COMMUNITY-SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN UTAH: IN 1970, AND THE HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES. KEITH ROGERS 1971 ~ ' LIBRARY L! Michigan State University -—- m9}; I‘m—V" This is to certify that the thesis entitled COMMUNITY SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN UTAH IN 1970, AND THE HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS presented by James Keith Rogers has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Adm. & Higher Educ. Em:£;g4::mi’ A§./372?/ 0-7639 :EIIIIIIAII 7 0 ABSTRACT COMMUNITY-SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN UTAH IN 1970, AND THE HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS BY James Keith Rogers On January 31, 1970, the Legislature of the State of .Utah enacted House Bill Number 9, which included an appro- priation of $200,000 for the development of Community- Schools throughout the state. Utah thus became the only state other than Michigan to enact such legislation. This legislative adoption of the Community-School was thought to be a significant event in the educational history of Utah, with important implications applicable to other states Where the Community-School is or will be under consideration. It is, therefore, the focus of this study. The major purpose of the study is to place Utah's 1970 legislation supporting Community-Schools within a historical— cultural perspective for understanding its genesis. The study is reported in ten chapters. In Chapter I the significance, objectives, and methods of the study are expressed. The Community-School is defined and described in Chapter II, and the viability of the Community-School is documented in Chapter III. The philOSOphical, cultural, James Keith Rogers legal, and educational ideals and programs which antedated the 1970 Community-Schools are documented in Chapter IV. In Chapters V-VII, numerous Community-School antecedents are traced through three time periods in Utah's educational history--1830-47, 1947—96, 1896-1967. The adoption and diffusion of the Community—SChool from 1967 to 1970 are dis— cussed and documented in Chapter VIII, concluding with the enactment of House Bill Number 9 in 1970. The establishment of Community-Schools shortly after the 1970 legislation is presented in Chapter IX, including the development of guide— lines, and 1971 legislation and basic minority group factors in Utah are introduced. Summary, conclusions, and recommenda— tions constitute Chapter X. Nine objectives for the study are stated in Chapter I, and are fulfilled within the study. 1) The Community—School is defined and described. 2) The viability of the Community- School is documented with the opinions of educators and statesmen. 3) The Community-School philosophy is shown to be compatible with the dominant educational philosophy of Utah. 4) The unique characteristics of the Mormon heritage in Utah are described. 5) Antecedents of the Community—School throughout three historical periods in Utah from 1830 to 1970 are documented. 6) Various influences, events, and peOple who were instrumental in the Utah adoption of the Community- School are delineated and documented. 7) A cursory examina— tion of the current status of Utah Community—Schools is James Keith Rogers presented. 8) Minority group concepts and characteristics in Utah are introduced. 9) The major objective of the study is achieved in the creation of a body of knowledge relating to the beginning of an important educational movement. From the study several conclusions were made. It was concluded that legislative support for Community-Schools in Utah was achieved relatively soon because of the compatibility of Community—School philosophy and'programs with traditional philosophy and prOgrams. Another major conclusion was that the passage of legislation was related to the adOption strategies of the prOponents of the Community-School, which included dissemination, implementation and training activities of many kinds. The future of the Community-School in Utah was concluded to be optimistic, especially since the 1971 Legislature increased the Community—School appropriation. That the Community—School has a special role in meeting the needs of Utah's minority groups was another conclusion. Recommendations were made relative to the establishment and operation of Community-Schools, and for further research. COMMUNITY-SCHOOL LEGISLATION IN UTAH IN 1970, AND THE HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS BY James Keith Rogers A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 Dedication This study is dedicated to: Charles Stewart Mott Israel C Heaton and Avard A. Rigby for reasons which will be obvious to the reader and to all who know how the Community—School movement grew in America, and especially in Utah in 1967-1971 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to many pe0pIe for their assistance in completing this study. A collective thank you must suffice for most, including those who responded to innumerable ques- tions in personal interviews and letters. However, a per- sonal expression of gratitude is extended to the following: Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Rogers, my parents, for faith, love, and material support; Mr. Charles Stewart Mott and the Mott Foundation, for introducing the Community-School concept to me, and for providing for the initial year's study as a Mott Intern in Flint, Michigan; Dr. Israel C Heaton of Brigham YOung University, for opening both his heart and his filing cabinets, each invalu- able; Dr. Avard A. Rigby of the Utah State Board of Education, for counsel, and for access to office, files, secretarial help and other resources of the State Education Agency; Dr. Joseph L. Nielson, Coordinator of Community School Education for the Utah State Board of Education, for personal attention to numerous long-distance requests for help, and for access to official records and other information; Dr. Howard Hickey, for friendly encouragement and Oppor— tunity; The personnel of the Mott Institute for Community Improve— ment at Michigan State University, for help, for encouragement, and for understanding; Mrs. Shirley Goodwin, for editorial assistance and typing; Mrs. Juanita Rogers, my wife, and our children, Lisa, Taft, Tiffany, and Courtney, for their willingness to make sacrifices which never will be sufficiently rewarded; And to the members of my doctoral advisory committee, who each made significant contributions at various stages-- Dr. Gerald G. Duffy, Dr. Clyde D. J. Morris, Dr. Ernest O. Melby, Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, and Dr. Louis Romano, Chairman. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction to the Study . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Remaining Chapters. . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. THE VIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL. . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. THE PHILOSOPHICAL-CULTURAL BASIS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IN UTAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Mormon Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. COMMUNITY-SCHOOL ANTECEDENTS IN UTAH--1830 TO 1847. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the Trail to Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. COMMUNITY SCHOOL ANTECEDENTS IN UTAH, 1847 TO 1896. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Territory to State . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. COMMUNITY-SCHOOL ANTECEDENTS IN UTAH, 1896- 1967. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References to Utah School Laws: a note. iv 48 48 6O 62 62 68 69 69 83 85 85 86 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued CHAPTER The School as Community Center. . . . . Local Joint Agreements . . . . . . . Research in Utah . . . . . . . . . . . Vocational Education. . . . . . . . . . . Adult Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Community Needs, and Concern for Individuals. . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII. ADOPTION OF THE MODERN COMMUNITY-SCHOOL IN UTAH, FROM DISCOVERY IN 1967 TO LEGISLATIVE FUNDING IN 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . Conception and Birth of the Utah Community— School Philosophy. . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Israel C Heaton. . . . . . . . . . Dr. Avard A. Rigby . . . . . . . . Mott Program Presented in Utah . . . . Utah Group Visitation to Flint, Michigan Earlier Utah Visitors to Flint . . . . Dissemination Leadership . . . . . . The Initial Role of the State Education Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . 1968 Spring School Administrators Conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of the Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community School Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Establishment of the Regional Center . Responsibilities of the BYU Regional Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BYU--State School Board Joint Agreement. Dissemination Activities of the BYU Regional Center . . . . . . . . . Implementation Activities of the BYU Regional Center . . . . . . . . . . . Training Activities of the BYU Regional Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continued Joint Dissemination Activities. Activities Leading Toward Legislation . . . Joint Legislation Committee. . . . . . . Developing Support for Legislation . . . PrOposed Legislation for Categorical Funds, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 87 95 97 99 107 114 123 125 125 126 126 128 130 132 135 137 138 138 144 144 147 147 148 150 154 158 163 163‘ 165 171 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued CHAPTER Page House Bill Number 222, 1969 Legislature 174 House Action on House Bill Number 222 . 175 Senate Action on House Bill 222 . . . . 177 Community-School Dissemination Activities- 1969.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Utah Community-School Seminar. . . . . . . 185 Further Development of Support . . . . . . 188 PrOposed Legislation for Categorical Funds, 1970 . . . . . . . 191 Inclusion of Community Education in School Finance Program . . . . . . . . . ' 192 House Bill Number 9, Utah Legislature Budget Session, 1970.. . . . . . 194 Charles Stewart Mott Honorary Doctorate and Visit to the State Legislature . 195 Action of the Joint Education Committee 200 House Action on House Bill Number 9 . . 201 Senate Action on House Bill Number 9. . 202 Action of the Governor on House Bill Number 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Success Is Achieved . . . . . . . . . . 203 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 IX. COMMUNITY—SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT SUBSEQUENT TO LEGISLATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 208 Development of Community-School Guidelines 208 State Community Education Advisory Committee . . . . . 212 Resistance to the Community-School Concept 212 Allocation of the $200, 000 ApprOpriation . 216 Establishment of Community-Schools, 1970— 1971.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Dissemination Activities Continued . . . . 223 The Future of Utah Community-School Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Some Minority—Group Factors Related to Utah Community-Schools. . . . . . . 233 Community-School Legislation, 1971 . . . . 239 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 X. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 242' Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS-—continued CHAPTER Page Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Recommendations for Further Research . . . 261 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 A. Utah Participants in Flint, Michigan Visita— tion, November 13-15, 1967 . . . . . . . . 283 B. March 1968 Utah School Administrators' Con— ference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 C. Organizations Represented by Leadership Teams for the Mardh 1968 Utah School Administra- tors' Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 D. Agreement, Brigham Young University and Utah State Board of Education . . . . . . . . . 288 E. Breakdown of Community School Report, BYU Regional Center for Community School Development, July 1, 1969—June 30, 1970. . 290 F. Proposed Legislation for 1969 Community Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 G. House Bill Number 222, Utah Legislature, 1969 293 H. Proposed Legislation for 1970 Community Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 I. Citation Honoring Charles Stewart Mott, Brigham Young University, January 20, 1970 297 J. Administrative Guidelines and Procedures for Implementing State Board of Education Policies for Community School Programs in School Districts in Utah . . . . . . . . . 298 K. Guidelines for Developing a Community School Program, BYU Regional Center . . . . . . . 303‘ L. Adaptation of Year-end Report, BYU Regional Center, Fiscal Year 1970 . . . . . . . . . 306 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDICES Page M. Resolution, Utah Congress of Parent Teacher, June 1971. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 N. A Partial List of Organizations C00perating with and/or Receiving Presentations on the Community-School . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 0. Community Education Services in Salt Lake City . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 P. Total, Mormon, and Minority Group Population of Utah by County, 1970. . . . . . . . . . 311 viii TABLE LIST OF TABLES Utah Vocational Enrolhments by Years for Fiscal Year Ending as Indicated. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Utah Adult Education Programs 1966— 1967 (Number of Courses Offered and Student Enrollments by subject Area). . . . . . . . . Summary of Utah Adult Education Programs 1967— 1968 (Number of Courses Offered and Student Enrollments by Program Area). . . . . . . . . Total Annual Expenditures for Adult Education From 1960—1961 Through 1969—1970. . . . . . . Summary of Annual Expenditures in Three Cate— gories Related to the Community School 1960- 1961 to 1968-1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Factors Leading to the Statewide Adoption of the Community-School in Utah, 1970 . . . . Names and Positions of Members of the State Community Education Advisory Committee. . . . Initial Allocation of $200,000 Appropriated for Community-School Programs . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 104 111 112 113 122 206 213 218 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Study Education in America is under fire from all sides. Pressures mount for reform both from within and without. Critics, including educators themselves, claim that not only has education failed to help solve the problems of society, it has perpetuated gross inequities in social, cultural, and economic conditions. A distinguished American educator, Ernest O. Melby has charged: We do not have an educational system. We have an educational establishment. . . . It is this establishment-mindedness that defeats the children of the poor and leaves the children of the rich with no great sense of responsibility for others. Melby indicted educators for failing to include community needs in school programs, stating that: It is appalling, even frightening to witness the efforts of the teaching profession, administrators and teachers alike, to avoid the parents--the com- munity.1 Some who work with youth complain that the students are coming out of school with brains, but without hearts. 1Ernest O. Melby, "The Community School: A Social Imperative" (address to Minneapolis Community School Work- shOp, August 26, 1968; reprinted in NCSEA News, October, 1968). ~ 1 Teachers complain that the parents won't c00perate. Parents complain that the system is faulty. The times seem ripe for changes in philosophy and organization of education. Changes are being made. Education is responding to increasing pressures for accountability. Schools are increasingly being viewed as the places where society must remake itself. The infusion Of federal dollars into fiscally troubled public education has given rise to many changes such as Title I programs, schools for children of migrants, and Headstart, as well as basic research. Performance contracts are burgeoning, parochial schools are closing--in short, education is undergoing many changes, some basic and some superficial. No other public non— partisan institution has greater financial resources, trained personnel, available buildings and facilities already located in neighborhoods, organizational structure, and accessibility to all the citizens. These elements are essential for the large-scale, coordinated attack necessary for major contributions to the solution of the problems of society. These problems, from drug-abuse, unemployment, popu- lation control and environmental quality, to worthy use of leisure time, ad infinitum, permeate the institutions of society. Rapid transportation, affluence, and mass communi— cation have turned someone's problems into everyone's problems, neighborhood problems into national problems. A changing society demands changes in its educational institutions. Social conditions mandate that no longer can the school be concerned almost solely with the intel— lectual development of the young student, but the school must fulfill an ever-broadening social obligation. Reform is essential, but there is one central question: What guiding philosophy and/or programs should be the guiding principles for reform? The answer for many is the Community-School, the focus of this thesis. In January, 1970, the Utah State Legislature enacted an apprOpriation of $800,000 for special school programs, "of which not less than $200,000 shall be allocated annual- ly for community school programs." This event was singu- larly important, since Utah thus became the second state to provide financial support for the development of Community-School proqrams. Legislation in Michigan had been passed in 1969 after several years of rather intensive exposure to the Community-School, and with the personal efforts of then—Governor George Romney. Utah's legislation came after only two years of experience with the new Community-School concept, and with no direct involvement of Governor Calvin L. Rampton. Per capita funding in Utah was almost double that of Michigan, and resulted in the establishment of Community-Schools in 38 of Utah's 40 school districts within six months of the effective date of the legislation. The national and international diffusion of the Community-School concept is a major trend in education today. Utah's adoption of this concept, evidenced by the legislative appropriation and immediate establishment of Community-Schools, marks the advent of a major new emphasis on the roles and goals of public schools as agencies and ' resources for dealing with the problems of society. This thesis is a historical study centering on that singular legislation, viewing it within its historical and cultural context. Significance of the Study Several authorities in educational research have com— mented on the importance and values of the historical study. One early statement was by Crawford: "The purpose of history as it is commonly written, is to shed light upon "2 the present or provide guidance for the future. HOpefully this study fulfills both of these purposes. Rummel made a statement and asked questions about historical research: The significance of a topic deals with its novelty, timeliness, and academic and practical values. One might consider the following questions in determin— ing the value of a topic: 1. Is it likely that the results of the study will add to the present body of knowledge, or will it only duplicate what has already been done? 2Claude C. Crawford, The Technique of Research in Education (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1928), p. 49. 2. Does the field need reworking? 3. Are there gaps in verified knowledge that need to be filled? 4. Are the results that may be obtained of practical value to business, society, govern— ment, or other agencies? 5. Who might be interested in the results?3 This study adds to the present body of knowledge. Very little has been done on the Community-School in Utah. The field needs gtggy, since it has not been explored before. Some gaps in knowledge are filled herein. Practical values are found in the knowledge of when, how, and why an educa- tional movement developed. Everyone who is interested in Community-Schools should find this study of value, particu- larly if they are promoting Community-Schools. Those who study the evolution of educational thought and practice should be interested in the findings reported here. Smith and Smith discuss various types of historical studies in education: There are various types of histories in the field of education. These range in scope from a history of a single individual, institution, or agency to a com- prehensive history of education in general. The first of these is the simplest form of educational history and naturally is the most often used, especially by students. The second type of educational history concerns itself with the educational development, in whole or in part, of a specific geographical area. Virtually every state in the Uhion has had one or more histories written dealing with its educational development, while most of the larger cities and many of the small towns have also had studies made of their past. The third type of educational history deals with educational movements, such as the Pestalozzi influence 3J. Francis Rummel, An Introduction to Research Pro- cedures in Education (2nd ed.; New York: Harper and Row, 1958). p. 30. in education, nursery schools, vocational education, and so forth. Such movements are traced from their beginnings through their development in the educa- tional world, including their present status.4 This study involves two of the types mentioned here. It covers a specific geographical area, Utah, and it studies a specific educational movement, the Community School, from beginning through development to present status. Smith and Smith quote E. W. Knight's statements illustrating the values of historical research: 1. A knowledge of the history of the schools and other educational agencies is an important part of the professional training of the teacher or the school administrator. Much of the work of the school is traditional. The nature of the work of the teacher and the school administrator is restrictive and tends to foster prejudices in favor of familiar methods. The his- tory of education is the "sovereign solvent" of educational prejudices. The history of education enables the educational worker to detect fads and frills in whatever form they may appear, and it serves as a necessary pre- liminary to educational reform. Only in the light of their origin and growth can the numerous educational problems of the present be viewed sympathetically and without bias by the teacher, the school administrator, or the public. The history of education shows how the functions of social institutions shift and how the support and control of education have changed from very simple and local arrangements to those that are now some— what centralized and complex. The history of education is an ally in the scien- tific study of education rather than a competitor. It serves to present the educational ideals and standards of other times and it enables social workers to avoid the mistakes of the past. It inspires respect for sound scholarship and reverence for great teachers.5 “Henry Lester Smith and Johnnie Rutland Smith, An Introduction to Research in Education (Bloomington, Indiana: Educational Publications, 1959), pp. 129-30. SIbid. This study reflects the values of at least the first six of the seven stated above. Numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are particularly pertinent. Placing the Community-School ‘within its historical setting illustrates all of these values. Walter R. Borg expressed the value of historical research in education when he stated: Although historical research is perhaps the most difficult type of educational research to do well, it is important and necessary because it gives us an insight into some educational problems that could not be gained by any other technique. The historical study of an educational idea or institution gives us a perspective that can do much to help us understand our present educational system, and this understanding in turn can help to establish a sound basis for further progress and improvement. Appropriate problems for historical research in education may be identified using most of the same approaches . . . for locating other types of research problems. Perhaps the most fruitful problems, however, develop from a knowledge of current practices and how these practices developed.6 Borg states later that historical research in educa- tion must meet three basic criteria. The research must have "the purpose of extending, correcting, or verifying knowl- 7 This study places the Community-School within edge." perspective for understanding. It evolves through a study of current practices and how they develOped. It extends the knowledge about the Community-School, and verifies the belief that Community—School Characteristics are not new in Utah. 6Walter R. Borg, Educational Research, An Introduction (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 199-89. 7Ibid., pp. 198—99. The use of objectives rather than hypotheses as the basis for historical research is also discussed by Borg: "In some research carried out in education, especially descriptive studies, it is more apprOpriate for the research worker to list objectives rather than hypotheses."8 The objectives of this study are listed later. They closely parallel the statements of research values by these several authors. Carter V. Good is another writer who has discussed the values and importance of historical research in education. He made the following statement: . . . in order to understand education as a social process with a long history, and to evaluate school theories and plans, we need to know the historical evidence or approach in the form of origins that have influenced the present state of education and of the schools, serial or temporal data for identification of significant causal factors, and the insights of educational thinkers in appraising panaceas, half— truths, and fads or frills.9 Another authority who has made a statement concerning important reasons for doing historical research in education is David R. Cook, who said: New methods, new devices, new curricula, new poli— cies in education always have their historical ante- cedents. ”Research into the evolution of these new procedures and policies will usually throw light on their current development, and sometimes even show that they are not "new" at all, but have simply been reintroduced in a different context.10 81bid., p. 36. 9Carter V. Good, Introduction to Educational Research (2nd ed.; New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1963), p. 186. 1°David R. Cook, A Guide to Educational Research (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), p. 16. The value requirements of both Good and Cook are illustrated in this study, in that it shows origins, influences, and historical antecedents placing current emphasis on the Community-School in proper perspective for evaluation and understanding. The Community-School is being adopted (or re—established) throughout the country and in some foreign countries, includ— ing Canada, Portugal, and Korea. Since state appropriation of funds is a significant measure of support for Community— Schools, those who are working to this end should find it helpful to understand how, when, and why this support developed in Utah with new vigor in 1970. Objectives of the Study The purposes of this study may be summarized by the statement of objectives relating to the establishment of the Community-School concept in Utah in 1970, and the historical/cultural antecedents of which the Community-School is the present culmination. The major purposes and objec- tives of this study are the following: 1. To define and describe what is meant by the term "Community-School." 2. To reveal the viability of the Community-School philosophy and programs. 3. To show that the Community-School philosophy is compatible with the educational philosophy of the unique dominant culture in Utah. 4. To reveal the historical and cultural antecedents behind the present adOption of the Community-School concept in Utah. 10 5. To describe the various influences, events, and people who were instrumental in Utah's adoption of the Community-School in 1970. 6. To describe the current status of Community-Schools in Utah, soon after the adoption of the concept. 7. To show that Utah has unique characteristics which influenced the adoption of Community-Schools. 8. To reveal some of the important demographic charac- teristics which pertain to the operation of Community-Schools in Utah. 9. To provide a body of knowledge relating to the formal beginning of an important educational move- ment. Procedures The procedures for the completion of this thesis included the following: 1. The researcher reviewed the literature on Community- Schools to provide the background of understanding necessary to focus on the historical study of Community—Schools in Utah. The literature also established the need for Community- Schools. 2. The researcher traveled to Utah twice to examine research, records, and documents, and to interview people involved in the Community-School adoption. 3. Interviews were held with 31 people in Utah and Michigan. 4. Personal letters were written to 66 individuals and. 6 organizations. 5. Both primary and secondary documents were examined in the Utah State Archives; Utah State Board of Education; ll Mott Inter-University Leadership Program; Mott Program of the Flint, Michigan, Board of Education; public and private files of individuals; newspaper files of the Ogden Examiner, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the (Sale Lake) Deseret News; and in the following libraries--University of Utah, Brigham Young University, Ogden City, University of Michigan-~Flint, Michigan State University, and the Utah Education Associa— tion. 6. Several sources, both microfilm and print, were obtained through University Microfilms. 7. Information gained through‘research was used to document the several chapters of this study. Definition of Terms BYU: Brigham Young University, a 25,000 student university located in Provo, Utah, and owned and Operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, with headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. BYU Regional Center: Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community School Development, established July 1, 1968, by the Mott Foundation, with head- quarters in Flint, Michigan. Community education: educational programs serving community needs in addition to regular K-12 programs, and usually during times other than the regular school day. 12 Community—School: a public school which provides programs and leadership for, and coordinates school and com- munity resources for education and the solution of the problems of society; the school where community education programs are held. Mormon: a sobriquet for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter—Day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church because of belief in The Book of Mormon as revealed scripture. Saints: members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; Mormons. “Summary The modern Community—School is a response to the goals and ideals of American society, and to the recognition that education has an ever-expanding role. The historical thesis is valuable in documenting the beginning of animportant educational movement. Utah's espousal of the Community—School in 1970 is a significant historical event in American educa- tion, with portents for the future. The several objectives of this historical study are centered on placing that event in perspective in relation to its historical and cultural antecedents and its present status. 13 Overview onRemaining Chapters Chapter II reviews the literature defining and describ- ing the Community-School. Chapter III presents, from the literature, the need for the Community School. Chapter IV reveals the philosophical background of education and the Community—School in Utah. Chapter V presents Mormon Community-School antecedents from 1830 to 1847, before Utah was colonized. Chapter VI reveals Community-School ante- cedents during territorial times from 1847 to 1896. Chapter VII reveals Community-School antecedents in Utah from statehood in 1896 to the formal beginning of the modern Community-School movement in 1967. Chapter VIII documents the modern Community-School movement from inception in 1967 to legislative adoption in 1970. Chapter IX discusses the status of Community—Schools in Utah during 1970-1971. Chapter X contains the summary, conclusions, and recommenda- tions. The Appendices consist of sixteen important documents relating to Utah's adoption of the Community—School. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The term "Community-School" has long been in the vocabulary of educators, long enough to be considered passe by some. As early as 1963 the term was thought to be too general and out-of—date. Campbell explained then why the term was still acceptable, and why it is viable today: When a small coterie of Michigan professors have banded together, from time to time, talking about many and varied educational problems, the thought has been bruited about that the term community school has seen its day of usefulness. As some have remarked, the two words are so broad that they can signify almost anything. Like other names that can be expanded to include a host of interpretations, community school has taken on many different meanings. For example, all schools are community schools in that they are located in communities. Why can't we choose a word that can be defined with more precision was a question frequently asked. The issue became whether to strengthen and preserve the term community school or discard it for new terminology. A few educators, at least, believe that the term should be continued in use for these reasons: A. Community does describe in a measure the place where people live--whether it be a neighborhood, a village, a medium size town or a large city. . . . B. Community-school as a name seems even more appro- priate when one visualizes the role the school should play in community development. The school and com- munity should be working together toward the same ends. The hyphenated name is important because com- munities are important.1 1Clyde M. Campbell, "The Community School-~Past and Present," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. II, No. 4 (Flint, Michigan: Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education, Dec. 1963), pp. 1-2. 14 15 The hyphenated term Community—School is adopted and capitalized in this study because it is a widely used and important term, and because it has special significance as the designation of a major educational movement. Its cur- rent growing use in a special sense justifies the capitali- zation. After analyzing Community-School concepts in 1953, Muntyan concluded that "The fundamental concepts which under- lie the community school are neither the product of the twentieth century nor the result of any violent shift in the ideals of the community or the professional educators."2 Certain elements characterizing the "Community-School" as it is known today have been adopted and developed over a very long time in many parts of the world, but this philosophy for coupling the efforts and ideals of school and community is only now achieving maturity in America. The Community— School is not unique or strangely different from other schools. It strongly emphasizes the relationship of the community and the school as the organizational components of the educational program for all the citizens of the community. As Campbell pointed out, both the terms "community" and "school" are broad and subject to wide interpretations. It should be valuable to review some of the definitions 2Milosh Muntyan, "Community-School Concepts: A Critical Analysis," The Community School, Fifty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Nelson B. Henry, Editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 31. l6 given over the years, in order to arrive at a more concrete understanding of the term "Community—School" and its philosophy, even though it has not changed greatly since its early use. The Community-School has been called an umbrella, a tent, a process, a philosophy, a program, a strategy, a cradle, an idea, a concept, a configuration, etc. We shall devote considerable attention to various definitions and descriptions as given by educators over the years. Thirty-two years ago Elsie R. Clapp described the Community—School as the convergence of living and learning. She said that a Community-School . . . meets as best it can, and with everyone's help, the urgent needs of the people, for it holds that everything that affects the welfare of the children and their families is its concern. Where does school end and life outside begin? There is no distinction between them. A community school is a used place, a place used freely and informally for all the needs of living and learning. It is in effect, the place where living and learning converge. Maurice F. Seay is another educator who long ago espoused the Community-School concept. He discussed farm and home problems, industries, institutions, individuals, skills and occupations, group responsibility, and ethical standards within the aura of the Community-School concept, then said that a Community-School is "Democracy in Action." 3Elsie R. Clapp, Community Schools in Action (New York: The Viking Press, 1939), p. 89. 17 Democratic ideals pervade all the work of the community school. The school itself is democatic. It works with the people of the community. It cooper- ates with and coordinates the work of other educa- tional agencies. It recognizes the abilities and the needs of people of all ages and of all groups.4 L. D. Haskew discussed five important aspects of the role of the school in the community. His view of the school was that it fulfilled vital functions as: The Trustee of Educational Power The Arranger of Useful Schooling The Involver in Community Life The Promoter of Integrity One Builder of Community Effectivenesss Edward G. Olsen, for many years a powerful advocate of the Community-School Concept, described successful practices of school and community cooperation. He listed 16 character- istics of the Community-School for the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration in 1948. l. The community school seeks to operate continuously as an important unit in the family of agencies serving the common purpose of improving community living. 2. The community school shares with citizens continuing responsibility for the identification of community needs and the development of subsequent action pro- grams to meet these needs. 3. The community school begins its responsibility for better living with the immediate school environment. 4. The curriculum of the community school is suffi- ciently comprehensive and flexible to facilitate the realization of its purpose. 5. The community school program is dynamic, constantly changing to meet emerging community needs. 4Maurice F. Seay, "The Community School," Childhood Education, Vol. XXIV (Nov. 1947), p. 129. 5L. D. Haskew, "The Community Is the School's Classroom,“ The School Executive, Vol. LXVII, No. 5 (1948), p. 30. 18 6. The community school makes full use of all commun— ity resources for learning experiences. 7. The community school develops and uses distinctive types of teaching materials. 8. The community school shares with other agencies the responsibility for providing opportunities for appropriate learning experiences for all members of the community. 9. The community school recognizes improvement in social and community relations behavior as an indi— cation of individual growth and development. 10. The community school develops continuous evaluation in terms of the quality of living for pupils, teachers, and administrators; for the total school program; and for the community. 11. The pupil personnel services of the community school are cooperatively developed in relation to community needs. 12. The community school secures staff personnel proper- ly prepared to contribute to the distinctive objec- tives of the school, facilitates effective work and continuous professional growth by members of the staff, and maintains only those personnel policies which are consistent with the school's purposes. 13. The community school maintains democratic pupil- teacher—administrator relationships. 14. The community school creates, and Operates in, a situation where there is high expectancy of what good schools can do to improve community living. 15. The community school buildings, equipment, and grounds are so designed, constructed, and used as to make it possible to provide for children, youth and adults those experiences in community living which are not adequately provided by agencies other than the school. 16. The community school budget is the financial plan for translating into reality the educational program which the school board, staff members, students, and other citizens have agreed upon as desirable for their community.6 Paul R. Hanna and Robert A. Naslund gave an even more comprehensive and detailed definition/description of the Community-School for the NSSE. It is quoted here because it 6Edward G. Olsen, ed. and comp. School and Community Programs: A Casebook of Successful Practice from Kinder— garten Through College and Adult Education (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1949), pp. xiii-xiv. 19 illustrates so well that the Community-School concept has long been accepted by leading educators, even though the practice has had limited application. A community school is a school which has concerns beyond the training of literate, "right-minded," and economically efficient citizens who reflect the values and processes of a particular social, economic or politi- cal setting. In addition to these basic educational tasks, it is directly concerned with improving all aspects of living in the community in all the broad mean- ing of that concept in the local, state, regional, national, or international community. To attain that end, the community school is consciously used by the people of the community. Its curriculum reflects plan- ning to meet the discovered needs of the community with changes in emphasis as circumstances indicate. Its buildings and physical facilities are at once a center for both youth and adults who together are actively engaged in analyzing problems suggested by the needs of the community and in formulating and exploring possible solutions to those problems. Finally, the community school is concerned that the people put solutions into operation to the end that liv— ing is improved and enriched for the individual and the community. The community school is viewed as a vital, dynamic force in the direct attack on the problems of communi— ties as well as upon the needs and problems of individ- uals. . . . In the community school the emphasis of study is gg_problems and needs rather than about them. The community school serves all, adults as well as children and youth. Its buildings, grounds, special facilities, and equipment are used by the total commun- ity. The needs of children and youth are studied, and a program to meet them is provided. The needs of adults are discovered, and provision is made for meeting them through a carefully designed program of adult-education services. Beyond these functions, however, the school is a center where children and youth become partners with adults in discovering community needs and problems, in analyzing them, in exploring and formulating possible solutions to them, and in applying the results of these co-operative efforts so that community living is improved. Thus, the community school is a unifying force of the community rather than merely a social institution in the community. Criteria for Identifying and Measuring the Com— munity School: 20 Basic Criteria 3) The community school teaches the subject matter needed for literacy and for civic and economic compe— tence in its social setting. b) The community school is directly concerned with the improvement of living in all the communities of which it is a part. c) All communities, from the local to the international, consciously use the school as an instrument to improve living. d) The curriculum of the community school is planned to meet the needs of all communities, from local to international, and is changed or modified as the needs demand. e) The community school is a center where youth and adults working together-—each contributing according to his competence--discover and analyze community problems and suggest solutions to them. f) Beyond the discovery and analysis of problems, the community school is concerned that, under the authority of the community, appropriate solutions be put into operation to the end that needs are met. Implementing Criteria a) The community school is organized and administered in a manner which would further actions in the light of the commonly accepted beliefs and goals of the society in which it operates. b) Community members and school personnel co-operatively determine the community school's role in attacking problems and thus plan its curriculum. c) Community members and school personnel alike function in seeking community problems for study and serve co— operatively in sensitizing the community to them. d) The community school is but one of many agencies, independently attacking some problems, serving as a co- ordinating agency in other situations, and participating as a team—member in still other circumstances. e) The community school uses the unique expertness of~ all community members and agencies as each is able to contribute to the program of the school and, in turn, is utilized by them as it can contribute to their efforts, all in the common cause of community betterment. f) The community school is most closely oriented to the neighborhood and home community; nevertheless, solutions 21 to local problems are sought not only in relation to local goals and desires but also in the light of the goals and desires of each wider community. Another writer who discussed the Community-School was Edward Krug, who felt that it was useful to describe the program of the Community-School rather than to try to define it. He said: . . . a given community—school program develops the following characteristics: 1. It includes continuing study of community needs and problems and provision for action projects designed to meet these needs and solve these problems. 2. It uses community resources. 3. It offers educational services and facilities to adult citizens. 4. It is continuously studied and discussed in a com- munity-wide process involving all citizens who wish to improve community living. This evaluating and redirect- ing of the community— —school program is an essential feature of the program itself.8 Krug's contribution to the definition of the Community-School is in emphasizing the inherent evaluation and redirection processes. By 1954, Edward G. Olsen had concluded that the Community-School had at least seven distinct characteristics, most to a high degree, but all to some degree. Here are his seven essential characteristics: 7Paul R. Hanna and Robert A. Naslund, "The Community School Defined," The Community School, Fifty—Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Nelson B. Henry, Editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 52-65 passim. 8Edward Krug, "The Program of the Community School," The Community School, Fifty—Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Nelson B. Henry, Editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 84. 22 l. The community school improves the quality of living here and now. . . . 2. The community school uses the community as a laboratory for learning. . . . 3. The community school makes the school plant a community center. . . . 4. The community school organizes the curriculum around the fundamental processes and problems of living. . . . 5. The community school includes lay people in school policy and program planning. . . . 6. The community school leads in community coordina— tion. . . . 7. The community school practices and promotes democracy in all human relations. . . . In this restatement of his 16 characteristics, Olsen empha- sized tackling immediate problems and involving the community members to a greater extent. In a dissertation written in 1954, Loving attempted to define the Community-School through the study of current practices. His interpretation of the Community-School was in terms of its programs, especially those which had a co- ordinating function. The Community-School was that which . . . relates the people of the community to the out— side world by helping them avail themselves of the services of the state, regional and national community— serving agencies and by interpreting the relationship of the local community to conditions, issues and problems of the larger community.1 Havighurst and Neugarten described the Community-School as comprised of two major aspects: 9Edward G. Olsen, ed. and chief author, School and Community (2nd ed.; New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954), pp. 14-15. 1°A1vin Demar Loving,"Crystallizing and Making Concrete the Community School Concept'in Michigan Through Study of Ongoing Community School Practices" (unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, Wayne State University, 1954), p. 39. 23 The school as a teacher of community living to children: 1. The school is a community itself. 2. Uses local community resources. 3. Works to improve the local community. 4. Tends to organize its curriculum at the earlier grades around local affairs and issues, and then, to move out to a larger geographic and temporal sphere. The school as a center of community life and action for people of all ages and classes: 1. Provides physical facilities for learning and recreation, making the libraries available to Clubs and groups of all ages. 2. Brings young people and adults together to work on matters of common concern. Promotes and co- ordinates community action on such matters. 3. Has an adult education program. 4. Brings teachers into the community life as companions and fellow workers rather than transient specialists.11 The emphasis of these writers upon such topics as curricu- lum, libraries, and adult education seems to result in a more limited description rather than a broader one, but their basic contentions have been stated before by others. Passow subsumed the characteristics of the Community— School here-to—fore identified as falling into four main types. These are his four types of characteristics: 1. 'The school with the community—centered curriculum.’ This means that the community is a resource for the regular school program, helping to determine the learn- ing experiences that students have. 2. 'The school with the vocations-centered curriculum.‘ This school concentrates on vocational training. 3. 'The community—center function.’ Emphasis in this type of program is on community use of school physical facilities. 11Robert J. Havighurst and Berniece L. Neugarten, Society and Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962), PP- 315-316. 24 4. 'The community-service program.‘ In this type of program the school assumes leadership in improving life in the community. The school becomes a coordi- nating agency.1 These four types of characteristics probably include every- thing truly distinguishing a Community-School from tradi- tional schools because the terms can be broadly interpreted. They would not necessarily include things such as "distinc- tive types of teaching materials" as given by Olsen, unless these materials came out of one of the four areas. The Mott Foundation of Flint, Michigan, started programs for community service in 1926. By 1935, through the work of C. S. Mott, Frank Manley and others, the Foundation was linked directly to the Community-School concept and began to concentrate community improvement efforts around that concept. Eventually they deveIOped national and inter- national dissemination programs in conjunction with the Flint Board of Education. The work of the Mott Foundation has been documented by several authors.* Recognizing that strict definition was difficult be- cause the Community-School filled different needs in every community, personnel Of the Foundation and of the Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education have defined and described the Community—School in various statements such as 12Harry A. Passow, ed., Education in Depresggd Areas (New York: The Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1963). PP. 322-23. * For example, see Manning, Lott, and Solberg, and especially Totten: each listed The PoWef of CE, in the bibliography. 25 the following: Community education in the context of the Commun- ity School philosophy, means educational programs for all people of a community. True Community Education attempts to fulfill the educational, recreational, social, intellectual, and health needs and desires of people regardless of age, race, or other limiting factors. . . . The Community School is a school which makes maximum use of all physical and human resources of the community to help people fulfill their basic needs and aspirations. Its buildings, belonging to the people, are Open as many hours as necessary each day throughout the year to serve as learning, activity, and problem-solving centers.1 Community Education is a process that involves people in the marshalling of human and physical re- sources to create an environment conducive to the improvement in the quality of the life of all citizens. The public school is the most logical institution through which society may work to achieve this ambitious goal. Traditionally, the public school is the common denominator in our society; it is the institution most nearly representative of all classes, creeds and colors. The physical plants of the schools represent a huge community investment and are well suited for community use. The use of these facilities eliminates the need for costly duplication of facilities. Their geographic location makes them readily accessible to every man, woman and child as centers for recreation, education, education and democratic action.14 Hetrick and Richards, while administrative interns in the Mott Inter-university Leadership Program centered in Flint, Michigan, wrote a comprehensive report on the funding of Community-School programs. They described the Community- School as a "philosophy." 13Community Education Dissemination Program, a manual published by the Mott Foundation, Flint, Michigan, n.d. 14Douglas Procunier, "Community Education," NCSEA News, Newsletter of the National Community School Education Association (Flint, Michigan, Sept., 1970), p. 3. 26 The community school is a philosophy rather than a program. The program that is visible in a school is a tool that is used to implement the philosophy. . . . The community school concept forces the school to accept a much broader sense of responsibility to the people of the community. Because this philosophy accepts the premise that education is continuous rather than terminal, the school must accept the entire popu- lation of its area as a potential student body. . . . Flexibility is a key concept in the community school philosophy. . . . Each community proceeds in its own unique way. . . .15 In recent years the Community—School concept has re- ceived much attention, largely resulting from the dissemina— tion efforts of the Mott Foundation. Renewed attempts to define the Community-School have generally been restatements or acceptance of previous descriptions. W. Fred Totten, for many years a staunch advocate of the Community-School, participated in a training workshop for Community-School directors in Utah in 1968. He adapted a statement made by Olsen, who has been quoted previously in this paper. The Community School . . . represents a positive and logical development of the Progressive School, together with intelligent utilization of certain educa- tional values implicit in the program of the Academic School. . . . Although specific community schools differ widely in some respects, they are generally organized around six fundamental principles of purpose and program. For the Community School seeks to: l. Evolve its purposes out of the interests and needs of the people; 2. Utilize a wide variety of community resources in its program; 3. Practice and promote democracy in all activities of school and community; 4. Build the curriculum core around the major processes and problems of human living; 15William Hetrick and Tom Richards, compilers, "Inter- preting and Implementing the Community School PhiloSOphy," a report from the Mott Program of the Flint Board of Educa- tion, 1966, p. 69. 27 5. Exercise definite leadership for the planned and cooperative improvement of group living in the commun- ity and larger areas; 6. Enlist children and adults in cooperative group projects of common interest and mutual concern.16 The Michigan State Legislature of 1969 appropriated $1,000,000 for the support of Community-School programs, largely through the work of Governor Romney. On October 1, 1969, the State Board of Education adOpted policies for the distribution of that money. They defined terms as a matter of course. "Community School Program" means the composite of those services provided to the citizens of the community by the school district, excepting for those services pro- vided through regular instructional activities for children aged 5 to 19 years. Such community school program may include, among others, pre-school activities for children and their parents, continuing and remedial education for adults, cultural enrichment and recrea- tional activities for all citizens, and the use of school buildings by and technical services to community groups engaged in solving economic and social problems. The services may be provided during any part of the day including late evening, on any day of the week, and during every month of the year.17 Programs Operated under this comprehensive definition could include practically all of the Community-School character- istics identified during the previous thirty years. When the Utah State Legislature appropriated $200,000 for the support of Community-School programs in 1970, the 16Totten used a mimeographed paper quoting statements’ from several sources, with only the authors listed. 17Policies for the Distribution of Moneys to School Districts for Community School Programs in 1969-1970 in Accordance with the Provisions of Act 307, P. S. of 1969 (Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education, 1969), n. p. 28 State Board of Education was given the responsibility for defining the Community-School and establishing guidelines for the distribution of the funds. Avard A. Rigy, the administrator of the division which included Community— Schools, prepared a definition: “Community School Program" means the composite of those services provided to the citizens of the commun- ity under the coordinated leadership of school district personnel except for those services provided through regular instructional activities for regular day school pupils. This implies continuing cooperation with, and services to, boys and girls clubs, scout troops, volun- teer organizations, public agencies, civic and service clubs, and other community groups. Such community school programs may also include pre—school activities for children and their parents, vocational-technical education and re—training, continuing and remedial education for adults, cultural enrichment and recrea- tional activities for all citizens, and the use of school buildings by-—and technical services to——commun— ity groups engaged in solving economic and social problems. The services may be provided during any part of the day including (late) evening, on any week day including Saturdays, and during every month of the year. Comparison of the Michigan and Utah definitions shows that Michigan served as a model for Utah. The only major change was that Sunday was not included as a day for Commun- ity—School activities. Similar definitions were used in legislation in Florida and Washington. Minnesota is another state with a thriving commitment to Community—Schools. The Governor's Advisory Council has 18Administrative Guidelines and Procedures for Imple- menting State Board of Education Policies for Extended Year, Extended Day, Summer and Community School Programs in School Districts in Utah (Salt Lake City: Utah State Board of Education, 1970), p. 4. 