MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES
THROUGH GOAL/OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
PAUL JEROME KRIZ
1976

  
     

  

L I B R A R Y
Michigan 5‘39
Waivers“!

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL
EXPENDITURES THROUGH GOAL]
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS

presented by

Paul J. KrIz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. d . EducatIonaI
egree m———Adm+n'fstratlon

 

flew/4 a W

Majozprofessor

Date é/jfl/7é

0-7 639

 

ABSTRACT

MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES
THROUGH GOAL/OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS

BY

Paul Jerome Kriz

As the costs of education increase significantly
it becomes incumbent upon administrators to develOp the
best possible system for the management of resources to
insure that fiscal and social needs are satisfied.

The purpose of this study was to obtain an opinion
of future deve10pments, by a highly qualified, select
group of practicing administrators, in the area of goal/

objective analysis as they relate to expenditures.

Procedures

 

A group of nine highly qualified and well-educated
practicing administrators were selected from within the
confines of the State of Michigan. These administrators
were from various levels of K-12 education. A modified
Delphi technique was used to obtain expert Opinion.
Respondents were asked to project Opinion in the areas of
development of a hierarchy of educational goals/objectives,
instituting a modified classification of expenditure

accounts, associating goals/objectives with expenditures,

Paul Jerome Kriz

and use of computer technologY; all for the purpose of
improving decision-making capabilities. After two rounds
of the Delphi technique, respondents met ina general

meeting.

Results and Conclusions

 

It was determined that there exists a need to
develop standardized terminology and definitions in the
area of goals and objectives. The idea of associating a
goal/objective with an expenditure and providing computer
retrieval was perceived as desirable; however, implemen-
tation of such a system was perceived as extremely cumber-
some. Respondents viewed the use of goals/objectives in
connection with expenditures in relation to decision making
as somewhere between very limited and the single most
important variable. The conclusion drawn was that infor-
mation provided will be one important element that an

administrator should consider when doing decision making.

Recommendations

 

Further research should be completed to: deve10p
accepted terminology in the area of goals/objectives,
categorize goals and objectives into a hierarchy, inves-
tigate the possibility of condensing expenditure accounts
into a smaller number, study the weighting that adminis-
trators give to decision making based on goals and objec-

tives, develop a simplified local district computer input

Paul Jerome Kriz

program, develop an output program tailored to the local
district, develOp a state or regional organization to
coordinate and handle inputs from districts, and develOp
programs of exposure to systems and instructional processes
for practicing administrators within the college of educa-

tional administration.

MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES

THROUGH GOAL/OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS

BY

Paul Jerome Kriz

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1976

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of people have provided assistance and
support throughout this research study. I wish to express
my sincere appreciation to the following peeple:

Dr. Alexander Kloster for his continued support
and guidance throughout the two years of residency includ-
ing his efforts and time devoted to my research.

Dr. Gerald Miller, Dr. Louis Romano, and Dr. Louise
Sause for serving as members of my committee and supplying
valuable assistance and recommendations throughout the
study.

Dr. Dave Blomquist, Dr. Richard Featherstone,

Dr. Dave Fultz, Dr. Kirk Nigro, Dr. Jack Oatley, Dr. Vernon
Oxender, Dr. Alfred Peters, Dr. William Rogers, Dr. Robert
Vermeulen, and Dr. Norman Whisler for serving as members
of my advisory board, taking time out of a busy schedule.

Dr. William Emerson and the staff of Oakland Inter-
mediate District, Dr. Fred Ignatovich, and Eric Gordon for
evaluating sections of the research.

Karen, my wife, for sustaining me during my
endeavor; Andy, my son, for providing numerous diversions;

and Eric or Audrey for not arriving early.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . O O O O O O C O C C O O O O C C 0

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . .
Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedures for Data Gathering and
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Systems Acronyms . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of the Dissertation . . . . . .

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Systems and Systems Analysis . . . . . .
Program Evaluation and Review Technique
Planning Phase . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Operating Phase . . . . . . . . .
Planning Programming Budgeting Systems .
Summary of PPBS Literature . . . . . .
Management by Objectives . . . . . . .
Summary of Systems . . . . . . . . . . .
Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Goals and Objectives . . .

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . .

Jury of Experts . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Delphi Technique . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page
vi

vii

[—1

CDQU'INI-J

ll
14

18

18
18
26
27
29
30
39

43
45
49

56

56
57
58
58
59
62
64

Chapter

IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .

Research Question One: Can a System of
Classification of Goals/Objectives Into
a Hierarchy of Order Provide Management
With Information to Improve Decision
Making? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondent Meeting Summary . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question Two: Will a Modified
Classification of Expenditure Accounts
Provide a More Pure Representation for
Improved Decision Making? . . . . . . .
Respondent Meeting Summary . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question Three: Can Educational
Goals/Objectives Be Effectively Asso-
ciated With an Expenditure for Improved
Decision Making? . . . . . . . . . . . .
ReSpondent Meeting Summary . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question Four: Can a System of
Associating Expenditures With Goals/
Objectives Be Effectively Used With
Computer Technology to Provide a
More Effective Decision-Making Tool? . .
Respondent Meeting Summary . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Findings and Conclusions . . .
Research Finding--Question One . . . . .
Research Finding--Question Two . . . . .
Research Finding--Question Three . . . .
Research Finding--Question Four . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . .

APPENDICES

Specific Implications of Research
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Implications . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. LETTER AND DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . .

B. INFORMATION AND OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE . .

iv

Page

67

69
69
69

73
73
73

77
77
78

81
81
82
86
86
86
87
87
88

89
89

91
94

96
97

99

Chapter Page

C. LETTER AND INFORMATION--SECOND ROUND
QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D. SECOND ROUND QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . 119

E. ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS: A SYSTEMS APPROACH . . 128

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Responses to Research Question
Responses to Research Question
Re5ponses to Research Question

Responses to Research Question

vi

One
Two
Three

Four

Page
70
74
79
83

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. PERT Time System Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . 28

vii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

As the costs of education increase significantly
it becomes incumbent upon administrators at all levels of
education to develop the best possible system for the
management of resources to insure that both fiscal and
social needs are equally satisfied. This was supported
by Kloster when he wrote:

Education is a complicated and complex activity and
as continued effort is made to correct additional
societal dysfunctions through educational processes
the complexity will correspondingly increase. School
executives and managers of educational functions are
being called upon to make major decisions involving
services, staff, and instructional programs which
require the allocation of substantial resources.
These decisions must be, in the long term, the right
decisions and should be made within the framework

of the newest and most effective management systems
and techniques. Management systems are not a sub-
stitute for intelligence and sound judgment. How-
ever, the systems will provide the manager with
relevant, reliable data organized in a form most
useful to him.1

Integration of management skills and technology
occurred in the public schools around the time of World
War I. It was about this time that business adopted
time-and-motion technology, complex accounting systems,

and production techniques. Very few school superintendents

l

attempted to transfer the benefits netted by industry
to the educational system. It was not until the Cold
War and the first Sputnik was launched that the leaders
of the country, through The National Defense Education
Act, began pouring large sums of money into the educational
system. By the end of the past decade educators were
starting to feel the pressure from various sources to
provide a more accountable management of resources.
Solutions have been many, and with each solution
came additional information to be molded into a more com-
plex system. The results of these endeavors have brought
educators to the brink of operationalizing this large mass
of information into a workable system of evaluation. The
introduction of computer technology on a broad base intro-
duces for the first time a method of coupling educational

goals and objectives to a system of accountability.

Need for the Study

 

Administration of education has developed through
the years from infancy in the early 19005 to where it is
accepted by many as a discipline. Through the development
there has been little change in how resources are managed.
Management tools developed in industry are now being
reshaped to fit the educational climate. Increasing expen-
ditures in education have paved the way for methods to use

more effectively and efficiently available resources.

Resources, both tax and manpower, which are needed to sup-
port public education are clearly limited and must compete
with other public uses of these vital commodities. Perkins
succinctly stated:
Because public education has been called upon to
solve economic as well as social problems, expendi-
tures for education will continue to claim a signifi-
cant share of the tax dollar. Since these expendi-
tures are rising and available tax resources are
being stretched, the public is demanding better jus-
tification of educational costs.3
Perkins went on to write:
For years, school administrators have done a poor job
of trying to tell the story of budget needs to the
public. No real effort has been made to talk about
the cost of educational programs and the effective-
ness of our processes and methods.

Along the same line of thinking, Richard S.

Eckaus stated:
The patterns [of management] that now exist represent
the influence of tradition and of occasional crisis
more than they indicate rational planning. . . .
Though we have muddled through in the past, the inter-
nal and external pressures on our system [of public
education] will not validate such behavior much
longer.

These opinions are reflected and reiterated by
professionals, legislators, and so-called "common folk"
daily. The results are just beginning to show in the form
of demand for more accountability. Michigan is not atypi-
cal of the situation in which accountability finds itself
presently. A profound explanation of the state of account-

ability within the largest intermediate district in the

state was expressed by the Oakland County Association of
School Superintendents in 1972:

It is concluded, therefore, that "educational account-
ability" being demanded here in Michigan stems from
some complex and not fully understood phenomena in

the body politic, and that the "demand" for accounta-
bility is a fairly amorphous idea, undefined in any
theoretical sense and certainly not described opera-
tionally.

This statement is still appropriate today. This body of
educators went on to state:

Certainly schools and peOple within schools can and
do account for many things--money, supplies, students,
personnel, etc. This accounting exercise is usually
done for the purpose of audits, control and retro-
spective comparison. But if one is to inquire as to
whether or not a school is doing its job and hold

the school accountable for it, then one must be spe—
cific as to what its job is.

In spite of efforts on the part of educators to
introduce innovations, involve the community in educational
affairs, and provide numerous alternatives to the tradi-
tional education, the quality of the job done by the schools
is frequently questioned. It is becoming abundantly clear
that evaluation of present programs and not institution of
crash programs is becoming ever more demanded. This idea
was reinforced by John Bequer when he stated:

Only in recent years has an effort been made to see
the school budget as something other than a means of
controlling expenditures. Now it is also seen as an
instrument helpful in focusing resources on selected
goals, thereby contributing to the appraisal of how

well the systgm is performing the task of educating
its children.

Focusing resources on goals sounds like a viable
alternative but the concept is not without problems.
Presently goals and objectives are not classified into any
type of order. In his writing on this subject, Kloster

stated:

A partial solution to the problem is the refinement

of goals into specific and measurable objectives and,
the definition of processes as tasks which consume
human and material resources and are scheduled to
occur within a specified period. The decision-maker
needs to identify the most efficient and effective
course of action by which to accomplish the objectives.
The tasks should consume minimum resources and yet
achieve a desired quality of performance.

Although there are a number of taxonomies dealing
with objectives, one of the most complete taxonomies deal-
ing with educational systems has been developed by Robert

Ohm.lo

The bridge between the theoretical taxonomy pro-
posed by Ohm and the "practical" world is an area of dark-
ness presently. This bridge needs to be carefully con-

structed.

Statement of the Problem

 

Increasing pressure is being generated from a
cross—section of the population in relation to accounta-
bility and education expenditure. Tuscher states:

A vast majority of the educational institutions across
the nation are experiencing financial difficulties.
There exists a severe limitation on the supply of
public funds for education, while the demand for
public expenditure for education appears virtually
unlimited. Consequently, careful consideration must
be given to the budgeting process. Cost benefit and
cost effectiveness techniques applied to educational

expenditures have been suggested as useful method-

ologies in optimally allocating limited resources toll

maximize the return from the educational investment.

In attempting to transfer the concept of cost-

benefit analysis from the industrial setting to the
educational setting, educators bold enough to attempt it
have emerged briefly into prominence and then faded into
obscurity. The problem associated with industrial transfer
of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis becomes
more apparent when a child or the evaluation of what a
child is "supposed" to know at a certain level is compared
to a sum of money, property value, cost of a square foot
of space, or the compensation of his teachers. The prob-
lem with the concepts ii; the application of them into a
humanistic environment. In his final report to H.E.W.,
Tusher suggested:

In order to allocate limited resources among compet-

ing programs based on the utility of these programs,

it is necessary first to establish a functional rela-

tionship between the utility of a program and the

cost of each program at various levels of cost. The

utility of a program is defined as a real valued

number which expresses an evaluator's judgment of

the degree to which a given program has the potential

to contribute to the satisfaction of some stated

criterion or objective.12

A critical review of the present educational system

of expenditures indicates a great need for goal deter-
mination. The accounting system must develop the capa-
bility to go beyond the traditional stewardship function.

Without adequate classification of expenditures and goals

little management of vital resources can be expected.

Because of limited resources it has become a paramount
necessity to determine a hierarchy of educational goals
and objectives to effect rational decision making when
confronted with fiscal restraints. In addition, the
introduction of computer technology into the educational
system produces the capability to adapt past systems to
present-day technology to provide for more than steward-
ship capability to educational decision makers. This

suggests that a highly complex system must be developed.

Delimitations of the Study

 

This study deals primarily with projections of
the feasibility of developing an area of a management
information system relating to the evaluation of expendi-
tures for improving decision making. This study limits
itself only to the projections made by a group of selected
highly qualified practicing administrators with expertise
in school business management and educational administra-
tion. This study is further limited by the boundaries of
the state of Michigan and the realm of K—12 administration
at the local and intermediate level.

While this study is primarily concerned with man-
agement of K-12 education at the highest level of manage-
ment, there may be implications across the administrative
spectrum filtering into the classroom. The concepts

evaluated in this study have further implications for

analysis of educational systems outside the scope of this

study, i.e., community colleges, higher education, and

vocational/technical education.

In addition, conceptual transfer of findings of

the study may possibly be applied to other than educa-

tional settings, since all organizations are confronted

with similar humanistic problems.

Research Questions

 

Can a system of classification of goals/
objectives into a hierarchy of order provide
management with information to improve decision
making?

Will a modified classification of expenditure
accounts provide a more pure representation
for improved decision making?

Can educational goals/objectives be effec-
tively associated with an expenditure for
improved decision making?

Can a system of associating expenditures with
goals/objectives be effectively used with com-
puter technology to provide a more effective

decision-making tool?

Procedures for Data Gathering and Analysis

A theoretical model was developed by the researcher

for each of the four questions. The model was based on all

available research and reading for each of the four
research questions. Two questions were developed for each
of the research questions. The first question pertained
to the conceptual thrust of the research question. The
second question addressed itself to the evaluation of the
example provided. This was done to avoid only responses
to the model provided as an example. The questionnaire
sent to the respondents was open ended for the first round
of responses. Upon receipt of the results from the par-
ticipants a second questionnaire was generated. This
consisted of the nine responses obtained for each ques-
tion with instructions to rank order the responses and
indicate on a scale of one to seven the degree of agree—
ment or disagreement with the statement. Only responses
to the first question in the first questionnaire were
used since those questions and responses were the essence
of the research thrust. The Delphi Technique for obtain-
ing expert opinion was used up to this point, insuring
anonymity of participants. Upon receipt of the second
round of responses, an analysis was made and a meeting of
the participants was initiated for clarification and addi-
tional discussion.

Participants were selected from several different
sized K-lZ school districts, intermediate districts, and

one institution of educational administration. Participants

10

all possessed a minimum of the following qualifications:
Ph.D. in Educational Administration
Administrative expertise in finance of education
Practical administrative experience
Present employment in the field of educational
administration
Nine participants were selected. The number of partici-
pants was small because of the availability of qualified
educators and also because of the problem of dealing with
an open-ended questionnaire.

Analysis of data generated was done after a rank
ordering of results of the second round questionnaire and
a mean of the degree of agreement/disagreement was deter-
mined. A set of summary statements generated from the
open meeting of the participants was also analyzed. Upon
completion of the analysis the results were reported.

To assist the reader in comprehending the study,

definitions of systems acronyms and some technical terms

follow.

Definition of Systems Acronyms
Agfif-Attitude Sampling Kit
CBEe-Competency-Based Education
Eggs-Critical Path Method
EBQf-Education by Objectives
Eggs-Education by Results
§§A§--Educational Resource Allocation System

ERMS--Educational Resources Management System

11

§Q§--Electronic Data Processing
LBQ--Leadership by Objectives
MBQ--Management by Objectives
MBR--Management by Results
Mggf-Management Control System
MI§--Management Information System
QA--Operations Analysis
QR--Operations Research

gQ--Organizational Development

PACER--Prescriptive Analysis for Curriculum Evaluation
and Review

PERT--Program Evaluation and Review Technique
PPBS--Planning Programming Budgeting System

PPBES--Planning Programming Budgeting and Evaluation
System

 

RAMS--Remotely Accessible Management System
ROME--Results Oriented Management in Education

SAM--Student Achievement Monitor

Definition of Terms

 

Account: A record of transactions affecting a
specific item; a descriptive heading under which are
recorded financial transactions that are similar in terms
of a given frame of reference.

Accountability: The responsibility of being
answerable for the expenditure of resources in terms of

the results achieved.

12

Accounting System: A formal network of communi-

 

cations including records, procedures of recording,
retrieving, and reporting information on the financial
position of an educational unit or system for the purpose
of stewardship, planning, control, decision making, and
evaluation.

Computer Technology: Equipment and materials that

 

are linked either directly or indirectly to a computer
system.

Cost: Resources that are expended in exchange for
goods and services.

Cost Accounting: A method of accounting associ-

 

ating an expenditure of resources with an accomplishment,
purpose, activity, operation, or unit of output providing
management with information for decision making.

Decision Making: Choosing between one or more

 

alternative courses of action.

Direct Cost: Those elements of cost that are

 

traceable to a unit of output or a segment of the organi-
zation's operation which are easily identifiable.

Expenditure: Charges incurred, whether paid or

 

unpaid, which are expected to benefit the organization
presently or sometime in the future.

Goal: A statement of what is to be internalized.
Its characteristics include difficulty of measurement and

delayed rewards.

13

Indirect Cost: Those costs which are not obviously

 

traceable to a unit of output or to a segment of the organ-
ization's operations; costs which can be associated with

a number of different programs or activities that are

not easily identified with that unit.

Internalization: A process of interpreting data

 

through sensory input in a subjective manner incorporat-
ing within the self the resultant stimuli which subse-
quently modifies or reinforces behavioral tendency.

Management: Any person or group of people who do

 

decision making.

Management Information System: A network of com-

 

munications that stores, processes, and feeds back infor-
mation or data used in making decisions by managers.
Mgdgl: A representation either graphically or
mathematically made which may be reproduced, applied, or
followed because of its inherent feasibility or worth.

Objective: A statement intended to either bring

 

about change in program elements or evaluate instruction.
Its characteristics include ease of measurement and imme-
diate rewards.

Program: A group of activities which are to
achieve an organization's purpose.

Resources: Immediate and possible sources of

 

revenue, money, materials, personnel, and conditions.

l4

Stewardship Accounting: Managing accounts with

 

emphasis on custodianship and safety as well as approp-
riate use.

System: Any complex interrelationship with simul-
taneous occurrences; a group of integrated and inter-
related activities performed in sequence to achieve a
goal or objective; an ongoing activity involving personnel,
materials, and procedures to produce a given output.

Taxonomy: A system of classification.

Overview of the Dissertation

 

Chapter I included identification of the problem,
background information, importance of the study, and
generalizability of the study. In addition, it contained
a definition of terms and acronyms used in the study, which
may be unfamiliar to the reader or require clarification.
Research questions to be analyzed were also included in
this chapter.

A dual approach to the review of the literature
is taken in Chapter II. Because of the nature of the
study undertaken, an extensive review of systems as they
pertain to education was done, in addition to an in-depth
review of goal and objective analysis. Because the study
is educational in nature, systems and models relating to
education were looked at. The review of literature there-
fore is not inclusive of numerous models and systems not

relating to education.

15

Chapter III provides the reader with the rationale
of the study's design in addition to how the study was
conducted. The Delphi method for obtaining expert opin-
ion is discussed in depth.

Chapter IV provides an in—depth View of the data
obtained. In addition to the data gathered for this study,
there are raw data generated by evaluation of the example
models developed for each research question. A table pro-
viding the reader a complete picture of the evaluation
generated by participants is provided, in addition to the
evaluation generated by participants in the group meeting.
Conclusions are formed using the various data generated.

Chapter V, Implications and Recommendations, indi-
cates to the reader what the perceptions of the researcher
are, in addition to insight gained that might be of value

to others wishing to continue with further research.

16

Footnotes--Chapter I

1Alexander J. Kloster, "Development of an Account-
ing System as Part of a Complete Planning, Programming,
Budgeting System" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1971), pp. 1-2.

2Oakland County Association of School Superin-
tendents, "School Management Technology in Oakland County,
Michigan" (Pontiac, Michigan, November 1972), p. 3.
(Mimeographed.)

3Joseph A. Perkins, Jr., Peat, Marwich, Mitchell
& Co., "PPBS and MIS--Their Role in Managing Educationp"
paper';presented..at the National School Finance Conference,
National Education Association, New Orleans, Louisiana,
March 1969), p. 1. ERIC # ED 030 961.

4Ibid.

