WW will Ill! llflllfil “ 0062 l LIBRARY E Michigan Mateé University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled IDENTIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION: APPLICATION TO THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL PROGRAMS presented by MARLIN LEE OLSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education m 4.344%“ Major professor Date November 13, 1987 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 MSU LIBRARIES -_. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. _W IDENTIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION: APPLICATION TO THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY Marlin Lee Olson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1987 ABSTRACT IDENTIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION: APPLICATION TO THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY Marlin Lee Olson This study had two major purposes: (1) to seek to identify a set of criteria deemed crucial to effective teacher inservice education; and (2) to relate the criteria to an specific teacher inservice education program for teachers. To the extent that knowledgeable leaders of inservice education of teachers identify criteria considered important for effective inservice education, to that degree it would appear the criteria should be considered a viable means for determining the soundness of contemporary iservice education. To the degree that the teachers inservice education program chosen for the study fulfills the recommended criteria, to that extent it would appear it should be considered a viable program for contemporary teacher inservice education. Literature was researched regarding criteria for effective inservice education; more than 150 principles were identified. Further study suggested those principles could be grouped into six categories of criteria. 1. THE CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN PROFESSIONAL GROWTH. Marlin Lee Olson 2. INSTITUTIONS WITH AN INTEREST IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIETY'S CHILDREN ARE ABLE TO COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. 3. CLEAR, SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY AND PRACTICE WILL BE UTILIZED AND IMPLEMENTED. 4. THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL-BASED rIMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. 5. TEACHERS WILL BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCE. 6. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL WILL BE INVOLVED AS A PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. Continuing research of the literature found strong support for each criterion. The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs was chosen to relate to the criteria. Data analysis was conducted of records, official and unofficial, regarding each criterion. Interviews were conducted with participants in the Workshop seeking to ascertain whether the identified criteria were present while they were participating in the Workshop. The responses were evaluated for information related to each of the criteria. Supporting evidence from records and interviews is provided for each criterion. Copyright by MARLIN LEE OLSON 1987 To Guni My best friend ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The development of this study included the involvement of a number of individuals. Several will be named; a larger number will be nameless. Yet my gratitude extends to them all. Particular expression of appreciation goes to Dr. Charles A. Blackman, chairman of my doctoral committee, for his continual support and guidance throughout the project. His encouragement and assistance were both timely and facilitative. The author is also grateful to the other members of the committee: Dr. Glen Cooper, whom I first met when working with the Elementary Internship Program; Dr. Howard Hickey, for his encouragement to continue the doctoral program; Dr. George McMahon, for his background as con- sultant with the Kent Intermediate School District; and Dr. Donald Meaders, whose friendship has continued since Taiwan days when he first suggested I consider study at M.S.U. A special note of thanks also to Barbara Bird, coordinator of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. Her knowledge of the program provided a very important reference base. iii My thanks also to those individuals who participated in the interviews. Without them, the project would have been impossible. Although nameless, I appreciate the contribution they made to this study. Last, but far from least, my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Guni, for her continual encouragement that kept me moving forward, although almost imperceptibly so at some times. My children, Cheryl, Deborah, Jerald, and Marlei also served as cheerleaders, exhorting me to press on to completion. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . vii Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 1 Background of the Study . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Inservice Education . . . . . . . 7 Kent Interinstitutional Workshop . . . . 7 MethOdOIOgy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . 9 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . 10 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Summary and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 14 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 16 Overview of Inservice Education . . . . . 16 Purposes of Inservice Education . . . . 16 Types of Inservice Education . . . . . . 24 Problems of Inservice Education . . . . 28 Adult Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . 36 summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 41 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . 43 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Review of Chapter Two . . . . . . . . . . 43 Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Procedures of Data Collection. . . . . . 44 Data-Analys 18 MEthOd o o o o o o o o o o o 47 Researcher's Perspective . . . . . . . . . 47 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 IV. LITERATURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Criteria of Effective Inservice Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Identification of Specific Criteria . . . 72 Effective Inservice Education . . . . . 72 Criterion and Reference . . . . . . . . . 75 V Support for the Criteria . Continuing Education . . Collaboration . . . . . Goals and Activities . . School Based Improvement Teacher Involvement . . Principal Participation . . Kent Interinstitutional Workshop Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . V. PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Criteria of Effective Inservice Education . . . . Types of Data . . . Supporting Evidence Criterion One . Criterion Two . Criterion Three Criterion Four Criterion Five Criterion Six Summary . . . . VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Study . . . . . . Summary of the Findings . . . . Adult Learning Theory . . . . Criteria of Effective Inservice Education . . . . . . . . . Kent Interinstitutional Workshop Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Research Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . APPENDICES O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O A. QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER . . B. WORKSHOP REPORT FORMS . . . . . . C. PARTICIPANT'S RESPONSES . . . . . BIBLIWRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi 92 92 97 108 114 121 128 137 143 144 144 144 146 147 147 152 156 160 164 168 171 173 173 173 175 175 176 178 179 180 182 182 184 184 187 190 212 Table 4.1 LIST OF TABLES Page Sources of Effective Inservice Education O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O 73 Participant's Rating of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop and Effective Inservice Education criteria 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 147 5.11 Criterion One . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 5.12 Criterion Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.13 Criterion Three . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5.14 Criterion Four . . . . . . . . . . . 164 5.15 Criterion Five . . . . . . . . . . . 168 5.16 Criterion Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Although there may have been a time in our history when preservice education was considered sufficient teacher preparation, that day appears to be long past. In contemporary society, complex as it is, effort at continuing preparation is considered absolutely essential (Goodlad, 1984). Rubin (1978) takes the position that the very best possible teacher preparation program will not adequately serve professionals in this day of expanding knowledge and rapid change for more than five to seven years. He believes that as soon as teacher candidates leave their preparatory institution, they embark upon a journey toward obsolesence. Content—wise, this certainly appears to be true. The information explosion has innundated us. There was a time when it was possible to keep current in a particular discipline, but such is very, very difficult today. According to Berman (1985), the future looks awesome, to say the least. The arrival of the post-industrial age and the advent of global economic competition have radically altered what students must learn. Continued American prosperity will require more highly skilled managers, 1 2 scientists, and technical experts, coupled with a progressively more competent labor force. Job skills will change rapidly, and employees will be asked to adapt to new practices and to work in more complex environments requiring close cooperation and clear communication. Before the end of this century, now less than 15 years away, our economy will need people at all levels who are able to think creatively, apply general skills to the solution of practical problems, and learn throughout their careers. Moreover, America's need for informed and literate citizens has never been greater. From issues of war and peace to the complexities of modern consumer choice, it no longer suffices for a small percentage of our citizens to be "well-educated" (p. 188). But there is another important issue. The typical image of a teacher standing in front of a class, as the fountain head of knowledge, dispensing information to a group of students eagerly attending to the presentation, is linked to the above. For this pattern has been the experience of our teacher candidates while they were in school and college, and this is the teaching and learning approach they will most likely adopt in their classroom (Goodlad, 1983). Pruit (1978) summarizes several surveys related to teacher preparation which indicate that in spite of deliberate, intensive preservice preparation, most teachers tend to teach the way they have been taught. He believes that research with various role models suggests that a major task of teacher education should be the concern to ”de-model' prospective teachers. "In other words, the influence of a prospective teacher's inappropriate models should be replaced with more flexible ones" (p. 70). This is not an easy task, seeking to change 3 an individual's ways of doing things. Attitudes, habits and response patterns become ingrained and are difficult to change. Martin (1984) emphasizes that changing the cognitive.performance of an individual is certainly possible, but systematic and repetitive experiences will be required to ensure that modification takes place (pp. 68- 69). Increasingly, the logic of developing a continuum of professional education experiences that begins with entrance into a teacher preparation program and continues into and throughout the work life of the educational professional is being recognized and advocated. Korinek (1985) believes two factors contribute to this need for continuing preparation: First, college training is but an introduction to the world of teaching. Only entry skills and knowledge can be developed in the time alloted preservice training. Second, our accelerating acquisition of knowledge makes some teaching strategies and tactics obsolete while creating a need for new ones. Teaching is a dynamic profession in which the individual must continually regenerate to be effective (p. 33). Ferver (1981) highlights some of the factors that have created the dilemma that faces us. In past years, we could assume that new ideas and innovations were infused regularly into a school district when it annually hired new teachers for up to 30 percent of the staff and where 20 percent to 30 percent of the existing staff were enrolled in graduate programs. However, reduced teacher turnover and the expanding pool of teachers who have obtained what they consider to be their final degree have reduced this avenue for change. If change in teacher behavior is to be sought in schools today, the most common form of stimuéation must come from on-site inservice education (p. 3 . Stoops and Rafferty (1961) considered this issue so 4 important that, some twenty-six years ago, they stated, "The absence of an organized inservice training program over an extended period of time will eventually negate every other advantage which excellent administration and enthusiastic public support can unite to offer a school system” (p. 444). Current research is increasingly focusing attention on the importance of professional development. Both the Holmes Group (1986) and the Carnegie (1986) reports emphasize the need for giving attention to the quality of professional preparation of teachers, and a recognition that school systems must assume responsibility for any deficiencies through attendant concern for continuing staff development. The history of the development of public education here in the United States is replete with examples of change and progress. How to make knowledge, considered by society to be important, available to others has been one of its major objectives. The concern for content, the related issues of process skills and that of attitudes and behaviors add to the school's responsibility and creates increasing need for inservice education in order to maintain a staff of teachers capable of meeting its objectives. Burrello and Orbaugh (1982) emphasize this point in stating that, "Inservice education is an absolute necessity if schools are to develop their most important resource, their people” (p. 385). The interrelationship of education and change has 5 been a frequent one in inservice literature. Edelfelt and Lawrence (1975) express their feelings this way: Inservice education today bears a close resemblance to the concepts that shaped it historically. It is usually required of teachers. Content and approach are prescribed by universities and school districts. Course credits are mandated by state department regulations and school district policies. Although intentions are good, too often programs are low level, piecemeal and patchwork. Teachers achieve advanced degrees, credits for salary increments, and higher levels of certification, but the effort yields too little in the improvement of teaching or school program. In fact, inservice education does not often deal directly with helping teachers improve their skills in instruction or become more adept at planning and organizing curriculum. In school district programs, the focus is on introducing new curriculum, beefing up existing programs, or following new fads and trends, typically at the supervisors discretion. In formal graduate work, study is largely divorced from the specifics of the teacher's job. Inservice education takes place on the teachers own time and frequently at her or his expense. It is seldom based on teacher needs and is often conducted in a manner that negates the principles of good teaching and learning (p. 14). Although the picture presented is a somewhat gloomy one, the situation is far from hopeless. Odden (1984) takes the position that research has identified important elements of school improvement quite well. There is in existence a sizeable body of information regarding such issues as effective teaching practices and characteristics of effective schools. A considerable body of knowledge exists regarding strategies for assisting schools in working to solve their own problems (p. 312). Further, Gage (1984) states that, "Research has shown repeatedly that it is possible to change teaching practices enough to make an educationally important difference" (p.89). And later on he says, ”We are beginning 6 to have evidence that changing teaching practices causes desirable changes in student achievement, attitude and conduct" (1984, p.91). McMahon (1980) concurs with that in stating that ”the research of Aspy and Roebuck (1976) has scientifically identified a positive correlation between student achievement and professional.development” (p. 1). Additional information regarding the issues of research and inservice education can be found in the literature, including the following: Bennett (1987), Edwards and Barnes (1985), Griffin (1983), Gross (1986), Guskey and Gates (1986), Klein (1985), Lanier (1981), MacKenzie (1983), Maloy and Jones (1987), Parkay (1986), Smith (1985), Sparks (1986 & 1983). The issue is an urgent one; programs must be designed to meet the continuing needs of teachers. Well planned inservice education appears to be one way to meet that need. Statement of Purpose The researcher had two major purposes in conducting this study: (1) to seek to identify a set of criteria, including those associated with adult learning theory, deemed crucial to effective inservice education of teachers; and (2) to relate the criteria to a specific teacher inservice education program. Inservice Education There is an extensive core of current literature available which speaks to the issue of criteria for continuing education of teachers. An attempt has been made to survey a reasonable selection of the most current and authoritative individuals available: Auton (1982), Burrello and Orbaugh (1982), Butler (1980), Byrne (1983), Edelfelt (1974, 1975, 1977, 1981, 1983), Goodlad (1983, 1984, 1987), Griffin (1983), Guskey (1985), Hutson (1981), Kersh (1978), Korinek, Schmid and McAdams (1985), Lawrence (1974), Loucks-Horsley and Hergert (1985), Mazzarella (1980), McMahon (1980), Odden and Anderson (1986), Orlich (1983), Parkay (1986), Popham (1981), Schmid and McAdams (1985), Sparks (1983, 1986), Ward & Tikunoff (1981), K. Ward (1986), Warnat (1983), Willen and Kindsvatter (1978), and Wood, Thompson and Russell (1981) are illustrative of that fact. A representation of their positions will be used as the criteria for effective inservice education. Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs 'Desiring to relate the criteria for effective inservice education to a specific teacher inservice education program, the researcher chose, following interaction with Blackman (1984) and several other educators he respected, to use the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs (KIIW). The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving 8 School Programs (KIIW) was implemented in Kent County, Michigan in the fall of 1969, having been adapted from a model originally developed in Wayne County, Michigan in 1967. The KIIW continued to provide for the inservice education needs of teachers through the school year 1983. The primary purpose of the Workshop was to provide inservice education for teachers in the Kent Intermediate School District (KISD). The KISD is an agency of the state of Michigan established to provide coordination of educational services to the local school districts within the county. Kent County is the fourth most populated county in the state of Michigan, and the largest in the region identified as Western Michigan. The largest city in Kent County, Grand Rapids, is the second largest city in the State. Twenty public school districts and six non-public school organizations are encompassed within Kent County. One third of the children in the county attend non-public schools, the largest number of non-public school children in the state of Michigan. Excellent relationships have existed between the public and non-public school constituencies. Groups from each of the twenty public school dis- tricts as well as elements of the non-public school organi- zations have participated at times in the KIIW. School districts and schools from five relatively adjacent counties also requested the opportunity to participate in the Work- shop and were permitted when conditions were appropriate. 9 The KIIW consisted of teams of eight to twelve participants from schools and school districts within the District. During the course of a time frame spread over approximately five months, and including sixteen once-a-week four hour sessions, each team worked on a problem it had identified prior to enrolling in the Workshop. Ten of the sessions, called local school sessions, were held in the team's home building wherein they had better opportunity to work on their special issue or problem and to involve other local staff as they deemed appropriate. The balance of the sessions, identified as common sessions and held at a common site, were designed to consider issues of interest to all participants and/or were considered critical concerns in education. Methodology This study will be a historical descriptive case study of a field project. Sax identifies descriptive research as ”research involving the collection of data for the purpose of describing conditions as they exist” (1968, p.181). Field studies are considered by McDonald (1981) to be the best method to study inservice education programs. He says that it is practically impossible to use a classical research design to evaluate inservice education (p. 8). The study will involve two procedures: (1) the reviewing of current literature regarding factors considered to be crucial to effective teacher inservice education; and (2) analysis of historical records of the Kent 10 Interinstitutional Workshop, and interviews of individuals who were participants in the Workshop. Through the process of reviewing current literature regarding factors considered to be crucial to effective teacher inservice education, a number of criteria will be selected through which an inservice education program will be screened. In this way its historical record can be compared with what is presently believed to be important when considering inservice education for the future. Delimitations of the Study The research project will be delimited by the following constraints: 1. It is not the primary purpose of the study to defend the need for inservice education of teachers. 2. The primary purpose of the study is not to defend or evaluate a single inservice education program, but to demonstrate the applicability of criteria considered to be descriptive of effective inservice education programs to a specific teacher inservice education program. 3. The study will be concerned with two teams of individuals who were involved with the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop during the school years, 1981-1982, and 1982-1983. During those two years, the author participated with the Workshop as an observer, most directly involved with two school teams. Those two teams were chosen for the study. Typically, school teams consisted of members of the 11 same school faculty. Occasionally, and for specific purposes, faculty members from more than one school joined together to work on a district-related project. The two teams involved in this study were a combination of these two approaches. Seventy-five percent of the participants were from one school. The balance of the team members were from other locations in the district. Limitations of the Study 1. Everyone involved in the program was not interviewed. Two teams were selected and it is assumed that the respondents from these two teams are similar to those of the other teams. Entire teams were interviewed in an effort to establish the presence or absence of unanimity of team members regarding their experience in the KIIW. 2. The ability and willingness of respondents to analyze, interpret and make a sound decision when answering questions varied. 3. The fact that the responses of the respondents will be opinions and perceptions drawn from a time span of 4 to 6 years may affect accuracy of data. '4. The findings of this study will be generalizable only to those inservice education programs wherein the elements described in this study are present. 5. The writer participated as an observer during the two year period of the KIIW. The issue of possible bias should be considered at this point. The researcher acknowledges this and weighs it against the advantages of 12 the methodology to be explained in chapter three. Participation as an observer is a potential source of bias. This must be recognized and considered in relationship to the author's access to people and information that comes from previous contact. Involvement as an observer could create relationships with the participants that might cause them to desire to tell the researcher only positive things, what they felt he wanted to hear. The counter point would be that since the interviewees did know the researcher, a rapport existed which created a positive climate and enabled the respondents to express their opinions freely, whether positive or negative. The established criteria, selected from research of the literature, should provide an objective basis for studying the Workshop. The researcher sought to compare the responses of the interviews with the information contained in the historical data. A record has also been included of all the participant's responses. Definition of Terms ’The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this study to facilitate understanding. Common Sessions: Six meetings designed for registration, evaluation, sight-raising, presentations and demonstations on critical issues in education. 13 Continuing Education: Any systematic course of study or set of experiences intended to achieve increased awareness of and appreciation for those aspects of culture (including technical culture) and environment (including work environment) about which a participant is interested or concerned (Griffin, 1983, p. 63). Inservice education: Those professional improvement activities in which pre-school through grade 12 personnel are involved, designed to increase their knowledge, skills and/or ability to fulfill their assigned roles. Organizational development, professional development, and faculty/staff development are included in this definition, except where indicated. Intermediate School District: An educational agency established by the state to assist the state in coordinating educational services to local districts (Mackenzie. 1982, p.9). Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs (KIIW): An inservice workshop for teams of educators in the Kent County area of Western Michigan held generally from early in October to the middle of February, staffed by faculty representatives from such institutions of' teacher education as Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, University of Michigan, Central Michigan University, and Grand Valley State Colleges, and coordinated by a representative of the Kent Intermediate School District. 14 Local School District: A school district controlled by a local school board and responsive to its citizens. Local school sessions: Ten meetings designed to utilize the resources of the building including total staff, students, parents, community members and materials. Participants: Persons involved in the KIIW, including school teams and staff. Principal: Administrator of a local school. School teams: A minimum of eight (8) members from the same school or school district working together as a group. School Improvement: Loucks-Horsley and Hergert (1985) use the term quite broadly to include the pursuit of any goal that benefits students and has as its focus the classroom and school building. Many of these efforts will focus on instruction and curriculum; others will be directed toward such areas as school climate and discipline. Team leader: A team member, not an administrator, who acts as coordinator for the team and serves as liaison between the team and the Workshop staff. .Workshop: A group of people participating in structured activities during a specified period of time to accomplish predetermined goals and tasks which lead to new understanding and changes in professional behaviors (Wood, 1981). Workshop Staff: Includes personnel from the Kent Intermediate School District and the universities involved, 15 particularly the coordinator and the consultants. Summary and Overview It is the purpose of this study to identify (1) a set of criteria related to effective inservice education, and (2) to relate the criteria to a specific inservice education program for teachers. Chapter I contained the following: background of the study; statement of purpose; description of the methodology; delimitations of the study; limitations of the study; and definition of terms used. Included in Chapter II is a review of related literature regarding issues of inservice education. The research design and procedures are presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains a presentation of the information gathered through the research of literature regarding criteria considered important for designing effective inservice education, and concerning the support that exists for those criteria. It also includes a description of the KIIW. Chapter V contains a presentation of the information gathered through the research of historical records and interviews and its relationship to the criteria developed during the research of the literature. Summary, conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for further study will be found in Chapter VI. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The literature on inservice education is very extensive, so much so that it is difficult to give it a numerical value. Korinek highlights this fact when she says, "thousands of documents have been written about it, truckloads of materials have been developed to support it" (1985, p.33). When it is recognized that an ERIC computer search conducted in May 1980 revealed a total of 9,183 items concerned with inservice education or related topics, the magnitude of the problem is clear (Orlich, 1983). Out of the multitude of issues encompassed under the rubric, ”inservice education”, this review will focus on the following concerns: (1) Overview of Inservice Education, including Purposes of Inservice Education, Types of Inservice Education, and Problems of Inservice education; and (2) Adult Learning Theory. Overview of Inservice Education Purposes of Inservice Education The question is a valid one - What purposes does inservice education serve? Why would Burrello and Orbaugh (1981) state so emphatically, "inservice education is an 16 17 absolute necessity if schools are to develop their most important resource, their people" (p.385)? And why would the Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell (1981) propose so strongly, ”There has never been a time in the history of American education when inservice training was more necessary than it is right now" (p. 2)? Historically, the key word that has been used to describe inservice education in the United States has been "remedial." The primary purpose has been to help teachers ”catch up," to overcome their "inadequacies." Recognizing that many of the teachers had not had adequate teacher training, this is not surprising. Tyler (1971) expands this issue in a brief look at history. He believes that inservice education efforts have primarily involved the "hows” of teaching (primarily remedial), new ways of teaching the old content or skills, presentation of new content or skills, fulfilling certification or degree requirements and since 1930, implementation of new educational programs and curricula. The problems of education have been greater than just ”teacher inadequacy" however. Johnson (1980) has compiled a list of twelve major factors that have impacted American public education in recent years. 1. The movement among minorities, women and the handicapped for equal educational opportunity, bringing significant changes in the student population and necessitating attendant changes in curriculum, instruction, facilities and extracurricular activities; 2. Public distrust of government, generating cries for more efficient management of education and ”greater 10. 11. 12. 1. 18 productivity" from schools; An economic slowdown, causing retrenchment in school spending; The spread of social ills (drug abuse and polution), prompting new school services and courses; Violence in America, spawning violence in schools; The explosion of knowledge, putting severe stress on educators to keep up with their fields; Instructional technology, promising more individual attention to students but demanding changes in the roles and functions of educators; Television, often influencing children negatively and competing (unnecessarily) with schools for children's time and attention; Declining enrollments and a teacher surplus, contributing to more educated, more experienced and more costly faculties with fewer external incentives for self-improvement; The growth of teacher power, bringing assertions of the need for more involvement of teachers in matters affecting them; Research and experience pointing to the importance of the teacher in curricular reform and instructional improvements; and The realization that four years of undergraduate preparation make only a beginning teacher (p. ix). Bite (1977) offers a possible solution to some of the problems of education and creates a link between the past and the present at the same time when he states, ”The professional development of practicing teachers is more important to educational agencies now than ever before" (p. One of the important earlier studies of inservice education was the one conducted by the Rand Corporation (1974, cited in Bennett 1987). Its conclusions can be summarized under the following headings: Teacher commitment should be considered a very important aspect of faculty development planning. Such commitment does not preclude, however, the involvement of the district administration; 19 appropriate collaboration on as broad a scale as possible, was considered valuable. Paramount, though, was the teacher's belief that the inservice activity held meaning for them and would enable them to influence their students. 2. The success of the inservice program was in direct proportion to the teachers perception of the worth of the activities. They respond most directly to intrinsic professional rewards. 3. Creating an environment wherein teachers work together is almost indispensable for successful staff development. The resulting interaction provides resources that can bring about growth and development. 4. The broader the scope of the training, the greater the impact. Continuing support was also an important issue; in its absence, reversion was almost assured. 5. The active support of the building principal was considered critical to successful inservice reducation. The support of district administrators was also considered important. Few people today would question the value of inservice education. And this isn't true only of educators. Johnson (1980) reminds us that ”all professions recognize the necessity for keeping practioners abreast of new developments in their field” (p. vii). 20 Inservice education today has been likened to a coat of many colors. It can involve activities that are a matter of individual choice; it can include activities mandated by a school district or the state. It can be a one-time affair with little or no follow—up, or it can involve a program which continues over an extended period of time. It can also include all of these. Looking at purpose from the perspective of school district rationale for inservice education, Swenson (1981) expresses concern regarding the importance of "student- teacher relationship" and the factors related to it as the fundamental issue. Teachers who are learning and growing are more likely to be able to meet the needs of their students and to maintain good relationships. Beyond this foundational concern, he sees three additional reasons that are commonly cited: 1. Declining enrollments and stable staffs. Declining enrollments in K-12 schools have stabilized school staffs. It is often no longer possible to hire new staff, with special preparation, to deal with new needs. Instead existing staff must be prepared through inservice education and staff development programs to handle those needs. 2. New expectations for the schools. Changing values -and societal conditions have continued to alter the expectations for what schools can do. Recent examples include the education of the handicapped, bilingual education and multicultural education. Whether the new expectations have come from the courts, legislatures, local communities or school personnel themselves, they have all contributed to a need for staff development if they are to be implemented effectively. 3. Insights into the change process. School personnel, with help from researchers, have come to realize that change is a process, not an event, and that before schools can change, the individuals within them must change (Hall & Loucks, 1978). Through 21 staff development programs the concerns of individuals can be appropriately addressed to allow effective implementation of change to occur (pp. 2-3). The range of perceptions that are held today about inservice education is reflected in the variety of descriptions about it one finds in the literature. Whether discussing purpose or some related issue such as definition, they are many and varied. Granted the multiplicity of elements in inservice education, there appears to be agreement that there are ways in which these elements group themselves given a little organization. Speaking to this issue, Joyce (1981) sees the primary task of staff development to be creating a professional growth-oriented ecology in all schools. In so doing he feels we will: 1. Enrich the lives of teachers and school administrators so that they continuously expand their general education, their emotional range and their understanding of children; 2. Generate continuous efforts to improve schools. School faculties, administrators and community members need to work together to make their schools better and acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to bring those improvements into existence; and 3. Create conditions which enable professional skill -development to be continuous. Every teacher and administrator needs to be a student of learning and teaching and to engage in a continuous process of experimentation with their behavior and that of their students. Each education professional needs to study alternative approaches to schooling and teaching, to select ones which will expand their capabilities and to acquire the understanding and skills necessary to make fresh alternatives a part of their ongoing repertoire of professional competence (p. 118). Fox (1981) also sees three reasons for involvement 22 in inservice education. He believes one should support such activities because they can: (1) Stimulate personal professional growth. Educators cannot stay current and effective in their respective fields without the stimulation of activities which encourage increased personal and professional development; (2) Improve particular aspects of school practice. There is a perceived inadequacy in the educational system and an inservice education experience can help to rectify that problem and bring about "school improvement;" and 3) Bring about change in the social environment. This could include activities related to such issues as climate in the classroom or broader issues of society such as the impact of desegregation in the school. Hite (1977) believes the key issue is on a different level. He believes the purpose of inservice education is linked with the answers to the key questions, “Who provides the rewards?" and "Who provides the motivation?" Does the local district thru salary increments, the nearby university or college thru credential requirements, the teachers' association thru political power or the local school thru personal or professional concern (p. 30)? A number of educators have discussed inservice education in terms of its definition. Illustrative of these would be Ferver's (1981) concern for ”programs of education and/or training for pre-school to Grade 12 professional personnel for the purpose of enhancing their skills, knowledge or ability to perform the role and functions to 23 which they are currently assigned" (p. 22). Typically the literature also includes reference to the fact that inservice education pertains to that portion of a teacher's education that takes place after completion of the university-or-college-based teacher training program, upon receiving initial certification and following employment as a professional. It is important to emphasize again the growth enhancing aspects of inservice. Dillon-Peterson (1981) brings this factor back into focus with the reminder that staff development is "a process designed to foster personal and professional growth for individuals within a respectful, supportive, positive organizational climate having as its ultimate aim better learning for students and continuous responsible self-renewal for educators and schools” (p. 3). Especially noteworthy here would be the concern for personal and professional growth in a positive climate that will influence students in the context of the school (Holly, 1977). The purposes of inservice education are many and varied, but generally all relate to the need for continuing teacher education. If teachers are going to maintain their skills in instruction and related issues, it appears imperative that inservice education in some format be provided for teachers. Determining whether the concern of inservice different roles and responsibilities that a teacher must assume. Inservice education is related to research and development. The respective strengths of the school district, the college/university, the teacher organization, and the community are used in the inservice education program. Internship and student teaching experiences are used for analysis and study in the inservice education program. Inservice education is available to all professional and nonprofessional personnel. 