29 distributed a brochure explaining what the term "Community- School" means in Minnesota. The community school is a human engineering labor- atory serving the basic needs of peOple throughout life--from the cradle to the grave-—the learning center where: Expectant parents receive instruction in prenatal care and parenhood. Babies are brought for clinical checkup. Preschool children get ready for the experiences of kindergarten. Undernourished children receive a wholesome breakfast. Mothers learn how to purchase, prepare, and conserve food. Mothers learn how to launder clothes and to construct and care for clothing. Children give expression to their creative talents. Teenagers engage in wholesome cultural, social, recre— ational, and service activities. Teenagers are reclaimed as a part of society. Mothers dependent on public assistance learn to become self—supporting. Adults learn to read and write and to acquire other basic skills. Men displaced by automation learn new saleable skills. Adults study in any field of learning of their choice. Referrals are made to other agencies for help with basic needs. Hobbies are learned and pursued to meet leisure—time needs and, in some cases, to produce income. Groundwork is laid for community leadership and com— munity development. Pe0ple get ready to meet changing conditions in the community. Health needs of all are cared for or referred to the proper agency. The cultural needs of people are fulfilled. Older citizens learn that they, too, are still a part of society. All the resources of the community are brought to bear upon the learning process. All basic needs are served.19 19Guidelines for Community Schools (St. Paul: Governor's Council on Community Schools, Minnesota State Department of Education, 1970), p. 10. 30 In a field project analyzing the financing of Community— Schools in Provo, Utah, during 1969 Lott found difficulty in deciding what to include in the Community-School concept. He said: "As one begins to research the finances of such an all-encompassing program, it becomes difficult to determine what services should or should not be considered and what supervision would qualify as part of the program." He had, however, quoted a definition which guided his study: "Programs Operated within the schools using their facilities for educational, recreational, and social purposes for all ages from any area of the city at any time of the day or evening."2° In a book on Community education, Minzey and Olsen wrote a chapter in which they defined community education, essen- tially synonymous with Community—School program. For the purpose of this book, the following defi— nition is assumed. Community education is a process that concerns itself with everything that affects the wellbeing of all of the citizens within a given commun- ity. This definition extends the role of community education from one of the traditional concept of teach- ing children to one of identifying the needs, problems and wants of the community and then assisting in the development of facilities, programs, staff, and leader- ship toward the end of improving the entire community. . . . Community education is an evolutionary process which usually grows from an extention of school services and activities into areas that were previously thought to be outside the responsibility of the schools. Two major characteristics of the role of the school in 2°Philip Vaness Lott, "An Analysis of Financing Com— munity-Schools in Provo, Utah, for 1969" (unpublished master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1970), pp. 35 and 6. 31 community education are identified as the extended school day and the extended school year.21 Hansen has completed a field project surveying Community— School recreation programs in Utah. He apparently felt that it was not necessary to define explicitly what was meant by "Community-School Recreation PrOgrams,' for on the question- naire which he sent to the 565 public schools in the state he gave only this definition: ". . . activities, other than the credit classes for regular students, which are going on in your school in a typical week." He then classified Community-School activities into sixteen divisions including categories such as Church Sponsored, Home and Family Arts, Music, Safety, and Science.22 The all-inclusive nature of definitions and descrip— tions given for the Community-School has prompted Daniel J. O'Niell to make this observation: "Since the Community- School programs now encompass everything from pOpulation control to church-related activities, the Community—School concept should include human activities not only "from the cradle to the grave," "from birth to death," or "from 21Jack D. Minzey and Clarence R. Olsen, "An Overview," chapter iii of The Role of the School in Community Education, edited by Howard W. Hickey, Curtis Van Voorhees and associ- ates (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 31-32. 22Peter Michael Hansen, "A Survey of the Community School Recreation Programs in the Public Schools of Utah" (unpublished master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1970L pp. 68 and 34. 32 the womb to the tomb," but "from erection to resurrec- tion!!"23 A recent thesis on Community—Schools in Monterey, California, was written by Edward Manning. His definition of the Community-School is a description of its function. The "community school" is a school that is inti— mately connected with the life of the community and tries to provide for the educational needs of all in the community. Often it serves as a center for com— munity activities and utilizes community resources in improving the educational program.24 In a recent study of the evolution of the Community— School concept, Solberg enumerated the seven characteristics stated by Edward G. Olsen,25 and then based his own defini- tion on them. According to Solberg, the Community-Schools are concerned with three basic elements: The first of these may be called the "here" ele- ment. The school's proper role is to relate to society on the basis of the close-at-hand accessible local community. . . . A symbiotic relationship is built between the school and its local community. . . . The second element may be identified as the "now" aspect of the educational program. That is, instruc- tion is conceived to be relevant to present needs. . . . The third definitive factor of a community school is concern with the total population. Education is thought to be the right of everyone with no arbitrary terminal age or other limiting factor. . . . Community schools are easier described than de- fined, but if a definition is needed, the three elements identified in the foregoing paragraphs may form the definition. Community schools are schools serving all 23Daniel J. O'Neill, pérsonal communication, 1970. 24Edward A. Manning, "The Community Schools of Monterey: An Historical Study" (unpublished doctoral thesis, East Coast University, Dade City, Florida, 1970), p. 24. 25Olsen, School and Community, g2. cit. 33 I members of a locality as its student body, with par— ticular attention to the real problems of life in the here and now.26 Dr. Harold Sponberg, President of Eastern Michigan University, recently placed the Community—School in perspec- tive when he stated: Let's keep in mind that community education is basically a concept. It's still and'all-developing, comprehensive, descriptive word that gives us a basis for communication. We look for the means to let this concept penetrate into reality, into an environment, into a community through various agencies. This con- cept involves all of the children of all of the people, all of the parents, all of the citizens of that com- munity. We know that in community education we are not going to leave out the philosophical principal that learning is a lifelong experience.27 Totten and Manley, in what is probably the definitive _nm_-.-.n...r-.fi.-.. book on the subject, point out that the Community-School is a "configuration," an "integrated whole." The community school does not lend itself to brief or easy definition. It can be described more readily than defined. In the truest and broadest sense, it is a configuration which can be explained only as an inte- grated whole——not as a summation of many separate ele- ments. For proper functioning, each segment of the community school must be appropriately interrelated with all other segments. They then relate the school, the curriculum, and the student body to clarify their point.28 26James Ronald Solberg, "The Evolution and Implementa- tion of the Community-School Concept" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970), pp. 2-3. 27Harold E. Sponberg, a speech in a Community-School seminar, reported in The Community School and Its Adminis- tration, Vol. IX, No. 4 (Flint, Michigan: Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education, Dec. 1970), n.p. 28W. Fred Totten and Frank J. Manley, The Community School: Basic Concepts, Function, and Organization (Galien Michigan: Allied Education Council, 1969), pp. 1—4. 34 Totten and Manley trace elements of the Community- School through the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Germans, English, and the Danes. Henry Barnard, John Dewey, Irving King, and, Joseph K. Hart are early proponents of the Community School in America. Totten and Manley are certainly two names to add to the list of influential proponents in the twentieth century. They have listed ten Community—School concepts to which John Dewey subscribed. 1. There must be two-way interaction between the com- munity and the school. 2. The school itself must be organized as a community. The school has a corporate life of its own. It is itself a genuine social institution--a community. 3. Learning must be planned in consideration of the total environment of the individual. 4. The school should be organized around the social activities in which children will engage after leaving school. 5. Society has a definite effect upon discipline in the school. 6. Social environment supplies the intangible atti- tudes and determination to improve the society. 7. Education should be the consciously used instru— ment of society for its own improvement. 8. The future adult society of the children should be an improvement over their own. 9. Education may be consciously used to eliminate obvious social evils through starting the young on paths that will not produce these ills. 10. Activity and learning go hand in hand. People learn by doing. Hence, the program of learning for children and adults alike is related to life as it goes on outside the classroom.29 Summary The many examples in this chapter amply illustrate the difficulty of defining precisely what is meant by the term 29Totten and Manley, ibid., pp. 16—17. 35 "Community—School". Practically everyone who has written or spoken about the Community—School has attempted a defini— tion of some kind. This author feels compelled to do the same, attempting to extract and summarize the heart of the many definitions quoted. The Community-School is a profound topic, so all-inclusive that an attempt to define it further may be futile. Perhaps broad descriptions do serve better; nevertheless, though it may be too combersome in one sentence, the following definition is offered for the con- sideration of the reader: A Community-School is that publicly-owned and funded, non—partisan educational institution which serves the entire community membership by providing and/or coordinating school and community resources, programs, personnel, buildings, and facilities to meet community needs, including educational, cultural, recreational, vocational, physical, intellectual, social, personal, individual and groups needs that arise within the democratic values of a pluralistic American society, and regardless of age, race, social class, status, position, creed, sex, color, or other differentiating factor. CHAPTER III THE VIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL "Superintendent, that's the smartest thing I've ever heard an educator say" was the comment of a state legislator to Walter D. Talbot, the superintendent of Utah schools, after Talbot had made a presentation on the values of the Community SchoOl to a group of legislators in 1970. The Community-School concept has made sense to others as well. Some examples will serve to illustrate the viability of the present Community-School concept. President Lyndon Baines Johnson expressed the need for the Community-School in a speech to the AASA in 1966. If education is to achieve its promise in America, it cannot and must not be done in Washington alone. Each state and each community must fashion its own design and shape its own institutions. But we will need a common vision to build schools to match our common hopes for the future. Every school will be different, but the differ- ences will not range as they do today between satis- factory and shocking. We will have instead a diversity of excellence. Tomorrow's school will reach out to the places that enrich the human spirit—-to the museums, the theaters, the art galleries, to the parks and rivers and mountains. It will ally itself with the city, its busy streets and factories, its assembly lines and labora— tories--so that the world of work does not seem an alien place for the student. Tomorrow’s school will be the center of community life, for grownups as well as children--"a shopping 36 37 center of human services.“ It might have a community health clinic or a public library, a theater and recreation facilities. It will provide formal education for all citizens—- and it will not close its doors any more at three o'clock. It will employ its buildings round the clock and its teachers round the year. We just cannot afford to have an $85 billion plant in this country open less than 30 percent of the time. In every past age, leisure has been a privilege enjoyed by the few at the expense of the many. But in the age waiting to be born, leisure will belong to the many at the expense of none. Our peOple must learn to use this gift of time--and that means one more challenge for tomorrow's schools. I am not describing a distant utopia, but I am describing the kind of education which must be the great and urgent work of our time. By the end of this decade, unless the work is well along, our Opportunity will have slipped away from us.1 It seems significant that by the end of the last year of the decade mentioned by President Johnson, the Community- School philosophy he expressed had been adOpted by Michigan, Utah, Minnesota, Florida, and Washington as formal state- supported programs, and other states were considering legis- lation. The Federal government also had begun direct finan- cial support through Model Cities projects under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Secretary of HUD was George Romney, the Governor of Michigan at the time the first state appropriation was made. President Richard M. Nixon is no stranger to the Community—School concept. He undoubtedly has been kept up-to—date by Secretary Romney, but even before he became 1Lyndon Baines Johnson, "Acceptance of the American Education Award," AASA Official Report, Annual Convention, 1966 (Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1966), pp. 189-94. 38 President, Nixon was given a briefing on the Community- School. In Detroit, on October 1, 1968, Peter L. Clancy and Eugene McFadden explained the purposes of the Community- School to Nixon, the Republican candidate for President. Clancy and McFadden stated that the purpose of the Community- School was as follows: To mobilize human and institutional resources of a community in such fashion that: a) Senseless and costly duplication is avoided. b) People of all classes and creeds are given the necessary encouragement and opportunity to help themselves to a better life. c) Local institutions--schools, government, business-- become genuinely responsive to human needs and wants. Schools make excellent community centers for the reasons that: 1. They are located so as to serve neighborhoods. 2. They have facilities adaptable to broad community uses. 3. They are owned and supported by the public. 4. They are non-political.2 Federal adOption of the Community-School concept dates from late 1968, when HUD/Model Cities and the Mott Founda- tion expressed a mutual desire to work in concert. By March, 1971, federally funded Community-School programs were operat— ing in Dayton, New Orleans, Washington, D. C., Atlanta, Tempa, Key West, Nashville, Miami, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Chicago, Martin's Ferry, Ohio, and Salt Lake City, and were 2Peter L. Clancy, "Summary-—Community School Concept," from materials prepared for a briefing to Richard M. Nixon, Detroit, Michigan, October 1, 1968. 39 in the planning stages in other cities.3 In January, 1971, HUD Secretary and Assistant Secretary Floyd H. Hyde pledged to Frank Manley of the Mott Foundation that the community education concept will receive "continued assistance and cooperation.“ On February 3, 1971, Oscar L. Mims, Chief Education Advisor to Model Cities/HUD, stated in a letter to Manley that "a recent examination of the educa- tion components of the various model cities revealed that the Community Education concept is rapidly spreading."4 In a conference bulletin of AAHPER in March 1971, Minnesota Governor Harold LeVander was quoted as saying that: Schools represent one of the largest single in— vestments in each of our communities. Schools must and will have maximum use—-they should be open day and night, weekdays and weekends, twelve months of the year. Schools should be available to the entire community for educational and recreational programs. Schools should become the focal point of community activity. Governor LeVander's Advisory Council on Community Schools published a statement of guidelines, listing the benefits of the Community School. The implementation of this concept results in the following benefits: Increases Mutual Cooperation and Trust. Brings About Financial Savings. Helps People Identify and Use Their Own Reservoir of Strength. ' Unifies the Influence of the Home, School, and Commun- ity. Serves the Total Community. 3Oscar L. Mims, personal correspondence, March 4, 1971, with miscellaneous photo-copied materials. 4Ibid., personal correspondence. 40 Enriches the On-Going School Program for Children and Youth. Identifies Purposes and Needs Clearly. Brings About Better Communication.s Though it is rapidly expanding, adoption of the Community-School in practice has lagged far behind its recognition by many educators as the ideal school organiza- tion. Solberg said that the Community-School was born about 71 years ago. "The community school concept as an explicit expression of a certain kind of total relationship between the school and its community saw the light of day about 1900."6 Some Community-Schools have operated in various parts of the country, but as a major movement on a national basis, the Community-School is just now beginning to mature. Acceptance of the concept of the Community-School is illustrated by a report of the reception given to Ernest O. Melby after an address delivered to the National School Boards Association in 1964. According to the report, Melby received a ten—minute standing ovation from the school board members who heard him.7 This demonstrates that the philosophy was compatible with what the school board members believed about the role of the school. 5"Guidelines for Community Schools," Governor's Advisory Council on Community Schools, State Department of Education, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1970, pp. ll-12. 6James Ronald Solberg, "The Evolution and Implementa- tion of the Community-School Concept” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970), p. 70. 7Ernest O. Melby, "The Price of Freedom," address to the National School Boards ASsociation, Houston, Texas, April 26, 1964: reprinted in The Community School and ItgfiAdminigtra- tion, Vol. II, No. 9, May, 1964, and two following issues. 41 Campbell expressed the need for Community—Schools in 1948, when he said: Making the secondary school a community school is the challenging objective of education in our time-- challenging because it is so significant in this era of conflict, confusion, and change. The school when it is truly functioning as a community school will bring people to grips with crucial problems in society in an atmosphere of truth-seeking and evaluation--evaluation in terms of how facts discovered will further the wel- fare of all. In other words, this is the path that will lead to the preservation and furtherance of demo- cratic standards. Will Hayes plotted the course of Community-Schools and explained the need for such in 1949, when he wrote: Historically, since education became organized under professional leadership, four stages have marked the attitude of the school in its relations with the community. First: Indifference towards the home and the community. Second: Selling the schools through planned publicity campaigns. Third: Educational inter— pretation. Fourth: School and community cooperative endeavor in the interest of complete child welfare, and the full contribution to the development and needs of the community. . . . Out of the concept of the interrelationships of home, school, and community has arisen the community school, the newest and one of the most virile concepts in American education. Hayes then quoted a statement of the Educational Policies Commission: Many schools are literally insulated in their com— munities. They are pedagogic islands, cut off by chan- nels of convention from the world which surrounds them, and the inhabitants of these islands rarely venture to cross these channels during school hours. To be sure, they read about the surrounding world in books, and aClyde M. Campbell, "The Secondary School as a Community School," The School Executive, Vol. LVII, No. 6 (Feb. 1948), pp. 60-61. they return to live on the mainland when school is out. Few schools, however have built bridges over which people may freely pass back and forth between school and community.9 William A. Yaeger became almost evangelistic in stres- sing the importance of the relationship between the commun- ity and the school. He clearly placed the responsibility for leadership with the educator- As the eye cannot get along without the hand, neither can the school without the home, nor the school and the home without the community. Each becomes necessary to the welfare of the others: all must work together in the interests of childhood and of desirable social living for all men in every community. Although the leadership belongs to public education, the responsi- bility belongs to all.1n Edward G. Olsen has expressed the need for the Community- School. To him, in 1954, the Community-School orientation was the doorway to the most meaningful education in history. Any school which stands aloof from the real prob- lems of living today and tomorrow defeats its own primary function in a free society. It gives only a hothouse learning, sending out from its portals young men and women fundamentally unready to grapple with the insistent issues of this second half of the twen- tieth century. That is precisely why any practical approach to improved living through education must be a fundamental one, must involve speedy development of the community-type school and college, which stand in sharp contrast to the conventional institutions we know so well. Thus American education stands today upon the very threshold of a wider and far more fruitful orientation than it has ever knowna that of the life-centered community school.11 9Will Hayes, "Community School and Its Two~Way Bridges," glearing House, Vol. XXIII (April 1949), pp. 457-58, 460. 10William A. Yaeger, Sohoql_gommunity Relations (New York: The Dryden Press, 1951), p. 18. 11Edward G. Olsen, ed. and chief author, School and Com- munity (2nd ed.; New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954), p. 13. The application of Community—School concepts on a world- wide basis as seen in the eff.rts of the United Nations and other international organizations was discussed by Beatty. Whether community life is deteriorating or develop— ing, the purpose of community education is to arouse and give direction to community self—help that will spur a steadily broadening economic and cultural develop— ment. The most pressing needs and problems of each com- munity represent the starting point for a program of community education, and a developing program of self- help should be keyed to the expressed needs of the people.12 The need for the Community-School concept on an inter— national basis was more recently expressed by Richer, who saw the need for major changes in the organization and the goals of education in England. Student unrest ended: full participation for all adolescents in their education guaranteed; no further problems about the integration of the Public Schools within the State system; a large scale reduction of the rat-race element in scholastic achievement and learning a life long pleasure for all; pure fantasy? Or just around the corner? The latter is a possibility if we can shift and shift pretty dramatically the focus of contemporary educational development. Rather than comprehensive secondary schooling-~which is what we've got—-the urgent need is to consider providing a comprehensive secondary education for the whole community. . . . the scheme can be seen as responding to the needs of our society and of young peOple in particular by replacing the present individualistic success-failure model of secondary education with a group based, _ 12Willard W. Beatty, "The Nature and Purpose of Commun— 1ty Education," the Fifty—Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Community Educa- tion: Principles and Practices from World—wide Experiences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), pp. ll—12. 44 community oriented, and socially co—operative concept of education.13 McClusky has offered eight propositions illustrating the arguments that can be marshalled in support of the Community—School. Many of these propositions have been sub— stantiated through the experiences of the schools of Flint, Michigan. 1. The community school is a demonstration of the law of increasing returns. 2. Increased use of facilities by the community school leads to better support of the school by the community. 3. The community school is an agent of cohesiveness in both the neighborhood and the larger community. 4. The community school may be a center for the assess- ment and management, if not solution, of problems unique to the neighborhood in which the school is located. 5. The community school is a major and indispensable characteristic of the educative community. 6. The community school helps create a set of common values which contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the community. 7. The community school is an educational ideal greatly respected by many other nations and, because of this fact, gives the U.S.A. a basis of meaningful communi- cation with people and their leaders in different sections of the world. 8. The educative community is the ultimate test of the validity of American ideals. Democracy must be a living reality in the home community where peOple have most of their primary experiences. In propounding the need for the Community-School, Ernest O. Melby has called it a social imperative. He sees 13R. L. Richer, "Community Education: A Long Term Proposal," The New Era in Home and School, World Education Fellowship Journal, Vol. L, No. 5 (May 1969), p. 129. 14Howard Y. McClusky, “Some Propositions in Support of the Community School——A Summary," Journal of Educational SgciolOQy, Vol. XXIII (Dec. 1959), p. 179. 45 the Community School as the only kind of educational program to solve many of the critical social problems facing America. The community school is a social imperative because only this kind of school can help the white middle class to the compassion and social responsibility which will bring an end to the poverty and the alienation of the ghetto. It is a social imperative because only this kind of school gives the poor child a door to edu- cation and opportunity. It is a social imperative because without the education it provides, America cannot heal the divisions which now threaten her life as a free society. For us in education it is an impera- tive because it is the only way we can make good on the promise we have held before the American people for a century, namely, that through education mankind can become the master of its own destiny.‘5 The Community—School may be the only hope for the future of mankind, in the opinion of Donald C. Weaver. He believes that Community Education may be the ”social cement” which can be used to help rebuild society. He stated that the Community-School is a cultural imperative when he said: . . . when we take the time to assess the urgency for reform throughout the society, we realize that if there is any hope for the future of mankind, it lies in a viable prOgram of educational improvement. To this end a Community Education program, with all that concept implies, becomes a cultural imperative.16 Totten and Manley have great faith in the basic con- cepts of the Community—School. They may be charged with being too idealistic or too Optimistic, but they are both fervent and sincere. In the preface to their recent book 15Ernest O. Melby, "The Community School: A Social Imperative,“ address to Minneapolis Community School Workshop, Aug. 26, 1968; reprinted in NCSEA News, Oct. 1968, p. 4. 16Donald C. Weaver, "Community Education-—A Cultural Imperative," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VII, No. 5 (January 1969), n.p. 46 they explained their position. Community Education Will Endure. Some believe that societal trends will cause any system or concept of education to be outmoded before it can be imple- mented. We take the position that the basic concepts of community education will survive the test of time. We strongly believe this because it is a system which is designed to involve everyone in the development of a society in which to live--in a society that is humanistic--that puts first and foremost the fulfill- ment of human wants and needs. Procedures and prac- tices will change but the basic concepts will endure. People yearn for a method of solving human problems. Community education provides that method. We have so much faith in the power of community education that we believe that, if by some magic all schools could be converted into broad based service centers, within a few generations, human suffering and despair could virtually be eliminated from the face of the earth. When implemented universally, community education will be the major factor in—- Eliminating poverty. Reducing delinquency and crime. Enabling non-Caucasian races to achieve their legitimate positions in society. ’ Changing the countenance of the many faces of rebellion and protest. The development of adequate programs of education will not only provide, ultimately, a sound basis for better government and more vigorous economic growth, but will relieve international tensions and reduce crimes and conflicts.17 Totten and Manley place great stress on the power of the 8 Universal implemen- school when allied with the community.1 tation of Community-Education may indeed require some kind of magic, but this fervent expression of the power of the 17W. Fred Totten and Frank J. Manley, The Community _ §chool= Basic Concepts! Function, and Organization (Galien, Michigan: Allied Education Council, 1969), pp. xxiv-xxv. 18W. Fred Totten, The Power of Community Education (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1970), pp. ll-12, for a slightly different expression of these same sentiments. 47 Community-School sums up the beliefs of many others who have espoused the Community—School concept. Summary The Community-School philosophy is widely accepted as the rallying point for modern education. Educators and statesmen believe that the school can be the important center of action in pulling together the pieces of a disjointed society. The school is the place where society can have a rebirth of democratic ideals, social responsibility, and cultural development. This chapter has revealed the atti— tudes and ideals of many who have expressed the need for the Community-School in the American society. CHAPTER IV THE PHILOSOPHICAL-CULTURAL BASIS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IN UTAH A Mormon Heritage The adoption of the Community-School by the Utah State Legislature in 1970 was not an isolated event. It was rather a culmination of the application of an educational philosophy and a continuum of events, activities, and programs dating back to 1830--seventeen years before the first white settlers drove their wagons down Immigration Canyon into the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Brigham Young and his fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sought in this desolate wilderness a refuge from the religious and political persecution they had suffered since Joseph Smith, their founder-prophet, organized their church on April 6, 1830, in Fayette, New York. They brought with them to Utah the core of the educational philosophy and programs which eventuated in the adoption of the Community-School almost 123 years later. The Community-School was readily adopted because it was compatible with the dominant Mormon philosophy and ideals. The absence of any organized opposition to Community-Schools indicates that the philosophy was not repugnant to any particular group. 48 49 Utah is widely known as a "Mormon" state. This reputa- tion is justified, since 71.44% of the residents of Utah are members of the Church.1 The history of education in any society is inevitably intertwined with the political, cul- tural, and economic history of the society. In Utah, the history of education is Mormon history, particularly from 1847, when the pioneers arrived, to 1896, when Utah became a state. When they entered the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847, the Mormon pioneers were the first permanent settlers in a large region which was then part of Mexico. By provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe—Hidalgo, that wilderness became part of the United States on February 2, 1848. With the Organic Act of September 9, 1850, Congress created the Territory of Utah, but the Mormons had not waited for the United States to act. On March 15, 1849, a conven- tion was called in Salt Lake City to adopt a constitution for a proposed new state, the State of Deseret. On September 22, 1851, the Territorial Legislature convened, and on October 4th, the Legislature adopted the laws of the former State of Deseret. Utah existed as a theo—political Territory until, 1The United States census of 1970 gives the total popula- tion of Utah as 1,059,273. According to a letter from the assistant research supervisor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mormons in Utah numbered 756,765 at the end of 1969. 50 ‘by act of Congress, becoming the 45th state on January 4, 1896.2 The inaguration of statehood signaled the close of the epoch of Utah history when political and Church government were essentially identical. It did not, however, signal the cessation of Church influence on every facet of public life in Utah, even though many citizens were non-Mormon “Gentiles.“ (It has been said that Utah is the only place in the world where.a Jew is a Gentile!) The influx of non—Mormons into Utah began with the California Gold Rush of 1849, almost before the earliest pioneers had established themselves. Many gold-seekers took a liking to Utah and settled there instead of continuing the trek to the gold fields. The non—Mormons, though relatively few in number, were resistant to the financial support of Mormon schools and eventually started a few schools of their own. Many of the immigrants who stOpped in Utah and stayed permanently became members of the Mormon Church. John R. Park was one of those. He was persuaded to teach school, and eventually became the first principal (president) of the University of Deseret. After Utah achieved statehood, he was the first state superintendent of public schools. 2John Clifton Moffitt, The History of Public Education in Utah (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946) contains a fuller discussion of this topic, as do several other references in this chapter. 51 In his book, The History of Public Education in Utah, Moffitt explained the early Mormon-non-Mormon educational conflict in some detail: The influence of the church in Utah's early history can scarcely be over-emphasized. Only as non- church members began making permanent homes in the Great Basin valleys did criticism arise concerning the influence of the church over education. With the pass- ing of time much antipathy arose over this problem. Educational reports segregated Mormon and non-Mormon children in all items of detail as carefully as current reports in some states [1946] separate the white from the colored children. With the admittance of Utah into the Union this unity between state and church was pro- hibited.3 The state constitution clearly separated religious and public education, prohibiting any religious control and for— bidding the expenditure of public funds for religious pur- poses.4 But it is obvious that where most of the citizens, teachers, and administrators are of one faith, the educational philosophy of that faith is likely to prevail. The Democratic and Republican political parties in Utah are of about equal strength, and Mormons constitute the bulk of membership in both parties. Political elections are non- sectarian in nature, and every effort is made to avoid involving religious issues. The writer made several attempts to learn the religious affiliation of the members of the State Legislature during the 1970 session, but to no avail. 3Ibid., p. 17. 4Constitution of the State of Utah, Article X, Sections 12-13 0 52 Several letters brought no results or ambiguous results from state agencies and news media, and examination of printed material was inconclusive. However, one official estimated that at least 80 per cent of the legislators were Mormons. All of the members of the State Board of Education were Mormons, and practically all of the influential people who promoted the legislation. This illustrates the continu- ing influence of Mormon philosoPhy and ideals on legislation and education. Many researchers have found that Mormon educational philosophy and ideals have been from the beginning the domi- nant influences in Utah. Ray L. DeBoer has written a disser- tation on the influence of Mormon philosOphy on education in Utah. From his non-Mormon point of view, he concluded: ". . . this study holds that the operation of Mormon educa- tional philosophy in Utah in the past and today [1951] is the chief cause of Utah's high level of educational accomplish- ment."5 DeBoer documented the Mormon influence on various facets of education, including compulsory attendance laws, zeal for learning, and the law requiring teaching against the ill-effects of alcohol, tobacco, and narcotics. He found 'that a large majority of the public school teachers and COllege faculty members and administrators were members of ‘ 5Ray L. DeBoer, "A Historical Study of Mormon Education and the Influence of Its Philosophy on Public Education in Utah" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Denver, 1951J. p. 175. 53 the Mormon Church, the proportion being even greater than the proportion of Mormons to the total population. The State Textbook Commission and Course of Study Committee members were all Mormons, and ten of the eleven people who had been State Superintendent were Mormons. A similar situ— ation has existed since that time. DeBoer found that in 1951 Mormons constituted 68.8 percent of the state popula- tion.6 The writer received a personal letter from the office of the historian of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints dated 24 August 1970, stating that 756,765 Utahs were Mormons at the end of 1969. The final United States Census count for January 1970 stated that the total population numbered 1,059,272. Since the current Mormon population is about 71.44 percent of the total, the Mormon influence con— tinues to be dominant in 1971. The importance of religious belief and practice has long been recognized by educational authorities. W. T. Harris, a former United States Commissioner of Education, said in 1899: "The form of religion confessed by a people is all- important in determining the degree of development of each and every other form of education, whether of the state, of social economy, of the school, or of the family nurture."7 61bid., p. 147. 7W. T. Harris, Psychologic Foundations of Education (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1899), p. 268, in DEBOer, op. cit., p. 28. 54 DeBoer reviewed seven studies and research reports which showed that "Utah ranked first among all the states in educa- tional accomplishment, as well as in general performance in education." The evidence led him to believe that the dominant Mormon culture was the reason. DeBoer made two unequivocal conclusions based on the evidence he examined in his study: The evidence presented in the study justifies the following conclusions: 1. The level of accomplishment in Utah schools was greater than that of any other state. 2. In the absence of good evidence which would suggest more important causative agents, this study holds that the operation of Mormon educational philosophy in Utah in the past and today is the chief cause for Utah's high level of educational accomplishments.8 McBride is another researcher who studied the influence of Mormon philosophy on education in Utah. He analyzed state— ments on education by seventeen of the most prominent of Mormon leaders, and then concluded: The central theme permeating the educational phil- osophy of the ecclesiastical leaders of the Church is that all men should be educated. It is agreed by them that this education should be broad and as all inclusive as possible. They advocated the study of peoples and their languages and the physical environment including the inner-galaxy of stars and planets. The reason for viewing education in this broad sense is that man is looked upon as an eternal personality and a spiritual child of God. Man is believed to be progressing eternal- ly, which means that some day he will be able to create existences similar to the one in which he now lives.9 8DeBoer, 92. cit., pp. 174-175. _ 9Don Wallace McBride, "The Development of Higher Educa- tion in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1952), P. 64. 55 McBride compared educational results in Mormon areas with results in non-Mormon areas, evaluating eight studies in the process. One study was that of Thorndike, who re- searched the origin of outstanding men. He found that by proportion, Utah was the highest of the states as the origin of distinguished men of achievement, leading the nearest state, Massachusetts, by about 20 percent. Thorndike said: We may conclude, therefore, that the production of superior men is surely not an accident, that it has only a slight affiliation with income, that it is closely related to the kind of persons residing in New England and in the block formed by Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and wyoming from 1870 to 1900, and that these persons probably diverged from the average of the country toward the qualities which make persons in 1930 learn to read, graduate from high school, spend public funds on libraries rather than roads and sewers, own their own homes, avoid homicide, be free from syphilis, etc.1 Another study which McBride evaluated was by Wooton, who did a follow-up study of the men identified by Thorndike. Wooton specifically wanted to investigate the extent of the Mormon influence on these men. He concluded: In being the home of the Mormons as well as in scientist production, Utah is in a class by itself. It seems a reasonable hypothesis that no less than Utah' 8 lead over the second place state could have been caused directly by the influence of the church. . . .11 1°Edward L. Thorndike, "Origin of Superior Men," The Scientific Monthly, LVI,(May 1943), pp. 424-433; in McBride, ibid., p. 420. 11R. T. WOoton, "Men of Science," The Improvement Era, XLVII, No. 2 (February 1944), pp. 76-77, 126-127, in McBride, 22. cit., p. 420. 56 After evaluating the eight studies and other evidence related to the favorable influence of the Church upon the education of Utah residents, McBride concluded: The evidence that this condition, favorable to education, is caused by Mormon philosophy is by no . means conclusive. As both Thorndike and Wooton point out, there are other factors Operating which have probably contributed to this. It is true, however, that practices and conditions in Utah are compatible with the philosophy held by the Mormon people. It would be reasonable to state that the Mormon philosophy has con- tributed to the relatively high standing of Utah in the areas of education discussed in this chapter.12 The NBA Research Report of 1970 shows that in education Utah continues to place very high among the fifty states, ranking number one in several important categories.13 Utahns generally take some pride in the high average educational attainments of Utah citizens. The educational philosophy of Mormons is probably shared by the majority of non-Mormons in Utah, though no specific substantiating information was found. Other studies besides those discussed could be cited to show that there is a direct relationship between Utah education and Mormon philosophy and educational programs since 1830.14 It is approPriate here to present several quotations from Mormon Church leaders and scriptures to illustrate the 12McBride, 92f cit., p. 433. 13Ranking of the States 1970, Research Report 1970—R1- (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1970). 14For example, see Milton Lynn Bennion, Mormonism and Education (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1939), and Arthur Clark Wiscombe, "Eternalism: The Philosophical Basis of Mormon Education" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 1963). 57 philosophical basis for education in Utah. The reader should note that many statements reflect the concept of the Community- School as described in Chapter III. The following quotations are taken from the Doctrine and Covenants, a book considered to be scripture by Mormons.15 Seek not for riches but for wisdom. (11:7) Seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom: Seek learning even by study. . . . (88:118) It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. (131:6) Whatever principles of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection; And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. (130:18-19) And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another . . . teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law . . . 0f things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms. (88:77-79) The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth. (93:36) Regarding this last quotation, DeBoer has stated: A passion for education has become one of the common denominators of Mormon culture. 'The Glory of God is intelligence“ has become the most quoted of all the Prophet's aphorisms, and it undoubtedly 15The Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1921), passim. 58 has been a potent factor in the educational philos- Ophy of the Latter-day Saints Church.15 Joseph Smith, the founder-prophet of the Mormon Church, wrote the verses quoted above from the Doctrine and Cove— nants, as revelation from God. He also made many personal statements about education. One widely quoted statement is from an entry in his journal in 1833. He wrote of his attendance at the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio: Attended the school, and read and translated with my class as usual. My soul delights in reading the word of the Lord in the original, [Hebrew] and I am determined to pursue the study of the languages until I shall become master of them, If I am permitted to live long enough. . . .17 Brigham Young, the second President of the Church and the leader of the exodus to Utah, made dozens of statements about the importance of education. Many of these were printed in the Deseret News, the Church—owned newspaper. Education, when taught by correct principles, and under the supervision of those governed by the spirit of God, will lay a foundation to make men and women great, noble, and amiable, and will expand their minds so that they can be fit for any station which they may be called to occupy, and nothing will daunt them from pursuing the purposes of God and truth. . . .18 On their way to Utah, the pioneers camped on the banks of the Missouri River, where President Young issued an epistle to the Saints: 16DeBoer, 92, cit., p. 36. 17MOffitt, op. cit., p. 2, quotes the diary of Joseph Smith. 18The Deseret News (Salt Lake City, February 22, 1861). 59 It is very desirable that all the Saints should improve every opportunity of securing at least a copy of every valuable treatise on education--every book, map, chart, or diagram that may contain interesting, useful, and attractive matter, to gain the attention of children, and cause them to love to learn to read; and, also every historical, mathematical, philosophical, geographical, geological, astronomical, scientific, practical, and all other variety of useful and interest- ing writings, maps, & c., to present to the General Church Recorder, when they shall arrive at their destina- tion, from which important and interesting matter may be gleaned to compile the most valuable works, on every science and subject, for the benefit of the rising generation. Wiscombe has analyzed the philosophical basis of Mormon education in great detail. One statement he made concisely summarizes the basic elements which operated in the estab— lishment of early schools in Utah, and which have been domi- nant very ever since. Mormon education from the beginning has sought to serve the ”whole man,’ mental, moral, social, physical, spiritual, and aesthetic. Since the very glory of God has been through the achievement of intelligence, man, as a literal off—spring of God, is expected to do like- wise. Since death is only a transition from one sphere of activity to another, man retains all his perceived knowledge, insight, and intelligence, which he has achieved through past experience, beyond the grave.20 Wiscombe found that the Mormon belief in education was broad and very powerful: . . . It includes all spiritual truth, all scien- tific truth, all secular knowledge--know1edge of the past, of the present, of the future, of the heavens, and of the earth. A knowledge of all countries, their geography, languages, history, customs, laws and 19Millennial Star, Vol. X (Liverpool, England: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1853), p. 85. 2°Arthur Clark Wiscombe, ”Eternalism: The Philosophical Basis of Mormon Education" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 1963), pp. 44-45. 60 governments--everything in fact that pertains to them. There is nothing in the heights above or the depths below that is not included in this field of knowledge into which the commandment of God directs mankind to enter. It includes the whole realm of man's intellec- tual activities. . . . this doctrine that nothing acquired in respect to knowledge is ever lost, must forever form the most powerful incentive to intellectual effort thaglpossibly can be conjured up by the wit of man. . . . After Brigham Young's death in 1877, John Taylor became the third President of the Chuch. He had been very influen- tial in educational matters, filling the office of Territorial Superintendent of District Schools in 1877, and being very active in promoting education even before the Church moved to Utah in 1847. Here is a sample of his statements about education: The education of man ought to be adapted to their positions, both as temporal and eternal beings. It is well, to understand the arts and sciences; it is well, to understand language and history; it is well, to under— stand agriculture, to be acquainted with mechanics, and to be instructed in everything that is calculated to promote the happiness, the well being and the comfort of the human family.22 Summary In this chapter the philosophical background for the establishment of early schools in Utah has been examined briefly. Nearly all the early pioneers were Mormons, and 21Ibid.. pp. 43-44. 22Journal of Discourse; (Liverpool, England: The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1854-1886, V (September 20, 1857), p. 262, in McBride, QB, cit., p. 29. 61 the present Church membership of the citizens of Utah is more than 71 percent. The writings and research considered here indicate that the Mormon educational philosophy has been dominant in Utah since the first settlers arrived in 1847, and the application of this philosophy has resulted in very high educational attainment. The adoption of the Community-School by Utah indicates that basic Mormon philos- ophy and the Community-School philosophy are compatible. This is probably the unique factor which was operative in the rapid adoption and statewide dissemination of the Community-School in 1970. CHAPTER V COMMUNITY28CHOOLMANTECEDENTS IN UTAH——1830 TO 1947 On the Trail to Utah Antecedents of the Community-School in Utah may be traced through the history of the state and beyond. This chapter identifies some antecedents dating from 1830 to 1847, when the first school in Utah was established. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized by Joseph Smith in Fayette, New York, on April 6, 1830. By January of 1833 the converts to the church had gathered at Kirtland, Ohio, where they opened a school which they called "the school of the prOphets." Within a short time the curriculum included theology, political science, literature, geography, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, mathematics, common arithmetic, reading, writing, and public speaking. This broad curriculum reflects early concern for the educa- tional needs of all members of the community. The first members of the Kirtland school were all adult males, leaders of the Mormon Church. Their zeal for learn- ing has prompted Bennion to say this: The earnestness with which these men, many of whom had little scholastic background, tackled Hebrew is inspiring. Their activity may justly be called a 62 63 forerunner of the present adult education movement. Their example was followed by the Saints in Missouri, Illinois, and Utah, where parents joined their children in the pursuit of knowledge.1 This early emphasis on adult education is one distinguishing characteristic of the Community-School. By 1835 enrollment had increased to the point that the school was over—crowded, and some younger students had to be released for the time being. As pointed out above, parents and children attending the school often learned from the same books. These attempts to meet the educational needs of all members of the community exemplify another characteristic of the Community-School. The Saints were forced to leave Kirtland, and by 1838, many of them were establishing homes, farms, and business in Jackson County, Missouri, at the direction of their leader, Joseph Smith. At Far West one of the church officials delivered an oration on July 4th, in which he stressed both the birth of the nation and the laying of corner stones of a building for worship and education. The first floor was to be "for sacred devotion," and the second and third "for the purpose of education." Portions of his oration express clearly the reasons why the Saints felt so strongly that education was essential for everyone. Next to the worship of our God, we esteem the education of our children and of the rising generation. For what is wealth without society or society without 1Milton Lynn Bennion, Mormonism and Education (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1939), pp. 9-10. 64 intelligence. And how is intelligence to be obtained?-- by education. . . . What is religion without intelli- gence? ran empty soul. Intelligence is the root, from which all time enjoyments flow. Intelligence is re- ligion, and religion is intelligence, if it is anything. . . . we have this day laid the corner stones of this temple of God, and design, with as little delay as pos- sible, to complete it, and to rear up to the name of our God in this city "Far West," a house which shall be a house of prayer, a house of learning, a house of order, and a house of God; where all the sciences, languages, etc., which are taught in our country, in schools of the highest order, shall be taught. And the object is to have it on a plan accessable to all classes. the poor, as well as the rich, that all persons in our midst, may have an opportunity to educate their children, both male and female, to any extent they please. So that all the talents in our midst, may be called forth, in order that we may avail ourselves, of all the means of God put into our hands, and put it into the power of all, to deliver themselves from the impositions, and frauds, which are practicing upon the more illiterate part of the community, by those who have had superior advantages, or as far, at least, as learning can go to obtain this object.2 The use of terms such as "all classes," "all persons," "male and female," "all the means," "power of all," "all the sciences,” forcibly demonstrates concern for the total welfare of all, not just the spiritual welfare. Although the building was never built, the devotion to education for all as expressed here illustrates the actual educational programs that were extant in every location where the pre-Utah Mormons stayed even for a short time. Because of religious and political persecution, the Saints moved from place to place, sometimes under conditions of 2Sidney Rigdon, "Oration" delivered July 4, 1938, at Far West, Caldwell County, Missouri. On file at Chicago Historical Library; in Moffitt, History, pp. cit., pp. 6—7. 65 extreme hardship. In spite of this, they maintained their emphasis on education for all members. By 1840 the main body of the Church was established at Nauvoo, Illinois, where they drained the swampy ground close to the Mississippi River and built a substantial city. Soon Nauvoo became the largest city in Illinois, with a population numbering more than 15,000. On December 16, 1840, the Illinois State Legislature granted a Charter to the City of Nauvoo, giving the city council extraordinary powers. Section 24 of the Charter empowered the establishment of the first city university in America. Joseph Smith recorded the Charter in his History of the Church: The City Council may establish and organize an institution of learning within the limits of the city, for the teaching of the arts, sciences, and learned professions, to be called the "University of the City of Nauvoo," which institution shall be under the control and management of the Board of Trustees, consisting of a chancellor, registrats, and twenty—three regents, which board shall thereafter be a body corporate and politic with perpetual succession by the name of the "Chancellor and Regents of the University of the City of Nauvoo," and shall have full power to pass, ordain, establish, and execute all such laws and ordinances as shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, or of this State; and provided also that the trustees shall at all times be appointed by the City Council and shall have all the powers and privileges for the advancement of the cause of education which appertain to the Trus- tees of any other college or university of the State.3 In 1841 the University of Nauvoo became the governing institution for all education in the city, coordinating cultural and educational resources for all in the public 3Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Vol. II (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1908), p. 284. 66 schools. The schools were consciously used as instruments to improve living for all members of the community, with civic, economic, social, and cultural matters coming within the purview of the schools. These were public schools, although practically every citizen was a Mormon. They were supported by all and open to all. In 1956 D. Garron Brian completed a dissertation on adult education in the Mormon Church. He found that adult education was a strong characteristic of the pre-Utah Mormons, and was found within the general framework of educational programs for all. Brian divided his study into three time periods-—1830 to 1844, 1844 to 1877, and 1877 to 1956. Of the period from 1830 to 1844, Brian stated: The Early Period was characterized mainly by the influence of Joseph Smith. . . . This era witnessed the emergence of a number of institutions of adult education. . . . The School of the Prophets . . . Sunday Schools . . . Priesthood Quorums . . . The Relief Society . . . Evening classes, lyceums, libraries, museums, the Kirtland High School, the University of the City of Nauvoo, Hebrew Grammar Schools, lectures, and private schools were also important agencies of adult learning that were utilized during this time.4 John A. Widtsoe, a leader of the Mormon Church, discussed the educational programs and the influence of Joseph Smith during these early pre—Utah times. Unified educational activi- ties, home and school training, and adult education--three characteristics of the Community-School-—are found in his statement: 4D. Garron Brian, ”Adult Education in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1956), p. 156. 