5Richard S. Eckaus, "Education and Economic
Growth," in Economics of Higher Education, ed. Selma J.
Mushkin.

6Oakland County Association of School Superin-
tendents, "School Management," p. 4.

7Ibid., p. 5.

8John Bequer, "Relationships Between Educational
Objectives and Educational Costs" (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1973), Vol. I.

9Alexander J. Kloster, "A Cost Finding System for
Measuring Educational Output," June 9, 1972, p. l.
(Mimeographed.)

10Robert E. Ohm, "Organizational Goals: A Systems
Approach," paper presented at the 20th Annual National
Conference of Professors of Educational Administration
Meeting, Indiana University, August 25, 1966). ERIC
# ED 010 710.

17

llLeRoy J. Tuscher, "An Empirical Study of the

Application of a Decision-Making Model Using Judgment in
the Allocation of Resources to Competing Educational Pro-
grams" (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Lehigh University,
October 1973), p. 1. ERIC # ED 085 416.

lzIbid., p. 3.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

To understand and assess the future of management
decision making, it is necessary to look at the present
and past attempts at formalization. It must be remem-
bered that the impetus for development of modified
decision-making methods is the public outcry for more
accountability of educational expenditures.

This chapter is divided into several sections,
each of which is designed to provide a better understand-
ing of the basis of educational management and decision
making. The first sections of the chapter provide a basis
for understanding some of the many methods of managing
educational expenditures in addition to exposure to the
formalized titles. The remainder of the chapter is

devoted to the area of goals and objectives.

Systems and Systems Analysis
Systems and systems analysis are becoming increas-
ingly more important as the search for effective manage-
ment of educational expenditures continues. Typical are

just two of many recent research findings that exemplify

18

19

both the broadness of educational settings having the
need for systems and the diversity of institutional set-
tings from which the research generated.

Murry Gregg. in his research findings, stated:

As a result of the findings of this study, short-
term and long-term goals and objectives have been
established. These goals and objectives via the
systems model, reflect a comprehensive planning
program that has established authority and responsi-
bility to gain optimum decision-making for vocational
education programs.

Two years later, in 1974, James Brown in his
research findings dealing with systems in higher education
stated:

The application of the systems approach can enable
institutions to radically change their orientation,
purpose, and process. If these systematic approaches
are applied to the analysis of the institution itself
and to the development of institutional structures,
higher education could break the barriers limiting

its service to the community. . . . The systems
approach is thus a mechanism for change, as well as a
problem solving process. In the long run its stimu-2
lation of change may be its greatest ultimate value.

Where did systems come from, what is a system,
and when did educational administrators start using sys-
tems? The word system has been with us a long time. Some
examples are solar system, circulatory system, political
system, and communication system. John Maynard Keynes
(1936),3 in his discussions of the economic system,
envisioned the concept of system as the existence of a set
of subsystems so integrated that the whole displays unique

attributes. He proceeded to indicate further that system

connotes plan, order, method, and arrangement.

20

Although the terms systems and systems approach
are broad terms and not easily definable, considerable
effort has been given by many individuals and groups to
arrive at a consensus. Following are some of the more
succinct definitions.

Pfeifer described the systems approach as:

. . . a disciplined way of using specialists in a
variety of fields to analyze as precisely as possible
sets of activities whose interrelationships are very
complicated and of formulating comprehensive and
flexible plans on the basis of the analysis.

Ackoff described the systems approach as:

The stages of analysis including formulation of a
problem, construction of a model, discovery of a
solution, testing, evaluation, control, and imple-
mentation of the solution.5

Andrew and Moir stated their views as:

Systems analysis techniques are a method or vehicle
which enables decision makers to find the most effi-
cient and economically feasible solutions to man-
machine system problems. These techniques permit the
comparison of alternative means of carrying out some
function, where the means are complicated and comprise
a number of interrelated factors.

The American Association of School Administrators
defined the systems approach as:

. . . a rational procedure for designing a system for
attaining specific objectives. The methodology
includes specification of objectives in measurable
terms; restatement of the objectives in terms of
capabilities and constraints; development of possible
approaches as a result of a trade-off study; inte-
gration of the approaches into an integrated system;
evaluation of the effectiveness of the system in
attaining objectives.

According to Stephen Knezevich, the salient features

of the systems approach are:

21

1. Clear delineation of long and short-range objec-
tives capable of being translated into operationally
meaningful activities and subsequent evaluation.

2. Recognition of the dynamic nature of goals and
sensing when new ones have emerged or when a
reordering of priorities among existing objec-
tives is imperative.

3. Recognition of change as a normal [process] in
viable organizations operating within an environ-
ment in ferment and creation of methods to facili-
tate prudent change.

4. Generation of alternative means of utilizing
resources to attain objectives.

5. Creation of models to study part or all of the
system.

6. Utilization of quantitatively-oriented tools and
procedures in analysis of systems.

7. Dedication of a high priority in the time schedule
of top echelon administrators to planning and pro-
gramming activities.

8. Employment of interdisciplinary teams of special-
ists in problem analysis, new systems design,
operations evaluation, and the like.

9. Consideration of coordination of the ever growing
number of educational specialists within the system
as a matter of high echelon concern.

10. Implementation of sophisticated objectives and
scientifically oriented procedures in decision-
making.

What do these definitions mean? People concerned
with systems and systems analysis have not completely
agreed on precisely what it is. Analysis of systems is at
the present time too young a field to have matured into a
large body of accepted doctrine. The discipline is to a
large part generated by and from the field of economics.

The systems approach to education was in its
infancy during World War II in various research projects
on the control of man-machine systems, using interdisci-
plinary teams and scientific methods to produce answers

that best served the goals and objectives of the military

22

organizations served.9 Since that time numerous types
of systems have evolved. Several of these having more
impact on education than others will be discussed subse-
quently.

By using systems analysis or the systems approach,
administrators are given an improved tool to aid them in
making better decisions about the allocation of human
and material resources. Educators continue to debate the
issue of the appropriateness of this type of analysis to
education since much of systems deal with quantitative
data. It is argued that in education there are many value
judgments to be taken into consideration when making deci-
sions. Many of these cannot be measured in quantitative
terms. Educational goals and objectives are difficult to
specify precisely and even more difficult to measure.
Complete quantitative evaluation is not a valid measure-
ment because value judgment and experience play a very
important role in decision making. The task of the anlayst
is to present alternative ways and means to the decision
maker, who in turn exercises his value judgment after
careful consideration of the data. The function of the
analysis is not to channel resources away from education
but rather to help the educator to achieve the most effec-
tive use of available resources within the framework of

values that the community has established.10

23

The problems associated with defining precise
educational goals and objectives are exceedingly complex.
This is because of the differing value judgments among
both educators and the community on what is most important
for accomplishment. Output measurement therefore is
exceedingly difficult.

This does not mean, however, that because accurate
data are difficult and in some cases almost impossible to
obtain that there will never be methods to obtain these
data and that the process of systems analysis should be
abandoned. It must be understood that the educator will
never be free fronImaking judgments. Research is needed
badly in areas that determine the relationship of what is
being done in schools and what is being learned. The
systems approach helps to focus on the unknown to indi-
cate clearly the direction research needs to take.11

If there are goals or objectives to be accomplished
where all tasks can be performed in a lineal time sequence,
and where there are no complex interrelationships or need
for critical control by management, then it is NOT neces-
sary nor desirable to use a systems approach. If good
step-by-step thinking can be used in a situation, then
activities devoted to systems design are a waste of time
and should not be used. In addition, cumbersome detail

should not be mistaken for complex interrelationships.12

24

McManama stated that a systems approach is in order:

1. When complex interrelationships are involved which
are difficult to manage, especially when things go
wrong.

2. When otherwise simple interrelationships occur
simultaneously making it difficult or impossible
to correct for deviations without stopping the
operation.

3. When critical feedback control must occur instantly.

4. When it is imperative to detect all of the social
consequences of the system.

5. When it appears that the present operation could
be imprgved by introducing any of the above ele-
ments.1

The systems approach has brought about many dif-
ferent methods of focusing on the process of management
decision making. Before discussing which of the present
models are relevant to educational administrators, it is
inherent that the substance of a model be put forward.
Bereday and Lauwerys suggested that: "A set of variables,
their classification, relationships among them and the con-

14

sistency condition constitute a model." In a concluding

statement after a long narrative explaining the above

definition, they further indicated that: "An idea, any

thought, when logically consistent, is a model."15

Andrew and Moir stated that:

A model is an abstract representation of reality and
it is used to describe, predict and control the system
which it attempts to represent. . . . The principal
advantage of a model is the ability which we have to
manipulate it and to predict the outcomes of the
various controllable factors without affecting the
actual system.16

There are two categories of models, one of which

will be dealt with and described in depth because of the

25

thrust of the study. This is a basic systems model.
The other, a goal model, will only be defined. Etzioni
suggested that "A goal-model approach defines success as

a complete or at least substantial realization of the organi-

17

zational goal." He further proceeded to define a systems

model in the following terms:

The system model, however, leads one to conclude

that just as there may be too little allocation of
resources to meet the goals of the organization, so
there may also be an over-allocation of these resources.
The system model explicitly recognizes that the organ-
ization solves certain problems other than those
directly involved in the achievement of the goal, and
that excessive concern with the latter may result in
insufficient attention to other necessary organiza-
tional activities, and to a lack of coordination
between the inflated goal activities and the de-
emphasized non—goal activities.18

McManama provided the following format as a systems

model for education:1

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

1. Analyze what needs to be done
1.1 State the goal
1.1.1 Perform ABC tasks*
* (A. Consider the alternatives)
(B. Establish the basic criteria)
(C. Identify the constraints)
1.2 State the terminal objectives
1.2.1 Perform ABC tasks
1.3 State the enabling objectives
1.3.1 Perform ABC tasks

SYSTEMS DESIGN

2. Analyze what needs to be done
2.1 Study the existing design
2.1.1 Perform ABC tasks
2.2 Conceptualize the structure
2.2.1 Perform ABC tasks

26

2.3 Select an appropriate model
2.3.1 Perform ABC tasks

2.4 Select the method-means
2.4.1 Perform ABC tasks

SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT CONTROL
3. Manage the system

3.1 Apply management control
3.1.1 Perform ABC tasks

Numerous models have been developed using the sys-
tems approach. Because of the thrust of the study, three
models will be looked at in depth. The models are Program
Evaluation and Review Technique, Planning Programming Bud-
geting System, and Management by Objectives. Some of the
other models include:

Operations Analysis Research--A problem-solving
approach, employing scientific analysis to management deci-

sion problems where the use of quantitative methods, model-
ing, and simulation are stressed.

 

Systems Analysis--Explores the implications of
alternative assumptions rather than analyzing extensive
detail questioning objectives.21

 

Cost Effectiveness, Cost Benefit Analysis, Resources
Effectiveness, Rate of Return Approach--A model designed to
measure the extent to which resources allocated to a spe-
cific objective under each of several alternatives actually
contribute to accomplishing that objective so that di§§e§Z
ent ways of gaining the objective may be compared.22' ’

Critical Path Method--The longest path in time to
reach an objective event from the beginning event; also
contains a cost time function; is not a prediction model
but rather an after-the—fact model.25

 

Program Evaluation and Review Technique
PERT is a model developed to implement extensive

and complex plans over a long period of time. It was

27

developed because of the inadequacy of the management of
complex large military and government projects. PERT was
developed by the Special Projects Office of the Navy and
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton in 1958 for use in the Polaris
Project.26

Some of the problems which PERT comes to grips with
include coordination of a large number of subtasks (as
high as 2000) with complex interrelationships, projecting
completion times, constant monitoring of progress, and in—
progress adjustment.

A PERT model appears as Figure l on the following
page. The model is accomplished in two phases. The first
phase is the planning phase during which objectives are
set, a plan developed, and schedules are determined. This
is constantly updated until all sources and information are
included. The second phase is the operating phase. Ideally
this phase does not begin until the planning phase is com-
plete. In actuality, however, the plan is likely to be
approved and started in phases. Also the planning phase will
be repeated as modifications are needed. In the operating

phase measuring, processing, analyzing, and decision making

take place.

PlanningiPhase

 

Establishing program objectives--Definitions of

 

tasks are developed. Subsystems are identified and further

28

\\

A.Um£mmumomEfizv .H .m
.Amhma .uofluumflo ODBHUOEHODGH mucsou ocmaxmo "cmmflnoflz .omwucomv

=COHHMHU$HGHEUAN HMSOflfiMUDUW Cu. QHQWCOHUMHONH CH Emmms

.chonom Unwaxmo

.maomo Empmmm mafia BaumII.H musmflm

m
memommm II oneoa II m
mwsqaza ezmzmoazas o

m m

\\ e m

a o

\\ o m

\\ a m

o m
memommm II «Baa somzH II aemo eaazH II mmqoommom
mmammmm mmmoomm mmammmm mszmmemo

 

mmOIIJI<Z

244m mmB m

mOAm>mQ

mmamm ozHeammmo \ mmamm oszzaqm

"mousom

Mir-134040006422

m>H90mhmO
mmHAm<Bmm

29

broken down. Subsystems may be further broken down into
new subsystems until objectives can be formulated.

Developing theyplan--After specific parts of the

 

subsystems have been identified, the major achievements
in the system must be identified. These are sequenced
and a time schedule is developed. Time estimates are
made for each activity and a time estimate is selected.
If the initial time plan does not conform to desired com-
pletion dates, then additional resources or manpower are

added and the estimate revised accordingly.

The Operating Phase

 

This phase starts with the actual beginning of
the project.
1. During the operating phase the following information
is available:
a. Completed activities and events with the comple-
tion date noted.
b. Changes in the estimated completion of network
activities.
c. Changes in the network.
2. These reports can be analyzed in order to help
determine:
a. What the problems are.
b. At what points in the network decisions are required.

0. Alternative courses of action.

30

d. The expected consequences of the selected course
of action.

3. Normally action is taken by management as updated
information is available. This action may involve
rescheduling, replanning, or reprogramming.27

PERT has been applied to educational research and
the development of projects, curriculum development,
experimental research, registration procedures, and the
planning of comprehensive education programs and school

facilities.28 The results so far indicate that PERT can

have a very positive impact on educational planning.

Planning Programming Budgeting Systems
PPBS is an aid to decision making. It is designed
to help responsible managers make decisions supplementing
their judgment, political wisdom, and leadership quali-
ties. PPBS is needed because there are insufficient
resources to accomplish all goals of an organization.
Priorities are a necessity in addition to a feedback sys-
tem to determine the results of management decisions.
The five basic elements in PPBS are:
1. After careful analysis of overall organization
purposes, objectives should be established in each
major activity area. Priorities must be established

to insure that major spending occurs in the most
important areas.

2. A program structure must be devised to reflect
the overall objectives already established. Costs and
benefits of alternative ways to achieve program objec-
tives are then analyzed to determine what combination
of activities offers the most benefit at the least cost.

31

3. These costs and benefits are projected into a
multi-year plan which takes into consideration future
implications Of current year decisions.

4. Evaluation of decisions takes place as infor-
mation about activities is fed back to decision
makers. What is must be compared to what was
expected.

5. Basic objectives are re-evaluated as new
information is continuously fed back into the organi-
zation. Organization objectives are confirmed or
adjusted and the cycle repeats itself.29

Program budgeting is a fairly new concept. It was
first developed for the Air Force by the Rand Corporation.
In 1961 Robert McNamara mandated that the entire Depart-
ment Of Defense adopt program budgeting for all defense
Operations. In 1965 President Johnson mandated that all
major federal non-defense agencies were to Operate under
program budgeting. Elements of program budgeting had been
used prior to that time by several federal agencies and a
form of program budgeting was Operational in many agencies
from 1930 on. Further insight may be gained from Shick,

who wrote:

Budgetary reform in the United States has evolved
through three distinct stages, the last of which is
associated with the contemporary Planning-Programming-
Budgeting System. In the initial stage, the primary
emphasis was on central control of spending and the
budget was utilized to guard against administrative
abuses. The detailed classification of Objects of
expenditure was the main control mechanism. The
second stage was management-oriented. It was con-
cerned with the efficient performance of work and
prescribed activities. The performance budget,
Officially introduced by the Hoover Commission, was
the major contribution Of the management orientation.
The third stage is reflected in the planning orienta-
tion of the new PPB system. It had roots in Keynesian
economics and the new technology of systems analysis.

32

If PPBS is broken down into its component parts,
then the following may be conceptualized according to
Nowrasteh:

Planning is the process Of determining the Objectives
and specifying alternative methods of achieving
Objectives;

Programming is the process of Optimizing the mixture
Of resources (inputs) necessary to attain Objectives.
The term programming is used in a non-computer

sense;

Budgeting is the process of systematically relating
the expenditure of funds to the accomplishment of
Objectives or to a multi-year fiscal planning dimen-
sion Of the process;

System is a set of elements so interrelated and inte-
grated that the whole displays unique attributes.3l

 

 

The conceptualization of PPBS was viewed differ-
ently by McManama when he wrote:

Planning-—Alternative ways of solving a problem are
compared in terms Of input cost and output benefits.

Programming--All Of the activities related to achieving
an Objective are brought together as a program for
planning and budgeting purposes.

Budgeting-—Available resources are matched with program
priorities.

TO provide a reference point from which the reader
may put the concept Of PPBS in prOper perspective, a set
Of contrasts between PPBS and traditional budgeting is
provided from several sources. McManama viewed the short-
comings of the traditional budget as:

1. Traditional line item budgets are projected
for only one year. The common procedure is to adjust
each category by a percentage change tO correspond
to the cost Of living index. This tends to perpetuate
whatever rationale, if any, established the initial
priority of allotments. It also assumes that there is
a direct relationship between cost of living changes
and educational costs.

33

2. Line item budgets establish constraints to
programming rather than assisting in program develop-
ment. TO introduce a new program, one must first find
out what is available in the budget and then develop
a program, hampered by both the limitations and
excesses which are available. '

3. The cost analysis data which is available from
traditional budgets is mostly misleading and useless.
Per pupil cost figures which appear to have something
to do with accountability are usually meaningless.

Per pupil cost to accomplish what? Compared to what?

4. Line item budgets do not hold financial
boards accountable for their budget cuts. A reduction
in a per pupil formula or a percentage cut have the
effect of directing educators to do what they hoped
to do, with less money. Cuts are made in input with-
out regard tO the effect on output.

5. Traditional budgets do not reflect the true
cost Of proposed projects. At best they indicate the
down payment cost while ignoring the number Of years
the program will Operate.

6. The program manager or decision maker is
bogged down with detail in traditional budget account-
ing. He is occupied in a time consuming process of
classifying cost data in a format that is of very little
help in planning.

McManama viewed the benefits of PPBS as:

1. PPBS makes it possible to compare alternative
ways of accomplishing a given Objective.

2. PPBS makes it possible to project the true
cost of instituting a new project.

3. The long term cost of a given project is also
available for scrutiny in a program budget.

4. PPBS provides a measurement of cost effi—
ciency.

S. Expenditures which are related to a given
Objective can be brought together no matter how widely
dispersed they have been allocated.

6. A program budget collects and organizes data
with the decision-maker in mind.

7. The cost/benefit comparison Of competing pro-
grams is available in PPBS.

8. Program budgets clearly indicate who is
responsible for managing each activity.34

Nowrasteh found the following comparisons of PPBS

and line-item budgeting:35

lo.

11.

PPBS

 

Output oriented
Multi-year fiscal
implication

Offers alternative

Policy decisions made
before budget cycle
starts

Program changes dictate
money shifts

Based on realistic and
detailed assessment of
program costs

Outputs can be evaluated
Explicit, systematic,
integrated '
Extensive data base and
analysis is necessary
Shows effects Of policy
decisions on individual
programs

Stimulates innovations

34

10.

ll.

Line-Item Budget

 

Input oriented

Single-year fiscal
implication

Choice is made, no alter-
native

Decisions made as to shifts
and cuts

Encourage across-the-board
cuts and increases

Based on blanket concept
which ignores differen-

tial costs

Output evaluation not likely
Vague, piecemeal, frag-
mented

Analysis not required

Hides effects of decisions

Continuation Of existing
activities is encouraged

After a glance at the theoretical benefits of PPBS,

it is the next order of business to look at some Of the

reactions both positive and negative on the practical side

Of using such a system.‘

Hale,

36

in a research study, con-

cluded that PPBS was a viable alternative for budgeting

and accounting in large urban school districts.

when reviewing PPBS, concluded:

Levin,

Even if the managers of the schools do not consciously
attempt tO maximize a particular set of goals, the
implementation Of specific processes and inputs will

create outcomes.

Cramer and Gilmar38

provided evidence that PPBS

can be the motivating force to Obtain community involvement

35

in education. Dyer, consultant to the Rand Corporation,
in a report to H.E.W. stated:

While the costs were recognized as significant, the
potential benefits also appear to be great. . . .
Although presenting no panacea, PPBS does Offer a
logical, objective oriented approach to planning.

. . . Although PPBS Offers no escape from a reliance
on managerial judgments, the more relevant informa-
tion generated by its associated activities should
improve both the perception and understanding of an
exceedingly complex system.

