A STUDY OF THE OPINIONS 0F SELECTED STUDENTS 7 ' IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CDNCERNING SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ' Thesis for ”the; Degree of Ed; D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 7 I MITSUGI NAKASHIMA L915? THE-sue I N? P A P V Michigan Sis 3 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled I A Study of the Opinions of Selected Students in the College of Education, Michigan State University, Concerning Selected Public School Educational Activities presented by Mitsugi Nakashima has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed. D. Educational Administration degree in CAI/IQ DWI @czmeeLQ Major professoxH Date July 26, 1967 0-169 A STUDY OF THE OPINIONS OF SELECTED STUDENTS IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, CONCERNING SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES by Mitsugi Nakashima AN ABSTRACT OF A ”HESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Educavion A STUDY OF TIE OPINIONS OF SELECTED STUDENTS IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, CONCERNING SELEC ED PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES by Mitsugi Nakashima Problem. The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of selected students enrolled in the College of Education, Michigan State University, concerning the rela» tive desirability of selected public school educational activities. This study derived its importance from the fact that attitudes or opinions of individuals and groups may be more influential in determining behavior than cognitive knowledge alone. Methodology. A modified i—sort technique was used in structured individual interviews to obtain the data. The .forty activities about which student Opinions were sought were essentially in two categories: (I) nineteen were "im- peratives" from the book Imperatives in Educationl and (2) twenty-one were representative of certain areas of con- cern in public education today. The interviewees were in- structed to judge the relative merits of the activities for American public schools in general or at large and at speci— fied educational levels--elementary, secondary or both Jitsugi Nakeshima levels-«according to these response categories: (1) impera— time, (2) highly desirable, (3) desirable, (A) lowly desirable, (5) undesirable, and (6) can't judge. The lh2 students randomly selected for the Study were among those enrolled in degree programs during the winter term of 1967 in the College of Education or dually with the College of Education and the College of Natural Sciences. In the latter classification were seniors majoring in secondary an education, specifically, the biological ciences. Students in the College of Education were senior elementary education majors and master's degree and doct r's de candidates ro :r (L) (b specializing in elementary education, secondary education, or educational administration. Conclusions. The studen:s did not reach majority s) that the nineteen educational activ1ties designated as "imperatives" in Imperatives in J" L ‘ Education were, in fact, imperatives for cue conduct of the ‘ public schools today. Criterion ratings were reacned on only four activities: "teaching natural sciences," "t ach— #1) ing reading skills," "providing kinderg rten'program," and "providing guidance and counseling services.” There was no linear relationshiy to the frequency with which each of the classes reached majorit" agreement in designating activities as absolutely necessary in :ne public schools. This conclusion was drawn because, although the doctoral candidates did achieve one more criterion rating Mitsugi Nakashima than the other two classes, this difference was considered negligible. Furthermore, the seniors and master's degree candidates both reached majority agreements on the same number of activities. The Opinions were more differentiated when analyzed according to the students' major fields of study. The ele- mentary education'majors most freduently reach majority agree- ment that the activities were "imperatives." The educational administration majors reached criterion ratings least often. The expressed commitment to the necessity of compensa— tory activities for the disadvantaged fell short of the intensity expected in view of the current emphasis on equal opportunity in education. This held regardless of the class or curriculum by which students were classified. In terms of the frequency with which criterion ratings were achieved, the master's degree educational administra- tion majors' opinions were most divergent from those of the other groups of students, especially at the same class level. This was interpreted as having possible future administrator- teacher relationships and expeCtations, especially with regard to change and innovation in education. The doctoral degree candidates expressed the most favorable overall opinions of the activities. The master's degree candidates' opinions were the least favorable. The students in the elementary education curriculum expressed the most favorable overall opinions of the aetivities. Mitsugi Nakashima The educational administration majors held the least favor- able overall opinions. This was the result of the combina- tion of disparate opinions--of the depreciation of the rela- tively higher opinion ratings of the doctor's degree candi- dates by the considerably lower ratings of the ma ster's degree candidates-~rather than of congruent opinions. lAmerican ’tssociation of School administrators, Ig- peratives in Education (Washington, D. 0.: American Associ- ation of School Administrators, 1066). A STUDY OF THE OPINIONS OF SELECTED STUDENTS IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, CONCERNING SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES by Mitsugi Nakashima a THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University . in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCaTION College of Education 1967 64(0qu A? ’0/2' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer expressed deepest appreciation to the many persons to whom he is indebted. . To Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, committee chairman, for his encouragement and counsel during the past two years of association. To Dr. Ernest O. Melby, Dr. George R. Myers, and Dr. Orden C. Smucker for their counsel as members of the guidance committee. To the many students who c00perated so willingly as participants in the study. To Mrs. Doris L. Kollmeyer for her technical expertise and proficiency in preparing the manuscript. Finally, to my wife, Marjorie, for her understanding, patience and encouragement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOVILEDWENIIS O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ii LIST OF TABLES O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O Xi LIST OF Chapter I. III. IV. APPENDICES O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Xii IIqTROD UCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem Importance of the Study HYPOtheseS o o o o o o 0 Definition of Terms . . Type of Study . . . . . Limitations of the Study smmary O O .0 O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O\O\]C\\hl—'l—' l'-' REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Imperatives in Education: An Overview . . . . lS DESIGD] OF THE STUDY 0 O O O O O O C O O O O O O 20 DevelOpment of the Instrument . . . . . . . . 20 SeleCtion of the Study Sample . . . . . . . . 26, Structure of the Interview . . . . . . . . . 29 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3l ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Classification of the Activities . . . . . . . 33 Methods of Testing the Hypotheses . . . . . . 3t Findings About the Imperatives . . . . . . . . 37 Instructional Activities . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noninstructional Activities . . . . . . . . 52 Vocational Education Activities . . . . . . 64 Findings About the Other Activities . . . . . 77 The Educationally Disadvantaged . . . . . . 77 The Mentally Retarded and Emotionally Dis— Eurbed....o.............91. iii Contents--Continued Chapter The School Dropout . . . . Miscellaneous Activities . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . Design and Methodology . . . 0 Summary Analysis of the Findings Implications . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . AQPPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv Page 104 113 12h 12h 12A 126 113 150 152 lé9 Table l. 2. 30 4. 5. 8. 9. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES The forty educational activities used in the Q-Sor't.................... Description Of population and sample . . . . . . Classification of students by class . . . . . . Classification of students by major field . . . Classification of the educational activities into categories and subcategories for the purpose of analyzing the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imperative category Opinion ratings of instruc- tional activities by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in per cent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imperative category Opinion ratings of instruc- tional activities by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) . . . . Imperative category Opinion ratings Of instruc- ‘ tional activities by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) . Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on instructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on instructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above par— entheses signify rank orders) . . . .,. . . . Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on instructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) V Page 23 28 28 29 33 38 Al 43 #6 L8 50 Table Page 12. Imperative category Opinion ratings of nonin- . structional activities by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in per cent) . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 13. Imperative category Opinion ratings Of non- instructional activities by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) 56 la. Imperative category Opinion ratings of nonin- structional activities by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 l5. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on noninstructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs’ figures above parentheses signify rank order.‘ 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 59 16. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on noninstructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs' figures above parentheses signify rank orders) . . . 60 17. Composite opinion ratio scores and rank orders on noninstructional activities achieved by stu- dents grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs' figures above parentheses signify rank orders) . . . 62 18. Imperative category Opinion ratings on vocational education activities by students grouped accord- ing to their classes and major fields (figures in per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 19. Imperative category Opinion ratings on vocational education activities by students grouped accord- ing to their classes (figures in per cent) . 67 20. Imperative category Opinion ratings on vocational education activities by students grouped accord- ing to their major fields (figures in per cent) 69 vi Table 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 270 28. Page Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on vocational education activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 71 Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on vocational education activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs' figures above parentheses signify rank orders) . . . . 72 Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on vocational education activities achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs' figures above parentheses signify rank orders) . . . . 7t Imperative category opinion ratings on activities concerning the disadvantaged by students grouped according to their classes and major fields ' (figures in per cent) . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the disadvantaged by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) 81 Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the disadvantaged by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent)atone-oooooooooooooo 83 Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on activities concerning the disadvantaged achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Composite opinion ratio scores and rank orders on activities concerning the disadvantaged achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSsi figures above parentheses signify rank orders, . . . . 88 vii Table 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35- 36. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on activities concerning the disadvantaged achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orderS)oooooooo000000090000 Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in per cent) Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) . . . . . . . . . Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) . . . . . . Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on activities concerning the mentally retarded and Page 90 95 96 emotionally disturbed achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs‘ figures above parentheses signify rank orders) . . . . Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order On activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above par- entheses signify rank orders) . . . . . . . . . Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORdsi figures above par- entheses signify rank orders Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the reduction of the dropout rate by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in per cent)’ . . . . . . viii 100 101 102 105 Table Page 37. Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the reduction of the drOpout rate by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 38. Imperative category Opinion ratings on activities concerning the reduction of the dropout rate by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per Cent) 0 o o o O o 0’. o o O O 0‘ lO7 39. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on activities concerning the reduction of the drOp- out rate achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above paren- theses signify rank orders) . . . . . . . . . . 109 #0. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on activities concerning the reduction of the drOp- out rate achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orderS) O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O 0 llo 41. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on activities concerning the reduction of the drOp- out rate achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orderS) O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 111 42. ImperatiVe category Opinion ratings on miscellan— eous activities by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in per Cent) 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 11b #3. Imperative category Opinion ratings on miscellan— eous activities by students grouped according tO their classes (figures in per cent) . . . . 116 Ah. Imperative category Opinion ratings on miscellan- eous activities by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) . . 117 AS. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on miscellaneous activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) 119 ix Table Page 46. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on miscellaneous activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above paren— theses signify rank orders) . . . . . . . . . 120 47. Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank orders on miscellaneous activities achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs’ figures above par- entheses signify rank orders) . . . . . . . . 121 48. Number Of criterion ratings in the imperative Opinion response category achieved by students grouped by classes and curricula . . . . . . 127 49. Number of criterion ratings in the imperative Opinion response category achieved by students grouped in classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 50. Number of criterion ratings in the imperative opinion response category achieved by students grouped by curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5l. Rank orders and the sums of rank orders based on composite Opinion ratio scores computed for students grouped by classes and curricula . . 134 52. Rank order and the sums of rank orders based on composite opinion ratio scores computed for students grouped by classes . . . . . . . . . 137 53. Rank orders and the sums of rank orders based on composite Opinion ratio scores computed for students grouped by curricula . . . . . . . . 139 54. Composite Opinion ratio scores for the forty activities Obtained by students classified according to classes figures in per cent) . 140 55. Composite Opinion ratio scores for the forty activities Obtained by students classified according to curricula (figures in per cent) 141 56. Composite Opinion ratio scores for the forty activities obtained by students classified according to classes and curricula (figures in per cent) 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 111+]- LIST OF IIJURES Figure Page 1. Classification by deciles of composite Opinion ratio scores obtained by students grouped by classes and curricula . . . . . . . . r . . . 144 LIST OF APPflNDICES Appendix ~ Page A. Members of the Commission on Imperatives in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 B. Scoring Form for 4—sort . . . . . . . . . . . 161 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The purpose Of this study was to analyze the Opinions expressed by students in the College of Education, Michigan State University, concerning the relative desirability of selected public school activities. More specifically, the aim of this survey was to examine the configurations of the differential opinions which obtained when seniors, master's degree and doctor's degree candidates judged the relative merits Of educational activities that were either specified as hypothetical imperatives in the book, Imperatgyes in 1 or were selected by the investigator as repre- Education, sentative of certain specific areas of concern in public education today. Importance of the Study This study derives part of its importance from the fact that in part it is an extension of Lee's study2 which 1American Association of School Administrators, IQ- peratives in Education (Washington, D. 0.: American Asso- ciation of School Administrators, 1966). 2William B. Lee, "A Study of the Educational Opinions of Selected Teachers and Administrators" (unpublished Ph.D. dégsertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1 7 . ' l investigated the Opinions of teachers and administrators in five Michigan school systems regarding the relative merits of certain school activities which had been posited as im— peratives for the public schools in the publication, Impera— tives in Education. The present study deals with the Opin- ions Of preservice elementary and secondary teachers as well as Of preservice and experienced administrators currently engaged in graduate study. Although the data generated by the two surveys will not be compared in the present study, nevertheless, certain comparisOns insofar as some of the so—called "imperatives" are concerned can be made because of similarities in study design and sample population. This study is also viewed as contributing to the fund of information already available about seniors and graduate students in the College of Education. These are the students who will soon be employed as teachers, predominantly in public schools, are those who have temporarily left their professional work to resume full-time study or are those who are combining full—time work in local school systems with part—time graduate study. There can be value in finding out how students at different stages of their educational training view certain activities carried on in public schools. Their attitudes about the need for certain educational ac— tivities in the public schools have important implications, because as Remmers has stated, 3 The realization is rapidly growing that attitudes, the way individuals and groups feel about the various aspects Of their world, are probably more determina- tive of behavior than mere cognitive understanding of this world. When this is granted, the importance and value of attitude measurement becomes at once obvious.3 The importance of studying group opinions takes on added dimension in the light of certain assumptions which Griffiths has made in his theory of decision-making. The administrator works with groups or with a group referrent, not with individuals as such. An admin- istrator interacts with others in the organization primarily in terms of the group to which others be- long. . . . The same is true of his perception of other administrators in the organization. In the interaction between these distinct groups in educa- tion, Opinions regarding aspects of the professional job would have especial significance. And, in view Of the impact of collective negotiations on the process of educa- tion, information regarding the convergence and/or divergence of teachers' and administrators' opinions could be valuable. It is apparent that our society is characterized by rapid change in all aspects of life. But Gow, Holzner, and Pendleton, in discussing the nature and impact of social change, remark: 3H. H. Remmers, Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measurement (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1954), p. 50 “Daniel E. Griffiths, Administrative Theory (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959), p. 74. Just how fundamental the change in American social structures has been is rarely recognized in full. This unawareness is, in itself, an important fact which may become dangerous in the future. Social change is not merely still occurring but, in fact, is still accelerating even though the period of transition seems to have passed and the outlines of the new social structure have come clearly visible. Not to see this, or to interpret the present and the recent past in terms of ideas that were adequate only prior to the twentieth century, leads into serious error and possibly into grievous mistakes in political, economic, or educational terms.5 (Italics mine.) Furthermore, these writers are of the Opinion that the schools "have been driven by political forces into the position of spearheading societal change as that change is embodied in politically formulated public policy."6 They consider as being largely academic the question of whether the schools should reflect or should reshape society. Stoke, in a discussion of the relationship of edu— cation to the national welfare, expressed the belief that . . . if national survival depends on education, it is easy to conclude that education must be con- sciously enlisted to serve the national needs. The swift develOpments of recent years begin to make such a direct relationship between education and national necessity appear not only natural and ac- ceptable, but inevitable.7 5J. Steele Gow, Jr., Burkart Holzner and William C. Pen- dleton, "Economic, Social, and Political Forces," The Changing American Schogl, The Sixty-fifth Yearbook of the National So- ciety for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago, Ill.: The University Of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 166. 61bid., p. 197. 7Harold W. Stoke, "National Necessity and Educational Policy," Current Issues in Hi her Education (Washington, D.C.: The Association for Higher Education, I959), p. 13. Imperatives in Education identified problems Of na- tional scope and then explicated the areas in education which needed modifying, revising and reshaping in order that the public school system retain a significant role as a primary contributor to the continued viability of our society. The urgent need for meeting the challenges presented by certain cultural forces is reflected in the number of educational activities--innovations, new approaches, and new emphases—- which were designated as imperatives in education. This study examines the extent to which students and the special commission Of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) share similar reactions to the social forces affecting education. That is, do the students also regard the activities endorsed as "absolutely necessary" by the AASA commission as "imperatives" in educatiOn? In ad— dition to getting student reactions to these hypothetical imperatives, reactions to Other educational activities which reflect areas of strong concern in public education today will be sought. Hypotheses The following hypotheses will be examined in this study: 1. Students will reach consensus in designating as imperatives those activities selected from Imperatives in Education. g‘ 2. Doctor's degree candidates will reach consensus most Often in their designations of activities as "imper- atives." 