...\..(~. .12... gas. ANA-5‘3 4”- q /. filly: I vVluIl 5.... .. 2:1 .z. “:1 yr”... 1.... .4...... .... 4.... . 55... .J r pr} p/.... :u .. :37 H.115. ”Jun?“ J... .1”; c... 47.69. . 1;. J . J .r. . «4...... fly?) ; 46 JWJW. 4.5:. r x! J an.¢~7: “(VWJWNW {Kr “WHTW JUN/”4.. Jam: ./.v..:-./”rdr.l .../r ..4. .th4... 3;... a my van; .t:v~ . V v. .1..4lc.:. .: .4. . . Jr .a-..v.(.vp.~ll.w. 5...... J. J Am». i :1:- .....r...r... wt}. 4 TE . 4 fur”... . fl. n.0,)”: rtf .. If,“ ul.4fl':.OA-.b «7' 71.1“...) . .J...,. comp .r. 1.7 .:.//Ir_,rf 1...}! F i! . . . n .1... .... ...nru.... .. . 1.10:.1 . . . . I . . IIJJ . I 1:: maps}! _ . w... L 18 R A R Y Micki?“ 5“": Unmet“? w This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARATLVE STUDY OF THE BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTLON OF .LNTER-UNLVERSITY AND MOTT INSTITUTE TRAINED DIRECTORS OF COMMUNLTY EDUCATION presented by Jacob C. Winters has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __2h._D._degree in Jdncatianal Administration film Majgr p'rofeuor Date June 8,, I972— 0-7639 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTION OF INTER-UNIVERSITY AND MOTT INSTITUTE TRAINED DIRECTORS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION BY Jacob C. Winters Purpose of the Study The primary purposes of this study were to gather empirical data on the behavior of Directors of Community Education and to compare their behavior in relation to the type of leadership training they had received. The secondary purposes were to determine to what degree the training program had prepared the directors for their responsibilities and to compare the perception of the "ideal" behavior in Community Education administration between the directors and the training staff. Procedure The population of directors for the study was selected on the following criteria: (1) past participation in either the master's degree program of the Inter- University Clinical Preparation Program or the Mott Jacob C. Winters Institute for Community School Directors, (2) persons presently employed as district-wide Directors of Community Education in the United States. Twenty-five Inter-University trained (Fellows) and eighty-one Mott Institute trained (Interns) Directors of Community Education were identified. Ten persons were identified as the training staff. The questionnaire, constructed by the author, elicited data on: (1) demographic characteristics of the director and the school district in which the director was employed, (2) the actual behavior of the Director of Community Education in eight functional areas, (3) the perception of the 'ideal' behavior of the Director of Community Education in four areas of responsibility, and (4) the perception of the value of the training program with respect to seven selected functions. The data was collected from the directors using the mail survey procedure. Eighty-eight per cent of the Fellows and eighty—five per cent of the Interns responded. All members of the training staff responded to the "ideal" portion of the questionnaire. The data collection process extended from November 9, 1971 to February 1, 1972. Major Findings Comparative l. Inter-University (Fellows) and Mott Institute (Interns) trained Directors of Community Education differ Jacob C. Winters on personal characteristics. Fellows are more experienced than Interns in Community Education administration and Interns are older than Fellows. 2. (a) Fellows and Interns do not differ on their overall behavior as Directors of Community Education. Dif- ferences between the two groups, based on the primary analysis, were established in: (l) awareness communication- Fellows, more than Interns, emphasized mass media and group techniques for this purpose; (2) fee collection and local fund raising projects in finance administration. Fellows were more active than Interns in these areas. (b) Secondary analysis (binomial probability) revealed a difference between Fellows and Interns in four of the eight areas of behavior that were measured. These were: (1) community coordination, (2) finance administra— tion, (3) change agent role, and (4) institutional coordina- tion. Fellows tended to be more active than Interns in the first three areas. 3. The perceived value of the training program differentiated Fellows and Interns. Fellows, compared with Interns, perceived the training as more adequate in the first six of the seven functions that were measured: (1) assessment, (2) programming, (3) communication, (4) com- munity coordination, (5) institutional coordination, (6) change agent role, and (7) finance administration. Jacob C. Winters 4. (a) The perception of the "ideal" behavior of Directors of Community Education does not differentiate Fellows from the training staff or Interns from the training staff. The primary analysis did not reveal significant differences in the four areas measured: assessment, pro- gramming, finance and function priorities. (b) Secondary analysis of this data (bionomial probability) resulted in a conclusion that Fellows are more similar than Interns to the training staff in their perception of the "ideal" behavior of Directors of Com- munity Education. Descriptive 1. Directors of Community Education involve: (l) people-individually, (2) groups-informally, and (3) groups-formally most frequently in the process of community assessment. 2. The priorities in programming of Directors of Community Education are: (l) planning and initiating, (2) operating, (3) assessment, and (4) evaluation. 3. (a) Directors of Community Education coordinate their efforts most frequently with: (l) recreational agencies, (2) P.T.A. and parent groups, and (3) health and welfare agencies. (b) The nature of coordination with community agencies is generally informal. Jacob C. Winters 4. Directors of Community Education are most active as change agents in: (l) reducing school district "red tape,‘ (2) changing policies and procedures of the school district, and (3) issues on the use of drugs. 5. Directors of Community Education consider the following as priority functions: (1) planning and operating programs, (2) community assessment, (3) informational com- munication, (4) finance, and (5) community involvement. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTION OF INTER-UNIVERSITY AND MOTT INSTITUTE TRAINED DIRECTORS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION BY Jacob C. Winters A THESIS 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to the many peOple who have contributed to this study by their encouragement, advice and specialized knowledge. Special gratitude is extended to each of the members of the guidance committee: to Dr. Stanley E. Hecker, chairman, for his confidence and leadership; to Dr. Clyde M. Campbell for making the Mott Internship a valuable experience; and to Drs. Charles E. Blackman, Clyde J. Morris, and Louis Romano for their assistance and cooperation. Gratitude is extended to the Mott Foundation for a year of internship that proved to be professionally stimulating. A special thank you to Dr. Douglas M. Procunier, for his encouragement and assistance in the study. Deepest appreciation is reserved for my wife, Marge, for her patience, assistance and continuous encouragement; and for our children, Karen and Corey, who adjusted to these two years of change. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . . Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . General Design . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Need for Community Education . . . . . . The Concept Community . . . . . . . . School-Community Relations . . . . . . . PhilOSOphy of Community Education . . . . Characteristics and Functions of Community Education . . . . . . . . . . Functions of Directors of Community Education Community Education Leadership Training . . The Development of Educational Administration Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internship Training Programs . . . . . The Development of Community Education Leadership Training in Flint . . . . . . The Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program . . . . . The Mott Institute for Community School Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page ii vii 24 24 26 33 39 45 56 72 82 83 9O 94 99 106 108 Chapter III. DESIGN AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS . . . . . Nature of the Study . Population . . . . Instrumentation . . Pilot Study . . . . Data Collection . . Data Analysis . . . Summary . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, Demographic . . . . Community Assessment . Program . . . . . Communication . . . Community Coordination Institutional COOperation and Coordination Finance Administration Change Agent . . . Function Priorities . Training Program . . Ideal . . . . . . Ideal Community Assessment . . . . . . Ideal Priorities in Programming . . . . Ideal Finance Administration . . . . Ideal Director of Community Education Function Priorities . Summary . . . . . Summary . . . . . Conclusions . . . . Comparative Conclusions Descriptive Conclusions Secondary Conclusions AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Implications and Recommendations . . . . Recommendations for Further Study . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . APPENDIX iv Page 114 114 117 121 125 127 132 135 136 137 142 146 146 150 154 155 158 160 161 163 163 166 167 170 172 177 177 180 181 184 189 192 197 200 210 LIST OF TABLES Type of School District (Community) . . . Size of School District . . . . . . . Questionnaire Response . . . . . . . Directors of Community Education Characteristics . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of School Districts in which Directors Work . . . . . . . . . Type of Involvement in Community Assessment Priorities in Programming . . . . . . Types of Communication Channels Utilized . Coordination with Community Agencies . . . Institutional Cooperation and Coordination . Finance Administration . . . . . . . Role as a Change Agent . . . . . . . Director of Community Education Function Priorities 0 O O O I O O O O O O Perceived Value of Training Program . . . Type of Involvement in Community Assessment-— Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Involvement in Community Assessment-- Ideal O O O O O C O O I O O 0 Ideal Priorities in Programming . . . . Ideal Priorities in Programming . . . . Finance Administration-—Ideal . . . . . Page 120 120 131 138 140 144 147 148 152 155 157 159 161 163 164 165 166 167 168 Page Finance Administration--Ideal . . . . . . 169 Ideal Director of Community Education Function Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . l7l Ideal Director of Community Education Function Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Instrument Field Test Form . . . .. . . . . 211 B. Letters and Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 213 C. Geographic Distribution of Directors of Community Education in the Study . . . . . 223 D. Additional Analysis of Data . . . . . . . 225 vii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Public school education, like all societal insti— tutions of today, is facing the challenge of offering viable and relevant alternatives in meeting the changing needs of its clientele. This is accentuated by the acceleration of change in our present society.1 In addition, the public appears to be expecting services from this institution today, that were not its responsi- bilities a decade ago. This crisis in education has prompted a host of professionals and laymen to advocate a variety of solutions. These solutions vary extensively. At one end of the con- tinuum, we have those that denounce everything less than local community control. From an educational enterprise accountable to itself to one that is accountable to the consumer-students, parents and community.2 1Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random House Inc., 1970), p. 19. 2Mario D. Fantini, The Reform of Urban Schools (Washington: National Education Association, 1970), p. 88. Others contend that unless there is greater control by the professionals, we will never achieve the "equal" and "quality" education that has been promised or meet the needs of our fast changing technological society. They promote an education that: focuses attention upon doing the best possible job of teaching every boy and girl who comes into the school, whoever he is, whatever his color, nationality, or I.Q. It minimizes any activities which might distract school personnel from this task. It means making clear to parents and interested Citizens that the schools are run by professionals who know their business and who do not need help from other peOple in the community.3 In the past ten to fifteen years the concept of "Community-School" education (hereafter referred to as Community Education) has received increasing support. It advocates a united effort by the educational organization and the community in solving the problems related to the school and its surrounding community. the basic function of the community school is to improve the quality of human living through educational processes which are developed out of the combined resources of the school and the community. It is suggested that some of the existing problems cannot be solved without this unified effort. It further suggests 3Robert J. Havighurst and Bernice L. Neugarten, §gpiety and Education (Boston: Allyn & Bacon Inc., 1969), p. 229. 4Frank J. Manley, B. W. Reed, and Robert K. Burns, Ebe Community School in Action (Chicago: Education- Industry Service, University of Chicago, 1961), p. 14. that other issues will be dealt with, much more effectively and efficiently if the human and physical resources of the school and community are coordinated.5 Education and learning are not exclusive to the school. The school may have a relative monopoly on the formal, cognitive aspects of learning, but shares the responsibility of the social and affective development of the students with the home and with the community. The problem within education is not in training children, but in the development of a community in which children can grow up to be democratic, intelligent, disciplined to freedom, reverant to the goals of life, and eager to share in the tasks of the age. Schools cannot produce the result; nothing but the community can do 50.6 The school and the community have in the past often operated in relative isolation--dealing with problems that were deemed "their" responsibility. They (schools) are pedagogic islands, cut off by channels of convention from the world which sur- rounds them . . . Few schools however, have built bridges over which people may freely pass back and forth between school and community. 5Edward G. Olsen, The School and Community Reader: Education in Perspective (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963). p. 204. 6Joseph K. Hart, The Discovery of Intelligence (New York: The Century Company, 1924), p. 382. 7Educational Policies Commission, "So Little Interest in Civic Affairs," The School and Community Reader (New York: MacMillan Co., 1963), p. 74. It therefore becomes necessary to develop initially, a setting conducive for a united problem-solving approach when adopting the Community Education Concept. This requires an awareness of and an interest in this concept, along with a motivation for change. Many school districts that have adopted the Com- munity Education concept are employing Directors of Com- munity Education. The role of these directors is mainly in two broad areas: (a) initiating and coordinating action focussed on specific issues of concern, and (b) developing and administering programs and activities according to the perceived needs of the community. The success of a Director of Community Education is highly contingent on his leadership abilities as a change agent, initiator, motivator, and coordinator. The ability of Community Education to achieve its basic purposes appear greatly dependent on its leadership. According to Project Open Door,8 which evaluated the effect of Community Education in six school districts in Ionia County, Michigan, those school districts with strong leadership at the Superintendent's and Community Education Director's levels were rated correspondingly high on the variables used to determine the effect of the concept. 8Ionia Intermediate District, "Project Open Door," Unpublished evaluation study of Community Education, 1970. .- The Mott Foundation, a leading advocate of the Community Education concept, has placed heavy emphasis on leadership. As a result, much of its energies and resources has been made available to programs, training future school administrators. Two such programs are; (a) The Inter— University Clinical Preparation Program. This is a one year program, made available nationally to Masters and Doctorate candidates in educational administration. It is jointly sponsored by the seven state universities of Michigan, the Flint Board of Education, and the Mott Foundation. (b) The Mott Institute for Community School Directors. This six week program, exclusively related to the functions of the Community Education Director, is sponsored by the Flint Board of Education and the Mott Foundation. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to collect empirical data, presently not available, on the behavior and per- ception of practicing Directors of Community Education. The study further proposes to determine: A. Whether the behavior of Directors of Community Education vary with relation to the type of leadership training that they have received. B. The effectiveness of the training programs, as perceived by the Directors of Community Education. C. Whether the perceived "ideal" behavior and functions of Directors of Community Education vary between the Leadership Training Programs staff and practicing Directors of Community Education. Significance of the Study To date, the research on the role of Directors of Community Education is very limited. There are a number of descriptive articles addressing themselves to this issue and they are based on philosophy and not empirical data. Another limitation of the material available is that it addresses itself almost exclusively on the administration of Community Education at the building (local school) level. A number of studies have investigated the effect of adopting the Community Education concept. Decker9 assessed the effect of adopting the Community Education concept by surveying the perceptions of local school district superintendents and regional university center directors. 10 evaluated the effect The Ionia County Intermediate Office of Community Education in six school districts in that area by establishing a lay and professional panel of judges and arriving at a composite rating as a result. 9Larry E. Decker, "An Administrative Assessment of the Consequences of Adopting Community Education in Selected Public School Districts" (Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971). 10"Project Open Door," op. cit. The Community Education Leadership Training Programs have also been assessed by a number of studies. The two most significant studies to date appear to be Western Michigan University's,ll "Survey Report of Mott Leadership 12 Programs,‘ and Berridge's, "A Study of the Opinions of Community Education Leaders and Community School Directors Regarding an Intensive Preparation Program for Community School Directors." The Western Michigan University study surveys the opinions of all past participants of both the Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program and the Mott Institute for Community School Directors. In collecting their data on the values of the program, they followed the organizational structure of the program and received response as to the value on Internships, Colloquiums, Seminars, University Classes, Experience with Colleagues, and Living in Flint. Although Berridge did not identify significant differences of opinion between the groups in his study, he inferred that his panel of experts were more oriented toward the improvement of the educational environment of the community, while the directors were more program and 11William D. Coats, Survey Report of Mott Leader- ship Programs (Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970). 12Robert I. Berridge, "A Study of the Opinions of Community Education Leaders and Community School Directors Regarding An Intensive Preparation Program for Comm. School Directors" (Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). activity oriented. His study also concluded that formal preparation and experience did not change the opinions of the directors toward the goal of Community Education.13 It would appear then, that, the significance of this study would revolve around the following areas: (a) The beginning of organized data on the behavior of Directors of Community Education; (b) Implications for future leadership training programs of Community Education administrators; (c) Implications for Directors of Community Education regarding behavior patterns and strategies in relation to various functions. Theory Community Education is a theoretical concept of a process through which the educational needs of the community are served--individually and collectively. It is based on the assumption that the self-actualization of individuals within the community can be maximized by satisfying their educational needs. The process of Community Education utilizes all the human and physical resources of the com- munity (including the school) available, and emphasizes the development of a "sense of community" and improved community living. Some basic assumptions upon which the Community Education concept is based are: 13Ibid., p. 2 (Abstract). 1. The public school has a capacity for far greater leadership and facilities to further such leader- ship than it is currently making. 2. Education should be made relevant to the com- munity. 3. Each child is a Gestalt requiring consideration of his total environment in his education rather than just his formal schooling. 4. Education is a lifetime process. 5. Education is not just a dissemination of infor- mation or mastery of a subject, but it is as John Dewey says, "a reconstruction or reorgani- zation of experience which adds to the meaning of experiences and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience." 6. Community is a feeling not a physical boundary. 7. Problems of our time are solvable. 8. The common good of the community is the goal of all. 9. Ordinary people can influence solutions to problems and are willing to commit themselves to such solutions.14 In order to actualize this theoretical concept, it becomes necessary for the following to occur: l4Jack Minzey, "Community Education in the 70's," The Communitnychool and Its Administration, Vol. Ix, No. 8 (April, 1971). 10 l. The community and the school system must be assessed to determine available resources-- human, physical and economic. 2. The community must be assessed to determine the needs and interests of all its citizens. 3. Plans must be initiated on how to best utilize the available resources to meet these needs and interests. 4. People from all sectors of the community need to be involved at all levels of the operation-- initiation, planning, programs, and action. 5. The develOpment of a close "sense of community." 6. Coordination of resources and activities is essential for the effective and efficient realization of Community Education objectives. The leadership behavior of Directors of Community Education affect the degree to which these consequences can be actu- alized.15 Definition of Terms The following terms are defined for purposes of clarity as they are used in this study: Community Education Community Education is a process which serves the entire community by providing for all the educational needs 15"Project Open Door," op. cit. 11 and wants of all community members. It uses the local schools or some other agency to act as a catalyst in bringing community resources to bear on community problems in an effort to develOp a positive sense of community, improve community living and develop the community process towards the end of self-actualization.l6 Community School Community school acts as a catalyst in developing the Community Education process,17 and serves as an edu- cational, cultural, recreational and social service center for all community citizens.18 Community The community in any of its diverse varieties, is actually or potentially, an arena of social communication and social participation.19 School—Community Relations School-community relations is the development of a type of relationship between the school and the community l6Decker, op, cit., p. 11. l7Ibid., p. 11. 18Bernard G. Kelner, "What it Takes to get Community Schools Going," Nations Schools, 82:66-8 (Sept., 1968). 19Howard W. Beers, "American Communities," The Community School—Fifty-Second Yearbook Part II (Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1953), p. 29. 12 in which it is located. The degree of the relationship can be measured by the extent of the formal and informal communication ties that are established between the school and the community—-individuals, groups and agencies. Needs and Interests Those issues or matters that the client (in this study the clients are groups or individuals in the com— munity) perceives as being of value for his development. Director of Community Education Director of Community Education is a person who is employed by a school district and is responsible for the district-wide development and coordination of Community Education. Community School Director The Community School Director is a person who is employed by a school district and is responsible for the development and coordination of Community Education in a school and its community. Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program The Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program is a cooperative venture in Community Education leadership training between the Flint Community Schools, the Mott Foundation, and the seven state universities of the State 13 20 of Michigan. This one year program is often referred to as the Mott Leadership Program. Mott Institute for Community School Directors This is a six week program in Community Education administration. It is jointly sponsored by the Flint Board of Education and the Mott Foundation. Research Questions This study will investigate the issues defined in the purpose of the study by seeking answers to the following questions: I. A comparison of Inter-University and Mott Institute trained Directors of Community Education on demographic variables. 1. Do these groups vary on such variables as experience, age, academic training, school district type and size, length of time and degree of Community Education operation? II. A comparison of behavior of Inter-University and Mott Institute trained Directors of Com- munity Education. Do these two groups vary in: 1. their methods of community assesment? 20Mott Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program, "Internship Handbook," Flint, Michigan, 1970, p. 2. 14 2. time priority for assessing, planning, Operating, and evaluating programs? 3. the use of communication channels? 4. the degree of coordination with community agencies? 5. the perceived COOperation, involvement, and coordination within the school district staff? 6. finance administration? 7. the type of role as a change agent? 8. the priority of functions as Directors of Community Education? III. A comparison of Inter-University and Mott Insti- tute trained Directors of Community Education with respect to their perceptions as to the effectiveness of the training program. 1. Do these groups vary in regard to their perceived effectiveness of the training program related to community assessment, program develOpment, communication, com- munity coordination, institutional coordi- nation, finance administration, and role as a change agent? IV. A comparison of the perceived "ideal" behavior of Directors of Community Education between 15 Inter-University trained Directors of Community Education and training staff. Do these two groups vary in perceptions of ideal: 1. involvement of people in Community assess- ment? time priority for assessing, planning, Operating, and evaluating programs? behavior of finance administration? rank order of functions of Directors of Community Education? A comparison of the perceived "ideal" behavior of Directors of Community Education, between Mott Institute trained Directors of Community Education and training staff. Do these two groups vary in perceptions of ideal: 1. involvement of people in community assess- ment? time priorities for assessing, planning, Operating, and evaluating programs? behavior in finance administration? rank order of functions of Directors of Community Education? If! Cw. v. ‘» 9‘- u- in ‘- Q.‘ I l 16 General Design Population The population of the study are Directors of Com- munity Education (as defined) who have participated in the (a) Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program as M.A. students or the (b) Mott Institute for Community School Directors. In distinguishing directors with relation to the type of training program they participated in, future reference in the study, the "Inter-University" trained will be referred to as "Fellows" while the "Mott Institute" trained will be called "Interns."21 The list of candidates for these two populations were arrived at in the following manner: (a) Fellows: The September, 1971 issue of The Community School and Its Administration, contained a listing of former participants in the program and their present positions. Those selected were the former master's students who are presently employed as Directors of Community Edu- cation. The 1970-71 trained Fellows were not considered in this selection because of their limited experience in their present position. This list was cross-checked with a June, 1971 list of Directors of Community Education in the Mott Foundation office files. The size of this popu- lation is twenty-five. 21Coats, op. cit., p. l. 17 (b) Interns: The candidates for this population were selected from the June, 1971 list of Directors of Community Education, who had formerly participated in the Mott Institute training program, according to the training program card file of former Interns. Those who had received training after January 1, 1971 were not considered in the selection because of their assumed limited experience in the position. The size of this population is eighty-one. In order to arrive at a comparison of the "ideal" between the perceptions of the directors and the training staff, the training staff of these two programs became the third pOpulation in the study. This population consists of ten members. Instrument The questionnaire was developed, based on review of pertinent literature related to the objectives of the training programs and the functions of Community Education and Directors of Community Education and in consultation with some members of the training staff. Three practicing Directors of Community Education were interviewed for further clarification on the functions of Community Education Directors. After the major variables had been determined, questions and measures were devised to address these variables. The questionnaire was mailed to the selected Directors of Community Education, along with an appropriate cover or- you V. (I) fiv- “-v “v. ‘s I I M" ‘V 18 letter and a stamped return envelope (see Appendix). The training staff received their questionnaires at the Leader— ship Training Center with a personal explanation of the nature of the study and a request for their response. Nature of Data The following data were gathered: (a) Demographic information related to the Director of Community Education and the school district in which he is employed. (b) Responses to items on the actual behavior of the Director of Community Education in community assessment, programs and projects, communication, community coordination, finance, and change agent functions. (c) Responses to items on the ideal behavior of the Director of Community Education in community assessment, programs and projects, and finance functions. (d) Response to items on the actual and ideal rank ordering of functions of the Director of Community Education. (e) Response to items related to the degree to which the training program had prepared directors for specified functions. Analysis of the Data The methods of analysis of the study were devised after considerable consultation with the Michigan State University, College of Education Research Department and 19 other selected research advisors. After deliberation the following techniques were selected: 1. Chi Square Test of Homogenity. This technique was employed to analyze the demographic data. It was further used to analyze the responses to those questions that requested frequency of behavior. 