance and are presented in Tables A.1 to A.A. 67 68 nao.: mmm.mm mam.:m Nam.am oom.om www.mm ma:.mm Ho>oa soapoonon IHm>Opddm Hmhococ uo:.H omm.om m::.ma mmH.Hm pa:.om omH.mm wmm.om monocouzflme one aomsvoom wcaoHHOm mom. mmm.wfl HmH.mH wom.ma mmo.ma m:m.>H om~.~H canon Hoonom mmH.H o:~.ma :mm.om mna.om oom.om mmm.ma umm.na coapomnopcfi pconwdlaoonom sz.H mmo.mm mmm.mm www.mm Nam.mm :om.mm mom.am maaaxm Hwaoom one oocmoasw Hmcomnom oaa.m mam.am ana.mm aam.mm oom.Hm mmo.am mm:.ma beaaoaonao one .mpfinmn xpoz .momnsoo COfipmH>oo some mo :0 mo mo Ho Ohmocmpm dsoao maoonom phones pom ucossnpmcH coupfippg pconmm xooaasm on» no moapmfimw> Ham :0 mCOprH>oQ unaccepm use .mcmoz aroma .mcmoz Hoonom HMSOH>HOQH H.: mqmoa coapoonoa IHm>Opddm Hohocow mmw.a Hmm.mH :nm.ma HNN.NH mmm.mm sma.om mmm.>a oocmcopcdwe use momsvocm madcaflsm mmm. mm>.wa mmo.ma Ham.ma mmm.ma Hmm.ma wma.ma canon Hoonom mom. mm:.am mmm.mm Hma.mm mmm.am mmw.ma oom.am coapomnoucfi psonMQIHOOSOm H:H.N mm>.mm mom.:m mam.mm mnm.mm mmm.mm mmm.mm maaaxm Hmfioom can cosmoadw Hmcomnom smm.H wam.mm amfi.mm mmm.mm omm.mm mmc.mm amm.mm onaaoaonao one .mpanmn xnoz .momhsoo COHpMH>OO some OH mo mo so mo OLMOCMpm dsoaw maoonom phones 02 Mom pacesmumcH oOSppr< pcoamm xooaazm map mo moanmfinm> Ham :0 mCOHumfi>om Unaccmpm cam .mcmoz dsoam .mcmoz Hoonom HmSOH>fiOQH N.: mqmpom can . moapaafiomm Hoonom Hom.m oam.ma sz.:a oom.ma mmo.ma mmm.oa ma:.mo :OHumoscm mo medddm mpfiCSEEOo :om.m www.ma om~.Hm oom.mH mwm.am Nma.om Nam.ma wooden nozomoe mmw. mam.ma 35:.za omH.mH mmo.ma mwm.ma :mm.ma normmfi Esasoaamso mmm.m nom.mm moa.mm om~.:m maz.mm sa:.am mmm.mm onoa absence nmm. mmz.Hm mmm.am omm.om mmm.mm mmo.mm una.am mnmamm genomes mma.: mma.m: sma.oa omm.az sam.mm smm.a: :mm.m: anononoo wcoem psoadmm no». wmm.mm mmm.wm omm.mm ma:.>o mmm.~m :mm.mm wcanomop and: coapomMmfipmm mmm.m wmm.mm mmm.mm oom.om wmm.:m uma.ou mo~.mm Haddocfipd spa: ppOddmn Absence coaomfi>oo coma mo no mo mo Ho Ohmocmum drone maoonom umoacb you opHmCOHcfido ponomms ozonsm on» no moanwfinm> Ham :0 chfiumfi>oQ OAMUCMpm cam .mcmoz QSOAo .mamoz Hoonom Hmscfi>HOcH m.: mqm¢9 71 moz.am mmm.mom Hmm.mam ooz.nmm mmm.o:m mom.msm Ham.mmm Hobos mmo.H mam.ma smm.na oom.sa moo.aa smo.mfl mmm.ma moasmnosa spassEEoo mam.a mmo.ma mmm.ma ozN.MH oma.ma mms.ma Hmm.mH nooa>oon pea noaoaflaona Hoonom mmm.a mmo.ma mam.mfi omo.na me.mH :AH.NH mam.ma soaunosoo do upOddzm zufiCBEEOo mmm.a mma.mm ooo.mm oms.sm mso.mm mam.om sam.am nausea absence smm.a Hma.mfl Hmm.mH oom.oa mam.sa mom.ma mmm.ma nosnna esflsoflhhso smo.m mma.:m mom.mm omfl.sm mmm.am www.mm mm~.mm onoa absence mmm.H mmm.om mmm.am omm.Hm mma.ma st.mH aam.ma ssnaon absence msfl.m mam.oa mos.m: omm.ms mmo.am oma.ma mmm.sa nonsense wooed Onondmm mmo.s Ham.mm mam.oa omm.mo ooo.ms Hmm.mm Hmm.os weanonoo spas consonanaunm mma.mfi mmm.mm mma.om oma.mm MHm.oa mmm.os moo.mm Hooaosaaa and: upOddmp ponomoe soaonaeon sane OH mo mo so no Ohmvcmpm dsopo maoonom phone: 02 mom mnfimcoacfido genomes magnum one mo moanmfinm> Ham :0 nCOfipma>oQ cmmocmpm can .mcmoz dzonw .mcmoz Hoonom Hm3UH>HocH 3.: mqm<8 72 Correlations were computed using the Pearson Product- Moment Method to show the relatedness of variables stated in questions five and six. Here, again, the experimental unit for the correlations was the school and the mean scores of parent and teacher responses for each school were used in the computations. , F Research Question 1 How do parent attitudes regarding general approval- rejection level for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community ' unrest? The data for Research Question 1 were collected from the administration of the Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument to the parents from the five unrest schools and the five no unrest schools (refer to Table 3.A for number of parent respondents for each school). Mean scores were computed from the parent responses to the general twenty-item "approval—rejection scale" for each school (Tables A.1 and A.2). Using the .05 alpha level of significance, the over- all level of .031 was found to be sufficient to indicate that a significant difference existed between the group means for the unrest and no unrest schools. A comparison of the means for the two groups yielded a lower level of general parent approval for the unrest schools, as compared with the no unrest schools. Tables A.5 and A.6 summarize the study's 73 data requisite to the analysis of variance approach for Research Question 1. TABLE A.5 Analysis of Variance of Group Means for Parent General Approval-Rejection Level Kr“ Source of Sum Of Mean Significance F variance squares df squares F level Between groups 82.272 1 82.715 6.821 .031 Within groups 96.500 8 12.062 ----- ---- Total 178.771 9 ----------- ---- TABLE A.6 Means and Standard Deviations of Parent Approval—Rejection Scores for Unrest and NO Unrest Schools Standard Group Frequency Means deviation Unrest 5 59.988 A.017 No Unrest 5 65.72A' 2.826 Overall 10 62.856 A.A57 Research Question 2 How do certain specific characteristics Of parent attitudes for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? 7A The data for Research Question 2 were collected from the administration of the Bullock instrument to the parent respondents Of the five unrest schools and the five no unrest schools. Mean scores were computed from the parent responses for each of the five variables for each school (Tables A.1 and A.2). The analysis of variance on these means showed significant differences at the .05 alpha level between the two groups of schools for three variables: (1) courses, work habits, and discipline; (2) school—parent interaction; and (3) school board. A comparison of the means for each of the three variables yielded a lower level of parent approval on these variables for the unrest schools, as compared with the no unrest schools. It is interesting to note that the mean for the building adequacy and maintenance variable was higher, although not significant, for the unrest schools, than for the no unrest schools. Relevant results of the analysis of variance treatment for Research Question 2 are presented in Table A.7. For purposes of the present study, two statements were combined with the Bullock instrument to have respon- dents express attitudes about the school which might not be covered by the formal instrument. They were as follows: 1. Please list in order of preference what you view as "good" about your school. 2. Please list in order of preference what you view as "bad" about your school. 75 TABLE 4.7 Differences in Means on Bullock Variables for Unrest and NO Unrest Schools, F Values, and Significance of the Differences Mean difference Significance Variable (no unrest-unrest) F level Courses, work habits, and l discipline 3.725 9.A85 .015 Personal guidance and social skills .770 .376 .557 School-parent 1 interaction 1.715 6.292 .036 School board .754 8.158 .0211 Building adequacy and maintenance -1.359 1.657 .23A 1Significant at the .05 level. (The analysis of variance design and degrees of freedom are identical to those reported in Table A.5.) An analysis Of the subjective responses to the statements which were combined with the Bullock instrument is presented here, as this information relates directly to Research Question 2. Responding to this section of the questionnaire were 269 parents from the unrest schools and 278 parents from the no unrest schools. Participants responded with many diverse and lengthy comments, most listing three positive and three negative responses. These responses were compiled into appropriate categories selected on the basis of number of v ‘v- .r—.; U... l ‘ls‘J . A: 1*! 76 responses. Because there was much variety in the responses and many persons indicated that they had no one preference, it was decided not to rate the responses by preference. Categories Of responses were ranked by frequency for unrest schools and no unrest schools on what parents felt was "good" about the school and what they felt was "bad" about the school. Although the two groups of schools were different in number and percentage of responses on nearly all categor- ies, it is interesting to note that when the categories were ranked, the two groups of parents agreed on eight of ten of the most positive areas and on four of seven of the most negative areas. Regarding the positive comments, parents in both groups Of schools most frequently mentioned teachers. While in unrest schools facility was ranked second, followed by teaching methods and school-community interaction, in no unrest schools the principal was ranked second, followed by facility and teaching methods. Regarding the negative comments discipline was most frequently mentioned by parents in both groups of schools, followed by basic skills, school-community interaction, and principal in unrest schools and by class size, basic skills, and facility in no unrest schools. Relevant results for the subjective responses are reported in Tables A.8 and “'09. Ranked Parent Responses for Unrest and NO Unrest Schools to the Statement: "Please List What You View 77 TABLE A.8 as 'Good' about Your School Unrest f % No unrest f % Teachers 138 51 Teachers 169 61 Facility 89 33 Principal 75 27 Teaching Methods 61 23 Facility 51 18 School-community interaction 35 13 Teaching methods A9 18 School-Community Curriculum 3A 13 interaction A8 17 Individual Individual attention 32 12 attention 3A 12 Pupil-teacher Ability grouping 29 ll relations 3A 12 School atmosphere 29 11 Basic skills 27 10 Principal 28 10 Curriculum 25 9 School Library 17 6 atmosphere 2A 9 m"! 