. ' - I ’133‘1'13 java": . I. 'V 7.1!. ?i.‘>\~ t. h .'. f '5; J' “L V. ) Flt,“ 5' "v '1 4: “HF harm " m ' ' 4 u ' 9.“ ,' -'I .' . .. ‘. a “f, v I n v I ,4 Q. {I 3 ul ““3 a} erffivf. .-.~3§ :3 .( ..._... 3'“ V‘" "L 713"" 5‘9“.- ” .137“, ,. ._, - _ ,.-’,__ 1.. .-... A ‘1; u-IA.‘ r~ my“ T r. £“¢* V. L i; ‘ :; ~ _ .1. D ; *2. _- a . w Jfiugx I? fiszvsct.«’-s r11? ' “lintirn’fi ‘.' L f .. flan... a’ 19" 3"}- . M, ‘ ‘. . .‘ flit-'1’?) .” . I ;' - a; d» I ' . ' ‘ r ' .I'~ ~ ‘ u .1 '. ‘ ‘ 1 H' ‘ - - - In". H. ' ‘ - . 'K V ,‘ uw-‘nqfi'.~'l‘ "L .jl‘. . ‘ ‘ _ ' _,L ,1“. .. .-.‘. m1 . . d ’u, - V.“ V '.’.'t '.- I 4 > 0.31.3". . . ‘_ 'V' ' . '91. "';. fishy}. ,..‘\\1‘.'(:_.':.r'fl .H y .*' ‘7"‘4’ ':‘_\a I. ‘1 ?v M ‘I.,“4‘t‘.", ' 't M‘ . QEM kwwg%“-mwn +w~ ‘ I; . L . ll'n‘luzu‘ “ .'." .14.] I "L '." 'f . M--» “Mir? V.“ c :J; 49hr." . I I In.“ " H " "IV-“:4 v‘f/ wig,“ ‘ .15. T . ,lrijlflva fish'fjrwk. , . ‘ “I“! ‘:l|,|"';|. ‘ u , I ‘,‘..“"\ at“! ‘ ‘ My. ‘._:. 2-: mm E. t . ‘ .. I? ",2 15%|). _“>:"‘{‘ ‘:"“f:’ whit-3.x“ 1"’&I§Iv‘|‘\:' ' -'7 "' , .. I , 1,?‘F'3l‘.‘d'.v‘..3rr : - .; ykfi'W‘Y-kiz", ft§lfiquf a .» MM >ofi.~'¢;v;?li I {WESIS I)ate 07639 This is to certify that the thesis entitled BELIEF PATTERNS OF CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS presented by Edward B. Fech has been accepted towiirds fulfillment ‘ of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in MM Major profess talks l8'+ )V‘ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from .—-:-—- your record. f_I__N‘§§_ will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ‘9 . we .wm {Q ‘t-W i - fi' I‘ {‘1 ,‘“‘ I a? ' 31 :31 5 .‘WMAGIO A 1' ' 3’3 2 g“) . FEB; 0' 2 1399 1“ J BELIEF PATTERNS OF CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS By Edward Bruce Fech A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1984 ABSTRACT BELIEF PATTERNS OF CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS By Edward Bruce Fech The purpose Of this study was to determine the value and belief patterns of Catholic elementary school principals and teachers in terms of the school as a faith community. It was believed that some edu- cators. particularly lay teachers. would value secular and noncomnuufl- tarian purposes and characteristics for Catholic schools more than religious and communitarian ones. A selected number of Catholic elementary school principals and teachers from a medium-sized midwestern diocese participated in the study. Q-methodology was used to determine if differences existed in the belief patterns of these educators. Each respondent completed a 0- sort. placing the statements of purposes and characteristics on a continuum ranging from very strongly agree to very strongly disagree. The Oranalyses resulted in the identification of one type of principal. one type of religious teacher. and two types of lay teach- ers. Ffidncipals and religious teachers were subsequently combined to produce a single type. religious-gemeinschaft. Lay teachers Edward Bruce Fech constituted two distinct types. religious-gemeinschaft and secular- gesellschaft. Grade level taught was the only demographic characteristic significantly associated with the belief patterns of lay teachers. The lower the grade level taught. the greater the tendency to be religious- gemeinschaft. Conversely. the higher the grade level taught. the greater the tendency to be secular-gesellschaft in belief patterns. The study indicated that some lay teachers hold values and beliefs regarding purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools that are inconsistent with the stated goal of building the school into a faith community. To my mother and father. To my wife. Barbara. and our children. Lynn. Julie. Bruce. Mark. Barbara. and Carl. for their patience and understanding during the years of study and writing leading to the degree. To. Dr. Dorita Wotiska. O.P.. whose encouragement. assistance. and friendship made this study a reality. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am greatly indebted to my major professor.[hu Frederick Ignatovich. for his many hours of help and direction in the development Of this research. as well as for his patience and encouragement. Sincere appreciation is extended to Drs. Louis Romano. Castelle Gentry. and Hiram Fitzgerald for serving on my committee and providing assistance and encouragement wheneVer requested. A special thank-you to my staff for their understanding and to the principals and teachers who willingly participated in the survey. A very special thanks to Ann Swink. my secretary. who did so much of the preparation of this paper. Finally. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Bishop Kenneth J. Povish and all my friends and colleagues for their support and encouragement. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TMLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 Chapter I. II. INWODUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . The School as a Faith Community . Gemeinschaft . . . . . . . . . . . Gesellschaft . . . . . . . . . . . Catholic School Structure . . . . . Teachers' and Principals' Attitudes . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Rationale for the Study . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem and Research On 0 5 Importance of the Study . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . Delimitations of the Study Organization of the Study 0 o o o o a. o e o e o o o o o o o o :0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o est REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Attitudes as Indicators of Belief Patterns and Probable Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft Relationship . . Gemeinschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gesellschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Faith-Community Goal for Catholic Schools The Faith Community . . . . . . . . . . . Obstacles to Goal Achievement . . . . . The Social Structure of Schools . . . . . The School as Gesellschaft (Bureaucracy) Criticism of the School Structure . . . Value Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . Church Goals Versus Societal Goals in the Catholic Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . The Purpose of Organizational Goals . . . . . . Page vii _a_n_a_a_a_a_a mmmwmooooooassswd... 18 18 T9 20 22 24 24 26 27 27 29 3] 3l 31 Page Goals of American Education Versus Goals of Catholic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Potential for Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Adaptation for Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . 34 The Catholic School Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O Choice of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Gemeinschaft Purposes and Characteristics Related to Student Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Personal Relationships in Schools . . . . . . . . . 43 Gemeinschaft Purposes and Characteristics in Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Gemeinschaft Purposes and Characteristics in Alternative Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 sumary O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 53 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 57 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Selection of OrSOrt Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Selection of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Collection of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Smmmy .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 70 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tl Clarification of Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Typal Belief Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Presentation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Principals--Type l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Religious Teachers--Type l . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Lay Teacher Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Group 1 Lay Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Group 2 Lay Teachers .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . 123 Follow-Up Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l37 Principals and Religious Teachers Combined Comparison Of Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Group 1 Lay Teachers . . . . . . Comparison Of Group 1 and Group 2 Lay Teachers Comparison of All Types . . . . . . Follow-Up Analysis--Lay Teacher Only Status of Principal . . . . . . . Staff Composition . . . . . . . . Sex of Respondent . . . . . . . . Type of Degree-Granting Institution 148 148 149 150 152 00.00.00... —I b h Page Teaching Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Years of Experience in Catholic Schools . . . . . 154 Years of Experience in Present School . . . . . . 155 Teaching Grade Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Smmmy .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 'wz Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18h A. VALUE AND BELIEF STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 8. FIRST LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 C. INFORMATION FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 D. SECOND LETTER TO RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 E. DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETING OPSORT . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 SELECTED REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 vi 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Extreme Items for Principals (Z-Scores Greater Than +1.0 and LOSS Than -100) o e o o o o o e e o o o e 0 Extreme Items for Religious Teachers (Z-Scores Greater Than +100 afld LOSS Than -100) o o o o o o o o o o e 0 Extreme Items for Lay Teachers. Type 1. Group 1 (Z-Scores Greater Than +1.0 and Less Than -1.0) . . . Extreme Items for Lay Teachers. Type 2. Group 1 (Z-Scores Greater Than +1.0 and Less Than -1.0) . . . Extreme Items for Lay Teachers. Type 3. Group 1 (Z-Scores Greater Than +1.0 and Less Than -1.0) . . . Comparisons Between Lay Teachers. Types 1 and 2. Group 1 (Z-Scores Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . . Comparisons Between Lay Teachers. Types 1 and 3. Group 1 (Z-Scores Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . . Comparisons Between Lay Teachers. Types 2 and 3. Group 1 (Z-Scores Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . . Comparison Between Type 1 Lay Teachers Versus Types 2 and 3 Combined. Group 1 (Z-Score Differences Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Type 2 Lay Teachers Versus Types 1 and 3 Combined. Group 1 (Z-Score Differences Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Type 3 Lay Teachers Versus Types 1 and 2 Combined. Group 1 (Z-Score Differences Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consensus Items. Lay Teachers of Type 1. Type 2. Type 3. Group 1 (Z-Scores Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . vii Page 76 81 85 89 92 98 103 108 110 114 118 121 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 24. 25. 26. Extreme Items for Lay Teachers. Type 1. Group 2 (Z-Scores Greater Than +1.0 and Less Than -1.0) . . Extreme Items for Lay Teachers. Type 2. Group 2 (Z-Scores Greater Than +1.0 and Less Than -1.0) . . Comparisons Between Lay Teachers. Types 1 and 2. Group 2 (Z-Scores Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . Consensus Items. Lay Teachers of Type 1 and Type 2. Group 2 (Z-Scores Greater Than + 1.0) . . . . . . . Extreme Items for Principals and Religious Teachers Combined (Z-Scores Greater Than +1.0 and Less Than -100) e o o o o e e e e o o o o e o o o o o 0 Correlations Between Types of Belief Patterns Among Lay Teachers (Group 1) for Item Arrays (Three- Factor Solution and Two-Factor Solution) . . . . . Correlations Between Types Of Belief Patterns Among Lay Teachers for Item Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between Types of Belief Patterns for It” Arrays O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief Patterns by Status of Principal . . . . . . . . . . Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief patterns by Composition of Staff . . . . . . . . . Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief Patterns by Sex of Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief Patterns by Type of Institution Granting Bachelor's Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief Patterns by Total Teaching Experience . . . . . . . Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief Patterns by Years of Experience in Catholic Schools viii Page 125 128 131 134 138 144 145 147 149 150 151 153 154 155 Page 27. Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief Patterns by Years of Experience in Present School . . . 156 28. Cross-Tabulation of Types of Lay-Teacher Belief Patterns by Teaching Grade Level . . . . . . . . . . . 158 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The concept of building faith communities has been an integral concern of Christians since apostolic times and has been of predominant interest to those Charged with the responsibility for carrying out various aspects of the Catholic Church's teaching mission. Individual authors continue to address this issue in an effort to determine the degree of progress that has been made toward reaching this goal within the context of an educational ministry. W W Developing the spirit of community in parishes and dioceses was given renewed emphasis in this century by the Second Council of the Vatican. Within this context. the consistently stated goal for the Catholic school is to be "a Christian education community where human culture and knowledge. illuminated by faith. is shared in a spirit of freedom and love" (Dubuque. 1972. p. 1). Historically and currently. the Catholic school has been and is considered to be such a community. In 1929. Pope Pius XI stated that the goals of the educational program of the Catholic school should include "the whole aggregate of human life. physical and spiritual. domestic and social. not with a view of reducing it in any way. but in order to elevate. regulate. and perfect it" (p. 36). Pius XI saw the school as an extension of the family and felt that the focus of attention was not limited to intel- lectual development. The idea that community furthers education was stated by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy (1971). It emphasized the need for children to become part of a wider community than the family unit. Intensive exposurerto this wider community requires developing resources and concerns. cooperating with others. experiencing useful- ness. sharing in a social life. and actively participating in the life of the Church. In 1973. the National Council of Catholic Bishops said that "building and living community must be prime. explicit goals of the contemporary Catholic school" (p. 30). based on the precept that: Community is at the heart of Christian education not simply as a concept to be taught but a reality to be lived. Through education men must be moved to build Community in all areas of life; they can do this best if they have learned the meaning of community by experiencing it. Formed by this experience they are better able to build community in their families. their nation. their worlds. (p. 23) The Vatican reiterated the emphasis on building Christian community with special focus on its importance to the Catholic school. which was asked to develop a greater sense of community. Academic excellence and the acquisition of knowledge were viewed "not as a means of material prosperity and success. but as a call to serve and to be responsible for others" (Sacred Congregation. 1977. p. 16). The Con- gregati on further stated: "The school must be a Community whose values are communicated through the interpersonal and sincere relationships of its members and through individual and cooperative adherence to the outlook in life that permeates the school" (p. 10). The Congregation stated that the school must become a commu- nity. that the community aspect of the school is necessary. and that the school is a genuine community. To attain this goal. it is impera- tive that students be taught to overcome their individualism and to discover "their specific vocation to live responsibly in a community with others" (p. 13). Gemejnssbafl: The goal of forming a community requires that principals. teachers. and students enter into relationships characterized by a high degree of intimacy with strong emphasis on COOperation. mutual decision making. and shared religious ritual. Members of the Catholic school are to create an environment in which primary relationships predominate and in which tradition. consensus. informality. and kinship based on shared religious beliefs are emphasized. The environment and relation- ships called for are characteristic Of what TOnnies (1940) called gemei nsch aft. Such an environment is possible in familial relationships that are functionally diffuse. the participants "intimately bound in such a way that the rights and duties of one to another are taken for granted and are in a sense limitless" (Getzels. 1974. p. 222). Nisbet (1966) defined community as "all forms of relationships which are character- ized by a high degree of personal intimacy. emotional depth. moral commitment. social cohesion. and continuity in time" (p. 46). A further examination of this concept is presented in Chapter II. .535fillsshnit The goals of American education focus on the intellectual growth of the individual so he/she can achieve practical and monetary success and live effectively in society. The goals and activities of the school are such that efficiency and rationality are primary consid- erations. Thus. relationships are depersonalized. governance is by abstract rules and regulations. duties are prescribed. and authority is hierarchical. In Weberian terms. the school is a bureaucracy. and it exhibits the characteristics of T5nnies'(l940) gesellschaft. In a gesellschaft environment. the roles of the members are functionally specific; that is. "the rights and duties of the participants are restricted to those elements in the relationships defined by the tech- nical competence and institutional status of the participants" (Getzel s. 1974. p. 222). The gesellschaft model of the school was. perhaps. an inevitable one given a national decision to provide education for everyone through a common public school system. To accomplish this. a rational model of the school had to be developed that could accommodate large numbers of students and provide a specific program of instruction for all who passed through the system. In addition. "the rising tech- nical requirements of an urban-industrial society demanded considerably higher levels of achievement in the basic subjects" (Wiebe. 1969. p. 94). None of this could be accomplished in the "little red school house." The increasing demands society placed on the school required a more sophisticated and better educated teacher. which led to profes- sionalization of teaching. Likewise. the profession of school adminis- trator emerged because of the specialized training required to manage the complex organization the school had become. Although schools could have adopted other means of organiza- tion. the industrial model. with its production-line and bureaucratic principles. was prevalent in society at the time. Clear hierarchies Of authority were established: student. parent. teacher. principal. superintendent. and school committeeman. each of whom was presumed to know his function and the limits of his authority. Consistent with the principle of division of labor. activities were organized into special departments: teaching (with its many sub-divisions). administration. guidance. custodial services. etc. (Newman & Oliver. 1967. p. 82) The corporate bureaucratic model. guided by its promise of efficiency. was a major influence on the organization and program of public education. Given the problem of educating increasing numbers of students and ever-greater demands to expand the curriculum to prepare individual students to be productive members of society. the gesell- schaft school was probably the best solution. If individual achieve- ment is the school's primary goal. the model is most appropriate. The present study was designed to investigate the attitudes of selected Catholic elementary school principals and teachers toward purposes and characteristics of the Catholic school that support a community based on shared religious beliefs (gemeinschaft) or. conversely. that support a created aggregate of persons pursuing their own ends (gesellschafth .Qnih911§_§§h991_51£n91u£9 The past 20 years have been marked by tremendous changes within the structure of the Catholic school. Pertinent to this study are changes related to staffing. both of teachers and principals. and to governance by lay-dominated boards of education. Although lay persons have always had teaching roles. especially in Catholic secondary schools. they were relatively rare at the elementary level. Those schools were administered. staffed. and governed by religious congregations. composed almost exclusively of women. To them the idea of community was a way of life. and the school was merely an extension of that life. The use of such terms as "mother." "mother-house." and "sister“ are evidence of the belief that the group was a family. or in a term appropriate to this study. gemeinschaft. During the 19605 and 19705. an important change took place in the staffing patterns of Catholic elementary schools--from almost complete dominance by religious women (they now constitute less than one-fourth of the teachers in the diocese studied) to the present situation in which some schools are staffed entirely by lay persons. The absence of religious staff. with their sense of community. is an important factor to consider. especially in light of the fact that most lay persons. whether principals or teachers. have received their pre- service training in non-Catholic institutions. Getzels (1974) stated that the task of the school is to socialize the child to take his/her place in the "functionally specific institutions characteristic of our society" (p. 233). This seems to indicate that the school should be giving the student a sense of society rather than a sense of community. The very structure of the school tends to support this idea and to create a possible source of conflict between those who perceive the primary goal of the Catholic elementary school as being to encourage academic excellence on the part of individual students. providing them with the necessary prerequisites to lead successful lives in the larger society. and those who see the school's goal as being to engender in students a sense of community based on shared religious beliefs. As stated earlier. the structure Of the school follows an industrial model. Architecturally. schools "resemble factories (instruction carried on first in rooms but more recently in large. loft-like spaces. with different spaces reserved for different types of instruction) and Office buildings (with corridors designed to handle traffic between compartments of uniform sizeP‘(Newman & Oliver. 1967. p. 81). Hierarchies of authority are a structural feature of the school. as is the division of labor. Activities are divided into special departments. and there are boundaries between the departments. which may lead to a lack of communication and a fragmentation of school members. As a result. there may be basic disagreement among teachers or between teachers and principals about the value of the community- building goal. The presence of disagreement concerning the appropriateness of community-building purposes and characteristics makes attaining the goal problematic. If some individuals are actively working toward the goal and others are ignoring it. the atmosphere created thereby could have a deleterious effect on teaching and the learning process. Thus the attitudes of principals and teachers toward the kinds of purposes and characteristics appropriate for Catholic schools are of utmost importance. .IaacheLsL_and_EnincinalsL_Attltudes Attitudes. being the counterparts of social values. express individuals! beliefs about given values (Thomas & Znaniecki. 1958. p. 22). Attitudes involve a positive or negative evaluation and a readiness to respond in a consistent manner. The values and beliefs of teachers and principals toward the goal of school as a community are reflected in the importance they attach to those purposes and charac- teristics of Catholic elementary schools that may be considered impor- tant to the attainment of that goal. W The purpose of this study was to determine the value and belief patterns of principals and teachers in terms of the school as a faith community. Information about the belief patterns of principals and teachers with respect to the school as a faith community could lead to a better understanding of the feasibility of achieving that goal. It was expected that lay teachers in Catholic schools. having been trained for and by public institutions. would see the schoolks primary goal in terms of promoting the intellectual growth of the individual and his/her personal and financial success. For that reason. they would tend to express belief patterns consistent with gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. Conversely. it was expected that principals and religious teachers. whether trained in public institutions or not. would tend to express belief patterns with gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics because of their closer identification with the goal-setting institu- tion and. in the case of religious educators. the commitment to commu- nity as an ideal. The religious. both principal and teacher. would tend to support gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics by virtue of their being members of a religious community. Cooperation. not competition; service. not profit; commonality. not individuality are marks of the basic training received by persons entering religious life in the Catholic Church. Religious are expected to live community in all aspects of their lives. Lay principals in Catholic schools are likely to be familiar with those values because of long association with religious as well as a commitment to serve the institution. Most. if not all. lay principals have had a close association with religious during their teaching years and would have an understanding and appreciation of the ideal of a faith community. 10 W Catholic schools are faced with the task of developing positive attitudes toward the goal Of building a faith community among their members. Teachers' and principals' beliefs regarding the purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools that promote a faith community are indicative of the likelihood that the goal will be achieved. Given the need for principals and teachers who will support the goal. there is a need to explore the attitudes of current practitioners toward the school as a faith community. An analysis of types of principals and teachers. obtained from empirical data based on reactions to assump- tions about purposes and characteristics Of faith-community building. might provide useful theoretical insights into the school as an organi- zation. It might also provide practical insights into the direction Catholic schools ought to take and the criteria that should be the basis for selecting and training principals and teachers. Wanna The problem of this study was to discover types of principals and teachers in Catholic elementary schools. based on their attitudes toward certain purposes and characteristics of such schools. The investigator also sOught to discover if there was a relationship between types Of principals and teachers and demographic characteris- tics common to the types. The following two exploratory questions were posed to guide the collection of data in the study: 1. 2. 11 What types of principals and teachers exist in selected Catholic elementary schools. based on their attitudes toward certain assumptions about the purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools? What are the relationships between these types and selected demographic characteristics? The specific research questions related to the first explora- tory question are: 5. How many types of principals exist? How many types of teachers exist? What are the descriptions of each type? How do the types differ from each other? In what ways are the types similar to each other? The specific research questions related to the second explora- tory question are: 1. 2. Is there a relationship between the types of belief pat- terns of lay teachers under a lay principal as opposed to a religious principal? Is there a relationship between teacher belief patterns and the composition of the staff. i.e.. all lay teachers or mixed lay teachers and religious teachers? Is there a relationship between types of lay-teacher belief patterns and the sex of the respondent? Is there a relationship between types of lay-teacher belief patterns and the kind of undergraduate institution attended. i.e.. Catholic. state. or other private? Is there a relationship between types of lay-teacher belief patterns and the kind of graduate institution attended. i.e.. M.A. and post-M.A. at Catholic. state. or other private? Is there a relationship between types of lay-teacher belief patterns and the total years of experience in education? 12 7. Is there a relationship between types of lay-teacher belief patterns and the total years of experience in a Catholic school? ' 8. Is there a relationship between types of lay-teacher belief patterns and the total years of experience in the school at which they are presently teaching? 9. Is there a relationship between types of lay-teacher belief patterns and the grade level at which they are teaching? WW If. as it now appears. official Catholic Church policy will place greater emphasis on the importance of developing community on the basis of a common religious belief. the pressure on principals to incorporate that goal into their personal philosophies of education will also increase. Concomitantly. their performance will need to be Judged on the basis of how effectively they are working toward that goal. Administrators will have to evaluate teachers on the basis of their contribution to the building of community. as well as on their classroom performance. If teachers disagree with each other about the purposes and characteristics appropriate to a Catholic school. or if such disagreement exists between principal and teachers. a conflict could arise. This study has implications for central-office staff. as well. because that office is responsible for developing policies by which to evaluate performance in the development of community. This research may provide a sense of direction to those respon- sible for both preservice and inservice education Of teachers and principals in Catholic schools. Most Catholic school personnel cur- rently are trained in public institutions. where the emphasis is likely 13 to be on the importance of individual achievement rather than the common good. of structures that provide for functionally specific roles. of relationships that are temporary and secondary. and of affec- tive neutrality. These emphases are inimical to the achievement of the goal of community development. mm The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. W: A certified classroom teacher who is not a member of a religious community. W: A certified classroom teacher who is a member of a comunity of women religious. a nun. W: A person who is the principal of a Catholic elementary school and who is not a member of a religious community. W: A person who is the principal of a Catholic school and who is a member of a community of women religious. a nun. Community: These relationships. without reference to geography. characterized by a high degree of personal intimacy. face- to-face association. emotional involvement. relative permanence. and group comitment. mm: The same as community but with an emphasis on shared religious belief as the basis for forming the cannunity. Gemeinschaft: A group characterized predominantly by intimate primary relationships emphasizing tradition. consensus. informality. 14 and kinship; emphasis in the group is on the collective good rather than individual attainment: a community. ‘Gesellscnajt: A group characterized by individual achievement and happiness. by efficiency. and by complexity; a society. Infidjmdg: A readiness or tendency to act or react in a certain manner; an expression of the beliefs of individuals about a given value. ‘Beliei: A statement Of what an individual regards as true and factual. .Value: A principle Of behavior to which an individual feels a strong. emotionally toned. positive commitment. .Digcese: A Jurisdictional entity of the Catholic Church. recognized by specific geographic boundaries. WW: Those schools selected to represent possible staffing patterns for teachers and principals. .Staiiing_pattenn: Refers to staffing as lay or religious in terms of religious principal with mixed staff. lay principal with all lay staff. and lay principal with mixed staff. W: A staff consisting of lay teachers and one or more religious teachers. loztechnique: "A sophisticated form of rank-ordering objects by persons establishing correlations to reveal the number and nature of similar clusterings of persons" (Ignatovich. 1970. p. 10). 15 WOW This study was concerned with selected principals' and teachers' beliefs about the purposes and characteristics of Catholic elementary schools. There was no assurance that the respondents' professed beliefs coincided with their actual behavior. The population was restricted to those schools selected from groups of schools that represented various staffing patterns. as defined above. Because of that restriction. the results cannot be generalized beyond the present sample. Study participants were assured of anonymity. and the names of individual respondents were not recorded. Despite these assurances. however. respondents may have given biased answers. Although a research assistant collected the data. respondents! knowledge that the study was being conducted by the superintendent might have contaminated the results. No attempt was made to control for the socioeconomic status of the clientele being served. The schools selected for the study were located in various geographic regions of the diocese. That the schools were not randomly selected. but were chosen on the basis of representa- tion of staffing patterns. is a further limitation that must be con- sidered. A final limitation arose from the instrument used to survey the participantsfi1attitudes. The statements chosen to represent the purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools were gleaned from the works of Catholic education practitioners who attempted to delineate 16 the purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools if they are to be true communities. Obviously. a certain amount of arbitrariness and judgment was exercised in selecting statements claimed tO1be repre- sentative of the Catholic school as gemeinschaft. as well as those selected to represent its opposite. gesellschaft. WM Certain restrictions relative to the population of schools were incorporated into the study. The investigator felt these restrictions were necessary in attempting to control for the effects Of extraneous variables. These delimitations were as follows: 1. Only Catholic elementary schools in the selected diocese were considered. 2; Schools with student populations of less than 100 or more than 400 were excluded as being atypical of schools in the diocese. 3. The principals who responded had been in the same school for at least one year. 4. Only schools that agreed to participate were included in the study. WW Chapter I cOntained an introduction to the study. the need for and purpose of the research. a statement of the problem and research questions. definition of terms. and delimitations of the study. The related literature and research pertinent to the study are reviewed in Chapter II. Emphasis is placed on the theory underlying the concepts 17 of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft and the organizations of schools. Chapter III presents the methods and procedures used in the study. Chapter IV contains the descriptive and statistical findings of the investigation. In Chapter V. the findings of the study are summarized. conclusions are drawn. and the implications of these conclusions are presented. Suggested areas for future research are also included. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH Introduction The purpose Of this study was to discover types of principals and teachers in Catholic elementary schools. based on their attitudes toward certain purposes and characteristics of such schools. The purposes and characteristics either support a belief in the school as a community (gemeinschaft) or militate against it. supporting a noncommu- nal structure (gesellschaft). The communitarian emphasis for the Catholic school has been developed primarily since the close of the Second Vatican Council of the mid-19605 and has been promoted by vari- ous church bodies through official pronouncements. Catholic schools have been directed to build themselves into communities based on shared religious belief--faith communities. This has been stated as a primary goal of Catholic education according to official policy. Although many educators in Catholic schools may subscribe to this effort. the pres- ence of those who do not could prevent achievement of the goal. The extent to which individual educators in Catholic schools value the faith-community ideal has received little attention in the educational literature. Much has been written. however. regarding the social structure of American public schools. and it is primarily from this literature that school purposes and characteristics are examined. 