67 The development of education under Joseph Smith, Jr. is notable. He lifted learning to eternal heights. He insisted on the foremost necessity of schools; be pointed out the value of home training combined with school training; he set up education for adults at a time when only young peOple were thought able to learn; he entered the field of higher education and declared that higher education was so necessary that it should be supported by taxation; he unified all educational activities in a district under:one head. The Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was assassinated in 1844, and in early 1846 the Saints left Nauvoo under pressure and persecution from mobs and militia. Determined to reach the Western wilderness where they would be left in peace, they abandoned prosperous farms, homes, and businesses, but they did not abandon their zeal for learning. To them knowledge was literally the way to salvation. Schools were established in their temporary camps, and even on the trail around camp fires and in wagons and tents. Diaries, personal records, and journals of the time reveal the attention paid to educa- tion. For example, at Council Bluffs on the Missouri River, on December 13, 1946, bishops were instructed "to have meet- ings in their several Wards for the men women & children once a week also . . . to have schools in their Wards.”6 Within a few days several schools had been started,7 even though the people were suffering from cold, hunger, and sickness to 6Hosea Stout, On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, edited by Juanita Brooks, Vol. I (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964), p. 218. 7John Clifton Moffitt, A Century of Service, 1860—1260: A History o§:the Utah Education Association (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1961), p. 6. 68 the point that nearly 600 died during that winter. These pioneers did not differentiate between educational, religious, 'political, or civic matters. The modern Community—School concept, though not specifically including religious activi- ties, is exemplified by the broad educational ideals and programs of these pioneers bound for sanctuary in the Utah wilderness. This philosophy dominated Utah from 1847 to 1970, culminating in formal state funding of the Community—School. Summary When the Mormon pioneers colonized Utah in 1847, they brought with them both the philOSOphy and the practices of the Community-School. From 1830 to l847-—in Kirtland, Ohio, Jackson County, Missouri, Nauvoo, Illinois, and Council Bluffs, Iowa-~the Mormons continually organized educational efforts which evidenced concern for all citizens, full development of each individual, adult education, practical education, and education as the way to both physical and spiritual salvation. The Community-School philosophy prevailed among these pio— neers destined to colonize Utah and to be the dominant influ- ence in education to the present day. CHAPTER VI COMMUNITY SCHOOL ANTECEDENTS IN UTAH, 1847 TO 1896 From Territory to State When the Mormon pioneers colonized Utah beginning on July 24, 1847, they brought with them an almost compulsive urge for education. Nearly all of the energy of the im- poverished and starving Saints had to be devoted to provid- ing food and shelter. Even so, in October the first school was being taught by l7-year-old Mary Jane Dilworth in an old military tent.1 In January of 1848 another school 2 From enrolled both children and adults in a log house. this humble beginning, education in Utah reaffirmed, re— established, and developed Community-School characteristics inherent in the pre—Utah educational programs of the Mormon Church. Immediately after Salt Lake City was established, the Mormons began to colonize the entire intermountain area, 1Levi Edgar Young, “Utah's First School," Utah Educa- tional Review, Vol. XII (Nov. 1917), p. 67. 2Milton Lynne Bennion, Mormonism and Education (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1939), p. 40. 69 70 from Canada to Mexico. Intelligence reports were gathered from scouts and explorers searching for suitable sites for communities. The intent of the Church leaders was to create a refuge for Mormons who began to stream in in 1848 by wagon and handcart, and by railroad after 1869. These hardy immi— grants, mostly converts to the Church, came from northern European countries and the eastern United States, seeking religious freedom and economic opportunity. The Territory was not colonized in the typical pattern of isolated farms. In the arid intermountain West, people could live only where there was water sufficient to irrigate crops. Those who controlled the water owned the ability to survive. The colonists settled where the water was located. The influx of immigrants included skilled peOple of all types--business men, teachers, wheelwrights, artisans, chem— ists, mechanics, miners, engineers, and others, as well as farmers. This made it possible to establish an entire com- munity literally overnight. These communities were estab- lished for several purposes. One purpose was to place the Territory under Mormon control, economic and political, as well as religious. Another purpose was to provide homes and occupations for all the converts, as well as for the rising generations. A third purpose was to provide bases for Christianizing the native Indians. Between 1847 and 1877, according to Hunter,3 349 colonies were established. 3Milton R. Hunter, Brigham Young the Colonize; (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1940), pp. 361-367. 71 Edgar T. Lyon has explained this in the following: . . . President Young planned settlements in many parts of the Intermountain West. Strategic factors also motivated him in his decisions. He desired to have a settlement on every stream large enough to pro- vide the source for a permanent agricultural community. By doing this, the Saints would preempt the water rights, making it impossible for others to settle in their midst and create the dissensions that had plagued them prior to coming to the Rocky Mountains. Because of the colonization pattern in Utah, schools were established at the time the communities were founded. Settlements were compact for three reasons: 1) the critical need for water, 2) the need for mutual protection from hostile Indians, 3) the influence of the strong, central theological government which set settlement policies so the inhabitants would enjoy the benefits of cultural, educational, and religious activities. The response to cultural ideals, geography, and Indians, resulted in few crossroad schools, but a centrally located school in each community. The Community-School was the natural outgrowth of the establishment of compact communities built because of re- ligious ideals and the need for water and safety. The community center function, response of education to community needs, concern for all citizens, volunteerism, free education, and adult—practical education were among the characteristics which gradually developed. 4T. Edgar Lyon, "Mormon Colonization in the Far West," The Improvement Era, Vol. 73, No. 7 (July, 1970), pp. 10-14. 72 Schools served as community centers from earliest times. Moffitt explains the result of community development in the following: The village pattern best adapted itself to the colonization scheme of the founders, and made it possible for them to construct a building in each town as a center for religious, educational, and civic purposes. It is probable that at no place in the westward expansion of the American frontier were buildings so universally con- structed for school and theological purposes as in Utah. When it was necessary to build forts as a means of individual and community protection from the Indians, the school—church building was usually erected in the center of the fort. In those instances where such pro- tection was not necessary, the school was located at a point that would accommodate the largest possible number of people. The early school buildings of Utah were literally community buildings. During the week days these were used for educational purposes, but frequent evening gatherings were held in these structures. The settlers never lost sight of the importance of their social life, and within the school building, dances and all other forms of group recreation and amusements were held. The school likewise was the center for all non— religious meetings. If a new road were to be constructed, an irrigation canal altered, or even a quilting bee held for the benefit of some newcomer, the schoolhouse was the locus of such activity.5 Moffitt also quotes from a history of a town named Lehi, describing the first school building as being built of logs, 18 by 24 feet. The school served many community purposes, including "meeting house, city hall, ball room, theatre, and the gathering place for assemblies of all kinds.6 In addition to the community centered school, there were other schools which filled various community needs. Many of 5John Clifton Moffitt, The History of Public Education In Utah (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946), pp. 260-61. 6Ibid., p. 11. 73 these were private schools but were open to all who cared to attend. Drama, music, art, gymnastics, military science, and other studies were among their specialties.7 Community social life was often centered around the schools. John R. Park found that strong social ties were maintained in spite of geographical isolation. The result was "a certain cosmopolitanism, a degree of polish” distine guishing the citizens of Utah from those of other states. Park said: "The vigorous social life of our rural towns has already made our rural schools much better than they could have been under other circumstances; and its effect will be more strongly marked in the future than it has been in the past."8 The schools were a response to community needs on every level from the village to the Territory. The encompassing needs were those expressed by the theological-political leaders. During the Territorial period the Mormon Church leaders maintained the most powerful influence, even though disenfranchised or even jailed at times by federal officers. Brigham Young continued to exert strong leadership in educa- tional matters. His broad range of concern and influence is illustrated by his statement that "every art and science 7Ibid., p. 27. 8John R. Park, Second Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State ofiUtah, For the Biennial Period Ending June 30, 1898, pp. 8-9. 74 known and studied by the children of men is comprised within the gospel. "9 The developing school programs reflected the range of studies which he advocated at various times. From some of his discourses10 is gleaned the following list: sciences classics mankind philosophy history law honor manners music language customs government orthography literature mathematics architecture chemistry surgery art of war religion theology bookkeeping labor geography nature astronomy farming surveying manufacturing astronomy carpentry The ability of the schools to adapt to the needs of the community was recognized and praised very early by Lum, who said: A special committee of the Nevada State Senate several years since in a report, praised the school system of Utah as "unsurpassed in its adaptation to the wants of the masses." Follick is another who found adaptability an important characteristic of early schools in Utah. His comment was: The Mormon educational methodology was a case in adaptability; the progress apparent to the academic world provided uncharted explorative action into here- tofore unknown educational frontiers. The scope of instruction, from the elementary grade to the university Lake 9Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (2nd ed.; Salt City: Deseret Book Company, 1926), p. 378. lolhiéo. pp. 377-405, passim. 11Dyer D. Lum, Social Problems of Today, or The Mormon Question in Its Economic Aspects (Port Jervis, New York: D. D. Lum & Co., 1886), p. 46. 75 level, is a tribute to creativity in the face of social separation with the enlisted aid of religious motiva- tion.12 Other evidence of the schools adapting to community needs is ample. The creation of the University of Deseret in 1850, even though in name only for several years, was one response. In 1870 the Timpanogos Branch of the university was established in Provo. (It was later to become Brigham Young Academy and eventually Brigham Young University.) Utah State University was first established in 1888, and opened in 1890. A school for the deaf, dumb, and blind was established in 1884 as part of the university. Kindergartens had been opened as early as 1887,13 and by 1895 the terri- torial superintendent was lauding efforts throughout the territory.14 School and community libraries were provided for by law in 185015 and gradually developed. By 1896 there were 35 school libraries.16 The examples illustrate both the adaptability of the school to community needs and the con- cern for all the citizens. 12Edwin Duane Follick,"The Cultural Influence of Mormon- ism in Early Nineteenth Century America" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Free Protestant Episc0pa1 Seminary, 1958), p. 193. 13Moffitt, 9p. cit., p. 348. 14T. B. Lewis, Territorial School Report, 1894—95. 15Laws of the Territory of Utah, 1850, section 4 of "An Ordinance Incorporating the University of the State of Deseret." 76 Additional evidence for the educational concern for all citizens is provided by the pride taken in educational accomplishments. In the 1857 Territorial Governor's message, Brigham Young boasted of the Territory's progress, saying: Each ward throughout the Territory has provided one or more comfortable schoolhouses commensurate with the number of pupils to be accommodated, and proportion- ately more has been done in Utah than has ever been accomplished under like conditions in any other portion of the Union.17 That the pride was justified was borne out by Lum in discussing social problems and education in Utah in 1886. In the matter of education, Utah stands ahead of many old and wealthy States, and of the general average of the United States in three very important respects, namely, the enrollment of her school population, the percentage of their daily attendance at school, and the amount per capita invested in school property.18 Several far-reaching events showed the concern for all citizens. Among these were Territorial laws permitting taxa— tion for school buildings, and later for the payment of teachers, laws providing for free education, creation of a unique alphabet of 32 characters, creation of the offices of territorial superintendents of school, and consolidation of schools and small school districts. Though it resulted in very little action for several years, the 1892 law permitting the establisgnent of high schools was another evidence of concern.19 17Brigham Young' "Governor’s Message," Journal of the Legislative Assemblyyof the Territory of Utah, 1857. 18Lum, pp. cit. 19Laws of the Territory of Utah, 1892, Chapter 80, Section 51a. 77 Territorial Governors were consistently concerned that not enough was being done to provide education for Utah citizens. Governor Young in 1853, Cumming in 1858, 1859, and 1861, Harding in 1862, Durkee in 1865 and 1866, Thomas in 1890--a11 urged the legislature to appropriate funds for education. They used statements such as these: "The children of the poor are equally entitled to the benefits of education with those of the rich." ". . . enable every child to obtain these inestimable benefits." "To give every child . . . a suitable education, is the foremost duty of the State." ". . . toward making the means of education free to all children within the Territory." "One of the most important subjects . . . is the education of the youth. . . ." "It is the bounden duty of the Territory to give to every child the opportunity of receiving a free public education." (For a fuller discussion of the role of state officials, see Chapter IX of Moffitt, History, 99. git.) Gradually the Church yielded the reins of education to the hands of govern- ment. The 1890 free school law culminated years of effort from the governors on down for free public education. Not all observers viewed Utah schools with the optimism of Brigham Young. Rather severe criticism came from some territorial officials who were sent to Utah by the United. States government. Benjamin Ferris, for six months the Secretary of the Territory, made the following disparaging comments: 78 In Great Salt Lake City there is a school—house in every ward, and schools have been kept up in most of them; but they are wretchedly managed, and so far have proved to be hot-beds of vice rather than places of instruction. The children and youth now growing up . . . are ungoverned and ungovernable, in and out of school; and, so far from any effort being made to remedy the evil, this youthful turbulence is compla- cently regarded as evidence of their celestial descent.20 Mormon-baiting continued to be popular in America after tflne Saints had moved West. Many people who visited in Utah unrnate critical books such as that by Lum quoted previously. .Aaiother writer who commented on education in Utah Territory was J. W. Gunnison, who had been in Utah as a lieutenant of tlie Topographical Engineers in 1852. In his book he stated: "(3f all the children that have come under our observation, wee must, in candor, say, that those of the Mormons were the nm>st.lawless and profane."21 He stated further that the “finale theosoPhical scheme of the Mormons was absurd, and pre- diczted their dissolation from internal forces within a rela— tively short time. Volunteerism and free education are closely related features of early Utah education. Free public education developed slowly because of Church involvement in establish- jxug and supporting schools, and because of poverty, isolation, anui shortage of leadership. The separation of religion from 20Benjamin G. Ferris, Utah and the Mormons (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854), p. 289. 21J. W. Gunnison, The Mormons (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1856). p. 160. 79 pniblic education was painfully slow, the Church having no cxampelling reason to release its hold on education, and non— nuembers neither numerous nor strong enough to push for public schools. Because there was no public revenue for several years, schools were often free and taught by volunteers. At times teachers were "called" by Church authorities to fulfill a special teaching assignment. Numerous schools were opened by private teachers in the various Wards and communities as a.1neans of income, though the income was often in barter raither than in cash. The Deseret News printed numerous stories relating to education during territorial years. Tlre following example describes a school that was free, open to all, and taught by volunteers: On Monday evening a school was opened in one of the 14th Ward School-rooms, which, we are informed, is to continue during the winter, free to all residents of that ward, whether old or young, who may feel dis— posed to attend. Competent instructors, in all the branches usually taught in the common and select schools in this city, have volunteered their services. Of course not all schools were free, and even though scarce, enough schools existed that some competition for students developed by 1860. It was difficult to collect . SChool taxes even after they were authorized by law, and private teachers often required payment in advance.23 22Salt Lake City, Deseret News, Vol. X, Dec. 5, 1860. 23Moffitt, Century of Service, pp. cit., p. 18. 80 In 1850 the same act that created the University of IJeseret required the chancellor and regents to "establish a free school Institution for the benefit of orphans, and cather indigent worthy persons."24 Though the intent was present, funds were not. In 1865, R. L. Campbell, Terri- torial Superintendent, reiterated a recommendation that "an annual appropriation be made to any city or cities which shall maintain a free school or schools wherein the children caf the poor may be educated gratuitously."25 Widespread free education grew slowly and sporadically from seeds Islanted very early in Utah educational history. The school law of 1890 consolidated small districts, established a uninimum standard of twenty weeks of school, strangthened school boards' and superintendent's powers, authorized school taxes, and provided for free textbooks and supplies for the public school students.26 Adult and vocational (practical) education, characteris- txics of the Community-School, were stressed during Territorial times, even though offerings were relatively limited. The list gleaned above from discourses given by Brigham Young 24Laws of the Territory of Utah, 1850, Section 13 of "An Ordinance Incorporating the University of the State of Deseret." 25Robert L. Campbell, Territorial School Report, 1865. 3‘ awe of the Territor of Utah 1890, Chapter 72. Section 117. 81 cuontains many elements of adult and vocational education. Iflne Deseret News often printed notices of "General Schools'I open to adults. The following is one example: To Carpenters, Joiners, Masons, etc., etc. Classes to teach the above—named Mechanics how to get out the times of their work, including centering, groined Arches, Roofing, Staircase Railing, etc.; also to impart a general outline of principles of Architec— ture--wi11 be held every Tuesday and Thursday Evenings, from 7 to 9 o'clock, in the west wing of the 14th Ward Meeting House, commencing Tuesday, 11th February.27 Various teachers taught adult education courses such as EIebrew, Greek, Latin, French, German, Tahitian, Italian, tinglish, music, drawing, and geography in schools called "28 'Nacademies. During this time when public and church education were practically synonymous, the adult programs of tflne Church contributed greatly to adult education. In his ciissertation on adult education in the Mormon Church, Brian chocuments many adult education activities during the 1844- 1877 period. He then listed activities which were often community programs as well as Church programs: Evening schools, lyceums, societies, institutes, lecture series, libraries, music, missionary work, printed matter, preaching, teaching, lay leadership, meetings, and conferences were utilized for adult learning during this period. Frxmnihis study, Brian concluded: ". . . Church has been an adult educational institution since its beginning and has attempted to develop programs in order to provide each 27Salt Lake City, Deseret News, Vol. XI, February 5, 1862. 2°Moffitt, History, pp. cit., pp. 19-20. 82 member with the opportunity for maximum growth."29 The emphasis on practical education may be further ill- ustrated by the complaint of Brigham Young that a cowhide passed through the hands of eleven men from the time it left Wellsville to the time it returned in the form of leather.30 lie wanted the citizens to learn all the skills necessary to provide for their own needs in everything from making leather tn: mining lead for bullets and farming beets for sugar. Brigham Young opened a school called the Union Academy 1J3 which the emphasis was to be upon practical, adult educa- trion. The Deseret News of May 30, 1860 reported Young's statement: We shall devote the large building on the east side of Union Square to school purposes. Tuition will be free, and the school will begin tomorrow morning, with Orson Pratt, Jun., and James Cobb, teachers, under the supervision of Orson Pratt, sen. The Union Academy is designed exclusively for boys and young men. So soon as we have a suitable building we intend to open an academy for females, in which they will be taught the common branches of English education-~music, and, probably, some of the modern languages. We wish those who attend the Union Academy to qual- ify themselves to be useful to themselves and this com- munity, as speedily as possible. We shall urge the study of mathematics, and more particularly their prac— tical application, that as many as have taste and aptness may become familiar with surveying, which they can fit themselves for in a very short time. There are but few here who are practical surveyors, and we wish that number increased. . . .31 29D. Garron Brian, "Adult Education in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Chicago, 1956), pp. 157, 159. 3°Bennion, pp, cit., pp. 104-105. 31Salt Lake City, Deseret News, Vol. X, May 30, 1860. 83 The importance of adult-vocational education was recognized by the law of 1890, which empowered city school boards to industrial or manual "establish, locate and maintain training schools,"32 forging another link in the chain lead- ing to the Community—School. essentially high schools, were estab- Other academies, lished by the Mormons. Weber Academy (now Weber State Snow Academy (now Snow College) College) started in 1889. Several other academies were terminated when 1888. Catholic and Protestant started in public secondary schools emerged. schools were also maintained during the territorial period. flflrre Salt Lake Collegiate Institute (now Westminster College, co-educational, liberal arts school) was estab- a four—year, lished in 1865 by the First Presbyterian Church of Salt Lake City. The 1970-71 Utah School Directory lists seven secondary and twenty—three elementary private and parochial schools, none of them operated by the Mormons. Summary The Territorial period in Utah history is replete with Among those eJ‘Ca-Iuples of the Community-School philosophy. 176321éiily seen are the community center, response to community r1€3€3<3£3, concern for all citizens, free public education, The Mormons "<>:L\111teerism, and adult-vocational education. \ 32prp of the Territory of Utah, 1890, pp. c1t. 84 gradually relinquished control of public education to the state, counties, and cities, but the guiding philosophy of education as the central focus of community and individual life continued to prevail. CHAPTER VII COMMUNITY-SCHOOL ANTECEDENTS IN UTAH, 1896-1967 Introduction The advent of statehood in 1896 did not mark immediate abrupt changes in education in Utah. Changes which had been steady but slow were accelerated by statehood. Complete legal separation of church and state, economic development from subsistence to surplus, better working conditions, greater income, expansion and development of urban areas, increasing industrialization, rapid communication and trans- portation--all these forces were among those that combined with the traditional religious and cultural ideals to accelerate the development of education in the general direction of the trends established during pre—territorial and territorial times. Antecedent characteristics of the Community-School were extant during the time from statehood in 1896 to the begin— ning of the modern Community-School movement in Utah in 1967. Some of these characteristics may be subsumed (for the sake of discussion) within several general characteristics previously identified as inherent in the Community-School 85 86 concept: The School As Community Center, Vocational Educa- tion, Adult Education, and Response to Community Needs. This chapter is devoted to a brief discussion of laws, pro- grams, and expenditures which exemplify these antecedents. The inter-relationships of categories are Obvious, and need little elaboration. This arbitrary division is for the sake of clarity and brevity. Only a limited number of examples are used for illustra- tive purposes. Many others could be used. Representative expenditures, acts, programs and activities, and literature relating to this period of educational history are discussed. .Rpferences to Utah SchoolfiLaws: a note The Utah State Superintendent of Public Instruction prints and distributes state school laws after each biennial session of the Legislature. Beginning in 1967, with revisions in 1969, a format was adOpted, including three parts: Part I, Extracts from the Constitution; Part II, Education Code; Part III, Miscellaneous Laws Pertaining to Education. For easy reference, each Part is further divided into chapters, articles, and sections. The Utah Code Annotated 1953 serves as the basic reference for this system, with school laws brought up to date with each biennial publica- tion. The numerical designation used in the 1969 edition of School Lawpofthe State ofiUtap denotes the chapter, article, section, and sub-section of the laws. For example, 5—3-2 (A) 87 refers to Chapter 5, Property; Article 3, School Sites; Section 2, Civic Centers; sub-section A, School Buildings and Grounds. Each law is further identified with the Title, Chapter, and Section numbers of the Utah Code. For example, the above reference is (53-21-1). For purposes of easy location, the system used in School Laws of the State of Utah 1969 is adOpted for this study. Because the easy-to—locate numerical designations will prob— ably remain uniform but page numbers may change with each edition of school laws, page numbers are not given. The School as Community Center After Utah achieved statehood in 1896, schools continued to serve as community centers, just as they had since 1847. This function was first formalized by the state legislature in 1901 in an act providing for the non-commercial use of school buildings by the community. The act reads: All boards of education may permit public school- houses, when not occupied for school purposes and when the use thereof will not interfere in any way with school purposes, to be used for any other purpose that will not interfere with the seating or other furniture or property, and shall make such charges for the use of the same as they may decide to be just; provided, that the district shall be at no expense for fuel or service of any kind for such use or privilege and that public schoolhouses shall not be used for commercial purposes. 5-3-2 (E) (53-21-5)1 1As explained above under the heading Refeppncep to Utah School Lawp, school laws are identified both with the method of Schpol Lawppof the State ogzUtah 1969, and with the method of the gpph Code Annotated 1953, and subsequent state laws. 88 The community use of school buildings under this law was widespread, but not entirely without opposition. In 1932 a taxpayer brought suit for an injunction prohibiting the school authorities from permitting the use of the school for many activities for which an admission fee was charged. The court found that "such activities did not constitute commercial enterprises but were proper extracurricular activities."2 The 1901 act above was incorporated into a comprehensive "Civic Center” law passed in 1917. This law recognized the essential use of the school by the community, and provided for the establishment of all schools as civic centers, as shown here: There shall be a civic center at all public school buildings and grounds where the citizens of the respec- tive school districts may engage in supervised recrea— tional activities, and where they may meet and discuss any and all subjects and questions which in their judg— ment may appertain to the educational, political, economical, artistic and moral interests of the citizens of the community; but such use of public school build- ings and grounds shall in no wise interfere with any school function or purpose. 5-3-2 (A) (53—21-1) Note that the activities authorized in the Civic Center are practically a catalog of Community-School activities. All of these had been taking place, but the official encour- agement given by the Legislature is noteworthy. 2Beard v. Board of Education of North Summit School District, 81 U. 51, 16P, 2d 900. 89 Additional paragraphs in the 1917 Civic Center law provided for the payment 01 expenses by the Board of Educa— tion: Lighting, heating, janitor service and the services of public school buildings and grounds shall be provided for out of the school funds of the respective school districts. Such use of school buildings, prOperty and grounds shall be free; provided, that in case of enter- tainments where an admission fee is charged, a charge may be made for the use of such prOperty. 5—3-2 (B) (53—21-3) The constitutionality of this act was upheld by the Utah Supreme Court when it was challenged on the grounds that it authorized imprOper use of school funds. The taxpayer who brought suit was the owner of an ”Opera house" in Coalville, a typical town where the school was used heavily for many community purposes. The businessman claimed that his business was gradually failing as a result of the school-community activities.3 The control of school facilities by the local boards of education was maintained by the following paragraph of the Civic Center law: The management, direction and control of such civic centers shall be vested in the boards of education of the school districts. Said boards shall make all need— ful rules and regulations for conducting such civic— center meetings and for such recreational activities as are provided for in section 53-21-2, and may appoint a special supervising officer who shall have charge of the grounds, preserve order, protect the school prOperty and do all things necessary in the capacity of a peace 3Beard v. Board of Education, ibid. 9O officer to carry out the provisions and the intent and purposes of this chapter. 5—3-2 (C) (53—21—3) The right of the local boards to control the schools was further established with the following section: Whenever in its judgment a board of education deems it inadvisable to permit the use of such school property for the purpose requested, it may refuse the use of such school property for any other than school purposes. 5-3—2 (D) (53-21—4) The Civic Center laws were the official recognition that the school buildings belonged to and should be used by the public. The state laws did not force the local authorities to make the schools available to the community; they only strengthened and legalized the practices already existing throughout the state. School buildings and facilities were being used for almost every community purpose imaginable, from wedding receptions to dances, athletic tournaments, patriotic celebrations, political meetings, meetings of stOCkmen's associations, 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, musical programs, dance programs, Civil Defense meetings, swimming, county fairs, hunter safety instruction, balloting, federal bid openings, medical clinics, scrap metal collection points during World War II, medical board meetings, Utah Symphony Orchestra concerts, Utah Civic Ballet programs, sportsmen's clubs, service clubs, etc. pp_infinitum. The community use of school facilities is further illus- trated by the Opinion of the Utah Attorney General, who said in 1938: 91 School districts may enter into a contract with churches and other authorities to permit athletic and recreational programs at times when the gymnasiums are not in use for school activities.4 This opinion of the Attorney General was an extension and reinforcement of existing laws and practices. In 1923 the Legislature had passed comprehensive laws giving local governing bodies, including school districts, broad powers to develop community programs. These laws have been modern- ized with minor amendments relating to television and per- sonal property, but the basic form of 1923 remains, as in the following: The governing body of any city, town, school dis— trict or county may designate and set apart for use as playgrounds, athletic fields, gymnasiums, public baths, swimming pools, camps, indoor-recreation centers, television transmission and relay facilities, or other recreational facilities, any lands, buildings or personal property owned by such cities, towns, counties or school districts that may be suitable for such purposes; and may, in such manner as may be authorized and provided by law for the acquisition of lands or buildings for public purposes in such cities, towns, counties and school districts, acquire lands, buildings, and personal prOp- erty therein for such use; and may equip, maintain, operate and supervise the same, employing such play leaders, recreation directors, supervisors and other employees as it may deem proper. 2-6—9 (D) (l) (ll-21-l) The next section of this act lists the kinds of activi- ties which local governing bodies were authorized to organize and conduct. It reads like the bulletin board of a modern Community—School, as the following shows: 4AGO: Use of Gymnasiums by Religious Groups, School Laws of the State of Utah, 1969, p. 102. 92 The next section of this act lists the kinds of activi— ties which local governing bodies were authorized to organize and conduct. It reads like the bulletin board of a modern Community-School, as the following shows: Such local authorities may organize and conduct plays, games, calistheniCs, gymnastics, athletic sports and games, tournaments, meets and leagues, dramatics, picture shows, pageants, festivals and celebrations, community music clubs, debating societies, public speaking, story telling, hikes, picnics, excursions, camping and handicraft activities, and in areas so remote from regular transmission points of the large television stations that television reception is impos- sible without special equipment, and adequate economical and proper television is not available to the public by private sources, said local authorities, may equip and maintain any type of transmission or relay facility that Operates by means of translator stations, that is authorized by law for the purpose of supplying tele— vision to the people, and other forms of recreational.. activity, that may employ the leisure time of the peOple in a constructive and wholesome manner. (2-6-9 (D) (2) (ll-2-2) The obvious up-dating which was done in 1957 and 1959 illustrates the law-makers' continuing concern that public schools and other public resources be used by and for the community. Several other sections, all dating from 1923, extend and clarify those quoted above. A recreation board is authorized; the membership is explained; duties of the officers are outlined. An additional section provides for COOperation between school districts and other local govern— ing bodies: 4 Any board of education of any school district may join with any city, town, or county in purchasing, equipping, Operating and maintaining playgrounds, athletic fields, gymnasiums, baths, swimming pools, 93 television transmission and relay facilities of the type referred to in Section 11—2—2 and other recrea- tional facilities and activities, and may appropriate money therefore. 2—6-9 (D) (3) (ll-2-6) There is also a section providing for the expenses incurred in operating the programs authorized. It states: All expenses incurred in the equipment, operation and maintenance of such recreational facilities and activities shall be paid from the treasuries of the respective cities, towns, counties or school districts, and the governing bodies of the same may annually appropriate, and cause to be raised by taxation, money for such purposes which in no case shall be more than .75 mills. 2—6-9 (D) (4) (11-2-7) This section was brought up-to-date in 1949 and again in 1961. Probably its most significant provision is the author- ization of taxes for support of the programs. Generally the programs were developed through County Recreation Departments. School personnel were hired to run summer programs using school facilities, the schools serving as the community recreation centers for such activities. The existence and importance of these laws was noted by Eleanor T. Glueck in 1927. In her book, The Community Use of Schools,5 Glueck stated the following: An examination of the present extent of the school center movement has revealed the fact that the school- houses of this country are now very generally used for community purposes although only five and half per cent of them are used regularly and as often as once a week. Legislation on the extended use of public schools exists 5Eleanor T. Blueck, The Community Use pf Schools (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1927), p. 142. 94 in thirty-two states and the District of Columbia and where there are no laws, school authorities may, as the custodians of school property, grant the request of the people for the use of the schools. Glueck included Utah in a chart giving the following information: State- Utah Authority- Recreation Board of five (Two of these shall be selected from Board of Education) permissive. Activities- Indoor recreation centers in public school buildings--plays, games, calistheniCs, gymnastics, athletic tournaments, sports and games, moving pictures, pageants, festivals, community music, clubs, debating societies, public speaking, story—telling, handcraft activities, socials, other activities. Finances- Local treasury pays all expenses. May receive donations and legacies.6 Glueck's early recognition of the Community-School programs in Utah was tempered somewhat by her report that Utah was one of only six states "in no way assisting local authorities to establish school centers."7 She did state that no state departments of education opposed the community use of school buildings. Permission to levy taxes, which came after Glueck's study, was a form of state support in Utah, but the original act provided for the financial support of Communitye School activities from the treasuries of the local governing bodies. 51bid.. pp. 170-171. 7Ibid., p. 58. 95 Loppl Joipt Agreements Several Utah laws provide for cOOperation between school districts and other local governing bodies. In 1949 an extensive act was passed, including the following section: Cities and school districts may contract and cooperate with one another in matters affecting the health, welfare and convenience of the inhabitants within their respective territorial limits; and cities may disburse public funds in aid of the school district within the limits of the respective cities. 2-6-9 (A) (53—4-13) An interlocal cooperation act broadened the act above to include other local governmental units besides cities: It is the purpose of this act to permit local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic, economic, pOpulation and other local factors influencing the needs and develOp- ment of local communities. 2-6-9 (B) (11-13—2) Twenty-two additional sections spell out the very broad powers of school districts to work in harmony with other public units for the good of all. Agreements, contracts, property, bond issues, and joint exercise of power are specified. Within the limits of these laws, boards of edu- cation Operate freely. A joint agreement of Provo City and Provo School District illustrates the effect of the laws cited above. Made in 1955, the agreement is quoted here in full: 96 Agreement By and Between the Provo City Board of Educa- tion and Provo City Commission on the Preparation, Maintenance and Use of Farrer School Grounds Between Sixth and Seventh East and the Farrer Building and Center Street It is hereby agreed by and between the Provo City Board of Education, acting for Provo City School District, and the Provo City Commission, acting for Provo City, that the said Board of Education hereby agrees to install a sprinkling system in keeping with plans agreed to by both contracting parties, thence to prepare a seed bed, thence to plant the grass, all to be paid for by the Board of Education for and on behalf of Provo City School District. It is further agreed that the Provo Board of Educa- tion will pay the actual cost for personnel used in watering said plot of ground. It is likewise agreed that Provo City will install a special meter on Center Street and will furnish without cost to the School District such water as is necessary to maintain the grass throughout the year. It is further agreed that Provo City will erect bleachers, backstOps and if necessary, other playing field fixtures. Plans for installing such bleachers, backstOps and other fixtures are to be agreed upon by the two contracting parties. In consideration of the above, it is agreed by the Provo City Board of Education that the above described plot of ground may be used for the purpose of playing baseball by boy teams of Provo City, Providing such teams are approved by and under the general supervision of the Provo City Recreation Department.8 Just as the state laws had done, this agreement only solemnized a conjugal relationship that had always existed between the two governing agencies. Joint agreements have since become common in Utah. Community use of school facili— ties and COOperative maintenance have been traditional, not only in Provo, but throughout the state. aMinutes of the Provo City Board of Education (or Provo City), Minute Book Beginning August 1955, p. 669. 97 Research in Utah Knight9 and London10 have written studies showing that there has been very wide community use of school facilities, though not Optimal by any means. As in all things, improve- ments were sorely needed, but the point remains that commun- ity use of school facilities has been traditional since Utah's earliest days. Thorstensen recently completed a comprehensive study of the use of school facilities for public recreation programs. He studied 98 schools in the 40 Utah districts, finding that 58 of the schools had either full or part-time recreation programs in their communities. Twenty-five of the 98 schools had full-time year-round community recreation programs. Many schools made contributions to municipal recreation de- partments. Cooperative relationships between school districts and municipal recreation departments often existed through joint use of facilities, joint planning, joint employment of personnel, and joint board membership. Nearly all the schools studied had policies governing community use of school facilities. Most school facilities were available for community use, and sixty-one per cent of all facilities were actually used. 9Wallace Knight, “Community Utilization of the School Plants in the Weber County School District "(unpublished master's thesis, University of Utah, 1949). 10George H. London, "The Legal and Administrative Aspects of the Community Uses of the Public School Buildings" (unpublished master's thesis, University of Utah, 1950). 98 Some groups which often used school facilities were parent-teacher organizations, scout groups, church social groups, athletic groups, adult education, service organiza— tions and civic meetings. He also found that school districts sponsored about double the number of community activities sponsored by municipal recreation departments or private agencies. Several reasons were listed to show why schools were not used more extensively by the community, indicating that much is left to be done. One recommendation made by Thorsensen was that school officials take the leadership for getting the cooperation of school, community, and recreation leaders in increasing community use of school facilities.11 Phillip Lott's analysis of expenditures for Community- School programs in Provo during 1969 indicates that similar expenditures have been made throughout the state, though not in such amounts. Lott found that the Community—School pro- gram was "sc all-encompassing . . . it becomes difficult to determine what services should or should not be considered .42 and what supervision would qualify as part of the program. He nevertheless concluded that during the 1969 calendar year 11Clark T. Thorstensen, "A Study of the Availability and the Extent of Use of Public School Facilities for Community Recreation" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1969, published by the Utah State Board of Education), pp. 128-133 passim. 12Philip Vaness Lott, "An Analysis of Financing Community— Schools in Provo, Utah, for 1969" (unpublished master's field project, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1970), p. 35. 99 a total of $143,224.07 had been spent on Community-School programs from all sources,“3including‘$10,000 in seed money from the Mott Foundation. Provo has had a more extensive program of community-school cooperation than most districts, and is larger than most, but the large expenditure is illus- trative of traditional programs where the school has served as the community center. Since 1847, Utah schools have served as community centers. The laws which reCOgnized, encouraged, and author— ized the community use of school facilities were antecedents of the Community-School law of 1970. As has been revealed above, precedents for such legislation were well established before adoption of the Community-School concept in the fall of 1967. Vocational Education Vocational education has always been part of Utah educa- tion, and was formally recognized in the 1870's when it was included in the curriculum of Brigham Young College in Logan. The State Constitution which was adOpted at the time of state- hood in 1896 established the foundation for later development of vocational education: The public school system shall include kindergarten schools, common schools, consisting of primary and grammar grades; high schools; an agricultural college; a university; and other such schools as the Legislature 13Ibid., pp. 37—44, passim. 100 may establish. The common schools shall be free. The other departments of the system shall be supported as provided by law.14 Oleen Hess has discussed the history of vocational agri- culture programs in Utah. In a summary, she stated the following: The Utah legislature passed school laws that were favorable to and aided in the establishment of agri- culture of less than college grade in the public schools. The 1890 free school law opened the schools to the general population and practical education followed. The school consolidation laws of 1905 and 1915 provided standard rural high schools and allowed employment of vocational supervisors which demonstrated the value of such activities and furthered the practical education movement. The high schools were required to offer industrial courses by a law enacted in 1911 which placed agriculture in the curriculum of the rural high schools. The minimum school finance law of 1947 provided funds for agriculture on the same basis as any other course, and for the first time the program was not faced with insufficient funds.15 As e rly as 1918 Utah spent $19,708.33 of state and local funds for vocational agriculture. The federal contribution in 1918 was an additional $5,000.16 All of the early vocational programs were oriented to agriculture and homemaking because of the nature of the Utah economy. The first state laws relating to vocational educa— tion were passed in 1917. They reflect the economic concerns of the lawmakers. One section of the 1917 laws provided for 14Constitution of the State of Utah, Article x, Section 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, Volume I (Indianapolis, Indiana: Allen Smith Company, 1953), pp. 246-47. ' 15Oleen Hess, The History of Vocational Agriculture in Utah (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964), pp. 336-37. 16Ibid., p. 373. 101 the acceptance of federal programs: The state of Utah hereby renews its acceptance of sections 2, 3 and 4, and all the benefits of the act of congress entitled, "An act to provide for coopera— tion with the states in the promotion of such education in agriculture and the trades and industries; to provide for cooperation with the states in the preparation of teachers of vocational subjects; and to appropriate money and regulate its expenditure," approved February 23, 1917, and will observe and comply with all the requirements of said act. 9-2—1 (53-16-1) Another section, 9-2-1 (A) (53-16-2), provided for con- trol of vocational education by the State Board of Education. An additional section provided for state supervisors of voca- tional education, and outlined their responsibilities: The supervisors of agricultural and industrial and home-economics education shall do their work under the supervision of the state board of education. They shall systematize the teaching of agriculture and trade and industrial education and home economics in the high schools and district schools of the state, and suggest the courses particularly suited to the individual stu- dents and to the communities in which the schools are located. . . . 9—2-1 (I) (53-15-1) The establishment of state supervisors of vocational educa— tion had far—reaching effeCts, particularly in the continuity of development of vocational programs in local communities throughout the state. One particularly pertinent part of the law is the responsibility of the supervisors to "suggest the courses particularly suited . . . to the communities in which the schools are located." The vocational concerns of the local communities were reflected in programs developed under these guidelines. 102 In 1918 more than 1100 students were enrolled in three kinds of vocational education programs: preparatory pro- grams, part-time programs for new workers, and evening programs for established adult workers.17 An important law was passed in 1919, permitting local school districts to develOp vocational education programs, and providing a basis for the work of the state supervisors. The law was updated in 1945 to include business and distri— butive subjects, but it remained the basis for the development of vocational education programs throughout the state: The board of education of any school district may establish and maintain all-day vocational schools or classes, giving instruction in agricultural subjects, trade or industrial subjects, evening schools or classes, giving instruction supplemental to the daily classes, giving instruction supplemental to promote civic and' patriotic service continuing over the entire year; and may raise and expend money for said purposes in the same manner as other mOney is raised and expended for school purposes. 9—2-1 (E) (53-16-7) Gradual development of vocational education programs under law has taken place. Community needs have been viewed in perspective with state and national needs. By 1966, thirty-eight of the forty school districts and eight post- secondary schools conducted vocational education programs related to agriculture, business, and industry. In addition to colleges, five trade-technical schools were established-- Utah Technical College at Salt Lake, Utah Technical College 17Mark Nichols, "Vocational Education-—0ur Fix in '76?" Utah State Board of Education, mimeographed, n.d., p. l. 103 at Provo, Cache Valley Vocational Center, Sevier Valley Technical, and Uintah Basin Area Vocational Center. Table l on page 104 presents the number of students enrolled in vocational education during seven representative years from 1925 to 1965. These figures reveal the continuous development of vocational education programs in response to community, state, and national needs. At the advent of the Community-School in 1968, vocational education programs were very strong. Vocational Agriculture was offered in forty-three high schools throughout the state, involving more than 1100 participants. There were 58 pro— grams of Marketing and Distributive Education. Health Occu— pations Education programs, a new and rapidly expanding response to community needs, were successful in five high schools. Home Economics programs were offered in every secondary school in the state. Twenty—five districts had an attendance of 6,700 adults in home economics programs. Girls numbering 4,172 were members of 65 chapters of Future Homemakers of America. Ten new programs in Gainful Home Economics were operating, with plans for expansion. Several programs for economically and socially handicapped adults were conducted in the urban areas of the state. A total of 21,136 students were enrolled in programs of Office Occupations, with work continuing on simulation, cooperative work experience, mobile classrooms, and other developments. 104 .H .m ..p.c .mocomd Hmcowumospm mumum amua may mo uuommu pmcamumoo8«s m =.£mpD cw cowumuspm Hmcowumuo> mo wuoumwm: ”condom .uod copumm mmuoow .HHH cause Amos: pmcwmnu HOQEsztt .pmunsa mm munch on» mcwusp GOAHOHOQO cw uoc one? pmumwa uoc mum mucoEHHoucm nowc3 cs mamumoum .cowumuspm mo ouammo .m .D on» on manommu an c30£m mm mucosaaoscms mmm II II In II II II masseuse Husband: .OH I- I; mew oom.oa ppm nu I- schnapps cmuoum> .m masseuse oncommn I- u: I- .: mas.mm u- u: can coauusooum ups .m mam.a.. eeo.. nu An. In I- I: schnapps cpaoacsoms .s was new I: I: u- I: In acoeumnsuoo custom .o omm.oa I: I: I- I: u- I: ncoaummsooo muammo .m ooe.~ oao.e omn.¢ mmm.o mma.¢ .. In consensus m>auonanunao .e mos.s omm.m Hmm.m 66¢.c msm.a «mm mmm nosuunsocH 6cm nmomne .m mse.ms eom.ms oss.ma ~mo.m~ sm~.m omm.m mam.m mcaxmemeom .m Hm~.e mos.e oms.e mmm.o mas.~ ~o~.~ ~¢H.H muonssonnme .H moms coma mmms - omma mama mmms mums consumm Hmcoaumuo> snow Hmomsm D - - O n . I II ' , ' sQMBflUHQZH md UZHQZW m4MN Q EdBD H MAMdE 105 Trade and Industrial Education prOgrams were offered in 57 high schools enrolling 2,862 students. Programs in Industrial Arts were offered in all secondary schools. Twenty-four institutional training prOgrams were carried out in Manpower Development and Training. Seventy-five inmates of the Utah State Prison participated in a federally-supported vocational program. In addition to all these established programs, more than a dozen research and development projects were under way.18 In 1937 the state reaffirmed its acceptance of federal vocational rehabilitation programs approved by Congress in 1920, and adopted by Utah in 1921. By law a Division of Vocational Rehabilitation was established in the State Board 19 of Education. From that time forward vocational rehabilita- tion programs were extended from the State Board of Education throughout the state as indicated by the following: An examination of all state school reports clearly indicates a consistent and gradual growth of the services provided through the vocational rehabilitation program during the forty-five years of its history.2 18Biennial Report of the State Spperintendent of Public Instruction, Volume I (Salt Lake City: Utah State Board_ of Education, 1968), pp. 19— 24, passim. 19§chool Laws o§;the State of Utah 1969, 9-2-4 (A through L) (53-17-7 through 22). 0Historical Perppective on Major Educational Changes in Utah, 1847-1966 (Salt Lake City: Utah State Board of Education, 1966), p. 29. 106 In 1967 the Division of Rehabilitation was upgraded to the Office of Rehabilitation Services, whose basic mission continued to be the vocational rehabilitation of disabled peOple. The Office of Rehabilitation Services was divided into four divisions--Vocational Rehabilitation, Services for Adult Deaf, Services for Visually Handicapped, and DisabiIity Determinations. During the 1966-1968 biennium, 4,011 cases were accepted for service. Cases closed in employment were 2,772. Large increases in cases and personnel reflected the «concern of the state government for disabled persons in local communities . 2 1 An Apprenticeship Council was established by state law 111 1943. Its purpose was to govern voluntary apprenticeship programs for young peOple sixteen years of age and older. {Brie act, 9—2-3 (35-8-1), was amended several times before Jreaaching its present form, which declares that it is public policy "To open to young people the opportunity to obtain tzraaining'that will equip them for profitable employment and citizenship. . . . This brief discussion of vocational education in Utah fir<>mn 1896 to 1967 has illustrated the powerful Community- SC11<301 antecedents provided by laws and programs extant dur- ins; that time. Legislators'and other state officials were ac‘=\istomed to passing legislation in response to the changing needs of citizens in local communities. The passage of Zlfiiennial Report. 2p, cit., pp. 81-88, passim. 107 Community-School legislation was another step in this direc- tion, especially since vocational education programs are a Thallmark of the Community—School. Adult Education Adult education antecedents in Utah from 1896 to 1967 provide background support for Community-School legislation. During this time adult education programs continued and gradually develOped from a base of earlier tradition. :Legislation, programs, and expenditures for adult education ciuring this time illustrate Community-School antecedents in this important characteristic. Legislation for the support of adult education programs 111 local districts was relatively slow in adOption. Major provisions of the laws date to 1937, when "general control axici supervision of adult education" was vested in the State Board of Education by act 9-2-5 (A) (53-30-2) . The legisla- ture further provided for local district programs in the f0 1 lowing : Every district school board of education in this state may raise and appropriate funds for adult educa— tion, determine fees to be levied, if any, and through its superintendent may hire teachers, establish and maintain classes for adults in English, the fundamental principles of democratic government, citizenship, public affairs, workers' education, forums, arts and crafts,; general cultural subjects, adult recreation and such other subjects as the state board of education may determine upon. Said classes shall be subject to the regulations of the state board of education; and shall be organized to meet the needs of the adults in their state; and, as far as practicable, shall be held at 108 such times and places as are most convenient and access— ible to the members of the class. 9-2-5 (B) 53-30-2 Another section of the 1937 act provided that any person who had graduated from high school or who was at least eighteen years old was eligible to enroll in adult education programs. The state recognized the difficulty some people *would have in paying class fees, and made provisions in this‘ section: . . . The district superintendent of schools may with the recommendation of the county department of public welfare exempt any adult from the payment of any fees levied for participation in the adult education program. 9-2-5 (D) (53-30-5) A law had been enacted in 1898 providing for free educa— ‘ttion for children between the ages of six and eighteen. Erlae act was amended in 1963 to include those who had not completed high school up to age twenty-one: In each school district the public schools shall be free to all children between the ages of six and eighteen years who are residents of said district except that such schools shall also be free to persons who have not completed high school up to and including the age of twenty-one years. 7-1-2 (53-4—7) This act came in response to the 1960 census which 811<>V7ed that there were 185,286 individuals 25 years of age °r’ (older who had not graduated from high school. Since there ware about 1900 students dropping out of school each year, many adults-were given a second chance through programs 109 provided for by this act.22 Adult programs in Americanization Education were pro— vided for by law as early as 1919. This law states: All aliens residing in this state, except those who may be physically or mentally disqualified, between the ages of sixteen and thirty-five years, who do not possess such ability to speak, read and write the English language as is required for the completion of the fifth grade of the public schools, shall attend a public evening school class for at least four hours a week during the entire time an evening school class of the prOper grade shall be in session in the district in which he resides . . . Or until the necessary ability has been acquired. . . . 9-3—2 (B) (53-27-3) JNnericanization programs gradually became part of the tradi— taional programs. Annual summary reports reveal that in 11964-65 twenty-two programs enrolled 383 alien students. 111 1965-66 twenty-one prOgrams enrolled 365. In 1966-67 ESJL8 students were enrolled in forty-eight programs, as seen .iri Table 2 on page 111. Another example of legislative concern for adult educa- tion is provided by the 1967 Adult Driver Training law, "1'1 1 ch states : Local Boards of Education, with the consent of the commissioner of Public Safety, are hereby authorized to conduct classes in driving education for adult members of the district in those areas of the state where no commercial driver training course is available, and are authorized to charge a fee for such training; not to exceed the cost for said training. . 9- 3- l (J) — (41-18- 8) 22gipppileeport of the State Superintendent of Public lifizsguction, 1966— 68, Volume I, p. 33. 110 Driver education had become a critical need in the modern high-speed world. The LegiSlature recognized that many adults had no access to commercial training, especially in the distant rural areas. This law was a typical example of legislative response to local community needs. In 1965 a program of Adult Basic Education was started in response to the needs of individuals 18 years of age or older who were unable to function effectively at an eighth grade level in arithmetic and communication skills. During the 1967-68 school year 1,625 adults received instruction-— 535 at grade levels one to three, 556 at grade levels four to six, and 534 at grade levels seven and eight.23 Table 2 on page 111 presents a summary of Utah adult education programs during the 1966-67 school year. The sixteen program categories, 1,269 programs, and 29,456 stu- dents demonstrate vividly the extent of the state-wide com- mitment to adult education prior to the advent of the Community-School in late 1967. Table 3 on page 112 presents a summary of adult educa- tion programs during the 1967—68 school Year, including three Civil Defense Education programs along with sixteen other programs. The totals of 1,863 programs and 43,123 enrollments provide further evidence of the broad commitment of the Utah Legislature and educational establishment to adult education. Civil Defense Education programs exemplify ‘ ”Biennial Report, ]_.:966-68. 92» .cit.. pp» 32-34: passLm. 111 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF UTAH ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1966-1967 (Number of Courses Offered and Student Enrollments by Subject Area*) Number of Number of Program Programs Students Adult High School Completion 590 12,490 High School Graduation --- ~l,008 Adult Basic Education 64 1,140 Americanization Education 48 618 Arts and Crafts 175 2,466 Avocational _43 1,229 Business Education '30 663 Civic and Public Affairs 25 891 English and Literature 6 106 Foreign Language 23 206 Health, Safety, and Physical 141 3,099 Education ' Homemaking and Family Life 67 1,945 Education Leadership Training, Group 11 247' Relations Music and Drama 8 233 Remedial Education 3 24 Other 35 4,099 Grand total 1,269 29,456 *Adapted from a summary published by the Utah State Board' of Education, 1967. 112 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF UTAH ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1967-1968 (Number of Courses Offered and Student Enrollments by Program Area*) Number of Number of Students Program Programs Enrolled Adult High School Completion 654 11,344 High School Graduation 1,092 Adult Basic Education 113 1,648 Americanization Education 33 394 Arts and Crafts 188 2,333 Avocational 37 627 Business Education 55 953 Civic and Public Affairs 7 892 English and Literature 26 848 Foreign Language 16 181 Health, Safety, and Physical Education 139 4,744 Homemaking and Family Life Education 85 2,602 Leadership Training, Group Relations 15 166 Music and Drama 9 311 Other 64 6,099 Civil Defense Education: Shelter Management 11 207 Radiological Monitoring 29 359 Personal and Family Survival “ 382 9,415 Grand total 1,863 43,123** *Adapted from "Adult Education Report," Adult Education Section, Division of Special Education Services, Utah State Board of Education, November, 1968, p. **Total enrollment figures include some college and univer- sity courses, television course in Ogden, and senior citizens voluntary program. Some students enrolled for more than one course, so the total enrollment exceeds the actual number of students. 113 state response to adult needs. From a beginning in 1966, by 1968 adults numbering 6,311 had completed training in Personal and Family Survival, Radiological Monitoring, and Shelter Management.24 Expenditures for adult education gradually increased from about $20,000 per year in 1937 to $479,971 during the 1967-68 school year. The total yearly expenditures for adult education from 1960-61 to 1969-70 are presented in Table 4. TABLE 4 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR ADULT EDUCATION From 1960-1961 THROUGH 1969-1970* 1960-61 $145,386 1965—66 $312,102 1961-62 185,492 1966-67 415,242 1962-63 202,665 1967-68 479,971 1963—64 277,904 1968-69 917,612 1964-65 293,115 1969-70 463,121 (incomplete) *Adapted from Ten Year Study of Expenditures for Public School Districts of Utah/“Maintenance and Operation Fund, 1960-61 to 1969—70, Utah State Board of Education, Auxiliary Services, December, 1969, p. 50. An article from the Ogden Standard-Examiner in Septem— ber 1968 expressed the interest and participation in adult 2411616., pp. 34-35. 114 education programs in northern Utah. The article-illustrates the success of state—wide programs of similar nature: Adult Education Study Draws Over 20,000 Northern Utahns Continuing education for adults in three Northern Utah counties is a going concern. More than 20,000 persons from 18 years of age to over 80 took advantage of adult education courses in Weber, Davis, and Box Elder counties last year. More will do so this year. . . .25 Courses described in the article include work toward high school diploma, basic education, and vocational training. The article reports programs typical of those in other parts of the state. This cursory examination of laws, programs, and expendi- tures for Utah adult education during the 1896-1967 period shows conclusively the existence of powerful antecedents of the Community School. It was interest in adult education that prompted the original investigation of the Community- School in the fall of 1967. Because adult education is in- herent within the CommunityASchool concept, it was a logical next step from adult education legislation and programs to Community-School legislation and programs. Response to Community Needs, and _Concern for Individuals ' Many definitions of the Community-School include the A characteristics of response to the needs of the-local and 25"Adult Education Study Draws Over 20,000 Northern Utahns," Standard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah, September 15, 1968. 115 extended community, and concern for all citizens. Examples of these definitive characteristics antecedent to the Community-School are found in a brief look at laws, programs, and expenditures in Utah during the 1896-1967 period. Concern for community and individual needs was particularly visible in the early establishment of school-centered com— munities, as outlined in Chapter VI. These were basically local rather than state efforts, but with growing regulation, encouragement and supervision from the state. After 1896, Utah gradually became able to respond more fully to the geeds of communities and individual citizens. The state educational program began when Utah was ad- mitted to the Union on January 4, 1896. The Enabling Act of 1895 had provided for free public education. This was in- cluded in Article X of the Constitution which was adopted in 1895. The Legislature was charged to "provide for the establishment of a uniform system of public schools, which shall be Open to all children of the state, and be free from sectarian control." The Legislature responded to this man- date and to the needs of the local communities by creating the State Board of Education and local school districts. Although (or perhaps because) the Mbrmon Church had been dominant in Utah since 1847, the constitutional separation of church and state was very distinct, with many general and specific provisions relating to education. As quoted below, Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution clearly shows that statehood was founded upon a concern for individuals: 116 The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a wit- ness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any Church dominate the State or inter— fere with its functions. No public money or property shall be apprOpriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of an eccelsiastical establishment. No property qualifica- tion shall be required of any person to vote, or hold office, except as provided in this Constitution. Several sections of Article X of the Constitution re— flect the concern for separation of church and state in educational matters. Article X, Section 12 and 13 are examples: No religious or partisan test or qualification shall be required of any person, as a condition of admission, as teacher or student, into any public educational institution of the State. Neither the Legislature nor any county, city, town, school district or other public corporation, shall make any apprOpriation to aid in the support of any school, seminary, academy, college, university or other institu- tion controlled in whole, or in part, by any church, sect or denomination whatever. Compulsory attendance laws which were passed in 1898, though difficult to enforce for several years, recognized that communities could not develOp good educational programs unless students were required to attend. In 1919 the age for compulsory attendance was raised from age 16 to age 18. This has been an important factor contributing to the relatively high educational attainment of Utah citizens. The law now reads: 117 Every parent, guardian or other person having control of any minor between six and eighteen years of age shall be required to send such minor to a public or regularly established private school during the regularly established school year of the district in which he resides; . . . 7-1-3 (53-24-1) In 1898 an act provided for free public education for children age 6 to 16. In 1919 the act was amended to read age 6 to 18. In 1963 the act was again amended to provide free school education up to age 21 or graduation from high school. The act now reads: In each school district the public schools shall be free to all children between the ages of six and eighteen years who are-residents of said district except that such schools shall also be free to persons who have not completed high school up to and including the age of twenty-one years. 7-1-2 (53-4-7) Further concern for all was demonstrated in a 1919 act (7-2-1 (C), (53-2;27)), which permitted local school boards to develop programs "for the promotion of the physical wel- fare of children of pre-school age . . . including the education of parents in matters pertaining to child welfare. . . ." This concern for pre-school children was emphasized in 1951 when the Attorney General stated that "Local boards of health have authority to conduct pre-school "26 examinations. This also demonstrated the continuing co— operation of school with community. 26AGO: Pre-School Physical Examination, School Laws, 1969. 22. cit., p. 142. 118 The Legislature recognized the need for pre—school education by an act in 1913 providing for the establishment of kindergartens in the local districts. (9-1—1 (A), (53-19-1)) An act in 1913 required the teaching of the effects of stimulants and narcotics. Teaching of the Constitution of the United States was required by an act passed in 1923. These two are examples of many miscellaneous acts responding to concern for community and individual within a democratic process of public education. Other examples are Special Education programs for the handicapped in 1941; a 1943 act providing for free tuition, books, and supplies for widows and children of veterans; and continuation of the special programs, established in 1898 and earlier, for the deaf and blind. The American Indians constitute the major racial-cultural minority group in Utah. Their reservation status resulted in.slow development of educational programs, but state law in.regard to their education was clarified by the Attorney General-in 1962 with the following ruling: Utah law grants an Indian, or any child otherwise qualified, whether residing on or off an Indian reser- vation, the rights to attend public schools and the rights attendant thereto. Indian children should be accorded the same trans? portation as other children. If the geographical loca- tion of Indian children living on a reservation makes the cost of transportation prohibitive, some overall nondiscriminatory adjustments might be made. 119 The compulsory attendance law may be enforced where the Indian tribe concerned adopts a resolution allowing enforcement of the state law.‘ Statewide consolidation of small school districts began in 1896 when a law specified that a newly created school district must have at least twenty children of school age. Several later acts created further conditions for consoli- dation. In 1915 the major consolidation took place, result— ing in forty school districts, each large enough to provide the educational programs needed in the local communities. Continuing concern for equal Opportunity of all citi- zens was expressed in school finance programs. The gradual develOpment of uniform state-supported basic school finance zarwograms brought all the resources of the state to bear on the problems and needs of each local district. As a result of the gradual development Of equalization programs after 1931 and maturing in 1947, the smallest and poorest districts ‘vcazrea pfOVided with the financial resources to deve10p educa— txiCDIIal programs on a par with the largest and richest dis— tricrts. For example, in 1967-68, Daggett County School District spent $1,177.06 per student for 187 students in aVe-‘r‘age daily attendance, while Murray City School District Spent $449.31 per student for 6,217 students.28 Daggett County is an area of small pOpulation and low economic \ Sc}; :27AGO: Public School Education for Indian Children, “Laws, 1969, pp. cit., p. 141. 28Ten Year Study, 9p. cit., pp. 46a, 57. 120 resources geographically isolated and far distant from urban areas, while Murray City is in the heart of the Urban area. An act in 1921 reinforced the separation of church and state and prohibited the teaching of partisan religious or political doctrine. Concern for the citizens was particu- larly evident in the final sentence of the act: . . . Nothing in this section shall be deemed to pro- hibit the giving of any moral instruction tending to impress upon the minds of the students the importance and necessity of good manners, truthfulness, temper- ance, purity, patriotism and industry, but such instruction shall be given in connection with the regular school work. 9-1-2 (8) (10) 53-1-4 In addition to constitutional provisions and legislative acts, educational programs and expenditures during this period illustrate reciprocal response of school and community. luzarry of the traditional programs have now been recognized as inherently within the Community-School concept. RobertI“ Leake submitted a report of joint swimming POO]. use by school and community to the State Board of Educa- tlitarl in July, 1968. Leake reported the cooperative use of seventeen pools in fifteen cities within eleven school dis- trTi<:1:s, revealing that “In all instances there is cooperative comlrnllnity-school use of these swimming pools. . . . In most inst-ar1ces funds for construction have come from both the School district and the community.“29 Leake also cited the \ GaJL :zgRobert L. Leake, "Swimming Pools Used in School Physi- JuJL IEducation Programs in Utah," memo to Supt. Lerue Winget, 5'qu 9. 1968, General Exhibit No. 583, Utah State Board of cation, 1968. 121 common practice of school use of private pools. A large group of Utahns visited Flint, Michigan in May 1970, to learn more about the Community-School programs there. After hearing examples of the Community~School con- cept of community and school use of each other's facilities, one Utahn said, "Why that's nothing new. We've been doing things like that for as long as I can remember." He and other members of his group then proceeded to relate innumer— able Community-School activities which were traditional in Utah, including several of those listed here previously under the heading of The School as Community Center. The response of the State Legislature and the educational establishment to the needs of the local districts and com- munities is amply illustrated by expenditures in educational programs closely related to the Community-School concept. Table 5 on page 122 summarizes expenditures in three such Community-School related categories. Community Services is a general category which includes programs such as public libraries, community recreation, civic activities, and detention care. The Adult Education category includes sixteen ’ cu more programs as shown in Table 2 on page 111. Summer School and Extended Year programs were basically extensions of regular programs, but generally limited to students with, special problems, interests, and abilities. 122 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES IN THREE CATEGORIES RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 1960-1961 TO 1968-1969* Categories of Expenditures ,(Amount Spent by School Year) School Community Adult Summer School and Year Services** Education Extended Year 1960-61 $306,410 $145,386 $318,964 1961-62 412,962 185,492 342,688 1962-63 198,214 202,665 416,768 1963-64 547,465 277,904 424,329 1964-65 605,755 293,115 346,456 1965-66 180,725 312,102 1,034,545 1966-67 191,698 415,242 959,472 1967-68 235,013 479,971 1,015,975 1968-69 261,072 917,612 1,017,316 *Adapted from Ten Year Study of Expenditures for Public School Districts of Utah, Maintenance and Operation Fund, 1960-61 to 1969-70, Utah State Board of Education, Auxiliary Services, December, 1969, pp. 49-51. **Community Services include public library, recreation, and civic activities. 123 Summary Laws, programs, expenditures, and traditions reviewed in this chapter amply illustrate the fact that antecedents of the Community—School abounded in Utah from 1896 to 1967. The schools served as community centers, specifically authorized and required by "Civic Center" laws passed in 1901 and 1917. The constant use of school facilities by the community was recognized and encouraged by the State Legis- lature and the State Board of Education, with control left with local boards of education. Vocational education, another basic characteristic of the Community-School, was developed from a base in the agricultural economy of Utah. Basic state laws and programs dating from 1918 stimulated the develOpment of vocational education to the extent that by 1968 every secondary school in the state had vocational programs, and many adult voca- tional programs had develOped as well. Adult Education programs developed continuously during this period, with particularly strong impetus from acts passed in 1937. Free public school education to age twenty- one, adult basic education, Americanization education, adult driver education, civil defense education, and many other programs enrolled 43,123 adult students by 1968, and growth was continuing. Response to community and individual needs was evident in the Constitution and in many acts passed during this time. 124 Compulsory attendance, basic financial support, joint school- community endeavors, and other programs illustrated state and local legislative and educational concern. Expenditures in community services and other categories related to the Community-School was further evidence that powerful ante- cedents of the Community-School proliferated from 1896 to l967—-from statehood to the advent of the Community-School. CHAPTER VIII ADOPTION OF THE MODERN COMMUNITY-SCHOOL IN UTAH, FROM DISCOVERY IN 1967 TO LEGISLATIVE FUNDING IN 1970 Introduction The philosophy and practice of the Community-School has existed in Utah since 1847, but the modern Community— School was born in the fall of 1967. Many people subse— quently nourished the infant program, but two men shared the fatherhood of the modern Community—School. These men are Dr. Avard A. Rigby, Administrator of Special Educational Services of the Utah State School Agency, and Dr. Israel C Heaton, Director of the BYU Regional Center for Community- School Deve10pment. At one time both Dr. Heaton and Dr. Rigby were members of the Brigham Young University faculty but Dr. Rigby was only informally acquainted with Dr. Heaton by reputation, and Dr. Heaton did not know Dr. Rigby at all. These two men with so much in common in educational philosOphy and ideals became concurrently involved with the Community-School concept during the summer and fall of 1967, each with no knowledge of the other's interest. They were soon to combine and coordinate their efforts and the efforts of many others 125 126 throughout the state. These efforts would culminate in the legislative adOption of the Community-School in 1970. The appropriation of $200,000 earmarked for Community-School programs was evidence that the infant Community-School had matured and had become an accepted member of the state family of educational programs. This chapter tells the story of the conception, birth, and early develOpment of the modern Community-School in Utah, growing out of the historical and cultural history extending back to 1830. Conception and Birthppf the Utah Community—School Philosophy Dr. I_ra_l C Heaton Dr. Israel C Heaton of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, had first glimpsed the possibilities of the Community-School when he learned of the Mott Programs of the Flint, Michigan, Board of Education in 1961. This first interest came as a result of a study conducted by Provo City and Provo School District to investigate successful coopera- tive programs in the nation. This cooperative interest grew out of a joint agreement of city and district to develOp the grounds of Farrer Jr. High School for school and community use in 1955. Dr. Heaton got involved because of his work in community recreation programs, and through his work in AAHPER. He got personally acquainted with several of the Mott 127 Program personnel, and with the Flint concept of the Community-School. Dr. Heaton's first direct contact with Flint came in 1964, when he and three men from Provo attended a Community- School workshop in Flint in 1964. He went again in 1965. Following the visit in 1964, Dr. Heaton helped to persuade Provo City and Provo School District to continue the develOp- ment of cooperative recreation programs modeled somewhat after the concept of the Flint Community-Schools, but little was done to promote the "Community-school“ as such is now understood. Dr. Heaton's enthusiasm for the Community-School philosophy leaped after he attended a convention of AAHPER in Las Vegas, Nevada, in March 1967. There he viewed the Mott Program film "To Touch 3 Child," which told the story of the develOpment of Communityéschool programs in Flint. Michigan, under the auspices of the Mott Foundation. The film suggested that the same kind of programs could be developed in other communities. Although he probably had seen the film before, this time it struck a responsive chord, and Dr. Heaton determined to see what could be done to pro- mote this type of school and community cooperation on a scale heretofore unknown in Utah. Dr. Heaton learned that the Mott Foundation promoted the adoption of the Community-School by providing “seed money" grants to local school districts. By the summer of ' 128 1967, Heaton had started planning with staff members of the Provo City Board of Education to make a formal prOposal for a grant from the Mott Foundation to start Community-School programs in Provo. This cooperation would be a continua- tion of the relationship Of BYU and Provo in the develOpment of recreation and community programs. Dr. Avard A. Rigby At the same time during the summer of 1967, events were transpiring on the level of the State Educational Agency in Salt Lake City, through the efforts of Dr. Avard A. Rigby, Administrator of Special Educational Services of the Utah State Department of Public Instruction. The three divisions that Dr. Rigby administered through Special Educational Services included Adult Education, Pupil Personnel Services and Special Education Programs. In the summer of 1967 Dr. Rigby was particularly con- cerned about adult education and recreation in Utah, especially among senior citizens. In August Dr. Rigby attended an adult education convention held at Alta, a ski resort high in the mountains near Salt Lake City. Also attending the convention was Roy B. Minnis, Program Officer for Adult, Vocational and Technical Education in the Region VIII office of the United States Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare, located in Denver, Colorado. As they drove together back to Salt Lake City after the convention, Minnis and Rigby discussed the problems of 129 adult education and recreation in Utah, Dr. Rigby wondering what might be done in Utah communities. Mr. Minnis asked Dr. Rigby if he knew of the Flint, Michigan, Mott Community- School programs. Dr. Rigby replied that he had never heard of the Mott Programs. Mr. Minnis had been acquainted with the Flint Community- School program for more than fifteen years through his association with Frank Manley, Joe Wargo, Myrtle Black, and other staff members of the Flint School District and the Mott Foundation. Mr. Minnis was surprised to learn that Dr. Rigby's first acquaintance with the Flint program really was through him. In a letter to this writer he said, "If Dr. Rigby of the Utah State Board of Education wasn't such a serious individual I would feel that he was putting you on about the fact that the first he had ever heard of the Mott Program was from me."1 Although Dr. Rigby had not heard before of the Mott Pro- gram in Flint, he got excited about the possibilities as Minnis described the program. Instead of going on to down- town Salt Lake City as planned, Dr. Rigby stopped at his home and immediately tried to telephone Frank Manley at the MOtt Foundation office in Flint. Because Manley was not available, Dr. Rigby was referred to Dr. Peter Clancy, Director of the Mott program and Assistant Superintendent for 1Roy B. Minnis, personal letter, October 22, 1970. 130 Community Education for the Flint Board of Education. In this telephone conversation was laid the groundwork which lead to the establishment of the Community—School as a pro- gram of the Utah State Educational Agency. Dr. Rigby discussed with Dr. Clancy the various avenues for getting help for Utahns to become acquainted with the Flint concept of the Community-School. They decided that instead of holding a conference in Utah featuring personnel of the Flint program, it would be better to have Flint host a visitation from a delegation of educational, civic, service, and business leaders representing Utah. This would provide a first—hand demonstration of the actual Community-School programs in Flint. Mott ProgrampPresented in Utah Resulting from this conversation and subsequent com- munications, the decision was made that a member of the Conferences and Visitations staff of the Mott Program would go to Utah to present the Community—School philosophy to Dr. Rigby and other members of the State Educational Agency, and to complete arrangements for a visit to Flint. Dr. Rigby recognized that the Community—School was an expression of the educational philosophy and ideals of Utah. He ac- quired literature and the film "To Touch a Child" from the Mott Programs office. "To Touch a Child" was shown to about twenty of the forty Utah school superintendents at a drive-in conference 131 in Park City in the fall of 1967. Subsequently it was viewed by several other groups. The reaction of superintendents and others was so positive that Dr. Rigby scheduled two viewings of the film during the annual convention of the Utah Education Association on October 5th and 6th. Thus began the statewide diffusion of the modern Community-School philosOphy. Dr. Rigby was also busy planning the visit to Flint. In a memorandum to local district superintendents dated October 2, 1967, he explained the Community—School philosophy of Flint, and proposed the organization of a representative team of key educators, board members, and other community leaders to visit the Flint program. He also explained that Larry Briggs, Consultant for the Mott Program, would come to Salt Lake City to assist in completing the plans for the visit.2 Dr. Rigby scheduled a lS-minute hearing with the State School Board for October 13, 1967, at which Larry Briggs presented the Community-School concept. Because of the in- tense interest of the Board members, the 15 minutes stretched to an hour and a half. The minutes for the Board meeting that day reflect the immediate recognition of the members that the Community-School philosophy was compatible with the educational ideals and needs of Utah: '2Avard A. Rigby, Memorandum to Local District Superin- tendents, October 2, 1967, Utah State Board of Education. Dr. Avard Rigby, Administrator, Division of Special Educational Services, met with the Board and introduced to the Board Mr. Larry Briggs of the Mott Foundation, Flint, Michigan. They presented the film "To Touch A Child.” The Flint Board of Education has been providing considerable leadership in the field of adult education and the community-centered program over the last fifteen or twenty years. The film told a story of a community effort to resolve its own problems through its own resources and to provide continuing education. Utah has become interested in this program because of its interest in stimulating such a program in this state. ' Board members were very much interested in the film presentation and thanked Mr. Briggs for coming to our state and telling them of the experiment in Flint, Michigan.3 Utah GrouppVisitation to FlintLgMichigan The State School Board, Superintendent T. H. Bell, and State Educational Agency staff members approved the sponsor- ing of a visit of a Utah delegation to Flint. Through the communication channels of the State Educational Agency, Dr. Rigby soon obtained a statewide representation for this first delegation. On October 27th a planning session was held with local school district personnel, and the visit to Flint was planned for November 13-15, 1967. Now the efforts of Israel Heaton and Avard Rigby began to converge. Dr. Heaton was already working with staff members of Provo City and Provo School District to prepare a prOposal for submission to the Mott Foundation. When Superintendent Sherman Wing received the communication from Dr. Rigby telling of the proposed visit, Dr. Heaton was 3Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education, October 13, 1967, pp. 6520-21. 133 informed. They decided that a delegation would go to Flint, with the express purpose of presenting a proposal to the Foundation for a grant to aid in the establishment of Community-School programs in Provo. Of the forty-six people who subsequently visited Flint, eight were members of the BYU-Provo delegation. The list of delegates presented in Appendix A reveals the statewide cross section of influential people who later were to become instrumental in diffusing the Community-School concept throughout the state. These participants represented twenty school districts, as well as three cities, a state college and three universi- ties, the State Educational Agency, and a region comprised of ten school districts. Their varied interests included not only Community-School programs, but also vocational centers and intermediate district operation, a new concept in Utah. While in Flint, the Provo delegation led by Dr. Israel Heaton met with Mott Foundation personnel to present their proposal for a grant. Dr. Avard Rigby had been informed about the proposal and encouraged the Provo delegation in their plans. At this time the Mott Foundation was interested in establishing additional community education dissemination centers within cooPerating universities. Foundation person- nel informed the Provo delegation that the foundation had ceased to make grants to individual school districts, but would consider a prOposal from Brigham Young University to 134 become a Community-School dissemination center. When in— formed of this development, Dr. Rigby expressed his support and said he was sure there would be no opposition from any state official. This development was something of a surprise to the BYU—Provo delegation, since they had given no consideration to such a possibility. In fact, they had gone to Flint well— prepared with the Provo proposal. The 46—member Utah delegation returned to Utah happier, wiser, and plotting to get Community—Schools started at home. The conference provided for them was the first one ever held by the Mott Program exclusively for a single state delega- tion. In personal interviews during the spring of 1970, several of the Mott personnel stated that after the conference they felt very strongly that their efforts had been rewarded. They believed that the response of the Utahns had been very positive. In retrospect, they believed that this visitation provided the foundation for the establishment of the Community- School in Utah, because of the representative cross-section of organizations and roles and because of the intense interest and understanding demonstrated. Mott personnel were slightly chagrined about one thing. They had kept trying to serve coffee to the milk-drinking Utahns and could not understand why nobody would drink it! Then they discovered that most of the Utah delegates were active Mormons and did not drink coffee, and they quickly switched to serving milk and fruit juices. 135 Earlier Utah Visitors to Flint The visit of Larry Briggs to Utah and the subsequent visit of the 46 Utahns to Flint was not the first involve- ment of Utahns in the Mott PrOgrams. The first recorded participation in Flint Community-School activities was by Dr. Francis Kirkham of Salt Lake City, a member of the State Committee for Physical Fitness.4 Dr. Kirkham attended the Second National Community SchOol Clinic held in March, 1960. The second visitor from Utah was Vernon J. LeeMaster, specialist in music education for Salt Lake City Schools. He visited Flint in November, 1963, to study music activities, many of which were made possible by Community-School programs. Upon his return to Salt Lake City, Mr. LeeMaster reported to the central office staff, directing some attention to the Community-School program and the Mott Foundation. Since the advent of the Community—School in Utah in 1967, Mr. LeeMaster has had some involvement in the program in Salt Lake City. He stated the following in a letter: ”I have given some assistance in the program-planning of our community schools in Salt Lake City, and I strongly support this concept.5 Provo and BYU first got involved with the Community- School concept in Flint when four men attended the Fourth ‘Information on participants was gathered from files of the Conferences and Visitations office of the Mott Program, Flint Board of Education. - 5Vernon J. LeeMaster, personal letter, March 20, 1970. 136 National Community School Clinic in March, 1964. Dr. Israel Heaton of BYU, James Bergera and Boyd McAfee of Provo City Schools and Lynn Rockwood of Provo City Parks and Recreation drove a car to Flint to participate in the clinic. After this introduction these men and others worked to develop similar programs in Provo with the city and the school dis- trict. The original planning for the proposal to the Mott Foundation stemmed from this visit to Flint but it incubated for three-and-a-half years. In the meantime community and school OOOperation in Provo was burgeoning. In March 1965, three educators from Price, Utah, in the Carbon County School District, attended the Fifth National Community School Clinic. They were John J. Nielson, Sadie Rizzuto, and John Winn. Mr. Nielson also attended the Tenth Annual State Community Education Workshop in October, 1965. Jay H. Naylor of Brigham Young University attended the National Community-School Workshop for College and University Personnel in November, 1965, and Dr. Israel Heaton attended in 1966. Russell G. Merrell, Utah director of the Western States Small Schools Project through the State Educational Agency, attended a workshop in February, 1966. The next visitors from Utah were the forty—six members of the delegation to what was termed the "Utah Conference on the Community—Centered School" in November, 1967. Since that time, Utah visitors to Flint have been numerous. They have represented many 137 cxivic, educational, business, and service organizations, and their support has been instrumental in the diffusion cxf the Community-School concept in Utah. Four Utahns have been year-long interns in Community— School administration in Flint. Jess Walker was a doctoral jthern in 1964-65. Carl Jensen was a master's intern in 1968-69. Harry F. Gillespie was a master's intern, and J1. Keith Rogers was a doctoral intern, both in 1969—70. srnort-term interns have been numerous since 1967, through the training program of the BYU Regional Center. Lssemination Leadership Following the return of the Utah delegation in November, 1967, Community-School diffusion activities proliferated with time initial leadership of Avard Rigby and Israel Heaton. Tflae Provo and BYU delegates decided to submit a proposal for a~zregional Community-School dissemination center at Brigham Young University, to be funded by the Mott Foundation. Avard Iiigby and others decided to promote the Community-School con— cept as the focus of the March 1968 Utah School Administra- tors' Conference. Both parallel and concerted efforts of Brigham Young University and the Utah State Educational Agency developed. Through the efforts of Avard Rigby, the State Education- al Agency accepted the responsibility to disseminate the concept of community education as well as to work for 138 legislative funding for Community-School programs and leader— sliip. The efforts of the BYU Regional Center paralleled tfinose of the State Agency, and in many cases were identical, since Israel Heaton as the Director became an official representative of the State Agency through a joint agreement. It: dissemination particularly, their work was closely inter- tunined. The Initial Role of the State Educational Agency Dr. Avard Rigby, Administrator of Special Educational Prnagrams for the Utah State Educational Agency, and co-father of Utah Community—Schools, provided the vision and the leadership for State efforts to promote the Community-School. Tflre success of his strategy is self-evident in the Community— Scflhool prOgrams in nearly every school district by 1971. Dr. Rigby convinced other State Educational Agency staff members and the State Board of Education that the Community- SChOOl would help Utah to solve some of its problems by 'bringing together educational and community resources. His next move was to arrange for the first group visit to Flint, Michigan, as described previously in this chapter. Following that, Dr. Rigby conceived the idea of a conference in Utah. 1968 Spring SphooipAdministrators Conference Immediately following the visit to Flint, Dr. Rigby prOposed that the Spring School Administrators Conference 139 have as theme the Community Centered School. This idea was adopted by the state staff and conference planning committee, and plans were made to hold the conference under the direc- 1:ion of Dr. Rigby's Division of Special Educational Services. Chi 2 February 1968, Dr. Rigby sent a memorandum to all the participants in the Flint visitation. The memorandum read as follows: MEMORANDUM To: All Participants in the Flint Conference on The Community Centered School FROM: Avard A. Rigby, Administrator Division of Special Educational Services Since returning from the Utah Conference on the Community Centered School in Flint, Michigan, we have attempted to schedule a follow-up conference which would have maximum impact upon Utah's educational program. I am pleased to report to you that the planning committee for the Spring School Administrators's Conference re- cently approved our recommendation that the central theme for this semi-annual State-wide conference, which is scheduled for Salt Lake City on March 28 and.29, will be "The Community Centered School". The primary responsibility for developing this con- ference program has been delegated to our Division of Special Educational Services. We welcome this assign- ment, but will need to look to members of our Utah delegation to the Flint Conference for assistance in planning and implementing detailed program plans. You will be interested to learn that key personnel from the Mott Foundation and the Flint Public Schools are committed to participate with us. We shall communicate with you again at an early date. In the meantime, will you please reserve Thursday evening and Friday morning, March 28 and 29 respectively, for this significant educational activity. On 19 February 1968, State Superintendent T. H. Bell notified all school superintendents of the plans for the 140 Spring Administrators Conference. He said in part: We would like to remind you of the approaching Administrators Conference regularly scheduled for the last Thursday and Friday of March. The date this year will be March 28—29 at East High School, Salt Lake City. The conference will focus on the Community School concept.6 Meanwhile, the members of the State Board of Education were getting more directly involved with the Community-School concept. The Board minutes of January 26, 1968 reveal that Chairman Sheldon S. Allred had received an invitation from JFJJint to attend the Eighth National Community Education Clinic, to be held on March 13—15, 1968. The Board decided that two members should attend the Clinic. The Board minutes of February 23, 1968 show that LeGrand P. Backman andLeon Jennings were asked to represent the Board in Flint. They did so, and subsequently reported on their visit.7 Dr. Rigby capitalized on the results of the Utah group ‘Nisitation to Flint by asking those Who went to serve as resource persons at the Spring Administrators' Conference. 131 a memorandum dated February 28, 1968 he said: It is proposed that each of you who participated in the Flint Conference, Nobember 13—15, serve as a group leader or consultant for the sectional meetings on Thursday evening, March 28th. We sincerely hope that you will be able to accept this assignment and 6"Items for Superintendents," Utah State Board of Education, February 19, 1968, p. 31. 7Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education, February 23, 1968, p. 6592; May 10, 1968, p. 458. 141 will assist us in finalizing plans for this facet of our conference program. Three pre-conference planning sessions were held to (floordinate assignments; March 5th in Salt Lake City, March €3th.in Ogden, and March 7th in Provo. Each participant was asked to attend the session held nearest his home. As a result of these pre—conference planning sessions, the program was modified and each person was given a specific responsi- txility along with other team members. On March 12, 1968, in a memorandum to local superinten— dents, State Superintendent Bell explained the plans for the Spring Administrators' Conference and asked each superinten— dent to invite representative community leaders: As program plans for the Spring Administrators' Conference were finalized during the past week, it became increasingly apparent that selected community leaders from throughout the State should be invited to participate. A basic purpose of The Community Centered School, which is the central theme for our March 28—29 Conference, is to discover and demonstrate means whereby a community can develop and utilize its own resources to solve its cultural, educational and social problems. Obviously, other community agencies and organizations must share with education the responsibility for modify— ing the environment which ". . . touches and molds its children." Approximately thirty influential community leaders have accepted our invitation to serve as Resource Persons during the sectional meetings on Thursday evening, March 28. We propose that each local district superintendent extend invitations to a limited number of additional persons outside the field of elementary—secondary educa- tion, such as school board members, church leaders, 8Memorandum from Avard Rigby to All Participants in the Flint Conference on the Community Centered School, Utah State Board of Education, February 28, 1968. 142 mayors and/or city managers, county commissioners, business and industrial leaders, key personnel from post-high school institutions, directors of state and federal projects, and the officers of parent-teacher associations and other service and civic organizations. In order to maintain an appropriate balance between the number of "educator" and "lay" participants, and to avoid overcrowding the conference facilities, the number of community leaders invited to the Administrators' Conference should not exceed: 5 for each small district (2000 student enrollment or less) 10 for each medium sized district (2001 to 10,000 student enrollment) 15 for each large district (10,000 student enrollment or above). . . . The first major event in the adOption of the Community- Scflaool concept in Utah was the November 1967 visit of the forty-six influentials to Flint, Michigan. The second major event was now ready to unfold. The part of the printed ccuiference program relating to the Community-School is repro— duced in Appendix B. An examination of it will substantiate tile significance of this event. The conference program supplement contained a roster <3f the leadership teams for twenty-three group discussions. At.least thirty-three of the forty-six visitors to Flint Served as members of these discussion group teams. In addi- tion, at least seven other members had been to Flint at tome time either before or after the large group visit. The list of organizations represented by the discussion leader teams shows a formidable array of talent and power, as shown in Appendix C. Along with more than 700 participants attending the conference, these representatives were probably the most 143 jp>owerful non-partisan group ever assembled for educational 'Epurposes in the history of the state. The story of community education in Flint, Michigan, ‘Vvas presented in speeches and discussions and by the fihm '“To Touch a Child." In addition, the story of community (education in Provo was presented by speech and slide-fihn. 'The Provo story showed the local adaptation of the Flint concept, revealing that the Community-School had a unique jplace in Utah educational programs. The presentations of the Mott Program personnel were 'very well received. The presenters were deluged with r. Heaton proceeded to prepare a prOposal. One stipulation of the Mott Foundation was that the diirector of a dissemination center must be a former year- Ilong Mott intern in Community—School Administration in iFlint. Jess Walker, a former intern from Utah in 1964-65 and presently a member of the faculty of Western Michigan University, was the only likely candidate for the position. He expressed interest, and was asked to assist in preparing the proposal. Mr. Walker spent three days during Christmas vacation, 1967, at BYU working on the proposal with Dr. Heaton. Dr. Heaton and Phillip Lott, a Provo school administra- tor, were sent by BYU and Provo School District to Flint for six-week internships from February 4 to March 16, 1968. ‘While there, Heaton met several times with Jess Walker to complete the BYU proposal. At this time the plans included Mr.‘Walker as the director of the proposed regional center. When Mr. Walker subsequently withdrew because he would be unable to continue his work with minority groups, the entire proposal was endangered.12 While Dr. Heaton was completing the internship in Flint, his ability, energy and dedication to the Community— School concept impressed Frank Manley and other members of 12Jess walker, personal interview, Kalamazoo, Michigan, March 21, 1971. 146 the Mott Foundation staff.13 They decided that even though Dr. Heaton had not been a year-long intern, the Foundation could approve the establishment of a regional center at BYU if he would become the director. In order to salvage the project, Dr. Heaton reluctantly agreed to take the position. The Foundation was particularly pleased with the co- operation of the Utah State Educational Agency. On April 1, 1968, following the Spring Administrators' Conference, Dr. Avard Rigby and other state administrators met with BYU Dean Milton Hartvigsen and Jess Walker to discuss the relationship of the State Educational Agency to the BYU Center. They decided that a dual assignment of the center director would be desirable. A night letter was sent to Frank Manley in Flint, stating the following: Consistent with the discussions in Salt Lake City March 29, Utah State Educational Agency willing to ‘ negotiate written agreement with Brigham Young Univéra sity providing for half-time assignment of Project ' Director for proposed Mott Training Program at BYU to our staff to assure effective inter-agency coordination and Optimum local district support.14 The proposal to the Mott Foundation was submitted over the signature of BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson dated February, 1968. It was approved by the Foundation on May 27, 1968, and a Regional Center for Community School Develop- ment was established at Brigham Young University effective 13Frank Manley, personal interview, Flint, Michigan, December, 1970. 14Quoted in a letter from Avard Rigby to Dr. Peter L. Clancy, April 2, 1968. 147 July 1, 1968, with an initial grant of $65,000 for the 1968- 69 fiscal year: $30,000 of the total was earmarked for ”seed money“ grants to local school districts. The BYU Regional Center was the seventh center established by the Mott Foundation. Four were located in Michigan at Alma College, Eastern Michigan University, Northern Michigan Uni- versity, and‘Western Michigan University. Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, and Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana were the other two locations. By March of 1971 four additional centers were established at Arizona State Univer- sity, Eastern Connecticut State College, San Jose State College in California, and at the University of Oregon, and other centers were being planned. Regponsibilities of the BYU Regional Center The BYU Regional Center for Community school DevelOp- ment was given three major areas of responsibility: 1) to disseminate the Community-School philosophy on a broad basis: 2) to assist local school districts to implement the concept; 3) to train Community-School directors and coordi- nators who would conduct the programs in the public schools. This work went forward closely allied with the work of the State Educational Agency, according to the provisions of a joint agreement. BYU--State School Board Joint Agreement Planning for a joint agreement continued until October 7, 1968, when the agreement, found in Appendix D, was signed 148 by State Superintendent T. H. Bell and BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson. After the State Educational Agency hired Dr. Joseph Nielson on November 1, 1969 to serve as State Coordinator of Community-School Education, this agreement gradually lost its effect. Dr. Nielson took over responsibility for many of the official state actions formerly performed by Dr. Heaton. The agreement was terminated by verbal agreement on December 18, 1970, and later by exchange of letters. MeanWhile, it had served the purpose of strengthening the efforts of the State Educational Agency in promoting the diffusion of the Community-school beyond the point of legis- lative adoption. Dr. Heaton's service as the representative of the State Educational Agency was termed "invaluable" by Dr. Avard Rigby.15 In the dual capacity as director of the Center and representative of the State Educational Agency, Dr. Heaton labored for both state and local district adoption of the Community-School. The three major areas of responsibility of the Center served the purposes of the state as well. These three responsibilities assigned by the Mott Foundation were dissemination, implementation, and training. Diggemination Activities ofgthe BYU Regional Center Through the various programs of the Center, efforts were . 15Avard Rigby, personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, December 17, 1970. 149 designed to convince peOple of the viability of the Community- School concept. During the first year activities were con- centrated in Utah, but Washington, Idaho, Colorado, and California also received some attention. One example of the dissemination work done in Seattle, Washington, will illus- trate what happened outside Utah. On January 28, 1969, Dr. Heaton went to Seattle Pacific College to spread the Community—School gospel. There he met with the President, three deans, and twenty members of the college administra- tion. Then he met with the entire faculty for a presenta- tion. Before leaving the city, Dr. Heaton met with the school superintendents of the districts in and around Seattle. Idaho, California, and Colorado received similar presenta~ tions. Publicizing the Community-School concept was the major focus of dissemination activities which included showing the film "To Touch a Child," and presentations at dozens of meet— ings, conventions, workshops, and conferences of groups such as Parent-Teacher Associations, recreation associations. university teachers and administrators, public school teachers, administrators, and school boards, church groups, service clubs, and others. Mass media were used, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, brochures, audio tapes, and films. Interpersonal communication was frequently effective with individual and small group discussions of the Community- School concept. 150 As soon as Community-Schools were established in Provo, (Ogden, Weber, and other districts, they served as demon- stration centers. The Flint schools also continued to serve as demonstration centers to visitors from Utah. From July 1968 to January 1970, all dissemination activities were closely coordinated with the efforts of the State Educational Agency in seeking legislation. Many activ— ities were planned cooperatively, co-sponsored, and co- directed with leadership from several sources, including the University of Utah. Since practically all activities led to the legislation adOpted in 1970, many are explained later in that context. Implementation Activities of the BYU IRegional Center Programs of the Regional Center directed toward imple- Inentation of the Community-School concept consisted of three ibasic types: distribution of seed money, consultant services, and inservice training. Some money grants were extended to local school districts in Utah and Idaho, for the purpose of starting Community-School programs. The in— tent was that once the communities experienced the values of the Community-School, they would be willing and able to generate adequate financial support. Only time will tell whether or not the seed money program will result in adequate local or state support. At least one superintendent has no intention to provide money to replace 151 1:he grant from the Center. He said, "We don't intend to ssupplement it with district funds. If it can't support :itself, it's not worth having. We don't buy the idea of special training and degrees. We have reservations about 'tainted' funds and people who try to prescribe our pro- grams. We'll back away from that."16 Seed money grants proved to be very effective initially. During the first year, five school districts were given $17,500 in seed money grants to assist in starting twenty- one Community Schools with a total participation of several thousand each week during at least part of the school year. These districts were Provo, Weber, Ogden, Salt Lake, and Davis. Nearly all this money was spent for leadership and supervision. It was supplemented by fees and local funds. By January 20, 1970, eleven districts, nine in Utah and two in Idaho, were conducting more than forty Community-School programs with financial assistance through the Regional Center.17 Each school had a trained director, and most had advisory councils. The implementation activities of the BYU Regional Center may be illustrated by adapting information from the fiscal year report submitted to the Mott Foundation. Appendix E 16Utah School District Superintendent, personal inter— view, December, 1970. 17Israel Heaton, "A Brief Account of the DevelOpment, Role, and Goals of the Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community School Development," BYU, June 20, 1970, p. 4. (Two versions are extant.) 152 presents a compilation of information from several pages of the year-end report. The seed-money funds granted by the BYU Center were intended to stimulate the local districts to find and allo- cate funds from other sources. That this was successful is indicated by the amounts under Total Expenditures within each district, ranging up to more than $495,000. Agreements between the BYU Center and the local districts were also designed to develop cooperative activities of many community organizations through the Community-Schools. Other coopera— ting agencies ranged in number up to thirteen in Salt Lake City, indicating the success of this program. The relative number of participants reported varied widely, indicating some variation in accounting procedures, as well as in actual participation. Successive reports of the BYU Center reveal that imple- mentation activities were remarkably successful in achieving the establishment of Community—Schools. Optimism for the future is based on the belief that once communities learn the value of Community-School prOgrams, the citizens will not let the programs die. Sunset View Elementary School in Provo School District is credited with being the first Community—School in modern Utah. It started its program with the help of a grant from the BYU Center in November, 1968. David Bowen was the first Community-School Director. Philip Lott, the first district 153 (Coordinator was quoted as saying, "For years communities Inave been building schools; now we want schools to build "19 On the first night of Community-School the community. aactivities over 400 peOple completely overwhelmed the school, since about 50 had been expected. The criteria applied to designate Sunset View as the :Eirst Community-School were those specified by the Mott l?oundation in the yearly report form submitted by all re- 4gional centers. There were two basic criteria for identify— ing a Community-School: A school that is Open for community education purposes and is supervised by a professional person who is trained and employed as a community school director or coordinator. Such a person may be supervising the community education activities in more than one school. Identified structure for a systematic approach to re- ceive feedback from the community for program develop— ment, which may be reflected in any of the following forms: Advisory Council, Supervisory Board, Council Boards, and Community Councils. These two criteria, a trained director and an advisory (council, are not universally acceptable. Superintendent Vflilliam Boren of the weber School District believes that special training is not necessary. What ip necessary is the selection of the right person to administer the program. Superintendent Boren recently said, "We had community school programs long before BYU got involved, and we'll have them 18"Spotlight on Provo Education,” Provo School District, November 22, 1968, p. 2. 