78 TABLE A.9 Ranked Parent Responses for Unrest and NO Unrest Schools to the Statement: "Please List What You View as 'Bad' about Your School" Unrest f % NO unrest f % Discipline 93 35 Discipline 70 25 Basic skills 73 27 Class size A0 1A School-community interaction 56 21 Basic skills 38 1A (parent inter— ference 36) Principal 37 1A Facility 38 1A Individual School-community attention 35 13 interaction 29 10 Teachers 23 9 Physical education 25 9 Study habits 23 9 Individual attention . l7 6 Class size 19 7 Research Question 3 How does the general level Of teacher morale for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? The data for Research Question 3 were collected from the administration of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire to the teachers from the five unrest schools and the five no unrest schools (refer to Table 3.A for the number of teacher res- pondents for each school). Mean scores were computed from the teacher responses to the total morale instrument for 79 each school (Tables A.3 and A.A). Using the analysis of var- iance method, it was found that the overall level Of signifi- cance, .811, was not sufficient to indicate that a difference existed between the group means for unrest and no unrest schools at the .05 alpha significance level. Relevant results of the analysis of variance treatment are presented in Tables A.10 and A.11. TABLE A.10 Analysis of Variance of Group Means for Total Teacher Morale Level Source Of Sum of Mean Significance variance squares df squares F level Between groups 30.280 1 30.280 .061 .811 Within groups 3973.589 8 A96.699 __-_ ____ Total A003.868 9 ------- -—-- --—— TABLE A.11 Means and Standard Deviations of Total Teacher Morale Scores for Unrest and NO Unrest Schools Standard Group Frequency Means deviations Unrest 5 305.7A5 15.561 No Unrest 5 309.225 27.AO9 Overall 10 307.A85 21.092 80 Research Question A How do certain specific characteristics Of teacher morale for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? The data for Research Question A were collected from the administration of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire to the teachers from the five unrest schools and the five no unrest schools. Mean scores were computed from the teacher respon- ses for each of the ten variables for each school (Tables A.3 and A.A). The analysis of variance on these means revealed a significant difference at the .05 alpha level between the two groups of schools for one variable, teacher status. A significance level of .10 for another variable, community pressures, was regarded as suggestive of an exist- ing difference. A comparison Of the means for these two variables yielded a lower score for the unrest schools than for the no unrest schools. While no significant differences were shown for eight of the ten variables, it is interesting to note that the means for five variables were higher for the unrest schools than for the no unrest schools. These variables were: (1) teacher rapport with principal, (2) rapport among teachers, (3) teacher salary, (A) curric- ulum issues, and (5) school facilities and services. The predominance of non-significant findings, the equal distribution of positive and negative sample differ- ences between the unrest and the no unrest groups, and the high probability of finding at least one "significant" result 81 when ten variables were tested, each at the .05 alpha level, all add support to the conclusion that the unrest and no unrest schools cannot be differentiated on the basis of teachers' responses to the subscales of the Purdue morale instrument. Results related to Research Question A are reported in Table A.12. Research Question 5 What relationship exists between parent general : approval—rejection level and teacher morale level for ‘l L’ LUV.) schools experiencing community unrest, as compared with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? The data analyzed for Research Question 5 were based on the total morale score for the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire and the general "approval-rejection scale" score for the Bullock parent attitude instrument. Correlations were com- puted using the Pearson Product-Moment Method for the five unrest schools and the five no unrest schools. For the no unrest schools an r of .9A5 revealed a high relationship between overall teacher morale and general parent attitudes at the .02 significance level. For the unrest schools an r of .759 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. The relevant relationships presented for Research Question 5 are reported in Table A.13, page 83. It is important to note that the correlation for the unrest schools tended to be lower than the correlation for the no unrest schools, due to the restriction of range. This is true to the extent that negative correspondence is related 82 TABLE A.12 Differences in Means on Purdue Variables for Unrest and NO Unrest Schools, F Values, and Significance Of the Differences Mean difference Significance Variable (no unrest-unrest) F level 7' Teacher rapport with principal -3.572 .213 .657 Satisfaction with teaching .855 .212 .658 L Rapport among teachers -.2AA .011 .920 Teacher salary —1.260 3.120 .115 Teacher load .928 .372 .559 Curriculum issues -.331 .118 .7A1 Teacher status 3.A57 7.19A .028a Community support of education 2.AA8 2.705 .139 School facilities and services -.697 .597 .A62 Community pressures 1.898 A.AA7 .068b aSignificant at .05 level. bSignificant at .10 level. (The analysis of variance design and degrees of freedom are identical to those reported in Table A.10). 83 .HoaoH mo. on» on psnoaaaswama Mmzm. m mmm.m :mb.mm mo:.wm mmm.mom mHoonom omens: oz mm». m NHo.: www.mm Hmm.ma m:~.mom maoonom poops: soapmfi>op mcmoz coapmfi>oc name: a do ohnpsopm nanosnnm moOSpHuum psopwm mammoe nozomoa pcoesnpmcH coupfipu¢ pconmm xooaasm one pom whOom coapoonomlam>ondd< Hmpocow use choom mango: nonomoa osohsm proe coozpon coapmaonnoo ma.: mqmbCU r-iO (OOH ((30 IO $3053 r-iCU-c-l GJUJQ. CCI-i Hm r—i fiCUCD G53>4J more 0mm on O runs #00 Her-IO m'U-H 00) O HU‘Q (US-ed) :nm nae pp 3 fimrl cam CCU-H oso 0:: O sow 00.0) one mwm ma 0) mos was Teacher rapport with principal .369 .A32 189 .28A .3A7 .267 Satisfaction with teaching -.1A8 -.763 -.A09 .293 -.A65 -.381 Rapport among teachers .172 .516 .356 .08A —.008 .306 Teacher salary —.100 .779 .052 .259 .210 .020 Teacher load .78A .630 .925b .951a -.37o .880b Curriculum issues -.AlA .368 -.2A9 .AlO .80A —.2Al Teacher status .7A7 .778 .820 .500 -.l38 .805 Community support of b b education .810 .651 .9Ala .922 -.382 .898 School facilities and services .61A .525 .A30 .231 .A09 .527 Community pressures .552 .807 .71A .761 .333 .717 Total morale .723 .85A .739 .333 .137 .759 aSignificant at the .02 level. bSignificant at the .05 level. r“ TABLE A.17 87 Correlations between Bullock Parent Attitude Variables and Purdue Teacher Morale Variables for NO Unrest Schools x m u U a r4 c -o C ox: rs Q)C a «so 3£2m H Leo m o m: «x cmH O «c IQ " H r-IQJUJ Clo-P .0 b0>z€U HO UJ'H-i (T30 I0 CDC: r-‘ICU-I-l (1)039. CQI—l Hm r-I fiCUCD “>43 mpH one on c: rose moo Lew-IO (D'UH 0(1) 0 I-IU'C: @5140) saw hHo no a thfi can Ole oso on t) Tom Odo one mum ma m mos won Teacher rapport with principal .636 .68A .769 .773 .309 .856 Satisfaction with teaching .805 .776 .826 .238 .186 .857 Rapport among teachers .213 .771 -.083 -.5A5 .6A9 .338 Teacher salary .A25 -.176 .697 .906b -.559 .36u Teacher load .528 .9513 .205 -.052 .606 .693 Curriculum b issues .672 .765 .857 .6A0 .350 .89A Teacher status .577 .370 .925b .872 .009 .720 Community support of b a b education .888 .60A .9A9 .526 .167 .881 School facilities and services .333 .868 .A59 .165 .805 .661 Community _ pressures .8A3 .625 .799 .821 .027 .9189 Total morale .7A7 .828 .82A .619 .332 .9AAaz aSignificant at the .02 level. bSignificant at the .05 level. 