ABMEM'STB “ENE PROBLEM INVOLVED EN SHARED TIE-iii FRflGRAMS EN SELECTEB PUBLEC & NOR-PEBLIE SCfiOGLS WITH IMPLECATZQRS 5’08 EMFLEMENTATEON THESIS FOR THE. DEGREE OF PH. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSETY FRANCIS LEO MCENNES 2967 TM 19$ (‘3 .‘u rf-"uq- _-.:v_» v,‘_,..-_ ...«- ran -\ 9 -A Y?“ QEAMAKJK: s lasiczig’jg-‘zn Stat: Unawmcy . I “‘75—... A. A This is to certify that the thesis entitled ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN SHARED TIME PROGRAMS IN SELECTED PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION presented by Francis Leo Mclnnis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoDo degree in Education Major professor Date November I7kl962 0-169. H~ ABSTRACT ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN SHARED TIME PROGRAMS IN SELECTED PUBLIC AND NONwPUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION by Francis Leo McInnis This investigation is concerned with a study of the administrative problems that are caused by the shared time programs which are currently in operation in se acted public and non-public schools. Many non-public schools are finding it progressively more difficult to remain in Operation due to an increase in the cost of providing an adequate educational program for their students. Some non-public schools have at- tempted to alleviate part of this financial burden by providing only part of the total educational program for their students and sending the students to the public school for the remaining part of the program. This study was made in order to determine the extent of the admin- istrative problems involved in this type of shared time program. Twenty—six schools which operate shared time pro- grams were chosen as the samples for this study. The administrators of four public schools and three parochial schools were interviewed personally by the author and Francis Leo McInnis information on the remaining nineteen programs was Ob- tained by means of a written questionnaire. Information was obtained about the school itself, the extent Of the shared time program, and the adminis- trative problems brought about by the shared time pro- gram. The questionnaire was designed tO provide the administrators with an Opportunity to express themselves freely on the shared time programs in their particular school systems. When the analysis of the data was complete it was noted that no school system participating in the study experienced what the particular administrator considered to be a major administrative problem. Several adminis- trators described minor problems caused by shared time and some offered suggestions for alleviating or prevent- ing these problems. It was concluded from the data collected that shared time programs could be Operated successfully under a variety of conditions. Also, currently Oper- ating shared time programs are concerned mainly with science courses and the industrial arts. It was recommended that significant educational programs be initiated by communities planning to adopt Francis Leo Mclnnis shared time plans in order to provide information about the plan and its Operation. It was also recommended that methods be adopted to insure adequate communication between participating schools and that changes be made in the school programs to facilitate the shared time plan. Also, experimental shared time plans could be initiated for the benefit Of the total educational program in the community. ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN SHARED TIME PROGRAMS IN SELECTED PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION By Francis Leo Mclnnis A THESIS Submitted tO Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College Of Education 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many persons have contributed to the remote and proximate preparation Of this thesis. The author is most grateful for these contributions and thanks all concerned. A very special note of appreciation must be given to Dr. Floyd Parker, chairman of the doctoral guidance committee. His patience and guidance have been respon- sible for the reality of this thesis. However, the author has especially appreciated his friendship and genuine concern during the years Of association. The advice and counsel of the other members of the guidance committee is also appreciated; and so to Drs. Fred Vescolani, Troy Stearns, and Armon Yanders is extended a sincere expression of gratitude. Special acknowledgment is also due to Miss Peggy Morrow, Mrs. Ann Rhynard, Mrs. Sue Ludwig, and Mrs. Ida Donohue who spent many hours assisting with the editing and typing. The years spent at Michigan State University were greatly enriched by the author's association with a great friend and benefactor; and so to Monsignor Jerome MacEachin is extended a warm note Of appreciation for his charity and friendship. Lastly, a very special thanks to my parents, whose sacrifices through the years have made my education possible. ****k****~k ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . Purpose of the study Value of the study . Design of the study . Definition of terms . Summary . . . . . . . "EDUCATIONAL SHARING" TRADITION . . . . . . Some current thoughts Summary . . . . . . . ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN CURRENTLY OPERATING SHARED TIME PROGRAMS The schools . . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 O O O 0 O IN AMERICAN on shared time 0 O O O O Q 0 O The shared time programs . . . . . . Specific administrative problems brought about by the shared time programs . . . Summary . . . . . . iii Page ii vi Us) PM“ Ln£>O\ULD 22 29 31 31 33 37 54 APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The basis for analysis . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . BIBLImRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv 56 56 59 65 71 73 Table LIST OF TABLES Page Number of Students and Organizational Pattern Of Schools Participating in the S tUdy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 34 Grade Levels at which Shared Time Classes Were Taught by Participating Schools . . . . 35 Number of Students Participating in Shared Time Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. SAMPLE LETTER OF INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 73 B O INTERVIEW FORM 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O I O O 74 C. LIST OF PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . 86 vi INTRODUCTION THE SHARED TIME CONCEPT All of the United States have laws requiring children within certain age limits to attend school. Parents may have their children educated in public, pri- vate, or parochial schools that meet the minimum require- ments or standards set by individual state governments. In recent years federal and state governments have been spending more money on public education, as educa- tional standards have been raised to meet the needs of modern society. Correspondingly private and parochial schools have had to improve their educational programs. These non-public schools have found the increasing finan- cial burden difficult to carry, since they are dependent upon the same persons who support public education through taxes. The financial strain placed upon certain elements Of society who wish to maintain private or parochial schools has already resulted in curtailment Of certain areas Of these educational programs. Some have actually closed their doors due to inability to meet the rising costs Of providing a sound program. The future looks dim indeed for many private and parochial school systems. 2 Several solutions have been prOposed to help alleviate this problem. Various programs Of government aid to private schools have been suggested. Some pro- pose direct financial grants to parents to be used for educating their children in the schools Of their choice. Still another possible solution may be in a limited educational program being provided by private and paro- chial agencies, with the remainder Of the program Offered by the public schools. The so-called "shared time" concept would fit into this category. A program Of this nature would take much Of the financial strain from the private and parochial systems. However, it has been argued by some that the administra- tive problems involved would make this solution unwork- able in actual practice. Despite this Objection, many shared time programs are now existent in this country. The purpose Of this research project is to examine the administrative prob- lems that are actually brought about by shared time. This investigation also describes methods Of alleviating and avoiding such problems, based upon the experience Of those already involved in shared time plans. The results Of this research can be used by communities who are contemplating shared time plans, and those with already existing programs. CHAPTER I NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY The shared time concept has been and is being utilized by several school systems in the United States as (l) a solution or partial solution to the financial difficulties experienced by private and parochial schools supported by the same individuals who pay taxes for pub- lic school maintenance and (2) as an attempt to broaden or expand the educational Opportunities of all children. Some Of these shared time plans have been in Operation for several years, others for only a few years; but participation is afforded a large number of students. The administrators Of the schools involved, both public and private, have had varying experiences in establishing and conducting these programs. They have organized shared time programs under a variety of geo- graphical and social conditions. Some programs are in rural areas and others in the hearts Of cities; some involved only two schools, others involve several. Because Of these varied settings, a descriptive study Of several shared time plans now in Operation seemed most appropriate to present useful information to schools and school systems now involved in shared time, and for those who contemplate adopting the plan at 3 4 some future time. Several public and private school administrators agreed to cooperate in the study by fur- nishing information regarding their shared time programs. With this assurance the study was undertaken and is here- with reported. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Since the general nature of the research was to describe selected shared time programs now in Operation and to gather the experiences Of the school administra- tors who are in charge of these plans, it was quite easy to determine specific purposes for the study. These purposes have been identified as an effort to: 1. Present a review of selected professional articles and reports on shared time programs that may be useful to school administrators with shared time programs or contemplating establishment Of same. 2. Present a history of the sharing Of educational facilities in the United States and a descrip- tion Of selected currently Operating plans that will also be helpful to the above mentioned school administrators. 