.. V. ”H“... .. n- ‘UI ---‘-..I MW. ' COIN ". - ‘7‘“ -‘-.‘I.I...' .m‘ '.""-" "“-'¥'i-l-‘-I-c. “'..£"I
L~ -' - \ ‘I‘Ii'U‘IVO‘vl'IIletfiv- '..H'.‘ ‘39." ‘," ‘1'1ru‘anIn .ms.v.... ..I‘I','. , ._:‘ ljny “ulna I»»-"“‘*I-’I'A|v I“: .' ‘. "'," -‘ - - l I '."~ '
.3131. With" WM-q-JII-qu‘ . . - g ..... .I,. , ‘. .. ;' ‘ _
.41 In”NWfi‘Dfl-Irgfin..,IL.‘....A<J,,,|VH_ ... :T‘Ifsf W3.....3361‘3 33”.; ‘_‘_ .‘ , ._ . M t ‘ ., . A ‘ \ . I.“ “2:“: ‘ _ A..A .A w H I, ‘ , _ ‘ .
'L I». u '.. , ‘.. .. ..._ L ‘ ‘

A .. . .

 

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL DIOIAIOI ADVISORY COMMITTEES
IN THE EDUCATIONAL DECISIONIMAKING PROCESS .*
OF I-:.. s.£.A,,III‘LI: I PROGRAMS FOR
DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN
IN CALIFORNIA

Dissertation for the Degree Of Ph, D, ‘
MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY
RAMIRO DE LE6N REYES
1972

 

LIBRARY

(beau:

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled .
THE ROLE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEES IN THE
EDUCATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF E.S.E.A., TITLE
I PROGRAMS FOR DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN IN CALIFORNIA

presented by

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Educational

Administration

 

 

degree in

 

 

Date February 23, 1972

 

0-7639

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEES
IN THE EDUCATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
OF E.S.E.A., TITLE I PROGRAMS FOR
DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN
IN CALIFORNIA

BY

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

The Purpose

 

The purpose of this study was to explore the role
of the school district advisory committee in the educational
decision-making process of compensatory education programs
in California for educationally disadvantaged children from

low-income families funded under the Elementary and Secon—

 

dary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Public Law 89-10.

 

These advisory committees constitute a major vehicle for
parent and community involvement in compensatory education
programs. To accomplish this, Specific questions and hypoth-

eses were posed and relevant data were sought.

The Methodology

 

The population of the study consisted of 430 dis-

trict advisory committees relevant to Elementary and

 

Secondary Education Act, Title I, P.L. 89-10 compensatory

 

education programs.

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

The sample for this study was randomly selected.

It consisted of 186 district advisory committees which
represented programs in 234 school districts during fiscal
year 1970. These districts were located in 43 of the 58
counties in California. Another sample used in this study
consisted of all of the 50 consultants, at the time of the
study, in the Division of Compensatory Education, State
Department of Education.

The data were gathered from responses to a 74
item questionnaire by members of district advisory commit-
tees which included school district administrators, and
from the consultants of the Division of Compensatory Educa-
tion. The questionnaire was designed to elicit personal
information about the respondents, the objectives, activi—
ties and functions of their district advisory committees,
as well as their personal perspective on a variety of issues
related to the committees.

All of the data from the questionnaires were tabu-
lated through a computer at Sacramento State College. The
chi-square test was used to determine if there were any
significant differences in the responses and the coefficient
of contingency was also used in order to ascertain the
degree of relationship between certain responses and various

groups of respondents.

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

Major Conclusions

 

On the basis of the data gathered for this study,
the following major conclusions were justified:

l. The representation of minority and ethnic groups
versus the majority group in district advisory committees
in California was approximately on a 1:2 ratio. Parents of
participating children versus nonparents was also approxi-
mately on a 1:2 ratio.

2. Minority group parents were evidently represented
"very well" to "somewhat well" in district advisory commit—
tees. As for the representation of different income levels
of members, it was judged to be adequate but not as good as
the representation of minority groups.

3. An overwhelming number of the district advisory
committees in California are recognized by the governing
boards of their districts. Members whose committees are
duly reCOgnized by the governing board seem to have a better
feeling about themselves, their work in the committee, and

the importance of their committee to their community.

4. Most district advisory committees in California
have established purposes. However, these purposes range
from "somewhat clear" to "very clear." The clarity of com-

mittee objectives was found to be associated with increased
attendance at committee meetings and with the manner by

which the objectives were determined.

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

5. The ESEA, Title I compensatory education program
director and the school principal, in that order, are the
most important sources of information regarding compensatory
education programs to the district advisory committee. The
information given to the members of the advisory committee
regarding the program were seen by an overwhelming majority
as "somewhat helpful" to "very helpful."

6. There is no single pattern of communication
between school districts and their advisory committees.
While some school districts were content to inform advisory
committees of what the ESEA, Title I compensatory education
will be, others sought the advice of these committees. The
data clearly point out, however, that more committee members
who were not administrators agreed that school districts
usually tell their committees what the program is going to
be instead of honestly seeking their advice.

7. Even though the majority of.the advisory com-
mittee members felt some or a great deal of freedom to
disagree with the ideas of the administrators in the meet-
ings, it is interesting to note that respondents to the
questionnaire in Spanish, non-school employed committee
members, and minority group committee members felt signifi-
cantly less freedom to disagree with the ideas of the
administrators. Knowledge of whether the district has
accepted any of the recommendations made to it by the

advisory committee seems to vary from one district to

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

another. However, the data indicate that over one—third

of the respondents and 40 per cent of nonadministrative
members had no knowledge at all of how many of their impor~
tant recommendations, if any, were accepted by their school
districts.

8. The majority of the district advisory committees
have been involved in evaluating the compensatory education
program.

9. Advisory committee members who are 30 years of
age and younger are more skeptical of the committee's value,
what it can do, and of the motives of the board of education
in having such a committee.

10. Frequency of advisory committee meeting atten-
dance was found to be associated with payment of members'
expenses in attending such meetings, knowledge of whether
the school board has accepted or rejected advisory committee
recommendations, effective communication between the school
board and the school district advisory committee, how a
member feels about the committee's functions and importance,
and with recognition of the committee by the board of edu-
cation.

11. The feeling of the members of the advisory com—
mittee that they have made important recommendations was
associated with their knowledge of how many of their recom-

mendations were accepted by the school district.

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

12. Knowledge of what the school district has done
with the committee's recommendations was associated with:
a. adequacy of communication between school dis-
tricts and the committee,
b. increased attendance at committee meetings, and
c. a better feeling about the worth of the com—
mittee.

13. Members who have children in the program,
respondents to the Spanish version of the questionnaire,
and minority group members felt strongly about the value of
their committees to their own communities.

14. Spanish respondents and minority group members
felt more strongly about the value of having minority group
and low-income persons on the committee than non-Spanish
and non-minority group members.

15. More administrator members felt that they had
more influence than others in committee deliberations.

16. The majority of the consultants in the Division
of Compensatory Education, California State Department of
Education, felt that if advisory committees are to contrib-
ute meaningfully to the compensatory education program,
school districts must show their commitment to the right of
the community to share in the educational decision—making
process by earnestly seeking and implementing the advice of

these district advisory committees.

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEES
IN THE EDUCATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
OF E.S.E.A., TITLE I PROGRAMS FOR
DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN

IN CALIFORNIA

BY

Ramiro De Leon Reyes

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

1972

DEDICATION

To Doni, Rey, and Roberto and

to my parents, Pedro and Suse

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is deeply grateful for the personal
guidance, support, and assistance in the writing of this
dissertation so willingly provided by Dr. Louis Romano, his
major professor; to Dr. Lawrence Borosage, Dr. Stanley
Becker, and Dr. Philip Marcus for their willingness to
serve on his guidance committee; and to Dr. Mary Ellen
McSweeney and Dr. Alexander Kloster for the support and
encouragement they provided him.

To Dr. Don Leu, Dean, School of Education, San
Jose State College, and Dr. Richard Featherstone, for making
it possible for the author to enter the doctorate program
and for their continued counseling and encouragement, the
author expresses his sincere appreciation.

The assistance of many individuals and groups is
acknowledged here. The encouragement and continued support
of Dr. Leo R. LOpez, Associate Superintendent and Chief,
Division of Compensatory Education, California State Depart-
ment of Education, is greatly appreciated.

To Dr. Kal Gezi, Professor, Sacramento State
College, the author expresses his appreciation for his

untiring assistance in the writing of this dissertation.

iii

Acknowledgment is also made of the assistance of
many district advisory committee members, program directors,
superintendents, and consultants in the Division of Compen-
satory Education who took of their precious time to respond
to the questionnaire used in the study.

Finally, the author is very grateful to his wife,
Rhodora; his secretary, Mrs. Louise Edwards; and the pro-
fessional and clerical staff of the Bureau of Community
Services and Migrant Education for their continued support

and assistance in the preparation of this dissertation.

iV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

LIST OF APPENDICES. C O O O O O O O O O O 0

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

Iv.

THE PROBLEM . O C O O O O O O O O 0

Purpose of the Study. . . . . . .
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . .
Significance of the Problem . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . .
Delimitation of the Study . . . .
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . .

Historical Background . . . . . .
Community Involvement . . . . . .

Crucial Issues in Community Involvement

The Community School. . . . . . .

Development of ESEA, Title I District

Advisory Committees in California

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . .

Definition of the Population. . .
The Sample. . . . . . . . . . . .
Sources of the Data . . . . . . .
Description of the Instruments. .
Statistical Treatment of the Data
The Design. . . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . .

Presentation of the Data. . . . .
The Findings 0 I O O C I O O O I 0
Consultants' Responses. . . . . .

Page
vii

viii

H

combo)

ll
13
14

15
20
27
38

43
51

51
52
55
56
58
6O

61
61

72
86

Chapter

Analysis of the Findings.

Responses Associated with
Parent Variable
Responses Associated with

Responses Associated with
Female Variable
Responses Associated with
Differences
Responses Associated with

Responses Associated with
Differences
Responses Associated with
Differences
Responses Associated with
Differences
Responses Associated with
Administrative Position
Responses Associated with

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,

Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations

Nonemployee Variable.

O

éhé . . . . .
éhé Employee:-
iaaie'arl ' ' '
21.9.; . . . . .

the Committee

Recognition-Nonrecognition Variable .

Objectives.

Language
Ethnic
Attendance
the

Variable. . .
Clarity of

RECOMMENDATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS AND REFLECTIONS.

Implications and Reflections. . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

APPENDICES. .

vi

Page
94
95

100
101
101
102
103
104
105
106

107

109
109
113

117
121

128

138

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Responses to the English and Spanish District
Advisory Committee Questionnaires by 1,620

Advisory Committee Members Responding. . . . . 61
2. Association Between Certain Responses and
Specific Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Letter Requesting Names and Addresses of
District Advisory Committee Members in
Selected Districts in California. . . . . . . 139

B. Second Letter Requesting Names and Addresses
of District Advisory Committee Members in
Selected Districts in California. . . . . . . 142

C. Letter to District Advisory Committee
Members Accompanying Questionnaire and
English Version of Questionnaire. . . . . . . 144

D. Letter to District Advisory Committee
Members with Spanish Surnames Accompany-
ing Questionnaire and Spanish Version of
Spanish Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

E. Follow-Up Postcard to All District Advisory
Committee Members, English and Spanish
vergion O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 156

F. Memorandum to Consultants in the Division
of Compensatory Education Accompanying
Questionnaire Modified for Consultants. . ... 159

G. 131 Chi—Square (X2) Analyses and

Contingency Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . 164
H. Excerpts: Compensatory Education Guidelines. . 231
I. Memorandum to Chief State School Officers . . . 242

J. List of California School Districts
Used in Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

viii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

It has become clear today that tokenism to dis-
advantaged communities in educational decision making can
no longer be tolerated. Parents of disadvantaged children
want to exercise both their right and responsibility to
share in determining the nature of their children's educa-
tion. The emphatic and definite cry of low-income communi-
ties is for direct influence and active participation in
making educational decisions involving their children. The
disenfranchised community, largely the parents of disad—
vantaged children, must have a voice in the decision-making
process of educational programs supposedly designed for
their children. The current debate about community control
of schools, redistribution or reallocation of power, and
decentralizing authority is to a large degree related to the
inability of the existing school system, especially in urban
areas, to meet the needs of all children, especially children
of low-income people. Hamilton (1968), pointed out that
Black community members have begun to question loudly the
right of the school professionals to run the schools, and

Howe (1968) advocated decentralization of schools and a

l

transfer of power" in order to insure meaningful community
involvement. But meaningful community participation,
according to Lauter (l969),must be worked out together with
such issues as teachers' attitudes and preparation, class-
room organization and curriculum, and the roles of other
agencies.

Over the last two decades, American society has
experienced a revolution in the structure of the decision-
making process. The school has undoubtedly been the most
hard-hit social institution by critics of public education.
It is evident that we have entered an age where many school
administrators have begun to recognize the reality that they
do not have as much absolute and arbitrary power as they
once had. The legal facts may not have changed, but the
articulation of a consciousness and the recognition of a
power base among the community have begun to appear.

In California, districts are required by the State

Department of Education, Guidelines: Compensatorquducation,

 

Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,

 

Public Law 89-10, Title I, Revised, 1969, to form and utilize

 

district advisory committees in planning, implementing, and
in the ongoing evaluation of ESEA, Title I, compensatory
education programs. Additionally, the Guidelines require
that 50 per cent of the committee membership must reside in
the designated target area, and that each local school within

the target area have its advisory group consisting of the

parents of participating children. The importance today

of community involvement is without parallel. The concept
of district advisory committees in ESEA, Title I programs
has evolved as the major vehicle in bringing about community
participation in planning, implementing, and evaluating
educational programs for children of low-income families in
California.

Traditionally, school administrators have been fear-
ful that the minute they involve parents and other community
representatives in the planning, implementation, and evalua-
tion of educational programs, they are going to lose control
of their organizations. With the increasing interest of
communities in sharing in the decision-making process, some
loss of absolute control on the part of school administrators
is likely to take place. But, if the public schools are to
serve all of their public well, a stronger bond between
schools and the communities they serve must be created so
that members of the community, and especially the poor, would
feel less alienated from the schools which purport to serve
them, and would become more understanding and supportive of

the schools.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study is to probe the role of
district advisory committees in the educational decision-

making process related to compensatory education programs

under ESEA, Title I, P.L. 89-10, since these committees
constitute a major vehicle for community involvement in such
programs. Specifically, the data sought in this study per-
tain to certain questions and hypotheses which will be

described below.

Questions

 

The following questions will be explored in the
study:

1. What is the profile of the advisory committee
member?

2. In communities where ESEA, Title I programs are
in Operation, are the district advisory committees duly
recognized by governing boards?

3. What is the role of school district advisory
committees in the educational decision-making process of
ESEA, Title I programs for disadvantaged children in
California?

4. Who is responsible for defining the roles of
advisory committees in terms of planning, implementing, and
evaluating ESEA, Title I compensatory education programs?
How well are these roles understood by committee members?

5. Who in the school district and/or the community
provides the information regarding compensatory education to
the district advisory committee on which they could make
recommendations? How helpful is this information to com-

mittee members?

6. How well are minority groups and persons from
different income levels represented on advisory committees?

7. Who usually among the members of the advisory
committee renders valuable leadership functions in committee
deliberations?

8. What is the relationship of the school district
to the district advisory committee? Is it to tell the com-
mittee what the program will be, or is it to seek their
advice on how the program should be?

9. How well do the governing board and the admin-
istration communicate acceptance and/or rejection of recom-
mendations made by the district advisory committee?

10. What procedures, if any, are established for
district advisory committees to follow up implementation of
recommendations made for ongoing evaluation and further
input?

11. To what extent are district advisory committees
involved in evaluating the compensatory education program?
How valuable are they in improving this program?

12. What promising practices were discovered by
school districts in community involvement through district
advisory committees?

13. What are the problems encountered by school
districts in eliciting community involvement through advi-

sory committees in the educational decision-making process?

Hypotheses

 

The basic hypothesis of this study is that the Opin-
ions and perceptions of advisory committee members are
associated with certain specific characteristics of these
members. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the vari-
ables listed below will be associated with the respondent's
(a) having children participating in the program, (b) being
an employee of the school district, (c) sex, (d) age,

(e) committee being recognized by the board, (f) language,
(g) ethnicity, (h) rate of committee meeting attendance,
and (i) being a school administrator.

The following are the variables mentioned above:

1. Perceived usefulness of the committee to its
members, the schools, and the community-at-large.

2. Perceived involvement of the committee in eval-
uating and influencing the compensatory education program.

3. Extent to which committee objectives are clearly
understood by the members.

4. Extent of members' freedom to disagree with the
ideas of administrators.

5. Degree to which the committee is seen to repre-
sent minority and poor people in the community.

6. Perceived relationship of the school district
to the committee (i.e., to tell the committee or to seek

its advice).

7. Perceived value of having poor persons on the
committee.

8. Frequency of committee meeting attendance.

The hypotheses which will be tested in this study
are the following:

1. District advisory committee members, 30 years
of age or younger, will be more skeptical of the value of
district advisory committees in compensatory education.
This age group will be more skeptical of what the advisory
committee can do, and of the motives of the district board
of education in having such committees.

2. Frequency of district advisory committee atten-
dance will be associated with payment of members' expenses
in attending such meetings, knowledge of whether the district
board of education has accepted or rejected committee recom-
mendations, effective communication between the board of
education and the district advisory committee, how a member
feels about the committee's functions and importance, and
with recognition of the committee by the district board of
education.

3. The feeling of the district advisory committee
members that they have made important recommendations will
be associated with their knowledge of how many of their
recommendations were accepted by the school district.

4. Knowledge of what the school district has done

with the committee's recommendations will be associated with:

a. adequacy of communication between the school

district and the advisory committee,

b. increased attendance at committee meetings, and

c. a better feeling about the value of the com-

mittee.

5. District advisory committee members who have
children in the compensatory education program, respondents
to the Spanish version of the questionnaire, and minority
(ethnic or racial) members will feel strongly about the
value of the district advisory committees to their own com-
munities.

6. Respondents utilizing the Spanish version of
the questionnaire and respondents from minority ethnic or
racial groups will feel more strongly about the value of
having minority and low-income persons on district advisory
committees than non-Spanish respondents and non-minority
group members.

7. More administrators will feel that they had more

influence than others in committee deliberations.

Significance of the Problem

 

School districts serving low-income target popula-
tions with ESEA, Title I funds are in dire need of more
information and experiences regarding the population being
served in order that they might effect meaningful school and

community interaction with increased benefits to the students.

Educationally disadvantaged children from low-income
families perhaps contribute the greatest number of victims
of social ills. Examples of these ills are the high per-
centage of school failures and dropouts, as well as delin—
quency and other social deviancy rolls. Low-income families
are usually the most common recipients of some kind of pub-
lic assistance. Educational disadvantage is closely corre—
lated to low income and/or poverty. The income and
educational levels of the population which ESEA, Title I is
to serve are considerably lower than those of the dominant
population. The examples cited above certainly indicate an
urgent need to reveal through studies of this type, ways
through which school districts may better reach the commu-
nities they serve.

The above are just a few of many facts which are
clear indicators that educationally disadvantaged children
of low-income families must be provided quality educational
programs through which they can acquire the skills and
knowledge to become contributing self—supporting members of
this society. The educational programs provided disadvan-
taged communities in the past obviously did not work.

These programs were usually designed by school persons who
have had little or no input from the community to be served.

The Guidelines: Compensatory Education, Under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law

89-10, Title I, Revised, 1969, require that all school

 

10

districts applying for ESEA, Title I funds "shall establish
a local district advisory committee and a local school par-
ent advisory group to bring about the c00peration and coor-
dination of all community resources."

The Federal Register, VOlume 32, Number 27, Thursday,

 

February 9, 1967, Washington, D. C., Part II, Department of

 

Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Regu-

 

lations Pursuant to Titles I, II, and III of the Elementary

 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which is the interpre—

 

tation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,

 

strongly encourages school and community interaction and
involvement in compensatory education programs.

Community involvement in educational decision making
in ESEA, Title I compensatory education programs has not
been studied in depth, at least in California. The Director
of the Division of Compensatory Education, California State
Department of Education, has expressed much concern about
the area of community involvement and the role of district
advisory committees in the educational decision-making
process. The need for such a study has resulted in a request
that a study such as this be made. The findings from such a
study could be of considerable value not only to the Cali-
fornia State Department of Education, but also to other
state departments of education, to the United States Office
of Education, and county and local school districts dealing

with compensatory education programs.

11

Definition of Terms

 

1. Division of Compensatory Education -- This

 

Division is one of four of the program divisions within the
Department of Education in California. It was established

September, 1965, by Senate Bill 482, the McAteer Act of

 

1965. All ESEA, Title I, P.L. 89-10 funds are handled by
this Division, as well as other funds appropriated by state
or federal legislation for compensatory education.

2. Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Edu-

 

cation -- The Bureau is one of six bureaus within the
Division of Compensatory Education responsible for the
involvement of parents and other community representatives
in ESEA, Title I programs through district advisory com-
mittees and parent advisory groups.

3. ESEA, Title I, P.L. 89—10 -- The initials stand

 

for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Title I is the title of the Act which categorically provides
for the education of educationally disadvantaged children of
low—income families. P.L. 89-10 means a public law enacted
by the 89th Congress of the United States.

4. Low-Income Families -- Families who fall below

 

the prevailing poverty index or are under public assistance,
such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

5. Educationally Disadvantaged Children -- These are

 

the children of low-income families who, because of the ill

12

effects of poverty and other sociological factors, have been
unable to achieve scholastically.

6. ESEA, Title I, District Advisory Committee --

 

The establishment of district advisory committees by school
districts utilizing ESEA, Title I, P.L. 89-10 funds is a
requirement in California. This is the vehicle through which
school districts can involve parents of participating chil-
dren and other community representatives in the planning,

implementation, and evaluation of ESEA, Title I programs.

Delimitation of the Study

 

The study will be based on a random sample of dis-
trict advisory committees in California. The sample will
include 186 district advisory committees representing 234
school districts. This sample was selected for use in con-
ducting the Consolidated Program Information Report (CPIR)
for 1969-1970, by the U.S. Office of Education, Program
Planning and Evaluation Unit, Evaluation Operations Section.

During fiscal year 1969-1970, there were 978 school
districts in California eligible for funds under ESEA,

Title I, P.L. 89-10. Of the total eligible, 899 districts
participated in and implemented compensatory education
programs for educationally disadvantaged children from low-
income families.

The study will consider parent and community involve-
ment in ESEA, Title I compensatory education programs through

district advisory committees only. These district advisory

13

committees will include only those as required by the Cali-

fornia State Department of Education, Guidelines: Compen-

 

satory Education, Under the Elementary and Secondary Educa—

 

tion Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10, Title I, Revised, 1969.

 

Overview
This study will probe the role of district advisory
committees in the educational decision-making process of
compensatory education programs funded under ESEA, Title I,
P.L. 89—10, in California.

- Chapter II includes the review of literature in
decision-making processes involving low—income families and
other representatives of low-income communities.

In Chapter III, the methodology for the study is
presented.

The analysis of the data and the findings of the
study are presented in Chapter IV.

Finally, the summary of the study and major conclu-
sions, recommendations, implications, and reflections are

contained in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Involvement in the educational process of low—income
parents and members of the community is a very recent phenom-
enon. The participation of these same persons in the
decision—making process of educational programs evolved
even later. Dramatic substantiation of these facts was
revealed to the author by the extremely limited research
available in this area of participation by low-income par-
ents and community representatives as advisors and policy-
makers in human service fields.

No specific studies and almost no literature were
available relating directly to the use of school district
advisory committees as vehicles for parent and community
involvement in the educational decision-making process.

This lag is certainly indicative of the serious need for
investigation of this area.

Therefore, this chapter was structured to encompass
a review of the literature relating to those past and pres-
ent indicators within, or on the periphery of, the educa-
tional systems which seem indicative of the needs for the
establishment of a genuine partnership between school and

14

15

community. Thus, the literature which was reviewed dealt
with: (l) a general historical background of the recog-
nition by the educational system of the need for improved
community-school relations, as well as the develOpment of
programs to achieve this; (2) community involvement: rea-
sons for lack of early development, types of previous
attempts, individuals involved in its initial stages, and
rationale for need and development; (3) crucial issues
relating to community involvement, such as decision-making
versus advising, responses to failures of American schools,
and experiments and concepts of decentralization; (4) the
community school as a potential solution, and finally,

(5) an exclusive exploration of the efforts made in Cali—
fornia to involve low—income parents and community represen—
tatives in ESEA, Title I compensatory education programs
through district advisory committees and parent advisory

groups.

Historical Background

 

The recognition of the value of school-community
COOperation in maximizing the learning Opportunities for
students has been advocated by early educational writers.
Dewey (1916) and Hart (1924) underscored the interrelated-
ness of the educational functions of the home, the neigh-
borhood, and the school. Much was said about the importance

of the home in the educational development of the child, but

16

very little was done to involve the home in the education
process.

Perhaps the first awakening in this area occurred
. during the late thirties, when discussion began among educa-
tors and representatives from various communities regarding
"community schools." This was perceived by Chester F.
Miller (1939), as he related in his article on the Arthur
Hill High School in Saginaw, Michigan. He communicated about
long-term planning shared by parents, teachers, social agen—
cies, industry, and students in that community, as they
advise the school board on such areas as financing, plant
needs, student education, and welfare. According to the
author, public opinion had been previously disregarded by
the schools, but now the need for cooperation was being
recognized.

The Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) seemed to be
instrumental in furthering school-community relations, accord-
ing to Carleton Saunders (1941). Parents were eager to
offer their suggestions, seeking to assure their children a
better education than they, the parents, had received.

These programs by the PTA also had an effect on teachers, in
terms of making them increasingly professional, considering
the "whole child," rather than just subject matter.

Involvement by the community in education at this
fairly early time was also substantiated by Henry Troy

(1950), who was the director of the National Citizens

17

Commission of Public Schools. He indicated that community
committees, based on his Commission observations of 300 of
them, were very successful, particularly when focusing on
tangible school improvements.

Increasing development of advisory groups resulted
in broad powers, as indicated by Leslie Kindred (1949).
This author described committees which had the following
types of functions: increased community use of schools,
recommendations for improving conditions of school buildings,
a "clearinghouse" for important educational issues, inform—
ing fellow laymen of schools' needs, work in public rela-
tions programs, identifying educational needs and solving
related problems, providing moral support for school offi-
cials undertaking innovative actions, creating confidence
in the schools, and harmonizing the conflicts between schools
and community. These indeed imply forerunners of present
advisory committees.

This growing trend was strongly supported by
Truman Pierce (1950). He perceived the movement as a rever-
sal of professional control of schools. He attributed this
to several factors, primarily related to World War II.
Teachers were removed from schools during this period, and
replaced by untrained personnel. In addition, the author
felt that this period demonstrated the failure of American
schools to educate its peOple, as evidenced by the number

who failed to pass academic tests. He also expressed

18

concern about the insufficient number of new teachers being
trained. Finally, he perceived that teachers failed to
recognize the importance of understanding by the public of
what constitutes good schools, and it is imperative that
education should be under the control of the people rather
than under the power of a limited few.

In addition to the concern of involving the commu-
nity in the educational program for children, there were
some trends for community schools. Clara Wilson (1946)
discussed a program in Lancaster County, Nebraska, which was
designed to convert rural schools into centers of activities
for all age groups in the community. This concept still
provides the basis for "community schools" today. In this
community, parents and children planned together for the
improvements of their schools, resulting in a school beau—
tification program planned and executed by the children.

There was growing concern at that time that children
need more awareness of, and interaction with, the community.
Robert Koopman (1948) pointed out that children have little
knowledge about persons in the community. It was considered
important by the author that youngsters in school be aware
of persons residing in the vicinity of the school. An
attempt to achieve this was communicated by Robert Whitt
(1971) about a program of community action undertaken in
the Midwest. It was called the "Blue Star Program." Young—

sters knew they could get help in a home with a blue star in

19

the window. These were parents who were cooperating to help
children on their way to or from school, should they run

into a problem such as a molestation attempt, fears concerning
the weather, or in case of a reported tornado.

It is essential for people to perceive their schools
as meeting local needs, and not let them continue to follow
national dictates, according to Harold Bates (1945). Thus,
it is important that parents in the community assume a
leadership role in education, rather than following national
patterns. This seems a major need to make schools relevant.
This was perceived over 25 years ago by C. E. Ragsdale (1944),
who stressed the importance of including social problem
awareness and solving in the school curriculum, as well as
academic materials. School strikes in the sixties indicated
that this need was still not being met.

Perhaps causes lie with the difficulty of gaining
the interest of lay persons in community or school programs,
as indicated by Larsen (1949). In "An Ocean Hill—Brownsville
Resident" (1968), it was pointed out that in 1968, during the
New York school strikes, a majority of the community resi-
dents were not involved.

Thus the period of the thirties through the fifties
produced scattered programs of community participation in
education, and some experimentation in community schools,
but very minimal indications of trends toward parental

involvement in educational advisory committees.

20

Community Involvement

 

Rationale for
Community Involvement

 

 

Justification for community involvement in education
predominates the literature, particularly during recent
years. Frequently, community control has become a popular
concept. Thus, Charles Hamilton (1968) indicated that the
Black community has moved from doubting the effectiveness of
education in general, to questioning the legitimacy of the
educational institution. Blacks are now seeking community
control, rather than integration. This author believed that
the perceived needs of the Black community deserve more con-
sideration in educational planning than the dictates of
educational experts, who are responsible for the present
system which does not meet the needs of Black students.

This concept was supported in "An Ocean Hill-
Brownsville Resident" (1968), which expressed the need for
community involvement for quality and relevant education,
based on the needs within the community. The writer was a
social scientist, as well as a resident of the Ocean Hill-
Brownsville community, which was one of the demonstration
decentralized schools of New York City. He supported com-
munity control, based on vested authority in community
representatives who are provided with needed resources to

implement their policies. This represents a more limited,

21

yet definitive, structure of community control compared to
some perceived by others.

Further substantiation for this concept was developed
by Maurice Berube (1968). The focus was again on the inade-
quate education provided for Blacks, which was perceived by
the author as a national disgrace. Thus, nearly 85 per cent
of the students in Harlem are more than two years behind
national norms in reading; and only 13 students graduated
from the only high school in Harlem in a recent year. Qual-
ity education can be achieved if the schools are made
accountable to the community. In addition, the democratic
processes are also enhanced through citizen participation
in control of schools.

To be truly effective as community participants,
lay persons must be cognizant of current educational develOp-
ments, according to Stephen Romine (1950), an associate
professor of education at the University of Colorado. It
is the responsibility of schools to provide this information.

As members of the community become informed partici-
pants in educational planning and policy making, a move
toward equality of minority groups might be generated,
according to Henry Levin (1970). Community control is
related to political and economic powers, and a more equi-
table distribution, including minority groups, might result.

Thus, the presently disenfranchised would become part of

22

society, representing a beginning of community cohesion and
improved status for Black citizens.

The only Opposition to community involvement and
participation came from John Everett (1968), past president
of the New School for Social Research, former chancellor Of
the City University Of New York, and present president Of
Hollins College in Virginia. He perceived schools as being
used to gain political solutions. He felt that the 1954
Supreme Court decision against "separate, but equal" educa—
tion really provided little for Black students to achieve
equal educational Opportunities. They could not catch up,
due to their previously inferior schools. Instead, they were
faced with new situations for which they were not prepared,
and which made them feel inadequate. The author did not
perceive education as a salvation for minority groups; he
suggested it is time to stop being romantic about it.

Thus, the majority of recent literature supports the
importance of community involvement in education, Often to
the extent of community control. As schools respond increas-
ingly to community-perceived needs, they tend to become more
relevant, providing improved education, particularly to
minority groups.

Reasons for Lack Of Earlier
Community Involvement

 

 

It appears that previous decades were characterized

by apathy and lack Of organization for community involvement

23

in education. Certain "barriers" to participation of the
poor in organizational life were enumerated by Edward J.
O'Donnell and Catherine S. Chilman (1969). Based on their
study of poor people on public welfare boards and committees,
they found these barriers: (l) The poor have a self-
defeating perception Of themselves, (2) Community attitudes
reflect discrimination against those in poverty, (3) Organ-
izations characteristically tend to discourage participation,
and (4) The dominant political machine tends to Oppose admit-
ting new members.

Furthermore, persons in lower socio-economic levels
also do not tend to join, or participate in, voluntary organ-
izations, according to Specht (1966). This type Of activity
seems to be limited to higher income and educational groups.
The author felt that professionals have been negligent in
their own involvement in civil rights movements, but have led
the organization Of the deprived for social change. He
doubted the value of this practice, since those in poverty
Often only seek broader and more effective services, rather
than organization and protest.

The alienation Of community and school was explored
by Gans (1962). This study related the attitudes Of Italian
Americans in New York's West End to education. Here, the
schooling of children is perceived as one Of two alterna-
tives: The parochial school is person oriented, while the

public high schools, which most Of their children attend,

24

are object oriented. This ambivalence removes education
from the world which is close to them; it becomes something
removed, in the other world. While they are aware of the
need for education in order for their children to become
employable, they nonetheless fear that schools will estrange
their children from them. Since their culture tends to pro—
mote adult-centered families, their lack Of interest in
schools can be understood in this society which separates
adults and children. This, perhaps, is a reflection Of the
general American society, which perceives schools as child-
centered, and leaves school personnel puzzled as to apparent
public lack of interest in their institutions.

Additional reasons for lack of participation by
parents and community in education were expressed by Henry
Levin (1970): (1) As professionalism Of teachers increases,
community involvement declines; (2) Parents are reluctant
to participate because they perceive their own educational
level inferior to that of professionals, particularly in
ghetto communities; and (3) The increased size and imperson-
ality Of large city public school systems discourage active
participation.

Thus, there seemed to be a wide variety Of reasons
why community and parental participation was minimal, ranging
from lack Of interest to feelings of insecurity and inade-

quacy by parents, particularly in minority communities.

25

Types Of Previous Areas
Of Community Involvement

 

 

It appears that the primary form Of community
involvement in education has been advisory in nature. As
advisory committees develOped, they tended to vary consid-
erably in SCOpe and power. Thus, parental participation in
California preschool programs, which mandate parent partici-
pation as a requirement for funding, is quite limited, based

on the California State Department Of Education: Curriculum

 

Guide for Compensatory Preschool Educational Programs (1968).

 

Participation is viewed as assisting preschool personnel in
such areas as planning study trips, operating a clothing
bank, planning family social events, and locating materials
for children's art projects.

Slightly increased parent participation is found in
Project Head Start (Project Head Start: Parents Are Needed).
First, direct participation is provided as parents assume
the role Of aides to teachers, serving as cultural refer-
ences and occupational models for children, as well as
bringing the community to the classroom. Second, supplemen-
tary participation is achieved through meetings, listening
to guest lecturers, home study courses, and family life con-
ferences. I

An overall evaluation of parental participation was
achieved by the U. S. Department Of Health, Education, and

Welfare Task Force on Parent Participation (1968), which

26

studied the programs funded by the Department Of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Most of the programs which were
funded by the Department seemed to be lacking in involve-
ment, particularly by poverty parents, in such areas as
advising, planning, or paraprofessional employment. This
study urged increased roles for parents in educational pro-
grams, at least on advisory committees. Even more desirable
would be structuring planning boards which would have broad
policy-making powers.

Prior to the present, parental involvement in edu-
cation seemed tO have been peripheral, with parents mainly
assisting or advising on a very limited basis those profes-
sionals who were charged with the education of their chil-
dren.

Persons From the Community
Involved in Education

 

 

Where incidents of community involvement were devel-
Oped, generally a combination Of parents and community rep-
resentatives was involved, together with students, teachers,
and administrators. Romine (1950) studied community coun-
cils, and stated that a broad representation from the
community should be included in this group; however, indi-
viduals should be selected on the basis of their personal
interests. He suggested more lay persons than professionals,
but not to exceed a ratio of three to two. Inclusion of
students on community councils was also perceived as

desirable.

27

Students can become leaders in community involve-
ment, as documented by Gracie (1967). During the walkout
at Northern High School in Detroit, Michigan, the students
initiated the movement; then the community followed.

As parents and community representatives become
involved with schools, it is desirable that a broad repre-
sentation be achieved, with the possible inclusion of stu-

dents.

Crucial Issues in Community Involvement

 

Decision-Making Versus Advising

 

Community and parental involvement in children's
education provides a wide range of possible participation,
from limited advisement roles to legitimized decision making.
Berube and Gittel (1969), on one extreme, supported decision—
making power for the community, even beyond election to,
and representation on, the school board.

This stand is supported, though slightly modified,
by Fantini (1970), who perceived a need for broadening con—
trol over the decision-making mechanisms of the present
system. The process should be shared among all interested
parties: parents, community, teachers, administrators, as
well as the board Of education. The primary control should
rest with representatives Of the community.

Further direction was provided for this View in the

Fiscal Review and Analysis of Selected Categorical Aid

 

28

Education Programs in California (1970). This report covered

 

seven compensatory and supplementary programs, and resulted
in these recommendations to the California State Office Of
Compensatory Education:

1. Activities Of advisory bodies be expanded to
include policy-making powers.

2. Boards be changed from advisory to policy-making
bodies; and that advisory committee representation be made
part of local school boards with full voting rights.

3. Committees should include at least 50 per cent
low-income representation.

4. Parent representatives be selected by their
peers through democratic processes.

5. School districts should document the fulfillment
of all of the above.

This currently popular view was further supported
by Robert J. Havighurst (1971), professor Of education at
the University of Chicago, who also felt more power Options
should be provided by the decision makers for students, par-
ents, teachers, and administrators. He encouraged coopera-
tion among these groups, related to the needs of individual
communities.

There can be found a variety of studies which relate
community participation to social change. Thus, the Presi-
dent's National Advisory Board on Rural Poverty, in its

report The PeOple Left Behind (1967) stated that the basic

 

29

principle underlying social legislation in this country must
be that of helping people and communities help themselves.
In order for programs to be successful, the people who are
concerned must be involved, and this process ultimately
rests at neighborhood levels.

The disenfranchised then can become, and must
become, part Of American society, according to Levin (1970).
The starting point for this is through the schools, leading
to community cohesion and improvement Of the status of
Blacks and poor citizens. Educational reform is the nucleus
for community power structure. This is further substantiated
by Burns (1968), who perceived movement toward ethnic and
racial solidarity through the focus by minority groups toward
changing the schools.

These changes can only be achieved through some types
of power bases. This was perceived by Samuel Bowles (1968),
whose first concern was that equality Of resources may not
achieve equality Of educational Opportunities. For this,
major societal changes are needed. To accomplish these
requires a redistribution Of political power among races and
social classes. Those in poverty and now powerless have to
find the opportunity to increase their participation in edu-
cational decision making to achieve a transfer Of power.

This must include accepting responsibility for

success and failure alike, according to Rios (1968), in his

30

study of Mexican-American students. He sought this sharing
between Mexican-Americans and Anglos alike.

The develOpment Of leadership for involvement may
have resulted from the impact of government community action
programs, as viewed by Moynihan (1969). These came just at
the time Blacks and other minority groups were verging toward
extensive commitments to urban politics. Fantini (1970) saw
this reflected also in East Harlem, as parents became
increasingly involved in education, and the slogan of "Black
power" Often was replaced by "quality education" and "give
a damn."

Particularly in Head Start programs, this trend of
parental participation and resulting change has been evi-
denced. This was perceived by Kirchner and Associates (1970)
in their study for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare on the impact Of Head Start centers on community
institutions. Federally mandated parent participation in
these programs has led to change in the decision—making
process.

This has not been consistently smooth and easy.

Thus, Moynihan (1969) stated that since the war on poverty
began in 1964, poverty programs have not lived up to govern-
mental expectations, and community participation has been
minimal.

A possible cause for this might be found in the

threat felt by teachers and administrators from community

31

control. They view parent involvement as endangering their
status, and may limit their cooperation and not assist with
attempts to redistribute power. Yet, the author felt that
this broadening Of power is essential before any changes can
really occur in the educational system. Possibly, new par-
ticipants from the community can gradually gain majority
control, or at least a compromise can be reached by leaving
control with the professionals, while providing the commu-
nity with an increased decision-making position. However,
further alienation results if peOple from poverty communi-
ties are placed on committees, but their recommendations are
ignored, according to O'Donnell and Chilman (1969).

It appears that most of the authors saw a need for
community and parents in a role which exceeds that Of a
purely advisory function. They should be involved in the
decision—making process to bring about meaningful changes,
with the added benefit that through involvement, these par-
ticipants grow and become more effective themselves.

Failure Of American
Public Schools

 

 

Much Of the foregoing material, relating to the
search for community action and participation, can be based
on the failure Of the existing system and its relevance to
low-income, educationally disadvantaged, minority students.
Changes are only sought when the status quo fails to meet

the needs Of segments, or the totality, of the population.

32

Consequently, it seems essential to search for some of the
failures of the present system to understand this drive for
change.

Peter Schrag (1967), in discussing the Boston
schools, noted that America has a double system of public
education. Middle class children attend well-financed
schools, proceed to colleges or universities, and return
to suburbia. On the other hand, children from depressed
areas attend school in dark and aging buildings, are taught
inadequately, and return to the slums from which they origi-
nated, providing no more hope for the next generation than
they experienced. The author perceived an increasing gap
between the two systems. This duality selects children out
of the social mainstream before they even develop, and it
crushes motivation, ambitions, and confidence for these
students.

This view is substantiated by Henry Levin (1970),
who also commented on the considerable difference between
the education Offered to minority-poverty youngsters, and
those Of the middle class. Funds flow primarily to White,
middle-class schools, at the sacrifice Of Black, poverty
students. Black parents lack the political power to termi-
nate this process; and, of course, the White community would
resist any efforts to reduce their educational advantages.
The Black community has very definite concepts of what the

schools should provide for their children. Their ideals

33

and aspirations focus on promoting self-dignity and self-
identity of the students, as well as providing the means for
these youngsters to have an influence in planning their own
lives.

Thus, schools expect minority children to fail; and,
consequently, this whole process discussed above has gone
relatively unnoticed in the past. Based on this expecta-
tion, no one is surprised when this failure occurs. Yet,
the causes lie with the schools, rather than the students.
Society simply fails to provide a realistic value orienta-
tion for schools in relation to the demands Of today's world.

However, Fantini (1970) argued that this problem of
inadequate education for minorities has been known for some
time. Deprivations and injustices to minority people were
brought to national attention through the civil rights move-
ment, leading to compensatory education programs. These,
however, only dealt with the symptoms. Parents reject the
concept that the fault for poor achievement lies within
their children. They know that integration, as a basis for
improved educational Opportunities, has never been achieved.
Model subsystems, as in New York, have been develOped, but
they are still dependent on the larger structure; and paral-
lel systems, such as Head Start, really do not offer any
major reforms. The author can only conclude that community

control is needed, focusing on educational reform.

34

Fantini also pointed out that failure of the educa-
tional process in our society is really rather ubiquitous.
We have witnessed student protests across the country, and
many Of these have come from White, middle-class students.
There appears to be agreement among those who Observe
the educational scene that the system is lacking, and it is
most inadequate in meeting the needs Of deprived minority

students.

Decentralization

 

One approach to provide increased community control
and participation by parents has been the recent movement
for decentralization of school districts, particularly in
urban areas. The need for this change was already perceived
in 1950 by Warren, who was concerned about a growing trend
toward centralization. He noted some benefits from this,
such as potentials for improved salaries for teachers,
increased staff, and more specialized services. However, he
also recognized the concern of many experts about over-
centralization. Gains could be realized through schools
remaining part of the local community through decentrali-
zation, particularly Of elementary schools. They would be
in closer touch with the parents, be able to adapt the cur-
riculum to localized needs, and be truly integrated with the
local neighborhood.

Levin (1970) strongly supported this thesis. He

felt that decentralization would have a very direct impact

35

in terms Of the community being able to select materials,
curriculum, and personnel based on the needs of its children.
An increased Opportunity for innovation and experimentation
would be available, as well as the potential Of providing
outside consultants to focus on local problems, and a more
realistic way of resolving logistic problems. As attitudes
toward schools would improve, the total community might be
positively affected.

A slightly different View was presented by
Dr. Ernest O. Melby in Hickey, et a1. (1969), who also
supported decentralization. However, he perceived benefits
resulting from increased decision-making potential by teach-
ers and principals.

Much of the focus of the literature on decentrali—
zation is on New York City, where this process has been
attempted. In the editorial in Nation, June 10, 1968, titled
"Magic Words," the editor perceived the existing system in
that city as unwieldy. In addition, it results in poor edu-
cation for minority children. These problems provided the
basis for strong community support for decentralization and,
at times, community control Of schools.

At the same time, this article voiced some cautions
relating to decentralization. It may postpone development
Of a cohesive community. In order to achieve success,
massive funding, as well as skilled professionals, are

needed to improve facilities, programs, and services.

36

Decentralization also "takes the heat Off" politicians,
while providing the community with limited and poorly
defined powers to implement change.

Perhaps the issue in New York was not really decen-
tralization, according to Max Geltman (1968). There seemed
to be a conflict between the board of education, which was
supporting job security for teachers, and the local board,
seeking full power to run the schools. It seemed, unfortu-
nately, that neither students nor their parents were a major
consideration by either side of this dispute.

Yet, perhaps gains were realized out Of the conflict.
Minister and Sagarin (1967), in discussing the strike at
P.S. 201, a middle school in Harlem, pointed to some losses,
but primarily gains for the school from this action.
Increased accountability in terms of educational quality will
be demanded from school personnel. Also, the need for Black
principals, supervisors, and other administrative personnel
was recognized.

These positive changes were further substantiated by
"An Ocean Hill-Brownsville Resident" (1968), who perceived a
number Of accomplishments in spite of all Obstacles. A
multi-racial teaching corps demonstrated that different
ethnic teachers can successfully teach minority youngsters,
as well as demonstrating that educational programs can be

tailored to particular community needs. Incidentally, these

37

teacher corps programs continued Operations during the
repeated teachers' strikes.

Decentralized schools generally managed to remain
functioning during the teachers' strikes, according to Berube
(1968), thus challenging successfully the strong teachers'
unions. Achieving decentralization can be accomplished in
different ways, according to Gittel (1966): (1) establishing
educational parks; (2) providing local school boards with
decision—making powers; (3) decentralizing Operations, such
as providing the New York public schools with a number of
school boards (15 or 20); and (4) establishing medium-sized
school boards—-in other words, less than 15 for New York
City.

Probably one of the most logical approaches to decen-
tralization was developed by Len and Featherstone (1969).
They took the position that neither a centralized nor a
decentralized control pattern can be totally effective,
though they did not dispute the merits Of each system. The
issue is not whether education should be centralized or
decentralized, but rather what powers and functions can best
be centralized and what powers and functions can best be
decentralized. In essence, the authors posited that a mar-
riage Of the best elements Of decentralization and those Of
centralization patterns with the goal of evolving a balanced
control structure should be attempted by personnel seeking

an appropriate system. The balanced control pattern would

38

be based on the thesis that certain educational management
support functions should be centralized, and certain educa-
tional and management functions should be decentralized.

The third Of three models of decentralization presented
provided for the responsibility and the authority for the
administration and control Of education to be decentralized,
and was considered by the authors as the most viable format
to guide change in large cities' educational systems. Leu
and Candoli (1971) developed a model for modern school plan-
ning, utilizing similar concepts to those stated above for
the Chicago City School District. The plan outlined in
this report has practicality and promise for realistic
implementation in large city districts.

Support for reducing large school systems seems con-
siderable in the literature. This again reflects the desir-
ability Of providing the community and parents Of a neighbor-
hood school Or area with the capability Of planning for the

very specific needs of their children.

The Community School
Probably the most total integration Of school and
community emerges from the concept of the "community school."
Iiere is found the true merging of institutions serving chil-
ciren and parents alike, meeting the needs Of all, and
Ifesponsive to the expression of the peOple concerned.
In 1967, a movement in this direction was recommended

131g Project SEAR (1967), as the study viewed the breakdown in

 

39

school—community relations. This investigation Of compensa-

tory education and urban unrest made these recommendations:

.Schools may be a major source of urban tensions and
frustrations and a promising vehicle for improvement Of
neighborhood stability.

.The most important contribution that the schools and
the Office of Compensatory Education can make to alleviate
urban tension is tO improve the effectiveness Of school per-
sonnel working in poverty areas.

.A broader program aimed at improving the communica-
tions between the school and the poverty areas is needed.

.The school can play a greater role in working with the
community and civil agencies to improve the life Of neigh-
borhood residents.

.Students in compensatory education programs should be
made more aware of the relevance of basic skills acquired
in the classroom and their future employment.

.There should be more activities to improve racial and
ethnic relations included in the program.

.The school should expand its extracurricular program to
meet the social, recreational, and cultural needs of the
community.

.Improved evaluation instruments are needed to measure
student progress in compensatory education programs.

Strong arguments for community schools were presented

13y Whitt (1971), who considered it a waste of taxpayers'

4O

monies, as well as school facilities, to close at three-
thirty in the afternoon. This hurts the poverty communities,
particularly, since middle class areas have other programs
for children in the afternoons. These are not available for
children in ghettos or slums. Four justifications for com-
munity schools were developed by this author: (1) the
economic value to the community Of greater utilization of
facilities; (2) the social needs make it imperative, as
children face the problems of poverty, deprivation, and
dead—endness; (3) the democratic right of people to be
involved, and finally, (4) schools will be forced into
increased accountability.

The process Of community schools can lead to the
institutions becoming community centers through their active
use by various community groups. In some instances, these
schools had led to community betterment programs. These
functions indicate the growing importance Of schools on the
totality Of American life.

The breadth of potential can be perceived in a study
of one school district's community program, described in

the publication Involvement: School-Community in San Diego

 

(1969), which provides education and recreation for the
parents, teenagers, and subteenagers. The program involves
the parents and children in determining some educational
offerings Of the local school, thereby promoting community

{bride and involvement. Classes are held from 3 p.m. to

41

9 p.m. It provides services in the following areas: career
counseling for students; uses parents and students part time
as community aides; provides tutors and tutoring; and Offers
supplemental courses in reading labs, physical education,
sewing, workshop, fine arts, graphic arts, photography, auto
mechanics, woodworking and crafts, and typing. It provides
a study center in the later afternoon and evening.

Obviously, this type of effort represents a maxi-
mized involvement of community and parents, as well as uti-
lization of facilities in providing services.

In addition to meeting the needs Of deprived commu-
nities most directly, community schools in middle-class
areas might serve similar purposes, as stated by Hickey
(1969). The expanded program would provide the possibility
Of reaching beyond the Offering Of academic materials to
meet college and graduation requirements. White, middle-
class persons might be educated in such a way that they
would no longer tolerate the conditions under which other
members Of society live. They might become a catalyst for
social change to overcome poverty, racial injustice, and
eliminate ghettos.

As schools and communities become increasingly
interwoven, it becomes possible to draw on the skills of
pcOple near the schools for services, as pointed out by

Staffing for Better Schools, U. S. Department of Health,

 

Education, and Welfare (1967). The possibilities for

42

staffing include professionals, graduate and undergraduate
students, university professors, and community agencies, such
as the county public health department. This would provide
a vastly richer background for those receiving these educa—
tional services.

A similar concept was advanced by Paul Goodman
(1965), who would move the school into the community. He
proposed a radically decentralized primary school for chil-
dren from ages six to twelve. It would house 30 students
and three adults, one professional and two assistants. It
would be located in a store front or a settlement house.
The city, itself, would be used as an educational background,
Offering such things as museums, business, etc. The teachers
would be college graduates, as he believed that advanced
training is not necessary for primary education. These
street schools would allow for close contact with parents,
who could be used as helpers. Neighborhood professionals,
such as the pharmacist, could be used as resource people.
These little schools could be used to provide for the over-
flow, instead Of continually building new schools. The
model for this school could be the First Street School in the
lower east side Of New York City. This school is one-third
Black, one-third Puerto Rican, and one-third White. The
teacher ratio is one per seven students. The total cost of
running this school is about equal to that Of a single school

in the New York City public school system.

43

The concept Of the community school was perhaps best
summed up by Totten (1970), who believed that community edu-
cation is an all-inclusive phenomenon, functioning in the
community to help people of all ages, races, religions, and
socio-economic backgrounds to fulfill learning needs and
aid in the development and improvement Of the entire commu-
nity. The community school is not only the largest educa-
tional institution in the community, but it is the only ele-
ment owned by all the people.

DevelOpment Of ESEA, Title I District
Advisory Committees in California

 

 

Community involvement and parental participation are
still in the stages Of development. Experimentation with
community control, advisory committees, decentralization,
and community schools is taking place throughout the nation.
Probably the most definitive and widespread parent and com-
munity involvement, actually mandated, are school district
advisory committees and parent advisory groups in ESEA,
Title I compensatory education programs in California.

Compensatory education was pioneered in California
in 1963 through legislation introduced by Senator McAteer Of
San Francisco. The bill was S.B. 115, commonly known as the

McAteer Act Of 1963. Twenty—three programs were piloted

 

under this legislation through four county offices of educa-
tion and 19 school districts. The pilot projects were very

(comprehensive and broad in scope, as indicated by Reyes

44

(1965). This author described several of the pilot programs,
including one in Fresno Unified School District, where the
use of citizens' advisory committees in compensatory educa-
tion was first successfully attempted. The Progress Report
on Compensatory Educational Programs in California (1965)
stated that extensive use Of community resources and involve-
ment Of community organizations and agencies is essential

in seeking to meet the needs of disadvantaged children.

The outcome Of the pilot projects demonstrated the
need for parent and community involvement through citizens'
advisory committees or comparable means. It is interesting
to note that the federal regulations relating to ESEA,

Title I, P.L. 89—10, as well as U.S.O.E. guidelines for
compensatory education did not include provisions to support
a mandate for advisory committees in California. As evi-
denced in the California State Department Of Education

Guidelines for Compensatory Education Programs and Projects

 

(1965), the requirement of district advisory committees did
not occur in federally funded compensatory education pro—
grams in California until fiscal year 1967. Previous guide-
lines did require, however, involvement Of community action
agencies and nonpublic schools in ESEA, Title I compensatory
education programs. (See Appendix H.)

The need was recognized for a vehicle Of involvement
of community action agencies, nonpublic schools, parents Of

participating children, community organizations and agencies.

45

Thus, in keeping with the spirit Of the McAteer Act Of 1965,
S.B. 482, district advisory committees were mandated by the

California State Department Of Education Guidelines, Com-

 

pensatory Education (1966). These required the composition

 

Of the district advisory committee membership to consist Of
50 per cent residents Of the designated target area. The
remaining 50 per cent would be composed Of school district
staff, representatives of community action agencies (C.A.P.),
nonpublic schools, and other agencies and organizations pro-
viding services to the target population. Important func—
tions were outlined for the district advisory committees,
including involvement in the planning, implementation, and
evaluation Of the compensatory education programs. (See
Appendix H.)

As stated by Gerald Rider (1965), the California

Compensatory Education Guidelines of April, 1966 provided

 

for a definite shift Of decision-making spheres Of influence.
A transfer Of decision-making authority took place in plan-
ning an ESEA, Title I educational program from the exclu-
sive domain Of the public school system to a wider forum of
decision-making authority. Dr. Rider stated that the
decision-making mode required in these guidelines must
include interorganizational, as well as intraorganizational
decision making. The educational decision-making process

of compensatory education programs would differ from the

traditional model.

46

Francis Keppel (1965) urged that:

Together the new education Act (ESEA) with its
emphasis on quality and equality Of education and
the earlier Act (Economic Opportunity Act Of 1964)
with its emphasis on poverty, call for a whole new
dimension Of COOperation between the education com-
munity and the whole community. . . . (p. 26)

Keppel further stated that "Just as educators must look to
the community through the new education Act (ESEA) so must
the community seek wise counsel and partnership with edu—

cation. (pp. 27,28) if the educational problems Of
children and youth created by the cycles Of poverty and
isolation from the mainstream Of society are to be allevi—

ated.

The First Report of the National Advisory Council on

 

the Education Of Disadvantaged Children (1966) made many

 

recommendations, among them a shift in the organization
for decision making within local school districts, by urging
that teachers and interested citizens participate in Title I
project planning. One of the many recommendations was that
the Office of Education guidelines should be revised to
encourage this procedure.

In 1967, the California State Department of Educa-

tion Guidelines: Compensatory Education required the same

 

composition as those contained in the 1966 guidelines, and

also included a well-defined set of functions:

1. Developing programs in cooperation with exist-
ing community action programs in their localities.
2. Mobilizing and coordinating all community

resources in a concerted attack on the problems of
educationally deprived children.

47

3. Overall planning, development, implementation,
evaluation and dissemination Of information relative
to the Objectives of compensatory programs.
4. Acting as a hearing board for any individual
or group who may want to prOpose additions to or
changes in the school district's proposed compensatory
programs. (p. 11)
These guidelines were formulated with the full recognition
that the district advisory committees or the community action
agency did not have veto power, and that the school district
board of education is the only duly constituted body author-
ized to make policies and final decisions affecting the
children and youth of their school district. (See Appendix
H.)

In 1968, the Handbook for California School District

 

Advisory Committees was prepared and disseminated by the

 

Division of Compensatory Education. It was designed to
acquaint school district personnel and other members Of
school district advisory committees with the provisions of
ESEA, Title I compensatory education guidelines, and to
provide important information on how to organize the com-
mittees for meaningful parent and community involvement.
Included in the Handbook are sample by-laws, suggestions
for the chairman Of the committee, and helpful information
for all members of the committees for effective participa-
tion.

Ira J. Gordon (1968), discussing the National Com-
Inittee for the Support of the Public Schools in the Struggle

for Power in the Public Schools, stated that parents,

48

teachers, principals, and students all indicate their needs,
and no one can realistically deny that they all have needs
and responsibilities in American education. He cited four
prOpositions made by Walter Washington, the mayor Of
Washington, D. C., as follows:

1. Educational systems should enable all persons

 

affected by the educational process to be heard and to have
their ideas considered.

2. The systems should be focused on results as
well as Opportunity.

3. The educational system should be coordinated
with other institutions and with the rest of society, which
scientists might describe as an ecological approach.

4. The educational system should be sensitive to
the changing needs of society and have a fast reaction
capability. (Washington, 1968, p. 12)

Mario Fantini (1968) suggested that a total reform
Of the educational system is needed which will call for
participation by all concerned in education. "Participatory
democracy in education should also give parents and commu-
nity a tangible respect for the intricacy and complexity Of
the professional problems in urban education." (p. 14) He
further stated that:

. . . as parents are admitted to participation

in the school's education process, they will become
better equipped "teachers" of that part Of the "cur-

riculum" in which they are the prime agents - rearing
[in] the home. (p. 15)

49

With the attention to parent/community involvement
in the education process growing, as evidenced above, the

California State Department Of Education Guidelines: Com—

 

pensatory Education (1969) were revised to include a two-

 

level advisory committee structure. Each school district
applying for ESEA, Title I, P.L. 89-10 funds must establish,
in addition to a district advisory committee, a parent
advisory group at each target school within the district.
(See Appendix H.)

The 1969 revision Of the guidelines required a

revision Of the Handbook for School District Advisory Com-

 

mittees, in which E. Morgan Greenwood, California State
Department Of Education (1970) urged the use Of the newly
required two—level advisory structure as an excellent vehicle
for increased communication between school and community.
Participation in committees includes a large membership
from Spanish-speaking communities. The handbook was trans-
lated by this author (1971) from English to Spanish. A
distribution Of approximately 9,000 copies Of both the
English and Spanish versions was made. Its wide use con-
tinues in California as a guide for its users, school dis—
trict personnel, parents, community representatives, and
agency peOple, to work together in developing meaningful
compensatory education programs.

Finally, in October, 1970, the acting commissioner

of education, T. H. Bell Of the United States Office of

50

Education, issued a long-awaited memorandum to the chief
state school Officers, which read, in part as follows:

Section 415 Of the General Education Provision Act
(Title IV Of Public Law 90-247 as amended by Public
Law 91-230) states:

SEC. 415. In the case Of any applicable program
in which the Commissioner determines that parental
participation at the State or local level would
increase the effectiveness Of the program in achiev-
ing its purposes, he shall promulgate regulations with
respect to such program setting forth criteria designed
to encourage such participation. If the program for
which such determination provides for payments to local
educational agencies, applications for such payments
shall-—

(1) set forth such policies and procedures as will

ensure that programs and projects assisted under

the application have been planned and developed,

and will be Operated, in consultation with, and

with the involvement Of, parents of the children

to be served by such programs and projects;

(2) be submitted with assurance that such parents

have had an Opportunity to present their views with

respect to the application; and

(3) set forth policies and procedures for adequate

dissemination Of program plans and evaluations to

such parents and the public.

(See Appendix I for the complete text Of Bell's memorandum.)
California's pioneering effort in mandating district
advisory committees in ESEA, Title I programs was used as
the primary model on which the above memorandum was based.
The revision Of the California compensatory education guide-
lines is still taking place. A greater emphasis of parent
and community involvement in the educational decision-making
process Of compensatory education programs continues to be

included.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Definition of the Population

 

In California, the State Department of Education

Guidelines: Compensatory Education, Under the Elementary

 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10,

 

Title I require that school districts using ESEA, Title I
funds must establish and utilize district advisory commit-
tees in planning, implementing, and evaluating compensatory
education programs.

For this study, the population consisted Of 430
district advisory committees relevant to ESEA, Title I,
P.L. 89-10, compensatory education programs for disadvan-
taged children from low-income families. This population
included the total number of project applications approved
by the State Department Of Education, Division Of Compensa-
tory Education during fiscal year 1969-1970, in California.

These district advisory committees served a total
of 896 school districts. School districts with entitlements
of ESEA, Title I funds of $25,000 or less were required by
the guidelines, cited in paragraph one above, to apply for
their funds through county school department cooperative

51

52

projects. Where county school departments were unable or
unwilling to be the LEA (Local Educational Agency), school
districts were required to apply for funds through one of
the larger school districts located in close proximity to
those with the small entitlements. Thus, many applications
included several school districts with one district advisory
committee with representation from each district to serve
them. This accounts for the difference between the school
districts participating and the number of district advisory

committees.

The Sample

 

The sample for this study was randomly selected. It
consisted of 186 district advisory committees which repre-
sented compensatory education programs in 234 school dis-
tricts in California. These districts were located in 43
of California's 58 counties. For a complete list of the
school districts used in the sample, see Appendix J. The

enrollment of the districts in the sample was as follows:

 

 

Enrollment in Number Of
Sample Districts Districts
Over 125,000 2
Over 35,000 11
Over 9,000 51
Over 3,000 53
Over 300 111

Total 234

Of the 896 school district represented in the 430

local educational agencies, 658 had enrollments Of more

53

300, as shown in the breakdown below:

 

 

Enrollment in Number Of
Participating Districts Districts

Over 125,000 2

Over 35,000 14

Over 9,000 109

Over 3,000 143

Over 300 329

658

As stated in Chapter I, Delimitation of the Study,
this sample is that which was used by the United States
Office Of Education (USOE), Program Planning and Evaluations
Unit, Evaluation Operations Section in conducting the
FY 1969-1970 Consolidated Program Information Report (CPIR),
excluding six local educational agencies that applied for
funds under the same Act for neglected and delinquent chil-
dren. These agencies were usually county school offices Of
education with schools for neglected and delinquent children.
The district advisory committee requirement was waived in
these cases because the children in these schools do not
live with their parents. The local educational agency would
have been unable to meet the Guideline requirements for the
composition Of the district advisory committee.

The sample for this study was the California sample
in the CPIR study, with the exceptions indicated earlier.
The CPIR sample was drawn on the following basis:

The population of the inquiry for the FY-l970 CPIR

was the 11,765 Operating local public school systems in

the United States (the 50 states and the District Of
Columbia) that had enrollment of 300 or more pupils. A

54

listing Of these systems will appear in the forthcoming
publication Education Directory, Public School Systems,
1969-70, Part 2.

Administrative requirements necessitated a sample
from each Of the states. The determination Of the sample
size for each state was based on the premise that if the
incidence of Observation for a given characteristic was
at least 90 percent, then the size of the sample would
be such that the estimate of the total enrollment for
that characteristic in the state would have a relative
error Of 7.5 percent at the 95 confidence level.

In addition, the sample was to include with cer-
tainty those systems (830) that were included in the
sample for FY-l969 CPIR survey and those systems that
were participating in the following programs:

1. ESEA Title I, Migrant Districts

2. ESEA Title I, those districts that were included
in the sample survey Of Neglected and Delinquent Chil-
dren

3. ESEA Title V, Grants to Strengthen State Depart-
ments

4. ESEA Title VII, Bilingual Education Programs

5. ESEA Title VIII, DrOp-Out Prevention Programs

6. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Follow Through

7. Civil Rights Act Of 1964, Equal Educational
Opportunities, Title IV

The sample design provided for a one state strati-
fied random sample. The 11,765 school systems were
stratified by State and by enrollment size within the

 

 

States. The size of the sample for each State was deter-
mined according to the precision requirements as stated
above. All systems in a State that had an enrollment

equal to or greater than the number obtained by dividing
the total enrollment in the State (less those systems
that had enrollment under 300) by 1.5 times the number
in the sample were included in the sample with certainty
and identified as stratum I. Where more than 2 strata
was required, the stratum boundaries were set up in such
a manner that the enrollment in stratum II would equal
the enrollment in stratum III. In strata II and III,
those systems that fell in any Of the above programs
were selected with certainty and identified as IIA and
IIIA. The systems that fell in the sample in strata IIB
and IIIB were selected in a systematic manner after a
random start from the remaining systems in the stratum.

The number of school systems included in the State
population and sample, 11 Of 11 districts in stratum I
(43,500 enrollment and above), 38 of 98 districts in
stratum II (10,000 to 43,499 enrollment), and 72 of 625
districts in stratum III (300 to 9,999). (Donoghue,
1971)

55

Sources of the Data

 

The school districts in the sample were requested by
written communication, by the director of the Division Of
Compensatory Education, to submit the names and addresses of
their district advisory committee members. This first
request was made on April 9, 1970 (Appendix A), and a follow-
up letter (Appendix B) was sent from the director's Office
on May 5, 1970, urging the district's prompt response.

Dr. Leo R. Lopez, director Of the Division, assigned
the Bureau Of Community Services and Migrant Education, Of
which this writer is the Chief, to conduct the study. Most
Of the districts responded promptly after the first letter,
and the others to the second request for names and addresses
Of committee members, resulting in 3,690 names. The primary
source of the data gathered was the names submitted by the
districts. Additionally, the 50 consultants in the division
at the time participated in the study.

Questionnaires described in the section to follow,
prefaced by a letter, were mailed during May 8, 1970, to
advisory committee members, including 304 ESEA, Title I pro-
gram coordinators and school administrators. Most of the
questionnaires mailed were in English (N=3,403, Appendix C),
but 287 persons with Spanish surnames were sent question-
naires in both Spanish (Appendix D) and English. The
respondents were asked not to write their names on the

questionnaires. They were also advised that their responses

56

were confidential and were provided a self—addressed and
stamped envelOpe for returning the completed questionnaires.
On June 8, 1970, follow-up postcards (Appendix E)
in English and in Spanish, according to surnames, were mailed
to all members in the sample. The postcards requested them
to return their questionnaires if they had not already done
so, and thanked those who had already returned them for
their fine COOperation.
A total of 1,620 questionnaires was returned, 1,573
of which were in English and 47 were in Spanish. Twenty-
five Of the 50 consultants responded to a modified version

of the questionnaire (Appendix F).

Description of the Instruments

 

The advisory committee questionnaire used in this
study was develOped in part by the author. Several items,
however, were adopted from an advisory committee question-
naire developed by the Colorado State Department of Educa—
tion in 1969. Upon completion Of the questionnaire, the
author translated it from English (Appendix C) to Spanish
(Appendix D) for use by district advisory committee members
with Spanish surnames who so desired.

The questionnaire consisted Of 74 items, with the
last three to be answered only by school administrators and
ESEA, Title I program coordinators. All but three of the
items called merely for a check mark by the respondent to

one Of the various alternate responses provided. The three

57

items which could not be answered by the use Of a check
mark were Open-end questions which called for a written
statement. The questionnaire was designed to elicit the
following:

1. Personal information about the respondent.

2. Data regarding the Objectives of the district
advisory committee.

3. The role and activities Of district advisory
committees.

4. Personal perspectives on a variety Of issues
related to the committees.

The specific questions directed at administrators
were intended to evoke administrator elaboration on the
kinds of problems faced by committees, as well as the
creative committee practices contributing to more community
involvement in the educational decision—making process of
compensatory education programs.

For the consultants participating, a modified ver-
sion of the questionnaire, consisting Of 16 questions, was
designed. The basic purpose Of this questionnaire was to
elicit the insights of experienced field consultants rele-
vant to what they conceived tO be the Objectives, roles,
activities, problems, and achievements Of advisory committees,
and the relationship of these committees to the local edu-

cational enterprise.

58

Statistical Treatment of the Data

 

As has been indicated in Chapter I, several hypoth-
eses were tested, among which are the following:

1. District advisory committee members 30 years Of
age or younger are more skeptical of the value of district
advisory committees in compensatory education. This age
group is more skeptical of what the committee can do and Of
the motives of the district board Of education in having
such committees.

2. Frequency of district advisory committee atten—
dance is associated with payment Of members' expenses in
attending such meetings, knowledge of whether the district
board Of education has accepted or rejected committee recom—
mendations, effective communication between the board and
the district advisory committee, how a member feels about
the committee's functions and importance, and with recog-
nition of the committee by the district board Of education.

3. The feeling of the district advisory committee
members that they have made important recommendations is
associated with their knowledge of how many of their recom—
mendations were accepted by the school district.

4. Knowledge Of what the school district has done
with the committee's recommendations is associated with:

a. adequacy of communication between school dis-

trict and the committee,

b. increased attendance at committee meetings, and

59

c. a better feeling about the value of the com-

mittee.

5. District advisory committee members who have
children in the compensatory education program, respondents
tO the Spanish version of the questionnaire, and minority
(ethnic or racial) members feel strongly about the value Of
the district advisory committees to their own communities.

6. Respondents utilizing the Spanish questionnaire
and respondents from minority ethnic or racial groups feel
more strongly about the value Of having minority and low-
income persons on district advisory committees than non-
Spanish respondents and non-minority group members.

7. Administrators feel that they have more influ-
ence than others in committee deliberations.

The null hypothesis of no difference among the var-
ious groups in their responses was tested by using the chi-
square (X2). Furthermore, in order to determine the degree
Of association between particular variables and certain
characteristics Of the respondents, the coefficient Of con—
tingency (C) was utilized.

The statistical treatment of the data, therefore,
consisted of the tabulation of the data from the question-
naire (Table 1), the drawing Of a contingency table (Table
2), and 131 separate chi-square analyses and contingency
coefficients (Appendix G) which were computed through the

Computer Center at Sacramento State College.

60

The .05 level of confidence was set as the requisite
level for rejecting the null hypothesis of zero difference
or association.

The Design

 

The design Of this study is the causal comparative,

as defined by Van Dalen and Meyer in their book Understanding

 

Educational Research, pages 220-226. More specifically, the

 

study is not experimental in design, simply because no inde-
pendent variables were controlled Or manipulated. Being a
causal comparative study, the findings related to the
hypotheses and/or questions probed permit the researcher,

in an ex post facto manner, to suggest and interpret possible

 

"causal factors," or independent variables. In this sense,
the study serves as a generative catalyst for further
research in the area of active community involvement in edu-
cational decision making. Each finding, rather than being
conclusive in nature, is merely a deeper insight in the
cause—and-effect phenomenon, and serves as a heuristic cata—
lyst for further research.

Furthermore, the author in this study sought to
discover not only "what" a phenomenon is like, but also
"how" and "why" it might occur. Therefore, the causal com-
parative design was used, enabling the comparison Of like-
ness and differences among phenomena to find out what
factors or circumstances seem to accompany or contribute to

the occurrence Of certain events, conditions, or practices.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Presentation of the Data

 

The purpose of this study was to explore the role
of school district advisory committees in the educational
decision—making process Of ESEA, Title I, P.L. 89-10 com-
pensatory education programs for educationally disadvantaged
children in California. In order to do so, specific ques-
tions and hypotheses were posed, and relevant data were
sought.

Table 1 shows the exact frequencies Of responses
to each item in the questionnaire. Based on the data pre-
sented in this table, specific data pertaining to each
question posed will be presented under The Findings.

Table l.—-Responses to the English and Spanish district

advisory committee questionnaires by 1,620 advisory
committee members responding.*

 

 

 

Item Responses
1. Sex

Male 614

Female 986

61

62

Table l.--Continued.

 

 

 

Item Responses
2. Age
Under 20 5
21 - 30 163
31 - 40 522
41 - 50 589
51 and over 243
3. How long have you lived in
this school district?
Less than 1 year 77
l to 4 years 244
Over 4 years 1,167
4. Education - Your highest
grade completed
NO school at all 9
K - 6 43
7 — 9 154
10 - 12 519
A.A. 128
B.A. 267
M.A. 355
Doctorate 36
5. What kind of work do you do?
Business 37
Farmer 39
Professional 614
Retired 22
Housewife 365
Political Office holder 6
Office worker 79
Skilled laborer 50
CAP representative 38
6. Are you a member of a
minority group?
Yes 569
NO 891
7. Language spoken fluently
English 1,131
Spanish 353
Portuguese 3
Chinese 1
Other 10

63

 

 

 

Table l.--Continued.
Item Responses
8. Are you a parent Of a partici-
pating child(ren) in a
compensatory education program?
Yes 527
NO 956
9. Are you a paid employee of
the school district?
Yes 712
NO 791
10. How did you get to be a member Of
the district advisory committee?
Recommended by project director
or school administrator 842
Recommended by a community
group or agency 174
Volunteered my services 232
Recommended by nonpublic school 37
Other 163
11. About how many district advisory
committee meetings have you par-
ticipated in during the past year?
None 74
One 152
Two or three 407
Four or five 338
More than five 554
12. DO you think your district
advisory committee has met
Often enough 1,063
TOO Often 26
Not too Often 147
Not as Often as it should 250
13. On how many educational and non-
educational advisory committees
are you now serving?
Only one 722
Two 446
Three or more 318

64

Table l.--Continued.

 

 

 

Item Responses
14. How many educational or
noneducational advisory com—
mittees have you served on in
the last five years?
Only one 553
Two 377
Three or four 341
More than five 214
15—18. Aside from your regular com-
mittee meetings, which of the
following activities have you
participated in?
Field trips (such as visits
to schools and centers) 837
Participate in countywide
advisory committee meetings 409
Board of education meetings 771
Reporting to groups and
individuals 855
19. How much freedom do you feel the
members Of your committee have to
disagree with the ideas Of the
administrators?
A great deal 831
Some 459
A little 138
None at all 68
20. What difference have the recom—
mendations Of your district advisory
committee made on the compensatory
education program in your district?
A great deal 374
Some 706
A little 257
None at all 113
21. Is your district advisory com-
mittee recognized by the governing
board Of your district?
Yes 1,315
NO 99

65

 

 

 

Table l.—-Continued.
Item Responses
22. Does your district advisory committee
have clearly understood purposes?
Very clear 650
Somewhat clear 694
Not clear 153
23. How has your district advisory com-
mittee arrived at these purposes?
Committee established its own 206
Administration gave a statement
of these purposes 400
A mixture Of the two 602
Don't know 230
24. How well, do you think, does the
committee do in living up to its
understood purposes?
Very well 425
Fairly well 768
Not so well 202
Poorly 74
How much does your committee do any
of the following?
25. Review Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), Title I
guidelines and regulations?
A great deal 561
Some 563
A little 207
None at all 121
26. Advise on kinds Of programs needed?
A great deal 565
Some 623
A little 207
None at all 84
27. Work on publicity in support
Of the program?
A great deal 250
Some 519
A little 386
None at all 284

66

Table l.--Continued.

 

 

Item Responses
28. Make suggestions on program Operation?
A great deal 486
Some 643
A little 244
None at all 94
29. Help in the evaluation Of the program?
A great deal 415
Some 576
A little 259
None at all 192
Who in the school district and/or the
community gave the information about
compensatory education to the district
advisory committee on which they could
make recommendations? (Check one or
more Of the following)
30. Project director 983
31. Superintendent 277
32. School principal 440
33. Nurse 56
34. Board Of education members 114
35. Community representative 262
36. How helpful has the information given
to you by the school district been to
your district advisory committee in
its recommendations?
Very helpful 644
Somewhat helpful 598
Not helpful 68
I don't know 175
37. How Often have you, as district
advisory committee members, told
your wishes and concerns to the
board Of education and administrators?
Often 412
Sometimes 601
Seldom 235
Not at all 240

67

 

 

Table l.-—Continued.
Item Responses
38. DO you know how many important
recommendations your district
advisory committee has made to
the board Of education?
Many 170
Some 519
Few 240
None 106
I don't know 499
39. How many have been accepted?
All 98
Many 189
Some 437
None 103
I don't know 560
The district advisory committee
was not told how many 64
40. How much has your district advisory
committee been involved in evaluating
the compensatory education program?
A great deal 361
Some 599
A little 317
None at all 200
41. How useful do you think your district
advisory committee has been to the
compensatory education program?
Very useful 525
Somewhat useful 701
Not useful 133
I don't know 145
42. How well does your district advisory
committee represent minority group
parents in your district?
Very well 915
Somewhat 360
Poorly 140
I don't know 87

68

Table l.——Continued.

 

 

Item Responses
43. How well does your district advisory
committee represent different income
levels Of parents in your district?
Very well 706
Somewhat 486
Poorly 161
I don't know 157
44. Compared with other members Of your
district advisory committee, how much
influence do you think you have on
committee decisions?
Much more influence 120
Somewhat more influence 357
About the same influence 827
Somewhat less influence 88
Much less influence 80
45. On district advisory committees,
sometimes there is a member who
gives the whole committee valuable
leadership or direction. Who of
the following most nearly does this?
Superintendent 111
Project director 772
Community representative 196
Parent 134
State department personnel 15
Other 111
46. How would you say the work of the
members Of your district advisory
committee is?
Excellent 130
Quite good 577
Average 460
Fair 148
Quite limited 155
47. Does your district pay expenses for
the members Of the district advisory
committee?
Yes 424
No 927

69

Table l.--Continued.

 

 

Item Responses
If yes, do they pay for any of
the following?
48. Baby sitting
Yes 139
NO 455
49. Mileage
Yes 256
NO 369
50. Attending training workshops/
conferences
Yes 407
NO 266
51. Are you paid back for time lost while
attending meetings and/or conferences?
Yes 135
No 525
52. If there is such a fund, do
you feel it is
TOO much 20
Enough 322
Not enough 263
In general, would you say that your par-
ticipation in the work of your advisory
committee has been a valuable experience
for yourself, for the committee, for the
develOpment of educational policy?
53. Valuable for me personally
A great deal 910
Somewhat 396
A little 115
Not at all 52
54. Valuable for the committee
A great deal 502
Somewhat 645
A little 211
Not at all 52

70

Table l.-—Continued.

 

 

 

 

Item Responses
55. Valuable for the schools
A great deal 655
Somewhat 523
A little 187
Not at all 67
56. Valuable for the community
A great deal 632
Somewhat 523
A little 217
Not at all 68
Please check how much you agree or disagree
with each of the following statements:
57. Considering all problems, advisory
committees are far over-rated with
respect to what they can contribute.
Strongly agree 153
Agree 175
Agree somewhat 454
Disagree 231
Strongly disagree 447
58. Although it would "look nice" to have
more poor peOple on advisory commit—
tees, this does not help us very much.
Strongly agree 173
Agree 141
Agree somewhat 333
Disagree 211
Strongly disagree 601
59. District advisory committees may not
look like they are very important, but
they are really important in our
community.
Strongly agree 605
Agree 413
Agree somewhat 308
Disagree 91
Strongly disagree 73

71

Table l.--Continued.

 

 

 

 

Item Responses
60. District advisory committees are
really "paper committees" which
have little or no influence on
compensatory education programs.
Strongly agree 150
Agree 102
Agree somewhat 327
Disagree 306
Strongly disagree 599
61. School districts usually tell
district advisory committees
what the compensatory education
program will be instead of asking
for their advice.
Strongly agree 241
Agree 171
Agree somewhat 391
Disagree 274
Strongly disagree 364
Administrators Only
What are the problems encountered by the
school district in community involvement
through district advisory committees in
educational decision making?
62. Lack of interest 150
63. Do not have time 119
64. Language difficulty 56
65. Militancy 18
66. Pressure groups 32
67. Afraid to come to school setting 85
68. Difficulty in maintaining continuity
with people moving away 112
69. Misunderstanding of function 76

72

Table l.--Continued.

 

 

Item ReSponses

 

70. Please give your suggestions of how
we can make your district advisory
committee more helpful to the com-
pensatory education program. (This
question was answered by all respon-
dents. See pp. 79-81 for responses.)

71. What promising practices are discovered
by school districts in community
involvement through district advisory
committees? (For summary of responses
see pp. 82—84.)

72. On the basis Of your experiences with
organized district advisory committees,
what practices or ideas have proved to
be most helpful to you? (For summary
Of responses see pp. 84-85.)

 

*Responses to each question do not always total
1,620, since blank responses were encountered in most
questions. The Spanish version of the questionnaire
appears in Appendix D.

The Findings

 

In this section, data pertaining to each question
which the author probed through this study are presented.
Additionally, the responses to certain questions in the ques-
tionnaire given by 25 consultants in the Division of Com—
pensatory Education have been included because of their
relevance to the questions probed by the study.

1. What is the profile Of the advisory committee

 

member?

73

Of the 1,620 advisory committee members respond-
ing to the questionnaire, there were 986 females and 614
males. They ranged in age from under 20 to over 51, with
the overwhelming majority being over 30. The majority of
the respondents lived in the school district for more than
four years. Their education ranged from no school at all
to the Doctorate degree. However, the majority of the
respondents had completed schooling above the 10th grade,
while those holding the Doctorate were the administrators
Of the school districts. Occupationally, the work of com—
mittee members can be categorized as follows, beginning
with the highest frequency: professional, housewife, Office
worker, skilled laborer, farmer, CAP representative, busi-
nessman, retired, political Office holder. Ethnically,
there were about one and one—half times more nonminority
members than minority members on the committees. The
overwhelming majority were fluent in English, with a minority
in Spanish only and others in other languages. The ratio
Of parents of participating children in the program to
nonparents was again one and one-half times more nonparents
than parents. Slightly over 50 per cent of the respondents
were not paid employees of the school district. The major—
ity Of the committee members were recommended to the district
advisory committee by the project director or the school
administrator. Others became members by volunteering their
services, or having been recommended by a community group

or agency. A large number Of the respondents indicated

74

they are serving or have served on two or more educational
and noneducational advisory committees.

2. In communities where ESEA, Title I programs are

 

in Operation, are the district advisory committees duly

 

recognized by governing boards?

 

The overwhelming majority Of the responses (N=l,315)
indicated affirmatively, with only 99 members indicating
that their committees were not duly recognized by the school
district.

3. What is the role of the school district advisory

 

committee in the educational decision-making process?

 

Even though it is evident that there is a consid-
erable variety in the roles Of advisory committees, the
majority of the respondents agreed that they perform the
following functions, from a great deal to some extent:

review Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I

 

guidelines and regulations, advise on kinds Of programs
needed, work on publicity in support of the program, make
suggestions on program Operation, and help in the evalua-
tion Of the programs. A sizeable number of the members
indicated that aside from their regular committee meetings,
they usually participate in meetings at which they report

to groups and individuals, field trips such as visits to
schools and centers, board Of education meetings, and county-
wide advisory committee meetings.

4. Who is responsible for clearly defining the

 

roles Of advisory committees in terms of planning,

 

75

implementing, and evaluating ESEA, Title I compensatory edu-

 

cation programs? How well are these roles understood by

 

committee members?

 

The majority of the respondents characterized the
purposes of their committees as "somewhat clear." A second
large group felt that their purposes were "very clear," and
a small minority felt that the purposes Of their committees
were "not clear." A sizeable number of the respondents
indicated that their advisory committees arrived at their
purposes through a mixture of committee-established goals
and administrator-set Objectives. The second largest group
Of respondents felt their purposes emanated directly from
statements given to them by the administration, and still a
third relatively small group felt their own committees were
responsible alone for establishing their own goals inde-
pendently. But whether the goals were clear or not, when
the respondents were asked how well they thought their com-
mittees were living up to their understood purposes, the
majority responded, "fairly well," with the second largest
group responding "very well," while a small minority responded
"not so well" or "poorly."

5. Who in the school district and/or the community

 

provides the information regarding compensatory education

 

to the district advisory committee on which they could make

recommendations? How helpful is this information to the

 

committee?

 

76

The most frequent sources for information about the
compensatory education program to the committees seem to be
in the following order: 1) the project director, 2) the
school principal, 3) the superintendent, 4) community rep-
resentatives, 5) board Of education members, and 6) the
school nurse. As to the helpfulness of the information
supplied to the committee members regarding the program,
the majority Of the respondents felt the information was
"very helpful" to "somewhat helpful," with only a very small
minority characterizing the information as being "not help—
ful."

6. How well are minority groups and persons from

 

different income levels represented on advisory committees?

The majority of the respondents felt that minority
groups and different income level persons were represented
as either "very well" or "somewhat well" on the advisory
committees. A small minority either did not know or des—
cribed the representation as being "poor."

7. Who usually among the members of the advisory
committee renders valuable leadership functions to the com-
mittee?

The project director appeared to be the person most
likely to render valuable leadership or direction to the
committee. Other sources of leadership which were cited
infrequently were community representatives, parents, super-
intendents, and State Department of Education personnel. A

majority Of the members responding characterized the work of

77

the members Of their advisory committee as being "quite good"
to "average."

8. What is the relationship of the school district

 

to the district advisory committee?

 

The respondents were divided as to whether their
school district usually tells district advisory committees
what the compensatory education program will be or whether
it is earnestly seeking their advice concerning the program.
It is evident that there are different practices in the
various districts represented in the sample. A sizeable
number of respondents felt they have a great deal of freedom
to disagree with the ideas Of the administrators. Only a
small minority felt they have little freedom as committee
members to do so. The majority felt they have Often or at
least sometimes told their wishes and concerns to the board
of education and to the administrators. The majority of the
districts do not pay the expenses Of members of the district
advisory committee. However, those districts which pay
expenses Of their committee members, tend to pay for their
attendance at training workshops and conferences and pay for
mileage.

9. How do the governing board and the administra-
tion communicate acceptance and/or rejection Of recommenda-

tions made by the district advisory committee?

 

Almost one-third of the respondents indicated they
did not know how many important recommendations their dis-

trict advisory committee had made to the board of education.

78

The majority Of the remaining two—thirds did know that their
committee made some important recommendations to the board
Of education. As to their knowledge of how many Of their
recommendations had been accepted by the board Of education,
slightly over one-third of the respondents did not know at
all about the fate Of their recommendations to the board.
However, a large number of the remainder of the respondents
felt they knew that some Of the recommendations had been
accepted by the board.

10. TO what extent are district advisory commit-

 

tees involved in evaluating the compensatory education

 

program? How valuable are they in improving this program?

 

District differences in involving their advisory
committees in evaluating the compensatory education program
were evident in the responses to the questionnaire. Some
persons (N=36l) felt they were involved a great deal in
evaluating the program, whereas 599 were involved to some
degree, 317 others were little involved in the evaluation
process, and still 200 others felt they were not involved
at all in evaluating the program. But when the group was
asked how useful they thought their district advisory com—
mittees had been to the compensatory education program, a
sizeable majority felt they were somewhat useful or very
useful to the program, and only a relatively small minority
felt their committees were not useful. Another small group

did not know how useful they were to the program.

79

11. What are the problems encountered by school

 

districts in eliciting community involvement through advisory

 

committees in the educational decision—making process?

 

The following were given in the order of frequency
as the major problems encountered by school districts in
eliciting community involvement, from the point of view of
the administrators and the program directors: 1) lack of
interested people; 2) many persons, especially poor persons
in the community, do not have the time to devote to the
committee; 3) difficulty in maintaining continuity on the
committee in View of the constant movement of people into
and from the community; 4) misunderstanding of the functions
Of the committee; 5) language difficulty; 6) the conflicting
pressure groups which want to advance their own points of
View; and 7) militancy.

12. How can the advisory committee become more

 

helpful tO the compensatory education program?

 

a. The committees should have more workshops and
arrange for compensatory education representatives to
address the community or parent-teachers association,
because many people do not know what compensatory educa-

tion involves. (97)

b. The committee should work to see that more
parents become involved. (91)
c. The committee should have more to say about how

the program is run and who is employed in the program. (90)

80

d. The school district should make funds available
for committees to work with, as most committees are under-

funded. (40)

e. The committee should hold more effective meet-
ings. (39)
f. The committee should provide more information

to persons Of low income to keep them aware Of what is tak-
ing place in the program; persons Of low income also should
participate in the program, and their views should be
respected. (34)

g. The district should educate the committee mem-
bers on their responsibilities and limitations, and should
encourage committee involvement. (31)

h. The State Department Of Education should provide

a printed program Of suggestions for guidelines. (27)

i. Professionals should provide a great deal of
guidance for the committee. (22)
j. The committee needs more publicity. (19)

k. School districts should pay members as partici-
pants, because they contribute their knowledge and experi-
ence. (l6)

1. The committee should work directly with the
governing board of the school district. (15)

m. The committee should encourage communication
between the parents and the schools. (13)

n. The school district should explain the guide—

lines tO the committee. (12)

81

O. The district should provide a Spanish—speaking
person to communicate with those who need it. (11)

p. The district should provide sufficient time to
plan. Deadlines and limited time can hamper the effective-
ness of personnel. (11)

q. The committee should help give more publicity
about Title I to parents and the community. (10)

r. The committee should have more contact with the
State Department Of Education representatives from Sacra-
mento. (8)

s. The school district should provide more in-
service training for parents. (8)

t. The committee should have more teacher aides on
it, because teacher aides make the best members. (6)

u. The district personnel should use more lay lan—
guage when they make presentations to groups. (5)

v. The committee chairman should inform everyone
of meetings in advance, not on the same day. (4)

w. The school district should recruit concerned
minority project directors for the schools. (3)

x. The committee should have fewer "rubber-
stamp" members. (3)

y. The committee needs parents Of different nation~
alities and with various income levels to serve on it. (3)

z. The school district should send a resume of

programs to the committee. (3)

82

13. What promising practices were discovered by

 

school districts in community involvement through district

 

advisory committees?

 

a. The committee can be the means for trading infor-
mation regarding problems and values between the school and
the parents. Committee members can build mutual respect
between ethnic groups by making home visits and through the
efforts of a human relations subcommittee. (25)

b. The committee improves communication. (18)

c. Some excellent teacher aides (some volunteer
and some paid) may be found through the involvement of those
persons on the advisory committees or through training they
received by advisory committees through workshops. (16)

d. Attendance of committee members at meetings of
the governing board Of the school district is a means Of
expressing the needs of the community and the school to the
officials. (16)

e. School district personnel realize that parents
of children in Title I target area schools really do care
about their children's education and are a valuable resource;
also, they will help if they feel they are needed. (10)

f. Parents seem tO be most useful in the process
Of program implementation, rather than in a discussion of

theory; they prefer to participate in something concrete.

(9)

83

g. Committee members, especially the chairman,
participate in the decision—making process Of the governing
board of the school district. (9)

h. Districts avoid using persons who are members
Of "pressure groups" and who are narrow-minded as members
of advisory committees. (8)

i. Through the committees the districts Offer
adult and bilingual education. (7)

j. Committees hold consumer education and demon-
stration courses on health and nutrition as part of their
meetings. (6)

k. Districts give stipends to parents and send them
to regional meetings. (6)

l. Districts use community aides or liaison workers
(bilingual, if needed) to contact members Of the target com—
munity, school employees, members of the governing board,
and parents. (5)

m. The committee extends a cordial and consistent
invitation to parents to visit the school and to attend
advisory committee meetings, and holds advisory committee
meetings at the school. (4)

n. The committee uses both English and Spanish in
conducting its meetings. (3)

O. The committee holds regular meetings. (3)

p. The committee encourages the celebration of

Mexican holidays by a school Observation. (2)

84

q. The committee enlists the aid and cooperation of
minority leaders who reside in the target areas. (2)

r. Committee members participate in a Title I
showcase. (2)

5. Parents on the committee present a "feedback"
regarding the children's perception Of the school program. (2)

t. Parents Observe the instructional program at
school. (1)

14. On the basis of the administrators' experi-

 

ence with organized district advisory committees, what

 

practices or ideas have proved to be most helpful to them?

 

a. Let parents talk and give them a free hand to
make suggestions and actively participate in decision making
through better communication and open discussions. (38)

b. Keep parents informed through workshops,
reports, inservice training, explanations Of how programs
function, and participation in training sessions with dis-
trict advisory committee group. (26)

c. Encourage community involvement and partici-
pation. (16)

d. Listen to parents. (11)

e. Have the committee hold informal meetings,
including Mexican-American ethnic social entertainment,
educational programs, and meetings in parents' homes. (10)

f. Have parents visit programs in action. (8)

g. Make home visits and phone calls, establishing

personal contacts to let people know they are needed. (7)

85

h. Have community aides or workers and teacher

aides on the committee. (7)

i. Help the committee define and establish its
goals. (6)
j. Have small group discussions. (5)

k. Select members with ability and willingness to
work and take an active part. (5)
1. Use Spanish-speaking counselors and leaders. (5)

m. Meet parents on an equal basis. (4)

n. Have agendas (structure the meetings). (4)
0. Use honesty as a guide. (4)
p. Have advisory committees serve as liaisons to

parent-teachers association and other community groups. (4)

q. Provide transportation, babysitting, and other
services for committee members. (3)

r. Have advisory committees meet jointly with par-
ents and teachers to coordinate student activities and so
on. (3)

5. Let advisory committee members attend meetings
Of the governing board of the school district and make
recommendations. (3)

t. Implement the committee's recommendations. (2)

u. Let advisory committees place priorities for

establishing the project budget. (2)

86

Consultants' Responses

 

On the basis of the responses of 25 consultants
in the Division Of Compensatory Education, California State
Department Of Education, to a brief version of the ques-
tionnaire, a summation of the findings is presented below:

The majority Of the consultants in the Division of
Compensatory Education who responded to the questionnaire
felt that: (l) advisory committee members have little
freedom to disagree with the ideas Of administrators;
(2) the committee recommendations made a little or some
impact on compensatory education programs; (3) the goals of
advisory committees are not clearly understood; (4) these
goals are usually arrived at by joint committee—administration
efforts; (5) advisory committees have not lived up to their
stated goals; (6) committees' roles include only little
reviewing Of guidelines, little advice on needed programs,
little work on publicity, a minor part in making suggestions
on program Operation, and little or no help in evaluating
the program; (7) the project director is the main source Of
information regarding the program; and (8) participation in
the work Of the committee is a valuable experience to the
participant.

The consultants were also asked to respond to some
Open—end questions. The questions and the most frequently

given responses are summarized as follows:

87

1. Please comment on howyyou see the job of the

 

advisory committee member. DO you have any suggestions on

 

how the Operations and functioning Of these advisory groups

 

could be made more effective?

 

a. More inservice training is needed for most
advisory committee members.

b. Committee is largely a "rubber stamp" for dis-
trict administrators. There needs to be more involvement
Of the committee in the compensatory education program and
a clearer identification Of the role of the advisory com-
mittee.

c. As consultants in the State Department of Educa-
tion, we should be helping to develop the compensatory edu-
cation programs in the schools and generally following the
activities Of these programs.

d. All advisory committees should have lay chairmen.

e. Several important roles can be played by the
advisory committees. The apprOpriate role is determined
largely by the reaction Of the school personnel to the
involvement of the community group.

f. Unless the schools elicit valid advisory pro-
cedures, the job Of the committee member is only that Of
appearing at a meeting. Schools must meafl_that they want
advice.

9. The committee chairman should attend all meet-

ings of the governing board of the school district. All

88

pertinent board questions from the board should be addressed
to the chairman Of the advisory committee. Chairman should
be at parent advisory committee meetings. Copy Of all
addenda letters should be sent to chairman.

h. The committee members should take part in
assessing the needs of the participating pupils and the
program, defining the program goals and Objectives, and
evaluating the results. TO do the preceding requires exten-
sive training for parents and other members Of communities
that have low incomes.

i. hThe job of the advisory committee member should
be to advise the district and to work with the district per—
sonnel to reflect the concerns Of the community. In turn,
the committee should work with the community in understand-
ing the position Of the district.

j. Committee members could possibly be more effec-
tive in working as a team with individual school staff mem-
bers in planning, implementing, and evaluating the compen-
satory education project.

k. Committee members should have more knowledge
about ESEA, Title I, and about the role they are to fulfill.

l. The school district should provide Official
recognition, high quality professional leadership, and

information to the committee.

89

2. What are the problems encountered by the school

 

district in community involvement through district advisory

 

committees in educational decision making?

 

a. School personnel are largely unskilled in the
techniques of community involvement. Community involvement
through district advisory committees is a whole new way of
operation for school districts.

b. Advisory committees are not given enough power
by the districts.

c. Many advisory committee members have a lack Of
interest because school districts have not given the com-
mittees the needed status.

d. A major problem appears to be a lack of belief
on the part of school personnel in the right and responsi—
bility Of the community to help decide its destiny. In
addition, the districts do not seem to accept the value and
need for the input of the community advisory group, and they
lack commitment to share the decision—making responsibility
with the community being served by compensatory education.

e. School districts are developing problems by
being negative and not really involving the communities.

f. School district personnel lack understanding
with regard to the actual role, responsibilities, and duties
of the committee.

g. The advisory committee often attempts to deal in

areas that are reserved for the governing board and for the

90

school district administration. This is due to a lack Of
clearly defined roles.

h. Parents Often do not have the time or the money
they need to serve on advisory committees. Many parents
need baby sitting and transportation in order to participate.
Many parents do not have the background or vocabulary needed
to understand the material presented by the districts.

3. DO you know Of any promising practices which

 

have been discovered by school districts in community involve-

 

ment through district advisory committees?

 

a. The few districts that have earnestly developed
parent advisory committees and have made all Of the staff
members aware of the need for teamwork among all concerned
have found the committees to be the most exciting idea
around.

b. The establishment Of parent and community organ-
izations to support and strengthen advisory committees
influences school administrators to take advisory committee
recommendations seriously.

c. By sincerely listening to the concerns expressed
by the community through parent advisory members, the school
district keeps an Open channel Of communication with parent
advisory groups.

d. Parents should participate in monitoring and
evaluating the compensatory education program; community-

staff program task forces for the same purpose can be used.

91

e. There should be ongoing inservice programs for
advisory committee members.

f. Inservice training workshops for committee mem-
bers are helpful.

g. School districts have found it helpful to trans-
late bulletins and announcements into Spanish and to use
community aides to work with the community.

h. The consultants indicated several promising
practices in specific school districts, such as those in
Oakland and San Diego.

The Oakland Unified School

District Parent Advisory
Organization

 

 

 

Each target school principal called a mass meeting
Of parents of participating children. (Oakland target
schools are saturated; that is, all children in the school
participate in Title I.) The parents elected members Of the
target school parent advisory groups. The number to be
selected was determined by the school district, based upon
the enrollment Of the school, and the number of partici-
pants. Target school parent advisory groups meet monthly.
They elect their chairman, secretary, and representatives
to the school district advisory committee. The district
committee includes representatives of the district, commu-
nity organizations, nonpublic schools, and parents.

Members Of the school district attend board meet—

ings, and the board and district administration has been

92

responsive to the recommendations Of the committee. The
district employs an assistant for parent involvement on the
compensatory education Office staff. In addition, there are
community teachers and/or community workers (aides) in each
target school.

The district holds periodic workshops for parent
advisory groups and district advisory committee members.
A parent involvement workshop and awareness package was held
on April 23, 1970. A leadership training workshop was held
on four consecutive Saturdays in June and July, 1970. This
series of meetings for parent leaders, including target
school parent advisory groups and the school district advi-
sory committee, had the objective Of providing information
about the school district Operation, its instructional pro—
gram, and the various functions related to ESEA, Title I.
The Oakland Unified School District has been sincere and
zealous in involving parents of participating children in
the planning and evaluation Of ESEA, Title I programs.

The San Diego City School
District Advisory Committees

 

 

District advisory committee and parent advisory
groups Of the San Diego City School District, Secondary
Education Division, have the following structure:

1. Membership Of parent advisory groups, such as
at the Gompers Junior High School, is 100 per cent from

parents of participating youngsters.

93

2. A community relations advisor is hired for each
school to perform school—community liaison functions, and
works directly under the principal and with the parent
advisory group.

3. Members for advisory groups are selected on a
democratic basis, handled by the community relations advisor,
who carries out extensive recruiting programs.

4. Parent advisory groups, in addition to partici-
pating in the planning Of their ESEA, Title I project and
reviewing its budget, are also given full control Of their
own Operating budget.

5. Each parent advisory group democratically selects
two members, who represent their group in the district advi—
sory committee.

6. Inservice education for all members and other
interested parents and community representatives is an
ongoing activity within the San Diego City Schools. This
enables members to perform their duties mOre effectively.

The Community and Staff DevelOp-
ment Summer Program, ESEA, Title

I, Los Angeles Unified School
District 1970, pp. iv-v

 

 

 

 

The Community and Staff Development Summer Program,
ESEA, Title I, is a unique project developed under the
direction Of the Office Of Urban Affairs of the Los
Angeles Unified School District. The program was aimed
at providing an effective inservice training program
for the following personnel concerned with compensatory
education programs: local school advisory group members
(parents); Advisory Committees A, B, and C; target
school administrators; target school classified

94

personnel; target school teachers; district staff and
administrators. The idea for the program was born with
the 1970 spring release of additional federal funds for
Title I projects.

Twenty—one two—week workshops were held between
July 20 and August 28, 1970. There were over 4,000
workshop participants. Morning, afternoon, and evening
sessions were held at school sites within the target
area. The staff included the Director; 4 Assistant
Directors; 9 representatives from Citizens' Compensatory
Education Advisory Committees A, B, and C; 57 workshOp
leaders (certificated personnel); and 57 workshop co—
leaders (community representatives).

Program Objectives were selected by the DevelOpment
staff with a plan for comprehensive evaluation. Work-
shop content covered information related to the phil-
osophy, procedures, organization, and financing Of
Title I program materials. Content also included mater-
ial designed to help Title I teachers and advisory
council members become more effective in their respective
roles through increased understanding. Speakers, films,
recordings, and tapes were used, followed by small group

discussions. Translators and Spanish-speaking small
groups were used in East Los Angeles.
Evaluation included use of three instruments: an

attitude inventory, a factual test, and a participant-
staff Open-ended questionnaire. In addition, the staff
met for a full day to critique the program, and detailed
evaluations were written by the Director and Assistant
Directors. Evaluation of semantic differential test
scores showed that community participants made positive
gains in all areas but three and teachers made positive
gains in all areas but one. Written evaluations by
staff and participants indicated an extremely positive
response toward the total project.

Problems were related to lack of leadtime, lack Of
support staff, and administrative details. The staff
recommendation is that the program be expanded and serve
as a model for Title I programs throughout the State and
country.

Analysis of the Findings

 

Certain hypotheses have been presented in this study.
Essentially, an attempt was made to test the difference
between respondents, and to determine whether particular

variables were associated with certain characteristics of

95

these respondents. For this attempt, the chi-square was
used. Furthermore, in order to determine the degree Of
association, the coefficient of contingency (C) was utilized.
Values Of the contingency coefficient, C= fi%§7 are not com-
parable across data tables Of different dimensions (e.g., 2x3
tables versus 4x5 tables), so the reader is cautioned against
comparing the relative magnitude Of contingency coefficients
derived from tables of different dimensions.

Table 2 highlights the differences between committee
member groups in terms of selected questionnaire items giving
the exact chi-square and significance levels. On the basis
Of the data, the null hypotheses of no relationship between
particular variables and certain characteristics of the
respondent were rejected. The following hypotheses, there-
fore, were consistent with the findings of this study:

1. District advisory committee members 30 years of
age or younger are more skeptical Of the value Of district
advisory committees in compensatory education. This age
group is more skeptical of what the committee can do and
Of the motives of the district board Of education in having
such committees.

2. Frequency Of district advisory committee atten—
dance is associated with payment Of members' expenses in
attending such meetings, knowledge Of whether the district
board Of education has accepted or rejected committee recom—

mendations, effective communication between the board and

96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoo.vm Ho.vm mo.vm .m.z Hoo.vm Hoo.vm
ommm.m~n~x cwoo.~anmx hmqm.mu~x mmma.omu~x memm.v~umx aw
Hoo.vm Hoo.vm Ho.vm mo.vm mo.vm Hoo.vm Hoo.vm
vwmo.mmu~x -mm.amu~x moam.~an~x mcmm.hu~x Hmme.mu~x memm.h~u~x mqho.mmu~x av
Hoo.vm Hoo.vm
~man.m~u~x Hmmm.mmn~x oe
Hoo.vm Hoo.vm Hoo.vm Hoo.vm Hoo.vm
mmmm.ovan~x momm.mmmu~x woem.hmumx ~vma.whu~x oomm.omu~x mm
Hoo.vm . .
vwwo.mmumx m 2 mm
Hoo.vm Hoo.vm Hoo.vm
«www.mwnmx waam.amu~x mmvv.hvu~x om
No.vm
wvv.oaumx «m
Hoo.vm
nmvn.m>umx mm
Hoo.vm Hoo.vm .m.z Hoo.vm mo.vd Ho.vm mo.vm
Hmmv.omnmx woam.amau~x awwm.vmumx moam.mnmx manv.maumx mamm.mu~x om
Hoo.vm Hoo.vm mo.vm aoo.vm Hoo.vm
«Hmv.oau~x anno.mmu~x mmmm.mn~x momv.m¢umx mnmm.m¢n~x ma
Ho.vm
mmmm.maumx NH
Hoo.vm Hoo.vm Hoo.vm
hmmm.m~umx ~vmm.vmumx oomm.mmnmx Ha
acauamom oucmocouud >ua0acnum ommsmcmq oumom xm mod xom uoauumao Emumoum cw Monssz
m>wumuu coHuficmooom CH cmuoHHnu wmcommom
nmwcaso< mouuHEEOo ucoE>OHQEm mca>mm

 

s.mmanmfluo> Oawaowam one momcoommu cflouumo com3umn

COHDOAOOmm411.N manna

.ooummu on on moanowuo> mo muwom omosu ooumuoao xosum on» :w umwaumw ooumum mmmozuoaxn one .mwanowum>

no muwma coo3uon me:mG0w¢Maou unoowwwcmwm waaoowumfiuoum mo mocomoum on» wuocoo mo.vm owDOAOOmmm cm can osao> Nx co

mcfiuuomou maaou .omwoaum and: van» meanneum> mo muwom on» coozumn OGDOM mm3 canmCOADMHmu DCMUAMMGOAO 0: ans» muoowoCH
.m.z ooxuos mHHmU .ooummflumo>ca no: ouo3 sown: moanowum> no muamm convene“ manna o>onm can cw mHHwo xcmamc

£97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoo.va .m.z Hoo.vm .m.z Hoo.vm .m.z .m.z Hoo.va ~o.vm
mowo.h~u~x mmqm.moau~x oom~.moau~x mmmh.-u~x ammo.mau~x He
mo.vm Hoo.vm Hoo.vm Ho.va Hoo.va . . . . . . . .
mmm~.aau~x mvmo.~mu~x Hmea.a-n~x mvmm.eau~x Hobo.meu~x m z m z m z m 2 cm
Hoo.vm .m.z Hoo.vm ~o.va Hoo.vm Ho.va Hoo.vm Ho.vm Hoo.vm
nnmm.~¢u~x ~omo.mamu~x mmmH.~Hu~x «omm.mau~x mess.oau~x mmoo.v~u~x «mos.¢au~x mooq.meu~x mm
. . . . Hoo.vm Ho.va . . . . Ho.va . . . .
m z m z mmme.e-u~x mmem.vau~x m z m z qhvm.mflu~x m z m 2 mm
. . mo.va Hoo.vm mo.vm Ho.va . . . . Ho.vm . .
m z vmoa.aau~x mmmfl.mmau~x ness.~an~x .mamv.vau~x m z m z ~mmm.ean~x m 2 Am
mo.va Hoo.vm ~o.va .m.z Ho.vm Hoo.vm
mmom.mn~x oe~a.mmu~x momv.oau~x nomm.¢au~x cmme.qmu~x om
Ho.vm Hoo.vm .m.z Ho.va Hoo.vm Hoo.vm
e-p.mau~x mHo~.omu~x mam».~anmx mmov.eau~x maes.-u~x mm
~o.va Hoo.va No.va .m.z mo.vm Hoo.va
Nemm.mu~x mmma.¢aau~x ~mMH.HHu~x empm.mu~x Nemm.m~u~x em
Hoo.va . Ho.va .m.z mo.va mo.va Hoo.va
Home.m~n~x mmmo.mauwx meoo.mu~x mmmm.mu~x ~man.¢ou~x mm
.m.z , Ho.va Ho.va
mamp.~au~x naaa.~au~x as
Hoo.va .m.z Hoo.va
mH~H.mmHu~x ¢~v¢.mmu~x «a
Hoo.vm . . . . . . Hoo.va Hoo.vm
omma.m~u~x m z m z m z mamm.m~u~x mmmm.o~u~x me
c0wuwmom cocoocouu< >uflowc£um ommsocoq oumom xm med xmm uowuumflo Emumoum :a quEdz
o>wumuu acauwcmooom Ca :oHonno uncommom
Imwcaaod omuuafieoo unmeaoHoEm ocw>mm

 

.omscflucoonl.m OHQMB

98

the district advisory committee, how a member feels about
the committee's functions and importance, and with recogni-
tion of the committee by the district board Of education.

3. The feeling Of the district advisory committee
members that they have made important recommendations is
associated with their knowledge of how many of their recom-
mendations were accepted by the school district.

4. Knowledge Of what the school district has done
with the committee's recommendations is associated with:

a. adequacy Of communication between school dis-

trict and the committee,

b. increased attendance at committee meetings, and

c. a better feeling about the value of the com-

mittee.

5. District advisory committee members who have
children in the compensatory education program, respondents
to the Spanish version Of the questionnaire, and minority
(ethnic or racial) members feel strongly about the value of
the district advisory committees to their own communities.

6. Respondents utilizing the Spanish questionnaire
and respondents from minority ethnic or racial groups feel
more strongly about the value Of having minority and low-
income persons on district advisory committees than non-
Spanish respondents and non-minority group members.

7. Administrators feel that they have more influ-

ence than others in committee deliberations.

99

Responses Associated With
the Parent Variable

 

 

There were significant differences between parent
committee members (i.e., those who have participating chil-
dren in the program) and nonparent members (i.e., those who
do not have children in the program) in their responses to
several items in the questionnaire. (See Table 2 for exact
sums of chi—squares and levels of confidence, and for further
and closer examination of the differences see Appendix G.)
The following are found to be associated with the parent-
nonparent characteristic:

1. Significantly more parents felt that the advisory
committee was important in their communities (C=.2024l),
that they derive a personal value from participating in the
committee (C=.2063), and that their participation in the com—
mittee has been valuable for the community (C=.1542).

2. Significantly more nonparents felt that school
districts usually tell committees about the program instead

Of seeking their advice (C=.0948), that they had less freedom

 

l(C)=coefficient Of contingency. McNemar (1965,
p. 200) cautioned that "This strength Of association is not
to be interpreted as indicating the same degree of relation-
ship as an ordinary (biserial or tetrachoric) coefficient Of
the same magnitude. . . the exact upper limits for rectangu-
lar tables, such as two by three, two by four, three by four
are unknown." The number of categories in this study from
which C has been taken ranges from two by three to two by six.
Guilford (1965, p. 339) indicated that the maximal values
attainable for a coefficient Of contingency from a two by two
table is .707, from a three by three table is .816, and from
a four by four table is .866.

100

to differ with the ideas of school administrators (C=.l670),
that the committee was useful to the compensatory education
program (C=.1382), that the committee's recommendations had
an impact on the compensatory education program (C=.0774),
that some or many of their committee's recommendations were
accepted by the school district (C=.1442), that the committee
was representative of minority parents (C=.1280), that the
committee was representative of different economic levels
(C=.1153), and that their participation in the committee was
valuable for the schools (C=.1256).

Responses Associated With the
Employee-Nonemployee Variable

 

 

Significant differences were found between the
responses Of school employee members and nonemployee members.
The following responses were associated with the employee-
nonemployee characteristic.

1. Significantly more committee members who were
paid employees of the school district expressed satisfaction
with the number Of committee meetings (C=.0932), had the
freedom to disagree with the ideas of school administrators
(C=.1726), felt that the school district accepted some or
many of the recommendations Of their committee (C=.2242),
felt that the recommendations of their committee had an
impact on the compensatory education program (C=.0921), felt
that the committee had an influence on the compensatory

education program (C=.1337), felt that the committee was

101

representative Of minority parents (C=.1303), that the com-
mittee was representative of different income levels
(C=.1296), that their own participation in the committee
was helpful to the deliberations Of the committee (C=.0774),
that being on the committee was helpful to the schools
(C=.1063), that participating in the committee was valuable
to the community (C=.0989), and that the committee is over-
rated as tO what it can do (C=.0989).

2. Significantly more members Of the committee who
were not employees Of the school district felt that being

on the committee was a valuable personal experience

(C .0754), that the committee was important to the community

(C .0984), and that school districts tell committees about

the program instead of asking for their advice (C=.1371).

Responses Associated With
Male and Female Variable

 

 

Significant differences were found between the
responses of males and females. More females felt that the
committee was really important (C=.1240), and that having
more poor people on the committee would be helpful to the
committee (C=.1009). There were no differences associated
in the group's responses to other items.

Responses Associated
With Age Differences

 

 

Significant differences were found in the responses

of the committee members who were above 30 years of age and

102

those who were 30 or younger. The following responses were
associated with age differences:

Significantly more committee members who were over
30 years Of age felt that their participation in the work
of the committee has been helpful to the schools (C=.0927),
that they had freedom to Object to the ideas of administra-
tors (C=.0793), that the committees' recommendations made a
difference in the compensatory education program (C=.0806),
that more of the committees' decisions had been accepted
by the school district (C=.l352), that the advisory commit-
tee is an important committee (C=.1039), that their partici-
pation in the work of the committee was personally valuable
(C=.0728), and that the committee in general was useful to
the compensatory education program (C=.0734).
Responses Associated With the

Committee Recognition-
Nonrecognition Variable

 

 

 

Significant differences were found between members
whose committees were recognized by the school board and
those members whose committees were not recognized. Sig-
nificantly more members whose committees were recognized by
the board Of education felt that their committees' recom-
mendations made a definite difference in the compensatory
education program (C=.2397), that their committees were not
overrated in terms of what they can do (C=.1014), that their
committees were really important in their communities

(C=.1l61), that their committees were not paper committees

103

(C=.2251), and disagreed with the notion that school dis-
tricts tell the committees about the program rather than

seek their advice (C=.2653).

Responses Associated With
Language Differences

 

 

Of the 1,620 respondents to the questionnaire, 47
chose tO respond to the Spanish version of the questionnaire,
whereas 1,573 responded in English. There were significant
differences between these two groups in their responses to
selected items Of the questionnaire. Significantly more
respondents to the Spanish version of the questionnaire
felt that committee members had less freedom to disagree
with the ideas of the administrators (C=.1260), that the
committee was useful to the compensatory education program
(C=.0704), that the committee was representative Of minority
parents (C=.0774), that the committee was representative Of
the various income levels Of parents (C=.0933), that their
participation in the committee was valuable for the commu—
nity (C=.0871), that their participation in the committee
was also valuable for the community (C=.0836), that the
committee is important to the community (C=.0888), dis-
agreed with the notion that the committee is far overrated
with respect to what it can contribute (C=.0927), and also
disagreed with the notion that advisory committees are only

paper committees (C=.0979).

104

Responses Associated With
Ethnic Differences

 

 

There were 569 respondents who identified themselves
as members of the minority and 891 respondents who indicated
that they were members Of the majority. There were signifi-
cant differences in the responses of the two groups. The
following responses were found to be associated with the
ethnic characteristics Of the respondents:

1. Significantly more minority respondents felt
that the committee is useful to the compensatory education
program (C=.0942), and that it represents minority parents
(C=.0933); they felt that being a member Of the committee
was valuable for them personally (C=.0958), was valuable for
the committee (C=.2790), was helpful for the schools
(C=.1468), and was useful for the community (C=.2094). They
agreed with the notion that the committee is important in
their communities (C=.4250).

2. Significantly more nonminority respondents felt
that they had freedom to disagree with the ideas of adminis—
trators (C=.1092), that their recommendations made a differ-
ence in the compensatory education program (C=.3031), that
the information given to them by the school district was
useful (C=.l803), that their recommendations, at least in
part, have been accepted by the school board (C=.4414), that
their committee has been involved in evaluating the compen-
satory education program (C=.2430). They agreed with the

idea that the committee is overrated (C=.3510), and that

105

having more poor people on the committee does help (C=.3743);
they disagreed with the notion that the advisory committee

is a paper committee (C=.3679), and with the notion that
school districts tell committees about the program instead
of seeking their advice (C=.2664).

Responses Associated With
Attendance Differences

 

 

There were significant differences between members
who have not attended a committee meeting or who have
attended only once and those members who have attended two
or more meetings. The following responses were associated
with the attendance variable:

More members who have attended two or more meetings
felt disagreement with the notion that the committee is over-
rated (C=.0860), agreement with the notion that having poor
persons on the committee does help the work of the committee
(C=.0848), disagreement with the notion that advisory com-
mittees are paper committees (C=.l438), that their committees
were recognized by the board of education (C=.2397), that
the information given to their committee by the school dis-
trict was helpful (C=.l428), that their advisory committees
were useful to the compensatory education program (C=.l476),
and that the work of committee members has been very ade—

quate (C=.09l6).

106

Responses Associated With the
Administrative Position Variable

 

 

There were significant differences between adminis-
trators and nonadministrators. The following responses
were associated with the administrative position variable:

1. Significantly more administrators attended two
or more committee meetings (C=.1379), felt that the com—
mittees' recommendations made a difference in the compen—
satory education program (C=.ll80), that the purpose of the
committee was arrived at by a mixture of committee and
administrative efforts (C=.2237), that the committee lived
up to its understood purposes (C=.0840), that the informa~
tion given to the committee by the school district was help-
ful (C=.1257), that the committee made some or many impor-
tant recommendations to the school board (C=.l926), that
the committee has been involved in the evaluation of com—
pensatory education (C=.l404), that the committee was use—
ful to the compensatory education program (C=.1377), that
the committee represents minority groups (C=.1285), that
the committee represents different income levels (C=.1281),
that they as administrators have more influence in the com—
mittee (C=.3088), that their involvement in the committee
was valuable for the committee (C=.0835), that this involve-
ment was also beneficial for the schools (C=.0974), that
their work in the committee was valuable for the community
(C=.O827), and that they disagree with the idea that advi-

sory committees are paper committees (C=.0869).

107

2. Significantly more nonadministrators (about
40 per cent) felt that they did not know how many of their
recommendations were accepted by the school board (C=.2972),
that their involvement in the work of the committee was
personally valuable (C=.1260), and that the committee is
important in their own communities (C=.l666), and that they
agree with the notion that school districts tell committees
about the program instead of seeking their advice (C=.l373).

Responses Associated With
Clarity of Objectives

 

 

There were significant differences between the
respondents who felt that their committees had clear or
somewhat clear objectives and those respondents who felt
that their committees had no such clear objectives. The
evidence indicates that clarity of objectives is correlated
with increased attendance (C=.0836), with a feeling that
the committee has lived up to its objectives (C=.4488),
and with the feeling that the objectives were either set
up by the committee itself or by the committee and the
administrators together. Conversely, those members who
felt that their committee had no clear objectives tended
to have less attendance, a feeling that the committee did
not live up to its task, and tended to feel that the goals
of the committee, whatever they may be, were handed down

to the committee by the administration.

108

Based on these findings, the null hypothesis of
no difference among various groups in their responses was
rejected and the conclusions and recommendations presented

in Chapter V were formulated.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,

IMPLICATIONS AND REFLECTIONS

Summary
This study probed the role of school district advi-
sory committees in the educational decision-making process
related to compensatory education programs in California.

These programs are funded under the Elementary and Secondary

 

Education Act of 1965, Title I, Public Law 89—10 for educa—

 

tionally disadvantaged children of low—income families.
Advisory committees constitute a major vehicle for parent
and community involvement in compensatory education in
California.

To accomplish the purpose of the study, specific
questions and hypotheses were posed and relevant data were
sought. The questions explored were as follows:

1. What is the profile of the advisory committee
member?

2. In communities where ESEA, Title I programs are
in operation, are the district advisory committees duly

recognized by governing boards?

109

110

3. What is the role of district advisory committees
in the educational decision—making process of ESEA, Title I
programs for disadvantaged children in California?

4. Who is responsible for defining the roles of
advisory committees in terms of planning, implementing, and
evaluating ESEA, Title I compensatory education programs?
How well are these roles understood by committee members?

5. Who in the school district and/or the community
provides information regarding compensatory education to
the district advisory committee on which they could make
recommendations? How helpful is this information to com—
mittee members?

6. How well are minority groups and persons from
different income levels represented on advisory committees?

7. Who usually among the members of the advisory
committee renders valuable leadership functions in commit-
tee deliberations?

8. What is the relationship of the school district
to the district advisory committee? Is it to tell the com-
mittee what the program will be or is it to seek their
advice on how the program should be?

9. How well do the governing board and the admin-
istration communicate acceptance and/or rejection of recom-
mendations made by the district advisory committees?

10. What procedures, if any, are established for

district advisory committees to follow up implementation

111

of recommendations made for ongoing evaluation and further
input?

ll. To what extent are district advisory committees
involved in evaluating the compensatory education programs?
How valuable are they in improving this program?

12. What promising practices were discovered by
school districts in community involvement through district
advisory committees?

13. What are the problems encountered by school
districts in eliciting community involvement through advi—
sory committees in the educational decision—making process?

The basic hypothesis of this study was that the
opinions and perceptions of advisory committee members are
associated with certain specific characteristics of these
members, such as (a) having children participating in the
program, (b) being an employee of the district, (c) sex,

(d) age, (e) committee being recognized by the board,
(f) language, (g) ethnicity, (h) rate of committee meeting
attendance, and (i) being a school administrator.

The population of the study consisted of 430 dis-
trict advisory committees in California relevant to Elemen—

tary and Secondary Education Act, Title I, Public Law

 

89-10, compensatory education programs.
A random selected sample was used for this study.
It consisted of 186 district advisory committees which

represented programs in 234 of California's school districts

112

during fiscal year 1970. These districts were located in
43 of the 58 counties in the State. Another sample used

in this study consisted of all of the 50 consultants, at
the time of the study, employed in the California State
Department of Education, Division of Compensatory Education.

The data were gathered from responses by district
advisory committee members to the 74 items contained in a
questionnaire specifically designed in English and Spanish
for this study. The respondents included representation
from parents of participating children, community repre-
sentatives, school district staffs, and the consultants in
the Division of Compensatory Education. The questionnaire
used was designed to elicit personal information about the
respondents. Additionally, it elicited the perception of
the respondents of the objectives, activities, and func-
tions of their district advisory committees, as well as
their personal perspective on a variety of issues related
to the committees.

The data from the questionnaires were tabulated
through a computer at Sacramento State College. The chi-
square test was used to answer the question whether varia-
tions in the responses were associated with certain
characteristics of the respondents. Furthermore, to deter—
mine the degree of association between a certain response
and a particular characteristic, the coefficient of con-

tingency (C) was used.

113

Conclusions

 

On the basis of the data gathered for this study,
and as presented in the findings in Chapter IV, the fol—
lowing conclusions are justified:

l. The representation of minority and ethnic
groups versus the majority group in district advisory com-
mittees in California was approximately on a 1:2 ratio.
Parents of participaging children versus nonparents was
also approximately on a 1:2 ratio.

2. Minority group parents were evidently repre-
sented "very well" to "somewhat well" in district advisory
committees. As for the representation of different income
levels of members, it was judged to be adequate but not as
good as the representation of minority groups.

3. An overwhelming number of the district advi-
sory committees in California are recognized by the govern—
ing boards of their districts. Members whose committees
are duly recognized by the governing board seem to have a
better feeling about themselves, their work in the com-
mittee, and the importance of their committee to their com-
munity.

4. Most district advisory committees in California
have established purposes. However, these purposes range
from "somewhat clear" to "very clear." The clarity of

committee objectives was found to be associated with

114

increased attendance at committee meetings and with the
manner by which the objectives were determined.

5. The ESEA, Title I compensatory education pro-
gram director and the school principal, in that order, are
the most important sources of information regarding com—
pensatory education programs to the district advisory com-
mittee. The information given to the members of the
advisory committee regarding the program was seen by an
overwhelming majority as "somewhat helpful" to "very help-
ful."

6. There is no single pattern of communication
between school districts and their advisory committees.
While some school districts were content to inform advi-
sory committees of what the ESEA, Title I compensatory
education will be, others sought the advice of these com—
mittees. The data clearly point out, however, that more
committee members who were not administrators agreed that
school districts usually tell their committees what the
program is going to be instead of honestly seeking their
advice.

7. Even though the majority of the advisory com-
mittee members felt some or a great deal of freedom to
disagree with the ideas of the administrators in the meet—
ings, it is interesting to note that respondents to the
questionnaire in Spanish, non—school employed committee

members, and minority group committee members felt

llS

significantly less freedom to disagree with the ideas of

the administrators. Knowledge of whether the district has
accepted any of the recommendations made to it by the advi—
sory committee seems to vary from one district to another.
However, the data indicate that over one—third of the respon—
dents and 40 per cent of nonadministrative members had no
knowledge at all of how many of their important recommen—
dations, if any, were accepted by their school districts.

8. The majority of the district advisory commit—
tees have been involved in evaluating the compensatory
education program.

9. Advisory committee members who are 30 years of
age and younger are more skeptical of the committee's value,
what it can do, and of the motives of the board of educa—
tion in having such a committee.

10. Frequency of advisory committee meeting atten-
dance was found to be associated with payment of members'
expenses in attending such meetings, knowledge of whether
the school board has accepted or rejected advisory commit-
tee recommendations, effective communication between the
school board and the school district advisory committee,
how a member feels about the committee's functions and
importance, and with recognition of the committee by the
board of education.

11. The feeling of the members of the advisory com-

mittee that they have made important recommendations was

116

associated with their knowledge of how many of their recom-
mendations were accepted by the school district.
12. Knowledge of what the school district has done
with the committee's recommendations was associated with:
a. adequacy of communication between school dis-

tricts and the committee,

b. increased attendance at committee meetings, and

c. a better feeling about the worth of the com—
mittee.

13. Members who have children in the program,

respondents to the Spanish version of the questionnaire, and
minority group members felt strongly about the value of
their committees to their own communities.

14. Spanish respondents and minority group mem-
bers felt more strongly about the value of having minority
group and low—income persons on the committee than non-
Spanish and non—minority group members.

15. More administrator members felt that they had
more influence than others in committee deliberations.

16. The majority of the consultants in the Division
of Compensatory Education, California State Department of
Education, felt that if advisory committees are to contrib—
ute meaningfully to the compensatory education program,
school districts must show their commitment to the right

of the community to share in the educational decision—making

117

process by earnestly seeking and implementing the advice

of these district advisory committees.

Recommendations

 

The findings and conclusions of this study suggest
the following recommendations as helpful in the involvement
of low-income parents of participating children and commu-
nity representatives in the educational decision—making
process of compensatory education programs through district
advisory committees:

1. School boards should establish or reiterate
their commitment to the right and responsibility of the
community, especially low—income parents, to help decide
their destiny and determine the nature of educational pro-
grams for their children by fully recognizing their dis-
trict advisory committees as needed and legitimate partners
in the local educational enterprise.

2. The roles and functions of the district advi-
sory committees should be clearly delineated and defined
jointly by the members of the district advisory committee
and members of the school board of education or their
designees. The distinction between advising and policy
making must be made explicitly clear to the committee, but
committees should not be made a "rubber stamp" for the
decisions of school district administrators. An atmos-

phere of honesty and mutual trust must be created in order

118

for district advisory committees to function in the most
beneficial manner. As one respondent stated, "Unless

schools elicit valid advisory procedures, the job is only
appearing at a meeting. Schools must mean they want advice."

3. Recommendations made by the district advisory

committee to the policy-making body, the governing board
of education, should be studied and taken very seriously.
The board should communicate the result of studying these
recommendations promptly to the district advisory committee.

4. In order for the district advisory committee

to share effectively in assessing the needs of the school
children, in setting goals and objectives for educational
programs which affect their children and in evaluating the
results of these programs, the members of district advisory
committees must be provided preservice and inservice train—
ing related to the tasks of the committee. This can best
be accomplished through the use of well-qualified consul—
tants or trained School district personnel. Fantini (1970,
p. 73) correctly pointed out that:

Skeptics who concede the right of parents to par-
ticipate in the education process nevertheless question
their technical qualifications to engage in educational
decisions, particularly (though not exclusively) the
low-income, poorly educated parents. But the question
should not be what parents know now but what they can
come to know about the technicalities of education. .

WorkshOps and inservice education programs geared to the

need for effective participation of district advisory com-

mittees must be planned and implemented.

119

5. More poor people and minority group people need
to be included in district advisory committees. Committee
membership should be open and selected through a fair, all—
inclusive, democratic process. Such participation would be
designed:

To help poor peOple feel less alienated from insti-
tutions that purport to serve them, to provide poor
peOple with an opportunity to influence the decisions
that affect them, to improve communication between low—
income persons and other persons in the community, [and]
to provide poor persons with an opportunity for social—
ization into the ways of the community at large.
(O'Donnell and Chilman, 1969)

Low-income communities have long been excluded from sharing
in the decision-making process regarding educational pro-
grams which vitally affect their own children.

6. Procedures should be established through which
district advisory committees can follow the implementation
of their recommendations. This will enable them to pro—
vide future input based on ongoing evaluations of their
recommendations.

7. The membership of district advisory committees
must consist of at least 51 per cent parents of children
enrolled and participating in the school district's compen-
satory education program.

8. Honest, greatly needed information to help mem-
bers of the district advisory committees reach meaningful
decisions must be promptly given by the school district.

School districts should allocate certain funds to help

defray the cost of attending district advisory committee

120

meetings for the low-income members. Secretarial and other
kinds of staff should be provided to these committees to
help expedite their work.

9. District advisory committee meetings must be
held regularly with due importance given to each meeting.
Specific agendas and specific problems should be prepared
and included.

10. Where language difficulty may be a problem for
effective participation of some members, the school dis-
trict must assign staff members to the committee who are
bilingual or provide interpreters or information written
in English, Spanish, and other appropriate languages.

11. The school district can serve its community
better by helping to facilitate communication between the
district advisory committee and the community at large.

The greatest challenge to many educators in present
times is to put in motion a program by which they will get
acquainted more fully with their communities if they desire
to increase and improve communication to form a true part-
nership between the school and the community. Furthermore,
if district advisory committees are to become a meaningful
vehicle for involving the total community in the educational
decision—making process, school districts must first become
committed to the idea that the people of the community,
especially the parents, must have a say in the process of

schooling their children. The school district, therefore,

121

must give information, support, and financial assistance
whenever possible to make the work of the district advisory
committee come to fruition. The school district must also
seek and earnestly consider the recommendations of its advi-
sory committee and act upon these recommendations with
promptness. District advisory committee members must
always be informed of what decisions have been taken by
the school district and should be involved in following up
the implementation of these decisions. They must partici-
pate in the overall evaluation of the compensatory educa-
tion programs which they assisted in planning and implement—
ing for their children.

At the core of the concept of parent and community
involvement in education is the fact that the schools in
the past have not been accountable to the communities they

serve. The time has come when they must become so.

Implications and Reflections

 

An honest attempt is being made by many school dis—
tricts in California to involve the low-income community
in the decision-making process of compensatory education.
However, this effort is continually met with resistance
from those who profess that education is a prerogative of
only the professionals who find the process of change in
decision making threatening.

This author indicated earlier on pages two and three

that it is evident that we have entered an age where many

122

school administrators have begun (and others must begin) to
recognize the reality that they do not have as much absolute
and arbitrary power as they once had. The legal facts may
not have changed, but the articulation of a consciousness
and the recognition of a power base among the community

have begun to appear.

Administrators as well as others already plugged
into the decision—making process are fearful of losing con-
trol of their status in the organization whenever others
are entered into the process. There is no doubt that with
the increasing interest of communities in sharing in the
decision-making process, some loss of absolute control will
have to take place which should result in a more equitable
redistribution of power.

The issue becomes one of sharing of power when
talking about the decision-making processes involving a seg-
ment of the pOpulation who have never before actively par-
ticipated. As this new layer of decision-making participants
surfaces, an immediate disruption of the status quo in the
decision-making system of the school is felt by those already
secure in their positions of the "pecking order." Organi—
zations thrive on their ability to sustain and maintain
themselves under pressure from outside sources. Griffiths
(1959) stated that:

In studying an organization the power distribution

can be determined by counting the number of decisions
made, by noting the extent to which the decisions affect

123
the course of action of the enterprise, and by noting
the effect of any one decision on subsequent decisions.
He further stated that:

Control of the decision-making process is in turn
the key to greater power--that is, control means the
right to make decisions which provide the criteria for
those who make the other decisions in the sequential
process.

Involvement of the low-income community in the decision—
making process immediately calls for a disruption of the
decision-making system of the school organization. The
equilibrium and balance of power which has heretofore
existed is threatened. Changes in the status quo must be
made to make room for the newly surfaced layer of partici-
pants in the decision-making process. Accompanying this
type of disruption in the struggle for a piece of the power
is usually conflict between the defenders of the status quo
and those attempting to enter into the system of decision
making.

There are several issues not treated in this disserta-
tion which should be seriously considered by those wishing
to use the district advisory committee concept as a vehicle
for parent and community involvement. Specifically, the
question to be considered is that of handling the inevitable
conflict which will be created by teachers, teachers' unions,
administrators' groups, school boards, and others whose

position of power and authority stands to be altered.

Changes in a well-ingrained organizational power system

124

have never come about painlessly, but they have been possi-
ble and orderly at times.

The reality that low-income parents and community
representatives must be meaningfully involved in educational
decision making is here to stay. The literature and the
results of this study indicate the low-income community have
a genuine desire to participate in the decisions determin—
ing what is to be taught to their children, by whom, and
how.

The citizens of this nation look to the schools to
foster learning that is truly meaningful for life. These
social organizations of learning must become a dynamic and
integral part of their communities. They must benefit from
the ideas and contributions of all members of those commu-
nities, especially the parents of children participating in
compensatory education programs.

Usually the home, the school, and the community
at large are considered the three major forces of society
operating in a child's development. These institutions can
not function properly in isolation from each other. A
child is born into a family unit which is constantly influ-
enced by the community around it. The school being very
much a part of the community, therefore, is also influencing
the home into which this child is born. This constant inter-

action can be illustrated graphically as shown on the follow—

ing page:

125

 

Child I” "‘~«~sii-
Is Born L—> HOME ”#1,-xn” =Adulthood

 

.1

i,i«~~ ”’fl SCHOOL

 

 

 

The educational system must undergo a reform which
recognizes that the child's development has pretty well
been totally influenced by the home at least for the first
five years. It has also been attempted to show that the
home is never completely divorced from the influences of the
community and the school system. However, as the child
grows and develOps, the influence of the home does decrease
gradually, but does not totally cease. The influence of the
other two major institutions on a child's development
increases but never in isolation from the influence of the
home. Essentially, then, it takes all three forces working
in concert to produce a product which society can count as
a contributing citizen. In order that this can be accomp—
lished, vehicles must be found through which they can enter
into a genuine partnership based on mutual trust and under?
standing.

The educational system must assume the leadership
in establishing this partnership or face the ills and dan-
gers of polarization. Reform in education or any other
institution has never been easy or painless, but it must

come in order to restore the respect and credibility of its

126

constituents. It is imperative that the educational system
face up to the fact that members of the communities it
serves, especially the low—income parents, do not wish to
perceive themselves as merely recipients and clients. This
does not mean that they want to control the system, but it
does mean that they are desirous of meaningful participation
in it.

Participatory democracy must be put into action to
allow the participation of all concerned in educational
decision making. Exclusion of parents and community rep—
resentatives has probably occurred out of fear, insecurity,
and very often ignorance on the part of school administra—
tors. Perhaps through innovations such as the use of dis—
trict advisory committees in compensatory education, these
absurdities will lessen. The low-income community brings
many questions and distrust of the educational system, but
it also brings many ideas which could strengthen educational
programs. This calls for the school system to be ready to
listen and to communicate. It must be prepared to define
clearly the roles of the school and the community in the
decision-making process. Ideally, these roles will be co-
set by the school and the community, if the school is to be
responsive to the needs of the community it is to serve.

Schools must strive for inclusion of all concerned
in the decision—making process rather than continuing the

exclusion of them. Alienation, hostility, apathy, and

127

distrust of the people of this nation towards the schools
today can be ameliorated through participation and involve—

ment in the educational enterprise.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An Ocean Hill—Brownsville Resident. "Birth of a Community."
Liberation, December, 1968, pp. 16—27.

 

Bates, Harold S. "Tailored to Fit: How Norwood, Ohio
Revised Its School Curriculum to Meet Specific
Community Needs." Progressive Education, 22
(January, 1945), 8-10.

 

Berube, Maurice. "The Unschooling of New York's Children."
Commonwealth, October 25, 1968, pp. 103—105.

 

, and Gittell, Marilyn, eds. Confrontation at
Ocean Hill-Brownsville: The New York Schools
Strikes of 1968. New York: Frederick A. Praeger,
Publishers, 1969.

 

 

 

Bowles, Samuel. "Towards Equality of Educational Oppor-
tunity?" Harvard Educational Review, 38 (Winter,
1968), 89—99.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B., and Erickson, Edsel L. Society,
Schools and Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., 1969.

 

Brooks, Thomas R. "Can Parents Run New York's Schools?"
The Reporter, January 11, 1968, pp. 20-22.

 

Burns, Herbert W. of San Jose State College. "The Public
Schools as Trainers of Teachers: A (Modest)
Proposal." Speech presented at the California
Council on the Education of Teachers Conference,
Yosemite, California, Fall, 1968.

California State Department of Education. Division of
Compensatory Education, Bureau of Community Ser—
vices and Migrant Education. A Handbook for
Members of California School District Advisory
Committees, by Ramiro D. Reyes, E. Morgan Greenwood,
and Fred Wolff. Sacramento, California, 1971.

 

 

 

. Division of Compensatory Education. "Progress
Report on Compensatory Educational Programs in
California." Report to the California Legislature,
Sacramento, California, January, 1965.

129

130

. Curriculum Guide for Compensatory Preschool
Educational Programs. Sacramento, California:
Office of State Printing, Fall, 1968.

 

 

. Guidelines for Compensatory Education Programs

 

 

and Projects. Office of Compensatory Education,
1965.
. Division of Compensatory Education. Guidelines:

 

Compensatory Education, Revised 1966.

 

. Division of Compensatory Education. Guidelines:
Compensatory Education, Revised 1967.

 

 

. Division of Compensatory Education. Guidelines:
Compensatory Education, Revised April, 1969.

 

 

. Office of Compensatory Education, Bureau of
Community Services and Migrant Education. Hand—
book for California School District Advisory Com—
mittees. Sacramento, California, 1968.

 

. Division of Compensatory Education, Bureau of
Community Services and Migrant Education. Califor-
nia School District Advisory Committees: A Hand-
book, by E. Morgan Greenwood. Sacramento, California,
1970. Translated to Spanish by Ramiro Reyes, 1971.

 

Campbell, Alex. "Lindsay's Poor, Rich New York." The New
Republic, November 16, 1968, pp. 13-16.

Campbell, Clyde, ed. Toward Perfection in Learning: Case
Histories of Community Schools in Action. Midland,
Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1969.

 

 

Carter, Richard F. Voters and Their Schools: A Technical
Report from the Institute for Communication Research.
Palo.Alto,California: Stanford University, 1970.

 

 

 

Clark, Kenneth B. "Alternative Public School Systems."
Harvard Educational Review, 38 (Winter, 1968),
100—113.

Colorado State Department of Education. Advisory Committee
Questionnaire. 1969.

 

 

Compensatory Education: What We Must Do. National Invi-
tational Seminar on Compensatory Education held
with the assistance of the Ford Foundation, 1969.

 

131

Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: MacMillan
Company, 1916.

 

Donoghue, Jeremiah (Assistant Chief, Evaluation Operations,
Program Planning and Evaluation). Personal letter,
dated February 25, 1971.

Educational, Community Development and the Quality of Living
in Metropolitan San Jose: A Position Paper.
Planning—Education Task Force, School District
Superintendents of the City of San Jose, California.

 

 

Elliot, L. Paul. "Is a School Crisis Necessary?" Califor—
nia Journal of Secondary Education, 25 (December,
1950), 481-489.

 

Everett, John. "Viewpoint: The Decentralization Fiasco
and Our Ghetto Schools." Atlantic Monthly, December,
1968, pp. 71-74.

 

Fantini, Mario. "Community Control and Quality Education
in Urban School Systems." Community Control of
Schools. Edited by Henry M. Levin. Washington,
D. C.: The Brookings Institute, 1970.

 

Making Urban Schools Work: Social Realities
and the Urban School. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1968.

 

 

Fiscal Review and Analysis of Selected Categorical Aid
Educational Programs in California. Legislative
Analyst, State of California, 1970.

 

 

Friedman, Milton. "Decentralizing the Schools." Newsweek,
November 19, 1968, p. 100.

Fritz, Leah. "Community Control of Our Schools: A Sym—
posium." Liberation, September, 1968, pp. 26-35.

 

Gans, Herbert J. The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in
the Life of Italian-Americans. New York: The
Free Press, 1962.

 

 

Gardner, John W. Self-Renewal: The Individual and the
Innovative Society. New York: Harper and Row,
Publishers, 1963.

 

 

Geltman, Max. "Crisis in New York--On Learning Swahili."
National Review, November 19, 1968, pp. 1160-1163.

 

132

Gittell, Marilyn. Participants and Participation: A Study
of School Policy_in New York City, A Monograph.
New York: A publication for the Center for Urban
Education, 1966.

 

 

. "The Balance of Power and the Community School."
Community Control of Schools. Edited by Henry M.

 

Levin. Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institute,
1970.
Goodman, Paul. People or Personnel: Decentralizing the

 

Mixed System. New York: Random House, 1965.

 

Gordon, Ira. Parent and Community Involvement in Compen—
satory Education. Urbana, Illinois: University
of Illinois Press, 1968.

 

 

Gracie, David. "The Walkout at Northern High." New Uni—
versity Thought, Spring, 1967, pp. l3—32.

 

Gregory, Karl D. "The Walkout: Symptom of Dying Inner-
City Schools." New University Thought, Spring,
1967, pp. 29—54.

 

Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York:
Appleton—Century-Crofts, 1959.

 

Hamilton, Charles V. "Race and Education: .A Search for
Legitimacy." Harvard Educational Review, Fall,
1968, pp. 669-684.

 

Hart, Joseph. The Discovery of Intelligence. New York:
The Century Company, 1924.

 

Havighurst, Robert J. "The Reorganization of Education in

MetrOpolitan Areas." Phi Delta Kappan, 52 (February,
1971), 354-358..

 

Hickey, Howard; Van Voorhees, Curtis; and Associates, eds.
The Role of the School in Community Education.
Midland, Michigan: The Pendell Company, 1969.

 

Involvement: School-Community in San Diego. San Diego
Unified School District, San Diego, California.
Publication #ll-B—69-2.

 

Johnson, Annie. "Enrichment Through a System of Grade
Sponsors." National Elementary Principal, 18
(July, 1939), 494-499.

 

Keppel, Francis. "1965: Education's Moment." National
Catholic Education Bulletin, 62 (August, 1965), 25—28.

 

133

Kimbrough, Ralph B. Political Power and Educational Decision-

 

Making. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1964.

Kindred, Leslie W. "Lay Advisory Committee Puts into Effect
the Partnership Between School and Community."
Nation's Schools, 43 (March, 1949), 43-44.

 

Keepman, Robert G. "Formula for Merging School and Commu—
nity." Nation's Schools, 42 (August, 1948), 22-24.

 

Labor's Role in the War on Poverty. . . An AFL-CIO Guide.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, Washington, D. C.

 

Larsen, Roy E. "What Do Public Schools Need Most?" Educa-
tional Leadership, 7 (October, 1949), 7-10.

 

Lauter, Paul. "The Short, Happy Life of the Adams-Morgan
Community School Project." Harvard Educational
Review, Reprint Series No. 3, 1969, pp. 83-110.

 

Leu, Donald J., and Candoli, I. Carl. Planning for the
Future, A Recommended Long-Range Educational and
Facilities Plan for Chicago. Vol. 1, Revised
Chicago City Schools, August, 1971.

 

 

 

Leu, Donald J., and Featherstone, Richard L. Current Forces
Tending Towards Major Changes in Centralization and
Decentralization of Education in the United States.
U.S.O.E., Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Educa-
tion. Program Planning and Evaluation. June, 1968.

 

 

 

Levin, Henry M., ed. Community Control of Schools.
Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institute, 1970.

 

. "Summary of Conference Discussion." Community
Control of Schools. Edited by Henry M. Levin.
Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institute, 1970.

 

 

Levitan, Sar. The Society's Poor Law: A New Approach to
Poverty. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns HOpkins
Press, 1969.

 

Loew, C. C., and Sumption, M. R. "A Community Looks at Its
Schools." Nation's Schools, 46 (December, 1950),
40-43.

 

Loomis, A. K.; Raup, R. B.; and Smith, B. 0. "How an Urban
Community Proceeded to Decide What Its School
Should Do." Edited by B. O. Smith. Teachers
College Record, 46 (January, 1956), 236-240.

 

134

"Magic Words." Nation, Editorial, June 10, 1968, pp. 746-
747.

McAteer Act, 1.8. 115, Chapter 48, Statutes of 1963.

 

McAteer Act, S.B. 482, 1965.

 

 

 

Miller, Chester F. "A Community Plans Its School Facili-
ties." Nation's Schools, 24 (December, 1939),
16-20.

Minister, Edward, and Sagarin, Edward. "The School and the
Community." New University Thought, Spring, 1967,
pp. 52—62.

Moynihan, Daniel P. Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding:
Community Action in the War on Poverty. New York:
The Free Press, 1969.

 

 

National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged
Children. Title I, ESEA, A Review and a Forward
Look, 1969.

 

New York City's Mayor's Advisory Panel. Decentralization
of New York City Schools. New York: Frederick A.
Praeger, Publishers, 1967.

 

 

O'Donnell, Edward J., and Chilman, Catherine S. "Poor
PeOple on Public Welfare Boards and Committees:
Participation in Policy Making?" Welfare Review,
7 (May—June, 1969), 1-29.

 

Office of Urban Affairs, Los Angeles Unified School District.
"A Report on Community and Staff DevelOpment Summer
Program, ESEA, Title I." Los Angeles: The District,
November, 1970. (Mimeographed.)

 

, Community Relations, Los Angeles City Schools.
Orientation to East Los Angeles, An: Nuestra
Communidad. Los Angeles, 1970.

 

 

Peddicord, Paul Wallace. "Citizens Committees in the Public
School Systems of North Carolina." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1965.

Pierce, Truman M. "The Growing Trend Toward Lay Partici-
pation in Education." Peabody Journal of Education,
28 (November, 1950), 161-166.

 

President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty.
The People Left Behind. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1967.

 

135

Progress Report on Compensatory Educational Programs in
California. A report to the Legislature, Sacramento,
California, January, 1965.

 

 

Project SEAR (A Systematic Effort to Analyze Results). Task
Force Report. California State Department of Edu—
cation, Office of Compensatory Education and the
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, October, 1967.

 

Ragsdale, C. E. "Evaluation of Rural Community Planning in
Relation to the Curriculum of Rural Education."
Journal of Educational Research, 38 (1944), 286-
290.

 

Reyes, Ramiro. Compensatory Education in California.
Oakland Public Schools, Department of Counseling
and Occupational Information, 1965.

 

Rider, Gerald S. "The Planning Process in the Development
of E.S.E.A., Title I Projects in Local School Dis—
tricts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley, 1967.

Rios, Edwin T. Improving Ethnic Balance and Intergroup
Relations. County of Santa Clara, Office of Educa-
tion, School Community Relations, 1968.

 

 

Roberts, Stephen. "Control of Schools." New Republic,
September 28, 1968, pp. 11-12.

 

Romine, Stephen. "Cooperative Planning Through the School-
Community Council." Educational Administration and
Supervision, 36 (December, 1950), 485-489.

 

 

Saunders, Carleton M. "Parents Make Good Partners: An
Experiment in Sharing the School." Nation's Schools,
28 (August, 1941), 27—28.

 

Sayre, Wallace 8., and Kaufman, Herbert. Governing New
York City: Politics in the Metropolis. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1960.

 

 

School—Community Relations Program. Operated by Office of
Urban Affairs Throughout Disadvantaged Areas or
Poverty Pockets Within Districts. School Commu-
nity Relations Consultant, East Los Angeles,
California.

 

 

 

Schrag, Peter. Village School Downtown: Politics and
Education - A Boston Report. Boston, Massachusetts:
Beacon Press, 1967.

 

 

136

Specht, Harry. Community Development in Low-Income Areas:
Its Relevance to Problems of the Negro Community.
Contra Costa Council of Community Services, 1966.
Publication #104.

 

 

Totten, W. Fred. The Power of Community Education. Midland,
Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1970.

 

Toy, Henry, Jr. "How to Organize Local Citizens Committees."
Nation's Schools, 46 (July, 1950), 26-28.

 

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Bureau
of Head Start and Early Childhood, Office of Child
Development. Head Start: Child Development Programs:

 

A Manual of Policies and Instructions. 1967.

 

Citizens Committees for Better Schools, by Gene C.
Fusco. Superintendent of Documents, Catalog No.
F85 220: 20065. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1964.

 

A National Survey of the Impacts of Head Start
Centers on Community Institutions, by Kirchner and
Associates, Inc. Project Head Start, Office of
Child Development, 1970.

 

 

Parents Are Needed: Suggestions on Parent Par-
ticipation in Child Development Centers. Project
Head Start, 1969.

Parents as Partners. Task Force on Parent
Participation, 1968.

 

Staffing for Better Schools. Superintendent of
Documents, Catalog No. F85:223 23049. Washington,
D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1967.

. Equality of Educational Opportunity, by James 8.
Coleman. Superintendent of Documents, Catalog No.
FSS:283:38001. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1966.

 

U. S. Office of Economic Opportunity. Project Head Start:
Parent Involvement. Washington, D. C.: Office
of Economic Opportunity, 1969.

 

 

Washington, W. "The Schools and the Community." The
Struggle for the Power in the Public Schools.
Washington, D. C.: NCSPS, 1968, pp. 11-15.

Wayson, W. W. "The Political Revolution in Education,
1965." Phi Delta Kappan, 47 (March, 1966), 333-334.

 

137

 

Westby, Cleve O. "Community Plans Its School Building."
Educational Leadership, 3 (February, 1946), 220-
221.

White House Conference on Children and Youth, December 13-
18, 1970, Washington, D. C. Published by the Day
Care and Child Development Council of America.

Whitt, Robert L. A Handbook for the Community School
Director. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing
Company, 1971.

 

 

Wilson, Clara 0. "Cooperative Venture in Rural Planning."v
Educational Leadership, 3 (February, 1946), 220-
221.

Wirth, Louis. The Ghetto. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1956.

 

APPENDICES

138

APPENDIX A

LETTER REQUESTING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DISTRICT

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN SELECTED

DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA

139

MAX RAFFERTY
Superintendent of Public Instruction
and Director of Education

Everett '1'. Calvert
Chis: Deputy Superintendent
of Publi: Instru:‘.zon

Ray H. lohnson

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

26

Eugene Gonzales
Assomate Suprrmh ndwnt; Chivl.
Divxmon ot Instruction

Edwin H. Harper
Assomuto Sup» rmtvndl “1; Chief,

Divtsmn 01 School Administration and I‘monwn

Loo Lopez
ASSOCIGIF‘ Supvnntwnd.'nt; Chml,
DiViSion 01 Conn» nsuloxy Ecluwation

Charles W. Watson

Deputy Superintendent Aszmrmtw Supt- rmtr-nd. nt; Chwi,
of Rubin IIISIILICIIOII for Administration DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Divxmon 01 :1,» -«'1CII Ildutulmn
721 CAPITOL MALL, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 Collier McDefmon
Wilson C. Riles Asmsmnt Supurmtwnd. nt
Deputy Supermh-ndont (807 Stutv Bldg.
for Program and legislation Los Angel-u; 90012)
April 9, 1970 03/0 4470
TO : Selected ESEA, Title I School District Superintendents

and ESEA, Title I Coordinators

FROM : Leo R. Lopez, Associate Superintendent and
Chief, Division of Compensatory Education

SUBJECT: ANNOUNCEMENT OF STUDY OF THE ROLE OF ESEA TITLE I, DISTRICT
ADVISORY COMMITTEES IN COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

This is to advise you that the Bureau of Community Services and Migrant
Education has been assigned the responsibility to conduct a study of
parent and community involvement in compensatory education programs

through district advisory committees.

We consider this to be very

timely in view of the tremendous amount of interest generated at the
recent ACACE Conference in Bakersfield for parent and community in-

volvement.

In order to make this very important task a success, the Bureau of
Community Services and Migrant Education personnel will need your full
c00peration. The data gathered will provide us with valuable information
that will assist us in the development of guides, booklets and practical

district advisory committee handbooks.

The materials to be develOped will

assist us all in effectively utilizing parent and community involvement
through ESEA Title I district advisory committees in planning, imple-
menting and evaluating compensatory education programs.
be gathered through the use of a questionnaire which will be completed

by the members of your district advisory committee and by selected members
of your school district administration.

The data will

In order to expedite the mailing of the questionnaires, it is very impor-

tant that you assist us by immediately doing the following:

1. On or before April 20. 1970, send the names and addresses of
your 1969-70 district advisory committee members to Ramiro Reyes,
Acting Chief, Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education,
Division of Compensatory Education, 1500 5th Street, Sacramento,

California

95814.

2. Please place an asterisk next to the name or names of the members
who will need questionnaires in Spanish.

141
27

Selected ESEA, Title I School District Superintendents
and ESEA, Title I Coordinators

April 9, 1970

Page Two

3. Mail or distribute the enclosed announcements of the study to
your district advisory committee members as soon as you receive
them. If you need more c0pies please feel free to duplicate
whatever number you need. We have also enclosed an announce-

ment translated into Spanish for you to use and duplicate if
needed.

You and the members of the district advisory committee can expect to get
the questionnaires within a week after we receive the names and addresses..
Please try to get the information requested by Monday April 20, 1970.

We thank you for your cooperation and wish to express our appreciation
for the support you have given compensatory education to date. May

this partnership we have formed to extend quality compensatory education
programs to thousands of educationally disadvantaged children continue
to be strengthened. Remember the child will ultimately be the winner.

LRLzrre

Enclosure

APPENDIX B

SECOND LETTER REQUESTING NAMES AND ADDRESSES

OF DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

IN SELECTED DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA

142

7.-.,fi.
A‘AA.‘

37

MAX RAFFERTY
"15:1? “ I‘m...“ I:‘.:'.r.;:1.cn

Edwin H. Harper
Assocmtt- Supt-rmtt-ndt-nt; (”.‘luwl,
DlVlSlon of School Administration and I'mrxnv

Leo Lopez

SSA " I‘ g I l' n- ‘ ('1 t
Everett T. Calvert A )LKII Sup rmt m1 III, :1 l.

 

t f Divmion ol (‘Sonmc-numory IIdu alum
L‘s'ptzf‘,‘ Superm? zitlwnt
' Path: I::c.::1,,x.-t:cn Charles W. Watson
Assocmh- Sup Imlwndwnl, ('1ml,
- STATE OF CALIFORNIA Divuuon oi Sp-u'iul Illnv-mon
Eugene Gonzales 1- William May
Ad m * DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Mm": «rm. «.

txr ‘-‘L < n -'y- .
t. f\i_111. I..;~,.u Hon
‘ k I)IVI::mn ()I Instrur‘tmu

7.11 CAPITOL MALL, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 _
Collier McDermon

Assistant Suprnnlvml. ml
(8”, Sltllt‘ ”ItIt'

May 5 , 1970 Lou Amp-1m: “tilllll‘l

T0 : Selected ESEA, Title I School District Superintendents
and ESEA, Title I Coordinators

FROM : Leo R. Lopez, Associate Superintendent and
Chief, Division of Compensatory Education

SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP OF LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 1970 ANNOUNCING A STUDY OF
THE ROLE OF ESEA TITLE I, DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEES IN
COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

On April 9, 1970 this Office mailed the above letter to you and requested
your assistance in sending us the names and addresses of your 1969-70
district advisory committee members. As of this date we have not received
a reply. It is imperative that we receive this information gn_or before
May 11, 1970.

 

As we requested in our letter of April 9, we ask that you assist us by
immediately doing the following:

1. On or before May 11, 1970, send the names and addresses of
your 1969-70 district advisory committee members to Ramiro Reyes,
Acting Chief, Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education,
Division of Compensatory Education, 1500 5th Street, Sacramento,
California 95814.

2. Please place an asterisk next to the name or names of the members
who will need questionnaires in Spanish.

3. Mail or distribute the enclosed announcements of the study to
your district advisory committee members as soon as you receive
them. If you need more copies, please feel free to duplicate
whatever number you need. We have also enclosed an announce-
ment translated into Spanish for you to use and duplicate if
needed.

As soon as we receive your reply, you and the members of the district
advisory committee can expect to get the questionnaires within a week.

Thank you for your cooperation.
LRLzrre

Enclosures

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ACCOMPANYING QUESTIONNAIRE AND ENGLISH

VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

144

f\.

‘9 .. V0
{\booc A

MAX RAPPERTY

“'..'1'12‘.' 73.},

Everett 1'. Calvert

1‘ .t I.lf-II".2J '..OII

28

Edwin H. Harper

Ins m on Assocmtv Supwnntmrd: nl; (71ml

0: EJL .a on

Leo Lopez
Assocmtw Supwnnh mI-‘nt; (Elna-t,
Division OI Compvnsntnr‘,’ Ildlnutum
Charles W. Watson

Annociutv Supvrmtt-ndmit- ('Im I,

 

moi n

—*—~—— STATECH‘CAUPORNUX owwmoumwmvmfifim

Eugene Gonzales

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ’i???i‘.°2§‘..?fi'

.Lit‘tzon
Dlvunnn nt Instrn' tum

721 CAPITOL MALL, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 .
Collier McDermon

Ammutrinl illuu'lml' ml. III
(807 {Itult- IllrIq.
Los Anwrlru ‘1‘)(111’)

May 21, 1970
cs/c 53-70

TO : District Advisory Committee Member

FROM : Leo R. Lopez, Associate Superintendent and
Chief, Division of Compensatory Education

SUBJECT: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE

As we announced to you in our letter of April 9, 1970, the Bureau of
Community Services and Migrant Education, Division of Compensatory
Education is conducting a study of parent and community participation
in compensatory education district advisory committees. It is urgently
requested that you complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to
us in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided.

By answering all of the questions you will be helping us to make parent
and community participation through E.S.E.A. Title I district advisory
committees more useful to all involved. Please check in the space which
you feel best answers each question. If you need help in completing

this questionnaire, you may ask a member of your family or a neighbor for
assistance. All information will be confidential, therefore it is not
necessary to put your name on the questionnaire. Your ideas are needed,
and we assure you that your answers and comments will be carefully
considered.

If you have any questions please contact Ramiro Reyes, Acting Chief,
Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education, Division of Compen-
satory Education, 1500 5th Street, Sacramento, California, 95814. Tele-
phone number (916) 445-9850.

We wish to thank you in advance for your time and effort in completing

and returning the questionnaire. Please return the questionnaire on
or before May 29, 1970.

LRL:rre

Enclosures

Dwnsron 0t School Adnllnlzdltlllull cunt l'munwu-

ADVISORY COI‘I‘IITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS: This is a study of community involvement in education. By answering
all of the questions, you are helping us to make cousunity participation more useful

to all involved. Please check in the space which you feel best answers each question.
If you need help in completing this questionnaire, you may ask a member of your family
or others. Do not put your name on the questionnaire. All information will be confi-
dential.

When you answer all of the questions, please mail your questionnaire in the enclosed,
self-addressed and stamped envelOpe. Thank you very much for your help. All corres-
pondence should be sent to Ramiro Reyes, Acting Chief, Bureau of Community Services and
Migrant Education, Division of Compensatory Education, 1500 5th Street, Sacramento,
California, 95814.

1. Sex. [:7 Male _/_:/_ Female

2. Age. // Under 20 7:7 21 to 30 £7 31 to no _/:_7 1.1 to 50 £7 51 and over

3. How_l_ong have you lived in_this school distrig?
L_/ Less than 1 year .L_/ l to 4 years L_/ Over 4 years

4. Education - Your highest grade completed.
,L_/ No school at all / / K to 6 / / 7 to 9 / / 10 to 12

\O
I:
\H

lege/University .__ .__
A. A. L_/ B. A. L_/ M.A. £_/ Doctorate

5. WhaLkind of work dg_you do? _ _
/_1 Business ‘L_/ Farmer / Professional / / Retired ‘L_/ Housewife
/ / Political Office Holder / / Office Worker ‘L_/ Skilled Laborer

/ / CAP Representative '_7 Other

6. Are you a member of a minority group? 1:7. Yes L_/ No

7. Langgage spoken flggntly. .__ __ ‘__
L_/ English [_j Spanish 1_/ Portuguese L_/ Chinese L_/ Other

8. Are you a parent of g_participating_child(ren) in a compensatory education program?
L/Yes _/__/No

9. Are you a paid employee of the school district? /_7 Yes El- No

10. How_did you get to be a member of the district advisory committee?
/ Recommended by project director or school administrator

[—7 Recommended by a community group or agency /_7 Volunteered my services
L_/ Recommended by non-public school £_/ Other

ll. About how many district advisory committee meetings have you participated in during
the_p_ast year? _ __ __ _
.L_/ None L_/ One 'L_/ Two or Three L_/ Four or Five L_/ More than Five

12. Do y_u think your distr_gt advisory commigtee has met ___
L_/ Often enough / / Too often 1_j Not too often L_/ Not as often as it
should.
13. On hgw many educatiggal or nonzgducational advisory committees are you now serving?
L_/ Only one L_/ Two ‘L_/ Three or more

14. How many educational and non-educational advisory committees have you served on in
the_l_ast five years_?_ __ __
L_/ Only one L_/ Two L_/ Three or four 1_/ More than five

15. Aside from your regular committee meetings, which of the following activities have
you_participated in?
[_j Field trips (such as visits to schools and centers)
1:7 Participate in countywide advisory committee meetings
/

Board of Education Meetings L7 Reporting to groups and individuals

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

How much freedom do you feel the members of your committee have to disagree with
the_tdeas of the adminigtrators? __ __
.L_/ A great deal L_/ Some L_/ A little 'L_/ None at all

What difference have the recommendations of your district advisory committee made
on the compensatory edutgtion program in your distrttt?
[_j A great deal 1_j Some L_/ A little 1_j None at all

Is your district advisory committee recognized by the governing board of your
district?

£_/ Yes / / No

Doeg_your district adgtsory committee have glearly understood purposes?
L_/ Very clear ‘L_/ Somewhat clear 1_/ Not clear

How_tas your district advisory committee_grrived at these purposes?
/ / Committee established its own £_/ Administration gave a statement of these
A mixture of the two purposes

:—
1:7 Don't know

How_!ell, do you thigt, does the committee do in living ug_to its understood purposes?
L_/ Very well L_/ Fairly well [_j Not so well ‘L_/ Poorly

How much does your committee do any of the following?
A great A None

 

deal Some little at all
Review Elementary and Secondary Education .__ '__ .__ .__
Act (ESEA) Title I guidelines and regulations: [_j [_j 1_/ ‘L_/
Advise on kinds of programs needed: ‘£:7 .£:7 {£:7 .£:7
Work on publicity in support of the program: [_7 [:7 [:7 £7
Make suggestions on program operation: [:7- 1:7 '£:7 1:7
Help in the evaluation of the program; £:7 [:7 1:7. 1:7

Other ' £_/

Who in the school district and/or the community gave the information about compen-
satory education to the district advisory committee on which they could make
recommendations. (Check ong_or more of the follogtng) __

L_/ Project Director 1_/ Superintendent .L_/ School principal L_/ Nurse

1:7. Board of Education members 1:7 Community representative L_/ Other

How helpful has the information given to you by the school district been to your
disttict advisory cormnittee in its reconmendatigfls? _
L_/ Very helpful 1_/ Somewhat helpful [_j Not helpful L_/ I don't know

How often have you, as district advisory committee members, told your wishes and
contgrns to the geard of Educatiog_and administtttors?
L_/ Often [_j Sometimes L_/ Seldom L_/ Not at all

Do you know how many important recommendations your district advisory committee
has_made to the_§oard of Edgtation? ___ __
[_j Many L_/ Some [_j Few L_/ None L_/ I don't know

How many have tgen accepted:

[:7 All [_j Many [_j Some [:7' None 1:7 I don't know
_:7- The district advisory committee was not told how many

How much has your district advisory committee been involved in evaluating the
compensatory education gtogram? l__ __
L_/ A great deal 1_/ Some L_/ A little L_/ None at all

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

How useful do you feel your district advisory committee has been to the compensa-
tor1_education programz_. ... ‘__
1_/ Very useful .1_/ Somewhat useful .1_/ Not useful 1_/ I don't know

How well does your district advisory committee represent minority group parents
in ygur district? ___ ___ I__
1_/ Very well ‘1_/ Somewhat 1_/ Poorly 1_/ I don't know

How well does your district advisory committee represent different income levels
of parents in your dtgtrict? __ __
1_/ Very well 1_/ Somewhat 1_/ Poorly 1_/ I don't know

Compared with other members of your district advisory committee, how much influ-
encg_do you feel you have on cggmittee decisions? -__
/ / ‘Much more influence 1_j Somewhat more influence ‘1_/ About the same

‘—

.__/ Somewhat less influence 1:7' Much less influence influence
On district advisory committees, sometimes there is a member who gives the whole
committee valuable leadership or direction. Who of the following most nearly
doeg_this? __ __

/ / Superintendsnt 1_/ Project Director ‘1_/ Community Representative

a...

1_/ Parent 1_/ State Department Personnel ‘1:7 Other

How_gould you say thgtwork of the membgts of your disttict advisgty committee is?

__ Excellent 1_/ Quite good .1_/ Average 1_/ Fair 1_/ Quite limited

Does your distritt pay expenses_tor the members of the district advisory committee?
1_/ Yes 1_/ No

If yes, do they pay for any of the following?

Baby sitting 1:7. Yea 1:7. No
Mileage 1:7. Yea '1:7 No
Attending training workshops/ .__ __
conferences 1_/ Yes 1_/ No
Are you paid back for time lost

while attending meetings and/or ___ .__
conferences 1_/ Yes 1_/ No
Other 1:7

If ttere is such a 13nd, do you fggl it is
1_/ Too much 1_/ Enough 1_/ Not enough

In general, would you say that your participation in the work of your advisory
committee has been a valuable experience for yourself, for the committee, for the
development of educational policy?

A great deal Somewhat A little Not at all

 

Valuable for me personally '1:7 .1:7 1:7 ‘1:7
Valuable for the committee ‘1:7 .1:7 1:7 “1:7
Valuable for the schools 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7
Valuable for the community 1_ 1:7. 1:7 .1_
Please check how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
Strongly Agree a Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree great deal ggmewhat a little Disagree

 

 

 

Considering all problems,

advisory committees are far

over-rated with respect to __ __ ___ __
what they can contribute 1_/ 1:7 / / /

l\
\
\

Strongly Agree a Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree great deal somewhat a little disagree

 

 

Although it would look
“look nice” to have more
poor people on advisory
committees, this does not __ __ __ .__ ___
help us very much. 1_/

|\
\
|\
\
|\
\
|\
\

District advisory committees
may not look like they are
very important, but they are
really important in our

community 1_/ 1_/ 1_/ 1_/ 1_/
District advisory committees

are really ”paper committees"

which have little or no in-

fluence on compensatory edu- ___ ___

cation programs 1_ 1_/ ‘1_/ .£:7 /_7
School districts usually tell

district advisory committees

what the compensatory educa-

tion program will be instead '__ ‘__ __ .__
of asking for their advice /__/ /__/ 1:7 /__/ 1_/

38. Please give your suggestions of how we can make your district advisory committee
more helpful to the compensatory education program.

ADMINISTRATORS ONLY

 

What are the problems encountered by the school district in community involvement
thrgggh district advisory cggnittees in educations1_c1ecision-making?
1_/ Lack of interest 1_/ Do not have time 1_A Language difficulty

1:7' Militancy 1:7. Pressure groups 1:7. Afraid to come to school setting

_-

1_' Difficulty in maintaining continuity with people moving away
/ Misunderstanding of function 1_/ Apprehension 1_/ Other

|\

What promising practices are discovered by school districts in community involve-
ment through district advisory committees?

On the basis of your experience with organized district advisory committees what
practice or ideas have proved to be most helpful to you?

APPENDIX D

LETTER TO DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH

SPANISH SURNAMES ACCOMPANYING QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SPANISH VERSION OF SPANISH QUESTIONNAIRE

150

29

RAFFERTY Edwin H. Harper
:1: 01 P193113 Instnmncn Asrtx 11111 81111111111 11d 111 ( '-|11 1
~13: e: Educatzon D1v1s1on 01S hool Ad1n1111.111111 11 111111 1111011

Leo Lopez

 

Associah- 5311111‘111111-1111-1111; 1.7111111,
Everett 1" Calvert D1v1s1on OI (30111121113010131 [11111111111111
Deputy Superlt‘dendent
o: Publzc Instructmn Charles W. Watson
Assocmlv 811111-111111'11111-111; ('111141,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA D1V1510n 01 SprIUI 1311111-11111111
Eugene Gonzales 1. William May
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION .,
0: u.) 1“ Ilt‘II'ULIlOI'I D1v1s1011 oI 1111:1111--l1«111
721 CAPITOL MALL, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 .
Colher McDermon
[15121310111 5111111111111 11(1-111
(807 131010 liqu.
8 mayo, 1.970 Los A11(;1~|1“:; UUUIJ)
. , I
Para : Miembros de los Comites de Consults de Distritos

(District Advisory Committees), E.S.E.A., Titulo I

De Parte De: Leo R. Lopez, Superientendente Asociado y Jefe, Division
de Educacisn Estatal.

Topico : Cuestionario Para Determinar e1 Papel Que Desempéfisn los
Miembros de los Comités de Consults de Distritos, E.S.E.A.,
Titulo I

Como 1e informamos en nuestra carts del 9 de abril 1970, el Departamento de
Servicios a la comunidad y de Educscion de ninos Migrantes, Division de

/
Educacion Compensatoria, ha sido asignado con la responsabilidad de llevar
acabo un estudio estatal sobre la participacioh de los padres de nffihs estudi-
antes y de la comunidad en los comités de consults de distrito (district
advisory committees) que tratan con los programas de educscion compensatoria.
Es de suma importancis que Ud. conteste todas las puguntas en el cuestionario
que hemos incluido. A1 terminar con el cuestionario devuelvs10 por coreo en
el sobre ensellado que le incluimos, no mas tardsr que el dis 29 de may_
1970.

Sus respuestss a todas los preguntas nos serfin muy valiosas sra desarollar
maneras de hacer su participacion por medio de los comit 9 de consults de
distritos (district advisory committees) mfis significante pars Ud. y para la
educaci6n de sus hijos. Por favor marque e1 cuadrito que a su parecer conteste
mejor cada pre unta. Si necesita ayuda para completar este cuestionario con-
sulte con algun otro miembro de su familia 0 con otra persona que le pueda ayudar.
Toda informacion sera confidencial y no es necesario escribir su nombre en este
cuestionario. Sus ideas son muy necesarias y le aseguramos que sus respeuestas

y comentarios serah considerados con todo cuidado.

Si tiene alguna pregunta diriga toda correspondencis a el Senior Ramiro Reyes,
Acting Chief, Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education, Division of
Compensatory Education, 1500 5th Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Tele-
phone (916) 445 9850.

. . . /
Le damos las grac1as con ant1cipac1on por su ayuda y esfuerzo. Recuerden que
nuestro unicoflproposito es desarrollsr programascpe verdaderamente van a syudar

a nuestros ninos pars un buen futuro escolar.

LRL:rre

CUESTIONARIO PARA MIEMBROS DE COMITES DE CONSULTA DE DISTRITOS
(DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE)

/

DIRECCIONES: Este es un estudio sobre la participacion de la comunidad en la educaci6h
compensatoria. Al contestar todas 1as preguntas, Ud. estarE'ayudandanos a hacer mis
util 1a participacidh en la comunidad de 1as personas interesadas. Por favor, marque
e1 cuadrito que a su parecer conteste mejor cads pregunta. Si necesita ayuda para
completar este cuestionario consulte con algun otro miembro de la familis 0: con otra
persona. No escriba su nombre en este cuestionario. Toda informacion sera confidencial.

Cuando hays contestado todas 1as preguntas, envie el cuestionario por correo en el sobre
que 1e incluimos. E1 sobre tiene ya la direcci6h y los sellos. Le damos 1as gracias
por su ayuda. Toda correspondencia debe ser dirigida a Ramiro Reyes, Acting Chief,
Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education, Division of Compensatory Education,
1500 5th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

1 Sexo__ __
1_ Hombre 1_j Mujer
2 Edad

1_1 Menos de 20 L / entre 21 y 30 1:7 entre 31 y 40 1_/ entre 41 y 50
L / mas de 50
3. a For cuflhto tiempo ha vi_tdo en este distrito escolar?
L / menos de 1 ano L / entre 1 y 4 £35. L / mas de 4 anos

4. Educgtidh - Su grado mas altg __ .__
1_/ ninguna escuela L / entre K‘y 6 ‘1_/ entre 7 y 9 .1_/ entre 10 y 12

Colegio - Univett1dad __
_/__/ A.A. _/_/ B.A. _/_/ M.A. _/_/ Doctorado

5. L QueLtipo de trab_1o desempena Ud. 7
/ / Negocio 1_/ __gricultor L_7 Profesional L / Retirado 1 / Puesto Politico
/ / Oficinista 1_/__Obrero especializado 1_/ Representante de CAP

__7' Ama de case 1_/ Otro

6. L Pertenece Ud. a un grug_ de minoria?

L / Si 1_/ No

7. Idiomas (lenguas)_gue habla con_ facilidad __ __
L / Inglés '1_/ Espanol 1_/ Portugues 1_/ Chino 1_/ Otro

8. L Tiene usted algdh hijo o hijos que participan en un programa de educscidn
compensatoria?

L / 51 1:7 No

9. 1 Es usted un empleado_2agado del distrito escolar?
L / Si '1_/ No

10. a Como 11e36 usted a ser un miembro del comité'de consults de distrito (district
advisory committee)?
1_1 Por recomendacion del director del proyecto 0 del administrador escolar
1_1 Por recomendacion de un grupo o agencia de la comunidad
1_1 Voluntario / / Por recomendacidn de una escuela de afiliacion religiosa
/ / Otro

/ . . .
ll. Aproximadamente z a cuantas juntas del comite de consults de distrito (district
advisory committee1_asistio_ usted durante e1 sno pssado?
1_1 Ninguna 1_1 Una / / entre dos y tres /: / entre cuatro y cinco

.1_/ Mas de cinco

I? I‘m su_ opini6h, se ha reunido su comité:
1_/ Con suglpiente frecucncia / / Con demasiada frecuencia / / Pocas veces

/_ / Muy pocas veces (debia reunirse mas frecuentment e)

13.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

.. I . I . I

cbn cuantos comites de consults educacionales o no educsc1onsles eats usted
sigliendo actualmente?
L_/ Uno L_/ Dos

.L_/ Tres o mas
LEn cuantos comites de consults educacionales o no educacionales ha servido
usLed en los ultimos cinco anos?

L_/ Uno 1_l Dos [_j Tree 0 cuatro

 

1:7- Mas de cinco

Aparte de 1as juntas regulates de su comite 5 en cuales otrss actividsdes ha
paggicipado Ud-?

L_/ Viaje de estudios (tales como visitas L-7' Participscion en juntas del
___ a escuelas y centros de culturas) comité'de consults del condado.
[_j Juntss del cuerpo de educaci6n del / _/ Reportes a grupos e individuos.

distrito escolar.

LCuénta libertsd cree usted que tienen los miembros de su comit; para expressr
desacuerdogcon las ideas de los Ldministradores del distrito escolar?
L—7 Muchisima [_7 Mucha L / Una poca L_ ninguna

aCuanta influencis tuvieron 1as recomendaciones del comitélde consults de su
distrito (district advisory committee) en el programa de educacion compensatoria
de_gu distrito?
L_/ Muchisimo

L_/ Alguna L:7 Un poco ‘£:7 Ninguns
LReconoce e1 cuerpo de educaci6n de su distrito e1 comité'de consults de su
distrito (district advisory committee)?

L / Si ‘L_/ No

LTiene el comite de consults de su distrito (district advisory committee)
pr_positos bien definidos?
[_j Muy bien definidos

.L_/ Medics definidos 1:7. No clsramente definidos
acomo determing los propositos e1 comité'de consults de su distrito (district
advisory committee)?

L_/ El comiLe los determino

.L_/ Una mezcls de los dos

L / La admiantracion los determino

‘L_/ No 36'

; quL tsl cumple e1 comitL con sus proposith?
L_/ Bastante bien L / No muy bien 1_/ Hal

En sg_opini6n,
[_j Muy bien

/
éuasta que punto hace su comite cualquiera de los siguientes:?

Mucho Algo Un Poco Nada

l. Repasar 1as reglas y leyes de educacion

compensatoria bsjo el Elementary and

Secondary Eucstion Act (E.S.E.A.) .__ __ ‘__

Title 1 L/ /__/ L/ /_/
2. Aconsejs en tipos de programs que ‘__ .__ __ __

son necesarios L/ L/ L/ L/
3. Trabaja en publicidad pars spoysr __ __ .__ __.

el programa L/ L/ L/ L/
4. Race sugerencias en como desarrollar __ ‘__ .__ __

el programa / 1_/ L_/ L_/ ‘L_/
S. Ayuda en la evaluacion del __ ‘__ __ .__

programs I__ .L_/ L / .L_/ L_/
6. Otro L_/

LQuién en el distrito escolar y/o en la comunidad le facilit6'ls informscidn,
tocante a la educacion compensatoria a1 comité'de consults del distrito (district
advisory committee) para hacer sus _recomendsciones (marque uns o mas)?

L / El director del proyecto L / El principal L / La enfermera

L_/ El superintendente / / Miembros del cuerpo de educacion del distrito escolar

L / El representante de la comunidad

LQue tan util ha sido para su comite de consults (district advisory committee)
en sus recomendacLones 1a informacion que le ha dado e1 distrito escolar?
L / Muy util 1_/ Regular 1_7 No ha sido util L / No se

25.

26.

27

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

. I , . .
6 Con cuanta frecuenc1a hsn ustedes como m1embros del comitg'de consults (district
advisory committee) exprggado sus deseos y preocupaciones El Cuerpo de Educacion?

L_/ Frecuentemente 1_j A veces

Ll

Pocas veces L_/ Nunca

i Sabe Ud. cuantas recomendaciones de importancia ha hecho el comité'de consults
(district advisory committee) de su distrito al cuerpo de educaci6n del distrito

es_c_olar? __ _ __ _
£_/ Muchas / _/ Algunas [_j Pocas [_j Ninguna L_/ No s6,
L Cugntas han sido aceptadas?_
L_/ Togas L / Muchas L / Algunas [_7 Ninguna L / No as
[_j El comite de consults del distrito no fue informado

I l
l Hasta que punto ha participado e1 comite de
prog_ama de educacion compensatoria?
L_/ Mucho L / Algo L / Un poco L /

En su Opinion,
advisory committeez_en relacion al_grograma
L / Muy util 1_j Algo util L_/ No ha

1 Como represents el comite de consults de su distrito

consults de su comunidad en evaluar e1

Nada

L que tan 6:11 ha sido e1 comité'de consults de su distrito (district

de educacion_ compensatoria?
sido util L / No se

district advisory com-

mittee) a los padres que pertgflecen a grupos de minor a en su distrito?

[_j muy bien [_j algo L / mal ‘L_/

no se

; Como represents e1 comite de consulta de su distrito (district advisory
committee) los deerentes nLveles economicos en su distrito?

1_l muy bien

L / alga L / mal ‘L_/ no se

En comparacion con otros miembros del comité’de Consulto de su distrito (dis-
trict advisory committee); cuanta influencia cree que Ud. tiene en las deci-

siones del comite?
/ Z mucha mas que los otros miembros
‘L_/ un poco mas que los otros

1:7 m5; 0 mengg igual que los otros
L_/ un poco menos

L_/ uucha menos

En muchos comités de consults hay ocasionalmente un miembro que le da al comite

direccion valiosa.

/ /

L/

El superintendente L / Un padre

_/__/ Otro

El representantg de la comunidad L_

l Cual de los siguientes _desempena mejor ese papel?

/ El director del proyecto
Personal del Departamento do Estado

i Como clasificaria Ud. e1 trabajo de los miembros del comité'de consults (district

advisory committee2_de su distrito?
1_j Excelente ‘L_/ Bastante bueno L /

L Se les pagan los gastos a los miembros del
committee)? __ I .__
/_/

31 /_/ No

I

a Si su respuesta es ”Si",
Cuidado de ninos

L / Si [_7 No

Asiatir sesiones de
entrenamiento/conferencias

Cid/.7»

Otro__

 

Promedio L / Justo L / Huy limitado

comite de consults (district advisory

se les pagan por algunos de los siguientes?:

Millaje /_/ sf [I No

Pago por tiempo perdido de su trabajo
cuando assistg_juntap ng confer-
encias 1_/ Si 1_/ No

Si_gxiste tal fondoL_le parece s usted_gue es

‘L_/ Demasiado .L_/ Suficiente

I
En general,

1_/ No es suficiente

z diria Ud. que en participacion en el trabajo de su comité'de consults

de distrito (district advisory counittee) ha sido una experiencia valiosa para Ud.,
Para e1 comite y para desarrollo de programas educacionales?

 

 

 

Hucho Algg Un poco Ning 6n
De valor personal [_j [_j 1_/ L_/
De valor para el comite Q _/_:7 [1 Q
De valor para las escuelas _/_L/_ Q LL [‘1
De valor para la comunidad .L_/ .L_/ ‘L_/ .L_/

/
37. For favdr indique ai esta de acuerdo o no con laa aiguientea declaracionea:

Totaluente/ Huy dc / Mia o menoa/ En deoa-l Macho en
de acuerdo/ acuerdo/ de acuerdo / cuerdo / deaacuerdo

A 108 comite; de consulto de
destritos se lea ha dado mas
crédito que lo que merecen.

Realmente lo que contibuyen .__ ... __
es inaignificante. [_j 1__

\
l‘
\
\
\l
I‘
\

Aunque ae "verge bien" tener
mas gente pobre en los comitea
de consulte (district advisory
committee) eso no nos ayuda
mucho.

l‘
\
l‘
\
l‘
\
l\
\
l‘
\

Loa comités de consulte de
distrito (district advisory
committee) no parecen oer muy
importantes, pero son en
realidad importantisimoa en
nuestra comunidad.

l\
\
l‘
\
l\
\
I‘
\
l‘
\

Los comités de consulte de

distrito (district advisory

committee) sod/en realidad

"pura papeleria" y tienen may

poca o ninguna influencia en lo.

programaa de educacion compen- .__ ___ ___ __ __

aatoria. /__/ L/

|\
\
l\
\
l\
\

Los distritos escolarea, por 10

general 1e "dictan" a los comitea

de copaulta el programa de edu-

cacion compensatoria en vez de ___ ___ __ .__
pedirles au opinioh y conaejo. L_/ L_/ 1_j ‘£:7 L_/

I
38. Por favor ofrezca sugerenciaa que podria hacer que el comitg'de conculta de
distrito (district advisory committee) fuera de m‘a utilidad para el programa de
educacioh compensatoria.

APPENDIX E

FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD TO ALL DISTRICT

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS,

ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSION

156

157

June 8, 1970

TO : District Advisory Committee
Members and School District Administrators

FROM : Dr. Leo R. Lopez, Associate Superintendent and
Chief, Division of Compensatory Education

SUBJECT: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE

Early in May an Advisory Committee Questionnaire was mailed
to you. Since the Questionnaire was confidential, we have
no way of knowing if you have returned it to us. If you
have not mailed the Questionnaire, we urge you to do so.

We onId appreciate receiving your response on or before
June 17, 1970.

Please refer all questions to Ramiro Reyes, Chief, Bureau
of Community Services and Migrant Education, Division of
Compensatory Education, 721 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, 95814.
Telephone (916) 445-9850. Thank you for the great coopera-
tion we have already received from you.

158

8 junio, 1970

Para : Miembros de los Comités de
Consulta de Distritos (District Advisory
Committees), E.S.E.A., Titulo I

De Parte De: Leo R. Lopez, Superintendente Asociado y Jefe,
Division de Educacion Estatal.

Topico : EDUCACION COMPENSATORIA COMITES DE CONSULTA
CUESTIONARIO

Hace poco 1e enviemos por correo, un Cuestionario respeto

a su participacion en el comite de consulta de distrito
(district advisory committee). Como no pedimos que firmarun
el Cuestionario, no sabemos si Ud. no 10 ha regresado. Si

ya lo mando gracias mil, si todavié no lo ha terminado hégalo
y regreselo para el dia 17 de junio. Esto es de suma impor-
tancia.

Si tiene alguna pregunta, communiquese con el Sr. Ramiro
Reyes, Chief, Bureau of Community Services and Migrant
Education, Division of Compensatory Education, 721 Capitol
Mall, Sacramento. Telephone (916) 445-9850. Muchisimas
gracias por su cooperacién.

APPENDIX F

MEMORANDUM TO CONSULTANTS IN THE DIVISION

OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATION ACCOMPANYING

QUESTIONNAIRE MODIFIED FOR CONSULTANTS

159

Rate of California

1 6 0 Department of Education

Memorandum

rom

Subieci:

Professional Staff 0““ = December 29, 1970

Division of Compensatory Education
File NO.:

Ramiro Reyes, Chief
Bureau of Community Services and
Migrant Education

STUDY OF THE ROLE OF ESEA TITLE I, DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEES
IN COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

On April 9, 1970 an announcement of the above study was mailed
to 186 selected ESEA, Title I School District Superintendents
and ESEA, Title I Coordinators by the Bureau of Community
Services and Migrant Education. At this time we requested the
names and addresses of the 1969-70 district advisory committee
members.

On May 21, 1970, the Bureau of Community Services mailed 3,690
questionnaires, of this total 287 were translated into Spanish.
To date, we have received 1,616 completed questionnaires.

We are now requesting your assistance in completing our study
as you perceive the members of the committee would complete the
questionnaire.

Please complete and return the questionnaire to me by Wednesday,
January 6, 1971. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance
in this matter. '

RR:le

Attachment

161

DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE

Please enter in the space provided the number of the answer
which you feel best answers each question.

1. Do you feel that district advisory committee members have
freedom to disagree with the ideas of the administrators?

l. A great deal 3. A little ___
2. Much 4. None at all 1_/
2. How much influence have the recommendations made by

district advisory committees had on compensatory
education programs in school districts?

1. A great deal 3. A little
2. Some 4. None at all 4:7
3. Do you know if district advisory committees have

clearly understood goals?

1. Very clear 3. Not clear at all
2. Somewhat clear [:7
4. Do you know how district advisory committees

arrived at these goals?

1. Committee established its own goals
2. Administrators provided a statement of
these goals
3. A mixture of the two
4 Do not know [:7

5. In your Opinion, how well do you think district
advisory committees live up to stated goals?

1. Very well 3. Not so well
2. Fairly well 4. Poorly 1:7

6. To what extent do you think district advisory
committees do any of the following?

Review ESEA guidelines and regulations

1. A great deal 3. A little
2. Some 4. None at all [:7

162

Advise on kinds of programs needed

1. A great deal 3. A little
2. Some 4. None at all [:7

Work on publicity in support of the program

1. A great deal 3. A little
2. Some 4. None at all 1:7

Make suggestions on program operation

1. A great deal 3. A little
2. Some 4. None at all /_7

Help in the evaluation of the program

1. A great deal 3. A little
2. Some 4. None at all 4:7

Other (please specify)

Do you know who in the school district and/or the
community provided the information regarding compen-
satory education to the district advisory committee
members on which they could make recommendations?
(Check one or more of the following)

1. Project Director 4. Nurse

2. Superintendent 5. School Principal

3 Community 6. Board of Education
Representative Member 1:7

Other (please specify)

In general would you say that a committee member‘s
participation in the work of the committee has been

1. A valuable experience to himself
2. For the committee
. 3. For the development of educational
policy /_7

Please comment on how you see the job of the advisory
committee member. Do you have any suggestions on how
the operations and functioning of these advisory groups
could be made more effective?

163

10. Do you believe the governing board and administration
clearly defined the role and function of the advisory
committee in planning, implementing, and evaluating
ESEA, Title I compensatory education programs?

11. What are the problems encountered by the school district
in community involvement through district advisory com-
mittees in educational decision making?

12. Do you know of any promising practices which have been
discovered by school districts in community involvement
through district advisory committees?

APPENDIX G

131 CHI-SQUARE (X2) ANALYSES AND

CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENTS

164

165

Table 1.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 22* and
responses to Item ll.**

 

 

Very Clear
and
Somewhat Clear Not Clear Totals
None 59 12 71
One 121 23 144
Two or three 375 41 416
Four or five 310 28 338
More than five 510 51 561
Totals 1,375 155 1,530
x2 = 10.9389 (p<.05) c = .0836

*Does your district advisory committee have clearly under-
stood purposes? ‘

**About how many district advisory committee meetings have
you participated in during the past year?

Table 2.——Relationship between responses to Item 22* and
responses to Item 24.**

 

 

 

Very Clear
and
Somewhat Clear Not Clear Totals
Very well 426 8 434
Fairly well 745 34 779
Not so well 144 54 . 198
Poorly 23 44 67
Totals 1,338 140 1,478
x2 = 373.0958 (p<.001) c = .4488

*See Table 1.
**How well, do you think, does the committee do in living
up to its understood purposes?

166

Table 3.--Relationship between responses to Item 22* and
responses to Item 23.**

 

 

 

Very Clear
and
Somewhat Clear Not Clear Totals

Committee estab-
lished its own 207 5 212
Administration
gave a statement
of these purposes 325 75 400
A mixture
of the two 589 19 608
Don't know 185 44 229

Totals 1,306 143 1,449

x2 = 102.4835 (p<.001) c = .2569

*See Table 1.
**How has your district advisory committee arrived at these
purposes?

Table 4.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 11**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
None 30 60 90
One 50 103 153
Two or three 209 205 414
Four or five 160 179 339
More than five 278 285 563
Totals 727 832 1,559
x2 = 22.5806 (P<.001) c = .1191

*Are you a paid employee of the school district?
**About how many district advisory committee meetings have
you participated in during the past year?

 

167

Table 5.—-Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 12.**

 

 

Yes No Totals

Often enough ' 532 542 1,074
Too often 14 14 28
Not too often 66 84 150
Not as often
as it should 98 160 258

Totals 710 800 1,510

x2 = 13.3938 (p<.01) c = .0932

*See Table 4.

**Do you think your district advisory committee has met:
often enough, too often, not too often, not as often
as it should?

Table 6.—-Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 19.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 454 381 835
Some 182 276 458
A little 57 88 145
None at all 17 54 71
Totals 710 799 1,509
x2 = 46.4965 (p<.001) c = .1726

*See Table 4.
**How much freedom do you feel the members of your committee
have to disagree with the ideas of the administrators?

168

Table 7.--Relationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 20.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 179 196 375
Some 350 355 705
A little 131 126 257
None at all 38 78 116
Totals 698 755 1,453
x2 = 12.4796 (p<.01) c = .0921

*See Table 4.

**What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

Table 8.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 39.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
All 71 27 98
Many 114 72 186
Some 226 209 435
None 56 47 103
I don't know 198 353 551
The district advisory
committee was not
told how many 23 39 62
Totals 688 747 1,435
x2 = 76.1242 (p<.001) c = .2242

*See Table 4.
**How many have been accepted?

 

169

Table 9.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and

responses to Item 41.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very useful 235 299 534
Somewhat useful 372 323 695
Not useful 59 75 134
I don't know 45 97 142
Totals 711 794 1,505
x2 = 27.5843 (P<.001) c = .1337

*See Table 4.

**How useful do you feel your district advisory committee
has been to the compensatory education program?

Table 10.—-Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 42.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very well 463 454 917
Somewhat 163 199 362
Poorly 58 81 139
I don't know 21 68 89
Totals 705 802 1,507
x2 = 26.1593 (p<.001) c = .1303

*See Table 4.

**How well does your district advisory committee represent
minority group parents in your district?

170

Table 11.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 43.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very well 340 367 707
Somewhat 257 233 490
Poorly 61 100 161
I don't know 50 107 I 157
Totals 708 807 1,515
x2 = 25.9898 (p<.001) c = .1296

*See Table 4.
**How well does your district advisory committee represent
different income levels of parents in your district?

Table 12.—-Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 44.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Much more influence 76 . 45 121
Somewhat more
influence 219 141 360
About the same
influence 344 483 827
Somewhat less
influence 28 58 86
Much less influence 26 54 80

Totals 693 781 1,474
x2 = 63.4424 (p<.001) c = .2029

*See Table 4.

**Compared with other members of your district advisory
committee, how much influence do you feel you have on
committee decisions?

171

Table 13.—~Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and

responses to Item 53.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 415 498 913
Somewhat 206 185 391
A little 61 54 115
Not at all 20 31 51
Totals 702 768 1,470
x2 = 8.5259 (p<.05) c = .0754

*See Table 4.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for you personally?

Table 14.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 54.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 246 260 506
Somewhat 330 309 639
A little 89 120 209
Not at all 18 32 50
Totals 683 721 1,404
x2 = 8.5734 (p<.05) c = .0774)

*See Table 4.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the committee?

172

Table 15.--Relationship between responses to Item 9* and

responses to Item 55.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 336 326 662
Somewhat 263 250 513
A little 68 119 187
Not at all 26 41 67
Totals 693 736 1,429
x2 = 16.4688 (p<.001) c = .1063

*See Table 4.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable

experience for the schools?

Table 16.--Relationship between responses to Item 9* and

responses to Item 56.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 300 341 641
Somewhat 277 237 514
A little 91 127 218
Not at all 25 43 68
Totals 693 748 1,441
x2 = 14.3667 (P<.01) c = .0989

*See Table 4.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable

experience for the community?

173

Table l7.—-Relationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 57.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 57 100 157
Agree 77 97 174
Agree somewhat 240 213 453
Disagree 113 121 234
Strongly disagree 204 241 445
Totals 691 772 1,463
X2 = 14.5952 (P<.01) C = .0989

*See Table 4.
**Considering all problems, advisory committees are far over-
rated with respect to what they can contribute.

Table 18.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 58.**

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 70 106 176
Agree 61 81 142
Agree somewhat 160 168 328
Disagree I 112 102 214
Strongly disagree 303 308 611
Totals 706 765 1,471

 

X2 = 8.5312
*See Table 4.
**Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people on
advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

174

Table l9.—-Relationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 59.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 258 355 613
Agree 208 204 412
Agree somewhat 167 146 313
Disagree 49 43 92
Strongly disagree 31 41 72
Totals 713 789 1,502
x2 = 14.7694 (P<.01) c = .0984

*See Table 4.

**District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our
community.

Table 20.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 60.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 58 93 151
Agree 43 60 103
Agree somewhat 151 171 322
Disagree 156 153 309
Strongly disagree 302 301 603
Totals 710 778 1,488

 

X2 = 9.1029
*See Table 4.
**District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory educa—
tion programs.

175

Table 21.--Relationship between responses to Item 9* and
responses to Item 61.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 95 151 246
Agree 62 108 170
Agree somewhat 209 174 383
Disagree 150 131 281
Strongly disagree 179 187 366
Totals 695 751 1,446
x2 = 27.7259 (p<.001) c = .1371

*See Table 4.

**School districts usually tell district advisory commit—
tees what the compensatory education program will be,
instead of asking for their advice.

Table 22.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 57.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 58 94 152
Agree 60 g 111 171
Agree somewhat 154 294 448
Disagree 75 154 229
Strongly disagree 159 286 445
Totals 506 939 1,445

 

x2 = 1.3567

*Are you a parent of a participating child(ren) in a
compensatory education program?

**Considering all problems, advisory committees are far over-
rated with respect to what they can contribute.

 

176

Table 23.--Re1ationship between responses to
responses to Item 58.**

Item 8* and

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 83 86 169
Agree 48 92 140
Agree somewhat 109 218 327
Disagree 65 146 211
Strongly disagree 201 401 602
Totals 506 943 1,449
2
X = 17.5585 (P<.01)

*See Table 22.
**Although it would "look nice" to have more
advisory committees, this does not help us

Table 24.—~Re1ationship between responses to
responses to Item 59.**

poor people on
very much.

 

Item 8* and

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 279 316 595
Agree 131 280 411
Agree somewhat 76 234 310
Disagree 21 72 93
Strongly disagree 17 54 71
Totals 524 956 1,480
x2 = 63.4008 (p<.001) c = .2024

*See Table 22.

**District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our

community.

 

177

Table 25.—~Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 60.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 54 95 149
Agree 40 62 102
Agree somewhat 97 223 320
Disagree 97 209 306
Strongly disagree 227 366 593
Totals 515 955 1,470

 

X2 = 8.2535
*See Table 22.
**District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory educa-
tion programs.

Table 26.--Relationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 61.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 99 141 240
Agree 68 101 169
Agree somewhat 119 266 385
Disagree 82 195 277
Strongly disagree 132 226 358
Totals 500 929 1,429
X2 = 13.0898 (P<.02) C = .0948

*See Table 22.

**School district usually tell district advisory committees
what the compensatory education program will be, instead
of asking for their advice.

178

Table 27.--Relationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 19.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 234 590 824
Some 193 264 457
A little 64 76 140
None at all 37 33 70
Totals 528 963 1,491
x2 = 42.8275 (P<.001) c = .1670

*See Table 22.
**How much freedom do you feel the members of your committee
have to disagree with the ideas of the administrators?

Table 28.——Relationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 20.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 146 220 366
Some 231 475 706
A little 83 172 255
None at all 48 65 113
Totals 508 932 1,440
x2 = 8.8319 (P<.05) c = .0774

*See Table 22.

**What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

179

Table 29.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and

responses to Item 41.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very useful 230 296 526
Somewhat useful 205 484 689
Not useful 37 94 131
I don't know 55 88 143
Totals 527 962 1,489
x2 = 29.0746 (p<.001) c = .1382

*See Table 22.

**How useful do you feel your district advisory committee
has been to the compensatory education program?

Table 30.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and

responses to Item 39.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals

All 19 78 97
Many 51 138 189
Some 142 285 427
None 35 67 102
I don't know 233 312 545
The district advisory
committee was not 22 39 61
told how many

Totals 502 919 1,421

x2 = 30.2900 (p<.001) c = .1442

*See Table 22.

**How many important recommendations which
advisory committee has made to the Board

have been accepted?

your district
of Education

180

Table 31.—-Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and

responses to Item 42.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very well 310 598 908
Somewhat 116 239 355
Poorly 55 85 140
I don't know 50 33 83
Totals 531 955 1,486
x2 = 24.9248 (P<.001) c = .1280

*See Table 22.
**How well does your district advisory committee represent
minority group parents in your district?

Table 32.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and

responses to Item 43.**

 

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very well 244 453 697
Somewhat 151 332 483
Poorly 58 101 159
I don't know 80 77 157
Totals 533 963 1,496

x2 = 20.2622 (P<.001) c = .1153

*See Table 22.
**How well does your district advisory committee represent
different income levels of parents in your district?

 

181

Table 33.——Relationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 53.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 383 515 898
Somewhat 89 304 393
A little 26 90 116
Not at all 8 4O 48
Totals 506 949 1,455
x2 = 64.7952 (p<.001) c = .2063

*See Table 22.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for you personally?

Table 34.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 54.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 205 293 498
Somewhat 177 459 636
A little 72 138 210
Not at all 13 35 48
Totals 467 925 1,392
x2 = 23.2372 (P<.001) c = .1280

*See Table 22.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the committee?

182

Table 35.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 55.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 262 389 651
Somewhat 139 371 510
A little 69 120 189
Not at all 18 46 64
Totals 488 926 1,414
x2 = 22.8419 (p<.001) c = .1256

*See Table 22.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the schools?

Table 36.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 8* and
responses to Item 56.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 265 364 629
Somewhat 133 378 511
A little ' 76 141 217
Not at all 17 49 66
Totals 491 932 1,423
x2 = 34.6954 (p<.001) c = .1542

*See Table 22.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the community?

183

Table 37.—-Relationship between those who responded in
English (0-1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 19.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
A great deal 845 8 853
Some , 444 26 470
A little 141 5 146
None at all 69 3 72
Totals 1,499 42 1,541
x2 = 25.0771 . (p<.001) c = .1260

*How much freedom do you feel the members of your committee
have to disagree with the ideas of the administrators?

Table 38.——Relationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574—
1620) and Item 20.*

 

 

English Spanish Totals
A great deal 372 12 384
Some 704 17 721
A little 252 10 262
None at all 114 2 116
Totals 1,442 41 1,483

 

x2 = 2.1755
*What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

184

Table 39.—~Relationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 38.*

 

 

English 'Spanish Totals
Many 165 5 170
Some 500 19 519
Few 239 1 240
None 104 2 106
I don't know 486 13 499
Totals 1,494 40 1,534

 

x2 = 7.0950
*Do you know how many important recommendations your
district advisory committee has made to the Board of
Education?

Table 40.-—Re1ationship between those who responded in
English (0-1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 41.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Very useful 521 23 544
Somewhat useful 695 15 710
Not useful 133 1 134
I don't know 145 3 148
Totals ' 1,494 42 1,536
x2 = 7.8645 (p<.05) c = .0704

*How useful do you feel your district advisory committee
has been to the compensatory education program?

 

185

Table 41.——Relationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 42.*

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Very well 913 25 938
Somewhat 356 11 367
Poorly 142 0 142
I don't know 84 6 90
Totals 1,495 42 1,537
x2 = 9.3427 (p<.05) c = .0774

*How well does your district advisory committee represent
minority group parents in your district?

Table 42.—-Relationship between those who responded in
English (0-1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 43.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Very well 705 17 722
Somewhat 485 13 498
Poorly 160 2 162
I don't know 155 9 164
Totals 1,505 41 1,546
x2 = 12.1117 (P<.01) c = .0894

*How well does your district advisory committee represent
different income levels of parents in your district?

186

Table 43.-—Relationship between those who responded in
English (0-1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574—
1620) and Item 46.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Excellent 127 9 136
Quite good 575 18 593
Average 458 6 464
Fair 147 5 152
Quite limited 153 3 156
Totals 1,460 41 1,501
x2 = 12.1117 (p<.01) c = .0894

*How would you say the work of the members of your district
advisory committee is?

Table 44.-—Relationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 53.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
A great deal 899 30 929
Somewhat 398 5 403
A little 117 1 118
Not at all 51 1 52
Totals 1,465 37 1,502
X2 = 6.1211

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper-
ience for you personally?

187

Table 45.——Re1ationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 54.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
A great deal 492 21 513
Somewhat 646 11 657
A little 212 2 214
Not at all 52 0 52
Totals 1,402 34 1,436
x2 = 11.1392 (p<.02) c = .0871

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper-
ience for the committee?

Table 46.——Relationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 55.*

 

 

English Spanish Totals
A great deal 651 21 672
Somewhat 522 8 530
A little 186 5 191
Not at all 67 0 67
Totals 1,426 34 1,460
X2 = 5.1050

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper—
ience for the schools?

 

 

188

Table 47.—-Re1ationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 56.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
A great deal 625 27 652
Somewhat 518 11 529
A little 219 2 221
Not at all 69 0 69
Totals 1,431 40 1,471
x2 = 10.4803 (p<.02) c = .0836

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper-
ience for the community?

Table 48.-—Relationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 57.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Strongly agree 155 5 160
Agree 176 3 179
Agree somewhat 445 18 463
Disagree 226 10 236
Strongly disagree 450 3 453
Totals 1,452 39 1,491
x2 = 12.9467 (P<.05) c = .0927)

*Considering all problems, advisory committees are far over-
rated with respect to what they can contribute.

189

Table 49.——Relationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574—
1620) and Item 58.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Strongly agree 174 5 179
Agree 141 3 144
Agree somewhat 331 7 338
Disagree 205 12 217
Strongly disagree 614 7 621
Totals 1,465 34 1,499
X2 = 14.3659 (P<.01) C = .0969

*Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people on
advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

Table 50.—-Relationship between those who responded in
English (0-1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574-
1620) and Item 59.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Strongly agree 597 24 621
Agree 410 12 422
Agree somewhat 317 3 320
Disagree 94 0 94
Strongly disagree 73 0 73
Totals 1,491 39 1,530
x2 = 12.1888 (p<.02) c = .0888

*District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our
community.

 

 

190

Table 51.—-Re1ationship between those who responded in
English (0—1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574—
1620) and Item 60.*

 

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Strongly agree 150 4 154
Agree 104 1 105
Agree somewhat 325 6 331
Disagree 298 16 314
Strongly disagree 605 8 613
Totals 1,482 35 1,517
x2 = 14.8343 (P<.01) c = .0979

*District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory education
programs.

Table 52.——Relationship between those who responded in
English (0-1574) and those who responded in Spanish (1574—
1620) and Item 61.*

 

 

English Spanish Totals
Strongly agree 243 6 249
Agree 172 l 173
Agree somewhat 382 12 394
Disagree 274 11 285
Strongly disagree 367 6 373
Totals 1,438 36 1,474

 

x2 = 6.6176
*School districts usually tell district advisory committees
what the compensatory education program will be instead of
asking for their advice.

 

191

Table 53.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 1* and
responses to Item 57.**

 

 

Male Female Totals
Strongly agree 64 95 159
Agree 74 103 177
Agree somewhat 183 278 461
Disagree 99 137 236
Strongly disagree 170 281 451
Totals 590 894 1,484

 

x2 = 1.6027

*Sex. Male Female
**Considering all problems, advisory committees are far
over—rated with respect to what they can contribute.

Table 54.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 1* and
responses to Item 58.**

 

 

 

Male Female Totals
Strongly agree 68 110 178
Agree 64 79 143
Agree somewhat 147 190 337
Disagree 102 113 215
Strongly disagree 215 404 619
Totals 596 896 1,492
x2 = 15.5474 (p<.01) c = .1009

*See Table 53.
**Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people
on advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

 

192

Table 55.-—Relationship between responses to Item 1* and
responses to Item 59.**

 

 

 

Male Female Totals
Strongly agree 200 420 620
Agree 182 236 418
Agree somewhat 138 181 319
Disagree 48 46 , 94
Strongly disagree 31 41 72
Totals 599 924 1,523
x2 = 24.0083 (p<.001) c = .1240

*See Table 53.

**District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our
community.

Table 56.-~Relationship between responses to Item 1* and
responses to Item 60.**

 

 

 

Male Female Totals
Strongly agree 53 101 154
Agree , 38 66 104
Agree somewhat 139 190 329
Disagree 126 186 312
Strongly disagree 239 372 611
Totals 595 915 1,510
x2 = 3.2249

*See Table 53.

**District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory educa-
tion programs.

193

Table 57.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 1* and
responses to Item 71.**

 

 

 

Male Female Totals
Strongly agree 88 159 247
Agree 64 107 171
Agree somewhat 162 230 392
Disagree 126 159 285
Strongly disagree 150 222 372
Totals 590 877 1,467

 

x2 = 4.8104
*See Table 53.

**School districts usually tell district advisory commit-
tees what the compensatory education program will be

instead of asking for their advice.

Table 58.--Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 54.**

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
A great deal 56 457 513
Somewhat 71 586 657
A little 28 186 214
Not at all 7 45 52
Totals 162 1,274 1,436
x2 = 15.5474 (p<.01) c = .1009
*Age

**In general, would you say that your participation in the

work of your advisory committee has been a valuable

experience for the committee?

 

194

Table 59.-~Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 55.**

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
A great deal 76 596 672
Somewhat 42 488 530
A little 32 159 191
Not at all 10 57 67
Totals 160 1,300 1,460
X2 = 12.7393 (P<.01) C = .0927

*See Table 58.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the schools?

Table 60.——Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 56.**

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
A great deal 79 573 652
Somewhat 43 486 529
A little 28 193 221
Not at all 11 58 69
Totals 161 1,310 1,471
x2 = 7.6654

*See Table 58.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the community?

 

195

Table 61.—-Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 19.**

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
A great deal 78 775 853
Some 60 410 470
A little 17 129 146
None at all 14 58 72
Totals 169 1,372 1,541
x2 = 9.8283 (p<.05) c = .0793

*See Table 58.
**How much freedom do you feel the members of your commit-
tee have to disagree with the ideas of the administrators?

Table 62.-—Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 20.**

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
A great deal 36 348 384
Some 69 652 721
A little 37 225 262
None at all 20 96 116
Totals 162 1,321 1,483
x2 = 9.8169 (p<.05) c = .0806

*See Table 58.

**What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

 

196

Table 63.-—Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 39.**

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
All 4 95 99
Many 13 178 191_
Some 34 408 442
None 15 90 105
I don't know 89 476 565
The district advi-
sory committee was 7 57 64
not told how many
Totals 162 1,304 1,466
x2 = 27.3466 (P<.001) c = .1352

*See Table 58.

**How many important recommendations which your district
advisory committee has made to the Board of Education
have been accepted?

Table 64.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 41.**

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Very useful 58 486 544
Somewhat useful 73 637 710
Not useful 25 109 134
I don't know 15 133 148
Totals 171 1,365 1,536
x2 = 8.4581 (p<.05) c = .0734

*See Table 58.
**How useful do you feel your district advisory committee
has been to the compensatory education program?

197

Table 65.—~Re1ationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 42.**

 

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Very well 103 835 938
Somewhat 33 334 367
Poorly 19 123 142
I don't know 16 74 90
Totals 171 1,366 1,537
X2 = 3.2030

*See Table 58.
**How well does your district advisory committee represent
minority group parents in your district?

Table 66.--Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 43.**

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Very well 74 648 722
Somewhat 55 443 498
Poorly 24 138 162
I don't know 21 143 164
Totals 174 1,372 1,546
X2 = 3.2030

*See Table 58.
**How well does your district advisory committee represent
different income levels of parents in your district?

198

Table 67.—-Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 57.**

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Strongly agree 17 143 160
Agree 19 160 179
Agree somewhat 40 423 463
Disagree 23 213 236
Strongly disagree 63 390 453
Totals 162 1,329 1,491

 

x2 = 7.0239
*See Table 58.
**Considering all problems, advisory committees are far
over-rated with respect to what they can contribute.

Table 68.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 58.**

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Strongly agree 18 161 179
Agree 14 130 144
Agree somewhat 25 313 338
Disagree 25 192 217
Strongly disagree 84 537 621
Totals 166 1,333 1,499

 

x2 = 8.9347 .
*See Table 58.
**Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people
on advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

199

Table 69.——Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 59.**

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Strongly agree 84 537 621
Agree 41 381 422
Agree somewhat 18 302 320
Disagree 15 79 94
Strongly disagree 9 64 73
Totals 167 1,363 1,530
x2 = 16.7975 (p<.01) c = .1039

*See Table 58.

**District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our
community.

Table 70.--Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 60.**

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Strongly agree 20 134 154
Agree 13 92 105
Agree somewhat 33 298 331
Disagree 28 286 314
Strongly disagree 68 545 613
Totals 162 1,355 1,517

 

x2 = 2.4854
*See Table 58.
**District advisory committees are really "paper committees
which have little or no influence on compensatory educa—
tion programs.

 

200

Table 71.—-Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 61.**

 

 

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
Strongly agree 39 210 249
Agree 19 154 173
Agree somewhat 40 354 394
Disagree 22 263 285
Strongly disagree 40 333 373
Totals 160 1,314 1,474
X2 = 9.0542

*See Table 58.

**School districts usually tell district advisory committees
what the compensatory education program will be instead
of asking for their advice.

Table 72.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 53.**

...—‘....-“

 

 

30 and Under Over 30 Totals
A great deal 114 815 929
Somewhat 37 366 403
A little 7 111 118
Not at all 9 43 52
Totals 167 1,335 1,502
x2 = 8.0072 (p<.05) c = .0728

*See Table 58.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for you personally?

 

201

 

 

 

Table 73.-—Relationship between responses to Item 2* and
responses to Item 44.**
30 and Under Over 30 Totals

Much more influence 11 109 120
Somewhat more
influence 29 326 355
About the same
influence 102 720 822
Somewhat less
influence 12 75 87
Much less influence 8 68 76

Totals 162 1,298 1,460

X2 = 5.6385
*Age

**Compared with other members of your district advisory
committee, how much influence do you feel you have on

committee decisions?

Table 74.—-Relationship between responses to Item 47* and

responses to Item 11**

 

 

Yes No Totals
None 9 47 56
One 28 92 120
Two or three 83 280 363
Four or five 116 189 305
More than five 187 312 499
Totals 423 920 1,343
x2 = 36.7213 (p<.001) c = .1630

*Does your district pay expenses for the members of the
district advisory committee?
**About how many district advisory committee meetings have
you participated in during the past year?

 

202

Table 75.--Relationship between responses to Item 21* and
responses to Item 20.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 365 11 376
Some 646 31 677
A little 204 30 234
None at all 76 27 103
Totals 1,291 99 1,390
x2 = 84.8681 (p<.001) c = .2397

*Is your district advisory committee recognized by the
governing board of your district?

**What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

Table 76.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 21* and
responses to Item 57.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 126 21 147
Agree 151 14 165
Agree somewhat 399 25 424
Disagree 207 12 219
Strongly disagree 400 26 426
Totals 1,283 98 1,381
x2 = 14.4393 (P<.01) c = .1014

*See Table 75.
**Considering all problems, advisory committees are far
over-rated with respect to what they can contribute.

 

203

Table 77.——Relationship between responses to Item 21* and
responses to Item 58.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 144 11 155
Agree 124 10 134
Agree somewhat 295 22 317
Disagree 189 13 202
Strongly disagree 530 41 571
Totals 1,282 97 1,379

 

x2 = .1722

*See Table 75.
**Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people on
advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

Table 78.——Relationship between responses to Item 21* and
responses to Item 59.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 548 28 576
Agree 368 28 396
Agree somewhat 262 25 287
Disagree 81 6 87
Strongly disagree 51 12 63
Totals 1,310 99 1,409
x2 = 19.3204 (P<.001) c = .1161

*See Table 75.

’ **District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our
community.

o cr.-.--vr_a — . .~ ~-

204

Table 79.--Relationship between responses to Item 21* and
‘ responses to Item 60.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 106 31 137
Agree 84 10 94
Agree somewhat 279 23 302
Disagree 261 24 285
Strongly disagree 573 12 585
Totals 1,303 100 1,403
x2 = 75.0761 (p<.001) c = .2251

*See Table 75.

**District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory education
programs.

Table 80.--Relationship between responses to Item 21* and
responses to Item 61.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 171 49 220
Agree 141 16 157
Agree somewhat 346 21 367
Disagree 255 10 265
Strongly disagree 351 3 354
Totals 1,264 99 1,363
x2 = 103.2966 (p<.001) c = .2653

*See Table 75.

**School districts usually tell district advisory commit-
tees what the compensatory education program will be
instead of asking for their advice.

205

Table 81.—-Relationship between responses to Item 20* and
responses to Item ll.**

 

A Great Deal A Little
and and
Some None at All Totals
None 54 19 73
One 97 39 136
Two or three 277 110 387
Four or five 245 86 331
More than five 428 122 550
Totals 1,101 376 1,477

 

x2 = 5.7074

*What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

**About how many district advisory committee meetings have
you participated in during the past year?

Table 82.—-Relationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 57.**

 

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Strongly agree 18 141 159
Agree 36 143 179
Agree somewhat 73 388 461
Disagree 24 212 236
Strongly disagree 58 .393 451
Totals 209 1,277 1,486
x2 = 11.1054 (p<.05) c = .0860

*About how many district advisory committee meetings have
you participated in during the past year?

**Considering all problems, advisory committees are far over-
rated with respect to what they can contribute.

206

Table 83.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 58.**

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Strongly agree 22 156 178
Agree 27 117 144
Agree somewhat 54 281 335
Disagree 43 174 217
Strongly disagree 75 542 617
Totals 221 1,270 1,491
x2 = 10.8219 (P<.05) c = .0848

*See Table 82.
**Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people on
advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

Table 84.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 59.**

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Strongly agree 76 541 617
Agree 61 360 421
Agree somewhat 58 261 319
Disagree 15 79 94
Strongly disagree 12 59 71

Totals 222 1,300 1,522
X2 = 6.3095

*See Table 82.

**District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our
community.

207

Table 85.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 60.**

 

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Strongly agree 61 91 152
Agree 54 51 105
Agree somewhat 145 185 330
Disagree 161 152 313
Strongly disagree 207 402 609
Totals 628 881 1,509
x2 = 32.0348 (p<.001) c = .1438

*See Table 82.

**District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory educa—
tion programs.

Table 86.--Relationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 61.**

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Strongly agree 40 207 247
Agree 23 149 172
Agree somewhat 61 331 392
Disagree 43 241 284
Strongly disagree 41 331 372
Totals 208 1,259 1,467
x2 = 4.7958

*See Table 82.

**School districts usually tell district advisory committees
what the compensatory education program will be instead of
asking for their advice.

 

208

Table 87.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 21.**

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Yes 188 1,153 1,341
No 67 85 152
Totals 255 1,238 1,493
x2 = 84.9942 (p<.001) c = .2397

*See Table 82.
**Is your district advisory committee recognized by the
governing board of your district?

Table 88.-—Relationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 36.**

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Very helpful 75 587 662
Somewhat helpful 83 518 601
Not helpful 10 60 70
I don't know 49 126 175
Totals 217 1,291 1,508
x2 = 31.5116 (p<.001) c = .2397

*See Table 82.

**How helpful has the information given to you by the school
district been to your district advisory committee in its
recommendations?

 

 

209

Table 89.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 41.**

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Very useful 61 480 541
Somewhat useful 88 519 607
Not useful 31 103 134
I don't know 41 104 145
Totals 221 1,206 1,427
x2 = 31.8922 (p<.001) c = .1476

*See Table 82.
**How useful do you feel your district advisory committee
has been to the compensatory education program?

Table 90.—-Relationship between responses to Item 11* and
responses to Item 46.**

 

 

 

None or One Two or More Totals
Excellent 14 121 135
Quite good 77 515 592
Average 60 402 462
Fair 24 127 151
Quite limited 35 . 118 153
Totals 210 1,283 1,493
x2 = 12.7616 (p<.01) c = .0916

*See Table 82.
**How would you say the work of the members of your district
advisory committee is?

 

....— ._._.- - w

210

Table 91.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 38* and
responses to Item 39.**

 

 

 

Many Few, None &

& Some I Don't Know Totals
All 80 18 98
Many 177 12 189
Some 294 143 437
None 12 ' 91 103
I don't know 80 480 560
The district advisory
committee was not 23 41 64
told how many

Totals 666 785 1,451
x2 = 580.9654 (p<.001) c = .5346

*Do you know how many important recommendations your dis-
trict advisory committee has made to the Board of
Education?

**How many have been accepted?

Table 92.--Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 19.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 265 535 800
Some 191 243 434
A little 63 67 130
None at all 36 26 62
.Totals 555 871 1,426
x2 = 16.4812 (p<.001) c = .1092

*Are you a member of a minority group?
**How much freedom do you feel the members of your committee
have to disagree with the ideas of the administrators?

 

211

Table 93. ——Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 20. **

H
E
l
l

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 141 205 346
Some 252 431 683
A little 107 139 246
None at all 44 64 108
Totals 544 839 1,383
x2 = 139.9162 (p<.001) c = .3031

*See Table 92.

**What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

Table 94.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 36.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very helpful 231 383 614
Somewhat helpful 226 343 569
Not helpful 31 32 63
I don't know 67 99 166
Totals 555 857 1,412
x2 = 47.4478 (p<.001) c = .1803

*See Table 92.

**How helpful has the information given to you by the school
district been to your district advisory committee in its
recommendations?

 

‘4’" _‘,,____g_,__,._____

212

Table 95.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 39.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals

All 18 77 95
Many 57 122 179
Some 183 234 417
None 43 55 98
I don't know 213 320 533
The district advisory
committee was not 23 37 60
told how many

Totals 537 845 1,382

x2 = 328.9902 (p<.001) c = .1803

*See Table 92.

**How many important recommendations which your district
advisory committee has made to the Board of Education
have been accepted?

Table 96.—-Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 40.**

 

.—

Yes No . Totals

 

 

Very useful 148 191 339
Somewhat useful 189 377 566
Not useful 114 194 308
I don't know 92 102 194
Totals 543 864 1,407

X2 = 88.3351 (P<.001) C = .2430

*See Table 92.
**How much has your district advisory committee been
involved in evaluating the compensatory education program?

 

 

 

213

Table 97.——Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 41.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very useful 219 280 499
Somewhat useful 238 431 669
Not useful 43 86 129
I don't know 55 81 136
Totals 555 878 1,433
X2 = 12.8109 (P<.01) C = .0942

*See Table 92.
**How useful do you feel your district advisory committee
has been to the compensatory education program?

Table 98.-—Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 42.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very well 341 537 878
Somewhat 131 215 346
Poorly 64 69 133
I don't know 24 53 77
Totals 560 874 1,434
2

X = 12.6047 (P<.01) C = .0933

*See Table 92.
**How well does your district advisory committee represent
minority group parents in your district?

 

 

214

Table 99.——Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 43.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Very well 233 438 671
Somewhat 177 289 466
Poorly 77 78 155
I don't know 72 76 148
Totals 559 881 1,440

 

x2 = 7.3281
*See Table 92.
**How well does your district advisory committee represent
different income levels of parents in your district?

Table 100.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 53.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 368 499 867
Somewhat 121 259 380
A little 33 79 112
Not at all 17 31 48
Totals 539 868 1,407
X2 = 13.0383 (P<.01) C = .0958

*See Table 92.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for you personally?

 

215

Table 101.——Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 54.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal’ 208 274 482
Somewhat 219 401 620
A little 66 134 200
Not at all 18 32 50
Totals 511 841 1,352
x2 = 114.1839 (P<.0001) c = .02790

*See Table 92.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the committee?

Table 102.-—Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 55.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 256 369 ‘ 625
Somewhat 184 320 504
A little 55 122 177
Not at all 27 38 65
Totals 522 849 1,371
x2 = 30.2018 (p<.001) c = .1468

*See Table 92.

**In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable
experience for the schools?

216

Table lO3.--Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 56.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
A great deal 268 331 599
Somewhat 164 341 505
A little 68 140 208
Not at all 26 38 64
Totals 526 850 1,376
x2 = 63.1240 (p<.001) c = .2094

*See Table 92.
**In general, would you say that your participation in the

work of your advisory committee has been a valuable

experience for the community?

Table 104.——Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 57.**

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 76 67 143
Agree 65 94 159
Agree somewhat 156 281 437
Disagree 71 153 224
Strongly disagree 175 258 433
Totals 543 853 1,396
x2 = 196.1925 (p<.001) c = .3510

*See Table 92.
**Considering all problems, advisory committees are far
over—rated with respect to what they can contribute.

 

217

Table 105.—-Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 58.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 81 82 163
Agree 49 82 131
Agree somewhat 126 192 318
Disagree 65 138 203
Strongly disagree 218 363 581
Totals 539 857 1,396
x2 = 227.4833 (P<.001) c = .3743

*See Table 92.
**Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people on
advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

Table 106.-—Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 59.**

 

 

 

 

Yes No Totals

Strongly agree 286 285 571
Agree 131 265 396
Agree somewhat 84 212 296
Disagree 24 65 89
Strongly disagree 28 40 68
Totals 553 867 1,420

x2 = 313.0962 (P<.001) c = .4250

*See Table 92.

**District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our
community.

 

218

Table 107.—-Relationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 60.**

 

 

 

Yes No Totals
Strongly agree 80 61 141
Agree 31 67 98'
Agree somewhat 116 199 315
Disagree 94 199 293
Strongly disagree 225 346 571
Totals 546 872 1,418
x2 = 221.9791 (p<.001) c = .3679

*See Table 92.

**District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory education
programs.

Table 108.—-Re1ationship between responses to Item 6* and
responses to Item 61.**

 

 

Yes No Totals

Strongly agree . 132 94 226
Agree 67 96 163
Agree somewhat 124 257 381
Disagree 90 170 260
Strongly disagree 118 230 348
Totals 531 847 1,378

x2 = 105.3439 (p<.001) c = .2664

*See Table 92.

**School districts usually tell district advisory committees
what the compensatory education program will be instead of
asking for their advice.

 

 

219

Table lO9.--Re1ationship between the responses of adminis—
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 11.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

None . 67 7 74
One 142 10 152
Two or three 326 81 407
Four or five 269 69 338
More than five 418 136 554
Totals 1,222 303 1,525

x2 = 29.5827 (p<.001) c = .1379

*About how many district advisory committee meetings have
you participated in during the past year?

Table 110.—~Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 20.*

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
A great deal 300 74 374
Some 536 170 706
A little 214 43 257
None at all 105 8 113
Totals 1,155 295 1,450
x2 = 20.4881 (p<.001) c = .1180

*What difference have the recommendations of your district
advisory committee made on the compensatory education
program in your district?

 

220

Table lll.—-Relationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 22.*

 

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
Very clear 521 129 650
Somewhat clear 540 154 694
Not clear 133 20 153
Totals 1,194 303 1,497
2
X = 6.6200 C = .0663

*Does your district advisory committee have clearly under-
stood purposes?

Table 112.--Re1ationship between the responses of adminis—
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 23.*

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
Committee estab-
lished its own 152 54 206
Administration
gave a statement 343 57 400

of these purposes

A mixture of

 

the two 429 173 602
Don't know 220 10 230
Totals 1,144 294 1,438

x2 = 75.7457 (p<.001) c = .2237

*How has your district advisory committee arrived at these
purposes?

221

Table ll3.——Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 24.*

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
Very well 353 72 425
Fairly well 593 175 768
Not so well 157 45 202
Poorly 66 8 74
Totals 1,169 300 1,469
x2 = 10.4446 (p<.02) c = .0840

*How well, do you think, does the committee do in living up
to its understood purposes?

Table ll4.——Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 36.*

 

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
Very helpful 511 133 644
Somewhat helpful 458 140 598
Not helpful 59 9 68
I don't know 162 13 175
Totals 1,190 295 1,485
x2 = 23.8552 (p<.001) c = .1257

*How helpful has the information given to you by the school
district been to your district advisory committee in its
recommendations?

 

 

222

Table 115.—-Relationship between the responses of adminis—
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 38.*

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

 

Many 132 38 170
Some 397 122 519
Few 169 71 240 I
None 78 28 106
I don't know 454 45 499
Totals 1,230 304 1,534
x2 = 59.0664 (p<.001) c = .1926

*Do you know how many important recommendations your
district advisory committee has made to the Board of
Education?

Table ll6.——Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 39.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

All 45 53 98
Many 128 61 189
Some 338 99 437
None 78 25 103
I don't know 508 52 560
The district advi—

sory committee was 61 3 64

not told how many

Totals 1,158 293 1,451

 

x2 = 140.5535 (P<.001) c = .2972
*How many important recommendations which your district
advisory committee has made to the Board of Education have
been accepted?

 

223

Table ll7.—-Relationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 40.*

 

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
A great deal 316 45 361
Some 448 151 599
A little 240 77 317
None at all 171 29 200
Totals 1,175 302 1,477
x2 = 29.7152 (P<.001) c = .1404

*How much has your district advisory committee been involved
in evaluating the compensatory education program?

Table 118.——Relationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 41.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

Very useful 440 85 525
Somewhat useful 522 179 701
Not useful 107 26 133
I don't know 132 13 145
Totals 1,201 303 1,504

x2 = 29.0564 (p<.001) c = .1377

*How useful do you feel your district advisory committee
has been to the compensatory education program?

224

Table ll9.—-Re1ationship between the responses of adminis—
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 42.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

Very well 704 211 915
Somewhat 294 66 360
Poorly 119 21 140
I don't know 85 2 87
Totals 1,202 300 1,502

x2 = 25.2296 (P<.001) c = .1285

*How well does your district advisory committee represent
minority group parents in your district?

Table 120.--Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 43.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

Very well 549 157 706
Somewhat 382 104 486
Poorly 132 29 161
I don't know 149 8 157
Totals 1,212 298 1,510

X2 = 25.1850 (P<.001) C = .1281

*How well does your district advisory committee represent
different income levels of parents in your district?

 

225

Table 121.--Relationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 44.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

Much more

 

influence 67 53 120

Somewhat more

influence 226 131 357

About the same

influence 732 95 827

Somewhat less

influence 78 10 88

Much less

influence 74 6 80
Totals 1,177 295 1,472

x2 = 155.1219 (p<.001) c = .3088

*Compared with other members of your district advisory com-
mittee, how much influence do you feel you have on commit—
tee decisions?

Table 122.——Relationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 46.*

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
Excellent 103 27 130
Quite good 455 122 577
Average 358 102 460
Fair 121 27 148
Quite limited 135 20 155
Totals 1,172 298 1,470
x2 = 6.9049 (c = .0684)

*How would you say the work of the members of your district
advisory committee is?

 

 

226

Table 123.-—Re1ationship between the responses of adminis—
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 53.*

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
A great deal 757 153 910
Somewhat 283 113 396
A little 91 24 115
Not at all 43 9 53
Totals 1,174 299 1,473
x2 = 23.7501 (p<.001) c = .1260

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper-
ience for you personally?

Table 124.——Relationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 54.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

A great deal 400 102 502
Somewhat 491 154 645
A little 176 35 211
Not at all 47 5 52
Totals 1,114 296 1,410

x2 = 9.8972 (P<.02) c = .0835

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper-
ience for the committee?

 

227

Table 125.-—Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 55.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

A great deal 519 136 655
Somewhat 395 128 523
A little 163 24 187
Not at all 58 9 67
Totals 1,135 297 1,432

x2 = 13.7227 (p<.01) c = .0974

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper—
ience for the schools?

Table 126.--Relationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 56.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

A great deal 513 , 119 632
Somewhat 395 128 523
A little 177 40 217
Not at all 60 8 68
Totals 1,145 295 1,440

x2 = 9.9085 (P<.02) c = .0827

*In general, would you say that your participation in the
work of your advisory committee has been a valuable exper-
ience for the community?

 

 

228

Table 127.--Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 57.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

Strongly agree 130 23 153
Agree 140 35 175
Agree somewhat 348 106 454
Disagree 179 52 231
Strongly disagree 362 85 447
Totals 1,159 301 1,460

X2 = 6.2316 C = .0652

*Considering all problems, advisory committees are far over—
rated with respect to what they can contribute.

Table 128.—-Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 58.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

Strongly agree 149 24 173
Agree 116 25 141
Agree somewhat 262 71 333
Disagree 157 54 211
Strongly disagree 476 125 601
Totals 1,160 299 1,459

x2 = 8.8559 c = .0777

*Although it would "look nice" to have more poor people on
advisory committees, this does not help us very much.

 

 

229

Table 129.--Re1ationship between the responses of adminis-
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 59.*

 

 

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals
Strongly agree 527 78 605
Agree 316 97 413
Agree somewhat 218 90 308
Disagree 66 25 91
Strongly disagree 62 ll 73
Totals 1,189 301 1,490
x2 = 42.5337 (p<.001) c = .1666

*District advisory committees may not look like they are
very important, but they are really important in our com-
munity.

Table 130.--Relationship between the responses of adminis—
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 60.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

Strongly agree 134 16 150
Agree 83 19 102
Agree somewhat 262 65 327
Disagree 235 71 306
Strongly disagree 468 131 599
Totals 1,182 302 1,484

x2 = 11.2988 (P<.05) c = .0869

*District advisory committees are really "paper committees"
which have little or no influence on compensatory education
programs.

 

230

Table 131.--Relationship between the responses of adminis—
trators and nonadministrators and responses to Item 61.*

 

Nonadministrators Administrators Totals

 

 

Strongly agree 213 28 241
Agree . 150 21 171
Agree somewhat 292 99 391
Disagree 209 65 274
Strongly disagree 279 85 364
Totals 1,143 298 1,441

x2 = 27.6803 (p<.001) c = .1373

*School districts usually tell district advisory committees
what the compensatory education program will be instead of
asking for their advice.

APPENDIX H

EXCERPTS:

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GUIDELINES

231

 

 

232

Excerpts - Guidelines for Compensatory Education Programs
and Projects and Directions for Making Applica-
tion for Grant Assistance under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law
89-10, Title I), 1965

COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS

The importance of local public school districts establishing
and maintaining genuine and effective working relationships
with community action programs in their districts has been
translated into a basic requirement under Public Law 89-10,
Title I. Local public school districts are required c00pera~
tively to develop the educational programs for the educa-
tionally deprived pupils with the agency responsible for the
community action programs established under the provision of
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, (Public Law 88-452).

In support of this requirement, California's McAteer Act
further designates as a necessary program evaluation standard
evidence that all available resources and aids have been
mobilized and effectively coordinated by the local public
school district in the development of a comprehensive com-
pensatory education program.

I. REQUIREMENTS

In order to comply with the above requirements, district
applications should:

 

A. State whether in the school district of the local
educational agency there is a community action
program approved pursuant to Title II of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452) and, if
so, that the projects have been developed in coopera-
tion with the public or nonprofit agency responsible
for such a community action with the view, among
other things, of avoiding duplication of effort.

The application shall also contain an undertaking to
establish and maintain genuine working relationships
with such public or nonprofit agency during the
Operation of the project.

B. Give assurance that c00peration with the community
action program does nOt extend to the joint financing
of a single project with funds under Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and
funds under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act
of 1964.

 

233

Excerpts — Guidelines: Compensatory Education, Revised,
April, 1969 - -

COORDINATION OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Coordinated school-community resources which deal with
the whole child, and not solely his academic needs, are
necessary if the poverty cycle is to be broken and full edu-
cational Opportunity is to be provided for every child.

These guidelines provide the necessary procedures relat-
ing to school-community coordination that a district shall
follow when applying for Title I funds. The project appli-
cation form includes a "Statement by Community Action Agency"
to be completed by the local community action agency as
assurance that school and community resources have been
coordinated. If the local community action agency does not
sign the statement, the school district shall explain and
describe its efforts to cooperate with the community action
agency and to obtain execution of the certification.

Cooperation means the exchange of information relating
to compensatory education projects with all community
resources during the period when projects are being planned
and developed, as well as when they are being carried out.
Cooperation does not permit the commingling of funds, but
does permit the simultaneous use of funds under the Economic
Opportunity Act and Title I to finance identifiable portions
of a single project. '

Community action agency is the local agency or organi-
zation that has been duly recognized by the Federal and State
Office of Economic Opportunity. The chairman of the local
community action agency shall be known as the principal
officer for the purpose of these guidelines.

SCHOOL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

The school district shall establish a local advisory
committee to bring about the COOperation and coordination of
all community resources. If there is a local community
action agency, which meets the criteria of these guidelines
for an advisory committee, such a community action agency may
serve in lieu of an advisory committee, subject to the
approval of the school district.

Function of a School District Advisory Committee. Coor-
dination and c00peration through a local advisory committee
should insure the school district and the existing local
community action agency that comprehensive plans are develOped

 

234

to take advantage of all available community resources as
well as available state and federal sources of funding com-
pensatory education programs.

The principal function of the local advisory committee
is to assist and advise the school district in:

1. Developing programs in cooperation with existing
community action programs in their locality

2. Mobilizing and coordinating all community resources
in a concerted attack on the problems of educa-
tionally deprived children

3. Overall planning, develOpment, implementation,
evaluation, and dissemination of information rela-
tive to the objectives of the compensatory programs

4. Acting as a hearing board for any individual or
group who may want to propose additions to or
changes in the school district's proposed compen-
satory programs

This section of the guidelines shall in no way be con-
strued as giving the school district advisory committee or
the local community action agency a veto over Title I
programs.

Composition of the Advisory Committee. Because the needs
and resources of school districts may differ, considerable
latitude is allowed in the development and conduct of a
school district advisory committee. The school district
shall determine the number of representatives on an advisory
committee.

 

In the selection process, there shall be maximum effort
to involve the resident groups and parents of children in the
project area in selecting representatives for the advisory
committee. The specific selection process to be employed
shall be the responsibility of the school district. The
selection process shall adhere to the criteria established
in these guidelines.

The following shall be minimum standards for represen-
tation on the school district advisory committee:

1. Of the total membership on the advisory committee,
no less than fifty percent (50%) shall be residents
of the project areas in which the school district's
program will be concentrated. In the selection of
the project area representatives, preference shall
be given to parents of the educationally disad-
vantaged children.

 

235

2. The remaining membership on the advisory committee
shall include representatives from the school dis-
trict's staff, and the designee from the local
community action agency, if one exists. It shall
also include representatives from non-public school
agencies responsible for the education of disad-
vantaged children in the project area, such as
private and parochial schools, settlement houses
or migrant labor camps, and leadership from the
local community such as civic, business, labor,
parent-teacher, ethnic or religious groups, and
from other public agencies of health and welfare
that provide services to the disadvantaged children.

Applicants who are unable to meet these standards shall
request a waiver by submitting a justification and an explan-
ation of how adequate representation will be achieved.

For additional information and suggested procedures
for advisory committees, see Handbook for California School
District Advisory Committees, California State Department of
Education, 1968.

 

TARGET SCHOOL PARENT ADVISORY GROUPS

In addition to the required districtwide advisory com-
mittees, school districts are required to form within a
reasonable time a parent advisory group at each target area
school. Parent representatives on the district advisory
committee may be recruited from these individual school
advisory groups.

 

236

Excerpts - Guidelines: Compensatory Education, Revised,
June, 1967

COORDINATION OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Coordinated school-community resources which deal with
the whole child, and not solely his academic needs, are
necessary if the poverty cycle is to be broken and full edu-
cational opportunity is to be provided for every child
regardless Of economic background.

These guidelines provide the necessary procedures relat-
ing to school—community coordination that a district shall
follow when applying for Title I funds. The project appli-
cation form includes a "Statement by Community Action Agency"
to be completed by the local community action agency as
assurance that school and community resources have been
coordinated. If the local community action agency does not
sign the statement the school district shall explain and
describe its efforts to cooperate with the community action
agency and to obtain execution of the certification.

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

 

Cooperation. The term "cooperation" means the exchange
of information relating to compensatory education projects
with all community resources during the period when projects
are being planned and developed, as well as when they are
being carried out. .COOperation does not permit the co-
mingling Of funds, but does permit the simultaneous use of
funds under the Economic Opportunity Act and Title I tO
finance identifiable portions Of a single project.

 

Community Action Agency. The term "community action
agency" means a local agency or organization that has been
duly recognized by the Federal and State Office Of Economic
Opportunity. The chairman Of the local community action
agency shall be known as the principal officer for the pur-
pose Of these guidelines.

 

SCHOOL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

The school district shall establish a local advisory
committee to bring about the cooperation and coordination of
all community resources. If there is a local community
action agency, which meets the criteria of these guidelines
for an advisory committee, such a community action agency
may serve in lieu of an advisory committee, subject to the
approval Of the school district.

 

237

Function Of a School District Advisory_Committee.
Coordination and COOperation through a local advisory com-
mittee should insure the school district and the existing
local community action agency that comprehensive plans are
developed to take advantage of all available community
resources as well as available State and Federal sources Of
funding compensatory education programs.

 

The principal function of the local advisory committee
is to assist and advise the school district in:

1. Developing programs in cooperation with existing
community action programs in their locality;

2. Mobilizing and coordinating all community resources
in a concerted attack on the problems Of education—
ally deprived children;

3. Overall planning, development, implementation,
evaluation and dissemination of information rela-
tive to the Objectives Of the compensatory programs;

4. Acting as a hearing board for any individual or
group who may want to propose additions to or
changes in the school district's proposed compensa-
tory programs.

This section of the guidelines shall in no way be con-
strued as giving the school district advisory committee or
the local community action agency a veto over Title I pro—
grams.

Composition Of the AdvisorinOmmittee. Because the
needs and resources of school districts may differ, consid-
erable latitude is allowed in the development and conduct of
a school district advisory committee. The school district
shall decide the number of representatives on an advisory
committee.

 

In the selection process, there shall be maximum effort
to involve the resident groups and parents Of children in
the project area in selecting representatives for the advi-
sory committee. The specific selection process to be
employed shall be the responsibility of the school district.
The selection process shall adhere to the criteria estab-
lished in these guidelines.

The following shall be minimum standards for represen—
tation on the school district advisory committee:

238

1. Of the total membership on the advisory committee,
no less than fifty percent (50%) shall be residents
of the project areas in which the school district's
program will be concentrated. In selecting the
project area representatives, preference shall be
given to parents of the educationally disadvantaged
children.

2. The remaining membership on the advisory committee
shall include representatives from the school dis-
trict's staff, and the designee from the local
community action agency, if one exists. It shall
also include representatives from non-public school
agencies responsible for the education of disad-
vantaged children in the project area, such as
private and parochial schools, settlement houses or
migrant labor camps, and leadership from the local
community such as civic, business, labor, ethnic
or religious groups and from other public agencies
of health and welfare that provide services to the
disadvantaged children.

Applicants who are unable to meet these standards shall
request a waiver by submitting a justification and an explan—
ation of how adequate representation will be achieved.

 

 

239

Excerpts - Guidelines: Compensatory Education, Revised,
June, 1966

COORDINATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Coordinated school-community resources which deal with
the whole child, and not solely his academic needs, are
necessary if the poverty cycle is to be broken and full edu-
cational Opportunity is to be provided for every child
regardless of economic background.

These guidelines provide the necessary procedures relat-
ing to school-community coordination that a district shall
follow when applying for Title I funds. Page 14 of the
project application form is to be completed by the local com-
munity action agency as assurance that school and community
resources have been coordinated. If the local community
action agency does not sign the cooperative certification,
the school district shall describe its efforts to cooperate
with the community action agency and to Obtain execution Of
the certification.

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

 

Cooperation

 

The term "COOperation" means the exchange of information
relating to compensatory education projects with all commu—
nity resources during the period when projects are being
planned and develOped, as well as when they are being carried
out. Cooperation does not permit the co-mingling Of funds,
but does permit the simultaneous use of funds under the
Economic Opportunity Act and Title I to finance identifiable
portions of a single project.

Community Action Agency

 

The term "community action agency" means a local agency
or organization that has been duly recognized by the Federal
and State Office Of Economic Opportunity. The chairman of
the local community action agency shall be known as the prin-
cipal Officer for the purpose Of these guidelines.

SCHOOL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

The school district shall establish a local advisory
committee to bring about the cooperation and coordination Of
all community resources. If there is a local community
action agency, which meets the criteria of these guidelines

 

240

for an advisory committee, such a community action agency
may serve in lieu Of an advisory committee, subject to the
approval of the school district.

Function Of a School District Advisory Committee

 

Coordination and cooperation through a local advisory
committee should insure the school district and the existing
local community action agency that comprehensive plans are
developed to take advantage of all available community
resources as well as available State and Federal sources Of
funding compensatory education programs.

The principal function of the local advisory committee
is to assist and advise the school district in:

l. DevelOping programs in cooperation with existing
community action programs in their locality;

2. Mobilizing and coordinating all community resources
in a concerted attack on the problems of education-
ally deprived children;

3. Overall planning, development, implementation,
evaluation and dissemination of information rela-
tive to the Objectives Of the compensatory programs;

4. Acting as a hearing board for any individual or
group who may want to propose additions to or
changes in the school district's proposed compen—
satory programs.

This section Of the guidelines shall in no way be con—
strued as giving the school district advisory committee or
the local community action agency a veto over Title I
programs.

Composition of the Advisory Committee

 

Because the needs and resources of school districts may
differ, considerable latitude is allowed in the development
and conduct of a school district advisory committee. The
school district shall decide the number of representatives
on an advisory committee.

In the selection process, there shall be maximum effort
to involve the resident groups and parents Of children in
the project area in selecting representatives for the advi-
sory committee. The specific selection process to be employed
shall be the responsibility of the school district. The
selection process shall adhere to the criteria established
in these guidelines.

 

241

The following shall be minimum standards for represen-
tation on the school district advisory committee:

1. Of the total membership on the advisory committee,
no less than fifty percent (50%) shall be residents
of the project areas in which the school district's
program will be concentrated. In selecting the
project area representatives, preference shall be
given to parents of the educationally disadvantaged
children.

2. The remaining membership on the advisory committee
shall include representatives from the school dis-
trict's staff, and the designee from the local
community action agency, if one exists. It shall
also include representatives from non-public school
agencies responsible for the education of disad-
vantaged children in the project area, such as
private and parochial schools, settlement houses
or migrant labor camps, and leadership from the
local community such as civic, business, labor,
ethnic or religious groups and from other public
agencies of health and welfare that provide ser-
vices to the disadvantaged children.

Applicants who are unable to meet these standards shall
request a waiver by submitting a justification and an explan-
ation of how adequate representation will be achieved.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I

' MEMORANDUM TO CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

242

 

 

243

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
wassumcrora. o c. 20202

 

October 30, 1970

0.117 inference: m Title I, xxx/ca
MEMORANDUM TO CHIS? 8.2m scam mm

Subject: Advicary Stetcmt an Dcvclcgmmt on! Policy ca Parental
Involvement in Titlc I, 7.233.: Projects

Section 415 of tho 66:16:81 Educatim Provides Act ("31:16 33' ct
Public 1.81: 90-2117 .21.: 2.7.1635“ by Pablic L31 9la230) stats-.1:

"8130.615. 1:: :17 .a case of £27.17; 6311111032910 gram is: which
the Osazciccicmcr cictnminm that 3172;771:7311 "fittisémtiia at
the onto (.77.- kc: ..awal 1.7.727 11:1 inc: 6-30 1.1.0 cfifimtivcnau
of Chi! i;2‘<‘31‘~'.‘.‘1 in: achieving its par-7.7.7.7694, ..a (317.31]. 1:227:-
mlgatc 17773112216730 with 17.27.. 37:8:t to (3177‘ 7217.37.77.77}: crztti."
forth critcr‘ cmrifinsd to 62373173750 we: :miairszxica.
If the: program 5:67.17 7:721:13}: 77:79.11 d7.t(22:77..i::67.ti -1 prawn-pas: for
2:71:11 to 3.07.7121 67320:“ch agencia, £fi§11¢58£€223 for

such {211371277129 811311-

"(1) cat 7.2177611 82:21:: relic‘ ..c: and 17:77:67.1:23 as will

manta t2 7'6 1773317737.»: 617:1 17:01 cats (2.7 23ch :17: 2:73

the scalivsticn 6.7.7170 132:1 planncd (2 -. cicvclm 7:4,

0.7.3:} will ’65. C.:/crazed, 1:1 6:11.77 .13. 3-1»: 7. with, 1:22! with

the 17.171011767777117. 0!. 7.77.17.73.73 :3 tad (7 zildrcn ta

carved by (7.7.1.7711 117-67.71232. :3 and 97.133021; :

”(2) ‘63 minutes with 89.7.1127. 2.8 6‘: .:

have had an cgapzsvrtaait .3 97.7677 mm: 1.7.

rcspcct to the (27.77113365. 1.617.; 77

”(3) cat fer-‘21: 3:311:21me pmcciszr .5 for ca! (auto

(1186:2911 math-7:1 cf 31:23:71: 1 31151716 (.7371 ( ralncticc to

much parents and tho (.77 ..lic."

E1g:

(2:10.11 pwwto
.7117: via-:3 with

I have, in accomimcc with the: statute, demarlami 1131:: 71:12:11th
involvcwmt at th. lean). 167761 is 1':th in 1‘77 arc-33117.7; '779
cffcctiwmncs cf 7117717171: .73 1:11:38: “11:13 I of tin: 13162271160117? and
882120313813? Bancat but. incomivqu, ref",.-lc:.7x;:1s 7:2}-Cha.

being dermlcycd man'mcly will 397-1713220 that c1311 Title I
(.pplimtica of (1 16:71:11 «heating-'21 messy (681.721- than a {State
agency directly tccccm-xibla for n .7c70ridizzs ire-7.1 rablic caution for
handicapprd Biking: 0:: 13.72 €215.1er a in inclintim for neglected
or delinquent children) shall include:

 

244

loge 2 - Chief State School Officer:

A, An eesurence that the locel educationel agency he:
eeteblishod e systea-uide council corposed of parents
of children to be served in public and non-public
echools participating in Title I activities. Where
there elresdy exists a group vhoce necbership includes
a uejerity of parents of children to be served or whose
mberchip my be so modified as to include a mjority
of parents of children to be served, such a group may
carry out the functions of a parent.ccuncil. Members
of such a council must be chosen in such a manner as
to ensure that they are broadly representative of the
group to be served. In addition, each local educational
agency is encouraged to form similar councils at each
school participating in Title I activities.

3. .A description of tha program conducted by the local educa-
tional agency to inform parents and parent councils on
Title I in general and tho project applied for in
particular. Specifically, the local cducstionnl agency
cast state how it has developed end.nainteincd an
affirmative information program for parents and how it
has and will provide parents Open access to inforcation
at spproprioto times and in sppropricrc detail, and if
rcauestcd records at reasonable cost, on the following
subjects:

1. The provisions of Title I and Title I Regulations;

2. The local educational agency's pact Title I projects
and programs, end the evaluation of those projects
and progrems--3pecial emphasis might be placed on
the diotrict's assessment of the host projects
conducted under Title I;

3. The Title I project: and programs which the local
educational agency is currently conducting;

4. The locel educational agency's plans for future Title
projects and programs, together with a description of
the process of planning and developing those projects
and programs, and the projected times at which each
stage of the process will start and be completed;

5. Other Federal, State, and local programs which may be
eveileble for accting the special educationel need!
of. educationally deprived children;

 

 

 

245

Page 3 0 Chief State School Officer:

6. The mean: by which parents may be included in the
planning, dcvclOchnt, and operation of Title I
projects and programs; and

7. Such other information‘relating to parcntc' effort:
to involve thcmsclvcs in the planning, develOpment
and operation of Title I projects and programs as
parcnta may reasonably teak.

C. A description of the activities conducted by the local educa-
tional agency to involve its parent council in the planning
and developncnt of the Title I project application. Specifically,
the local educational agency must state how: -

1. Appropriate school officials havc bean available for con-
sultation with the parent council on the content,
adminittrnticn. and evaluation of connlctcd, existing
and future Title I crejecta and programs at wall-
publicircd tings and places convenient to parent councils
end/or representatives of their own choosin ;

2. A.proccdurc has boon catchlichcd to answer the questions
of tho parent council concerning the planning, dovelopncnt,
and cporation of a Title I project or program;

3. The parcnt council has had the right to inspect and
obtain c reasonable nunbar of copies of official
applications, and other pertinent files, docuncnta,
and records free of charge;

’-

6. Views of the parent council ccnccrning the uncut needs

‘ of children residing in Title I project crest, and any
priority assigned to those nerds, have been incorporated
into the local educational agoncy'o planning proccaa; and

5. Views of the parent council concerning the concentration
of funds and anrviccc in coccific schools and grade
levels have boon incorporated into the local educational
agency's program dcvclopacnt activities.

D. ‘A description of tha activities planned by the local educational
agency to involvc parcntc in the operatic: of the Titlc I
projcct or program for which funds are ecuxht. chcificclly,
the local educational agcacy asst state how its parent council
will be afforded an opportunity to:

 

 

246

Page fi - Chic! State School Officers

1. Provide suggestions on improving projects or programs
in operation;

2. Voice cocplaintc about projects or programs and cake
recommendations for their improvement;

3. Participate in appraisals of the program; and

4. Promote the involvezmnt of parents in the educational
services provided under Title I of the Act.

8. A description of the means by which the parent council has
had an Opportunity to inspect and to present its vicva with
respect to the application prior to its cubnisaicn. The
local educational arcncy must state how cozolaints of
parent councils concerning the projects or programs
described in the application have been handled.

P. Such other pertinent information as the state educational
agency ray require.

The provisions of this advisory statcgent will be implczented by a
forthcoming ancciccnt of the Title I Regulations.

fiV/fi~r~¢7
I. H. tell

Acting U. 8. Cczmiasiener of Education

 

Cepics to: State Title I Coordinators, ESEA

 

APPENDIX J

LIST OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS USED IN SAMPLE

247

 

 

248

 

Name Enrollment Location Zip County

ABC Unified 19,252 Artesia 90701 Los Angeles
Alhambra City E1em.-High 17,625 Alhambra 91802 Los Angeles
Alisal Union Elementary 1,937 Salinas 93901 Monterey
Alum Rock Union Elementary 14,749 San Jose 95127 Santa Clara
Anderson Valley Unified 400 Boonville 95415 Mendocino
Arcadia Unified 10,157 Arcadia 91008 Los Angeles
Arena Union Elementary 377 Point Arena 95468 Mendocino
Armona Union Elementary 665 Armona 93202 Kings

Arvin Union Elementary 1,486 Arvin 93203 Kern
Atascadero Unified 3,014 Atascadero 93422 San Luis Obispo
Bakersfield City Elementary 25,027 Bakersfield 93305 Kern

Barstow Unified 10,651 Barstow 92311 San Bernardino
Benicia Unified 1,654 Benicia 94510 Solano
Berkeley City Unified 15,406 Berkeley 94709 Alameda
Berryessa Union Elementary 5,400 San Jose. 95132 Santa Clara
Big Valley Joint Unified 360 Bieber 96009 Lassen
Brawley Elementary 3,947 Brawley 92227 Imperial
Brawley Union High 1,589 Brawley 92227 Imperial
Brentwood Union Elementary 1,036 Brentwood 94513 Contra Costa
Brisbane Elementary 816 Brisbane 94005 San Mateo
Buena Park Elementary 5,052 Buena Park 90620 Orange

Cajon Vallen City Elementary 11,958 El Cajon 92002 San Diego
Calexico Unified 4,400 Calexico 92231 Imperial
Calipatria Unified 1,317 Calipatria 92233 Imperial
Cantua Elementary 457 Cantua Creek 93608 Fresno
Carpinteria Unified 2,400 Carpinteria 93013 Santa Barbara
Central Union Elementary 2,192 Lemoore 93246 Kings
Central Union High 2,438 El Centro 92244 Imperial
Ceres Unified 4,291 Ceres 95307 Stanislaus
Chino Unified 9,175 Chino 91710 San Bernardino
Chowchilla Elementary 943 Chowchilla 93610 Madera

Chula Vista City Elementary 14,655 Chula Vista 92012 San Diego
Clovis Unified 7,890 Clovis 93612 Fresno
Coachella Elementary 2,451 Coachella 92236 Riverside
Coachella Valley Jt. Un. High 1,356 Coachella 92236 Riverside
Coalinga Joint Unified 2,646 Coalinga 93210 Fresno
Colusa Unified 1,301 Colusa 95932 Colusa
Compton Union High 17,338 Compton 90220 Los Angeles
Corcoran Unified 3,203 Corcoran 93212 Kings
Coronado City Unified 3,369 Coronado 92118 San Diego
Covina-Valley Unified 22,451 Covina 91724 Los Angeles
Cutler-Orosi Unified 2,613 Cutler 93615 Tulare

Davis Joint Unified 4,656 Davis 95616 Yolo

Delano Union Elementary 3,225 Delano 93215 Kern

Desert Sands Unified 7,528 Indio 92201 Riverside
Dixon Unified 1,865 Dixon 95620 Solano

 

 

249

 

Name Enrollment Location Zip County
Earlimart Elementary 1,101 Earlimart 93219 Tulare

East Whittier City Elementary 1,748 Whittier 90605 Los Angeles
Edison Elementary 700 Bakersfield 93307 Kern

El Centro Elementary 4,463 El Centro 92244 Imperial

El Dorado Union High 2,068 Placerville 95667 El Dorado
El Monte Elementary 10,031 El Monte 91731 Los Angeles
Emery Unified 710 Emeryville 94608 Alameda
Escalon Unified 1,981 Escalon 95320 San Joaquin
Escondido Union High 7,387 Escondido 92025 San Diego
Esparto Unified 776 Esparto 95627 Yolo
Evergreen Elementary 3,359 San Jose 95121 Santa Clara
Exeter Union Elementary 1,100 Exeter 93221 Tulare
Farmersville Elementary 831 Farmersville 93223 Tulare
Ferndale Elementary 530 Ferndale 95536 Humboldt
Fountain Valley Elementary 10,400 Huntington Beach 92646 Orange
Fowler Unified 2,311 Fowler 93625 Fresno
Franklin-McKinley Elementary 6,328 San Jose 95112 Santa Clara
Fremont Unified 31,831 Fremont 94538 Alameda
Fresno City Unified 56,571 Fresno 93721 Fresno
Fresno Colony Elementary 909 Fresno 93706 Fresno
Garden Grove Unified 52,792 Garden Grove 92640 Orange
Geyserville Unified 414 Geyserville 95441 Sonoma
Gilroy Unified 5,279 Gilroy 95020 Santa Clara
Glendora Unified 9,484 Glendora 91740 Los Angeles
Goleta Union Elementary 6,600 Goleta 93017 Santa Barbara
Gonzales Union Elementary 800 Gonzales 93926 Monterey
Gonzales Union High 1,012 Gonzales 93926 Monterey
Greenfield Union Elementary 924 Greenfield 93927 Monterey
Gridley Union Elementary 1,414 Gridley 95948 Butte
Gridley Union High 700 Gridley 95948 Butte
Grossmont Union High 22,475 Grossmont 92030 San Diego
Guadalupe Union Elementary 857 Guadalupe 93434 Santa Barbara
Hanford Elementary 3,373 Hanford 93231 Kings
Hanford Joint Union High 2,192 Hanford 93231 Kings
Hayward Unified 29,196 Hayward 94541 Alameda
Healdsburg Union Elementary 1,067 Healdsburg 95448 Sonoma
Healdsburg Union High 1,974 Healdsburg 95448 Sonoma
Herndon Elementary 307 Fresno 93705 Fresno
Hilmar Unified 1,390 Hilmar 95324 Merced
Hollister Elementary 1,966 Hollister 95023 San Benito
Holtville Unified 2,067 Holtville 92250 Imperial
Hudson Elementary 20,304 La Puente 91745 Los Angeles
Hueneme Elementary 6,972 Port Hueneme 93041 Ventura
Hughson Union Elementary 912 Hughson 95326 Stanislaus
Hughson Union High 500 Hughson 95326 Stanislaus

 

 

 

250

 

Name Enrollment Location Zip County
Imperial Unified 1,659 Imperial 92251 Imperial
Inglewood Unified 17,878 Inglewood 90301 Los Angeles
Jefferson Elementary 10,074 Daly City 94014 San Mateo
Keppel Union Elementary 991 Littlerock 93543 Los Angeles
Herman-Floyd Union Elementary 1,189 Kerman 93530 Fresno

Kern County Joint Union High 23,974 Bakersfield 93301 Kern

King City Joint Union High 846 King City 93930 Monterey
Kings Canyon Unified 5,309 Reedley 93654 Fresno
Kings River Union Elementary 430 Kingsburg 93631 Tulare
Kingsburg Joint Union High 700 Kingsburg 93631 Fresno
Kingsburg Joint Union Elem. 1,345 Kingsburg 93631 Fresno

Kit Carson Union Elementary 404 Hanford 93230 Kings

La Puente Union High 16,371 La Puente 91744 Los Angeles
Laguna Beach Unified 2,903 Laguna Beach 92651 Orange
Lakeside Union Elementary 3,444 Lakeside 92040 San Diego
Lamont Elementary 1,907 Bakersfield 93307 Kern
Larkspur Elementary 1,847 Larkspur 94939 Marin

Laton Unified 875 Laton 93242 Fresno
Lemoore Union Elementary 1,443 Lemoore 93245 Kings
Lemoore Union High 1,364 Lemoore 93245 Kings
Liberty Union High 1,064 Brentwood 94513 Contra Costa
Lincoln Unified 4,811 Stockton 95207 San Joaquin
Linden Unified 2,113 Linden 95236 San Joaquin
Lindsay Unified 2,262 Lindsay 93247 Tulare
Livingston Union Elementary 1,081 Livingston 95334 Merced

Lodi Unified 11,637 Lodi 95242 San Joaquin
Long Beach Unified 95,085 Long Beach 90813 Los Angeles
Los Angeles Unified 732,813 Los Angeles 90054 Los Angeles
Los Banos Unified 3,146 Los Banos 93635 Merced
Luther Burbank Elementary 356 San Jose 95128 Santa Clara
Madera Unified 7,689 Madera 93637 Madera
Madison Elementary 745 Fresno 93706 Fresno
Manteca Unified 7,532 Manteca 95336 San Joaquin
McKinley-Roosevelt Un. Elem. 1,409 Fresno 93705 Fresno
Meadows Union Elementary 427 El Centro 92243 Imperial
Mecca Elementary 416 Mecca 92254 Riverside
Mendota Union Elementary 1,325 Mendota 93640 Fresno
Merced City Elementary 6,784 Merced 95340 Merced
Modesto City Elem. and High 21,277 Modesto 95351 Stanislaus
Modoc-Tulelake Jt. Unified 1,881 Alturas 96101 Modoc
Monterey Peninsula Unified 18,896 Monterey 93942 Monterey
Moreno Valley Unified 6,503 Sunnymead 92388 Riverside
Morgan Hill Unified 4,470 Morgan Hill 95037 Santa Clara
Mt. Diablo Unified 48,198 Concord 94521 Contra Costa

 

 

 

 

251
Name Enrollment Location Zip County
Napa Valley Unified 15,153 Napa 94558 Napa
NeWport-Mesa Unified 26,233 NeWport Beach 92553 Orange
No. County Jt. Union Elem. 447 Hollister 95023 San Benito
No. Monterey County Elem. 3,194 Moss Landing 95039 Monterey
Oak Grove Union Elementary 607 Sebastopol 95472 Sonoma
Oak Valley Union Elementary 323 Tulare 93274 Tulare
Oakland City Unified 68,419 Oakland 94606 Alameda
Oakley Union Elementary 900 Oakley 94561 Contra Costa
Oasis Joint Elementary 301 Thermal 92274 Riverside
Ontario-Montclair Elementary 18,245 Ontario 91764 San Bernardino
Orange Center Elementary 520 Fresno 93706 Fresno
Oroville City Elementary 2,801 Oroville 95965 Butte 1
Oxnard Elementary 9,162 Oxnard 93030 Ventura
Pacific Union Elementary 472 Fresno 93725 Fresno
Pajaro Valley Unified 13,276 Watsonville 95076 Santa Cruz
Palo Verde Union Elementary 463 Tulare 93274 Tulare 5
Panama Union Elementary 2,095 Bakersfield 93307 Kern
Paradise Unified 2,425 Paradise 95969 Butte
Paso Robles Union Elem. 1,630 Paso Robles 93446 San Luis Obispo
Patterson Unified 1,992 Patterson 95363 Stanislaus
Pittsburg Unified 6,127 Pittsburg 94565 Contra Costa
Planada Elementary 600 Planada 95365 Merced
Pleasant Valley Elementary 5,418 Camarillo 93010 Ventura
Plumas County Unified 3,019 Quincy 95971 Plumas
Pomona Unified 25,333 Pomona 91766 Los Angeles
Porterville Union High 3,401 Porterville 93257 Tulare
Ravenswood City Elementary 5,387 Palo Alto 94303 San Mateo
Red Bluff Union High 1,500 Red Bluff 96080 Tehama
Redding Elementary 3,361 Redding 96001 Shasta
Redwood City Elementary 10,886 Redwood City 94062 San Mateo
Reef-Sunset Union Elem. 891 Hanford 93230 Kings
Rialto Unified 12,500 Rialto 92376 San Bernardino
Richgrove Elementary 426 Richgrove 93257 Tulare
Richmond Unified 43,779 Richmond 94804 Contra Costa
Riverbank Elementary 1,291 Riverbank 95367 Stanislaus
Riverdale Jt. Union Elem. 923 Riverdale 93656 Fresno
Riverdale Jt. Union High 538 Riverdale 93656 Fresno
Riverside Unified 28,177 Riverside 92501 Riverside
Sacramento City Unified 50,736 Sacramento 95810 Sacramento
Salinas City Elementary 6,510 Salinas 93901 Monterey
Salinas Union High 9,384 Salinas 93901 Monterey
San Carlos Elementary 3,295 San Carlos 94070 San Mateo
San Diego City Unified 167,599 San Diego 92103 San Diego
San Francisco City Unified 105,892 San Francisco 94102 San Francisco
San Gabriel Elementary 4,153 San Gabriel 91778 Los Angeles
San Joaquin Elementary 403 San Joaquin 93660 Fresno

 

252

 

Name Enrollment Location Zip County

San Jose Unified 37,828 San Jose 95114 Santa Clara
San Juan Unified 52,670 Carmichael 95608 Sacramento
San Lorenzo Unified 16,531 San Lorenzo 94580 Alameda

San Mateo City Elementary 13,070 San Mateo 94401 San Mateo
San Rafael City E1em.-High 9,508 San Rafael 94902 Marin
Sanger Unified 6,269 Sanger 93657 Fresno
Santa Ana Unified 37,063 Santa Ana 92701 Orange
Santa Barbara City E1em.-High 18,143 Santa Barbara 93101 Santa Barbara
Santa Clara Unified 24,000 Santa Clara 95052 Santa Clara
Santa Cruz City Elem. & High 7,979 Santa Cruz 95060 Santa Cruz
Santa Maria City Elementary 6,503 Santa Maria 93454 Santa Barbara
Santa Maria Joint Un. High 4,118 Santa Maria 93454 Santa Barbara
Santa Paula Elementary 3,214 Santa Paula 93060 Ventura
Santa Rita Union Elementary 723 Salinas 93902 Monterey
Santa Rosa City E1em.-High 13,145 Santa Rosa 95403 Sonoma
Sausalito Elementary 851 Sausalito 94965 Marin
Savanna Elementary 3,143 Anaheim 92804 Orange
Selma Unified 4,234 Selma 93662 Fresno
Soledad Union Elementary 1,365 Soledad 95960 Monterey
Solvang Elementary 400 Solvang 93463 Santa Barbara
Sonoma Valley Unified 3,933 Sonoma 95476 Sonoma

80. San Francisco Unified 13,421 So. San Francisco 94080 San Mateo
Southern Humboldt Unified 1,401 Garberville 95440 Humboldt
Southern Kern Unified 1,073 Rosamond 93560 Kern
Spreckels Union Elementary 458 Spreckels 93962 Monterey
St. Helena Unified 1,314 St. Helena 94571 Napa
Stockton City Unified 32,240 Stockton 95202 San Joaquin
Sundale Union Elementary 450 Tulare 93274 Tulare
Sunnyside Union Elementary 382 Strathmore 93267 Tulare
Sunnyvale Elementary 10,518 Sunnyvale 94086 Santa Clara
Susanville Elementary 1,250 Susanville 96130 Lassen
Sweetwater Union High 21,014 Chula Vista 92011 San Diego
Teague Elementary 545 Fresno 93705 Fresno
Thermal Union Elementary 1,134 Thermal 92274 Riverside
Tracy Elementary 3,131 Tracy 95376 San Joaquin
Trinidad Union Elementary 325 Trinidad 95570 Humboldt
Tulare City Elementary 4,483 Tulare 93274 Tulare
Tulare Union High 2,830 Tulare 93274 Tulare
Ukiah Unified 6,070 Ukiah 95482 Mendocino
Union Elementary 10,660 San Jose 95124 Santa Clara
Vallejo City Unified 16,497 Vallejo 94590 Solano
Vineland Elementary 683 Bakersfield 93307 Kern
Visalia Unified 13,631 Visalia 93277 Tulare

 

 

253

 

 

Name Enrollment Location Zip County
Wasco Union Elementary 1,939 Wasco 93280 Kern

Wasco Union High 990 Wasco 93280 Kern
Wheatland Elementary 3,229 Wheatland 95692 Yuba
Whisman Elementary 2,850 Mountain View 94041 Santa Clara
Windsor Union Elementary 654 Windsor 95492 Sonoma
Winters Joint Unified 1,190 Winters 95694 Yolo
Woodlake Union Elementary 1,050 Woodlake 93286 Tulare
Woodville Elementary 417 Porterville 93257 Tulare

Yuba City Unified 7,721 Yuba City 95991 Sutter