55 Rewards 29. There is a reward system for teachers, administrators, and college/university personnel who engage in inservice education programs (pp. 13-25). Wilen and Kindsvatter (1978) reported research they did on five studies they selected after surveying and analyzing a wide variety of inservice education programs and practices drawn from the national as well as the local school district scene. Educators of several hundred schools were involved in their research. Guidelines were synthesized from the five studies reflective of significant ways that inservice education programs can be improved: 1. School districts must allocate specific funds for in-service education sufficient to maintain comprehensive and continuous programs. 2. The needs of teachers must directly influence the nature and design of in—service education programs. 3. Teachers need to be directly involved in planning the goals, content, and instructional approach of in-service programs. 4. Objectives of in-service programs must be written and specified in clear, meaningful terms. 5. Area colleges and universities should serve as a major source for program directors and consultants. 6. In-service education programs should be held during the regular school day when possible and when not, teachers should be financially compensated for their participation. 7. In-service education program evaluation must be assessed immediately upon completion based on -objectives and again later to determine the extent to which objectives have been translated into teacher behaviors in the classroom (pp. 393-395). More recently there has been a marked increase in interest in inservice education. The increase is due in part to the growing recognition of the importance of the concept of continuing education. Few teachers today would take the position that their preservice education provided 56 them with all the preparation they needed to accomplish their task effectively (Gage, 1984; Odden, 1984). Therefore there has developed a growing research literature that is available to guide the design of inservice education programs. While it is not possible to summarize all this research, several examples from the literature will serve as illustration. In 1981, Edelfelt attempted to look at the developments that had taken place in inservice education six years into the 1974-84 decade referred to earlier. At that time he made the following observations: 1. There has been much greater interest and much more activity in inservice education than there was from 1968 to 1974. 2. A number of enterprising people have come forth to initiate and direct efforts in inservice education. 3. Many more people are writing about what is happening in inservice education and what ought to happen. 4. Many, many more conferences, workshops, work parties and other meetings are serving as places to examine, share, challenge, and plan ideas for inservice education. 5. State plans for (preservice and) inservice teacher education have been developed in every state and territory as required by Public Law 95-561, Titles IV and V. 6. State departments of education have exerted more effort in inservice education. 7. States are beginning to appropriate money for .inservice education. 8. There is almost no significant research and evaluation going on in connection with inservice education programs. 9. Most programs are short-term. 10. Most programs are designed to assist the individual practitioner. 11. Major changes in the governance of inservice are under way. This is probably the most striking change. Increasingly teachers are more involved in decisions about inservice education as a result of teacher demands . . . and in response to research showing the advantages of involving them. 12. The emphasis on college credits and degrees has been 57 greatly reduced although credit toward salary increments and other extrinsic rewards are still major incentives in inservice training. 13. In time and place, inservice education remains largely separate from professional practice. It still takes place largely in locations away from school, and at times off school hours. It is more often about education and teaching than of teaching. Inservice education does not take place close to the scene of teaching. 14. Schools of education are beginning to seek and find new, often site-specific roles in inservice education. 15. Much inservice education has become voluntary, yet decrees for what must be taken are numerous. Increasingly, school-district-sponsored inservice education involves teachers in the councils that plan and conduct staff development. On the other hand, there are mandated inservice programs in almost every district. 16. Increasingly, teacher organizations are actively providing inservice education to their members (pp. 113-118). Granted the picture looks better than it has, Edelfelt cautions against over optimism. He indicates that before marked change will take place, increased movement must take place in some key issues. Progress will depend on the extent to which: (1) a situation develops where educators recognize continuing development of practioners as an integral and necessary element of professional practice; (2) the focus of inservice education and school improvement can be brought to bear on building-level/school-based improvement and faculty development rather than giving attention only to the individual teacher's growth; (3) those organizations with a vested interest in inservice education -- schools, colleges and universities, teacher organizations and governmental agencies -- combine their efforts regarding items 1 and 2 58 above; (4) recognition is given to the importance of a number of additional factors -- school structure and organization, the climate and environment within the school, and the involvement of parents and lay groups; (5) schools of education evidence increased commitment to improving public education by recognizing the opportunity to assume greater responsibility for working with and for the teaching profession; (6) staff development/continuing education programs have the money and time they need to accomplish the purposes by virtue of increasingly adequate and stable financial support at both the state and federal level; (7) a new governance structure, participatory involvement in inservice education, and increasing involvement of teachers will be given considerable attention and support; and (8) individuals who choose to teach and/or administer will recognize the challenges and rewards of a senior profession (pp. 118-119). Edelfelt completes his article by indicating he is somewhat pessimistic that progress will be made on all eight factors in the near future. But he does hope that identifying these critical factors will help to stimulate the decisions and efforts necessary to make progress in ensuring effective inservice education to be the rightful legacy of all teachers. Following a discussion of the problems he sees in the frequent institutional response to staff development, Mc Mahon (1980), presents a list of six recommendations he 59 would make to educational and professional leaders for their consideration in seeking to resolve the issues that he believes to be barriers to improving inservice education. 1. School calendars should be developed to provide mutually agreed upon adequate clock and calendar time for professional staff development. 2. Innovative staffing procedures should be developed to provide “in-house" substitute teacher personnel which would allow adequate release time for professional growth experiences. 3. Teachers should not always be expected to participate beyond their contracted work day in inservice programs designed to improve the instructional program of the school system. 4. Reward systems for professional growth and improvements should be developed beyond the ”credit-step” system. 5. Consideration should be given for released time for those teachers involved in staff development planning or implementation in much the same way that athletic directors are frequently given released time or increased payments. 6. Local school district Boards of Education, professional associations and all individuals involved in the schooling process must become better informed of the manner in which improving instructional skills will benefit everyone and most importantly the learning experience of school children. This will require a spirit of cooperation (p. 4). Ward and Tikunoff (1981) have been involved in inservice education experiences with the Far West Laboratory for the past ten years. During that period of time they have developed three requirements that they believe are important if one desires to design effective staff development at the school level. The first is that such a goal requires the collaboration of the entire school. The power necessary to bring about change is multiplied when those who will be most influenced by the change have been involved in planning those changes and the effects they will 60 have on the school. The involvement of everyone, faculty, principal as well as support personnel will be important to the success of the project. The second requirement concerns an attitude of inquiry. It is important that teachers have a questioning mind. Inquiry refers to the necessity of seeking to implant within the minds of teachers causal models so they will understand and ask questions. Number three involves the desire to approach teachers as adult learners. Four principles are included in this issue: (1) There should be a balance between action and reflection. Teachers need time both to do and to assess; (2) There needs to be some form of challenge, some issue of cognitive dissonance; (3) There needs to be the provision of support for the teachers as they move in the direction of change; and (4) The teachers need the opportunity to participate in the experiences related to the change process, role taking if you please (p. 7). Concerned also about the importance of a teacher's attitude of inquiry, and of the necessity that schools become centers of inquiry, Parkay (1986) became involved in a program designed to foster inquiry-oriented staff development. Before initiating the program, four basic assumptions were established regarding the change process they envisioned: 1. Change must begin with an open, honest inquiry into how the teaching/learning process is currently conducted within a school. 2. Meaningful change must be seen as a process of gradual growth, the final form of which cannot be determined beforehand. 61 3. Change should begin and end with the professionally autonomous teacher; worthwhile change involves new relationships between teachers and students. 4. The likelihood of worthwhile change is greatest in a setting which fosters two-way, face-to-face communication (p. 386). The design of the program included a cluster of four to six teachers actively involved in a project with the principal also actively involved. The focus was on encouraging the teachers to become more effective at problem solving and decision making, on identifying goals and seeking to achieve them. The teachers reported very positive feelings about being treated as professionals, in many cases for the first time. Believing that those responsible for staff growth and development frequently ignore available learning theory and research when they begin to design and implement training programs for teachers and administrators, yet recognizing the necesssity of their having an understanding of inservice education that enables them to design and conduct effective inservice programs, Wood, Thompson and Russell (1981) have gathered together a set of basic assumptions that are foundational to their approach to inservice education. 1. All personnel in schools, to stay current and effective, need and should be involved in inservice throughout their careers. 2. Significant improvement in educational practice takes considerable time and is the result of systematic, long-range staff development. 3. Inservice education should have an impact on the quality of the school program and focus on helping staff improve their abilities to perform their professional responsibilities. 4. Adult learners are motivated to risk learning new 6. 7. 10. 11. 62 behaviors when they believe they have control over the learning situation and are free from threat of failure. Educators vary widely in their professional competencies, readiness, and approaches to learning. Professional growth requires personal and group commitment to new performance norms. Organizational health including factors such as social climate, trust, open communication, and peer support for change in practice influence the success of professional development programs. The school is the primary unit of change; not the district or the individual. School districts have the primary responsibility for providing the resources and training necessary for a school staff to implement new programs and improve instruction. The school principal is the gatekeeper for adoption and continued use of new practices and programs in a school. Effective inservice programs must be based upon research, theory, and the best education practice (pp. 61-63). Burrello and Orbaugh (1982) have made an extensive study of inservice projects and have in turn sought to use the principles they discovered while working with more than 90 local school districts. Kells and Jamison subsequently expanded the information previously gathered from their contacts with more than 300 teachers, parents, state and local developers, and teacher center directors from the 54 states and territories. This combined approach produced six major observations regarding effective inservice education. 1. Inservice education should be designed so that programs are integrated into and supported by the organization within which they function. -Inservice education should be an integral part of the total school program. -Programs of inservice education should be explicitly supported at the outset by district and building administrators. -The incentives for participating in inservice education programs should be centered on intrinsic professional rewards. 63 Inservice education programs should be designed to result in collaborative programs. Including the participants, students and the community when and where appropriate can increase motivation and strengthen support. Inservice education programs should be grounded in the needs of the participants. -Inservice programs should respond to assessed needs, including the interests and strengths of participants. -The development of problemesolving skills should be made part of inservice training Inservice education programs should be responsive to changing needs. -The design of inservice programs should be complex and ambitious. -Each person is often his or her own most competent trainer. -Inservice education should model good teaching. -Trainees should make use of peer-teaching strategies. -The content should be directed toward changing teaching, not changing student behavior. -The implementation strategy should include continual professional growth activities and local develOpment of collaborative materials. -Outside agencies or consultants may be helpful in supportive roles, especially as catalysts during start-up or as process helpers during times of crisis or stalemates. Inservice education programs should be accessible. -The school site should be the focus of inservice education activities. ~Inconvenient times or locations, or other factors that would discourage participation, should be avoided. -Activities should be conducted primarily during the participants' normal working hours. -On-site demonstrations with students should be included when appropriate to the experience. --The program should provide participants with constructive criticism of their progress and with continuing consultation. This consultation must be kept separate from normal evaluation procedures. Inservice education activities should be evaluated over time and be compatible with the underlying philosophy and approach of the district. -The evaluation of inservice education should be a collaborative venture whose primary purpose is to assist with planning and implementing programs. -Decisions concerning the inservice education program should be based on the findings from continuing program evaluation by program participants and others affected by the program. 64 -The evaluation design should address planning, implementation and dissemination (pp. 385-386). Believing that some of the criticism of inservice education and disenchantment with it is related to a misunderstanding of the nature of it, Korinek, Schmid and McAdams (1985) conducted a survey designed to identify and describe (1) the kinds of inservice education used most frequently with teachers and (2) those stated guidelines most commonly used in producing effective inservice education. They believe that because most teaching is habit, staff development trainers typically conclude that information provided in staff development programs should automatically produce behavioral change. Yet, they see much of inservice activity as not designed to change behavior, and therefore many trainers are disappointed when the participants do not exhibit new teaching strategies related to their inservice experience. An extensive literature review of reports on inservice education, conducted by Korinek, et al. (1985), produced over 100+ reports they considered representative of contemporary inservice education. Subsequently, after further and intensive review, 17 were selected as representative for the identification of common inservice education practices. Their selection was based on the judgement of the investigators regarding, '(a) completeness in description of procedures used to arrive at conclusions, recommendations, or inferences; (b) inclusion of discussion of applicability of recommendations across settings and 65 populations; and (c) where appropriate, completeness of description of sample, training procedures, return rates, analysis or results and controls use." Ultimately, fourteen ”best practice" statements, identified by notating the number of times a particular practice was referred to in the reports were chosen. If a specific practice was mentioned six or more times in the reports, it was included as a "best practice.” Their statements of best practice are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 14. Effective inservice education is usually school—based rather than college-based. Administrators should be involved with the training and fully support it. Inservice activity should be offered at convenient times for participants. Inservice should be voluntary rather than mandatory. Rewards and reinforcement should be an integral part of the inservice program. Inservice should be planned in response to assessed needs. Activities which are a general effort of the school are more effective than ”single-shot" presentations. Participants should help plan the goals and activities of the inservice training. Goals should be clear and specific. Inservice activity should be directed at changing teacher behavior rather than student behavior. Individualized programs are usually more effective than using the same activities for the entire group. Participants should be able to relate the inservice content to their ”back home" situations. ‘Demonstrations, supervised practice, and specific feedback are more effective than having teachers store ideas for future use. Evaluation should be built into inservice activity. (pp. 36-38). Gary Griffin (1983), by his own admission, acknowledges that his personal biases regarding staff development are reflected in his paper, for which he makes no apology, and that he has used a relatively small number 66 of studies in his research on staff development, due to the fact there are so few ”conceptually sound and methodologically rigorous research studies related to staff development" (p. 415). Yet his experience at the Research and Development Center at the University of Texas at Austin recommends consideration of his concerns. As a result of his study, he has identified a set of eight factors that he believes are supported by research findings and are related to the issues and problems of staff development. Realizing there can be conceptual and scientific risks to such an undertaking, he never-the-less believes it is reasonable in an uncertain world to search for ”indicators” that one can use as foundation for staff development. It is Griffin's position that effective staff development will: 1. Be designed as a consequence of systematic problem identification by those most directly related to the problem. 2. Be interactive. 3. Mitigate to some degree status differences between teachers and administrators. 4. Depend less on consultants and more on teachers and administrators for substantive and procedural guidance. 5. Be formulated and monitored largely according to perceptions of the participants. 6. Be formulated, in part, in terms of a careful -analysis of the organization and the people for whom it is intended. 7. Be flexible and responsive to the changes in participants and the changes in the setting. 8. Be, within reasonable limits, situation-specific (p. 424). The essence of the Staff Development for School Improvement program as originated and developed by Eastern Michigan University is the concern for shared decision making at the school-building level which will lead to 67 constructive change in the school. A six-step process has been designed providing the format by which change is to occur. The focus is school improvement; the on-going process is staff development. The endorsement and support of the program by both the principal and the faculty is essential. The program is based on-a set of five foundational assumptions which, according to Warnat (1983), serve as criteria for their school improvement efforts: 1. The school building is the key unit to effect constructive change. 2. The school staff must be actively involved in determining how change (improvement) will occur. 3. Ownership of and commitment to the change process by the school staff are essential. They are natural by-products of shared planning and decision making. 4. Such change contributes to an improved learning climate--improvement of the instructional performance of teachers and the academic performance of students. 5. Staff development using the six-step process contributes to school improvement. The six-step process includes Awareness, Readiness, and Commitment; Interactive Needs Assessment; The Plan and Its Approval; Implementation; Reporting and Evaluation; and Adoption (p. 3). Recognizing that the general literature is in nearly unanimous agreement that there is very little hard research about inservice education, that the current status of its practice is deplorable, that conceptualizations of a broad-based nature are lacking, and that even the words ”inservice education” may be a misnomer, but mindful of the fact that there does exist some agreement about what are considered to be "best practices" of inservice education, Hutson (1981) determined to research the field for the purpose of attempting to build a composite model of 68 exemplary inservice education. He used a method identified by Glass (1976) as "meta-analysis," to draw inferences and reach his generalizations. In the process, he conducted an analysis of analyses in order to integrate his findings. As criteria for determining "best practice" statements, Hutson used empirical support, cogency of argument, and repitition in the literature. The resultant is his best thinking about the best practices, fifteen statements related to inservice education: 1. Decision-making should proceed as an authentic collaboration of inservice clients, providers and relevant constituencies. 2. The incentives for participating in inservice programs should emphasize intrinsic rewards. 3. Inservice programs should be explicitly supported at the outset by district and building administrators. 4. Outside agencies/consultants may be helpful in supportive roles. 5. The implementation strategy should include continual professional growth activities and the local development of materials, within a framework of collaborative planning by participants. 6. The design of inservice programs should be complex and ambitious; inservice goals should be clear and specific. 7. Inservice programs should be planned in response to assessed needs. 8. Inservice trainers should be competent. 9. The school site should be the focus of inservice activities. 10. The evaluation of inservice should be a .collaborative venture whose primary purpose is to assist with planning and implementing programs. 11. The content of inservice should be derived from assessed needs. 12. Inservice content should be directed toward changing teaching, not student behavior. 13. The process of inservice education should model good teaching. 14. Inservice education should follow a developmental, not a deficit model. 15. Inservice should be an integral part of the total school program. (pp. 3-8). 69 In his opening remarks, in an article in which he presents some issues he considers important for effective in-service education, Orlich (1983) reminds one of the thousands of published and unpublished papers, studies and articles which have been written about this issue. He then goes on to discuss the information he has gathered from a number of these researchers. Orlich next proceeds to summarize his results by presenting nine key conclusions that he proposes could be considered a set of criteria for developing an effective teacher in-service teacher education program. His list includes: 1. Teachers will benefit from those in-service programs in which they have some voice in selecting the goals and activities. 2. Teachers in the field tend to be most influenced by school-oriented in-service programs rather than by college-or university-based courses. 3. The objectives of any in-service program should be clearly and specifically stated. 4. Individualized small group training experiences may produce more positive and lasting results than will programs which feature common activities for all participants. 5. If in-service training is to improve system operations significantly, then the teachers' personal goals and needs must coincide with those of the school district. 6. In-service training is more likely to be effective if adequate time is provided within the teacher's ‘current work schedule. . Incentives must be identified for participants. 8. Involvement of the building principal in the in-service program is critical for success. 9. Evaluation of any aspect of the in-service is important, for it provides feedback so that necessary adjustments can be made while the program is in operation (p. 201). Like Orlich, Mazzarella (1980) sought to synthesize available research on staff development, in her case for the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Her 70 conclusions are presented as a part of the Research Information Service. Included in her summarization are several statements worthy of note. Effective staff development programs: 1. are concrete and aimed at specific skills. 2. emphasize demonstrations and opportunities for staff to practice the new skills and receive feedback. _ 3. are individualized to address the requirements of each participant and to relate to on-the-job needs. 4. are on-going, stretching throughout the school year. 5. are held at school rather than elsewhere. 6. include opportunities to observe other teachers who have mastered and are practicing the skills being taught. Principals should participate in staff development programs and show their knowledge and support, but teachers should help choose program content and act as helpers and planners. Local resource personnel make better trainers than do outside consultants, but many teachers would rather not be trained by local administrators. That may mean that staff members other than administrators should be the trainers and that the functions of evaluation and training have to be separated (p.184). As a part of his goal to describe his study of an effective school, Purkey (1983) identified several variables of organization—structure that are pertinent to this research. Included are the following: School-site management:...the leadership and staff of a school need considerable autonomy... Instructional leadership: The principal is uniquely positioned to fill this role, and certainly his or her support is essential very early on. Staff stability:...keeping the staff together seems to maintain, and promote, further success. Schoolwide staff development:...should be based on the expressed needs of teachers revealed as part of the process of collaborative planning and collegial relationships. Parental involvement and support:...it is reasonable to assume that parents need to be informed of school goals and student responsibilities... District support: Few, if any, of the variables 71 found to be significant are likely to be realized without district support. Keith Ward (1986), staff development consultant for the Los Angeles County Schools, is involved in inservice education activities with more than 100 school districts. His experience leads him to believe that there are six key elements to effective inservice education. The program should: 1) Be school-based, site-focused. The action must typically take place at home; 2) Involve the teachers in a very direct way. They must recognize their involvement throughout the process is crucial to success; 3) Include the involvement of a person(s) from outside the school. Colaboration is an important element; 4) Develop from assessment that looks at the relationship between mission and needs. Clear goals are a necessity for successful inservice; 5) Include the commitment of district leadership and the active involvement of building administration. Teachers need to sense their concern; and 6) Focus on planning and problem-solving skills. It is his experience that those programs most effective in achieving their goals were process-oriented in nature; product-oriented inservice frequently experiences difficulty because of transfer problems. A growing literature is available to guide the design of inservice education programs. While it is not possible to summarize all this research, a number of examples from the literature have been identified. The commonality and similarity of findings among the studies 72 would appear to increase their credibility. Consideration should now be given to seeking to notate those criteria most frequently identified in the literature. Identification of Specific Criteria In order to ascertain the principles that educators involved in inservice education consider to be important to effective teacher inservice education, an intensive search was made of the literature. A sizeable number of writers have noted principles they believe to be important. Typically these writers represent considerable experience with inservice education programs. This study of the literature identified 150 principles of effective inservice education. These factors were subsequently found to group into six categories. A combination of procedures was used in establishing the six criteria, for this study. Each of them was identified by a minimum of twelve of the seventeen researchers referred to in the criteria section. See Table 4.1 Several were identified so frequently in the literature, they stood out in importance. In addition, it was also felt that these would be workable criteria, ones for which considerable support could be found in the general literature. Effective Inservice Education The six criteria of effective inservice education are identified below: 73 :ofiummfiofiuumm Hmaflocflum ucweo>ao>cH poconoa woman I Hoonom mmwufi>fiuo¢ a mamow cofiumLOQMHHou coflumospm mcfiscfiucou Collins Edelfelt - A Willen & Kindsvatter Edelfelt - B McMahon SDSI/Warnat Purkey Ward K. I/ p/’ p/" Parkay I/ / v/' y/’ y/' P” Korinek, Schmid, McAdams / V / / Griffin i/VV/ i/ / 1/ ;/ / I/ Ware & Tikunoff p” L/’ y/' L/’ p// Wood, Thompson, Russel I/ 1/ l/ l/ l/ Burrello & Orbaugh I/l/I/I/t/ A/r/t/l/ / / t/ / V 3/ / / / / / HUtSOl’I l/l/l/t/l/ t/‘mm‘ / l/ l/ l/ l/ / Mazzarella .COHumospo oofi>uomcfi o>fiuomumw mo moousomll.P.¢ manna 74 1. THE CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF TEACHERS AND WILL BE TIED INTO THE ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL, RATHER THAN BE AN ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY. 2. THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIETY'S CHILDREN -- INCLUDING SUCH ELEMENTS AS SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOLS OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, RELATED COMMUNITY CONSTITUTENCIES, AND GOVERNNMENTAL AGENCIES -- WILL BE ABLE TO COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. 3. CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY AND PRACTICE WILL BE UTILIZED AND IMPLEMENTED. 4. THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL-BASED IMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. 5. TEACHERS WILL BE INVOLVED VERY DIRECTLY IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FROM INITIAL PLANNING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION, AND INCLUDING EVALUATION WHERE APPROPRIATE. (ACTIVITIES WILL BE SUPPORTED BY ADULT LEARNING THEORY AND WILL INCLUDE THOSE: RELATED TO NEEDS; PERMITTING INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-DIRECTION; CONDUCTED IN A PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT; PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO RELATE WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN; APPROACHING DIRECT EXPERIENCE; AND OFFERING PROVISION FOR REWARD AND REINFORCEMENT.) 6. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL WILL BE INVOLVED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. With the establishment of these criteria, it now becomes possible to confirm them as such. Appropriate quotations and references are provided for each criterion. Criterion 1. THE CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF TEACHERS AND SHOULD BE TIED INTO THE ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL, RATHER THAN BE AN ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY. Reference Collins, p. 16:...inservice education programs tend to be more effective if "they are linked to the general goals of the school." Edelfelt-A, p. 20: "Professional growth is seen as a continuum from preservice preparation through career-long professional development." (p. 25): "Inservice education is available to all professional and nonprofessional personnel." Wilen and Kindsvatter, p. 393: ”School districts must allocate specific funds for in-service education sufficient to maintain comprehensive and continuous programs." Edelfelt-B, pp. 113-114: "There has been much greater interest and much more activity in inservice education than there was from 1968 to 1974. A number of enterprising people have come forth to initiate and direct efforts in inservice education. Many more people are writing about what is happening in inservice education and what ought to happen. Many, many more conferences, workshops, work 76 parties and other meetings are serving as places to examine, share, challenge, and plan ideas for inservice education. (p. 116): The emphasis on college credits and degrees has been greatly reduced although credit toward salary increments and other extrinsic rewards are still major incentives in inservice training." "Progress in faculty development will depend on the extent to which a situation develops where educators recognize continuing development of practioners as an integral and necessary element of professional practice. McMahon, p. 4: "Reward systems for professional growth and improvement should be developed beyond the 'credit-step' system." Parkay, p. 386: ”Meaningful change must be seen as a process of gradual growth, the final form of which cannot be determined beforehand.” Wood et al, p. 61: ”All personnel in schools need and should be involved in inservice throughout their careers. Significant improvement in educational practice takes considerable time and is the result of systematic, long-range staff development. Educators vary widely in their professional ' competencies, readiness, and approaches to learning. Professional growth requires personal and group commitment to new performance norms.” Burrello and Orbaugh, p. 385: "Inservice education should be designed so that programs are integrated into and supported by the organization within which they function. 77 Inservice education should be an integral part of the total school program. The incentives for participating in inservice education programs should be centered on intrinsic professional rewards. The implementation strategy should include continual professional growth activities and local development of collaborative materials. Decisions concerning the inservice education program should be based on the findings from continuing program evaluation by program participants and others affected by the program." Korinek, et al, p. 36: ”Rewards and reinforcement should be an integral part of the inservice program." Activities which are a general effort of the school are more effective than "single-shot" presentations.” Griffin, p. 415: "Be flexible and responsive to the changes in participants and the changes in the setting." Hutson, p. 4: "The incentives for participating in inservice programs should emphasize intrinsic rewards. The implementation strategy should include continual professional growth activities and the local development of materials, within a framework of collaborative planning by participants. Inservice education should follow a developmental, not a deficit model.” Orlich, p. 201: "Evaluation of any aspect of the in-service is important, for it provides feedback so that necessary adjustments can be made while the program is in operation." THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIETY'S CHILDREN - INCLUDING SUCH ELEMENTS AS SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOLS OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, RELATED COMMUNITY CONSTITUENCIES, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - ARE ABLE To COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. 78 Mazzarella, p. 184: "Effective staff development programs are ongoing--stretching throughout the school year." Purkey, p. 443: "Staff stability:...keeping the staff together seems to maintain, and promote, further success.” K. Ward, interview: The program should “include the commitment of district leadership and the active involvement of building administration." Edelfelt-A, p.13: ”Decision-making processes are based on cooperation between all major interest groups, that is school district, college/university, and teacher organizations. Decisions are made by the people affected, and the decisions are made as close as possible to the situation where they will be operative." (p.14): "The cooperation of major interest groups is based on a concept of parity for each group. Explicit procedures exist to assure fairness in decision-making." (p. "Adequate personnel are available from the school district and college/university for inservice education.” (p.20): "Inservice education makes use of community resources. Funds for inservice education are provided by the local school district." (p.21): "Inservice education is paid for by state funds provided for that purpose." (p. 23): "The respective strengths of the school district, the college/university, the teacher organization, and the 19): 79 community are used in the inservice education program." (p. 25): "There is a reward system for teachers, administrators, and college/university personnel who engage in inservice education programs.” Wilen and Kindsvatter, p. 393-394: "School districts must allocate specific funds for in-service education sufficient to maintain comprehensive and continuous programs. Area colleges and universities should serve as a major source for program directors and consultants." Edelfelt—B, p. 114: "State plans for (preservice and) inservice teacher education have been developed in every state and territory as required by Public Law 95-561, Titles IV and v.” (p.115): "State departments of education have exerted more effort in inservice education. States are beginning to appropriate money for inservice education." (p. 118): Progress will depend on the extent to which those organizations with a vested interest in inservice education - schools, colleges and universities, teacher organizations and governmental agencies - combine their efforts. McMahon, p. 4: ”Local school district Boards of Education, professional associations and all individuals involved in the schooling process must become better informed of the manner in which improving instructional skills will benefit everyone and most importantly the learning experience of school children. This will require a spirit of cooperation.