urH-lg ‘ . 3:62: 10. 2.2:}..5‘ .1 . t?!’¥.:§.I¢J up; L l . a . 1.1. . ..”#'-.s t I: Luv?! .1. v1.0: I. (a? I) . . y .6 3.3.3.1. t I I. "in! .‘ M i «w $552225: ’{Yi 'uhktIILCtza ‘AIu It .. ’82-;IA a» 1.01))... ;'l-£I.Kv< ‘15 A l eflb r! 5).... .4I 1.91;; t. , O .s .. ‘ If?!) . : .vI._.3§...Ld. . .v 221.1. f 2 huh.“ an?» , 4‘ 0....) : ..'.D..a .t. ‘4 .!.'.. .7? (nlq‘Iv. 3.01.1.1: 5. e1 .. Jan: .9 tit. .1. 1.2.4 » {by \..l gunpohuucflmémi I .i 0?. t £3.11. v (9‘1). ‘9:- n; -. Ilia} tuft: ‘ c. It») .-. air é‘ .nlu.‘ “glint! .I l» I: It: .thtlo. ..u .‘ C I”: do!‘. ff MlCHlGAN "”5 ”NW5 any use»! as I 2 ?7/9 Qfls f; ”WI/NH!WNW“NIH/NW1!WWW! Ml ' 3 1293 00891 0022 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Perceived Characteristics of Successful DoDDS Local Educational Advisory Committees in the Pacific Region. - presented by Edward L. Davies has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH. D. . Educational Administration degreeln Date July 16, 1990 MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportuniiy Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE I if MSU is An Affirmative ActiorVEqueI Opportunity Institution cMma-DJ PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL DoDDS LOCAL . EDUCATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES IN THE PACIFIC REGION By Edward L. Davies A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1990 ABSTRACT PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL DoDDS LOCAL EDUCATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES IN THE PACIFIC REGION By Edward L. Davies The researcher’s purpose in this study was to ascertain (a) the perceptions of school advisory comittee members about the support and involvement of individuals and groups from the military conInunity; their comittee structure; and the results of their advisory comittees in terms of comnunication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making by the principal; (b) relationships between perceived support and involvement and perceived results, and perceived comittee structure and perceived results; and (c) the perceptions of district superintendents about the perceived relative success of comittees in their geographic regions. To gather research data, principals, teachers, parents, and district superintendents were surveyed in the DoDDS-Pacific region. One hundred twenty-three survey instruments were mailed to In schools, and four survey instruments were mailed to four district superintendents. Responses were received from 41 principals, 41 teachers, 4l parents, and 4 district superintendents, which Edward L. Davies accounted for 100% of the survey instruments. The School Advisory Committee Questionnaire and the District Superintendent Questionnaire used to survey the respondents were developed from responses received from a pilot survey instrument that was developed by the researcher in coordination with his doctoral committee. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) on the IBM mainframe computer at Michigan State University, using multivariate analysis of variance, univariate analysis of variance, chi-square, and descriptive statistics. Generally, it was concluded that principals, school advisory committee members, and teachers were highly involved in the school advisory processes. The one group who should have been most involved--the parents at large--was the least involved. A significant difference was found among principals, teachers, and parents as to whether the school advisory process really influences decision making by the principal. Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions regarding decision making differed significantly from that of the principals. There was little difference between secondary and elementary school advisory comittees in terms of structure or results. The four district superintendents believed that the advisory committees in their geographic regions were operating with a moderate degree of success. Dedicated to My father, the late Edward William Davies. iv ACKNOHLEDGHENTS I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Howard ii. Hickey, who provided guidance, support, and encouragement which enabled this dissertation to come to fruition. In addition, I wish to thank the members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Samuel A. Moore II, Dr. James E. Snoddy, and Dr. Bruce D. Cheney, for their assistance. A special word of thanks to Susan Cooley for her expert assistance as a typist. I especially wish to acknowledge publicly my wife, Kay Marie Davies, whose love, support, encouragement and periodic ”kick in the rear" made this a reality. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................. INTRODUCTION ............... The Problem and Its Setting ....... Statement of the Problem ........ Generalizability of the Study Findings . Research Questions ........... Basic Assumptions ............ Delimitations .............. Limitations ............... Definition of Terms ........... Organization of the Study ........ SELECTED REVIEH OF THE LITERATURE ..... Introduction .............. Historical Overview of Citizen Involvement School Advisory Committees ....... 00005 Advisory Committees ........ Summary ................. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ............ Introduction .............. Setting for the Study .......... Population ............... Type of Study .............. Instrumentation ............. Pilot Study .............. School Advisory Committee Questionnaire District Superintendent Survey . . . . Collection of Data ........... Research Questions ........... Data Analysis .............. Summary ................. vi ..... ..... IV. FINDINGS ...................... 49 Introduction ................... 49 Results of the Data Analyses ........... 50 Summary ...................... 77 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND REFLECTIONS .................. 78 Summary ...................... 78 Purpose ..................... 78 Summary of the Findings .............. 78 Conclusions .................... 83 Recommendations for Further Investigation ..... 85 Guidelines for Successful SAC Operation ...... 86 Reflections .................... 91 APPENDICES A. SCHOOL CONFIGURATION—-DoDDS-PACIFIC ......... 93 B. RESPONSES TO THE PILOT STUDY ............ 94 C. PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE ................. 95 D. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT QUESTIONNAIRE ........ 95 E. SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE ....... 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 106 vii Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 LIST OF TABLES Page Pilot Survey Responses ................ 39 District Superintendent Responses .......... 40 Advisory Committee Responses ............. 41 Principals: Is ................... 51 Principals: Should Be ................ 52 Teachers: Is .................... 53 Teachers: Should Be ................. 54 Parents: Is ..................... 55 Parents: Should Be ................. 55 Perceptions of the SAC Structure ........... 63 Analysis of Variance for the Elementary/Secondary Group Effect: Is ................. 65 Summary of Means and Sample Sizes for the Three Groups (Principals, Teachers, and Parents): Is . . 67 Summary of Means and Sample Sizes for Elementary/ Secondary Respondents: Is ............. 67 Analysis of Variance for the Elementary/Secondary Group Effect: Should Be .............. 69 Summary of Means and Sample Sizes for the Three Groups (Principals, Teachers, and Parents): Should Be ..................... 70 Summary of Means and Sample Sizes for Elementary/ Secondary Respondents: Should Be ......... 70 Multivariate Test (Hilks): Is ............ 71 viii 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.22 A.1 B.1 Univariate F—Test of Significance for the Principals, Teachers, and Parents Group Effect: Is ...... Summary of Means and Sample Sizes for the Three Groups (PrincipaIs, Teachers, and Parents) on the Four Outcome Variables Concerning Results: Is . . . Summary of Means and Sample Sizes for Elementary/ Secondary Respondents on the Four Outcome Variables Concerning Results: Is ......... Multivariate Test (Hilks): Should Be ........ Univariate F-Test of Significance for the Elementary/Secondary Group Effect: Should Be Summary of Means and Sample Sizes for the Three Groups (Principals, Teachers, and Parents) on the Four Outcome Variables Concerning Results: Should Be ..................... Summary of Heans and Sample Sizes for the Elementary/Secondary Respondents on the Four Outcome Variables Concerning Results: Should Be . . District Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Success of SACs .................. School Configuration--DoDDS-Pacific ......... Distribution of Responses to Pilot Study ....... ix Page 73 73 74 75 76 76 77 93 94 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the late 19705, parents all across America became concerned about school taxes and governance issues, including their role in decision making relative to school policies. For example, in June 1978, Proposition 13, a tax initiative dealing with educational funding, passed in the state of California by a 2 to 1 margin. This represented the largest number ever to support an initiative in California’s history (Baratz a Moskowitz, 1978). Meaningful participation by parents (Fantini, Gittel, a Magat, 1970; Jones & Jones, 1976; Kappelman a Ackerman, 1977; Trump & Miller, 1979), as well as client or student participation (Cave & Chesler, 1974), was becoming increasingly popular throughout the country. The educational system of the 19805 became more aware of parental concerns as well as those of the conmunity it serves. Today’s taxpayer is becoming more demanding of the educational system and in doing so seeks involvement through special interest groups and/or personal confrontation (Baratz 5 Moskowitz, 1978). The Dependents’ School system dates back to the early 18005, when the U.S. Army moved large numbers of troops and their families westward to establish posts along America’s isolated frontiers. Congress authorized funds to set up schools at western Army posts. Much later, after Horld Har II, it became clear that American troops and their families would continue to be stationed abroad. To provide an American-type education for the military dependents, the individual services established their: own elementary and secondary schools around the world in 1946. The individual military services operated the schools until 1976. The Department of Defense Dependents Schools (00005) was established in 1976 in order to provide quality education from kindergarten through grade 12 ‘for eligible minor dependents of Department of Defense (DOD) military and civilian personnel stationed overseas (DoDDS, 1986a). At that time, Congress mandated that the schools then operated by the individual military services be consolidated and placed within 000 to establish one cohesive, uniform school system. The 00005 organization was formed from that mandate and became a field activity in the office of the Secretary of Defense. As it presently exists, 00005 is the nation’s ninth largest school system; it has a population of about 150,000 students in 270 schools located in 20 foreign countries. DoDDS has about 12,500 employees, about 9,500 of whom are educators. The 00005 headquarters is located in Alexandria, Virginia. From there, the director for the DoDDS system organizes, manages, funds, directs, and supervises the complete operation of the worldwide system. The school system has five regional offices, each with a regional director, fiscal division, logistics division, executive services division, and education division. The five regional offices serve major geographical areas around the world. The Atlantic regional office is headquartered in London, United Kingdom, and serves schools located in Belgium, Bermuda, British Hest Indies, Canada, Cuba, England, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Scotland. The Germany regional office has headquarters in Hiesbaden, Germany, and serves schools located in the Federal Republic of Germany. The Hediterranean regional office has headquarters in Madrid, Spain, and serves schools located in Portugal, Bahrain, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey. The Pacific regional office has headquarters in Futenma, Okinawa, Japan, and serves schools located in Japan, Korea, and the Republic of the Philippines. The Panama regional office has headquarters in Albrook Air Force Station, Republic of Panama, and serves schools located in Panama. All high schools in the DoDDS system are accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). Junior high/middle schools and elementary schools with more than 150 student enrollment are also accredited, and small schools (fewer than 150 enrollment) also are certified by the NCA. The NCA, the largest of six regional accrediting associations in the United States, annually reviews the status of educational programs in accredited 000 schools and requires on-site team visits every five years. The NCA reviews emphasize teacher qualifications, provisions of a comprehensive educational program, pupil-teacher ratios, school facilities, school supplies, and administrative services. For a 000 school to be accredited, it must comply with all NCA standards. The most visible aspect of the DoDDS system is the individual school building in any given area. 000 school buildings vary from large, modern, and newly built structures to old, temporary, and converted buildings. Through current and future expanded school construction programs, the schools located in substandard buildings, such as quonset huts and former barracks, are gradually' being replaced. School buildings with growing student populations are being enlarged, and older schools or those housed in host-nation buildings are being renovated on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, transportation is provided for elementary school students who live more than a mile from school and for students in grades 7 through 12 who live more than one and one-half miles from school. DoDDS educators are recruited from two sources: the United States and overseas. More than two-thirds of the 00005 educator staff' are hired from United States citizens residing overseas, whereas one-third are hired from applicants in the United States. Educators in the 00005 system participate in a certification program. The program requires educators to continue to develop their educational expertise through formal course work. Each school in the DoDDS system adheres to the principle that children should be encouraged to develop to the maximum of their intellectual, moral, aesthetic, vocational, physical, and social capabilities (DoDDS, 1986a). Language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, fine arts, health, and physical education are the basic components of the DoDDS curriculum. The basic curriculum also contains programs in sex education, drug-abuse education, and other current topic areas. DoDDS secondary schools offer a wide variety of electives, including, for example, cinematography, comunica- tions, computers and data processing, classical history and literature, host-country literature and language, and foreign-area geography. Guidance and counseling services are available in 00008 schools. Counselors provide an orientation to all incoming students and parents. Group and individual counseling, career counseling, and placement of students are among the services offered in the 00005 system. Counselors also assist students in preparing individual class schedules. Students in the secondary schools have the opportunity to take the College Entrance Examination Boards and the American College Testing Program to meet the admission requirements of some colleges and universities. The National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test and Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test are administered to allow the students overseas an opportunity to compete for scholarship aid. Admission to 00005 schools is based on congressional statutes and policies. The schools were established by Congress to provide an education of high quality for eligible minor dependents of Defense Department military and civilian personnel on official overseas assignments. Education may be provided to other youngsters on a space-available, tuition basis. Eligibility is determined according to 000 Directive 1342.13 (Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978). A minimum of 20 credits is required to graduate from high school in the 00005 system. Fifteen of the 20 credits are required in these fields: language arts, 4 units; social studies, 3 units; 2 units each in mathematics and science; 1 unit each in career education, aesthetics, and physical education; and one-half unit each in health education and computer science (DoDDS, 1986b). Students may graduate when they have met the DoDDS graduation requirements, which are usually scheduled over a four-year period. DoDDS does accept the official grades and courses of transfer students. Courses interrupted by a transfer may be continued to completion. Correspondence courses may be provided if the courses are not available in the 00005 program class schedule and if the transfer student wishes to complete them. Students who enroll in a 00005 school during their senior year may be graduated by meeting the requirements of their previous schools if, through no fault of their own, they cannot meet DoDDS graduation requirements. Students may be considered for early graduation if they have clearly demonstrated a scholastic aptitude or vocational readiness, if there is no financial need for early entry into the labor market, or if health or family concerns would be least served. Individual students and student groups in the DoDDS system frequently earn recognition for achievements in academic, extracurricular, and athletic activities in regional, national, and international competitions. Approximately 50% of all graduates from the 00005 system enroll in some form of postsecondary education. Students with outstanding academic and athletic accomplishments have been recognized over the years with scholarships to large and small universities and colleges throughout the United States. Disciplinary problems, such as those seen in stateside schools, are less serious in the 00005 system. Although immediate corrective action may not always be possible in stateside schools, action is demanded in the military community. Through a cooperative working relationship between the schools and the military communities, many problems are averted or are satisfactorily resolved. The 00005 curriculum is patterned after the finest educational programs in stateside schools. In addition, DoDDS pupils who participated in the American College Testing Program (ACT) and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) received higher scores, on the average, than their stateside counterparts over the past several years. Parents of students in overseas communities are also taxpayers and have concern regarding the education of their children and the direction in which the school system in their overseas community is headed. A commonly voiced complaint by the overseas parent is that of a feeling of ineffectuality--a feeling that their concerns are not being addressed by school officials. Their 'tour of duty" overseas is generally a relatively short one of from three to four years (HcGuane, 1977). Typically, this feeling of transience does not lend itself to active involvement; very little time is left between arrival, settling in, and the preparation for the return move to the United States for any real concern for or involvement in school affairs. This transience, inherent in military life, and the feeling of having to accept that which is available to meet the needs of their families have given rise to feelings of discontent. Few systems have been developed to provide comunication of these needs, nor have many studies been undertaken to ascertain the satisfaction level of the military parent toward the system (Schlesinger, 1977). The schools continue to function with their administrators attempting to meet the students’ needs. At present, there is a paucity of information in the literature that would affirm or refute the suggestion that the concerns of parents in military comunities overseas toward their schools are congruent with those of adults in the United States toward their public schools, nor is there any information in the literature to suggest that the administrative hierarchy in the school system of an overseas conmunity is cognizant of these concerns. We The Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 (Title XIV of Public Law 95-561) provided for the establishment of advisory conlnittees at each school and at any military installation where there is more than one school. 000 Instruction 5105.49, "Local Educational Advisory Comittees,‘ implements Public Law 95-561 as amended by Public Law 99-145, "Department of Defense Authorization Act 1986,” November 1985, which provides specific guidelines into the operation and functions of local school advisory conlnittees (SACs) and military installation advisory committees (IACs). The Instruction confirms, clarifies, and establishes objectives, policies, responsibilities, and procedures regarding SACs, IACs, Component Command Advisory Councils (CCACs), Theater Education Councils (TECs), and the Dependents Education Council (DEC) for the overseas school system operated by 00005. The Instruction applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and Specific Comands, the Defense Agencies, and the employees of 00005. The Instruction identifies responsibilities of advisory committee chairpersons, school principals, DoDDS regional directors, and installation comanders. It also gives guidance regarding elections of comittee members, functional responsibilities, and communication processes (DOD Instruction 5105.49, 1985). It is 00005 policy that the participation of family and professional school employees be encouraged in the formation and operation of local overseas advisory committees to promote the vitality of these comittees and to preserve their integrity and independence of action. The establishment of SACs and IACs, in accordance with Public Law 95-561, Defense Dependents’ Education Act 10 of 1978, as amended; DOD Directive 1342.6, ”Department of Defense Dependents’ Schools (00005)" (October 17, 1978); and 000 Directive 4124.2, "Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) (July 5, 1985), fosters participation in school affairs by members of the school and military community and provides a coordinated process to address and resolve issues at the lowest practical level. 00005 and its regional offices are responsible for providing an on-going training and orientation program for advisory committee members to the extent that funds and personnel resources permit. Every parent, teacher, sponsor, student, DoDDS administrator, and military commander shares the responsibility to work collectively in supporting the schools, enhancing programs, and improving not only the delivery of educational programs and support services to 00005 students, but also the overall quality of life shared by all personnel in the American overseas communities of which the schools are an integral part. Crucial to the success of this program is the leadership provided by the elected chairperson of the local SACs and IACs within each community. An advisory committee can only be as successful in meeting its responsibilities as the chairperson is committed to ensuring that the committee becomes a vital adjunct to the school, the community it serves, and the installation on which it is located (000 Instruction 1342.15, 1987). The school principal should provide the SAC with requested, pertinent information about the school. Such information would 11 include school policies and regulations, enrollment and budget data, lunch programs, transportation procedures, and staffing. Installa- tion commanders are similarly responsible for providing the IAC with data regarding the local military community and its installation. Because advisory committees are composed generally of lay citizens, and turnover of membership is constant from year to year, there is a continuous need to provide committee members with training that improves their skills in various areas of communication and interaction. At an increasing number of overseas locations, DoDDS regions are providing SAC members with professional training experiences and opportunities for development in group processes, parliamentary procedures, establishment of goals, needs assessments, problem-solving techniques, and public-relations activities. DoDDS perceives an advisory committee to be an essential resource to the principal, who is ultimately responsible for making decisions that are necessary to the administration of the school. The advice is welcomed as a part of the decision-making process. However, the word “advisory" is not interpreted to mean directive or controlling in nature. W In this exploratory study, the writer investigated: 1. The perception of the school advisory committee members about: 12 a. The support and involvement of individuals and groups from the military school community. b. Their school advisory committee structure. c. Results of their school advisory committees in terms of communication, attitudes about the school, parent involvement, and decision making by the principal. 2. The relationships between: a. Perceived support/involvement and perceived results. b. Perceived school advisory structure and perceived results. 3. The perceptions of district superintendents about the per- ceived relative success of school-level advisory committees within their geographic regions. WWW; The study will provide valuable data that may be used by 00005 staff/line administrators to more effectively inservice/interact with the advisory committees in their regions/schools and contribute to more successful operation of the advisory committees throughout the Pacific region. W To achieve the researcher’s purposes in the study, the following research questions were addressed: 1. a. Hhat are the perceptions of principals about the sup- port and involvement of individuals/groups? b. Hhat are the perceptions of principals about what the :gpport and involvement of individuals/groups should 7 13 Hhat are the perceptions of teachers about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Hhat are the perceptions of teachers about what the ggpport and involvement of individuals/groups should ? Hhat are the perceptions of parents about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Hhat are the perceptions of parents about what the gupport and involvement of individuals/groups should e? How do secondary school SAC members perceive their struc- ture? How do elementary school SAC members perceive their struc- ture? Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the support and involvement of individuals/groups for SACs? Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the support ta’nd involvement of individuals/groups for SACs should e? Are there differences between individuals from second- ary schools and individuals from elementary schools .with respect to their perceptions of support and involvement for SACs? Are there differences between individuals from second- ary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to how they perceive support and involvement for SACs should be? Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to perceived results of SACs (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making)? Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the results of SACs (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making) should be? 14 9. a. Are there differences between individuals from second- ary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of the results of SACs? b. Are there differences between individuals from second- ary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to how they perceive the results of SACs should be? 10. What are the perceptions of district superintendents about the success of SACs? BasiLAssummtions For the purpose of this investigation, the following assumptions were made: 1. The survey questions effectively elicited perceptions about school advisory committees. 2. Principals, SAC members, and district superintendents responded to the instruments in an open, honest, and candid manner. Delimitaticns The school-level educational advisory committees, school-level building administrators, and district superintendents included in this study were only those located within the Pacific region of the 00005 system. Limitations The major limitations of the study included the following: the reliance on self-reported data from the survey participants who were SAC members, the reliance on self-reported data from the four district superintendents in the DoDDS-Pacific region, the response rate of SAC members and district superintendents, and the extent to 15 which the survey instrument adequately addressed the areas of concern in the operation of SACs. Definitiouilems WW. Above-school -level administrator who has direct responsibility for the overall operation of a complex of schools located in a specific country. At the time the questionnaires were sent to schools, the district superintendents were referred to as chief school administrators (CSAs). W111. Parents of students enrolled in the school, school employees, and students. 311113:y_jn§tallatign. A geographical area, under the juris- diction of a military commander, where one or more dependents’ schools are located. Parent. Includes father, mother, legal guardian, or person standing W, whose employment, military status, or payment of tuition creates enrollment eligibility for dependents in 000 Dependents Schools. Principal. The building-level administrator who has the direct responsibility for the overall day-to-day operation of a specific school complex. WW. Anyone employed by the 00005 educational system as a professional educator. W. The above-school-level administrator who has direct responsibility for the overall operation of the schools located within a geographical region. 16 §ghgg1_gdyisgry_§gmm111gg_1§A§1. An elected committee based on DOD Instruction 5105.49 of January 2, 1981, through which parents, students, and professional school employees provide advice on local school policies. Members are responsible for advising the local principal on such education-related matters as school policies, instructional programs, program staffing as it relates to the instructional program, budget, facilities, maintenance, administra- tive procedures, pupil personnel services, educational resources, program evaluation, student standards of conduct, and school meal programs. §A§_gnajrman. The elected committee member who is then elected by the voting members of the SAC to conduct committee business. MAW Chapter I begins with an introduction, followed by a discussion of the background of the problem. The purpose and importance of the study and basic assumptions pertinent to the investigation are stated. Delimitations and limitations relative to the study, as well as definitions used in the study, conclude the chapter. Chapter II presents. a contemporary selected review of the literature. Emphasis is focused on the development of advisory committees in the 00005 system and their established procedure of operation. A historical overview of citizen involvement in decision making, school advisory committees, and school advisory committees within 00005 is also presented. 17 Chapter III includes a discussion of the procedures and methods used in this investigation. A description of the population selection, descriptive data relative to the instrumentation, data-collection methods, and procedures employed for the treatment and subsequent reporting of the data are presented. Chapter IV contains an analysis of the data provided by the respondents and analyzed according to the research hypotheses. In Chapter V, a summary of the findings of the investigation is presented, conclusions are drawn, guidelines for SACs are presented, recommendations for future research are offered, and reflections regarding the study are provided. CHAPTER II SELECTED REVIEH OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The review of selected literature includes the following: (a) a historical overview of citizen involvement in decision making, (b) school advisory committees (SACs), and (c) SACs within 00005. W Formal education was historically left to the smallest unit of education-~the family. In the early colonial period in America, schooling was a private matter, and families provided training in reading and writing either in the home or in private schools. In 1642 an organized effort began in Massachusetts to provide a system of education, and by the late 16005 the number of schools began to increase. Local communities were, without exception, responsible for the functioning of these schools. School affairs were routinely considered part of the regular business of town government. Joining together in town meetings, parents, as well as other citizens, selected teachers and provided their board in local homes (National Association of Elementary School Principals [NAESP], 1984). The Boston Latin School (1635) was created by local initiative as British America’s first tax-supported school, offering boys seven years of instruction in Latin and Greek. It remained for the 18 19 Massachusetts Bay Colony to establish the principle, unique among English-speaking people, that the state could require towns to build and maintain schools at public expense. A 1642 law made parents and masters of‘ young apprentices responsible for understanding the tenets of Puritanism and colonial law. Other New England colonies passed similar laws. Religion and classical instruction dominated to the end of the seventeenth century. After the American Revolution, the new national government under the Articles of Confederation made a precedent-setting commitment to public education. Congress, in the 1785 Ordinance setting forth governance procedures for the public domains beyond the Alleghenies, set aside land in each township for a public school. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) reaffirmed federal support, directing that "schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged" (NAESP, 1984, p. 10) in the vast territory that formed the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes States. Hhen the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789, it made no mention of education as a federal charge, by inference leaving the schooling of the population to states and, through delegation by the states, to localities. Thus the United States departed from the European system of nationally controlled public schools. Local control of public schools still sets the United States apart from most other nations. From the 18205 onward, as immigrants from Europe increased the population and the young republic grew and prospered, the society concerned itself with the rights of the common man. Pressure built 20 for common schools to replace the costly private academies and to provide free, nonsectarian education for rich and poor alike. One factor remained constant, however, throughout this transitional period. Local communities continued to control school policy directly. Thus, before 1900, American schools were properly characterized as being highly decentralized; decisions about day-to- day operations of schools were left to local communities and reflected local values, regional differences, and community vocational needs. In 1900, school governance was still embedded in the local community. Even though the national population had grown to 72,000,000, there were approximately 110,000 local school districts with an average of five members per board. Community residents were able to have close contact with local school board members, and disagreements over schools could be settled on a personal basis (NAESP, 1984). Since 1900, the population has continued to expand, and there has been a continuing effort by state legislatures to consolidate school districts. This has meant that the ratio of representatives to those represented has decreased dramatically. Today there are 16,000 operating school districts, while the national population has increased to more than 210,000,000. Another factor in the decline of local influence in education was the decision in the early 19005 to depoliticize the schools, which resulted from a call for professionalization of both teachers 21 and administrators. As matters became more and more complex, schools grew in numbers and school populations expanded. The school committees or boards became more and more dependent on professionals for day-to-day decisions. Educational policy making was turned over largely to these educators, either formally through legislation or informally through reliance on professional judgment. The skills of teaching and of school administration were considered a science to be taught by institutions that trained teachers. The less- measurable skills deriving from an educator’s upbringing and character became increasingly less important. The technical principle of competence was highly valued, and legislators at every level turned to educators for the specification of school laws and policies. School governance was severed from such regular political processes as partisan elections on the assumption that professional expertise would more effectively serve the common good if "we could get the schools out of politics." Efficiency ‘thus became the criterion for policy making in the schools, as in industry. Professional influence on day-to-day policy decisions was not confined to intra-district governance; it was also influential at the state level. Organizations of 'teachers and administrators lobbied to secure standards for certification, curriculum, and personnel policies. Professiona15--for the most part, administrators who had served at the local level-~comprised the staffs of state educational departments and promulgated regulations in the process of administering the state codes. The twentieth 22 century then gave rise to centralized educational governance, to the increase of the power of the state to ensure minimal standards and to oversee programs, thus strengthening the authority of central city boards and superintendents at the expense of broad-based politically controlled boards. Beginning well beyond the middle of the century, there were several attempts at countervailing reform, as seen in experiments in community control and decentralization. The movement for community control and later efforts to achieve accountability in education stemmed from complex factors: the failure of city school systems to educate poor, black, and non-English-speaking students; lags in reading scores; high dropout rates; and the failure of integration in big cities. For many of these reasons, some school districts began to develop some form of SACs. Somaofloomtomittoos During the 19805, several major cities enacted decentralization plans, notably New York, Detroit, and Chicago, all of which gave citizens a measure. of control over school personnel. The typical decentralization scheme involved the division of a school district into several smaller units, each serving a cluster of elementary schools and one or two high schools. Each unit was headed by a regional or district superintendent. Citizens were encouraged to take their concerns and complaints to the regional office, where the central office functions of planning, pupil personnel services, curriculum development, and teachers’ inservice work were duplicated 23 on the regional scale (National Committee for Citizens in Education [NCCE], 1975). Most of the decentralization plans were accompanied by citizen and/or parent councils whose function was to advise the regional superintendent and his staff. SACs were usually given no policy- making roles, and they had little or no control over the budget at the area or regional level. Their role in the hiring and evaluation of teachers and administrators was, with few exceptions, advisory. Even when decentralization was in this formative stage, teachers’ organizations and administrators’ organizations usually opposed it, fearing any loss of authority. No one person or group of persons controls the schools, but in a ranking of the degree of control exerted by individuals and groups, students are least influential and professional educators are most powerful. “Advisory councils" were formed in most urban districts as they were decentralized in the past decade. Although there were some exceptions, most of the councils were ineffective. The advisory role of the council and committees renders them vulnerable to being used for the purposes of administration. A direct relationship exists between the effectiveness of the advisory groups and the willingness of the local school principal to listen to it (NCCE, 1975). Irrespective of the laws and research to back them, numerous positive claims have been made about the importance of advisory committees. In California, for example, John Vasconcellos (1976) 24 has been a strong advocate of greater parent participation in the educational process through advisory committees. Gary Hart (1976), another California legislator, through AB 3408 called for advisory input into the competency—based graduation requirements. Even Hilson Riles, then State Superintendent of Public Education Programs for the State of California, made parent advisory committees an integral part of the total plan. Several California groups and agencies have developed materials and guidelines for the purpose of philosophically supporting advisory councils and offering suggestions for setting up functional groups. In the San Diego County Office of Education, Robbins (1975) put together a resource document giving first-step suggestions to site administrators. The Los Angeles Unified School District prepared a publication on the use and abuse of advisory committees. This is considered one of the best sources available in terms of establishing operational relationships between the board of education and the site administrator, and between one advisory committee and another. The publication delineates the areas in which the advisory committee does and does not have advisory power. Even at the national level there are agencies promoting advisory committees. For example, Don Davies (1976) of the Institute for Responsive Education edited a publication entitled 'Hhere Parents Make a Difference,“ which substantiates the involvement of parents in school business and is difficult to refute. 25 Parent involvement in the schools has traditionally been limited to middle-class parents and to activities outside the decision process. But beginning in the 19605, parents, particularly those with low incomes, have joined in decision making. As federal law has mandated advisory committees for new federal programs, some states are now also mandating school-level advisory committees (Greenwood, 1977). Citizen participation in school governance is rooted in the anti-poverty programs and civil rights, anti-war, and consumer movements of the past decades. Citizen participation in school governance is also the natural reaction to the skyrocketing costs and seldom-realized expectations of education and other human services. The public has come to question the experts and officeholders and demanded more responsive institutions (Davies, 1976). Davies critically viewed citizen participation in education and concluded that its quantity is high but that quality and impact are lagging far behind. School- initiated programs of citizen participation are too often merely window dressing or placating mechanisms. The citizens advisory committee movement has taken off in unexpected directions. Originally intended as a group serving the entire district and its board of education as a consultative body, the citizens committee is now appearing frequently at the local school level as an operational unit (Oldham, 1973). Because of the advisory committees, community members are finding out how complex and complicated the phenomenon of schooling really is. 26 Hhere communities evaluate their schools by the conclusions and judgments of an advisory committee’s collecting and disseminating appropriate information, this may crystallize support for the schools and offset vague and unrealistic criticism (Hofstrand 3. Lloyd, 1971). Many agree that the community, including the advisory committee, has a legitimate role in school and curriculum matters. These people believe that schools with a citizens advisory committee will have better school-community relations than schools that do not have such a committee. The principal is in a unique position to affect the success or failure of the local school’s parent advisory committee. Only through the provision of positive leadership can the principal guide the committee to constructive pursuits. One of the most important functions of the principal is to make sure the advisory committee is aware of its limits, its responsibilities, and the possibilities open before it (Carpenter, 1975). A second function is one of mediation. The principal is the communications link between the advisory committee and the central administration and employees’ organizations. Each must be aware of the concerns, the legal rights, and the obligations of the others. Finally, the principal must use his/her professional expertise to see that the advisory committee does not act out of haste or emotion, but considers all sides of every issue. Only a carefully thought-out decision will stand up under criticism, and only positive results. will hold the advisory committee together and 27 assure the committee’s continued respect from the principal and the school (Carpenter, 1975). Principals tend to see their role as that of legitimate decision maker in the school, yet they realize that committee members may challenge that role, creating potential conflict. Principals whose communities and committees fail to be supportive or are even antagonistic appear more likely to use impression management techniques that could further obscure the root problems hindering good relationships (Jenkins, 1974). It was against this backdrop that Congress mandated that SACs be an integral part of the 00005 educational system. DoQQLaovJsoLLComittoos The Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 (Title XIV of Public Law 95-561) provided for the establishment of advisory committees at each DoDDS school; at any military installation where there is more than one DoDDS school, installation advisory committees (IACs) were established. Specific guidelines concerning the operation and functions of local advisory committees are provided by 000 Instruction 5105.49, "Local Educational Advisory Committees“ (1985). 00005 issues Instructions, which contain the procedures for implementation of the statutes contained in the Public Law, as interpreted by the legal counsel for 'the DoDDS system. During the early planning stages, teachers were to be included as elected participants serving on advisory committees. The 28 Overseas Education Association (OEA) and the Federal Teachers Association (FTA) lobbied to include, as a liaison member to each advisory council, a teacher’s union representative» 'The teacher’s union representatives are appointed to the committees as nonvoting members to view the operation of the committees. This is in contrast to most advisory councils located in the United States. 000 Instruction 5105.49 confirms, clarifies, and establishes objectives, policies, responsibilities, and procedures regarding SACs, IACs, Component Command Advisory Councils, Theater Educational Councils, and the Dependents Education Council for the overseas school system operated by DoDDS. The Instruction identifies responsibilities of advisory committee chairpersons, school principals, DoDDS regional directors, and installation commanders. It also gives guidance regarding elections of committee members, functional responsibilities, and communication processes. It is DoDDS’s policy that participation of family and professional employees be encouraged in the formation and operation of local overseas advisory committees to promote the vitality of these committees and to preserve their integrity and independence of action. These committees were established to foster participation in school affairs by members of the school and military community and provide a coordinated process to address and resolve issues at the lowest practical level. At present, no research is available regarding SACs within the 00005 system. Nor has any formal assessment been done within the 00005 system regarding SACs. 29 Hhen DoDDS was reorganized in 1979, the director of the Germany Region, Joseph Blackstead, expressed his interest in relevant training fer individuals selected to serve on the initial SACs in the former DoDDS-North Germany Region. 000 Instruction 5105.49 was issued in January 1981 and provided for elections of the first committees for the following school year. These committees that were started during the 1981-82 school year experienced numerous problems. Based on feedback and recommendations from a few of the committees, Howard Hickey, a professor in the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University, was contacted concerning the possibility of devising a training program for one teacher and one parent from each of the SACs in DoDDS-North Germany, based on his experience in conducting workshops for similar councils and committees in various parts of the United States. The initial workshop was held in December 1982 and given exceptionally good evaluations by all participants. The evaluations were so positive that schools in what was then DoDDS-South Germany requested similar training after the two regions were merged to form the DoDDS-Germany Region in January 1983. Dr. Hickey then conducted training in April 1983. The third session was held in November 1983 and expanded to include other members of SACs. School principals were required to attend training sessions and to travel with members of their SACs to and from training, to encourage discussion and group identification of goals and strategies (Lundgren, 1989). 30 During relatively the same time periods, the DoDDS Pacific Region under the director, Edward C. Killin, began a formal process of providing training for building-level administrators regarding the functions of SACs and the dynamics of group interaction. James L. Olivero, a professor in the School of Educational Administration at the University of Southern California, was contacted to provide that training. Dr. Olivero provided principals with training sessions two hours a day for four days at the annual DoDDS-Pacific administrators conference held at Camp John Hay, Baguio City, Republic of the Philippines, in January 1983. He followed with one day of informal training at each of the four districts that comprise the DoDDS-Pacific Region (Killin, 1989). The Mediterranean, Panama, and Atlantic Regions did not begin formal training for SAC members until the following school year. The basic underlying premise for this training was predicated by the tremendous amount of confusion that existed in the SACs regarding what was to be the exact role of the SACs. Many of the schools and elected members of the early SACs were operating under the false assumption that their SACs were congruent with elected school boards in the United States and therefore operated in a similar manner with similar types of authority. Summon Citizens have been involved with the educational process since the beginning of formal public education in the United States. Earlier in public education, citizens had direct involvement with 31 local school boards regarding issues of common concern to the community. In the 19705, parent involvement in public education was such a hot issue that SACs were being established in various parts of the United States to allow more parent involvement in the governance of their school districts. The 00005 system, being a public school system located overseas, followed the mandate of Congress in 1978 and formally established SACs in its school system. All this points to the need for research in the 00005 system as to the impact of SACs within 00005 and the factors that may contribute to their success. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction This chapter contains a description of the survey procedures and research methods used in conducting this exploratory study. The following specific topics are described: (a) setting for the study, (b) population, (c) type of study, (d) instrumentation, (e) collection of' data, and (f) treatment of“ data and statistical procedures. A summary concludes the chapter. SettlnoJoLthLStodx This study was delimited to the total population of the DoDDS- Pacific region. The region at the time of this study comprised four geographical areas: Japan, Okinawa, Korea, and the Philippine Islands. A total of 41 schools are located throughout these four areas. They include 25 elementary schools with a combined student population of 17,705; 13 secondary schools with a combined student population of 9,830; and 3 K-12 schools with a combined student population of 1,130, for a total combined student population of 28,665 as of school year 1988-89 (00005, 1989). Each of the four geographic areas has a district superintendent to oversee the operations of ‘the schools and ‘the building-level administrators within that area (see Appendix A). 32 33 ‘ Eomflotion The population under investigation comprised all building-level administrators and school-level advisory committee chairpersons. To allow for equal representation of parents and professional educators in this survey, the following procedure was implemented. In the event the chairperson was a professional employee, the vice- chairperson (if a parent) also received a survey instrument. If the vice-chairperson was a professional employee, a subcommittee chairperson (if a parent) received an instrument. Hhen the chairperson was a parent, the vice-chairperson (if a professional employee) received a survey instrument. If the vice-chairperson was also a parent, a subcommittee chairperson (if a professional employee) received an instrument. In addition, district superintendents within DoDDS-Pacific were surveyed to determine their perceptions as to the perceived degree of success of the school-level advisory committees located in the DoDDS-Pacific region. All 41 of the DoDDS schools located in the ' Pacific region were included in the survey. prooLStudx Because of the nature of the study and the geographic isolation of' the population selected for study, the survey method using questionnaires was selected. The use of questionnaires in research is based on one basic, underlying assumption: The respondent will give truthful answers (Berdie, Anderson, & Niebuhr, 1974). Consideration of this assumption was vital throughout the study. 34 The intention was that the respondents were enthusiastic about the study and were genuinely interested in the final results. The investigator used both comparative and descriptive techniques of research. Comparisons were made among the three groups surveyed-~principals, parents, and teachers. District superintendents were also surveyed. Borg and Gall (1983) emphasized the importance of descriptive studies: Descriptive studies serve several very important functions in education. First in new science, the body of knowledge is relatively small, and we are often confused with conflicting claims and theories. Under these conditions it is often of great value merely to know the current state of the science. Descriptive research provides us with a starting point, and therefore, is Often carried out as a preliminary step to be followed by research using more rigorous control and more objective methods. (p. 20) Good (1973) wrote: Descriptive studies may include present facts or current conditions concerning the nature of a group of persons, a number of objects or a class induction, analysis, classification, enumeration, or measurement. The terms survey and status suggest gathering of evidence relating to current conditions. Analytical school surveys of recent years tell us not only where we are in a particular school system but also recommend next steps by way of progress and suggest the methods of reaching the goal of an improved instructional program. Certainly adequate survey data in the hands of an investigator of insight can be used fer forward looking purposes. (p. 61) W The specific instruments used to gather the data necessary to fulfill the purposes of this study were structured questionnaires developed by the researcher. It has been reported that more studies in the field of social investigation have been conducted with 35 questionnaires than with any other type of survey instrument (Borg & Gall, 1983). ‘ Selltiz (1967) listed several factors that improve the potential for response: 1. The questionnaire length. 2. The attractiveness of the questionnaire. 3. The ease with which the questionnaire can be completed and returned. 4. Color coding and quality printing. 5. Offering the sample members an abstract of the study that delineates the results. All of these factors were taken into consideration when the questionnaires used in this study were being developed. The final survey instruments reflected these considerations. The questionnaires were based on topic areas considered to be important to citizen involvement in the educational decision-making process. A selected review of the literature pertaining to citizen participation in public schools and interviews with selected individuals who had experience and knowledge in this area were conducted before the instruments were developed. Suggested topic areas obtained from these sources were then compiled and categorized, along with the results of the pilot study. Bilot_§tudx A questionnaire consisting of two open-ended questions was developed and mailed directly to 14 00005 administrators on May 7, 36 1986: DoDDS-Hashington Headquarters (2), DoDDS-Germany Regional Headquarters (1), DoDDS-Germany combination elementary/middle school principals (2), DoDDS-Germany elementary school principals (3), DoDDS-Germany middle school principals (1), DoDDS-Germany junior high school principals (l), and DoDDS-Germany senior high school principals (4). The questionnaire responses generated data that were used in the development of the survey instrument administered to all the school-level advisory committee chairpersons, vice- chairpersons, and building-level administrators (see Appendix B). Sonool_Adxisorx_Connittso_uusstionnairo This survey questionnaire was developed from the two open-ended questions of the pilot study, in consultation with the researcher’s doctoral committee, and in particular with Howard Hickey, chairper- son of the committee, who had developed the early training for school-level advisory committee members in DoDDS-Germany. The survey was administered to each school-level advisory committee chairperson/vice-chairperson along with each respective building- level administrator. The survey instruments were mailed on December 22, 1987, directly to each building-level administrator with a detailed set of instructions as to procedures for implementation and administration. The> building-level administrators forwarded the instruments to the advisory committee chairpersons/vice- chairpersons. Three stamped, self-addressed return envelopes were included in the packet for the completed instruments. The returned 37 data were used only to generate group data in order to insure confidentiality (see Appendix C). The School Advisory Committee Questionnaire contained four distinct parts: demographics, support, results, and structure. Demographics. Part I contained a series of questions devoted to determining background information pertaining to school-level advisory committee members. £ercgiyed_§yppgrt. Part II contained 11 questions devoted to determining the present type of perceived support given to school- 1eve1 advisory committees by individuals and groups. In column 1, the respondent was asked to circle on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) the support presently being received, and in column 2, the respondent was asked to circle the amount of support he/she perceived should be received (1 - very low to 5 - very high). £grggiygfi_rg§ylis. Part III contained one statement pertaining to perceived results, asking each respondent to circle the number in each respective column (5 - strongly agree, 4 - agree, 3 - undecided, 2 - disagree, and l - strongly disagree) that best described the extent to which he/she agreed or disagreed with the listed statements. In column 1, the respondent was asked to circle his/her perception of the support at present and in column 2 to circle the perception of how it should be. Egrggiygd_§irggiurg. Part IV of the questionnaire consisted of 10 questions, all of which were broken down into subsections dealing with the structure of each SAC. 38 Bnggijjiy and yaljdjiy. Reliability, as applied to educational measurements, may be defined as the level of internal consistency or stability of the measuring device over time. There are several methods of estimating reliability, most of which call for computing a correlation coefficient between two sets of similar measurements (Borg a Gall, 1983). The internal consistency measure (alpha) of Part II, column 1 is .8553; Part 11, column 2 is .8472, with the alpha levels of Part III, column 1 at .6141 and Part III, column 2 at .6767. A commonly used definition of validity is that it is the degree to which a test measures what it purports to measure. However, this general definition does not take into account the fact that there is more than one kind of test validity. The test user should ask not ”Is this test valid?” but '15 this test valid for the purpose to which I wish to put it?" (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 275). Face validity was used for the purpose of this study. Face validity refers to the evaluator’s appraisal of what the content of the test measures (Borg a Gall, 1983). The process used to develop the questionnaires for this study, i.e., search of the literature, field test, and consultation with the committee, it is believed, established face validity. DistLioLSuosLintsnsionttutm This survey instrument was mailed directly to each district superintendent on December 23, 1987. The instrument was developed 39 using a three-level scale (low, average, superior). (See Appendix D.) CoJioction_of_Data The pilot questionnaires were mailed to 14 00005 administrators located in DoDDS-Germany and the DoDDS-Hashington headquarters on May 7, 1986, along with a letter explaining the rationale for the information and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The pilot instrument was developed specifically to generate questions for the final School Advisory Committee Questionnaire. It consisted of two open-ended questions, which generated the questions that comprised the final School Advisory Committee Questionnaire. A reproduction of the pilot instrument can be found in Appendix E. Fourteen questionnaires were received (100% response rate) by June 15, 1986. Table 3.1 lists the response rate from each of the groups surveyed. Table 3.l.--Pilot survey responses. Number Number Group Sent Returned Percent Principals--e1ementary school 3 -3 100 Principals--elementary/middle 2 2 100 school Principal--middle school 1 1 100 Principal--junior high school 1 l 100 Principals--high school 4 4 100 DoDDS-Germany regional office 1 1 100 DoDDS-Hashington office 2 2 100 Total 14 14 100 40 The District Superintendent Questionnaires were mailed on December 23, 1987, directly to the four superintendents located in DoDDS-Pacific. Each superintendent received, in addition to the questionnaire, a letter describing the task requested. The superintendents were each asked to place a check. mark in the appropriate space provided for each school (low, average, superior), based on his/her perception as to the success of that particular school’s advisory committee. A reproduction of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix F. A response was received from each of the four superintendents by January 20, 1988. This response represented 100% of the superintendents surveyed. Table 3.2 shows the district superintendents’ responses. Table 3.2.--District superintendent responses. Number Number Superintendent Sent Returned Percent Japan 1 l 100 Korea 1 l 100 Okinawa 1 l 100 Philippine Islands 1 l 100 Total 4 4 100 The School Advisory Committee Questionnaires were mailed directly to each building-level principal on December 22, 1987. Twenty-six of the 41 schools surveyed had returned their 41 questionnaires by January 17, 1988. At the DoDDS-Pacific administrators meeting held annually at Camp John Hay, Baguio City, Republic of’ the Philippines, a. verbal request, was made by the researcher to the DoDDS-Pacific principals to assist in getting the remaining advisory committees to respond. The remaining 15 schools replied by February 25, 1988. This represented a 100% return rate on all School Advisory Committee Questionnaires. A reproduction of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix G. Table 3.3 shows the number of responses from each of the groups surveyed. Table 3.3.--Advisory committee responses. Teachers Parents Principals Totals Chairpersons Elementary 5 17 O 22 Secondary 6 13 O 19 Vice Committee Chairpersons Elementary ll 5 0 16 Secondary 6 l 0 7 Subcommittee Chairpersons Elementary 10 4 0 14 Secondary 3 1 O 4 Principals Elementary - - 28 28 Secondary - - l3 l3 Total 41 41 41 123 42 ResearcLQuostions To carry out the researcher’s purposes in the study, the following research questions were formulated: l. a. Hhat are the perceptions of principals about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Eleven questions were directed toward principals’ perceptions about the support and involvement of individuals/groups. The 11 questions were designed to elicit a qualitative assessment of the perceived support and involvement, using a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from “very high” to “very low.“ 1. b. Hhat are the perceptions of principals about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be? The same 11 questions were directed toward the principals’ perceptions about what the support and involvement by individuals/ groups should be. 2. a. Hhat are the perceptions of teachers about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? The same 11 questions were directed toward the teachers’ perceptions about the support and involvement of individuals/groups. 2. b. Hhat are the perceptions of teachers about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be? The same 11 questions were directed toward the teachers’ perceptions about what the support and involvement of individuals/ groups should be. 3. a. Hhat are the perceptions of parents about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? The same 11 questions were directed toward parents’ perceptions about the support and involvement of individuals/groups. 43 3. b. Hhat are the perceptions of parents about what the sup- port and involvement of individuals/groups should be? The same 11 questions were directed toward parents’ perceptions about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be. 4. How do secondary school SAC members perceive their struc- ture? Ten questions were directed toward how SAC members of secondary schools perceived their structure. The 10 questions were designed to elicit a qualitative assessment of the perceived structure of advisory committees using Likert-type scales. Questions 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 (a and b) used a 4-point scale ranging from "always“ to "never.” Question 1, using a 3-point scale, elicited a response ranging from 'yes" to I'don’t know'; Question 2 elicited two responses; the first used a 2-point scale ranging from 'yes' to ”no" and the second a 3-point scale ranging from “monthly“ to “yearly.” Question 8 (a, b, c, d, e), using a 2-point scale, elicited a response ranging from 'yes' to 'no'; Question 8f, using a 4~point scale, asked the respondent to check either l'principal," "chairperson,” "agenda committee,“ or “other." Question 1 (c and d), using a 2-point scale, elicited a response of 'yes' or ”no.“ 5. How do elementary school SAC members perceive their struc- ture? The same 10 questions listed previously were directed toward how SAC members of elementary schools perceived their structure. 6. a. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the support and involvement of individuals/groups for SACs? 44 The 11 questions listed previously were directed toward the principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceived support by individuals/groups. 6. b. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the support 32d involvement of individuals/groups for SACS should ? The same 11 questions listed previously were directed toward the principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceived support for SACs by individuals/groups should be. 7. a. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of support and involvement for SACs? The same 11 questions listed previously were directed toward individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to how they perceived support for SACs. 7. b. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to how they perceive support and involvement for SACs should be? The same 11 questions listed previously were directed toward the perceptions of individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of how support for SACs should be. 8. a. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to perceived results of SACs (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making)? Ten questions were directed toward how principals, teachers, and parents perceived the results of SACs. The 10 questions were designed to elicit a qualitative assessment of the perceived results 45 (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, and} [d] decision making). using a five-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from I'strongly agree' to “strongly disagree.“ 8. b. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the results of SACs (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making) should be? The same 10 questions were directed toward how principals, teachers, and parents perceived the results of SACs should be. 9. a. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of the results of SACs? The same 10 questions were directed toward how individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools perceived the results of their SACs. 9. b. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with Eespect to how they perceive the results of SACs should e? The same 10 questions were directed toward how individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools perceived the results of their SACs should be. 10. Hhat are the perceptions of district superintendents about the success of SACs? One question was designed to elicit the perceptions of the superintendents as to the perceived success of the SACs located in their regions. A 3-point Likert-type scale was used, with responses ranging from 'low' to “superior.” 46 Dotunaiosis The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) on the IBM mainframe computer at Michigan State University. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used in examining the data related to Research Questions 8 and 9. MANOVA explores simultaneously the relationship between several independent variables and two or more dependent variables. Use of univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) in such situations could seriously inflate Type I error rates and ignore the possibility that some composite of the variable may provide the strongest evidence of reliable group difference (Summers, 1985). ANOVA was used in examining the data related to Research Questions 6 and 7. ANOVA is among the most widely used methods in statistics (Heiss & Hassett, 1982). Descriptive analysis was used to “describe" the data in Questions 1, 2, 3, and 10. The use of descriptive analysis allowed the researcher to critically view the means and standard deviations of these questions. The advantage of descriptive statistics is that they enable the researcher to use one or two numbers (e.g., the mean and standard deviation) to represent all the individual scores of subjects in the sample. The reduction of a mass of "raw data' to a few descriptive statistics greatly simplifies the task of data interpretation. However, descriptive statistics sometimes oversimplify the data (Borg & Gall, 1983). 47 A nonparametric statistical test (chi-square) was used to analyze the data for Questions 4 and 5. The chi-square statistical test is used when the research data are in the form of frequency counts. These frequency counts can be placed in two or more categories. The chi-square test is most often used when the categories into which frequencies fall are discrete rather than continuous (Borg a Gall, 1983). Summon The study population comprised all 41 elementary and secondary schools and the four district superintendents located in the 00005- Pacific region. A pilot survey instrument was mailed on May 7, 1986, to 14 00005 administrators located either at the 00005- iiashington headquarters or in the DoDDS-Germany region. All instruments were returned by June 15, 1986. The School Advisory Committee Questionnaire was developed from the pilot survey responses and was mailed on December 22, 1987, to 123 principals, teachers, and' parents in the 41 schools in DoDDS- Pacific. As of February 25, 1988, 41 principals, 41 teachers, and 41 parents had responded, giving a 100% response rate. The district superintendent survey instrument was mailed on December 23, 1987, to all four district superintendents in the DoDDS-Pacific region. All four instruments were returned as of January 20, 1988. The data were coded and entered in July 1989. The data were analyzed using the SPSS-X package on the mainframe computer at 4 1 tfif‘ 18 j 48 Michigan State University, using ANOVA, MANOVA, chi-square, and descriptive statistics to examine the data. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Intooduotion The purposes of this chapter were twofold: (a) to present and analyze the data provided by respondents concerning the research questions and (b) to summarize the findings. The researcher’s purpose in this study was to ascertain (a) the perceptions of the SAC members about the support and involvement of individuals and groups from the military community; their SAC structure; and the results of their SACs in terms of communication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making by the principal; (b) relationships between perceived support and involvement and perceived results, and perceived SAC structure and perceived results; and (c) the perceptions of district superintendents about the perceived relative success of SACs within their geographic regions. To gather research data, principals, teachers, parents, and district superintendents were surveyed in the DoDDS-Pacific region. The data are reported and interpreted in terms of the major research questions posed in Chapter I. The methodology employed in the study was outlined in Chapter III. The statistical and qualitative analysis of the data follows. 49 50 BMW One hundred twenty-three survey instruments were mailed to 41 schools in the DoDDS-Pacific region. Responses were received from 41 principals, 41 teachers, and 41 parents, which accounted for 100% of the survey instruments. Of the 123 respondents, 57 (46.3%) were male and 66 (53.7%) were female. The mean age of the 94 individuals who responded was 42 years, with a standard deviation of 7.948, ranging from 25 to 59 years of age. The length of residence within the community of the 114 individuals who responded ranged from 1 to 25 years, with a mean of 4.351 and a standard deviation of 4.358. Seventy-eight (63.4%) of the 115 respondents reported previously serving on an advisory committee, 72 with DoDDS-Pacific and 6 in the United States. Thirty-nine individuals responded to the question concerning number of years of service on SACs; responses ranged from 1 to 10 years, with a mean of 3 years and a standard deviation of 2.740. Seventy-seven (62.6%) of the 123 respondents were members of elementary school advisory committees, whereas 46 (37.4%) were members of secondary school advisory committees. The interpretation of the scale in the following table will be used as a guideline for answering Research Questions la through 3b. It was used on the basis of the scale being a continuum rather than a five-point discrete scale. The choice of the weighted mean intervals was based on the idea that the focal point between any two numbers is the best point to represent the interval between the numbers. 51 The verbal interpretation describes qualitatively the perception of support and involvement of individuals/groups by the respondents. Verbal Unit Height Interpretation (VI) Heighted Mean Intervals 5 Very high (VH) 4.51-above 4 High (H) 3.51-4.50 3 Fairly high (FH) 2.51- .50 2 Low (L) 1.51- .50 1 Very low (VL) 0.51- .50 Research Qgesiicn la: Hhat are the perceptions of principals about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Table 4.1 shows the means, standard deviations (5.0.), and verbal interpretations (VI) for each of the 11 support items, ranked according to mean scores. Table 4.l.--Principals: Is. Item N Mean VI 8.0. 1 Principal 40 4.50 H .64 2 School advisory committee members 41 4.22 H .65 3 DoDDS-Pacific regional director 38 4.08 H .91 4 District superintendent 41 3.89 H .95 5 Teachers 41 3.59 H .92 6 Parent-teacher association 27 3.14 FH 1.13 7 Installation commander 41 3.12 FH 1.27 8 Teachers association 40 3.08 PM 1.05 9 Parents 41 2.89 FH 1.03 10 Paraprofessionals 41 2.49 L 1.03 11 Students 35 2.00 L 1.01 52 Table 4.1 summarizes principals’ perceptions of support and involvement of individuals/groups. They believed they were the most involved and that paraprofessionals and students were the least involved. It is interesting that principals perceived themselves and SAC members as being highly involved and parents as having a minimal amount of involvement. Hhat are the perceptions of principals about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be? Table 4.2 shows the means, standard deviations, and verbal interpretations for each of the 11 support items, ranked according to mean scores. Principals perceived that parents should have a much greater involvement with SACs than was presently taking place. Table 4.2.--Principals: Should be. Item N Mean VI S.D 1 School advisory committee members 41 4.68 VH .47 2 Principals 40 4.68 VH .53 3 Teachers 41 4.49 H .60 4 Parents 41 4.41 H .63 5 District superintendent 41 4.40 H .77 6 DoDDS-Pacific regional director 39 4.39 H .78 7 Installation commander 41 4.34 H .79 8 Teachers association 40 4.10 H .90 9 Parent-teacher association 30 4.07 H 1.05 10 Paraprofessionals 40 3.28 FH 1.04 11 Students 35 2.91 FH 1.25 53 Emma. Hhat are the perceptions of teachers about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Table 4.3 shows the means, standard deviations, and verbal interpretations for each of the 11 support items, ranked according to mean scores. Teachers perceived that principals were very involved, whereas students, paraprofessionals, and parents had minimal involvement. They perceived themselves as having a high level of involvement. Table 4.3.--Teachers: Is. Item N Mean V1 5.0. 1 Principals 40 4.70 VH .66 2 School advisory committee members 39 4.31 H .77 3 District superintendents 39 4.10 H 1.06 4 Teachers 40 3.73 H 1.11 5 Teachers association 39 3.62 H 1.14 6 DoDDS-Pacific regional director 34 3.60 H 1.16 7 Installation commander 40 3.30 FH 1.31 8 Parent-teacher association 26 3.04 FH 1.43 9 Parents 40 3.00 FH 1.15 10 Paraprofessionals 38 2.63 FH 1.17 11 Students 37 2.24 L 1.14 . Hhat are the perceptions of teachers about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be? Table 4.4 shows the means, standard deviations, and verbal interpretations for each of the 11 support items, ranked according to mean score. Teachers perceived that the involvement of individuals/groups was as it should be, with the exception of the 54 involvement by parents. Teachers thought that parent involvement should be much greater. Table 4.4.--Teachers: Should be. Item N Mean VI S.D. l Principals 40 4.73 VH .51 2 School advisory committee members 39 4.70 VH .52 3 District superintendents 40 4.60 VH .63 4 Parents 40 4.48 H .78 5 Teachers 40 4.40 H .71 6 Installation commander 40 4.40 H .90 7 DoDDS-Pacific regional director 35 4.31 H .76 8 Parent-teacher association 29 4.31 H .76 9 Teachers association 37 4.30 H .70 10 Paraprofessionals 39 3.46 H .88 11 Students 37 3.24 H 1.14 Hhat are the perceptions of parents about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Table 4.5 shows the means, standard deviations, and verbal interpretations for each of the 11 support items, ranked according to mean scores. Regarding the support and involvement of individuals/groups, parents perceived that principals and SAC members were most involved and that parents and students were least involved. It is interesting that parents perceived their' own involvement as minimal. 55 Table 4.5.--Parents: Is. Item N Mean VI S.D. l Principals 41 4.31 H .87 2 School advisory committee members 41 4.24 H .69 3 District superintendents 37 4.03 ~H .90 4 Teachers 41 4.00 H .92 5 DoDDS-Pacific regional director 35 3.70 H .96 6 Teachers association 34 3.53 H .93 7 Parent-teacher association 29 3.48 FH 1.30 8 Installation commander 40 3.40 FH 1.03 9 Paraprofessionals 35 3.20 FH 1.08 10 Parents 41 2.50 L 1.19 11 Students 39 2.49 L 1.23 Table 4.6 shows the means, Hhat are the perceptions of parents standard deviations, about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be? and verbal interpretations for each of the 11 support items, ranked according to mean scores. members, and parents should be very highly involved. Parents perceived that principals, SAC committee Table 4.6.--Parents: Should be. Item N Mean VI S.D. 1 Parents 40 4.78 VH .78 2 Principals 40 4.73 VH .51. 3 School advisory committee members 39 4.70 VH .52 4 District superintendents 40 4.60 VH .63 5 Teachers 40 4.40 H .71 6 Installation commander 40 4.40 H .90 7 DoDDS-Pacific regional director 35 4.31 H .76 8 Parent-teacher association 29 4.31 H .76 9 Teachers association 37 4.30 H .70 10 Paraprofessionals 39 3.50 FH .90 11 Students 37 3.24 FH 1.14 56 . How do secondary school SAC members per- ceive their structure? Forty-six secondary school advisory committee members responded to survey questions in Part IV of the survey instrument pertaining to SAC structure. A profile of SAC activities/characteristics based on a summary of the responses follows. A typical secondary school advisory committee met on a regular basis on the second Tuesday of each month at the same time and location. The principal, elected committee members of the SAC, military representative, and the teacher’s union representative were usually in attendance. The committee operated with established by- laws, goals and objectives, and subcommittees. An agenda was set in advance, with meetings starting and ending at an established time. The agenda was closely followed, using Robert’s Rules of Order, with minutes of the meeting being recorded. The end-of>year report was sent to the DoDDS—Pacific and DoDDS-Hashington offices. The following narrative is a selected presentation of the data in terms of number of respondents and percentages. Forty-four (100%) of the individuals who responded indicated their SAC meetings were held on a regular basis. Forty-five (98%) indicated meetings were held monthly, and one respondent (2%) indicated meetings were held quarterly. Twenty-five respondents (54%) said meetings were always held at the same time, and 21 (46%) indicated the meetings were usually held at the same time. Thirty individuals (65%) indicated the meetings were always held at the 57 same location, whereas 16 respondents (35%) indicated meetings usually were held at the same location. Seventeen respondents (40%) indicated Tuesday as the day of the week set aside for their meetings, 12 respondents (28%) indicated Monday, 7 (16%) Hednesday, and 7 (16%) Thursday. Three respondents (7%) indicated all voting members attended regularly, and 43 respondents (90%) indicated voting members usually attended. Thirty-nine respondents (85%) indicated the principal always attended meetings, and 7 respondents (15%) indicated the principal usually attended meetings. A military representative always attended the meetings, according to 11 respondents (24%). Eighteen respondents (40%) indicated the military representative usually attended, 10 (22%) indicated sometimes, and 6 (13%) indicated never. Thirteen respondents (29%) indicated the teachers union representative always attended meetings, 14 respondents (31%) responded usually, 11 (24%) responded sometimes, and 7 (16%) responded never. Community members attending meetings who were not on the advisory committee were as follows: parents, always in attendance as responded to by 4 respondents (9%), usually in attendance as responded to by 5 respondents (11%), sometimes in attendance as responded to by 31 respondents (67%), and never in attendance as responded to by 6 respondents (13); students, always in attendance as responded to by 2 respondents (4%), usually in attendance as responded to by 2 respondents (4%), sometimes in attendance as responded to by 26 respondents (57%), and never in attendance as responded to by 16 respondents (35%); and teachers, 58 always in attendance as responded to by 5 respondents (11%), usually in attendance as responded to by 10 respondents (22%), sometimes in attendance as responded to by 26 respondents (57%), and never in attendance as responded to by 5 respondents (11%). Forty-four respondents (96%) indicated their Committees operated with established by-laws, whereas 2 respondents (4%) responded that committees did not operate with by-laws. Forty-three respondents (94%) indicated goals and objectives were established, and 3 respondents (4%) indicated goals and objectives were not established. Eighteen respondents (40%) indicated goals and objectives were always established at the beginning of the year, 19 respondents (42%) indicated usually, and 8 (7%) responded sometimes. Twenty-five respondents (57%) indicated subcommittees were established, whereas 19 respondents (43%) responded that subcommittees were not established. Sixty-six respondents (100%) indicated the chairperson was elected, and 45 respondents (98%) indicated the secretary was elected. Twenty-two respondents (48%) indicated meetings always started on time, whereas 24 respondents (52%) responded usually. Four respondents (10%) indicated meetings always ended on time, 34 (85%) responded usually, and 2 (5%) responded never. Forty-five respondents (98%) indicated minutes of the meetings were always kept, and l respondent (2%) indicated usually. Twenty-six respondents (59%) indicated minutes of the meetings were always publicized, 9 respondents (21%) responded usually, 6 (14%) responded 59 sometimes, and 3 (7%) responded never. Thirty-eight respondents (83%) indicated an agenda was set in advance of the meeting, and 8 (17%) indicated the agenda was not set in advance. Twenty-two respondents (48%) indicated the agenda was publicized, and 24 (52%) responded the agenda was not publicized. Thirty-seven respondents (80%) indicated the agenda was followed closely, and 9 respondents (20%) indicated it was not followed closely. Thirty-eight respondents (84%) indicated there was time in the agenda for an open forum. Twenty—seven respondents (68%) indicated Robert’s Rules of Order were followed. Forty respondents (100%) indicated the emd-of-year evaluation was sent to the DoDDS-Washington office, and 39 (100%) indicated the end-of—year evaluation was sent to the DoDDS-Pacific regional office. Forty-three respondents (100%) indicated the previous year’s evaluation was used by the new SAC members. . How do elementary school SAC members perceive their structure? Seventy-seven elementary school advisory committee members responded to survey questions in Part IV of the survey instrument pertaining to SAC structure. A profile of SAC activities/ characteristics based on a summary of the responses follows. A typical elementary school advisory committee met on the second Tuesday of each month at the same time and location. The principal, elected advisory committee voting members, military representative, and teachers union representative were usually in attendance. The committee operated with established by-laws, goals 60 and objectives, and subcommittees. An agenda was set in advance, with meetings starting and ending at an established time. The agenda was closely followed, using Robert’s Rules of Order, with minutes of the meeting being recorded. The end-of—year report was sent to the DoDDS-Pacific and OoDOS-Hashington offices. The following narrative is a selected presentation of the data in terms of numbers and percentages of respondents. Seventy-five (100%) of the individuals who responded indicated their SAC meetings were held on a regular basis. Sixty-eight (88%) indicated meetings were held monthly, and 9 respondents (12%) indicated meetings were held quarterly, with 39 respondents (49%) indicating meetings were always held at the same time and 39 respondents (51%) indicating the meetings were usually held at the same time. Fifty-eight individuals (75%) indicated the meetings were always held at the same location, whereas 19 respondents (25%) indicated meetings were usually held at the same location. Thirty respondents (40%) indicated Tuesday as the day of the week set for their meetings, 19 respondents (25%) indicated Hednesday, 13 (17%) Monday, 12 (16%) Thursday, and l (1%) Friday. Eight respondents (11%) indicated all voting members attended regularly, and 57 respondents (75%) indicated all voting members usually attended. Sixty-eight re5pondents (88%) indicated the principal always attended meetings, and 9 respondents (12%) indicated the principal usually attended meetings. The military representative always attended the meetings was indicated by 27 61 respondents (36%). Twenty-two respondents (29%) indicated the military representative usually attended, 12 (16%) indicated sometimes, and 14 (19%) indicated never. Twenty-six respondents (35%) indicated the teachers union representative always attended meetings, 23 (31%) responded usually, 14 (19%) responded sometimes, and 12 (16%) responded never. Community members attending meetings who were not on the advisory committee were as follows: parents, always in attendance as responded to by 2 respondents (3%), usually in attendance as responded to by 12 respondents (16%), sometimes in attendance as responded to by 48 respondents (62%), and never in attendance as responded to by 15 respondents (20%); students, always in attendance as responded to by l respondent (1%), sometimes in attendance as responded to by 10 respondents (14%), and never in attendance as responded to by 63 respondents (85%); and teachers, always in attendance as responded to by 9 respondents (12%), usually in attendance as responded to by 10 respondents (13%), sometimes in attendance as responded to by 41 respondents (55%), and never in attendance as responded to by 15 respondents (20%). Seventy-one respondents (93%) indicated their committees operated with established by-laws, and 5 respondents (7%) responded that committees did not operate with by-laws. Seventy-one respondents (93%) indicated goals and objectives were established, and 5 (7%) indicated goals were not established. Thirty-five respondents (46%) indicated goals and objectives were always established at the beginning of the year, 33 (43%) responded 62 usually, 7 (9%) responded sometimes, and l (1%) said never. Forty respondents (54%) indicated subcommittees were established, but 34 respondents (46%) indicated subcommittees were never established. Seventy-six respondents (99%) indicated the chairperson was elected, and 73 (95%) indicated the secretary was elected. Thirty-three respondents (43%) indicated meetings always started on time, whereas 44 (57%) responded usually. Eleven respondents (15%) indicated meetings always ended on time, 59 (82%) said usually, and 2 (3%) said never. Sixty-five respondents (87%) indicated an agenda was set in advance of the meeting, and 10 (13%) responded that an agenda was not set in advance. Forty-one respondents (57%) indicated the agenda was publicized, and 31 (43%) responded it was not publicized. Sixty-seven respondents (92%) indicated the agenda was followed closely, and 65 respondents (90%) responded yes to time in the agenda for an open forum. Fifty-three respondents (72%) indicated Robert’s Rules of Order were followed. Fifty-eight respondents (85%) indicated the end-of—year evaluation was sent to the DoDDS-Hashington office, and 68 (97%) indicated the end-of-year evaluation was sent to the DoDDS-Pacific regional office. Seventy respondents (96%) indicated the previous year’s evaluation was used by the new SAC members. Table 4.7 shows the relationships of secondary and elementary school SAC members with regard to their perceptions of their SAC structure. To show the relationship between elementary and 63 secondary respondents with respect to their perceptions of SAC structure, chi-square test results are presented. Table 4.7.--Perceptions of the SAC structure. Item Chi-Square df p Established by-laws .01 1 .91 Established goals and objectives .00 l 1.00 Established subcommittees .01 l .92 Elected chairperson .00 l 1.00 Elected secretary .12 1 .73 How often meetings held 2.33 l .13 Meeting same time throughout year .12 l .73 Meeting held at same location 1.00 l .32 Attended by all committee members 4.22 3 .24 Attended by most committee members 1.31 1 .25 Attended by few committee members 3.29 3 .35 Attended by principal .08 l .77 Attended by military member 3.22 3 .36 Attended by teachers union representative .74 3 .86 Attended by parents (not on committee) 3.47 3 .32 Attended by students (not on committee) 32.65 3 .00* Attended by teachers (not on committee) 2.71 3 .44 Minutes of meeting are kept .00 l 1.00 Minutes of meeting are publicized 1.49 3 .68 Meeting starts on time .12 l .73 Meeting ends on time .92 2 .63 Agenda set in advance of meeting .12 l .73 Agenda publicized .61 1 .44 Agenda followed closely 2.35 1 .13 Agenda establishes time for open forum .43 l .51 Agenda follows Robert’s Rules of Order .60 l .81 Goals set at beginning of school year 2.51 3 .47 Priorities set at beginning of school year .96 2 .62 Goals and priorities are followed 4.30 2 .12 End-of—year evaluation is completed 3.80 3 .28 End-of—year report sent to DoDDS-Hashington 2.23 3 .53 End-of-year report sent to regional office .00 l 1.00 Previous year’s evaluation used by new SAC .00 l 1.00 *Significant at alpha - .05. 64 Table 4.7 summarizes the relationships of secondary school and elementary school advisory committee members with regard to their perceptions of their SAC structure. For analysis purposes, total frequency responses to the SAC questionnaire items in Part IV, la, b, and c, were collapsed from yes, no, and don’t know to the two categories of yes and no. Items 3, 5, 7b, d, and k were collapsed from always, usually, sometimes, and never to the three response groups of always, usually, and never. There was no significant difference in the structure of the elementary school advisory committees and the secondary school advisory committees with the exception of student participation on the secondary school advisory committees. To serve as an elected member of a SAC, a student must be 18 years of age and presently attending ‘that school. ‘This accounts for the only significant difference between the elementary and secondary school advisory committee perceived structure regarding student participation. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the support and involvement of individuals/groups for SACs? 3W: Are there differences between individu- als from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of the support and involvement for SACs? Table 4.8 summarizes under the heading "Groups' the F-test reflecting the differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceived support and involvement by individuals/groups for SACs. The data revealed a significant difference among the three groups in how they perceived the support 65 Table 4.8.-—Analysis of variance for the elementary/secondary group effect: Is. Is Effect F-Test p GrouLioriooioalsiJoaonorsimrontst 1. School advisory members .16 .85 2. Teachers 2.01 .14 3. Principal 2.12 .12 4. District superintendent 3.98 .05* 5. Paraprofessionals 5.29 .01* 6. Teachers association 3.21 .04* 7. Students 1.88 .16 8. Parents 1.85 .16 9. Installation commander .60 .55 10. Parent-teacher association 1.32 .27 ll. DoDDS-Pacific regional director 2.33 .10 Honontarxfiooonuart 1. School advisory members 6.91 .01* 2. Teachers 8.10 .01* 3. Principal 11.16 .00* 4. District superintendent 3.98 .05* 5. Paraprofessionals 9.20 .00* 6. Teachers association 5.37 .02* 7. Students .22 .64 8. Parents .11 .75 9. Installation commander 2.67 .11 10. Parent-teacher association 7.83 .01* ll. DoDDS-Pacific regional director 2.52 .12 Interaction 1. School advisory members 1.17 .31 2. Teachers 1.92 .15 3. Principal 2.66 .08 4. District superintendent 6.05 .00* 5. Paraprofessionals .89 .42 6. Teachers association 2.47 .09 7. Students 1.00 .37 8. Parents 1.04 .37 9. Installation commander .82 .45 10. Parent-teacher association .89 .41 ll. DoDDS-Pacific regional director 4.65 .01* *Significant at alpha - .05. 66 and involvement by district superintendents, paraprofessionals, and the teachers association. Sumarized under the heading "Elementary/Secondary” are the F-tests reflecting the differences between individuals from elementary schools and those from secondary schools with respect to their perceptions of how support and involvement is for SACs. The data revealed that elementary and secondary school advisory committee members perceived the support and involvement significantly differently with the exception of the following individuals/groups: students, parents, installation commander, and DoDDS-Pacific regional director. Summarized under “Interaction” is the analysis of the F-tests reflecting the interaction of "Groups" and ”Elementary/Secondary.” The only difference between the elementary and secondary school advisory committees and the principal, teacher, and parent groups in terms of support and involvement existed with district superintend- ents and the DoDDS-Pacific regional director. 67 Table 4.9.--Summary of means and sample sizes for the three groups (principals, teachers, and parents): Is. Principals Teachers Parents Group —————-—- Mean M Mean N Mean N 1. School advisory committee 4.22 41 4.31 39 4.24 42 2. Teachers 3.59 41 3.72 40 3.98 42 3. Principals 4.50 40 4.65 40 4.31 42 4. District superintendents 3.88 41 4.08 39 4.03 37 5. Paraprofessionals 2.49 41 2.63 38 3.20 35 6. Teachers association 3.07 40 3.62 39 3.53 34 7. Students 1.97 35 2.24 37 2.49 39 8. Parents 2.88 41 2.95 40 2.50 42 9. Installation commander 3.12 41 3.30 40 3.40 40 10. Parent-teacher association 3.15 27 3.04 26 3.48 29 11. DoDDS regional director 4.08 38 3.59 34 3.69 35 Table 4.10.--Summary of means and sample sizes for elementary/ secondary respondents: Is. Group Elementary Mean N Secondary Mean M —l—l doomNGUI-wa—l o o o o o o o o o o 0 School advisory committee Teachers Principals District superintendents Paraprofessionals Teachers association Students Parents Installation commander Parent-teacher association DoDDS regional director wwwNNwN-uJ-wa U‘meU‘D-JGSDN NN-i-‘ONNNU'IUIQ N O wmwwnwnwowa _| N h w 68 . Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the gggport and involvement of individuals/groups for SACs should . Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to how they perceive the support and involvement for SACs should be? Table 4.11 summarizes under the heading “Groups" the FFtests reflecting the differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceived support and involvement should be. The only group on which the principals, teachers, and parents differed significantly was the paraprofessionals. Sumarized under the heading “Elementary/Secondary" are the F-tests reflecting the differences between individuals from elementary schools and those from secondary schools with respect to their perceptions of how support and involvement should be for SACs. The data revealed that elementary and secondary school advisory comittee members perceived what should be the involvement and support of individuals/groups as similar with the exception of the involvement and support by SAC. members, principals, paraprofes- sionals, teacher association representatives, and students. Summarized under “Interaction“ are the F-tests that reflect the interaction of ”Groups“ and "Elementary/Secondary." The data indicated a significant difference among teachers, principals and parents and between elementary and secondary school advisory committee members regarding their perceptions of support and involvement by SAC members, teachers, principals, and district superintendents. 69 Table 4.1l.--Ana1ysis of variance for the elementary/secondary group effect: Should be. Should Be Effect F-Test p MW 1. School advisory members .23 .80 2. Teachers .32 .73 3. Principal .11 .89 4. District superintendent 1.06 .35 5. Paraprofessionals 10.13 .00* 6. Teachers association 1.64 .20 7. Students 2.29 .11 8. Parents .12 .89 9. Installation commander .38 .69 10. Parent-teacher association .56 .57 11. DoDDS-Pacific regional director .15 .86 Wu 1. School advisory members 4.97 .03* 2. Teachers 1.66 .20 3. Principal 6.10 .02* 4. District superintendent 2.26 .14 5. Paraprofessionals 15.74 .00* 6. Teachers association 4.18 .04* 7. Students 8.88 .00* 8. Parents 1.17 .28 9. Installation commander 2.89 .09 10. Parent-teacher association .18 .67 11. DoDDS-Pacific regional director .01 .93 Intenactnn 1. School advisory members 4.05 .02* 2. Teachers 5.38 .01* 3. Principal 5.46 .01* 4. District superintendent 6.13 .00* 5. Paraprofessionals 1.76 .18 6. Teachers association 1.90 .16 7. Students 1.12 .33 8. Parents 1.31 .28 9. Installation commander .15 .86 10. Parent-teacher association .47 .63 11. DoDDS-Pacific regional director 1.22 .30 *Significant at alpha - .05. 70 Table 4.12.--Summary of means and sample sizes for the three groups (principals, teachers, and parents): Should be. Principals Teachers Parents Group —— Mean M Mean N Mean N 1. School advisory committee 4.68 41 4.69 39 4.74 42 2. Teachers 4.49 41 4.40 40 4.49 42 3. Principals 4.67 40 4.72 40 4.68 42 4. District superintendents 4.39 41 4.60 40 4.53 36 5. Paraprofessionals 3.27 40 3.46 39 4.09 34 6. Teachers association 4.10 40 4.27 37 4.38 34 7. Students 2.91 35 3.24 37 3.46 39 8. Parents 4.41 41 4.47 40 4.48 42 9. Installation commander 4.34 41 4.38 40 4.47 40 10. Parent-teacher association 4.07 30 4.31 29 4.20 30 11. 00005 regional director 4.38 39 4.31 35 4.41 37 Table 4.13.--Summary of means and sample sizes for elementary/ secondary respondents: Should be. Elementary Secondary Group —— Mean N Mean N 1. School advisory committee 4.78 76 4.59 46 2. Teachers 4.51 76 4.37 46 3. Principals 4.78 76 4.56 45 4. District superintendents 4.58 73 4.39 44 5. Paraprofessionals 3.81 70 3.21 43 6. Teachers association 4.35 69 4.07 42 7. Students 2.95 65 3.59 46 8. Parents 4.51 77 4.37 46 9. Installation commander 4.49 76 4.24 45 10. Parent-teacher association 4.22 59 4.13 30 11. 00005 regional director 4.37 70 4.37 41 71 . Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the results of SACs (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making)? . Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of the results of the results of SACS? ‘ Table 4.14 summarizes under the heading 'Group' the multivariate F-tests reflecting the differences among principals, teachers, and parents; under the heading "Elementary/Secondary" the differences between elementary and secondary respondents; and under the heading “Interaction“ the interaction between the group effect and the elementary/secondary effect with respect to their perceptions of communication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making. Table 4.14.--Mu1tivariate test (Hilks): Is. Effect F-Test p Group (principal, teacher, parent) 1.51 .154 Elementary/secondary 1.53 .199 Interaction 1 09 .369 Note: None of the differences was significant at alpha - .05. Table 4.15 summarizes under the heading “Group“ the univariate F-tests that reflect the difference in the perceptions of principals, teachers, and parents with respect to their perception of communication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making. Sumarized under the heading "Elementary/Second- ary" are the univariate F-tests that reflect the differences between individuals from elementary schools and those from secondary schools with respect to their perceptions of communication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making. Summarized under "Interaction“ are the univariate F-tests that reflect the interaction between the group effect and the elementary/secondary effect. The only significant difference was among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to their perceptions regarding decision making. Table 4.15.--Univariate F-test of significance for the principals, teachers, and parents group effect: Is. Effect Hypoth. Error F- SS SS Test p W m Communication 4.8 76.88 .35 .71 Attitudes toward school 1.12 26.64 2.36 .10 Parent involvement .46 131.40 .20 .82 Decision making 2.55 27.41 5.22 .01* W Communication 1.59 76.88 2.32 .13 Attitudes toward school .86 26.64 3.61 .06 Parent involvement .00 131.40 .00 .96 Decision making .01 27.41 .03 .87 111mm Communication 2.01 76.88 1.46 .24 Attitudes toward school .76 26.64 1.60 .21 Parent involvement 1.27 131.40 .54 .58 Decision making 1.15 27.41 2.35 .10 *Significant at alpha - .05. 73 Table 4.16.--Summary of means and sample sizes for the three groups (principals, teachers, and parents) on the four outcome variables concerning results: Is. Principals Teachers Parents Outcome Variable —— — —— Mean M Mean N Mean N Communication 3.66 41 3.77 37 3.83 40 Attitudes toward school 2.46 41 2.67 37 2.74 40 Parent involvement 3.24 41 3.38 37 3.30 40 Decision making 2.88 41 3.18 37 3.29 40 Table 4.17.--Summary of means and sample sizes for elementary] secondary respondents on the four outcome variables concerning results: Is. Elementary Secondary Outcome Variable -———————- Mean N Mean N Communication 3.67 75 3.90 43 Attitudes toward school 2.55 75 2.74 43 Parent involvement 3.31 75 3.30 43 Decision making 3.12 75 3.12 43 . Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the results of SACs (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes tgwarg bschool, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making) s ou e? . Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to how they perceive the results of SACs should be? 74 Table 4.18 summarizes under the heading ”Group" the multivariate F-test reflecting the differences among principals, teachers, and parents; under the heading "Elementary/Secondary" the differences between elementary and secondary respondents; and under the heading “Interaction” the interaction of the group effect and the elementary/secondary effect with respect to respondents’ perceptions of how conlnunication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making should be. Table 4.18.--Mu1tivariate test (Hilks): Should be. Effect F-Test p Group (principal, teacher, parent) 1.72 .095 Elementary/secondary .29 .885 Interaction 1.03 .410 Note: None of the differences was significant at alpha - .05. Table 4.19 summarizes under the heading "Group“ the univariate F-tests that reflect the difference among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to their perceptions of how comunication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making should be. Summarized under the heading “Elementary/Secondary” are the univariate F-tests that reflect the differences between individuals from elementary schools and those from secondary schools with respect to their perceptions of how comunication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making should be. 75 Summarized under “Interaction“ are the univariate F-tests that reflect the interaction of the group effect and the elementary/ secondary effect. Table 4.19.--Univariate F-test of significance for the elementary/ secondary group effect: Should be. Effect Hypoth. Error F- SS SS Test p W parental Communication .83 32.63 1.42 .25 Attitudes toward school 1.37 47.79 1.59 .21 Parent involvement 1.44 60.30 1.32 .27 Decision making 3.24 31.46 5.71 .00* W Communication .07 32.63 .23 .64 Attitudes toward school .37 47.79 .86 .35 Parent involvement .18 60.30 .39 .56 Decision making .09 31.46 .32 .58 Interaction Communication 1.23 32.63 2.10 .13 Attitudes toward school .12 47.79 .14 .87 Parent involvement 1.48 60.30 1.36 .26 Decision making .44 31.46 .78 .46 *Significant at alpha - .05. 76 Table 4.20.--Summary of means and sample sizes for the three groups (principals, teachers, and parents) on the four outcome variables concerning results: Should be. Principals Teachers Parents Outcome Variable —— —— —— Mean M Mean N Mean N Communication 4.43 40 4.45 38 4.59 39 Attitudes toward school 2.78 40 3.04 38 3.03 39 Parent involvement 4.27 40 4.32 38 4.51 39 Decision making 2.97 40 3.31 38 3.40 39 Table 4.21.--Summary of means and sample sizes for the elementary/ secondary respondents on the four outcome variables concerning results: Should be. Elementary Secondary Outcome Variable -——————_—— ________. Mean N Mean N Communication 4.21 77 4.54 45 Attitudes toward school 2.71 77 3.02 45 Parent involvement 4.05 77 4.42 45 Decision making 2.99 77 3.27 45 . What are the perceptions of district superintendents about the success of SACs? Table 4.22 summarizes the perceptions of' district superin- tendents about the success of SACs. The mean score was 2.25, with a standard deviation of .45. Based on the responses of the four district superintendents, the advisory committees operated at a moderate level of success in less than half of the schools located in their countries. 77 Table 4.22.--D}stxict superintendents’ perceptions of the success 0 S Cs. District | ----- Low ----- |--Average--|--Superior--| Superintendent l 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Number 1 0 O 7 0 3 Number 2 O 2 2 4 0 Number 3 O O 4 O 3 Number 4 0 1 9 3 2 Total 0 3 22 7 8 5.1111an Chapter IV contained a presentation and analysis of the data provided by the respondents and analyzed according to the research hypotheses. The data were presented in tabular format, along with an analysis of the data. In Chapter V, a summary of the findings is presented, conclusions drawn, guidelines for SACs presented, recommendations for future research offered, and reflections regarding the study provided. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, GUIDELINES, AND REFLECTIONS 5.1mm: Burns: The researcher’s purpose in this study, as outlined in Chapter I, was to determine the perceptions of SAC members about the support and involvement of various groups and individuals from the military school conlnunity. that did they perceive to be the relationship between support/involvement and results? Finally, district superintendents were asked for their perceptions about the relative success of school-level advisory' committees in their geographic regions. To achieve the researcher’s purposes in the study, ten research questions were addressed. In this chapter, the findings pertaining to the questions are presented, conclusions are drawn, and recommendations for practice and further research are offered. W' In this chapter, the findings as determined by the analysis of data are stated in relation to each of the research questions posed in Chapter I. 78 79 la. Nhat are the perceptions of principals about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? The principals believed they were the most involved and that paraprofessionals and students were the least involved. 1b. Nhat are the perceptions of principals about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be? Principals perceived that parents should have a much greater involvement with SACs than was presently taking place. 2a. Nhat are the perceptions of teachers about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Teachers perceived that principals were very involved, whereas students, paraprofessionals, and parents had minimal involvement. 2b. Nhat are the perceptions of teachers about what the sup- port and involvement of individuals/groups should be? Teachers perceived that the involvement of individuals/groups was as it should be, with the exception of parents’ involvement. Teachers thought that parents’ involvement should be much greater. 3a. Nhat are the perceptions of parents about the support and involvement of individuals/groups? Parents’ perceptions regarding the support and involvement of individuals/groups were that principals and SAC members were the most involved and that parents and students were least involved. Parents perceived their own involvement as minimal. 3b. Nhat are the perceptions of parents about what the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be? Parents perceived that principals, SAC members, and parents should be very highly involved. 80 4. How do secondary school SAC members perceive their struc- ture? A typical secondary school advisory committee met on a regular basis on the second Tuesday of each month at the same time and location. The principal, elected conlnittee members of the SAC, military representative, and the teachers union representative were usually in attendance. The conlnittee operated with established goals and objectives and subconInittees. An agenda was set in advance, with meetings starting and ending at an established time. The agenda was closely followed using Robert’s Rules of Order, with minutes of the meeting being recorded. The end-of-year report was sent to the DoDDS-Pacific and DoDDS-Nashington offices. 5. How do elementary school SAC members perceive their struc- ture? A. typical elementary school advisory committee met on the second Tuesday of each month at the same time and location. 'The principal, elected advisory committee voting members, military representative, and teachers union representative were usually in attendance. The committee operated with established by-laws, goals and objectives, and subconmittees. An agenda was set in advance, with meetings starting and ending at an established time. The agenda was closely followed using Robert’s Rules of Order, with minutes of the meeting being recorded. The end-of—year report was sent to the DoDDS-Pacific and DoDDS-Nashington offices. 81 6a. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the support and involvement of individuals/groups for SACs? A significant difference was found among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceived the support and involvement of district superintendents, paraprofessionals, and the teachers association representatives. 7a. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of support and involvement for SACs? A significant difference was found between secondary and elementary advisory conlnittee members with respect to how they perceived the support and involvement of all groups except students, parents, the installation commander, and the DoDDS-Pacific regional director. 6b. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the support and involvement of individuals/groups for SACs should be? The only group about which the principals, teachers, and parents differed significantly was the paraprofessionals. 7b. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to how they perceive support and involvement for SACs should be? Elementary and secondary SAC members perceived that the support and involvement of individuals/groups should be similar, with the exception of the support and involvement by SAC members, principals, paraprofessionals, teachers association representatives, and students. 82 8a. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to perceived results of SACs (spe- cifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making)? The only significant difference among principals, teachers, and parents was with respect to their perceptions regarding decision making. 9a. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of the results of SACs? A significant difference was found between individuals from secondary schools and those from elementary schools with respect to their perceptions of decision making. 8b. Are there differences among principals, teachers, and parents with respect to how they perceive the results of SACs (specifically, [a] communication, [b] attitudes toward school, [c] parent involvement, [d] decision making) should be? No significant difference was found between individuals from secondary schools and those from elementary schools with regard to their perceptions of the results of SACs. 9b. Are there differences between individuals from secondary schools and individuals from elementary schools with Eespect to how they perceive the results of SACs should e? No significant difference was found between individuals from secondary schools and those from elementary schools with respect to how they perceived what should be the results of SACs. 83 10. What are the perceptions of district superintendents about the success of SACs? Based on the responses of the four district superintendents, the SACs were thought to be successful in less than half of the schools located in their countries. Conclusions The researcher’s purpose in this study was to ascertain (a) the perceptions of the SAC members about the support and involvement of individuals/groups from the military school conlnunity; their SAC structure; and results of their SACs in terms of conlnunication, attitudes toward school, parent involvement, and decision making by the principal; (b) relationships between perceived support/ involvement and perceived results, and perceived SAC structure and perceived results; and (c) the perceptions of district superintendents about the perceived relative success of SACs in their geographic regions. Given the acceptance of the limitations and assumptions cited in Chapter 1, several conclusions were drawn after an analysis of the findings in the foregoing pages. In stating these conclusions, it is important to remember that the SAC members questioned in this study were all fairly new to this process. They were all elected to these positions, and it was assumed they were involved in a task they believed in and wanted the process to work. Conclusion 1: The perceived lack of involvement by parents willing to serve on SACs prevents those advisory conlnittees from operating at high levels of success. 84 Conclusion 2: The perceived lack of involvement by parents on SACs was viewed by parents, teachers, and principals as having a negative effect on the operation of the advisory committees. Nithout active involvement by parents, SACs will never function in the manner for which they were designed--to provide parents with a vehicle for input into the school-level and above-school-level decision-making processes that affect school budgets, curriculum, discipline, busing, lunch programs, and other areas of parental concern. Conclusion 3: Principals must take an active role in the training of new SAC members and in the total operation of the SACs if they are to be successful. Principals are perceived to be the educational leaders within their school conInunities, and as such they must make every effort to provide the necessary training and conInunication skills to advisory committee members to assure maximum success of those committees. Principals need to feel that advisory committees are necessary, vital links to the community whose members have concerns that are valid and suggestions for improvement that need to be considered. Conclusion 4: SAC members and the community they serve must be under the impression that their involvement on these committees is encouraged and that they will have influence on decisions made by the school administration. Conclusion 5: Perceived advisory committee structure is not a key factor in the success or failure of SACs. 85 W The literature clearly demonstrated a growing trend in public education in the United States to involve parents regarding issues of conlnon concern to the conInunity. The 00005 system, being a public school system ‘1ocated overseas, followed the mandate of Congress in 1978 and formally established SACs in the school system. The actual implementation start-up of the mandate varied across geographic regions. Regionwide training then occurred after implementation. This researcher attempted to evaluate the implementation of the SACs in the DoDDS-Pacific region. Although the obtained data indicated that SACs have been organized and are operating, the nature of the study suggests limitations that need further analysis. The following are but a few of the possibilities for recommended future research: 1. The present study was conducted approximately two years after the implementation of DOD Instruction 5105.49, which was issued in November 1985 and was an amendment to the original law. It is important to find out whether the same results would be found if the study were replicated five years after the implementation of this 000 Instruction. 2. The impetus of this 000 Instruction was to create procedures for parents to be involved in the) goal setting and direction of the overseas schools. However, the researcher concluded that parents are not taking advantage of this opportunity. 86 Future researchers should investigate ‘why parents are not more involved in the formal business of SACs in the DoDDS system. 3. It can be assumed that the military community did not have the time before this study was undertaken to adequately train parents and other SAC members about the SACs’ function and purpose. A future study should ask similar questions, after intensive and comprehensive training of the military school conlnunity has been conducted. 4. Finally, further investigation should attempt to determine whether the SACs do make a difference in the educational process and results of overseas military schools. 'n f 1 As a result of this study, the following recommendations are provided as guidelines to help facilitate optimum operation of SACs. A set of guidelines was formulated using data gathered from this study and information gleaned from a package of training materials developed for the sole purpose of providing training for SAC members located in the DoDDS-Germany and DoDDS-Atlantic regions. These materials were developed by Howard H. Hickey (1988a, 1988b), professor of educational administration at Michigan State University, during his eight years as a consultant for 00005 in SAC training procedures. 1. There is a definite need to continue with SACs at the local school and base levels. 87 2. However, provisions need to be made to prevent the bureaucratic processes that are all too often prevalent in the nfllitary and DoDDS system from escalating issues that originate at the grass-roots levels to higher levels of the bureaucracy. 3. Principals need to be actively involved with SACs to include taking an active role in the training of SAC participants and continually to promote and support the SAC activities. 4. Principals, military representatives, teachers association representatives, and all elected members of the SACs for each school should be required to participate in at least a one-day workshop for the purpose of SAC training. This workshop should provide information and procedures that are essential for the successful operation of a SAC. The one-day workshop should elaborate on the following topics: a. The purpose of SACs in 00005. SACs were established to provide a forum at the lowest possible school level, to provide all members of the school community a voice in the operation of the local school. b. Knowledge of the chain of command. It is important for all SAC members to understand the chain of command for issues that may come before the conlnittee. Educational issues are referred through the 00005 chain of command, whereas logistical issues are routed through the military chain of command. c. SAC structure. Although the number of voting and liaison members is established by regulation, it is recommended 88 that SACs use the following vehicles as tools to enhance SAC operation: - Establish at the first meeting of the newly elected committee a set of by-laws that are unique to the school. - Elect officers and define their duties using the established regulations as a guide. - Establish subcommittees to conduct future elections; amend by-laws; set the agenda for meetings; provide information regarding the meeting times and dates to the appropriate media; investigate curriculum, busing, lunch programs, and discipline within the school; and prepare the final report and evaluation to be sent to the appropriate agencies. In the establishment of subcommittees, it is reconmended that SAC members recruit additional interested conlnunity members. In this manner the SAC becomes a more viable vehicle for community involvement. d. Establish meeting agendas in advance and stay within the allotted time for the SAC meetings. It is important to have pre-set agendas that follow the same order for all meetings. Meetings should start on time with minutes from the previous meeting being approved, followed by reports by individuals (i.e., SAC chairperson, principal, military representative), followed by comittee reports, old business that is stated on the agenda, new business that is also stated on the agenda, and at the end of the meeting an open-forum session in which anyone may raise questions or concerns (open 89 forum not to last for more than ten minutes). Substantive concerns can then be placed on the next month’s agenda. e. The officers and their roles need to be defined in accordance with the directives that govern SACs. It is imperative that all elected members of the SACs be made aware of the importance of attending all meetings. It is critical that the chairperson be present to run all meetings and to be the SAC representative to the community. Liaison members, such as the principal, must attend meetings and provide answers to educational questions and provide leadership in the area of educational issues. The military representative’s presence at meetings is also critical in order to provide answers regarding base-operation information and to show the community that the military commanders are concerned about the operation of schools in their community. f. Elections must be held in a time frame that allows for the newly elected committee to meet the first month of the new school year. Often elections are not conducted in time for the new committee members to receive training at the beginning of the school year or at a time when SACs can begin meeting the first month of the new school year. - Try to generate twice as many candidates as there are openings for the new SAC. During the school year some members may need to relinquish their positions due to personal necessity or a change in duty requirements. 90 - Publicize the SAC election in the base newspaper, school newspaper, and SAC newsletter, as well as on the FEN radio/ television network. 9. Establish goals and priorities at the first meeting of the new school year. A few goals should be established as priorities for the new school year. The final report from the previous year may be used as a guide for potential goals. h. The final report and end-of>year evaluation should be prepared in a timely manner and should reflect accurately the accomplishments of the SAC during that school year. 4. Community members need to be encouraged to run for election to the SACs. If not elected, candidates need to be encouraged to serve on one of the SAC comittees or subconmittees. Parents should be encouraged to attend SAC meetings and voice any concerns they might have that fall under the guidelines of the SACs. 5. There is a need to familiarize SAC members with group— dynamics procedures and to help them get the newly elected SACs 1’unctioning as soon as possible after the new school year starts. 6. Elected SAC members need to be made aware of the importance of attending all meetings and of taking an active role in the operation of the SACs. Liaison members also need to be made aware of the importance of their involvement in the operation of the SACs (and that their attendance at all SAC meetings is essential for a SAC to operate successfully. The most important ingredient of successful SACs is the willingness of the participants to take an active part in the SAC process. 91 The above-stated guidelines provide an outline for a comprehensive training guide for SAC participants. BeflectJnns Since this study was undertaken, several changes in the 00005 system have influenced the operation of individual SACs within the system in a positive manner. As young, enthusiastic individuals are selected for principalships throughout the system, they enter these positions with a greater appreciation and awareness of the values SACs have to offer and a willingness to take an active role in the advisory process. They perceive SACs as a means to increase the flow of information to the conlnunities they serve, and as vehicles to provide parents and other conInunity members access to the decision-making processes within the individual schools located within their conlnunities. Thus, parent participation is being encouraged. The Parent Report Card was introduced to parents, base comanders, school administrators, and conInunity members by Dr. John SStremple, director of 00005, in spring 1989. The Parent Report Card is an evaluation tool designed to provide feedback to the director of 00005, regional directors, superintendents, base commanders, principals, teachers, parents, and all interested conmunity members regarding all facets of the operation of schools located within their conlnunity. It provides for an overall evaluation of the entire DoDDS system, as well as each region, superintendency, and individual school. All parents of students enrolled in a 00005 92 school were given the opportunity to provide input into this evaluation. The completed instruments were mailed directly to the director of 00005 by the parents. The data were compiled, analyzed, reproduced, and shared with each regional director, superintendent, principal, military base conlnander, teacher, parent, and convnunity member. The information was then used as a format for school- improvement programs within each school in the system. Nithin the last three years, the military has emphasized the importance of SACs by creating an awareness among the base commanders as to the importance of advisory conlnittees within the conInunities they serve. This active involvement by base commanders translates into a higher level of status and participation for i mdividual advisory conlnittees. Finally, these data were gathered in 1987, and many changes lIave occurred in the system and with the operating instructions for SACs since then. The single most important change in the regulation makes attendance of the principal at SAC meetings mandatory. This, in itself, will not contribute to successful advisory committees, but it does emphasize the importance of advisory committees as viewed by the 00005 educational system. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SCHOOL CONFIGURATION-~DoDDS-PACIFIC 93 Table A.1.--School configuration--DoDDS-Pacific. School Grade Level Population Arnn E.S. K-6 590 Bechtel E.L. K-6 600 Binictican E.S. 3-6 580 Byrd E.S. K-6 195 Dewey H.S. 7-12 690 Earhart I.S. 3-6 730 Edgren M.S. 7-12 640 Grissom E.S. K-4 750 Hill M.S. 5-8 675 Hope P.S. K-3 985 Joy E.S. K-6 45 Kadena E.S. K-6 1,395 Kadena M.S. 7-12 1,340 Kalayaan E.S. K-3 620 Kinnick H.S. 7-12 760 Kinser E.S. K-6 595 King Sch. K-12 255 Kubasaki M.S. 7-12 1,475 Lanham E.S. K-6 525 MacArthur E.S. K-6 630 Osan E.S. K-6 363 Perry M.S. 7-12 215 Perry (M.C.) E.S. K-6 200 Perry (O.H.) E.S. K-6 355 Pusan Sch. K-12 245 Pyongtaek E.S. K-6 37 Seoul E.S. K-6 1,475 Seoul H.S. 7-12 1,080 Stearley Heights E.S. K-6 720 Sollars E.S. K-6 1,390 Sullivans E.S. K-6 1,250 Taegu Sch. K-12 630 Nagner M.S. 9-12 800 Nagner M.S. 5-8 640 Nurtsmith E.S. K-4 1,100 Yokota East E.S. K-6 990 Vokota Nest E.S. K-6 555 Yokota M.S. 7-12 995 lama H.S. 9-12 410 lama M.S. 7-8 230 Zukeran E.S. K-6 910 Total 41 28,665 APPENDIX B RESPONSES TO THE PILOT STUDY 94 Table B.l.--Distribution of responses to pilot study. Number Number Group Sent Returned Percent Principal s- -el ementary school 3 3 100 Principal s--elementary/middle 2 2 100 school Principal sumiddl e school 1 1 100 Principal s- -juni or high school 1 1 100 ‘Principalsuhigh school 4 4 100 DoDDS-Germany regional office 1 l 100 DoDDS-Nashi ngton office 2 2 100 Total 1 4 14 100 APPENDIX C PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE 95 May 7, 1986 Principal APO New York Dear As part of my doctoral research, I am gathering data from several elementary, middle and secondary principals in the Germany re ion. These data will be used to generate a questionnaire that I wi l administer to all the school-level advisory comittees in the Pacific region. The information you provide is confidential and will only be viewed by me. Please take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to answer the following questions: Hhat factors do you feel make for a successful school advisory com- mittee? Hhat factors work against having a successful school advisory com- Inittee? Thank you for your help, Ed Davies APPENDIX D DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 96 December 23, 1987 District Superintendent Korea Dear Dr. : As part of my doctoral research, am gathering data from the district superintendents, building- -llevel principa s, and advisory committee chairpersons/vice-chairpersons within the 00005 Pacific These data will be used to identify successful advisory region. committees and lead to possible factors that contribute to their success. The information you provide will only be viewed by me. [’1 ease take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to answer the following perceptions. Based on your perception of the operation of the school-level advisory comittees in your area, please rate the following schools as to the success of their advisory comittees. PLEASE PLACE A CHECK MARK IN THE APPROPRIATE SPACE PROVIDED FOR EACH SCHOOL. SCHOOL LOH AVERAGE SUPERIOR Joy E.S. Osan E.S. Pusan Sch. PYOngtaek Sch. Seoul E. S. Seoul H. S. Taegu Sch. Thank you for your help. Edward L. Davies APPENDIX E SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE 97 DEPARTMENT OF DIHNSE unmosurs scuoocs were“ atsmemrasv scwoot unmissaarussmns PACIFIC - OKINAWA December 22. 1907 I have enclosed three questionnaires which I request your assistance in getting filled out and returned. One is to be filled out by you and the other two are to be given to the chairperson of your school advisory committee. Please ask the chairperson to fill out one and the other is to be completed by another member of the committee (it the chairperson is a parent. then the other questionn- aire should be completed by a teacher member). In other words I am asking for a returned questionnaire from the principal. the chairperson and one other member of the committee so that I will have representation from teachers. parents. and principals. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this project. Sincerely. grieve" . A J \Cd.-:.- ‘ Edward L. Dairies DIPARTMENT OF DEFENSE oaeawoswwsscwoots were“ stamswrawv scwooi. reosaenmeuene raunc . OKINAWA Decubsr 22. 1987 Chairperson School Advisory c-ittss this research is being conducted with the consent of the Department of Defense Overseas Dependants' Schools Pacific's approval. 113s study is attempting 'to identify factors which contribute to the successful operation of school level educational advisory co-ittsss within DoDDS Pacific. In order that the results will truly represent the views of advisory co-ittes members and school level administrators within DoDDS Pacific. it is important that each questionnaire be completed and returned. You may be assured of complete confidentially. The questionnaire has no ident- ifying codes. therefore. responses will be tabulated by category only i.s. parent. teacher. administrator. its results of this study will be made available to school advisory co-ittees. principals. and the director of DoDDS Pacific upon request. I would be most happy to answer any questions you might have. Please write or call. The telephone numb“ is 635-2576. Thank you for your assistance. él‘arg i W rd 1.. Davies Principal PART I Demographic Information . Pertaining to School Level Educational Advisory Committee Chairpersons. Vice-Chairpersons, Principals Directions: Please fill in the following information as it pertains to you. PLACE A CRECKMARK OR NUMBER ON THE APPROPRIATE LINE. Chairperson: Vice-Chairperson: Subcommittee Chairperson: Principal: Sex of Respondent: male female Occupation of Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson: Dependent wife/husband Business Person Educator number of years in DoDDS Military member officer enlisted Ale of Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson/Administrator: Number of Years Length of Residence in the Community: Number of Years Have you previously served on an advisory committee? _____yes no If ’08. was the previous service with: DoDDS stateside number of years Your SAC serves children in: K-S ‘_____K-6 K-S K-12 7-12 9-12 __other lOO PART II nizgggigng: In column one (I). rate the following individuals and groups as you view their p;gggn§_1gppg;§ for your school level educational advisory committee. In column two (2), rate the following individuals and groups as to what you think their support ghgglg -hg for your school level educational advisory. committee. Circle one answer for each item pg;_gglggn. RATING SCALE 5 4 3 2 1 Very High Moderate Low Very High Low Column One Column Two 1.1.4.1 mm 1. School advisory members 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 l 2. Teachers 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 1 3. Principal 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 1 4. Chief School Administrator 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 l '5. Paraprofessionals 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2.1 6. Teachers Association 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 l 7. Students 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 l 8. Parents 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 l 9. Installation Commander 5 4 3 2 l 5.4 3 2.! IO. Parent-[Teacher Association 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 I ll. DoDDS Regional Director 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 l lOl PART III pigggtigng: Circle the answer in each respective column that best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statements listed below: Circle gag answer pgg_gglnnn for each statement. RATING scite 5 4 3 2 1 Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Agree ‘Disagree l. The formation of a school level advisory committee is resulting in: Column One Column Two (is) (should be) a) More communication between the school and the community. 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 l bl The community having a better understanding of the school's educational program. 5 4 3 2 I 5 4 3 2 1 cl The community having less confidence in the school’s educational program. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 -d1 More parents becoming involved in school programs and activities. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 l s) The community having a less positive attitude toward the teachers in the school. 5 4 3 2 I 5 4 3 2 1 fl An improvement in the school’s total educational program. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 l ll h) 11 J) 102 A decrease in the authority of the principal in making educational decisions. 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 1 Advisory committees are impairing the effectiveness of principals in administering their school programs. 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 1 Advisory committees are necessary for the effective administration of the school . in your district. 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 1 Advisory committees are proving to be a valuable and important component of your school. 5 4 3 2 l 5 4 3 2 1 PART IV Directions: Please place a checkmark on the appropriate line. 1. Our school advisory committee operates with: don’t yes no know a) Established by-laws ___, ___ ___ 1:) Established goals and objectives __ __ _ cl Established subcommittees _ __ __ d1 Elected chairperson ___ __. ___ el Elected secretary -_ _ ._... Meetings are held on regular basis: _____yes no _____monthly quarterly _____yearly Meetings are regularly held at the same time throughout the year: usually ___always sometimes __never 103 Meeting day is: Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Meetings are regularly held at the same location: __always usually sometimes ___mever Meeting dates/times/places are published/aired by: .____Jnewspaper base daily bulletin flyers _____radio TV _____newsletter other Meetings are attended by: a) all voting committee members: _always _usually _sometimes _never b) most voting committee members: ___always ___usually ___sometimes ___never cl few voting committee members: _always ___usually _sometimes _never d) Principal: always usually sometimes _____never e) military representative: always usually sometimes never f) teachers union representative: _____mlways usually sometimes never g) community members (not on committee): parents ___mlways ___usually ___sometimes ___never students ___mlways ___usually ___sometimes never teachers ___mlways ___usually ___sometimes ___never h) i) J) k) 11 104 minutes of meetings are kept; ____;always usually sometimes never minutes of meetings are publicised: ‘ always usually sometimes i never minutes of meetings are distributed/posted: _____principals newsletter installation bulletin other meetings start on time: _____always usually sometimes never meetings end on time: Agenda is: a) bi cl d1 el fl always usually sometimes never yes no set in advance of meeting publicized followed closely time for open forum established Roberts Rules of order followed agenda is set by: __principal chairperson agenda committee other 105 9. Goals and Priorities: bl c) goals are set at beginning of school year: always usually sometimes never priorities are set at beginning of school year: always usually sometimes never goals and/or priorities followed: always usually sometimes . never 10. Evaluation and Reporting: a) b) cl d1 end of year evaluation is completed to see if goals were let. . always usually sometimes never end of year report is prepared and sent to DoDDS washington. _____slways usually sometimes never end of year report is sent to regional office: _____yes no previous years evaluation used by new SAC for background information: _____yes no BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY AnderS. F. It. and Ovard. G. F. WWW WWW Igggngh_1welfth_firadg. Folsom-Cordova Unified School District, Baratz, J. C., and Moskowitz, J. H. “Proposition 13: How and th It Happened.‘ £h1_flg11§_§1pngn (1978): 9-11. Berdie, D. R.: Anderson, J. F.; and Niebuhr, M. A. Dg§19n_3ng_u§e Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1986. Borg, N. R., and Gall, M. D. Hhite Plains, N.V.: Longman, 1983. Carpenter, C. C. "Principal Leadership and Parent Advisory Groups.’. (February 1975): pp. 426-427. Cave, H. M., and Chesler, M. A. Sggjglggy_gf;£dn§at1gn. New York: Macmillan, 1974. Davies, 0. "Making Citizens’ Participation Hork.‘ ElementaLLScthcinal (March/April 1976): 20-29- . Boston, Mass.: Institute for Responsive Education, 1976. ’ ' , Public Law 95-561, _November 1, 1978, as amended by erartment_gf_flefgnsg Authgrizgtlgn_A§1._12§§, Public Law 99-145, November 8, 1985. Department of Defense. I'Instruction 5105.49." November 1985. (Mimeographed.) . "Instruction 1342.15.‘ March 27, 1987. (Mimeographed.) Department of Defense Dependent Schools. 'DoDDS Pacific Regional Characteristics Profile for SY l988-89.‘ Futenma, Okinawa, Japan: 00005, September 1989. (Mimeographed.) W 05 Pamphlet 86-E-0008. Alexandria, Va.: 00005, October 1986a. 106 107 . Igu_fl3d_g_nne§tign1 DS Pamphlet 86-E-0009. Alexandria, Va.: 00005, October 1986b. Fantini, M.: Gittell, M.; and Magat, R. Urh3n_§§hggl. New York: Praeger, 1970. Good, C. V. 01:11gn3ry_gf_£dncgt1gn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Greenwood, G. E., and others. 'Citizens’ Advisory Committees.“ Ihegry_1ntg_£:a§11§e (February 1977): 12-16. Hart, G. Assembly Bill No. 3408. Education Code of California, Sections 8573, 8574, 8574.5. Sacramento, Calif., 1976. Hickey, H. U. Participant§;_lgrkhggk. Hashington, D.C.: 0000s, 1988. (a) . Hashington, D:C.: DEDDS, 1988. (b) Hofstrand, R. K., and Lloyd, J. ° flanghggk. Champaign-Urbana: Department of Vocational and Technical Education, University of Illinois, 1971. Jenkins, J. K. 'Impression Management: Responses of Public School Principals to School-Community Advisory Councils.“ Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, April 1974. Jones, P., and Jones, S. ' USA: Nyden Books, 1976. Kappelman, M., and Ackerman, P. Between_£arent_and_§;hgol. New York: Dial Press/Jones Nade, 1977. McGuane, D. R. 'The Effects of Modern Marathon and Traditional Human Relation Training on Student Self-Concepts.I Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1977. National Association of Elementary School Principals. tional Almanac, 1984. EacLLand The Educa- National Committee for Citizensin Education, Commission on Educa- tional Governance. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing, 1975. Oldham, N. 8. ° . National School Public Relations Association, 1973. 108 Olivem. J. I... and A564 staff. 112W Ergmisjng_£:agt1ces. Association of California School Adminis- trators, April 1977. Robbins. H. W. San I9750’ Calif.: San Diego County Superintendent of Schools, Schlesinger, D. L. "Perceptions of Parents Toward Dependents High Schools as Related to Educational Level, Residency and Socioeconomic Status." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1977. . Rev. ed. Los Angeles: Los Angeles City Unified School District, 1975. SelltiZ. 6.. at :1. WWW- Nev. York: Holt, Rinehart, and Ninston, 1967. Summers, G. N.: Peters, H. 5.: and Armstrong, C. P. 8331; Belmont, Calif.: Nadsworth Publishing, 1985. Trump. L. J.. and Miller. 0. F. WW ° Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1979. Vasconcellas, J. ° Determ1n1ng_§ghggl_fiff . Sacramento, Calif.: State Department of Public instruction, 1976. Neiss, N., and Hassett, M. Intrgdugtgry_§tatistics. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addison-Nesley, 1982. "Ililillllflll“llllfs