3. Seniors will reach consensus least Often in their designations of activities as "imperatives." 4. Educational administration majors will reach con— sensus most often in their designations of activities as "imperatives." 5. Secondary education majors will reach consensus least Often in their designations of activities as "imper— atives." 6. Doctor's degree candidates will express the highest overall Opinion ratings of the activities. 7. Seniors will express the lowest overall opinion ratings of the activities. 8. Educational administration majors will express the highest overall Opinion ratings of the activities. 9. Secondary education majors will express the lowest overall Opinion ratings of the activities. Definition of Terms Opinion—-"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or matters. [It] im- Plies a conclusion concerning something on which ideas may differ, not however, excluding careful consideration or Weighing of evidence, . . . but usually stressing the subjectivity and disputability of the conclusion."8 Imperative——"an unavoidable fact compelling or in- sistently calling for action."9 Hypothetical imperative--"an imperative of conduct that springs from expediency or practical necessity rather than from moral law."10 Educational activity—-an instructional or noninstruc- tional service or offering generally found in or suggested for the public schools. Type of Study ‘ This is a descriptive research or normative-survey ‘ research which "is a structuze; attempt to obtain data——facts and opinions——about the current condition or status of things. It seeks to ascertain the prevailing condition at the time of the study."11 Good, Barr and Scates, in discussing the character— istics of the normative-survey research, use the term 8Philip Babcock Gove (ed.), Webster's Third New Inter- national Dictionar (Springfield, Mass.: G. C. Merriam 00., Publishers, 1957), p. 1582. - 9Ibid., p. 1113. lOIbid., p. 1117. 11John B. Barnes, The Dynamics of Educational Research \Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State College, 195 , p. l l. R f "normative" in the sense that the data regarding the current conditions are gathered to determine "what is the normal or typical condition, or practice."12 The usefulness of this type of study, especially to education, is described by VanDalen. Before much progress can be made in solving problems,, men must possess accurate descriptions of the phenom— enon with which they work. Hence, the early develop— ments in educational research, as in other fields, have been made in the area of descriptions. . . . De- termining the nature of prevailing conditions, prac- tices, and attitudes-—seeking accurate descriptions of activities, objects, processes, and persons--is their objective. They depict current status and some- times identify relationships that exist among phe- nomena or trends that appear to be developing. 3 The aim of the present study was to survey the opinions expressed by a selected sample of students enrolled in the College of Education at Michigan State University. Remmers, in discussing opinion and attitude measurement, states that opinions are being measured whenever attempts are made to measure attitudes.14 Sells and Trites write that the responses obtained through questionnaires, interviews, etc., have often been 12Carter V. Good, A. S. Barr and Douglas E. Scates, The Methodolo of Educational Research (New York: D. Appleton- Century 00., Inc., I935}, p. 239. 13Deobold VanDalen, Understandin' Educational Research: Ari Introduction (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1952}, ‘_.—??_—_———_—— 9. 1,14,. lhRemmers, op. cit., p. 7. ‘g assumed to possess "face validity" for attitude studies "by virtue of the intrinsic content of the questions asked or behavior observed."15 And, "If we are interested only in knowing what the present attitudes of a given group are," states Remmers "we can equate validity with reliability."16 Limitations of the Study Methodology. This study is subject to all of the - limitations commonly associated with descriptive surveys. A basic limitation is that the findings usually indicate norms, not standards. Also, this approach to the study of problems is essentially static; the situations being studied may well be dynamic.17 The instrument developed and used for this study was not standardized. Thus, it has inherent weaknesses of non— standardized instruments sometimes developed for specific and limited purposes such as this study. Sampling. This study was limited to students en- rolled during the winter term of 1967 in the College of 15Saul B. Sells and David K. Trites, "Attitudes," En- c clo edia of Educational Research, ed. Chester W. Harris, 3rd ed., (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960), p. 103. 16 Quoted in Sells and Tribes, ibid. l7Leighton H. Johnson, "Limitations of the Descrip- tive Method, " Phi Delta Ka an, 34 (March, 1953), p. 2hl. f + Education or dually with the College of Education and the College of Natural Sciences at Michigan State University. The students in the College of Education were seniors majoring in elementary education, and master’s degree and‘ doctor's degree candidates majoring in elementary education, secondary education or educational administration. The students dually enrolled were seniors majoring in secondary education, specifically limited to the biological sciences. Summary This study was intended to survey and analyze the opinions held by students enrolled in the College of Educa- tion, Michigan State University, about the relative desirabil- 'ity of selected public school activities. These activities were differentiated into two basic groups: (1) those desig- nated as "imperatives" in the book Im eratives in Education, and (2) those selected by the investigator as reflecting current areas of concern in public education. The study of opinions or attitudes is important be- cause they give indications of possible future action or behavior. The relative divergence and/or convergence of Ctpinions about the relative merits of school activities has Special significance to teacher—administrator interaction because of the impact of collective negotiations on pro- fessional conduct and behavior. 11 Nine hypotheses were formulated to be examined in this descriptive survey study. The limitations of methodology and sampling were discussed in this introductory chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Two categories of related literature are presented in this chapter. The first deals with research studies relevant to the present study. The second briefly reviews the context from which the educational activities categorized as "imperatives" were derived. Related Research There have been many studies dating back to the 1920's which have investigated college students' attitudes and values. These studies have focused on specific problems such as attitudes toward political, economic, social and religious issues. None, except one which will be discussed shortly, is directly relevant to the present'study which deals with students' attitudes or opinions concerning public school educational activities, per se. A number of general findings seem to have implica- tions for this study. College attendance has generally been found to be one critical factor which produces changes in attitudes and values.1 Jacob, after conducting an extensive _ lIrvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, Changes in Crit- ical Thinking Ability, Attitudes, and Values Asgpciated with DOIlege Attendance, Cooperative Research Project No. 16h6, Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1963), p0 70 1 2 13 review of studies which dealt with the attitudes and values of college students noted "more homogeneity and greater con- sistency of values among students at the end of their four years than when they begin."2 However, there is very little evidence that changes in values and attitudes can be attrib- _uted to any one factor among the many college experiences which students encounter. A study related directly to the present one was conducted by Lee.3 He interviewed 149 elementary and sec- ondary school teachers and administrators in five selected school systems of comparable size in Michigan to determine the importance which they attached to educational activities described in Imperatives in Education. He was interested specifically in examining the relationship between expressed Opinions and factors such as educational degree, professional position, and years of experience in public school education. Lee reported that only in two activities, both related to reading, was there consensus about their being imperatives in education.“ —_ 2Philip E. Jacob, Changing Values in gellege (New Haven, Conn.: The Edward W. Hazen Foundation,‘l957 , p. . 3William B. Lee, "A Study of the Educational Opinions c>1 education in America. One of the most recent is that of tslie American Association of School Administrators (AASA) whic:11, in 1966, published its Imperatives in Education. This boo}: is actually the report of a special commission appointed in talle spring of 1964 to discharge the 1. . . reSponsibility for identifying and stating in czlear and concise fashion major educational impera- 13imes that must be at the forefront as curriculums Eire modified, instructional methods revised, and <>rganizational patterns reshaped to meet the needs <>f this country in one of its most dynamic periods. The schools are challenged by certain very powerful Cultural phenomena, for instance: technological advances, feaz~ of unemployment, changing occupational patterns and needs, urbanization, global ideological conflicts, and others. \ atj, 9American Association of School Administrators, Impe - 33r4¥£as in Education (Washington, D. 0.: American Association SCthool Administrators, 1966), p. i. l6 lNith due consideration of these circumstances the AASA com- lnission identified nine imperatives in education to enhance tihe viability of the educational system. The nine impera- tives in education are: To make urban life rewarding and satisfying. To prepare people for the world of work. To discover and nurture creative talent. To strengthen the moral fabric of society. To deal constructively with psychological tensions. To keep democracy working. To make intelligent use of natural resources. To make the best use of leisure time. To work with the peoples of the world for human betterment.10 The publication noted that these imperatives were not; goals but, rather, "points" at which the school's pro- grain: should be examined for possible revisions and modifica- ti-Oris to make it more capable of meeting the exigencies of our? ‘times. However, if these are urgent needs-~hypothetical irn1=>eratives-—which have universal implications for our schools, than perhaps they are functionally, as Cunningham deScribed, "goals for the schools, national in scope."11 For each of the nine imperatives the AASA commission designated many school activities which would assist in implementing the goals. Those activities selected for in— clusion in the present study are reviewed in the following \ lOIbid. ez~ 11American Association of School Administrators, Fed- ‘il. Polic in the Public Schools (Washington, D. 0.: AEEF- M— p1361211621330ciation J‘School Administrators, October, 1966). ‘ . sect <31‘" 17 ion as they were specifically identified with the "goals" points" of concern in Imperatives in Education. TO MAKE URBAN LIFE REWARDING AND SATISFYING:12 The instructional program must be extended downward to include kinder-arten and prekindergarten-age children. (Italics mine.) Inservice education rograms for teachers must be greatly expanded. (Italics mine.) TO PREPARE PEOPLE FOR THE WORLD OF WORK:13 ()pportunities for . . . vocational trainin must be greatly extended. (Italics mine.) CPhe schools must take leadership in maintaining tLraining and retraining programs for adults. talics mine.) IDrograms of vocational idance must be extended 51nd improved. (Italics mine.) .. . . Distributive education [and] cooperative office Igractice . . . must be accelerated to keep pace with tshe rapidity of change in business operation.1h (Italics mine.) \focational teachers must be continuously retrained; <>tHerwise:’they will become obsolete, and their obso- ILescence will be transmitted to young peOple.15 (Italics mine.) fro DISCOVER AND NURTURE CREATIVE TALENT:16 -\ 12AASA, Imperatgyes in Education, p. 165. 13Ibid., p. 166. l“lbid., p. 27. lSlbid., p. 40. 16Ibid., p. 167. 18 Instruction in science [and] maths atics . . . must begin in the elementary school and be continued and extended to the fullest degree student capacities will permit. (Italics mine.) Greater emphasis must be given to the . . . arts in the instructional program as a way to further develOp the creative capacities of all students. (Italics mine. It is imperative that schools girect attention to the superior students in whatever area of superiority his undeveloped talent may exist. . . .17 (Italics mine.) TO DEAL CONSTRUCTIVELY NITH PSYCHOLOGICAL TENSIONS:18 (Jounseling and other supporting services must be Ibrovided to meet the needs of each student. (Italics nnine.) :rO KEEP DEMOCRACY WORKING:19 Efivery child must have proficiency in readin . . . sand the use of number.’ (Italics mine.) TPhe instructional program . . . will be a compre- Iiensive commppityeschool program that involves the liome, churches, the neighborhood, business and Zindustry, and the school all working together to rovide an effective learning environment. . . . 1(DItalics mine.) TIO MAKE BETTER USE OF LEISURE TIME:21 TIhe schools must remain Open until the late hours of ‘the evening throughout the summer months. K l71bid., p. 46. 18Ibid., p. 169. 19Ibid., p. 170. Ibido , po 950 2?;p;g., p. 172. 19 . . . Modern gance must be emphasized throughout the elementary and secondary grades. (Italics mine.) Communit choruses . . . must be encouraged and supported. (Italics mine.) TO WORK WITH OTHER PEOPLES OF THE WORLD FOR HUMAN BETTERHEHT:22 Instruction in forei n languages must be strengthened and extended. (Italics mine.) \ 22Ibid., p. 173. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY This chapter describes the methodology used in the study: the develOpment of the instrument, the population and the sample drawn, and the structure of the interview. DevelOpment of the Instrument The basic methodology used to collect data for this study was a modified "Q—sort."1 With this process the items to be reacted to or differentiated by a subject are put on cards. These cards are shuffled into random order and pre- sented to the subject who then proceeds to sort them in ac- cordance with prescribed instructions. After the sorting is Completed, the choices are scored by whatever standards were established. In this study the items, i.e., the educational ac- tivities, to which student responses were sought were typed on Standard 3" by 5" canary yellow index cards. The follow- ing Criteria were established to guide the selection of the aCtivities which were to be included in the instrument. \ a 1William Stephenson, The Study of Behavior, Q-Technigue NS Mathodology (Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago $83, 1953?. P- 17- 20 21 l. The so-called "imperatives," taken from Imperatives in Education, must explicitly be identified as "imperative" or "must" activities by the authors of the book. The AASA special commission (see Appendix A) which wrote the book was established as the panel of experts. 2. The "other" activities must be representative of spe cific areas of concern in public education today. These "other" activities were any which were not specifically designated as "imperat ives" by the panel of expe rts--the authors of Imperative-34131 Education. These additional activities were needed for the instrument because of the limited number of "imperatives." 3. All the activities must be described as precisely as possible in order to minimize the elicitation of a variety 01' interpretations. In the preparation of the cards for the Q—sort the desc=1":1ption of the activity was centered on the index card. On each card also there was written a number ranging from 1 to 1.0 in the upper right corner and the words "Elementary," "Secondary" or "All levels," indicating the vertical organi- zatiOmal level at which each activity was to be considered by the respondent, in the upper left corner. Twenty trial interviews with students——primarily Seniol‘s and graduate students-«were conducted to test and re ‘ . . - fine the pilot instrument. These trial runs helped to 22 refine the instructions to the interviewee; to eliminate ambiguous items, words or phrases; to reword activities; to try out new items; etc. Through the process of many re- visions, deletions and substitutions forty items were de- rived. Nineteen of these were "imperatives"; the other twenty-one were taken from various sources. Some had come from Imperativesig Egpcation; these had not received the "imperative" endorsement but had-been given lesser recommenda- tions by the authors. Others were selected from different books. Three items were included because they were pre- jUdged as most likely to be designated by the respondents as less desirable activities for inclusion in the public schools. The investigator subjectively decided that these thr‘ee more—patently less desirable activities were necessary to Prepare for the possibility that there would be respond- ents who approached the task with a set for rating at least one or more activity toward the lower end of the scale of Choices. After the final forty activities were derived, the Cards on which they were typed were shuffled. Taking each card in the order in which it then appeared the cards were m"l'nbered consecutively from one to forty to designate the Order. in which they were to be presented to every one of the respondents in the sample. This method of presenting t . . . . he Cards in a predetermined order after randomization was I ‘______* ____ __ 23 Ikallowed to control the effect that the order of presentation nuight have on the Opinion rating of the cards. The numbers “Kare also to be used in the scoring of the responses. Table 1 shows the list of the activities included iii 'the instrument. TaJDZLe l.--The forty educational activities used in the Q-sort Ihevel Activity A13. *1. Teach natural science Elelruentary 2. Provide prekindergarten program for the culturally disadvantaged; e.g., Operation Head Start All— 3. Sponsor scout troop(s) All. 4. Provide medical examinations with effec- tive follow-ups. All— *5. Provide educational and recreatioral oppor- tunities for persons of all ages after— school and evenings the year—round secondary *6. Provide vocational education All— *7. Encourage and support community musical choral groups All— *8. Teach art . Elementary *9. Elementary 10. Elementary *ll . Provide prekindergarten program Provide classes for trainable mentally re- tarded students Provide kindergarten program *Imperatives from Imperatives in Education; all others by investigator. 2L, ' Table l--Continued Level Activity All 12. Group students flexibly for instruction; i.e., group students homogeneously or heterogeneously depending on the nature of the learning task All *13. Teach reading skills All *lh. Provide inservice education program for teachers All *15. Provide guidance and counseling services Secondary 16. All 17. All 18 Secondary 19. Elementary 20. All *21. Secondary 22. All *23. Elementary 2h. Elementary 25. Sponsor drum majors and/or drum majorettes Work towards achieving racial balance in the student population; i.e., reducing de facto segregation Provide field trips for the culturally dis- advantaged to cultural centers, theaters, concerts, etc. Provide in—school, after-school, evening- school and Saturday programs to help lower the dropout rate Provide psychoeducational diagnostic services with prescription and remediation in schools located in culturally disadvantaged areas Teach modern mathematics Provide work-study program to lower the dropout rate Provide vocational guidance Provide free breakfasts for disadvantaged students who cannot get them at home Provide classes for emotionally-disturbed students *Imperatives from Im eratives in Education; all others by investigator. 25 Table l——Continued Level Activity Elementary All Secon dary Secon d ary Eleme ntary Secorlciéiry All All All Secon dary All SGCOndarY Se COnd ary Elementary All \ g 26. *27. *28. *29. 30. ===31. *32. 33. *3h. *35. 36. 37. 38. 39 #0 Provide mental health program for under- achieving students Provide special educational opportunities for the gifted and talented Provide for continuous retraining of teachers of vocational subjects Provide distributive education program; i.e., retailing, marketing, etc. Provide home counselors (home-school agents) in schools located in culturally disad- vantaged areas Provide cooperative office practice program Teach modern dancing , Participate in nationally—sponsored Spelling Bees Teach foreign language(s) Provide, in cooperation with other agencies, training and retraining programs to meet new manpower needs. Provide medical examinations with effective follow—ups in schools located in cultur- ally disadvantaged areas Provide work-study program for educable mentally retarded students; e.g., restaurant practice Provide interscholastic athletic program with a number of teams in each major sport Provide group therapy for parents of handi- capped children Provide idance counselors in all schools locate in culturally disadvantaged areas L 26 Since this study intended to compare and analyze the opinions of the respondents by class and major field, the number of activities in each of the three vertical organiza- tional levels were controlled. That is, there were 20 ac- tivities for "All levels," and 10 each activities for the "Elementary" and "Secondary" levels included in the fig-sort. No attempt was made to equate the activities otherwise. Six response categories were utilized in the Q-sort. These were: (1) Imperative, (2) Highly Desirable, (3) De- sirable, (1.) Lowly Desirable, (5) Undesirable, and (6) Can't Judge - The sixth category was not included in the pilot inst Pument at the start of the trial run interviews but was put in about midway through the trials because a number of the subjects could not make judgments even after clarifica- tion by the interviewer. The inclusion of this sixth cate- gory eliminated the forced choice element from the instru- ment. Each of the six categories was typed on white 3" by 5" White index cards. When set out in front of the respond- ent they would guide the sorting of the activities. Selection of the Study Sample The population for this study was comprised of stu- dents enrolled in the College of Education or dually in the COllege of Education and the College of Natural 301911035 at Michigan State University during the winter term of 1967. The . . . . . st’udents were listed in the Registrar's report as being 27 enrolled in degree programs. The report listing the students enrolled in the College of Education was obtained from the Graduate Student Affairs Office. The list of dually enrolled senior secondary education (biological sciences) majors was secured from the office of the Dean, the College of Natural Sciences. The strata selected for study were seniors, master's dwgree candidates and doctor's degree candidates. Within the senior stratum the clusters chosen were elementary edu— cation and secondary education majors, limited solely to the biological science majors. Within the master's degree and doctor's degree strata the clusters were elementary edu— cation, secondary education, and educational administration majors. The random sample from the stratified cluster popu- lation was drawn with the use of the Rand Table of Random Numbers. Table 2 provides a detailed description of the sample - The sample included: P1 seniors: (a) elementary education—-h9 or 10%, (b) secondary education-—12 or 24%; P2 rue‘Ster's degree candidates: (a) elementary education-— 22 or 2037,, (b) secondary education-12 or 24%, (c) educa— tional administration——l7 or 23%; and P3 doctor's degree candidates: (a) elementary education-m8 or 2272, (b) second— ary education-4: or 46%, and (c) educational administration "16 0r 20%. 28 Table 2.--Description of pOpulation and sample ~‘O- - ~— Proportion Population Cluster N of Cluster __ __ Lin per cent) 1 Seniors a Elementary education 49 10 b Secondary education 12 24 2 Master's a Elementary education 22 20 degree candidates b Secondary education 12 214. c Educational administration 17 23 3 Doctor's a Elementary education 8 22 degree candidates b Secondary education 6 1.6 c Educational administration 16 20 Total sample 142 x Table 3 shows the classification of students according to the classes in which they were enrolled. Table 3.--Classification of students by class \ Class N \ I L IaSter's degree candidates 51 D OCtOr's degree candidates 3O \ 29 Table A classifies these students by the major fields in which they were studying. Table h.~—Classification of students by major field~ Major Field N Elementary education 79 Secondary education 30 Educational administration 33 Nearly all of the participants were contacted by telephone to explain the nature of the study, to enlist their cooperation and to schedule an interview at some later date. 