ABSTRACT THE EXTENT AND IMPORTANCE OF TEAM FUNCTIONING AS PERCEIVED BY PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES DIRECTORS AND SPECIALISTS IN MICHIGAN, OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA BY Jeffrey Zdrale In this study the team approach in the provision of pupil personnel services was defined as a mode of operation characterized by a high degree of communication, coordination, cooperation and cohesive- ness among the various PPS staff speciality groups. This approach is based on the idea that professional services from a staff can become more comprehensive and effective as they become more complementary and integrated. The National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators endorses this interdisciplinary method and states that no single specialist is equipped either by training or experience to provide the varied non-instructional services required by students.1 The literature suggests that the team approach or team function- ing among PPS staff specialists in local school districts is not being carried out to the extent that it could or should be. The purpose of the study was to provide descriptive data which would indicate the extent to which PPS directors and specialists perceived team functioning to be occurring in their respective PPS staffs and the extent to which they valued the team approach as a professional practice. Jeffrey Zdrale A sample of 583 PPS directors and specialists from thirty—five local school districts in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania was surveyed. The sample group was composed of thirty-five directors, 291 counselors, 123 school nurses, sixty-nine school psychologists and sixty-five social workers and/or attendance workers. These persons responded to the Team Functioning Checklist (TFC), a survey instrument composed specifically for this study. The $39 is made up of forty statements describing the behaviors, attitudes and feelings of a professional staff that is functioning as a team. Team functioning as described by this instrument has four components -- communication, coordination, cooperation and cohesiveness. Respondents answered two questions in reference to each statement: (1) To what extent does this statement characterize your PPS staff? (2) To what extent should this be a top priority item for a PPS staff? Answers to the first question were considered to reflect the "Does" or Actual dimension; answers to the second, the "Should" or Ideal dimension. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance of repeated measures design was used. The perceptions of PPS workers regarding the extent of team functioning in their own PPS staffs and the extent to which they valued components of the team approach were compared. Differences were examined as they related to the five job-title groups. The conclusions and related findings of the study were as follows: 1. Pupil personnel services directors did differ from the counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers on their staffs in the extent to which they perceived team Jeffrey Zdrale functioning to be occurring. Directors perceived team functioning to be occurring to a greater extent than did PPS specialists. PPS directors did differ from the counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers on their staffs in the value they placed on the team approach for a PPS staff. Directors placed greater value on the team approach than did PPS specialists. Pupil personnel specialists were not in agreement regarding the extent to which they perceived team functioning occurring in their respective PPS staffs. Counselors dif- fered from nurses in this respect, and counselors and nurses both differed from psychologists and social workers. Only the perceptions of psychologists and social workers did not differ regarding the extent of team functioning occurring in their respective PPS staffs. Pupil personnel specialists were not in agreement regard- ing the value they placed on the components of team func- tioning. Counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers all differed from each other in the value they placed on the "cooperation" component of team functioning. In reference to the placement of value on the other three components -- communication, coordination and cohesive- ness —- only the psychologists and social workers did not differ. Jeffrey Zdrale 5. The team functioning component with which the PPS directors and the specialists were least satisfied is "cohesiveness." Related finding "a": The social workers were the least satis- fied with the level of team functioning they perceived to be occurring in their respective PPS staffs. Related finding "b": Counselors displayed the greatest agree- ment in placing importance upon the team approach in PPS staffs. The directors displayed the least agreement in valuing the team approach. Some of the recommendations made as a result of this study were that PPS directors and staff use the T§E_as a vehicle for achieving a greater awareness of each others' views regarding the total PPS operation in their district; that regular "pupil personnel committee" meetings be held in every school; and that PPS directors update their competencies and communicate with each other more by becoming active in professional organizations. l . Robert W. Stoughton, James W. McKenna and Richard P. Cook, Pupil Personnel Services: A Position Statement (n.p.: National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators, 1969): P. 28. THE EXTENT AND IMPORTANCE OF TEAM FUNCTIONING AS PERCEIVED BY PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES DIRECTORS AND SPECIALISTS IN MICHIGAN, OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA BY Jeffrey Zdrale A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1976 COpyright by Jeffrey Zdrale 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful for the guidance of my doctoral committee members, Dr. James Costar, Dr. Archibald Shaw, Dr. Philip Marcus and particularly my chairman, Dr. Raymond N. Hatch. Many thanks 90 also to Ms. Suwatana Sookpokakit for her expertise and assistance with the statistical aspect of this study. Finally, much appreciation and love go to my wife, Bonita, for her ideas and support and for her giving my research instrument a name. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem and Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . 3 Purpose of the Study and Method to be Used . . . . . . 5 Questions to be Answered by the Study . . . . . . . . . 6 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Scope, Assumptions and Limitations of the Study . . . . 10 summary 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 12 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 Credibility of the Team Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Problems in the Implementation of the Team Approach . . 19 The Components of the Team Approach . . . . . . . . . . 33 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Selection of the Survey Population and Sample . . . . . 61 Procedures Used in Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . 63 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Statement of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Method of Analysis and Statistical Model . . . . . . . 81 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . 85 Presentation of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Summary of the Repeated Measures Tables . . . . . . . . 87 The "Does" or Actual Dimension . . . . . . . . . . 87 The "Should" or Ideal Dimension . . . . . . . . . - 96 Examining the Directionality of Group Differences . 97' Satisfaction with the Processes of Team Functioning lOl Agreement Among Job Title Groups . . . . . . . . . 103 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 iii Chapter V. (cont.) Conclusions in Response to Research Related Findings . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion Number One . . . . . Conclusion Number Two . . . . . Conclusion Number Three . . . . Conclusion Number Four . . . . Conclusion Number Five . . . . Related Finding "a" . . . . . . Related Finding "b" . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Research . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. "PPS Director Information Sheet" . . . . . . B. Letter of Invitation to PPS Directors . . . . C. Letter of Endorsement of Study . . . . . . . D. Cover Letter Accompanying Survey Materials . E. The Team Functioning Checklist . . . . . . . F. Preliminary Form of Instrument: "Twenty Character— (D H. Averaged Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of Each Job-Title Group in Response to the "Does" and istics of a Staff that is Functioning as a Team" Matrix Format for Showing Mean Ratings of the Five Job-Title Groups . . . . . . . . "Should" Dimensions of the TFC . iv Questions Page 109 110 111 111 112 113 115 119 121 122 123 128 129 136 137 139 140 141 143 145 146 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 ANOVA Estimation of Reliability for the "Does" Responses of the TFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.2 ANOVA Estimation of Reliability for the "Should" Responses of the TFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.1 Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale I -- "Communication" on the "Does" Dimension . . . . . 88 4.2 Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale II —- "Coordination" on the "Does" Dimension . . . . . . 89 4.3 Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale III -- "Cooperation" on the "Does" Dimension . . . . . . 90 4.4 Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale IV -- "Cohesiveness" on the "Does" Dimension . . . . . . 91 4.5 Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale I -- "Communication" on the "Should" Dimension . . . . . 92 4.6. Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale II —- "Coordination" on the "Should" Dimension . . . . . 93 4.7 Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale III -- "Cooperation" on the "Should" Dimension . . . . . 94 4.8 Repeated Measures Analysis: TFC Subscale IV -- "Cohesiveness" on the "Should" Dimension . . . . . 95 4.9 Mean Ratings on the "Does" and "Should" Dimension for PPS Directors and the Group of All Other PPS Specialists for Each TFC Subscale . . . . . . . . 98 4.10 Mean Ratings on the "Does" and "Should" Dimension for Each PPS Specialty Group for Each TFC Subscale . . 100 4.11 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the "Does" and "Should" Responses on Each TFC Subscale for the Entire Sample - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . . 102 Table Page 4.12 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between the "Does" and "Should" Responses of Each Job-Title Group for Each TFC Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.13 Standard Deviations of the Distribution of Responses to Each TFC Subscale on the "Should" Dimension for Each Job-Title Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Distribution of Student Enrollments for the Thirty- Five Sample Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Number of Participating PPS Workers and Directors by District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Years of Experience in Present Position for Entire sample C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 68 Ranked Mean Years of Experience in Present Position for Each Job-Title Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Despite differences in interpretation during the past forty years, the underlying goal of pupil personnel services or student support services generally has revolved around maximizing the ability of each student to live up to or to realize his or her greatest poten- tial. Writing one of the earliest definitions of pupil personnel services, Arch 0. Heck described them as "those services whereby all' children of school age are 'kept track of,‘ caused to attend school and so studied that they are aided in making the maximum good use of the abilities which they have."1 This last phrase is echoed by George Myers in another early work on vocational guidance. He notes that pupil personnel services must enable the student to obtain the maximum of the desired development from his environment. The goal of maximizing personal potential has given rise to the idea that students may live up to all their abilities as persons 1 . . . . . . Arch 0. Heck, Administration of Pupil Personnel, Cited in Guidance in American Education III: Needs and Influencing Forces, ed. by Edward Landy and Arthur M. Kroll (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1966), P. 243. George E. Myers, Principles and Techniques of Vocational Guidance (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1941), p. 47. as well as learners of subject matter. The emphasis is now on not only removing inhibitions to learning, but also on encouraging and enabling a student to experience his greatest personal, social and academic de- velopment via the learning process. Education and its support services now become the vehicle by which a person may develop more completely and fully.3 Shaw writes that an acceptable rationale for pupil per- sonnel services is "to facilitate and enhance the ability of students to learn and to assist them in more effectively using their learning."4 The notion of dealing with the student in all his aspects of being —- social, emotional and intellectual -- lends credence to the team or interdisciplinary approach as the most efficient way to provide comprehensive services to students. The reasoning is that a resource group having an array of professional strengths is best able to deal with a many-sided task, in this case, providing support services to growing boys and girls.5 The National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators underscores this point: No single specialist is equipped either by training or experience to provide the varied non-instructional services required to students. Therefore it is essential that the specialists be aware of their own limitations, the areas of expertise of other specialists and be willing to 3 . . . . . . . CounCil of Chief State Officers, ResponSibilities of State Departments of Education for Pupil Personnel Services (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960), p. l. 4 . . . . . . . MerVille C. Shaw, "Role of Pupil SerVices Wlth Significant Adults," Bulletin oftflmeNational Association of Secondary School Principals 52 (January, 1968), 80. 5 . . Frederick A. Whitehouse, "Teamwork -— The Democracy of Pro- fessions," Exceptional Children 18 (November, 1951), 49. interact effectively to make full use of other professional services to maximize the pupil's functioning. The Problem and Need for the Study The literature suggests that the team approach or team func- tioning among pupil personnel staff members in local school districts is not being carried out to the extent that it could or should be. Researchers from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction studying the team approach in PPS state that: Several pupil personnel disciplines may be represented in a district, but the team approach is 'more figurative than literal. Developing team approaches is difficult. As new disciplines are added or old ones expand, growth may become an increase in services without a coordinated effort.7 Certain studies have dealt with aspects of this issue. Fisher and Christensen both described the lack of agreement existing among specialists as to who should have primary responsibility for certain . . 8 . . job functions. Cole related cooperative behaVior among PPS personnel 6 . Robert W. Stoughton, James W. McKenna and Richard P. Cook, Pupil Personnel Services: A Position Statement (n.p.: National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators, 1969), p. 28. 7Neal R. Gamsky, et. al., "An Effective Team Approach to Pupil Services Programs for Wisconsin," Bulletin 3396 (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1973), p. 52. 8John K. Fisher, "Role Perceptions and Characteristics of Attendance Coordinators, Psychologists and Social Workers," in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Glenn A. Saltzman and Herman J. Peters (n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1967), p. 133; Orla June Christensen, "A Comparison of School Counselors' Percep- tions of Their Function with the Perceptions of Counselors' Functions of Other Members of Pupil Personnel Services in the Tacoma Public Schools" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Montana State University, 1972). to their district's formal organization, member status and adminis- trative authority.9 A study by Joliff related an increase in PPS staff cohesiveness to an intensive staff workshop experience. But no research, to this writer's knowledge, has been con- ducted which systematically assesses the work practices and values of PPS specialists and directors. This includes examining the extent to which these professionals perceive their staff operation to be team- like in nature. There is also a lack of information concerning the extent to which they value the behaviors and attitudes characteristic of a staff that is functioning as a team. It appears that a contribution to the various professions making up the spectrum of pupil personnel services would be made if current data were gathered to systematically characterize the work practices and attitudes of pupil personnel services directors and specialists in reference to the team approach. If there is a lack of team action in district PPS staffs, there seems to be a need to identify possible behaviors and attitudes which may be impeding the development of team functioning. 9Norman M. Cole, "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Be- havior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists" (unpublished Ed.D. disserta- tion, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970). 10David Lee Joliff, "The Effects of an Intensive Workshop Expe- rience on the Development and Functioning of Pupil Personnel Services Teams in Selected School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1971). Persons active in the organization and administration of pupil services can use this information to assess more completely their staffs' perceptions regarding the extent to which team procedures occur. They may also examine the data in comparison with their own staffs' attitudes toward the value of the components of team function- ing. With the data from this study, PPS workers in all areas will be able to examine more closely and perhaps modify their own work-re- lated values and priorities. If there are to be any efforts made in the direction of more communication, coordination, cooperation and cohesiveness in PPS staffs, an awareness is needed of the current mode of operation and differences in thinking of pupil personnel services workers now practicing in our schools. Purpose of the Study and Method to be Used The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive data which may indicate the extent to which PPS directors and specialists actually function in a teamlike manner. Team functioning was related to both intra-staff relationships and to the provision of professional services. The study also was built to examine data regarding the importance that PPS workers place on the team approach as a professional practice. Secondly, it was the purpose of this project to explore dif- ferences in perceptions of the extent and importance of team function- ing as related to the five PPS job-title groups in question -- directors, counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers. These perceptual differences may be factors contributing to the reported lack of team functioning in school district PPS staffs. These purposes were achieved by analyzing the perceptions of selected PPS directors and specialists as they responded to the survey instrument composed for this study. The instrument is made up of items reflecting four primary aspects of team functioning. Respondents expressed their opinion regarding the extent to which team functioning was occurring in their staff and regarding the extent to which aspects of team functioning were important to them. Questions to be Answered by the Study This study was designed to find answers to two general questions. 1. To what extent is the team approach being implemented in local school districts' PPS staffs? 2. To what extent is the team approach valued by PPS directors and specialists as a professional practice? By use of the perceptions of actual PPS workers in the field as the standard of reference, the questions may now be worded in this manner: 1. To what extent do pupil personnel directors and staff members perceive themselves to be functioning as teams on their respective PPS staffs? 2. To what extent do pupil personnel directors and staff members value the team approach in the pro- vision of professional services? To examine the answers to these questions so that possible dif- ferences between perceptions and attitudes as related to the type of position held could be seen, five research questions were composed. 1. Do the perceptions of PPS directors and spe- cialists differ regarding the extent of team functioning in their respective districts' PPS staffs? 2. Do the perceptions of PPS directors and spe- cialists differ regarding the value of team functioning in a PPS staff? 3. Do the perceptions of PPS specialists themselves differ regarding the extent of team functioning in their respective districts' PPS staffs? 4. Do the perceptions of PPS specialists themselves differ regarding the value of team functioning in a PPS staff? 5. With which of the four aspects of team function- ing -- communication, coordination, cooperation or cohesiveness -- is the group of all PPS direc- tors and specialists least satisfied? Definition of Terms a. Local School District: a public school district operating independently that is based in and serves one primary locality, usually one city or urban area. It possesses one administrative head. Inter- mediate or county districts and area vocational-technical schools are not included. b. Pupil Personnel Services Director: a district-wide admin- istrator who has been designated as having administrative and super- visory responsibilities for at least the following professional groups in his or her district: school counselors, school nurses, school psychologists and school social workers and/or attendance workers. c. Pupil Personnel Services Staff: a group of professional specialists serving a local school district that is represented by a person or persons carrying the following titles: school counselor, school nurse, school psychologist and school social worker and/or attendance worker. School social workers and attendance workers here- after will be considered one job—title group and referred to as social workers. There must be at least one person functioning in each of these roles for the group to be considered a staff. The instructions for the completion of the survey instrument stated that respondents were to consider the word §£a££_to mean the most immediate, complete (as defined above) group of PPS personnel with whom they carry out their professional duties. These persons are also referred to in this study as pupil personnel workers and PPS specialists. The term job-title group is used when reference is made to directors and specialists jointly. d. Pupil Personnel Services (PPS): support services, basi- cally non-instructional in nature, provided mainly to students, but also available to faculty and parents on a consultative basis; they may include any number of the following areas: (1) guidance and counseling services (2) health: nursing, consulting physicians, dentists; vision and hearing testing (3) psychological services (4) child accounting and attendance coordination (5) social work services (6) special education (7) research and evaluation. e. Team Functioning Checklist (TFC): an instrument prepared specifically for this study made up of forty descriptive statements based on research in the areas of social, industrial and managerial psychology; small group interaction; leadership and organization theory; and school administration. These statements characterize a professional staff that is functioning as a team. f. Team Approach: a mode of staff thought, feeling and action toward the achievement of professional goals that is marked by a high degree of the following characteristics: (1) Communication:. the interchange of thoughts and feelings among staff members (2) Coordination: the process of bringing the ideas and actions of a group into harmony so that each is aware of the planned behaviors of the others in the accomplishment of a group task (3) Cooperation: behavior enacted by more than one person to facilitate the attainment of a commonly held goal (4) Cohesiveness: the total of forces which bind a group together and enhance its attractiveness in the eyes of its members. 9. "Does" (Actual) Responses: ratings in response to the question: To what extent does this statement characterize your PPS staff? h. "Should" (Ideal) Responses: ratings in response to the question: To what extent should this be a top priority item for a PPS staff? i. Satisfaction: the extent to which a person's expectations are fulfilled. In this study it is based on how much the respondents' expectations of the extent to which team functioning should occur varied directly with the extent to which they perceived it actually to be occurring. j. Authority: a legitimate right given by an organization to the holder of a superordinate or management position to control the behavior of subordinates. k. Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measures: a method of statistical analysis used when the same group or subgroups within a group are requried to respond to measurements similar in metric, re- peatedly at fixed intervals. 