’ ‘ \‘ 1
fix?
' 4
'\ '1 . -
' t. ., u » av.
-.‘4~ L‘l-Ll“ “
_ '3‘ .f' , . a M -z‘b‘cz‘flig; Epi‘hv
“I" " MK“) 1"" W33 '\ OQA‘V {akol
an, , N 7. 855;; )5 “3.. 5,
’3‘ “1‘5 M ‘
A: a?

‘ .“ ._ y
.'-‘§*~" é.‘:‘. a:

.‘l
.1; .

' ”12.3%“; a:

1:...
rm- -

 

.‘m , .

....~.(, . . . _ . . ‘ .

, ‘ . g , . , flrkw,

' ‘ ' ‘ ' r. ‘xsfééflfi

3 $373-

n" 3'. ,1" '
"or: ‘—

‘»
aézga
" ”a"

$533

(KI? :
' 3 u h
1“: at:
-" 34‘:

   

x
51“: J. 1 .
‘v-VV‘ZKfiV -u’
'-‘ JJV‘J‘ 9-9;“. -
1mm r'f‘k
v». w ,1 fiéflxl'bfi" ‘43»...-
A I ‘
2;: k 9&4 V K“ . , .4.‘
"" ... , A: any that
'. “up u ‘ " 'X‘" :-'r"»“"-i‘
.‘ .q... _ ..,‘ V , . ".“-‘ ‘
‘3'”th. ' ‘ . ' -'I( g‘fl‘gfh‘lgwi ”
¢ - m - ,- 1! v
re ‘ - w' w."

a;

 

 

:.., ".... . . _;'f..¢tx...
~fi‘ ,. "3 w «2»: fr;
‘ ' " " fix-v a4 .12 _' m
M “fifvgs-flfigé
«a '1: ..,» ‘~ ‘1
’ggx‘fdi via??? V
.v.‘v In .
44.

’gfi’w‘u
“ ,‘.l ‘ (a
‘

~"V‘u‘
\ a“
h2x4fi

“nth. ‘n
“"3432; ‘v
4.“?! rs

 

A1 1.7

\r
4_ a,
4

My

*3

. iv,
”(3”: . I
. )Efxm‘)5r:fi$‘¥;£ ‘i I 5 if 5".
rv 1: ' i‘ r3391:
31-3 .
. V

‘1' ..
firfiru‘ffi
w . a» _

L’ f ,
‘ f r J L
25,: m’rlztr:

”(.1)“ . “WP? .

~n-
..‘_~

 

”Ha-I Mfiuph
4' c. ‘
”eru'mk u.

- ' - In W¢\‘h‘,“

.‘ 1.

.(-.'l‘«
mlmafi

 

--'»-?ur :.n—v§lv-m- ‘
- '. M ,_
1:135,“ MW" . ‘
gm.- ‘ um”. -
...--........ «a»...n,.._.. .,
«.m...._-,....-n

....... ..
<-~...J. .p......~:.,‘ L2.

m
-¢,~~—
r-‘wu-~<r
"A, w- .— ~
- "won“:

. o
o
“w

.— 41$ y

 

 

- , -.
’- ,,._. -
-g _ . . ‘..m.
-. ..- ...'...'L“":.:,,wv..‘.f""
AA~W_‘4.;_. ”H," .. v- T:
..... ”.4": a"; ““6323“,"
.. V. _rw_. _._ a? ‘ .
'uP 5. -k'v.0r~e;$L1Q-rmmvfixahz
F.‘.'...~"-.-'.'-‘.«-'." .- .7~.::.v_..-".:t-
r. 4-“:" .
Nov-“WI.
.. p

5.,
*4 -0“
_._ .y.

—--.—.
.4
-

 

C7 (fa/ff; 0!? :U

lllll”Hill"lllHllHllUllHllllllUllllllllllflHllUllHll

1293 00761 5580 __

 

My
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A STUDY OF CHANGE IN BOARDS OF EDUCATION'S ROLE IN
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AS SCHOOL DISTRICTS BECOME
INVOLVED IN A SCHOOL-IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

presented by

Michelle G. Maksimowicz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration

 

 

 

 

Date June 1989

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this chockom tram your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before ode duo.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

-—l|_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I. An Amman/o ActloNEquol Opponunlty lnotltwon
Wt

 

A STUDY OF CHANGE IN BOARDS OF EDUCATION’S ROLE IN
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AS SCHOOL DISTRICTS BECOME
INVOLVED IN A SCHOOL-IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

By

Michelle G. Maksimowicz

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

l989

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF CHANGE IN BOARDS OF EDUCATION’S ROLE IN
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AS SCHOOL DISTRICTS BECOME
INVOLVED IN A SCHOOL-IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

By

Michelle G. Maksimowicz

This study sought to describe the ways in which superintendents
involved the members of their boards of education in school
improvement. The study also describes changes in the
superintendents’ and board members’ perceptions, policies, and
practices directly related to school improvement from close to the
onset of their involvement in the project (Time l) to about one year
later (Time 2). The participants in the study were 25 urban,
suburban, and rural school districts who reported that over 90% of
their residents’ income was between $l5,000 and $30,000 a year.
These 25 school districts were presently participating in the
Leadership for School Improvement Project made available by a
Federal Leadership for Educational Administration Development Grant.

Both quantitative and qualitative data are reported. The
statistical treatments used in testing the ten research questions,
including l8 hypotheses, Awere dependent t-test, chi-square, and

Pearson correlation coefficient. The questionnaire was designed by

Michelle G. Maksimowicz

the researcher, based on research in effective school practices and
initially used in a pilot study. The level of significance was set
at .05. The central findings of the study were as follows:

1. gommitment to school improvement was seen by board members
at Time 2 as a relationship between importance and practice/policy
of providing financial support to implement school improvement, as
well as board commitment to school improvement based on quality and
equity.

2. Need for written policy of a district plan for school
improvement was supported at Time 2, as was the board members’
perception that their major policy responsibility was curriculum
compared to finances at Time 1.

3. Seeerintendentsinvolved their boerd members initially in
the development of mission statements and goals, awareness sessions
on school improvement, and school-improvement updates at board
meetings. Some superintendents included board members in district
staff development. Later on in the year they began to involve their
boards in the development of policy to support school improvement.

4. Changes perceived by superintendents and school board mem-
bers at the end of the year-long study were an overall positive
change in attitudes, communication, cooperation, and collaboration
among and between administrators and ‘teachers (and other school

staff).

COPYRIGHT BY
MICHELLE G. MAKSIMOHICZ
1989

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to all who consider themselves to be
lifelong learners--especially to my husband, Mark, whom I have seen
grow as an educator to be an instructional leader. The study is
also dedicated to my children, Michael and Melissa, who continue to
be self-motivated learners who question and problem solve far beyond
the depths that I did at their ages. May they continue to believe
in themselves and never quench their thirst for learning, no matter
what sacrifices that may require. Last, this study is dedicated to
the students in China who have recently given their lives so that
their countrymen in the future might live with the freedom of

thought and questioning that democracy offers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have contributed through their nurturing beliefs,
tolerance, and assistance to the accomplishment of this study.
Included are my mother and father, Mary Jane and Frank Grimaldi; my
husband, Mark; and my children, Michael and Melissa. I especially
thank Mark for being an equal partner in the many responsibilities
we share as spouses and parents and for his encouragement. My
children deserve a special thanks for their encouragement and
understanding when so many hours on the week-ends, early mornings,
and evenings had to be spent to complete this study.

I also feel indebted to my sixth-grade teacher and principal,
Sister Ignatius, O.P., because she was the first to encourage the
development of my leadership skills. I thank my advisor, Dr. Louis
Romano, for all of his support, and my advisor before Dr. Romano,
Dr. James Costar. Dr. Susan Peters was of great assistance to me in
the qualitative data analysis of this study. Dr. Brian Rowan also
assisted me in the development of my dissertation proposal. I also
am indebted to Joshua Bagakus for his friendship and assistance in
the quantitative analysis of.this study. His skill in the area of
.statistics is a credit to Michigan State University, where he is a
doctoral candidate, and to his native country of Kenya. I would

also like to thank Sue Cooley for her advice and technical

vi

assistance. Last but certainly not least, I thank Dr. Lawrence
Lezotte for his ability to help me stretch my thinking and abilities
so that, along with his thoughtful suggestions and reflections, this
study is a contribution to research on school boards’ involvement in

school improvement.

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ...............

Introduction
Purpose of the Study

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

LIST OF FIGURES ........................

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ....................
Research on Effective Schools and School

Improvement ....................
Planned Change and Organizational Development . . . .
Policy Development in the Local School District . . .
Summary .......................

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............

Introduction ....................

Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase

:lOiU'IdfiNN—i

Population for the Study .........
Development of Survey Instruments .....
Pilot Study ................
First Distribution of the Questionnaire . .
Telephone Survey .............
Redistribution of the Questionnaire . . . .
Data Analysis ...............

Analysis Procedures ................

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ...........

Presentation and Analysis of Quantitative Data . .
Presentation and Analysis of Qualitative Data . . . .

viii

Importance of the Study ...............
Delimitations ....................
Limitations .....................
Research Questions .................

Definitions .....................
Summary and Overview

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Page

xiv

lSl

Responses to Open-Ended Questions .........
Minutes of the Board of Education Meetings . . . .
Telephone Survey Responses ............

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......

Summary .......................
Findings and Conclusions ..............
Research Question l ................
Research Question 2 ................
Research Question 3 ................
Research Question 4 ................
Research Question 5 ................
Research Question 6 ................
Research Question 7 ................
ReSearch Question 8 ................
Research Question 9 ................
Research Question 10 ...............
Overall Conclusions .................
Recommendations ...................
General Recommendations ..............
Recommendations for Superintendents ........
Recommendations for School Board Members .....
Recommendations for Future Study .........
Reflections .....................

APPENDICES
A. MAILED QUESTIONNAIRES AND TELEPHONE SURVEYS ......
B. CORRESPONDENCE ....................
C. COMBINED FACTORS RELATED TO EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS .....
D. SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................

ix

Page

152
157
158

168

168
173
173
175

177
181
182
183
191
191
192
193
197
197
199
200
202
203

206
220
230
233

Table
4.1

LIST OF TABLES

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the
Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools
as Perceived by Members of Boards of Education

Between Time 1 and Time 2 ..............

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the
Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools
as Perceived by Superintendents Between Time 1 and

Time 2 ........................

Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools as
Perceived by Members of the Boards of Education

Between Time 1 and Time 2 ..............

Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools as
Perceived by Superintendents Between Time 1 and

Time 2 ........................

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the Presence
of Characteristics of Effective Schools as Perceived
by Members of Boards of Education Between Time 1

and Time 2 ......................

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the Presence
of Characteristics of Effective Schools as Perceived

by Superintendents Between Time 1 and Time 2 .....

Actual Presence of Characteristics of Effective Schools
as Perceived by Members of the Boards of Education

Between Time 1 and Time 2 ..............

Actual Presence of Characteristics of Effective Schools
as Perceived by Superintendents Between Time 1 and

Time 2 ........................

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the Impor-
tance of Factors of Effective Schools as Perceived
by Members of the Boards of Education Between Time 1

and Time 2 ......................

Page

71

73

74

76

79

80

Table
4.10

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the Impor-
tance of Factors of Effective Schools as Perceived

by Superintendents Between Time 1 and Time 2 . . . .

Importance of Factors Related to Effective Schools,

as Perceived by Members of the Boards of Education . .

Importance of Factors Related to Effective Schools,

as Perceived by Superintendents ..........

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the
Practice/Policy of Factors of Effective Schools
as Perceived by Members of the Boards of Education

Between Time 1 and Time 2 .............

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of the
Practice/Policy of Factors of Effective Schools
as Perceived by Superintendents Between Time 1

and Time 2 .....................

Practice/Policy of Factors Related to Effective
Schools, as Perceived by Members of the Boards of

Education Between Time 1 and Time 2 ........

Practice/Policy of Factors Related to Effective
Schools, as Perceived by Superintendents Between

Time 1 and Time 2 .................

The Relationship Between Importance and Actual
Presence of Characteristics of Effective Schools as
Perceived by Members of the Boards of Education

Between Time 1 and Time 2 .............

The Relationship Between Importance and Actual
Presence of Characteristics of Effective Schools as
Perceived by Superintendents Between Time 1 and

Time 2 .......................

The Relationship Between Length of Time on the Board
of Education and the Importance of Characteristics

of Effective Schools Between Time 1 and Time 2 . . . .

The Relationship Between Length of Time on the Board
of Education and the Actual Presence of Character-
istics of Effective Schools Between Time 1 and

Time 2 .......................

xi

Page

84

87

9O

94

97

101

105

109

111

115

117

Table Page

4.21 Correlation of Importance of Combined Factors With
Length of Time on the Boards of Education Between
Time 1 and Time 2 .................. 119

4.22 Correlation of Perceived Actual Practice/Policy of
Combined Factors Hith the Educational Level of
Members of the Boards of Education Between
Time 1 and Time 2 .................. 120

4.23 The Relationship of Educational Level Hith Perceptions
of Members of the Boards of Education of the Impor-
tance of Characteristics of Effective Schools
Between Time 1 and Time 2 .............. 122

4.24 The Relationship of Educational Level With Perceptions
of Members of the Boards of Education of the Actual
Presence of Characteristics of Effective Schools
Between Time 1 and Time 2 .............. 124

4.25 Relationship of Educational Level Hith Perceptions of
the Importance of Factors Related to Effective
Schools Between Time 1 and Time 2 .......... 126

4.26 Relationship of Educational Level With Perceptions of
the Actual Practice/Policy of Factors Related to
Effective Schools Between Time 1 and Time 2 by
Members of the Boards of Education .......... 131

4.27 The Relationship of Career Type with Perceptions of
Members of the Boards of Education of the Importance
of Characteristics of Effective Schools Between
Time 1 and Time 2 .................. 135

4.28 The Relationship of Career Type Hith Perceptions of
Members of the Boards of Education of the Actual
Presence of Characteristics of Effective Schools
Between Time 1 and Time 2 .............. 136

4.29 Relationship of Career Type With Perceptions of the
Importance of Factors Related to Effective Schools
Between Time 1 and Time 2 by Members of the
Boards of Education ................. 138

4.30 Relationship of Career Type Hith Perceptions of the
Actual Practice/Policy of Factors Related to
Effective Schools Between Time 1 and Time 2 by
Members of the Boards of Education .......... 142

xii

Table
4.31

4.32

4.33

4.34

The Level of Commitment to School Improvement
Perceived by Members of the Boards of Education
Between Time 1 and Time 2 ..............

The Level of Commitment to School Improvement of
Members of the Boards of Education as Perceived by
Their Superintendents Between Time 1 and Time 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of Areas of
Policy Responsibility as Perceived by Members of
the Boards of Education Between Time 1 and Time 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranks of Areas of
Policy Responsibility as Perceived by Superin-
tendents Between Time 1 and Time 2 ..........

The Areas That Make Involvement in School Improvement
Difficult for Members of the Boards of Education as
Perceived by Board Members Between Time 1 and Time 2 .

The Areas That Make Involvement in School Improvement
Difficult for Members of the Boards of Education as
Perceived by Superintendents Between Time 1 and
Time 2 ........................

xiii

Page

146

147

148

149

150

151

Figure

3.1

LIST OF FIGURES

LSIP Study Time Line for 1987-88 Participant
School Districts .................

xiv

Page

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

ntro u ion

Today, the role of the school board member has become
increasingly more important in the challenge to continue to improve
schools as organizations and as institutions of teaching for
learning. A school board must provide leadership, establishing the
necessary goals and described outcomes to assure student achievement
in the schools. States and localities charge school boards with
this governance role. Yet, as reported in a recent study conducted
by the Institute of Educational Leadership (IEL), boards largely
have been ignored by both policy makers and the authors of
independent studies in the unprecedented public discussion, debate,
and action around public education and school reform. School boards
must play a crucial role in school reform (School Boards, 1986).
The IEL study went on to report that school board members think they
have, at best, been only peripherally involved, that they have been
cast in a passive role and are perceived as reactors rather than
partners in shaping changes.

Although dozens of national and state reports on educational
reform were released between 1983 and 1986, the reports claimed that

little or no attention had been paid to the role of the local school

board. Despite all the interest in "partnerships" between the
business sector and education, raising student achievement,
improving staffs, elevating standards, and changing structures,
serious institutional bottlenecks are possible in many communities
if school boards are uninformed and uninvolved, the IEL study
pointed out.

The nation moves into this wave of education-improvement
efforts with some resentment at the local level. According to the
IEL report, school boards, along with classroom teachers and
administrators, think they have not been consulted adequately or
involved in many of the state’s education initiatives.

The approach to mandating school excellence from outside the
educational community (i.e., state or federal mandates) is not
supported by experience in the business world. Best-selling books
on corporate success have advocated such inside strategies as
staying close to the customer, as well as fostering autonomy and
entrepreneurship by supporting and empowering champions inside the
company (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Peters &. Vaterman, 1983). The
national obsession with excellence has led us to explore the success
of the Japanese style of corporate management, and, again, we find
collaborations, joint decision making, the person approach--a11
polar opposites of mandated activities (Houston, 1986).

Researchers in policy and implementation of school reform would
agree that externally induced practices inconsistent with local
routines, traditions, or resources are likely to be rejected in

time, despite early apparent "compliance" (McLaughlin, 1987; Meyer 8

Rowan, 1977). School districts typically adapt to changing outside
conditions and pressures by altering organizational procedures in
ways that attempt to maintain community support and/or reduce
external demands for district change. Thus, there is a continual
and rapid modification in the appearance of schooling. Nonetheless,
we assume that most organizational alterations in the maintenance
system do not significantly change basic teaching practices. This
concept of organizational pattern and adaptive behavior is referred
to as morphastasis (Berman & McLaughlin, 1979). This concept
provides a model for dynamic maintenance of the organization as it
presently exists. Morphogenesis refers to processes whereby systems
change their basic internal arrangements and develop new steady-
state conditions (Berman & McLaughlin, 1979). This concept suggests
a model for dynamic development of change in the organization.
Biological evolution and human learning are examples of
morphogenesis.

In the school district context, morphogenetic processes that
describe how school systems can adapt so that change in core
educational processes can lead to educational improvement are
significant. This type of change calls for restructuring of school
policy and procedures. The critical point for development is that
such processes need to be institutionalized. Educational
researchers and others have used such expressions as self-renewal
(Gardner, 1963; Haterman, 1987) to connote this critical

organizational dynamic. For example, according to Miles and Lake

(1967), a self-renewing school district has "the ability to
continuously sense and adapt to its external and internal
environment in such a manner as to strengthen itself and ultimately
fulfill its goal of providing education for children" (p. 82). It
is important to remember that procedural change takes place only at
the school level. Policy changes at the federal or state level may
influence change, but they are likely to result only in
ameliorative, nominal, or symbolic changes (Romberg, 1985).

Another area that needs to be recognized in considering
organizational change is organizational coupling. Whereas schools
may have traditionally functioned as loosely coupled systems,
accumulating evidence has begun to suggest that instructional
effectiveness at the school and district levels may be enhanced by
strengthening organizational coupling of goals and outcomes in the
areas of curriculum and instruction. The finding held true in the
12 instructionally effective school districts (IESD) studied by
Murphy and Hallinger (1986). These IESD appeared to be tightly
rather than loosely coupled--a finding somewhat at odds with the
general literature. What was described in Murphy and Hallinger’s
study as tightly coupled means that the defining characteristics of
loose coupling--lack of purpose/sense of direction, nebulous
technology, lack of an inspection function, and absence of
accountability--are not present in the IESD. A similar outcome was
reported in the ten-volume study of Dissemination Efforts Supporting
School Improvement (DESSI). One of the propositions unveiled in the
field studies of ‘the DESSI Project. was that the administrative

decisiveness bordering on coercion, but intelligently and
supportively exercised, may be the surest path to significant school
improvement (Huberman 8 Miles, 1984).

School board members want and need to be involved if school-
improvement. efforts aimed at restructuring and institutionalized

change can be successful and sustained over time.

Pur ose f the St

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe the ways
in which superintendents involved the members of their boards of
education in school improvement. Initially, 30 of the 37 districts
agreed to participate in the 1987-88 Leadership for School
Improvement Project made available to the State of Michigan through
a Federal Leadership for Educational Administration Development
Grant.

This study describes changes in the superintendents’ and board
members’ perceptions, policies, and practices directly related to
school improvement from close to the onset of their involvement in
the project to about one year later. The study also describes how a
district involved in a school-improvement planning process
influences the perceptions, expectations, attitudes, and behaviors
of the school board as the policy and governing board of the local
school district. Both quantitative and qualitative data are
reported in an attempt to give both an objective and rich

description of the research.

Impertance of the Study

In response to the research indicating that effective district

 

leadership has a direct effect on student achievement, the
Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP) was designed and
made available to the State of Michigan through a Federal Leadership
for Educational Administration Development Grant.

Through the districts’ involvement in this project, the
researcher hopes to add to the somewhat small body of research on
the involvement of the district’s board of education in school
improvement.

The characteristics of effective programs of adult learning,
professional development, and organizational change provide the
conceptual and empirical foundation on which the design of this
leadership program rests. The form and processes of the training
program reflect the lessons learned from the three interdependent
lines of research and scholarly literature.

The content of the leadership-training program rests on the
best evidence available relative to leadership skills and their
application in the organizational-management process. The design of
this program is based specifically on the model of leadership that
Bennis and Nanus developed and presented in their recent book,
Leedersg The Strategies fer Taking Cherge (1985).

This model of leadership rests on an analysis of descriptive
data the authors gathered on 90 leaders in both the U.S. public and
private sectors. This model includes the strategies of Visioning,

communication, positioning, and self-knowledge that lead to

empowerment of all those in the organization. This program uses the
Bennis-Nanus model rather faithfully. The model is consistent with
related studies of contemporary leadership components. For example,
the mugged leadership strategies are consistent with the cited
recommendations from In Seerch 9f Exeellenee by Peters and Waterman,
A_Eess1en_fet_£xeellenee by Peters and Astin, [be 100 Best Cemeenies
13_Amer1ee by Levering et al., and The thenge Mesters by Kanter.

Each of these books was based on studies of effective practice.
Although the context and focus of the various inquiries change
somewhat across the books, each has made a major contribution to the
understanding of the characteristics of effective leadership. 'The
rationale for effective leadership set forth in these books is
clearly related to the literature on effective schools and effective
planned change as applied to the school context. This rationale
also supports the need for restructuring or change in the basic
internal arrangement to arrive at a new steady state of operation in
the school organization.

The goals of the LSIP program are (a) to develop leadership
skills in individuals while assisting them as a collaborative team
and (b) to develop and implement a district plan for school
improvement. The project in the 1987-88 school year included 37
local school district teams in Michigan that applied on a volunteer
basis. However, only 25 finally participated in this study. The
teams included a representative sample of districts from rural,

suburban, and urban areas, ranging from poor to upper-middle-class

comunities who reported 90% of their residents’ income between
$15,000 and $30,000 a year.

The team from each district included minimally a superintendent
and a building principal. Teams had up to six members, who included
other administrators and teachers.

Three regional technical assistance centers were developed to
provide assistance to school districts. The project training cycle
included three statewide meetings (seven days in total), followed by
regionally organized meetings and opportunities for district-based
visits by regional assistance staff. The district team began this
year-long training in November 1987 and concluded training in June
1988. The second year of the project, each school district received
on-going technical assistance from the regional assistance center.

The model of school improvement being used in the LSIP is built
on nine strategic assumptions:

1. All schools will be expected to focus on teaching and
learning as their primary mission.

2. All schools will be held even more accountable for measur-
able results or outcomes.

3. Equity will receive increasing attention as the proportion
of poor and minority students continues to increase.

4. Decision making will become more decentralized, and the
individual school will be recognized as the production center of

education and the strategic unit for planned change.

5. Models of collaboration and empowerment will increase
teachers’ and building-level administrators’ involvement in the
planning, problem solving, and evaluation of school programs.

6. Approaches to school improvement will emphasize the use of
research as a basis for school change.

7. Instructional monitoring systems will incorporate computers
to accelerate the feedback loops currently used by teachers and
administrators.

8. New school administrators will be expected to demonstrate
skills as both managers and visionary leaders.

9. By emphasizing results or outcomes, schools will be made to
loosen the emphasis on process, thus leading the school to
restructuring (Lezotte, 1988b).

The following is an outline for school improvement that has
been presented to district teams (Lezotte & Maksimowicz, 1987). The
outline suggests the major components that should be addressed in a
district plan for school improvement.

1. Brief Demographic Description of the School District
A. Community Trends and Projections
B. Student Trends and Projections
C. Staffing Trends and Projections
0. Economic Trends and Projections
11. District Mission Statement
A. Philosophy and Beliefs Statement

8. Mission Statement

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

10

C. Long-Range Educational Outcome Goals
0. Timeline for Long-Range Improvement Activities

Communication and Involvement Processes (Central Office
with Schools/Within the Single School)

A. Awareness Program

8. Open, Two-Way Communications Between School Level
and Central Office

C. School Team Collaborative Process
D. Communication with Board of Education
External Communication and Involvement Process

A. Board of Education and Superintendent’s Communication
with Parents and Community/School Publics

Curriculum Development and Implementation Process
A. Essential Learner Outcomes
B. Processes for Periodic Review

Measurement of Student Achievement Linked to Curriculum
Goals

A. Disaggregated Analysis Process
B. Norm-Referenced Measures

C. Curricula-Based, Criteria-Referenced Measures of
Student Mastery

D. Other Indicators of Student Outcomes
Instructional Data Monitoring System

A. Building-Based Data System

8. Central Office Monitoring System
Staff-Development Program

A. Plan to Sustain Change Over Time

B. Resource-Allocation System for Individual Schools

C. Selection of District-Sponsored Programs

11

IX. Planning Process for Individual Schools
A. Established Forms
B. Time Cycles
C. Needs-Assessment Process
0. Time for Planning at School Level
X. Personnel-Evaluation Systems
A. Administrators
8. Teachers
XI. Program Evaluation and Policy Analysis
A. Role of District Team
B. Evaluative Data (Outcome and Process)
C. Periodic Policy Review

The researcher used methods informed by the theory of adaptive
behaviors of an organization termed morphogenesis. This system
concept refers to processes whereby systems change their basic
internal arrangements and develop new steady states (Berman 8
McLaughlin, 1979).

In this study, the focus was on how morphogenetic processes
describe how school systems can adapt so that changes in core
educational processes (i.e., collaborative decision making, ongoing
staff development tied to goals and mission statement, outcome-based
emphasis) can lead to educational improvement. The critical point
for development of sustained change is that such processes need to
be institutionalized or incorporated into the district’s standard

operating procedures. Educational researchers have used such

12

expressions as self-renewal (Gardner, 1963) to connote the critical
organizational dynamic.

The writer attempted to use the theory of morphogenesis to
construct a conceptual framework for the analysis of school district
change--in particular, the changes in the perceptions, expectations,
attitudes, and behavior' of the school board as the policy and
governing board in school districts that are involved in the LSIP
planning process. The theory of morphogenesis was selected to
provide the conceptual framework for the analysis of this study
because it aligns itself with many of the strategic assumptions of
school improvement specifically outlined earlier in the discussion
of the problem of this study. Several of these assumptions call for
school restructuring in order to arrive at the development of
sustained change outlined in the LSIP District Plan for School
Improvement.

The theory of morphogenesis focuses on the need for the
organization to restructure itself internally after reacting to
deviations from its usual behavior so that, with time, new practices
will be institutionalized. This pattern of change that penetrates
to the basic core of the organization is needed for the successful
implementation of this model of school improvement. The assumptions
also emphasize the need for tight coupling of the school
organization on goals and outcomes, but a loose coupling in the area
of process involving freedom and collaborative decisions of how to

arrive at outcomes.

13

The perceptions of the respondents in this study will help
other districts that are interested in district-level school
improvement. It is important to be able to make some
generalizations and predictions in this study about planned change
in school culture) by means of district team training in
organizational development and leadership. 'These descriptions of
change over time by districts involved in the LSIP are an attempt to
add to the body of research on planned change in the cultural
organization of schools in relation to planning and implementing
school improvement.

More specifically, the study will contribute to the much-needed
body of knowledge about the ways school boards are invited to become
involved in school improvement as a school district plans and
initially implements a school-improvement program. The writer also
describes how a school district’s involvement in a school-
improvement project influences the perceptions, expectations,
attitudes, and behaviors of the school board by collecting
quantitative and qualitative data. Qualitative research should be
taken and appreciated for what it is; no more should be expected of
it than it can deliver. The detailed descriptions provide a basis
for the refinement of concepts and the development of hypotheses to
be tested in studies of a larger scale. These findings are not the
end of the journey; they represent a rough map to guide future

travelers (Boyan, 1988).

14

The study was limited to 25 of the 37 Michigan school district
board of education members and superintendents who participated in
the LSIP during the 1987-88 school year. The study was primarily
limited to the district school-improvement model advocated by the
National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.
These school districts represent somewhat proportionate numbers of
urban, suburban, rural, poor, middle-class, and upper-middle-class
populations. _

Case studies in the past have begun to illustrate the dynamics
of the change process that contribute to cross-site variations in
implementation practices. Change that takes place in schools
appears to depend on three issues: leadership tasks that support
change, tasks that support the usefulness of participation in
decision making, and local contingencies that shape the change
process (Boyan, 1988). These factors make it difficult to compare
change from one district to another in relation to districts within
the project, as well as to generalize information to districts
outside of the project. However, in closely analyzing these three
factors, at least the first two are addressed in the project
training intervention used in this study. The training emphasizes
the leadership characteristics necessary for sustained school
improvement, as well as one of its strategic assumptions of
promoting a model of collaboration and shared decision making.
These factors may make comparisons and predictions about change

within districts in the project more able to be generalized.

15

Although the three factors described above appear to influence
change in school districts, no universal rules exist for changing
organizations (Boyan, 1988).

A contingency approach makes several assumptions about planned
change. Knowledge about events in one setting is not fully
predictive of events in another (Berman, cited in Boyan, 1988).
Second, there is limited generalizability of event relationships.
As Hanson (1979) noted about contingency approaches to school
management,

Contingency theory stresses the view that . . . there is some

middle ground between the existence of universal principles or

types, and that . . . each organization is unique and therefore

must be studied as unique. (p. 37)

Third, a school affects and is affected by the initiation of a
change strategy, and the ensuing change process is partially the
consequence of this interaction (Boyan, 1988).

The better the fit between a change project’s objectives and/or
school and district priorities, the greater the likelihood that
change will result; and the more similar the change objectives are
to a district’s goals, the better the chance that change will be
continued (Berman 8 McLaughlin, 1979). Problems appear to arise
when change objectives fall below a district’s top two priorities.
Then, sudden resource strategies are more apt to interrupt the
change process and require adjustments in it (Boyan, 1988).

The LSIP attempts to help school districts align goals and

objectives to their mission statement. This should help to

positively reinforce change and to predict change as an outcome.

16

There is considerable debate right now in considering how much
organizations, as cultures, are changeable. However, there are
indicators that managers can shape these cultures (Peters &
Waterman, 1982).

This study was also limited by the fact that the data were
collected only over a one-year period. The ability to measure
outcomes of implementation was thus restricted. Since school
improvement or planned change in general and in concert with the
theory of morphogenesis takes time, the long-term effects of change

were not described in this study.

Hui—tum;

l. The data in this study were gathered by means of self-
reported measures of perception. These means of collecting data may
introduce some amount of bias. Therefore, this bias may not be
ruled out entirely.

2. Since the identity of the respondents was held anonymous,
it was difficult for the researcher to assess individual changes in
perception between the first and second questionnaires. Therefore,
the reported changes represent overall changes.

3. The researcher who conducted this study was involved in the
program development of the Leadership for School Improvement
Project. Although every effort was made to limit the subjectivity

of information, total objectivity may not be guaranteed.

l7

es r s i

The following questions were posed in this study:

1. Will members of the boards of education and superintendents
perceive characteristics affecting effective schools as increasingly
important as the district plan for school improvement is developed
and implemented?

2. Will the perceived presence of the characteristics of
effective schools by members of the boards of education and
superintendents increase in the schools as the district plan for
school improvement is developed and implemented?

3. Will members of the boards of education and superintendents
perceive factors affecting effective schools as increasingly
important as the district plan for school improvement is developed
and implemented?

4. Will members of the boards of education and superintendents
perceive the presence of factors of effective schools to increase in
the schools as the district plan for school improvement is planned
and implemented?

5. Does the presence of characteristics of effective schools
depend on their level of importance, as perceived by members of the
boards of education?

6. Does the practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools depend on their level of importance, as perceived by members
of the boards of education?

7. Are the school board members’ perceptions of importance and

presence of characteristics of effective schools, along with

18

importance and practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools, influenced by the length of time as board members, their
educational level, or career type?

8. Will members of the board of education become more involved
in and committed to school improvement as the district plan for
school improvement is developed and implemented by the district?

9. What are the primary responsibilities of the board of edu-
cation in the development of policy?

10. What are some of the factors that impede board members’

involvement in school-improvement activities?

Definitions

Aetion plan. A three-year plan for school improvement
developed by a school-improvement team both at the district and the
building levels.

Cpmmunigatjon. The ability to communicate both internally
within the schools and externally within the community on the school
district’s mission, goals, and commitment to school improvement.

Cpoperetjve learning. A cooperative learning group is two to
five students who are united by a cannon purpose--to complete the
task and to include each group member. Cooperative groups are based
on research and are appropriate for all ages, subject areas, and
types of students.

rel f ffec v s l . The correlates of effective
schools are a Safe and Orderly Environment, Climate of High

Expectations for Success, Instructional Leadership, Clear and

19

Focused Mission, Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task, Frequent
Monitoring of Student Progress, and Home-School Relations.

ata th in s ment. The collection of data to profile
student outcomes. Examples are the Michigan Educational Assessment
Program (MEAP), the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), attendance suspensions, discipline
referrals, and so on. Data can also be compiled to profile
instructional "context." Examples are the Connecticut Correlate
Assessment and the National Association of Elementary School
Principals (NAESP) Standards of Excellence.

Qisaggregetion. Breaking down the assessment to see how
subgroups perform to show the school’s degree of academic and
instructional effectiveness for all students.

Effeetive prineipals. Principals of effective schools, whose
behavior* and actions have changed teacher' behavior and improved
student achievement.

Effective sehppls. Schools that have been studied by
researchers and shown to be effective by a predetermined criterion.
In this study, an effective school is defined as one that, in
outcome terms reflective of its teaching-for-learning mission,
demonstrates the joint presence of quality and equity for all
students.

mm. A body of research on teaching often
referred to as elements of effective instruction or Instruction

Theory Into Practice.

20

Exaluetiop. The revision and adjustment of the action plan,
asking the questions, Did it make a difference? What do we need to
do differently?

1m n ' n. A school district’s attempt through policy
decisions to sustain planned-change efforts successfully in the
school district.

Institptippelizatiog. The final step that must take place if

the school-improvement change process will be sustained over time.

Instructional leader-~principal. The principal who acts as an
instructional leader and effectively and persistently communicates
that mission to staff, parents, and students. The principal
understands and applies the characteristics of instructional effec-
tiveness in the management of the instructional program.

lesttpctioneltpleader--spperintendent. A superintendent who
assumes the role of an instructional leader in the district and
effectively and persistently communicates the district’s teaching
and learning mission to administrators, staff, parents, students,
and the entire community.

Missipn statement. A statement that describes a focus on the
important learning outcomes for students to be equitably attained.
It describes who is involved in and responsible for the teaching and
learning and the climate or environment in which this will occur.
It asks, What business are we in? What evidence will we accept that

business is thriving?

21

upppppgepesis. A theory of adaptive change that refers to a
process whereby systems change their basic internal arrangements and
develop new steady-state conditions.

theome-pesed eggcation. A measurement of student achievement
by the mastery of specific objectives determined necessary in the
school curriculum.

Epsittppipg. The implementation and monitoring of the action
plan for school improvement, asking the questions, Are we on
schedule? Are we seeing intended results?

choo b ard lic . A school board policy might be called a
guide to action. It will state a purpose or goal, express what the
board desires to achieve or wants to see happen, and provide a
rationale and framework for specific requirements. Board policy may
establish basic controls and assign general responsibility. It may
be written or stated during deliberative sessions of the board.

Sehpol imprpvement. A school, in outcome terms reflective of
its teaching-for-learning mission, demonstrates the increasing
presence of quality and equity.

§ehpol~jmprevement teams. Teams made up of administrators,
teachers, and possibly other school employees and parents, both at
the district and building levels, whose main focus is to plan,
implement, and sustain school improvement.

Self-knpglegge. The continual learning that the individual
school leader or school organization must achieve in order to

increase survival potential. This knowledge will increase readiness

22

to cope with new changes, opportunities, and ability to evaluate on
an ongoing basis.

Iime_1. The time referred to in discussing the mailing of the
first questionnaire to superintendents and board members in April
1988. ‘

11me_z. The time referred to in discussing the mailing of the
second questionnaire to superintendents and board members in January
1989. The second questionnaire was identical to the one distributed
at Time 1.

Visioning. The ability to describe a school or school district

the way one wants it to be.

Summary and Overview

In this study the writer describes how a superintendent of a
school district involved in the Leadership for School Improvement
Planning Process invites the board of education to become actively
involved. The study specifically relates how a district involved in
district-level planning for school improvement influences the
perceptions, expectations, attitudes, and behavior' of' the school
board about issues directly related to school improvement.

Issues of school improvement addressed in the research include
the following: the characteristics of effective schools, strategic
assumptions about school improvement, district-level planning
provisions, and other elements of effective schools reviewed in the
research. The perceptions of the superintendent of a school

district are compared with those of that district’s board of

23

education to look for any discrepancy between the two. Both
quantitative and qualitative data are reported to assist in an

objective and rich description of the research.

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introductipp
In this descriptive study of the Change in the Board of

Education’s Role in School Improvement as a District Plans a School-
Improvement Program, the researcher attempted to show that the board
of education needs to be directly involved as a school district
plans for and begins to implement a school-improvement plan. The
literature review that follows offers support for this premise.

The review of literature begins with a brief overview of the
effective schools research and the school-improvement model based on
this research. Following this discussion is an overview of the
research on planned change and organizational development. Finally,
a brief review of policy in education is given, with implications
noted for local boards of education in the school-improvement

process.

R 5 ar f 'v h 01 nd Sc 001 m ve
The body of knowledge comonly referred to as the effective
schools research began as a reaction to the Equity of Educational
Opportunity Study in the 19605 and the findings of this study, which
were published by Coleman in 1966. This study popularized pupil

cognitive gain as a measure of school effectiveness. The findings

24

25

of this study indicated that most of the difference in pupil
achievement appeared to be attributed to the child’s family
background. Another study that followed the Coleman study, done by
Jencks (1972), also spurred on the research on effective schools.
The findings of this study indicated that the differences between
schools account for only a small fraction of differences in pupil
achievement and that equalizing elementary and high school quality
would have little effect on decreasing cognitive inequality.
Findings such as these spawned the effective schools research.

