~—-.< w—w—r-

ir—

 

PI

 

 

A PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGEMMG MODELZ ‘ * *

AND ITS APPLICATEON FOR AN

AMERICAN SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOL A, A

Dissertatian for the Degree of Ph'; D;
BOBBY JpBALLARD‘ " '
MiCHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. . ,
19715

‘ Date

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGETING MODEL AND
ITS APPLICATION FOR AN
AMERICAN SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOL

presented by
Bobby Joe Ballard

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhD degree in Education

 

 

 

jo professor

4/1/75

 

0-7639

 

 

SDO

nee

eff:
was
Vide
pro;

 

prog

nee:

getj

x 1 ABSTRACT

' A PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGETING MODEL AND ITS
APPLICATION FOR AN AMERICAN-SPONSORED
OVERSEAS SCHOOL

BY
Bobby J. Ballard

The characteristics and problems of an American-
sponsored overseas school were described, including the
need for an improved systematic and rational approach for
effective planning and decision making. Program budgeting
was recommended for the overseas schools, which would pro-
vide a tool for decision makers to identify and evaluate
programs and to plan on a long-range basis. Implicit in
program budgeting is the ability to adapt to the changing
needs of a multinational student population.

The components of the Planning, Programming, Bud-
geting, Evaluation System were described, including the
responsibility matrix for each task force. Emphasis was
placed on developing a hierarchical program structure and
stating objectives for each program level in measurable
terms. The program structure provides the basis for allo-
cating resources at program levels and for the final devel-

Opment of the program budget.

Bobby J. Ballard

The sources of information were the By—Laws of the
Parents Association, minutes of the meetings of the Board
of Education and the Parents Association, administrative
policies, the annual budget documents, student records,
faculty personnel files, accounting records, and special
reports by the administrative staff. It was indicated
that the study was of a descriptive nature, and hypotheses
were not presented for testing.

The five objectives that were considered necessary
to accomplish the purpose of this study to develop a pro-
gram budgeting model for the American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc. were:

I 1. To investigate the administrative policies and
determine if there are any policies that have
an effect or constraint upon the implementation
of program budgeting,

2. To determine the administrative and instructional

areas of responsibility and how resources were

traditionally allocated to these areas,

3. To determine the program elements for each of
the instructional areas,

4. To perform the function of program budgeting by
allocating the educational resources to program
elements, and

5. To develOp criteria for measuring attainment of
the educational objectives.

It was suggested that the end-product of this study
possibly could be used by other overseas schools with modi-
fications based upon the constraints of the particular

school.

- ~"mm5ni3m
‘ .-

 

 

 

 

 

 

fron
Pr09
Athe
at o
a un
tate
proje

Highe

nitio
and 5
Opera
schoo
behav

envir.

Bobby J. Ballard

Several conclusions and recommendations were drawn
from this study, suggesting the validity of implementing
program budgeting in the American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc. It was suggested that the study be replicated
at other overseas schools, which could result in developing
a uniform system for all such schools. This would facili-
tate the exchange of information and data similar to the
projects performed by the Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education.

Further studies would include developing basic defi-
nitions to provide for consistency in application of data
and statistics. This could also result in developing an
Operational philOSOphy for all American-sponsored overseas
schools and a basis for performing logitudinal studies or
behavior patterns for students educated in an overseas

environment.

A PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGETING MODEL AND ITS
APPLICATION FOR AN AMERICAN-SPONSORED

OVERSEAS SCHOOL

BY

Bobby J. Ballard

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and
Higher Education

1975

 

 

 

 

Dr.

men

Dr.
the
ment

and

ing

EXpll

stanc

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to
Dr. Vandel C. Johnson, without whose interest and encourage-
ment this study would not have been possible.

I also wish to thank Dr. Louis G. Romano,
Dr. James W. Costar and Dr. James H. Nelson for devoting
the time and effort to serve on my committee. Their com—
ments and suggestions on various portions were invaluable
and necessary for completing this dissertation.

My personal thanks to Dr. John Dorbis for assist-
ing in gathering the data.

And most of all to Faye, my appreciation can't be
explained in words, for her devotion, loyalty and under-

standing.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Chapter

IO

II.

III.

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Need for the Study . . . . . . .
Traditional Budgets vs. PPBES . .
Long- Range Planning . . . . . . .
Systematic Analysis . . . . . . .
Criteria Used to Measure Output in
Elementary and Secondary Schools
Purpose of the Study . . . . . .
Scope and Limitations of the Study
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Management Information Systems . .
Components of PPBES . . . . . . .
Objectives and Program Structure .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multiyear Planning and Cost Estimating

Relationships . . . . . . . . .
Users of PPBES . . . . . . . . . .
Steps for Implementation . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . .

Framework and Procedures . . . . .
Sources of Information . . . . . .
Objectives of This Study . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

21

21
22
25
26
30

34
36
40
42

50

51
51
52
58
59

Chapter

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF THE STUDY AND A
PROGRAM BUDGETING MODEL FOR AN AMERICAN-
SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOL 0 O C O O O O 0

Review of Administrative Policies
and By-Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Traditional Allocation of Resources . . .
Program Elements of the Instructional
Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Allocation of Resources to Program
Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Objectives and Criteria fo
Measuring Attainment . . . . . . . . . .
Program Budgeting Model for the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . .
Estimating Enrollment . . . . . . . . . .
DeveIOpment of Program Structure and
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Evaluation of Objective Attainment . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions From the Study . . . . . . . .
Recommendations as a Result of This Study
Implications for Further Study
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GLOS SARY O O I O O O O O O O O C C I O C O O O O O O
APPENDIX--TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . .l. . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

62
62
64
68
7O
72

73
75

75
76
76
77

82
82
86
88

92
93

96
102

138

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1.1 Statistics Concerning American-Sponsored
Overseas Schools: School Year 1973-74 . . . . 103

1.2 Student Representation by Country, American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . 104

1.3 Summary of Fees, American Community Schools
of Athens, Inc., 1967—1974 . . . . . . . . . . 106

2.1 Planning Responsibilities Matrix . . . . . . . . 107
2.2 Programming Responsibilities Matrix . . . . . . 108
2.3 Budgeting Responsibilities Matrix . . . . . . . 109
2.4 Evaluating Responsibilities Matrix . . . . . . . 110

2.5 A Segment of One Hierarchy of Educational
Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

2.6 System Analysis Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

2.7 System Approach to Educational Planning and
Problem-Solving . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . 113

2.8 Federal Institutions With PPB Systems . . . . . 114

2.9 Institutions of Higher Education in Michigan
Employing PPBES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

3.1 Crosswalk Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.1 Comparative Income and Expenditure Statements,
American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.;
School Years Ended June 30, 1969, 1970, 1971,
1972, 1973, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

4.2 Teachers Salary Schedule 1973-74, American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . 118

4.3 Comparison of Budgets 1973-74, American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . 119

V

Table Page

4.4 Enrollment by Grade Level (FTE) 1968-69 to
1973-74, American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

4.5 Student Enrollment by Date (FTE) 1973—74,
American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . 121

4.6 Summary of Enrollment by Classification
1973-74, American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4.7 Expenditures by Program Element 1973—74,
Hellenikon Elementary, American Community
Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 123

4.8 Expenditures by Program Element 1973-74,
Halandri Elementary, American Community
Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 124

4.9 Expenditures by Program Element 1973-74,
Middle School, American Community Schools
of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

4.10 Expenditures by Program Element 1973-74,
High School, American Community Schools
of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

4.11 Crosswalk Budget--Program Budget to Traditional
Budget 1973-74, American Community Schools
Of Athens, Inc. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 127

4.12 Instructional Objectives (on a Selective Basis),
American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . 128

4.13 Testing Program for 1973-1974, American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . 129

4.14 Results of Tests (on a Selective Basis) 1973-
74, American Community Schools of Athens,
Inc. C O O O O I O O O O C O O O O O O I O O O 130

4.15 Graduates of 1970, 1971 and 1972 Enrolled in
Institutions of Higher Learning, American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . 131

4.16 Estimated Enrollment, American Community
Schools of Athens, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 133

vi

Program Structure-—Instructiona1 Areas,
American Community Schools of Athens,

Hierarchy of Goals and Objectives With
Measurements of Achievement

Estimating Costs at Subject Level, American
Inc.

Community Schools of Athens,

Summary of Estimated Costs for Program
Element, American Community Schools of

Athens,

Inc.

vii

Inc.

Page

134

135

136

137

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

American enterprises, private businesses, industrial
corporations, and governmental agencies have expanded their
business Operations significantly throughout the world since
World War II; this requires American citizens to travel and
relocate in foreign countries from one to several years.

Two major concerns of most American citizens considering a
foreign assignment are the adequacy of the overseas school
system for their dependents and the need for their depen-
dents to continue their education. Generally, parents will
find an American-sponsored school in almost every foreign
country.

It is estimated by the Office of Overseas Schools
of the 0.8. Department of State that approximately 250,000
school-age children have accompanied their parents on an
overseas assignment. The Department of Defense operates
schools throughout the world for children of military and
governmental personnel, but allows some civilian parents to
send their children to these schools on a space-available,

tuition-paying basis.1

D - ~lL-»‘. . #1...“

r..

The schools for civilian children are Operated
generally as nonprofit private corporations or associations,
and are not controlled by the U.S. government. These
schools are owned by the parents and controlled by a local
board of education elected by the parents of the children
attending the school. Most of the civilian schools receive
various types of assistance and financial support under a
program administered by the Office of Overseas Schools of
the U.S. Department of State. The assistance programs are
intended to help the schools provide adequate education for
U.S. government dependents and to demonstrate to foreign
nationals the philoSOphy and methods of American education.2

During the fiscal year 1973-74, the Office of Over-
seas Schools, with an annual budget of approximately five
million dollars, gave some types of assistance to 134 dif-
ferent schools in 75 different countries. "Combined annual
operating budgets of the 134 schools total approximately
$65,000,000. Tuition payments are the principal source of

"3 The Office of Overseas Schools

financing for the schools.
reported that during the period 1973-74, the student enroll-
ment included 33,992 U.S. citizens and 36,495 from other
nations, as shown in Table 1.1. The professional staff

was also multinational, composed of 3,071 U.S., 1,949 host

country, and 752 third-country citizens, also shown in

Table 1.1.

 

 

 

typic
stude
Athen
forty

year i

Pe:

dnj
OCI

The student bodies of the civilian schools are
typically multinational. A good example is the pattern of
student enrollments at the American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc., Athens, Greece, which shows, in Table 1.2,
forty-four different countries represented during the six-
year period from 1968-69 to 1973-74.

Citizens of countries other than America anui Greece
are considered third-country or third-culture citizens.

An explanation of third cultures, as reflected in a multi-

national overseas school, was offered by Ruth Useem:
A third culture is the style of life, values, patterns
of behavior, and norms created and shared by individ-
uals who are representatives of their societies or
some segments thereof and who are relating their
nations or some sections of them to each other. Third
culture people are not tourists or immigrants or
expatriots, but diplomats, military personnel, edu-
cators, technical aid persons, missionaries, business
people, reporters and foundation representatives. The
style of life and patterns of behavior and norms of
any particular third culture reflect changes which
occur both within societies and between societies.

Although the student body is multinational, all
programs except foreign languages are presented in English.
"The instructional programs all provide a core curriculum
which will prepare students to enter schools, colleges and

universities in the U.S."5

Need for the Study

 

Throughout the world, school administrators are
receiving pressure to justify their management decisions and

the use being made of the school's educational resources,

even though, as Jean Hills argued, "that what proponents of
accountability wish to achieve is incompatible with the
value systems and functions of the school."6 The overseas
school budgets for Operating costs are generally small and
relatively uncomplicated. Systematic analysis of the alter-
natives on a short- or long-range basis has not been given
much consideration. Generally, local boards of education
have the responsibility for making certain that their
schools are Operating prOperly and their philosophy for the
school system is carried out.
Accountability, as defined by Arthur R. Olson, "is

a tool—-or a process--a way to give the public the facts
they need to judge more accurately how well their schools
are doing."7 He continued:

Some form of accountability is not new in educa-

tion. . . . What is new is the heavy emphasis on stu-

dent performance Or outcome measures. Recently the

concept of accountability has found its way into the

laws of at least 23 states. These enactments include

a host of new accountability requirements for the

development of assessment programs and evaluation

systems."8

The Research Corporation of the Association of School

Business Officials pointed out that educators have not ade-
quately met the challenge of effective planning:

Educators have been doing some planning from whence

has come some new programs and a revision of others.

And there has been some evaluating. But, the fact

remains that educators have not started a systematic

study with: (1) a careful look at the needs and prob-

lems of their districts, (2) an inventory of avail-

able resources, (3) the establishment Of broad goals
and general objectives, (4) reaching agreement on

 

One

lev

 

 

 

133D
k

a:30]

4.

priorities, (5) the consideration and analysis of
alternative program strategies, (6) the establishment
of programs according to plan, (7) the procurement

and allocation of resources according to plan,

(8) the preparation of the budget format, (9) the eval-
uation of the total effort, and (10) finally recycling
and revision as seems necessary and/or desirable.

Albert E. Sabin also pointed out, in reference to
effective planning: "If problems are not anticipated and
if apprOpriate action is not taken long before they reach
crisis levels, we must be prepared to suffer the chaos
that follows."10

The researcher had an Opportunity to discuss finan-
cial and Operating procedures of overseas schools with
members of boards of education, superintendents, and other
administrators from EurOpe, Asia, and Africa.11 It was
found that:

1. All overseas schools prepare a formal tradi-
tional budget for the total school but generally only for
one year in advance.

2. Costs for each student are developed simply
by dividing total costs by the total number of students.

3. Only a few schools develop costs by school
level, such as elementary, middle, or high school.

4. Some schools borrow funds for major capital
improvements and budget from current operating funds an
amount sufficient to amortize the loan over the period or

term of that loan, but a few schools raise tuition on a

current basis to provide the funds.

5. Planning generally is on a short-range basis.

6. There are not any overseas schools develOping
costs or allocating funds by program levels.

In most overseas schools fluctuating enrollments
create serious financial problems, especially when enroll-
ments drop during the school year and teacher contracts are
committed for the full year. At the American Community
Schools<mfAthens, Inc., for 1971-72 the actual full-time
equivalent enrollment was 1,946 students. For 1972-73 the
enrollment was estimated at 2,250 students, but there was
an actual enrollment of 2,406, which resulted in a surplus
of funds of $113,000 for the fiscal year. For 1973-74,
the estimated enrollment was 2,500 but resulted in an
actual enrollment of 2,240 and a financial deficit of
$136,000 for the fiscal year.12 The reasons for the fluc—
tuating enrollments at the American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc., are not easily or specifically identifiable,
but possibly are a combination of the following:

1. Increase in tuition from 1972-73 to 1973-74

of 6 percent and from 1973-74 to 1974—75 of
27 percent as shown in Table 1.3.

2. Devaluation of the dollar from thirty Greek

drachmae to twenty-seven for each dollar.13

3. Miliary coup in November, 1973, overthrow of

the president, and temporary establishment of

martial law.14

4. Political pressure to replace U.S. and third-

country national employees with local

nationals.15

5. Delay by the U.S. Naval Sixth Fleet in estab-

lishing homeporting in the Athens area.16

6. High inflationary rate in Greece of approxi-
mately 30 percent increase in 1973 over 1972.17
Many other factors may cause a shift or change in
the population of an overseas school Ruth Useem suggested
the following:
The number and composition of the community of for-
eigners and host nationals may change rapidly. A
break-off in diplomatic relations or an Opening up
of diplomatic relations between two nations, an out-
break Of war, an ending of war, new trade agreements,
a growing sense of nationalism and anti-foreignism
within a country, inflation, new knowledge, the growth
of the "fourth world" of oil-producing nations--a11
affect the way of life led by overseas nationals in
their mediator roles with host nationals and repre-
sentatives of other countries.1
Underlying problems resulting from the fluctuating
patterns of enrollments were explained by Richard Berendzan.
He stated that population changes affect educational insti-
tutions in at least two ways: (1) on student enrollment
structures and (2) on curriculum and staffing.19 Some
fluctuations in enrollment can be predicted; Philip M.
Houser felt educational administrators who are responsible
for planning must be cognizant of these data.20

The effects of fluctuating enrollments on higher

education were presented in a report by the Carnegie

. . 2 . .
Comm1531on. 1 These detrimental effects would be applic-
able to overseas schools as well.

The major problems confronting overseas schools
are increasing costs and highly, sometimes unpredictable,
fluctuating student enrollments. Overseas schools gen-
erally construct traditional budgets on a formula basis,
e.g., allocating teacher positions or teaching supplies,
geared to the number of students. However, there is little
evidence that instruments for efficiency analysis are being
used at program levels within the overseas schools.

The following observations by Frederich Balderston
are equally applicable to an overseas school:

In the past, these institutions were capable of grow-

ing in many directions without having to assess mis-

sion or sc0pe and without being specifically account-
able--financia11y or otherwise--to funding agencies.

. . . The problems of identifying and measuring the

components of such complex organizations or of analyz-

ing and evaluating their performances are enormous,

and these problems are complicated by uncertainties

about how to identify and demonstrate the quality and

quantity of education.22
Recommended for the overseas schools is a Planning,
Programming, Budgeting, Evaluation System. The expected
results from PPBES are to provide decision makers with a
tool for (l) systematically planning and identifying goals,
general Objectives, and related programs considered for
implementation; (2) analyzing alternatives on a long-range

basis for selecting the most feasible program to attain the

objectives; (3) reconciling the requirements for each

 

 

 

to ad
stude

f0110'

are as

instit
establ.

Output

’1‘
the Obj

program with the current year's available resources; and

(4) evaluating the results of costs and benefits and how

23

effectively the programs have Operated. Implicit in

PPBES for an overseas school is the ability of the system
to adapt to the changing needs of a multinational body of
students. Wilbur Steger emphasized the need for PPBES as
follows:
To focus attention on major issues for education; to
introduce analysis routinely into comparison of alter-
native resource allocation; to provide information
about future as well as current costs and benefits;
to present agency budgets in terms of meaningful
activity structure; to save and focus the decision-
making time to high officials.24
The major steps that must be considered in PPBES

are follows:

0)
U)

An assessment of the needs.

The examination of existing goals.

The establishment of a set of priorities.

The tentative determination of major programs.
The careful analysis of alternatives.

A selection of alternatives.

The preparation of a program and financial plan.
The development of a comprehensive plan for eval-
uation.

ooqoxmbwmi—I
I

Traditional Budgets vs. PPBES

 

Traditional budgeting is input oriented and is con-
cerned with money, personnel, and supplies needed by the
institution rather than focusing on attaining Objectives
established for the institution. In contrast, PPBES is
output oriented and is concerned primarily with fulfilling

the objectives and programs of the institution.26

 

 

am
SO]

COI

int
inP
they

gram

10

In an experiment conducted by Martin J. Scurrah
and Moshe Shani to determine if there would be interper-
sonal consequences in introducing program budgeting as
compared to conventional budgeting:

It was hypothesized that there would be more intra-
individual conflict in faculty groups using a PPBS
approach than in groups using a conventional budget-
ing approach; that there would be more interindi-
vidual conflict in faculty groups using the conven-
tional or the PPBS budgeting approach than in groups
using a PPBS; and that there would be no difference
in the average ratings of budgets prepared by groups
using the conventional or the PPBS budgeting tech-
niques. The first and third hypotheses were not
confirmed; the second hypothesis was confirmed.27

Recognizing student needs and involving the staff
in the decision-making process are important considerations
in PPBES. When peOple are involved in developing programs,
they will be more inclined to accept and support the pro-

gram.

Long-Range Planning

Budgets for overseas schools are traditionally
short range, that is, for one or two years. Parents appear
reluctant to support high tuition for long-range plans,
especially when their tour of duty may be for two years
or less. Charles L. Schultze,28 Research Corporation,29
Philip Coombs,3O and others have recognized the need for
research on and consideration for applying the concepts of

PPBES to long-range planning. Kiser and Edwards, in con-

ducting a study of 140 U.S. schools using PPBES, reported

that one of the major problems was

ll

. . . the inability to develOp multi-year program and
fiscal plans. Long-range planning has never been a
forte of educators. PPBES encourages them to develOp
three- to five-year plans to focus attention more
critically upon the future consequences of present
decisions and to improve the rationality of daily
operating decisions made in the context of projected

activities.3l
David Novick indicated that long-range planning was
a necessity for effective planning and that programs for
short-range years are generally less flexible. Novick
used the automobile industry to illustrate his point:

In the current time period, next year's model or the
automobile for Year I is a fixed thing with only a
little possibility of change. The article for the
year after that, or Year II, is almost a fixed thing
because commitments must be made to long lead times,
as much as 18 months in advance. Even the automobile
for Year III is fairly well developed at this point
in time and they are also planning for automobiles
for Years IV and V.

The remote areas of some overseas schools, problems
of recruiting and retaining staff, and difficulty in obtain-
ing supplies and equipment make long-range planning essen-
tial for Operation of the school.

Charles Schultze observed that long-range plans
should be analyzed for current programs, even though the
school district does not anticipate new programs:

The multi-year plan could include only future conse-
quences of currently prOposed decisions. Under this
method the five-year plan accompanying the budget sub-
mission would prOpose decisions for the first year and

show for the subsequent four years, both the output
and financial costs of prOposed and prior decisions.33

12

Multiyear planning should emphasize the need to
develop incremental costs connected with continuation of
present programs. Schultze stated that:

Over the past five years, federal budget outlays on
domestic programs have risen sharply. Under these
circumstances, one would expect that decision makers
would have had substantial flexibility in directing
the course of spending according to their perceptions
of priorities. In practice, however, the built-in
increases every year, stemming from prior year deci-
sions, have absorbed a large fraction of each single
year's budget increase. The size of these built-in
increases has always come as a surprise. Available
Options in any single year have consequently been
much smaller than one would surmise simply by looking
at the size of the aggregate five-year increase. An
information system that provides an aggregated measure
of built-in increases, and tags each major decision
with its future consequences in the context of that
aggregate, at least indicates to decision makers what
their current decisions are doing to their future
options.34

Systematic Analysis

 

One of the primary concerns of PPBES is the empha—
sis placed on the analysis of alternatives. Educational
administrators are encouraged to examine the impact of
selecting one program over other programs in achieving the

stated objectives.

The Research Corporation reflected on the impor—
tance and purposes of resource analysis as follows:

To generate, collect, store and retrieve data-—
financial, program and other--that will assist in
relating inputs (resources) to outputs (educational)
outcome.

To organize and link resource data to the program
structure to produce information that will aid the
decision-maker in analyzing alternative means of attain-
ing his objective and informally documenting the

13

resources required for the alternative chosen by the
decision-maker.

To reduce, wherever possible, the unknowns of
resource requirements, and where informatitniexplicitly
answering decision-makers' questions cannot be pro-
vided, to determine the bounds on the range of uncer-
tainty in the future about resource requirements and
their costs, i.e., to perform sensitivity analysis.

