3 ‘ ., ‘ . f“ 7, ' .61»- ., f “a v. a. a}. W . V . . , o _ . ”I .‘ fin... .,.. ,. . ; , ' ‘ * 3m _ x “1L: ~- . nu: . 4 3‘.rrl~.- L .4 x ‘AA-Jnut "L ‘ ~.. h, . J . w»: T M . ‘1 l I" ,‘IJV ' I ' '.-:~:\ 6" ., . ‘ 1 Hr ’ u’ ¢ . 1 v, “a”. ran». “13‘ 4st,..- - -... u.“ - .L . i i iii 687 mum iiiiiiiiiiii 3 1293 00685 i LIBRARY Michigan State University i This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND PATRONS IN THE GWINN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT TOWARD THE GWINN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS presented by Therese Marie Peterson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of PhilmphLdegreeianmfiim 1/ Date 27- 22’ 8‘5- V MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 MSU LIBRARIES m \. RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. a ‘j/ 0‘ n ' l r ' JUN £79533 A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND PATRONS IN THE GWINN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT TOWARD THE GWINN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY Therese Marie Peterson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1988 /.< . '2! H, . ,4 v “ — ¢+ KIW Copyright by THERESE MARIE PETERSON 1988 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND PATRONS IN THE GWINN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT TOWARD THE GWINN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY Therese Marie Peterson The purpose of this study was to identify percep- tions of the school and school program which may have been the cause of hostility and dissatisfaction as perceived by the parents, patrons, students, and teachers of the Gwinn Area Public School District, K-12. The population included parents, patrons, students, and teachers of the school district. The sample was selected by using stratified random sampling. A total of 430 potential respondents were selected. A total of 301 (70 percent) completed and returned the questionnaires. A version of a survey developed by Harold C. Hand as well as the Student Opinion Inventory were used to measure perceptions toward the school and school program. Analysis of variance, Scheffe's test and chi square were used in the analysis of data. The results indicated that teachers were the most satisfied with the school and school program. All groups indicated they were satisfied with the variety of subjects and services offered by the school district. Parents and patrons perceived discipline to be a serious problem in the schools. Respondents were very positive in their perception of the manner in which the local administrator manages the school. Parents and patrons felt they were adequately well-informed about the local public school situation. Based on the findings, the researcher made recom- mendations for further research. DEDICATION I dedicate this work to Dick, my husband, whose faith in my work frequently kept me going in times of doubt and stress. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS One does not reach this point in one's career without the support, encouragement and guidance of others. I would like to thank Dr. Alexander Kloster who helped me get started at Michigan State and offered advice and counsel along the way. He epitomizes the true meaning of the professor-student relationship. I would like to thank Dr. Carol VandenBoogert and Dr. Gayle Vaughn-Wiles for listening and for their kind words of encouragement and support. ii LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . Objectives . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . Assumptions and Limitations . . Organization of the Study . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . Organizational Theory . . . . . Use of the School Survey . . . History of School Surveys . . . The Contemporary Movement . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . Site Description . . . . . . . Selection of the Sample . . . Procedure for Sample Selection Procedure for Data Collection . Survey Instrument . . . . . . Subsample Inventories . . . . . Treatment of Data . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Summary . . . . ‘ mmtht—i o o o 0 iii Page mNQmUIUJNl-J i-‘ i—' O ll 14 15 17 38 39 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 49 58 74 76 81 88 89 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Conclusions .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mcnoubnop. O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A. B. C. D. E. F. Teacher Cover Letter and Questionnaire . Parent Cover Letter and Questionnaire . . Patron Cover Letter and Questionnaire . . Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . Responses to Desired Courses . . . . . . Personal Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 90 90 93 93 94 95 95 96 97 97 102 103 105 105 116 128 135 143 146 152 Table 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST or TABLES \ Page Frequency of Parents' Answers to Questions 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Questions 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Analysis of Variance: Proud of Schools . 49 Factor Contrast: Proud of Schools . . . . 50 Analysis of Variance: Interest in Schools' Future . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Factor Contrast: Interest in Schools' Future 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 52 Analysis of Variance: Students Like School 52 Factor Contrast: Students Like School . . 53 Analysis of Variance: Student Feels Part of the Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Factor Contrast: Student Feels Part of the Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Chi-Square: Schools Overcrowded . . . . . 55 Analysis of Variance: Satisfaction with Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Factor Contrast: Satisfaction with the SChOOlS O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 57 Analysis of Variance: Satisfaction with School Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Chi-Square: Homework Assigned . . . . . . 58 Chi-Square: Variety of Subjects Offered . 61 Chi-Square: Physical Education . . . . . 62 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Analysis of Variance: Career Awareness . Factor Contrast: Career Awareness . A . Analysis of Variance: Psychological Services Factor Contrast: Psychological Services . Analysis of Variance: Remedial Reading . Factor Contrast: Remedial Reading . . . . Analysis of Variance: Athletics . . . . Factor Contrast: Athletics . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Foreign Languages . Factor Contrast: Foreign Languages . . . Chi-Square: Computer Science . . . . . . Chi-Square: Sex Education . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Future Value of Studies Factor Contrast: Future Value of Studies Analysis of Variance: Interest of Parents in School Activities . . . . . . . . . Factor Contrast: Interest of Parents in School Activities . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Parent-Teacher Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi-Square: Discipline Problem in the Schools Chi-Square: Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi-Square: Principal Manages School . . Chi-Square: School-Community Relationship Analysis of Variance: Willingness to Pay More Taxes 0 O I O O O O O I O I O O O 63 64 65 65 66 67 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 74 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 Factor Contrast: Willingness to Pay More Taxes 82 vi 41. 42. 43. 44. Chi-Square: School-Community Information . . Analysis of Variance: Taxes and Services Rendered \ o o o o e o o o o e o o o b o 0 Factor Contrast: Taxes and Services Rendered Chi-Square: Starting School Before Labor Day vii 84 87 CHAPTER I PROBLEM There is considerable evidence that relationships between schools and the communities they serve is, in many cases, less than adequate. In 1966, 61 percent of the public told the Harris Poll that they had a great deal of confidence in their school systems. By 1973 the number slipped to 37 percent; by 1983, it declined to 29 percent.1 As current Gallup Polls indicate, the public continues to perceive a deterioration in the quality of public education.2 News reports have shocked Americans with stories about declining test scores, adolescent drug use and violence in the schools. Schools are perceived as institutions which are not providing the quantity and quality of education demanded by society. Although over 60 percent of Americans do not have child- ren in this country's public schools, many of that group of adults do have some contact with young people. Evidence by Schneider suggests that many of these adults are not impressed with the products of American education.3 1 William Schneider, "A Consumer Report on the Public Schools,” The Education Digest, (January, 1985), pp. 20-23. 2 Phi Delta Ka an, "The 18th Annual Gallup Poll," (September, 1985i: PP. 43-59. 3 Schneider, gp. cit. This being the case, it seems that some systematic and logical assessment should be made to reduce or elim- inate the perceived inadequacy of the schools in meeting the needs of the communities that are served. Past and current efforts to maintain communication between the two groups are apparently inadequate, often consisting of a newsletter once or twice each year. Educators have relied too often on one-way communication, according to Kindred: the communicating process should encompass . . 4 two-way communication. PUIEOSG The purpose of this study is to identify perceptions of the school and school program which may be the cause of hostility and dissatisfaction as perceived by the patrons, parents, students, and teachers of the Gwinn Area Public School District, K-12. An effort will be made to uncover disparity between the values of the community and the services the school provides in order to determine what the public wishes the school system to accomplish. In order to identify those perceptions, a needs assessment survey will be administered and the results will be disseminated to the community. This is necessary 4 Leslie W. Kindred, The School and Communit Relations (Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs}, 198*. because of the involvement of the public in the gover- nance of the school organization. The school is a publicly supported institution and is also supported by public opinion and perception. Its policies and prac- tices reflect the relationship which must be maintained with the community if the school is to meet its obliga- tions to that community and to society in general. Significance There is no question that the general public is, at times, suspicious of the schools and in many cases overtly hostile. In Gwinn, attempts to levy millage for operational purposes led to division in the community to the point where citizens expressed their feelings through the hurling of eggs and tomatoes at their neighbors and fellow citizens. Dissension over the manner in which local monies were dispersed, parental concern regarding the preparedness of their children, particularly concerning higher education, also contributed to feelings of hostility in the community. The increasing cost of education, alleged deteriora- tion of pupil performance levels, the use of the school as an instrument of social change and the aggressive attitude of teachers and unions have all contributed to the hostile attitude and lack of confidence being expressed by the public. This attitude which seems to be solidifying to a greater extent each day is detrimental to the perfor- mance of the schools and results in greater conflicts between the schools and the clients who are served.5 In September, 1986, in the Manistique, Michigan, school district, a number of elementary school parents chose to withdraw their children from some district elementary schools to protest the closing of an elemen- tary school in Germfask, an outlying community served by Manistique. Subsequently, parents organized and established their own private school which currently serves approximately 90 students. Some school districts have undergone tremendous difficulty in levying local millage to support their schools. In Menominee, Michigan, voters finally passed a renewal millage on October 17, 1986, on the third vote with the threat of closing the schools. The president of the Manistique, Michigan, Board of Education, resigned from his position because of the failure of the board to pass a millage vote. The fourth millage proposal, presented to the voters in Manistique on October 30, 1986, finally passed. In both cases, voters were aware of the critical status of their districts as well as the fact that the State of Michigan was not planning to bail them out. Jeffry Leiter, "Perception of Community Dissatisfaction and School Organizational Structures," American Educational Research Journal, (Spring 1983, Vol. 20, No. 1), pp. 45-61. Although history records a pattern of citizen particip- ation dating back to ancient Greece, public participation in decision making has become an accepted practice in more recent years. The public's desire to share in the decision-making process is intended to provide greater congruity between the local educational program and the educational needs of the community. This dissertation will allow for parents, students, teachers, and patrons of the Gwinn Area Public Schools to express needs as they perceive them and subsequently for those needs to be considered in the decision-making process. Objectives The objectives of this study are: 1. To determine how the parents, teachers, pupils, and patrons in the Gwinn Area School District feel about the school district through the use of a needs assessment instrument. 2. To examine the agreement and disagreement among the various publics regarding the factors included in the survey instrument. 3. To attempt to explain differences expressed by the various publics included in the survey. 4. To compare responses from Gwinn with other school districts in the State of Michigan on selected items chosen from published Project Outreach reports. Research Questions were In this study the following research questions selected to be tested: 1. Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their percep- tions of certain items in the category, "Satisfaction with Schools," including "Proud of Schools," "Interest in the Schools' Future," "Students Like School," "Student Feels Part of the Group," "Overcrowded Facilities," and "Satisfaction with Schools?" Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons with regard to their perceptions of certain items in the category, "Satisfaction with School Program," including "Homework Assigned," "Variety of Subjects and Services Offered," and "Future Value of Studies?" Does a. difference exist among parents, students, and teachers with regard to their perceptions of two items in the category, "Parent-Teacher Relationships," which include "Interest of Parents in School Activities" and "Parent- Teacher Relationship?" Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their percep- tions of selected items in the category, "Discipline," which include "Discipline Problems in Schools," ”Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline," and "Principal Manages School?" Does a. difference exist among parents, teachers, and patrons in regard to their perception of selected items in the category, "Community Relations," which include "School-Community Relationship," "Willingness to Pay More Taxes," and ”Taxes and Services Rendered?" Does a relationship exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in their Opinion of the starting date of school relative to Labor Day? Definition of Terms Attitude: One's manner of thinking or acting which presents itself as a disposition or opinion. Curriculum: All educational experiences provided under the auspices of the school. This includes the scope and sequence of experiences as well as methods of teaching and instructional materials. Special facilities, such as libraries and laboratories, as well as extracurricular activities will be included. Parent: Mother, father, or guardian with one or more children enrolled in the Gwinn Area Public School District, K-12. Patron: Adult taxpayer in the community who presently supports the school district financially through local taxes but who does not have a child or children currently enrolled in grades K-12 in the Gwinn Area Public School District. Assumptions and Limitations In conducting the research project, the researcher was limited to the data which was accumulated by a random sample of parents, teachers, students and patrons in the Gwinn Area Public School District. The following assumptions were made in planning and conducting the research: 1. It was assumed that respondents were willing to give the most accurate answers they were capable of. 2. The survey sample was considered to be represen— tative of all subgroups. 3. The data gathering techniques were consistent with research standards. 4. No unusual conditions or circumstances existed which effected the individual responses. Additional limitations which were considered: 1. The study was limited to respondents living or teaching in the Gwinn Area Public School District. 2. The study was limited to information obtained from a review of the literature and responses to the survey instrument. Organization 9f the Study In this study, Chapter £_presents a statement of the problem, purpose and significance of the study, research objectives, assumptions and limitations, and definition of terms. Chapter II provides a thorough review of the related literature. All available sources of both past and current literature were surveyed to determine the appropriateness and relevance of this study. Chapter III offers a description of the design of the study, the methodology utilized in composing the survey instrument, the procedure for sample selection and collection as well as treatment of data. Results of the research are reported in Chapter IV, with conclusions and recommendations presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH This chapter will focus on several areas of related literature and research. First, the concept of organiza- tional theory will be examined with a focus on goal setting. Next, the importance of a survey or needs assessment in a school district will be presented. A history of school surveys, including contemporary surveys, as well as a summary will conclude the chapter. An organization is a collection of peOple who, with consciously coordinated efforts, pursues and contributes to the attainment of a common purpose.1 The public school is an organization whose purpose is the educating of the nation's youth, and factors both inside and outside of the organization influence the determination of the purposes or goals which seldom remain constant over time. A school-community program is a logical means whereby organizational development efforts can be improved which in turn can improve the means to reach the goals decided by the community and local school district. Three general perspectives provide an explanation as to how goals develop and how school districts can be organized to enhance citizen participation. 1 Theodore T. Herbert, Dimensipns of Organizational Behavior, (New York: Macmillan PubliEhing Co., 19817, p. 57. 10 11 Organizational Theory The Rational Systems Approach. Behling and Schriesheim2 describe the rational systems approach as one in which the purposes of the organization are determined by future conditions. That is, a specific end point has been designated such as funding the cure for a disease. When a cure has been discovered, the organization is dismantled. The purpose of the organization has been decided by a select group of individuals, such as the board of directors. Employees do their job and have no input into the organization's purpose or change in purpose. The only criteria the organization must adhere to are those of a legal nature. As long as a need is met and the law is followed, the organization can follow any purposes it chooses. The organization exists in a minimally constraining environment. The Open Systems Approach. Gouldner and Parsons have developed this approach to organizations, but the work of Parsons is more developed and better understood in terms of the public schools. In the open system the organization is very much influenced by general environmental factors. The organization, in this case, the public school, is a vital 2 Orlando Behling and Chester Schriesheim, Or anizational Behavior, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 19765, p. 171. 12 part of the environment, the society. The survival of the organization is based on its adaptation to the society as well as internal factors. According to Parsons3 societies have four general needs: (1) adaptation to the demands of the environment; (2) goal achievement for establishing goals; (3) integra- Eipp of individuals, groups and organizations into purposeful units; and, (4) latency or the preservation of the society's cultural beliefs and patterns. Organ- izations fill these needs in various ways and to varying degrees. The public school as an organization is affected by input from the task environment comprised of customers or clients, suppliers, and regulatory bodies.4 The interaction of the task environment with the organiza- tion allows for both groups to benefit. In terms of formal purpose, the organization interacts with the environment to reach the most desirable method of operation. A community survey/needs assessment affords the local publics this opportunity to interact. The community, as the client, assists in determining goals with help from the society at large to measure the success of programs and plan for the future. In contrast to the rational systems approach where a board of directors determines purpose, purpose in any open systems approach ibid., p. 172. ibid., p. 173. 