The effective schools research that emerged sought to identify
schools that seemed to be more effective in terms of achievement
scores than others and then looked at what transpired in these
schools that could account for student performance. Researchers
looked for "outlier" or individual schools that performed better or
worse than expected. In-depth studies followed to test whether how
well children did in school had little to do with the schools
themselves.

In 1971, in his study Inner City Children Cen Be Taught to
Reed: Fopr Successful Schools, Weber looked at effective inner-city
schools serving disadvantaged children. He concluded that schools
could make a difference and cited eight factors that these schools
shared that were principal determinants of instructional
effectiveness. Weber found strong leadership; high expectations; an
orderly, quiet, pleasant atmosphere; a strong emphasis on pupil

acquisition of reading skills; additional reading personnel;

26

emphasis on phonics; and individualization of instruction to be such
determinants.

The Office of Educational Performance Review of the State of
New York (1974) published a report on two inner-city schools in the
New York public school system. Weber’s conclusions were supported
in their report.

Another' early study in the effective schools movement was
conducted by Rutter (1979). The study, which was published in the
book Fifteen Thousand Hours, was done in secondary schools in
England.- This study highlighted the importance and description of
the school "ethos" as the climate of expectations and modes of
behaving. Other effective schools studies that are frequently cited
are: Elementary School Climate and School Achievement (Brookover et
al., 1978) and Search for Effective Schools: The Identification and
Analysis of City Schools That Are Instructionally Effective for Poor
Children (Edmonds & Fredrickson, 1979). Edmonds and Fredrickson
highlighted five correlates of effective schools as a result of
their study: strong leadership of the principal, emphasis on
learning (everyone understands the mission of the school), orderly
climate, high expectations (no child falls below mastery of what is
needed for* promotion), and assessing progress of students.
Brookover et al.’s research described similar characteristics.

The Connecticut State Department of Education added two
characteristics of effective schools to Edmonds’s original five in
developing a school needs assessment survey. They divided one of

the original correlates described by Edmonds into two separate

27

characteristics. That original correlate was emphasis on learning,
described further by "everyone knowing the mission of the school."
The Connecticut State Department of Education reworded the
characteristics to be a clear and focused mission and opportunity to
learn/time on task. Home and school relations was added as a
seventh characteristic. The correlate of importance of home/school
was found in Edmonds’s original research, but it was not found as
consistently as the other five. As a result, the seven
characteristics of effective schools are commonly referred to in
discussions and research on effective schools.

As a result of these studies, evidence began to mount in favor
of the fact that schools can make a difference (Edmonds, 1978).
When schools make a difference, Edmonds (1984) concluded, it relates
to school response to family background.

In-depth syntheses of the early research have been given in
several publications. The first was offered by Edmonds (1978) in "A
Discussion of the Literature and Issues Related to Effective
Schooling." Following the Edmonds paper, four additional syntheses
of ‘the effective schools research were published. In 1983, a
research brief by Robinson, ff iv S h ' A Summar f
Beseepeh, was published. Also in 1983, MacKenzie published
"Research for' School Improvement: An .Appraisal of’ Some Recent
Trends" in the Edgeatjpnel Beseareher. In 1985, an article by
Purkey and Smith, ”School Reform: The District Policy Implications
of the Effective Schools Literature," was published in the

28

tar ourn 1. Finally, in the 1hird Handbopk pf
Researeh on leeching, published in 1986, Good and Brophy wrote a

chapter on "School Effects." Presently, Levine and Lezotte are
preparing a synthesis on the effective schools research, entitled
”An Interpretive Review and Analysis of Research and Practice
Dealing With Unusually Effective Schools," to be published later in
1989.

Beginning with Coleman (1966) and in reviewing the literature,
several issues and conclusions seem to be associated (Lezotte,
1988b).

The validity of Coleman’s theory remains largely intact. If,
on the one hand, one judges student achievement by means of a
”broad gauged,” standardized, norm referenced measure designed
to find differences among the test population, then differences
in measured student performance tend to be more directly
associated with home and family background factors. If, on the
other hand, one measures student achievement by assessing
student mastery of basic skills as a part of the curriculum,
then the differences in school effects become more marked, and
a stronger case is made for the school effect. The conclusion
to be drawn is that the issues of measurement have been and
probably always will be at or near the center of the debate on
effective schools. (pp. 3-4)

The case-study literature that has come to be associated with
the effective schools research has proved the generalization to be
wrong, as described by Lezotte (1988a):

The case study literature clearly demonstrates, in numerous
settings, that there are schools that are able to attain
remarkably high levels of pupil mastery of basic skills even
though these schools are serving large proportions of
economically poor and disadvantaged students, minority and
nonminority. The criticisms of the Effective Schools Research
have been many and pointed, but the one fact that seems to
stand up against all the criticisms is the fact that some
individual schools are able to achieve these extraordinary
results. As long as such places exist, the effective schools

29

debate is not a discussion of theory, but a discussion of

commitment and political will. (p. 4)

In the early 19805, the search for effective schools appeared
more interesting to researchers than to educational practitioners.
As descriptions of effective schools were reported in the
literature, school practitioners took more notice. Unfortunately,
the research on effective schools did not describe how to make a
school more effective. The first school-improvement efforts were
based on a school-by-school approach, with little direction given to
school leaders about how to accomplish making the school more
effective. Many times, schools were mandated to "do school
improvement." It soon became apparent that implementation of a
school-improvement process must take into consideration what
research has said about organizational development and planned
change. This body of research is addressed in the following section
of this chapter.

The lessons to be learned from various research data appeared
to add up to some general conclusions (Lezotte, 1988a):

1. Preserve the single school as the strategic unit for

planned change.

2. Principals, though essential as leaders of change, can not
do it alone, and, thus, teachers and others must be an
integral part of the school-improvement process.

3. School improvement, like any change, is best approached as
a process, not an event. Such a process approach is more
likely to create a permanent change in the operating
culture of the school that will accommodate this new
function called continuous school improvement.

4. The research would be useful in facilitating the change
process but it would have to include suggestions of
practice, policies, and procedures that could be
implemented as a part of the process.

5. Like the original effective schools, these improving
schools must feel as if they have a choice in the matter

30
and, equally as important, they must feel as if they have
control over the processes of change. (pp. 7-8)

Over time, experience with the school-by-school model made it
increasingly' more clear that local districts were going to be
expected to become involved in systemwide school-improvement
efforts, especially following the educational reform movement of the
19805. Also, the realization occurred to school leaders that each
school is a part of a larger organization of what is referred to as
the local school district. Considering these two factors, it became
increasingly clear that a district-level focus and commitment to
school improvement made more sense in attempting to improve schools.
Thus, the district-level planning process discussed in Chapter I was
established based on the strategic assumptions of school
improvement, also outlined in that chapter. It should also be noted
that the body of research on "teacher effects," combined with the
research on "school effects," provides a wealth of information about
schools as teaching-for-learning organizations.

It seems fitting to close this section, in which much more
could be reviewed on the effective schools research, with a
quotation from the late Ron Edmonds (1978):

We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all

children whose schooling is of interest of us. We already know

more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must
finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so

far. (p. 35)

lanned Chan n Or ani ati n 1 ev men

Studying research into planned change and organizational

development in education became an important focus and concern for

31

educational researchers in the 19705 because of the dissatisfaction
with reform efforts in American schools. Through a better
understanding of the factors that contribute to successful planned
change and organizational development, we hope to be able to
contribute to successful attempts at school improvement in our
schools today and in the future.

Two distinct initiatives promoted innovation in post-war
American schools. The first was the modernization of curriculum.
The second initiative was concern with equality of educational
opportunity, with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965. The major provision of this Act was Title I. Title I
began with broad assistance objectives, based on the idea that,
given resources, local school districts would provide programs to
meet the needs of their low-income students. Neither dissemination
nor training was a key component of the federal role in promoting
change (Chase, 1970).

Three perspectives on implementation and change at the local
level have emerged. House (1981) identified three such
perspectives: the technological, the political, and the cultural.
The technological perspective assumes that barriers to innovation
can be anticipated and managed. The political perspective proposes
that planned analysis of an innovation is impossible because of the
several different kinds of interests and motives of those involved
in the innovation. The technological and political perspectives

dominated the thinking on implementation in the 19705. The 19805

32

have focused more closely on the third perspective of the culture of
the organization or environment and its role in implementation. The
culture can be simply defined as "the way we do things around here."

Berman and McLaughlin (1979) suggested new ways to think about
arriving at change in schools resulting from the Rand Study of
Federal Policies Supporting Educational Change. The conclusions of
this landmark study offer rich information that can be used in the
initiation, implementation, and eventual institutionalization of any
proposed change in schools.

The findings of this study are summarized below:

1. The principal has the ability to facilitate or inhibit
change--his/her support is critical to successful change.

2. The better the fit between a change project’s objectives
and school and/or district priorities, the greater the likelihood
that change will result.

3. In adopting change, it is important that a facilitator be
provided to staff in adopting a change. Eventually, this
facilitation needs to be offered from someone within the district.

4. Teacher change in the desired direction occurred when the
resources were more concentrated and focused.

5. Projects using similar methods varied in their implementa-
tion strategies and institutional settings. The actual kind of
innovation was often less important to successful implementation
than the way it was implemented.

6. These elements of implementation strategies promoted

teacher change: (a) staff training, (b) frequent and regular

33

meetings to discuss new practices, (c) quality and amount of change
required by the project, and (d) local materials development.

7. The more expensive changes were not more likely to be suc-
cessful than were less expensive changes.

8. Perceived complexity of a change is negatively related to
its success.

9. Teachers need to eventually perceive the change as having
positive effects for themselves and/or their students.

10. Active support from the central office is critical in
planned change efforts.

Berman and McLaughlin (1979) referred to the theory of mutual
adaptation to describe the process that appears to take place in
school districts that seemed to be successful at adopting
innovations. There appears to be a fine line between describing
districts that adapt to changing outside forces by modifying the
innovation so much to "fit" into the school organization that
eventually the change only has a cosmetic effect (this process was
described in Chapter I as a maintenance system or morphostasis) and
describing districts that can adapt the innovation to the
organization, yet still effect change in the core educational
process. The latter has been referred to as morphogenesis or also
described by Berman and McLaughlin (1979) as a model of dynamic
development of change in the organization. The key difference
between morphostasis and morphogenesis appears to be the degree to

which the school district "changes" the innovation to "fit" into the

34

organization. It would appear in the model of morphostasis that it
would be difficult to identify the original innovation in the
organization after implementation. In the model of morphogenesis,
it would be easier to identify what the somewhat adapted innovation
was and what changes the organization had to make to accommodate the
innovation.

Planned change is a deliberate attempt to improve existing
conditions through the adoption and implementation of new ideas.
Planned change encompasses various stages. Raishe (1983) described
these stages as follows:

1. Remnition end assessment of need is the foundation on
which change effort is built. Recognition refers to the emergence
of an awareness of a problem. Assessment refers to the
determination of whether or not the identified need warrants some
change, and is it reasonable to expect improvement. Also to be
considered in this initial stage are the various ways that change
might be accomplished. For example, what resources are available,
and where might they best be spent?

2. Initietjon of a planned change refers to the decision by
those involved in the first stage to attempt to improve the assessed
situation. This stage involves the ”preliminary" development of
goals and objectives, strategies, tactics, key support groups or
individuals, and so on. It is important to note the use of the word
"preliminary" in the preceding sentence because it is likely that
many of the early plans will be modified as the process moves into

the adoption and implementation phases.

35

3. AQoptjpn reflects the decision by an individual or the
group to use a new technique or service or program. It is the
starting point of the implementation process. It should be
recognized that adoption does not guarantee implementation.

4. Implementatipn refers to the "process” of innovation during
and after the initial decision to adopt, i.e., the actual use of an
innovative idea or program. It is not the intended use or the
planned use, but the actual putting into practice of the desired
change and making it a part of the existing organization or program.

The Rand Studies (Berman & McLaughlin, 1979) found that
motivation, commitment, and a sense of local ownership were
essential components of program success. Thus, implementation of
educational innovations--in this case, a district plan for school
improvement-~is essentially a two-way process. The innovation
strategy is modified to suit the school system, and the school
system changes to accommodate the innovation. This is another way
to describe mutual adaptation through a model of dynamic development
or morphogenesis.

Change is a process and not an event. Change is made by
individuals first, then by institutions. It is a highly personal
experience, and it entails developmental growth in feelings and
skills. Interventions must be related to the people first and the
intervention second (Austin, Hall, Hord, & Rutherford, 1987). Out
of these basic assumptions, the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

was developed at the Research and Development Center for Teacher

36

Education at the University of Texas at Austin. The stages of
concern in this model--awareness, informational, personal,
management, consequences, collaboration, and refocusing--are ranked
from 0 to 6, respectively. The stages of concern and the
expressions of concern described in the CBAM model are discussed
below and can be used by school leaders to diagnose at what level of
concern teachers perhaps are, and to plan strategies and support

accordingly (Austin et al., 1987).

CBAM Model

Sta es 0 Concern Expressions of Concern

6 Refocusing I have some ideas about something that
would work better.

5 Collaboration I am concerned about relating what I am
doing with what other instructors are
doing.

4 Consequence How is my use affecting kids?

3 Management I seem to be spending all my time in
getting material ready.

2 Personal How will using it affect me?

1 Informative I would like to know more about it.

0 Awareness I am not concerned about it (the innova-
tion).

The CBAM offers the following specific guidelines for
activities to assist school leaders in helping the adults in the
school adapt to change (Austin et al., 1987).

Awareness Concerns

1. If possible, involve teachers in discussions and decisions

about the innovation and implementation.

37

2. Share enough information to arouse interest, but not so
much that it overwhelms.

3. Acknowledge that a lack of awareness is expected and rea-
sonable, and that no questions are foolish.

4. Encourage unaware persons to talk with colleagues who know
about the innovation.

5. Take steps to minimize gossip and inaccurate sharing of
information.

Informational Concerns:

1. Provide clear and accurate information about the innova-
tion.

2. Use a variety of ways to share information--verbally, in
writing, and through any available media. Communicate with
individuals and with small and large groups.

3. Have persons who have used the innovation in other school
settings visit with your teachers. Visits to user schools could
also be arranged.

4. Help teachers see how the use of the innovation relates to
their current practices, both in regard to similarities and
differences.

5. Be enthusiastic and enhance the visibility of others who
are excited--rewarding risk-taking is essential.

Personal Concerns

1. Legitimize the existence and expression of personal con—
cerns. Knowing these concerns are common and that others have them

can be comforting.

38

2. Use personal notes and conversations to provide encourage-
ment and to reinforce personal adequacy.

3. Connect these teachers with others whose personal concerns
have diminished and who will be supportive.

4. Show how the innovation can be implemented sequentially
rather than in one big leap. It is important to establish
expectations that are attainable.

5. Do not push innovation use, but encourage and support it
while maintaining expectations.

Management Concerns

1. Clarify the steps and components of the use of the innova-
tion for instruction and management.

2. Provide answers that address the small, specific "how-to"
issues that are so often the cause of management concerns.

3. Demonstrate exact and practical solutions to the logistical
problems that contribute to these concerns.

4. Help teachers sequence specific activities and set time—
lines for their accomplishment.

5. Attend to the immediate demands of the use of the innova-
tion, not what will be or could be in the future.

Consequence Concerns

1. Provide these individuals with opportunities to visit other
settings where the innovation is in use and to attend conferences on

the use of the innovation.

39

2. Do not overlook these individuals. Give them positive
feedback and needed support.

3. Find opportunities for these persons to share their skills
with others.

4. Share with these persons information pertaining to the use
of the innovation as information is made available.

Collaboration Concerns

1. Provide ‘these individuals. with opportunities to develop
those skills necessary for working collaboratively.

2. Bring together those persons, both within and outside the
school, who are interested in collaboration.

3. Help the collaborators establish reasonable expectations
and guidelines for the collaborative effort.

4. Use these persons to provide technical assistance to others
who need assistance.

5. Encourage the collaborators, but do not attempt to force
collaboration on those who are not interested.

Refocusing Concerns

1. Respect and encourage the interest these persons have for
finding a better way.

2. Help these individuals channel their ideas and energies in
ways that will be productive rather than counterproductive.

3. Encourage these individuals to act on their concerns for
program improvement.

4. Help these persons access the resources they may need to

refine their ideas and put them into practice.

40

5. Be aware of and willing to accept the fact that these per-
sons may replace or significantly modify the existing innovation.
However, do not allow so many changes that the initial plan is
unrecognizable.

Individuals do have concerns about change, and these concerns
will have a powerful influence on the implementation of change. It
is up to those who guide change to identify concerns, interpret
them, and then act on them.

It would appear that these steps will help guarantee that the
planning and implementation process of school improvement is seen by
teachers as an ongoing process and not as a "flash in the pan"
event. They will begin to see that the continual implementation of
school-improvement practices will be an endless succession of
incremental adjustments that they will continue to be involved in
collaboratively and collegially with administrators, teachers, and
others in the school.

Change at the individual level is a process whereby individuals
alter their' ways of thinking and doing. It is a process of
developing skills and, above all, of finding meaning and
satisfaction in new ways of doing things (Fullan, 1982).

Fullan (1985) described the implications of four case studies
of change conducted by Huberman, Stallings, Showers, and Little as:

1. Change takes place over time.

2. The initial stages of any significant change elgexs involve

anxiety and uncertainty.

41

3. Ongoing technical assistance and psychological support
assistance are crucial if the anxiety is to be coped with.

4. Change involves learning new skills through practice and
feedback-~it is incremental and developmental.

5. The most fundamental breakthrough occurs when people can
cognitively understand the underlying conception and rationale with
respect to “why this new way works better."

6. Organizational conditions within the school (peer norms,
administrative leadership) and in relationship to the school (e.g.,
external administrative support and technical help) make it more or
less likely that the process will succeed.

7. Successful change involves pressure, but it is pressure
through interaction with peer and other technical and administrative
leaders.

It becomes apparent that it is necessary to understand the
psychological dynamics and interactions occurring between
individuals as they experience change in schools to make decisions
on successful strategies to use in implementation.

Knowledge about the change process can be powerful when coupled
with the research on organizational development. The following is a
review of the factors that contribute to successful organizational-
development programs (Fullan, 1980):

1. Long-term commitment to an effort involving the total sys-
tem or subsystem (in this case, the school district and/or
school).

2. Purposeful passage through three phases: entry, initial
operation and maintenance or institutionalization.

3. Actual involvement in top management and overt central
office commitment.

42

4. Commitment and involvement of the building principals,
especially when the effort is directed at school
improvement.

5. Use of an outside consultant whose purpose is to assist
those in the system or subsystem to learn to use the
components of the organizational development process and to
work in-depth with some staff members so they can provide
their own continuing in-house leadership.

6. Voluntary comitment of a significant percentage of the
individuals within the system.

7. Careful planning which results in early visible success
related directly to on~the~job concerns of those who are
involved in the improvement effort.

8. Provision of a modest amount of local funding, primarily to
be expended on the services of the outside consultants and
time for all others involved in the activity.

9. Incorporation of organization development strategies
becomes a regular way of doing business and an integral
part of the self-renewing effect of a school or district.
(p. 125)

It is important to remember that procedural change takes place
only at the school level. Policy changes at the federal or state
level may influence change but are likely to result only in
ameliorative, nominal, or symbolic changes (Romberg, 1985).

Another area that needs to be recognized in considering
organizational change is organizational coupling. While schools may
have traditionally functioned as loosely coupled systems,
accumulating evidence has begun to suggest that instructional
effectiveness at the school and district levels may be enhanced by
strengthening organizational coupling of goals and outcomes in the
areas of curriculum and instruction. This finding held true in the
12 instructionally effective school districts (IESD) studied by
Murphy and Hallinger (1986). These IESD appeared to be tightly
rather than loosely coupled-~a finding somewhat at odds with the

general literature. What was described in Murphy and Hallinger’s

43

study as tightly coupled means that the defining characteristics of
loose coupling-~1ack of purpose/sense of direction, nebulous
technology, lack of an inspection function, and absence of
accountability--are not present in the IESD. A similar outcome was
reported in the ten-volume study of Dissemination Efforts Supporting
School Improvement (DESSI). One of the propositions unveiled in the
field studies of the DESSI Project was that the administrative
decisiveness bordering on coercion, but intelligently and
supportively exercised, may be the surest path to significant school
improvement (Huberman 8 Miles, 1984).

Planned change in the school setting is a highly complex and
dynamic. process. Practitioners who seek. to implement and work
toward institutionalizing change in the culture of the schools, "the
way we do things around here,” must know and use the knowledge of
planned change and organizational development as they work in a
collaborative effort toward the desired outcome that will support
the teaching-for-learning mission of the school.

If schools are to become learning organizations, school leaders
will have to show the way. Schools are in need of substantial
revitalization, and the leadership that such change efforts require
can offer meaningful school improvement that enhances student
achievement along with the renewal and continual development of the

organization and its people.

1 v 1 m nt n he chool tric

Policies designed to reform education are no better than the
schools that implement them. If states are serious about
improving the quality of education, they must create a context

44

in which organizational competence at the school level can

develop. (Timar 8 Kipp, 1989, p. 505)

A crucial feature of school reform is the fact that centralized
policy makers have a limited repertoire of actions. They can only
manage what they control. Thus state policies may control funding
or teacher certification, but they have limited direct control over
the daily operation of the school.

Local initiatives designed to promote school improvement rest
on the assumption that the potential for school improvement resides
in the local schools already. The question is: How can we tap this
potential? The keys to tapping the potential of the staff of a
school or school district are leadership and empowerment. In this
sense, successful school improvement is really a triumph of
leadership and empowerment (Lezotte, 1987).

The leadership and empowerment necessary for the success of
local initiatives must begin with support from the local board of
education if reform efforts are to be successfully implemented and
institutionalized over time. The board of education informally
through its practices and formally through its policy can provide
the support, direction, and empowerment that are necessary to
encourage the risk taking and comitment necessary in the school-
improvement process by administrators, teachers, and all others who
work in the school system. The school district mission adopted by
the board is the first step in providing the leadership in the
further development of goals and described outcomes to assure

improved achievement for all students in the schools.

45

If school-improvement efforts are to succeed, schools have to
change the way they typically do business. Local school boards as
policy makers must help schools make these changes.

A primary function of local boards of education is policy and

there is need to develop board policy that will give direction,

endorsement, and support to the process of change necessary for
the development of more effective school programs. Through
policy' making, local boards can provide the framework for
methodical implementation of school improvement plans through
curriculum change, human resource development, and effective

management. (Sniderman 8 MacQueen, 1987, p. iv)

States and localities charge school boards with this governance
role of the schools. Today the role of the school board member has
become increasingly more important in the challenge to continue to
improve schools as organizations and institutions of teaching fer
learning. However, as reported in a recent study conducted by the
Institute of Educational Leadership and reported in Chapter I of
this study, boards largely have been ignored by both centralized
policy makers and the authors of independent studies in the
unprecedented public discussion, debate, and action around public
education and school reform (School Boards, 1986). The IEL study
went on to describe that serious institutional bottlenecks are
possible in many communities if school boards are uninformed and
uninvolved.

Most early efforts in initiating school improvement in the mid-
19805 were made by a school-by-school approach. In many cases the
school superintendent and board of education were left out of the

school-improvement process at the building level. It soon became

evident that the few school-improvement efforts nationwide that took

46

a district approach to school improvement that allowed for later
support and autonomy of individual buildings to carry out the
district mission through unique and collaboratively created building
plans that also addressed specific building-level concerns were the
school-improvement programs that were successful over time.
Increased educational outcomes for students were the measure of
their success. Part of the apparent reasons why district-level
school-improvement projects may be more effective is because of the
role of the superintendent as the educational leader of the school
district. This would follow because of what is known about the
importance of the educational leader of the school or school
district in school improvement. The other highly likely reason is
the importance of the active involvement of the board of education
as the school district plans and implements a district school-
improvement plan. Their understanding and support that later leads
to the development of policy to strengthen the school system at the
grass-roots level appears critical.

Whether written or not, consistent or otherwise, statements of
policy are either implied or clearly stated in board action. It is
difficult to avoid the development of policy statements during board
deliberative sessions. The object of developing written policies is
not to force the board to do something it would not otherwise do,
but rather to give consistency to its actions and to expedite the
operations of the schools (Nelson, 1987).

Genuine reform, however, is predicated on finding solutions to

relatively complex problems and formulating policies that will

47

institutionalize these solutions within schools or school districts.
Recent research has addressed the process of change and the
determination of policy that will result in the successful
implementation of proposed innovations by suggesting that lasting
change seeking to affect student achievement is more likely to
result from policies that encourage bottom-up, school-specific
reform efforts. Grass-roots change such as this requires a
participatory approach to school improvement that relies on faculty
collaboration and shared decision making (Purkey 8 Smith, 1985).

To be successful, school improvement needs to be tightly
coupled in that it promotes clear goals and is data driven in the
monitoring and accountability of outcomes. However, it is loosely
coupled to the extent that it is also an empowerment model that
supports active participation and collaboration among staff and
administrators in development of the process of school improvement.

The teacher is the final and real policy maker in education.
Official mandates to the contrary, when the individual teacher
closes the classroom door, the functional definitions of quality
education and equality of educational opportunity begin to operate
(Lezotte, 1979).

We have learned that policy success depends on capacity and
will. Policy can address capacity issues. Training can be offered
and dollars can be provided. Consultants can be engaged to furnish
missing expertise. But will, or the attitudes, motivation, and

beliefs that underlie an implementor’s response to a policy’s goals

48

or strategies, is less amenable to policy intervention (McLaughlin,
1987). However, encouraging evidence is accumulating to show that
belief sometimes follows action (Fullan, 1986). For example,
teachers required by their principals to interact with low-income
parents on matters of homework often changed their minds about the
contribution these parents could make to their children’s schooling
(Epstein, 1984).

Another lesson to be learned is that successful implementation
generally requires a combination of pressure and support from policy
(Elmore 8 McLaughlin, 1982; Fullan, 1986). Pressure is required in
most settings to focus attention on a reform objective; support is
needed to enable implementation (McLaughlin, 1987). What is
actually delivered or provided under the format of policy depends
finally on the individual at the end of the line, or the "street—
level bureaucrat" (Weatherley 8 Lipsky, 1977).

Assessing the national efforts to reform the schools can
provide some important lessons for policy makers (Timar 8 Lipp,
1989):

1. There is no single policy or combination of policies--such
as merit pay, the use of mentor teachers, teacher
competency testing, and stricter teacher certification
requirements--that will transform mediocre schools into
good ones.

2. The success of reform depends on the organizational fea-
tures of individual schools; schools shape policies as much

as policies shape schools.
3. Institutional reform must focus on improving the health and

competence of schools es_ppgep1zetipps.

49

Although no single policy or group of policies alone will cause

reform, the following areas should be considered in the development

of policy to support school improvement in a local school district:

1.
2.
3.

The establishment of a district mission and goals that
reflect the teaching-for-learning focus.

Guidelines for planning at the building level, with empha-
sis on aligning students’ outcomes with district goals.

The alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum
at the district level should be mandated. This should
include alignment with all teaching materials, including
textbooks, computer software, and all other consumable and
nonconsumable materials.

District-wide assessment programs are established with
emphasis on the development and use of criterion- or
objective-referenced testing to measure student outcomes.
Staff-development programs are planned to address the dis—
trict mission and goals of improved student achievement and
the needs of those who work in the schools.

Commitment of the board of education to school improvement
is reflected in specific line items of the school district
budget.

Personnel evaluation systems that align with the district
mission and goals of teaching for learning.

Development of policies that support the strong instruc-
tional focus of the schools (i.e., homework, retention,
engaged time on task, grouping and regrouping, monitoring,
adjusting, and pacing).

Policies directed at assisting the organization in the
planned-change efforts are critical (i.e., training, time
to meet, facilitators from the outside and inside).
(Lezotte 8 Maksimowicz, 1987)

If school improvement is to succeed, schools have to change the

way they typically do business. Policy alignment to school-

improvement efforts can help them make these changes.

The quality of the individuals’ responses to the school

improvement determines the quality of policy implementation. The

extent of change that is evident in the school organization will

determine the extent to which policy has addressed the priority

50

needs and problems of the schools and, furthermore, the amount of
support that was given to implement change.

Justin King, Executive Director of the Michigan Association of
School Boards, has more than 14 years of experience working with
school boards in Michigan and other states. He offered the
following advice to school board members in addressing their
leadership role (King, 1988):

. That few people will do the right thing without strong lead-
ership. (Mark Twain once said, "Always do right! This will
please some of the people and astound all the rest.)

. Wide school support requires direct and strong leadership.
Elected board members have more credibility when they act
together publicly in a strong community leadership role, than
any other person or group.

Schools have more credibility (as do their elected school
board members) and enjoy more public support, when citizens
are told by board members what is expected of them in order
to have good schools, rather than when citizens are simply
asked by board members what their schools can do for them.
That .you cannot be very effective without making waves,
because as the tugboat knows, if you’re not making waves, you
are standing still.

. You can be effective if you oppose nonsense, but you will not
be successful if you oppose change.

. There is a clear distinction in the public’s mind between
popularity and respect. Popularity will merely gain you
public tolerance. Respect will earn you public approval.

. You gain neither enemies nor allies when you set modest goals
and take up relatively non-controversial tasks, but while you
inevitably gain enemies when you set major goals and tackle
controversial problems, you will also attract allies who make
the achievement of your goals possible and worthwhile.

To meet the challenges of school board leadership, it is
important that we be actors, not reactors; extravertish, not
introvertish; socially involved, not socially alienated; serve to
better the general welfare, not simply to protect what we already
have; and finally to cause better things to happen, not simply to

try to keep bad things from happening (King, 1988).

51

If one assumes these things are true, school board members need
to match their behavior to these premises. If school board members
do not act accordingly, it is the responsibility of the
superintendent to nudge the board to take these steps toward
effective leadership.

In the final analysis,

Viewing implementation as a process of bargaining or

negotiation makes it evident that the very reason it is hard

for policy to affect practice also makes it difficult for
analysts to learn about those effects. Policy effects are
complex, sometimes hidden or invisible, often unanticipated and
nominalistic. And even when they are apparent, they may be
transitory. Learning from experience, then, requires moving
away from a positivistic model to a model of social learning
and policy analysis that stresses reflection and assistance to

on-going decision making. (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 175)

Making ineffective schools effective will depend ("1 our
understanding of how effective schools come into being. It will
require school leaders to develop a vision, communicate the vision
both internally and externally, position the organization to put the
vision into motion, and sustain the vision by self-renewal and
monitoring of desired outcomes. In this case, the responsibility
for monitoring is clearly seen as a shared responsibility of
administrators, teachers, and the board of education. This model of
school improvement should prove to be an empowerment model for
sustained and ongoing school improvement.

The authority through which public schools are held accountable
is the local school board. Local school boards must take into

account the collective interest of their community. They must make

52

sure the professional staff and all who work in the schools meet the
needs of the students.

Locally elected school board members must take a leadership
role, or state officials and others will act in the absence of their
intervention. Local school boards must move from the grandstand and

on to the playing field (Wise, 1988).

Summit

In this review of research, the writer discussed some of the
information about what good schools are like, how to make all
schools more effective, and what steps and processes need to be
taken in attempting planned-change efforts in the schools as
teaching-for-learning organizations.

The chapter went on to discuss the leadership role the board of
education must take in its support of policy development that
focuses the school’s operation and all who work there on the
teaching-for-learning mission for all students in the school
district. It is the board of education’s role to lead the ship
called school, through policy, on the right course. The voyage, or
the implementation of policy in this case, will depend on school
leaders, both administrators and teachers. In the end, only people

in the schools can make change happen. Policy can not.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Intppdgetjpp

This study consisted of seven phases. In Phase one, the
population and sample that would be used in the study were selected.
In Phase two, the survey instruments were developed. In the third
phase, a pilot study was conducted to field test the instrument. In
the fourth phase, the questionnaire designed to gather baseline data
was distributed. Participating school districts were also asked to
send the minutes of all future board of education meetings, along
with their districts’ goals, to the researcher. During the fifth
phase, a phone survey with a sample of participating school
districts was conducted. During the sixth phase, a second
questionnaire to measure any change in data over time was
distributed. The final phase included statistically analyzing data
from the questionnaires mailed to all participants and analyzing the
qualitative data from phone surveys, board of education minutes, and
school district goals. Data for the study were collected over a

one-year period of time.

Phase I; Eppglatipn fer the Study

In the first phase, a decision was made to invite the 37

school districts involved in Michigan’s Leadership for School

53

54

Improvement Project (LSIP) to participate in the study. The project
is a statewide project funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of
Education and sponsored by the Michigan Institute of Educational
Management and the National Center for Effective Schools Research
and Development. The superintendent and the members of the board of
education of each of the 37 districts were invited to be
participants in the study. The school districts represented rural,
suburban, and urban communities throughout Michigan. The school
districts were also representative of different socioeconomic
levels, racial backgrounds, and sizes. Initially, 30 of the 37
school districts accepted the invitation to be a part of the study.

Districts that agreed to be a part of the study were asked to
submit their district goals and begin to send a copy of the board of
education minutes to the researcher. The collection of minutes of
the boards of education strengthened the body of information
gathered because management is essentially an oral occupation;
verbatim records of transaction comprise valuable data for
describing the process of administrating and allocating the
influence of administrators (Gronn, 1984; Pitner, 1982b; Pitner 8
Russell, cited in Boyan, 1988). Although board minutes are not
always verbatim records, they provide valuable information and

additional descriptive data.

Enese z: Develppnent pf Snryey Instruments

Based on the review of the literature on the involvement of

boards of education in school improvement, the effective school

55

research, and the research on change and policy development, the
survey instruments were designed by the researcher and edited by
Lawrence Lezotte, researcher and director of the National Center for
Effective Schools, and Brian Rowan, who has done extensive research
on effective schools. The questionnaire, which was created and
mailed to all participants at the conlnencement of the study and
again at its conclusion, was designed in three parts. The first
section of the questionnaire surveyed the importance and actual
practice of the seven characteristics of effective schools (see p.
17, Correlates of Effective Schools) (Lezotte 8 Bancroft, 1985).
The second section surveyed the importance and actual practice of
policies and practices of effective schools. This section was
designed primarily from a research synthesis of effective school
practices by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (Effective
§ehooling Praetiees, 1984). The third section was designed to
collect specific demographic, nominal, and qualitative data. There
was a separate questionnaire form for superintendents and board.
members. However, the questionnaires varied only on some of the
questions asked in the third section. (See Appendix A.)

A separate telephone survey was designed for both
superintendents an board members. Many of these questions were the

same on both surveys. (See Appendix A.)

has 3° Pi t
The questionnaire, which was designed to survey all

superintendents and board of education members in the study, was

56

sent to eight superintendents and eight board of education members,
selected at random by the researcher, who agreed to be part of a
pilot study. The questionnaire was also edited by Kathy Feaster,
Coordinator of Public Opinion Polling at the Michigan Department of
Education. Corrections and clarifications were made, based on the

pilot study and these additional editing recommendations.

Phase 4: First Distributipn pf the Qgestipnneire
In April 1988, five months after the commencement of the LSIP,

 

a questionnaire was sent to each superintendent and board member of
the 30 districts participating. Questionnaires were sent to each
superintendent to be distributed to their respective board of
education members. Self-addressed stamped envelopes were provided.
Board members were asked to return their questionnaires in a sealed
envelope to the superintendent. The superintendent was asked to
return all completed questionnaires. This procedure was suggested
by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) because of the
poor response the Association had received to a questionnaire sent
directly to board of education members as part of a recent study
conducted by the MASB. A follow-up letter was sent as a reminder to
each superintendent who had not returned the questionnaires after
the date requested to return the questionnaires had passed. (See
Appendix B.) Telephone calls were made to each superintendent who
had not returned the questionnaires by the data requested in the

follow-up letter.

57

Ph se 5: Te e ho e r
A telephone survey was conducted with ten of the
superintendents and a member of each of their boards of education.
The researcher’s purpose in conducting telephone surveys was to
enrich the data by collecting qualitative information that would
help to inform the research questions and clarify data gathered in

the questionnaire and board of education minutes.

Phase 6: Redistribution of the Questionneire

 

The questionnaire was redistributed to each superintendent and
board of education member in the study 14 months after the
commencement of the LSIP, in January 1989. Only 25 districts
remained in the study because five districts either did not return
questionnaires from at least the superintendent and two board of
education members, or sent the questionnaire back several months
after the data were requested. Again, the superintendent was asked
to distribute the questionnaires to and collect the completed
surveys from members of the board of education. After the requested
return date had passed, telephone calls were made to each
superintendent, requesting the return of the questionnaires. A post
card was sent to superintendents who still had not returned the

questionnaires after the date of the second request.

Phase Z: Qete Analysis

Disappointment with the contribution of quantitative approaches
to illuminating organizational life and administrator effect has

evoked calls for more emphasis on qualitative modes of inquiry

58

(Griffiths, 1979; Willower, cited in Boyan, 1988). Griffiths
asserted that “there should be a way of describing organizations
that tries to determine not a priori but in actuality, what the
particular organization is attempting to do, and in particular, what
the people in it are attempting to do" (p. 46).

Data were analyzed through comparisons of findings from the
questionnaires, telephone surveys, and the collection of minutes of
boards of education throughout the year-long study. (See Appendix
A.) The data analysis was informed by the theory of morphogenesis.

In the collected board minutes, the following information was
analyzed:

1. Discussions using the language of school improvement.

2. Discussions about the following areas that relate to the
development of a district plan for school improvement:

a. the school district mission statement
b. the school district communication plan

demographic information about the school district

0

d. The need for learner outcomes to be tied to curriculum
goals

e. Staff-development needs

f. Establishing building-level teams for school improve-
ment and time to meet

9. Personnel-evaluation systems that focus on school and
instructional effectiveness

h. Policy analysis and/or development that supports school

improvement

59

i. Financial support for school-improvement activities

(e.g., staff development, team meetings, peer coaching visita-

tion days)

j. Teacher-empowerment issues

If 'the school-improvement plan was. working, the researcher
expected to find evidence of more discussion by the board about the
importance of student outcomes. The researcher expected to see more
of a focus on analysis and development of policy to support school
improvement. There should have been an attempt to disaggregate test
scores at least in the areas of race, gender, and socioeconomic
level. Financial support for staff development should have become a
priority in the school district budget.

Another area that was analyzed and explained is why some
boards got involved and others did not. The researcher predicted
that the board’s involvement would rely heavily on how the
superintendent chose to involve the board. ‘The telephone surveys
and questionnaires informed the question of why some school boards

get more involved than others.

Analysis Eroeednnes

The analysis of the data from the questionnaire incorporated
the use of the dependent t-test, the chi-square test of statistical
significance and the Pearson product-moment correlation analysis.
The t-tests were used to determine whether or not there were
differences in importance of characteristics of effective schools

and actual presence of these characteristics in the schools between

60

the time when the first questionnaire~ was sent, which will be
referred to from this point in the study as Time 1, and the time
when the second questionnaire was mailed to superintendents and
members of the boards of education about ten months later, which
will be referred to as Time 2.