'A few were contacted in person. Structure of the Interview With each interview, the purpose of the study was briefly explained to the interviewee even though this had been mentioned during the first telephone or personal con— tact. Then certain gross data were obtained from the student. (See Appendix B for the scoring sheet which provides for the gross data.) . ) The majority of the interviews were conducted in the interviewer's office. The interviewee was seated at a table with the interviewer either in front or to the side of him. Approximately a dozen interviews took place in the home of % 3O the student. A few others were conducted in lobbies of classroom buildings and dormitories. The following instructions which were standardized during the trial interviews were given verbally to each interviewee. (The portions enclosed in parentheses were directions for the interviewer.) Educators and even laymen generally have differing opinions about what the American public schools should be providing in the way of educational activities. Some say that too much is being done while others state that there is too much of one thing and not enough of another or other things. On each of these cards [hand the student the stack of to cards] is written an educational activity which is being provided in the public schools today. As you read each card, decide whether you as * 'udge that particular activity to be Ll) imperative, 22) highl desirable, (3) desirable, (h) lowly desirable, or (5¥ undesirable as a function of the public school. [Set out the categories in a horizontal row in front of the respondent as each is mentioned.) The level, i.e., elementary, secondary or all levels, at which you are to consider each activity appears in the upper left corner of each card. The larger frame of refer— ence for judging these activies is public schools in general, not a particular school in a particular town, city or state, but American public schools at large. If you cannot form an opinion about the merits of any activity, categorize it under (6) can't judge. [Set out this category along side the other five.] However, please try to make a judgment in each case, if possible. Since I am interested only in your opinions, there are no right or wrong answers as such in any case. Please do not hesitate to ask for clarification of an activity or further information as you are making your decisions. *Insert, as appropriate: "a prospective elementary teacher," etc. As described earlier, the cards were in a predetermined order set after randomization; therefore, each interviewee 31 received the stack of cards in the same order. The respond— ent was permitted to sort the cards in a manner to his liking as long as he observed the instructions. A few-read through all of the items before beginning the actual categoriza- tion process but most categorized from the beginning as they proceeded through the stack. After each respondent had completed his sorting he was asked to assist in the recording of the responses by reading the numbers which appeared in the upper right corner of each card to the interviewer, beginning with the sorts in the "imperative" category. The student was permitted to make changes in his responses as he went through the cards during the recording phase, but rarely did this occur. In some cases where the respondent had to leave immediately after completing the task or where another interviewee was scheduled to follow very closely, the interviewer did the entire recording with— out assistance. Summary The methodology used to collect the data was described in this chapter. The basic technique around which the intru- ment was developed was the Q-sort. The forty educational activities to which student opinion ratings were sought were typed on standard 3" by 5" index cards. Each card was also numbered to indicate the order of presentation and was 32 identified by the vertical organizational level at which it was to be considered by the respondent. The rating scale used six response categories: (1) imperative, (2) highly desirable, (3) desirable, (4) lowly desirable, (5) unde— sirable, and (6) can't judge. The study sample included lt2 students from the following categories: seniors: elementary education, 49; and, secondary education, 12; master's degree candidates: elementary education, 22; secondary education, 12; and educational administration, 17; doctor's degree candidates: elementary education, 8; secondary education, 6; and educa— tional administration, 16. Each participant was interviewed individually. The instructions to the interviewee were included in this chap- ter. CHAPTdR IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Classification of the Activities The forty educational activities about which the students expressed Opinions were arbitrarily classified into two categories and seven sub-categories in order to facili— tate the analysis of the data. These functional classifi- cations are presented in Table 5. Table 5.--Classification of the educational activities into categories and subcategories for the purpose of analyzing the data W Categories and Subcategories of Activities Item Numbersa Imperatives: Instructional 1, 8, 9, ll, 13, 21, 27, 32, 3h Noninstructional 5, 7, 1h, 15 Vocational Education 6, 23, 28, 29, 31, 35 Others: Re the Disadvantaged 2, l2, l7, 18, 20, 2h, 30, 36,.h0 Re the MR and Emo— tionally Disturbed 10, 25, 37, 39 Re the School Drop- out 19, 22, 26 Miscellaneous 3, h, 16, 33, 38 6‘See Table 1, pp. 23-25, for description of activities. i) 3h The activities, it will be recalled, were categorized by their sources: the "imperatives" from the book Imperatives in Education, and those selected by the investigator as repre- sentative of various areas of concern in education today. The "imperatives" are grouped into three areas: in- .structional, noninstructional, and vocational education. The "others" are classified in this way: activities concerning the disadvantaged, activities pertaining to the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed or maladjusted, activities concerning the reduction of the dropout rate, and miscellan- eous activities, i.e., those not amenable to the foregoing classifications. Other schemes of classification are possible; the, present one was selected because it readily accommodated the categorization of the activities according to function. Methods of Testing the Hypotheses The data will be presented and analyzed as percentage or proportion scores. Statistical tests of significance will not be utilized. The hypotheses are restated in order to describe the methods by which they will be tested. Hypothesis 1. Students will reach consensus in desig— nating'as imperatives those activities selected from Imperatives in Education. This hypothesis will be considered as supported when 50% or more of the students rate as imperative those 35 activities in the "imperative" category. Hypothesis 2. Doctor's degree candidates will reach consensus most often in their designations of activi- ties as "imperatives." This hypothesis will be regarded as supported when there is superiority in the number of times that 50% or more of the doctor's degree candidates designate the activities as "imperatives." Hypothesis 3. Seniors will reach consensus least often in their designations of activities as "imperatives." This hypothesis will be considered as supported when the number of times in which 50% or more of the seniors designate the activities as "imperatives" occurs least often. Hypothesis 4. Educational administration majors will reach consensus most often in their designations of activities as "imperatives." This hypothesis will be regarded as confirmed when the number of times that 50% or more of the educational administration majors designate activities as "imperatives" occurs most often. Hypothesis 5. Secondary education majors will reach consensus least often in their designations of activ- ities as "imperatives." This hypothesis will be accepted when the number of times in which 50% or more of the secondary education majors designate activities as "imperatives" occurs least often. Hypothesis 6. Doctor's degree candidates will express the highest overall Opinion ratings of the activities. This hypothesis will be considered as confirmed when 36 the doctor's degree candidates achieve the highest composite opinion ratio scores which will be computed as follows: _ Raw Scores X Assigned Valuesa Composite Opinion Ratio Score “ Raw Scores X 5 01" = Actual Score CORS Poten ial Score aAccording to category of responses: imperative — 5 deeLra ble -3 undesirable — 1 highly desirable - h lowly desirable — 2 can't judge — 0 The intergroup comparisons of the composite opinion ratio scores (CORSs) obtained by the students in the various classifications will be done by item analysis. Thus, the groups-—either classes and/or curricula-—will be ranked ac- cording to their CORSs for each and every activity. These ranks, in turn, will be summed on the basis of subcategories of activities, e.g., "instructional activities," to derive the overall rank orders obtained by the students for particu— lar sets of activities. Finally, rank placements based on subcategories of activities will be computed to determine the relative magnitude of the opinion ratings on all of the forty activities. Hypothesis 7. Seniors will express the lowest overall opinion ratings of the activities. This hypothesis will be considered as supported when seniors, in comparison to the other two cla ms 3, obtain the lowest rankings which are based on the CORSs. 37 Hypothesis 8. Educational administration majors will express the highest overall opinion ratings of the activities. This hypothesis will be accepted when the educational administration majors, in comparison to the other two curricula, obtain the highest rankings which are based on the CORSs. Hypothesis 9. Secondary education majors will ex- press the lowest overall opinion ratings of the activities. This hypothesis will be regarded as supported when secondary education majors, in comparison to the other two curricula, obtain the lowest rankings which are based on the CORSs. Findings About the Imperatives Instructional Activities. There are nine items in this category. The proportions, expressed in per cent units, of the class and major field members which designated these activities in the imperative category of the response scale are presented in Table 6. This table shows the similarities and differences among the eight subgroups of students. The two subsequent tables were generated from the data contained herein. The similarities and differences can be more meaningfully dis- cussed in relationship to the two subsequent tables. 0n item 1, teaching natural science, all of the classes and major fields except the master's degree (MA) educational administration majors and doctor's degree (DOC) elementary 38 .GOdefinommU poMXm pow .mmumm .Qg .H mamas on memmm V mm. 00. mm. am. mm. mm. NH. mm. mmwmsmcma swamnom .dm oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. wqaoeme cameos .Nm mm. 00. me. am. we. mm. cm. ms. empcam toe anemone .em mm. mm. mm. co. ms. cm. mm. as. name cameo: .HN Hm. Om. oo.a mm. mm. om. 0m. ma. anaemmm .ma me. as. me. so. mm. we. me. me. emptmmtmecae .HH am. ea. mm. so. mo. ea. 00. Na. cmpLQthecaamtm .0 ma. cm. mm. ma. ea. mm. mo. em. pee .w me. Om. mm. as. me. am. oo.a so. moeoaom amtspmz .H .61 .6a .ovn .Eead .pe .vn .oew .Emau .umn nmmwm mmoHpH>Hpo< mesmeaeemo Dom mopeeaeeme a: mtoaeom fiasco hem ca monsmamv muamflm genes was mommmao naenp on wsflnn000m nomeonm mpnevspm >9 mowpw>flpom HmQOHposhpmGH mo mwsflpmn coecflmo showpro m>HQMLmQEHaI.o manme 39 education majors achieved consensus (.50 or higher) ratings that this was an imperative. The senior secondary education majors whose field was the biological sciences show the highest agreement (1.00). The only group to achieve agreement that item 8, art education, was an imperative activity was the DOC secondary education majors. The imperative category ratings of the other groups were very low; the second highest rating was achieved by the DOC elementary education majors (38%). No group reached consensus on item 9, prekindergarten education. In fact, the percentage ratings were low. None among the senior secondary education majors considered this to be an imperative activity. The DOC educational adminis- tration students' rating of 31$ was the highest among the eight groups. On item 11, kindergarten education, all but two of the groups—-senior secondary education (A7%) and MA educa- tional administration (6%) majors—-achieved consensus that this was absolutely necessary in the public schools. All of the groups showed consensus that item 13, teaching reading skills, was an imperative. The ratings were all very high except those by the senior secondary education and DOC secondary education majors, both with the minimum .50 rate. On item 21, teaching modern mathematics, only the MA elementary education majors (SOfiireached consensus. 40 Three groups--senior secondary education, MA ele- mentary education, and DOC elementary education majors-- showed consensus that item 27, program for gifted students, was absolutely necessary for the public schools to provide. None of the DOC secondary education majors designated this as an imperative. Item 32, teaching modern dancing, was distinguished by the fact that it did not get selected at all as an im- perative, except by 6% of the DOC educational administration majors. One group, the MA secondary education majors, showed consensus in selecting item 34, teaching foreign languages, as an imperative. In contrast, none of the DOC secondary education majors selected this item as an imperative for the public schools. In recapitulation, the respondent groups showed consensus that the nine activities were imperatives for the public schools the following number of items:. MA elementary education (5); MA secondary education (4); DOC secondary education (a); senior elementary education (3); senior secondary education (3); DOC elementary education (3); DOC educational administration (3); and, MA educational admin— istration (1). Table 7 analyzes the way in which the espondents grouped as class members rated the nine instructional activities in the imperative response category. f 41 Table 7.——Imperative category Opinion ratings of instructional activities by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) , MA . DOC Activities“ Seniors Candidates Candidates 1. Natural science .72 .55 .57 8. Art .28 .22 .30 9. Prekindergarten .10 .12 .27 11. Kindergarten .67 .45 .63 13. Reading .87 .88 .80 21. Modern mathematics .39 .33 .27 27. Program for gifted .44 .43 .33 32. Modern dancing .00 .00 .03 34. Foreign languages .23 .35 .27 aSee Table 1, pp. 23~25, for exact description of activities. All three classes achieved consensus in rating item 1, teaching natural science, in the imperative category. The DOC candidates reached this level largely because the 75% rating Of the educational administration majors sub- stantially made up for the 25$ response rate of the ele— mentary education majors. program, On item 8, art education, and item none of the classes reached consensus. prekindergarten The ratings were no higher than the 30% level reached by the DOC candi- dates. 42 Seniors and DOC candidates achieved consensus on item 11, kindergarten progrmn. The MA candidates fell short of this mark by five percentage points, primarily because of the sharply lowering effect exerted by the 6% response rate of the educational administration majors on the ratings of the elementary education majors (68%) and secondary education majors (58%). On item 13, teaching reading skills, all of the classes achieved high level consensus ratings. At least 80% or more of the respondents in each class regarded the teaching of reading skills as absolutely necessary. None of the classes achieved consensus on item 21, teaching modern mathematics. The 39% level of the seniors was the highest among the three groups. Although the MA candidates' rating would not have reached the 50% standard, their rating would have been much higher but for the effect of the educational administration majors' rating of 6%. There were no consensus ratings on the other three items in the instructional category of activities: item 27, program for gifted students; item 32, teaching modern dancing; and, item 34, teaching foreign languages. The DOC candidate's response level on item 27 was depreciated by the zero percentage rating Of the secondary educatiOn majors counter balancing the 63% response Of the elementary education majors and the 32% rating of the educational administration majors. The MA candidates' rating of item g #3 34 was raised appreciably by the 67% rating of the second- ary eduCation majors. Note that the elementary education and educational administration majors' ratings were below 30% on this item. In summary, consensus "imperative" category ratings were achieved on instructional activities by the classes in the following frequencies: seniors (3); DOC candidates (3); and MA candidates (2). ,The way in which the respondents grouped by their major fields rated the instructional activities as impera— tives is presented in Table 8. Table 8.--Imperative category opinion ratings of instructional activities by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) filementary Secondary Educational Activitiesa Education fiducation Administration 1. Natural science .58 .80' .58 8. Art .30 .20 .lu 9. Prekindergarten .15 .07 .18 11. Kindergarten .71 .53 .33 13. Reading .92 .67 .85 21. Modern mathematics .A2 .37 .15 27. Program for gifted .48 .37 .30 32. Modern dancing .00 .00 .03 34. Foreign languages .24 .33 .33 ao‘ee Table 1, pp. 23-25, for exact description of activities. 44 The respondents in the three major fields showed criterion ratings in selecting item 1, teaching natural sci- ence, as an imperative activity. None of the groups reached consensus on item 8, art education, and item 9, prekindergarten education. The rating on item 8 of the secondary education majors would have been higher than the 20% level but for the especially low (8%) response of the seniors. 0n item 9, the 6% rating of the MA educational administration majors offset the 31% level of the DOC educational administration majors. 0n item 11, kindergarten program, the elementary and secondary education majors achieved consensus. The educa- tional administration majors' rating was lowered by the 6% rating of the MA candidates; the DOC candidates had given this activity a 63% rating in the imperative response cate- .gory. Item 13, teaching reading skills, was selected by a clear majority of the respondents in all three groups as being an imperative activity. On none of the remaining items—-21, teaching modern mathematics; 27, program for gifted students; 32, teaching modern dancing; and 3h, teaching foreign languages—~was consensus reached by the respondents. 0n item 27, the ele- mentary education majors were two percentage points short of the criterion mark which would have been reached #5 but for the A % response of the seniors diminishing the ratings of the MA candidates (55%) and the DOC candidates (63%). The secondary education majors' imperative category response on item 3h reflects highly disparate ratings by classes: seniors (12%), MA candidates (67%), and DOC can— didates (0%). In recapitulation, the respondents grouped into the three major fields achieved criterion ratings in their im— perative category responses as follows: elementary educa— tion majors (3); secondary education majors (3); and, edu- cational administration majors (2). Table 9 presents a summation of all the ratings, by group and activity, expressed as the composite Opinion ratio scores (CORSS). This score, it will be recalled, is derived by summing up the total responses to which variable values had been assigned and then dividing that sum by the highes possible score that the respondents might have achieved on any given item. Such a table allows gross analysis of the consistency of the intragroup rankings (based on the CORSs) of all the items in a given category, e.g., instructional activities. That is, some analysis can be made of the convergence and/or divergence of the ratings of activities made by a particular group of students. Examination of the intragroup range in ranks indicates that the least range of four places occurred within the A6 d o N n m m 85m an xcmm m.wm an mm em m.Hm um mpmvuo xemn mo 85m Hon.v A50.“ Ann.v Awn.v Amm.v .Amm.v mommswcea swwonom .em a m m.m N H m.m le.e lee.l lee.v le.s 1mm.v los.v assumes cameos .Nm m .N m d N H w Aom.v low.v .ma.v Amm.v lem.v new.v empeHe m.s m.s H e m.m m.m toe aeteOta .em Ams.v Ass.v loo.Hv Aso.v new.v Ams.v apes enmeoz .Hm m o H m N a A©0.V AO®.V Aoo.av Awm.v Awm.v Amw.v wmflummm .mH m.m s H m.m m.m w HH®.V Amo.v Amw.v Hom.v Awh.v Ash.v amphmwhovmflm .HH e m.m m o s m Awe.v Ame.v Ame.l 1mm.v les.v Ame.l emptmsameemeta .a H m .N m .N o N. w AHs.V Aom.v Amm.v AHs.v Ass.v Aso.v eta .w m.o m H «.0 m m lma.e loa.v Ame.v lew.v lma.v loo.Hv moemaom Hetepwz .H m.m m.m w s m.m H .ee .eu .omm .EmHe .ee .ee .omm .omm mmeH>Hpoe mmpmwfiucmo ooa mmpmfiflumwo <2 smHemHm aamagucagmg wee as: a mowpfl>fluom Hm:0HuosppmzH so nacho xqmn new monoom OHpmh scenfimo mnemomsooxx.m wanes Ahmfioho VMGML. em manewfle .mmmog geflemfim mammepemame eH mosewwwl we use monmeHo aHmep on meHeaooae eeeeotm aseaeeam as eaemHeom 1+7 senior elementary majors. The next lowest range of five places in rank comes in the MA elementary and DOC adminis- trat ion groups. The MA secondary and administration and j the DOC secondary groups ranged six places in the ranking of their CORSs. Ranging the maximum of seven places were the senior secondary and DOC elementary groups. The overall ranking of the respondent groups which is based on the sums of the rank orders is evident in Table 8° The groups ranked as follows in their overall ratings 0f the activities: (1) senior elementary majors, (2) DOC elementary majors, (3) MA secondary majors, (A) DOC admin— iStI‘ation majors, (5) MA elementary majors, (6) DOC second- ary majors, (7) MA administration majors, and (8) senior seCorlciary majors. In Table 10 the ranking by classes of the respondents’ c°mp05ite opinion ratio scores is presented. Seniors gave the highest ratings to two items-~1, natural science, and 8, art education—~and were.tied in giving the highest ratings to three other activities—-item 34’ foreign languages, with the MA candidates; item 11, kindei‘garten program and item 32, modern dancing, with the DOC Candidates. This group ranked second in the magnitudes Of its ratings on item 9, prekindergarten program; item 21, modern mathematics; item 27, program for the gifted; and tied for Second with the DOC candidates in rating item 13, teach- ing reading. Thus, the seniors ranked first in giving the lghast ratings to the nine items in the instructional act1v1t1es. I 48 Table lO.-—Composite opinion ratio scores and rank order on instructional activities achieved by students ‘ grouped according to their classes (figures in parenteses signify CORSs; figures above parenthe- ses signify rank orders) DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 1 2 3 1. Natural science (.93) (.90) (.88) 1 3 2 8. Art ‘ (~78) (.75) (.77) 2 3 1 9. Prekindergarten (.63) (.587 (.75) 1.5 3 1.5 11. Kindergarten (.91) (.87) (.91) 2.5 1 , 2.5 13. Reading (.96) (.97) (.96 2 3 1 21. Modern mathematics (.80) (.78) (.83) 2 l 3 27. Program for the gifted (.85) (.86) (.83) 105 3 105 32. Modern dancing (.49) (.45) (.49) 1.5 1.5 3 34. Foreign languages (.77) (.77) (~73) Sum of rank orders 15 20.5 17.5 Rank by sum 1 3 2 The DOC candidates ranked second overall in the mag— nitude of their ratings. They ranked first in rating two items—-9, prekindergarten program, and 21, modern mathe— matics; they were tied with the seniors for top ranking with ;_ the seniors on two items-—ll, kindergarten program and 32, modern dancing. These students ranked second in rating item 8, art education and tied for second with the seniors in rating item 13, reading. The MA candidates were third among the three classes of respondents. These respondents ranked first in their ratings of itemILL reading, and item 27, program for gifted students; they were tied for first with the seniors in rat— ing item 34, foreign language instruction. Their one second place ranking came on item 1, natural science. They were third on the other five activities. The composite Opinion ratio scores were extremely close on eight of the items. That is, .05 units or less separated the highest and lowest composite Opinion ratio scores. Only on item 9, prekindergarten program, did the difference exceed this. There were .17 units between the highest and lowest scores. Table 11 presents the composite opinion ratio scores attained by the members of the major fields. Again the groups'are ranked by their CORSs. The elementary education majors’rated the nine in- structional activities the highest. They gave the highest overall ratings on seven of the items. They ranked third in their total categories of ratings on two activities: item 1, natural science and item 34, foreign languages. 