13 to the organization reflects not only the organization's own perceptions but also the needs of the society. The Social Systems Approach. Whereas the open systems and rational systems approaches are directed by purposes imposed to some degree by the external environment, the purposes of the organization following the social systems approach rely on the input of the members of the organiza- tion. Members' roles are specialized, and their inter— action with other members of the organization is negligible. Therefore, each member's perception of the organization's purpose is limited; hence, there often is distortion in terms of any common purpose. An indiv- idual or group may impose its interpretation of the organization's purpose using power or persuasion. In the public school, a curriculum director or council or the superintendent may impose purpose on the organization with no input from the community. In these organizations environmental factors "impinge upon the organization;" community feedback is ignored.5 Finally, in the open systems approach the use of a community survey/needs assessment is vital. A mechanism must be utilized which will provide the local school district with input which will be instrumental in deter- mining the organization's purpose. Otherwise, there is 5 Richard H. Hall, Organizations: Structure and Process, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972). p. 19. 14 no means of gauging the community's beliefs, attitudes and concerns and no commonality of purpose between the district's clients and the organization. Use pf the School Survey The use of the school survey as a data-gathering process is not a recent phenomenon in the American social system. Rather, it is indigenous to the nation's func- tion in the education of its citizens. A survey or public Opinion poll indicates the perception of progress in a specific area. Results can make institutional plan- ning easier; help to improve programs; or, provide a reason for discontinuing programs not in accordance with the institution's goals. If the public is satisfied with the product of the local educational system, it will continue to buy education as it would any other necessary commodity. No school system will be dismantled if it creates a sense of pride and achievement, a zest for learning, and a solid foundation in general knowledge. The public is not looking for excellence but competence. When surveyed about the purposes of the schools, those members of the community who have the most contact with the schools tend to be more satisfied with the educational system. Publics are favorable to their community schools rather than schools across the nation. The bottom line, 15 according to Schneider, is that the consumer wants improvements and is willing to pay.6 If schools are to improved, the external environ- ments must be assessed. Members of the entire community are stakeholders in public education. Accepting the challenge of formulating or reformulating school policy and program is the right of the entire community. Data about what is and what could be at the local level needs to be collected to identify outcomes which meet a system's goals and objectives. Decisions are formulated about preferred goals and objectives. Finally, decisions should be made which will address high priority needs. Whereas there are many approaches to involving the local community in school affairs, surveys involve input from all community members. With careful analysis, communication can be enhanced and a better school image can be presented to the local publics, thereby reducing or eliminating hostility and dissatisfaction. History pf School Surveys The appointment of Horace Mann as Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1837 gave the states the impetus to forge ahead in improving their educational programs. These New England states fared well with the exception of the state of Rhode Island. Due to 6 William Schneider, "A Consumer Report of the Public Schools," The Education Digest, January, 1985, pp. 20-23. 16 the lack of progress, a bill was introduced into the state's Assembly to help in upgrading the educational standards. There was a demand on the part of the citizens for a more efficient educational organization and administration of this organization by the citizens. Henry Barnard was appointed to examine existing programs and report needs to the state legislative body. As a result, a new state school code was passed. Barnard's "Report on the Condition and Improvement of the Public Schools of Rhode Island" in 1845 is considered the forerunner of the modern school survey. Subsequent studies were made until 1900: the most notable are the reports to committees in Boston (1845) and Quincy, Massachusetts (1875). The report in Boston was developed as a panacea to the tedious task of exam— ining students orally in order to prove the competency and efficiency of the schoolmasters. In Quincy, pupils failed miserably with regard to unfamiliar materials. The school committee took action and immediately hired a new superintendent, Colonel Frances Parker, who could provide guidance and counseling to the schools. The most comprehensive survey of a local educational system was begun in 1897 by the Chicago Educational Commission. The citizenry felt that the public schools of Chicago were "not giving a measure of results commensurate with the general financial resources furnished 17 "7 Eleven members comprised the committee by the people. that canvassed teachers and patrons for suggestions. Advisors from throughout the nation were consulted. The commission's final report was divided into 20 articles with a set of recommendations for each article. Textbooks, examinations, appointment and promotion of teachers, vacation schools, compulsory attendance law, teachers' institutes, school accommodations and school buildings anc architecture were among the diverse subjects considered. In the period between 1910 and 1927, 171 reports or studies were undertaken in local districts. Although viewed as a fad with little value in 1912, the trend in surveying local systems became more popular and less skeptical in nature. Taxpayers and citizens desired to utilize what was good in a system, discard what was defec- tive, and apply new methods where needed. The issue then, as it is now, was the betterment of the local school system, not simply a better image. The Contemporary Movement Whereas many contemporary studies and surveys have been made regarding curriculum development and financing of the schools, very little has been done in the area of community needs surveys. The rationale and literature 7 Hollis Leland Caswell, City School Surveys, (New York City: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929). p. 15. 18 backing the need for assessing community needs is not lacking. However, assessment instruments and any follow- up reports are scarce. With the taxpayers' revolt aimed in one regard toward the schools, community attitudes have become an issue; but, this force is recent and widely-known, and reliable instruments to measure those attitudes are almost non-existent. While various communities have surveyed their residents as to feelings toward the schools, little has come of the results. The main thrust of the assessments is merely to attempt to improve public relations between the schools and the. community in light of future school elections, a new administration, or the anticipated economic growth of a community. There is little evidence to point to improve- ment in curriculum changes or suggestions in future building programs. The efforts of Harold C. Hand, Gilbert C. Finlay and Ardwin J. Dolio represent the foundation on which more recent work is predicated. Hand's theory rests on the belief that the school administrator should obviate guesswork in his public relations practices toward the community at large, parents, teachers and students. To be successful one must constantly be aware of failings 19 and successes and must emphasize and prioritize areas which need development and reappraisal.8 An abstract of Hand's project with specifics explains why items are included, how to conduct surveys, how to analyze the findings, how to report the findings, and how to put them to work. The original inventory consisted of four batteries disseminated to elementary and secondary pupils, teachers and parents in the State of Illinois outside the city of Chicago in the late 1940's. After results were tabulated, informational sessions for teachers and parents were held to review basic findings; discuss any findings which were considered crucial; scrutinize specific complaints; and, review suggestions and finally set forth policies necessary to implement the discussed and needed reforms. Nationally, an assessment program was proposed to determine educational levels attained by high school graduates.9 Failing standards of education and the wasted resources committed to vast numbers of youth who never completed their education prompted Hyman Rickover to once again criticize the schools. It was Rickover's 8 Harold C. Hand, What Pepple Think About Their Schools (Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: World Book Company, I948), pp. 2-4. 9 Hyman C. Rickover, "Education for All Children," Hearing Before the Committee pp_Appropriation, House of Representatives, Eighty-Seventh Congress, 1962, p. 139. 20 contention that Russia would overpower the United States, not in military strength but in educational strength. With support from the Council on Basic Education, Rickover also proposed a national board which would develop goals and standards for the nation's schools; it would be the perogative of the local district to follow the guide- lines proposed by this national board. Educators, however, could not agree with Rickover. Opposition was voiced by many and McNeillo suggested some general reasons: 1) Educators are afraid evidence will be collected which will deal with the ability to recall information and not prove competency in skills. 2) Educators tend to be process-oriented; and, while they feel teaching environments are crucial, they make less effort in assessing the learning that does occur. 3) Educators distrust results and interpretations. They are aware that any of a number of factors can be responsible for certain learning. 4) There is the possibility that certain practices or ideas may not be valuable. In spite of the opposition, the Carnegie Corporation funded a project to assess education on a national basis. The purposes were to (1) find the strengths and weaknesses of education on a regional basis for the entire nation; 10 John D. McNeil, Curriculum Administration, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1965), pp. 115-116. 21 (2) provide information for the schools to foster future research: (3) provide for international comparisons; and, (4) increase the interest toward education in general throughout the United States.11 A set of criteria about evaluation has been established by the National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators. These criteria state that: 1) Evaluation should be based on stated objectives. 2) Evaluation should be based on intimate and comprehensive knowledge of the community. 3) Evaluation should be continuous. 4) Evaluation should be comprehensive. 5) Evaluation should involve many people. 6) Evaluation should be positive as well as negative. 7) Evaluation should use many methods. 8) Evaluation should require the administration and board to look at itself. 9) Evaluation is based on the belief that peOple make a difference. 10) Evaluation should bring forth improvement.12 11 John W. Gardner, "A National Assessment of Educational Progress (unpublished report, The Carnegie Corporation, 12 American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association, Jud in Schools with Wisdom, (Washington, D.C. National Education Association, 1959), pp. 10-11. 22 An instrument for evaluating school programs in the elementary school was developed by the Southern Associa- 13 tion of Secondary Schools. Evaluating the Elementary School: A Guide for Cooperative Study contains five sections: (1) formulation of values and goals, (2) listing of functions, (3) school program, (4) resources, and (5) plans for improvement. There is no score given for a total evaluation. The instrument was designed to improve school and program and was to be used as a tool for planning curriculum change. Several instruments have been developed to stimu- late citizen interest in local schools. How Good Are Your Schools?, developed by the National Education Association, asks participating citizens to evaluate such parts of the school program as (1) total school program, (2) elementary program, (3) junior high school program, (4) senior high school program, (5) adult education, (6) competency and qualifications of teachers, (7) buildings and equipment, (8) materials for instruc- tion, (9) administration, (10) adequacy of finance, (11) board of education, and (12) citizen interest. 13 Southern Association of Secondary Schools, Evaluating the Elementary School: A Guide f9; Coqperative Study (Atlanta: Commission on Research and Service, the Association, 1951). 23 In Yardsticks for Public Schools, designed by the 14 National School Board Association, citizens are asked to measure factors that indicate school quality in order to general interest and concern on the part of the citizens. Included are goals of the schools, school program, finances, organization and administration, and citizen action. Results of each are tabulated and com- bined to present a total assessment of the school district. In 1960 a survey of four geographic regions in the United States and one in Canada was completed by the Midwest Center of the University of Chicago using The Task of Public Education (TPE) Opinionnaire. Citizen participants made decisions about the importance of 16 intellectual, social, personal and productive dimensions. Findings revealed that there was considerable agreement about the task of the public school; community-type, sex, income and proximity to school were not closely associated with educational viewpoint.15 Although the 16 needs were derived by experts and afforded no Oppor- tunity for citizen input, the study was of interest because of its scope and because some of its elements have been adopted by subsequent students of educational needs."16 14 National School Board Association, Yardsticks for Public Schools (Evanston, Illinois: The Association, 1959). 15 Richard W. Saxe, School-Community Interaction (Berkely, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1975), p. 119. 16 ibid. 24 In an update of Hand's study Rudman focused on measuring community attitudes towards its schools' educa- tional program, presenting the school curriculum in terms of four elements: (1) the instructional program, (2) educational services, (3) school system organization, and (4) values of education representing parents, students, administrators, teachers, and patrons.17 A student's educational program consists of courses and experience, i.e., mathematics, sciences, industrial education, field trips and the like. Educational services consist of testing programs, guidance and counseling, libraries, lunch programs, and supervision of teachers and administra- tion. System organization refers to the manner in which the school functions are carried out in the classroom, building and district. The values held by the various elements of the community represent divergent expectations demanded of the institution; that facet is most difficult to assess. Difficulties arise because of differences in community characteristics and values, changing educational . programs, varying definitions of curriculum, and forces within the society. A thorough piece of work has been produced by the Program Development Center of Northern California and distributed by the Commission on Educational Planning- 17 Herbert C. Rudman, "The Curriculum" (unpublished report, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, February 12, 1968), p. 1. 25 Phi Delta Kappa.18 The program was designed to assist school districts in developing educational goals with the community, ranking them, and then translating those ranked goals into performance objectives. Members of the community participate as well as the professional staff and students. The ultimate purpose of the design is increased accountability. A version of Gallup's survey in 1970 was designed to determine voter attitudes in Albuquerque, New Mexico.19 Voter feelings in regard to behavior in school financial questions was Hatley's specific purpose. Generally, his survey sought any differentiation in attitude based on socio-economic status and geographic location. A "School Goals Questionnaire," published by Allyn and Bacon Company, is designed to elicit citizen reaction from a list of 106 goals. Another form, "Rating School Goals," is designed in a format similar to Phi Delta Kappa's, "Educational Goals and Objectives." The Battelle Center of Improved Education in Ohio developed the Battelle Needs Assessment Survey to assist 18 Saxe, pp. cit. 19 Richard V. Hatley and Frank L. Croskey, "Measuring Community Attitudes Toward Education" NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 19 No. 5, (February, 1978): pp. 59-65. 26 school districts "to determine their needs in a systematic way."20 A feature of this survey is a needs profile which graphically illustrates to what degree a goal actually exists versus to what degree it should exist. Perceptions of all participants are compared--citizens, parents, faculty, students, administrators and school board. "Charrette" is the name given to an approach involv- 21 Although the ing considerable citizen participation. process is generally associated with a facilities plan- ning task, the involvement of many people in an area outside of their own area of specilization provides for creative ideas that experts would not or may not consider. The National Study of School Evaluation publishes a "Student Opinion Inventory" designed to "assess student attitudes toward many facets of school" and "to provide "22 The instrum- student recommendations for improvement. ent was designed to assess students' attitudes or morale or as a part of a complete school evaluation program. Items were field-tested nationwide and the reliability and validity of subscales was determined. 20 Saxe, pp. cit., p. 130. 21 . Saxe, pp. Cit., p. 131. 22 National Study of School Evaluation, "Student Opinion Inventory (Arlington, Virginia: 1974). 27 Attitudinal data can also be deduced from Hatley and Croskey's Measure of Attitudes Toward Education (MATE).23 This instrument was designed to elicit public feelings regarding "characteristics, processes, and out- "24 The study was developed comes of the public schools. to include 19 items categorized under three factors-- Teacher Related Issues, Organizational and Program Efficiency, and Administrative and Program Effectiveness. Participants are asked to respond by indicating from among choices of 1—5 representing "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Tabulation by factor indicates a negative or positive attitude toward that factor. Testing and retesting of the instrument led to the conclu- sion that it was reliable, stable and interpretable. However, there is no evidence to point out that the survey has been used successfully; and, if so, what conclusions or changes were brought about as a result of its distribution and interpretation. In 1973 a version of Rudman's questionnaire was prepared to elicit community attitudes toward the public schools of Belding, Orleans and Grattan, Michigan. Students, parents, faculty and randomly selected patrons of the area were asked to participate in order to develop information about the community's concerns which would Richard V. Hatley and Frank L. Croskey, pp. cit. ibid. 28 help to provide for better schooling. Results were tabulated by precinct and by each of the groups surveyed. Afterwards, these results were compared with responses of other groups throughout the State of Michigan. The report submitted to the Belding Chamber of Commerce included a section on "Winning An Election." Strategies on winning a school election and specifics on how to be more effective with school-community relations were presented. Finally, possible explanations were offered as to the rationale for attitudes expressed by the participants. 25 In 1972, 1974 and 1977, 400 parents and patrons in the elementary school district of Lake Forest, Illinois, were questioned as to their reactions to and thoughts about the system. The results were tabulated and dis— seminated to the participants and were used to develop goals and objectives for the district. Since the institution of the survey in this school district, attitudes improved by several percentage points each time the survey was conducted. Problems in the areas of reading, parent-teacher conferences, individual- ized instruction and busing have not been totally alleviated, but the implemented changes have brought 25 Michigan State University, "WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS?" (East Lansing: College of Education), Publication No. 4-73, May 1973. 29 about more parent and patron satisfaction with the system.26 ' Although community surveys involve a sampled popula- tion, studies have been made which focus on possible conflict between schools and community which involved only a sample of teachers. Under the auspices of the National Foundation for the Humanities, Russell W. Ramsey conducted a study in July of 1978 to determine teachers' perceptions of the line between public education and society. Approximately 350 teachers who were graduate students in educational management participated; they represented public school districts in northern Florida. The teachers read, analyzed and discussed current educational issues with emphasis on newspaper and news- magazine articles. They also polled local citizens not affiliated with the public schools as to the legitimacy of certain school services being offered to all members of the community instead of only children and also their support for education in general.; Conclusions drawn from the data indicate that: I) North Florida residents expect school systems to take on a broad range of social, economic and moral issues. 