1. Likert Scale: a scale often used in the measurement of attitudes consisting of a number of items relating to one referent; 10 respondents indicate their reaction to each item by checking one of several weighted response categories. m. Standard Deviation: a measure of the variability or dis- persion of scores about a central value such as the mean. Scope, Assumptions and Limitations of the Study This study was essentially exploratory in nature. The main purpose was to report and compare the surveyed perceptions of pupil personnel specialists and directors regarding the extent to which they function as teams in their respective PPS staffs and the importance they attach to the various characteristics of the team approach. The study was also intended to provide for the development and use of the Team Functioning Checklist, an instrument for assessing the extent and importance of team functioning within a professional staff. The study was conceived under the following assumptions and with the following limitations: 1. The concept of team functioning is limited to the extent that it is represented and assessed by the Team Functioning Checklist. Team functioning is always referred to only as it is represented by the survey instrument. 2. Each set of responses is limited to the extent that it does not represent the actual level of functioning of a staff, but rather the perceptions of each respondent regarding his or her own staff. 3. It is assumed that each respondent made judgments of high quality. Related to this is the expectation that all of the special- ists surveyed met state certification requirements for their areas of 11 work and that their responses were based on at least a minimal level of professional competency. 4. A major assumption was that the district-wide PPS director, by virtue of his or her leadership style, personal influence and positional authority, can positively effect the development of team functioning with the staff. This person can also foster predisposing attitudes which can move a group of specialists toward more inter- disciplinary and concerted methods of providing support services. 5. The Team Functioning Checklist is in the form of a Likert or summated rating scale. Subjects respond with varying degrees of intensity between the extremes of "to no extent" and "to a considerable extent." It is assumed that these response levels are equidistant from each other. The main advantage of this scale is that it generally . . . . ll . . . . produces good variability in responses, while the prinCiple dis- advantage is that this variance is subject to biasing response sets. Among these rating errors are the over—rater error, wherein items are generally all rated on the side of leniency or favorableness, the under-rater error, wherein items are generally rated on the side of severity or unfavorableness, and the central tendency error, wherein . . 12 respondents tend to rate all items at the middle of the scale. 6. The groups represented in this study were those considered to be the core pupil personnel specialist groups recommended for 1 Stephen Isaac and William B. Michael, Handbook in Research and Evaluation (San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, Publisher, 1971), p. 100 12Ibid., p. 58. 12 participation in most case conferences regarding students in need of supportive services. They were counselors, nurses, psychologists, social workers and staff directors.13 The positions of social worker and attendance worker were combined because persons functioning in these positions often provide similar services in reference to pupil attendance problems. Combining the two positions also allowed more districts to qualify for inclusion in the survey population. The groups omitted were special education personnel, speech and hearing therapists, consulting physicians, dentists and psychiatrists. 7. This study was an exploration of existing conditions and attitudes in the field today. No attempt was made to relate the re- ported level of team functioning to any characteristics of the dis- tricts, the directors, or the staffs surveyed. Differences in per- ceptions were related only to membership in the five PPS job—title groups. 8. The research project was concerned with pupil personnel staffs of local school districts with a student enrollment of not more than 20,000 as of June 1975. Only the States of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania were surveyed. Summary Reports from activities in the field and opinions of writers in pupil personnel services tend to support the contention that the team approach or team functioning in PPS staffs of local school l3 . . J. Carter Parkes, "An Exploration of the Teamwork Approach in Coordinating Pupil Personnel Service Programs in Texas Public Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1959). PP. 83-96. 13 districts is not being carried out to the extent that it could or should be. This study was an attempt to provide data from PPS directors and specialists regarding their perzeptions of the extent of team functioning in their own PPS staffs and the importance each group places on the four aspects of team functioning -- communication, coordination, cooperation and cohesiveness -- as represented by the Team Functioning Checklist. It is expected that comparing the per- ceptions of directors and specialists will provide insights into factors possibly impeding the implementation of the team approach in school district PPS staffs. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Credibility of the Team Approach The team approach is based on the idea that professional services from a staff can become more comprehensive and effective as they become more complementary and integrated. It was mentioned in Chapter I that the National Association of Pupil Personnel Adminis- trators endorses an interdisciplinary, team approach in the provision of staff services because no single specialist is equipped either by training or experience to fulfill all of the needs of all students. Brennan, Seifer and Ferguson concur by saying that no one discipline can effectively understand and deal with all the elements affecting a child's life. For PPS specialists to co-exist in a school setting and not recognize and use each other's skills is, to them, a rejection of the idea that the school must serve the whole child.14 The National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators also endorses the team approach as the best way to ensure a proper balance between the three main types of pupil personnel activity -- meeting developmental needs, preventative action and remedial service. 4James V. Brennan and Gilbert Seifer, "One Team Approach to Reme- diation," Psychology in the Schools 5 (October, 1968), 360; Donald G. Ferguson, Pupil Personnel Services (Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963). p. 14. l4 15 The remedial aspect, acting on a problem after its discovery and . .. . - 15 identification, tends to take precedence over the others. Although it is not always the case, presently experts in the field state that the team approach should be studied and stressed in the professional training of every specialist in the pupil personnel services areas. The professional preparation of a pupil personnel staff member should assist him in developing an understanding of the concept, methods and necessity for an interdisciplinary team approach. This requires an appreciation of each dis- cipline's contribution to the team as well as its relation to other disciplines in the school setting and the recogni- tion that effective interprofessional communication is paramount.16 The team approach has generated support from reports of activities in the field. The results of a plan for closer relation- ships between social workers and psychologists stress the importance . . . . 17 of cooperation between the diSCiplines. A report on a system that incorporated medical personnel into an established pupil personnel team, for example, states that the team method can enhance dialogue . . 18 . 9 between spec1alists and teachers. The same effect is noted by the 15 . . Robert W. Stoughton, James W. McKenna and Richard P. Cook, Pupil Personnel Services: A Position Statement (n.p.: National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators, 1969), p. 19. 16Ibid., p. 28. Brennan and Seifer, "One Team Approach to Remediation," 360. 8Sanford Goldstein and Raymond Colemen, "An Innovative Approach Utilizing a Pupil Personnel-Medical Team for the Early Detection and Prevention of Pupil Problems," Pennfield Central School District (Albany: New York State Department of Education, 1969). 16 Rockdale County Schools in Georgia. The PPS team approach implemented there had an impact on their districts, making the faculty more in— clined to think in terms of the child's total educational environment. Team methods, as described in this Georgia report, were also said to have had a broadening effect on the staff members themselves as they found that their competencies could be enhanced by more actively deal- ing with other specialists.19 After reviewing a sample of student problems in a multiple school district in Wisconsin, a group made up of school administrators, counselor educators and university counseling center directors, among others, recommended that an interdisciplinary PPS team approach was needed in the schools. They added that a pupil personnel team should be developed and, while the unique contributions of each staff member would be maintained, the team contribution to pupil growth and teacher understanding of pupil behavior should be the main consideration.20 The team method of providing services also seems to be con- sidered the most effective and efficient. The American Association of School Administrators notes that, although many PPS services have originated outside the school, there is a growing recognition that integration and consolidation of all support services are necessary for 9 . . . Franklin Shumake,-"Pupil Personnel SerVices: A Model,Programs, Trends, Problems," (Rockdale County Public Schools, Conyers, Georgia, 1969), pp. 4-5. 20 . . ' ' . Phillip H. Perrone and Carlyle W. Gilbertson, "Case Study: A Research Approach to Establishing Pupil Services," Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (June, 1968), 996. 17 the greatest efficiency.21 In an experimental study three school dis- tricts which received intensive pupil personnel services over a two year period were compared with three districts which received minimal services from PPS specialists over the same time period. The comparison was made on the following characteristics: academic progress, per- sonal—social adjustment and attendance of pupils; teacher satisfaction with the pupil personnel program, teacher perception of PPS roles and their attitudes toward pupils; and administrator satisfaction with the PPS program. In reference to the impact on students, it was found that pupils in the districts with a full complement of team services showed a greater Grade Point Average increase; showed greater positive trends in personal-social adjustment; and demonstrated greater reduction in absences than did pupils in the schools receiving minimal services. Among the conclusions of this study,then, was that the team approach was more effective as compared with the isolated pupil service worker approach.2 The team mode of operation can serve to increase the status and impact of a pupil personnel program within a district. In attempts to improve the image of pupil personnel services and to make it more accurately describe the influence pupil personnel services can exert on students, the California Personnel and Guidance Association l . . . . . . American Assoc1ation of School Administrators, Profiles of the Administrative Team (Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1971). p. 103. 22 Neal R. Gamsky, et. al., "An Effective Team Approach to Pupil Services Programs for Wisconsin," Bulletin 3396 (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1973), pp. 18-22, 52. 18 recommends the team approach as the most effective mode of staff func- . . 23 . . . . tioning. Moreover, in asseSSing the status of support serVices in schools, Kvaraceus warns that instead of fragmented efforts to enact PPS roles, specialists "need to fly in tight formation in recognition of the teamwork principle and the interdisciplinary approach to under- . . . . . . . "24 standing, diagnOSing and treating children needing support serVices. And Bruce Shear writes that the separate disciplines must begin to work together to increase the effectiveness of each or else they will be less adequate in meeting their own responsibilities and the "sum of ° - . . "25 their efforts may be more conquing and less contributing. The team approach is not of such a nature that the specialized competencies of the professionals involved need be deemphasized or submerged to facilitate it. Thus, Shear again notes that in these times of complexity and expansion of knowledge, specialization is desirable in PPS. He qualifies this statement, however, by saying that the separate services still must overcome the jealousy, suspicion, wariness and half-hearted cooperation which is often either openly or 23 . . Anita M. Mitchell and James A. Saum, ed., A Master Plan for Pupil Services, Monograph No. 4 (Fullerton: California Personnel and Guidance Association, 1972), p. 153. 4William C. Kvaraceus, "The Status and Function of Personnel Services," Education 81 (December, 1960), 208. 5Bruce E. Shear, "Administration of Pupil Personnel Services," in Guidance in American Education III: Needs and Influencing Forces, ed. by Edward Landy and Arthur M. Kroll (Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1966), p. 247. 19 subtly manifested among them. All specialists, he concludes, must realize that in a unified and integrated effort there is added strength.26 Problems in the Implementation of the Team Approach It has been reported that team functioning or aspects of the team approach are difficult to enact and are not being carried out to the extent that they could or should be in local school districts. For example, Ferguson, in discussing problems facing the professions of pupil personnel work, writes that little evidence supports the state- ment that the team approach characterizes pupil services. He goes on to say that "specialists are usually not trained to operate as a team; they are not employed in the schools on a team basis, ... and finally, state certification of the specialists reflects no clear commitment to team functioning." Until certain changes come about, then, Ferguson considers the team concept as presently enacted as nothing more than an issue and a platitude.27 Most readily observable are difficulties and deficiencies in the areas of staff coordination. A majority (61%) of school super- intendents from eighty-two districts surveyed by Vorhees agreed with the statement that all of a district's pupil personnel workers should be incorporated into one department. Yet they reported marked deficiencies in staff coordination as manifested by an absence of free 26Ibid. 27Donald G. Ferguson, "Critical Issues in Pupil Personnel Work," in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Glenn A. Saltzman and Herman J. Peters (n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1967): PP. 22-4. 2O interchange between specialists with similar responsibilities, a dupli- cation of effort, role overlap, reduction of efficiency and the push- . 28 . ing off of problems onto others. In a later study done in New York state by Schultheis, team procedures were named by seventy-three PPS directors surveyed as among the five most effective professional practices to be employed in PPS management. But the lack of adequate staff coordination was listed by them as one of the six most outstand- . 29 ing problems they faced. In a nationwide study conducted under the auspices of the Inter- professional Research Commission on Pupil Personnel Services, Fisher surveyed a sample of 568 social workers, psychologists and attendance coordinators. In reference to coordination activities, Fisher reports that the majority (62%) stated that they did not meet regularly with each other, but only on an informal basis when they found they had some . 30 . . cases in common. And an instructional booklet on outcome management in pupil personnel services published by the Minnesota Department of Education contains the statement that, due in part to a lack of 8 . . . . Leonard B. Vorhees, "A Descriptive Study of the Organization, Administration and Operation of Pupil Personnel Services in Selected School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960), p. 116. 29 . . . . . William Calder Schultheis, "The Director of Pupil Personnel Services in Public Schools of New York State" cited in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Glenn A. Saltzman and Herman J. Peters (n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1967), p. 81. 30 . . . . John K. Fisher, "Role Perceptions and Characteristics of Attendance Coordinators, Psychologists and Social Workers," in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Glenn A. Saltzman and Herman J. Peters (n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1967), p. 128. 21 coordination and mutual understanding of goals, pupil personnel ser- vices as a department tends to have little if any unified impact in most districts. This lack of coordination and understanding of goals may be a result of confusion and disagreement that seem to exist regarding PPS roles and functions. In the same IPRCOPPS study reported by Fisher, the social workers, psychologists and attendance coordinators were asked to respond to the Situation Sheet. This instrument, developed by Wiens in 1941 in a study of pupil services functions in large cities, lists twenty-seven situations that may involve the skills of certain pupil personnel specialists. The specialists were to mark for each item the primary person (building administrator, attendance coordinator, counselor, social worker, psychologist, teacher, director of PPS, or speech and hearing therapist) who usually handles the situation among those actually on their staffs. They also marked the person who ideally should handle the situation under the assumption that their district employed a full complement of services. Social workers per- ceived that they were much more involved in the situations presented than members of the psychologist and attendance groups thought they were. The psychologists and attendance coordinators also ranked them- selves higher than they were ranked by the other groups. This 1William P. Mease and Loren L. Benson, Outcome Management Applied to Pupil Personnel Services (St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Educa- tion, Division of Instruction—Pupil Personnel Services, 1973), p. 23. 22 tendency to rank themselves higher held true under both the real and the ideal premises. Related findings were noted by Christensen in a study of counselors, nurses, school psychologists and social workers in a Montana school district. This group of 147 specialists was adminis- tered an instrument composed of functions performed by school counselors. The specialists were to decide whether counselors should have primary, shared or no responsibility for the list of student support functions presented. Counselor perceptions differed significantly from those of the nurses, psychologists and social workers on eleven, four and eight of the items, respectively. The need for greater articulation and understanding of specialist roles was stressed in the summary of this study.33 This evidence suggests that the lack of communication, partic- ularly among PPS specialists themselves, is related to role confusion and disagreement about proper assignment of function. Waetjen reports that research has documented the role overlap and duplication of effort existing among specialists in pupil personnel.34 PPS workers dealing 2 . . . . Fisher, "Role Perceptions and Characteristics of Attendance Coordinators, Psychologists and Social Workers," pp. 129-30. 3Christensen, "A Comparison of School Counselors' Perceptions of Their Function with the Perceptions of Counselors' Functions of Other Members of Pupil Personnel Services in the Tacoma Public Schools. 34 . . . . . . Walter B. Waetjen, "PoliCies and Practices in Pupil Personnel Services," in Guidance in American Education III: Needs and Influenc— ing Forces, ed. by Edward Landy and Arthur M. Kroll (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1966), p. 228. 23 with the same child often do not know that the other is doing so or what the other is doing due to a lack of communication between them.35 This situation is more pronounced for itinerate workers, such as some nurses, psychologists and speech and hearing therapists, since these persons must travel to more than one building in a district or to more than one district to provide services. Thus, they may be unaware, in many cases, that they are working with the same children and toward the same goals as the locally based specialists.36 Coordination may be impeded by competition between the speciality groups in that specialists may lay claim to the same areas of activity and vie for the right to perform certain professional functions. Rollins states that these territoriality problems can lead specialists to feel that their roles are being circumscribed rather than supported by their PPS colleagues.37 Competition itself may be a result of per- ceptions of differential status among the PPS workers of different disciplines. Guidance is regarded by some as a service that has been accorded more than its share of status and recognition in the educational community. Hummel and Bonham write that one basic problem in pupil 5 . . . . . . William Mattick and N.A. Nickolas, "A Team Approach in Guidance," Personnel and Guidance Journal 42 (May, 1964), 923. 6 . . Mease and Benson, Outcome Management Applied to Pupil Personnel Services, p. 23. 37Kenneth W. Rollins, "Staff Roles and Relationships," in 3E2 Organization of Pupil Personnel Programs -- Issues and Practices, ed. by Raymond N. Hatch (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1974). p. 187. 24 personnel services coordination is that the services initiating the helping activities with a client, oftentimes the guidance service, tend to remain dominant in the department with a resulting over—emphasis in 38 . . that area. Guidance thus appears to occupy a preferred place in re- lation to other specialties although it is the youngest of all PPS disciplines. Indeed, Shear states that guidance has perhaps received more than its share of pampering. This unbalanced attention has de- veloped to a point where ... other services have been somewhat crowded out of the family circle, or at least have become relatively undernourished and stunted in their growth and possible contributions. More than one of the older siblings, also, have become resentful of the preferred status of the youngest son. They have degraded his education and questioned his inheritance.39 Arbuckle, in a plea for the merger of all pupil personnel functions, implies that the services each seek status for themselves. He observes that guidance counselors most often are given the oppor- tunity to deal directly with clients. This being an activity in which all specialists would like to engage, it is generally considered to be a status function. For this reason counselors, social workers and psychologists often lay claim to this and related activities as their own. All three groups, Arbuckle contends, see themselves in basically the same way. Each group considers as part of its role counseling, appraisal and consultation with children, parent, teachers Dean L. Hummel and S.J. Bonham, Jr., Pupil Personnel Services in Schools: Organization and Coordination (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968), p. 38. 39 . . . . . Shear, "Administration of Pupil Personnel SerVices," p. 240. and members of the community.40 Rollins also sees a status problem in the hierarchical pecking order which usually exists in staffs of PPS workers and in which the psychologist most often occupies the top posi- tion. Perceptions of status differences, he suggests, may even serve to inhibit cooperation between specialists at the same salary level. On-the-job competition may also be a result of specialty groups attempting to make themselves appear more competent and established in the eyes of the public as they seek to be accorded a more legitimate professional identity.42 Implementing team procedures among pupil personnel staffs can be hindered by a lack of importance placed on the team approach itself as a method of delivering professional services. Ferguson's listing of commonly heard objections to an integrated pupil personnel depart- ment concept implies that school administrators and even specialists themselves may not be strongly committed to a coordinated method of providing support services and that they may value it differently.43 In another article Ferguson states that field practitioners, trainers, certifying officers and leaders in professional organizations will have to show a greater willingness to function cooperatively before the 0 Dugald Arbuckle, "Counselor, Social Worker, Psychologist ~— let's ecumenicalize," Personnel and Guidance Journal 45 (February, 1967), 533. 41 Rollins, "Staff Roles and Relationships," p. 192. 42 . . . . MerVille C. Shaw, "Role delineation among the guidance pro- fessions," Psychology in the Schools 4 (January, 1967), ll; Mease and Benson, Outcome Management Applied to Pupil Personnel Services, p. 6. 3 . . Ferguson, Pupil Personnel SerVices, p. 35. 26 team concept can be translated into practice.44 It was noted earlier that Ferguson feels that specialists are usually not trained to operate as a team. Waetjen supports this contention. By tradition almost all the pupil personnel workers have professional identifications in which the school does not figure prominently. Their training programs develop in them identities with their particular profession or discipline more so than with education.45 Placing a low value on team procedures may stem from the absence of a consistent and integrated theory of pupil personnel ser- vices from which workers in every specialty may draw support and guid- ance. Ferguson writes that there is no universally recognized set of principles for the rationale and provision of pupil personnel services and no basic criteria with which to measure effectiveness. This lack may be due, he suggests, to the fact that, except for child accounting and attendance, the other major services were initiated and developed outside the school setting. School counseling has its roots in Boston, inspired by Frank Parsons in a civil service agency, while psychological services evolved in university clinics to which students with learning disabilities were referred. And social work began in the courts to provide a liaison between them, the home and the school in cases of school delinquency. These differences in historical backgrounds may exert a nega- tive influence upon cooperation among PPS staff members. The process 4 . . . . Ferguson, "Critical Issues in Pupil Personnel Work," p. 23. S O " C 0 O l I I Waetjen, PoliCies and Practices in Pupil Personnel SerVices," p. 235. 6 . . . . Ferguson, "Critical Issues in Pupil Personnel Work," p. 20. 27 of cooperation as defined in this study suggests that members of a group are willing to merge their actions in the attainment of a mutually held goal. But certain services with strong historical traditions outside of education often want to retain their autonomous authority and identity.47 In fact, Shear observes that several of the specialty areas have continued to maintain a very limited perspective regarding their function in the schools. They have not made the necessary adaptations to become educational rather than clinical.48 An example of the difference in orientations can be seen in the fact that specialists, such as nurses and social workers, in non- educational settings are often able to work independently on a one-to— one basis with their clients.49 They are perhaps freer to exercise personal judgment in their actions. However, in coming to the school setting, they may have to accept the influence and direction of others, some of whom may not possess expertise in their area of activity. This requires a change in the manner in which they have traditionally done their work, and such adjusting might prove to be a difficult and even threatening task for some. Wolinsky, in discussing the effects of team membership on the role of professionals, states that every specialist coming to a team situation possesses certain learned pro- fessional beliefs, attitudes and responses to situations that require 47 . . . Hummel and Bonham, Pupil Personnel SerVices in Schools: Organization and Coordination, p. 38. 48 . . . . . Shear, "Administration of Pupil Personnel SerVices," p. 242. 49 . . Stoughton, McKenna and Cook, Pupil Personnel SerVices: A Position Statement, p. 28. 28 his or her skill. These specialists have developed their profes- sionalism within their respective discipline groups and have been accorded a status which they expect to be carried over into the multi- disciplinary team situation. But the school setting, wherein this personal prominence may be subordinated to a greater emphasis on group achievement, often necessitates a restructuring of previously learned and practiced roles and the recognition that accompanied them.50 It seems that it is often difficult for PPS specialists to develop and sustain a clear, textbook type role in a multidisciplinary school setting. The lack of cooperation between workers representing various PPS specialty groups is also noted in a case analysis study conducted by Lipe in which the perceptions of teachers and pupil personnel workers were compared in a "metropolitan core," an "urban fringe" and a "town" school district. The respondents were questioned about the degree to which nurses, counselors, social workers and school psy- chologists performed certain tasks which were considered to be essential elements of their professional domain. One of the conditions reported to contribute to a lack of proper role enactment was the lack 50Gloria Wolinsky, "An Analysis of the Team Concept: An Intro- ductory Statement," cited in J. Carter Parkes, "An Exploration of the Teamwork Approach in Coordinating Pupil Personnel Service Pro- grams in Texas Public Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College: Columbia University, 1959), pp. 83-96. 51Ibid., p. 140. 29 of cooperation between administrators and PPS workers and among the PPS specialists themselves.52 Staff cooperation also seems related to the authority of the PPS director. The director may be unwilling to exercise his or her authority over staff members, or, if it is exercised, staff members may not view it as legitimate. In his study relating cooperative be- havior among PPS directors and specialists to formal organization, member status and administrative authority, Cole states that one of the best ways to deal with staff dissatisfaction stemming from role overlap and differential status is for the PPS administrator to possess clearly channeled and legitimate authority.53 The director, however, in looking on the specialists as professionals, may feel that any direct guidance or supervision from him or her as a representative of management will be perceived as a policing function. His or her actions may convey to the staff members a certain amount of distrust or dis- pleasure with the work being done. Thus, the director may anticipate reactions of indignation or resistance and decide not to exercise any . . . . 54 more than a minimal amount of control over staff speCialists. 2 . . . . Gary Patrick Lipe, "Case AnalySis of the Pupil Personnel Programs in Three Selected School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974), p. 261. 3Norman M. Cole, "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Behavior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970), p. 92. 54 . . . . Jeffrey Zdrale, "SuperVisory Leadership from the Guidance Direc- tor...Can't? Won't? or What?," Michigan Personnel and Guidance Journal VI (Spring, 1975), 23-4. 30 As former specialists themselves, the directors may feel more comfort- able functioning as consultants or advisors rather than as adminis- . . 55 trators uSing bureaucratic methods. The director can also find himself or herself thrust into a situation of relative administrative weakness due to his or her staff or consultative position in the hierarchy of the school district organization. In describing a plan for a system—wide program of pupil personnel services, for example, Isaksen notes the professional jealousy and competition often existing among the various specialists. He writes that because of low level status or the lack of administrative authority on the part of the PPS director, he or she usually cannot 56 . . . . resolve these problems. And in a survey of eight unified school districts Fusco found that the directors of pupil personnel had line . . . . . 57 responSibility for no staff speCialists except the health consultants. Biggers and Manguso surveyed 104 directors supervising ten or more counselors in thirty-six states. In a summary of their results they note that the directors agreed that their position as a guidance leader is diminished by a lack of line or direct administrative relationship 5 . . Cole, "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Behavior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists," p. 92. 6Henry Isaksen, "The Organization of System-wide Programs of Pupil Personnel Services," in Pupil Personnel Administration, ed. by Vincent F. Calia and Bartholomew D. Wall (Columbus: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers, 1968), p. 284. ‘ 7Gene C. Fusco, "Organization and Administration of Pupil Personnel Service Programs in Selected School Systems," cited in Harold J. Reed and Buford Stefflre, "Elementary and Secondary School Programs," Review of Educational Research 33 (April, 1963), 160. 31 with counselors. Further, they report that the director often has no one to actually direct except his or her own immediate office staff.58 School counselors have been observed by Ferris not to possess as strong an allegiance to or identity with the total PPS team as they might. He sees this condition as a result of a lack of administrative influence on the part of the PPS director. Coming under the general supervision of their building principal, counselors are often hard pressed to define their roles. This lack of a close administrative relationship with the PPS director also hinders coordination and con- sultation between school counselors and other PPS specialists.59 Landy summarizes this positional weakness dilemma by observing that PPS directors rarely have the authority commensurate with their respon- sibility to proceed in a directive fashion. He states that such things as tenure, civil service and the "vagaries of our own immediate supe- riors all operate to make our authority somewhat tenuous at best and downright fuzzy or non-existent at worst."60 The other aspect of this problem has to do with the distinction made between authority based on technical competence and that based on Julian L. Biggers and David J. Manguso, "The Work of the Guidance Administrator," Counselor Education and Supprvision 12 (December, 1972), 135. 9Robert W. Ferris, "The Counselor: An Accountable Member of the Pupil Personnel Team?," Counselor Education and Supervision 13 (September, 1973), 64. 60 . . . Edward Landy, "Implementing Change in Programs of Pupil Personnel Services," in Guidance in American Education II: Current Issues and Suggested Action, ed. by Edward Landy and Arthur M. Kroll (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1965), p. 312. 32 the "incumbency of a legally defined office."61 Staff workers them- selves may not recognize the PPS director as a legitimate authority figure over them. As professionals in their respective fields, they may react negatively to supervision or control from an administrator who does not possess the same level of technical expertise in their field that they do. Isaksen tends to support this argument by saying that a PPS director, usually having functioned previously in one of the pupil personnel disciplines, often is limited in terms of his or her training and experience in providing supervision to more than one or two of the specialty areas.62 The director's fear that attempts to exercise authority may be resented by his or her staff seems to have some grounds in reality. Finally, a lack of staff cohesiveness may contribute to the low level of team functioning reported in PPS staffs. Cohesiveness in this study may be thought of as a product of all the forces which bind group members together and enhance the group's attractiveness in the eyes of its members. There are certain factors impeding the develop- ment of such cohesiveness which are common to educational and most bureaucratic organizations. For example, the complex tasks with which most professional organizations are faced may contribute to the level of interpersonal conflict within a group. Differences increase as more and more means to achieve the myriad goals the members value are 1 . . . . Charles Perrow, Complex Opganizationsi A Critical Essay (Glen- view, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1972), p. 55. 62 u . . . . Isaksen, The Organization of System-Wide Programs of Pupil Personnel Services," p. 288. 33 put forth.63 Groups may also differ in the amount of their cohesive- ness to the extent that membership in them is voluntary or required. For most staffs, there is little choice as to whom your colleagues . 64 . . . . . . . W111 be. DefiCienCies in both the quantity and quality of communica- tion between staff workers may contribute, too, to interpersonal dis- . . 65 tance between spec1a1ists. Thompson speaks generally of these con- ditions when he writes that the definitions and structures of most modern bureaucratic organizations are such that it is difficult to . . . . . . . . . 66 identify With the organization. Without this, group coheSion is lost. The Components of the Team Approach The team approach as conceived in this study incorporates and expands on a number of previously stated ideas about team functioning. Parkes describes a team as "those people who meet together for a specific purpose, each with a clearly defined position, but all sub- ordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the group's effort 63Donald Ralph Kingdon, "Team or Group Development: The Develop- ment of Dyadic Relationships," Human Relations 27 (February, 1974), 176. 4Darwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, ed. Group Dynamics: Re- search and Theopy (2nd ed., New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1960). P. 77. 65 . . Jack H. Monderer and Charles C. Johnson, "Talking about Pupil Services -- An Administrative Dialogue," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals 52 (January, 1968), 32. Victor A. Thompson, Modern Organizations (New York: Alfred A. mopf' 1966) I p. 99. 34 to help children."67 The term pp§p_implies a time sequence for Parkes, wherein all personnel working on a problem are simultaneously involved in planning, discussing and following through toward a desired goal.68 Ohm conceives of teamwork as "the harmonious, cooperative relationship between members of an established group."69 For this study the team approach was defined as a mode of staff thought, feeling and action toward the achievement of professional goals that is marked by a high degree of communication, coordination, cooperation and cohesiveness. For any professional staff to function in this manner not only must the overt actions of the members reflect the four characteristics, but so must the cognitive processes and feelings related to the specialists' work. What staff members think, understand and value about the nature of their roles, interpersonal staff relationships and work environment may exert a marked influence on how the group will perform. These affective reactions derived from concepts or beliefs that a person has concerning some social object and that predispose the person to behave in a certain manner toward the object are atti- tudes.70 If the attitude of a person toward a referent object is 7 . - . . Parkes, "An Exploration of the Teamwork Approach in Coordinat- ing Pupil Personnel Service Programs in Texas Public Schools," p. 5. 68Ibid., p. 19. 69 . . . . Robert E. Ohm, "Toward a Rationale for Team Teaching," Adminis- trator's Notebook 9 (March, 1961), l. 0 . . MarVin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), p. 13. 35 known, it can be used with other situational and dispositional vari- ables to predict and explain the reactions of this person to that . 71 . . . class of objects. Krech defines an attitude as an enduring system of positive or negative evaluations, emotional feelings and pro or con . . . . . 72 . action tendenCies with respect to a soc1al object. This three part format is also supported by Secord and Backman who define an attitude as certain regularities of a person's feelings, thoughts and predis- . . . . 73 . . p031tions to act toward some aspect of his enViornment. All defini- tions of attitude contain an action component, and most theorists will agree that attitudes definitely exert an influence upon a person's responses to objects, concrete or abstract, situations or other persons 74 . . . . . or groups of persons. The follow1ng discuSSion Will describe more completely the thoughts, feelings and actions of a staff operating in a teamlike manner. Material is presented as it relates to each of the four team action components -- communication, coordination, cooperation and cohesiveness. It will be seen that each of these processes is interrelated with the others; they are not mutually exclusive categories. 7 1Ibid., p. 1. 72David Krech, Richard S. Crutchfield and Egerton L. Ballachey, Individual in Society (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962), p. 177. 73 . Paul F. Secord and Carl W. Backman, Soc1al Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 99. 4 . . . William A. Mehrens and IrVin J. Lehmann, Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), p. 570. 36 Communication Communication among staff members, between staff and manage- ment and between the staff and its various publics is cited almost universally as the most important part of an interdisciplinary approach to pupil personnel services. Three main dimensions of communication, as reflected in the Team Functioning Checklist, are the frequency of communication, its degree of openness, and its clarity. Interaction opportunity or the frequency of communication is . . . . 75 . an important characteristic upon which to compare work groups. This regular interchange appears to foster several team conditions. Homans notes that "the more frequently persons interact with one another, the stronger their sentiments of friendship for one another are apt to 76 . . . . . be. Thus, regular assoc1ation and soc1alization between members of a work group can result in a mutual reinforcement of attitudes and . . . . . 7 values which, in turn, produce common ways of thinking and acting. In a study of cohesiveness in industrial work groups, Seashore found that group cohesiveness was positively related to the Opportunity for interaction as represented by size of the group and duration of . 78 . . . shared group membership. ObserVing that most PPS speCialists have Ned Rosen, Supervision: A Behavioral View (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1973). p. 160. 6 George Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1950), p. 120. Robert C. Sedwick, Interaction: Interpersonal Relationships in Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1974). p- 37. 8 Stanley E. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1954), p. 99. 37 numerous common concerns, Shear writes that constant communication among the services is necessary for the most effective total contribu- tion to be made. This communication process can aid in bringing to bear on a problem all the resources a system has to offer.79 The second facet of communication is its quality. To be open or non-defensive in communicating has been shown to be a mark of a teamlike group. In fact, mutual comprehension of messages and attentiveness to fellow group members were behaviors found more fre- quently in c00perative groups than in competitive groups in research done by Morton Deutsch.80 Wynn writes that a commitment to an open climate is a prerequisite for any successful administrative team. And he stresses the complete sharing of information done with candor as a way to ensure that the group's movement becomes the responsibility of many rather than one. The manner in which a staff deals with conflicts also may serve as a barometer for openness in the group. Whether a staff denies, avoids or suppresses conflicts as opposed to arriving at some resolu- tion, whether it be short or long range, may make the difference be- tween a teamlike staff and a divided group. A staff in the first category would not shy away from any clash of opinions or priorities. Bruce E. Shear, "Teamwork in Pupil Personnel Services," Counselor Education and Supervision 1 (Summer, 1962), 202. 0 ' .. Morton Deutsch, "The Effects of COOperation and Competition upon Group Process," in Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, ed. by Cartwright and Zander, p. 447. Richard Wynn, Theory and Practice of the Administrative Team (Arlington, Virginia: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1973). p- 39. 38 They would use this difference to deal with one another more frequently 82 and closely. Open communication may also occur between PPS staff members and their various non-PPS publics. There is often a lack of parent and' community understanding of the work of the pupil personnel services 83 . . . . . groups. Ketterman describes a study in which a list of ten baSic counselor tasks agreed upon by twenty-five counselor educators was submitted to a group of 386 residents in Indiana. A majority of the sample saw just eight of the ten functions as proper duties of the 84 . school counselor. Peters warns that guidance workers often assume that their publics understand the nature and purpose of support ser— . 85 . Vices when they really do not. Hence, team feeling may be enhanced if specialists make themselves more familiar figures to non-PPS dis- trict personnel and members of the community at large in that people may be more supportive of something with which they are familiar. A district's pupil personnel program can be strengthened by making the . . . . . . 8 profeSSional actiVities of the staff more ViSible. 82 . . . Douglas McGregor, The Profe581onal Manager, Cited in Handbook for Organization Development in Schools, ed. by Richard A. Schmuck, et. al., University of Oregon, Center Advanced Study of Education Administration (Palo Alto: National Press Books, 1972), p. 207. Ferguson, Pupil Personnel Services, p. 94. 4 Clark S. Ketterman, "The Opinion of Selected Publics Concerning the School Counselor's Function," School Counselor 16 (September, 1968), 43. Herman J. Peters, "Interferences to Guidance Program Development," in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Saltzman and Peters, p. 87. 86 . . Ferguson, Pupil Personnel Serv1ces, p. 94; Gamsky, et. al., "An Effective Team Approach to Pupil Services for Wisconsin," p. 11 39 It appears that program articulation is done most effectively when the goals and roles to be communicated are first completely clear in the minds of the persons who are to implement them. Communication between staff members is one method of making these goals clear. In a study using college students in the Netherlands, task group subjects having a clear picture of their group's goal and the activities in which they would engage to accomplish it experienced "greater feelings of group belongingness particularly as manifested in an involvement with the group goal and in sympathy with group emotions" than those who did not clearly understand their goal. The former group was also more willing to accept influence from other members than were subjects in the second group.87 This procedure of communicating goals and processes for goal attainment may be difficult to carry out, however, since complex goals as are found in most professional organizations tend to have multiple ends and objectives as well as the potential for multiple perceptions as to the means to achieve them.88 In addition to understanding goals, a clear knowledge on the part of staff members about their own work roles is necessary. In- deed, team functioning is enhanced when staff members are aware of the functions of each pupil personnel specialist and how each relates to . . . . 89 . . his or her own actiVities. Hill writes that every staff member 7 Bertram H. Raven and Jan Rietsma, "The Effects of Varied Clarity of Group Goal and Group Path Upon the Individual and his Relation to his Group," Human Relations 10 (1957), 42. 8 . ' . Kingdon, "Team or Group Development: The Development of Dyadic Relationships," 176. Stoughton, McKenna and Cook, Pupil Personnel Services: A Posi- tion Statement, p. 28; Shear, "Administration of Pupil Personnel Ser- vices," p. 247. 40 should possess a sense of "where I fit in."90 Indeed, one of the main causes of difficulty in organizing PPS programs, Arbuckle states, is that roles for each specialty are not set out and understood by all.91 And Simon notes that a condition wherein responsibilities have not been allocated with sufficient definiteness may produce a dysfunctional level of instability in the work group.92 For team action to be strengthened, then, staff members should participate in their own def- inition. Hill again feels that a good administrator will define staff roles in such a way as to make use of the thinking of all parties in- volved. However, the issue of functional role development based on needs or role building based on traditional job title appears academic at this point. What is important is that all the functions listed, under the heading of pupil personnel services be the clear and recognized responsibility of some designated staff member in the school system.93 Coordination Coordination is the second primary characteristic of a staff that is teamlike in its Operation. Herbert Simon defines it as "the process of informing each in the group as to the planned behaviors of 94 . . . . others." Thompson writes that coordination can be achieved by George E. Hill, Management and Improvement of Guidance (New York: Meredith Publishing Company, 1965), p. 71. l Dugald S. Arbuckle, Pupil Personnel Services in American Schools (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962), p. 405. 92 . . . . . Herbert A. Simon, Administrative BehaVior (2nd ed., New York: Macmillan Company, 1957), p. 72. 3 . 9 Hill, Management and Improvement of Guidance, pp. 80, 78. 4 . . . . . Simon, Administrative BehaVior, p. 72. 41 programming interdependent activities among group members to accomplish . . . 95 . a group task Via established procedures and routine. To coordinate, . . . . . 