3. Obtain information and recommendations regarding 5 the establishment of shared time in schools and school systems not currently employing shared time programs, or regarding improvement of currently Operating plans. VALUE OF THE STUDY Shared time programs of one type or another have been conducted in the United States for many years. Thus many administrators have been able to test the feasibility of the plan in general, and utilize specific modes of Operation and conditions which are conducive to success. Many parochial and other private schools are now contemplating the establishment Of shared time pro~ grams with public schools in their area. Since beginw ning this study, the author has been asked to appear before several committees which were organized to in» vestigate the shared time concept for their own private school. The fact that nearly every school or school system operates under a different set of circumstances and in a different environment makes it unwise or even impossible for one school to COpy the shared time program Of some other school. Thus, it has been quite difficult for schools contemplating shared time to Obtain useful 6 information or guidelines for establishing a program in their own system. This study compiles information from many diverse shared time plans, with suggestions from educational ad- ministrators as to what they consider successful imple- mentation of shared time under varying conditions. As an addition to the literature Of the shared time concept, hopefully it will be a valuable instrument for aiding establishment Of shared time plans and improving programs already in existence. DESIGN OF THE STUDY Designed to employ the descriptive methods of re- search, the study follows closely the definitions Of two authors on educational research. Regarding the descrip- tive method, Van Dalen indicates that: Descriptive studies simply portray the facts--they describe what exists but rarely seek to account for why the present state Of affairs has occurred. De- scriptive studies may describe the rudimentary grouping Of things by comparing and contrasting likenesses and differences in their behavior. They may classify, order, and correlate data seeking to describe relationships that are discoverable in phenomena themselves. But they do not penetrate deeply into knowledge that lies beyond that which can be gained directly from the events or conditions. They do not fully analyze and explain why these relationships exist. 1Deobold B. Van Dalen and William J. Meyer, 7 Best defines the descriptive method: Descriptive research describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relation- ships that exist; practices that prevail; beliefs; points of view, or attitudes that are held; pro- cesses that are going on; effects that are being felt; or trends that are developing. This study goes beyond the gathering Of data in order to Offer suggestions and recommendations for the improvement or implementation of shared time programs. This phase is not beyond the purpose Of a descriptive study as Best points out: The process Of descriptive research goes beyond mere gathering and tabulation Of data. It involves an element Of interpretation Of3the meaning or sig- nificance Of what is described. One difficulty encountered was the lack of litera- ture on the concept Of shared time in general. The idea of shared time as it now is specifically conceived is not exactly the same as shared time plans of past years. Therefore, the lack Of tradition in the specific area led to a scarcity Of literature. DeSpite this Obstacle, the periodicals Of recent years furnished valuable material concerning the Opinions, Understanding Educational Research: An Introduction, New York, McGraw~Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962, p. 215. 2John W. Best, Research in Education, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959, p. 102. 31bid., p. 102~103. 8 points Of view and attitudes Of many contemporaries about the shared time concept. Limitations. The ideal study would involve every shared time plan Operating in the United States; however, to discover their existence is an impractical task. Also, many Of the currently Operating programs are con- ducted on such a limited basis that any study Of the program would be Of very doubtful value. Therefore, it was thought practical to select a sample of more sig- nificant programs which could Offer greater experience and information. Accordingly, the author Of this study contacted the office Of Dr. Sam. M. Lambert, Director of the Research Division Of the NEA. On Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. Lambert testified before the Committee on Education and Labor Of the United States House Of Representatives on the shared time concept. At that time he revealed the preliminary ' results Of an exploratory study Of shared time conducted by his Office. This study revealed two hundred and eighty school systems that replied in the affirmative to the question: "DO parochial school pupils in your district come to public schools for instruction in one or more subjects?" 9 A four page questionnaire was mailed to these two hundred and eighty school systems in order to Obtain in- formation on the number of schools and pupils involved in shared time arrangements, the subjects most commonly made available through such plans, the length Of time the programs have been in Operation, and what the ad- vantages and disadvantages Of such arrangements seem to be. These latter questionnaires, which were completed and returned to Dr. Lambert's Office, formed the basis for the sample selected for this study on the adminis- trative problems particular to shared time programs. The author was given access to these questionnaires by one of Dr. Lambert's research assistants and the questionnaires were examined in order to Obtain a sig- nificant sample for the study. The sample selected to receive questionnaires were thirty individual schools which reported the largest number Of pupils enrolled in shared time programs. Twenty of these schools were public schools and ten were parochial. Fourteen public schools and five Catholic parochial schools cooperated in the study and returned the completed questionnaires as requested. In addition, three parochial schools and four public schools in Michigan were interviewed person- ally. Therefore, the total sample which furnished the 10 information for this study was eight parochial schools and eighteen public schools. These institutions are located in Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Procedures employed. The study was designed to be carried out in seven successive steps, formulated after preliminary investigation regarding the general subject and purposes of the study. The preliminary investiga- tion was made primarily by personal interview with school administrators who had some experience with shared time programs and by discussion with members Of the faculty at Michigan State University. After the investigation had been completed, the following procedures were devel- Oped and carried through. 1. Investigation Of available literature which could reveal some programs Of educational sharing be- tween public and private schools in the history Of Amer- ican education. This provided the background necessary to show that the concept Of sharing educational facil- ities is not entirely new, and that cooperative programs have Operated in the tradition Of American education. This investigation also revealed Opinions and points of view 0f contemporary educators and other interested persons regarding the shared time concept. ll - I g a- 1_4.‘""J- .p. 11 2. Interviews with school Officials who have had experience in shared time plans. These interviews were conducted in order to Obtain information needed as a basis for constructing the questionnaire which was used in the study (see appendix B). 3. The investigator personally interviewed the administrators of three parochial schools and four pub- lic school systems in Michigan which were involved in shared time programs Of some significance. The personal interviews, recorded on tape, allowed for greater free- dom Of expression and general discussion than the written questionnaires which were developed and sent tO the other school administrators involved in the study. The personal interviews, however, were structured on the basis Of the written questionnaires. 4. Questionnaires, accompanied by a letter Of, introduction by Dr. Floyd Parker, College Of Education, 'Michigan State University (see appendix.A), were mailed to the thirty schools selected as a sample for the study. After a limited waiting period, follow~up letters were sent to schools which did not reply tO the initial request for information. 5. The data gathered was organized, first Of all, in table form in order to provide ready reference as to 12 types of schools, the number of students involved in the program and the subjects which were included in the shared time plans (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). 6. The data was next organized in summary form in order to present information about administrative prob- lems that have been encountered in the Operation of the programs. 7. The data was analyzed, conclusions drawn, and recommendations formulated for possible improvement of existing shared time plans or for implementation of the program where it does not function at the present time. Data collection instrument (appendix B). The data collected was to serve three purposes: first, to provide a description Of some existing shared time programs and the problems brought about by them; second, to form a basis for recommendations for improving existing shared time programs; and third, to form a basis for recommenda- tions for school systems that are contemplating starting shared time plans. Obviously, nO data collection instru- ment existed that could gather the desired information. It was necessary for the author to construct such an instrument. After much consultation with educational administration staff members Of the College Of Education, Michigan State University, and various secondary school 13 administrators in Michigan, the instrument (see appendix B) was constructed to cover pertinent administrative problems brought about by shared time programs. The organization and degree Of comprehensiveness Of the instrument is shown in the outline Of its content: I. II. III. General Information about the Schools Involved. A. Identification. B. Size. C. Description of the school. General Information about the Specific Shared Time Program. A. Identification of participating school or schools. B. Number of participants in the program. C. Description of the program itself. D. Methods Of coordination between partici- pating schools. Specific Administrative Problems Brought About by the Shared Time Program. A. Extent of the problem. B. Causes of the problem. C. Methods Of overcoming the problem. D. Methods Of avoiding the problem before it actually exists. 14 The instrument was constructed tO categorize the information into eight specific areas to allow for better coordination Of data. However, in order not to overlook any problem and to give the participating ad- ministrators freedom Of expression, one section allowed the administrators tO report any problem areas that were not covered in the previous eight areas. The instrument was also constructed to allow for ease Of use and en- courage Open-ended answers. The data thus collected is presented in the next chapter Of this study. DEFINITION OF TERMS The available literature on the shared time concept contains terms which are generally recognized by edu- cators: these will be used without special definition. However, confusion has Often arisen concerning other types of educational plans such as "released time", which provides that students be released from the public school during hours in order to attend religious instruc- tion classes either in the public school itself or in another facility. Therefore, it is necessary to define shared time as it is used in this study when referring to specific programs. Shared time. An arrangementwhereby”nonpublic 15 schools send their pupils to public schools (or public schools send their pupils to nonpublic schools) for in- struction in one or more subjects during a regular school day.4 SUMMARY The study was designed tO provide information con- cerning existing shared time programs in public and pri- vate schools in the United States in order to determine the extent Of administrative problems brought about by such programs, and to provide information helpful to ad- ministrators involved in shared time programs or who con- template implementation Of same. The study was planned as a descriptive research project because it seemed the most appropriate way to Obtain the desired information. The population for the study was chosen on the basis of results Of a study made by the National Education Asso- ciation. Seven additional schools in the state Of Mich- igan were interviewed personally by the author. The study was designed to be carried out in seven successive steps and was conducted as indicated in the design description. 