Carpenter and Haggart felt that "evaluating alter-

natives is both the why and how of program budgeting for

educational planning."36

John Benton suggested that under systematic analy-

sis "alternative courses of action are identified and sub-

"37

jected to some kind of evaluation. Schultze argued

there is a complex set of relationships between inputs
and outputs and a definite need for analyzing alternative
programs for funding purposes:

Federal elementary and secondary education programs
primarily consist of grants-in-aid to state and local
governments. It is essential to know whether fed-
eral funds are additive to or simply substitutes for
state and local education funds. As a substitute for
state and local funds, federal aid to education does
not increase the resources going into education, but
is simply a form of general financial assistance to
state and local governments. To the extent that fed-
eral funds are additive, they increase resource
inputs. Assuming the federal program to be additive,
what particular resources does it add, and what con-
sequences do those additional resources have on var-
ious measures of educational achievement? Alterna-
tive programs will produce different results in terms
of additivity and the mix of resource inputs. We
cannot choose among them, in order to achieve a par-
ticular set of obgectives, until we know what those
differences are.3

Also in strong support for program analysis,

V. B. Lewis stated:

l4

Adequate analysis of data should result in reason-
able assurance that the return from every expenditure
will be worth its cost in terms of sacrificed alter-
natives; incremental analysis, i.e., analysis of the
additional values to be derived from an additional
expenditure, is necessary because of the phenomenon
of diminishing utility; and comparison of relative
merits can be made only in terms of relative effec-
tiveness in achieving a common objective.39

Criteria Used to Measure Output in
Elementary and Secondary Schools

 

 

One of the most difficult problems for elementary
and secondary schools is measuring the output or attain-
ment of objectives. Some of the following criteria for
measurement have been used:

1. Scores on achievement and scholastic tests

2. Number of graduating seniors

3. Promotions between class levels

4. Numbers of graduates gaining access to and
attending post-secondary institutions

5. Number gaining immediate employment upon gradu-
ation and/or a combination with salary level

6. Student-teacher ratios

7. Measuring costs per student

Robert Ross pointed out the goals should be stated
in such a way that the accomplishment of the goal can be
readily determined and evaluated.40 Warland D. Wight felt
educational performance objectives should be expressed in
behavioral terms that are readily accessible.41 Ronald W.
Bruton stressed the need to evaluate objectives in terms
of student behavior:

There is an Obvious need to evaluate the merit of
behavioral objectives empirically, but no method for
doing so. Several investigations (e.g. Butler et a1.,

1971; Stake, 1970) have devised methods for evaluat-
ing objectives, but their methods are based upon the

15

quantified Opinion of experts. To achieve greater
empiricism, objectives should be evaluated instead
in relation to child behavior.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of the study is to develop a program
budgeting model, specifically designed for the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc., in Athens, Greece.

The Objective is to develOp a methodology for determin-
ing the cost of program elements required to produce an
educational benefit or outcome. Attaining the objective
will provide administrative decision makers with informa-
tion and alternatives to implement new programs or delete
outdated programs to meet best the needs of a highly
fluctuating, multinational student body of an overseas
school. The program budget is not intended to replace the
formalized traditional budgeting procedures but to comple-
ment the process by analyzing programs and providing
alternatives.

To attain the purpose of this study, it is neces-
sary to identify the present programs and to identify

present resources allocated to these programs.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

 

The study is intended to develop a working model
for implementing a system of program budgeting in the
American Community Schools of Athens, Inc., Athens,

Greece. The study begins with a detailed evaluation of

16

the traditional budget document, which will facilitate the
collection of data necessary for the preparation of the
program budget. The program budget will include all of
the programs Offered and presently utilized by the Ameri-
can Community Schools of Athens, Inc. Implicit in the
conceptional design is the broad involvement of members

- of the professional staff at all levels. The study will
require the COOperation of school board members, adminis-
trators, teachers, and students concerning programs and
plans for all grade levels. Available data from student
records, faculty records, and administrative policies
adopted and approved by the governing board of education,
as well as current budget and accounting records, will be
assembled and related to program activities.

Each overseas school is a unique entity, which
must develOp programs to fulfill the needs of its students.
Locality of the school, host country culture and laws, and
multinationality of student enrollment may restrict the
flexibility of implementing certain programs. As a con-
sequence, the program structure developed for one over-
seas school may not be feasible for the plans and objec-
tives of a school in another country. This study and
prOposed model are limited to data available and applicable
to the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc., Athens

Greece.

17

Since the study is of an exploratory nature and
not of an empirical design, hypotheses have not been pre—

sented for testing.

Overview

To accomplish the purpose of this study, in Chap-
ter II the literature containing information regarding
program budgeting and the forces affecting PPBES is
reviewed. In Chapter III the rationale and methods for
the study are described. Observations from the research,
including a model for program budgeting for the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc., are presented in
Chapter IV. Conclusions and recommendations of the study

are summarized in Chapter V.

l8

Footnotes-~Chapter I

 

lU.S. Department of State, Office of Overseas
Schools, Fact Sheet 1973-74 (Washington, D.C.: Statistics
as of September 15, 1973), p. 1.

2

 

Ibid., p. 2.

3Ibid.

4Ruth H. Useem, The TCK's Themselves (East Lansing,
Michigan: Overseas Educator-Continuing Education Service,
Graduate Education Overseas, Michigan State University,
January, 1975), p. 3.

5

 

U.S. Department of State, op. cit., p. 2.

6Jean Hills, "On Accountability in Education,"
Educational Administration Quarterly, Winter, 1974, p. 2.

 

7Arthur R. Olson, "Who Owes What to Whom?" The
Education Digest, January, 1975, p. 39; from Planning and
Changing, Summer, 1974, pp. 116-120.

 

 

8Ibid., p. 39.

9Research Corporation of the Association of School
Business Officials, Educational Resource Management Sys-
tems (Chicago: Association of School Business Officials,
1971), p. 205.

10Albert B. Sabin, "Challenges to Universities
Through Year 2,000," Educational Record (Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, Summer, 1974): P. 200.

11Personal interviews at the Near East South Asia-
EurOpean Council of International Schools Joint Conference
in Athens, Greece, November 18-22, 1973, with: Don Ballen-
tine, Principal, American School of Kuwait; Dr. Richard
Ayling, Assistant Director, The American School in London;
Mr. Frank O. Cockrell, Superintendent, Parents' COOpera-
tive School, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Col. Louis Creveling,
Board President, American School of Iran, Tehran; Dr. John
Gist, Superintendent, American International School of
Kabul, Afghanistan; Dr. Stanley Haas, Headmaster, Overseas
School of Rome, Italy; Billy Isaac, Board Member, American
School of Iran, Tehran; Dr. Gordon Parsons, Regional
Officer, Office of Overseas Schools, Washington, D.C.;
Dr. Floyd Travis, Superintendent, American Community School,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

 

l9

12Accounting Records, Office of Assistant Superin-
tendent for Business Affairs, American Community Schools
of Athens, Inc., Athens, Greece, for fiscal years 1971-72,
1972-73, and 1973-74.

13Athens News, Athens, Greece, October 19, 1973,

 

p. l.

l4Ibid., November 25, 1973., p. 1.

15Interview with James Jones, Sales Manager,
International Business Machines, Athens, Greece, June 10,
1974.

16Athens Mirrow, Athens, Greece, July 23, 1974,

 

p. 3.

l71bid., September 25, 1973, p. 2.

18Useem, op. cit., p. 3.

19Richard Berendzan, "Population Changes and Higher
Education," Educational Record, Spring, 1974, p. 115.

20Philip M. Houser, "Population Problems and Their
Application to Education," North Central Association Quar-
terly, Spring, 1972, p. 372.

21Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Priori-
ties for Action: Final Report of the Carnegie Commission
on Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

22Frederich E. Balderston, Managing Today's Uni-
versity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1974), p. ix.

23Charles L. Schultze, The Politics and Economics
of Public Spending (Washington, D.C.: The Brooking
Institution, 1969), p. 241.

24William Steger, quoted by William H. Curtis in
"Program Budgeting Design for Schools Unveiled With Much
Work Still to Go," Nation's Schools, November, 1969,
pp. 42-43.

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Corporation, Op. cit., pp. 30-31.

26Martin J. Scurrah and Moshe Shani, "PPBS Versus
Conventional Budgeting in a Simulated Educational Organi-
zation," Educational Administration Quarterly 10 (Autumn,
1974): 64.

27Ibid., p. 63.

20

28Schultze, op. cit., pp. 15-16.

29Research Corporation, Op. cit., p. 1.

30Philip Coombs, "The Need for a New Strategy of
Educational Development," Comparative Education Review,
June, 1970, pp. 53-54.

31Chester Kiser and John Edwards, "PPBES: Logic,
Rationality Applied to Education," Association of School
Business Officials, School Business Affairs Newsletter,
October, 1973, p. 241.

32David Novick, Origin and History of Program
Budgeting (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1966.

33

 

 

 

 

Schultze, Op. cit., p. 97.

34Ibid., pp. 97-98.

35Research Corporation, Op. cit., p. 107.

36M. B. Carpenter and S. A. Haggart, Analysis of
Educational Programs Within a Program Budgeting System
(Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1969), p. 1.

37John B. Benton, Managing the Organizational
Decision Process (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and
Company, 1973), p. 17.

38

 

 

 

 

Schultze, Op. cit., p. 57.

39V. B. Lewis, "Toward a Theory of Budgeting,"
Public Administration Review, Winter, 1952, p. 42.

40Robert F. Ross, "How to Compare Your Educational
Costs and Benefits," Educational TechnolOgYJ September,
1974, p. 50.

41Warland D. Wight, "Obtaining Competence With
Competencies: A Case Study in Higher Education," Educa-
tional Technology, November, 1974, p. 46.

42Ronald W. Bruton, "A Method for Evaluating
Instructional Objectives," Educational Technology, Septem-
ber, 1974, p. 33.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nifica
tion 0
made t
unders
Studie
entitl
for us

used t

the De
Educat
SiOn f
EduCat

applic

sYStem

fied.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

The literature regarding PPBES has increased sig-
nificantly in the past few years. The Research Corpora-
tion Of the Association of School Business Officials has
made the most significant contribution to further the
understanding of PPBES by conducting extensive, in-depth
studies. The Research Corporation published a book

entitled Education Resources Management System, intended

 

for use by elementary and secondary schools. The authors
used the terms ERMS and PPBES interchangeably.

The Rand Corporation, through its staff members,
the Department of Defense, the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems at Western Interstate Commis-
sion for Higher Education, and the American Council of
Education, have made major contributions in understanding,
applications, and implementations of PPBES.

In this chapter the term "management information
system" is reviewed and the conceptual elements of PPBES
as a tool for a management information system are identi-

fied. Then a review is made of each process or function

21

‘ .I‘
'1- ‘nn *'

 

 

 

 

 

of PP

and t

is al
indic
again:
reviei
for a
mating
ity tc
ments
Perfoz

StEps

Portir
Stated
SYSten
as is
0Vera]
inf0rp
aCCess
EEttir

manage

22

of PPBES and the hierarchical relationship of objectives
and the program structure.

The importance of analysis in an operating system
is also reviewed. Selma J. Mushkin and James R. Cleaveland
indicated that a continual process of analysis will guard
against obsolescence of programs and activities.1 A short
review is made of the need for long-range planning and
for a cost-estimating relationship as a basis for esti-
mating costs for long-range planning. To bring credibil-
ity to the purpose of the study, some of the legal require-
ments for implementing, current "users," and institutions
performing research in PPBES are discussed. Finally,

steps for implementation of PPBES are reviewed.

Management Information Systems

 

A key element in any management system is the sup-
porting management information systems.2 Leonard Krauss
stated that the objectives of a management information
system are to collect and make available such information
as is needed by management to run the business; to improve
overall Operations by providing management with decision
information that is accurate, up to date, and rapidly
accessible; and to improve profit and customer service by
getting the right information to the right peOple so they
can make the right decisions.3

The Michigan Department of Education, in defining a

management information system, stated that:

23

A Management Information System is intended to supply
information to an organization's decision-makers.
The Management Information System attempts to make
information available, not to replace decision-makers.
The manager's information needs vary with the task at
hand and with his ability to use information. There-
fore, it is the task of the Management Information
System, not to supply a pre-set package of informa-
tion, but to supply greater versatility in pertinent,
timely information.
Another definition of a Management Information
System was offered by Donald Heany for a business enter-
prise, but would be equally applicable to an educational
institution:
A set of well-defined roles, practices, and proce-
dures by which men, equipment, or both are to Operate
on given input so as to generate information satis-
fying specifications derived from the need of given
individuals in given business situations.
The essential role of a Management Information
System is to provide a basis for the organization of infor-
mation that will assist an educational institution's
efforts to structure its objectives and evaluate the means
to achieve them.6 A central concern of a Management
Information System is to assist educational administrators
with the decision-making process. According to Joseph A.
Maciariello and Willard F. Enteman:
A management control procedure is one which provides
the information an institution requires to allocate
its resources to the programs that are most produc-
tive in fulfilling its objectives.
The most effective management information system

developed for educational institutions is the Planning,

Programming, Budgeting, Evaluation System (PPBES). The

I l I'll'III'l‘l'illxl

24

major processes are interrelated and provide a major sup-

port for decision making. The following diagram provides

a conceptualization of the major processes of PPBES.8

PLANNING
Generating
objectives
EVALUATING: PROGRAMMING:
Progress PLANNING Generating al-

output and I .' ternative sets
DECISIONING

effectiveness of activities
‘ . and services

BUDGETING:
Formalizing plans,

accounting and
reporting

PPBES, then, is a management information system for
educational institutions which identifies needs and sets
goals and objectives to satisfy the needs (planning pro-
cess), provides alternatives for accomplishing the objec-
tives (programming process), allocates resources to
programs selected (budgeting process), and evaluates the

effectiveness of the programs in attaining the goals and

 

[I'll-Ill] ‘Elil

25

objectives of the institution (evaluating process).9 Sue
Haggart suggested that an implication of PPBES in policy

decisions is "a way of thinking about where you are going,
where you want to go, how to get there, at what cost, and

with what benefit."lo

Components of PPBES

 

The Research Corporation has performed extensive
research relative to PPBES, and described the components
on a highly comprehensive basis.

Planning is the continuing process of guiding internal
change, so that the school adapts effectively to the
dynamic society of which it is a part. As new infor-
mation emerges (either externally from within society
or internally from within the school system) an
adjusted picture of reality is described for consid-
eration by decision-makers. Planning is oriented to
the relative emphasis upon the modification, creation
or elimination of programs required to achieve the
long-range goals for the school district.1

Table 2.1 reflects the activities and responsibili—
ties of the planning process.

Programming is defined as the process of developing
program plans consisting of interrelated learning
activities and support services with each plan repre-
senting a design for attaining educational objectives.
The programming process brings together the informa-
tion essential $0 the planning, budgeting and evalua-
ting processes. 2

Table 2.2 summarizes the activities and responsi-
bilities of the programming process.

Budgeting includes a series of activities which provide
the decision—makers with resource and cost information
essential for planning, programming and evaluating the
allocation of resources. The budgeting activity inter-
acts with the planning, programming and evaluating
processes, from the inception of a possible plan to its

ti

in

ti

As

 

 

Ill-IFIII!
III
IN

N

bU(

ins

de.‘

S

26

implementation, modification and/or deletion. The
activities include determining available resources,
preparing the program budget, program costing and
making special studies.

Table 2.3 outlines the functions and activities of
the budgeting process.

Evaluation is the process of assessing the attainment
of objectives and the worth of programs. Evaluation
should compare and contrast performance, with pro-
jected and actual, with the requirements that led to
the creation of the program plans.l4

Table 2.4 suggests the activities and responsibili-
ties of the evaluating process.

According to Frederich E . Balderston, "program budget-
ing is a conceptual schema for directing resource alloca-
tions according to the Objectives of the institution."15
As stated by the California State Department Of Education,

The program budget in a PPBES is a plan that relates
proposed expenditures for programs, within a specific
time frame to goals and objectives, based upon a pro-

gram structure classification. It includes the pro-
posed revenue sources for financing programs.

Objectives and Program Structure

 

PPBES, in contrast to traditional planning and
budgeting systems, emphasizes the need to identify the
institution's goals and objectives. The programs are
developed to achieve the objectives. Stephen Barro
stated that:

Objectives for program budgeting need to be stated at
levels of abstraction that lie between the philosophi-
cal objectives and the behavioral, instructional

objectives. To be useful at the program element
level, objectives must be Operational. That is they

27

should be translatable into well-defined measures of
effectiveness or performance, such as achievement
test scores, attitudinal indicators, and measures of
post-school success. Objectives at the subprogram
and program levels represent aggregations of the
program-element level objectives. They need not cor-
respond directly to Operationally defined effective-
ness or performance measures, as do the lower-level
Objectives, but they should group the lower-level
Objectives in ways that are relevant to the larger
strategies issues.

Table 2.5 reflects the hierarchy program-element
level objectives as conceptualized by Barro.

The program structure, according to Warren Gulko,
is "a classification system that categorizes the activi-
ties of an organization according to their relationship

18

to the organization's objectives." Haggart defined

program structure as follows: "The program structure,

through programs, relates activities (and their resources)

to objectives."19

The California State Department of Education wrote:
Programs are coded by number to facilitate the collec-
tion of such data as costs and statistics in a variety
of combinations and formats consistent with the program
structure. These data are used to control program
expenditures, to evaluate program effectiveness in
terms of stated objectives, and to anal ze the cost
effectiveness of alternative programs.2

The breakdown of the program structure into (1) pro-

grams, (2) subprograms, and (3) program elements emphasizes
the output orientation of PPBES. The emphasis of the pro-

gram structure is on students attaining certain skills,

attitudes, or behaviors as stated in the objectives. The

28

Research Corporation, in connection with the program struc-

ture, stressed the following points:

1.

cating

of the

The basis for a program structure is an orienta-

tion for goals or objectives.

Programs relate to specific student needs.
The prime focus is upon a learner outcome.21

The program structure provides the basis for allo-

resources at program levels and for the develOpment

program budget.

Educational performance objectives should be stated

in behavioral terms so that attainment or accomplishment of

the Objective can be readily determined.

Forbes stated:

22'23 As Roy H.

Behavioral Objectives tend to simplify the process for
determining the effectiveness of the program, but they

are not entirely necessary.
stated in measurable terms,

For example:

LEVEL

1

Expressive objectives, if
can also be used.

OBJECTIVE

 

For 90 percent of
who wish to enter
employment within
ation as measured

For 90 percent of
who wish to enter

the graduating seniors
the labor force to gain
three months of gradu-
by a district survey.

the graduating seniors
the labor force to gain

employment as desired in business, with-
in three months of graduation as mea-
sured by a district survey.

For 90 percent of

the business curricu-

lum students to meet the following stan-

dards:

29

LEVEL OBJECTIVE

Ross,

 

Typing--40 words per minute as mea-
sured by the IBM Test with 90 percent
accuracy.

Shorthand-—60 words per minute as mea-
sured by the Gregg Test with a 2000
word vocabulary.
Bookkeeping--Demonstrate ability to use
journals, income statements, and bal-
ance sheets as determined by classroom
tests.

Office Machine Operation--Mean score
equal to national average on UCR Tests.

 

 

 

4 Upon course completion 90 percent of the
students will be able to accomplish the
following based on classroom tests:

(1) State and understand the basic
accounting equation of double
entry bookkeeping.

(2) Understand the function of and
make journal entries.

(3) Understand three depreciation
calculation methods.25

This position was further supported by Robert F.

who stated that:

All objectives are defined as specific, measurable
results that guide planning decision toward previously
determined goals. An Objective has a result that can,

in

some way, be measured and that contributes to the

achievement of a broader goal.2

Judson T. Shaplin suggested there may be some dif-

ficulty in the totality of measuring an objective:

The more important the Objectives, the more difficult
it is to measure the achievement of them. It is
easiest to measure immediate recall of information of

the develOpment of manipulative skills, more difficult
to measure changes in attitudes and underlying values,
perhaps most difficult to measure the basic process of
learning capacity to think, the process of inquiry.

30

Analysis

Robert F. Ross suggested that one of the most impor-

tant functions of analysis is to "identify the types of

costs that result from the activity being analyzed,"28

but pointed out that "even if no precise estimate can be
made of the magnitude of these costs, it is important to
identify them prior to carrying out the action or activity

and present them in writing to the persons rendering a

29

judgement and decision about the activity." Table 2.6

reflects the basic processes of systems analysis in PPBES.
"One of the central problems of any analysis is

the choice of a criterion, or test of preferences, which

would suggest the best combination of desirable factors."30

Gene Fisher, in reflecting on the role of analysis
as used in program budgeting, stated that:

First of all we must be very clear about what the pur-
pose of analysis really is--particu1arly in a long-
range planning decision context. Contrary to what

some of the more enthusiastic advocates of quanti-
tative analysis may think, I tend to visualize analy-
sis as playing a somewhat modest, though very signifi-
cant, role in the overall decision-making process.

In reality most major long-range planning decision
problems must ultimately be resolved primarily on the
basis of intuition and judgement. I suggest that the
main role of analysis should be to try to sharpen this
intuition and judgement. In practically no case should
it be assumed that the results of the analysis will
make the decision. The really interesting problems are
just too difficult, and there are too many intangible
(i.e., political, psychological, and sociological) con-
siderations that cannot be taken into account in the
analytical process, especially in the quantitative
sense. In sum, the analytical process should be
directed toward assisting the decision-maker in such a

31

way that his intuition and judgement are better than
they would be without the results of the analysis.31

A systematic approach to problem solving through
analysis was offered by Edwin A. Read, and is presented
in diagram form on Table 2.7. The approach is presented
in two parts, and can be summarized as follows:

PART I--System Analysis
1.0 Identify and define the problems from a vali-
dated educational need
2.0 Determine the solution requirements
2.1 Define the Objective in measurable terms
2.2 Determine the performance requirements
(end—product specifications and criteria)
2.3 Identify the constraints (conditions that
might jeopardize the success of the mis-
sion)
3 0 Analyze the problem (problem analysis)
4.0 Generate alternative solutions
5 0 Select preferred solution
6 0 Analyze the solution
6.1 Perform a mission analysis (identify the
milestones or subobjective required for
the partial attainment of the mission
objective)
2 Perform a function analysis
3 Perform a task analysis
6.4 Perform a method-means analysis

PART II--Systems Synthesis
7.0 Select preferred method-means for implementing
each part Of the solution
8.0 Implement the solution
9.0 Evaluate success of solution

6.
6.

32

Virginia Held wrote:

Along with facilitating an awareness of the objectives
to be sought, PPBES provides for the application of a
battery of new techniques, such as systems analysis and
cost-benefit analysis in an effort to increase the pos-
sibilities of making rational choices between alterna-
tive means.

Several concepts for analysis have been suggested

by different authors. Two of the concepts most frequently

32

used in PPBES are cost—effectiveness analysis and cost-
benefit analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis helps the

planner to relate the resources required by a program to

its effectiveness.34 The cost-effectiveness analysis "is

useful in comparing alternatives when either the cost

(budget level) or the effectiveness (achievement) is held

constant."35

According to Charles L. Schultze, "Cost-effectiveness
analysis is designed to solve problems by finding the most

effective and most efficient solution on the basis of

36

Objective criteria." Roy H. Forbes distinguished between

cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis by
stating that "effectiveness is a measure of the achievement
of program objectives," whereas:

Cost-benefit is an analysis of the cost and the result-
ing monetary benefits of one or more programs or pro-
gram components. For example, a cost-benefit analysis
of a vocational education program would attempt to
identify all monetary benefits resulting from the pro-
gram. Some benefits are easily identified, e.g.,
potential increased earning power and the resulting
increase in income tax revenue. However, other bene-
fits become more difficult to measure, e.g., possible
decrease in welfare expenditures, possible decrease in
losses due to criminal acts and benefits associated7
with cultural contributions of time and resources.

Robert F. Ross suggested two approaches for analyz-
ing costs and efficiency:

(a) equalize costs and compare differences in benefits.
This approach is apprOpriate for assessing the effec-
tiveness of two or more activities in accomplishing the
same Objective. This approach also is best when funds
are set and the problem is to make the best use of the
available resources.