96 in Kornick's article, means to bring into proper order or harmony. All of these statements imply a need for mutual informative and supportive action by staff members and managers in order that everyone be made aware of the present and planned activities of everyone else. The director may be the person first considered in any dis- cussion of staff coordination. Simon states that even in a cooperative staff environment, where there is agreement on the objectives to be attained, members should not ordinarily be left to themselves in the selection of goal achieving strategies. The final selection should first involve a knowledge and therefore an examination of the paths 7 . . . preferred by each member.9 The process of coordination is needed for this, and the director seems to be in a prime position to provide both himself or herself and the staff with knowledge of the behaviors and thoughts of all the others so that staff decisions may more completely , . . . . 98 be based on everyone 5 needs, perceptions and priorities. The type of coordination in which the director engages may have an effect on the teamlike quality of the staff. If he or she 5 Thompson, Modern Opganizations, p. 48. 6 . . . . . Joseph Kornick, "Transactionalism and the coordinator of pupil personnel services," Personnel and Guidance Journal 48 (November, 1969), 205. ' Simon, Administrative Behavior, p. 73. 8 . . . . . . Robert L. Katz, "Skills of an Effective Administrator," Cited in Hummel and Bonham, Pupil Personnel Services in Schools: Organization and Coordination, p. 75. 42 approaches this task in an open and collegial fashion, the process may result in two team-promoting consequences. First, as staff members deal with the PPS administrator more directly, Dahlem suggests that they are more likely to feel that realistic expectations will be put on them. They will feel, too, that they have been more accurately appraised of the resources they have to offer in terms of levels and areas of expertise and in regard to their time constraints. Special- ists are also more apt to think that the goals set out are not only attainable, but are worthy of their effort.99 Secondly, this sharing process requires the director to be aware of and to appreciate the unique abilities, interests and aptitudes of each staff person. Hatch and Stefflre suggest that this recognition contributes to the staff sentiment that they are valued as people and professionals in the eyes of the director. And the personal prestige and feelings of worth which can be fostered by the recognition of in- dividual talents and differences are important psychological factors in the maintenance of staff morale and cohesiveness.100 The actual authority of the director and the manner in which this person chooses to exercise it appear to affect team functioning in several ways. For the purposes of this study authority is defined in the Weberian manner as the legitimate right given by the organiza- tion to the holder of a superordinate or management position to control 9Glenn C. Dahlem, Effective Pupil Personnel Services (New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1972), p. 171. 100 . . . . Raymond N. Hatch and Buford Stefflre, Administration of Guidance Services (end ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 54. 43 the behavior of subordinates.lOl Cole, in his study of cooperative action among PPS workers, says that to examine any kind of cooperative behavior among specialistscnuamust first identify the authority rela- tionship that the administrator maintains with the staff. To be an effective coordinator, Cole feels a director must possess a minimal amount of authority that is perceived as legitimate by himself or herself, other administrators and especially the staff specialists. With this authority a director can better provide the necessary time, resources and motivation for specialists to participate in program development on a cooperative basis. Without this authority being visible and used, individual workers may begin to compete for the pre- rogative themselves. And this competition may create the kind of conflict that can minimize any efforts toward a coordinated inter— disciplinary approach.102 Further, this authority pattern should be clearly designated to all concerned. The Ohio Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators writes that "unless leadership responsibility is clearly designed, coordination among the various services has been found to be inefficient at best, competetive at worst with less direct service to children.103 101 . . . Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962). p. 165. 102 . . Cole, "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Behavior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists," p. 27. 103 . . . . . . William H. Goff, et. al., Pupil Personnel SerVices: Organization and Administration (Columbus: Ohio Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators, 1975), p. 13. 44 To promote team functioning, the functions of coordination as carried out by the director should possess three additional qualities. First, the supervisor's actions should be supportive of . 104 . . staff goal achievement. Second, his or her leadership should be of . , . 105 . the type that is adaptable to the staff 5 profeSSional needs. Third, the director's leadership style or that kind of person-to-person re- lationship built with the staff should match the prevailing inter- , 106 . personal atmosphere and expectations of the group. Halal, in integrating many theories of leadership, notes that its effectiveness can be conceived as a function of how leadership style relates to two variables -- the task technology available and the subordinates' motivation patterns. He defines these motivation patterns as the types of interests, values and expectations characterizing subordinates' . . 107 . perceptions and behaViors. These staff traits can and should be sensed by the director. Leadership, particularly in coordination activities, is based on relational behaviors. The team-promoting 4Stanley E. Seashore and David G. Bowers, Changing the Structure and Functioning of an Organization: Report of a Field Experiment, Monograph No. 33 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute of Social Research, 1963), p. 53. 105 . . . . Hummel and Bonham, Pupil Personnel SerVices: Organization and Coordination, p. 70; Sarah E. Wilcox, "An Exploratory Study of the Job of Pupil Personnel Administrator," cited in Cole, "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Behavior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists," pp. 36-7. 106 . . . Edwin P. Hollander and James W. Julian, "Contemporary Trends in the Analysis of Leadership Processes," cited in Richard H. Hall, Ogganizations: Structure and Processes (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 247; Secord and Backman, Social Psyghology, p. 392. 107 . . . William E. Halal, "Toward a General Theory of Leadership," Human Relations 27 (April, 1974), 409. 45 leader will be the one whose actions fulfill the needs and are con- gruent with the expectations of the work group. Staff members may also do much either to promote or to impede coordination. The need for a clear understanding of roles, goals and the processes for action was mentioned in the discussion of communica- tion. Shared participation between managers and staff in the estab- lishment of these roles, goals and processes has been considered the 109 best approach. In fact, PPS workers who do not expect and request this type of relationship with their director on matters of day-to-day concern as well as more long range considerations may be relinquishing valuable opportunities to foster a more coordinated effort. Through joint planning, the director and staff might come to appreciate more , 110 the value of the group 5 goal. Rollins writes that one of the main causes of dissatisfaction in working relationships within larger school systems is that staff members feel that all the "big decisions" are made without their in- 111 . . . put. Autocratic procedures on the part of the director which re- sult in staff persons having almost no part in program decisions or role definition may often be accepted and even expected by some O8 . . . 1 Harold J. LeaVitt, Managerial Psychology (3rd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 219. 109 . . Mease and Benson, Outcome Management Applied to Pupil Personnel Services, p. 84. 110 . Edwin P. Hollander, Leaders, Groups and Influence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 13. lllRollins, "Staff Roles and Relationships." P- 189: whim-E l 1 ~1.35:; “‘ 46 . . 112 . . . . . speCialists. Thompson's View is that this staff abdication of responsibility can serve to "create tensions, dry up spontaneity and . "113 . . weaken cooperativeness among them. Authority based on supportive- ness and an employee orientation can, however, strengthen and promote . . . . . 114 . a pOSitive psychological climate in a group. The pupil personnel services program should be the staff's program. If staff members help 115 set objectives, they are automatically part of the team. Cooperation This third team characteristic of cooperation is a process closely intertwined with that of coordination. Simon defines cooper- ative behavior as that which is done by more than one person to . . . 116 faCilitate the attainment of a commonly shared goal. For the team approach to be promoted, staff members should believe that, despite differences in their training and focus of work, they are all striving . . . . 117 . . toward the same ends Wlth their client populations. Kingdon writes that one variable requiring consideration in the study of any team is 2 . . 11 Cole, "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Behavior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists," p. 94. 113Thompson, Modern Organizations, p. 89 4 . . . . . 11 Robert L. Kahn and Daniel Katz, "Leadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale," in Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, ed. by Cartwright and Zander, p. 568. 115 . . . . Hummel and Bonham, Pupil Personnel SerVices: Organization and Coordination, p. 77. l . . . . . 1 6Simon, Administrative BehaVior, p. 72. 7 . . . . ll "Coordination and Teamwork Among ProfeSSionals: The Whole 13 Greater than the Sum of Its Parts," School Administrator's Discipline and Control Update, No. 106 (Croft-NEI Publications, 1976). P. 3. 47 l 8 . . commitment to a shared task. 1 In Deutsch's studies of cooperation and competition in groups, he states that the communication of ideas, coordination of efforts, friendliness and pride in one's group, which are basic to group harmony and effectiveness, appear to be disrupted when members see themselves to be competing for mutually exclusive goals.119 Ideally a cooperative pattern may emerge if the staff prefers the same set of consequences as a result of their work behaviors and if there is adequate coordination from management and staff. In the preceding section it was noted that coordination can provide the channels and opportunities for the exchange of information which allow each to know the preferences of the others. With this knowledge staff members are able to anticipate each other's actions more accurately. In doing this they may more effectively act to secure the goals that they hold in common.120 A group is cooperative to the extent that the members pursue promotively interdependent goals.121 Each believes that the extent to which his or her tasks may be accomplished depends to a large degree upon the extent to which other staff workers are successful at their 1 8 . . 1 Kingdon, "Team or Group Development: The Development of Dyadic Relationships," 176. 119 u . . . Deutsch, The Effects of Cooperation and Competition upon Group Process," p. 447. 120 . . . . . Simon, Administrative BehaVior, p. 72. 121 . . . Deutsch, "The Effects of Cooperation and Competition upon Group Process," p. 425. 48 tasks.122 This implies more than a willingness to help each other. It is an underlying belief that everyone's work is facilitated by the work of others. As a result, staff members value and use a concerted group effort for dealing with most professional problems. These workers recognize the need for a drawing together of functions if they are to have any unified impact in their districts.123 Managers and members of groups that tend to possess cooper- ative characteristics arenmutewilling to promote the team approach also in the following ways: they are willing to modify their individual roles to facilitate group success if necessary; they see that the competencies of all members are used to their best advantage; and they are accepting of help and support from fellow staff members. Of these three traits the first is perhaps the most misunderstood. A willing- ness to modify one's role in a team situation does not mean that a PPS specialist must risk losing his or her professional or personal iden- tity.124 The uniqueness of each specialty area and the individual route of preparation that each worker has traveled are possessions which should not be submerged or devalued. But it is also true that a specialist working in a pupil personnel staff environment that, by its very name, depends on the joint contributions of many disciplines, 122 . . . . EdWin J. Thomas, "Effects of FaCilitative Role Interdependence on Group Functioning," Human Relations 10 (1957), 348. 123 . . Mease and Benson, Outcome Management Applied to Pupil Personnel Services, p. 24. 124 . . . . . Shear, "Administration of Pupil Personnel Serv1ces," p. 248. 49 often cannot carry out his or her professional role in precisely the same manner as he or she learned it or practiced it before coming to the school setting.125 It does not seem necessary that personal or professional role and status must be subordinated for the greater efficiency of the whole_ group. It may be helpful, however, to restructure or reshape one's approach to working as a PPS specialist in order that the services pro- vided complement and support each other. Unfortunately, anxiety as to one's own adequacies and discomfort arising from being required to deviate from an accepted mode of behavior may produce tension that hinders the progress of many groups toward more teamlike activity.126 In reference to putting the competencies of each staff member to maximum use, Mackenzie and Carey write that one of the three criteria for effective leadership is that the manager elicit the greatest contribution from each member of the problem solving group.127 Macgregor also lists the process of making the best use of the human resources available as one parameter on which any staff may assess its level of team functioning.128 Parkes, "An Exploration of the Teamwork Approach in Coordinating Pupil Personnel Service Programs in Texas Public Schools," p. 17. 126Ibid. 127Gordon W. Mackenzie and Stephen M. Carey, Instructional Leader- ship, cited in L. Craig Wilson, et. al., Sociology of Supervision: An Approach to Comprehensive Planning in Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969), p. 42. 8 . . . Macgregor, The ProfeSSional Manager, Cited in Schmuck, et. al., Handbook of Organization Develgpment in Schools, p. 208. 50 Lastly, mutual influence and support among staff persons are activities which can promote and are characteristic of most task groups valuing cooperation. Rosen notes that as a group becomes more team- like, a willingness on the part of staff members to help each other . 129 increases. As staff members come to act more as supporters and secondary reinforcing agents for the behaviors of each other, mutual . . 130 . . . . . influence increases. This is also a characteristic of the final topic in this discussion -4 staff cohesiveness. Cohesiveness The cohesiveness of the staff is the most emotion-based element of team functioning. At least three different ways of viewing it may be established. The first is in terms of the members' attraction to the group itself, including their resistance to leaving it for similar work in another setting. Secondly, it can be thought of in terms of morale or the motivation of members to participate in group activities with enthusiasm. The third approach deals with the amount and type of coordination these staff members are willing to receive and practice.131 Cartwright and Zander cite the results of numerous studies and state that staff members who are attracted to their group exhibit more behaviors which are beneficial to the group. In fact, members of such groups have been shown to take on responsibility for the group more often; to 9 . . . Rosen, SuperviSion, A BehaVioral View, p. 157. 130 . . . Albert J. Lott and Bernice Eisman Lott, "Group CoheSiveness, Communication Level and Conformity," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (March, 1961), 412. 131 Cartwright and Zander, Group_Dypamics: Research and Theory, p. 72. 51 participate more readily in meetings; to persist longer in working to- ward difficult goals; to remain members longer; to be more willing to listen and to accept the influence of others; and to place greater 132 . . value on the group's goals. As coordination has already been re- viewed, the remainder of the discussion will deal with the forces which bind a group together and enhance its attractiveness in the eyes of its members and with the morale of the group. Several sociologists have said that the key factor in any con- ceptualization of cohesiveness istflmadegree of attraction to the group felt by its members. Festinger, Schacter and Back defined cohesiveness as the "resultant or total of forces acting on group members to keep them in the group" when they studied this phenomenon in married housing . . 133 . . . . . complexes at Stanford UniverSity. This idea was Simplified by Gross and Martin. Instead of being faced with the need to operationalize, for any research effort, the forces to which Festinger and his col- leagues referred, they proposed one basic question to elicit cohesive- . . . 134 ness from respondents -- how attractive is this group to you? A professional group may be attractive to its members by their being bound together by a shared commitment to its work goals and by . . . . . . 135 . . holding a common Viewpoint related to work priorities. In summariZing 132Ibid., p. 89 133 . . Leon Festinger, Stanley Schacter and Kurt Back, Soc1al Pressures in Informal Groups (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1950). p. 164. 134 . . . . . Neal Gross and William Martin, "On Group CoheSiveness," American Journal of Sociology 57 (May, 1952), 551 135 . . . . Hummel and Bonham, Pupil Personnel Serv1ces in Schools: Organiza- tion and Coordination, p. 64. 52 results from his study of cohesiveness among groups of officer candidates at the Naval OCS in Rhode Island, Hollander found that group attractive- ness is positively related to a perceived consensus among group members . . . . 136 . . in terms of their value orientations. For this commonality of goals and values, Kelley recommends that staff members constantly work to . . . . . . 137 understand each other's motivations, beliefs and priorities. This feeling of being tied together, a sense of we-ness, may also be manifested in reports of high loyalty to the group and members' . 138 . . . trust in each other. But both of these qualities are often ideal states which may be difficult to realize. Multiple loyalties held by PPS workers from different backgrounds must often be reconciled with . - . 139 the need to bolster the group s feeling of the staff as a unit. It was stated previously that establishing trust between specialists from different disciplines may also be difficult due to the fact that some specialists feel their role has been limited or misinterpreted as a result of the presence of the more securely situated services such as . 140 guidance. 3 l 6Hollander, Leaders, Groups and Influence, p. 83. 37 . . . 1 Janet A. Kelley, "Why Not? Teamwork in Guidance and Curriculum," Occupations 30 (March, 1949), 405. 8Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management, Cited in Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961), p. 378. 139 . . . Stoughton, McKenna and Cook, Pupil Personnel SerVices: A P051- tion Statement, p. 28. 140 . . . . . Shear, "Administration of Pupil Personnel SerVices," p. 240. 53 It appears that group attraction is evidenced when the overall PPS staff is recognized as a viable entity in itself and the specialists identify with it as readily as they identify with their own discplines. Seashore and Bowers, in a report of a field experiment on organization change, propose that an organization is more likely to achieve its pur- poses if there is a greater emphasis on the work group as a whole . . . . . . 141 rather than only on the indiVidual units being superVised. Iden- tification with the complete group may also be promoted as the members receive personal rewards as a result of participation in the inter- disciplinary context. Recognition by the director and fellow staff persons of personal effort and the affirmation of the professional value 142 of staff members are two such rewards. High morale is also a mark of a cohesive group. This inter- personal dynamic may come about when every staff person feels that he . . . 143 or she is really a part of the group and is a valued member of it. In commenting on Seashore's research, Lawrence and Seiler write that high morale implies not only a feeling from staff that their work is appreciated and needed for the group's task to be achieved, but also that the group members themselves are prized.144 Specialists may 141 . . . Seashore and Bowers, Changing the Structure and Functioning of an Organization, p. 18. 142 . . . . . Hatch and Stefflre, Administration of Guidance SerVices, p. 54. 143Cartwright and Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, p. 79. 144 . . . . Paul R. Lawrence and John A. Seiler, Organizational BehaVior and Administration (rev. ed., Homewood, Illinois: Richard K. Irwin and the Dorsey Press, 1965), p. 193. 54 come to feel this way if management shows that PPS workers all possess and deserve equal status within the group. Staff members should be supervised in a way such that each feels he or she is contributing a professional service of importance. For better task group coordina- tion, Thompson feels that "there must be equal opportunity and a fair distribution of rewards, especially rewards of recognition, status or deference."145 Belief in the relative equal value of one's work is an important aspect of the PPS team concept. Support services have been struggling to carve out legitimate spheres of influence for some time. The push for professional recognition and the competition that may arise from these efforts may be allayed by frequent assurances that each discipline is providing a very viable and necessary service for the optimal de- velopment of students. For teamwork to occur Shear writes that there can be no ”second stringers" on the PPS staff,146 that services must exist in a complementary, not hierarchical, relationship with each other.147 In his research Cole found that those specialists who occupied positions which they perceived as having the same or similar status as others within the pupil personnel organization were more likely to be cooperative than those who perceived a discrepancy in the 145Thompson, Modern Organizations, p. 187. 4 . . . 1 6Shear, "Teamwork in Pupil Personnel SerVices," p. 202. 7 . . . . Bruce E. Shear, "Team Action in Pupil Personnel," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary Schooerrincipals 52 (January, 1968), 41. 55 . . . 148 status associated with their pOSitions. And Rosen notes that co- hesiveness will be enhanced as there develop within the work group . . . . 149 less internal status distinctions. A final condition noted by Seashore that can serve to foster group cohesiveness is the perception on the part of staff members that they are looked upon favorably and with goodwill by non-PPS persons with whom they interact. Specialists should feel that if their opera- tion were ever evaluated, it would rate as a very good one. This con- fidence can generate a feeling of prestige that staff persons will tend to attribute to their own work. Seashore found group cohesiveness to be positively related to perceptions of job prestige for factory worker groups. The higher the reported cohesiveness was, the more the . . . 150 workers thought that their job was better than most in the plant. The importance of the effect of prestige of group membership is also noted by Golembiewski as he writes that it is one of the three main , . . 151 sources of a group s attraction for its members. Generally, staff members should feel that they have the support and approval of their director and colleagues, especially their non- PPS co—workers. Seashore concludes in his study of cohesiveness that 48 . . 1 Cole, "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Behavior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists," p. 91. 149Rosen, Supervision, A Behavioral View, p. 174. 150 . . . Seashore, Group CoheSiveness in the Industrial Work Group, p. 22. 151Robert T. Golembiewski, The Small Group: An Analysis of Re- search Concepts and Operations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962) I p0 157. 56 "the process of building cohesiveness in a task group is mediated by the administrator's success in developing among the workers a feeling of confidence and security in the management of the organization." He reminds any director who may be contemplating such a move to preface his or her efforts by providing the "basic conditions of equity and . . . . 152 supportiveness which warrant employee confidence in management." Summary The team approach is based on the concept that services become more effective as they become more integrated and mutually supportive. This mode of staff operation has been endorsed by researchers and practitioners as the best method by which a balance between develop- mental, remedial and preventative staff action may be maintained. The team approach has been seen to increase dialogue between specialists and teachers; to positively influence students' academic progress, personal adjustment and school attendance; and to improve the image of pupil personnel services within and outside the schools. There appears to be added professional impact when a unified and integrated PPS staff effort is mounted. It has also been reported that the team approach, a mode of staff operation that is marked by a high degree of communication, co- ordination, cooperation and cohesiveness in staff interrelationships and in the provision of professional services, is not being carried out to a desirable extent in the public schools. Some possible reasons for 152 . . . Seashore, Group CoheSiveness in the Industrial Work Group, p. 102. 57 this problem may lie in the area of staff coordination. Research studies show that the lack of PPS staff coordination is seen as a prob- lem by school administrators. Pupil personnel specialists also appear to have an inadequate understanding of their goals and roles. Marked disagreement has been found to exist between specialty groups regarding the assignment and responsibility for certain tasks. Often specialists from several disciplines lay Claim to the same functions. Territo- rialty problems are promoted by competitiveness between groups due to a perception of differential status and similar desires to establish a more legitimate professional identity for themselves. Administrators and specialists often do not value team pro- cedures because of a lack of emphasis on the team approach during their professional training or because of the varied non-education job settings from which most PPS services have developed. Specialists in disciplines that have strong traditions outside of education or who come from non-education positions themselves often find it difficult to modify their role to better fit in with an interdisciplinary team effort in schools. Deficiencies in the authority of the director in promoting co- operation may also contribute to this problem. The director may be unwilling to act in an administrative manner because he or she feels it would be resented by the staff or because he or she does not feel comfortable in such a management role. The director may be willing to exercise authority but be unable to do so because of positional weakness within the management hierarchy. The specialists themselves may not consider the authority of the director as legitimate due to differences in his or her technical skill and their own. 58 There are also many factors impeding a team approach in pro- fessional staffs that are common to most bureaucratic organizations. Among these are complex tasks, forced staff membership and deficiencies in the quality and quantity of communication among staff and between staff and management. The final section of this discussion considered the four main characteristics of a professional staff that is functioning as a team. Such a staff would be marked by a high degree of communication, co— ordination, cooperation and cohesiveness in its operations and inter- relations. The Team Functionipg Checklist has been composed of des- criptive statements which either represent or are positively related to one or more of the four team factors. The most often noted process that is required in a teamlike staff is that of communication. Above all, communication among staff members, between staff and management and between the staff and its various non-PPS publics should be frequent, open and clear. Before goals and programs can be articulated to others, they must be well set out and understood by the staff members themselves. For a staff to function in a coordinated manner, the members must be aware of each other's values, needs and priorities. Coordina- tion basically consists of providing the means to develop an under- standing between specialists of these values, needs and priorities in order thattjuegroup's efforts may become more concerted toward a goal. If the staff director approaches his or her coordination task in a non- authoritarian, collegial way, greater team functioning is likely to be promoted. The director's coordination efforts should also be marked 59 by consistent support of task achievement on the part of the staff. He or she should be meeting the professional needs of the staff and should be fostering a leadership style that is congruent with the social atmosphere and expectations of the staff. Staff members also must share in the responsibilty for staff coordination. They should understand clearly their own roles, goals and work processes. They can actively work with their director in program and policy planning. Cooperation, the third facet of team activity, will emerge if two processes occur. The first, as mentioned earlier, is that there be adequate coordination on the part of management and operatives. The second is that staff persons come to value and work toward goals commonly held by all of them. Members of cooperative groups tend to View their jobs as existing in an interdependent relationship with one another. They choose to approach professional problems as a group bringing multiple resources to bear on their tasks. To foster a more cooperative effort, the members may also become more willing to modify their individual roles. They can strive to see that the competencies of all are used to their best advantage and they can become more accepting of help and support from each other. The final team characteristic, cohesiveness, is defined as the total of forces which bind a group together and enhance its attractive- ness in the eyes of its members. Cohesiveness is also related to group morale -- the motivation of members to participate in group activities with enthusiasm. A staff may be bound together by a shared commitment to their work goals, a feeling that being in the group is personnaly rewarding, and a sentiment of loyalty and trust in fellow members. For 60 members to identify with the staff group, each must feel that he or she is really a part of it. In addition, they should perceive that they all have equal status in the group. When the staff feels that outsiders think well of their work and would evaluate them favorably if the need arose, they gain confidence and prestige. This also nurtures cohesiveness. Basically, then, cohesiveness depends on con- ditions of equality and supportiveness from staff as well as manage- ment. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Selection of the Survey Population and Sample The states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania provided the source of respondents for this study. The state Departments of Educa- tion in each of the three states furnished lists of local school dis- tricts which employed a pupil personnel services or student services administrator. A total of 155 districts were named. The number of districts located in each of the states was as follows: Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 22 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 95 Each district received a letter from the researcher asking the PPS Director to fill in the "PPS Director Information Sheet" (See Appendix A). The return of responses from the directors after the first mailing and one follow up three weeks later was 153 or 99% of the original group. For a district's pupil personnel staff to qualify for the sur- vey population, it was to have employed someone officially designated with responsibility for the administration of pupil personnel services. In addition, it was necessary for the district to be represented by at least one person functioning either on a full or part-time basis in each of the following positions: school counselor, school nurse, 61 U 1n 62 school psychologist and school social worker and/or attendance worker (also called visiting teacher and home and school visitor). The posi- tions of school social worker and attendance worker were combined into one job title group because these specialists often carry out similar functions and also because this merger allowed more districts to qualify for membership in the survey population. Of the 153 districts considered in the study, 119 or 78% had student enrollments of 20,000 or less. The enrollments for remaining districts were widely scattered between 21,000 and 200,000+ students. To keep the population as homogeneous as possible, only districts with student enrollments of 20,000 or less were included. A total of ninety districts had enrollments within this range and qualified for the survey population. These districts were distributed over the three states in this manner: Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 16 or 18% Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 or 21% Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 55 or 61%. A simple random procedure produced the sample from this group. All names of the districts were printed on separate slips of paper and drawn from a hat. A 50% figure was set and forty-five names were drawn. The distribution of districts over the three states in the sample was: Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 10 or 22.2% Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 or 24.4% Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 24 or 53.3%. It can be seen thattflmeproportion of districts in each of the states in the sample closely matches the proportion found in the survey population. The number of individual respondents (directors, counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers and/or attendance workers) in 63 the sample, based on figures furnished on the "PPS Director Information Sheet," was 928. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the student enrollments of the thirty-five school districts in the final sample. Procedures Used in Data Collection Forty—five directors of pupil personnel services received a letter from the researcher inviting them to participate in the study (See Appendix B). The letter contained a section that confirmed the number of specialists the district employed in each position. En- closed with this letter was also a letter of endorsement from the re- searcher's project advisor (See Appendix C). If a director did not respond to the contrary within a week of receiving the invitation, the research assumed that he or she was willing to participate. The final sample included thirty-five districts. Six directors declined the invitation to participate in response to the initial letter, and four districts were eliminated at the completion of data collection because their numbers and/or comprehensiveness of responses did not meet the criterion for usability.‘ To meet this criterion, a district's total response had to include at least one return from each of the five job-title groups in question. One month after the letter of invitation was mailed, the re- searcher sent packets of survey materials with a cover letter to the thirty-nine districts then comprising the target group (See Appendix D). The packet included enough stamped and addressed survey forms for the director and all relevant PPS specialists in the district. Each PPS director distributed these survey materials to the staff, and ...: Ul ...: .1) Number of School Districts P‘ H: H H o H N w wabmmqooxo 64V 37.1% 17.1% 8 £ 3 g §11.4% 11.4%E 11.4% J 4 6.0% 2.8%L 2.8% O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 8 8 8 8 8 o o or 0 § § 5 § § ~ \ § \ O. N . ~° 0° 2 2 z :3 2°. m Student Enrollment Ranges Figure 1 Distribution of Student Enrollments the Thirty-Five Sample Districts for 65 specialists completed them privately and mailed them directly back to the researcher. It was not necessary to identify any response by the respondent's name. Moreover, the researcher had no direct contact with any respondent except the directors. The first mailing resulted in a return of 471 survey forms. A follow-up mailing was carried out one month later. Each dis— trict director received a personal letter dealing with the rate of re- turn in his or her particular district. A graph recording the number of returns received daily from each district permitted decisions re- garding usability to be made. If the district responded with a usable return, the director was thanked and asked to encourage more staff members to respond. If the district was not usable at that point, the director was asked to distribute more forms to the specialty group members who had sent none back up to that time. Extra survey materials accompanied the letter in the amount matching the number of workers in the non-responding job—title groups. If no job title group in a dis- trict had responded, the director received a reminder letter with a complete duplicate set of survey forms. Throughout this follow-up and the second one no names of staff members were used. The researcher could only state how many additional responses, such as nurse or counselor, were still needed from each district, and the director was asked to relay this message to his or her staff. The first follow-up brought in seventy-five additional returns. The second follow-up ensued three weeks later. Every district director again received a personal letter. If a district had achieved a 100% return, the director received a letter of appreciation. If the 66 district had met the criterion for usability, the letter specified the number of additional responses needed for a 100% return and included additional survey forms in that amount. Those districts which were not yet usable were reminded of the specialty group or groups most under- represented and were given a list of the number of responses from each job-title group still needed for a 100% return. Included were survey forms to cover those responses still needed for usability. At this time, there were four districts from which no responses had been received. The directors in these districts were asked for a statement of intent and told that the researcher would call in a week if no reply was received. All of these districts responded within the week. The number of returns from this mailing was eighty-eight. The total number of survey forms returned was 635 or 68% of the final sample. Of these, 583 were usable. The reasons for non- usability were: 1. forms lacked job-title identification; 2. forms were incompletely or incorrectly filled out; 3. forms were received from staff persons not pertinent to the study; 4. forms were received from districts that had to be eliminated due to not meeting the criterion for usability; 5. forms were received after the cut-off date which was three weeks after the mailing of the second follow-up. Seven districts in the sample responded with a 100% return. Figure 2 shows the number of participating PPS workers and directors listed by school district identification number and by job title. Asterisks denote districts responding with a 100% response rate. 67 uoHuumHo Np muouomuHo CCM mumxuoz mum mCHHmmHUHuumm mo Monfidz N musmHm 8m 25 mo 8 , 8. Ho 2H 1 mmH H8 «3 m mm mm 338 NH 3 H N N N H N NH . NH H H 2. NH NN H H H N m 0H 6 M NH H H mm m . mH n q H N H N m . o H H mm cmH mH H H H H v e m m H H Nm mN vv v w v v H H mH on H H on oH «M m o v m N v ¢ mH H H mm 0 NH H N H H N n v m H H vm .NH «H H H H H N N N N H H .n 8 NN on v v m n v mH - mH NH H H m Nm 3 8 H H m m m a m 2 H H N H NN NN H H v m m N OH NH H H on NH mH H N N N m m 0 HH H H mN HH NH H H m m H H m N H H mN mH mH H H H H w m m OH H H ON mN vv N. n H m w mH mH 0N H H mN NN mN N m m m H m OH NH H H VN 40H 0H H H H H v e m m H H MN VH mH H H N N m m N OH H H NN NH VH N N H H N N o m H H HN ON mN H N N N v 0 NH NH H H ON Nm ov m N m v m m mH MN H H mH mH mN H H N N m m m 0H H H NH «HH HH H H H H m m m m H H 0H wN mm m m o N v 6 NH mH H H mH .nH MH H H H H m m m m H H 0H NH HN H N H N N N N m H H MH N vH H H H N N m N m H H HH 0 OH H H H H H N N m H H OH mm Ne N N N m HH HH NH mN H H m m NH H m H H H H m o H H m cNN NN H H N N m m NH MH H H N NH mv m m H m H o o mN H H o mH HN H H N N m m o m H H m ooH OH H H N N N N v v H H m oN Hm N CH N m v 6 HH mN H H N mCHoComnmm uoHuumHo mCHCCommmx uoHuumHo MCHvComwwm uoHuumHo mCHCComnmm uoHuumHo mmHUComwwm uoHuumHo mCHUCommwm uoHuumHo .oz Hones: CH CH CH CH CH CH CoHuMOHu H32. 38.52 3952 .352 “.352 3832 3852 39.52 38.52 3.822 $8.52 3.3.2 -353 Hausa muoxuoz HaHoow mumHmoHozonm mwmuzz muonmCsoo muouumuHo uoHuumHo 68 Of the 583 responding PPS workers and directors, 555 (95.2%) were locally hired and twenty-eight (4.8%) were non-locally hired. Locally hired specialists are those persons under contract to and paid by the particular school district they serve. The latter category in- cludes PPS workers employed by intermediate school districts, county departments and agencies, or private clinics or agencies. Seventeen of the thirty-five districts used the services of non-locally hired specialists. In the group 555 (95.2%) reported that they were hired on a full-time basis, while twenty—eight (4.8%) were hired on a part- time basis. Sixteen of the thirty-five districts employed part-time specialists. Respondents were asked to report the number of years they had functioned in their present pupil personnel position. Of the 583 persons, thirty-nine (6.4%) did not respond to this question. The numbers of responding specialists arranged by their years of experience are shown in Figure 3. 1—2 years 3—5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years Over 15 yyears 104 157 168 64 51 (17.9%) (27%) (28.9%) (11%) (8.8%) Figure 3 Years of Experience in Present Position for Entire Sample I 1 the sample, 44.9% of the directors and specialists had functioned jJ] their present positions from one to five years. 69 The mean number of years of experience in the present PPS position was also computed for each job—title group. Figure 4 shows these ranked averages. Nurses 8.79 Counselors 6.89 Social Workers 6.00 Directors 5.77 Psychologists 4.85 Figure 4 Ranked Mean Years of Experience in Present Position for Each Job-Title Group Instrumentation A new instrument, the Team Functioning Checklist or TEE, was developed specifically for this study. It is composed of forty state- ments that describe the actions, thoughts and feelings of a professional staff that functions as a team in the provision of its services and the accomplishment of its goals. A sample of the T§§_is shown in Appendix E, and an explanation of the content of the T§E_is presented later in this section. The checklist measures the importance staff members place on the team approach and the extent to which they per- ceive their respective staffs to be operating as teams. Using a five- point scale, respondents rated the extent to which they perceived each TEE statement to Characterize their own staff. They also rated the extent to which each statement described a top priority item for a pupil personnel services staff. Thus, two rating dimensions were 70 obtained, an actual and an ideal condition labeled the "Does" and the "Should" response, respectively. The instrument was anonymous, but did require job title, e.g. director, counselor, nurse, psychologist or social worker. The only names known to the researcher were those of the directors because they acted as the preliminary contact persons for the compilation of the survey population. In addition to job title, respondents also provided information about whether or not they were locally hired, their years of experience in the present position, the position held previously and whether they held full or part-time positions. For directors a separate section asked for the number of full or part-time counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers and/or attendance workers providing services in the district and also the student enrollment of the district. The T§g_instructions provided respondents with a frame of re- ference regarding the terms §5a§£_and director. Kaplan and Stoughton of the National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators write that one must specify the scope of the staff unit for each district.153 Specialists should consider their PPS staff to be the most complete pupil personnel unit in which they work. In a small district it may be the total group of all PPS specialists, while in larger districts the staff may be broken down into several smaller units serving particular schools or student groups. Respondents must consider not only their own specialty group, but also, as stated in the instructions, 153Louis Kaplan and Robert W. Stoughton, Pupil Personnel Services: Guidelines for Introducing and Developing a Program of Accountability, Monograph No. 3 (n.p.: National Association of Pupil Personnel Admin- istrators, 1974), p. 8. 71 "the most immediate, complete group (consisting of at least one worker in each of the following groups: counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers and/or attendance workers) of PPS personnel" with whom they carry out their professional duties. The term pupil personnel director was also defined. Liddle and Reighard define a PPS director as "any system-wide administrator responsible for at least two of the following groups: guidance counselors, psychologists, social workers or visiting teachers, attendance coordinators, speech and/or hearing therapists, nurses, dental personnel, physicians and psychiatrists." To qualify for the survey population, the director must have spent over 35% of his or her time in the administration and/or supervision of these services. For the 234 persons in Liddle and Reighard's sample, an average of 75% of the director's time was spent in this activity and the typical director had responsibility for four to six services.154 The definition of gp§_ director in this researcher's study, however, referred to the district- wide administrator of at least the services of counseling and guidance, nursing, school psychology and school social work and/or attendance work. The position was defined in terms of function rather than title as a number of titles are commonly used for such a position. The T§g_uses a Likert or summated rating scale in the measure- ment of respondents' attitudes about the importance and extent of team functioning. The Likert scale has been judged by Tittle and Hill as 154 . . . . Gordon P. Liddle and Gary W. Reighard, "Directors of Pupil Personnel Services: Who Are They? Where Are They Going?" in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Glenn A. Saltzman and Herman J. Peters (n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, 1967), p. 76. 72 superior to other scales, such as the Guttman, the Semantic Differen- tial, the Thurstone and the Self-Rating scale, in the measurement of . 155 . . . attitudes. This type of scale conSists of a number of items relat- ing to an object or concept of reference, and the more favorable the individual's attitudes toward the subject, the higher his expected score for the item. Respondents indicate their reaction to the items by means of a five category rating system. In this case in answer to the questions, "To what extent does this statement characterize your PPS staff?" and "To what extent should this be a top priority item for a PPS staff?", the categories are: (l) to no extent (2) to a little extent (3) to some extent (4) to a considerable extent (5) to a very great extent. Any interpretation of results from a Likert scale is based upon the distribution of sample ratings overtimerange of response categories. A rating on this type of scale has meaning only in relation to ratings . 156 made by others in the sample. In the selection or composition of items for the Team Func- tioninngheCklist, the researcher's frame of reference was based on the question, "what behaviors, thoughts, understandings and emotions 155 . . . . Charles R. Tittle and Richard J. Hill, "Attitude Measurement and Prediction of Behavior: An Evaluation of Conditions and Measurement Techniques," cited in Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research: An Introduction (2nd ed., New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971); P. 183. 156 . . MarVin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1967), p. 25. 73 would be Characteristic of a professional staff Operating as a team?" The statements in the initial item pool were chosen or composed based on an examination of the literature in the areas of social, industrial and managerial psycholoQY. small group interaction, leadership and organization theory, and school administration, particularly the administration of guidance and pupil personnel services. Some surveys that proved to be helpful in the compilation Of survey items were: Joliff's "Index of Group Cohesiveness" "Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire" Seashore's "Group Cohesiveness Survey" Cole's "Questionnaire for Pupil Personnel Administrators" Cole's "Pupil Personnel Specialist Questionnaire" Biggers' "The Guidance Administrator" 157 Donigan's "Guidance Director Descriptionnaire." The original pool of items contained 129 statements. The TFC was pretested prior to completion, and the initial 129 items were first reduced to "twenty characteristics of a staff that is 157David Lee Joliff, "The Effects of an Intensive Work-shop Experi- ence on the Development and Functioning Of Pupil Personnel Services Teams in Selected School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1971), p. 76; Andrew Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 88; Stanley E. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1954), p. 58; Norman M. Cole, "The Effects Of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Behavior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970), Appendices A, F; Julian L. Biggers, "The Effect of School System Size and Position in the Administrative Hierarchy Upon the Guidance Administrator's Perceived Level of Authority and Needs Satisfaction," Texas Tech University, 1971, p. 21; Jeremiah Donigan, "Leader Behavior of Guidance Directors Related to Counselors' Expec- tations" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State Univer- sity, 1968), p. 98. 74 functioning as a team" (See Appendix F). At this time, the items were grouped under six headings: goals, role and function, cohesiveness, communication or coordination, support and participation. This list was then sent with a response form to thirty-five guidance and personnel services professionals throughout Michigan. Respondents answers the following questions: (1) What items seem to be redundant? (2) What items do you think should be omitted? (3) Are there any characteristics of a staff functioning as a team that should be added? (4) Are there any items in one subgroup that should be placed in another? Twenty-five usable returns helped in simplifying and revising the draft. Forty single idea statements were written and the number of headings was changed to five. "Support" and "participation" were omitted and the heading of "organizational environment" was added. The researcher's doctoral committee, representing the fields of counseling and personnel services, school administration and sociology, reviewed the list. To Clarify and simplify data analysis, the forty items were grouped on the basis of the four basic team characteristics proposed by the researcher -- communication, coordination, cooperation and cohesiveness. The researcher used a modified forced distribution tech- nique, based on the Q-sort method. Unlike a regular forced distribu- tion specifying both the number of groups and the number of items that must be assigned to each group, only the number of item subgroups l 8 . was set. The researcher typed each statement on an index card and 158 . . . - Anne AnastaSi, Psychological Testing (3rd ed., London: Macmillan Company: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1968), p. 534. 75 then determined which of the four team promoting processes it best represented. The first sorting gave this breakdown: (1) communication: 8 (2) coordination : 12 (3) cooperation : 8 (4) cohesiveness : 12 . A second sorting conducted twenty-four hours later resulted in the reassignment of seven items. The distribution was: (1) communication: 7 (2) coordination : l3 (3) cooperation : 8 (4) cohesiveness : l2 . The descriptive statements contained within each of the four classifications are not to be considered mutually exclusive nor in- dependent. Rather each statement is to be examined in terms of its overall effect and contribution to one of the team promoting processes. Nor are these four team characteristics to be considered independent as item subgroups. For this reason they were not used as levels of the independent variable, which is the average rating of respondents, in the analysis of the data. A listing of the forty T§§_items is as follows: Communication 1. Staff members clearly understand staff goals. 7. Staff members understand the nature and scope of each other's roles. 20. Staff members feel that their purpose is well under- stood by their district's non-PPS faculty and staff. 25. Communication between staff members is frequent. 26. Communication between staff members is open. 28. Intra-staff conflicts are accepted. 29. Intra-staff conflicts are resolved. 76 9 Coordination 2. Staff members have a clear understanding of the processes to be followed in goal attainment. 6. Staff members participate in establishing goals for themselves. 8. Roles for each staff member are Clearly defined. 11. Staff roles are established jointly by staff and management. 12. Staff members feel that realistic expectations are put on them. 18. Staff members feel valued in the eyes of their director. 27. Staff members routinely are informed as to each other's planned behaviors. 34. Staff members see their director as having legitimate authority. 35. The director provides a high degree of assistance for the achievement of staff tasks. 36. The director's leadership meets the professional needs of the staff. 37. The director's leadership style (type of relation- ship he or she builds with the staff) matches the staff's expectations. 38. Staff members may exercise professional autonomy in their work. 39. Staff members often consult with their director in consideration of policies and programs. Cooperation 4. Staff members have high consensus regarding work goals. 9. Staff members feel that their own work toward goals is promoted by the work efforts Of their PPS colleagues. 10. Staff members are willing to modify their individual roles to facilitate a group effort if necessary. 77 The competencies of each staff member are put to 13. maximum use. 23. Staff members most Often use a concerted, group effort for dealing with professional problems. 24. Staff members Often influence each other regarding their work. 30. Staff members often participate as a group in pro- fessional activities (departmental meetings, case conferences, in-service sessions). 32. Staff members receive a high degree of support from each other. Cohesiveness 3. Staff members feel committed to their work goals. 5. Staff members share common values related to work priorities. 14. Staff members feel a high degree of attraction to the group. 15. Staff members feel a high degree of loyalty to the group. 16. Staff members feel that they all have equal status in the group. 17. Staff members feel that each respectively is con- tributing an equally important service- 19. Each staff member feels the he or she is really a part of the work group. 21. Staff members feel that they are well regarded by their district's non-PPS faculty and staff. 22. Staff members feel a sense of prestige regarding their function within the complete district's operation. 31. Staff members feel a sense of trust in each other. 33. Staff members perceive their overall work environ- ment to be supportive. 40. Specialists identify with their PPS staff as a whole just as strongly as they identify with their own specialty group. 78 The researcher's committee was then asked to actually respond to the T§g_in its preliminary format. The revised draft was sent again to thirty-five guidance and personnel services professionals in Michigan, a different group from the first survey. Respondents com- pleted the instrument by using their own staff as a point of reference and commented on the format, content and comprehensiveness. NO content changes were made as a result of this pre-test, and twenty-six usable returns were obtained. The researcher established the content validity of the instru- ment by the three presentations of the survey to persons active in pupil and student personnel services. Content validity is related to how adequately the content of the test samples the domain about which inferences are made. Mehrens and Lehmann state that there is no commonly used numerical expression for content validity; it is deter- mined by a thorough inspection of the items.159 Generally, attitudes measures such as the Team Functioning Checklist are less amenable to validity data than other non-cognitive measures due to problems in- herent in measuring attitudes and because most are constructed mainly 160 for research purposes. Reliability data were Obtained from the final pre-test results, and the analysis of variance estimation of reliability approach was used. Guilford writes that results from this method have been found 159 . . - William A. Mehrens and IrVin J. Lehmann, Measurement and Evalua- tion in Education and Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972), p. 124. 16 0Ibid., p. 570. 79’ to be identical with those of the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 161 II II ' ' ll approach. For the Does response in answer to the question, To what extent does this statement characterize your PPS staff?", the reliability estimate was .974 (See Table 3.1). Tafle3d ANOVA Estimation of Reliability for the "Does" Responses of the TFC Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variation Squares Freedom Square Between people 493.10 25 20.5459 Within people 558.51 950 .5879 Between measures 71.93 38 1.8930 Residual 486.58 912 . .5335 Total 1051.61 974 1.0800 R = 1 - MS /MS residual Between people 1 - .53/20.54 .97403 The reliability estimate for the "Should" response dimension in response to the question, "To what extent should this be a top priority item for a PPS staff?" was .900 (See Table 3.2). 161 . J. Paul Guilford, Psychometric Methods (2nd ed., New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1954), p. 385. 80 Tafle33 ANOVA Estimation Of Reliability for the "Should” Responses of the TFC Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variation Squares Freedom Square Between people 74.41 25 3.1001 Within people 315.13 950 .3317 Between measures 34.41 38 .9056 Residual 280.71 912 .3078 Total 389.53 974 .3999 R = 1 - MS /MS residual Between people 1 - .3078/3.1001 .90072 Question Statement of Hypotheses 1: Do the perceptions of PPS directors and PPS specialists differ regarding the extent of team functioning in their-respective districts Hypo ' PPS staffs? thesis I: The perceptions Of PPS directors and the group of all PPS specialists regarding the extent of team functioning, as measured by the Team Function- ing Checklist, in their respective districts' PPS staf Question fs do differ. 2: DO the perceptions of PPS directors and PPS specialists differ regarding the value of team functioning in a PPS staff? Hyppthesis II: The perceptions of PPS directors and the group of all PPS specialists regarding the value or importance of team functioning, as measured by the Question for a PPS staff do differ. 3: Do the perceptions of PPS specialists differ regarding the extent of team functioning in their respective districts' PPS staffs? 81 Hypothesis III: The perceptions of counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers, regarding the extent of team functioning, as measured by the 329, in their respective districts' PPS staffs do differ. Question 4: Do the perceptions Of PPS specialists differ regarding the value of team functioning in a PPS staff? Hypothesis IV: The perceptions of counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers, regarding the value or importance of team functioning, as measured by the TEE, for a PPS staff do differ. Question 5: With which of the four aspects of team functioning -- communication, coordination, cooperation or cohesiveness -- is the group of all directors and specialists least satisfied? Hypothesis V: There is no correlation between the "Does" and the "Should" ratings of the entire group's responses to the TFC. a. There is no correlation between the "Does" and "Should" responses on the communication subscale. b. There is no correlation between the "Does" and "Should" responses on the coordination subscale. C. There is no correlation between the "Does" and "Should" responses on the cooperation subscale. d. There is no correlation between the "Does" and "Should" responses on the cohesiveness subscale. Method of Analysis and Statistical Model The means of data analysis in this study consisted of compar— isons of the perceptions of the five pupil personnel job-title groups in the sample -- directors, counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers. A basic question upon which the hypotheses were based is: Do these PPS professionals differ in their work-related per- ceptions as a function of the discipline in which they work and have gained their training? 82 Although no interdistrict comparisons were made, the dis- trict, a total of thirty-five, was used as the unit of analysis. This unit is the most accurate because the districts were independent from one another and also because they were the smallest units in which comparisons across all five PPS job-title groups could be made. Be- cause the referent was the PPS staff of each participating district, the district was also the primary unit of interest. —:e-eg The dependent variable was the response of each job-title group to the four Team Functioning Checklist subscales on both the "Does" and the "Should" dimensions of the instrument. The responses of each specialist were divided into four groups and averaged as they represented the four TEE subscales. A mean of these averaged items for each respondent was then computed for each job-title group in each district. The mean for each of the job-title groups from all districts was then computed. This process yielded eight final mean ratings for each job title-group. Four group ratings pertained to the question: To what extent does this statement characterize your PPS staff? ("Does" dimension), and four ratings pertained to the question: To what extent should this be a top priority item for a PPS staff? ("Should" dimension). An example of this scheme for the five job-title groups responding on the "Does" dimension is shown in Appendix G. The independent variable was considered to be the position of the respondents in their respective districts' PPS staffs. This variable had five levels corresponding to the five job—title groups: mH mo. mnu pm u200flmwcmflm ma ucmflofiwmmoo coaumamuuoo one i «mm. HooH. «moo. Hmom. «Hoo. omom.. whoo. mmao. 4sao. maom. mmogm>wmmnoo .>H soa. mmam. omo. moon. taco. mono.“ ooo. oomm. «Hoo. vooo. cowuouomooo .HHH HoH. Hana. .moo. omsv. «mao. momm.w 4moo. momo. whoo. Hmfiv. oofluocuouooo .HH i ave. mmmo. «coo. moom. 4mao. mmom.w «moo. onov. 4Hoo. omoo. :oHumowosasoo .H i .mflm .mfim , .mflm M .mfim .mflm mo Hw>oq u mo Hm>mA w 1 mo Hm>mq H 1 mo Ho>mq H mo Hm>mq H muwxuoz Hafioom muwfimoHosohmm . mmmusz . mHonmGDOU mnouomuflo manomndm Uha mamomQSm Owe £08m How maouw oHuwBIQOH nomm mo noncommmm :pasonm= can =mmoo= onu cmmsuwm mucwfloflmmmoo :oflumeHuou :OmHmmm NH.v mHQmB 105 Table 4.13 Standard Deviations of the Distribution of Responses to Each TFC Subscale on the "Should" Dimension for Each Job-Title Group TFC Subscale Directors Counselors Nurses Psychol- Social ogists Workers I. Communication .585 .227 .375 .351 .354 II. Coordination .607 .230 .340 .318 .357 III. Cooperation .557 .249 .340 .415 .345 IV. Cohesiveness .643 .247 .377 .436 .354 The counselors responded with the smallest standard deviation in their ratings of the value of team functioning on every TEg_sub- scale. On the other hand, the PPS directors in the sample consistently responded with the largest standard deviation or greatest variability in their valuations of team functioning on every TFC subscale. Summary The results of the eight repeated measures tables may be re- lated to the first four general hypotheses. General Hypothesis I: The perceptions of PPS directors and the group of all PPS specialists regarding the ex- tent of team functioning, as measured by the Team Func- tioning Checklist, in their respective district's PPS staffs do differ. The data supported this assertion. Tables 4.1 through 4.4 (lines "a") show that PPS directors and the group of all counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers on their staffs did differ in the extent to which they perceived team functioning occurring in their respective PPS staffs. This difference is evident in response to every TFC subscale -- communication, coordination, cooperation, 106 and cohesiveness. Table 4.9 indicates that the directors consistently perceived team functioning occurring to a greater extent than did the group of all specialists in reference to every T§g_subscale. General Hypothesis II: The perceptions of PPS directors and the group of all PPS specialists regarding the value of team functioning, as measured by the EEC, for a PPS staff do differ. The data supported this assertion. The data in Tables 4.5 through 4.8 (lines "a") lead to the conclusion that PPS directors and the group of all specialists also differed, on every aspect of team functioning, in their perceptions of the value of the team approach for a PPS staff in general. Table 4.9 shows that the directors re- sponded with a higher value rating than the group of all specialists to every T§E_subscale. General Hypothesis III: The perceptions of PPS specialists (counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers) re- garding the extent of team functioning, as measured by the TEE, in their respective district's PPS staffs do differ. In an examination of the last three subhypotheses, "b, c and d," in Tables 4.1 through 4.4, it was noted that among the groups of counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers, the psycholo- gists and social workers were the only specialists who did not differ in the extent to which they perceived team functioning to be occurring in their districts' PPS staffs. However, the perceptions of counselors and nurses differed from each other, and they both differed from the psychologists and the social workers in response to every T§§.sub- scale. General Hypothesis IV: The perceptions of PPS specialists (counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers) re- garding the value of team functioning, as measured by the EEC, for a PPS staff do differ. 107 Among the groups of counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers, Tables 4.5 through 4.8 (lines "b, c and d") illustrate that on three of the four T§g_subscales only the psychologists and the social workers did not differ in the value they placed on team func- tioning. These three subscales reflected the team processes of communication, coordination and cohesiveness. In reference to the "cooperation" subscale, all specialty groups differed from each other. General Hypothesis V: There is no correlation between the "Does" and "Should" ratings in the entire group's response to the TFC. Table 4.11 indicates that each of the four subhypotheses, re- lating to General Hypothesis V and dealing with one of the 229’sub- scales, was rejected. All correlation coefficients were found to be significant. Because the lowest overall correlation was recorded for the "cohesiveness" subscale, it was concluded, without any statistical analysis, that PPS directors and specialists were least satisfied with this team process in their PPS staffs. Further descriptive analyses were conducted. Upon examination of the "Does-Should" correlations for each job-title group, it was found that the social workers responded with the smallest degree of relationship between what they saw occurring in their staffs and what they expected to occur in PPS staffs. Thus, the social workers appeared to be the least satisfied specialty group. The standard deviations of the distribution of responses of each job-title group were used to indicate the degree of agreement each group displayed. The counselors displayed the greatest con- sensus in ratings on every TFC subscale on the "Should" dimension, 108 while the PPS directors exhibited the least agreement in their ratings of the value of the four aspects of team functioning. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The team approach in pupil personnel services is noted by many as the most efficient way to provide comprehensive services to students. Yet the literature suggests that the team approach or team functioning in school districts' pupil personnel services staffs is not being carried out to the extent that it could or should be. The main pur- pose of this study was to provide descriptive data which would indicate the extent to which PPS professionals perceived team functioning to be occurring in their respective PPS staffs and the extent to which they valued the team approach as a professional practice. The pupil personnel services staffs of thirty-five school dis- tricts in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania were surveyed using the Team Functioning Checklist. They responded to each of the forty state- ments describing a professional staff that is functioning as a team on a "Does" (actual) and "Should" (ideal) dimension. Perceptions were compared between PPS directors and PPS specialists and among PPS specialty groups themselves. Conclusions in Response to the Research Questions 1. Pupil personnel services directors did differ from the counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers on their staffs in the extent to which they 109 Ifi'r w v 110 perceived team functioning to be occurring. Direc- tors perceived team functioning to be occurring to a greater extent than did PPS specialists. PPS directors did differ from the counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers on their staffs in the value they placed on the team approach for a PPS staff. Directors placed greater value on the team approach than did PPS specialists. Pupil personnel specialists were not in agreement regarding the extent to which they perceived team functioning occurring in their respective PPS staffs. Counselors differed from nurses in this respect, and counselors and nurses both differed from psychologists and social workers. Only the perceptions of psycholo- gists and social workers did not differ regarding the extent of team functioning occurring in their respec- tive PPS staffs. Pupil personnel specialists were not in agreement re- garding the value they placed on the components of team functioning. Counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers all differed from each other in the value they placed on the "cooperation" component of team functioning. In reference to placing value on the other three team functioning components -- communication, coordination and cohesiveness -- only the psychologists and social workers did not differ from one another. The team functioning component with which the PPS directors and the specialists were least satisfied was "cohesiveness." Related Findings The social workers were the least satisfied with the level of team functioning they perceived to be occurring in their respective PPS staffs. Counselors displayed the greatest agreement in placing importance upon the team approach in PPS staffs, while the directors displayed the least agreement in valuing the team approach. 111 Discussion Conclusion Number One PPS directors and the group of all counselors, nurses, psy- chologists and social workers did differ in the extent to which they perceived their respective districts' PPS staffs to be functioning in a teamlike manner. In examining the actual mean ratings of the directors and the groups of all specialists on the "Does" dimension (Table 4.9), one can see that the directors consistently perceived that team functioning was occurring more than the group of all specialists on every team functioning aspect. It may be that directors respond with a more optimistic per- ception of the staff situation because they feel that their answers reflect directly upon their personal administrative skills and leader- ship. They may also feel that conditions are better because they are not as directly involved in the provision of services as staff members. The greatest discrepancy was in reference to the communication process of team functioning. The communication aspect stresses mutual understanding among all staff members of goals and roles, a staff feeling of being understood by non-PPS persons, frequent and open interchange between staff members and the acceptance and resolution of conflicts. It may be that directors communicate with the individual specialty groups more frequently than they encourage the individual specialty groups to communicate with themselves. 112 Conclusion Number Two PPS directors and the group of all counselors, nurses, psychol- ogists and social workers did differ in the extent to which they valued or placed importance on the team approach in the provision of staff services. The actual mean ratings for the director's group and the group of all specialists in reponse to the "Should" dimension are shown in Table 4.9. Again, the directors rated every aspect of team functioning with more importance than did the group of all PPS specialists. This result supports the findings of Vorhees and Schultheis cited in Chapter II. The superintendents surveyed by Vorhees felt that staff coordination was not being carried out to a satisfactory extent. And in Schultheis' study the PPS directors named the team process as among the most effective professional practices to be used, but cited deficiencies in the coordination of their own staffs as one of the six most outstanding problems they faced.164 It appears that PPS directors may place more importance on team procedures than specialists do because they are in a position to see more clearly the "whole picture." Each specialty group may be viewing the staff's nature and purpose from a more parochial 4Leonard B. Vorhees, "A Descriptive Study of the Organization, Administration and Operation of Pupil Personnel Services in Selected School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960), p. 116; William Calder Schultheis, "The Director of Pupil Personnel Services in Public Schools of New York State" cited in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Glenn A. Saltzman and Herman J. Peters (n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1967), p. 81. 113 perspective. Shear supports this finding when he observes that several of the specialty areas have continued to maintain a very limited perspective regarding their functioning in the schools.165 Although the discrepancies in the mean ratings shown in Table 4.9 were quite small, the largest existed between the directors and the specialistsixlperceptions about the value of cooperation. State- ments from this T§E_subscale reflected: the willingness of staff members to modify their individual roles if necessary; agreement among staff members upon goals; a sense of the interdependent nature of staff roles; mutual influence and support; use of a concerted effort; and participation as a group in professional activities. Staff members may assume, more so than directors, that a willingness to modify their professional role for the good of the group's pro- gress may result in a loss of personal identity and impact. Conclusion Number Three Counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers did differ in the extent to which they perceived team functioning to be occurring in their respective district's PPS staffs. The only groups whose ratings did not differ from each other were the psychologists and the social workers. The counselors and nurses differed from each other, and they both differed from the psychologists and the social workers. Table 4.10 depicts the mean ratings of each specialty group for each aspect of team functioning on the "Does“ dimension. 165 . . . . . Bruce E. Shear, "Administration of Pupil Personnel Serv1ces," in Guidance in American Education III: Needs and Influencing Forces, ed. by Edward Landy and Arthur M. Kroll (Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1966), P. 242. 114 The nurses perceived the team processes of coordination, co- operation and cohesiveness to be occurring to a greater degree than did the other specialty groups. It may be that school nurses, having one of the most legitimate and historic postions in the school's spectrum of services, are the most involved with other staff workers. In the research sample the nurses also had the greatest average number of years in their positions in relation to the other specialty groups, 8.79 years. These factors may contribute to the central position of nurses. They appeared to be engaging in team processes more than any other group. In speaking of the pivotal position of the school nurse, particularly in many small school systems, Rollins writes that Some of these energetic, indefatigable, feared-and- loved nurses of small communities and counties were and are heroic in their achievement, with few resources at their command, but with strong determination and a deep dedication to children. The nurses may be the people to whom other PPS workers turn most often with day-to-day concerns and problems. The combined group of psychologists and social workers per- ceived the team processes of communication, cooperation and cohesive- ness to be occurring to a lesser rate in their staffs than did the other two specialty groups. In many states the services of the psychologists and the social workers have been subsumed under the heading of "special education." It is the speculation of this re- searcher that at times this demarcation of responsibility to "normal" 166Kenneth W. Rollins, "Staff Roles and Relationships," in The Organization of Pupil Personnel Programs -- Issues and Practices, ed. by Raymond N. Hatch (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1974). PP. 165-6. 115 children and to children with abnormal learning or growth character- istics contributes to a break-down of the integrated effort that could be made by social workers, psychologists and the rest of the PPS staff. Having their official caseload often built only around special educa- tion students, these specialists may come to identify most strongly with just the clinical, remedial aspect of pupil personnel services. Other staff members may come to View the school psychology and social work function in this manner also. As a result psychologists and social workers may not feel a unity of purpose with the counselors whom they see as dealing more informally with normal students around mainly instructional matters. With testing and casework interviews often scheduled weeks in advance, psychologists and social workers can become completely "wrapped up" in just finding enough time to meet their own professional commitments. By the nature of their work styles, then, it may be more difficult for psychologists and social workers to see themselves as integral parts of a team effort than it is for counselors and nurses. Conclusion Number Four The groups of counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers did differ in the extent to which they valued or put a high priority on the team approach for any PPS staff. Every group differed from every other group in its valuing of the cooperation process. It may be noted here that the cooperation subscale also elicited the greatest discrepancy of response between the directors and all the specialists as a whole. In response to the T§E_items in the communica- tion, coordination and cohesiveness subscales, only the psychologists 116 and the social workers did not differ from each other. The counselors and nurses differed from each other, and they both differed from the psychologists and from the social workers in how much they valued aspects of the team approach. Table 4.10 illustrates the mean ratings for each specialty group on each team functioning aspect on the "Should" dimension. In response to the "cooperation" subscale, the psychologists gave the lowest rating. As stated earlier, items in this subscale stress the modification of individual roles for greater staff effectiveness and the awareness of the interdependent nature of all the PPS roles. A somewhat limited conception that educators may have and that even the psychologists may have of their scope of activity might be influencing this low response level. Many PPS specialists and often the general public see school psychologists primarily as diagnosticians for the student with more abnormal adjustment and learning problems. This is a function that requires specialized expertise not usually possessed by other PPS workers. Indeed, Rollins writes that among PPS staff members the psychologist is most often accorded the highest status.167 As appears to be the case in many fields, a specialist automatically assumes a colleague unfamiliar to him or her knows more. Dealing with measurement, testing and psychological terminology, the school psycholo— gist's jargon is impressive. As a result, other workers may become convinced that their function is of an extremely erudite nature. Or perhaps it is the case that psychologists are actually rewarded for a 167 . Rollins, "Staff Roles and Relationships," p. 192. 117 somewhat recalcitrant attitude in reference to overall staff coopera- tion. The combined group of psychologists and social workers re- sponded with the lowest value rating for the processes of communication, coordination and cohesiveness. This result closely matches the low ratings they assigned to communication, cooperation and cohesiveness in answer to the question: To what extent does this statement char- acterize your PPS staff? The process of communication was rated highest in value by counselors; coordination and cohesiveness were rated highest by nurses; and cooperation was rated highest in value by the social workers. There was no group that consistently rated the aspects of team func- tioning higher in value than the other specialty groups, as was the case when the directors and the specialists were compared. These findings support the idea that there is a divergence of values about work styles among PPS specialists. The general statement that the groups of counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers differed almost completely in the extent to which they valued the four aspects of team functioning is perhaps the most important finding of this study. The members of these groups were not of a like mind concerning what is and what is not important about the way a PPS staff provides services and inter- relates. These dissimilar attitudes, portraying in large part the approach specialists take toward their work processes and environment, 118 do exert a marked influence on actual behavior.168 If the attitudes of each group toward what are important ways of thinking, feeling, and acting as professionals are so different, one may suspect that their modes of behavior in the provision of their services would also be disjointed and uncoordinated. And, in fact, one of the main stumbling blocks to implementing a team approach in many districts is this diver- gence of views about what really is important in a PPS staff's opera- tion. In Chapter II it was shown that the literature supports the existence of this divergence. Ferguson writes that a lack of consistent and integrated theory of pupil personnel services from which all Specialists may draw support and guidance hinders a team approach.169 Also, specialties such as social work and school psychology, with strong historical traditions outside the educational milieu, often want to retain their autonomous authority and identity.170 This may account for their low value ratings on three out of four of the team facilitating processes. One way in which specialists may attempt to retain their in- dividual professional identity is to respond to their work environment 168 . . - William A. Mehrens and Irvin J. Lehmann, Measurement and Evalua- tion in Education and Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), p. 570. 169 . . . . Donald G. Ferguson, "Critical Issues in Pupil Personnel Work," in Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readings, ed. by Glenn A. Saltzman and Herman J. Peters (n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1967), p. 20. 170 . . . Dean L. Hummel and S.J. Bonham, Jr., Pupil Personnel Serv1ces in Schools: Organization and Coordination (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968), p. 38. 119 in ways reflecting the values and trends characteristic of their own discipline. An example would be the case of a social worker, having just earned a Master's Degree in Social Work, approaching a caseload of 300 students from a "family therapy" point of view. Although this is a valuable technique, it may yield more marked results in an agency setting than it will in a public school situation. It seems to be a common problem that PPS specialists tend to enjoy the confusion that sometimes surrounds their work. There may be several reasons for this. First, the bewilderment of others enhances the "mystique" or esoteric quality of their work; it makes them appear more technically skilled. Another reason may be that it is a defense a in response to a perceived threat from other specialists. As stated earlier, the competition about "who gets to do what?" can be keen. The fear of being displaced from one's position by another person who seems to be doing similar work is an additional factor. An example here is the situation of a district placing its first counselor in an elementary school that has enjoyed the services of a social worker for several years. Now they both must operate with the same children, teachers and parents. The director's provision of clear role statements and his or her support of each specialist's professional security are important in- gredients for a successful outcome to this problem. Conclusion Number Five In order to generate data regarding possible differences in the "Does-Should" relationships of the entire sample as related to each component of team functioning, it was first hypothesized that the correlation coefficients for each TFC subscale would be significant. 120 Having found that all four correlation coefficients were significantly different from zero allowed further examination of the magnitude of the correlations. Satisfaction was assumed to vary directly with an increase or decrease in the relationship between the level of team func- tioning respondents actually perceived and the level they felt they should perceive. Table 4.11 shows the correlation coefficients between the entire sample's "Does" and "Should" responses in reference to each TFC-sub- scale. One can see that the magnitudes of the relationships did differ, particularly the levels for communication and cohesiveness. Without any statistical analysis, then, it may be said in a descriptive manner that all directors and specialists were least satisfied with the level of cohesiveness they were experiencing in their staffs. Cohesiveness, the most affective or emotion-based aspect of team functioning, was defined in this study as the total of forces which bind a group together and enhance its attractiveness in the eyes of its members. The items in this T§E_subscale reflect a close and supportive staff climate, high group attraction, loyalty, and trust. Commitment to commonly shared values regarding work goals is stressed, and a sense of belongingness and of equality in professional and personal worth contribute to a cohesive group. Also, a pride in one's role and function within the total organization's operation may facilitate cohesiveness. If PPS directors and specialists were most dissatisfied with the extent of occurrence of this team process, as the data suggest they were, it may be assumed that they want their staffs to be more 121 cohesive. But of all team processes, this may be the most difficult to achieve because it is based on the idiosyncratic need of each person to be recognized, valued and wanted. Yet it appears that the re- spondents and the Specialists in the population they represent did want a staff that is teamlike in spirit as well as in action. Related Finding "a" PPS directors, counselors, nurses, psychologists and social workers were not equally satisfied with the extent of team functioning occurring in their staffs in relation to the extent to which they felt it should be occurring. Some groups' perceptions were aligned with their expectations to a greater degree than others. The social workers responded with no significant correlation between their "Does" and "Should" responses for any aspect of team functioning as shown in Table 4.12. Also, the numerical values of their correlation coefficients were the lowest in relation to the other specialty groups on every team process. This group of spe- cialists appears to have been the least satisfied by a wide margin, if it is assumed that satisfaction varies directly with the number of significant relationships between the actual and ideal dimensions. Although the social workers were in the group with the psychologists that rated the team aspects of communication, coordination and co- hesiveness with the lowest value, they did rate the process of co- operation with the highest value in comparison with all other groups (See Table 4.10). Yet even though the social workers did not value the processes of communication, coordination and cohesiveness as much as the other respondents, they still appeared to want these processes 122 to occur to a greater degree than was currently perceived. And they did want more cooperation in relation to the level at which they saw it occurring. These social workers may be on the periphery of the team circle. The data show that they experienced some real defi- ciencies regarding their professional position and their interrelation- ships with fellow PPS workers. On the "most satisfied" end of the scale, the PPS directors and nurses matched with a significant "Does-Should" correlation in response to every TFC subscale. The directors' possible over- optimistic view was discussed under Conclusions One and Two. The nurses' established role and recognized legitimacy may be positively influencing their reported level of satisfaction. Related Finding "b" The counselors in the sample consistently showed the greatest agreement or smallest standard deviation in how they rated the value of the four aspects of team functioning. Perhaps because the field of guidance and counseling does possess a larger supporting body of theory, the members of this group tended to view their professional environ- ments more uniformly. Also, guidance is seen by some as having a pre- ferred place in the spectrum of PPS services and is also one of the most historically school-based services. These factors may have con- tributed to the counselors' greater consensus. The PPS directors in the sample consistently showed the least agreement or largest standard deviation in their valuation of team functioning. Any assumptions made on the basis of the figures in Table 4.13 are tenuous due to the small number of directors surveyed 123 in relation to the other specialist groups. But some possible reasons for such a varied response may be presented. Directors, having come from numerous professional areas, may not share a commonly held way of viewing their function and their staff's characteristics as may spe- cialists with a more continuing presence in their field. Moreover, presently there are few graduate programs training persons specifically in the administration of pupil personnel services. Also, directors may lack sources and professional contacts providing input about the rationale, purposes, administration and organization of PPS. Finally, the directors may not have spent a long enough time in their positions to perceive and interpret their goals and work environments with much consensus. The mean years of experience for directors in the sample was 5.77. Only the psychologists in the sample reported a lower "mean years of experience" figure. Recommendations 1. Pupil personnel services directors and staff specialists should become aware of each other's views regarding their total de- partmental operation. Using the Team Functioning Checklist as a basis for in-service discussion or as a measure of base-line functioning, staff and management may inform each other as to areas of team activity that are actually operating and areas that are not receiving adequate effort. 2. In an effort to positively effect the development of team functioning and to foster attitudes favorable to more interdisciplinary and concerted methods of providing support services, directors should 124 share the broader perspective they possess of the PPS operation regularly with staff. A director may consider the following activities: a. holding monthly in—service meetings for all PPS specialists dealing with such topics as mutual understanding of roles; common concerns about certification and licensure; up- grading counseling and assessment skills, discussions of student cases in which moretfluuione discipline could make a contribution; reports from workshops, conventions and conferences attended by staff members and updates on new agency resources available within the community; b. preparing a departmental newsletter for all PPS specialists; c. keeping the whole department aware of new policies and decisions of the Board of Education and the central staff; d. planning and/or modifying the present plan of service in conjunction with the specialists so that each discipline is able to make a contribution to the preventative and developmental as well as the remedial aspects of pupil personnel services. 3. PPS specialists should attempt to view professional prob— lems and cases from a more common vieWpoint with a greater appreciation of the strengths that each discipline can bring to bear on a situation. One method of doing this is to establish "pupil personnel committee" meetings in every school building. Held on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, these meetings would be attended by the building principal, counselors, social workers, psychologists and, if necessary, the con- cerned teacher, community/agency specialist or parent. The main 125 purpose is to jointly share information and plan action to meet the special school needs of students. The skills of each discipline can be coordinated and integrated in this setting for the most effective service to students. 4. Staff cohesiveness should be developed and promoted just like any other PPS program goal. Although not expressly related to the direct provision of services, staff cohesiveness is important to overall staff success. Some specific activities in which the director may engage are: a. bringing any positive feedback regarding staff members to their attention quickly; b. putting staff members in positions of in-service givers as well as receivers; c. publicizing and selling the services and skills of pupil personnel specialists to the non-PPS faculty and to the community at large. 5. All staff specialty groups should be "caught up" in team activities, particularly the social workers. The data show that the social workers' expectations about team functioning were not congruent with the actual level of team action they perceived. The service these specialists provide is a vital one for the total PPS program's success. Other specialists should thus be encouraged to better understand the social workers' role and to learn when a referral to a social worker is appropriate. 6. To reduce the divergent manner in which the PPS directors appear to view the value of the team approach, the following measures 126 should be considered: a. directors should update their skills by becoming active in the National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators on the state and national level and by taking further coursework in the organization and administration of pupil personnel services; graduate departments should make more comprehensive their programs that train prospective PPS administrators: (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) the organization and administration of guidance services should not be considered synonymous with that of pupil personnel services. current research work in the area of PPS should be made available as few textbooks carry such material. a special law course relating to child protection, special education, confidentiality, libel and slander and health and social services should be instituted. more training experiences relating to special educa- tion and the legislation in this area should be added because job requirements often include special education program management. the concepts, methods and rationale necessary for an interdisciplinary team approach should be stressed in all aspects of the PPS student's training, particularly in the internship experience, and internships should be based in total PPS settings, not just guidance or health services placements, for example. 127 7. The administration of pupil personnel services should be considered a discipline for study in its own right. It should be recognized as a specific area of educational administration and certified as such. In this way the position of Director of Pupil Personnel Services may become less a stepping stone and more a source of satisfaction and professional commitment for those who hold it and those who aspire to it. 8. Uses of the Team Functioning Checklist should be explored by PPS administrators and specialists in many organizational settings. Possible uses of the EEC are: a. as an initial assessment device for ascertaining the attitudes and perceptions of staff members; b. as a "post test" instrument to judge the effects of some team-promoting procedure; c. as a springboard for discussions about the strengths, weaknesses, needs and priorities recognized by the members of a PPS staff; d. as a checklist for identifying areas of common concern that could be dealt with by a total PPS group as members provide professional services and relate with one another. It is unrealistic to think that either management or staff, working alone, can promote team activity. There are too many necessary pre—conditions which only the management group can provide to the staff and vice-versa. The responsibility for changing the method of delivering support services to a more unified and integrated approach should, in light of the evidence presented, be shared by each pupil personnel services professional. 128 Suggestions for Further Research In reference to the Team Functioning Checklist the following suggestions are made: a. administer the T§g_in professional staff settings other than in education as a measure of the extent and impor- tance of team functioning; results could be related to those obtained from those in education; b. conduct a factor analysis of all items on the T§E_to find what items cluster together; in this way the independence of the subscales may be strengthened; c. relate the results of the T§g_to other instruments dealing with such things as organization climate, leadership style and work environment. Local school districts in which PPS staff members reported a high level of team functioning and those in which a low level was per- ceived could be compared on other characteristics, such as staff struc- ture and formal communication patterns, administrative authority, and personal leadership traits of the PPS director. The perceptions of staff members regarding the importance of team functioning could be related to their past professional work experi- ence and aspects of their professional training. Other States or clusters of States besides Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania could be surveyed using the EEC to assess the universality of this study's findings. Finally, current graduate programs in the administration of pupil personnel services might be surveyed to find what team-promoting educational experiences are being offered to prospective directors of pupil personnel services. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of School Administrators. Profiles of the Administrative Team. Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1971. Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing. 3rd. ed. London: Macmillan Company; Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1968. Arbuckle, Dugald. "Counselor, Social Worker, Psychologists -- let's ecumenicalize." Personnel and Guidance Journal 45 (February, 1967), 532—8. Arbuckle, Dugald S. Pupil Personnel Services in American Schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962. Biggers, Julian L. "The Effect of School System Size and Position in the Administrative Hierarchy Upon the Guidance Administrator's Perceived Level of Authority and Needs Satisfaction." Lubbock: Texas Tech University, 1971. Biggers, Julian L. and Manguso, David J. "The Work of the Guidance Administrator." Counselor Education and Supervision 12 (December, 1972), 130-6. Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard._ Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. Bock, R. Darrel. "Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measurements." Problems in Measuring Change. Edited by Chester W. Harris. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963. Borg, Walter R. and Gall, Meredith D. Education Research: An Intro- duction. 2nd. ed. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971. Brennan, James V. and Seifer, Gilbert. "One Team Approach to Remediation." Psychology in the Schools 5 (October, 1968), 356-60. Calia, Vincent F. and Wall, Bartholomew D., ed. Pupil Personnel Administration. Columbus, Ohio: Charles C. Thomas, Pub- lishers, 1968. 129 I (m wrfiflv, 130 Cartwright, Darwin and Zander, Alvin, ed. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 2nd. ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1960. Christensen, Orla June. "A Comparison of School Counselors' Per- ceptions of Their Function with the Perceptions of Counselors' Functions of Other Members of Pupil Personnel Services in the Tacoma Public Schools." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Montana State University, 1972. Cole, Norman M. "The Effects of Formal Organization, Member Status and Administrative Authority as Related to Cooperative Be- havior Among Pupil Personnel Specialists." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970. "Coordination and Teamwork Among Professionals: The Whole is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts," School Administrator's Discipline and Control Update, no. 106, Croft-NEI Publications, 1976. Council of Chief State Officers. Responsibility of State Departments of Education for Pupil Personnel Services. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960. Dahlem, Glenn C. Effective Pupil Personnel Services. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1972. Donigan, Jeremiah. "Leader Behavior of Guidance Directors Related to Counselors' Expectations." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1968. Ferris, Robert W. "The Counselor: An Accountable Member of the Pupil Personnel Team?" Counselor Education and Supervision 13 (September, 1973), 63-8. Ferguson, Donald G. Pupil Personnel Services. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963. Festinger, Leon; Schacter, Stanley; and Bock, Kurt. Social Pressures in Informal Groups. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1950. Gamsky, Neal R.; Gilbertson, Carlyle W.; Lloyd, Faye W.; and Perrone, Phillip A. "An Effective Team Approach to Pupil Services Programs for Wisconsin." Bulletin #3396, July, 1973. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Goff, William H.; Gross, F.P.; Hathaway, David B.; Levy, Cynthia B.; and Wogaman, Maurice A. Pupil Personnel Services: Organiza- tion and Administration. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators, 1975. 131 Goldstein, Sanford and Coleman, Raymond. "An Innovative Approach Utilizing a Pupil Personnel-Medical Team for the Early De- tection and Prevention of Pupil Problems." Pennfield Central School District. Albany: New York State Department of Education, 1969. Golembiewski, Robert T. The Small Group: An Analysis of Research Concepts and Operations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Gross, Neal and Martin, William. "On Group Cohesiveness." American Journal of Sociology 57 (May, 1952), 546-54. Guilford, Joy Paul. Psychometric Methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1954. Halal, William E. "Toward a General Theory of Leadership." Human Relations 27 (April, 1974), 401-16. Hall, Richard H. Organizations: Structure and Processes. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1972. Halpin, Andrew. Theory and Research in Administration. New York: Macmillan Company, 1966. Hatch, Raymond N., ed. The Organization of Pupil Personnel Programs -- Issues and Practices. East Lansing: Michigan State Univer- sity Press, 1974. Hatch, Raymond N. and Stefflre, Buford. Administration of Guidance Services. 2nd. ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1965. Hill, George E. Management and Improvement of Guidance. New York: Meredith Publishing Company, 1965. Hollander, Edwin P. Leaders, Groups and Influence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Homans, George. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1950. Hummel, Dean L. and Bonham, S.J., Jr. Pupil Personnel Services in Schools: Organization and Coordination. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968. Isaac, StephenanxiMichael, William B. Handbook in Research and Evalua- tion. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, Publisher, 1971. Joliff, David Lee. "The Effects of an Intensive Workshop Experience on the Development and Functioning of Pupil Personnel Services Teams in Selected School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, Southern Illinois University, 1971. 132 Kaplan, Louis and Stoughton, Robert W. Pupil Personnel Services: Guidelines for Introducing and Developing a Program of Accountabilipy. Monograph No. 3. n.p.: National Associa- tion of Pupil Personnel Administrators, 1974. Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organiza- tions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961. Kelley, Janet A. "Why Not? Teamwork in Guidance and Curriculum." Occupations 30 (March, 1949), 400-5. Ketterman, Clark 8. "The Opinion of Selected Publics Concerning the School Counselor's Function." School Counselor 16 (September, 1968) p 41.-So Kingdon, Donald Ralph. "Team or Group Development: The Development of Dyadic Relationships." Human Relations 27 (February, 1974), 169-77. Kornick, Joseph. "Transactionalism and the coordinator of pupil personnel services." Personnel and Guidance Journal 48 (November, 1969), 205-9. Krech, David; Crutchfield, Richard S.; and Ballachey, Egerton L. Individual in Society. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1962. Kvaraceus, William C. "The Status and Function of Personnel Ser- vices." Education 81 (December, 1960), 202-9. Landy, Edward and Kroll, Arthur M., ed. Guidance in American Educa- tion II: Current Issues and Suggested Action. Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965. Landy, Edward and Kroll, Arthur M., ed. Guidance in American Educa- tion III: Needs and Influencing Forces. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966. Lawrence, Paul R. and Seller, John A. Organizational Behavior and Administration. rev. ed. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin and the Dorsey Press, 1965. Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial Psychology. 3rd. ed. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1972. Lipe, Gary Patrick. "Case Analysis of the Pupil Personnel Programs in “Three Selected School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Lott, Albert J. and Lott, Bernice Eisman. "Group Cohesiveness, Communication Level and Conformity." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (March, 1961), 408-12. 133 Mattick, William and Nickolas, N.A. "A Team Approach in Guidance," Personnel and Guidance Journal 42 (May, 1964), 922-4. Mease, William P. and Benson, Loren L. Outcome Management Applied to Pupil Personnel Services. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education, Division of Instruction-Pupil Personnel Services, 1973. Mehrens, William A. and Lehmann, Irvin J. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Mitchell, Anita M. and Saum, James A., ed. A Master Plan for Pupil Services. Monograph No. 4. Fullerton: California Personnel and Guidance Association, 1972. Monderer, Jack H. and Johnson, Charles C. "Talking about Pupil Ser- vices -- An Administrative Dialogue." Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals 52 (January, 1968), 24-36. Myers, George E. Principles and Techniques of Vocational Guidance. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1941. Ohm, Robert E. "Toward a Rationale for Team Teaching." Adminis- trator's Notebook 9 (March, 1961), 1. Parkes, J. Carter. "An Exploration of the Teamwork Approach in Coordinating Pupil Personnel Service Programs in Texas Public Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College: Columbia University, 1959. Perrone, Phillip H. and Gilbertson, Carlyle W. "Case Study: A Re- search Approach to Establishing Pupil Services." Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (June, 1968), 990-6. Perrow, Charles. Complex Organizations, A Critical Essay. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1972. Raven, Bertram H. and Rietsma, Jan. "The Effects of Varied Clarity of Group Goal and Group Path Upon the Individual and his Relation to his Group." Human Relations 10 (1957), 29-45. Reed, Harold J. and Stefflre, Buford. "Elementary and Secondary School Programs." Review of Educational Research 33 (April, 1963), 152-62. Rosen, Ned. Supervision: A Behavioral View. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, State School of Industrial and Labor Rela- tions, 1973. ' 134 Saltzman, Glenn A. and Peters, Herman J., ed. Pupil Personnel Services: Selected Readipgs. n.p.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1967. Schmuck, Richard A.; Runkel, Philip J.; Saturen, Steven L.; Martell, Ronald T.; Derr, C. Brooklyn. Handbook of Organization Develop- ment in Schools. University of Oregon, Center for Advanced Study of Education Administration, Palo Alto: National Press Books, 1972. Seashore, Stanley B. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. ' Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1954. Seashore, Stanley E. and Bowers, David G. Changing the Structure and Functioning of an Organization: Report of a Field Experiment. Monograph No. 33. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute of Social Research, 1963. Secord, Paul F. and Backman, Carl W. Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964. Sedwick, Robert C. Interaction: Interpersonal Relationships in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1974. Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M. Scales for Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1967. Shaw, Merville C. "Role of Pupil Services with Significant Adults." Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals 52 (January, 1968), 76-86. Shaw, Merville C. "Role delineation among the guidance professions." Psychology in the Schools 4 (January, 1967), 3-13. Shear, Bruce E. "Teamwork in Pupil Personnel Services." Counselor Education and Supervision 1 (Summer, 1962), 199-202. Shear, Bruce E. "Team Action in Pupil Personnel." Bulletin of the . National Association of Secondary School Principals 52 (January, 1968), 37-48. Shumake, Franklin. "Pupil Personnel Services: A Model. Programs, Trends, Problems." Rockdale County Public Schools. Conyers, Georgia, 1969. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. 2nd. ed. New York: Macmillan Company, 1957. Stoughton, Robert W.; McKenna, James W.; and Cook, Richard P. Pupil Personnel Services: A Position Statement. n.p.: National Association of Pupil Personnel Administrators, 1969. 135 Thomas, Edwin J. "Effects of Facilitative Role Interdependence on Group Functioning." Human Relations 10 (1957), 347-66. Thompson, Victor A. Modern Organizations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966. Vorhees, Leonard B. ~"A Descriptive Study of the Organization, Adminis- tration and Operation of Pupil Personnel Services in Selected School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. Whitehouse, Frederick A. "Teamwork -— The Democracy of Professions." Exceptional Children 18 (November, 1951), 45-52. Wilson, L. Craig; Byar, T. Madison; Shapiro, Arthur A.; Schell, Shirley H. Sociolggy of Supervision: An Approach to Compre-' hensive Planning in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969. Wynn, Richard. Theory and Practice of the Administrative Team. Arlington, Virginia: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1973. Zdrale, Jeffrey. "Supervisory Leadership from the Guidance Director... Can't? Won't or What?" Michigan Personnel and Guidance Journal VI (Spring, 1975), 20-6. APPENDICES APPENDIX A "PPS DIRECTOR INFORMATION SHEET" 136 Pupil Personnel Director Information Form Mr. Jeffrey Zdrale 5733 Richwood Street Apartment 53 Lansing, Michigan 48910 1. What is the scope of your services and responsibilities? K-6 K-9 K-12 K-l4 High School only Other 2. What is the student enrollment of your district? 3. Check the pupil personnel specialty areas over which you have a supervisory or leadership position. In the second column, write in the number of full-time or full-time equivalent personnel you have in each area. Attendance worker School Nurse Psychologist School Counselor Social Worker Speech/Hearing Therapist Other ( ) 4. Write in your mailing address including your name and title: Thank you! APPENDIX B LETTER OF INVITATION TO PPS DIRECTORS 137 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING- MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY December S, 1975 As part of a research project being conducted within the Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology at Michigan State University, you were sent a PPS Information Sheet this summer. From this preliminary survey your district has, through random selection, been chosen for this study's sample. I would like to cordially invite you to participate in this research effort. The purpose of this project is to study the perceptions of pupil personnel directors and their staffs as to the importance and extent of the team approach in the provision of support services for students. It is hoped that the results will make possible the better assessment and development of team functioning within PPS staffs. If you and your district superintendent are willing to participate, I would like to mail a survey packet to you as director in a few weeks. Enclosed you will find copies of the survey form - The Team Functioning Checklist - for you and your staff members having the following job titles: counselor, nurse, psychologist, social worker, and/or attendance worker. I am asking that you act as the distributor of the survey materials. Each person may then complete the checklist and mail it directly back to me in the addressed envelope that will be provided. It takes about twenty minutes to complete the survey. None of the data collected will be reported in terms of specific school districts 93_person's names. The study is not an evaluation of you, your program or your sta f. The intent is to look at perceptual differences as related to job function only. The name of the district on the form is necessary only to the extent that I may monitor my returns and carry out an adequate follow—up. From the information I have already received from you, my records, show that the portion of your staff in which I am interested consists of: school counselors school nurses school psychologists school social workers and/or attendance workers (visiting teachers, home and school visitors) 138 Page 2 I am interested in surveying both full and part-time personnel and both the locally and intermediate district hired personnel who work in your district. If the numbers listed have significantly changed in any way, I would appreciate your letting me know as soon as possible. Since this study is limited to districts with a student enrollment of 20,000 or less in just three states, I am most hopeful that your staff's responses may be included in our data. ‘ If I do not hear from you either by phone (517-349-2891) or mail within the next week, I will assume you are willing to participate. Survey materials should be at your office in early January. I plan to send a summary of results to every participating director. Thank you very much for the help you will be able to give me in this project. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, APPENDIX C LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT OF STUDY 139 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING- MICHIGAN 48323 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY December 5, 1975 Dear Director: It is indeed a pleasure to learn that your school district will probably be included in Mr. Jeffrey Zdrale's doctoral research program. As his advisor I can assure you that he has worked hard to get his design in the best professional form possible and to reduce the work of the respondents. He has also made a special effort to obtain the best sample available so I hOpe you will find it possible to assist him with the project. In anticipation of your cooperation, I should like to extend my personal thanks for your help. Cordially, J-;“T”) ; ’ aymZEd N. Hatch Professor 451 Erickson lmh APPENDIX D COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING SURVEY MATERIALS 140 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING- MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY January 6, 1976 Since I have had no negative reply from you I am pleased to assume that you and your pupil personnel staff are willing to participate in my research study in conjunction with Michigan State University. I am asking that you act as the distribution agent for the enclosed survey pamphlets examining the extent and importance of team functioning. Please complete a form yourself and also give one to each counselor, nurse, psychologist and social worker and/or attendance worker employed either £011 or part-time in your district. ' I would like all pamphlets returned by January 26, 1976. Each pamphlet may be returned directly to me from each respondent. Simply staple it closed and drop it in a mailbox. A summary of the results of this study will be sent to you. I hope that the information gained will be useful to you and your staff. Thank you again for your support and cooperation. Sincerely, Jeffrey Zdrale JZ/lh APPENDIX E THE TEAM FUNCTIONING CHECKLIST 31.119“ 141 u - ‘ fl ‘ 3“: 93 92993 2“; 8330“ O‘DZQ to O u_ 7 D u cw252:39-v-o3;§2°”3;32 59.023 8c 3"”!‘5-0 283 3 3°15 - - a w: 0 deg 3 4 8" ‘ ~w “' a: sob ‘3 q ...—"3 ° - -‘° «9 3 '1'. . ‘00:. SD‘OU“C.° 0°~0 - “0-2-0 Ev: g "" 3° 9‘ ’--" 203“ 7 m «z»< 828 e;8“438-83-~<£;°3 g ~ .02’.2a ag6§2 =3». 5 =. - a I. n- —_ . a -o " a. ga§‘3§v° €852°=~3§29'3323 25 3 o_...~$ -m2 s-s;a:°~ 6: 3 9,03 z-t ~ 3333 Do_> ir—o 0853 -0 30 O, G ‘GG 5C: —o."‘33 < .0 “0“03 C : 1°: .83 :g« 3-0.“, 23": Gal“:; :0 ' O‘D—b "’ . 5' < "°" "1"~-o . 1° 0.!» 3 cu 0-4 .> 28§8o 338 53553 :53: 23’s . 26 5 u —q — - - --- U C \ 0 "no i—‘fi‘ D :o308 - 7 392033 -‘ =‘°°’° an W1 ~53 nag are 0’8 “8;”! v 7: H no. 8“ O . .. 3 0-. "‘ Q ... 3-30. 38 COD-3 §8§ nosooi 1» 8 Q4” -°-—|l 3C¢° O‘QO‘ig‘ "I goagxtagg 8:13.92 :01: . a 03 E 9Q:O‘ ”a: 050 00‘.-'. x O ‘59.“ «5-. ~31 -— U D Q, 3 q o3rn"'5""-‘m "° 03 ‘58 28 ’0 '- 5 «~45 50:: 0°03 a” mu 3 o a , ....3‘5-“ «.3 .3 0° * a n " an“ ¢i~< t 3.0390 4 00‘. ”in "0008 09.0 w” c ‘b-°°, ..o o’o..w u .. 41: vacag ac c2523 3‘ “S 2‘. cit-«ox an «....o. 82 .Zu?- TEAM FUNCTIONING CHECKLIST E] E] E] To go '0 A vtlv '0 \0H( ll'l-Y L'Y'Ll ll'l’h‘ tltln' Directlens: Respond to each statement two times by marklng an X In the approprtale box. 2t 22 23 24 25 Stall members clearly understand stall goals. Stall members have a clear understandmg ol the processes to be lollowed In goal attaunment Stall members leel commltted to theur work goals. Stall members have htgh consensus regardmg work goals. Stall members share common values related to work pnorItIes. Stall members partICIpate In establtshlng goals for themselves. Stall members understand the nature and scope of each other's roles. Roles lor each stall member are clearly delmed. Stall members leel that the" own work toward goals Is promoted by the work ellorts ol theIr PPS colleagues. . Stall members are wlllmg to modlly thelr Indwidual roles to laCIIItate a group ellort It necessary. Stall roles are establlshed Iomtly by stall and management. Stall members leel that reaIIstlc expectattons are put on them. The competenCIes at each stall member are put to max-mum use. Stall members leel a thh degree at attractuon to the gr0up. Stall members leel a htgh degree 01 loyalty to the group. _ Stall members leel that they all have equal status In the gr0up. Stall members leel that each respectlvely Is contrIbutIng an equally Important servuce Stall members leel valued In the eyes at theur durector. Each stall member feels that he or she It; really a part ol the work grOup. Stall members leel that then purpose Is well understood by then dIslrIct's nOn-PPS laCulty and stall Stall members leel that they are well regarded by the" dustnct‘s non-PPS family and stall Stall members leel a sense ol prestlge regardnng theIr lunctlon wIthIn the complete dIstrIct‘soperatIon Stall members most olten use a concerted. gr0up ellort lor dealung thh professional problems Stall members olten Inlluence each other regardtng then work. Communlcatlon between stall members Is lreduent Commumcatuon between stall members ls open. 5‘?” 9'? PN.‘ ‘13:)2 tn<< eel-32:85 :22! §?r-96‘ ’33 729g: fizéiglco 339°.“ 3 ~13 3‘ going “~QEEE“ 3390' a" 9.8: -< ‘2 .002“ w 08 Q0 Ian‘s: =2 ~s “:29 5513- .395"??? 55.. 8:2: 5 2 cash” 9; Eg§§ =3 * eggs,» g n i=8 ' so 5"“ a: 53 a; 3 2‘ §§ 23 g: ‘3 5“ - on. c P 3 a 3— 88’ 31' 3 oi 3 g3 :0 a .. n 2 ‘ 3‘ ° —-. g 9. E 7 9 9 ~<‘ 2'. 22 E 5. To what extent does To what extent should thus statement charac- thus be a top pnonty tenze your PPS stall? Item lor a PPS stall? t 2 3_ 4 5 12 3 4_ 5 EELC EEC-117‘ EEEEE EEEEE EIJEEE EEC E Ellth C EEJCZC E CEEEE ECEEE Z7. CEEE EEEEE FIEEEE EEECE C'EECE EECCC l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 TLLCCE EEECE [--EQJCE ECEEE EEEEE EEEEE ELQEEE EEEEE EFLEEE EEEEE EELJEC EEEEE L‘IECC EEEEE EEE ..JL‘ EEEEE l 2 3 4 S 12 3 4 5 [ILILIEE EEEEE L'EECE ECEEE [JLIEEL EEECE [ILIIIEE (‘EZEIILI LI 1' I: E (3‘ El Ll L3.TL'EE (SEEK: (LIED EELI‘H 't.ll-§[1 “.ELI.’ 7171 f. “Eli‘l’ L] -1"- LE (3'11 7 (7 142 TEAM FUNCTIONING CHECKLIST (cont.) Yo ~O to A ylhv '0 soul I’l‘l-Y LtY'Ll (IYE-V Il‘lfl' E to; (Divot-hut I" 'I ~' E TO A Vt" GnlAV (lrluv Directlons: Respond to each statement two tunes by markmg an x In the To what ”'9'" 5°“ T0 Wha'°"'°"”"°"'d approprlate box thus statement charac- thus be a top prlortty ' tenze y0ur PPS stall? Item lor a PPS stall? . 1 2 a 4 s -t 2 a 4 5 27. Slallmembers are routnnely Inlormedasto each other's planned behavvors. [:3 C D C .- [3 D D D L: 28 Intra-stallconlllcts are accepted. [I U L; :1 C I: D [I D I: 29 Intra-stallconlllcts are resolved. [—1 B :1 I: I: B C: C C} C 30 Stall members olten partlclpate as a group In prolesslonal actlvmes (dept'l. r—— m r_ __ meettngs. case conferences. In-serwce sesslons.) l_. I_J L.‘ I: D I: D I: D 31 Stall membersleelasense ollrusl In each other. L? T [3 U I: U U I: D D 32. Stall members recetvea hlgh degree ol support lrom each other. C] D. 3 C U [3 Cl :1 (:1 [:1 , a mem ers percelve eurovera wor enwronmen o supporlv . ’ i". r L- _ I ..-. 33Stll b "'1 II k‘ ttbe to Edit U (JPCEE 34 Stall members seethelrdlrector as havmg legItImate authonty E3 i— I '1; I: 3 E {‘1 C3" :3 L: 35. The durector provudes a high degree at assIstance lor the achlevement of stall '_ (2 3 “ 5_ l 2 3_ j 5 tasks -._‘ L. I: I. I‘ l_. I: L‘ U (:1 36 The dlreclor‘s leadershlp meelsthe prolesslonal needs olthe stall. J A: I. C L. LI C U 'fi C 37. The dureclor‘s leadership style (type ol relatlonshtp he or she butlds thh the _ ’ ‘ stall) matchesthe stall’sexpectaltons. i .' 4.-.‘ {.1 I: L1 I: C I: D 38 Stall members may exerCIse prolessmnal autonomy in the" work. Cl C I] D G LI [3 U D D 39 Stall members olten consult wnth theIr dlrector In conslderatlon ol polloes and ‘ ‘ ’ _ _ ‘ fl . programs. .11 [J- 13 D L. I 1 C. (.-.: L] [J 40. SpecIalIsts Identtly wlth thelr PPS stall as a whole just as strongly as they 1 p H _ Identlly wIth thetr own spec-ally group. (j I-) L; L I] 1- E I: E I; meet uvfittptw ‘8UISUP1 CS 'IdV “33135 POOM‘PIU EELS awaoz Aaaaaal 'UW — O F. - ‘ 83* g0? 531' 823389 3:63:3863585 5’ ‘3" 335 3:28 aaaresgaszo omsgsg 2 21.583003 1°.”‘32‘12338'OT-9Q3‘OC‘0 ‘ -3 13mg m8‘m04‘-~< 1'09:th waagrgg C IL (I: 93'” Pmp 3-23‘36'835 “P 82‘8V8’ P wm 5 m~< mm- 30): gamma: “,0me 382.,(‘2 2 <2 0 QOmJDQ‘a‘C 2.30 mag lg “5° .0 3* (D C 6Q‘833m£;-.3o ___‘OQ 0—". ~O_" . 03 m 45 ‘Ugog-nr,;,g®m ”32000 3.33 q 3 ‘3 3- ‘om <7CZ‘C-.-“'7 om"°°’ 3~m “ QB‘ * sz‘a’” ‘«‘°="==="’°ssa; ‘3‘”:‘33 3 w . J - -. — -0 -. U! a - -. ... - - “'0 +8 *3 ioa=m2 8% 9:2998w 880°”er 2 _ "q,3~-. mo -3£O:m ‘ .. smegma. .- Im oaom" -3 '3" 3 --"’ ~:,< m N co—«o‘l’ 3"” 8: 91°” 113°? ‘ g-Om 0" ~3 < 5439—0 ‘ 8-GW-QGDQ ”a, 0,1,: 0 rs,D a); ~m013‘< agoon In OmDmon ‘ 30’ p—cmc are; Clo-13:0“) °'< 0— mm: 5_ 'o <~~~—o I» at”; m“ m..- mgr/the O U Q! 3 3 Q Q Q x t 3 -— a a. W .. 8 q) z a _ - ... D .. . 3‘ ~‘73 -3: 3,3,8E ofimg- 3891:1323 "‘ n c 3 - o a, g 3 .. a 3 -. 3 o 2 m m o 1: 03 35 82: a: «a 52-3-8. c' ma— 3 p :. mow 30-» ”-=‘ 02389" 3 ‘ c D 3 . Q -s M 3 3 3 UV < . z ( W I o a n m t“ - Q ~ 0 r .. .. a, -_- o o _. o .0 a 3 .. tn ~< : 0 '2 O a o 0 a; < u 3 ‘9 '< Q a: C ‘9 — ~'< ‘ ° o a 3 3 : :5 -“ 2-35; 3“}? 382355 e 9 ~< ~fimwnou .>H Amvm.v 5mm.w Amav.v hmo.¢ Aoqm.v 0mm.v Amvm.v 0mm.v Ahmm.v mVM.v :ofiuouwmoou .HHH Abmm.v mwm.v Amam.v mom.v Ammm.v mmm.w Aomm.v mam.v Ahoo.v mmm.v cowumcfivuooo .HH Avmm.v hem.v Aamm.v omN.v Amhm.v 0mm.v Ahmm.v 0mm.v Ammm.v mmm.v cowumowCSEEOU .H mumxuoz Hmfluom mumfimoHonowmm mmmwsz mHonmcsoo muouomufla manomndm.wmm Aaoonv cowmcmEHa :pasonm: Aomm.v HmH.m Aoam.v mNH.m Ammv.v mmm.m Ahvm.v mom.m Ammm.v mav.m mmocw>flmmnou .>H Amhm.v vmv.m Aahm.v mvv.m Awmm.v mmm.m Amhm.v mmv.m Amm©.v mmh.m cofludwmmooo .HHH Anmm.v mmm.m Avnm.v Ham.m onm.v mmm.m Aoov.v mov.m Aamw.v omm.m cofiumcfipuooo .HH Anmm.v ovm.m Aanm.v mmN.m Ammm.v mom.m Aomm.v mmm.m Ammm.v mm>.m :OAHMUHCDEEOU .H muoxnos Hmfloom mumflmoHosowmm momusz muoammdsoo muouowufio oddomadm wmm “Hmsuodv cowmcmfiflo :mmoo: on» on omcommmm cw macho mauaBIQOU comm mo mc0flumH>ma pumpedum odd mmcwumm com: Ummmum>¢