A PoLLow UP sruov 6P SELECTED 5: _ ___; 7:,:__,;_3_;_1 comma ”EU’ “Um“ GUNUUCTIID IN: = ;. «1 1 VAPIous MlCHlGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY I963 I'HESIs This is to certify that the thesis entitled A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF SELECTED CONTRACT FIELD STUDIES CONDUCTED IN VARIOUS MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY presented by Fred Brieve has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed- D. degree inmal Administration Afiflé’oé~ (CU/‘4’! Dr. Flovd G. Parker Major professor Date_October 23 . 1963 O~169 LIBRARY Michigan State University .-...._~o--- _ -_i_‘_ huh-V— -‘ 0W3» Pvt?) ABSTRACT A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF SELECTED CONTRACT FIELD STUDIES CONDUCTED IN VARIOUS MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY by Fred Brieve School districts in Michigan recognize their responsibility to provide the best possible educational facilities for the youth of their communities. Many of these districts have called upon outside agencies to assist them in evaluating and surveying their school systems. Michigan State University, at East Lansing, Michigan, is one such agency. During the period from January 1, 1954 to December 30, 1960, / Michigan State University assisted seventy Michigan school districts in surveying their respective school systems. Of the seventy districts, thirty—three were classified as citizen-involved studies. It is with these thirty-three studies that this research concerns itself. Thus far, Michigan State University has made no organized attempt to determine the overall effectiveness of school district surveys con- ducted by University personnel and lay citizens. It was, therefore, the purpose of this study: to evaluate the general effectiveness of Michigan State University field studies; to examine the goals, primary purposes and methodology of these surveys in an effort to compare the findings with reasons given by school districts for conducting them, and to determine the overall value of the surveys to the school districts; to obtain information for boards of education seeking Michigan State Uni- versity assistance, and to enable Michigan State University to provide 1 Fred Brieve greater service to educational institutions through field studies; and to analyze and determine the effects of recommendations on the community. Data were secured for this study in a two-fold manner: the inquiry or questionnaire and the personal interview. The first of two question- naires was developed and sent to the present superintendents of the schools involved in citizen-type surveys during the seven-year. period. This questionnaire was concerned with the extent to which recommenda- I/ tions had been followed, and an evaluation of the quality of these recom- mendations. The second questionnaire was sent to present and former administrators, present and former board members, faculty and lay citizens who were involved in the school surveys. This inquiry was con- cerned with a general evaluation of the methods, procedures and results of each survey. Additional data for this study were gathered by means of personal interviews with local authorities associated with each survey in nine selected Michigan school districts. The results of the study show that of the 116 major recommenda- tions compiled by the University consultants and the citizens, fifty- six, or 48. 3%, have been completely carried out. In addition, another thirty- one were partially followed. The three most common reasons for not having followed survey recommendations were lack of funds, lack of votes at the polls and a V reluctance on the part of the board of education to implement recom- mendations. Of the 116 major recommendations given by the consultants and citizens, ninety-seven, or 83.6%, were rated as good by the present superintendents of the thirty-three survey school districts. Data gathered from the lay citizens in districts where surveys had been completed showed that: (1) school surveys had been effective and Fred Brieve of value in providing more adequate facilities for boys and girls, (2) school surveys were helpful in providing the citizenry with more information about the school district, (3) school surveys made people aware of future school needs, (4) school surveys were extremely help- ful in studying redistricting, reorganization and annexation and (5) school surveys helped to improve the curriculum in their school systems. Lay citizens cited the lack of sufficient funds for implementation . and effective public relations by the board of education as reasons for recommendations not being carried out. Citizens' suggestions for the improvement of future surveys were: (1) a more effective public relations program should be carried out by the school district, (2) more time should be allowed for the survey, (3) consultants should make every effort to involve more people in the study and (4) consultants should base recommendations on actual findings, and not preconceived theory. AA FOLLOW—UP STUDY OF SELECTED CONTRACT FIELD STUDIES CONDUCTED IN VARIOUS MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY Fred Brieve A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Educational Administration 1963 at'IU'I I (PRU/WP AC KN OW LED GMEN TS The writer of this dissertation wishes to thank the many school administrators, board of education members, faculty and lay citizens who so graciously responded to the questionnaires sent to the school districts where school surveys were completed by Michigan State University consultants and citizens of the community. The writer also wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Floyd Parker, Guidance Committee Chairman, for the friendly andhelpful assistance and guidance given him throughout his entire doctoral program. Dr. Parker‘s sincere constructive criticism and encouragement was greatly appreciated. The writer is also indebted to the other members of his doctoral guidance committee, Dr. Fred Vescolani, Dr. William Durr and Dr. James McKee who gave many helpful suggestions and provided valuable time for discussion and evaluation of the study. Many of the members of the Educational Administration Interest Area at Michigan State University provided helpful suggestions and encouragement throughout the study and for this the writer is most appreciative. The writer wishes to thank Mrs. Donna Morgan, Miss Theo‘Tyre, Miss Diane Christianson and Miss Pamela Noren, who labored tire- lessly in typing and assembling the first draft of the dissertation. To my wife, Joyce, for her inspiration, devotion and confidence, a sincere thank you, for without this the study would 'not have been possible. >:< >:< >:< >:< >‘,< >:< 3:: >1: >:< >:< >:< >:< :1: >}: >:< ii TABLE OF C ONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. THE FIELD STUDY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . 1 History of the Field Study Movement ..... . 1 Historical Background of Field Studies at Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . 9 The Problem and Need for the Study . . . . . . 13 Purposes of the Study. . . . . . . . ..... . 15 Scope and Limitations of the Study . . ’. . . . . 15 Procedure and Sources of Data. . . . . . . . . 19 Methodology................... 20 Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis. . 23 II. STUDIES CONDUCTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 25 Analysis of School Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The Community-Type Study. . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Expert-Type Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 III. AN EXAMINATION OF SCHOOL SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Opinions Concerning Understanding and Acceptance of Recommendations ..... 38 Degree to Which Understood by Four Sub-Groups............... 39 Degree to Which Accepted by Four Sub- Groups................. 39 Degree ofAcceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Recommendations Carried Out and Possibility of Carrying Out. . . . . . 43 Extent to Which Recommendations were Followed................ 43 Reasons for Not Following Recommen- dations................ 45 Quality of Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . 51 Superintendents' Opinion Concerning Quality................ 51 Reasons for Judging Poor Quality. . . . . 53 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER IV. AN EVALUATION OF SCHOOL SURVEYS. . . . . . General Reactions to Michigan State University Surveys............. ...... An Examination of Goals and Purposes of SchoolSurveys............... Reactions to Michigan State University Con- sultants. ..... Suggestions for the Improvement of Future Surveys................... V. PERSONAL INTERVIEW EVALUATIONS OF SCHOOL SURVEYS IN SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Criterion for Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selective Summaries and Relevant Quotations From Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . Evaluation of School Surveys by Persons Interviewed......... Factors Which Helped or Hindered Recommen- dations.. ..... Strengths of School Surveys Conducted by Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . Weaknesses of School Surveys Conducted by Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . Summary................... Conclusions . . ........ . . . . . . . Recommendations ...... . . . . . . . . .. BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... . . . . . ..... . . . APPENDICES iv Page 54 54 64 76 79 82 82 83 91 92 94 94 96 97 99 100 104 105 .LIST OF TABLES TAB LE 10 II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. VIII-A. VIII- B. VIII-C . VIII' Do IX. List of Schools Involved in Citizen-Type Surveys and Date survey was Begun. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Current Superintendents of COOperating Schools. . . . School Districts Surveyed‘and Percentage of Questionnaires Returned. .’ Responses Concerning the Extent to Which School Sur- vey Recommendations Were Understood by the Citizens of the School District . . . . . . Responses Concerning the Acceptance of Survey Recommendations 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A Comparison of the Responses as to Whether Recom- mendations Have Been Carried Out and the Possibility of Carrying Out Recommendations in Surveyed School Districts........................ Extent to Which' Michigan School Districts Followed the Survey Recommendations Made by the Citizens Committee and Michigan State University 1954-1960 . Reasons for Not Following School Survey Recommen- dations. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Criticisms Against Consultants. . . . . . Criticisms Against Citizens . . . . . . . Criticisms Against Board of Education. . CombinedJCritiCisms of Sub-Groups . . . Evaluation, by Michigan Superintendents, of School Survey Recommendations Made by Citizens and Michigan State‘University Consultants. . . . . . . . V Page 28 3O 31 4O 42. 44 46 47 48 49 50 50 52 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE X. XI. ' XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. X VIIIA. XIX. XX. XXI. Degree of Response to the Questionnaire Sent to Administrators, Board of Education Members, Faculty and Lay Citizens, Relative to. the Evaluation of School Surveys Conducted by Michigan State Uni- versity from 1954 through 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses Concerning the Orientation of School surveysO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Responses Concerning the Organization of School Surveys................. Responses Concerning the Extent to Which Respond- ents were'Actively Involved in the Survey. . . . . . . Responses Concerning the Extent to Which Respondents Were Informed Throughout the Survey . . . . . . . . . Responses Concerning the Time Allowed for Gathering DataDuringtheSurvey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses Concerning the Extent to Which Respondents Were Informed of the Results of the Survey . . . . . . Responses Regarding the Extent to Which School Sur- veys Helped to Interpret the Needs of the School . . . A Comparison of the Various Kinds of School Surveys. Comparisons of Kinds of School Surveys Conducted, Kinds‘Preferred and Kinds Producing Best Results. . Responses to Open-Ended Question Concerning the Goals of the School Survey in Their School District . Responses to Choices Made Concerning Primary Purposes of School Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents' Reactions Relative to Whether or Not Surveys Were Helpful in Accomplishing Specific Purposes....................... . vi Page 55 58 58 59 61 61 63 63 65 66 68 7O 72 ' LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page XXII. Respondents' Reactions Concerning the Use of Surveys forSpecificPurposes.................. 73 XXIII. Respondents' Reactions to the Value of School Surveys 75 XXIV. Responses to the Questionnaire Relative to an Evalu- ation of the Consultants of Michigan State University Involved in School Surveys from 1954 through 1960 . .. 77 XXV. Suggestions for Improving Future Surveys . . . . . .. . 79 XXVI. Selected School Districts Where Evaluation of School Surveys was Made by Personal Interview . . . . . . . 84 vii APPENDICES APPENDIX A. School Survey Questionnaire Used for Completion and Evaluation of Recommendation. . . . . . . . . B. School Survey Questionnaire Used for Mail Sample C. Letters Used to Superintendents. . . . . . . . . . 1. Sample of Letter Used to Obtain Survey Report. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2. FOIIOW-up Letter 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o D. Cover Letter Used with Questionnaire . . . . . . . E. Sample of Michigan State University Contract. . . F. Personal Interview Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . viii Page 106 107 113 113 114 115 117 119 CHAPTER I THE FIELD STUDY PROGRAM History of the Field Study Movement Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, little, if any, attention was given to educational research. Early in the century, however, members of the profession began to conduct field studies and some school surveys. This was the beginning of the modern survey move- ment, and it has gained considerable impetus in the last three or four decades. The specific purposes of school surveys have changed con- siderably over the years, as is borne out in the statement by Merle Sumption, whereas the survey of several decades agoplaced chief, if not sole, emphasis on evaluation, present day practice seems to favor the development of a coordinated long-range plan as the major purpose of the school survey.1 In the early 1900's it was the desire of our society to provide free public school education for all youth, and this movement added momen- tum to the building of public schools throughout the United States. Great emphasis was placed on educating youth for college. Some ground was gained, however, in the curricular area for the education of those youths who desired to make high school education terminal. This brought about the need for reorganization in the public school movement, with broadened educational programs and improvement of school facilities. It created a need for improving educational efficiency and effectiveness. In an effort to provide these kinds of facilities, there was a definite need for expert guidance and advice in the total school operation. 1M. R. Sumption, "Survey of Surveys, " Nation's School, LVII, No. 3 (March, 1956), p. 91. The field study movement had its beginnings in 1910, whenIC. N. Kendall, Commissioner of Education for. the State of New Jersey, was asked by the superintendent of the Boise, Idaho schools to make a survey of the Boise school system. This was the first school survey1 of record, and research shows that the survey was completed and information reporte d to the board in five distinct areas: 1. Buildings and grounds 2. Personnel 3. Courses of study 4. School organization 5. Community attitude. 7‘ The work of Kendall definitely prepared the way for the modern school survey movement. In 1913, the Ohio State legislature authorized a state commission to survey the Ohio-public schools. This study was directed by Horace L. Brittain of the New York Training School for Public Service. An out- growth of this survey was a recommendation that a department be created at Ohio State University to survey the public schools of Ohio as the need arose.3 As a result of this recommendation, a bureau of Educational Research and Service was set up at Ohio State. By 1921, that movement of universities acting as survey agencies, gained greater momentum. It was in this year that the Teacher's College of Columbia University created a division of field services. In the few years that 1Encyclopedia of Educational Research, School Surveys, Vol. 3, (3rd edition, New York: Macmillan Co., 1960), pp. 1212-1213. 2Deobold B. Van Dalen and William J. Mayer, Understanding Edu- cational Research: An Introduction (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1962), p. 213. 3T. C. Holy, "Some Contributions of School Surveys in Ohio, " Educational Research Bulletin, XXX, No. 7 (October, 1951). followed, many colleges and universities throughout the country were setting up agencies- or departments which provided a service for conduct- ing school surveys. As the survey movement progressed over the years, many methods and procedures were tried. Three such methods are identifiable and still in use today. They are: 1. The outside expert survey 2. The self survey 3. A combination of the two. 1 In the early years of the movement, surveys were predominately con- ducted by the outside expert who might have been associated with'a research staff of a university or a state department of education. These experts were those who had gained considerable experience in school surveying. They would enter the community, study the situation, diagnose its weaknesses and deficiencies, and make recommendations to overcome them. These experts dealt primarily with the negative aspect of the situation, and often ignored the superintendent and his staff in the evaluation. Because of their reputation, the board of education looked upon‘ them as experts. As a result of the recommendations made by these experts, many drastic changes were made and sometimes the loss of the superintendent‘s job resulted. Another method of conducting school surveys is identified as the self survey method. The self survey is generally undertaken by members of the local school organization, a method frequently used in the 1920's when schools began toadd research specialists to their staff who could offer competent leadership. The self study method remains p0pular today, but many school systems feel more comfortable seeking the advice of others who have had experience in the field. lVan Dalen and Meyer, Understanding Educational Research: An Introduction (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1962). The third method, a combination of the first two described, is called the cooperative survey by Van Dalen.l Cooperative surveys are of two types: (1) Outside consultants join with a local staff to conduct a study, or (2) Lay citizens and school staff members, with or without consultants, undertake the survey. These types of cooperative surveys have been gaining momentum and popularity since 1935. Cooperative surveys have certain advantages over the expert-type surveys in that they involve a greater number of people and because they use people on the local scene. Educators and laymen familiar with the community can help the survey team enlarge their understanding of it by helping to design the most appropriate survey for the particular school system. The cooperative method calls heavily upon local leaders for participation, and involves the school administration and the staff in the project. The superintendent plays a key role in the procedure, and the survey can be permeated with a spirit of cooperative long—range planning—— dealing with the strengths of the school system as well as its weaknesses. By involving the local staff members, the school's strengths and weak- nesses can be pointed out and understood by the staff. The need for change, and the means by which this is to be effected, can be discussed and brought into the open. In some cases, however, superintendents and boards of education have used this method as a means of applying pressure in a particular community, in order to pass a bond issue or obtain extra operating millage for their schools. Dr. Merle Sumption of the University of Illinois sent questionnaires . to 100 colleges and universities in 1955.2 These schools were repre- sentative schools from every state in the nation. The return on his questionnaires was 100%. Eighty—seven of the institutions reported that 1Van Dalen,and.rMey.er, op. cit., p. 192. zSumption, op. cit., p. 92. survey activities were actually being conducted at their respective institutions. The schools were asked which of the following terms best described their survey project: 1. Those solely evaluative in nature 2. Those largely evaluative, but containing a number of specific recommendations fOr changes 3. Those largely evaluative, but deve10ping an outline for long-range program of improvement 4. Those characterized by a prerequisite evaluation _ ‘ incidental to the development of long-range integrated ‘ programs for improvement, which is the major pur- pose of the study. Fifty-two of the institutions reported that they conducted only one type of survey, and none stated that their surveys were solely evalu- ative in nature. Four, however, did report that school surveys conducted by their institutions were largely evaluative, but contained specific recommendations for change. Eighteen reported that their school sur- veys dealt largely with evaluation, but an outline had been developed for long—range programs of improvement. Thirty of the fifty—two institu- tions reported that the surveys conducted by them were characterized by prerequisite evaluation incidental to the development of a long-range 5/ integrated program for improvement, which is the major purpose of this study. Formerly, many school surveys were primarily conducted in an emergency or crisis in a particular community. In recent years, however, the concept seems to have changed. The tendency now is to perceive the survey as a continuous process of evaluation and study by citizens in a community, with the staff and the outside consultants setting goals and objectives. They then plan ways and means for achiev- ing them in order to provide the best possible education for our young people. This premise is borne out by Sumption in his statement concern- ing the trend of school surveys of the future, It is clearthat both the concept and the method, of the school survey are undergoing significant change, and, from the present trend, it might be predicted that the survey of the future will be a school community planning project, in whichrthe expert staff will serve largely, if not entirely, in an advisory capacity. I The growth,“ acceptance and the participation in the school survey movement in the past twenty years, by both educators and citizens, has had a tremendous effect upon the upgrading of public education. This is clearly evidenced in the writings of Walter Cocking, when he says: Surveys have been influential in bringing about better school transportation facilities and procedures; better and more func- tional school buildings; larger school sites; better systems of records and forms of financial accounting; more intelligent ways of reporting to the public about schools; the establishment of health and guidance programs; the upgrading of schools personnel; better salary schedules; improved maintenance procedures; better insurance programs; improvement of the teaching of the three R's; greater attention to developing good citizenship; a greater concern to make the whole program of the school serve more realistically the needs of the community, and, in particu- lar the individual needs of the pupils. The survey has also stimulated long time planning for schools. It has demonstrated the effects of lack of planning in the past. It has also shown that policies and programs need to be geared to objectives set far in advance. It has been a stimulus which in many communities has brought about a planning program.2 The justification for the school survey rests upon the proposition that the chances of error will be greatly reduced by a comprehensive study of the total school plant needs of the community, as far into the future as the available data and known survey techniques will permit. This philosophy of comprehl—insive study and long-range planning with reference to the available data has permeated the school survey services 1Sumption, op. cit., p. 92. zWalter D. Cocking, "The School Survey and Its Social Implications, " EducationalResearch Bulletin, XXX, No. 7 (October, 1951), p. 176. offered by Michigan State University and many other similar agencies. The call upon these 'agenCies since World War II has been tremendous,- I and many school systems in Michigan and elsewhere are being besieged by overwhelming numbers of children who need to be provided with educational facilities. Many school districts have not sought advice and help from these agencies, and have many times found themselves unable toIprovide adequate classroom facilities for their present enrollments, not to mention the tremendous increases predicted for the future. In Michigan, particularly, the trend to reduce the number of school districts throughout the State has caused many school districts with additional burdens in trying to determine new district boundaries. Many of the recent requests for services have involved redistricting and reorganization. Michigan State University, complying with as many requests as possible, has been able to advise, counsel and assist local authorities in planning and organizing toadequately meet the needs of the children of the school districts of Michigan and the nation. One might ask about the information sought in school surveys. Van Dalen identifies four specific areas: 1. The setting of learning 2. The educational personnel 3. The pupils 4. The educational process. I Studies may extensively explore one or more of these areas, or they may intensively examine specific aspects of one area. In the setting for learning, some surveys are concerned with legal, administrative, social, or the physical setting. They might investigate enabling acts, charters, state regulations, local council ordinance, lVan'Dalen and Meyer, 2p. cit., p. 193. board of education rulings, or boards of health and recreationregu- lations that effect education. I They also might investigate responsi- bilities and interrelationships of school boards, councils, and com- missions. Questions about school finance, taxable wealth, basis for taxation, bonded indebtedness, per pupil costs, or any other specific areaof concern in the operation of schools might be covered in this area. Also identified in this area would be aspects of the school plant--~location, heating, lighting, ventilation, health and. safety con- ditions, play areas, cafeteria and library. Some studieswould be concerned with equipment and supplies, such as library books, laboratories, athletics, audio visual and other equipment. Also covered in this area might be the size, length, and frequency of classes. Other studies might investigate the aspects of the social structure in the classroom, home, or community which might influence learning. In the section on the characteristics of educational personnel, surveys may gather information about teachers, supervisors, and administrators who are largely responsible for the education of young- sters. This section might also'identify the areas of preparation of the instructional personnel; the number of degrees attained and whether or not the teachers are performing in their major area. The studies might also be made on the responsibilities, authority, and interrelation- ships of administrators, department heads, teachers, and non-teaching personnel. Some surveys are concerned with acquiring information about behavior patterns of pupils in the classroom, as well as behavior patterns with peers, both at home and in the community. Questions con- cerning the family's socio-economic background, health, attitudes, and academic achievements could be covered in this section. The section on the educational process would involve the edu- cational programs, processes, and curriculum. This section might also deal with the nature and number of school services performed, such as: health, library, guidance, research, and adult education, with a great emphasis on science education. This section has come under close scrutiny by lay citizens in recent years, and the upgrading of the curriculum in our schools has been of significant concern. Historical Background of Field Studies at Michigan State University Michigan State University, the pioneer land—grant uni— versity, was founded in 1855 as a venturesome experiment. Today, with many educational innovations to its credit, it has become one of America's largest-—and we believe one of her most distinguished-—universities. The entire state of Michigan is the campus of Michigan State. In all our programs, our goal is to serve the people of the state by increasing their knowledge and helping them to make practical applications of that knowledge. In the final analysis, we believe that an educated man in a democracy is one who is trained and conditioned to be an effective citizen. He need not necessarily be a man who has attained great wealth, or professional distinction, or high public office. He may not be known far beyond the borders of his own community. But he will have been educated to contribute to society economically to the limits of his creative and productive skills. He will have been educated to contribute socially by his understanding of the world around him and his tolerance for the rights and opinions of others. He will have been educated to contribute morally by his acceptance and observance of the fundamental values. And he will have been educated to contribute politically by his reasoned, thinking approach to political issues, his re- jection of demagogic appeals, and his willingness and ability to lead or to follow with equal intelligence. 10 With such definitions of education on mind, we do not think somuch of graduating engineers or chemists or teachers or home economists or agriculturists or businessmen, as of graduating educated men and women, trained to be effective citizens of our democracy-~men and women ready and willing to assume the duties of leadership in a nation crying for intelligent direction and guidance in a world full of confusion and insecurity and doubt. By so doing, we strive to contribute to the preservation and further advancement of ourcountry, for men and women so educated will have confidence in America, her principles and her destiny, and faith in America's ability to lead the world into an era of peace and understanding. 1 With a goal of service to the communities of Michigan and the world, the stage was set for school surveys and many other forms of educational services. Until 1945, any services performed by Michigan State University for schools were provided on an informal basis. Generally, the arrange- ments were made by the individual school with a particular staff member, and whether or not the service was provided,the sehool, was dependent on how busy the staff member was at the time of the request. These staff members came to be known as specialists in a particular field in what was then known as the "Division of Educ ation" in the School of Science and Arts. In 1945, an Institute of Counselling, Testing and Guidance was established under the direction of the late Dr. Clifford Erickson. The deans of the various departments within the college were appointed as supervisors of this Institute. The main purpose of the Institute was to develop itself as a service organization, providing service in as many areas relating to education as possible. Field studies, then, became the responsibility of the institute, 1John A. Hannah, President, Michigan State University. Excerpts from a speech given. along with related areas dealing with employment, interviewing tech— niques and pupil personnel, although all had some educational orien— tation. The key concept of this organization was serVice, and it was not restricted in its service aspect only to public schools. Any organized agency could avail itself of the services of the Institute, and the only cost involved was the payment of the actual expenses of the consultant. Many trade groups, hotel management people, and automotive industries are on record as having used the services of the Institute. As a result of the work of the Institute, a number of publications were developed and distributed to provide help in specific areas. In 1948, a small Adult Education Group, headed by Don Phillips and Dale Faunce, sought to broaden the base of the Institute by combin- ing the ideas of the Institute and Adult Education into a program which, in its entirety, was to be called Continuing Education. This was done, and specific emphasis was given by it being referred to as the Institute of Counselling, Testing and Guidance in Continuing Education. Dr. Edgar Harden, now president of Northern Michigan University was the first dean of Continuing Education. In 1952, a separate department was formed within the School of Education. At this same time, Dr. Clifford Erickson was appointed dean of the School of Education. In late 1953, with the re-organization of the first College of Education, a Bureau of Research and Publications was established, with Dr. Raymond Hatch as its head. Up until this time, field services were still being provided on an individual basis. Many schools in Michigan were making use of the service; in fact, so much that it was questionable just how much service could be provided with the staff that was available. It became particularly apparent in the area of Adminis- tration. The demand for services was so great that the college could 12 no longer support the demands without a more adequate arrangement. It was at this time (1954) that "contract" services to schools were instituted. The contract service simply meant that the school and the college entered into a contracted agreement providing so much service for so many dollars.1 The basic land grant philosophy of providing service and consult- ant service to the schools of the state did not change even though the "contract" system came into being. The consultant acted in an advisory capacity to the schools and to citizens' groups rather than as an expert handing out specific recommendations. This is one of the significant differences in the Michigan State operation as compared to other uni- versities which were conducting studies at that time. The following year (1954), a Bureau of Research and Service was formed, with Dr. Raymond Hatch as its first head. It was soon felt that this department was too encompassing, and it was divided into two parts: (1) The Bureau of Research and (2) The Department for Adminis- tration and Educational Services. Dr. Robert Hopper became the first head of this new department. In 1955, all services to schools came under Dr. Raymond Hatch the first Assistant Dean for Continuing Education, in the College of Education. Under the new organization, all school services were handled on a contractual basis between the college and the particular school board receiving the service. In 1962, the title was changed again, and school surveys, field studies, and other educational services of this kind came under the Assistant Dean of Off-Campus Affairs. Dr. Richard Featherstone followed Dr. Hatch and became the Assistant Dean for this new position, one which he still holds. lRaymond N. Hatch, Professor, Michigan State University. Notes from personal interview. 13 The Problem and Need for the Study The College of Education at Michigan State University has conducted school surveys for many years, and made numerous recommendations in this particular area. Through the years, however, various names have been given to the particular kinds of surveys performed. These surveys have been conducted for a variety of reasons--some aimed at meeting a particular crisis, others to evaluate the school system involved, and still others with strictly an expert type of evaluation being performed. In an effort to be realistic in its recommendations, the staff has always attempted to tailor the study to fit a specific situation. Survey recom- mendations were thoroughly studied, with reference to the data available and in light of the nature of both school and community. It is possible, however, that some recommendations may have been made with which certain biased or prejudiced individuals or groups in the community did not agree. Nevertheless, on the basis of its vast range of experience and wide background, the College staff recommends that which seems to be the best and most workable solutions to the-problems being studied. Each survey made by the College of Education with a particular school district is summed up in a printed report; copies of which were reviewed prior to the start of this dissertation. No systematized or formal follow-up has been conducted on any of these school surveys. Some informal contacts, however, with members of the particular com- munity and the staff at Michigan State University, have been carried out, but no formalized attempt has been made to evaluate the surveys com- pleted. This is the major task of the writer of this dissertation, and establishes a definite need for the study. If the service rendered by Michigan State University and similar agencies at other institutions is to perform efficiently and effectively, the function for which it is intended, continuous evaluation and political analysis is necessary and important. 14 Purposes of the Study During the seven year period between January 1, 1954 and December 30, 1960, Michigan State University has worked cooperatively with'33 Michigan school districts and the various committees involved in the survey. It appeared at the outset that many of the 33 districts might have specific goals and purposes which could be identified. Upon close investigation of the written reports compiled for each school, only six of the districts actually had the specific purposes written out in the report. The others certainly must have had some definite purposes in mind, and they were implied throughout the written report but not specifically spelled out. There has been no organized attempt to determine the overall effectiveness of the surveys conducted by Michigan State University and the citizens of the respective communities. It is therefore the purpose of this study: 1. To evaluate the general effectiveness of field studies conducted by Michigan State University. 2. To examine the primary purpose of the surveys conducted, and to compare the findings with the reasons given by the school districts for having school surveys. 3. To obtain information which would be helpful to boards of education seeking assistance from Michigan State University. 4. To analyze and determine the effects of recommendations on the community. 5. To obtain information and to make recommendations which will help Michigan State University be of greater service in provid- ing field study services to educational institutions. 6. To examine goals and purposes of school surveys in an attempt to determine the overall value of surveys to school districts. 7. To examine and evaluate the methodology used in school surveys. 15 8. To make recommendations for improving field study services offered by Michigan State University. Scope and Limitations of the Study It was first felt that this study should be concerned with an evalu— ation of all the school surveys, expert and citizen-involved, which were conducted by Michigan State University from January, 1954, through December, 1960. Upon closer examination of the results of all of these studies, it was decided to concentrate on only those which were citizen- involved, narrowing the field from seventy to thirty-three Michigan schools. This particular period was chosen because it marked a time of tremendous growth for Michigan school districts, and because it per- mitted progress to be made on those studies completed prior to December, 1960. There was not adequate time, however, to fairly evaluate and implement a significant number of the recommendations made in surveys conducted after this date. All of the surveys included in this study were completed in the State of Michigan, although there have been school surveys conducted outside the state and in foreign countries. It was first thought that all of the recommendations compiled from the various reports of the surveys could be itemized and grouped into numerous categories. After some investigation of the data, it was determined that identification of a few significant categories was para- mount so that the various recommendations could be identified with a major category. The seven general areas identified are these: (1) to gain more information about the school, (2) to pass a bond issue, (3) to obtain higher standards in the school, (4) to vote extra operating millage, (5) to study redistricting or reorganization, (6) to help provide more adequate facilities, and (7) to expand the curriculum. There were some 16 isolated instances of other goals which will be listed in the table describing this section of the dissertation. This study is also limited by the fact that the responses to the first questionnaires were completed by some administrators who had not been members of the administrative organization of the school district at the time that the survey was completed. This, many times, placed the present superintendent in an awkward position when he attempted to analyze the results of the survey and the implications which the recommendations had for the present situation. , Some of the superintendents stated that they were relatively new in their positions, and they failed to comprehend the thinking and reasoning behind certain recommendations. Therefore, they could not give a valid and intelligent evaluation of them. Others stated that they had to draw heavily upon other members of their staff who had been there at the time the survey was made. At the outset, two questionnaires were designed to obtain data for this study. The first was a questionnaire):< sent to school administrators to evaluate the recommendations submitted by the staff performing the survey. The major recommendations for their survey were listed, and the superintendent or chief school officer in the system was asked to comment on whether the recommendation was completely followed, partially followed, or not followed at all. If it was not completely followed, a space was provided for them to indicate the reason. A second part of the questionnaire gave the superintendent an opportunity to evaluate the recommendations as to whether or not he thought they were good, mediocre, or poor. Here, again, an oppor- tunity was given for the superintendent to give the reason for his choice. A second questionnairewkwas sent to administrators, board members, former administrators, former board members, faculty, and lay citizens. >3 Appendix A. >:< >{c Appendix B . 17 This was an attitudinal-type questionnaire in which the people had an opportunity to answer specifically X33. or £12 regarding certain aspects of the school survey. The Open-ended questions on the questionnaire covered-the following areas: 1) goals of the survey, 2) reasons why recommendations were not followed, and 3) suggestions for the improve- ment of future surveys. The personal interview was also used as a means for collecting data. Schools selected for the personal interview were so designated on the basis of a specified number of criteria. These criteria and the interview results will be covered in a later section of this dissertation. Questionnaires of the type shown in Appendix A were sent to thirty- three school superintendents in the State of Michigan, and thirty-two indicated their intent to cooperate with the study. A pilot questionnaire was sent to six schools to test the validity of the instrument. After these were returned, the instrument was so revised to reflect construc- tive changes in implementing the questionnaire. The audience for receiving the questionnaire was determined by listing all the names of those people involved in each school survey from the index pages of the various reports of the school surveys. From a table of random numbers, those names falling in this category were selected for receipt of the questionnaire. It was estimated that some 1200 peeple were actually involved in the thirty-three school surveys conducted by Michigan State University. In order to arrive at an ade— quate sample, 245 questionnaires were actually sent out. The distribu- tion was as follows: 40 to administrators, 40 to board of education members, 25 to faculty, and 140 to lay citizens. The percentage of return for the entire questionnaire sample was 67.8%, andit was divided in the following categories: for administrators, 97. 5% returned; board of education members, 62. 5% returned; faculty, 56% returned; and lay citizens, 63.6% returned. A total of 166 questionnaires out of 245 were returned. 18 The writer of this dissertation corresponded with the superin- tendents of each school district surveyed to ask them for any printed matter* or printed reports which might have been on file as a result of the school survey. In the vast majority of the cases, the superin- tendents were very cooperative and provided the writer with suitable information of this type. In some cases, schools had only a single copy left or had no copy at all, and were somewhat at a loss to provide the writer with suitable information. There are on file in the Educational / Administrative Interest Area, College of Education, Michigan State University, a number of the written reports of such school surveys, making available a complete file of the written report of every school district surveyed prior to the start of this dissertation project. Without these reports, this study would not have been possible. V/ No attempt was made to examine the costs involved in conducting school surveys. Just prior to the final writing of this study, an attempt was made to determine why some of the questionnaires were not returned. Twenty people were contacted by phone and by mail, and were asked to give their reason for not returning the questionnaire. The following reasons were given, and the number of responses fitting each category are listed at the right: Lost or misplaced questionnaire 5 Too busy 4 Survey took place too long ago to remember details 4 Moved to another community 3 Illness in family 2 Forgot about questionnaire __2_ 20 )UAppendix C . 19 An attempt is made in the study to evaluate the consultants by using a list of descriptive evaluative words. The writer was unable-to uncover any pre-determined lists of words suitable for this purpose. It was suggested by the Bureau of Educational Research, Michigan State University, that an original list be drawn up, and that at least six colleagues in the Educational Administration Interest Area of the University examine and evaluate the list and determine which words would be most applicable to this question. A complete list can be found on the last page of the questionnaire (Appendix B). Procedure and Sources of Data Two mail questionnaires and one personal interview questionnaire were designed for use in this study. One questionnaire was sent to the present superintendents of the schools surveyed. The major recom- mendations applicable to their school district were listed thereon. The superintendent was asked to comment on whether the recommenda- tion was completely followed, partially followed, or not followed at all. Spaces were provided to give reasons for their choices. A second part of the questionnaire gave the superintendent an opportunity to evaluate the recommendations as to whether or not they thought the recom— mendations were good, mediocre, or poor. Space was again provided to give reasons for their particular choice. A second questionnaire was designed to be sent to administrators, former administrators, board members, former board members, faculty and lay citizens. This was an attitudinal-type questionnaire, in which the respondents had an opportunity to answer specifically yes: or _r_i_c_>_ concerning many aspects of the survey conducted in their school district. This questionnaire was mailed with a cover letter (see Appendix D) which explained the purposes of the study. Self- addressed, 20 stamped envelopes were provided for the return of the questionnaire. Questionnaires were inconspicuously coded so a record could be kept of their return . The personal interview was also used as a means for collecting data. Much of the information requested on the questionnaire was asked of those interviewed. The writer used note taking and the tape recorder to preserve specific and pertinent remarks relative to the evaluation of school surveys. The nine school districts selected for personal interview and the criterion used for selection are outlined in Chapter V. A total of 245 questionnaires were actually sent out. Forty were sent to administrators, forty to board members, twenty-five to faculty and 140 to lay citizens. A total of 166 of 245, or 67.8% were returned. Methodology A description of schools surveyed, the samples, and randomi- zation procedures will be covered in this chapter. The present chapter also contains a discussion of the collecting and recording of the data. The basic method of research used in this study relates closely to patterns of descriptive investigations as outlined by Van Dalen, who classifies the numerous possible types of descriptive studies under three arbitrary headings: 1) survey studies, 2) interrelationship studies and, 3) developmental studies. These, of course, cannot be hard and fast categories, since many studies have characteristics applicable to all three types. All descriptive studies, however, have certain common elements of agreement. "They compare the likenesses and differences among phenomena to find out what factors or circumstances seem to accompany 21 certain events, conditions, processes, or practices. "1 Some probe more deeply, although most simply uncover the fact that a relationship exists. Occasionally, they attempt to make predictions about future events. As in any reputable stusy,~ investigators seek more than bare description. Rather than simply tabulating the facts, competent researchers collect evidence on the basis of some hypothesis, theory, or preconceived notion. They summarize and tabulate and, when thoroughly analyzed, attempt to draw meaningful generalizations from it. Scientific methods of inquiry require scholars to make "intelligent guesses," which will help solve problems and test hypotheses. Van Dalen said that: If descriptive studies present hypotheses, they are usually of a somewhat lower order than those found in explanatory studies. In the latter, the hypotheses offer general explanations of why certain phenomena behave as they do. Descriptivestudies simply portray the facts-~they describe what exists but rarely seek to account for why the present state of affairs has occurred. Descriptive studies may describe the rudimentary grouping of things by comparing the contrasting likenesses and differences in their behavior. They may classify order and correlate data seeking to describe relationships that are discoverable in phenomena themselves. But they do not penetrate deeply into knowledge that lies beyond that which can be gained directly from the events or conditions. They do not fully analyze and explain why these relationships exist.2 Descriptive research does not possess great predictive power, and most of the findings are applicable within a short period of time. This does not mean, however, that descriptive research is any less important or does not contribute to a better understanding of educational problems. Van Dalen emphasizes the value of descriptive research by saying that: 1Van Dalen and Meyer, op. cit., p. 212. zlbid” p. 213. 22 Descriptive studies that obtain accurate facts about existing conditions or detect significant relationships between current phenomena and interpret the meaning of the data provide educators with practical and immediately useful information. Factual information about existing status enables members of the profession to make more intelligent plans about future courses of action and helps them interpret educational problems more effectively to the public. Pertinent data regarding the present scene may focus attention upon needs that otherwise would remain unnoticed. They may also reveal developments, conditions or trends that will convince citizens to keep pace with others or to prepare for probable future events. Since existing educational conditions, processes, practices and programs are constantly changing, there is always a need for up-to-date descrip- tions of what is taking place.1 THE DESIGN: The selected schools in this study are public schools in Michigan which requested services from Michigan State University. These schools had school surveys completed between January 1, 1954 and December 30, 1960, which were of the citizen-type and not the expert— type survey. Schools were assigned classifications as to their enrollments at the time of the survey. The State of Michigan classification of A, B, C, D according to size has the following criteria for classification: Class Students in High School A 900 or over B 400 to 899 C 125 to 399 D under 125 Those school systems not falling within the above categories will be referred to as county systems. llbid” p. 214. 23 Since some of the schools involved in the surveys do not operate a high school, the classificationtable was revised to fit all the schools in the sample. The following division. was made for purposes of this study. Schools with more than 4, 000 students in the system will be , referred to as Class A schools. School systems with more than 2, 500 but less than 4, 000 students in the entire system will be referred to 'as Class B systems. Schools with more than 750 but less than 2,500 students will be referred to as Class C schools. Schools with less than 750 students will be referred to as Class D schools. Other schools or groups of schools involved in surveys are known as county systems. The lay citizens, faculty and board members selected for query were arrived at by selection from the numbers supplied by a table of random numbers. No bias was introduced by this method, as each member in each group had an equal chance of being selected. A copy of the cover letter used in obtaining the cooperation of the respondents is shown in Appendix D. THE STRATIFIED RANDOMIZATION PROCEDURE: The name of each person other than the administrators involved in the survey of the particular schools were placed on cards. These cards were placed in serial order. The names of the persons to receive V14 questionnaires in this study were then selected from a table of random numbers. I No bias was introduced by this method, as each person had an equal chance of being selected. 1Wilfred J. Dixon andFrank J. Massey, .Jr. , Introduction to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw Hill Company, 1957), pp. 366;370. ‘ ~ 1 “ U ' A ’ ‘ 24 Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis Chapter 11 deals with the studies conducted by Michigan State Uni- versity. - An analysis of the schools surveyed is made,‘ and acomparison of the community-type survey is made with the expert-type survey. , Chapter III examinesand evaluates the recommendations made during the period from January 1, 1954 through December 30, 1960. Chapter IV gives a close examination of the instrument used in the survey. The results of each- question are tabulated so. that an objective observation concerning the effectiveness of school surveys can be made. Personal interview reactions of selected board of education members, members of citizens' committees, former superintendents and others relative to the evaluation of school surveys in general-are presented in Chapter V. Chapter VI was devoted to, conclusions and recommendations and a general summary of the findings for the improvement of school sur- veys and procedures. It is hoped these conclusions will provide for a closer cooperation between surveying agencies and school district authorities which, in turn, will result in improved educational programs for our nation's youth. CHAPTER II STUDIES CONDUCTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Analysis of Schools Studied The general purpose of a school survey is not only to determine how the school can best use their present facilities, but also how to provide a long-range program to meet the future educational needs of the youth of the community. This depends heavily upon competent and experienced consultants who can approach this problem in an ob- jective manner and with sound judgment. Later in this chapter, the community, or citizen-involved, sur- vey and the expert-type survey will be compared, since each has 7 certain advantages in a given situation. Although Michigan State Uni- versity has engaged in both types, this dissertation will deal more directly with the citizen-involved survey. Many schools are in a constant state of self evaluation, and have citizen committees which function, even though the school district does not appear to have critical problems. Other schools call upon Michigan State University consultants to seek out expert advice, and tocontinue to function in a satisfactory manner. Still others call upon University consultants when a problem is at hand, or when one is expected. Of the thirty-three schools studied, twenty-one, or 63.6%, had problems of an immediate nature. These problems can be identified as those deal- ing with: 1) An unusual increase in enrollments causing a need for more building space. 2) An unsuccessful vote for funds causing a cut back in services. 3) Unsuccessful attempts at consolidation, reorgani- zation or annexation of school districts. 25 26 Ten of the thirty-three schools, or 30. 3%, had problems too, but would not be classified as requiring immediate attention. Their problems, in addition to those mentioned above, might also include: 1) Gaining more information about their school. 2) Raising the standards of their school. 3) Improving and expanding the curriculum. 4) Providing more adequate facilities. It is evident from the preceding statements that school surveys are concerned with providing sound educational programs as well as adequate facilities to meet the needs of the youth of the school district. This is substantiated by a quotation from a school survey report con- ducted by Dr. W. R. Flesher of Ohio State University: The existing school plant in any school district represents a very substantial outlay of public money. One of the major purposes of an analysis of school plant needs is to determine the extent to which the school plant can be used effectively in a long-range school building program. This determination de- pends upon the quality of the buildings as physical structure, 9 upon their suitability from the standpoint of health and safety, and on the extent to which they facilitate or impede desirable activities included in a modern school program. Location of school buildings in relationship to the residences of the pupils and information regarding the degree of utilization of existing buildings are also important factors to be considered in establishing a long-range building program. 1 In the early years of school studies conducted by Michigan State University, informal and non-contractual arrangements were made with the respective schools. The survey was generally done by one or two staff members on a "catch as catch can" arrangement. The cost for such services was usually kept at a minimum. 1w. R. Flesher, "Public Education in Middletown, Ohio, II Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1956, p. 182. 27 ' In recent years, the University has adopted a contractual arrange- ment for school surveys which specifically spells out the details involved. Because this brought about an increase in the costs of this service, it was the hope of the University administration that school survey services be self supporting. This remained consistent with the "Service" aspect of the Land Grant University, but provided the receiver of the service an opportunity to share in the overall costs for that service. The contractual arrangement proved very useful and beneficial in defining areas of performance. It also protected the consultants from criticism in any misunderstanding regarding service that might have come from a lack of proper communication with the board of education. The contract also spells out specific time limits, and provides an opportunity for re-negotiation in the event the survey is not completed in the time specified. It also spells out responsibilities regarding the publication of the study which is usually the end result of a school survey. An exact copy of the contract currently in use by the Office of Off-Campus Affairs, College of Education, Michigan State University is shown in Appendix E. As the University continues this type of field service, the contract will certainly undergo changes which-will keep it updated and consistent with future trends in school surveys. Table I shows an alphabetical listing of the thirty-three schools involved in the study, and the date each survey was begun. Thirty-two of the thirty-three indicated a willingness to participate in the question— naire. The superintendent of one of the schools indicated by letter his unwillingness to participate because of the lack of printed material which would provide him with information concerning the survey in his school district. Printed reports were available for each school, with the exception of Bretton Woods and Laingsburg. During the course of the study at Bretton Woods, the school district became involved in the reorganization 28 Table 1. List of Schools Involved in Citizen-Type Surveys and Date Survey was Begun School Date Begun 1. Baraga County* March 26, 1959 Z. Bloomfield Hills>1< April 15, 1960 3. Bretton Woods -- February 25, 1960 4. Charlevoix>i< July 2,, 1958 5. ClarkstonU< May 1, 1957 6. Goldwater)!< October 21, 1959 7. Crystal>l< October 10, 1957 8. Delta County* (East) March 14, 1960 9. Delta County>=< (West) May 5, 1959 1.0. Fentoni< June 10, 1958 11. Fruitport=1< March 16, 1959 12. Grand Haven>i< October 6, 1958 13. Grand Ledge* May 1, 1954 14. Holland* July 25, 1957 15. Iron River* (West Iron County) May 14, 1959 16. Kearsley>=< (Flint) March 1, 1957 17. Kinde>i< (North Huron) January 14, 1958 18. Laingsburg --g July 3, 1958 19. Lansing* October 8, 1958 20. Mackinac Island>i< October 6, 1958 21. Manistee* October 10, 1957 22. Mona Stores* (Muskegon) November 5, 1959 23. Nashville>I< December 1, 1960 24. Okemos>I< November 1, 1956 25. Saginaw Township* October 10, 1957 26. Sheridan>1< October 10, 1957 27. Southfie1d>fi< December 19, 1960 28. South Haven>i< April 23, 1959 29. Stanton* October 10, 1957 30. Sturgis>i< June 15, 1960 31. Sunfie1d* May 8, 1960 32. Vermontville>I< December 1, 1960 33. Warren>fi< October 8, 1958 >I< Written Reports Available -—No Written Reports Available D Did Not Participate in Questionnaire 29 plan of a neighboring school district and that board did not wish a written copy of the results of the survey. Table'II shows a listing of the current superintendents of the thirty-three surveyed schools. Twenty-one, or 63.6%, of the superin- tendents indicated they were associated with the school district during the time of the school survey. The writer was encouraged by this per- centage, since the reliability of the data furnished by them could have been effected by an increase in administrative turnover in the surveyed districts. ' A total of 97. 5% of these superintendents responded to the questionnaire concerning the school survey held in their district. Table III shows the school districts surveyed and the percentage of returns received. A total of 245 questionnaires were sent out in the thirty-two districts, and 166 were returned, for a percentage return of 67.8%. The Crystal district was the only one showing a 100% return. Baraga, Kinde, Manistee, South'Haven and Sunfield all showed 90% or better. In Chapter I, the schools were categorized into various classes, depending on their school district census figures. There were five schools with more than a 4, 000 student population, which were desig- nated class A; ten school districts with a census of 2501-4000, designated class B; seven school districts with a census of 751-2500, designated class C; six school districts with less than 750, designated class D; and three county districts, designated class E. The Community-Type Study, The community, or citizen—involved, survey, is one in which the citizens, administrators, architects, builders and professional edu— cators are involved. This is emphasized by Herrick and his co-writers in the book From School Prcgram to School Plant, which stated that: Table II. , W 30 Current Superintendents of Cooperating Schools School Superintendents l. Baraga County Margaret Snyder>i< 2. Bloomfield Hills Eugene Johnson* 3. Bretton Woods Nick Martinez* 4. Charlevoix Roy Bennett’I< 5. Clarkston *Dr. L. F. Greene* 6. Goldwater Carlo Heikkinen 7. Crystal Robert Huyck 8. Delta County Hagle Quarnstrom>1< 9. Escanaba (West Delta) Walter Bright 10. Fenton Dr. William Early>1< 11. Fruitport William Thomasi< 12. Grand Haven Ralph Van Valkenburg>l< 13. Grand Ledge Kenneth Beag1e>I< 14. Holland Walter Scott* 15. Iron River (West Iron County) R. E. Jefferson>=< 16. Kearsley George Daly>=< 17. Kinde James Pace 18. Laingsburg Wallace Edlund- 19. Lansing Dr. Forrest Averill>l< 20. Mackinac Island Ken Roberlts 21. Manistee Norbert Radtkefi< 22. Mona Shores William Luyendyk>i< 23. Nashville Carroll Wolff 24. Okemos George Richards* 25. Saginaw Twp. Dr. Mills Wilbur 26. Sheridan H. A. Springsteen>=< 27. Southfield Fred Norlin>l< 28. Stanton Jack McConkey 29. Sturgis Warren Fudge>i< 30. Sunfield Oliver Juengle 31. Vermontville Walter Jenvey* 32. Warren Dr. Paul Cousino* Superintendents who were associated with school system at the time of the survey. 31 Table 111. School Districts Surveyed and Percentage of Questionnaires Returned School Percentage 1. Baraga County 95 2. Bloomfield Hills 60 3. Bretton Woods 50 4. Charlevois 85 5. Clarkston % 75 6. Goldwater f 75 7. Crystal 100 8. Delta County (East) 50 9. Delta County (West) 45 10. Fenton 80 11. Fruitport 45 12. Grand Haven 55 13. Grand Ledge 75 14. Holland 60 15. Iron River (West Iron County) 85 16. Kearsley 65 17. Kinde 95 18. Laingsburg 19. Lansing 80 20. Mackinac Island 50 '21. Manistee 9O 22. Mona Shores 45 23. Nashville 85 24. Okemos 50 25. Saginaw Twp. 35 26. Sheridan 60 27. Southfield 55 28. South Haven 95 29. Stanton 65 30. Sturgis ' 75 31. Sunfield 95 32. Vermontville 50 33. Warren 45 Average: 67. 8% 32 The current school housing problems cannot be solved by boards of education or superintendents of schools or architects or school plant specialists alone. There are no magic fountains from__which flow the needed foresight and ingenuity, let alone the money, to do the job that is necessary. Effective solution of the problems requires clear understanding and intelligent participation by laymen, architects and professional educators alike. Community-type surveys usually begin with a general meeting of the board of education, the University consultants, and the lay citizens. The consultants outline a number of programs to the citizens and the board. The citizens decide on the kind of program which best fits the need of their community. The Board emphasizes the fact that the citizens are to collect the data, analyze all the facts and make recommendations with the aid and advisement of the consultants. It is important here that each organization recognize its own particular function, so that there be no misunderstanding regarding specific duties. M. R. Sumption suggests the following objectives as guidelines for the c ommitte e: 1. To acquaint the members of the committee with each other and with the superintendent of schools and representative members of the board of education. 2. To acquaint the committee in some detail with the nature and scope of the problem. 3. To establish through discussion a clear understanding of the function of the committee. 4. To Imake known to the committee the personnel and the materials available to it in its work. 5. To establish through committee discussion a clear understand- ing of the parts of the study and the relationship of each part to the total project. 6. To select by committee action a chairman and a secretary of the group. ' lJohn‘H. Herrick and others, From School ProEam to School Plant, (New York: Henry Holt Company, 1956), p. viii. 33 7. To assign responsibility among committee members for work in the various areas of the study as outlined in the plan of the survey. 8. To organize committee members within the areas to which they have been assigned. 9. To explore the local resources, both lay and professional, and develop ways to utilize these resources in attacking the problem. 10. To establish clear channels of communication among central committee members, subcommittees, superintendent, and board of education. 1 It should be remembered that each situation is unique, and variations of the above can be made to fit the particular school district. The board of education must, however, present the committee with its charge or responsibility, so that it can function within a prescribed framework. It is important that citizens work in one of the areas of the study which has particular interest or appeal to them. The five most generally used areas identified by the consultants are: 1) Community Factors 2) Enrollments 3) Finance 4) School Plant 5) Educational Program Usually a consultant will work with each group to get them properly oriented and familiar with the task before them, providing them with suitable forms for the collection of data and, in general, providing direction and data pertinent to the study. It is important that each survey have an organizational chart which clearly outlines the duties of those people involved in the study. 1M. R. Sumption, How to Conduct a Citizens' School Survey, (New York: Prentice Hall, 1952), pp. 18-19. 34 After a period of data collecting, the sub-committee begins to assemble the pertinent facts of their sub-survey for periodic interim reports to the board of education. General meetings of the entire V, citizens' committee are held periodically during this time, and reports from the various sub-groups are made so that each member of the committee can begin to see the problem in its entirety. Each sub-group then begins to form conclusions and recom- mendations for its particular area to submit to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee, with the help of the consultants, formulates the general recommendations to submit to the board of education. This phase of the process was aptly put by Kenneth Husbands, when he said: Perhaps these studies justify the faith currently being placed in cooperative study in which specialists are at hand to provide guidance while local educators and citizens form their opinions. 1. The process outlined above cannot be set down as operational for every citizen-type study. There will be idiosyncracies peculiar to every survey, and each must be tailored to fit the particular need of the com- munity being surveyed. John English pointed out the fact that "no single list of techniques can be established for future surveys, because each new survey must fit the specific situation. "2 The final stage of the citizen-type survey is the preparation of a written report. This is a compilation of the findings of the sub- committees, and also a presentation of the conclusions and recom- mendations. The important concept in citizen-involved studies is the fact that the citizens, themselves, have the major responsibility in the formation 1Kenneth L. Husbands, "A Comparative Study of a Self Survey and an Expert Survey of an Elementary School Cur riculum," Doctoral Thesis, University of Illinois, 1952. 2John W. English, "An Investigation of Techniques Used in Determin— ing School Building Need, " Doctoral Thesis, University of Michigan, 1951. 35 of recommendations and the analysis and collection of the data. Favorable action following a survey is thought to be more likely if local educators and local citizens have a part in making the survey. It is recognized by the consultants of Michigan State University that this is the most preferred type of surveybecause it involves the citizens. It is not without weakness, however. At times, leadership at the local level is not as effective as it might be. As a result, the solution to many educational problems end in deadlock rather than compromise and progress. The Expert-Type Study In the early years of the survey movement, surveys were pre- dominantly conducted by outside experts. These experts were those who had gained considerable experience in school surveying, and who would enter the community, study the situation, diagnose the problem and make recommendations to overcome it. They generally dealt with the negative aspect of the situation, and were quick to point the finger of guilt if the program fell below expected levels. As the name "expert“ might imply, this type of study suggests that the consultants have most, if not all, the answers to the particular problems of the school districts. In many instances, the experts come into the school, and after exposure to the data are able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the district. Many times, these generalizations are arrived at without the initial involvement of the administration and staff. Many boards of education prefer the expert-type study, and they certainly do have their place in the survey movement. In some cases where, in the interests of time or due to an emergency in the school district, it is necessary to conduct an expert-type study, no other choice is available. Some boards of education prefer to accept the consultants‘ word as final, and have no desire to involve citizens. They enjoy having 36 the work done by "outsiders" so that they are free to accept or reject the findings when the report is submitted tothe community. The con- sultants in this type of study seldom get emotionally involved in the community, and at times have little sympathy for their problems after they leave the community. Many citizens look to the expert for advice, and feel that this is the last word in solving school problems. Some citizens feel so strongly in favor of taking the consultants' advice that they refuse to participate in the citizen-type survey. Heretofore, most school surveys were conducted with a particular purpose in mind or to meet a specific emergency. The modern concept seems to deviate from this and conceive the survey as a comprehensive, continuous process of c00perative participation by administrators, citizens, staffs and consultants with the specific thought in mind of pro- viding the best educational program possible in meeting the needs of the youth of their community. This fact is substantiated by Sumption, when he writes about the trend of school surveys of the future: It is clear that both the concept and the method of the school survey are undergoing significant change, and from the present trend, it might be predicted that the survey of the future will be a school community planning project in which the 'expert' staff will serve largely, if not entirely, in an advisory capacity.1 Certainly, the expert-type study has a significant place in school surveys of today. But, as pointed out above, the trend indicates the role of the expert is becoming more'advisory than dictatorial. A number of the universities involved in school surveys throughout the nation only participate in those of the "expert-type, " and many of them have contributed significantly to the survey movement. It would appear that as long as there are those consultants with a wide variety of school ISumption, op. cit., ("Survey of Surveys“), p. 92. 37 experiences and as long as there are: school districts in need of help and advice, the expert will always be in demand, whether or not he is participating in a formal kind of school survey. CHAPTER III AN EXAMINATION OF SCHOOL SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS It will be the purpose of this chapter to analyze the quantity and quality of the major school survey recommendations made dur- ing. the seven-year period from 1 January 1954 to 30 December 1960. The first section of the chapter will present general opinions concerning the understanding and acceptance of school survey recom- mendations. We shall examine the degree to which the four sub- groups (administrators, board of education members, staff, lay citizens) perceived the survey recommendations. In the next section, we shall look at the degree of acceptance of survey recommendations. As a part of this, we will look at the recommendations which were actually carried out, and determine whether or not it was possible to carry them out. Next, we will examine the opinions of the superintendents of the surveyed schools concerning the extent to which the recommendations were followed. We shall then look at the reasons given for not follow- ing school survey recommendations. The final section of this chapter concerns the quality of school survey recommendations. We shall examine the superintendents' opinions concerning quality, and their reasons for judging poor quality. Opinions Concerning Understanding and Acceptance of Recommendations One of the most pressing problems in the field of school adminis- tration is that of keeping the citizens of the school district informed on 38 39 school matters. It is equally important that the administration, board of education, faculty and lay citizens understand school business affairs, so that they may intelligently discuss school matters. Many small problems become large ones through misunderstanding. Research has shown that people will generally support educationif they are well informed on the matters requiring their support.1 It is human nature that people are more likely to support that which is made clear and understandable to them. On the other hand, reluctance, suspicion and doubt creep in where a lack of information and understanding pre- vails. Degree to Which Understood by Four Sub-Groups It is one of the main responsibilities of those groups requesting school surveys to keep the public informed. One of the important aspects of public relations is understanding, and understanding is important when we concern ourselves with the many recommendations whichwere made by the citizens groups and the consultants. One of the basic questions which could be asked is, "Were the recommendations understood by those reading them?" This general question was asked on the questionnaire (Appendix B). Table IV presents the Opinions of the total group concerning the extent to which survey recommendations were understood by administrators, board members, faculty and citizens. Degree to Which Accepted by Four Sub-Groups Of the 166 who returned questionnaires, 148, or 89. 2%, felt that school administrators actually understood school survey recommenda- tions. Only eighteen of the 166, or 11.8%, thought that the 1Gordon McCluskey, Education and Public Understanding (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., publishers}. 1962). 40 Table IV. Responses Concerning the Extent to Which School Survey Recommendations Were Understood by the Citizens of the School District Total Return of Total Recommendations Categories Questionnaire Yes Percent No- Percent Administration 166 148 89. 2 18 ll. 8 Board Members 166 143 86.1 23 13. 9 Faculty 166 134 80.4 32 19.6 Citizens 166 107 64. 2 59 35.8 41 administrators did not understand the recommendations. . A total of 143 of the 166 who returned the questionnaires, or 86.1%, felt the board of education understood the survey recommendations. Only twenty—three of 166,1 or 13. 9%, felt the board did not understand the recommendations. A total of 134 of 166, or 80.4%, believed thatthe faculty understood the survey recommendations. Only 107 of 166,. or 64. 2%, of those questioned felt that the lay citizens understood the recommendations. Fifty-nine of 166, or 35.8%, did not feel the lay citizens understood school survey recommendations. To understand the facts in any report is not to say that you accept them. So it is with school survey recommendations. Table V presents the opinions of the total group concerning the extent to which survey recommendations were accepted by administrators, board members, faculty and lay citizens. Of the 166 questionnaires returned,133, or 79.8%, of the respondents believed the administrators accepted the school survey recommendations. Thirty-three of 166, or 20.2%, believed the administrators did not accept the recommendations. It is interesting to note here that the respondents believed the administrators were most prone to the acceptance of survey recommendations. A total of 128 of 166, or 76.8%, felt the school faculty members accepted the recommendations. This is perhaps true because the citizenry, in general, look upon the faculty as intelligent persons capable of under— standing school matters. A total of 124 of 166, or 74.4%, believed the recommendations were accepted by the board of education. Only 101 of 166, or 60.9%, of those who returned the questionnaires believed the recommendations were accepted by lay citizens. 42 Table V. Responses Concerning the Acceptance of Survey Recommendations No. of Returned Acceptance of Recommendations Category Questionnaires Yes Percent No Percent Administrators 166 133 79. 8 33 20. 2 Faculty 166 128 76.8 38 23.2 Board of Education 166 124 74. 4 42 25. 6 Citizens 166 101 60.9 65 39.1 43 Degree of Acceptance Recommendations Carried Out and Possibility of Carrying Out One measure of quality in dealing with school survey recommenda- tions is to look at the degree to which survey recommendations were carried out, and then to compare thenresults with the possibility for carrying out the recommendations. Respondents were given the opportunity to indicate whether or not they thought a majority of the recommendations had been carried out. They were then asked if they thought it possible for the districts to carry out the recommendations... The comparison is shown in Table VI. This table differs from the previous tables in that, here, each of the four sub—groups have actually given their own responses to the question of the degree of acceptance of the recommendations. Almost one-half, or 49. 3%, of the respondents felt that a majority of the recommendations had been carried out. Of the four categories examined, the board of education members felt most strongly in this regard, with sixteen of twenty-five, or 64%, indicating they thought a majority of the recommendations had been carried out. An interesting comparison shows that 120 of 166, or 72%, of all respondents believed it possible for the district to carry out the school survey recommen- dations. Of the four categories examined, the administrators, with thirty-one of thirty-nine, or 80%, felt most strongly about the possibility of carry§g out the recommendations. Extent to Which Recommendations were Followed _ To determine the extent to which the districts followed the recom- mendations, copies of the questionnaire were sent to the present superintendents of the school districts where the consultants of 44 Table VI. A Comparison of the RespOnses as to Whether Recommen- dations Have Been Carried Out and the PoSsibility of Carrying Out Recommendations in Surveyed School Districts w— Majority of Recommen- Possible for District dations have been to Carry out recommen- carried out dations Categories Yes Percent No Per‘c ent Yes Per-cent No Percent Administration 18 46.1 21 53.9 31 80.0 8 20.0 Board of Education 16 64. O 9 36. 0 18 72. 0 7 28. 0 Faculty 7 53.8 6 46.2 9 69.0 4 31-0 Citizens 41 46.1 48 53.9 62 69.7 27 30.3 Total 82 84 120 46 Average Percent 49. 3 50. 6 72. 0 28. 0 45 Michigan State University and the citizens had conducted school surveys from 1 January 1954 through. 30 December 1960. The questionnaire asked the superintendents. to indicate the extent to which recommen- dations had been followed, as well as their evaluations of the recommendations. These evaluations will be covered‘in the latter part of this chapter. All but one of the superintendents returned the questionnaire. Twenty-one of the thirty-three superintendents who responded indicated that they had been associated with the school districts at the time of the surveys. Table VII shows a list of the surveyed schools and the extent to which the recommendations were followed. The totals indicate that of the 116 major recommendations, fifty- six, or 48. 3%, were completely followed by the school district. In addition to this, thirty-one, or an additional 26. 5%, of the recommendations were partially followed by the school districts. Twenty-three recommendations of the 116, or 19. 7%, were not followed at all. It must be remembered here that in some cases, recommendations required a successful vote of the people V for compliance. Recommendations would be impossible to follow where votes of the people were unsuccessful. Reasons for Not Following Recommendations Of great importance in our examination of school survey recom- mendations are the reasons given for not following them. The reasons for not following survey recommendations presented by the citizens and the consultants are shown in Table VIII. The major reason given for not following the school survey recommendations was insufficient ./ money available in the school district to carry out the recommendations. Unsuccessful votes at the polls was the next most expressed reason. 46 Table VII. Extent to Which Michigan School Districts Followed the Survey Recommendations Made by the Citizens' Committee and Michi- gan State University 1954-1960 Extent to Which Followed School No. of Recom- Not? at No Districts mendations Completely Partially All Response ‘ A.Schools Bloomfield 4 4 0 0 0 Grand Haven 3 O 2 1 0 Lansing 4 1 0 1 2 Southfield 5 1 4 0 0 Warren 3 3 O 0 O B Schools Clarkston 4 2 l 1 0 Coldwater 5 2 3 O 0 Fenton 5 3 1 0 1 Grand Ledge 3 3 0 0 0 Holland 3 2 1 0 0 Kearsley 4 3 1 0 0 Mona Shores 4 4 O 0 0 South Haven 3 3 O 0 0 Sturgis 5 3 2 O 0 C Schools Charlevoix 6 3 2 0 l Fruitport 4 3 0 1 0 Iron River 6 2 2 O 2 Manistee 5 2 O 3 0 Nashville 3 0 l 2 0 Okemos 3 3 0 0 0 Stanton 3 2 l 0 0 Crystal 3 1 2 0 0 D Schools Kinde 4 0 1 3 0 Mackinac Island 6 4 2 O 0 Sheridan 3 1 0 2 0 Sunfield 3 0 0 3 0 Vermontville 3 0 1 2 0 County Districts Baraga 5 0 4 0 ' East Delta 3 1 l O 0 West Delta 1 0 l O 0 Totals 116 56 31 23 6 47 mwN NmH HIH om A: H.308 --m- --- 1H ---------- o- - -- --m ----------- m ----------- n fine-mama. New..Hw-mmmmmmmmow-H.mmo-Hw-a-Hmm-”mm o m o H N mudoqumGoo c3 doc/Hm on. .33on mcoHumpGoEEooon condemn—Hm ~6er wsHHoom oHHH. .mH w H» o H m .CGoNHHHo deHnoo Ho mooHCH Hoes-Hoodooonnm .wH w He H H N moofiHgoo do ankuoHumoH Ho Home-H .mH H: m o H HV mHaHmuoHomoH 0.23033 ongonm Hon UHHU mquHHfimdoO .NH 2 m a N H breech anaconda: on. nonsense Hooeon so 9:30 .2 NH w H H m >o>u5m HooHHom now 9:53 oHoHunHonanHde .oH mH HH H H N mmozpoanEIomoHo >nconHoHO .0 NH 9 N N He mcoHHmHodoEEooou oHHmHHmoHGD .w h H o H o N m mods-cognac 0 n3 moofiHfiaoo HHHB «some 683 uGoHoHHfiomGH .N. 0N HH N N m mconHoHo 0:» mo cesium HdHoGfi/onnn .o N N m N N m H mGoHu—opaoggo ooh HGQEoHnHEH o» pan-.00. mo when so oosmuosHom .m hN oH He m Ho mcoHumpaoggooon 5H3 acoaooammme whofimosco mo Honoom .HV 0N NH 0 m w GoHumodHuo _ Ho Henson .3. mGoHumHon oHHnanH o>HuoowwocH .m mm NH N m HH mHHonH 95 um 30> Hammooodmab .N om NN H He. 0 mGoHumvdogooou ,- . uso anus-mo 3 03.3225 >285 uGoHonwdmcH .H Hon—0H. mconHuHO 339mm . noHomodHoH :oHHmS Ho puoom ImHGHEU< mSOwudUGUEEOOUM amour-Hfiw HOOSUW MGMBOHHOrsH 907M HON mQOmdvm .HHH> «Xanadu-H 48 An ineffective public relations program by the board of education was given as the third most popular choice. Many other reasons for not following survey recommendations are itemized in the remaining portion Of Table VIII, with the number of responses given for each. Since the questionnaire provided Opportunity for open- ended responses, it was necessary to group the responses intovarious cate- gories as listed in Table VIII-A, B, C and D. This represents, as closely as possible, the language used by the respondents. It is interesting to examine the criticisms of the four sub-groups. The reasons given in Table VIII will be grouped into specific categories of criticism in an attempt to examine the areas of weakness. The following reasons for not following school survey recommen- dations are identified as criticism against the Michigan State University consultants. The numbers at the right indicate the number Of criticisms levied by the specific group indicated. Table VIII~A. Criticism Against the Michigan State University Consultants Adminis-I Board of Lay tration Education Faculty Citizens 1. Insufficient time spent with committees by consultants 5 2 O 10 2 . Unreali stic r ecommen- dations 4 2 2 9 3. Consultants did not provide effective leadership 4 1 0 5 4. The feeling that alternate recommendations should be given by consultants 2 1 0 - 3 49 The following reasons for not following school recommendations are identified as criticisms against the citizens of the community. The numbers at the right indicate the number of criticisms levied by the specific group indic ated. Table VIII-B. Criticisms Against the Citizens of the Community Adminis- Board of Lay tration Education Faculty Citizens 1. Unsuccessful votes at polls 11 3 2 17 2. Provincial attitude 5 2 2 11 3. Citizenry close—mindedness 2 l l 11 4. Desire of school district to maintain identity 1 2 l 8 5. Preconceived ideas of citizenry 3 1 O 4 6. Religious intolerance O 1 0 1 Total 22 10 6 52 The following reasons for not following school survey recommen- dations are identified as criticisms of the board of education. The numbers at the right indicate the number of criticisms levied by the specific group indicated (see Table VIII—C, page 50). The only criticism levied against the citizens committee was lack of leadership. Two administrators, one board member, one faculty member and four citizens indicated this criticism. The combined results of the criticisms are shown in Table VIII—D. of the 76 administrative criticisms, 37 or 48. 5% were against the board of education. Twenty-two of 76 or 29. 2% were criticisms against the citizens. The group receiving the least criticism were the citizens com- mittees. 50 Table VIII-C. Criticisms of the Board of Education Admi‘nis— Board of Lay tration Education Faculty Citizens 1. Insufficient money to carry out recommendations 9 4 1 22 2. Ineffective Public Relations 8 3 0 18 3. Disagreement with recom- mendations 4 3 4 16 4. Reluctance on part of board to implement l3 2 2 5 5. Inappropriate timing 3 1 l 8 Total 37 13 8 6 9 Table VIII—D. Combined Results of the Criticisms Adminis- Board of Lay tration % Edu. % Faculty % Citizens % Criticisms against consultants 15 19.7 6 20.0 2 11.7 27 17.7 Criticisms against citizens 22 29.2 10 33.3 6 35.3 52 34.4 Criticisms against board of education 37 48.5 13 43.4 8 47.4 69 45.3 Criticisms against citizens committees 2 2.6 1 3.3 1 5.6 4 2.6 ——-—-———-—-——-—_—--_——--—--————_———--—-—-———-——_-—————---————---—---— 51 It is interesting to note the degree of consistency of criticism in each category. The board of education received almost 50% of the criticism in each of the four sub-groups. Criticisms Of the consultants were 20% or less in each of the sub-groups. The criticism against the voluntary citizens committees were the least in each of the four sub— groups. Quality of Recommendations Superintendents‘ Opinions Concerning Quality Another means of measuring quality in survey recommendations is to ask the administrators of the selected school to objectively evaluate the recommendations as to good, mediocre or poor, and to justify their choices. Opportunity was provided on the initial questionnaire (see Appendix A) for the superintendents to evaluate the recommendations as to good, mediocre or poor. A list of the participating schools, with the number of major recommendations and the responses to the evaluation, is shown in Table IX. Of the 116 major recommendations given, ninety-seven, or 83.6%, were rated as good. Further analysis of the table reveals that eleven, or 9.4%, were rated as mediocre and four, or 3. 5%, received a poor rating. It should be noted here that four, or 3. 5%, of the recommen- dations received no rating at all. Over one-half of the districts surveyed rated all of their recom- mendations as good. None of the districts rated all of their recommen- dations as poor. It is worthy of mention here that twenty-seven of thirty districts reporting, or 90. 0%, rated none of the recommendations as poor. 52 Table IX. Evaluation, by Michigan Superintendents, of School Survey Recommendations Made by Citizens and Michigan State University Consultants School No. of Recom- Quality No Districts mendations Good Mediocre Poor Response A Schools Bloomfield Hills 4 4 0 0 0 Grand Haven 3 2 1 0 0 Lansing 4 2 2 O O Southfield 5 4 1 0 0 Warren 3 3 O O 0 B Schools Clarkston 4 4 0 0 0 Coldwater 5 4 l 0 0 Fenton 5 4 1 0 0 Grand Ledge 3 3 0 0 0 Holland 3 3 0 0 0 Kearsley 4 4 0 0 0 Mona Shores 4 4 0 0 0 South Haven 3 3 0 0 0 Sturgis 5 4 1 O O C.Schools Charlevoix 6 O 0 1 Fruitport 4 2 2 0 0 Iron River (West Iron CO.) 6 4 0 O 2 Manistee 5 4 1 O 0 Nashville 3 1 l 1 0 Okemos 3 3 0 O O Stanton 3 3 0 0 0 Crystal 3 3 0 0 0 D Schools Kinde 4 4 0 O 0 Mackinac Island 6 6 0 O O Sheridan 3 3 0 O 0 Sunfield 3 3 0 O O Vermontville 3 1 O 2 0 County Districts Baraga 5 3 0 1 1 East Delta 3 3 0 0 0 West Delta 1 l 0 0 0 ————-—-—-----———--———-——-—————--.———-—_—__-—_.o-—_—----———---———-—-- Totals 116 97 83.6% 11 9.4% 4 3.5% 4 3.5% 53 Reasons for Judging Poor Quality The superintendents of the districts were asked to justify their choices in the space provided on the questionnaire. Since there were so few mediocre and poor responses, the number of criticisms is proportionately small. The following reasons were given in criticism of the quality of the r ec ommendations: l. Impractical in general 3 2. Insufficient time allowed for survey 2 3. Recommendations were not specific enough 2 4. Recommendations did not consider the ability of the district to pay 2 5. The area was unsuitable for the type of recom- mendation given 2 6. Program rejected by the voters l 7. No specific reason indicated 1 8. Disagreement by the board of education and the administration 1 9. Underestimate of enrollments by consultants l CHAPTER IV AN EVALUATION OF SCHOOL SURVEYS This chapter presents an overall evaluation of school surveys. We will consider first the general reactions to Michigan State University surveys as viewed by the people actually involved in surveys during the period from 1 January 1954 through 30 December 1960. Next, we will make a comparison between the goals and the stated purposes of school surveys. The next section deals with general reactions to the University consultants involved in surveys. The final section of the chapter gives suggestions for the improvement of future school surveys. In order to gather data and information for this phase of the study, questionnaires (Appendix B) were sent to a representative sample of administrators, board of education members, faculty and lay citizens. All of the reactions received were contributions from people who were actually involved in the school surveys in their respective districts. A total of 245 questionnaires were sent, and data concerning the degree of response to these questionnaires are recorded in Table X. One hundred‘ sixty—six of the 245, or 67. 8%, of the questionnaires sent to people in the four categories mentioned above were returned. The most significant return occurred in the administrators category, where 39 of 40, or 97. 5%, were returned. Least significant in their degree of response were the faculty, who returned only 56% Of the questionnaires. General Reactions to Michigan State University Surveys This section Of the research deals with the general opinions people held concerning the school surveys conducted in their respective school 54 4 Am---“ 55 Table X. Degree of Response to the Questionnaire Sent to Administrators, Board of Education Members, Faculty and Lay Citizens Relative to the Evaluation Of School Surveys Conducted by Michigan State University from 1954 Through 1960 Percent of Category Sent Returned Return Administrators 40 39 97. 5 Board of Education Members 40 25 62. 5 Faculty 25 14 56.0 Lay Citizens 140 89 63. 6 ~_—-——————_———-—-———-__—__————_—-—-———-__________-__________--______ Totals 245 166 67. 8% 56 districts. There are several important aspects to a successful school survey. One is getting the survey started with enthusiasm and purpose. Another is to get as many people involved as possible. Another is keeps- ing the citizens of the community adequately informed during its progress. It is also important that the committee become and remain actively involved in the survey until its completion. In this way, they feel they are actually a part of the total survey, and are more likely to support the findings and recommendations developed by the surveying group. It is equally important when the survey is finished that effective public rela— tions adequately inform the community of its results. In looking at the general reactions to surveys, we will look first at reactions concerning the events which took place prior to the survey. Next, we will look at developments which took place during the survey, and we will then con- clude with those reactions which were evident after the completion of the survey. In examining the events prior to the survey, we shall look at data concerning the orientation and the overall organization exhibited. During the survey itself, one might ask these questions: 1) Were you actively involved in the survey? 2) Were you informed throughout the survey? and 3) Was sufficient time taken to collect all the data necessary for a good survey? After the survey, some of the considerations might be: 1) Were the citizens informed of the results of the survey? 2) Did the survey actually interpret the needs of the school to the citizenry? and 3) Was the right kind Of survey used in the community? Respondents were asked to comment on the questions mentioned above. This data will be examined in this section of the report. Since it was the desire of the writer to eliminate any "middle of the road" answers, the respondents were asked to make either an affirmative or negative response to each question. 57 The consultants, the citizens committee, the board of education and the administrators spend many hours prior to the actual survey in orienting themselves to the community and planning the overall course of action to be taken during the survey. This is a most important part of the school survey operation. Respondents were asked their impression of the orientation process. Answers to this question are shown in Table XI. Nearly nine-tenths, or 89. 2%, of the respondents felt that the orientation to school surveys in their school districts was satisfactory. It is interesting to note that all of the board members queried felt the orientation by the consultants was satisfactory. The least impressed category was the lay citizen group, with 77 Of 89 affirmative responses, or 86. 5%. Equally important in the pre-survey operation is the organization of the survey. The success or failure of many school surveys has been attributed directly to the overall organization Of the survey, itself. Respondents were asked specifically if they thought the survey was well organized. The results of this question are shown in Table XII. A total of 148 of 166 respondents, or 89.2%, believed the survey to be well organized. Less than five percentage points separated the four categories regarding this question. An important aspect of a successful survey is the extent to which citizens are actively involved in the survey. The greater the involvement on the part of the citizens, the greater the Opportunity to have persons in the community who are informed and who will be able to interpret the results of the survey to their friends and neighbors. Table XIII shows the extent to which respondents were actively involved in the survey. A total of 138 of 166, or 83. 1%, believed they were actively involved in the school survey in their districts. Further analysis of the table shows that less than half, or 46. 3%, of the faculty felt they were actively 58 Table XI. Responses Concerningthe Orientation to School Surveys DO you believe your orientatiOn to the survey by MSU consultants satisfactory? Category Yes % No % Administration 34 87.1 5 12. 9 Board of Education 25 100. 0 0 O. 0 Faculty 12 92.3 1 7.7 Lay Citizens 77 86.5 12 13.5 Totals 148 89 Z 18 10 8 Table XII. Responses Concerning the Organization of School Surveys Did you believe the survey was well organized? Category Yes % No % Administration 34 87.1 5 12. 9 Board of Education 23 92. 0 2 8. 0 Faculty 12 92.3 1 7.7 Lay Citizens 79 88.7 10 11,3 59 Table XIII. Responses Concerning the Extent to Which Respondents Were Actively Involved in the Survey DO you believe you were actively involved in the survey? Category Yes % No % Administration 31 79.4 8 20.6 Board of Education 21 84. 0 4 16. 0 Faculty 6 46. 3 7 53. 7 Lay, Citizens 80 89.7 9 11.3 Totals 138 83.1 28 16.9 l 60 involved in the survey. This fact was brought out in the section on im- proving future surveys, when suggestions were made indicating the staff should be more actively involved in school surveys. The lay citizens, themselves, felt most actively involved in surveys, with 89. 7% indicating this fact. It is also interesting to note that over one-fifth, or 20.6%, of the administrators felt they were not actively involved in school surveys in their particular communities. It was mentioned earlier that an important aspect of a successful school survey was to keep the members of the committee, as well as the citizens of the community, adequately informed during its progress. Respondents were given an opportunity to answer a question concerning the extent to which they were kept informed throughout the survey. The reactions Of the respondents to this question are recorded in Table XIV. Over four-fifths, or 84. 3%, of the respondents felt that they were kept well informed throughout the survey. It is interesting to note that the board of education members, as a group, felt that they were the least informed of the four categories. Another item which might be brought up during the course of the survey is the amount of time spent in the collection of data. Respondents were asked if sufficient time was allowed for gathering data during the survey. The results of this question are given in Table XV. A total of 143 of 166, or 86.1%, of the respondents believed that sufficient time was allowed for gathering data for the survey. The faculty, with seven of thirteen, or 53.7%, indicating affirmative responses, were the least impressed with the amount of time spent for gathering data. Those respondents who felt- that insufficient time was allowed for the study were quick to point out this fact in their suggestions for the improve- ment of future surveys. 61 Table XIV. Responses Concerning the Extent to Which Respondents Were Informed Throughout the Survey Were you kept progressively informed through— out the survey? Category Yes % No % Administration 35 89.7 4 10. 3 Board of Education 20 80. 0 5 20. 0 Faculty 11 84.6 2 15.4 Lay Citizens 74 83.1 15 16.9 Totals 140 84. 3 26 15. 7 Table XV. Responses Concerning the Time Allowed for Gathering Data During the Survey Was sufficient time allowed for gathering data during the survey? Category Yes % No % Administration 34 87. 1 5 12. 9 Board of Education 22 88. 0 3 12. 0 Faculty 7 53.7 6 46.3 Lay Citizens 80 89.7 9 10.3 ——-———-—-—-——-—-—_-—--————-—-————-——_—————--—-————-~——-——_-—--——— Totals 143 86.1 23 13.9 62 One of the important considerations when the survey is completed is the extent to which results of the survey are disseminated. Respond- ents were asked if they thought themselves to be well informed of the results of the survey. The results of the question are shown in Table XVI. The results of the question concerning the extent to which respond- ents felt they were informed of the results of the survey shows that 143 of 166, or 86.1%, answered affirmatively to this question. It is interesting to note, however, that slightly over one-half, or 53. 7%, of the faculty felt they were well informed of the survey even though they had indicated in Table XIV that they were kept progressively informed during the course of the survey. Also important after a school survey is the degree to which sur- veys help interpret the needs of the school district to the citizenry. The four groups of participants were asked to record their reactions . relative to the extent that the surveys conducted in their districts helped to interpret the needs Of the school to the citizenry. The results of this question are recorded in Table XVII. Nearly three-fourths, or 72. 3%, Of the respondents thought that surveys definitely helped to interpret the needs of the school to the citizenry. Data in Table XVII shows that slightly over one-fourth, or 27. 7%, of the respondents felt that surveys did nothing in this regard. It is encouraging that almost four-fifths, or 79.4%, of the administrators of the school districts believed that surveys were a great help in inter- preting needs of the school to the people of the community. This pre— mise is also supported by almost three-fourths, or 72. 0%, of the board members. This type of support lends confidence and support to the school survey as a means of helping to provide more adequate facilities, improved programs and sound information concerning schools in their respective school districts . 63 Table XVI. Responses Concerning the Extent to Which Respondents Were Informed of the Results of the Survey Do you believe you were well informed of the results of the survey? Category Yes % No % Administration 35 89.7 4 10. 3 Board of Education 22 88. 0 3 12. 0 Faculty 7 53.7 6 46. 3 Lay Citizens 80 89.7 9 10. 3 Totals 143 86.1 23 13.9 Table XVII. Responses Regarding the Extent to Which School Surveys Helped to Interpret the Needs Of the School to the Citizenry Did the school survey help interpret the needs of the school to the citizenry? Category Yes % No % Administrators 31 79.4 8 20. 6 Board of Education 18 72. 0 7 28. 0 Faculty 9 79.8 4 20.2 Lay Citizens 62 69.6 27 30.4 Totals 120 72.3 46 27.7 64 An attempt was made on the questionnaire to determine whether or not the respondents were actually aware of the kind of surveys which 'were being conducted in their school districts. Respondents were asked to identify the kind of survey they thought they had, the kind of survey they preferred and the kind of survey they thought produced the best results. The responses, broken down into each of the four categories questioned, are shown in Table XVIII. A further comparison of the kinds of school surveys conducted is shown in Table XVIII-A. The kind of survey which did not involve citizens, but only con— sultants, was by far the least popular, with less than 6% indicating a desire for this type. The most popular survey, as indicated by preference given and the kind respondents believed produced the best results, was the citizen-involved survey, where the citizens collected the data and analyzed all the facts. In this type of survey, citizens made the recommendations, with the aid and advisement of the consultants. The greatest number of "no response" answers was recorded when we asked the respondents what kind of survey produces the best results, with twenty-one of 166, or 12.7%, not answering that particular question. It is interesting to note the closeness in the percentages between the kind of survey they thought they had, the preferred choice, and the kind of survey respondents believed produces the best results. An Examination of Goals and Purposes Of School Surveys One of the tasks of the writer of this dissertation is to' examine the goals and primary purposes for having school surveys. When school adminis- trators or boards of education ask the University for assistance, there is generally a specific purpose or reason for their request. This is true even though some Of the following statements may seem inconsistent with this premise. An examination of the various printed reports re- vealed that twenty-one of the thirty-three school districts felt that the 4 Arm- _.._ A...” S 2 a N m s m H o o S 2 o o a oncomnouozs .unmm m 33. one mHOOHHOm MN HH H m m «N HH H M HH NN oH H m w ES .mGchmHnH CH Oo>HO>GH mH >HHGSEEOO onfldo ocHH. 3c .mHGmHHSmGOO on» Ho 3088335 can no me o 3 mm moH oo a 3 Hm 2: oo w 2 mm Be 23 e33 neofleeeofi Icsooou ovaE mdoNHHHO on» ”macaw can So oN>Hmsm HOG-m nooHHOO mGoNHHHD Hm 65 .HuH-mOnH OH mdoflmpcog mN HuH m m m NN HVH N H- Hn HN - N o o Iaooon “UH-ma.H mucmqum IGOO .mudmuHsmGOO 23 HO mwdHHOGHH Bot/oh mGoNHuHO HN .Undoo. on: O» mcoflmHu m N N o H o H N o m He H N o H Inoggooon pudendum .HHoaHu odeE muamuHSmGoo ..Uo>HO>aHImGoNHHHO OZ HH L O a a V L O a V o u. e o P o H H o W % .0 H m. P 1 I. 3 e m 1 .- O c w 1 n... o e m a 1 P u a I P u I a H P u w ,A O m w ,m. o M. w ,A o m. T! u T! c T: c 3 3 3 P P m>o>h5 O m A: n n m- m w HU .VH .mHHDmom - umomH oeHu mooSHOOnnH po>oHHomH HuoH-H >93. «HmdoHH monocqomwom >o>HSm HO UGHVH Oonnomonnm >o>n5w mo HOGHVH munopaommom >o>ndm HO 9.3M: m>v>hdm HOOdHUW HO mpCHvH mSOw-mer 05 mo GOmHHdQEOU < .HHH>VA OHAHNH. 66 o.ooH ooH o.ooH ooH o.ooH 00H Hooch. ll llllllllllll 1 llllllllll L 1 llllll 1 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1 llllllllllllllllllllllllllll oz: E IN a. m;- Na uncommon oz 3. .uumm o and“ one mHOOcHOm N. .mH MN m .0H 0N m .mH NN ofi “MEGS-ma GH po>Ho> IE .3 Sascha-80 chino 9:. Ge .mucmqumnoo 65 mo ucoEomH>Hum HOG-muse 0%. m .mm N@ m .No moH m .Hso 2: 5H3 maoflopcocfidooon evH-mc.H mcoNHoHo can “macaw ofi HHm onions new uooHHoo ween-3H0 Hm .OHNOQ o.mH mN 0.: .c-N >.NH HN on. msoflmoeogooon ouHmS musdqumGoo ”muddfidmaoo 65 HO mmGHHEHw Bogus mGoNHuHO HN .Huumon o5 OH H .m m o 3v o «N v maOHA—mocogaooou pudendum .AHoaHu execs musmqumnoo .Huo>Ho>sHImcoNHfio 07H HH udoonona Hongdz usounonm Mont-£52 «doononm Hofifidz H.308 H.309 Hooch. .moHdmon «won. one moodpoflm oo>oHHonH pounowonm OMB >023 ugwsoau mane-p.56 mo mcdeH mDoHnm-P mucopnommom >o>ndm mo Hung ewes-Ham mo Hung muaopdoamom .3555 Ho HOGHVH F11 muHOmoMH umom wdHoso0nnH mochH new nonnomounm mHo-sHvH 630.3280 when/How HOOeHOm Ho mo-QHVH HO mGOmHHmnHEOO .<-HHH>N oHooH. 67 nature of their request was such that it required immediate attention. It was anticipated that the various reports would show in printed form the goals or purposes of the school survey. However, only four of the twenty-one which required immediate attention had stated goals at the outset. In only six of the entire group of thirty—three schools were V there pre- stated goals or purposes. In the questionnaire, respondents were given many opportunities to respond to questions relating to goals and purposes of school surveys. _/ It was felt at the outset that respondents might not recall specific goals or purposes related to their school survey. For that reason a list of some of the major goals was drawn up (see question 2, Appendix B). It was also recognized that this list was not all encompassing. An op- portunity was, therefore, provided for persons to add any purposes of their own choice to the list already drawn up. In another section of the questionnaire, an opportunity was provided for respondents, in an open- ended question, to express what they thought to be the goals of the survey. An attempt is made here to see if people started their survey with a specific purpose in mind, or if the survey was conducted without thought of specific accomplishment. An opportunity is given in the question- naire to comment on the value of school surveys. In connection with this question, we were interested in determining if surveys were being used for specific purposes, and whether or not they were helpful in accomplishing specific purposes. We were also concerned with the specific value that respondents placed upon school surveys. Open-ended questions provide for a great variety of response, but generally the responses could be divided into specific categories, with a minimum of overlap into other, but similar, categories. The open- ended responses to the question of what respondents thought the goals of the survey were are sh0wn in Table XIX. The responses from the administrators, the board of education, the faculty and the citizens are 68 MA m MA as n .1 .. a Na H Knfimfiafioo 33 a: >mno>osudoo d o>H0mom .mH IIIII llllnllflfll IIIILIIDI llflllflflfll1fllll IllllllllfllfllllflfllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NH w NH w I .1 u n I u Unmom mo muonEoE mcoam “mange: vumnodoo .NH Jeni»? ..... mu lei... 1-11- 11.11-1r1M111w1: immim1mwmmmmmwmmmmmmmmwwmwmwfimwwwwdmmmmmumm -3-.;ml.-.:mm:$:.1.......-.:-1-M.w::N:- 1-9.--m- ........... may.wwwm.m.mm..mw$.flmmmflmW. 1w1111mm.-- 1.1M: Jw--. -1..- .1...1-..1H1-1....-1 11..--..n111:-1-.111-1-1-1--1-wwwwmmfiwmmmwwwwwli udum .aofimfimfififlgpm $3.90qu .Uhdon. 9002/qu mfiofleowcdaaou max/CHASE .0 11w.-1-w.~.-. 11m: {3-11%- 11m1i1m1iw111 foliw-.. ................... mmeWWw.mo.m.mo.mmmw-i mo mcoflmoflmgfl Hmfiodmdfl cadampopcp .w -M.--.~.m1-- 11w..- .om--. 1-..- .1ul11m---.m---1-1m111M-.. .............. mmwwmwmemmm.m.mmmmmmnw---- Hoflwfifi wnflaflwano mo mpodfioa >Udum .b -w---.~.w----m---.mw-- 10...--H ..... Mileilimlwm ....................... mmmmmmmdmflmmuli coflom o» innsouflfio ofi oumHSEflm .o -w--11«.m:--w---w.~-- -.m-:~.i--w-:.o ...... widow ...... gawwmmmmwmflo.wwwmmmmwmxwmsw.um- 61-11%! imi Imw: lml Em.-. 11m---.m.-- {midi .......... mmmmmmwwmwwwmmmmwmmmwwmwdw- -m---..s:.fl-m-:....m:.. HNHMHMHHHHHUME1www.mmmmwwwmmflflmwww.m1.sww..mmmmm- N me fly >N H w H NH N wfl sofidxoncm H0\pam GofiumuammHOOH .mcflofinumfipoh unpdum .N -.H--11n.s:. --m---.o.e.- Io: J11. 11m---.$--.--n.---mfl ...... mmflwwmwwwmwwwwmmmmms.wwwwmmem- O L H O H J H H H V a. w m 1. m w 1 m m. p i W H m y1 n m1 x “a m E 9 n p. U H U A O I. S S H I. n e 3 e u p 1. v... n m m>o>ndm mEu mo mamom s 9.3 one? “an? .qofldfifimo .39» 5 uoflhuwfiQ HOOSUW HamwSH. an >0>n5w Hoogom 063 m0 mHmoO 23 9:930:00 Gofiumodfl uoUGHIGoAO cu newcommom .van .3an 69 tabulated separately, with the specific rank within each of those groups shown in the table. The totals are shown at the right, with an overall rank given as a result of the total of the four groups surveyed. It is interesting to note that the most common response for all groups, except the faculty and the board, was to provide more adequate facilities. The faculty and the boards of education thought the most important goal of school surveys was to study redistricting, reorgani- zation and annexation. Because the faculty was the smallest group sampled, the results could have been somewhat distorted as a result. Seventy—one of 166, or 42.7%, of those returning questionnaires felt that providing more adequate facilities was the most important goal of school surveys. Second in importance was the study of redistricting, annexation and reorganization. Following in immediate succession in importance concerning the goals of school surveys was the need for more information about the school district and planning for future school needs. Opportunity was given to recipients of questionnaires to choose one of the goals listed below, or to write in another goal of their own choosing: ’ 1. To gain more information about your school 2. To pass a bond issue 3. To obtain higher standards in the school 4. To vote extra operating millage 5. To study redistricting, reorganization or annexation 6. To help provide more adequate facilities 7. To expand the curriculum 8. Other The responses to the respondents choices made concerning the primary purposes of school surveys are shown in Table XX. The administrators, board of education, faculty and citizens responses are listed separately, and the total for each primary purpose is shown at the right in the order of importance. The total shows that eighty-eight 70 Table XX. Responses to Choices Made Concerning Primary Purposes of School Surveys H 0 What did you consider the primary +3 .3 purpose of the survey? 3 M .2 ‘8 w s: ,d 3‘ ‘3 "—1 .—1 O) H E 3" 1'3 N (U 'é I: ‘3 1‘3 793 ‘6 «1 <1 m L21 0 s a: To help provide more adequate facilities 20 ll 52 88 I To gain more information about your school 24: 10 7 45 86 2 To study redistricting or reorganization 21 13 10 35 79 3 To obtain higher standards in the school 14 10 3 48 75 4 To expand the curriculum 15 9 4 40 68 5 To pass bond issue 10 5 l 32 48 6 To vote extra operating millage 3 5 1 19 2.8 7 To stimulate citizenry to action for the school 2 1 Z 16 21 8 To plan for future school needs 3 2 2. 12 19 9 71 of 166, or 52.8%, of those returning questionnaires indicated the primary purpose of the survey was to help provide more adequate facilities. It is interesting to note that the responses to the open-ended question and the question where a choice could be made from a pre— determined list, indicated the same first choice. The second choice indicated the fact that the primary purpose of the survey was to gain more information about the school. Eighty- six of the 166 respondents, or 51. 9%, indicated this as a choice to this question. Third in im- portance as a primary purpose was to study redistricting, reorgani- zation or annexation. It should be noted that the first, second and third ranking choices of what the respondents considered primary purposes are also the first three ranks in the open-ended question in the previous table. A question was designed to secure the reaction of the respondents as to whether or not surveys are helpful in accomplishing specific purposes. This data is presented in Table XXI. The response was overwhelming, indicating that 145 of 166, or 87.4%, believed that surveys were helpful in accomplishing specific purposes. It is noteworthy to mention here that the board of education members were almost unani- mous (96 percent) in their feeling that surveys are helpful in accomplish- ing specific purposes. The table also indicates that thirty-four of the thirty—nine school administrators, or 87.2%, had a s’imilar favorable response about school surveys. An attempt was made to secure the reactions of the respondents on whether or not they would advocate school surveys for specific pur- poses in the future. Over four-fifths, or 83.1%, of the respondents, as is shown in Table XXII, advocated school surveys as a means of . I gaining more information about their school. Opportunity was given in this question to choose from the same list of specific purposes given earlier in this section of the chapter. Slightly under three-fourths of 72 Table XXI. Respondents‘ Reactions Relative to Whether or Not Surveys Were Helpful in Accomplishing Specific Purposes Yes Percent No Percent Administration 34 87. 2 5 12.8 Board of Education 24 96. 0 l 4. 0 Faculty 10 76.8 3 23. 2 Citizens 77 86.5 12 13.5 Totals 145 87.4 21 12.6 73 v.3 cam E am 3. 2. w m 2 .2 3 am amazes 9.320% 238 was; .s mam ~50 3 2: mm 3 s o S B 3 mm 253 econ a 923$ .0 m4; 53 am 2: am cm a. o a 2 s mm 833330 86.8me .m N.om 83 om 8: mm «m N S o S a. mm H851, 0:» an mpnmpcmum pogmfin mcficfidunro 3v Ngm was. m... HE mm om m S m om a mm .838 ufiammnoon pad wcfiofifimfloon mamapdum .m mdm m .2 .3. Nun om om N 2 N. M: m 3 33:31..“ 3383 39: BEER madam .N mg: 12 mm w? 3 we N S m an N am Hooeom H99» «doors monumghofih whoa mcdfidmu .H 02 m0? OZ mo? 02 mo? OZ mow. OZ mow OZ mow “Goononm H.305 mdouflwo Knfidomh GOEMUSUM SCENE. mo pnmom nmficdbp‘fi w I: new m>o>95m Smock/pm 50% 0Q wOmomnan oflfloomm 1.8m m>o>1fism mo omb 0H3 mnfldnoonou mcoSUMom .mucopsommom .HHNX 3nt 74 the respondents would advocate school surveys for helping to provide more adequate facilities, and also for use in studying redistricting and reorganization. It is important to note that the two least-selected reasons for advocating school surveys in the future were pas sing a bond issue and voting extra operating millage, with 60. 2 and 53.6%, respectively. Consistent with the findings of Table XX, the respondents indi- cated that surveys had been of greatest value in providing more 3.: information about their school. A total of 138 of 166, or 83.1% indi— cated this choice, while only 16. 9% believed that surveys had little value in providing citizens with more information about their school. The two lowest percentages are consistent with the findings of the previous table, in that surveys were of least value in the area of voting extra operating millage and passing a bond issue, with 32. 6 and 45. 7% affirmative response, respectively. 1 Helping to provide more adequate facilities and helping to expand the curriculum were also given as choices for determining in which areas school surveys had been of value, with 61. 0 and 60. 2%, respectively. Respondents were asked specifically if they thought the survey had been of value in their particular school district. They were given the opportunity to choose from the predetermined list, or to write in other reasons of their own choice. The responses to this question are shown in Table XXIII. A total of 138 of 166, or 83.1%, of the respondents believed the school surveys to be of value in gaining more information about their schools. The second choice in reacting to the value of surveys was help- ing to provide more adequate facilities. Studying redistricting and re— organization and obtaining higher standards in the schools ended in a tie for third place with 51. 8%. Consistent with the findings in Table XXII, 5 7 «.3 8N... N: E mm em 2 N M: s mm 2 82:8 95230 3:8 was; g. m :vm w .3. 00 A: om mm m m ma on 5 NM odmmfi 953 .m msammmna .e $.Nm p.51 E. ow om mm A: M Ma NH m: Hm Edfidofinhdo ofi wfiflpammxrflr .m Mime win. ow em 2. we E a S S S 3 Hooeom 2: E 33285 Harman mEESnO .e N23“ me ow ow mm hm w a a .3 ma ¢N Goths uflcmmhooh .Ho mcflofihumflUOH wflffloduw .m 0.0m 040 me HoH To. mm o N Na MA 2 cm moflfidomw cumswopm 0.85 opgonm mcfimfiom .N mi: Adm mm me MA A: o N .v HM m Tm Hooaom p.90.» p908... fiofludgkofifi whoa mcmflflmO .H 02 wow OZ mow. OZ mo? 02 mow. OZ mow. OZ mow. “Cookom : 130R. 95.5...qu kwquUdh doflumodpmm H8393 m. . . . . . . .. . a: 0.3m.) Ho Ho venom Imflafigpafi Goon. mag >o>n5m 0:“ o>oflon 50% 0Q muff/Ham Hoofiom Ho 0313/ 2.3 8 maoflomom mucopaommom .HHHXN MAmSNH 76 passing a bond issue and voting extra operating millages were least significant as reasons given for the value of school surveys. Reactions to Michigan State University Consultants The purpose of this section of the research is to obtain an objective appraisal of the Michigan State University consultants involved in school surveys. A list of descriptive words was drawn up for this purpose. It was recognized at the outset that this was a very difficult task, and that the list of descriptive words. alone could be the subject of a separate study. But it was an important part of this study, and definitely con-.= tributes to the overall evaluation of school surveys. The writer was unable to uncover any predetermined lists of descriptive, yet evaluative, words which would aid in the appraisal of Michigan State University consultants. It was suggested by the Bureau of Educational Research, Michigan State University, that an original list be drawn up, and that at least six colleagues in the Education Adminis- tration area of Michigan State University evaluate the list and determine which words would be most applicable to the question. This would establish some validity to the list of words used. Respondents were asked to examine the list of words and check as many as they thought were applicable to the consultants representing Michigan State University. Table XXIV shows a listing of the words, and the number of responses each received from the respondents. Examination of the table shows that only eleven respondents failed to indicate any choice in the list of words. A total of 145 of 166, or 87. 3% checked the word Cooperative, thus indicating their favorable feel- ing toward the consultants of Michigan State University. Those other words receiving in excess of 75% response from the respondents were Informed, Intelligent, Neat Appearing and Friendly. Those word 77 Table XXIV. Responses to the Questionnaire Relative to an Evaluation of the. Consultants of Michigan State University Involved in School Surveys from 1954—1960 Adminis- Board of . Total Per-r: tration Educ. Faculty Citizen Response cent Numbers sampled: 39 25 13 89 N=l66 l. Cooperative 35 24 10 76 145 87.3 2. Informed 35 23 9 72 139 83.4 3: Intelligent 34 20 9 70 133 79.8 4. Neat Appearing 33 22 9 69 133 79.8 5. Friendly 32 23 7 70 132 79.2 6. Businesslike 34 20 8 60 122 73. 2 7. Personable 31 18 9 61 119 71.4 8. Tactful 31 22 7 59 119 71.4 9. Competent 32 21 7 56 116 69.6 10. Organized 30 16 6 60 112 67.2 11. Punctual 30 17 7 57 111 66.5 12. Confident 28 20 4 53 105 63.0 13. Considerate 29 16 5 53 103 61.8 14. Democratic 30 17 6 48 101 60.6 15. Practical 28 13 7 49 97 58.2 16. Acceptable 26 16 5 47 .94 56.4 17. Reasonable 22 14 5 49 90 54.1 18. Energetic 25 13 5 46 89 53.4 19. Accurate 25 14 3 45 87 52.2 20. Sensitive 22 11 3 30 66 39.6 21. Dynamic 18 9 4 23 54 32.4 22. Conservative 8 8 3 22 41 24.6 23. Dominating 10 6 4 19 39 23.4 24. Liberal 8 2 0 19 29 17.4 25. Impractical l 0 O 11 12 7.2 26. Authoritarian 2 1 0 7 10 6.1 27. Static 3 0 0 5 8 4.8 28. Unsystematic 1 1 l l 8 4.8 29. Disorganized 2 1 O 5 8 4.8 30. Tactless 2 0 l 4 7 4.2 31. Submissive 2 1 0 2 5 3.0 32. Insensible 2 0 0 3 5 3.0 33. Disagreeable 2 0 0 3 5 3.0 34. Inefficient 1 1 0 2 4 2.5 78 choices indicated by over 50% of the respondents were Businesslike, Competent, Organized, Punctual, Confident, Democratic, Practical, Acceptable, Reasonable, Energetic and Accurate. It is clear from the selection of complimentary words and the insignificant number of uncomplimentary responses chosen by the respondents, that the consultants left a very favorable image in the minds of those people with whom they worked in the school surveys. The feelings that people have for the consultants would undoubtedly influence people in their judgment of the University, itself. Suggestions for the Improvement of Future Surveys The consultants of this school survey team at Michigan State University are always interested in ways and means of improving their services to the schools of our state and nation. Persons receiving the questionnaire were asked in an open- ended question, "What suggestions can you give for the improvement of future surveys?" All of these people had been involved in surveys in their respective school districts, so it was felt that they would have practical and realistic suggestions to improve surveys of the future. The results of their suggestions are summarized in Table XXV. Although 92 of the 166 respondents made no response to this question, forty—two stated that they had no criticisms of the school surveys conducted in their school districts. There were other com- ments to the effect that the surveys were successful, beneficial and helpful. It must, however, be noted that some respondents felt that more could and should be done by members of survey teams in getting to know the community better. This might suggest that, wherever possible and applicable, a member of the survey team be assigned to 79 w m H N .6HOH 9.2.3 H0p06H 6>Hfimom 0.55 0 6H6H>onm 350de 39635956 392 .NH o o o M $65.21.... Hoonom 93:23 6Hon .365. pampms6pcs o“ 3608 6Q. UHSOHHm doflmodpm no venom .6aHH. .HH H H m H m .m>6>ndm Hoosom EHOHH6Q on. mpcwuHamcoo mo coH660H0m 6:”. SH >6Hmn0>HGD 65H... .3 H666H6n6x6 0Q HoHsoHHm 0.86 H0u06h0 .oH NH oH o N .0609“ 0n. HVHSOHHm H6>6H HmooH 65. 9.0 336.0603 0n0§ .50 M006 Co. “@8630 9% .0 5 NH m m .3333 1:00 DmH>H twp p0uodpsoo 0o. HoHaoHHm 60:63.3 QSIBOHHOM .w 5H mH H N 696m0mm36a 65 >3 maflnom6n 06.0.H5660 6.52 .N. om m H m N .6 65636660 13.158806 mQHuOEOHm CH $600 359? mucmfiamnoo .0 HM oH N N. .3350 65. CH 6HnH06m 6.88 6>HO>SH 8. 6.830 50.26 0x05 HUHsoaHm mummpHSmcoU .m NM oH N m 368.6 0HHun6 03 .HoH H6630HH0 6n— HoHdode 683 0902 :v NM NH w. HV JLOnH6H 05. m5 tom 0 6nr Hudson? mcoHuwHoG6E§oo6H 65. mo 956 93 m0»@ 6%. Ho 35398308 666ngoo 4 .m mm ,mH m Hy H>HO6£ H66>H06G06 16nd :0 @6009. 6H6? >033 p0hd0mmm a .mmGHHwGHm H0580 so mnoHumpG6§Eou0u 06.69. pH50£m mucmfidmcou DmH>H .N mm mm N m >0>Hsm HooHHom 05. mo m6md£m HHm GH «do @0353 6Q. HoHdoHHm Emumoum mcoHumH6H 33an 6.936636 6HOE <. .H H0609 0:6NH6HU >6H560h :oflmodpm £030.33 mo phmom ICHEHU< m>0>udm 653.9% mat/05mg new mdoHum6wmdm (xxx 030R. 80 6mnomm6u OZ .mGSoBHoo 366 6626698 06 m>6>nsm 6x66 3 "6666.36 6M6fioo 6mD .UcmumH6UG5 Cu H6386 66.68 656 U6>0Hmflfi 6Q Esofim 663flh§ou m.:6Nfi:6 >3 “so 6G6m m6fidaco3m6sd .36H> mo ESQ 6362669 Emw op pc6§6>fio>5 >fi566w 6.32 (336.3 93 3:63.96 ucoo 50.3 6336.6 6Hofiunv6>fio>fi mG6NfiZU >3 H636h 668636 62’ .359? >6>Hdm 65‘ 650635923 mpcmfismcoo 656m 65‘ mo 6m.9 v65Gfi—GOU .363 #00366 mo “c656>fio>nfl H6um6hm 6n Ufidonm 6.36:. .mucmfidmdoo >3 U665 6Q vHSOSm 66.3 H6um6pO .>HG6NSU can vumon 65 o» manom6u mm6HmOHm Ufluoflhmwm 6HOS mumma wad—0&6 momufigoonndm .HN .ON .wH .PH A: .mH .«l .MH 81 live in the community during the course of the survey so that he may become an actual part of the community, rather than one who arrives, evaluates, recommends, and leaves. CHAPTER V PERSONAL INTERVIEW EVALUATIONS OF SCHOOL SURVEYS IN SELECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS In an effort to go a bit deeper into the evaluation and effectiveness of school surveys, the writer conducted personal interviews with people in a number of the districts surveyed. This was done in an effort to find out more exactly what people thought of the school surveys con- ducted by the citizens with the aid of the consultants of Michigan State University. This would provide an opportunity to seek out many factors which might have some bearing upon the implementation of the survey recommendations or the acceptance, in general, of the school survey in that particular community. A questionnaire was designed for the interview situation (Appendix F). The writer then interviewed many people in the various communi- ties where school surveys were conducted. Section A of this chapter outlines the various criterion for selection. The next section of this chapter consists of selective summaries and relevant quotations from some of the interviews. The remaining sections of the chapter deal with evaluations, factors hindering or helping implementation of recom- mendations and the strengths and weaknesses of Michigan State University School Surveys, as seen by those persons interviewed. This in. effect then becomes a small study within a study since it deals with interview responses only. The written questionnaires were covered in Chapter IV. Criterion For Selection In an effort to get a more representative sampling of interviews it became necessary to formulate a definite set of criteria for the 82 83 selection of school districts in which interviews were to be conducted. The following criteria enabled the writer to select the nine repre- sentative school districts, with some objectivity, in an effort‘to strive for validity in the depth dimension of this research study. Two, class A schools, two class B schools, two class C schools, two class D schools and one county system, were selected according tothe following criteria: 1. A minimum of nine school districts must be selected to . secure data and information by personal interview. 2. Since the study deals with surveys which were completed over a seven-year period, the selection should be spread throughout the seven-year period, 1954-1960. 3. School districts selected for investigation Should contain the names and addresses of enough people, so that the respective persons selected could be contacted easily. 4. Whenever possible, schools should be selected equally where a majority of recommendations were followed and where about one-half of the recommendations were followed, and also. con— sideration given to districts where almost none of the recom- mendations were followed. 5. Whenever possible, the selected school districts should con- tain a wide range of pupil enrollments. 6. Whenever possible, the selected school districts should be of a variety of types, such as industrial, residential, rural, wealthy, moderately wealthy, poor, etc. On the basis of the previously defined criteria, the selection of the following school districts was made. These school districts most nearly meet the criteria set forth. A selection of the school districts is shown in Table XXVI. Selective Summaries and Relevant Quotations From~Persons Interviewed A current member of the Board of Education in a Northern Michigan school system, who at the time of the survey was a lay citizen, was 84 Table XXVI. Selected School Districts Where Evaluation of School Surveys W as Made by Personal Interview Year of Number of Number of Recom- School Survey Recommendations mendations Followed Class A Lansing 1958 4 1 Southfield 1960 5 4 Class B Kearsley 1957 4 4 Grand Ledge 1954 3 3 Class C Manistee 1957 5 2 Charlevoix 1958 6 3 Class D Crystal 1957 3 1 Vermontville 1960 3 0 County 85 interviewed. This man said that the survey had been very successful inhis school system, and that nearly all the recommendations made by the committees had been followed. He further stated that he felt that although the initial help available was generally good as far as organiz- ing groups and planning basic content of survey was concerned, the follow-up and assistance in presenting a cohesive report was woefully lacking. Although he was not a board member at the time of the survey,- he spent a full week in the summer of 1958 tryingto pull together the maze of data presented by the various committees, re-write it so that it was readable and grammatically correct, and to get it intothe form for the final presentation of the report. He further stated that perhaps the reason sufficient help was not available at this time was that funds were exhausted, and the University could not carry through with additional help. He went on to say: If our experience is to be of any help to you, I would suggest the University make sure that any survey with which! it is con- cerned is looked at from a practical, business-like and financial standpoint. I feel that both the school district and the University have been "bailed out' this time, but this is certainly no guarantee that we will be as fortunate again. An interview was held with an administrator of a mid-Michigan school He felt that the survey wasunost beneficial in bringing a divided com- munity into focus, and that it brought about a cooperative effort on the part of a good number of persons in the community. He went onto- say that: the important thing in this is that, using the survey to the best advantage, we have been able to‘project the needs of the young- sters into the future, and the community has been willing to vote the money, placing their confidence in the board of education, the administration and the committee to do the best job possible. In other‘words, the confidence is here, and we are able to .keep ahead of the youngsters in providing facilities. I also believe that just the mere fact of having the survey would not have been 86 sufficient if it had not been for the firm belief on the part of the Board of education, the administration and the community that the service was correct in all of its respects, and was used as such. I think, personally, I shall be ever grateful to 6 Michigan State and all the members of the staff who participated in the survey, particularly the coordinator of the group. This survey, as evidenced by the results, is one of the finest services Michigan State University has ever rendered totthis area. A professional person in Northern Michigan who had served as a member of the Citizens' committee during the time of the survey, was interviewed. She indicated that the original plan of the board of education was to seek out information concerning its schools without the help of an outside agency. After spending some time in study, it was decided that outside consultant help was necessary, and that a Citizens' COmmittee should be formed. After sometime it was decided to. submit the plan that the board of education had somewhat formulated to the Citizens‘ committee, because the general public, or at least, the vocal part of it, seemed to feel that the school administration and the board of education were trying to "force something down our throats" without enough planning and investigation. She goes on to say: I believe that when Michigan State University consultants were called in and the Citizens' committee was formed, they were to have nine months to survey the various areas of the entire school plant and come up with recommendations. Although I was not attached to any one specific committee, I did serve in a rov- ing capacity, meeting with several of the sub—committees. The committee work dragged along, and it required additional time. Some of the meetings I attended were complete farces. People who had lived here only a few years and knew nothing. of the tenor of the town came up with some of the ridiculous ideas for a place this size, and there was haggling and bickering until it was necessary to-lean heavily upon the consultants from Michigan State University. I would also suggest that the consultant service did not provide sufficient professional advice in the procedures and processes of writing and editing the report. The committee could have used more of this kind of help. 87 An interview was held with a superintendent of schools. His district was one of the first school districts in Michigan to have the service of a consultant team from Michigan State University. This district was involved in the annexation and consolidation of a number of school districts in the immediate area. The superintendent commented that, "The survey contributed greatly toward making the board of education and the community cognizant of the importance of long-range planning in providing good educational facilities for the youth of the schools district. " The superintendent believed the Michigan State University consultants to be very competent in survey work and thought there was nothing which could have been improved upon in their achool survey. He stated that school surveys are desirable and advantageous, both psychologically and politically, in helping to gain support for school bond issues. A former superintendent and a board of education member were interviewed. Both persons said the survey conducted in their school district was not successful. The issue in this situation was one of consolidation of neighboring school districts for the purpose of building a new high school to accommodate increasing enrollments. The school first became interested in an area study after the fire marshal made extensive recommendations regarding the condition of their secondary facility. With the fire marshal in hot pursuit, the districts started the study in January and required the University to complete the work by April so that an early vote could be held. The lack of time im- mediately caused many people considerable concern. The University consultants pointed out the pitfalls in this approach, but since the attitude was "let's get it out of the way, " the study proceeded on that basis. The superintendent pointed out that there were some unfortunate events which colored the acceptance of the whole report. He was quick 88 to point out that, with the exception of two individuals, the personnel assigned by the University were well-liked and accepted. However, the . rejection of these two individuals was so vehement and unanimous, that the validity of the whole study was doubted by the participants and the general public. One of these individuals was assigned to a sub-committee. Because he did not desire the assignment, he made this fact well known in his group and was less than coopera- tive. - He was relieved in the middle of his assignment, but the harmvwas already done. I should mention that at this point in the study, that the two people to ~whom the superintendent referred are no longer on the staff of the University. The superintendent had this to say about the coordinator of the study, The personality of the coordinator clashed with practically all the lay people. His views were somewhat authoritarian and dogmatic, and he left the impression that he was working with a group of unintelligent farmers. This was resented! This problem, plus the natural suspicion of ‘outside influences, ' led most of the lay people to believe that the study was worthless. Their experience with these two individuals colored their whole attitude toward the study findings and toward the consultants, in general. This was unfortunate, as I believe the conclusions were valid. Subsequently, the people have come tothe same conclu- sions themselves, but they regard it as their decision, and easily forget that the same recommendations were contained in the report. As was pointed out earlier, the length of time allotted for the study was too short, but this was the fault of the district and not the University. The University might be more selective in refusing to participate in such short-range programs. The citizens barely had time to gather all the data necessary for the report. This placed an even greater burden upon the consultants from the University. The school survey conducted in a large Michigan city had the sanction and support of the board of education, but was done almost exclusively with the Citizens' group itself, with only advisory help from the administrators of the school system. In an interview with the assistant superintendent of schools, it was quickly pointed out that this 89 gave the feeling that the survey was being conducted exclusively with the Citizens' committee and the consultants of the University. The committee felt that its job was merely to study the various phases of the school system and make recommendations for its improvement. One of the committee members interviewed said that: The committee was broken down into five study areas, and I believe that the sub-committees lost touch with each other. The committee, as a whole, was not as well informed as it should have been, the individual members being thoroughly conversant with only their particular sub-section. This committee member went on to say that: It became quite evident to us after a short while had gone by, that a Citizens' committee was not capable of obtaining all the information necessary for the conduct of the survey. Profes- sional consultant help should have been retained from the very inception of the committee. On the other hand, we do not feel that the professional consultant should make the decisions in the final report, because inevitably his approach is that of the educator, whereas the viewpoint of the Citizens' committee must necessarily be that of the taxpayer. He went on to say: The consultants, in my Opinion, did a very fine job. They seemed to be very keenly aware of the Citizens' problem of pro- viding adequate schools, and their roles as middlemen between the educator and citizen were played very objectively and con- servatively. They are to be complimented for an excellent piece of work. A township official who had served on the Citizens' committee was interviewed: He felt that local riValries between school districts was the one single factor which made consolidation difficult to achieve. He was happy with the way the Michigan State University consultants handled the survey. However, he did feel that the community could have benefited from a more vigorous follow-up program by the consultants. He was sure that the citizens of the community would have accepted the recommendations more readily from the consultants than they would have from the board of education. 90 The chairman of a Citizens' committee was interviewed. It was his suggestion that "help from other disciplines COuId be sought in trying to find more effective ways of motivating people. " It was his concern that the people of his community found somuch comfort in the "status quo. " In evaluating the quality of the survey, he had this to say: All of the consultants earned the confidence and respect of the committee members and myself. Their performance indicated a real interest in the program, as the committee had a right to expect. Neither the professional competence nor the personal qualities of the consultants ever, or needed to be, in question. A staff member in a school system was quick to emphasize the magnitude of the school problems there, and the complete ease with which the Michigan State University consultants attacked the problem. They immediately won the confidence of the Citizens’ group, inspired them to the task at hand and proceeded with a completely organized program. She pointed out that, at times, after the survey was under- way, it was a little difficult to channel the efforts of some committee members in the best interests of the school. A member of the Citizens' committee felt that "a couple" of the consultants were "too busy with other work. " When questioned at greater length about this statement, he said he thought the consultants were preoccupied, and may have been suffering from the pressure of an overload of other activities. He didn't feel that the committee suffered from a lack of quality, but this point bothered him psychologically more than anything else. The pressure of time was also of concern to this gentleman, and it was his opinion that more time should have been given by the Michigan State University consultants. 91 Evaluation of School Surveys by Persons Interviewed A number of basic questions were asked each of the persons inter- viewed. Many of these questions also appeared on the questionnaire (Appendix B). Since to treat each individual response to‘every question asked during the interviews in the nine school districts wOuld result in a great deal of rather meaningless tedium, the writer will develop-a summary and consensus of the groups interviewed. It was the feeling of the group interviewed that the Michigan State University consultants had conducted the survey in an organized manner, although two comments were made regarding the organization of surveys which represented personal biases. One other criticism involved the time allowed for school surveys. It was- generally felt that more time should be spent in carrying out the survey, sothat people would feel absolutely certain that all avenues have been explored. The writer of this dissertation was also interested in obtaining information relative to the extent these people felt that the recommen- dations made were realistic ones. All persons interviewed were not in agreement, however, that all recommendations were realistic. Some which seemed to be realistic at the time of the survey were not at all realistic or practical a year or two later because of unforeseeable changes which took place within the school district. In the final analysis, school surveys achieve their purpose if the educational facilities of the surveyed school districts are improved. It is important, therefore, that a school survey help to interpret the school building needs, the curriculum needs, the financial needs, the community factors and a projection of future enrollments. The people interviewed for the purposes of this study felt that surveys were most effective in gaining more information about their school and school 92 district. Equally important was the fact that school surveys were of value in helping to provide more adequate facilities. It must be pointed out, however, that those who said that surveys had little value were those districts in which few, if any, of the recommendations made by the citizens, with the aid of the consultants,“ had been followed. All persons interviewed agreed that the surveys conducted have helped to provide more information about their schools. Those interviewed were asked if they believed the survey was understood by the administrators, the board of education, the faculty and the lay citizens of the community. It was the consensus of the group that administrators understood the survey conducted in their school districts the best. This is understandable since the adminis- trator works closely with the survey team. If was the feeling of those interviewed that the board members were second to the administrators in understanding the recommendations. The interviewed persons were evenly divided on whether or not they thought the faculty understood the recommendations. There was general feeling among those inter- viewed that the faculty should be more involved in school surveys. Those interviewed thought the lay citizens understood the recom- mendations the least. The general feeling was that since the lay citizens know so little about the terminology and actual operation of the school, it took them longer to absorb the/information pertaining to these matters. It was the feeling of those interviewed that more time should be taken,- sothat the lay citizenry could be properly educated in survey matters. Factors Which Helped or Hindered Recommendations Those persons interviewed were asked to identify the factors they thought most significant in helping and hindering the carrying out of recommendations. The following is a list of those factors which have 93 helped to implement survey recommendations. 1. 8. The enthusiasm of the Citizens’ committee and the edification of the citizenry. The complete frankness of the consultants in identifying areas of improvement in the school system. The leadership at the local level, both among school staff and Citizenry. The intense need for additional facilities. The obvious advantage of a more economical school operation by the consolidation of smaller districts. The cooperation of the board of education, the administration and the staff. The sincere desire on the part of the citizens and the Citizens' committee to provide more adequate facilities for the youth of the c ommunity . The excellent consultant help provided by the University. The following is a list of those factors which have hindered implementation of the survey recommendations. 1. Lack of understanding on the part of the citizenry and the board of education. Provincial attitude. Insufficient time to study recommendations. Insufficient money to carry out the recommendations. Lack of administrative leadership. Unrealistic recommendations. Insppropriate timing. Change in personnel in the school system. 94 Strengths of School Surveys Conducted by Michigan State University During the interview, each person was asked to give the strengths of the school survey which had been conducted by Michigan State Uni- versity in his school district. The following is a list of open-ended survey strengths as, stated by those interviewed. l. Helped to interpret the needs of the school to the citizenry. Z. Helped citizenry gain more information about its school. 3. Helped the board of education by providing it with concrete information, from which long-range plans could be developed for the improvement of education in the school district. 4. Helped pass bond issues and votes for extra operating money. 5. Provided information which helped correct deficiencies in the school system. 6. Helped in improving the curriculum of the school. 7. Helped in improved communications between the board of education, faculty, administration and citizenry. 8. Helped to heal a "split" community. 9. Helped resolve a controversial issue. 10. Improved public relations between school and community. Weaknesses of School Surveys Conducted by Michigan State University Each person interviewed was asked to state weaknesses in the school survey conducted by Michigan State University. The following is a list of those weaknesses as stated to the interviewer. 1. Not enough time spent by consultants in the community. 2. Not enough promotion and follow-up by the consultants. 3. Lack of definite leadership role on the part of the consultants. 95 4. More people should be involved in the surveys. 5. Recommendations not realistic; too much-money required to implement recommendations. 6. Surveys should involve more staff members. C HAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The report of the follow-up study of school surveys conducted by consultants of Michigan State University from January 1954 through December 1960 thus far presented in chapters one through five has pointed up certain conclusions and recommendations. The first chapter presented an overall picture of the Field Study Program, with special emphasis on the history of the field study movement, the problem and the setting of the stage for the research of the problem, which is developed in the later chapters of the report. The Procedure, MethodOIOgy and Sources of Data are also covered in the initial chapter. Chapter two»gives an analysis of the schools studied by Michigan State University, and exposure to the Community-Type and Expert-Type School Survey. An examination and evaluation of Recommendations are dealt with in chapter three. The reactions to school surveys con- ducted by Michigan State University are presented in chapter four. Suggestions for improvement of school services of the future are also given in this chapter. Personal interview evaluations of school sur- veys in selected school districts are presented in chapter five. In this section, the sixth and final chapter of this study, the writer will present a general summary of the findings and conclusions, and-make recommendations for the improvement of future school surveys. It is hoped that these recommendations, if implemented, will provide for closer c00peration between surveying agencies and local school authorities which, in turn, will result in improved educational facilities for the youth of our state and our nation. 96 97 Sununary It was evident in examining the written reports of the school sur- veys conducted, that each survey was unique and designed to.fit the particular school district being studied. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to generalize. However, there are some common factors applicable to all school districts. All school districts do have the responsibility for providing the best possible educational opportunities for youth, and the best possible educational facilities to support a pro- gressing and on-going educational program. Michigan State University and the consultants of school survey teams throughout the years have performed a definite service to public education. The summary of Table VII in chapter three of this study shows that 48. 3% of all recommendations were completely followed by the school district. In addition, 26. 7% were partially followed by the school districts. When one considers the many. changing conditions in each and every school district, the operation cannot be termed anything less than successful. There are often unanticipated changes in school programs and in. communities which might tend to discredit school surveys in particular areas. Confidence in the Michigan State University consultants and faith in their ability to give wise counsel and sound advice to school districts is shown in the evaluation of the quality of recommendations, as made by the superintendents of the districts surveyed. Of the 116 recommendations given by the citizens committee and the consultants, ninety-seven, or 83. 6%, were rated as good, and only four,. or 3. 5%, were rated as poor. Superintendents felt that unsuccessful voting at the polls, failure of school redistricting efforts and-lack of funds were the most significant reasons for recommendations not being carried out. 98 Data presented in chapter five of this report shows that local communities support and desire the counsel of experienced and qualified educators to help them plan tomeet the educational needs of the youth of their school districts. In the'few districts where survey recommen- dations have not been completely followed, it is evident that lack of understanding on the part of the citizenry, a provincial attitude among citizenry and insufficient time to. study recommendations were themost significant reasons which hindered the implementation of these recom- mendations. i It is, therefore, imperative that a two-way communication process and a working relationship be established between survey personnel and the local community. The suggestion mentioned most frequently in connection with improvement of future school surveys in- volved the implementation of a more effective public relations program in all phases of the total school operation. Data in chapter four indicated that nearly three-fourths of the respondents thought school surveys definitely helped to interpret the needs of the school to the citizenry. The process carried out by the consultants of Michigan State University in this regard cannot be over- looked. Respondents to the questionnaire indicated overwhelmingly their satisfaction with the orientation and organization of school surveys conducted. Other significant data in chapter four shows that the evalu- ation of the Michigan State University consultants by the respondents was more than satisfactory. It was clear that the overwhelming selection of complementary descriptive words and the insignificant number of uncomplementary responses chosen by those queried indicated the con— sultants left a very favorable image in the minds of the people with whom they worked in school surveys. 99 Conclusions 1. Local school authorities —- believe that school surveys help to interpret the needs of the school district to the citizenry. -- were most prone to the acceptance of survey recommendations. -- best understood the survey recommendations, in comparison to the other groups surveyed. —- believed that school surveys were of least value in passing bond issues and voting extra operating millages. -- believed the most important goal of school surveys was to provide more adequate facilities for the youth of their school district. 2. The lay citizens —- least understood the survey recommendations. -— believed that school surveys are effective and helpful in accomplishing specific purposes. -- felt most actively involved in Michigan State University school surveys. 3. Respondents to the questionnaire -- believed that the organization and orientation by the Michigan State University consultants was satisfactory. —- felt that school surveys were of value in gaining more information about their school. -- felt they were well informed throughout and after the survey conducted in their districts. 4. Concerning survey recommendations -- the greatest hindrance to carrying them out is insufficient money available. 100 -- lack of understanding is a significant reason for not following survey recommendations made by citizens committees and consultants. -- persons involved in the survey felt they were, in general, realistic and practical. -- over half of the districts surveyed rated all of them as good. -- almost one-half of those made were completely followed. 5. The general feeling -- among the public toward the consultants of Michigan State University involved in school surveys is very satisfactory. —- was that the kind of school survey preferred was one in which the citizens collect and analyze all the facts, and then make recommendations with the aid and advisement of the consultants. Recommendations This follow—up study has been concerned with an evaluation of the school surveys conducted by the consultants of Michigan State University from 1 January 1954 to 30 December 1960. This section dealing with recommendations will be divided into two parts. The first section will concern itself with recommendations as a direct result of the investi— gation, the stated Opinions and the personal interview; The second section will concern itself with additional recommendations which repre- sent the writers personal opinion in connection with the school survey program at Michigan State University. It is the sincere hope of the writer that these recommendations will enhance survey work and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the survey teams of Michigan State University, to help guide schools in providing better educational facilities for the youth of our state and nation. 101 Section A 1. Schools should continue to seek the guidance and counsel of qualified surveying agencies in planning to meet the edu- cational needs of boys and girls of the school districts. This counsel should be on a long-range basis, so that con- tinuous and effective planning could take place to meet the educational needs of the schools. 2. More of the faculty should be involved in school surveys. It is recognized that this will take more time, but the people are more likely to accept the findings and recommendations if they have had some part in the survey and in the formulation of recommendations. 3. More specific direction should be given to committeemembers when there appears to be a lack of direction and purpose. This sounds autocratic, but citizens expect this from the con- sultants. 4. The amount of time given to each survey should be increased. The average amount of time spent on the thirty-three surveys was 5.4 months. Many respondents said this was not enough. It is further recommended that the minimum time allottment for a citizen-type survey be increased, and that this be clearly pointed out and understood by the respective committees involved in the survey, with the appropriate time table pre- pared by the consultants at the outset. 5. It is recommended that consultants base recommendations on actual findings. Although there is little evidence to show that surveys of the past were based on anything else, it is important to note the many comments and suggestions made by respond- ents concerning this point. Respondents felt strongly enough / about the matter of the impression left, that some recommen— dations were made on preconceived theory. Every effort should be made to eliminate this feeling when working with citizens groups. 6. An improved public relations program should be developed between Michigan State University, school authorities and the communities'where surveys are conducted. It is important that citizens know the purposes, techniques, methods and pro- cedures involved in conducting school surveys. It is also im- portant that people be continuously informed throughout the survey. 7. A follow—up plan should be developed by the survey team for future implementation. Many local authorities lack the positive leadership necessary to carry out an effective pro- gram of implementation of recommendations. Michigan State University should stand ready to help, even though the formal aspects of the survey might be completed. 1/ 8. Great care be exercised in the selection of university personnel in conducting school surveys. All of the present Michigan State University staff received creditable comments in the question- naire. It was evident, however, that during the time of this study, there were people assigned to school surveys who were not enthusiastic about them, and also those whose performance / in the surveys were not conducive to enhancing the image of Michigan State University. It is further recommended that wherever possible and practical, the same University consultants should be used throughout the survey. Changing consultants after once having them assigned has caused a lack of confidence and a feeling of l insecurity among citizens groups. Section B 1. A systematic file of reports of the various completed reports should be maintained by the library of educational research. This would insure that at least one copy of every report be available for future reference. The writer of this report had considerable difficulty in locating copies of reports from some of the school districts. 2. A case study of every school survey should be written up by some member of the survey team. These case studies could then be duplicated, and would serve as valuable aids in courses in Educational Administration. 3. Institutions of higher learning preparing school administrators should offer at least one practicum dealing specifically with school survey work. This course could be included in the requirements for Educational Administration majors. 4. Assistant Instructors and Graduate Assistants should continue to be a part of the training program for selected doctoral candidates. It is further recommended that wherever 103 possible and practical, the students assigned to this area be experienced school administrators. Follow-up questionnaires should be used, similar to the one used in this survey, as a means of evaluation and for up- / grading all surveys. The school survey program should involve University personnel from other disciplines. Sociology, Community Deve10pment, and Communication and Mass Media could contribute much-in understanding the community and in interpreting results of the survey to the community. This program should be so designed that wherever practical, at least one member of the survey team live‘in the respective community of the survey during the time of the survey. This could be considered intern training, and could prove most valuable in the complete understanding of the community in- volved, and would provide the student a real educational experience in observing the administration, board of edu- cation and the community in action. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cocking, Walter D. "The School Survey and Its Social Implications, " Educational Research Bulletin, XXX, No. 7 (October, 1951), Dixon, W. J. and Massey, F. J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill Company, 1957. English, John W. "An Investigation of Techniques Used in Determin- ing School Building Need, " Doctoral Thesis, University of Michigan, 1951. Flesher, W. R. "Public Education in Middletown, Ohio, " Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, Ohio State Uni- versity, Columbus, Ohio, 1956. Herrick, John H. From School Program to School Plant. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956. Holy, T. C. "Some Contributions of School Surveys in Ohio, " Educational Research Bulletin, XXX, No. 7 (October 1951‘). Husbands, Kenneth L. "A Comparative Study of a Self Survey and an Expert Survey of an‘Elementary School Curriculum, " Doctoral Thesis, University of Illinois, 1952. McCluskey, Gordon. Education and Public Understanding. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., publishers, 1962. ,Sumption, M. R. How to Conduct a Citizens School Survey. New York: Prentice Hall, 1952. Sumption, M. R. "Survey of Surveys." Nations Schools.‘ LVII, No. 3 (March, 1956). Van Dalen, D. B. and Meyer, W. J. Understanding Educational- Research: An Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill Company, 19620 104 APPENDICES 105 106 d W D m. w mime. ml. m m m. m d m d m. d m i m; p m i m m M d1 oohoeo m _ too .33 628:8 m w mm m m H59» HOW GOmmon 630 a L >H666Hmaoo no: HH I ,M. mdoflumpc6EEoo6m mZOHHHOUmm .mO ZOHHM WAHHHJQEOU HDO 412m MHHMDm JOOHAOm < XHQZHAHQJ‘ r: APPENDIX B INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH CONCERNING QUESTIONNAIRE: The attached questionnaire is referred to as a "School Survey Question- naire, " however, for clarification it is meant to refer to a service contract with M.S. U. Terms synonymous with school surveys could be school studies, Field services, or school evaluations. In the interests of uniformity the term school survey will be used throughout the body of the questionnaire. 107 108 SCHOOL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DIRECTIONS: Please check the appropriate box, circle the appropriate letter Y (yes) or N (no) or fill in the blanks associated with each question. If you cannot clearly indicate a Yes or No answer, please write your reason in the comments blank provided. You need not sign your name. All information given will be treated in a pro- fessional and confidential manner. 1. Check your capacity as a local participant. Administrator 1. Board Member 2. , Former administrator 3. , Former Board member 4. , Faculty 5. , Lay citizen 6. , Other 7. . 2. What did you consider the primary purpose of the school survey? Check any that apply: a) To gain more information about your school I. b) To pass a bond issue 2. c) To obtain higher standards in the school 3. d) To vote extra operating millage 4. e) To study re—districting or reorganization 5.1., f) To help provide more adequate facilities 6. g) To expand the curriculum 7. h) Other 8. 3. In general, do you believe your orientation by the MSU consultants toward the purposes of the school survey was satisfactory? Comments: Y N 4. Do you believe the survey was well organized? Comments: Y N 5. Do you believe sufficient time was allowed for gathering data? Comments: Y N 6. In general, do you believe you were kept progressively informed or involved throughout the survey? Comments: Y N 7. In general, do you believe that you were actively involved in the survey ? Comments: In general do you feel the survey helped interpret the needs of the school to the citizenry? Comments: In general, do you feel the recommendations were Realistic ? Comments: . In general,do you believe the recommendations were accepted by administrators by board members by faculty by lay citizens Comments: In general, do you believe you were well informed of the results of the survey? Comments: . .In general, do you believe the survey has been of value in a) gaining more information about your school b) passing a bond issue c) obtaining higher standards in the school d) voting extra operating millage e) studying re—districting or reorganizing f) helping provide more adequate facilities g) expanding curriculum Comments Do you believe the majority of the recommendations have been carried out? Comments: «1.4.4.4 P