2) While professional school managers can partially shield the classroom from politics, ultimately the public will is going to be carried out in some form. _¥ 2 . 6 Lake Forest Elementary Schools - District #67, "Opinion Questionnaire" (Value Standards, Inc., 1972, 1972, 1977). 3O 3) Teachers are in much closer contact with the public than their critics, and they represent a great unmined potential for the resolution of nagging social problems. 2 While school systems are socially and morally sensitive to the society, they can and should be held accountable for accomplishing what the community can agree it wants done. Reports on the Red School House Project conducted in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1980 focused on the develop— ment of a needs assessment based on the values, customs and beliefs of the local community which is represented by Native Americans.28 Visually demonstrated in a cultural format, seven steps were set up as part of the process: 1) Designing a questionnaire that reflected the culture, values, customs and beliefs of the people for whom the design was to be used; 2) Distribution to all peOple in the community. 3) Voting on the items included in the questionnaire; 4) Gathering the responses for tabulating; 5) Communicating the results to community members; 27 Russell W. Ramsey, "How Much Can the School House Control?", Adolescence, Vol. XVIII, No. 72, (Winter 1983), pp. 899-906. 28 Edward Benton Banai, "A Culture-Based Needs Assess- ment," (Red School House: St. Paul, Minnesota, 1980). 31 6) Deciding how to act to obtain the objectives; 7) Finding peOple in the community with skills and background to help fulfill the objectives. The end result was that the citizens of this particular ethnic community would determine what was best for their community; and, having done that, would collectively decide the best methods to achieve their goals and objectives. In May of 1982 Albee29 conducted a survey in the community of Rosemount, Minnesota to determine attitudes toward the schools, staff members, quality and quantity of education, and support services. Secondarily, Albee was interested in securing demographic data. The study involved a computer-picked random sample of 384 adults with a response rate of 87 percent. Because of the brevity_of time allotted to the project, a telephone survey was deemed the most efficient manner of securing data. Although Albee does not elaborate on the findings, it is stated that the results were used for short-range and long-range financial, curriculum and personnel planning in the school district. After the results were publicized, the information was used as a basis for needed change, maintenance of programs, and further research. 29 Beverly Albee and Others, "How to Conduct a Low-Cost, High-Quality Community Survey," (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National School Board Association: Houston, Texas, March 3l-Apri1 3, 1984). 32 In the fall of 1983 and continuing into 1984, the Center of Educational Field Services of the College of Education at the University of Maine at Orono offered a comprehensive survey/assessment service to local school districts. The purpose of the service was to determine how community members regard the schools: if the commu- nity was enthusiastically willing to support the schools: and, where the community perceived excellence. Also included in the survey was an assessment of current educational issues. As of winter, 1984, surveys were conducted in 21 Maine communities. The research presented by Skehan and Doughty3O representa a data base of 15 communities as well as results of a similar study of elected school board mem- bers in the State of Maine. Questionnaires were mailed to every household in the participating districts during the 1983-1984 school year and were designed to elicit respondents' opinions as to the satisfaction with services offered by the local district, opinions as to curricular questions, and 18 educational issues. A total of 2,442 usable survey responses were returned. This number included 1,602 community members, 663 elected <3fficials and 208 teachers. Approximately 40 percent —_‘ 30 John W. Skehan and James F. Doughty, "Teacher's, IBoard Members' and Citizens' Perceptions of Educational Issues: A Comparative Study," Research ip Rural Educa- ‘tion, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1984), pp. 121-126. 33 officials and 208 teachers. Approximately 40 percent Of the responses represented males and 60 percent, females. The 18 educational issues were divided into three areas for purposes of analysis: teacher issues, student issues, and miscellaneous issues. Data from the survey revealed differences in the responses of all groups. Some of the highlights include: 1) Almost all elected board members and teachers felt teachers' salaries were too low. Only half Of the community members felt that was the case. 2) On the issue of requiring competency examina- tions for teachers, similar opinions were reflected. Eighty-five percent Of community members and elected officials were in agreement with the idea. However, less than half of the teachers agreed. 3) There is less difference Of Opinion on student issues. Approximately 50 percent Of the commu- nity members felt there was no problem with regard to truancy and dropouts. A slightly lower percentage is indicated by board members and a slightly larger proportion Of teachers agree. 4) There was general agreement among the three groups that high school graduation requirements should be strengthened. 5) Approximately 60 percent Of all groups felt that discipline is a problem in the schools. 6) Nearly 90 percent of community members and elected Officials agreed that there should be more community involvement in establishing school goals. Two-thirds of the teachers were in agreement. The conclusions drawn by Skehan and Doughty indicate that differences in attitudes exist among the various 34 publics. School districts must provide systems and avenues for the expression Of public opinion. Subsequent decisions will be implemented only after data has been collected, evaluated and interpreted. The goals Of the local district must be congruent with public expectations. In 1982 a survey taken by the National Opinion Research Center indicated that only 29 percent Of the public had a "great deal Of confidence" in those running the nations' educational systems. At the same time, a decline of confidence in all major social, political and economic institutions was exhibited in this country.32 Parents rated schools high than other respondents. Forty-two percent Of the parents graded the schools with an A or B versus 28 percent Of other respondents. Specific programs and services were rated quite positively. The survey also revealed that the public feels it is spending too little on improving the nation's educational systems. However, mixed poll results are indicated on the question Of willingness to pay more taxes.3 31 ibid. 32 William Schneider, "A Consumer Report on the Public Schools," The Education Digest (January, 1985), pp. 20-23. 33 ibid. 35 The Parent Involvement in Education Project (PIEP) involved a six-state region. Results Of this project were presented at the National Coalition of Title I Chapter I Parents' Annual In-Service Training Conference in October, 1984. With funding from the National Institute Of Education the two goals Of the project were (1) to develop guidelines and strategies for training teachers in the area Of parent involvement and (2) to establish a research base Of information regarding involvement by parents as well as educators. The under- lying tenet held that in order to improve the quality and effectiveness Of public schools, parents and educators must deve10p more of a collegial or collaborative rela— tionship regarding educational issues and concerns, not an adversarial relationship. Seven thousand one hundred fifty-four parents from Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma were involved; included were elementary school principals, school superintendents, school board presidents and members Of the state depart- ments Of education. The two groups were assisted by national, state and local organizations Of parents and educators. The implications are, according to most parents and educators, that parent involvement is an acceptable way to participate in the educational process 36 and, that parents have a high degree Of intenest in being involved.34 Parents papp to be involved more than educators feel they should be. It is Williams' belief that educators exhibit a sense Of fear when those things generally considered under their domain have now become issues in which parents want to be involved.35 Since 1967 the Gallup Organization has conducted surveys which focus on educational issues. The attitude surveys, funded in part by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, have assisted school administrators in keeping abreast Of Opinion trends regarding school questions. Not only are school officials informed Of local reaction to program and policies, but these reactions may be compared with national attitudes. Gallup's survey results released in September, 1985, indicated that discipline was the top priority Of the nation, as it has been each year with the exception Of 1969. The next area of concern was "use Of drugs." Other problems which the nation perceived as problems 34 David L. Williams, Jr., "Parent Involvement in Educa- tion: What a Survey Reveals," (Paper presented at the National Coalition of Title I Chapter I Parents' Annual In-Service Training Conference: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, Texas, October, 1984). 37 in the public schools included poor curriculum/standards, difficulty in getting good teachers, lack of proper financial support, pupils' lack of interest/truancy, and large schools/overcrowding. The ratings given local schools by respondents indicated that 43 percent gave their schools an A or B, but only 27 percent graded public schools nationally with an A or B. Mathematics and English head the list of courses the public would require for all students. With regard to the issue Of public school financing, 38 percent were in favor Of raising taxes: 52 percent were Opposed. Since 1981 the Michigan State Board Of Education has polled Michigan citizens about focal issues in the public schools through Project Outreach, directed by Ned S. Hubbell. This public Opinion survey has been conducted annually by telephone in households throughout the state. In addition to surveying citizens statewide about public school issues, Project Outreach assists local school districts in surveying their own Citizens' Opinions. 36 Phi Delta Kappan, "17th Annual Gallup Poll," (September, 1985), pp. 35-47. 38 Summary \ As the review of related literature has shown, various publics have participated in local and national attitude studies or needs assessment surveys. Although there is not a preponderance of related literature, one notices that only the process of conducting the study or survey is reported. With an occasional exception, there are no reports of positive results, outcomes or implemen- tation of decisions resulting from a study. It appears that school administrators have acted slowly in follow- ing through with these types Of studies. If the school district is to provide the best possible services to its clients, it must utilize citizen input. Beliefs and concerns of the community must be considered when formulating district goals and purposes. Again, it is in the open systems approach where citizen participation, through the survey or needs assessment, reinforces this aspect of organizational theory. However, expending money and time in conducting a survey with no follow up is not only an exercise in futility but also does not truly subscribe to this approach. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Data for this research project were collected through an attitude questionnaire devised from Hand's work to secure both hand-delivered and mailed responses from a randomly-selected sample of parents, patrons, students, and teachers in the Gwinn Area Public Schools district. Site Description The town of Gwinn, Michigan, is located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, 20 miles south of Marquette. Although Gwinn itself has a population of approximately 1,400 citizens, the population of the entire school district, outside of the K. I. Sawyer Air Force base, stands at approximately 9,600. Residents of the Air Force base, which number 9,178, send their children to the Gwinn Area Public Schools. The Gwinn Area Public Schools employs a teaching staff of 176 persons serving a student population of 2,400 enrolled in either of the one high school, one middle school or four elementary schools. The major employer for the area is the Air Force base with nearby iron ore mines employing other residents. 39 40 Selection pg the Sample \ In order for results of a survey to be useful and projectable to the entire community, a random sample must be selected; the sample must be representative of the population in order to be statistically valid. The basic principles of sampling must be followed: there must be no logical connection between the method of sampling and the Opinions being sampled. A random sample can be defined as a sample that has been Obtained by a random method. One approach used is to take a systematic sample consisting of every ith member of the population in order to obtain a sample of the size required. If one starts at random, it affords every individual in the population an equal chance Of being included in the sample. A common extension of a random sample is stratified random sampling which instroduces stratification as a secondary element; in effect, it is a combination Of random subsamples. For results of a survey to be mean— ingful, they must be reported separately, according to strata. A sample that is not representative can suffer from errors of a random and/or systematic nature and further fronierrors of sampling and/or measurement. 41 According to Kindred, a properly selected sample of approximately 400 respondents will provide answers which can be projected to a larger pOpulation within a predictable 5 percent error. For this study, the percent of error at the 95 times out of 100 confidence level is plus or minus five points.1 Procedure for Sample Selection The sample was selected on the basis Of a stratified random sample of parents, patrons, teachers, and students in the Gwinn Area Public Schools district. A ten percent sample size was used for parents. Based on the total student enrollment of 2,380 students, 238 parents received surveys as determined by each school's parent list; every eighth name was chosen. Parent lists from each schopl were carefully reviewed to avoid duplication before the master list was finalized. To prepare for selection of patron participants, a copy of the district voter registration list was secured from the county courthouse. A total Of 114 patrons received surveys which represented the four townships of Forsyth, Sands, Skandia and West Branch. Of the total of 176 teachers in the district, 33 .Leslie W. Kindred, The School and Community Relations (Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs), 1984. received surveys, or 19 percent. Names were randomly selected at the building level in order to ensure that teachers at all levels would be included in the study. Sixty-five of the 300 upperclassmen at the high school, or 22 percent, received surveys. The high school principal was directed to use the student static list, an alphabetical directory of students set up by grade level, to randomly select every third student. Students were directed to carefully read and complete the questionnaire. A total Of 430 surveys were disseminated. One point needs to be clarified with regard to the number of parent participants versus the number of patron respondents: The number of parents is unusually high in this community because of the presence of the K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base with many young families with children in the schools. Whereas most communities do not have a representative sample of parents and patrons, Gwinn is unique in that its population is com- prised Of more parents with children in school as Opposed to national trends of approximately 60 percent of a community belonging to the childless category. Procedure for Data Collection Parents received instruments from their children who brought them home from school during the week Of March 31, 1986, and were asked to return the completed 43 (forms within two days. The youngsters hand-delivered the completed surveys to the appropriate principal's Office. Teachers and students were requested to com- plete the questionnaires and return them in several days to the principal's office in the envelope which was provided. Surveys to patrons, which included an enclosed stamped envelope for convenience, were mailed during this same time frame. Mailing was seen as the most efficient method to use involving patron responses because of the large, rural area in which the district is located. Participants were told that there were no right or wrong answers to the statements; the Board of Educa- tion wanted to know the feelings of citizens on certain school issues. Those who participated were also informed, by means of a cover letter, that they were not to sign their names or identify themselves in any way. Survey Instrument The public opinion questionnaire can provide precise results if conducted properly. After study and delivera- tion, particularly with regard to the large, rural area in which the Gwinn school district is located, the mailed questionnaire was disseminated to patrons. Transportation 44 costs would be overwhelming as Opposed to mailing costs. In addition, research indicated that respondents Often participate with increased candor. However, the mailed questionnaire is probably the most criticized data-gathering device. An accompanying letter asking for information Often elicits negative reaction. Poorly constructed items Often lead one to disregard the questionnaire. Questionable quality helps to explain small proportions of returns and therefore limited validity.2 Subsample Inventories This survey was developed using Harold C. Hand's original work as a guide. Each of Hand's inventories was pretested, restructured and utilized in city—wide polls; validity and reliability were established. SuggestiOns from his book were incorporated to assure confidence in the results. The "Student Opinion Inventory" was also considered, which presented indices for reliability and validity. 2 John W. Best, Research ip Education (Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs), 1986. 45 Questionnaires received by the various sample groups varied in the number of items asked, but all groups responded to five items as well as a series of questions related to curriculum services and activities. The total number of items for each battery was: (1) parents-- 69, (2) patrons--40, (3) teachers-~77, and (4) students-- 58. Each battery consisted of seven categories, each dealing with some aspect of the school program. Included were: 1. Satisfaction with schools: 2. Satisfaction with school program: 3. Satisfaction with school plant: 4. Discipline: 5. Parent-teacher relationships; 6. Community relations; 7. Satisfaction with school calendar year. Respondents indicated their choice to an item by checking one response from a four-point value scale. The survey did include, however, several items which netted a "yes" or "no" response. In addition, the survey form allowed for handwritten comments by respondents. Treatment pg Data Upon collection of completed forms, surveys were forwarded to the Dickinson-Iron Area Vocational Center where preliminary results were summarized by computer. 46 Results were summarized by battery and by each item in the inventory. \ After further study of the preliminary results, certain items which seemed to reflect key ideas and issues in each category of the survey were gleaned for further analysis. Research questions were formulated to analyze the data collected in the study. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was used for the statistical analyses. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant differences between subgroups in their perceptions of the variables. Scheffe post-hoc analyses were performed to determine pairwise differences between subgroups when the ANOVA tests indicated the existence Of statistically significant differences. Chi square was used to test for statistical differences in helping to determine whether a relationship existed between two variables. Handwritten comments regarding course Offerings, specifically, and general comments were summarized and included. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The major purpose of this study was to assess the perceptions of parents, teachers, students, and patrons concerning positive and negative aspects of the school and school program in the Gwinn Area Public Schools, K-12. In this study the following research questions were selected to be tested: 1. Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their percep- tions of certain items in the category, "Satisfaction with Schools," including "Proud of Schools," "Interest in the Schools' Future," "Students Like School," "Student Feels Part of the Group," "Overcrowded Facilities," and "Satisfaction with Schools?" Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons with regard to their perceptions of certain items in the category, "Satisfaction with School Program" including "Homework Assigned," "Variety of Subjects and Services Offered," and "Future Value of Studies?" Does a difference exist among parents, students, and teachers with regard to their perceptions of two items in the category, "Parent-Teacher Relationships," which include "Interest of Parents in School Activities" and "Parent— Teacher Relationship?" Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their percep- tion of selected items in the category, "Discipline," which include "Discipline Problems in Schools," "Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline," and "Principal Manages School?" 47 48 5. Does a difference exist among parents, teachers, and patrons in regard to their percep ion of selected items in the category, "Community Relations," which include "School-Community Relationship," "Willingness to Pay More Taxes," and "Taxes and Services Rendered?" 6. Does a relationship exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in their opinion of the starting date of school relative to Labor Day? For each research question, specific items were tested in the 0.05 level of significance. Part I of the survey instrument was designed to gather data concerning very general characteristics of parents and teachers who participated in the study. Questions 1 and 2 of the parent instrument asked for the grade which the child or children is/are attending. 1. Elementary: (Kindergarten to 6th grade) Grade 2. .Secondary: (7th to 12th grade) Grade Table l. Freqpency of Parents' Answers to Qpestions 1—2. Elementary Secondary Number Percent Number Percent Child/children in school 86 60.0 57 40.0 Table 1 indicates that there were 86 parents who had a child or children in the elementary school and 57 who had a child or children in the secondary school. 49 Questions 1,2, and 3 of the teacher instrument asked for the grade or subject one was presently teaching. 1. Elementary: (Kindergarten to 6th grade) 2. Secondary: (7th to 12th grade) 3. Both elementary and secondary Table 2. Frequencypof Teachers' Resppnses to Questions 1-3. Elementary Secondary Both Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Grade or Subject 14 53.8 11 42.3 1 3.8 Table 2 indicates that there were 14 elementary-level teachers, 11 secondary-level teachers, and one who taught at both levels who participated in the study. Research Question p H01: There is no significant difference in the four subset responses to "Proud of Schools." Expanded ANOVA Table 3 Dependent Variable: Proud of Schools Source of Mean F F Factor .p Mean §p_ Variation 2§_ Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 142 1.8662 .6968 Between 3 2.0837 4.4875 .0043 Teachers 26 1.3846 .6972 Students 52 1.9423 .7253 Patrons 75 1.7600 .6116 Within 291 .4643 _ TOTAL 295 1.8102 .6934 294 The F-test (4.4875) shown in Table 3 indicates that there was a significant difference between the groups (parents, teachers, students and patrons) in regard to their perceptions in "Proud of Schools" at the level (p=.0043). The subgroup means revealed that the patron, parent, and student perceptions of "Proud of Schools" coincided, but these perceptions are different from those of the teachers. Teacher perceptions reflect a more positive identification and satisfaction with the school system. Table 4. Factor Contrast: Proud of Schools Value S. Error T Value DE T Prob. Parents & Patrons 0.1062 0.0973 1.092 291 0.276 Parents & Students -0.0761 0.1105 -0.689 291 0.491 Parents & Teachers 0.4816 0.1454 3.313 291 0.001 Teachers & Patrons -0.3754 0.1551 -2.421 291 0.016 Teachers & Students -0.5577 0.1637 -3.407 291 0.001 Students & Patrons 0.1823 0.1230 1.483 291 0.139 The post-hoc analysis indicates that statistically significant differences were found in the "Proud of Schools" category between parents and teachers, teachers and students, and teachers and patrons as seen in Table 4. This disparity was mainly due to the teacher perceptions of "Proud of Schools" as Opposed to the perceptions of the other subgroups as indicated in the table. 51 H02: There is no significant difference in response to "Interet in Schools' Future." Expanded ANOVA Table 5: Satisfaction with Schools Dependent Variable: Interest in Schools' Future Source of Mean F F Factor _p Mean .§2 Variation _p§ Sguares Ratio Prob. Parents 144 1.5417 .6016 Between 3 4.8224 12.8133 .0001 Teachers 26 1.0769 .2717 Students 52 1.9615 .7660 Patrons 74 1.5405 .6011 Within 292 .3764 TOTAL 295 1.8102 .6934 295 The F-test (12.8133) shown in Table 5 indicates that there was a significant difference between the groups (parents, teachers, patrons and students) in regard to their perceptions of "Interest in Schools' Future at the p level (.0001). i As revealed by the subgroup means, teachers and students showed contrasting viewpoints in terms of "Interest in Schools' Future." Teachers expressed the most positive attitude as Opposed to the students who were the least positive of all groups toward the schools' future. 52 Table 6. Factor Contrast: Interest in Schools' Future \ Value S. Error T Value 23} T Prob. Parents & Patrons 0.0011 0.0877 0.013 292 0.990 Parents & Students -0.4199 0.0993 -4.230 292 0.001 Parents & Teachers 0.4647 0.1307 3.555 292 0.001 Teachers & Patrons —O.4636 0.1399 —3.315 292 0.001 Teachers 8 Students -0.8846 0.1474 -6.003 292 0.001 Students & Patrons 0.4210 0.1110 3.792 292 0.001 The post-hoe analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant difference for all the paired comparisons between all groups at a significance level of (p=.001) in "Interest in Schools' Future" with the exception of the parents and patrons. HO : There is no significant difference among parents', teachers' and students' responses to "Students Like School." Expanded ANOVA Table 7: Satisfaction with Schools Dependent Variable: Students Like School Source of lean F F Factor .p Mean SD Variation .EE Sguares Ratio Prob. Parents 143 1.7622 .6162 Between 2 3.0329 8.1325 .0004 Teachers 26 1.7692 .5144 Students 52 2.1538 .6382 Within 218 0.3729 TOTAL 221 1.8552 .6302 220 frhe F-test (8.1325) revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups 53 (parents, teachers, and students) in regard to\their perceptions Of "Students Like School." The subgroup means indicated that, whereas all groups responded favorably, there was a less positive perception presented by the students. Teachers and parents may perceive students as liking school more than the students expressed. Perhaps some students lack the proper motivation and appreciation for the function of the school or equate the school with negative experience. However, this is not to say that all students who were very positive are serious about learning; perhaps some like school because of the social affiliation. Table 8. Factor Contrast: Students Like School Value 8. Error T Value QF T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.3916 0.0989 -3.960 218 0.001 Parents & Teachers -0.0070 0.1302 -0.054 218 0.957 Students & Teachers -0.3846 0.1467 -2.622 218 0.009 The post-hoc analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant difference for the paired comparisons of parents and students and students and teachers at a significance level Of (p=.009) in the varLable "Students Like School" with the exception 0f Parents and teachers. 54 H04: There is no significant difference among parents', teachers' and students' responses to "Student Feels Part of-the Group." ‘Expanded ANOVA Table 9: Satisfaction with Schools Dependent Variable: Student Feels Part of the Group Source of Mean F F Factor ‘E Mean .SQ Variation 'QE Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 144 1.3819 .6145 Between 2 8.1776 15.4817 .0001 Teachers 26 2.0000 .8944 Students 52 1.9231 .9042 Within 219 0.5282 The F-test (15.4817) revealed that there was a significant difference between the groups (parents, students -and teachers) in regard to their perception of "Student Feels Part of the Group." The subgroup means indicated that the parents and students perceived the students as being more a part of the peer group than the teachers perceived them as part of the group. Table 10. Factor Contrast: Student Feels Part of the Group Value 8. Error T Value .2: T Prob. Parents & Students -0.5411 0.1176 -4.602 219 0.001 Parents 8 Teachers -0.6l81 0.1549 —3.991 219 0.001 Students & Teachers 0.0769 0.1746 0.441 219 0.660 Post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant F between the groups is a consequence of the particular 55 differences which exist between students and parents and parents and teachers as to how they reacted to "Student Feels Part of the Group." H05: There is no significant difference among parents', teachers' and students' responses to "Overcrowded Schools." Table 11. Chi-Sguare: Schools Overcrowded Parents Teachers Students §3_ 2F. '2 YES 44 20 24 20.8353 2 0.0001 31.0% 76.9% 48.0% NO 98 6 25 69.0% 23.1% 52.0% TOTAL 142 26 50 65.1% 11.9% 22.9% A significant chi-square (20.83) at (p=0.0001) revealed that there is a disparity in the opinion in regard to "Schools Overcrowded" by the groups (parents, teachers, and students). Particularly, the teachers seem to be the most critical group in that respect: 77 percent reported that the school is overcrowded. On the contrary, 69 percent of the parents seemed to be satisfied with the space available in the schools. Student opinions are divided almost equally. 56 From Table 11, teachers overwhelmingly felt schools are overcrowded. Perhaps they are concerned about class size which was listed as the second biggest problem facing teachers in the 1984 Educator Opinion Poll.1 Also, the Gallup Polls of 1985 and 1986 listed large 'schools/overcrowding as a problem with which a community must deal.2’3 H06: There is no significant difference among parents', teachers', students' and patrons' perceptions in response to "Satisfaction with Schools." Expanded ANOVA Table 12: Satisfaction with Schools Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with Schools Source of Mean F F Factor .p Mean _§p Variation .23 Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 144 1.8403 .7161 Between 3 3.0051 7.3459 .0001 Teachers 26 1.4231 .5038 Students 52 2.1154 .3785 Patrons .. 75 1.9600 .6666 Within 293 0.4091 TOTAL 297 1.8822 .6598 296 The F-test (7.346) revealed a statistically significant difference at the level (p=.0001) among the groups (parents, teachers, students, and patrons) in their perceptions of "Satisfaction with the Schools." 1 Educator Opinion Poll, Educational Research Service, Inc. September, 1984. 2 "The 17th Annual Gallup Poll," Phi Delta Kappa, September, 1985, Vol. 67, NO. 1, pp. 35-47. 3 "The 18th Annual Gallup Poll," Phi Delta Kappa September, 1986, Vol. 68, NO. 1, pp. 43-59. 57 Although the overall satisfaction of the groups toward the school was positive, the subgroup means indicated the teachers were the most satisfied. Parents' and patrons' perceptions were very similar to each other, showing general satisfaction, as seen in Table 12. Table 13. Factor Contrast: Satisfaction with the Schools Value S. Error T Value .22 T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.1197 0.0911 -1.315 293 0.190 Parents & Students -0.2751 0.1035 -2.659 293 0.008 Parents & Teachers 0.4172 0.1363 3.061 293 0.002 Teachers & Patrons —0.5369 0.1456 -3.689 293 0.001 Teachers & Students -0.6923 0.1536 -4.506 293 0.001 Students & Patrons 0.1554 0.1154 1.346 293 0.179 Post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were due to disparities between parents and students, parents and teachers, teachers and patrons, and teachers and students in their perceptions of "Satisfaction with the Schools." 58 Research Question 2 \ HO : There is no significant difference among parents', students' and teachers' responses to "Homework Needed to Keep Up." Expanded ANOVA Table 14: Satisfaction with School Program Source of Mean F F Factor ‘9 Mean .SQ Variation _QF Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 142 2.1056 .5549 Between 2 .5363 1.3727 .2556 Teachers 23 2.2609 .5408 Students 52 2.2500 .8135 Within 214 .3907 TOTAL 217 2.1567 .6261 216 The F-test (1.3727) shown in Table 14 indicated that there was no significant difference between the groups (parents, teachers, and students) in regard to their perceptions of "Homework Needed to Keep Up." Subgroup means revealed that perceptions of all groups cOincided, and that there is agreement that the amount of homework needed to keep up is "about right." HO : There is no significant difference among parents', 8 students' and teachers' responses to “Homework Assigned." Table 15. Chi-Square: Homework Assigned 2 Parents Teachers Students .§_ _25 .p APPROPRIATE 82 18 31 4.9322 6 0.5525 57.3% 72.0% 59.6% NOT APPROPRIATE * 61 7 21 * "Not appr0priate" 42.7% 28.0% 40.4% included "little" or "no" homework. TOTAL 143 25 52 65.0% 11.4% 23.6% 59 The chi-square (4.9322) in Table 15 revealed no ~significant difference in the perceptions of the groups (parents, teachers, and students) with regard to the amount of "Homework Assigned." Although there is no significant difference, it should be noted that in the "not appropriate" category, quite a large percentage of respondents perceived the homework assigned as not adequate, 42.7 percent of the parents, 28 percent of the teachers, and 40.4 percent of the students. The National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983 recommended that "students in high schools should be assigned far more homework than is now the case." That the amount of homework assigned is related to school achievement has long been researched with positive correlations shown as has the amount Of time spent on homework.5 Gallup Poll results published in 1985 indicated that 40 percent Of elementary—level and 47 percent Of secondary-level students should be assigned more homework. 4 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983), g Nation pp Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Wasfiington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 5 Joel S. Turvey, "Homework-~Its Importance to Student Achievement," NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 70, No. 487, February, 1986, pp. 27-35. 6 "The 17th Annual Gallup Poll," pp. cit. 60 More than 70 percent of the teachers in Gwinn felt that the amount of homework assigned was appropriate. In the 1984 Educator Opinion Poll, paperwork was named as the biggest problem facing teachers.7 In that report, 31.3 percent of the elementary teachers felt homework should be assigned three times a week to elementary-level students; 66.6 percent of the secondary-level teachers felt high school students should be assigned homework four or more times a week. If paperwork includes homework, then the figures suggest that Gwinn teachers assign an amount of homework commensurate with the time they wish to devote to correcting it. The data in this study suggest that the Gwinn parents are more satisfied with the homework assigned than national trends. Educator Opinion Poll, pp. cit. 61 H09: There is no significant difference among parents', students' and teachers' responses to "Variety of Subjects Offered." Table 16. Chi-Square: Variety of Subjects Offered Parents Teachers Students g3 _p§ Ip SATISFACTORY 107 19 28 3.7488 6 .7107 78.7% 79.2% 73.1% UNSATISFACTORY 29 5 14 21.3% 20.8% 26.9% TOTAL 136 24 52 64.2% 11.3% 24.5% The percentages in Table 16 show that the groups coincided in their satisfaction with the variety of subjects offered (78.7%, 79.2%, and 73.1%) in the curriculum in the Gwinn schools. In the 1986 Project Outreach survey, the question of "Variety of Subjects Offered" was not specifically raised. However, under the item "Praise and Criticism of the Schools" respondents were given the opportunity to state specific areas Of praise for local school districts. "Good curriculum, variety of subjects Offered" was included as one Of the tOp three responses in all of the districts used for comparison. Parents ' N.I.C.E 32% (First of three) Wayne-Westland 35% (First of three) Charlotte 33% (Second of three) Manistique 27% (Second of three) Pinconning 19% (Second of three) Flushing 25% (Third of three) 62 Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Gwinn parents 78.7% 21.3% I Although no direct comparison can be made, responses from Gwinn parents also indicated that they were very supportive and showed satisfaction with the variety of subjects offered. H010: There is no significant difference among the responses of parents, teachers, students, and patrons to the inclusion of Physical Education in the curriculum. Table 17. Chi-Sguare: Physical Education 2 Parents Teachers Students Patrons Np. 2£_ .p YES 135 25 44 69 6.5730 3 .0868 94.4% 96.2% 84.6% 94.5% NO 8 l 8 4 5.6% 3.8% 15.4% 5.5% TOTAL 143 26 52 73 48.6% 8.8% 17.7% 24.8% A chi-square (6.57) at a p value (.0868) showed no significant difference in regard to physical education being an essential part of the curriculum. From Table 17 one can see that parents, teachers, students, and patrons (94.4%, 96.2%, 84.6%, and 94.5% respectively) coincided in a positive direction that physical education is a very essential element of the curriculum. 63 HOll There is no significant difference among parents', teachers', students', and patrons' responses to "Career "Awareness" being an essential part of the curriculum. Expanded ANOVA Table 18. Satisfaction with School Program Dependent Variable: Career Awareness Source of Mean F F Factor 2; Mean §2_ Variation .QF Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 139 1.4676 .5935 Between 3 1.0701 2.9575 .0328 Teachers 25 1.5600 .5831 Students 51 1.3137 .5474 Patrons 73 1.6301 .6563 Within 284 0.3618 TOTAL 288 1.4896 .6076 287 The F-test (2.9575) revealed that there was a statistically significant difference among the groups (parents, teachers, students, and patrons) at a level p (=.0328) in regard to their perceptions of "Career Awareness" as an essential element of the curriculum. The subgroup means indicated that all groups surveyed considered career awareness an essential part of the curriculum.* * A score of "l" or "2" meant "very essential" or "essential." 64 Table 19. Factor Contrast: Career Awareness Value S. Error T Value .2: T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.l625 0.0869 —l.869 284 0.063 Parents & Students 0.1539 0.0985 1.563 284 0.119 Parents & Teachers -0.0924 0.1307 —0.707 284 0.480 Teachers & Patrons -0.0701 0.1394 —0.503 284 0.615 Teachers & Students 0.2463 0.1469 1.677 284 0.095 Students & Patrons -0.3164 0.1098 —2.882 284 0.004 The post-hoc analysis revealed that there were significant differences among all the groups to Career Awareness being an essential part of the curriculum with the exception Of patrons and students. Even though the F-test indicated a significant difference among groups, it is important to note that, looking at Table 18, at the subgroup means, Career Awareness is considered an essential part of the curriculum by all groups.* * A score of "l" or "2" meant "very essential" or "essential." 65 .HO There is no significant difference among responses 12 from parents, teachers, students, and patrons with regard to their perceptions of "Psychological Services" as an essential part of the curriculum. Expanded ANOVA Table 20. Satisfaction with School Program Dependent Variable: Psychological Services Source of Mean F F Factor p_ Mean Sp- Variation .2: Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 143 1.7762 .7260 Between 3 1.6841 2.9185 .0345 Teachers 26 1.6538 .6895 Students 52 2.0769 .8822 Patrons 71 1.9437 .7538 Within 288 0.5771 TOTAL 292 1.8596 .7671 291 The F-test (2.9185) revealed a significant difference among the groups (parents, teachers, students, and patrons) at a level p (=.0345) in regard to the necessity of "Psychological Services in the curriculum. The subgroup means indicated that parents and teachers considered psychological services very essential to the curriculum.‘ On the other hand, students and patrons were slightly less supportive of psychological services as essential. Table 21. Factor Contrast: Psychological Services Value S. Error T Value '.25 T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.l674 0.1103 -1.518 288 0.130 Parents & Students -0.3007 0.1230 -2.444 288 0.015 Parents 5 Teachers 0.1224 0.1620 0.756 288 0.450 Teachers & Patrons -0.2898 0.1741 -1.664 288 0.021 Students & Patrons 0.1333 0.1387 0.961 288 0.337 66 The post-hoc analysis showed that the significant difference among groups is accounted for mainly by the difference between parents and students and teachers and students in the perception that they have of psychological services as an essential part of the curriculum. H013: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, students, and patrons in their perception of "Remedial Reading" as an essential part of the curriculum. Egpanded ANOVA Table 22. Satisfaction with School Program Dependent Variable: Remedial Reading Source of Mean F F Factor .p Mean _§Q Variation .25 Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 143 1.3497 .5472 Between 3 2.1447 7.5774 .0001 Teachers 26 1.2692 .4523 Students 52 1.7308 .5282 Patrons 73 1.4795 .5299 Within 290 0.2830 TOTAL 294 1.4422 .5496 293 The F-test (7.5774) indicated a statistically significant difference at a level (p=.0001) among the groups (parents, students, teachers, and patrons) in their perception of "Remedial Reading" as an essential part of the curriculum. The mean scores of the groups indicated that the groups surveyed considered remedial reading an essential part Of the curriculum. Only the students considered this area of the curriculum slightly less essential than the other groups. 