The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
test the presence or absence of a relationship (or dependence)
between the importance and actual presence of the characteristics
and policy factors related to effective schools. A measure of the
overall importance of characteristics, actual presence of
characteristics, and importance and practice/policy of factors
related to effective schools was computed. The Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficients were used to determine whether or
not a significant relationship existed between the overall
importance of characteristics and factors with the overall presence
or practice/policy of these characteristics and factors. The
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was specifically used
to test the significance of the relationship between the overall
measure of importance and actual presence of characteristics, and
the importance and practice/policy of factors with the length of
time served as a board member or superintendent.

To investigate the effect of educational level and career type
of board members on the perception of the importance and actual
presence of characteristics and the measure of importance and actual
practice/policy of factors related to effective schools, a chi-

square test of statistical significance was used. These parametric

61

statistics, along with descriptive measures (counts, means, and
percentages) and qualitative analyses, were used in this study.

The data analyses were performed to test the following
hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference in perceived
importance of the characteristics of effective schools between
Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesjs 2: There is a significant difference in the
perceived actual presence of the characteristics of effective
schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant difference in the
perceived importance of the factors related to effective
schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 4: There is a significant difference in the
perceived importance of the practice/policy related to effec-
tive schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 5: There is a significant relationship between the
perceived level of importance of the characteristics of effec-
tive schools and the actual presence of these characteristics
as perceived by members of the boards of education at Time 1
and Time 2.

Hypothesis 6: There is a significant relationship between the
perceived level of importance of factors related to effective
schools and the actual practice/policy' of 'these factors as
perceived by the members of the boards of education at Time 1
and Time 2.

t i 7: The length of time of service as a member of the
board of education has a significant influence on the
perceptions regarding the level of importance of characteris-
tics of effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesjs H: The length of time of service as a member of the
board of education has a significant influence on the percep-
tions regarding the actual presence of the characteristics of
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 2: The length of time of service as a member of the
board of education has a significant influence on the percep-
tions regarding the level of importance of factors related to
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

62

Hypothesis 10: The length of time of service as a member of
the board of education has a significant influence on the
perceptions regarding ‘the actual practice/policy of factors
related to effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 11: The level of education of the members of the
board of education has a significant influence on their
perceptions regarding the importance of characteristics of
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 12: The level of education of the members of the
board of education has a significant influence on their
perceptions regarding the presence of characteristics of
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 13: The level of education of the members of the
board of education has a significant influence on their
perceptions regarding the importance of factors related to
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 14: The level of education of the members of the
board of education has a significant influence on their percep-
tions regarding the practice/policy of factors related to
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hyppthesis [5: The career type of members of the board of edu-
cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding
the importance of the characteristics of effective schools at
Time 1 and Time 2.

Hypothesis 16: The career type of members of the board of edu-
cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding
the actual presence of the characteristics of effective
schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Hyppthesis 17: The career type of members of the board of edu-
cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding
the level of importance of factors related to effective
schools at Time T and Time 2.

Hyppthesis 18: The career type of members of the board of edu-
cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding
the actual practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

63

Figure 1: Time Line LSIP Study for 1987-88 Participant School Districts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yearl Year 2 Year 3 & Beyond
November 1981 September 1988 September 1989 -)
‘ -August 1988 -Alm989
ISIPDism'ct'reamsinvoIved mmrmwceiv. [mm-r - _
inSmeandRcsionalConfer- hgmelmieumimeem mgnnfimaprojeezemasmee
came along with wchnical regional canes
assistance
_.
Phone Survey
Time 1 Time 2 7 Won for
AprflDistfibufionof JanuaryDisuibmionof l I WSmdy- '
Questiormaire Questionnaire Year 3, 4, 5
January 1988 to January 1989
Collection of School Board Minna

Figure 3.l.--LSIP study time line for 1987-88 participant
school districts.

 

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The data presented in this chapter were gathered from April
1988 to March 1989 through superintendents and the members of boards
of education of 25 local school districts in Michigan, except for
analysis of minutes of their board of education meetings, which were
collected from January 1988 through January 1989. These school
districts were also participants in the Leadership for School
Improvement Project (LSIP) conducted in the state of Michigan and
made available through a Federal Leadership for Educational
Administration Development grant.

Of these 25 districts, 40% were rural, 52% were suburban, and
8% were urban. Demographic descriptive data on career type, level
of schooling, and the length of time board members had served on the
boards of education were collected initially for these 25 school
districts. The members of the boards of education had career types
in which 62% were professionals, 12% were homemakers, 8% were
skilled laborers, and T9% listed themselves in other careers
different from those mentioned. The level of schooling of board
members included 23% high school graduates, 19% high school
graduates with two additional years of schooling, 19% having a

college bachelor’s degree, and 31% having a college bachelor’s

64

65

degree plus additional degrees or schooling; 8%. had a ‘level of
schooling other than those listed above. Board members in these
school districts had been on the board up to 28 years, with 32%
serving for 2 years or less, 30% serving from 3 to 5 years, 27% from
6 through 10 years, and 11% serving for more than 10 years.

The superintendents from the 25 school districts had been
superintendents in these districts from 1 to 14 years; 40% had been
employed for 2 years or less, 36% from 3 through 7 years, and 24%
for more than 7 years.

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe the ways
1T1 which superintendents involved the members of the boards of
education in school improvement and the changes in perceptions that
occurred between Time 1 and Time 2.

This study describes changes in perceptions of the
superintendents and their board members concerning the importance
and actual practice or policy of characteristics and factors
directly related to effective schools. Both quantitative and
qualitative data are reported in an attempt to give an objective and
a rich description of the research findings.

Quantitative descriptive data were collected through a
questionnaire that was distributed at two different times. The
first questionnaire was sent to participants in the study in April
1988 and collected by the end of May 1988. The second, identical
questionnaire was mailed in January 1989 and returned through the
month of March 1989. Additional data were gathered from minutes of

22 school districts’ board of education meetings from January 1988

66

to January 1989. A telephone survey was conducted with the
superintendent and a board member from each of the 10 school
districts that participated in the study. The phone surveys were
conducted by the researcher before mailing the second questionnaire.

On the importance of the characteristics and factors related to
effective schools, the members of the boards of education and the
superintendents were asked to rate their perceptions on the level of

importance according to the following Likert scale:

(4) Essential (E)
(3) Very Important (VI)
(2) Somewhat Important (SI)
(1) Not Important (NI)

The perceptions of the actual presence of the characteristics

were rated according to the following Likert scale:

(4) All Schools (AS)
(3) Most Schools (MS)
(2) Some Schools (SS)
(1) None of the Schools (NS)

Similarly, the practice/policy of factors related to the

effective schools was rated according to the following Likert scale:

(4) Written Policy (WP)
(3) Practice/Not Written Policy (PNWP)
(2) Uncertain (UN)
(1) No Practice/No Policy (NPNP)

In addition to the perceptions on the importance of
characteristics and factors related to effective schools, the actual
presence of these characteristics, and the practice/policy of
factors, demographic information was also collected. The

demographic information included the level of education of the

67

members of the boards of education and superintendents, the career
type of board members, and length of time on the board of education.

A separate section on the presentation and analysis of
qualitative data is also included in this chapter.

During Time 1 of the data gathering, 153 participants responded
to the first questionnaire of the study, of whom 128 were members of
boards of education representing 25 school districts, along with 25
superintendents. Ten months later, at Time 2, the same
questionnaire was mailed to the same participants, of whom 132
members of boards of education responded, representing 20 school
districts and including 19 superintendents.

In the following pages, each research question is addressed
separately and references the research hypothesis considered for
that particular question.

An attempt was made to rate each characteristic and each factor
according to the percentage of the members of the boards of
education and superintendents. Means and standard deviations were
computed, and the characteristics and factors ranked according to
order of magnitude of the means. For example, a mean close to 4.00
would indicate that the characteristic is essential or is present in
all schools, whereas a mean close to 1.00 would indicate that the
characteristic is not important or is present in none of the
schools.

For the purpose of this study, a subjective categorization
based on means was designed by the researcher to illustrate the

level of perceived importance of a characteristic or factor and the

68

presence of characteristics or practice/policy of factors related to
effective schools. The following chart shows the categorization

used in this study:

Practice/
Mean Category Importance Actual Presence Policy
1.00-2.49 Not Important None of the schools NPNP
2.50-2.99 Somewhat Important Some schools UN
3.00-3.69 Very Important Most schools PNWP
3 3.70 Essential All schools WP

Presentation end Anelvsis of Ouentitetive_Oete

The research findings of the 10 research questions and 18
hypotheses are presented in this section.

Research Question 1: Will members of the boards of education

and superintendents perceive characteristics affecting

effective schools as increasingly important as the district

plan for school improvement is developed and implemented?

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of
characteristics of effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2. Table
4.1 shows the means, standard deviations, and ranks on the
perceptions of the importance of characteristics of effective
schools as perceived by members of the boards of education. From
this information, it is easy to note that the rank order remained
the same between Time 1 and Time 2.

As shown in Table 4.1, the characteristics of Safe and orderly
environment (mean - 3.836, 3.883) and Climate of high expectations
(mean - 3.742, 3.766) were perceived as essential at both Time 1 and

Time 2. The following characteristics had means above 3.00 and were

considered very important: Clear and focused mission (mean - 3.656,

69

 

 

xmmu :0 05m» ucovaum xmmu :0 camp ucoezum
mo~m.o Nam.m nee eeeep o» supeaueoeao A o2, m~pb.o mpe.m eee eeee_ o» sueeaueoeeo A eN.
mmocmoLa ucoeaum mmocmoLa ucoeaum
eeom.o .em.m Le meeeeeeees beeeeeeu e F_F mehm.o oem.m eo meeeeeeeee ueoaobea m GNP
emem.o mom.m bee_uepoe Pooeem\bse: m opp mmgm.o .em.m eeemeoeee_ .eeeeuoaeome_ m mNP
Boom.o oem.m awemeeeeb. .eeeeuoeeeme_ e .2, omme.o omm.m bee_pe_ee _eeeem\oeo: e m~_
commmme commmws
mm_m.o wme.m eomeooe eee eee_u m _._ omme.o mmm.m eemaooe bee Leopu m cm.
mcomumu meowumu
em~e.o mmh.m -oeaxo ems; ee ebeem.o N 222 mmue.o ~e~.m -oeexo ewe; eo becameu N aw,
ucoEEOL acoEcoL
ommm.o mam.m -msee speeeee eee beam _ ~P_ mpee.o 8mm.m -e>ee apeeeee bee been F m~_
O O z I O z
o m cmoz omumwcouomcmco xcmm N 05*» o m coo: ompmwcouoocmsu xcmm esp

 

 

xn eo>mo0coa

.~ camp use p camp coozuoa comumoaeo we mecoon we mcoaeos

mm mpoozom o>muoomeo we momummeouomcmco we oocmucoaem on» $0 mxemc ecu .mcovumm>ov ecovcmum .mcooznn.—.: opnmh

70

3.658), Home and school relations (mean - 3.650, 3.609),
Instructional leadership (mean - 3.641, 3.640), Frequent monitoring
of student progress (mean = 3.540, 3.541), and Opportunity to learn
and student time on task (mean - 3.419, 3.382). Overall, the
perception of the level of importance of each of the characteristics
of effective schools, as perceived by members of the boards of
education, remained about the same over time.

In Table 4.2, the rank order of the importance of the
characteristics, as perceived by superintendents, is indicated.
Climate of high expectations was ranked as number one at both Time 1
and Time 2. Instructional leadership was also ranked as number one
during Time 2. Opportunity to learn and student time on task was
ranked sixth at Time 1 and third at Time 2. Safe and orderly
environment was ranked second at Stage 1 and fifth at Stage 2.

As shown in Table 4.2, the level of importance of
characteristics of effective schools, as perceived by
superintendents, is essential at both Time 1 and Time 2.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference in perceived

importance of the characteristics of effective schools between

Time 1 and Time 2.

A t-test was used to determine whether or not statistically
significant differences exist in the perceptions on importance of
characteristics of effective schools between Time 1 and Time 2 for

members of boards of education. Table 4.3 indicates that the t-test

71

 

mmocmOLQ ucobaum

xmeu co vamp acetone

 

mm_e.o mm5.m co meeeeumeos beeeeoeu A m_ mwee.o omh.m eee ceme— ob someaueoeao m em
mmoLmOLQ ucoeaum
behm.o Nem.m meo_ee.ee Fooeem\esex m m_ m~ee.o omm.m Le meeeeemeee beeaobea m eN
HCOECOL :0 man .2:
beam.o Nem.m -msee »_eeeee eee been m m_ «woe.o oom.m eemaooe eee Leo—u m eN
commmms
mmpm.o emm.m eemaeee nee eee_u e m_ mumm.o mum.m beemue_ee Peeeob\oeoz e eN
xmmu :0 map» ucooaum
em-.o Asm.m bee eeee_ ob sueeaeeoeeo m m_ mmn~.o o~m.m eeemeoeee. Feeeeeoaeume_ N mm
acoEcoL
oooo.o ooo.e ememebeeoe _eeoeeoaeeme_ _ m_ mmn~.o owm.m -msee »_eeeeo bee beam N mN
mcowueu «compo»
oooo.o coo.e -ooexo some to beeee_u P m, oooo.o ooo.e -oeaxo game ee obese—u _ mN
O I z I O z
o m coo: omummcouomcmzo scam N oemh o m coo: omummcouoncocu xcmm 05m

 

 

xn ue>mooLoa

we mpoocom o>muoowuo mo momummcouoocezo

.N 05*» new p camp ceozuon mucoecoucmcoaam

we oocmucoaem on» we mxcmc can .mcomuom>oe ecmvcoum .wceeznu.m.: o—nmh

72

results showed no statistically significant difference in importance
for characteristics of effective schools as perceived by members of
the boards of education over time. Similarly, Table 4.4 indicates
that the t-test results on the perceived importance of
characteristics of effective schools by superintendents showed no

significant differences between Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.3.--Importance of characteristics of effective schools as
perceived by members of the boards of education between
Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Signif.
Characteristic Time N Mean S.D. t-Value Level
22533282?” 1 1%? 3:33? 8:213 -°-987 0-3250
13111313252232.3295 : lii 3:2: 3:8:
31:21.2“ 8...... I iii 3:22? 8:133 43-0216 0-9828
ggsgructional leader- ; 1%? 3:22; 8:25? 0.0150 0.9881
3332321133122?"9°f I 1:: :8: 3:8:
22532133833333 ’"d 1 iii 333.? 8:21? 0-4650 0-6424
Home/school relations ; :eg 322?; g:gzg 0.6168 0.5380

 

Level of significance set at .05.

73

Table 4.4.--Importance of characteristics of effective schools as

perceived by superintendents between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Signif.
Characteristic Time N Mean S.D. t-Value Level
Safe and orderly 1 25 3.920 0.055
environment 2 19 3.842 0.085 0°7940 0'4318
Climate of high expec- l 25 4.000 0 -- -—
tations for success 2 19 4.000 O -- --
Clear and focused l 25 3.800 0.408 _
mission 2 19 3.895 0.315 0'83“ 0'4066
Instructional leader— 1 25 3.920 0.277 _
ship 2 19 4.000 0.000 1'4450 0'1615
Frequent monitoring of l 24 3.750 0.442 ,
student progress 2 19 3.789 0.418 0'2970 0'7676
Opportunity to learn and 1 24 3.750 0.442 ,
student time on task 2 19 3.947 0.229 1°8890 0'0670
Home/school relations 1 24 3.875 0.337
2 19 3.842 0.374 0'3022 0°7640

 

Level of significance set at .05.

Researeh Qnestipn 2: Will the perceived presence of the
characteristics of effective schools by members of the boards
of education and superintendents increase in the schools as the
district plan for school improvement. is developed and
implemented?

Respondents were asked to rate the actual presence of

characteristics of effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2. Table

4.5 indicates the means, standard deviations, and rank orders of the

presence of characteristics of effective schools, as perceived by

members of the boards of education. Over time, Safe and orderly

environment and Frequent monitoring of student progress ranked first

74

 

 

mmmN.o .mm.N beemuepee .ooeom\esez N o.. NGNm.o mNN.N weapon—be poeeem\osez N mN_
xmmu co cam» ucoeapm cowmmme

ommm.o mmw.N bee eeeop e» someeeeoeeo m bop Nm_m.o mpm.N eebaooe bee eeo_o m NNP

commmme

mONN.o Nmm.N eemaoee nee ebb—u m N_, Ne_N.o mNm.N eeeaeeeeep .eeeeoeaebme_ m mN_
mcomumu xmmp co osmu ucobaum

mNNe.o 2mm.N -oeexe game e0 beesa_u e NFP Pmmm.o mNm.N eee eeee_ ea Nemeaoeeeeo e MN.
mcomump

em_N.o w_o.m aaemeeeeo_ .eeoeuoaeobe_ m mp, NNem.o mmo.m -eoexo ems; ee oueeepu m NN_
mmocmoLa ucouzum mmocmOLQ ucoeaum

onN.o meo.m ee memeoeeeos eeoeebeu N N.— NNmN.o oN_.m Le meeeeuweee beeaaeeu N mNp
acoEcoL ucOEcOL

mmme.o mNm.m -esee Npeoeeo bee beam _ _F_ mmNm.o mew.m -Lseo N_eoeeo bee been _ mN_

.o.w coo: oocomocm\omummcouomcmco xcom N new» .o.m coo: oocomocm\omunmcouomcmsu xcem cum

 

 

.N use» use p camp coozuon cowueoaeo mo mucooa mo meoaeoe
an no>m00coa mm mpoocom o>wuooweo eo momummcouomcoco we oocomoca on» we mxcoc can .mcowuo$>ov ugoucoum .mcooznu.m.: o—nm»

75

and second, respectively. The perceived presence of Instructional
leadership rose from a number five ranking to a number three ranking
over time.

Based on the mean as an indication of the presence or absence
of a characteristic, no characteristic appeared to be present in all
of the schools, as perceived by the members of the boards of
education. Safe and orderly environment (mean . 3.648, 3.673),
Frequent monitoring of student progress (mean - 3.120, 3.045), and
Climate of high expectations (mean = 3u039, 2.991) were all
perceived as being present in most schools at Time 1 and Time 2.
Instructional leadership was perceived to be present in most schools
at Time 2, when it had only been present in some of the schools at
Time 1 (mean = 2.929, 3.018). Opportunity to learn and student time
on task appeared to be present in most schools at Time 1, but there
appeared to be a decrease of presence over time, which indicates
that the characteristic was perceived as only being present in some
of the schools at Time 2 (mean - 2.976, 2.858). Clear and focused
mission (mean - 2.913, 2.982) and good Home/school relations (mean .
2.728, 2.691) were considered to be present in some schools at both
Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.6 indicates the rank order of the presence of
characteristics of effective schools, as perceived by
superintendents. Safe and orderly environment was ranked number one
at both Time 1 and Time 2. All other characteristics either stayed
the same over time or changed up or down by one rank except for

Climate of high expectations, which dropped from a rank of four to a

76

 

mcomumu

mmocmoLa ucouaum

 

mNme.o mNm.N -eeexo game Le beeee_o N m_ NmNm.o N_e.N ee meaeeueeos beeaeoea N eN
commmme commmpe
mmeN.o emm.N ebeeeee bee tempo 8 m. mon.o omm.N eemeeee bee Leo—u e mN
mmocmOLQ ucoeaum
emme.o NNN.N ee memeeeeeee oceaeeea m mp NNNm.o oee.N eaemeeeee. .eeoepeaeume_ m mN
mcomumu
mome.o mmN.N awemeeeee, Feeoeueaeuae_ e m. NNNe.o oNG.N -oeexe some ee beeewpu e mN
xmmu co mew» ucovzum
mNNN.o mmN.N meeeue.oe .ooeob\oeoz m m. NmNm.o omN.N eee ceme— eo Nueeaueoaao m eN
xmmu :0 we?» ucoeaum
wNmb.o mmw.m eee eeeo_ e» Nbeeaeeeaao N mp mome.o mmm.N meoeee.ee PoeeomNoee: N eN
ucoscoL nausea;
eNme.o NNN.m -L>eo N.eeeee eee beam F as Nmmm.c on.m -eseo Npeoeee eee beam F mN
.o.w coo: oocomocmxomummcouomcmcu xcmm N on .o.m coo: eczemoLm\om»mmcouomcmco scam — on

 

 

. .N camp use p camp ceozpon mucoucoucmcoaam
an eo>m00coa mm mpoosom o>wuooweo mo momummcouomceco e0 oocomocq on» we mxcmc ecu .mco*pnm>oe vceucmum .mcmozuu.m.c open»

77

rank of seven. Frequent monitoring of student progress, on the
other hand, moved from a rank order of seven to a rank of five.

Results in Table 4.6 show that only Safe and orderly
environment was perceived by superintendents to be present in all
schools at Time 2(mean = 3.737). Safe and orderly environment was
perceived by superintendents as being present in most schools at
Time 1 (mean a 3.520). Home/school relations was perceived as being
present in some schools at both Time 1 and Time 2 (mean - 2.958,
2.895). The following characteristics appeared to be present in
some of the schools at both Time 1 and Time 2: Opportunity to learn
and student time on task (mean - 2.750, 2.895), Climate of high
expectations (mean = 2.680, 2.579), Instructional leadership (mean =
2.640, 2.789), Clear and focused mission (mean = 2.560, 2.684), and
Frequent monitoring of student progress (mean = 2.417, 2.737). The
greatest increase in the perceived presence of a characteristic of
effective schools was seen in Frequent monitoring of student
progress (mean . 2.417, 2.737).

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant difference in the

perceived actual presence of the characteristics of effective

schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

A t-test was used to determine whether or not a statistically
significant difference exists in the presence of characteristics of
effective schools between Time 1 and Time 2 for both superintendents

and members of the boards of education. The t-test results fer

78

members of the boards of education and superintendents are shown in
Tables 4.7 and 4.8, respectively.

The t-test results showed TH) statistically significant
difference in the presence of characteristics of effective schools,
of the boards and

as perceived by members of education

superintendents.

Table 4.7.--Actual presence of characteristics of effective schools
as perceived by members of the boards of education
between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Signif.
Characteristic Time N Mean S.D. t-Value Level
225832.192?” ; 1:: :8: 8:238
822:: ii.“l32.:’.‘:“' : 1:: :32: 3:8;
$1221.?“ ““5“ I lié 3:313 891? -8557 0-5056
ggsgructional leader- ; 1%; §:g%g 8:;13 _0.955 0.3404
832222183822”: °f : 1:: :12: 39::
:2::::::::.:.*:::2 : 1:: :8: 3:2:
Home/school relations ; 1%: 3:;33 8:?é; 0.35] O 7259

 

Level of significance set at .05.

79

Table 4.8.--Actual presence of characteristics of effective schools
as perceived by superintendents between Time 1 and

 

 

Time 2.

Signif.
Characteristic Time N Mean S.D. t-Value Level
:2::.:::.::dm I :3 :8: 3:2:
$11131: $5.“232.§§§e°' I i3 ISIS 8:28 °~5°6 0-6154
31:21.3“ “we" I i3 IISI 32% 9-516 0.5085
gasgructional leader- ; $3 §:?gg 8:33? -O.774 O 4434
:::::::t.::;::::w I :3 :8; 3:8:
SISSZII“IIIJS.‘§§II 1"“ I i3 III? ISIS -°-7°6 0-4844
Home/school relations ; $3 §:ggg 8:?23 0.29] 0.7724

 

Level of significance set at .05.

Research Question 3:

Will members of the boards of education
and superintendents perceive factors affecting effective
schools as increasingly important between Time 1 and Time 2?

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the factors

related to effective schools.

Table 4.9 shows the means, standard

deviations, and ranks of the top 15 of 36 factors related to

effective schools perceived as important by members of boards of

education.

80

mcoueop —mcomuoacumcw

mcoumop .mcomuoacumcm

 

:me.o Nmm.m on o» mpoamocmca muooaxo venom m P—— omNm.o omm.m on ou mpmamocmca muooaxo venom m mN_
humaoo a humpmao :0 Demon
ucoso>0caem .oocom ou ucosuweeoo comuoacumcm cw mo_0c amcmcoemop
momm.o wa.m peace» a mome bacon _oocom och N no, Nspm.o Pom.m oxou.xwmcocomou mpooaxo venom N MNP
compo cm mm mo>muoowno mom—a am we mo>muoohno
mcmccmo_ .mmucommo saw: 52— mcmccmop —emucommo cum: 6:—
opw:.o F:N.m uaomcczo Npux eocmuov x—Lmo_o < m mop mmpm.o __N.m uaomccao Npux eocmeoe xpcmopo < m mN—
mcmpa aces
oocmELOeLoautonaum.keeomen ucos 10>0caem poocom a pomcumme co
nb>0cqem poozom co momsoow Lows: mmocmOLQ co ucovcoucmcoaam oz»
mmm:.o m:N.m copaubmcummv m e0 ucoscmmpnoumm m mop :m—m.o m—N.m xn eomp>conam ecu mpoamocwcm m wN—
ccmoF humaoo a xumpmao :0 women
coo mucouaum .pm awn» o>om_oo acoso>0caempoocqmou ucoEumEEoo
F_om.o mNN.m venom use mcoemop pomcummo : mop :N—m.o omN.m Peace» a nexus ecmoa poocom cap a mN—
mcmpa ucoe
uo>0casm poozom a pomcumme co ewopm can .mucocma
mmoLmOLQ co ucoecoucmcoaam ecu .mucouzum cum: nozom>oc mm uoav
mmm:.o mNN.m >9 vomm>coa=m oLm m_oamocmcd m mop :mm:.o mmn.m ncoo ucoeaum mo ovoo genome: < m mN—
mo>muoonno a m—mom m.uomcummu mo>muoonno a mpmom m.uomcummb
on» no mmoLOOLQ co xp—maccm on» :o mwocmoLa co appeacco
ocean poocom 0:» >2 beam ecmon —oozom on» >0 noun
:oN:.o wow.m napm>o mm ucoeceucmcoaam och N mo_ mnps.o mom.m a:_m>o mm ucoucoucmcoaam och F mNp
wmmum can .mucocma scoop cmo
.mucoeaum cum: bozom>oc mm acne mucoeaum ppm umcu o>om_on
nmmm.o 0mm.m scoo acoeaum we once couumc: < p mop mNom.o mom.m venue ecu mcovme— uomcummo p mNF
.o.m coo: cocoon xcmm N new .o.m coo: couomm xcmm p new

 

 

.N camp can — vamp coozuon comuooavo mo mucnon on»
yo mconsoe xn vo>m00coa mm mpoonm o>_uooeeo eo meouoee mo oocmucoasm ecu mo excoc vco .mcomumm>oe ecovcmum emceozuu.m.: o—nmh

81

 

 

mpoocom we oococoucmoe comuoacumcm we mooco
nco oococooaao co xumcomca __o cm oocoummmmo poomccoou

oNNm.o NNe.m some e bounce oeeee pooeem one mp eon.o Nmm.m beeseee beameseoeem oomeommo m. eN_
mo>muoonno eco
mpoom pomcummu coumcoe eco
o>oLaem soc» c—oc o» oomm>coaam cmm_noumo o» xum—pcmmcocmoc

mpmm.o mmm.m oco neocooou xpposcco umooF u< op mpow.o mmm.m mum moNNcmoooL ecoon och op NNF
mocooou cocooou mocooou cocoooa
be» bee: some oeeme_e be as. one one: some oeemmce ac sap

mmmm.o mnm.m Isomccao couumc: m.—oocom och mp opp m—Nm.o mpw.m naomccao couuvc: m.poocom och m— oN—
humped xom—oa
zom>oc vco .ao_o>ou .coumcoe o» zom>oc eco .Qopo>ov 33:85 on

mmmm.o mum.m cooc oz» moNWcmoooL ecoon on» N_ mo— Nonm.o upm.m nooc ocu moNWcmoooc ocooc och Np mN_

3.2.9:. 3538 cuts no So; no

comuoncomco poocom Poccoucm o>0caem
on» cam: ouoomcseeoo ou nocmm— Eon» a—oc .XN vomm>cocam

mnom.o omm.m -coumo mm co—c comuoomcaeeoo < F_ ppp mmum.o mmm.m oco mcocooop >_po:cco umoo— u< p— mN_
cocoo_ pocomuoacpmcm co on ou cocoo— pocomuoacuocm co on o»

mmeo.o oeo.m oeeoeoueceoeam moeeexo oeoom o, cc, eNmo.o mmo.m eeooeooeceoeeb moooexo oeoom o_ oNF
oocoELOwcoc
pcoeaum co oomon ucoEo>oLcEm
comuoacumcm cm o_0c awcmcoooop poocom co moo200w cows: co—c

on:.o Nmm.m oxou o» neocooou muoocxo ocoom m PPF «mum.o nmm.m pomcummv o #0 ucoscmm—noumm m 9N—

. O 2 C O z
o m coo: Louoom xcom N osmh o m coo: couoom xcom p osm»

 

 

.ooaeeoeeu--.m.e o_eec

82

Of all the 36 factors related to effective schools, the members
of the boards of education ranked District leaders and staff believe
that all students can learn as number one in importance at Time 1,
but they ranked A written code of student conduct is reviewed with
students, parents, and staff as number one at Time 2. The following
factors were ranked in the first five positions either Time 1 or at
Time 2: District leaders and staff believe all students can learn
(ranks l and 4); The superintendent is evaluated by the school board
annually on progress on district goals and objectives (ranks 2 and
2); A written code of student conduct is reviewed with students,
parents, and staff (ranks 3 and l); The school board makes a formal
comitment to school improvement (ranks 4 and 7); Principals are
supervised by the superintendent on progress on district and school
improvement plans (ranks 5 and 3); and Establishment of a district
plan that focuses on school improvement (ranks 9 and 5).

As shown in Table 4.9, the following factors were perceived to
be essential at both Time 1 and Time 2 by members of the boards of
education: District leaders and staff believe all students can
learn (mean - 3.805, 3.776); The superintendent is evaluated by the
school board annually on progress on the district goals and
objectives (mean - 3.805, 3.806); A written code of student conduct
is reviewed with students, parents, and staff (mean - 3.773, 3.850);
The school board makes a formal comitment to school improvement
based on quality and equity (mean - 3.750, 3.692); Principals are
supervised by the superintendent on progress on district and school

improvement plans (mean = 3.719, 3.778); and A clearly defined K-12

83

curriculum with essential learning objectives in place (mean =
3.711, 3.741). The remaining 15 ranked factors not mentioned had
means of 3.5 or above and were considered very important factors of
effective schools, as perceived by members of the boards of
education.

Table 4.10 presents and means, standard deviations, and rank
orders of the top 15 of 36 practice/policy factors related to
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

At Time 1, A written code of student conduct is reviewed with
students, parents, and staff was ranked by superintendents as number
one in agreement that this is a policy of the district. At Time 2,
this factor was ranked as policy in the number two position, with
the Board expecting superintendents to be an instructional leader
ranked as number one. The following factors were ranked as the
first five at either Time 1 or Time 2: A written code of student
conduct is reviewed with students, parents, and staff (ranks l and
2); The superintendent is evaluated by the school board annually on
district goals and objectives (ranks 2 and 4); Out-of-school
suspensions and expulsions are minimal, in-school suspensions are
used (ranks 3 and 8); Principals are supervised by the
superintendent on progress on district and school improvement plans
(ranks 4 and 3); A communication plan is established to communicate
with the internal school organization as well as with external
publics (ranks 5 and 10); Board expects principals to be

instructional leaders (ranks 6 and 2); and The school board makes a

84

mwoum eco .mucocoa
.mucoosum cuts eozogoc mm uoao

oocoEcotoa ucocaum co nomoc pcoE
uo>0caem poocom cc 3303 co .2:

 

93de New.m ncoo ucoeaum No oooo couutz < N mp Noné 9.9m copa uomcum :8 o No ucoEcmznoumm N N
Neon» eco .mucocoa
mconoop _ocomuoacomcm .mucoeauo cow: vozom>oc om ooze

mpom.o Nsm.m on on m—ocmocmcq muooaxo ecoom N mp Non.o cow.m ucoo ocoeaum No oeoo couumcx < N mN

ucoeo>occsm

Foocom ucoEo—aem on oocoummmmo mocooou cocooou
poomccoou eco moocaomoc Lee on» post cum: uocmN—o m_ E:—

mmpm.o mmm.m voum>0ca mm acoaaam pomococmu N mp wNmm.o mmm.m naomccao couumc: m.—oocom ocN m :N
ucoEo>0caEm
oomcummu ocu cm xcoz on: poocom ucoEo—QEN ou oocoummmmo
——o uco ecoon on» o» o_co_mo>o poomccoou vco moocnomoc cow

mm—m.o mmm.m oboe mm ucoanpo>oc Neoum N mp mpmm.o owm.m eoem>0ca ow acoccam pomococmu m mN
mo>muoohno a m—oom m.uomcumme mo>muoonno a m_oou m.uomcummv
on» co moocmOca co N—Foscco on» co mmoLmoLa co Nppoacco
ecooc poocom on» Na couo ecoon poocom on» Np eouo

mmpm.o mam.m u:_o>o mm uconcoucmcocam och N mp Npmm.o owm.m napo>o ow ucoecoucmcoaam och : mN
3:25 Foccouxo cutsmo :o: mo
Numaoo eco Numpozo co uomoc comuoNNcomco .oocom .occoucm
ucoeo>0caew poocow cu ocoefieeoo o5 cuts ouoomcacéoo ou coco I

886 mama .253 o moxoe Boon 30:3 or: N m— MNmNd N56 unoumommcopq copuoomcagoo < m :N
mocooou cocooou ccoop coo
on» uoc; cow: cocmmpo mm Esp mucouapm ppo uocu o>oN—on

mmpm.o mam.m Isomccso couumcz m._oocom ocN N mp mwNN.o ONm.m Nuoum uco mcoeoop pomcumpo N mN
ccoo_ coo ooopa cm mm mo>muoowno
mucoeaum _—o coca o>om—on acmccoo— Fomucommo cum: E:—

iNNé Nom.m to: eco mcoeoop ”5?.qu N 9 88.0 89m nzomccaoNpux vocr—oe 3.330 < _ mN

. . z . . z

o m coo: Louoou xcom N oEmN o m coo: couoom xcom p oEmN

 

 

ucoaam an eo>moococ mo mpoocom o>muoowwo No ocouooo No oocoucoasm on»

.N osmh vco — oEmN coozoon mucoucoucm

No mxcoc eco .mcopuov>ov ecoecoum .mcoozuu.o_.c o_coN

85

 

 

xoop
Loooo_ Focomuoacumcm co on o» co osmu vco ccoop cu oomumcau
onm.o NMN.m acoocoucmcoaam muooaxo ecoom mp mp mam:.o moN.m ILOQQOoENmocanmcoeoop poocow #— :N
ooo—c cm mm mo>muoonao
mcmccoop Nomucommo cow: Esp mcoooo_ pocomuoacumcm
$35 moN.m 58:32-5. 23:8 3.8? < : 2 comma 8N.m be 3 32:05:. 3898 Boom .: eN
oco—Q acos
cocoomoc co oomon moomu no>0cqsm Poocom a oomcuome co
nooca pocomuoscumcm o>muoowoo wmocm0cc co ucoccoucmcoaam on»
mw—¢.o mmN.m om: on oouoocxo oco neocoooN —_ m— Nwm¢.o oNN.m an oomm>cocao oco mpoqmocmcd MN mN
cocoomoc co eooon moomu cocoomoc co oomon moo:
nooca o>muoowwo co coacoNcm mco nooca o>muoowwo co eoELoNcm mco
mmN¢.o mwN.m IcooQuaooxohae mcooocommcmEc< FF mp MN:¢.o omN.m ncooouaooxuoae mcooocuomcwso< N_ :N
eoNNom—naa mm Numaoo eco Numpoao co vooon
opoom uomcpmmu co mmocmOLQ eco ucoso>0casm—oocomxx~ucoEuNEEoo
$3.0 mmN.m oopooZOoomoocoELotoa acooaum Z 9 mNde omN.m No.50». omoxoe Boon poocom on... : mN
oco—c ucoE
ao>0caempoocom eco powcummo co oomcuwmu ocu cm xcoz on:
mmocmOLQ co ucoocoucmcoazm on» ppo vco ecooc on» ou opnopmo>o
oeNm.o Neo.m Ne ooae>eoa=m eeo mpoeooeeea N mp Nooe.o ooo.m boos we cabana—eseo oeoom op mN
oocoEcoNcoa
ucooauo co eooon ucoeo>0ccem cocoomoc co oomon mooma
.oocom co mooaooe cows: copa nooca .ocomuoacumcm o>moooewo
chm.o Nam.m popcomme o No ucoEcmmpnoumm N mp Noam.o mmm.m om: on eouoocxo oco neocoooh m :N
O O z D I z
o w coo: Louoom xcom N oemN o m coo: couoou xcom — oENN

 

 

.obeecueeo--.o..e e_eeN

86

formal commitment to school improvement on the basis of quality and
equity (ranks 13 and 4).

It appears that at 'Time 1 the superintendents perceived a
higher presence of policy regarding a district communication plan
than they did at Time 2 since the rank fell from 5 to 10. It would
also appear that the factor that was perceived as making the most
change toward important policy was the School board’s commitment to
school improvement, which moved from a rank of 13 to a rank of 4, as
perceived by superintendents.

As shown in Table 4.10, superintendents ranked all 15 of the 36
factors as essential.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant difference in the

perceived importance of the factors related to effective

schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

The results of the t-test for both members of the boards of
education and superintendents are presented in Tables 4.11 and 4.12,
respectively. There were no statistically significant differences

in the importance of factors related to effective schools between

Time 1 and Time 2.

87

Table 4.11.--Importance of factors related to effective schools, as perceived by
members of the boards of education.

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor line H Mean 5.0. Value Level

Board expects principals l 126 3.690 0.529 ,
to be instructional leaders 2 111 3.667 0.561 0'336 0'737]
Board expects superintendent l 126 3.635 0.652 _
to be an instructional leader 2 111 3.640 0.645 0'056 0'9555
Board expects teachers to l 123 3.691 0.514
take leadership roles in 2 111 3.667 0.492 0.370 0‘7120
instruction
Students are taught in l 124 2.645 0.857 ,
heterogeneous groups for 2 111 2.736 0.842 0'819 0'4137
the most part
School leaders emphasize l 125 3.376 0.605 ,
opportunities to learn and 2 111 3.382 0.620 °°°73 0'9421
time on task
Specific time allocations l 125 2.808 0.790 -0 164 0 8699
are made for subjects taught 2 109 2.826 0.859 ' '
Evaluation of new programs 1 121 3.215 0.733
is made according to impact 2 110 3.191 0.670 0'259 0'7962
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- l 122 3.090 0.617 -
lar classes are minimized 2 109 3.092 0.727 0'018 0°9858
The school’s written cur- 1 124 3.613 0.521
riculum is aligned with 2 110 3.573 0.566 0'565 0'5725
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate l 124 3.532 0.576 -0 656 0 5128
with the internal school 2 112 3.580 0.548 ' '
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 124 3.258 0.731
nerships can strengthen 2 m 3.225 0.770 ”35 ”379
curriculum
Parent involvement that 1 123 3.301 0.664
supports the instructional 2 110 3.236 0.676 0'733 0'4644
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 124 3.169 0.671 _
assistance with helping 2 112 3.214 0.663 0'516 0°6°62

their students learn

Table 4.11.--Continued.

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time N Mean 5.0. Value Level

Student performance data are l 125 3.280 0.691
collected, summarized, and 2 111 3.198 0.736 0'880 0'3797
publicized
Test results are disaggre- 1 1
gated to insure equity in 22 2.975 0.818 _
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 106 3.085 0.852 0'989 0'3238
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- 1 125 3.416 0.649 ,0 153 0 8786
tive practices based on 2 112 3.429 0.611 ' '
research
Teachers are expected to l 124 3.379 0.693 1 199 0 2334
use effective instructional 2 111 3.270 0.699 ' '
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- l 122 3.197 0.778 O 992 0 3225
tional policies in the 2 107 3.093 0.795 ' '
schools
District supervisors provide 1 120 3.183 0.733 1 555 0 1213
technical assistance in all 2 107 3.028 0.770 ' '
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is l 123 2.797 0.757 _
allocated for use for build- 2 100 2.860 0.725 0'632 0'5278
ing level improvement
The school board places a l 128 3.398 0.606 _] 010 0 3135
high priority on appearance 2 107 3.477 0.572 ' '
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 128 3.773 0.489 _1 352 0 1778
conduct is reviewed with 2 107 3.850 0.384 ' '
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-of-school suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- l 128 3.367 0.600 -0 041 0 9674
school suspensions are used 2 108 3.370 0.590 ' '
most often
District leaders and staff 1 128 3.805 0.503
believe that all students 2 107 3.775 0.501 °°441 °'5598

can learn

Table 4.11.-—Continued.

89

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time M Mean S.D. Value Level

The school board makes a formal l 128 3.750 0.517 0 833 0 4°59
commitment to school improvement 2 107 3.692 0.556 ' '
based on quality and equity
Establishment of a district plan 1 126 3.666 0.580 ,1 13] 0 2593
which focuses on school improve- 2 106 3.745 0.479 ' '
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are l 128 3.633 0.573 0 985 0 3259
supervised to help them improve 2 108 3.555 0.631 ' '
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent 0n prog- 1 128 3.719 0.516 -0 935 0 3504
ress on district and school 2 108 3.778 0.439 ' '
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1 128 3.805 0.417 ,0 015 0 9874
annually on progress on the 2 108 3.805 0.420 ' '
district’s goals 8 objectives
The board recognizes the need 1 128 3.617 0.577
to monitor, develop, and 2 107 3.579 0.599 0’49] 0'624°
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 127 3.535 0.602 1 408 0 1604
and monitor district goals 2 107 3.421 0.645 ' '
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 128 3.523 0.601
available to the board and 2 105 3.457 0.505 ”35 °"°5°
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 128 3.531 0.588 0 941 0 3478
technical assistance to 2 107 3.458 0.603 ' '
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K-lz curric- l 128 3.711 0.519 _
ulum with essential learning 2 108 3.741 0.462 0'462 0'6445
objectives is in place 2 108 3.741 0.462
District leaders establish awards
programs for staff and students 1 128 3.328 0.700 -0 198 0 8434
to recognize excellence 2 107 3.346 0.660 ' '
Staff awards are based on 1 127 3.197 0.713 ,
contributions to improve 2 105 3.248 0.704 0'543 0'5878

student performance

 

Level of significance set at .05.

90

Table 4.12.--Importance of factors related to effective schools, as perceived by

 

 

superintendents.
t- Signif.
Factor Time N Mean S.D. Value Level

Board expects principals l 24 3.708 0.500 ,
to be instructional leaders 2 19 3.842 0.501 0°823 0'4152
Board expects superintendent l 24 3.625 0.495 _
to be an instructional leader 2 19 3.737 0.562 0'694 0'4919
Board expects teachers to l 24 3.583 0.504
take leadership roles in 2 19 3.579 0.507 °°°25 °'9795
instruction
Students are taught in 1 24 3.042 0.751
heterogeneous groups for 2 19 2.895 0.809 0'616 0'5414
the most part
School leaders emphasize l 24 3.708 0.464
opportunities to learn and 2 19 3.684 0.478 0'16? 0°8681
time on task
Specific time allocations 1 24 3.167 0.702 ,
are made for subjects taught 2 19 3.211 0.976 0'17] 0'8648
Evaluation of new programs 1 24 3.125 0.680 _
is made according to impact 2 19 3.421 0.769 1°344 0'1880
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- l 24 3.333 0.637 ,
lar classes are minimized 2 19 3.368 0.684 0'174 0'8630
The school’s written cur- l 24 3.875 0.338 _
riculum is aligned with 2 19 3.895 0.315 0'195 6’8457
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate 1 24 3.917 0.282 1 878 0 0710
with the internal school 2 19 3.684 0.476 ' '
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 24 3.542 0.658
nerships can strengthen 2 19 3.316 0.750 1'052 0'2992
curriculum
Parent involvement that 1 24 3.542 0.509
supports the instructional 2 19 3.474 0.697 0.370 0'7134
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 24 3.625 0.495
assistance with helping 2 19 3.580 0.607 ° 27‘ °'735

their students learn

Table 4.12.--Continued.

91

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time M Mean S.D. Value Level

Student performance data are 1 24 3.583 0.653 _] 253 0 2174
collected, summarized, and 2 19 3.790 0.419 ' '
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in l 24 3.417 0.776 ,0 995 0 3252
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 19 3.632 0.598 ° '
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- l 24 3.750 0.442 ,0 297 0 7676
tive practices based on 2 19 3.789 0.419 ' '
research
Teachers are expected to 1 24 3.833 0.381
use effective instructional 2 19 3.789 0.419 0'359 0°7215
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- l 24 3.583 0.584 -0 553 0 5752
tional policies in the 2 19 3.684 0.582 ° '
schools
District supervisors provide 1 24 3.417 0.584 -1 494 0 1430
technical assistance in all 2 19 3.684 0.582 ' '
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is l 24 3.250 0.608 ,1 388 0 1727
allocated for use for build- 2 19 3.526 0.697 ' °
ing level improvement
The school board places a l 25 3.560 0.583 ,
high priority on appearance 2 19 3.684 0.478 0'755 0'4543
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 25 3.840 0.374 ,
conduct is reviewed with 2 19 3.842 0.375 0'019 0'9850
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-0f-sch001 suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- 1 25 3.480 0.653 0 289 0 7740
school suspensions are used 2 19 3.421 0.692 ' '
most often
District leaders and staff 1 25 3.920 0.277 _
believe that all students 2 19 3.947 0.229 °’3‘9 °°7288

can learn

Table 4.12.--Continued.

92

 

 

t- Signif.

Factor Time N Mean S.D. Value Level
The school board makes a formal
commitment to school improvement 1 25 3.760 0.523 ,1 050 0 2955
based on quality and equity 2 19 3.895 0.315 ' '
Establishment of a district 1 25 3.840 0.374 _
plan which focuses on school 2 19 3.842 0.375 0'019 0°9853
performance
At least annually teachers are 1 25 3.640 0.569 0 343 0 7335
supervised to help them improve 2 19 3.579 0.607 ' '
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent on prog- 1 25 3.720 0.458 -0 945 0 349
ress on district and school 2 19 3.842 0.375 ' '
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
359d by the SChOOI board I 25 3.880 0.332 _0 ‘49 o 882
annually on progress on the 2 19 3.894 0.315 ° '
district’s goals 8 objectives
The board recognizes the l 25 3.640 0.490
need to monitor, develop, 2 19 3.579 0.507 0'403 0'689
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 25 3.640 0.490 0 403 0 6888
and monitor district goals 2 19 3.579 0.507 ° '
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 25 3.800 0.408 _
available to the board and 2 19 3.895 0.315 0'838 0'4070
all who work in the district
Financial support is provided
for resources and technical l 25 3.880 0.332 ,0 149 0 8822
assistance to implement school 2 19 3.895 0.315 ° '
improvement
A clearly defined K-12 curricu-
lum with essential learning 1 25 3.960 0.200 1 533 0 1143
objectives is in place 2 19 3.789 0.419 ° '
District leaders establish awards 1 5
programs for staff and students 2 3.400 0.707 _
to recognize excellence 2 19 3.579 0.607 0’883 0'3824
Staff awards are based on 1 25 3.240 0.779 ,
contributions to improve 2 19 3.316 0.749 0°325 0'7468

student performance

 

Level of significance set at .05.

93

Beseerch Onestion 4: Will members of the boards of education
and superintendents perceive the presence of factors of
effective schools to increase in the schools between Time 1 and

Time 2?

Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions on the actual
practice/policy of factors relating to effective schools at Time 1
and Time 2. Table 4.13 shows the means, standard deviations, and
ranks of the perceived actual practice/policy of 15 of ‘the 36
factors related to effective schools by members of the boards of
education.

Board members ranked A written code of student conduct that is
reviewed with students, parents, and staff as the number one written
policy at both Time 1 and Time 2. Ranked second also as written
policy at both times was The superintendent is evaluated by the
school board annually on progress on the district’s goals and
objectives.

The following factors were ranked as being in the first five
at either Time 1 or Time 2: Principals are supervised by the
superintendent on progress on district and school-improvement plans
(ranks 3 and 4); Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions are
minimal; in-school suspensions are used most often (ranks 4 and 6);
The school board makes a formal comitment to school improvement
based on quality and equity (ranks 5 and 5), and Establishment of a
district plan which focuses on school improvement (ranks 8 and 3).

It should be noted that The establishment of a district plan

which focuses on school improvement was rated eighth (mean - 3.357)

at Time 1 as a perceived practice but not written policy but ranked

94

mcoeoop Pocomooacomcm

oocoEcotoc ucoeaum co vomoc acos
io>o..aE_. poocom co momaoow cowcz

 

 

 

mNmNd 2: .m on 8 a 28.858 8898 Boom o 9: 835 Nmm.m ea: 8:8 .6 o co oeoefi .. 233. o oNp
cocoop pocowuoacumcm co on cu cocoop pocomuoacumcm co on on

omoo.o NmN.m oeooeooeeeooso mooooxo eeooo N No: cooN.o mom.m oeooeooe_eoosa nooooxo oeooo N 3N2

coumo umoe

vow: oco mcommcocmam poocom o>0caem
icm m—oemcme oco accompacxo Eocu c—oc o» oomm>cocam

Nm_m.o —N:.m oco mcommcocmso Noocomieoiuao w No_ Nwom.o omo.m ocomcocooou N—poacco umoop u< m mNp
Numsco oco Numpoao co coooc Numaoo vco Numpoao co vomoc
ucoso>0ccsm Foocom on ucoeomcho ucoEo>oE§ Noocom ou pcoefieeoo

meN.o mN¢.m PoELoN_oooxos ocooc poocom ocN m mop mmsN.o am:.m NosLoN o moxos ecooc poocoo och m mN—
oco—c ucoe coupe noes
io>0ccem poocom a uomcummo co co»: oco ocommcocoam —oocom
omocmOca co acoucoucmcocam ocp icm m—oemcme oco mcomm—acxo

NoNN.o mmm.m an ooom>cocam oco m—ocmocmcc : mop mmmN.o N_m.m eco mcomococmam Noocomiwoipao : NNP
mcopq ucoE
oocoscoecoaucooauo.xeeomoc acoE io>0casm poocom a uomcummu :0
86.35.. poocom co oomaoe co .5: mmocmoa co acoecoucfoasm ocu

cmoN.o mNm.m copcuomcummo.omo ucoEcmwpcoomu m mop mpr.o .mm.m Na oomm>cocsm oco m—ocoocmcc m NNF
mo>muoohco a m —oom m Lot“? .6 mo>muoonco a a poem m. .uo T5» .5
oc» co mmocmoLa co N—poacco ocu co omocmOLQ co Nppoacco
ecooc poocom ocu an eooo ocooc Foocom ocp Nc vouo

mmmm.o FmN.m napo>o mm ocoocoucmcocso ocN N mop :mmm.o NNN.m iapo>o mm ucoecoucwcocsm ocN N NNN
emoom eco .mococoa Nuouw uco .oucococ
.mucoeaum cum: oozow>oc om ooze .mucoeaum cum: nozow>oc mm pone

:mmm.o Npm.m icoo pcoeaum No oeoo couumcx < — mo. mem.o mow.m icoo ucovaum No oeoo couumc: < — NN—

I I z I O z
o m coo: Nompomioomooocm\coooom xcom N oEmN o w coo: Now—omioowuoocmxcouoou xcom — oEN
.N oEmN oco N oENN.cooxuoc comuooaeo No mvcooc ocu we mcocsos
Nc uo>moococ mo m—oocom o>muooowo No mcouooe No Nompoaxoomuooca ocu No oxcoc vco .ocomuom>oo ecoecouo .mcoozii.mp.¢ o—coN

95

 

ucoEo>0caEm
poocom ucosopaem o» oocoommmoo
poomccoou vco mooc20ooc co»

ucoEo>0caEN
—oocom ocoeopasw on oocoummmmo
poomccoou uco mooc308oc coN

 

mmmN.o woo.m eoow>0ca mm ucoaaam pomococmu mF mo— m_NN.o Noo.m eoom>0cc ow ucocaam pomococmu m— NNP
ooopa cm om oo>muoohco

mcmccoop pomucommo cum: Esp comuoscuocm cm mo—OL cmcmcoeoop

mmwmd mmo.m isomccao N7: oocCoo 3.630 < .1 m3 :mowd moo.m oxou on mcocooou 302:8 Room 3 —N—
comuoacumcm cm mo_0c cmcocoooop mcoeoo— —ocowuoacuocm

mmmN.o NNo.m oxoo oo neocoooo mooooxo oeooo mp ___ omoN.o ooo.m on o» opooeoeceo nooooxo oeooo m_ mNF
oomcumme ocu cm coo: cc; pomcumwe ocu cm xco: 0c:
—No vco ecooc ocu ou o_co_mo>o ppo eco ecooc ocu cu opcoppo>o

omoN.o omo.m oooe a: oeosoocosoo oeoom N. eo— oNMN.o Noo.m oer o: oeosoo_o>oo eeoom Np oNF
m_oocom No oococoocmos ooopc cm ow mo>muoonco
vco oococooaao co Numcomcc mcmccoop pomucommo cum: Esp

ome.o Npp.m cmmc o mooo_a ocooc poocoo ocN p. mo— mmpo._ mmp.m isomccao Npix nocmwoo Npcoopo < F— mN—
o>0caE_ m—oocom No oococoucmos
Eocu apoc cu eomm>cocam vco oococooaao co Npmcomca

:m—o.— mm_.m oco mcocooou N—poscco uooop u< m Nop mopN.o mNN.m cmmc o mooopa ecooc poocom och oF NNF
ccoo_ coo ccoo— coo
mocooauo —po uocu o>om_oc mucooapm p—o uocu o>ompoc

NNpm.o wmp.m Neoum oco ocoooop pomcumma m Nop N—NN.o omN.m Neoam vco mcoeoop vowcuomo a :Np

.o.m coo: Nompomioomuoocm\couoom xcom N we .o.m coo: Now—omioomuoocmxcouoou xcom _ we.

 

 

.ooaecoeoo--.m_.e o_eoN

96

third (mean . 3.575) at Time 2. The board of education expects
principals to be instructional leaders rose over time from a rank of
13 to a rank of 8 as perceived as practice by members of the boards
of education. It is interesting that the perceived practice of At
least annually teachers are supervised to help them improve dropped
from a ranking of 6 to a ranking of 9 over time.

Table 4.13 also shows that A written code of student conduct is
reviewed with students, parents, and staff (mean = 3.803, 3.917) and
The superintendent is evaluated by the school board annually on
progress on the district goals and objectives (mean = 3.717, 3.731)
were perceived to be written policy at both Time 1 and Time 2. In
Table 4.13, the other 13 factors related to effective schools listed
all had means above 3.00 and were perceived as practice but not
written policy by members of the boards of education.

Table 4.14 shows means, standard deviations, and ranks of
perceived actual practice/policy of the top 15 of 36 factors related
to effective schools, by superintendents. As shown in the table,
superintendents indicated that, considering all 36 factors affecting
effective schools, A written code of student conduct is reviewed
with students, parents, and staff was perceived as being an actual
written policy and was ranked number one at Time 1 and number two at.
Time 2. The board expects the superintendent to be an instructional
leader was ranked number six at Time 1 but number one as a perceived

written policy by superintendents at Time 2.

97

oNoocom No oococoucNoe
6co oococoocao co NuNcoNcc

coNuoacuch cN moNoc chmcooooN

 

 

 

NmeN.o on.m LNNL o ooooNo oeooo Nooeoa oeN o mN moom.o Noo.m oxoo o» oaoeoooo ouooaxo oaooo o eN
oocoEcoNcoc ocooauo co vomoc ucoe o Noocom uNo oococouc Noe
io>0ccENNoocooNzeoooaoDNcoNc: 6co oococoocao co NuNcoNcq
mooNd oom.m 5:. got»... .6 o No 3553338”: N 336 of .m :3; o 88; Boon Nooeoa 9: N N
uoNcumNo ocu cN xcoz ocz
NNo 6co 6cooc ocu on oNcoNNo>o LooooN NocoNuoacuocN co oc cu
mooN.o NNe.m oooe aN NeoEQoNosoo Neoom o NmNo.o ooN.m NeooeooeNeoosn ouoooxo oeooo o MN
mo>N..Noo.N.co a m Noon m .623 .6 moN Nana Noccouxo cu N: no :o: no
ocu co mmocmoLa co NNNoacco coNuoNNcomco Noocom NoccoucN
ocooc Noocom ocu .3 nouo ocu cuN: 3362550 on vocmNN
msom.o mNm.m iaNo>o oN ucovcouchocam ocN : mN oomm.o NmN.m icoumo mN coNc coNuooNcoeeoo < m :N
ocoNc ocoe
52:6 66 3:23 :0 633 66.35 Noocom auoNcum .6 co
ucoEo>oLaEN Noocom cu ucoso NEEoo mmocmoLa co acoucouc Nconam oc»
oNNm.o on.m Noseee o noxoe oeooe Nooeoa oeN a mN MNom.o oom.m No oooNseoosa oeo oNooNoeNea e mN
mcoNc ucos couwo owes 6o»:
io>oLcEN Noocom wuoNcumNo co oco mcoNocoamam Noocom
moocmoa co ucovcouchoaso ocu .5 32.6.2. oco mcoNoNacxo
omme.o Nmo.m No oooNseoaan oeo oNoaNoeNeo m m. omom.o oae.m oeo neoNaeoaaao Nooeoo-No-o=o m mN
mo>Nuoonco a m Noom m .67.? N6
NNoum 6co .mucococ ocuNzemmocmOLQ co ANNoacco
.mucovaum cuts 6ozoN>oL mN uoao Boon Noocom ocu Nc 63o
wNN¢.o :mm.m icoo ucoosum No oooo couuNc; < N mN NmmN.o oom.m iaNo>o mN ucovcouchocam och N mN
Neouo 6co .mucocoa
cooooN NocoNooacuocN co on o» .mucooaum cu N: oozoN>oc N .66
MNmm.o :wm.m ucoocouchocam muoocxo 6coom N mN mNom.o oNN.m icoo ucooaum No ovoo couuNc: < N mN
.o.m coo: NoN—omiooNuoochLouoom xcom N MEN» .o.m coo: NoNNociooNuooccxcouoom xcom N WENN
.N oENN 6co N oENN coozuoc mucovcouchoaam
Nc 6o>NooLoc mo mNoocoo o>NoooNNo No mcouooN No NoNNOQNooNoooca ocu No oxcoc 6co .mcoNuoN>o6 6co6coum .mcoozii. :N. : oNcoN

9E3

 

LugommOg co vomon mooNu
nooga o>NuooNNo :0 8535 PB

mosooou Locooou
on» Nag: cuN: nocmNNo “N 53N

 

mammd omoa -583 38. N35 fioummecNEE fl 2 £85 SNN -8226 :32... ”:85” 9: E a
moo—a cN mN mo>Nuoohno cogoomog co nomon mooNu
chcgooN NoNucvmmo cuN: EaN noogq o>NuooNNo co uoELoNcN who
88; mmo.m -8226 2-x 35:6 3320 < i 2 286 mmw.~ -583 $8. 3:... 3823.522 .: Nu
«ON—nan Nocgouxo cuszo :oxmo
coNuoNNcomLo Noocom NocgoucN xuNaao oco zuNNoao co oomon
05 cuts ouooNcaNN-zoo ou vozm NN ucoeo>oLaEN .005on cu acoEuNEEoo
mama mo; -238 N... 53 8:82:58 < 2 2 836 oz: .228 39.2. Boon N258 9: m. mu
ucmso>oLaEN
Noocom pcoeoNaEN ou oocoumNmmo mNoonom on» cN moNoNNoa
NooNccomu vco m00530wog LON NocoNpoagpch No coNuoucoEoNaEN
MNmN.o oNN.m cooN>oLa mN Ngoaaam NnNocchu NN mN momm.o NNm.m LoNNcoe NLomN>Loa=m NoNLNmNo NN NN
acoEo>OgaEN
Noocum ucoEoNaEN o» oocoumNmmo
mgovooN NocoNuoaguch NooNccoou uco mooL30mog LON
mmNN.o NNN.m on oN mNmaNocN.a muooaxu ogmom NN mN oNNo.o oom.~ oooN>oLa ”N Ngoaaam NoNococNu NN mN
coNuoaguch_.NmoNPLaNcwgouooN muouooN NocoNuoaguch
mNNm.o mN~.m oxou 0» mgogoouu muoeaxu ogmom oN mN cmoo.o omo.m on o» mNuaNocNLa muooaxo agnoo m mu
couNo umoe
vow: oLo mconcoamsm Noocom uoNLumNu on» cN xgo: on:
ucN NNoENcNE ego mconNzaxo NNo vco ugoon on» on oNnoNNo>o
oNNo.o mNm.m can mconceamam Noogow-No-Nao m m. mmmN.o omo.m moms NN NcosaoNo>ou NNmNm m mN
.o.m couz NON—omuouNuooLm\gouoou xcom N ”ENN .o.w cow: NON—oauooNuooLm\Louoou xcom N ”ENN

 

.ouacNucou--.NN.N oNnmN

99

The following factors were also perceived as being
practice/policy by superintendents and were ranked in the first five
at either Time 1 or Time 2: Out-of-school suspensions are minimal;
in-school suspensions are used most often (ranks 3 and 8);
Principals are supervised by the superintendents on progress on
district and school improvement plans (ranks 4 and 3); and A
communication plan is established to communicate with the internal
school organization as well as with external publics (ranks 5 and
13).

Especially interesting is the perceived movement toward policy
of the factor of The school board makes a formal comitment to
school improvement based on quality and equity (ranks l3 and 5) by
superintendents at Time 2.

Table 4.l4 also shows that at Time l, A written code of student
conduct is reviewed with students, parents, and staff was perceived
by superintendents to be a written policy but at Time 2 this factor
fell slightly into the mean category of practice rather than written
policy (mean = 3.720, 3.684). It is also shown that the next ll
factors of effective schools were perceived to be practices at Time
l, compared to 14 of the factors at Time 2. It should be noted that
The school board makes a formal comitment to school improvement
based on quality and equity was perceived as uncertain by
superintendents in regard to practice/policy at Time l but as a

written policy at Time 2 (mean - 2.840, 3.526).

100

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: There is a significant difference in the

perceived importance of the practice/policy related to

effective schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.l5 shows the t-test results for the difference in the
practice/policy of factors related to effective schools as perceived
by members of the boards of education between Time l and Time 2.
The following factors were perceived to be statistically significant
at the .05 level: (a) School and community partnerships can
strengthen curriculum (which dropped: mean a 2.719, 2.459); (b) A
written code of student conduct is reviewed with students, parents,
and staff (which rose: mean :- 3.803, 3.9l7); Establishment of a
district plan which focuses on school improvement based on student
performance (which rose: mean a 3.357, 3.575); and (d) At least

annually teachers are supervised to help them improve (which

dropped: mean = 3.464, 3.l96).

101

Table 4.15.--Practice/policy of factors related to effective schools, as perceived
by members of the boards of education between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time N Mean 5.0. Value Level

Board expects principals l l25 3.080 0.789 _
to be instructional leaders 2 106 3.198 0.798 1'1279 0'2605
Board expects superintendent l 124 3.355 0.788
to be an instructional leader 2 lll 3.252 0.870 0°94° 0'3485
Board expects teachers to l 121 3.066 0.803 ,
take leadership roles in 2 lll 3.072 0.759 0'058 0'9540
instruction
Students are taught in l 122 2.467 0.729
heterogeneous groups for 2 110 2.309 0.810 1°565 0'1190
the most part
School leaders emphasize l 122 2.688 0.782
opportunities to learn and 2 109 2.661 0.819 0'265 0'7910
time on task
Specific time allocations 1 l22 2.484 0.784 0 611 0 5417
are made for subjects taught 2 108 2.417 0.877 ° '
Evaluation of new programs l 118 2.627 0.865
is made according to impact 2 109 2.422 0.724 1'929 0'0550
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- 1 119 2.714 0.855 1 616 0 1080
lar classes are minimized 2 l09 2.541 0.752 ' '
The school’s written cur- l 123 3.033 0.940
riculum is aligned with 2 l08 3.019 0.875 0'117 0'9073
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate l 124 2.960 0.932 0 497 0 5190
with the internal school 2 110 2.900 0.898 ' '
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 l2l 2.719 0.933 *
nerships can strengthen 2 l09 2.459 0.856 2'197 0'0290
curriculum
Parent involvement that l 123 2.715 0.845
supports the instructional 2 110 2.518 0.896 1°730 0'085]
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 l22 2.459 0.835 ,
assistance with helping 2 110 2.482 0.832 0'208 0'8353

their students learn

Table 4.lS.—-Continued.

102

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time N Mean S.D. Value Level

Student performance data are 1 124 2.823 0.946
collected, summarized, and 2 109 2.734 0.899 0'7303 0'4660
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in l 120 2.267 0.968 _1.754 0 0790
opportunity to learn a par- 2 108 2.481 0.859 '
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- l 124 2.758 0.830 ,0 784 0 4339
tive practices based on 2 112 2.839 0.754 ' °
research
Teachers are expected to 1 122 2.689 0.772 ,0 23] 0 3173
use effective instructional 2 111 2.712 0.755 ° '
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- l 122 2.754 1.031 1 532 0 1268
tional policies in the 2 108 2.555 0.920 ° '
schools
District supervisors provide 1 120 2.550 0.915 0 192 0 8481
technical assistance in all 2 108 2.528 0.826 ' °
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is l 123 2.480 0.853
allocated for use for build- 2 101 2.406 0.777 0'670 0'5035
ing level improvement
The school board places a l 127 3.228 0.715 1 148 0 2520
high priority on appearance 2 103 3.117 0.758 ' '
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 127 3.803 0.535 ,
conduct is reviewed with 2 108 3.917 0.338 1'972 0'0499
students, parents, a staff
Out-of-school suspensions & 1 1 8 3
expu sions are minima ; in- 2 .367 0.600 ,
school suspensions are used 2 108 3.370 0.589 0'0409 0'9674
most often
District leaders and staff 1 124 3.250 0.772 0 513 0 6082
believe that all students 2 107 3.196 0.818 ° '
can learn
The school board makes a formal l 126 3.484 0.745 0 598 0 5502
commitment to school improvement 2 106 3.425 0.768 ' °

based on quality and equity

Table 4.lS.--Continued.

1133

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time N Mean S.D. Value Level

Establishment of a district plan 1 126 3.357 0.890 ,2 037 0 0380*
which focuses on school improve- 2 106 3.575 0.703 ° '
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are l 125 3.464 0.809 2 199 0 0291*
supervised to help them improve 2 107 3.196 1.013 ' '
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent on prog- 1 127 3.591 0.717 0 254 0 7920
ress on district and school 2 108 3.565 0.777 ' '
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1 127 3.717 0.653 ,0 177 0 8597
annually on progress on the 2 108 3.731 0.635 ' °
district’s goals 8 objectives
The board recognizes the need 1 127 2.866 0.903 1 147 0 2530
to monitor, develop, and 2 105 2.724 0.985 ° °
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 125 2.503 1.028 o 825 o 410]
and monitor district goals 2 105 2.495 0.942 ' '
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 126 3.087 0.738 ,
available to the board and 2 104 3.096 0.770 0'0888 0'9293
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 127 3.008 0.771 ,0 398 0 5909
technical assistance to 2 105 3.048 0.739 ' '
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K-12 curric— l 126 3.095 1.015
ulum with essential learning 2 106 3.057 0.984 0'293 0'7699
objectives is in place
District leaders establish awards 1 127 2.906 0.859 1 876 0 0519
programs for staff and students 2 105 2.686 0.923 ' '
to recognize excellence
Staff awards are based on 1 126 2.278 0.926
contributions to improve 2 105 2.276 0.849 0.016 0'9890

student performance

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

104

Table 4.16 shows the differences of the practice/policy of
factors related to effective schools as perceived by superintendents
between Time 1 and Time 2. The following factors were perceived to
be statistically significant at the .05 level: (a) Board expects
the superintendent to be an instructional leader (which rose: mean
- 3.261, 3.684); (b) Evaluation of new programs is made according to
impact on learning time (which rose: mean . 2.042, 2.684); (c) A
material resource pool is allocated for use for building-level
involvement (which rose: mean a 1.800, 2.737); (d) The school board
makes a formal commitment to school improvement based on quality and
equity (which rose: mean = 2.840, 3.526); (e) Establishment of a
district plan which focuses on school improvement based on student
performance (which rose: mean . 2.640, 3.368); and (f) Principals
are supervised by the superintendent on progress on district and

school improvement plans (which rose: mean - 3.360, 3.632).

105

Table 4.16.--Practice/policy of factors related to effective schools, as perceived by
superintendents between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time N Mean S.D. Value Level

Board expects principals l 23 3.000 0.603 _
to be instructional leaders 2 19 3.211 0.713 1.040 0'3060
Board expects superintendent l 23 3.261 0.619 ,
to be an instructional leader 2 19 3.684 0.582 2°265 0'0290*
Board expects teachers to l 24 3.277 0.575 ,
take leadership roles in 2 18 3.277 0.575 1'075 0'2885
instruction
Students are taught in l 24 2.500 0.834
heterogeneous groups for 2 18 2.389 0.916 0'410 0°6843
the most part
School leaders emphasize 1 24 2.667 0.565 ,
opportunities to learn and 2 19 3.000 0.577 1'904 0'0640
time on task
Specific time allocations l 24 2.292 0.859 _
are made for subjects taught 2 19 2.579 0.902 1°°66 0'2930
Evaluation of new programs 1 24 2.042 0.908 _ e
is made according to impact 2 19 2.684 0.885 2'330 0'0250
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- l 24 3.333 0.637 _
1ar classes are minimized 2 19 3.368 0.684 0'174 0'863°
The school’s written cur- 1 24 2.792 0.884 _
riculum is aligned with 2 19 2.895 0.994 0'350 0°7211
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate l 24 3.291 0.550 1 012 0 3174
with the internal school 2 19 3.105 0.658 ' '
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 24 2.500 0.834
nerships can strengthen 2 19 2.368 0.895 0’497 0'6215
curriculum
Parent involvement that l 24 2.625 0.770 _
supports the instructional 2 19 2.842 0.898 0°853 0°3985
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 24 2.666 0.702 ,
assistance with helping 2 19 2.737 0.806 °‘3°5 0.7519

their students learn

Table 4.16.--Continued.

106

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time M Mean S.D. Value Level

Student performance data are l 24 2.708 0.751 -0 319 0 7510
collected, summarized, and 2 19 2.739 0.918 ' ‘
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in l 24 1.667 0.761 ,1 750 0 0858
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 19 2.158 0.068 ' '
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- l 24 2.833 0.637 ,1 193 0 2399
tive practices based on 2 18 3.056 0.540 ' '
research
Teachers are expected to l 24 2.625 0.647 _] 162 0 2518
use effective instructional 2 19 2.895 0.875 ' '
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor 1
implementation of instruc- 24 2.917 0.881
tional policies in the 2 19 2.895 1.049 0.075 0'9409
schools
District supervisors provide 1 24 2.625 0.924 ,0 532 0 5641
technical assistance in all ' °
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is l 25 1.800 0.816 _
allocated for use for build- 2 19 2.737 0.733 3'936 0'0003*
ing level improvement
The school board places a l 25 3.160 0.554 _
high priority on appearance 2 19 3.316 0.750 0'794 0°4318
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 25 3.720 0.542
conduct is reviewed with 2 19 3.684 0.478 0'228 0'8205
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-of-school suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- l 25 3.440 0.583 0 656 0 5155
school suspensions are used 2 19 3.316 0.671 ' '
most often
District leaders and staff 1 25 2.520 0.872 ,1 368 0 1786
believe that all students 2 19 2.895 0.937 ' '
can learn
The school board makes a formal l 25 2.840 0.850 ,3 318 0.00]9*
commitment to school improvement 2 19 3.526 0.513 '

based on quality and equity

Table 4.16.--Continued.

107

 

 

t- Signif.
Factor Time N Mean S.D. Value Level

Establishment of a district plan 1 25 2.640 1.114 _2 447 0 0187*
which focuses on school improve- 2 19 3.368 0.761 ' '
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are l 25 2.840 0.281 -0 593 0 5554
supervised to help them improve 2 19 3.053 1.026 ' °
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent on prog- l 25 3.360 0.907 ,1 253 0 2123
ress on district and school 2 19 3.632 0.496 ' '
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1 25 3.600 0.764 0 283 0 7790
annually on progress on the 2 19 3.526 0.964 ' '
district’s goals 8 objectives
The board recognizes the need 1 25 2.520 1.159
to monitor, develop, and 2 19 2.316 1.157 0'579 0'5655
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 25 2.560 1.003 0 107 0 9150
and monitor district goals 2 19 2.526 1.073 ' °
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 25 3.080 0.493 ,
available to the board and 2 19 3.421 0.769 1'688 0'1022
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 25 2.960 0.611 _] 189 0 2410
technical assistance to 2 19 3.211 0.787 ° '
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K-12 curric- l 25 2.560 1.044 ,0 710 0 4814
ulum with essential learning 2 19 2.789 1.084 ° '
objectives is in place
District leaders establish awards 1 25 2.720 0.843 _0 514 0 6098
programs for staff and students 2 19 2.842 0.688 ° '
to recognize excellence
Staff awards are based on 1 25 1.920 0.909 _
contributions to improve 2 19 2.211 1.032 0'99] 0°3275

student performance

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

108

Researeh Qgeetion 5: Does the presence of characteristics of
effective schools depend on their level of importance, as
perceived by members of the boards of education?

The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
determine whether or not there exists a relationship between
importance and actual presence of effective schools, as perceived by
members of the board of education. The following hypothesis is
presented and tested to address this question:

flypothesie 5: There is a significant relationship between the

perceived level of importance of the characteristics of

effective schools and the actual presence of these
characteristics as perceived by members of the boards of

education at Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.17 shows that there was a statistically significant
relationship between perceived importance and actual presence of
Safe and orderly environment at Time 2 by members of the boards of
education (X2 - 6.184; p < .05). Results also indicate a
statistically significant relationship between perceived importance
and actual presence of Frequent monitoring of student progress at
both Time 1 and Time 2 (x2 = 10.517, 14.265; p < .05). For the
factors Safe and orderly environment at Time 2 and Frequent
monitoring of student progress at both Time 1 and Time 2, there

appeared to be the presence of practice/policy equal to the school

board members’ perceived level of importance of these factors.

109

Table 4.17.—-The relationship between importance and actual presence
of characteristics of effective schools as perceived by
members of the boards of education between Time 1 and

 

 

Time 2.
Chi-Square Signif.
Characteristic Time N Value df Level
Safe and orderly 1a 127 1.388 4 0.846
environment 2a 111 6.184 2 0.045*
Climate of high expec- l 126 3.397 4 0.494
tations for success 2 110 2.110 2 0.348
Clear and focused l 127 4.030 4 0.402
mission 2 110 4.807 4 0.308
Instructional leader- 1 127 7.549 4 0.110
ship 2 111 3.632 4 0.458
Frequent monitoring of l 125 10.517 4 0.033*
student progress 2 110 14.265 4 0.006*
Opportunity to learn and 1 123 7.571 4 0.109
student time on task 2 105 2.580 4 0.630
Home/school relations 1 125 6.830 4 0.145
2 108 5.419 4 0.247

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

aFifty percent or more of the cells have expected counts less
than five.

Research Qgestion 6: Does the practice/policy of factors
related to effective schools depend on their level of

importance, as perceived by members of the boards of education?
The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
determine whether or not a statistically significant relationship
exists between the importance and actual practice/policy of factors

related to effective schools, as perceived by members of the boards

110

of education. To address this question, Hypothesis 6 was presented
and tested.

H!22£h§§1§.§= There is a significant relationship between the

perceived level of importance of factors related to effective

schools and the actual practice/policy of these factors as

perceived by the members of the boards of education at Time 1

and Time 2.

Table 4.18 shows that there was a statistically significant
relationship between the practice/policy of most of the factors
related to effective schools and their perceived level of importance
by members of the board of education at both Time 1 and Time 2.

The following factors g1g_ne; show a statistically significant
relationship between perceived importance and practice/policy of
these factors related to effective schools at Time 1 but were
significant at Time 2: Board expects principals to be instructional
leaders (X2 - 15.223. p < .05); Out-of-school suspensions and
expulsions are minimal; in-school suspensions are used most often
(X2 . 13.008, p < .05); The superintendent is evaluated by the
school board annually on progress on district goals and objectives
(x2 - 15.431, p < .05); Financial support is provided for resources
and technical assistance to implement school improvement (X2 .
16.639, p < .05); and The school board makes a formal commitment to
school improvement based on quality and equity (X2 - 24.097, p <
.05).

Generally speaking, the essential and very important factors

are practice or written policy as perceived by members of the boards

111

Table 4.18.-oThe relationship between the importance and actual practice/policy of
effective schools, as perceived by members of the boards of education
between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Board expects principals l 125 8.873 4 0.064
to be instructional leaders 2 106 15.223 4 0.004*
Board expects superintendent l 124 21.122 4 0.000*
to be an instructional leader 2 107 23.885 4 0.000*
Board expects teachers to take 1 121 12.869 4 0.012*
leadership roles in instruction 2 110 18.358 4 0.001*
Students are taught in hetero- l 122 23.749 4 0.000*
geneous groups for the most part 2 110 25.737 4 0.000*
School leaders emphasize 1 122 24.806 4 0.000*
opportunities to learn and 2 109 10.689 4 0.030*
time on task
Specific time allocations l 122 59.241 4 0.000*
are made for subjects taught 2 108 15.152 4 0.004*
Evaluation of new programs 1 117 23.871 4 0.000*
is made according to impact 2 109 24.671 4 0.000*
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- l 119 11.310 4 0.023*
1ar classes are minimized 2 109 7.704 4 0.103
The school’s written cur- 1 122 23.531 4 0.000*
riculum is aligned with 2 107 10.261 4 0.036*
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate 1 123 10.608 4 0.031*
with the internal school 2 110 12.825 4 0.012*
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 121 16.388 4 0.003*
nerships can strengthen 2 109 16.494 4 0.002*
curriculum
Parent involvement that 1 122 22.844 4 0.000*
supports the instructional 2 108 26.937 4 0.000*
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 122 13.818 4 0.008*
assistance with helping 2 110 13.369 4 0.010*

their students learn

Table 4.18.--Continued.

'112

 

 

based on quality and equity

Chi-Square Signif.
Factor Time N Value df Level
Student performance data are 1 124 42.894 4 0.000*
collected, summarized, and 2 109 24.982 4 0.000*
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in l 120 27.268 4 0.000*
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 106 12.600 4 0.013*
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- l 124 20.670 4 0.000*
tive practices based on 2 112 15.938 4 0.003*
research
Teachers are expected to 1 122 28.444 4 0.000*
use effective instructional 2 111 12.708 4 0.013*
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- l 121 21.322 4 0.000*
tional policies in the 2 107 14.693 4 0.005*
schools
District supervisors provide 1 118 13.701 4 0.008*
technical assistance in all 2 107 12.664 4 0.013*
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is l 123 30.689 4 0.000*
allocated for use for build— 2 98 26.276 4 0.000*
ing level improvement
The school board places a 1a 127 16.284 4 0.003*
high priority on appearance 2 103 26.620 4 0.000*
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 110 0.880 4 0.927
conduct is reviewed with 2 94 1.062 2 0.588
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-of-school suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- 1 127 8.042 4 0.090
school suspensions are used 2 107 13.008 4 0.011*
most often
District leaders and staff 1 124 18.354 4 0.001*
believe that all students 2 107 6.414 4 0.170
can learn
~ The school board makes a formal l 126 8.366 4 0.079
commitment to school improvement 2 106 24.097 4 0.000*

Table 4.18.--Continued.

1123

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Establishment of a district plan 1 125 12.909 4 0.012*
which focuses on school improve- 2 106 9.566 4 0.048*
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are l 125 18.763 4 0.001*
supervised to help them improve 2 107 11.164 4 0.025*
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent on prog- 1a 127 9.076 4 0.059
ress on district and school 2a 108 7.451 4 0.114
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1 93 1.422 2 0.491
annually on progress on the 2a 77 15.431 4 0.004*
district’s goals 8 objectives -
The board recognizes the need 1 127 10.153 4 0.038*
to monitor, develop, and 2 105 7.129 4 0.129
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 126 15.601 4 0.004*
and monitor district goals 2 105 11.943 4 0.018*
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 126 18.330 4 0.001*
available to the board and 2 104 28.881 4 0.000*
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 127 7.236 4 0.124
technical assistance to 2 105 16.639 4 0.002*
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K-12 curric- 1 126 24.468 4 0.000*
ulum with essential learning 2 105 8.039 4 0.090
objectives is in place
District leaders establish awards 1 127 25.968 4 0.000*
programs for staff and students 2 105 20.463 4 0.000*
to recognize excellence
Staff awards are based on 1 126 29.932 4 0.000*
contributions to improve 2 105 10.150 4 0.038*

student performance

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

aFifty percent or more of the cells have expected counts less than five.

114

of education, but the degree of importance does not equal their
practice. The level of practice is typically lower for most of the
factors.

Beeeareh Queetjeg 7: Are the school board members’ perceptions

of’ importance and presence of“ characteristics of effective

schools, along with importance and practice/policy of factors
related to effective schools, influenced by the length of time
as board members, their educational level, or career type?

The chi-square test of statistical significance was computed to
determine if there was a statistically significant influence on
perceptions on the importance of characteristics and factors related
to effective schools and the presence of characteristics or the
practice/policy of factors related to effective schools by the
following demographic variables: (a) the level of education (b) the
type of career board members had. These statistics were computed
at both Time 1 and Time 2.

The Pearson product-moment correlation was computed on the
combined factors related to effective schools (listed in Appendix
C) for the perceived importance and practice/policy of these
combined factors by members of the boards of education with the
length of time they had served on the board. This was tested at
both Time 1 and Time 2.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

flypetheeje Z: The length of time of service as a member of the

board of education has a significant influence on the

perceptions regarding the level of importance of characteris-
tics of effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

115

Table 4.19 shows statistics computed from the chi-square test
of statistical significance for the importance of characteristics
related to effective schools and the length of time as a board

member, at both Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.19.--The relationship between length of time on the board of
education and the importance of characteristics of
effective schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.
Characteristic Time N Value df Level
Safe and orderly l 128 3.072 2 0.215
environment 2 111 0.000 1 0.983
Climate of high expec- 1 128 3.641 2 0.162
tations for success 2 111 0.001 1 0.974
Clear and focused l 128 1.239 2 0.538
mission 2 111 1.350 2 0.509
Instructional leader- 1 128 2.020 2 0.364
ship 2 111 0.762 2 0.683
Frequent monitoring of l 126 5.511 2 0.064
student progress 2 111 0.785 2 0.675
Opportunity to learn and 1 124 7.522 2 0.023*
student time on task 2 110 1.069 2 0.586
Home/school relations 1 123 1.892 2 0.388
2 110 0.446 2 0.800

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

116

The table indicates that Opportunity to learn and student time
on task was statistically significant at Time 1 (X2 - 7.522, p <
.05) but not at Time 2, as perceived by members of the boards of
education. At Time 1, members of the board of education who had
served on the board for at least five years perceived Opportunity to
learn and student time on task to be essential and more important
than did members who had served on the board for fewer than five
years.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

flyeotheeie 8: The length of time of service as a member of the

board of education has a significant influence on the percep-

tions regarding the actual presence of the characteristics of

effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.20 shows that there is no statistically significant
relationship between length of time on the board of education and

the perceived actual presence of characteristics of effective

schools, at either Time 1 or Time 2.

117

Table 4.20.--The relationship between length of time on the board of
education and the actual presence of characteristics of
effective schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.
Characteristic Time N Value df Level
Safe and orderly l 128 1.511 2 0.470
environment 2 113 1.616 2 0.446
Climate of high expec- 1 127 3.593 2 0.168
tations for success 2 112 1.499 2 0.473
Clear and focused l 127 2.943 2 0.230
mission 2 112 1.837 2 0.399
Instructional leader- 1 127 3.752 2 0.153
ship 2 113 1.701 2 0.427
Frequent monitoring of l 125 0.404 2 0.817
student progress 2 112 3.218 2 0.200
Opportunity to learn and 1 123 0.413 2 0.814
student time on task 2 106 0.151 2 0.927
Home/school relations 1 125 2.914 2 0.233
2 110 0.438 2 0.803

 

Level of significance set at .05.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesie 2: The length of time of service as a member of the

board of education has a significant influence on the percep-

tions regarding the level of importance of factors related to

effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The 36 factors related to effective schools were combined under
the seven categories or headings of the characteristics related to

effective schools (see Appendix C). After combining the 36 factors

118

into the seven categories, the Pearson product-moment correlation
(r) was computed to determine whether there was a relationship
between the importance of the combined factors and length of time on
the board of education at Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.21 shows that there was a statistically significant
influence of the members’ length of time on the board of education
and the perceived importance of the combined factor of Climate of
high expectations at Time 1 (r - -0.2293, p < .05) but not at Time 2
(r - 0.0429, p > .05). Board members who had been on boards for a
shorter period of time considered Climate of high expectations to be
more important than did board members who had served longer. The
table also shows that there was a statistically significant
relationship between the members’ length of time on the boards of
education and the perceived importance of the combined factor of
Home/school relations at Time 2 (r - 0.2085, p < .05) that was not
significant at Time 1 (r . -0.0593, p > .05).

119

Table 4.21.--Correlati0n of importance of combined factors with

length of time on the boards of education between

Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Combined Factor Time N r p-Value
Instructional leadership 1 119 0.0343 0.7109
2 102 0.0517 0.6061
Clear and focused 1 114 0.0708 0.4542
mission 2 94 -0.0522 0.6177

Climate of high expec- 1 122 -0.2293 0.0111*
tations for success 2 102 0.0130 0.8970
Opportunity to learn and l 118 0.1701 0.0655
student time on task 2 106 0.1103 0.2603
Home/school relations 1 121 -0.0593 0.5182

2 109 0.2085 0.0295*
Frequent monitoring of l 121 -0.0240 0.7944
student progress 2 106 -0.0365 0.7103
Safe and orderly 1 127 0.0145 0.8718
environment 2 106 0.1236 0.2067

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 10: The length of time of service as a member of

the board of education has a significant influence on the

perceptions regarding the actual practice/policy of factors

related to effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was
computed for each of the combined factors to determine whether there
was a statistically significant relationship between the perceived
practice/policy of the combined factors related to effective schools
and length of time as members of the boards of education. This

statistic was computed on data collected at Time 1 and Time 2.

120

Table 4.22 shows that there was a statistically significant
relationship between the perceived actual practice/policy of the
combined factors of Climate of high expectations related to
effective schools with length of time on the board at Time 1 (r - -
0.2571, p < .05). At Time 2, the following combined factors were
statistically significant: Instructional leadership (r - 0.2162,
p < .05), Opportunity to learn and student time on task (r - 0.1992,
p < .05), and Frequent monitoring of student progress (r - 0.2181,

p < .05).

Table 4.22.-—Correlati0n of perceived actual practice/policy of com-
bined factors with the educational level of members of
the boards of education between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Combined Factor Time N r p-Value
Instructional leadership 1 .115 0.0383 0.6845
2 98 0.2162 0.0325*
Clear and focused l 113 -0.0336 0.7236
mission 2 914 -0.1009 0.3413
Climate of high expec- l 118 -0.2571 0.0050*
tations for success 2 100 0.0531 0.4109
Opportunity to learn and 1 115 0.0738 0.4331
student time on task 2 104 0.1992 0.0425*
Home/school relations 1 119 -0.0672 0.4680
2 105 0.1382 0.1596
Frequent monitoring of 1 119 -0.0169 0.8556
student progress 2 108 -0.2181 0.0233*
Safe and orderly l 126 0.1614 0.2584
environment 2 102 0.1761 0.0766

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

121

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypetheeie 11: The level of education of the members of the

board of education has a significant influence on their

perceptions regarding the importance of characteristics of

effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

For the purpose of computing valid chi-square statistics, level
of education was collapsed into two categories: high school
graduate and college graduate. The chi-square measure of
statistical significance was used to determine the relationship
and/or influence of the level of education of members of the boards
of education on their perceived importance of the characteristics
related to effective schools at both Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.23 shows the influence or relationships between the
educational level of members of the boards of education and the
perceived importance of the characteristics of effective schools.

The table indicates that there was a statistically significant
relationship between a board member’s having a higher educational
level (college degree or higher) and perceiving the importance of
Instructional leadership at Time 2 (X2 a 4.194, p < .05). The table
also shows that, at Time 2, board members with more education
perceived Opportunity to learn and student time on task to be more
important (X2 - 11.707, p < .05). The board members with higher
educational levels (college degree or more) perceived Instructional
leadership and Opportunity to learn and student time on task to be

more essential than did board members with lower educational levels

(at least high school graduate).

122

Table 4.23.--The relationship of educational level with perceptions
of members of the boards of education of the importance
of characteristics of effective schools between Time 1

 

 

and Time 2.
Chi-Square Signif.
Characteristic Time N Value df Level
Safe and orderly l 118 2.940 2 0.230
environment 2 102 0.917 1 0.338
Climate of high expec- 1 118 1.416 2 0.493
tations for success 2 102 1.858 1 0.173
Clear and focused 1 118 1.245 2 0.537
mission 2 102 5.657 2 0.059
Instructional leader- 1 118 1.739 2 0.419
ship 2 102 4.194 1 0.041*
Frequent monitoring of l 116 4.541 2 0.103
student progress 2 102 3.629 2 0.163
Opportunity to learn and l 114 3.089 2 0.213
student time on task 2 11.707 2 0.003*
Home/school relations 1 116 2.004 2 0.367
2 5.962 2 0.051

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

123

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

. The level of education of the members of the
board of education has a significant influence on their
perceptions regarding the presence of characteristics of
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
determine the relationship and/or influence of the level of
education of members of the boards of education on the perceived
presence of the characteristics related to effective schools at both
Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.24 shows the influence or relationship between the
educational level of members of the boards of education and the
perceived presence of the characteristics related to effective
schools. The table indicates that there was a statistically
significant relationship between a board member’s having a college
degree or higher compared to board members with a high school degree

on the perceived presence of Instructional leadership at Time 1 (X2

. 7.756, p < .05) but not at Time 2 (x2 - 0.581, p > .05).

124

Table 4.24.--The relationship of educational level with perceptions
of members of the boards of education of the actual

presence of characteristics of effective schools

between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.
Characteristic Time N Value Level
Safe and orderly l 118 0.317 2 0.854
environment 2 103 1.048 2 0.592
Climate of high expec- l 117 0.406 2 0.816
tations for success 2 103 0.200 2 0.905
Clear and focused l 117 3.095 2 0.213
mission 2 102 0.331 2 0.847
Instructional leader- 1 117 7.756 2 0.021*
ship 2 103 0.581 2 0.748
Frequent monitoring of 1 115 1.005 2 0.605
student progress 2 102 3.216 2 0.200
Opportunity to learn and 1 113 2.909 2 0.233
student time on task 2 97 10.007 2 0.997
Home/school relations 1 115 1.731 2 0.421
2 101 0.581 2 0.748
*Significant at the .05 level.

The data analysis was performed to

hypothesis:

test the following

flyeotheeje 13: The level of education of the members of the
board of education has a significant influence on their
perceptions regarding the importance of factors related to
effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The chi-square test of statistical significance was computed to

determine whether level of education had a significant influence on

125

the perceptions of the importance of factors related to effective
schools by members of the boards of education at Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.25 shows that board members who had at least a college
degree compared to those who were high school graduates perceived
the following factors related to effective schools as essential and
most important at both Time 1 and Time 2: A communication plan is
established to communicate with the internal school organization as
well as with the external publics (X2 - 7.829, 7.416, p < .05);
Student performance data are collected, summarized, and publicized
(X2 - 8.245, 10.525, p < .05); Staff development is made available
to the board and all who work in the district (X2 = 6.575, 12.117, p
< .05); and A clearly defined K-12 curriculum with essential
learning objectives is in place (X2 - 8.120, 6.815, p < .05).

Table 4.25 also indicates that the following factors were
perceived to be important factors of effective schools by members of
the boards of education who had a college degree or better at Time
1: Board expects teachers to take leadership roles in instruction
(X2 - 6.022, p < .05); Parent involvement that supports the
instructional program is made clear (X2 - 7.054, p < .05); Teachers
are expected to use effective instructional practices based on
research (x2 - 14.393, p < .05); A written code of student conduct
is reviewed with students, parents, and staff (X2 - 8.244, p < .05);
and At least annually teachers are supervised to help them improve

(x2 - 6.722, p < .05).

126

Table 4.25.--Re1ationship of educational level with perceptions of the importance
of factors related to effective schools between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Board expects principals l 116 2.380 2 0.304
to be instructional leaders 2 102 3.824 2 0.148
Board expects superintendent l 116 0.027 2 0.228
to be an instructional leader 2 102 0.027 2 0.987
Board expects teachers to take 1 113 6.022 2 0.049*
leadership roles in instruction 2 102 0.045 1 0.832
Students are taught in hetero- l 114 1.207 2 0.547
geneous groups for the most part 2 101 4.408 2 0.110
School leaders emphasize l 115 3.413 2 0.181
opportunities to learn and 2 101 2.033 2 0.362
time on task
Specific time allocations l 115 3.2691 2 0.195
are made for subjects taught 2 101 8.701 2 0.013*
Evaluation of new programs 1 111 1.408 2 0.495
is made according to impact 2 102 0.108 2 0.947
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- l 112 0.194 2 0.907
1ar classes are minimized 2 101 1.690 2 0.430
The school’s written cur- 1 114 2.820 2 0.244
riculum is aligned with 2 101 6.365 2 0.041*
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate 1 114 7.829 2 0.020*
with the internal school 2 103 7.416 2 0.025*
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 114 4.972 2 0.083
nerships can strengthen 2 102 1.080 2 0.583
curriculum
Parent involvement that l 113 7.054 2 0.029*
supports the instructional 2 101 1.264 2 0.531
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 114 3.820 2 0.148
assistance with helping 2 103 1.179 2 0.372

their students learn

Table 4.25.--Continued.

127

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Student performance data are l 115 8.245 2 0.016*
collected, summarized, and 2 102 10.525 2 0.005*
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in l 112 0.600 2 0.741
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 97 0.617 2 0.735
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- 1 115 1.802 2 0.406
tive practices based on 2 103 2.401 2 0.301
research
Teachers are expected to l 114 14.393 2 0.001*
use effective instructional 2 102 2.766 2 0.251
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- 1 112 0.936 2 0.626
tional policies in the 2 98 1.573 2 0.455
schools
District supervisors provide 1 110 2.783 2 0.249
technical assistance in all 2 98 3.924 2 0.193
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is l 114 3.403 2 0.182
allocated for use for build- 2 93 4.521 2 0.704
ing level improvement
The school board places a l 118 5.620 2 0.060
high priority on appearance 2 101 1.446 2 0.485
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 101 8.244 2 0.016*
conduct is reviewed with 2 89 0 008 1 0.930
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-of-school suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- 1 118 1.698 2 0.428
school suspensions are used 2 101 2.532 2 0.282
most often
District leaders and staff 1 118 5.927 2 0.071
believe that all students 2 100 4.845 2 0.089
can learn
The school board makes a formal l 118 1.735 2 0.420
commitment to school improvement 2 101 6.105 2 0.047*

based on quality and equity

Table 4.25.--Continued.

128

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time Value df Level
Establishment of a district plan 1 116 2.511 2 0.285
which focuses on school improve- 2 100 1.404 2 0.495
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are 1 118 6.772 2 0.034*
supervised to help them improve 2 101 5.383 2 0.068
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent on prog- l 118 3.355 2 0.184
ress on district and school 2 101 2.217 2 0.330
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1 118 4.187 2 0.123
annually on progress on the 2 101 1.134 2 0.567
district’s goals 8 objectives
The board recognizes the need 1 118 4.722 2 0.094
to monitor, develop, and 2 110 1.234 2 0.540
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 117 4.081 2 0.130
and monitor district goals 2 100 2.419 2 0.298
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 118 6.575 2 0.037*
available to the board and 2 98 12.117 2 0.002*
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 118 2.181 2 0.336
technical assistance to 2 100 6.287 2 0.043*
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K—12 curric- 1 118 8.120 2 0.017*
ulum with essential learning 2 101 6.815 2 0.033*
objectives is in place
District leaders establish awards 1 118 4.630 2 0.099
programs for staff and students 2 100 7.215 2 0.027*
to recognize excellence
Staff awards are based on 1 117 0.083 2 0.959
contributions to improve 2 98 11.749 2 0.003*

student performance

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

129

Also shown in Table 4.25 is the perceived importance of factors
related to effective schools by board members with at least a
college degree at Time 2: Specific time allocations are made for
subjects taught (X2 - 8.701, p < .05); The school’s written
curriculum is aligned with what the teacher teaches (X2 . 6.365, p <
.05); The school board makes a formal commitment to school
improvement (X2 - 6.105, p < .05); Financial support is provided for
resources and technical assistance to implement school improvement
(X2 - 6.287, p < .05); District leaders establish awards programs
for staff and students to recognize excellence (X2 . 7.215, p < .
05); and Staff awards are based on student performance (X2 . 11.749,
p < .05).

There were no negative statistically significant relationships
which would indicate that board members with less education (at
least a high school degree) compared to members with a higher
educational level (college degree or higher) perceived greater
importance of factors related to effective schools. Therefore, one
could say that, in general, members of boards of education with
higher educational levels perceived several of the factors of
effective schools mentioned above to be more essential at either
Time 1 or Time 2, or both, than did members of the boards of

education with less education.

130

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

flyeotheeje 14: The level of education of the members of the

board of education has a significant influence on their

perceptions regarding the practice/policy of factors related to

effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
determine the relationship and/or influence of the level of
education of members of the boards of education on the perceived
practice/policy of factors related to effective schools at both Time
1 and Time 2.

Table 4.26 shows the influence or relationship between the
educational level of members of the boards of education and the
perceived practice/policy of factors related to effective schools.
The table indicates that there is a statistically significant
between a board member’s having a higher educational level (college
degree or higher) compared to a lower educational level (at least a
high school degree) on the following perceived practice/policy of
these factors related to effective schools at Time 2: Teachers are
expected to use effective instructional practices based on research
(X2 - 6.189, p < .05) and Financial support is provided for
resources and technical assistance to implement school improvement
(X2 - 6.218, p < .05). In considering these two factors, it appears
that board members with at least a college degree were quicker to

perceive the actual practice/policy of these factors than members of

the board with a high school degree at Time 2.

131

Table 4.26.--Relationship of educational level with perceptions of the actual
practice/policy of factors related to effective schools between
Time 1 and Time 2 by members of the boards of education.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Board expects principals l 110 0.161 2 0.923
to be instructional leaders 1 99 1.044 2 0.593
Board expects superintendent l 114 2.767 2 0.579
to be an instructional leader 2 103 1.094 2 0.579
Board expects teachers to take 1 112 1.323 2 0.516
leadership roles in instruction 2 102 0.726 2 0.696
Students are taught in hetero- l 112 0.090 2 0.956
geneous groups for the most part 2 99 1.351 2 0.509
School leaders emphasize l 110 2.399 2 0.301
opportunities to learn and 2 99 1.980 2 0.372
time on task
Specific time allocations l 114 0.765 2 0.682
are made for subjects taught 2 94 1.050 2 0.591
Evaluation of new programs 1 117 0.470 2 0.791
is made according to impact 2 97 0.510 2 0.775
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- l 117 1.751 2 0.417
1ar classes are minimized 2a 101 2.113 2 0.348
The school’s written cur- l 117 0.958 2 0.619
riculum is aligned with 2 100 0.443 2 0.805
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate 1 114 0.061 2 0.970
with the internal school 2 100 1.086 2 0.581
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 116 0.864 2 0.649
nerships can strengthen 2 100 2.588 2 0.274
curriculum
Parent involvement that l 117 2.953 2 0.228
supports the instructional 2 100 2.732 2 0.255
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 115 1.066 2 0.587
assistance with helping 2 100 0.007 2 0.996

their students learn

Table 4.26.--Continued.

132

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Student performance data are l 117 0.353 2 0.838
collected, summarized, and 2 101 0.606 2 0.739
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in l 115 3.821 2 0.148
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 97 1.098 2 0.577
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- l 115 1.779 2 0.411
tive practices based on 2 98 0.093 2 0.955
research
Teachers are expected to l 111 2.394 2 0.302
use effective instructional 2 102 6.189 2 0.045*
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- l 112 0.667 2 0.716
tional policies in the 2 101 0.685 2 0.710
schools
District supervisors provide 1 112 1.295 2 0.523
technical assistance in all 2 100 0.190 2 0.909
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is l 112 0.863 2 0.650
allocated for use for build- 2 100 2.161 2 0.339
ing level improvement
The school board places a 1 108 1.617 2 0.445
high priority on appearance 2 101 1.960 2 0.375
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 109 1.173 2 0.556
conduct is reviewed with 2 101 0.181 1 0.913
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-of-school suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- 1 113 4.642 2 0.098
school suspensions are used 2 99 0.324 2 0.850
most often
District leaders and staff 1 114 0.889 2 0.641
believe that all students 2 101 3.684 2 0.159
can learn
The school board makes a formal l 111 2.924 2 0.232
commitment to school improvement 2 100 4.777 2 0.092

based on quality and equity

Table 4.26.--Continued.

133

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Establishment of a district plan 1 113 0.232 2 0.890
which focuses on school improve- 2 102 2.325 2 0.313
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are 1 112 3.703 2 0.157
supervised to help them improve 2 101 4.841 2 0.089
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent on prog- l 114 1.618 2 0.445
ress on district and school 2 100 1.089 2 0.580
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1 87 1.443 2 0.486
annually on progress on the 2 73 2.259 2 0.233
district’s goals 8 objectives
The board recognizes the need 1 117 0.810 2 0.667
to monitor, develop, and 2 98 2.137 2 0.344
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 116 0.572 2 0.751
and monitor district goals 2 98 2.424 2 0.298
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 117 3.759 2 0.153
available to the board and 2 98 15.084 2 0.079
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 117 4.891 2 0.087
technical assistance to 2 98 6.218 2 0.045*
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K-12 curric- l 116 2.045 2 0.360
ulum with essential learning 2 99 0.891 2 0.640
objectives is in place
District leaders establish awards 1 117 1.032 2 0.597
programs for staff and students 2 99 2.060 2 0.357
to recognize excellence
Staff awards are based on 1 116 1.850 2 0.397
contributions to improve 2 98 1.083 2 0.582

student performance

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

aFifty percent or more of the cells have expected counts less than five.

134

Overall, educational level of members of the boards of
education does not appear to have a strong influence on the
perception of actual practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis )5: The career type of members of the board of edu-

cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding

the importance of' the characteristics of“ effective schools

at Time 1 and Time 2.

For the purpose of computing valid chi-square statistics,
career type was collapsed into two categories, professional and
nonprofessional. The chi-square test of statistical significance
was used to determine the relationship or effect of the career type
of members of the board of education on their perceptions
regarding the importance of characteristics related to effective
schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.27 shows the relationship of career type with
perceptions of members of the boards of education on the importance
of characteristics of effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2. The
table shows no statistical relationships of the career type of

members of the boards of education and the perceived importance of

characteristics of effective schools.

135

Table 4.27.--The relationship of career type with perceptions of
members of the boards of education of the importance of
characteristics of effective schools at Time 1 and

 

 

Time 2.

Chi-Square Signif.

Characteristic Time N Value df Level
Safe and orderly l 101 0.148 1 0.701
environment 2 85 0.070 1 0.791
Climate of high expec- l 101 0.864 2 0.649
tations for success 2 85 1.011 1 0.315
Clear and focused 1 101 1.504 2 0.471
mission 2 85 0.436 2 0.804
Instructional leader- 1 101 1.243 2 0.537
ship 2 85 1.119 1 0.290
Frequent monitoring of l 100 0.360 2 0.835
student progress 2 85 1.113 2 0.573
Opportunity to learn and 1 99 2.341 2 0.310
student time on task 2 84 11.961 2 0.375
Home/school relations 1 100 0.416 2 0.812
2 84 5.823 2 0.054

 

Level of significance set at .05.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypetheeje |§: The career type of members of the board of edu-

cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding

the actual presence of the characteristics of effective

schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
determine the relationship or effect of the career type of members

of' the boards of education on their perceptions regarding the

136

perceived presence of characteristics related to effective schools
at Time 1 and Time 2.

Table 4.28 shows the relationship of career type with
perceptions of members of the boards of education on the actual
presence of characteristics of effective schools at Time 1 and Time
2. The table shows no statistically significant relationship of the
career type of members of the boards of education and the perceived

actual presence of the characteristics of effective schools.

Table 4.28.--The relationship of career type with perceptions of
members of the boards of education of the actual
presence of characteristics of effective schools
between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.
Characteristic Time N Value df Level
Safe and orderly l 101 0.863 2 0.649
environment 2 86 0.376 1 0.540
Climate of high expec- l 101 0.384 2 0.825
tations for success 2 86 5.873 2 0.053
Clear and focused l 101 2.062 2 0.357
mission 2 86 0.367 2 0.832
Instructional leader- 1 101 2.155 2 0.340
ship 2 86 0.951 2 0.622
Frequent monitoring of 1 100 2.996 2 0.224
student progress 2 85 2.774 2 0.250
Opportunity to learn and l 98 5.434 2 0.066
student time on task 2 82 10.702 2 0.704
Home/school relations 1 100 1.354 2 0.508
2 85 0.343 2 0.840

 

Level of significance set at .05.

137

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypetheeie 17: The career type of members of the board of edu-

cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding

the level of importance of factors related to effective

schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
determine the relationship or effect of the career type of members
of ‘the boards of education on their perceptions regarding the
importance of characteristics related to effective schools at Time 1
and Time 2.

Table 4.29 shows the relationship of career type with
perceptions of members of boards of education on the importance of
factors of effective schools at Time 1 and Time 2. The table shows
that there was a statistically significant relationship between
career type and the perceived importance of members of the boards of
education for the following factors of effective schools at Time 2:
Evaluation of new programs is made according to impact on learning
time (X2 - 9.736, p < .05); The school’s written curriculum is
aligned with what the teacher teaches (X2 - 6.422, p <: .05); and
Staff awards are based on contributions to improve student
performance (X2 - 6.496, p < .05). The factors listed above showed
a statistically significant relationship regarding perceptions of
professionals compared to nonprofessionals who served on the boards
of education in the perceived importance of these factors at Time 2.

It appears that school board members who had a professional degree

considered these factors to be of higher' importance at Time 2

15MB

Table 4.29.--Relationship of career type with perceptions of the importance of
factors related to effective schools between Time 1 and Time 2 by
members of the boards of education.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Board expects principals l 100 3.823 2 0.148
to be instructional leaders 2 84 1.066 2 0.587
Board expects superintendent l 100 0.810 2 0.667
to be an instructional leader 2 84 0.000 2 1.000
Board expects teachers to take 1 99 0.698 2 0.705
leadership roles in instruction 2 85 1.489 1 0.222
Students are taught in hetero- l 99 1.061 2 0.588
geneous groups for the most part 2 83 5.027 2 0.081
School leaders emphasize l 100 1.139 2 0.566
opportunities to learn and 2 84 0.855 2 0.652
time on task
Specific time allocations l 100 2.358 2 0.308
are made for subjects taught 2 82 4.869 2 0.088
Evaluation of new programs 1 98 1.915 2 0.384
is made according to impact 2 84 9.736 2 0.008*
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- l 99 3.015 2 0.222
1ar classes are minimized 2 83 0.444 2 0.801
The school’s written cur- l 99 0.619 2 0.734
riculum is aligned with 2 84 6.422 2 0.040*
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate l 100 3.513 2 0.173
with the internal school 2 85 2.345 1 0.126
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 100 2.692 2 0.260
nerships can strengthen 2 85 1.450 2 0.484
curriculum
Parent involvement that l 99 0.917 2 0.632
supports the instructional 2 84 0.112 2 0.946
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 100 0.884 2 0.643
assistance with helping 2 85 0.799 2 0.671

their students learn

Table 4.29.--Continued.

1219

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Student performance data are l 100 2.906 2 0.234
collected, summarized, and 2 85 4.052 2 0.132
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in 1 99 5.154 2 0.076
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 80 0.043 2 0.979
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- 1 100 0.443 2 0.801
tive practices based on 2 85 4.903 2 0.086
research
Teachers are expected to 1 100 0.123 2 0.940
use effective instructional 2 84 3.101 2 0.212
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- l 100 0.599 2 0.741
tional policies in the 2 82 5.348 2 0.069
schools
District supervisors provide 1 99 4.987 2 0.083
technical assistance in all 2 82 1.524 2 0.467
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is 1 98 3.161 2 0.206
allocated for use for build- 2 76 1.126 2 0.570
ing level improvement
The school board places a l 101 0.321 2 0.852
high priority on appearance 2 80 1.117 2 0.572
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1 89 1.045 2 0.593
conduct is reviewed with 2 77 0.090 1 0.764
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-of-school suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- l 101 1.142 2 0.565
school suspensions are used 2 81 0.378 2 0.828
most often
District leaders and staff 1a 101 2.575 2 0.276
believe that all students 2" 81 0.541 2 0.763
can learn
The school board makes a formal 1a 101 0.729 2 0.695
commitment to school improvement 23 80 0.646 2 0.724

based on quality and equity

Table 4.29.--Continued.

ldl)

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time Value df Level
Establishment of a district plan la 99 2.663 2 0.264
which focuses on school improve- 23 80 2.757 2 0.252
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are l 101 2.819 2 0.244
supervised to help them improve 2 81 2.555 2 0.279
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent 0n prog- l 101 0.740 2 0.691
ress on district and school 2 81 2.774 1 0.096
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1‘ 101 0.632 2 0.729
annually on progress on the 2 81 0.626 1 0.429
district’s goals a objectives
The board recognizes the need 1 101 0.344 2 0.842
to monitor, develop, and 2 81 2.014 2 0.365
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 100 1.295 2 0.523
and monitor district goals 2 81 3.765 2 0.152
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 101 0.182 2 0.913
available to the board and 2 79 3.932 2 0.140
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 101 2.006 2 0.367
technical assistance to 2 81 0.066 2 0.967
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K-12 curric- l 101 4.269 2 0.118
ulum with essential learning 2a 81 0.441 2 0.640
objectives is in place
District leaders establish awards 1 101 2.900 2 0.235
programs for staff and students 2 80 0.715 2 0.700
to recognize excellence
Staff awards are based 0n 1 100 0.068 2 0.967
contributions to improve 2 79 6.496 2 0.039*

student performance

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

aFifty percent or more of the cells have expected counts less than five.

141

compared to board members who did not consider themselves to have a
professional career.

Overall, considering the 36 factors related to effective
schools, career type (professional compared to nonprofessional) does
not appear to have a great effect on board members’ perceived
importance of the factors related to effective schools.

The data analysis was performed to test the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 18: The career type of members of the board of edu-

cation has a significant effect on their perceptions regarding

the actual practice/policy of factors related to effective

schools at Time 1 and Time 2.

The chi-square test of statistical significance was used to
determine the relationship or effect of the career type of members
of the boards of education on their perceptions regarding the actual
practice/policy of the factors related to effective schools at Time
1 and Time 2.

Table 4.30 shows the relationship of career type with
perceptions of members of the boards of education on the actual
practice/policy of factors related to effective schools at Time 1
and Time 2. The table shows that there is a statistically
significant relationship between career type (professionals or
nonprofessionals) and the actual practice/policy perceived by
members of the boards of education at Time 1 for the following

factors related to effective schoolsz. Students are taught in

heterogeneous groups for the most part (X2 - 7.990, p < .05);

142

Table 4.30.—-Relationship of career type with perceptions of the actual practice/
policy of factors related to effective schools between Time 1 and
Time 2 by members of the boards of education.

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value Level
Board expects principals l 100 1.969 2 0.374
to be instructional leaders 2 80 0.880 2 0.864
Board expects superintendent l 99 3.243 2 0.198
to be an instructional leader 2 81 0.835 2 0.659
Board expects teachers to take 1 98 5.271 2 0.072
leadership roles in instruction 2 84 0.062 2 0.970
Students are taught in hetero~ l 97 7.990 2 0.018*
geneous groups for the most part 2 83 2.279 2 0.320
School leaders emphasize l 99 4.243 2 0.120
opportunities to learn and 2 83 4.585 2 0.101
time on task
Specific time allocations l 98 9.996 2 0.007*
are made for subjects taught 2 81 0.782 2 0.676
Evaluation of new programs 1 95 3.341 2 0.188
is made according to impact 2 83 2.213 2 0.333
on learning time
Student pull-outs from regu- 1 97 1.210 2 0.546
1ar classes are minimized 2 83 0.043 2 0.979
The school’s written cur- l 98 0.566 2 0.754
riculum is aligned with 2 83 2.764 2 0.251
what the teacher teaches
A communication plan is
established to communicate l 99 0.322 2 0.851
with the internal school 2 84 0.890 2 0.641
organization as well as
with external publics
School and community part- 1 97 2.271 2 0.321
nerships can strengthen 2 83 2.261 2 0.323
curriculum
Parent involvement that l 99 0.326 2 0.850
supports the instructional 2 84 4.771 2 0.092
program is made clear
Staff provide parents 1 99 0.648 2 0.723
assistance with helping 2 85 0.008 2 0.996

their students learn

Table 4.30.--Continued.

1451

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value df Level
Student performance data are 1 99 3.075 2 0.215
collected, summarized, and 2 84 0.080 2 0.961
publicized
Test results are disaggre-
gated to insure equity in 1 97 5.918 2 0.052
opportunity to learn 8 par- 2 82 4.787 2 0.091
ticipate in the curriculum
Administrators must keep
teachers informed on effec- 1 99 5.066 2 0.079
tive practices based on 2 85 1.213 2 0.545
research
Teachers are expected to 1 98 0.536 2 0.765
use effective instructional 2 84 3.733 2 0.155
practices based on research
District supervisors monitor
implementation of instruc- 1 99 1.906 2 0.386
tional policies in the 2 83 0.253 2 0.881
schools
District supervisors provide 1 98 3.656 2 0.161
technical assistance in all 2 83 6.611 2 0.037*
areas of instruction
A material resource pool is 1 98 2.523 2 0.283
allocated for use for build- 2 76 2.109 2 0.348
ing level improvement
The school board places a 1 100 5.359 2 0.069
high priority on appearance 2 77 0.760 2 0.684
and maintenance of schools
A written code of student 1a 100 1.046 2 0.593
conduct is reviewed with 2a 81 1.987 2 0.370
students, parents, 8 staff
Out-of-school suspensions 8
expulsions are minimal; in- l 100 2.502 2 0.286
school suspensions are used 2 81 0.669 2 0.716
most often
District leaders and staff 1 98 2.770 2 0.250
believe that all students 2 81 3.040 2 0.219
can learn
The school board makes a formal l 99 1.626 2 0.444
commitment to school improvement 2 80 4.021 2 0.134

based on quality and equity

Table 4.30.--Continued.

144»

 

 

Chi-Square Signif.

Factor Time N Value Level
Establishment of a district plan 1 99 0.230 2 0.891
which focuses on school improve- 2 80 3.137 2 0.208
ment based on student performance
At least annually teachers are 1 99 2.826 2 0.243
supervised to help them improve 2 81 2.333 2 0.311
Principals are supervised by
the superintendent on prog- 1 100 0.544 2 0.762
ress on district and school 2 81 1.078 2 0.583
improvement plans
The superintendent is evalu-
ated by the school board 1 73 3.050 2 0.218
annually on progress on the 2a 56 0.351 2 0.839
district’s goals 8 objectives
The board recognizes the need 1 100 4.225 2 0.121
to monitor, develop, and 2 79 0.706 2 0.703
and review policy
The board recognizes its
responsibility to establish 1 99 7.588 2 0.023*
and monitor district goals 2 79 1.388 2 0.500
and objectives
Staff development is made 1 99 1.058 2 0.589
available to the board and 2 78 4.709 2 0.095
all who work in the district
Financial support is pro-
vided for resources and l 100 2.674 2 0.263
technical assistance to 2 79 0.245 2 0.885
implement school improvement
A clearly defined K-12 curric- l 99 0.645 2 0.724
ulum with essential learning 2 79 0.129 2 0.938
objectives is in place
District leaders establish awards 1 100 3.850 2 0.146
programs for staff and students 2 79 2.111 2 0.356
to recognize excellence
Staff awards are based on 1 99 2.067 2 0.356
contributions to improve 2 79 5.734 2 0.057

student performance

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

aFifty percent or more of the cells have expected counts less than five.