2. Analysis of Variance with Repeated Measures. This test was used for analysis of all rank order data. 3. Multivariate Analysis. Data from questions requesting degree of agreement were analyzed with this technique. Limitations The study is based on the behavior and perception of Directors of Community Education who have participated in either the Inter—University Clinical Preparation Program or the Mott Institute for Community School Directors as an administrative training program for their job. For this reason direct inferences and generalizations can be made only to these two groups. However, this population is represented in nineteen states and consists of approximately 22 one-third of all the Directors of Community Education in the United States, a reader may consider this justification 22Decker, op. cit., p. 84. .\~ 20 to generalize across the total population of Directors of Community Education. The description of the pOpulation in Chapter III will develOp arguments to justify statistical inferences to this total population. The reader should also be aware of the fact that the procedures to become involved in the two training programs differed considerably. The Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program utilizes a selection process that considers: demonstrated leadership ability, commitment to Community Education, age (under 30 preferred) and M.A.T. score.23 To participate in the Mott Institute for Community School Directors, the following requirements must be met: 1. Agreement that the candidate will be employed in the capacity trained for upon completion of the program. 2. Agreement by the sponsoring agency that the participant's salary is maintained for the dura- tion of the program.24 Although the training institution is not involved in the selection process in the Mott Institute for Community School Directors, a selection process still exists. It is highly probable that a school district that decides to sponsor someone for this program in order to later employ 23National Community School Education Association, "Training of Leaders," NCSEA News (March, 1971), p. 2. 24 Ibid., p. 2. U 21 this person in Community Education will be selecting par- ticipants on the basis of leadership potential and commit- ment. Causal inferences on the behavior and perception differences or similarities of these two groups cannot be made, they can only be suggested. This is based on the fact that a survey study of this nature cannot account for the uncontrolled variables on which the present behavior of Directors of Community Education might be partially dependent. Some of the demographic variables such as experience, age, academic qualifications and size and type of school district are being measured in order to compare the similarity or difference of these two groups of directors. These comparisons may help to justify more conclusive statements on the behavior comparisons. The use of the mail questionnaire introduced certain limitations to this study. In order to anticipate a reason- able response, the questionnaire should not be too lengthy or complex. It must be short enough so as not to take too much time and so that the respondent will not reject it completely.25 This consideration, limited the length of the questionnaire and as a result limited the original intent of a more 25Carter V. Good, Essentials of Educational Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1966), p. 221. 22 extensive measure of the behavior of the Director of Com— munity Education. The data collected on the behavior of the director was reasonably extensive and is considered an adequate measure. The "closed—question" type of questionnaire which is necessary for statistical analysis, limits the data as well. The respondent is forced to respond to certain options, which might not reflect his behavior completely. An awareness of this limitation, while constructing the instrument, led to greater refinement of questions and response options and alleviated the problem to a degree. Overview The purpose of this chapter was to define the pur- pose and significance of and the theory for this study. The terms specific to this study were defined and limita- tions of the study were indicated. The chapter also briefly described the design of the study and enumerated the research questions that this study was addressing. Chapter II explores a detailed review of the literature in relation to the need for and philosophy and functions of Community Education. It investigates the concept of community and establishes types of school- community relationships. The functions of Directors of Community Education are also investigated. The second portion of the chapter investigates educational adminis— tration training generally and the Inter-University 23 Clinical Preparation Program and the Mott Institute for Community School Directors specifically. The design and analysis of the study are described in detail in Chapter III. The population, instrument development, field study, data collection, hypotheses, and statistical analysis of the data are described. Chapter IV reports and analyzes the survey findings. They are reported with respect to each hypothesis. The final chapter summarizes the research, outlines conclusions, and suggests implications. Issues for further related study conclude the thesis. ~. ’5- ~§~ CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Education has consistently enjoyed a dominant position during this country's history. The public edu- cational institutions have been involved in considerable change in the past and are presently confronted with a world in which rapid change, far reaching in scope and significance, is imposing stresses and strains on estab- lished institutions.l Since the turn of the century, edu- cation has experienced three major school movements (philosophical emphases). At the beginning of the century the "Traditional School" philosophy was prominent. The "book centered" curriculum and cognitive learning were considered most important while the child's social development had a secondary priority and a community relationship was not emphasized. During the 1920's, the "Progressive School" phi- losophy gained dominance. This movement set the child in the center of education with high emphasis on experiential lToffler, op, cit., p. 32. 24 25 learning. A closer relationship was developed with the community, utilizing community resources in the experiential learning process. The "Community Education" philosophy gained promi- nence after 1940.2 In its development it has advocated a holistic approach to education with a "life-centered" orientation. It is based on the assumptions that learning is a life-long process and that the environment outside of the school--the home and the community, are vital factors in the learning process. To maximize learning requires a full school-community partnership--utilizing both school and community as a learning laboratory with all its human and physical resources and develOping the community into the most wholesome environment possible. In recent years, educational institutions have become involved in additional responsibilities that society has demanded of them. Realizing the magnitude of the task, many educational systems are turning to the communities in which they are located, with its other institutions and agencies, in an attempt to mobilize all available resources for utilization in the educational process. In reviewing the literature, the writer, proposes to deal with two major topics: Community Education and 2Edward G. Olsen, School and Community (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 12. '1 26 Community Education Administration Training Programs. In order to View the behavior of Community Education Directors in a reasonable context it is suggested that the Community Education topic be divided into the following sections: Need for Community Education, Concept of Community, School— Community Relations, Philosophy of Community Education, Characteristics and Functions of Community Education, and Functions of Community Education Directors. In dealing with Community Education Administration Training Programs, it is felt that the following sections are appropriate: Educational Administration Training Programs, Internship Training, Development of Leadership Training in Flint, The Inter-University Clinical Preparation Training Program, and The Mott Institute for Community School Directors. Need for Community Education There is a new spirit in this country which is both demanding excellence of the schools and offering assistance to help achieve it. But will educators follow or lead as communities demand more involvement?3 Change and acceleration of change4 in our society are demanding changes in the structure, organization and thrust of our educational institutions. There is a growing school of thought that suggests that the Community Education concept is the most viable approach to education for the 3Anthony J. Savino, "Community Attack or Community Participation," New York State Education, 56:22-5 (January, 1969), p. 22. 4 Toffler, op. cit., p. 21. 27 present and the future. E. O. Melby states that Community Education is a social imperative to our society: It is a social imperative because without the education it provides, America cannot heal the divisions which now threaten her life as a free society. For us in education it is imperative because it is the only way we can make good on the promise we have held before the American people for a century-namely, that through education man- kind can become the master of his own destiny. The power and control of education has also begun to change recently. A new partnership for this power must be develOped if we hope to achieve Melby's promises through education. Traditionally there was administrative power. In recent years we have seen the growth of teacher power. Today student and community power is developing. These separatist power forces must be harnessed and coalesced into 'educational power.‘6 This "educational power" is envisaged through the adoption and development of the Community Education concept. Before investigating the major reasons for adopting Community Education, let us review some of the formidable problems that face our society today. According to V. M. Kerensky these are: 1. The first is the problem of change. Change is no longer constant; it is explosive, unpre- dictable, and protean. . . . Yet, the schools 5Robert L. Whitt, A Handbook for the Community School Director (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1971), p. 8. 6William R. Manning, "Decentralization: Problems and Promises," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 53:116-123 (October, 1969), p. 121. 28 of today bear a stroking resemblance to those of 1932. 2. The trend toward urbanization. In spite of the fact that eighty-five per cent of our citizens live in large urban centers, our assumptions about education are still rural in nature. 3. The lack of a sense of community in today's society. Some means must be found for revital- izing that sense. 4. The increased complexity of the institutions in our society and the accompanying rise in bureauc- racy. Bureaucracy is no longer the answer to society's problems--it has become part of the problem. 5. Unnecessary duplication. . . . self-serving bureaucracies refuse to give up their functions. 6. The waste of human and physical resources. 7. A missing sense of commitment.7 If Community Education is to remain a viable concept for the future, it will need to devise new thrusts that will cope with the above problems. One of the most time consuming issues that many educators struggle with today is the matter of community participation in the educational process. Some ask why?, others how or in regards to what? Community educators have been practicing community participation for some time. They advocate the total involvement of human and physical resources in the educational process. This involvement has been based on the argument that the people have a 7Vasil M. Kerensky, "Community Education in the 70's," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. IX, No. 8 (April, 1971). 29 democratic right to be involved-~school with community and community (peOple) with school.8 This is not only a demo— cratic right but the obligation of all citizens to partici- pate in public education.9 We have said that essentially the citizen is to decide the 'what' and the professional the 'how.‘10 Weaver, in discussing this issue suggests that there are two alternative solutions to today's social problems: (1) destroying the present system, (2) adopting the Com- munity Education concept. Community Education is an attempt to marshall all the educational resources within the community to create a laboratory for the management of human behavior. Such a concept requires the involvement of people of all ages, races, creeds, and socio- economic circumstances in the process of education and community improvement. . . . The traditional view of the school as an intellectual skill center cannot be expected to produce solutions to the critical problems that we face in this century. When Viewed within the context of the modern social milieu described earlier, the Community Education approach to problems can be Viewed as a cultural imperative.1 The nature of the community largely determines what goes on in school. Therefore to attempt to divorce the school from the community is to engage in unrealistic thinking, which might lead to 8Whitt, op. cit., p. 8. 9Roald F. Campbell, The Dynamics of School- Community Relations (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1958), p. V. lOIbid., p. VI. 11Donald C. Weaver, "Community Education--A Cultural Imperative," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VII, No. 5 (January,'l969): P. 2. 30 policies that could wreak havoc with the school and the lives of the children. T12 community and the school are inseparable. . . . Only when community and school are united in a total partner- ship, referred to as the "educative community," can the educational process be maximized. Another reason for adopting the Community Education concept with its emphasis on the community is the matter of dealing with the student in a holistic way. In discussing the school as a social system, Goslin, makes reference to the many external forces that influence the system, the student, the teacher, etc. It is important that the school personnel understand and relate with these forces if they hOpe to Optimize the child's learning opportunities.13 Campbell14 15 and Manning address themselves to this issue as well. The use of the community as a vital part of the "educational classroom" has been left virtually untouched by many educational systems. Since learning is for living and since it is continuous, it seems that the community is 12James B. Conant, "Community and School are Inseparable," The School and Communipy Reader (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963), p. 53. l3Goslin, op. cit., p. 31. 14Clyde M. Campbell, The Community School and Its Vol. III, NO. 9 (May, 1965). 15 Manning, op. cit., p. 119. 31 a rich resource for learning experiences and must be tapped as an educational laboratory. Schoolhouse education is inadequate. When exploring curriculum changes, alternatives should not be limited within the school but should be extended to the world outside.16 The range and depth of first hand experiences in community living should be increased through the school program. A first essential in teaching youth to live together should be a great extension under school guidance of the range of community experiences for youth.17 Further support for citizenship education in the real world is offered by Everett18 and Douglass.19 Community Education is most vitally needed in low- income and minority neighborhoods. Through its efforts in dealing with the needs of the families and the community as well as those of the individual, it can hOpe to approach solutions to some of the unmet needs in these settings. Through the community-school movement the edu- cational system must help parents learn good methods l6Vasil M. Kerensky and Ernest O. Melby, Education II-The Social Imperative (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1971), p. 15. 17American Association of School Administrators, "Present Practices Should be Reversed," The School and Community Reader (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963i, p. 116. 18Samuel Everett, School and Community Meet: The Community Approach to IntercuIturaI Education (New York: Hinds, Hayden & Eldridge, Inc., 1948), p. 2. l9Harl R. Douglass, "Dynamics of Community Living," The School and Community Reader (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963), p. 122. 32 of bringing up children, help provide medical, recreational, and other social services, and, in general, attempt to overcome the historic exclusion of the poor by becoming a potent force in all aspects of life in the slums.2 Campbell21 states that research indicates the modest success that America has enjoyed in involving minorities in the democratic process. Community Education is a cultural imperative. Do we aim for one society or two? Educational institutions and other agencies must learn to operate in a true partner— ship with 1ow—income and minority group communities. If this partnership does not develop, alienation will grow and communities will demand complete control which could further fragment this nation.22 The number and complexity of problems are increasing in communities. The situation is such that attempts by various agencies, to solve problems in isolation, are no longer acceptable or adequate. Cooperation and coordination I O O I 23 among 1nst1tut1ons and agenc1es are necessary. 20Daniel U. Levine, "The Community School in Con- temporary Perspective," Elementagy School Journal, 69:190- 17 (December, 1968), p. 109. 21R. F. Campbell, L. L. Cunningham and R. F. McPhee, The Organization and Control of American Schools (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 19657, p. 404. 22Kerensky and Melby, op, cit., p. 125. 231bid., p. 12. 33 The need for a Community Education in which the school and the community form a close partnership exists. It appears that it is a viable alternative that is both acceptable and functional. Strong, creative, and committed community and educational leadership will be required to realize the potential of such a dynamic merger. The remaking of American education will not be possible without a new kind of public dialogue in which all interested parties join. It will not be possible moreover, unless we go beyond dialogue. Students, parents, teachers, administrators, school board members, college professors, taxpayers--all will have to act, which means that all will have to make difficult decisions, the road to reform is always uphill.24 Fantini25 suggests that the schools will not solve their obsolescence problems by adding new layers of programs, but through a new conception of education-~one which functionally coordinates the needs of various publics. The Concept Community Since the basic principle of Community Education is the development of a total partnership between the school and the community, it appears valuable to investigate the concept of community. The view of a community varies, and is highly dependent on the population patterns. An 24Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom, The Remaking of American Education (New York: Random House,il970), p. 524. 25 Mario D. Fantini, "Institutional Reform," Today's Education, 59:43-45 (April, 1970). P. 43. 34 acceptable View of community for a rural setting may be completely foreign and unacceptable in metropolitan cities. The multiplicity of organizations within a community tend to fragment the community. "Even in a rural county, presumably less complex than an urban area, a careful inventory revealed 428 organizations.26 Definitions of community based on geographic limitations may still be appropriate for rural settings but are not adequate for most urban settings. The following definition, therefore, may have limited application. A community is a pOpulation aggregate, inhabiting a continuous delimitable area, and having a set of basic service institutions; it is conscious of its local unity and is able to act in a collective way to solve its problems.27 Campbell28 in The Organization and Control of American Schools remains basically geographic as he is trying to develop a definition for a more complex, probably urban community. He uses Norton E. Long's term "territorial system" in place of community. Such a system may or may not contain numerous "games"--such as a political game, a banking game, a newspaper game, a Civic organization game, a church game or an educational game. Individuals for the 26Roland F. Campbell, op, cit., p. 31. 27Maurice F. Seay and Ferris N. Crawford, The Community School and Community Self Improvement (Lansing, Michigan: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1954), p. 27. 28Campbell, Cummingham and McPhee, op, cit., pp. 398- 400. 35 most part stick to one game but corroborate with players in another game. Various types of school districts Operate in different game settings. Isolated school districts lack other games within their territory and thus are unable to corroborate with players in other games. Suburban school districts house many players who play their game in another territorial system. Urban school districts find that players around them are operating on a larger territorial system. Totten, in his definition attempts to compromise between a geographical definition of community and one based on communication and common interest. A community can be any geographically determined area from neighborhood to world provided the people who compose it can communicate and work toward common goals. The community includes all of the physical, social, educational, civic, and political environmental factors pertaining to and affecting its human membership. People with common interests scattered throughout the entire world represent a community provided they can communicate and direct their activities toward the fulfillment of common goals.29 John Dewey had, as early as 1916, developed a rea- sonably flexible definition of community in terms of com- munication and common interests. There is more than a verbal tie between the words common, community and communication. Men live in a community by virtue of the things which they have in common; and communication is the way in which they come to possess things in common. What they must have in order to form a community 29W. Fred Totten and Frank J. Manley, Community Education Series--Unit 101 (Flint, Michigan: W. Fred Totten, 1970i, p. 25. 36 or society are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge- a common understanding-like-mindedness as the sociologists say.3O Paul Hanna31 endorses this emphasis on communication, while Fein32 defines community in terms of what is "shared" or held in common. Cunningham33 suggests that the concept Of community is a thing of the past. He feels that attempts to analyze, define or explain communities, such as Norton E. Long's "territorial system" analysis, are interesting but futile. If considered only in geographic terms, one might agree with him. When viewed in terms of communication and common interest, his arguments seem questionable. Considering the elements of communication and common interest most crucial in a concept of community, the fol- lowing definition of community will be used for purposes of this study: 30John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1916): P. 5. 31Paul R. Hanna, "The Community School and Larger Geographic Areas," The Community School-Finy-Second Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1953), p. 229. 32Leonard J. Fein, "The Limits Of Universalism," Community Control of Schools (Washington: The Brookings InstitutiOn, 1970), p. 92. 33Luvern L. Cunningham, "Community Power: Implica- tions for Education," The Politics of Education in the Local Community (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers & Publishers Inc., 1964), pp. 29-31. 37 The community, in any of its diverse varieties, is actually or potentially an arena of social com- munication and social participation.34 The word "potentially" in this definition presents a challenge. The purpose of fostering community life seems now destined to become as prominent in the new American value system as was the pride in enjoying the relative freedom and autonomy of communities in the adolescence of our nation.35 Subscribing to the view that the concept of community exists, does not suggest that it exists without problems. Whether one considers the degree of "sense of community" at the national level or local level-—common interests and communication--one realizes that this "sense of community" has dissipated considerably. Some argue that it is gone. America is one vast, terrifying anti-community. The great organizations to which most people give their working day, and the apartments and suburbs to which they return at night, are equally places of loneliness and alienation. Modern living has obliterated place, locality, and neighborhood, and given us the anonymous separateness of our existence. The family, the most basic social system, has been ruthlessly stripped to its functional essentials.36 This missing or dissipating "sense of community" must be recovered. Reestablishing this will undoubtedly require new views and new techniques but it must be accomplished. 34Beers, op, cit., p. 29. 351bid., p. 29. 36Charles A. Reich, The Greening of America (New York: Random House, Inc., 1970), P. 7. 38 But, our very survival as a nation depends on new approaches to establishing a new 'sense of community.'37 Dr. Phillip Zimbardo38 a psychologist at Stanford University, in viewing vandalism in this nation suggests that the only hope for resolving this problem rests on society's ability to recover its waning spirit of community. Where that occurs, vandalism is rare. Dr. Andrew J. Young39 states that school systems must establish "creating a sense of community," as a top priority, in those systems where it is lacking. Some techniques and strategies for establishing this new "sense of community" have been offered. These strategies are based on communication and common interest. Manning40 and Levine41 feel that this can be accomplished by giving community people a real voice in local decision- making. Amyx42 and Milliken43 consider the schools as 37Kerensky and Melby, op. cit., p. 12. 38Phillip G. Zimbardo, "The Vandal: Society's Out— sider," Community Education Bulletin, Center for Community Education (Boca Raton, Florida: Florida Atlantic University). 39Andrew J. Young, "The Role of Community Education," Address at the Sixth Annual Convention of the National Com- munity School Education Association, Miami, Florida, Decem- ber 3, 1971. 40 Manning, op. cit., p. 116. 41Levine, op, cit., p. 113. 42Jay S. Amyx, "A Major Endorses Community Education Benefits," Community Education Journal, Vol. I, No. 4 (November, 1971), p. 40. 43William G. Milliken, The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VI, No. 7 TMarch, 1968). 39 places where neighborhood people meet and communicate as vital to this process. School-Community Relations As the eye cannot get along without the hand, neither can the school without the home, nor the school and home without the community. Each becomes necessary to the welfare of the others; all must work together in the interests of child- hood and of desirable living for all men in every community. Although the leadership belongs to public education, the responsibility belongs to all.44 The matter of school-community relationships has already been discussed to some extent in the Need for Community Education section of this chapter. Because of its importance to public education in general and Com- munity Education in particular, it is felt that it deserves further attention. The author proposes to discuss this issue accordingly: trace the types of possible relation- ships; suggest reasons why the relationship has disintegrated; posit reasons for a closer relationship; list principles that need to be considered when establishing this relation- ship; and suggest who has responsibility for this develop- ment. In the history of American education different points Of view have evolved as to the type and degree of relation— ship that should exist between the school and the community. E _ 44William A. Yeager, Home-School-Community Relations (Pittsburgh: University of PittSburgh, 1939), p. 3. 40 Some subscribe to an almost non—existent relationship-- one where the school and the community each take care of their own responsibilities. The school: focuses attention upon doing the best possible job of teaching every boy and girl who comes into the school, whoever he is, whatever his color nationality, or I.Q. It minimizes any activities which might 'distract' school personnel from this task. It means making clear to parents and interested citizens that the schools are run by professionals who know their business and who do not need help from other people in the community. It means keeping the schools out of local politics. . . . The community outside the school is regarded as introducing problems of undesirable complexity for school boundary between the community and school clearly defined and respected least tensions arise to inter- fere with school operations.45 At the other end of the continuum are those who subscribe to the Community Education concept which advocates an equal partnership relationship. In this context: The school operates directly as an agent for community betterment; and its pupils, both children and adults, take part in community activities. The community school has two distinct characteristics: (1) Service to the entire community, not merely to children of school age, (2) Discovery, development, and use of the resources of the community as part of the educational facilities of the school.4 Yeager47 suggests that there are four major concepts of school-community relationships: 1. The concept of indifference--the school disregards the home and community with respect to education. 4SHavighurst and Neugarten, op. cit., pp. 229-30. 46Decker, op, cit., p. 25. 47William A. Yeager, School-Community Relations (New York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1951), pp. 105-15. 41 2. Selling the schools-—a high, convincing pro- motional emphasis. 3. Educational interpretation--explaining the philoSOphy and operation of schools to the parents and the public, but direction and control are retained by the schools. 4. Cooperative endeavor in the interest of the complete child--a true partnership. The involvement of the community in public education has disintegrated. Those schools and school districts that subscribe to intensive community involvement are finding it more difficult to achieve this aim. Campbell48 has outlined develOpments that have lead to this disintegration. 1. Rural to urban living. 2. Decreased family solidarity. 3. Multiplicity of organizations. 4. Lack of community within a geographic area. 5. The increasing complexity of the school. Extensive literature is available defending reasons for a close school-community relationship. One such reason is that the educational system today is influenced to a greater degree by outside "forces,' and, therefore, it is 48Roald F. Campbell, The Dynamics of School—Communipy Relations, op. cit., p. 31. 42 more important than ever before to establish an under- standing and a working relationship with these forces.49 A second reason for a close school-community rela- tionship is the recognition of the educational influence of the environment (home and community) on the educational development of the child. The school and other agencies must work on improving local communities (the environment of the child) if we hope to attack the problem of "equality" and "quality" education for all.50 The school is only a particular sector of the educational environment. The neighborhood, the town and all of its agencies and organizations, churches, schools, the nation, the world, are all impinging upon the modifying the human experience for good or ill.5 Fantini52 as well as Steele and Lezotte53 emphasize the importance of the home in the educational process of the child. Fantini cites the parents as teachers in the home. Another argument for a school-community partnership suggests that it will introduce a new View and flexibility into the educational system. School reform under community participation should--and evidence is beginning to accumulate 49Campbell, Cunningham and McPhee, op. cit., p. 380. 50 51J. E. Grinnell and Raymond J. Young, The School and the Community (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1955). p. 7. Fein, op, cit., pp. 82-3. 52Fantini, op, cit., p. 28. 53Marilyn H. Steele and Lawrence W. Lezotte, "Recent Research," The Urban Review, Vol. 513 (January, 1972), p. 37. 43 that it does--take three main paths. First, it will add new hands and minds to the task, from the parents and the community-at-large . . . Second, it will encourage innovation and flexibility on the part of professionals and will expand the base of professional recruitment. Finally, it will promote the develop- ment of a more humanistically oriented curriculum.54 The positive value of participation is a fourth reason why school-community relations should be developed. Both the schools and the parent and community participants benefit from active involvement in the education process. The very act of participation-- a sense of greater control over a decisive insti- tution that influences the fate of their children-- contributes to the parents' sense of potency and self worth: 'If I have a voice, if what I say counts for something, I am somebody.‘ Armed with experiential potency and a heightened sense of self-worth they become better equipped as models for their children and as teachers of that part of the curriculum that is exclusively theirs--rearing in the home.55 The school is a social institution. According to Porter56 it has become a primary social institution. The parents and community have a right to be involved when the social goals of this institution are defined.57 A major reason for school-community relations is for surviva1--surviva1 of the educational institutions,58 54 Mario D. Fantini, "Quality Education in Urban Schools,‘ Community Control of Schools (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1970). P. 45. 55 Ibid., p. 72. 56John W. Porter, "The Community School As I See It," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VIII, No. 9 (May, 1970), p. 4. 57 Grinnell and Young, op. cit., p. 5. 58Savino, op. cit., p. 22. 44 survival of the troubled urban communities, and survival of our society. It is imperative that citizens be involved in the educational process if the urban community is to survive. The blight that threatens to destroy the city from within will destroy the schools as well unless school and community forces unite and plan together for the benefit of both.59 As we read the evidence, both from our own research and that of others, we cannot escape the conclusion that, if the current trend persists, if the institutions of our society continue to remove parents, other adults, and older youth from active participation in the lives of children, and if the resulting vacuum is filled by the age- segregated peer group, we can anticipate increased alienation, indifference, antagonism, and violence on the part of the younger generation in all segments of our society--middle-c1ass children as well as the disadvantaged.60 Based on the assumption that a partnership should exist between the school and the community-—who is responsible to develop this relationship? The greatest single responsibility for the achievement of school-community cooperation during the next 25 years rests squarely with the school administrators of the nation. These individuals will need to possess unlimited faith in people and exquisite and consummate skill in the exercise of educational leadership.61 Effective participation in education requires initiation, leadership and guidance from edu- cational administrators.62 59Steele and Lezotte, op, cit., p. 38. 60Urie Bronfenbrenner, Two Worlds of Childhood (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970), pp. I16-l7. 61Paul J. Misner, "The Next Twenty-Five Years," School and Community Reader (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963). P. 220. 62 Roald F. Campbell, op, cit., p. 182. 45 A strategy to facilitate the leadership required from the educational administrators is to initiate decentralization policies in school systems.63 To develOp this type of a partnership will require everyone's involvement. Campbell64 has suggested that 311 citizens have an obligation to participate. The citizens decide what; the professional educators decide how; and the administrators must provide the leadership, Philosophy of Community Education The philosophy of Community Education has been stated in numerable ways. They all emphasize the partner- ship between the school and the community highly, while varying in degrees of emphasis on other components of the concept. In developing the philoSOphy of Community Education, the writer proposes the following structure-— how the Community Education concept evolved; a series of definitions (or short descriptive philosophies) of Community Education; early philosophical statements; philosophy that followed; and educational assumptions that must be changed when subscribing to the Community Education concept. The twentieth century development of the Community Education philosophy has evolved from a once rather narrow philosophy of education. 63Betty Deschler, "How Decentralization is Affecting Community Education in Detroit," Community Education Journal, Vol. I, No. 3 (August, 1971), p. 39. 64 Roald F. Campbell, op, cit., pp. 149-182. 46 At first the school saw its objective narrowly, as handing down the factual heritage; the second stage sees the wider meaning of education as adjustment, and bravely the school seeks to meet all the problems of maladjustment of individuals and communities; the dawning third stage carries back to the community the responsibility for edu- cation and leaves with the school the responsibility for leadership and service.65 Another way of viewing this period is to divide it into eras of three school movements. 1. Traditional School: it was dominant in the early part of the century. It was book-centered and related with the community by studying the com- munity. 2. Progressive School: was dominant in American education during the period between World War I and II. It established a child-centered orientation and established a closer rela- tionship with the use of community resources. 3. Community School: took hold after the Progressive School movement. Its orientation is life- centered. The relationship with the community is extensive through study of community, use of community resources, service to the community, and involvement Of the community.66 Samuel Everett and Elsie Clapp are recognized as the two authors who in the late 1930's documented the philosophy and meaning of Community Education. Everett at that time suggested the following change in education to create Community Education. Public schools have long been thought of as the schools of the people. They should be not 65Julius Yourman, "Community Coordination-the Next 'Movement' in Education," Journal of Education Sociology, 9:327-30 (February, 1936), p. 328. 66Olsen, School and Communipy, op. cit., p. 12. 47 only schools of the people but schools by the people (planning and executing) and for the people.6 During the same period, Elsie Clapp defined Community Education in a quotation that still is used profusely in much of the literature on Community Education today. First of all, it meets as best it can, and with everyone's help, the urgent needs of the people, for it holds that everything that affects the welfare of the children and their families is its concern. Where does it end and life outside begin? There is no distinction between them. A community school is a used place, a place used freely and informally for all the needs of living and learning. It is, in effect the place where learning and living converge. During the 1950's there was a considerable amount of literature published on Community Education with added definitions. Maurice Seay envisioned Community Education as: The community school is a school which has a vision of a powerful social force--a vision capable of being transformed into reality. The vision is engendered by an understanding of the power of education, of what education can accomplish, when put to work in a responsible way. This vision gives aim and direction to community schools.69 67Samuel Everett, The Community School (New York: Appleton-Century Co., 1938), p. 341. 68Elsie Clapp, Community Schools in Action (New York: Viking Press, 1939), p. 89. 69Maurice F. Seay, "The Community School: New Meaning for an Old Term," The Community School Fiftyf Second Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: The National Society For the Study of EducatiOn, 1953): P. 2. 48 In the same fifty—second yearbook, Hanna and Naslund7O defined Community Education as serving the entire community and utilizing community resources in the process. Henry71 stated that it helps people achieve social and economic progress. Olsen72 describes the community school as life-centered, which uses education to improve the quality of human living. The Community Education concept is still being defined today. In 1970, Dr. John Porter, Superintendent of Schools in the state of Michigan, stated: The Community School Concept in its true sense is making the school a primary social institution, along with the family, rather than a secondary social institution as it has been, where you go if you are so inclined.73 Van Voorhees describes the concept in this way: Basic to understanding the concept of Community Education is an acceptance of three related premises: (1) that every person regardless of age, economic status, or educational background has unmet wants and needs which require the help of others for solution; (2) that peOple in every community have untapped skills, talents and services to share with others, either individually or through existing organizations and; (3) that in all communities 70Paul R. Hanna and Robert A. Naslund, "The Com- munity School Defined," The Community School Fifty—Second Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: The NatiOnal Society For the Study of Education, 1953), p. 51. 71Nelson B. Henry, The Community School—Fifpyf Second Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: The National Society For the Study of EducatiOn, 1953), p. 12. 72Olsen, The School and Community Readers: Edu- cation in Perspective, op. cit., p. 259. 73 Porter, op. cit., p. 4. 49 there are many available public facilities that go unused a large portion of the day and evening.74 Moore75 bases his definition on the above premise. Heaton76 defines it very similarly to Everett's early definition. Kerensky and Melby77 define it as a total change from the present repressive, authoritative state. The philosophy of Community Education that had evolved during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was formulated and documented during the 1930's and 40's by such authors as: Everett, Clapp, Cook, Olsen, and Seay. The writings of these authors appear to have been the basis upon which more recent philosophy has been developed. Samuel Everett initiated the writings by presenting nine philosophic issues in comparative form: 1. All life is education vs. education is gained only in formal institutions of learning. 2. Education requires participation vs. education is adequately gained through studying about life. 3. Adults and children have fundamental common purposes in both work and play vs. adults are 74Curtis Van Voorhees, "The Definition Issue," National Community School Education News, Flint, Michigan, May, 1971. 75Israel Heaton, "The Definition Issue," National Community School Education News, Flint, Michigan, May, 1971. 76Kerensky and Melby, op. cit., p. 33. 77Paul C. Fawley, "Professors of Educational Administration Look at Preparation Programs for Community Education Leadership," Communipy Educational Journal, Vol. I, No. 4 (November, 1971), p. 25. 50 primarily concerned with work and children with play. Public school systems should be primarily con- cerned with the improvement of community living and improvement of the social order vs. school systems should be primarily concerned with passing on the cultural heritage. The curriculum should receive its social orientation from major problems vs. the cur- riculum oriented in relation to specialized aims of academic subjects. Public education should be founded upon domecratic processes and ideals vs. the belief that most children and most adults are incapable of intel— ligently running their own lives or participating in common group efforts. Progress in education and in community living best comes through the development of common concerns among individuals and social groups vs. progress best comes through development of clear— cut social classes and vested interest groups which struggle for survival and dominance. Public schools should be responsible for the education of both children and adults vs. public schools should only be responsible for the education of children. Teacher-preparatory institutions should prepare youth and adults to carry on a community type of public education vs. such institutions should prepare youth and adults to perpetuate academic traditions and practices. Lloyd Cook summarized the Community Education PhiloSOphy stating its five principles. any school is a community school to the extent that it seeks to realize some such objectives as the following: (a) educates youth by and for par- ticipation in the full range of basic life activi- ties (human needs, areas of living, persistent p. 191. 78Olsen, The Modern Community School, op. cit., 51 problems, etc); (b) seeks increasingly to democratize life in school and outside; (0) uses community resources in all aspects of its program; (d) actively co-operates with other social agencies and groups in improving community life; (e) functions as a service center for youth and adult groups. Edward Olsen80 added the following as basic prin- ciples: evolving purposes out of interests and needs; utilizing a wide variety of community resources; involves children and adults in group projects of common interest. 81 Maurice Seay endorsed the principles of Community Edu- cation as stated by Olsen, Cook and Everett. The philosophical concepts of other authors who have written on Community Education appear to expand upon, clarify or emphasize those principles of the concept identified in the preceding pages. One such thrust has been on the principle that education, "educates youth by and for participation in the full range of basic life activities.82 In recent years many professional reports-notably the Seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (1918), the Purpose of Education in American Democracy (1938), Education for All American Youth (1944, 1952), and Education for All American Children (1948), and Life Adjustment Education—-have stressed the importance of educating in and for the basic areas of social living. 79Ibid., p. 192. 801bid., p. 193. 811bid., p. 194. 821bid., p. 192. 83Ibid., p. 54. '1‘ 52 All the available resources in a community will be required in order to achieve such an educational process. The mobilization and coordination of resources is another philOSOphic principle that has been emphasized by Douglass,84 Seay,85 and Totten.86 Most recently the emphasis in the philosophy has shifted to the principle of the educative society. This concept rests on the assumption that the community is a natural educative force. Much can be done to create the community into a more positive educational force. The concept of the Educative Community is based on the simple premise that the community itself is educative . . . the Educative Community proposes that most persons and agencies in the community have a potential if not actual capacity for education. And even more important, these same persons and agencies should assume a responsibility for their educative role and implement that assumption by making their educational contribution to the community as explicit and effective as possible.87 84Leonard Douglas, "The Community School PhilOSOphy and the Inner-City School," Urban Education, 5:328-335 (January, 1971), p. 331. 85 Seay, op. cit., p. 13. 86W. Fred Totten, "Community Education--Best Hope for Society," School and Society, 98:410-15 (November, 1970), p. 410. 87Howard McClusky, "The Educative Community," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. 5, No. 9 (May, 1967;: P. 1. 53 Olsen88 stresses that all citizens are teachers as well as learners. Totten89 and Melby90 point to the whole community as a learning laboratory where a society learns in action. Kerensky and Melbygl see the whole community as education centered, with this as its primary reason for being. The realization of such an educative community would correspond with the "Gemeindschaft" theory as well as Bronfenbrenner's92 more positive alternative for America. The concept of Community Education is definitely stated in the philosophy statement of the National Community School Education Association. Community Education is a comprehensive and dynamic approach to public education. It is a philOSOphy that pervades all segments of education programming and directs the thrust of each of them towards the needs of the community. The community school serves as a catalytic agent by providing leadership to mobilize community problems. This marshalling of all forces in community helps to bring about change as the school extends itself to all people. Community School Education affects all children, youth and adults directly and it helps to create an atmosphere and environment in which all men find 88Olsen, The Modern Community School, op, cit., p. 50. 89Totten, "Community Education-Best Hope for Society," op. cit., p. 410. 90Ernest Ol Melby, "Bureaucracy and Community Edu- cation," National Community School Education Association News (May, 1971 , p. 4. glKerensky and Melby, op. cit., p. 99. 92Bronfenbrenner, op, cit., pp. 116-17. 54 security and self confidence, thus enabling them to grow and mature in a community which sees its schools as an integral part of community life.93 In order to adopt and actualize the philosophy of Community Education as it has been described to this point, it becomes necessary to change some of the assumptions related to education that many educators subscribe to. Kerensky and Melby94 claim that the following assumptions must be changed. 1. The present type of schooling is intrinsically and inevitably good, good for everybody and the more years in school the better. 2. Failure for a substantial proportion of the children is inevitable, in fact the price of 'high standards.’ 3. A sizeable percentage of children are ineducable and low achievement is the child's fault. 4. Ability grouping facilitates learning, and slow learning pupils in the class cause brighter pupils to achieve less. 5. The marking system motivates children to higher achievement. 6. The graded school facilitates learning. 7. Class size should be the same for all children and teachers. 8. The really important decisions in education should be made by administrators and supervisors. 9. The teacher's knowledge of his subject is the greatest element in his success. 93Community Education Bulletin, Center for Community Education, Florida Atlantic University, Vol. II, No. 3 (January, 1971). 94Kerensky and Melby, op. cit., pp. 89-90. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 55 A school program from 8:30 to 3:30 p.m. can meet the current challenges to education. Public schools are for children between the ages of 5 through 18 years. A school can divorce itself from the social- economic milieu of the community. That which is similar and measurable is superior to that which is unique and affective. Children and parents are motivated by failure. Low income parents don't care about their children. Education is a terminal process. Children and parents respond best when threatened. Education is the accumulation of facts. Schooling and education are synonymous. Feelings are irrelevant since they are so difficult to measure. As traditional assumptions of education are discarded or revised, new ones come into play. Minzey95 states that the following assumptions must be accepted when subscribing to the 1. Community Education concept. The public school has a capacity for far greater leadership and facilities to further such leader- ship than it is currently making. Education should be made relevant to the community. Each child is a Gestalt requiring consideration of his total environment in his education rather than just his formal schooling. Education is a lifetime process. 5Minzey, op. cit. 56 5. Education is not just a dissemination of infor- mation or mastery of a subject, but it is as John Dewey says, 'a reconStruction or reorgani- zation of experience which adds to the meaning of experiences and which increases the ability to direct the course of subsequent experience.‘ 6. Community is a feeling, not a physical boundary. 7. Problems of our time are solvable. 8. The common good of the community is the good of all. 9. Ordinary people can influence solutions to problems and are willing to commit themselves to such solutions. Community Education is considered a viable philosophy. It can only remain viable if its proponents are able to change and broaden it, in order to correspond with the society it is purported to serve. E. G. Olsen and E. O. Melby, two strong advocates of this philosophy have both made reference to this need. This is precisely why I am convinced that community education in the 1970's cannot succeed unless its central philosophy is broadened, updated. That philosophy must have a newer, wider thrust. And it must permeate the schools throughout the entire metropolitan areas, not remain confined to the smaller political units we call cities and suburbs.96 Characteristics and Functions of Community EducatiOn The philOSOphy of Community Education which was developed in the previous section needs to be defined in functional terms in order to become operational. This 96Olsen, "City, Suburb, and Education," op, cit. 57 section will develop Community Education to this operational level by: education community principles; school; relating Community Education practices with general listing the characteristics of the suggesting broad purposes of Community Education; review a series of listings of Community Education functions; and the separate development of each function. lOSOphy into practical terms. As mentioned, this section will attempt to put phi- Let us initially View the "regular" school program in a school that has adOpted the Community Education philOSOphy. Olsen states that, "There is a close relationship between basic principles of democratic teaching and their daily expression in the community school. Basic Principles of Success- fu1 Teaching at AnyoAcademic "97 How Community School Programs Utilize These Level Prinéiples 1. Educate the whole child. Integrated learning occurs. 2. Keep the program informal, flexible and democratic. Capitalize upon present pupil interests. Let motivation be intrinsic Make learning experiences vivid and direct. Stress problem-solving, the basis of functional learning. p. 128. 97 Olsen, "How We Learn Informality, flexibility, and democracy are essential of any program. Every child is interested in his own community. The keynote is--"let's find out!" Firsthand contact is ultimate realism. Real life abounds in problems. and SO Should Teach," op, cit., 58 7. Provide for the Possible satisfactions are achievement of lasting many and varied. pupil satisfaction. 8. Let the curriculum The community is used as a mirror the community. living laboratory.98 Community Education and community school are not used synonymously in this study as indicated in the definitions in Chapter I. Much of the literature however, has been written using these terms synonymously. For further clarity, the term Community Education will be used to mean the phi- losophy and process and the term community school will refer to the agent that implements the philosophy and process.99 A school may be considered a community school if it possesses certain characteristics. The National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration characterized a community school accordingly: 1. The community school seeks to Operate continuously as an important unit in the family of agencies serving the common purpose of improving community living. 2. The community school shares with citizens continuing responsibility for the identification of community needs and the development of subsequent action programs to meet these needs. 3. The community school begins its responsibility for _ better living with the immediate school environment. 4. The curriculum of the community school is suf- ficiently comprehensive and flexible to facilitate the realization of its purpose. 98Ibid., pp. 128-31. 99Decker, op, cit., p. 27. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 59 The community school program is dynamic, constantly changing to meet emerging community needs. The community school makes full use of all community resources for learning experiences. The community school develops and uses distinctive types of teaching materials. The community school shares with other agencies the responsibility for providing opportunities for appropriate learning experiences for all members of the community. The community school recognizes improvement in social and community relations behavior as an indication of individual growth and development. The community school develops continuous evaluation in terms of the quality of living for pupils, teachers, and administrators; for the total school program; and for the community. The pupil personnel services of the community school are co-operatively developed in relation to community needs. The community school secures staff personnel properly prepared to contribute to the distinctive objectives of the school, facilitates effective. work and continuous professional growth by members of the staff, and maintains only those personnel policies which are consistent with the school's purposes. The community school maintains democratic pupil- teacher-administrator relationships. The community school creates, and Operates in, a situation where there is high expectancy of what good schools can do to improve community living. The community school buildings, equipment, and grounds are so designed, constructed, and used as to make it possible to provide for children, youth, and adults, those experiences in community living which are not adequately provided by agencies other than the school. 60 16. The community school budget is the financial plan for translating into reality the educational program which the school board, staff members, students, and other citizens have agreed upon as desirable for the community.10 Edward G. Olsen, defined the community school in these concise characteristics: 1. 2. Improves the quality of living here and now. Uses the community as a laboratory for learning. Makes the school plant a community center. Organizes the core-curriculum around the processes and problems of living. Includes lay people in school policy and program planning. Leads in community coordination. Practices and promotes democracy in all human relationships. 