“ 80 Ward and Tikunoff, p. 7: ”There needs to be the provision of support for the teacher as they move in the direction of change." Wood et al, p. 61: "School districts have the primary responsibility for providing the resources and training necessary for a school staff to implement new programs and improve instruction." Burrello and Orbaugh, p. 385: ”Programs of inservice education should be explicitly supported at the outset by district and building administrators. Inservice education programs should be designed to result in collaborative programs. Including the participants, students and the community when and where appropriate can increase motivation and strengthen support." (p. 386) "Outside agencies or consultants may be helpful in supportive roles, especially as catalysts during start-up or as process helpers during times of crisis or stalemates. Inconvenient times or locations, or other factors that would discourage participation, should be avoided. The evaluation of inservice education should be a collaborative venture whose primary purpose is to assist with planning and implementing programs.“ Griffin, p. 424: Effective staff development will "mitigate to some degree status differences between teachers and administrators." Hutson, p. 3-4: ”Decision-making should proceed as an authentic collaboration of inservice clients, providers and relevant constituencies. Inservice programs should be 81 explicitly supported by district and building administrators. Outside agencies/consultants may be helpful in supportive roles." (p. 6): "The evaluation of inservice should be a collaborative venture whose primary purpose is to assist with planning and 'implementing programs.” Orlich, p. 201: “If in-service training is to improve system operations significantly, then the teachers' personal goals and needs must coincide with those of the school district." Mazzarella, p. 184: "Local resource personnel make better trainers than do outside consultants, but many teachers would rather not be trained by local administrators. That may mean that staff members other than administrators should be the trainers and that the functions of evaluation and training have to be separated.” Purkey, p. 444: “Parental involvement and support:...it is reasonable to assume that parents need to be informed of school goals and student responsibilities... District support: Few, if any, of the variables found to be significant are likely to be realized without district support." K. Ward, interview: An inservice education program should include the involvement of a person(s) from outside the school. Collaboration is an important element. It should also include the commitment of district leadership and the active involvement of building administration. CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY AND PRACTICE WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED. 82 Collins, p. 16:...inservice education programs tend to be more effective if ”they are individualized and differentiated, and if they are self-initiated and self-directed.” Edelfelt-A, p. 18: ”The techniques and methods used in inservice education are consistent with fundamental principles of good teaching and learning. Research/evaluation is an integral part of inservice education. All those who participate in inservice education are engaged in both learning and teaching." (p. 20): "Adequate materials are available.” (p. 20): “The inservice education program reflects the many different ways that professionals grow. The inservice education program addresses the many different roles and responsibilities that a teacher must assume.“ (p. 23): "Inservice education is related to research and development." (p. 24): "Internship and student teaching experiences are used for analysis and study in the inservice education program." Wilen and Kindsvatter, p. 394: "Teachers need to be directly involved in planning the goals, content, and instructional approach of in-service programs. Objectives of in-service programs must be written and specified in clear, meaningful terms." (p. 395): "In-service education program evaluation must be assessed immediately upon completion based on objectives and again later to determine the extent to which objectives have been translated into teacher behaviors in the classroom." 83 Edelfelt—B, p. 113: "There is almost no significant research and evaluation going on in connection with inservice education programs." Inservice education is still ” more often about education and teaching than of teaching.” Ward and Tikunoff, p. 7: ”Teachers need the opportunity to participate in the experiences related to the change process, role taking if you please." Parkay, p. 386: ”Change must begin with an open, honest inquiry into how the teaching/learning process is currently conducted within a school.” Wood, et al, p. 61: "Educators vary widely in their professional competencies, readiness, and approaches to learning." (p. 62): "Professional growth requires personal and group commitment to new performance norms." "Effective inservice programs must be based upon research, theory, and the best education practice." Burrello and Orbaugh, p. 385: "The development of problem-solving skills should be made part of inservice training. Inservice education programs should be responsive to changing needs. The design of inservice programs should be complex and ambitious.” (p. 386): ”Inservice education should model good teaching. The program should provide participants with constructive criticism of their progress and with continuing consultations. This consultation must be kept separate from normal evaluation procedures. Inservice education 84 activities should be evaluated over time and be compatible with the underlying philosophy and approach of the district. The evaluation of inservice education should be a collaborative venture whose primary purpose is to assist with planning and implementing programs. The evaluation design should address planning, implementation, and dissemination.’I Korinek, et al, p. 36: ”Rewards and reinforcement should be an integral part of the inservice program.” (p. 37): "Participants should help plan the goals and activities of the inservice training. Goals and objectives should be clear and specific. Inservice activity should be directed at changing teacher rather than student behavior. Individualized programs are usually more effective than using the same activity for the entire group. Evaluation should be built into inservice activity." Griffin, p. 424: Effective staff development will "be formulated, in part, in terms of a careful analysis of the organization and the people for whom it is intended." Warnat, p. 3: ”Staff development using the six-step process contributes to school improvement. The six-step process includes Awareness, Readiness, and Commitment; Interactive Needs Assessment; The Plan and Its Approval; Implementation; Reporting and Evaluation; and Adoption.” Hutson, p. 5: "The design of inservice programs should be complex and ambitious; THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL- BASED IMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. 85 inservice goals should be clear and specific.” (p. 7): ”The content of inservice should be derived from assessed needs." Orlich, p. 201: “Teachers will benefit from those in-service programs in which they have some voice in selecting the goals and activities. The objectives of any in-service program should be clearly and specifically stated. Individualized small group training experiences may produce more positive and lasting results than will programs which feature common activities for all participants.” Mazzarella, p.184: "Effective staff development programs are concrete and aimed at specific skills and emphasize demonstrations and opportunities for staff to practice the new skills and receive feedback.” K. Ward, interview: Inservice education should develop from assessment that looks at the relationship between mission and needs. Clear goals are a necessity for successful inservice. The focus should be on planning and problem-solving skills. Collins, p. 16:...inservice education programs tend to be more effective if: they are school-based. Edelfelt-A, p. 13: ”Decisions are made by the people who are affected, and the decisions are made as close as possible to the situation where they will be operative." (p. 16): "Inservice education is directly related to curriculum development and instructional improve’ment." 86 (pp. 16-17) "Inservice education is based on the needs of students, teachers, and the school program." Edelfelt-B, p. 113: "Schools of education are beginning to seek and find new, often site-specific roles in inservice education." Ward and Tikunoff, p. 7: "Effective staff development requires the collaboration of the entire school." Wood, et al, p. 61: ”Inservice education should have an impact on the quality of the school program and focus on helping staff improve their abilities to perform their professional responsibilities.” (p. 62): “The school is the primary unit of change; not the district or the individual." Burrello and Orbaugh, p. 385: "Inservice education should be designed so that programs are integrated into and supported by the organization within which they function. Inservice education should be an integral part of the total school program." (p. 386): "Inservice education programs should be accessible. The school site should be the focus of inservice education activities. On-site demonstrations should be included when appropriate to the experience.“ Korinek, et al, p. 36: "Effective inservice is usually school-based rather than college-based.” Griffin, p. 424: Effective staff development will ”be, within reasonable limits, situation-specific.“ Warnat, p. 3: ”The school building is the key unit to effect constructive change." Hutson, p. 5: "The school site should be the locus of TEACHERS WILL BE INVOLVED VERY DIRECTLY IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FROM INITIAL PLANNING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION, AND INCLUDING EVALUATION WHERE APPROPRIATE. (ACTIVITIES WILL BE SUPPORTED BY ADULT LEARNING THEORY AND WILL INCLUDE THOSE: RELATED TO NEEDS; PERMITTING INDEPENDENCE AND 87 inservice activities." (p. 8): "Inservice should be an integral part of the total school program." Orlich, p. 201: "Teachers in the field tend to be more influenced by school-oriented in-service programs rather than by college- or university-based courses.” Mazarella, p. 184: "Effective staff development programs are held at school rather than elsewhere." Purkey, p. 16: ”School-site management:...the leadership and staff of a school need considerable autonomy..." K. ward, interview: Effective inservice education should be school-based, site-focused. The action must typically take place at home. Collins, p. 16:...inservice education programs tend to be more effective if: "teachers participate as planners and deliverers of inservice." Edelfelt-A, p. 13: "Decisions are made by the people who are affected, and the decisions are made as close as possible to the situation where they will be operative." (p. 17): "Inservice education is based on the needs of teachers." Wilen and Kindsvatter, p. 394: ”The needs of teachers must directly influence the nature and design of in-service education programs. Teachers need to be directly involved in planning the goals, content, and instructional approach of in-service programs.” Edelfelt-B, p. 113: "Major changes in the governance of inservice are under way. This is possibly the most striking change. Increasingly teachers are SELF-DIRECTION; CONDUCTED IN A PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT; PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO RELATE WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN; APPROACHING DIRECT EXPERIENCE; AND OFFERING PROVISION FOR REWARD AND REINFORCEMENT.) 88 more involved in decisions about inservice education as a result of teacher demands ... and in response to research showing the advantages of involving them.” (p. 117): "Increasingly, school district sponsored inservice education involves teachers in the councils that plan and conduct staff development." McMahon, p. 4: "Innovative staffing procedures should be developed to provide ”in-house" substitute teacher personnel which would allow adequate release time for professional growth experiences. Teachers should not always be expected to participate beyond their contracted work day in inservice programs designed to improve the instructional program of the school system. Consideration should be given for released time for those teachers involved in staff development planning or implementation in much the same way that athletic directors are frequently given released time or increased payments." Ward and Tikunoff, p. 7: ”Teachers need some form of challenge, some issue of cognitive dissonance. They need the opportunity to participate in the experiences related to the change process, role taking if you please. Parkay. p. 386: "Change should begin and end with the professionally autonomous teacher; worthwhile change involves new relationships between teachers and students. The likelihood of worthwhile change is the greatest in a setting which 89 fosters two-way, face—to-face communication." Wood, et al, p. 62: ”Adult learners are motivated to risk learning new behaviors when they believe they have control over the learning situation and are free from threat of failure." Burrello and Orbaugh, p. 385: ”Inservice education programs should be grounded in the needs of participants. Inservice programs should respond to assessed needs, including the interests and strengths of participants." (p. 386): "Each person is his or her own most competent trainer. Decisions concerning the inservice education program should be based on the findings from continuing program evaluation by program participants and others affected by the program." Korinek, et al, p. 36: "Inservice should be planned in response to assessed needs." (p. 37): ”Participants should help plan the goals and activities of the inservice training. Demonstrations, supervised practice, and specific feedback are more effective than having teachers store ideas for future use.” Griffin, p. 424: Effective staff development will " be designed as consequence of systematic problem identification by those most directly related to the problem and will depend less on consultants and more on teachers and administrators for substantive and procedural guidance." Warnat, p. 3: "The school staff must be actively involved in determining how change (improvement) will 90 occur. Ownership of and commitment to the change process by the school staff are essential. They are natural by-products of shared planning and decision making." Hutson, p. 5: "The implementation strategy should include continual professional growth activities and the local development of materials, within a framework of collaborative planning by participants." (p. 7): "The content of inservice should be derived from assessed needs. Inservice content should be directed toward changing teaching, not student behavior." Orlich, p. 201: "Teachers will benefit from those in-service programs in which they have some voice in selecting the goals and activities. In-service training is more likely to be effective if adequate time is provided within the teacher's current work schedule." Mazzarella, p. 184: "... teachers should help choose program content and act as helpers and planners. Effective staff development programs are individualized to address the requirements of each participant and to relate to on—the-job needs, and include opportunities to observe other teachers who have mastered and are practicing the skills being taught.” Purkey, p. 444: ”Schoolwide staff development:...should be based on the expressed needs of teachers revealed as part of the process of collaborative planning and collegial relationships." K. Ward, interview: Effective THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL WILL BE INVOLVED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. 91 staff development should involve the teachers in a very direct way. They must recognize their involvement throughout the process is crucial to success. Ward and Tikunoff, p. 7: "The involvement of the entire school, faculty, principal, as well as support personnel will be important to the success of the inservice project." Wood, et al, p. 63: “The school principal is the gatekeeper for adoption and continued use of new programs and practices in a school.” Burrello and Orbaugh, p. 385: "Programs of inservice education should be explicitly supported at the outset by district and building administrators." Korinek, et al, p. 36: "Administrators should be involved with the training and fully support it. Inservice activity should be offered at convenient times for participants." Griffin, p. 424: Effective staff development will "depend less on consultants and more on teachers and administrators for substantive and procedural guidance." Hutson, p. 4: "Inservice programs should be explicitly supported at the outset by district and building administrators.” Orlich, p. 201: ”Involvement of the building principal in the in-service program is critical for success." Mazzarella, p. 184: "Principals should participate in staff development programs and show their knowledge and support but teachers should help 92 choose program content and act as helpers and planners.” K. Ward, interview: Effective inservice education will include the commitment of district leadership and the active involvement of building administration. Support for Criteria Research of the literature confirms the presence of an extensive literature base regarding inservice teacher education; specifically criteria for effective school-based and faculty development activities. Reported here is the support found in the literature for the six chosen criteria. Continuing Education The increasing interest in the continuing education of professional school personnel is considered by some to be simply a reflection of the response many observers are making to the problems they see in the current education scene. Such issues as the seeming inadequacy of preservice teacher preparation programs, continuing falling test scores among some populations, continued stabilization of teaching faculties, individual teacher autonomy, additions to the curricular program, changes brought about by desegregation measures, legislated school programs such as special education and bilingual education, as well as the growing concern for quality and accountability regarding the entire education enterprise, all add to the feeling of unrest and concern for additional preparation for those involved in education. A situation is created wherein the message is 93 clear -- continuing education and increased inservice education are essential (Goodlad, 1984). Logically, continuing professional teacher education should not be divorced from preservice professional teacher preparation; rather the one should be considered an extension of the other. Frequently however, teachers report: that some, if not most, of the professional knowledge they acquired as undergraduates fails to illuminate their daily lives as classroom teachers. Thus they are reluctant to accept the notion that they need more of the same kind of professional education. What they seem to want instead are information and skills that they can put to use immediately in order to increase their professional success and thus their personal satisfaction (Cruickshank, 1985, p. 704). Cruickshank (1985) subsequently discusses the kinds of things that staff specialists do to make inservice education as different as possible from traditional teacher education in both content and approach. Attention to such issues as interpersonal relationships with peers, classroom and time management, parent conferencing, student achievement and classroom climate are of interest to most teachers. These inservice educators are also guided by what they know about adult learning; that adults like to use and build on their experiences to solve problems that are 'at hand”. There appears to be considerable agreement that some professionals begin to lose the effectiveness of their preservice preparation after five to seven years (Rubin, 1978). Mac Kenzie (1983) believes that five years is a key 94 time, feeling that the first five years of teaching experience is a very important block of time to develop the instructional skills necessary for the job. How important then to begin a program of continuing/inservice education to increase one's capabilities. Interestingly, the problem is one of education, not limited to teacher education. According to Tyler (1985), studies of the professions of medicine and engineering indicate that about two—thirds of these professions reach their peak of efficiency by their eighth year and from there the majority begin to experience a slow decline, leading to 'ruts" and boredom. As Dodd (1986) and Sharma (1982) have so emphatically stated, continuing education makes sense when one looks at it as consisting of educational experiences that are of a continuing nature, rather than limited to brief exposures. Such experiences need to be part and parcel of the on-going developmental program of the school. Developmental in Nature. Discussing her experience with inservice education, Holly (1982) indicates the activities were generally district-wide inservice days offered once a year. Cole's evaluation comes to mind; 'too often a token effort -- a day set aside here, a speaker or two brought in there -- (1984, p. 8)." Griffin (1983) concurs in reiter- ating, ”the most typical staff development activity is a workshop, usually a one-time attempt to alter the behavior, beliefs and/or thoughts, of participants (pp. 421-4)." One 95 can certainly question whether such goals are realistic. Parkay (1986) does. He believes that change and development must be seen in the context of gradual growth. He states that recent research has confirmed his hunch that "one-time" inservice education workshops, presenting research findings, are not effective in changing teacher behavior. Thus he determined that his program would focus, on ongoing professional learning and growth, rather than on one-time innoculations related to imagined teacher deficiences. Yet Edwards (1985) is not so sure. She acknowledges that inservice education programs are increasingly shifting away from single-session workshops and large-group sessions by visiting gurus; she also recognizes that whether the one-shot workshop is successful depends on who gets shot, with what, and/or the nature and degree of expertise of the visiting guru. However she does see these methods as cost-efficient and time-saving given the right conditions. Yet she also can see considerable value in the newer approaches. The success of these newer methods involving locally based and directed, long-term change efforts depends to an important degree on the change facilitator in the local setting, which causes her some concern. The most positive factor in these current approaches seems to be the increasing knowledge base about teaching and schooling which has come from recent educational research. The Staff Development for School Improvement program 96 is founded on the change-over-time principle. The process of staff development does not occur rapidly, says Hibner (1983). If it is expected to cause real change, it will not be a one-shot program presented to the staff by an "expert” who leaves town immediately afterward (p.23). She believes that a good program -- will occur over a span of time great enough for changes to take place, whether those changes be curricular or personal in nature. Real and long-lasting changes cannot be hurried or dictated. They must be allowed to evolve, and they must be rehearsed by the persons involved (p. 23). It is so easy to want to stimulate instantaneous growth. But professional growth takes time (Holly, 1982). And more time than one would think. Research indicates, according to Odden (1984), that school improvement takes place over a two to three year period. Ferver (1981) sets a time period of two to five years -- time to work through a problem solving process and time to live with the effects. Change is a process, not an event, and therefore for real innovation or change to occur, a process approach is required. For the translation of research into practical application, Griffin (1983), proposes a span of six to twelve years. That is not surprising to him when he considers all the interactive parts that are potentially involved in the change process -- the people and their personal and professional characteristics, to name just two. Some writers aren't so precise in their estimations, although they agree in principle. Educators specializing in continuing professional development of teachers, according 97 to the Commission on Reading (1986), believe that little change in classroom practice results from brief workshops introducing new ideas regarding teaching. Greater change takes place when a change agent works with teachers on a series of occasions and over an extended period of time. An innovation's long-term success certainly requires more than a one-time introduction of a good idea (Davis, 1986). In a set of recommendations to administrators, McCarthy (1985) suggests that they should plan long-range inservice education just as they expect teachers to plan their instruction, with as much attention given to it as teachers give to the student curriculum. Educators must give increased attention to discerning professional growth needs and interests, recognizing learning as a developmental lifelong process, rather than a single, periodic event (Mac Kenzie, 1982). The need for continuing education is a challenge to all educators. One proposal worthy of attention involves the benefits that come from "collaboration". Collaboration ‘Tyler (1985) believes that new enthusiasm can be built into the continuing education dilemma as educators get a new perspective on the relationship between collaboration and continuing education. When teachers begin to view professional education as continuing throughout their careers, collaborative arrangements of inservice education provided by both school and college personnel can be both 98 stimulating and challenging and result in new enthusiasm for their work. And it is happening, and has been for sometime. Rubin (1978) identifies a number of collaborative programs between schools and colleges/universities that were underway in the early and middle 1970's -- in Illinois, California, Texas, New York, and Michigan. Although these programs were related primarily to preservice teacher education, the established relationships can and have been in many cases used to build inservice education type experiences, as is noted below. The collaboration frequently includes groups besides the schools and colleges. Three additional elements are typically considered to be involved in the collaborative process. Included also would be parents and residents of a community, organizations of educational personnel, and State Departments of Education. State agencies are becoming involved in a more direct way. Whereas formerly these agencies performed regulatory type functions only, today many of them are providing technical assistance that has as its goal, the concern to help teachers and schools develop a capacity for improvement (Odden, 1984). Projects designed to increase the capacity of individual schools to provide educational excellence have been begun in such states as Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. These improvement 99 projects are school based; their goal is to help each school identify its strengths and weaknesses and thereby establish a set of priorities for improvement. They frequently involve personnel from state and local education agencies, and from nearby colleges/universities and they are generally long-range projects continuing from six months to as long as three years (Odden, 1984). The University of Massachusetts at Amherst has participated in partnerships with the Boston Secondary Schools Project and with the Roosevelt/University of Massachusetts Staff Development Project, both designed to generate school improvement. These partnerships "stimulated a belief on the part of teachers that because there were additional resources and outside ideas, change was possible (Maloy and Jones, 1987, p. 23).“ Once they recognized that change was possible, teachers began to focus in on the possibility of improving their school; once this change took place, they began to envision the changes they could make collectively. Although its budget for public education has been reduced significantly, the federal government has participated in this area. Much of the research that is foundational to present school improvement programs was supported by the federal government, funded primarily through the National Institute of Education. Odden (1984) takes the position that a very important collaboration element will be available to state and local school 100 districts if the NIE budget would be increased by $50,000,000. The Education Commission of the States headquartered in Denver has made an extensive study of the influence a state can have on education at the local level. Their report entitled, "State Strategies to Support Local School Improvement” focused particularly on two major questions: What are effective school strategies at the state level? and Under what conditions do state-level strategies work effectively in local schools (Anderson, 1986, p. 578)? Important to this discussion was the identification of five factors which were found to be crucial in the success of the state department of education's efforts to influence school improvement. 1. Political support within the department. The chief education officer or an individual supported by that person had to be an active advocate. 2. A collegial relationship with local school people. The state agency must recognize the importance of its relationships with local school districts and make its staff members available to assist districts and schools. 3. Adequate resources. The strength of state programs were related to the availability of funds and personnel. 4. Structure and organization of the state department. 'An organizational structure that ensured the on-going support of the program enhanced the success of the program. 5. An effort to develop local capacity through technical assistance. The successful programs all evidenced a commitment by the state to assist the local unit to work on their own problems (Anderson, 1986. pp. 580-581). Element #5 may well be the most important issue in the listing above. The ability of the state to support and bring about school improvement at the local level hinges on 101 its concern to help the ”locals" help themselves. Increasing procedures and regulations can lead to bureaucratization, dissapating the energy typically available. However there are guidelines available to help a state work effectively in school improvement at the local level (Fuhrman, 1986). There is yet another factor that needs to be considered -- the importance of school - college collaboration. Ernest Boyer (1985), President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, considers this to be a crucial issue. Today with all the talk about educational excellence, schools and colleges still live in two separate worlds. Presidents and deans rarely talk to principals and district superintendents. College faculty do not meet with their counterparts in public schools, and curriculum reforms at every level are planned in isolation. It's such a simple point —- the need for close collaboration -- and yet it is a priority that has been consistently ignored. Universities pretend they can have quality without working with the schools, which are, in fact, the foundation of everything universities do. Boyer then goes on to express his concern that collaboration is also needed to address issues related to the improvement of the quality of teaching; he identifies specifically the need to address the working conditions of many teachers that leave them tired and discouraged at the end of the day. Certainly that is an issue that the colleges and schools working together should be able to solve. The issue of collaboration is particularly important 102 to Bennett (1987) because he believes that teacher preparation institutions have not been as open as they might have been to developments in cooperative partnerships. It is his experience that educators have gone directly to practitioners to learn about such issues as cooperative team learning, mastery learning etc. He.in turn makes a plea for schools of education and local school districts to build structures of relationships that facilitate growth and development at both levels. He likewise suggests that the private sector and foundations would do well to consider making a contribution to inservice education. There appear to be benefits two ways to collaboration. On the one hand, the local schools benefit from the expertise of those groups with whom they are involved. But there is also a benefit that accrues to the higher education institution. Blackman (1979) addresses this issue. It is his concern that those involved at that level must look past their involvement in inservice teacher education as an investment in their own continuing education, to see that their involvement stimulates increased competence and also increasing credibility. Is it reasonable to expect colleges/universities and schools to work together? If so, it will require, according to Binko (1984), that the traditional hierarchial relationships between classroom teachers and university professors must be eliminated. He goes on to state that we have had indications since the middle 1950's that change 103 will most frequently take place in an atmosphere that is collaborative (cited in Coffey and Golden, 1957). Updating the time, Binko also draws support from an address Eubanks gave at the 1984 National Conference of the American Association for Higher Education, wherein he stated that ”unless you enter a relationship believing you're working with persons who are equal to you, a project has no probability of success” (cited in Watkins, 1984, P. 12). The concern seems to be for "empathy" and reminds one of the ancient Indian enjoinder, "don't criticize me until you have walked in my moccasins for 24 hours.” True collaboration requires empathic understanding. Is it reasonable to expect schools and colleges/universities to work together? Yes, and quite necessary. Given the focus today on school improvement -- "the recognition that the school is the essential unit of change in the educational system" (Hopkins, 1984, p. 1). Recognizing the importance of that statement, it is unlikely that the talent necessary to provide the knowledge, understandings, attitudes and behaviors required to OperatiOnalize such a statement resides alone within the school and its personnel. The complexity of the tasks and skills necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the local school are so complex, that consideration must be given to bringing in individuals from beyond the school. Wideen (1984) would certainly agree with that statement and would add the caution, "it is crucial that 104 whatever outside support is introduced, the teachers must initiate, examine and engage openly with the consulting personnel" (p. 198). Specifically related to teacher education, there are some good suggestions as to the kind of individual this consulting collaborator should be. .Bodie Sorenson expressed her concern for this issue at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Staff Development Workshop in San Francisco in January 1978 (cited in Kersch, 1978, pp. 16-17), and identified the following considerations: 1. First of all, we need a person who can sense the school climate when he or she walks in--what makes this building tick, what makes this staff work together. Having made that assessment, the college facilitator needs the skills to establish trust and support, to create an atmosphere of sharing with the staff so that the staff members will share with each other. All of this is the necessary backdrop to the well-organized expertise the facilitator brings to the class. 2. This college person needs to be able to involve the principal and teachers in the class (seminar, workshop) as equals, without offending anyone. That is a real skill. 3. He/She needs to train us to be better decision-makers; I can't emphasize that thought enough. We need that training. We need persons who are skilled at doing that. In the school we are often too involved, too fragmented as a staff, too busy even to sit down together to assess where we -are and where we want to go. 4. We need a college facilitator skilled at needs assessment, and more importantly, skilled at leading a staff through such an exercise in a fairly painless and efficient manner. 5. We need a college facilitator who knows, practices, and can teach effective communication training. There is nothing more thrilling than to be involved in a class where a facilitator knows how to use communication skills and can get a staff to discuss subjects they have been skirting for a long time--because no one dares bring them up for fear of offending or of getting involved in yet another committee. In these classes you hear opinions 105 expressed that never get mentioned in faculty meetings. » 6. We need a facilitator who can pick up on what the staff is already doing well and then help us to do it even better. We need help in building on our strengths and convincing us of our potential for growth. 7. We need help in developing in-house leadership. We need someone who can assist in developing a nucleus for change within our building that will work long after he or she has left. ' 8. We need a college facilitator who can create an optimal degree of tension--not so much that we grow defensive or get turned off, but enough to get us excited. Enough to make us think, "What if we really could do that, wouldn't that be exciting!" 9. We need a college person who can build on the program we already have. We've tried so many new programs and so many have gone down the tube. We need to concentrate for longer periods on existing programs and make them even better. 10. We need a college person who will focus on the situation in our school, the specifics of our problems. We need fewer generalities and fictitious situations. We need practical help that is a bridge to the basic research the college person is in touch with. 11. We need a college facilitator who can bring some immediate successes, rewards, and hands-on activities that can be tried with minimum preparation in the classroom the next day. 12. We need a college person who demonstrates alternative teaching styles, who extends our thoughts, and who builds credibility by delivering, both in words and action. 13. We need a college facilitator who is aware that we in the class often come to the classroom feeling isolated, unsupported, and terribly drained. 14. And finally, we need a college person who, from the _first, makes it clear that the activities of the inservice class have absolutely nothing to do with our formal evaluation. The goal is better teaching. Dated September 1979, faculty members of Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan and Wayne State University involved in the Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop published a paper entitled, ”Role of the Coordinators.” Subsequently, this paper was used by the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop as a guideline 106 for it's consultants. The following are identified as some of the responsibilities of all the consultants: 1. Assist the team in the identification of a genuine local problem. 2. Assist the team in defining the problem as specifically and realistically as possible. 3. Assist the team in setting up appropriate goals, objectives and evaluation criteria for the problem. 4. Assist the team in following the philosophy and principles involved in a workshop way of learning consensus, cooperation, individuality, communication, etc. 5. Provide a liaison with key administrators, often teachers, etc. to facilitate the operation. 6. Provide references, materials, personnel, and self expertise as needed. 7. Maintain weekly communication with the team and the team leader via personal contact and/or telephone and the weekly Team Progress Report. 8. Assist the team in developing "next steps" at the end of the workshop. 