18 19 The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on the social system of the school in American culture and to present research related to the questions of the present study. The rationale for using an attitude survey to determine the likely behavior of individuals is presented. Selected sociological literature is reviewed to establish the meaning of gemeinschaft (communal) and gesellschaft (noncommunal) relationships. Church documents setting forth the faith-community goal for the Catholic school are examined. Other literature related to that goal. as well as to the purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools. is presented. To gain insights into the purposes and characteristics of schools in the American culture. pertinent educational and sociological literature addressing school organization and social structure is also reviewed. The question of possible conflict between the Church's call for the Catholic school to be gemeinschaft in character. while society expects the school to be gesellschaft in nature. is explored. Selected research on topics of concern in this investigation is presented in the final section of the literature review. W W "The common'el ement of most definitions of social attitude is that such an attitude is a readiness or tendency to act or react in a certain manner" (McNemar. 1946. p. 289). According to Allport (1937). an attitude is a predisposition to respond. This predisposition may initiate or guide behavior. It is linked to a specific object or class 20 of objects. Thomas and Znaniecki (1958) stated that attitudes express the belief pattern of the individual toward a given value. Attitude usually implies evaluation. an acceptance or rejection of the object toward which the attitude is directed. and expresses a readiness to respond consistently with that evaluation. This inclination to behave generally and to perceive and make judgments specifically according to one's attitudes was addressed by Allport (1955). Bruner (1951). and Postman (1951). The focus of the present study was on the attitudes of princi- pals and teachers toward gemeinschaft and gesellschaft purposes and characteristics Of Catholic schools. These persons can be expected to behave in a manner consistent with their attitudes. They will be inclined to promote the school as gemeinschaft or gesellschaft. accord- ing to their individual belief patterns. If they support gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. they will work toward building the school as a faith community. If they do not. supporting gesellschaft purposes and characteristics instead. the school will not achieve its community- building goal. The dichotomy between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft relationships precludes this. WWW Gemeinschaft The terms "gemeinschaft" and "gesellschaft" were coined by Ferdinand Tannies (1963). They refer to the modes in which people are bound togethen. The concept of gemeinschaft begins by assuming perfect unity of human wills as being a natural condition. The binding force 21 Of gemeinschaft is understanding. This understanding represents the social force that holds members of a group together as a unity. It is based on intimate knowledge of each other. which is the result Of wanting to be a part of the life of each other. to share joys and sorrows. Parsons (1949) spoke of this sharing of benefits and misfor- tunes. though not necessarily equally. as an important aspect of gemeinschaft. The Obligations in the relationships are unspecified and unlimited. There is a "recognition that a common identity of communal membership implies special claims which members have on each other. as distinct from others" (Gusfield. 1975. p. 29). Also. there is a merg- ing of feeling and thought. of tradition and commitment. of membership and volition. as opposed to conflict or competition. and utility or contractual assent (Nisbet. 1966). 'The gemeinschaft relationship "is based on a subjective feeling of the parties that they belong to each other. they are implicated in each other's total existence" (Weber. 1946. p. 80). The gemeinschaft is constituted and maintained by mutual affection. which means that each member of the group is in a positive personal relationship with every other member (MaCMurray. 1961). Everyone knows and is interested in everyone else. Communication within the gemeinschaft is direct and personal; controls on the individual are informal. resting more on reputation and acceptance in the eyes of others than on rules and regulations. NO forms of norms regulate "the specific ends. means and conditions of actions within the relationship" (Parsons. 1949. p. 689). To the 22 extent that formal controls do exist. they are almost superfluous (Zahn. 1964). Any sanctions the institution may impose are related to attitudes rather than specific acts. The actions of the individuals are taken as expressions of their attitudes and are seen in the context of a wider relationship between individuals. which by definition transcends the elements of the act (Parsons. 1949). The structure of gemeinschaft is seen as pre—ordained. even "sacred" (Zahn. 1964). Parsons (1949) also noted the "sacred" or religious character of gemeinschaft. "owing primarily to the fact that common to both [religion and gemeinschaft] is a certain type of atti- tude. of disinterested devotion involved in a fusion Of interests over and over. and the prominent role of symbolism" (p. 693). .GQSQJJEQhaII In contrast to gemeinschaft is the concept of gesellschaft. Gesellschaft relationships are artificially created aggregates Of human beings. 'The resemblance of this type of relationship to gemeinschaft is only superficial. insofar as the members live together peacefully. Gesellschaft is a "type of human relationship characterized by a high degree of individualism. impersonality. contractualism. and proceeding from volition or sheer interest rather than from the complex of affective states. habits. and traditions that underlies gemeinschaft" (TOnnies. 1963. p. 74). Gesellschaft relationships are rationally motivated on the basis of interest. Expediency. exchange. mutual interest. and rational 23 calculation of gain are the characteristics of such relationships. The pursuit of mutually held goals elicits cooperation (Gusfield. 1975; MacMurray. 1961L. The relationships between and1among members are functional. each one playing a role in the achievement of the common end. The essential separation of the parties to the relationship with respect to their own systems of values is presupposed. An important characteristic of gesellschaft is the fusion of interests for a spe- cific. positively defined area; it is irrelevant whether the ultimate value systems of the parties are integrated. From an institutional aspect. parties to the relationship are morally held to Obligations. but these Obligations are enforced by sanctions if necessary. In this case. the obligations typically are limited by the terms of the contract (certain specific. positively defined obligations). In any new situation that may arise. the presumption is against including a new obligation unless it can be shown to be "in the contract" or implied in its terms. The burden of proof is on the one who would require the performance of an obligation not obviously and explicitly assumed (Parsons. 1949. p. 689). In gesellschaft. the institutional norms are a body of rules: "If you enter into an agreement you are obligated to carry out its terms faithfully. Rules touch the specific means. ends and conditions of the actions" (Parsons. 1949. p. 6901. Instead of the symbiotic relationship of gemeinschaft. the gesellschaft is "a precise and extremely complex organization of carefully defined parts into a functioning [in the sense of mechanical 24 functioning] whole" (Zahn. 1964. p. 107). The relationships are instrumental and impersonal. as is communication. which proceeds along prescribed channels for the sake of efficiency. The gesellschaft is "secular" rather than "sacred." The goal of the Church is to have Catholic schools develop into communities of people bound together by a shared religious faith. They are to become faith communities. The purposes and characteristics of the schools are to be gemeinschaft. Ihe_Ea1th:Qommun1Ix_Goal.£on.§atholic.§chools MW Schanz (1977) believed the movement to community within the Catholic Church is a reaction to the Council of Trent's view of the Church as a monarchical and hierarchical society. Whereas early Christians seemed to be conscious that they were a community. the practical life of the Church for the past thousand years has been characterized more by obedience to rules and regulations than by an attitude of community. Since Vatican II. members have been called to work toward Catholic schools as faith communities. "being-as-one—with- each-other in a human way" (p. 125). Westerhof (1983) described the faith community as a base or mid-community. These are "family-like communities that exist between the 'cultural family' and the state and its related institutionsJ' They are to be gemeinschaft in nature. focusing on every aspect of life. 25 The total personality is expected to be involved in the group's life: intimacy and sharing of emotion in depth is encouraged; behavior is regulated implicitly by custom; there is no limit to a person's obligations to the group and its members and [one] gives whatever love demands; and persons' basis of worth are founded only on their being. (p. 262) The school in particular is to make a concerted effort to build a faith community characterized by social equality. justice. peace. and friendship based on fraternal love (Dubuque. 1972; National Conference. 1973; Sacred Congregation. 1971: Sacred Congregation. 1977). Each individual is deliberately to strive for the common good. reaching out with concern to others. Mutual affection is to be the bond that replaces utility in making the group one. By calling the school to be a faith community. the Church is asking each individual member to enter into an intimate union with all other members (Swanston. 1967. p. 8). The Catholic school as a faith community was defined by O'Neill (1971) as a setting in which "adults and young people spend a great amount Of time together. come to know each other relatively well. and share significant concerns--friendships and loves. ideas and interests. personal philosophies" (p. 70). The implication for the Catholic school is that friendship among the members is a 51W if the school is to fulfill its purpose (Pennock. 1980). The relationship calls for an involvement in each other's lives that goes beyond a mere professional teacher-student one; it is a call for the development of a personal community. Johann (1968) defined this community as a unity of persons viewed as an end in itself. The members are united. "not in terms of their functional relationships to a future goal. but in terms of their reality as 26 persons" (p. 85). Everything is to be subordinated to the ultimate good. which is their interrelationships as persons. In this personal community. the role of authority is to promote consensus. not to impose order from on high. Authority seeks to estab- lish "a genuine thinking. feeling. and willing together of all the members" (Johann. 1968. p. 86). In terms of the gemeinschaft-gesellschaft typology. the Catholic school as a faith community is to be gemeinschaft. It has a common memory. a shared—faith story: a common vision. a common desired and anticipated future; a common authority to which everyone points and that makes community possible even when there are radical differences of opinions in beliefs. attitudes. values. and behavior; and common rituals. the community's repetitive symbolic actions expressive of its memory and vision (Westerhof. 1983). W The Catholic school has a twofold problem in trying to achieve the faith-community goal. First. there is the difficulty of trying to balance school norms and their accompanying rules and regulations with the establishment of the primary relationships required by a faith community (Carrier.'1965). A second. more serious problem is that of attempting to accomplish the task when the structure of the institution is inappropriate for that end. Form follows function. If the function of the Catholic school is to be a faith community. the form of the institution must be structured so that the function can be carried out. 27 Catholic elementary schools are structured much the same as their public counterparts. Insights into the structure of the latter will provide insights into the problems Catholic schools must address. WWW; Merton (1968) defined a social structure as "that organized set of social relationships in which members of the society or group are variously implicated" Ox 216k. The function of the social structure is to carry out the values it receives from the cultural structure. ”that organized set of normative values governing behavior which is common to members of a designated group" (p. 216). The school is the official agency for passing on the prevailing values of the culture. School relationships are functionally specific; lJL. the individuals involved--students. teachers. parents. and principals--are restricted in their rights and duties "to those elements in the relationship defined by the technical competence and institutional status of the participants" (Getzels. 1974. p. 222). Their interaction is limited and is characteristic of gesellschaft relationships. as described above. WW Bidwell (1965) stated that "schools are a variety of the species organization which can be distinguished chiefly by the nature Of their goals and their bureaucratic structure" (p. 973). The goals and the complex nature of the activities carried out by schools require the efficiency and rationality characteristic of a Weberian bureaucracy 28 (Musgrove. 1973). This involves "a clear-cut division of integrated activities which are regarded as inherent in the office" (Merton. 1968. p. 2). Roles within the school are assigned on the basis of technical expertise. which is determined "through formalized. impersonal pro- ceduresJ' The stress is on depersonalization of relationships. and. in fact. attempts to personalize relationships may meet with disapproval. The operation of the school. like that of any bureaucracy. is defined and governed by abstract rules and regulations. Social and emotional ties are unacceptable. According to Popkewitz (1977). the appeal of bureaucracy is the belief that professionals can totally rationalize organizations and make them more controllable. Historically. the bureaucratization of schools was primarily the work of mid-nineteenth-century schoolmen. notably Horace Mann and Henry Barnard. who modeled schools and school systems on the American manufacturing system (Katz. 1975). ‘They used the factory as a metaphor and sought to centralize and standardize education like a production process. This bureaucratization was enhanCed "with the standardization of curriculum and internal organization. grading of schools. emphasis on supervision. teacher training. [and] the establishment of normal schools" (Katz. 1975. p. 35). Musgrove (1973) suggested that the school. because of its goals and the activities necessary to achieve them. must be regulated by an impartially applied. consistent system of abstract rules. He noted that the duties of staff members must be officially prescribed. a division of labor maintained. and a hierarchy of authority established. 29 with a clear delineation of status and function between the various positions in the school. Studies by Anderson (1968). Bidwell (1965). Corwin (1970). and King (1973) supported Musgrove by showing that the everyday experience Of schools exhibits many Weberian characteristics. The school is organized so that the administrator's responsibility is clearly differentiated from that Of the teacher. 'The administrator must coordinate the teaching of different teachers so that students can be moved from grade to grade with a minimum amount of frustration to the children and disruption to the school (Katz. 1975). In a bureaucracy. a differentiation is also made between the transient and permanent members of the organization. "Transients are discouraged from permanent affiliation with the organization. and persons occupying permanent positions are encouraged to act dispassion- ately and to curtail individual izing actions toward transients" (Katz. 1975. p. 441). Teachers are expected to show no preference or personal liking for a particular pupil while neglecting other pupils. The "professional is expected to be fair. disinterested. and rational in his approach to the client" (p. 441). NW The gesellschaft social structure of American schools has not been without its critics. Dewey (1899: in Steiner & McClellan. 1980) decried the fact that almost the only measure for success is a competitive one. . . . a comparison of results in the recitation or in the examination to see which child has succeeded in getting ahead Of others . . . . 30 For one child to help another in his task has become a school crime . . . mutual assistance becomes a clandestine effort to relieve one's neighbor of his proper duties. (p. 97) Newman and Oliver (1967) noted in schools that lack of a sense Of common bond. the sharing of identity. the holding of things in common esteem--clearly an absence of gemeinschaft characteristics. They saw schools concentrating on serving the individual to the point of causing a neglect and erosion of the sense of community. Children in schools are age-graded. which hinders "the development of meaningful relationships among generations and [cultivates] a fragmented rather than continuous concept of self" (p. 77). Specializing of teaching has also contributed to the moving away from school as community because "learning tends to become iso- lated from the significant concerns of the community. and the narrower functions and tasks of the school come to dominate the broader purpose of education" (Newman 8. Oliver. 1967. p. 77). The very "milieu of the school discourages the development of intimacy among students and teachers" (p. 81). The lack of such intimacy seems to preclude the development of community. Further. Newman and Oliver contended that the bureaucratic model of the school is inconsistent with the idea of community: "Clear hierarchies of authority [are] established: stu- dent. parent. teacher. principal. superintendent. and school committee- men. each of whom [is] presumed to know his function and the limits of his authority" (p. 82). This description is consistent with Getzels' (1974) specificity of role function. a characteristic of gesellschaft. It is also consistent with Parsons' (1949) general description of 31 gesellschaft. especially with respect to relationships being for spe- cific limited purposes. a specific exchange of goods or services. or a specific immediate end held in common. Jaln§_CQn£11£t The focus of this study was the institutional Church's goal of forming the Catholic school into a faith community in which the common good. consensus. and close personal relationships based on a shared religious belief are the primary values to be promoted. The problem for the Catholic school is to reconcile those values with the prevail- ing ones of American culture. The development of the individual. competition. maintenance of impersonal contractual relationships. and education that focuses on intelligence and leads to job and economic success are the values emphasized in American schools (MacLean. 1938). If school members are divided on the question of which values are more important. the potential exists for conflict and failure to achieve the stated goals. This topic is explored further in the next section. W mm mm: According to Etzioni (1960). organizational goals serve many functions. Goals give organizational activity an orientation "by depicting the state of affairs which the organization attempts to real ize" (p. 257). Goals are the sources of legitimacy that "justify the organization's activities and its very existence. at least in the eyes of some participants and in those of the general public or 32 subpublics" (p. 257). Organizational goals provide the purposes against which members assess the success of their organization. W W As Davies (1970) pointed out. one of the difficulties in studying organizational goals is in determining whose goals count as the goals of the organization. The goals of American education have traditionally been focused on the continuation of the social heritage and on the teaching of basic skills. In recent times. however. the school has been seen as "the primary tool for enabling man to partici- pate in the modern world and that educational procedures and content should be geared to this challenge" (Katz. 1964. p. 447). The school is expected to produce technical experts. Gormly (1981) stated two general goals of public education: 1. Provide formal training and acculturation so that children can become "good citizens" who can participate in a complex. tech- nological society as effective adults. 2. Provide children with a broad set of experiences which enable them to realize their talents and interests so they may live richer. more enjoyable lives. (p. 69) The goal of Catholic education. according to principles cited in the normative documents of the Church. is the formation of a community. However. McCluskey (1969) stated that the Catholic school and the public school seem to be substantially identical. In much or even most of their educational objectives. organization. curriculum. activities. standards. and educational results. there is little to differentiate the average parochial and public school. 33 From a parental point of view. Catholic schools have a moral- religious purpose (Fichter. 1958; Greeley & Rossi. 1968; Neuwier. 1966). although Greeley (1976) found that parents chose Catholic schools primarily because they believed their children would get a better education there. Religious instruction was only a secondary goal. .Entfin1111_£9£_99n£1191 The failure Of the Church to give due consideration to the institutional means Of reaching the established goal may result in conflict. The school structure militates against achieving the goal pursued. Schools are official agencies responsible for passing on the values of American culture. Catholic schools have the dual role of passing on values of American culture and of the Catholic culture. For teachers and principals. emphasis is on education that leads to aca- demic achievement and subsequently to economic success (Getzels. Lipham. & Campbell. 1968). 'The public school emphasizes this goal and is structured to accomplish it. The Catholic school. structured inter- nally much like its public school counterpart. can achieve those same goals better than it can the goal of forming a community. In other words. the social structure of the Catholic school acts as a deterrent to acting out the values mandated by the Church. As a result. there may be a conflict between cultural values and institutional expecta- tions. "The institutional expectations may be attuned to one set of values which is not part of the value system of the [dominant] culture" (Getzels et al.. 1968. p. 110). 34 When cultural values and social structures are in conflict. the former calling for behavior and attitudes that the latter preclude. there is a strain that can lead to a state of normlessness or anomie. The presence of two conflicting value systems presents a problem for the individual members in the school. The Church. while emphasizing the importance of school as a community. fails to place equal stress on institutionalized procedures for achieving the goal. Individuals within the system then must adapt in order to survive (Merton. 1968L The modes of adaptation appropriate to this study are conformity and ritualism. It should be noted that these modes refer to role behavior and not to the personalities of individuals. WM Adaptation is the means individuals use to adjust their behavior to suit the social environment. Conformity is one attempt to deal with contradictions in the cultural and social structure and is the most common adaptive behavior. The individual accepts both cultural goals and the institutionalized means for achieving them. Ritualism. on the other hand. is a means of appearing to conform by accepting the institutional means while reflecting the goals. ‘The players act out or perform the "ritual" in order to "play it safe" and not jeopardize their positions. Even though the individual does not believe the goal can be achieved. ritual conformity protects against any anxiety that might be provoked as a result of rejecting the goal. 35 TO resolve the conflict of having to deal with two sets of goals. one Of which is coordinated with the means and the other not. members of the Catholic school may elect to conform to the one but adopt a model of ritualism in the othen. Thus the attitudes of principals and teachers might reflect conformity to the values of the American culture. individual good. and contractual relationships while rejecting the values of community except in a ritualistic way. In such a case. the individual would abandon the goal of community. adhering instead to the institutionalized norms and safe routines that super- ficially build an appearance of unity. Further understanding of the potential conflict can be gained from Parsons'(1951) analysis of social systems. According to Parsons. the social system "cannot be so structured as to be radically incom- patible with the conditions of functioning of its individual actors or of the relatively stable integration of a cultural system" (p. 27). In addition. a sufficient number of the system's members must be motivated to act positively with respect to its expectations and negatively with respect to engaging in too much disruptive behavior. 'The system cannot make a commitment to cultural values that "pl ace impossible demands on people and thereby generate deviance and conflict to a degree which is incompatible with the minimum conditions of stability and orderly development" (p. 27). Parsons indicated that it is impossible for a functionally important part of any social system to be developed and stabilized 36 without some degree of institutionalization because institutionaliza- tion involves both structural and functional adaptation. Institution- alization is an attempt to achieve the ends of the system through the formalization of a structure and the organization of its parts. Where there are common ultimate values and goals that members of the system support and try to achieve. the effect is an integration of the system's components. If within the organization there are participants for whom membership is based on its usefulness for attaining private goals. the solidarity of the organization may be disrupted. Without "attachment to the constitutive common values the collectivity tends to dissol ve" (Parsons. 1951. p. 41). Cole and Cox (1968) applied Parsons"theoretical construct to the school. The school. they said. is composed of actors. behaviors. a set of beliefs. ends to be achieved. norms regulating behavior and how ends are to be achieved. statuses. status relationships. roles and role relationships. and authority or the power of some to move others to decision and action. In the case of the Catholic school. the value to be learned and shared by all members of the structure is that of school as gemein- schaft. The previous socialization Of the actors. that process by which individuals learn a group's culture and their role within the group. will determine the actors' predisposition to accept that value. The learned and shared expectations of what school is may vary according to whether the actors are lay or religious. where they were 37 trained. and the extent to which religious influence on lay staff forms new expectations of what a Catholic school is. For members of the Catholic school to enter into a mode of conformity with respect to the school as a faith community. there must be essential agreement about what values are important for the institu- tion. and the social-structural characteristics of gemeinschaft must be seen as compatible with other cultural values. From a Parsonian per- spective. the Catholic school faces the dilemma of trying to integrate the gemeinschaft goal of forming a faith community in a gesellschaft social structure that militates against its achievement. .Ihfi.§flth911§.§£hnnl_Dilemma As stated earlier. the Catholic school is functioning as a social system under two cultural systems. Church and contemporary American. 'The ultimate values and goals of one are not those of the other. Teachers and principals are faced with the dilemma of choosing one system or the othen. The integration of the school into a workable unit is necessary for its orderly operation over a long period of time. If teachers and/or principal do not share common values with respect to the goals of the school. integration is impossible. The most important indication of whether or not integration has taken place in the school is not its goals. its norms. or its beliefs. but the behavior of its actors--collective action taken. the quality of relationships among the actors. and the substitution of system goals for individual goals and norms (Cole & Cox. 1968). 38 The Church. then. is seeking to teach norms akin to those found in the family. whereas the school. under the influence of American culture. is attempting to teach norms for participation in society. The norms are not the same and may be a source of conflict for the school's teachers and principal. Dreeben (1967) addressed this conflict. 1According to him. the school differs dramatically from the family in its structural characteristics: 1. Responsibility for the control of schools and for instruction in the classroom rests in the hands of adults who are not the kinsmen of pupils. 2. Children leave the household daily to attend school but return at the close of the day; that is. they continue their active membership and participation in the family. 3. Schools are distinguished structurally according to level; despite the similarities between elementary and secondary levels. there are conspicuous differences involving: a. variation in the heterogeneity of the student body related to school district size; b. degree of differentiation of the teaching staff based upon subject matter specialization; c. presence or absence of formal provision for tracking pupils based largely on past academic achievement: d. variation in the number of pupils that each teacher con- fronts daily. 4. Pupils progress through school grade-by-grade at yearly intervals each time severing associations with one set of teachers and establishing associations with a new set (unlike the family where children's relationships with parents do not follow a sequential pattern of severance and re—establishment). 5. Pupils move through school as members of age-equal cohorts (unlike the family in which the age dispersion of children is characteristically larger than that of the classroom). 6. Classrooms. like families. consist of adult and non-adult positions. but the former have a much larger non-adult membership. (p. 216) Catholic schools have the same structural characteristics as the American public schools. To move the school toward a community. a movement away from these structures is necessary. 39 In calling the school to be a faith community. the Church is seeking to establish kinship-like or primary relationships among and between pupils. teachers. and principal. Although there is some evidence that teachers and pupils do form temporary communities within the classroom. the hierarchical structure of school governance and the separation by age and/or subject matter tends to militate against forming the kinds of primary relationships being fostered. According to Dreeben (1967). the structures described above were designed to enhance pupils' opportunities for economic and political participation in society. To this end. four norms ”are central to the dominant. nonfamilial activities of adults in American society" (p. 215). These are independence. achievement. universalism. and specificity. Independence means that "individuals accept the Obligations. respectively: to act by themselves (unless collaborative effort is called for) and accept personal responsibility and accountability for their conduct and its consequences" (p. 216). Achievement requires that individuals "perform tasks actively and master the environment according to standards Of excellence" (p. 216). Universalism refers to the orientation of one person to another in terms of generalized stand- ards of behavior. ”the right of others to treat them as members of categories Often based on a few discrete characteristics" (p. 216). Thus a teacher relates to an individual child as a member of the class. and the relationship is based on recognition of that universal cate- gory. Specificity refers to a social relationship limited to a narrow 40 and clearly defined range of rights and obligations. rather than "the full constellation of them representing the whole person" Ox 217). Behavior regarded as appropriate for a teacher is characterized by the expectation of specificity. If the school does foster the abovemen- tioned norms. an attempt by the Church to introduce norms that require consideration of the whole [person in the context of community and not independent of it will be a source of conflict. Little research has been conducted relating to the Catholic school as a faith community or even to the school as a community in the sense of gemeinschaft. A number of writers have viewed the model school as one having a sense of purpose or stressing the importance of commitment and close interpersonal relationships among members of the school. ‘These characteristics would be indicative of a gemeinschaft. and it is selected research in these areas that is reviewed in the following section. .Belnten_Be§en££h Research on the following areas is presented in this section: (1) choice of school based on perceptions of gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. (2) effect on student performance Of schools exhibit- ing certain gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. (3) personal relationships. and (4) gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics in public and alternative schools and classrooms. 41 Wool In research on parental choice. Gratiot (1979) reported that. although there was no support for the hypothesis that parents' choice Of nonpublic schools was based on social status. it was shown that parents selected nonpublic schools for religious and moral reasons. as well as dissatisfaction with a previous school. Religious and moral criteria are appropriate for a more gemeinschaft school model. Porter and Porter (1973) reported that parents appreciated the sense of community provided within independent schools. Parents also cited the quality and dedication of the teachers as important char- acteristics of these schools. Parental involvement in the school. including the decision-making process. was also important to parents. Kraushaar (1972) referred to "the felt identification with a close-knit ideological community [that] conditions the choice of [schools]" (p. 104). In his research he found that parents chose private schools because they were thought to be better suited to their children's needs. Large majorities of Catholic. Protestant. and independent school parents expressed a belief that "the private school of their choice offered better training in diligence and study habits" (p. 104). For Catholics and Protestants. the religious program weighed heavily in school selection. They also expressed a belief that the school had stricter discipline. values and attitudes or customs close to those in the home. Catholics and Protestants saw "home. school and church working together toward the same goal. supporting the same philosophy" (p. 104). 42 Kraushaar also explored the question of teachers' choice Of private schools. Catholic. Protestant. and independent teachers agreed on the following reasons for choosing to teach in private schools: 1. The educational philosophy of the school. 2. Greater sense of community and freedom from an impersonal bureaucracy. 3. Freedom to design and teach courses. 4. Quality of the faculty and school head (p. 148). The research provided an indication that parents appreciate and choose schools because of perceived gemeinschaft purposes and character- istics. They appear to be interested in the communitarian nature of the school rather than the bureaucratic one. At least one study indi- cated that teachers may select schools on the same basis. WWW: WW Shouval (1975) and Wolins (1974) found that the more intensive. committed. cohesive. and socially integrated the school environment. the greater effect it had on its students in terms Of behavior and academic performance. Likewise. Rutter. Maugham. Mortimore. and Ouston (1979) noted that differences in Outcome between schools were not due to such physical factors as the size of the school. the age of the buildings. or the space available: nor were they due to broad differences in administrative status or organization.. . . [The] differences between schools in outcome were systematically related to their characteristics as social institutions. (p. 178) Each factor was one that could be modified by the principal and/or teachers. Among the factors were the extent to which academics was 43 emphasized. teacher action in lessons. the use of incentives and rewards. good conditions for students. and the extent to which the students were able to assume responsibility. School treatment of students was also a factor in research by Duke and Perry (1978). They found that in schools in which certain conflict-resolutions mechanisms were available. students had feelings of ownership. of belonging. In those schools the rules were relatively simple and fair. and behavioral expectations were realistic. The research indicated that. the more gemeinschaft-like the purposes and characteristics exhibited by the school. the more positive the student performance in terms of academic achievement and behavior. WWW Several studies of personal relationships in schools provided insight into the extent to which gemeinschaft- or gesellschaft-like relationships exist. According to a study by Hallinan (1979). organi- zational characteristics are likely to have a strong influence on social relationships. The organization of the school severely limits interaction among students. 