01 This is the type of school that will put Community Education into Operation. The purposes and functions of Community Education may be classified in broad, global categories or very specific functions. Totten and Manley 102 divided the functions into the following three areas: 1. Community School (Education) attempts to help people. 2. Community School (Education) fosters community development. looolsen, The Modern Community School, op. Cit-r pp. 197-8. 101 Olsen, Scppol and Communipy, op, cit., p. 482. 102Totten and Manley, op. cit. 3. 61 Community School (Education) solves social problems. Another global view is to define the types of services being offered in Community Education rather than where these 103 services are directed. According to Kelner, the following four types of services are basic: 1. 2. 3. Educational services. Recreational services. Health and Social services. 4. Community-life services. As educators have developed various aspects Of Com- munity Education, four main thrusts have emerged. Ideally, the implementation of Community Education would incorporate as much from each of these types as is deemed necessary for the particular setting. 1. The community-centered curriculum. The community is considered as a resource for enriching the school program. For example, field trips, speakers, hobbyists. The vocations-centered curriculum. This area is similar to the first one, but it stresses the community as a resource to give vocational and work experience to public school students. Business and industry are often involved in designing the curriculum, providing employment and job counseling services, and Offering adult classes for job training or retraining. The community-centered function. The physical facilities of the schools are used by various groups. The facilities lend themselves to cultural and recreational programs, extended library services, meeting rooms for public 103Kelner, op. cit., p. 66. 62 forums, adult education classes, community suppers and many other functions. The emphasis is primarily on community use of the school, not school-community involvement. 4. The community-service function. Emphasis is placed upon school-community involvement to improve living in the community. The school still plays the role of community center described above, but the use of physical facilities is coordinated and planned. The most significant feature of this area is that parts of the cur- riculum focus on community problems with the common goal of achieving better living. A variety of authors and organizations have listed the specific objectives or functions of Community Education. During the 1940's the community of Stephenson, Michigan, a member of the Michigan Community School Service Program, stated the following as its' Objectives: 1. To promote co-Operative effort of all the community organizations and of the citizens in making the community a better place in which to live. 2. To co-ordinate, on a voluntary basis, the efforts of existing community agencies and individuals to meet more effectively the needs of the community. 3. To encourage community surveys to determine local resources, conditions and needs. 4. To inform the public of conditions that need improving. 5. To train leaders and encourage democratic action in meeting the needs of the community through105 the legal and established community agencies. 104Barbara Hunt, "An Introduction to the Community School Concept," Field Paper No. 20, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon, p. 1. 105Seay and Crawford, op. cit., p. 62. 63 These functions stated approximately twenty-five years ago are rather similar to more recently stated functions. Totten has suggested that Community Education can be achieved through the realization of the following six functions: 1. Serve as a catalytic agent for stimulating other agencies, churches, groups and individuals to unite their learning programs. 2. Enrich, supplement and coordinate the programs of other agencies and groups. 3. Take leadership for discovering the learning wants and needs of the people. 4. Take leadership for discovering and activating the resources, both human and material, needed to implement and operate the program of total education. 5. Take leadership for formulating the coordinating body necessary to bring the services of all groups into concert. 6. Take leadership for discovering and implementing a communication program adequate to meet all needs.106 This particular set of functions places heavy emphasis on coordination and leadership. Another set of functions,107 focuses on the development of a "sense of community." It becomes apparent as one views the different sets of Community Education functions that there are differences. These differences may exist for a number of reasons. They 106Totten, Community Education Series--Unit 101, 220 Cit. I pp. 6-8. 107W. Fred Totten, The Power of Community Education (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 10-15. 64 may vary as a result of differences in: (a) philosophical emphasis, (b) community needs, and (c) availability of resources and leadership. This allows for a commonality of functions as well as the uniqueness of communities and community needs. Process An important function of Community Education is to develop a process through which the needs of the community can be met. a process whereby communities become involved in their own problems and needs. It does not do things for people but through peOple--a process that is continuous and changing over the life span of a community's efforts and somewhat different in every community. When this "process" is actualized the school, "becomes a unifying force of the community rather than merely a social institution in the community."109 The implementation of the Community Education process, incorporates another function--the develOpment of the demo- cratic way of life. The involvement of all peOple young and old in the planning, assessing and initiation of programs and activities is a most basic form of the democratic process. 108Curtis Van Voorhees, "The Community Education Development Center," The Community School and Its Adminis- tration, Vol. XII, No. 3 (NovemBer, 1968). 109 Hanna and Naslund, op, cit., p. 55. 65 Partnership A meaningful process cannot be established without creating the school-community partnership. This function has already been discussed in some detail in the section, The Need for Community Education and School-Community Relationships. It should be emphasized, however, that this is an important function of Community Education, because rarely does this partnership develop without concerted effort. Community Assessment Another function of Community Education is community assessment--an assessment of both the needs and wants as well as the resources available. The degree of success in this function will be closely linked with the development on "pro- cess" and "partnership." Whether by accident, or by systematic survey, the community school displays a realistic perception of the people in its community. Perhaps this is its outstand— 1ng v1rtue. School as a Cultural and Recreational Center Capitalizing on the view of maximum use of school facilities, Community Educators have established the school as a cultural and recreational center in addition to its educational function. .The role of schools must be recreational and cultural centers, as well as centers of learning. 110Dan Cooper, "A Vantage Point for Viewing the Community School," The Community School and Its Adminis- tration, Vol. I, No. 6 (March, 1963). . 66 Increasing 1 sure time makes this even more ei imperative.lll School as a Social Center With the high emphasis on social development, another function of Community Education should be to develop the school into both a formal and informal social center. The school as a social center must provide, at least, part of that training which is necessary to keep the individual prOperly adjusted to a rapidly changing environment.11 Secondary benefits of this function could be motivated involvement in the "process" and "partnership" functions. Community DevelOpment The function of community development has a number of components, namely, solving community problems, developing an improved learning environment and creating an ideal-- educative community. Many educators have not considered the social problems in their community, a part of their responsibility. During the 1960's schools have been criticized with increasing frequency for failing to contribute more substantially to the solution of persistent social problems.113 111G. Leslie Lynch, "Schools as Recreation Centers," American School and University, Vol. 38, No. 11 (July, 1966), p. 33. 112John Dewey, "The School as a Social Center," The School and Community Readers: Education in Perspective (New York: The MacMillan CO.:—I963), p. 176. 113Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public Education (New York: Harper and Row Pfiblishers, 1969), p. 8. 67 Community Educators feel that this is an important aspect of their responsibility, because of the influence of the community environment on the learning process. It is also felt that the school is in a unique position in this regard because of its daily contact with so many peOple.114 Olsen, considers this function essential in the hope of saving both society and education. To save society, community education must have top priority. To save education, and to develop distinctively communipy education, we school administrators, teachers and students must become deeply, persistently, insistently concerned with metropolitan-area problems of housing, employment, urban renewal, welfare, conservation, transportation, public health, prejudice and discrimination of all kinds.115 Another aspect of community development is the concern to develop an environment--both the home and the community, that is most conducive to learning and living. Recent years studies have overwhelmingly verified the impact of the environment on learning. If it is true then that cultural climate controls behavior, surely it follows in chronological sequence that the school to be truely effective should try to improve its cultural climate at the same time that it tries to educate its children.11 114C. W. Hunnicutt, "The Community School as a Social Instrument," The Community School-Fifty-Second Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1953), p. 185. 115Edward G. Olsen, The Community School and Its Administration, op, cit. 116Clyde M. Campbell, The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. I, No. 7 (April, 1963). 68 The Educational Supplement of the London Times reports that, "more and more schools are paying attention to ways of changing the one environment into the other,"117 from drab, lonesome, "plastic" types of communities to ones that are lively, friendly and adventuresome. DevelOping a more conducive home environment is most crucial in relation to the pre-school child. Responses to motivation come shortly after birth. Dr. Ralph W. Gerard is convinced that a rich environ- ment in infancy thickens the brain cortex. Dr. Rene Geitz and Dr. Erik H. Erikson believe that the first two years of a child's life are the most important years in the Child's development, especially the first half-year. Geitz encourages over-the-cradle conver— sation with the baby. Erickson indicates that in the second year the baby develops a feeling of trust or mistrust, as the case may be.118 The final component of the "community development" function is the creation of the educative community. This type of a community is competent in and aware of its responsibilities to learning. An example of this is Philadelphia's Parkway Square program which "has no site and no buildings. Its campus is the community, its class- rooms are the city's institutions and businesses."119 117"Strong Case for the Community School,‘ The Times Educational Sppplement, 2674:366 (August 19, 1966). 118Clyde M. Campbell, The Cottage Nursery," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VII, NO. 11 (July, 1969). 119School, "The Anywhere School," School Management, 13:46-55 (December, 1969), p. 46. 69 We need the educative community because even the formal learning process will be directly influenced by the com- munity as more schools utilize the community as a learning laboratory.120 The educatiVe community is needed since the primary "significant others" in respect to motivation are members of the community, not members of the school.121 This type of community would also help to establish a "sense of meaning" for a considerable segment of the population in our society.122 Use of Community Resources Critics claim that educators are not aware of all the human and physical resources that are available in the community123 and have not learned to harness and mobilize the resources they know of. "The challenge to education 120 George L. Williams, "Beyond the Classroom: Life Experiences in the Field," Clearing House, 45:81-5 (October, 1970), p. 81. 121Ben Bloom, The Community School and Its Adminis- tration, Vol. VI, No. 6 (FeBruary, 1968). 122Eric Fromm, "Doubts as to Sanity," The School and Community Reader: Education in Perppective (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963), p. 32. 123Paul R. Hanna, "Tap This Educational Wealth," The School and Communitnyeader: Education in Perspective (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963): P. 155. 70 is indeed formidable. But the resources in our communities are enormous, if only we learn to use them."124 The use of community resources is greatly facilitated when the process, partnership and assessment functions, listed earlier, have been pursued. The community-school relationship is reciprocal. Community-centered schools imply school-centered communities. This relationship underlies the idea that the school is the 'consciously used instrument of the community.’ All resources of the community become available in the development of the school as this instrument.125 Change Agent The question of whether education should initiate change or make changes as they are reflected in society has been debated for some time. As the rate of change accelerates,126 it appears necessary that schools127 and administrators128 accept the function of guiding change. The functions of public schools in American society are undergoing continuous change. This is both inevitable and desirable. It is inevitable that an institution so integral a part of our culture should reflect cultural change in both 124Ernest O. Melby, "The Price of Freedom," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. II, NO. 10 (June, 1964). 125Edward Krug, "The Program of the Community School,‘ The Community School-Fifty-Second Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: The NatiOnal Society fOr the Study of Education, 1953), p. 90. 126 Toffler, op. cit., p. 19. 127Goslin, op. cit., pp. 85-90. 128Knezevich, op. cit., p. 72. 71 content and function. It is desirable that our educational system should play a major role in the process angzgo its share in guiding the direction of change. Community Cooperation and Coordination The effectiveness of the process and partnership functions of Community Education can be measured by the degree of cooperation and coordination that exists among the various community agencies, including the school. Interagency cooperation means transcending merely having a community calendar. The open sharing of resources-—both material and personal--and intimate involvement of a broad array of interested people in multiple community agencies are essential. It means to that many people in each agency must be engaged in interagency ventures. The need for greater coordination has existed for some time. Community Education has not been too successful in this effort and needs to place higher priority to this function. There is evidence to indicate that relatively little coordination or cooperation exists among or between these (educational) agencies. If directors of community education, administrators, of adult education and those responsible for program develop- ment cannot combine these efforts in a meaningful manner, directed toward an improved total community education, then someone or some agency with more sophistication will likely do so. 31 129Hunnicutt, op, cit., p. 179. 130Samuel A. Moore II, "Local Interagency Cooperation," The School Administrator (August, 1971), p. 10. 131Glenn Jensen, "The Role of Adult Education in Community Education," The Community Education Journal, Vol. I, No. 3 (August, 1971), p. 11. 72 Van Voorhees,l 2 suggests that the way to achieve the necessary coordination of resources and effort is through the Community Education process. The functions of Community Education that have been detailed will not be implemented to the same degree in every community that Operates a Community Education program. The functions are basic, and will be implanted according to the needs of the particular community. Functions of Directors of Community Education The functions of the Director of Community Education are highly contingent on the functions of Community Education and will be dealt with in this perspective. The literature on the role of a school district (central office) Director Of Community Education is almost non-existent. Most of the literature available on Community Education administration deals with the Community School Director (the building level administrator). As a result of these circumstances, it is proposed that the functions of the Director of Community Education be developed in the following way: reviewing the role of the building, Community School Director; investigating an overall view of the Director of Community Education; and defining specific functions of the Director of Community Education based on the functions of Community Education and 132Curt Van Voorhees, "Community Education in the 70's," The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. IX, NO. 8 (April, 1971). 73 the role of the Community School Director. This approach is based on the assumption that some of the functions of the Community School Director are transferrable and are, in a more complex setting, also functions of the Director of Community Education. The following definition, although not universally applicable, of the Community School Director gives one an indication of the diversity and complexity of his responsi- bilities. The Community School Director is a motivator, an expediter, a learning specialist, a community relations expert, a master of ceremonies, a community action agent, a VISTA volunteer, an evangelist for education, a custodian, and clerk, a vice-principal, a counselor, a boys' club leader, a girls' club sponsor, a friend in the neighborhood, and a humanitarian concerned with the welfare of our society.133 According to Totten and Manley, the Community School Director has responsibilities in three broad areas: 1. Knowing the community. 2. Community development. 3. Program develOpment.134 In order to accomplish community and program development in a way that will meet the needs and interests of the people, requires a thorough knowledge of the community and its 133Whitt, op, cit., p. 41. 134W. Fred Totten and Frank J. Manley, The Community School: Basic Concepts, Function and Organization (Galien, Michigan: AlIied Education Council, 1969). 74 people. This knowledge is also required in order to know what resources are available to meet these needs. The 1970 Annual Report of the Mott Foundation lists the following as functions of the Community School Director: 1. Coordinating its (the school) activities. 2. Involving its people. 3. Knowing and understanding the neighborhood. 4. Determining the interests, wants and needs of all its residents. 5. Acts as a catalyst in the development of needed programs. 6. Develops lay leadership. 7. Coordinates programs between the school and other service agencies. When discussing the functions and responsibilities of the Community Service (School) Director, Totten,136 emphasizes programming and coordination. In considering the position of Director of Community Education, we find that it has been defined on the organi- zational chart: a central staff position at the level of assistant or associate superintendent. Curriculum, instruction, supervisory, and administrative personnel involved both in the required portion and the elective portion of the community school are responsible to the director of community education.l37 135Mott Foundation, 1970 Annual REPOrtr Flint, Michigan, Po 12- 136Totten, "Community Education--Best Hope for Society," op, cit., p. 414. 137Totten and Manley, The Community School: Basic Concepts, Function and Organization, op. cit., p. 253. 75 Referring to the administration of Community Edu- cation, Haskew and Hanna, defined it as a: process of bringing people, ideas, and materials into suc relatlonshlps that an enterprise moves effec1ent1y towards the achievement of its objectives. The specific functions for Directors of Community Education generally fall into the following four categories: 1. Cooperative Planning. 2. Program Development. 3. Communication. 4. Leadership.139 The question of management and leadership priority is particularly relevant to the Director of Community Edu- cation. Should the time priority be to the managerial responsibilities in order to insure efficiency, or should it be to leadership to insure involvement, initiation and change? The Community Education administrator is in a dilemma since Community Education has not been legitimized to the same degree as regular education. Therefore, if he Spends his time in leadership and initiation, he may have little evidence to prove the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation, which ultimately causes budget problems. And yet the reason for adopting Community Education was to 138L. D. Haskew and Geneva Hanna, "The Organization and Administration of the Community School," The Community School-Fiftijecond Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1953), p. 133. 139 Ibid., p. 140. 76 initiate a new emphasis in education which requires extensive leadership priority. The twelve specific functions of the Director of Community Education that follow are not prescriptive but suggestive. Every position of this type is unique and dependent on the community needs and the supportive services available. Change Agent This function of the Director of Community Education is highly dependent on his leadership abilities. In order to be effective in a community it is necessary to identify the influencers, or significant others, influence them, who in turn will effect the change in the community.140 Kerensky, refers to this role as a catalyst. He states that the Director's: primary responsibility is to serve as a catalyst that will create a nucleus of well—informed citizens and professionals who work to create an enlightened community.141 The role of educational administrators has changed considerably in recent years. Traditionally the role was 140Paul C. Holman,."Community School Leaders Functioning as Personal Influence Leaders" (unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965), p. 242. 141Vasil M. Kerensky, "What Type of Education Can Make the Difference," Community Education Bulletin, Center for Community Education, FIOrida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. 77 to maintain the status quo. More recently the change agent role has become important.142 Communication This is probably the most important function of the director. In that his responsibilities directly effect the staff and students within the system as well as institutions, agencies and people of the community, it becomes necess \U rv p0mpo>flsa Opmpm csmflsoflz .coflpopuommflp poemsshsdsso = possumflo Hoosom osfinso poooosom as sonspoSpm spflssssoo asapoopa wo moocosgomsou Opp mo uCOEmmmmmm m>HpoHpmflsHE©¢ as: .Hoxoom .m xnumqm am.o sm.m ss.ma as.sa sm.ss sm.mfi ssossm m.sosooo sm.s am.s ws.0s $0.0H $0.0m $0.0H spasm psomoso 000.0s 000.00 000.0N 000.0H 000m mosopssm 000m so>o 1000.0m -000.0H 10000 -000m sass smog spasm .poaupmflm Hoozom mo Omflmll.m.m mqmflca Opopm cmmflzoflz .coflpopnommflp posmflassmcsv :muoenpmflo Hoozom oaapsd pouoofiom cfl coflppospm mpflcsEEoo deflpQ0t< wo moososqomsoo osp mo Dcosmmommd o>0pmnumfisflEp< s4: .Hoxooa .m mnsmqm mam mom was ohpspm m.noxooa pm.sm wa.sm sa.ss spasm pompous aspen sonnspsm Hmnsm >p3pm .Epflcsaeoov poespmao Hoogom mo Odmenuéé mqmde 121 In generalizing to a universe (of people, of events, of situation, etc.), the crucial con- sideration is the relation of the sam le included in the study to a larger population.1 Instrumentation The questionnaire used as the data collecting instrument was devised by the author for this study. It is based on: 1. The review of the literature related to the objectives of the Community Education leadership training programs. 2. Review of the literature related to the functions of Community Education and the functions of Directors of Community Education. 3. Consultation with some members of the leadership training program staff. 4. Consultation with some practicing Directors of Community Education. 5. Consultation with several research advisors, Michigan State University, College of Education. 6. Consultation with the chairman of this research study. Upon the conclusion of reviewing the literature and Exarsonal consultation the following behavioral variables of Ilirectors of Community Education were identified as pertinent 12 Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook, op, cit., p. 85. 122 to the study: community assessment behavior, programs and projects priority, communication behavior, community coordination frequency, finance behavior, change agent role, and function priorities. It was concluded that the body of the questionnaire should be based on these variables. Additional questions should address themselves to demo- graphic variables of the director and the school district, perceptions of the training program, and perceptions of "ideal" behavior. The format of the questionnaire and the construction of specific questions were based on the guidelines, recom- mended by a number of survey research authors: 1. Individual items should be simply phrased for easy interpretation. 2. Questions should follow a logical sequence. 3. Questionnaire items should assist the respondent to determine the character of his response. 4. Questions should not bias, prejudice or pre— determine the respondent's answer. 5. The questionnaire should not overburden the respondent--organization and type of questions and overall format are important. 6. Items should not alienate the respondent. 7. Respondent should feel as an important part of the study.13 Carter V. Good considers the following nine criteria as essential guidelines for the construction of a question— naire. 13J. E. Wise, R. E. Nordberg, and Donald J. Rfiitz, Mpthods of Research in Educatioo (Boston: D. C. Heat & Co., 1967), p. 101. 123 It must be short enough so as not to take too much time and so that the respondent will not reject it completely. It must be of sufficient interest and have enough face appeal so that the respondent will be inclined to respond to it and to complete it. The questionnaire should obtain some depth to the response in order to avoid superficial replies. The ideal questionnaire must not be too suggestive or too unstimulating, particularly with references to choices. The questionnaire should elicit responses that are definite but not mechanically forced. Questions must be asked in such a way that the responses will not be embarrassing to the individual. Questions must be asked in such a manner as to allay suspicions on the part of the respondent concerning hidden purposes in the questionnaire. The questionnaire must not be too narrow, restric- tive or limited in its sc0pe or philosophy. The responses to the questionnaire must be valid, and the entire body of data taken as a whole must answer the basic question for which the question- naire was designed.14 Similar guidelines are recommended by Gee15 and Hillway,l6 along with a number of added factors: 1. Use, if possible, of the 'closed' form of questionnaire--responses given not in words but by checking multiple choices. 2. Carefully analyze the subject in order to determine what information is essential. ‘York: l4Good, op, cit., p. 221. 15William Gee, Social Science Research Methods (New Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1950), p. 318. l6Tyrus Hillway, Handbook of Educational Research (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969), pp. 32—34. 124 3. Visualize as clearly as possible the person from whom the information is desired. 4. Only request information that can be furnished by the person to whom the questionnaire is sent. The type of response data requested in the question— naire varied with the nature of the questions. Most of the data collected was in response to closed-type questions or If“ J also referred to as fixed alternative responses. The questions were constructed in this manner in order to . '.‘I b'. HHQJI h... ...___. standardize responses and make statistical analysis possi— ble. Open-ended questions were included in a number of sections of the questionnaire. It was felt that this would give the respondents an opportunity to expand on their behavior indicated in previous fixed alternative questions. These open-response questions would also give the respondent an opportunity to explain the reasons for certain behavior. Some researchers feel that these Open- ended questions may also help to make the response to the closed—type questions (re:behavior) more accurate. The closed-type questions in the questionnaire produced three different types of fixed alternative response data: (a) Interval data was collected on: demographic ‘variables of the Director of Community Education and the school district in which he is employed; existing conditions in relation to certain job functions; frequency of behavior .re:community coordination, and finance administration, and ‘pre of behavior re:change agent; (b) Rank order data was 125 collected on the actual frequency of behavior of the Director of Community Education in relation to: (l) involve— ment of people; (2) program priority; (3) communication, and (4) priority of job functions. Perceptions of "ideal" behavior were also requested for l, 2, and 4. (c) Rating scale data was used to determine the perceptions of the directors regarding the value of the training program as it relates to the following job functions: community assessment, programming, communication, community coordi- nation, institutional coordination, finance administration, and change agent role. The instrument was in its third revision when it was field-tested. The nature of the changes during the revisions were: uniformity, sequence, clarity and length. The first draft of the questionnaire was fourteen pages and was refined to seven pages at the field-testing stage. Pilot Study The pilot study to field test the instrument was conducted at the National Leadership Training Center in Flint, Michigan. Present (1971-72). Fellows of the Inter- University Clinical Preparation Program who had been emnployed as Directors of Community Education just prior to this training experience were asked to participate. Eleven Inere identified in the selection and nine members partici- pated. 126 In addition to the preliminary check.that you make of your questions in order to locate ambiguities, it is very desirable to carry out a thorough pretest of your questionnaire before using it in your study. For the pretest of your questionnaire, you should select a sample of individuals from a population similar to that from which you plan to draw your research subjects.17 In addition to completing the questionnaire, they were requested to indicate how long they took to complete the instrument, and to indicate which questions appeared ambiguous, irrelevant, objectionable, too lengthy, or too complex (see Appendix A). Data from the field study determined the final revision of the questionnaire. It was reduced in length and complexity, which resulted in, an anticipated response time of approximately thirty minutes. A number of specific questions and directional statements were changed in order to improve clarity. One question was eliminated because response data did not differentiate behavior. The nature of the data collected can be classified in five categories which are directly related to the primary and secondary purposes of the study. (A) The demographic data was based on director and school district variables. It helped to better describe, explain, and support the data on behavior. (B) The actual behavior of the Director of Community Education with respect to: community assessment, programming, communication, community coordination, finance 17 Borg, op. cit., pp. 211-2. i i n 3 I i I . .k 127 administration, change agent, and total behavior (job function priority) was assessed to test for differences of behavior between the two groups of directors. (C) The perception of "ideal" behavior of the Director of Com— munity Education re:community assessment, programming, finance administration and total behavior (job function priority) enabled a comparison of views between the training staff and the directors. (D) The perceptions of the direc- l...AIA.' 4" .IP; :' tors regarding the adequacy of the training programs in relation to: community assessment, programming, communi- cations, community coordination, institutional coordination, finance administration and change agent role was utilized to compare the two training programs. (E) The Open-ended question data, in reference to community and school con- ditions, affecting the behavior in community assessment, community coordination and institutional coordination was added information and utilized to better describe data results. Data Collection Of great concern in a mail questionnaire survey research study, is the matter of getting a reasonable pertmnrtage of returns. Response rates can usually be increased by, (a) a well designed instrument, and (b) carefhilly planned strategies and procedures for data collection. 128 Many authors consider the letter of transmittal or cover letter the most crucial of the data collecting strategies, because this letter introduces the questionnaire to the respondent. Wisel8 recommends that the cover letter should accomplish the following: 1. It should explain the nature of the research to the recipient. 2. It should clearly state what is expected of the respondent. 3. It should arouse the respondent's interest and sympathy for the research project. 4. The letter should not irritate the respondent or arouse his hostility or prejudice. 5. It should not make the response task appear burdensome or time-consuming. 6. The letter should not suggest or prompt desired responses. 9 BorgL suggests additional characteristics for a well planned letter of transmittal: 7. The letter should make the respondent feel that the study is significant and that the information they supply is an important contribution. 8. The author of the study, should, if possible, create a personal or professional affiliation with the response group in the letter. 9. The letter should offer the respondent a copy of the results of the study. 10. It is recommended that a requested date of return be indicated. l8Wise, NOrdberg, and Reitz, op. cit., p. 94. 19 Borg, op. cit., pp. 213-16. f—l m \D Moser2O endorses many of the above characteristics for a cover letter. He feels that in addition, it should describe how the respondents were selected and a brief rationale should be given as to why the respondent should take the trouble to complete the questionnaire. The letter of transmittal used in this study, attempted to incorporate as many of the above suggestions as possible (see Appendix). It is felt that this was ac- complished with reasonable success except for number five. The author was more inclined to agree with Moser's point that completing the questionnaire was a task, and rely on the rationale for its value. Another important strategy that is useful in increasing the rate of returns is getting sponsorship. Borg,21 Hillway,22 and Moser23 make reference to its value, particularly if the population in the study is expected to identify with the sponsoring institution or organization. The Director of Training and Dissemination of the Mott Foundation (see Appendix) co-signed the letter of trans- mittal in this study. Additional strategies for use in data collection are: enclosing stamped self—addressed envelopes, assuring 20Moser, op, cit., p. 180. 21Borg, op. cit., p. 213. 22Hillway, op. cit., p. 32. 23 Moser, op. cit., p. 179. 130 anonymity, and including a payment or gift.24 These sug- gestions were also incorporated in the study except for the matter of payment. Research on the value of payment has been done and results indicate its value is not con- sistent. The coded questionnaire along with an appropriate cover letter, a page of general information (see Appendix E) and a stamped, self—addressed envelope, were mailed to each of the selected, one hundred and six, Directors of Community Education on November 9, 1971. It was requested that the completed questionnaire be returned by December 15, 1971. An initial follow-up to the mail questionnaire was attending the annual convention of the National Community School Education Association held in Miami, Florida on December 2-4, 1971, and briefly meeting with as many of the selected population as possible. It was felt that these short meetings, however brief, would facilitate the per- centage of returns. By December 25, 1971, 78 or 73.6% of the 106, were completed and returned. A formal follow-up was initiated on December 27, 1971 when another questionnaire, a new cover letter (see .Appendix), a page of general information, and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope was mailed to the twenty- eight directors who had not responded to the first 24 Ibid., pp. 179-80. 131 questionnaire. They were requested to complete and return these by January 20, 1972. By February 1, 1972, the selected cut-off date, 13 or 46.4% of the 28 were completed and returned as a follow-up. The training staff received their questionnaires at the Leadership Training Center in February, 1972. The nature of the study was personally described to them along pmnmm-lr~ Al «I i ' ch with a request for their participation. A11 ten of this selected population participated. TABLE 3.3.—-Questionnaire Response. Population Number Initial Follow-up Useable for Mailed Response Response Analysis No. % No. % NO. % Fellows 25 19 76.0 3 50.0 22 88.0 Interns 81 59 72.8 10 45.5 67 84.8 Staff 10 10 100.0 -- -- 10 100.0 Total 116 88 75.9 13 46.4 99 86.8 The editing process of the returned questionnaires revealed that two of the returns could not be utilized. One had been completed by a recently appointed director in the school district who did not meet the criteria for the selection of the population. The other questionnaire data revealed misinterpretation of the questions. Because of the high response rate, 86.8%, the Iiature of the non-respondents was not considered a problem 132 in this study. The response rate is probably a result of the specialized nature of the population along with their level of education.25 The author would like to believe that their interest in the nature of the study was also partially responsible. Data Analysis 5. Prior to submitting the collected data to a com— {I puterized, statistical analysis, coding and key-punching processes were required. The coding process required that a numerical value be set for each of the possible fixed-alternatives of each question, and that each subject's responses be coded according to the set numerical values. The key-punching process involved transcribing each subject's set of responses on separate computer cards. Three computer cards were required for every subject in this study, since the data collected was extensive. The utilization of specific statistical techniques for analyzing the data in this study, were determined with the assistance and guidance of personnel from Michigan State University, College of Education, research department. The three techniques used were the Chi-Square Test of Homogeneity, the Multivariate Analysis of Variance, and the Analysis of Variance with the Repeated Measures design. 25Gee, op. cit., p. 316. 133 The criteria used to determine the statistical techniques to be used were: the type of data collected and level of measure-ranging from nominal to interval; the type of information desired from the analysis; the statistical techniques available. The non-parametric Chi-Square Test of Homogeneity L was the most commonly used technique in this study. It was used to test for differences between the two groups [.5 .3" “MILE: my I"! . of directors on demographic variables as well as a number of behavioral variables--community assessment, community coordination, finance administration, change agent. The test was appropriate for this data in that its analysis presented the desired information. When the data of research consist of frequencies in discreet categories, the Chi-Square test may be used to determine the significance of differences between two independent groups. It was further appropriate in that it did not violate the limited assumptions that the test is based on. The multivariate Analysis technique was utilized where an overall analysis of a number of behavioral com— 27 ponents was desired. McCall lists a number of reasons for utilizing this technique: 26Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill Book’CO., 1956), p. 104., 27Robert B. McCall, "The Use Of Multivariate Procedures in Developmental Psychology," Manual of Child Psychology (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1954), pp. 1366-76. 134 1. Some concepts cannot be determined by a single measure. However, the modern Zeitgeist in- creasingly encourages the elementarization of phenomena and the investigation of constructs whose total conceptual implications are not efficiently accomplished by a single measure- ment. 2. This technique enables one to determine inter- action between variables. 3. If several variables possessing some cohesiveness are measured, multivariate procedures are preferred p; over univariate tests. ‘ 4. Most responses should not be viewed in isolation but as a conjunctive display.2 The multivariate test enabled a comparison of group, means for each of the variables, as well as an overall test of significant difference, and a test of significant dif- ference for each of the variables. The test was applied to measure differences in perception re:training program effect, and institutional coordination. It was also employed as a secondary test to analyze overall effect of behavioral measures in community coordination, and finance administration. The analysis of variance using the repeated measure design was employed to test for significant differences on rank order behavioral data. This technique allowed for a comparison of means for each variable as well as an overall test of significance. The technique was applied to be- liavioral measures on community assessment, programming, cxnmmunication, and director function priorities. 281bid., p. 1366. 135 Summary Chapter III described the nature of the study and its methodological design. It further defined and de- scribed the populations and the process of selecting the subjects for the study. This was followed by a description of the development and refinement of the questionnaire along with the procedure followed in field-testing the instrument. The methods and strategies employed in the data collection procedure followed. The chapter concluded with a description of the techniques used in analyzing the data. Chapter IV will describe the data collected and analyze the statistical tests that were employed. '6‘ .3 0‘1 mm Jr‘- t CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purposes of this study are to: present empiri- cal data on the behavior and perception of Directors of \I'» alohIm-‘SIH .7“ .: Community Education; compare the behavior of Directors of Community Education with relation to the type of leadership training that they received; compare the perceived effective- ness of the training programs; compare the perceived "ideal" behavior and functions of Directors of Community Education between the directors and the leadership training staff. This chapter presents an analysis of the data as prescribed by the four stated purposes and the related research questions. For purposes Of greater clarity and structure, the analysis has been divided into the following four sections: a description and comparison of the Direc- tors of Community Education on demographic variables; a description and comparison of the behavior of Directors of Cknnmunity Education; a comparison of the perceived value of the training program; a comparison of the "ideal" in Ckmnmunity Education as perceived by the Directors and the training staff. 136 137 Demographic The directors of Community Education were assessed on the following four personal and professional character- istics: total experience as Director of Community Edu- cation, experience as director in the present position, age and academic status. Comparing the Fellows with the Interns on total experience in Community Education administration, the two groups were found to be different at the .01 level (Table 4.1, a). The analysis indicated that Interns have signifi~ cantly less experience in Community Education administration than Fellows. Almost 50% of the Fellows had more than five years experience as compared with 14% of the Interns. The total population of Directors of Community Education in this study was found to be limited in its experience in Community Education administration (Table 4.1, a & b). Almost 80% of the directors had less than five years total eXperience, while 86% of the directors had less than five years experience in their present vposition. The comparison of the Fellows and Interns with respect to experience in the present position reveals a significant difference at the .05 level (Table 4.1, b). The Fellows revealed greater experience with one-third having five or more years experience in their present 138 TABLE 4.l.--Directors of Community Education Characteristics. Group No. % No. % No. % No. % A. Total Experience as Director Chi-Square test statistic: 13.l6** 2 yrs. or 3-4 yrs. 5-9 yrs. more than less 9 yrs. Fellows 7 33.3 4 19.1 10 47.6 0 0.0 Interns 34 54.0 21 33.3 7 11.1 1 1.6 Total 41 48.8 25 29.8 17 20.2 1 1.2 B. Experience as Director in Chi-Square test statistic: present position 11.25* 2 yrs. or 3-4 yrs. 5-9 yrs. more than less 9 yrs. Fellows 10 47.6 4 19.1 7 33.3 0 0.0 Interns 41 61.2 21 31.3 4 6.0 l 1.5 Total 51 58.0 25 28.4 11 12.5 1 1.1 C. Age Chi-Square test statistic = 13.26** 29 yrs. or 30-34 yrs. 35-39 yrs. 40 yrs. or less more Fellows 10 45.5 11 50.0 1 4.5 0 0.0 Interns 20 29.9 16 23.9 10 14.9 21 31.3 Total 30 33.7 27 30.3 11 12.4 21 23.6 D. Academic Qualifications Chi-Square test statistic: 7.64 B.A. M.A. Specialist Doctorate Fellows 0 0.0 20 90.9 2 9.1 0 0 Interns 17 25.4 46 68.6 3 4.5 l 1.5 Total 17 19.1 66 74.2 5 5.6 l 1.1 * Significant at the .05 level. Table value = 7.81 ** Significant at the .01 level. Table value = 11.34 139 position, compared with 7.5% of the Interns who had five or more years eXperience in their present position. The Interns were found to be significantly older when compared with the Fellows (Table 4.1,c). Nearly half the Interns were thirty-five years or older, compared with 4.5% of the Fellows. In viewing the overall age range of the directors it was found that 64% of them were less than thirty-five years of age. The Fellows and Interns were not statistically different with respect to academic qualifications (Table 4.1,d), although the Fellows showed higher percentages in the Masters and Specialist categories. The data indicated that 19% of all the directors held Bachelor degrees, 74% had Masters degrees and the remaining 7% held Specialist or Doctorate degrees. In summary, the Fellows and Interns are signifi- cantly different in: total experience as director, experience in present position, and in age. The only characteristic measured that did not reveal statistical difference was academic qualifications. This character- istic too approached the .05 level of significant dif— ference. A comparison of the environment (the school district) of the Directors of Community Education revealed greater overall similarity (Table 4.2). The only school district characteristic where analysis revealed significant difference 140 TABLE 4.2.--Characteristics of School Districts in which Directors Work. _—. ’fi—‘g Group No. % No. % No. % No. % A. PeriOd of time that community Chi-Square test statistic~ Education has existed in district. 8.69* 2 yrs. or 3—4 yrs. 5-9 yrs. 9 yrs. or less more Fellows 6 27.3 8 36.4 8 36.4 .C Interns 28 41.8 29 43.3 7 10.5 3 4.5 Total 34 38.2 37 41.6 15 16.9 3 3.4 B. Degree of Community Education Chi-Square test statistic: adoption. 3.29 Fully Adopted Not fully adopt. Will be Will be & will remain expanded reduced the same. Fellows 3 13.6 3 13.6 14 63.6 2 9.1 Interns 7 10.6 13 19.7 45 68.2 1 1.5 Total 10 11.4 16 18.2 59 67.1 3 3.4 C. Type of School district. Chi-Square test statistic: .412 Rural Suburban Urban Fellows 8 40.0 8 40.0 4 20.0 Interns 30 46.2 21 32.3 14 21.5 Total 38 44.7 29 34.1 18 21.2 D. Size of School district-- Chi—Square test statistic: students 11.03 less than 2000- 5000- 10,000- 20,000- over 2000 5000 10,000 20,000 40,000 40,060 Fellows 0 0.0 16 72.7 ‘3‘13.6‘ 1 4.6 2 9.1 0 0.0 Interns 14 20.9 29 43.3 10 14.9 8 11.9 2 3.0 4 .6.0 Total 14 15.7 45 50.6 13 14.6 9 10.1 4 4.5 4 4.5 * Significant at the .05 level. Table Value = 7.81. The .05 Table value for A & B = 7.81, for C=5.99, for D=11.07. 141 between Fellows and Interns was the period of time that Community Education had existed in the school district. Fellows were employed in districts where Community Edu- cation had been practiced longer, as compared with Interns. The characteristic, director experience, was probably somewhat dependent on this variable. Overall data revealed that almost 80% of the programs have existed for less than five years. The fact that such a large percentage of the programs are relatively new is probably a reason why only a modest number of the programs are fully adopted (Table 4.2,b). A large percentage of both Fellows and Interns indicated anticipated eXpansion of Community Education within their district. There was also great similarity between Fellows and Interns with respect to the type of school district in which they were employed. Almost half of the directors in the study were in rural districts, one-third in suburban settings, and one~fifth in urban areas. The Fellows and Interns were slightly more varied with respect to size of school district, but not statisti- cally different (Table 4.2,d). All the Fellows were employed in school districts with student populations ranging from 2,000 to 40,000, while 21% of the Interns were in districts with less than 2,000 students and 6% were employed in districts with over 40,000 students. 142 Generally the directors in this study were employed in relatively small school districts. Eighty per cent of all the directors were employed in school districts that had student populations of less than 10,000. The school districts in which the Fellows and Interns were employed were not found to be statistically different on the variables of size, type, and degree of Community Education adOption. The variable that revealed significant difference was the length of time that Com- munity Education had Operated in the district. On this variable, Fellows worked in districts where Community Education had existed for a longer period of time. Community Assessment The behavior of Directors of Community Education with respect to the assessment of community needs, interests and resources was measured in three ways: surveys, type of community involvement, and communication channels used with respect to assessment. Statistical analyses did not reveal any significant difference between Fellows and Interns in any of the assessment measures. With respect to community surveys, 73% of the Fellows and 60% of the Interns indicated that they had formally surveyed their community. This resulted in a Chi-Square test statistic of 1.20, (3.84). Of those who had formally surveyed their community, 69% of the Fellows 143 and 77% of the Interns reported surveys within the last two years, (chi-square test statistic = 4.79 [11.073). Interns and Fellows were in close agreement as to the frequency of future surveys-—test statistic = 1.53 (7.81). Seventy—one per cent of the Fellows and 69% of the Interns indicated intentions of surveying their communities every l-3 years with approximately 50% showing preference of surveying every 2-3 years. To determine the type of involvement in the com— munity assessment process Directors of Community Education were asked to rank order, from l-S (from a choice of nine groups--Table 4.3) according to frequency of involvement. This data was analyzed using the repeated measures analysis of variance (R.M.ANOVA) for an overall measure of statisti- cal difference. It was further analyzed with the Chi- Square Test of Homogeneity to test for differences on individual measures. The two analyses did not reveal any, overall or individual measure, statistical difference between Fellows and Interns (Table 4.3). A rank order of the groups involved in community assessment, based on group means, indicates that both Fellows and Interns considered: people--individually, groups-~informally, and groups--formally, in order of importance. Interns considered the Community Council, 4th (Fellows ranked it 7th) and Community Education 144 .mzam> magma ouwsvmlflco mo. was pcmmmummu A v mommcpcmumm cw mumafids oxen Aho.HHv Hm.m m mm.m om.n om.h mQSHO xooam Ano.HHV vm.v m Hm.m om.m No.0 coawmupmflcflaom .om .EEOO Aho.HHV mo.m b mm.m Hm.o mm.m mmmum mcflcomma .mom Aho.HHv vm.m w ma.m mv.m mm.m .CHEGM poauumflc Hoonom Aso.aav mo.s q mm.s mm.m mm.v aflocsoo suflcsasoo Ano.HHv mH.m m vo.v om.v mo.q mmmpm .Um .EEOO Aho.aav vm.m m mm.w mm.w mm.v mHHwEHOMImQDOHO Ams.m c sm.m m m¢.s om.m 5H.e sHHmEEOMcH-mmsouo mAno.HHV mm.m a Hm.m mm.H vv.m maamsow>flosfllmamomm .umnm pmmn m z z z mumswmlflcu mcumch mBOHHmm Hamnm>o ©m>ao>cH mmsouu Mo mmmxe Amxmo.v oa.~g Hm.a oflnmflpmpm ummu «>024 .z.m Hamsm>ov .pswEmmmmm4 muflcsfifiou CH ucwEm>H>ocH mo wm%B||.m.v mqmfie 145 instructors 5th. The Fellows, however, ranked Community Education instructors 4th, and school district adminis— tration 5th. The Directors of Community Education were asked to rank order the top three (from a choice of 10) channels of communication they used in the community assessment process. This rank order data was analyzed with the R.M. ANOVA technique as an overall test for difference between Fellows and Interns. The analysis did not indicate a difference in communication behavior with respect to assessment (Table 4.5,a). Based on a ranking of group means, the Fellows considered the following, as the top five channels of communication when dealing with community assessment: (1) person-to-person, (2) groups and meetings, (3) news- paper, radio, and T.V., (4) surveys, (5) community council. In response to the question of local problems related to community assessment, 36% of the Fellows and 40% of the Interns indicated that there were problems. Analyzing the "open" question on the types of problems that existed, both groups cited similar problems. The three types of problems most common were: distance and size of school district--one director indicated his district covered over 400 square miles and contained seven communities within this area; lack of time, staff and money; fragmented communities and fragmented leadership. Other 146 problems included: political, racial, apathy, a tradi— tionalized Community Council, schools resisting change, and lack of a local newspaper or radio. Program The behavior measure of directors with respect to programming was limited to a priority rating based on time spent on the assessment, initiating and planning, operatinq, and evaluation components of programming. A comparison of Fellows and Interns data was tested with the R.M. ANOVA technique for overall difference and the chi-square analysis for differences between Fellows and Interns on individual components. The analyses did not reveal any significant statistical difference (Table 4.4). According to the group means, Fellows and Interns ranked the components of programming identically. The greatest amount of time, in the programming function, was spent in initiating and planning. This was followed by: program operation, assessment, and evaluation. Communication The behavior of Community Education Directors with respect to communication was measured in terms of the types of communication channels they used most frequently for purposes of: assessment, coordination, motivation and awareness. The directors were asked to rank order (1,2,3) the three channels (from a selection of 10) that they used 147 TABLE 4.4.--Priorities in Programming. (Ranked in order of time spent. R.M. ANOVA test statistic = .349, [2.09 (.05)]) Components of Fellows Interns Chi-Square Program Development M R M R test stat. Initiating & Planning 1.55 1 1.67 1 1.89 (7.81)a Operation 2.05 2 1.99 2 1.28 (7.81) ' Assessment 2.59 3 2.69 3 4.23 (7.81) E Evaluation 3.82 4 3.66 4 1.66 (5.99) ‘ aThe numbers in parentheses ( ) represent the chi— square Table value. most frequently for each of the above purposes. The data collected from the Fellows and Interns was analyzed with the R.M. ANOVA technique. This analysis (Table 4.5) did not reveal significant statistical differences between the two groups with respect to assessment, coordination, and motivation. There was a significant difference between Fellows and Interns (at the .01 level) in their communication behavior relative to awareness. The communication behavior with respect to assess- ment has already been described in the community assessment section in this chapter. In summary, the Fellows ranked; (1) person-to-person, (2) groups and meetings, (3) telephone, (4) Community Council, and (5) brochures, as the five channels they used most frequently. Channels of com- munication used most frequently by Interns were: .mocmonHcmHm mo Hw>mH mumsvmlHno 00. mzu usmmwummn CESHoo UHumHumum umwu may CH A v mwmmzucmmmm CH mumnfidc wan .Hm>mH as. man an unnoHMHcmHm «* .148 0 m 0 0H 0 0 N H m 0 m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 E mcumucH “No.00 0H|0 0 0:0 0H|0 0:0 0 N H 0 0HI0 0 «000.0 00.0 H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 H0.0 00.H 0m.H 0N.0 00.0 E monHmm mmmcmumza .0 0 0 0 0H 0 N 0 0 H 0 m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 E mcumucH ABH.NV 0HI0 mIN 0HI0 0HI0 0 mIN h 0 H m m Hm.H 00.0 MN.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 N0.N 00.0 2 mBOHHmm :oHum>Huoz .O 0 m 0 0H 0 N 0 0 H m m 00.0 0N.0 00.0 N0.0 00.0 00.0 N0.0 00.0 H0.N 00.0 2 mcumucH AmH.N0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 N H m 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.N H0.N 2 m3oHHmm :oHumchuoou .m 0 0 m 0H 0 N n m H 0 m NN.m 0N.0 00.0 00.0 N0.0 00.0 00.0 HH.m 0H.m 00.0 E mcumucH maoH.NV 0 0 0 0H 0 N m n H m m 00. 00.0 N0.0 0N.m 00.0 00.0 H0.0 00.0 00.0 0H.m 00.0 2 mSOHHmm ucwEmmmmm< .< muuomwu mmcHume .>.B COmqu oHumHumum mcoHumu HHUCSOO mner 0 0 0 OHUMH nou 0:0:0 ummB m>m>usm Icmmmum .EEOO xoon mOEwE mmsouo mmussoonm HmmemBmz ICOmumm IwHwB QDOHO Ammo mo xocwswoum ou mckuooom A0.N.HV Umumfino xcmmv .0mNHHHn: namnnnno noflnmofl:SEEoo 0o mmmse--.m.0 00009 149 (l) person-to-person, (2) groups and meetings, (3) news- paper, radio, and T.V., (4) surveys, and (5) Community Councils (Table 4.5,a). There is no significant difference between Fellows and Interns when comparing communication, related to community coordination. The top three channels of communication for Fellows in ranked order were: (1) telephone, (2) person-to~ person, and (3) groups and meetings. Interns selected the same channels as the most frequently used, but in different order: (1) person-to-person, (2) groups and meetings, (3) telephone. Both groups tended to be similar in the selection of its top three channels as is indicated by the low means of these three channels. The means for the first three channels by both groups range from 2.41 to 3.73 while the range for the other seven channels is 6.05 to 7.00 (Table 4.5,b). Fellows and Interns communicate in relatively similar ways when motivating people to become interested and involved. No significant difference in behavior resulted when applying the R.M. ANOVA test. Both Interns and Fellows ranked the following the three most important channels: (1) person-to-person, (2) groups and meetings, (3) presentations. The Fellows displayed a high degree of unanimity by excluding three channels entirely from their selection. These were Block Clubs, Community Councils and Surveys (Table 4.5,c). 150 Communication with respect to "awareness" is significantly different between Fellows and Interns at the .01 level. Although both groups selected, (1) news- papers, radio, and T.V., and (2) brochures as their top two channels, there is considerable difference in the group means, indicating variance, even in these two channels. The greatest difference in means is found in the, person— to—person, brochures, and groups and meetings, categories and is the principle cause for the overall difference in awareness communication (Table 4.5,d). Community Coordination The behavior of Directors of Community Education with respect to community coordination was measured and analyzed in three ways: A measure was obtained on the percentage of directors who operate in‘a setting where community coordination exists and whether this coordination is formal or informal. The second measure determined the frequency of coordination between Community Education and nine types of community organizations. The third measure was with respect to the type of communication used when coordinating. All the data was analyzed with the Chi- Square Test of Homogeneity to determine differences between Fellows and Interns and to establish response patterns of the two groups (see Appendix D). To achieve an overall level of significant difference between Fellows and Interns 151 on the frequency of coordination with the different types of community organizations, the frequency data was analyzed with the multivariate analysis technique as well. The data indicated that 91% of the Fellows and 79% of the Interns functioned in a setting where overall coordination with other community agencies occurred (chi- square test = .582 [3.84]). The majority of the directors indicated that this coordination occurred informally. Rimmfltlr‘. Eighty-one per cent of the Fellows and 73% of the Interns indicated, informal coordination (chi-square test = .582 [3.843). The types of formal structures for coordination that were described by the directors are listed in Appendix E. The multivariate test (Table 4.6) comparing the frequency of coordination with community agencies of Fellows and Interns, did not reveal any significant, overall or individual measure, difference in behavior. Based on a ranking of group means, the Fellows coordinated most fre— quently with: (l) recreational agencies, (2-3) health and welfare agencies, (2-3) P.T.A. and parent groups, (4) civic and fraternal organizations, and (5) business organizations. Interns coordinated most frequently with: (1) recreational agencies, (2) P.T.A. and parent groups, (3) health and welfare agencies, (4) law enforcement agencies, and (5) religious organizations. The biggest differences in the frequency of coordination between Fellows and Interns 152 m1 . . . :1— 005. m mm.H a sn.H m mm.H nanonw spHnonflz Hafionm was. 0-0 mo.m sum mo.~ m mo.~ aflonnoo suflo 0mm. m 0~.m m mo.m s 0H.N nnoflunNAcnmno nnoflmHHmm 0mm. 0-0 mo.~ m mm.~ s 0H.m nnoflnmNfinmmno nmwnflnsm 000. 0 om.m 5-0 mo.m m 0H.m .cmm< newsmOHOMnm 3mg HmH. 0-0 mo.m 0 m0.m 0 sm.~ .nnmno .nnnm a ofl>flo 00H. m mm.m mnm 00.m m mm.m .nmmm munMHmz w anmwm mom. m sm.m mum mo.m m ms.m nmsono unmnmn a .0.e.n 0mm. H 00.m H 00.0 H m0.m nmflocmmm HmcoHpmmnomm .0Hm m 2 m z m z 00 Hm>mH maumch monHmm HHmum>o mmHoc00¢ A000. n wOQMOHMHcmflm mo Hm>mH HHmum>Ov .mmHocmmm wwHCDEEOO SDHS coHDMCHUHOOOII.0.0 mqmde 153 were with respect to health and welfare agencies, and civic and fraternal organizations--based on the multivariate analysis. Group means indicated that Fellows had more fre- quent coordination with five groups than Interns, compared with three groups where Interns displayed more frequent coordination. The general pattern of all the directors surveyed in this study indicates that the largest percentage of them coordinate their efforts with each of the other organizations from 1-5 times per year. For further details on percentage and chi-square analysis of com- munity coordination behavior, see Appendix D. The communication behavior of directors with respect to community coordination has already been described in the communication section of this chapter. There was no signifi- cant difference between Fellows and Interns choices of com— munication channels. Both groups selected person-to-person. telephone, and groups and meetings in their top three ratings (Table 4.5,b). The fact that two of these channels are personal rather than group oriented, confirms the informality of the coordinating process. In response to the question of local problems related to community coordination 41% of the Fellows and 52% of the Interns indicated that there were problems (chi-square test = .743 [3.84]). In assessing the response to the "open" question on the nature of the problems 154 related to the community coordination, no distinct dif- ference between Fellows and Interns could be established. Desire of agencies to retain power and autonomy, too many organizations, geographical size of area, and lack of time were the most common problems. Other problems listed included: political climate (power play), lack of understanding, lack of support from school district, relationship of educational system with the community, and money. Institutional Cooperation and Coordination The extent of institutional coordination was measured by the degree of: staff cooperation, staff involvement, and institutional coordination. These were measured on a five point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The data was analyzed with the multi- variate analysis technique to test for differences between Fellows and Interns. An "Open" question requested infor- mation about problems that inhibit institutional coordination. The multivariate analysis revealed that there is no significant difference between Fellows and Interns with respect to institutional coordination (Table 4.7). The analysis revealed that both groups were most successful in involving staff, followed by coordination and staff cooperation. The group means of the Fellows and Interns were highly similar (within .10 of each other) on each of the three questions. 155 TABLE 4.7.--Institutiona1 Cooperation and Coordination (Overall level of significance = .969) Measure Fellows Interns Level of M R M R sig. Degree of staff involvement 3.32 l 3.40 l .686 Degree of institutional coordination 3.50 2 3.60 2 .673 Degree of staff cooperation 3.59 3 3.67 3 .698 Responding to the question of local problems, related to institutional coordination 36% of the Fellows and 52% of the Interns indicated that local problems existed (chi—square test = 1.52 [3.843). Analyzing the response to the "open" question related to the type of problems that exist it was found that: (1) administration, (2) teacher apathy, poor staff morale and local teachers associations, and (3) money and staff were problems most frequently cited. Other problems noted were: teachers not willing to change from their traditional responsi- bilities; distance of central office--in one case, 60 miles away; changes are not readily accepted by school system; achieving coordination is a slow process; the fast rate of growth of the school system. Finance Administration The directors of Community Education responded to six finance related functions, according to their frequency 156 of involvement. Their response options were: (1) rarely or never, (2) 1-5 times per year, (3) monthly, (4) weekly, and (5) daily. A comparison of behavior between Fellows and Interns was made with the multivariate analysis. The chi-square test was also used, in order to obtain information on the frequency of responses, in the five response options, by the two groups, since the multivariate analysis reports only the means (see Appendix D for the chi-square Table). The multivariate analysis of the finance adminis- tration data revealed that there was no overall significart difference in behavior between Fellows and Interns (Table 4.8). Of the six individual finance functions that were measured, the two that revealed significant behavior dif- ference between Fellows and Interns were: (1) fee collection and fund supervision, (2) planning and operation of local fund raising projects. Fellows were significantly more active in these areas than Interns. Based on group mean comparisons, Fellows showed greater activity in all six of the finance functions. Rank ordering the group means revealed that both Fellows and Interns were most active in budget planning and operation. This was followed by: fee collection and supervision, and application and administration of State and Federal funds. Fellows were ranked 4th in planning and operation of fund raising projects, followed by the application of Foundation and Service Club grants, and involvement in local millage 157 .Hm>mH mo. man pm unmoHMHcmHm k. 000. 0 Hm.H 0 00.H 0 0m.H mmmHHHE HmooH cH #:mEm>Ho>cH *mHo. m sm.H 0 00.N 0:0 H0.H muomfloum 0chHmu 0:50 00 coHpmummo mam 0chcmHm 000. 0 H0.H m N0.H 0:0 H0.H mvcsm QSHO moH>Hmm 0cm :OHumcssom mo .CHEGM 0cm QOHpMOHHmm4 00N. m 00.N m 00.N 0 Hm.N mwcsw Hmnmwmm 0cm manpm mo .CHEGM 0cm COHDMOHHQQ< .mmo. m 0H.m m mm.m m m0.m noHnH>nmmsn GQSm 0cm COHpomHHoo wmm HmH. H m0.m H 00.0 H 0n.m .nH>nmmsn 0cm .CHewm .mcHCGMHQ #00050 .mHn m z m z m z noHnnnuanHena mo H®>mq mcnmch mBOHHmm HHme>O ‘ . mOCMCHm mo mwawa A00H. u mocmOHch0Hm 00 Hm>mH HHmHm>ov .coHumumecHewd mocmchun.0.0 mqm¢e 158 campaigns. Interns were ranked 4th in the application of Foundation and Service Club grants, followed by planning local fund raising projects, and involvement in local millage. Change Agent The role of Directors of Community Education as change agents was measured by their involvement in the following five areas: policies and procedures of district, at local government level, residential integration, issues on use of drugs, and reducing school district "red tape.“ Directors were given the following response options: initiate and follow through, initiate only, motivate others to initiate, active as a group member, limited or no involvement. The data was analyzed with the multi- variate and the chi-square analysis techniques. The multivariate analysis indicated that there was no significant, overall or individual measure, dif- ference between Fellows and Interns (Table 4.9). The two individual measures that were approaching significant difference were involvement at government level, and (2) reducing school district "red tape." According to the ' chi-square analysis the difference in behavior at the local government level was significant (see Appendix D). According to the ranking of group means, both Fellows and Interns were most active as change agents in reducing school district "red tape." Both groups had 159 La.l«€f$«lz. Lr. m. .2. 000. m no.0 m m0.m m nn.m noHnnnmmncH HMchmUHmmH mo mumoo>©< sec. 0 mo.m 0 0H.m 0 H0.m Hm>mH nnmannm>om HnooH pm nH0. m nm.m m mm.m m HH.m nmsnn no 0mg E0 mmdmmfl CO ®>finw0¢ 00H. m no.m m mm.m m Hm.m nOHHnan no nmnswmoonm 0cm mmHoHHom Umpmwpso sec. H mm.m H 00.H H mH.m =mnnn nmn: mnHosnmm .03 m z m z m 2 mo Hm>mH mcnmch mBOHHmm HHmuo>O mmcmnu mo mmmwe AN00. u ®OGMOHMHcmHm mo Hm>mH HHMH®>OV .Dcmmd 00cmno 0 mm mHomnn.0.0 mHm.-. The data related to training was analyzed with 137—.7“ k the multivariate analysis technique in order to determine differences between the Fellows and Interns. The analysis indicated that there was a significant difference (.01) between the two groups on the overall rating of the training program (Table 4.11). Six of the seven measures tested individually indicated significant difference. The analysis on the three measures: programming, communication, and role as change agent indicated a .001 level of significance. The only measure where a significant difference did not exist was finance administration. According to a comparison of group means, the Fellows perceived their training program more adequate on all of the seven functional areas tested. Both groups felt that the training had been most adequate in preparing them for their programming responsibilities and least adequate in aspects of finance administration (see rank order of adequacy of training, Table 4.11). 163 TABLE 4.11.--Perceived Value of Training Program. (Overall level of significance = .0016)** Re:Admin. Functions Fellows Interns Level of M R M R sig. Assessment of needs, interests & resources 4.05 4 3.46 4 .0139* Programming 4.36 1 3.73 l .0003** Communication 4.23 2 3.49 2 .0003** Community Coordination 4.09 3 3.48 3 .0023M Institutional Coordination 3.77 3.30 .0182* Finance Administration 3.18 3.03 7 .5133 Role as Change Agent 3.82 3.24 6 .0010** * .05 level of significance. * .01 level of significance. Ideal The perceived "ideal" of the Directors of Community Education and leadership training staff was measured in four areas: community assessment, programming, finance and function priorities. The analysis of this data compared Fellows with training staff and Interns with training staff. Analysis techniques used were the R.M. ANOVA test for over— all significant difference and the chi-square test for differences on individual measures. Ideal Community Assessment Directors of Community Education and training staff vwere requested to rank order the five groups (from a choice iv? ffi’m"‘~ 164 of nine) that they would ideally want to involve most frequently in the community assessment process. The R.M. ANOVA test (Table 4.12) indicated that there was no overall significant difference between the three groups. A com- parison of the ranked group means indicated the similarity between the groups. The Fellows and Interns ranked the same groups, 1-5, reversing only numbers one and two. The staff's group means were a little more diverse (Table 4.12). TABLE 4.12.-—Type of Involvement in Community Assessment-- Ideal. (R.M. ANOVA test statistic = 1.39 [1.75 (.05)]) Types of Groups Fellows Interns Staff M R M R M R Community Council 3.57 2 2.31 l 3.90 2 Block clubs 6.24 7 5.91 6 4.25 3 People-individually 2.57 1 3.51 2 2.70 l Groups-informally 3.62 3 4.06 3 4.80 4 Groups-formally 4.45 4 4.21 4 5.00 5 Community Ed. teachers 5.64 5 5.82 5 6.10 7 Regular teachers 6.07 6 6.14 7 5.75 6 School district admin. 6.31 8 6.17 8 6.15 8 Community Ed. Admin. 6.52 9 6.99 9 6.35 9 A comparison of the Fellows and staff, and Interns and staff was made on individual measures using the chi- square analysis (Table 4.13). Making the two comparisons on each of the nine measures revealed that Fellows were significantly different from the training staff in their 165 TABLE 4.13.--Types of Involvement in Community Assessment-- Ideal. (Chi—Square test statistic of individual components) Types of Groups Fellows--Staff Interns--Staff test .05 table test .05 table stat. value stat. value Community council 5.49 (11.07) 9.68 (11.07) Block clubs 9.52* ( 9.49) 9.13 (11.07) People—individually 7.72 (11.07) 10.25* ( 9.43) Groups-informally 8.50 (11.07) 4.23 (11.07) Groups-formally 2.14 (11.07) 3.64 (11.07) Community Ed. teachers 2.56 ( 9.49) 5.16 ( 7.8?) Regular teachers 2.91 ( 9.49) 3.05 (11.07) School district admin. 3.97 ( 9.49) 2.62 ( 9.49) Community Ed. admin. 2.55 ( 7.82) 12.05* ( 9.49) * Significant at the .05 level. "ideal" view of utilizing Block Clubs. Interns and Staff were found significantly different on the "ideal" use of: people-individually, and the Community Education adminis- tration. Comparing the test statistic values on each measure, revealed that the Intern-staff comparison had a higher test statistic value on six of the nine measures than the Fellow-staff comparison. This could indicate that.there is greater similarity between Fellows and staff than Interns and staff. 166 Ideal Priorities in Programming The directors and training staff were requested to rank order how they ideally perceived the priority in programming between assessment, planning and initiating, operation, and evaluation. The R.M. ANOVA test (Table 4.14) indicated that there was no overall significant difference between Fellows, Interns, and staff. A com- parison of the group means and ranks was further evidence to the high similarity. All groups rated assessment most important, followed by initiating and planning, operation, and evaluation. The Fellows reversed the order between operation and evaluation. TABLE 4.14.--Idea1 Priorities in Programming. (R.M. ANOVA test statistic = .434 [2.25 (.05)]) Components of Program Fellows Interns Staff Development M R M R M R Assessment 1.64 l 1.70 1 1.40 1 Initiating and Planning 1.86 2 1.91 2 2.00 2 Operation 3.27 4 3.02 3 3.20 3 Evaluation 3.23 3 3.37 4 3.40 4 A comparison of the Fellows and staff, and Interns and staff, on each of the four individual components was achieved using the chi—square analysis (Table 4.15). The results did.not reveal any significant differences. Comparing 167 TABLE 4.15.--Ideal Priorities in Programming. (Chi-Square test statistic of individual components) Components of Program Fellows--Staff Interns-~Staff DevelOpment test .05 table test .05 table stat. value stat. value Assessment 3.58 (5.99) 5.03 (7.82) Initiating and planning 2.72 (7.82) 7.10 (7.82) Operation 2.24 (7.82) 1.47 (7.82) Evaluation 1.27 (7.82) 1.42 (7.82) the test statistic values on each of the components, indi- cated that the Intern-staff comparison resulted in a higher test statistic on three of the four components, suggesting closer similarity between Fellows and staff than Interns and staff on their perceptions of the "ideal" in program- ming. Ideal Finance Administration The Directors of Community Education and the training staff were requested to indicate how frequently they would ideally perceive a director involved in the six types (Table 4.16) of finance administration. The five frequency Options ranged from rarely or never to daily. The multi— variate analysis results indicated that there were no, overall or individual measure, significant differences between Fellows, Interns, and staff. Based on the ranking 168 1a A. 000. 0 00.H m 00.H m 00.H muomnoum . 0chHmn @CSm HMOOH mo COvaummo 0cm .GMHm msm. m om.H 0 05.H 0 am.H nannnano mmmHHHE HmooH CH .>Ho>cH 0HN. m 00.N 0 mm.m 0 00.H nnnmnm noHumwcnom mo .CHEGM can cngm0HHmQ< 000. N 00.N m 00.N m 0N.N mUsSm Hmumwmm 0cm mumwm mo .GHEUM cam coHuMOHHQmm m00. 0 OH.m m 00.N N mm.m nonH>umnnn 0:50 02m coHuomHHoo mmm 005. H 00.m H 0m.m H 0H.m noHnH>ummnm nan .sHewm .mcHQGMHQ pmmwsm .mHn m z m z m z coHumuuchHew0 mo Hm>mq 00mpm mcnwucH m3OHHmm mUQMCHm mo mmmhe ANHn. n mOCMOHMHcme mo Hm>mH HHmum>ov .meanuconmuuchHfiwm mocmchll.0H.0 mqmae 169 of group means, all groups considered budget planning and administration of greatest importance. Fellows and Interns ranked all six components in identical order, while the staff ranking differed (Table 4.16). The chi-square analysis allowed for separate comparisons between Fellows and staff, and Interns and staff, on each of the six types of finance administration (Table 4.17). Of the twelve comparisons that were made, one revealed significant difference--the Intern and staff perception of the application and administration of State and Federal funds. The staff put significantly more emphasis on this phase of finance administration than TABLE 4.17.--Finance Administration--Ideal. (Chi-Square test statistic of individual functions) Types of Finance Fellows--Staff Interns—-Staff Administration test .05 table test .05 table stat. value stat. value Budget planning, admin. & supervision 2.88 (9.49) 3.47 (9.49) Fee collection and supervision 5.11 (9.49) 4.65 (9.49) Application & admin. of State Fed. funds 6.29 (9.49) 11.11* (9.49) Application & admin. of Foundation grants 4.36 (9.49) 2.76 (9.49) Involvement in local millage 1.01 (7.82) 2.37 (9.49) Involvement in local fund raising projects 3.91 (7.82) 6.15 (9.49) * Significant at the .05 level. 170 Interns. Comparing the test statistic values between the Fellow-staff and Intern-staff comparisons, on each of the six types of finance administration, showed that the Intern-staff comparison resulted in a higher test statis- tic on four of the six types of finance administration. This suggests greater similarity between Fellows and staff than Interns and staff. Mm ' 1 Ideal Director of Community Education Function Priorities The Directors of Community Education and the training staff were requested to ideally rank order the nine listed director functions (Table 4.18) based on importance. An overall comparison of the ideal function priorities, between Fellows, Interns, and staff was made utilizing the R.M. ANOVA technique. No overall significant difference was found. Comparing the rank order of the groups (Table 4.18), the greatest similarity between the three groups was found in their unanimous choice of com- munity assessment as the number one function. The greatest difference in this respect was in the rating of program ;planning and operation. Fellows and Interns ranked this second while the staff rated it fifth. The chi-square analysis was utilized to test for cdifferences between Fellows and staff, and Interns and sytaff on each of the nine functions (Table 4.19). Of the exighteen comparative tests that were made, one resulted 171 TABLE 4.18.--Ideal Director of Community Education Function Priorities. (R.M. ANOVA test statistic = 1.66 [1.75 (.05)]) Types of Functions Fellows Interns Staff M R M R M R Budget and finance 6.94 8 6.19 7 8.00 9 Community Assessment 1.94 2.81 2.00 1 Program planning and operation 3.88 2 2.83 2 4.89 5-6 t1 Communication, re: 3 information 4.38 3.40 3 4.67 4 3 Community involvement 4.06 3.56 4 3.22 2 it Evaluation 5.88 6-7 5.79 6 6.22 7 Coordination 4.56 4.84 5 4.33 3 Service to minorities 7.50 7.18 9 6.78 8 Role as change agent 5.88 6-7 6.28 8 4.89 5-6 TABLE 4.19.-—Idea1 Director of Community Education Function Priorities. (Chi-Square test statistic of individual functions) Types of Functions Fellows--Staff Interns--Staff test .05 table test .05 table stat. value stat. value Budget & finance admin. 6.05 (12.59) 9.76 (14.07) Community assessment 2.69 ( 9.49) 4.53 (14.07) Program, planning and operation 4.52 (14.07) 16.33* (15.51) Communication, re: information 4.17 (14.07) 8.65 (14.07) Community involvement 3.12 (14.07) 4.62 (15.51) Evaluation 8.35 (12.59) 8.15 (15.51) Coordination 3.33 (14.07) 3.96 (15.51) Service to minorities 5.17 (11.07) 6.24 (12.59) Role as change agent 4.52 (15.51) 7.52 (14.07) * Significant at the .05 level. 172 in significant difference--program planning and operation. Interns considered this function significantly more important than the training staff. The functions that showed the strongest tendency towards differences between the groups were: budget and finance, program, communication, and evaluation. Comparing the test statistic values between the Fellow-staff, and Intern staff comparisons, on each of the nine functions, it was found that the Intern—staff comparison resulted in a higher test statistic value on eight of the nine functions. This suggests greater simi- larity between the Fellows and the staff than between Interns and the staff. Summary In this chapter, the results of the analysis of the data were presented, addressing the four purposes of the study. Empirical data on the behavior and perception <3f Directors of Community Education was compiled, analyzed and presented as general descriptive statements for each (Of the function areas. The behaviors of Fellows and Interns was compared and statistically tested for signifi- cxmnt differences. The perceptions of the Fellows and Jnrterns related to the degree to which the training prrxgram had prepared them for seven specified functions nuns compared statistically for significant differences. TTua perceptions of the "ideal" behavior of Directors of . y .3 - \ 173 Community Education were gathered from directors and training staff and compared statistically for significant differences between Fellows, Interns, and staff. Fellows and Interns were found to be statistically different on three of the four personal characteristics that were tested. These were: 1. Total years of experience as a Director of Community Education--Fellows had more total experience; 2. Years of experience as director in present position--Fellows had more experience in present position, and; 3. Age--Interns were older. One of the four characteristics of the school districts in which the directors were employed, differ- entiated Fellows and Interns significantly. The Fellows were in school districts where Community Education had existed for a longer period of time. The behavior of Fellows and Interns did not differ significantly with respect to the type of groups they .involved in community assessment. Both used the following 'types of groups most frequently: (1) people-individually, (2) groups-informally, (3) groups-formally. The time priorities of Fellows and Interns did not (tiffer significantly with respect to the four components ch the programming function. Both groups maintained the Wfi u—fi away— 5 " ~ H 174 following priority, according to their behavior: (1) planning and initiating, (2) operation, (3) assessment, and (4)eva1u- ation. Communication behavior was measured by information on the three types of channels used most frequently for each of the four types of communication. Behavior between Fellows and Interns differed significantly on one of these types--awareness communication. The most popular channels in assessment communication were: person-to-person, and groups and meetings. The three most important channels used in communication related to coordination were: telephone, person-to-person, and groups and meetings. For motivation communication, the directors selected: person-to-person, groups and meetings, and presentations as the three most important channels. The significant difference between Fellows and Interns on awareness com- munication was primarily due to their differences on the importance of: person-to-person, brochures, and groups and meetings channels. A comparison of Fellows and Interns on community coordination behavior did not result in significant difference. Both groups coordinated most frequently with recreational agencies, P.T.A. and parent groups, and health and welfare agencies, and least frequently with city councils and racial minority groups. 175 The comparison of finance administration behavior did not result in overall significant difference but two of the six components differed significantly. These were: (1) fee collection, and fund supervision--Fellows spent more time on this aspect, (2) planning and Operating local fund raising projects--Fellows spent more time on these projects. The comparison of Fellows and Interns on their behavior as change agents did not result in significant differences. Both groups were most active in reducing "red tape" and changing outdated school district policies and procedures. Rank ordering the priority functions of Directors of Community Education, based on time spent in each function, did not differentiate Fellows from Interns. Both groups considered: planning and operating programs, communications and community assessment, of highest priority. The Fellows and Interns perception of the degree to which the training program had prepared them for various functions was significantly different. Significant differ- ence was found in six of the seven functions, namely: assessment, programming, communication, community coordination, institutional coordination and the change agent role. The Fellows perceived their training more adequate than the Interns. 176 A comparison of the "ideal" was made between Fellows and staff, and Interns and staff on assessment, programming, finance and function priorities. No overall differences were found in each of these four areas, but individual significant differences resulted. In assessment, Fellows and staff differed on their use of Block Clubs, while Interns and staff differed significantly on the use of people-individually, and Community Education administration. In finance administration, Interns and staff differed significantly on the importance of application and adminis- tration of State and Federal funds. Interns and staff also differed significantly on the planning and operation of programs, in their "ideal" priority rating of the functions. Chapter V summarizes the study, offers conclusions, suggests implications and recommends further related investigations. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents a summary of the study which leads to the presentation of descriptive and comparative conclusions derived from the analysis of the data. A series of implications and recommendations, related to leadership training and behavior, follow. Recommendations for further study conclude the study. Summary The concept of Community Education is seen as a viable approach to meeting the changing educational needs of communities by a growing segment of professional educators and community citizens. It advocates a united effort of the educational system, community organizations, and the community at large in solving the problems related to the school and its surrounding community. The success of this concept is highly contingent on its administrative leadership and the training programs, preparing the leader- ship. This study was designed to examine the behavior and perceptions of Directors of Community Education. The Ipurposes of the study were to: 177 178 1. Establish a base of empirical data on the behavior and perception of Inter-University and Mott Institute trained Directors of Community Education. 2. Compare the behavior of the Directors of Community Education with relation to their leadership training program. 3. Determine the effectiveness of the training programs, as perceived by the Directors of Community Education. 4. Compare the perceived "ideal" behavior of Directors of Community Education, between the directors and the leadership training staff. The two leadership training programs in Community Education related to this study are the Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program and the Mott Institute for Community School Directors. These programs were established in Flint in 1964 and 1966 respectively. The one year Inter- University program incorporated all of the key components of recently established educational administration training programs, placing greatest emphasis on internships and multidisciplinary training. The six week Mott Institute program placed greatest emphasis on internship training as well, but had to reduce the emphasis on interdisciplinary training and other components of classroom instruction due to time limitations. The selection procedure was not a 179 built-in part of the Mott Institute as was the case with the Inter-University program. In order to establish and compare the behavior and perception of the Directors of Community Education who had received their training in either of the two training programs, the two populations of Directors of Community Education were established. Twenty—five Directors of Community Education were identified who had participated in the Inter-University program from 1964 to 1970 and were referred to as Fellows. Eighty-one Directors of Community Education were identified who had participated in the Mott Institute program from 1966 to 1970 and were referred to as Interns. The survey instrument used in the study was developed by the author. Response to the instrument produced data on: demographic characteristics, behavior, perceived value of the training program, and perception of the "ideal" behavior. The demographic data included four personal characteristics of directors and four characteristics of the school district. Behavior was measured in eight areas: community assessment, program- ming, communication, community coordination, institutional coordination, finance, change agent, and function priori- ties based on behavior. Forty-nine components were employed within these eight areas to measure behavior. The perceived value of the training programs was attained 180 with seven measures--based on functions. The perceptions of "ideal" behavior was measured in four areas: assessment, programming, finance, and function priorities and included twenty—eight separate measures. The data from the Fellows and Interns was collected through a mail survey. Eighty-eight per cent of the Fellows and eighty-five per cent of the Interns in the study responded. The ten members of the training staff were personally requested to complete those sections of the questionnaire that were related to "ideal" behavior. All of the training staff responded. Three statistical techniques were employed to analyze the data: (1) Chi-Square Test of Homogeneity, (2) Analysis of variance, using repeated measures, and (3) Multivariate analysis. These techniques were deter- mined by assessing the type of data that were available, the kind of analysis information that was desirable, and the appropriateness of the techniques. Conclusions The analysis of the data resulted in a series of conclusions. These conclusions will be presented in three sections, which are: comparative conclusions, descriptive conclusions, and secondary conclusions. 181 Comparative Conclusions 1. Inter-University (Fellows) and Mott Institute (Interns) trained Directors of Community Education differ on personal characteristics. a. Fellows are more experienced than Interns in Community Education administration, and in their present positions. b. Interns are older than Fellows. This is probably a reflection of the selection process of the two training programs. The Inter-University program selected candidates with a preference to applicants who were thirty years of age or younger (this has now changed to thirty- five or younger), while the Mott Institute selection process was Open--the selection was made by the local school districts. c. The two groups are not differentiated on academic qualifications (see Table 4.1). 2. Fellows and Interns do not differ on the type of school districts in which they are employed. No dif- ference of school districts was found with respect to: degree of Community Education adoption, type of school district, and size of school district. Fellows, however, were employed where Community Education had existed for a longer period of time (see Table 4.2). 3. Fellows and Interns do not differ statistically in the overall behavior as Directors of Community Education. 182 This is a general conclusion based on the analysis of eight behavioral areas. a. There was no, overall or individual measure, difference in the behavior of Fellows and Interns in com- munity assessment (see Table 4.3). b. There was no, overall or individual measure, difference in the behavior of Fellows and Interns on their priorities in programming (see Table 4.4). c. There was no overall difference in the behavior of Fellows and Interns in communication. No difference was established in the areas of assessment, coordination, and motivation communication; but signifi- cant difference was found in awareness communication (see Table 4.5). d. Community Coordination behavior did not differentiate Fellows and Interns (see Table 4.6). e. Institutional Coordination did not differ- entiate Fellows and Interns (see Table 4.7). f. There was no overall difference in the behavior of Fellows and Interns in finance administration. Two of the six individual measures, fee collection and fund raising projects, revealed differences. Fellows were more active in each of these measures (see Table 4.8). g. Change agent behavior did not differentiate the Fellows and Interns (see Table 4.9). 183 h. There was no, overall or individual measure, differences between Fellows and Interns on function priori- ties, based on behavior (see Table 4.10). 4. The perceived value of the training program differentiates Fellows and Interns. Fellows are signifi- cantly more satisfied with the adequacy of preparation in six of the seven functions measured--assessment, programming, communication, community coordination, institutional coordi- nation, and change agent role. Finance was the only function where the perceived values of the training did not differ between Fellows and Interns (see Table 4.11). 5. The perception of the "ideal" behavior of Directors of Community Education does not differentiate Fellows and training staff. This conclusion is based on the comparison of perceived "ideal" behavior in four areas-- assessment, programming, finance and function priorities. There were no overall differences in any of these four areas between the two groups. Of the twenty-eight indi- vidual measure comparisons that were made, one revealed differentiation--the use of Block Clubs in the involvement of groups in community assessment (see Tables 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, and 4.19). 6. The perception of the "ideal" behavior of Directors of Community Education does not differentiate Interns and training staff. The "ideal" was measured in four areas--assessment, programming, finance and function 184 priorities. There were no overall differences in any of these four areas. In comparing the twenty-eight individual measures, four revealed differences between the two groups. They were: a. The involvement of people-individually in community assessment. The staff,more than Interns, con- sidered this involvement more important (see Tables 4.12 and 4.13). b. The involvement of Community Education administrators in community assessment. The staff, more than Interns, considered this group more important (see Tables 4.12 and 4.13). c. The application and administration of State and Federal funds in finance administration. The staff, more than Interns, felt that more time should be devoted to this operation (see Table 4.16 and 4.17). d. Program planning and Operation when con- sidered in terms of function priorities. Interns rated this function of considerably higher priority than the training staff (see Table 4.18 and 4.19). Descriptive Conclusions l. The Directors of Community Education in this study had limited experience as directors. Almost 80% had less than five years experience (see Table 4.1, sec. a). 2. Directors of Community Education vary greatly in age. One-third of the directors in this study were 185 less than thirty and one-quarter were more than forty years old (see Table 4.1, sec. c). 3. Generally, Directors of Community Education have master's degree qualifications. Seventy-four per cent of the directors in this study were in this category (see Table 4.1 sec. d). 4. Community Education is a relatively recent innovation in most school districts. Eighty per cent of the districts in the study adopted Community Education during the past four years (see Table 4.2, sec. a). 5. Community Education appears to be adopted, to a greater degree, in rural and suburban school districts than in urban schools (see Table 4.2, sec. c). 6. Community Education appears to be most fre- quently adopted in relatively small school districts. Eighty per cent of the school districts in this study had less than 10,000 students (see Table 4.2, sec. d). 7. Directors of Community Education involve: people-individually, groups-informally, and groups- formally, most frequently in the process of community assessment (see Table 4.3). 8. Formally surveying the community every 2-3 years is generally considered most pragmatic by directors. 9. The priorities in programming (based on time spent) of Directors of Community Education are: planning 186 and initiating, operating, assessment and evaluation (see Table 4.4). 10. Directors of Community Education utilize: person—to-person, groups and meetings, and the telephone most frequently as channels of communication for community assessment (see Table 4.5). 11. Directors of Community Education utilize: person-to-person, telephone, and groups and meetings most frequently as channels of communication for coordination purposes (see Table 4.5). 12. Directors of Community Education utilize: mass media (newspaper, radio, and T.V.), brochures, and person- to-person most frequently as channels of communication for purposes of awareness (see Table 4.5). 13. Directors of Community Education utilize: person—to-person, groups and meetings, and presentations most frequently as channels of communication for motiva- tional purposes (see Table 4.5). 14. Community Education coordinates its efforts most frequently with: recreational agencies, P.T.A. and parent groups, health and welfare agencies, and civic and fraternal organizations (see Table 4.6). 15. The nature of coordination with community agencies is generally informal. This is supported by the high percentage of directors who reported an informal 187 coordinating process (p. 131) and the types of communication channels that were used for coordinating (see Table 4.5). 16. There is a higher degree of perceived staff involvement in the Community Education process than of staff cooperation (Table 4.7). 17. Directors of Community Education Spend greater portions of time in: budget planning and administration, fee collection, and application and administration of State and Federal funds than in other aspects of finance adminis- tration (see Table 4.8). 18. Directors of Community Education are most active as change agents in: reducing school district "red tape,‘ changing policies and procedures of the school district, and issues on the use of drugs (see Table 4.9). 19. Directors of Community Education have estab- lished the following five functions as top priority: a. planning and operating programs b. community assessment c. communication (informational) d. finance e. community involvement These priorities were established on the basis of behavior (see Table 4.10). 20. Ideally, Community Educators (directors and training staff) envision involving: people-individually, Community Councils, and groups-informally most frequently 188 in the process of community assessment. This is very similar to the actual behavior in this function with the exception of the use of Community Councils. Ideally, the Community Council is rated of much greater importance (see Tables 4.3 and 4.12). 21. The ideal priorities in programming of Com- munity Educators are: assessment, planning and initiating, operation, and evaluation. These vary considerably from the actual behavior in this function. Assessment takes on much greater importance in the "ideal" (see Tables 4.4 and 4.14). 22. Ideally, Community Educators perceive that the most timeworthy aspects of finance administration are: budget planning and administration, fee collection and supervision, and application and administration of State and Federal funds. They do not perceive the "ideal" different from the actual to any great extent (see Tables 4.8 and 4.16). 23. The ideal priorities in Director of Community Education functions of Community Educators is: community assessment, planning and Operating programs, community involvement, communication, and coordination (see Table 4.18). The emphasis in the "ideal" shifts considerably from that expressed in the actual. Greater importance is placed on functions not directly related to the operation of programs (see Tables 4.10 and 4.18). 189 Secondary Conclusions This set of conclusions is included in a separate section on the basis that some of these conclusions were formulated on secondary analysis, not the primary analysis of the study, and others because the supporting evidence was not as substantial. 1. There is a difference between Fellows and Interns in terms of their behavior in: community coordi- nation, finance administration, change agent role, and institutional coordination. Fellows tend to show greater activity in the first three areas than Interns. When comparing the group means between Fellows and Interns on the components of these four measures, it is found that the Fellows have higher group means on sixteen of the twenty-two components measured (see Tables 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9). The probability that this can happen by chance, based on the binomial probability formula, is .028. On this basis one can conclude at the .03 level that there is a difference. These were four of the eight areas in which behavior was measured. The other four areas could not be considered for this secondary analysis since the data in the other four areas was rank order. The rank order group means, although different individually, have to average out on the areas measured, e.g. the comparison of the means on program priorities (see Table 4.4) reveals that Fellows 190 are higher on two and Interns are higher on the other two. The predetermined average of the means for both groups is 2.5. 2. Fellows are more similar to the training staff in their perception of the "ideal" behavior of Directors of Community Education than Interns. This conclusion is based on the secondary analysis of the "ideal" data. Initial comparisons of the "ideal" behavior were made between Fellows and staff, and Interns and staff. These analyses compared the areas: community assessment, programming, finance and function priorities. These four areas encompassed twenty-eight individual measures. When comparing the chi-square values (see Tables 4.13, 4.15, 4.17, and 4.19) on each of the twenty-eight individual measures, it was found that the Intern-staff. comparison resulted in higher chi-square values (indicating greater variance) in twenty-one of the measures than the Fellow-staff comparison chi-square values. The probability that this can result by chance (calculated with the binomial probability formula) is .006. On this basis, it was con- cluded at the .01 level, that there is greater similarity between the Fellows and the training staff, than the Interns and the staff. 3. Fellows appear to display a higher degree of self-confidence as Directors of Community Education than Interns. 191 This conclusion is based on three factors. When asked about local problems that inhibit the development of Community Education, a higher percentage of Interns reported problems in comparison to Fellows (see pp. 126, 133, and 135). Since the comparison of the School districts indicated that there was no overall difference, it can be assumed that the problems in the districts would also be “if" ”4 the same. From this one can conclude that Fellows may perceive more factors as challenges, rather than problems. Another factor that lends support to this con- clusion is the perceived value of the training program. Fellows perceived their training significantly more valuable than Interns on six of the seven measures tested. This perception would help to strengthen the confidence in their own ability. 4. Two unusual cases were identified in the analysis of the "ideal" behavior. a. The training staff rated the application and administration of State and Federal funds, as more important than either of the two groups of directors. b. The training staff rated evaluation, in the ideal priority of functions, lower than both groups of directors. It is unusual to have theorists indicating greater concern about finance and less concern about evaluation than practitioners. This could imply that the gap between 192 theorists and practitioners is not as great as assumed. Or, it could be argued that the influence of this action oriented training program, with the use of the community as a learning laboratory, has helped to create a more reality and practice oriented training staff. Implications and Recommendations The recommendations in this section center on Community Education administration training and behavior. i’. ' YIE‘LIAW 3 Jr «J Since this study determined differences in the demographic characteristics of Fellows and Interns, and because other factors that might influence the behavior of these two groups could not be controlled, it is difficult to make causal inferences from the behavior to the training. The characteristics that differentiated Fellows and Interns were experience and age. One could assume that the behavior of directors is dependent on both of these variables. Other training in educational administration (than the two programs referred to in the study) by the directors might be another factor that would influence their behavior and would be further reason to caution against causal inferences. For these reasons the recommendations related to training are made with reservation. 1. The Inter-University program staff should re- evaluate its objectives with respect to the master's degree training, and specifically delineate these objectives. As 193 is suggested in the Coats'l study, there does not appear to be total agreement, among those responsible, whether the only major objective of this program is to produce leaders who become actively and formally involved in Community Education, or whether its objectives are to develop general educational leadership skills with emphasis on Community Education. The written records suggest that the purpose of the program is to train Community Education administrators. If this is the case, the results of this study lead one to question the effectiveness and efficiency of the Inter- University program. The six week Mott Institute program and whatever other factors are involved produces very similar on the job behavior. If the objectives of the Inter-University program, however, are general educational administration training with emphasis on Community Education other issues could be raised. It could then be argued that much of the program was devoted to training, not directly related to the administration of Community Education, and hence not measured in the study. The fact that a high percentage of Inter-University trained educators accept other administrative positions suggests their ability, confidence and desire for such other positions. lCoats, op. cit., pp. 2-3. 194 2. If an objective of the Inter-University program is to motivate participants to become and remain directly involved in Community Education leadership, it should seek further strategies to develOp this commitment. Approxi- mately 15% of the Inter-University trained leaders are presently district-wide Directors of Community Education, whereas approximately 40% of the Mott Institute trained have these positions. This does not suggest that the Mott F:.—u_—u—-_T—— -.- _.-_d Institute is more successful in developing a commitment, since those being trained by the Mott Institute must be employed in Community Education leadership upon acceptance. 3. The content of the Inter-University program should be re-evaluated with specific reference to its objectives. The first recommendation made reference to the question of congruence between objectives and content. This recommendation is included to emphasize that it is not enough to have a clearly established set of objectives, the program content must also reflect the objectives. 4. Both the Inter-University and the Mott Institute programs should seek to improve the quality of their program with respect to finance. Both Fellows and Interns considered this area of training least adequate (see Table 4.11). Other areas that would benefit from greater emphasis and/or improvement are: training for the change agent role, and techniques on institutional coordination. 195 5. A greater portion of both training programs should be planned in less complex settings. A major portion Of the internship experiences are in Flint and much of the technique training is offered by Flint personnel whose experience is in complex, urban settings. If the present trends in Community Education adoption, continue in the future, those trained would benefit more from intern- t1 ships in smaller and less complex settings. § 6. Both the Directors of Community Education and “% the program training staff should assess the function of community coordination. There was considerable evidence in the study that coordination is generally sought through informal strategies. The author feels that a structured form of coordination would result in greater success, and that structured coordination is becoming imperative in many communities. Structured coordination should be* emphasized in the training programs. 7. It is recommended that both directors and training staff re-assess the role of the director as a change agent. The author feels that Directors of Community Education should become more active in this role. The study indicated that on the average, 53% of the respondents indicated a rather passive role (they were group members or indicated little or no involvement) on the five issues that were measured. Interns had a more passive position on these issues than Fellows. 196 8. Directors of Community Education should consider spending greater efforts in developing their community Councils and utilizing them more effectively. The Com- munity Council was rated high by Fellows, Interns, and staff when conceptualizing the "ideal," yet when its use was measured in terms of: involvement in community assess- ment, coordination and motivation; the Community Council appeared of secondary importance. 9. In programming, it is recommended that directors shift their emphasis from operating to assessing. It appears that directors are caught in the same dilemma with many other administrators--they are too busy with day to day operations to allow for the needed time in assessing the needs, interests, and resources for more effective programs. This view is supported by the directors perception of the "ideal." 10. Directors of Community Education seem to rely extensively on person-to-person communication (see Table 4.5). For such purposes as motivation, it may be the only truly effective channel. It appears, however, that for such purposes as coordination and awareness, other channels such as groups and meetings, and Community Councils might prove as effective and certainly more effecient. 11. Directors of Community Education need to re- evaluate their behaviorally demonstrated priority of functions. Presently the greatest amount of time is “it ”I Alba-i=1 t” ' 197 utilized in programming and other related functions, such as: assessment, informational coordination, and finance. Such behavior may be justified at this point since most of the programs in the study were only recently developed, and initial development often demands visible results. Directors are, however, encouraged to shift more emphasis to community involvement, community coordination, and the change agent role. If the concept of Community Education is to be actualized, these latter functions will need more attention. Recommendations for Further Study 1. An in—depth study of one or two of the specific functions of Community Education administration is recom- mended. Such a study would help to support or question the conclusions of this study which investigated a rather broad spectrum of behavior. One of the functions that might be considered for such a study would be the role of the director as a change agent. It appears vital to the success of Community Education to determine the areas where directors are presently successful in initiating change--directly or indirectly, and those areas where new strategies and greater thrust are needed to bring about desired change. 2. A similar study to the present, with the addition of two features, is proposed. Directors of Community Education, with no formal training in Community 198 Education leadership, should be added to the present two groups that were studied. This additional group was considered in the present study, but at this point in time, the majority of this group are in Michigan and it was felt that their close proximity to Flint would introduce too strong a bias. Since Community Education is expanding rather rapidly in other states, it is anticipated that 51 within a year or two the bias will have dissipated con- siderably. in It is further suggested that such a study consider further stratificatiOn of the groups of directors. With larger populations of these groups in the near future, further stratification should be possible without reducing the number in any given cell or strata to the point where statistical analysis is impossible. Variables that could be controlled in this manner are: Community Education administration experience, age, other administrative experience, and academic qualifications. 3. A study of the Mott Institute and its graduates is suggested in order to determine those factors that contribute to the on-the-job behavior that is so similar to the behavior of directors that have received a full year of training. In addition to a thorough investigation of the program, it is suggested that such factors as: the influence of Community Education dissemination Centers, the number of visitations to Flint, other administrative training, and age; be researched. 199 4. A study of the graduates of the Inter-University master's degree program is suggested in order to compare: (a) those graduates that have held no position directly involved with the administration of Community Education since participating in the program, (b) those graduates who have held Community Education leadership positions since participating in the program, but are now in other positions, (c) those graduates who are presently in Community Education leadership positions and have a minimum of three years of this type of work since completing the program. These groups could be compared on values and attitudes to determine in what way, those persons who remain directly involved in the Community Education concept differ from the other groups. The recommendations that have been proposed for further investigations were suggested in order that the Mott Foundation, which is allocating substantial funds, annually, to educational leadership training, will have further research data available to help determine their future funding plans. These proposed studies would also add further knowledge to the broader field of leadership behavior, which is so vital in our increasingly complex society. BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Borg, Walter R. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1963. Brickell, Harry M. Organizing New York State for Edu- 01 cational Change. Albany, New York: New York State ; Education Dept., 1961. 5 Bronfenbrenner, Urie. Two Worlds of Childhood. New York: we Russell Sage Foundation, 1970. Campbell, Clyde M. Toward Perfection in Learning. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1969. Campbell, Roald F. The Dynamics of School-—Community Relations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1958. Campbell, R. F.; Cunningham, L. L.; and McPhee, R. F. The Organization and Control of American Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill PubliShing Co., 1965. Carmichael, Leonard. Manual of Child Psychology, Vol. II. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1954. Clapp, Elsie R. Community Schools in Action. New York: Viking Press, 1939. Culbertson, Jack, and Hencley, Stephen P. Preparing Administrators: New Perspectives. Columbus, Ohio: University Council’for Educational Administration, 1962. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1916. Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1966. Everett, Samuel. The Community School. New York: Appleton-Century, Company, 1938. Everett, Samuel. School and Community Meet: The Community Approach to Intercultural EducatiOn. New York: Hinds, Hayden and EIdridge, Inc., 1948 201 202 Fantini, Mario D. The Reform of Urban Schools. Washington: National Educational AssociEtion, 1970. Gee, William. Social Science Research Methods. New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 1950. Good, Carter V. Essentials of Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1966. Goslin, David A. The Schools in Contemporary Society. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1965. Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959. Grinnell, J. E., and Young, Raymond J. The School and the Community. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1955. Hart, Joseph K. The Discovery of Intelligence. New York: The Century Co., 1924. Havighurst, Robert J., and Neugarten, Bernice L. Societ and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1969. Hencley, Stelphen P., and Cahill, Robert S. The Politics of Education in the Local Community. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1964. Henry, Nelson B., ed. The Community School. The Fifty- Second Yearbook of the NatiOnaI Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 1953. Henry, Nelson B., ed. Community Education: Principles and Practices from World Wide Experience. The Fifty- Eighth Yearbook of the NatiOnaIfiSOEiety for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Hickey, Howard W., and Van Vorhees, Curtis, ed. The Role of the School in Community Education. Midland, Michigan: Pendell PubliShing Co., 1969. Hillway, Tyrus. Handbook of Educational Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969. Jahoda, Marie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart. Research Methods in Social Relations, Part I: Basic Processes. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951. 203 Kerensky, Vasil M., and Melby, Ernest 0. Education II-- The Social Imperative. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1971. Knezevich, Stephen J. Administration of Public Education. New York: Harper and Row Puinshers, 1969. Lew, Donald J., and Rudman, Herbert C. Preparation Programs for School Administrators. East Lansing, Michigan: College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963. Levin, H. M. Community Control of Schools. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1970. Manley, Frank J.; Reed, B. W.; and Burns, Robert K. The Community School in Action. Chicago: Education-- Industry Service, University of Chicago, 1961. Melby, Ernest O. Administering Community Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1955. Moore, Hallis A., Jr. Studies in School Administration. Washington: American Association of'School Administrators, 1957. Moser, C. A. Survey Methods in Social Investigations. New York: The MacMillan Co.,vl958. Olsen, Edward G., ed. The Modern Community School. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953. Olsen, Edward G., ed. School and Community. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954. Olsen, Edward G., ed. The School and Community Reader: Education in Perspective. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963. Pierce, T. M.; Merrill, E. C.; Wilson, Craig; and Kimbrough, R. B. Community Leadership for Public Education. New York: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1955. Reich, Charles A. The Greening of America. New York: Random House, Inc., 1970. Seay, Maurice F., and Crawford, Ferris N. The Community School and Community Self Improvement. Lansing, Michigan: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1954. 204 Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956. Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Totten, W. Fred. The Power of Community Education. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1970. «tr 1 Totten, W. Fred, and Manley, Frank J. Community Education Series-Unit 101. Flint, Michigan: W. Fred Totten, 1970. Totten, W. Fred, and Manley, Frank J. The Community School: Basic Concepts, Function and OrganizatiOn. Galien, Michigan: Allied EducatiOn Council, 1969. Trump, J. Lloyd, and Karasik, Lois. The First 55. Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1967. Whitt, Robert L. A Handbook for the Community School Director. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Co., 1971. Wise, J. E.; Nordberg, R. E.; and Reitz, Donald J. Methods of Research in Education. Boston: D. C. Health & Co., 1967. Yeager, William A. Home-School-Community Relations. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1939. Yeager, William A. School-Community Relations. New York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1951. Articles and Periodicals Amyx, Jay S. "A Mayor Endorses Community Education Benefits." Community Education Journal, Vol. I, No. 4 (November, 1971). Anderson, W. A. "New Plan for Training School Administrators." The School Review (September, 1952). Bloom, Ben. The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VI, No. 6 (February, 1968). 205 Campbell, Clyde M. The Community School and Its Adminis- tration, Vol. I, No. 7 (April, 1963). Campbell, Clyde M. "View from a Height." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. II, No. 6 TFebruary, 1964). Campbell, Clyde M. The Community School and Its Adminis- tration, Vol. III, No. 9 (May, 1965). Campbell, Clyde M. "Through Storms We Grow." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. IV, No. 3 (November, 1965). Campbell, Clyde M. "Educators in the Center of Conflict." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VII, No. 6 (February, 1969). Campbell, Clyde M. "The Cottage Nursery." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VII, No. 11 (July, 1969). Campbell, Roald F. "Research and the Selection and Preparation of School Administrators." Educational Research Council (February, 1956). Clancy, Peter M. "First National Community School Clinic." The Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 4 (December, 1959). Community, Community Education Bulletin, Center for Com- munity EducatiOn, Florida Atlantic University, Vol. II, No. 3 (January, 1971). Cooper, Dan. "A Vantage Point for Viewing the Community School." The Community School and Its Adminis- tration, Vol. I, No. 6 (March, 1963). Deschler, Betty. "How Decentralization is Affecting Community Education in Detroit." Community Education Journal, Vol. I, No. 3 (August, 1971). Douglas, Leonard. "The Community School Philosophy and the Inner-City School." Urban Education, Vol. V (January, 1971). Fantini, Mario D. "Institutional Reform." Today's Education, Vol. 59 (April, 1970). Fawley, Paul C. "Professors of Educational Administration Look at Preparation Programs for Community Education Leadership." Community Education Journal, Vol. I, No. 4 (November, l971l. 206 Heaton, Israel. "The Definition Issue." National Com- munity School Education News (May, 1971). Jensen, Glenn. "The Role of Adult Education in Community Education." Community Education Journal, Vol. I, No. 3 (August, 1971). Kelner, Bernard G. "What it Takes to Get Community Schools Going." Nations Schools, 82:66-8 (September, 1968). Kerensky, Vasil M. "Community Education in the 70's." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. IX, No. 8 (April, 1971). Levine, Daniel U. "The Community School in Contemporary Perspective." Elementary School Journal, Vol. 69 (December, 1968). Lynch, Leslie, G. "Schools as Recreation Centers." American School and University, Vol. 38, No. 11 (July, 1966). Manning, William R. "Decentralization: Problems and Promises." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Vol. 53 (October, 1969). McClusky, Howard. "The Educative Community." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. 5, No. 9 (May, 1967). Melby, Ernest O. "Bureaucracy and Community Education." National Community School Education Association News (May, 1971). Melby, Ernest O. "The Price of Freedom." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. II, NO. 10 (June, 1964). Melby, Ernest O. "Decentralization and Community Control: Threat or Challenge?" The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VIII, NO. 3 (November, 1969). Milliken, William G. The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VI, NO. 7 (March, 1968). Minzey, Jack. "Community Education in the 70's." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. IX, No. 8 (April, 1971). Moore, Sam A., II. "Local Interagency Cooperation." The School Administrator (August, 1971). 207 National. "Training of Leaders." National Community School Education Association (MarCh, 1971). Olsen, Edward G. "City, Suburb, and Education." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VIII, No. 8 (April, 1970). Porter, John W. "The Community School as I See It." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VIII, No. 9 (May,fil970). Ramseyer, John A. "Administration Program Development." Phi Delta Kappan (April, 1956). Reed, John R. "The Administrative Intern." Pennsylvania School Journal, 119:156 (November, 1970). Savino, Anthony J. "Community Attack or Community Participation." New York Education, 56:22-5 (January, 1969). School. "The Anywhere School." School Management, Vol. 13 (December, 1969). Steele, Marilyn H., and Lezotte, Lawrence W. "Recent Research." The Urban Review, Vol. 513 (January, 1972). Times. "Strong Case for the Community School." The Times Educational Supplement, Vol. 2674 (August 19, 1966). Totten, W. Fred. "Community Education--Best Hope for Society." School and Society, 98:410-15 (November, 1970). Trump, J. Lloyd. "A Report on the NASSP Administrative Internship Project." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 53:1-33 (January, 1969). Trump, J. Lloyd. "Administrative Internship Project: Answers and Questions." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Vol. 52 (May, 1968). Van Voorhees, Curtis. "The Definition Issue." National Community School Education News (May, 1971). Van Voorhees, Curtis. "The Community Education Development Center." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. VII, No. 3 (November, 1968). 208 Van Voorhees, Curtis. "Community Education in The 70's." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. IX, No. 8 (April, 1971). Weaver, Donald C. "A Defensible Rationale for the Clinical Preparation Program." The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. V, No. 6 (February, 1967). Weaver, Donald C. "Community Education--A Cultural Imperative." The Community School and Its Adminis— tration, Vol. VII, No. 5 (January, 1969). Williams, George L. "Beyond the Classroom: Life p1 Experiences in the Field." Clearing House, Vol.45 1 (October, 1970). ; Yourman, Julius. "Community Coordination--the Next Movement 5* in Education." Journal of Educational Sociology, 9:327-30 (February, 1936). Reports Coats, William D. Survey Report of Mott Leadership Programs. Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970. Hunt, Barbara. "An Introduction to the Community School Concept." Field Paper No. 20, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portalnd, Oregon. Ionia Intermediate District. "Project Open Door." Ionia, Michigan, 1970. Kerensky, Vasil M. "What Type of Education Can Make The Difference?" Community Education Bulletin. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. Melby, Ernest O. "Report of the Mott Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program, 1964-65." Flint, Michigan, 1965. Mott Foundation, 1970 Annual Report, Flint, Michigan. Mott Leadership Center. "Internship Handbook, 1970-71." Flint, Michigan. Mott Leadership Center. "Minutes-—Board of Governors Meeting." Flint, Michigan (March 2, 1970). Mott Leadership Center. "Minutes--Board of Governors Meeting." Flint, Michigan (September 14, 1964). 209 Mott Leadership Center. "Minutes-~Board of Governors Meeting." Flint, Michigan (January 25, 1965). Special. "Special Report-Inter-University Seminar, 1961- 62." Flint, Michigan. Young, Andrew J. "The Role of Community Education." Address--Miami, Florida (December 3, 1971). Zimbardo, Phillip G. "The Vandal: Society's Outsider." Community Education Bulletin. Florida Atlantic ' University, Boca Raton, Florida. Dissertations Berridge, Robert I. "A Study of the Opinions of Community Education Leaders and Community School Directors Regarding An Intensive Preparation Program for Community School Directors." Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Decker, Larry E. "An Administrative Assessment of the Consequences of Adopting Community Education in Selected Public School Districts." Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Holman, Paul C. "Community School Leaders Functioning as Personal Influence Leaders." Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Rex, Ronald G. "A Theory of Internship in Professional Training." Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Scott, Walter. "A Study in Preparation Programs in School Administration as Affected by Collective Bargaining." Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. APPENDICES 210 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT FIELD TEST FORM 211 -Q a.» u '-x.‘lM1--Jq ~—. QUESTIONNAIRE FIELD TEST ANALYSIS FORM Dear : Your assistance is requested. This is part of a Field Study of the questionnaire that I plan to use for my dissertation. Your response will be used to determine the final form of the questionnaire, but will not be used as data for the dissertation. PLEASE NOTE: 1. Complete the questionnaire as though you were in your last year's position as Director of Community Education. 2. Please TIME how long you take in completing the question- naire and indicate the length of time taken. minutes. 3. After completing the questionnaire, look through it again, and indicate (on form below) those questions that you feel require revision. Place the letters A-E on the form in reference to those questions that you feel require refinement or elimination. Key: A = ambiguous B = irrelevant C = objectionable D = more specific directions required E = question is too lengthy and/or difficult to respond to. FORM I. 1. 2. 3. 4. . . . . II. 1. 2. 3. 4. I O O 0 III. 1. 2. 3. 4. . IV. 1. 2. 3. 4. . V. l. 2. 3. 4. O 0 VI. 1. 2. 3. 4. . . VII. 1. 2. . VIII. 1. 2. 3. . IX. 1. . X. 1. 2. 3. 4. . Your professional Observations and analyses will be most valuable to me. Thank you! J.C. Winters, M.S.U. Mott Intern 212 APPENDIX B LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE 213 November 9, 1971 I have been involved with Community Education in Winnipeg, Canada since 1962 in capacities as a Community School Director and as a Director of Community Education for the complete school district. During this time, I participated in many formal and informal discussions regarding the techniques, roles and functions of Community Education leadership. It seems only natural for me now, as a Mott Intern and graduate student at Michigan State University, to further investigate the area of leader- ship in Community Education as my dissertation study. The study is designed to investigate the behavior and perception of Community Education Directors who are responsible for a district-wide operation. Since this is the first behavioral study of Community Education Directors, it is global in nature. It will attempt to establish behavior patterns in the major functions of a Community Education Director. It will further attempt to establish how well the leadership training programs have prepared the Directors for the various specific functions; and whether there are significantly different behavior patterns between Master's Intern trained Directors and Directors who participated in the Six-week training program. . .0, _—I_ —-—— 1.1.3?- '. v.1)». .Urw Numerous people in the field of Community Education have assisted me in the development of the study and its instrument. These have ranged from present and former Directors, leadership training staff, Mott Program personnel and university staff. It is hoped that you consider this study of value and that you are willing to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Survey studies like this one are rather prevalent in education, and as a result many of you are asked to respond to them rather frequently. This questionnaire, because of its broad scope, is longer than I had wished, however, it has been refined to the point where those items remaining appear imperative. The results of the Field Study suggest that it can be completed in approximately thirty minutes. It is of considerable importance (to me) that you complete the question- naire. A high percentage of returns is required before the data is considered valid and this determines whether I can continue with the study. I promise to keep all responses in strict confidence. I am hoping to begin my analysis of the data by December 15th, and would greatly appreciate it, if you would find it possible to mail the completed questionnaire to me by December 10th. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jacob Winters, Intern Michigan State iversity /' 7, x r [ad filo.“ (,(AJ ouglas conier 214 Director Training & Dissemination Mott Foundation 1033 Frost Street Flint, Michigan 48504 December 27,1971 I hope that you have had the opportunity to enjoy a happy holiday season. May 1972 bring many personal and professional rewards for you. . \n .‘T' m‘..1_\'. I” H A questionnaire related to the behavior and perception of Community Education Directors was mailed to you in November. The questionnaire 04-. was mailed to 106 district-wide directors across the nation. To date, 76 have been returned, which is very encouraging. However,nine more returns are required in order that I can pursue the analysis of the study. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Please dis- regard this request, if you have already mailed the original copy to me. I am hoping to analyze this study at the earliest date possible and request that you consider returning the questionnaire on or before Friday, January 21. Enclosed are a copy of the questionnaire and a stamped, self-addressed, return envelope. Thank you for your contribution toward making this study possible. A report of the study will be mailed to you, if you indicate an interest in one. Sincerely, Jacob Winters Michigan State University Mott Intern 216 A SURVEY OF THE BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTORS S URVEY INFORMATION Your responses will be held in strict confidence. Upon receiving the completed questionnaire from you, I will code it and destroy all identifying information. You are encouraged to make any comments that will help in the interpretation of your data. lr' glimmer-xx :5: V —' 0 The Field Study suggests some possible misinterpretations of two of the rank order questions. Please note: Section II-h requests that you choose FIVE of the NINE groups and rank order only those five. Do this separately for ACTUAL and IDEAL. After completing the questionnaire, simply put it in the postage- paid, self-addressed return envelope and mail to J.C. Winters, 1033 Frost Street, Flint, Michigan hasoh. If you desire a 2-3 page summary of this study, please check . The study should be completed by June, 1972 and a copy of the summary will be mailed to you if requested. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE LEADERSHIP OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION. 2i! Code No. A SURVEY or THE BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTIONS or COjviiJIlelTY EDUCATION DIRECTORS I. GENERAL 1. Please indicate your experience as a Community Education Director: EXPERIENCE IN TOTAL EXPERIENCE AS PRESENT POSITION COMM. ED. DIRECTOR Two years or less Three-four years Five-nine years ’ Ten years or more 2. My age is: 3. My present highest level F of education is: i 29 years or less. Bachelor Degree. E 30-3h years. Masters Degree. 35-39 years. Specialist Diploma. to years or more. Doctorate Degree. A. A Community Education Program 5. This school district can be has been in operation in this generally classified as: school district for: Two years-or less. primarily rural. Three-four years. primarily suburban. Five-nine years. primarily urban. Ten years or more. Q\ 0 Please indicate the number of students in your school district: less than 2000. between 2000 and 5000. between 5000 and 10,000. between 10,000 and 20,000. .between 20,000 and h0,000. over h0,000. 7. I feel that Community Education: (check 22:) is fully implemented and accepted in our school district. is not fully implemented and will remain about the same. will be expanded throughout the schools in our district. will be reduced or discontinued. TT . COMMUN ITY ANALYS IS 1. Has the community that is served by your Community Education Program been formally analyzed, assessed or surveyed? yes no 2. When was the most recent survey of this type? year. 3. How frequently do you plan to formally survey your community in the future? every year every 2-3 years every h-S years every 6-10 years. 218 h. Involvement of people in assessing community needs and interests (this section deals with methods of assessment other than the survey). Please rank order (1-5) the FIVE groups that you have utilized most frequently in assessing community needs, listing the group that you utilized most frequently as no. 1, etc. Then rank order (1-5) the groups as you would IDEALLY like to utilize them. ACTUAL IDEAL a) Community Council..................... b) Block ClubS........................... c) People-individually................... d) Groups-informally: restaurant, classes, pub, etc.................... e) Groups-formally: city councils, civic org., etc...................... f) Community Education staff (teachers)........................... g) Regular teaching staff................ b) School district administration........ 1) Community Education administration.... 5. Please circle appropriate response; KEY: SD - strongly disagree; D - disagree; N - neutral; A - agree; SA - strongly agree. The Community Education leadership SD D N A SA Training Program provided me with sufficient information and technique in order to competently assess the community. 6. Are there local factors in your community or school district that reduce the degree of community assessment you desire? yes no If yes, please describe: TTI'. anRAMS AND PROJECTS 1. TIME: Rank the order (l-h) of your time Spent in the programs and/or projects aspect of Community Education that is devoted to each of the following categories. Rank the category that you spend most of your time at as no. 1, etc. Then rank order as you IDEALLY like to spend your time in these categories. ACTUAL IDEAL a) Pre-assessment (needs and interests........................... b) Initiating and planning.............. c) Operating and supervising............ d) Evaluation of programs and projects............................ Al‘) 2. Please circle appropriate response. KEY: SD - strongly disagree; D - disagree; N - neutral; A - agree; SA - strongly agree. The Community Education.leadership SD D N A SA Training Program provided me with sufficient information and technique in order to competently develop programs and projects that meet the community needs and interests. IV. COMMUNICATION 1. Rank order (1,2,3) the THREE most frequent channels of communication you use for each of the following purposes: a) Community assessment-resources, needs, problems and interests.... b) Co-ordination with other comp munity agencies.................. c) Making people aware of programs. and opportunities (informa- tional)...oooeeoseeoooeeeoooeoeoo a) Motivating people and staff in becoming interested and ‘ involved in Community . Education .......................H L 2. Please circle appropriate response. KEY: SD - strongly disagree; D - disagree; N - neutral; A - agree; SA - strongly agree. The Community Education.leadership SD D N A SA Training Program provided me with sufficient training in order to competently develop the communica- tion aspect of my responsibility. V. COMMINITY CO-ORDINATION 1. Is there an overall co-ordination of the efforts of Community Education with the other organizations in your community? yes no 2. Is this overall co-ordination formal or informal? formal informal If formal, name the type of co-ordinating structure and briefly describe: VI. 220 dfi .s6‘ 35' .6 9,; eye 3. Indicate the frequency of co-ordina- tion of Community Education with: 'religious organizations......... health and welfare agencies..... law enforcement agencies........ recreational agencies........... ) civic and fraternal organiza- tionSOOQeceoooooeoooooosooooooo f) city council.................... g) business organizations.......... h) P.T.A. and parents.............. i) racial minority groupS.......... m can 0'9 m~~~ A. Please circle appropriate response. KEY: SD - strongly disagree; D - disagree; N - neutral; A - agree; SA - strongly agree. The Community Education Leadership SD D N A SA Training Program provided me with sufficient training in order to competently co—ordinate Community Education with other agencies in the district. 5. Are there local factors in your community school district that reduce the degree of community co-ordination you desire? yes no If yes, please describe: SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF INVOLVEMENT AND CO-ORDINATION Please circle the most appropriate response. KEY: VL - very low; L - low; M - moderate; H - high; VH - very high. 1. I would rate the co-operation of the various groups within the school district staff in relation to Community Education as: VLLMHVH 2. The involvement of the various groups within the school district staff, with Community Education is: VL L M H VB 3. The co-ordination between regular school activities and Community Education activities is: VL L M H VH A. Please circle appropriate response. KEY: SD - strongly disagree; D — disagree; N - neutral; A - agree; SA - strongly agree. 'The Community Education Leadership SD D N A SA Training Program provided me with sufficient training in order to competently co-ordinate regular school with Community Education activities. '. ;. ”firm on: ‘r .3 la 221 5. Are there local factors in your school district that reduce the degree of school district staff involvement, co-operation, and co-ordination you desire? yes no If yes, please describe: v ".‘iT. FINANCE ADI'lDIISTRATION 1. Please indicate the most /(3 appropriate category that i463? describes your behavior in the ./“y following areas: (Check the i“ ACTUAL and IDEAL for each a-f) y a) budget planning, administration 7 and supervision............... _' b) fee collections and supervision if of these funds................fi '- c) application and administration ‘7 g of State and Federal funds....} ' ' d) application and administration of grants from foundations, service clubs, etc............ e) involvement in local millage ]’ (tax referendum) campaigns....g f) planning and operation of l . local fund raising projects...i a.-- c... 2. Please circle appropriate response. KEY: SD - strongly disagree; D - disagree; N - neutral; A - agree; SA - strongly agree. The Community Education Leadership SD D N A SA Training Program provided me with sufficient training in order to competently fulfill the financial responsibilities of the job. Vii r. CHANGE AGENT 1. To what extent do you participate in the following changes in your community: Check one for each (a'f)° J a) changes, re: outdated policies and procedures of school . distriCtoooeooeoooeooeoeooooeco* b) changes at the local govern- mental level to meet changing COmmunity HEGdsooossoocsoeoeoeo 1 c) advocate of local residential integration....................q d) active in issues on extended use of drugs.................... e) reducing the 'red tape' in the school district which often prevents things from happening.. 2. 221. Please.circle appropriateuresponse. KEY: SD - strongly disagree; D - disagree; N - neutral; A - agree; SA - strongly agree. The Community Education leadership SD D N A SA Training Program provided me with sufficient training in order to competently fulfill my responsibil- ities as a change agent. IX. COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTOR FUNCTIONS 1. Rank order (1—9) the following functions according to the amount of time spent on each, listing the function that you spend most time on as no. 1, etc. Then rank order as you IDEALLY perceive the importance of the functions. t‘ ACTUAL IDEA a) budget and finance administration...... b) community assessment-resources, needs, problems and interests................ c; operation and planning of programs..... d communication re: information, awareness and public relations........ e) community involvement.................. f) evaluation of specific programs and the effect of Community Education in totalooooooooooocoeeooe00000000000. g) co-ordination with other community agencies and with school district programs.............................. h) service to the needs and interests of minority groups.................... 1) initiator of change related to local social problems....................... X. ORGANIZATIONAL POSITION OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTOR 1. 2. Within the organizational structure of your school district, whom do you report to? (position) ‘ Are you resently in a line (authority and decision-making position§.or staff position? line staff In your operation, does the principal or superintendent need to give official approval before programs or activities can be initiated in a school? yes no If yes, principal superintendent Do you consider your organizational position within the school district ideal? yes no If not, what would you consider the ideal position of a Community Education Director? Please describe: APPENDIX C GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF DIRECTORS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION IN THE STUDY 223 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF DIRECTORS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION WHO WERE IDENTIFIED AS THE POPULATION FOR THIS STUDY Interns Fellows Total State Received Responded Received Responded Question- Question- naire naire No. % No. % No. 8 No. % No. % Michigan 41 51 36 52 17 68 15 68 58 55 Utah 18 22 15 22 O O 18 17 Arizona 8 10 7 9 0 0 8 8 California 3 l O O 3 Colorado 2 l l l 3 Idaho 2 2 0 O 2 Ohio 1 l l l 2 Florida I l O 0 1 Indiana 1 l O O 1 Montana 1 l O O 1 Nevada 1 l O 0 1 New York 1 l 0 O 1 West Virginia 1 l O O 1 Connecticut 0 0 l l 1 Delaware 0 O l O 1 Illinois 0 O l l 1 Iowa 0 O l l 1 New Jersey 0 0 l l 1 Oregon 0 O l l 1 Total 81 69 25 22 106 224 APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF DATA 225 Groups COORDINATION WITH No. % No. % 226 COMMUNITY AGENCIES No. % No. % NO. 1—5 times year Rarely or never Monthly Weekly Daily A. Religious Organizations Chi-Square test stat. 7.39(9.48) .‘—.- Fellows 2 9.1 18 81.8 1 4.6 l 4.6 0 0.0 Interns 11 16.8 33 50.0 16 24.2 5 . f‘ i I B. Health & Welfare Agencies test stat. 5.35 (9.48) g5 a: Fellows 0 0.0 11 50.0 31.8 18.2 0 0.0 Interns 10 15.2 26 39.4 23 34.3 9.1 l 1.5 C. Law Enforcement test stat. 4.18 (9.48) Fellows 7 18.2 14 63.6 3 13.6 0.0 l 4.6 Interns 11 16.9 30 46.2 15 23.1 10.8 2 3.1 D. Recreational Agencies test stat. 5.31 (9.48) Fellows 0 0.0 3 15.8 42.1 7 36.8 1 5.3 Interns 6 9.4 15 23.4 25 39.1 11 17.2 7 10.9 E. Civic & Fraternal test stat. 4.01 (9.48) Fellows l 4.8 10 47.6 38.1 1 4. l . Interns 8 13.1 29 47.5 22 36.1 2 3. 0 F. City Council test stat. .699 (9.48) Fellows 6 27.3 40.9 6 27.3 1 . 0 Interns 18 27.7 26 40.0 15 23.1 5 . 1 .5 G. Business test stat. 1.27 (9.48) Fellows 5 22.7 10 45.5 5 22.7 1 4.6 1 .6 Interns 13 19.7 37 56.1 12 18.2 4. 1 H. P.T.A. & Parents test stat. 3.45 (9.48) Fellows 0 9 40.9 11 50.0 9.1 0 Interns 4 6.3 21 32.8 27 42.2 8 12.5 4 I. Racial Minorities test stat. 1.53 (9.48) Fellows 8 44.4 3 16.7 4 22.2 11.1 1 5.6 Interns 30 49.2 12 19.7 10 16.4 3 4.9 6 ‘ " 227 ROLE AS CHANGE AGENT Groups No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Initiate Initiate Motivate Group Limited or and only others to members no. invol. follow— initiate up A. Re:Outdated policies Chi-Square test statistic 6.39 (9.49) Fellows 7 31.8 2 9.1 8 36.4 4 18.2 1 4.6 Interns 15 23.1 4 6.2 12 18.5 23 35.4 11 16.9 Total 22 25.3 6 6.9 20 23.0 27 31.0 12 13.8 B. Re:Changes at local government level 9.82* (9.49) Fellows 3 13.6 1 4.6 12 54.6 .2 9.1 4 18.2 Interns 4 6.2 2 3.1 17 26.2 22 33.9 20 30.8 Total 7 8.1 3 3.5 29 33.3 24 27.6 24 27.6 C. Re:Residentia1 integration 7.50 (9.49) Fellows 1 5.3 0 0.0 6 3.16 3 15.8 9 47.4 Interns 3 4.8 2 3.2 5 7.9 13 20.6 40 63.5 Total 4 4.9 2 2.4 11 13.4 16 19.5 49 59.8 D. Use of drugs 3.23 (9.49) Fellows_ 6 27.3 3 13.6 2 9.1 8 36.4 3 13.6 Interns 15 23.1 3 4.6 7 10.8 23 35.4 17 26.2 Total 21 24.1 6 6.9 9 10.3 31 35.6 20 23.0 E. Re:Institutiona1 "red tape" 6.79 (9.49) Fellows 14 63.6 0 0.0 6 27.3 1 4.6 l 4.6 Interns 27 41.5 3 4.6 13 20.0 13 20.0 9 13.9 Total 41 47.1 3 3.5 19 21.8 14 16.1 10 11.5 228 FINANCE ADMINISTRATION BEHAVIOR--ACTUAL Groups No. % NO. % No. % No. % No. % Rarely or 1-5 times Monthly Weekly Daily never year A. Budget planning and admin. Chi—square test stat. 4.11 a (9.48) Fellows O 0.0 4 18.2 4 18.2 2 9.1 12 54.6 Interns 5 7.6 15 22.7 10 15.2 12 18.2 24 36.4 Total 5 5.7 19 21.6 14 15.9 14 15.9 36 40.9 B. Fee collection and supervision. test stat. 6.12 (9.48) Fellows 0 3 13.6 4 18.2 9 40.9 6 27.3 Interns 4 3 18 28.1 13 20.3 12 18.8 17 26.6 Total 4 4.7 21 24.4 17 19.8 21 24.4 23 26.7 C. Applic. & admin. of State & Fed. funds test stat. 3.91 (9.48) Fellows 4 18.2 7 31.8 6 27.3 2 9.1 3 13.6 Interns 15 23.1 28 43.1 8 12.3 9 13.9 5 7.7 Total 19 21.8 35 40.2 14 16.1 11 12.6 8 9.2 D. Applic. & admin. of Found. grants. test stat. .72(9.48) Fellows 10 45.5 9 40.9 1 4.6 l 4. l 4.6 Interns 27 43.6 23 37.1 5 8.1 2 3.2 5 Total 37 44.1 32 38.1 6 7.1 3 3.6 6 7.1 E. Involved in local millage. test stat. 1.99 (9.48) Fellows 9 42.9 10 47.6 1 4.8 0 0.0 l 4.8 Interns 33 51.6 28 43.8 1 . Total 42 49.4 38 44.7 . . F. Local fund raising projects test stat. 6.58 (7.81) Fellows 5 22.7 13 59.1 2 9.1 2 9.1 0 0.0 Interns 32 49.2 27 41.5 5 7.7 1 1.5 0 Total 37 42.5 40 46.0 7 8.1 3 3.5 0 0.0 aThe numbers in parentheses () represent the .05 chi—square table value. 229 TYPES OF FORMAL COMMUNITY COORDINATING STRUCTURES Board of Cooperative Educational Services. Board of Education and City Community Council. City-Wide Community School Advisory Council (2). Community Calendar. Community Council. ' , Community Services Council. - .- Educational Coordinating Committee (3). .‘1‘ aux; 45.x" .. 1 . A. Human Resource Committee. “e Inter-Agency Council. 2 143 29 3 1293 0 {IIIIWIIWIIIHIHITIIfl!