9. Provide a letter grade for each member upon completion of the workshop term. 10. Provide assistance as needed (Olson Notes). Marilyn Lake (1983), an associate professor of special education at Eastern Michigan College of Education, has served as a university facilitator for the Staff Development for School Improvement program. Collaboration is a very important characteristic of this program. Cooperation involving school staff, local and intermediate school district personnel, Eastern Michigan University personnel, serving uniquely as facilitators rather than content specialists, and staff from the Michigan Department of Education, all participate in the program. In a discussion of her experiences in that program, she shares her perception of the roles and the responsibilities of the facilitator. Included are the following: 107 Roles *A process consultant *An ambassador for the university *A resource for program implementation *A link to the resources of the university and other agencies. Responsibilities *Stay current on research and practice in staff development and school improvement. *Establish rapport with the principal and the teachers of the assigned schools. *Conduct building-committee training sessions. *Visit the assigned schools about once a week. *Write regularly about the progress in assigned schools. *Make a final evaluation report on each assigned school. Can we find such people as Sorenson and Lake envision? "Yes", say Warnat, Jennings, Helbig, Voorhees, Thomas and Edelfelt, all of whom were involved in the Staff Development for School Improvement program (1983). The local school district and other local schools can also collaborate in school improvement. Local school districts, according to Fuhrman (1986), can play an important role by establishing clear goals for school improvement efforts, by creating conditions that encourage local school faculty members to participate in such efforts, by requiring the participation of building level administrators, and by establishing reasonable time frames for these projects. There are beginning to appear fresh stirrings for educational improvement in the local schools. “The nearly defunct Coalition of school boards, parent groups, legislators, school administrators and others once fostering the development of our educational system appears to need 108 only a convincing agenda in order to coalesce once again" (Goodlad, 1983, pg. 5). The continuing education of professional teachers warrants that kind of collaboration; inservice processes ”focused on the development of self-renewing capability in schools" deserves the attention (Goodlad, 1983, p. 6). Concern for well developed and articulated goals and activities is an important step in the process. Goals and Activities Educational institutions have frequently been described as having rather vague and often conflicting goals. Not that the school system is without a set of goals, but that too frequently the goals do not in fact influence either policy or practice (Griffin, 1983). This situation mitigates against effective inservice education. The resultant of such a situation can be the scattering of efforts, motivated by perceived problems of the moment, rather than a well-designed program that seeks to accomplish specific goals. Recognizing the truth that schools are frequently called upon to address such a wide variety of tasks that their efforts to improve are often fragmented and ineffective, Dodd (1986) made her number one requirement for staff development the necessity to establish simple and clear goals that all the faculty can understand, agree with, and to which they can, and will, commit themselves. The description of her program clearly indicates that this 109 requirement was in evidence throughout the program. Whereas Dodd (1986) made her first requirement for developing an inservice education program the necessity of establishing clear and specific goals before beginning the program, Hibner (1983) recommends a different tack. Inherent in the Staff Development fOr School Improvement program is the belief that if operated properly, good school-based inservice education programs will help the faculty and the principal establish goals and objectives. She believes that the goals and objectives will grow out of the interaction of teachers who are involved in identifying the problems they face and helping to determine those solutions that will most likely lead to improvement of the situation. Concerned about how to relate characteristics of effective schools to successful staff development programs, Ward (1981) has identified four criteria that show up in many research projects. Criterion number one calls for a statement of goals agreed upon by those involved in the inservice issue; this set can include teachers, principal parents and students. Gaining consensus in such a process is another matter, Ward admits, but suggests that school advisory councils can frequently fill this need. The fourth criterion is also of interest here. Ward states that, "any inservice education that is participated in by any of the people who are involved is oriented toward achieving the goals that have been agreed upon (p. 8)." She goes on to 110 point out that such a program tends to be school- based because you can hardly have truly common goals when twenty or thirty schools are involved, even though they may be in a particular area. Interested in research regarding effective schools, Purkey (1982) took a careful look at six case studies which involved a total of 43 schools. Although he evidenced some discomfort using such a small sample as a base for a discussion of school improvement, he felt the commonality of the findings and their similarity to the conclusions of other studies caused him to feel better about their credibility. Two of the five elements he identified seem to have implications for this study. The linkage between factors number three, a clear set of goals for the school, and number four, a school-wide effective staff training program, is an important one and supports Dodd's (1986) hypothesis. The Commission on Reading (1986) has recently taken a careful look at the continuing professional development needs of teachers, particularly in the area of reading. Subsuming several conclusions under the heading, The Ethos of Effective Schools, the report indicates that in those schools unusually effective in teaching reading, teachers spend special time planning together. “This means that there is more likely to be agreement on goals and more likely to be understanding of and commitment to policies for achieving these goals (p. 28)." The teachers are much more 111 active in their own professional development. K. Ward (1986), in his position as a staff development consultant to the Los Angeles County Schools, also highlights this issue. Several times during an interview by Olson, he commented on an important key to successful inservice education -- the necessity that a school district, its schools and their faculties, have a clear sense of mission, of direction, so that a school faculty can develop clear goals and plans for improving it's effectiveness. Describing four state-sponsored schoolwide improvement programs, Farrar (1986) takes a similar position. The key to making reform work lies in the clarity of purpose of the inservice education effort. Whether in California, Ohio, Colorado, or Connecticut, the point was still made: in California -- departments write an overall set of goals, following which the teachers write specific proposals...; in Ohio -- a sense of the school's mission shared by all; in Colorado -- a volunteer group of teachers who meet to suggest school-level goals and plans; and in Connecticut, a similar story. Yes, “clarity of purpose was the key to making it work” (p. 589). Olivarez (1981) carries the issue of planning one step further. Using the Teacher Corps as his illustration, he emphasizes that when one is establishing goals, and planning and implementing inservice education activities, it is important to incorporate elements that are reflective of 112 the concerns, priorities, and strategies of the contemporary educational scene, and also those identified by knowledgeable educators as important to effective inservice education and school improvement. Because of his interest in inquiry-oriented staff development, Parkay (1986) also has an interest in research in relation to planning. He states that in the program he helped develop, he wanted teachers to not only learn about research on teacher effectiveness, but also come to understand how and when educational research findings should by applied in a specific situation. The focus in this program was on the process of change -- identifying goals and then the use of inquiry to achieve those goals. In a listing of seven activities of a program-related nature teachers identified as enhancing their feelings of professionalism, "clarifying instructional goals and objectives," (p. 389) received its due recognition. A key factor in this discussion is the turnaround that has occured recently in the understanding of educational reform. According to Odden (1984), educators have an extensive research base to use in planning effective staff development strategies. A considerable body of knowledge already exists on effective teaching practices and on the characteristics of effective schools (Cited from Cohen, 1983). Reformers have at their disposal a variety of strategies for developing the capacity of schools to solve their own problems and to make 113 their own improvements (Cited from Crandall and Associates, 1983). Seemingly, the most pointed statement of all comes from Hufker (1980). Although her remarks are directed toward college faculty, they have implications for this study. She makes her position very-clear as she states emphatically, ”The first great need in faculty development is a clear sense of shared mission" (p. 16). She then highlights the importance of this issue. If an institution has not seriously decided to implement its mission--or if the mission is too global or unclear--faculty development can have no clear sense of direction. What ensues is chaos, with individual faculty doing his or her thing, or engaging in power politics, with people jockeying for control over what is of worth to them. Inevitably, some will feel neglected and exploited. Nothing corrodes professional and personal self-esteem faster than a bitter sense of alienation. Such a state of affairs is deadly, not only to individual educators, but to whole institutions. 'Those involved in staff development need to be reminded again of the importance of developing activities that enhance understanding of mission and feelings of professionalism rather than those procedures that rob teachers of such understandings and attitudes. Looking at inservice education as a developmental process, rather than a series of single innoculations will encourage teacher 114 effectiveness. WOrking together as a school team will enhance the process. School-Based Improvement In his book entitled, A Place Called School--Prospects For The Future, Goodlad (1984) titles his first chapter, Can We Have Effective Schools? After discussing the condition of education as he found it in elementary, junior high, and senior high schools with whom his research staff worked, he seeks to summarize his concerns by identifying two themes which he believes will play a most important role in answering the question of the chapter. His second theme ties this discussion back to the earlier section on collaboration. Goodlad believes, that the schools will only get better and continue to have good health, as other significant elements in our society, as well as parents, care about and are concerned for our schools. The collaboration spoken of above must include the positive interest and contribution of the varied elements of our communities. Goodlad's first theme focuses our attention even more clearly on the answer to the question of the chapter. The first is the concept of the school as the unit for improvement. There is little point in concluding that our schools are in trouble and then focusing for improvement only on teachers, or principals, or the curriculum. All of these and more are involved. Consequently, efforts at improvement must encompass the school as a system of interacting parts, each affecting the others. 115 But there is more to this comprehensive approach than dealing with the school as a unit. Schools will improve slowly, if at all, if reforms are thrust upon them. Rather, the approach having most promise, in my judgment, is one that will seek to cultivate the capacity of schools to deal with their own problems, to become largely self-renewing. Schools will have great difficulty, however, in becoming self-renewing without support from their states and local districts and especially from their surrounding constituencies. And again the issue of collaboration and school-based improvement are linked together. Goodlad considers his first theme so important that he returns to it regularly in his book. Again he writes, "The unit of improvement is the individual school” (p. 256). He has also discussed his concern for this and related issues in Goodlad (1975, 1979, and 1983). Not only researchers, but practitioners with responsibility for ongoing staff development at the district level, recognize the importance of school-based inservice education. As superintendent of a large metropolitan school district, Bennett (1987) believes that faculty development must be approached on a school basis. He has committed his district to a policy of school-based staff development, wherein schools should be the center of the action if one is serious about improving education. He is further concerned . that a way be found that growth and development be coordinated throughout the district's system of schools, wherever appropriate. In his district, it is the school staff which makes the primary determination of the focus and direction of inservice education. The guiding principle that Goodlad is emphasizing, 116 and Bennett would seem to support, is that the school must become largely self-directing, the principal and the teachers working together to create the capacity for effecting renewal and developing the mechanisms to accomplish it. The importance of a trust relationship between the principal and the teachers can hardly be overstated at this point. In some cases, involvement in school-based improvement is a voluntary decision made by a school faculty; in other cases it may be because of strategies used by some states to encourage school improvement. A number of states have adopted such programs including Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut, and California (Odden, 1986). Farrar (1986) identifies a number of features that are important to such efforts for improvement. She indicates that regardless whether the program is voluntary or mandatory, the strategies outlined as important for school renewal do seem to work -— that is they do appear to give schools the guidance they need in order to begin a process of renewal. Secondly, schools are in fact given the latitude to identify their own problems and are permitted to establish their own plan for overcoming them. Thirdly, she states that this approach is applicable for and can be used to provide the structure for the resolution of almost any school related problem. Foundational to this whole approach, according to Farrar, is a philosophy that "holds 117 that people work better and harder when they share a common understanding of a problem and a vision of what solutions are possible " (p. 586-587). The school—based improvement process at its core is aimed at developing this shared understanding of present conditions and of the need for change. Edmonds (1982) makes a definite statement on this point when he writes, "Clearly, change must be schoolwide and include both principals and teachers” (p. 9). Acknowledging that local school designs for change may be limited some times because of central office or board policies, he never-the-less believes the local plan should continue. "No local school design should depend on changes over which the local school does not have control” (p. 9). The work of Odden and Odden (1984) lead them to a very similar conclusion. Research of effective schools has made it clear that the individual school is the proper unit for educational renewal. Centralized standards and requirements may be necessary, but so is decentralized implementation. The simultaneously tight and loose approach is crucial to the success of any reform strategy. Each effective school is bound together by a belief structure, a value system, and a consensual--not a hierarchial-—governance system. Policies that demand uniformity from school to school are likely to destroy these important elements (p. 312). Edelfelt also considers school improvement to be of primary importance and has spoken of his concern on a number of occasions. Recently he has been involved as a consultant in a program sponsored by Eastern Michigan University called, Staff Development for School Improvement. As 118 described by Warnat (1983), in the book Edelfelt edited, the focus of this program is on school-building staff development, not inservice education for individual profession growth. The program is designed to provide school staffs with the skills and the procedures they need to identify and address their most pressing problems. It is based on the premise that classroom teachers can best address their needs, identify their priorities, and plan a program to meet their needs and priorities at the building level. The program has flourished primarily because the school staffs have had the responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating their own staff development. Local ownership of the staff development program is key, and the endorsement of the program by the administrators and teachers is essential (p.1). In the introduction to her book, Loucks-Horsley (1985) states that during the past ten years she has been involved with hundreds of schools in school improvement efforts. By school improvement, she includes any activity designed to benefit students, classrooms, and the school itself. Some of these efforts were concerned particularly with curriculum and instruction, whereas others focused on such areas as instructional leadership, school climate, or discipline. "Solving persistent problems and increasing the capacity to attack future ones is what school improvement is all about” (pp. vii - viii). Dodd (1986), has developed a model she calls the "learning community model." It is her experience that two concepts are foundational to her approach to inservice: small groups of 5-8 faculty members work together as a learning team, and the experience may well be more important 119 than the product, because as teachers discover they can learn effectively in small groups, they will more likely try the same methods in their own classes. Included in this approach is the participation of administrators as colleagues, wherein they and the teachers interact in a collegial setting. Dodd believes that learning communities could influence society in a very positive way by stimulating generations of lifelong learners. Interest in school-based improvement is not limited to the United States. Hopkins and Wideen (1984), have edited an insightful look at the issue of school renewal, entitled, Alternative Perspectives on School Improvement. The reference is to alternative perspectives because the book addresses an alternative to the centralized, prescriptive mode of inservice education prevalent in most Australian school communities and which failed to fulfill its promises in the sixties annd seventies. From their perspective in Australia, Eltis et. al. (1984) highlight the problems of such an approach, stating, Usually the renewal of schools as effective learning institutions has been attempted through the provision of traditional inservice courses run on a short—term basis, wherein individual teachers are introduced to new ideas, or methods. Such an approach fails to consider the complexity of schools as organizations, and the educational return of the total school, of individual teachers attending such courses, has been marginal to say the least (p. 119). Eltis then identifies a number of reasons for the comparative failure of these approaches to inservice education. Included would be a recognition that the 120 organizational complexity of schools requires whole school responses to the issues; insufficient time and resources are usually involved and negative attitudes on the part of teachers and administrators. In the summary of his first chapter, which he titles, ”What is School Improvement?', Hopkins (1984) answers that question very directly. The main features of the landscape of school improvement are now well defined: the school is widely regarded as the prime unit of change, its autonomy (and that of its constituent members) has become a major goal, and internal and external support systems have been created to achieve this end. Change strategies are increasingly being based on a multi-dimensional concept of implementation tied to the organizational features of the school, and individual school improvement efforts, for example staff development, or school based curriculum development are typically conceived of in a wider context. It is interesting to reflect on how quickly the concept has been assimilated into the culture and vernacular of educational change, and how secure the boundaries of its territory have become (p. 19). Schmuck and Runkel (1984) have been working with a cadre of perhaps a hundred collaborators for more than 10 years seeking to conceptualize an image they have of what they call the "Autonomous School", for which the primary criteria would be the school's capacity to solve its own problems. They envision such a school's ability to be reflected in four meta-skills: 1. Systematic diagnosis - is the staff's ability to assess the current functioning of the school. This would involve collecting data to ascertain current states of affairs and collecting data to evaluate change efforts, new problems and the like. 2. Searching for information and resources - the staff's ability to initiate and execute searches inside or outside the school for information and 121 resources that are relevant to the diagnosed problems. 3. Mobilizing collaborative action - the staff's ability to form quickly into ad hoc groups or the staff as a whole, to carry out problem solving, or to actualize the information that has been brought into the school to solve the assessed problem. This third skill also involves what psychologists refer to as "synergy" - achieving through a group more than what could be achieved by the members working separately or in parallel. 4. Monitoring - the staff's ability to evaluate how effectively the first three meta-skills are being carried out and to put into play remedial actions that will repair weaknesses. In an evaluation of Goodlad's, A Study of Schooling, Tyler (1983) reminds us that for many years, educational research told us very little about what made schools and teachers effective. Only during the last 30 years or less has empirical research begun to confirm for us that a school has a quality about it that strongly influences the achievement of its pupils and the attitudes of its teachers and parents. In effective schools, the morale of the teachers was clearly higher than in the less effective schools. Jennings (1984) writes that their experience "showed dramatically how a school-based staff development project helped to improve school climate" (p. 34). ‘The issue in school—based improvement involves the teachers and the principal working together to effect change and renewal. Teacher involvement appears to be a very important element in effective inservice education. Teacher Involvement The importance of local ownership and staff collaboration in the success of school improvement are 122 firmly embedded in the literature. Eisner (1983) stated it well, "We need schools that will give teachers opportunities to sit together to discuss what shall be taught, how what is to be taught can be related to each other and the world outside of the school... The school must be a place for growth and recognition of the teacher, if it is to be a place for the growth and recognition of the student" (p. 55). And again from Loucks-Horsley(1985): ”Providing opportunities for teachers to get together in which the agenda is theirs rarely occurs in schools. Making that happen and trusting the professionalism of teachers to bring good results is especially appropriate at this point in the process" (p. 63). Related to this position is a belief that people work together harder and better when they share a common understanding of problems they face and of the potential solutions for those problems (Farrar, 1986). Holly (1982) focuses this issue quite clearly as she emphatically states that personal relevance is a primary concern to teachers. Teachers accord the highest value to those activities in which they play a significant planning role, where choices exist, where resources are credible, and where teachers have the power to moderate their learning through discussion, questioning, and pacing (p. 6). Historically, and all too frequently, teachers have had very little to say about the design of inservice education. Futrell (1987), president of the National Education Association, reporting on the results of a NEA survey, reported that teachers stated their opinions were 123 never solicited, and were ignored if shared. Fifty percent of those responding to the survey indicated that their administration would never speak to them. Berman's (1985) comment that teachers "are isolated from one another, have little to say about school decisions, and are not treated as true professionals” (p. 188), is also illustrative of the point. It is encouraging to note, however, there has been a reaction against the idea that improvement is more likely to take place when the change process is instituted from the outside (Goodlad, 1984). A change process from top-down which ignores the user does not work (Hopkins, 1984). There has been increasing recognition that teachers must want to change, rather than others wanting to cause them to change. It is the teacher who is the focus; only the teacher can change the teacher. You can reorganize the schools, yet teachers can remain as they were before the reorganization. You can pull down the walls and make an open school, but open teaching is an expression of the teacher's art, a reflection of the teacher's attitude (Stenhouse, 1984). The contrast with an authoritarian approach can be impressive. Witness some testimonies from some individuals involved in Eastern Michigan University's Staff Development for School Improvement program: From a building principal, -- I can't believe how much work my staff members are accomplishing beyond what they need to do (Skone, 1984, p. 25). From a district staff development consultant -- When building staff members are given the opportunity to commit themselves to solve a problem and are given the freedom to implement a plan, a tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm results. Participating teachers 124 become committed to a goal. They work together as a team and have a sense of belonging that results in positive feeling toward self, other staff members, the students, and the building as a total organization. The consultant does add one caution; the program must be voluntary. It must involve shared decision making, not coercion or a mandate (Skone, 1984, p. 25). From another building principal -- Where staff tended to isolate themselves from administrators and other staff, and suppress problems rather than air them and share them, now they bring them out into the open. They have learned to talk with one another about their successes and discuss their common concerns. Through the "teacher-owned" staff development program, the teachers in Spencer have learned they can influence their own destiny. This is what is making them more open with one another, and has given them a whole new outlook toward each other and their work. That's where the difference comes (Helbig, 1984, p. 35). It is interesting to note that both of the major teacher organizations, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have gone on record stating that teacher-controlled inservice education is to be considered preferable to college/university controlled experiences. The American Federation of Teachers' position is: Most graduate courses and many district inservice efforts do not deal with the improvement of teaching. they often do not focus on the specifics of a teacher's job, nor do they concentrate on the application of what is learned to the real experiences of the teachers. Teacher needs too often go unassessed and teachers are seldom involved in deciding what they will study (1977, p. 143). The National Education Association Staff states that: Many, if not most, institutions of higher education still function without giving adequate attention to the continued upgrading of the professionals they prepare. Graduate degree programs of the ”master teacher" type do too little to improve the skills of experienced teachers. Continuing professional programs and extension centers conducted by these institutions do not 125 fill the void in the repertoire of the classroom teacher's training skill (Bhaderman, 1977, p. 138). Mary Louise Holly (1982) has evidenced considerable interest in issues related to teacher attitudes. In a recent phenomenological study of the classroom teacher, a group of seven teachers, selected from seven school districts within a thirty-mile radius of Kent State University, representing classroom levels from kindergarten through grade three, in urban, suburban, and rural settings, spent a year of interaction together reflecting upon, writing about, and discussing their lives in their classroom. Included in the results from the study was the identification of three underlying themes which seemed to permeate the lives of these teachers. (1) Isolation —— Teachers were isolated in a number of ways, physically, psychologically, socially, and even personally, as they reported litle time to reflect on what they themselves believe and value. (2) Communication -- Due in part certainly to their isolation, teachers perceived themselves as having very little time to talk about professional matters with other educators, teachers or principals. Discussion of issues related to teaching and professional growth and development were nonexistent in most cases. What discussion did take place was typically limited to problems of an immediate nature, or consisted of ”just bitching in the lounge.“ (3) Self-Esteem -- Teachers expressed considerable frustration about the image the public holds 126 regarding teachers and schooling. Included was the perception of a total lack of concern for the teacher's point of view on the part of administrators and support staff who tell teachers what to do, and on the part of professors who propose to tell teachers what theoretically should work, with little regard for the fact teachers work with living children in dynamic settings. Isolation, communication and self-esteem are issues to which education must respond. Holly (1982) goes on in her article to discuss ways that they can be addressed including such procedures as opening informal channels of professional dialogue, structuring staff development opportunities, team teaching, parental and administration involvement in the classroom, and encouraging writing to record events and feelings. "Professional dialogue helps teachers see their concerns from many perspectives" (p. 9). All of these procedures may help teachers overcome their feelings of frustration. Failure to do anything can lead to problems of burnout. ”Burnout comes from being alone with children; it is the feeling of not being supported, of having nowhere to turn, of being overworked, and underappreciated, and of being alone, under stress and needing help. Burnouts seem to be caused by an inferred demand to be superhuman.” Cunningham (1982) paints a rather dismal picture but indicates that peer support, a quality work place and an ideal leader can aleviate many of these problems. 127 Contrast that picture with the following descriptions of teachers involved in a coordinated effort to involve faculty members in addressing problems of a school-wide nature. Again let's look at the Staff Development for School Improvement program through the eyes of a participant. From a teacher -- We met for three hours to do a needs assesssment. Small groups of four or five members brainstormed project ideas. The room buzzed with interaction, the sharing of ideas and information. The three hour high-energy session was an important beginning. Unlike many school meetings, this one required that people talk with one another, listen, and participate in the search for consensus on a goal. People communicated their ideas, discussed their feelings about the school's needs, and defined a common goal for the group. Following the brainstorming, discussion continued in the hallways and the lounge, over coffee in the morning and at lunch at noon. The building became alive with energy. People asked questions and exchanged notions of how the program might affect their classroom, student progress, and available resources. Nearly all the staff volunteered for responsibilities, and the halls echoed with enthusiasm. People ignored the 8:20 a.m. school starting time; the parking lot was full at 7:30 a.m. Committees met to share ideas on a given topic. Teachers discussed how the project could improve their teaching, the success of their students, and their working relationships with other teachers, students and parents. A new sense of camaraderie and professionalism developed through pursuit of a common goal. Teachers were interacting and communicating (Kleiman, 1984, p. 11-13). Further confirmation here comes from Goodlad (1984). who found in his study that the degree of staff cohesiveness and the decision-making climate in its relationship to the nature of the problem-solving process were very important factors in causing teachers to feel satisfied with their working relationships and environment. McCarthy (1985) also considers the professionalism of the classroom teacher to be 128 a key concern. The teacher is the basic context of the learning experience and inservice education experiences need to reflect that concern. Yet McCarthy recognizes another important element in the effective inservice education equation. He believes an important concern relates to the position and leadership of the informed concerned principal. This point was stated even more emphatically by Olson (1964), almost twenty-three years ago. The teacher in the classroom has the direct day to day contact with the children. If the quality of the educational program is to be improved, the upgrading must begin with the teachers. Because the teacher is the very heart of the inservice program, it becomes the responsibility of the administration to work with the teachers in order to create a climate in which all can work together (p. 12). Principal Participation Teacher burnout has been in the news so frequently, in the recent past, that one could question whether it is a fad or reality. The experience of many educators and the evidence available, however, would confirm that it is a serious problem which must be faced and dealt with. According to Cunningham (1982), research suggests a rather close tie between leader behavior and teacher burnout. He believes that principals who are concerned about their people, who support them and create settings and climate where they can set their own goals and seek to accomplish them, experience much less problem with burnout. His philosophy of leadership includes the belief that: 129 1. Shared participation in objective setting, decision making, and problem solving is basic to growth, development, and commitment; 2. Informed choice is the soundest basis for organizational interaction; 3. Mutual trust, understanding, and respect undergird effective human relationships in all organizations; 4. Open communication and participation support mutual understanding and trust; and 5. Activities carried out within a framework of mutually understood goals and objectives integrate personal goals with organizational ones (p. 22). Cunningham makes a rather impassioned plea that school systems will encourage their administrators to develop an open and nondefensive style of leadership behavior which encourages the participation of teachers in the initiation and development of issues of mutual concern. Bacharach (1986) takes the position that administrators of effective schools have been able to set aside the idea that coordination requires that the control process always proceed from top downward. Likewise, the teachers who teach in these schools have set aside the feeling that they are independent in their sphere. In this framework he sees the possibilities of a new approach to school leadership. Edelfelt (1983) has observed that the more enlightened principals are able to make a distinction between the collegial relationships involved in professional decisions and the authority and responsibility required in issues of administration. In such a setting, teachers and administrators will agree on the goals and objectives that will guide their mutually related decisions. These goals and objectives will 130 serve as the benchmarks for measuring school programs and for planning inservice education. As a result of the research he did on schools, Goodlad (1984) has considerable to say about the role of the principal in building positive teacher relationships. The support the principal can give through sensitive leadership, being available for help, and being involved in schoolwide decisions tends to create in teachers greater enthusiasm, professionalism and a sense of greater career fulfillment. Teachers evidence greater satisfaction in schools where the principal provides strong leadership. These principals felt themselves to be more in control of their time and their jobs and to have more influence in the affairs of the school. Yet, Goodlad says it would be a mistake to assume the principal's role to be the major factor in determining school climate or teacher satisfaction. Faculty cohesiveness and the problem-solving and decision-making processes were also highly rated as factors related to teacher satisfaction. An important consideration here is whether or not the principal has developed, or lacks, requisite skills of group leadership. All too frequently, new principals are plucked out of the classroom the day school closes in June and are inundated in the responsibilities of the principalship a few days later. Little in their first responsibility as a teacher prepares them for the second situation. Few beginning principals know how to plan a 131 program of school improvement, or how to bring about "group consensus" when seeking the solution to schoolwide problems. Goodlad (1984) found that the principals of those schools in his study lacked the type of skills and abilities necessary for bringing about educational improvement. They did not know how to select problems likely to provide leverage for schoolwide improvement, how to build a long-term agenda, how to assure some continuity of business from faculty meeting to faculty meeting, and on and on. Most were insecure in their relations with faculty and rarely or never visited classrooms. Some were hopelessly mired in paper work, exagerating the magnitude of the tasks involved in part to avoid areas of work where they felt less secure (p. 306). This description does not surprise Tye (1984). He doesn't believe that most school systems expect their building principals to provide instructional leadership. He sees principals rewarded, rather, for keeping the lid on, caring for the administrative tasks required by the central office, and for maintaining a posture of learning at the school. He goes on to say that the quality of the leadership of the principal seems to vary a great deal from school to school. Teachers frequently report they have very little contact with their principal regarding substantive issues, and that not very helpful. There appears to be little evidence that principals are providing instructional leadership; in fact, their behavior appears rather to be contributing to their teachers feelings of isolation. The survey taken by Futrell (1987) wherein 50% of those parti- cipating in the survey, reported that their administrators spoke to them very infrequently, confirms this. 132 Lest we feel this is a new or recent situation, Gersten (1982) points out that "research over the last decade has consistently shown that teachers do not perceive principals as instructional leaders, ... nor do principals usually function as such” (p. 48). (Mazzarella (1977), Morris and Others (1981), Wolcott (1981), and Howell (1981) are cited as reference.) Therefore he feels that it makes more sense to develop a team concept in which the situation determines who will provide the support necessary. Rallis and Highsmith (1987) propose a way to bring this about. They see the responsibility of the principal to be typically two-fold; serving as manager, he/she seeks to keep the machinery humming properly, and serving as leader, he/she needs to keep everyone focused on the school's goals and their energies directed toward accomplishing them. They humorously state that only an individual with a 'split personality' could accomplish both of those tasks. They recommend that the principal, by virtue of his/her training in areas of management is not prepared to fulfill the responsibility of instructional leader. 