'This is especially true between students in different grades and between students and other teachers. and it inhibits the development of a sense of community. Schwartz (1981) reported that the classroom behavior of stu- dents and teachers is organized according to a system of institutional expectations in which rank predominates. He found that educational and social assumptions about students in different academic positions 44 shaped divergent classroom social climates for high- and low-tracked students. As individual students in different tracks reacted to the contrasting expectations and constraints. they came to share different views of themselves. their teachers. and their peers. When this phe- nomenon exists. there can be no sense of community. Differentiation in treatment of students has also been found to extend beyond academics. Adams and Cohen (1976) discovered that teach- ers held differential expectations for attractive versus unattractive and nonaffluent versus affluent children. This situation is incon- sistent with the community ideal. Findings of a study by Musgrove (1973) indicated that teachers rejected tasks and objectives in the affective field of personal relationships and social training. They tended to view their role in narrowly moral-intellectual terms. Pupils in the study saw the school in predominantly instrumental terms. in contrast to families. which were expressive or affective. Geneinschamflumseund W In a paper presented to the American Educational Research Association. Ignatovich. Cusick. and Ray (1979) noted that a primary cause of differences between classroom teachers and those administrators engaged in implementing rational management models was that teachers were closely involved with the problem of child management. whereas external administrators. further removed from this mundane but critical problem. could maintain an abstract. idealized view of the educational 45 process. Teachers and elementary principals "emphasized such things as humanistic approaches to instruction. effective communal organization." and positive teacher-student relationships (p. iii). External administrators' concern was with "abstract modeling of classroom evaluation. and the importance of outside forces on classrooms" (p. iii). Items on which teachers showed a high level of agreement were: (1) "Building positive student social attitudes is an important goal" and (2) "It is as important for a child to achieve individually as it is for that child to conform to classroom norms" (p. 12). Elementary school principals showed strongest agreement on such points as: (l) "The most important thing teachers can do is to treat students with personal respect" and (20 "Building positive student social attitudes is an important goal for teachers“ Ox 14). Among the points of strongest agreement among external administrators were: (1) "A system wherein goals and objectives are clearly stated and the relations between them clearly defined is essential to good teaching" and (2) "A teacher's job is to be the administrator of individualized learning activities" (p. 15). In Ray's (1978) original research. he had found that l. The administrators who were external to the building used gesellschaft terms to a marked degree in their efforts. 2. Classroom organization was characteristically gemeinschaft as determined by the teachers' responses. 3. In this sample population. the areas of concern differed between elementary principals and central office adminis- trators. the former being more closely related to the concerns as discerned by teachers. 46 The importance of Ray's study and Ignatovich et al.'s paper. as related to the present research. is the fact that teachers tended toward a gemeinschaft model in their individual classrooms. whereas administrators external to the building thought in gesellschaft terms. It might be concluded that although individual classroom teachers may have a positive attitude toward building community within the class- room. it is possible that the same attitude does not extend to the school as a whole. Likewise. principals may see the value of gemein- schaft in the classroom while holding a belief that it is inappropriate for the school as an organization. Lortie (1975) conducted research that tended to support gemeinschaft attitudes with respect to classroom social structure. Teachers in his study saw moral training as an ideal outcome. supplementing the moral influence of the family. They took seriously the role of continuing or in somercases doing what the family has failed to do. According to Lortie. the classroom and its activities reflect a gemeinschaft model in which teaching is seen as.a."general socialization function" (p. 10) Janesick (1977) also reported that the classroom tends to operate as a gemeinschaft. As such it is insulated and is not easily manipulated by forces outside the immediate community. Janesick made two claims: "If one is to be a successful teacher. one must develop a community or group [gemeinschaft]. [and] if one develops such a group. the classroom remains singular and not easily manipulated by outside forces" (p. 179). 47 W JEufljfldSfi.iflc£fli§£fl§$1¥fi.§£hnnls According to research findings. alternative schools are more likely to have gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics than are public schools. Duke (1978) found that the typical public school was organized along bureaucratic lines. whereas the alternative school replaced centralization. specialization. and standardization with groups of people closely involved in the operation and maintenance of the school. 1A1ternative schools tended more toward gemeinschaft. both in purpose and in characteristics. Duke's study highlighted the communitarian aspect that is likely to prevail in an alternative school. An extensive study comparing public and private schools was conducted by Erickson. MacDonald. Manley-Casimire. and Busk (1979). The researchers surveyed parents and teachers connected with both types of schools to determine their attitudes. perceptions. and behaviors. The purpose of the study was "to establish. by means of clear evi- dence." what prevailed in specific "public and independent schools" in a specific geographical area at a precise time" “L l). The research- ers developed a gemeinschaft model of school organization featuring such concepts as "goal focus. consensus. and strong mutual commitment" (p. 5-2). In describing the gemeinschaft model they constructed. Erickson et a1. defined it as a condition that exists when people associated with a school are strongly held together by commitment to each other. to the 48 enterprise as a whole. to the "special" goals of the enterprise. and to their various tasks in the enterprise" (p. 5-4). A major emphasis in this model and in the concept was commitment. which the authors defined as a "tendency to approach one's work with intense motivation. to perform one's task with verve and involvement. to 'throw' oneself into the effort. to be highly absorbed by it» tO1'self- actual 126' by means of it. to 'go the extra mile.' to do it exceedingly well" (p. 9). The school is "composed of likeminded people strongly committed to a common purpose or set of ideas. people who view themselves as different. in some important respect. from everyone else" (p. 9). Nisbet (1966) cited the concept of commitment as one of the important characteristics of community. He saw community as "a fusion of feeling and thought. of tradition and commitment. of membership and volition" (p. 48). Thus it seems appropriate for Erickson et al. to have used commitment as the basis for their gemeinschaft (community) model of school. At the other end of the spectrum. Erickson et a1. presented the Professional Model. which is characterized by knowledge. sense of responsibility. plans for a lifelong career. pride in work. and autonomy. According to this model. "educational equality is strongly (perhaps even overwhelmingly) determined by the teacher competencies and self-concepts that are subsumed under the concept of profession- alism" (p. 47). The Professional Model seems to have some of the characteristics appropriate to gesellschaft. with emphasis on 49 individual achievement. efficiency. complexity. and individual happi- ness as opposed to collective good. Although Erickson and his associates were primarily concerned with differences in attitudes toward the funding of public and private (independent) schools. their study disclosed several factors relevant to the present research. They found that privately supported schools "were markedly superior to the public schools in commitment. consensus. community. and exceptionality" (p. 16). The homogeneous character of private schools. resulting in part from the ability of parents and students to choose their schools. was suggested as a possible key to the consistency and commitment demonstrated by these schools. In addition. certain public-policy conditions that apply to independent schools promote and facilitate "four school 'boundary conditions' [relationships between schools and potential students. parents. and teachers]. which in turn promote gemeinschaft. which in turn [is] conducive to an unusually high level of goal achievement” (p. 12). The public-policy conditions that prevail in independent schools are little or no public funding. availability of alternatives. and regulatory leeway. These. in turn. foster the following school-boundary condi- tions: funding by clients. exacting affiliation. voluntary affilia- tion. selective admissions. and unorthodox personnel policies. All three public-policy conditions existed to some extent in the diocese studied in the present research. The school-boundary conditions also prevailed. although the selective admissions and unorthodox personnel policies were limited by board policy and public 50 regulations to a greater extent than they appeared to be in British Columbia. the site of the Erickson study. According to Erickson and his co—authors. the absence of public money for school support has two consequences: The school's users must support it. and. unless the school has access to other sources of funding (gifts. endowments. eth. its survival will be in a state of jeopardy to a greater or lesser degree. The result of client support was described as costly or exacting affiliation. which contributes to client homogeneity and commitment. It should be noted that neither funding by clients nor voluntary affiliation necessarily serves to promote homogeneity and commitment among teachers or between teachers and principal. Virtually all patrons of Catholic schools are affiliated by choice because they are free to patronize the local public schools. which are supported by their tax dollars. ‘This condition may also lead to homogeneity of patrons. Catholic schools may arbitrarily exclude would-be patrons on a selective basis. In the diocese studied. exclusion is limited to some extent by board policies. which prohibit discrimination on a variety of bases. including religious affiliation. Individual schools may exclude students who are extreme disciplinary problems or who have severe learning disabilities. because of a lack of support services (psychologists. social workers. etoJ needed to provide for such students. This situation may contribute to a greater degree of homogeneity among students. although differences in 51 religious affiliation could prove detrimental in any effort to form a community on the basis of shared religious belief. Unlike the schools in Erickson et ale study. the Catholic schools in the present study are only required to hire teachers who have been properly certified by the state. Although Catholic schools in the diocese do adhere to nondiscriminatory hiring practices with respect to religious affiliation (principals. however. must be Catho- lic). it is expected that non-Catholic teachers will support Catholic teaching at least to the extent of not promoting opposing points of view and not engaging in activities that are contrary to Official Church positions. This aspect of personnel practice would tend to support Erickson et ale position that this provides a "potent legiti- macy. in the eyes Of the patrons. that appears in turn to eventuate from religious. ethnic. or other sacred linkages" (p. 18L Erickson et.a1. described this legitimacy in terms Of transference--"the notion that relationships established in one setting are Often assumed to exist in other settings that seem essentially similar" (p. 18). The Catholic school seems to experience this transference in a special way. According to Erickson and his associates. In many Catholic schools.. .. teachers and principals seem to be treated and granted authority. not only because of their perceived competence as educators. but also because the Catholic school. partly because of the Catholicity of its personnel. partly because of its symbols and religious emphases. and perhaps because Of its physical location. seems so similar to. and closely identi- fied with the Catholic Church. (p. 18) 52 More recently. Bryk and Holland (1984) conducted a study of Catholic schools. As a result of analyzing.fllgh_SchQQ1_and_Beygnd;JA WW (1980) and conducting their own field observations. the researchers concluded that there was "a shared set of values among students. parents and faculty about the purposes and visions of the Catholic school as a social context committed to principles of Christian community" (p. 16). There was strong support for the gemeinschaft ideas of social responsibility. standards of personal behavior that value kindness and caring toward others. Teachers exhibited a commitment to both a professional role and a personal stake in the lives of students. Many of these teachers spoke of their work in terms of a ministry in the Christian community. Other research has indicated that this sense of a faith community may be in jeopardy. Benson. Williams. and Yaeger (1984) reported that the high turnover among teachers in Catholic high schools may "ultimately tax the schools' ability to build the sense of commu- nity and common purpose that has been a hallmark of a Catholic educa- tion" (p. 8). As more and more lay teachers exercise influence in the Catholic school. there could be a de-emphasis of the purposes and characteristics necessary for forming a faith community. A preliminary report of a study of 64 inner-city Catholic schools indicated the "teachers think more of effective teaching relationships than they do of the religious and moral milieu of the school" (Head. 1982). The researcher also found that parental choice was made first on the 53 perceived quality of education and second on the emphasis on religious and moral values. A factor that may be operating here is the number of non-Catholic staff and students. rather than just the presence of lay teachers. Some Catholic schools in the inner-city have enrollments of 75% or more non-Catholics. In such schools. it does not seem likely that much effort can be made to develop the school as a community based on shared religious beliefs. Sumary Research related to the school as gemeinschaft is relatively scarce. The literature indicated a relationship between school effectiveness and a tendency toward community. That is. the more cohesive and socially integrated the school environment. the greater effect it has on pupils. Public schools have been found to be more bureaucratic than private schools in their organization. They are highly centralized. specialized. and standardized. The concern is with individual achievement. efficiency. complexity. and individual as opposed to collective happiness. Alternative schools. which include Catholic schools. tend to be decentralized and less standardized. with close involvement of the members in the operation of the schools. There tends to be a stronger sense Of community in these schools. Parents perceive the quality and dedication of independent school teachers to be higher than that of typical public school teachers. Many of these schools have a tradition that is peculiarly their own. The clientele and teachers are generally 54 there through their own volition; the students are present because Of the voluntary action of their parents. There tends to be homogeneity in these schools. a factor that would promote gemeinschaft. Research has shown that. within individual public school classrooms. teachers tend to form communities and to establish teacher- student relationships that may be considered primary. 1A highly centralized outside administration fosters gesellschaft organization. which makes it difficult. if not impossible. for the school to be gemeinschaft. One of the difficulties with which Catholic schools in the diocese studies have had to contend is the movement from a highly decentralized system to a centralized one. and in recent years a return to a decentralized mode. Before the 19605. when religious communities dominated the Catholic school scene. governance of the schools was primarily in the hands of those communities and each school Operated autonomously within the diocese. Selection of curriculum. assignment of teachers. daily schedule. and so on. were determined by the individual religious community. Likewise. supervision and evaluation took place under community auspices. This meant that each school was an independent community. The teaching staff lived together. worked together. and played together under a superior who usually was also the principal of the school. Although the diocese had a superintendent. that person was usually a priest who held the post part-time. with no staff and perhaps no secretary. 55 In the mid- to late 19605. a change began to take place in the Catholic schools. Dioceses began to create central offices modeled after their public school counterparts. Following Vatican II. the situation with respect to religious principals and teachers staffing and controlling the schools began to change. Fewer religious personnel and more lay personnel appeared on the school scene. These two factors--the growth of central administrative offices and the dimin- ished role of the religious communities-~created a centralization and standardization uncommon to Catholic schools before that time. These were not the only factors involved in the change. but they were prob- ably the primary ones. In recent years. the trend in the diocese studied has been back to decentralization. with the central office acting more in a service capacity than in an administrative one. The reasons for this are many. but they are not pertinent to the present study. This seeming digression from the research is not without a purpose. The studies cited in this chapter indicated that alternative and independent schools are more likely than public schools to have gemeinschaft characteristics. In light of their previous attempt to emulate public school structure-~centralized administration. uniform salaries. standardization of curriculum. and so on--the Catholic schools of the diocese investigated may vary in the degree to which the members now view the school as a community and accept community- building purposes and characteristics. 56 The research cited in this chapter indicated that parents and some teachers select an alternative school because they perceive that it is a "close-knit ideological community." Catholic schools are chosen for moral and religious reasons. as well. One purpose of this study was to determine the propensity of principals and teachers in Catholic schools to form faith communities. If some teachers and principals do not subscribe to a religious- communitarian ideology and dO>not see moral and religious values as a primary focus for the Catholic school. the goal of the institution will not be achieved and parents may not select the school for their children. Given the above consideration of the school as an organization and the research findings about school structure. the building of schools as faith communities is tenuous at best. If some teachers and principals support the school as a faith community and others do not. interpersonal conflict between individuals and/or groups may result. The present organizational structure would need to be changed so that closer interpersonal relationships among members could develop. If form follows function. and the function of the Catholic school is to be a close-knit community based on shared religious beliefs and practices. the present form or'structure presents problems. There is potential for conflict. and the likelihood of faith-community development is diminished. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Intnoduction Ormethodology. developed by Stephenson (1953) allows for the statistical treatment of data to establish a typology of people based on the similarities of responses to certain statements. The inves- tigator used O-methodology to identify and analyze belief patterns of principals and teachers about purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools. The purposes and characteristics were identified in the normative documents of the Catholic Church and in the writings of educators who have presented interpretations and applications of those norms. In addition. the sociological literature was reviewed to deter- mine purposes and characteristics of school organizations in American culture. These writings. particularly as they provided the basis for the statements in the survey instrument. were presented in Chapter II. Wm Sixty-three items were developed to represent assumptions about purposes and characteristics of Catholic elementary schools in terms of TESnnies' (1940) gemeinschaft-gesellschaft conceptualization. From that conceptualization. eight categories were selected as representa- tive of either gemeinschaft or gesellschaft. Tradition. collective 57 58 good. cooperation. and primary relationships were selected as repre- sentative of gemeinschaft. The contrasting gesellschaft categories were rational. individual good. competition. and contractual relation- ships. These categories are not exhaustive. Other categories such as consensus and informality might have been included under the gemein- schaft concept. For gesellschaft. other categories would be formal. expedient. impersonal. and specialized. However. the researcher believed that the purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools could be placed in one or more of the selected categories. Traditionalism is closely related to gemeinschaft. according to T8nnies. In turn. traditionalism is closely related to religion. "owing primarily to the fact that common to both is a certain type of attitude. of disinterested devotion involved in a fusion of interests over an area. and the prominent role of symbolism" (Parsons. 1949. p. 693). The gemeinschaft has a traditionally defined fund of knowl- edge that is handed down from one generation to the next. 'This knowl- edge is considered to be conclusive. and there is no concern for discovering or extending it. The religious purposes and characteris- tics Of the Catholic schools fit under this category. They are directly related to the teaching of Catholic dogma and the formation of members into a community based on shared religious belief and practice. In contrast to traditionalism is the gesellschaft character- istic of rationality. Gesellschaft is epistemological and critical. It seeks to discover and extend knowledge. and the approach is through reason. In the school this means impersonal and uniform treatment. a 59 hierarchy of offices. and administrative requirements to control and regulate members. The school's purposes and characteristics are the result of logical decisions about the most efficient way to accomplish the goal. The gemeinschaft is concerned with the common good. the gesellschaft with individual self-interest. School activities and goals that place primary focus on the individual rather than the group characterize the latter. One goal of the Catholic school is to bring individuals to an awareness of their responsibility to the group. even to the point of subordinating self-interest for the good of the group. The characteristics of the Catholic school advocated by the Church support the attainment of that goal. Cooperation and competition are characteristics of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. respectively. One component of the Catholic school as a community is the development of a sense of COOperation and the use Of consensus in decision making within the school. Cooperative efforts are to be promoted in all areas of school life. In contrast. schooling according to American culture fosters competition and getting ahead as the "American way." Weibe (1980) said that children are taught "the undergirding habits of modern society.... . the ways to compete while seeming to cooperate" (p. 26). Competition enhances individual sel f- interest. The fourth dichotomy is that Of primary versus contractual relationships. In a gemeinschaft. the Obligation of one person to another is unspecified and unlimited. There is an obligation to help 60 in whatever situation may arise. In a gesellschaft relationship. on the other hand. the obligation is limited to the terms of the contract. For the Catholic school the call for primary relationships among the members means being involved with each other and with the students above and beyond the academic areas. It means a recognition that all members are "brothers and sisters" in a shared religious belief. The prevailing attitudes and practices in American schooling seem to preclude the development of such relationships. ‘These schools are governed by impersonal rules. self-interest. centralization of decision making. specialization. and the transiency of the relation- ships. The specific statements representing each purpose and chara- cteristic for Catholic schools were adapted from those found in offi- cial Church documents. sociological and educational literature about Catholic and public schools. and from G111ng_Egnm_tg_th§_11519n (NCEA. 1974). 'The statements were written in a form appropriate to the Orsort. Originally. more than 100 items representing purposes and characteristics of schools in general. and of Catholic schools in particular. were written. 'The researcher then scrutinized the statements to determine whether they described gemeinschaft- gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. Items that did not seem to fit were rejected. Further reduction resulted from the effort to assure an approximately equal division between gemeinschaft and 61 gesellschaft items. Through this process the total number of items was reduced to 63. The 63 items were then placed in one of the eight categories discussed above: tradition. collective good. cooperation. primary relationships. rationality. individual good. competition. and contrac- tual relationships. Obviously. some purposes and characteristics could have been placed in more than one category. 'The actual selections were based on what seemed to be the "best fjis" The classification of the various items from the instrument is found in Appendix A. Before administering the instrument. the researcher asked colleagues with both Catholic and non-Catholic educational backgrounds to review the statements with respect to their clarity and format. They were asked to critique the items with special attention to their being representative of the concepts of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. The final version of the instrument incorporated their suggestions. but no major revision of the instrument was found to be necessary. EJJQLSIW A pilot study was conducted in four schools before adminis- tering the Orsort to the study population. Included in the pilot run were 19 staff members. including principals and teachers. The pilot group was subjected to both two- and three-factor solutions. As a result of these analyses. using Humphrey's test. both the two-factor and the three-factor solution were rejected on the basis that neither the second nor the third factor was "meaningfulJ' From the pilot test 62 it was concluded that a single belief pattern was present among the pilot-study principals and teachers who completed the Desert. This result presented a serious problem. Either there was a single belief pattern among Catholic educational personnel. the instru- ment was faulty in its ability to discriminate among various types of teachers and principals. or the pilot sample was too small to allow discrimination among various types. Three more schools. with an additional 19 staff members. were surveyed. The results of this survey were subjected to two-. three-. and four-factor solutions. Using Humphrey's test. the three-factor solution was selected because each factor was meaningful. A subsequent analysis of the data indicated three types of belief patterns. Persons of the Type I pattern tended to express strong agreement with religious and community-building (gemeinschaft) purposes and characteristics for the Catholic school. Type II educators tended to support a more secu- lar (gesellschaft) set Of purposes and characteristics for the school. Type III educators were mixed in their views: that is. they tended to agree with the religious purposes and characteristics. but also valued secular ones. Items indicating respondents' agreement or disagreement with particular purposes and characteristics were those with z-scores greater than +1.0 or lower than -l.0. Type I educators expressed disagreement with secular-(gesell- schaft) purposes and characteristics. whereas Type II persons reflected the opposite view. Type III personnel tended to be similar to Type I in terms of the values with which they disagreed. 63 The pilot test was used primarily to determine if particular types of belief patterns existed among educators in Catholic schools. The test was also used to further check the items for clarity. Par- tici pants were asked to comment on any of the items with respect to clarity and intention. No changes were indicated as a result of the comments. so all 63 items were retained. Based on the results of the pilot project. participants for the study were selected. The population of interest was specified as all Catholic ele- mentary schools in a midwestern diocese. Thirty-nine schools consti- tuted this population. The two groups of school personnel surveyed were elementary school principals. both lay and religious. and elemen- tary school teachers. both lay and religious. O-methodology does not require random sampling of the population to Obtain participants. Respondents are chosen on the basis of membership in identifiable groups in the population being studied. W015 Of the population described above. seven schools were elimi- nated because they had been used in the pilot test. This involved 38 classroom teachers and 7 principals. Of the remaining 32 schools. 3 had enrollments under 100 or over 400 and thus were eliminated as atypical. The remaining 29 schools were classified according to staffing pattern: all lay. lay principal with mixed lay and religious staff. religious principal with mixed lay and religious staff. or religious principal with lay staff. Only one school fell into the last 64 category and was automatically included in the sample. None of the schools had an all-religious staffing pattern. The schools to be surveyed were nonrandomly selected from each category described above. The selection process provided the follow- ing: (1) three schools with a religious principal and mixed lay and religious staff. (2) two with a lay principal and lay staff. (3) two with a lay principal and mixed staff. and (4) one with a religious principal and lay staff. 'The total number of respondents selected was 89--8 principals and 81 teachers. Of the teachers. 71 were lay and 10 religious. Letters were mailed to principals and teachers in the selected schools on June 10. 1981. The letters announced the proposed study and requested certain demographic information. (Copies of the letter and information form are presented in Appendices B and CJ All principals and teachers who were contacted agreed to participate. .QQllficI12n_Q£;th§_Data The researcher had intended to collect the data in late August. just before school opened. This plan had to be abandoned for several reasons. The researcher had to be out of the district at the time data collection was to have begun. The research assistant who was to do the actual collection of data was not available. Finally. the principals felt it would be better to wait until the school routine had been established for the new year before conducting the survey. A second letter was mailed to participants on August 13. 1981. apologizing for the delay and setting a new timetable for conducting the survey. LA 65 copy Of this letter may be found in Appendix DJ The actual date for each school visit was established in a telephone contact with the principal. The final form of the survey instrument was printed on 4" x 3-1/2" cards suitable for sorting. and a survey packet was prepared for each respondent. The survey packets contained a cover letter. a form on which to provide demographic information. directions for completing the Orsort. an explanation of the sorting procedure. the 63 statements on purposes and characteristics Of Catholic schools. and envelopes in which to place the cards after the sort. The envelopes were color-coded according to staffing pattern by means of an attached 3" x 5" card imprinted with a specific position on the scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. (Copies of all of these items are con- tained in Appendix Ed An impartial person trained by the researcher collected the data. The decision to have someone other than the researcher collect the data was based on a desire to lessen the chance of contamination that may have resulted from the presence of the superintendent as data collector. The researcher is satisfied that the trained person adhered to the directions for administering the O-sort. Since the assumptions about purposes and characteristics for Catholic schools were applicable only to elementary schools. the respondents were told that the context for the assumption was the concept "Catholic elementary school" rather than any particular school. grade. or section. This instruction was included so that the 66 respondents would not focus their answers on their own particular situations. Respondents were instructed to sort the items on a Likert-type scale consisting of nine choices ranging from "very strongly agree" to "very strongly disagree." with varying degrees of agreement and disagreement in between. Respondents were then instructed to look through all of the cards and to subdivide them into three stacks. One stack was to contain the 15 statements with which they most agreed. a second stack the 15 statements with which they most disagreed. and the third stack the remaining 33 statements. Next the respondents were asked to take the first stack of 15 most-agreed-with statements and to subdivide them by placing two cards in the "very strongly agree" envelope. five in the "strongly agree" envelope. and the remaining eight in the "moderately agree"Tenvelope. A similar procedure was followed for the 15 most-disagreed-with statements and the 33 statements in between. All statements were to be placed in the categories that best represented the respondents' attitudes toward the statements. Respondents were told they were free to go back and change a particular card. but the final distribution had to be as follows: 67 VERY NEITHER STRONCLT STROmLV HIDERATELT aICHTLv AGREE AGREE ACREE ACREE AGREE NOR DISACREE No. of No. of NO. of No. of No. of items: Italic: itns: Items: items: 2 s a 10 13 VERV SLIGHTLY mo: RATELY STRONGLY STRONSLY DISACREE DISAGREE OISACREE OISACREE NO. of NO. of No. of No. of items: Ito-s: itua: its": 10 8 5 2 1..___._.. Collection of data was begun on September 15. 1981. and completed on October 30. 1981. Eighty-nine persons in eight schools were surveyed. One survey was discarded because the respondent neglected to complete the background-information form. The 88 valid responses were from 8 principals (4 lay and 4 religious) and 80 teachers (10 religious and 70 lay). WW Survey information was transferred to data-processing cards. The following information was included on each card: 1. the staffing pattern 2. the school by number 3. the respondent by number 4. whether the respondent was lay or religious 5. whether the respondent was a principal or a teacher 6. the age of the respondent in years 7. the sex of the respondent 68 8. the academic degree of the respondent and whether that degree was from a Catholic. state. or other private school 9. total years of experience of the respondent 10. years of experience in Catholic schools 11. years of experience in present school 12. whether the respondent was a member of the parish or not 13. how long the respondent had been a member of the parish 14. grade level at which the respondent taught 15. responses to the Desert A Oranalysis computer program was used to analyze the data. First. a Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was constructed by correlating every subject's sort of items with every other sort. (Because the number Of variables [persons] may not exceed the number of items. two separate analyses were performed for lay teachers.) The matrices were then evaluated for principal component factors and were varimax rotated. 