Perkins and others, in support for PPBS, stated:
The value Of PPBS in education results not from the
individual techniques that have been developed, but

from the integration Of them into a system and their
procedural application to educational decisionmaking.

40

In his detailed discussion on the influence of
PPBS on capital budgeting, Ellis indicated that PPBS is a
workable concept when the following items are considered:

. . . We identified ten items to be considered in
capital p1anning--the needs, the Objectives, stan-
dards, alternatives, the comparison of alternatives,
the selection of a preferred alternative, the alloca-
tion of resources of a five-year plan, a fiscal plan
for the state, economic projections, and political
priorities.

Criticisms of PPBS have been many. Some Of the
more prevalent complaints are included in the following
pages. In his article "The Rise and Fall of PPBS in
California," Kirst42 submitted that PPBS in California is
failing because adequate goals cannot be established and
the concept cannot be operationalized. James43 listed

the faults of PPBS as the inability of personnel to adapt

to the system, the false idea that PPBS can make the

36

decision for you, unquantifiable goals and objectives,
and the inability of some individuals to manipulate com-
puter input.

The Office of Education44 indicated that another
problem with PPBS is the question of what to do with
indirect costs. This problem was further researched by
Roemmich45 when he compared the four alternatives of cost
accounting—-direct costing, full costing, simple linear
regression costing, and multiple regression costing.

Anshen and McKean46 indicated that there is even
lack of agreement on what PPBS means. They considered
that the meaning Of program budgeting can range from a
simple rearrangement of the budget into meaningful cate-
gories to the inclusion of concepts such as long-range
planning and cost-utility analysis. They identified the
following constraints:

1. The transitional problem of how to change
from the input-oriented budget to the output-
oriented one;

2. The difficulty Of bringing together a group of
activities scattered through several depart-
ments into one activity cluster;

3. The case of personnel that service several
different program elements and how to account

for them in a budget;

37

4. The allocation of operating and maintenance
equipment that must serve several different
program elements.47
Hartley listed the following obstacles to
implementation Of PPBS:
1. Shortage of trained personnel
2. Political factors
3. Increased costs
4. Goals become distorted
5. Cult Of testing
6. Measurement difficulties
7. Overemphasis of efficiency
8. The centralization syndrome
9. Organizational strains
10. Teacher resistance
11. Transfer problems
12. Wisdom lag
Two Of the twelve elements that drastically limit
educational use of PPBS, Hartley contended, are the primi-
tive testing techniques used for evaluation and lack Of
the wisdom on the part of administrators to use the output
to solve the schools' problems.48
Weiss listed the following objections to PPBS:
1. It's impossible and undesirable to force everyone
in the district to agree on goals and values.
2. PPBS requires too much computation, form filling,

data processing, and paper shuffling-~all at great
expense.

38

3. PPBS is politically impossible.

4. Formal planning stifles creativity and innova-
tion.

5. Many good educational results are unmeasurable.

6. There is not enough community (or student, or
teacher) involvement.

Mosher made the following Observations when analyz-
ing the results the Department Of Defense had with PPBS:

l. PPBS has been oversold. Its success in cer-
tain program areas was praised while its lack Of suc-
cess in other areas was ignored.

2. Most of the literature of PPBS deals with an
over-simplified world. There are values which cannot
be priced, values which defy quantification.

3. Certain intrinsic difficulties of PPBS have
not been dealt with. These include the determination
Of Objectives in a democracy, quantitative measurement,
problems with the administrative organization and
legislative reaction.

4.’ States have problems that are unique to them.

5. Federalism itself presents great difficulties.
There are two, three, or four levels Of government
concerned with virtually all domestic spending.50

When discussing the pitfalls Of PPBS, McManama

suggested:

1. Schools are open systems. While closed sys-
tems respond perfectly to self-regulation and predict-
ability, open systems are constantly subjected to
outside contingency factors, such as changes in pri-
ority, which make precise control impossible. Program
budgets are subject to the effect of the changes in
input and output which are inevitable in an Open system.

2. Mystification can Obscure specification.

There is a certain mystique involved when new sophis-
ticated methods are used. There is a danger that
those who use program budgeting will take advantage
of the awe in which they are held in order to mystify
others into going along with programs.

3. The value of a program budget is measured in
the quality of the decisions rendered, not the ele—
gance Of the data presented. A poor choice of alter-
natives to be tested can render the process meaning-
less before it has begun.

4. Elegant quantification is no substitute for
relevant qualification. NO matter how SOphisticated

39

the procedure may be it is only as good as the human
judgments made in deciding what to ask the system to
do.

5. What is validated can be misinterpreted as
what is valuable. When an Objective can be validated,
it becomes easier to sell it to the client. Often
there are valuable Objectives which are difficult to
validate using a given procedure. Valuable Objectives
should not be sacrificed because they don't show up
well in cost/benefit analysis. The relationship
between costs and benefits is a value judgment in the
final analysis.51

Summary Of PPBS Literature

The problems with PPBS are many and the solutions
will be long coming. PPBS is standing up under all the
pressure which has come to bear. Weiss gave a succinct
response toward the future of PPBS:

In general the PPB reformer can expect to hear

claims that his approach is "totalitarian," "dehuman-
izing," and "impossibly hard to do." None of these
claims is true or reasonable. . . . Public school
planning and budgeting should be evaluated on cri-
teria of responsiveness and effectiveness. Without
the major elements Of PPBS, it is impossible for the
decision makers in any school to respond systematically
tO any need or influence, and, further impossible for
them to decide whether the schools have been effec-
tive in achieving any of their purposes. If adminis-
trators, teachers, and parents believe their own
homilies about the mission of the schools, then they
must, logically, advocate planning reform.

Management by Objectives
Management by Objectives (MBO) is another rela-
tively new concept in the field of education. Management
by Objectives was described by Johnson, Kast, and Rosensweig

as:

40

In brief, the system of management by objectives can
be described as a process where by the superior and
subordinate managers Of an organization jointly iden-
tify its common goals and define each individual's
major areas Of responsibility in terms of the results
expected. . . .53

Johnson, Kast, and Rosensweig described the con-
ceptual framework of MBO as:

l. The basic structure of the corporation is the
organizational form Often called a hierarchy. . . .
Management by Objectives is a system for making that
structure work, and to bring about more vitality and
personal involvement of the people in the hierarchy.

2. Management by Objectives provides for the
maintenance and orderly growth of the organization
by means Of statements of what is expected for every-
one involved, and measurement Of what is actually
achieved. . . . It stresses the ability and achieve-
ments Of leaders rather than their personality.

3. As a system, management by Objectives is
especially applicable to professional and managerial
employees. . . .

4. Management by Objectives helps overcome many
Of the chronic problems Of managing managers and pro-
fessionals. For example:

a. It provides a means of measuring the true con—
tribution Of managerial and professional personnel.

b. By defining the common goals Of people and
organizations and measuring individual contributions
to them, it enhances the possibility Of Obtaining
coordinated effort and teamwork without eliminating
personal risk taking.

c. It provides solutions to the key problem of
defining the major areas of responsibility for each
person in the organization, including joint or shared
responsibilities.

d. Its processes are geared to achieving the
results desired, both for the organization as a whole
and for the individual contributors.

e. It eliminates the need for people to change
their personalities, as well as for appraising people
on the basis of their personality traits.

f. It provides a means of determining each
manager's span Of control.

g. It Offers an answer to the key question of
salary administration--"How should we allocate pay
increase from available funds, if we want to pay for
results?"

41

h. It aids in identifying potential for advance-
ment and in finding promotable people.

In a speech delivered at the American Association
of School Administrators, Bell described a method Of imple-
menting MBO in a school setting. The steps for implementa-
tion are:

1. Conduct an assessment Of the most critical
educational needs in the school district.

2. The chief executive Officer, usually the
superintendent of schools, is to review the results
Of the needs assessment and to identify some high
level performance priorities.

3. A system-wide critique of the superintendent's
tentative performance priorities should be conducted.

4. The chief executive Officer will review all Of
the feedback received from the schools in the system
and then formulate his final performance priorities
for the coming academic year.

5. Each school will review carefully the final
performance priority statements issued by the super-
intendent to determine which apply to his school.

6. Each school prepares written objectives requir-
ing special management concern during the coming aca-
demic year. The written objectives should indicate a
performance factor and a time frame.

7. Central Office should review and respond to
the Objectives written by the local school. Their
function includes the insuring that district top pri-
ority Objectives are included in the school's high
priority.

8. The local school prepares a list of Objec-
tives (not more than ten or so) which become a per-
formance commitment between the school and the super-
intendent.

9. Operational planning takes place in each
school. For each objective a time sequence is set up
and personnel are assigned to complete subobjectives
by deadlines.

10. Insure that action steps throughout the year
are accomplished.

11. Monitor the progress in reaching each Of the
major Objectives by holding monthly review meetings.

12. Hold an end of the year evaluation.

13. Prepare new needs assessment for the follow-
ing year.

42

Management by Objectives suffers under some of the
same afflictions that PPBS does. A sampling of research
findings in the past five years yields some expected
results. A research study conducted by Nightingale pro-
duced the following conclusions, among others:

Management by Objectives, when properly implemented,
results in increased commitment, motivation, job
satisfaction, and improved performance and effective-
ness. Subordinates have greater freedom of Operation;
all personnel delegate more. There is increased
input from subordinate levels of management. Commu-
nications, teamwork, and esprit de corps are improved
and increased. The effectiveness of managers is
increased and the growth of subordinates enhanced.

. . . Management by Objectives is not a panacea for
solving all management problems. . . . The problems
encountered in implementing MBO are not Of sufficient
magnitude to cause [administrators] to avoid imple—
menting it.56

In another research study, Livingston attempted
to find out if MBO had any effect on achievement of stu-
dents. He wrote:

It was concluded that Management By Objectives had
been effective in increasing reading achievement
scores and that the treatment effect was consistent 7
across all grade levels in the experimental schools.

Weber, in her findings on job satisfaction, pro-
ductivity, and MBO, reported that:

Job satisfaction appeared to be affected by the imple-
mentation Of management by Objectives, and second that
job satisfaction was increased negatively in relation
to goal quality.58

Phillips, in his research findings, reported that:

In order for the MBO concept to work, the leadership
at the tOp and the persons within the organization
must be committed to trying to make the system work,
time and resources must be committed and time lines
must be followed up and adhered to.Sé

43

From these findings it is reasonable to indicate
that MBO suffers from the same drawbacks as does PPBS and

enjoys some Of the same benefits.

Summary of Systems

 

The benefits and drawbacks Of systems as they
apply to the educational setting have been brought forth
in the context of this section. It should have become
apparent that many of the problems that presently plague
the effective and efficient Operation Of the systems
defined and discussed are personnel problems, Misunder-
standings Of the concepts involved inhibit the Operational
functioning Of the systems discussed. These misunder-
standings range from those who want the system to make
the decision for them to those who are threatened by the
very existence Of anything other than a simple process
for management“ (if I can't see it, it doesn't exist
syndrome). There is a middle ground where these two Oppo-
sites must meet. Both the advocate of no system and the
advocate of complete systemization are going to have to
realize that the system is but a tool to be used as an
aid to decision making. The days Of simplicity are gone.
From a present—day perspective looking into the future,
it can be easily seen that the day of the single system
is fading quickly. What is now in the infancy of develop-
ment is a management system for a group of integrated

systems. This is now being referred to as a management

44

system for management information systems. In explor-
ing this concept as early as 1970, Dickson wrote:

The more one becomes involved in the area of M18
management, the more one is struck by the similar-
ity between this area and the management Of research
and development activity. In both cases, heavy
expenditures are required in order to produce future
benefits that are very uncertain in their magnitude.
In both areas, many projects must compete for the
organization's limited resources. Both activities
are such that it is very easy to start projects for
a low first year cost, but to have cost build substan-
tially in subsequent years. Thus, because of long
project lives, a one year project planning horizon
is dangerous. . . . These similarities between the
stages of analysis and design of M13 projects and
research development projects suggest that a good
many managerial practices and procedures from the
latter may be applied to the former.60

This further abstraction puts an additional bur-
den On decision makers. ‘The challenge for administrators
now and in the immediate future is to draw out expertise
from personnel who are not yet aware that they have the
capability to develop.

A statement made by Conviser and Entwisze indi-
cates the impact that systems were having then,auuilittle
has changed in the past seven years.

The success in applying systems theory and related
techniques tO education has so far been modest--in
most applications the systems approach is more a
frame of mind or point Of view than an actual trans-
lation Of formal systems theory taken from Operation
research or engineering. But the prospects for the
systems approach, especially in relation tO some of
the urgent social problems we now face, look good
because there may not be any other rational way to

proceed.61

When looking to the future, James concluded:

45

The final word must be Plato's, for he said "it is
only if we can pursue all these situations until we
see their kinship, that they contribute to our purpose
and are worth the trouble we spend on them.62

Such is the case for systems.

Goals and Objectives

 

Historically, the United States inherited European
traditions including educational goals which reflected
the cultural patterns developed up until that time. As
the country developed the principles contained in the
"Old Deluder Satan Act" Of 1647 which could be traced
back to the Latin grammar school were replaced by those
Of Franklin's Academy which were tailored to the needs
Of American students. Since this time a highly decen-
tralized and individualistic approach to the development
of educational goals and Objectives has developed.63
Attempts were made periodically at various levels
of government to standardize a group of goals and Objec-
tives. One of the most well-known efforts was made in
1918 by the Commission on the Reorganization Of Secondary
Education. They developed the "Seven Cardinal Principles

"64 which are still in existence

Of Secondary Education,
today. The principles are: health, command Of funda-
mental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, civic

education, worthy use Of leisure time, and ethical char-

acter .

46

The National Education Association, through its
Educational Policies Commission, has tackled the task
of goal and Objective definition on severaloccasions.65
The American Association of School Administrators devel-

66 The

Oped the "Nine Imperatives in Education" in 1966.
imperatives are:

1. To make urban life rewarding and satisfactory.

2. TO prepare peOple for the world of work.

3. TO discover and motivate creative talent.

4. TO strengthen the moral fabric Of society.

5. TO deal constructively with psychological

tensions.

6. To keep democracy working.

7. To make intelligent use Of natural resources.

8. To make the best use of leisure time.

9. TO work with other people Of the world for

human betterment.

A need exists to further define goals and Objec-
tives Of education at all levels of government. The area
Of goal and Objective development is vital to the inte-
gration Of systems into the educational field to improve
decision-making capabilities. Hovey indicated this at
the federal and state level when he wrote:

The corner stone Of economic analysis Of government
programs is the identification Of program or agency
goals. Until it is decided what effect a program is

supposed to have, no amount of information about the
effect it does have will be of any value.67

47

One Of the primary reasons that goals and Objectives are
difficult to identify is the lack of a common definition
for the terms. Goals and Objectives are used inter—
changeably by many. There is, however, a distinct dif-
ference between the two terms. According to Nowrasteh,
the following are definitions of goals and objectives:

Goals: Goals are general statements of purpose or
intent toward accomplishment Of which the agency's
efforts are directed. Goals are not quantifiable

or measurable and are not related to a specific time
period. Goals are broad in scope.

Objectives: Objectives are quantifiable accomplish-
ments within a time period. They relate to one or
more goals; they can be measured; the time period

Of achievement is explicit; and the method Of measure«
ment is known.69

The problems with identification Of goals and
Objectives without any type of hierarchy to classify are
abundant. This problem was brought out by Andrew and Moir
when they wrote:

The problem of defining the type of precise educa-
tional Objectives and performance measures that are
needed in system design work in education is, as
already indicated, exceedingly complex. This is
because the problem involves differing value judg-
ments among both educators and the community on what
the most important goals and purposes of education
are, and what a school should accomplish. Measuring
educational outcomes is therefore also particularly
difficult because the system's Objectives are multi-
dimensional and include social, cultural and aesthetic
values, as well as academic performance. Even stan-
dardized achievement test scores are not very reliable
since they do not take into account the socioeconomic
status of the home and community.70

The problem was further amplified by Haggart:

48

If, however, more reasonable goals can be translated
into program Objectives, then the activities of the
educational system can be categorized into programs
based on their contribution toward meeting the Objec-
tives Of education.7

In attempting to establish a hierarchy, Carpenter
identified either end Of the scale as:
These goals are, in fact, at the top of a hier~
archy. . . . At the bottom of the hierarchy might be
behavioral objectives, devised for the design and
evaluation of instruction.72
Doherty attempted to fill in the gaps between the
ends of the scale when he wrote:
. . . It is consistent to think of program goals and
program objectives. . . . It seems logical to assign
the term program Objective to a statement of intent
to change program elements in a specified way to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency Of the pro-
gram. . . . Since each program has outcomes, usually
multiple, and usually stated without reference to
time commitments or methodology, it seems logical to
apply the term "program goal" to such outcomes.73
A need presently exists to tie the developing
hierarchy of goals and Objectives together into one usable
hierarchy. A theoretical basis and a model was developed
by Ohm74 providing an extremely powerful hierarchy which
is presently in need of conversion into a usable form.
Ohm's taxonomy provides the basis upon which further
research could be based. The historical development of
goals as they apply in a systems context,ix1addition to
his thought-provoking model,anxaof extreme value to any

researcher in this area. Because Ohm's writings have

formed the basis Of several of the examples provided in

49

the appendices, a complete copy of Ohm's taxonomy is pro-

vided in Appendix E.

Summary of Goals and Objectives

The history and recent developments of goals and
Objectives were provided in this section. Goal and Objec-
tive analysis is still in its infancy and much work needs
to be done on not only establishing common definitions but
developing a workable hierarchy as well. TO develop any
systems in education, it is paramount that goals and

Objectives be identified and understood.

50

Footnotes--Chapter II

1Murry Clay Gregg, "A Systems Model for Planning
and Management of the Division of Vocational Education,
Jefferson County Schools, Birmingham, Alabama" (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Alabama, 1972), Abstract.

2James Thomas Brown, "The Systems Approach to
Resource Management in Higher Education" (Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Union Graduate School, 1974), Abstract.

3John Maynard Keynes, General Theory Of Employ-
ment, Interest, and Money (London: Harcourt, Brace,
1936).

 

4John Pfeiffer, New Look at Education; System
Analysis in Our Schools and Colleges (New York: Odyssey
Press, 1968), p. 2.

5R. L. Ackoff, "Development and Nature of Opera-
tions Research and Its Relevance to Educational-Media
Research." ERIC # ED 002 490. 1964.

6Gary M. Andrew and Ronald E. Moir, Information-
Decision Systems in Education (Itasca, Illinois: F. E.
Peacock Publishers, 1970), p. 29.

7AASA Commission on Administrative Technology,
Administrative Technology and the School Executive
(Washington, D.C.: American Association Of School Admin-
istrators, 1969), p. 18.

8Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public
Education (New York: Harper and Row, 1969).

9Robert W. Geisinger, Systems Analysis and Edu-
cation (Pennsylvania: Bureau Of Research, Department Of
Public Instruction, October 1968), p. 3.

10Andrew and Moir, Information-Decision Systems,
pp. 28-290

11

 

 

Ibid., p. 29.

12John McManama, Systems Analysis for Effective
School Administration (West Nyack, New York: Parker
Publishing Co., Inc., 1971), pp. 18-19.

 

51

l31bid.

l4George Bereday and Joseph A. Lauwerys, Educational

 

Planning (New York: Harcourt, Barce, World, Inc., 1967),
p. 401.

lsIbid., p. 406.

16Andrew and Moir, Information-Decision Systems,

 

p. 30.

l7Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 16.

18

 

Ibid., p. 17.

19McManama, Systems Analysis, pp. 27-43.

 

0Daryush M. Nowrastch, "Planning and Management
Systems for State Programs Of Vocational and Technical
Education: An Application of Research" (Columbus, Ohio:
Ohio State University, The Center for Vocational and
Technical Education, November 1971), pp. 6-7. ERIC
# ED 059 353.

21Willard Fazar, "Applying Operations Research
and the Management Services to Planning, Programming, and
Budgeting in Non-Defense Agencies," paper presented to the
Washington Operation Research Council Meeting, Washington,
D.C., April 25, 1965, pp. 10-12. (Mimeographed.)

22Yeuell Y. Harris and Ivan N. Seibert, The State
Education Agency, State Educational Records and Reports
Series: Handbook VII (Washington, D.C.: Department Of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971).

23Stephen J. Knezevich, ed., Administrative Tech-
nology and the School Executive (Washington, D.C.: Ameri-
can Association Of School Administrators, 1969).

 

 

 

24Bereday and Lauwerys, Educational Planning,
pp. 28-30.

25Nowrastch, "Planning and Management Systems,"
pp. 8-10.

26

Oakland Schools, "PERT in Relationship to
Educational Administration" (Pontiac, Michigan: Oakland
County Intermediate District, 1972), p. 1. (Mimeographed.)

52

27Ibid., pp. 3-4.

8Nowrastch, "Planning and Management Systems,"
p. 10.