'They further believe that the instructional leadership necessary to bring about improvement in the teaching enterprise must come from the teacher core. They propose the identification and selection of the most experienced teachers in a school to serve as master teachers, responsible and accountable for developing meaningful professional development programs. They also 133 indicate that elements of such inservice education principles are part of a number of projects including the Toledo Intern-Intervention Program, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Career Develpment Plan, the California Mentor Teacher Program and the Marin County Teacher Advisor Program. Purkey (1982) also would see this possibility. As part of his five concluding statements resulting from research on effective schools,involving six case studies including 43 schools, Purkey identifies factor one to be, "strong leadership by the principal or another staff member" (p. 65). He recognizes the possibility that someone else on the faculty could provide the leadership. It is very evident, however, from a look at current literature, that this is an issue that is fraught with controversy, both potential and real. Welsh (1987) seriously questions whether administrators are ready to share their powers of decision making with teachers. He describes an experiment in teacher involvement called the School Improvement Project (SIP) which was introduced at his high school designed to involve teachers in the decision making process. Initially the project received positive response from many of the varied elements of the educational enterprise. At the time the article was written, approximately eighteen months later, however, the administration at both the high school and the central office have thrown major road blocks into the way of the SIP 134 committee in its efforts to involve the faculty in issues it considers merit change. Discussing a current concern, Welsh concludes the article by indicating that the faculty is gearing up for a battle at the upcoming school board meeting. Similarly, Rodman (1987) illustrates the problem as he discusses the situation in Rochester, N.Y. where administrators have filed a suit to block the granting of state funds for a program in which master teachers would coach and assist their colleagues. It is their contention that these mentor teachers are performing administrative and supervisory tasks without proper credentials, and do so in violation of state regulations. They are, furthermore, not needed because master teachers are already present in the persons of principal, vice-principal and department heads. Rather than creating an issue of controversy, Ward (1981) makes a plea for a reasoned recognition that the instructional leader can be someone other than the principal. There is an instructional leader in the school, someone who is sort of the guideline decision maker. Interestingly this does not have to be the principal. We have seen schools where it is the teacher and the principal is the facilitator for his or her instructional decisions. You have to have principal support and he or she must be involved, but the talent, the skill, the knowledge and understanding for making some of the key instructional decisions about where you are going to go, what you are going to change, and how you are going to change, does not have to reside in the principal (p. 7). One of the strongest statements regarding the irnportance of the support role that principals should fill 135 comes from Hibner (1983). She believes that the support of the principal is the key to success for staff development at the building—level. Her research of the literature confirms the conclusion that a program is doomed to failure that does not have the principal's support. She therefore calls on those principals wanting changes and improvements in their school program to get involved and actively support their staff to bring about the needed changes. Orlich (1983) concurs with Hibner. Following a discussion of ten writers who addressed the role of the principal in issues related to staff development, he makes the emphatic statement: The evidence is overwhelming--the school principal's support is critical for effective school-based in-service programs (p. 201). In some cases principals get locked into a stern and authoritarian mode of leadership because of the belief that it is the only way for them to fulfill their responsibility, the management of the school. Erickson and Campbell (1986) review the experience of such a principal. In this case the researcher was able to help the principal think through the needs she fulfilled which were unique to her role. Ultimately, the principal came to see herself as a leader concerned with and able to facilitate the development in her teachers of their instructional leadership. The change in role to facilitator from arranger is time key to Lee (1984). Determining that one will relinquish 136 control and will permit the teachers to participate, puts one in the position of helper. She encourages attending the planning sessions, listening and commenting when called upon, and looking for ways to give support. Barth (1980) believes that sharing responsibility with faculty members is an excellent way to build relationships between principals and teachers of a collegial, supportive, and interdependent nature. A mutual sharing of responsibilities can help a school move from a "him versus us" position to one that believes, "we're all in this together.” Hufker (1980) proposes an interesting approach to this issue. The key is to think in terms of serving rather than of leading. She then cites Greenleaf (1973) who took the position that it is only those leaders who serve, whose work has a lasting effect. The servant-leader's work then is timely because he is helping the individuals find answers to real needs rather than seeking to sell them a package of solutions. However, the servant-leader needs to recognize that sooner or later their help will be forgotten as the individual(s) increasingly feel good about being able to solve their own problems. The issues related to the involvement of the principal seem to be two fold -- support of the faculty, and communication with the faculty. To be effective, inservice education requires the active involvement of the building administrator. Section three of this chapter presents the Kent 137 Interinstitutional Workshop, the teacher inservice education program chosen as the object of study. An overview of the WorkshOp follows. The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop (KIIW), according to Ward (1973), was an outgrowth of the Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop which began in Wayne County, Michigan in 1967. The IIW concept originally grew out of a concern expressed at the Consortium for Advanced Education Thinking, a Title III ESEA project in Wayne Intermediate School District in 1967. Teachers involvement in inservice education consisted primarily of taking university courses for which they received credit. Very infrequently did they become involved in an activity wherein they were concerned about the social environment of their school and the change process within it. Reflection on this issue raised two questions: 1. What would happen to the change process if they could bring the universities and their resources to the teachers and schools? 2. What would happen if they could break down the barriers, make education interinstitutional, open up the door for a community of educators to become a community of educators (Bird, 1974, p. 21). Subsequently, a group was convened to begin to study the problem and out of this discussion emerged the Wayne Interinstitutional WOrkshop. Participants at that time included key staff members with specialization in curriculum 'from Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, 138 Wayne State University, and Eastern Michigan University; a representative of the State Department of Education; as well as staff members of the Wayne County Intermediate School District (Fox and Griffin, 1974). The history of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop can be traced back to school year 1970-71 when Charles A. Blackman, Michigan State University, Peggy Miller, Michigan Department of Education, and James House, Wayne Intermediate School District, all of whom were involved in the Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop, went to Grand Rapids, Michigan to explain the concept to the Directors of Extension from Michigan State University, Central Michigan University, Western Michigan University, University of Michigan, and staff from the Kent Intermediate School District. Officially, the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs was implemented in the fall of 1971, (Blackman, 1984). Specifically, Bird (1974) reports, the KIIW was designed to: 1. provide effective inservice education in a realistic setting to improve the quality of education; 2. 'provide a means by which the educational needs of local schools and school districts can be continually assessed; 3. provide the means for the generation of new ideas for the improvement of inservice and preservice education; and 4. provide the linkage and liaison between local school districts, the Intermediate School Districts, institutions of higher learning, the State Department of Education, and other institutions and human resources to enhance the professional growth of educators (p. 22). 139 The Workshop was created to assist a team of educators from a local school building or system to utilize group effort in solving problems of a professional nature related to the educational needs of their school setting. It assumes that 1) every person is a resource person as well as a learner, 2) significant learning grows out of the opportunity for an individual to both identify and address current concerns, and 3) leadership which enables people to unlock their unique capabilities will be most productive to the development of effective problem solving skills and the development of the capabilities of the professional school staff member (Ward, 1973). As a part of her responsibility as Kent Intermediate School District Coordinator for the KIIW, Bird (1974) has notated a number of factors that highlight its uniqueness as a model for teacher inservice education: 1. Participants are members of school teams that focus on a curriculum or instructional problem in their own school which they have selected. 2. Teams of eight to twelve people from a building provide support systems for one another in facilitating program implementation. 3. Each team selects a Team Leader, not an .administrator, who assists in planning the workshop and developing leadership ability. 4. Administrators must be members of their school team. Therefore, to the extent that implementation rests with the building principal, he has an opportunity to examine this responsibility and plan action designs for assisting the team with implementing their goals. 5. Team members have a choice of four universities from which they can receive credit for their work. 6. The format of the workshop is flexible for the 16 sessions. All teams meet in a common place for six meetings to focus on team building, problem solving, and share resources of general interest. The remaining ten sessions are located in their 140 individual school. This enables them to involve total staff, students , and community members in their study, to report their progress, and seek their suggestions in planning. The University faculty serve essentially as resource persons. 7. The workshop extends over a five month period which allows time for the participants to try out their ideas, assess and refocus if necessary. 8. More effective use of resources are utilized to improve education when the four universities, the State Department of EducatiOn, the Intermediate School Districts, and local schools join together as a support base (p. 22-23). Several advantages of the interinstitutional workshop model appear to Professor Switzer (1977) to be noteworthy. The first would be that this model brings the schools and the universities together focused on the solution of educational problems in a cooperative effort. Improved communication, mutual understanding and respect for the role of each are the frequent result. Second, opportunity is given to the teachers and administrators of a specific school or school district to work together toward the solution of a problem they have selected. This process may be more important to the educational program of their school than the final product. Thirdly, while working on a problem of their own choosing, and related to their own setting, participants can earn credit toward permanent certification and/or receive credit toward an advanced degree. Teachers are not forced to go to the university campus, nor required to take courses which they may consider to be irrelevant, just to fulfill state requirements. Fourth, this problem-solving approach to inservice education has been found to be effective in bringing about 141 (change in the programs of local schools. Major educational changes have been reported from the interaction of teachers and administrators over the extended time-frame of this approach, in contrast to the typical short inservice education activity focused primarily on ”make and take" activities. Fifthly, the teachers in this workshop, rather than concentrating only on a concern of their own choosing, are part of a larger group seeking to improve the system of which they are a part. Thus as they are strengthened, the system is strengthened; as the system is strengthened, they are strengthened (pp. 10-11). To identify advantages of the interinstitutional workshop format for continuing education of teachers is not to assume that such a model is without problems. From her experience from working with the KIIW, Bird (1974) notes the following concerns: The role of the participant and the role of the university consultant in implementing the workshop initially is not without its troubles. Team participants experience difficulties in assuming responsibilities for establishing their own goals, utilizing problem solving, and group process strategies to accomplish their goal. It also is a new experience for_the university person to assume the role of facilitator of the process rather than using the usual lecture approach. The universities cannot send some randomly selected professor to teach in a program like this or the workshop is doomed to failure. The staff person must be committed to the concept and willing to devote the extra time it takes for planning, implementing, and evaluating the workshop. The staff person must also provide a support base to the total staff and share his skills whenever needed with an individual or total participants in the workshop (p. 23). 142 Yet, given the problems of the above nature, Bird (1974), from her observations at that time working with 72 school teams and over 650 participants, expresses very positive feelings about her experience: Participants in our workshop feel their efforts have been extremely beneficial to the students in their schools. There is also evidence of changes in attitudes between teachers, and administrators and an increased rapport between principals, superintendents, and board members. They have become an educational team rather than teacher vs. administrator. The action programs designed and implemented by school teams have been integrated into their curriculum and interest has spread in other buildings for involvement. The workshop concept has continued to attract school teams from the same buildings over a three year period. In fact, a few participants have continued their involvement for the total three years. Participants also provide the best disseminating process to encourage the formation of new teams for future workshops. Kent Intermediate School District has received numerous memos of appreciation from our local schools for coordinating this program for them (p. 23). In a follow-up interview, Bird (1987) reiterated her very positive feelings about the IIW. She commented on the fact that the teachers may begin their projects during the Workshop, but it is her experience that the interaction goes on in many of the programs for the rest of the year, many leading to board approval for the work done. A good illustration of that would be the Grandville projects on the computer and the writing guide. Both of them were started as a part of the IIW. The computer program, initiated at South Elementary, resulted ultimately in a board approved project with 100+ machines in use in the district. The writing guide project likewise began primarily with teachers at South and resulted in a guide used by all the elementary 143 schools in the district. She indicates she has seen tremendous growth in addition to the issue being worked on. Summary Considerable attention has been given to a research effort designed to establish a set of criteria considered valid as guidance for the planning and implementation of inservice education activities. The presence of a broad base of support for each criterion has been confirmed. It remains to apply this knowledge base to a Specific inservice program. The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs (KIIW) has been chosen. Chapter Five includes review of the six criteria of effective inservice education, description of the types of data gathered regarding the relationship of the KIIW to the six criteria, and presentation of the data provided as supporting evidence for each criterion. CHAPTER V PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction Chapter Five includes the following areas: (1) review of the six criteria of effective inservice education used in this study; (2) description of the types of data gathered regarding the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop (KIIW), the inservice education program chosen for this study; and (3) presentation of the data gathered through research and provided as supporting evidence for each criterion. Criteria of Effective Inservice Education Six criteria have been noted as appearing most commonly in the literature. These criteria will serve as the conceptual framework for studying a specific teacher inservice education program. A set of procedures was used in the process of establishing the criteria. A principle must have been noted by a minimum of two-thirds of the writers surveyed to be considered a major concept. The importance of several guidelines was established because of frequent reference in the literature. Attention was also given to whether support could be found for each criterion in the literature. 144 145 Strong support was found in the literature, for each of the six criteria, identified as follows: 1. THE CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF TEACHERS AND WILL BE TIED INTO THE ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL, RATHER THAN BE AN ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY. 2. THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIETY'S CHILDREN -- INCLUDING SUCH ELEMENTS AS SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOLS OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, RELATED COMMUNITY CONSTITUTENCIES, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -- WILL BE ABLE TO COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. 3. CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY AND PRACTICE WILL BE UTILIZED AND IMPLEMENTED. 4. THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL-BASED IMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. '5. TEACHERS WILL BE INVOLVED VERY DIRECTLY IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FROM INITIAL PLANNING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION, AND INCLUDING EVALUATION WHERE APPROPRIATE. (ACTIVITES WILL BE SUPPORTED BY ADULT LEARNING THEORY, AND WILL INCLUDE THOSE: RELATED TO NEEDS; PERMITTING INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-DIRECTION; CONDUCTED IN A PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT; 146 PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO RELATE WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN; APPROACHING DIRECT EXPERIENCE; AND OFFERING PROVISION FOR REWARD AND REINFORCEMENT.) 6. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL WILL BE INVOLVED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. Types of Data Review of historical records and interviews with participants of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop were used to gather data which were examined in the light of the criteria. Records An analysis was made of official and unofficial written records of the KIIW. The information was checked for evidence related to each of the criteria. Related data are included for each criterion. Interviews Information was also gathered through interviews with participants in the Workshop. Representative responses are included for each of the criteria. The complete responses are presented in Appendix C. As part of the interview process, interviewees were asked to assign a rating which would reflect the extent to which their experience in the KIIW related to the identified criteria of effective inservice education. Each participant was asked to respond to each criterion, indicating whether their experience in the Workshop "did not reflect," "did 147 reflect," or "very definitely reflected" the principle of the criterion. Responding to a continuum of 1-5, the subjects were then asked to assign a numerical value to their response. Table 5.1 presents the participants rating of that relationship. Sub-tables identifying frequency and percentages for each of the six criteria are included in the summary section for each criterion, identified as Table 5.11-5.16. Table 5.1.--Participants' rating of the KIIW and effective inservice education criteria. Topic Does Not Does Reflect Very Definitely Reflect Reflected 1-2 3 4-5 Criterion One 1 0 18 Two 3 2 14 Three 1 2 16 Four 1 1 17 Five 0 2 17 Six 0 2 17 Supporting Evidence 'CRITERION ONE: THE CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF TEACHERS AND WILL BE TIED INTO THE ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL, RATHER THAN BE AN ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY. Records Commitment to the concept that inservice education 148 is an important element in the continuing growth of teachers and should be developmental in nature, was evident in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop's earliest years. Two of the basic objectives of the Workshop illustrate this point (Ward, 1973). To provide a means by which the educational needs of the local schools and local school districts can be continually assessed. To meet these needs by conducting interdisciplinary inservice education which recognizes and accepts individual differences (p. 7). The description of the Workshop illustrates the concept: An IIW Workshop is a group effort to solve problems -— in this case professional problems related to the improvement of learning opportunities for students in school. Your school may form a team around a need identified by: 1. Your building 2. A department within your school 3. The district 4. The County as identified by the Professional Staff Development Center's Needs Assessment Survey (Bird, 1982, pp. 1-2). An example of a team problem would be as follows: In view of the loss of our elementary art instructor, we would like to develop an art program K - 5 for our building. This would include a scope and sequence of skills and vocabulary. The format would conSist of individual lesson plans of specific projects at each grade level which would teach these skills and vocabulary. Our goal is to organize such lesson plans into a form easily identified by all staff members (Jan Baal, 1982). Additional illustrations of this concept include: The format of the workshop is flexible for the 16 sessions. All teams meet in a common place to focus on team building, problem solving, and share resources of general interest. The remaining 10 sessions are located in their individual school. This enables them to involve total staff, students, and community members in 149 their study, to report their progress, and seek their suggestions in planning (Bird, 1974, p. 23). The workshop was held over an extended period of time (approximately five months) which allowed teams to try out ideas and refine or change when necessary. In addition, they had time to keep the rest of their staff informed of their progress, which in many cases involved staff members not enrolled in the workshop in their planning (Ward, 1973, p. 8). ...the fact that four universities, a state department of education , an intermediate school district, and a local school district were able to join together to provide support and resources for teacher's continuing education is itself unique (Fox and Griffin, cited in Ward, 1973, p. 9). Interviews The relationship between inservice education and the developmental program of the school is an important one. I feel it is very important for every teacher to be able to be involved in a continuing inservice education of material that has something to do with what they are teaching, as we did in the KIIW. The reason I was involved in this was to work with my fellow teachers in developing a writing booklet that would be something to follow for our creative writing... It is something that I have used yearly since I took the course. The KIIW was an on-going thing. Certainly you know that inservice education has to be an on-going thing with changes like in reading with some of the new strategies that are involved in it. I believe ... teachers in the learning process can only take so much and need to have time to develop it, and then go back and review what they have learned and keep growing. I think in our own particular experience where we learned about computers, that teachers started working on it, and then practiced their skills and kept developing. Now we have it in every classroom and teachers are interested in it. I think the KIIW really attempted to tie itself to long-range planning in the school districts so that the experience that the teachers and the building administrators had during the course of the 16 weeks addressed some local building or local district goals. 150 It has been an on-going developmental program, and not only during the period that KIIW was in process, but also afterwards, because some of the schools ... continued after we were through. Inservice education is very definitely going to be an on-going program within all schools whether it be a K-12 program or adult education. It's not only considered to be important, but to be vital in today's society. There will be a series of inservice education programs each year, or maybe over a period of years for each school system. I believe the KIIW, or types of the KIIW, will be incorporated into on—going inservice education programs because it brings together COOperative effort. The one-shot type of thing for 5 or 6 hours becomes a kind of thing where you get saturated after a little bit and you have a whole lot of stuff in your head and you have trouble making application. ... each October our school system joins in with other Kent County schools and we hear some very dynamic speakers; they get us extremely excited about new concepts and ideas and we take them back to school and we talk about them, and about 2 weeks later they wane and we're back to business as usual. I like one—shot things -- to hear an expert, a really good expert, rather than people who are mediocre. You'd rather hear one good person; they can do a lot more in one hour sometimes than a lot of mediocre can do in 5 nights. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion One.--THE CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF TEACHERS AND WAS TIED INTO THE ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL, RATHER THAN HAVE BEEN AN ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY. The historical data indicate that from KIIW's earliest years, its program recognized the importance of inservice education that was of a continuing, developmental nature; continuing, in that a group of the faculty in a 151 building were required to involve themselves in an indepth, five-month commitment; developmental, in that each school team, after identifying a problem of a professional nature, participated in a program that stimulated faculty development as they addressed the problem together; and individual growth as each one participated in the group. The recent interviews suggest that these aspects of the program have continued. The responses of the interviewees appear to indicate indepth involvement, wherein the problem was solved and they felt positive about their own experience. Ninety-five percent of the former participants who were interviewed recorded that they felt the experience they had in the KIIW was of an on-going, developmental nature, and very definitely reflected the first criterion (See Table 5.11). Positive support for criterion one was evidenced. Table 5.11.--Participants' ranking of the KIIW and effective inservice education. Criterion One Rating scale Frequency Percentage Does not 1 0 0 reflect 2 1 5 Does reflect 3 0 0 Very 4 7 37 definitely reflected 5 11 58 152 CRITERION TWO: THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIETY'S CHILDREN -- INCLUDING SUCH ELEMENTS AS SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOLS OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, RELATED COMMUNITY CONSTITUENCIES AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -- ARE ABLE TO COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. Records Commitment to the concept that teacher inservice education should include the contribution of a number of institutions having an interest in the educational enterprise was also evident in the earliest years of the KIIW. Ward (1973) identifies a basic objective of the Workshop. To provide the linkage and liaison between local school districts, the intermediate office, institutions of higher learning, the state department of education and other appropriate institutions and human resources to enhance the professional growth of educators (p. 7). Additional illustrations of this concept include: The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs -- A cooperative effort of Central Michigan University, Grand Valley State Colleges, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Western Michigan University, Michigan Department of Education and Kent Intermediate School District to assist you in solving curriculum or instruction problems to improve your school's program (Bird, 1981, p. 2). ... the fact that four universities, a state department of education, an intermediate school district, and local school district were able to join together to provide support and resources for teachers' continuing education is in itself unique. This cooperation cut to a minimum the ”red tape” involved in such an undertaking and provided for a more effective use of resources (Ward, 1973, p. 9). 153 Appropriate resource people will also be secured from other agencies, institutions and organizations if needed by teams (Bird, 1971, p. 5). Included in a representative list of local session activities, illustrative also of a degree of collaboration, would be the following items (Ward, 1973): 2. meetings with parents, 4. meeting with superintendent of schools, 6. presentation on the open classroom by a Title III consultant, 8. meeting with consultant on learning disabilities (p. 80). Interviews Broadening the support base enhanced the faculty development experience. Yes, in the KIIW you had the local school where the problem originated, you had the intermediate district that acted as coordinator, and the college to provide some resources... ...you do have to have a variety of interests including the school district, teacher's organizations, and all components of education because it all builds enthusiasm in one another. You need every type of support, especially if it's a brand new field, like computers. Everybody lacked knowledge about them so everybody needed to know that the other people were supporting them. I think that whatever the issue is, whether it invOlves a school system, a building, or any of these, we ought to be able to bring the best from all of those elements together to help the people work through it. We really did. I can think of times when we needed somebody from a governmental agency or we needed somebody from a college; you asked them to come and we never paid those people. People were willing to give their time because they saw the need. With my experience with the KIIW, I feel that as many areas as possible should be included in the input. The more areas that are included when we're learning about areas of education, it gives us a much more beneficial outlook on things. And with our computers, 154 it was just like it was a springboard from our class. It just kept gaining and snowballed after the KIIW at our school. It had all kinds of parent interest. They became organized, planning money-making things so that we could have our software and our computers in every classroom. They encouraged teachers that weren't using them to get involved using them and to make them part of the classroom. It just was excellent as far as the results in our school after KIIW. I think that was a very clear intention of the program to involve a variety of resource people and groups in the development of the KIIW, and the procedure of addressing the topic identified by the team. We always had representation from the State Board of Education, the Intermediate school district, and generally there were a minimum of 4 different universities involved in the program. Included also were teacher representation and building administration. That was a clear, very definite part of the program to see that all these various groups were represented. Very frequently if the issue being addressed was one that the community would be sensitive to, although the community members were not participating on a regular basis as members of the class, they were from time to time brought in as resource people and included in the project. The notion of collaboration marked the KIIW from the beginning, both between and among schools,and between school buildings and district offices, although in some cases that was not too strongly built because of our focus on the building as the unit of change. The link with the Intermediate school district was a very strong one. The teacher organization link varied district to district; in some instances there was involvement of teacher organization leadership and in others, I don't think there was. The interinstitutional dimension of the higher education level was present when we had enough students to be able to justify the participation of Several universities. But, related to community constituency and governmental agencies, this was not a major focus, although it may have shown up in some individual projects. Certainly there was nothing about the model that would preclude the possibility of the involvement of the community constituencies. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Two.--THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIETY'S CHILDREN -- INCLUDING SUCH ELEMENTS AS SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 155 TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOLS OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, RELATED COMMUNITY CONSTITUENCIES AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -- WERE ABLE TO COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. The historical data reveal that the initiators of the KIIW recognized the importance of the contribution the broad segment of the education-related community could make to the issue of faculty development. Regularly, representatives from local schools, school districts, the intermediate school district, and institutions of higher learning were involved. The state department of education representatives were very active at key times. Support was secured from parental and other resource groups when it was deemed appropriate. The pattern of interviews makes it clear that this principle has continued to be followed. The participants express appreciation for the contribution the variety of educational elements have made to their professional growth and development. Seventy-four percent of those interviewed reported their experience in the KIIW very definitely reflected the commitment of criterion two (See Table 5.12). Positive support for criterion two was evidenced, although the response was the least positive of the six criteria. 156 Table 5.12.-—Participants' rating of the KIIW and effective inservice education. Criterion Two Rating scale Frequency Percentage Does not 1 0 0 reflect - 2 3 16 Does reflect 3 2 10 Very 4 7 37 definitely reflected 5 7 37 CRITERION THREE: CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY AND PRACTICE WILL BE UTILIZED AND IMPLEMENTED. Records Commitment to the concept that inservice experiences should develop from a goal statement, and that related activities should be based on contemporary research was evident in the KIIW's earliest years. Ward (1973) identifies a basic objective: To meet these needs by conducting interdisciplinary inservice education which recognizes and accepts individual differences among educators. Additional illustrations of this concept include: The workshop staff members will serve as coordi- nators and will identify pertinent research findings and other sources of information as well as providing expertise in group dynamics, problem identification, problem solving techniques, and change process. 157 The workshop staff members will identify common elements in the problems identified by the teams and make presentations based upon the common elements identified. Appropriate resource people will also be secured from other agencies, institutions and organizations if needed by teams (Bird, 1971, p. 5). The responsibilities of the university consultants included the provision of pertinent research as well as both human and material resources for the teams as needed. One of the ways that was accomplished was through the provision of individuals with special expertise to share in the common sessions. Illustrative of this would be the visit of Professor Ronald Edmonds, Michigan State University, speaking on ”Effective Schools Research,” and the presentation on "The Milwood Project, People Working Together for Success," by Dr. Paul Friday of Western Michigan University (Olson's Records, 1981 and 1982). Additional support for commitment to the development of a worthwhile and meaningful inservice experience is indicated by the use of the Pre-registration Form for the development of the goal of the team project, and the use of the Team Progress Report which enabled the university consultant to evaluate present progress and plan for future contribution. (See Appendix B). Interviews The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was a goal oriented program. We would have a certain problem in our building and we would develop goals and objectives around the 158 problem. Then all of our strategies and activities would be on trying to solve the problem, trying to meet the goals and objectives again. In the KIIW we certainly did set goals and objectives. We were very well organized and all of the things/activities we did were specifically pointing towards the goals we set up at the beginning of the sessions. I think that the goals and objectives were very clearly stated and did reflect research and practice. By using information from the national diffusion network as a means of looking at the writing program, I found that to be very helpful. That particular network helped us to identify some of the things we wanted to put in our writing curriculum and we were able to do that. The inservice we're talking about here originally started with the teachers sitting down and listing problems, possible objectives to solve those problems, what direction they wanted to head, how far back in research we wanted to go, and then, what our final objective was to be -- our final goal with the whole course. As we were moving along, occasionally we would take a moment to see how far we had progressed on those goals, and what direction we wanted to take after we had experienced our research or evaluating certain programs, or what we wanted to do with our information. We did much research regarding theory and practice, and then we proceeded to develop our own thoughts and went from there. We even ended up with material that we could share with other people. It was all very goal oriented, but it built on where the research had started and we took that into consideration. I think KIIW made a real attempt to incorporate educational research. Each group definitely had to have specific and clear goals. Activities were not done ahead of time. Most of the goals were set beforehand, before we began our KIIW usually. We always took a look at the goals, that's where we started. One of the first assignments was always to see what research said about a topic. I always think that's a little tougher for teachers because they don't know enough about that area. We see all the studies but we don't always know how to integrate that into a particular problem. The clear and specific goals and activities regarding the research was clearly the responsibility of the university representative and the facilitators in the workshop. That was the university representative's responsibility to bring to the team's work the resources 159 of the university in the way of current library materials, bibliographies, and resource people. Now, that of course varied in terms of the individual faculty member's involvement; some were more diligent about providing those kind of resources than others. But as far as workshop goals, the plan identified that as the major responsibility of the facilitator. We also made an effort to do this in our general sessions when we had a number of groups involved. I think we might have done more of that. I think there was a reflection of it, but I don't see it as being as strong as it might. There was, certainly, utilization of research in the basic model. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Three.--CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY AND PRACTICE WERE UTILIZED AND IMPLEMENTED. The historical data reflect a strong desire on the part of KIIW that each school team create a goal statement identifying the focus of their study and develop activities which would enable them to accomplish their goal. Founda- tional to the later process was a concern that each group conduct a study of research areas related to the goal. Particular assignment for this responsibility was given to the workshop staff, to be carried our during both the local school sessions as well as the common sessions. The inter- views report a continuing commitment to that principle. Successful accomplishment of the team's project was related to the construction of goals and activities which were undergirded by the support of contemporary educational research. Eighty-five percent of those participants interviewed indicated that the experience they had in the 160 KIIW reflected very definitely the concern of criterion three (See Table 5.13). Positive support for criterion three was evidenced. Table 5.13.