y.-«~.7--.,T-- .- . - 1m” 4... w ROLE EXPECT/ITEMS FOR THE SCHOOL SOCTAL WORKER Thesis for the Degree Of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ROBERT R. SCHULZ ‘ 1968 v LIBRARY ‘ ' higan State Univ-"t‘sit ' 4 L This is to certify that the thesis entitled ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER presented by Robert Roland Schulz has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ED . D . degree in Education % 7‘9 .ég 0-169 ABSTRACT ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER by Robert R. Schulz EXpectations held for the school social worker (SSW) by elementary school teachers, principals, and community social agency workers in communities with populations between 100,000 and 200,000 were investigated. In addition, the SSWs' position definitions and their perceptions of what expecta- tions others held were studied. Hypotheses and questions were tested statistically while role theory was used to inter- pret findings. Data were collected with original, self- administered instruments developed from interviews with SSWs and the review of literature. Hypothesis testing indicated that SSWs defined their position as more influential than teachers eXpected it to be. SSWs' definitions for their position as school persons were similar to expectations of principals and they defined their position as that of a professional social caseworker while agency workers seldom reached consensus in their eXpectations. SSWs reached consensus less often than principals, but they agreed more often about their role than teachers or agency workers; however, they seldom reached consensus on their work role. And the hypothesis that professors of social work were significant persons for SSWs was not supported. Robert R. Schulz The finding that similar groups in four cities of com- parable size held the same general expectations for SSWs and no conflicting expectations appeared among teachers, prin- cipals, agency workers, or SSWs suggested that the SSW position was institutionalized. Differences were always a matter of degree not kind, with most expectations held at a preferred level, seldom mandatory, and thus allowing SSWs flexibility in their posi— tion. Principals reached consensus most often; however, one-half of their responses were on simple words or phrases which suggested that they stereotyped the SSW. In spite of familiarity with SSWs, principals reached consensus on only conventional functions, expected considerable flexibility and leadership while also eXpecting SSWs to support the school and have a strong education background. Teachers reached consensus only uu% of the time, eXpecting decisive support from SSWs without influencing the instructional pro- gram. Agency workers knew SSWs well, but disagreed among themselves on many items. They eXpected a mental health orientation as well as proficiency in educational matters and an interest in community service. They did not nec- essarily expect SSWs to be oriented to individual-child service. The prominent eXpectation for the SSW was that he be a professional social worker. A hypothesis was developed from the findings showing the approach SSWs took in adapting to the school system. It was suggested that this approach, Robert R. Schulz fulfilling perceived eXpectations, was not satisfactory since frequent errors, sometimes contradicting actual expectations, were made. Also, many SSWs paid for the approach with their frustrations at not doing things they would like to do. SSWs were faced with an ambiguous role because of the variations in expectations held for them. They disagreed on their work role, particularly newer or controversial aspects of it. Thus if SSWs conformed to a traditional approach, as stated in other studies, some were dissatisfied. SSWs also placed great demands on themselves, explained as a way to combat ambiguity. The outstanding characteristic of the SSW role was that it was variable and dependent on situations. The SSW would shift his stance from school person to social work person. The psychoanalytic approach, common in social work, appears to be diminishing among some SSWs who are more con— cerned about social and environmental factors. A reformer role is open to SSWs, but most prefer to limit themselves to reform of the instructional program. This might be ex- plained by the fact that most SSWs are former teachers. It seemed probable that some SSWs idealized their position by accepting the eXpectations of teachers, principals, and agency workers as ideal while others took ideas from profes- sors of social work. The lack of clarity among groups for the SSW position suggested although it was institutionalized it was poorly integrated into school systems. And although this implied Robert R. Schulz a lack of common standards for SSWs, it gave them flexibility and unusual opportunity for freedom. The study suggested that SSWs need not necessarily be former teachers. Some sug- gestions for further study were included. ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER By N \ ."\ \. Robert Rf Schulz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the spring of 1967, as I tried to define this study, Dr. Wilbur Brookover suggested that a study of expectations might present an apprOpriate means of investigating the role of School Social Workers. The interest and continued help given by Dr. Brookover, as well as David Wright's assistance and guidance in pro— gramming, were vital to its successful completion. I also owe thanks to the local school district administrators who cooperated with me so willingingly: Miss Kathleen Cotter of the Dearborn Public Schools; Mrs. Harriet Latimer of the Flint Community Schools; Mr. William Webb of the Lansing Public Schools; and Mr. Robert Whitecraft of the Grand Rapids Public Schools. And I appreciate the consideration and cooperation of my com- mittee-—Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Floyd Parker, and my chairman, Dr. Fred Vescolani--during this study. I owe special thanks to three peOple who were close to the study as it developed and who gave me that support so necessary for a long-term research project: Dr. J. Ed Green and Mrs. Phyllis Davis of the Off-Campus Affairs Office, and Mrs. Audrey Schulz, my wife. 11 PREFACE Public schools in the United States have generally failed to fulfill their function as institutions for solving human problems in areas other than academic or vocational; they have yet to Join with others in com- bating such social handicaps as poverty, neglect, and poor mental health with real vigor. True, some schools have made efforts, but usually only where federal assistance has been provided by various legislative enactments: they are only beginnings. Many believe that the fastest growing department in public schools is the Pupil Personnel Service, including nurses, psychologists, counselors, speech and hearing specialists, attendance officers, and social workers, all people who work with the community as well as with school agencies, and who offer direct service to children and their families. Growing from the author's concern for humanizing children's school eXperiences, this study is designed to clarify one of the positions in Pupil Personnel Services: the School Social Worker. School social work is not a new service (it began in 1906), but one which is changing. Hopefully this study will contribute to our greater under- standing of the School Social Worker's role. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Need for the Study Purposes of the Study Basis of the Study . Operational Considerations Overview of the Study Hypotheses. . Data-Gathering Stage Concluding Stage. II. RELATED RESEARCH. Introduction . . The Field of Social Work School Social Work . . Implications for This Study Recent Empirical Studies Making Theory Operational. III. METHODOLOGY Approach of This Study. . Important Steps . . . Developing and Testing of the Preliminary Instrument Community--School District Selections. Interviews with School Social Workers. Instruments Perceptions of Expectations of 0thers. Instructions to Respondents Demographic Data. . Selection of the Sample Groups and Dissemination of Instruments Operational Concepts Statistical Tests Summary. . iv Page ii iii vi H Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . . . 55 Evidence that All Data Came from the the Same Universe. . . . . . . 55 Nature of the Samples . . . . . . 56 Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . 57 Responses to Questions. . . . . 69 Agreement Between SSWs' Perceived Expectations and the Actual Expec- tations of Others. . . . 69 Firm Definitions on Characteristics of the SSW Role . . 72 Convergence--Divergence in this Study. 76 Differences Between School Districts . 79 Agreement Among Trainers of SSWs . . 79 How May Present Role Theory Assist in Clarifying the Definition of Position for the SSW. . . . . . 80 V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 81 Findings . . . . . . . . . . 81 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 85 Implications . . . . . . . . . 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 A. Demographic Data. . . . . . . . . 101 B. Instruments . . . . . . . . . . 108 0. Tables and Models . . . . . . . . 139 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Application of the Instruments to Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Participants by Cities . . . . . . Comparison of Teacher Expectations and School Social Worker Position-Defini- tions for the School Social Worker as an Influential Person. . . . . . Comparison of Principal Expectations and School Social Worker Position-Defini- tions for the School Social Worker as a School Person . . . . . . . Comparison of Agency Worker Expectations and School Social Worker Position- Definitions for the School Social Worker as a Professional Social Worker School Social Worker Group Consensus by Sectors . . . . . . . . . . Results of Comparing School Social Workers‘ Perceptions of Expectations with Others‘ Actual Expectations. . . . vi Page 145 50 59 61 62 67 71 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 10 POSitiOn-Centric MOdEl p o o o o o o 36 2. Typical Format Heading . . . . . . . A7 3. Stance of the School Social Worker on Social Work or School VieWpoints . . . 88 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Need for the Study School social work has recently develOped as a specialized profession. As one of the school pupil per- sonnel services, it has been given increased emphasis as school districts attempt to use casework techniques in solving student problems.l Expansion of pupil personnel services, including school social work, necessitates some role knowledge of all related groups. Several on tasks valuable standing groups: and role performed by school information, but no of the eXpectations recent studies have focused social workers.2 This is substitute for an under- of related individuals and this View is documented in social action theory theory. Interprofessional Research Commission on Pupil Personnel Services In 1962 several professional groups organized the Interprofessional Research Commission on Pupil Personnel Services (IRCOPPS) to make a national study of 1 Michigan State Department of Education Report with Michigan Visiting Teacher Association, 1959. 2See Chapter II, Related Research. non—instructional services for school children in the United States. The Commission was supported for five years by funds from the National Institute of Mental Health, and prepared studies about school psychological services, counselors, school social work services, and others. In establishing the Commission, the American Associa- tion of School Administrators, the National Education Association, the American Medical Association, and the National Association of Social Workers (among others) were acknowledging implicitly that some expansion of pupil services in America's schoOls was necessary because of the growth of school attendance and increased urban living. Also, school districts were now able to employ more non— instructional personnel with finances available through federal programs. Role Perception Studies During the 196A-l965 school year, the central staff of IRCOPPS conducted nationwide studies of role percep— tions of pupil personnel workers. Workers' functions were studied to learn how to better organize the service. And one recommendation of these studies was further research into the role of each position.3 3John Fisher, "Role Perceptions and Characteristics of Attendance Coordinators, Psychologists, and Social Workers," Journal of International Association of Pupil Personnel Workers, March, 1966 (reprint). Purpose of this Study This study investigates expectations for the school social worker held by elementary school teachers, prin- cipals, and community social agency professionals in communities with populations between 100,000 and 200,000, as well as the school social workers' own position defi- nitions and their perceptions of what eXpectations the others held for their position. This investigation should eXpand our knowledge about the role of the school social worker in four ways: 1. Five general hypotheses will be tested. 2. Six questions will be answered. 3. Analysis of data will provide new information. A. Application of role theory will suggest new hypotheses and questions. Basis of the Study The School Social Worker The school social worker's (SSW) position is not clearly defined. Although the job has the same label in different places, the functions and qualifications it in— cludes differ greatly. Functions may vary from attendance investigation to teaching to casework; and qualifications as well differ considerably from state to state. School social workers are traditionally caseworkers who have come from classroom teaching to specialize in work with maladjusted children. In states with certification requirements, specialized advanced education is required, often leading to an advanced degree; but this is seldom a requirement. Some school social workers have never taken a course in social work, while others have advanced professional social work degrees. The impression we have is that the role of the SSW is a changing role. Social and economic changes have com- bined with legislation to cause changes in school social work.“ Among the forces producing change are: (1) intro- duction of requirements for becoming a school social 5 (2) development of new school services;6 and (3) 7 worker; increases in Federal financial support. Greater national awareness of the needs of the many have combined with increased financial resources to Open up the field; and with this eXpansion have come many new questions about what school social workers should do, and what character- istics best qualify them to do it. “Joseph Hourihan, Paper delivered to the National Association of Social Workers, Atlantic City, May, 1965. 5Horace Lundberg, School Social Work (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 196“). 6Hugh Scott, "A Descriptive Analysis of the Evolving Role of the School-Community Agent in the Detroit Great Cities Improvement Project" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1966). 7Robert Rowen, "The Impact of Federal Legislation on School Social Work," Social Work, Vol. 12, No. 2 (April, 1967). Theoretical Framework The school system is defined as a true social system, one involving the concept of role. When the role expecta- tions of groups are studied, a social system is presumed to exist: When orientations are grouped according to roles or role exnectations that control them, and according to the interacting groups to whigh they belong, we are dealing with social systems. Study of a role within a social system typically employs interaction theory in analysis under the assumption that individuals within a system are affected by the structure of the system and objects (including others) within the system. Individuals in turn affect the system and others. Within this framework, communication and commonly-under- stood standards are essential for a system to Operate well.10 One important purpose of this study is to find whether the expectations held by teachers or principals for the school social worker are different from the school social workers' position-definitions, if, that is, the role has not become institutionalized. An individual's behavior is strongly influenced by the eXpectations which members of various groups have of him and his relationships with them 8Wilbur Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education (New York: American Book Company, 196D). 9Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, Toward a Theory of Social Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951). lOIbid. role has added significance because certain of these expectations have become institutionalized and an individual is penalized if his behaviorll deviates from that which is eXpected from him. In a social system which is dependent upon common standards, constructive processes of interaction are interrupted by differences in eXpectations for a role. Role theory, then, was an important consideration in this study. It was suggested that we may approach role theory in three basic ways:12 (1) role as an analytic unit for study, (2) role as an object of study, or (3) role as conceptualizations. When using the theory as an analytic unit, role is a means to study a social system. When approached as an object of study, role is an end of study. When role is conceptualized, parts related to role are examined. The last approach takes the view that role as a concept is too comprehensive; thus a topic like role conflict is a more useful approach for analysis. Expectations is one concept included within role theory. This study contends the three approaches are not mutually exclusive and that all can be used in analysis of data and its interpretation. While its main emphasis will be examining the school social worker role as an 11W. W. Charters, "The School as a Social System," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 22 (1952), p. “1. l2Clinton Snyder "Variations in Expectations for the Teacher Role: As Related to General and Specific Roles, Expectation Categories, and Social Distance" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963). Object Of study, interpretation will not exclude other potentially significant insights into the system or into topics which are part of the role. Expectations are a limiting factor in this study: it is a normative study. Normative studies of role are concerned with what a role should be and what position holders should do. Such expectations are presumed to be 13 Many ideas essential for predicting social behavior. are available on how to approach a normative role study: guides to terminology, models of relationships, suggested methodological procedures.1u The best way to learn the expectations of a group 15 These responses can provide a is to ask its members. sketch Of group eXpectations and a resource for empirical analysis. Discriminating questions should be developed in order to identify important issues. This demands prep- aration before going to the groups. Insight into the role to be studied must be acquired and some procedures of analysis planned in advance. Theory provides a tool for analysis, while statistical analysis renders it Operational. l3Neal Gross, et al., Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966). luIbid. 15 George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1950). Considerable theory has developed about human expec- tation. For example, the work of Meadl6 provides insights into how important others' expectations are for self- concept. Other writers suggest the significance of inter- action for individuals and the social system;17 as, for instance, the reflexive nature of expectations, as expressed by Cooley: "Each to each a looking glass reflects the other that doth pass."18 Since, as is theorized, individuals form naturally into groups, it is possible to form conclusions about a group's expectations for a position by learning the ex- pectations of individuals: empirically this is the postulate of consensus.19 Social system theory was another important consider- ation in this study. The school social worker Operates only sometimes within the school system, his role routinely extends into the community. Thus the school social worker role is partly of the school social system and partly of the larger community system. So concepts related to social systems which are pertinent to this study include: sub- systems, ambiguity, and tolerance and conflict. 16George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193A). l7Parsons, Op. cit. 18 Charles Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order (Glencoe: Free Press, 1956), p. 184. 19 Gross, op. cit. Within occupational social systems, sub-systems exist and respond by adapting to the system.20 Bureaucratic social organizations are noted for complexity. And school systems in cities Of 100,000 peOple or more are not excep- tions. Members of sub-systems hold different expectations for themselves from other sub-system members,21 a potential cause of conflict. If members of a sub-system agree, however, they legitimize their expectations through mutual support. School social workers are marginal school person- nel in the sense that they work a good deal outside the school building and do not perform an instructional function as normally defined. Agency social workers, although not part of the school system, do work with school social workers and have expec- tations for them. Their expectations are important to the school social workers and may be expected to be different from those within the school social system. Actions of peOple are Judged according to appropri- ateness by groups of others. Variations in expectations held by the members of a group reflect the degree of clarity within thegroup about a role.22 Lack of clarity is com- municated to the focal person within the organization; and to the extent that he perceives this confusion his role is 20 21 Parsons, op. cit. Ibid. 22Theodore Sarbin, "Role Theory," Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, Gardner Lindzey, Editor (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 195A). lO 23 ambiguous, and his certainty in his role is limited. Thus, the "common standard" so vital to the integration of units within a system is absent.2u Such ambiguity is almost certainly a problem for school social workers. Teachers and principals do not always reach agreement in school matters.25 And the academic orientation of school personnel differ from the agency social worker's orientation. Each Of these groups, however, are heterogeneous in their composition. Cities differ, and environments affect individuals differently. Two final considerations for a role in a social system are tolerance and conflict. In general, all civil servants disagree about the extent of their loyalties to the organization.26 Some identify more with their pro- fession than others. Professional persons, for instance school principals, are treated with considerable tolerance in the form Of pleasant relations in light of the differ- ences with which they and parents View their role.27 23Robert Kahn, et al., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963). 2A Parsons, Op. cit. 25Wilbur Brookover, "Research on Teachers and Admin- istrator Roles," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29 (September, 1955), pp. 2L13. 26Leonard Reissman, "A Study Of Role Conceptions in Bureaucracy," Social Forces, Vol. 27 (March, 1949), pp. 305- 310. 27John Foskett and Henry Wolcott, "Self Images and Community Images of Elementary School Principals," Educa- tional Administration Quarterly, Vol. 3 (Spring, 1967), pp. 162-181. 11 School social work is an accepted service in the school districts studied. The extent to which conflict exists between school social workers and others about the school social worker role cannot be judged on perceived relationships, nor can getting along well be assumed to gauge understanding. Certainly not all school social workers feel alike about the school system or their goals as social workers. Operational Considerations Because of the broad range Of assumptions and mean— ings connected with role studies,28 it is necessary to define certain terms as they will be used in this study: Teacher: A certified elementary school person, primarily assigned to an instructional function in an elementary level school. Principal: A non-teaching school administrator reSponsible for at least one elementary level school. Agency A professional worker in a private or public social social agency. worker: Social Catholic Social Service, Department of Social agency: Service, Family Service Agency, Child Guidance Clinic, Probate Court, or the YMCA. Community: Dearborn, Flint, Grand Rapids, or Lansing, Michigan. Role expec- Patterns of evaluations of groups reflecting tations: anticipations for the school social worker. Sector: A segment of role developed for this study as a means of analysis of eXpectations for the school social worker, and consisting of a number of items. 