88 For unrest schools there was a significant corre- lation between teacher perceptions of teacher load and the following three variables of parent attitudes: (1) school- parent interaction, (2) school board relations, and (3) general approval-rejection level. Also there was a strong correlation.between teacher perceptions of community support of education and parent attitudes regarding school board relations. These relationships are reported in Table “.16. For no unrest schools significant correlations were found between the following variables: (1) teacher salary and school board relations; (2) teacher load and personal guidance and social skills; (3) curriculum issues and general parent attitudes; (4) teacher status and school-parent inter— action; (5) community support of education and courses, work habits, and discipline; and (6) community pressures and general parent attitudes. These relationships are reported in Table 4.17. Some correlations between variables were found to be high for unrest and no unrest schools, but were not signifi- cant in both groups at the .05 alpha level. When both groups of schools were combined, many relationships between vari- ables were shown to be significant at or beyond the .05 alpha level. Correlations for the ten schools combined are reported in Table ”.18. It is interesting to note that three variables of teacher morale (teacher status, community support of education, and community pressures), all correlate TABLE 4.18 89 Correlations between Bullock Parent Attitude Variables and Purdue Teacher Morale Variables for All Ten Schools x m p o a H c U : ow: r4 0): h «30 3£2m ~4 $40 m 0 cos «x Gr! 0 an IQ “ H r-IOJU) Q43 .0 60%“! HO (0"r-i <00 IO COS: I—ICU'I-l (DI/JD. SCI—l r-ICU r-i HCUCD CU>JJ mpvi owm op o US¥> Moo LIN—{0 UJ'UH 0(1) 0 HU‘C (1)910) 3.00) 9H0 .5143 .C HG)?! COW": OCUH (D230 05: O SUCU (D000) one mwm mH c0 mos can Teacher rapport with principal .156 .537 .268 .295 .352 .280 Satisfaction with teaching .342 .508 .454 .254 -.037 .419 Rapport among teachers .095 .598 .114 .226 .296 .208 Teacher salary -.325 -.095 .097 .021 -.019 -.244 Teacher load .617 .777b .606 .306 .022 .727C Curriculum issues .007 .586 .249 .266 .449 .211 ‘Teacher status .840b .548 .926a .825b —.330 .877a Community support of b a c a education .853 .607 .932 .672 -.416 .905 School facilities 0 and services .145 .587 .444 .079 .634 .229 Community pressures .777b .671c .838b .783b -.134 .864b Teacher morale .474 .819b .611 .456 .211 .629 aSignificant at the .001 level. b Significant at the .01 level. 0Significant at the .05 level. 90 significantly with the following four variables of parent attitudes: (1) courses, work habits and discipline; (2) school-parent interaction; (3) school board; and (4) gen- eral parent approval—rejection level. Summary In Chapter IV the data for the six research ques- tions suggested in Chapter I were reported. Each question was treated separately and the data obtained were analyzed. For purposes of summarization, the six research questions will now be stated and answered on the basis of statistical data gathered. Research Question 1 - How do parent attitudes regarding general approval-rejection level for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? The analysis of variance technique was applied to the data of this question, revealing a significant differ- ence between the schools experiencing community unrest and the schools not experiencing community unrest, for parent attitudes regarding general approval-rejection level. The F statistic generated was tested and found to be significant at the .05 level. A comparison of the means for the two groups yielded a lower level of gen al parent approval for the unrest schools than for the no unrest schools. Research Question 2 - How do certain specific characteristics of parent attitudes for schools exper- iencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? The analysis of variance technique applied to the data of this question revealed significant differences at 91 the .05 alpha level between the schools experiencing com— munity unrest and the schools not experiencing community unrest for three variables: (1) courses, work habits, and discipline; (2) school-parent interaction; and (3) school board. A comparison of the means for each of the three vari- ables yielded a lower level of parent approval on these vari- ables for the unrest schools than for the no unrest schools. Subjective responses to statements requesting parents to list what they viewed as "good" and "bad" about their school were ranked by categories based on the frequency of response. It was found that the parents from unrest and no unrest schools agreed on eight of ten of the most positive areas and on four of seven of the most negative areas. The difference was not so much one of area as it was intensity of response to an area. Research Question 3 - How does the general level of teacher morale for schools experiencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing com- munity unrest? The analysis of variance technique was applied to the data of this question, revealing no significant difference between schools experiencing community unrest and schools not experiencing community unrest, regarding the general level of teacher morale. Research Question 4 - How do certain specific characteristics of teacher morale for schools exper- iencing community unrest compare with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? The analysis of variance technique applied to the data of this question revealed a significant difference at 92 the .05 alpha level between the schools experiencing commu- nity unrest and the schools not experiencing community unrest for one of ten variables, teacher status. A signifi- cance level of .10 for another variable, community pressures, was regarded as suggestive of an existing difference. A comparison of the means for each of the two variables yielded a lower score for the unrest schools than for the no unrest schools. Research Question 5 - What relationship exists between parent general approval-rejection level and teacher general morale level for schools experiencing community unrest, as compared with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? The data revealed a high correlation of .945, which was significant at the .02 level, between parent attitudes and teacher morale for the five no unrest schools. No sig- nificant relationship between the same variables was found for the five unrest schools. Research Question 6 - What relationships exist between certain specific characteristics of parent atti- tudes and teacher morale for schools experiencing com- munity unrest, as compared with the same for schools not experiencing community unrest? For both unrest and no unrest schools significant correlations at or beyond the .05 alpha level were found between the following variables: (1) teacher perceptions of community support of education and parent attitudes regarding school-parent interaction, and (2) teacher perceptions of community support of education and general parent approval— reJection level. J" —;l 93 For unrest schools significant correlations were found between teacher perceptions of teacher load and the following three variables of parent attitudes: (1) school- parent interaction, (2) school board relations, and (3) general approval-rejection level. Also a strong corre- lation was found between teacher perceptions of community support of education and parent attitudes regarding school board relations. For no unrest schools significant correlations were found between the following variables: (1) teacher salary and school board relations; (2) teacher load and personal guidance and social skills; (3) curriculum issues and general parent attitudes; (4) teacher status and school-parent inter~ action; (5) community support of education and courses, work habits, and discipline; and (6) community pressures and general parent attitudes. Although not directly related to an answer to Research Question 6, it is interesting to note that when all ten schools were combined, three variables of teacher morale, (1) teacher status, (2) community support of educa- tion, and (3) community pressures, all correlated signifi- cantly with the following four variables of parent attitudes: (1) courses, work habits, and discipline; (2) school-parent interaction; (3) school board; and (4) general parent approval-rejection level. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The study was conducted to investigate the internal- external environment of schools identified as having commu- nity unrest and schools not experiencing unrest, regarding selected variables of parent attitudes and teacher morale. The major purpose of the study was to provide commu- nity school leaders with one basis for assessing the internal- external environment of the community school. Also the study was conducted to determine the validity of using negative correspondence as a measure for school evaluation. Further- more, the study had as a purpose the examination of the rela- tionships between parent attitudes and teacher morale. A review of literature pertaining to school-community unrest revealed the need for the community school leader to assess carefully parent attitudes and teacher morale. Since unrest appears to be inevitable, it is important to measure the attitudes of relevant school publics to identify and con- trol the dysfunctional elements of school-community unrest. Recent events have indicated that the quality of relationship between an educational institution and its constituents is 94 ll! 1'88 .1" . If] 95 determined in large measure by the extent of effective inter- action achieved between the two. Any effort to understand the relationships which exist between the school and its community and to diagnose impending conflict areas is not simple, due to the many informal structures present in the total social system of the educational enterprise. A review of literature supported the writer's belief that surveying the internal-external environment of the community school will provide the community school leader with a basis for assessing the nature and extent of school-community unrest. With added perceptions as a foundation, the community school leader can plan for activities and strategies which may result in better internal-external human relationships, and he may act Judiciously to bring about a more viable and meaningful educational program for the entire community. The population for the study was 611 parent and 191 teacher members of 10 schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. Five schools were selected which had the most negative cor- respondence received from the community by the office of the superintendent of schools. Five schools were selected at random from a population excluding all high negative corre- spondence schools. Data concerning the study's two variables, parent attitudes and teacher morale, were gathered by the use of two instruments. The Bullock School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators instrument, designed to measure general parent attitudes regarding school approval- rejection level and five subfactors of parent attitudes about 96 various aspects of the school program, was administered to a random sample of parents stratified by grade level for the sample schools. The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire, designed to measure general teacher morale and ten subfactors of morale, was administered to all teachers from the sample schools. Data from the administration of the study's two instruments were analyzed for differences between group means by analysis of variance, and intercorrelations among variables by the Pearson Product-Moment Method. Subjective information col- lected from parents regarding what they viewed as "good" and "bad" about their schools was examined separately and was presented as supplemental to information measured by the Bullock instrument. Findings and Conclusions Based upon an analysis of the data, major findings were: 1. Parent general approval—rejection level differs significantly between unrest and no unrest schools. The difference is one of a lower level of parent approval for the program of unrest schools, as compared with no unrest schools. 2. Parent attitudes are significantly lower for unrest schools than for no unrest schools on the following areas of the school program: (a) courses, work habits, and discipline; (b) school-parent interaction; and (0) school board relations. 97 3. Parents of children in unrest and no unrest schools generally agree on the areas of positive and negative concerns regarding the school program; the difference between the two groups is primarily one of intensity of rating for these areas. 4. There is no significant difference in the overall teacher morale level for unrest schools, as compared with no unrest schools. 5. Teacher perceptions of teacher status, one dimension of morale, are significantly lower for unrest schools than for no unrest schools. 6. There is a greater feeling of community pressure for teachers in unrest schools than for teachers in no unrest schools. 7. For no unrest schools there is a strong rela- tionship between the level of general approval toward the school program manifested by parents and the level of over— all teacher morale. 8. For unrest schools there is a strong relation- ship between teachers' perceptions of teacher load and the following variables of parent attitudes: (a) school-parent interaction, (b) school board relations, and (0) general approval-rejection level. 9. For unrest and no unrest schools, teachers' per- ceptions of community support strongly correlate with parent attitudes regarding school-parent interaction and general parent approval of the school program. 98 10. For unrest and no unrest schools combined, strong relationships exist between parent general approval level and the following variables of teacher morale: (a) teacher load, (b) teacher status, (c) community support, and (d) community pressure. Based upon an analysis of the findings of the present investigation, the following conclusions are pre- sented: Negative correspondence appears to be a valid indi- cator of widespread low parent approval of the school pro- gram. Since parent attitudes were found to be significantly lower for unrest schools than for no unrest schools, the conclusion that negative correspondence appears to be a valid indicator of widespread low parent approval of the school program is supported. The school can never afford to lose sight of the fact that parents will act on the basis of the attitudes they hold, even though their attitudes may be mis- taken. Negative correspondence appears to be one indicator of such attitudes, and assessment may follow in order to determine what action is appropriate to clear up misunder- standings or to modify expectations. Consequently, the school needs to know the nature and extent of parent senti- ments and either bring its requirements into harmony with what is desired or persuade the parents of the essential soundness pf present practices. When parents hold expectations for the school pro- gram of their children which differ from those held by 99 professional educators, unrest is likely to occur. The present study has provided areas of general parent concern which warrant further exploration. While courses, work habits, and discipline were areas of concern for most parent respondents, they were found to be areas which significantly distinguished unrest and no unrest schools. Discipline appeared to head the list of parent concerns. Parents will not be satisfied with the school if they feel their children are being subjected to discipline which they regard as either too strict or too lax, or a confused and conflicting combi- nation of both. An appreciable prOportion of parents in unrest schools were found to be dissatisfied with existing discipline. A closer look at school discipline may be needed, and can be accomplished by further surveying the community or through parent-teacher group meetings which work toward consensus regarding what constitutes desirable school disci- pline. Also of serious concern to parents was the area of courses and basic skills. Again the concern was manifested more by parents in unrest schools than by parents in no unrest schools. Parents' opinions may, of course, be quite mistaken. If they are, the need for a clearer and more con- vincing interpretation of the school program stands clearly revealed. Unless pupils have an opportunity to learn what- ever their parents would like to have them learn, the patrons of the school are certain to be dissatisfied with its program. Furthermore, parents who feel their youngsters are getting 100 considerably less out of their school work than they should get, are not likely to be enthusiastic about the schools. In regard to school—community interaction, the problem of the educator is not merely one of how to get parents involved and interestedJ but how to channel their interest toward constructive ends. The significantly lower approval of parents for school-community interaction and school board relations for unrest schools, as compared with no unrest schools, is indicative of parents' feelings of being kept in the dark, lack of open communication between the school and community, or generally ineffective school- community relations. While parents in both groups of schools would like to see improved school-community interaction, par- ents from unrest schools are more intense in their concern for opportunities to relate to educators. Furthermore, many parents with children in unrest schools expressed Openly their apprehension about the vocal few within the community who "interfere" with the teaching-learning process, and to whom the school sometimes caters. Negative correspondence does not appear to be a valid measure of overall teacher morale, and its use for internal school evaluation is not supported. It was sur- prising to discover that no significant difference was found between the two groups of schools regarding overall teacher morale. 0f the ten morale variables treated, only two-- teachers' perceptions of teacher status and teachers' per- ceptions of community pressures--were found to be 101 significantly lower for unrest schools as compared with no unrest schools. It was expected there would be significant differences between the two groups on more variables, and the mean scores on these variables would be lower for unrest than for no unrest schools. Instead, the mean scores for five of the ten variables were higher, although not signifi- cantly so, for unrest schools than for no unrest schools. These findings support the conclusion that to evaluate the school program on the basis of negative correspondence is a questionable practice. One may speculate that since nega- tive correspondence revealed very little about the internal climate of the school, other means such as the assessment of schools, using instruments similar to the Purdue morale instrument, could be helpful in disclosing areas of low mor- ale among teachers. Strong relationships exist between the school and the community,gand the school's responsibility for providing programs directed toward improved community attitudes. A strong relationship was demonstrated between general parent approval and overall teacher morale for no unrest schools. A review of the data revealed a high correlation between the mean scores for the five no unrest schools on the teacher morale instrument, and the general approval-rejection sec- tion of the parent attitude instrument. Since these schools were randomly selected from a population of seventy-three elementary schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, the find- ings may be generalized to this population. Therefore, 102 parent attitudes and overall teacher morale would appear to be closely associated with one another for these schools. Furthermore, it would seem reasonable to assume that efforts to improve parent attitudes would be associated with improved teacher morale. No significant relationship between the same variables was found for unrest schools. One reason for lack of signif- icance may be attributed to the restriction of range and the use of a small sample size. There also appear to be extran- eous factors, such as the threat of an external force, which may be influential regarding teacher morale during conditions of conflict or unrest. Strong correlations were revealed for all the schools between parent attitudes and subfactors of teacher morale, such as teacher perceptions of community pressure, community support, teacher status, and teacher load. These strong relationships seemed to point out the perceptiveness of teachers regarding the attitudes of parents, and the close association between the internal and external environments of the school on various dimensions of parent attitudes and teacher morale. These findings further support the notion that programs directed toward improved parent attitudes may also be associated with an improvement in teacher morale. Implications and Recommendations There is a great deal of valuable information avail- able to community school leaders through the assessment of parent attitudes and teacher morale. Knowledge of the 103 perceptions and attitudes of relevant publics will facilitate building better school programs and resolving many school issues. The writer believes that school administrators have been predominantly interested in checking the attitudes and morale of staff as a means of improving the school program and in assessing the climates of the community school. The measurement of the internal environment of the school alone is not a satisfactory way of evaluating the overall school program. Morale level and its various subfactors, as measured in the present study, do not seem to differ significantly in the schools experiencing community unrest, as compared with those not experiencing such unrest. What is needed is the assessment of the internal environment of the school, the external environment of the school, and the relationships between the two. The Purdue teacher morale and Bullock par- ent attitude instruments can provide valuable assistance to the community school leader for these purposes. The results obtained can be used to provide a "feel" for the school cli— mates and to suggest more intensive programs of assessment. In addition, both instruments have great diagnostic value. An analysis of the results will show areas of strength and weakness and provide the community school leader with a basis for operating more effectively. There should be continuous assessment of parent attitudes and teacher morale to help the educational leader anticipate school-community unrest and to develop measures to control the dysfunctional aspects of this unrest. The 104 survey method, as applied in the present study, can be used periodically to provide the educational leader with a "fix" on the internal-external environment of the community school. The study has pointed out the differences in schools and their publics, and the need to assess these differences. Furthermore, the study has clearly substantiated the fact that community unrest should not be underestimated. The writer believes that community school leaders are often unaware of how most parents feel about their schools. They are prone to listen to the most influential and vocal mem- bers of the community. The present study has substantiated the need to assess negative correspondence as it relates to vocal groups within the community, and the importance of determining to what extent the protests and demands made by certain vocal groups in the community reflect a minority or majority viewpoint. The community survey and citizens' advisory council should be instituted to provide relevant school publics with an opportunity to express their views about the school program. School systems ought to establish mechanisms whereby the citizens Of the community can express their views about the school program in such a way that they will not consti- tute pressures for the educational decision makers, but will be Of real value in their deliberations. The survey method already discussed is one vehicle for providing the community with an Opportunity to express their views. Many of the parents surveyed in the present study indicated their 105 appreciation for having had an Opportunity to eXpress their opinions about the school program. Another method for com- munity involvement is the person-tO-person contact brought about by the establishment Of school-community group meet- ings. Consideration should be given to instituting citizens' advisory committees or citizens' councils representing rele- vant publics of the school community. Such councils could provide full discussion of controversial educational issues in a non-controversial environment. They would also provide a mechanism whereby existing school programs could be crit- ically appraised, community views expressed, and school- community relations enhanced. Such an effort would be an important preventative measure for possible community con- flict by providing Open communication between the school and the community. Furthermore, the community school leader and his staff would have access to vital information necessary for making judicious decisions. Teachers should be given the freedom, time, and administrative encouragement to have meaningful and frequent parent contacts. The strong relationships shown between parent attitudes and various subfactors Of teacher morale suggest that school-initiated programs which are directed toward improved parent attitudes may also be associated with an improvement in teacher morale. One such approach would be to provide teachers with the freedom, time and adminis- trative encouragement to have meaningful and frequent parent contacts. Beyond the traditional parent-teacher activities, 106 it is important for parents and teachers to have frequent home contacts and to meet in informal settings to discuss the school program. As teachers and parents become more aware Of each other's roles in the education process and join hands to educate youngsters, the result might be better relations between the two groups, improved parent attitudes, and higher teacher morale. The educational leader should consider the develop- ment of the community school concept, embracing the goal that public school facilities should be available to the citizens for extensive and continuous programs during the school day and in the evenings. Opportunities to enhance school-community interaction will be limited unless there is greater citizen participation in public school activities and a closer identification with the school and its purposes. With expanded use of facilities, opportunities for group recreation, group discussion, and improved school-community relations may follow. It has been apparent to the researcher throughout the study that the problem for educational leaders is not merely one of how to get parents involved and inter- ested, but it is also one Of providing the necessary mechan- isms, facilities, and "know-how" to channel parent interests toward constructive ends. The following two recommendations relate to the study but do not stem from the purposes and findings Of the study: 107 For schools faced with community unrest, a school- community relations expert should be assigned to assist the educational leader in working cooperatively with the com— munity. While early detection and action are vital elements in the school-community relations process, once unrest has become disruptive to the educational program and there is general low-level support from parents, immediate assistance is necessary to restore conditions conducive to a healthy teaching-learning situation. The ombudsman concept should be given serious consideration for implementation at the local school level. The assignment of an impartial observer to hear the concerns of the community and to work out plans for accommodating these concerns may prevent serious outbreaks of community unrest. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Stanford University Press, 1959- Bentley, Ralph R., and Averno M. Rempel. Manual for the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1967. Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Bullock, Robert P. School-Community Attitude Analysis for Educational Administrators. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1959. Carver, F. D., and T. J. Sergiovanni. Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. Coleman, James S. Community Conflict. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. Coser, Lewis A. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1964. Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959. Doll, Ronald C. Curriculum Improvement: Decision-Making and Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1964. Downey, Lawrence. The Task of Public Education. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1960. Dunnette, M., and W. Kirchner. Psychology Applied to Industry. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965. Ebel, Robert L. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan Co., 1969. 109 110 Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Fairchild, Henry P. Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Philosophical Library, 1944. Goddard, Harold C. Morale. New York: J. H. Doran Company, 1918. Good, Carter V. Essentials of Educational Research. New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, 1966. Griffiths, Daniel E. Human Relations in School Administra- tion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956. Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander McEachen. Egplorations in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Guion, Robert M. Readings in Human Relations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Halpin, Andrew W. (ed.). Administrative Theory in Educa- tion. London: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Hand, Harold C. What People Think About Their Schools. New York: World Book Company, 1945. Harris, Chester W. (ed.). Encyclgpedia Of Educational Research. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960. Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, R. Peterson, and D. E. Capwell. Job Attitudes: Review of Research anQLOpinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh, 1957. , B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959. Hocking, William E. Morale and Its Enemies. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1918. Hoppock, R. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1935. Mayo, Elton. The Hpman Problems of an Industrial Civili- zation. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. Munson, Edward L. The Management Of Man. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1921. 111 National Education Association. How Good Are Your Schools? Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1958. National School Board Association. Yardstick for Public Schools. Evanston, Illinois: The Association, 1959. Owens, Robert. Organizational Behavior in Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Roethlisberger, F. J. Managgment and Morale. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1941. , and W. J. Dickson. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1939- ' Ross, Donald (ed.). Administration for Adaptability. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Simmel, George. Conflict: The Web of Group-Affiliations. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1955. Stern, George G. People in Context. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970. Theodorson, George A., and Achilles G. Theodorson. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1969. - Thompson, James D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967? Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Periodicals Bernard, Jessie. "Where Is the Modern Sociology Of Conflict," American Journal Of Sociology, LVI (July, 1950), 411-424. Chase, Francis S. "Factors for Satisfaction in Teaching," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIII (1951), 131. Corwin, Ronald G. "Professional Persons in Public Organiza- tions," Educational Administration Quarterly, I (August, 1965), 15. Dubin, Robert. "Approaches to the Study Of Social Conflict: A Colloquium," Conflict Resolution, I (June, 1957). 112 Gamson, William A. "Rancorous-Conflict in Community Politics," American Sociological Review, XXXI (February, 1966), 81. Kerlinger, Fred. "Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Factors of Educational Attitudes," Journal Of Social Psychology, XLVIII (1958), 111-135. Maslow, A. H. "A Theory Of Human Motivation," Psychological Review, L (1943), 370. Minar, David W. "The Community Basis Of Conflict in School System Politics," American Sociological Review, XXXI (December, 1966), 81. Nussel, Edward J. "Conflict Theory and School-Community Relations," Occasional Papers, I (1969), 8-9. Porter, Lyman W. "A Study of Perceived Needs Satisfaction in Bottom and Middle Management Jobs," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLV (February, 1961), 1-10. Redefer, Frederick L. "Studies of Teacher Morale," School and Society, XCII (February, 1964), 63-64. Rempel, Averno M., and Ralph R. Bentley. "The Measurement of Teacher Morale: A Factor Analysis Approach," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXIV (1964), 632. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. "New Evidence on Teacher Morale: A Proposal for Staff Differentiation," The North Central Association Quarterly, XLII (Winter, 1968), 259-266. Trusty, F., and T. Sergiovanni, "Perceived Need Deficiencies of Teachers and Administrators: A Proposal for Restruc- turing Teacher Roles," Educational Administration Quarterly, II (Autumn, 1966), 168-181. Whitsett, D. A., and E. K. Winslow. "An Analysis of Studies Critical of the Motivator-Hygiene Theory," Personnel Psychology, XX (Winter, 1967), 393. Worthy, J. C. "Factors Influencing Employee Morale," Harvard Business Review, XXVIII (January, 1950), 65-67. Unpublished Works Bladt, Dorothy L. "A Comparison of the Attitudes Of Parents and Elementary Teachers Toward Elementary School Prob- lems." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1968. '1‘" ‘IIII 'II 87.1. 113 Grant, Robert T. "The Effectiveness Of Structured Parent- Teacher Conferences on Parental Attitudes Toward Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1963. Groshong, Roderick B. "An Exploratory Study of Factors Contributing to Parent Attitude in a Graded and an Ungraded Elementary School." Unpublished Doctor's dis- sertation, University Of Oregon, 1967. Knill, William D. "An Analysis of Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University Of Oregon, 1960. Lawner, Rhoda L. "Social Conflict as a Subject of Investi- gation in American Research from 1919 to 1953." Unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation, New York University, 1956. Lolis, Kathleen. "Teacher Morale and Teacher Attitudes Towards Parents." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, F New York University, 1962. Manifold, William Dean. "A Consideration of Those Criti- cisms or Attacks Designed to Harm Public Education and Some Suggested Measures to Help Prevent Their Occurrence in Maryland." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Maryland, 1954. Mathis, Lois R. "An Investigation of Selected Factors Affecting Communication Between Teachers and Parents of Elementary Pupils." Unpublished Doctor's disserta- tion, The Ohio State University, 1965. McGreal, Thomas L. "An Investigation of Organizational Variables Affecting Teacher Satisfaction and Dissatis- faction." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968. McNelis, Robert E. "An Investigation of Parents' Opinions, Attitudes and Knowledge of Selected Aspects of the Public Schools Of St. Mary's County, Maryland." Unpublished Doggor's dissertation, The George Washington University, 19 . Parker, Charles A. "An Analysis of Public Attitudes Toward Education in Selected Districts of Associated Public School Systems." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University, 1964. Schiff, Herbert J. "The Effects of Personal Contactual Relationships on Parents' Attitudes Toward and Partici- pation in Local School Affairs." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, 1963. 114 Suehr, John H. "A Study of Morale In Education." Unpub- lizhed Doctor's dissertation, University of Colorado, 19 l. APPENDICES 1;... APPENDIX A SAMPLE LETTER AND PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE I‘ll!!! Al I ll. {I'll III lll'lllllllil.il 117 June 3, 1970 Dear Parent: Your help is needed in a project aimed at the improvement of educational opportunities we in Montgomery County provide for our children. All Of us want our children to have the best education that can be provided and we each have many ideas and Opinions about what would be the truly best kind Of educational prO- gram. Too Often, we have little opportunity to make these ideas and opinions known. The immediate purpose of this survey is to Obtain as accurate , a picture as possible Of your ideas and feelings regarding certain aspects of your school program. You have been selected as a person in the community who can help in this task. It is therefore important that you read the instructions carefully and answer all Of the items. There are no right or wrong answers. Just your honest Opin— ions are sought. Your name will not be used in any way whatever.. Your answers will be combined with other Montgomery County resi- dents reaponding to this survey. Please place the completed survey form in the provided envelope, seal it and return it by mail within the next 2E2 days. The sealed envelopes will be sent directly to Michigan State University where your answers will be combined with others for analysis. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this project. Sincerely yours, Malcolm F. Halliday Doctoral Candidate (On leave from Montgomery County Public Schools) 118 YOUR SCHOOLS The following items relate to various aspects of the educa- tional program provided by your school. These items provide an Opportunity for you to indicate your own feeling or Opin- ion about such things as courses Of study, teaching methods, and present building and playground facilities in your school. It is important that you indicate your honest opin— ion about these things if this survey is to be helpful. '6} Section I Indicate your Opinion by checking for each statement whether < you strongly agree (SA); agree (A); disa ree (D); or strongly 5 disagree (SD) with the statement. I you cannot make up your mind or feel you do not know, check the undecided (UN) space. _SA _A _UN #0 _SD 1. The more important basic skills and knowledges are being very effectively taught in our school. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 2. The courses now taught in our school meet the students' needs very well. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 3. Too much "foolishness" is taught in . our school. _SA _A _UN 40 _SD 4. Our school needs to do some curriculum study to select courses that will better fit the needs of our children. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 5. Our school is doing a good job in giv- ing children personal help and guidance. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 6. Children in our school dO not receive enough training in social skills. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 7. There should be more strict discipline in our school. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 8. Our school is very effective in teach- ing good work habits. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 9. More drill in subjects like arithmetic is needed in our school. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 10. Our school does not place enough empha- sis upon Obedience and respect for authority. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 11. Our school is very effective in teach- ing good citizenship. SA A UN _D _SD 12. Our school is very effective in teach- ing proper behavior and good habits. 1E . . JV SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA_ SA_ 13. 14. 15. l6. 170 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 119 Our school children are not getting as much individual attention from their teachers as they should be getting. Our school is doing a very good job in personal guidance Of students. Our school should provide better health service for children. Our school is doing a very good job Of teaching children social skills. nus The training our children receive in human relations--how to get along with another--is very good. Our school should place more emphasis upon helping children achieve better social and personal adjustment. The school administrators don't tell La us enough about school problems; they leave us out too much. One can easily talk with our school administrators about school problems. Teachers will listen to what we have to say about school problems but that is as far as it goes. School administrators do not pay enough attention to parents. Our teachers seem willing to talk with people about school problems. Our community is kept generally well— informed about school activities. Our school board seems to represent the community very well. The school board pays tOO much atten- tion to what certain groups think and not enough attention to the rest of the community. You have to be "someone" to get on the board. I feel that the school board repre- sents my interests very well. The school board tries to get commu— nity help and ideas only when the board wants something. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 30. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 31. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 32. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 33. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 34. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 35. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 36. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 37. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 38. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 39. _SA _A _UN _D _SD 40. Section II 1. 120 The school board seems very willing to see peOple and talk with them about school problems. To provide the best education for our children, we need more space and rooms than are available in our present school buildings. Our present school buildings and facilities are quite adequate tO meet our needs. Good educational programs do not depend on buildings and space; we can provide fine education with our school plant just as it is. ' Our school should offer a wider vari- ety of courses and activities even though these would require more room or newer, larger arrangements. _93 Our school buildings and facilities are in good repair. Building maintenance and care in our school is not as good as it should be. Everything considered, our school is doing as good a job of education as can be eXpected. In general, our school is much better than the average for communities Of this size. Considering the amount of money we spend on them, our schools should do a much better job than they are doing. The school in our community has many serious shortcomings which should be remedied. Please list in order Of preference what you view as "good" about your school: a. b. c. Please list in order of preference what you view as "bad" about your school: a. b. c. APPENDIX B TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE L'- ]I' l I." III 122 Form B THE PURDUE TEACHER OPINIONAIRE Prepared by Ralph R. Bentley and Averno M. Rempel This instrument is designed to provide you the opportunity to express your opinions about your work as a teacher and var— ious school problems in your particular school situation. There are no right or wrong responses, so do not hesitate tO ”- mark the statements frankly. ' A separate answer sheet is furnished for your responses. Fill in the information requested on the answer sheet. You will notice that there is no place for your name. Please do not record your name. All responses will be strictly confi— l dential and results will be reported by groups only. DO NOT OMIT ANY ITEMS. "i." DIRECTIONS FOR RECORDING RESPONSES ON ANSWER SHEET Read each statement carefully. Then indicate whether you agree, probably agree, probably disagree, or disagree with each statement. Mark your answers on the separate answer sheet in the following manner: A PA PD D If you agree with the statement, blacken the space... ....... . ............................ ' pa pd d If you are somewhat uncertain, but probably agree with the statement, blacken the space ...... ..... a I pd d If you are somewhat uncertain, but probably dis- I agree with the statement, blacken the space..... a pa d ZIf you disagree with the statement, blacken the space ......... . ............................. a pd pd I All marks should be heavy and completely fill the answer sspace. If you change a response, erase the first mark com- Euletely. Make no stray marks on the answer sheet. Please C30 not mark this booklet. ‘ COpyright 1964, Purdue Research Foundation 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 123 Details, "red tape," and required reports absorb tOO much Of my time................ ...... A . The work Of individual faculty members is appre— ciated and commended by our principal........... A Teachers feel free to criticize administrative policy at faculty meetings called by our princ1pal...0.000.000.00000.0.0.000....00.. ..... A The faculty feels that their suggestions per— taining to salaries are adequately transmitted by the administration to the board of education. A Our principal shows favoritism in his relations with the teachers in our school................. A Teachers in this school are expected to dO an unreasonable amount of record-keeping and clerical work............... ....... ....... ...... A . My principal makes a real effort to maintain close contact with the faculty.......... ..... ... A Community demands upon the teacher's time are unreasonable...... ..... . ..... . ..... ......... A I am satisfied with the policies under which pay raises are granted.................... ...... A My teaching load is greater than that Of most of the other teachers in our school....... ...... A The extra-curricular load Of the teachers in our school is unreasonable................... A Our principal's leadership in faculty meetings challenges and stimulates our professional growthOOOOO0.0000IOOOOOOO0.0000. 0000000 .00 000000 A My teaching position gives me the social status in the community that I desire......... ......... A The number of hours a teacher must work is unreasonable......................... ........ A Teaching enables me to enjoy many of the material and cultural things I like..... ........ A My school provides me with adequate classroom supplies and equipment. ......... ........... ..... A Our school has a well-balanced curriculum ....... A PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 124 There is a great deal of griping, arguing, taking sides, and feuding among our teachers... Teaching gives me a great deal of personal satisfactionOOOOOO000.000.. 0000000000 000 0000000 The curriculum of our school makes reasonable provision for student individual differences... The procedures for obtaining materials and services are well defined and efficient........ Generally, teachers in our school do not take advantage of one another.... ..... .............. The teachers in our school cooperate with each other to achieve common, personal, and professional Objectives ........................ Teaching enables me to make my greatest contribution to society.... ......... . .......... The curriculum Of our school is in need of major revisions........... .................. I love to teach. ........ ... .............. . ..... If I could plan my career again, I would choose teaching. ....... .... ........ .... ........ Experienced faculty members accept new and younger members as colleagues.......... ........ I would recommend teaching as an occupation to students of high scholastic ability......... If I could earn as much money in another occupation, I would stop teaching.............. The school schedule places my classes atadisadvantageOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...O 000000000 Within the limits of financial resources, the school tries to follow a generous policy regarding fringe benefits, professional travel, professional study, etc........... ..... My principal makes my work easier and more pleasanthOOOOIOOOOO00.0.0... 00000000000 00 Keeping up professionally is too much OfaburdenlOIOOOOOOOOIO. 000000 0 000000000 .0000. A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA A PA PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 125 Our community makes its teachers feel as though they are a real part Of the community... A PA Salary policies are administered with fairness and justice.. ....... . . ......... . . A PA Teaching affords me the security I want in an occupation............... ................ A PA My school principal understands and recognizes good teaching procedures ............ A PA Teachers clearly understand the policies governing salary increases. ...... ........ ...... A PA My classes are used as a "dumping ground" for problem students..... ............... .. ..... A PA The lines and methods Of communication between teachers and the principal in our school are well developed and maintained ....... A PA My teaching load in this school is unreasonable........... ..... . . . ............. . A PA My principal shows a real interest in my department ...... ..... ...... ... ........... . A PA Our principal promotes a sense Of belonging among the teachers in our school. .......... A PA My heavy teaching load unduly restricts my nonprofessional activities ..... . ............ A PA I find my contacts with students, for the most part, highly satisfying and rewarding..... ..... A PA I feel that I am an important part Of this school system. ................. . ...... . A PA The competency of the teachers in our school compares favorably with that of teachers in other schools with which I am familiar......... A PA My school provides the teachers with adequate audio-visual aids and projection equipment..... A PA I feel successful and competent in my present position ....... .... ......... ... ...... . A PA I enjoy working with student organizations, clubs, and societies... ............ . ........ A PA PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD "'1 .ru_ L 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 126 Our teaching staff is congenial to work with. A My teaching associates are well prepared for their jobs........... ....... . .............. A Our school faculty has a tendency to form into cliques ......... . .................... A The teachers in our school work well together.. A I am at a disadvantage professionally because other teachers are better prepared to teach than I am. ..................................... A Our school provides adequate clerical services for the teachers ...................... A As far as I know, the other teachers think I am a good teacher ........ . ................... A Library facilities and resources are adequate for the grade or subject area which I teach ........................ . ......... A The "stress and strain" resulting from teach- ing makes teaching undesirable for me .......... A My principal is concerned with the problems Of the faculty and handles these problems sympathetically. ....... ..... . . .......... A I do not hesitate to discuss any school problem with my principal............. ......... A Teaching gives me the prestige I desire ........ A My teaching job enables me to provide a satis- factory standard Of living for my family.. ..... A The salary schedule in our school adequately recognizes teacher competency .................. A Most Of the people in this community under- stand and appreciate good education..... ....... A In my judgment, this community is a good place to raise a family ...... . ................. A This community respects its teachers and treats them like professional persons .......... A My principal acts as though he is inter- ested in me and my problems .................... A PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD 70. 71. 72. 730 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 127 My school principal supervises rather than "snoopervises" the teachers in our school. ..... It is difficult for teachers to gain acceptance by the people in this community ..... Teachers' meetings as now conducted by our principal waste the time and energy Of the Staffoooooooooooooo0000000000000...oooooooo My principal has a reasonable understanding of the problems connected with my teaching a881gnment000000000000......OIOOOOOOOOO ........ I feel that my work is judged fairly by my principal.............................. ..... Salaries paid in this school system compare favorably with salaries in other systems with which I am familiar ................ . ...... Most Of the actions of students irritate me.... The cooperativeness of teachers in our school helps make my work more enjoyable... ........ ... My students regard me with respect and seem to have confidence in my professional ability.. The purposes and Objectives Of the school cannot be achieved by the present curriculum... The teachers in our school have a desirable influence on the values and attitudes of their students............ ..................... This community expects its teachers to meet unreasonable personal standards ................ My students appreciate the help I give them with their school work... ................. To me there is no more challenging work than teaching ........... . ........... . .......... Other teachers in our school are appreciative Of my work ....... . ................ As a teacher in this community, my non- professional activities outside of school are unduly restricted.. ............... . ........ A A A A A A A A PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD 128 86. As a teacher, I think I am as competent as most other teachers ............. ... ......... A PA PD D 87. The teachers with whom I work have high professional ethics ..... ............... ........ A PA PD D 88. Our school curriculum does a good job of pre- paring students to become enlightened and competent citizens............... ....... . ...... A PA PD D 89. I really enjoy working with my students ........ A PA PD D 90. The teachers in our school show a great deal of initiative and creativity in their teaching assignments ......... . ................. A PA PD D 91. Teachers in our community feel free to discuss controversial issues in their classes.......... A PA PD D 92. My principal tries to make me feel comfortable when he visits my c1asses...................... A PA PD D 93. My principal makes effective use Of the individual teacher's capacity and talent. ...... A PA PD D 94. The people in this community, generally, have a sincere and wholehearted interest in the school system.................. ..... . ..... ..... A PA PD D 95. Teachers feel free to go the principal about problems of personal and group welfare.... ..... A PA PD D 96. This community supports ethical procedures regarding the appointment and reappointment of members of the teaching staff............... A PA PD D 97. This community is willing tO support a good program of education.................... ..... .. A PA PD D 98. Our community expects the teachers to participate in too many social activities ...... A PA PD D 99. Community pressures prevent me from . doing my best as a teacher......... ............ A PA PD D 100. I an well satisfied with my present teaching position .............................. A PA PD D "I7'1111111111141111I