4Shared-time Programs: 32 Exploratory Study, A Report Prepared by the Research Division (Wash., D.C., N.E.A., 1964) p. 5. CHAPTER II "EDUCATIONAL SHARING" IN AMERICAN TRADITION Throughout the history of our country the interests in education have been shared by both government and private groups. The early colonial period witnessed the Church as a prime mover in the educational field. Cross and Chandler see religion as the most important educa- S The tional stimulus in early New England settlements. Church was interested in teaching the children to read so that they would be able to study the Holy Bible. When speaking about the colonial "Free Schools" and Latin Grammar Schools, Noble says, "These schools were not state institutions in the present sense Of the word. In New England they were established by a state that was under domination Of the Puritan Church. In Virginia and Maryland the Established Church Of England supervised them."6 The same author describes the successful efforts Of the Governor Of Maryland to have passed in 1694 a law to enable establishment in each Of the counties of that state a free school that was ruled according to the 5Carl Gross and Charles Chandler, The History 9f American Education Through Readings, (Boston, Heath and Co., 1964), p. 5. 6Stuart G. Noble, A History of American Education, (N. Y., Farrar and Rinehart, 1938), p. 35. 16 17 Canons Of the Church Of England.7 The Ordinance Of 1647 directed that all towns in Massachusetts Of fifty or more families provide schools. Knight says, "The control of the schools established under this law was ecclesiastical and not secular, the teachers were ministers or were approved by the minis~ ters under the strictest vigilance as to orthodoxy, and the materials Of instruction were religious."8 Accord- ing to the same author, parochial schools were estab- lished in New York by the Dutch Reformed Church before England took control Of that colony in 1674; these schools were under joint control Of the church and civil authorities.9 In Pennsylvania, Delaware, and other ter- ritories, various churches and private groups established many schools to educate the citizens of the New World. The rise of the public school movement in the early 19th Century slowed the growth of private schools. How- ever, these public schools often experienced a lack Of funds, or buildings or both, and relied upon the exist~ ing private schools for facilities. Various Lutheran 7Ibid., p. 63. 8Edgar W. Knight, Education in the United States, (N.Y., Ginn and Co., 1929), p. 106. 9 Ibid., p. 110. 18 community schools were utilized by the public school system. Provisions were made which enabled school diELfiCtS to take over school buildings erected by the churches and various Lutheran schools became public schools, Often under the joint direction of the congregation and the school board...Thus, for example, the Heidelberg school in Berks County, Pa., maintained jointly with the Reformed, became a public school in 1849, both congregations beiyfcr part owners of the property with the township. During this period there is evidence of facilities actually being shared by private and public schools. There were a few cases Of practical cooperation be- tween the church and the state, with the parochial school consisting in effect one unit in the public school system. This was so in Hopewill, Indiana, for a time, and in St. Anne, Illinois. Tradition has it that the German parochial school of St. John's Church, Fort Wayne, Indiana, was as much a public as a parochial school. In Blairstown, New Jersey, the tw0wroom school was shared jointly by the Presbyterian school and the public school, each system occupying one room.12 In 1835 in Lowell, Massachusetts, application for public aid was made by two Catholic parochial schools. The two schools were formally adopted into the public 10Walter H. Beck, Lutheran Elementary Schools in the United States, (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1939), p. 81. 11Lewis Jo Sherrill, Presbyterian Parochial Schools, 1846-1870, (New Haven, Yale Press, 1932), p. 99. 12 Ibid., p. 99. 19 school system of the town and were supported out of public funds. This system was henceforth called the Lowell Plan.13 Laws were passed later which prohibited this plan. Sister Mary Paul describes a COOperative plan in Connecticut conducted about this time. "Between 1860 and 1879, several enterprising Catholic pastors effected arrangements whereby their parish schools were main- tained at public expense, under the control of the local boards of education. There is a record of six Catholic schools in Connecticut that functioned according to this compromise scheme in Middletown, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, and Colchester...The two New Haven plans continue in Operation."14 In 1873 the Poughkeepsie Plan was put into effect and lasted some twentwaive years. Under the terms of this plan the public school board leased the Catholic parochial school buildings for one dollar each per year. The board established rules and regulations Of the public school in each building, and selected and paid the 13Rev. J. A. Burns, The Catholic School System in the United States, (New York Benziger Bros., 190$,px. 286. 14Sister Mary Paul Mason, Church- State Relationships in Education, In Connecticut (1633 1953), (Washington, D. —C., Catholic— Univ. Press, 1953), p.197. 20 teachers. The pupils were subject to the board. Alw though prayer and religious instruction were given during school hours, no child was compelled to attend. At the end of each year either party could terminate the lease. Burnes describes the results Of this plan: The terms of the agreement at Poughkeepsie are of special interest, not only because the arrangement went into effect, and was carried out to the mate~ rial satisfaction Of the two parties concerned for many years, but also because of the wide publicity it achieved, and its historical igfluence in both a theoretical and practical way. Some twenty years later, in 1890 in Fairbault and Stillwater, Minnesota, the public school board leased the Catholic school buildings from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on school days: During these times secular subjects were taught by the Sisters and the schools were con» sidered public schools. Before and after these hours the schools were considered parochial schools and reliw gious services and instructions were given to the stu~ dents.16 This system was pOpularly called the Fairbault Plan. lsRev. James A. Burns, C.S.C., The Growth and De» velopment 9f the Catholic School System in the United States, (New York, Benziger Bros., 1912), p. 254. 16Rev. D. F. Reilly, O.P., The School Controversy (l891w1893), (Washington, D.C., Catholic Univ. Press, 1943). p. 80. 21 In 1913 the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruled that a parochial school student should not be barred from part-time attendance at a public school for previous or present attendance at a religious school. Since that time the Pittsburgh parochial school students have been allowed to enroll in vocational classes in public schools.17 This seems to be the first Official recog- nition Of the shared time plan as we use the specific term today. Hartford, Connecticut, scene of a previously mentioned public~private cooperative endeavor between 1860 and 1879, introduced a shared time plan in 1933. This plan is still in Operation; in 1963 thirty-one Catholic schools sent students into public schools for industrial arts and home economics classes.18 The shared time plan was begun in Cheboygan, Michigan in 1949. This program also still exists and in 1964 pupils from the parochial high school attended the public high school for classes in mathematics, science and vocational skills.19 17Betty Flynn, "Shared Time: How it Works in Other Cities", Chicago Daily News, April 8, 1964, p. 40. 18N.C.W.C. News Service Bulletin,Feb.l8, 1963, p. 7. 19Edward Wakin, "The Shared Time Experiment--How It Operates", Saturday Review, Feb. 15, 1964. 22 In 1962 a shared time program was initiated in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and in 1963 broad pro- grams were introduced in Philadelphia and Flint, Mich- igan. An existent program in O'Neill, Nebraska, permits the public school students to attend the Catholic paro- chial school for classes in Latin, French, and Spanish and the parochial students to utilize the public school for classes in vocational arts and for counseling ser- vices. Both schools share the same band leader.20 SOME CURRENT THOUGHTS ON SHARED TIME Although the previously mentioned plans and many other isolated shared time programs existed for several years, the concept was thrust into national prominence by a debate held in March Of 1961 on the N.B.C. tele- vision forum The Nation's Future. Dr. Leo Pfeffer Of the American Jewish Congress and Father Neil C. McCluskey Of the Society Of Jesus were debating the subject Of federal aid to parochial schools. During the debate Dr. Pfeffer proposed a plan in the following words: Suppose the Catholic Church would release the paro- chial school children to the public schools for... courses which are least likely to create danger tO the faith and morality Of the Catholic children... Courses like physics or chemistry or gymnasium. And let (the Catholic Church) retain the parochial 20Betty Flynn, 92, Qi£., p. 40. 23 schools for other courses; history, literature, social science. ...allowing the Catholic children tO attend the public schools part time (would re- lieve the Church of) the heavy financial burden Of expensive equipment such as laboratory and gymna- siums and...(wou1d) give the Catholic children the Opportunity Of at least getting some Of their edu- cation in their formative years with non-Catholics, with the Protestants, the Jews, the person Of no religion, with whom they will live when they grow up. (Such a plan would) do a great deal to remove the unfortunate prejudice Of non-Catholics against Catholics, and Catholics against non-Catholics, resulting from the segregation which is required (by Catholic doctrine) but which is nevertheless unfortunate. This segregation puts a wall between the Catholic child and the rest Of the community. I am suggesting a proposal which (would) take down part Of the wall without, as I see 151 injuring or threatening the Catholic conscience. Although Dr. Pfeffer later changed his mind about the advisability Of shared time, this statement seemed to precipitate other articles in newspapers and maga- zines.22 In the publication, Christianity 92g Crisis, for September 18, 1961, Dr. Harry L. Stearns, Superintendent Of Schools in Englewood, New Jersey, proposed a similar shared time plan for public, religious, and private schools. Again in the January 1962 edition Of Religious Education, Dr. Stearns presented his idea along with 21Leo Pfeffer, "Second Thoughts on Shared Time", The Christian Century, June 20, 1962, p. 779. 221bid. 24 comments from public school administrators, religious school leaders, and those representing Catholic, Protes- tant, and Jewish positions. The proposal in the words Of Dr. Stearns was: In simplest terms the proposal consists of a sharing Of the school time Of children between state sup- ported schools, which provide general education in a denominationally neutral context, and church sup- ported schools which proceed with a specific denom- inational religious emphasis. The basic assumption is that the time Of the child until he reaches ma- jority age is under the control Of his parent who, although he must submit to the requirement that his child be educated, may make his own decision what that education shall be and may choose the agency to provide it. The state, although it may require that the child shall attend school, does not have full and final control of the child. The concept Of shared time has developed as a proposed means Of bringing the state and the church into a sharing of the time Of all children at the discretion of the parent, and it constitutes a revision of the concept that there shall be church schools which claim all Of the time Of some children and publi§35chools which claim all of the time Of others. Following the publication Of these statements, there appeared a number of newspaper and magazine arti- cles on various aspects Of shared time. In March, 1962, SQhristianity Today summarized the shared time plan and (iescribed expected reactions from the clergy toward the idea.24 In the March 2nd edition Of Commonweal, James ¥ 23Harry L. Stearns, "Shared Time", Religious Educa- IZion, Jan.-Feb. 1962, p. 1. 24Christianity Today, March 30, 1962, p. 29. 25 O'Gara expressed favorable views on shared time but feared complicated administrative problems in Operating the plan.25 In the June, 1962, issue Of The NationIs Schools, an article was published entitled, "Are Shared Facilw ities the Answer?" Arthur Rice interviewed the super- intendents Of schools in Hartford, Connecticut, and Hamilton, Ohio. Both of these systems had utilized shared time programs for several years. On the basis Of these and other interviews with several educators, the article concludes that the plan may present many administrative difficulties but nevertheless deserves a 26 trial.‘ Also in its June, 1962, issue, The Catholic Educator presented two views on the shared time concept. One article by Monsignor Arthur Goeghegan, superintendent of Catholic schools in Providence, Rhode Island, favored 27 the shared time idea. However, Monsignor Justin Dris- coll, superintendent Of Catholic schools in Dubuque, 25James OIGara, "Sharing the Time", Commonweal, March 2, 1962, p. 586. 26Arthur Rice, "Are Shared Facilities the Answer?", The Nation's Schools, June, 1962, p. 54 ff. 27Msgr. Arthur Goeghegan, "Shared Time Plan Favored", The Catholic Educator, June, 1962, p. 912. 26 Iowa, Opposed the plan because, in his Opinion, it continues to promote the idea that the state does have a monopoly in education.28 About this same time some Catholic educators made efforts to Obtain information on the consensus Of the Catholic people toward shared time. The National Cath- olic welfare Conference Nggg Service Bulletin for August 13, 1962, describes a project by the Catholic Archdiocese Of Pittsburgh to Obtain parental reaction to the shared time proposal. The following week, the same bulletin published an article on the negative view Of the shared time plan voiced by the Citizens for Educational Freedom during its annual convention in Cleveland, Ohio. The delegates felt that the shared time concept ignored the principle Of freedom Of choice in education. Another C.E.F. poll taken among parents in several cities throughout the U.S. showed almost two to one against the plan. In this poll, most Of those for shared time approved Of it only as a last resort.29 Subsequently, the federal government became in- terested in the idea Of shared time in public and private 28Msgr. Justin Driscoll, "Shared Time Plan Opposed", The Catholic Educator, June, 1962, p. 913. 29N.C.W.C. News Service Bulletin, Washington, D.C., October 29, 1962, p. 8. 27 schools. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, prepared a report on shared time programs in his diocese and submitted it to the Committee on Education and Labor, House Of Representatives, Congress of the United States on September 24, 1962. In this report, Bishop Stephen Woznicki explained the advantages and disadvantages of the program from the point Of view Of the parochial schools. The shared time concept was introduced at the convention of the American Association of School Admin- istrators in February, 1963. Gross reported that the group was rather hostile toward the idea and that the main support for shared time came from Dr. Theodore Powell, Connecticut State Department Of Education con~ sultant who was the main speaker on the subject. Dr. Arthur Wittner, secretary of education for the Atlantic district Of the Lutheran Church, pleaded with the group not to discard the idea without giving it time to test its effectiveness.30 In New York, after interviews with Catholic and public school Officials, Protestant and Jewish clergy- men, and a prominent civil libertarian, George Gent drew 3OStuart D. Cross, The Bay City Times, Bay City, Mich., Wednesday, February 30, 1963. 28 the following conclusion about the shared time idea, "The outlook for shared time education in the New York ArchdiOcese might be likened to that of the celebrated young man who hOpefully deserts the farm for the big city; a possibly brilliant future, but no immediate "31 Gent also reported that the only person prospects. interviewed who Opposed shared time was the civil libertarian, and even he affirmed its constitutionality. The February 15, 1964 issue of Saturday Review carried two articles on shared time. The first article by Edward Wakin, a member Of the faculty of Fordham University, described the nature Of the plan. The second article by Theodore Powell, Public Information Consultant, Connecticut State Department Of Education, discussed the legality of the shared time concept. He reviewed several court cases involving shared time and commented upon them. Contemporaneously, several shared time plans were given nationwide attention by detailed articles in na- tional publications. The Pittsburgh area plan was d8? scribed by John Deedy in the Ave Maria magazine along with supporting articles in the same issue by BishOp John Wright of the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese, Dr. 31George Cent, The Catholic Weekly, New York, N.Y., March 1, 1963, p. 5. 29 Pfeffer Of the American Jewish Congress, and Monsignor John McDowell, superintendent Of schools of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. Deedy described the Pittsburgh plan as: The pilot program which moves shared time substan- tially beyond the talking phase and has passed its freshman year midnterms with straight A's. The Chicagg Daily News described the Cheboygan, Michigan plan as quite acceptable and quoted a spokesman Of the U. S. Office of Education as labeling the program "very fine, in fact one of the best in the nation." This same issue also described the Pittsburgh plan and shared time programs in Evanston, Illinois and OiNeill, Nebraska. The O'Neill plan was unique in that public school stu~ dents used parochial school facilities as well as the parochial students using public facilities.33 SUMMARY Throughout the history Of America, both government and private groups, especially churches, have shared a common interest in education. Several times this common interest led to a sharing Of educational facilities. 32Ave Maria, March 2, 1963, p. Buff. 33 Chicago Daily News, Wednesday, April 8, 1964. 30 More recently, articles concerning the shared time con- cept have appeared in newspapers and periodicals. Many Of these articles on shared time question the feasibility Of the shared time concept on an expanded basis largely because Of the administrative problems that were fore- seen. It is the consensus Of these articles that the sharing of educational facilities between public and private interests, although not an entirely new concept, is not yet widespread enough to have proved its practicality. CHAPTER III ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN CURRENTLY OPERATING SHARED TIME PROGRAMS Administrative problems encountered by Officials Of (schools with current shared time programs are presented in this chapter, along with a brief description of the participating schools and the extent Of the shared time program in each school. THE SCHOOLS The twenty~six schools which furnished information for the study are concentrated in Pennsylvania and five Midwestern states. The reasons for the most extensive shared time programs being reported from these states are not entirely known by the author. However, in some of the cases studied, state aid was available for shared time programs and this may be an element in the concen- tration of the program in one area. This subject will be discussed in greater detail later. As mentioned previously, eighteen Of the partici- pating schools were public and eight were non-public. The overall cooperation by the public schools was some- what better than that Of the non-public schools. The percentage Of the public schools responding to the 31 32 request for information was 75 percent; Of the non- public schools, 62 percent. The total response to requests for information was slightly over 70 percent. The school systems studied varied greatly in total numbers Of students (see Table l). The largest reported enrollment was the Penn Hills system in Pennsylvania with an enrollment Of twelve thousand three hundred students and a teaching staff Of five hundred sixty- seven and the smallest reported was sixty-two full-time students in St. John's Academy, Jamestown, North Dakota, with a staff of three and one~ha1f full-time teachers. The types Of school organization also varied greaflbn (see Table l,p.34). There seemed tO be no one organize.- tional pattern that dominated within the schools studied. The non-public schools tended to fOIIOW'the more tradi- tional 1-8, 9-12 pattern while the public schools report- ed more variety in their organization. Only one school reported shared time participation by students earlier than seventh grade level and that was for band (see Table 2, p. 35). One public school system in Michigan reported a flexible scheduling system in the 9-12 senior high school. This created an interesting situation since the non- public school involved in the shared time program.was on 33 a traditional scheduling system. NO other unusual organizational program was reported. THE SHARED TIME PROGRAMS The type of shared time programs reported varied greatly from school to school (see Table 3, p. 36). There were notable discrepancies between the enrollment figures reported to the National Education Association and those figures reported on the returned questionnaires for this study. Consequently, it can be noted that a few schools which have a very limited shared time program are included in the study. It should also be noted that in certain systems more than two individual schools are in- volved in the single shared time program. If one school failed to answer the request for information in these instances there will be a discrepancy in the reported total number Of students participating. Because Of these situations it seems that each individual school program should be examined on the basis Of its own ex- perience with shared time and should not be studied in conjunction with its COOperating school. As noted in Table 2, the majority Of shared time programs concen- trated on the areas Of vocationally oriented subjects and science and mathematics. Only three students were reported in the area Of English. 34 Table 1. Number of students and organizational pattern of the schools participating in the study. x 840 I Loretto Turtle Creek Traverse Hill Penn Hills Park our Lady of Harbor Beach Harbor Beach Community George Daley n ” r4 OI ca h , {.3 up mu: 0101 II) H r-I H 0 U 51 non I1. I I I I! I I CE .6 -r-I 0 ya ,4: l‘ no u 03 Ch 0 Pi 'U F1 F: a 0g 3 a) m "-4 Q! U) a) [-0 r-I 1 act . £\ a . e 0 If 0 O 5., 2 z 2 o 35 Table 2. Grade level at which shared time Classes were taught by participating schools. Erass_Lsrsl , 1-5 ' 10 ‘11 12 - Industrial Arts X X. X Home Economics X. X. X Musici X X X. X Physical Education Science X. .X X A Mathematics X IForeign Language English Social Studies _Business ~Vocational Agriculture X. X X Art Drivers ' Training X X X Technology X X 36 Table 3. Number of students participating in shared time classes. edonia retto e ree s raverse R. ty t OC J Penn Forest P Coro St. Jo Jamestown St. Nor rt ncy P Terrace St. Char es Cheboygan Hol Rosary earsl Ba City St. '8 Our Lady of Harbor Beatn- Harbor Bea Communi Geor e Daley Men e S S S ematics fective Li iver Train echnology * Indicated participants but did not indicate number. 37 SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE SHARED TIME PROGRAM The questionnaire sent to the participating schools gave administrators the Opportunity to state their par- ticular problems with shared time in eight different areas Of administration. One section Of the question- naire permitted Officials to describe problems experi- enced in any other administrative area (see Appendix B). In addition, the questionnaire was designed to seek out the causes Of the problems. Some administrators did explain how the problems were overcome in their systems and Offered advice on avoiding the problems altogether. The following pages of this chapter will present the information furnished by the participating school Officials. Scheduling. Minor scheduling problems were experi- enced by about one=ha1f Of the participating schools; the other one-half reported no scheduling problems. One small four year parochial high school sent its ninth grade to a public junior high school for some courses and the other three grades attended a public senior high school on the shared time program. The administrator reported that minor changes in the public school program 38 from year to year created the need for significant yearly revision Of the parochial school schedule in order to correlate with both public school schedules. In certain cases the parochial school schedule could not correlate with both public school schedules to free the students at the designated time. This problem was partially solved when the parochial school started earlier in the morning than the public schools and maintained a flexible lunch period. In this way the students were able to en- roll in the required classes in the parochial school and still attend the public schools for desired courses. This same parochial school reported some difficulty in scheduling assemblies and other all-student activities. The administration reported that an attempt will be made in the future to schedule all the shared time classes in either the morning or the afternoon. The administrator Of a large school system with a fairly extensive shared time program reported scheduling problems due to overcrowded conditions in vocational and home economics classes. Penn Hill district reported a similar problem Of overcrowded facilities at a time compatible with parochial school schedules. In this case the administrator attributed the difficulty to a split schedule maintained by the public junior high schools. 39 In at least one case the problem was overcome by allow- ing the parochial junior high school students to attend shop and home economics classes in one Of the public senior high schools. Park Terrace reported that overcrowded facilities made scheduling more rigid than desirable. 'The adminis- trator could see no solution to the problem until addi- tional facilities were made available. One large public school that enrolls students from two different parochial schools reported scheduling dif- ficulties in band only. They solved the problem by scheduling band when pupils from one parochial school could be free; the other parochial school adjusted its schedule accordingly. One of these parochial schools reported that their only scheduling difficulty with the shared time program arose on an individual basis, espe- cially in the case Of a student Vdua failed a course at the public school. In order to repeat the course the student might be required tO attend the public school at a time when he would be scheduled for a regular class at the parochial school. In the case Of shop classes, the problem was Often resolved by allowing the student to take an advance shop class and repeat the failed class at a later date when nO conflict was present. 40 One public school system reported that any scheduling problems due tO overcrowded facilities were avoided by considering the shared time students as reg- ular part-time students and allowing them to enroll only if space was sufficient. Another public school system with an extensive shared time program scheduled the shared time pupils in special sections Of each course taken in the public school. By this method, the public school students and parochial school students do not attend the same section and the parochial pupil sections can be scheduled when- ever convenient tO the parochial school schedule. The parochial school involved in this program reported the only schedule difficulty revolved around the students' daily Mass. This problem was easily solved by scheduling the Mass one-half hour earlier in the morning. The administrator of the Cheboygan, Michigan public school system reported that its schedule is planned _ independently Of the schedule of the non-public school. It is the responsibility of the non-public school to adapt its schedule if it wishes to participate in the shared time program. However, since it is the philosophy of the school district that all children in the district have a right to the best education possible, the public 41 school has hired extra teachers to accommodate the non- public school students, and has developed its schedule to allow for the maximum number Of non-public school participants. Processing and recording grades. Sixteen Of the reporting schools experienced no difficulty in the pro- cessing and recording of grades. The usual procedure was for the public school to record the grades for the. non-public participants just as they did for their own students, with a duplicate copy sent to the non-public school Office. In one shared time project the principals of the two participating schools reviewed together the per- formance reports of the shared time students, and these two schools exchanged lists Of names Of students achiev- ing "honor roll" averages in their academic marks. In some Of the public schools the grades Of shared time students were permanently recorded in the public school files in the same manner as those Of full-time public school pupils. In other programs the public schools sent the grades to the non-public schools for permanent recording. In all Of the non-public schools the grades for shared time claSses were recorded in their 42 permanent files in the same manner as grades for classes taken in the non-public school itself. A few schools experienced what they themselves described as minor problems in the processing and record- ing of grades. Four schools experienced the difficulty Of having grading periods that did not correspond to the grading periods in the participating schools. One non- public school changed its grading period from a nine-week period to a six-week period in order to correspond to the public school schedule. In another instance a public school changed its grading period from six to nine weeks in order to agree with the non-public schools. The re- mainder of the schools reported no change in their grading periods. One non-public school reported a frequent lapse Of time between the period when the grades were due from the public school and when they actually arrived. How- ever, a friendly phone call to the public school prin- cipal always alleviated the difficulty. Evaluating courses Egkgg,ig pg; 223;; school. Only three schools reported any problems in the evaluation of courses taken in the other school with which they were sharing time. One public school reported that some Of their students were enrolled in a foreign language class 43 in a non-public school but the language teacher was not certified by the state. Therefore, the students sched- uled the class as an additional course and it was not counted toward graduation credit. One public school Official reported a problem regarding the social studies program in their shared time program. In the non-public school, history and civics were taught at the seventh and eighth grade levels and the students who came to the public school for ninth grade social studies had already covered some Of the material Offered. This Official did not elaborate fur- ther on the problem but reported very little communica- tion with the non-public school regarding course Offerings in their respective institutions. The only other school reporting any problem in this category was one non-public school Official's statement that there was some complaint from the junior high stu- dents in his school that much Of the material they were covering in the public school was repetition Of work taken in previous years in the noncpublic school. How- ever, he added that their grades did not indicate much repetition. Maintaining discipline. Eleven schools reported no discipline problems caused by the shared time program. 44 A few Officials stated that minor difficulties arose but they did not elaborate on them. One public school prin- cipal stated that no problem had ever arisen that could not be handled easily by a phone call to the other school. Another public school Official reported that the shared time program seemed to improve discipline in his school but did not elaborate on this statement. One non-public school principal reported that the shared time program seemed to improve relations between students of the two schools and helped solve after school problems in the streets. NO school reported what they would term serious disciplinary problems. However, certain difficulties did arise which seemed to be the result Of the shared time programs. One non- public school Official reported some discipline problems with the seventh and eighth grade students attending the public school. This administrator attributed the problem to a comparative lack Of discipline in the public school. NO solution was Offered to the problem. Another non-public school principal reported that some students skipped classes in the public school. How- ever, this problem existed only at the beginning Of the program; as soon as word Of the absences reached the Office, the problem was terminated. This principal also 45 said that the few parochial student discipline problems that did arise in the public school were relayed to her by the teacher or counselor in the public school and corrective measures were taken by the non-public school. This procedure was used in a few other shared time programs as well. Several schools reported problems with students as they moved from one school to the other. In some cases the students stOpped in stores en route and bought candy, soft drinks, etc., thus causing them to be late for class. One non-public high school alleviated this problem by levying fines for stopping en route, for tardiness and for throwing snowballs. This school also set a time limit for students to get from one school to the other. This was also enforced by a fine. Another nonwpublic school worked out a bell system to keep walking time to a minimum. Any absenteeism or tardiness was reported between schools by phone and infractions Of discipline were handled by both principals. A proportionately greater number Of discipline problems among shared time students was reported by one public school Official. He felt that a limited atten- dance of two hours per week at the public school was the main cause Of this problem: The non-public school 46 students did not feel part of the student body and Often looked on this afternoon away from their school as an afternoon Off. He answered the questionnaire early in the school term and believed that as the public school Officials became better acquainted with the shared time participants the problems would greatly diminish. He believed that the discipline problems could be avoided if the shared time pupils could spend more time in the public school and take part in some Of the extracurric- ular activities such as dances and athletics. Transferring and transporting students. In all but five programs the schools were within walking distance of one another and hence posed no tranSportation problem. In one case the shared time students used private cars for transportation. The Officials of this school did not indicate any difficulty with this method. In three cases the home school furnished bus trans- portation for its shared time participants. One school bussed its students six miles; another school, five miles. The third school reported a distance Of only one mile. The number of pupils transported by bus varied from over 400 in one shared time plan tO 29 in another. One public school system furnished five busses to transport nearly 200 non-public students attending 47 classes in the public schools. The non-public school sent pupils to two different public schools. The junior high pupils attended the public junior high school in the morning and the senior high pupils attended the public high school in the afternoon. This seems to involve a rather complicated transportation plan but the public school superintendent reported no serious difficulty. One other public school superintendent stated that although no transportation problems affected the shared time program at the time Of the interview, he expected some difficulty in the near future because a new public school was being built several miles from the non-public school. However, a plan was being initiated tO program the participating eleventh and twelfth grade pupils for morning classes in the public school and the ninth and tenth grade pupils in the afternoons. The schedules will be worked out between the two schools so that all of the participants in the shared time program will be able tO take advantage Of the public school lunch program. In this plan the participating students are considered as half-time students in the public school. Financial considerations. A shared time program between non-public and public schools is usually estab- lished to provide courses which nonapublic schools are 48 unable tO Offer their pupils because Of inadequate finances. Therefore, one can assume that the nonmpublic schools will benefit financially from the shared time program. This research revealed that all Of the non- public schools responding to the questionnaire did in- deed benefit financially from the arrangement. In fact, one parochial school actually received cash payments from the local public school board: Their shared time program was a double participation program since some of the public school students enrolled in classes in the parochial school and the parochial students attended the public school for certain other classes. Of the public schools participating in the study, most reported neither financial gain nor loss due to the shared time program; five reported an overall financial loss, and one Official stated that their school actually gained financially from the arrangement. Seven public schools in Michigan and Pennsylvania received payment from the state department Of education for the partici~ pating shared time pupils; the remaining schools received no payment. There was an unexpected correlation between schools that reported a loss from the shared time program and those that received state reimbursement. Four Of the 49 five public schools that reported a loss were schools receiving state aid. One public school that did not receive state aid reported a loss from shared time. One public school in Pennsylvania reported a net loss Of $603 per shared time pupil taking classes in that school. The state reimbursement covered neither the total cost of instructor nor transportation. The other three schools that lost financially from the program, while not naming the specific loss, noted that the state aid did not cover the entire extra cost brought about by shared time. Those schools that reported neither financial gain nor loss on the program attributed the financial balance to one Of two reasons. Either the state aid covered the total cost of the program or the public school did not find it necessary to provide additional classes to accommodate the nonmpublic pupils. In the single case where the school reported a loss due to the program and lack Of state aid, the Official remarked that the program cost the district between thirty and forty thousand dollars annually. This school accommodated two hundred seventyosix shared time participants. A few public school Officials believed that any loss incurred by the shared time program was more than 50 compensated for by increased good will in the community and by an increase in community support for the public school system. Facilities. As was the case regarding financial considerations Of shared time programs, the schools re- leasing students for certain subjects would benefit from the program in the matter of use Of facilities. The only facilities problems would be encountered by the host school involved. Eight of the hosting public schools for shared time programs apparently encountered no difficulties in pro= viding facilities for the incoming students. Two addi- tional schools reported that they had no problems with facilities because the number Of non-public students was limited by the capacity Of the facilities. Three other administrators stated that they had no difficulties with facilities at the present time but anticipated problems as the program grew. All three expected to build addi- tional facilities in the areas Of shOp, science labora- tories and home economics in the near future. Three public schools reported problems providing facilities for the shared time pupils. One superinten- dent said that his system would have to build additional rooms and purchase additional typewriters and laboratory 51 equipment to accommodate the extra students coming from the non-public school. Another administrator stated that two rooms were being added to the elementary school to absorb the additional pupil load from the shared time program. The third administrator who reported facilities problems indicated that they had more students involved in the shared time program than were expected and would be required to build additional facilities to accommodate them. He added that the public school system was very willing tO provide additional facilities tO alleviate the current overcrowding. Extracurricular activities. The four schools participating in extracurricular activities on a shared time program reported minor problems. The majority stated that the shared time pupils did not participate in extracurricular activities in the host school. One school experienced what it considered very limited problems by assemblies occasionally having to be held when shared time pupils were in the building. In such instances, shared time students attended the as- sembly along with the others. A small parochial school experienced a rather extensive problem with eligibility rules for athletic competition. The pupils attended the public school for 52 all their classes except religion, English, and mathe- matics. Students wishing to join the parochial school athletic teams discovered the state rule that required a minimum attendance Of three classes in that particular school, and religion classes were not eligible in this requirement. The problem was overcome by the students taking University Extension Service correspondence courses which were supervised by personnel in the paro- chial school. The administrator of the parochial school described this arrangement as unsatisfactory because many students did not complete the correspondence courses. The school Officials were working with the state athletic Officials to arrive at some other arrangement. One public school administrator reported some problems in the shared time program when church holidays were held on school days. Since the shared time program was quite extensive, public school teachers found it necessary to resort to review or "time killing activities" until the return of the parochial students. NO solution was Offered to the problem. One parochial school found it somewhat difficult to dismiss from classes their students who participated in band in the public school. This Operation was occasion~ ally necessary when the band participated in special 53 practices or functions in the public school. The paro- chial school administrator felt that this problem could be nearly solved if adequate planning were practiced. Other problems. This section Of the questionnaire was designed tO allow the participants an Opportunity to state any particular administrative problems that were experienced in their programs and not covered by the structured questions. Only one Official used this section to reveal an administrative problem unlike those discussed in the previous sections. A small parochial high school in the midwest whose students attended the majority of classes at the public high school experienced difficulties in maintaining school spirit. The principal believed that lack of school spirit was due to the very small enroll» ment in the parochial school and the probability that the school would close soon. Although no other problems were described, several administrators used this section to give a personal sum- mary Of their program. One parochial school principal summed up their program as follows: Our shared time program has been in Operation since 1926, and so the 'bugs' were long ago ironed out. Our program really works very well and tO the beneffl: Of all concerned. I would say that the administra- tion of both schools has always worked to keep the 54 program running smoothly and the relations between the schools~~faculty and studentSmwhas always been gOOd. Through the years various classes have been exchange classes according to the needs of the stu- dents. At times the group has been large and other times smaller. Our group this year is a bit smaller than usual. I think the fact that this is a small and rather close-knit community has helped the pro- gram as all can see the advantage to both schools in keeping the program Operating. We feel our program is excellent and poses no real problems of any kind. This summary expresses the sentiments of many of the administrators, that is, that the success Of the pro- gram depends upon cooperation and good will Of those in- volved. One public school Official stated that over one- half of the teachers in his system were Catholics who had children in the parochial schools and naturally were very favorable toward the program. This built-in incentive was not present in most programs, but nearly all reports indicated good will in their communities toward the shared time program. SUMMARY The schools involved in the study were located in six states and the extent of their shared time programs varied from eight pupil class hours per week in one system to one thousand one hundred four pupil class hours per week in another system. None Of the schools 55 reported what they classed as major administrative problems with their shared time programs. Several re~ ported minor problems in the various categories, although most seemed quite satisfied with the programs in current Operation. A few administrators Offered suggestions for a smoother Operating program. CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The general purpose of this study was to review available literature and to investigate the administra- tive problems of current shared time programs in selected school systems. The specific purposes of this study, how- ever, also included recommended methods Of alleviating and avoiding such problems, based upon the experience Of those who currently Operate shared time programs in their school system. In order to formulate such recommenda- tions it was necessary to analyze the data received from the participating schools. When this analysis was made, certain conclusions were drawn, and these conclusions and recommendations are presented in this chapter. The conclusions apply to the twenty—six schools which parw ticipated in the study, but the recommendations are meant to apply to any school system which Operates shared time programs or which anticipates Operating such programs in the future. THE BASIS FOR ANALYSIS The shared time plans now in Operation in the United States were especially initiated in order to relieve non~ 56 57 public schools Of some financial burden. As stated in the Opening sentences of the introduction to this study, parents have the right to choose the type Of education they wish to provide for their children. The information also was interpreted in the light of the author's expe» rience as a school administrator. The author constructed the data collection instrument to provide comprehensive information which could be analyzed from the point of view Of a school administrator burdened with the dayetO~ day tasks of Operating an efficient school system. Thus the analysis is based on three points: 1. The right of parents to freedom Of choice in the type Of education they wish to provide for their children; 2. The research and experience Of the author; 3. The organization Of the data collection instru- ment used to collect data concerning currently Operating shared time programs. Each of these three points will be explained in some detail. The right 2; parents. The assumption is that parents have a right of freedom Of choice in the type of education they wish to provide for their children as long as this education meets the minimum standards estab- lished by law. The problem arises in the financing Of this education. 