154 "19 His definition of long after BYU is out of the picture. the Community-School is centered on the program, not on the supervision. As shown in previous chapters, Community- Schools have existed in Utah since 1847, but not precisely as defined by the Mott Foundation criteria. TrainingiActivitieg of the BYU Regionai Center Training activities of the BYU Regional Center for Community-School DevelOpment included many activities which were closely related to dissemination. The major emphasis on training was through on-campus courses and institutes and through inservice workshOps. One major development was the inclusion of formal courses and a graduate program in the BYU curriculum. On June 2, 1969, the BYU Administrative Council gave notification of the approval of a prOposed graduate major to be called "Community School Leadership" under the Master of Recreation Education degree. This degree was proposed by Dr. Israel Heaton "because of overwhelming evidence that education needs to become a community-wide enterprise serving the basic recreational and learning needs of all the people in the com- munity."20 The proposal had the approval of the Regional 19William Boren, personal interview, Ogden, Utah, December 16, 1970. 2°i'Request fora New Graduate Major in the Department of Recreation Education Entitled: Community School Leadership,” Brigham Young University, 1969. 155 Center Advisory Committee which had been organized to super- vise the activities of the Center. The Advisory Committee was composed of five men: Robert Smith, Assistant Academic Vice-President; Milton Hartvigsen, Dean of the College of Physical Education; Curtis Van Alfen, Assistant Dean of the College of Education; Sherman Wing, President of the State Society of Superintendents; and Avard Rigby, Administrator of Special Educational Services, Utah State Educational Agency. This committee met monthly, beginning November 6, 1968, to advise, review, and approve Regional Center Activ- ities. Another develOpment of some importance and concern was the acceptability of Community—School courses for teacher re-certification. This was resolved in a letter from N. Blaine Winters, the Administrator of the Division of Teacher Personnel, wherein he said to Avard Rigby: "All non-sectarian credit from Brigham Young University is acceptable for re- certification." Dr. Rigby then passed on this information to Dr. Heaton, on June 10, 1969, clearing the way for BYU to advertise Community-School courses for re-certification credit, and making the courses attractive to a broader spectrum of educators. From July 11, 1968 to January 20, 1970, the Center held inservice workshops, sponsored and co-sponsored various training institutes, and coordinated the teaching of courses at BYU. Training activities also included telelectures via 156 two-way amplified telephone calls to Mott Programs presonnel and other proponents of Community-Schools. The first in-service workshop, held in December, 1969, at Dixon Jr. High School, featured Dr. Fred Totten, from Eastern Michigan University and the Mott Intern Program in, Flint. Dr. Totten was very impressed with both the quality and the quantity of the Utahns he met and instructed, and predicted that the Community-School had a great future in Utah.21 Training activities included monthly in-service seminars for Community-School coordinators and directors, with empha— sis on the actual problems faced by these people in their Community-Schools. Twenty-seven people received intern training in two-, four—, or six-week internships in Flint. In all, at least 129 people received direct training at BYU, in addition to thousands who gained useful and applicable knowledge through the dissemination program by 1970. The Community-School concept was presented in lectures, films, and discussions to practically all BYU students in education and education administration. These students spread practically all over America and many foreign coun- tries, hopsfully spreading the Community-School gospel as professional educators. 21Dr. Fred Totten, personal interview, Flint, Michigan, February, 1970. 157 By January 20, 1970, twenty graduate students were candidates for the Masters Degree in Community-School Leader- ship. At least five master's degree field projects were completed by 1970 by BYU graduate students. Roberts studied the Sunset View Elementary School community, finding that the general attitude toward the Community—School was very 2 Callister made recommendations for city, supportive.2 county, and school cooperation for recreation programs for the city of South Ogden.23 Lott analyzed the financial structure of the Provo Community-School program for the 1969 calendar year, finding that $143,224.07 had been spent on 4 all Community-School programs during that year.2 Hansen surveyed existing Community-School programs, finding that in spite of intensive publicity and dissemination efforts, many peOple--including school administrators--still did not 25 understand the Community-School concept. Anderson proposed 22Rebecca Bastian Roberts, "A Community School Program for Sunset View Elementary School as Determined by the Patrons? (Master's degree field project, Brigham Young Uni- versity, 1970). 23Kenneth Noel Callister, "Recommendations for a Joint City, County, School Recreation Program for South Ogden, Utah" (Master's degree field project, Brigham Young Univer- sity, 1970). 24Philip Vaness Lott, ”An Analysis of Financing Commun- ity Schools in Provo, Utah, for 1969" (Master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1970). 25Peter Michael Hansen, "A Survey of the Community School Recreation Programs in the Public Schools of Utah" (Master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1970). 158 administrative guidelines for the establishment of Community- Schools in American Fork, Utah.26 Provo was also studied by deHoyos in a Ph.D. thesis at the University of Utah. DeHoyos concluded that high interest, satisfaction, and participation in Provo Community- Schools augured well for the future.27 Continued Joint Dissemination Activitieg Joint community education dissemination activities of the BYU Regional Center and the State Educational Agency began months before the signing of the formal joint agreement dated October 7, 1968. Israel Heaton and other BYU personnel made important contributions to the Spring School Adminis- trators' Conference. Before July let, the film "To Touch a Child” had been shown to about fifty different community and school groups through joint presentations. Between July lst . and September 30, 1968, many other presentations were made by both the Center and the State Agency staff members. Successive quarterly reports and summaries of the BYU Regional Center report the continued activities in the three areas of dissemination, implementation, and training. The major point of cooperation with the State Educational Agency 26Philip D. Anderson, "An Analysis of the Community School Program in American Fork, Utah" (Master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1969). 27Benjamin Federico deHoyos, "Social Class Differen— tials in Community Recreational Wants" (Ph.D. thesis, Univer- sity of Utah, 1969). 159 was in dissemination activities which took place in every part of the state and with practically every conceivable kind of group as a follow—up to the March 1968 Administra- tors Conference. The first quarterly report of the BYU Center discussed dissemination activities: Dissemination of Information and Motivation: 1. Showing the film To Touch a Child and discussion of the community school concept to over twenty-five addi- tional groups including local school boards, administra- tors, and teachers; city officials, P.T.A.'s, city superintendents of parks and recreation and civic clubs; college administrators, faculty members, and students; state school officials, Adult Education Association officials, State Civil Defense officials, representatives of the Utah Society of School Superintendents and Presi- dent of the Utah Elementary Principals Association; group of twenty representatives from industry, education, state government, institutions of higher education and two representatives of the U. S. Office of Education; United Fund Committee and Director of the Utah County Community Action Program, the Municipal League annual convention; and meeting with the Governor of the state and his two administrative assistants by members of the State School Board staff. 2. Preparation and distribution of the flyer What Is a Community School. . . . ' 3. Television Interview Program.28 Although not officially an arm of the state, the Regional Center could use every legitimate channel to achieve dissemi- nation, implementation, and training objectives. Because the Director became a member of the State Educational Agency Staff, he was doubly effective, since the objectives of the State Agency and the Regional Center were essentially the same 0 2-8Brigham Young University Regional Center for Commun- ity School Development, First Narrative Quarterly Report, July-September, 1968, pp. 2-3. 160 With the leadership of Avard Rigby, Deputy Superinten— dent Lerue Winget, and Superintendent T. H. Bell, the State Educational Agency staff pursued the adoption of legislation for the support of community education programs. From April 1968 to March 1969, dissemination activities by both the State Agency and the Regional Center were executed with this achievement in mind. Dissemination activities consisted of publicity through the mass media of radio, television, news— papers, and magazines, and through relatively interpersonal communication in large group, small group, and individual film viewings, discussions, and question-answer sessions. Jack A. McDonald, Assistant to the Director of the Division of Community and Urban Development of the University of Utah, was a member of the Utah group visit to Flint in 1967. He quickly adopted the Community-School concept, and in 1968 wrote a proposal for federal funding of a Community— School program under Title I of the Higher Education Act. The first Community-School in Salt Lake City Opened under this program. In 1969 a second proposal was approved, helping four more districts to establish Community-School programs.29 Mr. McDonald, among others, became very influential in pro- moting the Community—School concept with groups all over the state, including the State Legislature. Important parallel developments took place during the fall of 1968. Ronald Stephens, an administrator in the Weber u" 29Jack A. McDonald, personal letter, March 24, 1970. 161 School District, had been a six—week intern with the Mott Program in Flint during September and October. At the time, he was a counselor in the bishopric of a local ward of the Mormon Church in Washington Heights, an Ogden suburb. In a meeting with other local church leaders on November 18, 1968, Mr. Stephens was asked to report briefly on his internship in Flint. The brief report turned into a lengthy discussion of the relationship of community education and church programs. After the meeting, one of the other church leaders said, "That's the most exciting thing I've ever heard an educator say. You're finally starting to make sense. We've got to get this idea before the legislature."30 This man was Ben Fowler, a member of the Utah House of Repre— sentatives. Although he had never heard of the Community- 4 Representative Fowler became an School philosophy before,3 ardent advocate and eventually was very influential in the adoption of legislation. Under the direction of Ron Stephens, Weber School Dis- trict soon started Community-School programs with the financial assistance of the BYU Regional Center. These be— came demonstration prOgrams attracting visitors from all parts of the state, and illustrating the advantages of the Community-School. Mr. Stephens became one of the most ’oRonald Stephens, personal letter, March 19, 1970; personal interview, Washington Terrace, Utah, August 10, 1970. 31Ben E. Fowler, personal interview, Riverdale, Utah, August 11, 1970. 162 influential advocates and lobbyists for community education in the state, making dozens of presentations, and working with particular strong effect with the State Legislature. Unknown to Representative Fowler and Ron Stephens in November, Avard Rigby and other State Educational Agency staff members were already planning and promoting legisla- tion. The support of many individuals and organizations had already been gained through presentations of all kinds on the concept of community education. The Utah Coordinating Council for Higher Education had been introduced to the concept by Dr. Rigby and others at a conference in August. The conference was directed by Kent Fielding, a 1967 visitor to Flint. The Study Committee on Continuing Education of the eight-state project Designing Education for the Future, had espoused community education, and devoted to it several pages of their August 1968 report, which said in part: The problems of coordination and communication identified above, and the prOposed action program out— lined in preceding sections of this report, clearly establish the need for an organized campaign to create and strengthen effective working relationships among the various agencies and organizations sponsoring pro— grams of continuing education in Utah. It is proposed that this campaign be launched under the coordinated leadership of the Adult Education Association of Utah, the Utah Council for Continuing Education and Community Development, and the Utah State Board of Education. It is proposed, further, that the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction provide aggressive and dynamic leadership in the develOpment and imple- mentation of statewide programs of education utilizing 163 the fundamental concept of the "community-centered school."32 It was no coincidence that Avard Rigby was the Executive Secretary for the committee, and that three of the other eight members were visitors to Flint in 1967. ActivitiegpLeading Toward Legislation Joint Legislation Committee On October 2, 1968, a presentation to the Joint Legisla- tion Committee of the State Board of Education and the Utah School Boards Association was made by Avard A. Rigby, Harvey D. Moore, Brent F. Gubler, and Rulon R. Garfield, all repre- senting adult education in Utah, and Israel Heaton, represent- ing the Community-School training program. Rulon R. Garfield was also a member of the Utah Senate. These men presented two prOposals relating the values of community education pro- grams to adult education.33 In subsequent meetings the Joint Legislation Committee continued to consider legislation for the support of commun- ity education. The minutes for November 5th give one decision: Discussion involved the proposals of the Adult Educa- tion Committee. The proposal for free education for all adults was considered but no action was taken. 32Designing Education for the Future, Continuing Educa- tion, report of the study committee on continuing education, Utah State Board of Education, August, 1968, pp. 11-17. 33Minutes of the Joint Legislation Committee, October 2, 1968, Utah State Board of Education, pp. 3-5. 164 The prOposal of piloting community centered schools was discussed. It was moved by Don. M. Simmons and seconded by Rogert Sonntag that the committee seek partial funding support for five schools to be operated on a pilot basis. One-half the salary of five community school directors would be covered for a total of $30,000 for the five schools. Motion carried.34 On November 8th, the Joint Legislation Committee sub- ,mitted recommendations to the State Board of Education. Two of the recommendations related to adult and community educa— tion, as follows: 10. Adult Education and School-Community Centers. It is recommended that the age limitation for free attendance at public adult high school completion pro- grams be removed so that free public adult high school education is available to all citizens regardless of age. It is recommended that the Uniform School Fund provide a grant to pay an amount equal to one-half the cost of five community school directors to provide for pilot school development of community education programs in ten school districts.35 The State Board of Education initially rejected the Proposal for Community-School pilot programs,36 but later, after much discussion and with pressure from the School Boards Association and the State Agency staff, "The Board ElR‘pressed approval of the Community School Center prOposal al‘ld the proposal to support urban education problems in the \ “Ibid” Novsnber s, 1968. 35Recommendations of the Joint Legislation Committee,_ Prepared for Submission to the 1969 Legislative Session, November 8, 1968, p. 4 (General Exhibit No. 599). 36Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education, November 8, 1968, p. 6747. 165 "37 new school finance bill. Legislation for free adult education was approved in concept but dropped later because of lack of funds. The commitment of the State School Board and the staff Of the State Educational Agency to the Community-School concept was very strong. This may be illustrated by a quote fiwmm the Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1966-68. Under the heading of "Recommenda- tions for Improvement" for adult education, the report stated: 6. The "community-centered school" should be the vehicle for conducting an expanded general adult education program. The community school concept, which is best exem- plified by the Mott Program of the Flint (Michigan) Board of Education, is based upon the fundamental premise that the public schools belong to the people, and that local, state, and federal resources can be har— nessed to attack and resolve community educational and related problems. The community school provides a program of commun- ity education for all ages, utilizing the existing facilities of the public schools. Shops, classrooms, pools, gymnasiums, and equipment are made available to the entire community without the cost of providing new buildings.3 lEevelOping Support for Legislation Meanwhile, support for community education legislation 37Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education, January 10, 1969, p. 6807. 38Reports and Recommendations for the Utah Public School System," Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1966-1968, Volume 1, p. 35. 166 was growing throughout the state. Showings of the film "To Touch a Child" and other dissemination activities were carried on, working from the base established in the Spring Administrators' Conference. For example, the Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers held regional leadership meetings in which presentations by Avard Rigby were featured along with "To Touch a Child."39 Excerpts from Dr. Rigby's address were printed in September in the organization's magazine.40 The December-January issue of the same magazine featured an article solicited from Dr. Israel Heaton, in which he explained Community—School philosophy and programs of the Regional Center at BYU.41 On page 4 of the same issue the Utah PTA legislative program was explained. Item 10 under education said: 10. Establishment of funds to pay one-half the cost of directors' salaries for community school prOgrams. Later the Utah PTA Legislative Chairman, Mrs. Lila Bjorklund, issued a statement in support of the pending legislation. The statement explained the Community—School philosophy and programs, and then concluded: . 39Programs of Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers Regional Leadership Meetings, June 10, August l3, 16, 1968. 4oAvard Rigby, "Education for a Changing Society," Utah PTAggulletin, Vol. 37, No. 2, September 1968, pp. 4-7. 41Israel Heaton, "Make Use of School Facilities," Utah PTA Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 5, Dec.—Jan. 1968-69, p. 17. 42Mrs. Russell E. Bjorklund, "Legislation Program 1969," ibid., p. 4. 167 The community school, then, is that school which serves the needs of peOple residing in an attendance area. The key requirement for successful development of a statewide Community Education program is the availability of a nucleus of trained and experienced Community Education Coordinators and Community School Directors charged with the responsibility of being the catalyst that causes or allows the needs of the neighbor- hood or community to be met at and through the school. The speed with which the program can be develOped is directly dependent on this factor. Passage of House Bill 222 would provide the limited resources necessary to achieve this purpose.43 As mentioned before, grass—roots support for community education legislation developed from pilot programs as well as from other dissemination activities. The Community- Schools funded by the BYU Regional Center served as influ- ential pilot programs for visitors to observe. The stipula— tions of the Center in funding programs also related to: active dissemination. One item in the reciprocal agreement with school districts stated as follows: COOperation and initiative shall be shown in con- ferring with other Community School programs being conducted in the BYU service area and in vigorously furthering the Community School concept in general. PeOple who visited the pilot schools were generally im- pressed and went home to promote similar programs in their own schools. 43The Community Education Program, a summary statement distributed by Mrs. Lila Bjorklund, Legislative Chairman, Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers, in support of H. B. 222, mimeographed, n.d. 44Reciprocal Agreements for Community School DevelOp- ment Assistance, BYU Regional Center for Community School Development, item 13, p. 2, n.d. 168 The importance of observation of pilot programs is illustrated by the fact that in 1965 the film "To Touch a Child" had been shown at Roy High School in Weber County, as the result of cooperation between the Kettering and Mott Foundations. Roy High School was a demonstration school for the Kettering Foundation program. According to Ron Stephens, the film "was seen in a vacuum," and nothing re- sulted from it because it was isolated from demonstration or practical experience.45 Moroni L. Jensen, Assistant Director of Adult Education in Granite School District, invited Israel Heaton to show the film "To Touch a Child" and discuss community education with the Granite Adult Education Advisory Committee on January 13, 1959.46 Mr. Jensen was an educator, but more pertinent to legislation, he was also a member of the Utah House of Representatives. Public information about community education was avail- able in newspapers. The Standard-Examiner of Ogden reported on December 11, 1968, that the Weber County Board of Educa— tion would consider establishing a community center in the Plain City School as a "major item on a relatively heavy agenda." The story continued: 45Ron Stephens, personal interview, Washington Terrace, Utah, August 10, 1970. 46Moroni L. Jensen, letter to Israel Heaton, December 17, 1968. ‘ 169 A report on the successful program at Flint, Mich., sponsored and funded by the Mott Institute (sic) will be given by Ronald Stephens, vice principal at Bonne- ville High School. Mr. Stephens just returned from Flint where he spent about six weeks participating in the demonstra— tion community school program. The plan calls for opening the school during evening for community recreational-cultural activities orientied (sic) for total adult—child participation.47 On December 13 two stories were printed relating in detail the report by Ron Stephens and the Board's informal approval of the Plain City School program.48 Other state and local papers had been printing similar stories. The Deseret News printed a story of January 1, 1968, describing the Mott Program in Flint and then saying: By contrast, Salt Lake School District recently had to turn down a request of the Community Action PrOgram for use of a junior high school gymnasium two nights a week for a group of 40 boys to play basketball for lack of funds. Costs would run about $8 per hour for lights, heat, and custodial services--which the school budget does not provide; neither can the CAP with its-limited federal assistance. In a society as affluent as America's and as educa— tion-conscious as Utah's, we ought to be able to find somewhere the means to open a school gym for half dozen hours a week (sic) for children from an impoverished neighborhood. The basic purpose of the Mott Foundation, said its founder, is to discover and demonstrate means by which 47Signdard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah, "Board to Air School Use by Community," December 11, 1968. 48Ibid., "School to Become Community Center," December 13, 1968, and "Weber County Board Favors Community Use of Schools," (source ?). 170 a community can use its own resources to solve its own problems. Salt Lake is neither so poor in resources, nor lacking in leadership that we must look outside for help. True, we could use a Mr. Mott. But we could also use some common sense by putting to much greater use on a neighborhood basis our school facilities. The least we can do is to put our heads together and try to find a place for these boys to play. 9 During the time since the visit to Flint in 1967, many articles had been printed describing the Mott Program and urging its consideration in Utah. The Spring Administrators Conference had received favorable publicity, as had the establishment of the Regional Center at BYU. People generally ‘were becoming aware of the Community-School concept with the help of the mass media. State Superintendent T. H. Bell sent a memorandum to local superintendents on January 23, 1969, in which he en- couraged consideration of the merits of the Community Centered school philOSOphy. The memorandum continued, describing the joint agreement of Brigham Young University and the Office of the State Superintendent: . . . By agreement, Dr. Heaton has been assigned to _ work with the staff of the State Board of Education on a part-time basis to assure optimum interagency coordi- nation. The State Board of Education will provide Dr. Heaton with a work station in our Division of Special Educational Services where Dr. Avard A. Rigby will continue to assume a primary leadership responsi— bility for the Community Education Program within the State Education Agency. Dr. Heaton is currently contacting local district personnel in his role as Director of the Regional Center for Community Development at BYU where the primary 492§§§£§§_Npp§, Salt Lake City, Utah, "Put S. L. Schools to Greater Use," January 1, 1968. 171 emphasis will be on in-service and graduate training programs. He is also working with our State Agency personnel in providing consultant and leadership services in the area Of community—school planning and develOpment. . Brigham Young University and the Office of the State Superintendent have each selected and appointed a representative Community Education Advisory Committee which will meet periodically, either separately or jointly, to consider such pertinent issues as pre- service and in-service training prOgrams for community education coordinators and community school directors, trainee selection, pilot school awards, community school legislation, and program development.50 PrOposed Legislation for Categorical Funda, 1969 With the approval of the State Board of Education, and 'with advice and assistance from State Agency staff members and others, Avard Rigby directed the preparation of community education legislation for the Utah Legislature, meeting in January, February, and March, 1969. The first major step was to define the community education objectives and the guiding principles for the legislation. Working papers on objectives and principles were prepared, including the following: Community Education Program Objectivea 1. To provide state school aid fund support for the gradual development of a ptate-wide Coppunitv Education Prograp based on the Mott Community School Program of the Flint (Michigan) Board of Education, and community school prOgrams in 200 other communities throughout the United States. 2. To encourage and support the establishment of an adequate training program for the two key profes— sionals essential to the success of the state—wide 50Memorandum from T. H. Bell to School District Superin- tendents, January 23, 1969, Utah State Board of Education. 1. 172 Community Education Program. These are: (l) The Community Education Coordinator, (2) The Community School Director. Principles A designated category of the State Uniform School Fund shall be established to pay a pro-rata share of the salaries (within prescribed limits) of Community Education Coordinators and Community School Directors. School Districts as part of their standards of qualification shall provide matching funds for salaries of the above professionals and other operating funds for their community education pro- grams. The State Board of Education shall establish quali- fications of eligibility, shall administer the Community Education Program school aid fund grants, shall provide supportive services to those local systems without Community Education Coordinators, and shall in general provide promotion and adminis- trative leadership in the development of a state- wide Community Education Program. The state-wide Community Education Program will be designed to develop as fast as adequately qualified Community School Directors and Community Education Coordinators are available with the general concept of initial salary support for 30 professionals in— creasing at the rate of 20 to 50 professionals each year to an ultimate total of approximately 200 whose salary costs to the Uniform School Fund will reach between one and $l-l/2 million annually. The working papers also defined the community education con- cept and explained the functions of the community education coordinator on a district level and the Community—School director on a school level. The deployment of trained profes- sionals was an important topic, expressed in the following four guiding statements: Gradual Deployment of Trained Professionala The key requirement for successful development of a statewide Community Education Program is the avail— ability of a nucleus of trained and experienced 173 Community Education CoOrdinators and Community School Directors. The speed with which the program can be expanded from present levels will be directly dependent on this factor. 2. Presumably programs should be initiated in selected pilot schools where Community School Directors would be employed under the supervision of the existing local administrative staff assisted by the State Board of Education support personnel. 3. One of the Community School Directors could be advanced to the position of Community Education Coordinator as the number of Community School Directors becomes large enough to warrant such action. 4. This approach implies two things for the interim period: (1) The Community Education Coordinator would typically begin as a Community School Director. (2) Provision would have to be made for filling in the function of the Community Education Coordi-J nator by a combination of assignments to person— nel from the State Board of Education, the existent local administrative staffs, and the Community School Directors themselves. Alternative methods for financing the community educa- tion prOgram were considered, with advice and realistic limitations from various sources. One influence on the in- tent of the bill to promote leadership development was the Michigan community education bill being prepared for presen- tation to the 1969 Michigan Legislature by Governor George Romney. The Michigan Coordinator of Adult Education and Community Service Programs sent a copy of the proposed Michi- 1 gen bill to Dr. Rigby.5 It was used as a general guide to prepare the Utah legislation. 51Donald G. Butcher, personal letter to Dr. Avard Rigley (Rigby), December 2, 1968. '174 .ngae Bill Number 222L 1969 Legislature The proposed legislation finally was boiled down to a ‘working draft form, duplicated in Appendix F. The proposed legislation stated two purposes--to help pay salaries of Community Education Coordinators or Community- School Directors; to authorize local school boards to main- tain joint programs. Half of the salaries of Coordinators or Directors would be paid, up to a maximum of $6,000. ‘Where boards organized joint programs, one would be desig- nated as the employer. The proposed act also provided for the State Board of Education to prescribe rules and regula— tions for control, certification, and for encouraging cooperation. The act was intended to take effect July 1, 1969. As one can see by comparison of the proposed legisla- tion and the form that reached the Senate floor, several changes were effected. Ron Stephens had begun to work for community education on a statewide level through his association with Israel Heaton and Avard Rigby. He persuaded Representative Ben Fowler to arrange for a joint luncheon meeting of Senators and Representatives on January 22, 1969. The meeting was held in the cafeteria on the Capitol grounds. Box lunches were provided by the Union Pacific Railroad. A few Senators and most of the Representatives attended the ninety-minute meeting conducted by Ron Stephens. The film "To Touch a Child" was shown, the community education 175 philosophy was explained, and the legislative prOposal for the support of community education was presented. A discus— sion session followed, with questions responded to by Avard Rigby, Israel Heaton, Ron Stephens, and others. About a dozen Representatives stated their support, and several asked permission to sponsor the bill.52 After the meeting, several legislators requested that members of the presenting team come to local communities to present the Community— School philosophy. The Senate coordinator for this meeting was Lamar Buckner from Weber County. He had been advised by Ron Stephens, and was acquainted with the Community—School program which had started at Plain City School in Weber County.53 Senator Buckner played an important role in the work on this and subsequent legislation. Houaa Action on Houae Bill Number 222 Legislation based on the proposed form emerged in the House of Representatives on February 6, 1969, sponsored by Representatives Fowler, Smith, Jensen, and Schaerrer.54 The bill, House Bill Number 222, was referred to the Rules and Procedures Committee, from which it was reported back 52No records were kept, and memories were faulty. This information was adapted from interviews and letters. 53Lamar Buckner, personal interview, Ogden, Utah, August 10, 1970. 54Individual actions are not documented. The reader may refer to the House Journal, Utah Legislature, 1969, for daily actions noted. 176 with a few minor changes and was recommended for printing on February 12th. The printed bill is duplicated in Appendix G. House Bill Number 222, before being amended, was essen— fitially a restatement of the proposed legislation, in six sections. Section 1 named it as the Community Education Programs Act of 1969. Section 2 restated and broadened the purposes of develOpment, planning, and community involvement. Section 3 required local school boards to consider estab- lishment of community education programs, and authorized joint Operations. Section 4 required the State Board of Education to prescribe rules and regulations. Section 5 pro— vided for payment of half salaries up to $6,000. Section six stated that the act would take effect July 1, 1969. The Legislative Analyst estimated the cost of implemen— tation of House Bill 222 at $270,000, of which half would be paid by the state and half by the local districts. House Bill 222 was then referred to the Committee on Education, which reported it back on February 25th with only a change from $6,000 to $3,000 as the maximum state payment for each salary. The bill was referred to the Sifting Committee, from which it was reported on March 5th, with a recommendation for debate limited to 5 minutes for opponents and 5 minutes for proponents. On March 6th, House Bill 222 was read the third time and then on the motion of Representative Fowler, it was 177 amended. The first four sections remained the same, but Section 5, the finance section, was amended to read as follows: Section 5. There shall be apportioned and paid from the uniform school fund annually to each school district employing one community education coordinator or direc- tor an amount equal to one-half of his annual salary, provided that in no case shall payment by the state exceed $4,500 annually for each employee. Whenever two or more districts join together for the purpose of providing a community education program, payment for ‘ the director or coordinator as provided above shall be made to the district designated in the agreement as the sponsoring agency. The state board of education may establish a two year pilot program with eight school districts of this state selected by the board implement- ing the provisions of this act. The major changes from initial to final form of House Bill“ 222 were two-fold. The maximum amount to be paid by the state for salaries of community education coordinators and directors was reduced from $6,000 to $4,500. The State Board of Education was authorized to establish a two-year pilot prOgram in eight school districts. House Bill 222, amended as above, passed on the follow- ing vote: ayes, 45; nays, 14; absent, 10. It was then sent to the Senate for their action. Senate Action on HouaapBill 222 The Senate received House Bill 222 on March 7th, and referred it to the Sifting Committee.55 The last day of. the legislative session was March 13th. On that day House' Bill 222 was reported out of the Sifting Committee and ¥ 55§§nate Joggnal, Utah Legislature, 1969. 178 It placed on the calendar along with several other bills. was then read the second time and tabled. Later the same day, House Bill 222 and five other bills were lifted from the table, and on motion of Senator Ernest Dean the enacting The House was then informed that clauses were stricken. along with 45 other bills House Bill 222 had been killed, and 8 resolutions. Although verbal commitments to support the community education bill had been given by many individual Senators, the apparent lack of funds doomed House Bill 222 in the final analysis. It was the feeling of Israel Heaton and other workers that passage would have been more likely if more of the Senators had attended the presentation to the 1969.56 legislature at the luncheon meeting on January 22, Although House Bill 222 had not been successful and legislation could not be considered for another year, The first an— Community-School advocates were encouraged. nual budget session of the Utah Legislature was scheduled for January 1970 by virtue of an amendment to the Utah :onstitution. Dissemination aCtivities were continued, iming specifically for legislation during the budget session. he BYU Regional Center continued its programs of dissemina- Lon, implementation, and training in close COOperation .th Avard Rigby and other personnel of the State Educational 5‘SBrigham Young University Regional Center for Community 1001 Development, Quarterly Report, January-March, 1969, 5. 179 Agency. Others who had become influential during the past year also continued to work for the adoption of Community— Schools by districts throughout the state. Mummy-School Dissemination Activities-—1969 During 1968 the Community-School received probably the most intense attention of any educational innovation in the history of Utah, according to several of the peOple who were intimately acquainted with education in Utah for thirty years or more. This attention did not decline during 1969, but in fact the level of attention was raised. Many examples will serve to illustrate this growing attention. Model Cities planners in Salt Lake City were intent on establishing Community-Schools within their Operations. Frank Manley and Doug Procunier of the Mott Program had made influential presentations in Utah. The University of Utah was working to get more funds under Title I of the Higher Education Act to start Community-Schools in four districts. During the first quarter of the year, KSL Radio and elevision executives were introduced to and adopted the Immunity-School philosophy.“ During the week of April 7th, '3 Radio and Television stations broadcast an editorial ch promoted the Community-School. The editorial read as .OWS 3 I_i 5'7Brigharn Young University Regional Center for Community ' »01 Development, Quarterly Report, January-March, 1969, 180 AIRED: Week of April 7, 1969 There is a relatively new idea in education. It is called the community school. In a way it is not new at all but as old as the little old red schoolhouse. We've taken a good look at the concept and we think it is the answer to a lot of problems. Briefly, the idea is that the school belongs not to the teachers, or the principal, or even to the school board. It belongs to the people whose money built it, you and me. Further, it is very bad management and very poor sense to use the 85 billion worth of schools we have in this country only thirty‘percent of the time. 11p COMMUNITY SCHOOL The community school idea says the school belongs to the 85 year old taking a class in ceramics at night, or to the mother of a growing. family taking a slim and trim class on Saturdays, or to the family using the pool for family swimming parties during the summer, just as much as it does to the eight year old learning arithmetic and spelling during the regular school day. Utah got into the Community School program last fall. The idea is rapidly groWing in popularity. KSL believes the idea is particularly well suited to our local cul- ture because it is centered on the home, the family and Anything that will help to the neighborhood community. knit family bonds and develop closer neighborhood inter- personal ties is very welcome in contemporary life. KSL wishes for the community school idea, nothing but huge success. KSL is the most powerful and probably the most influential radio station in the Utah area. In addition to broadcasting KSL executives advanced the cause of the Community- ditorials, 72001 through various local civic and governmental organiza- Jns such as Kiwanis, Rotary, and Jaycee chapters, the and the el Cities Task Force on Health and Education, rnor ' s Task Force on Children and Youth. Portions of film " To Touch a Child" were also broadcast by KSL Tele- on at various times.58 58Wes Bowen, KSL Director of Public Affairs, personal er, November 4, 1970. 181 The KSL Radio program "Public Pulse" is a very pOpular program attracting listeners from the intermountain area as well as Utah. On the program the host interviews prominent individuals and the listening audience calls by telephone to ask pertinent questions. On April 3, 1969, the KSL host, Wes Bowen, interviewed Israel Heaton and Del Faddis on the subject of the Community-School. Interest was high, and calls were numerous. There is no way of knowing exactly how many people were listening, or what effect the program had, but it was believed to be very effective and influential. Many inquiries for information resulted from the program. The film "To Touch a Child" was aired by KCPX Television, which reached practically all parts of the state from Salt Lake City. On September 27th and again on October 5th, KCPX broadcast a 15 minute mini-documentary entitled "The Commun- ity Schools."59 The Provo—Orem Community Affairs Discussion Group, representing various segments of the community, devoted its May 1969 meeting to the topic, "What Is the Regional Center ’or Community School Development and Its Implications for :ah County. " Israel Heaton was in charge of the presenta- on. David Beavers of the Mott Program staff visited several as of Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho at the behest of r 59Diane D. Felt, Director of Public Affairs, KCPX Tele— Lon, personal letter, November 20, 1970. 182 Jack McDonald. Mr. Beavers was informed that about 80 per cent of Utah residents had seen the film "To Touch a Child." Mr. Beavers participated in discussions and made presenta- tions in Ogden, the University of Utah, Duchesne County, Uintah County, Daggett County, Murray, and Brigham Young University.60 Concerning his trip to Utah, Mr. Beavers said later that he "was overwhelmed with the attitude toward education in Utah. Mormons are like Jews in placing high priority on education. . . . The general attitude of Utah is more education-oriented than any other state I've ever been in. The people are very Optimistic about community education, but frugal, realistic, and cautious."61 The Utah PTA continued its support of the Community- School in the state convention in Ogden, May 7-8th. A reso- lution promoting public use of school facilities was unanimously adopted by the convention. The resolution read: Resolution Promoting Fuller Utilization of Public School Facilities Whereas, The local public school belongs to the commun- ity and represents one of the largest invest- ments in each area; and The public school is located where the people live and easily accessible; and The public school could be available to families at hours which do not conflict with regular school use; and" Whereas, Fuller use of existing school plant facilities would, in part, preclude additional capital outlay to meet community programs; and Whereas, Whereas, 6°David S. Beavers, letter to Israel Heaton, May 26, 1969. 6lDavic‘i S. Beavers, personal interview, Flint, Michigan, rary, 1970. l83 Whereas, Better lines of communication and democratic thinking could be developed through community use of a facility which recognizes no barriers or race, color or creed; and Whereas, Recent Saturday recreation and evening family education programs are being received with increasing success, therefore, indicating a community need to fuller utilize these facili- ties; . . . Resolved, That Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers endorse those concepts which will promote and increase utilization of existing sdhool facili- ties for the betterment of the community.62 In the next issue of the PTA Bulletin, three stories explained legislation, philosOphy, and programs of community education.63 They were written by Vice-president Bjorklund, Dr. Israel Heaton, and Supt. Sherman Wing of the Provo School District where Community-Schools were serving as demonstration projects. The Utah Recreation and Parks Association held an annual convention on May l—3rd in Salt Lake City. A major portion of the program was built around a three-hour session where Israel Heaton and others presented community education philosophy and programs to over 200 participants. During 1969 Utah State University submitted a proposal for a federal grant for the training of Community-School ‘.eaders under the Education Professions Development Act. It as not accepted because BYU was already filling this need 52"Resolutions." Utah PTA Bigetin, Vol. 37, No. 8. ril 1969, p. 13. ”Utah PTA Bu]_,_ll_etin, Vol. 37, No. 9, May-June 1969. pp- 9. 184 in the state and because of money shortages. Brigham Young University submitted a similar EPDA prospectus which was rejected for lack of federal funds. The University of Utah submitted a proposal for funds to the Mott Foundation. It was not accepted because the BYU program was already Operating with Mott funds. Though these three attempts were futile, they illustrated the intense interest in community education in Utah. "Community-School" activities were not the only c00per— ative activities taking place. The following KSL editorial, aired during the week of November 10, illustrates the con- tinued devotion of Utah citizens to COOperative programs involving broad cross-sections of society: GRANGER PATRIOTS AIRED: Week of November 10, 1969 A week or so ago, some three thousand citizens gathered at the High School auditorium in Granger, Utah. At least 500 people had to be turned away. All of this occurred on a Tuesday night as a result of an action initiated by the Valley West Community Council. The interesting aspect of this gathering is that they were all drawn together on that particular night to demonstrate an attitude of patriotism. The Valley West Community Council is composed of repre- sentatives from the twelve elementary schools in the ' area, the three junior high schools, and the high school; also represented are the LDS Church, the Granger Community Christian Church, and the Lutheran Church; and there are representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, the Town Council, the Jaycee's, the Lions, and Utah~ Technical College. These people meet monthly to promote activities for the unification and strengthening of the community. Their first major project was the evening at Granger High School that consisted of participation by elements of the community in an old-fashioned patriotic 185 show. A program of entertainment that said simply: This is our land, our community, and these are our neighbors . . . we're proud to be here. KSL salutes this accomplishment of the Valley West Com— munity Council, and the services which similar groups in other areas are performing. Utah Community-SchoolgSeminar A "Community School Seminar" was held at the University of Utah on November 18-19, 1969, under the general direction of Jack A. McDonald. The BYU Regional Center and the State Board of Education co-sponsored and co-funded the seminar along with the Division of Continuing Education and the Graduate School of Education of the University of Utah. University funds came from Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965. On October 27th, Avard Rigby had sent a memorandum to school superintendents appraising them of the coming con- ference, inviting their support, and asking them to help publicize the conference. Invitations were extended to business, community, industrial, and political leaders throughout the state. The idea for the conference was conceived by Jack McDonald after a visit to Minneapolis, where he had seen a brachure describing a workshop there. Mr. McDonald invited Dr. Rigby and Dr. Heaton to participate through the offices of the Regional Center and the State Educational Agency. A public relations man was hired to make contacts with com- munity leaders. Several luncheon meetings were held with 186 political and business leaders, and two meetings were held with leaders of the Mormon Church, gaining their support. The support of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce was solicited through the executive secretary and the chairman of the Education Committee, and an early morning breakfast meeting held on the first day of the conference was attended by more than fifty of the city's most prominent business leaders. Joseph Anderson and Peter Clancy of the Mott Pro- gram spoke, along with Paul Boranian from Minneapolis. In the opinion of Jack McDonald, this meeting was probably the most effective of the conference in influencing legislation to support community education during the 1970 Budget Session of the State Legislature.64 In the conference, the histories of Community—School programs in Flint, Minneapolis, and Miami were explained, and a progress report was given on developments in Utah. Three Community-School films were shown twice each--”To Touch a Child," ”Thursday's Child," and "Open Door." In addition to at least fifteen Utahns, discussions and presentations were‘ made by eight influential visitors: Frank J. Manley, Execu- tive Director of Mott Foundation Projects; Joseph Anderson, Trustee of the Mott Foundation; Peter L. Clancy, Director of the Mott Programs of Flint; Mrs. Odell Broadway, Assistant vDirector of the Interracial Center of the Mott Program; Paul Boranian, Director of Community Educational Services of 64Jack A. McDonald, personal letter, March 24, 1970. 187 Minneapolis Public Schools; David Beavers, Consultant in Community Education for the Mott Program; and Nick Pappadakis, Executive Secretary of the National Community SChool Educa— tion Association. ‘ More than 200 people attended the conference, represent— ing the following organizations: Utah State Legislature, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Model Cities, Community Action Program, Utah PTA, League of Women Voters, Junior League, I.B.M., Mountain Bell Telephone, Salt Lake City banks, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Utah Jay-cees, twenty Utah communi— ties, four states, seven universities, thirty—three school districts, Utah Advisory Committee for the Handicapped, and volunteer organizations. Following the conference, a special issue of NCSEA News was printed, describing many details of the program.65 Mrs. Odell Broadway, the only woman and the only Negro on the program, said later that she had felt some concern about how'she might be received by a white, mostly Mormon, Utah group. While discussing the conference she said: When I got up to talk, I looked around, and I was the blackest thing in the whole building! But everYbody was wonderful to me. I‘ve never been received so warmly by an audience anywhere in the world. I felt just like I was at home. The people liked what I had to say, and I think they'll try to do it. People in Utah call each .other brothers and sisters, and I felt just like one-of them-~I was their sister.66 65”Utah Seminar Special Issue," NCSEA News, National Community School Education Association, Flint, Michigan, December, 1969. 66Odell Broadway, personal interview, January 26, 1970° 188 Further Development of Support On November 21, 1969, the local newspaper in Fillmore, Utah, printed two stories. One told of plans to launch a Community-School program with the help of the BYU Center.67 The other article read as follows: Wanted: Place for Girl Scouts to meet weekly The Girl Scouts need a place to meet once a week. Anyone wishing to volunteer this fine group a meeting place may see or write Mrs. Gene Davis, Meadow, Utah.68 Norman Stevens, the Community School Director, had been to Flint for a short-term internship with the Mott Program. He read the article above on the day he returned. Within the hour he had informed Mrs. Davis that the school was available for Girl Scout meetings. This incident illustrates the kind of events taking place all over the state as the Community- School philosophy was adopted and put into practice. Mr. Stevens reported a few months later that fourteen classes and many other activities were being held as part of a suc— cessful Community-School program in Millard County. The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce held a work~ shop for state and national leaders in Flint, Michigan in August, 1969, during which they committed the national organi— zation to support the Community—School philosOphy. As a result, the Utah Jaycees actively supported the development 67”School to Implement New 'Community School' Concept," The Progress, Fillmore, Utah, November 21, 1969. 68"Wanted: Place for Girl Scouts to meet weekly," ibién 189 of Community-Schools in Utah. Another stone was placed in the foundation for legislation. By January 12, 1970, eight districts were operating forty Community-Schools under the leadership of Directors, and six other districts were in the planning stages. Twenty- five Utahns had received at least six weeks of special train— ing involving internships in Flint, and were certified Directors according to the requirements of the Mott Founda- tion. The Foundation had funded the BYU Regional Center with $144,432.69 ‘ Community-School development continued to accelerate, with publicity from many sources. A search of the files of The Salt Lake Tribune by the library staff on March 21, 1970, found more than forty articles on community education. Community education programs were even getting support from Mormon bishops in church meetings.70 The hiring of a professional educator who could devote full time to the promotion of community education programs was an important step. On November 1, 1969, Dr. Joseph L. Nielson was hired by the State Board of Education to serve as Coordinator of Community School Education within the state. Dr. Nielson had been introduced to the Community-School con— cept by Avard Rigby in a presentation at the University of 69Israel Heaton, "A Summary of Community School Develop- ment in Utah," BYU Regional Center for Community school Development, January 12, 1970 (dittoed). 7°Ronald Stephens, personal interview, 92. cit. 190 Utah. He was converted, and felt that the time was right for an educational movement like this to be accepted in Utah "because it made so much sense."71 Dr. Nielson's salary was paid from a three-way combination of federal and state adult education funds and ESEA Title V funds. Dr. Nielson began to work for the adoption of the Community- School. For example, on December 15th he met with and pre- sented the Community-School concept and proposed legislation to seven superintendents of northeastern Utah rural school districts. Influential members of the Society of School Superin- tendents met at Hotel Utah before the 1970 Budget Session. They decided to support community education legislation. The official records of neither the Society of School Super- intendents, nor the School Boards Association show any offi- cial action taken regarding community education, or even that the subject was discussed; however, the support (or the absence of opposition) of both organizations was essen— tial for the passage of legislation. The basic legislative program of the State Educational Agency was at least verbally supported by these two organizations as well as by others mentioned. 8 The Utah Education Association was considered to be~ supportive of community education, though the UEA had taken 71Joseph L. Nielson, personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 11, 1970. 191 no official position even as late as August, 1970. The minutes of UEA meetings show no reference of any kind to community education to that time,72 though the subject had been discussed informally several times, and the UEA officers and executive staff had received a presentation from Joseph Nielson and others. Proposed Legislation for Categorical Funds, 1970 The Education Committee of the Legislative Council, consisting of two senators and two representatives, had studied school finance during the interim since the 1969 session. In their progress report there was no mention of Community-School legislation; however, they expressed concern ”73 They did recommend about "new concepts and innovations. the addition of $800,000 to the School Finance Bill for special vocational programs for "youth who annually drop out of school without a saleable skill." Governor Clavin L. Rampton made no reference to community education in his budget message to the legislature. It would seem that in spite of intense publicity and interest, the legislation for Community—Schools was not a major topic of consideration by the legislators. This may have been because consensus had 72Dorothy Zimmerman, Assistant Executive Secretary, Utah Education Association, personal interview, August 13, 1970. 73Utah Legislative Council Interim Progress Report to the 1970 Budget Session, December, 1969, pp. 18-19. 192 already been reached that Community-Schools would receive some form of support. The State Educational Agency staff prepared a working draft stating that the purpose of the bill was to encourage the establishment of community education programs in local districts by providing partial payment of salaries of Community-SChool Directors and Coordinators, and by author- izing boards of education to maintain joint programs. The complete text of the proposed legislation may be found in Appendix H. The proposed legislation clearly shows the intent to obtain a separate Community-School bill. The Joint Legisla— tive Council of the State Board of Education and the School Boards Association had been committed to a categorical fund- ing bill for over a year, and other organizations had given their support. Inclusion of Community Education in School Finance Proqram As the Budget Session got under way in January, 1970, it became apparent that a separate bill would not be forth- coming. State Superintendent T. H. Bell, with the advice of his staff members, recommended that community education be included as a section of a bill, previously adopted, which was quite closely related to community education.74 74T. H. Bell, telephone interview, Washington, D. C., April 13, 1971. 193 A letter co-signed by Joseph L. Nielson, State Coordinator of Community School Education, and Israel C Heaton, Regional Center Director, reflects the change in plans. The letter was sent to Community—School coordinators and directors at the beginning of the Budget Session. It said in part: Inasmuch as categorical funding of new programs may not be a possibility this coming year, and in com- pliance with a recommendation made by Dr. T. H. Bell, we have been successful in including community school education in an extended school year bill which previous— ly was passed by the Legislature. We will be asking for educational monies in this program, a portion of which will go for community school education programs. . . . The School Superintendents within the State of Utah desire that there be a great deal of flexibility relating to the use of extended year monies; consequently, it is to our political advantage as we talk with our superin— tendents that we emphasize the flexibility of this facet of the school finance bill rather than seeking cate- gorical funds earmarked strictly for community school education. This gives us the challenge of doing a good job of selling community school education so that the superintendents will elect to use extended year- extended day funds for community school education. The proposed bill reads in part: “State supported minimum school" or "minimum school program" means such school programs for elementary, kindergarten and high schools as may be dperated and maintained for the total of the following annual costs: . . . (7) An amount of ($700,000) $900,000 annually for extended year and summer programs or extended day com- munity schools." (Note: We received”$700,000 for extended year services last year, we are seeking $900,000 this year.) The above measure simply means that school districts can apply for extended year and summer programs or ex- tended day community school education programs. We feel that community schools will get a significant amount of support under the proposed school finance bill with the more conventional extended year and summer programs. Enclosed is a list of legislators, by district, as well as a suggested procedure for approaching these important people. Would you please communicate with as many people as possible in the next three weeks, or 194 preferably during the next week, asking that they communicate with their legislators seeking their sup— port for the extended year-~extended day concept. Please tell them to refer to community school education as a part of the extended year program at this time, otherwise the legislators may consider it a new program which does not merit consideration at this first annual budget session. . . .75 As evidenced in the letter above, at the beginning of the legislative session, plans for a separate categorical bill were abandoned and Community-School legislation became part of a section of the package bill. House Bill Number 9, Utah Legislature Budget Session, 1970 House Bill Number 9 was the School Finance Program of the 1970 Budget Session of the Thirty—eighth Legislature. The Budget Session had been established by amendment of the Utah Constitution by referendum in 1968. Regular annual sessions of the State Legislature were to be held-~in odd— numbered years general sessions of forty—five days, and in even-numbered years budget sessions of twenty days. Since both House and Senate were dealing almost exclu- sively with budgetary matters, all legislators were members of the Appropriations Committee. There were two separate education committees organized, but a Joint Education Com- mittee worked on the School Finance Program bill. Because of this, when the time came to vote, it was a foregone 75Joseph L. Nielson and Israel C Heaton, letter to Com- munity-School directors and coordinators, n.d. (January, 1970, beginning of Budget Session). 195 conclusion that the basic recommendation of the Joint Educa- tion Committee would be acceptable to both houses. Senator Wilmer L. Barnett had been Chairman of the Senate Education Committee in 1969, but because Barnett's brother was on the staff of the State Educational Agency, Lamar Buckner was asked by Senate President Haven Barlow to chair the committee during the Budget Session. No particular overt group in the legislature pushed for legislation for community education. It had the general sup- port of most legislators, but was not considered to be a crucial issue, as the intense activities of lobbyists might indicate. During the Budget Session, Joseph Nielson, Avard Rigby, Israel Heaton, Ron Stephens, and Jadk McDonald held a ninety— minute luncheon meeting with eleven members of the Joint Education Committee. Success was achieved in getting further commitment for Community-School legislation, largely because several other educational groups were saying basically the same things to the committee. "Members of the Joint Legisla- tive Committee expressed their opinion that this united interest and concern was indeed meritorious and unique."76 Charles Stewart Mott Honorary Doctorate and Visit to the State Legislature On January 20, 1970, all preceding Community—School activities of the BYU Center and others were culminated when 76Joseph L. Nielson, letter to Nick G. Pappadakis, February 9, 1970. 196 Brigham Young University bestowed an honorary Doctor of Education Degree upon Charles Stewart Mott, the 94-year-old founder of the Mott Foundation. The idea of honoring of Mr. Mott was conceived by Alma Heaton, the brother of Israel Heaton and also a member of the BYU faculty. The ceremony, attended by about 10,000 students, townspeOple, and faculty, was broadcast in color on television, and was re-broadcast later. Filmed segments were shown on commercial television news broadcasts. The citation for the presentation explained Mr. Mott's interest in community education, and said that by 1958 he had given $50,000,000 to community education through the Mott Foundation. Since 1968, BYU had received approximately $145,000 for Community-School development. The citation extolled Mr. Mott's adoption of the Community-School philos— ophy and said: This philosophy places the Mott Foundation on the front line in the war against ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, incompetence, poverty, disease and despair. It has been a catalyst, valuable as a trail-blazer, as a pathfinder and as a trouble shooter. The citation, found in full in Appendix I, concluded: Mr. President, in recognition of his unwavering dedication to high principles, for his life of service to his country, for his demonstrated concern for the welfare of all mankind, and for his leadership in com- munity education, I recommend that Mr. Charles Stewart Mott, humanitarian-educator, be awarded the degree of Doctor of Education, honoris causa.77 77"BrighamYoung University Honors Charles Stewart Mott," biography of C. S. Mott given at the presentation of an honorary Doctor of Education Degree, Brigham Young University, January 20, 1970. 197 After he was robed, Mr. Mott spoke briefly about com- munity education. Following the ceremony he was conducted to a luncheon in his honor. Seventy-five peeple attended, representing the university administration, the Center Advisory Committee, the University of Utah, the State School Board, the State Educational Agency staff, the superinten- dents and principals from schools conducting community educa- tion programs, the Community-School directors of Utah and Idaho, and the Utah Technical College at Provo. During the luncheon, Mr. Mott matched stories with BYU President Wilkinson and others, and addressed the group for aboutItwenty minutes on the subjects of inflation, taxation, and education. For dinner that evening he joined the Com- munity-School directors, who were holding their monthly seminar. The group presented a sheepskin cut in the shape of Utah and signed by the Community-School directors present. On the following day, January 21, 1970, Mr. Mott was taken to Salt Lake City to visit four of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon), and then to view the body of the late President, David O. McKay, lying in state in the Tabernacle on Temple Square. Mr. Mott was then accompanied to the State Legislature by Mrs. Mott, Dr. Thomas Mayhew, Dr. Israel Heaton, Dr. Burton Olsen, Dr. Avard Rigby, and Dr. Joseph Nielson. An appro- priate enconium was read into the Senate Journal.78 The House 78§§Q§L§_£Qg£ggl, 1970 Budget Session of the Thirty- eighth Legislature of the State of Utah, pp. 64-65. 198 Journal reported the visit with the following: On motion of Representative Fowler, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, with the Speaker as Chairman, for the purpose of hearing from Mr. Charles Stewart Mott, 94, of Flint, Michigan, automotive industrialist and philanthropist. Mr. Mott stated that he was very happy over the courtesies and favors that have been showered upon him since he arrived in Utah. Yesterday he received the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Education from Brigham Young University. He said he was a close friend to Mr. George Romney and worked with him when he was Governor of Michigan. He concluded by saying that retirement may apply to some people, but he won't re~ tire until he can't "wiggle."l9 Mr. Mott briefly addressed each house of the legislature, receiving standing ovations from Senators and Representa- tives. Mr. and Mrs. Mott were then taken to the Salt Lake Airport, where they boarded a plane to return to Flint. Israel Heaton, Mr. Mott's host in Utah, believed that his visit was very important to the Utah Community-School movement. In a letter reporting the visit, he said: His visit to Utah has done more than any other single event to acquaint peOple with what we are doing. Because of him, they listened to what we had to say, and I'm sure will continue to listen for the years ahead. We have every reason to believe that our legislature will assist school districts financially, partially because of his visit to their chambers.80 The wide publicity given to Mr. Mott's visit by Brigham Young University, the State Legislature, and the mass media 7 9W of Utah, Thirty-eighth Legislature Budget Session, Commencing Monday, January 12, and Ending Saturday, January 31, 1970, pp. 31-32. 80Israel Heaton, letter to Frank Manley, January 21, 1970. 199 undoubtedly reinforced the dissemination efforts of the past and had some influence on the legislators themselves, even though they were already committed to the support of the Community-School. In a personal interview shortly after his trip to Utah, Mr. Mott spoke at length about how pleased he was with the progress of the BYU Regional Center. The following excerpts from comments also reveal his pleasure with the activities surrounding the reception of the honorary degree: We planted a seed at BYU and it grew. They liked the plan so much they wanted to give me a degree. . . . My visit to Utah was a revelation to me. It's a beau- tiful part of the country. The peOple were most courteous and hospitable. I met some of the top Mormons and educators in the state. . . . The BYU fieldhouse holds over 10,000 people, and they were very pleasant and attentive. It was an un- usually happy proposition. Ordinarily in other uni- versities they say "Here's your degree. Goodbye." The Utah people were very cordial and hospitable. . . . They took me to the Senate and House and introduced me. I was extremely well received. In fact, I was never made so welcome in my life as in Utah. . . . Unfortunately President McKay of the Mormon Church died a couple of days before I got there. I feel that I missed a great event by not meeting him. His body was lying in state in the Tabernacle, and they took me to see him. . . . It was a swell affair. I've got quite a number of these honorary degrees, but there is no degree I've got that I value more highly than this one. . . . Israel Heaton is a great man. He became my particu- lar friend there. Avard Rigby is another who was very cordial. He has done a lot for community education in Utah. . . . Community education in Utah is going great guns now, and I'm glad that the Foundation could have a hand in it.81 81Charles Stewart Mott, personal interview, Flint, Michigan, March 10, 1970. 200 Action of the Joint Education Committee The Joint Education Committee decided not to write a separate bill for the Community-School program, but to in— clude it in the section relating to extended year and summer school programs. That particular section was con— sidered in several forms. Some temporary indecision was caused by the fact that all committee members did not have identical copies for several days. During the previous year $700,000 had been apprOpriated for extended year and summer programs. One early form of the new bill would give $900,000, and include Community— School programs as Optional, with no funds earmarked. A later form included $1,000,000, the amount recommended by the Utah Education Association. This form read as follows: ($700,000) The state's contribution of $1,000,000 annually for extended year and summer school programs or ex— tended day community school programs approved by the State Board of Education shall be apportioned and distributed to the school districts on the basis Of a formula promulgated and adopted by the State Board Of Education. The next form Of the bill considered by the Joint Educaw tion Committee was revised somewhat in wording, and included the categorical allocation of $200,000 for Community-SOhOOls: . ($700,000) The state's contribution of $1,000,000 annually for extended year, extended day, summer and community school programs approved by the State Board Of Education shall be apportioned and distributed to the school districts on the basis of a formula promulgated and adopted by the State Board of Education, of which not less than $200,000 shall be allocated annually for community school programs. According to Lowell Crandall, staff member Of the Legisla- tive Council, the Committee did not intend to earmark the $200,000 for Community-Schools, and did so under pressure from leaders Of the House of Representatives. This came as a welcome surprise to the educators who had been working for the separate bill for community education, since they were feeling gratified that community education was to be included at all. ‘ggggg Action on House Bill Number 9 The final form of the bill reduced the total expendi- ture to $800,000, but made no further changes. This was the form settled on by members of the Joint Education Committee. and was introduced as part Of the education package on the floor of the House Of Representatives on January 30, 1970, the ninteenth day of the twenty—day Budget Session. The House Journal records all Official actions on the bill.82 House Bill Number 9 was sponsored by Redd, Matheson, Fowler, Schaerrer, and Peterson. Ben Fowler was the legislator most influential for Community-School legislation, according to 3 who was himself very influential, Senator Lamar Buckner,8 particularly in the Senate. On the morning of January 30, 1970, House Bill NO. 9, School Finance Program, was introduced, read the second time, 82Journal Of the House Of Representatives, 9p. cit., pp. 93-132, passim. 83Lamar Buckner, personal interview, gp. cit. 202 and placed at the head of the third reading calendar. In the afternoon some minor amendments were made, none affect— ing the Community-School section, however. The bill was then passed on the following roll call: Ayes, 68; Nays, 1; Absent, 0. (Voting in the negative was Representative D. L. Buckner. Note—-this was n93 Senator Buckner.) House Bill Number 9 was then transmitted to the Senate for its action. §enate Action on Hogse Bill Number 9 The Senate Journal records actions on House Bill Number 9,84 which was received by the Senate on January 31, 1970, the final day of the Budget Session. It was read the first time, and by motion of Senator Buckner, placed on the Second Reading Calendar. An explanation by a proponent constituted the second reading. Some minor amendments were made, none affecting the Community-School section, and House Bill Number 9 then passed on the following roll call: Yeas, 25; Nays, 0; Absent, 3. The amended bill was then returned to the House. The House concurred in the Senate amendment and returned House Bill Number 9 to the Senate. It was signed by the President of the Senate and returned to the House, where it was signed by the Speaker and transmitted to the GovernOr. “W. 22- _cit-. pp- 148—180. passim. 203 Actipn of the Governor; on Hopge Bi 1 Number 9 Governor Calvin L. Rampton signed House Bill Number 9 1970. The on February 10, 1970. It took effect April 2, final form of the paragraph containing the Community—School appropriation read as follows: 53-7—18 The State's contribution of $800,000 annually for extended year, extended day, summer and community school programs approved by the state board of education shall be apportioned and distributed to the school districts on the basis of a formula promulgated and adopted by the state board of education, of which not less than $200,000 shall be allocated annually for community school programs. Two new interrelated educational concepts were intro— and adjunctive to duced in this bill-—the Community—School, it, the extended day program. Though the bill was passed, The success- Community—School develOpment was just beginning. ful legislation was just that, not an end, but a beginning. Success Is Achieved Thus the Community—School philosophy had develOped from its birth in 1967 to a stage of maturity indicated by the state appropriation of funds. Development did not stop here. The Legislature charged the State Board Of Education with the responsibility to supervise the development Of Community- School programs throughout the state, a mature stage Of , activity compared with the frenetic events of the recent past. . 85Laws of the State of Utah, 1370 (Salt Lake City: arraine Press, 1970), p. 33. -.'I ‘ I .\_.,.C 204 The successful achievement Of legislation was the result primarily of the efforts of individuals who believed that the Community-School philosophy could result in useful programs for Utah citizens. viduals were manifest in many ways. close of the Budget Session, The activities Of these indi— Six weeks after the Ron Stephens, one Of the most influential and energetic proponents, wrote a letter in which he summarized the reasons for success: As I look back and attempt tO identify some keys to the success of the prOgram I think Of these: a— b... The in 1967, Working with men in the Legislature so that they had an understanding of the concept. Getting some pilot programs started which could be viewed as models. Getting the press and other news media involved and knowledgeable of Community schools. Getting as mggy people as possible talking up the program. Summary modern Utah Community—School philosophy was born fathered by Israel C Heaton and Avard A. Rigby. The birth and development Of the Community-School philosophy and programs were made possible through two major factors-- the existence of a compatible educational philOSOphy, and the dissemination work Of Rigby, Heaton, and many other' dedicated change agents. 85Ron Stephens, personal letter, March 19, 1970. 205 The Community—School philosOphy was readily adOpted by many early proponents because they saw in Community-School programs the way to achieve the expansion of what they had long practiced and believed--that the schools belonged to the people and should respond to the needs of the people. the Utah State Board Brigham Young University, Provo City, of Education, and numerous other educationally oriented organizations adOpted the Community-School concept because of the dissemination efforts of those who were willing to dedicate a major share of their time and talent to this end. The Mott Foundation of Flint, Michigan, had a major impact on Utah' 8 adoption Of the Community-School through funding the Brigham Young University Regional Center for as well as through the Community School Development in 1968, participation of Utahns in Flint, and through participation of Mott Program personnel in Utah dissemination activities. The BYU Regional Center activities in dissemination, imple- and training were coordinated with the similar mentation, activities Of the State"‘Educational Agency and other organi- These COOperative and coordinated activities were zations. instrumental in gaining statewide support for Community- Table 6 is a list Of events summarizing the activi- Schools. :ies which led from discovery Of the idea in 1967 to state d0ption and funding in 1970. 206 TABLE 6 MAJOR FACTORS LEADING TO THE STATEWIDE ADOPTION 1847- 1967 1935 1963- 1967 1967 1967 1967 1968 1968 1968 1967- 1970 1968 .968 968- '70 OF THE COMMUNITY-SCHOOL IN UTAH, 1970 Utah educational philosophy and programs included the Community—Scho‘ol concept. The Mott Foundation began to disseminate the Community-School philosOphy. Israel C Heaton learned of the Mott Community— School philosOphy, and moved toward adoption. Avard A. Rigby learned Of the Mott Community-School philosophy, and moved toward adOption. The Mott Program of Flint was presented to Utahns by Mott personnel. Forty-six influential leaders from Utah visited Flint. _ The Utah State Board of Education adopted the Com— munity-School philosophy. The Spring school Administrators' Conference centered on the theme of the Community-school; 700+ participated. The Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community—School Development was established. The film "To Touch‘a Child" was shown in dozens Of presentations throughout the state. A joint agreement between BYU and the State School Board made the Center Director amember of the state staff. and training activi- Dissanination, implementation, and were co- ties of the BYU Center multiplied, ordinated with others. Pilot Community-School programs were established in several school districts. continued fiMflE 1968- 1970 196977.. 1969 1968- 1970 1969 1969 1969 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 207 6—-continued The Community-School philOSOphy was adopted by many educationally oriented organizations and individuals . .Categorical support Of Community—Schools was sought through House Bill 222. A luncheon meeting was held for Senators and RepresentatiVes at the State Capitol. Continual publicity was given to Community-Schools by the mass media. The Utah Community-School Seminar was held; 200+ influentials participated. Dr. Joseph L. Nielson was hired as State Coordi- nator of Community School Education. Categorical funding of Community-Schools was again proposed to the Legislature. Community—School legislation was made part of an existing bill rather than remaining separate. Interpersonal communications with state Legisla- tors were emphasized by proponents Of Community- Schools. A luncheon meeting was held with menbers Of the Joint Education Committee. C. S. Mott received a BYU honorary doctorate, and spoke in the Senate and House. On January 31st, the Utah Legislature passed House Bill Number 9, which included a categorical apprOpriation Of $200,000 for the development of Community-School programs. The State Board of Education was charged to administer the program throughout the state. CHAPTER IX COMMUNITY-SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT SUBSEQUENT' TO LEGISLATION Introduction Before the dust from the 1970 Special Session of the Legislature had settled, work was begun by the State Edu- cation Agency to implenent the provisions of House Bill Number 9. Dissemination and implementation efforts con- tinued, a State Advisory Committee met, guidelines were developed and applied, proposals were approved, and programs soon started. The present lOOked good in spite of minor resistance, and. the future looked even better, especially with legislation pending in 1971. Community-Schools began tO meet the needs of all Utah citizens, including at least some minority groups. This chapter traces these and other developments. DevelOpment O; Community-School Guidelines The $200,000 apprOpriated by the Legislature for Community—School programs was to "be apportioned and dis— tributed to the school districts on the basis of a formula >romulgated and adopted by the state board Of education." 208 . 209 Members of the staff of the State Education Agency had begun preparation of guidelines even before Governor Rampton signed the bill on February 10, 1970. On February 11th, the Deputy Superintendent for Instruc- tion Services, Dr. Lerue Winget, sent a letter to district superintendents, in which he outlined the preliminary think- ing of the state staff regarding how the $200,000 should be spent. His letter said in part: In working with the Legislature on Part B, proponents supported the position that the money would be used for the employment of leadership (school community We directors and coordinators) on a matching basis. are also of the Opinion that school community coordi- nators and directors should receive a minimum of six weeks specialized training. Much Of this training, can, we believe, be accomplished during the summer months. We do not have a clear position as yet c1>n the formula for distributing this part Of the money. An 3g hoc committee'met on March 13th to review the tentative guidelines for Community—School programs. The committee consisted of Lerue Winget, Avard Rigby, Quentin Utley, Joseph Nielson, Walter Ulrich, Roy Lindeman--all members Of the State Education Agency staff——and Israel Heaton. It was the intent and desire of this committee to establish guidelines which would require that Community- SchOOl directors have a minimum of six weeks Of approved training. This and other "must's" were Opposed by district superintendents who wanted maximum freedom to run their own programs. As a result, many of the "must's" were changed :0 "should' 5" in the final guidelines. fl J'1:.erue Winget, letter to District Superintendents, tah State Board of Education, February 11, 1970. 210 Dr. Winget presented a policy statement to the State Board of Education. It was approved on April 10, 1970. The approved policy statement read in part: The portion of the plan related to community school programs shall emphasize the utilization of pro- fessional services of community school coordinators and/or directors, who should have received specialized training approved by the State Board Of Education; shall reflect coordination with plans for extended year, extended day, and summer programs; shall contain an evaluation component; and shall assure record keeping and accounting in harmony with regulations promulgated by the State Board Of Education for regular school programs. The administrative guidelines developed by the State Education Agency staff were in harmony with the above policy An statement, and were made Official by this Board action. adaptation Of the guidelines relating specifically to Community-School programs may be found in Appendix J. In addition to explaining the Community-School concept, the Guidelines defined the terms "Community School Program," "Community School Coordinator, " "Community School Director, " The Guidelines and "Community School Advisory Committee." then explained the procedure for application for approval of Community-School programs, and the method for determining the allocation to individual districts. Four basic guidelines were established, with some recommendations. The four basic guidelines are these: 2"Recommended State Board Of Education Policy on Ex- tended Year, Extended Day, Summer School and Community School Programs Under the Uniform School Fund Act of 1970, " Utah State Board of Education, April 10, 1970, General Exhibit Number 607, p. 2. 211 A. Guideline — Leadership and Training Local district personnel designated as community school coordinators and/or directors under the State supported community school program should have re- ceived specialized training approved by the State Education Agency, prior to functioning in such posi- tions. B. Guideline - Utilization Of Funds Community school funds allocated to local school districts by the State Board Of Education may be used for the training and/or employment of community school coordinators and community school directors and other community school expenses. C. Guideline - Records and Reporting Participating school districts shall maintain fiscal records in such a manner that all local expendi— tures for community school leadership and training are readily identifiable, and shall provide the State Education Agency with reports Of community school fis- cal and program Operations upon request. D. Guideline - Evaluation Each community school prOposal submitted by local school districts should include an evaluation component which will provide for a continuing assessment Of the district's progress toward the achievement of project Objectives. The ten districts which had received seed money grants from the BYU Regional Center were Operating under guidelines established by the Center. These guidelines, which may be found in Appendix K, were considerably more detailed than those of the state. 31bid. 212 State Community Education Advfigsfiory Committee In order to promote adoption of the Community-School concept, and to establish lines Of communication throughout the state, a State Community Education Advisory Conunittee of 28 prominent Utahns was selected by the State Education Agency staff under the direction Of Joseph Nielson and Avard Rigby. This state committee, which was to meet four times a year, was the first so established in the United States. The members represented a broad cross-section of the state. This was so designed that many ideas for Community-School administration and programs would flow in to the State Education Agency to help the Community-School be truly responsive to the needs of the citizens of the communities. In Table 7, on page 213, the names and posi- tions of the committee menbers arepresented. Resistance; to the Community—School Concept The Conununity-School concept and programs as such have not been actively resisted by any group to date, though both subtle and overt resistance has been evident on the basis of control and financial need. Several school super- intendents have been afraid that the State Educational Agency vould exercise too much control over local programs. One uperintendent, apparently a member Of a vocal minority, aid in a personal interview, 213 TABLE 7 NAMES AND POSITIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE STATE CDMMUNITY EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE* gfime Gunn L. McKay Quentin Utley Lamont Bennett Lynn A. Argyle Kay Allen Benny Schmidt Leon McCarrey Walt Ulrich Daryl McCarty D. James Cannon Richard P. Lindsay Jack E. Christensen Darld Long Israel C Heaton John F. Gisler Joseph L. Nielson Mrs. Mary Cockayne Julian Salas Evan Baugh .Melvin A. White Wes Bowen Jack McDonald Mrs. Lila Bjorklund Avard A. Rigby Ronald Stephens Penrod Glazier Emery A. Morelli Lee R. Caine '7 Position Administrative Assistant tO Governor Administrator, State Education Agency Superintendent, Sevier School District Staff Asst., United States Steel Corp. Salesman, Investors Inrernational Corp. Exec. Dir. Utah Municipal League Assoc. Comm. Utah System Higher Educ. Administrator, State Education Agency Exec. Secy. Utah Education Assoc. Consultant and V. P. Bank of Salt Lake Director, Utah Div. of Family Services Exec. Dir. Utah Assoc. Of Counties Exec. Secy. Utah School Boards Assoc. Dir. BYU Regional Center C-S Dev. Asst. Dean, Weber State College Coordinator, C-S Ed., St. Bd. of Educ. Pres. Women's Legislative Council Pres. Carbon County SOCIO (Spanish- speaking Organization for Community Integrity and Opportunity) Pres. Sec. School Principals Assoc. Dir. Utah Division of Aging Dir. Public Affairs, KSL Inc. Asst. Dir. Com. and Ur. Dev. U. of Utah Pres. Utah Congress Of Parent Teachers Administrator, State Education Agency Community-School Coordinator, weber Pres. Elem. School Principals Assoc. Program Dir. Utah Dept. Employment Sec. Principal, Mt. Ogden Jr. High School "'State Community Education Advisory Committee, " Utah State Board of Education, 1970. 214 The issue is who is going to run the schools of If the state is going to set up bureaucracies Utah. to control things, we should have one system as in Hawaii. My Opinion is shared by most superintendents. We weren't in favor Of state school money for Com- munity-School programs. If the people want Community- School programs, they should pay for them. The Legislature pushed the program on us. . . .4 In spite of this superintendent's Opinion, most Of the superintendents in the state did approve the Community- School program, but had reservations about state control. Some felt threatened by the direct contact of State Education Agency personnel with local directors and coordinators. After school started in the fall of 1970, the Carbon County Education Association registered dismay that class sizes were up to as high as 40 students. The Association filed a grievance with the school board because they had reduced the number of teachers, while enrollment was going up, and had added a "night principal" for the Community- School program. At least one local school board initially rejected the Community-School concept because they felt it would be "a duplication Of the present Adult Education Program already in Operation in the district."5 This board has since adOpted the Community-School concept and programs in the district. 4School district superintendent, personal interview, December 16, 1970. 5"Nebo School Board Rejects Duplication. " The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, November 17, 1969. 215 Some passive resistance existed as a result of foot- For dragging or lack of commitment in some districts. example, a local school'board member reported in a letter that he had received assurances from seven different organ- izations that they would all be willing to cooperate in the establishment of a Community-School program in a new school "I have started a lot of peOple He said, Every- in the district. . Community School situation. thinking about the . . one I have discussed the project with has been enthused and excited, with one possible exception.“5 The exception was the district Community-School Coordinator. Some resistance has been felt from the Utah Education Association, through its Executive Secretary, Dr. Daryl a member of the State Community Educa- McCarty--incidentally, Dr. McCarty objected to the tion Advisory Committee. Community-School appropriation because part of the money was taken from the summer school program. He was quoted as saying, "We're not Opposed to the community school concept. But a small acorn in seed money can grow to a six million dollar oak tree in a few years. We have to prune it to let ..7 the summer program grow. McCarty believed that both the Community-School Dr. program and the extended year program were under-funded. 6Local school board member, personal letter, January 5, 1971. 703A Actiron: r’ession of Utah, Vol. The_VOige of the Unified Education Pro- II, NO. 12, December 1970, p. l. 216 He said, "The UEA has not taken an Official position, but we believe that the Legislature should have waited until they could have funded the program adequately."8 Some very minor reluctance rather than Opposition was expressed by some who felt that the numerous activities Of the Mormon Church precluded a need in the state for Community— Schools. This was laid to rest as some districts developed "Family Night" programs specifically in response to the expressed desires of some Church leaders. The support of the General Authorities of the Church is exemplified by a letter from Apostle N. Eldon Tanner to Joseph L..Nielson, State Coordinator of Community School Education. The letter said in part: . . . Your program is a very commendable one and merits the support Of all our citizens. The extended use of the school buildings should prove very effec- tive if properly administered and used. The goals of your organization are most worthy, and I certainly wish you success as you go forward in these endeavors.9 Allgcation of the $200,000 ApprOpriation Several alternative methods of allocating the $200,000 appropriated by the Legislature were considered by the State Educational Agency. The final decision was to allocate the funds to each district according to its ratio of the 8Dr. Daryl McCarty, Executive Secretary, Utah Education Association, personal interview, Murray, Utah, August 20, 1970. 9N. Eldon Tanner, personal letter to Joseph L. Nielson, February 12, 1970. 217 total number of Distribution Units on which the state— supported school finance program was based. The result of this was the diffusion of the money throughout the state, with great variation. Granite School District, with 2591.545 Distribution Units, was allocated $40,775.00; while Daggett County School District, with 18.863 Distribu- tion Units, was allocated $281.00, as seen in Table 8. This procedure was apparently in Opposition to the desires and expectations Of at least some of the legislators, who did not want the money spread so thin that it would not do measureable good. As reported previously, Senator lamar Buckner said that the Legislature wanted pilot programs that could be evaluated for evidence of success. The result of this method of allocating the $200,000 was the establishment of at least minimum Community—School programs in 38 of the 40 Utah school districts during the 1970-71 school year. This will ultimately be more effective than pilot projects would have been, in the opinion of the writer and others. Establishment of Community-Schools, 1970-1971 Before September 1970, ten districts already had Com— munity School programs started with seed money from the BYU Regional Center for Community School DevelOpment: Provo, Weber, Salt Lake, Granite, Ogden, Murray, Uintah, Millard, Carbon, and Davis. 218 . Chad .cosumosom mo oumom oumum swan ..Hema as .aoaumauaouass ouaum ooo.oo~s maeumooaaa no escape: o>aumgumo~4= "mouaom ooo.m mum.v mmo.eo~ >muusz coo.w Hom.oo opossum .oz amm.~ omm.ema swoon mem.o mma.m~¢ onmz ooo.m Neo.m osa.mmm o>oum new oam.em cameos oom.a mmm.oa mmm.aaa cacao oo~.m emm.a N-.o~H unmade: ooo.~ mem.am omm.ames oxen seam ems Nem.¢¢ mews oom.a mom.sa mma.mae seams mms mmo.om page mmm mmm.¢m mamas ooo.ma ems.~mm emeuoe mms.~ www.mea soumcsnmms. AH~.~ mom.m¢a aouH m¢~.a v¢~.me consume. oo~.m mes.o¢ mem.ammm massage oom.m ~mm.~ mem.oma amazes mem.s mma.em cameo mma.v mom.mm~ cameos omo.s mmm.mm sameness mam ~oe.o~ nausea moe.a mmo.mm mamas mum «as.em seesaw .om Hoo.~ mao.m~a meanness mmm.a moe.om opossum .om oo~.m Hmm.a~ oem.mome me>mn ooo.m ooa.m www.mma uoe>om emu mom.mH newsman mmo.a omo.as~ case cum mma.~ mc~.~ma cognac mom «ae.sm roam oom.¢ mma.mm~ mnomo mes omm.m~ mused me~.o mao.oo¢ noses xom woe mam.m~ mono sums mom Hmm.mm nm>mom mmm.a mem.~m seesaw .oz mam.o~ H¢A.Hos madman some: ucosuomme mMmcp passages soeoz_u:oenoam4 [muses possumwm comm uuoz coeusneuumsn comm use: couusnauumaa “Head Mm . Hum." .Wh 360mm AOONUmINBHZDZ—AOU mom Qfiafimmommmd 000.00Ne .mO ZOHB¢UOQQ4~ ASHBHZH m Hams—u. 219 The following districts established Community—School programs in September 1970: Alpine, Box Elder, Cache, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Jordan, Jane, Nebo, Sevier, South Sanpete, Tooele, Wayne, Washington, and Morgan. In addition to the 27 listed above, the following eleven districts started Community-School programs in January 1971: Beaver, Daggett, Juan, North Sanpete, Park City, Piute, Rich, San Juan, South Summit, Wasatch, and Logan. Only two districts did not start programs which were eligible for funds under the state guidelines. These were Tintic and North Summit, both of which have had joint com- munity and school activities throughout their histories. Ironically, North Summit District was the One involved in the 1932 lawsuit (discussed in Chapter VIII), which charged that the school in Coalville had tOO many school-community activities! In order to receive its share of the $200,000, each district had to submit an acceptable prOposal to the State Educational Agency. About one-third of the proposals were initially returned to the districts for modification, but eventually 38 of 39 proposals were accepted for funding. Tintic District submitted a prOposal which was not accepted. Since Tintic's share of the $200,000 was only $323.00, this ‘was not a major problem. (See Table 8.) North Summit 220 District would have received $1,983.00 for an approved proposal. In addition to the Community-School programs started under the aegis of the state and the BYU Center, six pro- grams were started in Salt Lake and Granite School districts with Model Cities funds. The operating agencies under the Model Cities contract are the two school districts, and the programs are closely coordinated with seven other programs in Salt Lake and those in Granite. Some Model Cities schools will not charge any fees for participation, as the regular programs have done. According to one project pro- posal, "As no fees will be charged as in the other Granite Community Schools, particular attention will be paid to evaluative comparisons as to significant differences between non-fee and fee based schools."1° Community interest and participation shortly after the initial legislation is exemplified in the following news- paper articles. On October 27, 1970, the Deseret News printed an article describing in detail the Community-School programs in Granite school District. Under the headline, "Granite Reports Inrerest in Community Schools,‘ the article said that residents were urged to "come to school as a family," and that "participation in this move toward more extensive use of the schools has been overwhelming." The 1°Project Description, Redwood Community (School) Center, Salt Lake Model Cities Agency, 1970-71. 221 more than twenty-five activities described Offered "something for everyone--pre-school children to senior citizens." The Salt Lake Tribune printed an article on December 23, _1970, under the title "Superintendent to Retire from Jordan District," reporting that Jordan School District had "81 Community School classes with a minimum Of 10 persons in each class now Operating in the district." The description of programs develOped since July 1, l970--the effective date of the legislation--is a subject for another study. Suffice it to reiterate here that all forty Utah school districts expanded Old programs and develOped new programs in response to the philosophical and financial stimulus of the 1970 Community-School appropriation. For an introduction to the Salt Lake City School Dis- trict Community-School program, see Appendix J, a brochure entitled "Community Education Services in Salt Lake City." This brochure reflects Salt Lake City's rapid sophistication of the Community-School inherent within the pre-existing concepts of community education. The School Community Council Chart, and the Flow'Chart, in the brochure, will be of particular interest. Although the State Education Agency had intended for each Community-School worker to have prior training, this was not required in the guidelines, and some Directors and Coordinators of new programs had little or no special train— ing at all initially. In response to concern about this, Dr. Rigby sent a memorandum to local school superintendents on November 5, 1970, in which he gave a status report and encouraged the training of Community-School workers through the BYU Regional Center.' The memorandum read in part: The administrative guidelines and procedures for implementing the Community School Program, which have been approved by the State Board Of Education, were based upon the provision Of qualified leadership through the selection and training of community school coordinators and directors. One hundred and eight community schools are currently Operating in 37 Utah school districts under the direction Of selected person- nel whose specialized training in community education ranges from an intensive short term workshop to a full year of formal academic preparation. we encourage all interested local district person— nel to avail themselves Of this Opportunity to meet the .leadership training standards implicit in the State guidelines. . . .1 A report issued half way through the 1971 fiscal year by the State Education Agency showed that there were: 38 school districts participating; 70 Community—Schools Open 1—2 nights per week; 30 Community-Schools open 3 nights per week; 20 Community—Schools Open 5~6 days and nights per week; 120 schools designated as Community-Schools; 120 Community-School Coordinators and Directors; 129,299 peOple participating in Community-School programs; 59 agencies or institutions cooperating with the Community-Schools; with _ q 124 different programs operating in Community-Schools.1‘ The Regional Center at BYU responded to the need for special training by scheduling special seminars and workshOps 11Avard A. Rigby, memorandum to Local District Superinm tendents, Utah State Board of Education, November 5, 1970. 12"Let's Open the Schools . . . for All People of All Ages at All Times," a brochure published by the BYU Regional Center for Community-School Development, n.d. (1971). 223 during the Christmas vacation and at other times When educa- tors could attend. In addition, monthly seminars were held for all Community-School workers in the state, thus assisting in the establishment of viable programs in practically every district. Dissgmination Activities Continued After the 1970 legislation, dissemination activities were steady, but not as intense as before. This was mainly because early efforts were generally introductions to a rela- tively new concept, while later efforts were to sustain and reinforce, as well as to introduce. .Dissemination activities of the State Education Agency were coordinated through Dr. Joseph L. Nielson. He made numerous presentations on the Community-School concept to various groups. For example, the Utah Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation received a message en- titled "Progress of Community Schools in Utah" in the UAHPER convention held October 9, 1970.13 Another example was a presentation by Dr. Nielson on "Community Education" at the 1970 convention of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, held in September 1970.14 ”w. Vol. I. No. 2, September 1970, p- 4. 14Official Program, Utah League of Cities and Towns, 63rd Annual Convention, September 17-19, 1970, in the Salt Palace, Salt Lake City, Utah. 224 Dr. Rigby and others of the State Education Agency staff also continued dissemination activities, many of them related to legislation during the 1971 General Session of the Legis— lature. In a personal interview in December 1970, Dr. Rigby said, "The Community-School program has had the most inten- sive exposure Of any educational prOgram that I know of." By August of 1970, the film "To Touch a Child" had been shown and.interpreted more than a hundred times. The organizations which had received such presentations were of every imagin- able kind, from the League of Women Voters, church groups, and local school boards, to Lions, Kiwanis, and Rotary clubs. A list of many of these organizations may'be found in Appendix L. The State Education Agency took an important step in February, 1970, when.it started publishing a newsletter called the "Community School Communicator." The "Communicator" has since been published monthly, relating news and views of Community—School programs throughout the state to a broad range of readers.15 Other activities also continued. The national conven- tion of NCSEA (National Community School Education Associ- ation), held in Phoenix in December 1970, attracted thirty- three Utah Community—School Directors, Coordinators, and others associated with the concept. 15Community School Communicator, newsletter published monthly beginning February, 1970, Utah State Board of Educa— tion. 225 Both large and small groups visited the Community- School programs in Flint, Michigan. On May 3-6, 1970, fifty-seven people visited in one group. An article in a local newspaper reported on the reactions of some of the Utahns as follows: The Millard County group was impressed with Flint--from the excellent meals provided in a community jr. college (food and preparation division) to the small group tours of an area vocational school, farm project, health center, cultural center, parks and schools interest never flagged. Excellent, outstanding and superb are inadequate adjectives to describe the program. . . . ‘ Tired, overfed and eagerly plotting community school projects, the Utahns left Flint Wednesday morn- ing for Utah full of great expectations.16 An editorial in the Deseret News, on August 17, 1970, gave a resumé of Community-School activity to date, abhoring the fact that some schools Charged fees that discouraged participation, and pointing out the need for continuing publicity. The editorial concluded: As society becomes more complex and technology expands, the demands on education become even greater. The community schools program is a good way to meet them. In helping the community school effort to fill the needs of the people in Utah, the new advisory com- mittee is taking on a stimulating challenge.17 In this editorial was the recognition that the effective- ness of the Community-School programs would depend both on making people aware of the Opportunities, and making the programs responsive to community needs. 15"Millard Group Studies School in Flint, Michigan Trip,’ Millard ngptv Chronicle, Delta, Utah, May 21, 1970. 17"Put Utah Schools to Greater Use," editorial in the Deseret News, Salt Lake City, August 17, 1970. 226 Dissemination activities were carried on by organiza- tions of various kinds, including the Utah Congress Of Parent Teachers. In the 1970 state convention, a resolution was adopted relating to the Community-School. This was a continuation of previous dissemination activities Of the Utah PTA, and expressed their intense interest. The resolu- tion expressed eloquently the need for the Community-School, and in five paragraphs encouraged PTA members to assume leadership, not only for establishing programs, but also for communicating "this understanding to others thereby acting in the capacity of a Public Relations source. . ."18 The full text of the resolution may be found in Appendix M. Dissemination activities were carried out by many local school districts. Provo hoSted 200 influential businessmen and industrialists at the annual Education-Business-Industry day on March 17, 1970 (known as EBI Day). Dr. Peter Clancy addressed the group on "Building Better Community School Relations to Provide a Better Way of Life."19 While in Utah, Dr. Clancy visited personnel Of the State Education Agency, including Superintendent Bell. He also addressed a group Of forty-two school and community administrators in Ogden. The BYU Regional Center continued dissemination activi— ties, typical Of which was a presentation on May 19th at legtgh Parent Teacher, Vol. 37, No. 9, May-June, 1970, pp. 14-15. 19Spotlight on Provo Education, Provo School District, March 17, 1970. 227 Spanish Fork High School, to community and school leaders and other citizens. This was in Nebo school District, where the school board initially rejected the Community-School concept as being unnecessary. An article in the Community- School Communicator in December.1970 said, "The community school program is off to a great start in Nebo School District," and described the programs in six schools Open for community use.2° The quarterly reports of the BYU Center reveal that dissemination presentations were made to newspaper editorial staff members; graduate classes; school administrators from Los Angeles, California; Exchange Club members; Certoma Club members; Utah Jaycees; Utah PTA; West Jordan Community Action Program; Senior Citizens; and many other groups. —In addition, by May 1971, sixty-one Utahns had been short-term Community—School interns in Flint, Michigan, and eleven more were scheduled for the following July. Appendix N is an adaptation of the year-end report submitted by the BYU Center to the Mott Foundation in 1971. The adaptation summarizes dissemination, training, and implementation activities of the Center by showing the number of Community-School workers trained, the financial structure, and that there were 222,930 enrollments and par- ticipants in 153 Community-Schools (including two in Idaho). 20Community School Communicator, pp. cit., December 1970. 228 By the end of the 1971 fiscal year, the BYU Regional Center had distributed seed money grants totaling $120,500 to twenty Utah school districts. Grants from the Mott Foundation to the BYU Center had been given each year——in 1968, $65,000; in 1969, $76,432; in 1970, $96,100; and approved for 1971, $100,000. The majority of this money was spent in Utah for dissemination, implementation, and training. The Future Ofotah Community-schoolfiProgram; The outlook for the future of Community—schools in Utah is Optimistic. Programs have the support of practically every branch of state government, while support at the grass— roots continues to develop as people become involved. An example of state support is provided by the Division of Aging. A report in August 1970 makes the folloWing state- ment: One of the duties of Community School Program staff members is to serve senior citizens by either complement— ing existing programs or opening up new projects to meet the needs of the locality in which they serve. County and City Council on Aging officers and members, officers and members of Senior Citizen Centers, all professional staff members involved with serving the aging should contact the following Community School Program repre- sentatives: . . . .2 Then follows a list of the eight regions of the state, with 21"Utah Regional Profile on Aging," a report of the Utah White House Conference Planning Committee, in conjunction with the Utah State Division of Aging, Utah Department of Social Services, August, 1970. 229 the names and addresses of community school directors and coordinators in each region. Another example of statewide support comes from the Designing Education for the Future project. The long-range plans and reconunendations of this organization included eight which were specifically related to the Community-School, as follows: Long Range Plans and Recommendations TO Be Fully in Brief Implemented By 3. Establish and staff a division Of 1972-73 Community School Education within the State Education Agency. 5. Establish regional training center 1970—71 for community school education. 6. Establish position of coordinator of 1970-71 community school education. 17. Develop state guidelines and standards 1970-71 for implementing community school programs. 18. Establish a state advisory committee 1970-71 for community school education. 19. Organize follow-up Utah Community 1970—71 school Visitation and WOrkshOp in Flint, Mich. 20. Select and train 20 new Community 1979-80 School Directors per year. 21. Initiate community educationzprograms 1979—80 in 20 new schools per year.2 Number 3 was started in 1970 with the hiring of Dr. Joseph L. Nielson as state Coordinator of Community School Educa— tion. Number 5 was completed in 1968, well ahead of schedule. Number 6 was completed in November 1970. Numbers 17, 18, and 19 have been completed. Number 20 ex- presses a goal already far surpassed, but continuous for the 22The Impact of the Designing Education for the Future Project in Utah, a report of a study (Denver: Improving State Leadership in Education, 1362 Lincoln Street, 80203), pp. 22—23. 230 future, with no problems foreseen. At the rate of adoption at the present time, there will not be 20 schools without programs by 1979-80, thus number 21 has already been fully implemented. The leadership of the State Education Agency is fully committed to the Community-School concept. State Superin- tendent Dr. Walter D. Talbot has been closely involved with the concept since 1967. He believes that Community-Schools have a great future. In a.personal interview he said: Community education is one of the better concepts to hit schools in years. The Community-School gives life to a concept we've always had in Utah--that the schools belong to the community. Everybody accepts the concept; the Community-School provides the vehicle. Now that we are started, we will move the concept for- ward, in spite of some Opposition. Deputy Superintendent Dr. Lerue Winget believes that "there will be a gradual growth as the Community-School concept takes hold and programs develOp," and that local leaders will be able to locate greater financial resources within their communities.24 Priority problems in Utah's educational system, for solution through state leadership, have been identified through a comprehensive statewide process administered by the Planning Council of the State Education Agency. The 150 major concerns of educators and citizens were first identified. 23Walter D. Talbot, personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 13, 1970. ' 24Lerue Winget, personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 17, 1970. 231 The 150 concerns were reduced to 56. These were analyzed for validity, and priorities were placed on those validated. Task forces are being organized to attack the following problems identified as having highest priority: 1. Equal educational Opportunity for all people, with emphasis on ethnic minorities and people with low income. 2. Equal educational opportunity for handicapped people. 3. Development of a State Board of Education pre-school policy. 4. Development of a school accreditation policy. 5. Emphasis on reading objectives not being met satisfactorily. 6. Emphasis on objectives of vocational education preparation. 7. Emphasis on objectives related to humanizing educa- tion and nurturing humaneness. 8. Improved management of public education cos- effectiveness, accounting, planning, programming, and budgeting. 9. Improved evaluation of educational programs.25 25"Priority Problems in Utah's Educational System to Be Solved Through State Leadership," a portion of a message delivered to the Professional staff, Utah State Board of Education, November 9, 1970. 232 Priority problems numbered 1, 2, 6, and 7 above are particularly pertinent to the Community-School philosOphy. It is anticipated that the Community-School will play an important part in the development of programs in response to these specific prOblems. This argues for the continued development of Community-School programs. In addition to the involvement of Model Cities described above, other promising activities are taking place through the Social Services Department of Salt Lake County. The Director of the Northwest Community Center, Dr. Tony Mitchell, recently stated in a letter that "Salt Lake County has plans to develop a service delivery system in connection with community schools, with the possible construction of addi- tional multi-service centers." The Social Services Depart— ment, which administers the Northwest Multi-Purpose Center, is considering the possibility of using Community-Schools rather than building more separate community centers. According to Dr. Mitchell, "The main problem of using the community school, is the unavailability of office space for service agencies, and the rigidity of schools such as Opening on weekends, during the summer months and other holiday periods."26 An pg hgg committee composed of representatives of the Community Action Program, Model Cities, community centers, school administrators, and Community-School workers, met 26Tony Mitchell, personal letter, February 1, 1971. 233 recently to examine the relationships of Community-Schools to other community service agencies. The committee con— cluded that the community multi-service center "is, in fact, a type of community school which has numerous other services available," and that there were numerous activities and pro— grams which would benefit by mutual planning, coordination, and cooperation.’7 The weight of dozens of professional, civic, and service organizations is also behind the Community—School. With the momentum already achieved, and with increased legis- lative apprOpriation, the evidence and Opinions strongly suggest that Community-School programs in Utah will continue to develop, and that the lighted schoolhouse is the school— house of the future. Some Minority—Group Factors Related to Utah Community1§chools Utah is widely known as "the Mormon state." This appel— lation carries the implication that the pOpulation is much more uniform than it actually is. There are many minority groups in Utah, a fact Often overlooked, especially by Utahns. More than 71 percent of Utahns are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. ’This immediately identifies one minority group—-those who are not members. 27Report of the 5g Hoc Committee on Community Schools-- Multi—Service Center Interface, Northwest Multi-Purpose Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 28, 1971. 