A! VA ’11 t. {I}, .30: 11; Y Fl: II f. v. . .03.? fin...“ Juwwhum . 1).u§r..lr.hnul§ . .5 .v:,..-:.l.l . h... r sl‘kn“ cixl‘p.’s "\ . Si. tfid!.:....h.nh..fi3lo If . Iii... . . I‘VIIVIQ . .th “drum... .. 4......) .3 «Ci. . 5......wfl1wfl v5.3.1.) I . ||§ALII.I..I|I. bill)??? §.Ll 03.3. v.... .1 one I . V I...~~.v.rv .n. . . nice!“ I 3.33%... v“ .!.,.al$..mw.u .. d... .. J 3.3%....» -33... a. 3. :3. 311.3...» . .. . .33....gfimudé . . .3....$...¢A..ID!... .lflmwrnlmod 33.5.3.3...3 . . 311...“... «H4... 3 . . . . . , . .. . . 8 r. - . .. . v. .ly!~'l.l.1o . . . . . . . u- . IOU..- . l¥1iiv|rtfi§4. 3;. e334! . .. .. . . , . . .25 zitgkaillkvfluyusl I . . .I. :.. 3- . , . . . ., . . . 3.333%: - . a . itlii... 3.»..an 0.2. nu. rimmfi 5... ~ . - a ti . . sullqulvutt. I... an. 9. 5...... till-.53.... .1. J... 3...). 3km“: 4h-.u«um.hhsslzw .3-sz 3.13; .1. A‘hmtvg‘.fil¢ifl€vlll1l0l . OLD... O r .. (rovg‘I-IHHLI’IDIIQ . . m5..{5\ V: I.\“ l" L 3933-33... 3.17353! I... 9.1391313: o. 1:: 5...... 3.3.39... :Ihrtfldfipll...}o$(.t .. :3; .4. 3:33:33}. 33-1.... .23.!“ 133% : 5.3...- 1.3.5... 3.533.335! . Nhflnnufl 311.. -3 9|... . i. (.l Ilia]... 33.133!!!“ . 31.33.3332 (3:31...) 52...! 33133:... 3.1.1.9110; 1.3.1- .. 1:13.-..3IKssslxli If!!! 3...!!“tgfilllhnh' 3.! l. \o ‘tal cl... ‘5‘ r‘l’i..§:, 5.1". u‘lu‘l, tr! 3051333 :I...‘ .III ...l..Pvt .v Aflnl. {fie-ll... 9“! , 3". ll“ 23.496...» 3.. 43.. .3. - 3..., 1... a. {1.132 (3...... 5.31...- .I. 1. it: .Ill. v. .s.......v.\..... ..?-2...).,.£. . 42.3.5333! 3:13.. 3...... 3... 21-1 .l.....|.!..o... . :33... i .2. .4. I... 3.531. -35.)... . .1 3.1% . . .. 5-35.3.3... .. :31? o)...» 1.136... . II ’l‘..§4lvll|.h’;’l 'Il. '; 5“!. I.“ I {IE-.51] I . .0 filial; 81.1%..-) 161.1. ID[9.'IIII'.. butt... 33...... I . I i-.. 3.3:! . t- In.-- I. {Milt 3.1. . [will . $411,133.31?! . - l I? 1291...! 1.. .. 31d”. 6 . . £2.52? (U. a .,..........7...Vhf3cs‘(:((If.:t.ll.§l.ux?!.1...afclho¢l .nilflq i... (t... x. .3- ..t 7.3) . . 5.. - 335.333.31.33.{I3r,uy-.lt5.rfi.b .Egiitsl iii... . . I. i?! 33.533323... . initilIsllflU E...........:3n!-vm....33-.i. .. tallh M... 4»... - x . .. 3.... .3 . Z :33...) 1.3.x, I‘D...‘ 011! E.‘ .141 (ll, 0’1“ it" l).7l')l.r‘ 1| 1(5‘\.§‘irh\|.t.. 1.7.5 I’lf‘iti "II . Lmyubula: . . 3. F3 2.. .r 2.! .i‘ n . 3.1.. i. r... 1.40....) r .7 3 3g 3: 33* :31 :3 1:? .33- I c gt .3; 3; Z), filo». . flauflrrfi a. u 1!“ l 1 I . . . . Vi‘fzk. ’33....5llbri: gigvnzarl. . infil‘lvlh é- 5.332-...13 I. 33..-... .3 V. . J 3 .8 3.333313 ..... . .34... 5.93... , it... 51...»... , E... st.....\u..i.-..3... ... 3.3.32.5: 3-..; 43-9.1.1- . 332....-. . In? . . .IAYIIDI.35| s}! ‘1. 3.011le . \ 3.31.3...élfllglvu .3019... .‘i.lllvv1ibbs|§|2I-.IIIIIIV.III I, . Gigs-3“.) 2-bit. unit .7.A:|v...l.\ . P trig." {.i‘lbliot. . it... .11..) Iclvlltlbkt I} Iii-II 1A1. Illnxl‘lv. :1»!!! .\f‘ Invisty“\.vb§. so?!) iiiltlurn‘l r .“..A\ p .I..l7..v$}lul\..l..li .'%.!‘§|1~ .l.ii(3l l’.‘ Eiv..a\ildb I‘ll-V." 1.. . {1 (I... 1. ‘) ‘v'? |u.\l’ol)tl|nlb .I)Eb.¢u.l. 4 Ilvl'vllltl‘fll. ‘5‘.‘ir Edfinhl . . III 4‘! .10.! | Ah‘.vo')'filv‘tl!!lc0£§\}ldfl {it I z’vil’l..1‘.ob wilt-\In'n. E‘.‘|i '- 5 i‘iti I (At.- .t- .10‘..-..)..-s.. (14“ . .1 :Vil1. 9 K .‘¥.‘O‘|III-Ih llfln I! 7. .t. \Il-’l||\0.b.’)\lvt-\ .l.,, ....... Z .... 3., I. . II .llt‘vv“ . u . . Out}... 35" I..\ .u. . .v- .4. ..‘.Ia.f{II\l.:Alv.;bll\I ! . I ... . . f. . . .3 . .l. .- 13.3-1 .iov-.l..a.p..! 3.r&V.,C......,4vtl-.3 h . ;6 THESis (\ “a ‘33 E UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ll MICHIGAN STAT I ll Ill/Ill! Ill/IllWill/Ill!!!{Ill/ll 3 1293 01575 5758 ll This is to certify that the thesis entitled Examining the State of High School Journalism in Michigan Nine Years After Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier presented by Kimberly Ann Lauffer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master's . Journalism degree in ‘7/3€:§;21- £Zng,«’ Major professor Dan: July 25, 1997 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 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 l MTE DUE I DATE DUE ”I ”Kid Jug/31m}? mo WM EXAMINING THE STATE OF HIGH SCHOOL JOURNALISM IN MICHIGAN NINE YEARS AFTER HAZELWOOD V. KUHLMEIER By Kimberly Ann Lauffer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1997 ABSTRACT EXAMINING THE STATE OF HIGH SCHOOL JOURNALISM IN MICHIGAN NINE YEARS AFTER HAZELWOOD V. KUHLMEIER By Kimberly Ann Lauffer Little research into high school journalism has been done in the state of Michigan An assessment of the current situation is necessary, especially as the tenth anniversary of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier looms. Additionally, the practical problems faced by Michigan’s high school publications advisers are an understudied research area. A four-page, double- sided questionnaire with 55 items was sent to 350 randomly selected high school publications advisers in Michigan. The response rate was 55 percent after the third wave (195 of 354 questionnaires returned). Adviser’s experience, including length of time advising, years teaching and educational background, was not significantly correlated with incidence of censorship. However, whether an adviser perceived administration as likely to censor did significantly correlate with acts of censorship by the adviser. Size of school was significantly correlated with the number and types of publications offered to students as was size of school and whether publications were offered as a class during the school day. COPyfight by Kimberly Ann Lauffer 1996 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Professor Stephen Lacy, Professor Todd P. Simon and Specialist Cheryl Fell in the preparation of this master’s thesis. In addition, special thanks is extended to individuals who assisted with assembling mailings: Erica Stark, Randy Yeip, Allison Anders, Timothy and Molly Hoyle, Amy Decker and Jennifer Knapp. A sincere thank you is also offered to the Michigan Interscholastic Press Association and its board members who assisted with a financial contribution that helped to defiay mailing costs. Finally, none of this would have been possible without the love and support of my parents and siblings: John, Carol, Jaima and Scott Lauffer. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .............................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................ viii Definition of the Problem ......................................................................................... l A Review of the Relevant Literature ......................................................................... 5 Method of Gathering Data ......................................................................................... 31 Results ....................................................................................................................... 40 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 77 Appendices Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................... 96 Appendix B: First Wave Mailing Letter of Release ...................................... 107 Appendix C: Postcard Wave Mailing ............................................................ 109 Appendix D: Third Wave Mailing Letter of Release ..................................... 111 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. l 13 LIST OF TABLES Table l: Advisers’ report of administrators’ exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification .................................................................................. 59 Table 2: T-test comparisons of advisers’ report of administrators’ exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification ............................................... 60 Table 3: Advisers’ self-reports of exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification ....................................................................................... 62 Table 4: T-test comparisons of advisers’ self-reports of exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification ...................................... l ................. 62 Table 5: T-test comparisons of administrators’ views of prior review by MHSAA classification. ...................................................................................... 63 Table 6: Average hours in an average week spent on publication outside the school day ...................................................................... 66 Table 7: Factors affecting fi'equency of publication .......................................................... 69 Table 8: Chi-square table of existence of stated editorial policy by MHSAA classification ....................................................................................... 75 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: MHSAA classification of respondents’ schools ................................................ 41 Figure 2: Types of schools responding ............................................................................. 41 Figure 3: Mean years teaching and advising by gender ..................................................... 42 Figure 4: Respondents received information and training in journalism from the following sources ........................................................................................ 44 Figure 5: Where publications advisers get information about court decisions affecting student publications ........................................................... 45 Figure 6: Average incidence of censorship in an average year ........................................... 47 Figure 7: Adviser’s report of exercise of prior restraint .................................................... 48 Figure 8: Advisers feel administrator’s previous experiences with student publications have been positive ....................................................................... 51 Figure 9: How advisers feel they and administrators view student publications .............. 53 Figure 10: Publications offered by school classification ................................................... 55 Figure 11: Types of publication funding by MHSAA classification ................................ 71 Figure 12: Changes in publication frequency, length and budget in the past five years ........................................................................................ 71 Figure 13: Publications students use computers for the following tasks .......................... 74 CHAPTER 1: DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM Little research into high school journalism has been conducted in the state of Michigan. After the Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier decision in 1988, the Michigan Interscholastic Press Association tried to gain passage of a student press rights law. Despite several attempts at drafting legislation, the bills always died in committee before reaching the floor. Is there a need for such a scholastic press rights law in Michigan? Do advisers and/or administrators unduly censor the student press? The following study attempted to shed light on those questions by assessing the current situation so that priorities and agendas might be focused The general intent of this study was to survey high school publications advisers. Ideally, advisers would provide not only a direct look at themselves, but also an indirect look at high school administrators. Because there are 720 high schools in Michigan, this was necessarily a cross-sectional study of a randomly selected group of advisers and schools, although a later selection of advisers and/or schools to study in a longitudinal form would not be out of the question. 2 This research was of interest for a variety of reasons. The tenth anniversary of Hazelwood, which arguably restricted high school press freedoms, will be January 1998. An assessment on or near that anniversary would be timely. Also, the practical problems faced by high school publications advisers (including budgets, compensation, cycles of publication, circulation, censorship issues and advertising conflicts) are an understudied research area. Previous research has indicated a relationship between high school publications experience and later college study of j ournalism and career choice of journalism,l therefore assessing the limitations on high school publications experiences may help identify potential weaknesses in college and career jom'nalists. Surveying high school publications advisers and high school administrators involved in publications would also afford baseline data that could be used later in replication or comparison research. The primary research question the researcher began with was: How have recent court rulings on First Amendment rights and censorship affected high school journalists and journalism? This research question has at least one underlying question: What are the fieedoms and limits on high school journalistic efforts bestowed by Supreme Court rulings and the First Amendment? The researcher further refined the primary research question and its underlying question with additional questions: What are the perceived and actual freedoms of ' Death by Cheeseburger: High School Journalism in the 1990s and Beyond, The Freedom Forum, 1994. 35, 41. 3 Michigan’s high school scholastic presses? What is the impact of school size on an adviser’s perception of and actual rate of censorship activities? What topics are most likely to be censored and do these topics vary according to school size? Do advisers at smaller schools censor more than advisers at larger schools? These are important questions for a variety of reasons. First, limits on freedom of speech and press are dangerous once established because they threaten the freedoms of us all. If limits are placed on students in a high school, what is to keep limits from also being placed on the adults working in that same setting? Do these limits end at the doors to the school or can students and adults be held responsible for what is said or printed outside of the school setting? This perhaps irrational fear of pervasive censorship has come to the forefront in Texas, where a college newspaper has faced content control by school officials who proposed a publications policy that could require prior review by university ofl’icials over the student newspaper. Although the student editor collaborated with school officials in hopes of creating a policy that discouraged censorship, the policy recommended by the school in 1996 included “a provision that would allow the university-appointed newspaper adviser to ‘withhold copy for 48 hours pending the appeals process .. . .’”2 Second, the Supreme Court has progressively laid more stringent restrictions on the freedoms of speech and press in the school setting since the 1969 Tinker decision. 2 “Oversight policy moves through U. of Texas system,” Student Press Law Center Report, Winter 1996- 97, 24. 4 Decisions in the 1980s included Pica and Fraser which allowed school boards and administrators to judge what is appropriate for students to view and hear and restrict those materials (includinglibrary books, textbooks, and speeches) which they deemed inappropriate, “pervasively vulgar,” or “otherwise lacking in ‘educational suitability. ”’3 Finally, where are students supposed to learn responsibility and to be accormtable for their decisions and actions? If the decision to publish a particular article is taken out of their hands by an adviser or administrator, will it become a game to the students to see what they can get past the censor? Or will they, conversely, take no responsrbility for or pride in what they write, and learn nothing but submission and acquiescence? Will they become critical thinkers and consumers of their society or just accept whatever is fed them without question? Will these restrictions ultimately aflect mainstream journalism by proffering parrots of administrative rules as investigative reporters? Will these restrictions afl‘ect the impact of high school journalism on future journalists? 3 Hafen, Bruce C., “Hazelwood School District and the Role of First Amendment Institutions,” Dulce Law Journal, 1988, 690. CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE Although there is not a wealth of research on the topic of scholastic journalism prior to 1988, there is a great deal following that momentous year. The Supreme Comt's ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier presented a direct contradiction to the press fieedoms suggested by Tinker (1969) and generated a flurry of concern about the potential for administrative censorship of student publications.4 “Academic Freedom vs. Administrative Authority:” A Review of the Courts A series of court rulings from 1943 to 1982 strengthened First Amendment freedoms for public school students. The 1943 Barnette case decreed that mandatory salute to the US. flag was not constitutional.5 This right of students not to shed their beliefs and values as soon as they entered the public school was strengthened by the Tinker ruling in 1969. The majority opinion in Tinker stated that “students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse gate.”6 Indeed, this ruling seemed to guarantee a wealth of First Amendment freedom to expression and symbolic ‘ Salomone, Rosemary C., “The Impact of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier on Local Policy and Practice,” NASSP Bulletin, December 1994, 47-48; and Abrams, J. Marc, and S. Mark Goodman, “End of an Era? : The Decline of Student Press Rights in the Wake of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier,” Duke Law Journal, 1988, 707, 724. 5 Hafen, 688. 6 expression, as long as that expression did not pose a threat of substantial disruption to the school environment.7 Cases that followed Tinker built upon its foundation of constitutional rights for public school students. Healy v. James in 1972 established that publicly run state colleges cannot refuse to acknowledge groups merely because they disagree with the group's philosophy or have undocumented fears of school disruptions A Seventh Circuit ruling in 1972, F ujishima v. Board of Education, found, based on Tinker, that a school regulation requiring prior approval and allowing restraint of student publications distributed on school grounds was unconstitutional.9 Two cases in 1982 split the previous position of the court on First Amendment fieedoms. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pica prevented the arbitrary removal of library books already purchased and on the shelves unless deemed “pervasively vulgar” or not ”educationally suitable.”10 New York v. F erber placed an entire category of publications (non-obscene child pornography) beyond the range of First Amendment protections, which later became a basis for Hazelwooal.ll Perry Educators Association v. Perry Local Educators Association in 1983 established the concept of nonpublic forums and provided for school officials to regulate contents in any reasonable manner.12 The 1986 court, in Bethel School District No. 403 v. ‘AbramsandGoodrnan,706. 7AbramsandGoodman,724. 'AbramsandGoodman, 708. ’AbramsandGoodman, 725. ‘°Hafen,690. "Hafen,694. ‘2 Hafen, 696. AbramsandGoodrnan,721. 7 Fraser, ruled that school officials can discipline students for vulgar language directed at a captive audience and/or minors.13 The 1988 ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier provided the most sweeping restrictions on student freedom of expression. This ruling said that educators may supervise and censor contents of school-sponsored publications. The ruling was based on a series of articles in one issue of the Hazelwood East High School newspaper, the Spectrum, whose editor at the time was Cathy Kuhlmeier. The May 1983 issue contained a series of five articles dealing with problems facing teenagers. The topics included teenage nmaways, birth control, teenage pregnancy and the impact of parents’ divorce on teenagers.” The principal objected to the articles on teenage mothers and divorce because the identities of the involved parties were thinly disguised, although pseudonyms were used. The principal censored the whole series rather than delay publication for editing. Although student staffers, including Kuhlmeier. distributed copies of the censored pages to students, they filed a lawsuit alleging their First Amendment rights had been violated.15 The issue at hand was whether or not a school-sponsored student publication was protected under the First Amendment of the US. Constitution. A federal district court found that the publication was an integral part of the school curriculum, and as such, was not a public forum. The US. Court of Appeals (Eighth Circuit) reversed the district court, ruling that the publication was intended to be and operated as a forum for student '3 Hafen, 690-691. " James, Bernard. “Supreme Court Docket: Surdents’ Speech Rights Revisited.” Social Education. April/May 1988. 