67 Table 23. Factor Contrast: Remedial Reading Value S. Error T Value _Qfi T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.1298 0.0765 —l.696 290 0.091 Parents & Students —0.3811 0.0862 —4.424 290 0.001 Parents & Teachers 0.0804 0.1134 0.709 290 0.479 Teachers & Patrons -0.2102 0.1215 -l.730 290 0.085 Teachers & Students -0.4615 0.1273 —3.612 290 0.001 Students & Patrons 0.2513 0.0965 2.603 290 0.010 Post—hoc analysis revealed that the significant difference between all paired comparisons in the per- ception of remedial reading as essential to the curriculum was due to the differences between parents and students, teachers and students, and students and patrons at the level (p=.01). H014: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, students, and patrons in their perception of "Athletics" as an essential part of the curriculum. Expanded ANOVA Table 24. Satisfaction with School Program Dependent Variable: Athletics Source of Mean F F Factor .3 Mean .SD Variation 2§_ Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 142 1.8451 .6555 Between 3 1.8785 3.7920 .0108 Teachers 25 2.0800 .4933 Students 52 1.6731 .8794 Patrons 75 2.0533 .7146 Within 290 0.4954 TOTAL 294 1.8878 .7138 293 68 As Table 23 indicates, the F-test (3.7920) revealed a statistically significant difference among all groups at a level (p=.0108) in regard to perceptions Of "Athletics" as an essential element of the curriculum. Means of the subgroups showed that students were most positive in their perception Of athletics as essential. Patrons and teachers shared similar perceptions in that athletics was less essential to the curriculum while parents' perceptions fell midpoint in the range between student and patron/teacher responses. Even though students felt most positive in their responses, all groups indicated that athletics was an essential part of the curriculum. Table 25. Factor Contrast: Athletics Value S. Error T Value .2: T Prob. Parents 8 Patrons -0.2083 0.1005 -2.073 290 0.039 Parents & Students 0.1720 0.1141 1.508 290 0.133 Parents & Teachers -0.2349 0.1527 -1.539 290 0.125 Teachers & Patrons 0.0267 0.1625 0.164 290 0.870 Teachers & Students 0.4069 0.1713 2.376 290 0.018 Students & Patrons -0.3803 0.1270 -2.994 290 0.003 In the paired comparisons, post-hoc analysis showed a significant difference only in the perceptions of parents and patrons and students and patrons in viewing how essential athletics is to the total school program. 69 Comparative Data Athletics as Part of the Curriculum \ £W_I_N_N WAYNE-WESTLAND N.I.C.E. Parents Patrons Parents Patrons Parents Patrons IMPORTANT 86% 77% 96% 86% 85% 79% NOT IMPORTANT 14% 23% 5% 13% 15% * 21% The results Of this research coincide with the results obtained from the Wayne-Westland and N.I.C.E. school districts. The same trends are noted which are a highly supportive position of the parents and patrons toward athletic activities being an important part of the curriculum. H015: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, students, and patrons in their perception of "Foreign Languages" as an essential part of the curriculum. Expanded ANOVA Table 26. Satisfaction with School Program Dependent Variable: Foreign Languages Source of Mean F F Factor ‘p_ Mean SD Variation 'QF Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 143 1.9091 .7112 Between 3 2.5733 5.3947 .0013 Teachers 25 1.4800 .5099 Students 52 1.7692 .6452 Patrons 75 2.0800 .7309 Within 291 0.4770 TOTAL 295 1.8915 .7060 294 70 The F-test (5.3947) in Table 26 indicates a statis- tically significant difference among all groups in their perceptions of "Foreign Languages" as an essential part of the curriculum at the level (p=.0013). The subgroup means showed that the teachers were the most supportive of all the groups surveyed of including foreign language study in the curriculum. Responses from the other groups were also positive but relatively less supportive than that of the teachers. Table 27. Factor Contrast: Foreign Languages Value S. Error T Value _QF T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.1709 0.0985 -1.736 291 0.084 Parents & Students 0.1399 0.1118 1.251 291 0.212 Parents 8 Teachers 0.4291 0.1497 2.866 291 0.004 Teachers & Patrons -0.6000 0.1595 —3.762 291 0.001 Teachers & Students —0.2892 0.1681 -l.721 291 0.086 Students & Patrons -0.3108 0.1246 ~2.493 291 0.013 Post-hoc analysis, as seen in Table 27, revealed differences in the paired comparisons of parents and teachers, teachers and patrons, and students and patrons at the level (p=.013) in the perceptions of foreign language as an essential element of the curriculum. Comparative Data Foreign Languages as Part of the Curriculum GWINN N.I.C.E. Parents Patrons Parents Patrons IMPORTANT 81% 76% 82% 73% NOT IMPORTANT 18% 24% 18% 27% 71 Only N.I.C.E. Community School District parents and patrons were asked to indicate their perceptions of the importance of foreign languages in the school curriculum. The figures show that Gwinn parent and patron perceptions on the importance of foreign language coincide with those of N.I.C.E. parents and patrons. H016: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, and students in their perception of "Computer Science" as an essential element of the curriculum. Table 28. Chi-Square: Computer Science Parents Teachers Students _§_ _QF ESSENTIAL 131 25 49 3.8868 6 91.6% 96.1% 96.0% NOT ESSENTIAL 12 1 2 8.4% 3.8% 3.9% TOTAL 143 26 51 65.0% 11.8% 23.2% The chi-square (3.8868) in Table 28 revealed no significant difference among the groups surveyed in their perception of "Computer Science" as part Of the curriculum. All groups perceived computer science as very important to the school program. 72 HO : There is no significant difference among responses 17 from parents, teachers, students, and patrons in their perception of "Sex Education" as an essential element of the curriculum. \ Table 29. Chi-Square: Sex Education Parents Teachers Students Patrons _§3 .25 .p ESSENTIAL 118 23 41 61 3.5513 6 .7371 83.7% 92.0% 78.9% 82.4% NOT ESSENTIAL 23 2 11 13 16.3% 8.6% 21.1% 17.6% TOTAL 141 25 52 74 48.3% 8.6% 17.8% 25.3% The chi—square (3.5513) in Table 29 revealed no significant difference among the groups in their percep— tion of the importance of "Sex Education" as part of the school program. It is important to note that at least 79 percent of the respondents in each group considered sex education an important part of the curriculum. Comparative Data Sex Education as Part of the Curriculum GWINN N.I.C.E. Parents Patrons Parents Patrons IMPORTANT 84% 82% 91% 87% NOT IMPORTANT 18% 18% 9% 14% 73 Perceptions of both patrons and parents in Gwinn and in the N.I.C.E. school districts coincided, showing a very positive attitude with regard to sex education as an important part of the curriculum. H018: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, and students in their perception of the "Future Value of Studies." Expanded ANOVA Table 30. Satisfaction with School Program Dependent Variable: Future Value of Studies Source of Mean F F Factor p; Mean SD Variation .2F_ Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 141 1.4113 .6444 Between 2 8.5501 24.1642 .0001 Teachers 25 1.4800 .5099 Students 52 2.0769 .4788 Within 215 0.3538 TOTAL 218 1.5780 .6553 217 The F-test (24.1642), seen in Table 30, revealed a statistically significant difference at the level (p=.0001) among the groups in their perceptions of the "Future Value of Studies." The subgroup means indicated that parent and teacher perceptions coincided in that they viewed studies as having future value. Students' perceptions indicated they were less positive about the future value of their studies. 74 Table 31. Factor Contrast: Future Value of Studies Value S. Error T Value .2: T Prob. Parents & Students -0.6656 0.0965 —6.897 215 0.001 Parents & Teachers -0.0687 0.1291 -0.532 215 0.595 Students & Teachers -0.5969 0.1448 -4.123 215 0.001 Post-hoc analysis demonstrated that the significant difference was due to differences between parents and students and students and teachers in their perception of the future value of studies. (See Table 31.) Research Question 3 HO There is no significant difference among responses from students, parents, and teachers with regard to their perception of "Interest of Parents in School Activities." 19‘ Expanded ANOVA Table 32. Parenteacher Relationships Dependent Variable: Interest of Parents in School Activities Source of Mean F F Factor .2 Mean .EQ Variation ‘2£_ Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 142 1.4507 .6140 Between 2 8.2321 17.4653 .0001 Teachers 25 2.1600 .6880 Students 51 1.9412 .8582 Within 215 0.4713 TOTAL 218 1.6468 .7368 217 The F-test (17.4653) in Table 32 indicated a statis- tically significant difference at a level p (=.0001) among all groups (parents, teachers, and students) in regard to perceptions of "Interest of Parents in School Activities." 75 Means from the subgroups revealed that parents perceived themselves as showing a great deal of interest in school activities. Students and the teachers, to a lesser degree, perceived parents as now showing as much interest in school activities as the parents perceived they did. Table 33. Factor Contrast: Interest of Parents in School Activities Value S. Error T Value .2: T Prob. Parents & Students -0.4905 0.1121 -4.376 215 0.001 Parents & Teachers —0.7093 0.1489 -4.763 215 0.001 Students & Teachers 0.2188 0.1676 1.305 215 0.193 Post—hoc analysis revealed in Table 33 that the significant differences between groups is due to the difference that the parents and students and parents and teachers had in their perceptions of parental interest in School activities. Lack of parental support has consistently been listed in the Gallup Poll as a problem facing the schools as perceived by parents themselves.8 In the Educator Opinion Poll lack of support from parents is listed by 9 teachers as their third biggest problem. The results "The 17th Annual Gallup Poll," pp. cit. —_ 9 Educator Opinion Poll, pp. cit. 76 The results of this research support the 1986 Gallup Poll results and the 1984 Educator Opinion P011 in the sense that all three studies reveal a perceived lack of parental support of school activities. \ HO There is no significant difference between parent and teacher responses in their perception of "Parent-Teacher Relationship." 20‘ Expanded ANOVA Table 34. Parent-Teacher Relationship Dependent Variable: Parent-Teacher Relationship Source of Mean F F Factor _p Mean .gp Variation .QF Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 142 2.1056 .5549 Between 1 0.109 0.223 0.638 Teachers 26 2.2609 .5408 TOTAL 168 2.1567 .5479 l The F-test (0.223) revealed no significant difference between the parents and teachers in their perceptions of the necessity of a satisfactory parent-teacher relationship at the level p(=.638). Both grOUps felt this relationship was quite necessary. Research Question 3 HO : There is no significant difference among responses 21 from parents, teachers, students, and patrons with regard to their perception of "Discipline Problem in the Schools." 77 Table 35. Chi-Square: Discipline Problem in the Schools Parents Teachers Students Patrons _§3 .QF .p YES 69 9 10 65 85.6312 9 0.0001 48.5% 37.5% 20.0% 88.14% NO 73 16 [01 9 \ 51.5% 62.5% 80.0% 11.86% TOTAL 142 25 51 74 48.5% 8.5% 17.4% 25.6% A chi-square (85.6312) at a level (p=.0001) showed a statistically significant difference in regard to the perceptions that the groups surveyed have that a discipline problem exists in the schools. Looking at Table 35, one can see that student and teacher perceptions of a discipline problem are similar in that they do not perceive discipline as a major problem in the school. Parental perceptions are equally divided among the possible choices. Patrons (88%), those peOple with the least contact with the school, were the most critical and perceived discipline as a problem in the schools which is contrary to the perceptions of those most involved in the daily Operation of the school, the students and teachers. 78 Finally, the researcher agrees with Kohut and Range who established that what constitutes a discipline problem in the minds of the parents and patrons is not perceived to be a problem by the students and teachers.10 The results coincide with the findings in this research seen in Table 35. Specifically, parents and parents (88.14 per- cent and 48.5 percent, respectively) see discipline as a problem in the school, contrary to the students and teachers (20 percent and 37.5 percent, respectively). HO : 22 There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, and students with regard to their perception of "Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline." Table 36. Chi-Square: Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline Parents Teachers Students .K: .2: 1p YES 63 19 28 19.3466 4 .0007 ' 44.4% 76.0% 54.9% N0 28 3 17 19.7% 12.0% 33.3% DON'T KNOW 51 3 6 35.9% 12.0% 11.8% TOTAL 142 25 51 65.1% 11.5% 23.4% 10 Sylvester Kohut, Jr. and Dale G. Range, Classroom Discipline: Case Studies and Viewpoints. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association of the United States, 1979. 79 A significant chi-square revealed a disparity at a p level (=.0007) in the perceptions of the groups surveyed (parents, students, and teachers) in regard to "Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline." Although teachers and students were the most positive in their perceptions that discipline was dealt with effectively by teachers, almost three times as many students (33%) than teachers (12%) felt teachers did not deal effectively with discipline. Parent perceptions were divided suggesting there was little or no communication with the school, or there was little or no discussion between parents and students with regard to teachers dealing with discipline. Table 37. Chi-Square: Principal Manages School Parents Teachers Students .53 .25 '2 ADEQUATELY 134 26 48 3.1931 2 .2026 ' 99.3% 100.0% 96.0% INADEQUATELY 1 0 2 0.7% 4.0% TOTAL 135 26 50 64.0% 12.3% 23.7% The chi-square (3.1931) revealed no significant differ- ence at the level (p=.2026) among the groups (parents, teachers, and students) with regard to their perceptions of how the "Principal Manages School" indicating that the groups are very satisfied with the manner in which the school is managed. 80 In the Project Outreach data which included a statistic for the State of Michigan as a whole, parents in all districts overwhelmingly supported the principal in the managing of the school. Comparative Data Principal Manages School '86 State Wayne-Westland N.I.C.E. Flushing ADEQUATELY 70% 85% 88% 88% INADEQUATELY 30% 15% 12% 12% Charlotte Gwinn ADEQUATELY 88% 99% INADEQUATELY 12% 1% The data indicate that responses from parents in ,the Gwinn school district are also very supportive of the principal and higher than comparative data including the state average. Research Question 5 81 H024. There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, and patrons in their perception of "School-Community Relationship." Table 38. Chi—Square: School-Community Relationship Parents Teachers Patrons §E_ _DE .2 GOOD 80 5 33 13.5723 5 0.0088 56.3% 19.2% 44.0% FAIR 48 I 17 35 33.8% 65.4% 46.7% POOR 14 4 7 9.9% 15.4% 9.3% TOTAL 142 26 75 58.4% 10.7% 30.9% A chi-square (13.5723) revealed a statistically significant difference at a level (p=.0088) with regard to perceptions of the groups (parents, teachers, and patrons) toward the "School-Community Relationship." The significant difference is accounted for particularly by the difference in perceptions that the parents and teachers have about the school-community relationship in the categories "good" and "fair." than half of the parents, More 56.3 percent, faw a good school- community relationship contrary to 19.2 percent of the teachers who saw a good relationship. On the other hand, referring to a "fair" school-community relationship, only one-third of the parents (33.8 percent) saw it as fair. 82 On the contrary, the majority of the teachers (65.4 percent) saw it as a fair school-community relationship. H025: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, and patrons in\their perception of "Willingness to Pay More Taxes." Expanded ANOVA Table 39. School—Community Relationship Dependent Variable: Willingness to Pay More Taxes Source of Mean F F Factor 2_ Mean .82 Variation 2E. Squares Ratio Prob. Parents 138 2.3723 .7442 Between 2 6.4246 7.0504 0.001 Teachers 26 2.8077 .4915 Patrons 74 2.6351 .5869 Within 235 0.4556 TOTAL 238 2.4958 .6920 237 The F-test (7.0504) showed a statistically significant difference at the level (p=.001) among the groups (parents, teachers, and patrons) in their "Willingness to Pay More Taxes." The subgroup means indicated that parents were willing to pay slightly more taxes to support the school program. Patrons would prefer no increase. Teachers perceived a lack of willingness on the part of the parents to pay more taxes. Table 40. Factor Contrast: Willingness to Pay More Taxes ‘Xglgg S. Error T Value ‘2: T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.2728 0.0973 -2.805 235 0.005 Parents & Teachers -0.4454 0.1443 -3.086 235 0.002 83 Post-hoc analysis, as shown in Table 40, revealed that differences are mainly due to parents' and patrons' acceptance of a tax increase and how the teachers perceived the parents in their acceptance in regard to a tax increase. Comparative Data Willingness to Pay More Taxes FLUSHING Parents Patrons For/against a swimming pool FOR 74% 61% AGAINST 19% 31%. UNDECIDED 4% 5% DEPENDS 3% 3% New auditorium FOR 61% 50% AGAINST 31% 36% UNDECIDED 4% 6% DEPENDS 4% 7% CHARLOTTE One mill for Operating FOR 71% 54% AGAINST 15% 26% UNDECIDED 11% 12% DECLINED TO RESPOND 3% 8% STATE '86 Willingness to Pay More Taxes FOR 60% 52% AGAINST 30% 37% DEPENDS 8% 5% CAN'T SAY 2% 6% 84 GWINN Parents Patrons Willingness to Pay More Taxes coon DEAL/ SLIGHTLY MORE 54% 40% NO INCREASE/CUT 46% 49% More than a majority of parents in each district used in the comparison, as well as Gwinn parents, were in favor of a tax increase to support the schools. More than 50 percent of the patrons in only two of the four districts were supportive of paying more taxes. HO : There is no significant difference among responses 26 from parents, teachers, and patrons in their perception of "School-Community Information." Table 41. Chi—Square: School-Community Information Parents Teachers Patrons Ixi _D§ _p ADEQUATE 106 21 49 3.6308 4 0.4583 75.2% 80.8% 67.1% POOR 35 5 24 24.8% 19.2% 32.9% TOTAL 141 26 73 58.8% 10.8% 32.9% The chi-square (3.6308) indicated there was no significant difference at the level (p=.4583) among the groups (parents, teachers, and pa-rons) in their percep- tion of the adequacy of "School-Community Information" in that they perceived information received to be adequate. 85 The most negative perception, that of 33 percent of the patrons, suggests that patrons have limited contact with the school and are not being informed about the school situation. Looking at the percentage of respondents (24.8 percent of the parents, 19.2 percent of the teachers, and 32.9 percent of the patrons) who considered the school- community information "Poor," from a practical point of view these percentages can be considered relevant. Therefore, the figures in Table 41 reveal that school- community information is an area that could be improved. One aspect of school-community relations is infor- mation disseminated to taxpayers and parents. The research indicates that the most frequent complaint in the school-community relationship is the lack of sufficient, accurate and understandable information. The data here suggests that parents and teachers are satisfied with the shared information; patrons, however, feel there is room for improvement. Comparative Data School-Community Information In the Project Outreach data, related questions elicited responses in terms of sources of information. A variety of sources were named including a district newsletter, the local newspaper, an individual building 86 newsletter, their own or other children, wordwof-mouth, and personal involvement. Questions differed slightly in wording, but all sought a response to school-community information. CHARLOTTE Parents Patrons ADEQUATE 92% 57% INADEQUATE 9% 43% FLUSHING ADEQUATE 94% 76% INADEQUATE 6% 24% MANISTIQUE ADEQUATE 82% 84% INADEQUATE 18% 16% N.I.C.E. ADEQUATE 98% 91% INADEQUATE 2% 9% '86 STATE ADEQUATE 86% 59% INADEQUATE 12% 41% GWINN ADEQUATE 61% 46% INADEQUATE 39% 54% The data in the above charts indicates that parents and patrons surveyed in the Gwinn district rated school- community information lower than other districts in the State of Michigan as well as lower than the average for the State of Michigan. 87 H027: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, teachers, and patrons in their perception of "Taxes and Services Rendered." Expanded ANOVA Table 42. School-Community Relations Dependent Variable: Taxes and Services Rendered Source of Mean F F Factor 2_ Mean SD_ Variation .23 Squares Ratio Prob. \ Parents 140 2.1856 .8862 Between 2 23.2172 14.7501 .0001 Teachers 26 1.4231 .7027 Patrons 73 2.5205 .9444 Within 236 0.7870 TOTAL 239 2.2050 .9370 238 The F-test (14.7501) revealed a statistically significant difference among the groups (parents, teachers, and patrons) at a level (p=.0001) with regard to their perception of "Taxes and Services Rendered" as seen in Table 42. The subgroup means indicated that teachers were most supportive in that taxes paid for the services rendered were worthwhile. Patrons were the least supportive toward the balance between taxes and services rendered. Table 43. Factor Contrast: Taxes and Services Rendered Value S. Error T Value _D§ T Prob. Parents & Patrons -0.3348 0.1281 -2.614 236 0.010 Parents & Teachers 0.7626 0.1895 4.026 236 0.001 Teachers & Patrons -l.O975 0.2026 -5.417 236 0.001 88 Post-hoc analysis showed that the statistical signif— icance is accounted for by parent and patron and parent and teacher differences in their perceptions of "Taxes and Services Rendered." Research Question 6 H028: There is no significant difference among responses from parents, students, teachers, and patrons in their opinion of the starting date of school relative to Labor Day. Table 44. Chi-Square: Starting School Before Labor Day Parents Teachers Students Patrons .