50 Table ll.--Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on instructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs' figures above par- entheses signify rank orders) A__* Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 3 1 2 1. Natural science (.89) (.95) (.90) l 2 3 8. Art (.80) (.73) (.72) l 3 ‘ 2 9. Prekindergarten (.68) (.51) (.64) l 3 2 11. Kindergarten (.93) (.81) (.88) l 3 2 13. Reading (.98) (.91) (.97) l 2: 3 21. Modern mathematics (.84) (.79) (.72) l 2 3 27. Program for the gifted (.87) (.85) (.81) l 2 I 3 32. Modern dancing (.48) (.47) (.46) 3 l 2 34. Foreign languages (.75) (.78) (.77) Sum of rank orders 13 19 22 Bank by sum 1 2 3 On the nine instructional activities the secondary education majors gave the second highest overall ratings. Their ratings of two activities were the highest: item 1, 51 natural science, and item 34, foreign language instruction. This group ranked second in rating four of the activities and third on three items. The lowest group in overall rating of the activities was the educational administration majors. These respond— ents did not rank first in their ratings of any of the items. The second and third rankings were distributed among four activities each. The CORSs were not as close together as had been when the comparison was made of the respondents grouped as classes. On three items——9, prekindergarten program; 11, kindergarten program; and 21, modern mathematics-—the difference between the highest and lowest CORSs exceeded .12 or more units. gggmination of the Hypotheses. The hypotheses are examined in the light of the findings about the instruc— tional activities. Hypothesis 1. This hypothesis was not confirmed as only three activities were selected by 50% or more of the students as being imperative. These were: teaching natural sciences, providing a kindergarten program, and teaching reading skills. Hypotheses 2 and 3. These hypotheses were not con— firmed because both the DOC candidates and the seniors reached criterion ratings on three activities each and not the former group alone as hypothesized. Thus, also, the seniors did not reach criterion ratings on the least number 52 of activities as hypothesized. Hypothesis 4. This hypothesis was refuted by the results. Both the elementary education majors and secondary education majors rather than the educational administration majors achieved criterion ratings in more activities--three each--as compared to two for the administration group. Hypothesis 5. This hypothesis was disproven. The data indicated that the educational administration majors rather than the secondary education majors reached consensus least often on the activities in the present category. Hypotheses 6 and 7. The data also refuted these hypotheses. The DOC candidates did not gave the highest overall ratings to the activities. Instead, the seniors' opinions of the activities were at the highest level among the three classes, thereby, disproving the hypothesis that the students at the lowest class level would hold the lowest Opinions about the desirability of the activities in the present category. Hypotheses 8 and 9. Both hypotheses were disproven. The elementary education majors rather than the educational administration majors gave the highest Opinion ratings to the nine activities. Furthermore, the administration group were lowest in their opinions rather than the secondary majors as had been hypOthesized. Noninstructional Activities. There are four activities in this category. Table 12 shows how the respondents as g 53 On. mm. mm. mm. Om. so. Om. Ho. moow>nmm wcfl nammcsoo was mocmvfiso .mH mm. mm. mm. am. am. om. mo. mm. mascommp now :OHpmosno moa>nmmusH .ea 00. oo. oo. oo. 00. no. mo. «0. mmmstogo spansEEoo .s 00. oo. oo. oo. 00. ea. 5H. 0H. :Oflpmosvo . . HOOSom zpficsssoo .m .ea «wm .omm .Emam .ea .em .omm .Emam .omm .Emam mmapa>apoa ampeeaeeeo eon mmameaeemo a: mtoaemm Apcoo Mom nH wonswflmv muamfim genes ucw mommmao Laws» on wcfienooom seasonw mummUSpm >2 mofipw>wpom quOfiposppmcwcoq mo mmcflpwn coasfimo suowopmo m>wpmnmasHuu.mH magma 54 members of classes and major fields rated these activities in the imperative response category. On two of the activities—-item 5, community education and item 7, community chorus——none of the groups of respond- ents achieved consensus. In fact, only the respondents from four groups gave any consideration to item 5 in the impera- tive category rating: senior elementary education (10%); senior secondary education (17%); MA elementary education (14%); and DOC educational administration (6%). Portions of three groups rated item 7 as an imperative as follows: senior elementary education (2%); senior secondary education (8%); and, MA elementary education (5%). 0n item 14, in-service education for teachers, consen- sus was achieved by three of the eight groups: MA elementary education (59%), DOC elementary education (63% , and DOC educational administration (63%). All but two of the eight groups reached consensus in designating item 15, guidance and counseling services, as absolutely necessary in the public schools. The six groups to achieve consensus were: senior elementary (61%) and secondary (50%) education; MA elementary (64%) and secondary (50%) education; and, D00 elementary education (75%) and educational administration (50%). The respondents who did not were the MA educational administration majors (35%) and the DOC secondary education majors (33%). 55 To recapitulate, the frequencies of consensus ratings by the classes and major fields of the noninstructional activities were distributed as follows: senior elementary education (1); senior secondary education (1); MA elementary education (2); MA secondary education (1); MA educational administration (0); DOC elementary education (2); DOC sec- ondary education (0); and DOC educational administration (2). In Table 13 the ratings in the "imperative category are presented according to the classes in which the respond— ents were enrolled. Both item 5, providing community school education, and item 7, sponsoring and encouraging community choruses, were rated low as imperatives. Eleven per cent of the seniors, 6% of the MA candidates and 3% of the DOC candidates designated item 5 as an imperative. For item 7 the ratings in this single response category were: seniors (3%); MA candidates (2%); and, DOC candidates (0%). Only the DOC candidates achieved consensus on item 14, in—service education for teachers. On item 15, guidance and counseling services, all three groups achieved consensus in their designations for the imperative category. In summary, the classes achieved consensus ratings on the noninstructional activities as follows: seniors (1); MA candidates (1); and DOC candidates (2). 56 I Table 13.--Imperative category Opinion ratings of noninstruc- tional activities by students grou ed according to their classes (figures in per cent . MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 5. Community school education .11 .06 .03 7. Community choruses .03 .02 .00 14. In—service education for teachers .33 .43 .57 15. Guidance and counseling services .59 .51 .53 Table 14 presents the "imperative" category rating of the noninstructional activities by the respondents grouped according to their major fields. Table l4.--Imperative category opinion ratings of noninstruc- tional activities by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) L + fit —_‘-'w ‘_- w *7 —___—— _“‘ t— alementary Secondary Educational' Activities Education Education administration 5. Community school education .10 .07 .03 7. Community choruses .03 .03 .OO 14. In-service education for teachers .47 .23 .45 15. Guidance and counsel- ing services .63 .47 .42 57 None of the three groups—~elementary education, secondary education, and educational administration--reached consensus on items 5, 7, and 14; respectively; community school education, community choruses, and in-service educa— tion. Items 5 and 7 were rated especially low as activities in the imperative category. On item 14, elementary education and educational administration majors were close to achieving consensus as 47% and 45% of them, respectively, rated it in the imperative category. The response rate (39%) of the seniors Offset the criterion rating achieved by both the MA candidates (59%) and DOC candidates (63%). The educa- tional administration group could have achieved consensus rating but for the 29% response rate of the MA candidates nullifying the 63% rating of the DOC candidates. Only the elementary education majors showed consensus in designating item 15, guidance and counseling services, as an imperative. The secondary education and educational administration majors were short of reaching agreement at the 50% level by three and eight percentage points, respec- tively. In recapitulation, the respondents grouped into their major fields achieved frequencies of consensus ratings in the imperative category on noninstructional activities as follows: elementary education (1); secondary education (0); and edu- cational administration (0). Additional agreement, of sorts, 58 was reached on two activities in that they were given uni- formly low ratings of the imperative category of response. That is, there was, in effect, agreement that items 5 and 7 were not imperative. Table 15 shows the way in which the respondents, by classes and major fields, ranked according to the composite Opinion ratio scores attained on the noninstructional ac- tivities. Again, the details develop a perspective for the two tables which follow. The intragroup consistency as guaged by rank place— ments was much higher for these noninstructional activities than for the instructional. The rank placements of four groups ranged between two places: senior elementary educa— tion, MA educational administration, DOC secondary educa- tion, and DOC educational administration. The DOC elementary majors' rank placements ranged between five places and the MA secondary education majors' between six. Ranging the maximum seven places in rank were the senior secondary ‘ majors and the MA elementary majors. On the basis of the magnitude of the composite Opinion ratio scores on the noninstructional activities the groups were ordered as follows: (1) DOC administration majors, (2) DOC elementary education majors, (3) senior ele- mentary education majors, (4) senior secondary education majors, (5) MA elementary education majors, (6) MA secondary H h N w o m a m 85m an xcmm m.mH MN ad hm m.mH m.mH ma m.¢H whovho Mcmh Ho Edm Amw.v Asw.v Amm.v Amw.v Ami.“ «no.2 Amm.v Aao.v mooa>nem mcaamw o, a «.0 m.a w m.p m.H m m 12500 cam wonmvfisu .mH 5 Aam.v flow.v Amm.v flow.v Amm.v Aom.v Aoo.v Amm.v . cowpmodcm m m.© H m.o a m m m moa>tmman .eH Aoo.v Amo.v Amm.v Aem.v AMm.v Ame.v An©.v Aao.v mmmSLOSO spflssesoo .n a m m o s m H m AHB.V Amo.v Amo.v Amo.v Amo.v Aom.v Amh.v AHB.V nowpmoswm m.m w m.o m.© m m H m.m Hoomom apwcsssoo .m .v< .Um .oom .smam .v< .em .me .smHm .omm .soam mmfipflsapo< 88338 08 mmpaeaeemo as 1 9828 I Ahmuuo xcwn hmwcwwm memoSpamhmm m>onw monswam “mmmoo zmwcwflm mommnpsonmm cw moaswfimv mcdowm wOnmE cam mmmmmao nflmnp op wcHOpOOOw womsonm mpcmvSpm an mmwp ufl>flpow HmQOHpOSmecHsoc :o nacho xqwn cam menoom OHpmn :oflawao opflmoasooun.mfl wands 60 education majors, (7) DOC secondary education majors, and (8) MA administration majors. Note that the two classes of educational administration majors are most dissimilar in their ratings of the activities as compared under the present method. Table 15 presents the rank order of the classes based on the composite Opinion ratio scores computed for the non- instructional activities. Table 16.--Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on noninstructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs' figures above paren- theses signify rank order) ‘ I'LL D O C Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 5. Community school 1 2 3 education (.71) (.69) (.61) l 3 2 7. Community choruses (.61) (.52) (.60) 14. In-service education 3 2 l for teachers - (.78) (.85) ' (.89) 15. Guidance and counsel— 1 2.5 2.5 ing services (.90) (~89) (.89) Sum of rank orders 6 9.5 8.5 Rank by sum 1 3 2 Seniors gave the highest opinion ratings to three of the four activities in this category. These were in item 5, 61 community school education; item 7, community choruses; and, item 15, guidance and counseling services. The only activity for which their overall opinion was the lowest was item 14, in-service education for teachers. Note that Table 14 on page 56 shows that while the elementary education majors attained a CORS of .82 the secondary education majors' CORS was .60, the lowest among the eight subgroups of students. This depressed the seniors' score. However, the seniors still held the highest opinions on the nonin- structional activities. _ Doctor's degree candidates ranked second in their overall ratings of these activities. The one activity on which they ranked first was item 14, in-service education for teachers. Master's degree candidates were third in their overall ratings of these activities. The magnitude of the CORSs were, on the whole, rela- tively close together. In fact, the widest difference be- tween the highest and lowest CORSs on any given item was .11 units on item 14. Table 17 analyzes the opinions of the respondents grouped into their major fields. The three major fields of respondents differed very little in their overall opinion ratings of item 5, community school education, and item 7, community choruses. The difference between the highest and lowest CORSs was .03 62 .--Composite opinion ratio scores and rank order on noninstructional activities achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above par- entheses signify rank orders Elementary Secondary Educational ivities Education. ‘Education Administration unity school 2 2 3 ication (.70) (.71) (.68) 2.5 ' 1 2.5 inity choruses (.57) (.59) (.57) arvice education 1.5 3 1.5 r teachers (.85) (.74) (.85) ance and counsel- 1 2 3 3 services (.92) (.87) (.85) ink orders 7 7 10 sum 105 105 3 lower indicative of very convergent opinions. 1 item 7, the overall rating of the elementary edu- ajors was noticeably depressed by the low (.49) :he MA candidates. 1 item 14, in-service education for teachers, the rating of the secondary education majors was dimin- the .60 CORS of the seniors; the MA candidates and .dates had considerably higher CORSs, .85 and .80 rely. 63 The groups ranked overall on the four activities as : (l & 2) elementary education and secondary educa- jors, tied; and (3) educational administration majors. Examination of the Hypotheses. The hypotheses will ed with the results obtained from analysis of student 5 about noninstructional activities. Hypothesis 1. This hypothesis was refuted as the y of the students selected only one of the four ies as being imperative for the public schools. Hypothesis 2. This hypothesis was confirmed by the didates' achieving consensus ratings on two of the ies as compared to one each by the other two classes. Hypothesis 3. This hypothesis was not confirmed be- .he seniors and the MA candidates both were equally achieving criterion ratings least Often——once.. Hypotheses 4 and 5. These hypotheses were refuted as [cational administration majors did not achieve any .on ratings on the activities in the present group. a seniors, rather than being lowest in this factor .ghest with their criterion rating in one activity. Hypotheses 6 and 7. Both hypOtheses were disproven. 1iors, rather than the DOC candidates give the highest 3 to the activities in the present categOry. And the iidates instead of the seniors held the lowest opinions the activities under discussion. 64 Hypotheses 8 and 9. Both hypotheses were refuted. Icational administration majors did not give the highest 5 to the activities as had been hypothesized. This 1e by both the elementary and secondary education . In fact, the educational administration majors 1e lowest opinions about these activities. Vocational Education Activities. There are six ac- :s in this category of imperatives. Note that two :e——item 29, distributive education and item 31, co— .ve office practice——are actually component programs item 6, vocational education. Table 18 presents an analysis by class and curricula "imperative" category ratings of vocational education ies. Among the six activities, criterion ratings occurred ten on item 6, vocational education. 'The groups that red this activity to be an imperative were: senior cy education majors; MA secondary education majors :ational administration majors; and DOC educational .ration majors. In contrast, the opinion ratings rd for item 29, distributive education and item 31, ive office practice, were the lowest in this entire . No respondent among three groups——senior secondary, entary and secondary——regarded item 29 as an impera— ivity. None of the DOC elementary and secondary I 65 ma. 5H. mm. em. Nd. om. nH. NH. mqflnflmnpms 62m mzflcflmhp nmsoasmz .mm 00. oo. oo. oo. ma. mo. 5H. mo. weapomna mOfiwmo m>apmnedooo .Hm oo. oo. 00. NH. so. so. 00. OH. scapaoeem m>apsnatpmaa .om ma. mm. mm. mm. we. om. ma. um. mhmnommp wcflcflmppmm .mm mm. NH. mo. em. mm. mm. am. we. moqmvflsw HmsOproo> .mN mm. mm. mm. as. so. Om. cm. es. soapaoeem Haeoapaoo> .o .U< .Um .oom hWMIwcm .omm .EmHm .omm .Emam mmwpfl>flpo< mapaeaeemo son mmpmeaeeao <2 mtoagam 66 >elieved that item 31 was abSolutely necessary for .ic schoOls to provide. )nly two groups, the MA elementary education majors DOC elementary education majors, reached consensus on item 23, vocational guidance. )n both item 28, retraining vocational education s, and item 35, providing manpower training and re- ; programs, none of the respondent groups achieved 15. This activity is closely related to item 14, Lee education for teachers, which was analyzed in the ructional group. It is recalled that three groups 1 criterion ratings on that item. Thus, it appears 3 students consider in-service education specifically chers of vocational education subjects to be much less at. To summarize, the following frequencies of consensus ratings in the imperative response category were on vocational education activities: senior elementary on (0), secondary education (1); MA elementary educa- ), secondary education (1), educational administra— ); DOC elementary education (1), secondary education d educational administration (1). Table 19 analyzes the imperative opinion ratings of nal education activities as expressed by students 5 members. 67 ?.——Imperative category opinion ratings of vocational education activities by students grouped accord— ing to their classes (figures in per cent) MA DOC ;ivities Seniors Candidates Candidates {tional education .48 .51 .47 [tional guidance .43 .41. .40 'aining teachers .33 .35 .20 ,ributive education .08 .10 .03 verative office ‘ ~actice .10 .08 .03 >ower training and :training .13 .33 .17 (mong the six activities only one, providing voca- education, was selected by 50% or more of the respond— the MA degree class. Both the seniors and DOC can— were close to minimal criterion ratings being, respec— 2% and 3% short. {hile item 23, vocational guidance, did not receive [3 level rating as an imperative, the attitudes of ts members toward this activity was relatively pos— The ratings were all in the low 40's. )n item 28, retraining teachers of vocational edu— iUbjeCtS, the ratings were no higher than the 35% mark m candidates. 68 : was evident in the preceding Table 18 that the if item 29, distributive education program, and item erative office practice program, were so low that under reclassified groupings of the respondents L appreciably alter the distribution of ratings. clearly shows that the highest ratings by classes exceed 10% in both activities. :em 35, concerning manpower training and retraining , was not rated high by any of the three groups. 3 out of three of the MA candidates felt that this nperative activity, only about one out of seven of >rs and one out of six of the DOC candidates ex- Like opinions. > recapitulate, criterion ratings were achieved by >ndents as follows: seniors (0), MA candidates (1), :andidates (0). 1e imperative category response designations made .onal education activities by the students in the ior fields are presented in Table 20. rem 6, vocational education, was designated by 53% :condary education majors as an imperative activity. 'ating by the MA educational administration majors Ligh enough to complement the 56% rating of the DOC 'ation majors. Thus, the administration majors fell criterion rating by two percentage points. 69 .--Imperative category opinion ratings of vocational education activities by students grouped according to their major fields(figures in per cent) Elementary Secondary Educational tivities Education Education Administration tional education .47 .53 .48 tional guidance .52 .27 .30 aining teachers .37 .30 .21 ributive education .09 .03 .09 erative office actice .06 .13 .06 ower training and training .20 .27 .18 nly the elementary majors with a 52% rating showed 5 that item 23, vocational guidance, was an impera- he 37% rating of the elementary majors was the highest item 28, retraining teachers of vocational education . Again, it is apparent that the respondents saw a ce between this item and number 14, in—service edu— Or teachers. n item 29, distributive education, and item 31, co— e office practice, there was strong agreement, in that these were not absolutely necessary for the chools to provide. 70 TC) summarize, the respondents grouped into the three fielxis showed consensus ratings on the following num- .. L eactivities: elementary education (1), secondary ion (1), and educational administration (0). Table 21 shows the composite opinion ratio scores on cational education activities obtained by the classes .jor fields. An examination of the intragrOup place rankings shows ;he least range, three places,occurred within the MA iary education majors. With a difference of four 3 in rank were: senior elementary and secondary majors, ministration majors and D00 elementary majors. The MA ntary majors and the DOC secondary and administration 5 had a difference of six places within their rank ments. The groups ranked as follows on the basis of the sum ink orders: (1) MA secondary majors, (2) DOC elementary 3, (3) DOC administration majors, (4) MA administration cs, (5) DOC secondary majors, (6 & 7) senior elementary rs and MA elementary majors, and (8) senior secondary rs. The two most divergent groups, thus, were the MA ndary majors and the senior secondary majors. Table 22 shows the compositive opinion ratio scores Ihe<flasses' overall ratings of the vocational education .vities. 71 m m N a H m.o m m.© 85m an xcdm w.mm m.mm w.mH m.mm OH 0m 5m 0m mnmuno mama mo sum Aon.v Aom.v Ams.v Aom.v Amm.v Abo.v Aos.v Amm.v mchHmnpmp use . m.m N m m.m H s o m meaeaatp tmzoaeea .mm Aos.v Aom.v Aou.v Amn.v Anm.v Amm.v Am©.v Ahm.v OOHpowna m.m m.m m.m N H m o N mOHmmo ®>Hpmhmgooo .Hm AHN.V Ano.v Amo.v Ham.v Amn.v Amm.v Amm.v Awm.v COHpmosUm H a m . m. m a m o a>apsnatpmam .mm Aw©.v “Hm.v Amw.v AH5.V Awm.v Amh.v Amm.v ANN.V mkogommp s m m o H a m m mfifimtpom .wm Am©.v Am0.v Amm.v A©©.v Amm.v Rom.v Awn.v Aew.v ooswUst n m H 0 d N m m HmGOproo> .mm Amw.v Amm.v Amm.v Anw.v Amo.v Ams.v .mw.v Amm.v sOHpmoseo N m.m m.m m H m S 5 HMGOproo> .0 .U¢ .Um .flwm .EmHm .U< .Um .omm .EmHm .omm .EmHm mOHpH>Hpo< mmpaeaeemo ooa mapaeaeeao <2 whoaeam . . 72 ——Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on vocational education activities achieved by stu- dents grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above the parentheses signify rank orders) MA DOC 'ities Seniors Candidates Candidates rional 3 2 l Lcation (.80) (.83) (.85) ;iona1 guidance 1.5 3 1.5 (.83) (.78) (.83) 3 l 2 lining teachers (.69) (.75) (.73) ributive 3 2 1 erative Office 3 2 1 actice (.59) (.64) (.70) awer training 3 2 1 i retraining (.59) (.74) (.76) ank orders 16.5 12 7.5 sum 3 2 1 he DOC candidates give the highest overall opinion to the six activities. These respondents ranked giving higher overall ratings to these items: 6, a1 education; 29, distributive education; 31, coop- Office practice; and 35, manpower training and re- ;programs. They were tied with the seniors for rating on item 23, vocational guidance. They were 73 n rating item 28, retraining teachers of vocational n subjects. On item 23, this group's rating was by the .93 CORS of the elementary majors. The CORS 28 reflects the effect of-the .68 CORS of the edu- administrators on the .83 CORS of the elementary nd the .81 CORS of the secondary majors. anking second overall were the MA candidates. These ranked highest on one item, 28, retraining teachers. ked second on four activities (6, 29, 31, and 35) d on one (23). The CORS on item 6 was diminished extent by the .75 level of the elementary majors' rating. On item 31, the .52 CORS of the elementary ffset the levels reached by the other two subgroups: y education (.77) and educational administration he seniors, who ranked third overall, tied with the idates in giving the highest rating to item 23, vo- education. They ranked third on the other five this category. The only items in which the differ- the CORSs of the elementary and secondary majors .10 units were numbers 28 and 35. able 23 shows the distribution of the composite ratio scores attained by the students grouped into jor fields. he secondary education majors gave the highest ratings to the six activities. Their CORSs were 74 3.