290.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, "DevelOpment of an Operational Model for the
Application Of Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems
in Local School Districts" (Washington, D.C.: Office
Of Education, February 1969), pp. 2-3. ERIC # ED 028 540.

30Allen Schick, "The Road of PPBS; The Stages of
Budgetary Reform," Public Administration Review, December
1966.

 

31Nowrastch, "Planning and Management Systems,"
p. 11.

32 .

McManama, Systems Analysis, p. 141.

33Ibid., pp. 141-42.

34Ibid., p. 145.

35Nowrasteh, "Planning and Management Systems,"
p. 11.

36James A. Hale, "A Program Budgeting Model for
Management Information Systems in K-12 School Districts"
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1971),
Abstract.

37Henry M. Levin, "A Conceptual Framework for
Accountability in Education," School Review 82 (May 1974):
383.

 

38Paula Cramer and Sybil Gilmar, "PPBS: What
Should the School Dollar Buy?" Educational Leadership,
May 1972, pp. 664-67.

39James S. Dyer, "The Use of PPBS in a Public
System of Higher Education: Is It 'Cost-Effective?'"
(Washington, D.C.: Department Of Health, Education and
Welfare, December 1969). P. 19. ERIC # ED 054 518.

40Joseph A. Perkins, Jr., Peat, Marwich, Mitchell
& Co., "PPBS and MIS--Their Role in Managing Education,"
paper presented at the National School Finance Conference,
National Education Association, New Orleans, Louisiana,
March 1969), p. 3. ERIC # ED 030 961.

53

41Arthur E. Ellis, "Influence of PPB on Capital
Budgeting," paper presented at an Institute on Program
Planning and Budgeting Systems, Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, Spring 1968, pp. 147-175.

42Michael W. Kirst, "The Rise and Fall Of PPBS
in California," Phi Delta Kappan, April 1975, pp. 535—38.

43W. L. G. James, "Program Budgeting--Hope or
Hoax?" Education Canada, December 1972, pp. 28-33.

44U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
"Development of an Operational Model for the Application
Of Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems in Local
School Districts" (Washington, D.C.: Office of Education,
February 1969). ERIC # ED 028 540.

45Roger Allen Roemmich, "Statistical Analysis of
Alternative Cost Accounting Methods" (Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1975).

 

 

 

46Melvin Anshen and Roland N. MeKean, "Limitations,
Risks, and Problems," in Program Budgeting, ed. David
Novick (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1965), pp. 3-23.

47Ibid.

48

Harry J. Hartley, "Twelve Hurdles to Clear Before
You Take on System Analysis," The American School Board
Journal, July 1968, p. 17.

49Edmond H. Weiss, "PPBS in Education," Journal
of General Education 25 (April 1973): 17-27.

50Frederick Mosher, "Limitations and Problems of
PPBS in the States," PAR, March 1969, pp. 13-14. ERIC
# ED 059 353.

51

 

McManama, Systems Analysis, p. 150.

52Weiss, "PPBS in Education," p. 27.

53R. Johnson, F. A. Kast, and J. E. Rosensweig,
"The System of Management by Objectives," in Management
by Objectives--A System of Managerial Leadership,
ed. George S. Odiorne (New York: Pitman Publishing
Corp., 1968): PP. 55-56.

54Ibid., pp. 54-55.

54

55Terrel H. Bell, "Accounting for What Youngsters
Learn," Speech given to the American Association of
School Administrators 105th Annual Convention, San Fran-
cisco, Ca1if., March 17—21, 1973), PP. 1-5. ERIC #
ED 078 506.

56Fredrick Andrew Nightingale, "Management by
Objectives: A Study of the Process and Status of Imple—
mentation in Business Services of Selected Unified School
Districts Of California" (Ph.D. dissertation, University
Of Southern California, 1974), Abstract.

7Nancy Brockbank Livingston, "The Relationship
Of a Management by Objective Program and Intermediate
Grade Reading Achievement in Granite School District"
(Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1975),
Abstract.

58Catherine Alberta Weber, "The Effectiveness of
Management by Objectives in a School Setting" (Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Washington, 1973), Abstract.

59James Boyce Phillips, "Application Of an Educa-
tional Management by Objectives Model" (Ph.D. disserta-
tion, The University Of Tennessee, 1973), Abstract.

60Gary W. Dickson, "Control Systems for Informa-
tion Systems DevelOpment Projects (Part I)," AEDS Journal,
September 1970, p. 60.

61Richard Conviser and Doris R. Entwisze, "Input—
Output Analysis in Education," The High School Journal,
January 1969, p. 196.

62James, "Program Budgeting," p. 33.

63Harry G. Good and James D. Teller, A History Of
Western Education, 3rd ed. (London: The Macmillan Co.,
1969).

 

64Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary
Education, The Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1918).

65Educational Policies Commission, The Central
Purpose of American Education (Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association, 1961).

66American Association Of School Administrators,
Commission on Imperatives in Education, Imperatives in
Education (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1966).

 

 

' 55

67Harold A. Hovey, The Planning Programming
Budgeting Approach to Government Decision Making (New
York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968), p. 17.

 

 

8Nowrasteh, "Planning and Management Systems,"
p. 20.

691bid., p. 21.

70Andrew and Moir, Information-Decision Systems,

 

p. 29.

718. A. Haggart, "The Program Structuring Aspect
of PPB for Education," February 1971, p. 9. ERIC #
ED 052 524.

2Margaret B. Carpenter, Program Budgeting as a
Way to Focus on Objectives in Education (Washington,
D.C.: Department Of Health, Education, and Welfare,
September 1969), p. 2.

 

73Victor Doherty, "Goals and Objectives in PPBS"
(Portland: Portland Public Schools, September 1970),
pp. 2-4. ERIC # ED 044 815.

74Robert E. Ohm, "Organizational Goals--A Systems
Approach," paper presented at the 20th Annual National
Conference Of Professors of Educational Administration,
Indiana University, August 25, 1966, pp. 1-11. ERIC #
ED 010 710.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The main thrust of this study was to Obtain a
projection of how feasible goal and objective analysis
will be and if expenditures can be tied into a system to
provide the impetus for increasing decision-making capa-
bilities. This purpose was researched by providing par-
ticipants with background examples from which the partici-
pant provided written feedback evaluating the concepts
concerned.

The research was designed tO be descriptive in
nature and inferential statistical analysis was deemed
to be inappropriate for numerous reasons, among which are:
limited sample due to the availability of qualified par-
ticipants, limited time of participants for the study,

and futuristic aspect Of the study.

Jury Of Experts

 

The participants making up a jury Of experts
included public school K-12 administrators presently
employed in their profession with previous administrative

experience and expertise in the area of finance of K-12

56

57

education within the State of Michigan. All participants
had achieved a minimum of a doctorate in the field of
education.

A group of ten was selected to participate in
the study. The selection of the participants was limited
to those who met the basic criteria and were willing to
participate completely in the project as constrained by
the expertise of the researcher's committee to identify
qualified participants. One of the ten selected was
traveling during the time the study was being conducted
and participated only as a passive Observer. The group

therefore was narrowed to nine members.

Instrumentation

 

An introductory model was develOped by the
researcher taking advantage of the extensive review Of
the literature for each Of the four research questions.
This model or example focused the participant's attention
on the substance Of development of the concept which the
research question sought to get at, bringing the partici-
pant tO the pinnacle of present development and challeng-
ing him to project future developments that might be
expected to occur. The participant was asked to respond
to the example in one Open-ended response and respond to
the concept in a separate Open-ended response (see

Appendix B). The two-question approach was used to avoid

58

entangling the conceptual analysis with that of a crude
model or example.

From the Open-ended questionnaire the researcher
reproduced in their entirety the responses to the concep-
tual analysis Of each of the four questions. This pro-
vided each question with nine responses. The nine
responses for each question were in a random fashion so
that the response in item three, for example, Of each of
the questions was not the same respondent. A one-to-seven
scale was provided below each response for the partici-
pants tO indicate their degree of agreement or disagree-
ment with the individual responses for each question.

In addition, a blank was provided preceding each response,
which was to be used by the respondent to rank-order the

statements. (See Appendix D.) This was provided so that
in the unlikely case that many items received all positive
or all negative responses there would be a means to Obtain

at least a minimal difference.

Treatment

 

Introduction

 

Initially, the Delphi Technique was used to Obtain
response to the instrument. Procedures of the Delphi
Technique were followed until the completion of Round
Two, at which time the procedure was modified and face-to-

face interactionvnusused to fit the individual needs of

59

this particular study. Some background about the Delphi
Technique as it applies to Obtaining expert Opinion about
the future is appropriate, since it is a more recent

technique of conducting this particular type Of research.

The Delphi Technique.

 

The Delphi Technique was develOped by Olaf Helmer
of the Rand Corporation in 1960. Its use in the field Of
education was clarified by Helmerl in 1966. From 1968
tO 1972 refining methods Of use of the Delphi Technique,
as they apply to this type of study concerning expert

2,3

Opinion, were done by Dalkey and Dalkey, Brown, and

4’5 Numerous studies have been completed in

Cochran.
recent years using the Delphi Technique for clarification
Of goals and Objectives. Among the studies are: Adelson6
and Hudspeth7--1ong-range planning; Anderson8--Ohio State
Study; Cyphert9--The Virginia Study; JacobsonlO--The
Utah State Study; Willardll--The Alternative School Study;
and Coakwe1112--The Muskingum, Ohio, Study. An addi-
tional bibliography of other uses of the Delphi Technique
in long-range forecasting is provided by the Rand Cor-
. l3
poration.
According to Macmillan:

The Delphi technique is a method Of eliciting and

refining group judgments. The rationale for the pro-

cedures is primarily the age-Old adage "Two heads are

better than one," when the issue is one where exact

knowledge is not available. The procedures have three
features: (1) Anonymous response--Opinions of members

60

Of the group are Obtained by formal questionnaire.

(2) Iteration and controlled feedback--interaction is
effected by a systematic exercise conducted in sev-
eral iterations, with carefully controlled feedback
between rounds. (3) Statistical group response--the
group Opinion is defined as an appropriate aggregate
Of individual Opinions on the final round. These
features are designed to minimize the biasing effects
Of dominant individuals, of irrelevant communications,
and Of group pressure toward conformity.l4

 

 

One Of the most perplexing problems when attempt-
ing tO achieve long-range planning based on projections
is lack of a satisfactory amount of information. This is
because of a lack of accurate data and/or a model that
has been sufficiently tested. This situation is quite
normal rather than a rarity. More Often than not the way
of handling this problem is to defer consideration. The
hard data are presented and the decision maker infers
what he might, based on his background and experience.

In looking at the kinds Of information that can play a

role in decision making, Macmillan stated that there are

roughly three types:
On the one hand, there are assertions that are highly
confirmed--assertions for which there is a great deal
Of evidence backing them up. This kind Of informa-
tion can be called knowledge. At the other end of
the scale is material that has little or no eviden-
tial backing. Such material is usually called specu-
lation. In between is a broad area of material for
which there is some basis for belief but that is not

sufficiently confirmed to warrant being called knowl-
edge. There is nolgood name for this middling area.

I call it opinion.

Macmillan proceeded to point out that the products of

 

judgment, wisdom, insight, and similar intellectual

61

processes lie not in the realm of speculation and not
in the realm of knowledge but in the area Of Opinion.16
There is no Objective scale to measure the accu-
racy Of Opinion nor is there likely one to develOp.
However, it can be pointed out that even factual state-
ments are based on value judgments, i.e., Opinion, for
fact is extrapolated from a feeling that something is
true or false. By Obtaining Opinion from well-qualified
decision makers, a true answer may be produced or at least
the best possible answer available. A problem emerges
when obtaining Opinion from groups Of experts. It may be
that separate groups of experts will come up with separate
solutions. According tO Macmillan:
For the analyst using expert opinion within a study,
reliability can be considered to play somewhat the
same role as reproducibility in experimental inves-
tigations. It is clearly desirable for a study that

another analyst using the same approach (and differ-
ent experts) arrive at similar results.1

 

Macmillan produced research findings that con-
cluded that the increase in reliability increases with the
size of the group Of experts. There is a clear and rapid
linear relationship between an n=3 and an n=11 having an
approximately .23 to .81 reliability figure, respectively.18
Groups Of less than three tend to be very unrealiable and
groups Of over eleven tend to gain very little consider-

ing the large number of participants required to increase

the reliability figure any significant amount.

62

The next problem that must be confronted is how
to Obtain group opinion. Macmillan stated:

The traditional way Of pooling individual Opin-
ions is by face-to-face discussion. Numerous studies
by psychologists in the past two decades have demon-
strated some serious difficulties with face-to-face
interaction. Among the most serious are: (1) Influ-
ence of dominant individuals. The group opinion is
highly influenced by the person who talks the most.
There is very little correlation between pressure of
speech and knowledge. (2) Noise. By noise is not
meant auditory level (although in some face-to-face
situations this may be serious enough) but semantic
noise. Much of the "communication" in a discussion
group has to do with individual and group interests,
not with problem solving. This kind Of communication,
although it may appear problem oriented, is often
irrelevant or biasing. (3) Group pressure for con-
formity. The experiments Of Asch demonstrate in
dramatic fashion the distortions of individual judg-
ment that can occur from group pressure.

In experiments at RAND and elsewhere, it has
turned out that, after face-to-face discussion, more
Often than not the group response is less accurate
than a simple median Of individual estimates without
discussion.

Procedure

 

Consideration was given to conclusions drawn by
various research findings and review of literature.
Although the ideal number Of participants was eleven or
more, this study was constrained in part because of the
inability to locate participants qualified to participate
within the time frame of the study. To also support the
conclusion that it was desirable to hold the number Of
respondents to a minimum, Thompson stated:

Unless the number of participants in a Delphi exercise
is extremely small, designing verbal feedback always

63

poses a dilemma. If one includes all comments from

all participants, the volume of feedback rapidly

becomes prohibitive and its function self-defeating.
TO obtain the most out Of the participants, it was decided
to Obtain two rounds Of Delphi responses and then meet to
insure that misunderstandings Of the study could be elim-
inated and a consensus arrived at should these misunder-
standings distort the responses previously. Penfield
supported this use Of the Delphi technique when he
reported:

The two groups which functioned under alternated

treatments of Delphi and face-to-face interaction

achieved their most significant gain after the Delphi

treatments.21

In keeping with Delphi technique procedures, the

first questionnaire and a cover letter (Appendices A and B)
explaining what it was that the respondents should do, was
mailed. Prior to that time all participants had been
contacted by phone to confirm their willingness to partici-
pate fully in the study. Upon receipt Of the completed
first questionnaire by the researcher, the second instru-
ment was constructed and mailed out with a cover letter
(Appendices C and D), again informing participants Of
their task. After these questionnaires had been returned
by all participants to the researcher, a meeting was

initiated where a discussion of each research question was

completed.

64

Analysis

Analysis of the data generated was descriptive.
Summation, percentages, means, and comparison were the
general concepts used for analysis. Each research ques-
tion was analyzed separately and inferences made from the
data collected. The purpose of such analysis was to deter-
mine meaningful differences between the responses and to
report how these differences pertain to the following
research questions:

1. Can a system of classification of goals/
Objectives into a hierarchy of order provide management
with information to improve decision making?

2. Will a modified classification of expenditure
accounts provide a more pure representation for improved
decision making?

3. Can educational goals/objectives be effectively
associated with an expenditure for improved decision making?

4. Can a system Of associating expenditures with
goals/Objectives be effectively used with computer tech-

nology to provide a more effective decision—making tool?

65

Footnotes--Chapter III

1Olaf Helmer, Social Technology (New York:' Basic
Books, 1966).

 

2Norman C. Dalkey, An Elementapy Cross-Impact
Model, The Rand Corporation, Report R-677-ARPA, May 1971.

 

3Norman C. Dalkey, The Delphi Method: An Experi-
mental Study Of Group Opinion, The Rand Corporation,
Report RM-5888-PR, June 1969.

4N. Dalkey, B. Brown, and S. Cochran, The Delphi
Method, III: Use of Self-Ratings to Improve Group Esti-
mates, The Rand Corporation, Report RM-6115-PR, November
1969.

 

 

 

5N. Dalkey, B. Brown, and S. Cochran, The Delphi
Method, IV: Effect Of Percentile Feedback and Feed-In of
Relevant Facts, The Rand Corporation, Report RM-6118-PR,
March 1970.

 

 

6Marvin Adelson, ed. "Planning Education for the
Future," American Behavioral Scientist 10 (March 1967).

7D. R. Hudspeth, A Long-Range Planning Tool for
Education: The Focus Delphi (Syracuse: Syracuse Univer-
sity Research Institute, 1970).

8Donald P. Anderson, "The Ohio State Study:
Clarifying and Setting Priorities on an Intermediate School
District's Objectives Utilizing the Delphi Technique,"
paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 4, 1970.

 

9Frederick R. Cyphert, "The Virginia Study:
Soliciting Client Consensus Regarding Goals for a School
of Education," paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 4,
1970.

10James A. Jacobson, "The Utah State Study: Fore-
casting Future DevelOpments in Education," paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association, Min-
neapolis, Minnesota, March 4, 1970.

11Richard Willard, "Alternative Uses of the Delphi
Technique in Evaluating Alternative Schools," Educational
Research Corporation, March 31, 1975.

66

12Richard Coakwell, "Projecting College Enrollment
by a Modified Delphi Technique," 1974. ERIC # ED 103 070.

13Rand Corporation, Delphi and Long-Range Fore-
casting, A Bibliography (Santa Monica: The Rand Corpora-
tiOn, February 1972.

14Thomas T. Macmillan, "The Delphi Technique,"
paper presented at the annual meeting of the California
Junior Colleges Association's Committee on Research and
DevelOpment, Monterey, California, May 3-5, 1971, p. l.

15

 

Ibid., p. 2.

16Ibid., p. 6.

17Ibid., p. 10.

18Ibid., Figure 5.

191bid., p. 18.

20Loran T. Thompson, A Pilot Application of Delphi
Technigpes to the Drug Field: Some Egperimental Findingp,
The New York City Rand Institute, Report HU5801 T 47,
Rand Corporation Report R-1124, June 1973, p. 18.

21Gary M. Penfield, "The Relative Efficacy of
Varying Applications Of Face-to-Face Interaction Versus
'Delphi' in DevelOping Consensus About Relative Priority
Among Goals in Student Affairs" (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Cincinnati, 1975), Abstract.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter will present the data in sequence as
they pertain to the research question. Interpretation and
conclusions will be drawn from the data and presented.
Implications of the conclusions in addition to recommen-
dations will be discussed in Chapter V.

Inferential statistics are not used in the analy-
sis Of findings for reasons put forth in Chapter III.
Elements Of descriptive statistics such as summation,
means, percentages, ranking, and grand means (mean of
means) are used to condense data into a more usable form.
‘A table of data is provided for each of the research
questions. Each table consists of three distinct figures.

Part A Of each table presents the number of the
Open-ended answers to the appropriate research question
(see Appendix D) in a vertical sequence and the respon-
dent's identification number across the horizontal axis.
Numbers in the chart contain a number between 1 and 9,
indicating the ranking given by each respondent for the
appropriate research answer. The total ranking for each
item is summed and a ranking is made which indicates the
overall ranking of the item.

67

68

Part B in each table presents the number of the
Open-ended answer to the appropriate research question
(see Appendix D) in a vertical sequence and the rating of
each item by the participants. Numbers in the chart
contain a number between 1 and 7, indicating the amount
Of agreement and disagreement with the numbered statement,
respectively. A mean of the rankings is provided and a
ranking for each item is determined by the mean. The
percentage Of participants responding either a 1, 2, or 3
indicating agreement is shown in the appropriate column.
The percentage Of participants responding a 4 indicating
neither agreement nor disagreement is shown in the adjacent
column. The last column shows the percentage of partici-
pants responding either 5, 6, or 7 indicating disagreement
with the statement.

Part C shows the mean response of each partici-
pant's ranking in Part B along with a grand mean of all
participants. This provides an index against which the
individual participants" means can be compared to indicate
if the participant responded overall more positively or
negatively than the mean of the group.

In addition to the data presented in the chart,
the statements made by the participants when they attended
the meeting will be produced in summary form in sequence

as they apply to the respective research question.

69

Research Question One: Can a System of
Classification of Goalsmbjectives Into
a Hierarchy of Order Provide Management

 

With Information to Improve Decifion Making?

Respondent Meeting Summary

 

1.

A clear, concise statement Of definition of
goals and Objectives must be develOped.

Words such as internalized are too abstract.
Objectives must be consistent with develOped
goals.

Breakdown to the first level of goals is fine
but breaking into subgoals and Objectives is
too cumbersome to be of use.

Statement and identification of goals would be
valuable information for an administrator to
have.

A hierarchy should be simple and more easily

understood.

Meeting participants concurred that the information

provided by a hierarchy Of goals/objectives would be valu-

able for an administrator to have. They voiced the need

to be simple in form and concise in definition.

Data Analysis

TO extrude the essence Of the data reported in

Table l, a three-way examination of sections of the data

will be presented. Part B of Table 1 shows the following

70

Table 1.--Responses to Research Question One.