§_ .2: .2 YES 34 5 6 13 8.9593 6 0.1759 24.3% 19.2% 11.5% 17.1% NO 74 14 26 35 52.9% 53.8% 50.0% 46.1% DO NOT CARE 32 7 20 28 22.9% 26.9% 38.5% 36.8% TOTAL 140 26 52 76 47.6% 8.8% 17.7% 25.9% The chi-square (8.9593) indicated there was no significant difference among the groups (parents, teachers, students, and patrons) in their opinion of the starting date of school. At least 50 percent of the parents, teachers, and students (52.9 percent, 53.8 percent, and 50 percent, respectively) were in favor of starting school after Labor Day. However, almost 40 percent of the students and patrons indicated no preference. 89 Summary This study posed six research questions to which parents, teachers, students, and patrons of the Gwinn Area Public School District responded. The responses indicated that both similarities and differences existed in the perceptions of the respondents tdward various elements included in the research questions. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The major purpose of this study was to identify positive and negative aspects of the school and school program as perceived by the parents, students, teachers, and patrons in the Gwinn Area Public Schools, K-12. In order to accomplish this purpose, the following research objectives were developed as guidelines for conducting the research. 1) 2) 3) 4) To measure the perceptions of various segments of the community through the use of a survey instrument distributed to parents, high school students, teachers, and residents who do not have children in the school. To examine the agreement or disagreement among the subsets of the population regarding the variables included in the survey instrument. To attempt to explain differences expressed by various publics included in the survey. To compare responses from Gwinn with other school districts in the State of Michigan on selected items. 90 91 The following key research questions were posed to guide the collection of data in this study: 1. Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their percep— tions of certain items in the category, "Satis- faction with Schools," including "Proud of Schools," "Interest in the Schools' Future," "Students Like School," "Student Feels Part of the Group," "Overcrowded Facilities," and "Satisfaction with Schools?" \ Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons with regard to their perceptions of certain items in the category, "Satisfaction with School Program," including "Homework Assigned," "Variety of Subjects and Services Offered," and "Future Value of Studies?" Does a difference exist among parents, students, and teachers with regard to their perceptions of two items in the category, "Parent-Teacher Relationships," which include "Interest of Parents in School Activities" and "Parent- Teacher Relationship?" Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their per- ception of selected items in the category, ."Discipline" which include "Discipline Problems in Schools," "Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline," and "Principal Manages School?" Does a difference exist among parents, teachers, and patrons in regard to their perception of selected items in the category, "Community Relations," which include "School-Community Relationship," "Willingness to Pay More Taxes," "School-Community Information," and "Taxes and Services Rendered?" Does a relationship exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in their Opinion of the starting date of school relative to Labor Day? 92 The population was defined as parents, teachers, high school pupils and residents who do not have child- ren in the Gwinn Area Public Schools, K-12. The stratified sample consisted of a total of 301 randomly selected individuals: 143 parents, 76 patrons, 26 teachers, and 56 high school pupils. The instrument used in this study was developed using Harold C. Hand's original work as a guide. The "Student Opinion Inventory" was also considered. The instrument was divided into seven sections with the total number of items varying from 40 to 77 questions. Research questions were formulated to analyze the data collected in the study. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS—X) was used for the statistical analyses. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant differences between subgroups in their perceptions of the variables. Scheffe post-hoc analyses were performed to determine pairwise differences between subgroups when the ANOVA tests indicated the existence of statistically significant differences. Chi square was used to test for statistical differences in helping to determine whether a relationship existed between two variables. 93 In the section which follows, each research question is restated, followed by the findings for that question. Research Question 1 Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their percep- tions of certain items in the category, "Satisfac- tion with Schools," including "Proud of Schools," "Interest in the Schools' Future," "Students Like School," "Student Feels Part of the Group," "Overcrowded Facilities," and "Satisfaction with Schools?" EEEEQ.2£ Schools. Patron, parent, and student perceptions coincided in this category, but the teacher perception reflected the most positive identification and satisfaction with the school system. Interest in Schools' Future. Parents and patrons were very positive in their interest in the schools' future. Teachers and students showed contrasting viewpoints with the teachers expressing the most positive attitude as opposed to the students who were the least positive of all groups toward the schools' future. Student Feels Part gf the Group. Parents and students perceived the students as being more a part of the peer group than the teachers perceived them as part of the group. 94 Schools Overcrowded. The teachers were the most critical in their perception of the schools being overcrowded. Research Question 2 "Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons with regard to their percep- tions of certain items in the category, "Satisfaction with School Program," including "Homework Assigned," "Variety of Subjects and Services Offered," and "Future Value of Studies?" Homework Assigned. Although no significant difference was noted in the responses of the parents, teachers, and students, a large percentage of the parents and the students indicated that too little homework was assigned. Variety pf Subjects and Services Offered. Results of the study found that responses coincided in that there was widespread support for the diversity of the curriculum that presently exists which includes subjects such as foreign language study, computer education and sex education. Although all groups indicated that athletics was an essential part of the curriculum, the students were most supportive of athletics as an essential element of the curriculum. 95 Research Question 3 Does a difference exist among parents, students, and teachers with regard to their perceptions of two items in the category, "Parent-Teacher Relationships," which include "Interest of Parents in School Activities" and "Parent-Teacher Relationship?" Interest pf Parents i3 School Activities. Parents perceived themselves as showing a great deal of interest in school activities as opposed to the teachers and students who perceived the parents as not showing as much interest in school activities as parents perceived they did. Research Question 4 Does a difference exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in regard to their perception of selected items in the category, "Discipline," which include "Discipline Problems in Schools," "Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline," and "Principal Manages School?" Discipline Problem i2 £23 Schools. Patrons, those people with the least contact with the school, are the most critical and perceived discipline as a problem in the schools which is contrary to the perceptions of those most involved in the daily operation of the school, the students and teachers. Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline. Although teachers and students were the most positive in their perceptions that discipline was dealt with effectively by teachers, almost three times as many students (33 percent) than teachers (12 percent) 96 felt teachers did not deal effectively with discipline. Parent perceptions were divided. Research Question 5 Does a difference exist among parents, teachers, and patrons in regard to their perception of selected items in the category, "Community Relations," which include "School-Community Relationship," "Willingness to Pay More Taxes," "School-Community Information," and "Taxes and Services Rendered?" School-Community Relationship. More than half of the parents, 56.3 percent, saw a good school- community relationship contrary to 19.2 percent of the teachers who saw a good relationship. Only one-third of the parents (33.9 percent) saw the relationship as fair. The majority of teacher perceptions fell in the fair category (65.4 percent). Patron perceptions were almost identical between good and fair. Willingness E9 Pay More Taxes. Parents were willing to pay slightly more taxes to support the school program. Patrons would prefer no increase. Taxes and Services Rendered. Teachers were most supportive in that taxes paid for the services rendered were worthwhile. Patrons were the least supportive toward the balance between taxes and services rendered. 97 School-Community Information. Although the statistical analysis revealed no significant difference among the group responses, 33 percent of the patrons felt that the information level between the school and the community was poor. Research Question 6 \ Does a relationship exist among parents, students, teachers, and patrons in their opinion of the starting date of school relative to Labor Day? Over 46 percent of all groups preferred that school not start before Labor Day. Almost 40 percent of the patrons and students indicated no preference. Conclusions The following conclusions were revealed in this study. 1. ‘In general, the teachers indicated the most satisfaction with the school and school program; the statistical data indicated they were very cohesive as a group in response to most questions. They believe in their profession, whether it be in matters of curriculum or school management. They were most positive with their responses to "Interest in Schools' Future," "Satisfaction with Schools," 98 "Foreign Language" study, "Teachers Deal Effectively with Discipline," and "Principal Manages School." On the other hand, the students were the least satisfied and quite diverse as indicated by their responses to "Proud of Schools," "Interest in Schdols' Future," and "Satisfaction with Schools." This is not surprising since there are students who have difficulty understanding the impor— tance of schooling and its future value. All groups indicated they were satisfied with the variety of subjects and services offered. In particular, all respondents supported the athletic program, although the students overwhelmingly supported athletics as essential to the curriculum. Psychological services was the least supported by patrons and students who perhaps felt that there was a certain negativeness implied. On the other hand, it is possible that these two groups were not aware of what the term, psychological services, meant. Students were the most negative in their perception of remedial reading being essential to the curriculum. It would seem that students who perceived remedial reading in this way perceived themselves as inadequate ‘O \O or having low self—esteem. Other students may feel that those who need remedial reading are inadequate to successfully compete in the class- room. Research has shown that low reading skills do contribute to other difficulties which can account for some of the negativeness indicated by students in the areas "Proud of Schools," "Interest in Schools' Future," and "Satisfaction with School Program." Lack of parental support has consistently been listed in the Gallup Poll as a problem facing the schools as perceived by parents themselves. In the Educator Opinion Poll (1984) lack of support from parents is listed by teachers as their third biggest problem. The results of this study support the 1986 Gallup Poll results and the Educator Opinion Poll (1984) in the sense that the Gallup Poll, the Educator Opinion Poll, and this study reveal a lack of parental support of school activities even though Gwinn parents believe they are supportive. The findings in this study agree with the research and results of the Educator Opinion Poll as related to discipline problems. That is, parents and patrons perceive discipline to 100 be a serious problem in the public schools. However, upon review of the perceptions of the people in daily contact with the school, a discipline problem is not suggested. The results of this study show a significantly more positive perception of the manndr in which the local administrator manages the school as compared with 1986 Gallup Poll results. Although there was no significant difference among group responses to the amount of homework assigned, the importance of homework as part of the learning process should be reviewed by the teachers, parents and the students. Parents and patrons in Gwinn felt they were _adequately well-informed about the local public school situation. Parent responses supported the 1986 Gallup Poll results almost identically (Public school parents: Gallup, 76 percent; Gwinn, 75.2 percent). As compared with national totals, Gwinn patrons felt more adequately informed about the public school situation (Gallup, 46 percent; Gwinn, 67.1 percent). 101 Lack of financial support has consistently been cited as a major problem by the Gallup Poll. However, because the Gwinn school district is supported by more parents who would be willing to pay slightly more taxes to support the school than the patrons, the results of this study do not necessarily support national results. Finally, the researcher assumes that all parents responded honestly. Parents say they would be willing to pay slightly more taxes; what will they really do if called upon to pay more taxes? Since patrons were the least supportive toward the balance between taxes and services ren- dered, the data suggest (a) that patrons are not aware of all the services provided by the school district: and, (b) that patrons believe their tax dollars should not be used to support an organization in which they probably have no direct, daily contact. This seems to be in agreement with other studies which state that patrons are the least informed of community groups and also the mOSt resistant group to tax increases. 102 Recommendations for Further Research IBased on the findings of this study, the following rec<>rn1nendations are made for further research. 1. A follow-up study should be conducted in the Gwinn school district to assess current perceptions of citizens of the public\school situation based on the fact that the district is under the leadership of a new superintendent. Elementary school buildings should be evaluated in terms of space available/overcrowdedness; all facilities should be examined at these buildings to determine where improvements can be made. This recommendation is based on the overwhelmingly response of the teachers to the overcrowdedness of the school buildings. ‘A public information program should be implemented to better inform the citizens of the public school situation. The program should be directed toward all citizens, with emphasis placed on informing those citizens who do not have children in the public school system, based on responses given in this study. A study should be conducted to evaluate the preparedness of high school students as they begin post-secondary education, based on handwritten 103 comments expressing concern for college-bound students in terms of courses offered, motivation and study skills learned in the high school setting. 5. Planning to anticipate occupational trends, validation for curricular units, program budgeting, facilities, and cash flow management should receive special emphasis. These areas are critical components in effectively managing a school district. Implications It seems that there is a general sense of satisfaction “Witfln the school and school program as indicated by results C>f 'this study, which is somewhat surprising to the researcher. The hostility expressed in the community was OVerwhelmingly visible, yet the areas of dissatisfaction diseerned in this study were not particularly visible. It:.is the researcher's Opinion that citizens in Gwinn are generally satisfied with the school but were extremely uPset with the withdrawal of some of the Federal Impact Aidl‘which meant they would have to pay more local taxes. If"this loss of revenue was not clearly explained and understood by the citizens, then rejection of a millage vote seems a natural course of action. On the other hand, 104 if rejecting a local school tax is the only way to express dissatisfaction with paying taxes in general, then hostility in this form can also be understood and will probably continue. This concern has been expressed throughout the State of Michigan, and until a solution can be found for the financial dilemmas faced by schools and taxpayers, citizens will continue to be hostile and negative. APPENDIX A Teacher Cover Letter and Questionnaire 105 March 31, 1986 Dear Faculty Member, One of the best ways to improve the school program is , to seek advice from those who are providers of services as 'well as those who are beneficially associated with the school organization. The Gwinn Area School Board would like to know how you feel about the schools and local educational issues. Please give us your assistance by answering the questions on the following pages according to your feelings. There are no right or wrong answers. You were selected randomly from the list of faculty. We do not want you to sign your name or identify yourself in any way. The responses you give will be summarized in a way that will make it impossible for anyone to be iden- tified or to know how you responded. The data will be anall'zed and summarized by independent consultants who are not associated with the schools. Please take the time to fill out tre questionnaire and return it to the person who gave it to you. We need your mall) and advice so that we can improve cur schools. Thank You for your time and assistance. If you have a . my questions about the survey, please call me or your Principal. Sincerely, 1 perintendent 106 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE DRDTE: Please indicate the grade or subject you are presently teaching. .1. Elementary (Kindergarten to 6th grade) 2. Secondary (7th to 12th grade) 3. Both Elementary and Secondary 4. How well do you think your pupils like school? Very well 1. _____ Quite well 2. _____ Very little 3. _____ .Not at all 4. 5. Do you feel that all or most of your pupils are accepted by classmates as "one of the group?" Yes ~ 1. _____ Usually 2. _____ Sometimes . 3. _____ No 4. 6- Dc» you feel that teachers really know their pupils? Very well ‘ 1. ______ Somewhat 2. _____ Little 3. _____ Not at all 4. 7- ?° ‘vrrat extent do teachers show a personal interest In their pupils? Much l. ______ Somewhat ' 2. _;____ Little 3. _____ Not at all 4. 107 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 8. To what extent are teachers willing to help pupils when they have a problem? Much l. _____ Somewhat 2. _____ Little 3. _____ Not at all 4. 9. How much pride do you have in your district's system of schools? Very much 1. ______ Some 2. _____ Little 3. _____ None 4. 10; Do you feel that the schools in your district compare favorably with other schools that you know about? Very favorably 1. Favorably 2. _____ Slightly favorably 3. _____ Unfavorably 4. 11. In general, how satisfied are you with the school in which you teach? Very satisfied 1. _p___ Satisfied ' 2. __ Dissatisfied I, 3. _____ Very dissatisfied 4. 12. How interested are you in the future of the schools in your district? ' Very interested 1. Interested 2. Disinterested 3. Very disinterested 4. 108 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE How much of what your pupils are learning is of value to them? Practically everything 1. Most 2. Half 3. Very little 4. How much are pupils getting from their studies? A great deal ' 1. ._____ Something 2. _____ A little 3. l_____ Very little 4. \ Is there an opportunity for pupils to attend as many of the school parties, plays, games and clubs as they would like to? Always l. ._____ Most of the time 2. _____ Occasionally 3. ______ Never. 4. How do you feel about the amount of work assigned to pupils in order for them to "keep up" with their studies? Too much 1. About right 2. Not very much work 3. Too little 4. How much homework do pupils get assigned by the school? None at all 1. Little .' 2. Appropriate for classwork 3. A great deal 4. 109 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 18. Does the school offer as many plays, games, proms, and other activities as you would like to see offered? ‘ All that are necessary 1. _____ Most that are necessary 2. _____ Few that are necessary 3. _____ None that are necessary 4. 19. Does the school do enough to get pupils interested in afterschool activities? All that is necessary' 1. Most that is necessay - 2. Little that is necessa 3. . rY y None that is necessary 4. 20. Does the school offer a wide enough variety of courses? Wide variety 1. ._____ Enough variety 2. _____ Little variety 3. ._____ No variety 4. 21. Are there courses you would like to see offered that are not presently available? List. a) e) b) f) C) 9) d) h). 22. How do you feel about the money pupils spend for such things as proms, yearbooks, ball games and athletic fees? Too much money 1. About right 2. Could pay more 3. They pay no money 4. 110 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 23. How much of what pupils study will be of use after they leave school? . Most l. _____ About half 2. _____ Less than half 3. _____ Very little ' 4. 24. Do you feel that the school in which you teach is overcrowded? Very crowded l. _____ Crowded . 2. _____ Enough room 3. _____ Excess space 4. ' \ 25. Does your school have all of the playground, outside physical education and recreation areas, classroom, and laboratory equipment that it needs to do an adequate job? More than it needs 1. __;__ Adequate 2. _____ Could use more 3. _____ Lacking 4. 26. How would you describe the relationship between the schools and the community? Very good 1. _____ Good 2. _____ Could be improved - 3. _____ Poor 4. Check the activities and services that you feel are essential to a good school curriculum: Very Not Essential .Essential Essential 27. Physical Education _ l. 2. 3. 28. Field trips 1. - 2. 3- __ Waste of Time 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. '37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Music. Art Lunch Physical and dental exams Job placement Guidance Career Awareness Speech Correction Psychological services Remedial Reading Special Education Adult Education Agriculture programs Social activities Summer School Athletics Driver Training Drama Foreign languages Computer Science 111 Very Essential 1. l. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Essential Not Essential 3. 3. Waste of Time 4. 4. 49. so. 51. 52. 53. ‘54. 55. 112 Very Essential School clubs 1. Teaching of sex education 1. Do you feel that the school board should publish the TEACHER Essential 2. 2. QUESTIONNAIRE Not Essential 3. minutes of its meetings in the local papers? Always Sometimes Occasionally Never How would you describe parent-teacher relationships? Very good Good Poor Very poor 1. 2. 3. 4. Waste of Time To what degree do you feel parent-teacher conferences are desirable? Very desirable Desirable Some help Waste of time How often do you feel parent-teacher conferences should be scheduled? Do you feel that the taxpayers are getting their monies worth for the taxes they are paying to support the schools? - Yes, definitely Reasonable Questionable NO TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 113 56. Do you think the taxpayers would be willing to pay more taxes for an improved educational program in the community? A good deal more 1. Slightly more 2. No increase 3. Want a cut 4. 57. Do you feel that there is adequate communication between parents, teachers, administration, and school board? Excellent 1. _____ Good 2. _____ Fair 3. _____ Poor 4. \ 58. Do you know yc:: pupils' parents as wzll as you would like to? Very well 1. _____ Well 1 2. ______ Little 3. _____ Not at all 4. 59. To what degree do parents express an interest in the school work and related activities of their children? A great deal 1 l. _____ Somewhat 2. ___;_ Very little 3. _____ None ' 4. 60. Do you feel the present school buildings are adequate? Elementary Yes No Middle school Yes No Senior high Yes No 61. 62. 63. 64. 66. 67. D0 Do Do in you you you the TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 114 favor starting school before Labor Day? Yes- No Don't care think that discipline is a problem in the schools? Yes No Don't know think that teachers deal effectively with discipline classroom? Yes No Don't know Do you think that the principal and assistant principal deal with discipline effectively? Yes No, Don't know Would you feel comfortable in approaching the principal or assistant principal if you have a problem? Yes No Don't know Do you think the principal makes an effort to know the students personally? ' Yes No Don't know How well do you think the principal manages the school? Very well ' 1. Quite well 2. Adequately ~ 3. Inadequately . 4. 115 PLEASE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE. APPENDIX B Parent Cover Letter and Questionnaire 116 March 31, 1986 Dear Parent, One of the best ways to improve the schools is to ask for advice from those who support the schools and benefit from the services. The Gwinn Area School Board would like to know how you feel about local educational issues. Please give us your assistance by answering the questions on the following pages according to your present feelings. There are no right or wrong answers. You were selected randomly from the list of parents who have children in one or more of our schools. We do not want you to sign yOur name or identify yourself in any way. The answers you give will be summarized and analyzed in a way that will make it impossible for anyone to be identified or to know how you responded. The completed questionnaire will be seen only by independent consultants who are not associated with the schools. Your son or daughter has kindly offered to bring the questionnaire to you and to return it to the school within the next two days. Please take the time to fill it out now. We need your help and advice ao that we can improve our schools. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions about the survey, please call me at 346-9283.‘ Sincerely, 1 n ho , uperintendent PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 117 NOTE: Please indicate the grade which your child or children is/are attending. Elementary (Kindergarten to 6th grade) Grade Secondary (7th to 12th grade) Grade How well do you think your children like school? Very well 1. _____ Quite well 2. _____ Very little 3 . __ Not at all 4. Do you feel that your child is accepted by his classmates as "one of the group?" Yes . . l. _____ Usually 2. _____ Sometimes 3. ______ No 4. Do you feel that your child's teachers really know your child? Very well . 1. _____ Somewhat 2. _____ Little' 3. I_____ Not at all 4. To what extent do teachers show a personal interest ' in your child? ' Much 1. Somewhat 2. _____ Little ' 3. Not at all 4. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 118 7. To what extent are teachers willing to help your child when he has a problem? Much - _ l. _____ Somewhat 2. _____ Little . 3. ____; Not at all 4. 8. To what extent are administrators willing to help your child when he has a problem? Much 1. _____ Somewhat 2. _____ Little 3. ______ Not at all 4. . , \ 9. How much pride do you have in your district's system of schools? Very much . l. _____ Some 2. _____ Little 3. _____ None 4. 10. Do you feel that the schools in your district compare favorably with other schools that you know about? Very favorably 1. _____ Favorably 2. _____ Slightly favorably 3. ._____ Unfavorably 4. 11. In general, how satisfied are you with the school your child attends? ° Very satisfied 1. Satisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Very dissatisfied 4. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 119 How interested are you in the future of the schools in your district? 'Very interested l. _____ Interested 2. _____ Disinterested . 3. _____ Very disinterested 4. How much of what your child is learning in school is of value to him? _ Practically everything 1. Most 2. Half - 3. Very little 4. How much is your child getting from his or her studies? A great deal 1. _____ Something 2. ______ A little ° 3 . __ Very little . 4. . Is there an opportunity for your child to attend as many of the school parties, plays, games and clubs as he or she would like to? Always I 1. _____ Most of the time 2. _____ Occasionally _ 3. ______ Never ' 4. How do you feel about the amount of work assigned to your <:hild in order for him to "keep up" with his classwork? TOO much 1. About right 2. Not very much work 3. Too little 4. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 120 17. How much homework does your child get assigned to him by the school? ' None at all 1. _____ Little 2. _____. ApprOpriate for classwork 3. _____ A great deal 4. 18. Does the school offer as many plays, games, proms, and other activities as you would like to see offered? All that are necessary 1. _____ 'Most that are necessary 2. _____ Few that are necessary 3. ._____ None that are necessary 4. 19. Does the school do enough to get your child interested in afterschool activities? ) All that is necessary 1. _____ Most that is necessary 2. _____ Little that is necessary 3. _____ None that is necessary 4. 20. Does the school offer your child a wide enough variety of courses for him to take? Wide variety 1. _____ Enough variety 2. _____ Little variety' 3. _____ No variety 4. 21. Are there courses that you would like your child to take that are not presently available? Please list. a. d. b. e. 22. 23. 24. 25.- 26. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 121 How do you feel about the money your children spend for such things as proms, yearbooks, ball games, and athletic fees? Too much money About right Could pay more They pay no money. How much of what your child is studying be of use after leaving school? Most About half Less than half Very little 1. 2°. 3. 4. 4. in school will Do you feel that the school your child attends\is overcrowded? Very crowded Crowded Enough room Excess space 4. Does your child's school have all of the playground, outside physical education and recreation areas. do an adequate job? All they need Adequate Could use more Lacking How would you describe the relationship schools and the community? Very gOod Good Could be improved Poor 'classroom, and laboratory equipment that it needs to between the 122 PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Check the activities and services that you feel are essential to a good school curriculum: 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46; Physical Education Field trips Music Art Lunch Physical and dental exams Job placement Guidance Career Awareness Speech Correction Psychological Services Remedial" Reading Special Education Adult Education Agriculture Programs Social Activities Summer School Athletics Driver training Drama Very Essential Not Essential Essential 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. ) 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. _ 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. . 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. Waste of Time 4. 4. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 123 Very Essential Foreign‘ languages 1.- Computer Science 1. School clubs 1. Teaching of . sex education 1. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Essential Not ‘Essential What is your estimate of the quality of teaching your school district? Very good Good Could be improved Very low status adequately about the school Excellent 4 Good Fair POOI‘ 'Do you feel that the schools inform the community in and the school program? Do you feel that the school board should publish the minutes of its meetings in the local papers? Always Sometimes Occasionally Never Waste of Time How would you describe parent-teacher relationships? Very good Good Poor ‘7arv nnnr PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 124 55. To what degree do you feel parent-teacher conferences are desirable? Very desirable . 1. Desirable 2. Some help _ 3. Waste of time 4. 56. How often do you feel parent-teacher conferences should be scheduled? 57. Do you feel that you are getting your monies worth for the taxes you pay to support the schools? Yes, definitely l. _____\ Reasonable . 2. _____ Questionable 3.. _____ No 4. 58. Would you be willing to pay more taxes for an improved educational program in your community? A good deal more ' 1. _____ Slightly more ' _ 2. ._____ No increase 3. I_____ Want a cut 4. 59. Do you feel that there is adequate communication between parents, administration, and school board? Excellent 1. Good 2. , Fair 3 Poor 4. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. ‘67. 68. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 125 Do you know your child's teacher as well as you would like to? Very well 1. _____ Well 2. _____ Little 3. ______ Not at all 4. To what degree do you express an interest in the school work and related activities of your child? A great deal ' l. _____ Somewhat - 2. _____ Very little 3. ._____ None 4. Do you feel the present school buildings are adequate? Elementary Yes No Middle school .Yes No Senior high Yes No Do you favor starting school before Labor Day? Yes No Don't care Do you think that discipline is a problem in the schools? Yes No ' Don't know Do you think that teachers deal effectively with discipline in the classroom? Yes No Don't know 130 you think that the principal and assistant principal deal with discipline effectively? Yes No Don't know Would you feel comfortable in approaching the principal or assistant principal if you have a problem? Yes No Don't know DO you think the principal makes an effort to know the students personally? Yes No Don't know PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 126 69. How well do you think the principal manages the school? Very well 1. Quite well 2. Adequately 3. Inadequately ~ 4.' 127 PLEASE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE. APPENDIX C Patron Cover Letter and Questionnaire 128 March 31, 1986 Dear Citizen, One of the best ways to improve the schools is to ask for advice from those who support the schools and benefit from the services. Although you do not have children in school, the Gwinn Area School Board would like to know how you feel about local educational issues. Please give us your assistance by answering the questions on the follow- ing pages according to your present feelings. There are no right or wrong answers. You were selected randomly from the list of registered voters in our school district. We do not want you to sign your name or identify yourself in any way. The responses will be summarized in a way that will make it imposeible for anyone to be identified or to know how you responded. The data will be analyzed and summarized by independent consultants who are not associated with the schools. The person who brought you this questionnaire will pick it up in two or three days. Please take the time to fill it out now. We need your herp and advice so that we can imprOve our schools. -Thank you for your time. If you have any questions about the survey, please call me at 346-9283. Sincerely, 129 PATRON QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How much pride do you have in your district's system of schools? Very much 1. _____ Some 2. _____ Little . 3. _____ None . 4. 2. Do you feel that the schools in your district compare favorably with other schools that you know about? Very favorably 1. _____ ' Favorably 2. _____ Slightly favorably 3. _____ Unfavorably 4. 3. In general, how satisfied are you with the schools in your district? Very satisfied 1. Satisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. . ) Very dissatisfied 4. 4. How interested are you in the future of the public schools in your district? . Very interested l. ______ Interested 2. ____; Disinterested 3. ______ .Very disinterested ‘ 4. 5. Should pupils pay for such school activities as ball games, clubs, proms, dances, assembly programs, etc.? All of the cost 1. Some of the cost .2. Token payment ' 3. No charge 4. PATRON QUESTIONNAIRE 130 6. As far as you can tell from your contact with the students that have been educated in your school district, how much of what these students learn in school is of use to them after they leave school? Most l. _____ About half 2. _____ Less than half _ . 3. _____ Very little , 4. Check below according to how you feel about the activities and services listed: Very Not° Waste Essential Essential Essential of Time 7. Physical Education 1. . 2. 3. 4. 8. Field trips 1. 2. 3 4. 9. Music 1. 2. 3. 4. 10. Art 1. 2. i l 3. 4. 11. Lunch 1. 2. 3. 3 4. 12. Physical and _ dental exams 1.. _ 2. 3. . 4. 13. Job placement 1. 2. ' 3. 4. 14. Guidance l. 2.’ 3.- 4. 15. Career Awareness 1. 2. 3. 4. 16. Speech ‘ Correction 1. 2., 3. 4. l7. PsycholOgical services' 1. 2. 3. 4. 18. Remedial Reading 1. 2. 3. 4. 19. Special . Education 1. 2. 3. ' 4. 20. Adult Education 1. 2. 3. 4. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27{ 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. PATRON QUESTIONNAIRE 131 Very Essential Essential’ Agriculture programs 1 2. Social activities 1. 2. Summer school 1. 2. Athletics 1 2. Driver Training 1 2. Drama 1. 2. Foreign languages 1. 2. Computer Science 1. 2. School clubs 1 2. Teaching of sex education 1. 2. How would you describe the schOols and ,- your school the community? Very good 1. Good . 2. Could be improved 3. Poor 4. district? Very good 1. Good 2. Could be improved . 3. Very low 4. Not Essential ‘What is your estimate of the quality of teaching in Waste of Time 132 PATRON QUESTIONNAIRE 33. Do you feel that the schools inform the community adequately about the school and the school program? Excellent . l. _____ Good 2. _____ Fair 3. _____ Poor 4. 34. Do you feel that the school board should publish the minutes of its meetings in the.1ocal papers? Always l. ‘_____ Sometimes 2. ._____ Occasionally 3. _____ Never . 4. 35. Do yOu feel that you are getting your monies worth for the taxes you pay? Yes, definitely l. ______ Reasonable 2. _____ Questionable 3. _____ No 4. 36. Would you be willing to pay more taxes for improved educational programs in your community? A good deal more 1. _____ Slightly more 2. _____ No increase 3. _____\ Want a cut ' 4. 37. Do you feel that there is adequate communication between the community, the school administration, and the school board? Excellent 1. Good 2. Fair 3. Poor 4. 38. 39. 40. Do you Do you Yes Do you Yes PATRON QUESTIONNAIRE 133 feel present school buildings are adequate? Elementary Yes 'No Middle school Yes No Senior high Yes No favor starting school before Labor Day?‘ 'No Don't care think that discipline is a problem in the schools? No Don't know 134 PLEASE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE. APPENDIX D Student Questionnaire SECONDARY STUDENT-QUESTIONNAIRE 135 ' 1. How well do you like school? Very well 1. _____ Quite well 2. _____ Very little 3. _____ Not at all 4. 2. Do you feel that you are "one of the group" in your school? Yes 1. Usually 2. _____ Sometimes 3. _____ No 4. 3. Generally, how well do you think your teachers know you? Very well 1. _____ Somewhat 2. _____ Little 3. _____ Not at all 4. 4. Generally, do you feel that your teachers are interested in you as a person? Yes _ l. _____ Somewhat 2. _____ Little 3. _____ Not at all 4. 5. Generally, do you feel that your teachers age willing to help you when you have a problem? Yes 1. Sometimes 2. Little 3. No 4. 6. Do you feel that your school compares 136 How proud are you of your school? Very Some Little None schools that you know about in: 10. -ll. 12. 13. Very Favorably Curriculum 1. Teaching staff 1. Quality of instruction 1. Building 1. Equipment 1. How satisfied are you with Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied How interested are you in the Very interested Interested Disinterested Very disinterested SECONDARY 1. 2. 3. 4. STUDENT'QUESTIONNAIRE favorably with other Favorably 1. 2. 3. 4. your school? future of 3. Slightly Favorably Unfavorably __ 4' _ ._____.. 4' __ _____ 4' ___.__ __ 4' __ 4. your school? \ 14. 15.. 16. 17. 18. 137 SECONDARY STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE How much do you think you are learning from your studies? A great deal Something A little Very little 1. 2. 3. 4. Is there a chance for you to attend as many of the school games and clubs as you would like to? parties, p lays, Always Most of the time Once in a while Never \ 1. 2. 3. 4. How much work do you have to do to "keep up" in your school studies? How much homework do you have Too much About right Not very much None at all None Little About right More than I can do 1. 2. 3. 4. assigned regularly? 1. 2. 3. 4. Does your school offer as many extra-curricular activities as you would like to see offered? All Most Few None that that that that are are are are heeded needed needed needed 1. 2. 3. 4. 138 19. Does the school create enough activities? A great effort is made An effort is made Little effort is made No effort is made 20. Does your school offer a wide for you to take? Wide choice Enough choice Little choice No choice SECONDARY STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE interest in extra-curricular 4. 21. Are there courses that you would like to take that are not offered by your school? List. a. e. b. E. c. . 9- d. h. 22. How much help do you get from the librarian when you go to the school library? All I need 1. Most of the help I need 2. Some of the help I need 3. I never use the school library. 4. 23. How do you feel about the money you have to spend for extra-curricular activities such as ball games, proms, yearbooks, and clubs? Too much money About right Very little We don't have to pay. SECONDARY STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 139 ' 24. How much of what you are studying do you think will be of use to you? . Most l. _____ About half 2. _____ Less than half 3. _____ Very little 4. Check the services and activities that you feel are essential to a good school curriculum: Very Not 4 . Waste Essential Essential Essential of Time 25. Physical Education 1. 2. 3. 4, 26. Field trips 1. 2. 3. 4. 27. Music 1. 2. 3. 4. . 28. Art 1. 2. 3. 4. 29. Lunch 1. _ 2. 3. . 4. 30. Physical and dental exams l. 2. 3. 4. 31. Job placement 1. 2. 3. 4. 32. Guidance l. 2. 3. 4. 33. Career Awareness 1. __ __ 2. 3. 4. 34. Speech Correction 1. 2. 3. 4. 35. Psychological _ ) - Services 1. 2. 3. 4. 36. Remedial Reading 1. 2. 3. 4. 37. Special Education 1. 2. _ 3. 4. 38. Adult Education 1. 2. 3. 4. 39.. Agriculture programs 1. 2. 3. 4. 40. Social 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Summer school Athletics Driver Training Drama Foreign Languages Computer Science School clubs Teaching of sex education SECONDARY STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 140 Very Not Waste Essential Essential Essential of Time 1. 2 3. 4 1. 2 3 4. 1. 2 3. 4 l. 2 3. 4 1. 2 3. 4 l. 2. 3 4- 1 2. 3. 4 l. 2. 3. 4 Is your school overcrowded ? Very crowded Crowded Could use more Lacking 3. 4. Does your school have all of the outside physical education and recreation areas, laboratory, that you feel it ought to have? How much interest do your parents All we need Adequate Could use more Lacking work and related activities? A great deal Somewhat Very little 1. 2. 3. 4. and classroom equipment show in your school \ 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. SECONDARY STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 141 Do you favor starting school before Labor Day? Yes- No Don't care Do you think that teachers deal effectively with discipline in the classroom? Yes No Don't know Do you think that the principal and assistant principal deal with discipline effectively? Yes No Don't know Do you think that discipline is a problem in your school? Yes No Would you feel comfortable in approaching the principal or assistant principal if you have a problem? Yes No Do you think the principal makes an effort to know the students personally? Yes No How well do you think the principal manages the school? Very well 1. Quite well 2. Adequately 3. Inadequately 4. 142 PLEASE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE. APPENDIX E Responses to Desired Courses 143 The instrument used in this study allowed for the respondent to indicate what course(s) he/she would like to see offered in the school ditrict. Responses to this open-ended question follow. Commonality of Parent and Teacher Responses: WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FOLLOWING COURSES OFFERED Honors/Advanced English: High school and middle school Drama (2)* Speech Writing (3) Foreign Languages: High school level, middle school level, and elementary level (22) Computer Literacy: High school level and elementary level (14) Elementary band Elementary music Honors mathematics * Number in parentheses indicates the number of surveys on which the particular class was listed. 144 WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FOLLOWING COURSES OFFERED: Parents only Fine Arts Physical Education Design Elementary—level physical Elementary Art (3) * education Drawing Football Painting Swimming Elementary Music (2) Track and field Core Curriculum Miscellaneous Calculus Sex Education Creative Public Speaking Personal Hygiene Literature Marriage Creative Writing Gifted/Talented/Enrich- Black History ment at elementary Mythology level (5) Vocational Organizational Advanced Woodworking All day kindergarten (3) Electricity/Electronics Longer school day Machine Shop More class hours at Robotics high school Sewing More middle school electives . Better library facilities Business More after-school activities where an activity bus Pascal would be provided Assembly Language Programming Middle school - Computers Social Science Psychology Civics * Number in parentheses indicates the number of surveys on which the particular class was listed. 145 \ WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FOLLOWING COURSES OFFERED: Fine Arts Art Dance High school orchestra (3) * Middle school orchestra (3) High school music Chorus Elementary strings Gifted: Art and music Core Curriculum Study skills Journalism Business English Organic Chemistry dvanced science, high school level Business Typing, middle school level Personal typing, high school level Economics Business Law/Marketing Social Science Western culture Anthropology Archaeology Psychology (3) Miscellaneous Transition first grade Teachers only * Number in parentheses indicates the number of surveys on which the particular class was listed. APPENDIX F Personal Comments 146 Respondents were given the opportunity to express any concerns they may have with regard to the pdblic schools. Following are concerns listed by parents. Parents "In general, I feel the Skandia School is a friendly, well-mannered school for my children to attend." "I feel this school board and/or administrators do not listen to the parents when it comes to the problems. They make decisions on their own.." "I feel a lot of improvements are needed." "If a high school is to be very good, it must have a curriculum which serves the pOpulation of students. I don't believe that the present inflexibility and inconsistency in course requirements for high school students moving into the districts from systems with other requirements is satisfactory at all." "You need money to get things done? Ask for a nominal tuition. Be innovative." "Why do they take sixth graders out of class at 2:00 PM to go help kindergarteners get coats on. That's half an hour of missed class time." "There is not enough playground equipment at the base elementary school. The gymnasium needs more equipment." "No matter what time my children arrive at school, they must wait outside until 8:50 to go inside the school." "We need a fire lit under some administrators and teaching personnel." "When certain matters are hushed-up or our questions by-passed or made light of, it's hard to have trust." "The courses offered are substantial, but there are not enough periods in the day for college-bound students to take some courses they want to take." "I feel that transient children are discriminated against in almost all sports." 147 "We believe that the lunch room accommodations shared by the Gwinn Middle and High School should be improved." "I'm disappointed in the high school. I feel it is inferior to others. The teachers are not interested or conscientious." "I don't think Gwinn should concern itself so much with the higher education of students. I would much rather see more concern with a basic program and leave specialization to colleges and trade schools." "The lower, beginning grades--K-2, should be small, 12 to 18 children, to give the teacher a one-to-one relationship since this is a time for the children to learn the basic skills of learning, studying and interacting with children his own age." "The school our child attends rates an "excellent" on informing us. The overall school system rates no higher than "fair." "Classroom sizes much too large. The idea that a first grade class could have up to 36 students is unbelievable. "Very poor communication between school administrators and teachers." "Schools seem solid I've seen better throughout the country primarily in more affluent states." "The teachers have too strong of a union and are not required to provide the students the calibre of educa- tion they deserve. For the hours spent in the class- room, they are overpaid and underworked." "My child has complained many times about the vice- principal of the senior high school. He is too harsh." "I believe the teachers should treat all the kids the same way. This would improve the morale in school." "Parent-teacher conferences at the middle school could be extended for more than one evening and one afternoon.‘ "The administration shouldn't be so rough on the kids and do their job teaching and administering." "Need new showers in the middle school." "There should be more locker checks for drugs." 4" 148 "Although my child is only in kindergarten, his first eXperience of school has widened his interests tremendously which I think is great!" \ "This is a good school district." "The schools my children are in now have good discipline." "There is a lot we could comment on, but it doesn't do any good." "I feel that the instruction levels in certain classes are woefully inadequate. I'm frequently shocked at the lack of common knowledge in these areas among Gwinn students and graduates." "My sixth grade student does not feel challenged in several subjects." "It's important to let students know that it's o.k. to excel academically." "The curricula in other school districts across the country are much more difficult than here. Due to this, I don't know whether my child would be a level to stay in the grade she is said to be in." "I would like to see more parent involvement encouraged rather than discouraged." "The school board was full of promises of things to change before the election as far as becoming more attuned to community needs and cutting out waste and "dead wood" if the millage were to pass. But since they got what they wanted, I feel as though maybe they were playing the taxpayers for a bunch of fools. I can only hOpe that they improve before the next millage election." Patrons "Busing in its present form is a terrible waste of tax money. When, as a taxpayer you see many of the buses going out on their routes and come back with one or two children, someone is not thinking." "I do not like to see students of any age selling over- priced products as fund-raising projects to buy class- room equipment." 149 "I would be willing to pay more taxes if the money was used properly and not wasted." "Sometimes concern for the child is lost among the concerns for budget, taxes, schedules, benefits and union issues." ":winn schools have many excellent teachers, but every system has those who need to be reminded they are teaching children, not just putting in time." "There should be a teacher on duty outside to watch the kids during lunch hours. Some of them are lighting up cigarettes before they even come out of the building." "Most of the activities and services listed are essential, but they don't have to be provided by the school and paid for by the taxpayers. Some should be the responsib- ility of the student, parents, and community." "The taxpayers are paying more than enough for an excellent system. We are being short-changed by waste and extravagance." "The school cuts budget on things they shouldn't, and then they waste it on useless things." "We have our ideas, but we have no way of knowing whether our position on public education is in conflict with or in keeping with the position of the board and leadership of the Gwinn schools." "Teenagers are drinking too much in this community. Help is needed regarding peer pressure. Kids are being criticized for not drinking." "I can't see the need to raise taxes for more classes that will never meet the needs of students because of poor teaching methods." "I feel that the majority of teachers in the Gwinn High School are not interested in quality education. I feel my own education from Gwinn High School was inadequate in every area." "I would like to see higher standards set in all areas. We tend to do only what we must, so we must be expected to do more." "My children had an excellent education in the Gwinn school system. They both went on to college and completed it very successfully with their high school education." 150 Students "There is a lack of school spirit in teachers." "There should be more activities and pep assemblies. More money should be spent on books and needed things for the students!" "Please try to have a policy started which allows the students to use the library before and after school for about 30 minutes." "The administrative workers don't need those offices they are building." "We need a baseball team." "Brighter colors in the classrooms would pep up spirits; the dull colors make students feel drab." "It seems coaches and parents '1ook over' some students who are going against school policy, while they hit full force with others." "Overall, I am very proud to be a part of the Gwinn school system, and many people will say the same." "The secretaries could be more courteous and friendly." "Sometimes I feel hindered because we don't have many extracurricular activites." "My high school is not really that bad. The town around it is the problem." "I think this school could have a better sports program if they found a better coaching staff." "A good portion of the teachers are just waiting to retire and don't care about education." Teachers "Communication seems to be a major problem. I would like more communication between administrators and teachers, and more communication among all the buildings." "The superintendent should publish a monthly newsletter to all of the staff." 151 "The discipline code should be used more consistently and effectively." "One way of establishing good public relations is through the Music Department. If we could establish a good elem— entary program and a sense of pride in the high school program, we might be able to have a strong pep band that everyone could be proud of." "Unfortunately, interest in communications between taxpayers and school personnel runs high during a money crunch, then seems to disappear! Our parent's advisory committee started with a bang and ended with a whimper." "Our school situation is a unique collage of experiences. Military children come to us with universal ideas, and we attempt to blend these with a stable, hometown envir- onment provided by our small city. This is desirable but not wholly utilized. We need to work on balancing these two groups." "I honestly feel that our school board and central admin— istration need to improve or work on their relationship with their employees. They need to recognize the work of the staff, too." "I think students and parents should be made aware of their responsiblIlties. Others have responsibilities for accomplishing learning at school." ' "I do not feel that students should be selling candy, magazine subscriptions, cookies, etc. door-to-door to raise money for necessary improvements." BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Albee, Beverly and others. "How to Conduct a Low-Cost, High-Quality Community Survey," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National School Board Association: Houston, Texas, March 31-April 3, 1984. American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association. Judging Schools with Wisdom. Washington: The Association, 1959. Argyris, Chris. Management and Organization Develgpment. St. Louis: McGraw-HIIl Book Company, 1971. Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment. Current Thought 92 Curriculum. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment, 1985. Ban, John R. "School Discipline: In Pursuit of a System." The High School Journal Vol. 69 No. l (October-November, 1985): 6-11. Banai, Edward Benton. "A Culture-Based Needs Assessment," St. Paul: Red School House, 1980. Barrett, Leverne and Randall Connot. "Knowing Student Personality Can Help School, Classroom, Activity Participation." NASSP Bulletin Vol. 70 No. 487 (February , 1986): 39-45. Behling, Orlando and Chester Schriesheim. Organizational Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Best, John W. Research i2 Education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986. Carver, Fred D. and Thomas J. Sergiovanni, eds., Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus 22 Schools. St. Louis: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. Caswell, Hollis Leland. City School Surveys. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929. Cattermole, Juleen and Norman Robinson. "Effective Home/ School Communication--From the Parents' Perspective." Phi Delta Kappan Vol. 67 No. 1 (September, 1985): 48-50. 152 153 Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation g: the School. New York: Vintage Books, 1964. Down, Graham. "Excellence and Equity: The Unfinished Agenda of the 19808." Educational Horizons, Special Issue 63 (1985): 16-19. Edelfelt, Roy A. "Schools as Social Systems." Theor Into Practice Vol. XVIII No. 5 (December, I979;: 363-365. Erlandson, David A. and Margaret C. Pastor. "Teacher Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Alternatives—— Directions for Principals." NASSP Bulletin Vol. 65 No. 442 (February, 1981): 5-9. Fasick, Frank A. "Parents, Peers, Youth Culture and Autonomy in Adolescence." Adolescence Vol. XIX No. 73 (Spring, 1984): 143;156. Furtwengler, Willis J. and William Konnert. Improving School Discipline. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1982. Galloway, K. K. Boswell, F. Panckhurst, C. Boswell and K. Green. "Sources of Satisfaction and Dissatis- faction for New Zealand Primary School Teachers." Educational Research Vol. 27 No. 1 (February, 1985): 44-51. Gardner, John W. "A National Assessment of Educational Progress." Unpublished report, Carnegie Corporation, 1965.. Grossnickle, Donald R. and Frank P. Sesko. Promoting Effective Discipline in School and Classroom. Reston, VA: National—ASSociation of Secondary School Principals, 1985. Guthrie, James W., ed., School Finance Policies and Practices, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980. Haensly, Patricia A., Ann E. Lupkowski and Elaine P. Edland. "The Role of Extracurricular Activities in Education." The High School Journal Vol. 69 No. 2 (December, 1985 - January, 1986i: 110-119. 154 Hall, Evelyn G., Scott K. Powers and Charles J. Hardy. "A Comparative Study of Sport and Social Status Among Male Adolescents." The High School Journal Vol. 67 No. 4 (April-May,_I984): 230-234. Hall, Richard C. Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Hand, Harold C. What People Think About Their Sphools. Yonkers-on-Hudson: World Book Company, 1948. Hatley, Richard V. and Frank L. Croskey. "Measuring Community Attitudes Toward Education." NASSP Bulletin Vol. 19 No. 5 (February, 1978): 59-65. Herbert, Theodore T. Dimensions 9: Organizational Behavior. New York: Macmillan PubliShing Co., 1981. Hollister, Peter. "Audit Your Public Relations for Impact." Currents (Vol. 11 No. 8 (September, 1985): 32-34. Hopkins, Anne H. Work and Job Satisfaction ip the Public Sector. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1983. Hughes, Larry W. Informal and Formal Community Forces: External Influences pp Schools and Teachers. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1976. Johns, Roe L., Edgar L. Morphet and Kern Alexander. The Economics and Financing 9: Education. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983. Kindred, Leslie W. The School and Community Relations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., I984. Kohut, Jr., Sylvester and Dale G. Range. Classroom Discipline: Case Studies and Viewpoints. National Education Association of the United States, 1979. Krannich, Richard S. and Craig R. Humphrey. "Using Key Informant Data in Comparative Community Research." Sociological Methods and Research Vol. 14 No. 4 (May, 1986): 473-493. Lake Forest Elementary School-District #67. "Opinion Questionnaire," Chicago: Value Standards, Inc., (mimeographed, 1977. 155 Lassey, William F., ed., Leadership and Social Change. Iowa City: University Associates, 1973. Leiter, Jeffry. "Perception of Community Dissatisfaction and School Organizational Structure." American Educational Research Journal Vol. 20 No. 1 (Spring 1983): 45-61. \ Long, Claudia. "How to Get Community Support." Principal Vol. 64 No. 5 (May, 1985): 28-30. Matczynski, Thomas J. and Joseph Rogus. "Needs Assess- ment: A Means to Clarify the Goals of Secondary Schools." NASSP Bulletin Vol. 69 No. 477 (January, 1985): 34-40. McNeil, John D. Curriculum Administration. New York: MacMillan Company, 1965. Merritt, Edwin T. "Don't Let Opponents Sink Your New Good Ship Basics." The Executive Educator Vol. 7 No. 8 (August, 1985): 26, 29. Michigan State University, "What Do You Know About Your Schools?" East Lansing: College of Education, Publication No. 4-73 (May, 1973) mimeographed. National Commission on Excellence in Educationl A Nation 33 Risk: The Imperative for Educational RefOrm. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. National School Boards Association. Yardsticks for Public Schools. Evanston, IL: The Association, 1959. National Study of School Evaluation, "Student Opinion Inventory." Arlington, VA: 1974. Nebgen, Mary K. "Marketing and the Management of Public Schools: Borrowing From Business." Journal pf Educational Public Relations Vol. 8 No. 2 (Summer 1985)? 20-24. Peterson, Paul E. "Did the Education Commissions Say Anything?" The Brookings Review (Winter 1983): 3—11. Pugh, D.S., ed., Organization Theory. Baltimore: Penguin Education, 197T? Ramsey, Russell W. "How Much Can the School House Control?" Adolescence Vol. XVIII No. 72 (Winter 1983): 899-906. 156 Rich, John Martin. "Educational Goals and Curricular Decisions in the New Carnegie Report." The High School Journal Vol. 69 No. 3 (February:M§rch, 1986): 222-227. Rickover, Hyman G. "Education for All Children." Hearing Before the Committee 9p Appropriations, House gf Representatives Eighty-Seventh Congress. Washington: The Committee, 1962. \ Rudman, Herbert C. "The Curriculum." Unpublished report, Michigan Stste University, East Lansing (February, 1968). Schneider, William. "A Consumer Report on the Public Schools." The Education Digest Vol. L No. 5 (January, 1985): 20-23. Sebald, Hans. Adolescence. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1984. Shipman, Me. "The Public School and Our Aging Society." Education Canada Vol. 25 No. 3 (Fall 1985): 30-35. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free Press, I957. Skehan, John W. and James F. Doughty. "Teachers', Board Members', and Citizens' Perceptions of Educational Issues: A Comparative Study." Research in Rural Education Vol. 2 No. 3 (1984): 121-1267 "The 17th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan Vol. 67 No. l (Septmber, 1985): 35-47. "The 18th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan Vol. 68 NO. 1 (September, I986): 43-59. Thiemann, Francis C. and Gordon C. Ruscoe. "Garnering Stakeholders' Support for Educational Excellence." NASSP Bulletin Vol.69 No.47? (January, 1985): 41-44. Toy, Steve. "Use This Ten-Point Plan to Bolster Community Rapport." The Executive Educator Vol. 7 No. 6 (June, 1985): 23-25. Turvey, Joel S. "Homework--Its Importance to Student Achievement." NASSP Bulletin Vol. 70 No. 487 (February, 1986): 27-34. 157 Tyack, David and Elisabeth Hansot. "Hard Times, Then and Now: Public Schools in the 19305 and 19805." > Harvard Educational Review Vol. 54 No. 1 (February, 1984): 33-66. Warren, Roland L. "Community Needs Assessment Techniques. Oregon State University: Corvallis, Oregon. (October, 1980). Webster, William E. "Two Citizen Participation'Programs of the Sixties and Seventies: What We Learned." Eguity and Choice Vol. 2 No. 1 (Fall 1985): 81-88. Wilson, Gerald L. H. Lloyd Goodall, Jr. and Christopher L. Waagen. Organizational Communication.: New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1986. Yukl, Gary A. Leadership i3 Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981. Zerchykov, Ross. "Why School Councils?" Equity and Choice Vol. 2 No. 1 (Fall 1985): 37-38. "Iiii'iiiiii'iii'iiiii