-—Composite opinion ratio scores and rank order on vocational education activities achieved by stu— dents grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; fi ures above the parentheses signify rank orders? Elementary Secondary Educational ivities Education Education Administration ational 3 1.5 1.5 ducation (.78) (.87) (.87) ational 1 2 3 uidance (.86) (.77) (.75) Training 2 l 3 .eachers (.73) (.75) (~58) stributive 3 2 1 education (.59) (.64) (.65) >perative office 3 1 2 aractice (.59) (.71) (.65) 1power training 3 1 J 2 and retraining (.61) (.77) (.76) rank orders 15 8.5 12.5 y sum 3 1 2 ,— t on three activities (items 28, 31, and 35) and were h as the CORS of the administration majOrs on item 6, onal education. This group ranked second highest on 23 and 29. On item 23, the magnitude of the CORS re— ;the depressing effect of the .63 CORS of the DOC mryeducation majors on the .78 CORS of the seniors m .82 CORS of the MA candidates. On item 28, the same 75 condition is noted; the seniors' CORS was .58 as contrasted with the MA candidates' .88 and the DOC candidates' .81 00335. And on item 29, the .52 CORS of the seniors depressed the .75 CORS of the MA candidates and the .67 CORS of the DOC candidates. The educational administration majors ranked second in their overall rating of these activities. They ranked first on item 29, distributive education, and tied for first on item 6, vocational education. This group was second on items 31 and 35, and third on items 23 and 28. The MA can- didates' CORS of .59 on item 29 depressed the CORS of .71 of the DOC candidates. The elementary education majors were third in rank. These students were first in their rating of item 23, voca- tional guidance. They ranked second on item 28 and third on items 6, 29, 31 and 35. The seniors' rating in this group of students lowered the combined CORSs on’two items, 31 and 35. Examination 9; the Hypotheses. The findings pertain- ing to student Opinions about vocational education activities will be used to examine the hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. This hypothesis was refuted in that in none of the activities did the students come to majority agreement in their Opinion responses in the imperative category. 76 Hypotheses 2 and 3. There was no support for either of the hypotheses. The MA candidates by reaching criterion rating in one activity ranked above the DOC candidates of whom it had been hypothesized would reach criterion ratings most often. The seniors were thus, also, not the group to reach criterion rating least Often as hypothesized. Hypotheses 4 and 5. Both hypotheses again were re- futed. The administration majors instead of reaching con- sensus most often did not reach this status even once on ‘these activities. Furthermore, the secondary education Inajors, rather than achieving criterion ratings least often, Inere tied with the elementary education majors in achieving rnajority agreement most Often, in this case once. Hypotheses 6 and 7. Both hypotheses were confirmed. The DOC candidates gave the highest overall ratings to the 'vocational education activities. And the seniors' opinion Iwatings of these activities were the lowest among the three groups . Hypotheses 8 and 9. Both hypotheses were refuted. qule secondary education majors rather than the educational administratiOn majors gave the highest overall ratings to t}h3 activities. Thus, also, the elementary majors and not tlle secondary majors held the lowest opinion ratings of trka activities in the present group. , 77 Findings About the "Other" Activities Activities Concerning thg Disadvantaged. In this category there were nine activities. Table 24 shows the percentage distribution of the imperative category of opinion ratings made by the students grouped according to their classes and majors. On item 2, prekindergarten program, criterion ratings were achieved by senior secondary majors (67%), DOC element- ary majors (50%), and DOC administration majors (56%). The other group ratings did not fall below the 32% level except ‘that of the MA educational administration majors of whom only 6% felt that a prekindergarten program Was absolutely Iiecessary for disadvantaged children. The MA and DOC elementary education groups both. actfieved consensus ratings on item 12, grouping students iTLexibly for instruction. None of the DOC secondary majors tdiought that this was an imperative. On item 17, reducing de facto segregation, 63% of the IXDC administration majors thought that this activity was absolutely necessary. Other than the 45% rating made by tlhe Nm.e1ementary majors the other groups' ratings were ““1011 lower, the lowest being the zero percentage rating made by the DOC secondary majors. None of the groups achieved criterion ratings on 1133111 18, providing field trips for students. Once again, 78 mm. NH. Om. 4N. mm. 40. mm. mm. m.MOHmmasoe wonmvHsO .Oe mm. NH. mm. NH. mm. me. 00. mm. msmxm HmoHeoz .Om mm. NH. mm. OO. mm. mm. OO. NN. PHOHomcsoo 080: .Om mH. mm. mm. mH. mm. mm. NH. Hm. wumwmxsmnp mosh .em Om. mm.. Om. NH. NH. Om. mO. Hm. mHmosmeu HchHpmosumonommm .Om ma. 00. mm. so. me. as. ea. Hm. agate eHmaa .wH mo. 00. MH. 4N. mo. me. mm. mm. GOHpmwmhmom opomm mo mosoom .NH Hm. 00. cm. NH. mm. mm. mm. mm. aanaxmam mOGOUSOm QsouO .NH mm. mm. cm. mo. me. am. no. em. amptawtoeeaxota .m .v< .Om .oom .SmHm .U¢ .cm .omm .EOHm .omm .SmHm . mmeH>Hpo< mmumchsmo OOO mmpmnHucmO a2 . mMOHnmm Apnea neg :H monstmv meHmHm genes one mommmHo namsp Op wnHenoOom emasonw mpnwwzum ma momma ease as masses eggs .3 mass egg mass assessmém 33 79 Jaot one student among the DOC secondary majors felt that 13his was an imperative activity for disadvantaged students. On item 20, providing psychoeducational diagnosis, t:he MA elementary majors (59%), DOC elementary majors (50%), sand DOC administration majors (50%), reached consensus. None of the groups achieved consensus on item 24, Iproviding free breakfasts; item 30, providing home counselors; sand item 36, providing medical examinations. None among the asenior secondary majors considered items 30 and 36 to be ab- ssolutely necessary for disadvantaged children. Criterion ratings were achieved on item 40, providing figuidance counselors, by these groups: senior elementary nnajors (53%), MA elementary majors (64%) and secondary majors (58%), and DOC elementary majors (50%). It is very evident that the ratings of all of the 5;tems were very disparate. The effect of this condition <311'the scores as they are regrouped by the classes and the <311rricula of the respondents will be analyzed in the dis- <=Iassion of the two tables to follow. To summarize, the groups achieved consensus ratings (311 the compensatory activities as follows: senior elementary Ihajors (1), senior secondary majors (1), MA elementary majors ( 3), MA secondary majors (1), MA administration majors (O), DOC elementary majors (4), DOC secondary majors (O), and D00 administration majors (3). 80 The analysis of activities for the disadvantaged rated as imperatives by the respondents grouped as class members is presented in Table 25. The DOC candidates achieved the minimum criterion rating on item 2, prekindergarten program for the disad- vantaged child. This occurred despite the fact that only 33% of the secondary majors felt that this was an imperative activity. The seniors' ratings were seven percentage points short of the minimum standard because, although 67% of the secondary majors regarded this as an imperative, only 36% of the elementary majors shared like Opinions. The MA candidates' 26% level reflected the lowering effect of the rating of the administration majors—-only 6% felt that this item was absolutely necessary. By referring to Table 6 on page 38, it is possible to <2ompare the classes' opinions regarding the provision of Iorekindergarten program in the public schools, in one case, €33r all children, the imperative category ratings were: Esseniors--10%, MA candidates-—12%, and DOC candidates—-27%. It!) the present case where prekindergarten is established f<>r disadvantaged children only, the ratings were: seniors-- 5+:35%, MA candidates--26%, and DOC candidates--50%. On both items 12, grouping students flexibly for :4tlstruction, and 17, reducing de facto segregation, the class 81 I filable 25.-~Imperative category Opinion ratings of activities concerning the disadvantaged by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 22. Prekindergarten .A3 .26 .50 JLZZ. Group students flexibly .36 .35 .30 3L17. Reduce de facto segregation .30 .29 .37 L].E§. Field trips .28 .29 .20 22(3. Psychoeducational diagnosis .26 .33 .47 231%. Free breakfasts .28 .24 .30 .:3(3. Home counselors .21 .21 .30 36. Medical examinations .28 .31 .27 40—0. Guidance counselors .1+8 .A9 .37 c>pinion ratings were close. On item 12, six percentage points Separated any two classes; on item 17, the difference was eight points. On item 12, the DOC candidates' rating level ‘V'éis reduced by the fact that none of the secondary majors hEidrated this as an imperative. Also on this item, the MA c361.11didates' rating could not be significantly altered even t”Slough 59% of the elementary majors had considered it an iImperative. On item 17, the DOC candidates' score primarily I‘GBJE'lects the uplifting effect of the 63% rating of the 82 administration majors on 13% mark of the elementary majors and the 072'» score of the secondary majors. Both the MA candidates' and the DOC candidates' rat- ings of item 18, providing field trips, were depreciated by one of their component subgroups. Among the MA candidates the 6% level of the administration majors negatively affected the #17:: score of the elementary majors and the AZ?!» ratio of the secondary majors. The DOC elementary majors' 38% Opinion rating and the administration majors' 19% score were depressed by the fact that none of the secondary majors regarded this activity as absolutely necessary. None of the classes achieved criterion ratings on item 20, providing psychoeducational diagnosis; item 24, providing free breakfasts; item 30, providing home counselors; and item 36, providing medical examinations for the dis- advantaged. The seniors and MA candidates just missed reaching Consensus on item 40, providing guidance counselors in Schools located in disadvantaged areas. Among the seniors the rating of the secondary majors (25%) offset that of the elementary majors (53%). The administration majors among the MA candidates, in rating this activity at the 21% level, lowered the 64% rating of the elementary majors and the 58% Score of the secondary majors. To recapitulate, consensus ratings were achieved on the compensatory education activities as follows: seniors (O), 83 IflA candidates (0) and DOC candidates (1). The activities concerning the disadvantaged, rated 618 imperatives by the students grouped in their major fields, Eire analyzed in Table 26. filable 26.-~Imperative category Opinion ratings Of activities concerning the disadvantaged by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) Elementary' Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration .2. Prekindergarten program .37 .50 .30 12. Group students flexibly .4h .23 .21 17. Reduce de facto ' ' segregation .34 .13 .A2 18. Field trips .34 .23 .12 23C). Psychoeducational diagnosis .Al .17 .30 234+. Free breakfasts .32 .27 .1h 30. Home counselors .27 .17 .18 36. Medical examinations .38 .17 .18 4.0. Guidance counselors .56 .37 .30 Only two groups reached consensus on any Of the nine acBtivities: the secondary majors on item 2, prekindergarten ecl‘ucation, and the elementary majors on item 40, guidance Q Ounselors. 81+ Comparison Of the rating of item 12, prekindergarten Iprogram, with an earlier item, prekindergarten (for all children), discussed as one Of the "instructional imperatives" :in Table 7, page 41, is in order. As a program for all,‘ ‘ _]prekindergarten instruction was rated as follows: elementary rnajors-—15%, secondary majors——7%, and administration majors—- 218%. In the present table prekindergarten instruction for 1:he disadvantaged was rated as follows: elementary majors-- :37%, secondary majors-—50% and administration majors——30%. frhe differences are readily apparent. A number Of the ratings were significantly affected lay the ratings Of the component classes which were repre- :3ented among the major fields. These will be discussed in ‘the following paragraphs. The ratings in two items were affected among the ele— rnentary majors. In both cases the seniors depressed the Iratings Of the other two classes. 0n item 12, the seniors' 336% rating lowered the criterion ratings Of the MA candidates ( 59%) and the DOC candidates (50%). On item 20; a 21% rating Clepressed the 59% mark of the MA candidates and the 50% score <>f the DOC candidates. I Among the secondary education majors two ratings were Eiffected. This group achieved criterion rating on item 2 Ibrimarily because of the contribution Of the seniors. These fistudents' 67% rating level Offset the rating Of the MA L‘ ' _f 85 candidates (h2%) and the DOC candidates (33%). On item 40, ‘bhe 58% rating of the MA candidates was depressed by the Inarks Of the seniors and the DOC candidates, 25% and 17%, respectively. Three ratings were affected among the educational aadministration majors. In all Of them the rating Of the MA «candidates greatly depressed the percentage scores. The 56% rating of the DOC candidates on item 2 was Offset by ‘the 6% rating Of the MA candidates. On item 17, the MA candidates' 24% rating reduced the effect Of the DOC can- (didates' 63% rating. And on item 20, the 12% rating Offset “the 50% rating. To summarize, the only groups to reach criterion :ratings were the secondary education majors on one activity eand the elementary education majors on one activity also. In Table 27 the composite Opinion ratio scores ar- Jranged by,classes and major fields are analyzed as they Ob- tlained for the activities concerning the disadvantaged. The most consistent intragroup rank placements were sshown by the DOC elementary majors with a range Of two places IDetween any two given rank placements. The next most con- esistent groups were the senior elementary majors and second- Eiry majors with ranges in rank placement Of three and four Illaces, respectively. Then followed the MA elementary majors Eind the DOC secondary majors, each with ranges in rank place- nnents Of six places. The MA secondary majors and administration 86 m a H a o N m m saw an acme mm 0.0m Om m.Nm o: n.0m m.0m H.Nm mpmnno xcmn no 55m Amo.v Ass.v Amm.v Aom.v Aom.v ANm.V nom.v Asm.v w u d m.m N H m.m m mLOHmm2500 mocmnflso .04 has.v Amm.v “om.v Amm.v “om.. “on.“ ANs.V Aam.v m.© N de a m.¢ m.@ w m memxm Hmofivmz .OM Asm.. Ams.v flow.v Aoo.v Amm.v “He.v Ams.v Ame.v a m.¢ m m N u m.4 m.e muoammCSOo meom .0m Amo.v nom.v Ams.v Aas.v .ms.v Aam.v Amo.v has.v h H d m.m m m.m m N mpmwmxmmnn mmhm .dN Ams.v hem.v Amm.v Aos.v «mo.v Amm.v Amm.v “as.v mamoawmae o N m m.¢ n H m m.q Hmcowpmosomonohmm .ON “om.v Ams.v “om.v Aso.v Amw.v Amm.v mos.v Amm.v m.¢ o m.e w m.a m.a s m mean» namae .ma Amw.v Aso.v Ams.v “so.v ANQ.V “as.v .mo.v Aso.v aoapmwonwmm H m.e m m.4 m N n m.: Opomm av museum .NH “om.v Ros.v Amm.v Amo.v “Ns.v Amm.v Ans.v nom.v sanaxoflm m n N w o H m a mQGOOSpm macho .NH .u< .UMhiuomm .Emam .U< .vM. .omm .Emam .ooMLinme mmwpfl>fipo< mopmvfiucmo com mmpmvflvcmo <2 mnowcmm Amnovno xsmn smacwflm mom nonpmmhmm m>onm monswfim "ammoo swwcwam mmmonpsmnmd cw amuswwmv muaowm nOnms cam mommmao nflmnp Op mcwnnooom consonw mpqOUSpm an vm>owsom vmwmpnw>ummwv map wqazumozoo moapfl>flpom no nacho xamn cam mmaoom QmeL newcwuo wuwmcaaoman.mw ¢~ams 87 majors and the DOC administration majors all ranged the max— imum seven places within each Of their group rankings. There was no consistent pattern in the comparative rank order place- 1nents of the groups. The ranking according to the CORSs Of the groups place 1zhem in this order: (1) D00 elementary majors, (2) MA ele- rnentary majors, (3) senior elementary majors, (A) DOC sec— <>ndary majors, (5) DOC administration majors, (6) MA second- éiry majors, (7) MA administration majors, and (8) senior ssecondary majors. In table 28 the composite Opinion ratio scores are ar- Jranged according to the class in which each student was en- rOlledo The doctoral candidates gave higher overall Opinion Iratings to the nine activities in this category. Their Isatings were highest in comparison to the other two groups <>n five of the activities: item 2, prekindergarten instruc- tDion; item 12, grouping students flexibly for instruction; istem l7, reducing de facto segregation; item 20, providing IDsychoeducational diagnostic services; and item 30, providing Ifixbme counselors. They ranked second in rating item 36, pro- viding medical examinations. 0n item 18, providing field t31‘ips, item 24, providing free breakfasts, and item 40, pro- viding guidance counselors, these students ranked last. The PaIlkings on each of the activities reflect the result of Steibility among the scores Of the component groups which ¥ 88 Table 28.-~Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on activities concerning the disadvantaged achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs' figures above parentheses signify rank orders) W —:— —:"‘"_— MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 2. Prekindergarten 2 3 1 (.80) (.74) (.87) 12. Group students flexibly 2 3 l (.80) (.78) (.83) 1?. Reduce de facto 3 2 l segregation (.66) (.69) (.80) 18. Field trips 1 2 3 (.80) (.79) (.77) 20. Psychoeducational 3 2 l diagnosis (.74) (.82) (.87) 2h. Free breakfasts 1 2 3 (.74) (.72) (.71) 3 0. Home counselors 2 3 l (.73) (.70) (.81) :36. Medical examinations 2.5 l 2.5 (.80) (.81) (.81) 1+0. Guidance counselors 2 l 3 (.86) (.87) (.82) Eium Of rank orders 18.5 19 16.5 PiankLby'sum 2 3 1 ‘ c0111prise the DOC candidates group rather than the depreciat- ing or appreciating effect of any Of the subgroups. 89 The seniors were second in the magnitude of the over- all ratings Of these activities concerning the disadvantaged. They gave the highest ratings tO item 18, providing field trips and item 2A, providing free breakfasts. They ranked second in rating five activities: item 2, prekindergarten program; item 12, grouping Students flexibly; item 30, pro- viding home counselors; item 36, providing medical examina— tions; and item 40, providing guidance counselors. These students were third in rating item 17, reducing de facto segregation. One of the rankings shows the effect Of one disparate score on the other. On item 20, the secondary majors' .55 CORS depreciated the .79 CORS Of the elementary majors. The MA candidates who ranked third overall gave the highest opinion ratings to items 36 and 40, providing medical examinations and providing guidance counselors, respectively. They ranked second on four activities: item 17, reducing de facto segregation; item 18, providing field trips; item 20, providing psychoeducational diagnostic services; and item 24, providing free breakfasts. On items 2, 12, and 30, these students ranked third. Two of the item rankings appear tO have been affected by the CORS Of one of the com- ponent groups among the MA candidates. On item 18, the .67 CORS which ranked last among the eight subgroups, depressed the .83 CORSs attained by both the elementary and secondary ¥ —,, 9O majors. On item 20, the seventh ranking .68 CORS of the secondary majors had a similar effect. The composite Opinion ratio scores were regrouped and ranked according to the major fields Of the respondents and presented in Table 29. Table 29.——Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on activities concerning the disadvantaged achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 1 3 2 2. Prekindergarten (.82) (.75) ' (.76) l2. Group students 1 3 2 flexibly (.83) (.73) (.77) 17. Reduce de facto 2 3 l segregation (.69) (.6A) (.78) 18. Field trips 1 2.5 2.5 (.82) (.76) (.76) 20. Psychoeducational 1.5 3 _ 1.5 diagnosis (.83) (.67) (.83) 2A. Free breakfasts l 2 3 (.75) (.71) (.68) 30. Home counselors 2 l 3 ' (.73) (.77) (.72) 36. Medical exams 2 3 l (.80) (.77) (.82) #0. Guidance counselors l 2 3 (.88) (.83) (.82) Sum of rank orders 12.5 22.5 18.5 Rank by sum 1 3 2 91 The elementary education majors gave the highest rat- ings to these compensatory activities. In comparison with the other two groups the students in this group rated six activities highest. These were: item 2, prekindergarten program; item 12, flexible grouping of students; item 30, providing home counselors; item 36, providing medical exam- inations; and item no, providing guidance counselors. Ex- amination of the CORSs Of the component groups or classes show that the high ratings of the activities made by the elementary majors was the result of convergent ratings. That is, the group's rating Of a given activity was not signifi— cantly elevated or depressed by the Opinions Of a component class. Ranking second were the educational administration majors. The activities on which these students rated highest were: item 17, reducing de facto segregation; item 20, pro- viding psychoeducational diagnostic services; and item 36, providing medical examinations. Their ratings of the second rank were: item 2, prekindergarten program; item 12, group- ing students flexibly; and item 18, providing field trips. Their ratings Of item 24, providing free breakfasts; item 30, providing home counselors; and item 50, providing guidance counselors were the lowest. Analysis by gross comparison Of the magnitude of CORSs indicate that on four items the admin- istration majors' rating was depressed by the CORS Of the f 92 MA candidates. The data can be found in Table 26. On item 2, the DOC candidates' CORS Of .89, ranking highest, was depreciated by the .6L CORS, ranking eighth, Of the MA can- didates. On item 12, the MA candidates' eighth ranking CORS of .68 affected the DOC candidates' third ranking CORS Of .86. On item 18, the .80 CORS contribution of the DOC can- didates to the administration majors' score was reduced by the .67 CORS of the MA candidates. Finally, on item 30, the .60 CORS of the MA students affected the .84 CORS Of the DOC candidates. The secondary majors ranked lowest in their overall Opinion ratings Of the activities for the disadvantaged. The single.highest rating was on item 30, providing home counselors. On two items, it appears that the rating Of the seniors lowered the CORSs of the secondary majors. 0n item 2A, the seniors' CORS Of .63 was very dissimilar from the CORSs Of the other two component classes: the MA can- didates' .75 and the DOC candidates' .80. And on item 36, the seniors' .72 CORS, while not very disparate from the .80 CORS Of the MA candidates and the .83 CORS of the DOC can— didates, nevertheless significantly affected the collective rating because of the high convergence of the CORSs of all of the other groups. Examination of thg Hypotheses. The data regarding activities pertaining to the disadvantaged will be used to test the hypotheses. 93 Hypothesis 1. This hypothesis is not applicable be- cause the activities under discussion were not in the "im— perative" category selected from Imperatives in Education. Hypothesis 2. This hypothesis is confirmed in that the DOC candidates with a criterion rating in one activity was the only group to do so. Hypothesis 3. This hypothesis was not confirmed as both the seniors and MA candidates did not reach criterion ratings. It had been hypothesized that the seniors would be the lowest in this regard. Hypothesis A. This hypothesis was refuted because the educational administration majors did not achieve super- iority in the number of criterion ratings which they made. Hypothesis 5. This hypothesis was also disproven as the secondary education majors did not achieve consensus ratings least Often but, in fact, tied for most cases Of majority agreements with the elementary education majors. Hypothesis 6. This hypothesis was confirmed as the DOC candidates did give the highest overall ratings to the activities pertaining to the disadvantaged. Hypothesis 7. This hypothesis was refuted because the MA candidates rather than the seniors gave the lowest overall Opinion ratings Of the activities in this group. Hypothesis 8. This hypothesis was not confinned. Instead Of the educational administration majors giving the 94 highest overall Opinion ratings, this was done by the ele- mentary education majors. A Hypothesis 9. This hypothesis was confirmed as the seniors did give the lowest opinion ratings to the activities in the present group. Activities Concergiggthe Meptally Retarded and Emotionally Disturbed. In this category there were only four activities. Table 30 presents the percentage ratings of the "imperative" category made by the various groups of students. Criterion ratings were achieved on item 10, providing classes for trainable mental retardates, by senior elementary majors (71%), and DOC secondary majors (67%) and administra- tion majors (50%). On item 25, providing classes for the emotionally disturbed, consensus Opinion ratings were reached by senior elementary majors (61%) and MA elementary majors (77%). Both item 37, providing work-study programs for edu- cable mental retardates and item 39, providing group therapy for parents of handicapped children, received ratings which were below 30%. None Of the DOC elementary majors considered item 37 as an imperative. The DOC elementary majors showed similar reactions on item 39. The difference in the magnitude of the ratings between the first two activities and the latter two activities are 5 0/ 00. 5H. 00. sN. NH. mN. mo. ON. mpmonma mom smegma» macaw .0m 2. oo. 2. 3. mm. mm. mo. mm. .mmseoe anemone humpmuxnoa .mm as. mm. mN. aN. me. E. mm. 8. 3:35pm eeeesemee aaaeeeee loam mom mommmao .mN Om. >0. mm. mm. N4. m4. mm. an. am: new mommmao .OH .va{.um .omm .smHm .wa .vm .omm .emHm .omm .Emam mmwpfl>wpo< mmpmvwvan oon mopmvmnmmo_sz mnowsmm l “ammo mom ma monswwmv muamflm memes one mommmao ewes» op weavnOoom vendonw mpcmcdpm he nonempmav haammowpoam new vecnmuoh haampmms map wcwmnoomoo mowpw>wpom HO mwmwpmn cowmwmo knowopmo m>wpmnmasHuu.0m wanes 96 very Obvious. While the reason for this phenomenon is not established it may well rest in the fact that the first two activities are much more well-established than the latter two. TO summarize, the criterion ratings achieved in this category Of activities are tabulated as follows: senior elementary majors (2);.MA elementary majors (1); DOC second- ary majors (1); and DOC administration majors (1). None Of the senior secondary majors, MA secondary majors, MA administration majors, and DOC elementary majors achieved consensus ratings. Table 31 analyzes the distribution of the "imperative" category ratings made by the respondents grouped into their classes. Table 31.--Imperative category Opinion ratings Of activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 10. Classes for MRT .64 .41 .50 25. Classes for emotionally disturbed students .56 .53 .37 37. Work—study program for MRE .20 .24 .10 ‘39. Group therapy for parents .18 .22 .07 97 The 64% rating of the seniors and-the 50% rating of the DOC candidates gave these classes criterion ratings on item 10, providing classes for MRT students. The seniors' percentage score was achieved because the 33% ratio Of the secondary majors did not seriously affect the elementary majors' ratio Of 71%. The DOC candidates reached the mini- mum criterion score because the elementary majors' 38% rating was compensated by the 67% ratio Of the secondary majors. 0n item 25, providing classes for the emotionally disturbed, the seniors (56%) and MA candidates (53%) reached consensus. In the case Of the seniors, again the elementary majors' rating (61%) Offset the secondary majors' rating (33%)., The MA candidates reached the criterion level solely because of the elementary majors' 77% rate was sufficient to compensate for the secondary majors' 42% rate and the ad- ministration majors' 29% rate. All of the ratings Of items 37 and 39 fell below the 25% level. TO recapitulate, criterion ratings were achieved as follows: seniors (2), MA candidates (1) and DOC candidates (1). . ’ The imperative category responses made by the students (grouped into their major fields are analyzed in Table 32. The elementary education majors were the Only respond- <3nts to achieve consensus in this category Of activities. 98 Table 32.-—Imperative category Opinion ratings Of activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) 7" r‘ - Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 10. Classes for MRT .61 .43 .42 25. Classes for emotionally disturbed students .62 .37 .36 37. Work-study program for MRE .23 .13 .14 39. Group therapy for parents .19 .13 .14 These students considered item 10, providing classes for MRT, and.item 25, providing classes for the emotionally disturbed, as imperative_activities. By referring back to Table 30 it is possible to examine the interrelationships Of the component group ratings. It is clear that on item 10, the elementary majors reached the criterion level solely because Of the ele- vating effect Of the seniors' rating on the rates Of the other classes. On this same item, it appears that the 67% rate Of the DOC secondary majors was not sufficient to com- pensate Of the seniors 33% rate and the MA candidates' 42% rate . 0n item 25, the elementary majors'criterion rating Ilargely reflects the influence Of the seniors' 61% rate 99 and the MA candidates' 77% rate because only 25% of the DOC candidates rated this activity as an imperative. Table 33 presents the class and major field rankings based on the CORSs Obtained on the activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed students. The intragroup rank differences fluctuated from a low Of two places to a high of six places. The differences occurred in this Order: two places-~senior secondary majors and DOC elementary majors; four places--MA administration majors; five places--MA elementary majors and DOC adminis- tration majors; and six placeSe-senior elementary majors, MA secondary majors, and D00 secondary majors. The table indicates the order in which the groups were ranked on an overall basis. This was: (1) MA ele- mentary majors, (2) MA administration majors, (3) MA second- ary majors, (4) senior elementary majors, (5) DOC secondary majors, (6) D00 administration majors, (7) DOC elementary majors, and (8) senior secondary majors. Table 34 presents the composite Opinion ratio scores attained by the students as class members when they rated these activities for the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed. The MA candidates gave higher overall ratings to the (activities in this category than did the other two classes. tPhese students gave highest ratings to three of the four 100 o m b N m H m 4 . as m. e3 xmmm m.ma m.ea m.HN ea m.ma NH 0N ea enmeeo asap mo sum nem.v nem.v Aoe.v AmQ.V ANN.V Ame.v Amm.v loo.v meeeeee m e m m N a e a toe aaeeeep macho .mm Ama.v Aes.v Ams.v Aom.v Aes.v Aoa.v Ame.v Ado.v mes toe m.e m.N m.e a m.N o a w asemone easemuaeoe .sm 8m; 8s; Rs; “if; Ame; Rm; :6; Km; 392153 3.383 m e o m e H m N -oee toe mmmmeao .mN nom.v Amo.v «we.v Ame.v ANe.V Aem.v Aoe.v Amm.v m a o m a e m N am: toe eemmeao .oa .ee .em .eem .Eeam .ea .ee .eem .Eeae .eemihEeae meaeaeepea meeeeaeeeu com meeeeaeeeo .es meoaeem 1‘ ) (It )' IF Amnmcno meme hwammwm mommnpmmnmm m>onm monswfim “mmmoo hummwwm monogamopwa aw mmusmfimv mvHOHm Aches new mommmao news» on wmwunooom vmasonw mQCOUSpm an oo>mazom nonempmwv kHHm:OHpOso new pmvhmpom hHHmpmms one wqwcnmosoo mmmpa>wpom no tonne meme new mmuoom canon moweflmo mpfimomsoonn.mm mwams Table 34.—-Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order On activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above prentheses signify rank orders) MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 10. Classes for MRT 1.5 3 1.5 (.85) (.82) (.85) 25. Classes for emotionally 2.5 l 2.5 disturbed students (.83) (.84) (.83) 37. Work—study program for 3 l 2 MRE (.61) (.75) (.73) 39. Group therapy for 2 l 3 parents (.65) (.72) (.57) Sum of rank orders 9 6 9 Rank by sum 2.5 l3 2.5 i W activities: item 25, classes for the emotionally disturbed; item 37, work-study program for MRE students; and item 39, group therapy for parents of handicapped children. They ranked third in rating item 10, classes for MRT students. There was no distinction between the seniors' and DOC candidates' ratings: they were tied in their overall rank order. The effect of the pivotal position that the senior elementary majors occupy is again apparent. 0n item 10, the fact that the seniors as a unit were able to achieve a tie for first in magnitude Of rating is attributable to the 102 offsetting effect of the elementary major's .89 CORS on the .70 CORS Of the secondary majors. The same phenomenon is manifested in item 25. Table 35 shows how the respondents as members of major fields rated the activities in the present category. Table 35.-~Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on activities concerning the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in paren- theses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 10. Classes for MRT l 3 2 (.87) (.74) (.82) 25. Classes for emotion- 1 3 2 ally disturbed stu- (.88) (.72) (.77) dents 37. Work-study program 3 2 e l for MRE (.65) (.71) (.76) 39. Group therapy for l 3 2 parents (.68) (.63) (.62) Sum Of rank orders 6 ll 7 Rank by sum 1 3 2 The elementary education majors gave the highest overall ratings to these activities. Their ratings were highest in three activities: item 10, classes for MRT students; item 25, classes for emotionally disturbed students; 103 and item 39, group therapy for parents Of handicapped chil- dren. The highest rating on item 10 resulted from the up- lifting effect Of the seniors' .89 CORS which ranked second among the eight groups shown in Table 32. Second in overall rating were the educational admin- istration majors. These students ranked first in rating item 37. This was achieved primarily because the .80 CORS Of the MA candidates strengthened the .73 CORS Of the DOC candidates. The same effect was apparent in the rating on item 39. Thus, the relationship wherein the ratings Of the Mm.candidates had acted as a depressant on the ratings Of the DOC candidates was reversed, for the first and second times only. The secondary majors wenethird in rank. It is inter- esting to note that on each Of the four activities in the present category the CORSs Of some two component classes were very close and dissimilar from the CORS of a third component class. This lack of convergence among all three scores at the higher end Of the ranks tended tO keep the secondary majors' CORS lower. Examination Of the Hypotheses. Eight of the nine hypotheses are examined in the light of the data pertaining to the activities concerning the mentally retarded and the emotionally disturbed. Hypothesis 1. Not applicable. 104 Hypotheses 2 and 3. Both.hypotheses were refuted by the findings. The DOC candidates did not achieve majority agreement.most Often as hypothesized. And rather than achieving the least number Of criterion ratings, the seniors achieved the most. Hypothesis 4. This hypothesis was not supported as the elementary education majors rather than the educational administration majors achieved majority agreement most Often. Hypothesis 5. This hypothesis was not confirmed. The secondary education majors did not achieve any criterion ratings but neither did the administration majors. Hypotheses 6 and 7. Both hypotheses were not con- firmed. The MA candidates not the DOC candidates held the highest overall Opinions Of the activities. The seniors and DOC candidates were tied insofar as the lowest Opinion ratings of the activities were concerned. Hypothesis 8. This hypothesis was refuted. Instead of the administration majors expressing thé highest Opinions the elementary majors did. Hypothesis 9. This hypothesis was confirmed as the secondary education majors did express lowest Opinions about the desirability Of the activities in the present group. Activities Concerning the School DrOpOut. There were only three activities in this group. Table 36 summarizes the responses in the imperative category by the classes and major fields of respondents. 105 se. mm. AN. ma. NH. mm. 0H. 5H. mN. mN. N4. bu. aN. mN. cm. mn—Ho mo. MN. .ea .ee .eem “swam moeeeeeeeo eon .ee .em ..eem .Eeam eeeeeaeeeo a: ( composcon one wmfimnoomoo mowpwpwpom «O m 00. on. mnm>mfimomnovos mom anemone spasms House: .oN mm. 0N. anemone humpmuxhoz .NN oo. mN. msmnmono Hmflooom .ma .omm .smam moapa>fipo¢ mkoaqmm 4' l‘ ) “ammo use ow monswwmv mvaowm nOnme com mommmao gamma op weavnooom common» mnemosum an some psoaonv on» HO madame coasmao hnowmpwo m>apmnoosHuu.om manna 106 Only the MA elementary majors achieved criterion ratings on any of the activities. These students gave such a rating to item 22, providing work-study program to lower the dropout rate, and item 26, providing mental health pro- gram for underachievers. The rest of the opinion ratings in the imperative category were otherwise fairly low. On item 19, special programs to reduce the dropout rate, the Opinion ratings ranged from a low of zero by the senior secondary majors to a high Of only 25% by the senior elementary majors and DOC elementary majors. The ratings ranged from the criterion level (50%) of the MA elementary majors to a low (13%) of the DOC administration majors on item 22, work—study program. On item 26, providing a mental health program for under- achievers, the lowest (0%) rating was again made by the senior secondary majors; the next highest to the MA elementary majors' consensus rating was the 44% rate of the DOC admin- istration majors. Table 37 presents the imperative category ratings of the activities concerning the reduction Of the dropout rate by the class members. The only class of respondents to achieve consensus on one Of the items was the MA candidates who accomplished this on item 26, providing a mental health program for under- achievers. As the data in Table 36 showed, this resulted primarily because of the elementary majors' 77% rate compensated 107 Table 37.--Imperative category Opinion ratings Of activities concerning the reduction Of the drOpout rate by students grouped according to their classes (figures in per cent) - MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 19. Special programs .20 .18 .20 22. WOrk-study program .28 .35 .20 26. Mental health program for underachievers .30 .53 .37 for the secondary majors' 42% rate and the administration majors' 29% rate. On item 22, the minimum criterion rating Of the elementary majors was not sufficiently high to com- pensate for the ratings of the other two component groups. Table 38 presents the imperative category ratings by major field members Of the activities pertaining to the reduc- _ tion Of the dropout rate. Table 38.--Imperative category Opinion ratings Of activities concerning the reduction Of the drOpout rate by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) .r— W‘— ~— Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 19. Special programs .24 .07 .18 220 work'StUdy program 03“. 027 018 26. Mental health program for underachievers .47 .23 .36 108 None of the groups achieved consensus ratings on this classification Of activities. The only near—criterion rat- ing was that of the elementary majors (47%). This resulted from the uplifting effect Of the MA candidates' 77% rate rather than the mutuality Of opinions among the elementary majors. The secondary majors'_rating Of item 26 reflected the depressing effect exerted by the zero rate of the seniors on the 42% rate Of the MA candidates and the 33% rate of the DOC candidates. Table 39 analyzes by class and major field the com- posite Opinion ratio scores computed for the activities in the present classification. Within the groups the differences in rank places ranged from one to six as follows: one place; MA elementary majors; two places--MA secondary majors; three places--DOC elementary majors and administration majors; four places-—MA secondary majors; and six places-—senior elementary majors, senior secondary majors, and DOC secondary majors. Therefore no consistent pattern was established. The overall ratings of the activities by the groups follows this order: (1) DOC elementary majors, (2) MA ele- mentary majors, (3) DOC administration majors, (4) MA second- ary majors, (5) DOC secondary majors, (6) DOC administration majors. (7) Senior elementary majors, and (8) senior secondary majors. (I) m m H o a N m a see as name HH m.mH m.o 0H 4H OH mH eH meeeeo acme He saw m as; 8e; 3e; :3 E; a: as; a: 2.52.285 .se a m.e H m.m m.m m «.5 N eeemoee epHeee Heeeoz_.eN Hee.v Ame.v Hmm.v Ame.v ANm.v Hme.v ANm.v HHe.V seewoee aesee-xeoa .NN m e H e ON e as w nee.v lem.i Ame.i Ame.i lee.v hoe.i imm.v xHe.v eeeemeee HeHeeem .aH N H as as e m e H. .e¢ .cm .omm .sm m .o< new .omm .sm m . .omm .son moHpH>Hpo¢ mopeeHeeeo eon empeeHeeeo as meoHeem (I) I) (.I.) Amaovho mama hmwmwmm momogpomnma m>onm mohswwm "mmmoo Amamwam momonpsonmm ow monsmwmv mnHOHH house new mommmao gamma op wmwcnooom consonw hummuspm an vo>omnow some anemone one no scapegoat one mmaonoosoo mOHpH>apom so nacho meme use mmnOom owpmn sOHsHaO enamoosooau.mm magma 110 Table 40'presents the CORSs computed on the basis Of the class in which the respondents were enrolled. Table 40.--Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on activities concerning the reduction Of the drop- out rate achieved by students grouped according to their classes (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 3 2 l 19. Special programs (.61) (.69) (.76) 22. Work-study program 3 l 2 (.73) (.78) (.77) 26. Mental health program 1 2 3 for underachievers (.75) (.72) (.69) Sum of rank orders 7 5 6 Rank by sum 3 l 2 For two of the items the differences between any two CORSs were very small. On items 22 and 26, the CORSs did not vary more than .06 units. The difference was .15 units between the highest CORS of the DOC candidates and the lowest CORS of the seniors. The classes ranked as follows: (1) MA candidates, (2) DOC candidates, and (3) seniors. However, there was very little to differentiate the groups. 111 In Table 41, the CORSs computed for the major fields is presented. Table 41.--Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on activities concerning the reduction of the drop- out rate achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 19. Special programs 3 2 1 - (.64) (.65) (.73) 22. Work-study program 3 l 2 (.64) (.80) (.76) 26. Mental health program 1 3 . 2 for underachievers (.79) (.63) (.67) Sum of rank orders 7 6 5 Rank by sum 3 2 l ._. The distance between the highest ranking and lowest ranking CORSs among the groups as majors are similar to the students as class members. 0n item 19, the distance was .09 CORS units; on items 22 and 26, the distance was .16 CORS units. ‘ The disparate contributions Of the class groups to the total CORS had some notable effects in some cases. 0n item 19, although the DOC candidates' rating was the highest among the eight groups (see Table 39) this was nullified by 112 the sixth ranking of the MA candidates and the eighth rank- ing of the seniors. 0n the other hand, on item 22, the secondary majors made the highest rating despite the low rating that the DOC candidates had contributed to the total rating. Also, on item 22, the elementary majors' ranking was depressed by the eighth ranking CORS Of .71 that the seniors contributed to the group rating. As in Table 40, there was very little difference in the overall order Of the groups which was: (1) administra- tion majors, (2) secondary majors, and (3) elementary majors. Examination of the Hypotheses. The findings relative to the Opinions expressed about the activities concerning the reduction Of the drOpout rate will be used to examine the hypotheses.‘ Hypothesis 1. Not applicable. Hypotheses 2 and 3. Both hypotheses were unconfirmed. The MA candidates by achieving majority agreement on one Of the three activities reached consensus most Often rather than the DOC candidates as had been hypothesized. Both the seniors and the DOC candidates were lowest with no criterion ratings. Hypotheses 4 and 5. Both hypotheses were unsupported because none of the three groups achieved any criterion rat- ings, thus making comparisons impossible. Hypothesis 6. This hypothesis was not confirmed as the MA candidates rather than the DOC candidates gave the 113 highest overall Opinion ratings of the activities in the present group. Hypothesis 7. This hypothesis was confirmed as the seniors' Opinion ratings Of the activities were the lowest among the three classes. Hypothesis 8. This hypothesis was confirmed as the administration majors expressed the highest Opinion ratings of the activities. Hypothesis 9. This hypothesis was refuted as the elementary education majors rather than the secondary majors expressed the lowest opinions of the activities in this group. Miscellaneous Activities. There were five activities in this classification. Of these, three--item 3, sponsoring scout troops, item 16, sponsoring drum majors and/or major- ettes; and, item 33. Participating in national spelling bees-- had been included among the forty activities to provide patently less desirable activities. Table 42 presents the imperative category ratings made by the classes and majors. Only one senior elementary major rated item 3, spon- soring scout trOOp(s), in the imperative category. None of the students in the other groups saw this activity as abso- lutely necessary in the public schools. 114 oo. oo. oo. eN. mo. 00. mm. mH. neHeeHnee owpmmaogomnoan .mm 00. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. 00. no. neon wnHHHoem .mm 00. oo. oo. no. oo. oo. oo. oo. neeeenonee nO\nom mnOnme some .oa oo. oo. mN. No. mo. MN. 00. HN. nemxe HeeHeez .e oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. 00. No. Amveoone peace .m .ee .em .eem .SeHm .ea .em .eem .eeHm .eem .EeHe neHeHeHnea nepneHeeeo eon neeeeHenno as nnoHnem (LII-IE l||xI “ammo poo ow mousmfimv mvamwm pence new mommmao name» on wcwonooom panachw meson noun an moapw>apom msomsmaaoomwa HO mwsapmn :OHmHmO showcase o>wpm9mQSHun.N¢ mfinms i 115 The elementary majors in the three classes gave item 4, providing medical examinations, the highest ratings. The other groups' ratings were extremely low-—from 8% to 0%. Except for a 6% rating by the MA administration majors, none of the students rated item 16, sponsoring drum majors and/or majorettes, in the top category. There was nearly unanimous agreement that item 33, participating in national spelling bees, was not an impera- tive. The exception was 4% of the senior elementary.majors. Providing interscholastic athletics with a number Of teams in each major sport, item 38, was rated highest by the senior secondary majors, followed by the MA admin- istration majors and the senior elementary majors. While it is apparent that the imperative category ratings are so low that reanalysis by reclassification of the respondents will not affect the overall distribution Of ratings, nevertheless, Table 48 is presented to show the consolidated ratings by class. Item 4, providing medical examinations, was the only activity in which all three classes registered imperative category ratings. Among the activities for the disadvantaged which were discussed in another section was one on providing medical examinations. By referring back to Table 25_On page 81, com- parisons can be made. Each Of the three classes rated this 116 Table 43.--Imperative category Opinion ratings Of miscellan- eous activities by students grouped according tO their classes (figures in per cent) MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 3. Scout trOOp(s) .02 .00 .00 4. Medical examinations .16 .16 .10 16. Drum majors and/or majorettes .00 .02 .00 33. Spelling bees .03 .00 .00 38. Interscholastic athletics .21 .10 .00 activity higher when it was prescribed for thevdisadvantaged; seniors, 28%; MA candidates, 31%; and DOC candidates, 27%. The differences would be: seniors, 12%; MA candidates, 15%; and DOC candidates, 17%. The DOC candidates rated none of the activities in the imperative category except item 4. This rating pri- marily reflects the Opinions of the elementary majors. The MA candidates excluded two items, 3 and 33, while 16% rated item 4, 2% rated item 16 and 10% rated item 38 in the imperative category. The seniors excluded one item, 16, and rated the others as follows: item 3, 2%; item 4, 16%; item 33, 3%; and item 38, 21%. The ratings on items 3 and 4 reflected exclusively the Opinions of the elementary majors. The 117 Opinions of the secondary majors were only slightly reflected on item 38 despite their higher rating because Of the dis- parity in the sizes of the samples. Table 44 presents the opinions Of the students grouped into their major fields. Table 44.--Imperative category opinion ratings Of miscellan- eous activities by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in per cent) Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 3. Scout trOOp(s) .01 .00 .00 4. Medical examinations .22 .03 .09 16. Drum majors and/or majorettes .00 .OO .03 33. Spelling bees .03 .00 .OO 38. Interscholastic .11 .17 .12 athletics The elementary education majors' rating of 22% on item 4, providing medical examinations, was the highest among the groups on any activity. Reference is made to Table 26 on page 83 to compare the Opinions of the students with different majors when they reacted tO the provision of medical examinations for the disadvantaged only as contrasted' with all students. Again, the present ratings were lower: by 16% among the elementary majors, by 14% among the secondary % ‘ in ' 7_______________________TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII‘II majors, and by 9% among the administration majors. The only other ratings to exceed-the 10% level were those on item 38, interscholastic athletics, in which the elementary majors had an 11% rate and the administration majors a 12% rate. Each Of the ratings reflected the influ- ' ence of one component class within each of the groups rather than similarity Of Opinions. The elementary majors' rate primarily showed the 18% rating Of the seniors; the second- ary majors' rate the 33% rating of the seniors; and the administration majors' rate the 24% rating of the MA candi— dates. Table 45 shows the composite opinion ratio scores computed for all of the students by subgroups. The intragroup rank placements ranged from four to seven places. From the least to the greatest range, the groups were distributed as follows: four places--DOC ele— mentary majors; five places--DOC administration majors and MA secondary majors; six places—~DOC secondary majors, MA administration majors, MA elementary majors, and senior elementary majors; and, seven places—~senior secondary majors. The ranks based on the sum of the rank orders followed this order: (1) senior secondary majors: (2) MA secondary majors, (3) senior elementary majors, (4) MA administration majors, (5) DOC secondary majors, (6) MA elementary majors, (7) DOC administration majors, and (8) DOC elementary majors. Table 46 ShOWS the CORSs computed by class for the IIIIIIIIiIIIIIIll::::;____________________i iiiiii 119 m m w a N o H m 55m an Noam mm eN em e.ON N.eH m.eN m.eH. eH eeeene gene eo sen Hmo.v Hum.v Ams.v Hms.v Aoe.v HHm.V Hms.v Hao.v noHpmanm a o m N m a H m eHenNHosenneeeH .mm Hom.v Hos.v Hmm.v Hms.v Hmm.v Hum.v AN4.V Aaa.v o a m.m H m.n m m N memo wnHHHoom .mm A©¢.V Ahd.v Am¢.v “Hm.v Amm.v Amm.v Amm.v Am¢.V mmppmhonms o m a m N m H b nO\oam mmOnmE sane .oH Ass.v Amn.v Amo.v Amo.v HNn.v HN©.V Hma.v HHN.V H N m.m m.m m s w a nsmxm HmoHuoz .a Hoe.v Hmm.v Ame.v Hn¢.v HNm.w HNm.V ANm.v Hem.v o m m a m.N m.N m.N aneooee esoem .m .ee .ee .eem .eeHm .ea .em .eem .EeHm .eem .son neHeH>Heea neemeHeneo Doe nmpeeHeneo as nnOHeem Anemono acme HHHmem mmmonpcmnmo m>onm meeSMHm “mmmoo HHHomHm mommnpsonwm mH monsmHmv monHm sense now mommmHo nHmnu Op wsHonOoom consonw mpemUSpm an om>mHmom moHpH>Huom msoommHHoomHs :o noono Home use monoOm Oprn GOHoHaO opHmoosoouu.ma meme 120 miscellaneous activities. Table 46.—-Composite Opinion ratio scores and rank order on miscellaneous activities achieved by students grouped according to their classes and major, fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates 1 2 3 3. Scout trOOp(s) (.56) (.50) (.45) 2 3 l 4. Medical examinations (.66) (.65) (.71) 16. Drum majors and/or 3 2 1 majorettes (.38) (.44) (~47) 33' Spelling bees (.44) (.39) (.36) 38. Interscholastic l 2 3 athletics (.67) (.63) (.59) Sum Of rank orders 8 ll 11 Rank by sum 1 2.5 2.5 The seniors gave the highest overall ratings to the activities. The MA candidates and DOC candidates ended up with the same rank placements. Referral to the component groups which made up the classes discloses some noteworthy phenomena. Among the seniors, the eighth ranking CORS Of .45 Of the secondary education majors did not significantly affect the fourth a 121 ranking .71 CORS of the elementary majors on item 4. On item 16, the first ranking .57 CORS of the secondary majors had no effect again on the elementary majors' seventh rank- ing CORS Of .45. The first ranking CORS of .78 Of the sec- ondary majors on item 38 was sufficiently higher than most . of the other scores that it was able to significantly affect the senior class's CORS. Table 47 presents the total ratings made on the mis- cellaneous activities by the respondents in the three major fields. Table 47.--Composite opinion ratio scores and rank order on miscellaneous activities achieved by students grouped according to their major fields (figures in parentheses signify CORSs; figures above parentheses signify rank orders) Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration 3. Scout trOOp(s) 1 2.5 2.5 (.55) (.48) (. 8) 4. Medical examinations 2 3 1 (.68) (.60)~ . (.69) 16. Drum majors and/or 3 1.5 1.5 majorettes (.43) (.53) (~53) 33. Spelling bees 2 3 1 (.41) (.38 (.45) 38. Interscholastic 3 l 2 athletics (.59) (.71) (.68) Sum Of rank orders 11 11 8 Rank by sum 2.5 2.5 ' l 122 The educational administration majors attained the highest ratings. The elementary majors and the secondary majors ended up with the same ranking when the ratings of each Of the activities in this classification were con— sidered. When the CORSs of the component groups shown in Table 44 are re-examined it appears that the rankings in the present table reflect the result Of similar opinion ratings rather than show instances where one group significantly influenced the position of combined score. That is, the scores were more similar than dissimilar. Examination of thg Hypothgggg. The hypotheses will be examined using the findings about student Opinions Of the miscellaneous activities. Hypothesis 1. Not applicable. Hypotheses 2, 3, 4 and 5. There was no basis upon which to examine these hypotheses. None of the groups achieved any criterion ratings on the miscellaneous activities. Hypotheses 6 and 7. By expressing the highest over- all Opinions about these activities the seniors refuted both hypotheses. The first had posited that the DOC can- didates would express the highest Opinion ratings and the second had stated that the seniors' Opinion ratings would be the lowest among the three classes. Hypothesis 8. This hypothesis was confirmed as the administration majors did express the highest opinion ratings f 123 of these activities. Hypothesis 9. This hypothesis was unconfirmed as both the elementary and secondary education majors were tied for lowest ratings Of the activities. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Purpose of the Study The aim of this study was to examine the Opinions which selected students in the College of Education at Michi— gan State University held about the relative desirability Of certain public school educational activities. These edu- cational activities were selected in compliance with estab- lished criteria from among those designated as imperatives in Imperatives in Education or as those representative of selected areas Of concern in public education today. This study derived its significance from the belief that Opinions or attitudes are determinative factors in human behavior. The opinions Of individuals within the educational profession are important as they are components Of group Opinions which constitute the base upon which decisions are frequently made in education. The existence of the process of collective negotiations in education which governs much of the professional relations on dichotomized teacher vs. administator role descriptions, makes valuable a study of students preparing for such roles in public education. Design and Methodology' The study sample was composed Of 142 students enrolled 124 125 ' during the winter term Of 1967 in three classes: seniors, master's degree candidates, and doctor's degree candidates. The seniors were majoring in elementary education or second- ary education, specifically the biological sciences. The master's degree and doctor's degree candidates were studying in one of these curricula: elementary education, secondary education, or educational administration. A modified Q—sort technique was used to gather the data. A total of forty discrete educational activities were included in the instrument. Nineteen Of them were "impera- tives" and twenty-one were "other" activities which the investigator derived from various sources. Each activity was typed on a standard 3" by 5" index card. Placed in the upper right corner was a digit desig- nating the order in which the card appeared in the stack presented to the student. The number was also useful for scoring the card sort. In the upper left corner was typed "Elementary," "Secondary," or "All levels," to indicate the school organizational level at which each activity was to be considered by the participant. The Q-sort was administered in individual interview sessions. Each interviewee was given uniform directions before commencing with the sorting of the cards which were set in a predetermined order for all Of the students after an initial randomization process. Six response categories of choices were possible for each of the activities: f 126 (l) imperative, (2) highly desirable, (3) desirable, (4) lowly desirable, (5) undesirable, and (6) can't judge. Summary Analysis of the Findings In the preceding chapter the data were analyzed accord— ing to the subcategories Of activities which had been estab— lished at the outset on the basis of commonality Of items to facilitate the handling Of the data. After the findings in each subcategory Of activities were discussed, the hypothe- ses were examined. In this summary all Of the findings from those analyses will be integrated and discussed. Table 48 shows the number of criterion ratings achieved on all of the subcategories Of activities by the students who are grouped according to their classes and majors. As might be expected, the student groups did not con- form unequivocably to any one pattern in their ratings. An incipient pattern is discernible, however, among the ele- mentary majors and secondary majors. The master's degree (MA) candidates gave more criterion ratings than the seniors. In turn, the doctor's degree (DOC) candidates reached less criterion ratings than the MA candidates. The educational administration majors varied from this pattern Of relation— ships in that the DOC candidates reached far greater (10:1) criterion ratings than did the MA candidates. Similarities and differences are also evident when the criterion ratings within the three curricula are examined AOHV Amv “oav lav Ami Asav Rev Aevmweapmu aoagcpnto .o: Hence. ¢ H n o H m H m Aonpo .m o d o H o m m s mm>HumnoQEH .< mango mpmo epom .0 Amy mmchmp soHnmpHuo mo umpssz A Mr—IOOH'I' OHOOu—l 00000 O msom:MHHoomH2 o mpsomono age N emppspmaa adamaonposm s m: age H vmmwpqm>vmmwm one magma .m #0004? MHHOLA HOOOt-l 127 A \O V A V A \0 v A H v A \O V A v A V “av mwswpmn nowhmpaho mo honesz o :owpmoscm Hmcoapmoo> H Hmaowposupmchoz r-l «+004? H O H lnNNO\ (fir-{Hm m HmnowuosnumsH wu>HMmMmmsH .< .U< .vm .omm .EmHm .u< .Um .oom .EmHm .omm .mwnm mmeH>Hpo< mopmvHunmo oon moumnqumo <2 whoaswm mo mmfihomoumoQSm mHSowauSo was mommmHo hp ummsopw mpsmUSpm,hp um>mwaom knowopmo oncommmp nOHqHQo m>prnomEH on» qH mmcfipML :OHhmano mo Amps: In.w¢ oHnms 128 in Table h8C. The secondary majors, regardless of class status, expressed very similar opinions. Within the element- ary curriculum the students in the three classes were set apart by nearly equal proportions of criterion ratings. In other words, the seniors had approximately a third less criterion ratings than the DOC candidates who in turn had approximately a third less criterion ratings than the MA candidates. The students who expressed the most divergent opinions were the educational administration majors. The ratio of criterion ratings achieved by the MA candidates as compared to the DOC candidates was 1:10. The MA educational administration majors were, when the interviews were conducted, still employed as classroom teachers while aspiring toward and preparing for administrative positions. Yet their opinions about what educational’activi— ties should be absolutely necessary in the public schools are very different from those of their peers teaching in elementary and secondary schools. If the intensity of opinions about specific activities and approaches to education is any indication of one's willingness or unwillingness, as the case may be, of acceptance of the need for change and inno- vation in education then, possibly, these administrators-to— be in the MA group may behave more conservatively than the classroom teachers in the same class level. When the frequencies of criterion ratings of the activities in the "imperatives" category are converted to 129 percentage scores the following are the results: senior ele- mentary majors (u out of 19), 21%; senior secondary majors (5 out of 19), 26%; MA elementary majors (9 out of 19), A7%; IDA secondary majors (6 out of 19), 32%; MA educational ad- ministration majors (1 out of 19), 5%; DOC elementary majors (6 out of 19), 32%: DOC secondary majors (h out of 19), 21%; and DOC educational administration majors (6 out of 19), 32%. Hypothesis 1. Students will reach consensus in desig— nating as imperatives those activities selected from Imperatives in Education. This hypothesis is rejected because the students reached consensus ratings on only four activities: "teaching natural sciences," "providing kindergarten program," "teach- ing reading skills," and "providing guidance and counseling services." . Table #9 presents the number of criterion ratings reached on the categories of activities by students grouped as class members. There is little or no difference in the number of criterion ratings achieved by the groups reacting to the activities in the "imperatives" category. The class of DOC candidates which had five such ratings led the other two classes which had four each. Translated into proportions, the DOC candidates achieved majority agreement that 26% of the activities were absolutely necessary in the public schools; for the seniors and MA candidates this proportion was 21%. f , 130 I‘ Table 49.—-Number of criterion ratings in the imperative opinion response category within the subcategories of activities achieved by students grouped in classes ‘ Subcategories of MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates A. Imperatives Instructional 3 2 3 Noninstructional l l 2 Vocational Education 0 l 0 Number of criterion ratings (4) (4) (5) B. Others The Disadvantaged _ O O 1 The MR and Emotionally Disturbed 2 l l The Dropouts O l 0 Miscellaneous 0 O 0 Number of criterion ratings (2) (2) (2) C. Both Categories A. Imperatives A A 5 B. Others 2 2 2 Total number of criterion ratings (6) (6) (7) The major part of the criterion ratings among the "imperatives" were in the instructional activities. The voca- tional education activities received the least number of 131 criterion ratings--one, by the MA candidates. Among the three classes there was no difference in the number of criterion ratings achieved on the activities in the "other" category as shown in Table A9B. Hypothesis 2. Doctor's degree candidates will reach consensus most often in their designations of activities as imperatives." Although the data showed only minimally discriminating differences in the number of majority agreements reached by the classes, nevertheless this hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis 3. Seniors will reach consensus least often in their designations of activities as "im- peratives." This hypothesis is rejected because both the MA can~ didates and the seniors with four criterion ratings each were in the "least often" category. Table 50 shows the frequency distribution of criterion ratings achieved by students grouped into their three curricula. On both the "imperative" and "other" categories of activities the elementary majors reached majority agreement most often. This was the result of higher agreement among the students in the three classes within that curriculum. As was so often brought out in the analyses of the sub- groups of activities, the expressed opinions of the MA can- didates in the administration curriculum depreciated the criterion ratings expressed by the DOC candidates in this curriculum. Consequently, the administration majors achieved majority agreement least often among the three curricular groups. 132 Table 50.--Number of criterion ratings in the imperative opinion response category achieved by students grouped by curricula Subcategories of Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration A. Imperatives Instructional 3 3 2 Noninstructional l O 0 Vocational Education 1 l O No. of criterion ratings (5) (A) (2) Bo9£h_e1:.§ The Disadvantaged l l O The MR and Emotionally Disturbed 2 O O The DrOpouts 0 . O 0 Miscellaneous 0 O O No. of criterion ratings (3) (l) (O) C. Both Categories A. Imperatives 5 h 2 B. Others 3 l 0 Total no. of criterion ratings (8) (5) (2) Hypothesis h. Educational administration majors will reach consensus most often in their designations of activities as "imperatives." Hypothesis 5. Secondary education majors will reach consensus least often in their designations of activi— ties as "imperatives." 133 Both hypotheses are not substantiated by the data and are therefore rejected. In recent times the urgent need for equal opportunity in education has been highly espoused. The findings of this study would tend to cast some real doubt as to the depth of student commitment to this basic social philosophy. For example, none of the groups reached agreement that providing special programs for the gifted and talented in our society was absolutely necessary. This is definitely contrary to the stand that most experts and authorities on this matter have taken. Furthermore, there was less support for the educational activities to compensate for cultural or social disadvantage than would be expected from students, especially those in the graduate level. The rank orders and the sum of the rank orders which were derived from comparisons of the magnitude of the composite Opinion ratio scores are presented in Table 51. The consistency of the magnitude of the opinion rat- ings of the eight subgroups can be grossly determined by comparing the rank orders derived from the summations of rank placements in the subcategories of activities as pre— sented in Table 51A and 518. Two groups, the senior secondary majors and the MA administration majors, maintained their positions in the two categories. Shifting one place in rank was the DOC secondary major group. The senior elementary majors, MA secondary majors and the DOC elementary majors 13L 'Ill on “my «av Asv Amy AHV Ami Amv wflw no women xsmm m.ooa e.mm o.mm m.mOH m.ow m.Hm H.NNH H.mm memeto xemnmnw o.mm o.mm o.wm m.wm m.ea m.om m.mH o.wa may Ami Am is Amy gov lav Ami msomemaamomaz . o.HH m.mH m.o o.oa o.aa o.oa o.ma o.ea Any Any may on Adv Amy “my gay mpsoaogo are m.ma m.aa m.HN o.eH m.ma o.ma o.om o.oa empnspmna gov Ami lav Amy Amv lav xmv Adv adamaoapose use as age o.wm 0.0m 0.0m m.mm o.oe m.0m m.mm H.mm emmmpem>emmaa wee Ami Ami lay any Rev Ami Amy may mawapo .m Amy new Ami Rev may Ami Amy may New no emmmp acme m.mm m.mm m.mo m.oOH o.Ho m.m® c.00H m.mn whoeao xswa wflw w.mm w.mm m.ma m.mN 0.0a 0.0m 0.5m 0.0m Ami any Amy may lav xm.ov xmv Am.ov compassem ameoapmooe m.MH o.mm o.aH o.em m.oH n.5H o.mH m.sa lav new ANV Ami Ace Ami may Ami Hmeoapostpmaaeoz m.wm o.>¢ o.©m o.¢m m.Hm 0.03 0.5m o.mm HmQOHposnpmcH :3 Roy ANV E; as Amv Rwy AHV g .< .ea .em .omm .Ewam wwmnumMIlwwMMIlummwm .oom .anm mmapa>apo< mopmwqumo <2 mLOHsom mo moHaowmpMonsm mesmeaesmo com Ammowome hmHSOHpuwm :H mmeH I>Hpow mo wmfinowomeQSm no women mamvao mama mo msdm on» we mESw was new nmgpthwm 30Hmp >Hpomnwv mmaswfim "mamuno xcmp mecwHw monogamopmd :H men: anmv wHSOHundo use mommmHo up ummsoaw mpGoUSpm new woundsoo meteom oHpmn coflsHmo epHmOQEOo no women mgouno xqma map no mean on» use memeao mamma:.Hm mHnme 135 E is E E E 3 a: E wwws e88 ea m.oea a.sma m.0na m.mom m.esa m.meH H.Hmm o.HoH mnmeao xemauwwmw «.03 odm 9mm mag mém «VS 1N3 2mm gov Ami lav any any Adv Amy Ami mtoepo .m m.me m.ma m.mo m.eoa o.He m.mm o.moa «.me mm>apmaoaeH .< Ami moi Amy may lav Ami Ami may .ea .em .omm .anm .ee .em .omm .Emam .omm .smam mmapa>apo< mouseaeqmo Doe mopeeaeeeo as mnOHsudllm I we m 0H.“ owmpmoDSm emseapeoo--.am magma T differed by two places between the two categories. The DOC 136 administration majors differed by three places and the MA elementary majors by four places in rank. The following rank orders as shown in Table 510 indi- cate the relative magnitude of the subgroup's opinion ratings of the seven subcategories of activities: (1) MA secondary majors, (2) DOC elementary majors, (3) senior elementary majors, (4) MA elementary majors, (5) DOC administration majors, (6) DOC secondary majors, (7) MA administration majors, and (8) senior secondary majors. ~ Table 52 provides a summary analysis of rank orders based on the magnitude of the composite opinion ratio scores for the subcategories of activities achieved by the students in the three classes. . None of the three classes maintained the same rank orders within the two categories of activities. Table 520 shows the rank order of the classes based on their opinion ratings of the 40 activities. While the overall difference of the magnitude of the ratings appear to be relatively small, the classes were differentiated as follows: (1) DOC candidates, (2) seniors, and (3) MA can— didates. Hypothesis 6. Doctor's degree candidates will express the highest overall opinion ratings of the activities. The data seems to support this hypothesis; therefore, it is accepted. T 137 Table 52.--Rank orders and the sums of rank~orders based on composite opinion ratio scores computed for stu- dents grouped by classes (figures in parentheses are rank orders; figures directly below parenthe- ses are sums of rank orders based on activities in particular subcategory) MA DOC Activities Seniors Candidates Candidates A. Imperatives (l) (3) (2) Instructional 15.0 20.5 17.5 Noninstructional (l) (3) (2) 600 905 8.5 Vocational Education (3) (2) (1) 16.5 12.0 7.5 2 2 rank orders 37.5 1.2.0 33.5 Rank based on 2 E: (2) (3) (l) B. Others (2) (3) (1) The Disadvantaged 18.5 19.0 16.5 The MR and Emotionally (2.5) (l) (2.5) Disturbed 9.0 6.0 9.0 The Dropouts (3) (l) (2) 700 5.0 600 Miscellaneous (1) (2.5 (2-5) 8.0 11.0 11.0 2 2 rank orders hh.0 41.0 h3o5 Rank based on Z Z (3) (l) (2) C. Both Categories (2) (3) (l) A. Imperatives 37.5 42.0 33-5 B. Others (3) (l) (2) 22.0 A1.0 h3.5 :2 2 rank orders 81.5 83.0 77.0 Rank based on E Z Z { -- 138 Hypothesis 7. Seniors will express the lowest opinion ratings of the activities. This hypothesis is rejected-—as unsubstantiated by the findings. Table 53 presents the rank orders of the students by their curricula based on their overall ratings of the 40 activities. Again, as in the previous table, the three curricular groups did not maintain their same rank orders within the two categories of activities. The final rank orders of the classes based on the magnitude of their total Opinion ratings of the #0 activities appears in Table 53C. The curricular groups were ordered in this way: (1) elementary education majors, (2) second- ary education majors, and (3) educational administration majors. Hypothesis 8. Educational administration majors will express the highest overall opinion ratings of the activities. ~ Hypothesis 9. Secondary education majors will ex— press the lowest overall Opinion ratings of the activities. Both hypotheses were refuted by the results of the study. It is quite evident that the group's Opinions have been more similar than different. This congruence of opinions becomes more apparent when composite Opinion ratio scores are computed for the students in the several . 139 Table 53.—-Rank orders and the sums of rank orders based on composite Opinion ratio scores computed for stu- dents grouped by curricula (figures in parentheses signify rank order; figures below parentheses are the sums of the rank order based on ratings of activities in subcategory) Subcategories Of Elementary Secondary Educational Activities Education Education Administration . _._p___.'___ A Im eratives (l) (2) (3) Instructional » 13.0 19.0 22.0 Noninstructional (1.5) (1.5) (3) 7.0 7.0 10.0 Vocational Education (3) (l) (2) 15,0 ‘ 8.5 12.5 2321 rank orders 35.0 34.5 44.5 Rank based on 2.2 (2) (l) (3) B. 0th —-‘°‘r-s (1) <3) (2) The Disadvantaged 12.5 22.5 18.5 The MR and Emotionally (1) (3) (2) Disturbed 6.0 11.0 7.0 The Dropouts (3) (2) . (l) 7.0 6.0 5.0 Miscellaneous (2.5) (2.5) (1) 11.0 11.0 8.0 2 Z rank orders 36.5 40.5 38.5 Rank based on §:Z (1) (3) (2) C. Both Categories (2) (l) (3) A. Imperatives 35.0 34.5 44.5 B. Others (1) (3) (2) 36.5 40.5 38.5 25.2 rank orders 71.5 75.0 83.0 Rank based on 2:: (l) (2) . (3) L 140 classifications without reference to item rank orders or categories and subcategories Of activities which were util- ized throughout the analysis of the data. The results of such an approach are shown in the following two tables. Table 54 shows the CORSs based on all of the ratings made by the students classified according to their class status. Table 54.-—Composite Opinion scores for the forty activities obtained by students classified according to classes (figures in per cent Classes CORS Seniors .72 MA Candidates .73 s DOC Candidates .74 Each score indicates the proportion that the class's actual rating of the activities was the highest possible rating that would have been possible. In other words, the seniors' actual rating of the activities constituted 72% of the highest potential rating, the MA candidates' 73%, and the DOC candidates' 74%. I When the total ratings are averaged for the students grouped according to their curricula, the results appear as in Table 55. 141 Table 55.-~Composite opinion ratio scores for the forty activities obtained by students classified accord— ing to curricula (figures in per cent) Curricula CORS Elementary Education .73 Secondary Education .70 Educational Administration .73 The secondary education majors's overall rating of the forty activities was but 3% less than that of the other two groups. Both the secondary majors' and the administra- tion majors' ratings were 73% Of the highest possible rating that might have been achived. The difference between the various groups become slightly greater when the composite opinion ratio scores are computed for the basic component groups as shown in Table 56. Table 56.-—Composite Opinion ratio scores on the forty ac- tivities obtained by students classified accord- ing to classes and curricula (figures in per cent) Curricula Classes Elem. Sec. Ed. Ad. Seniors 07hr 067 '— MA Candidates .74 .74 .70 DOC Candidates .72 .72 .75 142 The greatest differences in Opinions occur within the secondary education curriculum with the seniors being five percentage points lower than the MA candidates and the edu- cational administration curriculum with the MA candidates also five percentage points below the DOC candidates. The class status of the students were not linearly related to the Opinions which were expressed about the edu- cational activities used in the present study. That is, with an increase in the amount of education there was no corresponding directional change in the opinions of students. An increase in education implicitly connotes the acquisition of a wider background Of exposure and/or knowledge of the broader societal problems that education is increasingly being called upon to help ameliorate.' This exposure and/or knowledge seemingly has had no significant impact on the graduate students, to make them either clearly accept or reject such a vanguard role expectation thrust upon public education. An increase in amount of education is assumed to mean growth in familiarity with the wider scope of educa- tional functions which fall within the purview of the edu- cational process. Graduate study should provide the student with more information about the rationales and purposes Of the specific educational activities so that the decisions to accept or reject should be more clear-cut. Apparently this was not the case. 143 Figure 1 shows another way in which the differences iJI opinions were manifested. The CORSs were classified according to the decile system. That is, the frequencies of scores were depicted as they fell into seven deciles, from the ninth to the third. Some very obvious differences are found between the highest and lowest frequencies in the different deciles. For example, the MA elementary majors rated eight (or 20%) of the activities in the ninth decile as compared to the senior secondary majors' and MA administration majors' rating of one (or 3%) of the activities in the ninth decile. When the highest three deciles (ninth through seventh) are combined there is the difference between the MA secondary majors' rating of thirty (or 75%) Of the activities and the senior secondary major's rating of nineteen (or 48%) of the activ- ities. Implications At the outset Of this study the premise was estab- lished that the examination of Opinions or attitudes was important because they determine behavior. Behavior, in this study, is considered in terms of the possible support which may be given to educational activities after the stu— dents have taken professional jobs. The following implica- tions were, in parg generated with due regard for this prem- ise. _ 144 Figure l.—-Classification by deciles Of composite Opinion ratio scores obtained by students grouped by classes and curricula Frequencies r :»“ ~ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Deciles Deciles A. Sr., Elem. Ed. B. Sr., Sec. 543‘ Ed. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Deciles Deciles Deciles C. MA, Elem. Ed. D. MA, Sec. Ed. E. MA, Ed. Ad. "’ I CU 2 .8 i.e— [r s ‘. Fj‘ g jenfi I f. ‘- v .:; 7 - . (U 1'}, ; . t" lv' Ft |' ( l I rn 9 8 / C 5 4 3 9 8 7 t 5 4 3 Deciles Deciles F. 000, Elem. Ed. G. DOC, Sec. Ed. H. DOC, Ed. Ad. 1&5 1. Only four of the forty activities included in this study were designated by the majority of the students as being absolutely necessary in the public schools. These four were: "teaching natural sciences," "teaching reading skills," "providing kindergarten programs," and "providing guidance and counseling services," shown in Tables 6 and 12. Thus, it seems that the students feel that most of the ac- tivities performed in our public schools are not absolutely necessary. In other words, in the final analysis, most of the tasks that are being performed in the public schools are essentially dispensable. The knowledge that education deals largely with tasks which are not absolutely essential has implications for the image of the profession and of the self—image of the professionals. This kind Of attitude has implications for public- school relations, especially with regard to the matter of financial support for education. The trend has been toward mounting increases in funds required for public education. If the imperatives in education are so limited as the stu— dents seem to indicate,this question posed by the taxpayer might naturally follow: Why the need for program expansion? The four activities mentioned in the preceding para- graph are well—established or legitimized practices. Many of the other activities such as "teaching modern mathematics," "providing mental health programs to help underachievers," and the like, could well be considered innovative. The 146 students, in effect, are not highly change-oriented. This definitely has implications for the instithtion which has been emphasizing the great need for change and innovation in education. The relative conservatism of Opinions about the pre- eminent tasks of the public school and even the inability to agree that certain activities may not be useful in the public schools could be merely reflections of the general confusion that exists today regarding what the public schools should be doing. Amidst a situation where so many claims and counterclaims are being made by the leaders in the pro- fession concerning the roles of thelschool, the student may be seeking some sort of compromise by expressing predominantly "safe" Opinions—-those which fall at neither ends of a contin- uum of choices. This would indicate that students are in need of help if they are to develop values and guiding prin- ciples which will assist them in decision—making. This indecisiveness may also be a result of the fact that students are not adequately acquainted with the broad spectrum of educational activities other than the special competencies for which they are being trained. If this is true, this has implications for the kind of informal and formal professional support which may be manifested for edu- cational'activities which fall outside Of one's special and, often narrow, domain. 147 ' 2. Students generally manifested a low regard for providing year-round after—school and evening educational and recreational programs for children and adults (see Tables 12 and 15). Perhaps they see this community-school type of program as increasing their time commitment to edu- cation. Whatever the reason, it appears that the students do not react favorably toward an expansion of the school's outreach into the community. In the investigator's Opinion, the students are manifesting a generalized reaction against the ever-expanding role that is thrust upon education. .3. Tables 12 and 15 also show that certain groups of students—~seniors, secondary majors and MA degree admin— istration majors-—do not believe that in-service education programs for teachers are imperative. In a period when knowledge explosion and educational obsolescence are rapidly accelerating, such attitudes seem rather unrealistic. Be- ginning teachers, as the seniors soon will be, hopefully will quickly change their opinions as they face the problems Of teaching under varied circumstances. Otherwise, in— service programs will continue to meet resistance. 4. The seniors majoring in secondary education (bio- logical sciences) were generally less supportive of those activities which were not primarily aimed at the development of cognitive skills. This can be seen by referring to Tables 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, and 42. It seems that their preparation 148 program might well stress the need to be concerned too with 'the cieVelopment of social, emotional and physical aspects of the individual learner. 5. The results of this study suggest that the majority of the students are not totally committed to the concern for equal Opportunity in education. The activity, "providing special programs for the gifted and talented" is rooted in this phiIOSOphy. The authorities on this subject are unequiv- ocably in favor of some special program to fully develop the latent skills of superior students from whom has come "so much of mankind's greatness."l The majority of the students did not feel that this activity was imperative (see Tables 6, 7, and 8). Their opinions imply that they may be still strongly influenced by the”be1ief that demo- cratic egalitarianism and excellence are antithetical values. The concern for equal Opportunity in education also provides the rationale for compensatory education for the disadvantaged. Despite federal commitment, the support of sociological and educational experts, and the College of Education's support of programs for the disadvantaged, the majority of students do not believe that such programs as "providing prekindergarten programs," "providing prechoedu— cational diagnosis," and the like, are absolutely necessary. lRockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., The Pursuit of Ex- cellence-—Education and the Future of America (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 28. 149 Despite the increasing expansion of compensatory education programs in schools across the nation, the students are not fully convinced that they are absolutely necessary. 6. There is an apparent, if not real, paradox in the opinions about vocational education activities. Nearly 50% of the students felt that vocational education was absolutely necessary (see Table 18). Yet their opinions changed sharply when they judged the merits of two activities which are com- ponents of vocational education. Only 8% felt that "provid- ing distributive education" or "providing cooperative office practice” was absolutely necessary. This could imply a number of things—-among them, that the students do not really know what vocational education is or that they are not es- pecially impressed with the need for office training and distributive education. If vocational education is of vital importance for the develOpment of individual potentials and the benefit of society, these facts should be clearly communicated to the students. If the Opinions of the students reflect the worth of vocational education, it would appear then some re—thinking is in order regarding its place in public edu-' cation. Of course, the attitudes of the students might well be but reflections Of their aspirations for improved socio— economic positions in which vocational education probably is seen as having little personal relevance. 150 7. The report of the AASA Commission in Imperatives ill Education has had little impact in shaping the opinions of‘ the students. The Commission's report is based on inter- pretations of national problems which are a matter of public 'knowledge. If its assessment of the specific tasks which ‘the schools shOuld be performing is likewise valid, it would seem that deliberate efforts should be made in the College Of Education to apprise the students of the need to develop educational programs which are designed to meet the particular needs of our times. Recommendations for Further Study 1. A longitudinal, rather than a cross—sectional study;of the opinions of students at different stages of their academic programs, from the senior through the gradu- ate level, would be useful for determining the changes in attitudes toward educational activities which occur as a function of increased education. A longitudinal study has Obvious advantages over a cross—sectional study. 2. Another possible study would be to compare the opinions of students in different class levels and curricula with those Of their instructors for the purpose of deter— mining convergent and divergent patterns. This would give some indication about the kinds of attitudes which are being incorporated or not as students move through their educational programs. L; 151 3. It would be useful to survey the Opinions of students in other colleges and universities which have teacher preparation programs. The choice of institutions could be made on the basis of geographic location, of finan- cial support (public vs. private), of kind of training (lib— eral arts vs. professional), etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books American Association of School Administrators. Federal Policy in the Public Schools. washington, D. 0.: Amggican Association of School Administrators, October, 19 . _, Imperatives in Education. Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1966. Barkan, Manuel. A Foundation for Art Education. New York: The Ronald Press, 00., 195 . Barlow, Melvin E. (ed.). Vocational Education. The Sixty— fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study Of Education, Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965. Barnes, John B. ‘The D amics of Educational Research. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State College, I958. Baumgartner, Bernice M. Hel in the Trainable Mentall Re- tarded Child. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College Columbia University, 1960. Beck, John M. and Saxe, Richard W. Teaching the Culturally Disadvantaged Pupil. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1965. Bloom, Benjamin S. (Stabilit and Chan e in Human Character- istics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Bloom, Benjamin S., Davis, Allison, and Hess, Robert. Com- ensator Education for Cultural De rivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19 5. Brink, William G. (ed.L Adapting the Secondary-School Program to the Needs of Youth. The Filty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953. 152 153 Brookover, Wilbur B., Gottleib, David, Lehmann, Irvin J., Roberts, Richard, Thaden, J. Fred, and Vener, Arthur M. The College Student. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19 1. . Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966. Combs, Arthur W. (ed.). Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, 196 . Conant, James B. The American High School Today. New York: McGraw-Hillw Book Co., 19 59. Corey, Stephen M. (ed.). In-Service Edqupion for Teachers, Supervisors. and Administrators. The Fifty—sixth Yearbook of the Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957. Crank, Doris H., and Crank, Floyd L. (eds.). New Perspectives in Education for Business. Washington, D. C.: Na— tional Business Education Association, NEA, 1963. Educational Policies Commission. American Education and the Search for Egual Opportunity. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1965. . School Athletiqg, Problems and Policies. Washing- ton, D. C.: National Education Association, 1953. Gallagher, James A. Analysis of Research on the Education Gifted Children. Illinois: Office of the Super- intendent of Public Instruction, 1960. Gallagher, James A. (ed.). Teaching Gifted Students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1962. Gardner, John W. Excellence: Can We be Excellent and Equal Too? New York: Har rper and u ishers, . Good, Carter V., Barr, A. S., and Scates, Douglas E. The Methodolo of Educational Research. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., Inc., I936. 154 Gocuilad, John I. (ed.). The Changing American School. The Sixty—fifth Yearboo of the Nationa Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966. Gorwion, Edmund W., and Wilkerson, Doxey A. Compensatory Education for the Disadvanta ed. New Yor : Co lege Entrance Examination Board, 1966. Goslin, David A. The School in Contemporary Society. Chicago: Scott Foresman and Co., 1965. (have, Philip Babcock (ed.). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Sgringfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., Pub ishers, 19 7. Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959. Haan, Aubrey. Elementary School Curriculum: Theor and Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., l96l. Hardin, Morris G., and Phillips, E. Lakin. Egucating Emo- tionall Disturbed Children. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962. Harris, Chester W. (ed.). Enc clo edia of Education Research. 3rd ed. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960. Hastie, W. Reid (ed.). Art Education. The Sixty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965. Headley, Neith. The Kindergarten: Its Place in the Program of Education. New York: The Center for Applied Re- search in Education, Inc., 1965. Horst, Louis, and Russell, Carroll. Modern Dance Forms in Relation to the Other Modern Arts. San Francisco: Impu se ub ications, l9 1. Jacob, Philip E. Chan in Values in Colle-e. New Haven, Conn.: The E war 1. even Foundation, 1957. Jensen, Gale E. (ed.). The Dynamics of Instructional Groups. The Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1960., 155 Kraus, Richard G. Recreation and the Schools. New York: The Macmillan Co., 9AA. Lehmann, Irvin J., and Dressel, Paul 1. Changes in Critical ' Thinking Ability, Attitudes and Values Associated with Colle e Attendance. Cooperative Research Project No. I646, OTfice of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. East Lansing, Mich.: Michi- gan State University, 1963. Molloy, Julia S. Trainable Children:' Curriculum and Pro- cedures. New York: The John Day Co.,‘I9 3. Morgenstern, Ann (ed.). Grouping in the Elementary School. New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 19 . National Council of Teachers of English. What We Know About High School Reading. Reprinted from The English Journal. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1958. ’ National Education Association. Deciding What to Teach. Project on the Instructional Program of the Public Schools. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1963. - Panel of Consultants on Vocational Education. Education for a Chan in World of Work. Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Passow, A. Harry (ed.). Education in Depressed Areas. New Yogk: Columbia University Teachers College Press, 19 3. Philadelphia Suburban School Study Council, Group A. Im- proving Programs for the Gifted. Danville, Ill.: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1965. Rubin, Eli A., Simson, Clyde B., and Betwee, Marcus G. Emp- tionall Handica ed Children and the Elementar S hool. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 196%. Rasmussen, Margaret (ed.). Early Childhood, Crucial Years for Learning. Washington, . .: Association or Childhood Education International, 1966. Remmers, H. H. Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measure- ment. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1954 156 Riessman, Frank. The Culturally Deprived Child. New York: Harper and Brothers, Pub is ers, 9 2. Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. The Pursuit of Excellence—- Education and the Future ofrAmerica. New Yor : Doubleday and Co., Inc., 195 . Russell, James E. Chan e and Challen e in American Educa- tion. Boston: Eoughton Mifflin Co., 1965. Schreiber, Daniel (ed.). Guidance and the School Dropout. Project: School Dropouts, NEA and APRA. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1964. . The School Dropout. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 196A. Sexton, Patricia Cayo. Education and Income. New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 19 A. Stephenson, William. The Study of Behavior, Q-Technigue and Its Methodolo . C icago: The University of C icago Press, 1953. Strom, Robert C. Teaching in the Slum Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 196 . Super,.Donald E. The Psychology of Careers. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1957. Taylor, Calvin W. (ed.). Widening Horizons in Creativity. The Proceedings of the Fifth Utah Creativity Research Cogference. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19 A. The Research Council. Promising Practices from the Projects for thg_Cultural y eEr1ved. Chicago: he Great vCities Program for Sc 00 Improvement, April, 196A. U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. Civil Rights U.S.A., Public Schools: Cities in North and West. "Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, I962. VanDalen, Deobold. Understandin Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962. Waetjen, Walter B. (ed.). Learning and Mental Health in the School. Washington, D. C.: Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development, 1966. 157 Witty, Paul A. (ed.). The Educationally Retarded and Dis— advantaged. The Sixty-sixt Yearbook of t e ational Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967. Articles and Periodicals Baum, Marian H. "Some Dynamic Factors Affecting Family Ad- justment to the Handicap ed Child," Exce tional Child, XXVIII, No. 8 (April, 19 2), 387-392. Birkmaier, Emma, and Lange, Dale. "Foreign Language Instruc- tion," Review of Educgtional Research, XXXVII, No. 2 (April, 1967), 186—199. Brookover, Wilbur B., Shailer, Thomas, and Paterson, Ann. "Self Concept of Ability and School Achievement," Sociology of Education, XXVII (Spring, 1964), 271—79. Coe, Burr D. "Vocational Education in the High School," Theory Into Practice, XXX, No. 5 (December, 196A), I71—7h. Harris, Ben M. "In~Service Growth--The Essential Require- ment " Educational Leadershi , XXIV, No. 3 (December, 19665, 257-266. ' Johnson, G. Orville. "Special Education for the Mentally Handicapped--A Paradox," Exceptional Children, XXIV, NO. 2 (OCtOber, 1962), 62" 90 Johnson, Leighton H. "Limitations of the Descriptive Method," Phi Delta Ka an, XXXIV, No. 7 (March, 1953), 2A1-42ff. Karp, Joan M., and Siegel, Irving. "Psychoeducational Appraisal of Disadvantaged Children," Review of Educational Re- search, XXXV, No. 5 (December, 1965}, 451—412. Leiderman, Gloria F. "Math and Science Program for the Ele- mentary Years," Review of Educational Research, XXXV, No. 2 (April, 1965), 154-162. McPherson, R. Bruce. "Will Classrooms and Schools Built With Federal Funds be Integrated?" Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII, No. 1 (September, 196 ), 11-15. Mitchell, Harold H. "School Medical Services and Evaluation," The Journal of Sphool Health, XXXII, No. 5 (January, 1962 ) , T’s. 158 Murray, Ruth L. "Observations on the Teaching of Dance to Children," mpulse 1952, Annual of Contemporary Dance. San Francisco: Impulse Publications, 1957, 1— L. Passow, A. Harry. "The Maze of Research on Ability Group - igg," The Educational Forum, XXVI, No. 7 (March, 1962), 2 1" o Perrone, Philip A. "Vocational Development, " Review of Edu- cational Research, XXXVI, No. 2 (April, I 966), 296 357- Solomon, Benjamin. "A Perspective for Education on the Racial Issue in Education," Phi Delta Ka an, XLVII, No. 9 (May, 1966), 518- 523. Thurston, John R. "Counseling the Parents of Mentally Re- tarded Children," The Trainin» School Bulletin, LX, No. 3 (November, 1963), 113-1I7. Wagner, Marsden G. "The Medical Basis for School Health Programs," The School Review, LXIX (Autumn, 1961), 322- 337. Wayson, William W. "Needed: Diagnostic Attention in De- feating Educational Deprivation," Educational Leader- shi , XXIV, No. 4 (January, 1967), 323- 2 . Unpublished Material Lee, William B. "A Study of the Educational Opinions of Selected Teachers and Administrators." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967. APPENDICES 159 APPENDIX A Members of the Commission on Imperatives in Education Shirley COOper, Chairman Director of In-service Education American Association of School Administrators John S. Cartwright Professor of Education Lehigh University Bethlehem, Pennsylvania George H. Deer, Dean The Junior Division Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana Herbert W. Schooling, Dean College of Education University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri Clarence Senior, Member Board of Education of the City of New York Brooklyn, New York Howard C. Seymour, Superintendent Union High School System Phoenix, Arizona Allen H. Wetter « Former Superintendent of Schools Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Special Contributor to the Report: Gordon I. Swanson Professor of Education University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 160 P1, '.".r “ I ‘l-JII‘I H. L.) Scoring Form for Q-Sort Name ‘_ 16. X X X X X X Sex: M F Level: 3 M D 17. X X X X X Major 18. X X X X X X MA and DOC Candidates: Teaching experience 19. X X X X X X ggpgngSec.ggOthgr O _f I 11_ 20. X X X X X X 1-5 T __ I 6 — 10 -_1 21. X X X X X X 11 - 15 __ _L 22. X X X X X X Admin. experience Elem. Sec., Other 23. X X X X X X 0 I l 5 Ti 24. X X X X X X 6’10 ,- j 11 - 15 1;; _. 25. X X X X X X m 26. X X X X X X 132Aié 27. . X X X X X X 1. X X X X X X 28. X X X X X x 2. xxxxxx 29. XXXXXX 3. X X X X X X 30. X X X X X X 4. X X X X X X 31. X X X X X X 5. X X X X X X 32. X X X X X X 6. X X X X X X 33. X X X X X X 7. X X X X X X 34. X X X X X X 8. X X X X X X 35. X X X X X X 9. X X X X X X 36. X X X X X X 10. X X X X X X 37. X X X X X X 11. X X X X X X 38. X X X X X X 12. X X X X X X 39. X X X X X X 13. X X X X X X 40. X X X X X X 14. X X X X X X Total: ______ 15. X X X X X X 161