28 . Gross, Op. Cit. 12 Item: One of 123 terms or statements descriptive Of the school social worker role, developed as relevant during the exploratory stage of the study. Position: "Location of a class Of actors in a system of social relationships." Definition The self-expectation held by the school social of posi- worker. tion: Overview Of the Study This study consisted of three stages: (1) explora- tory; (2) data gathering; and (3) concluding. The exploratory stage included: a. examination of available literature on school social work and role theory, b. development of hypotheses and questions, c. development and testing of preliminary instru— ments, d. interviews with school social workers, and e. development of instruments from lessons learned during steps a through d. The data-gathering stage included: a. arrangements with school districts for research, b. preparation and dissemination of instruments into schools and agencies, c. collection of instruments, d. data processing, and e. computerization of data. 29Ibid. 13 The concluding stage included: a. analysis of data, and b. construction of the report of findings. Exploratory Stage Role theory and school social work were reviewed from recent studies and Michigan State University materials. Officials of IRCOPPS sent names of persons doing research in school social work, and they were contacted by mail or in person; no previous studies in this field were available at Michigan State University. Hypotheses and questions were develOped from impres- sions received during this period of review and from personal experiences in public school work. They generally pointed toward the central idea Of differences between relevant groups and school social workers, and the marginal nature of the school social worker's position relative to the school. Hypotheses The Basic Hypothesis This study is designed to test the basic or working hypothesis that relevant groups do not agree on expecta- tions for the school social worker. Three fundamental areas of difference in role eXpectation are anticipated. These are: 14 a. the influence of the school social worker; b. the extent to which the worker is a school person; 0. the extent to which the worker is a professional social work person. Specific Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There will be differences between the school social workers' position definitions and others' expectations. Sub-hypothesis: School social workers will differ from teachers on the influence of the school social worker. That is, school social workers will perceive themselves more as persons who should be influential. Sub-hypothesis: School social workers will differ from prin- cipals on their role as a school person. That is, principals will expect school social workers to be agents Of the school more than school social workers will. Sub-hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: School social workers will differ from agency social workers on their role as professional social workers. That is, agency workers will expect school social workers to be less social work persons than school social workers do. There will more Often be consensus in role definition within the school social worker group than there is consensus in role ex- pectation within the other groups. Sub-hypothesis: School social workers will reach consensus more Often in definition of their role than principals reach consensus in role expecta- tions. 15 Sub-hypothesis: School social workers will reach consensus more often in definition of their role than teachers reach consensus in role expectations. Sub-hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: Hypothesis A: Hypothesis 5: School social workers will reach consensus more often in definition of their role than agency workers reach consensus in role expectations. The school principal group will reach con- sensus on expectations more Often than the teacher or community agency groups. The school social workers will reach con- sensus on their work role more often than on other sectors of the role. That is, there is more agreement on duties which result from their work experiences and training orientation. Professors of social work and their students who consider them significant will converge. That is, a professor of social work is a "significant other" who is responsible for the perceptions of social work students. In addition to the hypotheses above, several questions were suggested by this study. Since these questions rested less on theoretical bases than the hypotheses, they were Offered simply as questions to be answered. Question 1: Question 2: How do school social workers' perceptions of others' expectations agree with the others' actual expectations? That is, do the school social workers correctly perceive what teachers, principals, and community agency personnel eXpect of them? What areas of the school social worker role reveal consensus most often within groups? That is, on what functions or characteristics is there a firm definition of the social worker position? 16 Question 3: What areas Of the school social worker role reveal most convergence across groups? That is, on what functions or characteristics of the social worker is there firm agreement upon the role among all groups? Question A: Are there differences between school districts for sectors of the school social worker role? Are there sectors in which there is high bureaucratic agreement? Question 5: Do directors Of training for school social workers agree among themselves? That is, is it likely that social workers leaving different training institutions have similar perceptions for their roles? Question 6: How may present role theory assist in clarifying the definition of position for the school social worker? That is, in applying role theory to the social worker position (as has been done successfully for the school superintendent and teacher), what contributions and insights can be made to understanding the position? Since no instruments were available to investigate the role of the school social worker, they had to be devel- Oped. Preliminary questions were drawn from impressions Of previous research. These questions were tested with a small group (of 25) and evaluated, as reported in Chapter III, Methodology. Interviews were conducted with twelve school social workers in three cities in order to develop more insight into the role. These were taped and the tapes were reviewed for concepts. Details on the interviews are reported in Chapter III. Eight sectors totalling 123 items for the school social worker role were eventually developed from the 17 above steps. These sectors were an effort to go beyond the limited sc0pe of tasks of the school social worker which others studied. Statements were develOped which asked for a response from the groups. Terms and single words were also used because of the importance of reactions to words as meaningful symbols. Instruments are shown in the Appendix and discussed further in Chapter III. Data—Gathering Stage Arrangements with the four cities, Dearborn, Flint, Grand Rapids and Lansing, Michigan, were made through letters, telephone calls, and personal visits. Each city designated either its Director of Research or its Director of Pupil Personnel as contact person. Instruments were cleared with the contact person in each city before being mimeographed. They were then sent to randomly selected school personnel through the school mail. Return envelopes were included as well as a cover letter from the contact Official encouraging participation. All principals were asked to encourage participation. Instruments for agency social workers were mailed to the agencies. The same six agencies were surveyed in the four cities. Self—addressed envelOpes were included. Special cover letters were sent to the agency head asking his assistance. 18 School personnel instruments were collected from each city within two weeks after distribution; late responses were mailed by the school district. Follow—up was needed for the teachers in only one city because the general participation was satisfactory. The information from the questionnaires was recorded onto coding sheets and subsequently data cards were punched. An original program was developed for the analysis. Further information about this stage is in Chapter III. Concluding Stage During the concluding stage, the analysis of the com- puterized data was made through hypothesis testing and scrutiny of data. The findings were then analyzed and con- clusions were reached through the application Of theory. This study was then, Of course, developed into its present form. The analysis is included in Chapter IV while Chapter V contains the report of Findings and Conclusions. CHAPTER II RELATED RESEARCH Introduction Literature of importance to this research focuses on two areas: social work and role theory. The review of social work and its special branch of school social work provides an understanding Of the traditional functions and problems of social workers. The relevance of social systems theory and role theory to this study was reviewed in Chapter I. Sources Of eXpectations for the school social worker (SSW) were suggested in the context of these theories, and important concepts for human interaction in a social system were discussed. In this chapter, the conceptual theories Of others will be translated into the operational concepts developed by Neal Gross.l Resource materials for this study were limited since scarcely any doctoral or master's dissertations had been devoted to that subject anywhere. Few Schools Of Social Work grant a doctorate, and the usual requirement for a master of social work degree is a joint report of a group project. And, seldom does a School of Education sponsor 1Gross, op. cit. l9 20 a study on school social work. In fact, although there is a shortage of social workers nationally, little research is being done into any phase of social work. The general lack of data and increased efforts to improve services to school children prompted the organization of the Inter- professional Research Commission on Pupil Personnel Services (IRCOPPS), whose recent research on the school social workers is also reviewed. The Field of Social Work School social work is a specialized branch of the field of social work. It is necessary to have some under- standing Of social work, and of its historical trends and the problems to understand school social work. Historically, social work began as a volunteer service of well-meaning, but moralizing rich people who were con- cerned about the poor; today it is a moderately high—prestige profession with its own training schools.2 Almost all professional social workers have university training, and those with a Master in Social Work dominate social agencies. The professional in social work has Obtained excellent con- trol over volunteers in social work ventures as well as a high degree of autonomy in fiscal matters.3 The moral nature Of social work has not come under the same control as its structure. Definitions by social fir 2Roy Lubove, The Professional Altruist (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965). 3Ibid. 21 workers show that humane and often abstract motives provide the thrust of social work today. Terms used in defining social work include "validated faith"u and "use of self."5 It is still widely assumed that those in need Of social work assistance are inadequate peOple,6 and one Of the primary goals in the education of social workers is the development of a non-moralizing frame of reference. Today, however, the orientation in preparation programs is slanted towards psychological and psychoanalytic views. At approximately the same time social work identified itself with the casework approach, the medical profession began to accept the work Of Sigmund Freud. Doctors devel- Oped a casework approach using the psychoanalytic teachings of Freud. These insights brought new SOphistication to case study and began to outstrip the "social diagnosis" used by social workers.7 Social work has identified with psychoanalytical views and the mental health program since early in this century. In 1920, a leader in social work made this statement: . . psychiatry is giving us new light on our methods of dealing with peOple. In the past our approach has been from the standpoint of externals. In order to really bring about better adjustments in the lives of our clients, it is necessary to understand the deep-seated motives for human conduct. “Kenneth Pray, "Restatement Of the Generic Principles of Social Casework Practice," Journal of Social Casework Vol. 28, NO. 8 (October, 1947), pp. 283- 285. 5National Association of Social Workers Commission on Casework, Proceedings, New York Conference (New York: NASWC, 196“). 7 . 8 6Lubove, Op. cit. Ibid. Ibid., p. 9A. 22 9 Similar statements have been made more recently. "Inner need" has assumed a prominent place in the thinking of social workers. Although group work is also prominent, casework is the core of social work. The Commission on Casework Of the National Association of Social Workers reaffirmed the importance of casework approach in 19614:10 The range of functions of the caseworker includes giving the knowledge; demonstrating effective ways of achieving; acting as a model for communication and reality testing; acting as an advocate for the client, as well as a liaison between client and agency, community, and larger world; expanding Of values, aspirations and goals and ways of achieving these both . . . the basic essence of this rela- tionship being the bond between the caseworker and client . . .1 Thus the social work person has customarily been trained in casework; he is used to approaching peOple from a psychoanalytical point of view. As is probably true with every profession or occupation, there are problems in the field of social work. Some discussed in the literature were: (1) shortage of trained personnel, (2) lack of autonomy within organizations, and (3) limited professional status. Social work is one of the most critical fields in the labor market. Schools, hospitals, and other institu- tions generally fail to staff their social work positions. Y1 9Howard Parad,"EgO Psychology and Dynamic Casework," Family Social Service Association Yearbook, 1953, p. 3. loNAswc, Op. cit. llIbid. 23 Salaries in social work have improved, but nevertheless a career in teaching Often pays better. It is probable that relatively low pay alone does not eXplain the shortage Of social workers: lack of autonomy is a contributing factor.12 Schools, hospitals, and other institutions employ most social workers. They do not Operate for social work, but use social workers as service personnel. Hence, too Often there is a tendency for the institution to use the social worker for its own purposes.13 Hughes described the nature of professions and their characteristics.lu In a bureaucratic organiza- tion, professionals tend to separate from other profes- sionals and form sub—systems, creating a problem of choice of loyalty: the organization or the profession? One writer did not think that social workers were 15 faced with the choice suggested by Hughes. He questioned that social work is a profession: it did not meet the usual criteria of "generalized knowledge" and "community interest." l2Charlotte Towle, "The Distinctive Attributes of Education for Social Work," Journal of Social Casework, Vol. 33, No. 2 (April, 1952), pp. 63—72. 13ibid., p. 6A. l”Everett Hughes, "The Professions," The Professions in America (Boston: Houghton—Miflin Company, 1965). 15Bernard Barber, "Some Problems in the Sociology Of Professions," The Professions in America (Boston: Houghton- Miflin, 1965). 24 School Social Work A review Of literature on school social work reveals that much attention is given to the functions and tasks Of social workers, while little or nothing is devoted to ex- pectations for the school social worker. And role theory tells us this factor is critical if a professinal is to Operate efficiently. The National Association outlined four distinct functions for school social workers: casework, collabora- tion (OOOperation with school staff), coordination (prim- arily with agencies), and consultant services.16 This broad outline left wide latitude for interpretation by the social workers, and was never seen by the others who it affected. In 1929, one writer thought the functions of school social work were diverse because of disagreement over its purpose.17 Five categories were suggested as the functions of the SSW by another writer: (1) attendance, (2) behavior problem, (3) home-school relations, (A) agency referrals, and (5) direct treatment.18 19 A 1960 study suggested twenty- two functions including some providing the SSW with a fiw l6NAsw, Op. cit. 17Jane Culbert, The Visiting Teacher at Work (New York: Commonwealth, 1929). 18Herbert Stroup, Social Work (New York: American Book, 19A8). 19Robert Rowen, "The School Social Worker: An Analysis of Present Training Programs in Relationship to Job Functions" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Arizona, 1960). 25 somewhat freer range Of activity than other suggestions had admitted. As we mentioned in the first chapter, it appears that the role of the SSW is changing. Statements accepted at the national level in 1960 are criticized in 1967. Citing the 1960 speech of Nebo to the NASW conference,2O Hourihan thought that school social work as a specialized casework service for maladjusted children "no longer describes accurately the contribution or many SSWs."21 Professors at Schools of Social Work are viewing the role of the SSW differently from previous writers. As recently as 1960, social work writers expected the worker to conform to the principal's acceptance of the service.2 And concern about the feelings of teachers for any form of aggressive social work ran high. But social and econ- omic conditions have changed, and so have attitudes Of trainers of SSWs about the role of the SSW. Today there is an effort to return social work to mme of its earlier 23 concern with environment. The magnitude of social problems in the nation has encouraged the use of 20John Nebo, "Some Aspects of Social Work Practice in Schools," Social Work in the Schools (New York: NASW, 1960) p. 8. 21Hourihan, Op. cit. 22Dorothy Hermann, "The SSW's Role with School and Community," Social Work in the Schools (New York: NASW, 1960). 23Hourihan, Op. cit. 26 para-professionals and development Of new social service roles in the schools. One professor thought the functions of the SSW had become rigid in the struggle for profes— sionalization.2u Two dramatic new vieWpOints are also being heard in Schools of Social Work: (1) SSWs should work on school conditions as well as pupils, and (2) SSWs should assume new and greater responsibilities as leaders. It is main- tained that the school itself causes maladjustment: If the school social worker concentrates his energies merely in helping some peOple accommodate to the school he can do little to ameliorate the patterns that will continue to geneggte difficul- ties for many other students . . . Rowen believes that federal money now presents SSWs with the opportunity to assume leadership as a trainer and con- sultant for teams of para-professionals. Counseling could become the province of counselors, with SSWs freed to perform as social workers.26 Three special problems face the SSW: (l) the teacher- or—social worker paradox, (2) sources Of leadership, and (3) organizational placement. 2“Betty Welsh, "Changing Role of the SSW" Paper, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1966. 25Robert Vinter, "Malperformance in the Public Schools," Social Work, Vol. 10 (January, 1965). 26Rowen, Op. cit., pp. 109-115. 27 School social work is historically related to teacher education.27 School social workers traditionally come from the ranks of teachers. But teacher preparation programs do not necessarily guarantee adequate background in the social sciences or other knowledge falling under the rubric of "behavioral sciences"; this has an undeniable impact upon school social service. And yet it appeared that teaching was considered a desirable background for school social work, at least by teachers. The National Association of Social Workers, on the other hand, does not recognize the importance Of teaching for the SSW, recommending instead: 1. A two-year social work program. 2 Study in social welfare, human behavior, and environment, as well as social work methods. 3. Field placement for not less than 1000 hours. A Emphasis upon the use of self with focus upon strengths and how to treat the whole child.28 Who should provide leadership for the SSWs is con- troversial. The Professors of Social Work believe that they provide leadership for SSWs, 29’ 30 particularly in these three areas: (1) the transmission Of systematic knowledge; (2) the innovation of ideas; and (3) the sug- gesting of models. State Departments of Education are legally charged with certification of SSWs. As controllers T 27Grace Browning, Helping the Troubled Child (New York: NASW, 1959). 28U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Scope of Pupil Personnel Services (Washington, D. 0.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966). 29Frank Maple, personal interview at Ann Arbor, May 8, 1967. 3OBarber, Op. cit. 28 of both certification and financial support for school districts seeking to employ SSWs, Department of Education consultants clearly assume leadership roles, particularly as they interpret rules. Although large city districts may employ supervisors who direct SSWs, the principal usually has complete respon- sibility for activities in his own building and may be expected to supply some direction for the SSW when he is in the building. Professional associations, such as the National Association of Social Workers, have the potential for leadership, but since membership in most associations is voluntary, apathy weakens them.31 In the case of the NASW, complete involvement is impossible because of the Association requirements: most SSWs cannot qualify for membership. Organizational placement for the school social Workers is also controversial. Various authorities recom- mend that SSWs be supervised by a social work person who is responsible to a Director Of Pupil Personnel Services,32 quite a common mode of organization, though many others are also in use. Thus, SSWs may be placed in a Special Education department where they are responsible to a former teacher of Special Education, or they may be placed in 31Robert Merton, "Functions of the Professional Association," American Journal Of Nursing, Vol. 58 (January, 1958), p. 51. 32Lundberg, Op. cit. 29 Psychological Services where they are responsible to a School Psychologist. But there are many variations, and placement is less related to theoretical considerations than to practical expediency. Implications for this Study The literature on School Social Work and on some facets of social work was reviewed, and, specific ques— tions about the role Of social workers investigated. To study expectations for the SSW also required research into certain areas relevant for groups close to the SSW role. Among the areas surveyed were: (1) eXpectations about how the SSW fits into the psychoanalytic—environment- centered controversy; (2) his superordinate and subordinate position in the school system, with its implications for his behavior; (3) how much of a social worker the SSW is expected to be; (A) expectations about his status in the social worker-school person controversy; (5) his expected role in the community, both on and Off the job; and (6) the degree to which professors Of social work were leaders of SSWS. Recent Empirical Studies Recent related research included three studies sponsored by IRCOPPS and one independent study, all done between 1965 and 1967; and only the independent work studied role eXpectations for social workers. 3O Liddle reported an extensive study of role percep— tions for each member of the Pupil Personnel Services team,33 along with data on its membership. Social workers were generally well-educated and held a master degree, typically in Education. All social workers belonged to professional organizations, but few to the NASW. No dif— ferences could be found in the self-perceptions of those in the Association and those outside it. Liddle also reported a tendency for social workers to perceive them- selves as more central to situations than others did. Principals listed SSWs more often than other Pupil Personnel workers for these three functions: (1) working with parents who mistreat children, (2) working with children in need of clothing or food, and (3) working with referrals for agencies. He summarized his findings as follows: ". social workers seem to have entered the field from teaching. They see themselves as performing the traditional roles of the school social worker."314 Maple conducted a state-wide survey in Michigan which received minimal support from IRCOPPS.35 Study Of expecta- tions remained a secondary goal as he was primarily con- cerned with functions of the SSW. He found that principals 33Gordon Liddle, "The School Social Worker as He Sees Himself and as He is Seen by His Colleagues" (College Park, Maryland: IRCOPPS, 1966). (Mimeographed.) 3ulPlQ-a p- 9. 35Maple, Op. cit. 31 and teachers eXpected more extensive service than the SSWs provided. And he reached these five conclusions: 1. SSWs had a high conformity of practice. 2. Groups disagreed about the SSW role. 3. School organization failed to make the best use of SSWs. A. SSWs engaged in very little consultation with teachers, and 5. Little preventative work was done by SSWS. Maple believes that it is ". . . time to question the direct pupil-service focus of school visiting teacher work."36 Costin investigated tasks of SSWs in Illinois37 in an incomplete study. Her preliminary findings showed wide differences between what school personnel thought SSWs should do and what they thought SSWs did. The IRCOPPS studies presented some valuable informa- tion, but also had some inadequacies. Liddle, with an adequate staff and good financing, adapted an instrument designed in 19Al. Principals, teachers, and pupil services personnel each filled out instruments; the cluster sample technique was used in this research done in 260 school systems of widely different sizes, with an 80 percent response. Sampling was random and IRCOPPS depended upon school principals to distribute instruments. 36Ibid., p. 31A. 37Lela Costin, "Tasks of the School Social Worker," Study underway, University Of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1967. 32 Liddle's adapting an Old instrument for use in his study may have distorted the advantages of an overall investigation using controlled research design. Many new factors both inside and outside the school have been intro- duced since the instrument was first develOped, but Liddle may have corrected for them. Nevertheless, his findings should be considered in interpreting findings in this study. Maple tried to survey every SSW in Michigan, as well as 75 persons in each of three staff roles in a random sample of Michigan systems. He sent a 200 question instru- ment which gave respondents a choice of nine responses per item. While his study was limited by funds available, his returns from participants were good: over 90 percent from principals and teachers, with SSWs returning 68 percent. Maple's research design was weakened by a failure to con- trol for community or school system size or other charac- teristics, although the literature tells us that the SSW role may be very dependent upon these. Maple analyzed what he found by interpreting data into percentage form and then guessing what it meant. He thus gathered consid- erable census-type data, but without a precisely organized plan Of interpretation. Costin's instruments were examined, although her research remains unfinished. She used a scaled response technique to questions about tasks of the SSW. A random sampling of school personnel were asked for their views. 33 Since Iher study is incomplete, the only obvious criticism might be its being limited to tasks Of the SSW. In general the research personnel doing IRCOPPS studies of the SSW were all very close to the SSW position: Maple and Costin, for instance, are professors of social work. We have noted the relative limitations Of social work personnel in the techniques of research. Two major inadequacies found in the research Of IRCOPPS were: (1) no application to a theoretical base; and/or (2) no objective or generally acceptable analysis, such as a statistical test. We located one independent study which was interested in expectations for social workers. The Olsens made an expectation study Of hospital social workers.38 Their research tested hypotheses statistically although their findings were not statistically significant. Their study parallels the present one more than any IRCOPPS studies because hypotheses were part of the research and the design provided for Objective analysis of data. Although it was not a study Of school social workers, its findings are relevant: (1) social workers and doctors differ most often Over new functions of the workers; and (2) the social worker must "subordinate" his position in the institution. 38Katherine Olsen and Marvin Olsen, "Role Expectations and Perceptions for Social Workers in a Medical Setting," Social Work, Vol. 12, No. 3 (July, 1967), pp. 70-78. 3A In summary, the ample literature about social work and the school social worker provides us with general im— pressions. Social work is a product of its historical development and it has adOpted a mental health orientation emphasizing a psychoanalytic frame of reference. But on the whole, social work still labors under great difficul- ties. School social work has roughly the same background as the larger discipline, but has faced additional, special problems because of changes within the school systems: sources of leadership for SSWs, placement in the school organization, and the extent to which teacher training and eXperience were important for the SSW. These considerations will all be investigated in this study as they relate tO expectations for the SSW. Very little in social work literature or research suggests a model for this study. It was necessary to turn 39 to role studies, particularly that of Gross, in order to find such a model. Making Theory Operational Neal Gross and his associates developed several Operational concepts relevant to studying eXpectations for a role: consensus, a language for analysis, and approaches LID u to instrumentation. Consensus was defined as an 39Gross, Op. cit. uOIbid. 35 empirical condition of agreement among a number of peOple." Gross said that groups within a social system cannot be assumed to agree, and that their expectations must be sub- jected to critical inspection. This View is supported by Homans,ul and it became central to this study. Language is a problem in role analysis because terms have different meanings for’social scientists. Models were developed by Gross to help locate a position in a social system. These Offered a framework by which to evaluate networks of relationships. "Focal position" was a term applied to the position under study and "counter positions" were those of relevant others. Gross developed a "position-centric model," which was adapted to this study. It shows the counter-position Of teacher and principal versus the SSW within the school system, with the agency social worker outside the system: the model is introduced here in order to help visualize relationships for this study (see Figure 1, page 36). Other concepts provided by Gross were adapted for this study. For example, the division Of a role into parts which he called "segments"; in this study, however, divisions Of the school social worker role are called "sectors." Questions in the instruments were developed from interviews and a five-place response scale was used as by Gross. lRomans, Op. cit. 36 Agency Social Worker School System ocial Worker —————+ Expectations of relevant others ————— + School Social Workers' perceptions Of eXpectations Figure l.--Position—Centric Model. In summary, the Gross study was a valuable source Of Operational concepts, and many Of his research tech- niques were adapted for this study. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Approach of this Study The identification Of appropriate professional groups which were relevant for the school social worker (SSW) position was a problem in this study; that is, if expectations of groups investigated were to have some significance for the focal position, groups defining the role had to be asked their expectations. In order to do that and also to learn more about school social work, professors Of social work and Michigan State Department of Education personnel were interviewed, the literature surveyed, and then the methodology Of the present study developed. Important Steps The scarcity of succinct statements Of the school social worker role and complete lack of instruments for asking others about their views both had to be rectified. Relevant groups had to be located and appropriate means Of testing the data and analyzing findings selected as well. This chapter reports, then, the following features Of this study: (1) development and testing of a preliminary instru- ment, (2) selection of community-school districts, 37 38 (3) method Of interviewing SSWs, (A) final design of instruments, (5) selection of the sample and distribution- collection of instruments, and (6) application of Opera- tional concepts in analyzing data. Development and Testing of the Preliminary Instrument The review of the literature and personal experience suggested a preliminary self-administering instrument con- taining 168 short questions about the SSW, each answered on a five-place scale from "Definitely should not" to "Definitely should." These questions covered eXpectations for attributes and functions of the SSW. The instrument was tested with a summer workshOp group at Michigan State University for SSW—candidates, these 25 peOple including representatives of the groups which would respond to the final instruments: teachers, school principals, school social workers, and social agency workers. The experience with the preliminary instruments produced the following actions: (1) The continuation of a five—place response, (2) The continuation of certain items in the final instrument, (3) Abandonment of any projective techniques for an instrument dependent upon face validity, and (A) An eXpansion of instruments beyond just a concern for tasks and personal qualities. 39 Community-School District Selections The City of Dearborn, City Of Flint, City Of Grand Rapids, and the City of Lansing School Districts were selected as the source of samples for this study for the following reasons: (1) (2) (3) (A) TO reduce the number of clearances necessitated by the new professional negotations legislation in Michigan, and thus render the study more feasible; To provide the number Of school social workers necessary for statistical analysis; To control for community variables as much as possible, and particularly for community size, so findings can be generalized for cities that size; and To control for school system variables, such as administrative organization, as much as possible. Dearborn, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Lansing comprised a group of cities having populations of 100,000 to 200,000. The 1967 Michigan Highway Commission census gave the following figures: Dearborn . . . . . . . . 112,007 Flint. . . . . . . . . . 196,9A0 Grand Rapids . . . . . . 202,007 Lansing. . . . . . . . . 120,03A The four cities wer all urban-industrial centers. All either contained or were served by comparable social A0 agencies, a component important as the group relevant to SSWs outside the school system. Each city had comparable urban problems such as aging sections of town, social mobility, and pockets of poverty. Dearborn differed some- what from the others in its proximity to metropolitan Detroit, but for purposes of this study it matched the other cities. The school district pOpulations were [approximation] as follows: Elementary Elementary Pupil Teachers Principals Membership Dearborn 550 25 22,500 Flint 1,000 36 A2,260 Grand Rapids 900 52 32,100 Lansing 900 45 30,250 Other school districts in Michigan were larger than Dear- born, but this study was more interested in controlling for city than for school district size because the SSW role was assumed to be very dependent upon community factors. As it was, the school districts had several common charac— teristics: (1) All were complex social organizations, (2) All had established and accepted SSW programs, (3) All were trying to increase their social service programs, and (A) All contained or had access to easily identified social agencies. Al Although mandatory professional negotiations in Michigan have occasionally made entry into school districts for research purposes more difficult, administration and teacher groups cleared this study quite rapidly, despite a teachers' strike in Dearborn during the study. This may be because the study had relevance for them and because findings were to be shared. Each district was first contacted by a letter accompanied by a summary of the study prOposal. This was followed by a telephone call, then a personal visit with a person designated by the super— intendent of each district. For statistical analysis, adequate numbers are crucial. Each of the cities employed at least eight SSWs and Grand Rapids had nineteen. The four cities, then, offered a potential of fifty SSWs. Interviews with School Social Workers Twelve school social workers in three cities were interviewed in the fall of 1967 in order to gain insights into their role. About twelve hours of taped conversation centering around five Open—ended questions resulted in data which was used to develOp relevant items for instrument schedules. The same basic structure was followed in each inter— view, but individual Observations were encouraged. The questions were used as follows: (1) (2) (3) (A) (5) The U2 What should be the functions and responsibilities of the school social worker? How should he carry out these functions and responsibilities? What professional and personal qualifications best equip the SSW to do these things? What conflicting eXpectations have you found to be held by teachers, principals, and agency workers? DO you experience incompatible expectations for your position? SSWs in Lansing and Dearborn tended to perceive the role of a SSW differently. There was greater emphasis upon a mental therapy role in Dearborn, with Lansing SSWs "keyed on teachers." This apparent basic difference provided a rationale for interviews in Grand Rapids. The following areas of agreement and disagreement were suggested by the interviews: Agreement among SSWs (l) (2) (3) (A) SSWs' eXpectations generally differ more in degree than kind; SSWs must try to satisfy many people in many different places; Teaching could be a helpful backgroun for a SSW; SSWs should keep children central to their work, but not necessarily by being with children; “3 (5) Flexibility and durability are essential qualities for a SSW; and (6) EXpectations of relevant groups are important for the SSW. Disagreement among SSWs (1) Teaching eXperience is a necessity; (2) Counseling is a primary function; (3) The SSW has an obligation to perform community service on his own time; (A) The SSW should always support the school; (5) The SSW should conform to his principal's wishes; (6) Improvement Of school performance is a primary SSW responsibility; and (7) The role of the SSW is clearly defined. Instruments The preliminary instrument had been develOped from the review of literature and tested before any interviews were scheduled; some of the original items were retained. Interviews with SSWs added insights into their role expec- tations. The validity of the instruments depended on their implications being clear to respondents. Several considerations provided a framework for developing self- administering instruments: (1) constructing "contrived" items, (2) relating of instruments to hypotheses, (3) organizing Of instruments into a "Segments" arrangement, AA (A) selecting a format for instruments, and (5) evaluating instruments. Questions on the final instruments were "contrived" items. That is, they were developed by combining questions and then generalizing in order to avoid responses condi- tioned by circumstances which respondents might conjure up (see the Format section for further discussion). The basic hypothesis was that groups differ in their eXpectations for the school social worker, particularly over the SSWs' influence, his role as a school person, and his role as a professional social worker. Five main hypotheses, some with sub-hypotheses, were formulated. Questions which related to certain hypotheses were grouped according to their apparent relevance to a hypothesis, in most cases in groups of ten items. Gross used a "segments" approach in his research into the expectations for school superintendents.l He organized questions into groups related to important areas Of the focal role; this approach assumes that eXpectations for a position are organized so that a role has internal organization by the nature of the concept of role. This study adOpted the role segments approach, but calls the 1 parts "sectors,' each sector directly applicable to a hypothesis. For example, Hypothesis Four is tested by the 1Gross, Op. cit., Appendix A. “5 twenty items in the fourth sector, Work Role of the SSW. These sectors provided a framework for all the relevant items which describe the role of the SSW. TABLE l.--The application of the instruments to hypotheses. Instrument Title Related Hypothesis The SSW as an Influential One (sub-hypothesis); Two; Person Three The SSW as a School One (sub-hypothesis); Two; Person Three The SSW as a Professional One (sub-hypothesis); Two; SW Three The Work Role of the SSW Two; Three; Four Training of the SSW Two; Three; Five Private Life of the SSW Two; Three; Four Attributes Of the SSW Two; Three Terms Descriptive of the SSW Two; Three SSW Perceptions of Expec- tations of Others None Three basic styles of information-getting were used. Sectors One through Six were a series of incomplete sentences. There were sixty-nine of these divided among six areas of the role. Sectors Seven and Eight were single words or simple phrases describing the SSW. A third group, of forty-one re—statements Of the previous two styles, was seen only by the SSWs and used to find out what SSWs thought the other groups would expect from them. The first six instruments were similar in form and in derivation. U6 All were develOped from interviews with the SSWs and from insights into school social work learned from the review of literature and the testing of the preliminary instru- ment. The last two instruments, "Attributes" and "Terms Descriptive of the SSW," were based upon the symbolic interactionist VieWpoint that words are important determin- ants Of expectation. For instance, how far a SSW is expected to be an "Initiator" is relevant to understanding how independent or aggressive others want him to be. Perceptions of Expectations of Others These instruments revealed the eXpectations of teachers, principals and agency workers as well as the position definitions of SSWS. But since role theory said that perceptions of expectations are critical to a role, perceptions of the SSWs of relevant groups' expectations were examined by their responses to forty-one items drawn from the other instruments. During interviews, school social workers would not react to the scale ranging from "Definitely should" to "Definitely should not" on how they perceived the others' expectations, but they would respond to generalizations about groups. SO different choices were developed for this instrument; they paralleled the scale and were interpreted in the analysis as equivalents. School social workers responded to this scale of choices on their perceptions Of others' expectations: 147 Agency workers 1. Never expect the SSW to or 2. Seldom eXpect the SSW to Principals 3. As Often as not expect or the SSW to Teachers A. Usually eXpect the SSW to 5. Always expect the SSW to Instruments used in this study may be found in Appendix B. Five sectors for the SSW role were on a single page each; three sectors needed two pages each. All instru- ments had the same format, including a sector heading (in capital letters), a general question to prepare the respon- dent, items, and the scale for responses. The heading was deliberately emphasized so that respondents would recognize the role sector being investigated. General questions were designed to elaborate on implications of the sector for the role Of the SSW. The five—place normative scale Offered preferential, mandatory, and neutral levels of choice. The illustration shows the heading for one Of the instruments. THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER AS A SCHOOL PERSON The School Social Worker QUESTION: "How closely should Definitely should not... the School Social Probably should not... Worker be connected May or may not... with the school and Probably should... education?" Definitely should... m+> +> % H o o H a): >5: >. O 4-) H 4—) c—t 4—) HO no no on HU CH «he on ma CH «4:3 .05 .023 w-I'J L40 0 o >.> c>o L40 a): £43 «so ;.3 0): mm Cum SE 04m DU) have been a teacher. I Figure 2.--Typica1 Format Heading. A8 Instructipns to Respondents Each respondent received a letter from the Michigan State University College of Education explaining the pur- pose Of the instruments and encouraging participation. Three letters were developed: one for teachers and prin— cipals; one for agency social workers; and a third for SSWS. Instructions on how to complete the instruments preceded the first instrument and followed Personal Data forms. Demographic Data A three-page personal data section collected relevant information about the study sample, such as age, sex, academic degree, and other related data. Different groups were assigned colors for easy identification. Names Of "significant professors Of social work" were filled in on the Personal Data section by School Social Workers; these provided the information necessary to test the fifth hypothesis. Cover letters, personal data forms, instruc- tion forms, and all instruments are included in Appendix B. Before the instruments were distributed, individuals representative of the sample were asked to examine the instruments. Suggestions were accepted for improving clarity Of the items. The instruments were not Open-ended. They asked for "recognition" and not "recall" from the sample. While this ran the risk of stereotyping school social workers, Open- ended instruments would have yielded a "mass of idiosyncratic A9 responses."2 This increase in content yield from the samples would have cost methodological rigor and greatly complicated analysis. Selection of the Sample Groups and Dissemination Of Instruments Three groups were relevant others for the SSWs: teachers, principals, and agency social workers. Their expectations for the SSW were studied with the random sampling technique. Four cities were involved. Elementary teachers and principals were selected for this study because SSWs work most often at the elementary school level. All teachers and principals in each school district's 1966-1967 School Directory, up-dated by the districts, formed the population from which a sample was drawn through use of a Random Table of Numbers.3 Agency social workers in six social agencies in each of the four cities were selected to participate by their directors. Each agency director was mailed two question- naires and requested to give them to workers in his agency. Six social agencies were involved: Catholic Social Services, Child Guidance Clinic, the Probate Court, Family Service Agency, the Social Services Department for the county, and the YMCA (Youth Division). 