145

Specific time allocations are made for subjects taught (X2 - 9.996,
p < .05); and The board recognizes the need to establish and monitor
district goals and objectives (X2 - 7.588, p < .05). Considering
these factors, it appears that at Time 1 these factors were
perceived as practice/policy by board members who considered
themselves to have a professional career compared to board members
who did not. Similarly, there was a statistically significant
relationship for the factor District supervisors provide technical
assistance in all areas of instruction at Time 2 (X2 = 6.611, p <
.05). Board members who considered themselves professionals
perceived the practice/policy of this factor compared to board
members who were not in professional careers.

Overall, considering the 36 factors related to effective
schools, career type (professionals compared to nonprofessionals)
does not appear to have a great effect on board members’ perceptions
of the actual practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools.

Research ngstjon 8: Will members of the board of education

become more involved in and committed to school improvement as

the district plan for school improvement is developed and
implemented by the district?

Members of the boards of education and superintendents were
asked to rate their perceptions on the level of commitment that the
school board in their district had to school improvement. Tables
4.31 and 4.32 show the perceived level of commitment of the boards

of education as perceived by members of the boards and

superintendents at Time 1 and Time 2.

146

Table 4.31 shows the frequencies and percentages for the
perceived commitment of members of the boards of education to school
improvement at Time 1 and Time 2. The table shows that although
there was a drop in very strong commitment to the implementation of
school improvement in Time 2 as compared to Time 1 (from 65% to
60%), overall, combining strong and very strong, there was an

indication of increased commitment (91% rising to 93%) at Time 2.

Table 4.3l.--The level of commitment to school improvement perceived
by members of the boards of education between Time 1

 

 

and Time 2.
Time 1 Time 2

Commitment Level

Freq. % Freq. %
Very strong 98 65.56 75 60.0
Strong 38 25.17 41 32.8
Some commitment 14 9.27 9 7.2
No commitment 0 0 0 0

 

Table 4.32 shows frequencies and percentages for the level of
commitment of boards of education to school improvement at Time 1
and Time 2, as perceived by the superintendents of school districts.
The table shows similar results to those shown in Table 4.31 for
members of the boards of education. Although there was a drop in
very strong conlnitment (from 68% to 63%) from Time 1 to Time 2,
overall there was some indication of a slightly increased commitment

(rising from 92% to 93%) at Time 2.

147

Table 4.32.--The level of commitment to school improvement of members
of the boards of education as perceived by their super-
intendents between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Time 1 Time 2
Commitment Level
Freq. % Freq. %
Very strong 86 67.72 67 62.62
Strong 31 24.41 32 29.91
Some commitment 10 7.87 B 7.48
No commitment 0 0 0 0

 

Besgarch Question 9: What are the primary responsibilities of
the board of education in the development of policy?

Members of the boards of education were asked to rank (with 1
being the highest) the areas of policy responsibility they perceived
to be of high priority at Time 1 and Time 2. Similarly,
superintendents were asked to rank what they perceived to be the
primary policy responsibilities of their boards of education.

Table 4.33 shows means, standard deviations, and ranks of the
primary policy responsibilities as perceived by members of the
boards of education at Time 1 and Time 2. The table shows that
Budget and financial planning was ranked as number one (mean - 2.211
at Time 1 but as number two (mean = 2.252) at Time 2. Curriculum
and instructional management ranked number two (mean - 2.330) at

Time 1 but as number one (mean - 2.117) at Time 2.

Table 4.33.--Means, standard deviations, and ranks of areas of

148

policy responsibility as perceived by members of the
boards of education between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Time 1 Time 2
Area of Policy
Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank
Budget and financial
planning 2.211 1.290 1 2.252 1.164 2
Curriculum and instruc-
tional management 2.330 1.646 2 2.117 1.494 1
Personnel 3.548 1.399 3 3.909 1.418 4
Community relations 4.153 1.525 4 3.855 1.590 3
Physical and plant
planning 4.403 1.481 5 4.491 1.464 6
Communications 4.476 1.506 6 4.386 1.478 5

 

Table 4.34 shows means, standard deviations, and ranks for the

perceived responsibilities of areas of policy by superintendents for

the members of their boards of education at Time 1 and Time 2.

The

table shows that Curriculum and instruction was rated number 1

(mean - 1.957,

1.824) at both Time 1 and Time 2.

Budget and

financial planning was ranked number two (mean - 2.375,

at both Time 1 and Time 2.

2.471)

149

Table 4.34.--Means, standard deviations, and ranks of areas of
policy responsibility as perceived by superintendents
between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

Time 1 Time 2
Area of Policy

Mean S.D. Rank Mean S.D. Rank

 

Curriculum and instruc-

tional management 1.957 1.296 1 1.824 1.590 1
Budget and financial

planning 2.375 1.246 2 2.471 1.546 2
Community relations 3.542 1.532 3 3.647 1.366 3
Personnel 4.000 1.474 4 4.529 1.281 5
Physical and plant

planning 4.542 1.351 5 4.294 1.160 4
Communications 4.666 1.579 6 4.294 1.531 4

 

It appears that although members of the boards of education
considered budget to be a primary responsibility at Time 1, they
agreed with superintendents at Time 2 that the primary area of
policy responsibility is in the area of Curriculum and instructional
management.

earch stion 0: What are some of the factors that impede
board members’ involvement in school-improvement activities?

Members of the boards of education were asked to rank (1 being
the most difficult) areas that make involvement in school
improvement difficult for them as members of boards of education.

Board members were asked to respond at both Time 1 and Time 2.

150

Similarly, superintendents were asked to rank the perceived areas
that make the board’s involvement in school improvement difficult.
Table 4.35 shows frequencies, percentages, and ranks of those
areas that are perceived to make involvement in school improvement
difficult for members of the boards of education at Time 1 and Time
2. The table shows that Time needed, Financial support, and More
knowledge needed were ranked first, second, and third, respectively,
at both Time 1 and Time 2. The remaining areas were ranked
identically at both data-gathering times.
Table 4.35.--The areas that make involvement in school improvement

difficult for members of the boards of education as
perceived by board members between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Areas That Make Time 1 Time 2
Involvement
Difficult Rank Freq. % Rank Freq. %
Time needed 1 78 60.9 1 67 59.3
Financial support 2 47 36.7 2 51 45.1
More knowledge
needed 3 40 31.3 3 43 38.1
Other 4 34 26.6 4 27 23.9
Contract negotia—
tions 5 32 25.0 5 25 22.1
Community support 6 9 7.0 6 4 3.5

 

Table 4.36 shows frequencies, percentages, and ranks of the
areas perceived by superintendents to make it difficult for their

boards to be involved in school improvement at Time 1 and Time 2.

151

The table shows that Time needed and More knowledge needed were
ranked first and second, respectively, at both Time 1 and Time 2.

Financial support was ranked third at Time 1 and fourth at Time 2.

Table 4.36.--The areas that make involvement in school improvement
difficult for members of the boards of education as
perceived by superintendents between Time 1 and Time 2.

 

 

Areas That Make Time 1 Time 2
Involvement
Difficult Rank Freq. % Rank Freq. %
Time needed 1 18 72.0 1 17 89.5
More knowledge
needed 2 16 64.0 2 11 57.9
Financial support 3 15 60.0 4 7 36.8
Contract negotia-
tions 4 7 28.0 5 2 10.5
Community support 5 4 16.0 6 0 0
Other 6 3 12.0 3 10 52.6

 

Overall, board members and superintendents appear to agree that
the three areas that make involvement in school improvement
difficult are Time needed, Financial support, and More knowledge

needed.

n ‘ n nd A is f 1'
To enrich this descriptive study of the changes in the role of

members of boards of education as their school district becomes

152

involved in a school-improvement program, the following qualitative
data were gathered and are reported in this section: (8) responses
to open-ended questions on the mailed questionnaires sent to
superintendents and board members at Time 1 and Time 2, (b) minutes
of meetings of the boards of education of 22 of the 25 school
districts participating in the study for a year-long period, and (c)
telephone surveys conducted with ten superintendents and one member

of each of their boards of education.

Responses to Open-Ended Questions

The following is a summary of open-ended responses categorized
for each item from the superintendent and school board member
questionnaires distributed at Time 1 and Time 2 of the data
gathering (see Appendix A). It should be noted only about half the
number of participants responded to the open-ended questions at Time

2 as at Time 1.

Item 6--Superintendents Item 7--Board Members

"Indicate which best describes the schools in your district:
improving, remaining the same, declining. Why?" (Responses listed
by categories, in rank order and percentages given, to open-ended
'th?")

Superintpndents’ Rgsponss, Time 1 Board Members’ Response, Time 1

Commitment of school community School-improvement collabora-
and board of education to school tive planning with established
improvement (half of these mission and goals--Involvement
responses mentioned board com- of all who work in the schools
mitment) (39%) (33%)

School improvement linked to cur- Good teaching staff and admin-
riculum, instruction, achieve- istrators (half of the

ment, and staff development (33%) responses mentioned superin-
tendent) (27%)

School improvement collaborative

planning (i.e., developing mis-
sion goals) (28%)

Superintendents’ Response, Timg 2

Commitment of the school commu-
nity and board of education to
school improvement (32%)

School improvement linked to
curriculum, instruction,
achievement, and staff devel-
opment (32%)

School improvement collabo-
rative planning (development
of mission, goals, and plan)
(20%)

Commitment to school improve-
ment (half of the responses
mentioned the board’s commit-
ment) (18%)

Good curriculum and instruc-
tion (13%)

Other (9%)

Board Members’ Besponss, Ijme 2

Implementing school-improvement
plans (mission, goals, curricu-
lum, instruction, staff devel-
opment (38%)

Commitment of board of educa-
tion and school community
(administrators and staff) to
school improvement (20%)

More active involvement and
teamwork of board members,
administrators, and staff in
the schools (16%)

Good superintendent and admin-
istrative and teaching staff
(15%)

Other (11%)

At Time 2, the superintendents and board members appeared to

agree that their schools were described as improving because of the

commitment of the board of education and school community to school

improvement. At both Time 1 and Time 2, superintendents perceived

the importance of school improvement linked to curriculum and

instruction. At Time 2, board members’ perceptions on this issue

appeared to coincide with those of their superintendents.

154

Item 8: Superintendents and Board Members

"Indicate the level of commitment you believe your board of
education has to school improvement at this time. Explain briefly."
(Levels of commitment reported in Research Question 8, Tables 4.31

and 4.32.

The responses to "Explain briefly" are listed below, in

rank order, and percentages are given.)

Buperjntepdepts’ Response, Time 1

Commitment of the board shown

by time spent, policies reviewed
and developed, and through
financial support (including
support for staff development)
(83%)

Commitment--but lack of finan-
cial support (13%)

Other (4%)

Sgperintendents’ Response, Time 2

Commitment shown by written
policies, financial support,
and interest in school
improvement (99%)

Other (1%)

Bpere MempeLs’ Bespppse, ljme 1

Strong commitment shown by time
spent and support for practice/
policy for school improvement
(curriculum, staff, develop-
ment, financial support) (92%)

Some commitment but bound by
finances and/or resistant mem-
bers (8%)

Board Members’ Response, Time 2

Strong commitment by time
spent, along with policy and
financial support (including
support for staff development
and curriculum) (92%)

Some commitment but bound by

finances or with some caution
or disagreement among board.

(8%)

At both Time 1 and Time 2, superintendents and board members
perceived the board of education’s commitment overall as described
and evidenced by the time spent on discussions and matters related
to school improvement, such as support for practice/policy, staff
development, curriculum issues, and the finances needed. The board

members’ responses that perceived caution or resistance to

155

commitment or commitment without financial support remained the same

from Time 1 to Time 2.

Item 9: Superintendents and Board Members

"List any additional policies or administrative practices your
school district has that may support school improvement."
(Responses are listed below, in rank order, and percentages are
given.)

Spperjntendents’ Response, Time 1 Board Members’ Bespppse, Ijme 1

Practice referring to planning Practices/policies that refer

and commitment to school to curriculum and instruction,

improvement (58%) staff development, achieve-
ment, leadership, personnel

Practices/policies that refer (74%)

to curriculum and instruction

(25%) Policies regarding school-
improvement planning and eval-

Practice of teamwork and uation process (26%)

bottom-up practices emerging

(17%)

Spperjptendents’ Respppse, Time 2 r M mbers’ R s 0 Time 2

Written policy in these areas: Practices frequently mentioned

curriculum, at-risk students, that support more involvement

open enrollment, school of those who work in the schools

improvement, reports at board (i.e., better communication,

meetings, five-year plans (60%) morale, use of peer coaching, as
well as a supportive community

Practices mentioned: training involved in the schools) (38%)

for administrators, board

financial support, retreats Practices/policies frequently

with internal and external mentioned that relate to cur-

publics (40%) riculum development and review,
along with staff development
(38%)

Written policy to support
school improvement (24%)

Both superintendents and members of the boards of education

frequently mentioned more specific practices/policies that support

156

school improvement at Time 2 than at Time 1. It should also be
noted that the board members frequently mentioned involving the
community in the schools as a supportive practice at Time 1, and
practices were described that focused on improved conlnunication,

morale, and teamwork of those working in the schools.

Item 10: Superintendents
"What was the major reason you decided to become a school superin-

tendent?" (Responses are listed below, in rank order, and percent-
ages are given. Time 2 responses were similar.)

Superintendents’ Resppnses, Time 1

 

Wanted to have a positive impact on the students in the schools
(81%)

Wanted to work with school personnel and the community to improve
education (19%)
Item 10: Board Members

"What was the major reason you decided to run for a position on the
board of education? (Responses are listed below, in rank order, and
percentages are given. Time 2 responses were similar.)
oar Members’ R s on s Time 1
Wanted to serve the community (52%)
Wanted to improve education in the district (29%)
Wanted to improve board relations (10%)
Wanted to use their skills to be an effective board member (6%)
Wanted to influence the education of their own children (5%)

Overall, superintendents in this study appeared to have chosen
their position because they wanted to influence the education of

students in the school, whereas board members in general appeared to

become a board member out of a need to serve their communities.

157

Bingtes of the Board of Edgcation Meetipgs
Minutes from the board of education meetings of 22 of the 25

school districts were collected over a period of a year. The
researcher reviewed the minutes and noted specific descriptions of
defined areas relating to involvement in school improvement. (See
Chapter III, p. 58.) In the following paragraphs, these areas are
rank. ordered according to frequency of Imention; the number of
instances in which each was cited is given in parentheses after the
description. Most often mentioned areas related to school improve-
ment in minutes of the school board meetings were as follows:

1. General information and discussion on school improvement.
These board minutes described awareness information to the board,
usually including updates of the district on their developments on
school-improvement planning (30).

2. The next most frequent area to appear in the board minutes
was related to written policy adoption. Policies mentioned were
districts’ mission statements (5), actual policy for school
improvement (4), school-improvement plans (2), district goals (1), a
policy for curriculum and instruction (1), a policy for staff
involvement in decision making (1), and a policy on correlates of
effective schools (1).

3. Other topics mentioned were staff-development efforts to
support school improvement (5), personal evaluation of superintend-

ent aligned with progress on school improvement (1), and board of

158

education’s pledge of whole-hearted support for school improvement
(1).

Overall, there appeared to be a small amount of discussion on
school-improvement activities over the course of the year, compared
to data given in the questionnaires at Time 1 and Time 2, and the
phone surveys conducted after the same one-year period. Only 14 of
the 22 school districts had any discussion on being involved in a
school-improvement process in their board minutes during this one-
year period. Of these 14 school districts, one district had issues
relating to its involvement in the project at as many as nine board
meetings, while two school districts only reported on school-
improvement activities at one meeting. The two districts that
mentioned school improvement in seven and nine meetings,
respectively, had a special section in their agenda to report on
school-improvement progress. Board minutes earlier in the year
generally focused on general planning and awareness of school
improvement, whereas later minutes began to report implementation

practices and some policy development.

Telephpne Survey Responses

Three weeks before the second set of questionnaires was mailed
to superintendents and members of the board, a telephone survey was
conducted with ten superintendents and members of their respective
boards of education. Selection of school districts for the

telephone survey was based on school districts that appeared through

159

questionnaires and board minutes to be actively involved in school-
improvement efforts and that would also represent a good cross-
section of school districts involved in the study. The following
are the summarized findings reported in answer to some of the key
questions asked of superintendents and their board members. Only the
questions dealing with commitment, involvement of the board of
education, and change of policies and practices are discussed here.
Other questions did not focus specifically on school improvement
per 58. (See Appendix A for the telephone survey.) All responses

to these selected questions are summarized and reported below.

Item 3:

"How have you chosen to involve
your board in school improve-
ment?"

Superintendents’ Responses

Adopted mission, school-
improvement policy

Inservice awareness training,

policy for school improvement,
funds for school improvement,

adopted plan for district

Awareness session on school
improvement, including research
on effective schools. Asked
for financial support for
school improvement

Awareness sessions on school
improvement, brought Larry
Lezotte in; involvement in
long-range planning for
school improvement

”What ways have you been in-
volved in school improvement?"

Bpard Members’ Besponses

Setting goals, mission, board
policy on school improvement to
show commitment

Board supported involvement
100% at beginning--approved 1/2
day sessions to train staff

Adopted district mission state-
ment and goals-~before we
responded to crisis

Passed mission statement and
separate policy on school
improvement

Brought board along to make sure
staff realized their visible
commitment

Gave awareness session to board

Board serves on building school-
improvement teams; every board
meeting there is an update on
school improvement

Awareness sessions; Larry
Lezotte’s tapes; invited Bill
Blokker to inservice on mission
statements

Four sessions held to give board
information on school improve-
ment; Larry Lezotte met with the
board of education

Trying to keep board in a sup-

porting role rather than mandat-
ing; involved in mission, goals,
and policy on school improvement

Overall, it appears that board

Involved in district awareness
sessions; wrote district mis-
sion and goals; made presenta-
tion at MASB on district’s
involvement in school improve-
ment

Board approved staff involve-
ment in teacher effectiveness
training; approved a revised
mission statement and goals
presented by administrators
and teachers

Involvement in accepting mis-
sion statement; regular updates
at board meetings

Board looking at district mis-
sion; has been involved by
being given information at
board meetings

Making a commitment to get
involved; involved in formulat-
ing mission statement

Rewrote philosophy and mission
statement; redid policy book
spoke at staff inservice, and
voiced board’s commitment to
school improvement; brought the
education association into the
process; established council
for staff and curriculum devel-
opment

members had been involved in

school improvement by' experiencing awareness sessions on school

improvement and adopting district mission statements and other

policy to support school improvement, along with receiving updates

on school-improvement efforts in the district.

161

Item 4:
"How do you plan to involve the board in the future?"

Sgperjntendents’ Bespopses

Bring building plans to the board in June for approval; reports will
continue to be given to the board each spring

District goal setting

Approval of' mission statement, approve building plans, evaluate
school effectiveness based on outcomes, and approve a school-
improvement policy

A report will be given by each building each year (part of policy)
Want to have a retreat just to talk about instruction

Revisit the research on effective schools; get into policy—level
involvement to support school improvement

School improvement featured at each board meeting
Board will receive updates on building school-improvement plans
Add a board member to the district team for school improvement
Report to the board on school-improvement progress, both written and
verbal; invite board members to district inservices

Overall, it appeared that superintendents planned to involve
their‘ boards in school improvement by keeping them informed on
school-improvement efforts, along with presenting building plans to

the school board for approval once a year.

162

Item 5--Superintendents:
"Do you feel your board is
committed to school improve-
ment at this time?"

in en t ’ o 5
Yes
Totally committed

They have put money in it;
time will show commitment

Proven commitment by policy
adoption

Somewhat committed

Always have been committed
Most definitely

Yes

Yes

Committed by intent; want it
to happen right now

It appeared that, ir1 general,

Item 8--Board Members:
"How would you describe your
board of education’s commitment
to school improvement at this
r ’ e n
100% committed
Committed

Solid support of all
Commitment is 100%

Everyone committed except for
one

Very good

Very strongly committed

Very supportive and committed
It’s strong

Excellent commitment; know it

takes time

the superintendents surveyed

agreed with the members of the boards of education about the

perceived overall commitment to school improvement.

163

Item 9:

"Do you see changes occurring in your school district as a result of

your district team’s

involvement

in the Leadership for School

Improvement Project and, if so, what are they?

58W

Use of a more collaborative
approach in solving problems

Changes at the building level;
they have school mission and
are concentrating on student
achievement

People involved in working
together to find solutions

Curriculum revision

Starting to talk together within
and between buildings--a "well"
attitude; coming to common goals;
informs board; allows superin-
tendent in being instructional
leader

More communication with parents;
more collaboration and communi-
cation with administrators and
teachers and between teachers

A lot of enthusiasm at the
building level; they have sub-
mitted building plans; we
involved everyone in district
plan; awareness of needed
changes for the 21st century

MW

Change in attitudes and commu-
nication with teachers--teach-
ers are more positive

Change in attitude--enthusiasm;
all schools are working toward
a common goal

More teachers and administrators
working cooperatively; better
working relationships among
teachers and between buildings

Attitude of teachers; excite-
ment of students; more parent
involvement; better attitude of
board toward administrators and
teachers

Morale of teacher improved,
even veteran teachers

Made real progress in school/
community relations; added a

principal; board understands

school improvement

Changes in curriculum; looking
at and measuring how successful
we are; board looking at policy
and how it affects student
achievement; teachers more posi-
tive; community more positive;
students feel good about it and
are involved

164

Getting rid of tracking at the Brings people together-anew
high school; problem-solving, sense of togetherness
collaborative approach of

administrators and teachers

Developing a common language; There is still a ”wait and see"
teachers’ meetings are taking attitude from some teachers;

on a new form; disaggregating they seem to wonder if it will
test data; people feel good go away

about empowerment of teachers
and know we are committed;
more discussion on teaching
and learning

Gave us direction to do some- We feel so good this year; the
thing we wanted to do; it staff seems more cohesive and
gave us the help we needed unified; teachers are talking
to move ahead more to each other; more posi-

tive feedback from teachers;
awareness to look at curriculum
Overall, superintendents and members of the boards of education
appeared to perceive more involvement, collaboration, cooperation,
communication, and enthusiasm within members of the school
community. More parent involvement and improved community relations
were also mentioned by both superintendents and school board
members. Curriculum and achievement outcomes were becoming aligned
to school-improvement efforts. Teacher empowerment issues were also

noted.

Item 2:

”What priority does school improvement presently have with the board
of education in your school district?"

50W

. Five out of ten superintendents said number one priority.

. Three superintendents said very high priority.

. One superintendent said, aside from finances, number one.

. One superintendent said they may not see school improvement
as a separate process but part of their five-year plan.

165

Item 7:

"Do you feel the outline for developing your district plan for
school improvement has been helpful?"

Su r’nt e ’ 5 ns
. Nine out of ten superintendents said it had been helpful.
. One superintendent said the outline alone did not offer
enough help--he felt the workbook was needed.

Item 8:

"Would you suggest involvement in this project to another school
superintendent?"

Superintendents’ Responses

. All ten superintendents said yes (specifically, their answers
were: "Yes, definitely," "Absolutely," "Very definitely,"
"Oh, God, yes").

Overall, the telephone survey conducted with superintendents
and board members appeared to indicate the perceived involvement in
and commitment to school improvement, along with the perception that
changes had occurred as a result of the school district’s
involvement in the planning and implementation process of school
improvement.

In summary, superintendents and members of their boards of
education perceived a strong comitment to school improvement in
their open-ended responses on the mailed questionnaires at both Time
1 and Time 2. The results of the telephone surveys also confirmed
this perceived strong commitment to school improvement on the part
of the board, as perceived by the board members and superintendents.

This. commitment. was frequently' described as time spent on

166

discussions of school improvement, and support for practice and
policy in regard to curriculum, staff development, and finances.

Superintendents perceived a strong link between school
improvement aligned to curriculum, instruction, achievement, and
staff development at Time 1, but board members did not perceive this
as highly important until Time 2, as evidenced by open-ended
responses on the questionnaires.

Superintendents indicated in their open-ended responses on the
questionnaire that they were in the role of superintendent because
they wanted to have a positive impact on students in the schools,
whereas board members said they became a member of a school board
most often out of a sense of responsibility to serve the community.

School board minutes in general did not reveal evidence of
frequent discussion or board action on issues directly related to
their involvement in the Leadership for School Improvement Project.
Only about 70% of the districts sending in their board minutes ever
reported this type of discussion of board action. The two districts
that evidenced the most discussion and board action had a school-
improvement section built into their board agenda. Early in the
data-gathering period, the board minutes reflected mainly discussion
on awareness and planning issues related to school improvement.
Later in the data gathering, more specific practices and policies
related to school improvement were mentioned and supported (i.e.,
mission statements, goals, policies on school improvement,

curriculum, and personnel evaluation).

167

The telephone surveys reported specific changes as perceived by
ten superintendents and ten members of their boards of education.
The perceived changes in the school districts can be summarized as
increased involvement, collaboration, cooperation, and communication
of all who work in the schools. Improvement in staff morale was
mentioned frequently by both superintendents and board members,
along with increased community support reported by some members of

the boards of education.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

59mm

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe the ways
in which superintendents involved their boards of education in a
school-improvement process. The study also described the change in
the school boards’ role as policy and governing boards, as their
school district was involved in a school-improvement process.
Descriptions of changes in the superintendents’ and board members’
perceptions of importance, policies, and practices of
characteristics and factors related to effective schools from close
to the onset of the school districts’ involvement in school-
improvement efforts to about one year later were presented. Both
quantitative and qualitative data were reported in an attempt to
give both an objective and rich description of the research.

The Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP)
participant school districts that began their involvement in the
project in November 1987 were invited to participate in this study.
Initially, 30 of the 37 districts participating in the project
accepted the invitation. Out of the 30 districts that agreed to be
involved in the study, 25 school districts actually responded to the

first set of questionnaires sent in early April 1988 (an 83% return

168

169

rate). This first questionnaire was returned by 25 superintendents
and 128 members of their boards of education. The second
questionnaire, mailed about ten months later, was returned by 19 of
the original 25 superintendents and 111 members of the boards of
education of 20 of the original 25 districts that responded to the
first questionnaire.

The questionnaire was designed by the researcher and Lawrence
Lezotte, director of the National Center for Effective Schools
Research and Development. The instrument was also reviewed by Dr.
Brian Rowan, educational researcher and associate professor of
educational administration at Michigan State University before being
approved by the researcher’s doctoral committee.

The questionnaire was designed in three parts. The first
section was designed to measure the perceptions of importance and
presence of the seven characteristics of effective schools commonly
referred to Brookover and Lezotte (1977), Edmonds (1978), and
others. The second section was designed to measure the perception
of factors related to effective schools, which in major part were
described in Effective Bchool Polieies, a Research Synthesis,
published by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 'The third
section contained a series of questions that involved rankings or
open-ended responses. In this section, demographic data were also
collected. The questionnaire sent to superintendents and board
members varied only on a few questions included in section three.

Quantitative data were collected, and t-tests and chi-square

tests of statistical significance were used to determine differences

170

and relationships of perceptions of school board members and
superintendents on the importance and presence of characteristics
and the importance and practice/policy of factors related to
effective schools. The Pearson product-moment correlation and chi-
square tests of statistical significance were computed on combined
factors related to effective schools (combined factors listed in
Appendix C) for the perceived importance and practice/policy of
these combined factors by members of the boards of education with
board members’ career type, educational level, and length of time on
the school board. These statistical tests were computed on data
collected at Time 1 (April 1988) and at Time 2 (January 1989). The
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to analyze the data.

Qualitative data were collected by analysis of minutes of the
board of education meetings, responses to open-ended questions on
the mailed questionnaire, and telephone surveys done on ten selected
superintendents and one member of each of the superintendents’
boards of education.

The goals of the LSIP program are (a) to develop leadership
skills in individuals while assisting them as a collaborative team,
and (b) to develop and implement a district plan for school
improvement.

It should be noted that the superintendents who participated in
this study were involved in the LSIP training, whereas only a few
board members (fewer than five) experienced this training. Some

board members who participated in the study experienced some form of

171

awareness training, but only by way of what the superintendents
initiated for their particular boards of education.

This study was designed around the theory of adaptive behavior
described by Berman and McLaughlin (1979) as morphogenesis.
Morphogenesis refers to processes whereby systems change their basic
internal arrangements and develop new steady conditions. This
condition suggests a model of dynamic development of change. The
model requires that. a decision bet made that change is needed,
planning to arrive at improvement, and the implementation of the
plan, which requires commitment to the plan and a willingness to
develop and restructure in order to improve and change the current
steady state. This type of change calls for restructuring of policy
and practice at the district, school, and, most important, the
classroom level.

The school-improvement process that these districts are
involved in is considered an internal renewal model that supports
this dynamic development in a school or school district. It should
again be noted that a self-renewing school district has "the ability
to continuously sense and adapt itself to its external and internal
environment in such a manner as to strengthen itself and ultimately
fulfill its goal of providing education for children" (Miles 8 Lake,
1969, p. 82).

Whereas schools may have traditionally functioned as loosely
coupled systems, accumulating evidence has begun to suggest that
instructional effectiveness at the school and district levels may be

enhanced by strengthening the organizational coupling of goals and

172

outcomes in the areas of curriculum and instruction. The finding
held true in the 12 instructionally effective school districts
(IESD) studied by Murphy and Hallinger (1986), and a similar outcome
was reported in the ten-volume study of Dissemination Efforts
Supporting School Improvement (DESSI).

The Leadership for School Improvement Project model to which
the school districts involved in this study have been introduced has
been described as both a top-down and a bottom-up, inside-out model.
It suggests a tightening in the area of prescribed learner goals and
outcomes but a loosening in process to allow a "bubbling up" of
practices, strategies, and policies to help assure success for
students in regard to these goals and outcomes. The loosening of
process is meant to assist in the necessary dialogue and
collaboration of all who work in the schools to arrive at the
commitment and restructuring necessary for successful change.

In Chapter II of this study, it appeared clear in the review of
literature that school board members want and need to be involved in
school-improvement efforts aimed at restructuring and
institutionalizing change in the schools. The remainder of this
chapter provides a summary of the findings and conclusions regarding
the perceived changes in levels of importance of characteristics and
factors related to effective schools and perceived presence and
practice/policy of these characteristics and factors by board
members and their superintendents at Time 1 and Time 2.

Descriptions of commitment and identified changes in these

173

perceptions are presented with both quantitative and qualitative
data. Likenesses, differences, and comparisons between perceptions
of superintendents and board members are summarized, discussed, and
used to support the conclusions and recommendations.

Description of improvement or planned change in general and in
concert with the theory of morphogenesis takes time. The long-term

effects of change were not described in this study.

Findings and Conclusions
Research Question 1

Will members of the boards of education and superintendents
perceive characteristics affecting effective schools as
increasingly important as the district plan for school
improvement is developed and implemented?

BMW of findings. All the characteristics of effective
schools were perceived as either essential or very important by
board members and superintendents, and both ranked Climate of high
expectations to be of highest importance at Time 1 and Time 2.
Superintendents and board members differed in that board members
ranked Safe and orderly environment as essential and Instructional
leadership as lower or only very important at both Time 1 and Time
2, whereas superintendents ranked Instructional leadership as very
important at Time 1 but ranked it higher or essential at Time 2.
Safe and orderly environment, on the other hand, dropped from a
number 2 ranking to a number 5 ranking, rating it lower as very

important compared to essential at Time 1. The perceived importance

of characteristics of effective schools by superintendents or

174

members of the boards of education at Time 1 and Time 2 indicated no
significant increase in importance.

ncl i . It did not appear that involvement in a school-
improvement program influenced perceptions of superintendents or
members of"the» boards of education regarding the importance of
characteristics related to effective schools. They appeared to
perceive the importance before their involvement in this school-
improvement planning process.

Superintendents may perceive Instructional leadership as being
essential compared to board members because of their formal training
in educational leadership, continued involvement with professional-
development activities, and reading educational research and
articles published in professional journals, along with the fact
that one of the two major goals of LSIP is the improvement of
leadership skills in participants. Board members, on the other
hand, perceive Safe and orderly environment as essential. They
historically have been involved in areas such as the school’s
physical plant and/or issues of disciplinary policies and
procedures. Board members also reflect the conlnunities in which
they serve, and during the last decade, conlnunities in general
across the United States have been concerned with discipline in the

public schools.

175

W
Will the perceived presence of the characteristics of effective
schools by members of the boards of education and

superintendents increase in the schools as the district plan
for school improvement is developed and implemented?

MM. None of the seven characteristics of
effective schools were perceived by board members to be present in
all schools, at either Time 1 or Time 2. However, at Time 2, board
members perceived a Safe and orderly environment and Frequent
monitoring of student progress to be present in most but not all of
the schools. There was no significant difference in the perceived
presence of characteristics of effective schools between Time 1 and
Time 2 for either school board members or superintendents.

Qppclpsipns. Although the findings for Research Question 1
revealed that all characteristics of effective schools were
perceived as either essential or very important by both
superintendents and members of the boards of education, Research
Question 2 revealed that no characteristic was perceived to be
present in all of the schools. Even though school board members and
superintendents perceived Climate of high expectations to be of
highest importance, the characteristic was perceived to be present
in only some of the schools. It would appear that board members and
superintendents do not perceive that the basic belief by all who
work in the schools that "All children can learn“ is present and
practiced in all or most of the schools. Generally, the level of
importance of all characteristics of effective schools is not

matched by its presence in the schools.

176

There did not appear to be a statistically significant
difference between the perceived level of presence of
characteristics related to effective schools by superintendents and

members of the boards of education between Time 1 and Time 2.

Beseareh Question B

Will members of the boards of education and superintendents

perceive factors affecting effective schools as increasingly

important as the district plan for school improvement is
developed and implemented?

Summerv of findings. Of the 36 factors related to effective
schools, board members perceived the following factors to be
essential at both Time 1 and Time 2:

. District leaders and staff believe all students can learn.

. The superintendent is evaluated by the school board annually
on progress on the district goals and objectives.

. A written code of student conduct is reviewed with students,
parents, and staff.

. The school board makes a formal commitment to school improve-
ment based on quality and equity.

. Principals are supervised by the superintendent on progress
on district and school improvement plans.

. A clearly defined K-12 curriculum with essential learning
objectives is in place.

The factor that appeared to make the most change in importance
of policy according to the perceptions of superintendents between
Time 1 and Time 2 was the School board's conlnitment to school
improvement. This perception was supported by the reported
commitment of members of the boards of education on responses to the

questionnaires and in the 20 telephone surveys conducted with

177

superintendents and members of their boards of education toward the
end of this year-long study.

There were no statistically significant differences in the
importance of factors related to effective schools between Time 1
and Time 2 for both superintendents and members of the boards of
education.

Conclusjpns. Superintendents and school board members did not
appear to be significantly influenced to change their minds about
their perceived level of importance regarding the factors related to
effective schools during the course of ‘this study. Both
superintendents and board members perceived all the factors related

to effective schools as at least very important at Time 1.

Research Question 4

Will members of the boards of education and superintendents
perceive the presence of factors of effective schools to
increase in the schools as the district plan for school
improvement is planned and implemented?

S mmar f in in s. Board members ranked A written code of
student conduct that is reviewed with students, parents, and staff
as the number one written policy at both Time 1 and Time 2. Ranking
number two as policy both times was The superintendent is evaluated
by the school board annually on progress on district goals and
objectives. Establishment of a district plan which focuses on
school improvement based on student achievement was ranked eighth at
Time 1 but ranked third at Time 2 and was considered practice in

most of the schools.

178

Superintendents perceived A written code of student conduct is
reviewed with students, parents, and staff as actual policy at both
Time 1 and Time 2. At Time 2, superintendents perceived The board
expects the superintendent to be an instructional leader to be
actual policy, whereas board members only perceived it to be a
practice but not actual policy. Superintendents perceived 11
factors related to effective schools as practice but 14 of the
factors as practices at Time 2. The school board makes a formal
conlnitment to school improvement based on quality and equity was
perceived as uncertain by superintendents as practice/policy
initially but as actual written policy at Time 2. However, school
board members only perceived this factor as a practice but not
actual policy at Time 2.

Statistically significant differences in practice/policy of
factors related to effective schools as perceived by board members
were found between Time 1 and Time 2 for the following factors:

. School and community partnerships can strengthen curriculum
dropped from perceived policy to practice.

. At least annually teachers are supervised to help them
improve was seen as a weaker practice at Time 2.

. A written code of student conduct is reviewed with students,
parents, and staff was considered a stronger policy.

. Establishment of a district plan which focuses on school
improvement based on student achievement was considered a
stronger practice.

Statistically significant differences in perceptions of

practice/policy of factors related to effective schools between Time

1 and Time 2 by superintendents were revealed as follows:

179
. Board expects superintendent to be an instructional leader
moved from a practice to a policy.
. Evaluations of new programs are made according to impact on
learning moved from uncertainty about practice/policy to a
practice.

. A material resource pool is allocated for use for building-
1evel involvement moved from no practice to an actual policy.

. The school board makes a formal commitment to school improve-
ment based on quality and equity moved from a perceived
uncertainty about practice to perceived practice.

. Establishment of a district plan which focuses on school
improvement based on student performance moved from perceived
uncertainty as a policy to a perceived practice.

. Principals are supervised by the superintendent on progress
on district and school improvement plans moved to a perceived
stronger practice.

Overall, it did not appear that there was a statistically
significant difference between the perceived practice/policy of
factors related to effective schools by superintendents and board
members at Time 1 and Time 2.

Conclusions. Both superintendents and members of the boards of
education perceived A written code of student conduct to be a
written policy, and members of the boards of education perceived it
to be a significantly stronger written policy at Time 2. There
again seems to be evidence of the presence of policy in the area of
Safe and orderly environment, reflected in the perceived policy of
this factor. Areas of policy regarding Safe and orderly environment
are familiar and comfortable for superintendents but even more
familiar to board members historically. Interestingly, in the open-

ended questions that asked superintendents and board members to list

practices or policies that support school improvement, no examples

180

of Safe and orderly environment factors were mentioned. This might
suggest that although superintendents and school board members
perceive a safe and orderly environment in the schools to be
important, they may not directly see this as practice/policy that
relates to school improvement.

The' perceived perception by board members that there is a
significant difference that shows a decrease in practice regarding
Supervision of teachers to help them grow may reflect their
increased awareness that actual practices and policies did <n~ did
not exist at Time 2. It would appear that the districts’
involvement in LSIP influenced the significant difference in
perceived stronger practice of the Establishment of a district plan
for school improvement based on student achievement between Time 1
and Time 2. This also would appear to explain a similar significant
difference in perceived practice of this factor by superintendents.
The remaining factors that were found to be significantly different
from 'Time 1 to Time 2 by superintendents in the direction of
perceived stronger practice/policy may have resulted from the
superintendents’ direct involvement in training during LSIP, which
focused primarily on the improvement of leadership skills and the
development of a school-improvement plan. Concepts such as the
importance of student time on task and technical assistance in the
local district and schools were also stressed during training.

Overall, boards are beginning to see the importance of

developing a district plan for school improvement, and

181

superintendents perceive themselves as being more instructional

leaders, but board members do not appear to perceive this.

B£§§§££h_OQ§§LiQn_§

Does the presence of characteristics of effective schools

depend on their level of importance, as perceived by members of

the boards of education?

514er of findings. There was a statistically significant
relationship between the perceived importance and actual presence of
Safe and orderly environment and Frequent monitoring of student
progress at both Time 1 and Time 2. (It should, however, be noted
that 50% or more of the cells had expected counts of less than five
for Safe and orderly environment.)

Qpnclusjpns. As was mentioned in the conclusions on Research
Questions 1 and 4, the importance and presence of areas of Safe and
orderly environment have historically been in the realm of concern
and policy for the members of boards of education. The significant
relationship here may continue to evidence the strong support in
belief and policy for safe and orderly environments to exist in the
schools of the districts in which these board members reside. (The
strength of this conclusion should be regarded with caution because
of the high percentage of empty cells.) Boards have also
historically been involved with presentation of test data on student
achievement, as well as being involved in adopting policy on
testing, which could account for the high degree of relationship of

importance and presence of frequent monitoring and adjustment of

pupil progress.

182

r h es ' 6

Does the practice/policy of factors related to effective

schools depend on their level of importance, as perceived by

members of the boards of education?

Bun_1m_ary of findings. There was a statistically significant
relationship between practice/policy of most of the factors related
to effective schools and their perceived level of importance by
members of the boards of education at both Time 1 and Time 2. The
following factors did show change to having a significant relation-
ship between level of importance and practice/policy by board
members at Time 2:

. Board expects principals to be instructional leaders.

. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions are minimal; in-
school suspensions are used most often.

. The superintendent is evaluated by the school board annually
on progress on district goals and objectives.

. Financial support is provided for resources and technical
assistance to implement school improvement.

. The school board makes a formal commitment to school improve-
ment based on quality and equity.

Generally speaking, the essential and very important factors
are practice or written policy as perceived by members of the boards
of education, but the degree of importance does not equal their
practice. The level of practice is typically lower.

Was. There appears to be a significant relationship
between many of the factors related to effective schools because of
the perceived high level of importance of most of the factors

related to effective schools and the perception of practice/policy

183

of these factors. Even though there is a significant relationship
of the importance and practice/policy of these factors, the boards
appear to need to try to move from informal practice to actual
written policy to support these factors related to effective
schools. According to the high level of importance revealed in
findings under Research Questions 3 and 4 regarding the level of
importance and practice of factors related to effective schools,
there appears to be additional evidence that perception levels of
importance of factors related to effective schools do not match the

level of policy perceived by members of the boards of education.

Reseerch Questipn 7

Are the school board members’ perceptions of importance and
presence of characteristics of effective schools, along with
importance and practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools, influenced by the length of time as board members,
their educational level, or career type?

Length pf Time on the School Board:

Bumper)! of findings. Length of time on the board was
significantly related to the level of importance of the
characteristics of effective schools of Opportunity to learn and
student time on task at Time 1. Board members who had been on the
boards for a longer period of time (five years or more) perceived
this characteristic as essential. However, at Time 2, there was not
a significant relationship between length of time on the board and
the level of importance of characteristics of effective schools.

Overall, there appeared to be no significant relationship

between length of time on the school board and the perceived

184

presence of characteristics of effective schools. At Time 1, board
members who had served for less time perceived combined factors
under Climate of high expectations to be more important to schools
compared to members of the boards of education who had served for a
longer period of time. (See Appendix C for combined factors.) At
Time 2, there was no relationship between length of time on the
board and combined factors of Climate of high expectations. At Time
2, the combined factors of Home/school relations were perceived as
significant by members of the boards who had served longer compared
to board members who had served on the boards for less than five
years.

ncl ' ns. It appears that at Time 2, board members who had
been on the board for less than five years learned through their
districts’ involvement in training and planning for school
improvement, and their knowledge or perceptions of the importance of
Opportunity to learn and student time on task matched that of board
members who had been on the school board for a longer period of
time.

Board members who had been on the board for fewer years
perceived the greater importance of combined factors under Climate
of high expectations at Time 1 but at Time 2 did not perceive the
importance of this characteristic of effective schools to be any
greater than did members of the boards who had served for a longer
time. This might indicate that as board members become more

experienced they perceive more accurately what is really going on in

185

the district or at least perceive it more closely to the way board
members who have served for five years or more do.

At Time 2, board members who had served longer perceived the
combined factors relating to Home/school relations to be more
important than did board members who had served less time. This
might be explained by realizing that board members who have served
for a longer period of time may become more sensitive to the need of
parents and the community to be involved in the education of
students. Since the training and materials in LSIP reinforced the
need for good home/school relations, some of this information may
have been shared with board members, and those serving on the boards
for longer periods of time may have received information that
reinforced or strengthened their belief in the importance of parent
and community involvement in the schools.

ducational level f the Sc r :

ummar f ind' . Board members who had a college degree or
higher perceived a statistically significant relationship with the
importance of Instructional leadership at Time 2, compared to board
members with only a high school degree. There was a statistically
significant relationship between board members’ having a college
degree on the perceived presence of Instructional leadership at Time
1 but not at Time 2.

Board members who had at least a college degree compared to
those who were high school graduates perceived the following factors
related to effective schools as essential and most important at both

Time 1 and Time 2:

186

. A communication plan is established to communicate with
the internal school organization as well as with external
publ cs.

. Student performance data are collected, summarized, and
publicized.

. Skill development is made available to the board and all who
work in the district.

. A clearly defined K-12 curriculum with essential learner
objectives is in place.

The following factors were perceived to be highly important
factors of effective schools by members of the boards of education
who had a college degree or better at Time 1:

. Board expects teachers to take leadership roles in instruc-
tion.

. Parent involvement that supports the instructional program
is made clear.

. Teachers are expected to use effective instructional prac-
tices based on research.

. A written code of student conduct is reviewed with students,
parents, and staff. ‘

. At least annually teachers are supervised to help them
improve.

The following are factors related to effective schools that
were perceived important by board members with at least a college
degree or higher at Time 2:

. Specific time allocations are made for subjects taught.

. The school’s written curriculum is aligned with what the
teacher teaches.

. The school board makes a formal commitment to school improve-
ment.

. Financial support is provided for resources and technical
assistance to implement school improvement.

187

. District leaders establish awards programs for staff and
students to recognize excellence.

. Staff awards are based on student performance.

Board members with at least a college degree perceived more
practice/policy of the following factors related to effective
schools compared to board members with a high school education at
Time 2:

. Teachers are expected to use effective instructional prac-
tices based on research.

. Financial supported is provided for resources and technical
assistance to implement school improvement.

Level of education for board members did not appear to have an
overall significant relationship to the importance of characteris-
tics or combined factors related to effective schools or their
presence or practice/policy at either Time 1 or Time 2.

Cpnclusipns. It appears that school board members with at
least a college education perceived the importance of Instructional
leadership to be greater at Time 2. It might be that the board
members with higher education were more influenced by their
districts’ involvement in LSIP than were board members with less
education. It also appears that board members with at least a
college degree were more apt to believe that Instructional
leadership was present in the schools at Time 1 compared to board
members with only a high school degree. However, this relationship
was not significant at Time 2. Board members with less education
began to perceive the presence of Instructional leadership in

schools at Time 2.

188

School board members perceived factors related to
Communication, Curriculum development, Staff development, and
Monitoring student performance as highly important at both Time 1
and Time 2 compared to board members with less education. It
appears that the districts’ involvement in LSIP had no effect on the
perception of importance of these factors for board members with
college degrees (they knew they were important before LSIP) or for
board members with a high school education since they did not change
their perceptions of importance over time.

Board members with a high school degree appeared to change
their perceptions of importance of factors related to effective
schools to match more closely with members of the boards of
education with a college degree at Time 2 in regard to Teacher
leadership roles in instruction, Teachers’ use of research-based
instructional practices, A written code of student conduct, and The
annual supervision of teachers to help them improve. It appears
that these board members’ perceptions may have been influenced by
the importance of these factors during their school districts’
involvement in a school-improvement project.

Involvement in a district school-improvement project did not
appear to influence the perceptions of importance of Specific time
allocations made for subjects taught, The school's written
curriculum is aligned to what teachers teach, A board's formal
commitment to school improvement, Financial support for school

improvement, or Awards established to recognize staff and students

189

for excellence and student achievement. Members of the school
boards with high school degrees continued not to perceive these
factors as important at Time 2.

Similarly, the districts’ involvement in a school-improvement
project did not appear to influence perceptions of practice/policy
over time for Teachers use of effective instructional practices
based on research or Provision for financial support provided for
resources and technical assistance to implement school improvement
of board members with a high school degree. At Time 2, they still
did not perceive the level of' practice/policy of ‘these factors
compared to board members with at least a college education.

Overall, the educational level of members of the boards of
education does not appear to have a strong influence on the
perception of actual practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools. However, the higher the educational level, the more
significantly important are the factors related to effective schools
as compared to board members with less education.

Car er f M mbers of he ar 5:

Summery of findings. There was no apparent significant
relationship regarding the importance or presence of characteristics
of effective schools for board members who were considered profes-
sionals compared to board members who were not considered profes-
sionals. However, at Time 2, board members who were not
professionals did not perceive a high level of importance to the
factors Evaluation of new programs made according to the impact on

learning time, the School's written curriculum is aligned with what

190

is taught, and Staff awards are based on contributions to improve
student performance as did members who were professionals.

The board members who considered themselves to be professionals
perceived the following factors to be practice/policy at Time 1
compared to those board members who considered themselves to be
nonprofessionals:

. Students are taught in heterogeneous groups for the most
part.

. Specific time allocations are made for subjects taught.

. The board recognizes the need to establish and monitor dis-
trict goals and objectives.

Similarly, there was a statistically significant relationship
between the factor District supervisors provide technical assistance
in all areas of instruction and career type at Time 2.

Conclusions. It appeared that a school district’s involvement
in a school-improvement project did not change the perceptions of
board members who were not professionals in levels of importance of
factors of effective schools that were perceived to be important
at Time 2 by board members who were professionals. However, it
appears that there was a change in the factors considered to be
practice/policy by board members without professional careers at
Time 2, when compared to board members considered professionals.

Overall, considering the 36 factors related to effective
schools, career type (professionals compared to nonprofessionals)

did not appear to have a great effect on board members’ perception

191

on importance of factors related to effective schools or the

practice/policy of these factors.

W

Hill members of the board of education become more involved in
and committed to school improvement as the district plan for
school improvement is developed and implemented by the
district?
ummar f' ' 5. There was no general increase in the
level of commitment of members of the boards of education between
Time 1 and Time 2. 'This was confirmed through frequency measures
and percentages, along with data collected from telephone surveys,
which revealed that there was more than a 90% commitment at both

Time 1 and Time 2.

Reseerch Question 9

What are the primary responsibilities of the board of education
in the development of policy?

Bummerv of findings. The board members considered their
primary responsibility in the development of policy to be in the
area of Budget and financial planning at Time 1. At Time 2, board
members considered policy in the area of Curriculum and
instructional management to be their number one responsibility.

Superintendents considered their number one policy
responsibility to be in the area of Curriculum and instructional
management at both Time 1 and Time 2.

ncl i . The LSIP program stressed the importance of
policy to support curriculum and instruction. Superintendents

appeared to believe that policy to support curriculum and

192

instruction should be their number one responsibility all along.
School board members, on the other hand, appeared to come to believe
and perceive that their number one policy responsibility should be

in the area of curriculum and instruction at Time 1 and Time 2.

R ar u n 0

What are some of the factors that impede board members’
involvement in school-improvement activities?

mm r f i din s. The major factors that impede the boards’
involvement in school improvement were perceived by superintendents
and school board members to be first, Time needed and second,
Financial support. However, in the results of telephone surveys,
superintendents and school board members frequently described
commitment as time spent in school improvement and financial
support.

Qonclusipps. It could be interpreted that either the board and
superintendent do not fully understand the all-encompassing role of
importance school improvement has to the strength and life of the
school district or that we could use a cultural anthropologist’s
interpretation, which would tell us that the things we spend our
time on and the rituals and symbols that are used reveal what is
considered most important to the culture of the organization. This
may indicate that board members and superintendents do not value the
morphogenetic theory of dynamic development discussed earlier in
this chapter or realize the implications and changes that occur from

this development. Rather, they may perceive that things are going

193

all right. They may still have an "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it"
attitude--"We will do school improvement when we have the time."

The researcher believes that to some degree both of these
explanations could be valid. However, since such a strong perceived
conlnitment to school improvement was revealed by superintendents
about the boards’ commitment, along with the boards’ statements of
commitment, the first explanation appears to make the most sense.
The boards and superintendents do not totally realize or perceive
that time spent on school improvement is not an option to them if
they truly are committed to the teaching-for-learning mission of the

schools.

Overall Conelusions

1. Commitment to school improvement. Commitment to school
improvement appeared to have been received from the board of
education by the superintendent at Time 1, and this commitment
continued at Time 2. However, superintendents saw a need to make a
formal commitment in the form of a written policy at Time 2, but
board members, in general, only saw commitment to be a practice of
the board and not written policy. At Time 2, board members began to
see the relationship of the importance and practice/policy of
providing financial support to implement school improvement. The
school board members began also to see the relationship between
importance and practice/policy for their commitment to school

improvement based on quality and equity.

194

2. d r t . School board members increasingly
saw the need for a written policy of a district plan for school
improvement at Time 2.

3. Instruetjpual leadership. Superintendents began to per-
ceive themselves as instructional leaders, but school board members
did not appear to perceive this. School board members did begin to
see the relationship between importance and practice/policy for
principals to be instructional leaders.

4. ImpprtanceZpractice of factprs pf effeetive schools. Gen-

erally speaking, the perceived essential and very important factors

 

related to effective schools (see questionnaire, Appendix A, for
factors) did not equal their practice. As reported by
superintendents and board of education members, the level of
practice was typically lower.

5. Polity responsibility. Superintendents perceived their
number one responsibility in the area of policy to be curriculum and
instructional management, at both Time 1 and Time 2. School board
members, on the other hand, perceived their primary policy
responsibility in the area of budget and financial planning at Time
1. However, at Time 2, school board members agreed with
superintendents that their primary responsibility of policy was in
the area of curriculum and instructional management.

6. t r i hool r i v v . School board
members and superintendents perceived the factors that impede school
boards’ involvement in school improvement to be, first, time needed

and, second, financial support. By giving the factor of time needed

195

to explain what keeps the board from getting more involved in school
improvement, it appears to reveal that the superintendents and
members of the boards of education did not fully understand the all-
encompassing role of school improvement. They did not perceive that
time involved with school improvement is time spent on the very core
or heart of why schools exist, as institutions of teaching for
learning for all children.

7. ei nts’ n ard m r’ r n for er in .
The number one reason school board members decided to run for a
position on the board of education was to serve the community. The
number one reason why superintendents wanted to serve in that role
was to have a positive impact on the students in the schools.

8. Biseussjon pf sebpol improvement in ppard pf egueetipn min-
utes. General information and discussion on school improvement was
the category of responses most often described in nfinutes of the
boards of education. Overall, there appeared to be a small amount
of discussion on school-improvement activities over the course of
the year, compared to data collected on questionnaires and telephone
surveys. ‘The school district that mentioned school-improvement
involvement most often had a specific section in its agenda to
report on school improvement. Board minutes earlier in the year
generally focused on planning and awareness of school improvement,
whereas later minutes began to report implementation practices and

policy development.

196

9. r t t ’ v m thei em r .
Superintendents and school board members in the telephone surveys
mentioned involving their boards most often in development of a
mission statement and goals, awareness sessions on school
improvement for the board specifically, and school-improvement
updates at board meetings, along with being involved in district
staff-development opportunities and developing policy to support
school improvement.

10. e ’nt t ’ l s o v h ir hool oard in
the future. Superintendents, according to the telephone surveys,
plan to continue to involve the boards of education in school
improvement by bringing building-level plans to the board for
approval, updating the board members on school-improvement progress
at regularly scheduled board meetings, along with reviewing and
developing policy to support school improvement.

11. Qhenges pereeived sjpee djstrjet invplvement in school
improvement. Superintendents and members of the boards of
education, responding to the telephone survey, mentioned the
following changes that have occurred in their school districts since
their district teams became involved in the Leadership for School
Improvement Project: There was generally a positive change in
attitudes, communication, cooperation, and collaboration of all who
worked in the schools (administrators, teachers, staff, and
students). More specifically, there was mention of improved
communication and involvement of parents and the community with the

schools, a general perceived importance of curriculum, and specified

197

statements about getting rid of tracking, more discussions on
teaching and learning, feeling good about empowerment of teachers,

along with the improved morale of veteran teachers.

Recommendations
General Recommendatipps

l. Sc ' icts inter int n 1 w 1. School
districts that are interested in an internal renewal model that is
founded on the dynamic development of change and are interested in
the kind of change reported in this study should consider a process
of school improvement that is grounded in research, specific in
outcomes, collaborative in nature, and evaluated and monitored on an
ongoing basis.

The changes that support this dynamic development are school
boards’ perceptions of importance and practice of principals as
instructional leaders, that there should be financial and technical
assistance to support school improvement, and that school boards
should make a formal commitment to school improvement based on
quality and equity. There were also reports of changes by
superintendents and board members in improved attitudes of people
who work in the schools, along with an increase in collaboration,
cooperation, and communication between teachers and administrators.
An important and dynamic change was reported in the board members’
ranking of Budget and financial planning as their number one policy
responsibility at Time 1 but at Time 2 ranking Curriculum and

instruction as their highest policy responsibility.

198

2. i ne ed or h l r m . It appears that super-
intendents and school board members in this study and
superintendents and school board members in general who are
interested in becoming involved in school improvement need to come
to realize that school improvement is not something you do when and
if you have the time. When a true understanding of school
improvement. is developed by superintendents and members of the
boards of education, they will know it because they will no longer
see school improvement as an option. They need to come to perceive
school improvement as a never-ending process that is vital to the
teaching-for-learning mission of the schools. Strategies to arrive
at this understanding need to continue to be developed if
superintendents and school boand members are serious about school
improvement. Working on changing the beliefs of board members and
superintendents regarding time needed appears to be necessary since
both saw Time needed for school improvement to be the number one
factor that impedes the board’s involvement in school improvement.

3. mm ' n for ' nt. It is important to
plan ways to communicate with the school board, staff, and community
on school improvement. Suggestions by board members and
superintendents in the study included: a special item on the school
board agenda to report on school improvement, using a staff and
district newsletter' to share updates on school-improvement
activities with employees and the community, and having ongoing
comunication within and between schools, as well as with central

administration and the board of education.

199

Rec mmendation r r1 n nts

1. Setup! pparg members’ involvement in school improvement.
School superintendents suggested involving their boards early in the
school-improvement process. Getting their commitment before
beginning the process is recommended. Getting school board members
involved and committed to school improvement will help them
increasingly to understand the relationship of key factors that
assist school improvement as practice and/or written policy,
especially in the area of financial support for school improvement,
as indicated by the significant relationship between importance and
practice/policy by the boards for the Financial support for the
resources and technical assistance to implement school improvement
at Time 2. Also at Time 2, superintendents and board members
reported that the visible involvement of the board of education in
such school-improvement activities as staff development and
development of mission statements makes an impression on those who
work in the schools that school improvement is a priority.

2. n tr 0 i nal sh i 1 m rov n . Superin-
tendents in this study began to perceive themselves as instructional
leaders, but their board members did not perceive this.
Superintendents need to be specific about ways in which they affect
the instructional teaching-for-learning mission of the schools and
comunicate this to the school board if they wish to be viewed as
instructional leaders. At Time 2, board members did perceive the
relationship of the importance and practice/policy for the

principal’s role in instructional leadership in school improvement.

200

3. i i i n or me her t s 001

board. The findings in this study appear to indicate that school

 

board members do benefit from inservice and involvement in staff
development and that this involvement can lead to a change in
perceptions. These changes are specifically discussed under general
recommendations, h i t r d ' r ren l,
and appear to verify that board members’ perceptions of the
importance and practice/policy of factors related to effective
schools can change as the district continues to involve the school
board in school improvement. There was also a reported increase in
the relationship of importance and practice/policy of factors
related to effective schools for board members with a high school
degree at Time 2. At Time 1, several policy factors that showed a
significant relationship for board members with a college degree or
higher also showed a significant relationship by Time 2 for board
members with a high school degree, which could be in some part
regarded as change due to being informed about and involved in the
school-improvement effort. Superintendents should plan for these
growth experiences for the members of their boards if they want to
continue to influence their beliefs and move toward policy in the

school district based on these beliefs.

Recommend tion for 5 ho l 08 d r
l. mmitmen t m r vement n r . Commitment to
school improvement by the board of education is important in the

early stages of school—improvement planning as well as during

201

implementation. Commitment in this study was described as visible
and verbal support for school improvement, being willing to support
school-improvement efforts with financial support, and by being
willing to find time to be involved with all aspects of school
improvement, especially development of policy to support school—
improvement efforts.

2. Inservice for schpol bperd members is important. School

board members need to realize the importance of being involved in

 

ongoing inservice to continue to help them grow in their knowledge
so that they can support practice and develop policy that is needed
to support school-improvement efforts in the school district. As
mentioned before in recommendations to superintendents in regard to
inservice training for board members, there does appear to be
evidence that as school board members become more involved and gain
more information about the importance and practice/policy of factors
related to effective schools, some of their beliefs and perceptions
change in the direction of more support for these factors.

3. Schopl board members need to reelize superintendent’s role
as i u 'onal ad r. School board members need to realize the
importance of the role superintendents play as instructional
leaders, and this appears to need to be communicated to them by the
superintendents, since this study reported that school board members
during Time 1 and Time 2 did not view the superintendent as an
instructional leader.

4. v 10 m n 'strict r sch i r v ment is

'm or . School board members during the course of this study saw

202

the increasing need to develop a district plan for school
improvement. Other school board members who are interested in
school improvement should consider developing a district plan for

school improvement to assist them in this process.

5. h b r er b involved in h 01 i rov - -

memt. Superintendents in this study involved their boards of edu-
cation initially by including them in the development of a mission
_statement and goals, making available awareness sessions on school
improvement, and updating them on school improvement at board
meetings. Later they involved them in the development of policy to
support school—improvement efforts. These activities and others
should be welcomed by school board members in order to get their
schools involved by developing and implementing a district plan for

school improvement.

Recommendations for Future Btugy

This study described quantitative and qualitative data about
school districts’ involvement in a school-improvement process over
about a one-year period. More specifically, it described changes
that occurred in the role of school board members in these districts
during the course of the study. The findings and conclusions of
this study, although rich and valuable, do not report the long-term
effects of change. Descriptions of improvement or planned change,
in concert with the theory of morphogenesis, take time. Therefore,
it is reconlnended that a follow-up study be done with the school

districts that participated in this study to measure the continual

203

changes that may occur after the district plan for school

improvement has been implemented for two or three years.

More

Today, more than any other time, we need to look to our schools
to prepare our students for a world of change. The skills of basic
knowledge will remain important, but only as tools or means to an
end--but an end that will not remain constant for very long. What
our schools need to do to prepare our children for the twenty-first
century is to teach them how to think. They must learn to question,
problem solve, analyze, and evaluate the technological world in
which they live. They must also learn to do this in cooperation and
collaboration with others. They must learn to work together with
people of’ different races, socioeconomic levels, languages, and
cultures.

Life for our children tomorrow will become more and more unlike
the lives of their parents and especially their grandparents. Yet
the schools of today are not much different for our children than
they were for us.

On May 2, 1989, ABC television network aired a program titled
"Teaching Our Children to Think.” From their research they were
able to come up with three barriers that keep us from teaching our
children to think: (a) rote learning, (b) labeling, and (c)
tracking. These practices are descriptions of what we thought were
the best ways to educate our children in the past. Unfortunately,

even though it may be argued in retrospect as to whether these

204

strategies ever truly lead to equitable and quality education, it is
becoming more and more obvious that these strategies will not
prepare all students to be able to play a viable role in their
conlnunity and in the world of the future. He must change our
paradigm of student achievement fitting on a bell-shaped curve,
where many students are not expected to master skills. We must
instead conceptualize student performance on a J-curve, which is
built on the premise of expectation of possible mastery for all
students. Actually, schools are presently falling short in
preparing students for the technological informational work world of
today.

What can we do to paint a brighter future? We must all work
together to change the ways we do business in the schools. This
study indicates a strong need to collaboratively include all who
work in the schools in this change process, especially focusing on
the need to involve the members of the board of education. If we do
not change, we will continue to get what we are getting now--more
dropouts, more unemployment, and more crime and drug abuse.

However, schools and school boards alone cannot solve the
problem of restructuring. It takes the active involvement of the
whole conlnunity, including parents, businesses, religious groups,
and others. School districts that are serious about changing the
way they do business and that want to renew or begin to focus on a
teaching-for-learning mission for all can use a school-improvement

process such as the one described in this study. This first step of

205

commitment to improve schools and classrooms will help all students
gain the skills to succeed in the next century. Change is
difficult, particularly in the schools where people traditionally
have worked in isolated classrooms that many times have only been
connected by a common parking lot.

Improving our schools is no longer an option but a necessity.
Having the vision that all children can learn and think can help
direct us, but we must be prepared to sustain the rough road ahead
in trying to cooperatively and collaboratively make change happen in
our schools. In the end, it will really be a triumph of political
will, as said best by the late Ron Edmunds (1978):

We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all

children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know

more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must
finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so

far. (p. 35)

If schools are to become learning organizations, school
leaders, including school board members, administrators, and
teachers, will have to show the way. Schools are in need of
substantial revitalization as well as reorganization. As school
leaders, we can take the leadership challenge and arrive at

meaningful change in-our schools. In the end, school improvement is

really a triumph of political will, leadership, and empowerment.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MAILED QUESTIONNAIRES AND TELEPHONE SURVEYS

206

NATIONAL CENTER for EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS
RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT

2199 Jolly Rd., Ste. #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517)349-8841

 

 

Date TO BE COMPLETED BY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS

You are being asked to respond to the following characteristics that may be a part of a school or schools in your
school district. We are asking you to rate each eIement in two ways:

-I-IOW IMPORTANT 18 EACH CHARACTERIan To AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL?
Importance ratings should be assigned as follows:

Essential (E) s 4

Very Important (VI) - 3
Somewhat Inportant(SI) - 2
Not Important (NI) - 1

Please circle the appropriate number in the left-hand column that corresponds to your
Importance rating.

-ARE THESE CHARACTERISTICS PRESENT IN THE SCHOOLS IN YOUR DISTRICT?
The actual presence of characteristics should be assigned a rating as follows:

All Schools (AS) - 4

Most Schools (MS) - 3
Some Schools (SS) - 2
None of the Schools (NS) - 1

Please circle the appropriate number in the right-hand column that corresponds to the
presence of the characteristic.

IMPORTANCE ACTUAL PRESENCE
E VI SI NI CHARACTERISTICS AS MS SS NS
4 3 2 i SAFE AND ORDERLY BiNlRONMENT 4 3 2 1

There is an orderly. purposeful businesslike atmosphere which
is free from threat of physical harm. The school cimate is pleasant
and is conducive to teaching and Ieaming.

4 3 2 1 CUMATE OF HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR SUCCESS 4 3 2 1
There is a climate of expectation in which the staff believes and
demonstrates that all students can attain mastery of the essential
school skiIIs and they believe that they have the capability to help
all students attain mastery.

4 3 2 1 CLEAR AND FOCUSED MISSION 4 3 2 1
There is a ciearIy articulated school mission through which the
staff shares an understanding of. and a commitment to. the
Instructional goals. priorities. assessment procedures. and
accountability. The staff accepts responsibility for students'
Ieaming of the school‘s essential auricular goals.

4 3 2 1 INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP 4 3 2 1
The principal acts as an instmctional leader and effectively and
continually communicates the schoors mission to staff. parents.
and students. The principal understands and applies the charac-
teristics of instnictionai effectiveness in the management of the
instructional program. '

207

Essential (E) . 4 All Schools (AS) . 4
Very Important (VI) - 3 Most Schools (MS) - 3
Somewhat Important (SI) - 2 Some Schools (SS) - 2
Not Important (NI) - 1 None of the Schools (NS) - 1
IMPORTANCE ACTUAL PRESENCE

E VI SI NI CHARACTERISTICS AS MS SS NS

4 3 2 1 FREQUENT MONITORINGOFSTUDENT PROGRESS 4 3 2 1

Student academic progress is measured frequently. A variety

of the assessment procedures are used. The results of the
assessments are used to improve individual student performance
and also inprove the instructional program.

4 3 2 1 OPPORTUNITYTOLEARNANDSTUDENTTIMEONTASK 4 3 2 1

Teachers allocate the majority of time in the classroom to instmction

of the essential skills. For a high percentage of this time. students are
engaged in whole class or large group planned. teacher directed. Ieaming
activities.

4 3 2 1 HOME-SCHOOL RELATIONS 4 3 2 1

Parents understand and support the school's basic nission and are
given the opportunity to play an important role in helping the school
to achieve this mission

The following factors may contribute to the development of effective schools. We are asking you to rate each
factor in two ways:

-HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO HAVE POLICIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES
REGARDING EACH OF THESE FACTORS?

Essential (E) - 4

Very Important (VI) . 3
Somewhatlrrportantml) - 2
Not lmportanttNt) . 1

Please circle the appropriate number In the left-hand column that corresponds to your
Importance ratlng.

-DOES YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT PRESENTLY HAVE A POUCY OR ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE THAT SUPPORTS OR MANDATES THIS FACTOR?
Rate the level of policy development as follows:

Written PoricynNP) - 4

Practice/Not Written Policy (PNWP) - 3
Uncertain (Ll) - 2

No Practice/No Policy (NPNP) - 1

Please circle the appropriate number in the right-hand column that corresponds to your
actual practlce ratlng

IMPORTANCE ACTUAL PRACTICE
E VI SI NI FACTORS ‘ WP PNWP U NPNP
4 3 2 1 The Board expects that principals will be heavily involved as 4 3 2 1

instructional leaders in their buildings.

4 3 2 1 The Board expects that the superintendent willbeaninstructional 4 3 2 1

leader in the school district.

208

ESSCITIIaI (E) I 4 Written POM (WP) I 4
Very lrnponant (VI) - 3 Practice/Not Written Policy (PNWP) . 3
Somewhat lmportant(SI) . 2 Uncertain (U) - 2
Not Important (NI) . 1 No Practice/No Policy (NPNP) . 1
IMPORTANCE ACTUAL PRATTCE
E VI SI NI FACTORS WPPNWPUNPNP
4 3 2 1 The Board expects that teachers will take leadership roles in the 4 3 2 1
instructional process.
4 3 2 1 In required subject. courses. or grade. students are placed in 4 3 2 1
heterogeneous groups (all ability levels are in the same group)
for the most part.
4 3 2 1 School leaders emphasize to everyone the need to maximize 4 3 2 1

opporturities to learn and time on task.

4 3 2 1 Specific time allocations to subjects taught are estabished for 4 3 2 1
staff at all levels and in all subjects.

4 3 2 1 Prior to adoption of new programs or procedures. evaluation is made 4 3 2 1
according to impact on learning time.

4 3 2 1 Student pull outs from regular classes are minimized for academic 4 3 2 1
and nonacademic purposes.

4 3 2 1 The school system's curriculum is reviewed to deterrrine whether 4 3 2 1
the objectives for subject matter and skills. textbooks. and tests are
consistent with what the teacher teaches.

4 3 2 1 A comnunication plan is established to effectively communicate with 4 3 2 1
the Internal school organization as well as with external publics.

4 3 2 1 A school district needs to form partnerships with the various pubic: 4 3 2 1
within their communities to strengthen school curriculum.

4 3 2 1 Procedures and options for parent Involvement that especially support 4 3 2 1
the Instructional program are made clear.

4 3 2 1 Staff members provide parents with information and techniques for 4 3 2 1
helping students learn (handbooks. training).

4 3 2 1 lrrlonnation about student performance is collected. summarized. and 4 3 2 1
publicized at the district level ermhasizing progress on district goals
and areas for irrprovement. ,

4 3 2 1 Test results are disaggregated (broken-out) to insure equity in 4 3 2 1
opportunity to learn and participate in the curriculum for both sexes
and all races and economic levels.

4 3 2 1 Administrators have the responsibility to keep teachers informed 4 3 2 1
on effective instructional practices based on research.

4 3 2 1 Teachers are expected to include effective instnrction practices ' 4 3 2 1
in the classroom. based on research.

4 3 2 1 District supervisors monitor implementation of instmctional policies 4 3 2 1
and procedures in individual schools.

4 3 2 1 District supervisors provide technical feedback and channel support 4 3 2 1
service to give additional assistance in all areas of instmction.

209

Essential (E) - 4 Written Policy (WP) . 4
Very Important (VI) - 3 Practice/Not Written Policy (PNWP) . 3
Somewhat Important (SI) - 2 Uncertain (U) . 2
Not Important (NI) - 1 No Practice/No Policy (NPNP) - 1
IMPORTANCE ‘ ACTUAL PRACTICE
E VI SI NI FACTORS WPPNWPUNPNP
4 3 2 1 Amaterial resource pool is allocated forusein building level improve- 4 3 2 1
ment projects.
4 3 2 1 The school board places ahlgh priority on the general appearance 4 3 2 1

and maintenance of school buildings.

4 3 2 1 A written code of conduct specifying acceptable student behavior. 4 3 2 1
discipline procedures. and consequence is communicated to .and
reviewed with. students. parents. and staff.

4 3 2 1 Out-oI-school suspensions or expulsions are ninimal: ln-school 4 3 2 1
suspensions are used in most cases.

4 3 2 1 District leaders and staff believe that all students can learn. 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 The school board makes a formal cormtitment of the board. admini- 4 3 2 1
strators. and staff to ongoing school inprovement based on quality
and equity.

4 3 2 1 Establishment of a district school improvement plan which includes 4 3 2 1
a mission statement. goals. and objectives which focus on student
pertorrnance.

4 3 2 1 At least annually. supervision and evaluation procedures are written 4 3 2 1

for each teacher to help them grow professionally.

4 3 2 1 Principals are supervised and evaluated by the superintendent at least 4 3 2 1
annually to monitor progress on the district's and school’s plans. goals.
and objectives.

4 3 2 1 The superintendent is evaluated bythe school board annually to monitor 4 3 2 1
progress on the district‘s plans. goals. and objectives.

4 3 2 1 The board recognizes the need to mom'tor its own accountability In 4 3 2 1
reviewing. developing. implementing. and monitoring policy.

4 3 2 1 The board recognizes the need to monitor Its own accountability by 4 3 2 1
establishing a procedure to monitor Its progress in meeting the district
goals and objectives.

4 3 2 1 Staff development opportunities are made available forthe board. 4 3 2 1
adninistrators. and staff that fit with district and school goals.

4 3 2 1 Financial support at the district level is provided for resources and 4 3 2 1
and technical assistance to implement programs and teaching
strategies for school improvement.

4 3 2 1 A clearly defined system-wide K-12 curriculum that includes grade by 4 3 2 1
grade. subject by subject essential Ieaming objectives is in place.

4 3 2 1 District leaders establish award programs for schools. administrators. 4 3 2 1
teachers. and students to recognize excellence.

4 3 2 1 Staff awards are based on contributions to improving student perfor- 4 3 2 1
mance rather than comparison to peers.

210

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

How long have you been a superintendent in this school district?

 

What is your level of education?

Master's Degree Masters + Other
Educational Sepcialist Degree Doctorate Degree

Which area do you consider to be the primary responsibility of the board of education in the develop-
ment of policy? Please prioritize the following (1 through 6 OR 1 through 7):

community relations

curriculum and instmctional management
physical and plant planning

budget and financial planning

personnel

communications

other

prep???

 

Indicate any of the areas of school improvement isted below that you have been or are presently
involved in developing:

District mission statement District goals and objectives
Establishment of a 3 to 5 year district plan District communication plan
Evaluation and monitoring of district mission Other

Indicate any areas that make involvement in school Improvement difficult for members of the school
board of your district:

a. time needed e. contract negotiations

b. financial support f. comrmnity support problems
c. more knowledge needed

d. other

 

lndcate which best describes the schools in your district:
a. improving

b. remaining the same

c. declining

Why?

Indicate which of the following describe your district (Circle one in each column):

Imummmmmz Mmmfiflfl EMMMMw:
a rural a. poor (below $15,000) a. primarily white
b. suburban b. middle class (515,000-335,000) b. primarly other than white

c. urban c. upper middle class (above $35,000)

ZII

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

8. Indicate the level of commitment you believe your board of education has to school improvement
at this time:
a. very strong
b. strong
c. some commitment
d. no commitment

Explain Briefly

9. List any additional policies or adm‘nistrative practices your school district has that may support school
improvement.

10. What was the major reason you decided to become a School Superintendent?

212

NATIONAL CENTER for EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS
RESEARCH end DEVELOPMENT

2199 JoIIy Rd., Ste. #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517)349-8841

 

Date TO BE COMPLETED BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

You are being asked to respond to the following characteristics that may be a part of a scth or schools in your
school district. We are asking you to rate each element in two ways:

-HOW IMPORTANT IS EACH CHARACTERIST'IC TO AN EFFECTTVE SCHOOL?
Importance ratings should be assigned as follows:

Essential (E) - 4

Very Important (VI) - 3
Somewhat Important (SI) - 2
Not Important (NI) - 1

Please circle the appropriate number in the left-hand column that corresponds to your
Importance rating.

-ARE THESE CHARACTERISTICS PRESENT IN THE SCHOOLS IN YOUR DISTRICT?
The actual presence of characteristics should be assigned a rating as follows:

All Schools (AS) - 4

Most Schools (MS) - 3
Some Schools (SS) - 2
None of the Schools (NS) - 1

Please circle the appropriate number in the right-hand column that corresponds to the
presence of the characterlstlc.

IMPORTANCE ACTUAL PRESENCE
E VI SI NI CHARACTERISTICS AS MS SS NS
4 3 2 1 SAFEAND ORDERLY ENVIRONMENT 4 3 2 1

There is an orderly. purposeful businesslike atmosphere which
is free from threat of physical harm. The school climate is pleasant
and is conducive to teaching and Ieaming.

4 3 2 1 CLIMATE OF HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR SUCCESS 4 3 2 1
There is a climate of expectation in which the staff believes and .
demonstrates that all students can attain mastery of the essential
school skills and they believe that they have the capability to help
all students attain mastery.

4 3 2 1 CLEAR AND FOCUSED MISSION 4 3 2 1
There is a clearly articulated school m'ssion through which the
staff shares an understanding of. and a comm‘tment to. the
instructional goals. priorities. assessment procedures. and
accountability. The staff accepts responsibility for students“
Ieaming of the school‘s essential curricular goals.

4 3 2 1 INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP 4 3 2 1
The principal acts as an instnictional leader and effectively and
continually communicates the school’s mission to staff. parents.
and students. The principal understands and applies the charac-
teristics of instructional effectiveness in the management of the
instructional program.

213

Essential (E) . 4 All Schools (AS) . 4
Very Important (VI) - 3 MostSchooIs(MS) . 3
Somewhat Important (SI) . 2 Some Schools (SS) - 2
Not Important (NI) . 1 None of the Schools (NS) - 1
IMPORTANCE . ACTUAL PRESENCE

E VI SI NI CHARACTERISTICS AS MS SS NS

4 3 2 1 FREQUENT MONITORING OF STUDENT PROGRESS ' 4 a 2 1

Student academic progress is measured frequently. A variety

of the assessment procedures are used. The results of the
assessments are used to improve individual student performance
and also improve the instructional program.

4 3 2 1 OPPORTUNITYTOLEARNANDSTUDENTTIMEONTASK 4 3 2 1

Teachers allocate the majority of time in the classroom to instruction

of the essential skills. For a high percentage of this time. students are
engaged in whole class or large group planned. teacher directed. learning
activities.

4 3 2 1 HOME-SCHOOL RELATIONS 4 3 2 1

Parents understand and support the school's basic mission and are
given the opportunity to play an important role in helping the school
to achieve this mission

The following factors may contribute to the development of effective schools. We are asking you to rate each
factor in two ways:

-HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO HAVE POLICIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES
REGARDING EACH OF THESE FACTORS?

Essential (E) - 4

Very lmportant(Vl) - 3
Somewhat Important (NI) - 2
Not Important (NI) - 1

Please circle the appropriate number in the left-hand column that corresponds to your
Importance rating.

-DOES YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT PRESENTLY HAVE A POUCY OR ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTTCE THAT SUPPORTS OR MANDATES THIS FACTOR?
Rate the level of policy development as follows:

Written Policy (WP) - 4

Practice/Not Written Policy (PNWP) - 3
Uncertain (U) - 2

No Practice/No Policy (NPNP) . 1

Please circle the appropriate number in the right-hand column that corresponds to your
actual practlce rating

IMPORTANCE ACTUAL PRACTICE
E VI SI NI FACTORS . WPPNWPUNPNP
4 3 2 1 The Board expects that principals willbeheavily involved as 4 3 2 1

instructional leaders in their buildings.

4 3 2 1 The Board expects that the superintendent will be an instructional 4 3 2 1

leader in the school district.

214

Essential (E) I 4 Written POIICY (WP) I 4
Very ln'portant (VI) - 3 Practice/Not Written Policy (PNWP) - 3
Somewhat Important (SI) - 2 Uncertain (U) - 2
Not Important (NI) . 1 NoPractice/No Policy (NPNP) - 1
IMPORTANCE ' ACTUAL PRAT'ICE
E VI SI NI FACTORS WPPNWPUNPNP
4 3 2 1 The Board expects that teachers will take leadership roles in the 4 3 2 1
instructional process.
4 3 2 1 In required subject. courses. or grade. students are placed in 4 3 2 1
heterogeneous groups (all ability levels are in the same group)
for the most part.
4 3 2 1 School leaders emphasize to everyone the needto maximize 4 3 2 1

opportunities to learn and time on task.

4 3 2 1 Specific time allocations to subjects taught are estabished for 4 3 2 1
staff at all levels and in all subjects.

4 3 2 1 Prior to adoption of new programs or procedures. evaluation Is made 4 3 2 1
according to impact on leaning time.

4 3 2 1 Student pull outs from regular classes are minimized for academic 4 3 2 1
and nonacademic purposes.

4 3 2 1 The school system's curriculum is reviewed to detenrine whether 4 3 2 1
the objectives for subject matter and skills. textbooks. and tests are
consistent with what the teacher teaches.

4 3 2 1 A communication plan is established to effectively communicate with 4 3 2 1
the Internal school organization as well as with external publics.

4 3 2 1 A school district needs to forrn partnerships with the various publics 4 3 2 1
within their communities to strengthen school curriculum.

4 3 2 1 Procedures and options for parent involvement that especially support 4 3 2 1
the instnictional program are made clear.

4 3 2 1 Staff members provide parents with Infonnatlonandtechniques for 4 3 2 1
helping students Ieam (handbooks. training).

4 3 2 1 Information about student performance is collected. summarized. and 4 3 2 1
publicized at the district level emphasizing progress on district goals
and areas for Improvement.

4 3 2 1 Test results are disaggregated (broken-out) to insure equity in 4 3 2 1
opportunity to Ieam and participate in the curriculum for both sexes
and all races and economic levels.

4 3 2 1 Administrators have the responsibifity to keep teachers informed 4 3 2 1
on effective instructional practices based on research.

4 3 2 1 Teachers are expected to include effective instmction practices ' 4 3 2 1
in the classroom, based on research.

4 3 2 1 District supervisors monitor implementation of instntctional policies 4 3 2 1
and procedures in individual schools.

4 3 2 1 District supervisors provide technical feedback and channel support 4 3 2 1
service to give additional assistance in all areas of instruction.

215

Essential (E) - 4 Written Poficy (WP) . 4
Very Important (VI) - 3 Practice/Not Written Policy (PNWP) . 3
Somewhat Important (SI) - 2 Uncertain (U) - 2
Not lnportant (NI) - 1 No Practice/No Policy (NPNP) - 1
IMPORTANCE ACTUAL PRACTICE
E VI SI NI FACTORS WPPNWPU NPNP
4 3 2 1 Amaterial resource poolisallocated for use in building level improve- ' 4 a 2 1
ment projects.
4 3 2 1 The school board placesahigh priority on the general appearance 4 3 2 1

and maintenance of school buildings.

4 3 2 1 A written code of conduct specifying acceptable student behavior. 4 3 2 1
discipline procedures. and consequence is communicated to .and
reviewed with. students. parents. and staff.

4 3 2 1 Out-of-school suspensions or expulsions are minimal; in-school 4 3 2 1
suspensions are used in most cases.

4 3 2 1 District leaders and staff believe that all students can learn. 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 The school board makes a formal commitment of the board. admini- 4 3 2 1
strators. and staff to ongoing school improvement based on quality
and equity.

4 3 2 1 Estabfishment of a district school improvement plan which includes 4 3 2 1
a mission statement. goals. and objectives which focus on student
performance.

4 3 2 1 At least annually. supervision and evaluation procedures are written 4 3 2 1

for each teacher to help them grow professionally.

4 3 2 1 Principals are supervised and evaluated by the superintendent at least 4 3 2 1
annually to monitor progress on the district's and school‘s plans. goals.
and objectives.

4 3 2 1 The superintendent is evaluated by the school board annually to monitor 4 3 2 1
progress on the district's plans. goals. and objectives.

4 3 2 1 The board recognizes the need to monitor Its own accountability in 4 3 2 1
reviewing. developing. implementing. and monitoring policy.

4 3 2 1 The board recognizes the need to monitor its own accountability by 4 3 2 1
establishing a procedure to monitor its progress in meeting the district
goals and objectives.

4 3 2 1 Staff development opportunities are made available forthe board. 4 3 2 1
adninistrators. and staff that fit with district and school goals.

4 3 2 1 financial support at the district level is provided for resources and 4 3 2 1
and technical assistance to implement programs and teaching
strategies for school improvement.

4 3 2 1 A clearly defined system-wide Ko12 curriculum that includes grade by 4 3 2 1
grade. subject by subject essential Ieaming objectives is in place.

4 3 2 1 District leaders establish award programs for schools. administrators. 4 3 2 1
teachers. and students to recognize excellence.

4 3 2 1 Staff awards are based on contributions to improving student perfor- 4 3 2 1

mance rather than comparison to peers.

mm

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

How long have you been a member of the board of education in this school district?

 

What is your level of schooling?

High School Graduate College Bachelors Degree Other

High School Graduate + 2years schooling Colege Bachelors Degree+

What is your present career description?

Professional Skilled Labor Unslu‘lled Labor
Home Maker_ Other _

Which area do you consider to be the primary responsibility of the board of education in the develop-
ment of policy? Please prioritize the following (1 through 6 OR 1 through 7):

community relations

curriculum and instructional management
physical and plant planning

budget and financial planning

personnel

communications

other

ecseppe

 

Indicate any of the areas of school improvement listed below that you have been Or are presently
involved in developing:

District mission statement District goals and objectives
Establishment of a 3 to 5 year district plan District communication plan
Evaluation and monitoring of district mission Other

 

 

Indicate any areas that make involvement In school improvement difficult for members of the school
board of your district:

a time needed 9. contract negotiations

b. financial support I. comnunity support problems
c. more knowledge needed

d. other

 

Indicate which best describes the schools In your district:
a. improving

b. remaining the same

c. declining

Why?

217

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

8. Indicate the level of commitment you believe your board of education has to school improvement
at this time:
a. very strong
b. strong
c. some commitment
d. no commitment

Explain Briefly

9. List any additional policies or administrative practices your school district has that may support school
improvement.

10. What was the major reason you decided to mn for a position on the Board of Education?

218

erintendent ’ hon

1. What issues is the board of education in your school dis-
trict presently focusing on?

2. What priority does school improvement presently have with
the board of education in your school district?

3. How have you chosen to involve your board in the school
improvement planning process so far?

4. How do you plan to involve in the board in the future?

5. Do you feel the board is committed to school improvement at
this time? Why?

6. Do you feel the leadership model that Bennis and Nanus
developed and is being used in this project has been helpful to your
district team?

If yes, why? If no, why?

7. Do you feel the outline for developing your district plan
for school improvement has been helpful?

If yes, why? If no, why?

8. Would you suggest involvement in this project to another
school superintendent?

If yes, why? If no, why not?

9. Do you see changes occurring in your school district as a
result of your district team’s involvement in the Leadership for
School Improvement Project, and, if so, what are they?

These questions are open ended and intended to generate

discussion.

219
Board Members’ Phong Survey

1. What issues is the board of education in your school dis-
trict presently focusing on?

2. How familiar are you with the school district team for
school improvement?

3. What do you believe the school district team for school
improvement is trying to accomplish?

4. In what ways have you been involved in the Leadership for
School Improvement Project planning process? (For example, has the
board approved a district mission or communication plan?)

5. What information have you gained about school improvement
that has been helpful to you since your district team has been
involved in the project?

6. Have any members of the district team for school improve-
ment given a progress report to the board of education?

7. Do you see changes occurring in your school district as a
result of the district team’s involvement in the Leadership for
School Improvement Project? If so, what are they?

8. How would you describe your board of education’s commitment

to school improvement at this time?

These questions are open ended and intended to generate

discussion.

APPENDIX B

CORRESPONDENCE

220

NATIONAL CENTER for EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS
RESEARCH 0nd DEVELOPMENT

2199 Jolly Rd., Ste. #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517)349-8841_

 

 

December 11 . 1987

Dear

As a team member of the Leadership for School Improvement Project
(LSIP), we would encourage you to join with us in a collaborative effort
in conducting a research study. The study will determine what effects
a board of education commitment to school improvement has on a school
district. The proposed description of the study is included.

The study will be used as research for the National Center for Effective
Schools Research and Development and by Michelle Maksimowicz as a doc-
toral dissertation at Michigan State University.

As a participant school district in the project, you will receive a
copy of a survey in January that both you and each member of your Board
of Education will be asked to fill out and return in a self-addressed.
stamped envelope.

Also as a participant, we will ask that you send a copy of the minutes ‘
from each School Board Meeting beginning with minutes from the January,
1988 meeting(s) through the June. 1988 meeting(s). Any cost to your
district for mailing will be reimbursed upon your request.

We want to assure you and members of your Board of Education of confi-
dentiality and anonymity. The names of participants and districts
will not be divulged. You will be asked to give enough information
so that district information can be clustered and examined.

221

December 11, 1987
Page 2

Included in this mailing are letters of endorsements for the study
from the Michigan Association of School Administrators and the Michigan
Association of School Boards. Please forward the letter from Justin
King to your board president.

Thank you for your interest and comitment to school improvement. If
you have any additional questions, please call the Center.

Sincerely, ; E ,
a z I J . 0 .
Lawrence W. Lezotte ' Michelle L. Maksimowicz :5

Director ' Research and Program Development
Assistant ' ~

MLM/kmm

enclosures (4)

 

 

Please check and return by January 10, 1988
We will participate in this research study for school improvement

We will not participate in this research study for school
improvement

Signed

School District

 

222

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION
OF

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

am, of a. Enecrnive Director 421 West Km. Lamina. Michipn 48933 Telephone 511 371.5250

 

December ll, 1987

Dear MASA Member:

The Michigan.Association Of School Administrators,
through a formal resolution Of its Executive Board,
has endorsed a research study to be conducted by
Michelle Maksimowicz of the National Center for
Effective Schools Research and Development. The
study will be used as research follow-up to the
Leadership for School Improvement Project and tO
satisfy dissertation requirements Of a doctoral
program from Michigan State University. We encourage
your participatiOn in the study as described in the
enclosed materials.

Sincerely,

   

Ion R. Elliott
Executive Director

rl

223

'9Tmol'

Pm

  

E

i.

g Michigan Qasociotion of Ochool’ boards
(.9 421 V. KQLQMQZOO 6mm. LENSING. MICHIGQN 46955 -(517) 571-5700

December 11, 1987

Dear Local School Board Member:

The Board of Directors of the Michigan Association of School
Boards has endorsed a research study to determine how Michigan
school superintendents choose to involve their boards of education
in ongoing school improvement. The study will be conducted by
Michelle Maksimowicz of the National Center for Effective Schools.

The 37 school districts who are participating in the "Leadership
for School Improvanent Project," will serve as the district school
boards that will be asked to provide data over the next year for
the study . MASB encourages your participation.

 

224

National Center for Effective Schools
Research and Development

2199 Jolly Road, Suite #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 349-8841

 

April 6. 1988

Dear

Thank you for agreeing to be a part of the study that we will conduct to
describe the role that members of Boards of Education take as school districts
become involved in school improvement. Our belief in the importance of this
research has been validated by MASA's and MASB's endorsement of our study.

The enclosed questionnaires are being sent to you to give to each member of
your Board of Education. We ask that each board member return the completed
questionnaire to you by April 28, 1988 (individual envelopes are included for
each board questionnaire). There is a separate questionnaire attached to be filled
out by you as superintendent. We would like to have all questionnaires retumed to
the National Center for Effective Schools by May 5, 1988.

In order to collect additional data. you and each member of your Board of
Education will be asked to fill out this questionnaire once again in January. 1989.
Although some of your board members may no longer be serving on the board in
January, we are still asking them to fill out the first questionnaire. We will appreciate
your cooperation in collecting and returning these questionnaires. In doing so, you
will help us to avoid the pitfalls encountered by researchers on past studies of similar
nature, which were unsuccessful because only a small number of questionnaires
were returned by school board members. As was stated before, you may be
contacted for a phone interview during this year long study. Please be advised, you
may withdraw from this study at anytime without penalty.

Again, we want to assure you of the confidentiality and anonymity that will be
given to you in this study. The names of participants and school districts will um be
divulged. There will be a number recorded on each questionnaire. W
W - it will be used to cluster and examine information only.

225

April 6. 1988
Page 2

Also. we ask that yOU. as a participant. W
W beginning with January. 1988
and continuing through February, 1989. At this time. please forward any board
minutes that have been completed for 1988. Data also will be collected from these

minutes. In addition, we ask that you W
W for the 1986-87 and 1987-88 school years.

Once again, thank you for your time and cooperation in this study. It you
have any questions, please call the Center.

Sincerely,

X r ‘ W
Lawrence W. Lezotte, Michelle Maksimowicz,

Director Research and Program Assistant
MLM: kmm

enclosures (8)

226

National Center for Effective Schools
Research and Development

2199 Jolly Road, Suite #160 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 349-8841

 

April 8, 1988

‘ Dear Member of the Board of Education:

Your school superintendent and your Board of Education have agreed
to be a part of a study to describe the role that members of the Board
of Education take as they become involved in school improvement. Both
Don Elliot of NASA and Justin King of MASB have endorsed this study and
stress its importance.

You will be asked to fill this questionnaire out once again in January,
1989. Although you may no longer be serving on the Board of Education
in January, please fill out the first questionnaire. We ask that you fill
this out and return it to your superintendent by April 28, 1988. You may
also be surveyed by phone sometime during the study. Please be aware,
you may withdraw from this study at anytime without penalty.

The names of participants or districts will not be used in reporting
the results of this study. Please do not cross out the number assigned
to your questionnaire. It is only a number assigned to help cluster and
examine data.

Thank you very much for your time and interest in this study.

Sincerely,
Lawrence H. Lezotte Michelle L. Maksimowicz
Director Research and Program Assistant

MLM: kmm

227

National Center for Effective Schools
Research and Development

 

 

January 5, 1989

Dear Member of the Board of Education:

Thank you for responding to the initial questionnaire for the study of the
role that members of the board of education take as they become involved in
school improvement. We are now asking you to fill out a follow up survey that
will give us the information to complete this study. If you are a new member of
the board of education we would also like you to fill out this survey. We ask that
you fill this questionnaire out and return it to your superintendent by January 30,
1989 in the envelope provided.

Both Don Elliot of Michigan Association for School Administrators and
Justin King to Michigan Association of School Boards have endorsed this study
and stress its importance. We thank you for the time and interest you continue
to give to this study.

Sincerily, . , - . .
Lawrence W. Lezottg Michelle L. Maksimowicz

Director Research 8: Program Assistant

LWUMLM: kmm

enclosure

228

National Center for Effective Schools
ӎ Research and Development

 

 

January 5, 1989

Dear :

Thank you for all of the cooperation you have shown over the past year since
you agreed to be a part of the follow-up study we are conducting on the Leadership for
School Improvement Project (LSIP).

We have especially appreciated receiving the school board minutes from
districts who have been sending them. Because we have those minutes, we are able
to gather a great deal of meaningful information about school improvement activities in
those districts. it is no longer necessary for you to send the minutes, but again, thank
you for sending them over the past year.

Congratulations on the progress you are making in moving ahead on your
school improvement plans. if you have any additional materials you have designed as
part of your school improvement process, we invite you to send a copy of those
materials to us. We would especially appreciate a copy of your current
improvement goals and objectives.

In this mailing, we are sending you a second set of questionnaires that will
serve as a follow up survey to the one filled out by you and your board members last
year. If you have new board members, please give them a questionnaire. We will look
at new board members responses in all districts as a separate category for
comparison. You did a fine job of encouraging your board members to return last
year's questionnaire; once again, we thank you in advance for your efforts in
distributing and sharing with your board members the importance of their response to
this questionnaire. Again, there is a separate questionnaire included to be filled out by
you as Superintendent. If you are new to the position of Superintendent, we ask that
you respond. We ask that each board member return the completed
questionnaire to you by January 30, 1989. We would like to have all
questionnaires returned to the National Center for Effective Schools by
February 6, 1989. Please send current goals and objective if available at this time.

229

January 5, 1989
Page 2

Again, we want to assure you of the confidentiality and anonymity that will be
given to you in this study. The names of participants and school districts will not be
divulged. There will be a number on each questionnaire. Please do not cross this out
-- this will be used to cluster and examine information only.

You will be provided with the results of this study, and once again, we thank you
for making this research possible. Good luck in your continued school improvement
efforts. It you have any questions, please call us at the Center.

Sincerely,

Lawrence W. Lezotte Michelle L Maksimowicz
Director Research & Program Assistant
LWUMLM: kmm

enclosures

APPENDIX C

COMBINED FACTORS RELATED TO EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

230

Combined Fectors Related to Effective Schools

Safe and Orderly Environment

The school board places a high priority on the general appearance
and maintenance of school buildings.

A written code of conduct specifying acceptable student behavior,
discipline procedures, and consequence is communicated to, and
reviewed with, students, parents, and staff.

Out—of-school suspensions or expulsions are minimal; in-school
suspensions are used in most cases.

Climete of High Expectations for §gccess

In required subject, courses, or‘ grade, students are placed in
heterogeneous groups (all ability levels are in the same group) for
the most part.

 

District leaders and staff believe that all students can learn.

District leaders establish award programs for schools, adminis-
trators, teachers, and students to recognize excellence.

Staff awards are based on contributions to improving student
performance rather than comparison to peers.

Clear and Focused Mission

The board expects that teachers will take leadership roles in the
instructional process.

The school system’s curriculum is reviewed to determine whether the
objectives for subject matter and skills, textbooks, and tests are
consistent with what the teacher teaches.

Teachers are expected to include effective instruction practices in
the classroom, based on research.

A material resource pool is allocated for use in building level
improvement projects.

The school board makes a formal commitment of the board,
administrators, and staff to ongoing school improvement based on
quality and equity.

 

231

Establishment of a district school improvement plan which includes a
mission statement, goals, and objectives which focus on student
performance.

The board recognizes the need to monitor its own accountability in
reviewing, developing, implementing, and monitoring policy.

The board recognizes the need to monitor its own accountability by
establishing a procedure to monitor its progress in meeting the
district goals and objectives.

Staff development opportunities are made available for the board,
administrators, and staff that fit with district and school goals.

Financial support at the district level is provided for resources
and technical assistance to implement programs and teaching strate-
gies for school improvement.

A clearly defined system-wide K-lZ curriculum that includes grade by
grade, subject by subject essential learning objectives is in place.

Instructional Leederehip

The board expects that principals will be heavily involved as
instructional leaders in their buildings.

The board expects that the superintendent will be an instructional
leader in the school district.

Administrators have the responsibility to keep teachers informed on
effective instructional practices based on research.

District supervisors monitor implementation of instructional poli-
cies and procedures in individual schools.

District supervisors provide technical feedback and channel support
service to give additional assistance in all areas of instruction.

At least annually, supervision and evaluation procedures are written
for each teacher to help them grow professionally.

Principals are supervised and evaluated by the superintendent at
least annually to monitor progress on the district’s and school’s
plans, goals, and objectives.

The superintendent is evaluated by the school board annually to
monitor progress on the district’s plans, goals, and objectives.

232

Freggent Monitoring of Student Pregreee
Information about student performance is collected, summarized, and

publicized at the district level emphasizing progress on district
goals and areas for improvement.

Test results are disaggregated (broken-out) to insure equity in

opportunity to learn and participate in the curriculum for both
sexes and all races and economic levels.

Qggortgnity to Learn end Student Time en Task

School leaders emphasize to everyone the need to maximize opportuni-
ties to learn and time on task.

Specific time allocations to subjects taught are established for
staff at all levels and in all subjects.

Prior to adoption of new programs or procedures, evaluation is made
according to impact on learning time.

Student pull cuts from regular classes are minimized for academic
and nonacademic purposes.
Home-School Relations

A communication plan is established to effectively communicate with
the internal school organization as well as with external publics.

A school district needs to form partnerships with the various pub-
lics within their communities to strengthen school curriculum.

Procedures and options for parent involvement that especially
support the instructional program are made clear.

Staff members provide parents with information and techniques for
helping students learn (handbooks, training).

APPENDIX D

SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY

233

Airport Community Schools
Armada Area Schools

Bad Axe Public Schools
Bloomfield Hills Schools
Bloomingdale Public Schools
Breitung Township Schools
Dowagiac Union Schools

East China Township Schools
East Lansing Public Schools
Ferndale Schools

Fowler Public Schools

Godwin Heights Public Schools
Grand Blanc Community Schools
Holland Public Schools

Holt Public Schools

Imlay City Community Schools
Madison School District
Manistique Area Schools

Mason County Eastern Schools
Mt. Morris Consolidated Schools
Mt. Pleasant Public Schools
North Dickinson County Schools
Norway-Vulcan Area Schools
Oak Park School District
Tahquamenon Area Schools

Warren Hoods Public Schools

Carleton, Michigan
Armada, Michigan

Bad Axe, Michigan
Bloomfield, Michigan
Bloomingdale, Michigan
Kingsford, Michigan
Dowagiac, Michigan
Marine City, Michigan
East Lansing, Michigan
Ferndale, Michigan
Fowler, Michigan
Hyoming, Michigan
Gland Blanc, Michigan
Holland, Michigan
Holt, Michigan

Imlay City, Michigan
Adrian, Michigan
Manistique, Michigan
Custer, Michigan

Mt. Morris, Michigan
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan
Iron Mountain, Michigan
Norway, Michigan

Oak Park, Michigan
Newberry, Michigan

Warren, Michigan

BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCES

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1981).

[eacher and echopl effeetivepeee (Videotape). Alexandria, VA:
Author.

Austin, L., Hall, 6., Hord, S., & Rutherford, H. (I987). [gkjng
eharge pf ehenge. Association of Supervision 5 Curriculum
Development.

Backes, J. D. (1987). Eereeived enhaneements and impedimeptp to
school improvement in teecher eontreets. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Michigan State University.

Bennis, H., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders’ stretegiep fer takjpg
eharge. New York: Harper & Row.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1977). r l r r m u or in
ducational chan e: V 8: m lem ntin d sus inin
nnova ' ns. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1979, May). An exploratory etpgy pf
school district egpptipn (Report No. R-ZOlO-NIE-IZ). Santa

Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Boyan, N. J. (Ed.). (1988). andbook of r a ch n ucational
adminietratipp (A project of the American Educational Research
Association). White Plains, NY: Longman.

i ti 5 oin ° w a n v m
Lansing: Michigan Department of Education.

Brookover, H. 8., & Lezotte, L. (1977). han in he harac-

Brookover, H., Beamer, L., Efthim, H., Hathaway, P., Lezotte, L.,
Miller, S., and Passalacqua, J. (l982). at ve
sehpolp. Learning Publications.

Brookover, H., et al. (1978). Elementary school social climate and

school achievement. Aperjeap Edpeatiopel Repeerch Jourpel,
15(2), 30l-318.

Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. 0., & Usdan, M. D.
t n .

(1980).
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

234

235

Chubb, J. E. (1987, May 4). h i mm ub ’ chool m ve-
mepi. Paper presented at the Spoor Dialogues on Leadership,
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

Clark, D., Lotto, L., & Astuto, T. (Summer 1984). Effective
schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two

lines of inquiry. ional ini
41-68.

Cohen, D. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change....

In P. Jackson (Ed.), Cpniribuiipg i9 epgeeiionel ehapge.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E. 0., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood,
A., Heinfeld, F., & York, R. L. (1966). Egualiiy pf eggea-
tional opportunity. Hashington, DC: U.S. Office of Education,
National Center for Educational Statistics.

Cuban, L. (1984, May). Transforming the frog into a prince:
Effective schools research, policy and practice at the district
level. rvar ducati a1 R w, 51, 129-151.

Cuban, L. (1988). The management and prapiice of leadership in
pchools. New York: State University of New York Press.

Deal, T. E. (1986). Educational change: Revival tent, tinkey
toys, jungle or carnival? In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Bernipripg

school improvement (pp. 115—128).

 

Ebel, R. L. (1982, March). Are we pptiing e legged gun in the here
pf e baby? Paper presented at the American Education Research
Association.

Edmonds, R. (1978, July). A giecussion of rhe liierargre ang

l ue 1 ed eff 'v s h i . Paper presented at the
National Conference on Urban Education, St. Louis, MO.

Edmonds, R. (1982). Erogramp pf eehpp! impreyemeni: A 1282
pverview. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Edmonds, R. (1984). School effects and teacher effects. (1984,
Fall). Speie! Beliey, 37-39.

Edmonds, R., & Fredrickson, J. (1978). Seareh fpr effective
eehpole; The identifieation and analysis of city schoole Lhet
in ti f iv f r 1dr . Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University, Center for Urban Development.

Elmore, R. (1979-80, Hinter). Backward mapping: Implementation,
research and policy decisions. Eplitieel Seiepee Quarierly,
601-6 5.

 

236

Encopregipg echool imprpvepepi thrpggh boerg ppjiey. (l9 .
Project funded by the Michigan State Board of Education.
Effective eehppje gem in er repprr. (1982, February). Seattle, HA:

Seattle Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 255- -615)

Elmore, R., & McLaughlin, M. (1982). Strategic choice in federal
education policy: The compliance-assistance tradeoff. In A.

Lieberman & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Eplicypaking in edueeiipp
(pp. 159-194). Blst yearbook of the National Society for the

Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Epstein, J. (1984, winter). School policy and parent involvement:
Research results. Epgeerippel_flerizppe, 70-72.

Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C, Alford, L. M, Freeman, D. T., Irwin,
S, Schmidt, H. H, & Schwille, J. R. (1986, May).
lpeiructionel leedership et Lh e diptriet leyel: A freme_prk
for research andrepme initial ree_11e. East Lansing: Michigan
State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.

 

Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and local strategies at the
local level. Elemeniery Sehool Jpprpel, 55, 391-421.

Fullan, M. (1986, February). Eerformenee epprgieel egg egrrjeulum

m em n tion se h. Paper presented at the Conference on
Performance Appraisal for Effective Schooling, Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.

Fullan, M., Miles, M., & Taylor, G. (1980, Spring). Organizational
development in schools: The state of the art. Review pf Egg-

cetipnal Researeh, 5_, 125.
Gardner, J. H. (1963). l - w . New York: Harper & Row.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1986). The social and instructional
context of teaching: School effects. In M. Hittrock (Ed. ),

flendbogk pf reseerpp pp ieeehing (3rd ed. , pp. 570- -602). New

York: Macmillan.

Good h 01 --Hha k m w r 7 (1981). National School Public
Relations Association.

Hall, 6., & Hard, 5. (1987). Chepge_1p_eenpple. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.

Hanson, E. M. (1979). School management and contingency theory:
An emerging perspective. c i d shi 1 ,
15(2), 98-116.

237

Hood, P. D. (1983, November). lne rple end linking egente in

1'0 im. ovem I ° A v' i 1' . - t
nejpr srudiee. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educa-
tional Research and Development.

House, E. (1981). Three perspectives on educational innovation:
Technological, political and cultural. In R. Lehning & M.

McKane (EdS). Wm Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Houston, P. (1986, April). Seize the reins of school reform and

stop those runaway state mandates. Eleneneery_5enppl_gnnrne1,
36-41.

Huberman, M. A. (1982). Implieetione fer eeiipn (DESSI Final
Report, vol. 9). The Network.

 

Huberman, M., & Crandall, D. (1983). ' a -
i es: xaminin th f cho 1 im rov ment: V91. 9.
Implieatione for ection: IA 5 di m'nati n ff r s

 

porting ephool imprpvemeni. Andover, MA: The Network.

Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1984, Fall). Rethinking the question
for school improvement: Some findings from the DESSI study.

MW. 40-49.

Inside opt end outside in: Configureiione pf apeietanee end their
impact on sehool improvement. A etudy pf disseminaiien effprts

eepporting echool improvement. (1983, April). Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association.

 

 

Jackson, P. (Ed.). (1988). on 1 ion n e.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Jencks, C., et al. (1972). Ineguality: A reaeeeeenent of ihe
effects of fenily an scho in in er . New York: Basic
Books.

Johnson, R. H., & O’Connor, R. E. (1979, August). Intra-agency

limitations on policy implementation. Adminisireiion end
5peiery, 193-215.

Joyce, 8., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training:

The message from research. Eggeeiipnel Leaperenjp, 51, 379-
385.

Karagan, N. J. (1981, April). Hhet epnppl peerpe pen pp in imprpve

ieacher eompeteney. Paper presented at the National School
Boards Association.

238

Katz, 0., & Kahn, R. (1966). e o f r a -
Lipne. New York: John Hiley & Sons.

King, J. (1988). Chellengee pf eehppl pperg leederenip. Lansing:
Michigan Association of School Boards. (Unpublished paper)

Klawunder. K. (1984. July). Eregram_dexelenmeni_esseniials_EiEi
prpjeei. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244 145)

Lezotte, L. (1979, July). A poliey prpepecrive for improving urban
egucaiipn. Connecticut State Board of Education.

Lezotte, L. (1982, March). Effeetive eehpplp reeeerph end echool

im rov me in n . Paper presented at the Invitational
National Conference--Citizens Participation for School Improve-
ment.

Lezotte, L. (1986, April). h iv n ' f i n nd

fgture gireeiipne. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association.

Lezotte, L. (1987a, March). Speech to the Connecticut State Board
of Education.

Lezotte, L. A. (1987b). S cc 5 ful hoo m ov ment: Triumphs of
leadership and empowermeni. National Center for Effective
Schools. (Unpublished paper)

Lezotte, L. (1988a). School improvement based on the effective

schools research. In n e a n: u 11
educetipn fpr ell. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Lezotte, L. (1988, May). 5treiegie eeegmpiione pf Lhe effeeeive
schpple prppeee. National Center for Effective Schools.
(Unpublished paper)

Lezotte, L., & Bancroft, B. (1985, Summer). School improvement
based on effective schools research: A promising approach for
economically disadvantaged and minority students. Jpgrnel pf

Negrc_Educai19n. 301-310.

Lezotte, L., & Maksimowicz, M. (1987). v
i i h r . Michigan Institute for
Educational Management and National Center for Effective
Schools.

ocal scho b r ° he w t d 0 ch

refprmz (News release, Institute for Educational Leadership).
(1986, November 6)

 

239

Loucks, S. H., & Hergett, L. F. (1985). An action guide to school
improvement. Ine_fle1nprr (Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development).

Majone, G., & Hildavsky, A. (1977). Implementation as evolution.
P u v w , 113-117.

Mazzarella, J. A. (1984, Spring). The collective bargaining
mystery: Some new clues. R e D Eerepeciivee.

McCurdy, J. (1985). The role of the principal in effective
schools: Problems and solutions. Amerieen Reepeiation of

h mini r r

McLaughlin, M. (1984). w he oard an r m 1 eff c-
Liveneee. National Association of Independent Schools.

McLaughlin, M. (1987, Summer). Learning from experience: Lessons

from policy implementation. Educaticnal_Exaluatipn_and_£plicx
Ana]y§i§, 3, 171-178.

Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977, September). Institutional organiza-
tions: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Americen gour-

nal pf 5geiplpgy, 55, 340-363.

Miles, M. (1983). Unraveling the mystery of institutionalization.

Educaiipnal Leaderehip, 51, 14-19.

Miles, M., & Lake, 0. G. (1967). Self-renewal in school systems:
A strategy for planned change. In G. E. Hatson (Ed.), Concepte

fer eociel change (p. 62). Hashington, DC:
Miles, F., & Taylor, G. (1980, spring). Organizational development

in schools: The state of the art. Review of Eppeeiienal
Research. 59.

Mortimore, P., & Sammons, P. (1987, September). New evidence on

effective elementary schools. Educatienal_ieadership. 4-8.

Murphy. J. (1980. January). Ihe_harxland_Erbiessipnal_uexelppment
Apedemy; An eeeeeemeni pf impeei. National Diffusion Network.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1983, May). n ex r r a 1
f in u tio v hi i 1 f r .
Sacramento: California State Department of Education.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986a, April). Qhereeierieeiee pf
1nstLuct1pnallx_eifestixe_sshppl_disiricis. Paper presented at
the American Educational Research Association.

 

240

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986b, Summer). The superintendent as
instructional leader: Findings from effective school dis-

tricts. Jeurnal_ef_Educaiienal_Adminisiraiien. 21. 213-236.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Mesa, R. (1984, January). Sc 00]

 

 

 

 

effectiveness: Cheeking progress and essempfiens and deyelep;
ing e rele fer stefe ene federel gevernmenf. Sacramento:

California State Department of Education.

Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Heil, M., & Mitman, A. (1985). lnsfree-

 

fienal leaeershjp; A eeneepfgel fremeyerh. San Jose, CA:
Santa Clara Office of Education.

Nelson, K. 0. (Ed.). (1987). Reeremenship in brief; Keys_fe
sehool improvemenf. Lansing: Michigan Association of School
Boards.

Onward to excellence: Making schools more effective. (1984,
April). Effeefive seheel preefiees; A reseerch synthesis.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Payzanti, T. N. (1987, February). hehing_e_e1fferenee in the lives

children: d ion 1 d rshi ear 0 . Paper
presented at the American Association of School Administrators
Conference.

Peters, T., & Haterman, R. (1982). In seereh ef exeellenee. New

York: Harper & Row.

Petterson. B. (1981). StaifLdexelepmenilereanizatienal_dexelep;
ment. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district
policy implications of the effective schools literature. fle-

mentary Schoel Journel, 55(3).

Raiche, J. (Ed.). (1983). 1 r v en se h m-
penents and preeesses fer effeetiye seheels. Minnesota Educa-
tion Cooperative Service Unit.

Rombere. 1. (Ed ). (1985). Ienerd_eiiectixe_scheeline. Lanham.

MD: University Press of America.

Rowan, B. (1983). In r 10 1 e ect ven s hool ic :

A eoneepfual framewerh. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory

for Research & Development.

Rutter, M., Maugham, 8., Mortimer, P., Ousten, J., & Smith, A.
(1979). fifteen fheesene heers; 5eeendery seheels ene fheir
effecfs en shildren. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

241

 

Schewe, H. C. (1987). A mo 1 for 1' v r nal
eevelepmenf pregr ems for K- 12 seheel prineipels. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

School beerds: Strengfhening gress reets leeeership. (1986).

Institute for Educational Leadership.

Sergi, T., & Showmaker, J. (Eds.). (1985). Impreving sfedent
echievement--School eistricf leaeership. State of Connecticut

Department of Education.

Sheive, L., & Schoenheit, M. (1987). Leeeership; Eremining the
elesive. 1987 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Sniderman, S., & MacQueen, L. (1987). nco r in h 1 im rov -

ment through beerd peliey (Letter to school board members).

Michigan Association of School Boards.

Squires, D. A., Huitt, H. G., & Segars, J. K. (1984). Effeefive
scheols and classreoms: A reseerch-based perspeefive. Associ-

ation for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

State of New York, Office of Education Performance Review. (1974).

5chool factors influeneing reading achievement: A eese study
ef twe inner eify scheels. Albany: Author.

Stedman, J. B. (1985, December). The effeefive seheels researeh:
fenfenf and erifieisms. Hashington, DC: Library of Congress,

Congressional Research Service.

Stevens, 1., & Udall, M. (1988). flower on: New fools for teeching
and learning. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.

Taylor, 8. (1985). Implementing what works: Elementary principals

and school improvement programs. Qissertafion Abstreets
infernational.

Timar, T., & Kirp, D. (1989, March). Education reforms of the
19805: Lessons from the states. Rhi_Qelfe_heppen, 504-511.

Venesky, R. L., & Hinfield, L. (1979). §chools fhat seceeed peyond
erpectations in reeeing (Technical Report No. 1). Newark:

University of Delaware Studies in Education.

Waterman, R. (1987). lhe renewal fecfer. New York: Bantam.

Neatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977, May). Street level bureaucrats
and institutional information: Implementing special education

reform. hervere Eeueetienel Revieh, Al, 171-197.

242

Heick, E. (1976, March). Educational organizations as loosely
coupled systems. WM. 21. H9.

Hise, A. E. (1988, January). Legislated learning revisited. Rhi
DeliaJSaem

Wolfe, L. G. (1982, June).
whef sfedenfs lea n. National School Boards Association.

HICHICRN STRTE UNIV

l l lll llllllllll llll