33

(b) equalize benefits and compare costs. This approach
is most suitable for determining the most efficient way
of achieving a set goal or objective. This approach
also permits the evaluators of the program to determine
where the point of diminishing returns is reached, by
measuring the benefits that result from additional
resources.39

Margaret B. Carpenter and Sue A. Haggart and the
Research Corporation stated that:

Cost-effectiveness analysis is, quite frankly, a tech-
nique for comparing programs, and may be used:

--to help assess the relative worth of several inno-
vative programs with the same educational outcome
(such as improvement in reading achievement);

--to determine whether a single program is becoming
more or less effective as time passes so that steps
may be taken to improve it, if necessary;

--to help assess the relative worth of the same pro-
gram for different student populations (such as
those with differing socioeconomic backgrounds) or
in different school settings.40r41

According to J. Allan Thomas, "effectiveness is the
measure of the extent to which the objective (or weighted
index) is achieved."42 By definition, effective means
"adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended

"43 It follows then that objectives or

or expected result.
purposes must be clearly described and specified in indis-
putable terms if effectiveness is to be measured. Because
resources generally will not meet the demands for these
limited resources, R. J. Ward defined efficiency as "the

art of getting the maximum result possible with the minimum

amount of cost . . . maximizing the ratio of outputs to

inputs."44

34

Multiyear Planningyand Cost
Estimating Relationships

One of the main concepts of PPBES is the require-
ment for educators to make multi—year plans and the review
of the consequences a current decision will have on
resources in future years. "Since program budgeting

involves multi-year planning, total cost must include costs

"45

for the entire planning time horizon. "The multi-year

financial plan presents financial data for existing and

alternative programs projected for a period of several

years."46

The Research Corporation supported this position:

An attempt should be made to derive the incremental

program cost by first develOping a total multi-year

program cost for continuation of present commitments
and a total cost for a comparable multi-year period

for each alternative program to be considered.47

According to Charles L. Schultze, the system must
provide an aggregate measure of built—in increases on a
multiyear basis and reflects upon each major decision with
its future year consequencesixithe context of that aggre-
gate.48 Frederich E. Balderston argued that:

One basic idea in PPBES is to specify what is to be
accomplished in each program in each future year and
then to calculate how many resources will be needed
for the program and to specify when those resources
have to be acquired and at what cost in order to meet
the schedule of the program. This system forecasts
the cost of the program over a series of years and
sets forth the timing of these costs, thereby avoiding
seemingly innocuous first-year commitments to pro-
grams that eventually turn out to be far more costly
than originally contemplated.49

35

Planning on a long-term basis is concerned with
the goals of the school, but emphasis is also placed on
the feasibility of the plans in view of available resources.
Novick stated that:

Financial planning for a period longer than a year
must always carry the qualification that provision
of adequate resources cannot be guaranteed. If
resource levels are changed, however, a financial
plan that is more directly translatable to program
output simplifies the revision of nonfinancial
goals.

An important element of multiyear planning is the
necessity for estimating costs. As educational institu-

51 of their total Opera-

tions generally expend 85 percent
tional financial budget on salaries and related fringe
benefits, the following discussion on cost estimating
relationships is limited to salaries. The first example
for estimating salaries and number of personnel in future
years was suggested by James A. Dei Rossi. Assuming that
the average current salary was determined and that the
future increases could be predicted at 5 percent annually,
then the average salary for each year could be computed

52

by using the formula offered by Dei Rossi:

S1 = average salary (l + .05)tl

Where S = average salary for each year
t = time variable for each year

The next step is to determine the staff required to ful-

fill the institution's objectives. "Average Daily

36

Attendance is an appropriate measure of size for estimat-
ing total operations staff requirements."53 Dei Rossi
pointed out that:

Obviously, these results, although empirically derived,
are based on several assumptions and judgements. It
was assumed that the average salary was sufficiently
representative to be used for estimating future change
in average salaries. Also, the average district
experience of several districts was used to estimate
the staff requirements of this district. However, one
advantage of the type of approach outlined for esti-
mating future costs is that it does force these kinds
of assumptions to be made explicit.

The Research Corporation supported the cost esti-
mating relationships offered by Dei Rossi, stating that:

Many estimating relationships are simple mathemati-
cal statements that a cost or resource is directly
prOportional to some known characteristics of that
resource. . . . Similarly, there are factors for
estimating nondollar resources; a student-teacher
ratio is such a factor.55

Users of PPBES

 

A review of the institutions presently using PPBES
is not intended to be all inclusive. The purpose of review-
ing some of the users and laws related thereto is to add
credibility to the applicability of recommending implemen-
tation of PPBES in an overseas educational institution. A
significant number of elementary and secondary schools,
colleges anxi universities, and state and federal govern-
ments have adopted PPBES in recent years.

Harry Hartley reported that:

As far as the current state goes, it is difficult to
determine exactly how many states have mandated some

37

form of PPBS and how many local schools are actually
"doing" PPBS. My own judgement is that more than
1,500 local schools are actually engaged in PPBS
development in Operational sense. Operational usage
of PPBS continues to grow.

"In August, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson
directed all the major civilian agencies of the federal
government to install planning, programming auui budgeting

systems (PPBS) along the general lines of the Defense

57

Department model." Table 2.8 reports the federal insti—

tutions using the PPB System.

The State of Michigan required all colleges and
universities to adopt PPBES, as stated in the "Instruc-
tion" sheets:

In February, 1971, Governor Milliken formally com-
mitted the Executive Branch of Michigan State Gov-
ernment to an improved decision process. The design
of a Program Budget Evaluation System (PBES) was
undertaken at that time, with the objective of produc-
ing the fiscal year 1973-74 executive budget recom-
mendations under the new system. A recognition of
the differences in the relationship between the state
and institutions of higher education plus the Opera-
tional problems faced by the colleges and universi-
ties in adapting to the new system led to an expanded
time frame for the implementation of the full PBE
System in higher education. Full system implementa-
tion in higher education is targeted for the fiscal
year 1974-1975 executive budget cycle with a skeletal
system in place for the fiscal year 1973-74 budget
cycle.

Table 2.9 shows the institutions of higher education that
were required to employ PBES in Michigan.
The National Center for Higher Education Management

Systems (NCHEMS), supported by the U.S. Office of Education,

38

has made significant progress in developing uniform pro-
gram classification structures. The Program Classifica—
tions Structure

provides a standard means of identifying and organ-
izing the activities of higher education in a program-
oriented manner. It is intended to facilitate the
organization of data for planning and analysis pur-
poses. . . . It will serve as a vehicle for nationwide
data exchange by providing a taxonomy of higher edu-
cation activities that serves as a structure for
classifying the various categories Of cost information
relative to the general programs of higher education.59

A subsequent study by NCHEMS resulted in the
Resource Requirements Prediction Model (RRPM). According
to the NCHEMS, the new RRPM provides educational "institu-
tions with a flexible tool with which to analyze various
institutional alternatives for utilization of a limited
"60
set of resources.

RRPM generates four types of reports, any or all of
which may be requested by the user. These include:
(1) organizational unit reports providing line-item
budgets for various organizational units within the
institution, (2) program budget reports indicating
the discipline or department contributions to various
instructional programs, (3) institutional summary
reports, and (4) formatted display reports showing
all parameter data for the institution.61

The International Business Machines Corporation has
developed a budget/finance program product system designed
to accommodate users of United States Office of Education
publications in the area of schools accounting for computer
application. In particular, it is designed to facilitate
implementation of concepts such as the planning, program-

ming, budgeting system (PPBS) by the user.62

39

Paul Bethke reported the desire to improve educa-
tional accountability in the state of Colorado:

In 1971 the Colordao General Assembly passed three
laws intended to improve the quality of public elemen-
tary and secondary education in the one hundred and
eighty one school districts of the state. The three
statutes are (1) the Comprehensive Education Planning
Act; (2) the Program, Planning, Budgeting and Evalu-
ation System Act; and (3) the Educational Accountabil-
ity Act. Although these acts were written and passed
as separate laws, they are, in fact, dependent upon
each other for the achievement of one purpose,
accountability. . . . The PPBES Act focuses on the
develOpment of a uniform budget format which will
present educational programs in terms of pupil achieve-
ment related to expenditures.

As stated previously, the study and publication
by the Research Corporation was the most significant and
comprehensive report on PPBES in connection with elemen-
tary and secondary schools.

All of the components of PPBES have been used in
businesses for many years, such as setting goals and
Objectives, planning models and designs for future develOp-
ment, forecasting needs, estimating unit costs and required
sales prices, and evaluating finished products. Charles
Horngren emphasized that cost accounting stresses three
major Objectives:

1. planning and controlling routine operations.
2. nonroutine decisions, policy making and long-

range planning.
3. inventory valuation and income determination.

64
The major difference in business outputs as compared
to education outputs is the ability of business to measure

finished products. The accounting system can also determine

 

 

 

.1
Ell-I A
1.. ill in]: J

40

precisely any cost variances derived during the manufac-
turing processes. For example, assuming a manufacturing
concern, using a standard cost system,65 had estimated an
annual production of 2,000 finished units at a cost of
$100 for each unit (direct labor $65, direct materials $25,
and overhead $10) or a total cost of $200,000; and assum—
ing also that the actual production for the year was 1,900
finished units at a total cost of $205,000 or a unit cost
of $108. Through the standard cost system, a business can
determine specifically what caused the variance between
estimated and actual. Some of the suggested causes are as
follows:
Labor variances:
Required more time to produce
Used higher priced labor
Material variances:
Required more materials or higher spoilage
Unforeseen increase in cost
Manufacturing variances:
Labor strike or malfunction of equipment caus-

ing a shutdown of the plant
Unforeseen overhead expenses

Steps for Implementation

 

Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 provide the tasks
and responsibilities matrix for each of the components
of PPBES. Table 2.10 presents in diagram form a concep-
tualization of the implementation and Operation phases of
PPBES. The main steps for implementation of PPBES, as

shown in Table 2.10, are as follows:

41

Step 1. Appoint Task Force

Step 2 Orient the Task Force

Step 3. Identify constraints

Step 4. Evaluate current systems

Step 5. Identify and document inadequacies between

current practices and those required by
PPBES

Step 6. Develop communications plans

Step 7. Make presentations to educational staff

Step 8. Make presentations to nonstaff groups

Step 9. Prepare implementation plan

Step 10. Develop training plan

Step 11. Conduct training sessions

Step 12. Assign tasks

Step 13. Arrange existing programs into tentative
program structure

Chester Kiser and John P. Edwards conducted a

national study of 140 school superintendents to determine

the results or experiences in implementing PPBES. They

concluded that the following, as a preplanning process,

would be helpful in the implementation of PPBES:

1.

Performance plans should center upon explicit,
stated objectives that specify the desired outcomes
of results of the plans. These Objectives should
be established before beginning to implement PPBES.
The criteria for evaluating the results of the
performance plans should be established before
beginning to implement the plans.

Time-frames or deadlines for the performance plans
should be determined before implementation begins.
Responsibility for implementing performance plans
should be assigned before implementation begins.
The opportunity to participate in developing the
performance plans should be afforded those employees
to be affected by the implementation of the plans.
Employees who will be involved in PPBES should
receive formal training in the performance plans
before their implementation.

Alternative ways to implement policy plans should
be examined before deciding upon specific courses
of action that result in performance plans.

Systems techniques (e.g. PERT) should be used in
the develOpment of performance plans.

Estimates of the total resources needed to implement
the performance plans should be determined before
beginning their implementation.66

42

Kiser and Edwards also reflected upon some of the
problems of implementation, and concluded from their survey:

‘ The major problem encountered was difficulty in devel—
oping performance indicators, or criteria to evaluate
success in accomplishing objectives. . . . The prOper
statement of an objective must include measurable cri-
teria for evaluating the successful accomplishment of
that objective. . . . A shortage of time to fully
develOp PPBES implementation plans was the second most
frequently encountered problem. . . . The third major
problem . . . was the inability to develop multi-year
programs and fiscal plans. . . . Another problem
encountered as frequently, was the difficulty in get-
ting staff members interested in PPBES. This may be
related to inadequate plans that fail to include real-
istic explanations to every employee of the benefits
he can derive from using PPBES, such as improved work
results. Human beings tend to commit themselves to
organizational Objectives that can satisfy their per-
sonal needs, such as, satisfaction of ego and self—
actualization. Other PPBES implementation problems
experienced to a significant extent include: lack of
administrators trained in PPBES; difficulty in the
development of goals and objectives; trouble in obtain-
ing staff agreement on PPBES plans; misunderstanding
of PPBES on the part of staff members, board members,
and community residents; and overall staff Opposition
of PPBEs.67

Summary

It was stressed that PPBES is an important tool for
an educational management information system, and provides
a basis through analysis of alternatives for planning and
decision making. PPBES provides for a focus on the inter-
action of component parts of the system in relation to
educational planning and how the processes contribute to
best allocate scarce resources. Goals, programs, objec-
tives, and the program structure are important elements

because of the output—oriented nature of PPBES. Emphasis

43

was placed on the correlation of the hierarchical program
structure and level of objectives that aggregate at each
level in attaining the overall goals of the institution.

A major role of PPBES is to provide a framework
for the organization of information, which will allow an
institution to structure its objectives and a systematic
method for evaluating the means to attain them. A focus
upon the analysis of alternatives requires that objectives
be stated in measurable and attainable terms for which
effectiveness can be assessed. Resource analysis supported
with an analysis of effectiveness provides quantified data
for administrative decision making.

It was also emphasized that long-term planning and
cost estimating relationships are essential in PPBES.
Multiyear planning, generally five years, makes it neces-
sary to examine and provide for future implications of
current decisions. The cost estimating relationship pro-
vides an important step for predicting incremental costs
and resource requirements.

A review of the current users and studies of PPBES
was made. However, it appears that the studies are mainly
predictive and lack empiricism, especially with regard to
longitudinal benefits.

In the final section of the review, steps for imple-

mentation were outlined, including some of the problems of

44

implementation experienced by the current users of PPBES.

The problems outlined appear to be man-made rather than

technical.

In Chapter III, the design of the study and the

objectives of the study are presented.

45

Footnotes--Chapter II

 

lSelma J. Mushkin and James R. Cleaveland, "What Is
a PPB System?" Planning for Educational Development in a
Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (Washington, D.C.:
NEA Committee on Educational Finances, 1968), p. 7.

2John L. Hayman, Jr., "Educational Management
Information Systems for the Seventies," Educational Admin-
istration Quarterly, Winter, 1974, p. 60.

 

 

 

 

3Leonard I. Krauss, Computer-Based Management
Information Systems (New York: American Management Asso-
ciation, Inc., 1970), pp. 3-4.

 

 

4Michigan Department of Education, A Position
Statement on Management Information Systems in the Michigan
Department of Education (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Depart-
ment of Education, 1973): P. 1.

 

 

 

5Donald F. Heany, Development of Information Sys-
tems (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1968), p. 7.

 

6Hayman, op. cit., p. 61.

7Joseph A. Maciariello and Willard F. Enteman, "A
System for Management Control in Private Colleges," Journal
of Higher Education, November, 1974, p. 59.

 

8School Business Affairs, Association of School
Business Officials' Newsletter/Journal, January, 1970, p. l.

 

9Warren W. Gulko, Program Classification Structure
(Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education, 1972): P. 119.

10Sue A. Haggart, ed., Program Budgeting for School
District Planning," A Rand Corporation Research Study
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications, 1972), pp. 18-19.

11Research Corporation of the Association of School
Business Officials, Educational Resources Management Sys-
tem (Chicago: Research Corporation, 1971), p. 59.

lzIbid., p. 73.

13Ibid., p. 91.

 

 

46

l4Ibid.. pp. 51-52.

15Frederich E. Balderston, Managing Today's Univer-
sity (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1974),
p. 211.

 

16California State Department of Education, 99p-
ceptual Design for a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System
(Sacramento, Calif.: California State Department of Educa—
tion, 1969), p. 13.

17Stephen M. Barro, "Development of a Program
Structure," in Program Budgetingyfor School District Plan-
ning, ed. by Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications, 1972), pp. 25-26.

18

 

Gulko, Op. cit., p. 121.

19Haggart, op. cit., p. 230.

20California State Department of Education, Op.
cit., p. 12.

21Research Corporation, op. cit., p. 69.

22Robert F. Ross, "How to Compare Your Educational
Costs and Benefits," Educational Technology, September,
1974, p. 50.

23Warland D. Wight, "Obtaining Competence With
Competencies: A Case Study in Higher Education," Educa-
tional Technolong November, 1974, p. 46.

24Roy H. Forbes, "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis:
Primer and Guidelines," Educational Technology, March,
1974, p. 21.

25California State Department of Education, op.
Cite, p. 8. '

26

 

 

Ross, Op. cit., p. 51.

27Judson T. Shaplin, "Practice in Teaching," Howard
Educational Review, 1965, p. 38; quoted in Research Cor-
poration, p. 178.

28

 

Ross, Op. cit., p. 51.

291bid., p. 51.

47

30Virginia Held, "PPBS Comes to Washington," in
Planning, Programming, Budgeting: A Systems Approach to
Management, ed. by Fremont J. Lyden and Ernest G. Miller
(Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1967), p. 20.

31Gene Fisher, The World of Program Budgetipg
(Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation, P-3361,
1966), p. 11.

32Edwin A. Read, "Distinguishing Among Systems
Analysis, System Analysis and Problem Analysis," Educa-
tional Technology, May, 1974, p. 37.

33

 

 

 

 

Held, op. cit., p. 17.

34Research Corporation, Op. cit., p. 137.

35Haggart, op. cit., p. 157.

36Charles L. Schultze, The Politics and Economics
of Public Spendipg (Washington, D.C.: The Brooking
Institution, 1968), p. 2.

 

 

37Forbes, Op. cit., p. 21.

38J. D. McCullough, Cost Analysis for Planning,
Programming, Budgeting Cost, Benefit Analysis (Santa
Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation, 1966), p. 34.

39Ross, Op. cit., p. 52.

40Margaret B. Carpenter and Sue A. Haggart, "Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis for Educational Planning," in
Program Budgeting for School District Planning, ed. by
Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational
Technology Publications, 1972), pp. 271—272.

41Research Corporation, Op. cit., p. 138.

42J. Alan Thomas, The Productive School--A Systems
Analysis Approach to Educational Administration (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971), p. 82.

43L. Urdang, ed., The Random House Dictionary of
The English Language, College Edition (New York: Random
House, 1968): P. 421.

44R. J. Ward, Economics: Its Principles and Means
(New York: W. H. Sadler, Inc., 1969): P. 25.

 

48

5James A. Dei Rossi, "Cost Models and Analysis
of Cost," in Program Budgeting for School District Plan-
ning, ed. by Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications, 1972), p. 103.

46California State Department of Education, Op.
cit., p. 15.

47

 

Research Corporation, Op. cit., p. 110.

48Schultze, Op. cit., p. 98.

49Balderston, Op. cit., p. 212.

50David Novick, Program Budgeting-Program Analy-
sis and the Federal Budget (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1965), p. 97.

51

 

 

Dei Rossi, Op. cit., p. 112.

SZIbid.

53Research Corporation, op. cit., p. 116.

54Dei Rossi, op. cit., p. 116.

55Research Corporation, op. cit., p. 117.

56Harry J. Hartley, "Observations About PPBES in
1972: A Status Report," paper presented at the 1972
National Conference for Educators, New York, New York,
April 28-29, 1972, p. 1.

57Schultze, Op. cit., p. 1.

58State of Michigan, "Program Budget Evaluation‘
System for Higher Education," Instructions, February, 1972.

59National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems, Program Measures (Boulder, Colorado: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems at Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, November, 1971),
p. 1.

 

 

60National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems, Introduction to the Resource Reqpirements Pre-
diction Model 1.6 (Boulder, Colorado: NCHEMS, 1973), p. 1.

61

 

Ibid., p. v.

49

62IBM Corporation, Program Product—EPIC: Budget/
Finance, Financial Accounting System for Education Insti-
tutions (New York: IBM Corporation, 1971).

63Paul Bethke, "Colorado Moves Ahead With PPBES
Programs," School Business Affairs, ASBO's Newsletter/
Journal, June, 1972, pp. 135-136.

64Dr. Charles I. Horngren, Cost Accounting--A
Managerial Emphasis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972). p. xvii.

651bid., pp. 186-206, 271-307; Adolph Matz and
Othel J. Curry, Cost Accounting, Planning and Control
(Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Company,
1972), pp. 559-592; John J. W. Neuner and Samuel Frumer,
Cost Accounting--Principles and Practice (Homewood,
Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1972), pp. 517-597;
John W. Myer, Cost Accounting for Non-Accountants (New
York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1972): PP. 102-123; GeraldIL
Crowingshield, Cost Accounting--Principles and Managerial
Applications (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962),
pp. 258-326.

66Chester Kiser and John P. Edwards, "PPBES: Logic,
Rationality Applied to Education," School Business Affairs,
ASBO's Journal/Newsmagazine, October, 1973, p. 241.

67

 

 

 

Ibid., pp. 241-242.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

In this chapter, the framework and procedures used
for this study are described. Included are the sources of
information and the objectives and limitations of the
study. In Chapter II, it was indicated that there is
considerable research and documentation regarding the
needs for and benefits of PPBES for educational institu-
tions. However, it appears that American-sponsored over-
seas schools have made little effort toward developing or
implementing PPBES. Therefore, the main purpose of this
study is to develop a program budgeting model, specifically
for the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc., Athens,
Greece.

Some variables need to be standardized before rela-
tionships can reasonably be deduced. Frederick Hillier
and Gerald Liberman, in referring to the development of a
model, suggested that:

A model is necessarily an abstract idealization of the
problem, and approximations and simplifying assump-
tions generally are required if the model is to be
tractable. Therefore, care must be taken to insure
that the model remains a valid representation of the

problems. The prOper criterion for judging the
validity of a model is whether or not it predicts the

50

51

relative effects on the alternative courses of action
with sufficient accuracy to permit a sound decision.l
Framework and Procedures

This study does not involve experimental research;
therefore, hypotheses are not presented for testing. The
study is descriptive in nature, and endeavors to identify
program elements and resources required to maintain the
level of performance which in turn aggregates to meet the
goal orientation of PPBES.

This study uses the technique recommended by
Walter R. Borg,2 direct contact analysis, which involves
the establishment of precise classifications. This relates
directly to the intent of the present study: develOping
hierarchical program structures. According to George J.
Mauly,3 the direct content analysis technique facilitates
descriptive studies for use in educational situations.

The final end-product of this study, the develOp-
ment of a program budgeting model for the American Commu-
nity Schools of Athens, Inc., can be used by other overseas
schools with slight modifications based upon the constraints

of the particular school.

Sources of Information
The study involved a detailed evaluation of the
traditional annual budget document, which facilitated the

collection of data necessary for the preparation of the

52

program budget. The program budget includes all of the
programs offered and presently utilized by the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. Implicit in the con-
ceptual design of PPBES is the involvement of the profes-
sional staff. Identifying the program elements requires
the time and COOperation of administrators and teachers.
Simon Ramo pointed out that:

Doing something substantial about the problem is

impossible unless we satisfy and obtain the COOper-

ation of many semi—autonomous groups not accustomed

to joining up to work together.4

Available data from student records, faculty per-

sonnel files, and administrative policies as approved by
the Board of Education in the official Minutes, as well
as current accounting records, were reviewed and within
the constraints imposed were related to program activi-
ties. Special reports by the Assistant Superintendent for
Personnel and the Assistant Superintendent for Business
Affairs were reviewed and made an integral part of the
study. The By-Laws of the Parents Association were essen-

tial in establishing the parameters for the Operation of

the school.

opjectives of This Study
The primary purpose of the study was to develop a
program budgeting model for the American Community Schools
of Athens, Inc., through the conceptual designs of PPBES.

PPBES was develOped with the knowledge that institutional

53

needs will exceed the resources normally available to
satisfy those needs. Therefore a system of providing
logical choices, an essential element in PPBES, is neces-
sary for effective administration of an educational
institution.

Five objectives were considered necessary to
accomplish the purpose of the study. The first objective
was to investigate administrative policies approved by
the Board of Education and the By-Laws adopted by the
governing Parents Association to determine if there were
any constraints on implementing a program budget. To
determine the approved administrative policies required a
review of the past several years of official Minutes
recorded from the monthly and special meetings of the
Board of Education. The present By-Laws were supported
by a review of the official Minutes recorded from the
annual and special meetings of the Parents Association.

One of the primary concerns was to establish
whether there are any policies that would affect the cost
estimating relationships and have a subsequent effect on
current and long-range budgeting. The Research Corporation
pointed out:

It would be prudent to consider the long-range aspects
of program resource commitments in developing alter-
native program plans. For example, the district may
have sufficient resources to operate a specific pro-
gram plan for the next fiscal year, but a forecast

change in enrollment or size of the student target
group during the second, third or fourth year may

54

materially alter the resource commitment. Thus it
is essential to consider the multi-year resource
commitment of each alternative program plan.

Long-range budgeting should reflect the financial
consequences of both routine annual operating costs and
periodic nonrecurring costs. In comparing alternatives,
costs must be stated in similar terms but should include
any unusual costs that would be incurred should a partic-
ular program element or subelement be selected for imple-
mentation. These costs, for example, would include addi-
tional books for the library, additional equipment for the
instructional media center, and extra expense incurred by
the supporting staff. G. H. Fisher6 suggested the "total
cost" concept, which recognizes external costs when analyz-
ing alternative programs. In developing a program budget
model for this study, only the direct instructional costs
were considered, such as space, money, personnel, equip-
ment, and supplies. Using a well-defined model must insure
that the costs of all alternative programs are treated
consistently. Decisions are based on a complete under-
standing of the resources that will be consumed and ade-
quate comparability of the various alternatives.

The second objective was to determine the admin-
istrative and instructional areas and how resources were
traditionally allocated to these areas. There were three
administrative areas: (1) Office of Superintendent,

(2) Office of Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, and

55

(3) Office of Assistant Superintendent for Business
Affairs. The instructional areas were identified as
(1) high school, grades 9—12; (2) middle school, grades
6-8; (3) Halandri Elementary School, grades K-5; and,
on a separate campus, (4) Hellenikon Elementary School,
grades K-5.

Robert C. Anthony7 stressed the importance of
identifying how funds are distributed within the formal
organizational structure. Melvin Ashen suggested the fol-
lowing questions in connection with the budget:

1. What is the present budget commitment to relevant
ongoing activities?

2. What increment gains in positive contributions to
problem resolution might be attributed to added
budget commitment?

3. What significant minimum or threshold budget levels
would underwrite useful activity problem areas cur-
rently untouched by ongoing programs?

4. What feasible stepped-up rates of program activity
can be identified?

5. What budget costs should be associated with them?8
Answering these questions is helpful in identifying resource
required activities of the traditional budget.

The third objective was to determine the program
elements for each of the instructional areas. Guidelines
suggested by the Research Corporation9 and the California
Department of Education10 for developing a hierarchical
program structure were employed. The program structure is
an important tool in reflecting the relationship of the

traditional budget with the program budget. The program

budget can easily be translated into the traditional budget

56

and vice versa. This translation is important in the
early stages of implementing PPBES for legal requirements

and "to clarify the relative quantitative importance of

various programs and program elements."ll

James A. Dei Rossi explained that:

The expression of the relationship between the pro-
gram budget and the traditional budget is generally
referred to as a "crosswalk." A crosswalk is basic-
ally a tabular array, with the columns showing the
traditional budget cost categories and the rows show-
ing the program budget cost categories. Underlying
the crosswalk, of course, must be a set of defini-
tions and procedures for allocating the data in a
cost category in one budget to a corresponding cost
category in the other. The actual level of detail at
which the crosswalk translation is performed can vary
greatly.12

Table 3.1 provides an example of the function of a
crosswalk. The Research Corporation suggested that "the
crosswalk is a useful communication device between those
familiar with the traditional budget and those who must
implement PPBES."l3

The fourth objective was to perform the function
of program budgeting by allocating the educational resources
to program elements. This objective primarily involved
correlating the second and third Objectives. Harry J.
Hartley stressed that:

Systems analysis is the general conceptual basis for
program budgeting and program budgeting is the
detailed expression of the methodology of systems
analysis. The program of a school cannot be ade-

quately designed and supported financially without an
understanding of the total system that they support.14

57

James A. Dei Rossi suggested that "one of the first
tasks to be performed . . . in develOping a cost model is
that of defining and listing all the major categories of

15 For purposes of

resources required by the district."
this objective, educational resources allocated to program
elements were money, personnel, space, equipment, and sup-
plies. To accomplish the purpose for this Objective and
because of the nature of allocating historical costs, it
necessarily required the subjective Opinions of individual
Board members, the superintendent, the assistant superin-
tendents, and most important, the principals. However, it
appears that this objective was performed with a reasonable
degree of accuracy. Formulas generally cannot be used in
allocating resources to program elements. The Research
Corporation pointed out: "The problem of resource alloca-
tion in its simplest form is: What resources are to be
applied toward which goals in what prOportions and with
what effect?"16
The fifth objective was to review the educational
Objectives and to develop criteria for measuring attainment
of those Objectives. Harry J. Hartleyl7 and E. S. Quade18
pointed out that educators have a poor understanding Of how

to measure objective attainment. Roy H. Forbes,19

Robert F. Ross,20 and Warland D. Wight21 stressed the fact

that objectives must be stated in terms that are observable

58

and measurable. The Research Corporation further pointed

out:

The evaluation of performance is motivated primarily
by our need to assess the effectiveness of a program
in achieving objectives, and in this sense this des-
cription is only a means to an end. . . . We must
utilize measures of performance to represent in oper-
ational or behavioral terms selected effects of a
program: within statistical limits, the values of
performance measures are assumed to represent the
axes of a program's performance description.

Howard Bowen stressed the need for longitudinal
assessment of programs:
Alexander Astin, an expert on the measurement of
educational outcomes, makes a strong plea for better
longitudinal data and for the design of measurements

that will help universities to assess their effect
on students.2

Limitations

 

Each overseas school is a unique entity that must
develop programs best suited to the needs of its particular
type of students. As a consequence, the program structure
and the program budget model developed for one overseas
school may not be feasible for the goals and objectives of
a school in another country. This study and prOposed model
were necessarily limited to the data available and applic-
able to the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.

As the study was of a descriptive nature and had
no empirical design, hypotheses were not presented for
testing. However, it is possible to collect data over

several years and develop hypotheses therefrom.

. l N [i If}! '1“ ‘Ill '1.

‘III '1. I." l. l 1 Ill ‘1'

59

Summary

In this chapter, the framework and procedures used
for completing this study were presented. The main purpose
of the study was to develOp a program budgeting model for
the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. The sources
of information included the annual budget document, student
records, faculty personnel files, accounting records,
administrative policies, and special reports by the admin-
istrative staff. Five primary objectives were involved in
the study: (1) to investigate administrative policies and
By-Laws to determine if there are any constraints on imple-
menting program budgeting, (2) to determine the administra-
tive and instructional areas and how resources were tradi—
tionally allocated to those areas, (3) to determine the
program elements for each of the instructional areas,

(4) to perform the function of program budgeting by allo-
cating the educational resources to program elements, and
(5) to develop criteria for measuring attainment of the
educational Objectives. It was indicated that the study
was limited to data available and applicable to the Ameri—
can Community Schools of Athens, Inc.

An analysis of results of this study is presented

in Chapter IV.

60

Footnotes--Chapter III

 

lFrederick S. Hillier and Gerald J. Lieberman,
Introduction. Us Operations Research (San Francisco,
Calif.: Holden-Day, 1968), p. 15.

 

2Walter R. Borg, Educational Research (New York:
David McKay Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 256-260.

 

3George J. Mauly, The Science of Educational
Research (New York: American Book Company, 1963),
pp. 281-282.

 

 

4Simon Ramo, Cure for Chaos (New York: David
McKay, 1969), p. 7.

 

5Research Corporation of the Association of School
Business Officials, Educational Resources Management Sys-
tems (Chicago, Illinois: Research Corporation, 1971),

pp. 82-83.

6G. H. Fisher, Cost Considerations in Systems
Analysis (New York: American Elsevier Publishing, 1970),
pp. 24-63.

7Robert C. Anthony, Planning and Control Systems:
A Framework for Analysis (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1965), p. 180.

 

 

 

 

8Melvin Anshen, "The Federal Budget as an Instru-
ment for Management and Analysis," in Program Budgeting--
Program Analysis and the Federal Budget, ed. by David
Novick (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965),
p. 7.

9Research Corporation, Op. cit., p. 69.

10California Department of Education, Conceptual
Design for a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System
(Sacramento, Calif.: California State Department of Educa-
tion, 1969), p. 12.

11James A. Dei Rossi, "The Program Budget and the
Traditional Budget," in Program Budgeting for School Dis-
trict Planning, ed. by Sue Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1972). p. 50.

lzIbid., p. 50.

 

 

61

13Research Corporation, Op. cit., p. 128.

14Harry J. Hartley, Educational Planning, Program-
ming, Budgeting: A Systems Approach (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1968): p. 69.

 

5James A. Dei Rossi, "Cost Models and Analysis
of Cost," in Program Budgeting for School District Plan-
n'ng, ed. by Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications, 1972), p. 104.

16Research Corporation, op. cit., p. 62.

l7Hartley, Op. cit., p. 216.

18E. S. Quade, Systems Analysis Technigpes for
Planning-Programming-Budgeting (Santa Monica, Calif.:
E. S. Quade (Rand Corporation), 1966), p. 8.

19Roy H. Forbes, "Cost-Effectiveness: Primer and
Guidelines," Educational Technology, March, 1974, p. 21.

20Robert F. Ross, "How to Compare Your Educational
Costs and Benefits," Educational Technology, September,
1974, p. 50.

21Warland D. Wight, "Obtaining Competence With
Competencies: A Case Study in Higher Education," Educa-
tional Technology, November, 1974, p. 46.

22Research Corporation, op. cit., p. 216.

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF THE STUDY AND A PROGRAM
BUDGETING MODEL FOR AN AMERICAN-

SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOL

In this chapter, information is presented in two
sections. First, the results of the study report the
findings from the investigation of the five objectives
stated in Chapter III. Second, a program budgeting model
is developed for the American Community Schools of Athens,
Inc.

Review of Administrative Policies
and By-Laws

 

 

The first objective was to review the administra-
tive policies and the By-Laws to determine if there are
any supplemental or constraining forces that would affect
the implementation of a program budget. Two important
factors were discovered that have an effect on the prep-
aration of either a traditional or a program budget. On
April 24, 1972, the Board of Education1 approved an admin-
istrative policy restricting the employment of adminis-
trative and instructional staff on a ratio basis of one

staff member for every 15.5 students. The administrative

62

63

policy established guidelines for the employment of staff

based on student enrollment at various levels as follows:

 

 

 

Estimated number of students (1972-73) 2,250
Staff:
Administrative 10.4
Librarians 2.0
Counselors 3.0 15.5
Teachers 120.5
Paraprofessionals (aides) 9.5
TOTAL STAFF 14 5 . 5
Ratios:
Students per teacher 18.7
Students per teacher
and paraprofessional 17.3
Students per total staff 15.5

This administrative policy is important in developing the
cost estimating relationships recommended by James A. Dei
Rossi.2
The second important factor was two articles in
the By-Laws. Article VII, Section 1 of the By-Laws states
that:
Dues, tuition charges, and all assessments shall be
clearly set forth in the annual budget to be adOpted
by majority vote of those members of the Association
present at the December meeting when the budget is
voted. Subsequent changes in dues, tuition and
assessments can be made by majority vote of members

of the Association present at the December Association
meeting.

Article VIII, Section 4, of the By-Laws states:

In the event a decision is made to increase costs
per student (tuition), such decision will be

64
effective only beginning with the school year subse—
quent to 31 December.

Since tuition rates must be approved by the Par-
ents Association in December preceding the fiscal year of
implementation according to the above sections of the
By-Laws, this requires some long-range planning for setting
tuition rates. One relevant factor that was discovered
from the review of the Minutes was the procedure for
revising the annual budget. Although an administrative
policy could not be found to support formal revision of
the annual budget, it was determined that the annual bud-
get was presented to the Parents Association to facilitate
the need for increased tuition rates. Then the annual
budget was consistently revised and presented for approval
by the Board of Education in October and April, based on
revised estimated student enrollments. The final budget
reflecting actual income and expenses was presented for

approval by the Board of Education in August.

Traditional Allocation of Resources

 

A review of the traditional budget was necessary
to determine the types and categorization of income and
expenditures incurred In? the American Schools of Athens,
Inc.

It was determined that income from student tuition
for school years 1972-73 and 1973-74 was approximately 98

percent of total income. Table 4.1 reports the major

65

categories of income and expenditures for the six-year
period from July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1974. The sig-
nificant increases between 1970 and 1971 and 1972 and 1973
were a result of increased tuition rates (reported on
Table 1.3) and a related increase in salaries.

The expenditures for direct instructional costs

were:
1. Salaries
2. Other Staff Costs
3. Materials
4. Other
5. Equipment

Teacher salaries are based on a salary scale that
allows increments for advanced degrees and years of service.
as reported on Table 4.2. Teacher contracts are generally
for two years. It was also previously determined from
administrative policies that the number of teacher posi-
tions is allocated to the instructional areas based on
student enrollment. Other staff costs include fringe bene-
fits, travel to and from the United States, relocation
allowances, and other costs related to employment of the
staff. Instructional materials include textbooks and
teaching supplies; these funds are allocated on a dollar
amount per student based on the subjective judgment of the
superintendent, assistant superintendent for business
affairs, and the principal of each instructional area.
Instructional other includes costs for teacher conferences

and workshops. Instructional equipment is included under

66

the category "capital," and is allocated on the basis of
requests from the principals and approval by the superin-
tendent.

A brief analysis of the surplus for 1972-73 of
$113,000 as compared to a deficit for 1973-74 of $136,000
was presented in Chapter I. The principal reason for the
deficit was that teacher contracts for 1973-74 were com-
mitted on the basis of estimated student enrollments that
did not materialize. To support this analysis, the budget
approved by the Parents Association based on 2,500 stu-
dents was compared with the final actual budget based on
2,240 students (shown on Table 4.3). Generally, all major
actual expenditures, except salaries, were less than the
budgeted amounts. Using the administrative policy of one
staff member for every 15.5 students, it could be deter-
mined that the school was overstaffed by 14.6 positions

during 1973-74, based on 2,240 FTE students:

 

 

FTE Staff Positions Allowable
Students Under Administrative Policy
Estimated 2,500 161.3
Actual 2,240 144.5
Actual Staff Positions 159.1
Overstaffed 14.6

_———._.__

One conclusion that can be drawn is that if the
American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. had had the

flexibility to reduce staff positions equal to the decrease

mil

Out

67

in enrollment, the deficit for 1973-74 could have been
eliminated; for example, the average teacher salary of
$9,300 times 14.6 positions equals $135,700.

An analysis was made of the enrollment by grade
levels for the past six years (1968-69 to 1973-74), and
is reported on Table 4.4. This analysis was made to
determine if changes of student enrollment in grade
levels would require a reassignment of teachers among ele-
mentary, middle, and high school. The conclusion that can
be drawn from Table 4.4 is that with reasonable forecast-
ing of enrollments and a correlation with hiring practices,
this would not create a major problem. Table 4.5 is pre-
sented to reflect the problem of student turnover during
the year, along with Table 4.6, which indicates the spon-
soring agents of the students. Table 4.6 shows that
approximately 50 percent of the total number of students
are children of military personnel, and according to
Captain Horace Hensley,5 U.S. Air Force and Treasurer of
the Board of Education, approximately one-third of the
military personnel rotates each year consistently through-
out the year. The conclusion that can be drawn from
Tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 is that the transient nature of
the student population could create a serious problem for
the American Community School of Athens, Inc., especially

when this results in an imbalance among instructional areas.

68

The average total expenditure per student was
computed by dividing the total expenditures by the number
of FTE students (Table 4.1). This would account for all
expenditures of the school, but not by program level.
However, for the purposes of this study only the direct
instructional costs were determined and allocated to pro-
gram elements. This position was supported by James A.
Dei Rossi:

The convention of not attempting to allocate indirect
costs has gained acceptance among practitioners of
program budgeting because it reduces the danger of
unknowingly biasing costs of individual programs.
Such biasing can occur because it is generally pos-
sible to conceive of more than one logical rule for
allocation; and different rules can produce different
results for identical circumstances.

Dei Rossi further explained the definition of
indirect costs:

Indirect costs are those support costs not directly
traceable to specific programs. Thus, the cost of
administration services performed by the district
superintendent or school principals is generally
viewed as indirect and not allocated.7

Program Elements of the Instructional Areas

The purpose of this section of the study is to
identify program elements at a given level of the program
structure to enable an allocation of resources consistently
throughout the four instructional areas. Developing a
program structure is an essential part of PPBES.8 As the

American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. has tradi-

tionally been input oriented--that is, concerned with the

69

teachers, supplies, and equipment required for each
instructional area to perform at a given leve1--it was
difficult to develOp program elements and required consid—
erable effort by the superintendent, assistant superin-
tendents, and the four principals. However, using the
hierarchical program structure as recommended by the

10 the following

Research Corporation9 and Stephen Barro,
program elements for the four instructional areas were
determined in agreement with the administrative staff:

Elementary Middle High
Program Elements School School School

 

 

Reading and Language Arts
Mathematics
Science

Social Studies

Art

Music

Physical Education
Foreign Language
Special Programs
Industrial Arts
Home Arts

English

Business

XXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXX

The program elements were develOped primarily for
allocating resources and further develOping a program bud-
get. Developing subelements for allocating resources at
this point, according to the administrative staff, would
involve considerable effort and subjective judgment, and

the end result would not be meaningful.

7O

Allocation of Resources to Program Elements

 

The previously determined direct instructional
resources were teachers and the related costs, supplies,
equipment, and miscellaneous direct costs. In allocating
these resources to program elements, it was necessary for
the principals to identify each teacher and the percentage
of time consumed by each program element. A review of the
personnel files revealed each teacher's salary and related
benefits. In allocating the resources of supplies and
equipment it was necessary to review purchase requisitions,
purchase orders, and payment vouchers, and to a certain
extent required the subjective judgment of the principals.
Duplicating services were traced to the requesting teacher
and in turn to the program element. The above explana-
tion is an oversimplification of the time and effort
required to restructure the traditional input-oriented
budget and reallocate funds based on a program budget, but
explains the procedure necessary to develOp a program
budget from historical data. The end-products of allo-
cating resources to program elements are presented on
Tables 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10. The allocation of resources
is not intended to be absolute, but is considered reason-
able under the circumstances of dealing with historical
cost. The average cost per student for each program ele-

ment clearly contrasts the variations in required resources

 

 

Re

Ma
Sc
So
Ar
Mu
Ph‘
PC

In
Hon

Eng
Bus

per
How
the
are
the

Cost

 

COnI

Per
for
mem

71

to maintain the expected level of performance. A summary

of average costs is as follows:

Hellenikon Halandri
Elementary Elementary Middle High

 

 

 

School School School School
Reading and
Language Arts $176 $214 $127 $...
Mathematics 129 108 114 128
Science 68 102 95 123
Social Studies 64 112 87 129
Art 24 31 51 154
Music 20 34 88 73
Physical Education 28 44 56 75
Foreign Language 38 32 93 138
Special Programs 192 152 127 83
Industrial Arts ... ... 73 148
Home Arts ... ... 138 183
English ... ... ... 105
Business ... ... ... 146

It can readily be determined that the average cost
per student for the various program elements is significant.
However, in PPBES, the program elements that best attain
the objectives are the primary considerations and the costs
are secondary unless the two program elements in attaining
the objective are equal. Analyzing the variances in average
cost per student for comparable program elements was not
considered essential or within the realm of this study.

The information generated from the average cost
per student could provide a basis for selecting programs
for implementation during a period of increasing enroll-
ments or for deleting programs during a period of decreasing

enrollments. However, the average cost per student on a

72

one-year basis is a misleading measure. Accumulating cost
over several years and projecting estimated costs for at
least five years would be invaluable for the decision maker
in making comparisons and selecting alternatives.

A crosswalk budget, as recommended by James A.
Dei Rossi,ll was prepared to reconcile the traditional bud-
get with the program budget (see Table 4.11).

Current Objectives and Criteria
for Measuring Attainment

 

 

The current objectives used to justify the program
elements arepresented on a selected basis in Table 4.12.
These objectives, according to the administrative staff,
were revised and updated during the school year 1972-73.

It appears from the investigation of the four
instructional areas that the objectives are stated in gen-
eral terms rather than, as required in PPBES, in measurable
terms. Stephen M. Barro pointed out the elements of a state-
ment of an objective:

Typically, a statement of an instructional objective
identifies a specific terminal behavior to be observed
or measured, certain conditions under which the obser-
vation or measurement is to tags place, and a standard
of performance to be atta1ned.

It was also determined from the investigation that
the one major criterion for measuring accomplishment by the
students and judging the effectiveness of programs was a

battery of tests (see Table 4.13) and the results of the

tests (on a selected basis) for 1973-74 (see Table 4.14).

73

The results of the tests indicated that the students at the
American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. performed equal
to or better than the U.S. national average.

Another criterion for measuring the validity of the
programs was the percentage of graduates attending colleges
and universities. A list of institutions attended by grad-
uates of the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. is
shown on Table 4.15. According to John Dorbis, "approxi-
mately 125 students graduate from the High School each year and
65 to 70 per cent of the students continue their education
at colleges and universities in the United States and other

countries."13

Program Budgeting Model for the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc.

 

 

The purpose of this section of the study is to
present a program budgeting model for constructive use by
the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. In Chap-
ter III, some preimplementation procedures were indicated
as guidelines; also, steps for implementation of PPBES,
including operations sequences, were presented. In Chap-
ter I, the responsibilities matrices for each component of
PPBES were shown in table form and can be used as guide-
lines. The prOposed program budgeting model for the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc., as conceptualized by the

researcher, is presented on the following page.

74

 

Estimate
Enrollment

 

 

V

 

 

Constraints:
Compute Student-
Teacher Ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

Needs

 

Assess Student

 

 

l

 

 

Deve10p Program
Structure and Related
Goals and Objectives

 

 

 

 

l

 

Develop
Alternatives
Where Applicable

 

 

 

Estimate

 

- -D Program Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feedback 1 Compute Estimated
T Gross Income
1— — — — Select Programs and
fl. Reconcile Program Budget ¢
to Available Resources '
Q ______ Feedback ————— l
o v 3‘
Prepare Evaluate Effectiveness
Crosswalk of Program
Budget
Present to
a Governing Board 9‘;

 

 

 

 

 

All

[IE [IIIIEA

75

The account numbering system recommended by the Financial
Accounting, Handbook II, Revisedl4 can easily be adapted
for this model. Since long-range planning is an integral
element of PPBES, estimating and planning are reflected on

a five-year basis.

Estimating Enrollment

 

The most serious problem for the American Commu-
nity Schools of Athens, Inc. is maintaining a consistent
level of student enrollment. Because tuition averages
approximately 98 percent of the total income, which becomes
the basis for allocating resources to program levels, esti-
mating enrollments is essential for current and long-range
planning. Table 4.16 suggests the format for assembling
estimated enrollments by grade, by instructional area,
and for the total school.

Development of Program Structure
and Objectives

 

 

The recommended program structure is prOposed in
Table 4.17. Although the program structure reflects the
high school music subjects levels, a full program structure
would include all subjects offered by the four instructional
areas. The objective structure would employ the same for-
mat with the objectives at the subject level being stated
in measurable terms as suggested by Barro,15 with an inclu-
sion of the time frame. Table 4.18 suggests a hierarchical

structure for goals and objectives of the music program.

76

As objectives are attained at the lower levels,
accumulation at each higher level will result in overall

attainment of the major goals established for the school.

Estimating Costs

 

To develOp a program budget for the school, costs
must be estimated at the lowest level, then accumulated to
the next level, and finally to a summary budget. Table 4.19
provides a format for estimating costs at the subject level.
Table 4.20 summarizes the estimated cost for each subject
by program element for each year. The same format is recom-
mended for each program element, to summarize the program
budget for each year as was used on Table 4.11. The infor-
mation then can by summarized by year (for each of the five
years) for either the program budget, the traditional budget,
or a crosswalk budget, whichever is preferred by the govern-
ing board. The format shown on Table 4.19 would also be
used for presenting alternative subjects to the administra-

tive decision maker.

Evaluation of Objective Attainment
All programs should be evaluated periodically to
determine if the program is Operating sufficiently to attain
the objective. The California Department of Education
stated that:
A critical part in the development of objectives is the

method by which the Objective is measured. The assess-
ment of achievement is often very difficult in education.

77

Either objective or subjective measures (or both) may
be apprOpriate. In many cases standardized tests or
pupils' grades will satisfy the measurement criteria.
In other cases such measures as attendance level,
attitude scale, drop-out rate, or subjective judgement

must be used.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of a program
must be left to the discretion of the Evaluating Task Team
because, as Margaret E. Carpenter and Sue A. Haggart argued:

. . . No single measure of program effectiveness will

tell the whole story about the worth of the program,
because any program promotes several different kinds

of change in the student.17
Marjorie L. Rapp and Gerald C. Sumner pointed out
three basic functions served by the evaluation process:
. . . to support decisionmaking in program adoption,

to support decisionmaking in program improvement,
and to support research for a better understanding

of the educative process.

Summary
In the first part of this chapter the results of

the investigation were presented. The review of administra-
tive policies revealed that the employment practices are
restricted to one staff member for every 15.5 students.

The By-Laws indicate that tuition rates must be approved by
the Parents Association prior to December Blst preceding the
school year of enactment. These two factors are not incom-
patible with PPBES. An analysis of income revealed that
student tuition is the primary source of income (98 percent).
The actual resource commitments of the American Community

Schools of Athens, Inc. were analyzed. After identifying

78

the program elements, in agreement with the administrative
staff, the resources committed for direct instructional
costs were reallocated to the program elements to develOp a
program budget. The average cost per student for each pro-
gram element was computed and revealed significant differ-
ences. However, analyzing the differences was not considered
essential for this study. As was expected, the objectives
were not stated in measurable terms and a cost-effectiveness
analysis could not be administered. The American Community
Schools of Athens, Inc. did present a battery of tests to
judge the value of the school programs. It was determined
that the students generally score higher on the tests than
the United States averages for students in comparable grades.

In the second part of this chapter the procedures
for develOping a program budgeting model for the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. were presented. It should
be emphasized that program budgeting complements rather than
replaces the traditional budget. However, it was stressed
that objectives must be developed for each program at the
lowest level and stated in measurable terms, which in turn
allows for determining the effectiveness of the individual
programs. An important factor for the American Community
Schools of Athens, Inc. is the need to estimate enrollments
on a conservative basis and staff the teacher positions

accordingly. It was indicated that with a few modifications

 

’—

 

79

the program budgeting model presented could be used by other
American-sponsored overseas schools.
In Chapter V the summary, conclusions, and recom-

mendations of the study are presented.

 

80

Footnotes--Chapter IV

 

1American Community Schools of Athens, Inc., Board
of Education, Minutes of Official Meeting, April 24, 1972,
p. 2.

2James A. Dei Rossi, "Cost Models and Analysis of
Cost," in Program Budgeting for School District Planning,
ed. by Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Edu-
cational Technology Publications, 1972, p. 112.

3Constitution and By-Laws of the Parents Associa-
tion of the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.
(including Amendments to December 13, 1973), Article VII,
Section I, p. 3.

4Ibid., Article VIII, Section 4, p. 4.

5Captain Horace Hensley, U.S.A.F. Budget Officer
and Treasurer (1973-74) of the Board of Education, personal
interview, Athens, Greece, May 16, 1974.

6James A. Dei Rossi, "The Program Budget and the
Traditional Budget," in Program Budgeting for School Dis-
trict Planning, ed. by Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1972),
p. 53.

 

7Ibid., p. 53.

8Ibid., p. 21.

9Research Corporation of the Association of School
Business Officials, Educational Resources Management Sys-
tems (Chicago: Research Corporation, 1971), PP. 120-121.

10Stephen M. Barro, "Development of a Program
Structure," in Program Budgeting for School District Plan-
ning, ed. by Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications, 1972), pp. 20-22.

llDei Rossi, Op. cit., pp. 50-52.

12Barro, Op. cit., p. 25.

13John Dorbis, Assistant Superintendent,'UXSpecial
Report on 'Curriculum,'" (Athens, Greece: American Commu-
nity Schools of Athens, Inc., December, 1972). p. 15.

81

14Financial Accounting: Classifications and Standard
Terminology for Local and State School Systems, State Edu-
cational Records and Reports Series: Handbook II, Revised,
1972 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973).

15

 

 

Barro, Op. cit., p. 27.

16California Department of Education, Conceptual
Design for a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System
(Sacramento, Calif.: California State Department of Edu-
cation, 1969), p. 32.

17Margaret E. Carpenter and Sue A. Haggart, "Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis for Educational Planning," in Program
Budgeting for School District Planning, ed. by Sue A.
Haggart (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Tech-
nology Publications, 1972). p. 279.

l8Marjorie L. Rapp and Gerald C. Sumner, "Eval-
uating Innovative Educational Programs," in Program Budget-
ing for School District Planning, ed. by Sue A. Haggart
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications, 1972), p. 186.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

In Chapter I, the characteristics of an American-
sponsored overseas elementary and secondary school were
described. It was indicated that the student population is
typically multinational. It was also found that student
tuition is the major source of income and that fluctuating
enrollments at overseas schools create some serious finan-
cial problems, especially when enrollments decrease sig-
nificantly during a school year. Some of the possible
causes for fluctuating enrollments at the American Commu-
nity Schools of Athens, Inc. were presented. The researcher
had an opportunity to discuss financial problems with sev-
eral members of boards of education, superintendents, and
other administrators from various overseas schools. Most
of the schools prepared traditional budgets, on a short-
range basis. None of the schools was preparing a budget at
the program level. PPBES was recommended for the overseas
schools, which would provide a tool for decision makers to
identify and evaluate programs and to plan on a long-range

basis. Implicit in PPBES for an overseas school is the

82

83

ability to adapt to the changing needs of a multinational
student pOpulation.

In Chapter II, the current literature covering PPBES
was reviewed. Although the literature has expanded the use
of PPBES in recent years, the proposals are predictive in
nature and lack longitudinal study. The value of PPBES as
a management information system for educational institutions
was presented, and an emphasis was placed on assisting in
the decision-making process. Sue Haggart suggested that an
implication of PPBES in policy decisions is "a way of think-
ing about where you are going, where you want to go, how to

1 The com-

get there, at what cost and with what benefit."
ponents of PPBES were described, including the responsibil-
ity matrix for each task force. An emphasis was placed on
developing a hierarchical program structure and stating in
measurable terms the objectives for each program level.

The program structure provides the basis for allocating
resources at program levels and for the final development

of the program budget. The parameters of PPBES were pre-
sented, including the steps for implementation and operation.
It was also emphasized that long-range planning and develop-
ing cost estimating relationships are an essential part of
PPBES. Multiyear planning, generally for five years,
requires an examination and provision for future implica-

tions of current decisions. The definition of cost-

effectiveness analysis and cost-benefits analysis, as

84

distinguished by Charles L. Schultze,2 was presented. Gen-
erally, the cost-effectiveness analysis reflects measures
of whether programs have attained the objectives, and cost-
benefit analysis measures the benefits of the program for
the student and/or for society.

In Chapter III, the framework and procedures for
this study were described. The sources of information were
the By-Laws of the Parents Association, the Minutes of the
meetings of the Board of Education and the Parents Asso-
ciation, administrative policies, the annual budget docu-
ments, student records, faculty personnel files, accounting
records, and special reports of the administrative staff.
The five objectives that were considered necessary to
accomplish the purpose of this study to develop a program
budgeting model for the American Community Schools of Athens,
Inc. were:

1. To investigate the administrative policies to
determine if there are any policies that have
an effect on or constrain the implementation
of program budgeting;

2. To determine the administrative and instruc-
tional areas of responsibility and how resources
were traditionally allocated to these areas;

3. To determine the program elements for each of

the instructional areas;

85

4. To perform the function of program budgeting
by allocating the educational resources to pro-
gram elements; and

5. To develop criteria for measuring attainment

of the educational objectives.

It was indicated that the study did not involve an
experimental research plan and therefore hypotheses were not
presented for testing. The program budget model for this
study considered only the direct instructional costs for
allocating to program elements. It was suggested that
long-range budgeting should reflect the financial conse-
quences of both routine annual operating costs and periodic
nonrecurring costs. The authors stressed the fact that the
objectives must be stated in terms that are measurable. The
Research Corporation pointed out that "the evaluation of per-
formance is motivated primarily by our need to assess the
effectiveness of a program in achieving objectives."3 It
was also suggested that the end-product of this study, a
model for program budgeting, could possibly be used by other
overseas schools with modifications based upon the constraints
of the particular school.

In Chapter IV, the results of the study were pre-
sented in two parts. In the first part, the data derived
from the five objectives were compiled and summarized to
present a program budget for the direct instructional costs.

A crosswalk budget, reconciling the traditional budget with

86

the program budget, was prepared to facilitate use by those
readers not familiar with the program budget. As was
expected in a school using traditional procedures, the
Objectives were not stated in measurable terms. A battery
of tests was used to emphasize the value of the programs by
comparing the results to the U.S. national averages. How-
ever, the effectiveness of a specific program subelement
could not be evaluated. The need to estimate student
enrollment accurately was stressed as being of major impor-
tance for any overseas school where student tuition is the
primary source of income. It was recognized that programs
at the lowest level of the hierarchical program structure
should be coded by an account number. This facilitates the
collection of such data as costs and other statistics in a
variety of combinations and formats. These data are used
to control program expenditures, to evaluate program effec-
tiveness in conjunction with stated objectives, and to

analyze the cost effectiveness of alternative programs.

Conclusions From the Study
Several conclusions can be drawn from the study as
they apply to the American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.
First, estimates of student enrollments have been
leased upon historical data and projected on a percentage
loasis for determining estimated future enrollments. Since

tzuition is the primary source of income and becomes the

87

basis for allocating resources to programs, PPBES would
require an analysis of future events that might effect a
change in enrollment. Consideration should be given to
changes in enrollment between instructional areas for the
impact on the program structure.

Second, programs in the past have been implemented
on a piecemeal basis, without much consideration for the
effect on budgets in future years. The long-range planning
aspect of PPBES requires a consideration of all programs,
the future costs on an incremental basis, and the desir-
ability of analyzing alternative courses of action.

Third, programs are not altered once the school
year has started. PPBES suggests a continual review of
programs, a determination of the effectiveness, and alter-
natives for improvement.

Fourth, there appears to be an element of inflexi-
bility to reduce costs in prOportion to declining enroll-
ments. In developing costs by program element and subele-
ment, PPBES provides essential information for deciding which
programs to delete, i.e., which programs are least effective
and most costly.

Fifth, teacher contracts generally are committed on
a two-year basis. Some criteria should be developed for
using local (American, Greek, and/or third-country nationals),
qualified teachers on a semester basis. Although teacher

contracts are not an important part of PPBES, this would

88

supplement the process of adding or deleting programs in a
time of increasing or decreasing enrollments. Two-year
teacher contracts should be committed so that 50 percent
would terminate in alternate years.

Sixth, curriculum appears to be similar to curric-
ulum in U.S. schools, except for electives and courses for
the nonacademically inclined students. PPBES requires the
assessment of the needs of the students, and provision should
be made in the program structure for both the academically
and nonacademically inclined students. A goal of a certain
segment of the student population would dictate offering
courses that would allow an opportunity for employment upon
graduation. Programs at the lowest level of the hierar-
chical structure, when properly structured to accomplish
such a goal, would provide for that opportunity.

Seventh, objectives for program elements were stated
in general terms or in the terms of a "goal." PPBES requires
that objectives be stated in measurable terms at each program
level. Tests are an acceptable tool for measuring the effec-
tiveness of a program, provided the objectives are stated in

terms that take this into consideration.

Recommendations as a Result of This Study
Implementing the PPBES process in the American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc. is highly recommended.

PPBES provides a systematic and rational approach to effective

89

planning. The needs for and benefits from PPBES have been
presented throughout this study. Certain recommendations
can be made from the study and the above conclusions that
would be beneficial and supplement the implementation of
PPBES:

1. Better methods for projecting estimated enroll-
ments should be develOped. It is recommended that a ques-
tionnaire be develOped and presented to the parents for
completion each year at the winter registration. The ques-
tionnaire would request information, such as mission of the
parent, expected length of stay in Greece, ages of all chil-
dren including preschoolers, and other pertinent information
as needed on a year-to-year basis. In addition to a ques-
tionnaire for the parents, a survey questionnaire should be
developed and submitted to major businesses, the various
commanders of military installations, key personnel in the
American Embassy, and other sources of potential students.
The questionnaire should include a request for information
regarding an intended or foreseeable change in purpose for
being in Greece, a change in personnel employment practices
or unusual turnover of personnel, a change in nature of
employment requirements (single vs. married with families)
and any other pertinent information that would affect
enrollments. The questionnaire should stress the importance
of developing accurate enrollment data for planning and

developing effective instructional programs.

90

2. Conduct a pilot study at the American Commu-
nity Schools of Athens, Inc. to collect information neces-
sary for full implementation of PPBES. Staff orientation
and involvement would be a major consideration. Kiser and
Edwards stated that a major problem "was the difficulty in
getting staff members interested in PPBES. This may be
related to inadequate plans that fail to include realistic
explanations to every employee of the benefits he can derive
from using PPBES."5 The pilot study would also include, as

6 in PPBES, assessing the needs of

described as a first step
the students.

3. Assign account numbers to programs at all
levels, as recommended by the Financial Accounting Handbook
II, Revised. The account numbering system would be an impor-
tant instrument for controlling expenditures at the lowest
program level. The teachers would be made cognizant of the
account number for their programs and would be required to
use that account number on all purchase requisitions, pur-
chase orders, requests for service, repairs and equipment
rentals, and on all payroll time cards where applicable.

The account number would facilitate determining the actual
costs of each program subelement and for accumulating costs
to reflect program costs at any level for information pur-

poses as desired by the administrative staff or governing

board.

91

4. DeveIOp a comprehensive philOSOphy in employ-
ment practices that should be reviewed by the administra-
tive staff at least annually. Consideration should be given
to hiring teachers qualified to teach in more than one
instructional area, such as elementary, middle, and/or
high school teaching certificates. This would facilitate
the shifting of teachers when the turnover of students
results in an imbalance in student pOpulation between grade
levels or when decreasing enrollments dictate deleting cer-
tain programs. PPBES would require preplanning to estab-
lish priorities about which programs would be deleted and
at what level.

5. Continue to prepare the traditional budget
along with the program budget until the differences are
adequately understood by the parents, board members, admin-
istrative staff, and teachers. The differences between the
program budget and the traditional budget should be explained,
such as that the program budget reflects a complete descrip-
tion of the physical resources needed to implement the bud-
get plan.

6. The costs allocated to programs should include
only the direct instructional costs. In evaluating alter-
native programs, the indirect costs would not be considered
unless implementation of a particular program would result
in an increase in costs of supporting services. The

increased costs of supporting services would not be charged

92

to the program, but the decision maker must be aware of

these costs when selecting alternative programs.

Implications for Further Study

This study resulted in developing a program
budgeting model for the American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc. However, it appears that a management infor-
mation system to assist in the decision-making processes
through PPBES would be equally applicable to other overseas
schools. Therefore, it is suggested that this study be
replicated at other overseas schools. Implementation of
PPBES in other overseas schools could result in developing
a uniform system and facilitate the exchange of information
and data similar to the projects performed by the Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education "to help univer-
sities and colleges improve both their programs and their
management."

Further studies should include develOping basic
definitions to provide for consistency in application of
data and statistics. This could also result in developing
an Operational philOSOphy for all American-sponsored over-
seas schools and a basis for performing longitudinal studies
on behavior patterns of students educated in an overseas
environment.

It is suggested that the Office of Overseas Schools

(of the U.S. Department of State take the initial step,

93

through a newsletter, to stress the importance of a uniform
system through PPBES for all overseas schools. The need

for a uniform system could be emphasized through the various
Associations--Near East, South East Asia, European Council
for International Schools, and/or the American Association
for International Education--at their meetings.

Major academic and financial improvements could be
realized through a uniform system. By-products could be an
improved procedure for purchasing books, supplies and
equipment, or better employment methods for hiring U.S.
teachers through a central statewide agency jointly financed
by the overseas schools. The benefits from an improvement
in exchange of information and ideas, joint effort in resolv-
ing mutual problems, and other joint studies appear to be

infinite.

Overview

In summary, PPBES provides an effective framework
for planning and a process for carrying out major program
decisions in an informed and orderly fashion. It can also
lead to a major qualitative improvement in the programs
and relevance of resource allocation to pre-established
priorities. The idea of open and explicit analysis, involve-
ment, and expression of Opinions by all interested parties

is firmly established.

94

Although this study involved only one overseas
school, it is anticipated that the model presented could be
used by other overseas schools and could possibly result,

through further studies, in a uniform system for all such

schools.

95

Footnotes--Chapter V

 

1Sue A. Haggart, "Program Budgeting for Improved

School District Planning," in Program Budgeting for School
District Planning, ed. by Sue A. Haggart (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1972),
pp. 18-19.

 

 

2Charles L. Schultze, The Politics and Economics of
Public Spending (Washington, D.C.: The Brooking Institu-
tion, 1968), p. 2.

 

 

3Research Corporation of the Association of School
Business Officials, Educational Resources Management Sys-
tems (Chicago, Illinois: Research Corporation, 1971),
p. 216.

 

 

4California State Department of Education, Concep-
tual Design for a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System
(Sacramento, Calif.: California State Department of Edu-
cation, 1969): p. 12.

5Chester Kiser and John P. Edwards, "PPBES: Logic,
Rationality Applied to Education," School Business Affairs,
ASBO's Journal/Newsmagazine, October, 1973, p. 241.

6Research Corporation, op. cit., p. 30.

7National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems at Western Interstate Commission for Higher Educa-
tion, Introduction to the Resource Requirements Prediction
Model 1.6 (Boulder, Colorado: WICHE, 1973), p. II.

 

GLOS SARY

96

GLOS SARY

ACTIVITIES: Educational procedures designed to accomplish
the specific goal or objective that has been established
for a specific program.

ALTERNATIVES: Different courses of action or different
approaches to accomplish goals and/or objectives. The

word implies a comparison of two or more differing mixes

of input for a proposed program plan or for a plan already

in process.

ALLOCATION: Distribution of resources among individual pro-
grams as required to achieve stated goals and/or objec-
tives.

ANALYSIS: Systematic separation of an activity, procedure,
or organization into component parts for the purpose of
determining how the necessary Operations may be accomp-
lished.

BUDGETING: The process that includes, in addition to final
reconciliation of programs and available resources
according to established priorities, the preparation of
the budget document, the approval by a board of educa-
tion, and the execution of the budgetary plans.

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS: Systematic examination of determin-

ing the economic value of a specific program by

97

98

establishing a ratio of costs to the results likely to
be obtained. An analytical approach to solving problems
of choice. Both costs and benefits are measured and
analyzed in monetary terms.

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: Systematic examination of
assessing feasible alternatives to a specific program
by relating the cost of a particular alternative to the
achievement of a goal and/or an objective. The purpose
is to provide a means of comparing possible alternatives
on the basis of least cost and greatest effectiveness.

COST, INCREMENTAL: The incremental cost is the cost of
adding the next unit. The actions can be viewed as a
series of alternatives that differ in quantity but not
kind.

CRITERIA: Statements of preferred outcomes that are used
to test the relative degrees of desirability among
alternatives; standards by which a course of action is
evaluated. Statements of criteria include time, condi-
tions, and specific results expected.

CROSSWALK: The expression of the relationship between the
program structure and the apprOpriation/budget structure.
It may be viewed as a table with the rows of the table
listing the program categories and the columns showing

the apprOpriations and budget activities.

99

EFFECTIVENESS: The degree to which a given program achieves
the stated objectives of the program. Ideally, it is
measured in quantitative terms in relation to criteria.

EVALUATING: The process of assessing the attainment of
objectives and the worth of programs.

GOAL: A broad statement of purpose to be achieved by
society but to which the educational system will con-
tribute by attaining related objectives.

INPUT: Resources employed to achieve objectives.

MATRIX: A rectangular array of mathematical quantities by
rows and columns; used to facilitate the study of prob-
lems in which the relation between the contrasting
terms is fundamental.

MODEL: An abstract representation of reality that describes,
reflects, or simulates an actual system or situation.

MULTIYEAR PROGRAM AND FINANCIAL PLAN: A plan that serves
as a pattern for the future operation of the educational
programs of the school district. The plan reflects the
future implications of current decisions.

OBJECTIVE: A statement of an outcome of a program that will
contribute to the societal goal to which it is related.

OUTCOME: The result obtained from the input of resources in
the educational process in the form of growth of the

learner, e.g., knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

100

PLANNING: The process of guiding internal change so that
the school adapts effectively to the dynamic society of
which it is a part.

PPBES: Abbreviation for the planning-programming-budgeting-
evaluating system.

PROGRAM: A series of interdependent, closely related ser-
vices and/or activities progressing toward or contribut-
ing to a common objective or set of allied objectives.

PROGRAM BUDGETING: The preparation of a budget which empha-
sizes classifications by programs and reflects consid-
eration of present and future costs of various programs
designed to realize objectives.

PROGRAM ELEMENT: Each part of the Operating program iden-
tified by a discrete program classification. The pur-
pose for identifying a program element is to facilitate
the process of quantifying the several characteristics
(properties) of the element.

PROGRAMMING: The process of develOping program plans.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE: An array for showing the priority for
learning outcomes through the organization of program
emphases; the format for the program budget.

RESOURCES: Inputs available to the school system for use
in attaining its objectives.

SUBJECTIVE MEASURES: Impressionistic observations of the
comparison of outputs with the criteria of related

objectives for which those outputs were produced.

101

SUPPORT SERVICES: Those services which provide administra-
tive, technical, and logistical support to facilitate
and enhance learning objectives. Support services exist
as adjuncts for the fulfillment of objectives.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: The analytical activity that allows for
the organization and the examination of information on a
regular basis so as to clarify objectives and the utility
of different ways of achieving them. Analysis is used
to identify controllable variables and noncontrollable
environmental factors that affect the relationship of
inputs and outputs.

SYSTEM, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: A communications process
in which data are recorded and processed for operational

purposes.

Source: Research Corporation of the Association of School
Business Officials, Educational Resources Management
System (Chicago, Illinois: Research Corporation,
1971): pp. 337-342.

APPENDIX

TABLES

102

.mema .ma nonsouoom mo mo moeumeuoum .Aoema .maoocom moomuo>o «0 ooflwmo .oooum mo ucosouodoo
.m.D ".U.o .GOHOCAzmmzv vulnema uownm DOOM .maoosom mmomuo>0 mo mowmwo .Oumum mo ucoauummoo .m.D "mouoom

 

 

.103

 

 

 

 

mee.m mme oeo.H Heo.m emo.oe emm.MH mmo.mm Nmo.m ohm.me ooo.HH «me we Hoooe

Hmo Ho mmm moo mmo.ma moo.m . on eme.a Neo.m oem.e ma .mw meme umom
mamd

omo mes Noe poo omm.oa emm.~ pee one.H omm.m Sea.m mm pa nosom e

uwmm umoz

 

 

 

hmm mom Ned mwm mma.oa moo.m oam.a mmm.a Hon.m vmm.a mm OH Odousm
moauofid
mom.m mma mam.a mHo.H mmm.am mem.m mma.ma 0mm.m omn.m mvo.m be ma :uoom
w Hmuucou
Nae ova we mmm mmo.m wav.m ems oam mom mmm om ea woeuwa
unucdou >uucaou >uucsou >uucdou Monuo .pcdom .u.>ow maoocom mwauucoou
m o . . m o .
H u 9 opens umom m o H u 9 opens umom .m.s w .msm .m.o mo .02 mo .02 pone
mwmum Hmcoflmmomoum ucoEHHoucm

.thMhmH Hoo> Hoosom "maoocom mmomuo>o OOMOmcommICMOHHoE¢ OCHCHOOCOO moaumeumumun.a.a OHQOH

104

Table l.2.--Student representation by country, American Community Schools
of Athens, Inc.

 

 

Country 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74
Argentina 2 1 l l l l
Armenia 1 1 - l - -
Australia 11 20 28 33 r 39 52
Austria - - - - - 2
Brazil 5 9 6 6 8 6
Canada 29 45 47 63 82 87
Chile - - - - 5 -
China - 1 l 2 - -
Denmark 3 3 2 - 4 -
Egypt 1 1 - - - -
Ethiopia - 1 - - - -
Finland 1 2 2 - - -
France - 2 2 2 2 2
Germany 2 1 - - - 2
Great Britain 33 36 32 30 35 27
Greece 37 24 31 41 38 46
Holland 4 3 2 2 l 3
India - - 2 2 2 2
Iran - - l - l -
Ireland 1 l - l - -
Israel 16 10 l9 19 25 25
Italy 2 2 2 2 3 4
Japan 9 . 10 13 10 15 30
Jordan - - - l 2 4
Korea - - - - - 1
Lebanon 1 2 2 4 5 5
Libya - 2 - 1 2 1
Malawii - - 2 3 2 2
Mexico 2 - - - - 1

105

Table l.2.--Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74
New Zealand - - - 3 7 9
Norway 2 2 1 5 1 3
Pakistan - - - - - 3
Panama - l - - - -
Philippines 3 1 1 1 2 2
Rhodesia - - - - - 2
South Africa 7 9 8 6 8 11
Spain 2 1 - - - -
Sudan 1 1 - - - -
Sweden 5 6 5 2 3 4
Turkey 9 4 - 1 5 3
U.A.R. - - 2 2 2 2
Venezuela 1 - 3 7 4 3
Yugoslavia 10 16 21 11 14 10
U.S.A. 1,563 1,523 1,428 1,728 2,088 1,880
Totals 1,763 1,741 1,664 1,983 2,406 2,240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Accounting Records, Office of Assistant Superintendent for
Business Affairs, American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.

106

Table l.3.--Summary of fees, American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.,

 

 

 

1967-1974.

Year Transportation 1-5 6-8 9-12
1967-68 5 85 $ 585 $ 635 $ 635a
1968-69 100 585 635 635
1969-70 100 585 635 635

TUITION PERCENTAGE INCREASE 53.8% 48.8% 55.9%
1970-71 100 900 945 990b
1971-72 100 900 945 990
1972-73 125 900 945 990

TUITION PERCENTAGE INCREASE 5.5% 5.8% 6.0%
1973-74 152 950 1,000 1,050C

TUITION PERCENTAGE INCREASE 23.5% 27.5% 30.9%
1974-75 175 1,175 1,275 1,375d
Note: 1967-68 to 1969-70, fees were charged on the basis of grades

1-6 and 7-12.

Source:
1966;

Minutes of Meetings of the Parents Association in aDecember,
bDecember, 1969; CDecember, 1972; and doecember, 1973.

107

.vm .Q .HHbmH .mHOHOHmwO mmOCHmsm Hoonom HO :OHumHoowm< "omOOHSUv mEoumNm

 

ucoEommcmz OOHOOmom HmcoHuoospm .mHmHOHHuO mmochsm Hoonom Ho coHumHOOmm< on» no :OHumuomuoo soumomom “OOHOOm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coHumEuoHcH uco>oHou mopH>oum H mcoHumpcmEEooou muHEmcmup paw mucosa .m3OH>Om Mm
quHHnHmGOQmou Hmochooe B mcoHumpcoEEoomu mmumHuHcH m
mconHoop mo>0uddm.uo CH masocoo O uomeIconHoop HomHocHum a "OCOOOH
H H H o B mmoooud mchcmHm on» OGHHoxoom
m o wocomm mchcmHm mm meouooum OoumHmu
m can mo>Huuoflno Hmuocoo .mHOom mcHDQOOd
pumon onu Ou msoumoum
Hm Hm o O OoumHou ocm wo>Huooflno Houocmm
.mHOom @cHOCUEEOOOH pom wcHuooHom
Hm mm o mo>HuOUflno Hmuocom HOHucouom mcHQOHo>OQ
H H H H H o mHmom ocmewucopH
H H H H H D mOOHOOmOH pom mpomc .wEmHnoum mcmeHucmpH
H a H 9 OOHOH xmou on» OGHNHGMOHO
NIH oouou xmmu onu
a mo moHuHHHnHmcommou onu mcH>Hwoomm
H H H NIH o OOHOH xmmu ogu mcHsmHHnoumm
S O V S G H I ).I S 8
3 I. m.3 I. e P d e n o
n 1 PS S 8 TS d 9
P I. I.1.3 o X e H e 1
a z u 1.1 n u I p
u a I. I. I d u d I.
3 u s ).o o o I.o . u
s s 3 I 3 e I u w a
m m d d m rm.e u wmmooum mchcmHm on» CH
m m.w m S W mmHuH>Huo¢ Hohmz OUDOOHUm
I o I. s 3 u
s 1 a o e 3
(.3 s u 3
s O J
P I. 3
HO .l
o.u
p.
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.xHuuoE mmHUHHHnHmCOQmou mchcmHmII.H.N OHQOB

 

.mm .m .AHhmH .mHmHOHHHO mmocwmsm Hoozom mo :OHHOHOOmme "oomownov msoummm unoEomocmz
oouDOmom HOOOHDMOOOM .mHOHOHHHO mmocwmsm Hoonom Ho :OHUOH00mm< on» no :oHumuomuou noumomom "mouoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

 

 

 

COHuOEuOHCH ucm>OHou mmpw>oum H mcoHumpcoEEooou muHEmcmuu Odo madden .m3OH>om mm
HDHHHQHmcommoH HUOHGSOOB B meoHumOcoEEooou mouOHuHGH Hm
mconHooO umboummo no muoocoo o noxOEIconHoop HOHHOQHHH a upcomoq
H o a mmoooum Eoumoum Gnu mcwHoaoom
o 0 pump OopmHsesoom mcHumOHGDEEOU
Hm mm a U coHumHomo pom coHumpcoEOHmSH How mcmHm mcwuflcomuo
H Hm Hm a U a mcmHm Emumoum =umon= OOHHOOHom
H H Hm a O mcmHm Emumoum ou moounomou OGHDOOOHHd
H Hm Hm a chHH Eoumoum O>HumcuouHm mchoHo>oo
H Hm N mo>HDOOmno moanshomuom
m a oumwumoummm oucH mo>HHOOnno Hmuocom mcquHmcmua
AmVEoou OGHEEOHOOHH on»
H H a
mo OOHHHHHnHmGOHmOH paw mOHou mcwhmwoomm
Hm a a mcHEEoumoum mom Amvemou HMCOHmmOHoum mcwumouu
Vnanu and cod d S W
1.! a a 141 I. n
mxee. 1 s exu w .w m
.TS14 s o wzb
u I. J o n 1.1 ..u 1 D.
I. T: u 1 I. I.
....op w e m a m
.13 d .L I. a mmoooum OCHEEOHOOHH on» :H
Wm. m .w a m. mowufifiuoé No.32 pouOOHom
elenw m m u
m m. A,
new .I
T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.xHuumE MOHuHHHnHmcommou mcHEEOHmoumII.~.N UHQGB

109

:OHUOEMOHCH uco>oHou monH>oum H
>uHHHnHmcommmu HmuHccowfi B

.wm .m .AHHOH .mHMHoHuuo mmochzm Hoozom HO :oHumH00mmt "OOMOHnov mEmumNm
HNCCHLRLOOm .mHMHOHuuo mmocham Hoonom Ho :oHumwuomm< Ono mo coHuouomuou :oumomom "oousom

mcoHumccoEEooou moumHuHcH Hm
mcoHMHuop Ho>oHumumcHO~on5m moxmz No
uomeIconHooo HOQHocHum Ho

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mconHooO uo mo>oummm no musocoo o oumum Ou oucum soum
mnoHUMOGOEEouou wuHEmcmnu vac mucosa .m30H>om mm moHum> >uHHHnHmGOQmwu UEHNQ Ho acoEwomHm .0 upcommq
m HM NIHM Ho 9 mmououm mcwuomvsn on» ocHHo>oom
Ho 9 mouuaowou we Um: no OCHuuomou ocm wcHucsooo<
HO O 9 wosoouso oucH mOUNOOmon mcHuum>cou
No no Ho 8 AmcmHmEmuOoumwocoHumHuHCHvmcchouocHOuoOoomeNOOmouwcH>Hmm¢
«o B mvou50mou ocHusooum
an H H Hm HO «O COHDQOOO uomosn mchumoou mconEIconHooo
Ha :OHumospo mo oumon Cu mucofisoomo uomvob meomoum mcHuuHEmcmuB
Ho 8 mucwESOOO umvcsn venomoum may ocaummoum
Hm Ho moou30mou no on: oo::m~m on» OHnHmH> mcmex
Ho 8 >uHHHanHm>m moouzommu use mucoEouwzvou EduOOum mo mcHHHocooom
H Ho 0 um5u0w uwopsn EMHOOHQ ODCH dump UCHEEmuwoum mcHummu
H H mxmmu mcHuomosn
m o a wcHanHdsoooo new moHuHHHnHmcommou 0cm mOHou mCH>MHoomm
Hm HQ mmHnwcoHumHou HmcoHuONHcmmno OONHOUON can mOHUHHHnomoo OCHCHHOQ
3 SL SVd S a a
I 13 3%: n o x
3 e e 9 o d e 3
I. 33 1?; a z a
z I.“ .au 3 I P 1
a I. 1.5 I. u
u u s s u 2
S 6 11 T. 11 T.
u w % V mmOOONR mcHuompsm onu :H
nu“ W m onuH>Huo< nonmz oouomHmm
A u H
a 3 o
1
T
«4
IA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.xHuuoE mOHuHHHnHmcommou mcHuompsmII.n.n OHABH

110

.hm .m .AHan .mHMHOHwHO mmochsm Hoonom Ho coHumHOOmmm "OOOOchv mEoumNm
ucoEo mam: mousommm HmcoHumospm .mHmHonuo mmwchzm Hoonom mo :oHumHOOmmm ocu mo :oHumuomuoo noumomom "mouoom

 

mooHumvcoesooou muHEmcmuu Ocm mccoEm .m3OH>om Nm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COHUMEMOHGH ucm>mHou mOOH>oum H wcoHumpcoEEooou mwumHuHCH Hm
quHHnHmcommmu Hoochuoe B mconHUUO HU>OHIODMGHUuon5m moxmz ND
monmHoov Ho mo>oummm HO OH muzucou U nomeIconHuop HmmHUCHum Ho upcomoa
Hm x No Ho 9 mmOOOHQ ocHumsHm>m OLD OCHHo>owm
Hm Hm No HQ 9 Emumxm Hoonow OLD :chHz coHumonHOOE ouoHHQONQmm wcmez
No No Ho 9 mono :oHumsHm>o OcHumoHcsssoo
H Hm Ho 9 mump coHumnHm>w mcHN>HOC<
H H H No HQ B mcmHm coHumsHo>o >umHHHocm @cHuouchHepd
H Hm ND Ho 9 :oHumsHm>O >HMHHHOGM MOM wcmHm mcH>0umm¢
H H Hm H HQ 0 :oHumsHm>o >umHHHuco How mcmHm mchoHo>oo
H N H Ammoooum OCHEEmHmoum :H
H H m a a B OOHOQOHQV :mHm :oHuosHm>w onmn mcHuoumHCHEpd
N N H mxmmu mcHumsHm>o wchwHHmEooow
H H D a o 9 New moHuHHHnHmcomwou pom meou OCH>HHmem
B Hm Hm Ho mchmcoHumHou pom
moaua Hnmmmo Hmcuouxm pom Hmcuouca pouaswwu ocacHwoo
, .H. . . .
coN S H L V.d S E
1.0 3 a a 0.1 n o
e u n s e m o d P
3.5 P o o I.3 a 1
was a n u. u a 1 P
J u 1 T. I. S I.
3 3 o u s s u
I. s a 6 «+I. 3
3 J o a mmoooum mcHumsz>m mzu :H
m. a % n.w W moHua>Huo< Mono: CouooHom
e 1 e I.I . a .. . .
3 s 3 A u
a o 3 a 1
P u
u S
a 3
I e
3
I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.xHHumE mmHUHHHnHmcommou OGHumsHm>mII.v.N UHQOB

111

Table 2.S.--A segment of one hierarchy of educational objective.

 

 

To develop
good citizens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To learn the nature
of U.S. and other
societies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To learn skills
needed to partici-
pate in civic
activity

 

 

 

 

 

To learn about the
American political
system

/|\

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl,

To learn about
current events

 

 

 

 

 

 

To learn the structure
of the U .S . government

/I\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To learn about cur-
rent events

 

 

 

 

To be able to describe
the electoral system

/I\

 

 

 

 

 

I
To develop an
11 attitude of social
responsibility
To learn about
III the U.S. economic
system
IV To learn U.S. history
To be able to explain
V the principle of
separation of powers
Source:

To be able to iden-
tify functions of
federal , state and
localgovernments

 

 

Stephen Barro, "Development of a Program Structure," in Program

Budgeting for School District Planning, ed. by Sue A. Haggart

 

(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
tions, 1972), p. 27.

Educational Technology Publica-

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

112

Table 2.6.--System analysis process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN'U' J 'UNCUON I 007")!
I STEP! |
I “(DONOR APO 0"!“ I
use: can. OIsmct (DUCAIIONAL giftixamfiz’s'o'
' “(OS/"Old“ I
| "I? 2 I
IASIC DAIA lf-CXMMGWU" LI“ 0' Colts
GOAlS ' GOALS I
S"! J I
“SIC OAI’A I :14wa!. IOIMULAI! outcnvts INCLIDING
ODICIIVIS I OOJlCYIvts I {VALUAIIVI CIIHIIA
' sun
IDINIIH Ovluu I 5“?!th or OVIIAIL
3:333: CONSHAINIS cousvumts AND
A I I m n . I
CONSIDIMHONS I N0 ICU! (M! S I IECUI ham S
511' S
couslumls noumwms I I (mum (on \ILICHON
GOALS 313:3" stucnou mo 0- (“(CIION OI
omcnvu l I AUIINA" NOGRAMS
I sm 6
I AUUNAH "OOIAM5
GOALS mo outcnvu owuo' Auuum commune ,C um"
(DOCAIICNAL HCNNOLOGY I HOCIAMS | A 0"“ 0| CUIUII!
-_-_.___... ..._ .. l l l L_--_--_ —.—_—d
F‘ l mu r—DESLN'YICNU' Ann/mu
I I no momus ammo
IASIC on: ! IDEH'IFY It Juno wt ucw noon»

 

 

YECHNOKUGY = “51AM ACYIleS ILOOIVMINI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(LL‘IIICULUM -. ""M‘CIS unfit HNH
C'Aélllilflfio I!
l o H IIuI‘ I mum IIAL
l 1 I I" “ " "J
I 3m 0 I
t APPLY COS! IOIACN M"ll-“I(AICC$I
'A‘K 07" I ALHIIIAYIVI HOCIAM I "I, ”(Incas
L-—.—__.._..- _.-—-__-— l I——.— -.-.--.._ - -. —--..._-_J I L—__ . _. -_. . . .... H .J
P‘- “. -— —' «-- 1 F—_ SIUO fl 1
l I Hum-(h! 0‘ 1
«SK DAM mum nmcmuto sum”; ' i u.'-' IuItc smum
GCAIS gr ALIUHAH nucuw. ' '1 I._)o AIHINAII
031(0st I I I "- JAMS
...—-._._.__._..,____J | L-.—._._- ....— --.._-.a I l-..--.--_ ...- _.—_—4
1-11__1_. . -11---_-- I -- -----l-
—j F- 5?" ‘0 T 1
GOALS I I
outcnvts ANALVM LC‘! “Hun r-I - It-H'Htu HOGIAM
COH‘IHAINH,‘IVOUII 'M NH llLAHUH'flII". 9'. A. ,, a“ w;
"U’IIAM DISCIH’FICH')
I‘D-IMAM I! NUIIS
£‘ZJ.’£¥C'¥:§I‘._ ! L.__._._ .-.l.-. _-- _ I L - -_J
--...- 1- _ .. -_.__ ..._-.._ ..-.-. ...-.---.....__.
r- _1 31!? II 'INA. "nonv-
I I olSCIIHItN “(urn
QUAD ‘ ' " uaunwt CRIIth
(AJUII/l'. 333;? U m ‘ w onI-mmo moon
IU-[HI .\r.\IY'II'. ‘HL 'LAN
on! (JAM Lgllnhls
I 0!!» with
L_.._ . “_3 l .....1.-._____-...._ i . _ - .-.J

 

 

 

Source: California State Department of Education, Conceptual Design for

 

a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (Sacramento, Calif.:
California State Department of Education, 1969), p. 19.

112

Table 2.6.--System analysis process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN'UI 'UNCHON OUY'UY
I no I I
I KCOONOZ! AM) 0!“! I
“NC oau‘ DISIIICI IOUCAIIOMI. :w'iga’ntfig's'o'
I nuns/nouns I l
I "I? 2 I
MSDC DAIA II-CWMGWU" US! 05 GOALS
GOA” GOALS I
“I? J I
“SIC DAIA (I JIMM, 'OiMUU" OINCIIVQS INCLUDING
OIJQCIWIS ooucnvts [VAtUAlIVI (IIIIIIA
"I? 0
IDEva OvllALl $11"le o: OVIIALL
:iI'cU'or:J: CONSIIAINN (0"SY.A'NY$ AND

CONSIDIMIIONS

 

 

CONS YIAIN '8 'IE 00!!! M! N“
GOALS

AND IICUIIIMINH

 

l

 

HUS

(“HUSH SIHCYION

 

OIJECYIV“

 

 

GOALS AND OIJiCYWES

IECDIIIMMIIS

 

 

Chum Fol “LICYION
AND O! CUECIION OI

 

CIIYIIIA

 

1

 

“1P6

DIV! LOP AUHNA"

ALHINAII FIOCAAMS

 

 

ALlllNAH "OOIAMS
DOCLMUIIID IO SAIIS'Y

 

 

(OKAYICHAL YICHNOLOGV

 

[U.NC ULUM

 

HOGMMS

 

 

A sun 0' 0.1“.“ If

 

L...._w __ ._ -
____- .__-_____L-___ . .- _fi
!— I 5!" 7 fl r—DtsLQIPYIC'I Q! AL'IIVIIIIS
m3 «emu-cu ammo
BASIC on; ! IDIH'I‘Y tram-Io wt “(a noon»
IECNNOlUGY P—-—O' ‘ ’JAM ACIIHHH OIOUI'MI NI

 

-. "r‘zUICU

 

l

 

HIPS

APPtY cost to {ACN

o'flh 'IN‘L
OIALIIIIIH
o nSIlu‘ IIQIIAL MANUAL

-.J

L_.____ __ ,.

 

 

MI'II..~(AICQSI

 

 

 

 

‘2IL'LVQI410‘

“5" 0‘” I ALHIHAYIVI "not“ I nu, )Irmzm
L-.. ...____. __ —__——d l ...- -.-l-.. - .. _--. _._A I L“- - _. -.. . . ... .- -d
r- I I —_I I— SH' 9 -—.I I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“3" 0‘“ :mmt mum-aha snmnaI ‘ u.'u' IHIEL aumm
50‘“ gr Auuruu yuan-w, ”_T_.I {-30 “when;
outctms I l I n . JAM,
.——-‘--—.— __-....__——J I I—-—._._-I'._ -_~._-_I I I-_---.-_ .._- —__4
I
_ _ -.-. I - - - - ......
y——--r-——-——_———————1 -v- -----— — —1 u—
I- SYEP ‘3
GOALS I I
OUIC'WU amun Lou “mm (A ~ II-muw noon»
CONHFAINHXIYOUIN mt NH “LAUGH-“non, I. ‘L an N;
nunuu DISCIIHICH‘)
pad-mm 3mm“ L
£9512“? C':f_‘_'_“__...__J .-. . Ml. , ..-- __. L _ -.I
r- ~——-—- —- - -—-—1 I '—-- -'-- -— I r---- ~ ~—-—'----~q
mo n UNA. nucuv
I I oucnvngnucun.
0mm ‘ n OthLLATIVt CRII‘IIA
um- mIs ficogrxi' D ”m w onI-mmo most:
“nun .\I.\IYSI'. A'JL DLAN
on! (,IAM A§|I IIIIIS
.‘(1’ N'cts —‘I
L. . . ... ., .. -r-J I I—-..~--_ ._ -- “.-.. L _ .. - I. . . .

 

 

Source: California State Department of Education, Conceptual Design for

 

a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (Sacramento, Calif.:
California State Department of Education, 1969), p. 19.

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

co«u=H0m >omumuum mcmos\moozuma
.OM .m .Vnma .xmz .amoH0cnoo9 HucoHuooscu on» compsuom pouumuoum
=.mfim>~nc¢ EoHQODm 0cm mflmuamc< Eoumxm .mumhauc< ouoo~a>u unwEonEH uuoaom
maoumum 0:054 newnmwamcwumwo: .omom .4 cfizom ”wouDOm 0.0 o.m 0.5
I I I ImHmmmszsm zmsmsmI I I I

uwmhamcm
_ mcmoa\vo:ums _

Shannon
— v.0 —
_ _
_ _
_ I _
_ mwmxamcm _ mww>amcn muc«muum:oo

3mm» ‘- woufi $53 on...

_ aneuuom _ EuOuuom >ufiucmvH
_ m6 _ m. w 2
_ _
_ _ a
_ uwmhaocm _ mwm>amcm mucmsmuwsvmu

counuucam C... 03» $53 coaguouuom
_ BhOuuom _ EDOuumm ocwsuwumo
_ «.o _ _ ~.m ~.~
. _
_ _
_ mwmxamcm _ mfimxamcm m>fiuoonno
K scammwa m _ oco Hm>oa on»

aneuuom EDOmumm mcfluwo

a.m lJ H.m _ ~.m
cofiusaon mowmmumuum moamuumuum Eman0um , mucmEouflowmu “new: Eouuv
on» scansaom :oH93HOm m>wumcuouam mnu w coHusHOm SoaQOum wcflumo
09:32 I nouumuwum pooamm T ououocmo ‘Ilv 3.39:... , orséuwumo T. van .CunucmoH
,
od o.m oé o.m H mo.” 04
_ m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.wcfl>~0mIEmHn0um 6cm maficcmam Mmcoaumosom cu Lomoummm Ewum>mnu.h.m mange

114

Table 2.8.--Federal institutions with PPB systems.

 

Section 1
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense-~separate submission for: Military functions
(including Civil Defense) Corps of Engineers, Civil functions
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Post Office Department
Department of State (Excl. A.I.D.)
Department of the Treasury
Agency for International Development
Atomic Energy Commission
Central Intelligence Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Office of Economic Opportunity
Peace Corps
United States Information Agency
Veterans' Administration

Section 2
Civil Service Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Power Commission
Federal Trade Commission
Interstate Commerce Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Small Business Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority

Section 3
Export-Import Bank of Washington
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
National Labor Relations Board
Railroad Retirement Board
Selective Service Board

 

Source: Fremont J. Lyden and Ernest G. Miller, Planning, Program-
ming, Budgeting: A Systems Approach to Management (Chicago:
Markham Publishing Company, May, 1971), pp. 442-443.

 

Table 2.9.--Institutions of higher education in Michigan employing PPBES.

 

Central Michigan University
Eastern Michigan University
Ferris State College

Grand Valley State College
Lake Superior State College
Michigan State University

Michigan State Computer
Network--MERIT

Michigan State University
Agricultural Extension

Michigan Technological University
Northern Michigan University
Montcalm Community College
University of Michigan
University of Michigan--Dearborn
University of Michigan-~Flint

University of Michigan--
Gerontology

Wayne State University
Western Michigan University
Alpena Community College

Bay deNoc Community College
Delta College

Wayne County Community College

Washtenaw Community College

Henry Ford Community College
Highland Park College

Jackson Community College
Kalamazoo Valley Community College
Kellogg Community College
Kirtland Community College

Lake Michigan College

Lansing Community College
Macomb County Community College
Mid-Michigan Community College
Monroe County Community College
Oakland University

Grand Rapids Junior College
Muskegon Community College
North Central Michigan College
Northwestern Michigan College
Gogebic Community College

Glen Oaks Community College
Genesee Community College

West Shore Community College
Oakland Community College

St. Clair Community College
Schoolcraft College

Southwestern Michigan College

 

Source: State of Michigan, "Program Budget Evaluation System for
Higher Education," Instructions, February, 1972.

 

11.6

amoaoczums am:0wuuusuu

n>mmuou Ioz .mwumau vociwuv:m.

 

cazcuaa unmuumfia Hoozum you

 
 

.Hm .m ..Nsma .mcogumuaansa

:«uw can Emu

um ..cu .uumoom: .1 can

"wuuzom

.wuwuouum ucwuuso ou mahomcoo mash :.>m~u=o unawauu: mcwusnuxo swmcomxm ucouusus no mwooucouuwm who wmmzao

>a~mcofiuosfl ucm .>H

.ucofiaflsvo pea usuam Hmuqm>cm mo commu>o~n

cowumuavm hand“: new oummoum Ou muuomnsm ow50p00< ocwcnmua

unw:wmu8 Agnewuumsuoo no ucos>onEm oususm new nodumuumuum :w maawxm can owne~30=x acwcuuwd
acqoom .>H~moqm>zm ausuw>wvcm ozu mo ucofimoau>oo

came: on» uzont mcqcumoq
naaflxm Hanuuoflfiouca

Hmucwaaocsm ocwcummq

.m

.v
.m
.N

n

.H "mfiduoOum Hacofiuoauumcnm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.HH H.m m.v ~.~ m.H m.q o.m w.m ~.~a ~.o~ ~.- o.ooH uwmcomxm ucwuusu co 9
>m~uso Houammu
owm.~ qu con mmo.~ 0mm mmv com new mom ooh. mmv.v mmm.v ohm.- can omcwmxm
ucwuusu Amuoe
III omv III III mN III mm III III -II III II- oom Aswauso Mandamo 00mm
com.” III 0 .A . . . . mmcwmxm
o h mmo mNN mmv mom mow mom can mmv ¢ mmo v 050 mm acmuuzu HMDOH
III III ooh III III III III III III III III III ooh 833m 3225.8 00:
III III III 00m III III III III III III III III oom ova>uwm neon 000
05.8 H3325
ova III III ma ca o~ om mm mv ova mmm mvm oo~.~ movuwru vmxwm oom
III III III III III III III III III III III III mam oucucoucdcz can
III III III III III III III III III III III III ow>.H acuumuomo ooo
III III III omm III III III III III III III III 0% cofimupommcnue oom
III III III cow III III III III III III III III om~ zufimuz com
0mm.H III III III mam mmm mam Ono ooh com.» cam.v o~v.v mwm.ma noduusuumcm com
0mm III III III III III III III III III III III 0mm cowumuum«cufiv< ooH
nH NH OH m m h o m v m N H HouOH unsouod uvnfisz
nofiuauu xmauso ouw>uwm mooq>umm mfiowz coflum ucflawm mmEdLmOum AnsoMuozuum:H ucnoou<
Imuzwfivd Hmuwmuu >uw: >uMNHMx=4 pad Isac>m Insoo cam
Iseaou moou=Omom can acme .wocmowau
finned» Iaon>wa .uzws
IosuumcH Immomm<
mamuuoum Hucoduonuumcwcoz

 

..mocmmsonu w :w. mamsdxo sausmmouUII.H.n wands

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.UCH .wcwcud wO MHOOLUm >uHZDFéOU cmofihwfid .mhfiflwwxx mmccai m qu ucwflCOUCdquSW uCMumHmmd MO OwawO .mfiuouwm UCHUCSOUU‘ "thDOm
noo.~ m mwm m mmo m pqo m mam m who m ucmvsum umm unsuflvcwaxm mmouo><
com.m oov.m mmo.d voo.~ an.H monIH memIImucovsum no uwnesz
wwwdmmmqmw mowumwmuww nqumwm;gw MmWJde;4w mmMJMMMJMM. mmmqmmemW m>uwmox a mousufivcumxm Anuoe
Amq>.mMHv mmm.MH~ mom.om noo.mm .m~m.m-. Hoo.>~ w>mmmmm wuzmozHazoo
obv.oom.~m awn.ooa.~m mfih.mmm.am ovv.opm.am mmm.-v.~w noa.oma.am amusuflccumxm Hopes

IOI mom.om www.mfl mm~.qHH omn.mm mam.o~ muH>mMm ammo
mNo.o~H Nma.oo~ oma.nam mmw.om who.-~ oov.v- q<a~m<u
qu.oh~.~m vmo.nam.dm mmo.o~m.am 0mm.mnm.am mmm.oha.am mmo.~mo.fim ocfiuuuomo dance
5mm.voc m mH~.~mm m moh.Hm~ m oco.nm~ m www.mdm » Nvm.m- m ocflumuwao nocuo dance
emv.oH mom.“ mso.m mmm.m Hom.cw oma.am mcofiumamm auficsesou
oov.m om~.o~ mmo.oH mvm.o Hoo.~ mmm.H oow>umm Hmsuumuucoo
Amm.aa ~o~.- mam.ma mam.m~ va.oH nov.ha momuugu cmxwm
ood.ee ~m¢.~m oao.m~ o~m.- oom.ma mHMImH mawmsm 0» mwofi>umm
Hmh.n~ h~v.m~ mhm.m~ hoo.~H mam.m~ mco.~a w>fiumuumficweu<
mnm.c~ nmm.- nmm.- ~hc.hd >~o.m~ HHH.o~ uanmIIoucmcoucflmz
mmm.~m mmv.vv oH~.om anv.dm H-.mm Hmo.m~ ucmdmIIcowumuwmo
mNm.m~ oem.m~ o~o.o~ em~.~a moa.oa www.ma mumou uumum uunuo
pme.nma » m¢o.oe~ » www.mNH m ~m~.¢m~ m Ho~.H~H » coo.HHH m mcfluuoaasmIImmfiumHmm

mcwumuomo umsuo
vmq.mom.aw odv.mmm.a» mv~.mm~.dm omn.n~H.Hm ham.vom m ov>.nhn m Hmcofiuusuumcu Hmuoa
ooh.- «so.o~ va‘oH and.m mav.ma opp.m umnuo
who.mma mmv.m- omd.pm anm.om om~.ow ~¢o.vo mamflumum:
Hmn.nd~ vam.m- o~n.me~ o~o.o- oqo.mp amm.vh mumou numum umzuo
Ham.~mv.aw coo.h-.~w -m.~mm m mmn.nmm m Hom.non w mmm.m~o m mmfiumamm
HmcofluusuumCH mcwumummm
mmmaaHozmmxm
mmn.vmmqu Imquwmmnwm mquwqumw Nemsmmmqmm mmmqmmw.flw mm~.ma-flm «sauna Houoa
ooo.vH www.ma mow.m~ cem.mm mmo.am ms~.om mucmuu .u.>oo .m.=
hom.am pom.n~ mom.m~ o~m.o~ ~mm.- noo.ma msomcmadmoma:
o~m.mo~.~m e~n.mm~.~» Hmn.omm.am Hmfl.amm.am Hmm.mno.am mem.hmo.am momm cowufisa
mzoqu
whoa mumfl mnmfl anod ohma moma

II. III. 0|.l It”- F! .U!’

.vhma .mrma .tha .Hhoa .OFmH .momH .Om wcsh vwncw
whom» Hoocom “.ocH ~mco£u< no maoonom >uac5EEOU cmoaumE< .mucwsmuoum ousuwucwmxm man 0600:“ o>wumummeooII.a.v manda

118

.vhma .wmz .momwuw .wcmnu< ..ocH .m:m£u< mo maoosum mufichEou

 

 

CMUHHQEd ~MHflMMM“ mmeHmfim MOM UCGUC¢UCflHOQ§m UC“UMMMW¢ MO @UflMMO smUHoomm OCHHCUOUU< umUHDOW
onomHI ~o.~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ca
obomHI mm.a omNHHI mm.H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m
ommmHI om.H oomHHI mm.H cocHHI mm.H I I I I I I I I I I I I m
cnmmHI mm.a oncHHI ~>.H ohmoHI om.H comm mc.H I I I I I I I I m
chmHHI mn.a onoHHI mm.a cmmoHI cm.H comm mm.a comm mm.a I I I I m
ovaHI mm.a onmoHI om.H comm I mm.H omam mm.a comm mH.H comm oH.H m
omoHHI mm.H ohmcHI cm.a comm I mm.H comm ~m.a chm» mH.H comm mo.a m
osmoHI cm.H comm I mc.H omam I mm.a comm nm.a ohms NH.H chop mo.a m
oomoHI mm.H comm I ~¢.H comm I mm.H comm m~.H chap mc.H comm cc.H m
comm I mm.H comm I mm.a comm I mm.H comm mH.H coco mo.a comm mc.H a
comm I ~c.a oomm I ~m.a comm I m~.H cums mH.H comm mo.H comm oc.H o

mlxmwcH memUCH mewUGH wlxmvcH wamccH mlmecH mocmwummxm
.o.sm om + m: ma + «2 ma + mm mm mumm»

 

.ocH .mcm£u« mo mHoosom auHCdEEOU GMOflHmE¢

sflhlm50H. mHDUGEUm >HMHmm muwfiommBIIINIV QHQME

119

Table 4.3.--Comparison of budgets 1973-74, American Community Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Athens,
Parent Actual (Over)
Approved Actual Under Parent
Dec., 1972 Budget Approved
2,500 2,240
Students Students
INCOME
Tuition $2,499,350 $2,208,926 $ 290,424
Miscellaneous 21,400 31,807 (10,407)
U.S. Government Grants 14,000 14,000 -0-
$2,534,750 $2,254,733 $ 280,017
EXPENDITURES
Instructional:
Salaries $1,454,188 $1,491,391 $ (37,203)
Other Staff Costs 280,000 217,731 62,269
Materials 154,819 133,672 21,147
Other 21,000 22,700 (1,700)
$1,910,007 $1,865,494 3 44,513
Other Operating:
Salaries $ 192,711 $ 197,457 $ (4,746)
Other Staff Costs 31,300 25,925 5,375
Operation of Plant 58,100 57,858 242
Maintenance of Plant 31,600 24,579 7,021
Administrative 26,500 23,791 2,709
Services to Pupils 39,500 44,100 (4,600)
Fixed Charges 13,000 11,351 1,649
Contractual Services 15,100 9,460 5,640
Community Relations 15,100 10,436 4,664
$ 422,911 $ 404,957 $ 17,954
Capital 151,832 120,025 31,807
Contingency (Deficit) 50,000 (135,743) 185,743
$2,534,750 $2,254,733 $ 280,017

 

 

Source:

Accounting Records, Office of Assistant Superintendent for

Business Affairs, American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.,
Athens, Greece, August, 1974.

120

.vhma .ocoo .oooouw .mconu< ..ocH .mcogum mo maoonom wuHCSEEOU

 

 

coofluoE¢ .muflmmmd mmocfimom Mom ucoocouc«uomom acoumflmmd mo oofiwmo .mouooom mcwucooooa "oouoom
thmomH
H.5m m.mm N.Ho H.mm b.0m n.0v o Am.omv o.ma m.om o.va o.va m.mH ou molmoma
monono w
ovm.m mma omH bmm 0mm mod ooH mma How Ham mom mma mmH mm thmomH
oov.m mma Hma OHN mmN vHN mod com mmN HON mom mmH oom mm MhImhmH
mom.a HMH omH mma moa mod vom moa mod mod mod mod Hma mm mhIHhmH
voora mHH oHH HMH Nva mma oma vha mma mma mmH ova mma hm HnIoomH
Hvo.a OHH mad ova NmH mva vma mmH omH omH oma va ooa o OhImomH
mohra mm HHH oma ova mHH ooH boa moH boa moa voH moa o moImomH
Hmuoe NH Ha 0H m m b o m v m N H M moo»

 

.ocH .mco£u«
mo mHoooom muflooasoo omoflumsm .vaImmmH on mmImmmH Amemc Hm>ma mcmum so ucmEHHouomII.v.v magma

121

.vhoA .ocsn .oooouo .mco£u( ..ucu

.mcozud uo a~oozom >uficaeeou coouuo£< .nuuouu4 unusumam “Cu ucoocou:«uoasm accumwmm< no vowuuo .mvuooum onuucaouu< "ouusom

whom .oa mm: Cu mood .o uwnaaumomIImuuoo
moxm ooxm nxm o~\v mmxv odxo qu Amxn max" mxn m~\~ -\~ mo\~ m\~ ~\~ vmxd moxd Sax“ omxmm coxmo axmo on\- -\~H mmxoo axoo mmxoo moxoo Noxoo mxoa mmxm omxm caxo oxo

 

 

Illa-.. .I 3‘ El I

mnON

wmomx

mNHN

Omam

mhAN

WEDDNZE‘M

CONN

Oh

mNNN

omNN

ZDSQNG

mhwu

x OOMN

mnnm

 

 

II I.Ihrflr§F§.jlfl fl: Fir...-

.oc~ .mcmcu4 mo maoo£om >uACDEEOU

cooouuem .enIman Amen. oumo mo acmeHoouco ucooaumII.m.v «Home

122

Table 4.6.--Summary of enrollment by classification 1973-74, American

Community Schools of Athens, Inc.

 

 

Date D.O.D. Cigéiégns E.E.S. Egbissy Civilians :£:%:' Total
9- 7-73 1,072 31 12 111 850 55 2,131
9-14—73 1,087 31 12 114 930 59 2,233
9-21-73 1,086 31 12 112 959 61 2,261
9-28-73 1,088 31 12 112 982 61 2,286

10- 5-73 1,091 31 12 112 994 61 2,301
10-12-73 1,092 31 12 112 1,000 61 2,308
10-19-73 1,092 31 12 112 997 65 2,309
10-29-73 1,094 31 12 112 994 65 2,308
11- 7-73 1,078 31 12 107 978 65 2,271
11- 9-73 1,085 31 12 107 987 65 2,287
11-16-73 1,084 31 12 107 989 65 2,288
11-21-73 1,082 31 12 105 986 65 2,281
12- 1-73 1,073 31 12 105 983 65 2,269
12- 8-73 1,058 31 12 105 987 66 2,259
12-14—73 1,052 31 12 103 978 65 2,241
12-21-73 1,051 31 11 102 964 65 2,224
1—18-74 1,059 28 11 101 950 65 2,214
1—23-74 1,057 28 11 99 941 65 2,201
Percentage 48% 1.3% .5% 4.5% 42.7% 3% 100%
Source: Accounting Records, Office of Assistant Superintendent for

1974.

Business Affairs, American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.,
Athens, Greece, June,

.1223

 

 

 

 

 

Non.Hmw

fl

mwv.o¢m

'I'IIUIIIII'II
IIIII'IIIIIIIIII

 

 

 

mmm.mqmm ovo.~m oom.mm mmm.v~m omm.mm~m mHmuoe
mmH va.m~ I omm omv mom.~ cmo.m Nam.Hm m mmH memumoum HmHommm
mm mmo.MH com com omm mom omm.~ oc~.m H com mommomcmo cmHmuom
mm mmm.mH omm omm Ham.H mmH.H cmm.~ HHm.oH m mom :oHumusom Hmonmcm
om cmHomH com omm com Hmm I mmm.m m mom on22
cm moo.vH I com hmH.m Ham cmm.~ omm.a H mom mum
vo va.mm omm oo~.~ omm.H H-.~ maH.v «on.m~ mm mom mmHooum HmHoom
mm ocH.ov com oom.H ~m~.m th.m th.m www.mm mm mom mocmHom
mmH aH~.mn omm cm~.H mmm.a mom.m mom.m mmv.mm mm mmm moHumEmoumz
mmHm mmm.von omv m ovH.Hm mmm.MHm mmm.a m NMH.HHm mmH.Ha m mm mom mama momsmcmo m moHommm
cm
a ummum umoo mumou umou muonomoe mucoooum
.uosuumCH uoouwo ucoemflsvm moaammsm mwoum mooHd wuocomoe ucoEon Eouooum
uoou o o uo Honfidz
oouum>< H u a mac “mayo

 

.ocH .m:o£u< mo maoonom >uwc5EEou cmowuo54 .>uoucoEon coxficoaaom .thmomH ucoeoao Emnmoum xn mQHSUHocommeI.o.v wanna

124

 

fl“!

 

 

 

 

‘IH

cmm.vo~m

 

 

 

 

hHN.~m~m ovv.a omh.ow oov.m~m. Hod.0mm oo~.m~ manuOB
«ma www.mH I com ooo ooo.H I mvo.~H N ooH manhooum Howoomm
mm cno.HH I com ooo.H omH.H I omo.m m omm wooosocmq conuom
vv nom.md I 00m own.H ooo.H Noo.v omv.m H omv newumosom aoUfim>zm
vm chm.m I 00m 0mm com I omo.o m 0mm cams:
Hm ooo.- I oov oov.m omH.H I ooo.m H omv and
«AH mo~.nv omN omm.~ oo~.v oom.v moo.m om~.mm mH ONv moflosum Hofioom
moH om>.~v 0mm OOm.H ooo.~ omv.v moa.m mvo.0m mH oNv oocoaum
moH omH.mv 0mm ooo.H ooo.v owm.v mmo.m mvo.0m wH omv muwuuaozuoz
vHNm mmm.mm m Com m oom w oom.o m mov.m w wmm.m w ovH.mo m mH omv wand ommoocmq w ucflomom
ucoooum umou mumou umoo
uom mnozomoe mucoooum
umoo .uoouumcH voouao unwemflswm moHHmmsm wwoum mooH< muozomoe ucoemam Eoumoum
ooouo>< Haves uozuo Honuo nonsdz

 

 

II".
II. II 'I'-i.

 

.ocH .mconuc mo mHoonom >uHCSEEOU cmofluofid .xuoucofioam Huocmam: .thman ucoEoHo Eoum0um >3 mousuaCCGQXMII.m.v wands

.1225

 

 

mm.Hm

 

 

oom.wm

 

 

 

vom.Hmm

 

coH.mme

 

 

 

vaH.mm~m cocoon» omm.MHm mHmuoe
amH mmm.om own .mmMIII oHv.m maquII cmc.e mHm.mH m Hum memumoum HmHommm
mmH ~o>.m onH com cmo.H mmm I vm~.m H mm muum moo:
mm mmm.m I com om~.H mmm I ovm.m H cm muu< HmHuumoooH
mm mmv.m~ I com omo.H «Hm.~ ooo.H ch.nH v mmm coHumosom Hmumecm
Hm mmm.o I I I mHm I omv.m m va yum
mm oom.MH I com com mmm.H I Hm~.HH m mmH uHmsz
no moo.o~ com com ooo.H mm~.m I mom.m~ a mHm mmomoocmq cmHouom
mm ocH.ov com oom.H cmv.m com.v I mmm.om m mmm mocmHom
cm Hmm.mm com com omm.m mmm.v I mom.om m omv mmHosum HmHuom
vHH mHH.Hm ooH cov omm.~ ~mn.m o~v.~ omo.om m omo moHumEmcumz
anm mmv.mm com m com m omm.~ m mcv.v m I m bom.Hm m m Hmm muuc mmmsocmo
UCWMMum umoo mumoo umou mumnoooe mucoooum
umoo .uosuumcH uoouwo acoEmHsom moHHdmsm ummum mooHd muocomoe ucoEon Ecumoum
momum>¢ Hmuoe uoouo “mono umnssz

II’IIII' [i ll'

.ocH .mcocud mo maoonom >uflcoEEoo covauosd .Hoonom manna: .voIman ucoEoHo Eoumoud >9 mououflocomeII.m.v magma

1.265

 

 

[Iii

 

 

aHm.mHmm onm.mm omv.m~m oom.mvm amb.mnm vm~.mm .mmmvwmwm mHmuoe

mm vmm.- oo~.v I .mmm4MII _mmm4MII .mMM4MI .mmmwmmII m mmm memMoOum HmHommm
mmH mn~.~H I om cmH.H omo.H I mmm.m H mm moHeoooom mac:
mvH mom.mm I com.m oom.m hmn.m I mHm.mH m maH muum HmHuumoocH
mm mam.mm I mmm ocm.~ mam.v I mmm.n~ m one coHumooom Hmonmco
va vmv.cm omH cam.~ ooo.H ovv.~ I omm.MH m MMH uum
ovH ~mm.~v I ooo.vH oma.m mHv.q I mmc.m~ m mmm mmochsm
mp mmm.h I ooo.H com mmm I Ham.c N voH onoz
mMH mmm.mm com com omm.m omo.~H I mhm.mm m mmm mmomomomq conuom
mmH mmm.mn omH omm.~ .oom.m Hmm.m I mmm.mm m mHm mocwHom
mmH moo.moH ovo coo omm.a mmH.mH I ham.om oH mom mmHooum HmHuom
mmH mao.am I mmH com.o moH.~H I cmm.mm a mmm moHumEmgumz
mon HHn.mm m cmm.Hm I m coH.m m Hmo.mHm I m cmH.mo m HH mmm omHHmcm
UCMMMUW UWOU mumOU umOU mumflomwfi mucmfiflum

uwoo .uusuumcH uuouflo ucoemflaom moaammsm mmoum moofld muonoooe ucoEmHm Eoumoum
ovmuo>< HouOB Mozuo uosuo Honfioz

.UCH .mconua mo maoocom >uflc56600 coofluosd .Hoozom no“: .voImomH acoEoHo Emumoum xn mousuHocomeII.oH.v vague

 

 

mmc.omHm ooo.~mm mmm.mMHm Hmo.chm Hmm.Hmv4Hm mHm.mmm¢Hm amooom qmoneHomme ameoe

 

 

 

 

127

 

maa.vn oom.oH omo.o mmH.Hm HoH.m0m mvm.mvv Hosuo w o>wumuumflcwfio<
u QZOHBUDmBmzH Izoz
oom.mvm ooo.HHm Nom.hmaw mvm.ooaw om~.mma.am oha.ovm.am Hmuounom
ooo.vH I omh.m mHv.v moo.mm mmm.ov mmocwmsm
I omm.a ooa.m Hmo.ma oma.mo Hah.mm amHHmcm
0mm ooa oom.m vvm.N omo.mH omm.om uud meow
ooo.v I omH.m mvm.m vob.ma www.mm munm ammuumsocH
omN.H ovm.v Omo.v mmv.m mmm.o> oma.mo msmumoum Howoomm
ooo.H cmm omH.m Hmv.mH va.HHH mmo.ovH mmomomomo :mHmuoo
moa.m oom Hom.o moo.oa mov.vh vhm.vm cowumooom Hmowm>nm
ooo.H oom vwm.m mmm.v onc.mm ooo.Hv camoz
oom.m ooH hma.o mam.m omh.mm mmm.vm pad
omv.v 0mm.a ooo.hH voa.om mmh.moa mhh.h~m mowosum Howoom
0mm.> oam th.oa oam.am moo.NmH Hoh.mma oocowom
mob.~ omo moo.am moo.m~ mvo.hom Hom.mmm moflumeosumz
cvm.~ m om~.H m mma.mm m mom.Hm m mmm.mmH m mHm.mm~ m muum momomamq m mchmmm
"HmoneoamemzH
mumou mumou pomosm
Hmuflmmo uoouwo mamwuoumz mmoum mowumamm Eoumoum Homosm Eoumoum
nmsuo umnuo Hmuoe

 

.ocH .mcosud mo mHoonom
mafiadsfiou cmofluoad .volmoma pomoon Hmcowuflomuu on pomosn EmuooumIIuomosn xam3mmouUII.HH.v magma

128

Table 4.12.--Instructiona1 objectives (on a selective basis), American

Community Schools of Athens, Inc.

 

HIGH SCHOOL-~ENGLISH

 

1.

2.

To provide each student further opportunity to develop and
apply his skills in reading, writing, speaking and listening.
To develop in each student an awareness of the importance of
the English language and to emphasize the necessity of using
it with accuracy and conscience.

HIGH SCHOOL--GEOMETRY

 

To develop the student's powers of logical deductive reason-
ing, including critical analysis.

To extend the student's geometric awareness beyond the
intuitive level.

To further develop the student's algebraic ability.

MIDDLE SCHOOL--LANGUAGE ARTS

 

To learn to enjoy and understand literature in short story
form by varied authors.

To learn the structure of the English language.

To increase vocabulary.

HELLENIKON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL-~MATHEMATICS

 

 

 

1. To provide an effective learning setting, enrichment
materials and concrete reinforcement work to help the child
master specific math skills.

8. To instill in the child that math is exciting and through
logical sequence a solution is always forthcoming.

HALANDRI ELEMENTRY SCHOOL--READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS
1. To read orally and silently with comprehension and skill.
10. To choose reading as a leisure-time activity.
14. To use reference materials and library resources skillfully.
Source: "Two-Year Master Plan," Athens, Greece: American Community

Schools of Athens, Inc., May, 1973.

 

 

 

129

Table 4.13.--Testing program for 1973-1974, American Community Schools
of Athens, Inc.

 

Fall
Metropolitan Readiness Test (Grade 1)

Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test/(PSAT)1/
National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test--(NSMQT)

Scholastic Aptitude Test--(SAT)2

American College Testing--(ACT)3

Spring

California Achievement Test (CAT-70-A) (Grades 3-9)
Metropolitan Achievement Test--Form A (Grade 1)
Differential Aptitude Test (Grade 8)

Scholastic Aptitude Test--(SAT)2

American College Testing--(ACT)3

Advanced Placement Tests4

 

lPSAT of the College Entrance Examination Board.

2 . .
SAT of the College Entrance Examination Board.

3ACT of the American College Testing Service.

4Advanced Placement Tests of the Collete Entrance Examination
Board.

Source: Testing Records, Office of Assistant Superintendent for
Personnel, American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.,
Athens, Greece, May, 1974.

130

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.14.--Resu1t of tests (on a selective basis) 1973-74, American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc.
California Achievement Tests--l970 Edition
A.C.S.
School & Grade Level Battery U .S .
Reading Mathematics Language Average Average
Hellenikon Elem.:
3.6 4.1 3.6 4.3 3.9 3.6
4.6 5.0 4.5 5.3 4.9 4.6
5.6 6.1 5.4 7.1 6.0 5.6
Halandri Elem.:
3.6 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.6
4.6 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6
5.6 5.3 5.5 6.1 5.6 5.6
Middle:
6.6 6.8 6.7 7.8 7.1 6.6
7.6 7.9 8.0 9.0 8.2 7.6
8.6 9.1 9.0 9.6 9.2 8.6
High:
9.6 10.3 9.5 10.1 10.0 9.6
Metropolitan Achievement Test
Word Word
SChOOl and Knowl- Discrim- Read- Spell- Arith- Total
Grade Level . . . . .
edge ination ing ing metic Average
Hellenikon Elem.:
1.0 2.1 2.4 2.1 - 2.4 2.2
2.0 3.4 3.8 3.2 3.7 3.3 3.5
Halandri Elem.:
1.0 2.1 2.4 2.2 - 2.3 2.3
2.0 3.1 3.7 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3

 

Source: Testing Records, Office of Assistant Superintendent for
Personnel, American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.,
Athens, Greece, June, 1974.

131

Table 4.15.--Graduates of 1970, 1971 and 1972 enrolled in institutions
of higher learning, American Community Schools of Athens, Inc.

 

In the United States

 

S.U.N.Y.

San Diego State

Lowell Tech

University of Tennessee
University of Oregon
Henderson State
University of Texas, El Paso
V.P.I.

Colorado State

Northern Arizona

West Virginia

San Francisco State
California State

College of Steubenville
North Texas State

Trenton State

Georgia State

University of New Mexico
Northern Michigan

Stout State

University of South Carolina
Mississippi State

Miami, Ohio

Illinois State University
San Jose State

University of Connecticut
University of Arizona, Tucson
Eastern Tennessee State
Texas A & M

Ohio State

Adams State

Arizona State

Memphis State

Marymount

Southwest College

Temple Buell

University of the Pacific
Old Dominion

College of Design

Mary Washington
University of South Florida
Urbana College

University of Redlands
Amarillo, Texas

Coast Guard Academy

Alma, Michigan

University of Miami

Duke

Johns Hopkins

Northwestern

Hood

Boston University

Jackson

Northeastern

Regis

University of Pennsylvania
Temple

Gonzaga

Southern California
University of Rochester
University of Pittsburgh
Ripon

University of California
Rice

Stanford

Loyola

University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin
Rochester Institute of Technology
Union

Bard

Springfield

Georgetown

Bucknell

Carnegie-Mellon

Hofstra

Pennsylvania State

Ohio University

Beloit

University of North Carolina
University of Michigan
University of Florida
University of Maryland
University of San Francisco
University of Massachusetts
University of Rhode Island
LaSalle, Philadelphia

132

Table 4.15.--Continued.

 

2. In Countries Other Than the United States

Pierce College, Athens, Greece York University, Canada

English Universities American College in Paris
University of Maryland, Munich University of Maryland, Athens
Sir George Williams, Canada Schiller College, Germany
American University of Beirut University of Sacred Heart,Japan
Athens Polytechnic Institute University of Witwatersrand,

South Africa

 

Source: Dr. John Dorbis, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel,
American Community Schools of Athens, Inc., "A Special
Report on 'Curriculum'"(Athens, Greece: American Community
Schools of Athens, Inc., December, 1972)I PP. 15-16.

133

Table 4.16.--Estimated enrollment, American Community Schools of
Athens, Inc.

...—

School Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

 

Hellenikon Elementary

l x x x x x
2 x x x x x
3 x x x x x
4 x x x x x
5 L L L L L
Total xx xx xx xx xx
Halandri Elementary
K x x x x x
l x x x x x
2 x x x x x
3 x x x x x
4 x x x x x
5 L L L L L
Total xx xx xx xx xx
Middle
6 x x x x x
7 x x x x x
8 L L L L L
Total xx xx xx xx xx
High
9 x x x x x
10 x x x x x
11 x x x x x
12 L L L L L
Total xx xx xx xx xx

 

 

 

 

 

Grand Total xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

 

134

 

 

 

 

 

coauMflooummd a ocmm ocmm QOSmxHOS monmxuoz
zuoumfim cams: ooocm>o¢ mCHCCMmom HmcofluoouumcH Hmuonu

_ . _ _ L _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fimwochsm L finmflamcml_ Boomsz_ woflooum Hafioom foucoflom muwumaosumz _
Hoozom Hoozum
Hommom Wooswm wumucofioam xuoucofioam
n .m Hoo.z flHocmamm coxflcoaawm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ocH .mcoau¢ mo mHoozom huflcofifioo cmofluofim .mooum HmcowuosuumcHIIousuosuum EdumoumII.hH.v wanna

135

Table 4.18.--Hierarchy of goals and objectives with measurements of

achievement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00
O
N

 

 

3 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L
G
0
a6

TO PROVIDE ALL STUDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DEVELOP AN APPRECIATION OF MUSIC.

90 PERCENT OF ALL GRADUATING SENIORS WILL HAVE
EITHER PARTICIPATED IN BAND, VOCAL MUSIC , OR
COMPLETED A COURSE IN MUSIC APPRECIATION WITHIN
THREE YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL.

TO PROVIDE ALL STUDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION
OF MUSIC HISTORY, MUSIC THEORIES, AND MUSIC
LISTENING.

90 PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS COMPLETING THE
COURSE IN MUSIC APPRECIATION UNDERSTAND THE
HISTORY OF MUSIC AND DIFFERENCES AMONG
PROGRAM MUSIC, ABSOLUTE MUSIC, OPERA, ORATIONS,
ART SONGS, AND OVERTURES AS MEASURED BY
LISTENING AND OTHER CLASSROOM TESTS.

TO PROVIDE ALL STUDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DEVELOP AN APPRECIATION FOR MUSIC LISTENING.

UPON COURSE COMPLETION, 90 PERCENT OF THE
STUDENTS WILL EXPRESS VERBALLY THAT THEY
APPRECIATE LISTENING TO MUSIC.

Source: California Department of Education, Conceptual Design for a
Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (Sacramento, Calif.:
California State Department of Education, 1969), p. 9.

136

Table 4.19.--Estimating costs at subject level, American Community

Schools of Athens, Inc.

 

Program Element MUSIC

Subject Name CHORAL WORKSHOP

 

SALARIES:
Professional
Paraprofessional
Other

Total Salaries

OTHER STAFF COSTS:
Payroll Taxes
Travel
Relocation Allowance
Retirement
Other
Total

, MATERIAL:
Textbooks
Audio-Visual Supplies
Teaching Supplies
Other

Total

OTHER DIRECT COSTS:
WOrkshops
Conferences
Other

Total

EQUIPMENT:

Describe Each Major Item:

 

 

Total

TOTAL DIRECT
INSTRUCTIONAL COSTS

Year 1

X

 

XX

XXXXX

 

XXXX

 

XX

xx

 

XX

 

N N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year 2 Year 3
x x
x x
x x

xx xx
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x

xx xx
x x
x x
x x
x x

xx xx
x x
x x
x x

xx xx
x x
x x

xx xx

xxx xxx

 

 

 

 

Year 4

X

 

XX

XXXXX

 

X

X

NXXX

 

XX

XX

 

XX

 

 

 

 

Year 5

 

XX

XXXNX

 

XXXX

 

XX

XX

 

XX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xx xx xx xx xx IMHMWI Houoa
x x x x x x ucoEQHDUm
x x x x x x mumoo uoouwo Honuo
x x x x x x Hmwuouoz
x x x x x x mumou mmmum Hozuo
x x x x x x mowumamm
.1
nu Emoo cowuowooummd w comm comm monmxuoz monmxuoz
Adsoe wuoumflm owns: ooocm>o¢ acaccfloom .uosuumcH Hmuocu
pomnnom

 

OHsz ucoEon Eoumoum

H moo»

 

.UCH .mconua

mo maoonom >uflcsEEoo couxuofid .ucoEoHo Emumoum How mumoo ooumeflumo mo mumEEomII.om.v magma

BIBLIOGRAPHY

138

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Community Schools of Athens, Inc. Office of the
Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs.
Accounting Records.

. Minutes of official meeting of the Board of
Education, April 24, 1972.

. Constitution and By-laws of the Parents Associa-
tion of the American Community Schools of Athens,
Inc. (including Amendments to December 13, 1973).

Anshen, Melvin. "The Federal Budget as an Instrument for
Management and Analysis." Prggram Budgeting--
Program Analysis and the Federal Budget. Edited by
David Novick. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1965.

Anthony, Robert C. Planning and Control Systems: A Frame-
work for Analysis. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1965.

 

Athens Mirrow. Athens, Greece, July 23, 1974.

 

Athens News. Athens, Greece, October 19, 1973.

 

Ayling, Dr. Richard. Assistant Director, The American
School in London. Interview during the Near East
South Asia-European Council of International Schools
Joint Conference, Athens, Greece, November 18-22,
1973.

Balderston, Frederich E. Managing Today's University. San
Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1974.

Ballentine, Don. Principal, American School of Kuwait.
Interview during the Near East South Asia-European
Council of International Schools Joint Conference,
Athens, Greece, November 18-22, 1973.

Barro, Stephen M. "DevelOpment of a Program Structure."
Program Budgeting for School District Planning.
Edited by Sue A. Haggart. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1972.

139

140

Benton, John B. Managing the Organizational Decision Pro-
cess. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Com-
pany, 1973.

Berendzan, "POpulation Changes and Higher Education,"
Educational Record, Spring, 1974.

 

Bethke, Dr. Paul, Director of Research Colorado Education
Association. "Colorado Moves Ahead With PPBES
Programs." School Business Affairs, ASBO's News-
letter/Journal, June, 1972.

 

Borg, Walter R. Educational Research. New York: David
McKay Company, Inc., 1963.

 

Bruton, Ronald W. "A Method for Evaluating Instructional
Objectives." Educational Technology, September,
1974.

 

California State Department of Education. Conceptual
Design for a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System.
Sacramento, Calif.: California State Department of
Education, 1969.

 

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Priorities for
Action: Final Report of the Carnegie Commission on
Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

 

 

 

Carpenter, Margaret B., and Haggart, Sue A. Analysis of
Educational Programs Within a Program Budgeting
System. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation,
1969.

 

 

. "Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Educational
Planning." Program Budgeting for School District
Planning. Edited by Sue A. Haggart. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publi-
cations, 1972.

 

Cockrell, Frank O. Superintendent, Parents' Cooperative
School, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Interview during the
Near East South Asia-European Council of Inter-
national Schools Joint Conference, Athens, Greece,
November 18-22, 1973.

Coombs, Philip H. "The Need for a New Strategy of Educa-
tional Development." Comparative Education Review,
June, 1970.

 

141

Crevling, Col. Louis. Board President, American School of
Iran, Tehran, Iran. Interview during the Near East
South Asia-European Council of International
Schools Joint Conference, Athens, Greece, Novem-
ber 18—22, 1973.

Crowingshield, Gerald R. Cost Accounting-~Principles and
Managerial Applications. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1962.

 

 

Dei Rossi, James A. "Cost Models and Analysis of Cost."
Program Budgeting for School District Planning.
Edited by Sue A. Haggart. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1972.

 

 

. "The Program Budget and the Traditional Budget."
Program Budgeting for School District Planning.
Edited by Sue A. Haggart. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1972.

 

Dorbis, Dr. John, Assistant Superintendent. "A Special
Report on 'Curriculum.'" Athens, Greece: American
Community Schools of Athens, Inc., December, 1972.

Financial Accounting: Classifications and Standard Termin-
ology for Local and State School Systems. State
Educational Records and Reports Series: Handbook II,
Revised, 1973. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1973.

Fisher, G. H. Cost Considerations in Systems Analysis.
New York: American Elsevier Publishing, 1970.

 

Fisher, Gene. The World of Program Budgeting. Santa
Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation, P-3361, 1966.

 

Forbes, Roy H. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Primer and
Guidelines." Educational Technology, March, 1974.

 

Gist, Dr. John. Superintendent, American International
School of Kabul, Afghanistan. Interview during the
Near East South Asia-European Council of Inter-
national Schools Joint Conference, Athens, Greece,
November 18-22, 1973.

Gulko, Warren W. Program Classification Structure.
Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education, 1972.

 

142

Haas, Dr. Stanley. Headmaster, Overseas School of Rome,
Italy. Interview during the Near East South Asia-
European Council of International Schools Joint
Conference, Athens, Greece, November 18-22, 1973.

Haggart, Sue A. "Program Budgeting for Improved School
District Planning." Program Budgeting for School
District Planning. Edited by Sue A. Haggart.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Tech-
nology Publications, 1972.

 

 

Hartley, Harry J. Educational Planning, Programming,
Budgeting: A Systems Approach. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

 

 

. "Observations About PPBES in 1972: A Status
Report." Paper presented at the 1972 National
Conference for Educators, New York, New York,
April 28-29, 1972.

Hayman, John L., Jr. "Educational Management Information
Systems for the Seventies." Educational Adminis-
tration Quarterly, Winter, 1974.

 

 

Heany, Donald F. Development of Information Systems. New
York: Ronald Press Company, 1968.

 

Held, Virginia. "PPBS Comes to Washington." Planningy
Programming, Budgeting: A Systems Approach to
Management. Edited by Fremont J. Lyden and Ernest G.
Miller. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1967.

 

 

Hensley, Captain Horace. U.S.A.F. Budget Officer and
Treasurer (1973-74) of the Board of Education.
Interview, Athens, Greece, May 16, 1974.

Hillier, Frederick S., and Lieberman, Gerald J. Introduc-
tion to Operations Research. San Francisco, Calif.:
Holden-Day, 1968.

 

Hills, Jean. "On Accountability in Education." Educational
Administration Quarterly, Winter, 1974.

 

 

Horngren, Dr. Charles I. Cost Accounting--A Managerial
Emphasis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1972.

Houser, Philip M. "Population Problems and Their Applica-
tion to Education." North Central Association
Quarterly, Spring, 1972.

 

 

 

143

IBM Corporation. Program Product-EPIC: Budget/Finance,
Financial Accounting System for Education Institu-
tions. New York: IBM Corporation, 1971.

 

 

Isaac, Billy. Board Member, American School of Iran,
Tehran, Iran. Interview during the Near East South
Asia-European Council of International Schools Joint
Conference, Athens, Greece, November 18-22, 1973.

Jones, James. Sales Manager, International Business
Machines. Interview, Athens, Greece, June 10, 1974.

Kiser, Chester, and Edwards, John. "PPBES: Logic, Ration-
ality Applied to Education." School Business
Affairs Newsletter, Association of School Busi-
ness Officials, October, 1973.

 

 

Krauss, Leonard I. Computer-Based Management Information
Systems. New York: American Management Associa-
tion, Inc., 1970.

 

Lewis, V. B. "Toward a Theory of Budgeting." Public Admin-
istration Review, Winter, 1952.

 

Maciariello, Joseph A., and Enteman, Willard F. "A System
for Management Control in Private Colleges."
Journal of Higher Education, November, 1974.

 

Matz, Adolph, and Curry, Othel J. Cost Accounting, Plan-
ninggand Control. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western
Publishing Company, 1972.

 

Mauly, George J. The Science of Educational Research.
New York: American Book Company, 1963.

McCullough, J. D. Cost Analysis for Planning, Programming,
Budgeting Cost, Benefit Analysis. Santa Monica,
California: The Rand Corporation, 1966.

Michigan Department of Education. A Position Statement on
Management Information Systems in the Michigan
Department of Education. Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Department of Education, 1973.

 

Michigan. "Program Budget Evaluation System for Higher
Education," Instructions, February, 1972.

 

Mushkin, Selma J., and Cleaveland, James R. "What Is a PPB
System?" Planning for Educational DevelOpment in a
Planning, Programming, Budgeting System. Washington,
D.C.: NEA Committee on Educational Finances, 1968.

 

144

Myer, John W. Cost Accounting for Non-Accountants. New
York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1972.

 

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Program Measures. Boulder, Colorado: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems at
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
November, 1971.

 

. Introduction to the Resource Requirements
Prediction Model 1.6. Boulder, Colorado: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems at
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
1973.

 

Neuner, John J. W., and Frumer, Samuel. Cost Accounting--
Principles and Practice. Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1972.

 

Novick, David. Origin and History of Program Budgeting.
Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1966.

. Program Budgeting--Program Analysis and the
Federal Budget. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1965.

 

Olson, Arthur R. "Who Owes What to Whom?" The Education
Digest, January, 1975; from Planning and Changing,
Summer, 1974.

 

Parsons, Dr. Gordon. Regional Officer, Office of Overseas
SChools, Washington, D. C. Interview during the
Near East South Asia-European Council of Inter-
national Schools Joint Conference, Athens, Greece,
November 18-22, 1973.

Quade, E. 8. Systems Analysis Technigues for Planning-
Programming-Budgeting. Santa Monica, Calif.:
E. S. Quade (Rand Corporation), 1966.

 

Ramo, Simon. Cure for Chaos. New York: David McKay,
1969.

 

Rapp: Marjorie L., and Sumner, Gerald C. "Evaluating Inno-
vative Educational Programs." Program Budgeting
for School District Planning. Edited by Sue A.
Haggart. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational
Technology Publications, 1972.

145

Read, Edwin A. "Distinguishing Among Systems Analysis,
System Analysis and Problem Analysis." Educational
TechnologxI May, 1974.

 

 

Research Corporation of the Association of School Business
Officials.l Educational Resources Management System.
Chicago, Illinois: Research Corporation, 1971.

Ross, Robert F. "How to Compare Your Educational Costs
and Benefits." Educational Technology, September,
1974.

 

Sabin, Albert E. "Challenges to Universities Through Year
2,000." Educational Record. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, Summer, 1974.

 

School Business Affairs, Association of School Business
Officials' Newsletter/Journal, January, 1970.

 

Schultze, Charles L. The Politics and Economics of Public
Spending. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Insti-
tution, 1968.

 

Scurrah, Martin J., and Shani, Moshe. "PPBS Versus Con-
ventional Budgeting in a Simulated Educational
Organization." Educational Administration Quarterly
10 (Autumn, 1974).

 

Shaplin, Judson T. "Practice in Teaching." Howard Educa-
tional Review, 1965; quoted in Research Corporation.

 

 

 

Steger, William, quoted by William H. Curtis in "Program
Budgeting Design for Schools Unveiled With Much
Work Still to Go." Nation's Schools, November,
1969.

 

Thomas, J. Alan. The Productive School-~A Systems Analysis
Approach to Educational Administration. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

 

Travis, Dr. Floyd. Superintendent, American Community
School, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Interview during the
Near East South Asia-European Council of Inter-
national Schools Joint Conference, Athens, Greece,
November 18-22, 1973.

Urdang, L., ed. The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language. College Edition. New York: Random
House, 1968.

 

146

U.S. Department of State. Office of Overseas Schools.
Fact Sheet 1973-74. Washington, D.C.: Statis-
tics as of September 15, 1973.

 

Useem, Ruth H. The TCK's Themselves. East Lansing:
Overseas Educator-Continuing Education Service,
Graduate Education Overseas, Michigan State Univer-
sity, January, 1975.

Ward, R. J. Economics: Its Principles and Means. New
York: W. H. Sadler, Inc., 1969.

Wight, Warland D. "Obtaining Competence With Competencies:
A Case Study in Higher Education." Educational
Technology, November, 1974.

 

   

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIs