MSU

LIBRARIES
w

\v

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiI]
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

K" Pu" ,..._.fl..r.\.r V

- .~ ~ var-3%
(£6;ng ‘1; Lu»

QW-wru-vww' \Av‘wfl
.,~ q ”"1";
AVG 'J .1 .o ‘5' '_9

AUG 17

.L

I , “9.7M"

ERR 27 T9495
(5h 2' "'
MA
R 7 5199‘
gfigR 1 5 fling

 

 

 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF AN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

TRAINING PROGRAM ON FIFTEEN PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS

BY

David B. Chapin

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1988

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF AN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

TRAINING PROGRAM ON FIFTEEN PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS

BY

David B. Chapin

Throughout the 1983—84, 1984-85, and 1985-86 school
years the fifteen schools that participated in this study
were involved in a leadership training program which was
designed to improve the leadership capacity of elementary
principals, and thus, to increase student achievement. The
study was designed to analyze the schools involved in the
program to determine the effect, if any, the program had on
those schools. Connecticut Survey data and 4th Grade MEAP
scores were collected. and rank—ordered for each of the
fifteen schools. Following the rank-ordering, on—site
visitations took place at three schools showing an
improving status, and three schools showing a non-improving
status throughout the 1983 to 1986 time frame. A total of
twenty-five individual interviews were conducted involving
six principals, four central office administrators and

fifteen teachers.

The data collection showed the following:

David B. Chapin

l. The training program did not have a significant
impact on the test scores from the fifteen schools.

2. The Connecticut Survey shows a significant impact
was made in the fifteen schools in three areas: clear
school mission, instructional leadership, and high
expectations for students.

3. A relationship does not exist between the MEAP
scores and the Connecticut Survey results.

4. In three of the six visited schools the interviews
showed the schools were consistent with their improving or
non-improving status; in the other three schools
inconsistencies between the quantitative and qualitative
data were discovered.

5. School personnel attributed some or all of these
outcomes to the training program:

> Improved school-wide discipline.

> Brighter, cleaner physical plant.

> Improved communication within the school.

> Staff meetings devoted to improvement of

the instructional program.

> Better feedback for teachers relative to

their teaching and lesson planning.

> More inservice training for teachers.

> Formation of school improvement teams.

> Development of mission statements and

schools goals.

> Development of systems for rewarding

David B. Chapin
students.
Better systems for monitoring student
performance.
Development of grade level objectives and

minimum standards.

6. School personnel cited these factors as impacting the

implementation process:

>

Leadership of the building principal.

Amount of money budgeted for school
improvement.

Amount of autonomy within each
building.

Time.

Interest of the teaching staff.

Relevance.

This work is a tribute
to the strength and devotion of my family.
It is dedicated with love to
Laurie, Andrew, Cari
and my parents

Richard and Eleanor

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to my advisor and committee chairman,
Dr. Louis Romano, for his professional guidance and
personal support throughout the writing of this
dissertation. His helpful posture will long be remembered.

I would like to thank my committee members Dr.
Lezotte, Dr. Brookover, and Dr. Suehr for their interest,
support, and professionalism.

I would like to acknowledge the timely contributions
of Dr. Muth, Dr. Joyce, Dr. Houang, and Dr. Rudman from the
College of Education who assisted during my challenging and
enriching journey through Michigan State University.

Special thanks are extended to Lynn Benore of the
Middle Cities Association and Mel Billik of the Midland
Public Schools for unique contributions to the research
component of the dissertation.

I am grateful to my colleagues within the Midland
Public Schools for their encouragement throughout the
course of this project, and for the supportive posture of
the district leadership. Thanks to Dr. Arthur Frock,
Superintendent of Schools, and many others who helped to
bring this dissertation to fruition.

A very special thank you is extended to the Plymouth

iii

School family. You are indeed a great group of people.
Thanks to Becky Chapin, Bob Chapin, Eleanor and Jim
Pinkham for your constant support and interest.
Finally, thank you Dorethy Ramseyer. You are a grand

typist and great friend.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... Vii

Chapter Page
I. THE PROBLEM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .00... ...... 0.0.01

Introduction............. ...... ...... ..... ......1
Statement of the Problem........................2
Need for the Study..............................3
Scope of the Study.......... ............ ........5
Overview........................................8
Endnotes.......................................1O

II. REVIEW OF THE LITEMTUREOOOOCCOCOOO..OOOOOOCOOOOOll

Introduction...................................11
Effective Schools Literature...................ll
Reactions to the Effective

Schools Literature.................. ...... ...17
Implementation Literature......................20
Impact of Literature on the Study..............27
Endnotes.......................................29

III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY....... ...... 0.00.00.00.00000031

Introduction...................... ....... ......31
Participating Schools.......... ...... ..........32
Collection of Quantitative Data................34
Collection of Qualitative Data.................54
Summary........................... ............ .58

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA .............. ..60

Introduction............................ ..... ..60
Analysis of Quantitative Data..................60
Summary of Quantitative Data Analysis..........71
Analysis of Qualitative Data...................73
School 2.................................73
School 9.................................82

V

School ll.................................88
School 1............ ..... ................92
School 5.................................96
School 15................................104
Summary.......................................lO7

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
RELFECTIONS

Introduction..................................llS
Summary................................... ...115
Conclusions......................... ....... ...121
Recommendations For Research..................126
Reflections...................................127

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................129
APPENDICES..............................................l37
APPENDIX A Correspondence.........................137
APPENDIX B Connecticut School Interview...........l46

APPENDIX C On-Site Interview Format...............l68

vi

Table

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
16.

17.

18.

19.

QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE

QUANTITATIVE

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

LIST OF TABLES

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

Page
SCHOOL 1 ....................... 38
SCHOOL 2 ....................... 39
SCHOOL 3 ....................... 40
SCHOOL 4 ....................... 41
SCHOOL 5 ....................... 42
SCHOOL 6 ....................... 43
SCHOOL 7 ..... . ................. 44
SCHOOL 8 ....................... 45
SCHOOL 9 ..................... ..46
SCHOOL 10 ................. .....47
SCHOOL 11 ...................... 48
SCHOOL 12...... ............. ...49
SCHOOL 13..... ................ .50
SCHOOL l4............. ......... 51
SCHOOL 15......................52

RANK ORDER OF QUANTITATIVE DATA......................53

12 SCHOOLS IN STUDY COMPARED TO STATE OF

MICHIGAN CATEGORY 4 4TH GRADE MEAP SCORES

0.0.0.0...62

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGE IN CONNECTICUT
SURVEY DATA AND MEAP SCORES FROM 1983 TO 1986 ..... ..65

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGE IN CONNECTICUT
SURVEY DATA AND 1983 MEAP SCORES......... ..... ......68

vii

20. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT CONNECTICUT
SURVEY CORRELATES AND MEAP SCORES FROM
1983 To1986.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000000000000069

21. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT CONNECTICUT
SURVEY CORRELATES AND 1983 MEAP SCORES..............7O

viii

I. THE PROBLEM

INTRODUCTION

 

A great deal of research has taken place in recent
years related to the effectiveness of individual schools in
bringing about a high level of student achievement. This
body of research, widely known as effective schools
research, has gained widespread interest in the 1980's as
school reform has surfaced as a major political issue. The
effective schools literature theorizes that individual
schools can indeed make a difference in the quality of
education a child receives, and emphasizes the importance
of the school principal in creating an improved school.1

The effective schools literature provides a research
base for specific school improvement plans and has
influenced training programs designed for educators who are
interested in bringing about an improved school. One such
program occurred during the 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985—86
school years and involved a total of seventy-eight Michigan
elementary schools. The program, deveIOped by the Middle
Cities Association, was funded by grants from the Kellogg
Foundation and the 0.8. Department of Education's Fund for

the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education. The goal of

2

the training program was to improve the leadership capacity
of elementary principals, and thus, to increase student
achievement. In order to accomplish this goal the Middle
Cities Association designed the training program to address
1) effective schools research and its implementation, 2)
effective teaching research and its implementation, 3) the
evaluation and supervision of instruction, and 4) factors
critical to the implementation of 21 school improvement
model.2

During the first year of the program only the
principals from the representative schools participated in
the training sessions. However, based. on feedback from
these principals, the second and third year of the program
also included selected teachers from the participating
schools. The format of the training program included
dissemination of educational research findings and
extensive direct participation ixl demonstrations,
simulations, video-tape critiques, and supervised local
district assistance.3 There is a need to evaluate the
leadership training program to determine its effectiveness

in bringing about individual school improvement.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

 

The study was designed to analyze the schools involved

in the Middle Cities Association leadership training

3
program to determine the effect, if any, the program had on

the participating schools.

The following research questions were addressed:

1. What impact, if any, did the training program
have within each of the participating
schools?

2. What factors within each school setting, if

any, encouraged the implementation of
concepts presented during the training
program?

3. What factors within eaCh school setting, if
any, discouraged the implementation of
concepts presented during the training
program?

4. Were there significant differences in the
amount of change that took place between the
participating schools?

5. If differences did exist, what specific
differences were there between schools?

NEED FOR THE STUDY

 

The effective schools research theorizes that
improvement in student achievement can be realized if
certain conditions exist within the school setting. The
leadership training program developed by the Middle Cities
Association was an intermediate step between the theory and
the actual practice of educating young people within a
school setting. However, the long term impact of the

training program on the participating schools has not

4
received any significant evaluation. This study evaluates
the impact of the program for several reasons.

First, the goal of the training program was to
increase student achievement within the participating
schools. If this goal was achieved, then the implications
for the future use of this training procedure are of
interest to all school leaders. If the goal was not
achieved, or achieved on a limited basis (_e_._g_. in some
schools, or in some classrooms), a thorough analysis of
those factors which served to effect the goal would be
beneficial for all participants and for future programming.

Second, the allocation of funds for educational
purposes is an issue of paramount importance to school
personnel. If this study were to show that specific gains
were made by participating schools, then it is possible the
study could be used to justify funds for future programs.

Third, there exists potential within the field <of
education for agencies such as the Middle Cities
Association to develop training programs which create a
fusion between researchers and practicioners. An analysis
of the participating schools to determine the long term
influence of the program serves to strengthen the
relationship and increase the dialogue between the two.

Fourth, time is a critical resource in solving
problems within today's school setting. The participating
principals and teachers contributed a great deal of

personal time to engage themselves in the leadership

5
training program. It is necessary to investigate the
participating schools, and analyze the result of the study,
so that in the future prospective participants can
determine if the end-result justified the investment of
time.

And, fifth, leii more general sense there exists the
possibility' the study will identify the importance of
certain conditions which bring about change within a school
setting. Findings related to the change process are
potentially useful to all educators, no matter what

specific issue, program, or idea is being introduced.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

 

Although the design of the study is discussed in
detail in the third chapter, there are factors related to
the scope of the study that need to be identified at the
outset. Both quantitative and qualitative data was
collected and used in the development of significant
findings and the formation of conclusions. Specifically,
standardized test scores and the Connecticut School
Interview composed the quantitative component of the data;
on-site interviews with school personnel, informal
observations within schools, and the collection of

documents served as the basis for the qualitative data.

6
The following assumptions were made for the study:

1. That the Michigan Education Assessment
Program (MEAP) and other standardized test
data used by the participating schools are
accurate measures of school-wide student
achievement.

2. That the Connecticut School Interview is an
accurate measure of staff perceptions and
attitudes.

3. That the on-site interviews generated honest,
candid responses from all respondents.

Several factors served to limit the breadth of the
project. These factors were as follows:

1. The study involved only schools that
participated in the Middle Cities Association
Leadership Training Program.

2. The study involved only schools that agreed
to participate in the study. Agreement to
participate was secured through the building
principal.

3. The schools involved in the study were all
elementary schools within the state of
Michigan.

Several key terms and phrases were used throughout the
study and will appear frequently within the context of
these pages. For the purpose of this study, these terms
and phrases are defined as follows:

Participating principal. The administrator
within each. participating school who» was most
actively involved in the inservice training and
subsequent implementation. In most cases this
person was the school principal. In some cases
this role was carried out by an assistant
principal.

 

Participating teacher. The teacher within each
participating school who was invited by their
school district's administration to be an active

 

7

participant in the training program during the
1984-85 and 1985-86 schools years.

Other staff members in participating schools.

The staff members within each participating
school who were not actively involved in the
inservice training during the 1984-85 and 1985-86
school years, but were randomly selected to
participate in the on-site interviews detailed in
Chapters 3 and 4.

 

Effective schools research. The body of research
cited by Dr. Lawrence Lezotte in one of the first
sessions of the training program. Specifically,
Dr. Lezotte refers to seven correlates which are
in evidence in effective schools. These
correlates are: frequent monitoring of pupil
progress, clear and focused sdhool goals,
positive home-school relationships, safe and
orderly environment, principal as instructional
leader, high expectations for all students, and
high levels of time on task. These correlates
will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 2.

 

Middle Cities Association. An association of
twenty-five public school districts in the state
of Michigan. The association serves its member
districts in four general areas: legislative
services, task force services; support services,
and research and development.

 

Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP).

The standardized testing program conducted in all
4th grade classrooms within the state of Michigan
on an annual basis. The testing program extracts
information from students , and subsequently
schools, in two distinct disciplines - math and
reading. The program is criterion-referenced.

 

Connecticut School Interview (Connecticut
SurveCT. A 73-question survey instrument used to
determine the attitudes and perceptions of school
staff members. The survey is subdivided into
seven distinct categories: safe and orderly
environment, clear school mission, instructional
leadership, high expectations, time on task,
monitoring pupil performance, and home-school
relations.

 

OVE RVI EW

This first chapter has been designed. primarily to
clearly define the specific problem being studied. It is
also the intent to discuss the need for the study and to
clarify the specifics of the project. The chapters which
follow will simply follow the basic structure which has
been composed in this first chapter.

A review of the pertinent literature will be the focus
of the second chapter. The chapter will be devoted to
researching the effective schools literature, the responses
to the effective schools literature, the change literature,
and then will conclude with a summary of relevant findings.
The past studies and research which are summarized in
Chapter 2 provide valuable input in the establishment of a
plan for the collection of data, and the development of
sound hypotheses.

The research design will be detailed in Chapter 3.
Specific information relative to quantitative data
collection, qualitative data collection, and
instrumentation will be provided in this section.

The fourth Chapter will be devoted to a pmesentation
of all of the collected data. The presentation of data
will be categorized in two major areas: quantitative data
and qualitative data.

The final chapter will draw from the collected data,

9
the hypotheses, and the literature review, and will address
pertinent conclusions from the study. The chapter will
deal with anticipated conclusions, unanticipated

conclusions, and recommendations for further research.

10

 

ENDNOTES
Lezotte, Lawrence W. Effective Schools Research and
School Improvement Implications. Paper presented

 

at the Invitational National Conference of Citizens
Participation for School Improvement, St. Louis,
1982, p. 6.

Benore, Lynn, ‘W.K. Kellogg Foundation/Middle Cities
Education Association Project on Educational
Leadership Training for Elementary Principals Year
II Report. Michigan State University, 1985, p.
1-2.

 

 

 

 

 

Ibid. p. 3.

Benore, IQHHL. W.K. Kellogg Foundation/Middle Cities
Education Association Project on Educational
Leadership Training for Elementary Principals Year
I Report. Michigan State University, l984, p. 4.

 

 

 

 

Muth, C. Robert. Middle Cities Association 1985 Annual
Report. Michigan State university, 1985, p. 4.

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

 

The intent of this chapter is to highlight the
literature, research” and. dialogue ‘which served. to
influence this study. As noted in Chapter I, the study has
its origin in the effective schools research. Consequently
the review of the pertinent literature begins with a
summary of the key studies which have impacted this body of
research. A review of the discussion which has followed in
the wake of the effective schools literature and a summary
of the implementation literature are also important
components of this chapter. The chapter concludes with the
key points from the literature and their direct impact on

the structuring of the study.

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS LITERATURE

 

This study is based on the premise that it is possible
for there to be noticeable differences from one school to
another, and from one school district to another. The
researdh which addresses this premise is loosely entitled

“Effective Schools Literature." The studies that have

11

12
contributed to this literature have slightly different
findings, but they are bound by a common theme: some
schools are more effective than. others in facilitating
student achievement. The effective schools literature
focuses on the reasons for this, and analyzes the
characteristics of those schools which are the most
effective in facilitating student achievement. The
following studies address the issue of school

effectiveness.

WEBER STUDY, 1971

George Weber developed a study in 1971 around the
hypothesis that some inner—city schools exist in the United
States where reading achievement is higher than in most

inner-city' schools. His study, entitled Inner-Cigy

 

Children Can Be Taught to Read: Four Successful Schools,
focused (n1 four high-achieving inner-city elementary

schools. Weber concluded:

"Reading achievement in the early grades in
almost all inner-city schools is both relatively
and absolutely low. This project has identified
four notable exceptions. Their success shows
that the failure in beginning reading typical of
inner-city schools is the fault not of the
children or their background —- but of the
schools. None of the successes was achieved
overnight: they required from three to nine
years. The factors that seem to account for the
success of. the four schools are strong

13

leadership, high expectations, good atmosphere,
strong emphasis on reading, additional reading
personnel, use of phonics, individualization, and
careful evaluation. of ‘pupil progress. On the
other hand, some charactertistics often thought
of as important to school improvement were not
essential to the success of the four schools:
small class size, achievement grouping, high
quality of teaching, school personnel of the same
ethnic background as the pupils', prescho 1
education, and outstanding physical facilities. "

SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS STUDY: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1976

In the mid-1970's J. V. Madden coordinated a study of
21 pairs of elementary schools in the state of California.
The schools were matched on the basis of pupil
characteristics, Inn: differed (n1 standardized achievement
measures. Madden identified five factors that seemed to
differentiate effective from less effective schools. In

more effective schools:

"1. teachers reported receiving significantly
more support; 2. there was an atmosphere
conducive to Learning; 3. the .principal 'had
more impact (n1 educational decision-making; 4.
there was more evidence of pupil progress
monitoring; nd 5. there was more emphasis on
achievement. "

BROOKOVER, SCHOOLS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE, 1977

 

Wilbur Brookover and. his colleagues Charles Beady,
Patricia Flood, John Schweitzer, and Joe Wisenbaker

investigated 91 public elementary schools in Michigan in

14
1977 and concluded that schools can make a difference in
what students learn. Brookover et a1. specify this

statement as follows:

"Our data indicate that high achieving schools
are most likely to be characterized by the
students' feeling that they' have control over
their mastery of the academic work and the school
system is not stacked against them. This is
expressed in their feelings that what they do may
make a difference in their success and that
teachers care about their academic performance.
Teachers and principals in higher achieving
schools express the belief that students can
master their academic work, they expect them to
do so, and they' are committed to seeing that
their students learn to read, do mathematics and
other academic work. These teacher and principal
expectations are expressed in such a way that the
students perceive that they are expected to learn
and the school academic norms are recognized as
setting a standard of high achievement. These
norms and teacher's commitment are expressed in
the instructional activities which absorb most of
the school day. There is little differentiation
among students or the instructional programs
provided for them. Teachers consistently reward
students for 'their idemonstrated. achievement in
the academic subjects and do not indiscriminately
reward students for responding regardless of the
correctness of their response.

"In contrast, the schools that are achieving at
lower levels are characterized by the students'
feelings of futility in regard to their academic
performance. This futility is expressed in their
belief that the system functions in such a way
that they cannot achieve, that teachers are not
committed. to their high adhievement, and that
other students will make fun of them if they
actually try to achieve. These feelings of
futility are associated with lower teacher
evaluations of their ability and low expectations
on the part of teachers and. principals. The
norms of achievement as perceived by the students
and the teachers are low. Since little is
expected and teachers and principals believe that
students are not likely to learn at a high level,
they devote less time to instructional activity,

15

write off a large proportion of students as
unable to learn, differentiate extensively among
them and are likely to praise students for poor
achievement.

"These characteristics of low achieving schools
are more frequently found in schools whose
student bodies are black and/or poor. The
exceptions to this rule, however, demonstrate
that high achievement is possible in schools
composed of minority or poor white students. In
such schools the climatg is much like that of the
high achieving schools. "

RUTTER, FIFTEEN THOUSAND HOURS, 1979

 

During a four year period prior to 1979 Michael
Rutter, Barbara Maughan, Peter Mortimore, and Janet Ouston
studied twelve London secondary schools in an effort to
answer these questions: Do a child's experiences at school
have any effect on the child; does it matter to which
school he goes; and which are the features of school that

matter? The major, pertinent conclusions follow:

”Although schools differed in the pr0portion of
behaviourally difficult or low achieving children
they admitted, these differences did not wholly
account for the variations between schools in
their pupils' later behaviour and attainment.
Even when comparisons between schools were
restricted to children who were quite similar in
family background and personal characteristics
prior to secondary transfer, marked school
variations remained. "

And,
“The differences between schools in outcome were

systematically related to their characteristics
as social institutions. Factors as varied as the

16

degree of academic emphasis, teacher actions in
lessons, the availability of incentives and
rewards, good conditions to take responsibility
were all significantly' associated. with. outcome
differences between schools. All of these
factors were open to modification by the; staff,
rather than fixed by external contraints. ”

EDMONDS, 1979

Ronald Edmonds was a visible advocate of the "schools
make a difference" philosophy. His study, done in
conjunction with John Frederickson in 1979, involved more
than 11,000 pupils in the Lansing, Michigan Public Schools.
The findings from this study produced the following

characteristics of effective schools:

"1. The principal's leadership and attention to
the quality of instruction; 2. a pervasive and
broadLy understood instructional focus; 3. an
orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and
learning; 4. teacher behaviors that convey the
expectation. that all students are expected to
obtain at least minimum mastery; and S. the use
of measures of pupil achievement as the basis for
program evaluation. "

OTHER STUDIES

Additional, similar studies have been conducted and
their results have been disseminated in recent years.

Michael Cohen writes:

17

"A number of Effective Schools studies suggest
that differences in effectiveness among schools,
defined in terms of student performance on tests
of basic skills, can be accounted for by the
following five factors:

1. Strong administrative leadership by the
school principal, especially' in regard to
instructional matters; 2. A school climate

conducive to learning; i.e., a safe and cmderly
school free of discipline and vandalism problems;

3. School-wide emphasis on ‘basic skills
instruction, which. entails agreement among the
professional staff that instruction in the basic
skills is the primary goal of the school; 4.
Teacher eXpectations that students can reach high
levels of achievement, regardless of pupil
background; and 5. A system for monitoring and
assessing pupil performance which is tied to
instructional objective. "

REACTIONS TO THE EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS LITERATURE

 

Research on what makes a school effective has drawn a
great deal of attention. School improvement models have
been created based on the effective schools research; the
research has prompted statewide legislation in some states;
and inservice programs, similar to the Middle
Cities/Kellogg Foundation educational leadership training
program, have been developeda. The furor of activity has
stimulated a good deal of discussion relative to the merits
of the effective schools literature. A review of the
following critiques is an important part of the total
understanding of the effective schools research, and it
also provides some key insights into the actual

implementation of this research relative to the individual

18
schools participating in the Middle Cities/Kellogg

Foundation Educational Leadership Training Program.

PURKEY AND SMITH, 1982

Stewart Purkey and Marshall Smith responded to the
"effective schools research" in the December, 1982 issues

of Educational Leadership. Their thoughts are:

 

"Specific criticisms of particular studies and
methodologies notwithstanding, and disregarding a
number of inconsistencies in findings, there
remains an intuitive logic to the results of the
research. Flaws in the original research should
not discredit the notion of discovering effective
school characteristics -- seeds for school
improvement that can be sown elsewhere. However,
blanket acceptance would be dangerous.

"For example, there has been no systematic
sampling of different types of schools. The
existing research tends to concentrate on urban
elementary schools with successful reading and/or
math programs in the lower grades. Given that,
the generalizability of the research is limited.
There is also a dearth of longitudinal studies.
It is not clear that the reading scores of a
third-grade ClaSS» in. an effective school will
look the same when the class is in the sixth or
eighth grade. Similarly, it seems reasonable and
prudent to expect an effective school to have
been so historically before raising the banner of
success over its doors.

"Finally, the implicit assumption of many reviews
of the literature and the press seems to be that
once aware of a set of S -- or 7 or 12 -- key
features, schools can simply decide to adopt
them. Even if these 'easy-to-assemble model'
features were necessary for effective schools,
they would not be sufficient. In fact, current
theories of school organization suggest that

19

there are structural and procedural
characteristics of schools that militate against
this sort of top—down change. "

CUBAN, 1984

May,

Larry Cuban formulated the following thoughts in the

1984 issue of the Harvard Educational Review:

 

”Several problems with the research on and
practices in effective schools have already
become evident.

"No one knows how to grow effective schools.
None of the richly detailed descriptions of high
performers can serve as a blueprint for teachers,
principals, or superintendents who seek to
improve academic achievement. Constructing a
positive, enduring school climate remains beyond
the planner's pen. Telling principals what to
say and do in order to boost teacher expectations
of students or to renovate a marginal faculty
into one with esprit de corps remains beyond the
current expertise of superintendents or
professors. Road signs exist, but no maps are
yet for sale.

"There is no agreement on definitions. Half a
dozen methodologically identical studies have
produced as many different definitions of
effectiveness. The concept of 'climate' varies
with the researcher and practitioner using it.
Moreover, some feel that the term 'leadership' is
undefinable. 'Instructional leadership,‘ for
some, resides in the role of principal; for
others, in the teaching staff; and for others, it
is beyond definition.

"The concept of effectiveness is too narrow.
Tied narrowly to test scores in lower-order math
and reading skills, school effectiveness research
and programs ignore many skills, habits, and
attitudes beyond the research of paper-and-pencil
tests. Educators and. parents prize other
outcomes of schooling that transcend current

20

definitions of effectiveness. Some of these
outcomes are sharing, learning to make decisions,
developing self-esteem, higher-order thinking
skills, and a sense of the aesthetic.

"Research methodologies leave much to be desired.
Most of the studies that use multiple variables
and regression models of analysis have failed to
control for school populations and previous
history of achievement. Furthermore, because
many studies are done on 'outliers,‘ generalizing
to the larger population of mainstream sites is,
at best, risky.

"Most research. has been limited. to elementary

schools. With a few exceptions, effective
schools research has occurred in the lower
elementary grades. Junior and senior high

schools are organizationally and culturally quite
different from the lower grades.

"Little attention is directed to the role of
district leadership. Concentration upon the
local school site and the principal's leadership
dominates the research. This implicitly ignores
the pivotal role that school boards and
superintendents play in mobilizing limited
resources, giving legitimacy to a reform effort
and the crucial interplay between central office
and school site that can spell the difffgence
between implementation success and failure. "

IMPLEMENTATION LITERATURE

 

The Middle Cities/Kellogg Foundation Educational
Leadership Training Program was developed in direct
relationship to the ideas and concepts emulating from the
effective schools literature. The inservice program, and
others like it, was designed to encourage the
implementation of techniques that would allow for an

emphasis on the following: safe and orderly environment,

21
clear school mission, instructional leadership, high
expectations, time on task, monitoring pupil performance,
home-school relationsll. Therefore, it becomes necessary
to review not only these correlates, but also the factors
which are influential in the success or failure of their

implementation. Following are several viewpoints relative

to the implementation process.

CORBETT, DAWSON, AND FIRESTONE, 1984

In 1984 H. Dickson Corbett, Judith Dawson, and William

Firestone published a book entitled, School Context and

 

School Change. Their book addresses change within the

 

school setting and the role of the internal school

conditions in bringing about change. They write:

"These conditions are likely to affect any school
change project. They are already present in a
school when a particular project begins (although
they certainly can be subsequently altered).
Eight local school conditions helped shape the
change process and outcomes at the 14 schools
studied. They are discussed in the order of the
magnitude of their effects on the projects. The
conditions are 1) the availability of school
resources; 2) the availability and nature of
incentives and disincentives for innovative
behavior; 3) the nature of a school's linkage; 4)
existing school goals and priorities; 5) the
nature and extent of faculty factions and
tensions,- 6) turnover in key administrative and
faculty positions; 7) the nature of knowledge use
and current instructional and administrative
practicesi and 8) the prior history of change
projects. 2“

22

HUBERMAN AND MILES, 1984

In the early 1980's Michael Huberman and Matthew Miles
conducted an extensive research project which focused on
school improvement projects being implemented i11«a number

of different settings. Their book entitled, Innovation Up

 

Close How School Improvement Works, reports on twelve

 

Specific efforts to improve schools. The twelve specific
sites were chosen from a larger sample of 146 schools
studies by survey methods. Their findings are summarized

as follows:

"Educational innovations appeared tx: be adOpted
or developed. in. districts with reasonable
environmental stability and at least a 'moderate'
past interest in new programs. . . Much of the
district-level dynamism for school improvement
came from the central office administrators,
often coordinators of assistant superintendents
for curriculum and instruction, who kept their
eyes open for lpromising' practices outside the
district or energetically promoted a local
product.