58 It is desirable that private school systems be able to provide an educational program comparable tO publicly financed school systems. An increase in public funds for public education has made it economically difficult for private schools to Offer comparable education. Shared time programs are conducted as a means Of light- ening the financial burden of a private educational system and of enabling the specific private system to provide an educational program comparable to the local public system. Neither the legality nor the philo» sophical expediency Of this method come under the scope Of this study. Analysis Of the information provided is made on the basis Of the above discussed parental right and made only on the feasibility of the shared time plan from the point Of view of administration problems directly caused by shared time. Research and experience. The information collected by the data collection instrument can best be interpreted and analyzed by an experienced school administratOr. The five years spent by the author as a principal and super- intendent enables analysis to be made with a very sympa- thetic attitude toward the administrator who has the additional burden Of a shared time program placed upon an already overladen desk. During the personal interviews 59 conducted in conjunction with this study, the author attempted to gain greater understanding Of the burden these administrators had upon their shoulders. A systematic search of the available literature on shared time programs revealed only a limited amount of information on existing programs but did add somewhat to the background for developing concepts in the data analysis. The analysis procedure. The analytical basis described in preceding paragraphs was applied to the actual process of analysis by examining the data Of each area in light Of certain questions. These questions were: 1. DO the participating administrators consider these problems as serious? 2. DO the participating administrators believe that these problems can be overcome or avoided? 3. Does the extent Of the problem encountered seem to be overcome by the benefits brought about by the shared time program? The problems described by the administrators were examined in this manner and conclusions and recommenda- tions were formulated. CONCLUSIONS It must be remembered that the conclusions reached were based primarily upon the replies from the 60 participating schools, all involved in operating shared time programs. The fact that these programs were in current Operation at the time of the study supposes that they enjoyed a certain degree of success to enable con- tinued Operation. Perhaps there are school systems in this country that adopted the shared time plan and aban- doned it. It was not the intention Of this study tO discover the existence Of these schools and research the reasons for their failure, despite the value Of this in- formation for a school system which was contemplating initiation of a shared time program. The conclusions were drawn directly from the data presented in Chapter III and will be presented here in the same order as the sections Of the data collection instrument. General information about the schools. This section refers to the size Of the school, the grade level, the type Of school organization and the classification Of the school, public or private. The study revealed a great degree Of differentiation in size and some differ- entiation as to grade level and type of school organi= zation (see Table l). Eighteen public and eight private schools partic- ipated in the study. The data received from these 61 schools reveals that shared time programs are being conducted successfully according to the administrations involved in both large and small school systems. Table 1 shows that school system size ranged from twelve thou- sand three hundred in Penn Hills to sixtywtwo students in St. Johnis. Table 1 also shows that shared time programs are Operating to some extent in schools having all grade levels from kindergarten to twelfth grade and in schools Of nearly every organizational pattern generally found in American elementary and secondary education. These facts seem to indicate that shared time programs can be successfully Operated in school systems containing a large number Of pupils, in very small school systems, or in systems of moderate size. It also is evident that the program will operate successfully in schools Of all grade levels and under nearly all types Of the usual organizational arrangement (see Table 2). General information about the shared time programs. This section refers to the courses that were Offered under the shared time program in each school, the grade level or levels at which these courses were taught, and the number of students who participated in each course Offering. The study reveals that more student class hours were shared in science courses than in any other subject area 62 (see Table 3). The next largest number of student class hours was Spent in industrial arts and home economics on a shared time basis. Music and mathematics classes were also shared by a large number of students. On the other hand, only three students were reported as studying English on a shared time basis and only one school system reported that social studies classes were involved in their shared time program. The foregOing information and complete statistics from Table 3 point out that shared time plans are more generally conducted in academic areas that must utilize relatively expensive equipment for adequate instruction or demand the employment of a highly trained instructor. This conclusion is not surprising: The fundamental need for the shared time program initially was to relieve private schools of some of their financial burdens in the Operation of their school systems. It can also be concluded that few private schools send their students into the public schools for courses in the areas of social studies or communications arts. Although no participating school administrator stated a reason for this fact, philosophical differences would undoubtedly compel private school systems to instruct their students in these adademic areas. It is also 63 likely that the private schools would be able to obtain enough teachers who were adequately trained in the areas of social science and communications arts. Results of the study indicate that few students bEIOW'the junior high school level participate in shared time instruction. This information correlates with the information in the preceding paragraphs: The need for expensive instructional equipment and for highly special- ized instructors does not ordinarily become critical until junior high school level. Therefore, a shared time program would not be critical in the kindergarten through sixth grade levels. Administrative aspects g§_th§ shared ELES program. From the data collected it can be concluded that no major administrative problems were caused by the shared time programs in the participating schools. If shared time programs do indeed cause major administrative problems, either the conditions for such problems were not present in the participating schools or the school officials were able to prevent the problems from occurring. It was evi- dent from data collected that some major problems could have occurred and these items will be discussed in the following paragraphs under the section on recommendatidns. 64 The data collected also indicates that no problems discussed by the participating administrators were of sufficient magnitude to prevent a successful shared time program from operating. It was quite evident that the operation of the shared time plan did consume adminis- trative time and did place extra responsibility upon the administrators involved. However, if the need for a shared time program in a particular community is rela- tively serious, the benefits derived from the plan appear to overshadow the administrative problems involved in its Operation. It is also concluded from the data collected that the successful Operation of a shared time program in- volves a tremendous amount of personal communication be- tween officials of the participating schools. It may well be that the cornerstone of a successful shared time program lies in the personal attitudes and compatibility between officials of the participating school systems. This element also leads to the greatest weakness of the program. Any modus operandi in an educational program that is highly dependent upon the subjective attitudes of the humans involved is, at best, variable. 65 RECOMMENDATIONS "OnerofrthE"purposes for this study was to gather data on the administration of successfully operating shared time programs in order to furnish useful sugges- tions to school systems that are operating such programs or who contemplate Operation of such programs in the future. The shared time plan has been criticized on the assumption that resulting administrative problems would render the idea unfeasible. The conclusions drawn by the author from the data collected indicate that shared time programs can be successfully operated under a great variety of conditions without causing major administrative problems. The following recommendations are based primarily upon the data collected during the study. The first three, however, are general and were develOped indirectly from the data furnished and more directly from the admin- istrative experience of the author. The recommendations are intended to serve only as a guide and a source of ideas for successful implementation of the shared time program in a school system. It is not likely that any school system could successfully duplicate the shared time plan of any other system since conditions usually 66 vary. These recommendations, then, should be adapted to each individual system. The recommendations will follow the order of the data collection instrument. 1. An intensive educational information program should first be undertaken to acquaint the community with the philOSOphy, objectives, and operation of the shared time plan. a. It seems that the most important element in a successful shared time program is the human element and especially the personal support and sympathy for the program from the individuals who are associated directly with the operation of the public schools. ' These officials are public Officials and their job security rests somewhat on commu- nity support and appreciation of their ef- forts and objectives. Therefore, it is quite important for successful operation Of a shared time program that community support be solicited for the plan. b. When the plan is placed in Operation, the community should be informed as to its suc- cesses and failures. Continued community support and enthusiasm are important also in later stages of the plan progress. 2. Initial planning sessions should be held by administrators and teachers of both participating schools. It is very important to include the teachers in these con- ferences, since they will be actively involved in the shared time program. 3. Once the plan is in Operation, regular con- ferences should be scheduled by‘the host school and 67 attended by administrators of all schools participating in the shared time program. This plan demands extremely good communications among participants to insure effec- tive operation. These conferences should also be attended by teachers involved in the shared time classes or should follow meetings of said teachers and be attended by teacher representatives. 4. The school system that sends students to another school for class work should adopt the same scheduling system as the host school. This nay necessitate a change in the traditional schedule of the school but the shared time plan is a change in the traditional method of Oper- ating a school system and changes in Operational procedure are to be expected. a. The hours for the beginning and closing of the school day and for lunch hour should correlate. b. The length or time block of the class periods should be the same. This will necessitate a correlation in the number of class periods per day, also. c. Periods for regular activities such as assemblies should be scheduled, as far as possible, at the same hour each week in both school systems. 5. Before necessary changes are made in the schedule of the host school, the participating school officials in 68 should be notified in ample time to make adequate adjustments in their schedule. 6. In situations where a significant number of students attend the same class on a shared time basis, a special section for shared time students could be sched- uled by the host school if these students were unable to attend regularly scheduled classes. 7. The guest school should adopt the same grading periods as the host school. If this correlation is present, the examination periods of the two systems should also parallel and allow for greater facility in the trans- fer of grades from one school to the other. 8. The guest school system should examine its curriculum in comparison to the curriculum of the host school. A thorough examination of both curricula should expose areas where possibly needless repetition could result or where inadequate preparation is provided. Ad- justments in the guest school‘s curriculum should then be effected in order to increase student efficiency. 9. The shared time participants should be considered as bona fide students of the host school and subject to all rules and regulations of said school while attending classes or while under jurisdiction of said school. Disciplinary infractions by shared time students should 69 be enforced in the same manner as for full time students in the host school. 10. Non-public school Officials should consider the possibility of operating shared time programs when- ever new building plans are being considered. Whenever possible, school sites should be selected in the vicinity of a public school, to eliminate the transportation prob- lem should shared time become a reality in that particular school system. 11. Pupils attending another school on a shared time basis should be required to attend classes on all days that are required by the host school, religious or other holidays notwithstanding. This is necessary to eliminate mass absenteeism, especially in systems where the shared time program involves a significant number of students. In light of the possibility of obtaining federal aid for such purposes, it would seem beneficial to many non- public and public school systems alike to conduct experi- mental shared time programs in their communities, even if the need for such a program does not seem to be acute at the time. According to several school administrators interviewed during this study, the implementation of the shared time program in their system seemed to breathe new 70 life into the schools involved in the program. Perhaps such experimentation could prove to be of great value to many other communities across the nation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Beck, Walter H. Lutheran Elementarnychools in the United States. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1939. Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticewHall, Inc., 1959. Burns, James A. The Catholic School System in the United States. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908. . The Growth and Development of the Catholic School System in the United States. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1912. Gross, Carl and Charles Chandler. The History of Amerw ican Education Through Readings. Boston: Heath and Co., 1964. Knight, Edgar W. Education in the United States. New York: Ginn and Co., 1929. Mason, Sister Mary Paul. Churcthtate Relationships in Education in Connecticut (l633wl953). Washington, D. C.: Catholic University Press, 1953. Noble, Stuart G. A History of American Education. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1938. Reilly, Daniel F. The School Controversy (l89la1893). Washington, D. C.: Catholic University Press, 1943. Sherrill, Lewis J. Presbyterian Parochial Schools, 1846» 1870. New Haven: Yale Press, 1932. Van Dalen, Deobold B.,'and William J. Meyer. Under- standing Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: McGranHill Book Co. Inc., 1962. 71 72 Periodicals Ave Maria (March 2, 1963). Christianity Today (March 30, 1962). Driscoll, Justin. "Shared Time Plan Opposed," The Catholic Educator (June 1962). Goeghegan, Arthur. "Shared Time Plan Favored," The Catholic Educator (June 1962). News Service Bulletin, National Catholic Welfare Conference (February 18, 1963). O'Gara, James. "Sharing the Time," Commonweal (March 2, 1962). Pfeffer, Leo. "Second Thoughts on Shared Time," The Christian Century (June 20, 1962). Rice, Arthur. "Are Shared Facilities the Answer?" The Nation's Schools (June 1962). Stearns, Harry L. "Shared Time," Religious Education JanuarymFebruary 1962). Wakin, Edward. "The Shared Time Experiment~~How It Operates " Saturday Review (February 15, 1964). Newspapers Flynn, Betty. "Shared Time: How It Works in Other Cities," Chicago Daily News (April 8, 1964). Gent, George. The Catholic Weekly (New York) (March 1, 1963). Gross, Stuart. The BayCity(Michigan) Times (February 30, 1963). Reports National Education Association, SharedwTime Programs: An Exploratory Study. A Report Prepared by the Re- search Division, Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1964. APPENDIX A SAMPLE LETTER OF INTRODUCTION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing College of Education The enclosed questionnaire is part of a research project being conducted under the direction of the College of Education of Michigan State University. We would be very appreciative if you would consent to spending some of your precious time answering this questionnaire and send it on to Father Francis Mclnnis. On the basis of a research project conducted by the National Education Association, your school was deters mined to have one of the most extensive shared time programs in the nation. Your contribution to the proj= ect being conducted by Father Mclnnis is very critical because of this fact. Only 30 schools are being included in this project and it is therefore important that the information from your school be obtained. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions. Sincerely, Floyd G. Parker Associate Professor of Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan FGPtmkg 73 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW FORM The results of this program are intended to aid schools and communities in setting up shared time pro- grams where such programs are needed and to aid existing programs in functioning more smoothly. Since you have one of the most involved programs in existence in the United States in your school, the information asked from your school is of vital necessity to this study. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer this ques- tionnaire. I will be most happy to provide you with in- formation concerning the results of this study when the research program is finished. A self=addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience in returning the questionnaire. Thank you very much. I. General Information About Your School: 1. Name of School 2. This school is: a. public b. private . c. parochial . 3. Total Number of Full time Pupils 4. Level of School (check which) a. Elementary b. Junior High c. Elementary and Junior High d. High School 5. Type of School Organization: a. Elementary b. Jr. High 74 II. 75 7®9 Other___l c. Sr. High 9012 10~12 Other 6. Total Number of Teachers Employed. (count part time as one half) 7. Type of School: a. General b. Vocational c. Other (state which) Shared Time Program: 1. Name of School with which you share students time: 2. Students participating in shared time (please check correct statement): a. Come to our school from the other school . b. Go from our school to the other school . 3. The school with which our school shares time is a (check correct statement): a. public . b. private . c. parochial . 4. Level of students participation in shared time is (please indicate by giving the number of students in each category) a. Early elementary (lw3) . b. Late elementary (4&6) . 76 c. Junior High d. Senior High 5. Subjects involved in the shared time program are (please indicate by giving number of students participating in each category). a. Industrial Arts at grade 1evel_____ b. Home Economics __at grade 1evel_____ c. Music at grade leve1__“'_ d. Physical Education _at grade 1evei_____ e. Science at grade level__m__ f. Mathematics at grade level_____ g. Foreign Language _ at grade 1evel_____ h. English at grade 1evel__*__ i. Social Studies________at grade 1eve1_____. j. Business at grade leve1__m_‘ k. at grade level_____ 1. at grade level_____. 6. What techniques are used to coordinate faculty efforts of the two schools? e.g. faculty meetings, etc. III. Administrative Aspects of the Shared Time Program: 1. Scheduling: 2. To what extent does the shared time program bring about problems of scheduling classes in your school? 77 b. What are the known causes of these problems? c. How do you overcome these problems? d. How could these problems be aVOided? 78 2. Processigg and Recording Grades: a. To what extent does the shared time program bring about problems of processing and re- cording grades in your school? b. What are the known causes of these problems? c. How do you overcome these problems? d. How could these problems be avoided? 79 3. Evaluating Courses Taken in the Other School: a. To what extent does the shared time pro~ gram bring about problems Of evaluating courses taken in the other school? b. What are the known causes of these problems? c. How do you solve these problems? d. ‘How could these problems be avoided? 8O 4. Maintaining Discipline: a. To what extent does the shared time bring about problems of maintaining discipline in your school? b. What are the known causes of these problems? c. How do you overcome these problems? d. How could these problems be aVOided? 81 5. Transferring and Transporting Students: a. To what extent does the shared time program bring about problems of transferring and transporting students from school to school? What is the distance between the two schools? What are the known causes of these problems? How do you overcome these problems? How could these problems be avoided? 6. 82 Financial Problems: a. To what extent do you benefit financially from the shared time program? Why do you benefit financially from the shared time program? To what extent do you lose financially from the shared time program? Why do you lose finanCially from the shared time program? To what extent do you get reimbursed for the shared time students coming into your school? (amount per pupil) From whom do you get reimbursed? How could these financial problems be solved? 83 7. Providing Facilities: a. To what extent does the shared time program bring about problems of providing facilities in your school? b. What are the known causes of these problems? c. How do you overcome these problems? d. How could these problems be avoided? 84 8. Extraecurricular Activities: a. To what extent does the shared time program bring about problems with extrawcurricular activities? b. What are the known causes of these problems? c. How do you overcome these problems? d. How could these problems be avoided? 9. 85 Other Problems: a. What other administrative problems are brought about by the shared time program in your school? What are the known causes of these problems? How do you solve these problems? How could these problems be avoided? APPENDIX C LIST OF PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS Jamestown Public Schools Jamestown, North Dakota Quincy Public Schools Quincy, Illinois Menominee Public Schools Menominee, Michigan Braddock, Allegheny County Public Schools Braddock, Pennsylvania Turtle Creek Borough Schools Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania Traverse City Public Schools Traverse City, Michigan Independent School District 299 Caledonia, Minnesota John Hill Junior High School Inkster, Michigan Penn Hills School District Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Forest Park School District #91 Forest Park, Illinois Park Terrace Junior High School Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Kearsley Community School Flint, Michigan Bay City Public Schools Bay City, Michigan Harbor Beach Community Schools Harbor Beach, Michigan 86 87 George Daley Junior High School Flint, Michigan John R. Gerritts Junior High School Kimberly, Wisconsin St. John's Academy Jamestown, North Dakota Christian Brothers High School Quincy, Illinois St. Norbert's School Inkster, Michigan St. Charles Borromeo School Cassville, Wisconsin Holy Rosary School Flint, Michigan St. Mary's High School Bay City, Michigan Our Lady of Harbor Beach School Harbor Beach, Michigan Loretto High School Caledonia, Minnesota