2Pierre VanDenBergh, "Commentary on Checklists versus Open-Ended Questions," Social Forces, Vol. AA (March, 1966), p. A18. ' 3John Freund, Modern Elementary Statistics (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 39A. 50 The questionnaires were self-administering and, since the sample was widely dispersed throughout four large cities, they were mailed and collected through school mail. School district Officials had discussed the study with principals and presumably principals had informed their teachers. SSWs were consulted through the inter- views. Instruments were in the hands Of the samples by early November. Participation by teachers and principals was satis- factory so that a follow-up was made in only one school district. Agency social workers received instruments from their agency director along with stamped, self- addressed envelopes. But telephone calls and letters were required to get good participation. Final participation for the samples was as follows: teachers—-63%; principals-- 85%; agency social workers--69%; and SSWs-—80%. TABLE 2.—-Participants by cities. City Teachers Principals Agency SW SSW Total Dearborn A2 9 7 6 6A Flint A2 11 IO 8 71 Grand Rapids 31 1A 9 16 70 Lansing 31 13 8 12 6A Totals 1A6 A7 3A A2 269 Characteristics of the samples are included in Appendix A. 51 Operational Concepts This study sought to find levels of agreement and difference within each group, and among groups, over ex- pectations for school social workers. It also wanted to determine the accuracy of SSW's perceptions for other's expectations. Both the extent of variance for each group along a scale of responses and the central tendency for thetgroup at one place along the scale were considered. The significance of differences both within groups and among groups was determined statistically, according to the following Operational concepts: (1) consensus, (2) divergence, (3) convergence, (A) "strain" for convergence or divergence, (5) lack of disagreement, and (6) differ- ence of vieWpoint. Consensus, a primary consideration of within-group agreement, was defined by Gross as "empirically evident agreement" among peOple." In this study, the median variance for all groups across all items was the cutting score for consensus. Thus, a group with a variance of .80 or less was said to reach consensus. This was the strictest test for consensus. Divergence was an Observation of statistically sig- nificant differences between SSWs and a relevant group when both groups had reached consensus. In practice the "F" test was non—significant and the "T" test was signifi- cant; the probability level used was .025. uGross, Op. cit., p. 28. 52 Convergence was an Observation of no difference be— tween SSWs and a relevant group when both had reached consensus. Operationally, neither the "F" nor the "T" tests were statistically significant, P = .025. Although the normal probability level for acceptance is .05, the numerous "T" tests for Divergence and Conver- gence, resulting from comparing the three counter-positions to the focal position on 123 items, increases chance differences. An increase in the acceptance level decreases differences due to chance. "Strain" implied a tendency for school social workers and another group with consensus to approach significant levels of convergence or divergence. In Operation, strain for convergence occurred when the "F" test was significant and the "T" was not. This implied no difference in the central tendency, but in the magnitude of variance. Strain for divergence occurred when both the "F" and "T" tests were significant, implying real differences in central tendency and variance magnitude. "Strain" was a concept only for purposes of descrip- tion in this study. Observation of the data showed significant "F" tests with low magnitude could be ignored for the consensus groups; that is, an "F" of 3 or A was statistically acceptable. Strain was thus interpreted as true convergence or divergence. Lack Of agreement was absence Of consensus in either group. That is, group members failed to agree on 53 expectation, and no decision about convergence or diver— gence was possible. Difference of viewpoint was absence of consensus for one group and consensus for the other on expectations; either SSWs or a counter group failed to agree. One group had a VieWpOint, but no decision about convergence or divergence was possible. Statistical Tests The response scale could be interpreted as an interval measure and randomness was maintained in sampling. Therefore, data could be analyzed with parametric tests. The "T" test was selected as the best measure to detect significant differences in the mean averages of SSWs and relevant others. The "F" test gave variances for each group according to two important indices: (1) the accept- ability of the "T" test and (2) the measure on which to decide if the group had reached consensus. Two non— parametric tests were also used: the Sign Test for hypothesis testing, and chi squares to verify "rules of thumb" for the parametric tests. Summary Self-administering instruments for studying expecta- tions for school social workers were developed in these steps: (1) testing of a preliminary instrument, (2) interviews with SSWs to develOp further understanding of 5A their role, (3) construction of several instruments built around the idea that a role is organized by its nature into parts, and (A) evaluation of the instruments with individuals. The cities were selected for research on the basis of their relatively common characteristics. Two groups relevant for the SSW in the school system were selected as the within-system counter—positions, and one group outside the school system served as a third counter- position. The sample for these positions was randomly— chosen: teachers and principals from the school director— ies and agency social workers by their agency heads. Schools cooperated well in distributing and collecting instruments and also in preparing the faculty for partici- pation. The total response was about 70%. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose Of this chapter is to test hypotheses and suggest some answers tO the questions from the first chapter; and as well to show how factors about the samples help explain their responses. Evidence that All Data Came From the Same Universe ' Expectations held for the school social worker (SSW) by teachers, principals, and agency workers, as well as the position—definitions of SSWs in four cities were investigated in this study. Since it could not be assumed that the expectations in the four cities were similar, the groups from each city were tested to see if they came from the same universe. Within—group differences could not be measured with usual standard tests of differences because there were too few in the samples; so means and variances were compared. This comparison revealed that only five items (illus- trated in Appendix Table 0-1) resulted in extreme differ- ences among city samples; that is, respondents in one city replied "Probably should" while another replied "Probably should not." Since there were 123 items and four groups involved, to be significant, differences should have 55 56 appeared about 25 times; however, since only five occasions Of directional difference were found, it was clear that the groups by city held similar expectations for the SSW and could be studied as if all groups came from the same universe. The importance Of this was that it supported the assumption implicit in this study that there were similar expectations within similar groups in different cities, and also provided groups sufficiently large for testing with conventional statistical tests. Nature Of the Samples Demographic data about the samples-—such information as age, sex, and teaching experience--were collected by forms accompanying the instruments, because such personal information can be relevant in analyzing the responses of groups or individuals. Random sampling produced samples with the following characteristics: one—half of the total samples had masters' degrees and one—half (not necessarily the same individuals) worked in inner-city schools while most school personnel were experienced in teaching and about 90 per cent of the members of the samples responded that they had given at least some thought to school social work although few teachers or principals had had any formal edu— cation about it. Since differences between groups were particularly important in this study, special characteristics of each 57 group should be understood. The agency workers had little teaching experience and less professional work experience than the others, but had the most formal education and the largest proportion of men. They constituted the youngest group, as well. Principals had the most administrative experience and had worked the longest in a particular city, were the oldest group and were more familiar with school social work than teachers or agency workers. Teachers had the least formal education and the largest proportion Of women; and were the least well-acquainted with SSWs. The SSWs alone held twin professional association memberships, in the disciplines of education and social work. Such dif— ferences among groups suggested sources of difference in expectations for SSWs. Appendix A contains thirteen tables, Tables A-l through A—l3, on such factors for the samples. Hypothesis Testing Several hypotheses were developed for this study to test whether or not the various groups held differing expectations for the SSW. The first of these was: Hypothesis 1: There will be differences between the SSWs' position-definitions and others' expectations. Sub—hypothesis l-l: School social workers will differ from teachers on the influence of the SSW. That is, SSWs will perceive themselves more as persons who should be influential. This first sub-hypothesis, l-l, based on the theory that sub—system members——like SSWs in the school system-- 58 will have greater aspirations for their group's influence than others will, was tested with ten items concerned with the independence and power of the SSW. Table 3 shows that the teacher group means were lower than those of the SSW group means on nine of ten items, and thus the SSWs did expect to be more influential, supporting the hypothesis at the .01 level Of probability. It should be noted that teachers reached consensus only three times on this sector; twice they diverged from the SSWs. This lack of consensus among the teachers can be explained in part by their unfamiliarity with SSWs and school social work, a factor contributing to other disagreements among teachers. Another important observation is that SSWs'agreement on their influence was exceeded only by their agreement on desirable attributes, a point to be discussed further in Chapter V. Sub—hypothesis 1—2: School social workers will differ from principals on their role as a school person. That is, principals will expect SSWs to be agents of the school more than SSWs will. Sub-hypothesis 1-2 was based on the idea that princi- pals expected SSWs to be loyal to the school and involved in its affairs since, as administrative officials, they perceived SSWs as primarily school employees, not social workers. And it was further theorized that SSWs would be divided in their loyalty between the school and social work and would thus define their positions as more independent Of the school. 59 .Awmma “>CMQEOO xoom Haamlzmpoofi *Aomoe creme .sofiafioooooo co Ho>ofi Ho. “anw 3ozv mOHpmempm oanpoempmmcoz .HomOHm hospfim * Ora um pcmOHchwflm mH soar; oa\m Nata mHmmnpoamm Op mcHOLOOom mapoopnoo OOpOHUOLQ mm: Oocopmemwp mo COHOOOLHO map QOch Log mEOOH on» go COflppooonm + mm.m wza Hm.: m: mOOpOfiEEOO opflzlmumom mo nonEoE m on .oa . cm.m can m:.: m: xeo: one be ooma>coozm on .m + mw.m wad m:.m m: mnmppme emmpm cfl HOOHOCflLQ Oh» you :OHpoOpflp OEOm OOH>OLQ .m + :2.: @3H mm.: m: mOOH>pOm Hmfioom Hoocom 3m: mo SCOSQOHO>OO CH COflpmnpchHEOm an Umpasmcoo on .5 + mo.m 02H mm.: m: OOHOmOHuHOOe 83H3OHLLOO mumeHcH game .m .Hoogom one CH seamen Hmpcoe psonm + m:.: @3H om.: m: mcofipmmso CH compoq Oopsomon m mm OONchOOOL on .m mommo + om.m 03H 03.: m: wcflmOHo pcm mcflcooo Ozoom Ocoewpzm Hmcflm on» ome .z + em.e one mm.: m: cocoaaco oo tomato on 30: mo mosoflcnoou wcfl>ondefl CH mLOQOmOp pmflmmm .m + mm.m oza Hm.: m: >OHHOQ Hoonom no OcmEQOHO>OO on» CH OOpCOmOLQOL on .m + wo.: @:H mm.: m: coapmNHcmmpo Hoonom CHQOH3.OHOL HmfipcosHmcfl cm paoz .H . . . pasonm poxno: Hmfioom Hoonom one AIV zapOOLLOOcH no BM 92 mM m2 A+V manomppoo OOpOflpOpm mcoaoacaeoo coaoemoo Ame .COmLmQ HmHOCOSHmcfi cm mm 3mm on» now .mnoxpoz Hmfloom Hoonom cam mCOfipmpooqu ARV Locommp go comHanEOolt.m mqmod we. OCO pm Ocmoamficwam mfl COHCz oa\> "NIH mHmOCOommm Op mcfippooom zapooppoo UOpOfiOOCQ mm: mOoCOCOCCHO CO COHOOOCHO OCO COHC3 Com mEOpH OCO no COHOCOQOCm + 2:.H we mm.H m: mamow xpoz Hmfioom Coax mpOHHCCOO on an Hoocom one no accomoaaco oco cocoon .om + mm.H w: :w.a m: soccenoqu xnozommO CCOCpfiz COOmCOmHCHEOm Cw >9 OOmH>COQ3m on .ma + mm.m m: mm.m m: mCOCOmOp Op warehouse HmCOHpospmeH OCOeEOOOC .wa I m:.m N: Hm.: m: OOH>Cmm coopHEEOO >2 Coeooznpmcfl CO pCOsO>OCQEH CH pmflmmm .NH + mm.m w: m:.m m: COCommp m Comp O>MC .0H + mo.: 5: m:.m m: . mpCOCmQ Cpfiz mCOHmmsomfiO CH HOOCOm me upooasw mszHm .ma I mm.: 5: mm.: m: mpCosaoHo>OO HmCOHpmospo pCOOOC Co pmmopnm aomx .:H + zm.m n: mm.m m: COHpmosOm CH COfipmospO HmECOC was CO pmoE O>mC .ma + mm.: m: mm.m m: ApomCOCOOV OCOeOOCw< Locum: OCO CH OopsaoCH on .ma I 00.: m: Hm.: m: ozonw HmCOHmmOCOCO COCOmmO Hmooa oCu Op wCOHOQ .HH . . . OHCOCm Coxaoz Hmfioom HOOCom OCH AIvzapomCCOOCH Co mm m2 wk m2 A+V mapoopnoo OOOOHOOCm .COmCOQ HOOCom m mm 3mm OCp Com mCOHpHCHmOO Coapfimoa Amv .mpmxpoz Hmfloom HooCom OCm mCOHpmpoooxo Amv HmQa0CHLQ CO ComfimeEooII.: mqmoa mo. one on scooaeacman ma cone; oaxm "mIH menocooozr oo mcaoboooo mapooppoo pOpOHOOCQ mm; mooCmCOCCHO mo COHBOOCHO OCp CoaCB Com mEOpfi OCp CO COflpCoqonm + em.m em :H.: m: oacmtoonon coo xcoz Heaoom co mHoocom oo coco .om + mm.: :m om.: m: 3C0: Hmfloom CH Copmmmon no pmmmpnm oomx .mm + 05.: :m mm.: m: mmHHaEmm umwmmm Op moopsommn 5pHC5EEOO COCOO O>HO>CH .mm + mo.m :m Hm.m m: COCOHflCO CO mEOHOOCO ECbuImCOH .O>HmCOOCH oapcms .5m 0 wo.m em 5m.m m: ocooson o no OOCHmw mep OComop cocoanoaxm 5oCme HmHOOm m>mC .mm + H:.: 3m 05.: m: mCOHmwsomHo OCOCGOCC CmCOCCp wOHoComm Cpflz hammoao xpoz .mm + ::.m :m mm.m m: OmHQmCOCO COHmOC HmuCOe m mm COHuosz mmEHpoEom .2m + mm.m 3m mm.m m: HOOO COnmE mHC mm Comopqom xCOZmeo OCp COOHmCOO .mm I om.: cm mm.: m: Coapwfloomwm HmCoammOCOCQ xCoz Hwfloom . OCp mo 5HHmOOH ammoa pm Coneoe O>Hpom Co on .mm + . 52.: :m mm.: m: mpoxCoz zoCmmm HmHOOm mp Como m mm OONHCwOOOC on .Hm . . . OHCOCm Coxpoz Hmfloom HooCom OCB AIV mapOOCCOoCH CO < <: m m. A+v manompeoo COCOHOOCC .Coxpoz HmHOOm HmCOHmmOMOCQ m mm 3mm one now mCOHpHCHmOO Cofipflmoo Amv .mCOxC03 HmHoom HooCom pcm mCoaudpoong AC p OI r10 CS4 C o we) Q)O o cs 04.: 43 Sector 6 8% £38 8 2 0:0 94m In 1. SSW as an influential person 10 8 80% 2 2. SSW as a school person 10 A A0 5.5 3. SSW as a professional social worker 10 7 70 3 A. Work role of the SSW 20 7 35 7 5. Training of the SSW 10 A A0 5.5 6. Private life of the SSW 9 A AA A 7. Attributes Of the SSW 28 23 82 8. Terms descriptive of the SSW 26 7 27 8 third, disagreement among SSWs perhaps indicated that training and experience might not be significant to how individuals defined what should be done in a position. Hypothesis 5: Expectations of professors of social work and the position—definitions of their students who consider them "significant" will converge. That is, a professor of social work is a "significant other" who is responsible for the perceptions of social work students. The last hypothesis to be developed for this study resulted from the concept of Mead that for each of us there 68 O O O l are "Significant others" and the belief of Maple that professors have a decisive impact upon the thoughts of social work students. The procedure employed in testing this hypothesis involved the comparison Of expectations Of professors of social work identified as "significant others" with the self-definitions of their former students who named them. Twenty—five items selected by Professor Mary Taylor of the School of Social Work, University of Michigan, as mandatory expectations ("Definitely should") were compared with responses Of six SSWs from the same city who had named her as their most significant professor. In addition, twenty— four items selected by Dr. Myrtle Reul, formerly of the Michigan State University School of Social Work, as mandatory expectations were compared with six former students who named her their most significant professor. All twelve of the SSWs who were selected worked in the same city. The criteria for convergence between the students and professor was that all students agree with their professor's responses, at least in direction of viewpoint. A Sign Test was used to determine levels of probability (see Appendix Table 0—3), and although Taylor's responses converged with students 17 out of 25 times, which was significant at a probability level of .05, Reul's responses converged with students' expectations only 10 out of 2A times (which was lMead, o . cit. 69 significant at a probability level Of .27): just one of the two professors converged in their expectations with their students' definitions at an acceptable level of sig— nificance. Thus the hypothesis was rejected, since both professors should have been demonstrably influential on the responses Of their students to clearly support the hypothesis. This suggests that other reference groups may be more significant to the SSWs in defining their position. This possibility is discussed further in Conclusions, Chapter V. Responses to Questions In addition to the formal research hypotheses, some questions were developed for investigation which were not based on theoretical grounds. The data collected might illuminate them and help in further understanding the SSW role. Agreement Between SSWs' Perceived Expectations and the Actual Expectations Of Others The degree of agreement between SSWs' definition of their position and others' expectations depends in part on how accurately SSWs perceive the expectations of others. Their perceptions Of others' expectations were collected with the instrument Perceptions Of Expectations of Others (shown in Appendix B), which was composed Of Al selected items from the basic instruments. 70 Responses of SSWs to this instrument were compared to actual expectations Of teachers, principals, and agency workers. The median variance for all expectations for the items as well as perceptions of SSWs, .85, was used as the "cutting score" to determine consensus. Earlier it was explained that when one group reached consensus while another group did not on the same item it was called "dif- ference of vieWpOint." When neither group reached consensus it was called "lack of agreement." Since the SSWs' per— ceptions Of expectations sometimes fell short Of consensus while others reached consensus on their expectations for the SSW, or SSWs reached consensus and others did not, dif- ference Of viewpoint occurred A2% of the time when comparing responses on the instrument. "Lack of agreement," that is, neither SSWs nor a counter—group reaching consensus on an item occurred 3A times. Convergence or divergence occurred in only 37 comparisons since tests of difference between groups assumed both reached consesus. Table 7 shows the incidence Of agreement of SSWs' perceptions, as well as enumerating results of other comparisons, with others' actual expectations. Analysis of differences Of VieWpOint showed whether the SSWs or the counter—groups did not reach consensus. Teachers did not reach consensus 13 times while SSWs did not agree on three of the 16 items. Thus there were differences of viewpoint between teachers and SSWS. Agency workers did not reach consensus 1A times, while SSWs did 71 TABLE 7.--Results of comparing school social workers' perceptions Of expectations with others' actual expecta- tions. (N=Al). Agency Teacher Principal Worker Total Convergence 5 8 3 l6 Divergence 7 9 5 21 Difference Of Viewpoint 16 15 21 52 Lack of Agreement 13 9 12 3A TOTAL Al Al A1 123 not do so on seven items. Again there were several cases of difference of viewpoint between agency workers and SSWs. In other words, SSWs agreed in their perceptions Of others' expectations more Often than others reached consensus. Although SSWs were more accurate in perceiving expectations Of principals, they still made frequent errors. All of this indicates that SSWs agreed on what others would expect while the eXpectations of others varied. In addition, the responses of SSWs on their percep- tions of expectations suggested they had three views: first, SSWs perceived and tried to fulfill expectations of others (e.g., SSWs responded that they "May or may not always support the school in discussions with parents" and they also perceived this was expected); second, some views held by SSWs were important enough to them that they held views 72 even though they believed others held divergent expecta- tions (e.g., they defined teaching as an Optional back- ground although they perceived that principals expected teaching experience); and, third, some views-—actually a lack of view——ref1ected the ambiguity which SSWs faced because of the variations in others' expectations. This is represented by frequent cases of lack of agreement. An improtant tendency of SSWs (see Appendix Table C-A) was under—estimating agency workers' responses about them as professional social workers and also overestimating teachers' responses for their private life. Although the interviews with SSWs revealed that they took pride in their ability to "sense out" situations, including expectations, they appeared in this study to make many mistakes. Models Of differences between SSWs' perceptions of expectations and actual expectations Of teachers, principals, and agency workers (shown in Appendix Table 0-5) indicate some serious misperceptions, sometimes contradicting actual expectations. Firm Definitions on Characteristics of the SSW Role In view of the low level of consensus among groups and the proportion of items on which SSWs converged with ‘ others' expectations, it is important to know on what functions or characteristics there was a firm definition of the SSW position. Principals reached consensus most often (79 times or 32% Of all cases of consensus of the 250 total cases of 73 consensus). They particularly agreed on four sectors (as shown in Appendix Table 0-2): the SSW as a professional social worker, Training of the SSW, Attributes of the SSW, and Terms Descriptive Of the SSW--the latter two at a .01 level Of significance. And thus principals not only expected a SSW to be a professional social worker, but agreed on how he should be trained, qualities he should have, and appropriate terms for him. However, principals seldom reached consensus at a mandatory ("Definitely") level; that is, they generally held only "preferred" expectations. This is important since a "preferred stand- ard" allows an actor "an escape clause"; that is, principals did not think SSWs must fulfill their eXpectations or be penalized.2 During the interviews, SSWs said that the principals expected them to be many different things. Their comments were verified in this study where principals agreed on "May or may not" responses on five items and "Probably should" on 1A items in the Descriptive Terms sector. Teachers reached a significant degree Of their con- sensus in their expectations for the SSW on two sectors: the SSW as a professional social worker and the Attributes sector. They responded most often that the SSW "Probably should" be a social worker. Their responses to the Attributes items were much like those Of all others. And, 2Gross, op. cit.; and Charters, Op. cit. 7A as mentioned, teachers reached consensus only AA% Of the time; which accounted for only about 21% of all cases of consensus (5A of 250 cases). Consensus for a sector was achieved least Often by agency workers. They agreed significantly only on the attributes desirable for a SSW. And their incidence of consensus, 53, accounted for only about 21% Of all cases of consensus. Agency workers' unusually low agreement (only once) on two sectors——the SSW as a school person and Training Of the SSW--was indicative of considerable varia- tion in expectations among them (see Appendix Tables 0—6-2 and 0—6-5) and resulted in very high variances. An item—analysis showed that certain professional social work characteristics were generally expected of SSWs by teachers and principals: to work closely with the agencies, to use other community resources, to have had agency experience, and to keep abreast of research in social work while maintaining social work association and university contacts. These expectations quite clearly showed that the SSWs were expected to be social workers. In addition, all groups