'To Obtain the greatest clarity for types. a preliminary factor analysis was performed for each group: principals. religious teachers. and lay teachers. The purpose of the preliminary analysis was to see how many factors might exist. The number of factors to extract was determined on the basis of the Humphrey test of "meaningful ness." The factors Obtained represented ideal types of different belief patterns. Each item response of the subject for the factor with which he/she was most closely associated was weighted using the factor load- ing in the formula r/(T-rz) to arrive at the weight. The weighted responses were summed for each type. and the resultant item arrays were converted to z-scores. This procedure results in the description of a "pure" or "ideal" type in which subjects with very strong loadings have exponentially greater effect than subjects with low loadings. Next. 69 the item arrays were ordered from most strongly agreed with to least strongly agreed with. on the basis of the z-scores providing a hier- archy of item acceptance for each "purefl type or factor. If more than one type resulted. the acceptance of each item by each type was then compared to provide a basis for differentiating the types from one another. An absolute difference of 14) in z-scores for an item between types was considered meaningful to identify differ- ences in belief patterns. Z-scores equal to or greater than +1.0 and equal to or less than-¥LO for each type were considered as most repre- sentative of extremes in belief patterns. Z-scores of +1.0 or greater indicated items most agreed with; z-scores of -l.0 or less indicated items most disagreed with. Items whose z-scores difference among the three types ranged within a value of +1.00 to -1.00 are consensus items. They represent beliefs shared by all types. Having identified prototypic profiles for principals. religious teachers. and lay teachers. correlational analyses were made to deter- mine the relationships between the belief patterns of the types identi- fied. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between the types of teachers (lay and religious) and principals. This descriptive information was useful in the subsequent analyses of data. Further analyses considered the relationship between selected demographic char- acteristics. i.e.. status of the principal (lay or religious). composi- tion Of staff (all lay or mixed lay and religious). sex. type of degree-granting institution attended (Catholic. state. or other 70 private). experience in education. teacher's grade level. and respond- ents! belief patterns in relation to gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. Cross-tabulation analyses were used to examine the relationship between types of belief patterns and selected variables. Chi-square tests of significance were used to determine if there was a relation- ship between the participants' belief patterns and the selected per- sonal characteristics. The significance level chosen was alpha equal to or less than .05. Summary This chapter presented the design of the study. with a special focus on selection of the O-sort items to represent the purposes and characteristics of schools. The pilot study was reviewed. as was the manner of selecting the participants. The process by which data were collected and treated was then presented. In Chapter IV. attention is given to the analysis of the data. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA IDILQQuQIIQn The primary purpose of this study was to discover types of principals and teachers in Catholic elementary schools of the Diocese of Lansing. Michigan. based on their attitudes toward certain purposes and characteristics of such schools. A secondary purpose was to discover the relationships between types of principals and teachers and characteristics of each type. 'The study was designed to determine if the principals and teachers were more favorably inclined toward gemeinschaft or gesellschaft. toward religious or secular. purposes and characteristics. The following exploratory questions were used as a basis for gathering data in the study: 1. What types of principals and teachers exist in selected Catholic elementary schools. based on their attitudes toward certain assumptions about the purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools? 2. What are the relationships between types and selected demographic characteristics? From official Church documents. sociological and educational literature about Catholic schools. and G111ng_EQLm_tg_the_11519n (NCEA. 1974). purposes and characteristics related to the school as a faith community were identified. Purposes and characteristics of American 71 72 schools in general were identified through a perusal of sociological and educational literature related to public education. Analysis of the writings resulted in the development of 63 items to represent these school purposes and characteristics in terms of the gemeinschaft- gesellschaft conceptualization. Eighty-eight persons from the selected elementary schools par- ticipated in the study. Both lay and religious principals and teachers were represented. 'The first group comprised four lay and four reli- gious principals. The second group consisted of ten religious teach- ers. The third major group comprised 70 lay teachers. 91.111191119114139”: Four primary analyses were performed. Intercorrelation matrices were formed in each analysis by correlating every personks sort with every other person's sort. In the first analysis. principals were correlated with each other. A single type emerged. Religious teachers were correlated with one another in the second analysis. This also produced a single type. Oranalysis does not permit the number of variables (respond- ents) to exceed the number of items. so it was necessary to divide the lay teachers into two separate groups. In each analysis. lay teachers were correlated with one anothen. The analysis of the first group of lay teachers produced three types; analysis of the second group resulted in two types. Subsequently. after looking at the profiles and examining the relationships between the types. two more analyses were done. There 73 seemed to be enough similarity between principals and religious teachers to warrant combining the two groups. The emergence of a single type from this analysis verified the beliefi. Similarly. there was some evidence that Type 2 and Type 3 lay teachers might be less distinct than first indicated. A secondary analysis of the responses produced only two types. MW Two "types." reflecting twO>distinct belief patterns regarding the relative importance of gemeinschaft or gesellschaft purposes and characteristics for Catholic elementary schools. emerged from the study. These two types represent the two factors formed as a result of the data analyses. To produce the belief patterns for each type. the program weighted each item response of each respondent by the degree to which that person was associated with a particular type. The higher the degree of association. the greater the weight of that particular respondent's responses. The weighted responses were then summed across each item separately. which produced an item array of responses for each type. The item arrays were then converted to z-scores. High z-scores reflect the item believed to be most important by the respond- ents identified with a specific type on the basis of these expressed attitudes. Conversely. low z-scores represent items considered least important by the specific type. 74 mm Data for each of the types are presented in tabular form. The items (statements of purposes and characteristics) are listed. and the z-score value for each item is given. Item numbers are given on the left. followed by the item description and the z-score. The gemeinschaft-gesellschaft characteristic is given in parentheses immediately after the description. Items ranking one or more standard deviations above or below the mean were considered representative of each type's most strongly held or rejected beliefs. Z-score values of +1.0 or higher indicate items with which the respondents expressed attitudes Of strong agreement. Z-score values of-¥L0 or below represent items with which the respondents strongly disagreed. When comparing types. an absolute difference of 1.0 z-score or greater was considered significant to discern differences in beliefs between types. Principals--Type l The first analysis was of the elementary principals' belief patterns (N = 8). 1An intercorrelation matrix was formed by correlating every principal's sort with that Of every other principal. The matrix was then analyzed with items as observations and principals as vari- ables. A principal-axis solution was obtained. The data were not submitted to varimax rotation because only one factor was produced. For the principals only one factor appeared meaningful. This was verified by Humphrey's test (a test to measure the significance of each factor). The one-factor solution accounted for 46.4% Of the total variance and 93.2% of the estimated communality. The emergence of one factor or 75 "type" indicated that elementary principals. both lay and religious. had a similar attitude toward purposes and characteristics of Catholic elementary schools. All of the principals expressed Type 1 belief patterns. The ranking of items with which principals most strongly agreed and disagreed is presented in Table 1. From the item descriptions and their underlying concepts. it can be seen that principals saw the major focus Of the school to be its religious nature. Traditional religious purposes and characteristics. as well as those that promote cooperation and the collective good. were most important. ‘This group disagreed with the items that militate against the formation of a faith commu- nity: purposes and characteristics that focus on the individual and competition. and those that are classified as rational. The princi- pals! belief patterns supported a high degree of gemeinschaft. as defined in Chapter 1. Gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. on the other hand. were viewed negatively. Principals viewed the school first and foremost as a faith community. i.e.. a group of persons sharing a common religious belief. The focus of education in Such a school is not on learning as a means for personal gain but as a means for service to others. They believed that the primary purpose of the Catholic school is religious. not academic. This was reflected in the importance given to religious formation for all members of the faith community and to the teaching of Catholic dogma. TO accomplish these purposes and characteristics. the cooperative efforts of all members are necessary. 'This includes goal 76 umo._ .Aco_u_uoaeouv you» :30 c_o;u co vcmum cam ucoocoaouc_ on Ca vommczouco on umas _oo;om o__Ocamu ecu c_ mucovaum m mmo._ .Aco_umcoaooov ___xm ucm Doom—30c; >memoooc mcmc_:aum c_ LOEHOcm oco cu_3 CamcoaooO vcm um_mmm Cu oommcsooco on umae mucovaum om «m... .AoOOm o>_uuo__oov mEmcmoLa E:_:u_ccso mo acoeao_o>oo ecu com m_mmn cm_:mOL m :0 anoLm m mm Home umae mconsoe >u_:umu m _m_._ .A_mco_._e.cuv co_m__oc o__o;umu ecu mo mc_com0u ecu m. _oo;um u__o:umu ecu mo umoacaa >Lms_ca ugh :— mo~._ .Aco_umcoaoouv .oocom o__0cumu ecu Lem m_m0m _m_uoam mc_um_:EL0m ch> some oe_u woman mo ucaosm o_nmcou_mcoo m ocean umse .ma_uc_ca ucm mcocumOP m _:~._ .AuOOm _m=o_>_o:_v .m:o~>_n:_ on» GO mcozoa onu ..m we unusao_o>on ozu :0 on umae .oo;um om_o;umu ozu mo acomwo .mco_umo:vo use me mum._ .A_mco_u_nmcuv .ma_oc_ca .mcocom0u .mucouaum mo co_umEcom m:o_m__0c ozu m_ .oo;om o__o;umu «no mo Omoacsa >Lmewca one m— nom._ .A_o:o_u_umcuv zucanu 0:» mo mmcmcomOH ozu ou mcmtcouom o>__ ou mcon 1205 mc_uu:cumc_ uLmZOH oeu60c_u on umas muLOCwo comma m._oo:om um_o:umu och _ NwN._ .Aco_umcoaooov .oo;om o__o;umu osu mo mmouoam ocu Lo» _m_ucommo Cam .ma_uc_ca ocm .mHCOtaum .mcocumOu >3 muLOumo o>_umcoa00u Nm .AvOOm o>_uoo__ouv ~no.~ mmouusm new >u_coam0ca .m_conE mo memos m coca Locum; mconuo Low o_n_mcoamoL on ea new o>com Ou ..mu o no onto—30cx acumoLa umae .oo;om u__o:umo och m: mm_.~ .A_mcomu_nmcuv mc_com6u cm_ummczu we Ocaumc ozu uo omamoon mco>o__on mo >u_caeeoo m on umse .oo;om o__o;umu mg» m— Auco20oLm< umomcoLum mo mEOu_V o._+ cosh LeumOLo mucoumTN OcoumuN comua_cumoo Emu. % Emu. .Ao._1 cmzu mmo_ ucm o._+ cmsu LOHmOLm moLoom1~V m_ma_oc_ca Lo» mEOu_ Deucuxm11._ o_nmh 77 m__.~1 awn..- can..- mm~._1 mmo._1 Sm..- _mm._1 emu..- mm~._1 _m_._1 .A_mco_u_vmcuv >u_caeeoo .muO. ozu mo muo__mcoo one «so. 1noca .mOcammoLa ecu ea cowoaxo yo: .ucmam Dom—a m on umae m_oo:om u__o£umu .Aco_u_u 1OQEOOV co_u_uoaeoo mommcaooco yoga one on umse OumE__o .oo;um o__o;umu ugh .A_mco_umcv mxmmu .oozum um xcoz ___3 >ozu Om ucOE;m_c:a zu_3 vocOHmoLcu >__mco_mmuoo ucm .u0uuoL_v .oo__0cucoo on umse .oocum o__o;umu ozu cm muconnum .Aco_umcoaoouv >cumsoc_ ucm co_ucoHum Ou o>_ucouc_ cm mm uOuOEOLQ on umzs .ma_o:_ca ucm .mcuzomOu .mucouaum macaw co_u_uoueou .A_mco_umcv :umOcOuc_ .mco_umc: ecu mo moon: Lozoacms ecu Home vcm m:_c_mcu >_aa:m Cu m_ .oo;om o__o:umu on» c_ cowumosuo mo o>_uuoHno .mHEOEmvcam umoe och .A_mco_umcv cemmo_ use me co_umcm_axo m.cO:O~Ou onu mc_zo__0m ucm Op m:_:on__ Lo mxmoo c_o;u um xcoz mc_on oe_u mmo_o c_o;u mo umoe ucoam Ow unmao .00cum o__o;umu oz» c_ mucoosum .A_mco_umcv Oumnou co :o_mm:ommu we no. m unenumz >u_co;u:m c_ omocu On «we. on v_:o;m mco_m_uov ..oo:om o__Ocumu onu c. .Aco_u_uoaeoov tense; _m_ocmc_m ucm acoeo>o_:om .mu_uomca Lo» m_m:u_> 1muc_ penance cu m_ .oo;om u__o;umu osu mo co_uoc:m acmucoae_ ones 0:» .AuOOm O>_uoo__oov mucousum ..m Lo OEOm Lo» >u_EL0m_c: Oc_:ooL ;o_;3 movoo mmOcv o_m_uoam >3 uocco>0m on umae mmoLv acouaum .AcOOm .m:n_>_uc_v mucooaum mcoEm ma_cmco_um_0c .chmcoa o>_u_m0a mo ucosao_o>oo ecu coca acoucoasm Ocoe m_ mucooaum .m:u_>mu:_ mo ucoeo>o_;om O_Eovmum och mm sN m: .o mu 0m mo Aucoeoomem_o umomcoLum mo mEOu_v o..- cosh mmou mucoomnN oLoomuN comua_comoo Emu. u Emu. .eo=c_ucou--._ o_amc 78 setting. curriculum development. and students helping each other in the learning process. The idea of the importance of the development of the individual is in keeping with the belief that the individual is respon- sible for his/her own behavior within the community. Providing further insight into the belief patterns Of princi- pals were those items with which they strongly disagreed. These are also presented in Table l. Principals did not support academic achievement over the development of good personal relationships among the students. Practical achievement and financial reward was not seen as an important purpose of schooling. Closely related to this was a rejection of the idea of preparing students to fill a need in the "national interest." Competition among teachers. students. and princi- pal was not supported. Neither did the principals support authori- tarian decision making in the school. With respect to relationships with students. the principals did not advocate control or threats of punishment as a means of motivating learning. Nor did they expect students to be passive learners. The principals were relatively strong in rejecting uniformity of dress for students as a means of "leveling" the student body. The principals expressed strongest disagreement with the idea of the Catholic school as an isolated community. set apart from the "pressures. problems. and conflicts of the local community." The finding that principals were inclined to accept and support the purposes and characteristics for Catholic schools as set forth in official Church documents was not unexpected. Given that these 79 individuals have decided to pursue their professional careers within the Church structure. it seems likely that they would accept the goals of the institution. 'They are responsible for implementing the prac- tices that will lead to achievement Of the stated goals. On the basis of their belief pattern. the principals were categorized as Wit. i.e.. a type that expresses a strong belief in the school as a community based on shared religious belief. Bringing its members into full religious communion is the primary focus of the school. All principals included in this study were of a single type with respect to their attitudes about purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools. Religious Teachers--Type l The belief patterns of religious teachers (N = 10) were analyzed. An intercorrelation matrix was formed by correlating every religious teacher's sort with that of every other religious teacher. The resulting matrix was analyzed with items as observations and religious teachers as variables. A principal-axis solution was obtained. but there was no varimax rotation because a one-factor solution resulted. 'The meaningfulness of only one factor was verified by Humphrey's test. This one factor accounted for 31.6% of the total variance and 78.8% of the estimated communality. All of the religious teachers in the study fell into this single type. Religious teachers expressed similar attitudes toward purposes and characteristics of Catholic elementary schools. thus constituting a single type. Table 2 presents the array of extreme positive z-scores 80 produced by weighting item responses according to each person's asso- ciation with the factor. This type agreed with items reflecting gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. although there was an empha- sis On the importance of the individual. The most strongly agreed upon item was the need to develop the powers of the individual. Supporting this was agreement on the need to teach students to be independent. to be willing to stand apart from the group. Each of these items repre- sents the gesellschaft concept. In contrast. the development of strong primary relationships among members Of the school was held. Fellowship of principal. teach- ers. and students was highly regarded. Teachers and students were expected to be involved in each other's lives outside the academic arena. This idea Of close community relationships was further bolstered by agreement with items related to cooperation and the col- lective good. Finally. this type accepted religious purposes and characteristics for the school as being important. Religious teachers believed that the very nature of Christianity calls them to be a faith community. They agreed that the school's major focus must be on instructing members to live according to Church teachings. The items with which the religious teachers disagreed are also found in Table 2. These are represented by z-scores having a value of -l.0 or lower. In keeping with the value placed on primary relation- ships. religious teachers expressed a negative response to contractual relationships. i.e.. maintaining a strictly professional relationship among the members or expelling members who do not fully conform. 81 ~_o._ .Avoom .mc:u_:uv mEmcmoLa E:_:u_ccao mo acoeao_o>ov O3u Lo» m_mm3 Lm_:moL m :o anecm m mm woos umae moO3Eoe >u_:omu m mao._ .Ama_3mcomum_oL >cmE_LaV uooamm u_Eoumom ecu o>O3m ocm co>o mo>__ m.cozuo 36mm c_ vo>_o>c_ O3 umae mucovaum vcm mc03um0h mm mmo._ .AUOOm .m:v_>_oc_v anoLm 033 mo umcu 3u_3 deem so use c033 co>o mcowumcmamm _m33_>_oc_ c_63u oamcsa o» unmamu O3 umae mucooaum ow .Avoom o>_uoo__ouv mo_._ mmoouam 3cm >u_coamoLa _m_L6umE mo memos m coca Logan; mcocuo LOW o_3_m .639. O3 Cu new pie... 3 :mu m o» omen—305. acumen 335 .0033 020333 of. m: m:~.. .A_m:o_u_vmcuv zucacu onu $0 mm:_cum0u 033 cu mc_uLouum o>__ o“ mLO3 ueoe mc_uuscumc_ oLmZOH vOuOOL_u O3 umae macOmmo Lemme m._0036m u__033mu ozp _ mmN._ .Ama_3mco_um_oL >Lme_cav _oocom o__03umu Day we Om__ 033 we acme ucmucoae_ umoe 03H m. mucooaum 3cm .mcosom0u ..ma_oc_ca mo 333m30__om 03» m— 3::._ .Acomumcoaoouv ___xm vcm mane—zocx >memouoc mc_cm:uom c_ LocuOEm oco 3u_3 OumcoaooO new um_mmm ea oommcaouco O3 umse mucovaum om om:._ .A_mco_u_omcuv mc_3umo« cm_um_L3u Co Ocaumc O3u mo omszO3 mco>om_O3 mo >umcassoo m 03 umae .oocom o__03umu 03» m. moo._ .Aco_u_uoaeoOv uoow czo L_osu co ucmum 3cm ucovcoaovc_ O3 OH tommcaouco O3 umas _063Om o__033mu 033 c_ muconaum m _ow._ .Aco_umcoaooOv _003om u__03umu ozu so mmoooam exp 30» _m_HEOmmo mum .ma_oc_ca new .mucovaum .mcozomOH >3 muLOmmo o>_umLOQOOU Nm mN~.N .AUOOm .m:o_>_uc_v .m:u_>_oc_ 033 mo mcozoa O3u ..m we aco5a0_o>ou O3“ :0 O3 umae .003om o__03umu O3u mo ucOmmo .m:o_umo:uo one as AucoeooLm< umomcoLum mo mEOu.v o._+ cosh LeumOLu mucoumnN Ocoum1N co_ua_cumoo Emu. % Emu. .Ao._1 coca mmO. vcm o._+ coca LeumoLm moLOOmunv mcocomOH m:o_m__oE Lew menu_ esoLuxu11.~ o_3mh 82 oo:.~1 .A_0co_330033v >3_caeeoo .000. 033 00 m3u__mcou 0:0 m50_3030 .m033m0030 033 03 o0moax0 30: .33000 000.0 0 03 30:5 m_0o3um o__0330u : mum._1 .A_0co_30cv :3m0303c_ .030_303: 033 00 0000: 30300305 033 3005 0:0 mc_c_033 >_a 10:0 03 m_ .00300 u__0330u 033 :_ 303300530 00 0>.300m30 .0330500330 3005 03k .3 mwo. .1 . Aooom 033303: 03:00:30 9.050 32030330.. .0300300 033000 00 330200—050 033 3033 33033005_ 0305 m_ 03:00:30 _0ao_>_vc_ mo 3:050>0_300 u_E0u000 03h ~ «mm._1 .A_030_3mcv 0x__0 03:00:30 030 03030003 30 330530033 .0300 033000 03 00—33 _0comc0as_ :033_33 >3 v0cco>om 03 3005 .00300 03.03303 03h mm 33m..- .A_0303303v 030300 30 co_mmaom_v mo 30— 0 3:0 133_3 >33303330 :3 00033 03 300. 03 3.3030 mco_m_uoo ..00300 03.03303 033 3. cm m:m..1 .Aooom 0>_3o0__0ov 03:00:30 __0 30 050m 300 >3_ELOC 1_c: 03_:003 30333 m0300 00030 umw_ooam >3 00:30>0m 03 30:5 mm033 3cov=3m m .mm..- .Acow3_3oaeoov 330303 .03030c_m 0:0 3:050>0_3u0 .00330030 300 m_0:u_>_333 0300030 03 m_ .003Om 0__0330u 033 00 30330350 33033005_ 3moe 03h mo mwm. T . 3330333203 .0330033303 0>00_ 03 0305 03 3:030 .0030... 3 .0330”. 0 5 930—03 30: 0.3 >033 3033 0033.330 .mcocom 0:0 ..0_>0303 £033 >3 303m 033 0330.53 mm o:~._1 .A_030_30cv mxmm3 .00300 30 3303 ___3 >033 om 3:0E3m_c:a 33_3 0030300333 >__0co_00000 0:0 .003003_n .00__033300 03 3035 .00300 o__0330u 033 :_ 03:00:3m 3~ mmo._1 .A30_33300500V >L3maucm 0:0 30.330330 03 0>_3c0uc_ :0 m0 30305030 03 30:5 .0a_oc_ca 0:0 .33030003 .03300530 @3050 co_3_30aeou m: who..- .Aco_3_3 uoaeoov co_3_300500 m0m0330030 3033 0:0 03 30:5 03053—0 .0030m u__0330u 03h mm .Ama_3m:0_30_03 mmO..- .0330033300V .300000030 03 03 .00300 u__0330u 033 303 a_3mco_30_03 .030_m 1003030 >_30_33m 0 c_03c_0e 03 >3_:u0w 0:0 .0a_oc_ca 033 30» >3000000: m_ 3_ m— A3c02003m0m_o 300mcoc3m 00 0503.3 0... c03h mmo3 mocoumnN 0300m1N co_3a_cumoo 503. x 803. .uo=c_3=ou--.~ 0.3.3 83 Despite their strong support for individual development. religious teachers did not agree that the student's academic achievement should take precedence over the development of positive personal relation- ships. This was. however. consistent with the religious teachers' strong agreement on the importance of primary relationships. Religious teachers expressed strong disagreement with any purposes or characteristics that promote competition. whether among professionals or among students. They also rejected a dress code that would prescribe uniformity for students. Another item the religious teachers strongly disagreed with was the purpose of education in a Catholic school being the source of training to meet the manpower needs of the "national interest." The greatest disagreement. however. focused on the idea of a Catholic school being a place apart. This type expressed a negative attitude toward authoritarianism. ‘They also rejected governance by written impersonal rules. Overall. there was strong agreement among the religious teachers with gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. The favorable attention given to the religious aspect of the school warranted a designation of this type as Wait. All religious teachers in the study were religions:geme1nsgha£t in belief pattern. Lay Teacher Analyses Since the total number of lay teachers who participated in the survey exceeded the number allowed by the computer program. it was necessary to divide the group randomly by alternately assigning the 84 lay teachers to two groups. Thirty-five teachers were assigned to each group. and two separate analyses were run. W The Q—ana‘lysis of 35 lay teachers' belief patterns indicated a three-factor solution. accounting for 50% of the total variance (37.8% for Factor 1. 6.9% for Factor 2. and 5.4% for Factor 3) and 65.1% of the estimated communality'ithe amount of information explained by each factor: 49% for Factor 1. 8.9% for Factor 2. and 7.l% for Factor 3). Humphrey's test suggested that all three factors were meaningful. The distribution of Group 1 lay teachers among the three factors was as follows: Type 1. N = 8; Type 2. N = 12; Type 3. N = 15. Lay Teachers--Type l The ranking of value and belief statements for Type l lay teachers (N = 8) is found in Table 3. The array of extreme item z-scores for this type is presented. Items of strongest agreement are indicated by z-scores greater than +l.0 and items of strongest dis- agreement by z-scores less than -l.0. Almost 23% (22.8%) of the lay teachers in Group 1 were Type 1. Cooperation. competition. and the individual characterized the belief patterns of Type l lay teachers. The strongest point of agree- ment was on the necessity of encouraging students to be independent. In keeping with this belief was the emphasis on developing individual powers and individual control of one's environment. These teachers believed in cooperative efforts among school members for promoting the 85 ..3000 .033.> 3.0.. .333 5033 03 3.5330 03 >.0305 3033 303303 003. 33303330 3.033 .033300 03 0.033.> -.33. 303 0.3.0000 3. 0305 3.303 3033 03.303 0300.303. 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 3. mm... ..30.30300000. 00.0333.. 03.330.0 3. 030300000 3.3030 03030003 330 03303330 mm new. . 2030.30: 0.330300 0 3o. .03 330 00.33 >030 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 .00300 0. .03300 um m.~.. ..0.3030.30.03 .0330033300. 0>00. 03 0305 03 3.3030 .00300 0..03300 0 3. 030.03 303 03 >033 3033 0333.330 .030300 330 3o.>0303 3.033 >3 3030 033 03303330 mm wm~.. ..30.30300000. 30330 3000 30003 03 3000330030 03 3035 3033..30 am 000.. ..3000 .033.>.33.. .033.>.33. 033 30 030300 033 ..0 30 330500.0>03 033 30 03 3035 .00300 0..o3300 033 30 330330 .030.300330 03F 03 mam.. ..3o.30300000. ...30 330 0030.3033 >30000003 03.3.3000 3. 3033030 030 33.3 030300000 330 30.000 03 3000330030 03 3035 03303330 ON 000.. ..30.30300000. >.0>.3 -0300000 050.3030 0>.00 o3 >3.33330000 >30>0 33.3 303.>030 03 3035 03303330 .0 .00.. . .30.3.300500. 000.0 033 3. 33030 >033 03033 330 03.03 030 >033 . .03 303 3030. 03303330 30. >033 0030003 03.3300. .00300 0. .03300 3. 33050.0 >30000003 0 030 003030 3m «03.. .33000 0>.300..00. 330 3.033 3033 33033005. 0305 03.03 005.30500 00 30.303.000 0.03030 033 300000 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 mm mmm.. .A30.30300000v .00300 0..03300 033 30 0000030 033 303 .0.330000 030 .00.03.30 330 .03303330 .03030003 >3 0330330 0>.30300000 mm mmo.N ..30.3.300500. 3003 330 3.033 30 33030 330 3303300033. 03 03 3000330030 03 3035 .00300 0..o3300 033 3. 03303330 0 .33050030< 300030330 30 0503.. o..+ 3033 3030030 003000uN 03000n~ 30.30.30003 503_ 0 503_ ..0..u 3033 000. 330 o..+ 3033 3030030 0030001N. . 03030 .. 00>» .03030003 >0. 303 0503. 05033xwuu.m 0.305 86 ~00. ... . 300.308.30.03 .0330033300. .330000030 03 03 .00300 0. .03300 033 303 0.3030.3_0.03 .030.0003o30 >.30.330 0 3.033.05 03 >3 .3003 330.00.03.30 033 303 >30000003 0. 3. 0. .mn..- ...030.3.3033. >3.335500 .000. 033 30 030..3300 330 050.3030 .003300030 033 03 30000x0 303 .33000 000.0 0 03 3035 0.00300 0..03300 3 000..- ...030.303. :3003033. .030.303: 033 30 03003 30300305 033 3005 330 03.3.033 >.0030 03 0. .00300 0..03300 033 30 0>.300m3o .0330503333 3005 03k .0 000... ..3000 0>.300..00. .033.>.33. 033 30 00300x0 033 30 30>0 3000 305500 033 303 03.3303 30 >0..00 0 0>03 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 0. 000..- .303330 033 03 33053.5 n500 30 0.003 033 30 303.3 30300.00 03 3035 0.00300 0..03300 3. >3.3003 >03 NN mma..u ...030.303. 0>.300330 033 30 000. 330 03. -3300. 30 300000 0>.3.3000 033 30 0.003050 0305 000.0 3035 .00300 0..03300 03h .. 0mm..- ..3000 0>.300..00. .033.>.33. 033 03 3033 303303 03030 0 00 0303300. 03 000330003 03.33 03 0. 3003 >305.30 0..00300 0..03300 033 .N .3. .u . .3000 .033.>.33.. 03303330 03050 00.3030.30.03 .0300300 0>.3.000 30 3305 -00.0>03 033 3033 33033005. 0305 0. 03303330 .033.>.33. 3o 33050>0.300 0.503000 03.. N m.~..u ...030.3.3033. 030.30030 .0.000 330 ..0305 .030.0..03 33030 030.00300.3 03030 303 >..00.30.300 30330003 300 3035 03030003 0m 00...: ...030.303. 030303 30 30.00300.3 3o 30. 0 330 n33.3 >3.3o3330 3. 00033 03 330. 03 3.3030 030.0.003 ..00300 0..03300 033 3. 0m 0N...- ..30.3.300500. 330303 .0.0303.3 330 33050>0.300 .00.30030 303 0.033.>.33. 0300030 03 0. .00300 0..03300 033 30 30.30333 33033005. 3005 033 m0 30...: ..00.3030.30.03 >305.30. 300000 0.503000 033 0>030 330 30>0 00>.. 0.30330 3000 3. 30>.o>3. 03 3035 03303330 330 03030003 mN A3305003000.0 300030330 30 0503.. 0..- 3033 0003 003000uN 03000n~ 30.30.30000 503. 3 503. .eosc.3co0--.m 0.3.3 87 learning process. Students must learn to obey the rules and sometimes subordinate their wishes to those of the group; failure to comply warrants expulsion from the group. Type 1 lay teachers did not believe in a strictly professional relationship between themselves and the principal. but they also redected‘the idea of members of the school getting involved in each other's lives on a personal level. Learning for the purpose of achieving financial reward or to serve the "national interest" was rejected. as was the notion of cognitive learning being more important than affective. Members of this type believed that they should be involved in decision making about the school. However. they did not accept the need to discuss religious. moral. and social issues among themselves. nor did they believe that the Catholicity of the members of the school is important. ‘The school should not be apart from the local community. according to Type 1 teachers. In keeping with their belief in the importance of the individual. they did not support the idea of the common good being attained at the expense of the indi- vidual. The items of strong agreement and strong disagreement were evenly divided between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft purposes and characteristics for Type 1 lay teachers. The absence of support for specifically religious purposes and characteristics indicated a secular rather than religious classification for this group. Although there was support for statements that were part of the gemeinschaft concept. the absence of support for other essential components. especially those 88 dealing with relationships and the common good. indicated a sauna}: sasaJJsshafl'. type- Lay Teachers--Type 2 The items of strongest agreement for Type 2 lay teachers (N== l2) are {resented in Table 4. They are indicated by z-scores of +l.0 or higher: “Items of strongest disagreement are also shown in Table 4 and are indicated by z-scores of-¥LO or less. The lay teachers repre- sented 34.2% of Group 1. The most strongly accepted item was the concept of the Catholic school as a community of believers. This was supported by the other items of agreement. Like principals and religious teachers who expressed the same value. Type 2 lay teachers gave religious aspects of the school a high priority; such aspects were instruction of members to live according to Catholic teachings. religious formation of group mmmbers. and cooperative planning of liturgical functions. Cooperation at all levels and in different spheres also marked Type 2 persons. 'They placed strong emphasis on those items supporting the collective good. The school is to present knowledge as a call to serve and to be responsible for others. rather than as a means of individual prosperity. While calling for cooperative efforts and focusing on the good of the whole. there was strong agreement that the development of the individual is of great importance. The most strongly disagreed with item for Type 2 lay teachers was the purpose of the Catholic school being to prepare individuals for practical achievement and financial reward. Closely related was 89 300.. ..30.30300000. 3303 330 3.033 0303.0>0 330 03030 03 00.3.33330000 30>.0 03 3035 03303330 .m >.~.. ..30.30300000. ...30 330 0030.303x >30000003 03.3.3000 3. 3033030 030 33.3 030300000 330 30.000 03 3000330030 03 3035 03303330 0N 00m.. ...030.3.3033. .00.03.30 .03030003 .03303330 00 30.305300 030.0..03 033 0. .00300 0..03300 033 00 0000330 >305.30 030 m. -m.. ..30.30300000. >.0>.3 -0300000 050.3030 0>.00 03 >3.3333000o >30>0 33.3 303.>030 03 3035 03303330 .m ~.3.. ..30.30300000. .00300 0..03300 033 300 0.000 .0.0000 03.30.35300 300> 300.0 05.3 00030 00 333050 0.30303.0300 0 33000 3035 .00.03.30 330 03030005 0 ~.3.. ..3000 0>.300..00. 05030030 53.30.3330 00 330500.0>03 033 300 0.003 30.3003 0 30 03030 0 00 3005 3035 0303505 >3.3000 0 003.. ...030.3.3033. 303330 033 00 003.30003 033 03 03.330000 0>.. 03 0303505 03.3033303. 330303 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 03k . 003.. . ..30.30300000. .00300 0..03300 033 00 0000030 033 300 .0.330000 0. .00.03.30 330 .03303330 .03030003 >3 0330000 0>.30300000 Nm $3.. . .30.30300000. 00.3.>.300 .00.0333.. 03.330.0 3. 030300000 3.3030 03030003 330 03303330 mm 00m. . .3000 0>.300. .00. 0000030 330 >3.3000030 .0.30305 00 03005 0 3033 303303 030330 300 0.3.0300003 03 03 330 0>300 03 . .00 0 00 0030.305. 3300030 3035 .00300 0. .03300 03... m3 -0.. ..3000 .033.>.33.. .033.>.33. 033 00 030300 033 ..0 00 330500.0>03 033 30 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 00 330000 .030.300330 03k 03 0.0.. ...030.3.3033. 03.30003 30.30.330 00 033303 033 00 0030003 030>0..03 00 >3.335500 0 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 030 m. .33050030< 300030330 00 0503.. 0..+ 3035 3030030 003000u~ 03000uN s 30.30.30000 503. 3 503_ ..0..- 3033 000. 330 0..+ 3033 3030030 003000IN. . 03030 .N 00>h .03030003 >0. 300 0503. 05033ann.3 0.305 90 0...- ..30.3.300500. 330303 .0.0303.0 330 33050>0.300 .00.30030 300 0.033.>.33. 0300030 03 0. .c0300 0..03300 033 00 30.30330 33033005. 3005 03k m0 0.0..- ..30.3.300500. 30.3.300500 0000330030 3033 030 03 3035 0305..0 .00300 0..03300 035 mm 000..- ..30.3.300500. >330333. 330 30.330330 03 0>.33003. 30 00 30305030 03 3035 .00.03.30 330 03030003 .03303330 03050 30.3.300500 03 ...030.303. .00..- :3003033. .030.303: 033 00 03003 30300305 033 3005 330 03.3.033 >.0030 03 0. .00300 0..03300 033 3. 30.300330 00 0>.300m30 .0330503330 3005 03k .0 m3m..- ...030.303. 303003 03 300 3033 003.33 00033 03.30003 330303 303003.3 03 3035 330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 03h 0. ..3000 003..- .033.>.33.. 03303330 03050 00.3030.30.03 .0300300 0>.3.000 00 330500.0>03 033 3033 33033005. 0305 0. 03303330 .033.>.33. 00 33050>0.300 0.503000 030 N mm3..- .0.030.3.3033. >3.335500 .000. 0330h0030..0300 330 050. -3030 .003300030 033 03 30000x0 303 .33000 0000.0 03 3035 0.00300 0..03300 3 ~0...- ...030.303. 03..0 03303330 330 03030003 00 330530033 .0300 033000 03 00.33 .03003005. 3033.33 >3 30330>00 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 030 mm .mo..- ...030.303. >30.000 3. 0>0.300 >05 0030.03 00 3303330 033 03 0...x0 00 03.30003 033 30 >..305.30 03000 3035 .00300 0..03300 03h 3m .3305003000.0 300030330 00 0503.. 0..- 3030 0003 003000-0 03oom-N 30.30.30000 503. 0 503. .3033.3300-.3 0.300 91 disagreement with the idea that the school was to supply training and meet the manpower needs of the "national interest." Type 2 persons expressed a high degree of disagreement with teaching only that which can be tested or focusing primarily on skills that will enable the student to achieve in society. Competition was not viewed as an acceptable characteristic of the Catholic school. These respondents did not support the idea that academic achievement of the individual should take precedence over the development of positive personal relationships. Type 2 teachers did not see the need for written impersonal rules for governance of the schooL. Like Type 1 individuals. they did not see the school as isolated from the larger community. As noted above. Type 2 lay teachers tended to express belief patterns similar to those of principals and religious teachers. They were strongly in agreement with religious and gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics and disagreed with those of gesellschaft. For this reason. Type 2 was labeled a.L§linQfl§:Qfimfiln$§ha£I type. Lay Teachers--Type 3 Table 5 presents the array of extreme items for Type 3 lay teachers (N = 15). Items of strongest agreement are indicated by z-scores of-FLO or greater and items of strongest disagreement by z-scores of -l.O or less. Type 3 lay teachers represented 42.8% of the individuals in Group l. The belief patterns of Type 3 lay teachers placed strong empha- sis on the individual. Developing the powers and the intellectual 92 .0~.. ..30.3.300500. 3000 330 3.033 30 33030 330 3303300033. 03 03 3000330030 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 3. 03303330 0 300.. ...030.3.3033. 03.30003 30.30.330 00 033303 033 00 0030003 030>0..03 00 >3.335500 0 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 m. 00~.. ..3000 .033.>.33.. >3.00000 .03300..033. 303 30 0.3 03 .033.> -.33. 033 00.0>03 03 0. .00300 0..03300 033 00 30.30330 33033005. 3005 035 03 .Nm.. .030.30300000. 3303 330 3.033 0303.0>0 330 03030 03 00.3.33330000 30>.0 03 3035 03303330 .0 m~0.. ..30.30300000. 30330 3000 30003 03 3000330030 03 3035 3033..30 3m 30m.. ..30.30300000. >.0>.30300000 050.3030 0>.00 03 >3.33330000 >30>0 33.3 303.>030 03 3035 03303330 .0 0.3.. .030.30300000. ...30 330 0030.303: >30000003 03.3.3000 3. 3033030 030 33.3 030300000 330 30.000 03 3000330030 03 3035 03303330 0N NM0.. ...030.3.3033. 303330 033 00 003.30003 033 03 03.330000 0>.. 03 0303505 03.3033303. 330303 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 . 030.. .030.30300000. 303330 0..03300 033 00 0000030 033 300 .0.330000 030 .00.03.30 330 .03303330 .03030003 >3 0330000 0>.30300000 mm 00o N ..uoom _m=u_>_uc_. .033.>.35. 033 30 030300 033 ..0 0o 330500.0>03 033 30 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 00 330000 .030.300330 035 m3 033050030< 300030330 00 0503.. 0..+ 3035 3030030 003000-N 03000-0 30.30.30000 503. 0 503_ ..0..- 3033 000. 330 0..+ 3033 3030030 003000-N. . 03030 .m 00>5 .03030003 >0. 300 0503. 05033xu-.m 0.305 mwN..- .0.030.303. 03003 .00300 30 3303 ...3 >033 00 330530.330 33.3 3030300333 >..030.00000 330 .303003.3 .30..033300 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 3. 03303330 3N mum..- ..00.3030.30.03 >305.30. 300000 0.503000 033 0>030 330 30>0 00>.. 0.30330 3000 3. 30>.0>3. 03 3035 03303330 330 03030005 00 00...- ..3000 .033.>.33.. 03303330 03050 00.3030.30.03 .0300300 0>.3.000 0o 330500.0>03 033 3033 33033005. 0305 0. 03303330 .033.>.33. 00 33050>0.300 0.503000 035 N NN...- ..30.3.300500. 30.3.300500 0000330030 3033 030 03 3035 0305..0 .00300 0..03300 035 mm ..00.3030.30.03 0N0..- .0330033300. .300000030 03 03 .00300 0..03300 033 300 0.3030.30.03 .030.0 -000o30 >.30.330 0 3.033.05 03 >3.3000 330 .00.03.30 033 300 >30000003 0. 3. m. 93 .3305003000.0 300030330 00 0503.. 0..- 3035 0003 00300m-N 3N0.. ...030.303. >30.000 3. 0>0.300 >05 0030.03 00 3303330 033 03 0...30 00 03.30003 033 30 >..305.30 03000 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 30 .00.. ..3o.30300000. 00.3.>.300 .00.0333.. 03.330.0 3. 030300000 3.3030 03030003 330 03303330 00 00... .03000 .033.>.33.. 00.503000 3o 00.30.330 3. 3033033 03303330 3.03300 00 >3...30 30.30030 033 0N.300003 3035 .00300.0..03300 035 33 ..3000 0>.300..00. 0000030 00... 330 >3.3000030 .0.30305 00 03005 0 3033 303303 030330 300 0.3.0300003 03 03 330 0>300 03 ..00 0 00 0030.3033 3300030 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 m3 03000-N 30.30.30000 503. 0 503. .uoac.uco0--.m 0.3.3 9h 3mm..- ..0.3030.30.03 .0330033300. 0>00. 03 0305 03 3.3030 .00300 0..03300 0 3. 030.03 303 03 >033 3033 0333.330 .030300 330 3o.>0303 3.033 >3 3030 033 03303330 mm 003..- .0.030.3.3033. >3.335500 .000. 033 00 030..0300 330 050. -3030 .003300030 033 03 30000x0 303 .33000 000.0 0 03 3035 0.00300 0..03300 3 003..- ...030.303. 030303 30 30.00300.3 00 30. 0 33033.3 >3.303330 3. 00033 03 300. 03 3.3030 030.0.003 .0.00300 0..03300 3. on 033..- ..3000 0>.300..00. 330 3.033 3033 33033005. 0305 03.03 005.30500 00 30.303.000 0.03030 033 300000 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 mm 003..- .0.030.303. 0x..0 03303330 330 03030003 00 330530033 .0300 033000 03 00.33 .03003005. 3033.33 >3 30330>00 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 mm ...030.303. 30000. 033 00 30.3030.0x0 ~03..- 0.3030003 033 03.30..00 330 03 03.3030.. 30 03003 3.033 30 3303 03.03 05.3 000.0 3.033 00 3005 33000 03 33030 .00300 0..03300 033 3. 03303330 mu ~30..- ...030.303. 303003 03 300 3033 003.33 00033 03.30003 330303 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 0. 0mm..- ..3000 0>.300..00. 03303330 ..0 30 0500 300 >3.5300 -.33 03.3003 30.33 00300 00033 0.0.0000 >3 30330>00 03 3035 00033 3303330 0 0mm..- ..30.3.300500. >330333. 330 30.330330 03 0>.33003. 30 00 30305030 03 3035 .00.03.30 330 .03030003 .03303330 03050 30.3.300500 m3 03000-N 30.30.30000 503. 3 503. .3u==.3co0--.0 0.305 95 capacity of the individual and giving recognition to his/her superi- ority was a strong belief. To achieve this. they endorsed cooperation among students in the areas of problem solving. teaching. and evaluat- ing each other. 'There was agreement on a religious purpose for the school. teaching members to live according to religious tenets. Type 3 respondents also recognized that the nature of Christian teaching requires the school to be a community based on shared religious belief. Students are to be independent and taught the skills necessary to survive in society. There was a strong belief that knowledge is to be used in service to others. rather than for material gain. Type 3 teachers disagreed most strongly with the belief that students who cannot conform should be expelled from the school. They did not believe that teaching should focus on that which should be tested. or that academics is more important than building positive relationships. Nor did they believe that the relationship between principal and teachers should be strictly professional. On the other hand. they rejected the belief that members should be involved in each other's lives. over and above academic concerns. Type 3 teachers expressed strong disagreement with the importance of the individuale aspirations being subordinated to those of the group. They did not agree that members should be guided by written impersonal rules. that students should Just sit still and listen to the teacher. or that school decisions should be made by those in authority. They did not feel competition should be promoted or encouraged in any way. 96 Type 3 lay teachers had a greater tendency to express belief patterns consistent with religious and gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. although there was more support for focus on the individual and the development of a competitive spirit than was present with the naligions:ggm01nsgha£t types identified earlier (principals. religious teachers. and Type 2 lay teachers). The high number of gesellschaft purposes and characteristics rejected (of 14 items with z-scores of -l.D or less. 10 were gesellschaft) and the number and kind of gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics strongly agreed with (9 out of 14) led to a classification of Type 3 lay teachers as .ggmginsghafit:n§11910us. 'These persons were similar to Type 2 lay teachers in the focus of their belief patterns. The major difference was in the area of religious purposes and characteristics: Type 2 lay teachers gave them stronger emphasis than did Type 3 lay teachers. Description of Differences Between Types of Lay Teachers in Group l A primary focus of this study was to compare the belief pat- terns of various groups of educators in terms of their commitment to the Catholic school as a faith community. As described above. three types of lay-teacher belief patterns emerged. Attention is now turned to a comparison of the differences in belief patterns between types. Items having a "difference" of t 1.0 z-score between the types. regard- less of the placement of the item within each type. were considered significant and indicative of meaningful differences in the belief profiles. 97 Wr-Results of the comparison of the value and belief patterns of Type 1. 5.9911131: Wait-oriented lay teachers. and those of Type 2. LEI—1.91mi: mum-oriented lay teachers. are presented in Table 6. The greatest difference between the two groups was reflected in their beliefs regarding the importance of the individual versus that of the group. Wm lay teachers believed that students need to learn to accept the group's aspiration as sometimes more impor- tant than their own. On the other hand. WM lay teachers rejected this notion. The importance of grades as a means of evaluating student performance received strong agreement by the W group but was not accepted by those in the W group. W lay teachers believed that teaching skills so that the students may achieve in society is important. whereas 1311913315: mains-shut teachers expressed a high degree of disagreement with that item. Type l lay teachers expressed high agreement with the notion that students who cannot conform should be expelled. whereas Type 2 lay teachers did not agree with that action. Both Type 1 and Type 2 disagreed with the encouragement of competition within the school. but Type 2 lay teachers expressed a much stronger level of disagreement than did Type 1. Consistent with their position on student conformity. Type 1 lay teachers had strong agreement with the practice of teaching students to obey rules and follow a schedule. Type 2 lay teachers 98 . 030.3.300500. >330333. 330 30.330330 03 0>.33003. 30 00 .0... 000. .- 000. - 30305030 03 3035 .00.03.30 330 .03030003 .03303330 03050 30.3.300500 03 ...030.303. 303003 03 300 3033 003.33 00033 03.30003 000.. 030.. 00.. - 330303 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 0. . 2030.303. 0... .0 03303330 330 03030003 00 330530033 .0300 033000 03 N00. N0.. .- 00.. 00.33 .03003005. 3033.33 >3 30330>00 03 3035 .00300 0. .03300 035 00 ..30.3.300500. 3000 330 3.033 30 33030 330 3303300 0N3.. 0.0. 000.N -033. 03 03 3000330030 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 3. 03303330 0 ...030.303. 0.330300 0 30..00 003.. 00N. - 00N.. 330 00.33 >030 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 .00300 0..03300 N0 ..30.3.300500. 30.3.300 000.. 0.0..- 0.3. - -500 0000330030 3033 030 03 3035 0305..0 .00300 0..03300 035 00 ..00.3030.30.03 .0330033300. 0>00. 03 0305 03 3.3030 .00300 0..03300 0 3. 030.03 303 03 >033 N00.. 000. - m.N.. 3033 0333.330 .030300 330 30.>0303 3.033 >3 3030 033 03303330 0N ...030.303. >30.000 3. 0>0.300 >05 0030.03 00 3303330 033 03 0...x0 000.. .00..- 0.0. 00 03.30003 033 30 >..305.30 03000 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 30 ..30.3.300500. 000.0 033 3. 33030 >033 03033 330 03.03 030 >033 ..03 303 3033 03303330 30. >033 0030003 00..N 0.0. - .00.. 03.3300. .00300 0..03300 3. 33050.0 >30000003 0 030 003030 00 ..3000 0>.300..00. 330 3.033 3033 33033005. 0305 03003 005.30500 30m.N N30. - N00.. 00 30.303.000 0.03030 033 300000 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 00 N 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< . 00>5 .00.0 N 00>5 . 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 0 503_ ..0...03033 3030030 003000-N. . 03030 .N 330 . 000>5 .03030003 >0. 3003303 0300.300500-.0 0.305 99 ...030.3.3033. .00.03.30 .03030003 .03303330 00 30.305300 N00.N- 000.. 0N0.- 030.0..03 033 0. .00300 0..03300 033 00 0000330 >305.30 035 0. ...030.3.3033. 030.30030 .0.000 330 ..0305 .030.0..03 33030 N.0.N- 000. 0.N. .- 030.00300.303o30 300 >..00.30.300 30330003 300 3035 03030005 00 ...030.3.3033. 00.. .00300 0..03300 00 300000 33033005. 030..- 000. 030. - 3005 033 0. 00.3.>.300 030.0..03 3. 30330003 30.300.0.3300 00 ..3000 0>.300..00. .033.>.33. 033 00 00300x0 033 30 30>0 3000 N03..- 0N0. - 000..- 305500 033 300 03.3303 00 >0..00 0 0>03 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 0. ..3000 0>.300..00. 0000030 330 >3.3000030 .0.30305 00 03005 0 3033 303303 030330 300 0.3.0300003 03 03 330 3N0..- 000.. 00N. 0>300 03 ..00 0 00 0030.3033 3300030 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 03 .0.030.3.3033. 303330 033 00 003.30003 033 03 03.330000 0>.. 03 0303505 03.3033303. 0.N..- 003.. .0N. 330303 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 . ...030.3.3033. 300> 0 005.3 3300 30 00333 00.0333.. 0.N..- 000. 0.3. - :03030 ..050: 330 3.033 0>03 3.3030 30.30330.3.530 330 >3.3000 00 ..00.3030.30.03 .0330033300. 0000030 0 03 03 .00300 0..03300 033 300 0.3030.30.03 .030.0000030 >.30.330 000..- 000. - N00..- 0 3.033.05 03 >3.3000 330 .00.03.30 033 300 >30000003 0. 3. 0. . .3000 0>.300. .00. .033.>.33. 033 03 3033 303303 03030 0 00 0303300. 300..- 00N. - 000..- 03 000330003 03.33 03 0. 3003 >305.30 0..00300 0..03300 035 .N . 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< N 00>5 .00.0 N 00>5 . 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 0 503. .nuac.3cou--.0 0.0.3 100 tended to disagree with the practice. Although both Type 1 and Type 2 teachers agreed with competition in the sense of encouraging students to be independent. the former placed much greater emphasis on this characteristic than did the latter. Again. in keeping with their belief about conformity and obedience to rules. Type l lay teachers expressed some agreement with the necessity of governance through written impersonal rules. whereas Type 2 lay teachers expressed a high level of disagreement with that idea. .Seculanzgesellscbait lay teach- ers rejected an emphasis on teaching those subjects that can be tested. an item favored by the £011910u5390m§1nsnhnit type. Promotion of a spirit of competition among members of the school was rejected by both types. although the disagreement was higher for Type 2 than Type 1. Further understanding of differences between Type 1 and Type 2 lay teachers may be gained from examining those items with which the latter expressed greater agreement than the former. Both types disagreed with the idea of the group as learner being more important than the individual as learner. although this was true to a lesser degree for Type 2 than Type l. Neither Type 1 nor Type 2 supported a strictly professional relationship between faculty and principal. although again there was less disagreement with the statement on the part of W lay teachers than for sag-um: .gasallsghait lay teachers. Type 2 lay teachers tended to agree with the importance of religious practices specifically designed for princi- pal and teachers. Type 1 lay teachers. on the other hand. tended to disagree with this. WWII lay teachers strongly 101 agreed with a major emphasis on instructing members of the school in religious teachings. whereas W teachers indicated only a slight tendency to agree with that item. Type 1 and Type 2 lay teachers disagreed with a policy of working for the common good at the expense of the individual. although Type 2 expressed a lesser degree of disagreement than did Type 1 lay teachers. WW types agreed with the important role of religious activities in the life of the school. but WI: types disagreed with this importance. Lay teachers of Type 2 expressed agreement with the neces- sity of faculty discussions of religious. moral. and social questions; Type 1 lay teachers strongly disagreed with that item. Finally. Type 2 lay teachers agreed strongly that the primary purpose of the Catholic school is the religious formation of its members. a purpose disagreed with by Type 1 lay teachers. An examination of the differences between WW lay teachers and MW lay teachers revealed that ten items received a z-score difference of +1.0 or greater and nine received a score of -l.O or less. The items falling in the -l.O or below difference range reflected the importance of the religious aspect of the school for the W group as compared to the W group. Of the nine items with z-score differences of -l.O or less. five reflected religious purposes and characteristics. Type 2 lay teachers expressed agreement with these. whereas. with one exception. Type 1 lay teachers disagreed with them. The greatest difference was in the belief that the primary purpose of the Catholic 102 school is the religious formation of students. teachers. and principal. .Ballginn5392mfilnfichnit lay teachers expressed strong belief in this. but sgculanzgesallschait teachers disagreed with it. The preceding description of differences between sggulan: gasgllschaft and Lallgiouszgemginschait types of lay teachers focused on the different emphases placed on the purposes and characteristics of the Catholic school as perceived by each of the two types. Clearly. the WW group expressed values and beliefs supportive of the religious aspects of the school. whereas the sggulan: gaggllsghajt members expressed values and beliefs indicative of a secular bent. ,Seculan:g§sgllsgha£t lay teachers tended to agree with those purposes and characteristics indicative of gesellschaft. The Type 1 persons' stress on rules and regulations and expulsion from the group for failure to conform. grades and the teaching of practical skills. and the importance of teaching the individual to be independent signified the major differences from Type 2. .Saculanzgesgllschaft lay teachers expressed a tendency toward rationality and contractual rela- tionships. as compared to the Wait lay teachers. Wang-4016 7 presents a comparison of Type 1 lay teachers (seculanzgesgllschaft) and Type 3 lay teachers W). The differences are reflected in the eight items having a standard deviation of +1.0 or greater and eight items having a standard deviation of -l.O or less. The table reveals that the saculanzgasellschail teachers expressed high agreement with the importance of teaching students to 103 ..3000 0>.300..00. 03303330 ..0 30 0500 300 >3.5300.33 03.3003 0N... 000..- 00N. - 30.33 00300 00033 0.0.0000 >3 30330>00 03 3035 00033 3303330 0 ...030.303. 303003 03 300 3033 003.33 00033 03.30003 03... N30..- 00.. - 330303 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 0. ..30.3.300500. 000.0 033 3. 33030 >033 03033 330 03.03 030 >033 ..03 303 3033 03303330 30. >033 0030003 00N.. 033. - .00.. 03.3300. .00300 0..03300 3. 33050.0 >30000003 0 030 003030 00 .030.30300000. .00300 0..03300 033 300 0.000 .0.0000 03.30.35300 300> 3000 05.3 00030 3N0.. N00. - N00. 00 333050 0.30303.0300 0 33000 3035 .00.03.30 330 03030005 0 ...030.303. 0x..0 03303330 330 03030003 00 330530033 .0300 033000 03 00.33 000.. 003..- 00.. .03003005. 3033.33 >3 30330>00 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 00 .000.30 -30.30.03 >305.30. .300000030 03 03 .00300 0..03300 033 300 330.. 000. - 000. 0330.30 03 03 >3.3000 330 .00.03.30 033 300 >30000003 0. 3. N3 ..00.3030.30.03 .0330033300. 0>00. 03 0305 03 3.3030 .00300 0..03300 0 3. 030.03 303 03 >033 3033 000.N 300..- 0.N.. 0333.330 .030300 330 30.>0303 3.033 >3 3030 033 03303330 0N ..3000 0>.300..00. 330 3.033 3033 33033005. 0305 03.03 005.30500 N0..0 033..- N00.. 00 30.303.000 0.03030 033 300000 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 00 0 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< . 00>5 .00.0 0 00>5 . 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 0 503. ..0.. 3 3033 3030030 003000-0. . 03030 .0 330 . 000>5 .03030003 >0. 3003303 0300.300500-.0 0.305 lol- ..3000 0>.300..00. .033.>.33. 033 00 00300x0 033 30 30>0 3000 305500 000..- 003. mom..- on. .03 05.3303 0o >0..o0 m osm; 30:5 .oocum u__o3300 035 0. ...030.3.3033. .00.03.30 .03030003 .03303330 00 30.305300 .00..- 3N0. 0N0. - 030.0..03 033 0. .00300 0..03300 033 00 0000330 >305.30 035 0. .0.030.3.3033. 303330 033 00 003.30003 033 03 03.330000 0>.. 03 0303505 03.3033303. .00..- N00.. .0N. 330303 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 . ...030.3.3033. 030.30030 .0.000 330 ..0305 .030.0..03 33030 00.. .- 3N0. - 0.N..- 030.00300.303030 300 >..00.30.300 30330003 300 3035 03030005 00 ..3000 .033.>.33.. 03030 033 00 3033 33.3 0030 00 330 3033 30>0 00...- 030. N0.. - 030.303.000 .033.>.33. 3.033 030330 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 00 ...030.303. 0>.300000 033 30 000. 330 03.3300. 00 300000 00...- 000. - 003..- 0>.3.3000 033 30 0.003050 0305 000.0 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 .. .030.30300000. 3303 330 3.033 000..- .N0.. 00N. 0303.0>0 330 03030 03 00.3.33330000 30>.0 03 3035 03303330 .0 ..3000 .033.> -.33.. 00.503000 30 00.30.330 3. 3033033 03303330 3.03300 000..- 00... 0... 00 >3...30 30.30030 033 0~.300003 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 33 . 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< 0 00>5 .00.0 0 00>5 . 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 0 503. .uozc.3cou--.3 0.003 105 subordinate their individual aspirations to those of the group. whereas .gemalnscbaitznaligigus_types expressed high disagreement with this item. Type 1 also expressed a more favorable attitude toward excluding those students who show. by behavior and attitude. that they do not belong; Type 3 strongly disagreed. .fiagulanzggsgllsgnaft lay teachers had a more favorable attitude toward the necessity of principal and faculty being friends. a notion disagreed with by ggmgjnsgnait; .Lgligigus lay teachers. Type l tended to agree with the need for impersonal written rules to assure equitable treatment of faculty and students alike. Type 3 lay teachers. on the other hand. disagreed strongly with this. The segulanzggsgllsgnait persons expressed agreement with the necessity of teachers and principals setting goals for the Catholic school. whereas WM lay teachers disagreed. Type 1 lay teachers placed greater emphasis on the need for grades as a means of evaluating and classifying students. but Type 3 lay teachers disagreed with that item. Both W educators and ggmginschaitznfillginus teachers disagreed with directing teaching toward those things that can be tested. but the latter group was much stronger in its disagreement. Likewise. both groups disagreed with having dress codes to establish uniformity. but Type 3 expressed stronger disagreement than Type 1. Type 3 lay teachers tended to agree that the common good may at times be more important than the individual good; Type 1 lay teachers strongly disagreed with that proposition. WW5 persons agreed that the religious formation of members of the school is 106 an important school purpose. but segulanzgesallssbait lay teachers disagreed. This stand was further reflected in the purpose of instructing members to live according to Church teachings. Both agreed with the statement. but Type 3 lay teachers expressed much stronger agreement than did Type l. Neither type agreed that teachers should discuss religious. moral. and social issues among themselves. but Type 1 disagreed much more strongly than did Type 3 lay teachers. 'Type 3 lay teachers supported the pursuit of individual aspirations over those of the group. Type l lay teachers tended to disagree with that. Types l and 3 disagreed with the priority of the cognitive aspect of learning over the affective. although stronger disagreement was expressed by Type 1. Members of both types agreed that students should grade and evaluate their own work. but Type 3 displayed stronger agreement with this idea than did Type l. Finally. although WW and 5.9531131: .ggsellsghait types agreed that superior ability should be recognized. there was only slight agreement among the latter. while there was strong agreement on the part of the former. The greatest single area of difference between the two types was in regard to religious purposes and characteristics. Three of the eight items on which the ggmginsghaftzngligigus lay teachers expressed greater agreement than segulan:ggsellsgha£t lay teachers were directed toward the religious nature of the school. ‘This comparison served to reinforce the secular values and beliefs of Type 1 lay teachers as compared to either the Type 2 or Type 3 lay teachers. 107 Walkmw-The greatest difference in beliefs between the Leligigu§:ggm31nsghait and .gamfilnsghaitzngligigns groups was in the area of cooperative goal setting. with Type 2 lay teachers having a higher degree of agreement on its necessity than Type 3. The differences between Type 2 and Type 3 are indicated in Table 8. .Baliginn&:gfim§1nsshait persons believed strongly in the impor- tance of collective participation in goal-setting activities in the Catholic school. In contrast..gfimainsghniiznfillgigns lay teachers did not agree with this. Type 2 were inclined to support the importance of religious activities in the school. whereas Type 3 lay teachers tended to disagree with that item. 'Type 2 lay teachers agreed that the devel- opment of positive relationships among members of the school is more important than academic achievement. but Type 3 lay teachers disagreed with this notion. Both types disagreed with involvement in other members' lives except on an academic level. Type 2 disagreed to a much lesser degree than did Type 3. Type 3 lay teachers agreed that the students should be taught to obey rules and follow a schedule. Type 2 lay teachers tended to disagree with that item. The.gemginsghait:ngligigus lay teachers also tended to agree that the school should focus on training individuals for a technical world. WM lay teachers. on the other hand. disagreed with that school purpose. Both types disagreed with the school purpose of preparing individuals for practical _ achievement and financial reward. although Type 3 lay teachers 108 ...030.303. >30.000 3. 0>0.300 >05 .030.03 00 3303330 033 03 0...x0 000.N- 3N0.. .00..- 00 03.30003 033 3o >..305.30 03000 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 30 . .3000 .033.>.33.. 03030 033 00 3033 33.3 0030 00 330 3033 30>0 00N..- 000. - 0...N- 030.303.000 .033.>.33. 3.033 030330 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 00 ..30.3.300500. 330303 .0.0303.0 330 33050>0.300 .00.30030 300 0.033.>.33. 0300 00N..- 000. - 0...N- n030 03 0. .00300 0..03300 033 00 30.30330 33033005. 3005 035 00 . .3000 .033.>.33.. 3.303 .00.33003 >.03.000303. 30 300 0.033.>.33. 00...- .00. N00. - 00 03.3.033 033 0000330 >305.30 03. 00 003 .00300 0..03300 035 03 ...030.303. 0.330300 0 30..00 N30..- N00. 00N. - 330 00.33 >030 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 .00300 0..03300 N0 . N 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< 0 00>5 ..00.3030.30.03 >305.30. 300000 0.503000 033 0>030 330 30>0 300.. 0NN..- 30.. - 00>.. 0.30330 3000 3. 30>.0>3. 03 3035 03303330 330 03030005 0N ..00.3030.30.03 >305.30. 33050>0.300 0.503000 .033.>.33. 3033 33033005. 0305 000.. 333. - 300. 030 .00.03.30 330 .03303330 .03030003 03050 030.30.03 0>.3.000 00 ...030.3.3033. 00.. .00300 0..03300 00 300000 33033005. 0NN.. 0N0. - 000. 3005 033 0. 00.3.>.300 030.0..03 3. 30330003 30.300.0.3300 00 .030.30300000. .00300 0..03300 033 300 0.000 .0.0000 03.30.35300 300> 3000 05.3 30..N N00. - N.3.. 00030 00 333050 0.30303.0300 0 33000 3035 .00.03.30 330 03030005 0 0 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< N 00>5 .00.0 0 00>5 N 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 0 503. .00.. H 3033 3030030 003000-N. . 03030 .0 330 N 000>5 .03030003 >0. 3003303 0300.300500-.0 0.305 109 disagreed to a lesser degree than did Type 2. There was also common disagreement regarding the importance of teaching individuals to pursue their own goals. even when they are contrary to those of the group. Here again the level of disagreement was different; Type 3 disagreed less than Type 2. The greatest difference was shown in the importance placed on teaching skills for achievement in society. Gemeinschaft; .Lgligigus lay teachers strongly agreed with that purpose. whereas .Lgligignszgamainsghait teachers strongly disagreed with it. Thematically. Type 2 lay teachers tended to express agreement with those items calling for participation in the life of the group and the development of close relationships by the members. ‘Type 3 lay teachers tended to disagree. On the other hand. Type 3 lay teachers tended to agree more than Type 2 lay teachers with those items that focused on individual submission and adaptation to the outside world. .Sa9u1aL:a95a1lsgbait_1ansua_naliglnufizsfimainscba£t_and Wr-Table 9 lists items on which Type l lay teachers had a difference of one z—score above or below the other two types of lay teachers combined. ‘The z-score of the Type 1 lay teachers is listed in the first column. the average score of the other two types of lay teachers is given in the second column. and the difference between the two scores is given in the third column. This display presents the essential differences between a particular type and the other types. Type 1 lay teachers (saculanzgasellschait) expressed a strong belief in the importance of teaching students to subordinate their own IIO ..30.3.300500. 30.3.300500 00... 0.0..- 0.3. - 0000330030 3033 030 03 3035 0305..0 .00300 0..03300 035 00 ..30.3.300500. 3000 330 3.033 30 33030 330 3303300033. N0... 000. 000.N 03 03 3000330030 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 3. 03303330 0 ...030.303. 303003 03 300 3033 003.33 00033 03.30003 330303 03N.. 033..- 00.. - 303003.3 03 3035 330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 0. ..00.3030.30.03 >305.30. .300000030 03 03 .00300 0..03300 033 300 0330.30 00N.. 003. - 000. 03 03 >3.3000 330 .00.03.30 033 300 >30000003 0. 3. N3 ...030.303. 0x..0 03303330 330 03030003 00 330530033 .0300 033000 03 00.33 .03.. .00..- 00.. .03003005. 3033.33 >3 30330>00 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 00 ..30.3.300500. 000.0 033 3. 33030 >033 03033 330 03.03 030 >033 ..03 303 3033 03303330 30. >033 0030003 000.. 300. - .00.. 03.3300. .00300 0..03300 3. 33050.0 >30000003 0 030 003030 00 ..0.3030.30.03 .0330033300. 0>00. 03 0305 03 3.3030 .00300 0..03300 0 3. 030.03 303 03 >033 3033 ..m.~ 00o..- 0.N.. 0333.000 3030:00 new .o_>0300 ..03. >0 2030 032 03503330 MN ..3000 0>.300. -.00. 330 3.033 3033 33033005. 0305 03.03 005.30500 00 000.N .3...- N00.. 30.303.000 0.03030 033 300000 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 00 0 330 N 000>5 3035 3030030 33050030< . 00>5 0 0 N 000>5 .00.0 00030>< . 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 3 503. .00.. 3 3033 3030030 000303000.3 03000-N. . 03030 .303.3500 0 330 N 000>5 03030> 03030003 >0. . 00>5 3003303 300.300500-.0 0.305 Ill ...030.3.3033. .00.03.30 .03030003 .03303330 00 30.305300 030.0..03 .30.. 0.... 0N0. - 033 0. .00300 0..03300 033 00 0000330 >305.30 035 0. ..3000 0>.300..00. .033.>.33. 033 00 00300x0 033 30 30>0 3000 305500 033 0.0..- NON. 000..- 300 03.3303 00 >0..00 0 0>03 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 0. ...030.3.3033. 030.30030 .0.000 330 ..0305 .030.0..03 33030 030.0030 000..- 000. 0.N..- -0.3 03030 300 >..00.30.300 30330003 300 3035 03030005 00 ...030.3.3033. 303330 033 00 003.30003 033 03 03.330000 0>.. 03 0303505 03.3033303. 330303 000..- 000.. .0N. 303003.3 03 3035 0330000 30005 0..00300 0..03300 035 . ..3000 0>.300..00. 0000030 330 >3.3000o30 .0.30305 00 03005 0 3033 303303 030330 300 0.3.0300003 03 03 330 0>300 03 N0...- 000.. 00N. 03 ..00 0 00 0030.3033 3300030 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 03 ..00.3030.30.03 .0330033300. .300000030 03 03 .00300 0..03300 033 300 0.3030.30.03 .030.0000030 >.30.330 0 0.0..- 030. - N00..- 3.033.05 o3 >3.3000 330 .00.03.30 033 300 >30000003 0. 3. 0. . 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< 0 330 N 000>5 .00.0 0 M0M3wmm>5 . 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 3 503_ .umac.3cou--.m 0.005 112 aspirations to those of the group. as compared to Type 2 (Lgljgigus: Wit) and Type 3 (W5) combined. Type 2 and Type 3 strongly disagreed with this item. Type 1 strongly agreed with the expulsion of nonconforming students. That agreement was not shared by Types 2 and 3. who strongly disagreed with the proposition. fissnlanzgasellschait teachers also expressed a strong belief in the importance of grades for classifying students. whereas the other types tended to disagree with grades' importance. .Sagulanzgasgllsghait lay teachers were more supportive of the necessity of written impersonal rules to assure equal treatment. Types 2 and 3 strongly disagreed. Type 1 believed more strongly than the other types that the principal and teachers must be friends if the Catholic school is to be success- ful. This view was slightly rejected by the other two types. .Saculanzgaaallscbait teachers shared with the Leligjgns: WWW: lay teachers a disagreement with the importance of teaching those things that can be tested. but held this view less strongly. .Sacnlanzgfisallschait lay teachers stated a strong agreement with the idea that students must be taught to be independent. Whirl/WW lay teach- ers held this position less strongly. Type 1 lay teachers were also less negative in their beliefs about the importance of competition when compared to Types 2 and 3. All types disagreed with the idea that a strictly professional relationship should exist between principal and faculty. Types 2 and 3 rejected this notion to a lesser degree than did Type'L. Types 2 and 3 expressed strong agreement with the presen- 113 tation of knowledge as a call to serve and be responsible for others as opposed to a means of material prosperity and personal success. Type 1 slightly agreed with this position. The W W combined group was much stronger in its agree- ment that the school's major efforts must be directed toward instruc- tion in the way of living according to Church teachings. as compared to the seculatgassljsnbafl type. Whit/mammal: 111131005 lay teachers agreed to some extent that teachers should discuss religious. moral. and social questions among themselves. W lay teachers strongly disagreed. Lay teachers in the WWW group agreed to some extent that the common good is more important than the individual. a view strongly disagreed with by W lay teachers. Finally. the religious formation of students. teachers. and principal in the Catholic school was strongly agreed with by musings; Wit/WW lay teachers and disagreed with by W lay teachers. WNW Wr-hble 10 presents items on which Type 2 lay teachers had a difference of one z-score above or below the combined score of Types l and 3 lay teachers. The z-score of the Type 2 lay teaChers is found in the first column. and the average score of Types 1 and 3 lay teachers is given in the second column. The third column presents the difference between the two scores. llh ...030.3 -.3033. 300> 0 005.3 3300 30 00333 00.0333.. :03030 NNO.. 0NN. - 000. ..050: 330 3.033 0>03 3.3030 30.30330.3.530 330 >3.3000 00 .0.030.3.3033. .00.03.30 .03030003 .03303330 00 30.305300 030.0..03 3ON.. 000. 000.. 033 0. .oocum u..o;300 0.3 3o 00o03=0 33.2... 033 0. ...030.3 -.3033. 00.. .00300 0..03300 00 300000 33033005. 3005 000.. 003. - 000. 033 0. 00.3.>.300 030.0..03 3. 30330003 30.300.0.3300 00 ...030.3.3033. 030.30030 .0.000 330 .0305 .030.0..03 33030 030.0030 0.3.. 0.0. - 000. -0.3 03030 300 >..00.30.300 30330003 300 3035 03030005 00 .030.30300000. .00300 0..03300 033 300 0.000 .0.0000 03.30.35300 300> 3000 05.3 00030 00 N.0.. 00.. - N.3.. 333050 0.30303.0300 0 33000 3035 .00.03.30 330 03030005 0 0 330 . 000>5 3035 3030030 33050030< N 00>5 . m 0 _ 000>5 00.0 00030>< N 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 3 503. .00.. 3 3033 3030030 000303000.3 03000-N. . 03030 .303.3500 0 330 . 000>5 03030> 03030003 >0. N 00>5 3003303 000303000.0-.0. 0.305 115 ...030.303. >30.000 3. 0>0.300 >05 0030.03 00 3303330 033 03 0...x0 0o NN0.N- 000. .00..- 03.30003 033 30 >..305.30 03000 3035 .00300 0..03300 035 30 .030.3 -.300500. 000.0 033 3. 33030 >033 03033 330 03.03 030 >033 ..03 303 3033 03303330 30. >033 0030003 03.3300. 000..- 030.. 0.0. - .00300 0..03300 3. 33050.0 >30000003 0 030 003030 00 .0.030.303. 0.330300 0 30..00 330 00N..- 000. 00N. - 00.33 >030 03 330303 03 3035 03303330 .00300 0..03300 N0 ..30.3.300500. 30.3.300500 00...- 000. - 0.0..- 0000330030 3033 030 03 3035 0305..0 .00300 0..03300 035 00 ..30.3.300500. 330303 .0.0303.0 330 33050>0.300 .00.30030 300 0.033.>.33. 0300030 03 0....- 000. - 0...N- 0. .00300 0..03300 033 00 30.30330 33033005. 3005 035 00 .030.3 -.300500. 3000 330 3.033 30 33030 330 3303300033. 03 000..- 0N0.. 0.0. 03 3000330030 03 3035 .00300 0..03300 033 3. 03303330 0 N 00>5 3035 3030030 33050030< 0 330 . 000>5 .00.0 0 M0M3wwm>5 N 00>5 30.30.30000 503. 3 503. .uo=c_3co0--.o_ 0.003 116 The major difference between Type 2 (W) and Types 1 (W) and 3 (mainsghafiznengiaus) combined was in the stronger agreement with religious purposes and characteristics for the Catholic school. Of the five items on which the z-score difference was greater than +l.O. four were related to religious values. Type 2 (WM) persons expressed relatively strong agreement with the four items. whereas 5.000131: W and WW lay teachers combined expressed slight agreanent with one and disagreed with three. Type 2 lay teachers expressed strong agreement with the statement that teachers and principal need to set goals for the Catholic school. Types l and 3 combined tended to disagree. The W lay teachers supported faculty discussions centered on religious. moral. and social issues. The secular: .gesallsghajt and gamainscbaftzneligigus combined did not. Participation together in religious activities received agreement from Type 2. but Types 1 and 3 combined disagreed. Both religious: .aflmfiinfichaii lay teachers and Type l and Type 3 lay teachers combined agreed that the religious formation of the school members is important. but the latter agreed only slightly. Group liturgical activities were supported by Type 2; the other two types combined tended to disagree. The encouragement of student independence was agreed with by Types 1 and 3 combined; Type 2 also agreed. but to a lesser extent. All types disagreed with the idea that the school should prepare indi- viduals for practical achievement and financial reward. Type 2 117 expressed a much higher level of disagreement than did Types l and 3 combined. A similar pattern prevailed with respect to encouraging competition in schooL. Types l and 3 combined agreed that students must be taught to obey rules and follow a schedule. Type 2. on the other hand. disagreed slightly. The importance of grades received a high level of support from Types 1 and 3 combined but was a point of disagreement for Type 2. The Wait and gemeinschaft: religious lay teachers combined agreed with the school's focus on teaching skills necessary for achieving in society. ‘Beligigus: ggnejnschafl: lay teachers strongly disagreed. Wad Wr-Itans on which Type 3 lay teachers differed markedly from Types l and 2 combined are found in Table ll. The z-score of Type 3 lay teachers is presented in column one. and the average score of both other types is given in the second column. The difference between the two scores is shown in column three. Type 3 (W) lay teachers expressed a more positive attitude toward the individual than did Types 1 and 2 com- bined. This was evidenced in the stronger agreement with the impor- tance of recognizing individual achievement. as well as teaching the student to pursue individual goals even when contrary to those of the group. There was a deviation from this general attitude in the slight agreement with the notion that the school must work toward the common good even at the expense of the individual. Type 3 93mm: Mons lay teachers were much more supportive of the idea that 118 moo._ mm_. .Avoom .m:u_>_nc_v momeoumum Lo mo_uo_;um c_ cocoon: mucocaum c_mucou uo mm... >u___nm co_coa:m ozu oN_cmoooc umae .oo;om o__o;umu ugh a: .A_mco_umcv >uo_oom c_ o>omzom >mE Aocmvo; 0m acovaum ocu ou m___xm mo .mo._ nmo. :No._ m:_;omou ecu co >_~LmE_LQ mzoOm umae .oo;om o__o;umu och :m .Auoom o>_aoo__oov _m3v_>_uc_ may mo omcoaxo osu um co>o coca coeeoo one w__._ mom. . omz. co» mc_xcoz mo >o__oa m o>mc umae .oozom u__o;umu 02h @— .Avoom .m:u_>_o:_v a30cm oz“ mo umn“ ;u_3 noun mo uzo con: co>o mco_umc_amm w-._ mwm. . mam. _m:o_>_vc_ c_o:u oamcaa cu unmamu on umse mucovaum om N can _ moa>h cock Loumocu ucoeoocm< m oa>h . N w _ moa>p mm.o ommco>< m oa>h co_ua_comoo Emu. * Emu. .Ao._ H coca Loumocm moucocowwmo ocoomn~v _ nacho .voc_neou N ucm _ moa>h mzmco> mcocumou >m. m oa>h coozuon moococomw_anu.__ o_nmh 119 .Aooom o>_uuo__ouv czo c_o;u cmcu ucmucoae_ oboe mc_on moE_uoEOm mm :o_u mam._- mm:. o::._n -mc_amm m.a:oLm ecu uaouom cu unmamu on umae mucovaum mm .Aa_;mco_um_oc .mauumcucoov o>mo_ ou moms on u_:o;m .oozom o__ocumu m c_ mac—on no: ow >ocu umzu mam..- 0mm. :mm..- ou:u_uum .mcocom tam Lo_>m;oa L_o;u >n 302m 0:: mucouaum MN .Aco_umcoaooov .oo;om o__o£umu ocu com m_m0m _m_uoam mc_um_:Ecom Lmo> comm oE_u mwmum *0 man..- mmm. Non. . ac:OEm o_nmcov_mcou m vcoam umae .ma_uc_ca new mcocomoh w .Amawcmco_um_oc >cmE . -_Lav .ammmooonm on o“ .oocom o__o:umu ocu co» muco_cw m_~._- mum. mam. . on ou >u_:omm new .ma_oc_ca ozu LOm >memooo: m_ u. N: m oa>h cock Loumocu ucoeoocm< N ucm _ moa>h w _ moa>h ommco>< N .mwmo m oa>h co_ua_comoc sou. * sou. .eo=c_ucou--.__ o_nme 120 achievement in society is a highly desirable purpose for the student in the Catholic school than were Types l and 2 combined. The greatest difference between Type 3 gemeinschaftzneligigus teachers and Type 1 Wit and Type 2 LeJJngIS: .gemelnschaft teachers combined was with respect to subordination of individual need to that of the group. Whereas Type l secular: .ggsellsghaft and Type 2.;31191gus:gemein§chait lay teachers combined tended to agree with the item. the Type 3 gemeinschaft:ne11919us group strongly opposed it. Type 3 WW lay teachers were much less supportive of the expulsion of students for behavioral reasons than were the other types. Type 3 Wu: teachers placed less value on cooperative goal setting by teachers and principals than did the other types combined. Finally. the Type 3 group was less inclined to agree with the need for friendship between principal and teachers in order for the school to succeed. A major difference existed between Type 3 and Types l and 2 combined on only eight items. Consensus The consensus items for lay teachers of Types l. 2. and 3 are presented in Table 12. These are beliefs that were shared by all three types. Consensus existed on 33 items. of which seven were agreed with and five disagreed with at the z-score level of-r'LO. All lay teachers expressed a strong belief that the school should focus on the development of the individual student. Respondents agreed that cooperation is important among all the school members. but there was a 12] omo._ .Aco_umcoaoouv cocuo some some» ou vommcaooco on umse coco__;u am .A_mcohu_umcuv mc_;umou cm_um_ccu mo ocsumc osu o_N._ uo omamoon mco>o__on wo >umcaeeoo m on umae .oo;um o__o;umu och m— .Aco_umcoaoouv mo_u_>_uom m-._ .mo_mcau_— mc_ccm_a c_ oumLUQOOo n_:o;m mcocomou vcm mucooaum mm .Acowumcoaooov ___xm ocm move—Zch >cmmmouoc mc_c_:aom c_ Lozuo:m .mm._ oco ;u_3 oumLoQOOU vcm um_mmm cu vommcaouco on umas mucovaum om .Aco_umcoaoouv >_o>_umLoQOOU om:._ mew—coca o>_om ou >u_c:ucoaao >Lo>o :u_3 nouw>oca on umse mucousum .m .Aco_umcoaooov .ooLUm o__o;umu osu wo mmoouam ozu cow _m_ucommo :mm._ ocm _ma_uc_ca ucm .mucovaum .mcocumou >3 mucommo o>_umcoa00u Nm .Auoom .m:v_>_uc_V _m3o_>_vc_ ecu mo mcozoa may __m mo ucoeao_o>on o:N._ osu :0 on umae _OOLUm u._o:umu ozu mo uLOmmo _mco_umo:uo ugh m: ucoeoocm< umomcocum mo mEou. ocoomuN ommco>< :o_ua_comoo Emu. % sou. .Ao._ n can. coumocm moLOomuwv _ anoLo .m oa>h .N oa>h ._ oa>h mo mcozomou >m. .mEou_ mamcomc0uuu.m_ o_nmh 122 .A_mco_u_umcuv >u_caeeoo .moo_ onu wo muo__mcoo new mew—QOLQ .mocam 0mm..- -moca ozu cu vomoaxo no: .ucmam mom—a m on umae m_oo;um u__o;umu : .A_mco_umcv :umocouc_ .mco_umc: ocu mo meow: cozoacme ecu Home new mc_c_mcu >.aa3m cu m_ .oocom mos..- ow_o;umu ocu c_ co_umo:vo mo o>_uoomno _mucoemvcsw umoe och .m .AUOOm .m:u_>_vc_v mucovsum macaw mamsmco_um_oc .chmcoa o>_u_moa wo ucoeao_o>ov onu cmzu mw~._- ucmucoae_ ocoe m_ mucooaum .m:v_>mncm to ucoEo>o_com umeoomom ugh N .A_mco_umcv oumnov co co_mm:om_u *0 oo— m uaozu_3 >u_co;uam m:_._. c_ omosu ou pee. on v_:o;m mco_m_oou ..ooLUm o__o;umu osu c. om .A_mco_umcv cOmmo_ ozu wo co_umcm_axo m.co;umou ocu m:_3o__0m ncm Ow mc_:oum__ Lo mxmoo L_ocu um xcoz m:_oo oE_u mno._- mmm_o L_o;u mo umoe ncoam cu usmso _OOLUm o__o:umu onu cw muconaum om ucoeoocmmmmn umomcocum mo meow. ocoomuN ommco>< co_ua_LUmoo sou. * Emu. .eosc_ocou--.~_ o_gm» 123 special emphasis on students cooperating among themselves in the teaching-learning process. There was support for recognizing the Catholic school as a community of believers because Christian teaching demands it. The lay teachers in Group l rejected the idea that the Catholic school should be an isolated entity. outside the mainstream of the larger community. They also disagreed with a school goal of supplying training and meeting the manpower needs of the "national interest." With respect to relationships among the students. the lay teachers agreed that the development of positive personal relationships is more important than individual academic achievement. The lay teachers agreed that decision making does not belong to "higher" authority. They disagreed with the notion that students should be passive receivers of information from the teacher. The items of strongest agreement tended to be those supporting gemeinschaft. whereas those of strongest disagreement were gesell- schaft. Notably absent among the items of common agreement were those related to religious purposes and characteristics. Was The Q-analysis of the 35 elementary teachers in Group 2 indicated a two-factor solution accounting for 45.7% of the total variance (37.5% for Factor 1 and 8.0% for Factor 2) and 59.4% of the estimated communality (the amount of information explained by each factor: 48.8% for Factor 1 and l0.5% for Factor 2). Humphrey's test suggested that two factors were meaningful. 124 Lay Teachers--Type l The ranking of value and belief statements for Type l teachers (N = 22) is found in Table 13. This type accounted for 62.8% of the lay teachers in Group 2. Items with z-scores greater than +1.0 were the ones with which respondents most strongly agreed. Type l lay teachers' belief patterns were more supportive of gemeinschaft than gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. There was a high degree of agreement that the Catholic school's major purpose is teaching its members to live according to Catholic Church tenets. This is reflected in the fact that S of the ll items with which Type l lay teachers strongly agreed were related to the religious purposes and characteris- tics of the school. Other areas of strong agreement supported the sense of community: knowledge as a call to serve and be responsible for others and cooperation among all members in learning. curriculum development. and goal setting. In the midst of this there was strong agreement on the development of the individual. The value and belief statements with which Type 1 lay teachers disagreed are indicated by z-scores less than-KLO. Type 1 teachers strongly disagreed that the school's purpose is to supply training and meet the manpower needs of the "national interest." They did not sup- port competition as a purpose or characteristic of the Catholic school. Related to this was a rejection of the notion that individual academic achievement is more important than the formation of positive personal relationships among students. This group of teachers disagreed with the development of the intellect or the training of individuals for a 125 .Aco_umcoaooov __mxm vcm mane—30cx >memoooc mc_c_:oom wmo._ c_ cocuocm oco nu_3 oumcoaoOu new um_mmm ou commcaooco on umse mucovaum o~ .Aco_umcoaooov _oo£um o__o;umu ecu c0m m_m0m _m_ooam mc_um_:EL0w cmo> No... come we,» mmmum wo uc305m o_nmcoommcoo m ocean umae .oa_oc_ca vcm mcozomoh w .Avoom o>_uuo__ouv mEmcmoLa E:_:u_ccso :__._ mo acoeao_o>ov ecu com m_mmn Lm_:moc m :0 aaocm m mm Home umae muoneoe >u_:omu o .A_mco_u_umcuv comm__oc o__o;umu ozu m__._ mo mcuacu ego to mc_cumou may mm .oo;Um o__o;umu ecu mo omoacaa >cme_ca ugh :— . .Aco_umcoaoouv 0mm._ mo_u_>_uom .mo_mc:u__ mc_ccm_a :_ oumLoQOOu u_:o;m mcocomou ucm mucouaum mm .Anoom .m:n_>_ncmv .maum>_oc_ map *0 mcozoa onu __m mam._ mo ucoan_m>ou one :0 on umse .oo;om om_o:umu ecu mo uLOmmo .mco_umuauo on» m: .A_mco_u_umcuv .ma_uc_ca .mcosomou .mucooaum mm:._ mo co_umELOm m:o_m__oc mg» m_ _oOcUm o__o:umu ecu mo omoacaa >cmE_La och m— .AuOOm o>_uoo_ u_ouv mmouoam vcm >u_coamoLa _m_coums mo memos m cmcu Locum; mcocuo co» o_a_m Nom._ -coamoc on ou vcm o>com cu __mo n ma onto—3ch ucomoca umze .oo;om u__o:umu one m: .A_mco_u_umcuv mc_:umou cm_um_ccu mo mm... ocaumc onu mo omamoon mco>o__on mo >u_c:EEoo m on umae .oonom o__ocumu o:# m. .Aco_umcoaooov _oOcum o__ocumu one mo mmoooam ozu 000.N Low _m_ucommo 0cm .ma_o:_ca ucm .mucouaum .mcocomou >n muLOmmo o>mumcoaoou Nm .A_mco_u_vmcuv cocagu ecu mo mmc_;omou ecu Ow mc_ocooom o>__ cu mm~.N mconeoe mc_uo:cumc_ ocmzou touooc_n on umae mucOmmo LOMmE m._oo;um u__o;umu och _ Aucoeoocm< umomcocum wo mEou_v o._+ cmch Loumocu mocoomnN ocoomnN co_uamcomoo Emu. § Emu. .Ao._- can“ me. ocm o._+ cmsu coumocm mucouma~v N cocoa ._ oa>h .mcocumou >m. co» mama. oEoLHXmuu.m_ o_nmh 126 ...mco.umcv :umocou:_ .mco.umc: ecu .0 move: cozoacme ecu uooe ucm m:.c.mcu >.aaam mmm..- 0u m. .oocom o..o;umu ozu c. co.umo:uo mo 0>.uoowao .mucoemvcam umoE 05h .o ..co.u.uoasoov o.m..- co.u.uoaeoo mommL30uco umcu oco on umse mums..o .oo:um o..o;umu 02% mm ..ooom .m:v.>.uc.v mucouaum m:OEm ma.;mco.um.oc .chmLoa o>_u.moa .o ucoan.o>ou who..- osu cmsu acmucoae. oboe m. mucousum .m:u.>.vc. mo acoeo>o.zom o.eoumom och N ..co.u.uoaeouv >cumauc. ucm :o.ucouum o» o>_ucoo:. owm..- cm mm nouoeoLa on umae .ma.oc.ca new .mcocomou .mucovaum macaw co.u_uoa50u ma ..co.u.uoaeoov oLmZoL .m.ocm:.. vcm ucoEo>o.;om .mo.uumcn Lo. .am..- m.msv.>.nc. ocmaoca cu m. .oOLom o..o;umu egg .0 co.uo::. ucmucoae. umos 0;» mm ...mco.umcv poo..ouc. N m..- ozu o ucoan o>ov o u m. occom u..o;umu on» o omoacaa >Lme.ca och N. o m . c . . . ...mco.umcv voumou on cmo umcu mm:.cu wmm..- omo;u mc.:umou vcmon touooc.v on umas mucouwo LOHmE m..oo;om u..o;umu one o. ..vOOm .m:u.>.uc.v v.co3 .mo.csoou >.mc.mmocuc. cm Lo. mwN..- m.m:n.>.nc. mo mc.c.mcu mzu omoacaa >LmE.ca mu. mm mm; .oosom o..o;umu och o: ...mco_u.vmcuv >u.c:EEoo .moo. ecu .o moo...coo vcm mEo.20ca 00...- .mocsmmoca exp 0» vomoaxo no: .ucmam oom.a m on umae m.oo:om o..o;umu : ...mco..mcv ox..m mucouaum new whosumou mo acoeumocu .mauo :.o..- ocammm cu mo.:c .mcomcoas. couu.c3 >3 cocco>om on umne .oocom o_.o:umu one mm AucoEoocmmm.o umochLum mo msou_v o..- cosh mmod mocoUm-N ocoom-N co.ua.LUmoo Emu. * sou. .eosc_ocou--.m_ o_nac 127 technical world as primary purposes for Catholic schools. They did not accept the necessity of written impersonal rules to assure equitable treatment for school members. 'There was a general tendency to disagree with those items that were secular and gesellschaft in nature and to agree with those that were religious and gemeinschaft. Type 1 lay teachers were labeled religionszgemeflnsshait. Lay Teachers--Type 2 Type 2 lay teachers' (N = l3) belief patterns are presented in Table 14. Type 2 constituted 37.l% of the lay teachers in Group 2. These teachers expressed strongest agreement with the importance of the cooperation of all members if the school is to be successfuL. Agree- ment with statements focusing on cooperation. whether among profession- als or students. was prominent. The significance of the individual also received strong agreement. Type 2 lay teachers expressed a belief in the need to develop the powers of the individual and his/her intel- lectual capacity and to enable persons to control their surroundings. They felt the school must focus its teaching on the skills necessary for achievement. There was an absence of strong agreement with items representing religious purposes and characteristics. Although there was a tendency to reject gesellschaft purposes and characteristics and to support those classified as gemeinschaft. a close inspection revealed that the latter items were confined almost solely to-the area of cooperation. This in and of itself did not indicate a gemeinschaft belief pattern. That fact. coupled with the noted lack of religious 128 ..uOOm o>.uuo..oov mEocmoLa 53.:o.ccao mo .MN.. ucoan.o>ou ocu co. m.moc co.:moc o co moccm o no uooe umze mcoceoe >u.:uou o ..co.uocoaoouv mom.. xcoz czo c.ocu ouo:.o>o new ovocm cu mo.u.c:ucoaao co>.m oc umas mucotzum .m ..uoom .m:v.>.vc.v Eocu ou u.Ec:m Ow >.ocoE coca Locum; moc.u:=0cc:m L.ocu .OLucou ou m.o:o.>.vc. mmm.. co. o.c.mmoa a. oxos v.30: uocu mu.coc ouoo.:oc. umas .OOcum u..ocuou och N. owm.. ..co_uocoa00uv Locuo cooo cooou op comocaouco oc umae coco..cu cm ..co.u.uanouv uoo. czo c.ocu co ncoum um:.. oco acoucoaouc. oc op vommcaooco oc umae .OOcom o..0cuou ocu c. mucoosum m ...oco.uocv >uo.uom c. o>o.coo >oE .ocmvoc om acousum .m:.. ocu ou m...cm mo mc.cuoou ocu co >..cos.ca maoo. umae .OOcom o..0cuou och 4m ..co.uocoaoOuv ...xm uco omuo.30cx >commouoc mc.c.:coo mNm.. c. cocHOco oco cu.3 ouocoaooo nco um.mmo ou comocaooco oc umae mucoozum ON ..vOOm .o:o.>.v:.v .o:n.>.tc. ocu mo mcozoa ocu ..o .o m:m.. acoan.o>on ocu :0 oc umae .00cum o..ocuou ocu .o ucOmmo .oco.uoo:uo och m: ..co.uocoaooUv >.o>.uocoaoou mmm.. mEo.c0ca o>.om cu >u.c:ucoaao >co>o cu.3 vou.>0ca oc umae mucouaum .m ..vOOm .m:v.>.oc.v >u.ooaou .ozuuo..ouc. coc co m.c cu .o:v_> cmm.. -.c:. ocu ao.o>on OH m. .oocom o..0cuou ocu mo co.uuc:. acoucoae. umoe och w: ..co.uocoaooov .oocom u..0cuou ocu mo mmoooam ocu omm.N co. .o.ucommo oco .oa.oc_ca uco .mucooaum .mcocomou >c muco..o o>_uocoaoou Nm .ucoeoocm< umomcoLum mo mEou_. 0..+ coch Louoocw mocoom-N ocoum-N co.ua.comoa Eou_ % sou. ..o..- coca moo. vco 0..+ coco couoocm moLOUm-Nv N anoLo .N oa>h .mcocooou >o. co. meow. oeocuxm-.:. o.coh 129 ...oco.uocv mxmou .OOcom uo xcoz ...3 >ocu om ucoEcm.c:a cu.3 vocoumoccu awn..- >..oco.moooo uco vouooc.v .vo..ocucoo oc umae .oOcom o..0cuou ocu c. mucotaum :N ...oco.uocv ouocou co co.mm:om.c .0 ac. o u:0cu.z cmm..- >u.cocu:o c. omOcu ou umo. oc v.30cm mco.m.oou ..oOcom o..0cuou ocu c. On ..co.u.uoasoov >cumsnc. can co.ucouuo ou o>.ucooc_ 0mm..- co mo vouoeoca oc umae .oa.oc.ca vco .mcocooou .mucooaum chEo co.u.uanoU m: ...oco_u.oocuv >u.cseeoo .ooo. ocu mo moo..mcoo uco mEo.coca moo..- .mocammoca ocu ou oomoaxo no: .ucoao ouo.a m on umae m.00com o..0cuou och : ...oco.uocv :Ommo. ocu mo co.uoco.axo m.cocuoou ocu mc.zo..o. vco Ou mc.coum.. Lo mxmou c.ocu uo xcoz mum..- mc.0n oE.u moo.u L.ocu .o umoE vcoam ou ucmao .oocom o..0cuou ocu c. mucouaum mN ..ooom o>.uoo..ouv mcocuo cu.3 >u.caeeoo c. >.c.mcoamoc o>_. Ou co.uooo> mam..- L.ocu co>oom.u vco Em..o:v.>.vc. oeooco>o ou ucmaou oc umae o.aooa maso> w: ..ma.cm:o.uo.oc .oauoocucoov .awmmoouam on On .oocom o..ocuou ocu co. a.cmco.uo.oc .oco.mmo. N.N..- -0ca >.uo.cum o c.ouc.oe cu >u.:oow vco .mn.oc_ca ocu co. >commoooc m. u. m. ..uoom .o:u.>.uc.v mucoosum chEo ma.cm:o.uo.oc .ocomcoa o>.u.moa .o ucoeao.o>oo mm...- ocu coca acoucoas. ocoe m. mucovaum .o:u.>.oc_ .o ucoEo>o.coo u.Eouooo och N ..co_u.uoaeoov .No..- co.u.uoaeoo momocsooco uocu oco oc umae ouoE_.o .OOcom o..ocuou och mm ..uoOm o>.uoo..ouv mucousum ..o co oEOm Lo. >u.Eco. wmo..- -.c: oc.:uoc cu.c3 mouoo mmocu u...ooam >c vocco>om oc umae mmocn acooaum m .ucoEoocmom.o umomcoLum mo meou_. o..- coch mmoc mocoum-N ocoom-N co.ua.comoo Eou_ M So». .eosc_ucoe-..s_ e_nmh 130 orientation. led to a designation of Type 2 teachers as secular: gesellschaft. .fifisulanzgfisallsshnit teachers expressed strong disagreement with the idea that students must be controlled. directed. and threat- ened in order to achieve. They did not support the idea of leaving decision making to those in authority. Competition was not generally supported. The belief that students must overcome individualism in order to live responsibly in the community was not supported. but neither was the idea that the academic achievement of individuals is more important than the development of positive personal relationships. Description of Differences Between Types of Lay Teachers in Group 2 WWII-"Attention is now focused on a comparison of the responses between Type 1 and Type 2. rather than on the individual types. Items having a z—score "dif- ference" of t 1.0 between the types. regardless of placement of the items within each type profile. were considered to have a significant difference between the types. These data are found in Table l5. On ten items. Type 1 (W) teachers expressed greater agreement than Type 2; the latter agreed more strongly on six items. ‘The greatest difference was in the area of religious purposes and characteristics. The first five items in Table 15 show the nature of the difference. All five related to the religious focus of the school. and all were areas in which the .Lflllglnus:g§m§1nscna£t type agreed with or affirmed the belief more 13] ..coom o>.uoo..ouv mmoooam uco >u.coamoca .o.couoE .o mcooe o coco Locum; mcocuo co. o.c.mcoamoc oc cu :mo.. moo. Nom.. uco o>com OH ..ou o mo omco.3ch ucomoca umas .oOcom u..0cuou och m: . .ma.cmco.uo.o._ Costa. uuoamo ego—Coon ocu o>0co can mm... .mm. - m.N. co>o mo>.. m.cocuo cooo c. uo>.o>c. oc umas mucovaum can mcocoooh wN ..co.uocoaoouv .oocom o..ocuoo ocu co. m.oom .o.ooam m:.uo.:sco. coo> cooo oe.u mm... Nwo. - no... ..mum .o uc305o o.cococ.mcoo o ccoam umss .oa.oc.ca new mcocoooh w ..cOOm o>.uoo..oov .o:c.>.cc. ocu .o omcoaxo ocu um co>o coOm oom.. 0mm. - mom. cOEEOo ocu co. mc.xcoz .o >o..oa o o>oc umss .OOcom o..ocumu och o. ..voom o>.uoo..ouv mcocuo cu.3 >u.::EEoo c. >.c.mcoamoc o>.. ou co_uooo> L.ocu co>oo mm:.. wan..- Nmo. um.c cam Em..o:c.>.vc. osooco>o o» ucmamu oc umae o.aooa mcao> w: ...oco.u.oocuv cocacu ocu o» ucoEu.EEoo mo m.moc Nmm.. wmw..- .wN. - ocu :0 you.» touoo.om oc umse m.oOcom u..ocuou c. >u.:oom >oc NN ...oco.u.uocuv mc.comou co.um.ccu no ocauoc ocu MNm.. mum. omm.. .o omaouoc mco>o..oc .o >u.c:EEoo o oc umze .OOcom u..0cuou och m. ...oco.u.cmcuv co.m..oc o..ocumo ocu .o mcuacu ocu wmo.. mum. - m.... .o mc.cuoou ocu m. .OOcom o..0cuou ocu mo omOacaa >Los.ca och :. ...oco.u.cocuv coczcu ocu mo mmc.cooou ocu o» mc_ucoooo o>.. op mcoceoe mc.uu:cumc. com.. 9mm. mmN.N vLoZOu coauoc_v oc umae muco..o comma m..00com o..ocumu och . ...oco.u.cocuv .oa.oc.ca .mcocuoou .mucocaum mo co.uoEcom omo.N mmm. - mm:.. mao.m..oc ocu m. .oocom o..0cuou ocu mo omoacaa >Loe.ca och m. N oa>h coch couoocw ucoeoocm< . on>h ....o N oa>h . oa>h co_ua.cumoo sou. § Eon. ..o.. H coca couoocm mocoom-Nv N a30cu .N cam . moa>h .mcocooou >o. coozuoc chm.LanOU-.m. o.coh I32 ..eoom .mse_>_ec_v >u.omaoo .ozuuo..ouc. coc Lo m.c cu .o:v.>.cc. ocu no.o>oc mm..N- :mm.. .cm. - ou m. .OOcom u..0cuou ocu mo co.uoc:. acoucoae. umoe och w: ...oco.uoc. >uo.00m c. o>o.coo >oE .ocmvoc 0m ucocaum ocu cu m...xm omm..- .m:.. mmc. - mo mc.cooou ocu co >..cme.ca maoo. umse .OOcum u..0cuou och cm ..cOOm .m:c.>.uc.v u.coz .oo.ccoou >.mc.moocuc. co co. m.o:v.>.cc. NNN..- mmc. mmN..- .o mc.c.ocu ocu omoacaa >coe.ca mu. mo moc .OOcom u..ocuou och o: ...oco.uocv uoo..ouc. ocu .0 .w...- mw.. - hem..- ucoan.o>ou ocu m. .oOcom o..0cuou ocu mo omoacaa >coe.co och N. ...oco.uocv :umocouc. .oco.uoc: ocu mo muooc cozoacoe ocu uooE vco ac.:.ocu >.aaam Ou m. .OOcom om...- umn. - mmm..- o..ocuou ocu c. co.uou:co .0 o>.uooaco .oucoeouc3. umoe och .o ..cOOm .m:c.>.uc.v Eocu ou u.Ec:m Ou >.ocoE coca Locum; mmc.uc:occ:m c.ocu .0cucoo Ow m.o:c.>.cc. Lo. o.c.mmoa ON...- mmm.. m.N. u. oxoe v.30: uocu mu.coc oumo.:oc. umas .OOcom o..ocuou och N. . oa>h coch couoocw acoeoocm< N oa>h ....a N oa>h . oa>h co.ua.comoo sou. k sou. .ees:_ucou--.m_ o_nmh 133 than the seculanzgesellschajt did. 'The remaining five items focused on gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics: overcoming individuality for the good of the group. entering primary relationships by becoming involved in each other's lives. and the call to use knowledge in service and responsibility to others. The items with which neligiou&:g§m§1n§§haft teachers expressed less agreement than seculanzgesellschait generally represented gesell- schaft purposes and characteristics. There was less support for those items that focused on the individual. whether the value was developing the individual to his/her intellectual capacity. training the indi- vidual for a technical world. or teaching individuals to control their environment. Closely allied was the degree of disagreement with teach- ing skills so that the student can achieve in society or training to meet the "national interestJ' Consensus The consensus items for religiouszgameinschait and segulan: Qflsfillschait lay teachers are found in Table l6. There were 47 consen- sus items. of which nine were agreed with and eight disagreed with at the z-score significance level of t 1.0. Consensus for whim-s; ‘gemeinschait and seculanzgesallsshait teachers clustered around those purposes and characteristics designated as "cooperation." Of the nine items of agreement. six were in the area of cooperation among the members--teachers. principals. and students. ‘The other values of strongest agreement were the necessity of developing the powers of the 13h ..co.uoconooov Nco.. mo.u.>.uoo .oo.mc:u.. mc.cco.a c. ouocoaooo c.30cm mcocooou cco mucouaum mm .xcoz mmo.. :30 c.ocu ouo:.m>o uco ooocm 0u mo.u.c:ucoaao co>_m oc umae mucocaum .m ..co.u.uoaeoov poo. czo c_ocu co ccoum uco w.... aconcoaocc_ on o“ comocaooco oc umae .OOcom u..ocuou ocu c. mucouaum m ..co.umcoaooo. >.o>.uocoaoou mN... mEo.c0ca o>.om cu >u.c:ucoaao >co>o cu.3 coc.>oLa oc owns mucocaum .m we... ..co.uocoaooov cocuo cooo cooou 0a comocaooco on page coco..cu cm ..cOOm o>.uoo..0uv mEocmOLQ E:.:o.Lc:o mo ucoan.o>oc NN... ocu co. m.mmc co.:moc o co aaocm o mo uooe umze mcoceoe >u.:oou m ..co.uocoa00ov ...xm cco omvo.zocx >commoooc mc.c_:ouo c. .mN.. cocHOco oco cu.3 ouocoaooo uco um.mmo Ou comocaooco oc umss mucocaum 0N ..cOOm .o:c.>.uc.v .o:c.>.vc. ocu .o mcozoa ocu ..o .0 “cos occ.. -ao.o>oc ocu :0 oc umae .oOcom o..0cuou ocu .o uco..o .oco.uouaco och m: ..co.uocoaooov .oocom u..ocuou ocu mo mmoooam ocu co. mu..N .o.ucommo oco .oa.oc.ca ccm .mucousum .mcocooou >c muco..o o>.uocoa00u Nm ucoEoocm< umomcoLum mo neon. occum-N omoco>< co.ua.LUmoo sou. * Eou. ..o.. H coca couoocm mocoum-Nv N anoLo .N oa>h cco . oa>h mo mcocuoou >o. .mEou. mamcomc0u-.m. o.coh I35 ..co.u.uoaeoov >cumscc. vco co.ucouuo ou o>.ucooc. co mmm..- mo couOEOLQ oc umas .ma.oc.ca cco .mcocooou .mucocaum chEo co.u.uoa50u m: ..co.u.uoasouv om:..- co.u.uoasou momocaouco uocu oco oc umae ouoE..o .OOcom u..0cuou och mm ..eoom .mse_>_ec_v mucocaum mcoso mq.cmco.uo.oc .o20mcoa o>.u.mon .o acoan.o>oc ocu N.:..- coca acoucoae. ocoe m. mucocaum .o:c.>.cc. mo ucoeo>o.coo o.Eouooo och N ...mco.u.cocuv >u.caseou .ooo. ocu mo muo..mcoo cam mEo.coca cwm..- .mocammoca ocu ou vomoaxo uoc .ucoao ooo.a m on umse m.oocum u..ocuou : ...oco.uocv mxmou .OOcom no xcoz ...3 >ocu 0m acoEcm.c:a cu.3 cocouooccu >..oco.moooo MNM..- cco .couooc.u .no..0cucou oc umse .oOcom o..0cumu ocu c. mucocaum :N ...oco.umcv oumcoc co co.mm:om.u mo uo. o unocu.3 .mN..- .>u.c0cu:o c. omocu ou umo. oc c.:ocm mco.m.oou ..oOcum o..ocuou ocu c. On ...oco.uocv cOmmo. ocu .o co.umco.axo m.cocooou ocu mc.zo..0m new Ou mc_coum_. co mxmoc c.ocu um xcoz mc_oc cm...- oe.u c.ocu .0 once ccoam cu acmso .OOcom o..ocuou ocu c. mucocsum mN ..co.u.uoasoov ocozoc .o.o:oc.m cco acoeo>o.coo .ou.uooca co. m.o:o.> o:...- -.u:. ocoaoca cu m. .OOcom o..0cumu ocu mo co.uoc:. acoucoae. umoe och mm ucoEoocmom.o umochLum mo meou_ ocoom-N omoco>< co.ua.cumoo sou. m sou. .ee=c_ucou--.o_ o_smc 136 individual and the importance of encouraging students to be inde- pendent. Competition as a value for the school was the item with which both types most disagreed. In fact. two other statements in support of competition were also disagreed with. Both types disagreed with the idea of the school being apart from the larger community. Authori- tarianism. whether in the school decision-making process or in the classroom. was rejected. Finally. both types disagreed with the value of placing individual academic achievement above the development of positive personal relationships among the students. Most consensus items for Type 1 and Type 2 lay teachers from Group 2 were also consensus items for the three types in Group 1. All lay teachers agreed that developing the powers of the individual is important. All types supported the importance of cooperation among teachers. students. and principal. There was a strong focus on the need for students to cooperate among themselves to solve problems. gain knowledge. and even teach each other. All lay-teacher types disagreed with the notion of a teacher- dominated classroom. They rejected the notion of decision making being left to the authorities. All types also disagreed with the idea of the academic achievement of the individual being more important than the development of positive personal relationships. They also disagreed with the notion of the Catholic school being a place apart. free from the concerns of the larger community. 137 Follow-Up Analyses lam-W lead-mum Given the similarities of the analyses for principals and religious teachers. their Orsorts were combined to determine if there were enough differences to warrant classifying them as two separate types or if they constituted a single type. An attempt was made to analyze the data in terms of a two-factor solution. Humphrey's test suggested that factor two was not meaningful. An analysis of belief patterns in terms of one factor was conducted. with 39.8% of the total variance and 69.0% of the estimated communality accounted for. Table 17 presents the extreme z-scores greater than'LO for Type l. The characteristics of the two taken singly are present in the combined scores. Of the ten items on which there was strong agreement for principals and religious teachers combined. eight were items of strong agreement for principals and nine were items of strong agreement for religious teachers in the original analyses. The rankings of the z-scores are different. but the appearance of the items indicates the similarity between principals and religious teachers and supports the belief that treating them as a single type is valid. Eight of the ten items most strongly agreed with were gemein- schaft items. Although specifically religious purposes and character- istics were not as prominent for the combined principals and religious teachers as they were for principals alone. they were prominent enough to warrant classifying the type as religiouszgemelnsghait. I38 ..cOOm o>.uoo..ouv mEoLmOLQ E:.:u.cc:o mo ucoe Nm... -ao.o>oc ocu co. m.moc co.:moc o co aaocm o mo uooE umae mcochE >u.:uom m ..co.uocoaooo. ...xm vco omco.30cx >commoooc mc.c.:cuo th.. c. cocu0cm oco cu.3 ouocoaooo uco um.mmo ou comoczooco oc umae mucocaum ON ..co.u.uoaeoov woo. :30 c.ocu co ocoum oom.. uco ucoccoaocc. oc ou comocaooco oc umae .oOcom u..ocuou ocu c. mucovaum m ...mco.u.nocuv cocacu ocu mo mmc.cumou ocu ou mc.ucouoo o>.. 0» mam.. mcochE mc.uo:cumc. ccozou touooc.c oc umae acommo comma .m.00com u..0cuou . ..cOOm o>_uoo..oov mmouusm cco >u.coam0ca .o.couoE .o mcooE o coca cocuoc mcocuo co. o.c.mcoamoc man.. on ou cco o>com Ow ..oo o mo omco.zocc ucomoca umae .OOcom o..0cuou och m: ..oOOm .m:u.>.vc.v .o:u.>.vc. ocu .o mcozoa ocu ..o .o cmm.. ucoan.o>ov ocu no on «was .oOcom o..0cuou ocu mo ucommo .oco_uoo:uo och m: ..co.uocoaooov .OOcum o..0cumu ocu mo mmoooam ocu mmN.. co. .o.ucommo oco .oa.oc.ca cco .mucocaum .mcocooou >c mucOmmo o>.umcoaooU Nm ...oco.u.uocuv m:.cuoou co.um.ccu mo cum.. ocauoc ocu mo omaoooc mco>o..oc .o >u.c:EEoo m on owns .OOcom u..0cuou och m. .ucoeoocm< umochLHm .o meou.v 0..+ cmch couoocw mocoom-N ocoom-N co.ua.comoo sou. * sou. .Ao..- coca mmo. cco 0..+ coca Louoocm mocoom-Nv noc.ceoo mcocooou mao.m..oc cco m.oa.oc.cn co» mEou. oEocuXm-.m. o.coh l39 ..oOOm .o:c.>.uc.v muconaum mcoso ma.cmco.uo.oc .chmcoa o>.u.moa mo ucoan.o>ov N.c..- ocu coca acoucone. ocoe m. mucovzum .o:c.>.vc. mo acoEo>o.cuo o.Eocooo och N ..co.u.uoaeoov vLoZoc .o.ucoc.m cco acoEo>o.coo .oo.uooca co. Noc..- m.o:v.>.cc. ocoaoca ou m. .oOcom o..ocuou ocu mo co.uoc3m acoucoae. umoe och mm ...mco.uocv cOmmo. ocu .0 co.» -oco.axo m.cocuoou ocu mc_zo..o. cco ou mc_coum.. co mxmov c.ocu um xcoz 0mm..- mc.0c oE.u c.ocu mo umos ccoam ou ucmao .oOcom o..ocuou ocu c. mucocaum mN ...oco.uocv ox..o mucousum cam mcocuoou wo acoEuoocu .oaoo .NN..- ocnmmo On mo.:c .ocOmcan. couu.c3 >c vocco>om oc umae .OOcum u..ocuou och mm ..ma_cmco.uo.oc .oauuocucouv .ammmoooam oc ou .OOcom u..0cuou ocu co. a.cmco.uo.oc .oco.mmo. hoe..- -oca >.uo.cum o c.ouc.oe on >u.:oom new .oa.oc.ca ocu co. >commoooc m. a. m. AucoEoocmom.o umomcoLum mo meou.. o..- coch mmoc mocoom-N ...oco_u.uocuv .oa.oc.ca .mcocooou .mucocaum on... .0 co.uoEcom mao.m..oc ocu m. .oocom u_.0cumu ocu .o omoacaa >Loe.ca och m. ..ma_cmco.uo.oc >cos.cav .oOcom o..0cuou ocu .o o... ocu mo acme cc... acoucoae. umoe ocu m. mucocaum cco mcocooou ..oa.uc.ca mo a.cmzo..o. och w. ocoom-N co.ua.comoo Eou. * sou. .eesc_ucou--.n_ e_nmh Th0 ...oco.u.cocuv >u.c:EEoo .ouo. ocu mo moo...coo uco cam.N- mEo.c0ca .mocammoca ocu Ou comonxo no: .ucoao ooo.a m on umae m.oocom o..ocuou : ...oco.uocv :umocouc. .mco.uo:: ocu mo mnooc cozoacos ocu uooE vco m:.c.ocu >.aaam mam..- cu m. .oocom u..0cuou ocu c. co_uoo:co mo o>.uoomco .oucoEoccam umoE och .w ...oco.uocv mxmou .oocOm uo xcoz ...: >ocu om acoEcm.c:a cu.3 cocouooccu mam..- >..oco.mouoo cam .couooc.c .co..0cucoo oc umze .oOcom o..ocuou ocu c. mucousum cN ..co.u.uoaeoov >cumauc_ can co.u:ouuo ou o>.ucouc. .om..- co mo vouoeoca oc umse .oa.oc.ca uco .mcocooou .mucocsum mcosm co.u.uoaeou m: ..co.u.uoaeoov mmc..- co.u.uoaeou momocsouco uocu oco oc umae ouos..o .OOcom u..0cuou och mm ...oco_uocv ouocou co co.mm:om.c .0 yo. o yuccu.3 cmc..- >u.cocu:o c. omocu OH umo. oc c.30cm mco.m.uoc ..oOcum u..0cuou ocu c. om ..uOOm o>.uoo..oov mucocaum ..o co oEOm com >u.Eco. mNc..- -.c: oc_:ooc cu.c3 mocOU mmocu o.m.ooam >c vocco>0m oc umae mmocv ucocaum m ocoom-N co.ua.LOmoo Eon. % sou. .ees:_ucou--.n_ v.3.» 141 The areas of strongest disagreement for the type are found in Table 6. Of the 12 items of strongest disagreement (z-scores of -l.O or less). 10 were also items of disagreement for principals and ll were items of disagreement for religious teachers in the separate analyses. Ten of the l2 items represented gesellschaft purposes and characteris- tics. Both of these findings add support to the single-type proposi- tion and to the W connotation. The Wit persons saw the school as a community of believers. This was supported by other purposes and characteristics they agreed with. The community aspect was present in the idea of knowledge as a call to serve and be responsible for others rather than as a means of attaining success and material wealth. The relationships among members are to be primary. not contractual. The success of the school was seen as dependent on the cooperative efforts of all. Although the students must he taught to be independent and to fully develop their individual talents. they must also learn to help each other in the acquisition of knowledge and skills. The religious aspect of the community is fostered by a belief that members need to be instructed to live according to Church tenets and that a primary purpose of the school is the religious formation of all members of the school. In spite of the strong agreement on the school as a community. Minus-gemeinschaft persons did not support the isolation of the school from the larger community. This item evoked the strongest sentiment of disagreement. Competition as a desirable component of the Catholic school philosophy was rejected. as 142 was any indication of schooling for practical achievement and financial reward. or to meet the needs of the "national interest)‘ The presence of impersonal rules to govern behavior of members was not acceptable. nor did respondents feel students should be con- trolled. directed. or threatened with punishment as a means of motiva- tion. Students were not expected to be passive learners in the classroom. The development of positive personal relationships was felt to be more important than academic achievement for the individual student. In general. then..nallalnuszgameinscnait educators disagreed with gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. Comparison of Types The data were analyzed to determine what relationships existed among the belief patterns of the various types of principals. religious teachers. and lay teachers identified in this study. W In light of the fact that the analysis of the second group of lay teachers failed to identify three distinct types as the first analy- sis had done. the data were examined more closely. The similarity of responses of both Type 2 and Type 3 in the first group of lay teachers seemed to indicate that they might not be as distinct as first believed. One had been classified as religiousznamfiinsshaita the other as gen-WM. The data in the first analysis indicated that Type 3 persons accounted for 5% of the total variance. 143 Based on the above information. the responses of the first group of lay teachers (N = 35) were subjected to a twohfactor solution. As a result. a new configuration was identified. All Type 1 lay persons previously classified as seculanzgesellschait were now identified as Type 2 with the same seculanzgesellschait belief pattern. One person previously identified as a Type 2 (religious:gemein§cnaft) became a Type 2 (seculaz:gesellschait). Of the 15 lay teachers previously identified as Type 3 (gemgdnsghaftzneliglgns). 2 became Type 2 (W) and 13 were identified as Type l (mums; iaflmeinscbait). Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between the belief patterns of types of teachers to determine if collapsing Types 2 and 3 into a single type could be supported. These data are reported in Table l8. The results indicated that Type 1 in the two-factor solution was like Types 2 and 3 in the three-factor solution with correlations of r ==.94 and r = .90. respectively. The correlation between Type 1 in the three-factor solution with Type 2 of the two- factor solution was r = .97. WW We Table 19 reports the relationships between types of lay teach- ers from each of the two groups analyzed. Type l lay teachers were .Lellgious:gemeinscha£t in their belief patterns; Type 2 lay teachers were W in their belief patterns. Comparing the types from each group. a high degree of relationship was readily 144 identitified. Type 1 lay teachers in the first group correlated highly with Type 1 lay teachers in the second group (r = .90). The two groups of Type 2 lay teachers also had a relatively high degree of relation- ship (r = .85). These data supported the treatment of Type 1 lay teachers. regardless of the group. as essentially the same type. The high correlation coefficient for Type 2 lay teachers supported the same conclusion. Table 18.--Correlations between types of belief patterns among lay teachers (Group l) for item arrays (three-factor solution and two-factor solution). Two-Factor Solution Three-Factor Solution Lay Teachers Lay Teachers Group 1. Type 1 Group l. Type 2 Lay teachers Group 1. Type 1 .5l .97 Lay teachers Group l. Type 2 .94 .58 Lay teachers Group l. Type 3 .90 .69 Demands-2W Originally. four distinct belief patterns were identified. The principals and religious teachers exhibited belief patterns called ineligiguszgemelnschajt. Lay teachers were identified as having two belief patterns. Wait and W Attention now focuses on a comparison of all types of see how they were ll-S mm. 0 o 0 mm. mm. mm. om. N oa>h .N anoLu mcocooou >oc . oa>h .N a30cu mcocooou >oc ... N oa>h .. anoLw mcocuoou >oc Nm. ... . oa>h .. anoLw mcocooou >oc N oahh .N ozoLu . oa>h .N anoLo mcocoooh >oc mcocuooh >oc N oa>h .. anoLu . oa>h .. anoLu mcocoooh >oc mcocoooh >oc .m>occm sou. co. mcocooou >o. mcoeo mccouuma mo..oc .o moa>u cooZuoc mco.uo.occoQ-.m. o.coh 146 similar. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to find the relationships between types of teachers (religious and lay) and principals. These data are presented in Table 20. There was a high degree of correlation between the belief patterns of Type 1. Group 1 lay teachers and each of the other Wharf. types. With the religious teachers. r = .81; with principals. r'=:.88; and with Type 1. Group 2 lay teachers. r = .90. An examination of correlations between other religious: .gemeinschait types supported a relatively strong relationship among them. The correlation between religious teachers and principals. previously reported. was high (r==.86). With Type 1. Group 2 lay teachers it was the same as with Type l. Group l (r = .8l). The correlation between principals and Type 1. Group 2 lay teachers was quite high. with r = .92. All Type l persons. wither lay or religious teachers or lay or religious principals. displayed belief patterns supporting Leligigus: .gemginsghajt purposes and characteristics for Catholic schools. Although there were some differences between types. these did not affect the overall inclination and supported the classification of all of these types as having essentially one belief pattern. neligigus: sensinschatt. The correlation between Type 2. Group 1 lay teachers and Type 2. Group 2 lay teachers was also relatively high (r = .85). Both of these types of lay teachers expressed strong agreement with purposes and characteristics classified as secular and gesellschaft. M7 N oa>h .N saccu mcocooou >oc mm. ... . oa>h .N anoLo mcocooou >mc mm. mm. ... _ was» m.ma.oc.ca wwo ~wo was coo — 0Q>P mcocooou mao.m..om mm. mm. mm. ”we no. N 0Q>P a— Q—JOLQ mcocooou >oc mm. om. mm. —m. N0. so. — UQ>P a— QUOLU mcocuoou >oc N oa>h . oa>h oa> . oa>h N on>h . oa>h .N anoLu .N a30cu . h mcocoooh .. cache .. anoLu mcocuooh >oc mcocoooh >oc m.oa.oc.cm mzo.m..om mcocoooh >oc mcocoooh >oc .m>occo sou. co. mccouuoa mo..oc mo moa>u coozuoc mco.uo.ocL0u-.oN o.coh 148 Follow-Up Analysis--Lay Teachers Only The very nature of religious life in the Catholic Church is focused on the importance of community. The religious community is the religious family. Most of the religious teachers in Catholic schools began their careers at a time when life in the school and life in the convent were a continuum; that is. the communitarian aspect of daily living was unbroken. A sense of community prevailed in the school and in the convent. It was not unexpected. then. that such teachers should constitute a single type. Wait. The same statements can be made of religious principals. Since principals and religious teachers were identified as being a single type for the reasons stated above. the researcher decided not to examine the demographic characteristics of the single types but to try to ascertain what differences existed among lay teach- ers that might account for two different belief patterns. A .05 alpha level was used throughout to designate statistical significance. 'This level was chosen on the basis of its wide acceptability as an approp- riate level of probability in research of this type. W Table Zl presents a cross-tabulati on of lay teachers' belief- pattern types by the status of the principal--that is. whether the principal was a lay person or a religious. ‘There was no statistically significant association at the .05 alpha level between the status of principals and the belief patterns expressed by lay teachers. Although the reported association between belief pattern and principal status 149 failed to realize the .05 alpha level. it did approximate it at .07. The data indicated that a higher proportion of nellgiou§:gemaln§£ha£1 types of lay teachers was found under religious principals than under lay principals (78.6% versus 54.8%). The distribution of types under lay principals was approximately 55% religiouszgemainachnit.to 45% .seculanzgesellscnatt. Under religious principals. the distribution was approximately 79% to 2l%. Table 2l.--Cross-tabulation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by status of principal. Type of Belief Pattern Principal Status Religious- Secular- Column Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Total Lay 23 19 42 54.8% 45.2% 60% Religious 22 6 28 78.6% 2l.4% 40% Subtotal 45 25 70 p = .07 alpha = .05 Sim-milieu A cross-tabulation of belief patterns of lay teachers by staff composition is presented in Table 22. No schools in the study were staffed entirely by religious teachers. Staffing patterns were either all lay teachers or a mixture of lay and religious teachers. There was no statistically significant association at the .05 alpha level between 150 belief patterns and composition of staff. Forty-seven percent of the lay teachers served on an all-lay staff. Of these. 70% expressed 111W belief patterns. and 30% emerged as secs-1a}: .g§$§1l§£hait types. The majority of lay teachers. 53%. served on mixed staffs. In this case. 59.5% of the lay teachers exhibited Longing-s; gemeinschaft attitudes and 40.5% Wait ones. Belicia-Ls: gem-mama: teachers were almost evenly split between lay and mixed staffs (5l% to 49%. respectively). WM lay teachers constituted a higher percentage (60%) of mixed staffs than of all-lay staffs (40%) . Table 22.--Cross-tabulation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by composition of staff. Type of Belief Pattern Staff Composition Rel igi ous- Secul ar- Column Gemei nsch aft Gesel lsch aft Total Lay 23 10 33 69.7% 30.3% 47.1% Mixed 22 15 37 59.5% 40.5% 52.9% Subtotal 45 25 70 p = .52 alpha = .05 Wounds-11'. When belief patterns were cross-tabulated by sex of the respondent. there was no significant sex factor related to the belief 151 patterns of lay teachers. This information is presented in Table 23. It should be observed that the number of male lay teachers was quite low. as compared to the number of female lay teachers (males repre- sented 13% of the total lay teachers included in the study). Since the analysis took into account the relatively small number of males. it is possible that an increase in their number might have made a significant difference in the findings. Males did comprise 20% of the total W types and just 8% of the WM types. It should also be noted that female lay teachers tended to express £21191905293591159h311 belief patterns more than seculan: W ones. Table 23.--Cross-tabulation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by sex of respondent. Type of Belief Pattern Sex of Respondent Religious- Secular- Column Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Total Male 4 5 9 44.4% 55.6% 12.9% Female 41 20 61 67.2% 32.8% 87.1% Subtotal 45 25 70 p = .34 alpha = .05 152 WWW Table 24 presents the cross-tabulation of belief patterns of lay teachers by the kind of institution from which they had received the bachelor's degree. There was no statistically significant association between the two at the .OS alpha level. An important observation is that the majority of lay teachers (68.6%) had been trained in state institutions. Equally noteworthy is that 62.5% of those were W in their belief patterns. and 37.5% were WW types. Of the lay teachers trained in Catholic institutions. 81% were MW and just 19% were WI:- The number of teachers from other private colleges was too low to give any indication of a relationship with belief patterns. and this may have accounted for the failure to find significance at the .05 alpha level. Of those who had received degrees from other private colleges. only 33% were W; 67% were mammalian-111:. Cross-tabulations for institutions of post-bachel or's degrees by belief patterns were attempted. All of the persons with post- bachelor's degrees had received their training in state institutions. so no statistics were computed. 153 Table 24.--Cross-tabu1ation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by type of institution granting bachelor's degree. Type of Belief Pattern Type of Institution Religious- Secular- Column Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Total Catholic 13 3 16 81.3% 18.8% 22.9% State 30 18 48 62.5% 37.5% 68.6% Other private 2 4 6 33.3% 66.7% 8.6% Subtotal 45 25 70 p = .10 alpha = .05 .Ieacbing_Expenience Tbtal years of teaching experience was cross-tabulated with the belief patterns of lay teachers. These data are shown in Table 25. There was no relationship between total years of teaching experience and lay-teacher type. Approximately two-thirds of the lay teachers in each experience range fell into the W category. The distribution of the 70 lay teachers in the three specified ranges-- 5 years or less. 6-10 years. and 10 or more years--was 34%. 29%. and 37%. respectively. Within each range. approximately twohthirds of the lay teachers were Minus-W and one-third were secular: .Qfifiellschait. Sixty-three percent of the lay teachers had had less than ten years of total teaching experience. Thirty-four percent had had five or fewer years of teaching experience. 154 Table 25.--Cross-tabulation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by total teaching experience. Type of Belief Pattern Tbtal Years of Religious- Secular— Column Experience Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Total 5 years or less 16 8 24 .66.7% 33.3% 34.3% 6-10 years 13 7 20 65.0% 35.0% 28.6% 10 or more years 16 10 26 61.5% 38.5% 37.1% Subtotal 45 25 70 p = .93 alpha = .05 lea-Wu .Qaihnllc_§§hnnls Table 26 presents the cross-tabulation of belief patterns of lay teachers with the years of experience in Catholic schools. Again there was no statistically significant association. Fifty-four percent of the lay teachers had been in Catholic schools five years or less. Of this number. 63% were religionszgemeinschaft and 37% were secular: .gesellschaft. The distribution for lay teachers with 6-10 years' experience was 60% religionszgemainschait and 40% seculan:gesellscna£t. Among lay teachers with 10 or more years' experience. 71% were found in the Lelig1gns:gem§1nscha£t classification and 30% in the seculan: {gesellschaft category. Almost 76% of the lay teachers had been in Catholic schools less than 10 years. A comparison of Tables 25 and 26 155 reveals an interesting shift in the distribution of teachers. The statistics indicate that many lay teachers had had some teaching experience outside the Catholic schools. Table 26.--Cross-tabulation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by years of experience in Catholic schools. Type of Belief Pattern Catholic School Religious- Secular- Column Experience Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Total / 5 years or less 24 14 38 63.2% 36.8% 54.3% 6-10 years 9 6 15 60.0% 40.0% 21.4% 10 or more years 12 5 17 70.6% 29.4% 24.3% Subtotal 45 25 70 p = .80 alpha = .05 Cross-tabulations of belief patterns of lay teachers with years of experience in the present school are found in Table 27. Although there was no statistically significant association between belief patterns and years of experience in the present school. it should be noted that 64% of the teachers had been in that position for five years or less. Eighty-four percent had been in their present teaching job for less than 10 years. The distribution within the years-of-experience 156 ranges was approximately the same as for total years of experience and experience in Catholic schools. Of those with 10 years or less experi- ence in the present school. slightly less than two-thirds of the lay teachers were W In the category 10 or more years. slightly more than two-thirds of the lay teachers were W in belief patterns. Table 27.--Cross-tabulation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by years of experience in present school. Type of Belief Pattern Present School Religious- Secular- Column Experience Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Tbtal 5 years or less 28 17 45 62.2% 37.8% 64.3% 6-10 years 9 5 14 64.3% 35.7% 20.0% 10 or more years 8 3 11 72.7% 27.3% 15.7% Subtotal 45 25 70 p = .81 alpha = .05 In summary. there was no statistically significant relationship between belief patterns and years of experience. whether considering total years. years in the Catholic schools. or years in the present school. An important finding is that the majority of teachers. 64%. were W. In terms of years of experience. lay teachers were rather evenly distributed among the experience 157 categories. When Catholic school and present school experience were considered. there was a shift. More than half of the lay teachers had been in Catholic schools five years or less. About 76% had had less than 10 years' experience in Catholic schools. Looking at experience in present schools. it was found that 64% of the lay teachers had been on the job five years or less. Twenty percent had been teaching at their present school between 6 and 10 years. That means. in general. that 84% of the lay teachers in the study had been in their present positions less than ten years. least-111W The cross-tabulations of grade level taught with belief patterns (Table 28) showed a statistically significant association at p = .04. W teachers were found primarily at the K-3 level (78.6%). The percentage of teachers who expressed a .neljgigus:geme1nschait belief pattern decreased as the grade level went up. Sixty-three percent were found at the 4-6 level and 40% in grades 7-8. About 87% of the Wait teachers were found in grades K-6. compared to 64% of the secularzg§§§ll§§ha£1 lay teachers. The seculac:gesellsgha£1 teachers exhibited the opposite pattern. The lowest percentage (21.4%) was found in grades K-3 and the highest in grades 7-8 (60.0%). Seventy-six percent of the Watt lay teachers were found in grades 4-8. This compared with 51% of the WWII lay teachers. The data indicated an association between grade level taught and typal belief pattern. The lower the 158 grade taught. the greater the likelihood of the teacher expressing a .neligiouszgemeinscbait belief Pattern- Table 28.--Cross-tabulation of types of lay-teacher belief patterns by teaching grade level. Type of Belief Pattern Teaching Grade Level Religious- Secular— Column Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft Total K-3 22 6 28 78.6% 21.4% 40.0% 4-6 17 10 27 63.0% 37.0% 38.6% 7-8 6 9 15 40.0% 60.0% 21.4% Subtotal 45 25 70 P = ~04 alpha = .05 Summer! Analysis of the data indicated that all principals and reli- gious teachers exhibited a belief pattern consistent with the Catholic Church goal of building the school into a faith community. Lay teach- ers. on the other hand. were divided in their beliefs. One type of lay teacher supported gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics: the other did not. Separate Oranalyses were conducted to analyze the responses of the 80 participants in the study. The first group comprised eight elementary school principals. Four of them were lay persons and four were religious. The responses of the principals clustered into a 159 single belief pattern..Lfillgloufizgfimeinschait. For this group. tradi- tional religious purposes and characteristics for the Catholic school were primary. According to these individuals. the focus of the school was on the religious formation of the members: principal. teachers. and students. thncipals also supported those statements that promoted cooperation and the collective good. The second Oranalysis was of the ten religious teachers. This analysis also indicated a single belief pattern. Generally. these teachers tended to be religiouszgemeinschaft. ‘They placed greater emphasis on the individual student than did the principals. Given the clustering of responses. however. they tended to support the same purposes and characteristics as the principals. Religious teachers placed a high value on primary relationships within the school and. to a lesser degree than the principals. the religious nature of the Catholic school. {In view of the similarity of responses of both prin- cipals and religious teachers. a third Oranalysis was made of the two groups combined. The result of that analysis confirmed that they constituted a single type. religiouszgemeinschait. The 70 lay teachers were divided into two groups of 35 teachers each. The first Oranalysis resulted in a clustering around three different belief patterns or types. Type 1 (N = 8) expressed strong support for cooperation. competition. and the importance of the individual. The purposes and characteristics of the school that were most important for these teachers were gesellschaft in nature. The low 160 priority of religious purposes and characteristics led to a classifica- tion of this type as seculameseflscbafi. The second type of lay teacher (N = 12) that emerged from this O-analysis was labeled WM These teachers expressed belief patterns similar to those of principals and religious teachers. Type 3 lay teachers (N = 15) indicated belief patterns with similarities to each of the other two types. although there was a greater inclination toward the second type. These teachers placed emphasis on individual intellectual development and teaching students to be independent. They supported a religious purpose for the Catholic school. The second Oranalysis of lay teachers consisted of 35 teachers who clustered around two belief patterns: Wait and .seculanzgesellschait. The responses of these two types were similar to those in the first analysis of lay teachers. Type 1 (N = 22) was highly supportive of the religious purposes and characteristics for Catholic schools. Focus of the Type 2 teachers (N = 13) was on the gesellschaft purposes and characteristics of individual development and personal achievement. The failure of the second analysis of lay teachers to identify three distinct types as had happened in the first analysis prompted a decision to re-analyze the data. As a result of that analysis. Types 2 and 3 of the first group of lay teachers were collapsed into a single type. Each lay-teacher analysis. then. produced two types of belief 161 patterns. We): and W 0f the 70 lay teachers. 45 (64%) were W and 25 (36%) were W The only selected demographic characteristic that appeared to be significantly related to the belief patterns of lay teachers was grade level taught. The lower the grade level. the more likely the teacher was to be Whirl. Analyses of the 88 O-sorts indicated that there were two types of educators in the Catholic elementary schools studied. One type was religious-3W1. the othersecuhrcgesenschait A11 princi- pals. whether lay or religious. fit into the WW belief pattern. Religious teachers. without exception. also expressed attitudes characteristic of the WM type. Lay teachers. on the other hand. exhibited two different belief patterns. Lellgiousgemeinscbafl and WM. Almost two-thirds of the lay teachers were found in the first category. The majority of educators included in this study were mains-shaft in belief pattern. Chapter V contains a summary of the study. conclusions based on the research findings. implications. and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter contains a summary of the purpose. procedures. and findings of the study. Conclusions are drawn. and some implications suggested by the study are discussed. Finally. a brief review of the project is given. with suggestions for further research. Summary Bums-amm- This study was intended to be exploratory. Its purpose was to discover patterns of attitudes of various principals and teachers toward a set of assumptions about purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools. On the basis of empirical data. the writer sought to identify belief patterns of principals and teachers. It was felt an understanding of these belief patterns would provide insight into the progress that has been made toward the goal. indicate preservice and inservice needs. and highlight some criteria to be considered in hiring principals and teachers. It was expected that some of the educators in the sample would be inclined to support secular and gesellschaft purposes and char- acteristics. whereas others would tend to support religious and 162 163 gemeinschaft ones. Ffiflncipals were expected to have religious- gemeinschaft belief patterns by virtue of their managerial positions within the institution. They had participated in inservice programs and had been provided with documents promoting the faith-community purposes and characteristics for Catholic schools. They also have been directly charged with the implementation of those actions. which will move the school toward the community~building goal. Religious princi- pals. as well as religious teachers. have assumed a lifetime commitment to achieving the Churchhs goals and to maintaining a lifestyle that focuses on life in community. Lay teachers. on the other hand. were expected to have a tendency toward secular and gesellschaft purposes and characteristics because of their preservice training. most of which had been received in secular institutions. The investigator also explored various relationships that existed between subtypes and analyzed what similarities and dissimi- larities there were among the groups. In the case of lay teachers. the researcher sought to discover if any relationships existed between types and certain demographic characteristics. The following questions guided the research: 1. What types of principals and teachers exist in selected Catholic elementary schools. based on their attitudes toward certain assumptions about the purposes and characteristics of such schools? 2. What are the relationships between types and selected demographic characteristics? The specific questions addressed in the study were stated in Chap- ter I. 164 Procedure O-methodology was used to identify and analyze principals' and teachers' belief patterns about purposes and characteristics of Catho- lic schools. Sixty-three statements. identified in the normative docu- ments of the Catholic Church. in the writings of Catholic educators. and in the sociological literature on school organization. were devel- oped. lhese items represented gemeinschaft or gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. 'The subcategories of gemeinschaft focus were tradition. primary relationships. cooperation. and the collective good. Rational. contractual relationships. competition. and the individual good were the subcategories representing the gesellschaft side of the dichotomy. The population of interest was the Catholic elementary schools in a medium-sized midwestern diocese. Two groups of personnel within those schools. teachers and principals. were the focus of the study. A pilot study was conducted to refine the instrument and to ascertain if there were identifiably distinct types of persons in terms of attitudes toward the Catholic school as gemeinschaft or as gesellschaft. The conclusion from the pilot study was that three types of belief patterns existed among teachers and principals. Type 1 educators supported religious and gemeinschaft purposes and character- istics. whereas Type 2 educators supported secular and gesellschaft ones. ‘The third type exhibited a mixed belief pattern. agreeing with religious purposes and characteristics but also expressing a value for secular ones. The emergence of three types from the small sample and 165 the pilot participants' confidence in the instrument supported the implementation of the full study. Schools included in the study were nonrandomly selected. 'Three schools with a religious principal and mixed lay and religious staff. two with lay principal and lay staff. two with lay principal and mixed staff. and one with religious principal and lay staff were selected. The survey was presented in person by a research assistant trained by the researcher. Statistical analyses of the data using a Oranalysis computer program were conducted to determine if principals and teachers exhib- ited similar belief patterns. thus constituting a single type. or if they were dissimilar and constituted more than one type. Subsequently. follow-up analyses were conducted to see if there was an association between types of lay teachers and selected demographic characteristics. findings Ednflmlsh-A single belief pattern emerged for the eight principals in the elementary schools selected for the study. Both lay and religious principals held a similar attitude toward purposes and characteristics of Catholic elementary schools. For these principals the religious nature of the school was of primary importance. ‘They were supportive of those purposes and characteristics that call for cooperative efforts and promote the common good. In contrast. they disagreed with purposes and characteristics that would tend to put individual good above that of the group. According to these principals. academic achievement is not to be gained 166 at the expense of strong personal relationships among members of the group. Competition was rejected. as was the idea of practical achieve- ment and financial reward as being the end of schooling. In general. lay and religious principals expressed agreement with gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. strongly emphasizing those related to the religious dimension of the school. They disagreed with gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. ‘These principals were classified as religiouszgemelnsshaii types. WW.--An analysis of the belief patterns of religious teachers revealed the existence of a single type. This type agreed with gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. although there was also an emphasis on the importance of the individual. Recognition of the religious nature of the school was present. as was agreement with the need for developing primary relationships among the school members. Religious teachers tended to disagree with gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. They rejected competition. authoritari- anism. and governance by impersonal rules. 'They disagreed with the idea that the development of positive personal relationships is less important than strong academic achievement. Given the support of gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics. with some emphasis on the importance of the religious aspect of the school. religious teachers were also categorized as religious: gemeinscbait. 167 Wr-The first analysis of lay teachers' responses indicated the presence of three distinct belief patterns. Subsequent analyses revealed that two of the patterns were similar enough to be treated as one. As a result of collapsing one type into another. two distinct belief patterns in each of the two groups of lay teachers were identifiable. These types were classified as religionszgemeinsghafit and Wit. .Ballginus:gem§1nscha£1 lay teachers exhibited a belief pattern similar to that of principals and religious teachers. The religious nature of the school received strong support from these lay teachers. They agreed with purposes and characteristics that depict cooperation and the good of the whole. ‘There was some emphasis on the importance of the individual in the school setting. Generally. these lay teachers agreed with gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics and disagreed with gesellschaft ones. ‘Beligiouszgemeinschait teachers disagreed with the notion that the Catholic school's purpose is to prepare individuals for practical achievement and financial reward or to meet the needs of the "national interest)‘ They rejected a focus on teaching only those skills that can be tested or that are practical in terms of achieving in society. The second type of lay teacher. labeled seculanzgesallschnit. was noted for the absence of religious purposes and characteristics in their belief profile. Cooperation was an item of strong agreement for this type of lay teacher. but generally they gave more importance to 168 the needs of the individual. The focus of teaching was on skills needed to achieve. .Sfisnlinzgesellsghait lay teachers expressed strong disagreement with the idea of placing the common good ahead of individual good. They tended to disagree with certain religious and communitarian aspects of the school. In general. they rejected the establishment of primary relationships. The overall tenor of their beliefs was toward secular and gesellschaft purposes and characteristics and away from religious and gemeinschaft ones. Conclusions 1. The researcher sought to determine how many types of principals and teachers could be identified in selected Catholic schools. Formulating a description of each type was also an important consideration. As a result of the analyses. it was determined that there was a single belief pattern for the principals in the study. which was labeled Leliaigus:geme1nschajt. -A similar belief pattern emerged for religious teachers; they were also designated Leligigns: 9901mm. The finding of a high degree of correlation between principals' and religious teachers' belief patterns encouraged the combining of their Orsorts to determine if the single-type conclusion was justified. The emergence of a single type. W. led to the conclusion that both lay and religious principals and reli- gious teachers shared similar attitudes toward the religious and gemeinschaft purposes and characteristics of Catholic schools. They 169 supported those items they saw fostering the Catholic school as a faith community. Two separate analyses of lay teachers were conducted. Follow- ing both primary and secondary analyses. it was determined that two types of lay teachers existed. One type. similar in belief to both principals and religious teachers. was called religiouszgemeinsghaft. The other belief pattern was labeled seculaz:gesellscha£t. ‘The .neligious:gemeinscha£t lay teachers supported purposes and character- istics of Catholic schools that they saw as necessary for a faith community. The seculanzgesellschait lay teachers. on the other hand. expressed a belief pattern that detracted from the religious and commu- nitarian aspects of the school. The presence of a group of lay teachers whose belief patterns are inconsistent with the school as a faith community obviates the existence of a faith community. 2. The various types agreed on the importance of individual development. All types supported the necessity of a cooperative effort in the teaching-learning process. There was some support for the perception of the school as a community of believers. although no consensus existed on a primary religious purpose for the school. The various types disagreed with some of the gesellschaft purposes and characteristics. especially in the areas of decision making. isolation of the school from the larger community. and any focus of schooling as a means of supplying practical training in the "national interest." 170 When viewed as a whole. the principals and teachers lacked strong consensus on those purposes and characteristics that support the faith community. Especially noteworthy was the lack of an agreed-upon religious purpose. Cooperation seemed to be the only gemeinschaft category the principals and teachers shared. and this per se does not make for a sense of community. 3. Some basic differences existed between seculan:ge§g11§ghn11 and religions:gemelnscha£1 belief patterns. .Secnlazzgesellschait persons rejected religious purposes and characteristics. whereas the £3119190§=93mfiinschnii types tended to agree strongly with them. The former also were more supportive of a gesellschaft approach to learn- ing. emphasizing the importance of grades for classifying students. of competition. and of teaching students to "stand on their own two feetJ' The neligiouszgemeinschait persons placed greater emphasis on communi- tarian relationships. An essential philosophical difference existed between these two types. On the one hand. Whirl: types represented support for the Catholic Churchhs designated goals for the school; on the other hand. secularzgesallsshnit teachers appeared to be in the mainstream of American cultural goals for education. 4. Although the association between the belief patterns of lay teachers under a lay principal and those of teachers under a religious principal was not significant at the alpha =.05 level. the general observation is that seculanzgesfillschnit lay teachers are more likely to be found in schools with lay principals. It is possible that the presence of a religious principal does have some influence on the 171 belief pattern of lay teachers. It may be that. because of her own lifestyle. she is better able to convey a sense of a faith community. Or it may be that. because of her own sense of community and religious purpose in life. the religious principal hires persons who are like her. 5. Staff composition--that is. all lay or mixed lay and religious--was not significantly associated with belief pattern. The fact that religious teachers are not in recognized leadership positions may be the reason for this lack of association. Religious teachers may also "play down" their role as religious to gain greater acceptance in a group in which they are a clear minority. 6. ‘There was no significant relationship between gender and the belief patterns of the respondents. The lack of male respondents would tend to make any statement about this factor tenuous. at best. 7. The majority of respondents had received their undergradu- ate training at state institutions. Although no statistically signifi- cant association between institution and belief pattern was found. there was some indication that persons who had attended Catholic insti- tutions were more likely to be.Leligions:gam§1nsshn£t than segulan: gesellschaft types (81.3% versus 18.8%). The fact that the teachers had selected Catholic institutions of higher learning in the first place may indicate a previous inclination toward religious and communi- tarian values and beliefs. Also. such values may have been conveyed by the institution itself through the prevailing philosophy of its mem- bers. 172 8. All participants' advanced degrees had been obtained from state institutions. so no statistics were computed for this variable. 9. The number of years of experience did not have any signifi- cant association with belief pattern. The percentages of teachers in each range were fairly even. One might have expected that the longer a teacher had been in the profession. the greater the likelihood of support for community-building purposes and characteristics. 10. The number of years of experience in the Catholic school was not significantly associated with teachers' belief patterns. Two observations were made. First. 54.3% of the lay teachers had been in Catholic schools five years or less. Second. many teachers had had experience outside of Catholic schools. Again. one might have expected that the more Catholic school experience. the more support would exist for religious and communitarian aspects of the school. 11. There was no significant association between years of experience in the present school and belief pattern. What emerged was the fact that the majority of lay teachers (64.3%) had been in their present teaching situations five years or less. Since one aspect of a sense of community is related to continuity in time. the longer one has been associated with a single institution seemingly would be a factor for religiouszgemeinschait lay teachers. The fact that it was not was somewhat.surprising. Considering the high percentage of teachers who have been in the school for five years or less gives an indication why it was not a fact. 173 12; Grade level taught was significantly associated with lay teachers' belief patterns. .Beligion§:gom§1n§£hoit teachers were more likely to be found in grades K-3. whereas seculanzgosallschoit teachers were more likely to be found in grades 7-8. An examination of the data revealed that as one went up in grade level. the more likely the lay teacher was to be W Conversely. the lower one went in grade level. the more likely the lay teacher was to be religious: gemeinschaft in belief pattern. Given the fact that many Catholic schools begin modified departmentalization by grade 4 and are fully departmentalized by grades 7 and 8. the increasing degree of speciali- zation as one moves up the grades seems to have a concurrent decrease in the importance of religious and communitarian purposes and character- istics for the school. Implications Catholic schools have been called on to become faith communi- ties--in Tonnies' term. gemeinschaft. They are to be communities in which shared religious beliefs. the passing on of a religious heritage. and indoctrination in religious teachings are of primary importance. To accomplish this. there must be consensus about the purposes and characteristics such a community must have in order to achieve the goal. The findings of this research indicated a lack of consensus and pointed out the difficulties that Catholic schools face in trying to become the faith communities called for by official policy. The fact that a significant number of lay teachers did not even see religious purposes and characteristics as important does not encourage 174 faith-community formation. The question to be dealt with. in light of the belief patterns of principals and teachers. is to what extent can the school be a faith community. a gemeinschaft? Although principals and teachers described as 132119112115; gemeinschaft may be more inclined in that direction. are they. in Westerhof's terms. ready to involve their total personalities in the life of the school; to become intimately involved. one member with the other. sharing emotion in depth; having behavior regulated implicitly by custom; placing no limit on one's obligations to the group. with each giving whatever love demands; with the worth of each member founded only on his being and not his performance? Is there any evi- dence of a common memory. a shared-faith story; a common vision toward a desired and anticipated future; a common authority to which all point and that makes community possible even though there are radical differ- ences in beliefs. attitudes. values. and behavior? These questions cannot readily be answered from the belief patterns found in this research. There does. however. seem to be one common thread among the Lellgjouscoemelnsghafl: types that may enable them to come closer to achieving the goal. That thread is the faith dimension of purposes and characteristics for the Catholic school. a dimension totally absent in the W type. In Westerhof's terms. the school is a voluntary association with a particular and restricted focus for its activity. The 53:11.13]: gesellschaft members play a role within the school and do not want to involve their total personality in its life. They wish to remain 175 neutral. They do not want to get intimately involved with other mem- bers. whether student or colleague. They want members' behavior to be regulated by explicit rules and regulations and want persons to be judged on performance and contribution to accomplishment of the task. Failure to perform or contribute warrants exclusion from the group. The seculazzgesellschajt type does not exhibit an inclination toward some gemeinschaft characteristics for the school. A close examination of the specific characteristics would indicate that they are in keeping with the findings of Lortie (1975) and Janesick (1977) and relate to what happens in the individual classroom rather than in the school as a whole. The presence or absence of religious teachers does not seem to make any difference with respect to the belief patterns of lay teach- ers. The same is true of lay versus religious principals. It is interesting to speculate whether this would hold true if there were greater numbers of religious on a given staff. If the faculty were more evenly divided between lay and religious. would belief patterns be affected? The fact that religious teachers do not seem to affect the religious and communitarian belief patterns of teachers as a whole is important in one respect. Many people contend that the absence of religious on staff somehow diminishes the Catholicity of the school. There was no evidence of this in the present study. Of greatest importance is the presence of two types of lay teachers. Although there is a cadre of lay teachers who exhibit belief patterns consistent with the faith community and similar to principals 176 and religious teachers. the presence of a type that does not portray such patterns portends ill for any attempt to achieve a community- building goal. If. as suggested in Chapter II. the secular: .gesellschait teachers are adapting ritually to the goal. a true faith community cannot.exist. Even more disturbing is certain lay teachers' disagreement with the religious purposes and characteristics of the Catholic school. If this type of teacher generally rejects the reli- gious and communitarian good of the school. any talk of the school as a community of believers is meaningless. Given the presence of two groups of lay teachers tending toward opposite ends of the gemeinschaft-gesellschaft dichotomy. the potential for conflict exists. The conflict may be covert. exhibiting itself in ways that do not point to the real source of the problem: two con- flicting philosophies about what a Catholic school is. The Catholic schools studied were K-8 operations. The findings that Lelialous:gom§1n§ohait-type teachers were more likely to be found in grades K-3 and that teachers in the upper grades were more likely to be seculanzgesellschaft point out the difficulty principals face in trying to bring the total faculty to a sense of community. Classes in grades K-3 are generally self-contained. and the teacher is in a position to create a family-like atmosphere within the classroom. These are also the grades in which certain religious ini- tiation rites take place and the basic tenets of Catholic belief are an important part of daily instruction. The upper grades. on the other hand. are departmentalized and teachers are subject-area specialists. 177 In this situation. religion may be just another subject. In addition. the constant change in groups of students. and the relatively large number with whom each teacher must come in contact each day. would likely militate against the establishment of the kinds of relationships required .in gemeinschaft relationships. The serious question for administrators of these schools is how to bring the two groups of teachers together. How does one bring about a fundamental change in the philosophical position concerning approp- riate purposes and characteristics for a Catholic school? One consid- eration is in the hiring of teachers. A further hindrance to community building is the absence of agreement on the development of primary relationships within the school. While 5W1} teachers were the most outspoken in this rejection. the lack of strong support among other types indicated a belief that such relationships are not necessary for community. Although the presence of religious on the staff did not seem to be related to the belief patterns of teachers. there was some indica- tion that the principal 5' status may affect WM types. If the religious or lay status of principals does affect teachers' belief patterns. the implication for the development of faith communities is clear. A religious principal is more likely to have a staff whose belief patterns are similar to her/his own. Lay princi- pals. on the other hand. although they are W types themselves. are less likely to have total staffs that support the school as a faith community. A further implication is that lay 178 principals may be adapting ritualistically rather than conforming to Lgljgjggg:gemeinscha£t purposes and characteristics. Since there is some indication that.Loligiou§:gom§1n§£ho£1 lay teachers are more likely to have attended a Catholic college or univer- sity. only graduates of such schools might be considered when hiring. This is currently the practice among Lutheran schools and Christian Schools International. Consideration might be given to modifying the present depart- mentalization at upper grade levels. This might create a better cli- mate for community for those teachers and students. In conjunction with the hiring of teachers. greater stress might be placed on the idea that teachers in Catholic schools are actively engaged in Church ministry and that there are some-fundamen- tal differences between Catholic and public schools. These differences are not confined to the addition of religion courses or to attendance at certain religious rituals. This issue is currently being addressed in the literature but has not yet been dealt with effectively at either the diocesean or the local level. Catholic colleges and universities need to consider their role in the preservice training of teachers. Most operate general teacher- training programs with a focus on state certification. 'They could do a service to Catholic schools by approaching teacher training from the distinct Catholic philosophical position. A serious concern. one pointed out in research cited earlier. is high teacher turnover. The findings of this research confirmed 179 that. Although there was no significant association between years in the present school and belief pattern. the high percentage of teachers who had been in the school five years or less does not bode well for the building of consensus as to school purposes and characteristics. or to the strengthening of communitarian relationships. Becomenoations The Catholic Church has a goal of forming its schools into faith communities. It may or may not be able to achieve this goal. Although the findings of this study cannot be generalized beyond the actual participants. it is recommended that those responsible for achieving the goal consider the results of the research. Even more basic is the need to examine the goal itself. Was the goal a product of post-Vatican II turmoil in religious education and religious life? It may not be possible to pinpoint exactly what was in the minds of the American bishops when the goal was developed. It may be possible to follow their thinking by examining the historical record of proceedings and through interviews with those responsible for the writing of the pastoral letter Io_Ieach_as_Jesus_Qid (National Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1973). What was their vision of a school that had achieved the goal of becoming a faith community? What structure would be necessary to obtain the goal? What kinds of rela- tionships would exist among the members? Without answers to these questions. how does one know the goal has been achieved or. at least. that one is close to achieving it? 180 This study examined belief patterns of principals and teachers. Essential to the accomplishment of any goal for the Catholic school is the support of boards of education and parents. Further research is needed to determine if boards and parents express belief patterns consistent with the achievement of the goal. Other insights might be gained by conducting similar research in schools excluded from this study because of atypical populations. Are the belief patterns of principals and teachers in large schools (more than 400 students) different? Are small schools (fewer than 100 students) more homogeneous in belief patterns? Similarly. further research might include consideration of geographic area. Is there an association between belief patterns and the location of the school. i.e.. rural. suburban. or urban? Given the association between grade level and belief pattern. further research should be undertaken at the secondary level. These schools. too. are called to be faith communities. With the organiza- tional structure and size of American Catholic high schools. do teach- ers and principals agree with the purposes and characteristics that lead to faith community? Although age information was available. no cross-tabulation with belief pattern was made. Age could conceivably be a factor in one's inclination toward or away from religious and communitarian purposes and characteristics. The observation that belief patterns of lay teachers may be associated with the lay or religious status of the principal bears 181 further investigation. What is it that religious principals do. either explicitly or implicitly. that affects lay teachers' belief patterns? Similarly. the lack of association between staff composition and belief patterns needs to be explored. Why do religious principals seem to have an effect on belief patterns. but not the presence of religious teachers on staff? The gender question needs to be examined more closely. Would there be an association if more males had been included? Although no statistically significant association existed between institution of higher learning attended and belief pattern. there was some indication that attendance at.a Catholic college or university might incline the person toward a more religious: gemeinschaft belief pattern. Research might be done to identify those institutions to see if they are doing something different than state or other private institutions. Can anything be identified that gives lay teachers a tendency to value religious and communitarian purposes and characteristics? It was suggested in Chapter II that some teachers may accept the faith-community goal of the school in a ritualistic manner. Such persons would give lip service to the religious and communitarian aspects of the school while rejecting the goal itself. Other attitudi- nal surveys might be able to probe this possibility. Research is needed to find out why the teacher turnover in Catholic schools is so high. About 64% of the lay teachers had been in their present teaching position five years or less. Why do they leave? 182 Do they leave for monetary reasons? Reasons of educational philosophy? A combination? The only demographic characteristic associated with belief pattern was grade level taught. The higher the grade level. the more likely the belief pattern was seculanzgesellschait. Further study is needed to determine what happens that affects belief patterns. Is it related to increased specialization and concentration on content? Is it a change in role expectation of students on the part of teachers? As children get older. the expectation may be that they become more independent. more adultlike. Do teacher perceive that religious forma- tion is closely associated with the early years and sacramental initia- tion. and the need changes from formation to information at the upper grade levels? Do teachers believe that their role is one of being the bridge between family (gemeinschaft) and society (gesellschaft)? Consideration needs to be given to the instrument before it is used again. Eyen though the items for the Orsort had been reviewed for clarity and representativeness of concepts before the study was under- taken. analysis of the responses indicated that the categorization could have been more precise. Although a "best fit" policy was fol- lowed. in retrospect the best fit was not always clear. The researcher should not conduct the research in schools in which he/she is known. Although there is no evidence of contamination in the present investigation. the possibility exists that some indi- viduals did respond in terms of what they thought was expected. A safeguard to this might be close identification with a neutral agent 183 from the beginning. A letter from the superintendent "inviting" par- ticipation in his/her research project is not conducive to objectivity on the part of the respondents. This study was exploratory in nature and raised many more questions than it answered. It does call for a re-examination of the goal. ‘There needs to be a better definition of what is meant by faith community. Consideration also needs to be given to the means for achieving it once it has been defined. APPENDICES 181- APPENDIX A VALUE AND BELIEF STATEMENTS 185 186 Inamjon The Catholic school's major efforts must be directed toward instructing members to live according to the teachings of the Church. Catholic schools must be a place apart. not exposed to the pressures. problems and conflicts of the local community. The primary purpose of the Catholic school is the religious formation of students. teachers. principal. The primary purpose of the Catholic school is the teaching of the truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic school must be a community of believers because of the nature of Christian teaching. Lay faculty in Catholic schools must be selected first on the basis of commitment to the Church. All members of the Catholic school must be required to attend certain liturgical functions as a group. Faculty and administration should have their own "small group" liturgies three or four times a year. Teachers must get together periodically for group discussions about religious. moral. and social ques- tions. Participation together in religious activities is the most important aspect of Catholic school life. The Catholic school must focus primarily on the social- ization of the student for life in the community. W Student dress must be governed by specific dress codes which require uniformity for some or all students. l3 14 15 22 25 35 36 56 57 187 Faculty members must meet as a group on a regular basis for the development of curriculum programs. The Catholic school must have a policy of working for the common good even at the expense of the individual. The Catholic school's primary task is to bring resources to learners as a group rather than to individuals. Some students ought to meet regularly with faculty to determine the selection of topics in the curriculum. Students' representatives should meet at least several times a year with the faculty and principal to review student behavior codes. Subjects for faculty discussion should be determined by a faculty committee or the faculty as a whole. The Catholic school must present knowledge as a call to serve and to be responsible for others rather than a means of material prosperity and success. Young people must be taught to overcome individual- ism and discover their vocation to live responsibly in community with others. Students must be taught to accept the group's aspira- ration as sometimes more important than their own. Coops-zation Students should regularly take part in faculty meetings or meet with faculty committees. Teachers and principal must spend a considerable amount of staff time each year formulating special goals for the Catholic school. Students must be encouraged to assist and cooperate with one another in acquiring necessary knowledge and skills. Students must be encouraged to ask questions of other students during class discussion. Students must be given opportunities to grade and evaluate their own work. 16 21 27 33 38 43 46 55 20 25 31 188 Children must be encouraged to each each other. Students and teachers should cooperate in planning liturgical activities. Students must be provided with every opportunity to solve problems cooperatively. Cooperative efforts by teachers. students. and prin- cipal are essential for the success of the Catholic school. EdmarLBeJationst-ios The fellowship of principal. teachers. and students is the most important part of the life of the Catholic school. Teachers and students must be involved in each other's lives over and above the academic aspect. It is necessary for the principal and faculty to be friends for the Catholic school to be successful. Positive relations among teachers. students. and prin- cipal are more important than individual academic achievement. The most fundamental objective of education is self- realization within community. Gesellschaft Rational The Catholic school's major efforts must be directed toward teaching those things that can be tested. The Catholic school must place more emphasis on the cognitive aspect of learning and less on the affective. The primary purpose of the Catholic school is the devel- opment of the intellect. Students in the Catholic school must be controlled. directed. and occasionally threatened with punishment so they will work at school tasks. 34 39 51 52 18 28 42 SO 58 10 11 12 24 189 Students in the Catholic school ought to spend most of their class time doing work at their desks or listen- ing to and following the teacher's explanation of the lesson. In the Catholic school decisions should be left to those in authority without a lot of discussion or debate. Catholic school students must be taught to obey rules and follow a schedule. The Catholic school must focus primarily on the teach- ing of skills to the student so he(she) may achieve in society. The Catholic school must be governed by written imper- sonal rules to assure equal treatment of teachers and students alike. The most fundamental objective of education in the Catholic school is to supply training and meet the manpower needs of the "national interest." .Indixioua1_Good The academic achievement of individual students is more important than the development of positive personal relationships among students. The Catholic school must inculcate habits that would make it possible for individuals to control their surroundings rather than merely to submit to them. The Catholic school has as its primary purpose the training of individuals for an increasingly technical world. . The Catholic school must recognize the superior ability of certain students whether in athletics or academics.» The Catholic school's primary task is to provide opportunities for individualized learning activities. The most important function of the Catholic school is to develop the individual to his or her intellectual capacity. 29 30 32 54 59 61 17 40 44 47 48 190 The educational effort of the Catholic school must be on the development of all the powers of the individual. Students must be taught to pursue their individual aspirations even when out of step with that of the group. .Comootition The most important qualities in students are determi- nation and ambition. Students in the Catholic school must be encouraged to be independent and stand on their own feet. Grades are a necessary element in Catholic school learn- ing because they let students know how well they are doing and where they stand in the class. Competition among students. teachers. and principal must be promoted as an incentive to attention and industry. The Catholic school climate must be one that encourages competition. The most important function of the Catholic school is to prepare individuals for practical achievement and finan- cial reward. ContractuaLBolaflons-nios It is necessary for the principal and faculty to maintain a strictly professional relationship for the Catholic school to be successful. Students who show by their behavior and general attitude that they do not belong in a Catholic school should be made to leave. The professional relationship of principal. teachers. and students is the most important part of the life of the Catholic school. Teachers must maintain a professional relationship with their students at all times. 49 60 45 37 45 53 63 19 23 41 62 APPENDIX B FIRST LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS 191 192 Dear I am currently engaged in a research project seeking to deter- mine what the attitudes of principals and teachers are relative to certain characteristics and purposes of Catholic elementary schools. I would very much appreciate your willingness to participate by respond- ing to a survey which would be sent to you in the near future. Your replies to the surveys would be anonymous. The time needed to respond would be less than 30 minutes. If you agree to participate. please fill out the attached form and return it to me at your earliest convenience. The information is needed in case it is necessary to send out the surveys after school is dismissed for the summer. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely yours. Bruch Fech Enclosure APPENDIX C INFORMATION FORM 193 194 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FORM Name School Summer Address ______ I am a lay teacher I am a lay principal _____, I am a religious teacher ______ I am a religious principal Would you be able and willing to meet with the researcher during the summer to receive instructions for completing the survey? Yes No Would you be willing and able to return to your school building for approximately one hour to complete the survey? Yes No Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. APPENDIX D SECOND LETTER TO RESPONDENTS 195 196 August 13. 1981 Dear Colleague: Some weeks ago I wrote to you regarding your participation in a research project. While I had hoped to be at the data-gathering stage prior to the opening of school. a variety of circumstances have intervened and it has become necessary to revise my timetable. It now appears that it will be early or mid-September before I am ready with that phase of the project. I appreciate your willingness to participate. and I will be in contact with you again in the next few weeks regarding the survey. Sincerely yours. Bruce Fech BF/ahs APPENDIX E DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETING OPSORT 197 198 Dear Colleague: I appreciate your willingness to cooperate in an important research project. Enclosed is a complete set of directions for you to follow in completing the attached instrument. The purpose of the research is to isolate the values and beliefs teachers and principals have about Catholic elementary schools by having both groups respond to the same set of statements about purposes and characteristics of such schools. The research will also isolate the differences. if any. that exist between teachers and principals with respect to those characteristics. The methodology used is known as O-Sort. O-Sorting requires you to place a particular number of items (statements written on cards) into an envelope. These items. as I state in the directions. explore your beliefs about what the important purposes and characteristics of Catholic elementary schools are. Please think of Catholic school as a concept. rather than any particular school or your grade or section. W. The O-Sort need not take a lot of time to complete. The entire process should take less than 30 minutes. It is not necessary to spend a lot of time studying each item. but do give each some thought. Results of the study will be made available to you upon request. Before reading the directions. please complete the information items enclosed. You are assured of anonymity in your responses since NO provision is made for recording your name or your school. Sincerely. Bruce Fech 199 BACKGRWND INFORMATION DIBEQIIQNS: PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY PLACING A CHECK MARK IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE OR PROVIDING SPECIFIC NUMERICAL INFORMATION AS REQUIRED. Are you a lay person or religious? ____ Lay (check one) _____ Religious Are you a principal or teacher? ____ Principal (check one) Teacher What is your age? _____ What is your sex? Male ____,Female From what type of college or university did you receive your BA degree? a. _______,Catholic College or University b. _______ State College or University c. _______ Other Private College or University From what type of college or university did you receive your MA/MS degree? a. _______ Catholic College or University b. ________State College or University c. _______ Other Private College or University d. ________Not applicable If you have done or are currently doing post-master's degree work. in what type of college or university are you taking such work? a. _______ Catholic b. ________ State c. _______ Other d. __ Not applicable What is the total number of years you have been teaching or administering in schools (include both public and Catholic)? How many years have you been teaching or administering in Catholic schools? 10. 11. 12. 13. 200 How many years have you been teaching or administering in this school? Are you a member of this parish? Yes No If yes. how many years have you been a member of this parish? If you are a teacher. what is the grade level you are presently teaching? (If you are teaching mixed grades. please indicate the highest grade level.) Place the completed sheet in the large envelope when completed. Thank you! 201 DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE QrSORT Make sure your materials include the following items: a. Nine envelopes with a colored card attached to each. b. A stack of 63 cards with written statements on each. (Please disregard the numbers in the right-hand corner of the card-- they are for coding purposes only.) c. One large envelope. The stack of 63 cards with statements (items) written on them represents assumptions about the purposes and characteristics of Catholic elementary schools. Remember. think of the school as a whole. not an individual classroom or section such as primary. I would like to know to what extent you agree or disagree with each statement. (See next page for sorting procedureJ l. 2202 OOI'I'IIG PROCEDURE Take the nine (9) envelopes with the colored cards on them, read the state- ments on the cards and arrange according to the illustration below with a) the one marked Very Strongly Agree at the extreme left b) the one marked Very Strong y Disagree to the extreme right VE RY STI'J'CLY “BREE lb. of “..0: NEITHER VERY STINGLY “IRATE” ilGHlLY KEREE SLIGHTLY RIDERMELY STEWLY 5"!)th AGREE AGREE AGREE NOR OISAGTEE DlSAGlEE DISAfllEE DlSAfilEE DlSAGREE lb. of Oh. of lb. of lb. of in. of ID. of No. of No. of it's: it-a: it-s: “no: “as: “as: use: itus: 5 8 10 i} 10 8 5 2 Now divide the stack of sixty-three (63) cards into three stacks a) place the fifteen (15) you feel you most a ree with toward your left b) place the fifteen (15) you most disagree with toward your right c) place the remaining thirty-three (33) cards in the middle II 30!! YOU HAVE mum.» oomcru. (NOTHING IS PLACED INSIDE THE ENVELOPES AT THIS POINT) . Taking the stack of cards toward your left (those you most agree with) further sub-divide this stack a) place two (2) out of the fifteen (15) you most strongly agree with in the envelope marked Very Strongly Agree b) place the five (5) you strongly agree with out of the remaining in the envelope marked Strongly Agree c) place the remaining cards in the envelope marked Moderately Agree I013: The numbers on the colored cards remind you’how many cards are to be placed in each envelope. Next, take the stack of fifteen (15) items toward your right (those you most disagree with) and subdivide this stack a) place two (2) out of the fifteen (15) you most disagree with in the envelope marked Very Strongly Disagree b) place five (5) you stroneg’disagree with out of the remaining cards in the envelope marked Stron l Disa ree c) place the remaining cards in Efie enveIope marked Moderately Disagree Lastly, take the middle stack of thirty-three (33) cards a) place ten (10) cards of the middle group you slightly agree with into the envelope marked Slightly Agree b) place thirteen (13) out o t e remaining cards into the Neither Agree Nor Disa ree envelope c) pIace the remaining ten (10) in the Slightly Disagree envelope I011: While sorting items please feel free to go back and change the position of a particular card. but be sure to end up with the correct number of cards in each enveIope. Seal envelopes and insert into large envelope. he sure to include the personal characteristic sheet. DIAL Ill IIVILOPI AID PLEASE 00 IO I30!!! You have just completed the Q-Sort. Thank you. SEL ECTED REFERENCES 203 SELECTED REFERENCES Adams. G. R.. and Cohen. A. 8. "Characteristics of Children and Teacher Expectancy: An Extension of the Child's Social and Family Life." ‘lounnal.oI.Educationa1.Beseanch 70 (November-December 1976). Allport. F. H. Ibeoflesofflonoepflonandthemnceptofmm. New York: Wiley. 1955. Allport. Gordon W. Eonsonalitx: A Radiological lntononetation. New York: Holt. 1937. Anderson. J. .Buneaucnaoy 1n Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 1968. Benson. P. L.; William. D. L.; and Yaeger. R. J. "Study Assesses Quality of Catholic High Schools." .Momontum 15 (September 1984): 4-9 s Bidwell. E. ”The School as a Formal Organization." In Handbook of .Qnganizations. Edited by J. G. March. London: Rand McNally. 1965. Bruner. Jerome S. "Personal ity Dynamics and the Process of Perceiv- ing." In Emotion; An AooLoaob .to Benson-11.111. Edited by R. R. Blake and G. V. Ramsey. New York: Ronald. 1951. Bryk. A. S.. and Holland. P. B. .A Study of.£££eotixe Catholic Schools. Washington. 0.0.: National Center for Research in Total Catholic Education. 1984. Carrier. H. .Ihe Sociology of Religious Belonging. New York: Herder and Herder. 1965. Cole. W. E.. and Cox. R. L. IneSooialEoundationsoffid-loation. New York: American Book Co.. 1968. Corwin. E. G. WWAMflQ-zoannaflonal .Qonillct.1n.High.Sohools. London: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1970. 20A 205 Davies. W. B. "Organizational Analysis of Educational Institutions." In Knowledge. Education and Cultural Change- Ed'ted by R. Brown. London: Tavistock. 1970. Dewey. John. "The School and Social Progress." In Education and .Amonican.£ultuno. Edited by E. Steiner. R. Arnove. and B. E. McClellan. New York: Macmillan. 1980. Creeben. Robert. "The Contribution of Schooling to the Learning of Norms." llama-2d Educational Roxie-1 37.2 (1967): 211-37. Dubuque. Archidiocese of. .Communitx.oI.Eaithi.A - .Erocess. Dubuque. Iowa: Office of Education. 1972. Duke. 0. L. lho.Botransiotmation.oi.tbe.School. Chicago: Nelton— Hall Publishing Co.. 1978. _____. and Perry. C. "Can Alternative Schools Succeed Where Benjamin Spock. Spiro Agnew. and B. F. Skinner Have Failed?" .Anolescence 8 (1978): 375-92. Erickson. D. A.; MacDonald. L.; Manley-Caimire. M. E.; and Bush. P. L. Cbanactonistiosandflelotionsbiosinfiublicandlndooondont .§oh991§i.CQEI§.Basolino.Sutxox.lnto£lm.Booont. San Francisco: Center for Research on Private Education. 1979. Etzioni. Amitai. "Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion." Administratixe Science Quartoolx 5 (1960): 257-78. Fichter. John H. Eamhial Schools; A Minimal Study. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1958. Getzels. Jacob W. "Socialization and Education: A Note on Disconti- nuities." .Iooohons.flollogo.flocond 76 (1974): 218-25. ; Lepham. James M.; and Campbell. Roald F. .Eduoational.Admin: istoationasaSmialELocoss-zlboomfiosoanomfinactico. New York: Harper and Row. 1968. Gormly. J. 8. ”Comprehensive Assessment of Educational Systems." In .Moasunino.Eiiootixonoos. Edited by D. Baugher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1981. Gratiot. M. "Why Parents Choose Non-Public Schools: Comparative Atti- tudes and Characteristics of Public and Private Schools Con- sumers." Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University. 1979. 206 Greeley. Andrew; McCready. William. and McCourt. Kathleen. .Catholic .5909915 in 3.09:110109 Church. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward. 1976. Greeley. Andrew. and Rossi. Peter. .Ihe Education of Catholic Ameni: .cans. New York: Doubleday. 1968. Gusfield. J. R. .Qommunitx. New York: Harper and Row. 1975. Hallinan. M. T. "Structural Effects on Children's Friendships and Cliques." .Socia1.E§¥choloox.Ouattonly 42.1 (1979): 43-54. Head. A. "Values and Visions of Catholic Schools Now in the Hands of Lay Teachers." .Eouoation.flook. June 16. 1982. p. 12. Ignatovich. Frederick R. "Types and Effects of Elementary School Principal-Leaders: A O-Factor Analysis." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Iowa. 1970. ________; Cusick. P. A.; and Ray. J. E. .ValueLBolie£.Eattenns oi Ioachonsanolhosohoministnatocsfinoaoeoinhttomptsto .1ni1uence.I§aching. East Lansing: Institute for Research in Teaching. Michigan State University. 1979. Janesick. Valerie J. "An Ethnographic Study of a Teacher's Class- room Perspective." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State Uni- versity. 1975. Johann. R. 0. "Developing Community." .Iho.flay 10 (1970): 95-102. Katz. Fred E. "The School as a Complex Social Organization." .flanyann .Educationa1.Boxiow 34 (Summer 1964): 428-55. Katz. M. B. ClasslfiuceauccacxandSchoolsiIholllJ-sionoifiouca: tional Chance in America. New York: Praeger. 1975. King. R. School Omanization and Eupil Eoctomanco. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1973. Kraushaar. 0. American honouhlic Schools: Eattorns of iii-Lansin- Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. 1972. Lortie. Dan C. School Ioachoc: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1975. MacLean. M. S. .SshgliLSL.nQ£K§£§L.flnn.G§nil§mfiflo Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1938. MacMurray. John. .Eonsons.in.Bolations. London: Faber and Faber. 1961. 207 McCluskey. Neil G. Catholic Education Eases Its Euture. Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday. 1969. McNemar. Ouinn. "Opinion-Attitude Methodology." .Esychglogjgal .Bulletin 43.4 (1946): 289-374. Merton. Robert K. ifiooial.Iheo£x.and.Social.StnuctuLe. New York: Free Press. 1968. Musgrove. F. "Research on the Sociology of the School and of Teach- ing." In Beseatch Eonspectixos in Education. Edited by W. Taylor. New York: APS Publications. 1973. National Conference of Catholic Bishops. ‘Io.Ieach.as.Jesus.Did. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Catholic Conference. 1973. N.C.E.A. "Giving Form to the Vision." Washington. D.C.: National Catholic Education Association. 1974. Neuwier. R. A. Catholic Schools in Actions A Beoott. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1966. Newman. F. M.. and Oliver. 0. W. "Education and Community." .flanyand Educational Roxie- 37.1 (1967): 61-88. Nisbet. Robert A. .Ihe.Sooiologioal.I£adition. New York: Basic Books. 1966. O'Neill. Michael. New Schools in a New Church. Collegeville: St. John's University Press. 1971. Parsons. Talcott. .Ihe Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press. 1949. Pennock. M. "The Heart of Catholic Schools." fflhmentum 11 (1980): 24-27 a Pius XI. ‘Chnistian.Education.oi.louth. New York: Paulist. 1919. Popkewitz. T. S. "Craft and Community as Metaphors for Social Inquiry Curriculum." .Eduoational.IheoLy 27.4 (1977): 310-21. Porter. 0.. and Porter. T. W. "Searching for Models of Community Influence in Schools: A Theoretical Model and a Study of Inde- pendent Schools." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. La.. February 1973. 208 Postman. L. "Toward a General Theory of Cognition." In Social .Esychology.at.the.Cnossnoads. Edited by J. Rohrer. New York: Harper. 1951. Ray. J. E. "A Study to Examine Belief Patterns About Teaching. Learn- ing. and Classroom Organization Among Teachers. Administrators Engaged in Implementing Rational Management Models. and Elemen- tary Principals." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1978. Rutter. M.; Maugham. B.; Mortimore. P.; and Ouston. J. .Eifteen IhousandhoutsiSeconoarxSchoolsandIheirEiiectsonChiloLen. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1979. Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education. lhe Catholic School. Washington. D.C.: U. S. Catholic Conference. 1977. Sacred Congregation for the Clergy. .Genetal.Cateohetlcal.01neoto£y. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Catholic Conference. 1973. Schanz. J. P. .A.Iheony.oI.Commun1ty. Washington. D.C.: University Schwartz. F. "Supporting or Subverting Learning: Peer Group Patterns in Four Tracked Schools." .Ahthnopology.and.Education.0ua£teLLu 12 (Summer 1981): 99-121. Shouval. R. "Anomalous Reactions to Social Pressure of Israeli and Soviet Children Raised in Family Versus Collective Settings." Journal of. Bensonalitx and Social Esuchology 32 (1975): 477-89. Sieber. R. T. "Schoolroom. Pupils. and Rules: The Role of Informality in Bureaucratic Social ization." Human .Qnganization 38 (Fall 1979): 273-83. Swanston. H. F. ylhe.Cgmmunity.Witness. New York: Sheed and Ward. 1967. Thomas. W. J.. and Znaniecki. F. .Ihe.Eolish.Eeasant.in.Eucope.and ‘Amenica. New York: Dover Publications. 1958. Tonnies. F. .Community.and Society. Translated and edited by C. P. Loomis. New York: Harper and Row. 1963. ___. Eundamental Concepts of Sociology. Translated and edited by C. P. Loomis. New York: American Books. 1940. Weber. Max. .Emm Max repent Essays in 59.11.019.951. Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. New York: Oxford Univer- SItYO 19460 209 Westerhof. John. "The Church and the Family." .Beligious Education 78 (Spring 1983): 249-69. Wiebe. Robert H. "The Social Functions of Public Education." In Education and American Cultune. Edited by E. Steiner et al. New York: Macmillan. 1980. Wise. Arthur E. "Why Educational Policies Often Fail: The Hyper- rationalization Hypothesis." .Cunniculum.Stud1es 9.1 (1977): 43 -57 e Wittig. M. "Client Control and Organizational Dominance: The School. Its Students. and Their Parents." .Sggia1.ELoh1ems 24.2 (1976): 192-203. Wollins. M. SuccessfulfiooupCanecExplonationsiothefiosentul i .Expeniment. Chicago: Aldine Press. 1974. Zahn. Gordon. .What Is Societyl New York: Hawthorne Books. 1964.