243. 8 expression. Since the material was not disruptive or invasive of others’ rights, censorship was not justified. ‘6 Columbia Journalism Review published an editorial titled, “Open season on the high school press,” which criticized the Hazelwood decision and the trend of fear of student freedoms in the United States that have led to decisions such as the 1988 Hazelwood one. This editorial quoted from a 1977 federal district court decision ignored by the Supreme Court when rendering Hazelwood, "The state cannot constitutionally restrict anyone's First Amendment rights, including those of students, because of mere apprehension of what they might do with them.”17 The Detroit Free Press published articles in January and February of 1988 which chronicled the 5-3 decision made by the Supreme Court in 1988 as well as local reaction to the decision which “gave broad powers to public school officials to censor student newspapers, plays and other school-sponsored activities.”18 One comment by Richard Schmidt Jr., a lawyer for news organizations, summed up the basic opinion that permeated the research: “‘Sadly enough,’ he said, ‘you can teach students about First Amendment rights but they’re not entitled to exercise them tmtil they get _in the real world outside ”’19 ‘5 James, 243. ‘5 James, 243. '7 “Comment: Open season on the high school press,” Columbia Journalism Review, 26(6), March/April 1988, 18. " Epstein, Aaron, “Court OKs School Paper Censorship,” Detroit Free Press, January 14, 1988, Metro Edition, 1A. 19 Epstein, 1A. 9 A survey by Dickson showed high school administrators sustained the opinion that the student press needed to be restricted and censored; this echoed their belief that discipline is more important than freedom of the press.20 Dickson’s 1989 survey involved 100 Missomi high school principals. Of the 74 respondents, a majority (61.5%) said they viewed their high school’s publication(s) as being an open forum for student expression, even though it was part of the curriculum (newspapers 95.5%, yearbooks 90.4%) in schools regardless of size.21 A majority of principals also said they have not kept something from being printed (64.4%), yet nearly all surveyed said they would censor certain subject matter under certain circumstances. The objectionable subject matter included “dirty language” (89.2%), sex (60.8%), drugs (56.8%) and student pregnancy (41.9%).22 The overall findings were that principals tended to be reactionary, not proactive in addressing concerns with student publications. “They tend . . .to react to problems brought to them by advisers” and “would use censorship .. .if they were aware of the questionable subject matter — either through prior review or reacting to an adviser's query.”23 Dickson asserted that “principals in larger schools appear to be‘ more tolerant of open student expression than are principals in smaller schools?“ Also, Dickson noted 2° Dickson, Thomas V., “Attitudes of High School Principals About Press Freedom After Hazelwood,” Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1989, 172-173. 2' Dickson, I989, 171. 22 Dickson, 1989, I71. 23 Dickson, 1989, 172. as Dickson, 1989, 173. 10 that “advisers may be more likely to show principals such questionable articles because of the Hazelwood ruling.”25 In a 1992 study, Dickson determined that “advisers who had taken more college journalism courses or who had more advising experience sometimes were more likely than their less-educated and less-experienced cormterparts to use prior restraint.”26 However, Dickson also found that advisers with more advising experience had principals who less fiequently reviewed the student newspaper prior to publication.27 Dvorak and Dilts examined the “academic freedom vs. administrative authority” quandary thrust upon educators, administrators and students by the 1988 Hazelwood decision.” Dvorak and Dilts asserted that journalism educators are “charged by training and tradition to teach students how to use a fundamental American freedom that by its very nature is unsettling, often inefficient, and potentially disruptive, even when used responsibly.”29 They noted that “journalism education at its best is about teaching democratic values of citizen involvement, oversight, outspokenness, and dissent”3° Dvorak and Dilts cited several court cases which whittled away at. the rights of both teachers and students within the school environment. The court’s primary concern in all cases including Hazelwood seems to be maintaining order and efficiency in the z Dickson, 1989, 172. 3‘ Dickson, Thomas V., “Self-Censorship and Freedom of the High School Press,” Journalism Educator, Autumn 1994, 63. ’7 Dickson, I994, 62. as Dvorak, Jack and Jon Paul Dilts, “Academic Freedom vs. Administrative Authority,” Journalism Educator, Autumn 1992, 3. 29 Dvorak and Dilts, 3. 3° Dvorak and Dilts, 3. 11 school commensurate with community concerns to promote learning with the rights of the teacher to choose methodologies and forms of expression and the rights of the student to express him- or herself coming in second31 Gallinger examined high school journalism programs in New England where journalism teachers are not required to be state-certified in journalism to teach it and where there is little promotion of the program regionwide.32 Gallinger established that “A Nation at Risk m'ged school systems to reestablish greater control over curriculum” and return to the basics. The 1988 Hazelwood decision brought new concerns to those programs that had survived cuts about “how ‘free’ scholastic publications were, and just how ‘fiee’ school administrators were to control and censor the student press.”33 Salomone reviewed prior studies and research as well as conducting a survey of 600 randomly selected National Association of Secondary School Principal (NASSP) member principals, 254 of whom responded.” She concluded that the empirical findings of her own and others’ research were inconclusive. Salomone noted that there were too many interfering variables, including religious dynamics, censorship prior to Hazelwood, advisers and students reluctant to broach controversial topics and misperceptions of principals as to the nature of censorship, to determine if Hazelwood is the reason for increased censorship.” Salomone did establish, however, that in general, the larger the 3‘ Dvorak and Dilts, 7. ’2 Gallinger, Nancy, “Still ‘Captive Voices’? : High School Journalism in New England Needs Help,” Newspaper Research Journal, Spring 1990, 16. ’3 Gallinger, 14. 3‘ Salomone, 53. 3’ Salomone, 53, 59. 12 school, the more controversy over publications, perhaps because of the increased diversity and heterogeneity in the commtmity.36 Two articles in the Duke Law Review explored the legal ramifications of Hazelwood on First Amendment institutions and school presses. Hafen suggested that Hazelwood, rather than “weakening the Court’s commitment to the constitutional rights of students . . . seeks to strengthen students’ fundamental interest in the underlying principles of free expression: the right to develop their own educated capacity for self- expression.”37 Basically, Hafen asserted that there were “intermediate institutions in first amendment theory (sic),” that instead of sublimating individual rights, seek to “sustain conditions that nomish such values as religion and expression.”38 Hafen cited many student expression cases fiom Barnette in 1943 to Tinker in 1969 that strongly supported students’ rights to free expression, suggesting that they did not lose their rights as they walked in the door to a school. Yet, beginning with Pica in 1982 and Fraser in 1986, the Court began limiting the all-encompassing rights of students in deference to the discretion of the institution and its administrators to make necessary, values-based, “educational suitability” decisions for students.” . Hafen suggested the impact of Hazelwood lies in its limitation of any student speech that shows inconsistency with the educational institution’s “basic educational 3‘ Salomone, 58. 3’ Hafen, 685. Hafen’s argument relies on the role of schools as “mediating institutions” which nurture constitutional values by enabling personal development and providing a buffer against state intrusion. Hafen further argues that schools are “first amendment institutions (sic),’ reflecting [his] premise that the first amendment (sic) protects ‘not only individual religious liberty, but the institutional liberty of churches; not only personal academic freedom, but the institutiornl liberty of schools and colleges; not only individual freedom of speech, but the associational or institutional freedom of groups and newspapers.” 685-686. Hafen, 686. 13 mission.”"° Decisions to censor according to Hazelwood must satisfy two queries: does the expression run counter to the mission of the institution and is there a rational (not necessarily educational) basis for its removal?41 As Hafen noted, “Hazelwood characterizes the entire category of student expression within official educational channels or activities as speech entitled to only minimal judicial protection?“ Abrams and Goodman also published an article in the Duke Law Journal which examined the effects and impact of Hazelwood on student presses.43 Unlike Hafen, Abrams and Goodman viewed Hazelwood as confusing and potentially injurious to schools, students and journalism as a profession. Citing Tinker, Abrams and Goodman introduced the concepts forwarded by the Court that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to fieedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,”"4 and that “once the state established a ‘forum’ for public discourse or expressionfit would not censor speech or speakers absent highly compelling circumstances?“ Yet the Court’s Hazelwood decision began by citing Tinker and continued with, “the First Amendment rights of students in public schools ‘am not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.’”46 According to Abrams and Goodman, Hazelwood limited “rights of students operating newspapers as part of a public school curriculum,” but did not address ’9 Hafen, 690-691. ”Hafen, 691. ‘" Hafen, 693. “Hafen, 694. ”AbramsandGoodman, 706. “AbramsandGoodman,706. “AbramsandGoodman, 706. “AbramsandGoodmanJlo. 14 “independently run school newspapers and student newspapers at the college level.”47 A variety of cases, ranging from the 1943 Barnette to the 1972 Healy v. James and the 1973 Papish v. Board of Curators to the 1981 Widmar v. Vincent affirmed the Court’s stance of protecting students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and assembly.48 In fact, in the 1943 Barnette case, the Court stated, “educating the yormg for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.”49 The Court’s decision in Hazelwood was premised on several beliefs about public forums and how they apply to student publications. First, any school-sponsored activity or publication may be reasonably understood to bear the implicit approval of the school, therefore, the school has the right to prohibit it. Second, if an activity or publication is part of the curriculum and “supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences,” it is not a public forum. Third, the Court ruled that as a publisher or producer, “the school had the right to disassociate itself from speech that is ‘ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immatm'e audiences.’”50 According to the Court, any decisions made by school officials ‘7 AbramsandGoodman, 707. " Abrams and Goodman, 708-709. ‘9 AbramsandGoodman, 711. 3° AbramsandGoodman, 717. 15 to censor only need to be proven “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns” to be constitutional?l In terms of the impact of Hazelwood on the future of high school journalism education, the Eighth Circuit, although overturned by the Supreme Court, “focused on the idea that the determination whether or not a publication is a forum for public expression should be based upon how information is received and used as well as how it is produced.”52 The Court’s message to students and student journalists had been in the past that “the educational system exists to inculcate in tomorrow’s leaders the ‘flmdamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.”3 Yet, Abrams and Goodman argued that “the Court is now telling students, however, that they must receive these values passively, without an opportunity to debate on a schoolwide basis the issues and concerns of the day. It blithely assumes that other equally efficient mechanisms, such as the local news media, will enable students in a public high school to receive the information they need to make their own choices about such issues and concerns.”4 Other potentially dangerous implications of eliminating student publications from the definition of public forums are aimed at the schools themselves. As Abrams and Goodman note, “those who dictate the content of a publication will have financial responsibility for any tortious material that appears in it. . . . Thus, after Kuhlm eier 5‘ Abrams and Goodman, 717. ’2 Abrams and Goodman, 720. ’3 Abrams and Goodman, 722. 5‘ Abrams and Goodman, 722-723. l6 [Hazelwood], to convert a student newspaper providing a forum for student expression into a nonforum publication could be a serious financial mistake.”55 The implications of Hazelwood for the profession of j ournalism are also potentially far-reaching. A 1986 study by Snyder, according to Abrams and Goodman, determined that “the majority of newspapers in America are student newspapers” and ”5‘ The lessons they learn “the majority of journalists in America are student journalists. that prepare them for the real-world practice of the profession “are best learned in an environment as free as possible from censorship.”57 They also assert that “a blanket prohibition of such controversial topics [teenage pregnancy, divorce] threatens ‘a value at the very core of the First Amendment.’”58 Sherry examined the need for education that provides the necessary tools for students to become responsible citizens?9 The first two of her three sections were not applicable to this discussion of the impact of Court decisions on student press and freedom of expression, but the third section addressed the topic to a certain degree. She delineated “three bases of a responsible republican education: cultural literacy, critical thinking, and moral character.”60 Sherry then proceeded to discuss relevant Court cases, citing Tinker and Fraser, establishing that “permitting students to criticize authority if they do so civilly and ”5 Abrams and Goodman, 727. 5” Abrams and Goodman, 732. 5" Abrams and Goodman, 732. 5' Abrams and Goodman, 725. ’9 Sherry, Susanna, “Responsible Republicanism: Educating for Citizenship,” The University of Chicago Law Review, 62 (1995). so Sherry, 157. 17 rationally teaches all the right lessons: some ways of behaving are irresponsible and wrong, but moral reasoning and dialogue never are?61 Citing Pica, Sherry asserted that “the removal of politically objectionable books both constricts the students’ ability to learn critical thinking by example and comparison and sends a message to students that orthodoxy is required, it undermines the teaching of critical thinking.”62 In terms of responsible republican education, Sherry concludes that the Court “has seriously erred only twice (in Yoder and Kuhlmeier [Hazelwood])?‘53 The Nature of the Beast: Research on High School Journalism A 1979 study by Eveslage showed that restraint of student expression was “more evident among advisers and principals with no journalism training and less than five years of experience, and in schools with no written guidelines on apprOpriate content for the newspaper?“ Eveslage noted that principals and advisers who were most aware of student press rights had different sources of knowledge. Highly aware principals were more likely to read about student rights in professional publications, while aware advisers attended 6‘ Sherry, 190. ‘2 Sherry, 191. ‘3 Sherry, 193. “ Eveslage, Thomas, “Advisers Know About Student Rights, But . . .” Quill and Scroll, December- January 1981, 12. ‘ 18 professional meetings.“ Eveslage also found that restraint was higher among principals and advisers who were more aware of student press rights.66 Dodd examined the impact of an adviser’s journalistic backgrormd on the number of conflicts with school administration. Dodd found that “the more college journalism training an adviser had, the more likely he/ she was to have conflicts with the school administration.”67 A possible explanation Dodd provided was that “advisers who had journalism training could have been more confident about addressing controversial issues due to their knowledge of student press rights and in challenging the decisions of their administrators, who in most cases had no background in journalism.”68 Dodd also concluded that of the 176 advisers who responded to the survey, only 11.2 percent had been teaching for less than five years, and although most advisers had been teaching for more than five years, 47.6 percent had been newspaper advisers for less than five years.“ Dodd proposed that this discrepancy in length of time teaching and advising “could be because fewer new teachers have been hired due to the decline in the student population.” Demographic data collected in a 1989 sway of Indiana high school newspaper advisers by Kovas included information about length of time advising, budget, size of school, frequency of publication and curricular status of journalism classes. ‘5 Eveslage, 13. ‘6 Eveslage, 13. ‘7 Dodd, Julie E., “Principals’, Advisers’ Evaluations of the Important Characteristics for Newspaper Advisers,” Quill and Scroll, April-May 1983, 13. 6' Dodd, 15. 19 Kovas noted that advisers had an average of less than eight years of experience.70 Fifty-nine percent advised a monthly publication and 78 percent had no budget from the administration.71 The average enrollment was 816 students and 98 percent of the schools were public schools.72 Eighty-eight percent of the respondents said the j ournalism class was a part of the school’s curriculum.7374 By far, the most comprehensive insight into high school journalism has been proflered by Journalism Kids Do Better, the 1994 effort by Dvorak, Lain and Dickson. This compilation of relevant research into the impact of high school journalism programs on students as well as the current state of such programs in light of recent legal developments ofl‘ered many insights into high school journalism programs, the advisers who run them, the students who participate in them and the administrators who supervise them.75 Dvorak’s 1991 survey of randomly selected U.S. secondary schools showed that nearly 95 percent of US. high schools offer a journalism class or some sort of media outlet for student staffs and audiences.” Ninety-three percent of the nation’s schools ‘9 D0dd. 13. 7° Kovas, Marcia, “The impact of Hazelwood in the state of Indiana. " Quill and Scroll, February-March 1991, 9. 7‘ Kovas, 9. 7’ Kovas, 9. ’3 Kovas, 9. 7‘ Dodd, 13. 7‘ Dvorak, Jack, Lawrence Lain and Tom Dickson, Journalism Kids Do Better: What research tells us about high school journalism in the 1990s, ERIC, 1994. 7‘ Dvorak, Lain and mm 73. 20 publish yearbooks, and 79 percent publish newspapers.77 Only 37.8 percent of the nation’s schools publish literary magazines.78 Credit is offered to students for journalistic work in 86.5 percent of US. high schools.79 Thirteen percent of schools offer journalism or media courses to fulfill English requirements, while 26 percent offer courses and labs as language arts requirements.80 Over 40 percent (43.4 percent) offer journalism courses and labs as general electives, while 4.1 percent offer them for some other fulfillment, such as social studies, vocational education, etc.81 This same survey showed that the majority of j ournalism educators are female (71.5 percent) and that percentage increases for first-year teachers (76 percent).82 However, the percentage of males increases as years of journalism teaching increase. Among those with 16 or more years journalism teaching, males number 63 percent.83 Dvorak’s national survey showed the following about journalism educators. They average 14.6 years as a teacher with an average of 8.4 years teaching journalism. Three percent are in their first year of teaching, while 12 percent are in their first year of teaching journalism. Fewer than 10 percent are in their second or third year of teaching, while more than 19 percent are in their second or third year of teaching journalism.84 "DvoraLLainandDickson, 73. ”DvoraklainandDickson, 73. ”DvoraklainandDickson, 74. '° Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 74. " Dvorak, Iain andDickson, 74. "DvorakLainandDickson, 84. ”DvmahlainandDickson, 84. “DvoraklainandDickson, 86. 21 Nationally, Dvorak identified the top four areas of state subject area endorsement/certification as English with an overwhelming majority of 78.5 percent, followed by journalism (28.2 percent), social studies (17.8 percent) and speech/drama (10.2 percent).85 Dvorak rationalized the lack of jomnalism certification by considering respondents’ answers to the question “When did you first think about getting involved in Journalism education?” The largest response, Dvorak noted, was “after assignment by an administrator” at 43.2 percent.“ A 1982 study by Benedict, cited in Journalism Kids Do Better, indicated that about half of Iowa high school newspapers were published as a page in a local community paper. Of the papers published separately, about 40 percent accepted advertising and 40 percent received a portion of the school budget. Only 15 percent sold subscriptions or single copies.87 A 1986 Ohio study by Lain found that only 30 percent of schools received administrative subsidies, 6 percent activity fees and 62 percent relied on advertising revenue.88 Lain proposed that the five traditional sources of flmding for school newspapers are money from activity fees paid by all students, subscription sales, single-copy sales, direct subsidy from school administrators and advertising revenue. He found in 3 1991-92 national study that 20 percent of non-public schools relied on activity fees for at least 75 percent of their income, while only 5 percent of public schools received that much ”DvoraklainandDickson, 99. ”DvomhlahlandDickson, 99. ”DvmaklainandDickson, 140. “DvmahLainandDickson, 141. 22 support.89 Lain found that less than 9 percent of schools sold subscriptions and just 2 percent relied on them for 50 percent or more of their total budget.90 More than 75 percent of schools received no money fiom single-copy sales, but Lain noted that “8.3 percent received half or more than half of their money this way.”91 Lain found that by far, administrative subsidy is the most common form of revenue. “More than half of the papers in this and other studies received subsidies, and the amount was usually substantial,” he noted. “Nearly 40 percent of schools received at least halftheir budgeted income from the administration, and about 22 percent got all their money from the principal or school board,” Lain noted92 Although Lain found that advertising is the second-most—important source of funding for school newspapers, more than 43 percent of newspapers do not cm'ry ads at all, citing school policies against it. Nearly one-third earn more than 50 percent of their budget through ad sales, and, for more than 10 percent, ad sales are the only revenue source.93 Lain also found that budget sources and flea expression of the student press are linked. Advisers were presented with controversial story topics and asked if these stories, assuming they were well-researched and well-written, could be run in the student paper or would likely be “killed” by either the adviser or the principal. Stories critical of the school board, political endorsements and school board endorsements were the most likely to be '9 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson. 145. 9° Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 147. 9’ Dvorak. Lain and Dickson, 147. ”2 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson. 147. 9’ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 149. 23 killed at the responding schools.94 Papers which bring in more advertising revenue were more likely to run stories on birth control, abortion, critical of the administration, and about teens, sex and pregnancy.” Advisers who self-identified as active in professional associations were less likely to kill stories critical of sports teams, critical of teachers in general or stories about drug problems.“ The Impact of Hazelwood Dickson conducted a mail survey of Missouri principals and advisers at 100 randomly selected high schools two months after the Hazelwood ruling in January, 1988. Dickson found that stated publication policies were not important in determining content of student publications.97 Prior restraint by principals and advisers was used infrequently. Advisers indicated they were more likely to use suggestion to control content than prior restraint.98 Dickson also found that school size affected whether controversial topics were addressed by the student newspaper. Schools with more than 500 students were more likely to tackle the topics of sex, AIDS, student pregnancy and divorce than schools with fewer than 500 students.99 Research by Click and Kopenhaver in 1989 (cited in Journalism Kids Do Better) showed that all principals and over 90 percent of advisers surveyed felt the student 9‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 170. 9’ Dvorak, Lain and mm 169-171. 9‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson. 170-171. 9" Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 264. 9‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 264. 24 newspaper adviser should review all copy before printing.100 The researchers also formd that 90 percent of principals agreed or agreed strongly that advisers are obligated to inform administrators of controversial stories before going to press, while only 39 percent of advisers a “’1 In terms of actual censorship, Click and Kopenhaver determined that an adviser’s correction of factual inaccuracies and misspellings was, indeed, a form of censorship. Under this definition, more than three-quarters of principals and advisers agreed that censorship is appropriate: 82 percent of principals and 79 percent of advisers agreed that advisers should correct factual inaccuracies in student copy before publication even if it would not be possible to confer with the students involved.102 Eighty-nine percent of principals and 75 percent of advisers agreed that advisers should correct misspellings that students make in their copy.103 Click and Kopenhaver also found that principals (71 percent) were more likely than advisers (40 percent) to see student publications more as a learning tool than as a vehicle for expression of student opinion.104 In 1992, Stofer surveyed principals and advisers at Nebraska public and parochial schools. She found that 95 percent of principals and 92 percent of advisers agreed it was the adviser’s job to review all copy before it is printed.105 Additionally, 78 percent of 9’ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 264-265. '°° Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 278. ‘°‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 278. ”2 Dvorak, Iain and Dickson, 278. "’3 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 278. ‘°’ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 277. ‘°‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 307. 25 principals and 74 percent of advisers agreed that advisers should correct misspellings in students’ copy.l°‘5 Stofer also found that 81 percent of principals and 70 percent of advisers agreed that student newspapers are more educational tools than outlets for the open expression of student opinion. "’7 A 1992 national survey of student newspaper editors and advisers found that 82 percent of editors and 89 percent of advisers agreed that advisers “always” read the contents of the newspaper before it is published.108 Dodd and Mays conducted a 1992 mail survey of high school newspaper advisers who were members of the Florida Scholastic Press Association. Of the respondents, 12 percent were first-year newspaper advisers and 46 percent had been advising for two to five years.109 Forty-eight percent of the respondents said their district had a written policy on school publications; 33 percent said their district did not have a written policy; 10 percent did not know and 9 percent did not answer the question.110 A 1993 national mail survey of high school journalism educators by Arnold showed that new teachers with two or fewer years of experience, teachers from small towns and rural areas and teachers who are not certified in journalism were most likely to seek assistance fi'om the principal and more likely to make changes themselves when student copy was sensitive, controversial or critical of school administration.l 11 roe Dvorak, Lain and Dickson. 307. 107 Dvorak, Lain and Dim, 306. rue Dvorak, Lain and Didrson. 317. “’9 Dodd, Julie E. and Roy P. Mays, “The impact of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier on publication policies in Florida high schools,” Quill and Scroll, October-November 1993, 13. "° Dodd and Mays, 13. "‘ Arnold, Mary, “Student Freedom of Expression and High School Journalism Advisers: A legal and educational dilemma,” Quill and Scroll. December-January 1996, 9. 26 Arnold also formd that the story topics most likely to be changed or removed by a principal were: 1) racism or racial strife and riots; 2) sexual harassment; 3) fighting, violence and guns at school; 4) academic eligibility for athletes; 5) sexual practices and sexuality; 6) substance abuse (drugs and alcohol); 7) teenage suicide; 8) AIDS; and 9) stories critical of school personnel.112 Framing the hypotheses and research questions with the literature Research on high school journalism has provided a profile of the average publication, budget, adviser and program. Dvorak indicated that nearly 95 percent of US. high schools offer a journalism class or some sort of media outlet for students; 93 percent of the nation’s schools publish yearbooks and 79 percent publish newspapers.l ‘3 Dvorak showed that female advisers are in the majority (71 percent) among those with 15 or fewer years experience, while males number in the majority (63 percent) among those with 16 or more years experience.114 Dickson found that school size affected whether controversial topics were addressed by the student newspaper.115 He also found that prior restraint was used infrequently by advisers and principals.”5 "2 Arnold, 9. "3 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 73. “‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 84. "5 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 264-265. "° Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 264. 27 Lain linked sources of budget and free expression of the student press in a 1991- 92 study.117 The five traditional sources for funding include: activity fees, subscription sales, single-copy sales, school subsidy and advertising revenue.118 Click and Kopenhaver’s 1989 study showed that all principals and over 90 percent of advisers surveyed felt the student newspaper adviser should review all copy before printing.119 Stofer’s 1992 study showed 95 percent of principals and 92 percent of advisers agreed it was the adviser’s job to review all copy before printing.120 Additionally, Click and Kopenhaver found 82 percent of principals and 79 percent of advisers agreed that advisers should correct factual inaccuracies in student copy while 89 percent of principals and 75 percent of advisers agreed that advisers should correct misspellings in student copy.121 Eveslage formd that lack of journalism training and lack of written policies on appropriate content affected restraint of student expression.122 Eveslage also found higher reports of restraint among advisers and principals who were more aware of student press rights.123 Dodd and Mays found that 48 percent of Florida high schools surveyed had a written policy while 33 percent did not and 10 percent did not know.124 . The above-mentioned research findings precipitated the following hypotheses for this study: “7 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 172. "‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 144. "9 Dvorak. Lain and Dickson, 278. m Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 307. ‘2‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson. 278. m Eveslage, 12. ‘23 Eveslage, l3. ‘3‘ Dodd and Mays, 13. 28 H1) As years of Michigan Interscholastic Press Association membership increase, censorship attempts and completions by administrators will decrease. Advisers with lengthy memberships may feel more confident in their ability to advise based on support, information, conferences and workshops the association provides for its members. Advisers with such an information and support network may work out potential problems ahead of time with student staff though instructional methods rather than exclusively dealing with conflicts as they arise. H2) As an adviser’s experience (years of teaching, length of time advising, education or training in journalism) increases, censorship attempts by the adviser will decrease. Eveslage found in 1979 that restraint of student expression was more common among advisers with five or fewer years experience and no jom'nalism trainingm Dodd hypothesized that advisers with more journalism training were more likely to address controversial topics due to their knowledge of student press rights and to challenge administrative decisions about student journalism.126 Arnold also found that newer teachers, those from small towns and rural areas and those not certified in journalism were most likely to seek assistance fi'om a principal and to make changes to sensitive or critical copy. 127 Dating fiom the Tinker decision in 1969, student publications have been viewed as forums for student opinion, and as such, have traditionally been free from censorship by administrative entities. However, with the Hazelwood ruling in 1988, student ‘25 Eveslage, 12. ‘26 Dodd, 15. ‘27 Arnold, 9. 29 publications have been redefined as “school-sponsored expressive activities”128 and are no longer subject to the freedoms offered by Tinker. Many scholars find such a restriction on freedom of expression untenable for a variety of reasons, including the lack of inculcation of critical thinking skills and democratic values and the potential financial responsibility of schools for content of student publications. ‘29 Although Dickson found that a majority of principals had not kept materials from being printed, nearly all said they would censor certain subjects under specific circumstances. Objectionable material included vulgar language, sex, drugs and student pregnancy.l3° Salomone concluded that although other intervening variables made it impossible to determine whether Hazelwood had, indeed, increased the amount of administrative censorship; in general, the larger the school, the more controversy over publications. ’3 l ' The preceding literature, as well as some of what follows, led to the development of one hypothesis and five research questions for this study: H3) An adviser who perceives administration as likely to censor will be more likely to exercise prior restraint toward sensitive/mature topics. Q1) What topics are most likely to be censored by an adviser? Q2) What topics do advisers think administrators are most likely to censor? Q3) Does the size of the school increase the numbers and types of publications offered? m Hafen, 685. ”9 Abrams and Goodman, 722-723,727; and Sherry, 191. no Dickson, 1.71. 30 Q4) Does the size of the school increase the likelihood that publications classes will be offered during the school day for credit? Q5) Does the size of the school affect the amount of censorship, and if it does, what is the relationship and what are the given reasons? Studies by Lain and Dickson have linked school size and types of topics that are addressed by student publications. One might assume that larger schools would have a more diverse audience that would benefit from a wider array of t0pics, even controversial ones. Larger schools would also likely be public schools, rather than private or parochial schools, therefore having a more “open forum” publication than non-secular schools. The researcher also questioned whether the size of the school increased the number and types of publications offered. The expected rationale was that the larger the school, the more teachers and areas of expertise the curriculum can draw upon to offer courses to students. Larger schools would also have a larger base of students from which to draw to meet course enrollment requirements. Also, a larger student body may be able to financially support additional publications through subscriptions and single-copy sales. Finally, larger schools are generally found in larger cities which would provide an base for advertising revenue and economic support. The final research question that was prompted by the above-mentioned research as well as pure curiosity, was the following: Q6) What are the characteristics of Michigan’s high school jom'nalism educators, programs and publications? ‘3‘ Salomone, 53, 58-59. CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF GATHERING DATA The general intent was to survey high school publications advisers. Ideally, advisers would provide not only a direct look at themselves, but also an indirect look at high school administrators. Items included the following characteristics: length of time advising, number and types of publications advised, gender of adviser and length of time teaching. The following orientations were also examined: adviser’s perception of administrators’ attitude toward censorship, adviser‘s attitude toward censorship, adviser’s perception of administrator’s perception of student publications as learning tools and/or public relations tools and adviser’s perception of student publications as learning tools. Actions such as administrators actually censoring items and advisers voluntarily removing items without administrative censorship were also examined. The following three hypotheses and six research questions, as well as the theoretical and operational definitions of their relevant variables, were generated by a careful review of relevant literature, as discussed in the previous chapter. The question numbers in the theoretical/operational definitions refer to items on the questionnaire that was distributed to the sample. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. 31 32 Hypotheses H1) As years ofMIPA membership increase, censorship attempts and completions by administrators will decrease. HZ) As an adviser ’s experience (years of teaching, length of time advising, education or training in journalism) increases, censorship attempts by the adviser will decrease. - H3) An adviser who perceives administration as likely to censor will be more likely to exercise prior restraint toward sensitive/mature topics. Research questions Q1) What topics are most likely to be censored by an adviser? Q2) What topics do advisers think administrators are most likely to censor? Q3) Does the size of the school increase the number and types of publications ofi‘ered? Q4) Does the size of the school increase the likelihood that publications classes will be ofi'ered during the school day for credit? Q5) Does size of school affect the amount of censorship, and if it does, what is the relationship and what are the given reasons? Q6) What are the characteristics of Michigan’s high school journalism educators, programs and publications? Theoretical/operational definitions Prior restraint/censorship — Material is removed from the publication before it is published in an effort to deny access to the reader. This was measured by adviser’s self- 33 reports and reports of adnrinistrator’s acts of censorship in questions 30 through 33, 35, 36, 38 and 39. MFA membership — The organization offers support and knowledge; those who have been members for five or more years will feel more confident in their advising than those who have been members for four or fewer years or those with no organizational support. This was measrned by adviser’s self-reports of membership and knowledge of services in questions 46 through 49. Adviser's experience —— An adviser’s experience is measured by the number of years spent advising publications and teaching, his or her education or training in journalism as well as the number and types of publications advised. This was determined through questions 2B, 9, 13, 29, 53 and 54. Anecdotal accounts of past encounters he or she may have had with censorship or negative experiences he or she may have had while advising publications were also welcomed in item 55. Adviser's perception of administration’s likelihood to censor -— This is expressed through an adviser’s beliefs about administration’s stated thoughts or past actions of prior restraint. This was measured by adviser’s responses to items 32 through 38. An adviser who perceives administration as likely to censor — This will be expressed through the adviser’s expression of thoughts or beliefs about administration’s past statements and/or beliefs. Again, this was determined by responses to questions 32 through 38. 34 Topics that may be more likely to be censored — The topics or themes of articles or publications that an adviser or administrator felt was inappropriate for the audience for some expressed or hidden reason were requested in items 43 and 44. Sensitive/mature topics — The topics or themes of articles or publications that have adult themes or points of view including such topics as drugs, sex, gangs, pregnancy, abortion, divorce, etc. Again, items 43 and 44 prompted adviser’s responses as well as adviser’s perception of administrator’s taboo topics. Size of school -— This could influence not only the number and diversity of viewpoints of the writers, but also the audience. It was measured by enrollment. Self-reports were requested in item 51, but data from the Michigan High School Athletic Association was also gathered. Number and Wes of publications — Respondents were asked how many publications their particular school supported and whether such publications included a newspaper, literary magazine, yearbook, newsmagazine or newsletter. There was also a space for other publications. This was measured in items 1, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12. Class oflered — Respondents were asked if the publication was offered, taught and prepared dining an hour in school day or ofiered after school as a club or student organization in items 15, l6, l7 and 19. Class oflered for credit — Respondents were asked if a student enrolled in a publications class could earn graduation credit in English, electives, business, etc. for successfully taking and passing the publications class in item 20. 35 Sampling procedures A randomly selected sample of 350 public, private and/or parochial secondary schools in the state of Michigan was generated using a random numbers table and applying the first three digits of those random numbers to the 718 class A, B, C and D secondary schools listed in the Michigan High School Athletic Association’s 1996-97 School Directory. Then this sample was applied to a list of all high schools that are members of the MHSAA. There are 720 high schools (public, private and parochial) in the state that are associated with the MHSAA. Because two of the listed schools were not classified as A, B, C or D, only the 718 classified schools were considered for the sample. A random numbers table was used to generate a list of 350 random numbers from 1 to 718. Then the numbers were matched to their corresponding school entry and a database for mailing purposes was created using FileMaker Pro 2.0. Despite the potential negative aspects of a mail-distributed questionnaire, this design was used for a multitude of reasons. First, it was affordable. Second, to attempt to reach publications advisers by telephone and expect them to have 15-20 unscheduled minutes of time would be rather tmrealistic. Third, the researcher believed that many advisers would feel strongly, one way or the other, about this questionnaire, and as such, would feel compelled to complete and return it. Included was a cover letter that identified the source of partial funding (MIPA) and the rationale behind the research topic. Expectations were not identified, as this might have biased the responses. Surveys were identified as being confidential, not anonymous, 36 for mailing purposes. An offer of sharing the results with advisers may have increased their willingness to participate, as 52 of the 195 respondents (26.7 percent) requested a copy of the results of the study. The intent was to send three waves of questionnaires in order to maximize the response rate. The first wave was sent to publication advisers at the 350 randomly- selected secondary schools. Each letter and envelope was addressed to Student Publications Adviser. This first wave consisted of the cover letter, questionnaire and a stamped return envelope. Responses were kept confidential, but the researcher was able to determine which schools had retm'ned questionnaires and which had not for third wave mailings through use of a numbering system. The second wave consisted of a postcard reminder about the survey to all 350 potential respondents. It was sent three weeks after the initial mailing. The third wave involved remailing the cover letter, questionnaire and stamped return envelopes to all 208 non-respondents. The final response rate of 55 percent (195 of 354) was deemed an acceptable level of attainment. One potential problem was that the publication adviser(s) in each school was not necessarily the same for newspapers, yearbooks, literary magazines and other publications. To counteract this potential problem, a message was printed at the top of the first page of the survey. This message asked the recipient to “Please duplicate this survey instrument if there is more than one adviser at your school for student publications.” Three respondents did, indeed, duplicate the questionnaire and pass the copy along to another adviser, who completed it and returned it with the first respondent’s. Another respondent asked the researcher to send an additional copy to the 37 newspaper adviser at her school, which was done. One other respondent, a newspaper adviser, passed her copy along to the yearbook adviser, who added in the additional comments section, “I have nothing to add.” Appendix A includes a copy of the questionnaire which was sent to the sample. As data entry proceeded, errors were discovered in the drafting of the questionnaire which required two items to be removed fiom consideration. These included the fiequency of newsletter publication (item 3B) and the adviser’s perception of the administrator’s attitude toward prior restraint (item 36). The reason item 3B was removed from consideration was an error in the wording which specified the frequency of publication. Instead of asking for the number of times per month, the item read “# of pages.” Most respondents disregarded the direction and indicated the number of times per month the newsletter was published; some indicated both the frequency and the number of pages. But, to eliminate confusion and potential errors, the researcher removed the item fiom consideration. Faulty wording was the problem with item 36, which read “My administrator’s attitude toward prior restraint (removing items in a publication prior to publication) is.” The question, however, should have been worded differently to elicit the adviser’s opinion on the administrator’s attitude toward prior restraint, rather than how the administrator viewed the practice. The questionnaire was limited to 55 questions, which pretesting showed would take an average of 15 minutes to complete. Although this was a long time for a questionnaire to take, all of these questions were considered too important to remove. 38 The questionnaire consisted of Likert scales for attitudinal and perceptual items. Semi-closed ended questions were also used, but the category of "other, please describe" was available for those advisers whose experiences did not match any given choices. Some demographic data was requested at the end of the questionnaire. This included adviser's gender and years of teaching experience, Michigan Interscholastic Press Association membership status and school data such as type of school, total school enrollment and publication class enrollment. The hypotheses and research questions were relevant to high school publications advisers as the study was designed to determine the state of high school journalism and journalism programs in the state of Michigan. Only advisers could answer most of the questions on the survey, although they might have felt it necessary to consult with an administrator for some of the demographic questions. The questionnaire was pretested using five publications advisers who were not included in the random sample of 350 secondary schools at the Michigan Interscholastic Press Association’s Annual Spring Conference on April 18, 1997. Pretesters returned the questionnaires within one week, slight modifications were made to a few questions and an additional question (“Does your school have a stated editorial policy?”) was added after careful consideration of one pretester’s comments. The questionnaire was then administered in three mailing waves as described above. Returned questionnaires were coded by the researcher who entered all data entered into SPSS. After all data had been entered, frequencies were run to ensure that no errors in data entry were made by the researcher. No errors were detected, so the researcher 39 selected and ran the following statistical measures: crosstabulations, t-tests, mean, chi- square, Phi, Cramer’s V and Pearson’s correlation. These statistical methods were chosen because most items were either nominal or interval. T-tests were used to measure the associations among nominal and interval variables. Pearson’s correlation was used to measure the associations among interval variables. Chi-square was used to test the significance of descriptive variables with more than two categories. Crosstabulations were done when two nominal variables were being considered When a mean is given, the standard error of the mean (SEmm) is given. When proportions are given, the standard error of the proportion (SEW?) is given; although the confidence interval is not given, it can easily be determined by the formula 2(Sem). Standard error is the standard deviation of a sampling distribution and represents error in the data due to sampling. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS The results of this research are inferential, as this was a sample of the population of Michigan high school publications. However, inferences to other states should not be done because of the limitations of the actual population. Later replications in Michigan could provide a basis for inference based on the perceived and actual trends toward increased or decreased censorship. Trends of frmding and popularity of publications classes could also be analyzed with later replication data. Tests of significance were necessary since this questionnaire was administered to a random sample of the total population. These tests included t-tests, crosstabulations, chi- square, Phi, Cramer’s V and Pearson’s correlation, depending on the variables being associated. Comparing the sample and the population Questionnaires were returned by 195 respondents respresenting 50 class A schools (26 percent), 46 class B schools (24 percent), 51 class C schools (26 percent) and 48 class D schools (24 percent) (SEN ==3.6) (see Figure 1). The MHSAA directory listed a population of high schools including 178 class A schools (25 percent of the total), 177 40 41 class B schools (24 percent), 179 class C schools (25 percent) and 184 class D schools (26 percent). Therefore, this sample rather accurately reflected the true population. 30% W In respondents 25% 4- ! population 20% -- J“ - clms A class B class C chss D Figure l: MHSAA classification of respondents' schools Of 194 respondents, 85 percent worked at public schools, 7 percent at parochial schools, 6 percent at private schools and 2 percent at private parochial schools (SEMI, =3.6) (see Figure 2). 9096 ‘ 80% - 70% " 60% - 50% - 40% - 30% 1 20% - 10% - 0% - . ._ fl public parodrial private private parochial Figure 2: Types of schools responding (n=l94) 42 Thirty-one percent of advisers (n=193; SEPM=3.6) were male and 69 percent were female. Combined, these advisers had a range of teaching experience from one to 39 years (n=188; SEmm=.75); the mean was 14.6 years. Years of advising ranged from one to 29 years (n=188; SEM=.56), with a mean of 8.1 years for all advisers. The combined adjusted means for gender for the variable of “years adviser has been teaching” were 12.77 for females and 18.66 for males (see Figure 3). The combined adjusted means for the variable of “years adviser has been advising student publications” were 7.32 for females and 10.66 for males (see Figure 3). Figure 3: Mean years teaching and advising by gender (n=188) 43 Applying the data to the hypotheses and research questions When the data were statistically analyzed and the results applied to the hypotheses and research questions, only some of the researcher’s expectations were borne out. Hypothesis one, “As years of MIPA membership increase, censorship attempts and completions by administrators will decrease,” was somewhat supported by the research. Pearson correlations between the variables ‘years of MIPA membership” and “the average number of times per year administrator exercises prior restraint” produced a somewhat significant Pearson correlation coefficient of .24 at p=.053 for a one-tailed test of significance (n=46). Pearson correlations between the variables “years of MIPA membership” and “the average number of times per year an administrator delays publication through prior review” produced a not statistically significant Pearson correlation coefficient of .24 at p=.064 for a one-tailed test of significance (n=43). Hypothesis two, “As an adviser’s experience (years of teaching, length of time advising, education or training in journalism) increases, censorship attempts by the adviser will decrease,” was not supported by the research findings, either. In terms of education and continuing training in journalism, of 175 respondents, 61 percent said they had attended workshops and 33 percent had attended conferences. Twenty-seven percent said they had training during an 1mdergraduate degree program; 9 percent indicated they had received an advanced degree or course of study, and 25 percent 44 said they had taken university or college courses in journalism (SEm,=3.8). Other listed sources of continuing training were “on the job” experience (four responses), professional experience as a reporter (three responses) and none (ten responses) (see Figure 4). Most of the conferences and workshops attended by respondents were offered by Michigan State University and/or the Michigan Interscholastic Press Association (38 mentions of workshops and 27 mentions of conferences) and the publishing companies (37 mentions of workshops and 7 mentions of conferences). 70% 6096 SO96 other none Figure 4: Respondents received information and training in journalism from the following sources (n=] 7 5) Advisers were asked where they received information about court decisions affecting student publications. Of 183 respondents, 62 percent received information from newspapers, 50 percent from MIPA publications, 25 percent from scholarly journals, 22 percent from news magazines, 22 percent from principals, 7 percent from the Internet, 16 percent from conferences and 9 percent fiom workshops. Percentages do not add up to 45 100 percent because respondents were asked to mark all sources that applied to them (see Figure 5). 096-1 an m >‘ VJ "‘ 93 a a <§ 33% E a § § % E ”‘3 gag é‘ Ego E § 3 a. 3%: 8" g g ‘e o a a 8 3 Figure 4: Where publications advisers get information about court decisions affecting student publications (n=183) When asked for the average number of times per year the adviser had exercised prior restraint, removing items prior to publication (item 30), several advisers responded with qualified word responses such as “always,” “rarely,” “numerous,” and “several,” rather than quantified responses. In order to statistically analyze responses, such verbal responses were not considered. Only 28.4 percent of 176 respondents indicated they had exercised prior restraint an average of zero times per year. Another 3.4 percent said they exercised prior restraint less than once per year, but not zero times per year, making a total of 32 percent that had exercised prior restraint an average of less than one time per year. Only 15 percent (15.3 46 percent) said they had exercised prior restraint an average of once per year, while 8 percent said once or twice per year (average 1.5 times). Over 12 percent (12.5 percent) said they had exercised prior restraint an average of two times per year. Just over 5 percent (5.1 percent) indicated they had exercised prior restraint two to three times per year (average 2.5 times). Seventeen percent indicated they had exercised prior restraint an average of three to five times per year, while 8 percent said they had exercised prior restraint more than five times but not more than 10 times per year. Just over 2 percent (2.4 percent) said they had exercised prior restraint more than 10 times per year. (see Figrne 6). The same strategy of removing qualified value equivalents was used for statistical analysis of items 31 through 33 as well. Item 31 asked for the average number of times per year an adviser had delayed publication through prior review. Eighty-three percent of 17 5 respondents said they had delayed publication through prior review an average of less than one time per year. Only 5 percent said they had delayed publication through prior review an average of once per year, and 4 percent said they had delayed publication through prior review twice per year. Just over 5 percent indicated they had delayed publication through prior review more than tWice per year (see Figure 6). In item 32, advisers were asked for the average nmnber of times per year their current administrator had exercised prior restraint. Sixty-six percent of 182 respondents said their administrators had exercised prior restraint an average of less than one time per year. Nineteen percent said once per year and 4 percent said twice. Six percent said three to five times per year, and two percent said six to nine times. Only one percent said their 47 administrators had exercised prior restraint an average of ten or more times per year (see Figure 6). In item 33, advisers were asked for the average number of times per year their current administrator had delayed publication through prior review. Eighty-seven percent of 177 respondents indicated their administrators had delayed publication through prior review an average of less than one time per year. Six percent said once per year and 2 percent said twice. Two percent said their administrators had delayed publication through prior review an average of three to five times per year and 1 percent said six to nine times per year (see Figure 6). 90% . I adviser delays 8 0% : publication through 70% E prior review (n=180) 609‘ E I] adviser exercises 50% E prior restraint 40% E (n=185) 3096 i- E administrator delays 20% . .-_-_:'-' publication through 10% "E priorreview (n=l77) 0% - '- - g g 8 8 8 I administrator as a g g .g E exercises prior 3 “' 2 E g restraint (n=182) g ‘6 —- 2 Figure 6: Average incidences of censorship in an average year 43 Advisers were asked to rate the frequency with which their administrators exercised the right of prior review and/or restraint. Nine percent said their administrators exercised the right “frequently;” 5 percent said “often;” 15 percent said “occasionally;” 30 percent said “rarely;” and 40 percent said “never.” Only 1 percent marked “other” (see Figme 7). . Advisers also rated how fiequently they exercised the right of prior review and/or restraint. Thirty-five percent said “frequently;” 12 percent said “often;” 24 percent said “occasionally;” 21 percent said “rarely;” and 5 percent said “never.” Three percent marked “other” (see Figure 7). 4096 fig.- 96 - = 35 g E adviser’s report of 30* ‘ = administrators 2596 t ; exercise of prior 2”“ - 3 “m“ 15% « = : 10% . —_E_ E ladviser‘s report of 5% . - g E self-exercise of prior J E restraint 096 8%2‘38 4.: E E E s '§ ‘8‘ Figure 7: Adviser's report of exercise of prior restraint (n=183) Pearson correlations between the number of years advising and the average number of times per year an adviser exercised the right of prior restraint were not significant in a one-tailed test of significance with a Pearson correlation coefficient of .02 at p=.399 49 (n=174). Years teaching were not associated with incidence of adviser prior restraint to any degree of statistical significance in a one-tailed test of significance either with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -.05 at p=.254 (n=170). Squaring this correlation coefficient provides a measure of the shared variance between the dependent and independent variables. Shared variance is used to show the degree of relationship between the variables being correlated. An adviser’s training and/or continuing education in journalism was only V significantly associated with acts of prior restraint on the part of the adviser in terms of the variable “adviser has taken rmiversity or college courses in j oumalisnr.” Chi-square analysis of the these variables gave a X2=38.95, d.f.=l6, p=.001. No other types of education or continuing training showed association with adviser’s acts of prior restraint to any statistically significant degree. Incidence of adviser prior review was not associated to any statistically significant degree with any type of education or continuing training in journalism. Where an adviser gets information about court decisions afl‘ecting student publications was crosstabulated with incidence of adviser prior review and incidence of adviser prior restraint Getting information from a principal and from the Michigan Interscholastic Press Association (MIPA) were associated with incidence of adviser prior review, but not to a statistically significant degree. Getting information from a principal, MIPA and conferences were associated with incidence of adviser prior restraint, but again, not to a statistically significant degree. 50 The measure of association for getting information from a principal and adviser’s exercise of prior review was not significant at X2=17 .09, d.f.=l l, p=. 105. The measure of association for getting information fi'om a principal and adviser’s exercise of prior restraint was somewhat significant at X2=31.36, d.f.=21, p=.068. Getting information about court decisions affecting student publications from MIPA and adviser’s exercise of prior review was not associated at X2=8.51, d.f.=11, p=.667. The measure of association for getting information about comt decisions affecting student publications fiom MIPA and adviser’s exercise of prior restraint was somewhat significant at X2=30.78, d.f.=21, p=.077. Getting information about court decisions affecting student publications from conferences was not significantly associated with adviser’s exercise of prior review (XL-'13.“, d.f.=l l, p=.267). The measure of association for getting information about court decisions affecting student publications from conferences and adviser’s exercise of prior restraint was not statistically significant at X2=17.42, d.f.=21, p=.685. Hypothesis three, “An adviser who perceives administration as likely to censor will be more likely to exercise prior restraint toward sensitive/mature t0pi_cs,” was supported by some of the data. Advisers were asked about their administrators’ experiences regarding student publications. Of 181 respondents, 33 percent “strongly agreed” their administrator’s experiences had been positive. Forty-six percent “agreed;” 13 percent said they were “undecided.” Only 7 percent said they “disagreed” that their administrator’s experiences had been positive, while 2 percent “strongly disagreed” (see Figure 8). 51 ll strongly agreed E agreed undecided disagreed I strongly disagreed Figure 8: Advisers feel administrator's previous experiences with student publications have been positive (n=181) Advisers were asked how favorably their administrator viewed prior review. Of 170 respondents (SEM=3.8), 38 percent said their administrators viewed prior review as “highly favorable;” 11 percent said their administrator's viewed it as “slightly favorable;” 38 percent marked “neutral;” 6 percent said their administrators viewed prior review as “slightly unfavorable;” and 8 percent said their administrators viewed prior review as “highly rmfavorable.” Advisers were asked whether they believed their administrator viewed student publications as a learning tool. Fifty-three percent of 188 respondents (SEPM,=3.6) “strongly agreed;” 32 percent “agreed;” 16 percent were “undecided;” 4 percent “disagreed;” and 2 percent “strongly disagreed” When asked whether they believed their administrators viewed student publications as a public relations tool, 45 percent of 186 respondents (SEpmp=3.7) “strongly agreed;” 38 percent “agreed;” 13 percent were 52 “undecided;” 4 percent “disagreed;” and only 1 percent “strongly disagreed” (see Figure 9). Nearly all of the 190 advisers who responded to item 42 said they viewed student publications as a learning tool. Eighty-one percent of advisers “strongly agreed” that they viewed student publications as a learning tool. Nineteen percent “agrwd,” while less than 1 percent were “undecided” (see Figure 9). An adviser’s perception of an administrator’s previous experiences with student publications was significantly correlated with the frequency with which an adviser exercised the rights of prior review and/or restraint. The Pearson correlation coefficient for both a two-tailed and a one-tailed test of significance was -.25 at p=.001 (n=167). An adviser’s perception of how favorably an administrator viewed prior review was significantly correlated with the frequency with which an adviser exercised prior reviewand/or restraint. The Pearson correlation coefficient for a one-tailed test of significance was .32 at p<.001 (n=159). Research question one, “What topics are most likely to be censored by an adviser?” was addressed in item 43 with the question, “What topics do you, the adviser, consider to be too sensitive for student publications?” The researcher operated on the assumption that topics an adviser considered too sensitive for student publications would be more likely to be subjected to prior review and/or restraint, in other words, censorship. 53 9096 B adviser views . student publications 80% E as a learning tool 709‘ (n=189) 6096 ' . 5096 I] adviser thinks 40% . _ administrator views student publications 30% as a learning tool 20% (n=188) l 096 I adviser thinks 095 «- administrator views '3 E g E g, '13 a student publications g a " 3,3 g g g as a public relations 5 tool (n=186) Figure 9: How advisers feel they and administrators view student publications The topics that advisers felt were too mature or sensitive for student publications ranged from none (mentioned by 43 of 195 respondents) to sex (mentioned by 50 or more respondents). Although 23 percent of the 195 advisers (SEM=3 .6) responded that no topics were too sensitive for student publications, there were still several topics listed. Mentioned sensitive topics included: religion (3 mentions), abortion (4 mentions), homosexuality (8 mentions), race (4 mentions), drug or alcohol use (20 mentions), death and suicide (2 mentions each). Other topics mentioned were questioning school authority, controversial issues, personal attacks, insults, financial issues, birth control, school politics, violence, use of slang, AIDS, crime, obscenity, pornography, rape and pregnancy. Because advisers viewed these topics as too sensitive for student 54 publications, it is likely that these are also the topics most likely to be censored by an adviser. Research question two, “What topics do advisers think administrators are most likely to censor?” was addressed in item 44 which asked what topics advisers believed administrators would consider too sensitive for student publications. Twenty-four percent of advisers (SEmp=3.6) believed their administrators would consider the same topics too mature or sensitive for student publications that the adviser thought were too sensitive or mature. In addition to the topics listed above, these topics included topics that reflected negatively on the school and/or questioned school policies. Although the research showed that administrators were not likely to censor student publications, these are the topics which advisers might think administrators would be most likely to censor. Research question three, “Does the size of the school increase the number and types of publications ofl’ered?” was supported by the research in terms of three types of publications: newspapers, news magazines and literary magazines. There was no statistically significant correlation between size of school and whether or: not that school offered newsletters, yearbooks or other publications. Ninety-six percent of 192 respondents indicated their school had at least one student publication (SEM=3.6). Of 189 respondents, 69 percent indicated their school offered a newspaper (SEFOP=3.6). Of 190 respondents, 3 percent said their school offered a news magazine; 23 percent indicated their school offered a literary magazine, 95 percent said their schools offered a yearbook; and 19 percent indicated their school offered a 55 newsletter (SEM,=3.6). Four percent of 187 respondents indicated their school ofi‘ered another publication in addition to or instead of the five named types (SEM,=3.7) (see Km 10). 100% \\ \ :\ 90% :g 80% 2% flclass A :\ 70% :g :8 Iclass B 60% ES :\ 50% 5§ llclass C : E\ 40% 5 5% 1 D 30% :§ :§ BC ass :\ 2 20% :g :S E§ as Itotal 1096 :§ :§ 5% 5% 1:11 news mag‘ newsletter' ‘ ' other‘ “ g a Figure 10: Publications offered by school classification (‘n=l90; ”n=l89; ““n=1 87) literary mag’ Chi-square analysis showed that school size (MHSAA classification) and whether a school offered a newspaper (n=l89) were associated to a statistically significant degree at X7=12.22, d.f.=3, p=.007. Additionally, class A and B schools were more likely to offer newspapers than class C or D schools. While 80 percent of both A and B schools offered newspapers, only 62 percent of class C schools and 52 percent of class D schools offered newspapers (88,0516). Chi-square analysis showed that school size (MHSAA classification) and whether a school offered a news magazine (n=l90) were correlated to a statistically significant 56 degree at X2=8.20, d.f.=3, p=.042. Although only 5 schools in the sample indicated they offered a news magazine, four of those schools were class A and one was class B, leading the researcher to conclude that while news magazines are not commonly offered, they are more likely to be offered at larger schools. Chi-square analysis showed that school size (MHSAA classification) and whether a school offered a literary magazine (n=190) were correlated to a statistically significant degree at X2=21.44, d.f.=3, p<.001. Again as with newspapers, class A schools were more likely than smaller schools to offer this type of publication. While 42 percent of class A schools offered literary magazines, only 30 percent of class B schools, 12 percent of class C schools and 6.8 percent of class D schools offered literary magazines. This led the researcher to conclude that, while literary magazines were not commonly offered to students as a publication, they are more likely to be offered at larger schools. Research question four, “Does the size of the school increase the likelihood that publications classes will be offered during the school day for credit?” was partly supported by the research. Of 190 respondents, 83 percent indicated that the publication was offered as a class during the school day (SEpmp=3.6). When asked what kind of credit, if any, was offered to students for taking publications classes, 61 percent of 180 respondents (SEmp=3.7) indicated English elective credit was offered. The next most common credit was given in general electives (29 percent), then journalism credit (13 percent), no credit (7 percent), English requirement credit (6 percent) and business credit (1 percent). Other 57 kinds of credit ofiered to students included computer credit (2 percent) and practical or fine art credit (1 percent). The size of the school (MHSAA classification) and whether publications were offered as a class during the school day was significantly associated at X2=12.86, d.f.=3, p=.005 (n=l90). The size of the school (MHSAA classification) and whether publications were ofi‘ered as English elective credit were significantly associated Chi-square analysis (n=180) gave x2=11.34, af.=3, p=.01. Size of school (MHSAA classification) and no credit being offered for publications classes was also significantly associated at X2=12.27, d.f.=3, p=.007 (n=] 80). Research question five, “Does size of school afl‘ect the amount of censorship, and if it does, what is the relationship and what are the given reasons?” was, for the most part, not supported by the research. Crosstabulations between the variables “MHSAA classification of school” and “average number of times per year adviser exercises prior restraint” showed no significant association at X2= 67.87, d.f.=63, p=.315 (n=185). While 32.6 percent of class A schools reported advisers exercised prior restraint an average of zero times per year, 44.2 percent of class B schools, nearly 15 percent of class C schools and 22.5 percent of class D schools reported the same. Class C schools were more likely to report an average of one incidence of adviser prior restraint per year at 21.3 percent, compared to 17.4 percent of class A schools, 9.3 percent of class B schools and 12.5 percent of class D schools. Classes B and D were more likely to report two incidents of 58 adviser prior restraint per year than were class A schools. Just over 16 percent of class B schools reported two incidents of adviser prior restraint per year, while 17.5 percent of class D schools, 12.8 percent of class C schools and 4.3 percent of class A schools reported the same. Crosstabulations between the variables “MHSAA classification of school” and “average number of times per year administrator exercises prior restraint” showed no significant association at X2=39.05, d.f.=42, p=.601 (n=180). Nearly 64 percent of the sample (n=180) responded that their administrators exercised prior restraint an average of zero times per year. Class B schools were most likely to report this at over 67 percent, followed closely by class A schools at nearly 64 percent, class D schools at just over 63 percent and class C schools at ahnost 61 percent. Nineteen percent of class A schools reported an average of one incident of administrative prior restraint per year, while 13 percent of class B schools, nearly 22 percent of class C schools and 24.4 percent of class D schools reported the same. When chi-square analysis was done, over 86 percent of all schools responding (n=174; SEM=3.8) reported their administrators delayed publication through prior review an average of zero times per year. Class A schools were most likely to report this at nearly 89 percent, followed by class B schools at 87 percent, class C schools at 86 percent and class D schools at 83 percent (XL—27.42, d.f.=30, p=.601). The variables closest to a significant level of correlation were “MHSAA classification of school” and “administrator exercises right of prior review/restraint.” These had a correlation coefficient of -. 14 at p=.056 (n=183). Advisers reported the 59 ficquency with which administrators exercised the rights of prior review and/or restraint (n=178; SEM=3.8). Few advisers marked that their administrators exercised the right “fi'equently;” only 12.8 percent of class C schools, 11.4 percent of class B schools, 7.5 percent of class D schools and 6.4 percent of class A schools said this. Fewer reported “ofien” with only 9.1 percent of class B schools, 7.5 percent of class D schools, 6.4 percent of class C schools and no class A schools marking this. Twenty-five percent of class D schools reported an “occasional” administrative exercise of prior review and/or restraint, while 17 percent of class C schools, 8.5 percent of class A schools and 6.8 percent of class B schools reported this. “Rarely” was marked by 36.4 percent of class B schools, 29.8 percent of class A schools, 27.7 percent of class C schools and 27.5 percent of class D schools. “Never” was marked by 55.3 percent of class A schools, 36.4 percent of class B schools, 36.2 percent of class C schools and 32.5 percent of class D schools (see Table 1). Table l: Advisers’ report of administrators’ exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification Class A Class B Class C Class D Total frequently 6.4% 1 1.4% 12.8% 7.5% 9.6% often 0% 9.1% 6.4% 7.5% 5.6% occasionally 8.5% 6.8% 17% 25% 14% rarely 29.8% 36.4% 27.7% 27.5% 30.3% never 55.3% 36.4% 36.2% 32.5% 40.4% T-tests showed that when comparisons were done of administrators’ exercise of prior review and/or restraint at schools with difierent classifications, class A schools were significantly different fiom class B and class C schools, and somewhat (not significantly) difl‘erent from class D schools. For class A and class B schools, the t-value was 2.12, d.f.=70. 10, F038. Comparisons of class A and class C schools gave a t-value of 2.36, d.f.=78.49, p=.021. Comparisons of class A and class D schools gave a t-value of 1.60, d.f.=74.12, p=.114. All t-tests were for two-tailed significance (see Table 2). Table 2: T-test comparisons of advisers’ report of administrators’ exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification (two-tailed test of significance) t-value degrees of fi'eedom (d.f.) p-value SE-difl‘ AB 2.12 70.10 .038 .287 AC 2.36 78.49 .021 .276 AD 1.60 74.12 .114 .262 BC .14 75.76 .887 .308 BD -.64 70.25 .523 .295 CD -.82 76.93 .416 .285 (A=40, B=37, C=42, D=37; A-mean=4.18, B-mean=3 .57, C-mean=3.52, D-mean=3.76) 61 Size of school (measured by MHSAA classification) and adviser’s exercise of prior review/restraint were not significantly correlated. The Pearson correlation coefficient was .02 at p=.799 (n=185). Advisers at class B and class D schools reported that they exercised the rights of prior review and/or restraint more frequently than advisers at class A and class C schools (n=173; SBpmp=3.8). “Frequently” was marked by 39.5 percent of advisers at class B schools, 38.5 percent of advisers at class D schools, 36.2 percent of advisers at class C schools and 31.8 percent of advisers at class A schools. “Often” was marked by 14.9 percent of advisers at class C schools, 11.6 percent of advisers at class B schools, 11.4 percent of advisers at class A schools and 7.7 percent of advisers at class D schools. “Occasionally” was marked by over 25 percent of advisers at class B, C and D schools, while 20.5 percent of advisers at class A schools marked “occasionally.” “Rarely” was marked by over 25 percent of advisers at class D schools, 22.7 percent of advisers at class A schools, 21.3 percent of advisers at class C schools and 18.6 percent of advisers at class B schools. “Never” was marked by 13.6 percent of advisers at class A schools, 4.7 percent of advisers at class B schools, 2.6 percent of advisers at class D schools and 2.1 percent of advisers at class C schools (see Table 3). T-test comparisons of adviser’s exercise of prior review and/or restraint among the various classifications of schools showed a somewhat significant difference between class A and class C schools. Comparisons of class A and class C schools gave a t-value of 1.89, d.f.=73.73, p=.063. All t-tests were for two-tailed significance (see Table 4). 62 Table 3: Adviser’s self-reports of exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification Class A Class B Class C Class D Total frequently 31.8% _ 39.5% 36.2% 38.5% 36.4% ofien 1 1.4% 11.6% 14.9% 7.7% 11.6% occasionally 20.5% 25.6% 25.5% 25.6% 24.3% rarely 22.7% 18.6% 21.3% 25 .6% 22% never 13.6% 4.7% 2.1% 2.6% 5.8% Table 4: T-test comparisons of advisers’ self-reports of exercise of prior review/restraint by MHSAA classification (two-tailed tests of si 'ficance) t-value degrees of freedom (d.f.) p-value SE-diff AB 1.05 74.85 .297 .322 AC 1.89 73.73 .063 .298 AD 1.05 74.85 .297 .322 BC .79 72.42 .430 .283 . BD .00 72.0 1.00 .308 CD .79 72.42 .430 .283 (A=40, B=37, C=42, D=37; A-mean=2.83, B-mean=2.49, C-mean=2.26, D-mean=2.49) How an administrator viewed prior review and MHSAA classification of school were associated. The larger schools (class A) were clearly different fi'om smaller schools. 63 T-test comparisons of class A and class B schools gave a t-value of 3. 14, d.f.=74.69, p=.002. Comparisons of class A and class C schools gave a t-value of 4.23, d.f.=66.03, p<.001. Comparisons of class A and class D schools gave a t-value of 3.30, d.f.=67.7 1, p=.002.A11 t-tests were for two-tailed significance (see Table 5). Table 5: T-test comparisons of advisers’ reports of administrators’ view of prior review and MHSAA classification (two-tailed test of significance) t-value degrees of freedom (dfi) p-value SE-diff AB 3.14 74.69 .002 .308 AC 4.23 66.03 <.001 .271 AD 3.30 67.71 .002 .277 - BC .70 65.82 _ .486 .252 BD -.21 66.96 .835 .259 CD -1.09 75.42 .281 .212 (A=40, B=37, C=42, D=37; A-mean=3.05, B-mean=2.08, C-mean=1.90, D-mean=2.l4) Size of school (measured by MHSAA classification) and the average number of times per year advisers exercised prior restraint were not significantly related according to chi-square analysis; X2=69. 13, d.f.=69, p=.473. 64 Size of school (measured by MHSAA classification) and average number of times per year an adviser delayed publication through prior review were not associated to a statistically significant degree (XZ=34.48, d.f.=33, p=.397, n=l75). Size of school (measured by MHSAA classification) and advisers’ report of the average number of times per year an administrator delayed publication through prior review were not significantly associated (x2=27.42, d.f.=30, p=.601, n=174). Research question six: “What are the characteristics of Michigan’s high school journalism educators, programs and publications?” was answered with a variety of demographic and other data provided by respondents. The characteristics have been broken into the following subheadings: characteristics of advisers, characteristics of publications classes and characteristics of publications. Characteristics of Michigan student publications advisers When asked what publications they advised, 63 percent of 190 respondents indicated they advised the newspaper; 3 percent indicated they advised a news magazine; 11 percent said they advised a literary magazine; 64 percent said they advised a yearbook; and 6 percent said they advised a newsletter. Percentages do not add up to 100 percent because some respondents indicated they advised more than one publication (SEM=3.6). In terms of compensation for advising student publications, 73 percent of 188 respondents indicated they received extra compensation for advising a publication (SEPW=3.6). Fifty-eight percent of 137 respondents indicated they received a percentage 65 of salary as compensation; 36 percent said they received a stipend, while 7 percent were granted additional planning time and 1 percent release time as compensation (SEW-=43). Of 188 responding advisers, 52 percent had been advising five or fewer years, while only 17 percent had been advising 20 or more years. Forty-six percent had been advising 10 or more years. Sixteen percent of respondents were in their first year of advising (SEN,=3.6). The most common subject taught in addition to publications classes for 186 respondents was English (73 percent of respondents), followed by business and history each at 6 percent, mathematics at 4 percent and sciences and vocational/career each at 3 percent. Other subjects mentioned fiequently included foreign languages (French, 4 percent; Spanish 1 percent), art (4 percent), computer classes (6 percent) and speech (4 percent) (SEM,=3.7). Additional subjects mentioned included physical education, library, psychology, government and economics. Characteristics of publications classes Publications are most frequently offered as a formal class (79 percent of 189 respondents; SEpmp=3.6) or as an extracurricular activity (17 percent). Of 190 respondents, 83 percent indicated that the publication was offered as a class during the school day (SEpmp=3.6). The mean class length was 55.6 minutes (SEm=.921); the minimum listed was 40 minutes and the maximum a 120-minute block class. Forty-seven percent of 158 respondents (SBM=4.O) indicated their class length was 55 minutes, while 22 percent said the class was 50 minutes long. 66 Respondents were also asked how much time in an average week was spent outside of the school day on publications. The mode for most publications was 1 to 5 hours with nods from 51 percent of newspapers (111 respondents; SEpmpflfl), 57 percent of news magazines (7 respondents; SEpmp=18.9), 50 percent of yearbooks (103 respondents; SEpmp=4.9) and 50 percent of newsletters (10 respondents; SEpmp=15.8). The exception was literary magazines, on which 5 to 10 hours were spent 38 percent of the time (13 respondents; SEW=13.9). The second most common response for most publications was 5 to 10 hours with nods ficm 28 percent of newspapers, 43 percent of news magazines, 28 percent of yearbooks and 20 percent of newsletters. Again, the exception was literary magazines, on which 1 to 5 hours were spent 31 percent of the time (see Table 6). TABLE 6: Average hours in an average week spent on publication outside of the school day lessthanlhr 1t05hrs 5t010hrs 10t015hrs 15t020hrs morethan20hrs ““9“?“ 7% 51% 28% 10% 3% 1% (n=lll) 3°“ ““8 57% 43% (F7) mm ““3 8% 31% 38% 23% (n=13) ow°°k 10% 50% 28% 6% 5% 1% (n=103) “Nam“ 10% 50% 20% 20% (n=10) 67 Of 171 respondents who identified a course title for publications classes at their schools, 54 percent indicated the title was “J ournalism;” 20 percent said “Newspaper;” 14 percent said “Publications;” 2 percent said “Writing for the Media;” and 39 percent said “Yearbook” (SEM=3.8). The percentages do not add up to 100 percent because respondents were asked to mark all course titles that were applicable at their schools. Other mentioned titles were “Desktop Publishing” and “Media Productions.” Characteristics of student publications The mean length of newspapers was 10.4 pages (123 respondents) (SEM=.579). The mean length of news magazines was 25.7 pages (seven respondents) (SEM=5.71). The mean length of literary magazines was 44.4 pages (29 respondents) (SEm=4.79). The mean length of yearbooks was 164.4 pages (136 respondents) (SEm=5.04). The mean length of newsletters was 5.4 pages (28 respondents) (SBm=.670). In terms of fiequency of publication, the most common response for newspaper publication was once a-month (58 percent of 130 respondents who indicated their school had a newspaper, SEpmp=4.4). Nine percent published a newspaper twice a month; and 3 percent published four issues per month. Of 5 respondents who indicated their school . had a news magazine, 80 percent said they published one per month (SEM,=22.4). Literary magazines, if published, were most commonly published once a year (86 percent of 44 respondents who indicated their school had a literary magazine; 8159,0575). Yearbooks, by nature, were published once a year by 86 percent of 180 respondents who 68 indicated their school had a yearbook (SEm=3.7). Newsletters were most often published once a month (25 percent of 36 respondents who indicated their school had a newsletter; SEPmp=8.3). When asked why student newspapers were published as fiequently as indicated, 57 percent of 127 respondents (SEpmp=4.4) indicated that budget was a factor. F ifiy—eight percent indicated that the type of class was a factor, while 33 percent said facilities were a consideration. Thirty-two percent indicated it was the nature of the, publication. Other factors listed included size of school, time and the fact that it was an extracurricular activity (see Table 7). I Of six respondents who marked factors aflecting the frequency of news magazine publication, three indicated publication frequency was due to budget, four said it was due to the type of class, one said it was due to available facilities, and three said it was due to the type of publication (see Table 7). Of 35 respondents who indicated factors affecting the fiequency of literary magazine publication frequency, 54 percent (19 respondents) said it was due to budget; 37 percent (13 respondents) said it was due to the type of class; 17 percent said it was due to the facilities; and 63 percent (22 respondents) said it was due to the type of publication (SEM=8.5) (see Table 7). Of 153 respondents (SBP,,,p=4.0) who marked factors affecting yearbook publication frequency, 40 (26 percent) said it was due to budget. Seventeen percent (26 respondents) said it was due to the type of class, while 10 percent (15 respondents) said 69 it was due to the facilities. Overwhelmingly, though, the reason given for the fiequency of yearbook publication was the type of publication (92 percent) (see Table 7). Newsletter publication frequency was affected by budget according to nine of the 29 respondents (31 percent; SEpmp=9.3). Five respondents (17 percent) said frequency was due to the type of class, while two (7 percent) said it was due to the facilities. Again, the overwhelming reason was type of publication, marked by 62 percent of the 29 respondents (see Table 7). Table 7: Factors affectingfi'equency of publication budget facilities type of class type of publications other i 1' ”W (3:127) 57% 33% 58% 32% 12% "m "3‘2"” (“35) 2% 17% . 67% 50% 0% mm ““8““ (”‘35) 54% 17% 37% 63% 3% Ym“ (3:153) 22% 10% 17% 92% 1% ”“1““ (“‘29) 31% 7% 17% 62% 3% Respondents were asked to mark which source(s) provided publication funding (see Figure 12). Forty percent of publications (188 respondents; SEm,=3.6) were funded through the school budget. Thirty-six percent of class A schools were funded through the school budget, 46 percent of class B schools, 29 percent of class C schools and 46 percent of class D schools (X2=11.66, d.f.=6, p=.070). Eighty-seven percent of 188 respondents 70 (SEm=3.6) said advertising sales provided funding. Ninety percent of class A schools were funded through advertising, 85 percent of class B schools, 80 percent of class C schools and 81 percent of class D schools (X2=8.23, d.f.=6, p=.217). Forty-eight percent of 187 respondents (SEM=3.7) said the publication was funded through fundraisers. Forty-eight percent of class A schools were funded through fundraisers, 46 percent of class B schools, 47 percent of class C schools and 42 percent of class D schools (x2=5.37, df.=6, p=.497). Only 5 percent of 186 (SE,,,,=3.7) respondents said the publication was fimded through outside grants. Eight percent of class A schools said their publications were funded through outside grants, 4 percent of class B schools, 4 percent of class C schools and 2 percent of class D schools (XZ=4.97, d.f.=6, p=.548) (see Figure 12). Sales (21 percent) and subscriptions (3 percent) were the other ways respondents indicated their publications were funded. Respondents were asked to consider publication length, fi'equency and budget over the past five years and mark whether each had increased considerably, increased slightly, stayed the same, decreased slightly or decreased considerably during that period of time (see Figure 11). Of 186 respondents (SEpm=3.7), 17 percent said length had increased considerably, 34 percent said it had increased slightly and 45 percent said it had stayed the same. Only 4 percent said it had decreased slightly and none said it had decreased considerably. Of 183 respondents (SEpmp=3.7), 23 percent said publication frequency had increased considerably or slightly, 69 percent said it had stayed the same and 7 percent said it had decreased slightly. One percent said it had decreased considerably. Of 183 respondents (SEmp=3.7), 17 percent said their publication budget 7 1 had increased considerably, 42 percent said it had increased slightly, 34 percent said it had stayed the same, and only 8 percent said it had decreased slightly or considerably (see Figln'e 12). 90% 80% Z 70% g 60% g E Total 50% é nc1ass A 40% g 30,, Z Class B / 20% g Class C 10% g 0% 4 g I Class D o o 2? {-5 8 .2 “n a .2 " a E a 5 i a a E Figure 11: Type of publication funding by MHSAA classification (n=195) I publication frequency {I publication length I publication 3‘ '8 >. .2 '8 .5 budget .8 ‘9 g 1 ~ 0 g .E‘ B .9 i5 as ii as 35 SE .9 '” i *5 '° :2 Figure 12: Changes in publication frequency, length and budget in the past five years 72 Student newspaper format was most commonly an 8x11 magazine-style format (31 percent of 195 respondents; SEmp=3.6). Next most fi'equent was 11x17 tabloid (25 percent). Eight percent of respondents said their student newspaper was an 11x14 mini- tabloid, while 5 percent said they used a broadsheet format. Publication photography is frequently taken by students, according to 165 respondents. Student photography percentages ranged from 10 percent to 100 percent of publication photography. The mean was 78 percent (SEmm=2.07), although 34 percent of respondents indicated their students took 100 percent of publication photography (SBW=3.9). Of 71 respondents (SEMFS .9) who said photography is professionally taken, 27 percent said professional photography comprised 10 percent of publication photography. Of 57 (SEM=6.6) respondents who indicated that publication photography was taken by someone other than students or professionals, 18 percent said that photography by others comprised 10 percent of publication photography. Thirty percent said that photography by others comprised 5 0 percent or more of publication photography. The most commonly identified “other” was the adviser. Of 188 respondents who identified how computers were used by publications students, 90 percent said computers were used for composing copy (SEM,=3.6); this totaled 96 percent of class A schools, 93.5 percent of class B schools, 89.6 percent of class C schools and 81.8 percent of class D schools indicated they used computers for composing copy (X2=6.09, d.f.=3 p=.107) (see Figure 13). Eighty-one percent of 188 respondents said computers were used for layout (SEmp=3.6); this totaled 90 percent of class A schools, 80.4 percent of class B schools, 73 70.8 percent of class C schools and 81.8 percent of class D schools said they used computers for layout of the publication (X2=5 .85, d.f.=3, p=.119) (see Figure 13). Fifty-one percent of 188 respondents said computers were used for printing (SEWP=3.6); this totaled 50 percent of class A schools, 47.8 percent of class B schools, 47.9 percent of class C schools and 59.1 percent of class D schools (X2=4.37, d.f.=6, p=.627) (see Figure 13). Thirty-two percent of 188 respondents said computers were used for photographic manipulation (SEM,=3.6); this totaled 48 percent of class A schools, 32.6 percent of class B schools, 22.9 percent of class C schools and 25 percent of class D schools (x2=l 1.30, d.f.=6, p=.080) (see Figure 13). Of 187 respondents, 65 percent said computers were used for creating artwork (SEM=3.7); this totaled 72 percent of class A schools, 69.6 percent of class B schools, 57.4 percent of class C schools and 59.1 percent of class D schools (X2=3.33, d.f.=3, p=.343) (see Figure 13). Forty-two percent of 187 respondents said computers were used for instruction (SEpmp=3.7); this totaled 58 percent of class A schools, 47.8 percent of class B schools, 42.6 percent of class C schools and 18.2 percent of class D schools (X2=16.12, d.f.=3, p=.001) (see Figure 13). 74 100% 7 atom] 90”" .5 i (F188) — / 70% - é E Z IlclassA ¢ I: f _ 60% - g I: g : (F50) , a a — -s 50% ' 2 = 6 = " = 1a B ¢ : é E 7 _ 9 E C $ . I; — é " f _ , : f - 30% z — a g : a": a 20% f I Z z '5 3 E é I IclassC ¢ é a I: e I: a 10% - Z $1 ¢‘ 5 6‘ a g (n=48) / g g I: g I: ; 0% ‘ [I A A : A = 4 IclassD "' co no _u r: at . E i >~ '5 £3 .5. E" "‘5‘ (F44) 3 it ’5 sfi ° a; a. 0 9‘ O .9: E o 8 ag e D- Figure 13: Publications students use computers for the following tasks (*total n=l87, *class C n=47) Of 53 respondents who indicated a price for newspaper advertisements, 23 percent said $5 per column inch (SEPM,=6.9). The mean was $6.25 per column inch, while prices ranged from $.10 to $40 per column inch (SEM=.95). Respondents were asked the cost of variously-sized yearbook patron/graduate and business advertisements. The mean cost of an eighth-page business advertisement was $41 (n=97) (SEM=1.21); 1/4 page, $64 (n=98) (SEM=1.53); 1/2 page,-$107 (n=100) (SEmm=3.46); 3/4 page, 141 (n=16) (SEM=11.26); and full page, $185(n=105) (SEM=6.47). The mean cost of an eighth-page patron/graduate advertisement was $33 (n=62) (SEm=1.52); 1/4 page, $53 (n=63) (SEM=2.30); 1/2 page, $88 (n=59) (SEM=4.33); 3/4 page, $115 (n=8) (SBmm=18.46); and full page, $155 (n=60) (sam=7.97). 75 Of 159 respondents who indicated when yearbooks were delivered, 69 percent said early fall and 30 percent said spring. Other responses included late fall (4 percent) and summer (4 percent). ' Respondents were asked if their publication had a stated editorial policy. Seventy percent of 185 respondents indicated their publication did not have a stated editorial policy (SEpmp=3.7). Of these 185 respondents, 49 were from class A schools, 44 ficm class B, 50 fi'om class C and 42 fi'om class D. Larger schools were significantly more likely to have stated editorial policies than smaller schools. Forty-nine percent of class A schools had stated policies, while only 39 percent of class B schools, 22 percent of class C schools and 10 percent of class D schools did (x2=19.77, d.f.=3, p<.001). Table 8: Chi-square table of existence of stated editorial policy by MHSAA classificatiorgn=1 85) Class A Class B Class C Class D Total for all schools had editorial 49% 39% 22% 10% 30% policy did not have 51% 61% 78% 90% 70% editorial policy When asked about electronic mail and web pages, 34 percent of 185 respondents (SEIWP=3'7) said their students had access to electronic mail. More class A schools offer their publications students access to electronic mail (43 percent) than other schools. Thirty-four percent of class B schools, 30 percent of class C schools and 30 percent of class D schools offer electronic mail access to their publications students (X2=2.28, d.f.=3, p=.517). 7o Thirty-nine percent of 134 respondents (SE,,,,,=3.7) said their school was involved in creating web pages. More class A schools are involved in creating web pages than smaller schools. Fifly percent of class A schools are creating web pages, compared to 41 percent of class B schools, 34 percent of class C schools and 30 percent of class D schools (x2=4.59, d.f.=3, p=.204). When asked to identify where administrators received information about legal issues relating to student publications, 12 percent of advisers (n=195, SEM=3.6) said they did not know. Of 76 respondents who did mark at least one source of information, 59 percent said the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP); 43 percent said newspapers; 36 percent said advisers; 21 percent said news magazines and 7 percent said speakers (S =5.7). Of 183 respondents, 36 percent indicated their school held Michigan Interscholastic Press Association (MIPA) membership(SEm,=3.7). Forty-seven respondents indicated length of MIPA membership with a mean of 7.4 years (SEM=1.03). CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a need for a scholastic press law in Michigan and whether advisers and administrators unduly censor the student press. The intent was to provide a baseline for future research and to focus priorities and agendas that will most benefit Michigan’s scholastic press. One of the questions at the beginning of this research project was, “Is Michigan’s scholastic press limited in its freedoms and, if so, how limited?” According to the findings above, one might assume that the scholastic press in Michigan is limited in its fieedoms compared to an unrestricted press. Yet, when asked what topics they or an administrator would consider too sensitive or mature for student publications, 23 percent of advisers said “none.” This begs the question, how do Michigan advisers define censorship? For the purposes of this study, censorship was defined as prior restraint or prior review. Prior restraint was defined in this study as “removing items in a publication prior to publication” or “removing questionable items prior to publication,” while prior review was defined as “reviewing a publication prior to publication.” 77 78 While the majority of Michigan advisers said their administrators exercise prior restraint or prior review one or fewer times per year and nearly half of advisers exercise prior restraint one or fewer times per year (47 percent), 17 percent said they remove items prior to publication an average of three to five times per year. Only 18 percent of advisers said they delay publication through prior review in an average year, yet 35 percent said they exercised the right of prior review/restraint frequently. Twelve percent said they exercised the right ofien and 24 percent said occasionally. Only 21 percent said rarely and a meager 5 percent said never. This means that 95 percent of advisers are exercising prior review and/or restraint over student publications. Perhaps part of the reason that fewer advisers delay publication through prior review (perhaps exercising prior restraint instead) is that publishing compmlies do tack on additional fees for late submissions. Or perhaps it is less time consuming to remove items rather than to return edited items for revision. But, the question becomes, how is high school journalism best used as a learning tool? Nearly all advisers (99 percent) agreed that they viewed student publications as a learning tool, yet 95 percent of them said they are exercising prior review and/or restraint over student publications. ls removing items prior to publication a method of teaching, or does it just solve the immediate problem of inappropriate material existing in a publication? As an outsider, it is easy to judge and conclude that simply removing items with no input from the students involved is not a valid teaching method. It is a simple solution to an annoying problem. However, when advisers discuss removal of items with their 79 students and explain the rationale behind the removal, or better, allow the students to help make editorial decisions through the use of an editorial board that is also comprised of teachers, board members, community members and administrators, the students come away with not just a knowledge of how to write journalistically, but how they should write. At what point in the teaching and learning process should corrections be made to student copy, and by whom? Should students be allowed and encouraged to try and fail? This question points again to the importance of instilling in students not simply the practical knowledge of how to do something, but the more intangible understanding of how most responsibly to do it. Teaching responsibility, as Abrams and Goodman noted, had been part of the informal educational curriculum. They said the Court’s message to students and student journalists had been in the past that “the educational system exists to inculcate in tomorrow’s leaders the ‘fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.’”132 Yet, Abrams and Goodman argued that “the Court is now telling students, however, that they must receive these values passively, without an opportunity to debate on a schoolwide basis the issues and concerns of the day. It blithely assumes that other equally efficient mechanisms, such as the local news media, will enable students in a "2 Abrams and Goodman, 722. 80 public high school to receive the information they need to make their own choices about such issues and concerns.”133 Fm'thermore, when a teacher takes the final responsibility for content out of the hands of the students and places it into his or her own hands or the hands of an administrator, students no ler have a duty to themselves to be careful. If there exists faulty information or incorrect grammar, the responsibility no longer belongs to the student who wrote it, but the adviser or principal who “edited” it. Granted, this situation exists in the “real world” of newspaper publishing, where copy and desk editors survey each page of copy that passes across their desks. But there is also accountability for the professional journalist that the student journalist lacks. Assignments in the professional realm are made by editors who demand accountability fi'orn their employees and from whom accountability is demanded by publishers and owners. Assignments in the high school press are made frequently by student editors, who themsleves are still learning the craft. If one were to consider principals the publishers and school boards the owners, there is less, if any, accountability demanded of high school journalists, and rightfully so as they are not professionals, and in many cases not adults and therefore not legally accountable for their actions as are professional journalists. So, is press freedom more important than teaching, or vice versa? Or, are they equally important and do they need to be carefully balanced? This researcher would argue that in order to efi‘ectively teach students responsibility, there must be a degree of press "3 Abrams and Goodman, 722-723. 8 1 freedom. However, that freedom is tempered with the responsibility and must be taught to students prior to being exercised. That means that rather than lumping all students into one class and having them publish as they learn the basics, have graduated levels of courses starting with introductory courses where the basics of libel, reponsibility and accmacy can be taught. In this era of outcomes-based education in Michigan, as educators strive to find “real world” applications for their lessons, j omnalism seems to stand out as one of the more useful curricula At its best, it teaches students accuracy, research skills, critical thinking skills, teamwork and responsibility. Dvorak noted, “A journalist, whether high school or professional, straddles the arts and the sciences, using the investigative skills of the sciences and the powers of communication — linguistic and graphic —— of the humanities. All this makes journalism intrinsically worth studying.”134 Demggraphics Part of the rationale for this study was to provide a baseline of research that could be used by future researchers of scholastic journalism in Michigan. Additionally, these findings help to place Michigan in the national framework of journalism educators, programs and publications. Dvorak showed that nearly 95 percent of US. high schools offer a journalism class or some sort of media outlet for student staffs and audiences.135 This study showed 13‘Dvoralr, Lain andDickson, 9. '35 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 73. 82 that Michigan fits with the national pictln'e in that 96 percent of 192 advisers surveyed reported that their schools offered at least one student publication. In terms of what types of publications are offered, Michigan is somewhat lower than the nation. While 79 percent of the nation’s schools publish newspapers,”5 only 69 percent of Michigan schools do, according to this study. Dvorak showed that nearly 38 percent of the nation’s schools published literary magazines,137 but only 23 percent of Michigan schools do, according to the 190 advisers surveyed. However, Michigan schools are slightly above the nation’s schools in terms of publishing yearbooks. While 93 percent of the nation’s schools publish yearbooks,138 95 percent of Michigan schools do. An explanation for this discrepancy between Michigan and the nation could be the time lag in studies. Dvorak’s national study was in 1991, over five years ago. Recently the trend in Michigan has been toward trimming school budgets and going “back to the basics.” This could explain why Michigan’s schools offer fewer publications. Additionally, 17 percent of advisers reported publications being offered as extracurricular activities. With the large number of activities, including athletics and academic competitive clubs, publications may just be feeling the effects of lack of student interest or time. The larger percentage of yearbook publication could reflect Michigan’s emphasis on school traditions, such as homecoming celebrations, proms and “Pomp and Circumstance” at graduation. Yearbooks are also traditional historical records of a school, ‘3‘ Dvorak. Lain and Dickson, 73. ‘37 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 73. ‘” Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 73. 83 uner literary magazines which tend to chronicle literature and culture and student newspapers which tend to report the events without many photographs. Dvorak’s studies showed that 13 percent of US. high schools offer English requirement credit for journalism courses, while 43 percent offer general elective credit.139 This study showed that Michigan schools are more likely to offer English elective credit (61 percent) than general elective (29 percent) or English requirement credit (6 percent). Part ofthe reason may be due to the high number of credits needed to graduate (decided by individual districts) and the specific requirements for English, math, sciences, social studies and computers mandated by district and state expectations. These requirements leave little room for publications electives ofl‘ered as general electives, which ofien compete with vocational classes, music, drama and art for students to fill their classrooms. Michigan’s advisers also fit with Dvorak’s profile of the average adviser. His study showed the average journalism educator averages 14.6 years teaching with an average of 8.4 years teaching publications. 14° This study showed Michigan’s advisers have a mean of 14.6 years teaching experience and have been advising student publications an average of 8.1 years. Dodd’s 1933 study showed that only about 11 percent of responding advisers had been teaching for fewer than five years and nearly 48 percent had been newspaper advisers for fewer than five years.141 Dodd and Mays’ 1992 study of Florida advisers ‘39 Dvorak. Lain and Dickson, 74. “° Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 86. 141 Dodd, l3. 84 showed that 12 percent of respondents were first-year advisers and 46 percent had been advising for two to five years.142 This study showed that 16 percent of 188 respondents were first-year advisers and 36 percent had been advising two to five years. Perhaps part of the reason Michigan had more first-year advisers was that there has been a trend toward retirement of school personnel, but also cutbacks in spending which has resulted in fewer new hires. This is evident in that only 5 percent of respondents were in their first year of teaching, while 24 percent had been teaching two to five years. Dvorak’s study also showed that the majority of jomnalism educators are female, 71.5 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Michigan’s advisers are female, and 31 percent male, according to this study, so Michigan fits rather well with the national gender picture. Studies by Benedict and Lain focused on the sources of publication fimding. Benedict found that about half of Iowa high school newspapers were published as a page in a local community paper, while of those published separately, nearly 40 percent accepted advertising, 40 percent received administrative subsidies and 15 percent sold subscriptions or single copies.143 Lain found in a 1986 study that 30 percent of Ohio schools received administrative subsidies, 6 percent received activity fees and 62 percent received advertising revenue. 1‘“ A 1991-92 study by Lain showed that fewer than 25 percent of school newspapers received fimding through single-copy sales, and only 9 142 Dodd and Mays, 13. “3 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 140. ‘“ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 141. 85 percen tof schools sold subscriptions.145 Lain concluded that the most common form of funding for school newspapers was administrative subsidy, while the next most common was advertising. 146 This study found that 40 percent of Michigan student publications were funded through the school budget; 87 percent were flmded by advertising sales; 48 percent used flmdraisers; 21 percent were funded through single-copy sales and 3 percent through subscriptions. Part of the reason so many publications are funded through advertising may again be due to budget cuts at the school and district levels. At the same time, students may desire flashier graphics, color and modern attributes such as foldouts in the yearbook or embossed yearbook covers. These things cost money, and one way for publications to offer flash as well as substance is to have the money to do so. Dodd and Mays found that 48 percent of respondents’ districts had a written publications policy, 33 percent did not, 10 percent did not know and 9 percent did not answer the question.”7 This study found that of 185 respondents, 30 percent said their school did have a stated editorial policy, while 70 percent said their school did not have such a policy. Additionally, larger schools were more likely to have stated policies than smaller schools. While Dodd and Mays’ study was done over fotn' years ago, perhaps Michigan’s schools have not had an impetus to draft and enact policies on student publications. In fact, one respondent indicated that s/he would like to have a policy, but needed a model. Although “5 Dvorak, Iain and Dickson, 147. "6 Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 147, 149. 147 Dodd and Mays. l3. 86 correlations were not statistically significant with these research findings, future research might address the correlation between existence of a written editorial policy and incidence of censorship by administrators and advisers. Drafting editorial policies might help advisers, principals and students come to agreement on when and how sensitive or mature topics should be addressed by student publications. Additionally, working together on an editorial board to enforce editorial policies would foster a continued sense of community and shared responsibility within the school, not adversarial relationships between students and advisers and principals. Additionally, although this research did not produce statistically significant correlations, futlne research might look at the relationship between membership in state and national associations and incidence of censorship by administrators and advisers. Overall, Michigan fits within the national framework offered by Dvorak. The minor variations could be due to the fact that all states are individual, laws regarding student publications are developed by individual states and as such, state behaviors and expectations will be individualized. Additionally, there are no national standards for the teaching of journalism or the preparation of journalism educators, which can justify Michigan’s departure fi'om national norms (as there really cannot be norms). Incidence of censorship In a 1992 study, Dickson determined that “advisers who had taken more college journalism courses or who had more advising experience sometimes were more likely than 87 their less-educated and less-experienced counterparts to use prior restraint. ”8 This study of Michigan found, however, that an adviser’s training and/or continuing education in journalism was not significantly correlated with acts of prior restraint on the part of the adviser. Neither years teaching nor years advising were associated to any significant degree with an adviser’s exercise of prior restraint. The results of this Michigan study also fit with Dickson’s study of Missouri high school principals. His study showed that the majority of Missouri principals have not kept material fiom being printed (64%). ”9 However, nearly all said they would censor certain subject matter lmder specific circumstances, including “dirty language” (89%), sex (61%), drugs (57%) and student pregnancy (420/0).150 Although this study surveyed advisers, these advisers reported their perceptions of their administrators’ tendency to censor. Eighty-seven percent of 177 advisers reported their administrators delayed publication through prior review less than one time per year. Six percent said once per year and 4 percent said twice. In terms of actual restraint, 64 percent of 182 advisers said their administrators exercised prior restraint an average of zero times per year, 19 percent said their administrator exercised prior restraint an average of once per year. The topics advisers felt their administrators would consider sensitive (and potentially be more likely to censor) were sex (mentioned by 50 or more of 195 respondents, approximately 26 percent) and us Dickson, 1994, 63. "9 Dickson, 1989, 171. m Dickson, I989, 171. 88 drug or alcohol use (mentioned 20 times, approximately 10 percent). Interestingly, obscenity was only directly mentioned by two respondents. The positive correlation between years of MIPA membership and incidence of adminstrative prior restraint and review could be due to factors which were not assessed. Years of MIPA membership are not necessarily equivalent to an adviser’s experience. Membership is conferred upon schools, not advisers; so the potential exists for a new adviser to be working at a school with several years of MIPA membership, and vice versa. Perhaps advisers whose schools have held MIPA membership for several years are encouraging their student journalists to tackle tougher or more sensitive issues that administrators actively restrict ficm publication. While these advisers are encouraging “pushing the envelope,” the administrators are actively holding the reins to restrain the beast. Finally, perhaps advisers whose schools have held MIPA membership for several years are more sensitive to administrative actions that could be construed as acts of prior restraint. For example, an adviser may perceive an administrator’s suggestion to change or remove or rework an article or item as a threat of restraint or review. Research by Click and Kopenhaver (cited in Journalism Kids Do Better) found that principals (71 percent) were more likely than advisers (40 percent) to see student publications more as a learning tool than as a vehicle for student expression.151 ‘5‘ Dvorak, Lain and Dickson, 277. 89 This study, while not addressing exactly the same question, asked whether Michigan advisers believed they and their administrators perceived student publications as a learning tool. F ifty-three percent of advisers “strongly agreed” that their administrators viewed student publications as a learning tool, while 32 percent “agreed.” Eighty-one percent of advisers “strongly agreed” that student publications are a learning tool, while 19 percent more “agreed.” A 1979 study by Eveslage showed that restraint of student expression was “more evident among advisers and principals with no journalism training and less than five years of experience, and in schools with no written guidelines on appropriate content for the ”152 newspaper. Although this study did not assess principals’ training or years of experience, it did assess advisers’ levels of training and experience as measured by number of years advising, ntnnber of years teaching and education or continuing training in journalism However, this study did not find significant association between length of time advising and evidence of prior restraint. Years teaching were not associated with incidence of adviser prior restraint to any statistically significant degree, either. Nor were training or education in journalism. The only educational variable which showed a mild degree of significance was having taken university or college courses in journalism (X2=38.95, d.f.=l6, p=.001). "2 Eveslage, 12. 90 This may explain why, even though Michigan advisers view student publications as a learning tool, 95 percent of them still exercise prior review and/or restraint at least once per year. Michigan advisers are not required to be certified in journalism education to teach publications classes or advise publications. Only if the course is titled “Joumalism” are accredited schools (North Central Accreditation) required to have a teacher holding an endorsement (or with a minimum specified number of college hours in journalism) teach the class. Since only 59 percent of advisers (n=171) indicated their course was titled “Journalism,” that leaves 41 percent of advisers potentially without endorsements or with minimal training. Additionally, there are loopholes a district can employ to hire and keep teachers teaching subjects they are not endorsed to teach. There is also a movement in Michigan, headed by the governor and members of the state board of education, to recruit non-certified professionals to teach high school courses. Waivers exist so that these individuals with professional experience not including teaching can instruct high school students. As Eveslage noted, lack of training, teaching experience and editorial policies led to increased restraint of student expression. Although there were no significant associations found in this study, perhaps what is being shown in this study is the beginning of the pendulum swing toward increased restraint in Michigan due to the factors he noted. Time will tell. 91 Implications What meaning does this study have for high school journalism educators, programs and publications in Michigan? Is there a need for a scholastic press rights law? This study is insufficient to determine whether or not there is a need for a scholastic press rights law in Michigan. While there is a high degree of prior restraint and review by advisers, there are fewer reports by advisers of censorship by administrators. Frn'thermore, the behavioral influence of law is not decisively clear. Perhaps a law would encourage advisers to resist attempts at censorship, but it may conflict with the socialization provided advisers by administrators, their teaching colleagues and professional organizations. Perhaps education and individual commitment are more important influences on an adviser’s censorship activities than the existence or non- existence of a law. After all, advisers will become informed about relevant laws and their rights and responsrbilities from preparatory and continuing education in are field. While this study cannot conclusively establish the need for a scholastic press rights law on its own, such a law would likely not have a detrimental effect on Michigan’s scholastic presses. Whether the lack of such a law is detrimental remains to be seen. Michigan differs fiom the nation in that it offers more yearbooks and fewer other publications to students. There are more new —and one might assume, inexperienced — advisers in Michigan than in Florida, yet Michigan’s advisers fit with the national mean of teaching experience of 14.6 years and are just short of the national mean of advising experience at 8.1 years instead of 8.4 years. Michigan’s schools are more likely to offer English elective credit (61 percent) than other types of credit for journalism courses, yet 92 they are less likely to offer general elective credit (29 percent) than are the nation’s schools (43 percent). Ninety-five percent of Michigan advisers are exercising their legal right of prior review and/or restraint at least once per year, even though 99 percent of them view student publications as a learning tool. Michigan’s advisers said their administrators are exercising prior review as infi'equently (64 percent said an average of zero times per year) as Missouri’s, yet 26 percent of Michigan’s advisers would consider sex too sensitive or mature a topic for student publications, and 10 percent said topics relating to drugs and/or alcohol were too sensitive or mature for student publications. What do these differences imply for journalism education in Michigan? Perhaps educational programs are not focusing on the issues of prior review and restraint, mature tapics or how best to teach responsibility to student journalists. Perhaps advisers are not being fully prepared in their training or perhaps they are not certified to teach journalism. Maybe there needs to be a push toward hiring as advisers only those who are certified or endorsed in journalism in order to best utilize the learning process afforded by high school journalism programs. As Dvorak noted, journalism education can be outcomes-based education at its finest. What students learn is demonstrated in each publication, not just to the teacher/adviser, but to the entire audience of the publication. Students are applying real- life skills to classroom assignments in a way that other teachers simultaneously admire and abhor. How can Michigan’s advisers improve journalism education? Regardless of the associations found in this study, they should continue to seek training in the field. The 93 statistical insignificance of data may have been due to factors other than the variables and should not be discounted until further studies on Michigan are done. Advisers should insist on having a stated editorial policy for the student publications they advise, and they should work with principals, school boards and student staff to devise and implement such policies. Advisers should continue to inform their administrators of developments in the courts regarding student publications, as 36 percent of advisers indicated that they were a source of this information for their principals. Additionally, advisers should continue to make administrators aware of information that is available through NASSP, MIPA, newspapers and the Student Press Law Center, as well as through school attorneys. Finally, Michigan’s advisers need to evaluate their exercise of prior review and/or restraint to determine what types of things are being censored and why. Are they correcting grammar or misspellings or are they removing content and/or information that is poorly researched? Are they censoring ideas that do not glbe with their own personal values or those that run cormter to school dogma? Ultimately, what advisers choose to censor is based on the individual acting as censor. For the sake of the students, let them not remove the responsibility from the daily lessons imparted to their charges. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PLEASE DUPLICATE THIS SURVEY INSTRUMENT IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE ADVISER AT YOUR SCHOOL FOR STUDENT PUBLICATIONS. 1. Does your school have a student publication? _Yes _No (If the answer to 1 is No, skip to item 49.) 2.A. Indicate the type(s) of publication(s) your school offers: _Newspaper _News Magazine _Literary Magazine _Yearbook _Newsletter _Other, please describe 2.B. Indicate the type(s) of publication(s) you advise: _Newspaper _News Magazine _Literary Magazine _Yearbook _Newsletter _Other, please describe 3. How often is each publication published? A) the student newspaper? B) the news magazine? (# times per month) (# times per month) C) the literary magazine? D) the yearbook? (# times per month) (# times per month) E) the newsletter? F)other publication(s)? (please (# of pages) identify and indicate (# times per month) 4. Why is the publication published this often? (mark all that apply) A) the student newspaper _Budget _Facilities _Type of class _Type of Publication _Other, please describe 96 B) the news magazine _Budget _Facilities _Type of class _Type of Publication _Other, please describe C) the literary magazine _Budget _Facilities _Type of class _Type of Publication _Other, please describe D) the yearbook _Budget _Facilities _Type of class _Type of Publication _Other, please describe E) the newsletter _Budget _Facilities _Type of class _Type of Publication _Other, please describe F) other publication(s) (please identify) _Budget _Facilities _Type of class _Type of Publication _Other, please describe 5. What is the average length of A) the student newspaper? B) the news magazine? (# of pages) (# of pages) C) the literary magazine? D) the yearbook? (# of pages) (#of pages) 97 5. Cont’d. What is the average length of E) the newsletter? F)other publication(s)? (# of pages) (please identify and indicate # of pages) 6. Is the adviser provided extra compensation for advising a publication? _Yes _No (If the answer to 6 is No, skip to item 8.) 7. What sort of compensation is provided? (mark all that apply) _Percentage of salary _Stipend _Additional planning time _Release time _Other, please describe 8. How is the publication funded? (mark all that apply) _School budget _Advertising sales _Fundraisers _Outside grants _Other, please describe 9. How many years have you, the current adviser, been advising student publications? 10. In the past five years, publication length has _increased considerably _increased slightly _stayed the same _decreased slightly _decreased considerably 11. In the past five years, publication frequency has _increased considerably _increased slightly _stayed the same _decreased slightly _decreased considerably 98 12. In the past five years, the average publication budget has _increased considerably _increased slightly _stayed the same _decreased slightly _decreased considerably 13. What sort of continuing training has the adviser received in journalism? (mark all that apply) _Undergraduate degree _Advanced degree or course of study _University/college courses Where? _Workshops Where? _Conferences Where? _Other, please describe 14. What subjects, if any, does the adviser teach in addition to publications classes? (mark all that apply) _English _Business _Sciences _History _Mathematics _Vocational/Career _Other, please describe 15. Publications are offered as _extra-curricular or co-cunicular _a formal class _Other, please describe 16. Is the publication offered as a class during the school day? Yes _No (If the answer to 17 is No, skip to 19.) 99 17. How long is the class period? _40 min _45 min _50 min _55 min _60 min _Other min 18. How many hours in an average week are spent on the publication outside of the school day? _less than 1 hour _1 to 5 hours __5 to 10 hours _10 to 15 hours _15 to 20 hours _more than 20 hours 19. What course tit1e(s) do your publications classes have? (mark all that apply) _Journalism _Writing for Media _Yearbook _Publications _Newspaper _Other, please describe 20. What kind of credit is offered to students for taking a publications class? (mark all that apply) _Journalism _English requirement _English elective _General elective _Business _None _Other, please describe 21. Format of student newspaper: _Tabloid (11x17) _Mini-tabloid (11x14) _Magazine (8x11) _Broadsheet _Other, please describe 100 22. What is the cost of newspaper advertisements per column inch? 23. Percent of publication photography that is: _% taken by students _% developed by students _% professionally contracted % other, please describe 100% total 24. Computers are used for (mark all that apply): _Layout _Composing copy _Pfinting _Photographic manipulation _Instruction _Creating artwork _Other, please describe 25. What is the cost of yearbook advertisements? A. Patron/Graduate: $_1/8 page $_l/4 page $_l/2 page $_3/4 page $_full page $_other, please describe B Business $_1/8 page $_1/4 page $_1/2 page $_3/4 page $_full page $_other, please describe 26. When is the yearbook delivered? _SPfing _ Sunnner _Early fall _Late fall _Other, please describe 101 27. Do your publications students have access to e-mail? _Yes _No 28. Is your school involved in creating Web pages? _Yes _No 29. How do you as an adviser get information about court decisions affecting student publications? (mark all that apply) _Principal _MIPA publications _Scholarly Journal articles _Newspapers _News magazines _Internet ’ _Conferences Where? _Workshops Where? _Other, please describe 30. Average number of times per year you as an adviser have exercised prior restraint (removed items prior to publication) 31. Average number of times per year you as an adviser have delayed publication through prior review 32. Average number of times per year your current (or if new, just previous) administrator has exercised prior restraint (removed questionable items prior to publication) 33. Average number of times per year your current (or if new, just previous) administrator has delayed publication through prior review 34. The previous experiences of my administrator regarding student publications have been positive. _Strongly agree _Aswe _Undecided _Disagree _Strongly disagree 102 35. My administrator views prior review (reviewing a publication prior to publication) as _Highly favorable _Slightly favorable _Neutral _Slightly rmfavorable _Highly unfavorable ' 36. My administrator’s attitude toward prior restraint (removing items in a publication prior to publication) is _Highly favorable _Slightly favorable _Neutral _Slightly lmfavorable _Highly unfavorable 37. My administrator gets information about legal issues that relate to student publications from (mark all that apply) _NASSP _Speakers _Advisers _Newspapers _Magazines _Other, please describe 38. My administrator exercises the right of prior review and/or prior restraint _Frequently _Often _Occasionally _Rarely _Never _Other, please describe 39. 1 exercise the right of prior review and/or prior restraint _Frequently _Often _Occasionally _Rarely _Never _Other, please describe 103 40. My administrator views student publications as a learning tool _Strongly agree _Agree _Undecided _Disagree _Strongly Disagree 41. I view student publications as a learning tool _Stronsly agree _Agree _Undecided _Disagme _Strongly Disagree 42. My administrator views student publications as a public relations tool _Strcngly agree _Agree _Undecided _Disasree _Strongly Disagree 43. What topics do you, the adviser, consider to be too mature or sensitive for student publications? (please be specific) 44. What topics do you believe your administrator considers to be too mature or sensitive for student publications? (please be specific) 45. Does your publication have a stated editorial policy. _Yes _No (If the answer to 45 is Yes, please attach a copy to this survey with your school’s name obliterated.) 46. Is your school a member of the Michigan Interscholastic Press Association (MIPA)? Yes _No (If the answer to 46 is No, please skip to 49.) 104 47. Number of years your school has held MIPA membership 48. As an adviser, I feel that MIPA is helpful _Strongly agree _Agree _Undecided _Disagree _Strongly Disagree 49. As an adviser, I know what services MIPA offers _Strongly agree _Agree _Undecided _Disagree _Strongly Disagree 50. What kind of school is this? _pn'vate public parochial 51. How many students are enrolled in the school? 52. How many students are enrolled in publications classes? 5 3. How many years have you been teaching? 54. Your gender _male _female 5 5. Please feel free to use the space below to comment on any questions above or to share anecdotes or other information that you feel would be useful to this study. 105 APPENDD( B APPENDIX B MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY sanctum . . Wm" EASHANSINC HUMAN Ila-1212 rumour/lo April 25. 1997 Dear Sudan Publication Adviser: Withrhemany dranges wrought by the 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlnler'erdectsionrnadeby the 0.8. SuuemeCourr. publications advisersandprindpalsarenowfreetorsnicr from publicationin sclnol-sponsoredpreesoutlets any ropicorarriclethatisnor reasonably pedagogicallyreiamd. www.mmmmmcmm'smmmmmmmmorm reviewandlorresnaintisnotknown. Ywmomofammofmmmmmmmmamm aboutdreadvisingandadministrativepracncesatyourhigtlscbool.Yourschoolmsdrawnina Manueofmghsdlookinmcmganmmmunrmlswinumymm usedbyadvisasafignsdloolsofmsimandtypaulsimpummuywmmplaeand rennnmequeniomanewbicbukesabomlsmmmlomkemmngitw volnnnryparricipanononyourpart. Youmybeuanedofwmplaecorfidendaflryflheidendflcadmmmhaonumquesnomm servesmprevenrmefiomwndingafouowqrpquesuonnaimmtmsewbomm responded.ltalsoenablesmetoaccelspubncdanabomyourhighschoolmomthemdngan Depunnemoffiducanon)solcanrabulaterberesnhsbysratisticalgroups(e.g.wblicorprivare schoolsclnsAB. C. D. ere). Undermdrumwiflycnoryowscbodbeidemifiedin anyrepornpublishedorunpublished. ldallydbesmdywmpofirbaWoftypiulmanpbyedmmMM mammomaswdlaspnbucandpnmscbodahwmenamepnumadvisasm compuebowmnngpacncesdiflumchodtypampodblymmmonm analyzepnctiwsinuseattheirownscbools. Hm'dflkeammyofflnremlmplasewdm'Copyomeanonmbackof merennnenvdopeandpdmycmmmeandmbdowitnasedompmmisinfcmauon onulequestionnaireitself. Thesnrdyisnorconnectedwirhanycommerdalemuiseltmhowever. betngpartiallyttlnded ($500)byrtleMichigan1nterscbolasticPressAssociarionThisstndyis prnelyacademicand mmllummsmswmmyJMUmmmqupb-se feel freeman mesr(517) 772-0718. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ' Kimberly uffer MA Student M30 is on amt-tome 4::me my hum 107 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Publication Advisers Survey Michigan State University School of Journalism 305 Communication Arts East Lansing. Ml 48824- 1212 May12.1997 mmmawmmmmm mmeNganstnoemeUSSupuneCms 1988H¢uhvaod Wmmaiiedtomemmmrhwnlnamnommnpleofhigh mmmmumdmm . lfyouhaveahedycomplaeduldreunneddleqlesnormahepleese mmydmedmhflnmpleuedosotodaylthexuemelyimpam Myoucormleteandremrnitsopncuoesusedathtghsdloolsofaurypes “unwinberqlesened. Ifbysornectnnceyondidnotreceiverhemireairgor WplenseaflmedgflmcoflectGlfim-Oflsxandlwmga mdrewneinmemsiltoyoutodny Sincerely. mm MW 109 .—-K .\."_0 tr ‘ APPENDIX D APPENDIX D MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASI‘ I Am 0 “m;AN 0 “1212 May 30. 1997 Dear Student Publication Adviser: I Withthemanydlsngeswroughtbyrhel988fiazelmdv. Kuhbna‘erdeclsionrnadebytheUS. SuprerneCourt.pubhcauonsadvisusandprindpalsarenowncetoresuictncmpubucadonin school-sponsoredplessoutlets any topicorarticlethatisnotrensonably pedagogicaliyrelared. Homer. undegreewwhichmcmgan’sadvlsusandpdndpdsuceuadsingtmsngmofpdor reviewsnd/orrestraintisnotknown. Youamomofaseleagroupofmmemwbhadomadvbashdngukedmpmfidemmanon ahorndleadvisingandadminisuarivepracticesatyourhighschool. Yoruschoolwasdrawnina randomsampleofhighschoolsinMichigan.lnorderthattheresultswillmrlyrepmentpractioes usedbyadvisusfifighsdmohofmdmandmnkimpummnyoummplaeand raurnmequesuonmuewhichnkesahomlsmmmfinontkeuuningitmprm voluntary participation on your part. Yournaybeasancdofcornpleteconfidenriality. Theidentifieationninnberonthequesdonmire servesmpevemmeficmwndingafonowapquesuonnairemumewhohaveflrendy respondethalsoenablesmetoacoesspublicdaraahornyourhighsdrool(ficmtheMichigan ofEducation)solcanrabularerheresultsbystatisticalgroups(e.g. publicorrxivate schools.classA.B,...wtllCDetc.)Undernocircnmstances youoryoruschoolbeidennfiedin anyrepornpublishedorunpublished. Ideauy.mesnnyndnproudea“bemuk"ofqpialpracncesanploywmlugem medium andsrnallschools.aswellaspublicandprivateschools.ltwillenable compuemwadvisingpracucesmfluamossschodtypesandposnblymemumafimm analyzep'acnminuseattheirownsdiools. Ifyou'dukeasummryofdlereanmpleasewrite‘CopyofResultsWenthebackof dcrehunenvdweandflyuummeandaddrusbdowitflenedonmpmunsmmanm ontllequestionnaireirself. Thesurdyisnorconnecredwimanycommercialenterpdse.ltls,however. beingparriallyfunded (85(1))byaniCMganlmsdldasucfieesAssodanonThismnylspmdyaademicam readmfillbeusedinamasmr’sdeeisandsdrolulyjamklfyouhaveany questionapleese feel freerocell meat($17) 772-0718. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely. MA. Student MSU u m Allin-nun Adm/Equal MM] [mutton 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrams, J. Marc, and S. Mark Goodman, "End of an Era? : The Decline of Student Press Rights in the Wake of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier," Duke Law Journal, 1988. Arnold, Mary, “Student Freedom of Expression and High School Journalism Advisers: A legal and educational dilemma,” Quill and Scroll, December-January 1996. Click, J. William, and Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver, "Principals favor discipline more than a free press," Journalism Educator, Summer 1988. "Comment: Open season on the high school press," Columbia Journalism Review, 26(6), March/April 1988. Dardenne, Robert, "Student Musings on Life Without Mass Media," Journalism Educator, Autumn 1994. Death by Cheeseburger: High School Journalism in the I990s and Beyond, The Freedom Forum 1994. ' Dickson, Thomas V., "Attitudes of High School Principals About Press Freedom After Hazelwood," Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1989. Dickson, Thomas V., "Self-Censorship and Freedom of the High School Press," Journalism Educator, Autumn 1994. Dodd, Julie E., “Principals’, Advisers’ Evaluations of the Important Characteristics for Newspaper Advisers,” Quill and Scroll, April-May 1983. Dodd, Julie E. and Roy P. Mays, “The impact of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier on publication policies in Florida high schools,” Quill and Scroll, October-November 1993. Dodd, Julie E. and Leonard Tipton, "Shifiing Views of High School Students about Journalism Careers," Newspaper Research Journal, Fall 1992/W inter 1993. 113 Dvorak, Jack and Jon Paul Dilts, "Academic Freedom vs. Administrative Authority," Journalism Educator, Autumn 1992. Dvorak, Jack, Lawrence Lain and Tom Dickson, Journalism Kids Do Better: What research tells us about high school journalism in the I990s, ERIC, 1994. Epstein, Aaron, "Court OKs School Paper Censorship," Detroit Free Press, January 14, 1988, Metro Edition, 1A. Eveslage, Thomas, “Advisers Know About Student Rights, But . . .” Quill and Scroll, December-January 1981. Gallinger, Nancy, "Still 'Captive Voices’? : High School Journalism in New England Needs Help," Newspaper Research Journal, Spring 1990. Hafen, Bruce C., "Hazelwood School District and the Role of First Amendment Institutions," Duke Law Journal, 1988. James, Bemard, "Supreme Court Docket: Students' Spwch Rights Revisited," Social Education, April/May 1988. Kovas, Marcia, ”The impact of Hazelwood in the state of Indiana, ” Quill and Scroll, February-March 1991. . Knight, Robert P., "High School Journalism in the Post-Hazelwood Era," Journalism Educator, Summer 1988. Martin, Antoinette, "Civics vs. Censorship: Many students, advisers oppose ruling that opens way to censorship," Detroit Free Press, January 20, 1988, Metro Final, 13. Morgan, Lael and Jack Dvorak, "Impact of Journalism Instruction on Language Arts in Alaskan Schools," Journalism Educator, Autumn 1994. Olman, Gloria Grove, "Journalism Courses Often a Dumping Ground in High School Curricula," Editor and Publisher, July 17, 1993. Olman, Gloria Grove, "1987-88 MIPA Advisers' Survey," unpublished, April 1988. 114 Repa, Barbara Kate, "Schools Now Have a Broad Right to Censor Student Wrongs," Social Education, April/May 1988. Richardson, Brian, "Four Standards for Teaching Ethics in J ournalism," Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol.9, No. 2, 1994. Salomone, Rosemary C., "The Impact of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier on Local Policy and Practice," NASSP Bulletin, December 1994. Sherry, Susanna, "Responsible Republicanism: Educating for Citizenship," The University of Chicago Law Review, 62, 1995. “Oversight policy moves through U. of Texas system,” Student Press Law Center Report, Winter 1996-97. Whitson, James Anthony, "'Special Characteristics' and Realities of Schooling," Social Education, April/May 1988. 115 "liil‘lllfll‘lttllifs