"The innovations were adOpted as the result of
multiple, sometimes tangled, motives. . . There
was less user interest in innovation—specific
benefits than. :hi second-order rewards. In
roughly half the cases, the incentives for
adOption were tied up with career plans for
moving in, over, up, or away or, alternatively,
for consolidating one's position. In the later
phases of these innovat ions , too many
career-driven incentives crippled a project, but
too few deprived it of the necessary energy to
follow through to stable continuation.

". . . innovations posed problems initially for
their target users, who sized them up as complex,

23

hard to do, unclear, and flexible -- sometimes
too flexible. The classroom fit was seen as only
fair; the users felt the new practice would make
demands calling for substantial changes in the
ways they managed their yearly work. By
contrast, most of the administrators saw the

practice initially as relatively simple,
straightforward, and manageable, and they
anticipated that varying amounts of

organizational change would result from adoption.

"Initial use was nearly always rough; few sites
experienced a smooth early period. In terms of
desirable outcomes, smooth early use was a bad
sign. Smoothly implementing sites seemed to get
that way by reducing the initial scale of the
project and by lowering the gradient of actual
practice change. This 'downsizing' got rid of
most headaches during the initial implementation
but also threw away most of the potential
rewards: the project often turned into a modest,
sometimes trivial, enterprise.

"Large-scale, change-bearing innovations lived or
died by the amount and quality of assistance that
their users received once the change process was
under way.

"As the new practices were executed, they were
modified. From the moment of initial use to the
end of data collection, over half of the sites
changed from one-third to two-thirds of the core
components of the innovation-as-designed, by
variously reducing them, adding to them, or
reconfiguring them; the main trend was toward
attrition. Whether and how much an innovation
was changed depended on the intensity' of the
demands it made locally and, in response to that
intensity, on the micropolitics of the schools.

"In the course of consolidating a new practice,
there were often substantial and widespread
changes in the users' practices and attitudes:
changes in eNeryday classroom routines and
expansion of instructional repertoires, changes
in interpersonal ties, cognitive growth, shifts
in attitudes toward pupils or peers, shifts in
professional self-image, and transfers of
innovation-specific skills to other parts of the
user's practice.

"The innovations . . . studied did not seem, in
the main, to bring about many organizational

24

changes beyond those associated with introducing
and institutionalizing the new practice itself.

"GradualLy the users and their innovations
settled down. Firm practice mastery usually came
within 18 months in the case of the complex
projects, and within six months in the case of
the 'downsized' innovations.

"An important objective in the innovation process
was extending a new practice to the full pool of
eligible users in the school and district or,
alternatively, achieving full use for a specific
target group. Most sites came out with at least
moderate levels of local diffusion. They did it
essentially by maintaining administrative
pressure on users during implementation while
furnishing within-building and district-to-
building assistance that, in turn, led to
stronger user commitment, user mastery, and
impact on students. Administrative pressure by

itself -- the administrator as thug -- got
nowhere; the users remained uncommitted,
minimally skillful, and locked into a

teacher-administrator disharmony that eventually
did the project in.

"The innovations were meant, in the first
instance, to enhance pupils' performance and
performance-related attitudes. It is clear that
both externally developed and locally developed
innovations could achieve such gains. The
evidence here is compelling, if not fully robust,
that the impacts were substantial at about half
our sites and moderate at several others. The
higher-impact sites got there in one of two ways:
via 'stabilized mastery' (strong user commitment,
fed by good assistance leading to practice
mastery and stabilization of use) or via
'enforcement' (administrative pressure, leavened
by good district-to-school assistance, and little
latitude given users to make changes in the
innovation). By contrast, low student impact
resulted from low user commitment and/or
'program-blunting,‘ that is taking out the more
ambitious or demanding components and thereby
trivializing the potential effects.

"Strong institutionalization seemed to require
some administrative pressure, lack of serious
local resistance, and at least minimal
teacher-administrator harmony. It also thrived
on staff and leadership stability, organizational

25
transformations that rooted the new practice in
local structures and procedures, and levels of

assistance adequate to bring about stabilizfg use
by a large percentage of the eligible users ."

MILLER, SAYRE, TINSLEY, 1984

Stephen. Miller, Kathleen Sayre, and Deanna Tinsley

writing in the Spring, 1984 Teacher Educator state:

 

"Unless specific times are committed to an
innovation and closely monitored for adherence,
the concepts and ideas introduced during a
general inservice at the beginning of the year
will never take the place of the old ways of
doing things, no matter how effective the
original inservice is in creating ownership.
Schools or districts that fail to allow or
enforce adequate time for learning social skills
consistent with an innovation create conditions
that have virtually no change of achieving
effective change.

"Role overload becomes a real danger to any
innovation. Saddled with too many tasks or
simply the responsibility of teaching a full

load, teachers and principal‘s will fall back on
'tried and true' techniques ."

FULLAN, 1 985

Michael Fullan reviewed several studies on the
implementation process within the school setting in the
January, 1985 issue of The ElementarLSchool Journal. He

summarizes as follows:

26

"1) change takes place over time; 2) the initial
stages of any significant change always involve
anxiety and uncertainty; 3) ongoing technical
assistance and psychological support assistance
are crucial if the anxiety is to be coped with;
4) change involves learning new skills through
practice and feedback -- it is incremental and
developmental; 5) the most fundamental
breakthrough occurs when people can cognitively
understand the underlying conception and
rationale with respect to 'why this works
better'; 6) organizational conditions within the
school (peer norms, administrative leadership)
and in relation to the school (e.g. external
administrative support and technical help) make
it more or less likely that the process will
succeed; anui 7) successful change involves
pressure, but it is pressure through interaction
with peegs and other technical and administrative
leaders ."

SIROTNIK, 1985

Kenneth Sirotnik has briefly analyzed the effective
schools literature and the implementation of the espoused
concepts in the Spring, 1985 Educational Administration

Quarterly. In summary, his major contention is:

 

"But the chances for success increase
substantialLy when people who spend their daily
work life in schools are involved from the
beginning, when they ‘have the opportunity to
relate to their own successes and failures from
their own points of reference, when they' can
examine new knowledge in light of their own
beliefs and practices . . . And they must be
provided the support -- gesources and time -- to
engage in this activity1 .“

27

IMPACT OF LITERATURE ON THE STUDY

 

Although the specific design of the study is detailed
in Chapter III, it is helpful to pinpoint the influence of
the earlier studies. First, the work done by Weber,
Madden, Brookover, Rutter, Edmonds, and others confirm that
differences do exist within elementary school settings and
that some schools are more effective than others in
facilitating student achievement. This researdh provides
the basic frame of reference for the entire study. In
fact, the identified characteristics of the more effective
schools were used in designing the interview instrument for
the on-site component of the study. The characteristics of
effective schools also influenced the design of the
Connecticut Survey Instrument which was used to extract
perceptions from the staff members of the schools that were
participants in the study.

Second, the work done by Purkey, Smith, Cuban,
Corbett, Dawson, Firestone, Huberman, Miles, Miller, Sayre,
Tinsley, Fullan, and Sirotnik helped focus the study on
areas within the school setting that worked to facilitate
or hinder the implementation process. The influence of
their studies surfaced in establishing a direction for the
statistical analysis of the quantitative data, and also
during the on-site interview process.

Let this study add to the literature that reveals some

28
schools and some conditions do exist that create a better

Opportunity for student learning.

10.

11.

12.

13.

29
ENDNOTES
Weber, George. Inner—City Children Can Be Taught to

Read: Four Successful Schools. Washington D.C.,
1971, p. 2.

 

Ibid. p. 30.

Sweeney, James. "Research Synthesis on Effective
School Leadership." Educational Leadership,
February, 1982, p. 347.

 

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur, et a1. Schools Can Make A
Difference. .Michigan. State ‘University, 1977, p.
240.

Ibid. p. 234-236.

 

Rutter, Michael, et a1. Fifteen Thousand Hours.
Cambridge, 1979, p. 177—78.
Ibid. p. 178

Edmonds, Ronald R. "Programs of School Imrprovement:
An Overview." Educational Leadership, December,
1982, p. 4.

 

Cohen, Michael. "Effective Schools: Accumulating
Research Findings." American Education,
January-February, 1982, p. 15.

 

See for example: Evans, Robert W. "One State's
Approach: Ohio's Effective School Program."
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin, October, 1983, p. 74—76.

 

Purkey, Stewart C. and Marshall S. Smith. "Too Soon to
Cheer? Synthesis of Research on Effective
Schools." Educational Leadership, December, 1982,
p. 66-67.

 

Cuban, Larry. "Transforming the Frog into a Prince:
Effective Schools Research, Policy, and Practice at
the District Level." Harvard Educational Review,
May, 1984, p. 131-132.

 

 

Lezotte, Lawrence W. Effective Schools Research and
School Improvement Implications. Paper presented
at the Invitational National Conference of Citizens
Participation for School Improvement, St. Louis,
1982, p. 4-5.

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

30

Corbett, H. Dickson; Dawson, Judith A.; and Firestone,
William A. School Context and School Change. New
York, 1984, p. 5-6.

 

Huberman, A. Michael and Miles, Matthew B. Innovation
Up Close. New York, 1984, p. 271-277.

 

Miller, Stephen K.; Sayre, Kathleen A.; Tinsley, Deanna
S. "Effective Schools and Educational Change:
Implications for Teacher Educators." The Teacher
Educator. Spring, 1984, p. 9.

 

 

Fullan, Michael. "Change Processess and Strategies at
the .Local Level." The Elementary School Journal.
January, 1985, p. 396.

 

Sirotnik, Kenneth. .A. "School Effectiveness: A
Bandwagon in Search of a Tune." Educational
Administration Quarterly. Spring, 1985, p.
138:139.

 

 

The study is designed to determine the impact the

Middle

Training Program had on fifteen elementary schools in the

state of Michigan. In order to address this issue the

Cities/Kellogg Foundation

III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY

INTRODUCTION

 

following research questions are posed:

The study is an effort to provide thorough,

useful answers to the research questions.

chapter

What impact, if any, did the training program
have within each of the participating
schools?

What factors within each school setting, if
any, encouraged the implementation of
concepts presented during the training
program?

What factors within each school setting, if
any, discouraged the implementation of
concepts presented during the training
program?

Were there significant differences in the
amount of change that took place between the
participating schools?

If differences did exist, what specific
differences were there between schools?

will discuss the plan used to answer these

31

Educational Leadership

insightful, and

The following

32
questions, the schools that participated in the study, and

the methodology used in collecting data from the schools.

PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS

 

As noted in Chapter I, seventy-eight Michigan
elementary schools participated in the Middle Cities
Association/Kellogg Foundation Educational Leadership
Program in 1983—84, 1984-85, and 1985-86. Thus, the first
step in this study was to communicate with the
seventy-eight schools in order to seek their permission to
conduct the study. The process began through conversations
with the Middle Cities Association staff in which their
support of the study was solicited and their assistance in
procuring permission from the schools was sought. The
Middle Cities Association proved to be very supportive and
the conversations resulted in a memorandum being sent to
the principals of the seventy-eight schools seeking their
consent to "allow researchers from outside the Middle
Cities project staff access to information sent in by your
school and on file at the Middle Cities office." This
memorandum was sent from Dr. C. Robert Muth, Executive
Director of the Middle Cities Association, and Dr. Lawrence
Lezotte, Project Director of the Educational Leadership
Training Program. (See Appendix A).

After receiving and tabulating the responses to this

33

memorandum, a second letter was sent to those schools who
responded in the affirmative. The second letter notified
the building principals of the specific information which
was going to be used in the study, informed the principals
of the possibility of an on-site interview, and again asked
the principals to return a signed consent form. A copy of
the second letter is also included in Appendix A.

The final step involved in identifying the
participating schools necessitated taking a look at the
Middle Cities Association files for each of the consenting
schools to determine which schools had filed complete
results from the Connecticut School Interview. The study
was aimed toward schools that had completed and filed a
Connecticut School Interview at the beginning of the
leadership training program in 1983-84 and had also
completed and filed Connecticut School Interview results at
the end of the program in 1985-86.

The process of securing schools that had filed
consenting responses to both of the aforementioned memos,
and had completed and filed the pre and post Connecticut
School Interview pared the group of schools participating
in the study from seventy-eight to fifteen.

Throughout the correspondence withl the schools the
issue of confidentiality was clearly discussed and defined.
The statement made in writing was, "No reference will be
made to names of schools or school districts, rather

schools will be referred to as 'School A,‘ 'School B,‘ etc.

34
Confidentiality was maintained for the participating

schools throughout the study.

COLLECTION OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

 

The quantitative data collected for the study' was
divided into two parts: 1) Connecticut School Interview

Data and 2) Standardized Test Score Data.

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW

The Connecticut School Interview (Connecticut Survey)
was originally developed by Robert M. Villanova and was
intended for use with the Connecticut State Department of
Education. The Connecticut School interview was revised in
1983 by Lawrence Lezotte and Ronald Edmonds and has been
used to assist school personnel in determining their
school's effectiveness. The Lezotte-Edmonds revised
Connecticut Survey, Elementary School Form, is a
73-question survey instrument which is subdivided into
seven categories: safe and orderly environment, clear
school mission, instructional leadership, high
expectations, time on task, monitoring pupil performance,
and home-school relations. Each question asks the

respondent to express their opinion on a five point scale

35

(5 being a favorable opinion, 1 being a non-favorable
opinion). The survey was administered to personnel at the
fifteen schools participating in this study at the outset
of the leadership training program in 1983-84 and at the
conclusion of the program in 1985-86. The results of the
survey are detailed in Tables 1 through 15 within this
chapter. A copy of the revised Connecticut School
Interview is included in Appendix B.

The Connecticut Survey was selected for use with this
study for four reasons. First, the survey was administered
within all of the participating schools at the beginning
and end of the leadership program. Consequently, the
results offered valuable insights relative to staff
perceptions of their school at two critical stages of the
leadership program. Second, the Connecticut Survey is a
proven, field-tested instrument. During the planning
stages of the study, consideration was given to creating an
original survey instrument for the purpose of eliciting
staff perceptions and attitudes. This idea was disregarded
in favor of the field-tested Connecticut Survey. Third,
the seven subcategories of the Connecticut Survey address
issues which are relevant to the research questions posed
in this study. And, fourth the Connecticut Survey data was
available for use with this study following the procurement

of permission from the participating schools.

36

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

As the literature review attests, student outcomes as
measured by standardized test score data is important input
in determining the level of a school's effectiveness. This
study would be incomplete without assessing the test score
data from the fifteen participating schools. Therefore,
test results were collected and organized for the four year
period from 1983 until 1986 for each of the schools.

For purposes of comparing schools, it would have been
ideal to use the same standardized test data for all
fifteen schools. Based on this ideal the study was
designed to use the Michigan Education Assessment Program
(MEAP) as the single test data to be collected. The MEAP
is administered to all 4th, 7th, and 10th grade students in
the state of Michigan on an annual basis. The test is
criterion-referenced and questions students in. math. and
reading. Student scores are categorized in four levels
(category 4 is the highest, category 1 is the lowest).
School scores are generated in terms of percentage of
students in category 1, percentage of students in category
2, percentage of students in category 3, and percentage of
students in category 4.

Due to the fact that three of the fifteen schools in
the study' are K-3 schools, the .MEAP results were only
available for twelve of the schools. Thus, the 4th grade

MEAP data was used for twelve schools, the Iowa Test of

37
Basic Skills was used for two schools, and no test score
data was available for the third K-3 school. The
information gained through the collection of test score
results is displayed in Tables 1 through 15.
A statistical analysis of the quantifiable data is

presented in Chapter IV.

38

TABLE 1

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 1

 

INTERVIEW

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW PRE POST _ DIFF
Safe and orderly environment . . . . 4.1 3.6 —0.5
Clear school mission . . . . . . . . 3.8 3.5 -0.3
Instructional leadership . . . . . . 3.8 3.8 0.0
High expectations . . . . . . . . . 3.9 3.8 -0.1
Time on task . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3 0.0
Monitoring pupil performance . . . . 3.7 3.9 +0.2
Home-school relations. . . . . . . . 4.1 3.8 —0.3
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26.7 25.7 -1.0
STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA - 4th GRADE MEAP

Percentage of students in category 4: MATH RDG
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.0 90.0
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.1 94.1
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.8 84.8

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.1 76.6

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 2

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance

Home-school relations . . .

TOTAL. 0 O O O O O C O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

Percentage of students in ca
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

TABLE 2

- 4TH

tegory

GRADE

INTERVIEW

 

MEAP

POST
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.5

3.6

28.7

MATH
69.2
77.0
71.9

79.1

DIFF
+0.2
+0.7
+0.3
+0.8
+0.5
+0.4

+0.1

+3.0

71.8
71.0
73.0

80.4

40

TABLE 3

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 3

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW

Safe and orderly environment . . .
Clear school mission . . . . . . .
Instructional leadership . . . . .
High expectations. . . . . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance . . .
Home-school relations. . . . . . .

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA 4TH

Percentage of students in category
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.7

25.0

MEAP

MATH
. . 70.2
. . 75.1

. . 80.7

0.0

0.0

+0.1

62.1
75.6
76.0

76.8

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 4

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations . . .

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . .

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

Percentage of students in ca
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

TABLE 4

- 4TH

tegory

PRE

. 4.3

. 4.3

. 3.8

MEAP

POST

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.0

4.0

4.5

4.1

29.8

MATH
97.2
97.3
85.7

89.5

DIFF
+0.1
+0.2
+0.5
+0.1
+0.1
+0.3
+0.4

+1.7

94.4
94.6
97.1

89.5

42

TABLE 5

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 5

 

INTERVIEW
CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW PRE POST DIFF
Safe and orderly environment . . . . 4.0 4.0 0.0
Clear school mission . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.1 0.0
Instructional leadership . . . . . . 3.1 3.4 +0.3
High expectations . . . . . . . . . 3.5 4.1 +0.6
Time on task . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 3.6 -0.4
Monitoring pupil performance . . . . 3.4 3.2 -0.2
Home-school relations. . . . . . . . 3.1 2.7 -0.4
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.2 24.1 -0.1

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA 4TH GRADE MEAP

Percentage of students in category 4: MATH RDG
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 93.3
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.5 84.6
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4 86.1
1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.1 87.1

TABLE 6

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 6

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAL 0 O C O O O O O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

43

4TH

Percentage of students in category

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 4.1

.23.9

GRADE

4:

POST

3.8

3.6

25.2

MATH
67.6
76.2
85.0

80.0

DIFF
+0.2
+0.3

+0.6

+0.2

+1.3

83.8
81.0
82.5

88.6

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 7

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home—school relations. . . .

TOTAL 0 O O O O O O O O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

Percentage of students in ca
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

TABLE 7

- 4TH

tegory

POST
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.8
4.5

3.0

27.1

MATH
84.8
76.5
72.2

71.4

DIFF
+0.1
+0.2
+0.7
+0.5
+0.3

+0.3

RDG

60.6
38.2
63.9

60.0

45

TABLE 8

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 8

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAL 0 O O C O O O O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

Percentage of students in ca
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

- 4TH

tegory

4.2

3.4

.25.2

GRADE

3.8
4.2
3.4

26.0

MEAP

MATH
80.8
92.0
86.9

89.7

DIFF
0.0
+0.3
+0.1
+0.3
+0.1
0.0
0.0

+0.8

69.7
85.3
83.3

93.6

46

TABLE 9

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 9

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW

Safe and orderly environment . . .
Clear school mission . . . . . . .
Instructional leadership . . . . .
High expectations. . . . . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance . . .
Home-school relations. . . . . . .

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA 4TH

Percentage of students in category
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTERVIEW

 

POST
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.8

3.4

25.5

MATH
64.8
81.4
72.1

74.2

DIFF
+0.3
+0.7
+0.3
+0.2
+0.2
+0.1
+0.6

+2.4

57.7
52.5
64.5

74.2

TABLE 10

47

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 10

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAL 0 O O O O O O O O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

Percentage of students in category

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

4TH

. 3.4

.25.4

GRADE

MEAP

POST
4.1

4.0

MATH
89.7
86.8
88.2

94.3

DIFF
+0.1
+0.2
+0.3
+0.1
+0.3
+0.6
+0.3

+1.9

88.2
86.8
88.2

88.7

TABLE 11

48

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 11

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . .

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

Percentage of students
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

4TH

in category

PRE
. 4.0

. 4.2

INTERVIEW

 

POST
4.4
4.4
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.3
3.6

28.7

MEAP

MATH
82.1
96.1
98.3

98.4

DIFF
+0.4
+0.2

+0.6

78.0
98.0
93.1

95.1

TABLE 12

49

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 12

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAL 0 O O O O O O O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

4TH

Percentage of students in category

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 O O O O O O O O O O O O

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

PRE
. 3.6

. 3.7

. 4.3

.26.0

GRADE MEAP

POST

4.0

4.4

4.0

3.9

4.2

4.7

29.1

MATH
80.7
80.6
81.4
79.8

DIFF
+0.4
+0.7
+0.5
+0.4
+0.2
+0.4
+0.5

+3.1

RDG

72.8
72.2
76.1

75.2

TABLE 13

50

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 13

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAL I O O O O O O O O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

Not

PRE

3.9

3.9

.26.8

Available

POST

4.4

4.0

3.8

4.3

4.3

4.4

28.9

DIFF

+0.5

+0.1

+0.2

+0.4

+0.5

+0.2

+0.2

+2.1

TABLE 14

51

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 14

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . .

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

National Percentile for 3rd Grade Students:

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.9
4.0

3.0

.24.8

2.9

23.5

DIFF

Iowa Test of Basic Skills

MATH
47.0
52.2
23.7

44.2

RDG

45.6
51.3
33.1

50.1

TABLE 15

52

QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SCHOOL 15

CONNECTICUT SCHOOL INTERVIEW
Safe and orderly environment
Clear school mission . . . .
Instructional leadership . .
High expectations. . . . . .
Time on task . . . . . . . .
Monitoring pupil performance
Home-school relations. . . .

TOTAII O O O O O O O O O O O O

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE DATA

National Percentile for 3rd Grade Students:

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1985 O O O O O O O O O I O O

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

PRE
. 3.9
. 3.8
. 2.8
. 3.8
. 4.1
. 3.4
. 2.9

.24.7

INTERVIEW

 

3.4

3.4

23.1

DIFF

—0.4

0.0

—0.4

0.0

+0.5

-1.6

Iowa Test of Basic Skills

MATH
52.4
57.0
49.6

54.8

RDG

37.5
49.5
46.1

52.1

(IH)

(IL)

53

TABLE 16

RANK ORDER OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

 

A B C D E F G
CONN. MEAP
TOTAL 83/86 COLUMN

SCHOOL DIFF RANK DIFF RANK C+E RANK
1(IL) -l.0 13 + 1.7 8 21 ll
2(IH) +3.0 2 +18.5 5 7 2
3 +0.1 11 +19.2 4 15 7
4 +1.7 8 —12.6 10 18 10
5(IL) -0.1 12 -15.1 12 24 12
6 +1.3 9 +17.2 6 15 7
7 +2.0 5 -l4.0 11 16 9
8 +0.8 10 +32.8 2 12 5
9(IH) +2.4 3 +25.9 3 6 l
10 +1.9 6 + 5.1 7 l3 6
11(IH) +1.8 7 +33.4 l 8 3
12 +3.1 1 + 1.5 9 10 4
13 +2.1 4 * * * *
l4 -l.3 l4 * * * *
15(IL) -1.6 15 * * * *

On-site interviews were conducted at schools 2, 9, and

11 due to their high ranking.

On-site interviews were conducted at schools 1, 5, and

15 due to their low ranking.

Schools 13, 14, and 15 have a K-3 enrollment. There-

fore,

the 4th grade MEAP data was

these schools.

not available for

54

COLLECTION OF QUALITATIVE DATA

 

An elementary school setting is very complex.
Students, teachers, parents, administrators, and many
others influence the daily school routine. This study is
designed to address not only the quantifiable data, but to
also deal with the intricacies and nuances of the everyday
school setting through a comprehensive collection of
qualitative data. Specifically, the quantitative data was
organized to determine which of the fifteen schools showed
an improving status, and which of the fifteen schools
revealed a non—improving or declining status. Qualitative
data in the form of on-site school visitations and personal
interviews with teachers, principals, and central office
administrators was extracted from three schools showing an
improving status and from three schools showing a

non-improving status.

SELECTION OF SCHOOLS FOR ON-SITE INTERVIEW

Following the collection of quantitative material, a
rank-ordering was made of the Connecticut Survey and the
standardized test results to determine the amount of
improvement, or lack of improvement, for each of the
schools throughout. the four ‘year time' span. The

rank-ordering is displayed in Table 16.

55

The Connecticut Survey rank is based on the TOTAL DIFF
score. For example, School 1 registered a TOTAL DIFF score
of -1.0, and School 2 registered a TOTAL DIFF score of
+3.0. Consequently School 2 ranks higher on the
Connecticut Survey. A ranking of 1 is highest, while a
ranking of 15 is lowest. Column C in Table 16 shows the
Connecticut Survey ranking for each school. The scores
range from a low of -l.6 to a high of +3.1.

The standardized test score ranking is based on the
MEAP scores and thus is computed only for schools one
through twelve. The ranking is based on the net difference
between the 1983 and 1986 math score (percentage of
students in category 4), plus the net difference between
the 1983 and 1986 reading score. For example, School 3
shows a 1983 math score of 70.2 and a 1986 math score of
74.7 for a net of +4.5. It also shows a 1983 reading score
of 62.1 and a 1986 reading score of 76.8 for a net of
+14.7. Therefore, the ranking is based on 4.5 + 14.7 for a
total of +19.2. A ranking of 1 shows the most improvement
in MEAP scores from 1983 to 1986, while a ranking of 12
shows the least improvement. Column E in Table 16 shows
the standardized test score ranking for each of the 12
schools having the MEAP data. The scores range from a low
of -15.1 to a high of +33.4.

Finally, the rank order data from the Connecticut
Survey and the standardized test scores are added together

to determine a combined ranking for all of the quantitative

56
data. The combined rank order is displayed in column G of
Table 16.

The rank-ordering process was used to determine three
schools that showed potential to be improving schools, and
three schools that appeared to not be improving during the
four' year time frame. Based. on the quantitative data,
schools 2, 9, and 11 were selected for on-site interviews
due to their potential as improving schools, and schools 1,
5, and 15 were chosen for interviews due to their
non-improving status. The selection of schools 9 and 15
was influenced by the fact that they were both from the
same school district, and the quantitative data suggested
one was an improving school and one was a non-improving
school. Including both schools 9 and 15 in the on—site
interviews allowed the study to analyze within-district
differences in school settings. In all, five public
elementary schools and one parochial elementary school
representing four public school districts and one diocese

were selected for on-site visitations and interviews.

FORMAT FOR ON-SITE INTERVIEWS

The intent of the on-site interview and visitations
was to ascertain the perceptions of teachers, principals,
and central office administrators relative to the impact of

the Middle Cities Association/Kellogg Foundation

57

Educational Leadership 'Training' program (mm the specific
elementary school in question. Correspondence with the six
identified schools detailing the intent of the interviews
took place prior to the actual on-site visitation. (See
Appendix A). Throughout the interviews no indication was
given to the schools relative to their improving or
non-improving status.

The basic plan at each site was to talk individually
with the school principal, the one teacher who had been the
most involved with the training program (lead teacher), two
fourth grade teachers, and the central office administrator
most closely associated with the training program and its
implementation. Fourth grade teachers were selected at
each site so that the insights of staff members not
directly involved with the original training program could
be solicited. In actuality, a total of twenty-five
individual interviews took place involving six principals.
four central office administrators, and fifteen teachers.

A structure was established for each interview so that
some consistency could be maintained from person to person
and school to school. The work of Miles and Huberman, and
Corbett, et. a1. influenced the interview instrument. (See
Appendix. C). The interviews ranged in time from
approximately fifteen minutes to two and one-half hours
with each interview being tape-recorded so that an accurate
recall was possible. Documents such as handbooks, test

score (analyses, grade level objectives, and. ;parent

58
communications were collected at each school, and informal
observations were also noted within each building. A
follow-up letter of appreciation was sent to each building

principal. (See Appendix A).

SUMMARY

The study is designed to determine if the Middle
Cities Association/Kellogg Foundation Leadership Training
Program had an impact on the participating schools.
Enroute to answering this question, quantitative and
qualitative data were collected. Specifically, Connecticut
Survey data collected in 1983 and also in 1986 was
tabulated for each of the fifteen schools that participated
in the study. The Connecticut Survey is a field-tested
survey instrument used to elicit staff perceptions relative
to school effectiveness. Also, standardized test score
data was collected for the participating schools. The 4th
grade Michigan Education Assessment Program results were
used for twelve of the fifteen schools for a four year
period (1983 through 1986). The results from the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills were used for two of the participating
schools due to their K-3 enrollment. Test data was not
available for one school which was also a K-3 building.

The qualitative component of the study was designed so

direct on-site discussion with teachers, principals, and

59

central administrators could take place. Consequently the
results from the Connecticut Survey and from the
standardized test scores were rank-ordered. to» determine
which of the fifteen schools showed the most and least
amount of improvement from 1983 until 1986. After
analyzing the rank order of the schools three schools
showing a lot of improvement and three schools showing
little or no improvement were selected for on-site
interviews.

The study began with a population of seventy-eight
prospective participants. However, through the process of
seeking permission to conduct the study within the schools.
and working with the Middle Cities Association to secure
both pre and post Connecticut Survey results, the original
field of seventy-eight schools was pared to fifteen.

The results of the quantitative and qualitative data

collection are presented in Chapter IV.

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

INTRODUCTION

 

The intent of this chapter is to present the
quantitative and qualitative data for review and analysis.
The chapter begins with a statistical analysis of the
Connecticut Survey and standardized test score data. Next,
the information collected during the on—site visitations is
presented for review. The chapter concludes with a summary
section that addresses the relationship between the

quantitative and qualitative data.

ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

 

Eight different perspectives, relevant to the research
questions, were used in determining the significant
quantitative findings. Accordingly, this section is

divided into eight subsections.

SCHOOLS IN STUDY COMPARED TO STATE OF MICHIGAN

The first analysis shows the MEAP scores of the

60

61

schools participating in this study compared with the
average of all schools in the state of Michigan. As stated
earlier, three of the fifteen participating schools are K-3
schools. Therefore, the comparison. actually' encompasses
only the twelve schools with a 4th grade enrollment. Table
17 shows the mean average of students in category 4 for the
twelve schools under study and the average for all 4th
grade students in the state of Michigan. The table shows
the twelve schools being studied experienced their biggest
test score gains as a group in the first year of the
leadership training program (from 1983 to 1984). This is
true when looking at the twelve schools by themselves, and
also when looking at the same schools in relation to the
state of Michigan. It is apparent, too, that the twelve
participating schools experienced the most improvement in
their reading test scores, as opposed to their math scores.

The twelve schools in the study improved their MEAP
scores at approximately the same rate as the state of
Michigan. The test schools improved their math scores 4.1
percentage points and their reading scores 5.3 points
during the 1983 to 1986 time frame while all schools in the
State improved their math scores 4.5 percentage points and

their reading scores 4.4 points.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FIFTEEN SCHOOLS IN THE STUDY

Before progressing too far with the results it is

62

TABLE l7

l2 SCHOOLS IN STUDY COMPARED TO STATE OF MICHIGAN
CATEGORY 4 4TH GRADE MEAP SCORES

12 SCHOOLS IN STUDY STATE OF MICHIGAN1

MATH READING MATH READING

1983 79.8 76.9 80.5 75.9
1984 85.4 77.8 (81.4)* 82.6 77.7
1985 82.8 80.7 83.6 79

1986 83.9 82.2 85.0 80.3

GAIN/LOSS FROM PREVIOUS YEAR

83 to 84 +5.6 + .9 (+4.5)* +2.1 +1.8
84 ro 85 -2.6 +2.9 (- .7)* +1.0 +1.6
85 to 86 +1.1 +1.5 +1.4 +1.0
83 to 86 +4.1 +5.3 +4.5 +4.4

1 Source: Detroit Free Press. January 19, 1988, p. A3

 

* The 1984 MEAP reading score for school #7 was 38.2 (see
table 7). This score is not consistent with other scores
from this school. Therefore, the 1984 mean average was
computed parenthetically for the schools in the study
excluding school #7.

63
necessary to determine if any quantifiable differences
exist between the fifteen schools in the study. The
results from the Connecticut Survey, stated in Tables 1
through 15, were used in order to make this determination.
The specific data used were the differences in the pre and
post for each correlate within each school (7 correlates,
15 schools). An Analysis of Variance, F Test, showed that
there is an overall significant difference between the
fifteen schools at both the .05 level and the .01 level.

The test yielded the following results:

F statistic = 5.7177
at .05 level Fl4’90 = 1.80

at .01 level F14,90 = 2.28

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANY TWO SCHOOLS

Having established that quantifiable differences do
exist within the collective group of fifteen schools, it is
logical to further pursue the issue of differences between
schools by looking at any two schools within the group to
determine if significant differences do exist between any
two schools. A 2—tailed t test was applied to the
differences in pre and post Connecticut data for each
correlate within any two schools (7 correlates, 2 schools).
The specific Connecticut data used can be found for each

school in Tables 1 through 15. The results of the 2-tailed

64
t test show there is a significant difference between some
schools and there is not a significant difference between

other schools. For example:

At .05 alpha, critical t = + or - 2.179

Schools 2 and l, t = -4.330 (significant difference)
Schools 2 and 5, t = +2.616 (significant difference)
Schools 2 and 15, t = +3.538 (significant difference)
Schools 9 and 15, t = +3.199 (significant difference)
Schools 9 and 5, t = +2.201 (significant difference)
Schools 9 and l, t = -3.952 (significant difference)

Schools 11 and 1, t

Schools 11 and 5, t
difference)

Schools 11 and 15, t = +2.707 (significant difference)

-3.254 (significant difference)
+1.672 (no significant

Schools 2 and 9, t = +.668 (no significant difference)

Schools 2 and 11, t = +1.336 (no significant
difference)

Schools 9 and 11, t = +.720 (no significant
difference)

Schools 1 and 5, t = -.778 (no significant
difference)

Schools 1 and 15, t = +.470 (no significant
difference)

Schools 5 and 15, t = -1.017 (no significant
difference)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONNECTICUT SURVEY AND MEAP DATA

This study would be incomplete if an examination of
the relationship between the Connecticut Survey and MEAP
data was not made. Consequently, a correlation coefficient
was used to determine if a significant relationship exists
between the differences in MEAP scores and Connecticut data
from 1983 to 1986. Pairs of scores were derived from (1986
math + reading scores) - (1983 math + reading scores for

same school), and the corresponding total difference in pre

65

TABLE 18

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGE IN CONNECTICUT SURVEY DATA AND
MEAP SCORES FROM 1983 TO 1986

A B C

SCHOOL # CONN. TOTAL MEAP DIFF
DIFF 83 TO 86 83 To 861

1 —1.0 + 1.7

2 +3.0 +18.5

3 +0.1 +19.2

4 +1.7 -12.6

5 -o.1 -15.1

6 +1.3 +17.2

7 +2.0 —14.0

8 +0.8 +32.8

9 +2.4 +25.9

10 +1.9 + 5.1

11 +1.8 +33.4

12 +3.1 + 1.5

r .05 = + or — .602

r = .1319

1Percentage of students in category 4.

66
and post Connecticut data for that school. The results,
displayed in Table 18, show that a significant relationship

does not exist.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONNECTICUT SURVEY AND 1983 MEAP DATA

Table 19 shows a further analysis of the relationship
between the Connecticut Survey data and the MEAP results.
The analysis displayed in Table 19 focuses on the beginning
MEAP scores from 1983 and their impact on the attitudes of
staff members as shown in the differences in their 1983
Connecticut Survey response and their 1986 response. The
mean average between the 1983 math and reading MEAP score
for all 12 schools showing MEAP data, and the total
difference in pre and post Connecticut Survey data for the
same school were used in this test. Again, a correlation
coefficient was used to determine if a relationship
existed. Table 19 shows that there was not a statistically

significant relationship between the two sets of data.

DIFFERENCES IN CONNECTICUT SURVEY CORRELATES

As stated earlier, the Connecticut Survey is
subdivided into seven different correlates. Therefore, an
analysis of the differences by correlate for all fifteen
schools shows the areas where the leadership training

program had the most impact. In order to address this a

67
one—tailed t test was used, and the differences in pre and
post Connecticut data were collected for each correlate.
Statistically significant differences were found in three
of the seven correlates. The one-tailed t test yielded the

following results:

At .05 alpha, critical t = + or — 1.761

Clear School Mission, t = +1.976 (significant
difference)

Instructional Leadership, t = +3.284 (significant
difference)

High Expectations, t = +3.861 (significant difference)

Safe and Orderly Environment, t = +.464 (no
significant difference)

Time on Task, t = +1.251 (no significant difference)

Monitoring Pupil Performance, t = +1.727 (no
significant difference)

Home School Relations, t = 1.546 (no significant
difference)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT CORRELATES AND MEAP DATA

The next statistical analysis takes. a look at the
three significant correlates (i.e. clear school mission,
instructional leadership, and high expectations) and their
relationship to the differences between the 1983 and 1986
MEAP data within each school. Pairs of scores were derived
from (1986 MEAP Math + Reading) - (1983 MEAP Math + Reading
for same school), and the corresponding differences for CSM
-+ LL + HE from the pre and post Connecticut Survey data.
Table 20 shows the use of a correlation coefficient and the
results this test produced. A significant relationship was

not established between the three correlates and the

68

TABLE 19

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGE IN CONNECTICUT SURVEY DATA AND
1983 MEAP SCORES

A B C
SCHOOL # CONN. TOTAL 1983 MEAP
DIFF 83 TO 86 AVG OF RE D

AND MATH

l -l.0 80.0

2 +3.0 70.5

3 +0.1 66.15

4 +1.7 95.8

5 -0.1 96.65

6 +1.3 75.7

7 +2.0 72.7

8 +0.8 75.25

9 +2.4 61.25

10 +1.9 88.95

11 +1.8 80.0

12 +3.1 76.75

I .05 = + or - .602

1 Percentage of students in category 4.

69

TABLE 20

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT CONNECTICUT SURVEY
CORRELATES AND MEAP SCORES FROM 1983 to 1986

A B C
SCHOOL # CONN. DIFF FOR MEAP DIFF
CSM+IL+HE 83 TO 861

+ 1.7
+18.5
+19.2
-12.6
-15.1
+17.2
-l4.0
+32.8
+25.9
+ 5.1
+33.4
+ 1.5

[—1
O O O O

\omqmmbwwp
...1

+—+-++-+-++-+-++-+I
Hra
Onoowoqpoxoma‘oo»

...a
O

r .05 = + or - .602
r = .0231

1 Percentage of students in category 4.

70

TABLE 21

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT CONNECTICUT SURVEY
CORRELATES AND 1983 MEAP SCORES

A B C
SCHOOL # CONN. DIFF FOR 1983 MEAP
CSM+IL+HE AVG OF RE D
AND MATH

80.0
70.5
66.15
95.8
96.65
75.7
72.7
75.25
61.25
88.95
80.0
76.75

\OGDQCDU1ktohJH
F‘H H

p...

+++++++++++l
mommosoomoms

l-‘
O

r .05 = + or - .602

1 Percentage of students in category 4.

71

corresponding MEAP data.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT CORRELATES AND 1983 MEAP

DATA

Using the same principle that was applied in the
preceding paragraph, an attempt was made to establish a
statistical relationship between the three significant
correlates and the 1983 MEAP data. A correlation
coefficient was applied to the 1983 MEAP mean average
between math and reading, and the corresponding differences
for CSM + IL + HE from the pre and post Connecticut Survey
data. Table 21 shows that there was not a significant

relationship between this data.

SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

 

The presence of both test data and survey data allowed
for an insightful quantitative analysis of the fifteen
schools and the leadership training program. The data was
examined from eight different perspectives, and the
following findings surfaced:

l. A comparison of the schools in this study was
drawn to the schools in the state of Michigan. The schools
in the study improved their MEAP Category 4 4th grade
reading scores 5.3 percentage points from 1983 to 1986, and

their math scores 4.1 points during the same time. The 4th

72
graders in the state of Michigan improved the same scores
4.4 points in reading and 4.5 points in math. The schools
in the study experienced their biggest test score gains
during the first year of the leadership training program
(from 1983 to 1984).

2. A look at the pre and post Connecticut Survey data
shows that a: statistically significant overall difference
exists between the fifteen schools in the study.

3. Furthermore, a closer look at specific pairs of
schools show that a significant difference exists between
some schools while there is IKH: a significant difference
between other schools.

4. There is not a significant relationship between
the pre and post Connecticut Survey scores and the 1983 and
1986 MEAP scores.

5. There is not a significant relationship between
the pre and post Connecticut Survey scores and the 1983
MEAP scores.

6. A significant difference in the pre and post
Connecticut Survey scores was found in three of the seven
correlates. A significant difference was found in clear
school mission, instructional leadership, and high
expectations.

7. There is not a significant relationship between
the three significant correlates and the differences
between the 1983 and 1986 MEAP data within each school.

8. There is not a significant relationship between

73
the three significant correlates and the corresponding 1983

MEAP data.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA

 

The second part of Chapter IV is devoted to a
school-by—school analysis of the qualitative data. Schools
2, 9, and 11 were selected for on-site visitations due to
their improving scores on both the MEAP and Connecticut
Survey, and the analysis of these schools appears first.
Schools 1, 5, and 15 were selected for on-site visitations
due to their non—improving status relative to the MEAP and
Connecticut Survey data. An analysis of these sChools

appears after the improving schools.

SCHOOL 2

School 2 is one of eighteen elementary schools located
in a large Michigan school district. The school houses
students in grades K, 4, 5, and 6. The official 4th Friday
report from September, 1987 showed a total enrollment of
287 students. Of these 287 students, 122 (43%) were
minority students. Approximately 33% of the students
received free or reduced lunches during the 1987—88 school
year. There was very little turnover in the staff during
the period under study.

School 2 was one of five schools from its own district

74

that participated in the original leadership training
program in 1983-84. The other thirteen elementary schools
within the district were subsequently involved in the
training during the 1984-85 and 1985—86 school years. The
principal of School 2 attended the training program along
with the instructional specialist from the school. The
principal and instructional specialist became interested
and well-versed in effective schools literature and the
essential elements of effective instruction. In fact, the
principal later served as a presentor at other schools in
the area. The leadership training program appears to have
had a direct impact on the following developments at School
2:

l. A school improvement team was organized at the
school and monthly meetings of this group were still in
existence at the time of the visitation. Participation in
this group is rotated among the teaching staff, with
representation from each grade level a key determinent in
the make-up of the group. The school improvement team has
conducted a needs assessment with the staff and the
community and has written a visible and well-maintained
school mission statement.

2. Staff meetings at the school have been designed to
teadh and demonstrate the essential elements of effective
instruction. The principals have followed-up with
observations in the classrooms and written suggestions for

improvements.

75

3. School-wide discipline has improved markedly since
the 1983-84 school year.

4. School assemblies have been organized to recognize
positive student behaviors, honor rolls have been posted in
the school, and newsletters to the home have emphasized
positive happenings at the school.

5. Test results, including a disaggregated analysis,
have been monitored carefully by school personnel. The
Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the district grade level
objective tests reveal a pattern of improving scores at the
school. It is important to note this due to the K, 4, 5, 6
configuration at the school and the fact that the MEAP test

is administered at the beginning of the 4th grade year.

There were two significant developments within the
school during the 1983 through 1986 time frame that may
have affected the implementation (process. At the
conclusion of the 1984-85 school year, the pmincipal was
transferred to another elementary school within the
district. The instructional specialist, who participated
in the leadership training program, was promoted to the
principalship. The transition appeared to be smooth,
although there was some indication that the current
principal (former instructional specialist) possessed a
management style that was better received than the former
principal.

The board of education changed the name of the school.

76
with little or no consultation with the school community,
at the beginning of the 1985-86 school year. The current
principal reported that the name change caused some hard
feelings within the community, and even at the time of the
on-site visitation a few parents remain who dislike the new
name of the school.

At the district level several factors were in evidence
which influenced the school improvement implementation
process at School 2.

l. The Superintendent of Schools appeared to exert a
strong influence on the development of the school
improvement process. At the time of the visitation, the
Superintendent insisted that each school submit a school
improvement plan on an annual basis, and he was
instrumental in making the arrangements for district-wide
participation in the leadership training program.

2. The elementary school principals in this district
report directly to the Director of Elementary Education.
The person in this position maintains a key role in
supervising' the school improvement process. Within the
time frame of this study, three different individuals held
the position of Director of Elementary' Education. The
frequent turnover in this position had an adverse effect on
School 2.

3. The principal and director both indicated that the
implementation process has been very different within the

18 schools in the district. These differences had caused

77
some morale problems within the district.

4. Two teacher contract settlements in the 1980's
were especially trying for the district. Energy Channeled
toward the bargaining process may' have. impacted school
improvement process plans within the school.

5. Little or no money was available for continued
inservice on the essential elements of effective
instruction and effective schools practices after the
initial leadership training.

The on-site visitation at school # 2 took place within
one school day. Interviews were conducted with three
teachers, the current principal, and the Director of
Elementary' Education. The following quotations are

relevant:

4th Grade Teacher (1):

"As you know anything new people are afraid
to try it. They are afraid of failure, but
we did know we had some problems with our low
students. They're not achieving as they
should. We knew something had to be done."

"So, what (former principal) wouLd do would
come on Tuesdays and talk with us about
participatory sets . . . a lot of the
terminology, she would give us a background
(about EEEI). She would go over and over
that, and then she would ask us to try, not
all at once, but gradually try some of this."

"We had weekly meetings for about 2 years.
The first year was very strenuous. Then as
she felt we were trying various techniques,
she didn't have as many (meetings)."

"My teaching improved. I felt more
enthusiastic . . . and the low 'kids were

78
coming up with the right answers."

"The teachers being willing to try a new
program, not every teacher, but the majority
were willing to try."

"And, second, the make-up of our children . .
. we have a lot of students that are low.
And, we knew there's a problem there. We had
not reached those students."

"We knew our leader at that time, that was
her main objective. That was her mission."

"One drawback is the lack of parent support."

"During the second year of the program, we
felt threatened. She would come into the
room and check on us, and if we weren't doing
things we would get called in on the carpet.
It was like it went to her head. She was
doing this for higher up and we were almost
like the guinea pigs. She was getting all
the credit for it . . . and I guess we didn't
get enought pats on the back."

"I think we're a better school as a result."

4th Grade Teacher (2):

"I think we've really tried to follow that
(leadership training program) up with
Spending a lot of time on task and really
being aware that that will help to improve
the students scores. I think it improves
their attitudes. Basically I think we've
followed along the lines of trying to use the
elements of effective instruction."

"A lot of inservice (took place) during our
regular building meetings . . . The two of
them (principal and lead teacher) did a lot
of demonstrating for us, and had some of the
teachers do some demonstrating."

"I think it (inservice) really made us aware
of what we were doing in the Classroom and
that if we were doing it right it was a pat
on the back, and if they thought we could
improve it was a way of giving us something
to improve."

79

"The time on task has really been our big
push."

"I've been teaching for 30 years and I could
see some things that I was doing that could
be improved upon."

"The other thing that I think really helped
was when she (principal) did that coming in
the room thing and writing down everything
you say, and then had a conference with us,
and went over everything. She was quite
thorough, I think, in doing that with
everyone. That made you more aware of what
you were doing."

"I don't believe it (observations and
conferences) was threatening at all. I think
that if it was threatening to teachers they
would have voiced that, and I didn't hear a
whole lot of people feeling threatened."

"I think that here all the teachers were
willing to give it a try . . . I think people
were quite willing to listen . . . I think
the school had come through a time, under
other leadership, where they couLd see that
things were falling apart, and that something
had to be done."

"The pull—out programs are often times a
hindrance (e.gx instrumental. music» speech,
etc). We try to schedule around those things
but when you have that many . . . it becomes
difficult."

"We need to have instructional materials
farther in advance."

6th Grade Teacher:

"We've gotten our goals in better
perspective."

"One of the things that realLy came up (in
tabulating the Connecticut Survey) was a
concern for discipline. I think that we have
seen that our discipline procedure has gained
in effectiveness."

"I think (now a) more productive staff
meeting . . . but it's gotten so I don't

80

resent them as I use to . . . I almost always
come away from a meeting with something
worthwhile."

"I think there's been a real effort to
involve parents in a productive way."

"I think it (school improvement effort) has
taken off, and I think it's largely due to
the peOple we've had as principals. Their
energy, and enthusiasm, and encouragement
have really made it practically impossible to
give up."

"I think the support of the administration,
all of the materials that have been sent to
us have been aimed at that (school
improvement)."

Principal:

"Each principal and their staff member was
supposed to come back and do a staff meeting
of all that you had learned at that time. So
some people went ahead full steam, let's go,
others kinda hung in the middle, and some
didn't do it. So we were always getting
calls saying I know you all are doing the
right thing and what did you do. Some
schools did nothing."

"Even in this building we had a lot of people
who were very skeptical, saying that this too
shall pass . . . I'd say but the thing is you
always want your school to be an effective
school, so when is that ever going to pass?
That's never going to pass. You always want
to hopefully do better than you're doing."

"I truly believe that it's worthwhile, and I
truly' believe that people need to realize
that we want an effective school. I don't
care if it's the year 2050, we still want to
have an effective school."

"I think part of it (involvement) is getting
the staff committed. I think you have one
real strong group that is committed to school
improvement on our staff. Then we have some
others that are definitely not committed to
it."

Director

81

"I think that's been part of what's really
held us back, because I think they' truly
don't believe that all kids can learn."

"I think they still have a block in their
mind about if a kid is poor, if a kid is a
minority, if a kid is on free and reduced
lunch, that because they have all these
little obstacles there, they're not able to
learn."

"There are some people that have a style of
their own in the way that they teach . . .
that have been doing that for twenty years,
and it's really difficult to try to change
that person from their style -— good, bad, or
indifferent."

"If you're trying to do, and if you're
putting forth that effort, and you want to
make a difference then you (the principal)
can be pulled to do other things. Or,
they'll say your name was one of the ones
submitted by teachers and administrators to
do this because they feel you're trustworthy,
you're honest, you will do it fairly. I say,
yes, but I have to do my job fairly."

"So I think they realize that if they
(teachers) bring things up through the school
improvement committee . . . then we will take
action on it."

of Elementary Education:

"First of all, the key' to any' particular
building, in my opinion, is the leadership
displayed in the building by the principal."

"What we recommend to our principals is that
they develop and work with a sChool
improvement program and a school improvement
team. We have a model that we have
established based on school improvement."

"We're not at the effective schools point
yet. But we're moving in that direction . .
. You've got four basic steps. First of all
the awareness and training to get there. You
then convey that to your teachers. You then
need to begin that process of implementation.
And. eventually' you (arrive. I think we're

82
somewhere between three and four."

"In (Principal of School 2)'s particular
case, she really' believes in the Clinical
supervision model, she believes in everything
we have worked for in dealing with essential
elements of effective instruction and she
does a very good job with it."

"We also have some schools that are doing a
better job with this than others, and that
again is on the leadership of the principal.
(Principal of School 2) is one of our more
effective people at doing it."

"All of our schools are required to turn in
their school improvement plan to me."

"Out of 18 elementary schools we have had 4
of our schools that have been nominated for
outstanding school status both in the state
and nationally. We have had 2 national award
winners, so the model is up there."

"Our great weakness is that we just don't
have adequate inservice time for all of our
programs that we are trying to implement."
"He's (superintendent) very, very strong, and
the message is strong and constant as to what
we need to do . . . He knows his stuff."
"There's a lot of other evidence other than
test data . . . Our dropout rate has been cut
in half from 14% to 7% . . . Our rate of
daily attendance has gone from. 87% up to

about 96% . . . Percent of teacher attendance
has also increased over the years."

SCHOOL 9

School 9 is a public school located on the outer edge
of a large Michigan school district. Most of the students
are bussed to the school due to a district-wide forced
bussing program. The physical plant is relatively' new

(about 20 years old) and it is bright, clean and well

83

maintained. The school serves students in grades 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6. School 9 also houses programs for learning
disabled, emotionally impaired, and educable mentally
impaired students. The 1987 4th Friday report shows the
school enrolled 685 students, of which 175 were minority
students (26%). The ;principal reports that 85% of the
students receive free or reduced lunches.

All schools within School 9's district were
represented in the effective schools meetings. The
Superintendent of Schools required all principals to attend
the meetings, and at the time of the on-site visitation all
teachers within the district were being required to attend
inservice meetings relative to the essential elements of
effective instruction. The teachers were being released
from their Classroom duties so that they could attend. The
leadership training program appeared to impact School 9 in
the following ways:

1. The principal secured grant money to bring two
developmental psychologists to the school to conduct an
extended study of the school and to make recommendations
for the improvement of test scores. The principal
attributes this effort to the leadership training program.

2. The principal acknowledged that the Connecticut
Survey helped identify weaknesses at the school, and was
partly responsible for an improved school—wide discipline
plan.

3. During the 1983 to 1986 time frame an increased

84
emphasis was placed on improving the physical plant and
grounds. Trees were planted, colorful banners were
purchased and displayed on the grounds, the playground was
improved with a larger play area and additional equipment,

and action pictures of students were added to the hallways.

Several factors appeared to influence the
implementation process at School 9. The principal admitted
to being a "footdragger" and "not very happy" about being
required to attend the initial effective schools meetings.
However, it is important to note that School 9 improved
their MEAP scores and Connecticut Survey data, and there
existed tangible improvements within the building even
though the principal was not an enthusiastic participant in
the beginning. However, it eventually became apparent to
the principal that the leadership training ‘program. was
applicable to the setting at School 9. The principal
stated, "it made sense." Furthermore, the school district
that School 9 was within seemed to allow for adjustments in
school improvement planning within the building. For
example, School 9 started out with a formal school
improvement team, but it dissolved after a year. The
principal stated, "we took what we wanted and made it ours.
That's how we developed ownership." Another example
relates to the funding for the third party to analyze the
school and make recommendations for improving test scores.

This idea was unique to School 9.

85
The on—site visitation at School 9 took place within
one school day. A lengthy interview was conducted with the
principal and also with the Director of Elementary
Education. The school was unable to make arrangements for
formal interviews with teachers. The following quotations

prove insightful:

Principal:

"The building was formerly a junior high
school, and had a reputation as being really
tough and bad. There was a lot of racial
conflict here in the early 70's. . . But,
especially since the project in Battle Creek,
we've made a concentrated effort. We've put
in about 6,000 dollars worth of trees, we
have the banners, we have a courtyard with
about a thousand flowers. So, if you walk
into an area and perceive you are going to be
raped, and get your hind end kicked, even
though that may not happen -- if that's your
perception you are automatically at a
disadvantage. So that's the reason for all
the accruements."

"One of the raps this school gets is that it
has the biggest concentration of lower SES
kids. Historically it has always had the
poorest test scores, and it has the toughest
kids, the poorest kids, 85% receive free
lunch, and over 65% come from single parent
families. But we are located on the outer
edge of the city."

"Five years ago we were bottom rung in terms
of the MEAP scores and last year we had the
highest in the city. Not necessarily because
our kids were brighter, but I think it had to
do with expectations. And I think the most
important ingredient is the staff. You gotta
have a staff who enjoys what they do, and
isn't one that feels that these kids are
never going to achieve anything simply
because of where they come from and who they
are."

86

"The first meetings we attended were in
Battle Creek. We were not asked, but told,
to go to Battle Creek to a conference. And,
we didn't even know what the hell it was.
Which was probably not the most auspices
start. I pretty much like to know what I'm
getting into, so I was pretty much a
footdragger when it began because I feel . .
. that if I'm going to have anything work
effectively that I'd like to be in on the
fact they wanted us to develop this technique
to try to make things work. So, I was a
resister when I first went in."

"It (mandate to attend) came from the
Superintendent through a: memo from the
Director of Elementary Instruction. We were
told we were to go down to a two day meeting
on effective schools. We didn't know what we
were getting into. They called it the
Kellogg Project, which is kinda ominous, we
didn't know i f we were going to be
nuclearphysicists or what. I was not real

happy-"

"The one good thing that happened was that
when we talked about the information . . .
the information that went into what was an
effective school or what were the elements of
effective instruction, they made a lot of
sense. The information made a lot of sense..

"The elements of effective instruction
materials were so precise . . . you couldn't
deviate . . . that was a threat to me. I was
very angry about it. But, again, when I
moved away from it and looked at the
information I found it to be really good
information."

"When the staff took the survey, and in some
cases they were not real complimentary about
what was happening on a particular correlate,
initially it was a threat. But when I, and
my colleague, looked at it we said 'yah, hell
yes.‘ Whether it is perceived or whether it
is real . . . if we are going to make this
place work and function then we're going to
have to do something about that particular
item."

"It (Connecticut Survey) was helpful, after
the initial shock."

87

"My biggest criticism at the beginning was
the way we were brought into it. We weren't
brought into it, we were placed into it.
And, that was not only my perception, but
many of my colleagues."

"We said, 'OK' we're not gonna take what they
give us in total. We took what we wanted out
of it. We were told to develop a school
improvement team, and we did for a (year.
Just because the central administration said
you have to have it. What we did was get
them off our back. We did something to get
them off our back, we give them what they
wanted, and then we took what we wanted and
made it ours. That's how we developed
ownership."

"The impetus still was the Connecticut. So,
to that point it was good. (And), the
impetus still was the meetings (in Battle
Creek). . . It did focus us on those things
that do make a difference. So to that end it
was really good."

"So, it terms of calling it a school
improvement team -- 'no', but we do have
vehicles that are still addressing the
correlates."

Director of Elementary Education (for both schools 9 and
15):
"(District) has been involved since 82-83."

"We decided that our board Should. make a
decision that we would all be participants
(in EEEI training). Therefore we asked for
$20,000 to be put in our budget for effective
schools training and also for any component
that might follow that."

"At that time we sent our administrators for
training in effective schools followed by
their training in essential elements of
effective instruction."

"Five of the eight buildings (in the
district) worked very quickly at getting
their mission statement in place."

88

"I would say that we have been successfully
involved . . . I would say we are probably
70% totally involVed."

SCHOOL 11

School 11 is one of four elementary schools located in
a medium-sized Michigan school district. The school serves
students in grades K through 6. The 4th Friday report from
September, 1987 reported a total of 469 students were
enrolled at the school. Eight of these students (2%) were
minority students, and 50 students (11%) were receiving
free or reduced lunches at that time.

All four of the elementary principals in School 11's
district were required by the superintendent to attend the
leadership training. The principal of School 11 at the
time of the original training retired at the end of the
1985-86 school year. The principal that was interviewed
during the on-site visitation had been at the school Since
the beginning of the 1986-87 school year. The new
principal came from outside the school district and did not
attend any of the leadership training program sessions.
However, the new principal had attended several sessions
related to Instructional Theory Into Practice (ITIP). The
people interviewed credited the new principal with making
some instructional improvements at the school.

It was apparent during interviews with school

personnel within the district that School 11 did not

89
follow-up very well with the leadership training program.
In fact, the Co-ordinator of Elementary Curriculum ranked
the school as the third (of four) best participant within
the district. The new principal also pointed to other
schools within the district as being farther along with the
school improvement effort than School 11.

Clearly the former principal was not successful in
bringing techniques, ideas, and concepts from the
leadership training program to School 11. However, ITIP
training within the school began to gain some interest at
about the same time the school experienced a change in
their principalship. A11 elementary teachers within the
school district have received either ITIP or EEEI training.
The training was paid for by the district.

It is worthy to note that School 4 and School 10 (see
Chapter III) are both located within the same school
district as School 11. A close look at School 4 data
showed a major improvement in MEAP data during the 1976 and
1980 time frame, and therefore there was not an Opportunity
for major MEAP improvement during the years 1983 to 1986.

The following quotations are pertinent to the School

11 summary:

4th Grade Teacher (1):

"There was a committee that met after Middle
Cities (training) with that particular
principal (now retired), but there were some
people that when (current principal)
approached them and asked them about meeting

90
they forgot they were on the committee."

"Our district has been very interested in
sending people out and getting this
information (ITIP and EEEI training) and
bringing it back and plugging it in our
district in the best way possible."

"A couple of years ago what happened was the
Middle Cities tended to run out here. I was
very interested in going on with it,
especially being a presenter here I felt it
was my responsibility to keep that ball
rolling and investigate things further. And,
I heard people going to ITIP. They seemed to
have it more together as far as taking the
stuff back and applying it, then from what I
was hearing at Middle Cities. Part of that .
. . had to do with the head person at that
time in our building.

"The Middle Cities I didn't feel fanned out
to the staff the way that the ITIP has. Be
it the character of the program, or be it the
Chracter of the principal, I'm not sure."

"Another thing is Middle Cities involved how
many teachers? One teacher from our staff.
One teacher and the pmincipal. And, unless
your head person has things going and has
plans for it to be in the building, that was
it. Under Middle Cities (retired principal)
did form a committee. Most of those people
can't remember serving on the committee,
which is sad."

"We've had (current principal) with us (on
ITIP), and that makes things go, just because
of his enthusiasm and attitude."

"A lot of it boils down to that head person
(principal), their attitude, and their
beliefs . . . Because obviously they can go
to those meetings and they can come back and
it can die."

4th Grade Teacher (2):

"Really there's only one condition that you
really have to have and that's the strong
leadership of the principal. That gets
everyone involved in it, and that's what you

91

really need. You need someone who not only .
. . says we want you to do this, but works
with you and gets involved himself, rather
than sit back and say you do it."

"We test every year, we get together as a
staff, and we Sit down and go through the
weak areas. And, we look at the overall
picture and we sit around as a group and we
discuss what happened, why has it happened,
how can we correct it, then we base our own
personal goals that we set each year . . . We
started analyzing that (test scores) when
(current principal) came."

Principal:

"The person who was here was doing what he
was supposed to do in letter (relative to the
leadership training program) . .. . So if he
was supposed to develop a committee . . . he
would write the stuff up, maybe Show it to
them, maybe . . . and turn it in as being the
stuff and they were listed as the committee.
When I talked to members of those committees
about the things that they developed, they
didn't know anything about it. They weren't
involved in it, they didn't participate in
it. It was done and sent in."

Was there any impact cum the school? "None,
it was filed, as best as I can tell."

"There was a high level of confusion on the
part of the person (retired ‘principal) on
what leadership should be. Supposedly a very
good politician and very good at dealing with
people one on one. No mission, no direction,
and no real solid idea of how to get there."

Elementary Curriculum Co-ordinator (also an elementary
school principal in the district):

"I think it (school effectiveness movement)
had a tremendous impact (on the school
system). You cannot talk to one teacher or
administrator in this district who does not
know about the school effectiveness movement
and program and the ITIP’ or EEEI. Every
teacher in this district has had at least
eight hours of training in ITIP or EEEI

92
(elementary teachers)."
"We have our own cadre of trainers."
"The philosophy is a generally accepted
philosophy in this district, on school
effectiveness."
"(Superintendent) definitely lets you know
that it is the principal of every building
that determines the achievement of students.
That is where it all begins."

"(Superintendent) is a very strong leader in
the school effectiveness movement."

"I know they (teachers attending EEEI and

ITIP) had a real sense of what it means to
grow professionally."

SCHOOL 1

School 1 is a parochial school located in a large City
within the state of Michigan. The school serves students
in grades K through 8. The 4th Friday report from
September, 1987 Showed an enrollment of 307 students with
14 students receiving free or reduced lunches. The report
also showed that 14 students (5%) were minority students.

The principal at School I appeared to be a
conscientious participant in the leadership training
program from the very outset. She attended all of the
scheduled meetings and was able to actively involve a lead
teacher from the staff in the training programs. The staff
developed a ndssion statement (that was clearly stated in
the 1987-88 school handbook), and establishes goals on a

annual basis. All teachers at the school have received

93
some training in the essential elements of effective
instruction.

The principal was cited by the staff as being very
competent in the teaching of the essential elements of
effective instruction. In fact, the principal was trained
so that she could present the essential elements of
effective instruction to schools in her geographic area.
She actually did train large groups of school personnel and
was recognized publicly by her superintendent and peers for
her contributions to school improvement. Within School 1,
the principal devoted staff time to EEEI, reminded teachers
of the various components of EEEI in. the 'weekly’ staff
bulletin, demonstrated lessons within the Classroom, and
actively coached teachers in EEEI.

The data collected during the on-site visitation at
School 1 proved to be inconsistent with the MEAP and survey
data from the school. School 1 was selected for an on-site
visit due to its decrease in both MEAP and Connecticut
Survey data, and yet the interviews with the principal and
teachers showed the school had implemented many ideas and
concepts from the leadership training program. Quotations

from the interviews follow:

3rd Grade Teacher (lead teacher):

"(Principal) has throughout this time
involved all of the teachers. Everyone
somehow has had some Classes, some to a
larger degree than others, with essential
elements of effective instruction."

94

"(Principal) has presented programs to us at
staff meetings. One year she took one
meeting a month and presented a portion of it
(EEEI) to the teachers."

"In the weekly bulletin (principal) will
remind us to work on sets or time on task in
order to stimulate our thinking."

"Ideally what we were looking for was for me
to be available to other teachers on the
staff -- that ‘peer coaching situation. I
just haven't been able to find time to do
that."

"I think they (standardized tests) have their
value, but you just can by no means see what
growth the kids make. I take the tests with
a grain of salt."

"We actually had a committee that worked on a
mission statement, and we constantly brought
that back to the staff."

"When I use effective elements the kids are
much. more excited about learning' and that
enthusiasm carries home."

What factors effected the level of
school-wide participation? "Number 1 would
be (principal). The principal. is the 'key
person. Their approach . . . how prepared,
how knowledgeable (principal) was, and
(principa1)'s enthusiasm encouraged all of

1.18.

"Also I think the fact that not everyone was
required to go to these classes initially, or
required to take their own free time to do it
was helpful."

"And also the fact that (principal) was able
to present at staff meetings . . . to help
build enthusiasm, and once we got that going
people would say I'd like to take my time and
learn more about this."

"(Principal) has come into our classroom and
actually taught a lesson, and we sit in the
back and watch. As far as I know everyone
has had that opportunity. So (principa1)'s
actually shown us how it's done, and that has

95

been tremendous. I know many, many people
have commented, now I see what you're saying
there."

Hindrances? "We have a lot of responsibility
above and beyond the classroom. So when it
comes to taking another project that is a lot
to ask."

4th Grade Teacher:

"(Principal) would come into staff meetings
and share with us the things that would help
us in the classroom, and the same thing with
(lead teacher). We didn't hear it just once,
we heard it a couple of times. Each time I
learned more about the essential elements."

"(Principal) came into my Classroom, and
using the essential elements taught social
studies, and it was just great."

"Now I know what (principal) is looking for .
. . the communication is much better . . .
(principal) can stress what area was my
strong point, or maybe next time work on

Closure."

What factors impacted school—wide
implementation? "(Principa1) has been the
main factor, her enthusiasm has been the
key."

When asked who would like to take this class
(EEEI), "I spoke up and said I would because
I want to be the best teacher I can be. I
know I could learn something from this."

Principal:

"First of all I was trained the first year.
I took the thirty hours, and really got
hooked on it. So I decided I wanted to look
into becoming a trainer . . . The second year
of the program we got a lead teacher involved
in the program. As (lead teacher) got
involved, I got another teacher interested
and she attended a workshop with (lead
teacher), and that's kind of what sparked
it."

96

"Then I got our superintendent aside, and
said look if we are going to compete in
today's society then we've got to know this
information (EEEI). So he encouraged me to
begin training the administrators. So I
presented all of that to our administrators .
. . So that led into three summers of
workshops for teachers . . . I did the
presentation for 250 to 300 people four
different times to get the basic stuff
(EEEI)."

"In our own building I would maybe like in
the month of April say anyone who would like
a refresher on set and closure I will do a
session on Wednesday at 3:00 for anyone who
would like to attend. We've done that right
along. Some times we take faculty meeting
time."

"From the beginning . . . we had those
positive reinforcement conferences . . . and
everyone got so excited about those . .. . we
didn't say one negative thing about anyone in
this building . . . I script-taped. their
lessons and could prove to them right on tape
how great they are, and they just went nuts,
they loved it. And the next year when we
started to do the growth conferences . . .
then we said now here's a little thing right
here that wasn't there but I'm going to teach
you how to put it in there."

"That was my job to really worry about
instructional skills, if they were in place,
and how to put them in place if they weren't.

I owe that to this program (leadership
training program)."

SCHOOL 5

School 5 is located in a small Michigan school
district. There are four principals in the district, two
are elementary principals, one is the middle school
principal, and one is the high school principal. The

elementary principals and middle school principal attended

97
the leadership training program. School 5 houses grades 4
and 5 only. The September, 1987 4th Friday Report shows
240 students were enrolled at the school. Forty-five (19%)
were receiving free or reduced lunches at the time, and 10
(4%) were minority students.

The superintendent in the district required the
principal of School 5 to attend the original leadership
training program during the 1983-84 school. The principal
attended all of the sessions in 1983-84, and then involved
a fifth grade teacher in the program during the 1984-85
school year. This teacher, who was well respected by her
peers, eventually played a key role in implementing the
essential elements of effective instruction within School
5.

The principal appeared to be skilled at involving
staff members in the school improvement process and in
securing funding for staff training programs. However, as
one teacher stated, "I see (Principal) as a leader, but not
an instructional leader." A formal school improvement plan
was developed during the 1985-86 school year. It did not
appear to be well-maintained, and the interviewed teachers
were not familiar with the plan.

The principal, working with the superintendent, was
able to organize a staff training program within the
district relative to the essential elements of effective
instruction. As a result, all teachers in School 5 have

received training in EEEI. In addition three members of

98
the staff 'have received. a $1,000 stipend. to (attend. an
extended EEEI training session during the summer. The
teachers noted that the training has created better lines
of communication within the school and has Changed the
content of staff meetings to more of an instructional
focus.

School 5 was selected for an on-site interview due to
its low ranking relative to the MEAP and Connecticut Survey
data. Yet, there was evidence that the leadership training
program concepts was being implemented within the school.

The on-site visitation took place within one school
day. Three teachers, the principal, and the superintendent
all participated in one-on-one interviews. The following
quotes provide further information on the implementation

process within School 5:

Principal:

"In 1984 the board adopted or made a
resolution that we would take part in the
Middle Cities project . . . then the
superintendent came and said. would. you. be
involved with the program."

"In the second year of the project . .. . we
would have a team of a principal and a
teacher from the elementary schools and
that's what helped it sell here. We had a
lead teacher, a very respected teacher, that
volunteered to go through the training. As
she went through the training the eyes of the
staff were upon us . . . It was helpful for
me to have that teacher involved, because she
sold the program . . . As an administrator
coming in trying to sell the program, I'd
have a difficult time."

99

"I've got to admit that there was no magic on
my part. It was primarily a teacher who sold
the program to the staff. And I worked with
the teacher to try to keep things
coordinated."

"It was expected (attendance at the
leadership training program). When the boss
is paying the bill and they've made a
commitment, there is also a responsibility on
your part to make sure you go."

"We started a staff training’ project. We
made a proposal to (superintendent) and the
board, and they gave us the go-ahead. Well,
trainers are hard to find so I called
(well-known presentor in EEEI) and said would
you like to do our program. I just figured
(presentor) would turn us down because
(presentor) has enough statewide and
nationwide business, but (presentor) laughed
and said OK I'll do it . . . We opened it up
to staff (K-12) . . . in 85-86 . . . and for
the most part my staff attended and others
from other buildings. We had approximately
30 people who said they wanted to take part
in the training. We sat down with teachers
and negotiated dates . . . The first year the
teachers were very giving. We did two
Saturdays, two days before school, an
inservice day, and half a school day. So it
cost the district in terms of student time, a
half day . . . In the first year all 30
teachers received 30 hours of EEEI training."

"Now I'm looking at most K-5 staff members
having at least 60 hours of EEEI training."

"We've been very successful because (lead
teacher) has gotten the training, has felt
very positive about it, and has shared with
staff and the staff has respected her Opinion
. . . We have no one who has sat out there
and said they will not take part in this
training in this building."

"Last year we implemented an assertive
discipline plan because one of the concerns
(from the Connecticut Survey), was we have a
relatively safe and secure and orderly
building, but what about the exceptions."

How has the leadership training program

100

impacted your school? "In terms of concrete
have we improved student achievement, I'm not
sure."

"The biggest impact has been. in attitude,
staff attitude, in terms of I've got good
skills, I know I'm doing a good job, research
is indicating I'm. doing those things that
make a difference. That's kind of a nebulous
thing to try and put a finger on and say
prove it, but I think the attitude of the
staff is much improved because of the
training and camaraderie that's come out of
this. And, I think if we can get the peer
coaching' going, that attitude is going to
improve even more."

"This project has not gone as far as I wanted
it to because there are two buildings (within
the district) that are not at the same point
of awareness and involvement that this
building is."

"I can't say money (is a deterrant) . . . up
to this point (superintendent) has committed
money to a staff training program that had
never been here before."

"I firmly believe the key is still back to
the building principal. If I hadn't pushed,
and if I hadn't selected wisely on staff then
the thing would have died."

5th Grade Teacher (Lead Teacher):

"When they (staff) found out the hours (EEEI
training) this was going to involve they
looked at me and said is this going to be
worth it? I said yes I believe it is, and I
believe it's going to make a big Change. And,
so they went for it, mostly on my word."

"We got some Middle Cities trained people as
our instructors when we started and they did
an excellent job for us and the program just
took off."

"The biggest impact it (EEEI training) had
has been the whole uniting of staff in the
effort of education. Giving us a common
ground to work from. It's given us a reason

101

to talk . . . it's given us a common
language. The teachers used to compain about
a staff meeting a month, now they say let's
meet every week. It's just a whole different
atmosphere around here the last four or five
years."

"We have a leader who is a.pmsher, and that
helps, too. He keeps up with research and
gets us information. And we have a district
that's not afraid to spend money to send
people for inservice."

4th Grade Teacher (1):

"It (EEEI training) has given those of us who
have a number of years between now and when

we last took graduate courses or
undergraduate courses a chance to update
skills."

"Second I think it has given us a common
ground to base some goals and some concerns
and sharing of ideas. We've done a little
with. peer coaching and observation and it
lends itself very well to sharing. It's
Opened some doors of communication between
the staff."

"That (Connecticut Survey) I think gave us a
Chance to voice our ideas and concerns and
establish some building-wide goals in an
organized manner."

"Being involved in that (Connecticut Survey),
and having a copy of that made me feel like I
was a part of the process . . . The crux of
the whole thing is as long as I know I have
input that matters then I can stay with a
program."

"Also to get with the superintendent to allow
for release time so that we could continue
the training, I think that was a major
factor. The school system let us know that
they were willing to put something into it
too."

"The group of people that I'm working with is
a big factor . . . We've got some school
momentum going here."

102

"In this building finding enough time to get
together and continue discussions or plans .
. . I guess we get our attention diverted,
that's about the only thing that has slowed
us."

"I would recommend to any principal who has
an opportunity to get involved in this, to do
so. And to be very, very careful that it be
presented in a non-threatening,
non—evaluation type format in the building."

"My biggest recommendation to (principal) is
to get in the room and practice it (EEEI)
with kids."

4th Grade Teacher (2):

"We based (worth of the EEEI training) it on
what (lead teacher) had to say, because she's
a trusted member of the staff, and everyone
knew what she said was valid."

"That training (EEEI) really was an exciting
training. It was tiring because it would
happen after school or all day on Saturday.
But it was worthwhile. Nobody regretted it."

"There is a unity factor there and a
friendliness that didn't seem to be there
before (EEEI training). Because this year
we're going into each other's room and
script-taping . .. . that entering into each
other's room was the biggest mountain to
climb. Personally, I feel being evaluated by
an administrator means absolutely nothing to
me. To be evaluated by my peers means
everything to me."

"(Principal) provides all of the
opportunities, and hopes that you Will take
advantage of them. But we cannot get

(principal) to take our Classroom and try the
EEEI stuff. I see (principal) as a leader,
but not an instructional leader.

103
Superintendent:

"There were some other principals (from
within the district) that were involved in it
(leadership training ‘program) . . . Those
buildings were not impacted as much as
(School 5). Probably standing out would be
the personality of (Principal of School 5).
(Principal of School 5) had the personality
for this and. he had more time for this.
(Principal of School 5) is very well
organized and uses his time extremely well.
That's his strength . . . That building
(School 5) has been highly impacted."

"The leadership in the school has been
(Principal of School 5), the leaders in the
district have been the (School 5) teachers,
and in my opinion the quality of education in
that building is reflected in that . . . They
are extremely professional, they are very
dedicated, they go the extra mile, and they
are extremely concerned with the outcomes.
That building has been highly impacted.

"The Board has been very supportive."

"There was a tremendous committment on the
part of the teachers in that group . . . They
gave up some things and got committed."

"The negative to any of these kinds of
programs is there is never enough time. That
is a real problem in implementing or making
Change . .. . They're on textbook committees,
they're on curriculum committees, they are on
the Michigan Model we brought in . . . We
have a real problem utilizing the teachers
time because of the lack of time they have."

"We made it very clear in the beginning that
this was not an evaluation instrument."

"The one thing I still believe that if that
program is going to work that at some point
in that program you ‘have to ‘have a ‘very
committed leader."

"We felt that without the leadership of
Middle Cities and without the leadership of
the foundation we would have never done any
of this."

104

SCHOOL 15

School 15 is located in a inner—City setting within a
large Michigan school district. The district is also home
to School 9. Most of the students are bussed to School 15,
due to a district-wide bussing program. The 4th Friday
report from September, 1987 showed the school enrolled 80
students in a preschool program and 190 students in grades
K through 3. Of the 190 students, 68 (36%) were minority
students, and 151 (79%) received free or reduced lunches.

The ;principal attended. the original leadership
training program due to an interest in school improvement
within the central administrative Office. All principals
within the district were required to attend the program. A
lead teacher accompanied the principal. to» two sessions
during the 1984—85 school year. All teachers within the
district had received, or plans had been made for them to
receive, EEEI training. The EEEI training took place
during the school day, ws mandated by the district, and was
paid for by the district. The district has also been
active in develOping grade level objectives for the general
education curriculum.

The concepts from the leadership training program and
from the EEEI training were not being actively implemented
within School 15 at the time of the on-site visitation.
The factors which discourged the implementation included

lack of follow-up from the principal, the principal being

105
assigned to two buildings, turnover in staff during the
1983 to 1986 time frame, and an apparent time conflict with
other programs and projects.
The on-site visitation at School 15 took place within
one school day. Five teachers, the principal, and the
director of elementary education were all interviewed.

Quotations from the interview follow:

Two third grade teachers:

"This is my fourth year here, and I'm not
aware of what you just described (school
improvement plans). It sounds like it would
be great."

"Personally, I think the testing that we do
here is not good. I see my Children totally
turned off by the time they are in second and
third grade. We take Iowa Basics at the
beginning of the year which puts them in the
position of not knowing what they are doing
on the test, rather than doing it in the
spring. I see my kids turning off the minute
they see a test booklet, and guessing . . . I
think the testing program needs definite
scrutiny."

"(Principal of School 9), our students
channel into (School 9), will give us a paper
showing us where we were strong and where we
were weak . . . That's the only kind of
feedback I'm getting at all."

"If we talked together about our strong
points and our weak points, I think that
would really be good."

Principal:

"We have a turnover of staff generally every
year . . . Our millage didn't pass, so we're
in the process of laying off about twenty
teachers . . . So I have this turnover,

106
frequently."

"At the present time everyone has been
inserviced in EEEI."

"Trying to handle two schools (as a
principal) is really an impossible task."

"Change is not always easily accepted. You
can't force change on a person I've found
out. You have to want to be Changed."

"This is an unusual campus because it's a
shortcut, we have people walking back and
forth across the playground all day. Back
and forth in front of the school. They don't
bother anybody, though. The people who live
in this community, whereas they may not have
gotten their education, they want their kids
to get it. You can find somethimes a guy
who's sort of a wino staggering across the
playground. He'll tell kids I didn't get my
education, you get yours. So we have that
respect from the community where nobody
bothers us during school hours. Of course
there are certainly a lot of things going on
here that aren't too good, but this is sort
of like an oasis. People respect the
sChool."

"On task during instructional time, in my
view, is the key to effective teaching and
success of schools."

"We haven't had time to perfect it (effective
teaching), but all of the teachers have been
given information on what it takes to be an
effective teacher."

Two first grade teachers:

"Our presentor (for EEEI) was kind of
strange. It was good but we spent a lot of
time Checking' out (presentor). She ‘was a
very good presentor, but her appearance
really had everyone watching her -u- just by
the way she was dressed. She was unreal."

"We had it (EEEI) during the school day for
five days. She came three days, and we had
local people for two days."

107

"I did get a lot of good things out of it,
but it just seemed there was so much . . .
You were just SO bombarded."

"It was required for us to go, so we had no
Choice in the matter."

What happened when you got back to the
building? "Nothing."

"Most of the people (at our EEEI training)
were from one building, and their principal
was also there with them. SO I think he's
the type that would go in, sit in the rooms,
and help the teachers out with it." Is that
happening here? "No."

"we 'have .Michigan. Model going, Gifted. and
Talented going, there's lots and lots and not
enough time to really explore it all."
Preschool Teacher (lead teacher):

"We have been involved in so many things and
I think you can be overly involved. You can
get oversaturated with some of this, and
particularly if you feel that you're being
observed a great deal. I think people have a
tendency to get a little nervous about that."
"Probably the only thing that I think I did
in terms of the whole staff was working on

the mission statement . . . It did
carryover."

SUMMARY

A review of the qualitative data shows each of the
schools were impacted by the leadership training program
differently. Some schools obviously benefitted a great
deal from the program, while other schools did not show
evidence of significant impact within their setting.

Furthermore, when talking directly with personnel within

108

their schools, it became apparent there are some
inconsistencies in the quantitative and qualitative data
collected as part of this study. For example, the
interviews at School 1 Clearly revealed that the teachers
were practicing the essential elements of effective
instruction within their classroom, that the principal was
highly proficient as a teacher of teachers, and that a
great deal of energy had gone into school improvement
efforts within the school. Yet, Table 1 in Chapter III
shows School 1 to be a non-improving school. And, to a
lesser extent the qualitative data collection shows Schools
5 (IL) and 11 (IH) to be inconsistent with the
corresponding MEAP and Connecticut Survey data. The
on-site visitations at Schools 2 (IH), 9 (IH), and 15 (IL)
were consistent with the MEAP and Connecticut data
extracted from those schools.

During the course of the interviews with school
personnel several patterns surfaced in relation to factors
that influenced the implementation process. What follows
is a summary of the common themes that the interviewer
noted throughout the on-site visitations.

> Leadership of the building principal. If the
principal was interested and enthused about school
improvement, then there was a greater Opportunity for
successful implementation. Supportive data:

4th Grade Teacher, School 2: "We knew our
leader at that time that was her main

109
objective. That was her mission."

6th Grade Teacher, School 2: "I think it
(school improvement) has taken. off, and I
think it's largely due to the people we've
had as principals."

Director of Elementary Education, School 2:
"First of all, the key to any particular
building, in my Opinion, is the leadership
displayed in the building by the principal."

4th Grade Teacher, School 11: "Really
there's only one condition that you really
have to have and that's the strong leadership
of the principal."

5th Grade Teacher, School 5: "We 'have a
leader who is a pusher, and that helps, too.
He keeps up with research and gets us
information."

Superintendent, School 5: "There were some
other principals (from within the district)
that were involved in it (leadership training
program) . .. . Those buildings were not
impacted. as much. as (School 5). Probably
standing out would be the personality of
(Principal of School 5)."

> Amount of money budgeted for school improvement.
If money was available for inservice training and classroom
teachers release time, then there was a greater Opportunity
for successful implementation. Supportive data:

Director of Elementary Education, School 2:
"Our great weakness is that we just don't
have adequate inservice time for all of our
programs that we are trying to implement."

Director of Elementary Education, Schools 9
and 15: "We decided that our board should
make a decision that we would all be
participants (in EEEI training). Therefore
we asked for $20,000 to be put in our budget
for effective schools training and also for
any component that might follow that . . . I
would say that we have been successfully
involved."

>

schools

110

Elementary Curriculum Co-ordinator, School

11: "I think it (school effectiveness
movement) had a tremendous impact (on the
school system). Every teaCher in this

district has had at least eight ‘hours of
training in ITIP or EEEI."

3rd Grade Teacher, School 1: "Everyone
somehow has had some Classes, some to a
larger degree than others, with essential
elements of effective instruction."

Principal, School 5: "I can't say money (is
a deterrant) . . . up to this point
(superintendent) has committed money to a
staff training program that had never been
here before."

5th Grade Teacher, School 5: "We 'have a
district that's not afraid to spend money to
send people for inservice."

Amount of autonomy within each building.

If

were allowed to make ‘modifications and. develop

ownership in their school improvement plans, then there was

a greater opportunity for successful implementation.

Supportive data:

6th Grade Teacher, School 2: "One of the
things that really came up (in tabulating the
Connecticut Survey) was a concern for
discipline. I think that we have seen that
our discipline procedure has gained in
effectiveness."

Principal, School 2: "So I think they
realize that if they (teachers) bring things
up through the school improvement committee .
. . then we will take action on it."

Principal, School 9: "We said, 'OK' we're
not going to take what they give us in total.
We took what we wanted out of it . . . that's
how we develOped ownership."

3rd Grade Teacher, School 1: "We actually
had a committee that worked on a mission

111

statement, and we constantly brought that
back to the staff."

4th Grade Teacher, School 5: "I think it
(school improvement) has given us a common
ground to base some goals and some concerns
and sharing of ideas. We've done a little
with. peer coaching' and observation. and it

lends itself very well to sharing. It's
Opened some doors of communication between
the staff."

> Time. If school personnel were free from a

cumbersome workload and conflicting projects, then there
was a greater opportunity for successful implementation.
Supportive data:

4th Grade Teacher, School 2: "The pull-out
programs are often times a hindrance (e.g.
instrumental music, speech). We try to
schedule around those things but when you
have that many . . . it becomes difficult."

Principal, School 2: "If you're trying to
do, and if you're putting forth that effort,
and you want to make a difference then you
(the principal) can be pulled to do other
things. Or, they'll say your name was one of
the ones submitted by teachers and
administrators to do this because they feel
you're trustworthy, you're honest, you will
do it fairly. I say, yes, but I have to do
my job fairly."

3rd Grade Teacher, School 1: "Ideally what
we were looking for was for me to be
available to other teachers on the staff --
that peer coaching Situation. I just haven't
been able to find time to do that."

5th Grade Teacher, School 5: "In this
building finding enough time to get together
and continue discussions or plans . . . I
guess we get our attention diverted, that's
about the only thing that has slowed us."

Superintendent, School 5: "The negative to
any of these kinds of programs is there is
never enough time. That is a real problem in

112

implementing or making change . . . They're
on textbook committees, they're on curriculum
committees, they are on the Michigan Model we
brought in . . . We have a real problem
utilizing the teachers time because of the
lack of time they have."

Principal, School 15: "Trying to handle two
schools (as a principal) is really an
impossible task."

> Interest of the teaching staff. If teachers became
enthused about the essential elements of effective
insruction and were able to interest others, then there was
a greater opportunity for successful implementation.
Supportive data:

Principal, School 2: "I think part of it
(involvement) is getting the staff committed.
I think you have one real strong group that
is committed to school improvement on our
staff. Then we have some others that are
definitely not committed to it."

3rd Grade Teacher, School 1: "And also the
fact that (principal) was able to present at
staff meetings . . . to help build
enthusiasm, and once we got that going people
would say I'd like to take my time and learn
more about this."

Principal, School 5: "I've got to admit that
there was no magic on my part. It was
primarily a teacher who sold the program to
the staff. And I worked with the teacher to
try to keep things coordinated."

5th Grade Teacher, School 5: "When they
(staff) found out the hours (EEEI training)
this was going to involve they looked at me
and said is this going to be worth it? I
said yes I believe it is, and I believe it's
going to make a big change. And, so they
went for it, mostly on my word."

4th Grade Teacher, School 5: "We based
(worth of the EEEI training) it on what (lead
teacher) had to say, because she's a trusted

113

member of the staff, and everyone knew what
she said was valid."

> Relevance. If school personnel were able to
establiSh a relationship between school improvement plans
and their individual school setting, then there was a
greater opportunity for successful implementation.
Supportive data:

4th Grade Teacher, School 2: "I think that
here all the teachers were willing to give it
a try . . . I think people were quite willing
to listen . . . I think the school had come
through a time, under other leadership, where
they could see that things were falling
apart, and that something had to be done."

Principal, School 9: "The one good thing
that happened was that when we talked about
the information . . . the information that
went into what was an effective school or
what were the elements of effective
instruction, they made a lot of sense. The
information made a lot of sense."

Principal, School 5: "Last year we
implemented an assertive discipline plan
because one of the concerns (from the
Connecticut Survey), was we have a relatively
safe and secure and. orderly’ building, 'but
what about the exceptions."

Furthermore, the (on-site visitations revealed there
were outcomes generated by the leadership training program
that may have been undetected in the quantitative data
collection. School personnel attributed some or all of the
following outcomes to the leadership training program:

> Improved school-wide discipline.

> Brighter, cleaner physical plant.

> Improved communication within the school.

114
Staff meetings devoted to improvement of the
instructional program.
Better feedback for teachers relative to their
teaching and lesson planning.
More inservice training for teachers.
Formation of school improvement teams.
DeveIOpment of mission statements and school goals.
Development of systems for rewarding students.
Better systems for monitoring student performance.
Development of grade level Objectives and minimum

standards.

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

 

The final chapter is devoted to a summary of the
study, significant conclusions from the research,
recommendations for future research, and some final

reflections.

SUMMARY

The Middle Cities Association and Kellogg Foundation
organized a leadership training program for seventy-eight
Michigan elementary schools during the 1983-84, 1984-85,
and 1985-86 school years. The goal Of the program was to
improve the leadership capacity of elementary principals,
and thus, to increase student achievement.

This study was designed to analyze the schools
involved in the leadership training program to determine
the effect, if any, the program had on the schools that
participated in the program. Five research questions
served as the focal point of the study. The five questions

were :

115

116
1. What impact, if any, did the training program
have within each of the participating
schools?

2. What factors within each school setting, if

any, encouraged the implementation of
concepts presented during the training
program?

3. What factors within each school setting, if
any, discouraged the implementation of
concepts presented during the training
program?

4. Were there significant differences in the
amount of change that took place between the
participating schools?

5. If differences did exist, what specific
differences were there between schools?

Prior to designing the study pertinent literature and
relevant studies were reviewed. The literature review
found that field work done by Weber, Madden, Brookover,
Rutter, Edmonds, and others confirm that differences do
exist within elementary school settings and that some
schools are more effective than others in facilitating
student achievement. These studies helped to provide a
basic framework for the research and also provided guidance
in the development of instrumentation for the study.
Furthermore, studies conducted by Purkey, Smith, Cuban,
Corbett, Dawson, Firestone, Huberman, Miles, Miller, Sayre,
Tinsley, Fullan, and Sirotnik helped to focus the study on
areas within the school setting that worked to facilitate

or hinder the implementation process.

Enroute to answering the five research questions both

117

quantitative and qualitative data were collected.
Specifically, Connecticut Survey data collected in 1983 and
also in 1986 was tabulated for each of the fifteen schools
that actually participated in the study. Also,
standardized test score data was collected for the
participating schools. The 4th Grade Michigan Educational
Assessment Program provided the primary test data for the
study.

The qualitative component of the study was designed so
direct on-site discussion with teachers, principals, and
central administrators could take place. Consequently the
results from the Connecticut Survey and the standardized
test scores were rank-ordered to determine which of the
fifteen schools showed the most and least amount of
improvement from 1983 until 1986. After analyzing the rank
order of the schools three schools showing improvement and
three schools Showing little or no improvement were
selected for on-site interviews. A total of twenty-five
individual interviews took place involving Six principals,
four central office administrators, and fifteen teachers.

The study began with a population of seventy-eight
prospective participating schools. However, through the
process of seeking permission to conduct the study within
the schools, and working with the Middle Cities Association
to secure both pre and post Connecticut Survey results, the
original field of seventy-eight schools was pared to

fifteen.

118

The quantitative data were examined from eight
different perspectives, and the following findings
surfaced:

1. The schools in this study were compared to all
schools in the state of Michigan. The schools in the study
improved their MEAP Category 4 4th grade reading scores 5.3
percentage points from 1983 to 1986, and their math scores
4.1 points during the same time. The 4th graders in the
state of Michigan improved the same scores 4.4 points in
reading and 4.5 points in math. The schools in the study
experienced their biggest test score gains during the first
year of the leadership training program (from 1983 to
1984).

2. A look at the pre and post Connecticut Survey data
Shows that a statistically significant overall difference
exists between the fifteen schools in the study.

3. Furthermore, a closer look at specific pairs of
schools Show that a significant difference exists between
some schools while there is run: a significant difference
between other schools.

4. There is not a significant relationship between
the pre and post Connecticut Survey scores and the 1983 and
1986 MEAP scores.

5. There is not a significant relationship between
the pre and post Connecticut Survey scores and the 1983

MEAP scores.

119

6. A significant difference in the pre and post
Connecticut Survey scores was found in three of the seven
correlates. A significant difference was found in Clear
school mission, instructional leadership, and high
expectations.

7. There is not a significant relationship between
the three significant correlates and the differences
between the 1983 and 1986 MEAP data within each school.

8. There is not a significant relationship between
the three significant correlates and the corresponding 1983

MEAP data.

The interviews with school personnel proved to be
insightful and extremely valuable in drawing conclusions
relative to the implementation of school improvement plans.
Each of the six visited schools was impacted in a different
manner by the leadership training (program. During the
interviews it became apparent there were some
inconsistencies between the quantitative and qualitative
data that was collected for each school. The on—site
visitations at Schools 2 (IH), 9 (IH), and 15 (IL) were
consistent with the MEAP and Connecticut data, while
Schools 1 (IL), 5 (IL), and 11 (IH) were not.

The qualitative data collection generated the
following list of factors that impacted the implementation

process:

120
> Leadership of the building principal
> Amount of money budgeted for school improvement.
> Amount of autonomy within each building.
> Time.
> Interest of the teaching staff.

> Relevance.

Furthermore, the on-site visitations revealed there
were outcomes generated by the leadership training program
that may have been undetected in the quantitative data
collection. School personnel attributed some or all of the

following outcomes to the leadership training program:

> Improved school—wide discipline.
> Brighter, cleaner physical plant.
> Improved communication within the school.

> Staff meetings devoted to improvement of the
instructional program.

> Better feedback for teachers relative to their
teaching and lesson planning.

> More inservice training for teachers.

> Formation of school improvement teams.

> Development of mission statements and school goals.
> Development of systems for rewarding students.

> Better systems for monitoring student performance.

> Development of grade level objectives and minimum
standards.

121

CONCLUSIONS

 

The conclusions drawn from the research relate
directly to the researCh questions posed at the outset of
the study. Therefore, the questions will be restated and
the relevant conclusions will be addressed as they pertain

to the five questions.

What impact, if any, did the training program
have within each of the participating
sdhools?

A review of the standardized test score data shows
that the leadership training program did not have a
significant impact on the test scores from the collective
group of fifteen schools. Some individual schools showed
an increase in test scores from 1983 to 1986, while others
showed a decrease in their scores during the same period of
time.

The Connecticut Survey data reveals that a significant
impact was made in the fifteen schools in three areas from
1983 until 1986. There was a clearer sense of school
mission, better instructional leadership, and higher
expectations for students.

Furthermore, the study shows that a relationship does
not exist between the MEAP scores, and the Connecticut
Survey results.

The on—site visitations (provided evidence that the

leadership training program did impact the schools in a

122

manner not shown by the quantitative data. A number of
developments were in evidence at some or all of the six
visited schools. The personnel at the schools attributed
the evolution of these features, traits, and phenomena to
the leadership training program.

> Improved school-wide discipline.

> Brighter, cleaner physical plant.

> Improved communication within the school.

> Staff meetings devoted to improvement of the
instructional program.

> Better feedback for teachers relative to their
teaching and lesson planning.

> More inservice training for teachers.

> Formation of school improvement teams.

> Development of mission statements and school goals.
> Development of systems for rewarding students.

> Better systems for monitoring student performance.

> Development of grade level objectives and minimum
standards.

What factors within eadh school setting, if
any, encouraged the implementation of
concepts presented during the training
program?

This section is based entirely on the interviews and
observations that took place at the six schools that
received ani on-site visitation. The statements are
cautious so as to increase the credence of their

applicability to all schools participating in the

leadership training program.

123

The school principal plays the key' role in
implementing school improvement plans and subsequently
improving the teaching-learning process. Furthermore, the
study showed that no one particular leadership skill was
the best for implementing school improvement plans. For
example, one school needed a master teacher; another school
required a principal who was skilled at securing grant
money; and a third principal was a good communicator and
motivator relative to school improvement.

NO school improvement plan will succeed, however,
without the involvement of the teaching staff at the
school. The experiences, personalities, and interest in
school improvement of the teachers were important factors
as the schools dealt with the concept of creating a more
effective school. The schools that experienced success in
the implementation process had staff members involved in
leadership roles, had teachers involved in school—wide
decision making (i.e. in developing the nfission statement
or school improvement plan), and had teachers working
toward the Common goal of an improved teaching-learning
situation.

The role of the central administration within each
district was an important factor in encourging
implementation. Those schools that experienced improving
conditions within the 1983 to 1986 time frame had active,
involved central administrators who believed in the

relevance of school improvement. The type of involvement

124
varied, but examples included money' being ‘budgeted for
inservice training, and school improvement plans being

submitted to the administration center.

What factors within each school setting, if
any, discouraged the implementation of
concepts presented. during the training
program?

The study shows that over a period of time the effort
generated by school personnel for school improvement
planning began to decrease. This is based on a decreasing
amount of money available for inservice programs, a
decreased emphasis on the school improvement plan in some
schools, and a lessening of time spent on instructional
issues within staff meetings during the 1983 to 1986 time
frame.

A lack of coordinated effort from the personnel in the
administration. center, principal's. office, and. classroom
also served to discourage the implementation process.
Turnover in personnel hindered the coordination of effort,
as did differences in expectations and interpretations from
school personnel. The latter example especially surfaced
in larger districts where the school improvement process
was interpreted differently within individual schools.

Other projects and priorities within the school
setting hindered the implementation process. For example,
school millage elections, difficult teacher contract

negotiations, and other community projects sapped energy

125

from the school improvement effort within the six schools

that were visited.

were there significant differences in. the
amount of change that took place between the
participating SChools?

The study concludes that there were significant

differences in the amount of Change that took place between

the participating schools.

If differences did exist, what specific
differences were there between sdhools?

The statistical tests presented in Chapter IV show an
overall difference between the fifteen schools relative to
the Connecticut Survey data at the end of the training
program in 1986. The statistical data shows that
significant differences did exist between some pairs of
schools as well.

The MEAP data also shows a wide range of differences
between schools when analyzing the differences in the 1983
and 1986 scores. The range of differences between 1983 and
1986 in Category 4 4th Grade MEAP scores is —15.1 to +33.4
(see Table 16).

The very nature of school improvement planning seeks
out the strengths and weaknesses of schools so that school
personnel can analyze their own school and make plans to

improve within the individual setting. Furthermore, the

126
personalities and leadership styles of individuals within
each school setting contributed significantly to the
differences between schools. The combination of
differences in environment and leadership within the
schools spawned numerous differences between the schools.
The most common of which were funding, inservicing and
motivating the staff, and monitoring the school improvement

process.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH

 

There were discrepancies in the findings between the
quantitative data and the on—site visitations. The
findings from this study would be incomplete if they were
based on only the test data, survey data, or interview
data. All were helpful in forming impressions and drawing
conclusions.

This study focused on fifteen schools out of the
original group of seventy—eight schools that participated
in the leadership training program. Therefore a
recommended research project would be to apply the same
five research questions to the remaining sixty-three
schools. One would speculate that there is a wealth of
information within those Sixty—three school settings.

School 2 in this study is in a large school system
with a total of eighteen elementary schools. The external

conditions, related to successful implementation, that

127
these eighteen schools faced are logically very similar.
Thus, a study which focused on individual schools within
one large school system is recommended.

A final suggestion for future research would be to
conduct a case study of one individual school that has
exhibited outstanding traits relative to school
improvement. A detailed study of a positive, vibrant,
improving environment complete with reasons and rationale

would add to the effective schools knowledge.

REFLECTIONS

 

As this research project draws to a Close there are
some feelings that will exist long after the specific
conclusions and recommendations have been reviewed. The
dialogue that took place between this researcher and the
personnel within the six schools that participated in
on-site visitations has left a lasting impression. It was
indeed a privilege to interact with so many competent,
caring, interested professionals. The conversations with
these people within their own school settings stimulated
many ideas and thoughts that are beyond the bounds of this
specific research project. For that, this researcher is
very grateful.

It seems necessary, too, to follow up that thought

with a recommendation to all who read this study to visit

128
schools, ask questions, seek ideas, discuss setbacks, share
successes and learn from others who are struggling with an

immense responsibility -- improving schools.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Abrams, Joan D. "Precise Teaching Is More Effective
Teaching." Educational Leadership, November, 1981,
39:138-139.

 

Benore, Lynn. W.K. Kellogg Foundation/Middle Cities
Education Association Project on Educational
Leadership Training for Elementary PrinCipals Year I
Report. Michigan. State ‘University: Middle Cities
Assoc1ation, 1984.

 

 

 

Benore, Lynn. W.K. Kellogg Foundation/Middle Cities
Education Association Project on Educational
Leadership Traifiing for Elementary Principals Year II
Report. .Michigan. State ‘Universityw Middle Cities
Assoc1ation, 1985.

 

 

 

Borg, Walter R. and Meredith D. Gall. Educational
ResearCh An Introduction 4th Edition. New' 'York:
Longman, 1983.

 

 

Brandt, Ron. "On School Effectiveness: A Conversation
with Peter Mortimore." Educational Leadership, May,
1981, 38:642-645.

 

Brandt, Ron. "On School Improvement: A conversation with
Ron Edmonds." Educational Leadership, December,
1982, 40:13-15.

 

Brookover, Wilbur, Charles Beady, Patricia Flood, John
Schweitzer, and Joe Wisenbaker. Schools Can Make A
Difference. Michigan State University: College of
Urban Development, 1977.

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur B., Laurence Beamer, Helen Efthim,
Douglas Hathaway, Lawrence Lezotte, Stephen Miller,
Joseph. Passalacqua, and. Louis Tornatzky. Creatin
Effective Schools An Inservice Program For Enhanc1ng
School Learning Climate and Achievement. Holmes
Beach, Florida: The Learning Publications, 1982.

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Edsel L. Erickson. Sociology of
Education. Homewood, Illinois: The JDorsey’ Press,
1975

 

 

129

130

BrOphy, Jere. "Classroom Organization and Management."
The Elementary School Journal, March, 1983,
83:265-285.

 

Canner, Jane and RiChard Guttenberg. "The New York City
School Improvement Project." Social Policy, Fall,
1984, 15:18-20.

 

Clancy, Peter L. Nineteen Improving Schools and Why.
Eastern Michigan University: Leadership and
Counseling Department, 1982.

 

Clark, David L., Linda S. Lotto, and Martha M. McCarthy.
"Factors Associated with Success in Urban Elementary
Schools." Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1980, 61:467—470.

 

Clauset, Karl H. Jr. and Alan K. Gaynor. "A System
Perspective (n1 Effective Schools." Educational
Leadership, December, 1982, 40:54-59.

 

 

Cohen, Michael. "Effective Schools: Accumulating
Research Findings." American Eduation,
January—February, 1982, 18:13-16.

 

 

Cohen, Michael. "Effective Schools: What the Research
Says." Today's Education, April/May, 1981,
70:46G-49G

Coleman, James 8. "Public Schools, Private Schools, and
the Public Interest." American Education,

 

January-February, 1982, 18:17-22.

Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson,
James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D.
Weinfeld, Robert L. York. Equality of Education
Opportunity. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1966.

 

 

Corbett, H. Dickson, Judith A. Dawson, and William A.
Firestone. School Context and School Change. New
York: Teachers College Press, 1984.

 

Cuban, Larry. "Effective Schools: A Friendly But
Cautionary Note." Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1983,
64:695-696.

 

Cuban, Larry. "Transforming the Frog into a Prince:
Effective Schools Research, Policy, and Practice at
the District Level." Harvard Educational Review,

 

May, 1984, 54:129-151.

Curran, Thomas J. "Characteristics of the Effective

131

School -n- Starting Point for Self-Evaluation."
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin, October, 1983, 67:71-73.

 

D'Amico, Joseph. "Using Effective Schools Studies to
Create Effective Schools: No Recipes Yet."
Educational Leadership, December, 1982, 40:60-62.

 

Donovan, David L. "Schools Do Make a Difference."
Michigan School Board Journal, July-August, 1982,
29:8-11.

 

Edmonds, Ronald R. A.Discussion of the Literature and
Issues Related to Effective Schools. St. Louis,
Missouri: CEMREL, 1979.

 

 

 

Edmonds, Ronald R. "Programs of School Improvement: An
Overview." Educational Leadership, December, 1982,

Edmonds, Ronald R. "School Effects and Teacher Effects."
Social Policy, Fall, 1984, 15:37-39.

 

Edmonds, Ronald R. "Some Schools Work and More Can."
Social Policy, March/April, 1979, 10:28-32.

 

Educational Research Service. Effective Schools: A
Summary of Research. Arlington, Va.: Educational
Research Service, 1983.

 

 

Eubanks, Eugene E. and Daniel U. Levine. "A First Look at
Effective Schools Projects in New York City and
Milwaukee." Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1983,

 

64:697-702.

Eubanks, Eugene E. and Daniel U. Levine. "Effective
Inner-City Elementary Schools." Social Policy, Fall,
1984, 15:21-23, 26-29.

 

Evans, Robert W. "One State's Approach: Ohio's Effective
School Program." National Association of Secondary
School Principals Bulletin, October, 1983, 67:74-76.

 

Farrar, Eleanor, Matthew B. Miles, and Barbara Neufeld.
Effective Schools Programs in High Schools:
Implications For Policy, Practice, and Research (Vol.
III) Reviéw of Effective Schools Programs Final
Report. Paper prepared for the National Commission
on Excellence in Education, Washington D.C., April,
1983.

 

Finn, Chester E. Jr. "Toward Strategic Independence: Nine
Commandments of Enhancing School Effectiveness." Phi

132

Delta Kappan, April, 1984, 65:518-524.

 

Firestone, William A. and Robert E. Herriott.
"Prescriptions for Effective Elementary Schools Don't
Fit Secondary Schools." Educational Leadership,

 

December, 1982, 40:51-53.

Freder icksen , John R. and Ronald R. Edmonds .
Identification of Instructionally Effective and
Ineffective Schools. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, April, 1979.

 

 

Fullan, Michael. "Change Processes and Strategies at the
Local Level." The Elementary School Journal,
January, 1985, 85:391-421.

 

 

Gersten, Russell, Douglas Carnine, and Susan Green. "The
Principal as Instructional Leader: A Second Look."
Educational Leadership, December, 1982, 40:47-50.

 

Good, Thomas L. "Teacher Expectations and Student
Perceptions: A Decade of Research." Educational
Leadership, February, 1981, 38:415-422.

 

 

Hawkins, Augustus F. "The Efiiective Schools DevelOpment
Act of 1984." Social Policy, Fall, 1984, 15:52-53.

 

Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. Innovation Up
Close How School Improvement Works. New York:
Plenum Press, 1984.

 

 

Howell, Bruce. "Profile of the Principalship."
Educational Leadership, January, 1981, 38:333-336.

 

Jencks, Christopher, Marshall Smith, Henry Acland, Mary Jo
Bane, Dave Cohen, Herbert Gintis, Barbara Heyns,
Stephan Michelson. Inequality A Reassessment of the
Effect of Family and Schooling in Ameria. New York:
Basic Books, 1972.

 

 

Kelley, Edgar A. "Auditing School Climate." Educational
Leadership, December, 1981, 39:180-183.

 

 

 

Kerman, Sam. "Teacher Expectations and Student
Achievement." Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1979,
60:716-718.

Levine, Daniel U. and Joyce Stark. "Instructional and
Organizational Arrangements That Improve AChievement
in Inner-City SChools." Educational Leadership,

 

December, 1982, 40:41-46.

133

Lezotte, Lawrence W. "A Response to D'Amico: Not a
Recipe But a Framework." Educational Leadership,
December, 1982, 40:63.

 

Lezotte, Lawrence W. "Characteristics of Effective
Schools and Programs for Realizing Them." Citizen
Action in Education, November, 1982, 9:1,10-11.

 

Lezotte, Lawrence W. "Climate Characteristics in
Instructionally Effective Schools." IMPACT on
Instructional Improvement, New York State Association
for SuperviSiOn and Curriculum Development, Summer,
1981, 16:26-31.

 

 

 

Lezotte, Lawrence W. Effective Schools Research and
School Improvement Implications. Paper presented at
the Invitational National Conference of Citizens
Participation for School Improvement, St. Louis,
March, 1982.

 

 

Lezotte, Lawrence W. "More Schools are WOrking, But Even
More Can." Social Policy, Fall, 1984, 15:46-48.

 

 

 

Lezotte, Lawrence W. and Beverly Bancroft. "Growing Use
of the Effective Schools Model for School
Improvement." Educational Leadership, .March, 1985,
42:23-27.

Macchiarola, Frank J. "Advocacy by School
Administrators." Social Policy, Fall, 1984,
15:30-32.

Mackenzie, Donald E. "Research for School Improvement:
An Appraisal of Some Recent Trends." Educational

 

Researcher, April, 1983, 12:5-17.

 

MacPhail-Wilcox, Bettey and Jim Guth. "Effectiveness
Research and School Administration -- Both Sides of
the Coin." National Association of Secondary School

 

Principals Bulletin, October, 1983, 67:3-8.

 

Madaus, George F., Peter W. Airasian, and Thomas

 

 

Kellaghan. School Effectiveness A Reassessment of
the Evidence. New York: MCGraw-Hill Book Company,
1980.

Manasse, Lorri A. "Improving' Conditions for Principal
Effectiveness: Policy Implications of Research."
The Elementary School Journal, January, 1985,

 

85:439-463.

Mann, Dale. "The National Council for Effective Schools."
Social Policy, Fall, 1984, 15:49-51.

 

134

McCormaCk-Larkin, Maureen. "Ingredients of a Successful
School Effectiveness Project." Educational
Leadership, March, 1985, 42:31-37.

 

 

McCormaCk-Larkin, Maureen. "Second Opinion: A Response."
Educational Leadership, December, 1982, 40:73.

 

McCormack-Larkin, Maureen and William J. Kritek.
"Milwaukee's Project RISE." Educational Leadership,
December, 1982, 40:16-21.

 

Middle Cities Association. 1985 Annual Report. Michigan
State University, June, 1985.

 

Miles, Matthew B., Eleanor Farrar, and Barbara Neufeld.
Review of Effective Schools Program (Vol. II) The
Extent of AdOption of Effective Schools Programs.
Paper prepared for the National Commission on
Excellence in Education, Washington D.C., January,

 

 

1983.
Miller, Lynne and Ann Lieberman. "School Leadership
Between the Cracks." Educational Leadership,

 

February, 1982, 39:362-367.

Miller, Stephen A., Kathleen A. Sayre, and Deanna S.
Tinsley. "Effective Schools and Educational Change:
Implications for Teacher Educators." The Teacher
Educator, Spring, 1984, 19:2-13.

 

Miller, Stephen K. "School Learning Climate Improvement:
A Case Study." Educational Leadership, December,
1982, 40:36-37.

 

Miller, Stephen K., Shelley R. Cohen, and Kathleen A.
Sayre. "Significant Achievement Gains Using the
Effective Schools Model." Educational Leadership,
March, 1985, 42:38—43.

 

Murphy, Joseph, Richard P. Mesa, and Phillip Hallinger.
"Creating Emfective School Eflstricts: Lessons from
Practice, Research” rNational Reports." American
Education, July, 1984, 20:13-14.

 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation

 

At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.
Washington. D.C.: United States Department of

Education, April, 1983.

Purkey, Stewart C. and Marshall S. Smith. "School Reform:
The District Policy' Implications of the Effective
Schools Idterature." The Elementary School Journal,

 

135

January, 1985, 85:353-389.

Purkey, Stewart C. and Marshall S. Smith. "Too Soon to
Cheer? Synthesis of Research on Effective Schools."

Educational Leadership, December, 1982, 40:64-69.

Ralph, John H., and James Fennessey. "Science or Reform:
Some Questions About the Effective Schools Model."
Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1983, 64:689-694.

Robinson, Glen E. Effective Schools Research: A Guide To
School Impiovement. Arlington, Va.: Educational
Research Service, 1985.

Rubin, Ronald. "The School Effectiveness Movement: An
Educator Asks, Effective For What?" Education Times,
April 19, 1982, 2.

Letter to the Editor. Education Times,

Rubin, Ronald.
June 1, 1982.
and

Rutter, Michael, Barbara Maughan, Peter Mortimore,
Janet Ouston. Fifteen Thousand Hours. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1979.

Sapone, Carmelo V. "A Research Review

Characteristics of Effective Schools."

Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,
67:66-70.

Perceptions on
National

October, 1983,

Joan and Hugh W. Fraser. "What Principals Can

Implications From Studies Of Effective
1981,

Shoemaker,
Phi Delta Kappan, November,

Do: Some
Schooling."
63:178-182.

A Bandwagon

Sirotnik, Kenneth A. "School Effectiveness:
Educational Administration

in Search of a Tune."
Quarterly, Spring, 1985, 21:135-140.
Sizer, Theodore R. "Essential Schools:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
1983, 67:33-38.

A First Look . "

 

Bulletin, October,
Georgea, Marsha Nowakowski, Burnis Hall, Rudi
"School Improvement Through

March,

Sparks,
Alec, and Joseph Imrick,
Staff Development." Educational Leadership,
1985, 42:59-61.

"ResearCh Synthesis (n1 Effective School

Educational Leadership, February, 1982,

 

Sweeney, James.
Leadership."
39:346-352.

"Book Review of Creating Effective

Tomli nson , Tommy M .

136

 

Schools." Educational Leadership, December, 1982,
Tomlinson, Tommy, M. "Effective Schools: Mirror or
Mirage." Today's Education, April/May, 1981,

 

VerSteeg, Linda, Lynn Benore, Mary Anne Marshall, and C.
Robert Muth. Improvement Planning in Elementary[
Schools. Michigan State University: Middle Cities
Assoc1ation, 1985.

 

Viteritti, Joseph P. "Agenda Setting: When Politics and
Pedagogy Meet." Social Policy, Fall, 1984, 15:2—5.

 

Walters, Barbara. "One Principal, Two 'Principals'
Principals' Named By School Board." Kalamazoo, MI.

 

Gazette, August 9, 1985, 81.

Weber, George. "Inter-City Children Can. Be Taught to
Read: Four Successful Schools." Washington D.C.:
Council For Basic Education, 1971.

 

Wood, Fred H., Robert Freeland, and John Szabo. "School
Improvement I s Mor e than School Improvement . "
Educational Leadership, March, 1985, 42:63-66.

 

APPENDIX A

Correspondence

137
MIDDLE CITIES ASSOCIATION — SERVING STUDENTS COOPERA r/vsz. Y

 

PrBSIdent:
Reprinted . With Richard Kiahn, Marquette
perm1381on
Directors:
Odell Nails, Pontiac
517 Erickson Hail William Pearson, Jackson
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 488244034 Executive Director
(517) 355-1720 C. Robert Muth

INFORMATION omv cog:
October 21, 1986

MEMO TO: Principals of Schools Participating in the MCA/Kellogg Project on
Educational Leadership

FROM: C. Robert Muth, Executive Director
Lawrence Lezotte, Project Director

SUBJECT: Research Studies Related to the Project

Over the past three years your school has been involved in a major program of
school improvement based on effective schools and effective teaching research.
This project, funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and administered by the
Middle Cities Association, has been one of the largest programs combining these
two important research bases in the country. The inclusion of principals and
teachers from approximately eighty schools in this Kellogg project, as well as
sixty-six schools in another related project administered by Middle Cities over
a two to three year program represents a very intensive approach to elementary
school leadership and school improvement.

During the course of the project each principal was responsible for fulfilling
certain requirements related to school improvement. Most often this took the
form of some document or product associated with the school improvement process
used in this project. Thus the project staff asked that such things as the
following be sent to the Middle Cities Office: lists of improvement team
members, school mission statements, disaggregated analyses of student achieve-
ment, Connecticut School Interview needs assessments, and school improvement
plans. When you entered the project the project staff asked you to submit the
above data with assurances that data collected by our office would not be
released on an individual school basis to others without your consent. All
reporting by Middle Cities has been by groups of schools.

 

 

Member Districts

Albion Public Schools Highland Park Public Schools Niles Community Schools

Ann Arbor Public Schools Jackson Public Schools Plymouth-Canton Community Schools
Battle Creek Public Schools Kalamazoo Public Schools Pontiac School District

Bay City Public Schools Lansing School District Port Huron Area School District
Beecher Community Schools Marquette Public Schools Saginaw School District

Benton Harbor Area Schools Midland Public Schools Southfield Public Schools

Buena Vista School District Monroe Public Schools Traverse City Area Public Schools
Flint Community Schools Muskegon Public Schools Willow Run Community Schools

Grand Rapids Public Schools Muskegon Heights Public Schools Ypsilanti Public Schools

{-Z-l 138

We believe that much has been learned by both project staff and participants
over the last three years that can be of significant value to other educators.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the program has been the promotion
of research—based improvement efforts both at the classroom (effective teaching)
and at the school (effective schools) level. The development of that strong
research base came about because teachers and administrators around the country
allowed researchers to learn from them. There is more that can be learned
through on-going research into various aspects of this Kellogg project.

The Middle Cities Association encourages your involvement in and cooperation

with research activities designed to help educators benefit from your experiences
throughout the project. To that end we are requesting that you permit Middle
Cities to release project data which exists for your building (such as that

cited above) to individuals who are conducting their research under the auspices
of Michigan State University. Prior to conducting the research each researcher
will be required to seng_each building administrator a letter describing_the
nature of the_proposedlresearch and requesting access to data on his/herbuilding
held byTMiddle Cities. Each researcher will be required to maintain confidenti-
ality in use 0f the data and must conduct his/her research under the guidelines
established by the University. Under those guidelines, reporting of the research
will be done by groups of schools and/or by designations of School A, School B,
etc. . .

 

 

 

 

Please return the enclosed consent form indicating whether you would allow
researchers from outside the Middle Cities project staff access to information
sent in by your school and on file at the Middle Cities office. We ask that
you return this consent form by October 31 so that researchers can proceed.

cc: Superintendents

enclosure
CRM/LL/LAszap

139
RELEASE OF KELLOGG PROJECT INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DATA

PRINCIPAL'S SIGNATURE: ‘ 4.

SCHOOL:

 

DISTRICT:

 

 

Yes,

 

 

 

 

 

 

No,

 

I agree to the release of specific school data collected by Middle
Cities Association which is related to my building's involvement in
the MCA/Kellogg Project on Educational Leadership. The data will

be released on a case by case basis: that is, the researcher prior
to conducting the research will notify the building administrator

in writing of the nature of the research and the type of information
for which he/she is seeking access from Middle Cities.

I do not wish to have specific project data for the building of
which I am administrator to be released by Middle Cities to any
researchers from outside the project staff.

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 31, 1986 TO:

Lynn Benore, Project Coordinator
Middle Cities Association

517 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1034

‘muznhulTNDNl()

\flfl con
\

140

May 18, 1987

Dear Principal:

This is a follow-up to the letter you received from Dr. C. Robert
Muth and Dr. Lawrence Lezotte dated October 21, 1986 relative to your
participation in research studies associated with your school's
involvement in the Middle Cities Association/Kellogg Project on
Educational Leadership. I am a fellow school principal and am
preparing to conduct a research project under the auspices of the
Middle Cities Association and Michigan State University. Your
positive response to the letter from Drs. Muth and Lezotte is
sincerely appreciated, and what follows is a notification of the type
of information for which I am seeking access from the Middle Cities
Association.

The specific data in question are the results from the Pre and Post

Connecticut Survey and the 4th Grade MEAP results from 1982 through

1986. It is also possible that you and other personnel within your

school and district will be contacted at a later date for an on-site
interview. If permission is granted, the information extracted from
these sources will be maintained in strict confidence. No reference
will be made to names of schools or school districts, rather schools
will be referred to as “School A," "School B," etc.

The research project will focus on those schools that participated in
the educational leadership training program and will attempt to
analyze the varying degrees of implementation existing in the schools
at this time. Potentially the results will be useful to participat-
ing schools such as yours, and the Middle Cities Association staff in
their planning for future training programs. The results of the
research will be made available upon request.

141

May 18, 1987
Page 2

The project will be supervised by Professors Brookover, Lezotte,
Muth, and Romano of Michigan State University and will be conducted
in accord with standards established by the university. If you have
any questions about the use of the data or the research project in
general, please feel free to contact me, Dave Chapin, at 517-835-1981
or 517-835-3593.

I am hopeful you will be receptive to the project. Please indicate
your intent on the enclosed form and return in the stamped envelope
prior to June 5, 1987.

Sincerely,

David B. Chapin

Principal's

Date:

142

STATEMENT OF INTENT

Yes, I consent to the release of data detailed in the
accompanying letter. I understand the data will be used
for research purposes and will remain confidential; that

is, schools will be referred to as "School A," "School
B," etc.

No, I do not consent to the release of data detailed in
the accompanying letter.

Signature:

 

 

School:

 

District:

 

143

February 2, 1988

Dear Principal:

During the 1986-87 school year you responded in the affirmative to
the idea of research being conducted in relationship to your school's
involvement in the Middle Cities Association/Kellogg Project on
Educational Leadership. Your positive response has been greatly
appreciated.

The final step in the research project involves an on-site interview.
Your school is one of a small group of schools selected for an
interview and visitation. Hopefully you will be able to comply with
this final request. I will be contacting you in the near future, via
telephone, to discuss this possibility with you.

As you may recall, this project is supported by the Middle Cities
Association and is being conducted in accord with the standards
established by Michigan State University. Potentially the results
will be useful to participating schools such as yours, and the Middle
Cities Association staff in their planning for future training
programs. The results are being maintained in confidence. No
reference is being made to the names of schools or school districts,
rather schools are being referred to as "School A," "School B," etc.
The results of the research will be made available upon request.

I will be in touch soon.

Sincerely,

David B. Chapin

144

March 11, 1988

Dear Principal:

I am looking forward to our visit on Monday, Mardh 21. I plan on
arriving at 8:00 A.M. at School. The basic intent of the
on—site visitation will be to ascertain your perceptions as they
relate to the Middle Cities Educational Leadership Training Program
and the impact of the program on your school.

 

The conversations with you and your staff members will probably last
from 30 to 90 minutes each. If you, or your staff members, are
willing to share materials such as a philosophy statement, goals,
newsletters, handbooks, test score analyses, survey data, etc. then
that, too, would be greatly appreciated.

The on-site visitation is the final step in a research project being
conducted in accord with standards established by Michigan State
University. Potentially the results of the research will be useful
to participating schools such as yours, and the Middle Cities
Association staff in their planning for future training programs.
The results are being maintained in confidence. No reference is
being made to the names of schools or school districts, rather
schools are being referred to as "School A," "School B,“ etc.

Your help with the research is sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely,

David B. Chapin

cc: 4th Grade Teachers (2)
Director of Elementary Curriculum

145

April 21, 1988

Dear Principal:

A word of thanks is in order for your recent assistance with
my dissertation at Michigan State University. I truly enjoyed
our conversation regarding school improvement, effective
instruction, and the Public Schools. You had a great
deal to offer, and I am grateful for your willingness to share
your time.

If I can ever be of assistance to you, please let me know.

Sincerely,

David B. Chapin

APPENDIX B

Connecticut School Interview

146

cowumuaum we acmEpgmamo macaw uauvuumccou
gogua< Fmavuceta
a>ocmppe> .z prance

>0 vooopm>mu >P~m=_mwgo

mwmp —wgq<
mucosvm upmcom use muuo~mu mucmczmu

an vmgmamga

 

o >m<hzm2m4m 0
Zack um~<zzouhmmbo

mmuzm>~humumm Doozum oum~>wm

3HH>mmBZH

Aoomom BDOHBOEZZOO
HEB

 

zoxu omhaoaq

.cofimmeecoo
rue: poocucoom

147

.uumnoca acmsm>osaep poozum on» we pumamu meg» c, auoapuvugma
o» mmmcmcpppv: 520» see :0» game» e: uucm>vm cm .:o_umm=a some on ucoammg o» uaewuum so axes umnmpa

.mg.m:copumo=a as» :_
catapuce no: one: use» ummsmucr so :Lmucou paavv>wuce mo mumgm Ace mmmeocn oa so» avenue ——pz use»
28533 328.5% . p.233 3 2.88.. 3 323.693 23 «>2 :3 so» 2332... 23 Co 25 m5 2

.mcorumumgagmucv ecu mcowuamugma use» :* umumogmacv use a: .cmuu_gz me up we spuumxm copammzc some new:

.3333 woman... 23 5 3:238 3:332;
new: mucmvgoaxm czo use» ease ucoamwg ou ummmgaoucm men so» .m_n_mmoa no: we mpg» axon: .Poogum Lao»
uaonu m~vpogocmm o» nexus on PPP: so» use gmuummem poocum= stances on noanmmu :mmn u>~n mco.ummac

.covuawugma m.a=ocu as» aumpemg ppez appmoga poosum as» ten kugoume

«on men mean: .mmmuoga mwzu smaoggu umgzmmm my suppawucwcvucou sac» .mpvmoga poogom a uuagumcou on
new: on va3 cmzmp>gmucp nevus mpaoma mg» eo p—m Co mco.aawugma m>.uumppou one .ELoe xgmessm cw poogum
g=o>,5ogm sum» a.=mgouamp acmew>ogaew poozum mg» on xumn vmugoamg on FF?) zu>s=m menu seem :ovuasgomcn

 

hzuazoammm mzh mom onH<ZmomzH

]J&8

nous
n.609

30:1
u.coo

30:8
H.609

sons
u.:on

ufiauuuflaa<
uoz
o

omauuauaa<
yo:
0

o~pnu«~aa<
uoz

empauuflaa<
so:
0

.ovuua goose:
we venue. a nu aw
.uupoquHIou can anode
.uzwuun .uooc on
mauvauan “cocoa ugh

n

.uo«>usoa moozuu
can ouuuaauoaa ace
muuaunuauonuou ounc-
vcu oucuunuuua
aucuuocoaov uuauuoa
can coda-humanism-
.uuauu .oucouaum

m

.uonau aooguo
an ovum. oucuvauo
v:- o>uuuaoa madame
icon ow uo«>u£un
Hoozum .oauou as
you nu oaunnuuown

n

.uauau a. on muuusuon
and» you on undue can
.ucouaam .mauvfluan
ousuoa I ma each

n

.nuauvsuu van uuuun
an we «use :uxau nae:
can .mnuoeuo .caouu

.« engages; Hoogua are

c
.Hoozuu

.ucoooua can cauu
iouonoou and avenuouo
icou .huuaupuncbamou

ounce ~qauuc«ua and
mum». wcusuqou 055
c

.hmucouawo:00 ;u«3
afloat ecu acosa
iouucu own meannoua
ocudauuauv moose. val
ncbuunauuouaa Boo»
immauu .ouncuaouua
maauuunuu a». uo«>a:
ion wanna use “bosom

v

.uaoanoua abandon
ucuvsuo gaseous“

oaou one ouosu .uu>u:o=

.ouzuuu Meow humouocow
nucuvauo can uu~9v<
a

.awumoua Hoozuo
0;» saw) oueuuoucd
up: aoov.v:u aqua
saw: nu undue may
luohza ash .cmumu
v:- 0unn Naunuo
meM ed floccun can
n

.mcavausn any uaoscsouau

novooa uua nausea» meow

.cuofiu can euun mum

maauuocom mu Hoosuo 05h
N

.Uuo .ucuan

usuuuoa .vasoumhuua no
\vcu sauna na-uu ounce:

.wc«uao: noon .ucwan
noon nu munch .uoom

heme cu use—a "Iguassu

ecu uo cauuuvcbo 05H
m

osu me new: a: van undue Houuna;a or» no abuuqvcoo "nausea ozu unmuumon .c

.o>«uuoaa:a
.Nwwmmmmwfl ow saga
iuuuachavu ugh
.ocuuauuauv umoa
caved: unusuaoh

n

.couuouu
ioucaava use aouu muse
luauouu ho uuonnan use

lead: u:.~n«ua«u yucca;

anemones .uubuuo vouaa
luvuoou a you ow ou~;h
N

.onnmncoaoou
sauce» on 0:0 02

.uaUu cu u~=u«uuuv um 9H

q

waoozun easy cu ocuanuumwv new mu—uununcoanou awesome 0:: .n

.mucovaun
mo eunucmu

luvs flaws» a by
vouuaou one used
inoua ocuamuuuuv
uncuuvm .Hoozun
us» ca uovuo
Huuucmm ma uum:h

n

.wauvfluaa as“
uaozwaouzu sumo
taco sausage: aura
manoeuucu “accuo
iauuo one ouonh
.oucouuuuou:« ovum
iuao Bouu nuance
nu "cocoa och

n

 

.vouasuuoucu

sauna one nonouuu
can nouuo «Sansone
oauuauuuuv ucwsvouu
.uovuo vumaouucou

we ouuxwp a nu ouogh

N

 

.co«uu:huuc« nouau
as: aucu>o moose. uo
cauunsumuv nauseouu
ecu uopuonuv we once»
a mu muons .uuuousu
>uu> nu cassauu ask

u

.Hoozun mung Cu uuwauuu sensuanuuowv emu onuuomon .N

.»2000 nucuvuoca

nsouoasc can mauvauap ozu
cw ocean on by one. you
nu DH .auuuauomcu mo mew
iguuu “chosen a nu chunk

N

can each
iamsse no: mu doosum osh

.ucuooun

auucaumcbu on: humus»
mauao>£n you choucou
.ouauon aufiuu

u

«nu—MO, Ou OUQHG Ouaufla vs Uwam Q mufiu 0H .F

1139

son;
u.=oa

son:
u.:on

aoax
u.con

nous
H.600

.oo>«uuon
inc ooosu an vouuouuv
oun abuuuauuosa v:-
omaquouax .co«uu:uuo=«
o~n¢u~nun¢ mo ucuoa Hauou ozu one abouooanu uooa opus:
uoz no>uuuonno ovualuoonom oo>uuuonno voququcovn
o n e

.cbauuauuocu

 

Ncbwuusuuocu uNocu ovwsm

.oo>«uoonao
ooosu :0 comes ow
sauna»; och .oocaun

.xuoaoaouu Nouocou
a :o:» ouoa one

 

napauaunn< Nun snacks» enuno oo>uuoofino .uouxo
uoz oo>uuoonno aquuuomm oo>uuoonno uuumuoam
o m a

.Noozuo osu use

icmaouzu cauuouuo>

cuss ow ouogh

.couuozuuocu

oaoo ocusm oo>qu

lounge cowouacoum
m

.cbuuozuuocu acouoooau

new xuoboaouu Houocom

I ovu>oun nuxou Home: .oo>«uuonno ha woods»

van nouns» azasuwuuau mum ma :oNuushuoun
N H

.voua amouuouul uncuuo>
an vacuum a“ nu

cu oo>auuoqno Hocouuuauumcu vouuuo ooozu on: ouozuoou ow uaouxo yon) 0h .9

.xuo:
ioauuu Hmuocom

a oovu>oua Hanan
05h .mouhoo
floods one we anon
on vouuuucovu

oua oo>uuuonno

n

.:o«uu:uuocn new xuoa
io6ouu Huuocom - oou>0un
nouuou Nooon .oo>«uuoe
use :30 no“ on: :uoo
can on: aw nonuoo demon .oo>«uoonno Hauucoscoo
up woman: I one ouosh uo you a mum ow ouosh
N N

Noovoum Han zmaounu oo>uuuoqno Houucosoou .couuupb me you a o>o£ Azuoa ..m.ov moo»: uoaaouuuau unauuo> osu ov Noose. nus» an .N

.ucoaououu oqzu Ou
coo-gun ow. ocONoNo
loo ~aco«uu:uuoc«
Nan: .aoonuo

ounu no cauuuuuou
nausea van zuaaoou
onu >9 vogo~o>

.ocououuoo Noose.
acouuoaau uooa chzon
ounce wau>uuv ocu

 

o~nuu«una¢ ow scuooni no oooauaa ion soon on: one:
an: we ucuaououo oak tune up acoaouuuo <
o n q

A.on«uuoov oncomn .oo» may Naouw0ua HoseauusuuoCN

.Hoosou one mouooauoa
unqdoou o>quuooa

< .wc«cuaod v:-
Aoosoo upon. uuuon

.wcucuwom
ecu Noonoo uses-

oaaouuaaa< iwonsuco vs. uowoo o>uuuooa mauouo
no: 0»: oucovsuo uoox icon one mucovzum
o n e

.wcqnuaod vanaou oovsuwuua ucovsuo so conuuouumuozo

ucosououo
was“ A; eaves»
one occuomuov
floccuuusuuocw nouo
icon sou < .uouxo
ooov usuaououo <

n

.aoumoua

MacauuuauuoCN ozu

co oocoauucu omuuuu

on: a" gas .ououxo mo ucoaououo couuuua

ucoaououo couumu: < .coa: vooqu o: ow ouonh
N A

.oooauaa

 

ozu oocusm umsu Hoozoo ousu ubu oooausa uo ucosououo couuuu: a onus» on .o

.wcucuoou
hem aoouoszuco

 

mmmmww a“ cross “as

.o>«unooou zaaouo
icon own oucovzuo
"vopasuou on oxoou
Hoocuo ouoaaaou
oucovsoo uoo:

m

.wa«:uoo~ :« unoccusw o:
.wcacuaon cu o>wosucou bozo one pouo>uuoa no:
go: om ouozaooaua ogh hamouocow on: oucovaum

N H

Noocoo ounu cu ouosamosuo maucumom ozu onuuuoon .m

15C)

30:;
u.coa

30c:
u.coa

nocx
u.coa
N

 

 

.Ho>o~ opomfllcooo uo .oHHNxo ooosu .Aoow Houocom ouo
uouxo nouonl umsfl uouooa cu vouuoaxo ouduxo ~o>o~ ovouo
oucovsuo NH. uosu ouo mucovauo uool .hvoou one Nona

oHnoowuaa< odfiwxo uo oo>wuuonno can vouuuucovu oh: no ouuuxo voucoo
uoz me you vouuuuaovu n< maauxo Ho>o~ ououu noun own nucovaum
o n q n

Nao>o~ ovouw sumo uo woumws cu wouooaxo ohm mucouauo

 

.mo>«uuoaao .Hoozuo ozu
ooozu an vouuouwv usoswsoucu co«uo
one scuuuauuucu can .GONu iuuo> suns ow ouoch
odouuouox .couuuauuoCN ioauuoca accumoo—o .co«uo:uuoc«
oanoouaaa< we ucwoa Hooou osu ouo umoa ovusm oo>wu oaoo opus» oo>uu
aoz oo>uaoonpo ouuuiuoczum -uofipo vouogucouu iuoqao nououocouu
o m c m

Ncoquosuuocq uuozu ovuaw cu ouuo ouoawcmfi

.xu03oaopu Houocow

 

.oo>«uuonno a movw>0ua Human
omocu co vocab mu .xuoaosouw Nouocom one .oouuoo
acumen; ozh .oovoum a cosy once one Amman oco mo
oanooudaa< ado :msounu uoqxo oo>«uuonno .uowxo anon on coqeauconu
uoz wo>wuuonno uwuuooam oo>uuuonno ouuwuoam one wo>uuoonmo
o . n q n

oven» Han swaouzu a: «0050: case =« oo>uuuonno Houucosvoo .couuuus uo goo a ouozu ow Aw:«u«»3

30:8

 

 

. .Hoow

.~o>o~ ovoumisooo on .oafifixo ooozu Nouocom ouo mauuxo

ououxo hogan: uoaa pouoms cu vouooaxo ~o>o~ ovouu

ounovsuo Han uonu ouo oucovzuo boos .avoou one sozu

oanouumna< unease uo oo>uuuofino can vo«u«ucovu ouo on oquuao voucoo
no: me you vouuuucovu =< onuaxo Ho>o~ ovouo :oua ouo oucovaum

o n e n

.~o>o~

«can» sauna a. auguxo
co nausea: uoc ouo

oucovsuo >cd:

.wcuos

ohm xozu odouuouma

Ho>o~ ovoum ozu .Ho>o~ ovoum :ooo us

ca odauxo wouowa cu vououooa on an manwxo

vouooaxo ouo oucovaum mo you n uoc ow ouoch
N N

Ham umzu mafiuxo mo uoo m ouocu ow ouuo owoawcou ca .NH

.cONuusuuoCN acouommau .vooa oaowuouos

how xuoaosouw Houocom oaouuo> Na vovuam mu on

o ovu>oua ouxou Nooon .oo>«uoonno Na powwow

van novusw azuzouuuau up: nu cauuosuuocu
N N

c« mo>wuuomao ouogu on: muonumou ov acouxo ans) 0h .-

.CONuuauuocu new sue:
roamuu Houocom o ovq>oua

mouuoo Hommm

.mo>«u

loomno :30 now no; sumo
can on: =« moquom demon
uo goose: o ohm ouonh mo now a Do: a" ouonh

N

a

.mcuxooao .mcucououmv ouuo omozmcoa uo mono osu an .oH

.~o>o~

ovoum awozu uo oaauxo
co wcuxuoz uoc ouo

oucovsuo New:

.NCNwa

ouo zozu oHoHuou

in: ~o>o~ ocouw onu .~o>o~ ovoum :uoo u.

:« nuanxo wouooa cu vououool on an oamuxo

wouuoaxo ouo oucovzum uo uoo a Do: ow ouosh
N a

N~o>o~ ovauw sumo um youmma cu vouuoaxo one ousovsuo Nam uozu mmuuxo uwunmaxo ouosu ou< .m

1151

30:3 oNaouNNnm<

u.=on no:

N o

.oNnoNNo>o
one oNNNxo oNooa =N
coNuoanuocd now know
ioouoc oNoNnouoa NN<

n

.oNnoNNm>o oaouon

on concocxo one was
xuNnoNnd :w«; o ono

Nona no oNAoNNo>o
on: couuo umoa vo

rpooc oNoNnouma o£h

c

.oo>Nuoonno
nooa cu oNoNnouna
ouoscovo one

.oNnoNNo>o
ono NNNosm:
=0Nuu=nuch NNNNo
uNoon new covooc
mNoNnouoa och

m

onozh

.oNoNnouoa NocoNqueo :uNa
o>onaEN vN=09 aoanna
Noc0Nuo=nuocN osh
.oNaoNNo>o no: anoNsuon
one nNoNnouwa oaom
.vovooc oN ucoao>0naaN

N

.vouoouno
mNucouNuNcho oN aonwonn
Noc0Nuuanuo=N och .oNno
iNNo>o no: one oNoNnouo:

N

~oo>Nuoonno NocoNuosnuo:N o.Noo:uo oNcu use Annoo an uovoo: one Donn ucosaNsuo was .ooNNaaso .oNoNnonoa o>o£ Noozuo oNsu :N ononooou on .oN

30:8 oNnooNNan<
n.:oa no:

N 0
30:8 oNAIUNNqn<
u.con

N o
30:3 oNAooNNaa<
u.aoa no:

N o

.No>oN ovonu

:ooo no uoNko nouns:
noon ouaovsuo NNo unsu

oNNNxo no oo>Nuooqao
no non voNuNucovN =<
n

.annnnm omega

nouooa cu vouooaxo

 

ono oucovauo ones

can connnacoon one
mnnnna Ho>on ovono

q

NNo>oN ovonm cooo no nouooa cu

.oo>Nuuofin0 ooonu no

vouuoan ono coNuuanuo

icN can oNoNnonn:
.coNuuanuozN no
unwed NoUON osu one

no: oo>Nuuonn0 ovwaiNoozom

n
.oo>Nuuonno
ooonu :0 voooa oN
aonmona och .oovonm

NNo swoonnu uoNuo
oo>Nuooaao UNNNuoam

n

Nmovonw NNo zwzoncu

.c0NuusnuocN soonoooNo

 

unoa ovNam oo>Nu
iuoNno nonnnncoun
q

.xnoaoaonu Nonocom
a cosy once one
oo>Nuuoabo

 

q

.uoNxo
mo>wuuonao UNNNuonm

.Noow Nonocom ono

annnxu no>on guano

.Npoon ono Nos»

mo oNNNxo poucom

Iona ono oucovanm
n

.Noonuo

ocu usoxm:0nsu

coNuoNno> sons oN

ono;h.c0Nuo:nnocN

oaoo ovNam oo>Nu

ioomno voNuNucovN
n

NcoNuosnuocN nNocu oszm cu moNumaozum:

.xnoaosonu

Nonocom a oovN>onn

Nooon och .ooNnoo
Nomon oco No anon
on coNuNucovN
ono mo>Nuuofino

m

.No>oN ovonm
nnonn mutannnxu no man
ixnoa no: one oucovauo

ham: .cho: ono mozu
oNoNnouoa No>oN ovonw
osu :N oNNNxo nouooa cu
vouuoaxo one mucousum

N

.coNuuanuocN soonoooNu
new snozoaonu Nonocow
o ovN>0na ouxou Nooon
can oovNau aaNsoNnnsu

N

.No>oN oven» nooo no
conoumoa on On oNNNxo
no you o no: oN onozh

N

 

vouooaxo ono mucocsno NNo nonu oNNNxo No goo o onozu oN moNnoaosum: cN .nN

.vom: oNoNnouoa

msoNnm> an wostm

oN uN .mo>Nuuonno z:

costm mum oN coNuoannch
N

CN oo>Nuoonno ooocu om: onocuoou on ucouxo umzs ch .cN

.coNuuanuocN now
unoaoaonn Nonocow

o ovN>ona ooNnoo
Nooon .oo>Nuoonno
:30 ouN no: zooo van
on: :N ooNnoo Nomon
no nomad: o ono ono£h

N

.mo>Nuoonno NoNucoaooo
no uoo o no: oN onoch

N

a: Noocoo mNnu cN mo>Nnuonno NmNncosvom .couuNnb no you o onozu mu ooNumaozuoz no mono onu cN .MN

152

ans-unnaa<

oNcoUNNoo<

o

ans-unnaa<
“on
o

902

.novooN
nocooou ocu non

 

oono NuNnoNnm cuNc
o o« ouch .novooN
nocuoou ocu nc voN
nooao>oNcoo neocono
v:- o0Nuo=nuooN nod
..onooooo osoNoooooNc
NolnouoN v:- qunou
nooovonu on. onoch
n

.mmauuooa

ooocu :« o>Nuoo oN
novooN nocuoou och

.ooNuuonnooN oooooNo
on onocooon cow:
omoNuooa on. onoch

a

.ucoao>0nnaN Nd
IcoNuosnnocN oooo
ioNv on omoNuooa
Nuance coNa
NNN) NNNoooNoouoo
novooN nocooou
ocu ac wouoNu
INoN oouuNaaoo o
Hm novooN
nocooou och

m

 

.voccon no noNamon uoo oN
uN uac .nooooN nocooon

ocn Na oouoNnNoN oN
ANNocoNoouoo ooNoooooNn

N

.ucoaoponaaN NoooNu
iosnuooN no ooNooaooNv
ouoaonn no: ooov novooN
nocuoou och .aonwono
NoooNuuonnooN ocu chvnom
ion onocooou mo0au ooNuoo
iNcsaaou Noon on oN onoch

N

Nuaoao>onnaN NoooNuoannooN No ooNoooooNv ouoaono N.uuo .nOnochnoou chvoom .o.NV novooN nocuoon ocu ooov ncouxo nocs 0h .oN

uoz

.NooNuoNna ocu now

 

oono NnNnoNnm cuwm o
ow oNch .NooNooNno
ocn ac uoN noo-
io>oNcoo noovouo v:-
ooNuoonuooN moNonou
iooo oooNoooooNv
Nolnonod oo- Nolnon
uaoovonu on. on och

n

.oonooooo
NoooNnoonnooN cow:

NonNooNna ocu 0n anon

onocuooh .NooNuoNnn
ocu Iona oNco

inovooN NoooNuoanuoaN

vonNNonuooo .uoonno
.nooNu uno> oN onoch
n

.owoNuool
ooocu oN o>Nuoo

oN NooNooNnn och
.ooNuoonnooN ooouoNv

cu onocooou cuNJ

ochuooa on. onoch
a

.uooao>ona
iBN NoooNnuanuo
icN onoooNv on
omcwuooa NanoNCN
no Noanou coNn
NNN: ANNocoNo
Iouoo NoaNooNno
ocu ac voooNnNoN
oonuNaBoo o
MN NooNoana och
n

 

.voccoNn no noN:Mon no:

ow nN uac .NoaNooNnn

or» no voaonanan an

NNNoooNooooo ooNoooooNa
N

.uooao>onoaN
NoooNuuanuocN No coNoooo
ioNv ouoaonm no: noov
NooNooNno och .aonwono
NoooNnusnnocN ocu moanom
ion onocooou wooed ooNnoo
iNosaaoo Noon on oN onoch
N

wocoao>onoaN NocoNnoannocN no coNooouoNv ocu onoaona NonNoann ocn ooov naouxo noca oh .oN

.novooN

NoooNuoonuooN

ocu oN NoaNooNno

och .coNuowoNov

coo ooNnooanooo

cwooncu aNconovooN

NoooNuoonnooN

no oonmoo o moon>

Iona NoaNoann och
c

.nooooN
NoooNuuonnocN
ocu wamwmmmm

oN NooNooNna
och .Noocoo ocu
oN n0uoon o no:
oN van vonNENN
oN nNconovooN
NoooNnoannooN

n

 

.nooooN noonoNooOo no

oNcoNuNnoovN on no:

oN onoch .oNconooooN

vonNaNN ooN>onn oNoooo

oooNno> .NNNoooNooooo
N

.aNuoovoooovoN anon
incl NocoNuoanuooN cow:
Nooo unocoooh .ooNu
loonuooN non aNconovooN
vouNNonuooo oo oN onoch

N

.Noocoo oNcu cN aNconovooN NoooNuuanuocN oanoooa .NN

153

30px oNcooNNqa< .onoa no
u.:oa uoz nIoN I ooaau noon .nooN I ooaNu oonch .noom o oonah .nro: a orcc .onoo> can >no>o ooco
N o n c n N N

N30» cuN) oooowou:0o :oNuI>nooc0Inoom I :N owom:o A.uno .nonochnooo chroox .o.Nv novmoN nucocon ocn moor coneo Jo: .cN

30:1 oNcIUNNnm< .onol no
u.:0n no: nIoN I oolNu noon .nooh I oolNu oonch .nooN I ooNah .nooN I oooo .onooN can Nno>o oooo
N o n e n N N

Noah cuNI ooconoucoo :oNuo>nooc0inooa I :N omomco NooNoan: ocu ooov :ouuo 30: .NN

.ouoonou;co

 

 

tune: I ma
vonoNNou IN INIJNI .:0Num>nooco
:0NnI>nooco ad .:oNuo>nooco cqu cooo aoNNou .:o>Nw on was
.oooononoooiona aoNNON oooconou:0o ooocononoooinoom anew oaoo :N xuocvoou .NNNIanoncN a: :oNNon
I uI :oNnI>noI Iuoom .oooNn .oaNu :oNuoanoaco vow vo>nowco oN com No8 v:o mEoonomoNu
ico coIo No nooou ioenooco nou oaNu :I now onconno iooN < .ooNnI>nooco :n o>nooco an :N moono
30:: oNcIoNNao< ocu :IN: nocooou I omoonnI nocuoou woe nocooon vow on0uoc unocooon nanoucN NooNooNn: och .:nonuoo
u.:on uoz v:I NIaNuan: och vco Nonwoan: ocw NoaNoann och NNNonocow NooNuan: och NouNoNu 3: oN onoch
N o n a n N N
.Noocoo oNcu :N :oNuI>nooco aoonooINo Noanou NooNoNn o No ouooon: ocu oanoooa .NN
30:3 oNcIuNNon< .ono: no .mmoN no
u.:oa no: nIoN I ooINu noon nooN I ooaNn oonch .nooN I onNnh .nooN I ouco onooz oau Nno>o oooo
N o n c m N N
NaoN No ocoNno>nooco aoonoooNu Noanon oxma AnOuooanooo cum: .o.Nv novooN nocooou ocn moov :ouuo 30: .NN
30:3 oNcIoNNaod .on0I no
u.:on uoz nIoN I oolNu noon nooN I ooaNn oonch .nooN I ooNzh .nooN I ooco onooN can Nno>o ooco
N o n a n N N

Nsoz no mcoNuo>nooco 800nooINo NoanON oxoa NoaNoan: ocu moov noun: :0: .ON

$154

3o:c
u.:o:

30:3
u.:oa

30:1
n.o0:

scan
n.:o:

.IonouInnI
NI:0Nuo:nnI:N
on :0NuINon :N
InocoIou an3 IcIN:
IoIIIoINv NoocoI
och .NNnINomon
oNcIUNNnmI IcINn I3oN>on v:I
uoz IonNacon NoocoI och
I n

.Inocuoou v:I
Inoovono an3 Iuqu
icoo NIanou:N NEE
onIl NIANooNn: och
.NoocoI ocu v:50nI
uncounnaan uNnnun> nnzon:
uoz IN NIaNuann och
o m

.oo:o
inou:0o :oNuopnoIco
Ion: ocu :N vo:NInou
iov IoooN ocn Io>No>
I:N NNNIII: coocvoon
oNcIUNNnnI och .:0Nuu=nnI:N :0
no: IN INIIcIBo :NIB och
o n

Nfibdul>h0030 BOOHOQQHU Q hfluwfl

.ooconouooo
:0NuI>noIc0ion: ocn
:N vooNanouov Iooou
ocu Io>No>:N NNNI
loo: coocvoou och

oNcIoNNooI .:0Nuu:nuI:N :0 IN
:0: INIIcaao :NIE och
I n

v:I Icnmconnm

.coocvoou
Io>Nm NNNocoNI

IIouo v:I NNnINawon
:ocu I3oN>on .I:IN:
IonNocon NoocoI och

q

NooNNNo .vcsonw
iNIN: .IINnonoqu

..o.Nv NoocuI ocu :N

IcoNnIooN oNNNoooI
II oNcNIN> NNnIN

iowon v:I NNuoooconN

IN NIINu:Nn: och
e

.vouooI
ion: no voII=oINv

NNNIno:om onI nooa
io>onoaN noN IIonI
.:0Nu

loanuocN :o NNNnIa

iNn: IN cuocvoou och

I

.voncoIon: no voIIoo

iINv NNNInooom onI

ucoao>onoaN non IIonI
v:I Icnm:onnm

IEHU
loanquN :0 NNNnIa

iNn: IN coIcvoou och

q

NcoNnI>noIco BoonIIINo I

.I:IN:
oIocu I3oN>on
Nwmmmmmmmmmm v:I
ch::IN: IonNoa
ion NoocoI och

n

.Noocuo ocn vcoono

:ooI NNNocoNIIooo

IN NIINuoNn: och
n

NCOUWO 30:

.oI:oI NInocow
I :N :oNnoannocN
:0 Iomooou NNNI
loo: :oNuI>noIco
InIo: och

n

.oocoI NInocom I
:N :oNuoonuIcN
:0 Iooooou NNNI
ioIa :0NnI>noIco
iqu: och

n

nonNI ovN>ona NocNo:Nn: ocn Ioov :oNnoanoNcN no

.I:IN: I3oN>on no

IuooNNoo mmmmmm uoc

.nINxo on IcNoooN:

Iuooaxo Noocuo och
N

.NoocoI ocn vooonI

NflmmMMNMMMdN :ooI

IN ocI\o: .ooNNNo

ocn :N vcoon oc :onno

qua :Io NIINu:Nn: och
N

.IsIN: NISNuosnuI

iIN nouNool no onNoc

ion :0: Ioov NoocuI och
N

.IcoN: :oIIoN chcnoocou IoNoNNo: no IncoaonNouon I.Noocuo ocn oanoIoa .wN

.NoocoI ocu v::onI oNcNIN>

no: IN NIANo:Nn: och
N

Nonocz NNoocUI ocu vcoonI :ooI NIINuan: ocn IN .NN

.:oNuo:nuI:N :o
IaooN mmm Ioov :ouuo
coocvoom .ouo: I no

:oNIIIIINv cmooncu coIc

ivoou NIno:ou IN onoch

N

ovN>0nn NnOnI:anoo: coo: .o.Nv novIoN nocooon ocu Ioov :ONuIBnoNcN n0

.:oNno:nUI:N :o
IIION mmm Ioov :ouuo
coocvoom .ouo: I no

:oNoosoINv cwooncn coIc

ivoou NIno:om IN onoch

N

.:oNuI>noIco

:I nonNI coocvoon

o: no oNnuNN IN onoch
N

cuocvoou mo onNu Doc: .oN

.:0NnI>noI

ico :I noun: coIcvoou

o: no oNuuNN IN onoch
N

coocvoou No oozn Doc: .mN

155

.u:olo>oNcoI NoocoI

.INIII an3 INNao No ononoN: Nonocow

.on quu ouononoucN I now on NuNoqu .IuIv ocn
v:I I3oN>on NIINoan: cuN3 InNoIon I3oN>on no :0NIoouINv no .:0Nnouon:non:N no I: .InNaoon noon
och .ucoao>on:IN aonu NMMMMMMMH NIINuan: ININNI:I oNunNN IN i3oNNoN o: cuN3 .IuIv ocu voannIchuI vnI30u
ion: nan InNIIon noon och .NouoI: vco onoch .NuInI ocn unooon NI: NooNo:Nn: och ovauNnuI o>NuImoo I
«0 oo: v:I w:N:Iol Nouw:N:Ioa noc3oaoo 0n IoNooon noon .InNooon noon NoocoI :nN3 IN onoch .ININNooI
30:3 oNcIuNNoa< ocu :0 INIIcoao cool II IINoIon oaoo Innoaon NNNIII: vo:nou:0o no voqunonoN IonooI quu IowInooo
u.:on no: IooINI NIoNooNn: och I3oN> NooNo:Nn: och NIINuoNn: och NNvNNa IN NI:N0:NnI och iINv NIINuoNn: och

N o n I n N N

Nu:oao>onoaN NocoNnoonuI:N :N IINIIon nIou No oI: v:I woNcooa ocn :o ooIN: NIINoan: n:ca Ioov ncho3 case 30: .Nn

.:0Inoa otnooo

.:0Nnu:nnI:N ion NoooNnuonquN
now :0Ino: oonooIon noonnoolN :I no: IN

u:Inno::N :I IN novIoN novIoN nocooou ocn .oooooosoonNo

nocuoou och .novIoN uoc .novIoN nocuoou no :oNuoonNI

nocoIon ocn ronu ocu cuN3 :oNuoonuI NINuooo oaoI on

30:3 oNcIuNNno< NNuooooonu ncmooo IN i:N nooco I:oNII:o vouINon NNNIII:

u.:09 uoz ooN>vI NI:oNuu=nnI:N iINv onI onoch .NNNI:oNIIooo NNonIm no>o: no aovNoI Nno>
N o . n I n N N

NooNuoanuIIN on :0NuINon :N N.uno .nonochnoou chvIoc .o.Nv novIoN nocoIou nION mo ooN>vI no :Noc ocu 3ooI :0» av aconxo uIc3 0h .0m

.:oNu .:0Ino: oonooo
soonquN new :oIno: ion NI:oNuu:nnI:N
oonsoIon u:Iuno:aN u:IunooaN :I no: .oucounaoonNu
:I IN NIINuan: och IN NIoNoan: ocu uoc no :oNuoouNI
.NInNuoNnn ocu :onu .NIINo:Nn: ocu cuN3 NINuoII oaoo cu
30:3 oNcIuNNIII NNu:o:conN ucwooI IN :0NnoonuI:N noocI vonINon NNNIoI:
u.:0: uoz ooN>vI NI:0Nuo=nuI:N I:0NII:oINv onI onoch .NNNI:0NIIouo NNonII no>o: no aovNoI Nno>
N o n e n N N

N:0Nno:nnI:N cu :oNnINon :N NIQNuan: nooN No ooN>vI no :Noc ocu 3ooI ION ov n:ouuo Inc) 0h .IN

1136

.NquI

ocu now IoNuN>NuoI u:oa
iooNo>ov NNouI uoNnoBOn:
v:I IoNuNcuunooao woN
iu:InnI .IoonooIon NIN
inoooI :N opNnoI Nno>

IN novIoN nocquu och

n I

30:3 oNcIoNNoo<
n.:o: no:
N o

.:0Nuo:nuI:N o>onoaN
on NoocuI ocu :N
InocoIou now IoNu
IN>NnoI IcoaooNo>ov
NNIII Ionoaon: no
Iom:InnI NNnINsuon
novIoN nocoIou och
e

NI:0Nno:nnI:N 0n :oNuINon :N ucoaooNo>ov NNIuI om:InnI n0 ouoaon:

.Nnouo 0:»

non IoNuN>NnoI u:ol

iIoNo>ov NNIII IoNuoaon:

v:I IoNuN::nno::o

Ion:InnI .Ioonoooon

30:3 oNcIoNNxNI u:Nn:uoI :N o>NuoI

n.:on no: Nno> IN NIoNoan: och
N o n

Nn:oao>onaaN NoooNuosnuocN on :0NnINon :N ucoanoNo>ov NNIII owconno no ouoaon: NIINu:Nn: ocu Ioov ncouxo nIc3 0h

.ucoao>oNcoI u:ov:uI

noN oNcIu::oqu Noon

Inocooou NNI .n:ol

io>oNcoI noovouo on

Iona-non an Nunnnn

iNI:0:Ion nNocu Ino

IcoIoo NI:vN>Nv:N on

30:3 oNcIoNNao< IonIuN::aaoo NNnooov

u.:0n uoz ionu NIINuan: och
N o n

.:oNuuonuI:N o>onaaN
on NoocuI ocu :N
Inocqun nou IoNu
iN>NuoI n:oa:oNo>ov
NNouI Ionoaon:
no IowconnI NNnIN
iomon NIINooNn: och
I

.INIIcoao
INcu No nNIIon I II

oNcIn::oqu NNNIno:ou

Noou Inocooon NIIvN>

inuan .Nuanuana

ocn no NuNnoNn: I IN

ncoao>oNcoI ucovouo

non NuNNNcNocooIon

.Inocooou NI=vN>NvoN
a

.NoocoI ocu :N
:oNuoonuocN o>0nn
IBN 0n IoNuN>NuoI

oNuNoooo w:Nuoaon:

:N InocoIon an3

I3no3.NwmmmmMmmmwm

novIoN nocooou och
n

N.ono .nouI:anoou coo:

.NoocoI ocu :N
:oNuosnuocN o>on:
IaN on IoNnN>NuoI

oNNNuoII woNuoaon:

:N Inocuoou cuN3

I3no3 Nwmmmmwmmw

HmM.NI:No:Nn: och
n

.nNoIon I II INoN
IN NuNNNcIncooooI
oaom .u:o3o>oNcoI
n:ovonI on
:0NnINon :N oooIa
inowno: nocoIou
IoIIIoINv :on
two NIINo:NnA och
n

.NoocuI ocu :N Ino
IcoIou now nooao>onaaN
NI:0Nuo=nuI:N on
vouINon no: onI NNNI
loo: IaInmon: vouoaon:
och .o>ocI Iona vouIv
iII: IaInIon: Iouoa
ion: novIoN nocoIou och
N

.NoocoI ocn :N InocoIon
n0u ncoao>onoaN NI:0Nu
loonuIIN on vouINon no:
onI NNNIII: Iaonmon:
vouoaon: och .o>ocI
Bonu vouIvIIB Iaonmon:
Iouoaon: NIINuan: och
N

.n:o3o>oNcoI
u:ov:uI now NINNNc
iNI:0:Ion NInooow nNocu
Inocooou NNI on IoINIIcoao
NNNoooNIIooo NIINooNn: och

N

.nooIIONo3ov NquI

omoInnI no ouoaon: no:
Ioov novIoN nocquu och

N

Nucoao>onolN

.o.NV novIoN nocquu ocu Ioov acouxo uIc3 0h .qm

.u:oa:oNo>ov quuI
owconnI no ouoson:

no: Ioov NIINuan: och

N

.mm

.ucoao>oNcoI noovauo on

:oNnINon :N oocoanON
ino: nocoIou IIIUINv

no: Ioov NIINoan: och

N

Nucoao>oNcuI ncovsno n0u oNcIucooooI Noon Inocooou o3IB NIINoan: ocu Ioov ucouxo uIc3 0h .Nm

i157

.:0NII:0INv n0u NuNoqu

ocu cu IoIIIN NIooNu

IoonuooN .I:Nnc on

Inocuo Iomonooooo no

.IuoNnc NNuoouINIIoo

NINNooNn: och .u:N

Inool NuNoqu coIo No

30:3 oNcIoNNIII Iooou NnIaNno ocn onI

u.:0n noz IoIIIN NoooNuoanuIIN
N o n

.voquanooo

NNo3 v:I vonN:Imno IN

:Inmon: och .IovInm

:oo3uoc v:I :NcuN3

:Inmon: NI:0Nuu:nnI:N

ocu ouI:anooo 0:

30:3 oNcIoNNoo< nocnoIOI 3no3 InocoIou

u.:0: no: v:I novIoN nocoIon och
N o n

:oo3uoc v:I :NcuN3 IInwono NI:0Nuu:nnI:N ocn N0

.vonIIanooo NNo3 v:I
vosN:IIno IN IInI
ion: och .IovInI

:oo3uoc v:I :Nan3

aInmon: NoooNu
loonuooN ocu onI:
ianooo ou nocuou

30:3 oNcIuNNno< ion 3no3 Inocquu
u.:on uoz v:I NIoNo:Nno och
N o n

.IvoomI vo::IN:
ocu No onI: mmmmm
onI Noch .IwoN
iuool NuNooIN nI
NIINuoNn: ocn Nc
vonInoIII IcoNoooo
iINv no Iooou ocu
mmmmm onI Ioao

iIN NIIoNuoonquN

I

.:0NuI:anooo

:N ooNuoI no:
IN novIoN nocoIou
ocu Inc .NNIno>o

vouI:anooo IN Bonn

Ion: NI:0Nu0:nuI
i:N och .IovIna
wcoaI v:I :oo3u
ioc :oNuooanooo
noN vom:InnI IIc
novIoN nocoIon och

v:I :oo3noc :0NuI:Nv

In000 non vomoonnI
IIc NIIN0:Nn: och
I

.53.. IN 5:.
nNIov onI aovNoI

IoIIIN oIoch
.IvoowI moNuooI
NnNooIN ocu no

onI: II voszu:N

 

 

onI hNNoooNooooo
IoNnN>NuoI
no IooIIN
NI:0Nuo:nnI:N

n

 

.Iooou vo::INm no NIII:
ocu mmm onI InonuIl NI
i:0Nuu:nuI:N .IwoNnool
NuNoqu uI NNNI:0NII000
ouounoI NNN3 Inouuol loonnI:N o>No>:N no>o uN
NI:0Nuu:nnI:N Nonocou aovNoI IwoNuooa NINIIIN

N N

.InounIl NI:0Nu

Nocnoucoo NocoNuuanuocN an3 NIov Ichuooa NuNzoou 0v u:ouxo uIc3 0h .Nn

.oI00N
Nno> IN IN noc
.:0NuI:anooo NIno
Icow oaoo IN onoch
.Iovonw :oo3u

ioc :oNuooanooo
NINucoIIo vo3oNNI
no vomconno IIc
novIoN nocooon och

NINuooIIo vo3oNNI
no vom:InnI

IIc NIINuanA och
n

.novIoN

nocooou ocn N0 uNoIon

I II NNNnIIIooo: :0:
Inc .Iovonm :oo3uoc
n0\v:I :Nan3 :0Nn
..I:.an000 oaoI IN onoch

.vo>No>:N :0: IN
novIoN nocuoou och
.:0NnI:anoou o: no

oNnuNN Nno> IN onoch

I n N N
NIovInm
:oNnIIanooo now omconno N.ono .nouochnooo w:NvIonv novIoN nocoIon ocu Ioov oonmov IIc3 0h .0m
.ooNn
iIIanoou :N o>NuoI .oI00N Nno> IN IN
no: IN NIoNooNn: uac .:0NnI:an000
ocu noc .NNIno>o NIno:om oaoI IN
vouI:an000 IN Bonn onoch .IovInm :N
ion: NI:oNuu:nnI:N ian3 v:I :oo3noc .NINNu:Nn: ocu N0 INIIon
och .IovInw mooao :0Nnochnooo I II NNNnIIIooo: no: .vo>N0>:N

uoc .IovInw :oo3uoc no: IN NIINooNn: och
noNvoI :NcuN3 :0Nu .:0NuI:an000 o: no
iI:anooo oaoo IN onoch oNuuNN hnoo IN onoch

N N

NIovInu :oo3noc v:I :Nan3 aInw0n: NI:oNno:nnI:N ocu No :oNuochnooo now owconno NIINoan: ocu Ioov oonwov uIc3 0h .nm

1J38

.Inocuoou .voNNoaN onI Iuoovono

 

oaoI No onI: ocn .IooNquoooxo ol0I now I:0Nquuoo
.In:ov:uo :0 30N no ouInovoa ouInovol o>Ic iuo 30N .IoNuINnoqu
Mmu.nou Inocquu flwfl uoc .InocoIou qua N:Ix .IooNqu inIco u:ov0uI :0 voIIc .NoocuI ocu n20
30:3 oNcIUNNoo< NNnIo: no onI: ocu No onI: ocu :0 iuoowo cmNc o>Ic :oNuINNIon: II voanuo icw:0ncu 30N NNNInoooI
u.:0a no: :0 IooNquooaxo cmN: I:0Nquuooxo cmNc Inocooou oaom iov onI I:0Nquoooxu onI I:0Nquoo:Hu
N o n I n N N

Nncoao>oNcoI noovonI w:anIwon NoocoI INcu :N InocoIou no IcoNnIuoonxo ocu oanUIov :oN vNoo3 30c .NIno:ou :N .NI

 

 

 

 

.BInw0n: NIcoNu .Iuoovono
loonuooN ocn no nNoIon Inc: now noon
uuoan II INNN3I INIIc ixo oaoI on :NcI
nonIIl :Io NoocoI .Inouoou v:IonwcoIc icoNuINon ocu .IncovonI oa0I n0u ucoa .Inouuou
INcu :N IncovouI NN< oaoc N0 IIoanImon ooovon Ioov aInm io>oNc0I :0 uooaaN oaoo oIocu oaoonooo mmmmmw
.NoocoI INcn :N vonoou INNN3I nIo: woNnon ion: NoocoI och o>Ic Ioov NoocoI och Noocuo och .nooao3oNc0I
ioI no 0: vonnouon iII: IuoovonI quB .u:o3o>oNcoI Ioov .n:o6o>oNcoI noovono noovouI No IonooNanouov
30:3 oNcIuNNao< :NcI:0NuINon ncouNu :N IuNoIon aInmon: ionI IoooooNN:N IuooNNI NNuoooNuN: oaNn: oc o: ucmoocu onI
:oo noz iNcuNI 0: IN onoch NoooNnoonnIoN och v::0nmxooc oeo: inI v:50n:30Ic oaoz In0nqu v:Ionm3oIc oaoz
N o n I m N N
Nn:oao>oNcuI
noovano v:I NIIIIII uNaocoooioNooIv v:IonwcoIc oaoc .Inoovouo :oo3noc :NcIcoNnINon ocn IN o>oNNoc NNNIuNoNu InocoIon ov uIc3 NoocoI INcu :N .oI
.Nooouooaxo
No INo>oN NIIvN>Nv
.No>oN ovInm nNocu .No>oN ovonw nNocn i:N 0u chvnoo .NnNNNcI
II INNN3I oNIIc NNI no INNNNI INIIc ion INNNxI oNIIc noovInI on szvnoooI .nooncou ocn
nouIII on IncovouI nonIIa 0n Incovono nouIII on Incovouo u:o:o>oNc0I No :0Nuoc nooIon: Inocoooh
30:3 oNcIoNNoo< NNI noN oNcNooooI nIoI now oNcNI:0:I NNI non oNcNooooo iNnuINv o>noo Noano: non .NINNNcNI:o:Ion
u.:0a :02 ion onI Inocoooh ion onI Inocquh ion onI InocoIoh oNcNIoooIon onI Inocoooh oNuNoooo 0: IN onoch
N I n I m N N

IQAHHJO DWIQQ USU 5 u§0./O«£UI uCUUDun 0U COHHQHUH 5 %UNHHD«mCON—m0h huflN—u ad O>QNHUD “CON-um mar—u CH Ouflfiuflflu O—v uflg .On

.65. 3.1322
u.8: no: «8: i om n S i 2 n2 . S no“ . 2 non .. o

N o n I n N N

NNo>oN ovonw cooo uI INNN3I oNIIc nonIIa 0n vonooaxo onI InoovouI No owonooono: nIc3 .NNNIINQNh .mm

1159

.30:3
u.:oo

30:3
n.:o:

one:
u.:o:

30:3
“.II:
N

IovInu :N vooNInon

oNcIoNNIII
no:
I

.:INo I.nocquo

.nocoIou ocn ocu No INIIon I II .aocu :0 INNIo
Nc vowoonnI IoNu :noqu: oI:0oIon .Nwwmwmumw nocoIoo .no3I:I On :0
iNoannoooo oI:0:Ion NIIIo NNcmoon I IN ocu uoc .Inocuo voNNIu.Nmmmmmwmmmmm .oNcIuooqu IN INcu
no nocaoo oaII onoch .IooNnIoow :Icn :ouuo IIoN onI Iuoovono oIoch uIco IoNNoaN nocquh
ocu NNouIaNxonooI nocoIou 0u vooao no3I:I IuoovouI .:ouNo IIoN no3I:I .IooNnIoou no3I:I NNonIn
o>Ic Iu:ov:nI mwfl ion IuoovouI qu: I:N>oNcoII3oN In:ovouI I:N>oNcoIi3oN Iu:ov=nI I:N>oNcuIi30N
n I n N N

N:0Nu0:nuI:N Ioonu omnIN woNnav aoonIIINo nooz :N Incovauo nocuo II :onuo II IcoNquoc no3I:I Iucovono w:N>oNcoIJ30N on .mI

onnnonnaa<
:02
I

oNcIoNNIII
no:
I

unnauNNaao
uoz
I

.nooaoboNcoI .Iuoovono
noovouo v:I IaoNcono nocuo :Icu IIoN
ooNNINoINv :oo3noc .Iu:ov:nI icon: ooNNoNuINv
:NcoooNnINon o: No IoNnomonIo NNI onol Nflmmmwwm .IaoNcon: ooNNoNo .Iuoovouo I:N>oNcoII30N
IN onoch .aoNcon: IIonoI vIonoo onI oIoou Incovauo iINv mmmmmmww ucoIono Nc voIIIu onI IaoN
I no: IN o:NN:NoINn IaoNcon: o:NN:NoINa I:N>oNcuIi304 Iuoovono I:N>oNc0Ii3oc icon: o:NN:NoINv qux
n I n N N

Nonoovouo nocuo :Icn IaoNcono ocNNINoINv onoa nooIono NoocoI INcu :N Iuoovono I:N>oNc0I 30N 09 .II

NooNIom unmioo unoioN NnNiNn New I o
n I n N N

NNoocoI cmNc ouoNoaoo on vouoooxo oc :Io Noocoo INcu :N InoovonI No oquoouno: IIc: .mI

 

.vooNIuon
:onvNNco nocno on
nooNI>Nouo hNouI:0Nu .IonI INcu
HMNNMMN IN :onvNNco :N unouno vooooou .uooa .:noo:oo .
oloo:Ni30N no nocao: I IN onoch .vooNIu io>onoaN :ooc IIc No IonI :I mum IN INch .vo:NIuon no>o
ocu v:I vo:NInon . ion on: Inoovouo onocn mum vooNInon .:onvNNco nocoo :Icu IN n:ov:nI o: no NNooNI
onI INNN3I INIIc I:N no Inocaoo NI:oNn 3o: onI :onvNNco vo:NIuon onI :onvNNco ioNouo quaNI vooNIuon
inouIIl no: In:ov:um Inomono NNouoaNxonoo< osoooNi30N onox oaoooNi3oN on0:.Nmmm onI :onvNNco oaoooN 30N
n I n N N

NNoocoI INcu :N
:onvNNco nocuo No nocasc ocu aonu Iconouqu Iovonw :N vocNInon :onvNNco oaoooNI3oN No nocaac ocu IN IIouxo uIc3 0h .NI

1650

30:3
u.:oa

30:3
u.:on

30:3
u.:on

30:3
u.:0n

unnaunnaII
no:
I

Innuennaa<
no:
I

onIIUNNaa<
no:
0

oNcIuNNao<
yo:
I

once n0 :nn
n

Inooc N :Icu on:-
n

.Iooonm NNN3I ooc
vI on IN :0NnoonnI:N
a:i30NNom .noonm

I00nIIINu Ioooomononoc

.ounIN I On IN :0Nn

luanuusN nunonan one:

n

.Iooonm NNN3I ooc vI
0: IN :oNuuonuI:N a:
i30NNom .ooonu Ioon
iIIINu Iooo:omononoc

.oInIN 0» IN :0Nu

luanuoan IINININ ace:

n

:Nn l :OQ ..mQ I ..mm ..Qm I ..ON DMGH ho ..nN
I n N N
3"}
NNIv coIo IoNuIaocqu :0 BoonIIINo n30» :N ucooo IN oaNn cool 30: .II
.N I =ch .H :OQ .H I :HN .H ..ON ..H I .H @QUH ho H30..— H
I m N N

 

NNIv coIo Inn< omoaw:Ic\m:NvIom :0 :00nIIIN0 nION :N ucooo IN oaNu con! 30: .II

.III30NN0N I II
:0NuoonuI:N Iooooom
ioaoc noonu NNIaI coIo now onInIIoI
noooconu IN onocu IN :oNuosnnch
uoc .Iuoovono NNI on .Ioaonm Iooocomoeoc

.IIOnm .osonw
coIo n0u u:onoNqu
v:I ouInIaoI IN :oNu ..o.Nv I:N::0nu NnNNNcI
loonuooN .IIIOnm anon w:0N .uuouno :N
:oNuoonuIIN Ioonm 30N v:I ovaNa NINNNcI Iooocow .:0NnoonuI:N now woNooonw
ownIN oBOI IN onoch .cmNc onI onoch ioaoc o3u onI onoch Iooo:omoaoc IN onoch

I n N N

.chNcuInu

NaoonIIINo naoN :N :oNuuonuI:N uchon nON noon» :oN 0v 30: .NI

.ooiaoNNoN I II
:0NuoonuI:N Iooocom
ioaoc oaonn NNIBI cuoo noN ouInIIoI
n:o:vonu IN onocn IN :0NooonuI:N
Inc .Iu:ov:nI NNI on .Iosonw Iooo:owoaoc

.ooonm

.oaonw .NNIN3oInu

coIo now noonoNqu v:I ..o.Nv moNoaonw NINNNcI

ouonoaoI IN :oNnoonuooN anon m:0N .nuouuo :N
:oNnoonuI:N noon» 30N v:I ovaNB .Iooonu NuNNNcI Iaoo:ow .:0Nuo:nuI:N nou moNaoonm

omnIN oaoI IN onoch .chc onI onoch ioaoc 03a onI onoch Isoooomoaoc I IN onoch

I n N N

 

NaoonIIINo nsoz :N :oNuoonnch IoNuIaocnIx now :30nm :0» 0v 30: .II

161

30:3
u.:0:
N

30:3
u.:09

30:3
u.GOO

.:oNnuonuI:N
NNN3I oNIIc nooaoNn

oNcIoNNIII iooI v:I Ioolcoo
no: IaInuon: no: NNI:
I n

.InocoIou v:I :oNnInn
iIN:NavI Nc vouoou0n:
IN oaNh .vouoonnoncN
oNcIuNNIII NNonIn IN oaNu NoooNu
noz loonuooN NNN3I oNIIn

o n

.:0Nuo:nuI:N NNN3I
oNIIc :0 noouuo
o>Nquo: NIBNINB

I IN onoch .:0Nu
IoonuocN IIINu nooB
ioNoooo NNNInooom
IaInmon: use NNI»

I

.oeNu NNN3I oNIIc
i=0: chnov vo::IN:
onI IcoNnoonnon:N
.oNcNIIo: no>o:oc3
.ooNno: ou:I>vI an3
vonoonnoucN IN NNNI

IooNIIuoo oaNn NI:oNn

noonuI:N NNN3I INIIn
I

.u:oaoN:::I
oaoI v:I onounou
icN IaInwon: osom
.no::Ia acouINocoo
I :N :oNuoonuI
i:N NNN3I oNIIc
nooNuI :0: av
IEInwon: uoo NNI:
n

.IoNNcsoIII

NNcucoa ..w.o

.INIIc vo::IN: I

:0 I:0Nu::nnou:N

ucosconu :0: Inc

nINouon onI onoch
n

N:0Nuu:nuI:N BoonIIINu an3 onounoncN IcoNuaonnon:N ovNIooo ov :ouuo 30c

.IucoauoNNI oaNn
oIocn nauNcoa v:I

ooNI> NIINooNn: v:I

InocoIoh .NIaNo:Nn:

ocu Nc no an3 noI

oNcooNNoo< IN IonI NNN3I oNIIc
:02 cqu :N ofiNu vonIooNN<

o m

.NnIIIouo:

NN vouIINvI no\v:I
vonouNcoa .vo3oN>
ion on: IoNovocom
.IoaNu voquoNNI
mulmmmmm InocoIon
v:I NIaNuan: och

I

.NoocoI INcn

.vo30NN0u.NMMMMMNMN

onI Iu:oanoNNI
osNu vovcoasooom
.oNovocoI NIno
room I IdoNo>ov
NIoNo:Nno och

n

:N vocNEnouov onI

.In:ov:uI :NInnou n0u :oNu

loonquN NNN3I oNIIc cuN3
onomnou:N NNNI:0NII000

IaInw0n: n30 NNI:
N

.:oNn
loonuooN NNN3I INIIc
cuN3 onounouoN v:I
unanINv NNuoouINI:0o
IaInmon: 0:0 NNIN

N

NNoocoo INcu :N :oNnoonuocN NNN3I oNIIc
unoaaso n0 onounoucN :oNuoanuI:N now IIINu nINowon nNocu o>IoN III: IncovsnI cuNc3 :N IoNuN>NuoI BInmon: uoo NNI: 0v u:onxo uIc3 0h .Nm

.vovNo>I oc vNoou
IooNuoonnon:N oIoch
.ouo .Incoaoocoo::I

w:0N .IoIIINo vo:oun0cI

.IoNNcaoIII onI onoch
N

.:0Nno=nnI:N cuN3
onounonoN NNuoooNNN:
inI IooNnnonnouoN
.N..ono .IoNNcaoIII
.Iu:oao0::o::I
.IcNuoNNoc .In0uNIN3
..o.Nv IooNuoonnonoN
noooaonu onI onoch

N

 

InocoIoh

.oo:INN:aou NINnnIm

:N IoNovocuI :oNo>ov
.:oNnInuIN:Nva
ocn Nc :3ov vochc

onI Io:NNovN:w NInoooo

N

:oNnoonuI:N INNN3I oNIIc now osnu voNIvocuoimoNnoo .Nm

.IoNovocoI
:30 nNocu o:Nanonov
InocoIon NIIvNoNv:N

N

IIonI NNN3I uNIIc :N IncoenoNNI oaNu 30c oanumon .On

1152

.30:3
o.coo

30:3
9.:00

.55.

n.:oo

30:3
u.:oa

onIIUINII<
no:
I

oNcIoNNga<
no:
I

oNcIoNNmod
no:
I

.:0NuIn:oIon:

.ou:Ifln0Nnoo
.30Icvoou .o0Nqun:
"nIanON

NInooow ocn 30NNou
Iu:o>o NI:0NuuannI:N
m

.vouoonxo IN
INch .Iuooa:wNIII
ooNnuIn: :0 uuonnou
uno :Icn one: o>Ic
NNMMNNNMH In:ov:um
n

IIoN n0 «IN
n

.ooNuoIn: m:Nn=v
30Icvoou o>Nuoonnou
NI:0NII000 an3
ooNuoIn: u:ov:uI oaoI
NNNIII: IN onocu v:I
:0IIoN ocn In:oI
ion: nocoIou och

I

.nocquu Nc
vo:wNIII IN 3no3
:oc3 :oNquoooxo

ocu IN INch .uoon
inoo IuooEINNIII
ooNuoIn: No Nnm i
«N o>Ic Iu:ov:nm

I

.:0NnIn:oIon:
nonNI ooNuoIn:
u:ov:nI v:I IooNu
iInooIon: nocoIou
v:IonI voIN:Imno
IN :oNnoonnooN
.3n03 noonm
NNIBI v:I ooonm
omnIN No :0NuI:
iNcaoo I IN onoch
n

.Iu:ov=nI NIovN>chN
an3 NN:0 I3no3 no coon»

coIo on :0NnIuooIono
unocI I Io3Ia NNNIII: no
.3no3 ucovonI
ucovooaoch cuss IN onoch

icUIou och

N

.vovoo: :oc3
IovNom nocoIou ocu v:I
oocoovoo :0NuuonuIIN
o:N:nonov v:I nooNoI
Iuoovoum .vonouuonuo::
NNomnIN onI I:0IIoN

N

.IIINo nooN :N Inouoo NNNIoNoNu IN II :0NnoonuIcN oanoIon .on

JAN
inoonnoo vonoN:500
ucoschIII
ooNuoIn: I No
NmNion o>Ic Inoov
iouI .NNNInocoo

m

.noonnoo non
NNouIeNxonaoo onI

nIcn InooachIII ouoN:
1:00 Incovouo goo:

N

 

.uoonnoooN
oIIucoono: chc
I you INI3NI Inoovouo
NII: .onouuoo noouINI
loo: 0: IN onoch

N

N3n03 o0NuoIn: vo:mNIII :0 anONno: NNNIoNaNu IncovaoI 0v 30c .:0Nu0:nnI:N m:N30NNom .mm

Nam i oI
I

Now I IN
n

N3n03 quI u:ov:oaov:N vo:mNIII Incovouo onI :oNuoonumoN NNN3I oNIIc

oNcIuNNoo<
yo:
I

.NNI noN IoNonIoN

on o>Noavoou Nnoo

IN onocoooauI IIINU
.I:0Nu::nINv InIIvIII
MMMINHMM onI onoch

n

.ouINnoonaoo

3IIn IN noN>Ic

,ioc goo: .IooNn

inanINv NnI:NN:No

iINv MMM onI onoch
I

 

NNoocoI

.:oNno:nnI
i:N chnaonINv
:N ncooNNNchI
NNNInooom mum onI
Noch .Iu:ov:nI
Nc I:oNu::nINv
IIINI NI:0NI
iIooo onI onoch

n

NmN i on
N

onoa no new
N

n0u voNsvocoI IN uIcu oaNn ocu No oqucoono: nIc3 .In

.:0NnuonnI:N

IIINo unannon:N

:onuo v:I NNnINauon

noooo I:0Nn::nINv IIINU
N

.ooNuoonquN

noonINv IIcn IcoNuoon

inonoN noovonI u:InI:oo

onI onoch .aoNcon: I

IN o:NN:NoINv aoonIIINo
N

INcn :N IoIIINo m:Nn:v :oNuuannIcN noonINv IucovouI ov ucouxo uIc3 0h .mn

163

30:3
u.:oa

30:3
H.959

30:3
u.:on

oNcIoNNoo<
yo:
0

o:p.u::aa<
yo,—
0

onIIUNNIII
uoz
I

.NoocoI
INcu :N BINooNnnoo
INNN3I uNIIc ocu
N0 onIIIo: vNNI>

v:I ouInouoI Nnoe I

IN lInuon: I:Nquu
voIanIvoouI och
n

NNoocoI INcn no IoNnNnoNn: aoNooNnnoo

.IcoNnIuNNNvoa
aInmono nou IINII
Ion oINNI:I v:I
3oN>on NNcwoonocn
INIINo:Nnn v:I
InocoIoh .Io3Nu
Iuonco :Inmono ocn
onIoNI>o on voI:
NNNIoNuIaonINI onI

IuNIIon quu NI:::<

n

.No>oN
ovInm coIo uI uoN
inoou voIanIv:IuI
NI:::I IN onoch

n

 

.aoNsoNnnoo INNNcI

oNIIc ocu IoconIl

IoIIo quI :N

aInwon: m:Nquu

voIanIvIInI och
I

.Inocqun v:I
NIINo:Nn: ocu Nc
vo3oN>on NNNIoNnI
iaouINI onI IuNII
to: .:0NuI:NI>o
aInIon: No onI:
ucounoaaN :I onI
IuNoIon noon NI:::<
I

.IovInu onI:nonNI :N
chqun voIanIv:InI

NI:::I IN onoch
I

.aaNooNnnsu INNN3I
oNIIc v:I chnIon

voIanIvcouI :oo3u

ioc conIa ouIno
ivoa I IN onoch
n

 

.InocoIou
v:I NIaNo:Nn:
ocu Nc vo3oN>

ion NNNIoNnIEou

iINI onI InNoI

tom .:oNnI:NI>o

EInwono n0u

voI: onI InNII

ion noon NI:::<
n

.aoNouNnnoo
INNN3I uNIIc v:I Inoou
voIanIvoonI :oo3noc :IN
Ino>o NIaN:Na IN onoch

N

INNN3I INIIc ocn onIIIoa InIon voannIv:InI

.UNNNooII no oNnIaonINI

no: IN IuNoIon mo

3oN>om .NI3 NIno:om

Nno> I :N EInwon:

NoocuI ocu onIINI>o on
voI: onI Iquu NI:::<

N

.BIN

iaoNnnoo INNN3I INIIc

ocn v:I aInmon: MIN

inIou voIanIvIIuI oco
:oo3uoc :NcI:oNnINon
o: no oNnnNN IN onoch

N

ocu 0v u:ouno IIc3 oh .mn

.mumflu

o: onI onocn no voI:
:0: IN :oNnIanou:N oIoh

N

.Noocoo INcn :N IuNIIon noon voNanIvconI No II: ocu oanUIoo .wn

.vow:Icu

NNn:o:oonu IIc v:I

0NuIaouINI :0:

IN aInmon: och

.vononIN:NavI onI

Iqun voIanIv:Inm
n

.:o>Nw oc

 

no::Io aInmon: m:NIIon

ocu N0 :oNuoNnquv
I Inc .vonouINcNavI

onI Iqun voIanIv:Inm

N

.aInmon: chqun

ovN3iNoocoI 0: IN onoch

N

.Noocuo INcn :N aInwOn: chquu voIanIv:InI ocn oanqun .Nn

161i

30::
u.:o:

30:3
n.:oa

announnaII
uoz
I

announnaa<
MO!
I

oNcIUNNoo<
no:
I

.:oNuu:nnI:N

ouINnnonaoI oanoI

ion: v:I oIoouINv on

v:I 30Icvoou noovauI

oNuNooAI o>Nn on

voI: IN :0NuIlnonoN
n

.ouo .Inoou INoo

v:I nonooco .IoN:
iaII 3no3 u:ovouI
.IuINN cooco NnonII:
.I.hzu ovoNooN

oIoch .IIonwon:
noovouo 3uoco

 

cu NNNIoNnIaouINm

voI: onI Ivocuofl

u:oaIIoIII oNoNuNox
n

.o0IN:
Io3In woNnIou NNN3I
oNuIaonINI v:I noon:
ionn .uN:: NI:0NI
noonnI:N coIo I30N
inOn menace» NNIII

n

.IuNIIon
:0 voIIc voNquos
nIc3oaoI IN :oNu
ioannI:N .30Ic

ivoou o>Nm an v:I .I:0IIoN soon
Iooonm aoonIIINo iIIINo Nonooom
now I:0IIoN :IN: 0n v:I .Iooonm .IovInu IuoovauI
:IN: on voI: I:NvInI noN voI: moNcol v:I moNvInI nou o>NI 0n NNNnIaNn:
IN :0NnIan0u:N IN :0NuIan0N:N voI: IN :0NuIInouoN voI: IN :oNuIlnou:N
I n N N

NaoonIIINo nION :N m:NnIou INNN3I oNIIc aonu vooNIuco :0NuIan0ucN ocu oI: ION av 30: .No

.IIonmon:
ucovonI 30ocu
on vonouINoNavI .IIonm0n: .vocnoa
NAMMMNNMW onI Iqun NNN3I 30ocu NIII: ocu IN 3no3
IN:: v:I nouaIco on NNNoooNIIooo NNNIv .InoovouI moN
.woNqun voooo voI: onI InIou iuoonnoo .NNNIInoNoN .ucoaIIoIII
InouoniooNnonNnu nN:: no nouoocu vo3uoco IN IIonwonm oNnIaonINI 0: IN onoch
I n N N

NINNN3I INIIc :N IIonwon: ucovouI IIoIII MNN av 30: .N0

.IIonI NNN3I
oNIIc :N m:Nquu
.IIonI NNN3I NNN3I voINNIanoN

oNIIc ocu :N oaoo IN onocu .voNno: chcnIa
ncoaIIoIII NNN3I Icu:ol 03a Nno>o coIo no ooov IN ncos .ncoaIIoIII
NNcn:0a IN onoch NNouIBNxonoo< iIIoIII NNN3I NInooom < oNnIaouINI 0: IN onoch
I n N N

 

NINNN3I oNIIc :N IncovsnI noom No IIonw0n: ocu IIoIII 30N 0v NNncoaconN 30: .oo

1135

30:3
u.coa

30:1
u.coa

aces
I.Ioa

INnIINNIII
IO!
0

IIIIIIIIII
Io:
I

«IIIIINII<
go:
I

.aIIona NIcoNuuaIuI
IIN I.Noo:II Isa
IqunIII INI>NIII
IIIII Isa .IIIIIII
no IquIIIIII

:INs I IIN>NI>IN
IIIII NoozquucIIII
I>NuII :I IN IIInh

n

.IINIIOII NNNxI
Io: II III :oNu
nuaIuIcN IIINIIOII
-II InNIIIIIn v:I
IIocwINv II III
xIIAIIIu IIIIIII
INNNIIII I>Nm
II III: III Ihmo

n

.NoonuI Ina uaozmaoIcu

 

IIIII NNNxI INIIn

NNI IN III: III IIIII

IIIIIIINIIIIINIIINIU
n

.IuI .IaIIonn NoozuI
IINIIIIOII .chINII
nvcsu IIINIIN

Nmm IINuN>NuI<
.vI>No>:N III

IIIIIII III: .coNu
-IINIIIII IIIIII
I>NIII :I IN IIIsh

a

.IIOIw

Isa ION IIIIIIII

NIcoNuIIIuIcN

uxII Ina IINI

II III AIIIIIB

IIIIIII ION xuosu

II III: III Ihxu
I

.Noozuu Ina
usozwIOIcu II: :N
IIIII NNNxI INIIn
mmw IN IBIIIOII
emu III III£H

I

.NINIoI
zNqua IN
v:I IIIIIII uo
ImIIIIIIII NNIBI
I II>N0>=N
IN .coNuII
uNcImIo IIIIII
I IN IIIsh

n

.coNuIIIIIIN IIIII

>IIIIII III xIIzu

II III: III Ihmu
n

.NoozuI Isa
usocm30Izu IIII
IIIII uImaI «mm

cN III: III Ihxu

n

Io: IN IN

.I>NIIIIN INIIIIN

IN v:I IIIIIII :IN I

II>No>IN IN .IIINxI

:oNuIINcImIo ucIIII <
N

.vIvIoIII

v:I vauIzu NNIIIIINI

:coucN IN NIIIII:
.II: INuIaIIINI I

IN III: Io: IN chuIIu

IIIIIIIIIIIIONIIINIU
N

.aIIIOIn INHIBIIIII I
.IEIOIIIINI
Io IIvIIu osu II Inc

IN II: qu IBOI IN IIIsh

N

.IuINII
:oNuIINIIon IIIIII oz
N

.NoocII INnu no :oNIIuNchIo ucIIIa Isa IANIIIIO .no

.Ihmu oc III IIIsh
N

wchuIIu IIIIIIINIIacoNIIuNII mo IINIIII Isa II: no» II no: .:II>: IN .II

.chIIIu IIIIIIIIII
ucoNIIuNII on IN IIILH
N

wNoocuI INLI IN IIIII NNNxI INIIA cN EIImOIa chuIIu IIIIIIIIIIIIONIIINII I IIIcu IN .mo

166

A.III .IIIII IINIwII

.IININp NooIII

.INNII IIIII .IIIIIIN

IIIII IIINIJ.IMNIN>

IIOI .I.IV IIIIIIII

III IIIIIII II III:

IIII INIIINNIII III IIIINIIIII IIII

I.Ion I02 IIINIIaBoI INININII
N o n

IOII INIIINNII<
I.Ion Io: NooN I No
N I n

.IIIII>INIII IIIIIII

IIIoaoII IIII IIOIII

IIoIIII NIIIII III

IaaI I IN II>No>IN III

IIIIIII III: .IIIIIII

NIOIII III mINIIoI

IIII INIIINNIII IIII IN II>No>IN
I.Ion III MNIIIINI III IIIIIII

N o n

 

.IIIIIII III

IIIIIIII AI IIIINININ
III IIoIIII INNNIIII
III INNII IIIII III
IIIIIIIquu .IINI
IIINISIBII NIIIIIIN
III NIIIoN IN IIIIH

I

.IaoI IIII

IIIOI NIIoNI
Iquo IIIIIII III
ImIIIIII .IIIII
IIIIIOI IINIIIIII
II INNIIINII

IN IONIIINIIaBou

n

IIII IaoI IIII IIII
IIoIII III IIIIIII IN
IONIIINIIHEII AIIINII IIH

.IDNIIINIIBEOI

IIIINI INIINN AIII IN

.IoNIII MINIIII
.IoNIIINIII
IIOI IIIIIII IIIIII
II II INIINN IN IIIIB
N N

.NooIII INII IN IIIINIIIEOI IIIIIIII III IIIIIII IIIII IN III: III IINIIIIQ .II

new I In
I

was I Nn
n

Ron I IN NmN I o
N N

MIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IINIIIIII III IIIIII IIIIIII .IIIIIIII Iaoz Io IwIIIIIIII III: .NI

.IIIIIII

IIII IIIaI>No>IN
IIIINI IIINaNN III
.IIoIIII NIIIIIw IN
IIIIH .IIoIm IIIIII
I>NIII II IN IIIIH

I

.IaIIm
IIII NIOIII III
IIIIoIIIIIo .IONI
IIINIImIo NIEIOI
III IN II>No>
IIN III IIIIIII

n

.IIIIIIII
IIIIIII ININIIII

IIIII III IIoNIIIIu
NOOIII IIIIINA II .IINI
IIIaI>No>IN IIIIII
NIIINIIIII IN IIIIH

III we IIIBI>No>IN
INIINN sII> IN IIIIH
N N

NNIOIII III II II>No>IN IIIIIII III IIIIII III: ch .II

1657

III:
I.IoI

n.609

IOII
I.Ion

.65.
I.IoI

scan
I.=oI

III-IIIII<

 

Ioz <
I n
INIIINNII<
Io: NooN I No
I n
.IIOI II NIIII IIIIIOI
III II IIIIIon III:
IIIIIIII III IIIIIII
.IINNOI IIoaIaoI III II
INIIINNII< I>NIIIIIII III IIIaI
Ioz NII> III IIIIIII
I m
.IDNIIIIININIII III
III IIIIIIII NI
IIIoINIofl IN AINNII
IIH .IIImNIII
ANIINIwII IN
INIIINNII< IIoaIeb: .IIINII
Ion hINNoI IIIINI) I
I n
INIIINNIII .IIIIIIOI III:
II: III! IIIIIII III:
I n

ROI I IN
I

NmN I Nn
n

a m
N N

N. .n .u .n .< .aIIINI wINIIIw III wINI: NIIIII INII IIIINI>I INIoa IIIIIII IINII 30% II 30: .NN

New I IN NnN I o
N N

NIIIINISII IIczIEOI IIIuNIII IINS NOOIII oI Iaou NNIINIIII IIIIIIII no ImIIIIIIII III: .NN

.IIIJIBOI mIN
IIoINIoa IN INOI
INIII IIIIII
III IIIIIIIIII
IIIIIII III:
.NINNoI III)
IIaoI III II>NII
III I>II IIIIIII
I

 

.IIIINA

Iabu IN II03IIOI

IIIIIN II IIIOIII
.IIIIIIII III Io

I>NIIOIIII >NNIII
III» III IIIIIII

n

.IIoaIBOI

IoINIoI II IIIquI IIII
IIII NMNVIIIIIII IIOI .INoI
.IIIII IN .IIoaoaoI IIIIII IIIIINIIII II

IuNIII IIIIIIII IIoa IN IIIII III IINNII
IIII IIIaI III IIIIIII NIOIII mm IN IIIIH

N N

NIINNII IIoaIaoI NOOIII III IN INOI .IIIIIII III IN III: .INIIINNIII IN .NN

.IIIIIIII
NNI oI IIIwNIII
INIINIIII IN

JHO3USOE .Ounwlfl

IINNII IIIINI: <
I

.OHUQUSOU 30% I

III: IIIIIII III:

I

.IIIIIIII
IIoB II IIIMNIII
NNNIINIIBIIIII
III INIINIwII

IN IIoaIBOI III
IINII III IIoI
IINNII IIIINID <

n

.IIIIIIOI IIIE

IIIE IIIIIII Iaom

m

.IINxI IOI IIoI
AINNII Io aIIsz IIND
INocIuI I III .IIIIIIII
NIIIN>NIIN NI IIIMNIII .IINNoI
IIIII IN IIoaIaoz NOOIII OI IN IIIIH
N N

.IIoaIEOI Io mINNOI I.NooIII INII IINIIIIQ .oN

.IIoNIIIINI ININII IN

.IIIIIIII III I INNIIII III IIIIIIII

IIII IIIIIII III I IIIIIIIIIN III IIIIH
N N

NIIINININ IIIIIIm OI IIIIIIOI IIIIIII III II IoNIIoIoII III) .IIIIIIIIIOI IIIINININ NOOIII NIEIOI IonIn .oI

APPENDIX C

On-Site Interview Format

168

TAPE #

 

SIDE:

 

DATE:

 

SCHOOL #

 

PRESENT POSITION OF PERSON BEING INTERVIEWED:

 

POSITION IN 1983-84:

 

LEAD TEACHER ?

l.

 

INTRODUCE MYSELF

A. School principal with Midland Public Schools
B. Conducting a doctoral study in conjunction with Michigan
State University

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY

A. Follow-up to Middle Cities/Kellogg Leadership Training
Program.

B. A small cross section of schools selected for an on-site
interview

C. Seeking to find out what has happened at your school
since 1982—83, the varying degrees of implementation,
the basic impact of the training program on your school,
and the facilitators and hindrances in the implemen—
tation.

D. All findings will remain confidential (this is school
#1, etc.)

E. The findings will be used to further effective schools
research and to help in planning future leadership
training programs

F. Your cooperation is appreciated

DESCRIBE, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THE NATURE OF YOUR SCHOOL'S
INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT EFFORT.

For examples: 1 mission statement, 2 school improvement
team, 3 regular test score analysis, 4 needs assessment,
5 focus on teachinglearning process

169

WHAT IMPACT HAS THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT EFFORT HAD ON YOUR
SCHOOL/IN YOUR CLASSROOM?

For examples: 1 monitoring pupil progress, 2 clear/focused
goals, 3 home school relations, 4 safe/orderly climate,
5 instructional leadership, 6 high expectations, 7 time
on task, 8 achievement/ teaching-learning, 9 attendance
rate

WHAT FACTORS SERVED AS FACILITATORS/HINDRANCES IN THE SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT PROCESS?

For examples: 1 resources - time and money, 2 incentives/—
disincentives, 3 nature of school structure, 4 school
priorities, 5 staff turnover, 6 prior projects, 7
leadership-school/administrative center.

DO YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENTS? THOUGHTS?

REMINDER: A. Collect documents which support comments/data
B. 4th Friday data, 1987

III/III/WIHIIIT/II IMMUI/N/WIEW“

LI

 

T
31293;