--Participants' ranking of the KIIW and effective inservice education Criterion Three Rating scale Frequency Percentage Does not 1 0 0 reflect 2 1 5 Does reflect 3 2 10 Very 4 6 32 definitely reflected 5 10 53 CRITERION FOUR: THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL-BASED IMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. Records ’Commitment to the concept that inservice education Should be designed so that it is an integral part of the organization within which it functions was evident in KIIW's earliest years. Illustrations of this concept include: Participants are members of School Teams. Their focus is upon system or building level curriculum or instruction problems. They provide a support system for 161 one another in facilitating program improvements (Bird, 1971, p. 1). Bird (1974) identified a school team as a group of eight to twelve participants representing a local school or school district working on a problem of common concern. At the school level, 41 percent of the respondents stated that they had completely implemented their team's goals within their school, while 39 percent indicated that they had implemented their goal to some degree. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents thought that their efforts were extremely beneficial to the pupils in their school (Ward, 1973, p. 93). [On a scale of 1 - 7, 87% gave a rating of 4 - 7]. Seventy percent of the respondents thought that their workshop efforts were beneficial to their school district (Ward, 1973, p. 97), [on a scale of 1 - 7, 90% gave a rating of 4 - 7]. One participant stated, 'I think we have gone beyond my personal goals. I now feel as if I am part of something important to our school.” Another made this comment, "I feel our workshop efforts have been extremely beneficial because our efforts have not only involved the school we are in, but the whole school system and the community" (Fox and Griffin, 1974, pp. 546-547). Speaking of the advantages of the interinstitutional workshop, Switzer (1977) remarks: The workshop provides an opportunity for teachers and administrators in a particular school or school system to work together on the solution of a problem of their selection (Switzer, 1977, p. 10). ...in the workshop effort the teacher does not simply act as an isolated agent in pursuit of his/her own professional development but is part of a group working to improve the larger system of which he is a part (Switzer, 1977, p. 11). Interviews Faculty development needs to be a product of interaction as close to the site of learning as possible. 162 It has to be done at the building level. I think that the people worked because they knew that when they got it done it was going to benefit them and something was going to happen with it. They weren't doing something just in theory. They may not have agreed entirely with what happened, but they knew something was happening and they were going to have a voice in it. As a result of that it was implemented as recommended. I think that's why it was successful. Inservice education of teachers should definitely be directed toward the building level. In a building, the teachers have to get together. As they do, they decide the weak areas, things in the system we want to improve. The only way we improve it and change is through faculty development at the building level. That's the way we did it. I believe the focus of inservice education should be directed towards building-level, school-based improvement. I do however think it could be developed toward the whole district, then keyed in on one particular school. This was our experience and several things happen when you do this, If you're at the building level, teachers have ownership, and any time teachers have ownership, they go ahead and develop in a greater capacity than they do if they feel like it was totally directed. This is important because every school has its own personality and its own particular needs, too. Therefore it totally builds, plus it gives people a chance, teachers particularly, to talk about what they are doing, perhaps during the noon hour, or before or after school. With our KIIW, it dealt a lot with us specifically at our elementary school, but on the other hand, it did spread to others. In a school system like ours, what happens in one building is usually relevant to what's going on in the others. However, it's definitely got to be based right here at the need, and then bring the others along. We were the catalysts. It was our experience in our KIIW that we had, I believe, seven teachers who were from our school which at that time wasn't enough for them to approve the KIIW. So we opened it up to some of the outside schools. I'm not sure now, maybe 3 or 4 people from the outside schools joined us, which was nice because we did get some input from them. But there was a large core of people from our school who had become motivated and interested and had gained in their knowledge of computers. We had enough impetus after that that it just got the computers really rolling right along so 163 that it was a huge success from there on at our building. I think that for most all the groups that I worked with, the problem was structured toward the building level. Sometimes it was a district-wide problem, yet the goal was to effect programs in individual schools. The primary focus of KIIW as a curriculum development tool was to focus on building-level and school-based needs. The university representatives, the intermediate school district or State Department folk had no role in identifying the topic or the direction that a team wanted to move, or the need to be addressed. That was the full responsibility of the building-level or school-based team. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Egg£.--THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WAS DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL-BASED IMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. The historical data record that the KIIW's original design included the commitment that school teams, representing a local school or school district, focus on building level or system issues. Although the team might be district-wide, the concern was to influence development of the individual school. The successful accomplishment of the inservice project was to be reflected in program improvement and/or faculty development at the building level. The interviewees express the belief that this desire has continued to be fulfilled at the building level. As faculty members, and those concerned with school-based problems, they believe the benefits of their KIIW activity have influenced the educational program at the local school. Eighty-nine percent of the participants interviewed stated that their KIIW experience very definitely fulfilled the 164 principle of the fourth criterion (See Table 5.14). Positive support for criterion four was evidenced. Table 5.14.--Participants' rating of the KIIW and effective inservice education. Criterion Four Rating scale Frequency Percentage Does not 1 0 0 reflect 2 1 5 Does reflect 3 1 5 Very 4 5 26 definitely reflected 5 12 63 CRITERION FIVE: TEACHERS WILL BE INVOLVED VERY DIRECTLY IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FROM INITIAL PLANNING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION, AND INCLUDING EVALUATION WHERE APPROPRIATE. Records Commitment to the concept that teachers are more likely to benefit from inservice when they assisted in setting the goals, content and activities was evident in the KIIW's earliest years. Included in a listing of basic objectives of the KIIW was the following (Ward, 1973): To meet these [educational] needs by conducting interdisciplinary inservice education which recognizes and accepts individual differences among educators (p. 7). 165 Additional illustrations of this concept include: Participants (of the workshop) are members of school teams. Their focus is upon system or building level curriculum or instruction problems. They provide a support system for one another in facilitating improvements (Bird, 1972, p. 1). The workshop assumes that: 1. Every participant is a resource person and that everyone is a learner. 2. Significant learning is related to an individual's current concerns which he has aided in identifying. 3. Leadership which frees people and enables them to tap their unique capabilities will be most productive of (a) effective problem solving, (b) the development of problem-solving skills, and (c) the development of the professional capabilities of school staff members (Bird, 1971, p. 1). Each team selects a Team Leader, not an administrator, who assists in planning the workshop and developing leadership ability (Bird, 1974, p. 22). Self-Improvement. ... sixty-four percent of the respondents felt their efforts were extremely beneficial rating this question 6 to 7, while 32 percent rated it 4 to 5 [ On a scale of 1 - 7] (Ward, 1973, p. 87). I now see the importance of periodic brainstorming with colleagues. Discussion of new materials, methods, ideas, etc., is a very effective means of communication (Ward, 1973, p. 87). Speaking of the advantages of the interinstitutional workshop, Switzer (1977) remarks: In the workshop effort, the teacher does not simply act as an isolated agent in pursuit of his/her own professional development but is part of a group working to improve the larger system of which he is a part (p. 11). Interviews The issue is unanimous -- teachers must be meaningfully involved in all phases of inservice education. The inservice we're talking about here originally started with teachers sitting down and listing problems, possible objectives to solve those problems, what 166 direction they wanted to head, how far back in research we wanted to go, and then, what our final objective was to be -- our final goal with the whole course. As we were moving along, occasionally we would take a moment to see how far we had progressed on those goals, what direction we wanted to take after we had experienced our research, or in evaluating certain programs, what we wanted to do with our information. In the KIIW, the teachers would get together and plan our goals and objectives from the very beginning. So we were in on the organizing of what the class was going to be working towards, we were together on implementation of all the strategies, and we were in on the evaluation process to see if we had succeeded in reaching the goals we tried to reach. The teachers were involved in all phases; in the developing of the idea, the writing of the booklet, the presentation to the K - 12 committee made up of parents, administrators, teachers and board members. It was also brought to the Board of Education and discussed; examples were shown of children's writing and how we planned to use this in the school district. What we were considering probably came from discussions in the lounge. We felt we really had a need to learn more about computers and software, right down to the basics of what type of machines and kinds of software we were going to buy. It was the teachers who felt a real need in the building to learn more about computers. We got our heads together and decided that we were going to do what we could to get a KIIW going in our building which we did. It just seemed to be the beginning of all the successes of the computers at our school. I think that if the teachers themselves aren't involved, if they are just told they have to do this, they are going to resent it right from the beginning. If they implement it, they are going to be interested and really work at carrying through on it. If they're just told they have to do it, they'll put in their time, and whether they get a lot out of it or not -- maybe, maybe not. I liked our project -- it was self-contained, actually aimed at us. We made an impact. One of the things that I liked about the KIIW was that we allowed the faculty to have a great deal of influence, or whatever you might want to call it, in regard to the development of our writing program. And that gave ownership to the program. I think if you are going to develop curriculum inservice education, then 167 you have to allow people to put their input in so thay feel part of what they are doing. There is that ownership link. I think that is a critical part of inservice education. We valued the involvement and participation of teachers in leadership roles and in shaping the direction that the workshop would take, all the way from the stage of identifying and limiting the topic, to planning activities and the direction that they would move in addressing that need. In every case there was a teacher team leader rather than a building administrator in the leadership role for the team. We recognized the importance of teachers being involved in leadership positions on each team. Within the teams, teachers were very much involved. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Fizg.--TEACHERS WERE INVOLVED VERY DIRECTLY IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FROM INITIAL PLANNING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION, AND INCLUDING EVALUATION WHERE APPROPRIATE . The historical data present a record of the fact that the staff of the KIIW were convinced of the importance of having teachers very actively involved in the project of the workshop. Each individual filled at least two roles, as participant and as resource person. The team leader was also a teacher. The recent interviews clearly present the fact that this feature of the workshop has continued to be important. Every participant expressed recognition of the importance of this concept. Eighty-nine percent of those participants interviewed reported that their experience in the KIIW very definitely reflected the fifth criterion (See Table 5.15). Positive suppport for criterion five was evidenced. 168 Table 5:15.---Participants' rating of the KIIW and effective inservice education. Criterion Five Rating scale Frequency Percentage Does not 1 0 0 reflect ' 2 0 0 Does reflect 3 2 10 Very 4 5 26 definitely reflected 5 12 63 CRITERION SIX: THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL WILL BE INVOLVED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. Records Commitment to the concept that appropriate administrators should be involved in inservice education activities and fully support it was evident in the KIIW's earliest years. Illustrations of this concept include: ... insistence that a principal or assistant principal be a member of a team or give his support in writing before a team can join the workshop. Early evaluations showed a higher rate of adoption for teams that included their principal (Ward, 1973, pp. 9-10). Administrators must be members of the group. Therefore, to the extent that implementation rests with the building principal, he has an opportunity to examine this responsibility and plan action designs for assisting the team with implementing their goals (Bird, 1974, pp. 22-23). 169 We are now part of an educational team, not teacher vs. administrators (Ward, 1973, p. 91). Speaking of the advantages of the interinstitutional workshop, Switzer (1977) comments: ... the workshop provides an opportunity for teachers and administrators in a particular school or school system to work together on the solution to a problem of their selection (p. 10). Interviews Concensus; the administrator must be meaningfully involved. The effective school's research that came out put a lot of responsibility right on the principal as a key figure in having an effective school. So if you're going to have that the case, then he should be an active participant in what's going on in the faculty, as he was. I think that whatever the program of study, the administrator has to become one member of the team and work through it every step of the way. They can't go into their office, close the door, and shuffle papers. They've got to be in with the team working. I'd say, very definitely from my experience, if it's going to work, the administrator must be there. The administrator definitely needs to be involved in each of the teams because he knows what's happening. He knows the thought process that's going on behind the teachers as they're developing the curriculum. Also, if the administrator is involved, he has a part of ownership so he will promote it. He can also make all the arrangements necessary to try out the ideas; he can 'clear the paths' through to the other administration. He also has access to facilities and money to help the program along the way. Ours did. That's a natural key because if the principal's not going to be involved, it's going to have trouble getting implemented. I feel the principal is the implementor, and the people can do all they want and run around, but the principal is going to tie up the loose ends. The principal has to be involved and has to be the one to take it to the central office, to the Board and see that all the legwork is done. Again, the staff goes so far and says to the principal, "It's all yours, take it from 170 there.” That's fine, that's the way it's set up. That's the way it was. We did have an administrator in the KIIW. He was not the chairperson; he worked and did research right along with the rest of us. He did not dominate the situation, but added to possible goals and objectives that he was personally interested in from the faculty standpoint. The important thing about the administrator being included is that when a teacher does use or incorporate a specific item from the KIIW that we had, the administrator knew the reason behind it, was supportive of it, and felt he could give the praise, whereas if he hadn't been involved, he wouldn't realize the input that had gone into this teacher's thought process to incorporate that. Yes, administrators should definitely be involved because after the faculty has taken the courses and is to make these changes, unless there is follow-through, then it might not be school-wide. And when they go in to evaluate, they better be checking to see that these things are being done. The administrator will be involved as an active participant. We held steadfastly to that stipulation. The only place where that broke down was with the team that was a system-wide team, in which case it was not the building level administrator involved. There was one instance where a central office person was the administrator, and in another place where a principal was involved, but not necessarily the principal where the majority of the teachers on the team were serving. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion _S__i__)5.--THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL WAS INVOLVED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. ‘The historical data evidence a firm belief in the importance of the administrator's presence on a KIIW school team. Typically, this was the building principal. Occasionally, the team consisted of district-wide faculty. At such times the administrator may have been from the central office. The position of the workshop, however, was firm; no administrator, no school team. 171 The participants were in complete agreement with this position. They recognized both opportunity and responsibility for the administrator. Opportunity to build relationships with the faculty, and to be better able to understand the issues involved in the project. Responsibility to provide possible resources at his/her disposal, and to represent the faculty and the project to the Board and/or community as would be appropriate. Eighty-nine percent of those participants interviewed confirmed that their experience in the KIIW very definitely reflected the theme of the sixth criterion (See Table 5.16). Positive support of criterion six was evidenced. Table 5.16.--Participants' rating of the KIIW and effective inservice education. Criterion Six Rating scale Frequency Percentage Does not 1 0 0 reflect 2 0 0 Does reflect 3 2 10 Very 4 9 47 definitely reflected 5 8 42 m This chapter has included a listing of historical records and interviews of the Kent Interinstitutional 172 Workshop, description of the types of data assembled, and supporting evidence for each criterion. Positive support was evidenced for all six criteria. Chapter Six will include a summary of the study, conclusions and recommendations for inservice education of teachers, suggestions for further research, and closing remarks. CHAPTER.VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction A summary of the study is presented in the first section of this chapter. The succeeding sections contain the summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations, suggestions for further research, and closing remarks. Summary of the Study This study had two major purposes: 1) to seek to identify a set of criteria, including those associated with adult learning theory, deemed crucial to effective inservice education for teachers, for to the extent that the criteria identifies guidelines, considered by knowledgeable leaders of inservice education important to teacher inservice education, to that degree it would appear that the set of criteria should be considered a viable means for determining soundness of contemporary inservice education; and 2) to relate the criteria to a specific teacher inservice education program, for to the degree that the teacher inservice education program chosen for the study fulfills the recommended criteria, to that extent it would appear it should be considered a viable program for contemporary inservice education. 173 174 Initially, a review/overview of the literature dealing with inservice education -- specifically purposes, types, and problems -- was considered. Attention was also given to the contribution adult learning theory might make. An extensive search of the literature was conducted regarding the identification of criteria of effective inservice education. More than one hundred fifty principles were noted. To be considered a major concept, a principle must have been noted by a minimum of two-thirds of the writers surveyed. Continuing research of the literature found strong support for each of the six criteria. These criteria served as the conceptual framework for this study. Seeking a specific, innovative teacher inservice education program to which to relate the six criteria, the researcher, after interaction with Blackman (1984) and several other educators he respected, chose the Kent Interinstitutional WorkshOp for Improving School Programs (KIIW). Data analysis was conducted of historical records, official and unofficial, from a variety of sources, regarding each criterion. Interviews were conducted with participants in the KIIW, seeking to ascertain whether the identified criteria were present while they were participating in the Workshop. The responses were evaluated for information related to each of the criteria. Supporting evidence from records and interviews is 175 provided for each criterion. A short summary is made of the data for each of the criteria. Summary of Findings In this section, the findings of the study are summarized, beginning with adult learning theory, followed by the development of the six criteria of effective inservice education, and concluding with the report of the study of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs through historical records and interviews. Adult Learning Theory.--Based upon the review of the literature regarding adult learning theory, attention should be given to treating teachers as they would treat their students were they teaching adults. Inservice education should model principles of adult education. Teachers, as adults, experience many of the same needs as other adults. They learn best: 1. what is related to needs. 2. when they are permitted to be independent and self-directing. 3. 'when the environment is physically and psychologically comfortable. 4. when what they are considering in the educational experience bears relationship to what they already know. 5. the closer they come to direct experience. 176 6. when they are rewarded and reinforced in and through the educational experience. Criteria of Effective Inservice Education.--A considerable number of writers have conducted research regarding guidelines for developing teacher inservice education. Many of these writers have had extensive contact with elements uniquely involved such as teachers, local schools, school districts, teacher organizations, colleges and universities, educational laboratories, parents and lay leaders, and governmental agencies. The procedure followed in this review was to draw from the literature what may be considered principles of effective inservice education. The researcher then sought to organize them and found they could be grouped into six primary categories. A combination of procedures was used in establishing the six criteria to be used in the study. Each of them was identified as important by a minimum of twelve of the seventeen authors referred to above. Several were identified so frequently in the literature they stood out in importance. In addition, considerable support was found in the general literature for each criterion. The six criteria of effective inservice education are identified below: 1. THE CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF TEACHERS AND WILL BE TIED INTO THE 177 ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL, RATHER THAN BE AN ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY. 2. THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIETY'S CHILDREN -- INCLUDING SUCH ELEMENTS AS SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOLS OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, RELATED COMMUNITY CONSTITUENCIES, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -- ARE ABLE TO COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. 3. CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY AND PRACTICE WILL BE UTILIZED AND IMPLEMENTED. 4. THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL-BASED IMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. 5. TEACHERS WILL BE INVOLVED VERY DIRECTLY IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FROM INITIAL PLANNING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION, AND INCLUDING EVALUATION WHERE APPROPRIATE. (ACTIVITES WILL BE SUPPORTED BY ADULT LEARNING THEORY, AND WILL INCLUDE THOSE: RELATED TO NEEDS; PERMITTING INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-DIRECTION; CONDUCTED IN A PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT; PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO RELATE WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN; APPROACHING DIRECT EXPERIENCE; AND OFFERING PROVISION FOR REWARD AND REINFORCEMENT.) 6. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL WILL BE 178 INVOLVED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs (KIIW).--The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was chosen as the inservice education program to which to relate the six criteria. Information was gathered from historical records and from interviews. Data analysis was conducted of historical records, offical and unofficial, from a variety of sources regarding each criterion. Strong support was found in the historical data, from the earliest years of the KIIW and continuing, to indicate recognition of the importance of each of the criteria. Interviews were conducted with participants seeking to ascertain whether the identified criteria were present while they were participating in the Workshop. The responses were evaluated for information related to each of the criteria. The highest response, given for criterion one, indicated that 95% of the participants interviewed felt their experience in the KIIW very definitely reflected a concern that inservice education of teachers be an on-going. developmental part of the school program. Seventy-four percent of the respondees, the lowest figure, indicated their experience in the Workshop very definitely reflected criterion two. The inclusion of teacher organizations in the list of elements able to collaborate in inservice education possibly caused several 179 to question that criterion. An average of 87% of the interviewees reported that overall their experience in the KIIW very definitely reflected the concerns of the six criteria. Conclusions Related to Adult Learning Theory Adult education encompasses important principles of adult learning with both implication and application for teacher inservice education. Related to Criteria of Effective Inservice Education Considerable agreement and support is found in the literature regarding six specific guidelines for developing effective inservice education for teachers. Related to the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs (KIIW) The KIIW appears to very definitely fulfill the recommended criteria and should be considered a viable program for contemporary teacher inservice education. The Workshop also gives strong indication of having fulfilled it's stated purpose ”to assist a team from a local school (school district) to realize group effort in solving professional problems related to the educational offerings of their system." 180 Recommendations Related to Adult Learning Theory Specific attention should be given to the fact that teachers are adults. Inservice education of teachers should model adult learning principles. Related to Criteria of Effective Inservice Education There appears to be strong indication of value in using criteria as guidelines for planning inservice education programs. Schools, school districts, intermediate school districts, and/or state departments of education would be advised to plan for the presence of six criteria as they develop a plan of teacher inservice education of teachers. a. CONTINUING INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN IMPORTANT AND INTEGRAL FACTOR IN THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF TEACHERS AND SHOULD BE TIED INTO THE ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL, RATHER THAN BE AN ISOLATED, INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY. b. THOSE INSTITUTIONS WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE SOCIETY'S EDUCATION OF CHILDREN -- INCLUDING SUCH ELEMENTS AS SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS, SCHOOLS OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, RELATED COMMUNITY CONSTITUENCIES, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -- SHOULD SEEK TO COLLABORATE EFFECTIVELY IN TEACHER INSERVICE EDUCATION. c. CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GOALS AND ACTIVITIES INCORPORATING CURRENT EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REGARDING THEORY 181 AND PRACTICE SHOULD BE UTILIZED AND IMPLEMENTED. 6. THE FOCUS OF THE INSERVICE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARD BUILDING-LEVEL/SCHOOL-BASED IMPROVEMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. e. TEACHERS SHOULD BE INVOLVED VERY DIRECTLY IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR INSERVICE EDUCATION EXPERIENCES FROM INITIAL PLANNING THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION, AND INCLUDING EVALUATION WHERE APPROPRIATE. (ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ADULT LEARNING THEORY, AND SHOULD INCLUDE THOSE: RELATED TO NEEDS; PERMITTING INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-DIRECTION; CONDUCTED IN A PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT; PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO RELATE WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN; APPROACHING DIRECT EXPERIENCE; AND OFFERING PROVISION FOR REWARD AND REINFORCEMENT.) f. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EACH LOCAL SCHOOL SHOULD BE INVOLVED AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN FACULTY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES. Related to the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop for Improving School Programs (KIIW) .The KIIW gives very positive evidence of fulfilling the six criteria of effective inservice education and therefore should be considered a strong viable model for teacher inservice education. The development of this model should be particularly encouraged wherein there is a disposition to seek to fulfill the six criteria. 182 Suggestions for Further Research Given the results of this present research, the following issues might be subjects for future consideration: 1. A study to determine whether the results would differ when the six criteria would be related to another pair of teams in the KIIW. Interviewing a different pair of teams could increase confirmation of the Workshop as an effective inservice education program. 2. A research project relating the criteria to a different teacher inservice education program. Would the criteria prove to be as useful as they were in this project? 3. An in-depth look at each criterion in its relationship to several inservice education programs. Did the presence or absence of the criterion influence the effectiveness of the inservice education programs? 4. A research of the literature to ascertain the continuing recognition and support for each criterion. 5. A study of the presence or absence of the six criteria in teacher inservice education programs with an identified history of positive response. Closing Remarks This study has permitted the researcher to explore the field of inservice education, in the literature, and as a practical reality in the local school, school district, and intermediate school district. It has given him opportunity to interact with specialists from the university. This experience has increased the author's 183 conviction that if our society is going to meet the challenges of the future, the quality of its teachers and its school will be of paramount importance. The logic Of developing a continuum of professional teacher education experiences that begins with introduction into a teacher preparation program and continues throughout the active life of the practitioner is being increasingly recognized. Inservice is considered to be an important element in this process. Hopefully, the identification of the six criteria of effective inservice education will provide a set of guidelines useful in planning future inservice education programs, and also will provide a benchmark for considering the effectiveness of programs. The researcher also hopes that the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop (KIIW) will be recognized as a strong model for teacher inservice education. The personal experience while involved in the KIIW received very positive confirmation from both historical records and from interviews with participants. The development of the Workshop is particularly noteworthy when one considers that it was initiated in 1970, yet it fulfills criteria recommended for inservice education of teachers two decades later. In conclusion, it is the author's desire that this study contribute to future growth and development of the teacher inservice education enterprise. One who has received much would be pleased to have given something back. APPENDICES QUESTIONNAIRE September, 1986 Dear : Permit me to reintroduce myself. During the two years, 1981-82 and 1982-83, I worked with the Kent Interinsti- tutional Workshop (KIIW) as an assistant to Dr. Charles Blackman of Michigan State University. During that time I observed the work of the KIIW team at South Elementary School in which you participated as a team member. As you will recall, the focus of your study was on establishing a program to introduce computeres into the Granville Public Schools. At the present time, I am working to complete a Ph.D. in Education degree program at M.S.U. Included in my require- ments is the necessity to engage in a research project. I have chosen to conduct a descriptive study of the Workshop. My present study has two purposes: 1) to identify a set of criteria considered crucial to effective teacher inservice education; and 2) to relate those criteria to the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. To the degree that the KIIW meets the established criteria, to that degree it would appear it should be considered an important vehicle for future inservice education of teachers. May I respectfully request an opportunity to interview you regarding your experience in the Workshop. The interview will take about 25 minutes. It is my understanding that the Grandville Public Schools Central Office has already informed you by letter of my desire to conduct this inter- view. Please be assured that your participation is strictly voluntary. You should know also that there will be no penalty for declining or for discontinuing the interview if you so choose. You can also be assured that no one else will know whether you choose to participate or not. Should you choose to participate, any information you share will be kept in strictest confidence. I will be glad, however, to share the summary of the findings with you if you so desire. As presently scheduled, I will call you the week of to determine your willingness to participate in the study and if so, to schedule a convenient time for the interview. At that time we will also discuss a location suitable to you. The program to introduce computers into the Grandville Public Schools has been so successful that it is known around the state. I trust this interview will be an interesting recounting of the Workshop experience and the activity that followed it. 184 185 Enclosed you will find a copy of the questions around which the interview will center. Your verbal agreement to parti- cipate in this interview will constitute your informed con- sent. Thank you for your valuable time and cooperation. Sincerely, Marlin L. Olson (Ole) SC enc. 186 Criteria for Effective Inservice Education The following elements are considered to be important criteria for successful staff development in the next decade. To what extent do you believe the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop reflects these same criteria? Picture in your mind a scale from 0 - 5, with 5 being the high value. Please place yourself on that scale and explain the reason(s) for your choice. Effective Inservice Education 1. The continuing inservice education of teachers is considered to be an important and integral factor in the professional growth of teachers and will be tied into the on-going developmental program of the school rather than be a one-shot effort. Those institutions with a vested interest in the education of society's children -- including such elements as schools, school districts, intermediate school districts, teacher organizations, schools of teacher education in universities and colleges, related community constituencies, and governmental agencies -- are able to collaborate effectively in teacher inservice education. Clear and specific goals and activities incorpora- ting current educational research regarding theory and practice will be developed and implemented. The focus of the inservice education of teachers 'will be directed toward building-level/school-based improvement and faculty development. Teachers will be involved very directly in all phases of their inservice education experiences from initial planning through implementation, and including evaluation where appropriate. The administrator of each local school will be involved as an active participant in faculty improvement activities. FORMS PRE-REGISTRATION FORM For The INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL PROGRAMS Name of School District Name of School Building Name of Contact Person Telephone Number Name of school building to be used by workshop team when not meeting in the central location: Please state the problem your team has selected and will attempt to solve. (Be as specific as possible.) Tentative number in team: Teams shall consist of a minimum of eight (8) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members. If more than twelve (12) members from a school district wish to participate, two or more teams of at least eight (8) members each may be formed. An initial meeting of team leaders and a person identified to assist in planning the general sessions and evaluations will be held on Tuesday, September 19, 1972 from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. The site to be announced later. PLEASE RETURN BY MAY 15, 1972 TO: Barbara Bird, Curriculum Consultant Kent Intermediate School District 2650 East Beltline SE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 187 188 INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP TEAM PROGRESS REPORT School District Date Our major problem area or topic: Chairman Recorder MEMBERS PRESENT: Meeting time from to ; additional meetings with . 