234 Of course, among both members and non-members there are many typical racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. It can be argued that in basic philosophy of education the state is unified, but here also there are minorities who disagree with prevailing practices and programs. In short, Utah has many minority groups-—the aged, the young, the rich, the poor, the American Indian, the Spanish-American, the oriental, the Negro, and others of course. Utahns themselves often overlook the need for concern about minority groups. In'a personal interview on August 10, 1970, an influential State Representative said, "Negros in Utah don't feel discriminated against. Negro leaders from outside Utah have come in to stir things up. . . . There is no discriminatioh here really. Most Negros live in the low income sections Of town, but that's because they want to. Negros are served in the nicest restaurants in Salt Lake. We just don't have discrimination in Utah." The legislator is indicted by his own words, but his view is probably not far from the general view. In a relatively successful Community-School in one city, programs were organized and boundary lines were established according to church organization lines. On August 21, 1970, when asked about the minority membership in the school area, a Community-School Director responded, "I don't know of any non—Mormons in our school area. I haven't been able to get in touch with any." The Director later admitted that he 235 had made no attempt to find any, and then said, "We reach everyone who wants to be reached." Other Community-school workers have made equally feeble attempts to identify minority groups and respond to their needs. In an interview on August 18, 1970, a Community-School Coordinator said, "There is no minority group situation in [our district]. Spanish-Americans are really the only minority group, but there aren't very many." On August 18, 1970, a staff member of the Utah State Department of Employment Security responded to a question about Utah minorities by saying, "Such a small part of Utah is minority groups, we really don't have a prOblem." The superintendent of a local school district said on December 16, 1970, "Our district doesn't have any minorities, but we are geared to meet the needs of any group." As determined by research and interview, there appar- ently was no planned involvement of any minority group members as such in the establishment of the Community-School in Utah, from 1967 to 1970. On August 24, 1970, James E. Dooley, the President Of the Utah NAACP, and Minority Employ- ment Consultant for the Utah Department of Employment Security, said in a telephone interview, "I'm not aware of any Community—School legislation. . . . The NAACP has taken no position because we've never been informed or involved in any publicity or planning. . . . As far as I know, there has been no attempt from the State School Board to get in 236 touch with anyone about this." This and similar situations -have since been corrected in some measure by the involvement of CAP and Model Cities, as well as other groups, in the Community-School programs Of Jackson Elementary School, where the population is more than half Spanish—American and 28 and at other schools in the Salt Lake City area. Negro, The point remains, however, that initial Community—School adoption activities ignored the minority leadership in some cases. SOCIO, the Spanish-speaking Organization for Community, Integrity, and Opportunity, has become actively involved with the Community-School. Julian Salas, President of the Carbon County Chapter, was appointed a member of the origi- nal State Community Education Committee in 1970. SOCIO is not satisfied with the present situation, however, as R. J. Barbero, State President of SOCIO, stated in a recent letter. He said that SOCIO had fought the Salt Lake City School Board for a year before being given a position for a counselor, which action he termed a "whitewash, going in the right direction." Mr. Barbero said further that it was very dif- ficult to get informatidn, the tendency being "to give us "29 the very minimum. Early reports from the Salt Lake 28Don M. Gundry, principal and Community-School Direc- tor, Jackson Elementary School, personal letter, January 28, 1971. 29R. J. Barbero, personal letter, January 25, 1971. 237 Community—School program indicate that involvement of and response to minority groups is rapidly developing, as evidenced in Appendix 0, but it is obvious that some problems exist. Poverty and minority group membership are closely correlated in Utah. According to Community Action Program estimates, 12,000 families with 50,000 members were living at a poverty level in Salt Lake County in 1960.30 The CAP asserted that in 1969 there-were still 50,000 people-living on a family income of less than $3,000.31 One minority group, traditionally silent, has recently become more vocal. The Navajo Indians, almost 50 percent of the population of San Juan County, in August 1970 de- manded a Navajo county commissioner and a school board member. As the Navajos become more politically active, they will demand or command even more. Daryl McCarty: Executive Secretary of the Utah Educa- tion Association, believes that Utah has largely unrecognized minority problems, and stated recently, "There is possibil- ity Of real conflict if direct action is not taken soon to reOOgnize and do something about minority needs in Utah."32 30"Pedro P. Points Up Dilemma of Poverty," Deseret News, Salt Lake City, April 23, 1969. 31"Poverty Key to Problems," ibid., April 30. 1969? 32Daryl McCarty, personal interview, Murray, Utah, August 20, 1970. 238 Probably the main reason for the belief that Utah has no minority "problem" is that minority groups simply have not been recognized in the past. Information i§_available. According to the 1970 United States Census, Utah's total population was 1,059,273. Of this, the-white pOpulation was 1,031,926; the Negro pOpulation was 6,617, and "Others" numbered 20,730. The "others" included orientals and American Indians. The breakdown by local area is very revealing, and should be a source of information for all Community-School workers in the state.33 The Utah State EmplOyment Security Office has published a summary of minority group employment figures, showing that while the average unemployment rate in the state was 5%, the minority unemployment averaged 8.8% in a work force numbering 22,611.34 Information from another Employment Security report is combined with that from other sources to give an incomplete composite picture of some minority characteristics of Utah's population. This information, found in Appendix P, should be very revealing to those who have been deluded with the thought that minority grasps do not exist. or that there is no "problem. " 331970 Census of Population, Utah, advance report. U. s. Department of Commerce/Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C., January, 1971. 34Work Force, Employment, and Unemployment by Minority Group for 1970 Based on 1969 Annual Average WOrk Force Data' and 1970 Estimate, Utah State Department of Employment Security, n.d. 239 The compiled informatiOn in Appendix P shows that in most Utah counties there are relatively small minority groups in the traditional sense. But if the non-Mormon vminority, the poor minority, and others are considered, the number of minority groups begins to mount. Of course, where there are only a very few members of a minority in a county, they properly cannot be called a "group, even though a "problem" may exist. The variation in both groups and problems is illustrated by the fact that Negro citizens in counties range from zero in seven counties to 2,473 in Salt Lake County; while estimates show that Spanish American citizens range from zero in five counties to 18,644 in Salt Lake County; and American Indians range from zero in five counties to 4,289 in San Juan County. The State Education Agency has begun a concerted re- sponse to minority group needs, as indicated previously in the list of priority prOblems. The collection of pertinent data on school achievement of minority group members is proceeding, and a task fOrce is being organized to attack the problem of equal educational Opportunity. Community- SOhool programs are also responding to minority needs. CommunityrSchOgl;LegislationL,1971 The 1971 General Session Of the Utah Legislature en— acted Senate Bill Number 173, the 1971 School Finance Program. This bill separated Community~School programs from 240 extended year, extended day, and summer programs, and placed it in a paragraph by itself. The 1970 Legislature had apprOpriated $200,000. In 1971 the State Education Agency and supporters sought $300,000. The appropriation in Senate Bill Number 173 was for $250,000. The pertinent paragraphs are quoted here: The state's contribution of $600,000 annually for extended year, extended day and summer prOgrams ap- “ proved by the state board of education shall be appor- tioned and distributed to the school districts on the basis of a formula promulgated and adopted by the state board of education. The state's contribution of $250,000 annually for community school programs shall be apportioned and distributed to the school districts on the basis of a formula promulgated and adopted by the state board of education. 5 This legislation was another major milepost in the progress of the Utah Community-School, indicating that first- year programs were successful enough to warrant further financial support, even in a time of tough competition for the education dollar. The increased apprOpriation made the future of the Community—School look very strong. Summary Following the 1970 Special Session of the Legislature, the State Education Agency drew up guidelines for the dis- tribution of the $200,000, which was allocated to each district on the basis Of‘its share of state Distribution Units. * 1 35Senate Bill Number 173 (53-7-16), Utah Legislature. 971. ‘ 241 A State Community Education Advisory Committee of twenty- eight influential citizens was appointed, and met on a quarterly basis to advise the State Eaucation Agency. Some minor resistance to the Community-School concept was noted, but there was no overt group Opposition. The allocation of funds to the districts resulted in a range from $281 to $40,775, determined by the size of the dis- trict. By January of 1971, thirty-eight of Utah's forty districts had Opened 120 Community-Schools serving over 129,000 people. Dissemination, implementation, and training activities of the state and the BYU Regional Center continued, with support for Community-schOOls steadily growing. The State Education Agency developed a task force to combat the high- priority problem of equal educational opportunity for minority group members. Reports and estimates showed that many minority groups existed in Utah. The Community-Schools began to respond to the needs of all citizens. With growing support and successful programs, the future of the Community—School was viewed Optimistically, especially after the-1971 General Session of the State Legislature separated the Community-School from other programs and increased the apprOpriation to $250,000. CHAPTER x SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In January 1970 the Utah State Legislature enacted House Bill Number 9, providing $200,000 for the development Of Community-Schools. This study had its origin in the belief that the statewide adoption of the Community—school in Utah was a major event in the history of education in that state, with significant implications for other states where adOption of the Community-School was or would be under consideration. The historical-descriptive study was deemed significant and was justified because it would give insight into educa- tional development, as well as adding to the body of knowl- edge concerning a major educational innovation. Since the Community-School was being adopted throughout the United States and in other countries, it was believed that the knowledge of how, when, and Why statewide adoption took place in Utah would be useful to those who sought adOption of the Community-School elseWhere. The procedures for this study included a review of the literature on the Community-School; examination of both 242 243 personal and public primary and secondary records, documents, and literature in Utah; numerous personal interviews with people in Utah and in Flint, Michigan; and many personal letters. The information gathered from all sources was used to document this study. The significance, procedures, and Objectives Of the study were introduced and explained in Chapter I. The pur- poses of the study were expressed in nine statements of objectives, which were fulfilled in Chapters II-Ix. The next section of this chapter cOntains a summary of each of those objectives, with conclusions and recommendations following. Summary Objective 1. To define and describe what is meant by the term "Community School." Chapter II contains a review of the literature defining the Community—School. Twenty-nine definitions and descrip- tions were noted, dating from 1939 to 1970. These were sum- marized with the following rather cumbersome definition: A Community-School is that publicly-owned and funded, non—partisan educational institution which serves the entire community membership by providing and/ or coordinating school and community resources, programs, personnel, buildings, and facilities to meet community needs, including educational, cultural, recreational, vocational, physical, intellectual, social, personal, individual and grouaneeds that arise within the demo- cratic values Of a pluralistic American society, and regardless of age, race, social class, status, position, creed, sex, color, or other differentiating factor. The Community-School as defined in Utah under the mandate of the State Legislature was found to be based upon the premise 244 that the public schools belong to the people, and provide community education for all ages, utilizing existing facilities, and Operating during days and hours in addition to regular school time. Utah Community-School leaders be- lieved that the key to success was trained and experienced Community-School workers who would develop programs in response to the needs of the community. The Community-School as defined by the Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community school Development was the neighborhood school which served the needs of all members Of the community, was administered by a Community— School Director who had special training, and was advised by a council Of community members. This became the model for Community-School develOpment throughout the state. Objective 2. TO reveal the viability of the Community- SChOOl philosophy and programs. The need for implementation of the Community-School philosophy was documented in Chapter III. The foolishness of letting school buildings and facilities remain idle while a society in turmoil searches for placed to resolve many needs was documented with the Opinions and actions of notable educators and statesmen. The Community-School was shown to be a social and cul- tural imperative. HOpe for the future of mankind was said to be in a program of educational improvement through places and programs such as those of the Community-School. 245 Some authorities expressed the belief that completely and properly applied, the Community-school concept could literally solve the problems of mankind within a few gener— ations. Objective 3. TO show that the Community-School philosophy is compatible with the educational philosophy of the unique dominant culture in Utah. The Mormon philosophical and cultural ideals which ante— dated the Community-School were documented in Chapter IV. The ideals held by the Mormons were traced back to 1830, the year of the founding of the Mormon Church, and were found to be entirely compatible with the Community-School philosOphy. Especially strong agreement was evidenced in the Mormon insistence that the major responsibility of every person was to improve himself, that human progress was eternal, and that a person could make progress only as fast as he gained wisdom through education and experience. It was found that more than 71 percent of the residents of Utah were members of one religious denomination--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter—Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church. Utah was found to be unique’in thatfio it was colonized in 1847 by the Mormons, whose culture has been dominant ever since. The Mormons developed educational programs for all members of all ages, sexes, and conditions, wherever they went. They carried these educational ideals with them to Utah, and developed hundreds of communities with the schools 246 as the community centers. The Mormon cultural and educa- tional philosophy was dominant in Utah throughout its history from 1847 to 1970. To the Mormon influence was attributed educational achievement higher than that of any other state according to several significant measures. Objective 4. To reveal the historical and cultural ante- cedents behind the adoption of the Community- School concept in Utah. The historical and cultural antecedents of the Community— School were traced through three time periods in three chapters. Community-School antecedents were found to exist during the pre-Utah period Of the Mormon pioneers from 1830 to 1847, and were documented in Chapter V. Adult and practi— cal education, America's first municipal university, programs for all ages and both sexes, community-wide coordination, and service—oriented education were examples of the Community- SChOOl ideals and programs which the Utah-bound pioneers carried with them. The period from colonization in 1847 to statehood in 1896 is covered in Chapter VI. Community-school antecedents were manifest in innumerable ways during this territorial period. One of the first buildings constructed in the center of each community was the schoolhouse, which served as the social, educational, and Often religious community center. The leaders constantly urged the Saints to educate themselves as well as their children. Schools were Opened 247 in every reasonable location as soon as feasible. Adult, vocational and practical educational programs were develOped. Free public education gradually replaced church education programs. Concern for every citizen was evident in the development of schools such as those for the blind, deaf, and' dumb. The social, moral, economic, and cultural education of every individual were reEOgnized as within the purview of the public schools. Antecedents of the Community—School during the period from statehood in 1896 to the advent of the Community-School concept in 1967 were found, and documented in Chapter VI. These antecedents included constitutional provisions and legislative acts by the dOzen, all expressing concern for the individual and response to the needs of society. The state Constitution separated church and state, and provided for the creation of a uniform public school system by the Legislature. Subsequent laws and educational programs, expenditures, and traditions were expressions of the Community- School philosOphy, especially in the areas of community use of school facilities, vocational education, adult education, and response to individual and community needs. -Particu1arly pertinent were the "Civic Center" laws, anticipated with laws in 1901 and explicated in 1917, stating that every public school was to be a civic center where citizens could engage in recreational, educational, political, economic, artistic, and moral interests. 248 It was found, and documented in Chapters V-VII, that the Community-School philosOphy was no stranger to Utah, and that adOption of fOrmal Community—School concepts and programs was a logical nextlink in a long chain of educa— tional development. Objective 5. To describe the various influences, events, and people who were instrumental in Utah's adOption of the Community-School in 1970. It was found that the legislation for the support of Community-Schools which passed in 1970 was a culmination of activities beginning in the fall of 1967, when the modern Community-School concept was first introduced to Utah. Chapter VIII contains extensive documentation of the events of this period. A-serendipity effect was noted, in that several fortuitous circumstances combined to initiate and to speed the adOption of the Community—School. It was found that the work of dedicated and energetic individuals was most prominent in Community-school activi- ties, with other proponents swiftly converted. Major events included a visit of a group of forty-six prominent Utahns to the Mott Program of Flint, Michigan. A state conference of school administrators featured the Community-School as expressed by these people. A Regional Center for Community School Development was established at Brigham Young University by the Mott Foundation, with the three-fold task of dissemi- nation, training, and implementation. The Community-School 249 concept was disseminated all over the state. In this behalf, the film "To Touch a Child" was shown and discussed more than 100 times. Grass-roots support rapidly developed, especially with the Opening of pilot programs. Organizations such as the State PTA actively promoted the Community-School concept. A State Coordinator of Community-School Education was hired by the State Board of Education. A Community—School appropriation bill passed the House of Representatives in 1969, but died in the Senate. An ap- propriation for Community-Schools was attached to the package education finance bill in 1970, providing $200,000 for the development of leadership and programs. All these major events,.and many less important, were documented in Chapter VIII. Objectiye 6. To describe the current status of Community- Schools in Utah, soon after the adOption of the concept. A cursory examination of Community—Schools during the first year after legislation was reported in Chapter IX. Documentation was found for the following brief description. Under legislative mandate, Community-School program guidelines were developed by the State Education Agency. Basic guidelines were established in the four areas Of leadership, utilization of funds, record-keeping, and evalu- ation. Within six months, thirty-eight of Utah's forty districts had developed approved prOgrams under these 250 guidelines. Thousands of citizens were participating in 120 Community-Schools. A State Community Education Advisory Committee was selected and began to meet quarterly to advise the State Education Agency. Some minor resistance to Community-School adoption was found, with concern not for the concept, but for the lack of sufficient money. The $200,000 appropria- tion was allocated to each district based on school Distribu- tion Units. The result was a wide diffusion of finances and strong motivation to develOp programs. Dissemination activities of the BYU Regional Center, the State Education Agency, and other organizations continued at a high level throughout the state. A newsletter called the "Community School Communicator" came off the press monthly, starting in February 1970. Additional groups visited the Community-School programs of Flint, Michigan. The weight of evidence and Opinion indicated an opti— mistic view of the future of the Community-School in Utah, particularly after the 1971 Legislature appropriated $250,000-for Community-School programs. Objectigg 7. To show that Utah has unique characteristics which influenced the adOption of Community- Schools. In this study no comparison was made Of Utah and other states; however, Utah was found to have unique character- istics. In contrast to other states, Utah was colonized by a large group of peOple,all with basically the same 251 religious, cultural, and educational ideals. These ideals have been the controlling factors from 1847 to 1970, and were entirely compatible with the Community-School philosOphy. Mormon social, economic, educational, and cultural ideals are inseparable from religious ideals, and are based on the belief that every person is an eternal being spending a period in mortality, with the specific charge to learn as much as possible and to develop every positive facet of personality. In that sense, Mormons believe that you Egg take it with you--if "it" consists of knowledge, intelli- gence, and wisdom. This basic Mormon belief in the eternal nature and progress of man was documented in Chapter IV as the philosophical-cultural basis for Community-School antecedents in Utah, and in Chapters V-VII as the basis for development of educational programs antecedent to the modern Community- School. The combination of these two things--the compati- bility of Mormon and Community-School philosOphy, and the prior existence of Community-School antecedents--was found to be unique to Utah. Objective 8. To reveal some of the important demographic characteristics which pertain to the Operation of Community-Schools in Utah. Some important factors relating minority groups to Community-School Operation were documented briefly in a section of Chapter IX. Interviews, letters, and a cursory examination Of literature and documents revealed that 252 minority group prOblems are of relatively little concern among some who hold impOrtant positions. Influential people from state legislators to Community-School Directors failed to recognize minority groups and/or problems. Utah was found to contain religious, economic, and racial minority groups t6 an extent much greater than sup- posed by some. Poverty existed in Utah, associated with racial-ethnic minority groups such as Negroes, Spanish— Americans, and American Indians. Some early Community—School programs had failed to adequately consider minority needs, but response was developing. Negro and Spanish-American minority group members were found to be concentrated in metropolitan areas, while the major concentrations of American Indians were in rural areas. Some metropolitan Community—school programs were found to be responsive to minority group-needs. Some minority groups were becoming more vocal about needs and wants than they traditionally have been. It was found that in Utah there were 6,617 Negros, and approximately 36,921 Spanish- Americans, and 5,614 orientals and others among Utah's pOpu— lation of 1,059,273. Of this population, 756,765 were members of the Mormon Church, including members Of all racial and ethnic minorities. The demographic information pre- sented is believed to have important implications for, Community—School programs. 253 Objective 9. To provide a body of knowledge relating to the formal beginning of an important educa- tional movement. Adoption of the Community-School has been gaining momentum for several years in many states in America and in several other countries. Since Michigan and then Utah enacted legislation giving formal recognition and financial support to Community-SchOOls, it was believed that a his- torical—descriptive study of Utah's action would provide a body of knowledge about the formal beginning Of an important educational movement. This body of knowledge was develOped throughout this study through documentation and elucidation of the following: 1. the unique philosophical-cultural-educational heritage of the Mormon-dominant pOpulation of Utah; 2. the prior existence of educational philosophy and programs compatible with the philosophy and programsV~ of the Community-School; 3. the actions, activities, events, and forces which led to the adoption of the Community—School and the achievement of legislative support; 4. the roles played by various influential people and organizations in achieving statewide adOption of the Community-School; 5. the legislative processes that eventuated in the apprOpriation Of funds for the support of the Community-School; 254 6. the immediate effects of the legislation in the establishment of Community-School programs through- out the state; 7. the basic religious, racial, and ethnic distribu— tion of Utah's citizens, with important implica- tions for Community-School Operation. Conclusions The following conclusions are based upon this study. .1. The Community-School is easier to describe than to define, but has essential characteristics which can be identified. These include response to the needs of all citizens through leadership, cooperation, and coordination of school and community resources for education and the solution of social problems. 2. Community-schools are urgently needed throughout America as integral components of educational systems dedicated to the solution of educational, economic, cultural, and social prOblems. 3. Utah has unique characteristics conducive to the adOption of the Community-School because of its basically Mormon heritage of philosophical, educational, and cultural ideals and practices. 4. Antecedents Of the Community—School have been_extant throughout the history of Utah in the form of community establishment and organization, traditions, laws, practices, 255 educational programs and expenditures, school and community COOperation, and in compatible educational philosOphy. 5. The Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community school Development was a powerful influence on Utah's adOption of the Community-School, through its three— fold purposes and programs of dissemination, implementa- tion, and training. Seed money grants from the Center greatly facilitated the implementation of Community—schools. 6. The Community-School was not perceived as a radical educational innovation in Utah. It was only a short step from traditional schools to the modern Community-School. 7. Utah's adoption of the Community-School was directly related to the dedicated energy of Avard A. Rigby, Israel C Heaton, and other champions of the Community—School cause. 8. The dissemination, implementation, and training activities of the Mott Foundation and Mott Program person- nel were influential in UtahIs adoption of the Community- School. 9. Visits of large and small groups of influential Utahns to the Community—Schools of Flint, Michigan, were significant in Utah's adoption. 10. Personal contacts of Community-School proponents with legislators were effective in Utah's adOption. 11. Large and small conferences, workshops, seminars, and other meetings of dozens of organizations were important influences in Utah's adoption of the Community-School. 256 12. Though Utahns are relatively few in number, more than 71 percent are members of one religious denomination, and significant segments of the total population are members of minority groups of various kinds, whose exist- ence and needs have not been recognized sufficiently. Community-Schools are the best available channels for educa- tion to develop a greater response to the needs of all citizens. 13. The adoption strategies of the prOponents of Community-School legislation were effective in that they included the following: a. the work of dedicated and energetic change agents h. who had high credibility, and who were homophilous with the culture and population Of the state; the use of mass media to create awareness of the Community-School innovation; hundreds of personal contacts with target indi- viduals and groups in all parts of the state; the identification and involvement of influential leaders of many organizations and groups; the provision of seed money grants which stimulated implementation of Community—Schools; the establishment of pilot programs which demon- strated the feasibility of the Community-school; the training of Community-School Directors; and follow-up supervision and implementation assistance. 257 14. From a communications point of view, the adOption of the Community-School innovation was successful for reasons which include the follOwing: The Community-School was shown to have relative advantage over the traditional school. Community-School philosOphy and programs were compatible with traditional philosophy and programs. The Community—School was not complex, but was easily explained and understood. Trial of the Community-School was relatively easy, and did not require a large or permanent allocation of resources. The Community-School could be Observed in action in pilot programs directly and vicariously through the viewing of films such as "To Touch a Child." Adoption of the Community-School innovation meant only an extension of traditional education, not a radical departure-into unknown fields. 15. The body of knowledge provided by this study can be useful to those who wish to understand the cultural-social- educational system.of Utah, and to those who seek the adoption of the Community—School elseWhere. Regommendations Legislative appropriation and the establishment Of the Community—School is a beginning, not an end. Continuous evaluation and planned change are essential for effective 258 programs of any kind. The Community-School philosophy is just that--a philosophy, not a set of prescribed behaviors or activities. The Community-Schools must concentrate on filling the education gaps left by traditional schools. Community- SOhOOl workers must actively seek out those whose needs have not been met, and involve them in planning and Operat- ing community education programs that xiii meet their needs. Ernest O. Melby has recently criticized Community- Schools for failing to help the children of the poor. ,He defined three reasons for that failure. First is the lack of coordinationof community education with traditional edu- cational practices. Second is the application of tradi- tional philosophy to community education, the same philos- ophy that has already caused the failure of the nine—to-four program. Third is the failure of community education to stimulate community action. "We set out with noble goals of doing things for people, but we do not equip them or encourage them to act for the improvement of their own lives."1 At the beginning of the Community-School movement in Utah, it would be well for all citizens to begin the continuous examination of Community-Schools in light of these three key factors elucidated by Melby. 1Ernest O. Melby, "The Lighted Schoolhouse Is Not Enough," The Community School and Itngdministration, Vol. IX, No. 7, March, 1971. 259 There is danger that the Community-School will generate "classes" rather than programs for social improvement. Caution in this regard is indicated by early reports of Community—School activities in Utah. Classes in BishOp Sewing, handicrafts, or physical develOpment are fine, but they should not become the heart of the Community-School. Neither should recreation activities dominate to the exclu- sion of other equally important things such as coordinated health, nutrition, and other programs. The Community-School must not generate programs sepa— rate from the regular curriculum. Coordination is essential, though admittedly difficult, and will not take place by accident. The Community—school must avoid the rut of tradition. Each community is unique, and unique community education programs and procedures must be developed in response. William J. Hafena has written a set of guidelines which are applicable to the administration of the Community-School, though he did not know of the Community—School as such when he finished his study in 1967. These guidelines can be and should be used as the basis for the development of administrative policies within school districts with Community—schools. .Hafen stated that "the role of the 2William J. Hafen, "Administrative Guidelines for the Cooperative Use of Public School Facilities for Recreation Purposes by Community Groups in the State of Utah" (unpublished Ed. D. Thesis, university of Utah, 1967). 260 schools should be looked upon as a 'community' enterprise."3 These guidelines should be particularly useful at this point in the development of Community-Schools in Utah. Community-School workers should be particularly careful not to let programs become precedents. Flexibility is an essential characteristic of a responsive organization. If community members are actually involved in planning and and operation of the Community-School, they will recognize need for change, and demand those changes. Years of public apathy must be offset by planned involvement and participa- tion. Those who need the Community—School most are those who traditionally have been involved least. Before any traditional school becomes a Community-School, a detailed study of the community needs and wants should be completed, including economic, social, religious, cultural, educational, and minority characteristics of the community. Financial resources, instruction and leadership available, and many other factors should be considered in a comprehensive examination Of the community. Programs developed should reflect bOth community needs and community resources. Utah's trials, successes, and errors in promoting and establishing Community-Schools as reported in this study should serve as guides to other states. Both the antecedents reported here and the legislative activity should be studied for apprOpriate applications. Those who would profit from 31bid., p. 17. 261 \ 1 \ this study should view their own states or areas in terms of their unique social-cultural-educational characteris- tics. The strategies used tO achieve adOption in and by Utah may provide a guide for those who have similar inten- tions elsewhere. Recommendatiopg:for Further Research This study should serve as the base for further con- tinuous study of Community-Schools in Utah and elsewhere. If citizens are to profit fully from the Community—School movement, the answers to many questions should be found. The following research is recommended as starting points for the continuous study and evaluation of Community-Schools. 1. Additional historical studies of the adoption of the Community-School should be completed to provide a more general frame of reference in conjunction with this study. 2. Studies of the expenditure of Community—School appropriations should be made: a. Is money being spent as intended by the Legislature and/or State School Board? b. Is money being spent to add community education to the traditional program? c. Is money being spent to pay teachers, administrators, and others for serVices they have performed free in the past? 262 d. Has apprOpriation of funds resulted in the genera— tion of additional resources, or only a re—alloca- tion or re-naming Of traditional resources? 3. Studies should be made to determine the measurable benefits, if any, gained from the Community-School, including such possible benefits as increased vocational preparation, increased worthy use of leisure time, reduction of school vandalism and juvenile delinquency, etc. 4. Studies should be made of the total curriculum of the Community-School to define the extent of coordination of community education programs with traditional programs. 5. Studies should be made of the administrative problems unique to the Community-School, and to find solutions for them. 6. Studies should be made of the most effective roles and relationships of various Community-School related person- nel, including principals, directors, custodians, coordina- tors, teachers, superintendents, board members, council members, and patrons. 7. Studies should be made Of the relationship of the State Education.Agency to local Community-Schools. 8. Studies should be made of the generation of funds by the local Community-School in addition to tax funds. 9. Studies should be made to locate and disseminate exemplary coordination of community and traditional education, and the factors responsible for the success. 263 10. Studies should be made to find whether Community- Schools are helping to solve social problems as identified in the community served by the school. 11. Studies should be made of the extent to which the Community-Schools are responding to and helping to solve the problems of minority groups within majority cultures. 12. Studies should be made to determine the advisability of school board members or individuals in other specific roles serving on neighborhood and district advisory councils. 13. Studies should be made of the relationships and balances between community education and recreation programs. 14. Studies should be made to locate and disseminate effective school board policies and procedures governing school use of community facilities. 15. Studies should be made to provide bases for planning future Community-School develOpment in response to the changing needs of society. 16. Studies should be made Of the availability of and the extent of school use of community resources for commun- ity education programs. l7.”Studies should be made of the training needs for Community-School workers, so that training programs can be balanced with long-term needs. 18. Studies should be made of the appropriate content of training programs for Community-School workers. 264 19. A study should be made of the Community-education contributions of non—public schools at the present and in the past, and of the possibilities for coordination with public Community-School programs. 20. Studies should be made of the most effective organ- ization, representation, and powers Of State Advisory Councils, particularly to see if a Council composed entirely of recognized community leaders can truly have empathy for the needy citizens whom the Community-School should serve. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bennion, Milton Lynn. MOrmonism and Education. Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1939. Blueck, Eleanor T. The Community Upe of Schoolg. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1927; Borg, Walter R. Educationainegearch, An Introduction. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963. Clapp, Elsie R. Community Schools in Action. New York: The Viking Press, 1939. Cook, David R. A Guiderto Educational Regearch. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Crawford, Claude C. The Technigue of Regearch In Education. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1928. Ferris, Benjamin G. Utah and the Monmong. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854. Good, Carter V. Introduction to EducationaigRegearch. 2nd Ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963. Gunnison, J. W. The MOrmons. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippin- cott, 1856. Harris, W. T. Psychologic Foundations of Education. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1899. Havighurst, Robert J. and Neugarten, Berniece L. §ociety¥§pd Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962. ' .Hess, Oleen. The History of Vocationaingiicuituregig Utah. Salt Lake City: ”University of Utah Press, 1964. .Hunter, Milton R. Brigham Youngjthe Colonizer. Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1940. 265 266 me, Dyer D. Sociai_Problems oi Today, or The Mormon Question in Its Economic Agpectg. Port Jervis, New York: D. D. Lum & Co., 1896. Minzey, Jack D. and Olsen, Clarence R. "An Overview," Chapter iii of The Role oijthe School in Community Education, edited by Howard W. Hickey. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1969. Moffitt, John Clifton. The History of Public Education in Utah. Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946. Moffitt, John Cliton. A Century Oinervice, 1860—1960: A Higtory of the Utah Education Asgociation. Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1961. Olsen, Edward G. Schooi and CommunityiProgramp: A ngebook of Successful Practice irom Kindergarten Through Coiiege 295 Adult Education. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1949. Olsen, Edward G. School and Community. 2nd Ed. New York: I Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954. Passow, Harry A. Education in Depressed Areas. New York: The Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1963. Rogers, Everett M. Communication of Innovation: A Cross- Culturai Approach. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, in press on April 10, 1971. Rummel, J. Francis. An Introduction to Repearch Procedures' pin Education. 2nd Ed. New York: Harper and Row; 1958. Smith, Henry Lester and Smith, Johnnie Rutland. An Intpoduc- iion to Research in Education. Bloomington, Indiana: Educational Publications, 1959. The Doctring and Covenantg. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1921. Totten, W. Fred. The Power of Community Education Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1970. Totten, W. Fred and Manley, Frank J. The Community School: Basic Concepts, Function, and Organization. Galien, Michigan: Allied Education Council, 1969. Yaeger, William A. Schgol Community Relations. New York The Dryden Press, 1951. Young, Brigham. Journaivof Digeourses. 2nd Ed. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1926. 267 Articles in Journals or Magazineg Bjorklund, Mrs. Russel E. "Legislation Program 1969," Utah PTA Bulietin. Vol. 37, No. 5 (Dec.-Jan. 1968—69), 4. Campbell, Clyde M. "The Secondary School as a Community School." The School Executive, LVII, No. 6 (February 1948), 60—61. Campbell, Clyde M. "The Community School--Past and Present." The Community School and It§ Administration, II, NO. 4 (Flint, Michigan; Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education, Dec. 1963), 1-2. Community Education Dissemination Program. A manual pub— lished by the Mott Foundation, Flint, Michigan. n.d. Community78chool Communicator. .Newsletter published monthly beginning February, 1970, Utah State Board of Education. Haskew, L. D. "The Community Is the School's Classroom." The School Executive, LXVII, No. 5 (1948), 30. Hayes, Will. "Community School and Its Two-Way Bridges." Clearing House, XXIII (April 1949), 457-58, 460. Heaton, Israel. "Make Use of School Facilities." Utah PTA Bulletin, 37, NO. 5 (Dec.-Jan. 1968—69), 17. Journal of Digcourses. Liverpool, England: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1854-1866, V (September 20, 1957), 262. "Let's Open the Schools . . . for All People of All Ages at All Times." A brochure published by the BYU Regional Center for Community-School Development (1971), n.p. Lyon, T. Edgar. "Mormon Colonization in the Far West." The Improvement Era, 73, NO. 6 (July, 1970), 10-14. McClusky, Howard Y. "Some Propositions in Support of the Community School--A Summary." Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIII (Dec. 1959), 179. Melby, Ernest O. "The Price of Freedom," address to the National School Boards Association, Houston, Texas, April 26, 1964; reprinted in The Community Schooi and Its Administration, II, No. 9 (May, l964‘and two follow- ing issues). 268 Melby, Ernest O. "The Lighted Schoolhouse Is Not Enough." The Community Sghool and Its Administration, IX, NO. 7 (March, 1971). Millennial Star, X (Liverpool, England: Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, 1853), 85. Procunier, Douglas, "Community Education." NCSEA Newg. Newsletter of the National Community School Education Association (Flint, Michigan, Sept., 1970), 3. "Resolutions." Utah PTA Bulletin, 37, NO. 8 (April, 1969), 13. Richer, R. L. "Community Education: A Long Term Proposal." The New Era in Home and school. World Education Fellowship Journal, L, No. 5 (May, 1969), 129. Rigby, Avard. Education for a Changing Society." Utah PTA Bulletin, 37, NO. 2 (September, 19 ), 4-7. "School to Implement New 'Community School' Concept." The Progresg, Fillmore, Utah, November 21, 1969. Seay, Maurice F. "The Community School." Childhood Education, XXIV (November, 1947), 129. Smith, Joseph Jr. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of , II (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1908), 284. Stout, Hosea. On the Mormon Frontier: The Dairy of Hosea Stout. Edited by Juanita Brooks, I (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964), 218. Thorndike, Edward L. "Origin of Superior Men." The Scien- tiiic Monthly, LVI (May, 1943), 424-433. UAHPER Journg , I, No. 2 (September,l970) 4. A tion: The Voice of the Unified Education Profession of Utah, II, No. 12 (December, 1970 , l. Utph PTA Bulletin, 27, No. 9 (May-June, 1969). Utah Pargnt Teacher, 37, NO. 9 (May-June» 1970), 14-15. "Utah Seminar”Specia1 Issue." NCSEA Newg. Flint, Michigan: National Community school Education Associ- ation (December, 1969). 269 ‘Weaver, Donald C. "Community Education-=A Cultural Impera- tive." The Community School and Its Adminigtration, VII, No. 5 (January, 1969), n.p. Wooton, R. T. "Men of Science.“ Improvement Era, XLVII, NO. 2 (February, 1944), 76-77, 126-217. Young, Brigham. "Governor's Message." Journai:of the Legislative Assembly Oi the Territory oi Utah, 1857. Young, Levi Edgar. "Utah's First School." Utah Educatignal Review, XII (November, 1917), 67. Reports Administrative Guidelines and Procedures for Implementing State Board of Education Policies for Extended Year, Extended Day, Summer and Community School Programs in School Districts in Utah (Salt Lake City: Utah State Board of Education, 1970), 4. Biennial Report of the StathSuperintendent of Public Instruction, I (Salt Lake City: Utah State Board of Education, 1968), 19—24. Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community School Development, First Narrative Quarterly Repgrt, July-September, 1968, 2-3. Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community School Development. Quarteriy Report, January-March 1969, 5. "Brigham Young University Honors Charles Stewart Mott." Biography of C. s. Mott given at the presentation of an honorary Doctor of Education Degree, Brigham Young‘ University, January 20, 1970. Campbell, Robert L. Territorial Schooi Repopp, 1865. Clancy, Peter L. "Summary-—Community School Concept." From materials prepared for a briefing to Richard M. .Nixon, Detroit, Michigan, October 1, 1968. Designing Education i9; the Futpie, ContinpingyEducation. Report of the study committee on Continuing Education, Utah State Board of Education, August, 1968, 11-17. Guidelines for Community schooig. St. Paul: Governor's Council on Community Schools, Minnesota State Department of Education, 1970, 10. Heaton, Israel. "A Summary of Community School DevelOpment in Utah." BYU Regional Center for Community School Development, January 12, 1970 (dittoed). Heaton, Israel. "A Brief ACcount of the Development, Role, and Goals of the Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community School Development." BYU, June 20, 1970, 4. Hetrick, William and Richards, Tom. Compilers, I"Interpretm ing and Implementing the Community School Philosophy." A report from the Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education, 1966, 69. Historical Perspective on Major Educational Changes in Utah, 1547f1266° Salt Lake City: Utah State Board of Education, 1966, 29. "Items for Superintendents." Utah State Board of Education, February 19, 1968, 31. Johnson, Lyndon Baines. "Acceptance of the American Educa- tion Award." AASA Official Report. Annual Convention 1966. Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1966, 189-194. Leake, Robert L. "Swimming Pools Used in School Physical Education Programs in Utah." Memo to Supt. Lerue Winget, July 9, 1968, General Exhibit No. 583, Utah State Board of Education, 1968. Lewis, T. B. Territorial School Report, 1894-1895. Melby, Ernest O. "The Community School: A Social Imperative." Address to Minneapolis Community School Workshop, August 26, 1969; reprinted in NCSEA Newg, October, 1968, 4. Memorandum from Avard Rigby to All Participants in the Flint Conference on the Community Centered School, Utah State Board of Education, February 28, 1968. Memorandum from T. H. Bell to School District Superintendents January 23, 1969, Utah State Board of Education. Nichols. Mark. "Vocational Education--Our Fix in '76?" Utah State Board of Education, mimeographed, n.d., 1. Official Program, Utah League of Cities and Towns. 63rd Annual Convention, September 17-19, l9?0, in the Salt Palace, Salt Lake City, Utah. 271 Park, John R. Second Reportggf the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Utah, for the Biennial Period Ending June 30, 1898, 8-9. "Priority Problems in Utah's Educational System to be Solved Through State Leadership." A portion of a message delivered to the Professional Staff, Utah State Board of Education, November 9, 1970. Programs of Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers Regional Leadership Meetings, June 10, August 13, 16, 1968. Project Description, Redwood Community (School) Center, Salt Lake Model Cities Agency, 1970—71. Reciprocal Agreements for Community School Development Assistance, BYU Regional Center for Community school DevelOpment, Item 13, p. 2, n.d. "Recommended State Board of Education Policy on Extended Year, Extended Day, Summer School and Community School Programs Under the Uniform School Fund Act of 1970." Utah State Board of Education, April 10, 1970, General Exhibit Number 607, 2. Reports and Recommendations for the Utah Public School System." Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1966-1968, I, 35. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Community Schools-- Multi-Service Center Interface, Northwest Multi-Purpose Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 28, 1971. "Request for a New Graduate Major in the Department of Recreation Education Entitled: Community School Leadership." Brigham Young university, 1969. Rigby, Avard A. Memorandum to Local District Superinten- dents, October 2, 1967, Utah State Board of Education. Rigdon, Sidney. "Oration" delivered July 4, 1938, at Far West, Caldwell County, Missouri. On file at Chicago Historical Library: in Moffitt, History, 6—7. Sponberg, Harold E. A speech in a Community-School seminar reported in The Community School and Its Administration, IX, No. 4 (Flint, Michigan: Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education, December, 1970), n.d. "Spotlight on Provo Education." Provo School District. November 22, 1968, 2. "Spotlight on Provo Education." Provo School District, March 17, 1970. 272 The Community Education Program. I\summary statement distributed by Mrs. Lila Bjorklund, Legislative Chairman, Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers, in support of House Bill Number 222, mimeographed, n.d. The Impact of and Designing Education for the Future. Project in Utah. A report of a study. Denver: Improving State Leadership in Education, 1362 Lincoln Street, 80203, 22-23. Utah Legislative Council Interim Progress Report to the 1970 Budget Session, December, 1969, 18-19. "Utah Regional Profile on Aging." A report of the Utah White House Conference Planning Committee, in conjunc- tion with the Utah State Division of Aging. Utah Department of Social Services, August, 1970. Work Force, Employment, and unemployment by Minority Group for 1970. Based on 1969 Annual Average Work Force Data and 1970 Estimate. Utah State Department of Employment Security, n.d. Public Documents Beard v. Board of Education of North Summit School District, 81 U. 51, 16P, 2d 900. Constitution of the State of Utah, Article x, Section 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, Volume I (Indianapolis, Indiana: Allen Smith Company, 1953), 246-7. Constitution of theLState ofiUtah, Article X, Sections 12—13. Files of Conferences and Visitations Office of the Mott Program, Flint Board of Education. House Journal, Utah Legislature, 1969, for daily actions. Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Utah, Thirty-eighth Legislature Budget Session, Commencing Monday, January 12th, and Ending Saturday, January 31, 1970, 31-32. Laws of the Territory of Utah, 1850. Section 13 of "An Ordinance Incorporating the University of the State of Deseret." 273 Laws of the Territory of Utah, 1850. Section 4 of "An Ordinance Incorporating the University of the State of Deseret." Laws of the Territory of Utah! 1890. Chapter 72, Section 117. Laws of the Territory of Utah, 1892. Chapter 80, Section 51a. Laws of the State of Utah, 1970. Salt Lake City: Lorraine Press, 1970, 33. Minutes of the Provo City Board of Education (or Provo City), Minute Book Beginning August 1955, 669. Minutes of the Joint Legislation Committee. October 2, 1968. Utah State Board of Education, 3-5. Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education. October 13, 1967, 6520—21. Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education. February 23, 1968, 6592; May 10, 1968, 458. Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education. November 8, 1968, 6747. Minutes of the Utah State Board of Education. January 10, 1969, 6807. ' Ranking of the States 1970. Research Report 1970-R1 Washington, D.C.: National Education Association 1970; Rigby, Avard A. Memorandum to Local District Superinten— dents, Utah State Board of Education, November 5, 1970. Recommendations of the Joint Legislation Committee. Prepared for submission to the 1969 Legislative Session, November 8, 1968, 4 (General Exhibit No. 599). SchoolyLaws of the State of Utah, 1969. AGO: Use of Gym- nasiums by Religious Group, 102. Sghgol Laws of the State of Utah‘ 1969. 9-2-4 (A through L) (53-17-7 through 22). , School Laws of the State of Utah. 1969. AGO: Pre-Sdhool Physical Examination. School Laws of the State of UtahLyl969. AGO: Public School Education for Indian Children, 141. 274 Senate Bill Number 174 (53-7-l6), Utah Legislature, 1971. Senate Journal, Utah Legislature, 1969. Senate Journal, 1970. Budget Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature of the State of Utah, 64—65. United States Census of Population--Utah 1970. U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce/Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C., January, 1971. Yearbooks Beatty, Willard W. "The Nature and Purpose of Community Education." The Fifty-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Community Education: Principles and Practices from World-wide Experiences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), 11-12. Hanna, Paul R. and Naslund, Robert A. "The Community School Defined." The Community School. Fifty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Nelson B. Henry, editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 52-65. Krug, Edward. "The Program of the Community School." The Commpnity School. Fifty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Nelson B. Henry, editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 84. Muntyan, Milosh. "Community-School Concepts: A Critical Analysis." The Community School. Fifty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II, Nelson B. Henry editor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), 31. Unpublished Materials Anderson, Philip D. "An Analysis of the Community School Program in American Fork, Utah" (master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1969). Brian, D. Garron. "Adult Education in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1955). 275 Callister, Kenneth Noel. "Recommendations for a Joint City, County, School Recreation Program for South Ogden, Utah" (master' 3 degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1970). DeBoer, Ray L. "A Historical Study of Mormon Education and the Influence of Its PhiloSOphy on Public Education in Utah" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Denver, 1951), 17:3. DeHoyos, Benjamin Federico. "Social Class Differentials in Community Recreational Wants" (Ph.D. thesis, University of Utah, 1969). Follick, Edwin Duane. "The Cultural Influence of Mormonism in Early Nineteenth Century America" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Free Protestant Episcopal Seminary, 1958). Hafen, William J. "Administrative Guidelines for the Co- operative Use of Public School Facilities for Recrea- tion Purposes by Community Groups in the State of Utah" (unpublished Ed.D. thesis, University of Utah, 1967). Hansen, Peter Michael. "A Survey of the Community School Recreation Programs in the Public Schools of Utah" (unpublished master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1970). Knight, Wallace. "Community Utilization of the School Plants in the Weber County School District" (unpublished master's thesis, University of Utah, 1949). London, George H. "The Legal and Administrative Aspects of the Community Uses of the Public School Buildings" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Utah, 1950). Lott, Philip Vaness. "An Analysis of Financing Community- Schools in Provo, Utah, for 1969" (unpublished master's degree field project, Brigham Young university, 1970). Loving, Alvin Demar. "Crystallizing and Making Concrete the Community School Concept in Michigan Through Study of Ongoing Community School Practices" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1954). Manning, Edward A. "The Community Schools of Monterey: An Historical Study" (unpublished doctoral thesis, East Coast University, Dade City, Florida, 1970). 276 McBride, Don Wallace. "The Development of Higher Education in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Midhigan State University, 1952). Roberts, Rebecca Bastian. "A Community School Program for Sunset View Elementary School as Determined by the Patrons" (master's degree field project, Brigham Young University, 1970). Solberg, James Ronald. "The Evolution and Implementation of the Community-School Concept" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970). Thorstensen, Clark T. "A Study of the Availability and the Extent of Use of Public School Facilities for Community Recreation" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1969, published by the Utah State Board of Education). Wiscombe, Arthur Clark. "Eternalism: The Philosophical Basis of Mormon EducatiOn" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Colorado, 1963). Newspaper Articles Deseret News, salt Lake City, Utah, Vol. X, May 30, 1860. Dgggpgt Nfls, Vol. x, December 5, 1860. Deseret News, Vol. XI, February 5, 1862. Deseret News, February 22, 1961. (Deseret News, "Put S. L. Schools to Greater Use," January _1, 1968. ‘ Deseret News, "Poverty Key to Problems," April 20, 1969. Deseret News, "Pedro P. Points Up Dilemma of Poverty," April 23, 1969. Deseret News, "Put Utah Schools to Greater Use," August 17, 1970. Millard Cognty Chronicle, "Millard Group Studies School in Flint, Michigan Trip," Delta, Utah, May 21, 1970. Standard-Examiner, "Adult Education Study Draws Over 20,000 Northern Utahns," Ogden, Utah, September 15, 1968. 