 

Part A. Ranked Statements, 1-9 scale

 

 

Question Respondent Number

1-1 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 sum Rank
1) 5 2 3 2 2 5 7 4 5 (35) 2
2) 6 9 8 3 8 8 1 l 9 (53) 8
3) 7 1 7 9 4 6 8 2 6 (50) 7
4) 9 5 l 1 7 7 2 8 4 (44) 4
5) 8 3 2 4 6 l 5 3 1 (33) 1
6) 3 7 5 8 5 2 6 6 3 (45) S
7) 4 6 4 7 3 3 3 5 2 (37) 3
8) 2 4 9 5 1 4 4 9 8 (46) 6
9) 1 8 6 6 9 9 9 7 7 (62) 9

Part B. Agree/Disagree, 1-7 scale

 

 

 

Question Respondent Number Percentage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Rank 1-3 4 5-7
1) 4 1 2 1 3 3 4 4 3 (2.77) 5 67 33 0
2) 4 3 4 2 l 7 l 1 5 (3.11) 7 56 22 22
3) 4 1 4 1 5 4 5 4 5 (3.66) 9 22 45 33
4) 5 l l l 4 3 2 4 3 (2.66) 4 67 22 ll
5) 4 l l 1 6 2 3 4 l (2.55) 3 67 22 ll
6) 3 4 l 2 l l 3 4 2 (2.33) 2 78 22 O
7) 4 3 l 2 1 1 2. 4 1 (2.11) l 78 22 0
8) 4 3 5 3 1 l 2 5 3 (3.00) 6 67 ll 22
9) 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 3 (3.44) 8 56 33 11

Part C. Respondent Means

(l) (3) (5) (7) (9)

3.77 2.44 2.88 3.00 2.88 Grand Mean = 2.85

(2) (4) (6) (8)
2.22 1.77 2.88 3.77

71

three statements to have no disagreement by any of the
participants:

1. The separation of goals and Objectives into a
hierarchy is going to be a vital necessity in
the future to provide educational administrators
information upon which to base decision making.

6. Positively.

7. Conceptually, I can accept the task Of "sorting
out" the goals and Objectives of the educa-
tional enterprise.

These three statements provide evidence that the concep-
tualization Of a hierarchy is acceptable and needed in the
future to provide better decision making.

Statements 4, 5, and 9 have only one participant
disagreeing with the statement. The three statements
appear below.

4. It is an essential skill in decision making.

5. The task is an important one and should prove
extremely helpful. It is time to end the con-
fusion and misuse Of the several terms involved.
Placing in a hierarChy makes much sense to me.

9. The goals would become long range, with little
immediate feedback. Objectives would become
more short range with immediate feedback that,
when accomplished, would obtain the goals.

Statements 4 and 5 provide a similar view of what the
first group of three statements indicated. These state-
ments seem more specific and less futuristic in content,
which may account for the one participant's disagreement
with the statement. However, when comparing statements

ranked 1 through 5 in Part B and statements ranked 1 through

5 in Part A, it is discovered that the same five answers

72

are ranked within both. This indicates some agreement
between the individual responses of Parts A and B.
Statement number 9, while having only a small amount of
disagreement, is ranked last in Part A. This may be
explained by taking a closer look at the response (Appen-
dix D, Question l-l). While participants tend to agree
with the statement, it is Obvious that the answer is not
directly related to the question, which may account for
its extremely low ranking.

Statement number 3 is the only statement having
less than 50 percent agreement and the largest amount of
disagreement. The statement is:

3. Such a hierarchy is essential if we are going
to bring necessary change to the educational
enterprise. Until such a breakdown is accomp-
lished we may know what has to be done, but be
unable to set up a delivery system.

Since educational administrators are assigned the task Of
Operating a delivery system on a day-to-day basis, it is
not surprising that there may be significant disagreement
with the statement above.

Part C, indicating the respondent means as compared

to the grand mean for the responses to question one,

indicates nothing conclusive.

73

Research Question Two: Will a Modified

Classifieation of Expenditure Accounts

Provide a More Pure Representation for
Improved Decision Making:

Respondent Meeting Summary‘

1. The accounting system has too many accounts to
deal with and an attempt to provide simplifi-
cation would be too time consuming for the
average district.

2. There is presently too much accounting infor-
mation to allow an administrator effective use.

3. A modified system would be too hard to imple-
ment.

Participants indicated that while the present
accounting system was very difficult to work with, it would
be a very difficult task to condense information. Respon-
dents further indicated that while a modified system is
desirable, implementational complexity would preclude

individual districts from doing it.

Data Analysis

A three-way examination of sections of the data
will be presented. Table 2 will be referred to. Part B
Of Table 2 indicates the following two statements have no

disagreement by any Of the participants.

2. Such a classification would obviously make it
possible to place a better definition Of expen-
ditures per program and assist in building
some type of decentralized accounting system
both by building and program.

74

Table 2.--Re3ponses to Research Question Two.

 

Part A. Ranked Statements, 1-9 scale

 

 

Question Respondent Number

2-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sum Rank
1) 2 3 4 7 9 l 9 2 3 (40) 3
2) 3 6 l 2 2 2 4 3 2 (25) 1
3) 8 2 3 4 3 3 3 l 4 (31) 2
4) 7 1 5 3 7 7 5 5 5 (45) 5
5) 5 8 8 1 1 8 2 8 l (42) 4
6) 9 5 7 5 4 4 8 4 6 (52) 7
7) 4 9 9 9 6 9 l 9 9 (6S) 9
8) 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 (55) 8
9) 1 4 2 8 8 6 7 6 8 (50) 6

Part B. Agree/Disagree, 1-7 scale

 

 

 

Question Respondent Number Percentage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 “ea“ Ra“k 1-3 4 5-7

1) 4 1 3 4 7 1 5 1 1 (3.00) 7 56 22 22
2) 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 l (1.66) l 89 11 0
3) 7 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 (2.11) 2 89 0 ll
4) 6 1 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 (2.77) 5 78 ll 11
5) 5 4 4 1 1 5 2 4 1 (3.00) 7 45 33 22
6) 7 l 3 3 3 1 5 2 2 (3.00) 7 78 0 22
7) 4 7 6 3 4 6 1 7 5 (4.77) 9 22 22 56
8) 5 3 3 l 2 2 4 2 2 (2.66) 4 78 11 ll
9) 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 (2.22) 3 89 ll 0

Part C. Respondent Means

(l) (3) (5) (7) (9)
4.88 2.77 2.88 3.22 2.00

(2) (4) (6) (8) Grand Mean = _2_._8_

2.33 2.11 2.55 2.44

 

75

9. As we get more mandatory educational programs
and limited income the future will dictate a
comprehensive cost accounting system that will
allow for decision making based on results and
upon expenditures.

Participants indicated that better measurement
capability would evolve from a modified classification
system.

Statements 3, 4, and 8 have only one participant in
disagreement with the statement. These statements are:

3. It will permit a more precise measurement of
expenditures item for item, than most of us
have now.

4. This Management Information Format can have a
very positive effect on educational decision
making, especially in the area of Planned
Programmed Budgeting. This type Of informa-
tion gained from a proposed modified classifi-
cation Of expenditures will be a "must" within
ten years.

8. The detail provided in the modified accounting
system will facilitate the costing out Of alter-
native programs which will greatly assist in
making rational budgetary decisions.

In Part B Of Table 2 it is interesting to note that
the same participant is the only one who objected to and
disagreed with statements 3, 4, and 8. If this partici-
pant's rating is put aside, then the ratings Of responses
2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 take on similar characteristics with
total agreement. It is worth noting that if participant
number one's response is disregarded, responses 2 and 3
are ranked 1 and 2, respectively, in Parts A and B. This

would indicate that responses 2 and 3 are both high in

ranking and high in agreement of participants. Even

76

without eliminating participant one, some general conclu-
sions may be drawn from both groups discussed. At the

very least, it can be concluded that a modified classi-
fication system will provide a better-defined representation.

Statement numbers 5 and 7 provide amounts Of

agreement less than 50 percent. The statements are as
follows:

5. This One is difficult to project because many
boards Of education and administrators continue
to make decisions based upon emotion and pres-
sure rather than upon Objective data. A modi-
fied classification of expenditures would tend
to provide much detailed data for administra-
tors and boards. Administrators may be quite
sensitive to giving such detail to boards of
education. Further, great care needs to be
taken to include other objective and subjec-
tive data into the decision making besides
finances. In my own experience when I made
the detailed information available to a broad
spectrum of peOple the tendency to make deci-
sions somewhat the same as in the past prevailed.

7. Limited.

Statement number 5 in Part A of Table 2 indicates

a ranking Of 4, which is quite high. However, in Part B
item 5 has over 50 percent either disagreeing or uncom-
mitted. It may be suspected that item 5 is such that it
covers a wide variety Of answers, some of Which the partici-
pants agree with and some they disagree with. This would
account for the high ranking in Part A while being rather
low in Part B. Statement number 7 is clearly ranked last

and is also disagreed with by over 50 percent of the par-

ticipants. Clearly, a modified classification system to

77

improve decision making does not have only limited value
according to the respondents.

Part C indicates a considerable discrepancy between
the mean response Of participant number one and the mean
of the group. The mean response Of the participant is 4.88,
while the grand mean of the respondents including him is
2.8. Several reasons may account for this. The partici-
pant may have a weak background and understanding of the
accounting system or may have a good background and also
be Of the Opinion that a modified classification would
have little effect on decision making. From inspection of
participant one's other responses, it may be speculated
that his response to the question was answer number 9
because that is the only statement he agrees with. Upon
looking into item number 9, it is discovered that it is
one Of the few items which has general agreement in this
area. The Opinion Of the respondent that the future will
determine the answer to this question is clearly shared;
however, other respondents see more implications.

Research Question Three: Can Educational

Goals/Objectives Be EffectivelynAssociated
With an Expenditure for Improved Decision

Making?
Respondent Meeting Summary

1. Based on goals, certain programs might be looked

at more closely.

78

2. Goal development coupled with cost is too dif-
ficult to look at presently and the two elements
need independent develOpment.

3. This may give administratOrs a means of looking
at the results Of cutting costs.

At the meeting, respondents were generally posi-
tive to the association of goals/Objectives with an expen—
diture. It was viewed as a method upon which decisions
could be made. It was the Opinion Of the participants
that a solid base of goal/Objective development must come

before trying tO associate it with an expenditure.

Data Analysis

 

A three-way examination Of the data presented in
Table 3 will be presented. Part B of Table 3 shows the
following three statements to have no disagreement by any
of the participants:

3. Another version of PPBS. Will be very impor-
tant! Dollar pinch, collective bargaining,
mandatory legislation plus demands for "account-
ability" make this approach a must in educa-‘
tional decision making.

4. More and more of this application will be car—
ried out in the future.

7. The task of relating educational costs to the
multitude of goals and Objectives would provide
significant information for decision making
only if agreement exists on the actual charg-
ing of costs to the specific goals and Objec-
tives.

These three statements provide evidence that not only can

goals/Objectives be associated with expenditures but this

79

Table 3.--Responses to Research Question Three.

 

Part A. Ranked Statements, 1-9 scale

 

 

Question Respondent Number Sum Rank

3-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1) 7 6 8 9 8 8 9 2 7 (64) 8
2) 8 7 7 1 1 4 3 5 1. (37) 1
3) 2 1 5 4 4 5 5 6 6 (38) 2.5
4) 3 4 6 3 5 6 6 1 5 (39) 4.5
5) 9 5 3 5 3 1 4 7 4 (41) 7
6) 6 9 9 8 9 9 1 9 9 (69) 9
7) 4 8 4 2 2 2 2 8 8 (40) 6
8) 5 2 2 7 6 3 7 4 2 (38) 2.5
9) l 3 1 6 7 7 8 3 3 (39) 4.5

Part B. Agree/Disagree, 1-7 scale
Percentage
1-3 4 5-7

Question Respondent Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

Mean Rank

 

 

l) 5 2 4 3 4 7 7 l 2 (3.88) 8 45 22 33
2) 5 2 3 2 1 5 2 2 1 (2.55) 4 78 0 22
3) 3 l 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 (2.66) 5 67 33 0
4) 4 l 2 l 3 3 4 1 l (2.22) 1.5 67 33 0
5) 5 2 3 1 2 1 3 3 1 (2.33) 3 89 0 11
6) 6 7 6 2 l 5 l 7 6 (4.55) 9 33 0 67
7) 4 2 1 2 l 3 l 4 2 (2.22) 1.5 78 22 O
8) 4 1 5 2 4 2 5 2 2 (3.00) 7 56 22 22
9) 3 l 3 2 4 2 6 2 2 (2.77) 6 78 11 11

Part C. Respondent Means

(1) (3) (5) (7) (9)

4.33 2.66 2.11 1.88 2.66
Grand Mean = 2.9

(2) (4) (6) (8)
3.22 3.66 2.11 3.55

 

80

will be intensified with the passing of years. However,

the concept is constrained by the lack of agreement regard-
ing uniform procedures for charging costs to specific goals/
Objectives.

Statements 5 and 9 have only one participant in

disagreement. The statements follow:

5. Goals and Objectives as related to costs have,
and will have, a significant role in educa-
tional decision making. The relationship will
not be direct however. Because the basic
costs Of school Operations (salaries, utilities,
insurance, etc.) are so high in comparison with
funds available for discretionary spending, I
would assume that major use Of such a model as
described in the study would involve making
decisions between alternative Objectives based
on estimated cost effectiveness.

9. In the future the establishment Of goals and
Objectives and the cost of meeting these will
become most imperative in educational decision
making.

As Part A in Table 3 shows, there is not much dif-

ference in total between statements ranked between 1 and 7.
This carries through to Part B, where no large difference
between ranking occurs until the statement ranked 8. One
exception to this is item 2 in Parts A and B. Item 2

ranks first in Part A and fourth in Part B, indicating an
overall high ranking. However, in Part B the response has
22 percent of the participants in disagreement with the
statement. A closer look at item 2 of question 3-1 in
Appendix D provides some clues. The answer has entangled

the conceptual response with a response tO the example

provided. This could cause the respondents who disagreed

81

with the statement made about the example provide an
unfavorable evaluation.

Statements 1 and 6 have less than 50 percent of the
participants in agreement with the response. The items are
listed below. i

l. The role of goals and Objectives as related to

cost in educational decision making will be the
most important variable.

6. Limited.

The conclusion reached by looking at these two statements
together is that goals and objectives as related to cost
will have more than a limited effect on decision making,
but it is not the most significant variable used in
decision making.

Part C Of Table 3 shows nothing conclusive about
individual respondent means as compared to the grand mean.
Research Question Four: Can a System
of Associatinngxpenditures With Goals/

Objectives Be Effectively Used With

Computer Technology to Provide a More
Effective DeEisiOn—Making Tool?

Respondent Meeting Summary
1. The computer is a necessity but resistance by
small districts will continue.
2. To program on a computer, goal and cost infor-
mation would be extremely cumbersome and infor-
mation generated may not provide any better

decision.

82

3. Administrators would be hesitant tO release
information to board members because informa-
tion may be misunderstood.

4. Tying a program to the present accounting
system via computer with its large number of
accounts would be extremely difficult.

Although there was general agreement by the par-

ticipants that the computer will be used in the future to
retrieve information, they were hesitant to project that
the computer would provide a more effective decision-making
tool if used to associate a goal with an expenditure. It
will be a slow process, with many reasons for not using

such a system.

Data Analysis

 

Data reported in Table 4 will be separated into
three categories. Part B of Table 4 provides the first of
the three categories--statements providing no disagree—
ment by any of the participants. There are two statements
in this category:

8. The computer must be utilized as a retrieval
system in the future for associating expendi-
tures with a goal or an Objective. Time will
not permit this information to be derived in
any other manner.

9. If decisions are tO be made on a current basis,
a computer will be necessary in gathering the
information and reporting it to administration
and boards to make these decisions.

83

Table 4.--Responses to Question Four.

 

Part A. Ranked Statements, 1-9 scale

 

 

Question Respondent Number Sum Rank

4—1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1) 3 6 9 8 6 8 l 2 8 (51) 7
2) 4 9 8 9 7 9 2 l 9 (58) 8
3) 5 7 l 7 8 l 3 9 1 (42) 4.5
4) 6 2 2 1 l 2 4 7 6 (31) 1
5) 7 8 7 3 9 3 9 6 7 (59) 9
6) 8 1 3 6 3 4 5 8 3 (41) 3
7) 9 3 6 S 2 5 6 5 2 (43) 6
8) 2 4 4 4 4 6 7 3 4 (38) 2
9) 1 5 5 2 5 7 8 4 5 (42) 4.5

Part B. Agree/Disagree, 1-7 scale

 

 

 

Question Respondent Number Percentage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Rank 1-3 4 5-7

1) 3 l 2 6 l 4 l 1 6 (2.77) 8 67 ll 22
2) 5 l 6 4 l 7 l l 6 (3.55) 9 45 11 44
3) 5 l l 2 4 l 1 4 l (2.22) 6 67 22 11
4) 5 l l 2 1 1 l 3 l (1.77) 3 89 0 ll
5) 5 1 4 l 4 1 2 3 1 (2.44) 7 67 22 11
6) 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 l (1.77) 3 89 0 11
7) 5 1 3 2 1 l l 3 1 (2.00) 5 89 0 11
8) 4 1 l 3 l l 1 3 l (1.77) 3 89 11 0
9) 2 1 2 2 l l 1 3 2 (1.66) l 100 0 0

 

Part C. Respondent Means

(1) (3) (5) (7) (9)
4.33 2.33 1.66 1.11 2.22 Grand Mean = 2.22

(2) (4) (6) (8)
1.00 2.66 2.00 2.66

 

84

The role Of the computer is concluded by participants to

be one of rapid retrieval of information. In addition,

respondents were of the Opinion that if goals and Objec-

tives were going to be identified with an expenditure then

the computer is a necessity.

Statements 3 through 7 have only one respondent in

disagreement with them. The statements are:

3.

The answer to this one seems simple. The
computer is an absolute essential ingredient.
I have no question whatsoever that a good pro-
gram with the computer can easily do the task
you are suggesting. I have worked with a com-
puter in accounting for ten years and more
Specifically, in the last three to four years,
in program budgeting. It is an extremely
important tool providing this kind of data and
it is very helpful in decision making.

The computer will be important as an informa-
tion gathering and analyzing tOOl.

The proposed chart of accounts to be used after
July 1, 1976, for financial accounting dove-
tails nicely with a computer format as suggested.
Speaking for one school system, we will develOp
much more detailed format than that called for
in state budget format. Probably be similar to
suggested computer format.

The computer has and will have an overwhelming
role in associating expenditures with goals and
objectives. That kind Of massive data arrange-
ment can only be accomplished by use Of EDP
technology.

Because Of the multitude Of data to be recorded
and accumulated for retrieval and analysis in
several management information report formats,
access to a computer with considerable core is
an absolute essential.

In Part B Of Table 4 it is interesting to note that

the same participant is the only one who objected to and

85

disagreed with statements 3 through 7. If this partici-
pant's evaluation is set aside, then responses 3 through 9
take on similar characteristics. Even without eliminating
participant number one, some general conclusions can be
drawn from the two categories. The computer will play an
important role in the retrieval of information for improved
decision making. If goals and Objectives are associated
with expenditures, then the computer must be a given.

Statement number 2 from Table 4, Part B is the only
statement that was evaluated at less than 50 percent agree-
ment. The statement is:

2. I see every reason to believe we are headed in
this direction but its application in small
school districts will probably remain very
limited.

This statement is disagreed with by 44 percent Of

the participants. It is also ranked eighth in Part A,
indicating it was considered a poor response to the ques—
tion. It is evident from Observation that there is con-
siderable question in the minds Of many of the partici-
pants about the rOle of the computer.

Part C indicates a considerable discrepancy between
the mean response Of participant number one and the mean of
the group. The mean response of the participant is 4.33,
while the grand mean Of the respondents including him is
2.22. It is apparent that the respondent views the use Of

the computer as an information gathering and reporting

instrument. From inspection, it can be seen in Part B

86

that he probably evaluated item 9 the highest because it
was his own idea. If this is the case, it should be
pointed out that item 9 is the only item with 100 percent
agreement. The Opinion by the respondent that the com-
puter will be used for the purposes discussed is clearly
shared; however, others see implications going beyond the

gathering and reporting function.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions

Research Finding-—Question One

A system Of classification of goals/Objectives into
a hierarchy can provide management with information to
improve the decision-making process. Conceptualization of
a hierarchy is desirable and needed to provide better
decision making. Clarification of definitions is needed
in the development of a hierarchy to eliminate confusion
and prevent misuse Of terminology. While a hierarchy is
desired to help improve decision making, it is not a pre-

requisite for effective educational decision making.