1. "PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS SCALE" -- on what steps of the problem solving process are you now working? (Circle) I 1 2 3 II 1 2 3 4 III 1 2 3 IV 1 2 3 Defining Working on Drawing Presenting Problem Problem Conclusions Conclusions 2. BRIEF REPORT OF TODAY'S PROGRESS (OR ATTACH MINUTES): 3. WHAT WE PLAN TO DO AT THE NEXT MEETING: 189 School District 4. MATERIALS, FACILITIES, RESOURCES AND/OR HELP NEEDED: 5. SPECIFIC TIME PLANS FOR USE OF PERSONS OR AIDS LISTED ABOVE: 6. IS THERE A KIND OF PROGRAM WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST FOR A GENERAL SESSION? IF SO, SPECIFY TOPIC AND/OR PERSON AND/OR NAME OF FILM, ETC.: THIS SHEET TO BE FILLED OUT BY END OF EACH SESSION. TURN IN TO STAFF MEMBER. PARTICIPANT ' S RESPONSES Participant's Responses Criterion One (A) I feel it is very important for every teacher to be able to be involved in a continuing inservice education of material that has something to do with what they are teaching, as we did in the IIW. (4) (B) The reason I was involved in this was to work with my fellow teachers in developing a writing booklet that would be something to follow for our creative writing, to establish continuity and a grade-by-grade development to the correct way of writing. It is something that I have used yearly since I took the course. It goes along beautifully with our new English and spelling series that we have. It kind of redefines all those areas. I felt that the speakers that we had that went along with it were very valuable. We met one night a week for 4 hours so we did quite a lot during that time. (5) (C) The KIIW was an ongoing thing. The one-shot type of thing for 5 or 6 hours becomes a kind of thing where you get saturated after a little bit, you leave with a whole lot of stuff in your head, and you have trouble making application. If it is an on-going kind of thing, maybe an hour here and there, you say, "O.K., now I've got that and its fresh,” and you head back on in with it. Certainly you know that in-service education has to be an ongoing thing with changes like in reading with some of the new stategies that are involved in it. You have to keep that stuff in front of you. (5) (D) I believe that continuing inservice education should rank on the scale of (5), because teachers in the learning process can only take so much, need to have time to develop it, then go back and review what they have learned and keep growing. Plus it holds interest that if you can gain some knowledge, you can build on the next. I think in our own particular incidents where we learned about computers, that teachers started working on it, and then practiced their skills and kept developing. Now we have it in every classroom and teachers are interested in it. (E) I would give no. 1 a (5), because we not only did it, we studied it, we implemented it; not only did we implement it, its been under study and is still under study. And we go back to the KIIW when we want to study the issue again. (F) I definitely think that no. 1 was very definitely reflected in the KIIW. The reason being that we did meet as a group of teachers and worked to develop our curriculum for 190 191 language, and we actually wrote our curriculum. We had a lot of input from different grade levels and we were all striving for the main goals to improve our language curriculum. (5) (G) I like one-shot things to hear an expert, a really good expert, rather than people who are mediocre. You'd rather hear one good person; they can do a lot more in one hour sometimes than a lot of mediocre can do in 5 nights. I'd probably rate it a (2). Because I think the leadership has to come from the school. (H) I do feel that if you take them for credit, as we did in the KIIW, there's a lot more value, rather than the one-shot. We dug, nobody knew that much. We got a lot out of it. So that was one that was for credit, and that's what people want. Give it a number (5). (I) I'd give that a (5) because I feel that in a one-shot thing when you just listen all day to someone, you just can't absorb all that. It needs to be repeated and I think it's a lot more meaningful than just to hear it once. It might carry over for a short time, but if it's repeated in a class situation for several weeks, it's more meaningful and in turn it helps the children a lot more. (J) Well for no. 1, I do believe that I would give it a (4), maybe a (41/2). The KIIW, the inservice that we had, was not a one-shot effort. I believe it went on for approximately sixteen weeks. It covered a wide range of topics. It was not a one-shot. (K) With item #1, I think I'd very definitely agree with it. That was the IIW. I'd probably give it a (5). I think it's very important. I think one of the things I see here is the school issue, and I think that's where a lot of staff feel it should take place. The one-shot effort is not a very effective way; it should be an on-going kind of thing. So I would very much agree with that. (L) I really think it's a (5). I think that when the program is geared to the building level, which is the best IIW program, that the teachers at that level in their interaction, which really goes on continuously, not only for the period of when sessions are held, but frequently the teachers continue working on an informal basis for the rest of the year. Then too there may be the need to take it to the Board for approval, the administrator being involved. I think there's tremendous growth in addition to the issue we're working on. (M) Responding to #1, I believe that I would score that a (4). I think the KIIW definitely does reflect on the on-going developmental program of the school. And I think that's beneficial, both to the teachers and the program. (N) I've rated the first issue a (4) on your scale. As I look at the item, I think the Interinstitutional Workshop really attempted to tie itself to long-range planning in the school districts so that the experience that the teachers and the building administrator had during the course of the 16 weeks addressed some local building or local district 192 goals. However, I think in reality I recall some situations where the team probably identified its topic to be addressed in the workshop separately from any local school involvement. There were some times when a team arrived and they perhaps had not given a great deal of thought prior to the workshop as to the goal but used the first session or so to clarify the goal, and I don't think that was always tied to any intensive long-range planning on the part of the school district, central office administration, or school board goals for the district. Now it may be that they had input from those sources prior to their classification process, but it seemed that every year there were several teams that had to go through a clarifying process the first couple of sessions. Re-defining their goal, re-defining the direction they wanted to go with the program. (0) I think with number 1, I would rate this a (4), but with some qualifications. I'm not certain with the focus of the KIIW. The attention was more on developing programs than it was on developing people. Clearly, there was commitment to do something over time, which was viewed as a way to gain more significant change, but I'm not really certain that people saw this as a change in themselves or a change in others as much as they saw it as a change in programs. There are several parts of that law in the continuing inservice education of teachers that are considered to be an important and integral factor in the professional growth of teachers and how they tie into the ongoing development of programs of the school rather than being a one-shot effort. SO this wasn‘t one shot, and it was concerned about the developmental programs of the school, but the link between building development and staff development probably was not as sharply defined by many as it might have been. (P) I think that the KIIW was at least a (4), possibly a (5) on that scale. Inservice education is very definitely going to be an ongoing program within all schools whether it be a K—12 program or adult education. It's not only considered to be important, but to be vital in today's society. With the technological advances that are taking place, one-shot efforts will not have any place in inservice education. There will be a series of inservice education programs each year, or maybe over a period of years for each school system. I believe the KIIW, or types of the KIIW, will be incorporated into ongoing inservice education programs because it brings together a cooperative effort. (Q) This actually was continuing education in the IIW, and was extremely helpful because of the interaction that was involved on the part of each one of the teachers. I thoroughly enjoyed it and felt that it was very, very, very beneficial. I'd give it a (5). (R) I would say that inservice reflects at about a (4) level. Each October our school system joins in with other Kent County schools and we hear some very dynamic speakers; they get us extremely excited about new concepts and ideas 193 and we take them back to school. We talk about them and about 2 weeks later they wane and we're back to business as usual. I think more follow-up is the key to successful inservice. I saw the potential for that in the IIW, more so than the actual practice of it. I think what the IIW needs is for the university liaison member to provide that type of continuing service. I think that a lot of times, they put too much responsibility and burden on the people taking the cgurse, and I think there should be more stimuli coming from t em. (S) I would say it definitely does reflect the philosophy of IIW -- it is not a onevshot deal. It has been an on-going developmental program, not only during the period that the IIW was in process, but also afterwards. Some of the schools that I worked with, the program continued after we were through, and that was part of the IIW. We had to spend time between meetings talking with teachers, that was one of our assignments, so that would bring along everybody on the whole staff. We could not do that with a district team. I can think especially at Grandville when I worked with them on computers, the whole community was involved in that and they wouldn't let it drop. And I remember working in Kenowa High School, and that was a situation where they really spent time with staff. Every week they spent time with additional staff members that weren't in the workshop. The ongoing concern was definitely a part of the workshop. One of the things that bad to happen was that the issue had to be a problem that several people wrote. In my experience it was something that had been a problem that had been started before. It just didn't grow up overnight; they just hadn't had a chance to really work on it before. SO therefore they felt if you're taking something for credit, then this is the vehicle. Yeah, this was a good way to really do it. Criterion Two (A) The KIIW did involve several groups of people on different levels, and we all worked together to effectively solve a problem. I feel that this kind of group collaboration is very effective in teacher inservice. (5) (B) The combination of working together as a variety of schools and school districts and the intermediate district was well-organized in that we were all striving to work towards a pretty similar goal; ours was involved with writing. We also met 3 or 4 times together as one whole group. The number of people involved in each group averaged 8 - 10. The total was around 30 as I recall. (C) I guess a question would be, can you effectively get all of them at any one time? Yes, like we did in the KIIW where you had the local school, where the problem originated, you had the intermediate district that acted as coordinator, and of course, the college to provide some resources and to give the credits (if such is the case); 194 certainly as it pulls out of the local school it ought to be quite current and something that's relevant. I would put this very definitely with a (5). (D) I think to make anything important, you do have to have a variety of interests including the school district, teacher's organizations, and all components of education because it all builds enthusiasm in one another. One person gets fired up, and you have the support of everything else that you can keep going. If you don't have the support, sometimes it stops right there; it doesn't build throughout the district. You need every type of support, eSpecially if it's a brand new field, like computers. Everybody lacked knowledge about them, so everybody needed to know that the other people were supporting them. I think we have many ideas in education but they don"t get off the ground level because they are not supported by all facets of education. (5) (E) I would rate that one a (2) or (3). The reason is I guess the Kent Intermediate and the college worked together to set this up. As an individual, I'm not sure what all went on, and in our particular study, we pretty much did our own thing. We had a representative from the university who was there, and we went to the big speakers/sessions, but they really didn't relate to what we were doing, so there was not a lot of satisfaction with that. It was very difficult to bring in resource people, so ours turned into more of a workshop. Something was probably going to be done whether we were in a class or not. We probably did more of our own thing. All this cooperation I'm not sure what went on, and how important all that was. (F) I would pick number (4) for item 2. I do feel that we had many people helping while we were working on this in our interinstitutional workshop. We had an administrator from our district, we had a college person helping us, and we also heard several college speakers. I don't recall any governmental agencies involved or communities. But the others were all represented. (G) I would give it a (2), because I don't feel that those outside people are keyed into our district and our immediate goals. They were very general and I didn't feel the expertise coming from them that I feel when I go to a class on my own, or as we had in the past when we had a very definite goal in mind. It was just more general, and I don't feel it was that effective. (H) It's very important that the schools and the total school district have an interest in what they're offering in inservice. I don't really see the community as being quite that involved or the governmental agencies. But the universities, it's up to them to give us the leadership and get people in for us and give us a lot of guidance in that area. They're the specialists and so if I take out the community constituencies and governmental agencies I'll give it a (3) then. 195 (I) I think I'd give that a (4). And I do feel that those people were involved. I like the idea that it comes down to your own school district and people from your district. It is a lot more meaningful than if you get a lot of outside people that are not necessarily connected with our own district and know our problems and what we really want to address, and what's important to us at this time. (J) As far as #2 is concerned, I agree with it wholeheartedly so I'd give it a (5). It has been going on since as far back as 1982-83 as far as I'm concerned. (K) My experience with item no. 2 is that I would grade that at probably a (2) or a (3). The reason for that is that I feel that these groups listed in this particular item do not work together as well as they should. I see a couple of factors that seem to interfere with that. First of all, I think that the universities seemed very much interested in their student teachers and student teacher placements, that kind of thing, but are not much interested in continuing education at the local school level. They do have graduate courses, but it's more in a graduate format. I think a couple of things seem to interfere in regard to that. One is the bureaucracy involved at the university; it's hard for them to be flexible to address individual school needs. Two, I think it might be that they have some difficulty within as well in that regard. (L) I'll say a (3) does reflect. It should be able. I think that whatever the issue is, whether it involves a school system, a building, or any of these, we ought to be able to bring the best from all of those elements together to help the people work through it. We really did. I can think of times when we needed somebody from a governmental agency or we needed somebody from a college; you asked them to come, and we never paid those people. They were willing to give their time because they saw the need. (M) In response to number 3, I believe that number (5) is where I would want to reflect my feelings on that. Although all institutions and agencies were not involved in my experience, I believe they all could be or should be when appropriate. (N) .The second item I rated as (5). Because I think that was a very clear intention of the program to involve a variety of resource people and groups in the development of- the KIIW and the procedure of addressing the topic identified by the team. we always had representation from the State Board of Education, the Intermediate school district, and generally there were a minimum of 4 different universities involved in the program. Included also were teacher representation and building administration. That was a clear, very definite part of the program to see that all those various groups were represented. Of course there were exceptions on occasion, because of various problems; a building principal was not able to be the representation but an assistant principal would take the place, or in some cases, a district goal was being addressed as opposed to a 196 building goal, and then a central office administrator would be involved. But it seemed appropriate to make those exceptions. Very frequently if the issue being addressed was one that the community would be sensitive to, although the community members were not participating on a regular basis as members of the class, they were from time to time brought in as resource people and included in their work. (0) On #2, the notion of collaboration marked the KIIW from the beginning, both between and among schools, and between school buildings and district offices, although in some cases that was not too strongly built because of our focus on the building as the unit of change. The link with the Intermediate school district was a very strong one. The teacher organization link varied district to district; in some instances there was involvement of teacher organization leadership and in others, I don't think there was. The interinstitutional dimension of the higher education level was present when we had enough students to be able to justify the participation of several universities. But, related to community constituency and governmental agencies, this was not a major focus, although it may have shown up in some individual projects. Certainly there was nothing about the model that would preclude the possibility of the involvement of the community constituencies. As I recall, there were a couple of instances over the history of the KIIW where parent representatives were involved. At the moment I can't think of any in which there were non-educational government agencies involved. Well I think I would rate that a (41/2). (P) I'm not sure the KIIW has played a role in bringing together all of these outside organizations, but it certainly has in bringing together the school organizations. I certainly do think it could very well play an important role. I think the institutions with vested interest are very definitely going to be collaborating together, more in the future. Again, I think the KIIW can and should play a very vital role in that by bringing or helping to bring together the various institutions including the governmental institutions and agencies. I would say that's at least a (4). (Q) 'With my experience with the IIW, I feel that as many areas as possible should be included in the input. The more areas that are included when we're discussing things and when we"re learning about areas of education, it just gives us a much more beneficial outlook on things. With our computers, it was just like it was a springboard from our class. It just kept going, and snowballed after the IIW at our school. It had all kinds of parent interest. They became organized, planning money—making things so that we could have our software and our computers in every classroom. They encouraged teachers that weren't using them to get involved using them, and to make them part of the classroom. It just was excellent as far as the results in our school after our IIW. I'd give it a (5). 197 (R) On #2, with the institutions having vested interests, I'd say that once again we could rate it a (4). I think that the main thing I would like to see IIW do would be to pull in community resources more. I think when we're dealing with a person who's our implementor and our supervisor, that since they really don't have that much class preparation or things to make because of the individual nature of some of this, that they could Contact community resources and see what the needs are and what the abilities are for them to help us meet our needs. I think IIW did a beautiful job in bringing in many of the local schoolteachers together from various elementary schools where we could share our ideas and that. I think there should be a larger commitment from the administration. I think a lot of times the people who signed up for IIW did so so that the teachers could participate in it. I don't know if it was something that they really wanted to do and felt that they were going to grow and that the school was going to grow. Or because the response from the teacher has always been very favorable, one of the administrators said, 'Well, o.k., since it's important to you, I'll do it.” But I never really thought they felt a real commitment to take those administrative abilities they have in running the school to help kind of steer the IIW towards what they want. That's why I didn't rate it a five as opposed to the four. I think the one area where it's a little weak yet, at least in my experience, was the administrator was a token person to make it go. (S) I think they all have vested interest, as you said here, but I don't see the IIW involving all of these; most of them because it was true that the school districts, intermediate and the universities were all involved, but I don't recall that the teacher's organizations were involved. Parents were involved in many of them. I would say a (4+). Criterion Three (A) I think that it is very important to have specific goals and objectives in anything you do. In the KIIW we certainly did set goals and objectives. We were very well organized and all of the things/activities that we did were specifically pointing towards the goals we set up at the beginning of the sessions. All of the new research points out that you need to have specific goals and that the activities you do with children should be specifically aimed towards those goals, and so with teacher education, it should be the same way. (5) (B) When we started the project, we had a pretty good idea of what we were working towards. Once we got together as a group, we broke into smaller groups, working on specific grade areas. From there we worked on different skills that we felt should be taught in that grade and possible mastered in that grade level. We then had other resource people come in and talk to us about the different areas we had divided into. (4) 198 (C) A lot of times it's easy to just bounce from here to there on what you're going after, but with the KIIW that we were involved with, we knew there were certain directions coming up from what research was telling us. We knew, for example, that in the area of writing it was important to realize that kids were deficient in writng so we focused on setting up guidelines for each grade level as well as coming up with activities that would ensure that writing was being done. We developed a system of folders which we still use and pass along samples of writing from grade to grade. Yes, definitely, these have to reflected and you'd have to give that a (5). ' (D) You do need clear and specific goals because everybody brings in their prior knowledge to an activity and if it's not spelled out, specifically, then they don't know what to do with that type of activity. Especially when you have a wide variety of people teaching in education, you have different levels of learning for the students themselves, so everybody needs to know what is the foundation to build on. (4) (E) I would say that number three was a (3). Occasionally a group gets into an area where there isn't a lot of research, into an area on the cutting edge. I recall a group that worked on graduation requirements before there was a lot of attention given to the issue. SO they stopped to ask why have requirements, came at the problem from a different route, and headed it up differently than other people did because they didn't have the research available. (F) For point 3, I would say that very definitely reflects on number (5). We did have specific goals and we used other district curriculum as guidelines to help develop our curriculum. (G) Number 3 is as it should be. But, I don't feel that when you get one person coming into a class, and they are not teaching, I don't feel they are as up on their research and what they give. It's to come more from the group, which is fine, but the group doesn't always have time or resources to get at it. Then I just don't feel that the theory and the research is there that you get in a regular college class. So I'd give that a (2). (H) 'Number three is critical, I think, if we're ever going to change education at all. And this is where it comes again from the university because they have all the latest research. They can get it out to us and let us implement. (3) (I) I like the idea that our project was actually aimed for us, but built on solid research. (4) (J) We did much research regarding theory and practice, and then we proceeded to develop our own thoughts and went from there. We even ended up with material that we could share with other people. It all was very goal oriented, but it built on where the research had started and we took that into consideration. I'd give that at least a (5). 199 (K) I think that the goals and objectives were very clearly stated and did reflect research and practice. By using information from the national diffusion network as a means of looking at the writing program, I found that to be very helpful. That particular network helped us to identify some of the things we wanted to put in our writing curriculum and we were able to do that. So I think I'd grade this one a (5). (L) I think that in every program specific goals and activities were outlined, that all available research that existed was reviewed and then implemented into developing the program. I'd give that about a (4). (M) In response to #3, I would rank that a (5). There were definitely occasions where we looked into research and we utilized it as we implemented and established the program in the district. (N) The third item I rated as (5). The Clear and specific goals and activities regarding the research was clearly the responsibility of the university representative, and the facilitators in the workshop. That was the university representative's responsibility to bring to the team's work the resources of the university in the way of current library materials, bibliographies, and resource people. Now, that of course varied in terms of the individual faculty member's involvement; some were more diligent about providing those kinds of resources than others. But as far as workshop goals, the plan identified that as the major responsibility of the facilitator. (0) With respect for no. 3, regarding specific goals and activities incorporating current educational research in theory and practice, we made an effort to do this in our general sessions when we had a number of groups involved. I think we might have done more of that than we did, and I guess I'd have to go with 3 1/2 on that. I think there was a reflection of it, but I don't see it as being as strong as it might. There was, certainly, utilization of research in the basic model. With respect of that I would say 4 1/2, but in respect of providing input to teams related to a specific utilization of current educational research, there was not. As I re—read that, clear and specific goals will be utilized and implemented, if you look at the model as a model, yes we did. That's where I would go with a 4 1/2. But the parallel effort to help teams understand both ways of working and research regarding their particular problem area, that's the place where I think they could have strengthened it a bit. (P) In the team that I was involved in, we were looking at computers and how to incorporate them into the school system. It helped us to begin to focus on what our goals would be for the use of computers and the utilization of computers within the K—12 program. We not only used many of the ideas that came out of this particular KIIW, but there was and still is an on-going committee within the school system looking at how to continue to adapt and change to the 200 nuse of computers as we find out how they are needed in the private sector. We are not doing the same things we started out doing as a result of the KIIW, but in all cases, we are still doing some things. We have adapted as we've gone along, as computers and research have shown that computers should have different needs. So, very definitely this would rank a (5) in our computer experience. (Q) When we first discussed taking the IIW with computers in mind, our reason was it was just as computers were beginning in the schools and many of us knew very little about them. We wanted to get a background of information and knowledge about computers, plus we wanted to know also how we were going to go about evaluating the software. Also that we'd feel more comfortable in using the computers and the software. I'd give that a (5), excellent. (R) I think we should rate #3 as a (5). I think that our main thrust in the IIW was not so much to re-invent wheels as to incorporate them; find successful programs and then adapt them to our particular needs. (S) I think IIW made a real attempt to incorporate educational research. Each group definitely had to have specific and clear goals. Activities were not done ahead of time. Most of the goals were set beforehand, before we began our IIW usually. We always took a look at the goals, that's where they started. One of the first assignments was always to see what research said about a particular topic. I always think that's a little tougher for teachers because they don't know enough about that area. We see all the studies but we don't always know how to integrate that into a particular problem. I would put that a (41/2). Criterion Four (A) We would have a certain problem in our building and we would develop goals and objectives around the problem, and then all of our strategies and activities would be on trying to solve the problem, trying to meet the goals and objectives again. So definitely at the end of the inservice, whatever we could contribute to the school system would help us on the building level, and maybe the total school system also. (3) (B) 'Five elementary schools were involved in the creation of the writing guide which we are now using in all five elementary schools. (4) (C) You know, when you talk about inservice education, it's got to be something that's practical and is going to touch base with you. With our KIIW, it dealt a lot with us specifically at our elementary school, but on the other hand, it did spread to others; in a school system like ours, what happens in one building is usually relevant to what's going on in the others. We don't have a lot of competition between buildings whereon one would jump on a bandwagon to get ahead of the others. We have a very cooperative kind of set-up here; no one school's looking for the glory versus another. There no pressure on the administrators either to 201 have one school be overly creative and more of a pathfinder than the others. However, it's definitely got to be based right here at the need, and then bring the others along. That was certainly a big part of the writing that we did. We were the catalysts. And as far as being important, oh very definitely. I would put that up there with a (5). (D) I believe the focus of inservice education should be directed towards the building level/school—based improvement. I do however think it could be developed toward the whole district, then keyed in on one particular school. This was our experience and several things happen when you do this. If you're at the building level, teachers have ownership, and any time teachers have ownership, they go ahead and develop in a greater capacity than they do if they feel like it is totally directed. This is important because every school has its own personality and its own particular needs, too. Therefore it totally builds, plus it gives people a chance, teachers particularly, to talk about what they are doing, perhaps during the noon hour, or before or after school. (E) I think number 4 is a (5). It has to be done at the building level. I think that the people worked because they knew that when they got done it was going to benefit them and something was going to happen with it. They weren't doing something just in theory. They may not have agreed entirely with what happened, but they knew something was happening and they were going to have a voice in it. As a result of that it was implemented as recommended. I think that's why it was successful. SO I think that one is very important, and in our case, it worked. (F) I would say point four was very definitely reflected in our interinstitutional workshop. We did have several different levels of teachers, different grade levels and we all worked together for the improvement of our school curriculum for language. (4) (G) Again, it's what it should be. I guess I would give that a (4). We did come up with a good booklet. I'd give it a (4), maybe a (5). (H) Number 4, Inservice education of teachers should definitely be directed toward the building level. In a building the teachers have to get together. As they do get together, they decide the weak areas, things in the system we want improved. The only way we improve it and Change is through faculty development at the building level. That's the way we did it. I'd give that a high (5). (I) I'd probably give that a (4). Whatever you would like to focus on, as a group you make an impact. (J) The inservice was very highly directed at faculty development. However sharing went on with everyone, making it very usable with other people. A (5). (K) I guess I'd have to rate this area a (5). One of the things I liked about the KIIW was that we allowed the faculty to have a great deal of influence in regard to the development of our writing program. And that gave ownership 202 to the program. I think if you are going to develop curriculum inservice education, then you have to allow people to give their input so that they feel part of what they are doing. And there is the ownership link. I think that's a critical part of inservice education. (L) If it's going to have the highest rate of success, inservice education must be building- level/school- based. Because the largest element that you can promote change in is at the building level. I think if you have something like the writing project, you will possibly end up with a writing project for the school system. Then a cross-section of committees from all buildings has-a place. But I have totally believed, for 25 years, that the closer to the building you can get, the greater the impact. 80 that I'd say is very, very definitely a (5). (M) I would rank #4 a (5). This school district has a lot of faculty involvement in its development of curriculum. So our focus definitely involved the teachers as well as the administration. (N) The fourth item I rated as (5). The primary focus of the KIIW as a curriculum development tool was to focus on building-level and school-based needs. The university representatives, the intermediate school district or State Department folk had no role in identifying the topic or the direction that a team wanted to move, or the need to be addressed. That was the full responsibility of the building level or the school based team. (0) With respect to number 4, I think I should add a 5- here, because one of the districts in your particular study had more system wide participation and less of a building focus, but that was clearly the exception rather than the rule. The basic commitment of the IIW was to the notion of school based teams of 8-12 people, and the building principal being involved. (P) For my experience, I would rate this a (2). At this time we are more district wide oriented, concerned with consistency within the whole program. There have been times previously in the district, however, when the approach would be building-level to meet specific needs. The superintendent feels strongly that there is a place for building-level/school-based inservice education. (Q) It was our experience in our IIW that we had I believe 7 teachers who were from our school, which at that time wasn't enough for them to approve the IIW. So we opened it up to some of the outside schools. I'm not sure now, maybe 3 or 4 people from the outside schools joined us, which was nice because we did get some input from them. But there was a large core of people from our school who had become motivated and interested and had gained in their knowledge of computers. We had enough impetus after that that it just got the computers really rolling right along so that it was a huge success from there on at our building. I'd give that a (5). 203 (R) On #4, I would probably rate it as a (2) as far as our building involvement alone, but if we were to look at it as a more broad-based type of involvement with the entire elementary community, it would definitely receive a (5). I noticed that even though we were doing this as a complete district, those of us teachers who were involved in our building seemed to share lunch hours and after school conversations dealing with the topic that we were involved in. We began to influence others who became interested and would say, ”What is this thing you're doing now, and what kind of plans do you have for it?" And occasionally we would hear, "Gee, I should have signed up for that, I have some ideas; I could have got involved and probably made a difference on it." I think that it's good to have it as a district-wide thing basically because when you're only in the building as opposed to being in a district, you're not going to be able to get the school board's support that the whole school community might need if some real good ideas are evolved and need financial support. I think the broader-based involvement is probably good from that point of view. It could depend on the project, however. (S) I would give this a (5). I think that for most all the groups that I worked with, the problem was structured toward the building level. Sometimes it was a district-wide problem, yet the goal was to effect programs in individual schools. I can't remember the topic anymore, but I remember Forest Hills had a district-wide problem, and a set of goals for the whole district, but ultimately, the most important thing was the way it affected building levels. Criterion Five (A) In the IIW, the teachers would get together and plan our goals and objectives from the very beginning. 80 we were in on the organizing of what the class was going to be working towards, we were together on implementation of all the strategies, and we were in on the evaluation process to see if we had succeeded in reaching the goals we tried to reach. (5) (B) The teachers were involved in all phases; in the developing of the idea, the writing of the booklet, the presentation to the K-12 committee made up of parents, administrators, teachers and board members. It was also brought to the Board of Education and discussed; examples were shown of children's writing and how we plan to use this in the school district. (C) Having teachers involved with it is just like with the kids; as soon as you have ownership of a program, there's going to be more at stake and more reason to plug into it and put out for it. However, I think you know, we as teachers have to still be open to what is happening out there, say on the research end of things. We tend to get wrapped up in our classrooms and sometimes can have tunnel vision. So I can't discount having the superintendent and your administrators who are out at conferences, and getting 204 out a lot more than we are, having input. We may have to be nudged, but we do have to have ownership. So, I'd probably give that a (4). (D) Teachers need to be involved very directly in all phases of the inservice education experience, from planning through implementation, because they are where it's happening. They know the grass root levels of what particular needs they have in their own classroom, and they do need to know where they can evaluate it. Perhaps an administrator or the school district might look at one problem, but they are not really involved with the children. They'll see it from a different way because many times we have institutions which are "idealized", and they are removed from the actual learning experience. Make it a (4). (E) I would say that that probably is a (3) or a (3+). The reason I would say that is that the faculty participated fully in the planning of the program. They probably got more directions from me, as a principal, setting up some things we need to do. I think the staff may have a problem when you have a goal and you're trying to accomplish it, they may want to get there faster than they should. So you need to say, we have to stop and survey the community, we've got to survey the staff, and/or the students. We just can't always do what we want to do. In terms of the planning, what I find with the staff, whether it's with this, or any other inservice, they like to be involved and have some input but they kind of like someone else to carry the ball, to organize it, and then they come back in again. So this group was involved in the inservice, but some of the planning and how we're going to structure it, probably not as much so. (F) For point 5, I would say very definitely that would be a number (5). We, the teachers, did do all the writing of our new curriculum. We were able to put all of our input into it, all of our ideas, and actually write it. We did have administration help, but we actually did the writing and ended up finishing it. (G) I do feel teachers should be involved. We probably were in (3) range. Again, we need more of the expert help in the research because when you're teaching from 8-3:30, I'm sorry, you just don't have time to go through the reams of irrelevant research, and need to have the key things pointed out to you. It would be nice if we had time to keep up on it all, but we do not have time to go through all the technical stuff, and I think we meed more of that. But certainly we need to be involved, and very definitely involved in it, but we need help to be involved. You just can't put us in charge, and build a good one, because you need some expertise from some place. (H) Yes, our project was a (5). Definitely it should be teacher initiated; after all we're the ones working with the children, know the weaknesses of the system or of the curriculum, the ways we want to change, the research, and whether whether we're getting into it or not. 205 (I) Well I'd say a (5)on that; we were involved. I think that if the teachers themselves aren't involved, if they are just told they have to do this, they are going to resent it right from the beginning. If they implement it, they are going to be interested and really work at carrying through on it. If they're just told they have to do it, they'll put in their time, and whether they get a lot out of it or not ... maybe, maybe not. I liked our project - it was self-contained, actually aimed at us. We made an impact. (J) Number 5 I would give a (5). The inservice we're talking about here originally started with the teachers sitting down and listing problems, possible objectives to solve those problems, what direction they wanted to head, how far back in research we wanted to go, and then, what our final objective was to be -- our final goal with the whole course. As we were moving along, occasionally we would take a moment to see how far we had progressed on those goals, what direction we wanted to take after we had experienced our research, or in evaluating certain programs, what we wanted to do with our information. (K) I guess I'd have to rate this area a (5) also. One of the things that I liked about the IIW was that we allowed the faculty to have a great deal of influence, or whatever you might want to call it, in regard to the development of our writing program. And that gave ownership to the program. I think if you are going to develop curriculum inservice education, then you have to allow people to put their input in so they feel part of what they are doing. There is that ownership link; I think that is a critical part of inservice education. (L) In the most successful, lasting programs which are still in existence from ten years ago, teachers were involved in all phases, from the planning, through the implementation,and the evaluation - very long-standing. Of all the IIW teams that we had through the years, the majority of the programs were staff implemented by staff and administrators. There still were a few where somebody in an 'ivory tower' thought this was a need in our school, so we will, or we should do this. I don't think the commitment on the part of teachers was as great working through that situation. Some are in existence today; some aren't. But the real intent is that everybody gets together and decides what they are going to do. I'd give that at least, very definitely a (5). (M) I would put a (4). This school district has a lot of teacher involvement in its development of curriculum. And, though the teachers are involved in the planning and development, I feel that some of those who are administrators are able to direct that focus. (N) We valued the involvement and participation of teachers in leadership roles and in shaping the direction that the workshop would take, all the way from the stage of identifying and limiting the topic, to planning activities 206 and the direction that they would move in addressing that need. In every case there was a teacher team leader rather than a building administrator in the leadership role for the team. We recognized the importance of teachers being involved in leadership positions on each team. Within the teams, teachers were very much involved. I would probably rate that a (5). (0) With respect to item 5, the model provided for this and the basic design would certainly represent a (5), but the point at which that broke down was the point of problem identification. Some teams bought into a problem that either a single teacher or a single administrator, either building or central office, identified, and even though we asked for collaborative efforts and problem identification, I don't think that this was followed consistently. We did make an effort in the orientation to the workshop, early on, to push people to think how their problem had been identified, and we did send out written information, during the preregistration process, describing how the problem should to be identified. But I'm not sure that that set of directions was followed 100%. So I guess I would say (5) on the model, but probably (3 1/2) or (4) on implementation. (P) I guess I believe, in regards to #5, that teachers will and should be very directly involved in their inservice education experiences. The high majority of teachers are very good teachers and do effectively evaluate themselves in terms of their needs and areas of weakness as well as areas of strength. Therefore they do need to be involved and should be involved in their inservice educational experiences. In our particular case with the computers, I believe that the teachers became more aware of the need of computer inservice education because of responses they were getting from parents, and this led to the teachers, the administrator, and the parents forming a committee to look at computer needs within the school district. That committee eventually led to the purchase, over the last 5 years, of in excess Of 100, probably closer to 150 computers purchased within the school district. The teachers responded to the computer needs as they heard them developing from parents, and wanted to be actively involved in any inservice for themselves. That has led, and the IIW was instrumental in this and would receive a (4) on our ranking here, to numerous inservice programs for teachers over the last 5 years, from bringing people in connected with computer education, to teachers attending conferences on computer education. (Q) What we were considering probably came from discussions in the lounge. We felt we really had a need to learn more about computers and software, right down to the basics of what types of machines and kinds of software we were going to buy. It was the teachers who felt a real need in the building to learn more about computers. We got our heads together and decided that we were going to do what we could to get an IIW going in our building, which we did. It 207 just seemed to be the beginning of all the successes of the computers at our school. I'd give it a (5). (R) I think the IIW does kind of an outstanding job here, and I'd very definitely reflect it with a rating of a (5). One thing I would caution, though, from my experience in dealing with lots of teachers is that I don't want some of them involved in planning many of my activities. I feel that many of us who are teachers haven't been near the current research and we haven't been freshened often enough to do this. I think we should be given the opportunity to provide additional input, say what we need, what our goals are, but have somebody maybe in the ”ivory tower" who is in close contact with the experts to direct that. I say we should be involved, but we shouldn't be given the total responsibility for it. I know many of my peers may disagree, but I still feel that there are amongst us some who are not really capable of developing a real good strategy or a real good program. But that's where the university consultant should make a contribution. I would like to see the consultant from the university take a more "hands-on" approach, and say, "I see what you people want, I know somebody who has done this before, and I know somebody who speaks on that issue. Maybe you could contact them and either get some written material or invite them in." (S) This I would definitely give a (5). Because teachers were involved from the beginning. Teachers were the ones that really could make the changes ultimately, and therefore they were involved in the planning, in the implementation, and in everything related to their goals. They did what they wanted to do, and they were included in the evaluation. ' Criterion Six (A) I think anytime in a class like this that you have an administrator involved with you, as we did, whether it be your principal or your curriculum director or your reading consultant or somebody from the central office involved, it facilitates a lot -- if there's money needed, or if there is a building needed to be used, or time for the teachers to work, or materials, and leadership -- of course they present some leadership. Any of that would be a positive thing because school boards appreciate it when the administrators. are in on things like that. It also gives the teachers some credibility that this is an important project, and it is worthwhile, and we're really working, we're not wasting our time. (5) (B) The administrators were involved in that our reading consultant was involved. Also other building administrators who were interested in the project have gone on to introduce the program in their schools. 80 this is an all-school district working together. Now to me, that follows through and carries out what we worked on. (4) (C) As far as right at the local school here itself, the principal is the one that's going to see and be somewhat 208 responsible for seeing that certain things are carried out. When parents come to him with things, he's obviously got to be 'onboard' with it. The effective school's research that came out put a lot of responsibility right on the principal as a key figure in having an effective school. So if you're going to have that the case, then he should be an active participant in what's going on in the faculty, as he was. So I'd put that at a (5). (D) The administrator definitely needs to be involved in each of the teams because he knows what's happening, what they're talking about, he's just not reading it off the paper. He knows the thought process that's going on behind the teachers as they're developing the curriculum. Also, if the administrator is involved, he has a part of ownership so he will promote it. He can also make all the arrangements necessary to try out the ideas, he can 'clear the paths' to see through the other administration. He also has acess to facilities and money too help the program along the way. Ours did. I'd rate our experience a (4). (E) Six is a (5). That's a natural key because if the principal's not going to be involved, it's going to have trouble getting implemented. I feel the principal is the implementor, and the people can do all they want and run around, but the principal is going to tie up the loose ends. The principal has to be involved and has to be the one to take it to the central office, to the board and see that all of the legwork is done. Again, the staff goes so far and says, “It's all yours, take it from there...", and that's fine, that's the way it's set up. That's the way it is/was and so that's a (5). No question about it. (F) For point 6, I would say that would be a (5). We did have an administrator that worked with us each meeting, and he did help to tie things together in the curriculum, and any kinds of problems he would help us solve. (G) That one is a (3). If you don't have leadership, the school won't go anyplace. Our last successful class was not a workshop but was run by one of our administrators, with very strong direction for the school. I think that class made a great deal of importance. I think administrators have to be involved, pushing and setting the goals. 'It won't be taken seriously unless they're involved and then further more, after the class is done, they see that it is implemented. And if that's not there, it is valueless. (H) Yes, administrators should definitely be involved because after the faculty has taken the courses and is going to make these changes, unless there is follow-through, then it might not be school wide. And when they go in to evaluate, they better be checking to see that these things are being done. I'd give our experience a (5). (I) I'd give a (5) on that. Because I think they have to know what's expected in every grade level, and what's going on and the goals for every grade level, and understand. I know that's hard, I mean when you have to 209 cover so many grades; I think you really have to know what it's all about. . (J) I would give #6 a (5). We did have an administrator in the IIW. He was not the chairperson; he worked and did -research right along with the rest of us. He did not dominate the situation, but added to possible goals and objectives that he was personally interested in from a faculty standpoint. The important thing about the administrator being included is that when a teacher does use or incorporate a specific item from the IIW that we had, the administrator knew the reason behind it, was supportive of it, and felt he could give the praise, whereas if he hadn't been involved, he wouldn't realize the input that had gone into this teacher's thought process to incorporate that. (K) I'd rate our team a (4), only because our administrator was the reading/language arts coordinator. I think it's important to have the building principal involved with these faculty improvement activities, because I think that it's when principals and teachers are involved at the building level that there seems to be a greater impact on what happens in the school. If the local building administrator for each individual building is not involved, there's not quite as much value placed on what's being done. (L) I think that whatever the program of study is, the administrator has to become one member of the team and work through it every step of the way. They can't go into their office, close the door, and shuffle papers. They've got to be in with the team working. I'd say very definitely, from my experience, if it's going to work, the administrator must be there. I'd rate this a (4+). (M) For number 6, my response would be a (4). Although the teachers are involved in the planning and development, I feel that some of those who are administrators are able to add to the focus. The administrator of the local school has been always involved in my experience. (N) The sixth item I rated as a (4). We required an administrator to be involved with each team. That was the goal and I think in the overwhelming majority of the cases, the administrator was involved. On occasion we did not always get the building principal, but we always had some administrator, someone in an administrative role as a member of the team. Now in some cases, more than any other participant, the administrator was called away from class sessions because of other responsibilities and commitments in their work, and they tended to miss a greated degree of involvement because of other commitments. So I guess that's the only reason I would not rate that a (5). We recognized that it was very important, we always insisted that an administrator be involved, and I can't think of a single exception when there was not an administrator involved. But there were times when other responsibilities prohibited them from being as actively involved as they might. But in spite of that, the major role of the administrator's involvement was to be an ongoing supporter for the activities of the 210 team and to help in assuring that there would be an implementation of the changes that the team came up with. (O) The administrator will be involved as an active participant. We held steadfastly to that stipulation. The only place where that broke down was with the team that was a system-wide team in which case it was not the building level administrator involved. There was one instance where a central office person was the administrator, and in another place where a principal was involved, but not necessarily the principal where the majority of the teachers on the team were serving. So this would be a place where probably implementation would be a (4), but in basic commitment, the model would rate a (5). (P) In our particular case with the IIW in regards to #6, that would probably rank about a (3) on the scale. However I do believe that in most cases that ranking would be much higher in most IIW's because the local school administrator is the educational leader of a particular building and needs to very definitely see the areas where inservice education is necessary, whether it be through an IIW type of program, or through some other inservice program. In our program the local school administrator/building principal needs to collaborate and make certain that if indeed an area of weakness or need is seen in one local school, that it may also be the same need in other local schools, and then by working together on a district—wide basis, we may be able to offer more inservice programs for teachers. But very definitely, in most cases, the inservice should be seen by the administrator/ building principal. In that case I would rate that a (4+). (Q) My experience was that our principal was not able to participate at the time that I was involved in the workshop, so another administrator was the one who represented our administrator, which worked out quite well. It seemed like any of the suggestions that we had or ideas we had were implemented very well through the other administrator. Ideally it should be the administrator that is most closely involved with the staff. That would be my first choice. I'd give that a (4). (R) .Let's give it a (4). I believe that IIW has the potential to very definitely reflect on a faculty's activities with the administrator being involved. In my situation, the administrator generally went along with things, and got involved to make things feasible. I think that when an IIW is offered in a school district, what might best be done is to have the university consultant sit down with that administrator and say, "O.K., You are the authoritarian figure in this. You know whether these programs that your teachers are involved with are really going to be implemented. What are your goals in it?" By doing so, I think that getting the administrator involved more at the planning stage will put additional pressure on the teachers to follow through to a successful end. I think that many of us respond to the authority and to the pressure 211 coming from an administrator much more than from the authority we assume for ourselves. And I think that IIW could really make their individual school system or school building projects much more successful by getting that administrator to make a commitment, even if he has to butt heads a little bit with the teaching staff to make sure that they're doing it. (5)) I would give that a (5) because the administrator had to be involved for the project to be successful. IIW is a model that really reflected that. It didn't really work very well if the administrator wasn't part of it. And there were times, unfortunately, when the administrator wouldn't show up. The most successful ones were those where the administrator was involved throughout the total process. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Beverly, and Odden, Allan. ”State Initiatives Can Foster School Improvement.” Phi Delta Kappan 67 (April, 1986): 578-581. Aspy: David N., and Roebuck, Flora N. A Lever L999 Enough. Washington D. C.: The National Consortium For Humanizing Education, 1976. Auton, Sylvia. "The Professional Development We Want: A Survey of Elementary School Teachers.” Centerfold Seminar, National Association of Elementary School Principals, Arlington, Va., January 30, 1982. Bacharach, Samuel B. "Leadership." Phi Delta Kappan 67 (May, 1986): 642-645. Barth, Roland S. "How to Ensure an Effective Principalship." The National Elementary Principal (March, 1980): 10-20. Bell, Terrel H. "Staff Development Urged as State» Priority." Inservice. National Council of State Inservice Education, Syracuse University, 1981. Bennett, David A. "Improving In-Service and Staff Development." Journal of Thought 22 (Summer, 1987): 66-72 a Bermans, Paul. ”The Next Step: The Minnesota Plan." Phi Delta Kappan 67 (November, 1985): 188-193. Bhaerman, R. D. A. 1977 cited in S. J. Yarger, et. al. Creative Authority and Collaboration. Inservice Teacher Education Concepts Project Report IV. Palo Alto, Ca.: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, 1976. Binko, James B., and Neubert, Gloria A. ”An Inservice Education Model: Teachers and Professors as Coequals." Journal of Teacher Education 35 (November/December, 1984): 15-17. Bird, Barbara. Consultant, Kent County Staff Development Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Interview, June, 1987. 212 213 Bird, Barbara. "Interinstitutional Workshop: A Change Model of Inservice Education." The New Campus 27 (Spring, 1974): 21-27. Blackman, Charles A. Professor of Education, Michigan State University, and Faculty Representative to the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, East Lansing, Michigan. Interview, June 16, 1987. Blackman, Charles A. Professor of Education, Michigan State University, and Faculty Representative to the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, EaSt Lansing, Michigan. Interview, September, 1984. Blackman, Charles A. "Strategies for Financing In-Service Teacher Education.” College of Education, Michigan State University. Paper presented at The American Association of College Teachers Education, March 1, 1979. Boyer, Ernest L. ”The Need for School-College Collaboration." Higher Education and National Affairs 34 (September 2, 1985): 11-13. Breiger, Karen. ”Older Adults Learning Productivity in Team and Individual Settings Utilizing Criterion Referenced Instructional Modules." Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, 1980. Burrello, Leonard C., and Orbaugh, Tim. "Reducing the Discrepancy Between the Known and the Unknown in Inservice Education." Phi Delta Kappan 63 (February, 1982): 385. Butler, Loretta. Updating a Professor--Changes in Teacher Education.“ Paper submitted to AACTE Awards Program for Outstanding Writing in Educational Personnel Preparation, Fordham University, 1980. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. "Task Force on Teaching as a Profession." A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1986. Coffey, H. S., and Golden, W. J., Jr. ”Psychology of Change Within an Institution." In N. B. Henry (ed) The Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of National Sgciety for the_Study of Education: Part 1. Inservice Education for Teacher Supervisors and Adthistrators. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Cohen, Michael. "Instructional Management, and Social Conditions in Effective Schools." In Allan Odden and 214 L. D. Webb (ed) School Finance and School Improvement. Cambridge, Ma.: Ballinger, 1983. Cole, Robert. "Inservice is Not a Verb." Phi Delta Kappan 63, No. 22 (1982): 370. Collins, James F. "The State-of-the-Art of Inservice Education and Staff Development in State Department of Education and in the Federal Department of Education." Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 15, No. 1 719877: 13-19. Commission on Reading. Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. National Academy of Education. National Institute of Education, Washington, D. C., 1985. Cook, G. E. Teachers as Learners: Approaches to Professional Education. Presented at the National Council of Teachers of English Spring Conference, 1982. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Mo. ED 219 801). Crandall, David, and Associates. Peo le, Poligies and Practice: Exagining the Chain OE SchboI—Improvement. Andover, Ma.: The Network: 1983. Cross, Patricia. Adults as Learners. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey Bass, 1981. Cruickshank, Donald R. "Uses and Benefits of Reflective Teaching.” Phi Delta Kappan 66 (June, 1985): 704-706. Cunningham, William G. "Research-Based Strategies for Fighting Teacher Burnout," Education Digest. May, 1982: 20-23. Davis, Alan, and Odden, Allan. "How State Instructional Improvement Programs Effect Teachers and Principals." Phi Delta Kappan 67 (April, 1986): 590-596. Dillon-Peterson, Betty. Staff Development/Organization Development. AlexandrIa, Va.: Association and CurricUlum Development, 1981. Dodd, Anne Wescott, and Rosenbaum, Eileen. ”Learning Communities for Curriculum and Staff Development.” Phi Delta Kappan 67 (January, 1986): 380-383. Edelfelt, Roy A. ”An Outsider's Critique of the Program." In R. A. Edelfelt (ed) Staff Development for School Improvement: An Illgstration. Ypsilanti, Mi.: National Center for Teaching and Learning. Michigan University, 1983. 215 Edelfelt, Roy A. "Inservice Education: Moving from Professional Development to School Improvement." Urban Educator (Winter, 1983): 100-113. Edelfelt, Roy A. Inservice and Curriculum Consultant. Class session at Michigan State University, April 22, 1982. Edelfelt, Roy A. "Six Years of Progress in Inservice Journal of Research and Development in Education.” Education, Vol. 14 No. 2 (1981): 112-119. Edelfelt, Roy A. ”Criteria for Local Inservice Education Programs.” Inservice Education: Criteria for and Examples of Local Programs, Bellingham, Washington: Western Washington—State College, 1977. Edelfelt, Roy A., and Lawrence, Gordon. "In-Service The State of the Art,” in Rethinking Education: In-Service Education, ed. Roy Edelfelt and Margo Johnson, National Education Organization, Washington, D.C., 1975. Edelfelt, Roy A. "Inservice Education of Teachers: Priority for the Next Decade.” Journal of Teacher Education (1974): 250-252. Edmonds, Ronald. ”Programs of School Improvement: An Educational Leadership 40, No. 3 (December, Overview." 1982). Edwards, Sara A., and Barnes, Susan. Staff Development Model that Works." Leadership 42 (April, 1985): 54-56. "The Kinds of Schools We Need.” 1983): 48-55. "A Research-Based Educational Eisner, Elliot W. Educational Leadership (October, Eltis, Ken, et. al. "Assisting Schools to Develop School-Focused Action Programmes." In D. Hopkins (ed) Alternative Perspectives on School Mana ement Philadelphia,_Pa.: The Falmer Pfess, 1 84. Farrar, Eleanor, and Flakus-Mosqueda, Patricia. ”State-Sponsored Schoolwide Improvement Programs: Schools?" Phi Delta Kappan 67 What's Going On in the "Introduction to Coordinating SCDE Programs." Ferver, Jack. Development in Education 15 Journal of Research and (1981): 22-71. 216 Fox, G. Thomas. "Purpose as Context for Evaluating Inservice Programs.” Journal of Research and Development in Education 14 (1981): 34-45. Fox, Robert S., and Griffin, Don A. "A New Model for In-Service: When Clients and Resources Cooperate for Growth." Educational Leadership (March, 1974): 545-547. Fuhrman, Susan; Huddle, Eugene; and Armstrong, Jane. “Improving Schools: The State Role." Phi Delta Kappan 67 (April, 1986): 594-596. Futrell, Mary Hatwood. Cited in ”Holmes Group Meets in Washington." Educator. East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State University, Summer, 1987. Gage, N. L. "What Do We Know About Teaching Effectiveness?" Phi Delta Kappan 66 (October, 1984): 87-93. Gersten, Russell; Carnine, Douglas; and Green, Susan. "The Principal as Instructional Leader: A Second Look." Educational Leadership 40 (December, 1982): 47-50. Glass, G. V. "Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research." Educational Researcher 10 (1976): 3-8. Goodlad, John I. A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984. Goodlad, John I. "What Some Schools and Classrooms Teach," Educational Leadership (April, 1983): 8-20. Goodlad, John I. The Dynamics of Educational Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Gordon, Raymond L. Interviewing Strategy, Techniques, and Tactics, Third Edition. Hometown Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1980. Greenleaf, R. K. The Servant as Leader. Cambridge, Mass: Center for Applied Studies, 1973. Griffin, Gary A. "Implications of Research for Staff Development Programs." The Elementary School Journal (1983): 414-425. Gross, Sandra (ed). "Improving Communication Between Researchers and Teachers.” Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University, 153 Communication Quarterly (Spring/Summer, 1986). 217 Guskey, Thomas R. "Staff Development and Teacher Change." Educational Leadership 22 (April, 1985): 57-60. Guskey, Thomas R. and Gates, Sally. "Synthesis of Research on the Effects of Mastery Learning in Elementary and Secondary Classrooms." Educational Leadership 43 (May, 1986): 73-80. Guthrie, James W. ”School Based Management: The Next Needed Education Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 68 (December, 1986): 305-309. Haisley, F. B., et. al. ”A Planning Document for Revised Elementary and Secondary Teacher Preparation Programs." Eugene, Oregon, University of Oregon, College of Education Paper, 1983. Hall, Gene E., and Louchs, Susan F. "Teacher Concerns As a Basis for Facilitating and Personalizing Staff Development." Teachers College Record 80 (1978): 36-53. Havighurst, Robert. Developmental Tasks and Education. White Plains, New York: Longman, 1979. Hibner, Dixie. "Staff Development from the Principal's Perspective. In Roy A. Edelfelt (ed) Staff Development for School Improvement: An Illustration. Ypsilanti, Mi.: National Center for Teaching and Learning, Eastern Michigan University, 1983. Hite, Herbert, and Howey, K. R. Planning Inservice Teacher Education: Promising Alternatives, American AssociatIhn of Colleges for Teacher Education. May, 1977. Holly, Mary Louise. "Conceptualizing Teacher Education: Integrating Personal and Professional Development.” Paper prepared for Western Michigan University College of Education, Forum. Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1982. Holly, Mary Louise. ”Teacher Reflections on Classroom Life." Paper prepared for American Research Association Annual Meeting. New York, 1982. Holly, Mary Louise. "A Conceptual Framework for Personal-Professional Growth: Implications for Inservice Education." Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Holmes Group, Inc. "Holmes Group Meets in Washington." Educator. East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State W Un1vers1ty. Summer, 1987. 218 Hopkins, David, and Wideen, Marvin. Alternative Perspecpives on School Improvement. New York: The Falmer Press, 1984. Hopkins, David. ”What is School Improvement? Staking Out the Territory.” In D. Hopkins (ed) Alternative Perspectives on School Improvement. Philadelphia, Pa.: The Falmer Press, 1984. Howell, B. “Profile of the Principalship." Educators Leadership 38 (1981): 333-336. Howey, Kenneth R., and Vaughan, Joseph C. ”Current Patterns of Staff Development.” In G. Griffin (ed) Ei ht -Second Yearbook_of the National Society for the Study of Educapion. Part II, Chicago, Illinois, Uhiversity of Chicago Press, 1983. Hufker, Rosemary. "SCDE'S as Leaders in Faculty Development." Journal of Teacher Education 31 (January/February, 1980): 16-20. Hutson, Harry M., Jr. ”Inservice Best Practices: The Learnings of General Education." Journal of Research and Development in Education 14, No. 2 (1981): 1-9. Jenning, Gerald L. ”Benefits of Staff Development Projects for Downsized Schools. In R. A. Edelfeldt (ed) Staff Development for School Improvement: An Illustration. Ypsilanti, Mi.: National Center for Teaching and Learning, Eastern Michigan University, 1983. Johnson, Margo. Inservice Education: A Priority for the '80's. National Council of States on Inservice Education. 1980. Joyce, Bruce, and Showers, Beverly. Power in Staff Development Through Research on Training. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD, 1983. Joyce, Bruce. ”A Memorandum for the Future.“ Staff Development/Organizatipnal Development. AIexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981. Kent Professional Staff Development Center. Kent Interinstitutional Workshop Proposal, May 1981. Grandthids, Michigan: Kent Intermediate School District, 1981. Kent Professional Staff Development Center. Kent Interinstitutional Workshop Proposal, May 1981. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kent Intermediate School District, 1982. 219 Kersch, Bert Y., et. al. Faculty Development for Inservice Education in the Schools. Washington, D. C.: American Association of COlleges for Teacher Education (September, 1978): 15-25. Kleiman, Lynn. ”A Teacher's View of a Staff Development Project.“ In Roy A. Edelfelt (ed) Staff Development for School Improvement: An Illustration. Ypsilanti, Mi.: National Center foriTeaching and Learning, Eastern Michigan University (1983): 11-13. Klein, Karen. ”Practical Applications of Research." Phi Delta Kappan 66 (April, 1985): 578-580. Knowles, Malcolm S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education New York: Association Press, 1978. Korinek, Lori: Schmid, Rex; and McAdams, Martha. ”Inservice Types and Best Practices,” Journal of Research and Development in Education 18 (1985): 33-38. Lake, Marilyn. "University-Public Schools Collaboration: Personal Perspective." In Roy A. Edelfelt (ed) Staff Development for School Improvement: _An Illustration. Ypsilanti, Mi.: National Center for Teaching and Learning, Eastern Michigan University, 1983. Lanier, Judith E., and Glassberg, Sally. "Relating Research in Classroom Teaching to Inservice Education.” Journal of Research and Development in Education 14 (19815: 23-33. Lawrence, Gordon. Patterns of Effective Inservigg Education. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State Department of Education, 1974. Lee, Helen C. "Getting a Handle on Inservice." Principal 64 (September, 1984): 28-30. Long, Huey. Adult Learning, Research and Practice. New York, New York: Cambridge, 1983. Loucks-Horsley, Susan, and Hergert, Leslie F. An Action Guide to School Improvement. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1985. MacKenzie, Donald E. ”Research for School Improvement: An Appraisal of Some Recent Trends.” Educational Researcher 12 (April, 1983): 5—14. MacKenzie, John D. ”A Study of Professional Development Program Implementation by Three Selected Consortia in 220 Michigan.” Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982. Maloy, Robert W., and Jones, Byrd L. ”Teachers, Partnerships, and School Improvement," Journal of Research and Development in Education 20 (Winter, 1987): 19-24. Martin, David S. "Infusing Cognitive Strategies Into Teacher Preparation Programs.” Educational Leadership 42 (November, 1984): 68-72. Mazzarella, JoAnn A. ”Synthesis of Research on Staff Development,” Educational Leadership (November, 1980): 182—185. Mazzarella, JoAnn A. The Principal's Role as an Instructional Leadér. Burlingame, Ca.: Association OfiCalifornia School Adminstrators, 1977. McDonald, Frederick. "Effective Staff Development," Inservice. National Council of State on Inservice Education, Syracuse University (September, 1981): 3-4. McCarthy, Bernice. "What Format Training Teaches Us About Staff Development.“ Educational Leadership 42, No. 2 (April, 1985): 61—68. McMahon, George L. "Institutionalizing Professional Staff Development." Paper presented to the Kent Intermediate School District Staff Development, Grand Rapids, Michigan, May 8, 1980. Morris, V. C., et. al. The Urbag Principal: Discretionary Decision-Making in a Large Educational Organization. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, College of Education, 1981. Odden, Allan. ”Financing Educational Excellence," Phi Delta Kappan 65 (January, 1984): 311-318. Odden, Allan, and Anderson, Beverly. ”How Successful State Education Improvement Programs Work," Phi Delta Kappan 67 (April, 1986): 582-589. Olivarez, Ruben D. ”Teacher Corps and Inservice Education, A National Experiment.’I Journal of Research and Development in Education 14 (1§81):i§2-98. Olson, Marlin L. ”The Development of an In-Service Training Program,” Masters thesis, Seattle Pacific University, 1964. 221 Orlich, Donald C. "Some Considerations for Effective Inservice Education,” The Clearing House 56 (1983): 197-201. O'Rourke, Patrick. "Shared Decision Making at the School Site: Moving Toward a Professional Model.” American Educator (Spring, 1987): 10-17. Parkay, Forrest W. "A School/University Partnership That Fosters Inquiry-Oriented Staff Development.” Phi Delta Kappan 67 (January, 1986): 386-389. Popham, W. James. ”Assessing the Impact of Staff Development on Educational Improvement: An Overview," Inservice. National Council of States on Inservice Education. Syracuse University (1981): 5-6. Purkey, Stewart C., and Smith, Marshall S. "Effective Schools: A Review." The Elementary School Journal 83 (March 1983): 442—449. Purkey, Stewart C., and Smith, Marshall S. ”Too Soon to Cheer? Synthesis of Research on Effective Schools.” Education Leadership 40 (December, 1982): 64-69. Rallis, Sharon F., and Highsmith, Martha G. "The Myth of the 'Great Principal'." American Educator (Spring, 1987): 18-22. Rand Corporation, cited in David A. Bennett, "Improving Inservice and Staff Development." Journal of Thought 22 (Summer, 1987): 66-73. Rapport, R., and Rapport, R. N. Leisure and the Family Life Cycle. London: Routledge and Kegen Paul, 1975. Rodman, Blake. "New York Lawsuit Highlights Growing Tension Between Principals, Teachers Over Their Roles.” American Educator (Spring, 1987): 24. Rubin, L. (ed) The Inservice Education of Teachers: Trends, Process, and Prescriptions. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978. Runkel, Philip J. and Schmuck, Richard A. "The Place of Organizational Development (OD) in Schools.“ In David Hopkins (ed) Alternative Peggpectives_ on School Improvement, Philadelphia, Pa.: hThe Falmer Press, 1984. Sax, Gilbert. Empirical Foundations of Educational Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. 222 Schaefer, June M. A Descriptive Study of Educators as Adult Learners in Staff Development Activities. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1986. Sharma, Toni. "Inservicing the Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan 63 (February, 1982): 403. Siantz, Jo. "A Review of Inservice Education: Models, Methods, Results and Implications for Practitioners." In N. L. Kay and L. C. Burrello (ed) Training Manual on Inservice for Regular Education Personnel, 1986. Skone, Barbara A. "Stepping Stones to Success.” In Roy A. Edelfelt (ed) Staff Development for School Improvement: An Illustration. Ypsilanti, Michigan. National Center for—Teaching and Learning, Eastern Michigan University, 1983. Smith, B. Othanel. "Research Bases for Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan 66 (June, 1985): 685-690. Sparks, Georgea Mohlman. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Training Activities in Changing Teaching Practices." American Educational Research Journal 23 (Summer, 1986): 217-223. Sparks, Georgea Mohlman. ”Synthesis of Research on Staff Development for Effective Teaching.” Educational Leadership 41 (November, 1983): 65-72. Stenhouse, Lawrence. ”Artistry and Teaching: The Teacher as Focus of Research and Development." In David Hopkins (ed) Alternative Pergpectives_on Schggl Improvement. .ihiladelphia, PA: The Falmer Press. T984. Stoops, Emery, and Rafferty, M. L. Practices and Trends in School Administration. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1961. Swenson, Thomas L. ”The State-of-Art in Inservice Education and Staff Development in K-12 Schools." Journal of Research and Development in Education 15 (1981): 2-7. Switzer, Thomas J. ”An Interinstitutional Consortium: A Model for Service.” University of Michigan School of Education. The Innovator (September 9, 1977): 10-11. Tough, Allen. The Adult's Learning Projects. Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971. 223 Tye, Kenneth, and Tye, Barbara B. ”Teacher Isolation and School Reform." Phi Delta Kappan 65 (January, 1984): 319-322. Tyler, Ralph W. "What We've Learned from Past Studies of Teacher Education,“ Phi Delta Kappan 66 (June, 1985): 682-684. Tyler, Ralph W. ”The Contribution of 'A Study of Schooling' to Educational Research." Eduucational Leadership 40 Tyler, Ralph W. "Inservice Education of Teachers: A Look at the Past and Future." In Improving Inservice Education: Proposals and Procedures for Change. Edited by Louis J. Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Ward, Beatrice, and Tikunoff, William. "The Relationship Between Inservice Training, Organizational Structure and School Climate." Inservice, National Council of States on Inservice Education, Syracuse: September, 1981. Ward, Keith W. Los Angeles Public School Staff Development Center, Los Angeles, Ca.: Interview, April 3, 1986. Ward, Keith W. An Interinstitutional Approach to_Inservice Education for Public Sohool Personnel: The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. 1971-72, Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Warnat, Winifred I. “The Staff Development for School Improvement Program," In R. A. Edelfelt (ed) Staff Development for School Improvement: An Illustration. Ypsilanti, Mi.: National Center for Téaching and Learning, Eastern Michigan University, 1983. Welsh, Patrick. "Are Administrators Ready to Share Decision Making?" American Educator (Spring, 1987) 23. Wideen, Marvin F., and Andrews, Ian. “Implications for Practice.” In David Hopkins (ed) Alternative Perspectives on School Improvement——Philadelphia, Pa.: The Falmer Press, 1984. Willen, William W., and Kindsvatter, Richard. "Implications of Research for Effective Inservice Education.” The Clearing House 51 (1978): 392. Watkins, B. T. "Equal Status for School Teachers, Professors Called Key to Successful Collaboration." The Chronicle of Higher Education (March 28, 1984): 12. 224 Wolcott, H. The Man in the Principal's Office. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Wood, Fred H.: Thompson, Steven R.: and Russell, Sister Frances. "Designing Effective Staff Development Programs.” Staff Development/Ogganizational Development, Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981. Wood, Fred H., and Thompson, Steven R. "Guidelines for Better Staff Development.” Educational Leadership 37 (February, 1980): 374-378. Yarger, Sam J., et. al. "An Exploratory Model for Program Development in Inservice Education.‘I In Creative Authority and Collaboration: A Collection of Position Papers. Syracuse University. National Dissemination Center, 1977. "7'1 11111171111111.171?