277 Standard-Examiner, "Board to Air School Use by Community," December 11, 1968. Standard-Examiner, "School to Become Community Center," December 13 , 1968 . The Daily Herald, "Nebo School Board Rejects Duplication," Provo, Utah, November 17, 1969. The Progress, "Wanted: Place for Girl Scouts to meet weekly," Fillmore, Utah, November 21, 1969. "Weber County Board Favors Community Use of Schools," (no source given). Personal Correspondence Barbero, R. J., personal letter, January 25, 1971. Beavers, David 5., letter to Israel Heaton, May 26, 1969. Bowen, Wes, KSL Director of Public Affairs, personal letter, November 4, 1970." Butcher, Donald G., personal letter to Dr. Avard Rigby, December 2, 1968. Felt, Diane D., Director of Public Affairs, KCPX Television, personal letter, November 20, 1970. Gundry, Don M., principal and Community-School Director, Jackson Elementary School, personal letter, January 28, 1971. Heaton, Israel, letter to Frank Manley, January 21, 1970. Jensen, Moroni L., letter to Israel Heaton, December 17, 1968. LeeMaster, Vernon J., personal letter, March 20, 1970. Local School board member, personal letter, January 6, 1971. McDonald, Jack A., personal letter, March 24, 1970. Mims, Oscar L., personal correspondence, March 4, 1971, with miscellaneous photo—copied materials. 278 Minnis, Roy 8., personal letter, October 22, 1970. Mitchell, Tony, personal letter, February 1, 1971. Nielson, Joseph L., and Heaton, Israel C., letter to Community-School directors and coordinators, n.d. (January, 1970, beginning of Budget Session). Nielson, Joseph L., letter to Nick G. Pappadakis, February 9, 1970. O'Neill, Daniel J., personal communication, 1970. Rigby, Avard, letter to Dr. Peter L. Clancy, April 2, 1968. Stephens, Ronald, personal letter, March 19, 1970. Tanner, N. Eldon, personal letter to Joseph L. Nielson, February 12, 1970. United States Census of 1970, letter from the assistant research supervisor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, giving total pOpulation of Utah as 1,059,273, and Mormons in Utah numbered 756,765 at the end of 1969. Winget, Lerue, letter to District Superintendents, Utah State Board of Education, February 11, 1970. Personal Interviews Beavers, David 8., personal interview, Flint, Michigan, January, 1970. Bell, T. H., telephone interview, Washington, D. C. , April 13, 1971. Boren, William, personal interview, Ogden, Utah, December 16, 1970. Broadway, Odell, personal interview, January 26, 1970. Buckner, Lamar, personal interview, Ogden, Utah, August 10, 1970. Clancy, Peter L., personal interview, Flint, Michigan, February, 1970. Fowler, Ben E., personal interview, Riverdale, Utah, August 11, 1970. 279 Rigby, Avard, personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, December 15, 1970. Rigby, Avard, personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, December 17, 1970. Manley, Frank, personal interview, Flint, Michigan, December, 1970. McCarty, Dr. Daryl, Executive Secretary, Utah Education Association, personal interview, Murray Utah, August 20, 1970. Mott, Charles Stewart, personal interview, Flint, Michigan, March 10, 1970. Nielson, Joseph L., personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 11, 1970. School District superintendent, personal interview, December 16, 1970. Stephens, Ronald, personal interview, Washington Terrace, Utah, August 10, 1970. Talbot, Walter D., personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 13, 1970. Totten, Dr. Fred, personal interview, Flint, Michigan, February, 1970. Utah School District Superintendent, personal interview, December, 1970. Walker, Jess, personal interview, Kalamazoo, Michigan, March 21, 1971. Winget, Lerue, personal interview, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 17, 1970. Zimmerman, Dorothy, Assistant Executive Secretary, Utah Education Association, personal interview, August 13, 1970. APPENDICES APPENDIX A UTAH PARTICIPANTS IN FLINT, MICHIGAN VISITATION * November 13-15, 1967 Name Mr. Robert G. Aldous Dr. Joseph E. Allen Dr. Ronald S. Beckstrom Mrs. Ellen Brown Mr. Glen R. Brown Mr. Jack Burr Dr. Paul Butterfield Mr. LincoanCard Mr. Jack Craghead Mr. Verl G. Dixon Mr. Ashel Evans Mr. Roy Evans Mr. Sherman G. Eyre Position Asst. Supt. Dir. Adult Education Dir. School Facili- ties Supvr. Adult Educa— tion Principal Superintendent Dean, Continu. Principal and Adult Education President ‘”Mayor Superintendent Dir. Pupil Personnel Superintendent 280 Organization Represented ' Ogden School District Granite School District Granite School District Alpine School District Provo School District South Sanpete School Dist. Weber State College Provo School District Provo Chamber of Commerce Provo City Uintah School District Davis School District Logan School District APPENDIX A-—continued Name Dr. Kent Fielding Mr. Grant Gardiner Mrs. Grant Gardiner Dr. Rulon Garfield Mr. Floyd K. Giles Mr. Winston Gleave Mr. Dallas Greener Dr. Brent Gubler Dr. Alton P. Hadlock Mr. Morris Hansen Mr. Sherman Hansen Mr. J. C. Haws Dr. Israel C Heaton Dr. Richard Henstrom Mr. Carl Jensen Mr. Burdette thnson 281 Position Asst. Director Asst. Supt. Community Worker Dir. Educ. Services Dir. Parks and Recreation Principal Principal Coordinator of Adult Education Director of Adult ‘ Education School Board Member Principal Superintendent Chr. Dept. of Recre- ation Education Dir. Off-Campus Centers Div. of Continuing Ed. Director VIP Pro— ‘gram Dir. NEU Education Service Center Organization Represented Utah Coordinat- ing Council for High. Ed. Nebo School District Payson City Ogden school District Provo City South Sanpete School Dist. South Sanpete School Dist. Utah State School Board Univ. of Utah David school District Logan School District Box Elder School Dist. Brigham Young Univ. Provo Brigham Young Univ. Provo Ogden School District Northeast Utah School Dist. APPENDIX A--continued Name Mr. C. Dewey Lund Dr. Wesley T. Maughan Mr. Jack A. McDonald Dr. Avard A. Rigby Mr. Ralph Roghaar Mrs. Ralph Roghaar Mrs. Fern W. Sabey Mr. Edward 0. Salisbury Mrs. Phyllis Salisbury Dr. Jack Seitz Mr. Keith Steck Joseph E. Stephens Burnis Watts Dr. Sherman W} Wing Dr. Bernell Wrigley Dr. Lerue Winget Mr. Reed Wajlquist 282 Position ASchool Board Pres. ‘Community Develop- ment Leader Asst. Dir. Bureau of Com. Dev. Adm., Div. of Special Ed. Serv. Superintendent Community Worker Community Worker Dir. Continuing Education ‘Community Worker School Board Member Dir. Pupil Personnel Asst. Supt. Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent Dept. Supt. for Instruction Principal Organization Represented South Sanpete School Dist. Utah State University Univ. of Utah Utah State Educ. Agency North Summit School Dist. Coalville City American Fork City Salt Lake City School Dist. Salt Lake City Uintah School District Tooele School District Tooele School District Park City School Dist. Provo School District Davis School District Utah State Ed. Agency Granite School District *Information adapted from the records of Conferences and Visitations section of the Mott Programs Office of the Flint, Michigan, Board of Education. APPENDIX B Utah School Administrators' Conference Theme: The Community Centered School March_28-29, 1968 East High School Salt Lake City, Utah The day when the community could afford a "fortress" school, dark and locked at night and on weekends, has gone. Future schools and colleges must become truly community education and cultural centers. Francis Keppel Thursday March 28 Auditorium East High School-Salt Lake City School Administrators, Supervisors, Community Leaders, and interested University Personnel 7:00 - 8:35 p.m. ; FIRST GENERAL SESSION Chairman - Dr. Lerue Winget Deputy Superintendent for Instruction Invocation — Dr. M. Lynn Bennion, Superintendent Salt Lake City Sdhool District Conference Orientation - "The Expanding Role of " Education" Dr: T. H. Bell State Superintendent of Public Instruction Film: "To Touch A Child" (A dramatic and moving story depicting the concern of a community for the total environment which touches and molds its children.) 283 284 "The Community Centered school--Program and Process" - Dr. Peter L. Clancy, Associate Superintendent for the Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education ' ‘Flint, Midhigan §§CTIONAL Mps'rmss An analysis and interpretation of the community school con- cept with major emphasis on organization and administration of the program. Group leaders will consist of educational and community representatives who have observed the Flint, Michigan program. (See Program Supplement for the roster of Leadership Team members and room assignments.) Friday, March 29 Auditorium East High School School Administrators, Supervisors, Community Leaders, and interested University Personnel 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon - FINAL GENERAL SESSION Chairman - Dr. Walter D. Talbot Deputy Superintendent for Administration Invocation - Peter Keating, Jr. -Head Master Rowland Hall-St. Mark's school Introduction of Platform Guests Selected Musical Numbers - Orem High School Acapella Choir Edward A. Sandgren, Conductor Clifton M. Pyne, Principal Friday - Final General Session, Cont'd. 285 Program Analysis - Response to specific questions, problems, and issues identified by conference participants during the Thursday evening Sectional Meetings - Dr. Peter L. Clancy Dr. Howard Y. McClusky "The Provo Story - A Self-Portrait of School Community COOperation" - Coordinated by James G. Bergera Director of Pupil Personnel Services Provo School District BREAK Film: "The Open Doors" (Implementing the Community Centered School Concept in Marion, Indiana.) Address: "Launching a Community Centered School Program" - Dr. Howard Y. McClusky Community Adult Education Dept. university of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED BY LEADERSHIP TEAMS FOR THE MARCH 1968 UTAH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS' CONFERENCE Provo School District University of Michigan Utah State Educational Agency Ogden School District South Sanpete School District Gunnison Valley Industrial Development Committee Park City School District Davis County School District Brigham Young University United States Employment Security Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association, LDS Church Bi-City Urban League, Ogden Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education Weber School District Utah State Division of Health Trade Tedhnical College of Salt Lake Tooele School District Granite School District Utah State University Salt Lake Jewish Community Center Utah Association foquental Health Guadaloupe Center, Salt Lake City Geneva Steel Company Utah State Senate Northeast Utah Multi-District Educational Service Center Provo Chamber of Commerce ' Salt Lake Community Services Council continued 286 287 APPENDIX C--continued Salt Lake City Juvenile Court Deseret News, Salt Lake City Coordinating Council for Health and welfare Ogden City Logan School District University of Utah Salt Lake City Police Dept. Utah Congress of Parent Teachers South Sanpete School District Alpine School District Weber State College Utah Coordinating Council for Higher Education Y.M.C.A., Salt Lake City Nebo school District Uintah School District women's State Legislative Council of Utah Central City Community Action Program, Salt Lake City Salt Lake Tribune (newspaper) Western Michigan University Salt Lake City School District Utah State Board of Education Vocational Improvement Program Provo City United States Office of Education, Denver Region North Summit School District Division on Aging, State Department of Health and Welfare Standard Examiner (Ogden, newspaper) Salt Lake County Commission Source: Program Supplement, Utah School Administrator's Conference, March 28-29, 1968. APPENDIX D AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 7th day of October, 1968, by and between Brigham Young University, hereinafter called the "University," and the Utah State Board of Education, herein- after called the "State Board." WITNESSETH: This Agreement is made to facilitate the cooperative develop- ment of a Statewide Community Education Program based on the Mott Community School program of the Flint (Michigan) Board of Education. ‘ NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The University shaII establish and maintain a Regional Center for Community School Development funded through a Mott Foundation grant, and shall provide for the full-time services of a qualified Project Director who shall be assigned to work with the staff of the State Board to assure effective inter-Agency coordination and optimum local school district support. 2. The State Board shall provide the Director of the Regional Center with a suitable work station, adequate secre- tarial services and consumable office supplies, and necessary communication and publications services during the time he is serving in the State school Office. The Regional Director shall attend meetings of the staff of the State School Board when matters are discussed Which relate to the Community School Program in Utah. 3. The State Board shall provide the equivalent of a one- half time professional employee to work with and complement the services of the Project Director in implementing the StateAWide Community Education Program. 4. The University and the State Board shall each select and appoint a representative Community Education Advisory Com- mittee who shall meet on call, separately or jointly, to consider such such pertinent issues as pre-service and in- service training programs, trainee selection, pilot school awards, Community School legislation and program develOpment at the local level. 288 289 5. The State Board shaIl attempt to secure funds from both public and private sources to implement the Community School concept and to buy qualified leadership services at the local school district and community levels. 6. The University shall provide courses for the training of Community Education Coordinators and Community School Directors through appropriately designed undergraduate and/ or graduate programs, in-service education workshops and internship programs. 7. Consultation and leadership services in the area of Community School planning and development shall be provided jointly by the University and the State Board. 8. The publication rights to materials developed in this Community Education Program shall be the joint property of the State Board and the_University, each of which reserves the right to duplicate and/or distribute such materials of publication without restriction. 9. The terms of the Agreement may be re-written or altered by subsequent arrangements between the parties. Approved as to Form: BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY Phil L. Hansen, Attorney General By BY Phil L. Hansen Ernest L. Wilkinson UTAH STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION BY T. H. Bell 290 Hmo.m¢m me mmN.¢Nme ooo.m¢ ooa.mNH an mamuos ooo.oo NN oam.~m ooo.¢ mNH.N anew» N m Nuance scams Hmo.ma m ¢¢N.N¢ ooo.¢ nae.¢ menace m o Nuance amends ooo.ONN ma mma.¢m ooo.¢ oma.m menace ma, N sync mama seam ooo.m¢ A mem.ONN ooo.o~ omv.ea mums» N ea spec o>oua 000.05 B «mm.mm¢ ooo.m mmN.am mama» N m spec cmcmo oom.e N mmN.oN ooo.m omm.a menace m N Nucsoo eumaaez ooo.m¢ NN ooo.mm ooo.¢ com.» menace m m mm .02 onmcH 06¢.N NN Nmm.oe ooo.¢ omm.mm menace m m am .02 osmcH 006.com a mam.ma ooo.m omN menace m N «unease ooo.mm m mm¢.ome ooo.m e eeo.oa menace m m Nuasoo mn>mo .unwa mmwocmmm money owuomuw muomm cowumuomo maoosom unflnunfin Hoonom Hoonom .moou vacomxm meson leafluumm Mo sumcmq huecseeoo «0 cons Hague Nance mo umnssz «0 Hohssz Imaomom mo Honeoz -oema .om massnmoma .N Nash uooemoao>ma Hooaom huwosaeoo How Houcmu Hmcowmmm wuemnm>flcb.mcsow annuaum ., Hmommm AOOflUm MBHZDESOU mo zzonxdmmm m XHQmemfl APPENDIX F (WORKING DRAFT) PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR 1969 COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS It shall be the purpose of this bill to encourage the establishment of Community Education Programs administered through local school districts by (a) providing state aid toward the payment of salaries for Community Education Coordinators and/or Community School Directors, and (b) authorizing two or more boards of education to maintain such programs jointly. BE ll ENACTED by the Legislature of the State of Utah: 1. There shall be apportioned and paid from State Uni- form School funds annually to each school district employing Community Education Coordinators and/or Community School Directors an amount equal to one-half of such-employees' salaries, provided that in no case shall payment by the state exceed $6,000 for each such employee. In the case of districts employing a part-time Community Education Coordinator and/or Community school Director the salary of such employee(s) shall be proportionate to the ratio such part—time employment bears to full-time employment, such applicable ratio to be established in each instance by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2. The boards of education of two or more districts may provide jointly by written agreement for maintaining a Community Education Program; the utilization of buildings, equipment and other facilities; the personnel employed to administer the program; and other matters deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the Agreement. 3. When two or more boards of education have provided jointed by Agreement for the employment of a Community Edu- cation Coordinator and/or Community School Director to serve the participating districts, the agreement shall designate the board of education of one of such districts as the em- ployer and the one to receive the state aid herein provided. Such aid shall be calculated and paid in the manner provided in Section I of this Act. 291 292 4. The State Board of Education shall prescribe rules and regulations for the proper control and management of the offices and activities of the Community Education Co- ordinator and the Community School Director; for the certifi- cation of persons to hold such positions: and for encouraging a close working relationship between Community Education personnel, the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, institutions of higher education, and other com- munity organizations and agencies engaged in community educa- tion programs. 5. This Act shall take effect July 1, 1969. APPENDIX G STATE OF UTAH 1969 REGULAR SESSION H. B. No. 222* By Messrs. Fowler, Smith, Jensen and Schaerrer AN ACT CREATING COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THE STATE; DEFINING THEIR DIRECTION; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTORS AND COORDINATORS; PROVIDING FOR FUNDING, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Utah: Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Community Education Programs Act of 1969. Section 2. It is the purpose of this act to encourage the establishment of community education programs in the school districts of this state which shall provide programs designed to strengthen relationships between the adult members of society and their schools; develop systematic methods of joint planning and effort with the several public and private human services agencies; utilize the public school facilities during those hours of the day and the periods of time when they are not being used for public school programs; stimulate neighborhood self-help and self- development movements to enable people to deal with change and obsolescence: promote more effective use of available community resources by neighborhood groups; and to provide a program representative of and responsive to the needs of local government, major economic groups, and the general public in regard to educational, recreational, and neighbor— hood and community development services. Section 3. School district boards of education shall give attention to the establishment of community education programs in their respective district. The boards of educa— tion of two or more districts may provide jointly by written agreement, a copy of which shall be filed with the state board of education, for maintaining a community education program which agreement shall include, but not be limited to, *House Bill Number 222, as amended further, died in the Senate. 293 294 the utilization of facilities, the employment of personnel, the specific financial arrangements, and other matters deemed essential to carry out the purposes of this act. Section 4. The state board of education shall prescribe rules and regulations for the proper control and management of activities in connection with the community education programs in each district. Section 5. There shall be apportioned and paid from the uniform school fund annually to each school district employing a community education coordinator and director an amount equal to one-half of the employees' salaries, provided that in no case shall payment by the state exceed $3,000/ ' $6,000 for each employee. Whenever two or more districts join together for the purpose of providing a community educa- tion prOgram, payment for the director and coordinator as provided above shall be made to the district designated in the agreement as the spOnsoring agency. Districts which employ a part-time director or coordinator shall receive a proportionate amount of the $3,000/$6,000 herein described in terms of the length of employment of the individual. Section 6. This act shall take effect July 1, 1969. APPENDIX H (WORKING DRAFT) PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR 1970 COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS It shall be the purpose of this bill to encourage the establishment of Community Education Programs administered through local school districts by (a) providing state aid toward the payment of salaries for Community Education Coordinators and/or Community School Directors, and (b) authorizing two or more boards of education to maintain such programs jointly. £13.1— 1. There shall be apportioned and paid from State Uni- form School funds annually to each school district employing Community Education Coordinators and/or Community School Directors an amount equal to one-half of such employees' salaries, provided that in no case shall payment by the state exceed $6, 500 for each such employee. In the case of districts employing a part-time Community Education Coordi- nator and/or Community School Director the salary of such employee(s) shall be proportionate to the ratio such part- time employment bears to full- time employment, such applic- able ratio to be established in each instance by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2. The boards of education of two or more districts may provide jointly by written agreement for maintaining a Community Education Program: the utilization of buildings, equipment and other facilities; the personnel employed to administer the program; and other matters deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the Agreement. 3. When two or more boards of education have provided' jointly by Agreement for the employment of a Community Edu- cation Coordinator and/or Community School Director to serve the participating districts, the agreement shall designate the board of education of one of such districts as the em- ployer and the one to receive the state aid herein provided. Such aid shall be calculated and paid in the manner provided in Section I of this Act. 295 296 4. The State Board of Education shall prescribe rules‘ and regulations for the prOper control and management of the offices and activities of the Community Education Co- ordinator and the Community School Director; for the certi- fication of persons to hold such positions; and for encouraging a close working relationship between Community- Education personnel, the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, institutions of higher education, and other community organizations and agencies engaged in community education programs. 5. This Act shall take effect July 1, 1970. \ m ) ' w -—' ‘ r t 7 ' w ‘ V .v v‘ ‘ . -. g... , r _._ ‘ it"wm 1:435": “1,, f5? :'.'.‘-vy~'.’ y'yr’w '5 a, .‘ q- ’» '7_v- 3 v u, ,- ‘ y- #3:.vr‘ ; ".1 1.;“V"._.‘-.i\v \;J,.-.,._s... m“..s"a.v'~\' .. 7 ., .. . - . . .‘22 APPENDIX I CITATION HONORING CHARLES STEWART MOTT Brigham Young University, January 20, 1970 Presented by Dr. M. F. Hartvigsen Dean, College of Physical Education ‘ s , " ‘ ' I‘ . "r \ I A -. l.‘ ’1‘ ' .; 1 f LA, .s I A“ l A I ' v j ‘4” n I am pleased to present to you Mr. Charles Stewart Mott, an incredibly successful philanthropist of Flint, Michigan. He was born in Newark, New Jersey, on June 2, 1875. He has six children—four daughters and two sons. He received his early education in New York and New Jersey and earned a mechanical engineering degree in 1897 at the Stevens Institute of Technology after two years of study in Denmark and Germany. '3'! .‘ .-. H.4—1.-- '; _,,. LI - . " A . u - -v r-<-- “ "'7"; M). ‘ '.' r. “1.0-. “,‘ . 'v o- ' , .- . .. . .. . . . . Inww- v ‘.' p~ '\ 1. ;’ . In 1899 Mr. Mott became manager of the family-owned Weston-Mott Company of Utica, New York. As a major contributor to the evolution of the automobile industry, he enhanced the economic well-being of the nation through the development of the largest automotive axle manufacturing company in the world, as well as through his guidance of the General Motors Corporation as a director for more than fifty years, during which time he became its largest single ‘7". H- .— 11. 1";'s~ r1! ( ._‘I . . - . .' . I . . .. . - . r ._ --..-..-._. -bfluw .___A. a f V'r'! 3v, ./ V-fl 4. c...~ 4.. A. stockholder. ? _ 52;. "hf;- Mr. Mott served three terms as mayor of Flint, Michigan, and is a veteran of the military service, ‘41 . 3%: having served in the New York militia for six years, in the United States Navy during the - '.' .A .AA 3;, Spanish-American War, as a major in World War I, as a colonel in the Ordinance Reserve Corps ES? from 1924 to 1934, and on the Civil Defense Council in World War II. E In 1926 Mr. Mott established the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, fourth largest private E foundation in the nation. Through it he has given in excess of $50,000,000 to community ' education. His primary objective has been the development of human resources by placing within ~€3 the community the ladders upon which the aspiring could rise. This new idea in education, known as the community school concept, holds to the philosophy that the public schools are the instruments of the maple they serve and should effectively contribute to the nation's goal to eliminate the ills of indifference, ignorance, intolerance, incompetence, poverty, disease and despair. The rapid growth of the community school concept in education clearly attests to his fulfillment of his family motto, "Let us be known by our deeds." w «k ~ _nn\‘ v-Tfif‘ l . I“. "r. 1" _r, ll ,1 o O . ,5 l 1. Em ) 111 , 32:77" 7’4 A. 1 (f .: - l X run—qr?"— vvv v .I, . ,- _ ,. . H. . ’1’. l.r,Vl .' , -" 2, '.. n n. - '_ .. .. The Flint program has for 44 years constituted a human development laboratory for the nation. The program was established on the basis of five assumptions: (1) that those of us who have benefited from society have an obligation to benefit society in return; (2) that it is possible to benefit society by helping people improve the quality of their lives; (3) that the creation of opportunity for self-improvement helps best by developing self-reliant strength; (4) that extensions . ‘L" "'1‘. I .' l‘ ,h‘ - '.& y ~‘rwrr-v in: WV v r . . ~ l S \ u .‘ l4 o l i‘ ’ fl 1! . l,‘ ud‘ .“fg of opportunities in education, recreation, and health are fundamental means of improving the E {E quality of living; and (5) that existing facilities, agencies and democratic methods can serve best in 3;}: ’2 ,2 FE?! the development of such extended opportunities. “3'9 O f - a .4. 'r O O 'o l 4. Mr. Mott, believing that the community school concept is good for all people, began setting up regional centers to disseminate the community school philosophy, to prepare leaders to administer community schools and to implement that concept. Brigham Young Univeisity, in 1968, became the seventh of these centers. ' r‘ ' "u . 3‘ I 7 C . n I m . J \ Y i i ‘ j'ww—v- V VJ - 1’ H ‘\ ‘50 pl ‘ « an. o u” v ,E D‘- W h! . v . ‘ ‘A . s 14,-. .5. a... ...4..‘...L‘1._‘.1..-.- 4: .. p . L J. Mr. President, in recognition of his unwavering dedication to high principles, for his life or serVice to his country, for his demonstrated concern for the welfare of all mankind, and for his leadership in community education, I recommend that Mr. Charles Stewart Mott, humanitarian—educator, be awarded the degree of Doctor of Education, Honoris Causa. . c ‘ - . . , .- . “ \ u 1. -. u. v. 5:. ~ V a, .. ns‘ . . . . l n, w‘ . - , w. t ‘ 2 ‘~ A ~' ‘ ' I ,. ' ,5 1‘ , -, ‘ , 5 ‘ . -~‘ - f '- -_ I. ,. . . . _. - ,- . -. .._ ., v- .94 . "'.".\&E.'.{':‘: JAE-1313.1.hilaiflb‘&4“4&;‘.fij.~ ALLA {31:1 _.. 1...“. LI .3sim A1.f§1_11f;~£ 7“ W 4K )( w w ’1 “’J’ ( § .0 Q, . '\‘ wl is. ;- ,1; N f4_.4u 'lLJ. . ‘ Jr J , . I‘54 1' I { . .r , l I .. . n . ‘ . ' .' 'C ‘ V: , ' ‘E ‘ - .l I I ‘- ‘ ‘1. . ‘ AK." ’3'“‘ I -“ vI‘ .; /,. ‘1.) A; I" E‘,’ .: ”‘L ~ ‘1 ' s s ‘ c -" . it J 4 a? . ._ ‘ H . ‘ |\ Ir a - | .- I ks-Y./il > -., " ‘t: 2‘ GAE/x rz‘TZLS‘ s, APPENDIX J ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION POLICIES FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAMS IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN UTAH* The purpose of the amended legislation as established by testimony before the legislature by leaders in education, and as interpreted by the State Board of Education, is to give local districts assistance in the employment and train- ing of community school directors and/or coordinators and other community school expenses contributing to the develOp- ment of community centered schools. The foregoing purposes are viewed as being interrelated with those of the extended day“ extended year, and summer programs, and program planning at the district level should reflect optimum program coordination. Community School Education The community school concept is based on the fundamental premise that the public schools belong to the peOple, and that local resources can be harnessed to attack and resolve community problems. The community centered school, UtiliZF ing the existing facilities of the public sdhools, provides a program of community education for all ages. Shops, classrooms, pools, gymnasiums, playgrounds and equipment are made available to the entire community, thus reducing need to construct new facilities. Moreover, on a community- wide basis, there is a school within walking distance of most persons, young and old, conveniently located to attract the entire community to its varied programs of education, recreation, and cultural enrichment. Such schools are open all year, from early morning until late evening, each week day including Saturday. The community centered school serves the purpose of intellectual, social and skill development for children, youth, and adults; it furnishes supervised recreational and avocational instruction; it supplies remedial and supplemental educational needs; it furnishes meeting places for social and civic groups; it provides a forum for the discussion of *Adapted from "Administrative Guidelines and Procedures for Implementing State Board of Education Policies for Ex- tended Year, Extended Day, Summer and Community School Pro- grams in School Districts in Utah, " Utah State Board of Education, March 23, 1970, pp. 1-14, passim. 298 299 social problems; and it furnishes facilities for social and medical services. Existing school buildings may be adapted, or additions constructed, to more adequately accommodate expanded commun— ity school programs. When planning new buildings, districts should give attention to appropriate details of design that will enable the schools to serve their community role Optimumly. Location of new buildings should also take into account as one factor existing or planned recreational and/ or other community facilities in order to enhance the shared use of community resources. Successful implementation of the community sdhool con- cept anticipated by the new legislation is dependent upon the provision of qualified leadership through the selection and training of community school directors and coordinators. 'Definition of Terms«-Community Sdhool Education Communityg§chool Program means the composite of those services provided to the citizens of the community under the coordinated leadership of school district personnel except for those services provided through regular instructional activities for regular day school pupils. This implies con- tinuing cooperation with, and services to, boys' and girls' clubs, scout troops, volunteer organizations, public agencies, civic and service clubs, and other community groups. Such community school programs may also include pre-school activi- ties for children and their parents, vocational—technical education and re-training, continuing and remedial education for adults, cultural enrichment and recreational activities for all citizens, and the use of school buildings by--and technical services to--community groups engaged in solving economic and social problems. The services may be provided during any part of the day including (late) evening, on any week day including Saturday, and during every month of the year. Communitvfigchool Coordinator means an individual em- ployed by a school district to promote, organize, coordinate, and direct a community school program as defined above on a district-wide basis and has immediate administrative accountability to a general administrator of the district. His assignment may include the functions of a community school director for one or more schools. Community School Director means an individual who is employed by a school district to promote, organize, coordi- nate and direct a community school program as defined above at a given school or schools. This individual is responsible to the school principal but is assigned the task of giving direction to all community—centered activities at the school. 300 In addition to the development and supervision of adult education, enrichment programs, and recreational activities, he is responsible-for activating community participation in the planning and implementing of the total program. Community SchooliAdvisory Committee means a representa— tive cross section of the total school service area, com- prised of selected citizens: personnel from citizens groups; federal and state agencies: business and industry; service organizations; school administrators, staff and students; who function in an advisory capacity to the board of educa— tion and its designated community school leaders. Application fpr Approval of Community School Programs A district shall make application for funds and program approval by submitting a plan to the State Education Agency. The plan shall be based upon the prOposed utilization of professional services of community school coordinators and/‘ or directors, and shall be in accordance with guidelines set forth by the State Board of Education. There should be evidence in the plan that coordination has been effected with existing or planned extended year, extended day, and/or summer programs. ' Application shall be made on forms provided for that purpose by the State Board of Education and shall be supple- mented by a written description of the plan as required by the instructions contained on the forms. The forms are meant only to provide a framework within which local dis- tricts can plan their community school programs. Enough flexibility will be allowed to permit districts to meet local needs and conditions. Creativity and local initiative are encouraged. Approval by the State‘Education Agency must be obtained prior to the beginning of programs for which state funds will be used. Deadlines for submission of applications will be established annually by the State Board of Education. Allocation ongunds for Communitv_§chool Programs Funds will be allocated to local school districts on the basis of the ratio that each school district's distribu- tion units relate to the distribution units of all the school districts in the state. The number of distribution units to which a district is entitled will be determined from its estimated data for the preceding school year accord- ing to the number of units contained in (1) special school approvals, and (2) regular elementary and secondary school programs, including full time kindergarten. The initial allocation will be adjusted to actual final data from the 301 preceding school year. Final apportionment of the monies allocated to school districts will be based upon the faith- ful performance of the proposed program. Money apportioned cannot exceed the actual costs involved in each school dis- trict. In the event that a district does not designate quali- fied community school personnel and/or does not meet other guidelines for program approval prior to October 1 of the current fiscal year, funds to which it is entitled will be re-allocated to the remaining districts (for the current year only) upon approval of an alternate, extended, or additional plan for utilization of funds beyond their regular entitle- ment. Guidelines for Approval of CommunitypSchool Programs The State Board of Education will base program approval upon the following guidelines. Districts should meet as many of the accompanying recommendations as is practicable. A. Guideline - Leadership and Training Local district personnel designated as community school coordinators and/or directors under the State supported community school program should have received specialized training approved by the State Education Agency, prior to functioning in such positions. Recommendations: 1. Community school coordinators and directors should be selected on the basis of their commitment to the community schOOl concept, demonstrated community leadership, social maturity, and human relations skills. 2. Community school cOordinators and directors should be employed on a 12 month basis, released from other assignments‘to compensate for delegated extended day-extended year responsibilities, and given status positions within the administrative structure commensurate with their comprehensive leadership functions. B. Guideline - Utilization of Funds Community School funds allocated to local school dis- tricts by the State Board of Education may be used for the training and/or employment of community school coordinators 302 and community school directors and other community school expenses. ' Recommendation: A minimum of one community school should be placed in Operation for each local district community school coordinator and/or community school director position which receives State financial support. C. Guideline - Records and Reporting Participating school districts shall maintain fiscal records in such a manner that all local expenditures for community school leadership and training are readily identi- fiable, and shall provide the State Education Agency with reports of community school fiscal and program operations upon request. .- . D. Guideline - Evaluation Each community school proposal submitted by local school districts should include an evaluation component which will provide for a continuing assessment of the district's progress toward the achievement of project objectives. APPENDIX K GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAM Suggested by Israel C Heaton Director, Regional Center for Community School DevelOpment There are many procedures that could be followed by a community establishing its first community school. The following guidelines are those recommended by the Regional Center at BYU. They are listed as ten steps to be followed, but it must be remembered that there may not be a clear dis- tinction between each of the steps. From the beginning of Step 2, careful attention should be given to a program for” keeping the various publics aware of what is going on. It is highly desirable that as early as possible, a delegation of community representatives should visit an on-going com- munity school-~preferably in Flint, Michigan. It is possible that steps 3 and 4 could be combined. Step 7 would be changed if in step 6 a community school coordinator or director who had received special training were employed. Steps to be followed: 1. Request information and/or assistance from a Regional genteg for Community School Development.* This request usually comes because of some contact with the community school concept through: seeing the film "To Touch a Child”; a visit to Flint, Michigan; attendance at a professional ‘ conference; an address by, or visiting with a community edu- cator; the communication mass media; or visiting a community school. The request may be initiated by any citizen, but usually is extended to the Regional Center by the Superin- tendent of Schools. 2. Set up a meeting of community leaders and ipterested gitizens where the Regional Center representative can make §,pre§entation to as broad a representation of community leaders asppossible. This should be widely advertised with special invitation to persons in key positions. It should be held in the school with a superintendent or a board member in charge. However, it may be called by a mayor, a county official, or another school administrative official. Its basic purpose is to present the community school concept. *If the State Department of Education is staffed for commun— ity education they could perform the same services as sug- gested in these guidelines for a Regional Center. 303 304 3. Hold anothe£_meeting with the Regional Center staff member to discuss with school officials (and hOpefully city end county officialp as well) the next steps to be followed and the problems that must be considered. A follow-up meet- ing of this type with local officials who will make the ultimate decisions is highly desirable. Discussions of the following types of questions and problems are considered: selection of a pilot school or schools, sources of financial support, selecting and training or employment of a coordi- nator and/or director, relationships of school with city and county government and other community agencies, school administrative structures for community education, relation— ship of community education program with other school pro- grams (adult education, recreation, etc.), nature of the community council, and the scope of the program to be developed. These problems are not necessarily resolved at this time but a study of their possible solutions is com- menced and general principles are indicated by the Regional Center staff member. 4. Send a repregentative delegation from the communityito visit the RegionalTCenter and at least one successful commun- ity school. As school, city, county and other selected community leaders visit the Center and see selected programs in action, motivation will be received for moving forward and much time will be saved. Problems mentioned in step 3 are further discussed and presented as they have been solved by existing programs. School—city cooperation is given consideration. 5. Th6;§03§d of Educatipn and hopfully alpp the city and cppnty officials take official action. Additional discus- sions will likely be held in board meetings and with other local agencies. Out of these meetings action must be taken, and if it is affirmative, then the decision to implement the community sdhool concept becomes a part of the official school records. 6. Select a community school coordinator and/or community school director(s). The first step in implementation is employing or selecting someone to head up the program. This is a very important decision because from this point on this person will have more to do with the success of the program than anyone else. 7. Release the coordinator and/or director(s) for community school training. The minimum amount of training considered ‘ acceptable for either of these provisions is an intensive six-week internship. Unless a person is employed who has had this training, the person who has been selected should enter a training program as soon as possible. 305 8. Implement an initial community gehool program of actiyi- ties. Once a trained community school director is appointed and publicity has been given, something must begin to happen. Continual study of wants and needs must not be forgotten,’ but the public will expect the schools to be Open and some- thing going on almost immediately. Generally speaking, program development will follow the following four steps: (a) An evaluation is made ofongoing programs for purposes of effective coordination, better use of facilities, more adequate leadership, financial assistance, etc. (b) Start additional activities that have a universal appeal. There are certain activities that will succeed in any community. These could be added as soon as facilities, leadership and costs are made available. (c) Initiate activities that are requested either from organized groups or as a result of a community survey. (d) Include those activities and programs that are revealed through a professional study of the com— munity and its needs. ' 9. Establish a community coungil. The make—up of the com- munity council will be determined by the characteristics of each community. Members are usually selected because of their ability to represent the community, their enthusiasm for com- munity education, their willingness to give of their time and talents and their capacity to work with other community representatives. The council should meet at least monthly but even more frequently during the early stages of develop- ment. In the beginning the Director should serve as the ‘ leader of this council. However, as soon as feasible, the‘ Council should select its own officers and the Director should assume the role Of a consultant and technical advisor to the Council. The Director should use his ingenuity to devise in-service training Opportunities for the Council (films, guest lectures, literature distribution, etc.). 10. Ipetigate a detailed study of wantgiand needgpofpthe citizens and the communit . The director and council must always be concerned with the basic needs of the community and the development of programs to meet these needs. This will involve continuous study of the community by its representatives as well as by professionals who will study specific aspects of community life. APPENDIX L Adaptation Of Year-end Report Brigham Young University Regional Center for Community School Development , July 1, 1970-June 30, 1971 General Information: Director , Israel C Heaton Length Of Operation 2 years Number districts being served 22 Program Administration: Schools in system 442 Community-Schools designated 153 Trained Directors Half time 100 Full tnme 8 Coordinators 30 Other agencies cooperating 207 Participation: Population Of school districts 970,623* Student population Of districts 256,957 Enrolled adults (total) 33,535 Credit 14,091 Non-credit 19,444 Participating adults 49,349 Total adults 82,884 Elementary students (total 89,378 Enrolled 17,709 Participating 71,669 Secondary students (total) 50,668 Enrolled 10,909 Participating‘ 39,759 Grand Total enrollments and participants 222,930 Finance: '“ ' Tax funds General sOhOOl budget Other local government agencies 207,017.00 Special state aid ‘ 277,205.00 Federal ' 472,254.00 Total finance tax funds $1,433,939.00 $477,463.00 Private funds 38,484.00 Tuition and fees 227,276.00 College or university grants 53,400.00 Other 50,221.00 Grand Total expenditures $1,803,320.00 Future Financial Expectations: Extra help from above sources $310,080.00 Additional help from other sources 75,700.00 Decrease in financial assistance 33,400.00 *Figures include two districts in Idaho. 306 APPENDIX M RESOLUTION, UTAH CONGRESS OF PARENT TEACHER COMMUNITY Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Resolved, Resolved, Resolved, Resolved, qune 1971 SCHOOL CONCEPT Education involves people from birth to death; and The community school concept involves individuals and families; and The state legislature is committed legally and financially to support broad utilization Of school buildings: and The total utilization Of community resources for community betterment is necessary in our con- temporary society; and There is a need for the community school tO com- plement churches and other community institutions; be it That PTA members work in their communities to Open school buildings six days per week, evenings and throughout the summer months, and be it (a) the community school is to assist the family in facilitating cultural, vocational, recrea- tional, academic, and economic Opportunities for individual and family develOpment; (b) Community schools under the jurisdiction of the local Boards of Education should cooperate fully with other community organizations and agencies; therefore, be it That Parents and Teachers are significant members of the community. They should avail themselves Of the Opportunity to influence legislation for funding to support the community school movement; and be it That PTA members take the read in organizing for ‘the.Community‘School COncept and work with frag- menting groups and interest them in a united front; and be it 307 308 Resolved, The PTAs Offer to serve on any school advisory council; and (a) All PTA members should understand the commun» ity school concept and communicate this under- standing tO others thereby acting in the capacity Of a Public Relations source, and (b) Work with community school leaders to help solve community and social problems, and (c) assist community leaders in getting everyone to consider the school as a community center. Source: Utah Parent Teggher, Volume 37, NO. 9, May-June, 1970, PP. 14-15. APPENDIX N A PARTIAL LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATING WITH AND/OR RECEIVING PRESENTATIONS ON THE COMMUNITY-SCHOOL* City Councils Churches Local and State PTA County Commissions Lions Clubs Community Action Program Utah State University Boy Scouts Of America Girl Scouts of America Local Boards Of Education Model Cities United States Forest Service Senior Citizens Health Services Kiwanis Clubs Chamber of Commerce University Of Utah Humane Society 4-H Utah Fish and Game Utah Employment Security Federated Women's Clubs Soil Conservation Service City-County Libraries Socialetts Club Commercial Club Ute Frebe Red Cross Utah Jaycees Rotary Clubs Bureau Of Land Management SOCIO American Legion Cultural Arts Society Utah Farm Bureau Youth Council Job Corps Hill Air Force Base seber State College Indian Placement Service Square Dance Club Lady Lions Gun and Rod Club Bradshaw Chevrolet CO. Utah Agricultural Service Boys' Club Utah Stars Basketball Utah Society Of School Supts. Utah School Boards Association UASCD Police Departments Weight Watchers Club League Of Women Voters Brigham Young University Vocational Advisory Committee United States Civil Service Utah Rehabilitation Services Vista Women's Legislative Council Vocational Improvement Program *Adapted from a list Obtained from the Utah State Educational Agency. For additional organizations, see Appendix C. 309 APPENDIX 0 COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES IN SALT LAKE CITY meamOmm >._._ZDS_EOU no ZO_._.ao>z_ AGO—_Um wbszH>AO>Z_ rb—ZDEEOU wfimmuzcu ._<.rzm2P—ZDEEOU I, 535280 roocum 3:56:30 P33 .0 3.5.2.5 310 Lows—=2 _Ooscm >._._U ”av—<4 bazmm zO_.—.9—zDEEOU NEEDS TO BE MET Basic . . . Those needs which occur from the cradle to the grave — security, approval, being wanted, being needed, and experiencing success so that one's self image reaches the high— est potential. Emerging . . . Those needs for study arising out of the com— plexities of our society such as drug abuse, pollution, inflation, increased crime, job replacement, etc. SCOPE Open schools for All people, of All ages, at All times. SEQUENCE Survey, Consult, Recruit, Facilitate, and Evaluate. COMMUNITY SCHOOL DEFINED OBJECTlVEg CON?" 0".“ To continue present programs. To plan for future growth through increased State and Model Cities development. To organize a maximum of volunteer service programs as a head start to further expansion. To thoroughly orient both present and future personnel . To make constant evaluation. — GOAL — Every school in Salt Lake City a Community School. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS —-lNVOLVED—-— OTHER : The patrons in the school area. Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center Salt Lake County Recreation Department Moose Club American Red Cross Optimist Club Salt Lake County Employment Security Office 30V SCOUIS POIICG Department Salt Lake County Family Service Chf’mbe' Of Commerce Rotary Club MOdeI Cities Agency Ch'Edr?“'5 A'd SOCIETY State Department of Public Health City-County Health Department Councrl 0f Churches TUbeICU‘OSIS ASSOClaiIO“ Community Action Program Elks Club Traffic Safety Commission Community Service Council Fire Department . _ Urban League V' t Fish and Game Commrssron Veterans of Foreign Wars '5 a . _ Girl Scouts Wasatch Mountain Club Utah State Office of Rehabilitation Juvenile Court Y.M.C.A. ParentTeacher Association Lions Club Y.W.C.A. E THE SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL COUNCIL I TI ~ 7 ~ 7 « ¥»%—f 7‘ . . INVOLVED IN SCHOOL -, Principal: He is the Mayor of the School Community. Students: Students can greatly assist with the programs especially in endeavors relating to Servrce Manager: The key person around whom the whole f . H l . . . 2633;323:215 Jag: exizzggrgargtfilities. Secretaries: A key assmant to the School Manager IS _the secretary who can be of great servrce in produc- Faculty: Staff utilization should be practiced to the ing and directing communications. highest degree in order that specific abilities can be utilized in specific areas. Custodian: P.T.A.: Constant checks are necessary to make sure the Can be a most resourceful agency for rou- facilities provided are in order at the time and tine assistance, survey aids, and community place needed. analysis needs. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTS SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT Salt Lake City General Community Members I ""I Guadalupe Cantor Ada L. Burt Board of Education I _I I I Dr. Ric rd White — — Public Relations I I I Legislature I I - — \ Senior Citizens (1 Joe Sandoval Minority Groups Edward H. Mchan S.L.C. Recreation Dept. Principals Vadal Paterson, Lincoln Don M. Gundry, Jackson Bruce Peterson, Hillside Manager Glen L. Slight Lincoln ~ .. _- \r- SALT LAKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION Dr. Arthur C. Wiscombe — Superintendent T COMMUNITY EDUCATION CONCEPTS Definition: It's people solving their own problems. It is long recognized,eager|y awaited opportunity for the general public to go into our present schools during so- called "before school" and "after school" hours for BASIC EDUCATION, PERSONAL and SOCIAL PROB LEM SOLVING, CULTURAL and RECREATIONAL LEARNING EXPERIENCES. Scope: Open schools for ALL PEOPLE of ALL AGES at ALL TIMES. ‘ 2. 3. Seguence: SURVEY, CONSULT, RECRUIT, FACILI TA I TE and EV ALUATE. Community Schools ouncil Community Members r—— Loa Russell Community Servrces I Councrl .- - Volunteer Services E- -— Chamber 01 Commerce |— - Ramona Woodhoad ‘ Salt Lake Councrl, PT A I... .. ‘ Negro Communitv v — Garr SahIr-en Community Servrce , t i— -_ I / ’ \ : \ | Model Cities I \ \ ’ ‘ x‘ \ | ’ I x \‘L ADULT COMMUNITY \ HIGH SCHOOL / I I / | I Norris Boyd — Princrpal 7‘—-~LSCH00L COMMUNITY COUNCILSJL L SCHOOL COMMUNITY COUNCIL CHART ADULT VOC. EDUCATION Bill Wrrthlrn 7 Grace Burbidgc s K‘ - — — SUMMER SCHOOL \ . . ’ ADULT BASIC Manager _ _J \ \ Learning Experiences ’ ’1'" Ralph J. Hale — - § _ \ . ’ ’ - .- Hmfid. | - _ _ _ z the Various School .,.:_ - _ _J _ ADULT NUTRlTlON ’ .— '/ COUOCIIS R818! for \ \ l ADULT DEAF EDUCATION Mm”, l , L -' I I CONSIDERATION \ \~ \ i ’ '3 I x ‘ L UTAH LEAGUE ‘ , ’ \ I__\ scr. ART CRAFTS I ’ \ l CIVIL SERVICE I \ MODEL CITIES III | \ School ' | \ Managers "'- HUNTER SAFETY — CIVIL DEFENSE '4; ; t.“ “yerx.” STARTING THE 1. With the. strength of having a 100 percent backing of the Super- ntendergt filed Board of Education, the school Manager should participate in the Intern Program (6 weeks) at B Y. U. and be- come iamiliar with the Flint Michigan Program through printed materials“ "films and slides. He should share these (through the pnmpaikwlth his school faculty and the P .T. A. of his school. 2 The Mame; slieuId become so saturated with community school .phil its eoncept will permeate every fiber of his being to the Militant: complete understanding and dedication 3. He Should get omit into the school community and note the make- up of thetieopie, the industrial sites, cultural and civic centers, husi‘hese d tricts, church and social Service areas. He should talk with community members at every opportunity, giving them time to present their point of view. He should read the local papers and jom groups with similar interests, thus becoming a contribut- ing member of‘the community. 4. S" .0“ H 8. PROGRAM BEGINNINGS PROGRAM Parents who are BOOSTERS for the program can become repre- sentatives to survey their block and report the needs of their area at regularly scheduled School Community Council meetings. The Manager, with the help of the principal and the P.T A., should form the Community School Council that includes princi‘ pal, P.T.A., student officers, block surveyors, civic church indus- trial service, faculty, and business leaders. Program offerings should be carefully set up with an awareness of controversial issues and preparations to give ethical and profess ional advice wherever necessary. Through block surveys the needs of the community can be accurately determined. Such surveys should reflect the true desires of all those in the community Plan with the principal, community members, district coordinator and all others needed. Organize a building calendar assign rooms wrth volunteer or paid personnel in charge and provide adequate supplies. Publicize your program, then EXPAND and EVALUATE. WHAT SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICE NOW INCLUDES .d . Community Schools .07 Adult Nutrition and Homemaking Program. At the present time three are in operation. Six more will be» come functional with the advent of the Model Cities Program. The goal is: Every school in Salt Lake City a Community >‘ Education for the Deaf. 8. Utah League of Senior Art—Crafters. School. _ 9. Civil Servrce G.E.D. Program 2. Adult Community High School — new, housed at South High School and serving high school and post high school, as well as 10- Hunter Safety. older adults who come three evenings a week for education that is 11. Civil Defense Education. basic, vocational and recreational. 3. Adult Vocational Education a. Distributive b. Homemaking P Manpower Training Program at McKinley and the Hamilton School Training Centers. 5. Summer School Program a. Basic courses b. Cultural studies c. Recreational classes I APPENDIX P TOTAL, MORMON, AND MINORITY GROUP POPULATION OF UTAH BY COUNTY, 1970 Spanish Ameri- Oriental Total Mormon Ameri— can and County Pop.1 P1P.2 .cgn Indian3 'Nggrol Other3 Beaver 3.800 3,144 --- 27 --- 3 Box Elder 28.129 22,526 828 470 15 292 Cache 43,441 35,582 274 --- 65 207 Carbon 15,647 7,246 1,797 8 42 53 Daggett 666 404 --- 3 --- --- Davis 99,028 69,855 3,437 ' 51 1,723 707 Duchesne 7,299 6,158 31 341 --- 3 Emery 5,137 4,249 20 --- 9 --- Garfield 3,157 2,931 9 12 --- --- grand 6.688 2,189 249 35 3 #117 Iron 12,177 9,847 65 196 2 4 Juab 4,574 3,947 3 24 2 --- Kane 2,421 2,044 34 18 --- --— Millard 6,988 6,177 15 110 1 --— flggqan 3.983 3,510 42 117 11g --- Piute 1,164 945 --- 46 1 --- Rich 1.615 1.384 —-- 3 --— --- Salt Lake 458.607 306.124 18.644 1,278 2,473 2,920 San Juan 9,606 2,902 459 4,289 16 16 Sanpete 10.976 9,953 44 15 5 29 Sevier 10,103 8,899 12 90 2 --- Summit 5,879 4,998 30 --- 3 3 Tooele 21,545 12,938 1,923 322 125 106 Uintah 12,684 7,726 90 1,445 2 6 Utah 137.776 120.900 11325 254 47 239 Wasatch 5,863 5,011 65 --- --- --- Washington 13,669 10,915 83 232 6 --- Wayne 1,483 1,414 --- --- >1 --- Weber 126,278 82,848 7,442 221 2,073 1,009 State 1 059 273 756 765 36 921 10 063 6 617 5 614 Total I I I I I I I 11970 Census of Population: Utah, General Population Characteristics, advance report, U. S. Department of Commerce/ Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C., January 1971. 2Marilyn Seifert,,Assistant Research Supervisor, Office of the Church Historian, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, personal letter, August 24, 1970. 3Minority Group Population in Utah July 1, 1970, Utah State Department of Employment Security (January 14, 1971)° 311