CHANGE AGENT STRATEGIES :A STUDY OF THE' MICHIGAN-OHIO REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY ' Thesis for the Degree of Phi’vD. , MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . PEGGY LYNNE MILLER 1968 ..... ABSTRACT CHANGE AGENT STRATEGIES: A STUDY OF THE MICHIGAN-OHIO REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY by Peggy Lynne Miller The purpose of this project was to study the planning and development activities of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory in order to assess evidence of (l) the acceptance of a change agent role for MOREL, and (2) plans and action indicating recognition of what is known through the literature and research about effective change agent behavior. Literature on the diffusion of innovations and the change process was reviewed. From this sixty-five principles of effective change agent behavior were drawn and identified. Seven criteria were developed from the sixty-five guide- lines as the major change agent strategies for effecting planned changeo Utilizing these seven as a screening device, the activities of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, an institutional change agent, were examined: 10 The change agent should identify the character- istics and needs of the client system and base plans upon them. 2. The change agent should seek, and play a major role in, the establishment of rapport and the building of mutual trust and respect between the client system and itself. Peggy Lynne Miller 3. The change agent should view the change process as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal undertaking between the client system and itself. A. The change agent should identify key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system, and work through them. 5. The change agent should understand the communication- diffusion of innovations process and utilize a strategy in working with the client system. 6. The change agent should seek continual self- improvement in performing its role. 7. The change agent should teach the clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to deve10p self-renewing behavior. An in-depth data analysis was made of official and unofficial written records of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory which have been filed since its creation, of tape recordings of Laboratory meetings, and of interviews with key persons involved in the Laboratory's develOpment. The data were scrutinized for evidence related to each of the criteria. Conclusions in the study include: 1. Supporting evidence is found for all seven criteria of change agent behavior. Peggy Lynne Miller 2. The Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory accepted the role of a change agent and made plans and carried out activities indicating recognition of effective change agent strategies. 3. Judging by both the amount and quality of evidence, the Laboratory seems to have considered criteria numbers one, identifying characteristics and needs of the region and basing plans upon them, and three, viewing the change process as a mutual, collabor- ative, reciprocal undertaking, as most crucial for its plans and activities. A. Next in importance, though not considered as crucial as those above, were criteria numbers four, the identification and use of key informal and formal leaders in the client system, and five, understanding the communication-diffusion of innovations process and utilizing a strategy in working with the client system. 5. It seems that the activities of an institutional change agent are basically no different from those of an individual change agent. Recommendations of the study include: 1. A developing institution must build its organi- zation on or around its program instead of the common practice of building an organization and Peggy Lynne Miller then fitting program into the structure. The former procedure was utilized by MOREL. The program of an institution or organization which has the purpose of serving others must be built upon the real needs, characteristics, and desires of those who are to be served. A method of keeping a running current assessment of needs, character- istics, and desires should be built into the institution's program on a permanent basis. A growing functioning institution needs a planned method of keeping in touch with researchers in the field of diffusion of innovations and the change process so that the institution may be knowledge— able about, and effectively utilize, new findings and strategies in its work. This, then, is a major dimension of an institution's continuing self renewal. An institutional change agent needs more system- atic ways of building rapport and mutual trust and respect between itself and its client system, and methods of determining the effectiveness of such attempts. A planned strategy should be developed to achieve this objective. Planned strategies should be develOped for the continual, on-going identification of key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system. Peggy Lynne Miller 6. An institutional change agent should develOp a planned program for making visible to the client system the process of change in which they, together, are engaging. 7. Change agent strategies must be reflected in any special preparation program for change agents. Although this study has focused upon a single insti- tution and its change agent role, the strategies prOposed and the recommendations made are applicable to both insti- tutions and peOple serving in change agent roles. Especially because of the relatively slow process of change in education, it is hoped that the findings of this study will be utilized by people in such institutions as state departments of education, colleges and uniVersities, professional educational associations, and the United States Office of Education. CHANGE AGENT STRATEGIES: A STUDY OF THE MICHIGAN-OHIO REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY By Peggy Lynne Miller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1968 assméo Copyright by PEGGY LYNNE MILLER 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Very few doctoral committees embody the professional strength, the multiversity of interests, and the humanism of mine. To Doctors Charles A Blackman, the chairman of my committee who gave so generously of his time, Everett M. Rogers, Julian w. Smith, and Troy L. Stearns my deep appreciation is expressed. Theirs was a role which embraced the true meaning of teacher. They facilitated, guided, and helped me assume almost full responsibility for my own learning. Theirs was a student-centered, individualized focus. Theirs was a role of inspiration, encouragement, and support. For the cooperation of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, especially that of its director, Dr. Stuart C. Rankin, in helping me to carry out this study, I am most grateful. Appreciation must also be expressed to my mother and to the spirit of my father whose belief in the necessity for continual self growth and striving for the full development of one's human potential has, and will continue to be, a deep inspiration. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . LIST OF EXHIBITS IN APPENDICES . . . . Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . Need for the Study . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . Methodology . . . . . . Scope and Overview of the Study . Limitations of the Study . . . Significance of the Study . . . Definition of Terms . . . Brief History of the Michigan—Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory Footnotes . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . Principles of Effective Change Agent Behavior with References . . Selection of Screening Device . References Related to Seven Screening Criteria . . . . Definitions. . Footnotes . . . . . . PROCEDURES . . . , . . . . 11 Review of Chapter III . . . . Sources of Data . . . . . Categories of Sources of Evidence Procedures for Data Collection . Procedures for Analysis of Data . iv 0 Page iii iv 16 27 3O 6O 61 6A 6A 65 66 68 68 Chapter Page IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . . 70 Introduction . . Supporting Evidence Criterion One . Summary . . Criterion Two . O O O O O O O O 0 CD 0\ Summary . . . . . . . . . 9A Criterion Three . . . . . . . 95 Summary . . . . . . . . 117 Criterion Four . . . . . . . 117 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Criterion Five . . . . . . . . . . 127 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 136 Criterion Six . . . . . . . . . 136 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 1A1 Criterion Seven . . . . . . . . . 1A1 Summary . . . . . . . . . 1A5 Summary of the Chapter . . . . . . . . 1A5 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . 153 Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . 153 Conclusions . . . . . . . 155 Comparison with Another Study . . . . . 157 Recommendations for Institutional Change Agents, Including the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory . . . . 158 Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . 161 Concluding Statement . . . . . . . . 162 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 166 LIST OF EXHIBITS IN THE APPENDICES Exhibit Page A. Major Need Categories of the Region, September 30, 1966 . . . . . . . . . 164 B. Dissemination Strategies—Assumptions . . . . 165 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY We live in a world swept by the winds of change, but we have not learned yet how to understand what change is or what it does.1 Need for the Study There is a growing concern about change everywhere. Changing, the change process, implementation of research findings, dissemination of information, the diffusion and adoption of innovations-~however one wishes to term this interest, it is present, and ever increasing. One evidence of it is the growing amount of related literature. Another indication is the increasing expendi- ture of money for research and development centers and departments. Other indications include the steadily increasing cries for consultant help, demonstration centers, and change agents. The latter have even been solicited through newspaper want ads. "In 1963 The New York Times ran a large classified advertisement announcing a search for 'change agents.'"2 This contemporary concern about change is not limited solely to a single segment of our society. The concern is felt and expressed in the military, business and industry, religion, agriculture, and education, as well as elsewhere. There is a nationwide thrust to engage in more research, disseminate or make known more quickly and extensively the findings of research, and adopt innovations* more quickly and completely. The national concern about education and change is great. One educator has remarked: We wish to effect changes in education. The need is obvious. Change is needed to update our practices and methods to include all we have painfully learned about teaching and learning. Change is needed because education must look to the future--to find ways to serve the accelerating needs of the country more effectively. We must learn to grapple with the ever accelerating accretion of knowledge to the end that education is for the present and the emerging future--not for some period in the receding past. Moreover, the school has long been considered the one agency in our society charged with the responsibility of effecting change for the good of citizens and government alike. Education has been expected for decades to be one instrument in our society to bring about apprOpriate changes. Today, education has a greater opportunity than ever before to provide a sound basis for helping people to plan and prepare for change. We are faced with the necessity of capturing and controling the extensive knowledge that emerges through the efforts of man's research. We will not utilize this vast store of knowledge effectively if we continue to plan for education in the same way we have planned in the past. *For definitions of terms see p. 10. So great has been, and is, the nationwide concern about educational change that Congress enacted federal legislation providing monies for education at a record- setting level. A climate for change and its antecedents are the prime reasons we have had recent federal legis- lation providing substantial funds for education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and all of the other recent federal legislation are not the result of the "good guys" (educators) finally winning. Neither are they an example of more effective lobbying. We just happen to live in the generation which tipped the scales away from persistence, to change--both technological and behavioral. It was in part because of national concern about change in education that provision for the new institutions known as regional educational laboratories was included by Congress under Title IV of the 1965 Elementary-Secondary Education Act. The regional educational laboratories have been charged with the following goals: To stress putting into practice what we already know . . . to overcome the lag between discovery and use, and to convert the results of years of research into application in the classroom . . . establishment of extensive experimental schools and pilot projects showing educational innovation in real situations that can be seen and understood . . . to contribute to a general elevation of the quality of education everywhere . . . development of new educational programs . . . (to be a) practical force for change in the educational system. (1) Conduct educational research, (2) provide facilities and equipment for research, (3) carry out the training of individuals for leadership in such activities, (A) translate the findings of research into feasible education practices and programs, and (5) assist in the implementa- tion of productive change by disseminating inno- vative programs and practices throughout the region being served . . . Emphasis on research and development and upon the communication- diffusion-implementation continuum, then, might be considered the most prominent raison d'étre for the regional labs. . . . A primary responsibility for assisting in identifying, researching, and implementing educational improvements. From a look at the stated purposes of the regional educational laboratories in the light of the meaning of "change agent,"* it would appear that the laboratories have been charged with the role of educational change agents. Directly and indirectly the need for change agents in education has been expressed. One educator has said that "it is unrealistic to assume that educational prac- tices will change markedly as a function of 'new knowledge.”9 This implies the need for educational change agents to help translate knowledge into practice. "The field of education has no real mechanism for planned change,"10 a responsibility which an educational change agent would assume. Richard Carlson stated in 1965 that the absence of a change agent in education is one of the reasons for the slow rate of 11 change in our nation's public schools, and that "the problem of establishing a viable change advocacy function *For definition of the term see p. 10. among the many levels in our system of education is one of extreme importance."l2 There is a need to determine whether or not the regional educational laboratories are reflecting educational change agent roles in their planning and Operational I endeavors. And, if they are assuming the role of agents of educational change, there is a need to determine the extent to which they are putting into practice what research concerning the change process and the diffusion of innova- tions to date indicates as desirable or effective change agent behavior. Purpose of the Study While "one gets the impression that education is 13 swept up in change and innovation," many educators realize that adoption of desirable innovations has not and is not keeping pace with innovation, invention, or the acquisition of new knowledge. There is a great need to learn more about the change advocate, the change agent, and how he or it can be used effectively in helping improve the quality of education by assisting schools and teachers in the diffusion of innovations process. The fact that "it takes thirty years before an innovation in education has widespread adoption, and it requires ten to fifteen years for even the first three per cent of the schools to make significant change"lu in the United States makes it seem imperative for educators to investigate thoroughly all possible alternatives for effecting faster adoption of desirable innovations so that American education may better keep pace with the needs of society and the interests and needs of American youngsters. Thus it is essential to shed more light on the role of the educational change agent. The purpose of this project is to study the planning or development activities of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory in order to assess evidence of (1) The acceptance of a change agent role for MOREL and (2) plans and action indicating recognition of what is known through the literature and research about effective change agent behavior. Methodology This project will be a historical descriptive case study. The research will involve an in-depth data analysis of official and unofficial written records of the Michigan- Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory which have been filed since its creation, of tape recordings which were made during staff planning sessions and other kinds of meetings, and of interviews of key persons involved in the Laboratory's development. Through the process of reviewing the literature on the diffusion of innovations and the change process, a number of change agent role criteria will be selected through which the MOREL data will be screened and analyzed. In this way MOREL's planning behavior and activities associated with the development period will be compared with what is known through research about change agent role, and accordingly assessed. The criteria which will be drawn from literature should serve to protect the writer from possible bias in this study, due to the nature of the writer's own partici- pation as an interviewer for MOREL during the very early development of the regional educational laboratory. Scope and Overview of the Study The study will be limited to MOREL's development and early operation period, June 1, 1966 to December 1, 1967. Chapter Two of this project combines a review of the literature with an account of the measuring device, a screen of change agent role criteria. The nature of the criteria screen is described in detail. Chapter Three is an account of how the data were analyzed in light of the developed criteria. Chapter Four is a presentation and summary of support— ing evidence for each of the criteria. Chapter Five contains a summary, conclusions drawn from the interpretation of the data, recommendations, and suggestions for further research in the area of the change process and the change agents. Limitations of the Study The study will be limited to a look at the Michigan- Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory from June 1, 1966, the time of its formation, to December 1, 1967. No attempt will be made to study the Laboratory during its later, fully funded, Operation period. The study will not attempt to evaluate or assess the effects or impact in the two-state area of certain actions of MOREL associated with change agent behavior. Such an evaluation is beyond the realm of this project. It is not the purpose of this study to defend the need for educational change agents. The writer participated as an interviewer for MOREL during the very early development of the Laboratory. The criteria, however, provide an objective means of studying the Laboratory and should, therefore, protect the study from any bias stemming from the writer's early association with MOREL. Research literature on educational change agents is extremely limited in both amount and depth. It is necessary therefore to draw from research done in other disciplines. Significance of the Study There have been very few studies of the change agent in education or in other fields.* It is hoped that this project will contribute to the understanding of the educa- tional change agent, and that it especially will help educators understand how an organization or an individual can plan for and function in the role as an agent of change for the improvement of education. It is hOped that implications for change agent role in fields other than education may be drawn from this study. Implications may be drawn from this project for MOREL's own continuing role as a change agent for educa- tional improvement. This study may stimulate other regional educational laboratories and the United States Office of Education to examine and evaluate the regional educational laboratories in the light of change agent role. This study may stimulate a feeling of greater need for, and the creation of more change agents at varying levels of the total educational system. *Robert F. Keith, "Communication Behavior and Change Orientation of Foreign Change Agents in Technical Training Programs," (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966). L. Eduardo Ramos, "Client-Change Agent Relationships in Three Colombian Villages," (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966). However, these studies were not directly related to the research of this project. 10 Definitions of Terms The term innovation has been defined by Rogers as "an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual."15 The process through which innovations are communicated and adopted or implemented has been termed the diffusion of innovations. Rogers defines the diffusion of innovations as the process through which new ideas are "communicated through certain channels among the members of a social system over time. He defines the innovation decision process as that through which an "individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation to adOption or rejection of that innovation."17 Change agent has been defined as "a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions in a direction that he feels is desirable . . . seeks to secure the adoption of new ideas . . . functions as a communica- 18 tion link between two social systems," "a person or group, practitioners or social scientists, who are (working) to improve the functioning and effectiveness of organizations,"19 and, "a professional who has as his major function the advocacy and introduction of innovations into practice."20 These terms and definitions will be used extensively throughout this study. ll Brief History of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory Creation of the regional educational laboratories was enabled by Title IV of the 1965 Elementary-Secondary Education Act. The Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory grew out of two independent educational labor— atory proposals. An Ohio laboratory proposal was formally submitted to the United States Office of Education on October 15, 1965, and a Michigan laboratory planning grant proposal was submitted to the Office on January 18, 1966. Due to the appropriation by Congress of funds insufficient for the development and Operation of numerous independent state educational laboratories, individual states which had submitted planning grant prOposals were directed by the United States Office of Education to team up voluntarily with other states tx> form regional educa- tional laboratories. Mergers eventually resulted in the creation of twenty regional educational laboratories. During a meeting at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, on March 8, 1966, the representatives of the proposed independent Ohio and Michigan laboratories unofficially joined forces to create the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory. The merger was made formal on March 23, 1966 at a meeting in Toledo, Ohio. 12 The Michigan—Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory was incorporated as an independent nonprofit corporation on May 2, 1966 in Detroit, Michigan. Since its incorpor- ation MOREL' history in brief has been as follows: June 1, 1966--U.S. Office of Education planning grant awarded. June 1, 1966—December l, l966——Development period. December 1, 1966-March l, l967--DevelOpment period extension. March 1, l967-December, l967--Nine month operation period at partial funding. The development staff, which came from educational institutions in the two states, consisted of the following: Charles A. Blackman, Michigan State University Virgil E. Blanke, The Ohio State University Eugene E. Hast, Columbus Public Schools Wendell M. Hough, Jr., Wayne State University Stuart C. Rankin, Development Director, Detroit Public Schools. During this time MOREL has engaged in many major activities including a survey of regional needs, regional resource identification and assessment, permanent staff selection, permanent board of directors creation and expansion, and development of program focuses. FOOTNOTES lE. Russell, Change and Challenge in American Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1965), p. 7. 2Edgar M. Schein and Warren G. Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods (New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 19657, p. 206. 3Edgar L. Morphet and Charles 0. Ryan, eds., Planning and Effecting Needed Changes in Education (Denver: Publishers Press, Inc., 1967), p. 224. ”Ibid., p. 38. 5Ibid., p. 292. 6President Lyndon B. Johnson in a letter to Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, John W. Gardner, July 5, 1966. 7Richard I. Miller, "Regional Educational Laboratories," Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1966, p. 1AA. 8Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, The Deve10pment of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Progress Report (Detroit: MOREL, Inc., September 1, 1966), p. 6. 9Morphet and Ryan, p. 108. lOBlaine Worthen, "The Innovation Dilemna," The SEC Newsletter, December, 1966, p. l. llRichard o. Carlson, Art Gallaher, Jr., Matthew B. Miles, Roland J. Pellegrin, and Everett M. Rogers, Change Processes in the Public Schools (Eugene: Center for the AdVanced Study of Educational Administration, 1965), p. A. 12 13 Ibid., p. 5. Morphet and Ryan, p. 65. 13 14 1“Ibid., p. 185, as quoted from Nation's Schools (no date or page reference given). 15Everett M. Rogers with F. Floyd Shoemaker, Diffusion of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural and Communi- cation Approach (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1968, in press). l6Ibid. l7 18 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), pp. 254-255. 19 20Carlson, et al;, p. 4. Ibid. Schein and Bennis, p. 206. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Numerous writers from a variety of fields have pointed out, directly or indirectly, principles of change which are necessary for the effective functioning of a change agent. Some are of greater magnitude and more crucial, others more subtle, but all are relative to facilitating the process of change as directed by a change agent. . The procedure followed in this review was to search the literature of those who have written in the area, and draw from their writings what may be termed principles of effective change agent behavior. It should be recognized that some of the original authors may not have envisioned this use for their works, that they may not have seen these statements as change agent principles. In support for their use in this way, however, is the relative commonality of statements stemming from different fields of knowledge. The writer then sought to organize them in a logical and understandable fashion, and found that they could be grouped into four major categories: technical competence of the change agent, human relations skills and duties of the change agent, change agent linkages, and client system competence. l5 16 The category of change agent technical competence includes the subcategories of technical skills, messages and channels, innovations, leadership, and personal characteristics. The subcategories of client system needs, reciprocity and rapport, and empathy are included in the change agent human relations skills and duties category. A fine line of meaning exists between reciprocity and rapport, and empathy, and a distinction has been made between them here. Empathy refers to the ability to perceive things as another perceives them, to put one's self in another person's role. Reciprocity and rapport refer to a mutual relationship, a giving and taking, a harmony, between the change agent and client system. The other two categories stand alone. No subcate- gories are provided. The specialized terms used in this field are defined at the end of the chapter. In referring to the change agent, the pronoun "it" is used rather than "he,“ because this study is centered upon the change agent as an institutional entity rather than an individual person. The principles of effective change agent behavior are specified below with appropriate references: 17 Principle Reference PRINCIPLES RELATED TO CHANGE AGENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: A. Technical Skills 1. The Change agent should Corey, p. 71. be technically competent. Miller, p. 333. Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, p. 218. 2. The change agent should Bienenstok, p. A25. have adequate information Miller, pp. 355-356. about innovations, and be Morphet and Ryan, p. 198. able to answer requests for more information about innovations from clients. 3. The change agent should Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 7. understand the diffusion Benne, Bennis, and Chin. of innovations process Eboch, p. 139. and strategies of Miller, pp. 355-356. change. Morphet and Ryan, p. A0. Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, p. 218. A. The change agent should Arensberg and Niehoff, use a change strategy, pp. 70, 81. including determination Benne, Bennis, and Chin. of priorities. Howard, p. 6. Miller, pp. 356-357. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 21, 22, 2A, 25, 35, 72, 193, 296. Notes and Working Papers, p. Rogers (1962), p. 278. Rogers (1968). 5. The change agent should Benne, Bennis, and Chin. be able to analyze the Morphet and Ryan, pp. 2A, client's problem 25, 55-56, 296. situation. Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, p. 216. 6. The change agent should Morphet and Ryan, p. 16. attempt to anticipate Smith, p. AA. problems before they occur. 10. ll. 12. 130 1A. The change agent should try to anticipate or predict the consequences of its work and the adoption of innovations by the client system. The change agent should insure the availability of needed equipment and materials for the client system. The change agent should have knowledge of various sources of help which it may utilize or to which the client system may be referred. The change agent should, in some cases, be a change agent team with a variety of skills. B. Messages and Channels The change agent should have a good basic under— standing of the communi- cation process, including how to use the best channels, how to encode messages, etc. The change agent should disseminate information to clients to increase their knowledge about innovations. The change agent should use existing information channels of communication for moving information, especially social and work cliques. The change agent should use all possible media for dissemination of new knowledge. 18 Mead, p. 282. Rogers (1962), p. 282. Rogers (1965)- Schein and Bennis, pp. 232. 227- Miller, p. 99. 21-22. 218. Morphet and Ryan, pp. Schein and Bennis, p. Morphet and Ryan, p. 57. Meierhenry, pp. 458-459. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 36, 198, 236-237, 298. Rogers (1968). Carlson, Mead, p. 302. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 19 The change agent should use mass media or cosmop- olite interpersonal communication early in the diffusion process to create awareness, and interpersonal, especially localite, communication later. The change agent should direct reinforcing messages to the client system to help confirm adoption decisions and to prevent discontinuance. C. The Innovations The change agent should provide for the demon— stration of innovations, and demonstrate them in environments similar to those of the clients. The change agent should play a gatekeeper role with innovations--some should not be promoted, some should be adapted. The change agent should encourage first the intro- duction of simple, readily visible innovations, ones which have cultural fit, and which almost certainly will have positive results. The change agent may package a good innovation in order to secure a faster rate of adoption. Rogers (1962), pp. 311-312. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 125. Brickell (1961), p. 31. Mace, p. 27. Miller, p. 99. Morphet and Ryan, p. 298. Rogers (1968). Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 87. Brickell (1961), pp. 27, 29. Clark, pp. 17-18. Eboch, pp. 132, 135. Mead, p. 300. Miller, pp. 39, 99. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 98, 298. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 8. Rogers (1962), p. 281. Rogers (1965). Rogers (1968). Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. 78, 87, 104. Carlson, et 31,, pp. A2-A3. Rogers (1965). 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 26. 27. The change agent should have firm positive per- sonal convictions about the innovations about which it provides infor- mation. D. Leadership The change agent should avoid identifying too closely with any level or faction of the client system. The change agent should know the client system leadership structure, formal and informal leaders, and social groups. The change agent should focus activities upon opinion leaders--enlist their aid and work through them. The change agent should identify and work through innovators in order to create awareness of new innovations. The change agent should collect facts and statistics about problems and programs and see that they are made available to influential leaders and groups. The change agent should work with the people in the client system who desire to change, locate and mobilize them. 20 Bienenstok, p. A2A. Morphet and Ryan, p. 198. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 192. 100. A6. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. Carlson, et al., pp. AN, Meierhenry, pp. A58-459. Morphet and Ryan, p. 160. Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, p. 216. Mead, p. 292. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 12A, 160, 238. Rogers (1962), p. 281. Rogers (1965). Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, pp. 232, 216. (1968). 227- Rogers Morphet and Ryan, pp. 160, 236-237. Benne, Bennis, and Chin. Mace, p. 25. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. The change agent should work more with the young than the old members of the client system. 21 Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. 112-113. E. Personal Characteristics The change agent should be selected so that it is as much like its client system as possible--a high degree of homophily should exist between the two. The change agent should be perceived by the client system as credible (competent and trust- worthy), and as having prestige. The change agent should be cosmopolite. The change agent should be amenable to change itself, changing its methods, and overcoming its own resistances to change. The change agent should make a personal evalu- ation of its degree of effectiveness in the role of change agent. The change agent should seek feedback from its clients. Eboch, p. 135. Rogers (1968). Carlson, 22 al., p. A9. Eboch, p. 135. Mead, pp. 260-261. Morphet and Ryan, p. 35. Rogers (1968). Morphet and Ryan, p. 198.‘ Mace, pp. 23-24.- Morphet and Ryan, p. 163. Schein and Bennis, p. 218. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 204. Morphet and Ryan, p. 163. Schein and Bennis, p. 218. Mace, p. 25. Morphet and Ryan, p. 38. Rogers (1968). PRINCIPLES RELATED TO HUMAN RELATIONS SKILLS AND DUTIES OF THE CHANGE AGENT: A. Client System Needs 35. The change agent should assess the client system's readiness for change, and be aware of previous attempts to change (innovate). 36. The change agent should identify clients' needs. 37. The change agent's objec- tives (mutually deter- mined with the client system) should reflect clients' needs. 38. The change agent should stimulate clients' aware- ness of other needs which are not presently real- ized by them. 39. The change agent should play a catalytic function for client needs by point- ing out new alternatives to existing problems, dramatizing them, and convincing clients that they can solve the problems that confront them. 22 AA. 23-2A. Carlson, gt al., p. Morphet and Ryan, pp. Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, pp. 227-232. Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. 70, 71, 90. Bienenstok, p. A28. Mead, pp. 178, 258. Miller: pp. 356-357- Morphet and Ryan, p. 295. Rogers (1962), p. 280. Rogers (1965). Rogers (1968). Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. 8, 7o, 71, 9o. Carlson, gt al,, p. Mace, p. 25. Morphet and Ryan, p. 55. Rogers (1962), p. 280. Rogers (1965). Rogers (1968). A2. Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. 71-72. Rogers (1962), p. 280. Miller, p. 99. Morphet and Ryan, p. Rogers (1968). 298. A0. A1. A2. A3. B. Reciprocity and Rapport The change agent should encourage the client system to participate in the planning and exe- cution of change. The change process should be a mutual undertaking by change agent and clients. The change agent should encourage voluntary par- ticipation by the clients. The change agent should seek to establish a volun- tary relationship between the client system and itself with either free to terminate the rela- tionship after joint consultation. The change agent should seek to establish a collaborative relation— ship in which a mutuality of influence exists-—a power distribution in which both parties have equal or almost equal Opportunity to influence one another, and the client system perceives the change agent as influenceable. 23 Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. 89, 90, 9A. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Carlson, et al., p. A2. Chesler and Fox, p. 26. Clark, p. 9. Corey, pp. 78-79. Coughenour, p. A3. Howe, p. 52. Ianni and McNeill, p. 55. Mace, p. 28. Mead, pp. 289, 292, 300. Miller, pp. 181, 182, 333. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 30, 32, 35, 8“, 195. NCTEPS, p. A6. Rogers (1962), p. 280. Rogers (1968). Smith, pp. A2, A3, AA. Schein and Bennis, pp. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 3. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Morphet and Ryan, p. 32. Schein and Bennis, pp. 227-232. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Chesler and Fox, p. 26. Corey, p. 79. Miller, p. 333. AA. A5. A6. A7. A8. A9. The change agent should understand the human behavioral dimension of change. The change agent should determine the objectives of the change process with the client system. The change agent should play a major role in the establishment of rapport and the building of interpersonal trust and mutual respect between the client system and itself. C. Empathy The change agent should empathize with the client system--view the situa— tion from the clients' perspective. The change agent should have valid knowledge and information about the client system and base plans upon them. The change agent should know the clients' atti- tudes, beliefs, values and social norms. 2A 68. 218. Morphet and Ryan, p. Schein and Bennis, p. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Howe, pp. 51-52. Mace, p. 28. NCTEPS, p. A6. Smith, pp. A2-AA. Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. 72, 89, 119, 189. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Corey, pp. 72, 73. Eboch, p. 139. Morphet and Ryan, p. Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, pp. 216, 21 . 198. Corey, p. 73. Mead, pp. 260-261, 270, 299. Rogers (1968). Arensberg and Niehoff, pp. A, 75. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Bienenstok, p. A28. Eboch, p. 1A0. Mead, p. 178. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 37, 198, 20A. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. A. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Bienenstok, p. A28. Carlson, et al., pp. 39, A3. Mead, pp.‘1'78‘;' 179, 187, 270. Meierhenry, p. A58. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 5A, 55—56, 12A. Rogers (1962), pp. 278, 279. Rogers (1968). Schein and Bennis, pp. 232. 227- 25 PRINCIPLES RELATED TO CHANGE AGENT LINKAGES (CLIENT SYSTEM EXCLUDED): 50. The change agent should Morphet and Ryan, p. serve as a linkage Rogers (1968). between two or more social systems: (1) the client social system (2) the change agency and (3) the primary inno- vations source. 51. The change agent should Coughenour, p. 3A. communicate the clients' Morphet and Ryan, p. research needs to scien- Rogers (1968). tists, and in turn disseminate innovations from the research organ- ization to the clients, maintaining contact with both. 52. The change agent should Rogers (1968). tend to disregard the expectations of the change bureaucracy in favor of those held by its clients; it should be client-oriented. 53. The change agent should Mead, p. 292. call in a third partici- pant (not a member of either the client or professional systems) to be included in the planning and execution of change in order to help maintain a certain measure of objectivity. 298. 36. PRINCIPLES RELATED TO CLIENT SYSTEM COMPETENCE: 5A. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. The change agent should seek to develop self renewing behavior on the part of the client system, teach it the process of disciplined inquiry, help its clients to become their own change agents and conduct their own local change programs. The change agent should make the process of change as visible as possible to others. The change agent should provide feedback about the innovation decision (change) process as it progresses to everyone in the client system involved in the change. The change agent should help the client system diagnose and deal with the human dimensions of change. The change agent should encourage the capacity by the client system for self criticism. The change agent should provide opportunities for frequent interaction between all those involved in the change during the change process. 26 Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 125. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Corey, pp. A7, 70, 77. Miller, p. A0. Morphet and Ryan, pp. 68, 72. NCTEPS, p. A6. Rogers (1962), pp. Rogers (1965). Rogers (1968). 280, 281. Corey, p. 77. Mead, p. 300. Benne, Bennis and Chin. Morphet and Ryan, p. 68. Carlson, et al., p. A3. Morphet and Ryan, p. 199. 27 60. The change agent should NCTEPS, p. A6. help the clients analyze the problem situation and evaluate various alternatives for action in solving the problem or filling the need. 61. The change agent should Miller, pp. 99, 182. assist the clients with Morphet and Ryan, pp. 25, evaluation of the change 163, 193. process from the begin- NCTEPS, p. A6. ning. Rogers (1965). (Rogers (1968). 62. The change agent should Corey, pp. A8-70. suggest ways and means for gathering evidence about the problem or situation and give help to the clients in gathering it. 63. The change agent should Miller, pp. 182, 357. encourage a trial stage or tryout of innovations. 6A. The change agent should Corey, pp. A8-70. give clients training Miller, pp. A0, 99. prior to the trial, if Morphet and Ryan, p. 298. necessary, and assis- Rogers (1968). tance during the trial stage. 65. The change agent should Corey, pp. A8—70. help clients secure evi- dence from the trial, and help them make an evaluation and general- izations on the basis of that evidence. In order to assess evidence of the Michigan—Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory's acceptance of the role of educational change agent and plans and action for functioning in that role, seven succinct principles have been developed 28 as the major strategies for effecting quality planned change. These criteria together will serve as the device for screening the Laboratory. While not necessarily equally demanding of the time and energy of the change agent, they are of generally equal weight or importance, since, like the links of a chain, each is vital to all. The seven criteria were developed through a combi- nation of procedures. Some of them represent a grouping of two or more of the sixty-five principles. Some of them were so frequently mentioned and heavily weighted in impor- tance in the literature reviewed that they were deemed crucial criteria. Finally, a personal judgment was made on the basis of the writer's own study in the field in deter- mining what principles were most important and should be included in the screening device. In addition it was felt that these would be workable criteria, ones for which evidence could be found and for which measurement would be possible. With these criteria, as follow, it now becomes possible to examine the activities of an institutional agent of change: 1. The change agent should identify the character- istics and needs of the client system and base plans upon them. 29 2. The change agent should seek, and play a major role in, the establishment of rapport and the building of mutual trust and respect between the client system and itself. 3. The change agent should view the change process as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal under- taking between the client system and itself. A. The change agent should identify key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system, and work through them. 5. The change agent should understand the communication-diffusion of innovations process and utilize a strategy in working with the client system. 6. The change agent should seek continual self improvement in performing its role. 7. The change agent should teach the clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to develop self renewing behavior. Appropriate quotations and references are provided for each of the criteria: Criterion The change agent should identify the character- istics and needs of the client system and base plans upon them. 30 Reference Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 8: The change agent must real— ize that innovations intro- duced will have to be "reworked and adapted" for local needs and conditions. p. 70: The change agent must "begin work on needs which (the client system) feel." p. 71: The change agent must deal with the needs of which the local people are aware. p. 90: "A project is not going to get far unless it satisfies the conscious needs of the people, and the expert's opinion as to what the people need is not enough to win their OOOperation." Bienenstok, p. A28: " . . . an attempt to elicit the support of peOple for an educational innovation can ill afford to ignore their 31 values, their interests, and their expectations." Carlson, gt g;,, p. A2: "People will more readily accept innovations that they can understand and perceive as relevant . . ." Mace, p. 25: The change agent should focus information on those people who are able to relate the information, "in content and form, to actual and established needs . . ." Mead, p. 178: "To introduce change effectively, it is necessary to know existing conditions." p. 258: "Exper- ience has taught us that change can best be introduced not through centralized planning, but after a study of local needs." Miller, pp. 356-357: A model of the curriculum change process includes identification of curriculum needs. 32 Morphet and Ryan, p. 55: "A theory of changing is oriented to the needs of a practitioner. A substantively complete theory would include the goals, value judgments, and the means of attaining these desired ends." pp. 295-296: The change agent should ask the clients what their problems _are, and should have a regular procedure for interviewing clients and identifying their problems. Rogers (1962), p. 280: "An induced technological change will succeed to a degree pro- portionate to the extent to which the (client system) feels a need for it . . ." "Not only should a change agent's clients perceive a need for a new idea before it can be successfully intro- duced, but a change agent should select innovations for The change agent should seek, and play a major role in, the establish— ment of rapport and the building of mutual trust and respect between the client system and itself. 33 introduction on the basis of existing needs among his clients." Rogers (1965): Change agents should base the innovations they seek to introduce on client needs—-an "up-from- bottom" needs approach. Rogers (1968): "The change agent's objectives should reflect the clients' needs." "The change agent usually is involved in the identifica- tion of clients' needs." Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 72: The change agent should gain some measure of confidence. p. 89: "Technicians have given too much emphasis to the tech- nical aspects of their jobs and not enough to the human aspect. This has too often resulted in installations of great efficiency built only to be abandoned or never completely accepted by the local people." 3A p. 119: ". . . a minimum of understanding must pass from the change agent to those receiving the innovations, and vice versa, if success is to be achieved." Communication channels must remain open between the change agent and the clients. p. 189: "The change agent . . . must win some degree of acceptance and confidence for himself within the community, institution, or group where he will work. He must gain the support of the local peOple at least to the extent that they will talk with him freely and sincerely about the real conditions and interests of their lives. Such rapport is a must before any work that requires the voluntary consent or OOOper- ation of the local people can begin." 35 Benne, Bennis and Chin, p. 251: A mutual relationship of trust should be built. Corey, p. 72: The change agent should strive for " . . . the establishment and maintenance of an interpersonal relation- ship that is conducive to the sort of communication that makes effective consultation possible." p. 73: "Possibly, the most important ingredients in establishing this relation- ship are mutual respect . . . genuine empathy on the part of the consultant, and trust on the part of the person seeking help." Eboch, p. 139: ". . . change agents should be able to have rapport with their clients . . . (the change agent) has to have rapport with (the client system) and be viewed as one of them . . ." 36 Morphet and Ryan, p. 198: The change agent "must be able to work with others in a manner that will promote good relations and encourage confidence in his work." Rogers (1968): " . . . estab- lishing rapport and an accep- table level of interpersonal trust between change agent and client is a necessary pre- requisite to successful efforts at change." Schein and Bennis, p. 216: " . . . a relationship of trust and confidence between change agent and target system" should be built. p. 218: The change agent should have the "ability to form relationships and trust." The change agent should Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 89: view the change process "Many failures have occurred as a mutual, collabora- because change agents have not tive, reciprocal under- taken the trouble to involve taking between the the local people thoroughly client system and itself. enough in their projects." 37 p. 90: "Even if a new idea or technique fills needs of which the local people are already aware, it may fail unless the local people accept it as their own and are actively involved in all stages of the planning." p. 9A: "If change is to be fully incor- porated into the life of the peOple, their full participa- tion in planning and under- taking the work itself must be woven into the project plans both from its beginning and throughout all of its stages." Benne, Bennis and Chin, p. 251: "A collaborative relationship between the change agent and the client system is an essen- tial component of planned change . . . (it must be) a joint effort that involves mutual determination of goals . . . a power distribution in which the client and change 38 agent have equal or almost equal opportunity to influence one another." p. 252: ". . . the client must have or develop a real stake in the change effort." " . . . the extent to which a change agent is success- ful (i.e., influential) is dependent on the degree to which he is perceived as influenceable by the client. In other words, the more trans- actional the influence, the more durable and genuine the change." p. 253: "A collabor- ative relationship turns out to be an essential ingredient in-all those change endeavors which aspire to be healthful and growth-producing." Carlson, ££.§l-: p. A2: "There is, in fact, a large body of research to support the basic assumptions underlying the pragmatic model, that is that people will more readily accept 39 innovations . . . that they have had a hand in planning." Chesler and Fox, p. 26: ". . . we need to make teachers feel that they have had some influence in developing changes by adopting new administrative styles which decentralize decision making" (as part of establishing a healthy climate for change). Clark, p. 9: "In terms of change mechanisms, it has been discovered that personal involvement as opposed to telling by an authority is the key variable in effecting change in human behavior." Corey, pp. 78-79: The best frame of reference for the consultant is OOOperative work, collaboration, with the clients. Coughenour, p. A3: " . . . people more readily adopt ideas when they have a real, not a pseudo, opportunity to partici— pate in the decision." A0 Howe, pp. 51-52: The tOp level people should consult in depth with others. Where such con- sultation has not occurred, there is always the "parallel feeling of resentment." Ianni and McNeill, p. 55: "Involving teachers in the process of innovation goes hand in hand with the development of new materials and techniques." Mace, p. 28: "The fact could better be stated, 'If you want to sell a man an idea you must so present it that he rightly believes the idea to be his own.’ It must, in fact, tg in part his own idea, or it must become so. This is one aspect of the concept of 'participa- tion' . . ." Mead, p. 289: "All changes should be introduced with the fullest possible consent and participation of those whose daily lives will be affected by Al the changes." p. 292: " . . it is dangerous ever to make any plan, or to try to execute any plan, without the active participation of members of the culture, Of the particular professions, and of the admin- istrative apparatus concerned; as soon as any planned change has a specific population group as its object, members of that group--through demonstration villages, pilot projects, etc.--must be brought into the planning." p. 300: "Every effort should be made to design the introduction of measures to facilitate or compensate for or provide for benefits from technical change in such a way that the process is circular, and all those involved at every level are able to partici- pate and eXperience the changes as they occur." A2 Miller, p. 181: "Ford Founda- tion and other early strate- gists of ETV did not involve the teachers and that is why ETV's acceptance is uncertain even though it's been "adopted." p. 182: "The importance of bringing the entire staff in on the initial planning for the change so that no one segment of the educational staff feels it is being operated on by another." p. 333: "Planned change is defined as a delib- erate and collaborative process involving change agent and client systems. These systems are brought together to solve a problem or more generally to plan and attain an improved state of functioning in the client system . . ." Morphet and Ryan, p. 30: " . . . involvement of all persons concerned with a given change operation does lead to A3 better acceptance and more self— identification with the process of change. Nevertheless, 'in- volvement' itself must not be accepted uncritically merely because it is a fine democratic ideal. It must be seen as valuable only insofar as it provides a necessary way to get as much insight, knowledge, and creativity as possible from the group and to lessen the likeli- hood of the automatic rejection of new ideas which Often occurs when the people involved are not really 'involved.'"' p. 32: " . . . our planning must move ahead on the basis of consent, consensus, and compromise." p. 35: "A strong sense of belonging should be developed within the group. Cohesiveness—— the we-feeling--tends to support any influence or movement for change." p. 8A: "To innovate effectively, there must be some AA genuine desire or need to change from that which already exists." p. 195: "One of the clear necessities of any pro- gram of change is to get the involvement of those who will be affected." NCTEPS, p. A6: "The agent and the organization develop rela- tionships through which change is facilitated . . ." Rogers (1962), p. 280: "An in- duced technological change will succeed to a degree proportion- ate to the extent to which the (client system) feels a need for it, are brought into its planning and execution, and feel it to be their own." Rogers (1968): Planned change should be a mutual undertaking by change agents and their clients. "Involving the targets (clients) in the planning of change increases the likelihood of success. Such involvement AS (1) helps insure that the clients' unique ggggg are con- sidered in planning the change program; (2) increases client commitment to decisions which are made, as a result of their participation in the decision- making processes, and (3) helps legitimize collective innovation decisions." "Change agents' programs are more likely to be successful if they . . . involve clients in planning change . . ." Smith, p. A2: " . . . whenever a change is contemplated which will ultimately affect other levels of the system, all should be involved during the planning, not ggtg£_the program has been put into effect." pp. A3-AA: " . . . the importance of taking our professional people along with us from initial planning through research." "If the success of the change is The change agent should identify key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system, and work through them. A6 dependent upon the classroom teacher, he should be in on the planning of the program in its early stages." Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 100: "It is vital that the inno- vator (change agent) under- stand the social groups with whom he must work. If he chooses the wrong person or group for leadership he may fail to get the participation of the majority. Vested interests operate in all cul— tures and, if their aims can be prOperly channeled, they can be useful to the innovator." Carlson, gt g;., p. AA: " . . . the advocate in his concern with the formal properties of com- munication systems should not ignore the informal, less struc- tured channels for moving infor— mation. In formal organizations the social cliques that develop among work associates or around A7 some other common interest can be invaluable channels for com- municating information so that it will be accepted." p. A6: Those who direct change in formal organizations should keep in mind the formal prop- erties of a system do not tell the whole story; in the matter of authority just mentioned, for example, recipients can and do organize in ways that enable them to resist pressures placed by formal authority . . ._those who direct change in formal organizations will find it im- perative to have knowledge of both the formal and informal aspects of the target system." Mead, p. 292: " . . . it is dangerous ever to make any plan, without the active participation of members of the culture, of the particular professions, and of the administrative apparatus concerned . . . " A8 Meierhenry, pp. A58—A59: "The innovator (change agent) also must have an intimate acquaint- anceship with the social system Operating in the group into which change is being introduced. Said in a different way, one must know the power struc— ture . . . " " . . . knowledge of interrelationships among different individuals and groups, known as linkages, is necessary. The innovator must know the interrelationships among the various persons involved as well as linkages in relationship to the message which is being communicated." Morphet and Ryan, p. 12A: "To influence significant decisions at either the state or local school level involves influencing political systems." p. 160: It is up to the educational leader- ship to know who the informal leaders are. p. 238: A9 " . . . planning for change must involve as many elements of the leadership system . . . as practicable." Rogers (1962), p. 281: "Change agents should concentrate their efforts upon Opinion leaders in the early stages of the dif- fusion of an innovation." Rogers (1965): Change agents should work through Opinion leaders, formal and informal, peOple in power positions. Rogers (1968): "Change agents must have knowledge Of their clients' . . . leadership struc- ture, if their programs of change are to be tailored to fit the clients." "The time and energy of the change agent are scarce resources. By focusing his communication activities upon opinion leaders in a social system, he may increase the rate of diffusion. Economy of effort is achieved 50 because the time and resources involved in contacting Opinion leaders is far less than if each member of the client system were to be contacted. Essentially, the leader approach magnifies the change agent's efforts. He can communicate the innovation to a few opinion leaders, and then let word-of— mouth communication channels spread the new idea from there. Furthermore, by enlisting the aid of leaders, the change agent provides the aegis of local sponsorship and sanction for his ideas. Directed change takes on the guise of spontaneous change. Working through leaders improves the credibility of the innovation, thereby increasing its probability of adoption." "Change agents' programs are more likely to be successful if they . . . are conducted through Opinion leaders." The change agent should understand the communication-diffusion of innovations process and utilize a strategy in working with the client system. 51 Schein and Bennis, p. 216: The key peOple must be involved and committed. pp. 227—232: "In undertaking any planned social change, legitimacy for the change must be gained through obtaining the support of the key people." Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 7: " . . . the change agent needs to have an understanding of the nature of culture contact in general: how and why people of different cultures borrow ideas from one another." p. 70: The change agent should deter- mine priorities in his work. p. 81: "Change programs should ideally be developed through an integrated, over—all approach H Benne, Bennis and Chin, p. 258: The change agent must know and use differing strategies of management and resolution of problems. pp. 570-572: The 52 good change agent has a strategy. Eboch, p. 139: Change agents have to be trained in tech— niques Of change. Howard, p. 6: When the change agent organizes for change, he must have an "organizational plan for innovative change." Miller, pp. 355-357: The change agent needs to be com- pletely abreast of new deveIOp- ments in various fields as well as facts and principles of the change process, and should determine priorities for change. Morphet and Ryan, p. 21: "To be effective a plan must effect change. To effect change the plan must be a strategy for development--outlining available resources, how these resources will be marshalled, for what purposes they will be used, how 53 they will be used, and who will use them." p. 22: " . . . the establishing of a planning process . . . establishing the communications necessary to coordinate the various programs of development; identify the outside sources of information which will provide the contin- uing imput to strategy devel- Opment; initiate the internal research to complete this imput; and establish the process by which goals and programs are tested, evaluated and synthe- sized as a plan." p. 2A: "therefore, even in planning for change there must also be plan- ning for how to bring about or implement the change." p. 25: A change agent must "develop change strategies" as part of mobilizing for change. p. 35: Strategies and procedures that will prove successful in solving the problems of our rapidly 5A changing society must be structured. p. A0: "Strate- gies of change is interpreted as including, but not limited to, dissemination and pro- visions for utilization of pertinent information regarding all aspects of the proposed plan, ways of identifying and dealing with internal and external (environmental) con- straints as well as facilitating influences; ways of identifying potential opposition, conflicts and tensions and of resolving them advantageously; appropriate means of helping individuals, organizations and agencies to effect needed change in their perspectives; and procedures (guidelines) for implementing proposed change." Guidelines for selecting strategies are offered. p. 72: Strategies for bringing about more effective The change agent should seek continual self improvement in per- forming its role. 55 behavior should be used. p. 193: Priorities should be determined. p. 296: Priorities should be established among the problems identified. Notes & Working Papers, p. 2: "Educators need to develop procedures (strategies) for bringing about effective change." Rogers (1968): " . . . greater effectiveness . . . would be possible if change agents util- ized a strategy of change." Change agents must understand the strategies of change. Schein and Bennis, p. 218: The competencies of the change agent must include theories and methods of organizational change. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 20A: Every change agent should be interested in making an eval- uation of his work. The change agent should teach the clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to develop self renewing behavior. 56 Mace, pp. 23-2A: The change agent must study and overcome its own resistances to change. Schein and Bennis, p. 218: The change agent must come to terms with, and evaluate itself. Arensberg and Niehoff, p. 125: "When the local people no longer need the innovator (change agent), he has done his job." Corey, p. A7: "The consultant must, on the one hand, assist those who have asked him for help to become more aware of the process whereby intentional and planned change is best achieved." p. 70: The change agent tries to "teach a process of disci- plined inquiry." p. 77: The change agent "must do what he can to make the aspects of the process of change as visible as possible . . ." 57 Miller, p. A0: "School leaders need training in planning and conducting local change programs . . ." Morphet and Ryan, p. 68: " . . . the strategies and processes of change must include at least as much attention to the develOpment of professional and human competence as they do to other . . . aspects . . ." p. 72: "An important general strategy is to approach change in such a way that there results a climate hospitable to contin— uous adaptation and change." NCTEPS, p. A6: The client system "acquires such strengths that the agent is no longer needed." Rogers (1962), p. 280: "Change agents should be more concerned with improving their clients' competence in evaluating new ideas and less with simply pro- moting innovations per se." 58 p. 281: "Perhaps change agents should seek to provide their clients with a more favorable basic attitude toward new ideas and spend fewer efforts in campaigns to secure the adoption of single innovations." Rogers (1965): Change agents must help clients learn to evaluate innovations, increase their ability to do so. Rogers (1968): "The end goal for any change agent is devel- Opment of self-renewing behavior on the part of his clients. The change agent should seek to put himself 'out of business' by developing the ability in his clients to be their 2K2 change agents." "The underlying strategy of every change agent should be the improvement of his clients' ability to seek information, define alternatives, evaluate these alternatives, and take 59 action to adopt or reject new ideas. In the process of escalating the rate of inno- vation adOption, change agents sometimes neglect the devel- opment of their clients' evaluative capacities. Self- reliance and self-renewing behaviors should be the goals of any strategy for planned change, leading to termination of the clients' dependence upon the change agent." "The change agent should increase the clients' ability to eval- uate innovations." In conclusion, the preceding seven criteria are proposed as a screen through which the activities of an institutional change agent may be examined. .In the following chapter the procedures by which the screen was used to analyze the data are described. 60 Definitions Cosmopoliteness: "The degree to which an indi- vidual's orientation is external to a particular social system." (Rogers, 1962, p. 17) Cosmopolite interpersonal communication channel: Fact to face communication with an individual from outside one's own social system. Cultural fit: Compatibility with the culture. The degree to which an innovation is consistent with the cultural values. Gatekeeper: An individual who acts as a screen in the communication process, passing on or relaying some messages, stopping others. Homophily: The tendency for individuals to interact with others similar to themselves. Linkage: A communication relationship between two or more individuals. (Rogers, 1962, p. 268) Localite interpersonal communication channel: Face to face communication with an individual from within one's own social system. FOOTNOTES lConrad M. Arensberg and Arthur H. Niehoff, Introducting Social Change (Chicago: Aldine Publishing 600, 19614). 2Kenneth Benne, Warren G. Bennis, and Robert Chin, The Planning of Change (2nd ed.; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, in press). 3Theodore Bienenstok, "Resistance to an Educa- tional Innovation," Elementary School Journal, 65:A20, 1965. . “Henry M. Brickell, Organizing New York State for Educational Change (Albany: Commissioner of Education, New York State Education Department, 1961). 5Richard 0. Carlson, Art Gallaher, Jr., Matthew B. Miles, Roland J. Pellegrin, and Everett M. Rogers, Change Processes in the Public Schools (Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965). 6Mark Chesler and Robert Fox, "Teacher Peer Rela- tions and Educational Change," NEA Journal, 56:25-26, May, 1967. 7David L. Clark, "The Engineering of Change in Education" (paper presented at the Conference on the Implementation of Educational Innovations, System DevelOpment Corporation, Santa Monica, California, May 16, 196A). 8Stephen M. Corey, Helping Other People Changg (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1963). 9Milton C. Coughenour, "Change and Sociological Perspectives," Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service (College of Education, UniversityOT Kéntucky), 38, 1965. 10Sidney C. Eboch, ed., Planning and Dissemination Conference on Novel Strategies and Tactics for Field Studies of New Educational Media Demonstrations, May 10-12, I965 (Columbus: The Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1965). 61 62 11Eugene Howard, "How Do You Organize a High School for Change?" (paper presented to the North Central Association Annual Meeting), NCA Today, Vol. XI, May, 1967. 12Harold Howe, II, "Organization for Innovation," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 21, 1965. 13Francis A. J. Ianni and Barbara D. McNeill, Organizing for Continuing Change," Saturdangeview, A8, June 19, 1965. 1“C. A. Mace, "Resistance to Change," Occupational Psychology, 27:23-29, 1953. 15Margaret Mead, ed., Cultural Patterns and Technical Change (New York: New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1955). 16Wesley C.Meierhenry, "Innovation, Education, and Media," AV Communication Review, Vol. 1A, No. A, Winter, 1966. 17Richard 1. Miller, ed., Perspectives on Educa- tional Change (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967). 18Edgar L.Morphet and Charles 0. Ryan, eds., Planning and Effecting Needed Changgs in Education (Denver: Publishers Press, Inc., June, 1967). 19NCTEPS, Changes in Teacher Education: An A praisal, Report of the NCTEPS Conference, Columbus, June 25—28, 1963 (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1963). 20Notes and Working Papers Concerning the Adminis- tration of Programs Authorized Under Title III of Public Law 89-10, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as Amended by Public Law 89-750. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U. S. Senate, April, 1967 (Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1967). (Written by a team of educational specialists under the direction of Dr. Richard 1. Miller.) 21Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962). 63 22Everett M. Rogers, "On Innovations and Education" (paper presented at the Conference of the Michigan Cooperative Curriculum Program, Boyne Mountain, Michigan, September 2A, 1965). 23Everett M. Rogers with Lynne Svenning, Moderni- zation Among Peasants: The Impact of Communication New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, in press). 2“Edgar M. Schein and Warren G. Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods (New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965). 25Mark Smith, "A Sober Look at the Administrator's Responsibility Toward Change," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. A8, March, l96A. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES This chapter includes a review of Chapter Two, an accounting of the sources of data, a categorization of the data sources, a description of the procedures followed in collecting the data, and an explanation of how the data were analyzed. Review of Chapter Two From a review of the literature, sixty-five prin- ciples of effective change agent behavior were drawn and identified. These principles were grouped into four major categories: change agent technical competence, change agent human relations skills and duties, change agent linkages, and client system competence. Seven criteria were then developed as the major change agent strategies for effecting planned change. Utilizing these as a screening device, the activities of an institutional change agent may be examined: 1. The change agent should identify the charac- teristics and needs of the client system and base plans upon them. 6A 65 2. The change agent should seek, and play a major role in, the establishment of rapport and the building of mutual trust and respect between the client system and itself. 3. The change agent should view the change process as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal undertaking between the client system and itself. A. The change agent should identify key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system, and work through them. 5. The change agent should understand the communication- diffusion of innovations process and utilize a strategy in working with the client system. 6. The change agent should seek continual self improvement in performing its role. 7. The change agent should teach the clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to develop self-renewing behavior. Sources of Data The data used in this study came franeevariety of sources. The sources fall into two divisions, human and material. Human resources include some of the people who were closely connected with the Michigan—Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory during the period under study, including the MOREL 66 staff. Four of the original five staff of develOpers are no longer connected with the Laboratory in Official roles, but still may be considered sources. Material resources include tape recordings of MOREL meetings, official progress reports to the United States Office of Education, informal staff memorandums, corre- spondence with other agencies and individuals not directly connected with the Laboratory, staff meeting minutes, minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors and the General Membership, formal publications to the region, and others. The material sources, for the most part, are on file at the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. Categories of Sources of Evidence More specifically the sources of data are as follows: Planning grant proposal to the United States Office of Education Progress reports to the United States Office of Education Minutes of the Board of Directors meetings Proposed agendas of the Board of Directors meetings Minutes of the General Membership meetings Minutes of the task force meetings Minutes of staff meetings Reports on special projects--pilot projects Formal informational publications for the region 67 Survey description Formal letters from staff to staff Staff memorandums Staff correspondence with interviewers Staff correspondence with interviewees Staff correspondence with task force members Formal reports from staff to staff Formal reports from staff to the Board of Directors Staff correspondence with proposed program reactors Staff correspondence to the members of the Board of Directors and General Membership Correspondence from members of the Board of Directors and General Membership to staff Correspondence from people in the region to staff Correspondence with key persons and groups in the region Preliminary drafts of various programs and prOposals Copies and notes of speeches given by staff to various groups Lists of people in attendance at MOREL meetings Lists of liaison persons Tape recordings of MOREL meetings Personal interviews with MOREL staff Personal notes of a staff member Personal notes of the writer of staff meetings, General Membership meetings, MOREL-CERLI informational meeting, and interviewers meetings 68 Procedures for Data Collection Data were collected in several ways. Present MOREL staff members were interviewed. One of the original five developers and former program-communication director of MOREL allowed the writer free access to examine the MOREL materials which he had filed since June, 1966. Several trips were made to the MOREL headquarters in Detroit, Michigan where complete cooperation was given by the MOREL staff to investigate filed and unfiled, Official and unofficial, MOREL materials. Permission was also given to borrow and listen to tape recordings of various MOREL meetings. A number of printed materials, official and unofficial, and personal notes of MOREL meetings had been collected by the writer over a one and a half year period, and these were used. All the sources were examined carefully, and notes and direct quotes relating to each single criterion of the screening device were taken. Procedures for Analysis of Data The data were analyzed through the use of the screen of the seven criteria. The collected data were scrutinized for evidence related to each of the criteria. The criteria were focused upon separately, not as a group. The data were examined with some attention to their.chronological order in the time period under study. This was done to 69 ascertain possible differences in the appearance of evidence of the various criteria over the complete time span of eighteen months. Comparisons were drawn between evidence found for each of the criteria. Equal weight was gnu: upon unofficial spoken conver— sations and written communications on the one hand, and more formal and official evidence such as printed progress reports on the other. Every attempt was made to discover all the facts, goals, and intentions of those who developed and helped operate the Laboratory during its early history. Chapter Four presents data as evidence for each of the seven criteria. In addition, there is a summary of the supporting evidence for each criterion. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction The activities of an institutional change agent, the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, were examined in light of a screening device. The screening device was composed of seven criteria which had been developed as the major change agent strategies for effecting planned change. The screening device utilized is as follows: 1. The change agent should identify the charac— teristics and needs of the client system and base plans upon them. 2. The change agent should seek, and play a major role in, the establishment of rapport and the building of mutual trust and respect between the client system and itself. 3. The change agent should view the change process as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal under- taking between the client system and itself. A. The change agent should identify key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system, and work through them. 70 71 5. The change agent should understand the communication-diffusion of innovations process and utilize a strategy in working with the client system. 6. The change agent should seek continual self improvement in performing its role. 7. The change agent should teach the clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to develop self renewing behavior. Supporting evidence is provided for each separate criterion. The evidence is given in chronological order. Use of the same evidence in support for more than one criterion is evident. Following the provision of support- ing data for each criterion is a short summary. SupportingrEvidence CRITERION ONE: THE CHANGE AGENT SHOULD IDENTIFY THE CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS OF THE CLIENT SYSTEM AND BASE PLANS UPON THEM. Identifying needs and basing plans upon them were part of MOREL's plan from its inception. The project proposal, April, 1966, states: A two-stage developmental process is contemplated during June and July; field studies would be conducted throughout the region involving local people in the assessment of possible research needs and the inventory of resources for research, field testing and dissemination . . . One of the three 72 stages the work of the laboratory will fall into will be the identification of needs for focal— point projects (Field input) . . . The purpose of the field Operations will be that of getting a grass-roots assessment of educational practices and needs . . . During the remainder of June and July . . . conferences and individual interviews (will be held) with teachers, administrators, and interested observers designed to elicit in depth the needs for improved educational practice in the region . . . The goal of the task forces is to study the field concerns in order to identify the focal points which should be the subject of high priority projects. . . a process for identifying the focal-point projects to which the laboratory should allocate its first resources. The planning staff will be expected to prepare a listing of recommended projects and, for each, to present a position paper describing evidence as to saliency of need . . . MOREL wants to incorporate the interests of public school systems, community cultural bodies, governmental agencies etc. in its research pursuits.1: pp- lo'3a $.53 , 1 3 and 3A In a June, 1966 staff memo it was suggested that key peOple in all areas of the region be asked to put on paper priority problems and resources in the region which could help solve problems.2 A June, 1966 MOREL publication stated that "both the development procedures for eliciting reactions to the laboratory concept and the identification of educational needs and resources are field oriented."3 Another June, 1966 MOREL publication focused on regional educational needs: More educational research needs to have impact upon field practice and much more research needs to grow out of field-defined needs . . . The identification of needs and resources will be the responsibility of educators in the region . . . The purpose of Ehe laboratory is to meet the needs of the region. 73 A statement designed to clarify the concept of the Laboratory, July, 1966, pointed out that: The laboratory concept seeks to bring together field-type problems and needs with ideas which might provide possible solutions if appropriately develOped locally . . . Unlike Research and Development laboratories, its focus will not be limited to preconceived and limited problem areas. The concerns of the laboratory will be drawn from the field . . . Excerpts from MOREL staff comments during a July, 1966 staff meeting are evidence of a concern with identifying regional needs: . . . field center concept, needs are pronounced, resources are present . . . problems identified in the field . . . concerned with field problems . . interviewers should help the public school peOple think about their problems and needs and identify resources in the local area . . . what are the needs of MIchigan and Ohio-~a question which needs to be answered . . .-continuous sampling in the future of needs in the region.6 A "Message to Persons to be Interviewed" from the MOREL staff contains evidence pertaining to this criterion: A preliminary survey of the needs, resources, and suggestions is being conducted in order to give direction to the development staff . . . Questions regarding needs will be asked about the learners and the staff Of your organization. Questions regarding resources will be asked about staff, projects, andifacilities of your organization and also about the community you serve. The necessity for "constant feedback from peOple as time goes on" and the question of "what should be the ongoing survey of needs after the laboratory is in Operation" were topics of conversation by staff. "We 7A want this laboratory to have ongoing evaluation of the needs of learners."8’9 "Excerpts from the 'Laboratory Concept' and Devel- Opmental Progress," August, 1966, states: The major activity of the developmental phase has been the establishment of communication with persons and agencies concerned with education in Michigan and Ohio to determine needs, resources, and suggestions for the design of program through field interviews in the region. Extensive evidence is found in the September 1, Progress Report: This progress report will show that the general development plan was . . . to survey the region for needs, resources, and suggestions for the Laboratory design . . . It has been the position of the development staff that the creation of the Laboratory should be field oriented just as its Operation must be . . . we believe that for acceptance, support, and effectiveness the Laboratory should be field oriented (responsive to the needs of learners and teachers as seen by people in the field) and should evolve from the ideas of many . . . the operational goals will be achieved when--l. a preliminary assessment (in priority rank) of the educational needs of the region as eXpressed through current problems has been prepared, 2. an initial analysis of the educational resources of the region has been completed, 3. a program which holds Operational promise for bringing the resources to bear on the needs has been evolved . . . The develop- ment staff recognized that time limitations pro- hibited an exhaustive survey and necessitated use of a judement sample which was stratified and carefully selected. The survey has been an effort . . . to identify needs and resources . . . It will be seen that the program is born of the needs of the region. 1966 75 The characteristics of the region (demographic data) were researched and are included in the appendix . . . Further study of differences among counties within the states will be made as well as an investigation of other charac- teristics which may be meaningful for Laboratory program development . . . The Laboratory organ- ization and government will need wide representa— tion to serve the region properly. The program must provide support and services for a variety of needs. Overlimitation in program will elim- inate many from participation . . . It is clear that with a higher portion of our children and youth in private schools than the average we must be certain to provide proper program involvement for the private sector and continuing open communication with it. Sixteen possible areas of work for the program are provided . . . These items grow out of the needs as stated in various ways and by various peOple . . .- Continuing surveys of needs and resources will be shared by all three divisions of MOREL . . . The purposes of the corporation are to conduct either alone or in cooperation with others . . . research, surveys and demon- strations in the field of education . . . such activities to include . . . educational planning with identification of educational problems, issues and needs and evaluation of educational 11 programs on a periodic or continuing basis . .,. pp. iv, 3, A, 9, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 3A, A2, an the Appendix, p. E-l. The MOREL survey was conducted during the months of July, August, and September, 1966.* A letter from staff to participants of the September, 1966 university liaison meeting states that the Laboratory's activities " will focus upon the needs of learners in the kindergarten through grade twelve and teacher education."12 *For additional information see pp. 100. 76 During the September, 1966 MOREL review by the United States Office of Education, MOREL staff extensively discussed regional educational needs and program based upon needs. The following are excerpts of staff comments from that review: The outstate people are saying, will this be a Detroit or Cleveland program? Program and organ— ization (will be constructed so as) to get at the critical problems as revealed by the field survey . . . One question we want to ask our organization task force--what's the best way to have continuing help of this kind—-advice on the program of the Lab? We are sure that the program has to be changeable, flexible, so that you can throw it out if it isn't working . . . That organization predicts the program is entirely the wrong idea. The people who work in the organization make the program. We want the program constantly to shape the organization . . . One thing in Michigan--(there is) a lot of belief in local autonomy and decision making. In MOREL the people we've involved in the development of the Lab feel far better even with this looseness at this point, because they've been involved, than if we had imposed an organization and told them what their needs were . . . Ultimately, if our organization and our program does indeed reflect the needs and involvement of peOple we have involved, there'll be far more support than there would have been otherwise--and this is the basis for our method of Operation . . . When we talk about program we're talking about a laboratory that can change its program . . . We want go be responsive to the needs of the region.1 Evidence from a "Summary of Review" by the United States Office of Education, September, 1966, is as follows: An inductive method has been used by the MOREL staff to develOp a laboratory for the Michigan and Ohio region. A broad base of data, derived from over 1,000 interviews throughout the 77 region, will be analyzed in order to establish priorities among the regional needs. Program emphases will be established around these priorities, and as the program is develOped, the organizational structure will emerge . . . A The following are excerpts from a speech by one of the staff members at a liaison meeting in September, 1966: "Field orientation-—drawing from the field identified‘ needs as a focus for research . . . looking to the total region for resources to help meet needs . . . "15 The fall, 1966 Program Task Force was instructed by MOREL staff to focus on needs and program suggestions as reported in the survey analysis: The report of analysis of responses to the inter- view survey contains many items related to program. Each section has a brief summary followed by a tally of responses. One difference between MOREL's development and the development of other regional laboratories is that we have insisted upon the notion that needs lead to program and program leads to organization. It is my hope that you will give carefuITattention to this analysis 6f our survey of needs in the Michigan-Ohio region.l :17 During the September 28, 1966 MOREL interviewers meeting the interviewers were asked by staff to react to the analysis of the survey data. They were asked if the analysis accurately reflected the needs they heard from the interviewees, and, to list the needs in order according to priorities.18 A letter from MOREL staff to the Program Task Force in September, 1966 asked two major questions with regard 78 to the major need categories of the region as-determined through the survey and its analysis: Do you believe a Laboratory program can be designed which will_be responsive to the needs as developed from the data from the interviews? And, do you believe the following list* does reflect the major needs as presented in the survey report? The five major needs were listed for the Task Force. The Program Task Force was charged to build a program "respon- sive to needs in the field."19’2O A memo to the Organization Task Force from the staff instructed them that "the Laboratory and/or specific projects it undertakes should . . . deal with problems which are deemed significant by those who are in the field . . . provide for continuity of help--and continuous response to needs . . ."21 Minutes of the Organization Task Force meeting on October 6, 1966 reveal that one of the program focuses would be on helping teachers become more effective in working with youngsters who are not experiencing success in school, environmentally disadvantaged chidren, because this was a regional need.22 A great amount of evidence may be found in the second progress report, October, 1966: *Appendix, p. 16A. 79 The results of the survey of the regional analysis have been used by staff, the interviewers, the Program Task Force, and the Organization Task Force in their deliberations in the design of the Laboratory . . . The forty-four interviewers met with staff in Plymouth on September 28 to review the analysis of the survey, check it against their own experience as interviewers, and add their quantitative results. Many sound ideas for program emerged . . . A summary of major need categories evolved at that meeting . . . The analysis of the survey and the major need cate- gories statement have been used continually by the Task Forces and by staff in the develOpment of the program and organization for MOREL . . . The major needs as develOped at the September 28 interviewers meeting represent both the data from the interview survey and the interviewers' reac- tions to those data. The Program Task Force agreed that (these needs) did represent the major needs as shown in the survey report and that a Laboratory program could indeed be designed to be responsive to the needs . . . The extensive survey of edu- cational needs dictated that the initial focus of the Laboratory should be on children and youth who are not having success in school, especially those who are environmentally disadvantaged . . . The summary suggested quite clearly a priority ranking of needs . . . it is the belief of thestaff of MOREL that staff development activities would be a direct means to assist the learner group described . . . Thus a major effort of the Labor- atory will be to assist selected schools and colleges develop activities designed to help staff members work more effectively with the youngster having learning difficulties. A characteristic of our times is CHANGE. It can be assumed that the needs assessment conducted during the summer of 1966 speaks only to the immediate future, with any certainty. Therefore it is recog- nized that continuing means must be found to main- tain a current assessment of needs--and to provide for appropriate changes in program focus as needs change. A number of persons and means may con- tribute to such a process: (1) an expanded and more representative board of directors (2) staff members in schools serving as program centers (3) a follow up, by letter, to interviewees by 80 original interviewers (A) another extensive series of interviews with another sample (5) building in more systematic contact with professional groups in the region. In this chapter, the Laboratory program will be spelled out to the extent that the staff's current knowledge of needs suggests. In harmony with our thesis of building the Laboratory around emerging needs, we can only project these needs and suggest directions at this point. We shall, however, begin with two models of project centers . . . that are strongly suggested by data on regional needs already available to us from our survey . . . One of the project centers is based on the survey- disclosed need for improved pre- and in-service education for teachers and other professionals. It-is probably clear . . . that changes do occur, that new insights produce new problems at new levels, and that program excerpts at this point in time can only be regarded as tentative. As needs and problems change in the future, program will also change, along witp both organization and budget.23, pp. I-l, II- , 2, 5c and l 0 One of the objectives of a proposed institutional liaison conference for early 1967 was to "plan procedures for a continuous search of the region's needs and 2A resources." One of the most pronounced needs growing from the regional survey . . . was the necessity of making available some means for providing meaningful access to the education-related human and institutional resources of the region. This need has been reemphasized repeatedly during further contacts with individuals and organizations con- cerned with instructional programs for learners in the Michigan-Ohio area. Because of the strength of the need, and in line with the charge to the regional laboratories to identify and disseminate information about educational improvements, the MOREL Resource Bank Project was conceived and is 81 now in the process of implementation. One of the objectives of the Resource Bank is to assist in identification of voids in the resources of the region as measured against expressed needs. Once identified, steps to fill these voids cggld be established by MOREL or other agencies. One of nine areas of concern as eXpressed in a staff memo, February, 1967, is the "Identification of Potential Program Activity." "We must have a planned program for talking with peOple about potential program in sections of Ohio and Michigan other than Cleveland and the Detroit Metropolitan Area. This kind of search activity will do more than just identify additional program potential . . ."26 An overview of program development based on regional needs is provided in the Third Progress Report, February 11, 1967: The development of the program focus is based on (1) an extensive interview survey and analysis of findings during the summer; (2) deliberations by the interview team, university and school system liaison persons, selected consultants, and two task forces on program and organization during the fall; and (3) continuing analysis and synthe- sis ofneeds and potential resources by staff and Board throughout the development period. This process led to the selection of two major foci for the program at this time . . . The first program focus of MOREL is the improvement of staff development activities specifically designed to increase instructional competence. Both initial (preservice) and continuing (inservice) education are included. The program objectives of a regional laboratory should . . . reflect the highest priority needs in the region served . . . Staff improvement is undoubtedly the most important single problem in education today. It was given highest priority in the survey of educators in Michigan and Ohio 82 . . . All program activities are aimed at staff development. Many activities also will center on students with learning difficulties. These two foci were predominant concerns of nearly every- one involved in the program development. MOREL is establishing relationships with other agencies throughout the region with a view to continuing and expanding our knowledge of needs and resources . . . Development of the Laboratory will be a contin- uing endeavor. To assume that the data concerning needs and resources which were collected in 1966 would be valid indefinitely would be dangerous, indeed. To assume that present and currently con- templated projects and activities should remain the major focus of Laboratory effort for an indefinite period might also be falacious. There- fore means are now being explored which would continue to feed in to the decision-making process possible project activities. One major source of such new data will be through the several linkage relationships . . . Another source will be through contacts with schools and colleges in the region.27: pp. 9, 10, ll, 12, and Appen ix B, pp. 28-29. In a staff memo, February, 1967, a procedure was suggested for "Structuring Information About the Process of Staff Improvement" for the Resource Bank: Purposes: To assist in sharpening the focus on staff improvement by . . . gleaning quotes and comments from the regional survey data which are relevant to the survey's major outgome of a major focus on staff improvement.2 A May, 1967 MOREL publication stated that "means are now being explored which would continue to provide data about needs of the region and which would continue to feed into the decision-making process possible extensions of program activities. One major source of such data are the people in the region ."29 83 A concern with regional needs was evident in a MOREL staff meeting, September, 1967: MOREL has a service and a program focus. By "service focus" is meant regional service based on needs. MOREL started out with a service focus, but now has moved to include both. MOREL really prefers the service focus. MOREL can get funded on the basis of a stated program focus, but still serve the needs of the region with a broad program which will try to meet all needs. 0 Evidence of the attempt to base program plans upon needs is found in the September, 1967 Annual Report. At the beginning of 1967, four goals guided MOREL's program . . . These goals were identified through a regional survey in which more than 1,000 Michi— ganders and Ohioans were interviewed. The goals were then articulated more clearly by two regional task forces . . . The MOREL Board of Directors appointed a program committee to work with the staff in the designing of a more specific and credible program to accomplish MOREL's Objectives. Their work produced two important documents: (1) the MOREL Position on Self-Renewal . . . and (2) the MOREL Program, which spells out the develop- ment and dissemination of teaching behavior sequences as MOREL"S mission . . . At the July 19 board meeting, MOREL's second goal, "to help students with severe learning problems," was cancelled as a specific objective for MOREL. This objective was drOpped so that most of the MOREL resources could be deployed to conduct the program described (elsewhere in the document)--a program designed to accomplish MOREL's first goal, "to improve teacher effectiveness." Consequently, MOREL has three program goals now rather than four. They are: 1. To improve teacher effec— tiveness. 2. To identify educational problems in and provide service to the region. 3., To commun- icate MOREL program to other agencies . . . Con- cern about teacher effectiveness was one of the major concerns identified in MOREL's survey of the Michigan-Ohio region last year. 8A The Information and Communication division aids in the achievement of certain of MOREL's primary goals including to identify educational problems in and provide service to the region . . . The identification and articulation of educational problems in the region has been a continuing emphasis of MOREL. MOREL was the only regional laboratory to conduct an intensive survey of regional education problems by interviewing peOple in the region. If MOREL is to be a self-renewing organization, it must continue to identify and respond to the crucial educational problems of the region. No plans have been made for another survey of regional education problems, but this task is a continuing one for both the staff and the program committee of the Board of Directors. With regard to the Information Center and Resource Bank: . . . the project is an attempt to identify edu- cational problems in the region and resources for the Laboratory activities . . . the MOREL Resource Bank provides linkage between program needs and regional resources. It is also of general service to the region, and in this capacity it serves as a dissemination agent for the results of program activity. After identifying a myriad of educational prob- lems in the regional survey conducted in 1966, MOREL has limited its program goals to (1) primary objective and (2) secondary goals. The primary objective is to improve teacher effec- tiveness. The secondary objectives are to identify educational problems in and provide service to the region as well as to communicate the MOR L program5 to other agencies.3ls V01- 1: pp. 1’ ’ and 5 V010 IV, p. 2“. During the September, 1967 General Membership meeting, the MOREL Director stated that "this is a program oriented Laboratory--going out into the region and doing a particular job. But it is still regional service oriented, responsive to regional needs."32 85 From the November, 1967 MOREL employment Opening for the "Position of Curriculum Development Resources Special- istz" The Resource Bank links resources to educational needs. The candidate should have the ability to recognize and to seek new applications of edu- cational methods and means through the joining of resources and needs with a focus on instruc- tional problems . . . and willingness and skill to work in the total Ohio and Michigan region in the linking of resources and needs. One of the candidate's duties and responsibilities would be to evaluate the appropriateness of regional resources in relation to expressed educational needs.33 Minutes of the November 30, 1967 Board of Directors meeting indicate that two of MOREL's four primary objec- tives are "to develOp an inservice strategy" and "to provide service to the region," both regional needs as revealed through the MOREL survey of 1966.314 In an interview a staff member indicated that "another survey is not necessary if MOREL continually keeps 'tuned in,‘ 'listens,' to the region."35 With regard to this criterion the MOREL Director expressed the following thoughts in an interview: We wanted to develop innovations and program from expressed needs of the region. We wanted the flow to go from the region to the researcher through MOREL as well as the other way around (researcher through MOREL to practitioner), as is usually the case. Our program emphasis, an expressed, basic need which we learned through our survey, went from staff development to self renewal to inservice teacher education through Field Action Units. The ResourcgéBank grew out of need expressed in the survey. 86 Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Opg.--The change agent should identify the characteristics and needs of the client system and base plans upon them: Through activities and plans such as the regional survey, the establishment of formal liaison with institu- tions of higher education, many types of communication with numerous other groups, organizations, and individuals, the use of task forces to develOp program and organization, all of which were attempts to identify the real needs, problems, and characteristics (including resources) of the region, and the continual concern with basing program upon expressed regional needs, for example the Resource Bank Project, positive support of criterion one is evidenced. CRITERION TWO: THE CHANGE AGENT SHOULD SEEK, AND PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RAPPORT AND THE BUILDING OF MUTUAL TRUST AND RESPECT BETWEEN THE CLIENT SYSTEM AND ITSELF. From the very beginning of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory recognition of the need for building rapport with the region was present. The proposal for the Laboratory stated that "the idea that there is an important advantage in relating oneself to MOREL must emerge clearly in the eyes of personnel housed in the educational agencies of the region."1 87 The building of relations with people in the field started at the beginning of the Laboratory and has continued ever since--the building of a good rela- tionship between researcher and practitioner. The building of rapport has been a conscious purpose of the staff. It was a critical thing during the development period. A major criterion in hiring Wendell Hough and Charles Blackman was this goal. Both men already had good contacts in Michigan and could help us get at this objective of building rapport. Charles Blackman, Virgil Blanke, and Wendell Hough worked individually at this goal, and forced the whole staff group to work at it, to give attention to it.36 Instructions to the survey interviewers pertained to this criterion: "Remember that we are really consulting with the selected interviewees. They should feel that they have been consulted."37 A staff member reaction with regard to the inter- viewees of the survey was: "We're hopeful of getting the feeling to others that they can make a contribution."6 Another staff member reaction with regard to the survey was: "It's necessary to build communication with, and warm up other people to MOREL."8 In retrospect with regard to the survey, the director stated: We attempted to build rapport with both the interviewers and interviewees through the survey. A purpose of the survey was to build rapport and mutual respect. However, we may have made a mistake--in raising or building expectations that we haven't been able to follow through on. There is a risk in com- municating as we did with the region. It might have had a negative effect because the development perigd has been such a long under- taking in time. 88 "One intent of the original survey was to build rapport and mutual respect with peOple of the region. However, it may have had a negative effect in that it may have raised too much expectation on the part of the peOple in the Lab--which we haven't been able to fulfill."35 Conversation at a MOREL planning staff meeting included the following: "We have to keep building on the relationship we're establishing through our interviews. Perhaps we should send thank you notes to the inter- viewees."38 "A major goal of the survey is to provide information about the Laboratory and secure commitment to it among the "39 interviewees who are located throughout the region. Wording of the "Message to Persons to be Interviewed" was constructed so that it would in part affect positively the relationship between the Laboratory and the people in the field: "The development staff for the Laboratory is appreciative of your willingness to meet with our field representative and invites your recommendations and ques- tions throughout the develOpment period."7 "The establishment of formal liaison with univer- sities and colleges, the Toledo liaison meeting, and the survey Wendell Hough did to identify these institutions' resources built rapport and mutual trust and respect. We were concerned with contacts and the quality of contact with these people."36 89 Wendell Hough's message to the liaison peOple of the colleges and universities in the region when he asked them for help in surveying their resources was worded so as to build positive relationships: "Your help in identi— fying university resources is imperative . . . "A0 The September 1, 1966 Progress Report points out the following: . . we believe that for acceptance, support, and effectiveness the Laboratory should be field oriented (responsive to the needs of learners and teachers as seen by people in the field) and should evolve from the ideas of many . . . The extensive involvement of people in the develop- ment stage has served to minimize misunder- standing, but we are cognizant of the need for continued and careful communication. And, with regard to the September 28 meeting of interviewers: A meeting of the interview team is planned to provide additional feedback for staff and to cElmtinueu7 liaison with interviewers.1ls pp. 3, "MOREL has used key members of the Board of Directors, or people with certain skills, contacts, and influences, to in turn reach other key people. And this process was seen useful in building a stronger commitment to the Laboratory on the part of the new person."35 At the Washington, D. C. review by the United States Office of Education on September 9, 1966, Wendell Hough made the following comment: "The way MOREL is working--not imposing an organization and program on the people in the 90 region, but involving them--will ultimately result in a lot more support from the peOple than there would have been otherwise."13 Contacts with all the superintendents of schools in Michigan were undoubtedly in part for the purpose of building rapport and mutual trust and respect with them. The following is an excerpt from a letter sent to all the Michigan superintendents on September 18, 1966: " . . . a follow up of the July 1966 letter to inform you of the laboratory's progress . . . We shall try to keep you informed of our progress and certainly hope that your organization will want to participate in the Operation of the regional laboratory.”1 The second MOREL progress report, October 2A, 1966 stated that one goal or activity of the Division of Research and Evaluation Services is "establishment of effective relationships, nationally and regionally, with individuals and agencies interested in research and eval- uation."23,'pp. II-ll and 12. One of the two very general purposes for the con- ference for institution liaison representatives was "to build a broad base of commitment for a laboratory in Michigan-Ohio among a fairly influential group of people."2L4 It seems evident that attempts were made by MOREL staff to build rapport with the members of the General Membership: 91 As we have previously conveyed to you, your role is a very crucial one in the development of MOREL both in the view of MOREL staff and of those in the U. S. Office of Education. Once again I am delighted that you have eXpressed your willing- ness to aid the extended develOpment of MOREL. I look forward to theuppportunity to visit with you in Bowling Green. The minutes of the meeting of the General Membership on January 30, 1967 include the statement that it is "desirable to involve the interests of as many segments of the regional community as possible in the affairs of the Laboratory in the sense of gathering support for the Laboratory and its projects."u3’ p. 6' One of nine concerns of Virgil Blanke in a memo to the MOREL staff on February 1, 1967 was "public relations." He said that MOREL "must make a concentrated public rela- tions effort in the region."26 The MOREL program document of April and May, 1967, "in search of criticism," probably built rapport and mutual respect with those two hundred and fifty persons who were asked to react to it. The May 19th letter from the staff which accompanies the document said, "we deeply appreciate your effort in helping us develop an effective program."uu’u5 Concern about building rapport with the people of the region was evident in a letter from Allen Bernstein to the members of the Board of Directors in which he reported on a meeting of peOple concerned with MOREL. The discussion 92 of that meeting included " . . . the general problem of generating enthusiasm without building expectations for immediate results" among the people of the region.“6 A report re Title III (Elementary-Secondary Education Act) relations between MOREL and the region in August of 1967 from part time staff members pointed up the need for MOREL "to build greater-cooperation and validity with the region." The authors' feeling was that the July 19, 1967 Board of Directors decision on program might receive "unfavorable reaction from the grass roots people of the region."47 A MOREL employment opening announcement for the "Position of Curriculum DevelOpment Resources Specialist," November, 1967 noted that the candidate should have "the ability to elicit cooperation through effective inter- personal relations with a wide range of persons in varying contests." [gtg]33 A concern with building positive relationships in the region was a primary objective of MOREL for the year beginning December 1, 1967 as reported in the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting, November 30, 1967: 93 We have intentionally avoided brochures and newsletters until our program was clearly- defined. We find communication actions vary in effectiveness with the task. We do not wish to raise expectations too high too soon. But we do need regional support, and we do need to promote readiness to receive our gflture dissemination effort . . The many communication activities, twelve times or so, with the two state departments of education may be viewed in part as attempts to build rapport and mutual respect and trust with the region.35 The effort to fulfill requests from educators to participate in conferences around the two states, to talk about MOREL, built rapport and mutual respect.36 The MOREL staff tried to build rapport through meetings and making other contacts with intermediate school districts, universities and colleges, agencies, state departments, professional associations, and groups like the Greater Cleveland Educational Research Council, the Upjohn Company, and the Michigan Research Council.36 MOREL attempted to build rapport with key peOple in business and industry in the region. A staff member had a meeting with some of them, including the educational directors, from Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, J. L. Hudson Company, Michigan Bell Telephone, and Chrysler Corporation. They made it very clear that they would cooperate and that they want to help and be involved.36 9A Letters and meetings with key persons* may be considered in part for the purpose of building rapport and mutual respect and trust with those peOple. One of the author's conscious purposes as an interviewer was to build rapport and mutual trust and respect with the interviewees. In my judgment, the MOREL staff built such with the author, too, as an interviewer. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Egg.--The change agent should seek and play a major role in, the establishment of rapport and the building of mutual trust and respect between the client system and itself: The building of rapport and mutual trust and respect with the region was a conscious purpose of the MOREL staff throughout the entire development period. It was done through the survey interviews, through the establishment of relationships by interpersonal and written communication with many organizations, groups, other institutions and agencies, and individuals other than those interviewed, *See criterion four. 95 and through actively involving people of the region as interviewers, task force members, consultants, liaison representatives, and proposed program reactors. CRITERION THREE: THE CHANGE AGENT SHOULD VIEW THE CHANGE PROCESS AS A MUTUAL, COLLABORATIVE, RECIPROCAL UNDERTAKING BETWEEN THE CLIENT SYSTEM AND ITSELF. Evidence relating to this criterion is found in the Laboratory proposal, April, 1966: This prospectus is a product of preliminary planning which has involved scores of school systems, institutions, professional organi- zations and agencies throughout the two states. It will be modified and developed by the participating units during the plan- ning and development period and as experience indicates the desirability of modification. The field operations of the laboratory may operate in connection with a school system, or cluster of school systems, non-public schools, and educational agencies. Efforts will be made to include at all stages the thinking of personnel in non-public edu- cational institutions. . . . the field staff will convene multi- disciplinary groups to engage in prelim- inary thinking about the problems being identified. These will include university faculty and school personnel from as many disciplines as possible, plus the research- oriented or education—interested personnel of industrial concerns and professional organizations. 96 The region also contains many industrial, religious, labor, agriculture, and military organizations which maintain procedures for teaching and learning, but too seldom have the opportunity to collaborate with recognized educational institutions. All of these organizations are affected by the situational factors described, and some of them have dealt with the factors more effectively than have some educa- tional agencies. Consequently, it makes only good sense to encourage them to COOperate in the labor- atory program. There is promise and potential for every educa- tional agency in the region. It is the agencies who provide the input-~in terms of the concerns and aspirations. It is the agencies who will be actively involved in the actual laboratory pro— grams and the new knowledge produced. It is the agencies which decide to use, or not use, the innovations produced in the laboratory. To realize the theoretical goals of the prOposal it must be clear that the Laboratory desires to help those who are helping make educational pro- gress, not to compete with them. MOREL wants to incorporate the interests of public schools systems, community cultural bodies, govern- mental agencies, etc. (in its research pursuits). 1! pp' LL, 5, 13 From a staff memorandum, June, 1966: However we decide to assess the region I think that we should have direct contact with people in each of the following classifications: l. Cities--large school systems with 25,000 or more students 2. Medium sized school systems--3,000——25,000 students 3. Small school systems and county school systems A. Very poor school systems-- those spending less than $300/pupil 5. Special schools, such as technical schools, as well as religious, industrial, and military educational agencies 6. Colleges and universities 7. Private and parochial school systems 8. State departments of education, federal agencies, and educational research agencies 9. Professional associations, unions, and citizens groups interested in education 10. Private foundations, industry, government, state legislature and all other potential funding 97 agencies . . . asking them to put on paper priority problems, resources in the region which could help solve the problems, and their ideas about the nature of a regional laboratory . . . 2 A statement by the planning and development team of MOREL about the concept of the Laboratory reveals evidence pertaining to this criterion: The identification of needs and resources will be the-responsibility of educators in the region . . . It is expected that laboratory activities will combine researcher, focus on a specific problem, and practitioner in one or more of these tasks . . . preliminary survey to locate resources; identify problems; gain sug- gestions; and identify existing projects which relate practitioner, problem, and researcher . . . The ultimate impact and success of MOREL depend upon the COOperative and complementary efforts of a large number, and variety of persons and agencies who are concerned with quality education and actively committed to the activities and conceptual develOpment of the laboratory. The creation of institutional liaison representatives was an activity designed in part to make educational change collaborative undertakings or OOOperative efforts in the region.Ll8’l2 The MOREL staff communicated their interest in collaborating with regional institutions in a letter during the summer of 1966: The Laboratory must identify resources of the region which can be utilized in seeking solutions to education needs and problems . . . Your help in identifying university resources is imperative . . . Obviously we are not requesting a complete inventory of your institutional resources, but we are interested in the resources you think we should know about and possibly involve in MOREL 98 activities. The develOpmental concept of the Laboratory and tentative program priorities should provide clues for the kinds of resources which might have relevance for the laboratory once it becomes Operational.6 The philosophy of the Laboratory as it relates to this criterion is evident in a July, 1966 publication: The Laboratory seeks to provide a kind Of inter- action between local school staffs and those representing various resources which seek to contribute to the improvement of school programs. The interaction of the stimulus the laboratory seeks to provide, the ideas coming from many sources, and field type problems mark its uniqueness . . .8 It_will not duplicate existing services--but will attempt to encourage, to supplement to aid, to supply help not now available.5 The Morel Survey interviewers were instructed to "consult" with the interviewees and leave them with the feeling that they had been consulted.37 Staff reactions at a meeting in July, 1966 ranged from the comment "we're hopeful of getting the feeling from others that they can make a contribution" to "we must have involvement of higher education personnel and teachers, not just university researchers" to "MOREL will primarily act as a catalyst in the region."6 The MOREL survey was an activity which relates to this criterion. The following was included in a message from the staff to persons who were interviewed, summer, 1966: A preliminary survey of the needs, resources, and suggestions is being conducted in order to give direction to the development staff . . . Questions regarding needs will be asked about the learners and the staff of your organization. Questions regarding resources will be asked about staff, 99 projects, and facilities of your organization and also about the community you serve. Questions that seek suggestions will be asked about oper- ation of the Laboratory, staffing of the Labor- atory, and the potential involvement of your organization.7 Concerns of staff at a meeting in August, 1966 included the needs to build communication with the public school people of the region, achieve constant feedback from peOple in the field, and generate ideas for the Laboratory from public school peOple.8 A staff meeting a few days later was concerned in part with "establishing equilibrium of effort between schools and universities" and a "balance of concern between public and non-public schools" in the region. Parts of the discussion are more specifically reported here: Perhaps other of the smaller institutions have to be represented somewhat on the Board of Directors so that the lab doesn't become something perceived as dominated by the University of Michigan, Wayne, Michigan State University, or the Detroit Public Schools. The other underlying concept which is still in our discussions time and time again is the matter of involvement, that you can't have real change unless people become part and you know we've been talking about this a great deal . . . I'm beginning to think that part of the organization and structure of this Laboratory ought to put a much larger emphasis than has ever been put before on this business of keeping people involved in a lot of different ways . . . on advisory committees and with communication and kind of overdo it on the chance that every time when we get done we say to the peOple . . . "people were involved" . . . The Board should be expanded in order to get broader involvement . . . We are talking about an involvement of several different kinds of people. We're talking about the involvement of inter- ‘viewers, we're talking about the involvement of 100 interviewees, or at least representative inter- viewees, we're talking about the involvement of several different kinds of consultant teams and helping us look at data . . . What I need to envision in addition to the time pressures we're under from Washington are the realities of involving these kinds of peOple in what kinds of ways in this particular period of time . . . Talking to peOple is not involvement--they've got to have a chgnce to react in order to have involvement.9: 3 From a report by the MOREL director to the Board of Directors, August, 1966: Plans are to design the Laboratory program, organization structure, and decision making procedures during September and October using data and ideas from (1) the survey, (2) con- sultation with key personnel, (3) a special task force still being planned, (A) meeting with university liaison persons, (5) recom- mendations of Office of Education September 9 review, (6) suggestions of the Board of Directors, (7) feedback from special post- interview meeting with interviewers, and 39 (8) the concerns of the development staff. The September, 1966 Progress Report dealt extensively with philOSOphy and activities related to this criterion: It has been the position of the develOpment staff that the creation of the Laboratory should be field oriented just as its operation must be. For this reason a great many persons have shared in the continuing evolvement and evaluation of the concept of the Laboratory . . . we believe that for acceptance, support, and effectiveness the Laboratory should be field oriented (respon- sive to the needs of learners and teachers as seen by people in the field) and should evolve from the ideas of many . . . the pperational goals will be achieved when . . . a broad base of participants to be involved in the laboratory has been identified . . . 101 One purpose of the survey is to elicit suggestions for the program, government, organization, and staffing of the Laboratory . . . Field personnel will be assigned to contact superintendents, prin- cipals, teachers, lay citizens, association personnel, educators in industry, and research agencies . . . The survey has been an effort not only to identify needs and resources but also to inform, seek suggestions, and elicit possible involvement at the Operational stage. Approximately 1200 persons from the following categories of position were selected as inter- viewees: *Superintendents, 15%; *Other Central Office Personnel, 10%; *Principals and Assistant Principals-~Elementary and Secondary, 15%; *Teachers--E1ementary and Secondary, 10%; Research and Development Agencies, 15%; Lay Citizens--Board members, industry, parents, 10%; College and University Personnel, 15%: Government, Association, Union, 10%. *Public and Non-Public One of the concerns which has been directing the activities of the staff is a desire to build into the operation of the Laboratory means by which university personnel and practitioners in school systems, both public and non-public, will have more opportunity to engage in cooperative improve- ment programs . . . The relative involvement of university and school personnel in development has been intentionally balanced. Early returns from the survey show that many believe that the field-orientation concept requires some Board membership by teachers and principals . . . It is expected that the Board of Directors can be more representative of the region byr expansion . . . Factors influencing the program develOpment to date are (1) the prospectus for the development grant representing the thinking of the pre-planning period, (2) the concerns of the development staff and the Board of Directors, (3) preliminary returns from the interview survey, (A) interpretation of demographic data about the characteristics of the region, and (5) ideas gained from conversations with persons in the field. 102 One possible area of work for the program is the development of joint efforts and interaction among organizations . . . A cooperative endeavor by institutions of higher learning and the Laboratory is proposed for the recruitment and education of change agents. With regard to the Research Division: It will not compete with other agencies but will supplement their work and foster additional research and evaluation activities in the field. A special project of the division will be the analysis and synthesis of existing knowledge from research for sharing with edu ational units in the region.1la D- 1V. 3a 3'5: 9: 10a 13, 1A, 20, 21, 29, 33, 3A, 37, A1, and A2. Staff discussions at the Washington, D. C. United States Office of Education review in September, 1966 is pertinent: Criteria used to select the task force for program included balance between both state departments of education, public school people, and university people, and people spread out geographically . ... We will have advisory groups, other task forces, during the operation of the Laboratory to give advice and help on program . We've involved, deliberately, a great many people . . . discussing the possibilities of the Lab. How can we maintain this kind of involvement with many peOple? . . . How do we maintain the acceleration of involvement that we think we have right now? The Board membership will be enlarged to give it the characteristic of broad representation and involvement of people. We believe that change takes place by involving the guy who's going to change. We're Operating out of this concept.1 103 A September, 1966 publication notes that MOREL sees itself in the "role of catalyst and communications linker" with educators in the region.L49 The Interviewers Meeting, September 28, 1966 is evi- dence of collaboration. The purpose of the day was to "gather the best thinking of those who have been closest to the field concerning the develOpment of MOREL."18 A letter from the MOREL staff to the Program Task Force members points out that there is a need to foster a "cooperative relation between schools and colleges" and to bring together diverse resources in the Operation of the Laboratory in the region.19 The Program Task Force of October, 1966 was charged with the task of developing a program which would "join change agent (researcher, develOper, disseminator, demon- strator), with practitioner."2O The Organization Task Force was instructed by the MOREL staff to "avoid duplicating existing efforts--and, in fact—-shou1d both support and facilitate related efforts of other institutions and agencies," and "encourage mutual partnership between those being served and those serving as resource" as it considered the kind of structure the Laboratory should have.21 One of the MOREL staff members stated that it would be a "non regulatory, non controlling type of laboratory—- a facilitating, coordinating kind of lab."50 10A Evidence is found in a letter from the staff to the Organization Task Force, October 6, 1966: . . . the MOREL staff will attempt to build upon existing activities, to coordinate and supplement such activities, and to initiate new approaches. Alliances among schools, non-school agencies, colleges, intermediate (county) offices, state departments of education, research and develop- ment centers, business, industry, and labor will be sought in the service of the program focus.5l During the Organization Task Force meeting in Cleve— land, October 6, 1966, many questions were raised and discussed about relationships of the Laboratory with the people of the region, linkage with other institutions, who should make decisions, and how to increase linkage between university and school people.22 A letter to the MOREL Director included the statement, "your early contact with our office, and Dr. Hough's dis- cussions with us, indicate to me that the staff is aware of the important role intermediate districts can play, in support of and in concert with MOREL, to help solve educational needs."52 From the progress report of October, 2A, 1966: There is a need to meet regional needs in a way that fosters a COOperative relation between schools and colleges, and supports the bringing together of diverse resources which might contribute effectively. With regard to the conditions and procedures relating to choice of a school center for a MOREL project, it is made clear that the participation of the chosen school will be a collaborative one with the Laboratory. In addition, 105 the operational activities of any project center will not be preconceived by MOREL, but will "emerge through OOOper- ative planning" of the parties involved. Each institution or organization will accomplish its own desires for change. -.'. . it is important to remember that the focus (of field or project centers) must be created by the collaborating institutions with MOREL's help. MOREL cannot set up such a project center alone . . . Linkage of problems and solutions in both institutional settings is a crucial concept . . . It involves close collaboration between a college or department of education, on the one hand, and a public school or school system, on the other. The Division of DevelOpment Services has the responsibility of bringing together persons from schools, school systems, and colleges working in related areas. One significant purpose Of such collaboration would be to provide an Opportunity for exchange of ideas among such groups. Goals or activities of the Division of Research and Evaluation Services are to establish effec- tive relationships, nationally and regionally, with individuals and agencies interested in research and evaluation, to seek collaboration with other research agencies. One goal of the Communication Division is to identify, foster, and support OOOperative infor- mation services within the region and urge participation in national media. The Organization Task Force recommended that the representativeness of the government be increased to fifty-four persons selected to represent a cross-section of educational interests in the region. The nominating committee will attempt to provide a variety of representativeness among the Members of the Corporation and will attempt to have approx- imately one-third of the candidates from outside of the field of education. Examples of groups that 106 might be represented are: the two states and their geographical areas; rural, small towns, suburbs, and cities; elementary, junior'rfigh senior high, community college, trade school, college, and uni- versity teachers, administrators, specialists, and students; state departments of education and county intermediate offices; industry, union, business, boards of education, and other lay persons; public, parochial and other private schools; subject areas and research and develOpment agencies; and educa- tors' unions, associations and other professional organizations.23s pp- 1'23 II-3a 5, , 7, ll, 12: 16; and III-l. During a joint meeting between the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory and the Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc., October 26, 1966 the MOREL Director spoke about and distributed printed material which pointed out the Laboratory's concern with linkage, liaison, and the develOpment of cooperative working relationships with people and organizations in the 53, 5A region. Representatives of Ohio teachers colleges meeting with MOREL staff were "invited to suggest ways in which effective involvement in the future can be achieved."55 A staff memo in December, 1966 on the subject of the tentative conference for MOREL's institutional liaison representatives mentioned expansion of the liaison group to achieve a wider representation of institutions in the region. It also pointed out one of the major Objectives of the conference--to gain suggestions and ideas from the participants for MOREL's operation.2u 107 A staff memo with regard to the Twin Valley Living- Learning Center noted the possibilities for MOREL's involvement as a "catalyst in aiding these several different kinds of institutions to work more effectively together."56 The construction of the MOREL Resource Bank is evidence of collaborative undertaking in the region. The structuring of the resource bank was done on the basis of information gathered from regional and (gnational sources, through letters sent to key loca- tions soliciting the results of relevant experience, attendance at specific conferences and demonstra-. tions, analysis of data previously gathered by 25 MOREL, and examination of educational literature. Group discussions at the meeting of the General Membership of MOREL, January 20, 1967 as reported in the minutes of that meeting provide evidence: A group dis- cussed with the-General Membership . . . the problem of coordinating institutions in various phases of education and the improve- ment of relationships and linkage between institutions for the mutual benefit of such institutions. Another group . . . believed it to be desirable to involve the interests of as many segments of the regional community as possible in the affairs of the Laboratory . . . an active role by the member- ship was desirable.u3. pp. 2:769 and 7 During the Februarle, 1967 Board of Directors meeting the "necessity for involvement in program by all members of the Board of Directors and by the membership generally" was discussed.58 108 The Third Progress Report of MOREL, February 11, 1967 provides extensive evidence relating to this criterion: In keeping with the policy formulated at the October, 1966 Board meeting and described in the Second Progress Report, the General Membership of MOREL has been expanded. The fifty-four General Members are apportioned approximately into three equal groups: one—third elementary and secondary per- sons, one-third higher education persons, and one— third lay persons. One-half are from Ohio and one- half from Michigan. There is representation of both public and non-public institutions, of both men and women, of different positions in schools and colleges, of the arts and sciences, of management and labor, and of industry, agriculture and government. The intent has been to have a body as representative of the interests and compe- tencies in the region as possible. The Members expressed their wish (in the General Membership meeting, January 30, 1967) to partici- pate in the affairs of the Laboratopy by (1) meeting more frequently than one time per year, (2) organizing effective support of the regional laboratory movement generally and of MOREL par- ticularly, (3) serving on gg.hoc committees in areas of special competence, T97 helping to carry out the Laboratory program individually and through their own organizations, (5) evaluating the effectiveness of staff operations, (6) sharing in the determination of the major thrust of the Laboratory program. The development of the program focus is based on (1) an extensive interview survey and analysis of findings during the summer; (2) deliberations by the interview team, university and school system liaison persons, selected consultants, and two task forces on program and organization during the fall; and (3) continuing analysis and synthesis of needs and potential resources by staff and Board throughout the develOpment period. This process led to the selection of two major foci for the program at this time. 109 With regard to relationships with other agencies: Linkage relationships appear to be one of the keys to the success of a laboratory's efforts. On the one hand the laboratory should not needlessly duplicate the work of existing organizations and agencies in the region and, must, in fact, seek to capitalize upon and seek to strengthen such efforts designed to improve learning for boys and girls. On the other hand, existing agencies, in many cases, must become the vehicle through which the laboratory gains access to professional staff of schools and colleges--and thus these agencies become crucial to the laboratory's success. At the same time, balance must be sought between linkages which facilitate the work of the laboratory and those which direct laboratory efforts. Too much of the latter might mean that the laboratory would become merely an extension of existing agencies and achieve no entity of its own. Thus linkage relationships become crucial to assure avoidance of duplication, to contribute support to other agencies, to provide a means of intervention in the change process, to learn of additional regional needs within the program focus of the laboratory, and to facilitate improvement of teaching and learning through bringing together agencies con- cerned with various aspects of such improvement activity. Thus far, the following are representative of the types of linkage relationships already established: Liaison has been effected with major colleges and universities in the region through the designation of a person or persons in each institution who will serve as a communications link with MOREL: meetings have been held with administrative staff members of the two state departments of education in the region and conversations are continuing concerning ways in which MOREL might relate to support efforts for Title I and III of E.S.E.A. . . . meetings have been held with two regional associations of schools to explore possible ties with MOREL: communication has been maintained with professional groups including state professional associations and several departments of these groups . . . discus- sions have been held with representatives of national groups Operating in the region such as the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards of the National Education 110 Association, and the National Science Foundation; a meeting of an informal group of Federal program officers and other staff of 8-10 intermediate school districts focused on ties with MOREL . . . Title III Projects and Development activities have already received attention from MOREL staff. Con- tacts have been established with appropriate persons in the two state departments and discussions are currently being held with these persons concerning possible roles for MOREL. To date assistance has been provided in the planning stage of several Title III proposals, several proposals have received formal endorsement, and five or six prOposals, at least, have provided for a cooperative role for MOREL, either in rendering consultation service or in aiding in the development of evaluation procedure. Plans are under discussion in one state for a con- ference of Title III directors--with MOREL as a participant. Discussions have been held, as well, with several Title I directors concerning MORELis role in assisting with evaluation procedures With regard to the Staff-Planned Improvement Project, Bryant Junior High School, Livonia, Michigan: This staff improvement activity is based upon research and theory development which suggests that those who are to implement an improved program-- a change-~should be involved in the creation of the proposed improvement.~ Many teachers and adminis- trators in the region have indicated that too many of the new programs and curriculum changes made possible through the use of federal funds have not been develOped with any degree of involvement from the teaching staff. Early and continued involve- ment of the teaching staff in program development gives more assurance of implementation in the classroom . . .- This program activity is a grass roots Operation in the sense that teachers are planning th ir own3 staff im rovement activi- ties . . pp° and 9; Ppendix B, pp. 27 and 28; Appendix C, pp. 33 and 3A. From a memo on the organization of MOREL, February 13, 1967: 111 The government of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Edu- cational Laboratory is vested in a membership Of 5A persons . . . (with) provision for both continuity and widening participation in the governmental affairs of the MOREL . . . Research findings, develOpmental endeavors, dissemination activities, evaluation results, and other under- takings Of MOREL shall be reported to the member- ship for their comment, criticism, and suggestion . . . Individual members of MOREL may be requested to enter into formal or informal consultative relationships with the staff. Members may also be asked to contribute some assistance in various ways to the work of the Laboratory . . . The Board of Directors shall approve the program mission of MOREL and shall authorize the under- taking of particular projects determined to be consistent with and contributing t3 the accom- plishment of the program mission.5 A letter from a member of the Board of Directors contains evidence pertaining to this criterion: For the moment, it would seem, our need is not only for well-constructed research projects but even more for evidence of cooperative action in the region . . . We are faced, therefore, with the problem of demon- strating that individual projects, differing one from the other, fit into a larger region-wide centered theme, involving key department of education and other university agencies on the one hand and public and private elementary and secondary school systems on the other. At the Board of Directors March A, 1967 meeting, a Special program committee was appointed to define the program focus of the Laboratory and to formulate perfor- mance standards and criteria for Laboratory projects.61 During the April 2A, 1967 Board of Directors meeting, the Board made suggestions for the new program focus, accepted it on a tentative basis, and instructed the MOREL staff to: 112 . . . continue its efforts to clarify program definition, secure outside reactions, and then report to the Board Program Subcommittee which will in turn report to the Board of Directors . . . The presence of resource, practitioners and focus on a problem were congidered essen- tial to MOREL's program method. Personal notes of one of the MOREL staff of the April, 1967 Board meeting include the notation, "the whole area of inter-institutional conversation and stimulation is one means we've got pp develop . . ."63 The April 28, 1967 draft of the prOposed MOREL program was sent to various peOple in the region in search of their reactions, suggestions, and criticisms in the development of MOREL's programfiu’65 From the minutes of the May 8, 1967 General Member- ship meeting: Dr. Charles Blackman reported upon the efforts of the Laboratory in the area Of communication with other educational institutions and described the need for inculcating and maintaining aware- ness on the part of educational institutions as to the activities of other institutions and organizations which relate to common purposes or concerns. Dr. Blanke indicated that not withstanding the efforts of the Program Committee or the staff of the Laboratory, in an ultimate sense the program of the Laboratory must be that of the General Membership, since the General Membership com- prises the persons who must provide necessary support for the program and the enthusiasm required to obtain the funding with which the program is to be carried out. . . . it was the sense of the membership, the staff, the officers and the Board of Directors that in no event should the membership be a "rubber stamp" for material prepared by staff 113 and approved by the Board of Directors; rather the General Membership should actively partici- nggripophe formg%ation of the program for the y . . . A report to the General Membership on May 8, 1967 by the MOREL Director includes mention of the election of eighteen members to the expanded Board of Directors in January, and notes a purpose of linkage activities is to "promote regionality of the Laboratory."67 A letter from the MOREL Director to the Members of the Board of Directors in June, 1967 reminds them of the May 8th statement by the General Membership, "in no event should the membership be a 'rubber stamp' for the staff and Board of Directors," and notes that the decisions made during the next Board meeting "should be subjected to criticism of the General Members."68 The "cottage meetings" in Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio, June, 1967 relate to the collaborative undertakings of MOREL. "Our staff members obtained important information and suggestions of how to improve their program and how to involve significant people and agencies within the region to assist us" as the result of these meetings.65 With regard to the Twin Valley Living-Learning Center, a project in which MOREL was a participant: "This is a noteworthy attempt to develop inter-institutional OOOper- ation which may strengthen the teacher training process and develop continuous programs for improving staff 65 effectiveness." 11A A letter to the General Membership on August 8, 1967 from staff regarding the coming membership meeting in September stated, "after you have had some direct experience with the new MOREL program, we hope that you will help us in the following ways: 1. Make specific suggestions for strengthening the program 2. Help devise a method for 69 I! program site selection . . The September, 1967 Annual Report contains extensive evidence relating to this criterion: The Membership on May 8 in the General Membership meeting suggested to the Board and staff that the position statement on self-renewal which had been developed by the Board Program Committee and the staff be sent for criticism to a number of peOple around the nation . . . On May 17, 1967 the tentative position on self-renewal was mailed to over 200 people by the director with a covering letter asking for commentary. The mailing list included school and university administrators in the two state regions, outstanding research per- sonnel and other educators in many parts of the nation, directors of other laboratories, teachers, education professors, and lay people . . . The MOREL General Membership provides both educa- tional and geographic representation to the Labor- atory . . . Individual Board members and General Members have shown concern for the MOREchrogram in that they are willing to help MOREL staff members with particularly difficult tasks when that need is evidenced. A unique role of the Laboratory is that of cata- lyst. Three elements are usually required for educational improvement: (1) practitioner, (2) resources (sometimes a researcher), and (3) focus on a problem. The regional laboratory can facilitate the joining of these elements through its relationship with schools, colleges, govern- mental units, and others within and without the educational community. Such relationships have been and will continue to be built through the 115 major program activities and through auxiliary activities such as the resource bank, joint efforts with Title III personnel, the design of evaluation systems, and other activities designed to strengthen relationships in the region . . . Better cooperative effort among existing educa- tional agencies is needed and possible . . . MOREL staff participated in a meeting of Title III coordinators from four states . . . During the initial development of procedures and strategies for the improvement of teaching effectiveness, all participants will be volun- teers . . . participating teachers will be en— couraged to become full partners in the design and development phases . . . Persons whose behavior is to be changed must have the Oppor- tunity to participate in clarifying goals and in the development of procedures for reaching these goals,3l, V01. I, pp. 28, N3, 58, and 59; V01. II, pp. 11 and 12; Vol. IV, pp. 7, l2, and 19. During a MOREL staff meeting in September, 1967 the Director of MOREL spoke about MOREL's desire to "serve a catalytic function in the region, and to involve state departments, universities, etc., in program, not just local school systems."30 Minutes of the November, 1967 Board of Directors meeting include the following evidence: A unique function of the regional laboratory is to serve as a catalyst to stimulate new OOOperative action to help existing agencies work more effec- tively together. The Laboratory furnishes linkage between preservice and inservice education and between schools and universities in order to improve both research and practice. One of the Laboratory's primary goals is leadership in the creation of new relationships among existing educational agencies. This is a role for w ich the regional laboratories are uniquely suited. 116 The MOREL Information Center and Resource Bank play a collaborative role with people and organizations in the region: The MOREL Information Center and Resource Bank are intended as a one-spot stop where educational and educationally related agencies in the region can tap informational resources which are relevant to their specific needs . . . (They are) composed of the searching tools necessary to identify and 57 locate resources and information upon request. An interview with a MOREL staff member brought the following comments with regard to this criterion: "The original survey's intent was to involve people, including key people of the region. Another survey is not necessary if MOREL continually keeps 'tuned in,’ 'listens,' to the region, and if the government of MOREL is truly represent- ative of the region."35 The MOREL Director talked about the involvement and collaboration of people in the Laboratory's development and operation. Evidence relating to this criterion was cited by the Director as the establishment of formal liaison with universities and colleges, the involvement of people through the survey as interviewers and inter- viewees, contact with many people through various meetings- with intermediate school districts, universities and colleges, agencies, state departments of education, pro- fessional associations, and other groups, expansion of the General Membership and the Board of Directors and attempting to achieve representation by geographical location and 117 population density, the use of task forces for program and organization, and the use of regional and national reactors for the spring, 1967 program proposal.36 Summary of Sppporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Tppgg.--The change agent should view the change process as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal undertaking between the client system and itself: The expressed philosophy of the MOREL staff embraced the idea that change should be a cooperative, collaborative undertaking. The numerous planning and develOpment activ- ities of the Laboratory such as liaison meetings, the survey, and the task force Operations involved many kinds of regional organizations, individuals, institutions, school systems, professional educators and non professionals, and from all geographical areas. The Board of Directors and General Membership were selected and expanded so as to represent the region, and both bodies have been highly active in decision-making for the Laboratory. CRITERION FOUR: THE CHANGE AGENT SHOULD IDENTIFY KEY LEADERS, FORMAL AND INFORMAL, IN THE CLIENT SYSTEM, AND WORK THROUGH THEM. The use of key people was part of MOREL's plans from the beginning of the Laboratory. The Laboratory proposal, April, 1966 discussed the use of "key educational and lay leaders" to work with projects in the field.l’ p. 28 118 A staff memorandum in June, 1966 dealt extensively with the identification and use of key persons in the region: . . . we, or someone we choose, should personally see key people during the remainder of June and all of July . . . When we have agreed on the classifications, we should compile a list of leaders in each classification. Ask them for ideas . . . and if time permits, we could ask each of these people to nominate three leaders in their category, and the same process could be used with these additional names . . . task forces should include . . . the most distinguished names in the two state region . . 2 Another June, 1966 staff memo stated that those one thousand people who provide the interview data and the task force members should be the key people in a regional meeting or meetings to be held after the fall task force meetings for the purpose of explaining MOREL to the region.70 A June, 1966 paper entitled "MOREL Procedures for Development of the Laboratory and Survey of Needs and Resources" included the following: The purpose of the MOREL staff consultations with Key Persons is to identify key educational leaders who can assist in informing others about the laboratory concept and who might have significant contribution in easing the transition from devel- opment to operation . . . Procedure: Devise methodology to discover key superintendents, deans, association personnel, and lay citizens . . . With regard to the establishment of task forces: Procedure--Identify key educational lgaders and scholars in schools and universities. 119 Staff meeting discussion included the topic of key people: The key peOple in getting the Lab to work should sit in with us in a final organization session and commit themselves--the power people. We must align the power structure. Task forces should include not only the idea gen but the resource controllers--power people. Contact was made with many key persons during the early development of MOREL. Inna letter from the Director to staff members, July, 1966 it was said that contact regarding MOREL had already been made with: University of Michigan, Ronald Lippitt, Stanley Erickson, Ronald Havelock, Robert Fox, Charles Jung, Fred Goodman, and Donald Brown; Wayne State University, Brooks Smith, Bill Menge, William Wattenberg, Bruce Pintz, and Robert Booth; Roseville School District, Carl Brablec and Richard Drager; Hillsdale College, E. H. Munn; Central Michigan University, Dean Wilbur E. Moore; Marygrove College, Sister Mary Emil, I. H. M.; Western Michigan University, Donald McAlvey; Eastern Michigan University, President Harold Sponberg; Northern Michigan University, Jack Rombouts; Lansing Public Schools, William Manning; Oakland Community College, Albert Canfield, Richard Wilson, and John Tirrell; Southfield Public Schools, John W. English; Adrian, Richard Werstler; Detroit Public Schools, Norval Scott.71 A letter to the Director of MOREL suggested a strategy using key persons in the region, and was called to the attention of other staff by the Director.72- 120 The classifications and percentages Of interviewees for the MOREL survey is evidence of the recognition of key people in the region.73 By July 25, 1966 conversations with key peOple had also included President Sponberg, Dean Stanley Gex, Bruce Nelson, William Williams,-Frank Daly, and Kenneth Kleeston, all of Eastern Michigan University.7u The belief in the crucialness of using key people was expressed in an August, 1966 staff meeting: "You don't get change if you're ignorant of the power structure, if you don't pay it any attention, if you don't involve it."38 A report to the Board of Directors from the Director of MOREL, August, 1966 noted that "consultations by staff with key persons in the region continue." Activities include liaison meetings, mailings to all superintendents and county superintendents in Michigan and Ohio in July, plans to put articles in journals and other agency publi- cations, plans to have staff make presentations at meetings of organizations, and a meeting with key people, educational leaders, in business and industry.39 The MOREL survey interviewers were asked by the MOREL staff to identify key people they interviewed who might be chosen to serve on the two task forces.75 Conversations were held between MOREL staff and the following educational leaders who also suggested other key persons to interview: Mary Ann Riordan, Detroit Federation 121 of Teachers; Harold LeFever, Superintendent, Pierce McLoud, Director of Instruction, Robert Beal, Deputy Superintendent, and Ray Jakipii, Director of Federal Projects, Macomb Intermediate School District; Dean Patrick Cavanaugh, Division of Education, University owaetroit; Harold G. Webster, Executive Director, and James F. Kipfer, Assis- tant Executive Director, Michigan Society for Mental Health; George Roper, Headmaster, Roper City Country School; Stanford Erickson, Director of the Center pn Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan; Robert Lusk, Educational Director, Automobile Manufacturers Association; and Associate Dean Lehmann, School of Educa- tion, University of Michigan. In September, 1966 two MOREL staff members met with E. Dale Kennedy, Executive Secretary, Michigan Education Association, and "key members of his staff." MOREL staff met with President James Miller, Vice President Russell Seibert, Dean of Education James Griggs, Paul Meisner, and Orville Ulrey of Western Michigan Uni- versity to discuss the overlap in geographical region between MOREL and CERLI. Dr. Griggs and Dr. Meisner were then members of the Board of the Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc. In addition, key people were interviewed in Ohio. These people also suggested more key peOple to contact.76 122 Contact was made with Roy A. Edelfelt, Associate I Secretary, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, by staff concerning possible relationship between that organization and MOREL.77 Extensive mention of "key persons" is found in the September, 1966 Progress Report: Purpose of MOREL staff consultations with key persons: To identify key educational leaders who can assist in informing others about the laboratory concept and who might have signif- icant contributions in easing the transition from development to Operation. . . Procedure of consultations with key persons: Devise methodology to discover key superintendents, deans, association personnel, lay citizens . . . Procedure of task forces to recommend program and structure: Identify key educa- tional leaders and scholars in schools and universities. Conversations with Educational Leaders: Summer vacations have placed some limitations upon the availability of educational leaders in the region but the staff has nonetheless been able to visit with a number of persons who are interested in the Laboratory. With a very few exceptions, the persons contacted by the develOpment staff are not included in the 1200 interviews conducted by the field team . . . Liaison with major universities and colleges of education in the region and the two state departments of education is being established. Each President and Dean in selected institutions has been asked to provide a liaison person . . . In addition to the inclusion of personnel from business and industry as interviewees in the field survey, personal contacts by the develop- ment staff have been made with educational personnel from other fields. Such contacts have included luncheon engagements with staff members of the Michigan Society for Mental 123 Health and with educational representatives from major industrial corporations . . . The program and organizationltask fogceg wipe gpecfigllynd A8 selected people. . pp a a 3 a 3 During the U. S. Office of Education review, September, 1966 the MOREL Director commented, "the people who will serve on the two task forces in October are key persons--state department, public school, and university peOple . . . we have to Operate with power people . . . we asked the inter- viewers help in identifying them."13 Universities and colleges in the region were asked to appoint liaison persons to MOREL. These lisison people were considered "key people." They were asked to help identify resources in the region and their own institutional resources. And, in September, 1966 a university liaison meeting was held in Toledo, Ohio. Those institutions invited were: Ohio State University, University of Toledo, Bowling Green State University, Miami University, Kent State University, Ohio University, University of Cincinnati, University of Akron, Cleveland State University, Central State University, Western Reserve University, representatives from the Ohio State Department of Education and the Ohio Board of Regents, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Uni- versity of Michigan, Central Michigan University, Western Michigan University, Northern Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, University of Detroit, and representa- tives from the Michigan State Department of Education and the Michigan State Board of Education.36’ ”0’ 12 12A A second communication was sent to all superinten- dents in Michigan from MOREL on September 18, 1966.141 The Organization Task Force, October, 1966 was instructed that the "Laboratory and/or specific projects it undertakes should . . . (among other things) identify decision-making structure and key individuals in situation having potential for change agent role . . ." (in a school system where a project would be underway).21 An example of how the key people were used for help is provided in the Second Report, October, 1966: Twenty—five research and development agencies "whose activities seem to have relevance for the program of MOREL" have been identified to date by the liaison persons. In addition to the university resources the two state depart- ments of education have provided a listing of research and development personnel.23: p. II-10 With regard to the October, 1966 Board of Directors and General Membership expansion, "key peOple were asked to identify other key people for membership on both bodies."36 MOREL staff met with representatives of Ohio teachers colleges in Columbus, Ohio, November 21, 1966. And, on November 29, 1966 staff met with the Crusk staff (Center for Research on the Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Uni- versity of Michigan). MOREL explored the possibility of collaboration with the Metropolitan Educational Research Association in late 1966 and early 1967. A meeting with "selected staff" of the Michigan Department of Education was held in December, 1965.78.79 125 In a staff memorandum, December, 1966 MOREL's institu- tional liaison representatives were referred to as a "fairly influential group of people," and noted that help would be obtained from them for program ideas, to build linkage between local and state systems and the federal educational system, and to build commitment to the Laboratory.24 A February, 1967 staff memorandum expressed the following ideas about key people in the region: We must have a planned program for communicating MOREL's potential to Opinion leaders in every section of the region. We must make some public relations efforts--communication both personal and oral with select groups of people, our mem- bership,-and the liaison people . . . We should bring together all of the lay citizens in our membership and some educators in particularly influential positions to plan some strategies for direct communication with Congress and the U.S.O.E. with regard to expanding and stabilizing monetary resources. 6 From the Third Progress Report, February, 1967: Liaison has been established with major colleges and universities in the region. Meetings have been held with administrative staff members of the two state departments of education, and we are seeking ties with Titles I and III of the Elementary-Secondary Education Act, and a possible tie with the Michigan Cooperative Curriculum Program. Meetings have been held with two regional associations of schools to explore pos- sible ties with MOREL; communication has been maintained with professional groups including state professional associations and several departments Of these groups (special attention is being given to the commissions or committees con- cerned with instruction). Discussions have been held with representatives of national groups oper- ating in the region such as the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards of the National Education Association, and the National Science Foundation; a meeting of an infor- mal group of Federal program officers and other staff of eight-ten intermediate school districts focused on ties with MOREL.27. Appendix B. p. 126 The program proposal in May, 1967 for regional reaction was sent to "selected teachers, school adminis- trators, university professors, and General Members." It was sent to over two hundred carefully selected readers.65’80 A report to the staff about Title III relations between MOREL and the region, August, 1967 recommended reaching more key people through consultation with them.“7 From the MOREL Annual Report, September, 1967: Contacts have been initiated with several of the major professional groups and associations in the two states. Again, the potential for understanding and support is high. Formal presentations by staff have been made to several significant groups in the two states. Key, influential people were invited to the Ohio cottage meetings in June, 1967. These people were selected to be invited from original inter- viewees lists, from the two task force partici- pants groups, and from a list of ossibilities suggested by MOREL members.3la V0 - 1. PD- 30, 31 Summapy of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Four.--The change agent should identify key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system, and work through them: There was recognition of the importance of this principle for the effective functioning of the Laboratory in the region. The identification and use of key leaders were consciously sought by the Laboratory. Key peOple and key organizations, institutions, and groups, were invited to meetings, communicated with both interpersonally and through letters, asked to give help in develOping program 127 and organization, requested to serve as formal liaison representatives, and asked to serve as members of the Board of Directors and General membership. CRITERION FIVE: THE CHANGE AGENT SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNICATION-DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS PROCESS AND UTILIZE A STRATEGY IN WORKING WITH THE CLIENT SYSTEM. In the April, 1966 Laboratory proposal, the work of the Laboratory was projected to fall into three stages: 1. The identification of needs for focal-point projects (Field input). 2. The focal-point projects. 3. Dissemination, insemination, demonstration, and other means of translation of innovations into operational procedures throughout the region. . . . Change based on educational research will not come about without direct study of the process of change itself. This additional and quite impor— tant area of activity in this general section on output is that of research on the total laboratory process. An over-arching research goal of the laboratory will be the study of the change process . . . An important facet of the Laboratory research program . . . using the operation-of the laboratory itself as a field of study. This group will be examining and assessing types of educational change, rates of diffusion of innovations, arrange- ments and devices for facilitating the change process in education, educational technology and educational change . . .1 The results of their studies will, it is hoped, become a self-corrective device within the Laboratory as future plans for effecting change in schools are developed . . . To improve education, i.e. to make changes in schools, requires direct attention to the change process itself . . . Through logical analysis and synthesis of empirical descriptions of the innovation process in other fields, the (change) processes were seen to fall into four divisions: 1. Research 2. Develop- ment 3. Diffusion A. Adoption (Utilization).1, pp. 3: 19, 2A, 25, and 30 128 A concern with the change process is evident else- where. From a statement by the planning and develOpment team of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory in June, 1966: MOREL has accepted as one of its major tasks an examination of the process by which ideas are brought to bear on educational problems in such a way that change occurs; obviously a dimension of this process involves a look at the communi- cation between the researcher and the practi- tioner. Through this particular effort more may be learped about the nature of educational change. "The concerns of the laboratory will be drawn from the field and its basic concern with the nature of change . . . it is hOped that more might be learned about 22E (the) improvement (of learning Opportunities for pupils) is brought about, about the nature of the change process as applied to educational programs."5 In its message to interviewees during the summer of 1966, MOREL shows a basic understanding of the change process: As a regional educational laboratory MOREL is concerned with the change process for educa- tional improvement. For the purpose of this interview the several processes required for change have been included in these four divisions: 1._Research . . . 2. Develop- ment . . . 3. Diffusion . . . A. Utilization . . . It is recognized that other schema often used to classify the change processes. These divisions were selected because they adequately represent the present Soncept of the activities of the Laboratory. 129 The September, 1966 Progress Report shows that the Laboratory had a develOpment plan and that it was: (1) to survey the region for needs, resources, and suggestions for the Laboratory design and to establish communication throughout the region during the summer and (2) to determine the major initial program areas and activities and to design and establish the operational government and organization during the fall. In addition it is stated that a "concern for the change process has been one of the principal factors directing the activities of the staff." Mention is also made that the Laboratory has a responsibility to assist in prepar- ation of change agents. "A cooperative endeavor by institutions of higher learning and the Laboratory is. proposed for the recruitment and education of change agents."ll’ pp. iv, 13, and 37 MOREL staff clarified one of the principles of change during the United States Office of Education review in Washington, D. C. in September, 1966: "We believe that change takes place by involving the (person) who's going to change. We're operating out of this concept . . . We want to be responsive to the needs of the region."13 MOREL saw itself in the "role of catalyst and com- munications linker" with educators in the region.)49 The October, 1966 Program Task Force members were charged by the MOREL staff as follows: 130 Program should be responsive to needs in the field . . . Program should join change agent (researcher, develOper, disseminator, demonstrator), with prac- titioner . . . Program should include long and short range goals . . . We are committed to an emphasis on the study of the change process. In addition they were instructed to "consider self- evaluation and change procedures as part of the total program."20’l6 A staff member commented that MOREL is a "process oriented lab."50' Communication from MOREL staff to the Organization Task Force in October, 1966 specified criteria for program foci and project efforts which included both long and short range goals, mutual partnership between MOREL and the region, and the use of key individuals. In addition it was stated that MOREL would support and study innovation and change activities and "disseminate knowledge about the success of innovation and change processes in the Ohio- Michigan region."‘2l’51 The Second Progress Report, October, 1966 again mentioned, with regard to Laboratory program, "the support and study of innovation and change activities, and the dissemination of knowledge about innovative practices and change processes." It also pointed out the necessity for, and the establishment of, a priority ranking of needs as identified through the survey, and, that the goal of MOREL 131 is to "identify answers to some really significant questions about the whole process of change in education."23’ pp 11’ II-l and 2 From the Third Progress Report, February, 1967: Thus the methods central to laboratory activities are those of development, demonstration, dissem- ination, and the effecting of utilization. The laboratory should be the linker and catalytic agent which joins knowledge, innovation and ideas with practice. Therefore it must work with both the innovations and the practitioner, and it must evaluate thg7efgec§iveness of its strategies and operations. ’ ' Priorities and strategies were discussed in a letter from one of the staff members to the others: Procedures for the Board of Directors to determine program priorities should be delineated. Criteria for determining strategies for staff improvement should be developed and the Board should clearly be able to specify the relevant of the respective strategies to the program theme of the Laboratory. Current strategies for staff improvement should be maintained, and efforts to increase the Operational sOphistication of thg present strategies should be given high priority. 1 A strategy for staff develOpment was the subject of discussion at a MOREL staff meeting: 1. MOREL imposes a strategy new to a situation. 2. Strategy emphasizes the relation between (behavior, teacher—administrator relationship, kids perception) teacher change and the accom- plishment of goals prescribed by teachers (situation) and institution. 3. Should goals prescribed by situation be limited? How? A. MOREL evaluates . . . Conception of strategy must provide for dissemination "package" which can be administered locally with instructions for central office, principal, teachers, and evaluate instrumentation to provide evaluatéon et a1 data for the Laboratory and the region. 2» 132 The April 2A, 1967 Board of Directors meeting minutes show attention to communication with the region and various 62 proposed strategies for the major program thrusts. Minutes of the General Membership meeting on May 8, 1967 reveal MOREL's concern with strategies and priorities with regard to program: . . . acceptance of a long-range mission to develop mechanisms and strategies for self renewal within persons and educational insti- tutions and to disseminate those mechanisms and strategies in the region . . ._decisions were made to focus initial program activities (1) at the middle school (2) with the teachers, (3) in Research and Instruction units, (A) by evaluation as one important means, (5) with some openness with respect to content, and (6) with special concern for gglf- renewing behavior by teachers and pupils. pp- - A MOREL staff task analysis for the months of May, June, and July, 1967 made note of the need to "discuss strategies of communication with each member's con- stituency—-both professional and geography," [gig], and, to "plan strategies for gaining access to educational institutions."83 MOREL strategies are revealed in the program abstract, May, 1967: MOREL will encourage self renewing behavior in the educational system. MOREL will develop mechanisms and strategies for self renewal which educational practitioner and institutions can use . . . The development and dissemination of instrumentation to facilitate rapid feedback on one's actions is an initial assessment strategy which MOREL will pursue . . . in its early stages MOREL will concentrate on teachers and their inter-actions with students and other fidults5 in middle or junior high schools.29 a pp. 133 Desire to understand better the communication— diffusion of innovations process, present knowledge of it, the utilization of strategies, and the selection of priorities is readily apparent in the September, 1967 Annual Report: One of two crucial tasks which face the MOREL research and evaluation staff is that of studying the process by which change and improvement are effected . . . MOREL's knowledge of intervention strategy is increased by its own staff experience, by the projects which were carried out during the past year. . . With regard to assessment and the future: After identifying a myriad of educational problems in the regional survey conducted in 1966, MOREL has limited its program goals to (1) primary Objective and (2) secondary goals. The primary Objective is to improve teacher effectiveness. The secondary objectives are to identify educa- tional problems in and provide service to the region as well as to communicate the MOREL program to other agencies. MOREL's long-range program seeks to accomplish two major tasks. The first task is to develop an integrated sequence of techniques for changing teacher behavior . . . the second major task is to adopt teacher behavior models for use with the techniques for changing teacher behavior. The long range study (a part of the program activities of the Laboratory) is intended to continually refine the mission and focus of the Laboratory and to direct program reconstruction when appropriate . . . The program definition has resulted from both an analysis of the concept of self renewal and a synthesis of certain beliefs about the change process and present needs in the educational community of this region . . . The MOREL program has two major thrusts for develop- ment and later dissemination. They are (1) the Research and Instruction Units patterned somewhat after those designed by the Wisconsin Research and 13A Development Center, and (2) Instrumentation Packages for providing better information to school personnel . . . Research and practice have shown that there are certain principles of dissemination. MOREL will use these principles as the starting point for its dissemination strategies: (thirteen strategies are listed)* . . . Not only does a potential user then have the obligation to choose or not choose the innovation but also, he will often redesign the inventor's "package." Somehow this contin- ual redesigning of innovations must be plugged into the dissemination process so other users can have the benefit of the new thinking . . . Documentation of the development projects, design of dissemination packages, the training of trainers, and demonstration units are major activities for the extensive dissemination of the R & I concept and the instrumentation packages. A long range effort designed to map (1) the substance of self renewal in schools, (2) evaluation techniques for measuring self renewing behavior, and (3) strategies for MOREL intervention in schools and colleges, will be conducted . . . We_have chosen to look at evaluation, for it must become inte- gral in the process, and at organization for communication, since communication is essen- tial in the development of self renewal, and traditional communication patterns are not adequate either for dissemination of research or for exploration 0 alternatives to existingpummedures- 1sV01~I. pp- 7: l2: and 585 Vol. II, p. 57; Vol. IV, pp. 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 25, and 31 "The primary objectives of the Laboratory are (l) to develop an in service strategy, (2) to provide service to the region, and (3) to build new relationships among other agencies. The first Objective identifies the single major program of MOREL. The others are secondary in emphasis but are essential parts of the total mission." *Appendix, p. 165. 135 This is a November, 1967 statement of MOREL strategy and priority.57 MOREL was charged with the necessity to have "well- conceived, long-range goals with specific plans for immediate action."3u’ p. 30 The Director of MOREL has pointed out that: There was no real overall master strategy during the development period. But we didn't operate haphazardly either. We had a rationale for development: 1. survey needs, 2. analyze results, 3. use task forces, A. design program, 5. organize staff and government to carry out program, 6. hire staff and start program. We wanted to develOp innovations and program from the expressed needs of the region. Building rela- tions with the field was part of our plans . . . A strategy evolved: Time survey analysis first program first organization pilot projects - exploratory relook and redesign for program input: a. pilot project findings b. Board Of Directors program committee 0. regional and national suggestions for program d. researcher (Flanders) output: present MOREL strategy for in service education \ / resource bank eanqotd eqq JO qaed st quamssesseea {enutquoo future: rigorous evaluation dissemination of program in some places .then bring in another program more valuation etc. 136 Summary of Sppportinngvidence Relation to Criterion Egyg.--The change agent should understand the communication- diffusion of innovations process and utilize a strategy in working with the client system: Concern with the need to better understand and put into practice what was already known about the change process was a goal of the Laboratory from its beginning. With regard to use of a strategy, the Laboratory identified long and short range objectives and established priorities. The need to focus on its own change process was recognized. The importance of basing program on needs involving the region in a partnership in various undertakings, seeking continual improvement in performing its role, encouraging self renewing behavior in the region, and identifying and using key people was acknowledged. CRITERION SIX: THE CHANGE AGENT SHOULD SEEK CONTINUAL SELF IMPROVEMENT IN PERFORMING ITS ROLE. "Continual reassessment is part of the picture. It has been going on since the Laboratory began, throughout the whole development process."36 The original proposal for the Laboratory stated: "The operation of the laboratory itself will be a field of study. And this it is hoped will become a self-corrective device within the Laboratory,n1. p. 2A 137 An eXperimental draft Of the "Concept of the Laboratory," a statement by the planning and development team of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory dated June 30, 1966 included the following:. The Laboratory's concept is subject to change as it is analyzed, criticized, and redesigned during the developmental and operational stages. Hopefully, this attempt to charac- terize the thoughts and Opinions of those involved to date will cause further examin- ation and thinking which may result in recommendations to strengthen or reshape the concept. MOREL communicated its concern with the seeking of continual improvement in the "Message to Persons to be Interviewed" during the summer of 1966. The statement was made that MOREL "seeks suggestions for the laboratory's Operation, staffing and potential involvement of your (the interviewee's) organization. The staff invites your recommendations throughout the develOpment period."7 The September, 1966 Progress Report contains perti- nent references to this criterion. One of a list of six- teen possible areas of work for program is "continuing self evaluation of the Laboratory operation." With regard to tentative program it was stated that "a continuing study would be made of MOREL's activities so that the Laboratory can change itself when warranted."ll’ pp. 33-35 MOREL committed itself to the seeking of self improvement during the United States Office of Education review in September, 1966: 138 We want continuing advice-help on the Laboratory program. We are sure that the program has to be changeable, flexible, so that we can throw it out if it's not working . . . We must continually . change and improve as we go along . . . I hope this Lab will be looking at what we're doing, why. we're doing it, how we're doing it without running the risk of professional suicide. We~want sta§§ peOple who can take fresh looks at old things. One of the tasks the MOREL staff gave to the task force for program development was to "consider self- evaluation and change procedures as part of the total 16 program." The Second Report on the development of MOREL, October, 1966 contained several entries related to this criterion: A major goal or activity of the Division of Research and Evaluation Services is self- evaluation or assessment of the Laboratory itself . . . Program descriptions at this point in time can be regarded as tentative only . . . As needs and problems change in the future, program will also change, along with both organization and budget . . Concerning organizatiOn: Since MOREL is to be an organization capable of changing itself, a "flat" organizational model will be used. The "flat" model not only lends itself to change, but it also seems preferable to the "tall" organizational model when research and develo ment are the primary functions.23a Dp- II-1 a 12a and 15s and IV-l The Third Progress Report of February, 1967 included references to self improvement: MOREL "must evaluate the effectiveness of its strategies and Operations." And, 139 "we wish to maintain a program structure which has enough flexibility to provide for improvement . ."27’ pp. 9 and 13 The development and evaluation of MOREL-will be a continuous endeavor. The data collected in 1966 concerning the needs and resources of the region will be out of date very quickly. To assume that present and currently contemplated projects and activities should remain the major focus of laboratory effort for an indefinite period seems falacious. MOREL must be exemplary as a self renewing institution. This statement was included in the proposed program docu- ment of the spring of 1967 for which MOREL staff and Board sought reactions and criticisms. The fact that MOREL sought criticism of its proposed program is an example of the Laboratory seeking self improvement. Numerous references to self improvement may be found in the Annual Report of September, 1967: If MOREL is to be a self-renewing organization, it must continue to identify and respond to the crucial educational problems of the region. No plans have been made for another survey of regional educational problems, but this task is a continuing one for both the staff and the program committee of the Board of Directors. . . . MOREL needs to be certain it can help itself . . . define self renewing behavior, determine its degree of presence, and achieve it . . . The long-range study (a part of the program activities of the Laboratory) is intended to continually refine the mission and focus Of the Laboratory and to direct program recon- struction when apprOpriate. One of MOREL's activities is the process of continually re- examining the Laboratory focus . . . Develop- ment of the Laboratory .W§O;VO be la continuipgg endeavor. a 18, and 2A-25. 1A9 Staff of the MOREL Field Action Units have engaged in self improvement activities. "In order to support these Action Units MOREL staff members have undergone training in the three techniques . . . are studying the teaching models . . . are practicing self-improvement in the same sense that teachers are attempting to improve their professional competence."57 Minutes of the November 20, 1967 Board Of Directors meeting reveal the desire of MOREL to be a self renewing or improving organization: Every organization needs to . . . renew itself through program develOpment activities . . .3 An organization ought to be self-renewing. This means that it should be Open to new ideas~ and better methods, that it should be self- evaluating and demanding of its own performance, that i should search creatively for better ways.3 . pp- 7 and 30 A staff member pointed out that: The MOREL organization itself is engaged in self renewal, especially the field staff (Of the program division). This has been done through continual evaluation of our techniques, continual assessment of ourselves, staff training, staff professional reading, and maintaining flexi- bility in activities. We haven't become "set" on anything, really. We need to keep examining our process of working with others, and take other routgfi for ourselves in our work, if necessary. The continual program refinement of MOREL since its inception is evidence of the seeking of self improvement. in performing its role. 1A1 Summary of Sppporting Evidence Relating to Criterion §t§.--The change agent should seek continual self improve- ment in performing its role: Continual assessment of its role is evident during the Laboratory's entire development period. The Laboratory sought improvement and refinement of its concept--its mission, program, and organizational structure--through the survey interviews, the use of specially selected task forces, the seeking of ideas and suggestions from groups,. individuals, organizations, and institutions not included in the survey, through the work of its General Membership and Board of Directors, especially the program committee of the latter, through planned staff growth, and in other ways. A concern with truly meeting existing needs of the region with its program is apparent. A focus upon the Laboratory's own developmental-change process in order to improve itself was an objective. CRITERION SEVEN: THE CHANGE AGENT SHOULD TEACH THE CLIENTS TO BE THEIR OWN CHANGE AGENTS, TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF CHANGE, TO DEVELOP SELF RENEWING BEHAVIOR. In September, 1966 "A Note on the Progress of MOREL" called attention to MOREL's "current focus on self-renewal as the major-element in improving teacher effectiveness."u9 One of the ways to improve the instructional program for learners, the long-range mission~and challenge for MOREL_ 1A2 as the staff looked at the year December 1, 1966-December l, 1967, was believed to be by "disseminating knowledge about the success of innovation and change process in the Ohio- Michigan region."51 The Second Report of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, October, 1966 stated that "the~ program of the laboratory will include . . . the dissem- ination of knowledge about innovative practices and change processes" to the region.23’ pp. II-l and 2 Following a special meeting on program in March, 1967 a member of the Board of Directors made the following statement pertaining to this criterion: "MOREL should have as its primary mission the renewal of the educational programs and personnel in urban centers by using its resources to provide the necessary catalytic action."85 At the April 15, 1967 meeting of the Board of Directors' program committee "decisions were made to focus initial program activities . . . (in several areas) with special concern for self-renewing behavior by teachers and pupils."66 The proposed MOREL program as of May, 1967: MOREL will encourage self renewing behavior in the educational system. MOREL will develOp mechanisms and strategies for self reneWal which educational practitioner and institutions can use . . ., During the next ten years, MOREL hopes to improve the- American educational system's capacity for self renewal . . .‘ Initially MOREL will concentrate on organization for the assessment of self renewal.29: P-3 1A3 The MOREL Annual Report, September, 1967 dealt ex- tensively with self renewal: MOREL will aim for a state of affairs in which con— tinuous inquiry provides the basis of self-renewal and system renewal . . . Output assessments will include the growing sense of self-direction (or lack thereof) over a period of several years or more. Later phases of program would examine the persistence of efforts to continue in-service work after MOREL resources are removed or reduced . . . One of the goals of MOREL will be to create a professional sense of inquiry among teachers in which one of the objects of inquiry is the individual's own behavior. When a (MOREL) consultant terminates an extended , contract with a school district, he should have worked himself out of a job, since the skills he- brought have been learned by others and can now be provided in his absence. MOREL takes the following position with regard to creating self-renewing pro- grams of professional self-development. A most important consequence of dissemination is to create a viable self—development program in which teachers develop those skills necessary to continue profession- al growth at a higher rate . .2. Help from MOREL is to be gradually restricted as soon as possible, so that local school systems will develop their own resources for maintaining action units independently of MOREL . . . Gradually, MOREL personnel should be able to withdraw and encourage local school ‘ people to direct in service training activities . . . It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of all field programs is not merely to bring about one cycle of change and improvement; instead, it is to create self-development programs which require re- source skills and materials that local school dis- tricts can provide or can learn to provide . . . However, the work of the Laboratory is not complete until these improvements have resulted in . . . self-renewing action by teachers and schools . . . MOREL' s goal is not to replace present teaching tech- niques and methods with specific new ones. It is rather to create the conditions necessary for changes which become improvements and make it possible for the teachers and schools to continue to improve by themselves by providing their own conditions. 1AA MOREL will encourage self renewing behavior in the educational system. MOREL will develop mechanisms and strategies for self renewal which educational practitioners and institutions can use, and MOREL> will disseminate those mechanisms and strategies in Michigan and Ohio.~ In carrying out its mission the Laboratory will emphasize wo characteristics essential for self renewal: s lf awareness and innovativeness . . .' In_other words MOREL needs to be certain it can help itself and others define self renewing behavior, determine its degree of presence, and achieve it . . .- A long range effort designed to map (1) the substance of self renewal in schools, (2) evaluation techniques for measuring self renewing behavior, and (3) strategies for. MOREL intervention in schools and colleges, will be conducted . . ., If a continuous process of self renewal is to be accomplished, it must be developed in terms of a plan for continuous input and for balance of the pressures for renewal and the pressures for perpetuation.3l: V9 ° I: PP- 8"9: and 11; Vol. II, pp. 8, 9, 12, A3, 71, and 72; Vol. IV, pp. A, 7, 25, and 27 The MOREL program "is firmly based on a philOSOphy of self-renewal in which the study of teaching effective-. neSs in order to improve becomes a habit. Continuing efforts to improve, after MOREL gradually withdraws its direct support to an Action Unit, is an important criterion of success."3u’ p. 7 Self renewal of clients is a real goal of our program. It helps peOple study, look at, their teaching behavior. MOREL, through its program, provides routes for people to study their teach- ing behavior, change, and eventually.become self renewing . . . We define self renewal as willingness to continually look at self and change behavior when change is necessary . . . After MOREL pulls its Field Action Units out of a school system, it will go back periodically, probably six months and then one year later, and evaluate the teachers and schools to see if continual change continual self renewal, is still going on. 9 1A5 "MOREL's program emphasis went from staff develop- ment to self renewal to in service teacher education (through Field Action Units)."36 Summary of Sppporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Sgygp.--The change agent should teach the clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to develop self renewing behavior: MOREL voiced a concern with self renewal as early as September, 1966. Throughout its develOpment the Laboratory was concerned with helping the region understand the change process. Self renewal of educational programs and personnel in the region became a primary program focus during the spring of 1967. MOREL became concerned with developing mechanisms and strategies for self renewal which regional people and organizations could use. During the latter part of its development period MOREL became cognizant of the need to help the regional institutions and personnel become their own change agents. Summary of the Chapter The activities of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educa- tional Laboratory, an institutional change agent, have been screened in the light of seven criteria. Supporting evidence relating to each criterion has been provided from a variety of-sources. 1A6 When viewed as a whole, the data presented suggest the following statements: 1. Supporting evidence is found for all seven criteria. 2. Supporting evidence is found for six of the criteria throughout the entire development period, June, 1966 to December 1, 1967. 3. The evidence supporting criterion seven first appears in September, 1966 but the bulk of it is found later in the development period, after the Laboratory was fairly well underway as far as organizational structure is concerned. A. Judging by both the amount and quality of. evidence, the Laboratory seems to have considered criteria numbers one, identifying characteristics and needs of the region and basing plans upon them, and three, viewing the change process as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal undertaking, as mostcrucial for its plans and activities. In Chapter Five a summary of the study is presented, conclusions from the data are reviewed, recommendations for the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory and other institutional change agents are made, and suggestions are given for further study. FOOTNOTES l"Prospectus to the Commissioner of Education, Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, for a Regional Educational Laboratory under th26Provisions of Public Law 89-10--Title IV, April 15, 19 .fl 2Memorandum from Virgil Blanke to Charles A. Blackman, Stuart Rankin, Wendell Hough, and Gene Hast, June 22, 1966. 3"MOREL Procedures for Development of the Laboratory and Survey of Needs and Resrouces," June 30, 1966. L4"The Concept of the Laboratory," (a statement by the Planning and DevelOpment Team of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, June 30, 1966). (Experimental draft.) 5"The Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory-- Some Questions and Answers," July 13, 1966. 6Writer's personal notes of MOREL staff reactions following the interviewers meeting , July 20, 1966. 7"Survey of Needs, Resources, and Suggestions for the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Messagg to Persons to Be Interviewed," Summer, 1966. 8Writer's personal notes of'a MOREL staff meeting, August 2, 1966. 6 9"MOREL Staff Meeting--Agenda and Notes," August 9. 19 6. 10"Excerpts from the 'Laboratory Concept' and Developmental Progress," August 30, 1966. 11"Progress Report--The Development of the Michigan— Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory," September 1 1966. 3 12Letter to John Shreve, Assistant Superintendent, Cincinnati Public Schools, and other invited to the September 16, 1966 university liaison meeting from Wendell Hough, September 1, 1966. 1A7 1A8 l3Tape recording of the U. S. Office of Education review of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Washington, D. 0., September 9, 1966. lu"Summary of Review by the U. S. Office of Education, September 9, 1966." 15Personal notes of Charles A. Blackman of a speech to the liaison group, Toledo, Ohio, September 18, 1966. 16Letter to Program Task Force members from Stuart Rankin, September 20, 1966. 17Letter to Program Task Force members from Stuart Rankin, September 26, 1966. 18Writer's personal notes of the MOREL interviewers meeting, Plymouth, Michigan, September 28, 1966. 19"Letter to: Program Task Force, From: Development Staff of MOREL, Subject: Major Need Categories of the Region," September 30, 1966. 20ncharge to the Program Task Force," October 2-3, 1965- 21"Memorandum to Organization Task Force, From: MOREL' Staff, Subject: Criteria for Program Fool and Project Efforts," October 5, 1966. 22"Minutes of the Organization Task Force Meeting, Cleveland, October 6, 1966." 23"The Development of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Second Report, October 2A, 1966." 2“Memorandum to Charles A. Blackman, George Grimes, Stuart Rankin, and Wendell Hough from Virgil Blanke on the subject of the tentative conference for MOREL's institutional liaison representatives, December 13, 1966. 25"MOREL Resource Bank Project--Status Report," January 5,-1967. 26Memorandum'to MOREL Staff from Virgil Blanke, "Next Steps," February 1, 1967. 27"Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Third Progress Report, February 11, 1967." 1A9 28Memorandum to Stuart Rankin from George Grimes, February 15, 1967. 29"An Abstract of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory Program," May 17, 1967. 3OWriter's personal notes of a MOREL staff meeting, September 11, 1967. 31"MOREL Annual Report, September. 1967." volumes I, II, and IV. 32Writer's personal notes of the General Membership Meeting, September 20, 1967. 33MOREL employment opening notice for the "Position of Curriculum Development Resources Specialist," November, 1967. 3“Minutes of the MOREL Board of Directors Meeting, November 30, 1967. 35Writer's personal notes of interview with George Grimes, January 2A, 1968. 36Writer's personal notes of interview with Stuart Rankin, January 2A, 1968. 37Letter to the interviewers from Stuart Rankin, July 20, 1966. 38Tape recording of a MOREL planning staff meeting, August 9, 1966. 39"Report on MOREL," to Members of the Board of Directors from Stuart Rankin, August 10, 1966. uo"University Identification of Resources" survey schedule sent to university and college liaison peOple, Summer, 1966. Lll"Letter to: Michigan Superintendents, From: The Laboratory Development Staff, Subject: DevelOpment of MOREL," September 18, 1966. u2Letter to the General Membership from Stuart Ranking, January 20, 1967. u3Minutes of the Meeting of the General Membership of MOREL, January 30, 1967. 150 u"Proposed MOREL Program," May 17, 1967. uSLetter to the May, 1967 program draft reactors from Stuart Rankin, May 17, 1967. 46Letter to the Members of the Board of Directors from Allen Bernstein, July 27, 1967. u7Report to the MOREL staff from William McGuire and Dennis Bryan re Title III relations between MOREL and the region, August 30, 1967. “B"Description of Institutional Liaison Officer with MOREL," preliminary draft, July 1, 1966. ”9"A Note on the Progress-of MOREL," September. 1956- 50Writer's personal notes of a conversation with Charles A. Blackman, October 5, 1966. 51"Letter to: Organization Task Force, From: MOREL Development Staff, Subject:_ Program Overview for December 1, 1966-December l, 1967, Date: October 6, 1966." 52Letter to Stuart Rankin from William C. Miller, Deputy Superintendent, Wayne County Intermediate School District, October 10, 1966. 53Writer's personal notes of the Joint Meeting on CERLI and MOREL, Kalamazoo, Michigan, October 26, 1966. 5u"Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory," paper distributed at the CERLI and MOREL meeting, Kala- mazoo, Michigan, October 26, 1966. 55"MOREL Staff Meeting Notes," written by Stuart Rankin, November 10, 1966. 56Memorandum to planners of Goldwater Living- Learning Center and MOREL~staff from Charles A. Blackman, January 5,.1967. 57"General Information About MOREL," November, 1967. 58Minutes of the Board of Directors meeting, February 10, 1967. 59Memorandum to the MOREL staff from John D. Millett, Chancellor, Ohio Board of Regents, February 13, 1967. 151 60Letter to Stuart Rankin from Harry Ritchie, Assistant Superintendent,Cleveland Public Schools, February 1A, 1967. 61Minutes of the Board of Directors meeting, March A, 1967. 62Minutes of the Board of Directors meeting, April 2A, 1967. 63Personal notes of Charles A. Blackman of the Board of Directors meeting, April 2A, 1967. 6u"Proposed MOREL Program--Draft--In Search of Criticism," April 28, 1967. 65"MOREL Monthly In—House Report," July, 1967- 66Minutes of the General Membership meeting, May 8, 1967. 67"Report to the General Membership--Activities Since January 30, 1967" by Stuart Rankin, May 8, 1967. 68Letter to Members of the Board of Directors from Stuart Rankin, June 28, 1967. 69Letter to the General Membership from Stuart Rankin, August 8, 1967. 70Memorandum to Charles A. Blackman, Gene Hast, Wendell Hough, and Stuart Rankin from Virgil Blanke, June 29, 1966. 71Letter to Charles A. Blackman and Wendell Hough from Stuart Rankin, July 11, 1966. 72Letter to Stuart Rankin from Clare Broadhead, Director, Desegregation_Advisory Project, JulylA, 1966. 73" MOREL Field Operation--Goals for Representative- ness of Sample," July, 19 . 7“Letter to Stuart Rankin and Charles A. Blackman from Wendell Hough, July 25, 1966. 75Letter to MOREL interviewers from Wendell Hough, August 16, 1966. 152 76"Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory: Continuation of Notes on Conversations with Educational Leaders," Summer, 1966. 77Letter to Charles A. Blackman from Roy A. Edelfelt, Associate Secretary, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, August 31, 1966. 78Memorandum of a meeting between MOREL and CRUSK staffs, November 29, 1966. 79Memorandum to Stuart Rankin, Wendell Hough, Virgil Blanke, and George Grimes from Charles A. Blackman, December 17, 1966. 80Report to the Board of Directors by Stuart Rankin, June 17, 1967. 81Letter to the MOREL staff from Wendell Hough, February 16, 1967. 82"Staff Development," minutes of a MOREL staff meeting, February 23, 1967. 83"MOREL Task Analysis," Spring, 1967. 8A Writer's personal notes of an interview with Lilburn Hoehn, January 2A, 1968. 85"Notes of Comments by John Shreve Following the Toledo Meeting on Program," March 2A-25, 1967. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This chapter contains conclusions drawn from the data analysis, recommendations for the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory and other institutional change agents, and suggestions for further study. Summapy of the Study The purpose of this project was to study the planning and development activities of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory in order to assess evidence of (l) the acceptance of a change agent role for MOREL, and (2) plans and action indicating recognition of- what is known through the literature and research about effective change agent behavior. Literature on the diffusion of innovations and the change process was reviewed. From this sixty-five prin- ciples of effective change agent behavior were drawn and identified. Seven criteria were developed from the sixty-five guidelines as the major change agent strategies for 153 15A effecting planned change. Utilizing these seven as a screening device, the activities of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, an institutional change agent, were examined: 1. The change agent should identify the charac- teristics and needs of the client system and base plans upon them. The change agent should seek, and play a major role in, the establishment of rapport and the building of mutual trust and respect between the client system and itself. The change agent should view the change process as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal under- taking between the client system and itself. The change agent should identify key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system, and work through them. The change agent should understand the communication-diffusion of innovations process and utilize a strategy in working with the client system. The change agent should seek continual self improvement in performing its role. The change agent should teach the clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to develop self renewing behavior. 155 An in-depth data analysis was made of Official and unofficial written records of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory which have been filed since its creation, of tape recordings of Laboratory meetings, and of interviews with key persons involved in the Laboratory's develOpment. The data were scrutinized for evidence related to each of the criteria. Supporting evidence from a variety of sources is provided for each of the seven criteria, and given in chronological order. A short summary of the supporting data for each criterion is made. Conclusions As the result of analyzing the data, the following conclusions can be drawn with regard to the purpose of the study: 1. Supporting evidence is found for all seven criteria of change agent behavior. 2. The Michigan—Ohio Regional Educational Labor- atory accepted the role of a change agent and made plans and carried out activities indicating recognition of effective change agent strategies. 3. Judging by both the amount and quality of evidence, the Laboratory seems to have considered_ criteria numbers one, identifying character- istics and needs of the region and basing plans upon them, and three, viewing the change process 156 as a mutual, collaborative, reciprocal under- taking, as most crucial for its plans and activities. The objective of teaching clients to be their own change agents, to understand the process of change, to develOp self renewing behavior seems to have been more important to the Laboratory later in its development period, after the organizational structure of MOREL was fairly well established. Supporting evidence for criteria numbers one through six is found dispersed throughout the entire development period. Although they evidently were not considered as crucial as criteria numbers one and three, criterion number four, the identification and use of key informal and formal leaders in the client system, and criterion five, understanding the communication-diffusion of innovations process and utilizing a strategy in working with the client system, seem to be next in importance as reflected by the plans and activities of the Laboratory. 157 7. There is an overlapping of evidence for some criteria, especially the first four. While the criteria are distinct in themselves, two or more may be related or closely tied with regard to some of the Laboratory's plans and actions. 8. It-seems that the activities of an institutional change agent are basically no different from those of an individual change agent. In order to be effective in their roles it is crucial that they both utilize common strategies as proposed in Chapter Two, and especially the seven which this writer believes most crucial. Compgrison with Another Study A comparison of the seven major change agent strategies utilized as a screening device in this study with thirteen critical variables or important activities of change agents used as guides for content analysis in another study* serves as a positive validity check for this writer. While the screening devices of both studies were developed independently, the strategies or guides of both are very complementary and compatible. While the studies are two separate attempts to learn more about change agents, the other study may be considered a rather *Lilburn P.1kxflun "The Regional Educational Labor- atories as Change Agents," (unpublished Doctoral disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1967). 158 general analysis of twenty regional educational labora- tories while this study is an in-depth analysis of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory. Recommendations for Institutional Chapge Agents, Including the Michigan-Ohio RegionalTEducational Laboratopy There are several recommendations which might be Offered for the work of institutional change agents, including the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory: 1. A developing institution must build its organ- ization on or around its program instead Of the common practice of building an organization and then fitting program into the structure. The former procedure was utilized by MOREL. 2. The program of an institution or organization which has the purpose of serving others must be built upon the real needs, characteristics, and desires of those who are to be served. Without such practice there is no point in the existence of the institution or organization. It is equally important that real needs, desires, and character- istics be continually identified throughout an institution's existence. A method of keeping a running current assessment of needs, character- istics, and desires should be built into the institution's program on a permanent basis. 159 As an institution grows older and more stable a concern with its self improvement—-self renewal should become greater, and a larger effort should be exerted to achieve such. A growing functioning institution needs a planned method of keeping in touch with researchers in the field of diffusion of innovations and the change process so that the institution may be knowledgeable about, and effectively utilize, new findings and strategies in its work. An institutional change agent needs more system- atic ways of building rapport and mutual trust and respect between itself and its client system, and methods of determining the effectiveness of such attempts. It would appear that more small area meetings: greater written communication with the people of the region, a program better spread geographically in the region, a reestablishment of communication with the original survey inter- viewees, and another survey Of the region would be appropriate activities for MOREL to engage in with regard to criterion one. A planned strategy should be_developed to achieve this objective. 160 Planned strategies should be developed for the continual, ongoing identification of key leaders, formal and informal, in the client system. New people assume leadership positions continually, and it is doubtful if an institutional change agent can keep well informed as to who these people are without some planned means for so doing. An institutional change agent should develop a planned program for making visible to the client system the process of change in which they, together, are engaging. Plans should be made, and action carried out, to measure and evaluate the effectiveness or the impact of the several strategies utilized by an institutional change agent. Should the special training of educational change agents be undertaken, for example through the Education Professions DevelOpment Act by some institution or organization, it would seem advisable for that institution or organization to study in depth the change agent strategies proposed in this study. 161 Spggestions for Further Study Several suggestions are offered here for further study of the change process and change agents: 1.; The process of change as it occurs within institutional change agents themselves should be studied. A particular focus of such studies might be upon the diffusion of innovations within such change agents. Further study on any possible differences between institutional and individual change agents is suggested. . Further study on the process of institution building, the birth and development of new institutions, would be a desirable area of research. A study in which the effectiveness of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory as a change agent in the Ohio-Michigan region would be evaluated would be valuable, especially after the Laboratory has been in Operation for a longer period of time. 162 Concluding Statement Although this study has focused upon a single insti- tution and its change agent role, the strategies proposed in Chapter Two and the recommendations of Chapter Five are applicable to both institutions and people serving in change agent roles. Especially because of the relatively slow process of change in education, it is hoped that the findings of this study will be utilized by people in such institutions as state departments Of education, colleges and universities, professional educational associations, and the United States Office of Education. APPENDICES 163 APPENDIX A Major Need Categories of the Region September 30, 1966 The need for an information system which could dissem- inate innovations and respond quickly to requests from the region for information. The need for consultants in program development, evaluation, research, demonstration, and implemen- tation. The need for knowledge about how change can take place effectively for the improvement Of education. The need for improved education of educational personnel both pre-service and in-service and especially during the critical period immediately following pre- service education. a.. Sub-professionals b. Teachers c. Administrators d. Other staff roles (specialists and generalists) The need for research and development efforts and projects which are aimed at helping children and youth who have learning difficulties to achieve more meaning, purpose, and success in their learning activities. (This item includes both diagnosis and development.) 16A 10. 11. 12. 13. APPENDIX B Dissemination Strategies-Assumptions In schools especially, the self renewal theory is better than the replacement theory. Teacher self renewal will lead to pupil self renewal. Self renewal in teachers requires feedback on peer interaction and on teacher-pupil interaction. Major breakthroughs in evaluation and feedback instru- mentation have been made which are not being used extensively. Teachers will have an increasing role in policy making in education, including school program determination. Given the appropriate conditions, teachers are able to be self renewing with respect to their instruction. The task is to release their ability, not to impose inno— vations upon them. The involvement of a teacher in the formulation of an instructional decision that he is expected to implement results in his being better able to implement it. A group of peers can provide support, conflict, feed- back and alternatives; each a condition needed for self renewal. The gap between research and practice is often reduced by the linking of three elements: practitioner, resources and focus on a problem. Better cooperative effort among existing educational agencies is needed and possible. The amount of individual and institutional change is partly a function of the density of the change environ— ment. Needed resources are available in the region. The middle school grade levels are ripe for renewal. 165 BIBLIOGRAPHY 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Arensberg, Conrad M., and Niehoff, Arthur H. Introducing Social Change. Chicago: Aldine Publishing 00., 196A. Benne, Kenneth; Bennis, Warren G.; and Chin, Robert. The Planning of Change. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. (In press.) Carlson, Richard 0.; Gallaher, Art, Jr.; Miles, Matthew B.; Pellegrin, Roland J.; and Rogers,-Everett M. Change Processes in the Public Schools. Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965. Corey, Stephen M. Helping Other PeOple Change. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1963. Gardner, John W. Self Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society. New York: Harper and Row, 19630 Ginzberg, Eli, and Reilly, Ewing. Effecting Change in Large Or anizations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1 57. Halpin, Andrew W. Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. Hoffer, Eric. The Ordeal of Change. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1952. Johns, Ray E. Confronting Organizational Chapge. New York: Association Press, 1963. Mead, Margaret, ed. Cultural Patterns and Technical Change. .New York: New American Library OT_World Literature, Inc., 1955. Miles, Matthew B., ed. Innovation in Education; New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, l96A. 167 168 Miller, Richard I., ed. Perspectives on Educational Change. New York: *Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Morphet, Edgar L., and Ryan, Charles 0., eds. Planning and Effectinngeeded Changes in Education. Denver: Publishers Press, Inc., 1967. Robers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. , with Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Diffusion of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural and Communication Approach. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1968. (In press.) , with Svenning, Lynne. Modernization Among Peasants: The Impact of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. (In press.) Rossi, Peter H., and Biddle, Bruce J., eds. The New Media and Education. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1966. Russell, James E. Change and Challenge in American Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,l965. Schein, Edgar M., and Warren G. Bennis. Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. Selznick, Philip. TVA and the Grasisoots. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1966. Booklets, Brochures,iBulletins and Pamphlets Brickell, Henry M. Commissioner's 1961 Catalog of Educational Change. Albany: Commissioner of Education, New York State Education Department, 1961. . Organizinngew York State for Educational Chang_. Albany: Commissioner of Education, New York State Education Department, 1961. Coughenour, C. Milton. "Change and Sociological Per- spectives." Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service, College of Education, University of Kentucky, 38, 1965. 169 Eboch, Sidney C., ed. Planning and Dissemination Conference on Novel Strategies and Tactics for Field Studies of New Educational Media Demonstrations, May 10—12,'l965. Columbus: The Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1965. Evans, Richard I.;_Smith, Ronald G.; and Colville, William K. The University Faculty and Educational Television: Hostility, Rgsistance and Change. Houston: The University of Houston, 1962. Flanders, Ned A. Helping Teachers Change Their Behavior. Ann Arbor: School of Education, University of Michigan, April, 1963. Goldhammer, Keith, and Farner, Frank. The Jackson County Stor . Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon. Howard, Eugene. "How Do You Organize a High School for Change?" Paper presented to the North Central Association Annual Meeting, NCA Today, Vol. XI, May, 1967. Hunt, Douglas W. "The Premise of Change." Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Volumedfl7, 1963? Innovation and Experiment in Education. A Progress Report of the Panel on Educational Research and Development to the U. 8. Commissioner of Education, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Washington, D. C., March, 1964. Under the Auspices of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Executive Office Building, Jerrold Zacharias, Chairman of the Panel. Knowlton, James Q. Studies of Patternsof Influence in the School Situation as They Affect 'uua Use of—— Audiovisual Materials. Bloomington: Indiana University, Division of Educational Media and Audiovisual Center, 1963.- Little, Arthur D., Inc. The Emerging Requirements for Effective Leadership for a ornia Education. Sacramento: TheCalifornia State Department of Education, Max Rafferty, Superintendent of Public Instruction, November, 196A. 170 Miller, Richard I. "Needed Research and Development in the Process of Change." Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service, College of Education, University of Kentucky, 38, 1965. . "Some Current Developments in Educational Change." Bulletin of the Bureau of_School Service, College of Education, University of Kentucky, 38, 1965. NCTEPS. Chan es in Teacher Education: An Appraisal. Report of the NCTEPS Conference, Columbus, June 25-28, 1963, Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1963. Notes and Working Papers Concerningythe Administration of Programs Authorized Under Title III of Public Law 89-10, The E1ementary_and Secondary Education Act 931965 as Amended by Public Law 89-750. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Educatidn ofdthe Committee on Labbr and Public Welfare, U. S. Senate, April, 1967, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Written by a team of educational, specialists under the direction of Dr. Richard I. Miller. Smith, Mark. "A Sober Look at the Administrator's Responsibility Toward Change," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 48, March, 1969. Vocational Education Research Coordinating Unit. A Study of the Diffusion Process of Vocational Educatign Innovations. ,Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education, Michigan Deaprtment of Education, 1967. Periodicals Barton, Allen H. "The Sociology of Reading Research," Teachers College Record, 63, November, 1961. Bienenstok, Theodore. "Resistance to an Educational Innovation," Elementary School Journal, 65:420, 1965. Chesler, Mark, and Fox, Robert. "Teacher Peer Relations ang Educational Change," NEA Journal, 56: 25-26, May, 19 7. 171 Howe, Harold II. "Organization for Innovation," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 21, 1965. Ianni, Francis A. J., and McNeill, Barbara D. "Organizing for Continuing Change," Saturday Review, 48, June 19, 1965. Mace, C. A. "Resistance to Change," Occupational Psychology 27:23-29, 1953. Meierhenry, Wesley C. "Innovation, Education, and Media," AV Communication Review, Vol. 1“, No. A, Winter, 1966. Miller, Richard I. "Regional Educational Laboratories," Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1966, p. 14A. Other Sources Blackman, Charles A. Professor, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, and former staff member, MOREL, personal interviews. Carlson, Richard 0. "Strategies for Educational Change: Some Needed Research on the Diffusion of Innovations." Paper presented at the Conference on Strategies for Educational Change, U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D. C., November 8-10, 1965. Clark, David L. "The Engineering of Change in Education." Paper presented at the Conference on the Implementation of Educational Innovations, System Development Corpor- ation, Santa Monica, California, May 16, 1964. Culbertson, Jack A. "Organizational Strategies for Planned Change in Education." Paper presented at the Confer- ence on Strategies for Educational Change, U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D. C., November 8-10, 1965. Grimes, George. Staff Member, MOREL, personal interview. Hoehn, Lilburn P. Staff Member, MOREL, personal interview. 172 Johnson, President Lyndon B. Letter to Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, John W. Gardner, July 5, 1966. Keith, Robert F. "Communication Behavior and Change Orientation of Foreign Change Agents in Technical Training Programs. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. Michigan—Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc. "Progress Report--The Development of the Michigan- Ohig Regional Educational Laboratory," September 1, 196 . . "The Development of the Michigan-Ohio Regional Edggational Laboratory, Second Report, October 24, 19 .fl . "Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Third Progress Report, February 11, 1967." . "MOREL Annual Report, September, 1967." "Prospectus to the Commissioner of Education, Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, for a Regional Educational Laboratopy under the Provisions of Public Law 89-10--Tit1e IV, April 15, 1966." Ramos, L. Eduardo. "Client-Change Agent Relationships in Three Colombian Villages." Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. Rankin, Stuart C. Executive Director, MOREL, personal interview. Rogers, Everett M. "On Innovations and Education." Paper presented at the Conference of Michigan Cooper- ative Curriculum Program, Boyne Mountain, Michigan, September 24, 1965. "Toward a New Model for Educational Change." Paper presented at the Conference on Strategies for Educational Change, U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D. C., November 8-10, 1965.