expected SSWs to keep abreast of recent educational developments. These expectations seemed to indicate broadly the expected orientations and associa- tions of SSWs; there was far less agreement on the actual work role or functions of SSWs. Of the twenty specific Work Role items, groups could be said to agree on only these: bring people together, help make summer service 75 available, may or may not meet parents at the office, and may or may not use the groupwork approach. And in the Training of the SSW sector, consensus was that training probably should emphasize real-life experiences. It was stated in Chapter II that SSWs faced problems of a teacher-or-social worker paradox, as well as of the sources Of leadership. NO consensus was reached in this study on the academic degree nor the type of immediate supervision a SSW should have; however, there was a tendency to emphasize social work leadership. For instance, most groups agreed that "SSWs probably should turn to the Schools of Social Work for leadership." Consensus was almost never reached about the SSW in a reformer or active leader role, even though this is suggested by some professors of social work. From eight items which were related to a reformer role for SSWs (shown as Items 6, 17, AA, A5, A9, 67, 68, and 69 in Appendix Table 0-6), only two, dealing with the SSWs' private life, achieved some consensus among the samples. Thus, this aspect of the role was not clear even among the SSWs, perhaps because aggressive leadership is a new aspect Of the role, one which many SSWs do not recognize. Norms may be defined as expected standards of behavior in a system. For the SSWs there seemed to be two kinds of norms, mandatory and optional, which provided some firm definition for their role: mandatory expectations eliminate "an escape clause" for the SSWs, and optional norms which said SSWs "May or may not" placed no limitations on them. 76 All groups reached consensus at the mandatory level on a few items, but on seven items they converged and indicated that the SSW "Definitely should" (1) keep abreast Of research in social work, (2) be efficient, (3) be flexible, (A) be insightful, (5) be open-minded, (6) be warm, and (7) be tactful. There were five items on which all groups converged and said the SSW "May or may not" (1) be female, (2) be married, (3) be a Negro, (A) be over A0, or (5) be under 30. Theoretically, the SSWs could be said to be integrated into the school system to the extent that these expectations were institutionalized by consensus and con- vergence among groups.3 On three items, important for the SSWs' future behav— ior, SSWs were the only group members reaching consensus; the SSW probably should (1) make the final judgment about opening and closing cases, (2) help initiate curriculum modification, and (3) assist in the improvement of instruc— tion through committee service. Since these items imply a change-agent role as well as a decision-making one, the SSWs may perceive themselves emerging into the historical role of social workers as reformers. Convergence—Divergence in this Study The third question in this study asked what areas Of the SSW role revealed most convergence. That is, on what functions or characteristics of the SSW is there firm agree- ment among all groups? Since consensus and convergence were 3Parsons, Op. cit. 77 closely related, some cases of convergence——such as on several attributes for the SSW--were already discussed. Convergence or divergence on an item was usually between the SSW group and only one counter-group. For instance (in Appendix Table 0—6—1), only agency workers converged in their expectations with the SSWs' definition that "the SSW should hold an influential role in school organization," while only principals' expectations converged with the SSWs' definitions that "SSWs should assist teachers in improving techniques of how to relate to children." And only teachers diverged from SSWs on Item 26, "The SSW should have social agency experience." Such SSW-single group responses were not useful in developing a broad understanding of the SSW position, but nevertheless their implications are discussed in Conclusions, Chapter V. Both teachers' and principals' expectations converged with SSWs' position definitions for desirable attributes; however only at a .10 level of probability. That is, there were 10 in 100 chances that the similarities between teachers', principals', and SSWs' responses were by chance. Agency workers' eXpectations for desirable attributes for SSWs, on the other hand, converged with SSWs' definitions at a high acceptance level. Divergence never occurred between SSWs' definitions and the expectations Of any counter—group. Appendix Tables 0-7 and 0-8 show the scarcity of convergence and divergence by sector between the defini— tions by SSWs for their position and others' expectations. 78 Thus demonstrating that except for the words contained in the Attributes and Terms sectors, common standards of expectation for SSWs among groups were hard to find. An item-analysis of convergence—divergence revealed convergence occurred 118 times, or about 30% of the time for all items. Divergence occurred only 2A times between SSWs' definitions for their positions and expectations of teachers, principals, or agency workers. Teachers' expecta— tions diverged most often; 12% of their responses. They most sharply diverged in their expectations from SSWs' definitions on two items: SSWs should serve as resource persons to parent groups and SSWs should participate in community activities more than most citizens. Principals' expectations diverged most from SSWs' definitions that a SSW should have been a teacher. And agency workers diverged most in their expectations that SSWs generally not emphasize a child's psychological makeup more than his social relation- ships. All Of these and other items Of divergence are illustrated in Appendix Table 0-10. Since any test of convergence-divergence required both groups being tested had reached consensus, almost two- thirds of all items comparing the SSWs' position definitions with others' expectations were not tested, and, therefore, two—thirds of the time no conclusions beyond a lack of agreement or a difference in viewpoint (when one group reached consensus) between a group and the SSWs could be reached. SO lack Of clarity in others and accompanying 79 ambiguity for SSWs emerged as more characteristic of the SSW role than differences in expectations, as was antici— pated. Some general conclusions about the expectations and their implications for the SSW role will be discussed in Chapter V. Differences Between School Districts The question, "Are there differences between school districts for sectors Of the SSW role?" was answered in the discussion at the beginning of this chapter: only four or five cases of directional difference were found within groups by city. SO school districts were markedly similar in their expectations and the SSWs held similar definitions of their positions. There were some differences among agency workers: on some items-—particularly relating to SSWs as professional social workers—~some cities held higher expectations for the SSW. Agreement Among Trainers of SSWs The question of whether directors of training for SSWs agree among themselves was asked with the implication that if so, it might be likely that social workers leaving different institutions have similar perceptions for their roles. In response to the instruments testing Hypothesis 5, Professors Taylor and Reul agreed on 18 of 2A items. That proportion Of agreement reaches a statistical probability A/_ 80 level of .05" and so the question of whether trainers of SSWs agreed was answered in the affirmative. Since Professors Reul and Taylor were at different state institutions and agreed in their expectations for SSWs, it is suggested that SSWs leaving different institu- tions could have similar perceptions for their role. That is, attendance at one institution does not necessarily mean that students of social work were exposed to professors with different viewpoints from those at another institution. How Maerresent Role Theory Assist in Clarifying the Definition of Position for the SSW? What contributions and insights can be made to under- standing the SSW position by applying role theory? This final question suggested in this study will be implicit to the conclusions reached in Chapter V. It seemed apparent that theory would be useful. "Siegel, op. cit., p. 250. CHAPTER V FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS An investigation was made, in communities with popu- lations between 100,000 and 200,000, into the expectations held by elementary school teachers, principals, and com- munity social agency workers for the school social worker (SSW). In addition, the SSWs' position definitions and their perceptions of others' expectations were investigated. Differences in expectations between groups and the SSWs were found by testing hypotheses and questions. This chapter contains the findings and conclusions, as well as implications, for this study. Findings The study began with the assumption that expectations held for SSWs in the four cities included in the study were similar. This was found to be true. The central theme of the study--differences in expecta- tions for the SSW--was supported, although differences were never found to be crucial. That is, differences were a matter of degree not kind, with most expectations of teachers, principals, and agency workers held at a preferred ("Probably") level. 81 82 Principals reached consensus most often Of the groups; however, one—half Of their responses reaching consensus were on simple words or phrases. In spite of familiarity with SSWs, principals reached consensus on only conventional functions, expected considerable flexibility and leadership while also expecting SSWs to support the school and have a strong education background. Teachers' responses showed that they did not have a common conception Of the SSW position since they reached consensus only AA% of the time. They expected the SSW to give decisive, supportive service without influencing the instructional program; also eXpecting greater familiarity with professional education through experience and study than the SSWs thought. And, in general, teachers expected more service for more children. Since agency workers work outside the school system, their professional experiences were different from school personnel and thus their orientations were different. Although their expectations diverged from SSWs' position definitions least Often, agency workers did not agree among themselves on many items. Predominantly young men without teaching experience, they expected a mental health orienta- tion as well as proficiency in educational matters and interest in community service; however they did not expect SSWs to be oriented to individual-child service. The SSWs were predominantly expected to be professional social workers with accompanying rights and Obligations, and 83 although SSWs were confronted sometimes by views diverging from their own, by teachers, principals and agency workers, no case of directional difference (i.e., "Probably should" Opposed to "Probably should not") appeared; thus there were no clearly conflicting expectations. In fact, comparison of counter-groups' responses (teachers to principals, teachers to agency workers, and so on) indicated there were no observable cases of conflicting expectations. In spite of the aforementioned differences in expecta— tion, the most important finding about group expectations for the SSW seemed to be that there was often either no consensus within a group or convergence between the SSWs and all others only occasionally occurred, so that it is accurate to say that there was considerable variation in the expectations held for the SSW within each group. And, in turn, the SSWs Often did not perceive what was expected of them. SSWs felt that they should be influential and defined their position as a professional social caseworker. In common with the others, they agreed on many of the attributes expected of a SSW. More significantly, the SSWs agreed on non—stereotyped items more often than the others. SSWs placed great demands upon themselves. That is, their responses almost invariably were more extreme than others! Although the SSWs agreed more often on non—stereotyped items than the others, they seldom reached consensus on their work role. And thus they disagreed on their functions. 8A This finding contrasted with the statements of other writers that SSWs "see themselves performing traditional "1 and there was "high conformity of practice"2 among roles SSWs. Three things indicated that SSWs adapted to the school by perceiving and fulfilling expectations: their statements during interviews; their convergence with others' responses (suggesting that perhaps they made use of clues they perceived in others' actions); and their failure to reach consensus at the same time other groups did on 27 items. Yet comparison of actual expectations with SSWs' perceptions of them showed SSWs made some serious errors. Some of these mistakes are portrayed in Appendix Table 0—10, but a typical one is where SSWs tended to cluster at a "May or may not" level in how they thought others would respond to the item "The SSW should be recognized as a resource person in questions about mental health in the school." Meanwhile, all others actually reached consensus at a "Probably should" level. A discussion suggesting how SSWs approached their role will be offered in the Conclusions section. A final finding was the doubt raised that professors of social work were "significant others" for SSWs, at least at the time. This finding, taken with others in the study and insight from systems theory, suggested that teachers, principals, and agency workers-—as immediate others with L 1 Liddle, op. cit. 2 Maple, Op. cit. 85 whom SSWs interacted—-were significant in affecting how the SSWs defined their position. ConcluSions Groups held some common expectations for the attributes desirable for SSWs, but otherwise convergence of all groups seldom occurred. Since attributes were terms which could describe almost any idealized position in our culture, it was clear that there was a tendency for groups to stereotype the position to the limited extent that they knew it. There was no conflict found among groups, but variations in ex- pectations within groups were common. Thus SSWs did not need to be'selective of which group to satisfy, but rather had to accept the fact that there might be some dissatisfied persons within every counter-group. Certain observations help explain expectations. Principals, as previously mentioned, reached consensus on conventional functions of the SSW position while failing to agree on new, controversial aspects of the SSW work role. 3 that This finding, combined with the Olsens' observation doctors disagreed most on new functions for medical social workers, was not surprising. Resistance to change is not a new phenomena, but it is suggested that, theoretically, the assuming of more duties tends to increase the influence of a group while possibly diminishing the influence of another. 3 Olsens, Op. cit. 86 Both teachers and agency workers reached consensus less than one—half the time; however teachers knew few SSWs and little about social work while agency workers were familiar with SSWs and the field Of social work. These personal differences between the groups suggested that they reached consensus infrequently for different reasons: many teachers just did not know how to react to items while agency workers disagreed because they held differing opinions about the SSW. The rejection of Sub-hypothesis 1-2, suggesting that SSWs' definitions were similar to principals' expectations fOr them as school persons could, in turn, be explained by the "looking glass" conceptLl that although SSWs believed that they had indoctrinated principals to their position asia social worker, principals had perhaps also indoctri— nated SSWs to believe that they were school persons as well. A paradigm will be presented later to illustrate how SSWs shifted their position definitions. Institutionalization of a position infers that it is both accepted and established in a social system. The SSWs were institutionalized in the broad sense there were generally-held expectations, usually preferred and seldom mandatory; thus their position could be flexible. But while maintaining flexibility, SSWs were obliged to not go against expectations--according to their approach--in order "Cooley, op. cit. 87 to avoid conflict. Frequently, responses of groups resulted in no consensus, suggesting that SSWs could take the initiative in some areas for which they alone agreed; e.g., "serve on school committees" or "help initiate cur— riculum modification." Since no views were established, resistance in the form of group consensus was absent. Frequent group consensus at an optional ("May or may not") level and the many times no consensus was reached implied that there was often variation within groups in expectations for the SSW. Theoretically, variations are indicative of a changing role;5 and thus it is suggested that the SSW position was both varied and changing. On the sector "The SSW as a school person," SSWs responded as if they were school persons. On the sector "The SSW as a professional social worker," they responded as if they were social workers. These responses, taken with other findings, suggested that SSWs took three approaches: 'Agreeing with the school vieWpOint, Agreeing with the social work viewpoint, and Affecting a compromise. Findings suggested that compromise was the major SSW approach, however, from their responses to the two sectors just mentioned, SSWs appeared to shift their position definitions in order to adapt to conditions. This shifting-- 5Sarbin, op. cit. 88 a form of compartmentalizing their position—~15 illustrated in the paradigm below, Figure 3. . F I . Sector: The SSW as a school person ox. LIO (ix «IS 3 Social work School 3,, Viewpoint Viewpoint 3.3 was we gr, School SSWs' defined 5.2 Viewpoint position 0 "0H LIO 0:0 :38 Social Work SSWs' defined 3 Viewpoint position Fig. 3.—-Stance of the school social worker on social work or school viewpoints. The SSWs appeared to place great demands on themselves. This could be explained by two things: first, as suggested by Welsh,6 many SSWs failed to see that they had won their long struggle for acceptance in the schools (this was sup- ported in the present study by some erroneous perceptions of others' expectations) and, second——theoretically--the variations in expectations in this study and frequent 6Welsh, op. cit. 89 absence of consensus suggested SSWs were faced by ambiguity. A typical reaction to an ambiguous situation is anxiety. The SSWs may have expressed anxiety by setting high standards. The traditional psychoanalytic viewpoint of SSWs, arising from the field of social work, may be receding before more recent concerns of many in social work and the schools for action against urban poverty and illness. The apparent neutrality about the SSW as a therapist and an individual-centered person, accompanied by expectations for leadership, indicated that SSWs could take the initia— tive in new ways. For instance, a lack of consensus within other groups for items relating to a reformer role suggested SSWs could attempt to take that historical social work path; yet most SSWs limited their reform inclinations to inside- the-building activities. That is, SSWs failed to reach consensus on community—centered activities as part of their work role. Since most of the SSWs in this study were former teachers, it is suggested that many SSWs had inter— nalized a typical school viewpoint of restricting activities to the building and so could not be expected to take reform initiative outside the school. But, nevertheless, there appeared to be increasing interest among many SSWs in social and environmental factors to augment Old interests in a psychoanalytic approach and this could lead in time to more SSWs' interest outside the school. 9o Borrowing from a hypothesis in social psychology,7 it is suggested that a general pattern developed from the adaptive approach assumed by SSWs. At the beginning of social work in the schools, principals and teachers had few, if any, apriori expectations; they had only problems to be solved. Nevertheless, because of their psycho- analytic orientation and the recommendations of social work leaders, SSWs, most of whom were former teachers, looked for the expectations held by principals and teachers. They perceived troubled and maladjusted teachers and children, interpreted their problems in the light of ego psychology, and from this frame of reference perceived "needs" which could be transformed into expectations. Their position was thus defined by their perceptions of expectations, and they did what they thought was expected of them. Principals and teachers in turn assumed that what SSWs did was what they should do, and they accepted it, particularly if it produced positive results. The SSWs then perceiving acceptance by teachers and principals, and defined their position to maintain acceptance. This explanation of the SSWs' adaptation suggests that SSWs have defined their position by their perception of relevant groups' expectations; thus their activities as SSWs have depended more upon their immediate relations with relevant groups, such as teachers or principals, than upon any other reference groups. F 7 Brookover and Gottlieb, op. cit. 91 If immediate relevant others had most significance for what SSWs did, they may not necessarily have affected what the SSWs would liked to have done. The source of their idealized definitions is conjecture, but many responses of some SSWs coincided with views published by leading professors of social work. It is suggested that this is more than coincidence, and that SSWs were influenced by professors. From their agreement in response with others, as well as statements by some SSWs during the interviews, some SSWs may have accepted the expectations of immediate relevant others as equivalent to ideal definitions of their position. The tendency for SSWs to not reach consensus if others did not supported this notion. Responses of some SSWs that they defined their role ideally as one to help develop, even initiate, community action on the job, as well as to reform the school, con- trasted with Maple's viewpoint that SSWs had "a high con- formity of practice."8 If there was a high conformity, SSWs' responses in this study suggested that some were dissatisfied with it. And it is generally dissatisfaction which precedes a movement for change. Implications The SSW was best characterized as one from whom teachers, principals, and agency workers would prefer rather than demand selected performances or qualities. 8Maple, op. cit. 92 This provided an "escape clause" and thus position flex- ibility for theSSW. The SSW position was institutionalized to some extent, but variations and frequent lack of con- sensus for expectations, as well as the unfamiliarity with SSWs of many, indicated a lack of clarity for the position with accompanying poor integration into the school system. Even principals, who reached consensus most Often, stereo- typed the SSW. And thus SSWs faced the task of communi- cating to others more effectively about their position. But first they needed to reach consensus more Often in defining their position. The frequent perceptual errors by SSWs on what others expected indicated their adaptive approach was not satis— factory since not only were unexpected tasks performed, but, in addition, some SSWs were paying for them with their frustrations at not doing some things they preferred to do. ,//If SSWs are to make a significant contribution, they must be better integrated into the schools. Theoretically, this cannot happen until common standards are held by all groupsFFTSchool administrators have a responsibility to use resources effectively. Arranging the school organizational structure so that SSWs and teachers may engage in an improved dialogue will help develop common standards. If agency workers attended school system discussions on the expansion of social services, both the school and agency workers would profit. 93 One of the basic problems of school social work was whether SSWs should be considered teachers or social workers. If a SSW is expected to advise teachers on teach— ing or how to relate to children, he may need a teaching background; however, in this study he was generally expected to provide social services. And thus it seemed teaching experience was not a necessary prerequisite for the posi- tion. The SSWs in this study-—most of whom were former teachers——did not think so. A second basic problem, leadership for SSWs, should probably be resolved through employing a supervisor who can fully appreciate the dynamic aspects of a variable and changing position; perhaps a SSW would be most acceptable to the SSWs. Finally, it was suggested by one astute SSW during interviews that schools should analyze their operations in order to re-define roles and, if necessary, develop new ones. Existing IRCOPPS studies sought to do that for Pupil Personnel Services; this study attempted to further knowledge about the SSW position. Some more work could be done with the SSW position: for instance, effects of inner- city school placement may be relevant to position defini— tions and expectations. An investigation of whether SSWs perceive expectations of specific building staffscorrectly should also be done since it may be that pooling percep- tions--as done in this study-—obscured the real precision 9A with which a specific SSW perceives expectations. And it would assist school districts if guidelines could be developed to help them define their social service needs. BIBLIOGRAPHY 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bartlett, Harriet. Analyzing Social Work Practice. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1961. Biddle, Bruce. Present Status of Role Theopy. Volume 1. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1961. Brookover, Wilbur and Gottlieb, David. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book, 196A. Browning, Grace. Helping the Troubled Child. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1959. Cooley, Charles. Human Nature and the Social Order. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1956. Culbert, Jane. The Visiting Teacher at Work. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1929. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196A. Freund, John. Modern Elementary Statistics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1967. Gross, Neal, et a1. Exploration in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley, 1966. Hass, J. Eugene. Role Conception and Group_Consensus. Monograph 117. Columbus, Ohio: College of Commerce, Ohio State University, 1962. Homans, George. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1950. Johnson, Arlien. School Social Work: Its Contribution to Professional Education. New York: National Associa- tion of Social Workers, 1962. Kahn, Robert, et a1. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguipy. New York: John Wiley, 196A. Lubove, Roy. The Professional Altruist. Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1965. 96 97 Lynn, Kenneth (Editor). The Professions in America. Boston: Houghton-Miflin, 1965. Mead, George H. Mind478elf, and Society. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 193A. Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1951. Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward. Toward a Theory of Social Action. Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1951. Q Sarbin, Theodore. "Role Theory," Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume I. Gardner Lindzey (ed.). Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 195A. Siegel, Sidney. Non:parametric Statistics. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill, 1956. Strauss, Anselm (Editor). George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology. Chicago, Illinois: University Of Chicago Press, 196A. Stroup, Herbert. Social Work. New York: American Book, 19A8. Thibaut, J. W. and Kelley, H. Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley, 1959. Zetterburg, Hans. On Theory_and Verification in Sociology. Totowa, New Jersey: Bedminster Press, 1965. Articles Brookover, Wilbur. "Research on Teachers and Administrator Roles," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29 (September, 1955), pp. 2-13. Charters, W. W. "The School as a Social System," Review of Educational Researchi Volume 22 (1952), p. A1. Fisher, John. "Role Perceptions and Characteristics of Attendance Coordinators, Psychologists, and Social Workers." Reprint from Journal of International Association of Pupil Personnel Workers, March 1966. 98 Foskett, John and Wolcott, Henry. "Self Image and Community Images of the Elementary School Principal," Educational Administration Quarterly, Volume 3 (Spring, 1967), pp. 162-181. Maple, Frank. "The School Social Worker," Functions and Characteristics Of Selected Mid-West Pupil Personnel Workers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: IRCOPPS, 1967. Motz, Annabelle. "Role Conception Inventory," American Sociological Review, Volume 17 (August, 1952), p. A65. Olsen, Katherine and Olsen, Marvin. "Role Expectations and Perceptions for Social Workers in a Medical Setting," Social Work, Volume 12 (July, 1967), pp. 70-78. Pray, Kenneth. "Restatement of the Generic Principle of Social Casework Practice," Journal of Social Casework, Vol. 28, Number 8 (October, 19A7), pp. 283—285. Reissman, Leonard. "A Study of Role Conceptions in Bureau- cracy," Social Forces, Volume 27 (March, 19A9), pp. 305-310. Rowen, Robert. "Impact of Federal Legislation on School Social Work," Social Work, Volume 12 (April, 1967). Rushing, William. "Role Concept: Assumptions and Their Methodological Implications," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. A9, Number 1 (October, 196A), pp. A6-57. Turner, Ralph. "Role-Taking, Role Standpoint, and Reference Group Behavior," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, Number AA (January, 1956), pp. 315—328. Van Den Bergh, Pierre. "Commentary on Checklist versus Open-Ended Questions," Social Forces, Vol. AA, Number 3 (March, 1966), pp. A18—Al9. Vinter, Robert. "Malperformance in the Public Schools," Social Work, Volume 10 (January, 1965), p. 17. Pamphlets Bartlett, Lynn. The Michigan Visiting Teacher Program. Bulletin 3A2. Lansing: Michigan State Department of Education, 1963. Fusco, Gene. Organization and Administration of Pupil Personnel Programs. U. S. Office of Education Number 2301A. Washington, D. C.: Department of Health, Edu- cation and Welfare, 1961. 99 Lundberg, Horace. School Social Work. U. S. Office of Educa- tion Number 31007. Washington, D. C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 196A. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Scope of Pupil Personnel Services. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Unpublished Materials Costin, Lela. "Tasks of the School Social Worker." Progress report. Urbana, Illinois: IRCOPPS, 1967. Hourihan, Joseph. "Social Work in the Schools: New Develop- ments." Working paper. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University, 1965. Liddle, Gordon. "The School Social Worker as He Sees Himself and as He is Seen by His Colleagues." College Park, Illinois: IRCOPPS, 1965. Maple, Frank. "Functions of the Visiting Teacher in Michigan." Progress report. Ann Arbor, Michigan: IRCOPPS, 1966. Rowen, Robert. "The School Social Worker: An Analysis of Present Training Programs in Relationship to Job Functions." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 1960. Scott, Hugh. "A Descriptive Analysis of the Evolving Role of the School-Community Agenty in the Detroit Great Cities Improvement Project." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Snyder, Clinton. "Variations in Expectations for the Teacher Role: As Related to General and Specific Roles, Expec— tation Categories, and Social Distance." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Welsh, Betty. "Changing Role of the School Social Worker." Working paper. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University, 1966. APPENDICES lOO APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC DATA lOl 102 .mes OIm mom AHOmV em AHNNV me AHAHV m: Hem V mm AHHHV om Hnooe .mCH OIm H: AHNHV m AHNmV mH AHQNV mH AHOHV H AHAHV 5 3m Hoocom .os H Hm Hem V H Cam V H Ass V m AHHNV e AsecV mm stereos hoCOm< .mes mHIH A: AHONV mm AHHNV HH AH: V m Hem V H o mHnoHocHCd .mts mHIH oHH AHOHV mm AHNMV ea AaomV om Ass V HH 0 moocoeee mCOOw OCOOH mCOOw mCOOw OmOCO>< HOCOB mH CO>o mHI5 mIm NIH OCOz mOHQEOm OCp mo OoCOHCOQxO wCHCoOOBII.mI< MHm¢ Hmpoe mMmewo Ommww Ommmw mmmmw OCOz .COHCOCCOHCHEOO HOOCom CH mCmOMII.:IC mHmCB memos mHIH mom AmmmV mm AHHmV Hm AHNNV om AHMHV mm Hceoe mHIe been mmoH H: HHmNV NH AHHNV HH AHHmV OH AHONV m 3m Hoocom meets SIM Hm Hes V m HHHHV HH AHHNV m AaamV OH stereos moCOwH memos mH Coeo e: HHOAV mm AmmmV mH Hem V H o nHmoHocHed memos mHIH OHH ACHNV NH HemmV OH CHHNV HH AHNHV AH acocoeoe mCOOw mCmOw mCOOw mCOOw trance: Hnooe mH Coeo mHIH cIm mIH .szo pCOmOCQ CH pCOEHOHQEO Co mCOOwII.mI¢ mHmCOm mHHEmm u 4mm meHOOm HOCCOE Com COHpmHOOmm< HOCOHpOz u mzOQ ECHCOHCCCO OCO COHOH>COosm Com COHCOHOOOO< u mom< HCOCOHHCU HOCOHCOOOxm Co omo MCOHCOHOOOO< OoCOpHCo OCO HOCCOOCOm COOHCOE< n OCCOO COHpOHOOOm< HOCOHOOOCOHC mo mCOHpHCHmOQ* mm mmm m N m m N m w MH mm a m N HH m2 m5 m: NmH HmpOB N: 5: H O H m N N 0 MH NH O O H m 0 m m NN 3m HOOSom o: H m m H o o c m o em 0 o o H o o o o torso: sesame H NOH O O o O O o O O H O m H H m: :N H mN mHmQHOCHhm N mmH O O o O o O O O N N H o O O H: mm :OH mhmflommfi TmSLH a W WW "V .d N W N W. "V 0 V G "V "V N 000p T? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c 1.01““ an .d "V O S "V "V "V H S 3 .d H 0 Ju 3 8:80 0 Mo 0 o O o o o 0 o o O 0 0 O Tce Tie Hu Ta 8 Ha .d uv W co S V. no HO Cu 8 no I V TL AI? J o I. o o o o o o o o o o o o o Tr 0 n1. Tea 8 H S M G V 7G M O S o O o o o o o O o o O U o O M J o o H; *xCoz HmHoom Op OOpOHOm mQCOCU *COHpmodpm Op OOuOHOm masoew .QHCOCOOeOE COHCOHOOOOO HOCO HmmOMOHmII.wI< MHmmm fo .3mm nqu aHamQOHpmHmp psoz manomom--.OHu< mHmHe m 5mm H ARMHV om ARHHV mOH HHOHV om Hapoe Hm - Ham v m AHHHV HH AHmmV wH mpmxpoz HocmmH n: u o Afizmv 0H Agmov Hm mHmaHochm 3H H 333 mm 383 E Ammmv H: mmmcomme HHH pm HHpgmHHm HHmz Hmpoe mz HHoz poz HHco szEmppxm .2mm anz gmchmzaom HHmz zomun.mn< mHmuomon on .nnouueaou nououuuwnwaoouuosoaou noon ..m.o announce undue ow Honuoswun any you souuoouuo mace oow>onn .nooweuom mouoon Hooaom so: no uaosnoHo>ov on» n« soausuumqnfiaoe he confidence on 533332.... ganoauuoo 3333 has: .Hoozom any on nudes: nausea moons mandamus: nu cannon causeway a no venunwooou on .uoooo mounoao one mausomo unono unuswvan Hanan on» oxen .nonoafiso ou sunfish cu so: we noouusnoou wsu>ounaw aw nonooou undone .hofimca Hoonoo mo unmEeOHo>ov any nu nounooonaou on .nouoouwnmmuo Hoozou magmas macs Howunosmmnw an ego: . . . . canons huouwnamoo a 0 0 .0 0 @Hduonm %H£¢n—O.Hm . . . . . you has no he: . . uoa oaoonm haaonoum . . non ofiooaa haouunguon . segues unquom Hoosom one -20»..de Afiuan; .. mum flaw méw Ammo” amid “andw-J dogma gull“... 115 oHnm Aswan moan mom gee: gonzo mzo amaze accoHoooaoo can Hooeoo on» and: oooooaooo on auto: H303. Hooeom 2: Bass AHoooHo as: .muoow xuos finance nous muounmsoo u« an access can no kneadedunn ecu ueouoo .oonowuonxo masseuse Houoom ascends nauuuumusuaoe no he ooaw>uonsn on .nouvuwno swouuoo mom anaconda cu mHoHuouoa mozoauoouumaa vnoaaooou .ooa>uoo oouuuaaoo nwoounu neuuuouumnw mo unoao>oumau «nu nu undone .uonuoou u some o>on .munonon :ua3.mno«meoon«v aw sconce on» anemone mhssao .uuaoaao~o>ob Honouusuooo unseen mo unsound nose .nouuooovm nu nouusoooo Huauom can «0 once been .Auosuucoov usoao09m<.uouuuz can nu outpaced on .noouw monogamomoum awesome aeooH ago 0» wooden . . . . oHaoeo aHoUHaauoo . . . . . oHaoeo AHnaaoum ..... nooks—noun: . . . no: banana habooonm . . no: eHaonm aHooaonoo guano: HuHoow Hooeom one “onammDO . 22.23 328 w. .2 no.3 .332 .588 male 116 OHIZm mJSm m|3m unam Arman moan mom meg: Momma mzo amaze anon guano: HoHoom Hooeom one canoe» sconce mugs Heaoom o no soon some “onammbo .nfiamuooooa now xno3 deacon mo maoosom on» 0» shop .xuoz Houoom ea nonsense mo newsman moo: .aoaaaaom nuance o» moOHSOmou muanoaaoo nonuo o>~o>aw .oowmomnaso Annoufim u“ hunmwm muewunonduo an «H nouuHHSu mo eEoHoonm snoulwnoH .o>«msoun« oHoeo: .unonouo guns Heqoom o no vacuum use» caches oosoauoewo hunmwe HoHOOo o>en .unoaumoanoasoo “mayo one macammoouao mmdue unmovoum swoouau mowozomo &u«3.m~omo~o sues .ueammuonu guano: Houses a no noauonom noauuoaoe .Hoou names ma: no succeeds xuosonno onu novamsoo nowuwwoommo Honoummomoun ewes Howoom can no hauuooa unwed no nonaoe.m>wuoo no on .enoxu93VAosowo ”swoon he moon o no wouwnwoooh on . . . . canon» huouanflmoa . . . . fiancee hanmnoum .... .uoshoBHOhoz . . . no: eHaoea aHooooum . . uoc ownosm eqouwcwwon noxuos Hudson Hoosom any mmmmmce,uaHocm ma25Hmmmmamm.« ma menace acmeom.moomom may a! a3 117 OH :3 0:2 . as: n a: on: m I: on: m :3 N I3 H I: ASE moan mom Vase Somme ezo mess insures HoHooa Hoonom one «o mnowuonom omosu noose xnanu one on mesa: ." 0- ounouom taco maoom on soars a“ onwadflonwo hue sonm nHHon manna one soapoud n.oHH:0 wouuowou none unocmowo uofioso 0:0 no 05330.... 0.3a 08000: 20:03”. damn odowueunoenoo unease 3 05a 3: mo umoa 03m .5: pom anemone umon 05 no nosonou pump on... no :03 6.350 a now unmanwwmmo Hoonom duo—8800“" .nofiowou oadood 9593.3 .3 nouns—#0 ou moofifion H3003 oumnflouooo £03: a.“ 52.3 moan—mu 00360 was 5.. manna V3309?» n no mucoumm was 393.30 0008 .unofiuonfirso no 3323330.» H300...“ mu; noon 0.38 .50an Hoowonosommm 93.20 of onwmssmao 5:325...” .hmnuofi mo manna o no manoamodu cu edema o no £000.27? xuozmoouw on... on: 533.30 nouns?» no outflow 05 no souumuunoo .580 Amazon «83.35th :0 3.330 on: nousou .nonodso £33 053 «.3 mo unoa wagonomm .3 3.33 was mo .3063 one as 3.33 023 caduceus . . . oHavo AHoaaonmoo . . . . goose Manon—cum . . . . .uonhoanommz . . . and goose known—cum . . no: oHaoeo aHouaaHmoa amino: H308 Hoonom was "ZOHHmuDU A: «5202 .308. .323 an no moon see: man. 118 Out»: 00:3 m0 .3 5003 0040 M013 00.3 n.— I3 N018 0.7.3 _- “L“. .000>000 000000 000 00000006 00 00000 00 00000000 00000000000 00 00000000 000000 00000000 0003 00003 0000000000 000000 00 000000 00000.0 00 000000000 00 00000000 0000 00 0800 0000000 00000000 000 00000 3., .00550 000 000000 00000025 000>00m 00003 000000 000000 00—00 0000 .8000 00 000>000 000 :0000: 000 00000000 000000000 8000 00000000 00000000 «0 00800 0000> .0000000 00000030000 .00000 no 000050 0000000 0 00 00000 000 0000 0>000 00000000 000000000000 00000 0000 00 0000000 00000 00 0000000 00000 000 00000008 6000000000 00040030000 00000 000 00000800 0000000 00 000000000 0000000000000 00000.0 .00000» 000000 00 000000 00000000 0 00 0>000 060000000 000000000000 00 00000— 0000000 00 0000000000 00 00000000 0003 0000000000 030000000 00 000000.000 .00>000 00 00000000 0000 00 00000000 000 000 00000003 00 00000 000 00000 . . . . 000cc. 0000000000 . ... . 00=o00 00000000 .... .0000000000: . . you 000000 00000000 . you 000000 0000000000 000003 000oom 0oosum 000 a 08000 00:18....0. 80000 40.00:. 0d 0 0003 .0 0 c a u .90 .. y r f. 9 QLI . . o . as ' C J ' _ - . . ... I. J | . f . . c . o .0 . a. 1 t .0 . 0‘ 1 II.) .0 a t 0"; 1 IO: I L. > .l I. . . w. . . 0 4. a . ,. . cl! 1 .. . ‘ 1‘ 1‘ .r 1'. ,1] III. II. I! .. .14.. M. 119 cujh .uoaruu500u couunuualnuo huuaaaiou uuwnvou any 41 .ooauuuonuu audaciounulocsun yucca an nuance» k one 1 .nouIOuquIa omunoacou no vauuu «nu-1J9.» .nuuhuuaauu—oo as. assay» nay k wuuauuuu smuauau uni-acaobov havvuuuuaan ouuavou .383qu 233qu one! .250: 5 no :53"... wow uoaan: any a“ ouu>uou new nowudnuuauoomo unannouao .huwhauna mua guacauaao no uuou unauounu a. onus-um onwaruu w+ .ououuuu muuaoaaouu>au cue _ unauOu can» nosuuu uusuu>uuaa «an ouuaqanao nus A .uoavunnoou JuOBUodu onun¢£AII ; .oqaunaau no saucy» ugly: na ooumoe «as abuuuosum we young: I 09 ouaouououn ad ounuov sup: » aqaoom mo Mayan: I On mane-ow oouoavou cannon u sounow any .owvonsoqs venuuuuv and» panama 4 _ noduuuava cuouuoaa mo wanaanuuuuna: wanna cud-can'- tmv mmv at? 01? mwv km? 5?. o 4?. a? 9 o. 9 9. .1 or a... v a» «I . 3.6.... £3338 an oo 900 0o 0... . . 3.8... 3 pint Aw A? A1 .aw . . . you has no 5:: o amv Ava. . . . uoc vases» hunqnoum 9 . . you 33:. #3238 Huang: ”swoon season on» «0 Gaga-onto was Quay .83 x2 52: gonzo as 625 ..2uo._uos 33m 32.3 «a «55.: 2: 35 on 3:2. “.25.. .8333. . . ‘1‘... I up . I X 3,!»5. v.4..Q.A.,.. ..\. ‘ ‘u. \J‘va'...l."ul -Q o , C . . . . . . . a u D- I - . i. f... . 4 . . . . n .. .» o. . . _ , . r n . .. a .l .p’ A; I. v . _ . . a ‘ . ‘ .1 _ . II ,.. . . o ..| . . r . . . ‘ n n n u‘ (\ no| - A. u»: 1 . n. , . . ‘ u . . . , . k . v Q n I00 . r I A .I :0 ' .l+ :1... fill... ... - . 4| \ ‘Iil’s F.‘ I‘ b o . . . . . a , . I . . J v ‘ Q r - 4 A. ‘ . o u “,u. , .1! II. .3‘ I ‘ o" u.» . 4f. c 0 ’., o ‘ I . . 1 ~ I w . a . O ‘ Q 1 .. , .w l»: . - - 2:... . . m a . . .. ~ . » 4 . . . , . v y I; . . I § h , ~ \.. a... . v\ .t l‘ . n»!3'..4.) 120 _ :33: 538.550 3335 9—0: 3 353090... soon non—:30 now 3330. 535533 027836.. wad—eon .93» “33:30.:— wo none—ma «>30. an op 25330 umoa .35 0.39 ouwuuzuuo hug-5.560 5 32:39:.— h I A. dru— —-—— .3302— uosuo :53 1..qu «A» van mad—v.0» mum swoops» .8038: 7.30. «0 caucus «no... :35: god .333 #308 season we 380.33- 3.32— 0.335 mum A 3 sac: 3a 3393 3 53853.30 to: 3?... «am .063»... u. Savage on Ti .3353 sur- nuuuuoul 399735. 093.:- cognac. .353 on «up on on 3 go 3: on 959. wash—03.60: .2 .3338 .oaouuuuuoaxo mafia—luau 7m :03 on .5393 3 33.332. ~33qu 3: 3.23... k 00 A. 0% av owe». 2300 to 049 90 am )0 A.» ¢2 5 «2 so or 0... ¢ ow m? 009 (00 9% 0290 «W . . . 3:2: 33.3.33 a» p o lo . . . . 3:2. 393?: 90 0b ... ..uo=>uauo.€z ea . . . you 38... 338: you 38.: 33338 ~33: ”368 “8%...“ 2: Sufi mus. mom x52 gonzo $5 975 1.83 :8. 3.. 8 8 3:2: ~33: 138. 328 3a 25:2. :2n 3 gas: «8:38 .I II. mg $88 .588 as. 8 ma.— ufiafi Em n O a“: -‘ .".-~' .‘-. ““r movv 12]. ATTRIBUTES g; _T_H_n; scuoggg SOCIAL woman (1) QUESTION: "How relevant do you think these attributes are for a School Social The School Social worker worker?" Definitely should not be (MAKE ONE CHECK MARK FOR EACH) Probably should not be . Mhy or may not be . . Probably should be . . 3“ 4» «0° Definitely should be . z>°o 09" ~00 5.00 ‘6 5> ‘9' 6° 4}, ”9° o 0' 4o ‘9 o w» 60 A 9 ‘3 3,4 «:3 o9 «5‘ ‘9 '0 ‘c 9 \r *9» ”60 A 0 5° 95‘? 49.} qc" <9 ‘1‘ o“ * ] Accepting : A91 Aggressive r [ A92 Arbitrary I A93 I Creative L__ J A94 9 I Decisive 3 A95 I Detached A96 Durable A97 Efficient A98 Female ‘ A99 Firm A910 Flexible _j‘ , A911 Frank A912 Insightful A913 Inspiring . . I A914 122 Ansmurss 9g Lug SCHOOL socm. WORKER (2\ The School Social worker Definitely should not be . Probably should not be . . May or may not be . . . . Probably should be . . ~o"’ e, Definitely should be . 0" 6° *0 6 0° *0“ ’09 «,6 ~90, De” 0 Go go ‘5 e S o xfi #99 <53 ‘S49' x§3 89p 6*" 5°” «3 ° so’ 6*“ 9° e» a e 9" Married Mbody Negro Open9minded Over 40 Permissive Personable Persuasive Religious Scholarly Sympathetic Tactful Under 30 warm A915 A916 A917 A918 A919 A920 A921 A922 A923 A924 A925 A926 A927 A928 May or may not be . . Probably should be . Definitely should be Administrator Attendance officer Caseworker Consultant Counselor Curriculum'worker Growth and develop- ment resource person Group worker Go-between Initiator Interpreter . 123 213.1115; W91 __._.THE __sca__oon.. s.ocw. wears; <1) QUESTION: "How relevant do you think these terms are for the School Social WOrker?" (MAKE ONE CHECK MARK FOR EACH) A term dcscrip‘ive of the School Social worker Definitely should not be Probably should not be . D91 D92 0-3 n-a D95 D96 D97 D98 D910 D -‘I_‘| 124 mass nzscamrvs g 3;; SCHOOL SOCIAL woman (2) ‘A tenm descriptive of the School Social worker Definitely should not be . . o Probably should not be . . . 9 '° my or may not be e o o o o . 3 i 0 '0', be Probably should be . . . . s? t, ‘;° ;9 gr Definitely should be . . 9 E," o o .¢ 3.5 .9 3‘ 55° s Q' ’0 A 5‘ o ’9'? <5 37' ¢3 5’ é’ 3) £7 a5 3’ A. 5° 0' 40 ‘6' 4? 4. <3” Ifl Leader D912 Learning resource D913 person be Mediator D914 Mental health resource D915 person 4 Parent-substitute D916 Psychoanalyst D917 Psychologist ' a D918 Researcher D919 School-community agent D920 Social change resource ‘ D921 person Q 3 Social worker ! D922 Sociologist ! D923 i Supervisor 3 D924 ] 1 Teacher f D925 I Therapist jg ‘ 9-25 . 1 a l L._.Ji— v a. o 0 v I - ‘4..‘ 5 Q , A ., c 1 - e ' e n 9- c 0". '9- e . - e I I u .9 ”I. r‘. ----. , I" - e... ' “' ‘bo.x~ ‘0' u . 6' st _ u ' o v . b e h ~- a {up I a .. - . e 1 a . n I D I v n l m .- . l c --Q— s. l I r9 \ - . s - m.~u V ... n a - a a . 3 ... . . _ Q . I ow I \ 4—0. I a ‘~ I a , ‘ 9 a 1 t .‘1‘. J o v. ' .' :- . ad's. a'3l"7! 1 s . '.. s V . , . . . o"‘. I . . -. Q ‘ - Q I k l l o I n u o A. u .9. v .9- o 125 THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPECTATIONS 0F OTHERS (1) To the School Social Worker: hold for you. lgdicate in one space for each.g£ the other perception of Egg they will respond to each question. Hold an influential role within school organization Make the final judgment about Opening and closing of cases Be recognized as a resource person in questions about mental health in the school Help initiate curriculum modification De consulted by school administration in the development of new SChOO]. social SGIViCBS Never expect the School ”Social WOrker to Seldom expect the School Social Worker to ositions, your As often as not expect the School Social Worker to Usually expect the School Social Worker to Always expect the School Social Worker to Persons in other kinds of positions are also responding to questions about expectations which they I Agency Workers l Principals lTeachegs lAgencyWO£kers ‘Principals Lgeachers "Agency WOrkers Teachers |Agency WOrkers Principals Teachers A ency Workers Pri ncipals Teachers 0-1-1 0-1-2 0-1-3 0-1-4 0-1-5 126 THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPECTATIONS Belong to the local teacher professional group. Keep abreast of recent educational developments. Always support the school in discussions with parents. Have been a teacher. Assist in the improvement of instruction through committee service. Be recognized as a peer by social agency workers. Never expect the School Social Worker to Seldom expect the School Social Worker to As often as not.expect the School Social Worker to OF OTHERS (2) Usually expect the School Social Worker to Always expect the School Social Worker to A encprOrkers ‘ Principals I Teachers Agency ngkers Principals Teachers |Agency Workers Principals Teachers Agencngorkers Principals Teachers Agency Workers Principals Teachers Agency,Workers Principals Teachers 09891 0-8-2 0-8-3 0-3-4 0-8-5 O-SW-l 127 THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER‘S SERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS (3) o .. s s ... 9' o o o o o o ens: r: o O .c: U U .c‘. .n o o u «n o O :0 §.m a: a: .2 o a» o u .a m o o .c 0 <3 .u o .c 0 :3a: u u eta: a: u u u o u a lab. sea 0 a 4:34 Lid) 0 o .3 m o ()0) 0.8 oer m g“! «o.£ “W as “’° 3 QB Qfig «u:z :13 ”:2 » 9-! 8H Ur-l Flu-4 (nu-C u m m 44¢: .4 m >.m c194 1394 o o «I?! g«H >UI—‘U J: 30 :90 o o o o co¢u m o .4 0 25¢: can: .ccn :Dcn <:co Consider the casework Agency Workers approach as his major r tool. Principals O-SW92 Teachers Handle intensive, Agency Workers long-term.prob1ems of ‘ children if appropriate ‘ Principals O9SW93 agency is already overloaded. Teachers Involve other '.Agency WOrkers community resources to assist families. Principals 0-SW94 Teachers Turn to the Schools A ency Wogkers of Social Work for - leadership. Princi als 09SW95 Teachers 1 Maintain the child as A ency Wopkers 1 the center of his work by spending most of _ Principals ‘ 09W91 his time with children. Teachers Generally emphasize the child's psydhological makeup more than his O-W-Z social relationships . or environment. L.Ig§gh§§§_fi L, 128 THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER’S PERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS Never expect the School LSocial Worker to Seldom expect the School Social Worker to As often as not expect the School Social Worker to Usually expect the School Social Worker to Always expect the School ,Social Worker to (4) Give most of his time Agency_WOrkers to parent consultation. Principals Teachers Adapt his style of Agency_Workers working and his function to each Principalsgp building he serves. Teachers Direct considerable Agency Workers attention to helping families use their Principals means to best advantage. Teachers Emphasize broad A ency WOrkers understanding of | .American education rather than detailed knowledge. (in his education) Princi als I Teachers Follow a course Agency Workers (“'1' ‘ sequence leading to a Master of Social Work degree in preference to a Master of Princioals Education degree in human growth Teachers or guidance. itw-m Emphasize the individual A .ncngorkers rather than the social environmental factors (in his education). Principals :Teachers 09W 9 3 044-4 O-W-S O-T-l 0-T92 O-T-3 129 THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS (5) o F. s '3 .. .4 o o o o o o u.u .c o o .c o o .2 s s M m a co ‘2‘} m O)“ J: a) o o .3 o o u o .n o .fl'u u u uzz u u u u o u a u u c.4 o u u u u n o o m o 3 0.3 0.3 0.3 ‘0'!" Que—u a). "s as “3 .3 as 5‘: 03 cm 2 03 O o >. H 81-! UH 1941-4 mv-l u.3 m ‘H o .4 a ’23 o vu-4 0.3 m-H g > o .4 u a O o o o o o m'% o .4 0 55:0 coco .e :acn «:cn fih—u—u—J- Encourage specializa- A ency Workegs tion for service in the 2 "Inner City" or in ‘ Princi ls ~ 09T94 newer, more affluent sec- tions. (in his education). Teachers Require community Agency Workers organization techniques ' (in his education). ' ' Principals O9T95 _Teachers Be on9call at anytime. ency WOrkers Pr ci als 09P9l Teachers Keep himself more A ency Workers informed of social ~ problems through reading Pr ci als O9P92 and the media than other people. Teachers Participate in Agency Workers community activities r7 ‘ more than.most citizens. Principals 09P-3 lTeacher Feel responsible to l_Agency WOrkers help initiate community action. Prippipal 0-P94 I Teacher 1 THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER'S PERCEPTIONS OF EXPECTATIONS Be Be Be Be Be accepting- decisive. female. flexible. personable. 130 Never expect the School Social Worker to Seldom expect the School Social Worker to OF OTHERS (6) As often as not expect the School Social Worker to Usually expect the School v-l O O J: U U) 0.2 “U H-l-I 38 H ofi‘ :30 94th as 0 e3 0:4: Social WOrker to Aoency Workers Princi als Teachers Agency7WOrkers Principals Teachers IAgepcy Workers Principals lTeachers |_Agency WOrkers l Principals [Teachers I Agency Workers Principals Teachers Agency WOrkers Principals Teachers OeA-l 09A9 2 OeA-3 09A 4 ' 09A-5 O-A96 131 SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER'S PERCEPTIONS 0F EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS Be termed a curriculum worker. Be termed a go-between. Be termed a growth and develop- ‘ment resource person. Be termed a leader. Be termed a learning resource person. Be termed a therapist. Never expect the School Social Worker to Seldom expect the School Social Worker to As often as not expect the School Social Worker to Usually expect the School Social Worker to (7) Always expect the School Social Worker to I Agency WOrkers IgPrincipals I Teachers I I Agency Workers I Principals I Teachers . I Agency WOrkers Principals Teachers I Agengy Workers IPrincipals T Teachers I Agency Workers Principals Teachers I Agency Workers Principals Teachers O-D-l O9D-2 O9D-3 O-D-4 O-D-S O-D96 Cover letter to teachers and principals MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY usrrmsmeomcmsm 48825 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 ERICKSON HALL Rom 518 November 6, 1967 Dear Colleague in Education: The growth of services to children within Education has resulted in some loss of clarity for the role of professionals in pupil ser- vices. Recent nationwide studies have indicated a need for further research to clarify such school positions. We are turning to you for your views on one of these positions: the School Social WOrker, sometimes identified as the Visiting Teacher. The expectations held for the position of the School Social WOrker are very important because the help he can give you with your pupil problems depends a great deal upon his knowing what you want him to do or want him to be. The fundamental question we are ask9 ing is "What should a School Social Worker do and be?" The question- naire you find included is the result of many hours of discussion with School Social WOrkers in your district and similar Michigan districts. A sample of teachers and principals in your district has been selected to provide the data necessary to answer important questions about the School Social WOrker. we have found that it will probably take less than one half hour to complete. we believe you will find it interesting. Your school officials have agreed to cooperate in this study and to allow the use of your school mail. Your response will be anonymous and checked by no one except us. Findings are going to be made available to your district, your School Social Workers, and to you. We know from experience that putting off your response tends to decrease the probability of your participation, so we recommend that you react to the questions within a couple of days and return your views by school mail to Director of Pupil Personnel Serviceslu'Lansing, Grand Rapids Director of Special Programs 9 Dearborn Director of Research & Testing 9 Flint Others in your building may also be involved, but we hope that you respond to each question from.your own understanding. We need to know what you think! é’, “" // :f , ' V g/M/g vex/aw fle/Zm/ xflwxr Robert R. Schulz ‘ Wilbur B. Brookover ‘ ~~— Principal Investigator Director of Research 132 1% PERSONAL DATA SHEET In order to analyze the data, it is necessary for us to have some information about your position and background. 1. What is your present position? (Circle the number on the right of the correct response.) Teacher of early elementary Teacher of later elementary Teacher of special subjects School principal Agency executive . Agency worker . . School Social ibrker 2. City of your employment? Dearborn . . . Flint . . . Grand Rapids . . Lansing . . . (include KG) (Circle the correct number) 3. Your academic degree? (Circle as many of the numbers as is appropriate.) Bachelors or bachelors'plus ‘Masters‘or‘Masters plus . . Masters in Social Work More than one Masters Other (indicate) 4. How many years of teaching experience? “one o a o a One to two years Three to six years Seven to fifteen years Over fifteen years (Circle one) 00’. “NH @U'Ik \l kwNH UI mounw 134 PflzNAL DATA SHEET (2) 5. How many years have you been employed in your present city as a professional? (Circle one number) One to two years . . . . . . . . . 1 Three to six years . . . . . . . . . 2 Seven to fifteen years . . . . . . . . 3 Over fifteen years . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Years in school administration (Circle one) None . . . . . . . . . . . 1 One to two . . . . . . . . . 2 Three to six . . . . . . . . . 3 Seven to fifteen . . . . . . . . 4 Over fifteen . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Your age group? (Circle one) 20 "’ 40 o s s s o s o s o s o s o s (.1 - 60 a o s o s a s o s o s o s 0 Over 6'” o s s o s s o o s s o a o 0 “NH 8. Sex? (Circle the number on the right of the correct response) “313 o o s s o e s o o o o 1 Fanale s o ‘ o s a s o s s s 2 9. Is your work in the "Inner City"; i.e., the central, older part of town? (Circle one) Ye a O O O O O O O I 1 NO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 2 10. In which of the following do you have active memberships? (Circle all the appropriate numbers) National Education Association . . . . . . . 1 American Federation of Teachers . . . . . . . 2 Association for Childhood Education . . . . 3 Department of Elementary School Principals . . 4 American 8 Guidance Assoc. . . 5 National Association of Social workers . . . 6 National Association for Mental Health . . . 7 Association of Pupil Personnel Workers. . . . 8 Family Service Association . . . . . . . 9 Other (specify) ___ . ,1!) —A cv—v- .———-o——.....—.—.—_..-—-- -—.v~..._--"--.,_ ,.....-«.-M v —.. .. __' 135 PERSONAL DATA SQEET (3) 11. How'well acquainted are you with one or more School Social workers? (Circle the number on the right of the correct response) Extremely well acquainted . . . . . . . . . . 1 Only slightly well acquainted . . . . . . 2 Not well acquainted at all . . . . . . . . 3 12. If you know a School Social worker, how would you describe your relationship? (Circle one) we get along very well . . . . . . . we have differences, but get along well . we manage to get along . . . . . . . we only have a professional relationship . kWNb-I' 13. Homeuch previous thought have you given to the role of the School Social worker? (Circle one) Considerable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 some 0 O O I C O I O O O O I I O O O O I O O O 2 Hardly any or none . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 14. Have you had a course in Social work? (Circle one) Yea . C O O O O O O O O O 1 NO 0 O I O O O O O O O O O I O O 2 15. Have you had an in-service orientation to School Social work? (Circle one) Yes 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O 1 NO 0 O O I O C O O O O O O O O O 2 16. Have you made referrals to the School Social worker? (Circle one) Yes 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O O O 1 NO 0 O O O O C O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 136 TEACHER AND PRINCIPAI.QUESTIONNAIRES The questionnaire completed by the teachers and the principals was identical to the one completed by the school social workers except they did not receive the instrument "The School Social Worker's Perceptions of the Expectations of Others" and the third Personal Data Sheet was different. 137 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASTLANSING-MICIflGAN 43323 COLLEGE or EDUCATION - mucxsow HALL Room 518 November 6, 1967 Dear Social Worker: The position of the School Social Worker is undergoing change in its relationship to the schools, and - we think - -toreommunity agencies. Werare'conducting some~basichresearch into this. We need to know your views. We are asking the fundamental question, ”What should a School Social Worker do and be?" A sample of community agency peOple has been selected in your city to answer some important questions about this specialized social work position. The social agency workers perception of this position is essential for an understanding of it. A random sample of school social workers, school principals, and teachers has been selected to provide the data necessary to answer crucial questions from within the school setting. We believe that learning the views both inside and outside the school toward the School Social Work position is important. The success of our study sample depends on your response. The enclosed questionnaire will probably take less than one- half hour of your time. We appreciate very much your con- tribution to the study. We hope that you can reapond directly and will return your views in the enclosed envelope. Be sure to identify yourself if you would like information on our find- image A . Z *4 /dét’f/‘zt . flrfl/ 427/ ” /~’ Robert R. Schulz ‘ Wilbur B. Brookover Principal Investigator Director of Research 138 AGENCY'WORKER.QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire completed by the social agency workers was identical to the one completed by teachers and principals. APPENDIX C TABLES AND MODELS 139 140 as.H mm.m H m z m m wchemq ms.o ma.m m a m o o meHamm cease ma.o om.m o s m o H chHe ms.H mm.m H H m o m enonsmmo osHmmmnwmm an eHsonm 3mm use He Q3090 Hmmaocfism mm.H mo.m m m H m o weHmeeo EH: toe sapwosa mm.o 00.: s H z o o meHemm cease ammo was no seesaw» omen we» mm.H om.m H z m o m peHHm we seem .eHHno a hoe pemsememm mm.o ms.m o o s m H enonsmmm Hooeom cemssooms eHsoem 2mm one am ms.o mm.m o H m s o weHmemo cmseHHeo esz Hm.H mm.m : H m H o meHemm cease msHp mHe so once weHecmem an mm.o OH.m o m a H o peHHm sac: mHe so smegma we» we eHHeo mm.H mm.m m o m m o esonsmma we» eHmchms eHsoem 3mm was Hm mm.H om.m m m m m o weHmemo as.o HH.: 3 m m o o meHamm cameo mOHssmm mmppHssoo nanosep Hm.o om.m H m 3 m o pefiam coauossumefi mo osoEo>osaeH mm.H Ha.m o m m o m enonnmma mes cH smHmmm eHsoem 3mm use AH moose soxnoz momWM¢ mo.H hm.m H o a m m weHmsmq meoapmaos mH.H :m.m m m z o H moHamm cameo LoomspmHQHEGMIsoeomop soon ..w.o om.H om.m m m m o H seHHe masseuse comma cH HmaHoeHsa was too :H.H mm.m m m H H o enonnmom eOHpomnHe meH>osa eHsoem 3mm use m moose soxsoz Hafioom Hooeom moemHsm> new: mm mm 22: 2mm 2mm spHo smpH eoHpannpmHa .moHQEMm zuHo wsoEm monopoQMHo pmopmosw mo mEopHII.H|o mqm _: :1 Cu :3 .f: t‘~—“IT: C) "“.:T (‘J [‘H r- :7 :1") {—3 H f“ - 4? C7“ L.\QZ' I." .21 Ch 3 (“J :3 ‘-) .7 O , l>-’: O O O a o I I I o O o o 0 o o o a o o o o o o a n u o a 0 a u o o g c o o o v o o o o o awn-1:: mowm; ;:4—:‘:.’ Wimm—T: 23:1: :7 MOW-T :11? 4? —-I —'!~TC‘J\V) m: ("Jr”) comm: 3.33:! It It It 8 * * It * * * * * * t 00 m l\ C) “W C) r—1 (1‘) (‘7: ,‘Y‘. H ‘J I‘D 'Q \:\ ,1: ”j; (V‘- ‘ \“J #4 ‘C. :3 :3 r—1 L‘fl r—4 :3 «L- a I 4 1—4 N (Tu-Q O“ P u: 1 ~ (.1) v ) r—4 L ‘ F: C or“ “ t—a H4 L.‘\'~Q [131") ‘.) PH '3‘ r—4 r—d m :\_ pH (Tug) m [H f» D o o o o o o o u u o o o . o o o . o o I 0 O ' 0 o n o o a o o u 0 COO Goa) OHH HHH Her—4 HOD ( m-i- OWH H00 000 Offio m: m Q) (“J H Ht!" .1: C) {H )3 on ON C) F, t~< (M >~ '3“- !"J «'2 H (‘Q N H u) 0A K‘) LA LDU“ '0 I 3 OJ t‘~ r~ \D 5: :3 "J 1"J Cd 3 J? P» :3 i“— t ONO) CA LW C“. (“I—I C, C\ L \ rH r-4 [‘- L‘xf' f“. 1.") Lf\ >4 c o n a n a o o o a o o o . a o o I o o 0 U 0 I . . a . . o o o o 01:: 04 (fl) (‘1 (*1 00 (W m 0* (‘41 m N Cu r) C) (3“) m 0 ~. ("i (0 (v) (v'! rm m :r :r :r co m (Y1 ( J (J 0’) Ln I\ R) r. t\ LA JV: u“, .1: r“ .3 :3 f“; (‘1 NOV), \‘\ in z.‘ 9‘. ;: 3. :: Q L3 \3 qw 0;) q?» ,—-1 H D r—‘l w J P4 H 0’) LP. (“J m :T (‘J C“ ff rH r—i r—« (_ ‘ It (V1.2. fr; rx " '1" n - ) .—¢ C") [A- if. 1.") _"~, \5\ :3 (_{_‘. __7\ :J r: {14 r-ivH r4 rap-4H r—4r-1 r4r-v H'HH .--4r-1 y—4r-4 HHr—i rH 2 H u m "J ‘ t ' ’ H :' ~: .’ r~ r» ,— x C r ‘ r u. . a” H a". t 7 C; Ox m o‘ m I; H H H.4r—4 rh4r4 HHr—i {—4 «4 rd r4r-4r—4 Hr4-4 r4 r4 r—ifo'fi 2 7“ (I; Ln 0 H (“x r“: L. :— «‘\ c. t H ‘\ H r :1 H H t " - - * ' H \ C H C r‘. L) .k “ C-t H r 1 ( .3 r" T" ”’4 r—4 :3. 0’) H C! 3") :7 Ci (7‘ r, r—l r—4 «"1 rH 1') LI) 5"; :"1 --.' " - L. (”I t- n {3 \l' v"! w". (J {J (4 {:1 r4 1;”; :i ;,H Lf\ C) E‘L <1: L) E‘ Lu ('2 I, E4 In ‘1: T J L‘w- 5'; 7: E‘ .u '1: C_ E! H4 911'} 1 '5?) '77: r. 7‘ nn ":1 L.‘ {1 L14 q: 2') E) .44 (1:!) E‘H‘ gr. (.3 C C H ) ) . *4 C- L". ('1 W 'L‘ f) L N £1 ti 4 » Q) ‘H (7 ‘1‘ I: '1; C ~ + O Q L CE‘ J ) H L' C.) a :‘) Q) is. 3: L ".3 C) 3’ C) O C :3 Cu H H (a g; :2 U: (“ "r1 0:- Q) L”. o <7 H ° ‘1 > k) *4 L: - O by C C Q) 0 Q) H p q. 0 C H O :‘ H ”1 I) n r; . .C H -H )J r) W 3 “3 U Q g: . v) t") F“ I...‘ :4 - U) Q) 0 H <13 C Q) m o u H CA U) 0 ( ) -H (H I ' O r; ) a! '0 C O L O -H O O H CI .H H H Q) I: ‘H C . L M "‘ H O :3 ,C 4..) Q. C.) H O to (J. U 0 O p :1 L“) “C1 H Q) (Ti i; . 3': ,C H O Q) Q +3 Q L (1) .H O O] 3 I) O Q) E m H Q) :3 . :5 CU L 17 L > .C ’71 v ‘ )1 Q) M L Q) :3 u E- u L Q Q) C g; 0 Q) H +3 Q :3 U) Q) m C {1) ”‘4 L. x O C r.) F. H H to Q) n J. E :T‘ q) L L Q) Q) H :1 C u C 0 q: L an O E L c) H H Q) 1 - :- ,\ g 3 H 5;) .C: H E a: H o L 0 :1; 61 ”U a) )3 L 'U H CU Q) C) Q) L m H H :3 H L a: o o L i; ’2 f= a; (U U *1) U) (U :5 O O u r.) E Q.) (:3 H C: (U (1) U >3 if? H '04 L? .,.. J) (C U Q) H ° .1: .11 O u c; is) O :3 (U U) 'U G) H Q) L - +4 Q) H 7} (I) H C C) Q) H U '0 O ,C ° 4-) 0 '«7 -i‘? F. Q; t... H (r) N :75 :11 C) O u C U) Q. )3 m p E t; H C $— «1 H 4.) H 4.) .C O m c. C o H 0 H c.) (I C u H o O H Q) 3 Q) c g: 1) 5 O Q) hi (1) -H :5 U) 4—) $) $4 L") L (1) H [i .C C .CI 00 O E C U) (U .Ll) tt‘. Q) I: O 0 (I) 4-) C c: H C 3 bDH (U (I; Q. Q i-) 21') U U) H Q) J.) O Q) C o :n a) :3 Q) 'U Q) U) L :3 Q. o :2 O O C). Q) i: Q) H O L. Q) H :1: O O H H U) Q) ‘-: $3 > U) L .C 0 ct) H Q) I) Q) Q) CH ‘ Q) U) Q) H H «3 vs; :3 a) E4 .C E Q .13 C0 ’ 1‘. .0 O ,2 C21 .3: CU 3 f. ('0 p Q a a o a I o o o g . . H :T Ln \0 t\ H 3 Lfl \D N H H H H H (*1 1414 I: I I: I: I: I: I I: I n- :I I: I: * *- * I: a: I: a: an I I: at at )t at I: I: * I" * mmrxtx O‘Hv—nn m (3.1»f\ ""on.w.') Minn.) an: HM JDW().N (us rx no r4<1.- 'v'r- [ “mm x: ‘u': r t "1”) U.):n.¢ u ~)~w {\(D H C) H C) (‘J C) m 0‘) J\ H e) {a r1f\ «h .A \ x) C) p 5-x.) of c 4- (r x; (Hz: r— of) hit a) D) N I‘) 1 -J "I "(w -. <1: 3(1))" <7) . WW“ .1. 71 O I o I I I I I o I I I I I o I I o I I o o I I I I I I u c I I I u I I I I a a I I I a ‘ ‘ 0 ' 0 ' 0 ' ‘ ' ' O O H H H H P‘ H O O O O C“) K") H Ci) (3 r“ v-4 r4 (‘4 f L-) 7—, H r] if) Q ”1 1" . I 1 (j \— V 4 1" (1 I Q 1" H I Q 1 C‘ ‘l‘ ( ‘ ’4 ( I ‘ 1 ‘ ) r4 V i t " ‘ ' ( ' ‘ {\LflmuN ~4eron OF)\.;‘)‘Q in 3;: \.')r‘1 I "J (“J (*H‘Jrq H¢rqrux. \;)("‘.(V‘;) («r _: .) f’»f—r$l§\ ‘1‘) “,1,“ ut1l.~-"l) I I '7 -: ‘ V txooooox \QLIHCUM L;\[\r“(‘ :—~{"‘.)‘)H f‘ “IRAN“. l,'~;‘)‘,rH {a Lupy.’ ‘) ,4;7 (»_r-‘~ gr. :3 r .1 -3 .-, L“ _\ m a -! >7 1 ') t t ., .1 I ‘ A I o I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I I a o o o I I I I I I I I I u I I l a I I ° ' ' ' 0 0 ' 0 ' 0 0 mmmm mmrio) :—3-?-'! :3 (“Twit OWW‘('"‘~“" (‘.k.(‘)(J (J')'.F‘J -7 I? 5'": (‘ NW»! w') Dan‘U‘l") '1 A : NW ("(fl‘fjf‘l ”in )"h r "- I "i it. III): III: I: In: aux): asst): I: as): I“ * arm 0:? {H r~~ mu) \:2 H H Hf! 1"“ i \l.\ f .. C. n —: ,.: u"; 1": ..: fir.) : -I t ‘D t..r' '15: l”? \I ‘- 1 r n» :» {\Lflh (”HQ—T 2:! -:’ .34) 'x u r :‘1' a w) r- L.\rH (0 Hr“ urn-'3 4: 1:1 (2:J r~ \‘i‘fl-J m:)m’\ r i; .‘1 I O O a I I I I C 0 I I I I I I I I I c I I I I I I I I I o I O ‘ ' ' . ' I O O 0 COO OCQ COO ('W(\ C3 C) C‘xj k‘) 1‘) (I) (3 ('70 (:7r1rfi r-‘lr1r4 1-1 (' r4t ) \JCJKI (3‘7 r4 |) 'v4 mNH HNLfl Lnrdo') (T): P (3“110 Lgm‘.r1 run”) k- :‘w‘: (up :1 ‘5‘ n. (jx'if (’1‘: v) 1.\‘\l)\ Ha) x") U.\ N H H 0" m M: m (‘3 r4 \7\ C“ »—J’ (‘3 “"11: «II C]: 3“ ("N L" (V l {J W" (J : ¢ r i I f“ x ) i l 4 f ‘1‘ \ ) ‘,) r‘l =, w ) )‘x x: o I I I I I c I a I I I I o I o I a o a I I I I I I I o i g I . g u I I a c I I I I N 4': :r :T :r .: :7 :3 :4’ :7 N H (‘10‘)&‘\ can“ 0') rd 0) n1 (‘1 0WD). o‘vmtvx n) (V) mm 1 ('H- I“: s-3rv‘hfl . 1x 1 (v) H02 205 [\(‘Dth K‘HCJ (1) D (”'0‘ (V‘m'mfi inn”): inn'r-g’) 3w.) r» [ (ml) «)7: ‘9. Hr INCA (I) I'M) .4.1\) H H H H H H H H H H :1 r . .9 HLflm Lfltxuj) \Q\O(\— r-anm only“: .Jrvim :.:\_)(': O(~n) ('11.; \‘)\‘I() 1,0 .1 —\) (1 )4 \ J j HH HHH HHH H r-4r-4 HHH HH H HH <‘) HHH UHF) ”NH '4 HNOW \03-11' :mm (‘WL‘\L.’\ XI) L.’\H.' 4:2!) (Ju'xul \.")L.\:: (‘=.‘)L.\ :: t)t~ .'{'.l.\ ‘1‘ AH‘ (‘H‘W' f l.\w‘ N r-fl r—4 #1 r—4 F4 r1 r—‘l H r—fi H H F" f4 fl '—‘ ‘* r ‘ “‘4 " (DON CQOO DOC) C) Lfl‘o Lnr'ufx u-L’) ('1 :JL‘JLA um. ‘- ‘.)c~»‘i {- 0 (v) chum F‘rh ' v <“ 1 . >1 1 r-l r4 r1 ,1 .¢(' LOCO GOO GOO OC‘Jfl (Uriri HC)L"> (”)LC) C-C'Jf') 'irH) Ult‘r‘ Hum» k ‘H t“' ) ’)-~ (1 r1 (’1 ti 50-440) £1:chth Eiflt‘flfl E‘Lh'fllfil impair.) EHum’F') inhdtrr ENL'JII) [Mn 12") {Wu-711‘") E) u-C') E'W'C') J' . ii . l) )3 £2 . I {l )‘ . {1' ‘11 ‘ ‘1' H C n) )) ~ «1) ‘.I C Q) . :1 :~. 0" ‘4 c) - '1: O L '33 1:”) ,. \V‘ r 3: g, '1 ' ' p '7: Q) ;‘ rq S. . i) j‘. ..- R Q.) V‘ 2 L: ,. r4 '-',1 Q) :2 Ci \) x.” "‘ $1 '1= 3- ‘ i L (U u 'f‘, f. r) r") {j . 41‘ -.< "‘ ',.‘ v i A, ' ~ 0 4‘. 0 c) a: r _. H O i= w y 1‘ : ”m? (w) F4 H (l" 3: '8 £44 3‘ "1 |. S: ta V. ' I 'V a? L LO ”Q I K) . {'4 ’1 I. “a "a ‘ . E: Q) Q) C) .2111 r! 4. 4) C) £2 H (I . LI \’ ‘ )L 1' i 0 > (U i. ~4 q) o r.) r0 3: .4 g; m :1, 0 ’« PA‘ «4 ... ' V) O 0 if L '2 L1 1‘ 3 s’). a) L H <11 - ) )3 H --‘ "i U) 0 L4 ’2‘ n O (I) Q. r»! ,5» Q) 3) $1“ 11‘ (J L’ .C E >> 4—) 'n r4 :z-v-i s; Q: '71 f; u at t" f. r) C) 7; Q) '33 x F) -H L’) .> 0 ll) .12 (U ‘1: LI U C) J? ”4 -.v-4 1:; r) U) H as m L t: D. m c) .4 w 7‘ w m t-- Q m 1.4 (1) Q) 0 ‘a 0 r4 1,: g; Q) to.‘- My ", ‘4 ‘4 ¢) 1) O L o ‘3. C) v) Q) )3 u r!) 0 x1. : L H i) L: J: L H L p 4: - L :1 M Q) Q) w 0‘ “: Q= L1 0 Q. (U :3 H {I v “:1 (1) £2 L2 g) H) L.) "i in J A 1 (F “5 O (U Q) «4 H H L a: C) {I 7‘) U" 0 W " ‘1 " ~4 0 E U) m H o t; H m at H 0 «4 Q) Q» k" -‘ ~) ’~ 4' h L H Q; o J: M (i. u) 4.) is) 'TV . q H S. i- 1) a) Q Q) L‘ O Q) ‘1) 0 (3 $2 {I L: ;-.: 1). g: «1 r) 0- 4-) >5 0) r. E’; o o -H - m u m o ow "w A m “5 l o >, u H Q) m u .'-.' u; )9 LI 4) r: r.) m m V I1) .1 b0 C u t... u .1: L Q) n m m a: L". Q1 1‘ -- L w x C Q) H O (n u U) Q) 0 :2 m «1) L (1) ;~: _, ‘5: L 0 21) C1 :11 U) H {I 3 L E (1)77 :3 «c L M )5 . O H (U :5 U) H Q) .L: M Q) Q) '{1 .1) n' m t» :2 3) L) 3 H '3‘ '43 N U L If) HL 21.4 a; 54.) .4 .. 0 “ Q) E O H H L: O 1‘) H :3 H w 0 '3) H . 4 L In ‘0 G) p O O H h H) m U) Q) m a) m n 11 0) u) w ‘5 > as o 1: 4: o m 11 «4 Q) r. L r. v) u a) w a) w «1 0 H H o 0 .LI )3 .c: H Q) 4.) c) Q) U) Q) r) '1 - .: - V) L L L") u 0. z», hi) 7') o '0 L o ‘1: "4 Q) {I ~ ~ I » a) ‘3 Q- 4) Q) u) L? Q) - r.) u c: 'H a) L :1 g: r «1 ii) p... 3; 9., S Q) o .c: Q) I: o a) L w ‘o o) H m m i) r. 0 Q) U u r: L: :2 :1 x: ‘p +3 L 4-) .C p t; O i: 11 C 3 m c) L LI H ~1 \) -.4 C C1. 0 o p :5 E3 Q) p m H 0 ...: Q) Q) Q) Q a: t) s: L H O. (0 C hC E: U) H -H o b) t) u m ’w H k; Pu, i. .‘. .‘q 0 a: a) a) o H c: H c). c. o .C :3 q) -H a) «4 g: m o as v.) o' '5 Q) ,‘> H p m H m :3 o E D )J H u’) L '3. L "I I) i. L L i. "" H E: H H p U L | L p o .4 m (1) n g). m s. L‘- :. u .) ‘0 '0 <6 0 H c: c: c Q) Q) H Q) on: Q) H i: r. r-c .? ~4 <"2 :-, ;: ‘2 C > E L H Q) Cs: > > . «1 o a. F; (in .4 u {9% r) v r: n r) 0 (UL. cm :3 mo. am: -H TJCU an: End 0.4 Li: xlwu Q)» 0 .CH H64 4.) E :1) mg; a.) m m a) rm a. Q) L c.) Q) Q) Q) c) {I L -t . ' I I I I I I o o I ' 0 v M N CD 0 4: 0) H :3 H (\J 3 “u r) N N m (n or) m :3 :2 in In Ln 1 m 1145 «Imm. o mw.: **mm.o 52.: tom.o Ho.z :m CH m o o q xxmm.o wo.: *mo.o oo.: ma m m H c & **o:.o mm.z *mo.o HH.: mfi NH 0 H a a .mfipwcompma mp .00 **wm.o 00.: m *xm:.o no.2 a:~.o 00.: ma ma OH H o < **mm.o m\.q *mm.o mm.m 0 ma ma : o ; **2:.o mm.: *cm.c Hw.m ; 9H 2H m o 9 .manflxmaw mm .om **OH.Q mm.m m **mo.o mm.m *m:.o NH.: ma ma 0 c g < **oo.o :Q.m 39.: Hm.m dH :H m 2 r L *xx .0 mo.m om.3 on.m m pH 0 x : a .mHmEmL mg .m5 **:\L.O NH.: m. **O.w.© mm.: 30.0 Hm.m NH WH 2H H H ....,.. *xmm.o 00.: cm.a mm.m m u «a m x m **mw.o :w.a mq.fl :a.m a n «H m w p .m>fimwoos mg .:L **o:.o H~.: . *xam.o mh.s mm.H m;.m o g 9H a . m *xmn.o 0m.: *wm.u mQ.¢ UH nH a F k H mm.o mm.: *nx.g s4.m m :c L g m .wcfluamoom mp .05 **>>.o N©.: a **mm.o mu.: *éJ. wj.u m m Hm w H d **mo.o mn.m *yw.t Ma.4 “H a H a _ m .coHuom :m.o m:.m *w:. m;.: mm 7M 2 - - m muM5HLECo meHuHCH ang 0p mflnfimcoame HmQL .mw **om.o mm.m n **02.0 mw.m *Qfiflg mu.m u NH qH w ) a Nm.o m4.m nu.. hm.n ma :L n w . w .mcmmflpflo meE **om.o ma.m *fl>.a w‘.1 HM nfl Q m ) m :mgu mace mmwuw>wuom mpflcsiEoo CH mquHOHmea .wo **H0.0 N:.: , MH.H no.3 ma.g an.m 3H “H r m a a .mHQoma **ou.o mm.q *r:.m Um.” ufl “H a m r w Loguo cmxp mfiwmfi mzp mam wcwcmmp cmSOLLu no.9 :c.: *mm.c 7m.: ma gfi H H c u “Lmflgona LmHQOQ Lo vQELOQCL maog @HQQEH; ammx .mm mn.a mm.m : mm.a mm.m mm.H m:.w m a La H a a mm.H La.m mm.H mm.m m JH m m r L mm.a m\.m mm.H mm.m m a HH w w L .mEHuxcm pm Hamolco ms .30 . . . vfizoxw mepo3 Hmfloom Hoocom mge «o M No m we m, 2:: 2mm :wa _ QSOLU EmuH wCOanuowaxm Hmzuoq megpc Lo mcoflumpoqum Lo acofipamogmm .mpmxpoz Hmfioom Hoozom 1146 mmocmHLm> n mpoc UHsonw mwmem>m cwwE .mzmcmmcoo qsopw Hmzpom n ** «coHmeoLmQ chu so wzmcmmCOU 3mm u x x MUHsocm mepHcHumu n ma MUHsogm mHLMLOLQ H mm mp0: mmE Lo 2mg n as? mp0: oHsozm szmQOLQ u 2mm ”asepw 3m Hoocom u m museum mepos mocmmm n ¢ mazopm HwQHocHLQ u m masopw pmcomwp n B “mcoo mm.H mH.H **~N.o OOJH mm.o mm.m m:.m m:.m :m.m ma.z m:.m zo.m mw.m oH.a m~.m mm.m om.m H:.: 5m.: wo.z Hm.m um.m om. m:.m om.m N N (‘u m m m m CY) \OCIDNN NOM(D 3 CDCJMOO 47-3-3 5 OH mH m m « m HH OH m o A 5 MH OH 5 c a .pmHammep m caspmp mo .mmH m 0 NH mH @ o < HH Hm : H o g MH em 2 o o 9 .comgma moLSmep mchpmmH m omapmp on .oHH m m 9H m m < H m 0H mH m a , H m .a HH m b .ponmmH m umEme mp .00H 0 u mH mH H <. m m oH m H ; .compma a w 0H 5 H B moLSOmmL pcmequw>mU Ucm cpzogw m @mEpmu mo .on : 5 NH m o a m HH ma : o ; m.m w NH mH m Q h .cmmzpmnuow m cmgpmp mo .00H m mH mH 0 c 4 z m oH m s A m m mH OH x @ .mepox Estoprzo m nmEme mp .moH OH m OH m m ¢ NH 3H m o o g NH 0H m o o b .Eamz mp .Nm 147 msmcmmcoU 3mm oz 9 asopm HmQHocHLm .r fiwjuofa _ azopw pmcommb Q _ €33)»: . p..."q ) .‘s \. -. . #fir.-......r.rL .» _ Lanna HmaHocHLm -ux»\¢14 4 me>fimogmg “gupw szommb a y 1).«‘.... - M 11.2. q. r 31C _ Joan megox xocwmm 4..)x. . .l . xi... {11“} .1.4 a:(:n HuLficcwzx I‘...c.,)) r 0.4 -( ‘ 3 I) 1.. ‘v ‘ H T. an >. .k U f) m“ auopw Luzomme .11.»1J\).. _ _‘....-Wr\‘(: b .‘LnUoI. w fl.r:.~A/... r4 uucgm Loznma {-u .QHszmommH Log xpoz HaHoou no mHoocom an» o» CLSp .HOOp Lmee ch mw somOLagm xpozwmmo mcu meHmcoo .mpwxgoz mocmww HmHoom an ummm m mm cmNchOOmp mp .mucmpma csz mconmsomHo gH Hadrgm m2» upoaazm mzmsz .munguon>mU Hm:oHumu:flc uuvumn Ho uwvazm avmx .om .mm .Hm .mH .34 y) (.3 9 ocean mu» CH < H .msp,q :«4 1: Hanna; Wamgm mgoa_mvnn :H w 4...\ .,“ 4 1 . u .. I A Q 4‘ x ‘. n .I 4 ). p H Und.».-,wr,..ifrflx.s. an UiQ.u ”LEM“: was: 5. mm “.mAWVCK‘OON‘ Q”. m . . . vHuagw naypox quoom Hoocom msw 3 - .1. ... E 7. m. a 2 :muH mcmwumuvmuxm Low cmmrumn mo:manHHu mo mdmnozln.nln 1 1148 nnmcoucoo 3mm 02 anaconcoo 3mm 02 ACOHpmpomaxm :30 ..m.Hv coHpHcHgmoacoHprog n.3mm macaw Huaaocuhm _. mdflmo< — macaw uozodoa A 0>J 930nm uoxuo: accou< W flifim 6 anon» Hdaaocuam d5 0 0b OORO macaw nonouoa F‘ 00>: anon» 9039 3 honou< a can guano: aocvu< ngpO‘ _ N0>m00h0m _ naouu honodoa + Flw nsouu noxuos hocom< + > macaw Huaaochm Hdauo‘ _ uo>Hoouon anocw szpHcHHmou mo oHsozw HHpmnopmu mm no: awe Lo zmiuzzz po: cHsocm HHompopmuzmm uoc anocw mHopHcHgmouzmQ .aouaoH a weapon on .oanwxonu on .oHuaou on .coHuou anacsaaoo ouauuaca 9H»: 0» «Had-conuou Hoou .ucouauao anon can» ouoa noaua>uuoa muacsaaoo :« uuuaaoaauda .Hucdcaaua nu: :«v nosaacnoou coauuuacuuuo unusual00 unaudou .ucoacou«>co ma: Ac unacucoHuaHuu Huuooa man can» once azuoxus Hmoaononoana u.uHacu on» unanmcasu mHHauocuw ”mnoo .moa é .ms .mm .so .ow .am lill.~¢ # * .7‘ r4 \ r.» .1 . n n 0 fi V .1‘. HT :3 . . o ‘ 3 I: x.) kg (1 ("TN _ [.- l ‘ ‘ L13 LN r‘:xi-< no r~ iv— .L r, \" _ son 1 questi e PEI" run A» a Y‘OSOU L‘ o) 3. .- L! be recot iized .3 (V\ (‘-J C) (‘J DJ (I) t.) ~ cwrw ”\(D HH UR LI\ C- 4? oom. err) r—‘H (V'o‘ ‘1 (W i“\ H (WI (‘J r-i '~ «1 L'\ XL) 2 a; p- (J C: (‘1 L) H an O L‘; L’) O C I: a: t L.‘"- r‘J I‘ .D \o ..‘\L. m O C) L_ O :1 H (#01 :3 (wk-(r, I O D O :T H. H: "I L.“ C‘\ C) ".“ (J) (‘J ”‘1 ('7 Libel: mm r—‘l .5. mom ll C..r-4C)C7 (‘J (Dr-4C1 5 w .;:; f.) ;_) x: q k. LH. KW r1 0 > '1: Q1 fl C ‘r‘. L: C O a H Q) U 0 m H L D u L U. Q} #1 c) L: 7‘! i E m 7"- ~4 «3 (J O L U) ‘ r-4 “U 0 (1) O u .2: H C) 23 u) U) C 3 O Q) U C q) QH .0 O t\. N O U} m - C u"~ 1.) \i) ("J LN L.“ [“~ Lf\ . . . . Hr—cHr—i momma) ‘VOOLWZ (‘4 (W on m 11 (‘J a") C)" H r~ ug» OW C’\ r—4 (‘1 m C13 :7 ”'1 f". Hut 7: :r o: ‘l O f) 6'.“ C L -H U L‘) H ‘r'4 C. ‘H a" L: (J ”3 C L11 .,—4 | L L C. 1' Q) U C ('1 P Q) L) L (a) ifi 94 O O C: Q. 0 H a ‘_) o 0 w Q) o L Q) q—q PC} a. L‘) Q) L E (D O u - (I) U U) (‘5 C Q) E O "U "‘4 H. CH 5) > L- C1 0 a: H id 6) a.) Q. If) 1‘ L“ (‘J 0 L0 U) * (“404.3 U .1: (\I U3 (3\ f‘ HOC) C) ‘1'.) C) LS UN 03 \O 0" :r O I I O (‘33—‘73 f' '|-? r-1 0 mm (‘1 CD RI) :1 (“.7 ‘U m C“. (‘4 (V) (“'4 3‘ (Jr—4 be supervised in his work. 9 - C". (“J C') (D O“ (‘1') K‘) Nl\d) OOLU L51 (7\ (‘J 5: r4 ('4 mrwr: \QHH ('3 ('i C’) (‘JHr—i be a member of state-wide committees. 10. A. r‘ 0.7 .(_.L —v (‘\l 11 ll [1 C) 'U Ifi :3 O .C b? "‘ (l) :7“) h.“ r-1 rd (1) L J3 l.1 H > I; m *1 Cc ‘ C.) 0‘ II ll 1'. ch 5'} .n's (L! Q 1‘3 3 O O L ,3. f" I." a (l) 3 9,0 0'] r—‘I C Ci) (1’ r-J. J“ '11: (N W! in O C On .1": H D C) {.4 *4 L". (11 ”" ’6 II II II L”) .1 ('Q‘ .AL“ .0. 1}. ll) :1 .r r) (‘1 ",1 L3 L4 (4 Q) {:1 3 L, 0 1. $4 5: ‘3) G) :0 2’- -‘c L1 ‘1 :5 () O (1 C) 3 l; (’3- II :-.x.. C) C) (J L: 1. Q1 h. -“ U '11 «1 ll :3 '-'J H ’3) {I ,L. '1 ‘1: ’1 .a ‘1 -"¢_‘ L.‘ n. O 0 :1 CI 0 II ‘c :-’. L. 51* E H .3. a? £7. : (.4. '0 E' .4 : (J :5 {j M £4 .,—1 " (7 $4 0. II r—4 (1) ll 7". > fi-y LL :17, r—4 ca vol :7) L‘. u H :J C" ~4 O C H L4 W1 uj'f‘ .4 r—4. m :3 .1 Q) Q (i‘ g L: ‘1 ’1 "1 L). (U (1) p, N H ll (“ H: C. O '0‘ i. 1) Q. (l .. L: 0.) ll :71 'C ”4 0 L". ‘0 () (’1 {’1 4 t) 00 n ‘J LI)" {2 t.) t h 6‘ h f :7 \“ nun“ \‘ .‘ 150 ' \ F__, f , ‘ ‘ Q . J m ‘J (J r—1 ,‘J 2‘4 R1 Cu L‘J Lu "J (‘1 1'1 {-4 (J (‘J H. 'J 4 , 1 w ’1 rd {3 _ u u (j «J ) W L“ {3 It) I D C3 ’D If) ' U] (1 «'1 {.1 C) [a r} (j 3'; X. p . . C v: . . . g: g; . . . . . . . . g: L: . . C . C C . g in it It ”I I It It * 8‘ * ‘v 0 ‘ - L ‘ r. v i - . (‘q r» *v .C; " l l I 2 ‘H (h [—1 ‘. Y. 1""; C; 4". if: JD ("x-(.1 , D r» -..’\:I ""‘r «if» p {H (‘J :1 «L1 -f 0;) c. ‘ r . r - r W _ ' m rm. v“. r—q C. a. rc r a . "“13. (ii Ln 7'4 x: (7 ‘ ("J r» n: .3 . DJ m M C\ or» Ln :r '14 ..I m [J a a u o c o o o o I n u o o o o o o o o o o - I n u t o o o a c _ I . . . . . . r: . «own r—a-‘QHH (\CZ*C"C§ CsC‘.H(“) Dm:w"~ HUD/HF.) HQr-ir-c r-«IOMG H,4.4r-4 " : . a . 4 ’3 r4 . -.i r. 3' ».“> 2'. Li» :‘J r» “.5: U?» r“ "\0.) (1“ 7" .."» ”‘ (a i!" :3 H m ' f" 7‘“ Cl" C) \Q\—T K "V I.“ 1.. ' 4'» ' 7 r‘ l ' ’V“' J ‘ — '3‘ . -" ’ ‘7\ " '~ .: ~15 "‘ v 4 r» i? ". .i 'r“ J: :r (“:3 5 Cl 7 m f“ k x r- d“ An ‘0 5" "i T 1.: u o n a o y a o . . Q . o o I u n o o . o u I . a I 0 ' ' o o u u c o o o —: ' wr : ' w (v a . : J :r :7 .7 :r :r :: {-1 f'" m—J <‘J 6'“ OWN-"1 <'“~~ 0' ~‘-' .4 -"" r—4 (\1 «‘1 .4 m .1114 (‘1 '. -.1 1x. . H ,‘.,<.\ :1 L,. ‘.J:'- r‘1.\tl"" ,‘xziu‘n‘x ("J r1543 0‘ (Mb—L) Hf"!"."..' r4 \Qtiofiri [Infiu'ifi .71 ‘.\ V ‘ ‘ J u. .77. 1‘11 I '1 r‘L"\r1\'7’ ‘JV\." [41"‘8‘ (.1 H (J ”NH H F“ L: F . u .r U- ,_ ; _. . , t. . H ~;- .7. H ,7 a.) r—4 >.‘~ r-‘wo m 7‘. :: Cl P" D (“a ,7 7' '74 |“ L.’\L.'\ (3 . 1 m w: . J -‘-’u 0 r' r—« «a i. . , o" .4 .—4 r. :r r 4 .4 , \ H H ‘t . 1'1 (n .4 ;) '1 -4 .H 2;: I » U‘\ '1 -4 if g 'r: :7 r’4 r1t. (‘2 r (g, :‘n L.“- v. \Q .40“ If £51310“ '4 ”"1311 f‘“ :1.» (J I. \ 1H t7~ L.) «I (31 t. j- f‘mr‘ 74,q.‘ .::H4 (‘1 -:r-1~dt2i :I r;(-; ;:r—q.—1 "*4 '9 all: .‘ifl +1 I . L': «"4 i . 2.2 (5 : ..r - r 4 3;; . . f . L‘. :7 rr -’\ .7 ‘” . t.» O 0*». C.‘ 1‘1 Cr 7“ “.7 HO "‘N r: 4: H C\ r'J (_> Y“- a"; '—4 . (‘7 1;” A .j‘xo b. '4 I :2 r4 {-1 H (‘7 L: x’ l T r 'C' 5: r4 : -., -—..' _‘ « 4) g'. 4."- f': -" \,‘I F,‘ r4 C) u) ‘Q L_" : l (E {a Cl 5‘ V 'I’J .‘f‘xKL’ F; L". A? (‘1 (KN ('1 ”V ‘ ’ ‘ u'. r ‘ (m on r'. « 1 I » H.“ '3 J 2' m r {.;.,.L-" (4;..cgr; {,>;',{L: {ML-i", 5‘4;;,41:r_‘ [.h,..:r"; {.ig(:'; f4.'....:~:'; i.;;..;:(; 5‘5““Cv’.) \."\H’\i U. '4: rs} .. {I .v '3 ‘ r. :‘ 0 "i x '> -# Q) 4) {4 L4 L C4 . 7“ v—1 -.‘ Q‘ {11 . ,.. ‘3. w L‘. ‘ I " A‘ U $' . v , « g L“ .4 'J C ‘7‘ 5 "‘ a,” C) "‘ ~I. L: 0 Q) (J 'L. c) _ ‘ f) () -'—‘ 4-) L: :‘4 o l‘ \ Q. ~4 J) p .pl .H <,: «4 w '1 O --1 . r1 5) r4 (v) :3 i) :4: r“ 1*; Li M ‘ L O . 1‘. r1» £2 4',‘ (J u 'r': 2. 1‘ - {.4 i: C. L r‘ I" ,_._4_ K _: if) '73 0 E) -w u - £2 ff‘ :4 <. H .4 i. it! s) «74 'T,‘ H ”4 (*1 '1. "x “J C. i. 0‘. ,5.) $1 I. 1* o :i m m C 'H ‘1' p a,- H I: :4 ‘1: J 'J H O i l (1} . .I' m ’T‘ :5 m H q: u " .1: L to 2'1 H u L. g: g g E. a) «v 0 s: v. g: t... cu q; t: p v—4 o G) M £3 0’ C 3 A; a; If; :1 u .E: F; m ”.1 w i. m i; c o '2.) :3 ~ 0: i. :.r— -2. (3 :_' L. Q) 15) o f) ‘fi. « Q! :1 (:5 Q: 3 .--4 < o L O -' 4 CU L; is. [in ' u M I; L (p CL) Q) $—~ ‘ J L. :‘f‘ >< O 7) r—1 r4 0 L: L A: I: Q. " U '1 Q) I") (T2 W x) u r,. p C) E 0 c 4 Ln 0 (“1 W1 r4 H4 Q4 ‘3. H V". ' .«LJ .‘x‘ f.) C i.‘ O U Q) .‘I’ U 11 g. H A. (:3 a) w L p Q) L r) “n o .'.: u c‘: z: "< p O I: <11 @ 3 Lina u *1 o no c); m u '11 H C: r.- q; 3 r4 0.) (2‘; Q. «*4 H '0 q) o o 'o u cu 73 . C C ‘D "‘3‘ ‘U 6‘ f3 "7 (j p fl u; £4 (,0 . (1) r4 0) C .U L. n H p .L‘ H C ;.- LO Q) H (D h = n o m m E. m a) p ,o u u E; (D Cir—4 p H U) C: C 1’. C U) w‘l E: O :3 fl Q...4 g H (v a as (1; <1) «4 E O m w m a. cu {—4 :> Li! 3: ,"H > to E o L C) r) L‘: .112 q) Q) (11 Q) r4 c}, :U m 0 ‘1) O .1) r} c) r; [4 n L l: x (11 O. .C: m 0 L 3+ ,u u“. as 0 U I Q 0 9 I ' I . m1 F‘J O": :2 Ln "‘ t“ ‘D C (V r"1 d r4 H 7-. H H *4 ri F 151 *mh.o :H.q nH WH 0H U o u we mH.H :o.m mH mH m u m < 0 3. into mam 3. 3 HH u u a .3annt o m. .25 H: m a HH H a, .H L8 ”to...” 38% 3 385m 2.). 3 ES *mo.o om.: pm a U o u m u as :mm.o mm.: mm m H m H < o .8 13.0 mm; a: a m o g H o m: mcw.o Hm.a HmH mH H H H H .mp0: HmHucm :H copmmmmn Ho pummpnm ummx *NH.o om.n mm a H o o w m m: umm.o mh.: om : o o H 4 o m: .Jm.o mn.: mm m m o o m .meHHEmg a Ho. ~mm.o om.a mm m: MH 0 H b umHmmm ou mmoL30mop szczEEOO mepo m>Ho>cH m mo.H Hm.m n n mm a m m n: Hm.H wo.m a n mH m m 4 w: Hm.H mm.m HH mH 0H m m m .vwsmoHLm>o vamLHm mH Hocwwm mumHLQOLaqm cm MH mc MH.H Hw.m wm km mm HH m b cvaHHco mo wEmHnopa EpopumcoH .m>Hmcmch oanmc amo.o ww.m m mH mm o o m o m: nn~.o mw.m w mH 3H 0 H < m mc .mw.o mm.m mH 2H NH o o w .ucmcspm xpo: HmHoom m mm a mo. mam.o mo.z m: mw Om H o b tmchm was» ucozmn mocmHLquw mocmmm HmHoom m>mc .mm.o 05.: um w m o o m m: mm.o Hq.u Hm m m H H < u we tnv.o No.3 Hm MH m H o a .mconmsomHv a mo. .mmé Hm; mm hm mH H o a. 53m 2263.“ smack: 335mm :3: 33.03 fox mo.H mm.m 2H 0H mH H H m ac oH.H :z.m m m mH m H < w. om.o oo.m m mH mH m H m mo. wo.H mm.m mH m: m: mm m p .pwHamLmzu nuHmmc Hmucwe a ma coHuocsp moEHmeow no.H mm.m mH 0 NH o H m as pH.H mm.m mH 5 HH H m < .: mm.o mm.m mH mH 2H H H m u‘ .mn.o ub.m mm no r: z m 9. .HOOH LmeE mHn mm zomopqam xpozwmmo mcp LmonCOO m {6.90 mm; 3 HH m H a m u as *uw.o om.: 4m r H m o q u we *n:.o mz.: mm pH m o o m .coHumHoommm Hmconmmgopa xpoz HmHQOw u mc imm.o mm.: mm Ha mm H u H mg» no aHHmoOH uwmmH um LmnEmE m>Hpom cm mp *mH.o mm.: mm m H O o n m: zc.H wz.: Wm m H o m < m a: .230 3.4. mm HH m o o a ‘ a He. *mm.o Hu.: 4» mm mH H H B .npuxucz mocmmm HmHQOm an mea m mm anHcmOomp mp . . . mHzonm pmxnoz HmHuom Hoocom 0:9 U< O ax .JN‘ \l .1. qu ~1n) \Iv 11 Q ~ hm rfL UL :55 50% ‘03 1&2 v U Ham V < \u 4 m Hana :3 3 4L m /r: . r mHaEmm awn meL03.HmHoom Hoocom on» vHuoxm nomnma xnoz HwHoom m go 2055 30: ”coHuwwsa .wapoz HmHuom +mconmmuonu m mm 3mm mm» Lou mCOHumuowuxmll.maolo ‘1552 go.H NH.m m mH mH : z m 2 $4 8a m m m m a 4 ms mm.H Hm.m m m mH mH m ; Ho. mm.H om.m m mH mm mm m: B .Lozoocm oco go ucmpmHOp egos mEoomn mgocomop QHoc .mm mw.o mm.m m H mm m m m m: mm.o H~.m o 0 NH 0 m < m: mo.H Hm.m m m mm 0H m m w: :m.o Hm.m : m we a: mm b .coHumHHzmcoo ucogma Op oEHp mH: go umoE m>Hw .mm mH.H mm.m gH HH NH O m m m: mz.H mm.m H m m z m H we mH.H mw.m mH m mH m m g .EHn Log Emgmopa ammo mzo Lo Locommo ammo on» NO. mm.H cm. om mm Hm Hm m 9 mm Losw .UHHco m Log ucoficmemm Hoocom ccoEEoooL .mm *w2.o om.: om HH m o o m . mc mo.H 00.: MH :H a m H < o m: *ao.o mm.: mm :H OH o o a .mepomoo «Hooma wchcHLo a Ho. zoo.o Ho.: :2 :0 mm m H b no cwgfiHHco ou mmoH>me HmHoQO mumchLooo .wm aHm.o m~.m o m Hm : a w 0 m: :0 .o :z.m c m mH w w < m: Hm.o m.m H 5 mm m m m .mwco: CH cmcu Locum» onggo ch CH m: No.0 m©.m m mH on mm mm H mHmmn UmHsomcom m :0 mpcwgmq ocm cmLUHHco poms .mm *Hm.o H~.m o m mm m m m . a mo. *Hn.o mH.m o H HH HH 0 q .ocmecouH>cm o w: a:m.o mm.m o m mm NH m u no mangcoHumHoL HmHoom sz cmco oLoE asuoxms m: mo.H mm.m w HH No m: mm H HmngoHozoum m.oHH:o on» oNHmmnaEm mHHmLocow .am mm .o mH.m H H mm H N m o w: *wm.o ow.m m m mH m o H . u we uom.o so.m H m om m o g .momgogu go momma a no meocmmHo u we *w>.o mH.m m Om cm mH m 9 go memos m mm comopaam xpoxasonw oz» mos .mm *Hm.o no.2 mH Hm m o o m m: mo.H mm.m m 0H CH m 0 ¢ 0 w: mow.o Hm.m mH 0H wH o o g .coLoHHzo Low:30% :0 ooH>me mg» go :oHowLo m: :m.o mm.m mm on a: o z B Icoocoo Hp coHoco>oLa co mugoggw mHL Lmocmo .mm mo.H um.m m m mm m m u mC mo.H swim J 2 gm m o w. m: om.H mo.m NH 0 3H m m a .cmeHHso cqu mEHu mH: go pmoE wcanmam mo Ho. mm.o w>.m mm as mm m m a cha ch go Lmucmo on» mm mHon mg» chuchE .Hm . . . onocm Loxpoa HmHoom Hoozom oze “a «0 w m mg 2:: 2mm 2mm Had o a Hjm \ < CoHuzzHLgmHm HM: v ; LooH Aura; h. mHufiwu wmeLom HmHoon Hoocom 0:» go mcoHpocsg mmonp ozonm xcpr son on was: .coHpmmn; .Loxmou H:Hoom Hoozom opp go oHOL xgoz ochnl.:lwiu mqmme Hocmmm we om~.o 00.: mH om o m o m onu oNHEHxaE ow Loopo CH mmHocmwm oomHLaogaom m: mm.o mo.: mm mm pm 0 m B 0» ngpmgmL mLOgmo mmHHHEmg con xgox mo.H mm.z Hm mH m m H m m: mH.H m .m HH HH m m H < .mCOHoanoo mo. mm.o Hm.m m mH Hm : H m HmHoom Lo cono: HmuCoE go mcoHumozo co Ho. om.H o:.m pm on mm 0H OH H mpmnowmp qun o» mer mcHumms mcHnHHsn mm: cmpgo nmw.o mH.: mH om : m o m we $1.0 2.: 2 S H o H H m: aom.o wm.: mH Hm w o o g .LmEE3m mzu wcngo mc :m~.o NH.: m mm Hm m H h mHomHHm>m ooH>Lom xpoz HmHoom Hoocom ome 9H0: om.H Ha.m m m 0H m m m m: om.H mw.m m MH m o z ¢ m 0H.H om.m mH mH uH w H g .Eoc» 0o moH>Lom mH: :HHom= ocm moHHHEmg w mm.H mm.m H: m: mm NH :H a unoumHmmL Eopg cmLoHHco ooppogop go moEoc pHmH> mo.H mm.m 0H HH NH H m m - m: 2mm.o Hm.m m mH m H o o me. mo.H @H.z mm oH m m H m .mHoocom mchoozmHmc .HHmEm Ho. *mm.o wa.: mm m: LH H H 9 go pmoESC nmuHEHH m Lo mwgmH oco HHco w>pmm mo.H om.m HH 5 Hm m H m m: NH.H mm.m m n n m m < m: aH.H m.m m m mH m m a .mEmHnopa Uoocpooszm: m>Hom QHmL mo. Hm.H mo.m mH nm :2 :m om B o» mopoggm mme o» mucmpmo oost Ucm mum>HuoE mm.H mm.m mH QH m a H m m arc.o am.: :H :H a H o d w mm.o mm.m mH mH :H m o m .owmpcm>om ommo oo memos LHocu mm: m: HTH Sim mm m: 3 .MH m a $228 333:. 8 835»: oHnmumuHmcS 893m *um.o mm.: Hm m m o o m n *3>.o :2.2 mm HH m o H a n: mm.o mm.: mm mH m H H g Ho. .mm.o mo.u n: mo mm m o D .ngsogw pampmq 0p compmq moLSOmoL m mw m>pmm mu.H OH.: mm m r H m u m: mfi.H mm.m HH m m m z m .mgmHooga m: «m.H mH.u mm 4H m m H m chonmogona go mucHx mSOHLm> co mHmaHocHLQ Lo mo. rm.H m:.m an Hm cm mm mH U nnmnowmo noHa mcHHmmcsoo m>HpLOQQ3m on meHumEow mm,H am; Nu m H m m m .1 «5H mp5 H :H H o m 4 mg *>:.m J.: :m om m H o m .mm>pmw m: mcHUHHzo comm 0» ms mo.o QH.: mm mw .H m w B :oHpocsg mHL ocm wcHxLOS go mHmpm mHL pnmwm Hw.H m .3 mm a m m m w mr m:.m m .m MH 0 x w w ¢ .ocopoqeoo mHomg E $.H 8.: Ha HH HH 0 m a on :0ch cH mcHHgHomHo Em 59C mHHme imam Hc mH.H mm.m w: m: gm 0H m B vcm EmHooua m.nHHco omgpogmp sumo omocmeo 'I \O -' r .“IT‘. and?" :9— q 'JC 7‘ r r E‘ ‘9. t; .1, .l 04 .gg. ' 4 ‘.‘(,' o . .{.1 n "L ’1 L 1’“ l r4 r r5 y,“ 'ndéré*3hifxr 1 ' A \ ‘ ‘. . .4 n o . 'A ‘ \V» o o r-4 . 4 "l a . g ' {V} l, l J ‘ ‘ 4‘ \ u y 4 F. . ¢ ,_' H “ (. ,—4 U ' i ; ‘ v‘ - r p. b. . o? 3 4 -‘ r? a a I“, U" (J (>‘ {M J) «‘4 11 .‘ ,‘ t. 7’ o 4 I' .. H‘ .. ‘4 t a p. Q, 1: . 4 ‘1 m <: 3 «A O m 7 fi '71 y" ’1 3 (J ~1 (T) . (T-I‘] ‘|"« l . . l ') ., :1 A . [,7 ~‘ ‘ r’Q \ n '74 ‘Y‘ (‘4 ‘71 . 4 r4 . vi) (3 T. L": ~-« V. 11 P. ., ‘1‘7‘1‘ H . ‘1 ‘,< ”.7 n .1LA.A’.1.. -qu':. I ezhn ’EI‘K C ~’xr of)!» 3* L.‘ U'\ 1'! L ”H (V 1. J ['V . ("J I‘J . Y .4 J ,6 (I ,H 1514 i ) r { F L) "'1 f~ —“J (‘1‘LIC‘J . . \301-4 ‘uC? . . . . n" "‘1. (~M;fl (J t .. ,f (‘4 v‘i ' LT .3 ’. J r1‘ [’4" , r. r—C (4%“: OJ L! - 7:? n", *1 14 .5 0 r1 ‘,) 2'} o C: L11 T4 '94 Q) Q) (1) H ' n environn "J r‘) U ‘ r w. . . . 1'” f "I [17“»VJ~7 i! ‘J 2 v' "1" , 6‘A 'V' 1 -..A 4?, .3- 3 H. .g/ ‘) I ("7 .01 7“ V1 t._ {J 3‘) 0') 3: “2) (n .V 2 H I I "W o 'Q r}; H L: :"l‘y r4 '3 f") F- i C I O \ ) r 1 r. J’ ’3‘ .I 4 L \ ,.. #4 r" ‘ : :1 r4 :1 . (C 5, 1 (J<) (I (u ’46) r‘n - i * * fl, 4““) r~( - "'4‘1.’ . o . u C‘ \‘ ’1'?) \Wt'x'f‘l) I \7\-.’ W. . . . . )(1 ~, 0W (‘Wr—i 7’1 A l{ l$_\ \l‘ ¢) * * * J ' f‘ T : 14“" O I l (7' .“W F! 1 u" ‘ 5? . ~ L.« (‘2 r1 Q '4 L"; * .; “n .v,{ . . 'I.‘ v ‘a .7 . . HI ‘1 4.:h (“1 A! Iv vxv «fiwfiv ( .| LA LC H , F“ * i;v" ‘ _‘ ‘1: 1 1’ (7 V“ a) 1 I” A 1‘: : x"l I ‘u‘VK I'J r‘ 4' L.( . r‘O [me >pHcsEEOQ um>0LQEH wcmemm u w: *mm.o 20.: a: mm mm H o h monopa Hmconmowoga go LonmE m>Hpom cm mo .mo .mN.o 0N.m HH 0H 0H H o m o w: mmz.o mw.m m mH HH m o < w: Nm.o m:.m m 0 mm m H a .mcmNHuHo pmoe a mo. .wm.o NH.m OH Nm mm mH : p can» mace mmHuH>Hpom Npchssoo :H wumaHOprma .No aHm.o ma.a am m N o o m m: MH.H mo.: NH m N m H < . . o m: .oo.o om.z mm mH N H o g .mHoomo meuo cmzp mHUmE m2» vcm wchmmp cwsopcp m: No.0 20.: mm mm Nm m a & meHpopq HmHoom no vapoucH egos pHmmEHz awmx .oo *mN.o 23.: Nm m N H o m m: mm.H 00.: mH NH m m m ¢ 0 m: .mo.o om.: mm NH 0 H o m .mmmcmpwzm oHHnsq mmmmpocH mo. mw.o mo.z :m m: mm N H 9 0p xgoz ch chHaxm on zuHcsuuonQo >Lo>o oxmu .mw mw.H mm.m m s 0H m :H m we mm.H mm.m m z N MH m < m: om.H Hm.m H w NH m mH m m: mmH mm.m : mH 3 mm o: e .mEHchm pm HHwonco mp .20 mo.H mm.m mH m mH H H w w: mm.o mw.m oH oH mH m o < m: umo.o mo.z mH mH 3H 0 o a .mmHHHEau wc aom.o mw.m mm mm mm o z b :pHx mmchmmE mgnoclpopum mwcmppm mmEHumEom .mo mm.H mm.: mm m m H m m m: :m.H mo.m aH a w m m < «c om.H Hm.m. Hm HH m z m u .mpcmz ma mm on on m: om.H :H.a mN Hm on N m 9 C30 mHn mm muse: wcHxLozucoc ch pmnHmcoo .mo mH.H mm.m m N Hm z N n ma HH.H om.m m HH wH o z < m: om.H HH.m : 3H NH m o. a .mcoHpmpomaxm HuHc35E00 HmooH ms mm.H mN.m HH m m: Hm mm b On Epoucoo ou mmeH>Huom Hmcompma ch NQHUOE .Ho . . . UHsocm Loxpoz HmHoow Hoocom use pm No N mm mm 22: 2mm :wa Hm: v m Mam W < N: a co p: L m mam H 2H u HQ HozHV 9 pH mHQEmm :NmEHu :30; mH: :0 on UHsozm mepoz HwHoom HOOCQW mg» m>mHHmo 30% on was: "coHpmmzo .mego3 HmHoom Hoocom ms» 90 ngH mpm>HLQ ocelu.ono|o mqmH lf\r-1C)O fl r—IUNHM r0 1‘" ‘0 LA" 11' (V1 r—4 P! hi H r" L“ (Jr! U‘; '4 (L) m m I“. (‘J r4 E4u.« .-\ \‘\ P, f‘J r! .;f Mr -\-\ "J ’J r'O(J n". L. \ g) 0". r4 (' "Er—OH ( E'Q.d(d permissive. 99 157 "‘KD "\ Fri r4 ('j v” { r-1 (4' F . r4 Hr“ C‘OC‘O E—‘GH'ICL'J personable. 90. m CC * I (’7‘! \1". \ r D ,U C‘ (D 7 \(3 2 (\1 (‘4 £747 L‘erN \__') r4 L.1 (*1 h o. uasive. 0 .3 per 91. If) r“ >- r‘n (X) Li: a 3 (.1 W‘ rd t" I o I '. .3 . )5 L) N01 00:!) s 0C .313 fi‘-(";"\$’.‘ .‘_".;)L“AN‘- . . . . OOOO 'J,‘\.')«’2-.‘\ ;3\i')f"r—i . . . mmmrfi ‘2) (TN {v1 (‘1 r‘ (T ("‘1“) ‘ . L'\ .fi'\ ' - C'OHC‘ E4 {1. ‘1 C’} reliEIOus. 92. C“ ‘~ 3 OW r—l (“x a ... scholarly. gmpathetic ‘1 .Q 91:. D so (Dink/l LI L‘LJC ‘1 I * Ln rv'\ .7 NM? -3\ “HO LWm‘DOD . . . . . . (“O OOC>O *1; w “.on .‘ l-- V"? . . . . . 1"“ 7—: —f:.‘ 1.0 :: ("TN -" (‘10.! r—-’) yi'T‘xQC‘ (“1H ":1“! t -. .-var-‘7 r“: F-("l r4!\(“.~4 . .- F;()r,‘.‘-4 Lr', foL.-1:(J (JUL) U) {1'} U) C C C & i I I CACHE-(“2 HHF‘J-‘t . a o o (r-.‘~r"-.~~¢ (10}! r,_ :3, :37'7 —: com-.. '7 (1:7!'CV’I H r~«lf\(‘\ft r—4 (~ firi‘.’ £50.16! (“JOE“(J r'L»-.ou vcm nuzonw .:0H 0m.H mo.m 0 z NN m m m N0. m:.H mm.N N z N 0H 0H < . m: th.0 mm.N N m Nm 0 H m m: 00.0 0N.N N 2H NN mm :H N .Loxpoz 53H30przo .moH om.H ON.m mH m 0H H m m we tNm.0 H.: NH :H N 0 0 d m: wnN.0 00.: NH MH NH 0 0 0 mo. . .mN.o NH.: mm on mm a H a .poHomcsoo .NoH xm©.o am.: mm m m a 0 m 0 ma $02.0 0m.: 0H MH 2 0 0 < 0 we nam.0 :0.: 0H NH :H 0 0 m o m: mzN.o NH.2 00 m: Nm m o H .ocprsmCOo .HoH .om.o 2m; m m m o o m we N0.H mH.z NH 0 m 0 H « 0 H0. emm.0 Nw.m HH mH NH 0 0 m 0 H0. mmN.o om.m N: mm N: m H .N .Loxpozmmmo .ooH nHN.0 0:.H H 0 m 0H NN m we mo.H mm.H o m m m NH 4 N0. m.0 mm.H 0 N 3H NH 0H m H0. 00.0 0H.N H m Hm Nm 0m 9 .LmOHhmo oocmvcmupw .mm m0.H 00.N H 0 mH N mH m N0. *QN.0 mm.N 0 N 0N m 0 d m: Hm.o mz.m H H a NH 0 a ma mm.o NH.N N m a: m: N: a .LoumpuchHEom .mm . . . on “Haocm saw on» go m>HpaHpomme sew» < pm no H mm mm 2:: 2mm 2mm AN: 0 m Ham 0 < coHuanpumHo AN: 0 m msmpH szHV 9 _ mHQemm Npmxpoz HmHoom Hoozow . . on» Log mum magma mmmnp xcHCu so» on pcm>mHmp so: “:oHpmosa .Loxnoz HmHoo Hoozom mg» 00 m>HpaHpomwn mELmNII.mnmlo mqm¢9 159 ') O L) L) ‘; ("I r'1 Hr—1 r‘v" ( H(J NO; (\j (\J 0' . -2 w , L: \ . 1., :) r'. ., ’1: ( ) ”.23 :0 (D ‘ v M K. to In '11 U1 :2 Q a". (f.- 1‘. z. '. (3 C. (J) (u If) (n O C) ~.D O U) 0’) -»‘.- Liti‘ -L':£: it's»: --x: --.1 £212: CCC ’C CC: ~o: CCC --- °CC * I: t t I t I i I I I I fl ‘ I f" f: 7‘ 1'3 r i!‘ L.\ ..“\ u > L) L.\ r-in ‘-I \ F‘ C‘ ”1;: -1 .2 P» r» \I C‘ "D (‘1 r4 H I: G» ‘-“\ 0‘0“ O f" H -: r~‘.'l ‘4) rN (‘J Li‘. (J L;\ m C) O O (D t— O\ L.’\ n . .-) ‘\ «w. x ’f: C '3‘...“ fi...’ t. . ~.\ ‘A ‘. N x. J- ' ,~ 2' r‘ " r-- u'e m \i: b O '3 L.\"" o,‘ '.) :.' r: (V‘- o‘ r» r. m o“ L.’\ MO ON C\C) H (‘) r» H LA’\ I O I O O I I I U I I I I I I O O I I I I I I I I O I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I O I O I O I I I I I I I I I (J (3 r. (A 9—1 (7, N4 N4 (3 (f? C‘ C) HI’1'\_,‘ 7' r—4 N4 (3 r4 r4 (3 (3* r7. r1 (3 C“. c) r—1 C; H H O .J O (3 C", U 5‘ O C2 C’) r4 H O C) Q r—i c) C) H H r—4 (‘3 r—1 r-i «n :3 «g» (H (T. t.. ow N {' ‘ m . I) P\ ("-J F" r (W 1:7. m b» no m at r ‘» 1: ("vs .4‘\ (‘J C?» H L.'\ 0 r4 H -.: r»; on ,—1 (3 (Y3 [N m ("5 (n (‘J m (3 (n \0 t-H :1 N :1‘ Ln m m \l) a. —! v4 \0 .0 (1a.: Ch 6" . H L.‘\ 01m N r ~ :I r.,_ u) [N L" C“ ; ‘ r-- (‘3 (' ~ r—d (‘4 19.x“. L. \ x‘ ‘J 0,) fix (\J ("a L."\ t» '0 ‘J \l‘) m 0\ UNQ C) (N— 0’» Ln ("J C“ (Wu .2! <1) I I I O I O C I I O I I I I I O I l I I C I I O O J I I I I I I I I O O I C I I I I I O I O C I I I I 0 O I I mrnrvxn Inmvnrr oar v: .‘ ummm FJCJHrd rmowrn. . fur-20‘. mom.“ mod : _: 4.: —: (“FINN C‘JNMN mmmm mmmm (J H r» {H -_:~ L. .3 r-11,\,= :3 r'i C» T“ k.‘ F.- C) fl 2" . (W O “\L‘ m: ( (4!» L“. O J. ‘2" 0 than 0 U“- “Mr? (W .1? MC) C) (fl .-: (\ r—4 (‘4 r4 \4) h— CD (“'1 H r") r-1 —;'r;r-4r'i r—1 (4 MM H (O Hf; [-—(;(.f. T) (‘J (J H r-4 I‘V'Wow _: (flung r1 (1:0 r4 '3 x-) our. «,1 N 1‘\;'\ 0'1 '. .7\ .. j 0‘ (:u': n; o v.0 (1 m (n Ln: H H‘.) uno N. H :3 H z :7 Ha) x.) :1 (N u‘\ Ln (.3 r4 :1 :4 («1 mm. H H :0 ,,. ~~. : m .H (*er H H .2: H: H : H m r—q (Viv-'1 Ch“: f: r (3‘ r» ~.) :. r~ \O \.> H“ *‘J : .4 '0 t F- 3‘ ‘ r4 _ - .‘ .. | a. J 2..-? :: "HIV 3 r —. r; H H t;\(.\ {N (‘0qu lF‘O N r—q \0 on Lflrr :Yr-lr—i .: N4,~4.—1 r“, ‘~~.(Jr‘-1\'J “\r—fir—q __'\:‘_r1r‘ -_.'..’,C, u-r—{rir‘ ‘j‘H .’. ‘-)bJH‘J PNP'VPJCJ CY)(’JHFJ ‘Oer’ifl (\HNM HOMO 4000 »: Jri..- rv4;’x.’... : n‘.) f. ‘v' ‘.‘(ir—4 ,\(' :0‘ r—M>O- :Nr-t~~4 T‘.:~—,’,_';' ‘QP‘C-nd hmolnc H H \ M u H r—c H ‘- r4 H H (hk'JrJr—i .: r1...". :5").;’)() U 4: w.) “)9 ri< .4 " ..4!— r1.1 , 7...».HH “_‘\)r‘ r§.\<;- ') .r—q a... \.»‘»-,.4!-- t-~r—-¢‘C\'.: \lr—it’J {-x i'") . i. L7. *1 r1 ’ - VJ Edu.<12’.1 Eda-1:1: {H.Lctt') [43.“13C‘. b.1461?) {win-1F) [UH-'12:; {'mtitfi E ..-:‘. . a...-::'.. :«H‘C’. «MGM. [4.an'. L~Ju1 Q) i. L :3 u L 3 J) H o O 1: H p . C Q) L U) u w a) u :3 be (U o a.) H U) .5, 'D . E C :L‘ p . L (U .‘Q H -H L E m L U) L . - Q) :3 M £20 Q) 0 .C O H O p N) i. ,C U) C O .C U U 3 m m - U) C O l m H t.) l O H L -H -H u No l) O 0 £4 r-1 H H r4 :> a) Li. C (U m (I J: .C m 0 I CU (U 0 L. I: (U L H u a) c) ) <1) 0 H H H CD 0 L m ”(1 £1 £4 >. >. m .C o o o o. m a.» m (D 0.) (U (I) e) a) o O O O :3 Q) .C H E E o. 0. Q. L m u) w m to p u 0 o o o o I I I I I I O c 0 H (\J m :2 Ln 0 N 00 m 0 r-1 (1 m r—4 r1 H H r—4 H1 (‘1 H H H m N m H H H r—1 r-1 N4 H H r-o H .H 160 TABLE C-7.--Incidence of convergence of groups with School Social Workers by sectors.a No. of Agency Sector Items Teachers Principals Workers 1. SSW as an in- fluential person 10 l u 3 2. SSW as a school person 10 l 2 O 3. SSW as a pro- fessional b social worker 10 3 7 M u. Work role of the SSW 2O 2 5 H 5. Training of the SSW 10 2 3 l 6. Private life of the SSW 9 1 u 3 7. Attributes of c c d the SSW 28 18 18 21 8. Terms de- scriptive of the SSW 26 3 5 3 Total 123 31 48 39 Percentage/ group 25% 39% 32% a"Strain toward convergence" included. bSignificant at .17 level. cSignificant at .10 level. dSignificant at .02 level. 161 TABLE C-8.--Incidence of divergence of groups with School Social Workers by sectors.* No. of Agency Sectors Items Teachers Principals Workers 1. SSW as an influential person 10 2 l O 2. SSW as a school person 10 O l l 3. SSW as a pro- fessional social worker 10 u 0 O U. Work role of the SSW 2O 2 0 l 5. Training of the SSW 10 l l O 6. Private life of the SSW 9 l O O 7. Attributes of the SSW 28 u 3 O 8. Terms de- scriptive of the SSW 26 l l 0 Total 123 15 7 2 Percentage/ group 12% 6% 1% *"Strain toward divergence" included. Eaautca .mflndxoao on .om 2162 m M .oamsou on .ms 9 < m m .ucofioamuo on .5» B .oanmhsu on .on c m .o> m om m . a m H a o a an .copoaano Lou mooa>pon zpficsesoo co>opoefi mafixmmm masonm Hmcofimmouopo no nonsos o>auom cm on .mu .mooCOIAUon ouaanamon no oHoHu ouummnaso .mm .poessm mafiano oaowaaw>a ooa>aom xpoz Hwaoom Hoonom oxos damn .wz «mm a .hddponu mo hence a no mamocmaau no names a mo nowouaam xno:a:oum on» mm: .mm m m :90: a Hwfioom 2H nonwomoh uo unwound doox .mw .:o«uw«oommm codmmmuopa xpoz Haaoom on» no haaaooH gamma an hoosos o>auoa so on .mm . . . oasonm aoxaoz Haaoom Hoozom one 2:: 2mm zmo mEopH .flocflwh0>coo HduOu 39H: ”Emu." mSmCQmCOU ho mHOUOZII.HImIU Mdm<9 163 «m as m < a m m < a m m < a m < m a m m a < m < m a m< as m < m a «m m a m < m e w m < 9 am < m Bantu) .mepoz Hmfioom m ooEpmp .Loxpoz adopm m UmELop .pcmuasmcoo m omspop . Seam: .om noon: .HSM»0M# .zapmHonom .manmcomuoo .o: po>o .oouCfisncooo .opwo: .zoooa .umfipnme .Hsopcwfimcfi mg mg on on on on mg up on on on on on an .maa .moa .Hoa .Nm .mm .mm .mm .om .mm .Fw .mm .mw .zm .mw 16H B .pmnuowOp maaoom wcfiwcflpn mo cmpoaflno on mooa>hmw Hafiomam opmcaopooo .mm ¢ .pcmecomw>cm ho mQHQmCOHpmHmL HmHQOm man can» whoa ozlmxme awowwoaonomma m.UHH£o m oNmenmEo zaampocmo .mm m mmfiHfiEmm pmflmmm op mmopsommp mpHCSEEoo sonpo m>ao>CH .mm B .mocowhmaxm pchSom Ucommo mocmflpquo mocmmm Hmaoom m>mm .mm B . .mQOHmmSomHU MMMpm psoSUmpm swoopsp mmfiocmwm spas mammoao xpoz .mm m .mpmxpos mocmwm Hmfloom mp Loom m mm Ummflcmoomp mm .Hm m .ponomop m ammo m>mm .©H m .mpCmEo>osQEH HmCOHpmozom ocoomp mo ammopom doom .:H m .mmmpoHEEoo mUHZImpmom mo hmnEmE m mm .0H m .mo0H>hmm Hmfloom Hoozom 3oz go psoEooam>m© onp SH COprmpchHEUm ho Umoazmcoo mm .m . . . wasocm smxpoz Hmfloom Hoonom one ma mm 22: 2mm 2mm . mEmpH .mEmpfl an mocmmho>fle co mameoznu.anoauo mamas 165 mQSOLw hmxpoz zocmw< EH14 .mzoow moxmoz HMfloom Hoonom ¢ mazopw Hmaaocfimm u m mazopw honomoa II II BU) .mmxpozmmMo m smegma .mSOHwfiHmL .wcfipHQmCH .xcmpm .ang .m>Humoho ”mooo mm mm mm mm mm mm .mcmNHpHo pmoE can» @908 moflpfi>flpow mpHCSEEoo CH opwafiofippmm .mmSWchomp xhozmwwo mNHmmSQEm .masopw pcmpmg on compma mopsommp m mm m>pom .OOH .mm .mw .Hw .mn .mm .mm .mm .m: