A STUDY 0F THE OPERATIGN AND EFFEC'PS QF SELECTED Hm. I PROGRAMS Thesis for flue Degree of 54L 9: M‘ECBEGMQ STATE UMYEESETY Bernard E“. Brown 1969 . Hal. H Michigan. Sta; .5 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE OPERATION AND EFFECTS OF SELECTED TITLE I PROGRAMS presented by Bernard F. Brown has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed 0 D o degree in Education WAM%ZZM Major professor 0-169 LIBRAR l” ‘r—vw _ 1_—' .m f {j l. .V "a ,. _ _, __~'_v..-- .. 4V ,__-. *—-—.—~ ‘ 4A _e ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE OPERATION AND EFFECTS OF SELECTED TITLE I PROGRAMS By Bernard F. Brown It was the purpose of this study to investigate the operation and effects of Title I programs operative in se& lected school districts in Michigan in relation to change in their respective elementary curricula as perceived by elementary school teachers. No evaluation of elementary curriculum change as a result of Title I programs has been required by either the United States Office of Education or the Michigan State Department of Education. Since one of the purposes of Title I programs is to provide seed money for curric- ulum change, it would seem.to follow that one effect of Title I programs in a school district would be to pro- duce a change in the elementary curriculum. The research hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the operation and effects of selected elemen- tary Title I programs would not result in an elementary curriculum change. The following specific hypotheses were tested: 1. Elementary teachers did not serve on the committee which determined the goals for the Title I program in'their district. 2. Even though a Title I program was conducted in the building in which he was teaching, the elementary classroom teacher would not know the goals of the Title I program. Bernard F. Brown 3. Elementary teachers have not changed their classroom methods as a result of the Title I program.which was operating or is operating in their district. 4. Innovations in the elementary curriculum, originally financed under Title I, are not continued in the elementary curriculum if the local district has to furnish the financing. The sample used in this study was considered to be a stratified random sample of the total population of elementary teachers who were teaching in an elementary school which was conducting or had conducted a Title I program in a school district located in the area de- noted by the Michigan Education Association as Region VIII of that organization. Thirty-seven school dis- tricts were located in Region VIII. The total number of teachers in the sample was eighty-seven. A questionnaire was developed and administered to obtain data regarding the hypotheses to be researched. In addition, data were collected from the summaries of Title I programs submitted by the local district to the ‘Michigan State Department of Education. Where a com- parison of the teacher responses and the summaries of the local district was appropriate, a comparison was made. The responses were tabulated, summarized, and compiled into tables containing frequencies and per- centages. Analysis of the data seem to warrant the following conclusions: Teachers perceived themselves as having a small part in the preparation of the Title I proposal in their Bernard F. Brown districts. Approximately three-fourths of the teachers were unable to identify the person or persons responsible for determining the goals of the Title I program in their districts. Teacher knowledge of the goals of the Title I pro- gram by grade level varied by groups. However, approx- imately one-half of the total sample did not know the goals for their own grade level. A majority of the teachers in the sample stated they had not changed their classroom teaching methods because of the Title I program in their district. The data also indicated that a former Title I program in a school district is not financed locally if federal funds are withdrawn. Since all of the specific hypotheses were found to support the research hypothesis, it would seem that the operation and effects of selected elementary Title I programs comprising this study did not result in an elementary curriculum change. A STUDY OF THE OPERATION AND EFFECTS OF SELECTED TITLE I PROGRAMS By Bernard F. Brown A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Elementary and Special Education 1969 /,?. '_1 I: J 97.4 l/J 7—3-47 ©Copyright by Bernard Franklin Brown 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS When a person attains a long, sought-after goal, he is afforded an opportunity to realize the help which led to this accomplishment. ' Academically, I am indebted to my committee, Dr. Clyde W. Dow, Dr. William K. Durr, and Dr. James B. McKee, for their continuous help and encouragement. The Chairman of my committee, Dr. Calhoun C. Collier, advised, encouraged, criticized, and edited whenever needed. He deserves my very special thanks. . Of course, I can not overlook my three children, . Pam, Karla, and Craig, who sacrificed much, helped much, and never complained during my pursuit of this degree. The one person most responsible for reaching this goal, though, is my wife, Joyce. Her encouragement never ceased and her help was beyond mere thanks with words. To her I shall always be thankful; and to my wife, Joyce, I dedicate this manuscript. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ......................... l The Problem ........................ 1 Need for the Study ................. 2 Definitions of Terms Used .......... 5 Statement of Hypotheses ............ 6 Limitations of the Study ........... 7 Overview of the Study .............. 8 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............. 9 Promises of Title I ................ 9 Disagreement as to Realization ..... 10 Foundation Money and Results ....... 11 Complexity of Change . .............. 14 Complexity of Curriculum Change .... 15 Federal Support .................... 19 Planning for Curriculum Change ..... 21 Need for Changing Teacher Insights, Attitudes, and Skills ............ 25 Strategy for Curriculum Change ..... 28 Need for Evaluation of Curriculum Change ....... . ............... .... 29 Programs for the Disadvantaged ..... 35 III. DESIGN AND'METHODOLOGY ............... 41 Introduction .... ........ . .......... 41 Selection of the Sample ............ 42 iii CHAPTER PAGE III. (continued) Data to be Collected ............... 47 Collection of the Data ............. 48 Treatment of the Data .............. 49 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................. 51 Introduction ....................... 51 General Information Pertaining to Sample ........................... 52 Teacher Perception of Title I Programs .............. . .......... 60 v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 82 Summary ............... . ............ 82 Conclusions ..... ....... ....... ..... 86 Recommendations .................... 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 92 APPENDIX A ........................... 97 iv TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES School District Grouping by Pupil Enrollment ................. Type of Population Center .......... Number of Teachers by Group and in Total ......................... Total Years Teaching Experience .... Teaching Experience in District .... Teaching Experience in Building .... Educational Preparation .......... .. Types of Michigan Certification .... Teaching Experience in Title I Programs ........ . ................ Teacher Participation in Preparation of Title I Proposal .... Teaching Experience in Title I and Participation in Preparation of Title I Proposal ................. Teacher Perception of Person(s) Responsible for Determining Goals of Title I Program ............... Classroom Teaching Methods Changed Because of Title I Program ....... Teacher Perceptions of Grade Levels in Which Title I Program Was Operated ......................... v PAGE 44 45 47 54 55 56 58 59 61 63 65 66 68 69 TABLE XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. Teaching Experience in Title I and Changes in Methods ............... Teacher Response That a Former Title I Program is Now Financed by District ... ................... Title I Program Should Be Financed by Local District ................ Do You Expect the Title I Program Will Be Financed by Local School District? ........................ Goals of Title I Program as Selected by Teachers with Special Indication of District Goal for Each Group ....................... Teaching Experience in Title I and Knowledge of Goals ............... Teacher Responses by Grade Level Taught and Correct Selection of Goal of Title I Program .......... vi PAGE 71 74 77 79 81 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the United States government has spent billions of dollars on educational programs throughout the nation° Title I of this act provides funds for educational programs designed specifically to meet the needs of disadvantaged youth. Local school districts were given guidelines to aid in determining both the needs and the location of disadvantaged youth in the local district. Each local district which participated in Title I funding decided what type of educational program it would provide, and then submitted a proposal for this program with approval required by the State Department of Education and the United States Office of Education. Once approval was granted by both agencies, the local district received funds with which to implement its program. THE PROBLEM It was the purpose of this study to investigate the operation and effects of Title I programs operative in selected school districts in Michigan in relation to change in their respective elementary curricula as perceived by elementary school teachers. The findings of this study should indicate what effects, if any, Title I programs have had on elementary curriculum; it should provide guidelines to local school districts for evaluating their own programs; and it should provide the basis for further research recommendations. 2 NEED FOR THE STUDY As of this writing, no evaluation of elementary curriculum change as a result of Title I programs has been made by either the United States Office of Educa- tion or the Michigan State Department of Education.1 Since one of the purposes of Title I programs is to provide seed money for curriculum change,2 it would seem.to follow that one effect of Title I programs would be to produce a change in the elementary cur- riculum of school districts. Curricular changes do not occur in a vacuum; therefore, in order to evaluate curricular change resulting from Title I programs, it is also necessary to determine the operation and effects of Title I programs in relation to elementary school curricula. This study attempted to fill this gap by gathering information to provide a basis for researching and evaluating Title I programs. The United States Office of Education requires each State Department of Education to submit annual summaries of all Title I programs that were operative during the preceding year in the state. However, the United States Office of Education does not require the use of a standard form for the summary submitted by the 1Dr. Stanley Ovaitt, Director of Evaluating Federal Programs, Michigan State Department of Edu- cation, April, 1968, an interview. 2U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Conference on Education of the Dis- advantaged, Report of a National Conference Held in Washington, D. C., July 18-20, 1966, p. 5. 3 State Department of Education; and the United States Office of Education only offers guidelines for the respective State Departments of-Education to follow. The Michigan State Department of Education does require each local school district with a Title I pro- gram to use a standard form in describing the Title I ,program in its district. One section of this summary provides for an evaluation of the Title I program by the local school district, but no standard form of evaluation is required of the local school district. As a result, many types of evaluation are used by local school districts ranging from different types of standardized tests to subjective evaluation of the program by administrators. The required evaluation is not equated to curriculum change in the elementary school curriculum. The quality of education available to children in the united States has been the subject of much study, discussion, and controversy. In recent years this con- cern has been expressed through the publications of such writers as Rickover,3 Bestor,4 Conant,5 and many_p.. cit., p. 27. 32Edward A. Krug, Curriculum Planning. (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1950), p. 67. 33Ibid., p. 4. 24 gaining a better understanding of children, analyzes recent social trends, and makes surveys of the local community. It prepares curriculum guides, and develops the over-all design of the curriculum.34 The training of teachers is an essential part of any program developed to change the curriculum. Dufay maintains: ...the ideal way of dealing with an elaborate new program is through in-service training. The reason for in-service training of teachers is given by Spears: need Essential to every school system is an or- ganized program of in-service development for teachers and administrative staff. It is just as logical as the program of instruction for the pupils, it being impossible to conceive of pupil growth without teacher growth.35 McNally, Passow, and Associates concur in the for in-service training when they state:“ Once curriculum workers (accept) the view that little real curriculum improvement occurs without continuous professional and personal growth of teachers, concern (shifts) from.administrative structure to include 34Ragan,gp. cit., p. 182. 35Frank R. Dufay, Ungrading the Elementary School. (West Nyack, N. Y.: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1966), p. 161. 36Spears,.gp. cit., p. 30. 25 the complexities of educating the professional staff.37 In emphasizing the need for in-service training, Spears also believes: Just as there is movement in the lives of the learners so there is commonly accepted today the idea of continuous growth on the part of the teachers.38 Any discussion of curriculum change should also contain comments regarding the human and emotional factors involved in change. NEED FOR CHANGING TEACHER INSIGHTS, ATTITUDES, AND SKILLS The definition given in Chapter I of this study for the term curriculum not only includes the learning experiences offered by the school, but it also includes teaching methods. In discussing curriculum planning, Beauchamp appears to agree with the first part of the definition of curriculum when he suggests that: The purpose of curriculum planning is to improve the educational experiences for our school pupils.39 On the other hand, Krug would seem to agree with the complete definition from his statement that: Good teaching and good learning are the BZMcNally,‘gp. cit., p. 38. 38Spears,‘gp. cit., p. 314. 39Beauchamp, op. cit., p. 174. 26 reasons for which all other aspects of curriculum development exist. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency in the past to separate these two aspects of the teaching and learning situation. This has resulted in the identification of curriculum with content only and in the setting forth of method as a separate problem.40 McNally, Passow, and Associates are more emphatic in considering the teacher as the human element in curriculum change. They maintain: (The key position in curriculum.improvement is) the classroom teacher in effecting the kind and quality of learning experiences. The first corollary is the need for arrangements designed to induce change in the insights, understandings, attitudes, and relationships of the teacher.41 In working with the teacher and curriculum change, Dufay believes that: Teachers need the opportunity to raise questions, to ask for more elaborate explanations on certain details; they need to feel that the new program is something of special value.42 In discussing the role of the teacher in curriculum change, and the complexity of curriculum change, consideration should be given to the re- sponsibilities of those involved in any curriculum _change. Beauchamp believes that: 40Krug,‘gp. cit., p. 8. “McNally, 22. cit., p. 38. 42Dufay,_9_p. cit., p. 162. 27 Teachers are constantly confronted with problems that are directly related to their school curriculum. Attempts to solve these problems may lead to action conducive to. curriculum improvement.43 Saylor and Alexander suggest that: ...the major responsibility for improving the learning experiences of children rests with...the pupils and teacher of individual learning groups. This is the level at which curriculum improvement in terms of children's learning will occur.44 In his discussion of responsibilities for curriculum improvement, Pritzkau maintains that: ...it is hoped that everyone in the school system will consider curriculum im- provement an integral phase of his position. Since the development of the conditions for learning experiences is the responsibility of every individual in the school, it follows that curriculum improvement is everyone's responsibility.45 Pritzkau suggests one area of curriculum which is often neglected when he says: ...the nature of the school organization frequently contributes to the exclusion of the values of children.46 43Beauchamptgp. cit., p. 175. 448aylor and Alexander, op. cit., p. 66. 45Philo T. Pritzkau, Dynamics of Curriculum Improvement. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 8. 461b1d., p. 176. 28 Administrators who are working with teachers in the area of curriculum improvement should strive to exert maximum leadership to produce maximum teacher involvement. Otherwise, as Spears suggests: Since instruction is a unified effort of a school or a school system linking the work of all teachers, the ineffective classroom represents the weak link that threatens the entire chain.47 In working on curriculum improvement, Pritzkau believes that: The principal with the help of the teachers should make the necessary arrangements for the exchange of ideas for the purpose of improving learning experiences.43 STRATEGY FOR CURRICULUM CHANGE As mentioned in Chapter I and earlier in Chapter II, one of the main goals for Title I programs is that they would produce curricula changes in the educational programs offered disadvantaged youth. In the discussion presented above, certain points were suggested for consideration in curriculum change. Taba suggests a methodology to achieve a strategy for curriculum change which includes human and emotional factors also. Her summary follows: 1. Curriculum change requires a systematic sequence of work which deals with all aspects of the curriculum ranging from goals to means. 47Spears,gp. cit., p. 104. 43Pritzkau, op. cit., p. 15. 29 2. A strategy for curriculum change involves creating conditions for productive work. 3. Effecting curriculum change involves a large amount of training. 4. Change always involves human and emotional factors. To change thinking about curriculum one also needs to change people's attitudes toward what is significant and perceptions about role, purposes, and motivation. 5. Since curriculum development is extremely complex, it requires many kinds of competencies in different combinations at different points of work. 6. Managing curriculum change requires Skilled leadership. It also requires distributed leadership.49 If continued effort is made to achieve curriculum change, then perhaps what Goodlad suggests will come to pass: ...efforts at the lower levels of schooling (elementary level) may ultimately influence plan- ning at the higher 1evels--the reverse of what has commonly occurred in the past.50 Once a program is in operation, plans should be made to conduct a thorough evaluation of that program. Title I programs are evaluated, but a question of the thoroughness of the evaluation is raised here. NEED FOR EVALUATION OF CURRICULUM CHANGE Title‘I was neither the first nor the only attempt at deliberately changing the curriculum in the public 49Taba,.9_p.£_i_£., pp. 455, 456. 50John I. Goodlad, The Changing School Curriculum. (New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1966), p. 97. 30 schools. Since Sputnik, there have been many national curriculum movements in almost every area of education. Improvement of curricula in such areas as the "new" 'math, the "new" science, and the "new" social studies are some examples of other national curriculum ‘movements. National concern for the educational program.offered in public schools was expressed by Beauchamp when he said: Rapid social change in contemporary life demands that we utilize every available procedure to keep our public school curriculum as dynamic as our social life.51 However, changing curriculum for the sake of change is not necessarily the only aspect of curriculum develop- ment. Taba introduces another important element of curriculum development by stating: Ewaluation...is an integral part of curriculum development, beginning with the concern about objectives and ending with assessment of their attainment.52 Commenting on the new national curriculum movements, Goodlad suggests that: At least four different means of evaluating new programs have been used: 1) observations of whether or not the students for whom the material is intended appear to be progressing successfully; 2) both casual and systematic questioning of students involved in the programs; 3) periodic examination of students by tests designed to cover the new material; 4) comparative testing 51Beauchamphgp. cit., p. 260. 52Taba,‘gp. cit., p. 313. 31 of students in the new and the old programs with traditional and specially designed tests.53 In attempting to define the term evaluation Saylor and Alexander state: In the simplest terms, to evaluate is "to determine the value of." The evaluation of curriculum planning is the determination of the value of that planning. Thus evaluation is one phase of the total process of curriculum planning.54 Beauchamp believes in the importance of evaluation even more strongly when he says: ...evaluation is an integral part of any school program. In fact, evaluation is so important that provision should be made for it in the school curriculum.55 Although evaluation is recognized as an important aspect of curriculum planning, Saylor and Alexander suggest that: Evaluation is frequently the weakest link in this chain of curriculum planning. After the planning is done is not the time to decide to evaluate.55 Ragan would concur with Saylor and Alexander with the comment: I Evaluation is not something that is done after teaching has been completed; it takes 53Goodlad,‘9_p. cit., pp. 98, 99. 5[+Saylor and Alexander, op. cit., p. 579. 55Beauchamp,‘9_p. cit., p. 260. 56Saylor and Alexander, loc. cit, 32 place simultaneously with teaching and learning.57 In describing the processes of planning and evaluation, Saylor and Alexander believe that: ...planning and evaluation are complementary processes which should occur almost simultane- ously and continuously...A1though plans and judgments are being made together, there are still discrete procedures which may be planned to ensure sound judgments. In general, these procedures, in relation to curriculum planning, are of two types: those which evaluate planning as a process, and those which evaluate planning through its results.58 Taba describes evaluation in this way: Evaluation is a broader undertaking than that of giving tests and grading students. It involves: (l) clarification of objectives to the point of describing which behaviors represent achievement in a particular area; (2) the development and use of a variety of ways for getting evidence on changes in students; (3) appropriate ways of summarizing and interpreting that evidence; and (4) the use or the lack of it to improve curriculum, teaching, and guidance.59 Another description of evaluation is that given by Beauchamp: In general, evaluation may be considered to be a triple-phased, circular process. The first phase of the process is one of determining 57Ragan,gp. cit., p. 454. 58Saylor and Alexander, op. cit., p. 580. 59Taba,.gp. cit., p. 313. 33 whether or not sought goals have been achieved. A second phase is that of determining the adequacy of the means utilized to achieve the goals. The third phase is a matter of determining whether the achieved goals were, in the final analysis, worthy of the effort.50 In discussing evaluation, Taba gives the next logical step by stating: Since the curriculum is essentially a plan for helping students to learn, ultimately all evaluation goes back to the criterion of effectiveness of learning.61 Krug believes that: Evaluation activities are the key to all educational experimentation and to most educational research of any variety. They are also the key to much of our classromm teaching and so become part of curriculum development itself.62 In his statement above, Krug introduced a new area of curriculum development which was not stated up to this point but was certainly implied. Class- room teaching is an important area of curriculum development and also an important area of evaluation. Ragan suggests: The purpose of (evaluation) is, of course, to enable the teacher to provide educative experiences for which the child is ready and which meet his developmental needs.63 6OBeauchamp,2_p. cit., p. 264. 61Taba,.9_p. cit., p. 311. 62Krug,lgp. cit., p. 264. 63Ragan,gp. cit., p. 452. 34 Krug goes on to say: (Evaluation) enters first into the process of translating the large and comprehensive statements of the task of the school into specific behavioral objectives applicable to classroom teaching. It enters secondly into the process of teaching, since behavior- sampling comes in as part of our normal introductory, developmental, and concluding activities of units of experience.64 That teaching is a part of evaluation and curriculum improvement is also believed by McNally, Passow, and Associates when they state: ...the evaluation of the curriculum improvement program must be primarily in terms of those characteristics which theory, experience, and research indicate to be effective and desirable in yielding better teaching and learning.65o In addition to the implication and statements that teaching is a part of evaluation and curriculum development, another implication can be interpreted from what has been said. Evaluation is not static. Or as Krug says: All phases of the school program should be continuously evaluated in the light of whatever philosophical criteria seem most useful and desirable. This means, of course, that formalized classroom instruction must be included.66 64Krug,gp. cit., p. 266. 65McNally,‘gp. cit., p. 311. 66Krug, 22. cit., p. 286. 35 Since Title I is a deliberate attempt to change curriculum, it would seem.to follow that the basic principles of curriculum change, teacher change, and evaluation should be incorporated in the development of Title I programs. The following descriptions of programs for the disadvantaged would seem to point toward the concern expressed by Ragan when he said: To the extent that objectives, learning activities, or evaluation become independent, they become formal and unrelated to the teaching-learning situation.67 PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED The emphasis of Title I programs has been directed toward elementary children as evidenced by the fact that "68 per cent of the children being served through Title I are in the range from pre- school through sixth grade."68 With this large per cent of programs directed toward the elementary school child, the importance of the teacher in the teaching- learning situation becomes a major area of concern. In working with Operation Head Start children, Connors and Eisenberg found that "teachers who were rated as warm, varied, active, and flexible also tended to 67Ragan,‘gp. cit., p. 453. 68"What's New in the E.S.E.A. Amendments," American Education, Vol. 3, No. 2 (February, 1967), p. 18. 36 produce most IQ improvement."69 In conjunction with this importance of teachers, Gerwitz suggests that "new pedogogical understandings and techniques must be employed to meet this challenge (of educating the disadvantaged)."70 In addition to the importance of the teacher in educating the disadvantaged, Gerwitz comments on the importance of education for the disadvantaged when he states that: The education of the disadvantaged child is regarded by many specialists in the field of urban problems as the most promising escape route these children have from the whirlpool of poverty and social disruption that is already submerging so many of our unskilled urban population. 1 Recognizing a need to work with teachers of the disadvantaged, Wayne State university and the Detroit Public Schools combined to present a workshop for teachers assigned to inner city schools. Obradovic in evaluating this workshop found that: While teachers generally acknowledged a lack of preparation of the children for work 69C. Keith Connors and Leon Eisenberg, "The Effect of Teacher Behavior on Verbal Intelligence in Operation Head Start Children," Final Report. U. S. Office of Education, Research Project ED 010 782, 1966, p. 23. 70Marvin H. Gerwitz, and others. "Teaching the Disadvantaged - Summer Institute for Professional Training of Teachers, Supervisors, and Administrators," Final Report. U. S. Office of Education, Research Project ED 011 018, 1966, p. 1. 71loc. cit. 37 at their grade level, in no case did a teacher indicate that he was attempting to make up deficiencies by modifications in the teacher- programmed classroom activities so that the children would be closer to grade level at the end of the school year.7 Gerwitz found that there was a discrepancy between what the teaching staff of a summer institute regarded as the primary objectives of the institute and what the participants considered the primary objectives. The staff felt that knowledge of sociological and conceptual theory should be the objectives. The participants, however, were more concerned with the practical knowledge relevant to the situation.73 One of the conclusions drawn from conducting this summer institute was that it can be a promising way to reach the disadvantaged by offering their teachers proper orientation about the special problems of these children.74 According to Kincaid, the Minnesota Department of Education was led to develop a short course for reading teachers because "no school program.oan be any better than the teachers who are responsible for it."75 The Minnesota Department of Education 72Sylvia M. Obradovic, "Evaluation of a Workshop for Teachers Newly Assigned to Inner City Schools," U. 8. Office of Education, Research Project ED 011 242, 1966, p. 30. 73Gerwitz,‘9_p. cit., p. 76. 74Ibid., p. 83. 75Gerald L. Kincaid, "A Title I Short Course for Reading Teachers," The Reading Teacher, Vol. 20, No. 4, (January, 1967), p. 307. 38 called a meeting with representatives of colleges which prepare teachers, and it "was agreed that the colleges had not done much to help prospective teachers learn how to deal with the students of lower ability.”76 Kincaid also suggests that: ...one of the major obstacles to learning for the disadvantaged has been that most teachers lacked understanding of such children and lacked faith in the ability of such children to learn.77 He reports the reason for this was that: ...the teacher was unaware of the gaps or shortcomings in the child's early educational background and was unaware of what should or could be done about those shortcomings.78 The Minnesota Department of Education conducted classes throughout the state in April, May, and June, 1966. One of the objectives of these classes was to motivate teachers in learning to understand the disadvantaged child. In the evaluation of the classes held through the month of June the major disappointment was the fact that "understanding the disadvantaged child" was seldom mentioned as the "most helpful." Most of the participants indicated that the new materials presented were the "most helpful" part of the course.79 76M” p. 308. 77.I_b_i_d- 78M. 79%” p. 311. 39 The role of the teacher in the education of the disadvantaged is highlighted in the reports cited above. No less important is what happens after the disadvantaged child has been in a special program. Cauman says that "follow-through in programs for the disadvantaged is a real responsibility."30 In the same issue as Cauman's article there is a feature article which describes five Title I projects which are designed specifically to follow through on Head Start.81 Perhaps it should be noted at this point that Head Start is funded under the Office of Economic Opportunity and Title I is funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Title I projects in the article referred to above are in some cases funded jointly from the offices of Economic Oportunity and Title 1.32 It should be noted that these projects were designed to follow through on Head Start programs and were limited to kindergarten and first grade.83 As mentioned earlier, a thorough search of the literature revealed no record of evaluating Title I 80Judith Cauman, "The Fine Art of Follow Through," Grade Teacher, Vol. 84, No. 4 (December, 1966), p. 104. 81"How Title I Programs Follow Through on Head Start," Grade Teacher, Vol. 84, No. 4 (December, 1966), p. 88. 8210c. cit. 83loc. cit. 40 programs in the areas of operation and effects as defined in Chapter I. In fact, a series of regional meetings held by the United States Office of Education in the area of evaluation research revealed that "the state department of education people attending the conferences displayed a great deal of unclarity about the evaluation requirements."84 Since there was a complete absence of research regarding the operation and effects of Title I programs as described in this study, it was decided to investigate this area so that disadvantaged children might eventually benefit from research generated by this study. 8['Charles N. Seashore, "Regional Meetings in Evaluation Research," Office of Education, Research Project ED 010 229, 1966, p. 10. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION In the section on Need for the Study in Chapter 1, reference was made to the fact that the United States Office of Education and the Michigan State Department of Education had not made an evaluation of elementary curriculum change as a result of Title 1 programs. In Chapter II it was noted that a search of the literature revealed no investigation of the operation and effects of Title 1 programs as defined in this study. With these facts in mind this study was designed as a pilot study to investigate and describe the operation and effects of selected Title I programs. A single cell study of this nature is described by Barnes as: ...the over-all design used in school surveys, many research studies, assessment studies, status studies, and case studies. Treatment of the data is usually descriptive in nature...As such, this is actually a report on what exists at the time of the study. When we have gathered adequate data about the group being studied, we can relate various characteristics and gain information about factors which may have been previously obscure. The more we study such a single cell, the more confident we become that certain forces may be influential in shaping the results we uncover.1 1Fred P. Barnes, Research for the Practitioner in Education. (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, Department of Elementary School Principals, 1964), p. 65. 41 42 The writer hoped this descriptive study and survey of teachers would emphasize the need, and provide some clues, for researching and evaluating Title I programs. SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE The procedure for selection of the sample used in this study was based on the description given by Barnes when he stated that: There are many ways to draw a smaller sample from a larger group. But in all the many different types of samples, the most important characteristic is randomness. By this is meant that every single sampling unit in the population has an equal chance of being drawn into the sample...In using this procedure, every effort is made to reduce the possibility that selection of the sample will be influenced by either conscious or subconscious bias and to leave instead the decision solely to sheer chance.2 Although randomness was a necessary requirement in the selection of the sample used in this study, the investigator and his doctoral committee believed that a further refinement of the sample was important to the study. The population from which the sample was drawn for this study was comprised of definite sub-groups or strata. Therefore, the investigator and his committee decided that a stratified random sample would be used in this study. Barnes describes this approach as using: ...the same "blind but fair" techniques which characterize random sampling. But when 21bid., p. 38. 43 a population is composed of several sub- populations, it may be divided into two or more strata. A random sample is taken from each stratum, with the subsamples joined to form the total sample. There is no attempt to make stratified samples a replica of corresponding populations; the intent in stratified random sampling is only to take into account the anticipated homogeneity of the defined strata with respect to the characteristic which is being studied.3 The population for this study was comprised of all elementary teachers who were teaching in an elementary school which was conducting or had conducted a Title I program; and also met the restriction that the elementary school was located in the area denoted by the Michigan Education Association as Region VIII of that organization. This area is comprised of the Michigan counties of Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Livingston, and Shiawassee. There were thirty-seven school districts in Region VIII;4 and each school district, at the time of this study, was conducting a Title I program in an elementary school in the district. These thirty- seven school districts in Region VIII were divided into five groups by the investigator. The five groups were 3Ibid., p. 39. 4S. E. Hecker, J. Meeder, and T. J. Northey, Michigan Public School District Data, 1262:1268. (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Association, 1968), pp. 28-32. 44 determined from the pupil enrollment in grades K-12 as listed by the Michigan Education Association.5 Each of these five groups was treated as a separate stratum; and the teachers, who were teaching in an elementary school in the district which was conducting a Title I program, were considered as a part of the subpopulations. The following table indicates the grouping of the school districts from pupil enrollment: TABLE I SCHOOL DISTRICT GROUPING BY PUPIL ENROLLMENT GROUP NUMBER PUPIL ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF DISTRICTS I up to 999 8 II 1000-1999 12 111 2000-3499 9 IV . 3500-6500 V 32,347 1 After each of the thirty-seven school districts was classified according to pupil enrollment, it became apparent to the investigator that each of these districts could also be classified according to its type of population center. The types of population centers for each group are described below. 519$. cit. 45 Since the pupil enrollment and the type of population center of one district in Region VIII was so much larger than all of the other school districts, the investigator placed this district in Group V by itself. TABLE II TYPE OF PUPULATION CENTER =========================================================== Group I Small Villages Group II Small towns with rural influences Group III Towns and suburban communities Group IV Small metropolitan centers Group V Largest metropolitan center in Region VIII From each of the first four groups of school districts shown in Table I, one district was randomly selected. This process was used with Groups I - IV to insure the possibility of selecting any one district in a particular group as the representative district for that group; and thus, randomness for each group could be assured. The use of one randomly selected school district from each group allowed the investigator to study a stratified random sample for Groups I - IV. A stratified random.sample was made possible because each of the districts selected, using the process described above, was conducting a Title I program in only one elementary school in the district. There- fore, the teachers in the elementary school which was conducting the Title I program became the randomly 46 selected subpopulation for the Group which the school district represented. Group V presented a different situation.' Since there was only one school district in Group V, that district became the representative district for the Group. However, a Title I program was being conducted in thirteen elementary schools in the school district at the time of this study. In order to obtain a random sample from the school district in Group V, one elementary school was selected as the representative school for Group V by using the same procedure described by Barnes to assure randomness. The teachers in the elementary school selected as the representative school for Group V became the randomly selected subpopulation to represent Group V. Because all the school districts in Region VIII were divided into groups by the investigator according to pupil enrollment and because the subpopulations representing Groups I - V were randomly selected, the sample used in this study was considered to be a stratified random sample of the total population of elementary teachers who were teaching in an elementary school which was conducting or had conducted a Title I program; and also met the restriction that the elementary school was located in the area denoted by the Michigan Education Association as Region VIII of that organization. Table III indicates the number of teachers com- prising each group in the sample and the total number of teachers in the sample. 47 DATA TO BE COLLECTED The focus of this study was upon the operation and effects of selected Title I programs. The questionnaire was designed to yield data and information that would lend themselves to the task of studying the operation and effects of Title I programs as these terms were defined in Chapter I. TABLE III NUMBER OF TEACHERS BY GROUP AND IN TOTAL GROUP NUMBER NUMBER OF TEACHERS Group I 18 Group II 27 Group III 13 Group IV 10 Group V 19 TOTAL 87 The questionnaire used in this study was developed by the writer to obtain items of general information as well as specific information regarding the hypotheses to be researched. The sections pertaining to personal data and background were presented in an effort to describe more fully the composition of the sample in relation to teaching experience, tenure in the district, and experience in Title I. 48 Specific information was sought from the teachers in the sample in order to study their knowledge of Title I programs in the areas of preparation of proposals, goals and objectives, curricular change resulting from Title I, grade levels in which Title I programs were operating, and change in classroom teaching methods. In addition, data were collected from the summaries of Title I programs submitted by the local district to the Michigan State Department of Education. Where a comparison of the teacher responses and the summaries of the local school district was appropriate, this comparison was made to determine teacher perceptions in relation to the summaries submitted by the local school district to the Michigan State Department of Education. COLLECTION OF THE DATA It was decided that the best way to obtain the needed information in this study was by means of a questionnaire to be completed by the teachers them- selves. The questionnaire used by the writer and administered to the teachers in the sample was developed after detenmination of the objectives of this study. The initial questionnaire was submitted to members of the writer's doctoral committee for criticism.and suggestion. Then the revised question- naire was pre-tested with elementary teachers who were not teaching in a school district selected for the study, but who were teaching in an elementary school conducting a Title I program. The results 49 of the suggestions and criticisms of the committee and of the experimental sample of teachers were used to clarify and improve the questionnaire. The questionnaire, as administered in this study, will be found in Appendix A. Permission was obtained to administer the finalized questionnaire to all the teachers in each of the five elementary schools selected for this study. Each school selected for this study was conducting a Title I program during the 1967-1968 school year. The questionnaire was administered by the writer to the teachers in each school in the study during a staff meeting so that all the teachers in a given school answered the questionnaire during the same session. Upon completion of the questionnaire, the teachers returned them to the writer before leaving the meeting. Thus, a 100 per cent response was obtained from the total of 87 teachers. TREATMENT OF THE DATA The data from.the questionnaires were compiled -and analyzed to see if they supported or did not support the hypotheses to be tested. Responses for each item were grouped according to frequencies and percentages. Also, where appropriate, the responses of the teachers were compared with the information and evaluation submitted by the local district to the Michigan State Department of Education. The completed questionnaires were grouped according to the groups listed in Table I, and they 50 were‘numbered in order to provide a means for cross- checking reaponses to related items. The responses were tabulated and summarized, and then they were compiled into tables. Master sheets for these tabulations were constructed to conform to the categories and individual items within the categories on the questionnaire. The responses were grouped and totaled in logical and appropriate columns. This facilitated the obtain- ing of frequencies and percentages. Attention was given to the summaries of in- formation that related to the limitations and areas of possible significance of this study. Care was taken that the major conclusions were supportable from the data that were processed. The analysis of the data did not seem to require extensive statistical treatment. The questionnaire items were designed to explore and to gain information regarding Title I programs which could be used to describe the operation and effects of selected Title I programs. The items in the questionnaire combined to make this possible in the manner described. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA INTRODUCTION The methods of presenting the data of this study were determined from the format of the questionnaire and the procedure of the study as described in the preceding chapter. The questionnaire used in this study (copy in Appendix A) was developed to obtain items of general information as well as specific information. The data collected in this study were derived from the questionnaire developed by the investigator and ad- ministered to the teachers in the sample. The total number of teachers included in the sample was 87 (Table III, Chapter III). Since 87 questionnaires were returned to the writer, there was 100 per cent response. This percentage of response was possible because the questionnaire was administered during a faculty meeting in each school and returned to the investigator upon completion by the teachers. The data collected in the questionnaire are presented in tabular form in this chapter. "In an effort to identify and delineate the sample of teachers used in this study, background information concerning these teachers is given in Tables IV - IX. In Tables X - XXI data are given which pertain to the Title I programs operating in the district at the time of the study and the teachers' perception of these programs. School districts composing the sample were 51 52 classified into five groups (as shown in Table I, Chapter III) according to pupil enrollment. Data in Tables IV - XXI are presented for each of these groups as well as for the total sample. GENERAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SAMPLE Tables IV, V, and VI record the teaching experience of the teachers surveyed in this study. Teaching experience was divided into three areas by the writer. These three areas were Total Years Teaching Experience, Teaching Experience in the District, and Teaching Experience in the Building. When considering the data in Table IV, attention should be drawn to the fact that a majority of teachers in the sample had more than five years total teaching experience. Each sub-group, except Group I, had a majority of teachers with more than five years total teaching experience. If both 2-5 years and more than five years total teaching experience are considered, then the percentage jumps up to 90 per cent of the total sample falling into this area. Since only 10 per cent of the teachers in the total sample are classified as first year teachers, it is obvious that the total sample could be considered as being primarily composed of experienced teachers. If the limitations of Teaching Experience in the District is imposed, Table V indicates that the percentages are altered only slightly. However, even with this limitation, 74 per cent of the total sample of teachers had taught in the district for more than two years. The total sample could be 53 considered as being primarily composed not only of experienced teachers but also of teachers with teaching experience in the district. To conclude the teaching experience of the teachers in the sample, Table VI presents the percentages of teachers with teaching experience in the building in which the survey was conducted. Again the percentages change but slightly with 68 per cent of the total sample of teachers having taught two or more years in the building in which the survey was conducted. These percentages indicate that a large majority of the teachers in the sample were in the same district and in the same building when the 1967-1968 Title I proposal was drafted for the district. This fact becomes significant when consideration is given to the responses of the teachers regarding their perceptions of the Title I program operating in their building at the time this study was conducted. Further background information is presented in Table VII. This table indicates the educational preparation of the teachers in the sample. 69 per cent of the total teachers in the sample had received a B.A. degree, 20 per cent had received an M.A. degree, and only 11 per cent had no degree. Groups IV and V did not have a teacher without a degree. As indicated in Table 1, Chapter III, these two groups had the largest pupil enrollment. Teacher certification in Michigan should be discussed prior to consideration of Table VIII. 54 TABLE IV TOTAL YEARS TEACHING EXPERIENCE GROUP NUMBER 1 YEAR 2‘5 YEARS MORE THAN 5 YEARS __ 7 \ °/.‘ . N _ 7. N ‘7. I 3 l; 9 50 6 33 11 2 7 10 37 i5 56 111 2 15 4 3. 7 54 IV I 10 3 3O 6 60 V' 1 5 7 37 ll 58 TOTAL. 9 10 33 38 45 52 55 TABLE V TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN THE DISTRICT GROUP NUMBER 1 YEAR 2-5 YEARS MORE THAN 5 YEARS N Z N Z N Z I 6 33 7 39 5 28 II 5 l9 8 3O 14 51 III 4 31 4 31 5 38 IV 5 50 3 3O 2 20 V 3 l6 6 32 10 52 TOTAL 23 26 28 32 36 42 56 TABLE VI TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN THE BUILDING GROUP NUMBER 1 YEAR 2-5 YEARS MORE THAN SYHRS N Z N Z N Z I 9 50 6 33 3 17 II 6 22 ll 41 10 37 III 4 31 5 38 4 31 IV 6 6O 3 30 l 10 V 3 16 8 42 8 42 TOTAL 28 32 33 38 26 3O 57 There were two broad categories of teacher certifica— tion in Michigan at the time of this study. One category was classified by the writer as "Provisional" and the other as ”Permanent." A Provisional Certificate was con- sidered in this study as any type of certificate issued by the State of Michigan which required additional col- lege credits for validation. A Permanent Certificate was considered in this study as any type of certificate issued by the State of Michigan which did not require additional college credits for validation. One type of Permanent Certificate issued by the State of Michigan in previous years was the ”life” Certificate. A teacher was not necessarily required to have completed a degree in order to receive a Life Certificate. It should be noted that the State of Michigan no longer issues the Life Certificate and all teacher certification for Per- manent Certificate requires the completion of a B.A. degree plus the completion of additional graduate credits. However, 11 per cent of the teachers in this study, who did not have a degree, indicated on their questionnaires that they did possess a Life Certificate. As indicated in Table VIII, the teachers in this sample were almost evenly divided between Provisional Certification and Permanent Certification. 54 per cent possessed Provisional Certificates and 46 per cent possessed Permanent Certificates. Data concerning teaching experience in Title I pro- grams are presented in Table IX. This Table concludes the general information portion of the questionnaire used in this study. 84 per cent of the teachers indicated they were not now teaching in a Title I program; 72 per cent 58 TABLE VII EDUCATIONAL PREPARATION _,_ GROUP NUMBER NO DEGREE B.A. MQA. N Z N Z N Z I 4 22 12 67 l 6 II 4 15 19 70 4 15 III 2 15 62 3 23 IV 0 O 80 2 20 V 0 O 12 63 7 37 TOTAL 10 11 59 69 17 20 59 TABLE VIII TYPES OF MICHIGAN CERTIFICATION GROUP NUMBER PROVISIONAL PERMANENT CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION N Z N Z I 12 67 6 33 II 16 59 ll 41 III 6 46 7 54 IV 5 50 5 50 V 8 42 ll 58 TOTAL 47 54 4O 46 60 stated they had not taught in a Title I program in the district; and 97 per cent said they had never taught in a Title I program in some other district. It would appear that a large majority of the teachers surveyed in this study consider they have never taught in a Title I program. In summation of the general information given by the teachers, as reported in Tables IV - IX, the following statements are presented: 1. A large majority of teachers comprising the sample used in this study have been teaching more than two years in the district and building in which they are now located. This would indicate that they were also in the building in which the Title I program was operating at the thme the proposal for that Title I program was developed. 2. 89 per cent of the teachers possess at least a B.A. degree. 3. The sample of teachers is almost evenly divided between provisional and permenent certifi- cation by the State of Michigan. 4. Quite a large majority of the teachers in the sample have not taught in a Title I program either in their district or in another district. TEACHER PERCEPTION OF TITLE I PROGRAMS As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the questionnaire was devised so that specific information could be solicited from the teachers in the sample regarding their knowledge of the Title I program operating in the building in which these teachers were teaching. Also, where applicable, the teacher 61 mm «m m m Nu mo mH mH ow mm 0H oH mH om m OH H om m o 0 cm m OH H >H ooH NH O 0 Nu 0H mH N mm HH mH N HHH ma mN N N no mH HH m ow mH om w HH OOH wH o 0 mm 0H HH N 00H wH c o H .h N z N z N z N z N z N z MMHZDZ mDomu oz mmw oz mmw oz mmw HUHMHmHQ mmmHo zH HUHmemHn zH H MHHHH zH H MHHHH zH HmOD >H HHH HH mmbomu HH HHH HH H MHmHmzommmm zommmm z em m cm a as a em a em a as m cm N e-N >H - - Ne NH Na NH Na NH Na NH Ne NH me a 8-x HHH mm mN me mN Ne mN AN AN ma AN ma mN Ne NH e-N HH NN e NN e NN e NH m . am N am N NN e e-e .H H N z N z N z N z N z N z N z semeomm N mo HN>HH emcee enema nme<¢mmo m<3 ZMH mmHN mHmHO>zH mm Md NH *O OM «M Ow *HH NO «OH OM N mHHmDm mom Hoomum mo MOOMHZH NM NM Nm OH ON N OO O «O NH HH N QMOnommZH OO Nm OH M OOH OH mm HH Hm NN MM O mHHHMm MMHHommZH OM ON MO MH OH H MN M OH O NN q mm0H>MMm mHHOmm Oq OM qN OH OH H MN M «O NH MN m mHHmDm ho mmomm2H wO OO «O OH OO O NO NH ON ON OM *N mHHmDm mo HmmuzouumHmw m>OMHZH N z N Z N Z N z N z N z z >H HHH HH. mmDOMO HDOMU moMmm MUZOQHDU m>omm2H Oq MN MO MH ON N OO O MO NH HH N mHHmDm mo mmHHHHHm< Hmm HM NN NM O ON N HM O «O NH NH M mzaom ZH OMHZH NN OH NO O OH H MM O OH O O H mammUHH<>OzzH mOHm>mo we MM NM O OM M NN OH HO HH NH M mmoz HOmm N z N z N z N z N z N z zH HHH HH H HemseHucoov NHN mHmoH Om OO NO O OO O NN OH MO NH NN O mHOHOH M M O O O O u u N N O H O M N m H O O OH N HH M O H M OH O M H O O MN M HH M HH N O O O OH M OH H M H HH M n u M O m HH N OH H w H O H n n N O M m H ON N MN M N N O O H m O m H O O O O HH M u n M N Z N z N z N z N z N z HOHOH > >H HHH HH H ZmH MOmH MQ