Research Findingj-Question Two

A modified classification of expenditure accounts
will provide a more pure representation; however, whether
it would improve decision making is dependent upon imple-
mentation. While a modified system is desirable, imple-
mentational complexity precludes individual districts from

doing it. Presently there is information overload at the

87

accounting level, making implementation of a modified sys-
tem an extremely complex task. While the outcome of a
modified classification system is desirable, the problems
associated with its implementation could constrain or
stifle its development. Limited financial resources in
the future may force implementation of a system of costing

more immediately.

Research Finding--Question Three

 

Educational goals/Objectives can be effectively
associated with an expenditure for improved decision making
providing that common agreement exists on how to charge
costs Off to specific goals and Objectives. Goals and
Objectives as related to cost will have more than a limited
effect on decision making, but it will not be the most

important variable.

Research Finding--Question Four

It is possible that a system Of associating expen-
ditures with goal/Objectives can be effectively used with
computer technology to provide a more effective decision-
making tool. A computer system Of retrieval will be used
in the future to associate an expenditure with a goal or
Objective for reporting. Its application in a small dis-

trict is an issue yet to be decided.

88

Conclusions

In moving toward a more systematized develOpment
in the area Of educational expenditures, it is paramount
that each increment of the system be developed with great
care. Painstaking, exhaustive definitions must be devel—
Oped. Agreement must be conceived on how to associate
costs to specific goals and objectives. Implementation
must be such that it does not frustrate personnel or cause
valuable loss Of time and resources. Finally, the system
must be such that it can be used by large districts as
well as smaller districts.

Chapter V will discuss the implications of the

findings and conclusions and make recommendations for

further study.

CHAPTER V

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There are many voids to be filled before a system
Of associating a goal or Objective with an educational
expenditure will complete its development. Although the
most sophisticated may see a definite advantage to using
goal/objective analysis to aid in making better decisions,
they also see many Of the pitfalls to this endeavor. What
the future holds is difficult to project. There are some
generally accepted predictions which are shared presently
by most administrators. Among them Ii; the fact that
education is going to have to compete more vigorously in
the future for resources than in the past. Another predic-
tion is that proof of achievement is going to be more and
more demanded before the public is going to willingly com-

mit more resources to education.

§pecific Implications of Research Questions

Research question number one attempted to provide
an answer to whether a system of goal/Objective hierarchy
would be a valuable tool to have to improve the decision-
making process. Although there was general agreement that

this was desirable, respondents implied that the process

89

90

would be very difficult and misunderstandings were bound
to occur because Of lack of common definition. The impor-
tant implication that surfaced in regard to this statement
was that because Of difficulty the idea should not be
discarded but the best possible definitions should be
developed.

Research question two attempted to provide an
answer to the question of whether the accounting system
should be modified to improve decision making. The impli-
cation Obtained from the data and the meeting was that
there needs to be conversion of accounting data into a
usable format. This could not be done at the local level,
but needs to be developed at a higher level of school
administration.

Research question three attempted to provide an
answer to the question of whether educational goals/
Objectives could be associated with an expenditure to
improve decision making. Implications here were that
standardized methods of charging costs to specific goals
were necessary. Even with this standardization the infor-
mation generated would be only as valuable as the adminis-
trator's ability to integrate it with other inputs upon
which to base decision making.

Research question four attempted to provide an
answer to the question Of whether a computerized system

would provide a better decision-making capability.

91

Retrieval is going to have a profound effect on decision
making in the future. As districts are able to retain
pinformation over a period Of years there will exist the
capability to analyze historical information and deci-
sions basing future decisions to some degree on what has
occurred in the past.

In summary, the group of administrators providing
input for the research inferred that the concepts were in

fact going to be important in the future and implementation

to some degree would occur.

General Implications

 

From this study it is clear that the perception
of this group of expert practicing administrators is that
the application Of goal/Objective analysis as applied to
educational expenditures is somewhere between being very
limited in use to being the ultimate tool in decision
making. Throughout the study, statements using "might be"
are ranked quite high. In addition, when respondents were
togetheriJIthe same room, the discussion centered pri-
marily around why a system would not work even though all
seemed in general agreement that the end result would be
desirable. Problems with the education of personnel
seemed to be overwhelming when attempting to implement a
new system. The main concept of simplicity was brought
forward continuously, indicating reluctance by field

administrators to attempt implementation of anything but

92

the simplest of procedures involving their personnel.
Another word which came up frequently during the meeting
which did not surface when evaluating the concept during
the written feedback method was the word "cumbersome."

It was implied that even if the district could be convinced
that a method Of association of goals/Objectives with
expenditures could be valuable there is sheer frustration
when the process Of slowly, methodically breaking the
present system apart to achieve the outcome is discussed.
In other words, the process is too cumbersome.

There are several implications which can be made
from taking an overall view of the research. It is evi-
dent that there is a need to develop a hierarchy of goals/
Objectives and it is desirable to associate it with an
expenditure through a computerized system. However, the
local districts have neither the staff expertise nor the
time to develop such a system. They may be willing to use
a tool to determine their own particular goals/Objectives
and even to rank them but this tool will have to be devel-
Oped external to the particular district. In addition,
districts are willing to use such a system only to the
extent that the system is simple to provide input to and
that it fits into the general state and federal reporting
network.

However, the day of simple analysis Of school

expenditures is gone. Because of the many variables which

93

come into View it is necessary tO develop a highly sophis-
ticated, thorough system to give administrators a better
means of making decisions. While there exist many within
the ranks of educational administrators who have a grasp
Of where the profession is headed because of their expo-
sure to systems views of the educational process, there are
also many who have little or no understanding Of systems.
This gap in understanding is starting to be bridged by
institutions Of higher education. However, it will take
many years before a majority of the practicing adminis-
trators either develOp systems skills or are replaced by
those having the skills. A challenge presently exists
within colleges Of educational administration to presently
shoulder the burden of re-educating practicing adminis-
trators, keeping them up to date with present-day and
future effects Of systems.

An immediate problem exists for educators to grapple
with. This problem is how to implement a systems approach,
given the personnel and present district philosophy.

Because of the need for a complex system and the
desire for simplicity at the local level, it appears that
a larger unit of school administration will have to develOp,
process, and implement the system. A pool of experts will
have to be maintained and a coordinating staff to act as a
go-between will have to be develOped. Information will

flow from the local district to a processing point and back

94

tO the local district to be considered as one of many

variables upon which to base decisions.

Recommendations

 

The following recommendations are made, based upon
the conclusions and implications of this study:

1. An investigation into the development Of
common definitions of terminology associated with goals
and Objectives needs tO be developed.

2. A method of categorizing goals and Objectives
into a hierarchy to differentiate the two and levels Of
each needs to be developed.

3. A system of modification within the accounting
area to provide a smaller number of classified items needs
develOpment.

4. A study into the weighting that administrators
give to decision making based on goals and Objectives needs
investigation.

5. A simplified district input program should be
developed tO be sent to a data-processing center.

6. A simplified output program should be developed
to provide administrators with the kind of information
upon which decision making would become more accurate.

7. A central region or state-wide organization
should be developed to coordinate and handle inputs from

districts.

95

8. Institutions Of higher education, specifically
departments of educational administration, should imple-
ment a program to provide practicing administrators expo-
sure to the process of systems develOpment and instruc-

tional processes.

APPENDICES

96

APPENDIX A

LETTER AND DIRECTIONS

97

APPENDIX A

LETTER AND DIRECTIONS

December 18, 1975

TO:

I am a doctoral candidate in the Department Of
Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State Uni-
versity. Dr. Alexander Kloster, chairman of my committee,
has suggested you as one Of a very small, select group of
educators who are capable of giving expert Opinion in the
areas of business and educational administration with insight
into the future developments in the areas of goal and Objec-
tive analysis, accounting, computer applications, and manage-
ment information needs. He has informed me that he has
talked with you briefly and Obtained a commitment from you
to complete the enclosed questionnaire and meet with others
participating in room 408 of Erickson Hall, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, at 1:30 on the 27th of
January, 1976.

Please complete questionnaires I, II, III, and IV
and return them to me as soon as possible in the envelope
provided. Because Of the nature of the study and the method
used to evaluate the information generated, I request that
you do not discuss the contents with anyone until the meet-
ing on the 27th.

The questionnaire models provided as background
material are a combination Of several goal models, account-
ing systems, computer systems, and recent research develop-
ments integrated into elements Of a management information
system for your conSideration. They are an attempt to pull
together a number of concepts into some sort of workable
tool.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Paul Kriz

98

APPENDIX B

INFORMATION AND OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE

99

APPENDIX B

INFORMATION AND OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION--SECTION I

One method of viewing educational expenditures is
to associate an expenditure with a goal or Objective.
Research has recently developed a list of widely accepted
sets Of goals and is presently involved with doing the same
for objectives. A necessity exists for the development Of
a hierarchy of order and a tool to effectively categorize

goals and Objectives. The following pages consist of:

Page : A list Of educational goals developed through
extensive research under a U.S. Office of Edu-
cation Title III grant

Page : Definitions of Goals and Objectives

Page : A Hierarchy of Goals and Objectives

Page : A tool to determine the first-level differen-
tiation between goals and Objectives

Page : An example analysis of the goals and Objectives
on page using the tool on page

Page : A summary

Page : A questionnaire

Please review the materials and succinctly respond
tO the questionnaire in a few short sentences or a short

paragraph.

100

101

EDUCATIONAL GOALS*

LEARN HOW TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN

 

Learn how to respect and get along with peOple who think,
dress, and act differently.

Learn about and try to understand the changes that take
place in the world.

Develop skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening.
Understand and practice democratic ideas and ideals.

Learn how to examine and use information.

Understand and practice the skills of family living.

Learn to respect and get along with people with whom we
work and live.

Develop skills to enter a specific field of work.

Learn how to be a good manager of money, property, and
resources.

Develop a desire for learning now and in the future.
Learn how to use leisure time.

Practice and understand the ideas of health and safety.
Appreciate culture and beauty in the world.

Gain information needed to make job selections.

Develop pride in work and a feeling Of self-worth.
Develop good character and self-respect.

Gain a general education.

 

*Goals are not rank ordered.

102

DEFINITIONS OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

A. A GOAL is a statement or group Of statements Of what is
tO be internalized. Its characteristics include diffi-
culty of measurement and delayed rewards.

1. An EDUCATIONAL GOAL is a statement Of what a number

 

of educational program goals provide.

2. An EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM GOAL is a statement of what

 

is to be internalized as a result of an educational
program.

B. An OBJECTIVE is a statement intended either to bring

 

about change in program elements or evaluate instruc-
tion. Its characteristics include ease Of measurement
and immediate rewards.

1. A PROGRAM OBJECTIVE is a statement intended to

 

bring about change in program elements to improve
the effectiveness of the program.

2. A BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVE is a statement that is

 

designed to evaluate instruction.

103

.Oum

.Ouo

.ouo

.Ouo

. . . an omusmmwfi mm Hommm cwuufiuz

m mo cofimmwfinsm nmsounu OOflono

uflmnp mo uommnsm o no undocmumHOOCS
“Mona wumuumcosoo Haas mucoosuw .OIN

 

mw>fiuomflno Hmuofl>mnmm

mmflflsum HMHOOW UCOECHONVOU CMUHHw—Ha

“mo mono moo ummoa no mo
mmooasocx m npmoo ca mOHO>Oo Hafl3 mucopsum .m

 

mo>fluomnno Emumoum

.xuummoum Uganda 0cm
HOCOmHOm Mom uommmou .menm2ONHuflO O>fluospoum
mo mospwuum so mOHO>OQ .OIH Mom mmpduwuum mOHO>mQ .QIH

 

mamoo Emumoum

.cONfluHO @000 m on on cumoq .H

 

Hmow HMCOwuwosom

mm>HBUmhmO QZfl mA<OD m0 NmomdMMHm

. . . up ownsmmOE mm
>OMHOOEO© H5O mo monocmun
owns» umfla Hawz mucmosum .OIH

>Houmflm CMOHHOE<

"mo Omoma3ocx oammn
m mOHO>O© HHH3 mucmosum .H

.moauflafinflm
Icommwu paw musmflu Ofl>flo
mo mmocmumam cm moao>mo .OIH

104

LEVELS OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Qperation Level

 

(Immediate Rewards)

(Given X + Y then Z will occur)

Easily Measured Difficult to Measure

 

 

Nonoperational Level

 

(Delayed Rewards)
(Z will be modified depending on the interaction

Of X and Y plus feedback from other variables)

Easily Measured Difficult to Measure

 

105

LEVELS OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Operation Level

 

(Immediate Rewards)

(Given X + Y then Z will occur)

Easily Measured Difficult to Measure

 

 

0-1, 0-2,

--—-+

 

Nonoperational Level

 

(Delayed Rewards)

(Z will be modified depending on the interaction
Of X and Y plus feedback from other variables)

-----_--IP-----

Easily Measured Difficult to Measure

 

I ----- 1
I

I ————— -l

I
l
.l.
C)
l
H
m

106

SUMMARY

On page it is evident that goal 1-a is really not
a goal using the definitions and the evaluation tool. It
should be listed as an objective. Objectives should appear
in the upper left corner box and goals should appear in the
lower right-hand box. Any deviation from this leads to a
suspicion that the goal is really not what it purports to be.

This model is the first step which could lead to
further delineation of goals and Objectives. Implications
are many. Several studies have been done recently to deter-
mine what percentage Of any given course can be identified
with a particular goal. Projecting this further, there may
be implications for goal costing.

The development Of the model is an attempt to pro-
vide a background for you and is a unique combination Of
several models converted to a terminology which hopefully is

more familiar to you.

107

QUESTIONNAIRE-~1

Please read both questions before responding. Please respond
to both questions using a short, concise statement or state-

ments.

1-1. In the future how do you view the role of separating
goals and Objectives into a hierarchy to provide edu-
cational administrators information upon which to

base decision making?

1-2. Project into the future what your view of the model
presented in the previous pages is in terms Of its

applicability to an educational system.

108

INTRODUCTION-~SECTION II

The accounting system as it now exists provides a
variety of information. Management information used for
decision making is available through the system but does
not exist presently in any standard form. On the follow-
ing pages is a model whereby accounting information could
be directly pulled out of the system and placed in such a
manner that administrators would have easy access. This
could be tied into a computer for periodic retrieval by an

administrator. The following pages consist of:

Page : A financial management information format and
description
Page : A questionnaire

Please review the materials and succinctly respond
to the questionnaire in a few short sentences or a short

paragraph.

109

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORMAT

Type of account (expenditure, revenue, etc.)
School identification (by number code)
School type (elementary, middle, added ed., preschool, etc.)

Instructional service type (special education, compensatory
education, vocational education, etc.)

Program major (English, math, art, industrial arts, etc.)

Program minor (geometry, calculus, math analysis, computer
science, etc.)

Object (salary, consumables, etc.)

Supportive services (health, guidance, social work, psy-
chological, etc.)

Object (salary, consumables, etc.)

Student services (food, athletics, enrichment, transporta-
tion, etc.)

Object (salary, consumables, etc.)

110

QUESTIONNAIRE-~11

Please read both questions before responding. Please

respond to both questions using a short, concise statement

or statements.

2-1. Project what effect a modified classification of
expenditures in addition to the general ledger account-

ing system will have on educational decision making.

2-2. Project what your view of the model presented in the
previous pages is in terms of its applicability to an

educational system.

111

INTRODUCTION--SECT ION I I I

The following pages provide a model of how educa-
tional costs might be related to goals and Objectives.
For purposes of simplicity only goals are looked at since
this would be the primary area of concern for administra-
tors. This is another section Of a management information
system. The following pages consist of:
Page : A local financial information model
Page : A questionnaire

Please review the materials and succinctly respond
to the questionnaire in a few short sentences or a short

paragraph.

I
STUDENT '
P RAM
SERVICES ROG
+ +.___

112

LOCAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

EXPENDITURES

 

EDUCATIONAL GOAL

COSTS

 

 

 

 

PROGRAM GOAL

 

 

 

COSTS
1.
F"""“""-'"""-""""""""'T
SUPPORT STUDENT
SERVICES SERVICES
_______________ .1

 

 

 

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COSTS COSTS
T T
BEHAVIORAL BEHAVIORAL
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
COST COST
BEHAVIORAL
OBJECTIVE
COST
BEHAVIORAL
OBJECTIVE

COST

 

 

etc.

etc.

SUPPORT
SERVICES

3'.

etc.

 

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

COSTS

 

 

+

 

 

BEHAVIORAL
OBJECTIVE

COST

 

 

etc.

113

QUESTIONNAIRE--III

Please read both questions before responding. Please

respond to both questions using a short, concise statement

or statements.

3-1. What do you project the role of goals and Objectives
as related to cost will be in educational decision

making?

3-2. What is your View of the model presented in the pre-
vious pages in terms Of its applicability to an

educational system?

114

INTRODUCTION--SECTION IV

Given the impact of the computer on education, the
following pages consist of an attempt to assign a format
to the three models previously set forth to provide a
retrieval system. The following pages consist of:

Page : An integrated model converted for computer use
Page : A questionnaire

Please review the materials and succinctly respond

to the questionnaire in a few short sentences or a short

paragraph.

115

COMPUTERIZED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORMAT*

Type Of Account / X

School Identification / XX
School Type / X
Educational Goal / XX
Instructional Service Type / XX
Program Goal / XX

Program Major / XX

Program Objective / XX
Object / XXXX

Behavioral Goal / XX
Program Minor / XX

Object / XX

Supportive Services / XX
Object / xxxx

Student Services / XX

Object / xxxx

 

*See page of Section II and page of Section I
for description.

116

QUESTIONNAIRE--IV

Please read both questions before responding. Please
respond to both questions using a short, concise statement

or statements.

4-1. What do you view the role of the computer will be in
the future for associating expenditures with a goal
or Objective to provide a more effective decision-

making tool?

4-2. What is your View Of the model presented in the pre-
vious pages in terms of its applicability to an

educational system?

APPENDIX C

LETTER AND INFORMAT ION- -

SECOND ROUND QUESTIONNAI RE

117

APPENDIX C

LETTER AND INFORMATION--
SECOND ROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

January 21, 1976

To:

Thank you for your participation in the first round of an inves-
tigation into future develOpments in the areas of goal/objective
analysis and educational expenditures. Your response is much appre-
ciated.

Enclosed you will find a questionnaire which is a composite of
the responses received. Please take some time to read the responses
and indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with each
statement. After you have completed this task please go back through
the statements and rank the statements from 1 (most appropriate) to
XX (least appropriate). An example appears below:

Rank 7 Agree : : * : : : : Disagree

Upon completion please enclose the questionnaire in the envelope
provided and either mail it or bring it with you to the meeting,
which all participants have committed themselves for, in completed
form. As you recall the meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 27,
at 1:30 PM, in room 408 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, Michigan.

 

Once again thank you for taking the time to participate in this
project. The difficulty in obtaining Opinion from well—qualified
educators has been bridged by your COOperation, interest, and prompt
response.

Sincerely,

Paul Kriz

118

APPENDIX D

SECOND ROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

119

APPENDIX D

SECOND ROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

IN THE FUTURE HOW DO YOU VIEW THE ROLE OF SEPARATING GOALS AND

 

OBJECTIVES INTO A HIERARCHY TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRA-

 

TORS INFORMATION UPON WHICH TO BASE DECISION MAKING?

 

The separation Of goals and Objectives into a hierarchy is going
to be a vital necessity in the future to provide educational
administrators information upon which to base decision making.

Rank Agree : : : : Disagree

 

It will be utilized by the few who comprehend and ignored by
the majority who do not understand.

Rank Agree : - - - - Disagree

Such a hierarchy is essential if we are going to bring necessary
change to the educational enterprise. Until such a breakdown is
accomplished we may know what has to be done, but be unable to
set up a delivery system.

 

Rank Agree : : - : : : Disagree
It is an essential skill in decision making.
Rank Agree : : : : : Disagree

 

The task is an important one and should prove extremely helpful.
It is time to end the confusion and misuse of the several terms
involved; Placing in a hierarchy makes much sense to me.

 

Rank Agree : : : - : Disagree
Positively.
Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

 

Conceptually, I can accept the task Of "sorting out" the goals
and Objectives of the educational enterprise.

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

(continued on the next page)

120

1-10

121

(Continued)

Separating goals and Objectives into a hierarchy sounds like an
interesting theoretical exercise. As such it might have signifi-
cant value in assisting an administrator to better understand

his own decision-making process. The problem is that goals and
Objectives may not allow themselves to be fitted into nice, neat
categories and a procedure to do so may be cumbersome.

Rank Agree : . Disagree

The role of separating goals and Objectives into a hierarchy
will in the future be used as an essential skill in decision
making.

. Disagree

Rank Agree : :

The goals would become long range, with little immediate feed—
back. Objectives would become more short range with immediate
feedback that, when accomplished, would Obtain the goals.

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

2-10

122

PROJECT WHAT EFFECT A MODIFIED CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES
IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WILL HAVE
ON EDUCATIONAL DECISION MAKING.

It would allow administrators to decide on programs according to
their relative effectiveness and assign resources accordingly.

- ° - - Disagree

Rank Agree :

Such a classification would Obviously make it possible to place
a better definition of expenditures per program and assist in
building some type of decentralized accounting system both by
building and program.

: ° - Disagree

Rank Agree : :

It will permit a more precise measurement Of expenditures item
for item, than most of us have now.

Rank Agree : : Disagree

This Management Information Format can have a very positive
effect on educational decision making, especially in the area of
Planned Programmed Budgeting. This type of information gained
from a proposed modified classification of expenditures will be
a "must" within ten years.

Rank Agree : : : Disagree

This one is difficult to project because many boards of education
and administrators continue to make decisions based upon emotion
and pressure rather than upon Objective data. A modified classi-
fication of expenditures would tend to provide much detailed data
for administrators and boards. Administrators may be quite sen-
sitive to giving such detail to boards of education. Further,
great care needs to be taken tO include other Objective and sub-
jective data into the decision making besides finances. In my
own experience when I made the detailed information available to
a broad spectrum of people the tendency to make decisions somewhat
the same as in the past prevailed.

Disagree

Rank Agree : :

(continued on the next page)

2-1.

6.

123

(continued)

A good classification of expenditures has and will continue to
have an impact of the highest order on educational decision
making.

 

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree
Limited.
Rank Agree : : : : : Disagree

 

The detail provided in the modified accounting system will
facilitate the costing out Of alternative programs which will
greatly assist in making rational budgetary decisions.

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

As we get more mandatory educational programs and limited income
the future will dictate a comprehensive cost accounting system
that will allow for decision making based on results and upon
expenditures.

Disagree

Rank Agree :

3-1.

124

WHAT DO YOU PROJECT THE ROLE OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS RELATED
TO COST WILL BE IN EDUCATIONAL DECISION MAKING?

 

 

The role of goals and objectives as related to cost in educa-
tional decision making will be the most important variable.

Rank Agree : : : : - Disagree

 

This is a most interesting Obncept. Looking at it purely as

it is designed, I think it would have quite an impact. Assuming
all programs were designed through Objective statements and
costs were applied to same, I think there would be a chance for
many, many changes in programs resulting. This would not be all
bad. I would like the data, but am apprehensive of the work
involved to get there.

Rank Agree : : ° Disagree

Another version Of PPBS. Will be very important! Dollar pinch,
collective bargaining, mandatory legislation plus demands for
"accountability" make this approach a must in educational deci-
sion making.

Rank Agree : - Disagree

More and more Of this application will be carried out in the
future.

Rank Agree : : : - Disagree

Goals and Objectives as related to costs have, and will have a
significant role in educational decision making. The relation-
ship will not be direct, however. Because the basic costs of
school Operations (salaries, utilities, insurance, etc.) are so
high in comparison with funds available for discretionary spend-
ing, I would assume that major use of such a model as described
in the study would involve making decisions between alternative
Objectives based on estimated cost effectiveness.

 

 

Rank Agree : : : : Disagree
Limited.
Rank Agree : : : : : . Disagree

(continued on the next page)

3-1.

125

(continued)

The task of relating educational costs to the multitude of goals
and objectives would provide significant information for decision
making only if agreement exists on the actual charging of costs
to the specific goals and Objectives.

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

The financial crises the schools will face for many years will
dictate the utilization of goals and Objectives for the purpose
of determining priorities, based upon cost and the attainment of

behavioral objectives.

- - Disagree

Rank Agree :

In the future the establishment of goals and objectives and the
cost of meeting these will become most imperative in educational
decision making.

. Disagree

Rank Agree :

126

WHAT DO YOU VIEW THE ROLE OF THE COMPUTER WILL BE IN THE FUTURE
FOR ASSOCIATING EXPENDITURES WITH A GOAL OR OBJECTIVE TO PRO-
VIDE A MORE EFFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING TOOL?

 

For larger districts--high.

Disagree

Rank Agree :

I see every reason to believe we are headed in this direction
but its application in small school districts will probably
remain very limited.

Rank Agree : : Disagree

0.
O.
O.

The answer to this one seems simple. The computer is an absolute
essential ingredient. I have no question whatsoever that a good
program with the computer can easily do the task you are suggest-
ing. I have worked with a computer in accounting for ten years
and more specifically, in the last three to four years, in pro-
gram budgeting. It is an extremely important tool providing this
kind of data and it is very helpful in decision making.

Rank Agree : : : : : Disagree

The computer will be important as an information gathering and
analyzing tool.

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

Budget code to be used after July 1, 1976, dovetails nicely with
a computer format as suggested. Speaking for one school system,
we will develop much more detailed format than that called for
in state budget format. Probably be similar to suggested com-
puter format.

Rank Agree : : Disagree

 

The computer has and will have an overwhelming role in associat—
ing expenditures with goals and Objectives. That kind of massive
data arrangement can only be accomplished by use of E.D.P.
technology.

Rank Agree : . . . Disagree

 

(continued on the next page)

4-1.

127

(continued)

Because of the multitude of data to be recorded and accumulated
for retrieval and analysis in several management information
report formats, access to a computer with considerable core is
an absolute essential.

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

 

The computer must be utilized as a retrieval system in the
future for associating expenditures with a goal or an Objective.
Time will not permit this information to be derived in any other
manner.

Rank Agree : . Disagree

 

If decisions are to be made on a current basis, a computer will
be necessary in gathering the information and reporting it to
administration and boards to make these decisions.

Rank Agree : : : : : : Disagree

APPENDIX E

ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS: A SYSTEMS APPROACH

128

APPENDIX E

ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS: A SYSTEMS APPROACH
Robert E. Ohm

Professor of Educational Administration
University of Oklahoma

The dictum, "define your objectives," is probably
the most widely accepted and least questioned principle of
the planning professions. Definitions of administration
begin or conclude with reference to the primacy of getting
Objectives stated. Definitions of organizations invariably
describe the goal oriented nature of the structure and
Drucker's phrase, "managing by Objective," brought to focus
a variable idea in administrative theory that is beginning
to develOp conceptual and research status:1 The purpose of
this paper is to identify and describe some models, represent-
ing evolving thought, that have been used to deal with the
nature and function of goals in the organizational and

administrative setting.

The Formal Modelg

 

The formal or traditionalist View of organizational
goals was bred out of the union of reflective thinking and
successful practice first exemplified by Henri Fayol.
Fayol's2 key concept, prevoyance, to foretell the future
and to prepare for it, was interpreted by Urwick3 to mean
both forecasting and planning. In Fayol's view forecasting
and planning were the central, indispensible administrative

129

130

tasks which he incorporated into his maxim, "managing means
looking ahead." The need for clearly defined goals in this
planning process was assumed and the function of goals was
to give direction to planning. Goals were viewed as undif-
ferentiated elements, requiring no more than clear defini-
tion in order to be understood, accepted and acted on.

Basing much of his thinking of Fayol's earlier work,
Urwick4 accepted planning as a central element in a nine
element framework and asserted that if a plan "is to do
something," there must be an objective. In his administra-
tive models, however, goals or objectives are subsumed
under the element of planning with the exhortation that the
first characteristic of a good plan is that it is based on
a clearly defined objective. It should be noted, however,
that Urwick was one of the first to publicize the fact that
most administrators and others are vague and hazy about
where they are trying to go or why, a characteristic that
is as true now as it was then. However, his model pro-
poses no solutions to this problem nor does it treat objec-
tives systematically.

As a third practitioner turned theorist, Mooney5
viewed organization as, "the form of every human associa-
tion for the attainment of a common purpose"; considered
organization to begin when people combine their efforts for
a given purpose; and, as his first principle of organiza-

tion, proposed coordination as the orderly arrangement Of

131

group effort to provide unity of action in the pursuit of
a common purpose. Though purpose or objective seems a
central element in his thought, it remains an undefined
term and receives no systematic treatment.

Assuming that Fayol, Orwick, and Mooney represent
the early formalists, the formalist model that emerges
views goals or objectives as undefined or undifferentiated
elements in organization and administration; central to the
planning process, but requiring little or no systematic
treatment in a theory of organization and administration.
The function of goals is to give direction to planning. It
is assumed that, once organizational goals are clearly
defined, the other elements of a plan, such as procedures
and achievement or production measures will become clear
and fall in line. This model assumes the rationality Of
stating Objectives as the first step in a linear planning
sequence.

A typical later extension of the undefined, formal
model is found in Newman's Administrative Action (1956).6
The chapter, "Goals--The Guideposts in Administration," is
essentially descriptive and reiterates the conventional
wisdom. He begins and ends with the traditional assertions
that sound administration starts with a statement, or at
least a clear recognition, of goals to be achieved, and that
every enterprise needs a clear statement of its objectives

as a basis for all of its planning. Newman, however, does

132

mention the existence Of multiple organizational Objec-
tives, the need for balancing the importance of different
objectives, and the need to break down broad Objectives
into a sequence Of sub-objectives and Operating goals.
Though Newman concludes by indicating that goals
serve such functions as standards for appraising operating
results, as a means of exercising control, and as a form
of motivation, his basic approach is to see goals as
inherently rational, undefined elements; as given requir-
ing no further analysis of their nature or function in admin-
istration. In this he reflects the persistence of the for-

malist model in much of the current thinking on the topic.

Modern Rationalists Models

The undefined rationality of the early formalists
was subjected to a major re-thinking in March and Simon's7
theory of formal organization. On the basis of generali-
zations that behavior in organization is intendedly rational
and that organization structure and function derive from the
characteristics of human problem-solving processes and
rational human choice, March and Simon have made a distinc-
tion between Operational and nonoperational goals; a dis-
tinction leading to differences in decision making processes
and organization structure. Operational goals are defined
as those which permit a means-ends analysis to be made,
i.e., they provide the necessary measuring rod for comparing

alternative means and for determining the contribution of

133

means to goals. Non-Operational goals are those which
require the specification of sub-goals before they can be
related to specific means or actions, i.e., there do not
exist agreed-upon criteria for determining the extent to
which particular activities or programs of activity con-
tribute to these goals.

According to March and Simon, the distinction
between operational and non-operational goals leads to two
qualitatively different decision making processes and to
the distinction between unitary and federal organization
units. When individuals have the same Operational goals,
differences in Opinion about the course Of action will be
resolved by predominantly analytic processes. When goals
are not shared or when the shared goals are nonoperational
and the Operational subgoals are not shared, the decision
will be reached by predominantly bargaining processes.

The relation of goals to structure is given in the
following definitions:8

1. An organization is unitary to the extent that

the scope of its activity coincides with a
means-end structure organized around a single

Operational goal.

2. An organization is federal if it is composed of
a number of unitary sub—divisions.

3. An organization is composite if the SCOpe of
its activity encompasses more than one means-
end structure organized around Operational
goals and if it is not composed of unitary
sub-divisions.

134

The importance of March and Simon's analysis is in
its recognition of distinctions among goals SEQ the influ-
ence Of goal structure or organization structure. In con-
trast to traditionalist views, goals are perceived as
significant variables in the administrative process and are
moved to a more defined and central role in the study of
organization and administration. The distinction between
Operational and non-Operational goals provides a major
dimension for classifying goals with significant differ-
ences in functions between the goals thus classified.

Another current rationalist view is Vernon Buck's9
model for viewing an organization as a system of constraints.
The model attempts to analyze all organizational behavior in
terms of goals, costs, and resource capacity restrictions;
using linear programming as a decision making model. In
discussing goals, Buck points out that it is the decision

to commit resources for certain activities and to withhold.

them from others that operationally_defines the organiza-

 

tion goals. Verbal pronouncements are insufficient for
defining goals; the speaker must put his resources where
his mouth is if something is to be considered a goal.
Simonlo pursued the notion of goals as constraints
by confronting the dilemma of the concept of the organiza-
tional goal as a form of reification of the organization
leading to its treatment as something more than a system

of interacting individuals, and the seeming indispensability

135

of the goal concept to organization theory. He proposes
that instead of the phrase, "organizational goal," it is
easier and clearer to view decisions as being concerned
with discovering courses of action that satisfy a whole
set of constraints. It is this set, and not any one of
its members, that is most accurately viewed as the goal of
the action.

Simon proceeds to identify two types of constraint
sets or goals; those that may be used directly to synthe-
size prOposed solutions (alternative generation) and those
that test the satisfactoriness Of a proposed solution
(alternative testing). The goals that guide the actual
synthesis and the constraints that determine whether possible
courses of action are in fact feasible, i.e., the distinc-
tion between generator constraints and test constraints,
help to resolve the ambiguity in the notion Of goals as
widely shared and in conflict. The constraint sets used in
testing are generally widely shared and serve as organiza-
tional goals. Goals as constraint sets denoting the genera—
tors are typically in conflict. It is important to make
explicit which sense of goal is intended.

In the process of Operationalizing the concept of
organizational goal, the new rationalists have moved from
a View of goals as undefined and a priori givens in the
organization to a view of goals as a function of decisions

involving resource allocations and constraints on these

136

allocations. In this sense, goals are emergent, changing,
multi-functional and frequently conflicted rather than
unitary, precise, and teleological. The review of selected
systems approaches to goal analysis that follows provides

a set of insights that are as important as, and comple-

mentary to, current rationalist approaches.

§ystem Approaches

 

Though current rationalist approaches to organiza-
tional goals merge into system terms and concepts, system
theory approaches to the study of organizational goals have
contributed useful concepts and understandings of their
own. One of the first breaks with the undefined rational-
ity of the early formalists was Barrard'sll insightful
analysis which may be said to be the precursor of the sys-
tems approach.

Starting from the position that purpose is the
unifying element of formal organization, Barnard sees pur—
pose as having two forms; as an act of COOperation in which
purpose is viewed objectively and reflects the interests
of the organization, and as the subjective meaning of the
act to the individual. In turn, purpose as the object of
cooperation can serve as an element of a cooperative system
only so long as the participants do not recognize that
there are serious divergencies in their understanding of
that purpose as an object of COOperation. Recognition of

divergency varies with the concreteness or abstractness

137

of the purpose. When purpose is of a general, intangible
and sentimental character, divergencies can be very wide

and yet not recognized. The following quote relates this
View to current thinking:

An objective purpose that can serve as the basis for a
COOperative system is one that is believed by the con-
tributors (or potential contributors) to it to be the
determined purpose of the organization. The inculca-
tion of belief in the real existence of a common pur-
poseiis an essential executive function.12 (underlining
added)

 

 

 

In further definition of his concepts, Barnard
arrives at his well known distinction between effectiveness
and efficiency. Effectiveness of cooperation is the accomp-
lishment of the recognized Objectives of cooperative action.
Efficiency of a COOperative system is its capacity to main-
tain itself by the individual satisfactions it affords.13
This identification of two classes of processes first
suggested the multi-purpose nature of an organization and
the inherent conflict between them. As Barnard points out,
the functions of the executive are those of securing the
effective adaptation of these processes.14

The proposition that an organization had more than
one purpose and that purposes could be classified along an
achievement-satisfaction dimension received considerable
support from the human relations phase of theory develOp-
ment in administration and corollary developments in group

15

dynamics and small group process. Lonsdale first traced

the development of this line of thought from Barnard

138

through Roethlisberger and Dickson to the early work in
group dynamics. The concept was stated explicitly by
Roethlisberger and Dickson in their observation that,

An industrial organization may be regarded as perform-

ing two major functions, that of producing a product

and that of creating and distributing satisfaction

among the individual members of the organization.1

This general concept received important support

and elaboration from the work in group dynamics, small group
research and theory, and T-Group theory and laboratory

17

method. Beginning with Bion's formulation that every

group has two purposes; to accomplish work and to deal with
the internal emotional resistances to work, Thelen18
extended the concept to ordinary work groUps in his dis-
tinction between achievement problems and process problems.

Group activity may move from one problem area to
the other. Non-productive periods (in achievement terms)
indicate that group energy is being given to dealing with
process problems. Obstacles to achievement problem solv-
ing are due to an inability to find behaviors which simul-
taneously satisfy both sorts of problem solving demands.
The relation between achievement and process is dynamic
in that energy must be given to both problem areas if the
group is to solve its achievement problems in a socially
productive form.

The dimension emerging from such distinctions as

effectiveness and efficiency, product and satisfaction,

work and emotionality, achievement and process, and task

139

and maintenance aspects of group and organizational activ-
ity is incorporated in Parson's19 social system theory.
Hill's20 succinct simplification of this theory asserts
that all social systems are organized in the sense that
they are structurally differentiated about two major axes;
a differentiation between internal and external considera-
tions and a differentiation between instrumental considera-
tions or problems of means, and consummatory considerations
or problems of ends. When these axes are dichotomized they
define four major functions; adaptation, goal attainment,
pattern maintenance, and integration.

This four part framework provides one means of
classifying goals and identifying goal functions. Goal
statements are not simple, undefined elements in a rational
three part framework of goals, processes, and evaluation,
but statements depicting a variety of desired states of a
multi-purpose organization and serving a number of func-
tions for the organization. Goal statements may have an
adaptive function, goal attainment function, pattern main-
tenance function, or integrative function. And each of
these functions may be in competition for scarce resources.
Therefore, the edict, state your goals, does not neces-
sarily lead to rational planning, since goal statements
may be in conflict. The problem of whether a pattern
maintenance goal is given greater emphasis than a system

attainment goal does not necessarily have a purely rational

140

solution since it may be determined by collective bargain-
ing or some other form of power play.

Another system based approach to goal analysis has
been developed by Etzioni.20 He begins with two assump-
tions; (1) goals depict a future state of affairs which
organizations strive to realize, and (2) goals are multi-
functional.

The definition of a goal as a desired state of
affairs which an organization attempts to realize indi-
cates that a goal state is sought but never exists. Once
realized, a goal ceases to be a goal. The consequences
of this view for organizational success almost always lead
the evaluator or researcher to conclude that low effective—
ness is a general characteristic of organizations since
most organizations most of the time do not attain their
goals in any final sense. Since goals as symbolic units,
are ideals which are more attractive than the reality which
the organization attains, the organization can almost always
be reported to be a failure.

The notion of goals as future states of affairs
permits a variety of goals to be stated or to be sought.
The organization can be viewed as multi-purpose and/or it
can be viewed as engaged in activities directed toward both
implicit and explicit goals, many of which may conflict

with each other.

141

Etzioni makes a distinction between a goal model
and a system which is a working model of a social unit
which is capable of achieving a goal.

It is assumed a priori that some means have to be
devoted to such non-goal functions as service and cus-
todial activities, including means employed for the
maintenance of the unit itself. From the vieWpoint

of the system model, such activities are functional

and increase organizational effectiveness. It follows
that a social unit that devotes all its efforts to ful-
filling one functional requirement, even if it is that
of performing goal activities, will undermine the ful-
fillment of this very functional requirement, because
recruitment of means, maintenance of tools, and the
social integration of the unit itself will be neglected.

The systems-goal or instrumental-substantive dis-
tinction provides a useful View of the way goal structure
may shape administrative behavior in educational organiza—
tions. Etzioni23 has prOposed that the traditional con-
cepts of line and staff tend to be reversed in institutions
whose defining characteristic is the creation of, inter-
pretation, application, and dissemination of knowledge.
Hierarchial authority tends to become directed to the
instrumental goals of maintaining the organization while
the characterizing or substantive goals become the imme-
diate responsibility of the specialist staff. Such instru-
mental goals as morale, satisfaction, loyalty Or cohesive—
ness, have become measures of administrative effectiveness
and sources of authority legitimation. For administrators,
instrumental goals have become a primary concern in the

exercise and legitimation of authority.24

142

One of the most systematic and comprehensive mer-
gers of the theoretical and practical in the treatment of
organizational goals, is the work of Bertram Gross.25
He introduces his topic "What Are Your Organization's
Objectives" by pointing out that there is nothing that
managers and management theorists are more solidly agreed
on than the vital role of Objectives in the managing of
organizations and nothing better calculated to embarrass
the average executive than the direct query, "Just what
are your organization's objectives?" He goes on to assert
that many managers are still too much the prisoners of
outworn, single purpose models erected by defunct econo-
mists, engineers and public administration experts. Cate—
gorizations such as long and short range, general and
Specific, and instrumental and ultimate are considered
inadequate for the complexities of purpose multiplicity.
The complex domain of organizational objectives requires an
approach capable of dealing more fully with the multiple
dimensions of an organization's performance. This is the
general systems approach, which in terms of the formal
organization is:

l. A man-resource system in time

2. Open, transacts with environment

3. Characterized by internal and external relations
of conflict as well as cooperation

4. A system for developing and using power, with vary-
ing degrees of authority and responsibility, both

within the organization and in the external envi-

ronment
5. A "feedback" system

143

6. Changing
7. Complex-with many sub-systems
8. Loose, with many components that may be imperfectly
coordinated, partially autonomous, and only par-
tially controllable
9. One partially knowable with many areas of uncer-
tainty, with "black regions" as well as "black
boxes" and with many variables that cannot be
clearly defined and must be described in qualita-
tive terms
10. Subject to considerable uncertainty with respect to
current information, future environmental condi-
tions, and the consequences of its own actions.26
Gross proceeds to identify two kinds of performance:
producing outputs of services or goods and satisfying (or
dissatisfying) various interests. These performances con-
sist of seven structural activities from which seven sets
of structural objectives may be derived. He prOposes that
the structure of any organization or unit thereof consist
of:
(1) people and (2) non-human resources, (3) grouped
together in differentiated subsystems that (4) inter-
relate among themselves and (5) with the external envi-
ronment (6) and are subject to various values and
(7) to such central guidance as may help to provide the
capacity for future performance.27
The planning problem is to develop commitments to
some pattern of objectives derived from the seven cate-
gories of objectives. The essence of planning is the
selection of strategic objectives in the form of specific
sequences of action to be taken by the organization.
The notion that structure is determined by strategy
is explored by Learned and Sporat28 in a brieflnn:thorough
review of relevant studies. Though evidence is presented

to support the relation, the question is left open. They

144

conclude their review with the question of whether or not
the organizational pattern can or should reflect all the
variables entering into company strategy and what vari-

ables it can or should reflect.

A Goal Analysis Model

 

In this section an attempt is made to construct a
goal analysis and classification framework particularly
applicable to educational goals and the functions they
perform in educational organizations. The framework is
based on Open system theory. It is designed to classify
statements that have been formally labeled as goals, beha-
viors in which goal direction is included in the descrip-
tion, and described constraints shaping a decision. The
goal types within each of the categories formed by the
intersects of the several dimensions are considered to per-
form an identifiable function in the system. In one sense,
the classification scheme may be viewed as the basis for a
content analysis of goal statements, constraint sets,
policies, or strategies. Differences in the distribution
or patterning of goals or goal strategies may provide a
means for further exploration of the structure-strategy
question. In addition, an understanding of goal patterning
should prove to be useful information for the practicing
administrator in the strategy of planning.

A preliminary definition of terminology may be

helpful. Goals, aims, objectives, ends, purposes, and

145

outputs are interchangeable terms in much of the discus-
sion on goals and common usage in administration. In this
paper, the term goals will be used as the generic form;
objectives will refer to those statements which can be
used to generate means and be incorporated in measures of
progress or production; aims will be used to refer to gen-
eral statements that require sub-statements of objectives
to put them into Operational form; and purposes will be
used to refer to statements which synthesize individual
needs and organizational objectives.

The basic classification framework is shown in

Figure 1.

Instrumental Criterion

 

NonOperational

 

Operational

 

 

 

Figure l. Two-Dimensional Goal Classification Framework.

The instrumental-criterion dimension is considered
to include such related dimensions as (a) task-maintenance,
(b) substantive-maintenance, and (c) instrumental-
consummatory. Distinctions made by those cited in the
previous sections of this paper. Instrumental goals refer
to the stability, coherence, cohesiveness, equilibrium, or

other aspects of the system. They include such notions

146

as morale, satisfaction, efficiency, belongingness, esprit
de corps, unity, loyalty, commitment, motivation, and sen-
timents. Their function in the system is given by the
class designator, instrumental.

Criterion goals refer to statements that serve to
characterize the system or organization, that relate the
system to other systems, that serve to generate means and
that are used to construct measures of production or
progress. Their basic characteristic is the specification
of substance, content or product of action. They incorpor-
ate the notions of task, production, work and achievement.

The Operational-nonOperational dimension, as pro-
posed by March and Simon, was defined previously. Opera-
tional goals are those which can be used in a means-end-
-evaluation analysis. Nonoperational goals require the
specification of subgoals before a means-end analysis can
be made.

NonOperational goals serve a number of important
functions including institutional legitimation; authority
legitimation; relating the organization to the cultural,
political, economic, and other social systems; justifying
a multiplicity of Operational goals some of which may be
in conflict; and mobilizing support from diverse interest
groups.

The four cell classification requires a third dimen-

sion in order to incorporate current system and rational

147

distinctions among goals. The dimension as defined is an
effort to make the framework exhaustive. The points along
the continuum of the dimension differentiate ritual, telic,
and constraint goals. Figure 2 is a diagram of the cate-

gories thus constructed.

 

 

 

 

Ritual Instrumental Criterion

 

 

Telic

 

Constraint

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Three Dimension Goal Classification Framework.

Ritual goals are those in which both ends and means
are perceived as clearly specific and known. Both ends and
means are self-evident, requiring no justification or anal-
ysis. The means and end are fixed or given with a single
means performed according to a predetermined order, sequence,
or rule. In the vernacular of bureaucracy, jurisdictions,
rules, and routines become inviolable even though the sub-
stantive goals of the organization, as services to clients,

are not served.

148

In another sense, ritual goals relate to Etzioni's
cultural goal model and are the kinds of statements that
pay obesiance to "God, motherhood and the flag." Nonopera-
tional, criterion, ritual goals comprise much of the mate-
rial in the periodic pronouncements of "national" education
committees, organizations and other self-appointed or
politically appointed groups or individuals speaking for A
"Education." The function of these statements for the local
school administrators are important as they may serve to
legitimize programs, curricula, as innovations or to provide
some focus for unity or consensus of otherwise diverse and
conflicted special interest groups.

Teleological goals or statements are those in
which the end is clearly defined and understood and the means
or alternatives exist in discernible or.describable form.

In short there are known means to achieve known ends although
the best alternative may not be known. Most of the subject
goals in education are perceived as telic in form. Simi-
larly production goals in industry would be classified in
this category.

Constraint goals may be improperly or poorly
labeled, partly because, as Gross pointed, there is a lack
of a well develOped language of organizational purposeful-
ness. The referrent is to goals or statements which become
increasingly defined as action is taken; in which the end

emerges as action ensues; or in which the system state

149

becomes defined as actions are taken. The emergent nature
of these goals is consistent with the notion of goals as
constraints, or of Cyert and March's description of prefer-
ences as an important element in their theory.
Of the states of the world that might result from an
organization's actions at any time, the organization
will prefer some states to others. Preferences are
generally not organization wide or immutable. They
reflect a shifting consensus, forged in large measure
from discussion, bargaining, compromise, and power
plays among subgroups within the organization.29
The ritual-telic—constraint dimension gives sub-
stance to the more general instrumental-criterion and
Operational-nonoperational dimensions without tying to
structural content such as personnel, finance, curriculum
and the like. The complete model requires testing; first
as a content analysis framework for examining the stated
and behavioral goals of an organization and second as a
research tool. Differences among organizations in the dis-

tribution of goals would be presumed to be related to dif-

ferences in structure and output.

SUMMARY

The position developed in this paper is probably
best summarized in a quote from Gross:

Planning is an exercise in conflict management rather
than only the sober application of technical ration-
ality. Any real life planning process may be character-
ized as a stream of successive compromises punctuated

by frequent occasions of deadlock or avoidance and occa-
sional victories, defeats, and integrations.

150

The ability to analyze and work with the patterned
yet changing nature of organizational goals would seem to
be an essential administrative skill for, as Gross has
pointed out, the entire management structure is involved
de facto in the daily operation of formulating and winning
commitment to objectives for future performance and struc-
ture.

Goals, as a basic element of organization and a
central concern of administration, can no longer be viewed
as givens exempt from questioning, competition and conflict.
The notion that stated goals are a self-evident basis for
the beginning of a linear planning process does not hold
for the range or multiplicity of an organization's goals.
A considerable part of an administrator's time is involved
in the development of goal strategies. And the prospect
for even greater involvement is in the offing.

Michael has pointed out one of the implications
for administration of the computer revolution in decision
making.

While the computer will relive top administrators of
minor burdens, it will enormously increase the demands
on them to wrestle with the moral and ethical conse-
quences of the policies they choose and implement. He
will have to be a perpetual student, not only of the

techniques of rationalized decision making but even
more of the humanities.

The point is more precisely made by Harlow32 in
his assertion that purpose defining is the central function

of the school administrator. In system terms purpose

151

definition may be the central ordering process of a complex,
indeterminate, boundedly rational, conflicted system and
the definition of purpose may be the most important output
of the system. The implications of this position for the

training of administrators have yet to be explored.

152
Notes and Bibliography

lPeter Drucker, The Practice of Management, New
York: Harper & Bros., 1954.

 

2Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management,
London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1949.

 

3L. Urwick, The Elements of Administration, New
York: Harper & Bros., 1943, p. 16.

4Ibid., p. 18.

 

5James N. Mooney, The Principles of Organization,
New York: Harper & Bros., 1939, pp. 1-5.

 

6William H. Newman, Administrative Action, New
York: Prentice Hall Inc., 1950, pp. 13-29.

7James G. March and H. A. Simon, Organizations,
New York: J. Wiley & Sons Inc., 1958.

8Ibid., p. 195.

9Vernon 8. Buck, "Model for Viewing an Organization
as a System of Constraints," Approaches to Organizational
Design,(ed) J. A. Thompson, Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1966, pp. 105-172.

10Herbert A. Simon, "On the Concept of the Organ-
izational Goal," Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, (June
1964)! pp. 2-220

llChester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Execu-
tive, Harvard University Press, 1938.

12Ibid., p. 87.

l3Ibid., p. 57.

14Ibid., p. 61.

15Richard C. Lonsdale, "Maintaining the Organization
in Dynamic Equilibrium," Behavioral Science in Educational
Administration, (ed) D. T. Griffiths, The Sixty-third Year-
book Of the National Society for the Study of Education,
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964.

16F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Manage-
ment and the Worker, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1939, p. 552.

 

 

153

17W. R. Bion, Experiences in Groups, London:
Lavistock Publications Ltd., 1961.

18H. A. Thelen, pynamics of Groups at Work, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1954.

19Talcott Parsons, The Social System, Glencoe:
The Free Press, 1951.

20R. J. Hills, "Leadership in the Educational
Organization," paper privately circulated, 1961.

21Amatai Etzioni, Modern Opganizations, New York:
J. Wiley & Sons, 1964.

22Amatai Etzioni, "Two Approaches to Organizational
Analysis: A Critique and Suggestion," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 5, Sept. 1960, p. 261.

23

 

 

 

Ibid., p. 272.

24Morris Janowitz, "Changing Patterns of Organi-
zational Authority: The Military, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 3 (March 1959), p. 474.
According to Janowitz, even military organizations

have experienced the relative shift in the basis of authority
from status toward morale and the more indirect forms of con-
trol involving persuasion and manipulation.

25Bertram M. Gross, "What Are Your Organization's
Objectives," Human Relations, 18, (August, 1965), pp. 195-215.

26Ibid., p. 198.

27Ibid., p. 195.

28E. P. Learned and A. T. Sproat, Opganization
Theory_and Policy, Homewood, Illinois: R. D. Irwin, Inc.,
1966.

 

29R. M. Cyert and J. G. March, A Behavioral Theory
of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrentiCe Hall, 1963.

30

 

Gross, op. cit., p. 197.

3lDonald N. Michael,"Some Long Range Implications of
Computer Technology for Human Behavior in Organizations, " Computer
Concepts and Educational Administration, (eds) R. W. Marker, P. P.
McGraw, and F. D. Stone, Iowa City: The University of Iowa, 1966 .

32J. G. Harlow, "Implications for the Preparation of
School Administrators," (eds) R. E. Ohm and W. G. Monahan,
Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AASA Commission on Administrative Technology. Administra-
tive Technology_and the School Executive. Washihg-
ton, D.C.: American AssoEiatiOn of School Adminis-
trators, 1969.

Ackoff, R. L. "DevelOpment and Nature of Operations Research
and Its Relevance to Educational-Media Research."
ERIC # ED 002 490. 1964.

Adelson, Marvin, ed. "Planning Education for the Future."
American Behavioral Scientist 10 (March 1967).

American Association of School Administrators. Commission
on Imperatives in Education. Imperatives in Educa-
tion. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1966.

Anderson, Donald P. "The Ohio State Study: Clarifying and
Setting Priorities on an Intermediate School Dis-
trict's Objectives Utilizing the Delphi Technique."
Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 4, 1970.

Andrew, Gary M., and Moir, Ronald E. Information-Decision
§ystems in Education. Itasca, Illinois: F. E.
Peacock Publishers, 1970.

Anshen, Melvin, and McKean, Roland N. "Limitations, Risks,
and Problems." In Program Budgetipg. Edited by David
Novick. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1965.

Bell, Terrel H. "Accounting for What Youngsters Learn."
Speech given to the American Association of School
Administrators 105th Annual Convention, San Fran-
cisco, California, March 17-21, 1973. ERIC #

ED 078 506.

Bequer, John. "Relationships Between Educational Objec-

tives and Educational Costs." Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1973.

155

156

Bereday, George, and Lauwerys, Joseph A. Educational
Planning. New York: Harcourt, Brace, World, Inc.,
1967.

 

Brown, James Thomas. "The Systems Approach to Resource
Management in Higher Education." Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Union Graduate School, 1974.

Carpenter, Margaret B. Program Budgeting as a Wgy to Focus
on Objectives in Education. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
September 1969.

 

 

Coakwell, Richard. "Projecting College Enrollment by a
Modified Delphi Technique." 1974. ERIC # ED 103 070.

Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education.
The Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,

 

1918.
Conviser, Richard, and Entwisze, Doris R. "Input-Output
Analysis in Education." The High School Journal,

 

January 1969, p. 196.

Cramer, Paula, and Gilmar, Sybil. "PPBS: What Should the
School Dollar Buy?" Educational Leadership, May
1972, pp. 664-667.

 

Cyphert, Frederick R. "The Virginia Study: Soliciting
Client Consensus Regarding Goals for a School of
Education." Paper presented at the American Edu-
cational Research Association, Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, March 4, 1970.

Dalkey, Norman C. The Delphi Method: An Experimental Stugy
of Group OpiniOn. The Rand Corporation, Report
RM-5888-PR, June 1969.

 

. An Elementary Cross-Impact Model. The Rand
CorporatiOn, Report R—677,ARPA, May 1971.

 

, Brown, B.; and Cochran, S. The Delphi Method, III:
Use of Self-Ratings to Improve Group Estimates.

The Rand Corporation, Report RM-6115-PR, November
1969.

. The Delphi Method, IV: Effect of Percentile
Feedback and Feed-In of Relevant Facts. The Rand
Corporation, Report RM-6118-PR, March 1970.

157

Dickson, Gary W. "Control Systems for Information Systems
DevelOpment Projects (Part I)." AEDS Journal,
September 1970, p. 60.

Doherty, Victor. "Goals and Objectives in PPBS." Portland
Public Schools, September 1970. ERIC # ED 044 815.

Dyer, James S. "The Use of PPBS in a Public System of
Higher Education: Is It 'Cost-Effective?'"
Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, December 1969. ERIC # ED 054 518.

 

Eckaus, Richard S. "Education and Economic Growth." In
Economics of Higher Education. Edited by Selma J.
Mushkin.

Educational Policies Commission. The Central Purpose of
American Education. Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association, 1961.

 

Ellis, Arthur E. "Influence of PPB on Capital Budgeting."
Paper presented at an Institute on Program Planning
and Budgeting Systems at Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, Spring 1968.

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Opganizations. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.

Fazar, Willard. "Applying Operations Research and the
Management Services to Planning, Programming, and
Budgeting in Non-Defense Agencies." Paper presented
to the Washington Operation Research Council Meeting,
Washington, D.C., April 25, 1965. (Mimeographed.)

Geisinger, Robert W. §ystems Analysis and Education.
Pennsylvania: Bureau of Research, Department of
Public Instruction, October 1968.

Good, Harry G., and Teller, James D. A History of Western
Education. 3rd ed. London: The Macmillan Company,

1969.

 

Gregg: Murry Clay. "A Systems Model for Planning and Man-
agement of the Division of Vocational Education,
Jefferson County Schools, Birmingham, Alabama."
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1972.

Haggart, S. A. "The Program Structuring Aspect of PPB for
Education." February 1971. ERIC # ED 052 524.

158

Hale, James A. "A Program Budgeting Model for Management
Information Systems in K-12 School Districts."
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1970.

Harris, Yeuell Y., and Seibert, Ivan N. The State Educa-
tion Agency, State Educational Records and Reports
Series: Handbook VII. Washington, D.C.: Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1971.

 

Hartley, Harry J. "Twelve Hurdles to Clear Before You
Take on System Analysis." The American School
Board Journal, July 1968, p. 17.

 

 

Helmer, Olaf. Social Technology. New York: Basic Books,
1966.

 

Hovey, Harold A. The Planning Programming Budgeting Approach
to Government Decision Making. New York: Frederick A.
Praeger, 1968.

 

Hudspeth, D. R. A Long-Range Planning Tool for Education:
The Focus Delphi. Syracuse: Syracuse University
Research Institute, 1970.

 

Jacobson, James A. "The Utah State Study: Forecasting Future
DevelOpments in Education." Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association, Minneapo-
lis, Minnesota, March 4, 1970.

James, W. L. G. "Program Budgeting--Hope or Hoax?" Educa-
tion Canada, December 1972, pp. 28-33.

 

Johnson, R.; Kast, R. A.; and Rosensweig, J. E. "The System
of Management by Objectives." In Management by
Objectives--A System of Managerial Leadership.
Edited by George S. OdiOrne. New York: Pitman
Publishing Corp., 1968.

Keynes, John Maynard. General Theory of Employment, Interest,
and Money. London: Harcourt, Brace, 1936.

 

Kirst, Michael W. "The Rise and Fall of PPBS in California."
Phi Delta Kappan, April 1975, pp. 535-538.

 

Kloster, Alexander J. "A Cost Finding System for Measuring
Educational Output." June 9, 1972. (Mimeographed.)

. "DevelOpment of an Accounting System as Part of
a Complete Planning, Programming, Budgeting System."
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

159

Knezevich, Stephen J. Administration of Public Education.
New York: Harper and Row, 1969.

, ed. Administrative Technology and the School
Executive. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of School Administrators, 1969.

 

Levin, Henry M. "A Conceptual Framework for Accountability
in Education." School Review 82 (May 1974): 383.

 

Livingston, Nancy Brockbank. "The Relationship of a Manage-
ment by Objective Program and Intermediate Grade
Reading Achievement in Granite School District."
Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1975.

Macmillan, Thomas T. "The Delphi Technique." Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the California Junior
Colleges Association's Committee on Research and
Development, Monterey, California, May 3-5, 1971.

McManama, John. §ystems Analysis for Effective School
Administration. West Nyack, New York: Parker
Publishing Co., Inc., 1971.

 

Mosher, Frederick. "Limitations and Problems of PPBS in
the States." PAR, March 1969. ERIC # ED 059 353.

Nightingale, Fredrick Andrew. "Management by Objectives:
A Study of the Process and Status of Implementation
in Business Services of Selected Unified School
Districts of California." Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1974.

Nowrastch, Daryush M. "Planning and Management Systems
for State Programs of Vocational and Technical
Education: An Application of Research." Columbus,

‘Ohio: Ohio State University, The Center for Voca-
tional and Technical Education, November 1971.
ERIC # ED 059 353.

Oakland County Association of School Superintendents.
"School Management Technology in Oakland County,
Michigan." November, 1972. (Mimeographed.)

Ohm, Robert E. "Organizational Goals: A Systems Approach."
Paper presented at the Twentieth Annual National
Conference of Professors of Educational Administra-
tion Meeting, Indiana University, August 25, 1966.
ERIC # ED 010 710.

160

Penfield, Gary M. "The Relative Efficacy of Varying Appli-
cations of Face-to-Face Interaction Versus 'Delphi'
in DevelOping Consensus About Relative Priority
Among Goals in Student Affairs." Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Cincinnati, 1975.

Perkins, Joseph A., Jr. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
"PPBS and MIS—-Their Role in Managing Education."
Paper presented at the National School Finance
Conference, National Education Association, New
Orleans, Louisiana, March 1969. ERIC # ED 030 961.

Pfeiffer, John. New Look at Education; System Analysis in
Our Schools and Colleges. New York: Odyssey
Press, 1968.

Phillips, James Boyce. "Application of an Educational
Management by Objectives Model." Ph.D. disserta-
tion, The University of Tennessee, 1973.

Rand Corporation. Delphi and Lopijange Forecasting, A
Bibliography. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation,

February 1972.

 

Roemmich, Roger Allen. "Statistical Analysis of Alterna-
tive Cost Accounting Methods." Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1975.

Schick, Allen. "The Road to PPBS; The Stages Of Budgetary
Reform." Public Administration Review, December

1966.

Tuscher, LeRoy J. "An Empirical Study of the Application
of a Decision-Making Model Using Judgment in the
Allocation of Resources to Competing Educational
Programs." Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Lehigh Uni-
versity, October 1973. ERIC # ED 085 416.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. "Devel-
opment of an Operational Model for the Application
of Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems in
Local School Districts." Washington, D.C.: Office
of Education, February 1969. ERIC # ED 028 540.

Weber, Catherine Alberta. "The Effectiveness of Management
by Objectives in a School Setting." Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Washington, 1973.

161

Weiss, Edmond H. "PPBS in Education." Journal of General

 

Education 25 (April 1973): 17-27.

 

Willard, Richard. "Alternative Uses of the Delphi Tech-
nique in Evaluating Alternative Schools." Educa-
tional Research Corporation, March 31, 1975.

A

III“

     

”'IIIIIIIIILIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII