ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE METHODS AND PROCEDURES USED IN THE SCHOOL SURVEY SERVICES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND OTHER PUBLICLY SUPPORTED BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES by William James Giddis The purpose of this study was to examine the develop- ment of the school survey movement and the current status of survey practices in the publicly supported Big Ten universi- ties in order to make recommendations for improvements in the Michigan State University survey service. This included (1) a thorough examination of the literature related to the school survey movement, (2) a description of current survey practices at Michigan State University and the other publicly supported Big Ten universities, and (3) an analysis of the data with recommendations for possible improvements at Michi- gan State University. The descriptive or normative-survey method of research was employed for this study.: The author developed a struc- tured interview form which was used to collect data through interviews held with respondents at each university who were involved in directing or conducting school surveys for that university. The data is summarized in two parts: the first, a description of survey practices at Michigan State University; and the second, a description of the practices of the other universities. The data are analyzed on the basis of the William James Giddis philosophy and purposes of Michigan State University. General conclusions are drawn from the data concerning the other uni- versities, and specific recommendations are given for improve- ments in the Michigan State survey service. The conclusions concerning current practices at the Big Ten universities are presented in five categories: (1) gen- eral information, (2) philosophy and purposes, (3) organization and administration, (4) methods and procedures, and (5) forms of evaluation. The major conclusions are as follows: 1. The Big Ten universities eXpect to continue perform- ing school surveys as well as other forms of educational re- search and will have one or more faculty members assigned to direct and conduct these surveys. 2. Specialists from all areas of education, both from within and outside the universities, participate in the sur- veys. 3. The faculty members directly responsible for sur» vey services usually maintain some connection with departments of school administration. 4. Survey work is considered valuable field eXperience for graduate students and professors of education. 5. Generally the school districts surveyed are expected to assume a major portion of the cost of the survey. 6. Staff availability plays a major part in the deter- mination of surveys to be conducted. William James Giddis 7. The partial, expert~type survey constitutes a ma- jority of all surveys conducted by Big Ten universities. 8. Data collection and data analysis are carried out by many peOple, but the formulation of recommendations is considered professional work to be completed by educational specialists. 9. School survey reports conform to a generally ac- cepted pattern as to content and format. 10. School surveys have contributed to the general im- provement of education, especially in the training of school administrators; but there is a need for additional research to measure the general and specific contributions and effec- tiveness of school survey activities. There were fifteen specific recommendations suggested which covered nine tOpics or areas of concern. The topics were: 1. Maintaining a complete historical record of the survey service and publishing a booklet of information for general distribution. 2. Appointment of a faculty member from the school administration staff to act as coordinator and making him responsible for recommendations regarding needed personnel, budget preparation, and dissemination of information regard- ing the survey activity. 3. Increasing the number of graduate students in the William James Giddis field service team and strengthening their orientation to the survey procedures. 4. Strengthening the survey selection process. 5. Improvements in the research basis for school sur~ vey methods and practices. 6. EXpanding the kinds of materials included in the survey reports. 7. Greater emphasis on implementation procedures. 8. Review of the financial responsibilities in the survey activities. 9. Increased and improved activity in the forms and amount of evaluation of the school survey service. A STUDY OF THE METHODS AND PROCEDURES USED IN THE SCHOOL SURVEY SERVICES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND OTHER PUBLICLY SUPPORTED BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES By William James Giddis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1964 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The production of any dissertation is in reality the work of many people, probably too numerous to mention all by name. The author would like to acknowledge the special assistance and encouragement of some of these people. A very special and warm note of appreciation must be given to Dr. Floyd Parker, chairman of the doctoral guidance committee. His many hours of patient counsel have made this study become a reality, and he has fulfilled most completely the role of counselor and advisor for the author. The advice and guidance of the other members of the committee have also been of great value; and to Drs. Stanley Hacker, John Useem, Fred Vescolani, and Stanley Wronski is extended a sincere expression of gratitude. This study could not be presented here without the cooperation of the men at the Big Ten universities who supplied the necessary data° Their cheerful cooperation made this study interesting, informative, and enjoyable for the author. Appreciation for their unselfish willingness is hereby given to Drs. Montfort Barr, Clyde Campbell, Otto Domian, Richard Featherstone, Ray Kehoe, Willard Lane, Aaron Lindley, William Roe, Merle Sumption, Howard Wakefield, and Arthur Wohlers. Many other peOple were helpful in numerous ways in sup- plying the author with information, support, and encouragement. The colleagues in the field service team, administrators and board members of schools surveyed, university professors-- friends and teachers, as well as other student friends, all deserve much thanks. Two special friends must be acknowledged for their unswerving support-~Del Arnold and Wendell Riedl. The last, and most significant, acknowledgment can go to only one person, without whom the entire effort would be meaningless, my wife, Diane. ********** ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'vii INTRODUCTION 0 O O O C O O I O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 1 Chapter I. THE SCHOOL SURVEY MOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . 3 Early Forms of Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The National Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 summary 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 35 II. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . 37 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Value of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 summary 0 O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O 50 III. SURVEYS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . . . . . 51 Historical Development . . . . . . . . . . . 52 General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Philosophy and Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Organization and Administration . . . . . . . 64 Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Forms of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Chapter Page IV. DATA FROM THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES . . . . . . 81 General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Philosophy and Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Organization and Administration . . . . . . . 86 Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Forms of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . 111 The Basis for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o o e o o o e o o o o o o e e e e o o 135 APPENDICES O O O O 6 O O O O o 0 O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O 140 iv Table 1. 2. IO. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Early Survey Type Studies, 1831-1907 . . . . . Early Surveys Indicating the Rapid Growth of the National Movement in School Surveys, 1910‘].ng e c o e o o e o o o o o e e o o 9 Objectives of the School Survey Activity as Indicated by the Respondents . . . . . . . . Personnel Practices Pertaining to Graduate Assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of School Surveys Conducted by the Big Ten Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods Employed to Collect Data . . . . . . . Methods Employed to Evaluate Data . . . . . . . Use of School Surveys in the Training of Graduate Students in Education . . . . . . Beginning Dates for Formal Survey Activity and Respondents' Length of Service at Present University . . . . . . . . . . . Personnel Practices Pertaining to School Survey Staffing . . . . . . . . O O O O O O O O O 0 Use of Criteria for Selecting Survey Reports Frequency of Involvement of Various PeOple in Data Collection . . . . O O 0 O C O O O O 0 Frequency of Involvement of Various People in Data Analysis . . . . . O O 0 O O O O O O O Page 10 85 89 95 99 101 106 120 121 123 124 125 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Organizational Chart of School Survey Services at Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . 66 vi LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. SAMPLE LETTER OF INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 140 B. INTERVIEW FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 C. SAMPLE CONTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 vii INTRODUCTION The development of the public school system in America has been accompanied by several movements which have been traced by historians. Some of these movements have been identified as the church-school, secularism, the academy move- ment, socioscientific movement, tests and measurement movement, and professionalization of education. Each of these movements has added some literature to the field of education and fos- tered deve10pments in the public schools. One such movement which has appeared in the twentieth century is the school sur- vey movement. The school survey has been referred to by educational writers as a significant instrument for the study and improve- ment of education. This form of applied educational research has also contributed a large amount of literature to the field of education. Many university professors of education in the United States have taken part in conducting school surveys and in writing survey reports. Public school officials in all parts of the nation have employed educational consultants to survey their schools and report the findings to the citizens of their communities. The demand for such services by school officials has led the universities to provide the personnel for conducting school surveys. The surveys were often conducted by individual professors or sometimes by teams of professors. Later some universities set up bureaus or divi- sions which carried on the survey work. The men who conducted the surveys were usually interested in trying to improve the methods and techniques they used in this survey work. This desire for improved methods led to the use of many of the findings of the test and measurement movement. As other research findings in education became available, they were often applied in the work of the school surveyors. This effort toward improved methods led to conferences on the school survey movement and to the writing of articles and reports concerning the use, objectives, procedures, and rec- ommendations of school surveys. Some research studies were undertaken to appraise the work of the surveys. The present report is an attempt to provide information for the improve- ment of current practices in the school survey movement. CHAPTER I THE SCHOOL SURVEY MOVEMENT The school survey movement is usually dated from the 1910 Boise, Idaho, survey conducted by C. N. Kendall. This undoubtedly is accepted as the beginning of the modern sur- vey movement by most educational writers. References can be found, however, which indicate that a form of educational survey or consultation was practiced as early as written record is available of history. From earliest times men of action have sought the help of men of thought. In primitive societies warrior chiefs looked to medicine men and shamans for guidance, the heads of the great empires of the Middle East to astrologers and the Magi, the emperors of China to the mandarinate, the kings of medieval European nations and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire to priest-scholars, the ministers of modern states to experts of many kinds including college and university professors. This record of consultation can be traced throughout the history of mankind and in almost every field of endeavor. This study is concerned with the field of education and the form of consultation known as the school survey. Accounts of early surveys of education in Europe are given by some historians. In the United States this type of educational 1Harry K. Miller, Jr., "A Study of the Field Service and Research Units of Ten Schools of Education" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1958), p. 3. consultation is usually attributed to such early educators as Horace Mann and Henry Barnard. These early efforts did not usually follow the formal research pattern that has char- acterized the modern school survey. Therefore, Kendall is usually credited with the first formal survey and as the founder of the modern movement. Twentieth century education writers have indicated that this movement has gained momentum. This can be traced in the writing of Sears1 in the 1920's and 1930's, Sumption2 in the 1950's, and Rasmussen3 and Conner4 in the 1960's. EARLY FORMS OF SURVEYS The survey movement is concerned with the more for- malized type of study of the concept of institutionalized education called a school. Under this definition Drake refers to the use of surveys in the early nineteenth century, both in the United States and abroad when he writes: 1Jesse B. Sears, "The School Survey Movement," Modern School Administration ed. John C. Almack (New York: Hougfiton MIffIIn Company,‘l933). 2Merle R. Sumption, How to Conduct a Citizens School Survey (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,‘l952). 3Gerald R. Rasmussen, "The Educational Consultant and Educational Planning," The American School Board Journal, CXLVII, No. 3 (September, 1953). 4Forrest E. Conner, et al., Management Surveys for Schools (Washington: American Association of School Adminis- trators, 1964). Although the survey as an instrument of educa- tional research seems to have originated in Germany at the time of Martin Luther, its first extensive and most practical use was made in the study of the Prussian schools of the early nineteenth century. Of the many reports made on the Prussian schools of this period, that of Victor Cousin, Report on the State of Public Instruction in Prussia (1831), was most significant? . . . The publication of many educational arti- cles during the nineteenth century describing the leading municipal school systems of the United States encouraged the surveying of American school systems. The first of these surveys was made of the Chicago schools in 1897. The report as issued under the title, Report of the Education Commission of the City of Chicago, reflected the views of William R. Harper,1 then president of the University of Chicago. . Many kinds of reports were being written during the nineteenth century concerning various aspects of American life. Some of these were the direct result of studies which can be classified as early surveys. Probably the first American educational survey on record would be the one conducted by Barnard in the state of Rhode Island in 1843. Marsh records this as follows: . . . The earliest of these was made in 1843 when the General Assembly of Rhode Island, seeking to better the educational program offered in the public schools, passed an act "to provide for ascertaining the conditions of the Public Schools of this state, and for the improvement and better management thereof." Dr. Henry Barnard was employed to direct this study. . . . Upon his recommendation at the close of the sur- vey the legislature passed, with but few changes, his bill revising the school code. Later, as Commissioner of Schools, he effected still other changes that his survey had indicated as desirable. This Rhode Island 1William E. Drake, The American School in Transition (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19557. pp. 425926. survey, frequently spoken of as the first American school survey, was the forerunner of the survey as we know it today.1 Marsh goes on to point out that a number of other sur- veys were made following Barnard”s work in Rhode Island. He indicates that these were of broad scope and considered social surveys. They included in their surveys study of all phases of the educational system, and this led to the school surveys of the early twentieth century.2 During the same period to which Marsh refers, many cities were appointing investigating commissions. These commissions then surveyed various aspects of the educational situation and issued reports. Barnard and later William T. Harris, as United States Commissioners of Education, con- ducted studies of the schools of Washington, D.C., at the request of Congress. In the period 1905 to 1910 many states also appointed commissions to study various aspects of educa- tion in their states. These commissions usually carried out detailed studies and issued reports. All of these activities were of a survey nature and set the stage for what later be- became the modern survey movement.3 Table 1 lists some of 1C. S. MarSh, "General Methods: The Social Survey and the Study of Communities," The Scientific Movement in Educa— tion, Thirty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1938), pp. 285-86. 21bid. 3Sears, pp. 224-29. these early studies and reports which contained many of the characteristics of the modern school survey. Table 1. Early Survey Type Studies, 1831-1907 Year System Studied Director 1831 Prussian Schools Victor Cousins 1843 Rhode Island Schools Henry Barnard 1849 Massachusetts Schools Horace Mann 1868 Washington, D.C. Henry Barnard 1892 Washington, D.C. William T. Harris 1897 Chicago, Illinois William R. Harper 1907 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Paul U. Kellogg THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT The school survey, as it has come to be known by pro- fessional educators of today, is a distinct movement which can be traced throughout the history of education in the twentieth century. It is closely identified with the scien- tific movement in education. The develOpment of techniques of measurement in the early years of the century seemed to Open the door for the outside experts or surveyors to apply scientific methods to the study of the schools. Thus the school survey, as seen from its twentieth century beginnings, has been very clearly defined. One of the best definitions of the school survey is given by COOper: . . . the school survey is characterized as a formal review, usually undertaken at the specific request of the governing body of the school system; it is generally intended either as a complete study of all phases of a school or school system, or at the least as a study of one or more major phases; it is aimed at producing either carefully considered evaluative judgments, or important recommendations for future development, or both; and it is conducted by persons possessing superior qualifications for both authoritative and scientific contributions in the conduct of the study. A written report of this type of study is understood as the typical school survey report. Early surveys. Using this definition, it is easy to see why early writers mark the Boise study of 1910 as the beginning of the survey movement. The Montclair and East Orange studies of 1911 clearly fall into this category also. The beginning of the survey movement is eXplained by Judd when he reports: The year 1910 and the years immediately follow- ing may be thought of as the years during which the school survey movement had its real beginning. Up to that time studies of school systems were made either by public officials in the performance of their rou- tine duties or by investigators interested in some particular phase of education. In 1910 and 1911 a new element entered into the situation. This new element can be described by saying that certain school systems imported eXperts from outside the system for the pur- pose of securing advice regarded as superior to that which could be secured from public officials or casual observers. In 1910 Charles S. Meek, the superintendent of schools of the city of Boise, Idaho, invited 1Dan H. Cooper, "School Surveys," March, 1958, Enc clo- pedia of Educational Research, ed. Chester W. Harris, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966), p. 1211. Calvin N. Kendall, the superintendent of schools in Indianapolis, to spend a week inspecting the schools of Boise. Kendall rendered a report that was published in the Idaho Statesman, the local neWSpaper. It dealt with such matters as school buildings, teachers, the course of study, the organization of the system, and the attitude of the community. In 1911 Professor Paul Hanus, of Harvard University, inspected schools in Montclair, New Jersey, and Professor E. Co Moore, of Yale University, inspected the schools of East Orange, New Jersey. Both inspections resulted in published reports dealing with the problems of the schools.1 The 1911 survey of the Baltimore, Maryland, school sys- tem was directed by a commission composed of Elmer E. Brown, United States Commissioner of Education; Professor E. P. Cubberly of Stanford University; and Superintendent Kendall. This commission employed a staff who conducted the survey. It was the first school survey employing a large staff. The New York City survey was conducted by Professor Paul Hanus from 1911 to 1913. This survey received so much nation-wide attention that it is said to be the survey that gave prestige and standing to the entire movement. During the next few years many schools in all parts of the country inaugurated a school survey. Table 2 shows the rapid expansion of the movement during these early years. The high point in the early survey movement was reached in 1915-16 when Leonard P. Ayres, with the help of a large staff, conducted the survey of schools in 1Charles H. Judd, "Contributions of School Surveys," The Scientific Movement in Education, Thirtymseventh Yearbook of tHe National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Bliomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1938), p. 1. 10 Table 2. Early Surveys Indicating the Rapid Growth of the National Movement in School Surveys, 1910-19131 Year System Studied Director 1910 Boise, Idaho C. N. Kendall, Supt. New Jersey 1911 Montclair, N. J. Paul Hanus, Harvard 1911 East Orange, N. J. E. C. Moore, Yale 1911 Baltimore, Md. E. E. Brown, U. S. Commissioner of Education 1911 New York City Paul Hanus, Harvard 1912 Harrisburg, Pa. Snyder, Supt. Jersey City 1912 Montgomery County, Md. 1912 Greenwich, Conn. Russell Sage Foundation 1912 Wise. Rural Schools New York Bureau of MUnicipal Research 1912 Atlanta, Georgia N. Y. Bur. of Municipal Research 1912 Syracuse, N. Y. N. Y. Bur. of Municipal Research 1913 Boise, Idaho (second) Elliott, U. of Wisconsin Judd, U. of Chicago Strayer, T. C. Columbia 1913 Portland, Oregon E. P. Cubberly, Stanford 1913 Grafton, W. Virginia Deahl, U. of W. Virginia 1913 Upper Peninsula of Brown & Kay, Northern Michigan Michigan State Normal 1913 Newburg, N. Y. Russell Sage Foundation 1913 State of Illinois Coffman, U. of Illinois 1913 St. Paul, Minn. N. Y. Bur. of Municipal Research 1913 Waturbury, Conn. N. Y. Bur. of Municipal Research 1913 State of Ohio N. Y. Bur. of Municipal Research 1913 State of Vermont Carnegie Foundation 1913 Bridgeport, Conn. Van Sickle, Supt. Springfield, Massachusetts 1913 Minneapolis, Minn. Local Teachers 1913 Butte, Montana E. P. Cubberly, Stanford 1Compiled from Sears, p. 238. 11 Cleveland, Ohio.1 This phenomenal growth of the movement was reported by H. G. Good when he wrote: The school survey movement spread so rapidly that it might be said to have swept the country. The schools of eleven cities and two whole states were surveyed be~ tween 1910 and 1913. This was only the beginning.2 Rapid expansion. The school survey movement declined somewhat during World War I and again during the depression of the 1930's. In general, however, it expanded quite rapid~ 1y.3 Smith and O”Dell4 prepared bibliographies of surveys in 1931 and 1938 which listed over three thousand survey reports for elementary and secondary schools. Such bibliographies were not continued after the 19309s, but the survey reports continued to flow from various agencies. Reckewey was reported as saying in 1954 that universities were continuing the expansion of their survey services.5 Two years later, in 1956, Sumption conducted a survey of one hundred educational institutions with colleges or departments of education in all states and reported that eightynseven offered survey services ‘Ibid.. pp. 12-15. 2H. G. Good, A History of American Education (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1962), p. 400. BSears, p. 244. 4COOper, p. 1211. 5Rex K. Reckewey, "The Role of the University and Recent Trends in the Conduct of School Surveys," Dissertation Abstracts XIV, No. 8 (AugustmDecember, 1954), pp. 1980m81. 12 and that individuals at four of the remaining thirteen were engaged in some sort of survey or consultation work.1 The author of the present study interviewed representatives at each of the publicly supported Big Ten universities in 1964, and they reported that the number of requests for surveys has increased in recent years. Thus, in fifty years the survey movement has eXpanded to cover the entire nation in all areas of education and shows signs of continuing to be an important phase of applied educational research. Leadership in the movement. The leadership of the school survey movement has rested largely with men who have been connected professionally with education. Most of the early studies were directed by men who held positions in the education departments of the universities. A few were directed by practicing administrators and some by municipal research bureaus or foundations. An examination of Table 2 on page 10 will reveal that many of these early studies were under the direction of professors who were interested in the advancement of the science of education. Sears remarks about this in his writing by saying: In explaining the forces that gave rise to the school survey it was noted that great impetus was given by the scientific movement in education. It is to workers in this field we have largely to look for the leadership responsible for the development of this movement. While the work done in early 1Merle R. Sumption, "A Survey of Surveys," The Nation's Schools, LVII, No. 3 (March, 1956), p. 91. 13 surveys by practical administrators and teachers is not to be overlooked, the leadership has laid largely with those who were directly interested in the scien- tific study of education. These men were connected with schools of education in institutions of higher learning . . . The universities were interested in the broad scientific approach to education and so established bureaus of educational research. Oklahoma had such a bureau as early as 1913; and other universities soon followedmulndiana 1914, Iowa 1914, Runnesota 1915, Kansas 1917, Illinois 1918, Ohio State 1921, and North Carolina 1923.2 Some of these bureaus conducted school surveys as a regular part of their research activity. Teachers College at Columbia University organized a Division of Field Studies within its Institute of Educational Research in 1921.3 Lucas4 states that the Bureau of Educational Re- search and Service at The Ohio State University resulted from the 1913 survey of the public schools of Ohio. This service has since been expanded to serve many areas of education. Guba explains this founding and expansion by stating: 1Sears, p. 238. 2Harold B. Chapman, Organized Research in Education (Columbus, Ohio: State University Press, 1927), quoted in Jesse B. Sears, Modern School Administration, p. 241. 3Sears, p. 241. 4John T. Lucas, "A Followmup Study of the Recommen- dations Made in School Building Surveys by The Bureau of Educational Research at Twenty Exempted Village and Local Schools" (unpublished Mastergs thesis, The Ohio State Uni- versity, 1952). 14 The Bureau of Educational Research and Service has been a department of the College of Education since 1921, when it was founded in response to a man- date from the Ohio Legislature requiring public "normal schools and colleges" to maintain a ”Depart- ment of Efficiency Tests and Surveys." From limited responsibilities handled by four persons, the Bureau expanded and changed to its present organization of five divisions with nineteen professional staff mem- bers.1 Many other universities have followed this same pattern of development. Others have supplied survey service through academic departments or by the efforts of individual faculty members. As was reported earlier, however, Sumption2 found in 1956 that eighty-seven out of one hundred universities studied did supply survey services in one form or another. The present author also found this to be true in the publicly supported Big Ten universities in 1964. Most of the Big Ten universities provide survey services, but there is a diversity of organizational patterns. Thus it can be noted that the leadership of the survey movement has remained with men con- nected with the universities. Types of surveys. In the early days of the movement many surveys were carried out by single individuals while others were conducted by groups of individuals. Many times practicing administrators were included in these groups. The 1Egon B. Guba, "Research, Teaching, and Services.” Bulletin of the Bureau of Educational Research and Service (Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1962), p. 1. esumption, The Nation's Schools, LVII, No. 3, p. 91. 15 early surveys were usually characterized as eXpert studies - since they were conducted by educational authorities from outside the system. This early practice led to much discus- sion as to what a survey should be, when it should be conducted, and who should participate in it. Plans for making surveys were developed, published, and discussed.1 Survey reports were published and reviewed.2 In fact, the National Society for the Study of Education dedicated part II of its thirteenth yearbook to a discussion of whether outm siders should be brought in to survey a school system. The early surveys by outside experts were followed by efforts to establish research departments within city school systems which carried on a sort of continuous survey. These efforts at self-surveying were hailed as proper by many of the early surveyors. In 1925, Cubberly wrote of this development in glowing terms: Begun only a decade and a half ago, the school survey has now become common and is used everywhere. Still more, it has been standardized as to type and purposes and procedures, and has been established as an important part of our administrative technique. 1H. L. Smith, "Plans for Organizing School Surveys," Plans for Organizing School Surveys with a Summary of Typical School Surveys, Thirteenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1914). 2Charles H. Judd, "Summary of Typical School Surveys," Plans for Organizing School Surveys with a Summaryfi of Typical School Surveys, Thirteenth Yearbook ofPthe National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1914). 16 Fortunately the movement is now passing over into the self-survey, made by the local educational author- ities, and still further into the continuous selfmsurvey through the creation of city and state departments of statistics and research. This is a most desirable cul- mination of the movement. In spite of Cubber1y°s early observation, the outside experts continued to conduct a large number of surveys. Reckewey2 in 1954 did a follow-up study of seventy surveys conducted by seven universities, and he concluded that twomthirds of the surveys were characterized as expert-type and only one-third V were categorized as citizen surveys. The third type of survey which emerged is the c00pera- tive survey in which the local citizen is aided by the expert / or consultant. Sumption declared in 1956 that this was the emerging trend. From his survey of surveying institutions, he arrived at the conclusion that the practice of having experts collect all data was the exception rather than the rule. He reported: It is clear that both the concept and the meth- od of the school survey are undergoing significant change, and, from the present trend, it might be pre- dicted that the survey of the future will be a school: community planning project in which the "expert" staff will servg largely, if not entirely, in an advisory capacity. 1Elwood P. Cubberly, editor”s introduction in The School Surve by Jesse B. Sears (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925), p. viii. 2Reckewey, pp. 1980-81. 3Sumption, The Nation°s Schools, LVII, No. 3. P. 92. 17 This third type of survey seems to be popular today; however, it has not supplanted the others. Local school administrators still call on the outside expert to make appraisals and rec- ommendations. In 1962 Van Dalen reported in his book on educational research that the trend is toward a cooperative type survey but that all three patterns are still in use. Van Dalen states: . . . All three patterns—~(l) the outside expert survey, (2) the selfnsurvey, and (3) the 000perative survey are still employed. But there is a definite trend away from the pioneer type of outside expert survey that is conducted exclusively by the research staff of a university or state department of education. The self-survey which is undertaken by members of the local school organization appeared more frequently in the 1920's when schools began to add research special- ists to their staffs who could offer competent leaderm ship. The self-survey remains popular today, but since 1935 the c00perative survey has been gaining ground.1 This kind of a cooperative approach in survey work seems to have received a special impetus after World War II when the population rise created a strong need for new school I . buildings. Educators recognized that long-range planning was necessary; and to accomplish it, people in the community should be made aware of the existing conditions. This gave rise to a cooperative approach in planning new school housing as explained by Herrick: The current school housing problem cannot be solved by boards of education, or superintendents of schools, or architects, or school plant specialists 1Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962), p. 188. 18 alone. There are no magic fountains from which will flow the needed foresight and ingenuity, let alone the money, to do the job that is necessary. Effective solution of the problems requires clear understanding and intelligent participation by laymen, architects, and professional educators alike. This recognition of the need to involve people in planning was also expressed by McQuade. He placed primary importance on the involvement of people in the survey and planning process but did not rule out the educational consultant. He wrote: . . . Involving members of groups like these-- but involving them, to avoid old rivalries, as indi- viduals, not delegates-uis almost always essential in planning a new school which will truly represent the wishes of your community. . . . You may also want to bring in an educational consultant--a professor at your state university or an independent practitioner. He is a specialist, with the added advantage that he is removed from town politics and can be impartial in such matters as real estate wrangles. This move toward cooperative surveys and planning also brought out the partial survey as opposed to the earlier comm prehensive type surveys. The early surveyors tended to try to examine all phases of the school program and to make evaluu ative judgments concerning it. The move toward selfusurveys tended to concentrate on various aspects of the program or setting with a continuous effort toward improvements. The c00perative surveys of the 19509s and the 1960°s usually con- centrated on specific problems which constituted only a 1John H. Herrick, et al., From School Prpgrams to School Plant (New York: Henry HoIt and Company, 1956), p. viii. 2Walter McQuade (ed.), Schoolhouse (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958), p. 49. l9 partial survey of the system. Cooper indiCates this by say- ing, "Although the earliest school surveys were what is now called 'comprehensive,’ dealing with any and all aspects of a school system, there has been a growing tolerance within ,/ the survey movement for partial surveys."1 This author found that none of the publicly supported Big Ten universities classified their school surveys in 1964 as comprehensive. Thus it might be stated that today all three types of surveys are still being conducted. The cooperative, partial survey, however, has grown in importance because of the desire to involve greater numbers of people in an effort to solve specif- ic problems. Contributions of the survey movement. Quotations, such as the following, characterize the school survey movement. "The school survey is a significant instrument for the study and improvement of education."2 "Authorities are agreed that the school survey has contributed much to educational progress in the past fifty years."3 "Since 1910, many school authori- ties have had experts survey their school systems and suggest how to improve them."4 "The school survey is a tool which has enabled us to develop an important form of educational 1Cooper, p. 1211. 2Ibid. 3Reckewey, p. 1980. 4Van Dalen, p. 8. 20 engineering. . . ."1 "Various methods were used in educating people to the public school movement. Of the methods used, those which proved most effective were lectures, educational magazines, school societies, school surveys. . . ."2 "There can be no doubt that the rapid progress made by the science of education between the years 1910 and 1920 was in no small measure due to the extensive use in school surveys of measure- ment techniques and techniques of comparison. The leading members of college and university departments of education eagerly took advantage of the opportunities offered by the surveys to develop new fields and new methods of inquiry and to gather new bodies of materials regarding school organiza- tion and teaching methods."3 Many, many more quotations such as those given above could be culled from the writings of educators testifying to the contributions which have accrued to the profession of education from the school survey movement. This movement has paralleled the development of scientific research in educa~ tion. The measurement movement and the development of school administration have both been aided by the school survey move- ment. Sears summarizes the contributions of surveys by saying: 1Cubberly, p. viii. 2Drake, p. 212. 3Charles H. Judd, The Scientific Movement in Education, p. 15. 21 Without trying here to present quantitative evidence of the value or extent of the survey”s con- tributions, it is believed that no one would question the statements that, because of the school survey movement: 1. Our school practice has been improved. 2. Our school housing has been improved. 3. The status of the profession has been improved in fact and in the estimation of the public. 4. The science of education has been further develOped. 5. The teaching of education has been benefited. 6. Education is more intelligently understood and appreciated by the public. 7. Education is more liberally supported.1 The survey movement has thus contributed much to the theory and practice of education. Since the survey is a form of applied research, it has not by itself contributed to the advancement of the sciance,of education. Through the use of techniques, the use of research discoveries, and by uncovering new problems the survey has helped indirectly to advance and improve many aspects of education. The survey movement has been a potent force in bringing theory and science of educa- tion into direct contact with the practice of education. The welding together of two sides of the profession may be called the contribution of the survey movement. The school survey movement continues to make contribu- tions to the field of education, and many universities across the nation provide this kind of service to the American people. Seven midwestern states support state universities which have 1Sears, Modern School Administration, p. 246. v" 22 been active in school survey activities; and these universi- ties known as the Big Ten, have continuously attempted to improve the services they render to the people of their states. Their survey services are the object of this study which is an attempt to improve those services and thus become a con- tribution to the field of education. RELATED LITERATURE The survey movement has produced a large amount of literature for the field of education. Some of this litera- ture has been written directly for and about the school surveys such as the many survey reports that have been published or the textbook on surveying by Sears.1 Other materials written concerning school surveys include references in books on school administration, reports of research studies concerned with re- sults or methods of school surveys, articles in journals and magazines describing values or results or methods employed in school surveys, guide books for conducting surveys, and biblio- graphies of surveys. A thorough examination of all the litera- ture related to the school survey movement would take years to complete and a large fund to support the endeavor. Therefore, the author made a review of the literature available through the Michigan State University library and will report a repre- sentative sampling of the literature in selected areas. 1Sears, The School Survey. 23 Objectives and_purposes of surveys. The purpose of school surveys has been discussed pro and con since the be- ginning of the movement. Some writers have attributed high purposes and values to school surveys, while others have questioned not only the purpose and values but also the motives of those requesting surveys. An examination of the writings in this area reveals three types of surveys in terms of purposes. These have been identified by Reller1 and Cooper2 as: . . . (a) the investigative, evaluative, or status survey, which serves primarily to evaluate existing con- ditions; (b) the deliberative, developmental, or planning survey, which is intended primarily to make proposals for development and improvement, with a minimum of criticism of present circumstances; (0) the implementive survey, which not only makes suggestions for development but also attempts to create conditions in the conduct of the survey which will enhance the prospects of actually achieving survey recommendations. The objectives of school surveys have been described generally to gather factual data about a school system which can be interpreted to provide a basis for future planning. The actual planning or implementing has also been recognized as a legitimate part of the survey activity. Morphet described this aspect of school surveys in the early 1940“s when he wrote: 1Theodore L. Reller, "Shall We Have a Status, Delibera- tive, or Implementative Study of Our Schools?", The American School Board Journal, CIV, No. 4 (April, 1942), pp. 16-18. 2Cooper, p. 1212. 3Ibid. 24 There are very few schools, school systems, or educational institutions which are adequate in every respect at the time they are established. . . . A sur- vey, therefore, should help to discover or call atten- tion to deficiencies which may have existed for many years and to assist in bringing about needed improvea ments. . . . A plan for needed improvements should be an objective of the survey. Sumption examined purposes in his study of one hundred colleges and universities in 1956 and found that a majority (fifty-two) of the institutions listed only one purpose for surveys and that seventy-seven listed only one or two purposes. A majority of these institutions, "regard the school survey essentially as a project designed to develop a longmrange « integrated program of improvement."2 Thus the writers agreed that school surveys have as a primary purpose a gathering of data to formulate plans for school improvements. Appraisals of the survey movement. The school survey movement, like every other phase of education, has been evalua- ted from time to time by various men using a variety of methods.. In the early days of the movement leaders in the field of edu» cation tried to evaluate the total movement. Two examples of this type of appraisal are afforded in the reports of Leonard P. Ayers and George D. Strayer. Ayers reported his evaluation of thirty school surveys at a conference held at Indiana Uni- versity in 1915. He commented: 1Edgar L. Morphet, "How to Conduct a School Survey," School Executive, LXVII, No. 8 (April, 1948), pp. 11ml4. 2Sumption, The Nationgs Schools, LVII, No. 3, p. 91. 25 The school survey is a new and distinctive imple» ment of progress. It has come into being for the pur» pose of educating the public about their schools, . . . Its object is to make the entire school system pass in review before the public eye. It makes the school and public pay attention to each other. It presents the past, the present, and the possible. It is a community stock-taking inventory and appraisal of its educational assets and opportunities. It aims to place before the citizens a picture of their schools; a picture so accurate that it cannot mislead, so sim- ple that it cannot be misunderstood, and so significant that it cannot be disregarded. It does not always sue» seed in its aims, but it cannot even take aim in secret or in the dark.‘ In 1917, at another conference at Indiana University, Strayer was brought in as an expert and consultant in the field of school surveys. He reported on four areas of emphasis in school surveys: "(1) the scoring of school buildings, (2) the standardizing of the school, (3) the significance and present status of the survey movement, (4) practical improvements in / school administration resulting from the school survey."2 Later appraisals tended to evaluate specific surveys conm ducted by a certain institution during a specified limi (+ (D Q.- CI . H‘ B (D period. A good example of one of the first appraisals of this type is the study done by Henry Harap, associate director of the division of surveys and field servi;es. George Peabody 1Leonard P. Ayers. "A Survey of School Surveys," §§£9p8_ Annual Conference on Educational Measurements, Bulletin of the Extension Division, XIII, No. 11 (Bloomington: Indiana Uni= versity, 1915), pp. 172-81. 2George D. Strayer. as reported by Harold H. Church and Melvin S. Lewis, "An Appraisal of the School Surveys Contucted by the School of Education, Indiana University," Bulletin of the School of Educatign. XXXV, No. 5 (September, 1959), p. 2. 26 College. Harap reported in 1952 on a study of eighteen compre~ hensive surveys conducted by his division between 1945 and 1950. The study was conducted by questionnaire to the superintendents and by personal interview with local people in the communities. Several specific results were cited, all positive; and the re- port concluded by saying ". . . to those who made the surveys, it was reassuring to learn that, on the whole, the surveys had produced good results."1 The same method of study was followed by several others using similar methods to Harap9s to appraise surveys done at several other universities. Most of these studies were con_ ducted as research for doctoral degrees and reported as unpuba lished dissertations. Examples of such studies would be Harold L. O'Neal at Indiana University, 1953; Rex K. Reckewey at University of Nebraska, 1954; Kenneth R. Thomas at Univer- sity of Pittsburgh, 1955; Bill M. Root at The Ohio State Uni- versity, 1958; and Fred Brieve at Michigan State University, 1963. Each of these appraisals reported generally favorable results from the school surveys. A different sort of appraisal is also found in the lit_ erature of the survey movement. This is concerned with the methods or techniques used to carry out the survey activities. Ernest P. Branson reported this kind of research in 1918 when 1Henry Harap, "Do School Surveys Produce Results?", The Nation’s Schools, XLIX, No. 3 (March, 1952), pp. 35~8. M 27 he wrote about his investigation into the use of standardized tests in school surveys. He compiled information from the com- prehensive surveys conducted between 1911 and 1917 and showed that standardized tests were used by surveyors to evaluate student progress in reading, handwriting, spelling, arithme» tic, composition, punctuation, and grammar. He further stated, ". . . It will be noticed that the average number of tests used in each case grows from one in the 1911 to 1913 group to five in 1916. It is quite evident that the standard measurements are essential to the survey."1 A study of survey techniques was also conducted by Hollis L. Caswell in 1933. Fiftyaone comprehensive city school surm veys were examined to determine what methods were used to ‘ secure data and the methods of evaluating the data. After carefully checking, classifying, and analyzing his data, Caswell reported four conclusions: 1. That survey techniques have become increas~ ingly objective. 2. That techniques should be extended espe_ cially for the study of problems in the field of instruction. 3. That the variety of techniques available for study of problems in the fields of educational results and school finance are especially limited. ‘Ernest P. Branson, "Standard Tests Used in School Sur- veys," School and Society, VIII, No. 207 (December, 1918), pp. 719-720. 28 4. That it is extremely desirable to canvass the techniques employed by all survey groups to dis- cover which ones are adequate for the solution of particular problems. There have also been other studies which investigated either the techniques, the procedures, or the problems of school surveys. Most of these consist of listing the items and enumerating their frequency of use. A somewhat differ- ent kind of appraisal of surveys was conducted on two occa- sions. This consisted of a study of the effectiveness of various groups who conducted surveys: outside experts, local teachers, or local citizens. The first of these was com- pleted in 1952 by Kenneth L. Husbands2 in which he compared evaluations of school programs done by local teachers with those done by outside specialists. He reported many incon- sistencies and disagreements between the two groups. Conn trasted to Husbands' report, Jack L. Landes3 found in 1953 a high correlation between various groups in reporting on evaluations of school buildings and sites. No followwup studies were found to substantiate either of these conclu- sions. 1Hollis L. Caswell, "Survey Techniques," Educational Ad- ministration and Supervision, XIX, No. 6 (September, 1933), p. 441. 2Kenneth L. Husbands, "A Comparative Study of a Self-Survey and an Expert Survey of an Elementary School Curriculum" (un- published Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1952). 3Jack L. Landes, "A Study of Variations in Group Percep~ tions of School Buildings" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, UniverSity of Illinois, 1953. 29 Sumption's1 survey of the eightynseven colleges and uni- versities doing survey work in 1956 was similar to Caswell's earlier study of the methods employed to collect and analyze data. In this appraisal the persons doing the collecting, analyzing, and making the recommendations were investigated. Sumption concluded that there was a definite trend toward greater involvement of local people in the school surveys. Contributions to school administration. The school sur- vey movement made many contributions to the general field of education. Many such contributions were enumerated earlier in this chapter. The writers cited previously as well as many others have also noted many contributions which the Survey movement has made to the administration of schools. Cubberly, as one of the recognized early leaders in school administration, wrote in 1925, "A decade and a half ago a very important devel- ‘Opment in school administration procedure was begun in the work of the school survey. The practical results of the survey move- ment in education have been to add a large and rapidly growing amount of new and important instructional material to our courses in school administration."2 The same idea that Cubberly had expounded in 1925 was expressed by Judd in 1938. Writing for the thirty-seventh year- book of the National Society for the Study of Education, he was 1Sumption, The Nation”s Schools, LVII, No. 3. p. 92. 2Cubberly, p. vii. 3O concerned with the contribution of school surveys; and he stated specifically, "There is no body of material dealing with school administration as concrete and illuminating as // that which is to be found in school surveys. Several univer- sities have made the reports of surveys the basis of courses in administration and in American education in its more gen~ eral aspects."1 School survey reports were not only serving as reference material for university courses, but some universities offered courses in school survey work. Indiana University offered such a course in the 1916-17 school year and Stanford University in 1918. Judd2 reported that graduate students of school adminis» tration at Teachers College of Columbia University were con- ducting school surveys in the 1930‘s as part of their adminis- trative training. This procedure was also being followed by many other universities and even at the present time is recog- nized as a valuable field experience. Textbooks in school surveying were written by Don C. Bliss3 and Jesse B. Sears.4 Other books written as texts in school administration have also contained material pertaining 1Judd, p. 19. 2Ibid., p. 17. 3Don C. Bliss, Methods and Standards for Local School Surveys (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1918). 4Sears, The School Survey. 31 to school surveys. Examples of such books are Modern School Administration by John C. Almack, School Public Relations by Arthur B. Moehlman and James A. Van Zwoll, and Educational Administration: Concepts, Practices, and Issues by Edgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller. Research studies have been conducted which have exam- ined recommendations contained in school survey reports in order to classify the problems of school administration. Many of these studies were limited to single aspects of school ad_ ministration such as the high school, school boards, school principals, duties of superintendents, or building and site recommendations. A few attempts have been made to summarize all the recommendations for a broad series of topics. The most recent study of this nature was by John S. Benben at V/ Northwestern University in 1953. In it he studied twenty-one comprehensive surveys of city school systems made between 1916 and 1950. He described the study thus: "The problem for investigation in this study was to determine the changing con~ cepts of school administration as reflected in the recommenda» tions of selected city school surveys. The study proposed to disclose what changes in thinking had occurred regarding the role of the board of education, of the school superintendent, of the principal, of the supervising staff, and of the instruc- tional and non-instructional staffs in the administration of the 32 schools."1 These research studies have tapped a huge deposi- tory of the best expert judgment available on the practical problems of education. Guidebooks and workbooks. Citizen participation in school surveys increased noticeably following World War II and the Korean War. A greatlywincreased number of children were enterm ing schools during this period, and many new buildings were planned and built. Since school surveys provided a basis for planning, citizens were taking an evermincreasing part in these activities. During this period many books were written to serve as guides for these citizen committees. Some were the result of government commissions such as the report issued in 1950 by the Connecticut Governor?s Facthinding Commission on Education, Do Citizens and Education Mix? Others were the rem sult of individual authors like Sumption”s How to Conduct a Citizens School Survey in 1952, or Guide for Planning Your Educational Program by Aaron W. Harper and Merlin C. Wittrock in 1960. Still others were the result of educational groups such as the C00perative Program in Educational Administration which sponsored publications like Citizens Survey Their School Ngggg by Millard Z. Pond and Howard Wakefield in 1954. All such publications have contributed to the literature of the school survey movement. 1John S. Benben, "Changing Concepts of School Adminis- tration as Revealed in City School Surveys, 1916~1950" (un- published Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1953). 33 Limitations and values of school surveys. The con- tributions of the school survey movement to the field of education and to school administration have already been dis- cussed in this report. In order to present a balanced picture of this important movement, however, it must be pointed out that there have been those writers who have seriously quesm tioned the value of the school survey. Other writers, while admitting some value, point out that school surveys do have limitations and that they must be approached with caution. This type of discussion was presented by H. L. Smith.I in 1914. Writing for the thirteenth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, he deve10ped a strong argument for cooperation between local school officials and university men in organizing and conducting a school survey. In his paper Smith explored the questions: when should a community have a survey, how can and should a survey be made, and by whom should it be made. He also eXplained some of the reasons why surveys were becoming popular and some of the purposes of surveys. Many years later the discussion of relative merits of surveys was still being pursued. Typical of this is the arti~ cle by William E° Arnold in which he states: The difference of opinion which still exists as to the merit of the school survey, is most probably due 1Smith, Plans for Organizing School Surveys with a Summ mary of Typical School Surveys. 34 to the fact that surveys differ so greatly in their scope and techniques, as well as in general merit. That there have been good surveys cannot be denied. Probably the answer to the question of value must be stated in qualified terms. The school survey, under certain conditions and when properly conducted, is an important and valuable aid to the improvement of educational practice.1 Arnold went on in his article to describe the conditions which made an outside survey desirable. He also noted that, ". . . the actual benefit to be received will obviously depend upon the manner in which the survey is conducted."2 A more outspoken denunciation of school surveys has been presented by Raymond E. Callahan as a result of five years of study. He has written a book in which he tries to show that school administration has been unduly and unfortunately in- fluenced by the efficiency movement in business and industry. In one section of his book he purports to show that the school survey movement was nothing more than a mechanical efficiency study of the American schools. He further contends that this has done almost irreparable harm to education in America. He concludes this section of his book by saying: . . . The tragedy, however, was not only that surveys helped orient the nature of the "profession" of school administration in its formative years toward the business and mechanical aspects of education, but also that many intelligent educators were forced to spend their time on trivial matters. To be sure, much of the work done was valuable and the millions of facts 1William E. Arnold, "Are School Surveys Worthwhile?", The American School Board Journal, CXI, No. 4 (October, 1945), p. 28. 2Ibid. 35 gathered were useful and could have been even more useful if they had been put to educational and not to financial purposes. In the end, the American peo- ple got what they deserved for forcing their educators to spend their time on accounting rather than on the education of children. The examination of the literature has shown that the school survey movement has had its detractors as well as its supporters. The movement has had limitations and value. It has served education and has been studied by educators. The basic irrefutable fact shown by the literature is that it has generated interest among educators and laymen and that it is still being carried forward by men interested in education today. SUMMARY Although the modern movement began in 1910 with the sur- vey of the schools of Boise, Idaho, by Kendall, the school survey movement has its roots deep in the history of education. After this first modern school survey, the movement developed very rapidly. The development of the measurement movement, or the scientific movement in education, encouraged professors of education to pursue field studies in the form of school surveys; and the school survey movement made many valuable contributions to the field of education. In order to continue this contri- bution, educators of the present day are attempting to improve 1Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 120. 36 the methods and procedures used in conducting school surveys. This study is one attempt to provide useful information for such improvements. The study is reported in five chapters. They are devel- oped to provide an introduction, a presentation of data, and recommendations for improvements. The chapters, with titles and content, are as follows: Chapter I. THE SCHOOL SURVEY MOVEMENT Historical development of the school survey movement, from early beginnings to the present day, with a review of the related literature. Chapter II. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY Explanation of the purpose, value, and design of the study; how it was developed; and how it is presented. Chapter III. SURVEYS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Description of the development and current status of the school survey movement at Michigan State Univer- sity. Chapter IV. DATA FROM THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES Description of the survey services provided by the other publicly supported Big Ten universities. Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Statement of conclusions reached from an analysis of the data and recommendations for possible improvements in the school survey service at Michigan State Univer- sity. CHAPTER II NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY Michigan State University has provided a wide variety of services to the people of the state since the days of its founding. One of these services has been provided by the College of Education in the form of school surveys. This service has been appraised several times both informally and formally since the first formal school survey report was pub_ lished in 1954. These appraisals have led to changes in the methods, organization, and administration of the survey serv- ice. Such changes have always been made in an effort to improve the services provided to the schools of Michigan. This study was designed to provide information which will aid in the further improvement of the school survey service. In 1959 the survey directors of the Big Ten universi- ties and the University of Chicago organized an annual con- ference dedicated to the improvement of survey services. Many aspects of school surveys have been thoroughly discussed at the survey directors conferences. These discussions have covered a wide range of topics which contributed to improve- ments in surveys conducted by each of the participating uni- versities. Thus, it seemed quite practical to conduct a descriptive study of the methods used by the Big Ten 37 38 universities in order to present a compilation of informa- tion which may be useful to these institutions. Michigan State University is interested in adopting any new proce- dures which might improve its survey service so it was reasonable for someone from Michigan State University to undertake such a study in an effort to be useful to all of the Big Ten universities. The survey directors at the uni- versities agreed to cooperate in such a study by furnishing information regarding their services. With this assurance, the study was then undertaken and is herewith reported. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Since the general nature of the study was to describe the methods and procedures used by the Big Ten universities in conducting school surveys, it was quite easy to determine specific purposes for the study. The general improvement of school surveys, as conducted by any institution, is the broad, expected outcome of the study. The specific purposes, however, are intended to help improve survey services at the particia pating universities. These purposes have been identified as an effort to: 1. Present a concise review of the literature on the school survey movement which may be considered use- ful to future school survey workers. 2. Present a short history and a description of opera- ting procedures of the school survey service at Michigan State University that will be useful to future research assistants assigned to the field services team at this university. 39 3. Obtain and present information regarding the con- duct of school surveys in the publicly supported Big Ten universities. 4. Obtain information and make recommendations re- garding possible improvements in the Michigan State University survey service. VALUE OF THE STUDY The College of Education at Michigan State University has conducted school surveys in the schools of Michigan for many years. These surveys have been conducted as a service to the people of Michigan in keeping with the land-grant philosophy which guides the University. During the past ten years the methods of Operation and administration of this service have been changed at least four times. These changes have always been effected in an effort to improve this service. .Such improvements, to be truly effective, should be based on a careful examination of all the factual data available. This study prOposes to make certain kinds of data available, with an analysis of these data, and to make recommendations based on this analysis for the improvement of the Michigan State University school survey service. This kind of descriptive research has been considered to be valuable for making improvements in many areas of edu» cation. Van Dalen describes this value as follows: Before much progress can be made in solving problems, men must possess accurate descriptions of the phenomena with which they work. . . . To solve problems about children, school administration, 4O curriculum, or the teaching of arithmetic, descrip- tive researchers ask these initial questions: What exists--what is the present status of these phenomena? Determining the nature of prevailing conditions, prac- tices, and attitudes-~seeking accurate description of activities, objects, processes, and persons--is their objective. They depict current status and sometimes identify relationships that exist among phenomena or trends that appear to be developing. Occasionally, they attempt to make predictions about future events.1 The above cited quotation from Van Dalen describes the intent and purpose of this study. With this in mind and being mindful of the service philosophy guiding Michigan State University, it is believed that this study will be valuable for the improvement of survey services at other institutions, as well as at Michigan State University. This study has two underlying purposes: to focus atten- tion on current practices and to provide information valuable in guiding the planning for future action. These two purposes present a legitimate function and value of this study as a type of descriptive research. This function is explained by Van Dalen when he states: Descriptive studies that obtain accurate facts about existing conditions or detect significant rela- tionships between current phenomena and interpret the meaning of the data provide educators with practical and immediately useful information. Factual informa- tion about existing status enables members of the profession to make more intelligent plans about future courses of action and helps them inperpret educational problems more effectively to the public. Pertinent data regarding the present scene may focus attention upon needs that would otherwise remain unnoticed. 1Van Dalen, p. 184. 41 They may also reveal developments, conditions, or trends that will convince citizens to keep pace with others or to prepare for probable future events. Since existing educational conditions, processes, practices, and programs are constantly changing, there is always a need for up-to-date descriptions of what is taking place.1 Therefore, this study should be of value as an addition to the literature of the school survey movement and as an instru~ ment for encouraging and suggesting possible improvements at Michigan State University. DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study was designed to employ the descriptive method of research, and it relates closely to the patterns of descrip» ’ tive investigation outlined by Van Dalen.2 He does not con- sider his categories rigid, and some aspects of this study do not fit into his descriptions exactly. However, this study does try to depict current conditions and tries to analyze some relationships or trends in school survey services. One of the problems encountered in this study was the difficulty of constructing prior hypotheses. Therefore, this study was designed to use descriptive methods of research. Some descriptive studies may be based on hypotheses but many are not. They are usually designed to portray facts and not to eXplain why the relationships exist or why certain conditions ‘Ibid., p. 212. 2Ibid., pp. 184-212. 42 have occurred. This use of hypotheses in descriptive studies is explained by Van Dalen: If descriptive studies present hypotheses, they are usually of a somewhat lower order than those found in explanatory studies. In the latter, the hypotheses offer general explanations of why certain phenomena behave as they do. Descriptive studies simply portray the facts--they describe what exists but rarely seek to account for why the present state of affairs has occurred. Descriptive studies may describe the rudi- /’ mentary grouping of things by comparing and contrasting likenesses and differences in their behavior. They may classify, order, and correlate data seeking to describe relationships that are discoverable in phenomena them~ selves. But they do not penetrate deeply into knowledge that lies beyond that which can be directly gained from the events or conditions. They do not fully analyze and explain why these relationships exist. Seeking higher-order meanings is left to eXplanatory hypotheses.1 This investigation may be expected to generate some hym potheses, which may lead to further investigation concerning school surveys. Such an outcome would be a highly desirable result of this study. If effective improvements are to be made in any educational endeavor, research studies concerning one aspect of an area should lead to further studies in other areas of concern attached to the same endeavor. This aSpect, or value, of this type of research design is described by Good, Barr, and Scates: The normativerurvey (descriptive) method is not V notably forward-looking, but it may be of service in this direction. It may reveal practices or conditions which are well above the average, representing advanced thinking and administration; . . . Again, the normative method may call attention to current trends and permit people to evaluate and direct these new tendencies which 1Ibid., p. 215. 43 are taking shape. The normative attack is not essen- tially forward-looking in itself, but it may well per- form an important function in giving pertinent data to persons who Egg forward-clocking.1 Limitations. The primary purpose of this study was to obtain information that would be useful in promulgating rec- ommendations for improving the school survey service at Michigan State University. The publicly supported Big Ten universities were chosen as a source of information because they each provide some form of survey service; they have simi- lar academic interests and clientele; they maintain similar philosophies; they are located in states geographically cenn tralized and having similar population distributions; and they maintain an association interested in improving school survey ./ services. The universities included in the grouping called the Big Ten are University of Illinois, Indiana University, State University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, Northwestern Unia versity, The Ohio State University, Purdue University, and The University of Wisconsin. Northwestern University is a private institution, not supported by public funds, and was therefore eliminated from the population. The University of Chicago was also eliminated as not fitting the category of a state supported institution. 1Carter V. Good, A. S. Barr, and Douglas E. Scates, The Methodology of Educational Research (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1941))7p. 293. 44 The choice of this population allowed the author to use a total population without the necessity for sampling, thus avoiding certain disadvantages. By using this population, the author was able to personally visit each of the universities and to collect the data by interview (see Appendix A) and observation. Selection of this pOpulation presented a recep— tive and cOOperative group of informants which made the data gathering easier and more reliable. A 100 per cent response to the request for information was received. The final popu- lation selected provided a group which conducts surveys under similar conditions in each of their respective states, and the use of this pOpulation was considered appropriate for the purposes of the study. Procedures employed. The study was designed to be carried out in five successive steps. These steps were formulated after preliminary investigations had been conducted regarding the general subject of the study and the specific purposes of the study. The preliminary investigation included selected readings in the literature of school surveys, reading survey reports, discussion with Michigan State University faculty members, consultation with specialists in research design, and a search of Dissertation Abstracts. A consultant in the re- search bureau of the College of Education suggested that this type of research design would be appropriate for this study. After the investigations had been completed, the following 45 procedures were developed and carried through. 1. A systematic investigation of the available litera- ture on the school survey movement was conducted. This pro- vided the necessary background to determine what methods and procedures have been employed and what problems have been in- vestigated in the past by school surveys. This information provided a basis for constructing the structured interview form which was then used to gather the data. (See Appendix B.) The instrument was tested during and after construction by discussion and trials with four faculty members in the College of Education, Michigan State University. 2. Structured interviews were held with a person in- volved in directing and conducting school surveys at each of the publicly supported Big Ten universities. 3. The philosophy and purposes of Michigan State Uni- versity were used as a background for analyzing the data gathered at the other universities. This analysis was made by the author based on his understanding of the Michigan State University philosophy. An understanding of this philosophy was gained through working as a member of the field services team for a period of two years, from interviews with faculty members who had conducted school surveys, and from reading literature on the subject. The philosophy and the author’s understanding of it were discussed with faculty members before the data analysis was undertaken. 46 4. The data gathered were organized in summary form for presentation. This was considered the most useful format for drawing conclusions and formulating recommendations based on the data presented. 5. The data gathered from the Big Ten universities were analyzed, conclusions drawn, and recommendations formulated for possible improvement in the survey service at Michigan State University. Data collection instrument. (Appendix B) The author proposed to gather data for this study which would allow a com- plete description to be given of the school survey service at each of the Big Ten universities. Such a description required a certain amount of uniformity to allow for an informative analysis, while maintaining the potential for uniqueness that might be attained by any university in its school survey serv- ice. Such a proposal called for a single comprehensive instru- ment which would cover all aspects of school survey activities. A search of the literature failed to uncover the existence of V such an instrument. Therefore, the author devised such a data collection instrument designed specifically to fulfill the purposes of this study. The instrument was constructed as a structured interview form. It was designed to cover the five areas of information concerning school survey activity and was divided into five sections: I. General Information, II. Philosophy and Purposes, 47 III. Organization and Administration, IV. Methods and Pro- cedures, and V. Forms of Evaluation. Each of the sections contained items designed to elicit information related to specific areas of concern within the section. The sections and items were chosen for inclusion in the instrument from a list compiled by the author from an investigation of the available literature and a survey of sample school survey reports conducted by several different universities (some not included in the population of this study). The instrument was tested during and after construction. The instrument as designed was used to collect the data which provided the basis for a description of the school survey services of the Big Ten universities. The data thus collected is presented in the next two chapters of this study. DEFINITION OF TERMS The literature of the school survey movement contains many terms which have come to apply to specific things and are generally recognized by educators throughout the United States. These terms will be used in the present study with- out special definition. The limitations of this study, how- ever, have placed some restrictions on certain terms that might otherwise be generally recognized. To clarify these restrictions, the following definitions will be used through- out the study. 48 School survpy. A study of one or more aspects of education as found in the elementary or secondary schools of a local community. School survey service (or activity). The provision for availability of personnel equipped to conduct school sur- veys and the work performed by these persons. Types of surveys. Expert: study of a school system by outside personnel only. Self-survey: study of a school system performed by local personnel (usually teaching staff) with only occasional consultant advice. Citizen: study of a school system conducted by local lay citizens with consultant advice or direction. Combination: study of a school system involving cooperatively local lay citizens, local faculty, local school officials, and university consultants. Kinds of surveys. Comprehensive: a widearanging study of many aspects of a school system without special emphasis on any particular problems. Partial: a study of a school system which emphasizes depth study of one or more aspects of the educational endeavor. Big Ten universities. Those universities in seven mid- western states maintaining an athletic conference which is 49 generally referred to in newspapers as "The Big Ten"; this includes: University of Illinois, Indiana University, State University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, The Ohio State University, Purdue University, and The Univer- sity of Wisconsin. Reppondent. Refers to the person at each university who supplied the information for the present study. Data collection instrument. The particular interview form which was constructed to gather information specifically for the present study (Appendix B). Field service team. The concept employed at Michigan State University whereby advanced graduate students are given appointments as assistant instructors and assigned to conduct school surveys under the supervision of a faculty member from the school administration department; more specifically to the three men comprising this team. Field service team coordinator. Refers to the faculty member at Michigan State University assigned to supervise the field service team and direct school surveys; also referred to as the director. Educational specialist. Any person, usually a univer- sity faculty member, possessing a unique and recognized com- petence in one particular part of the field of education, i.e., a professor of secondary education or a specialist in school finance. 50 Consultant. Any person specializing in a particular field or aspect of a field who is called on to impart his specialized knowledge to help solve a problem. Field eXperiences. Opportunity for graduate students or university faculty members to study problems of elementary or secondary schools in the local community. SUMMARY This study was designed to provide information concerning the development of the school survey movement and the status of the current methods, administration, and organization of the school survey service in the publicly supported Big Ten univerm sities. It has four specific purposes which relate to supply- ing information about survey services and possible improvements which might be made (see page 38). The study was planned as a descriptive research project (normative-survey also applies) because this method seemed most likely to supply the necessary information for the stated purposes. The population was chosen for a number of reasons, all of which indicate a close relation- ship to the nature of the study. The study was carried out in five successive and interrelated steps or procedures. Each of these steps was thoroughly investigated before being included. The study was then carefully conducted as indicated in the description of the design. The following chapters will describe the findings of this study. CHAPTER III SURVEYS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Chapter III will describe the survey service as it has been developed and is now organized and administered at Michigan State University. This information is presented as a separate chapter in order to fulfill one of the primary purposes of the study, which is to describe the current sta- tus of the survey services at Michigan State University and to make recommendations for possible improvements in that serv- ice. To make effective improvements in any activity, past and present status must be ascertained. The historical devel- opment of the school survey movement at Michigan State Univer- sity is described here to present a clear, concise, and complete picture of the survey activity as it has developed and is pres- ently provided by the University. The data concerning present status of the survey service at Michigan State University will be presented in five sections: general information, philosophy and procedures, organization and administration, methods and procedures, and forms of evaluation. (See the divisions in the data collection instrument in Appendix B.) 51 52 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Michigan State University is considered by many to be the pioneer land-grant institution and as such has a basic commitment to public service. In fact, the University was founded as a result of a basic need of the people. This need is described by Blair and Kuhn in their history of the insti- tution, written for the centenniel celebration in 1955. They describe the founding of the college to serve the people in these words: The years between the founding of the University at Ann Arbor in 1837 and 1850 were years of the great- est importance to Michigan State, for, although the University was serving the peeple in nearly every field, there was one important omission-~that omission was the scientific teaching of agriculture in Michigan. Ninety per cent of the population were engaged in agriculture, and by 1850 it became apparent that there was an urgent need to establish a university or college, college it was called in those days--in these days a university, which would serve these people.1 The legislature recognized this need for a university to serve the needs of this vast majority of the population and enacted into law the legislation creating the Michigan Agricultural College in 1855. This institution thrived and set the pattern for the many land-grant institutions which were later created and supported by the Morrill Act of 1862. The original purpose of service to the people continued as a basic commitment of Michigan State University and all the 1Lyle Blair and Madison Kuhn, A Short History of Michigan State (East Lansing: Michigan State College Press,’l955), pp. 5u6. 53 land-grant institutions. This concept of service to the peo- ple was recognized by Dr. John Hannah, President, Michigan State University, when he said, ". . . the institution I represent was founded on the premise that the benefits of higher education should be available to all classes of our citizens, not just the favored few, and that it has expanded along the line of service to all of the people of the state who maintain it."1 This same premise has been eXpounded by President Hannah as a part of the philosophy which guides Michigan State Uni- versity at the present time. In the University catalogue he states this philosophy by writing: The entire state of Michigan is the campus of Michigan State. In all our programs, our goal is to serve the people of the state by increasing their knowledge and by helping them to make practical appli- cations of that knowledge. . . . By so doing, we strive to contribute to the pres- ervation and further advancement of our country, for men and women so educated will have confidence in America, her principles and her destiny, and faith in America's ability to lead the world into an era of peace and understanding.2 Consultant and survey services. This philosophy and con- cept of service have permeated Michigan State University from founding to present operation and have provided the basis for . 1John A. Hannah, ”The Challenge to Education in a World Like This," Hannah Speeches (East Lansing: Michigan State University Library, 1948), p. 9. 2John A. Hannah, "We Believe," Michigan State University Catalogue 1963-64, LVII, No. 9 (February, 9 3 , p. 9. ’ 54 supplying consultant and school survey services to the schools of Michigan. The agriculture extension service, which was be- gun early in the history of the University, provided a sound precedent for working with the people of the state and supply- ing all kinds of extension service to them. Thus it is easy to understand how men in the department of teacher training could be called on by schools throughout the first forty-five years of this century to provide informal consultant services. During WOrld War II, in the early 1940*s, President Hannah recognized that a great expansion was about to take place at the University which called for reorganization of the Univer- sity in order to fulfill the concept of service to the people of the state. This reorganization also affected the method of supplying consultant services. In 1945, Dr. Clifford Erickson was appointed director of an Institute of Counseling, Testing, and Guidance. This insti- tution was to develop itself as a service organization in various areas of education, including field studies. It was later included in the Continuing Education Service, which was another way of providing services to the people of the state. Over the years the College has developed, in response to insistent demand, many adult education functions outside the extension program. These were centralized in a Continuing Education Service in 1948. It was a rebirth of the name, and in many respects of the concept, which President Butterfield introduced two decades earlier to strengthen the churches, schools, and other community institutions of the open country, the village, and the town. Following his resignation 55 the department disappeared, but many of its objectives were continued in the extension services the short course program, and the various schools.1 The first director of the reorganized Continuing Educa- tion Service was Dr. Carl M. Horn. One of the activities instituted by Dr. Horn was the B.I.E. (business, industry, education) days to bridge the gap between leaders in education and those in business and industry. This activity is still carried on and has spread throughout the nation. In 1952, Continuing Education was made a major division of the College, and at that time Dr. Edgar L. Harden was appointed dean of the division. The division was expanded to include short courses, off-campus credit courses, and conferences; extension centers were established to carry out some of this work. A variety of consultant activities and field studies were also carried on by this division. During the same period, 1945 to 1950, Dr. Clyde Campbell, from the education division, was called on quite extensively to work as a personal educational consultant to the boards of education and in the role of specialist in educational adminis- tration with the Michigan State Department of Public Instruction. In the early 1950's Drs. William H. Roe, Edward Pfau, and Campbell served as consultants in a team approach with the Michigan State Department of Public Instruction. During this ‘Madison Kuhn, Michigan State,:mhe First Hundred Years 1855-19 (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 955 , p. 440. 56 period, district reorganization was considered the primary problem of education in Michigan. It was also in 1952 that the School of Education was formed and Dr. Erickson appointed as the first dean. 'He organized a bureau, within the School of Education, to carry on field studies. This bureau was composed of faculty mem- bers from various curriculum areas within the School of Education. When Michigan State College was renamed Michigan State University in 1954, the School of Education became the College of Education. At this time the Department of Adminis- tration and Educational Services was organized. Dr. Robert L. Hopper became the head of the department and was given direc- tion of the school survey service.1 Developing the survey service. The first formal school survey at Michigan State University was directed by Dr. Roe for the Grand Ledge Public Schools during the 1953~54 school year. Prior to this study most of the field work was conducted in the form of consultation by individual faculty members in an area of specialization and reported as expert opinion. The Grand Ledge study of 1954, however, was conducted by a large staff of university faculty members and graduate students and with the help of local administrators, teachers, and lay citi- zens. They collected factual data in many areas of educational 1Interview with Clyde M. Campbell, Professor of Educa- tion, Michigan State University, January 2, 1964. 57 concern and submitted these data to careful analysis. Rec- ommendations were made on the basis of the analysis, and a final report was printed and distributed to interested parties. This survey was conducted under contractual agreement between Michigan State University and the Grand Ledge school board, and it marked the beginning of the formal contractual agree- ments under which the University now conducts all of its school survey studies. When the College of Education was reorganized in 1954, the bureau which had been organized to conduct field studies was put under the direction of Dr. Hopper, head of the Depart- ment of Administration and Educational Services. He coordinated the Bloomfield Hills school survey published in May, 1955-- the first survey completed under the direction of the bureau. Following the organization of the bureau, many staff members were appointed to it; and the bureau became active in pro- viding survey services. During the years 1954 to 1960, forty studies were reported as having been completed by faculty mem- here.1 An appraisal of this service was conducted, and the bureau was dissolved in 1959 to allow faculty members to devote more time to teaching. Faculty members from the administration department continued to conduct school surveys during the next 1Fred Brieve, "A Follow-up Study of Selected Contract Field Studies Conducted in Various Michigan Public Schools by Michigan State University" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963), p. 28. This listing was sup- plemented from a permanent file of reports in the Department of~/ Administration, College of Education, Michigan State University. 58 two years on an individual and informal team basis. A second appraisal of the service was made in 1960, and it was found that approximately one-half of the time of the faculty members in the administration department was consumed in school sur- vey work. This was considered exorbitant, and a new method for providing survey service was sought.1 The survey team. In December of 1960, Dr. Roe, as head of the administration interest area, submitted to Dean Erickson a proposal to establish a field service team to conduct school surveys. The team was to be composed of three research assist- ants under the direction and supervision of an administrative area faculty member called the "field team coordinator." The team was to operate under the administration of the assistant dean for off-campus programs. Faculty members from the College of Education were expected to serve as consultants to the team. The team was to have responsibility for conducting the school surveys which were assigned to the school administration interest area. As the pr0posal was accepted, the team began operation in the fall of 1961 under the supervision of Dr. Floyd Parker. In the three years of its operation it has conducted fourteen school surveys. During this same period three additional surveys were directed by other faculty members of the ‘Interview with William H. Roe, Professor of Education, Michigan State University, November 27, 1963. 59 administration interest area; and many requests for surveys were rejected for various reasons, mainly lack of staff time. The field service team concept is credited with several advantages: A. B. Serve as a vehicle for rich field experiences for our advanced graduate students. Afford faculty an opportunity to keep in contact with field and still give them more free time for study, research, and writing. Provide an opportunity for the College of Education to have more advanced graduate students serve as research assistants. Provide a high level of service to the field. Encourage close affiliation between off-campus activities and the curricular offerings. Provide us (the administration department) with an organized approach for learning in the field. Full-time faculty members would not get bogged down in the "processes" of conducting field 1 services but would consult on a high-level basis. Informal discussions with faculty members indicate genu eral agreement on the success of this concept during the three years of its Operation. Some members have suggested increas- ing the team membership to enlarge the possible advantages to faculty members, graduate students, and the field. This de- cision has not been made; but the team concept approach seems secure for the immediate future at Michigan State University, which will continue to render valuable services to the people 1W. H. Roe, Interoffice Memorandum "Field Service Team Concept," December, 1960, p. 3. 60 of the state through the school survey service while at the same time providing valuable field experience for advanced graduate students in educational administration. GENERAL INFORMATION This section of the data collection instrument (Appen- dix B) was arranged to provide the background of the school survey service at each of the universities. It also provides a perspective for the development and present status of the movement at each university. . Items 4, 5, and 6 of section I relate to the historical development of the school survey movement at each university. This information, for Michigan State University, has been pre- sented in the first part of this chapter, where a full chronological development of the movement has been described. The first three items of the section identify the university and respondent. Dr. Floyd Parker, for the past three years, has directed the field services team which conducts most of the school surveys for Michigan State University. He had been active in survey work at Michigan State University for seven years. As indicated previously, many other faculty members have also participated in the school surveys; and the Univer- sity has provided school survey service on a formal basis since 1953. 61 PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSES Every university Operates within a philos0phy or state- ment of purposes and fulfills its intended function according to that philOSOphy. Therefore, this section was planned to determine the philosophy of each of the universities and their guiding purposes for providing school survey services. The data collection instrument contains six items in section II. Items 1-2 ask for information relating to the philosophy of the university and department or division which provides the school survey service. Items 3-6 relate to specific policies, objectives, or purposes of the school survey service. Philosophy. Michigan State University, being a land- grant institution, has adopted a philosophy based on providing service to all the people of the state. This philosophy was presented previously in this chapter in the quotation from the statement by President Hannah. He has emphasized this philos- Ophy of service in many speeches made in various places in the state, nation, and world. He summarized the philosophy in one speech by saying: Reduced to simplest terms, the land-grant college philosophy is (1) that all of the problems of ordinary people are worthy objects of interest and attention on the highest academic plane; (2) that the benefits of knowledge, both scientific and humanistic, should be available to all the people in order that they may attack their every-day problems armed with truth; and (3) that the privileges of a college education should 62 be freely available to all who are capable of bene- fiting from advanced training. President Hannah further emphasized the idea of service to the people by stating: The first challenge to be faced by these infant, revolutionary colleges was the criticism, derision, and out-right hostility springing from the aristocratic wing of higher education in America. . . . In the inter- ests of economy of time, let me summarize by saying that the first great challenge to the land-grant colleges was met by rendering service to the peOple. . . . The second great challenge came a few years later in the case of some institutions, many years later in others. . . . The major educational question of the time was: Will the land-grant colleges meet this challenge by serving industry as they have served agriculture? Some of our colleges and universities proved themselves equal to the occasion. . . . Happily, there were enough who remembered the old lesson that service to the peo- ple, of whatever class or vocation, is the basic mission of the land-grant colleges, and the challenge was met. . All colleges and universities supported in whole or part with public funds have a special obligation to pre- pare their graduates to be useful citizens as well as successful teachers, homemakers, engineers, farmers, and business men. It is in this field that the third great challenge has arisen for America's land-grant colleges and universities. . . . To this third and greatest chal- lenge, as to all others, the land-grant colleges of America are bound to rise. I am sure that they will wel- come this great challenge, because like the two they have met before, it represents a great opportunity to serve the only masters they will ever acknowledge, the American people. Such statements as the ones just cited represent the strong commitment that Michigan State University has to the 1John A. Hannah, "The Third Challenge," Hannah Speeches (East Lansing: Michigan State University Library, 1950-51), p. 3. 21bid., pp. 4-11. 0 “I O 53 philosophy of service to the American people, which guides the conduct of school surveys by Michigan State University personnel. Purposes. The second part of this section attempted to identify specific purposes Of the school survey service. Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 of section II asked for this type of material. NO formal statement of purpose has been adopted which governs the activity of the field service team at Michigan State University. Informal working agreements between the faculty and the assistant dean for off-campus programs do guide the work of the team. The agreements include the Obm jectives of school survey service as requested in item 11-5 and the purposes as called for in item 11-6. The objectives were listed as: 1. Service to the school systems of Michigan. 2. An Opportunity for professors of education to have active contact with graduate students and with practical field problems. 3. Provide a natural laboratory for training ad- vanced graduate students in field problems. 4. Opportunities to conduct applied research in a field setting. The specific purposes were listed as: l. Evaluative for short-term planning of specific projects. 2. Evaluative for longmterm planning of general im- provements. 64 In addition to these objectives and purposes, it was emphasized that Michigan State University also prefers the involvement of local citizens in school surveys whenever possible. Such involvement is based on the philosophy as cited previously in President Hannah"s statement in which he said the goal of the University is to help the people to make practical applications of their knowledge. Rasmussen1 refers to this belief or purpose in his article on the edu- cational consultant in The American School Board Journal when he describes "the expert-community approach" and cites Michi- gan State University as a source Of information on this con- cept. Although other types of school surveys are performed by Michigan State University, the combination, or citizen sur- vey, is preferred. Therefore, the involvement of local citizen- ry in the study of their schools might be considered as one of the purposes, even. thomgh it was not included in item II~6 of the data collection instrument. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION Section III of the data collection instrument was con_ structed to obtain information concerning the manner of organizing and administering the school survey service. The items were prepared and arranged in the instrument to cover five areas of school survey services. The areas are: 1Rasmussen, p. 16. 65 direction (items 1—5), personnel (items 6~l4), financing (items 15-17), selection (items 18-25), and time allotment (items 26-29). The data collected will be described here under these area headings. Direction of school surveys. The school survey service at Michigan State University is provided by the College of Education and is administered by the chairman of the Depart- ment of Administration and Higher Education. The service is directed by one faculty member from the department who super- vises the field service team. The present director has served in this position for the past three years. During this period other faculty members have also directed selected school sur- veys. The school survey service at Michigan State University is considered to be related to the Continuing Education diviu sion of the University. This organizational relationship is maintained by having the survey director work with both the administration department chairman and the assistant dean for Off-campus programs. The chairman of the administration de- partment is directly responsible to the assistant dean for graduate programs. The assistant dean for off-campus programs is responsible to the dean of the College of Education and cooperates with the Continuing Education division. All of the financial and contractual bookkeeping is handled by the assistm and dean. All of the field work and supervision of the surveys 66 are handled by the director of the field service team. An organizational chart of this arrangement is presented in Figure 1 below. University F 1 , Continuing Dean Other Colleges Educ. Div. College of Educ. and Divisions \ \ \ \4 Ass't. Dean Off-campus Prog. I \\\ Other Depts. \ \‘\ College of Educ. ‘\ ‘\ , \ (- _ _ __ _) lines Of cooperation \ 7 Figure l. T Ass't. Dean for Grad. Programs \ I \ lines of organization I I i I I I l l Dept. Of Adm. | I l l I l l J and Higher Educ. \ \\ \ l_-_.___.__________________:£Field Service Team], lines of responsibility Organizational Chart of School Survey Services at Michigan State University The organization and administration of school surveys at Michigan State University maintains a high degree of flexi- bility of Operation through informal working agreements. No formal policy is maintained for this operation, although a careful balance is apparent in the responsibility for opera- tion of the service. 67 Personnel. The faculty members in the College of Edu- cation at Michigan State University have a heavy commitment to service based on the philosophy of the University. There- fore, no permanent staff is provided for the school survey service. The faculty members in the Department of Adminisu tration and Higher Education are allowed up to one-quarter time of their assigned load for professional services. Work on school surveys may be considered a part of such profes- sional service. The number of faculty members involved in any school survey will depend on the type of survey being performed and the availability of staff. Faculty members from other aca- demic departments in the College of Education are involved if their specialty is needed in a specific survey. Occasionally faculty members from other disciplines within the University contribute time to a survey. Usually the surveys are con- ducted by members of the Department of Administration and Higher Education. Since no compensation is involved when a faculty member participates in a survey, his participation is voluntary. Faculty members from five disciplines have at vari- ous times been involved in school surveys: education, political / science, sociology, urban planning, and continuing education. The bulk Of the work in school surveys at Michigan State University is performed by advanced graduate students under faculty supervision. The field service team, as described in 68 the first part Of this chapter, is made up of advanced gradu- ate students, appointed as assistant instructors, who operate as research assistants supervised by the field service team director. These assistants receive a nine-month appointment at an annual salary of 83,000 for a half-time assignment. It is this team, with the assistance and supervision of adminis- tration department faculty members, that conducts most of the school surveys. They are occasionally assisted by other gradu- ate student assistants, especially from the curriculum depart- ment. This team is also aided in the survey work by other faculty members from the College Of Education who are asked and who choose to participate. These faculty members usually act in the role of consultant to the field services team. When an individual faculty member directs a specific survey, he will Often use graduate students as his assistants. Occasionally a graduate student may carry out a specific task in a school survey and receive academic credit for it as an individual study project. The number of clerical or specialized employees working for the field services team will vary with each survey. How- ever, one half-time typist is employed exclusively for the field services team. Two area secretaries are also available for part-time clerical work. Other supportive services such as educational research, graphics, editing, and publication are maintained by the University and are available upon demand. 69 Michigan State University has usually employed only its own personnel for conducting school surveys. There have been a few occasions, however, when surveys have been conducted jointly or OOOperatively with other agencies. Some work has been done with other universities, the Michigan State Depart- ment of Public Instruction, and in cooperation with a commer- cial planning firm. These instances have been rare exceptions. Financing. The school survey service is financed from a combination of funds. The salary of faculty members may be considered as usually coming from general funds of the Univer- sity. The fees charged the school districts are supposed to cover all other expenses of the school survey service. The accounting procedures involved in handling these funds become quite complicated but in general are arranged to accomplish the above theory. Thus, the expenses such as travel, subsist- ence, printing, and graduate assistant salaries are considered part of the charge to the school system. Each school system that requests survey service, if accepted by Michigan State University, enters into a contract with the University for that service. (See Appendix C.) The amount to be paid by the school is determined by an estimated budget which is prepared by the field service team director after preliminary meetings have been held with the superintend- ent, usually including the board of education, of the school system to be surveyed. The budget is based on the following 70 items: (1) type of survey, (2) time needed for the survey, (3) staff personnel needed, (4) subsistence and travel costs, (5) publication costs, (6) clerical costs, and (7) a 20 per cent University service charge. The budgeted amounts are based on a formula which attempts to cover all costs except faculty salaries. The contract contains, in addition to the amount of the fee, dates of the survey, areas in which assistance will be given, reSponsibility for the final recommendation, respon- sibility for the writing and publication of reports, number of consultations, and due dates for fee payments. (See Sample Contract, Appendix C.) This contract attempts to delineate the areas of concern, agreements, and responsibili» ties, thus avoiding some possible misunderstandings at a later date. The execution of the contract, the billing, and the bookkeeping are administered by the assistant dean for off-campus programs. Selection. The number of requests received in any one year by Michigan State University for school survey service has greatly exceeded the number of surveys actually conducted. This has allowed a certain amount of selectivity on the part of the University. Although there is no formal policy on selection, certain criteria have evolved and are applied in- formally for selection. These criteria include: (1) type of problem, (2) staff availability, (3) potential for rendering 71 successful service to the district, (4) potential as a learn» ing eXperience for graduate assistants, (5) location of the school district, and (6) potential for successful rapport with professional staff of the district. The survey team director makes the final selection after reviewing the request with the assistant dean for off-campus programs and the chairman of the Department of Administration and Higher Education. The request for school survey service usually comes to Michigan State University from a superintendent of a school district. These requests are most often based on a recogni- tion of a need for objective appraisal in order to make plans for solving problems of the district. The problems most often recognized by the superintendents are: (1) need for additional housing, (2) reorganization or annexation of school districts, (3) curriculum improvements, and (4) financial and personnel problems. The superintendent does not always recognize, or reveal, the extent of his problems. This lack of recognition is usually revealed by a preliminary meeting of the superin~ tendent and the field service team director when the request is discussed and investigated before agreement for a survey is reached. Such requests and preliminary meetings may come at any time throughout the year, but some increase in requests is found in the spring and fall. Time allotment. The school surveys conducted by Michi- gan State University are provided as a contracted service to 72 the school district. The contract between the University and the school district for this service contains beginning and completion dates which are determined by the director of the field service team based on the type of survey, staff availa- bility, magnitude of the problems involved, and size and location of the school district. A minimum time allotment for a partial, expert-type survey would be one to ten days. A maximum time for a survey would be when a comprehensive, combination-type survey is conducted which might extend over a period of three years in appropriate stages. Most of the school surveys conducted by Michigan State University have been in schools with enrollments of five hundred to two thou- sand students and have been completed within one school year. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The methods and procedures section of the data collec- tion instrument (Appendix B) contains twenty-four items in five areas. The areas are types of surveys (items ln3), data col- lection (items 4-12), data analysis (items 13-16), reporting (items 17-21), and implementation (items 22-24). The data for methods and procedures used at Michigan State University will be described under each Of these area headings. Types of survey_. Michigan State University has parti- cipated in each of the four types of school surveys-~expert, self-survey, citizen, and combination. The belief in citizen involvement has led to an emphasis on the citizen survey, and 73 this type of school survey has been conducted more often than the other types. Most of the school surveys completed at Michigan State University have been of the partial kind. Although many areas of educational concern are investigated in each survey, the primary concern is usually focused on one or two problems Of the school system. In recent years school housing has been the most prominent cause of concern leading to a school sur- vey request. Data collection. Data collection for a school survey is usually carried on by several people. University faculty mem- bers, graduate student assistants, local administrators, and local citizens are Often involved in this function for a sur- vey directed by Michigan State University. Occasionally board Of education members and local teachers are also utilized for this function. The survey staff usually reviews any available materials concerning a school district before making its first visit in the district. The materials most Often available for this preliminary study include such things as maps, state educa- tion records, school-age census, enrollment history, financial records, and previous study reports. This preliminary study is designed to help the survey staff acquire as full a knowledge as possible of the conditions existing in the school district. After the preliminary review is completed, the survey staff will usually spend from six to twelve days visiting in 74 the district to collect data. The number of days spent in any district for this purpose will vary considerably depend- ,ing on the type of survey and the size of the school district being surveyed. The chronological sequence of visits is planned individually for each survey and does not follow any set pattern. The survey staff uses a variety of methods for securing data during these visitations. Some forms are used which the survey staff may complete or which are given to local people for completion. The three methods of data collection most commonly used include observation, interviews, and analysis of basic data contained in school records. Score cards, ex- perimental procedures, and review Of data contained in previous studies are also used for data collection in some school sur- veys. Data analysis. The function of analyzing and evaluating the data is most Often performed by University faculty members and the graduate student assistants who have been assigned to the field service team. Occasionally local school administra- tors, local lay citizens, teachers, and educational specialists will assist in this function. On rare occasions board of edu- cation members have been asked to aid in this analysis. A wide variety of methods and standards are used for evaluating data. The method is chosen to meet a specific need. Since each school survey may differ considerably, methods or 75 standards of evaluation which are applicable to the specific situations or kind of data that are to be analyzed are used. The methods of analysis most Often employed are the judgment of the survey staff, interpretation of trends, census statis- v tics, Opinion of educational experts, and comparison with state or national records. The evaluation of educational opportunity is usually an indirect part of each school survey. It is accomplished by using data which profiles student achievement and teacher qualifications. Some student follow-up studies are utilized for this purpose also. Evidence of curriculum deveIOpment is sought. The success of bonding and Operational fund votes, type Of housing, equipment, and materials available are also analyzed as a key to the status of educational opportunity. Reporting. Most school surveys include a written report of the findings and recommendations for planning future devel- Opments. Sometimes preliminary reports, oral or written, and supplementary reports are also provided. At Michigan State University the conclusions or recommendations included in these reports are formulated by University faculty members and the graduate students Of the field service team. Occasionally local school administrators, local teachers, local lay citizens, or educational specialists may assist in this function. The content of a majority of the school surveys reported by Michigan State University has not changed notably over the 76 past ten years. The major content headings indicate the areas reported on are community setting, educational program or cur- riculum, school housing, school enrollments, school finances, and recommendations. These headings can be correlated with the categories described by Van Dalen as contained in most school surveys: The information sought in most surveys falls into the following categories: (1) the setting of learning, (2) the educational personnel, (3) the pupils, and (4) the educational process. Studies may extensively explore one or more of these areas or they may inten~ sively examine specific aspects of one area. Occasionally personnel from Michigan State University will also assist the local school personnel in reporting or publicizing the school survey while it is in progress or upon completion. This assistance is usually aimed at facilitating the communication process. It may take the form of writing news releases, printing brochures, planning publicity came paigns, or speaking before local organizations. Implementation. A school survey is usually designed to provide a basis for planning future developments in the edum cational system. The recommendations or data analysis cone tained in the survey report will require implementation if it is to be significant in promoting any changes in the school district. Such implementation is considered to be the respon- sibility of the local school officials. After a school survey 1Van Dalen, p. 189. 77 has been completed by the Michigan State University survey staff, occasional follow-up activity is carried on to assist . the local Officials to plan or accomplish the needed imple- v mentation. Example items of publicity materials, educational specifications, procedures for choosing an architect, and source materials are often supplied to the local officials. Discussions and occasional return visits for evaluation of steps taken are also used as a means of assisting in the im~ plementation procedures. FORMS OF EVALUATION The purpose of the final section of the data collection instrument was to try to determine what is done by the unim versities to evaluate the purpose and effectiveness of the / school survey activity. If such a service is considered valu- able enough to warrant continuance by a publicly supported university, it should be evaluated periodically, some measure of its effectiveness made, and a report of how it is being used should be presented to the proper authorities. Section V cone tains three areas of concern: value of the service (items 1, w/ 2, 7, 8, 9, ll), effectiveness (items 5-6), and possible improve- ments (items 3, 4, 10, 12). These items are described in the following paragraphs. Value of the service. The school survey movement has contributed generally to the overall development of the 78 education profession, to methods Of instruction, and to prac- tices in educational administration. The general values of school surveys in these aspects of the field of education have been described in chapter I of this thesis. Certain, more specific, values may also result from the survey activity. School surveys conducted at Michigan State University have in some instances been followed by a more intensive self- study by the local staff. Curriculum development studies have also resulted from school surveys. Such activity on the part of a local staff is considered valuable as an effort leading toward general improvement in the educational endeavor. The school survey activity at Michigan State University is also considered valuable in the training of advanced gradu- V ate students. The school survey activity is used to provide valuable field eXperience for graduate students in school ad- ministration. Many times the school survey activity is also used as an opportunity for in-service training of the local / administrators. Data from the surveys and copies of the final reports are used by professors in some of their classes as // reference and resource material. The school survey activity, therefore, contributes to the training of educators and to the general improvement of education in the local school systems. Michigan State University believes these contributions to be of sufficient value to warrant the continuance of the school survey activity as a service to the people of the state of Michigan. 79 Effectiveness. Effectiveness of the school survey activ- ity cannot be measured by quantitative means alone. Some of the value of the service is intangible and may not show frui- tion until many years after the survey is completed. Some aspects are measurable, and Michigan State University has made an attempt to evaluate these. One formal evaluation was made by Fred Brieve in a doctoral thesis. Other informal evalua- tions have been made on a semimresearch type of study by faculty members. Discussions between faculty members and school ad- ministrators of districts which were surveyed earlier also provide a form of evaluation. A few school systems have had follow-up surveys conducted several times after the initial v survey, and these provide an opportunity to evaluate the effec- tiveness Of the previous surveys. Each of these methods or Opportunities has supplied information which has contributed to the evaluation of the effectiveness of school surveys con~ ducted by Michigan State University. Possible improvements. Problems encountered in school surveys conducted by Michigan State University may be classi- fied into four categories. The categories for these problems are described as: (1) lack of understanding between the community and the participants in the survey, (2) a failure to identify specific problems or areas of concern, (3) pro- viding sufficient time and staff to conduct the survey, and (4) a lack Of adequate local records or appropriate leadership 80 by local school officials. Problems of this nature are par- tially overcome by using state records, obtaining assistance from communication specialists, investigating the situation before accepting the request for a survey, and through in_ service training activities. Improvements in the school survey service would probably depend on greater availability of faculty members or enlarge» ment of the field service team. A more scientific approach to analysis of data is also desirable. A greater application of research design to the surveys might improve the quality and effectiveness of the service. Application of the three suggesm tions above would improve any schoOl survey service as well as that of Michigan State University. SUMMARY This chapter attempts to present a total picture of the school survey service as it has developed and is currently practiced at Michigan State University. This description is as complete as the author could make it through his research and two years of experience as a member of the field service team. It is presented in this form to make it useful to future members Of the field service team and to provide a clear under- standing of the present school survey service at Michigan State University so that recommendations for improvement may be made in a following chapter. CHAPTER IV DATA FROM THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES Each of the publicly supported Big Ten universities has supplied school survey services to the school systems of its state. The administration of these services and the methods and procedures employed by the separate universities show many points of difference and many points of understanding and agreement. Each one, however, has its own unique approach to certain problems or procedures. The data collected for this study are intended to present a composite picture of the pro- cedures, showing both the points of agreement and the points of uniqueness as revealed by this study. The description of the data will follow the same format as in the preceding chapter where the Michigan State Univerm sity school survey service is described. The data collected from the other universities will be presented in summary form following the same division by sections as found in the data collection instrument: general information (I), philosophy and purposes (II), organization and administration (III), methods and procedures (IV), and forms of evaluathx1(V). (See Appendix B.) None of the universities will be identified indie vidually--only spoken of as a member of the total population studied. Where points of agreement are described, the total 81 82 number of universities employing that particular practice will be given. When a unique practice is described, the university will only be spoken of as belonging to the group studied and not identified. The purpose of the study is to focus on the practices and not the individual universities. GENERAL INFORMATION The universities used as a population for this study will be referred to as the Big Ten. Most of the data pre- sented in this chapter, however, will be based on information received from seven of the ten universities. The data for Michigan State University was presented in chapter III; North- western University is not a publicly supported university and was not included in the original population for reasons ex- plained in chapter II; the University of Illinois eliminated school surveys as a formal function of the university in the summer of 1958. Occasionally data concerning the University of Illinois and Michigan State University will be included where it is useful to complete a presentation. Whenever this is done, it will be noted. The seven universities comprising the remain- ing population are Indiana University, State University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State University, Purdue University, and The University of Wisconsin. School survey services or educational consultant services in one form or another have been provided by the Big Ten 83 universities since the beginning of the modern survey movement. Three of the universities undertook formal school surveys as early as the 1912 to 1921 period. Four universities instin tuted formal survey services during the 1940 to 1950 period (including the University of Illinois), and two universities inaugurated their services in the 1950 to 1960 period (include ing Michigan State University). The respondents for this study from each of the univerm sities were persons with the responsibility for directing and conducting school surveys for their universities. Their years of experience in the survey activity at their respective schools covers a long period of time and a wide range of ex” perience. Three have from twelve to eighteen years in their positions; two, six to eight years; and two, three to five years of experience at their present universities connected with the school survey activity. PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSES All universities in the United States tend to be dedi- cated to a philosophy of research, teaching, and service. The traditional function of a university is embodied in the first two concepts, and the third is a corollary which receives much attention in America. While basic agreement is apparent on the three purposes, each university has its own unique ways to make applications of the three concepts. Such applications 84 have a direct influence on the conduct of school surveys, and so each respondent was asked to describe the philosophy and purposes of his university. Philosophy. Each of the Big Ten universities indicated that it subscribes to the generally accepted philosophy of research, teaching, and service. Four of the universities are land-grant institutions which usually indicates a strong commit~ ment to service. The respondents indicated that their univer- sities consider the school survey service as an application of the philosophy of service. Although five of the respondents indicated a statement of philosophy for the university has been adopted, no written statements of university philosophy were made available. Purposes. A policy statement relating directly to the school survey activity has been adopted by three of the unim versities. One of these statements is limited to a policy indicating which agencies would be eligible to receive univer- sity assistance. The other two are broad statements of policy covering purposes, function, organization, and procedures for the agency administering the school survey service. The four remaining respondents reported that an informal agreement on operating procedures exists at their institutions. Five major objectives were identified by the respondents as categorizing school survey activity. These objectives were identified broadly as: 85 1. Providing assistance to the school systems of the ./ state in planning for improved education. 2. Providing field experiences for graduate students. 3. Providing opportunities for faculty members to participate in or to undertake certain kinds of educational research. 4. Providing a vehicle for investigating or promulm gating educational techniques. 5. Strengthening local school officials and community leaders. The objectives were indicated by the respondents in ascending order: seven respondents indicating Objective one; five, Ob- jective two; three, objective three; one, objective four; and one, objective five. Table 3 indicates the Objectives of Michi— gan State University as well as the other Big Ten universities. Table 3. Objectives Of the School Survey Activity as Indicated by the Respondents Objectives Big Ten1 MSU2 Service to schools 7 X Provide field experiences 5 X Educational research opportunities 3 X Extending educational techniques 1 Involvement of local people 1 X 1This designation will be used in all tables to indi- cate the seven publicly supported universities used in the population for this study. 2This designation will be used in all tables to indie date Michigan State University. 86 The specific purposes for conducting school surveys were identified by all of the respondents as being evaluative for short- and long-term planning. In addition to these two pur- poses, two of the respondents indicated school surveys were also used to evaluate present program or facilities as a first step toward planning. Two respondents stated that surveys were sometimes carried out on a state-wide basis for educational associations to determine current status of a particular topic (i.e., federal aid to education). ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION There are probably no two universities in the United States which maintain exactly the same pattern of organization or method of administration. The development of the school survey movement, however, has created many similarities in organization and administration of this particular activity within the Big Ten universities. The similarities and the differences discovered by this study will be described under the same headings used in the preceding chapter. Direction of school surveys. The direction of school sur- vey activity is centered in the College, or School, of Education in each of the Big Ten universities. Five of the universities maintain separate bureaus for the purposes of administering the school survey activity. The five bureaus carry on other educam tional projects as well as the school surveys. The two 87 universities which do not have separate bureaus charge their departments of school administration with the responsibility of providing school survey services. The person reSponsible for the administration of the school survey service is appointed to this position at each university. Four of these positions carry the title of direc_ tor, two are department heads, and one is a division head within a bureau. Each of these men is also given academic rank in the university and usually carries a partial teaching assignment in the department of school administration. This centers the leadership for the school survey service in the V/ school administration area. Personnel. Each bureau or department responsible for providing the school survey service has faculty members ap- pointed to it. In four cases this amounts to two people-- usually the director and an assistant. Two of the bureaus maintain a permanent staff of consultants of over twelve mem- bers who conduct school surveys and other educational projects. One university assigns the school survey activity to the fac~ ulty members in the department of school administration as a part of their regular work load. All of the universities supm plement their survey staffs with other university faculty members in areas of educational specialization. Faculty members outside of the bureau or department are given financial com- pensations by four of the universities. Three of the 88 universities reduce teaching loads as compensation for school survey work by faculty members. The number of faculty members employed for a survey varies with the type and conditions of the survey ranging from one to forty, with a general average of three faculty members. Graduate students assist in school surveys conducted by six of the Big Ten universities. One university allows them to participate only as observers. There is a wide variance in the number of students involved, the length of the appointment, the degree of participation, and the amount of stipend. The number of students involved at each university during the past year was two, three, four, four, variable, and variable. One university uses students from school administration classes as project assistants, and another university appoints students to specific projects for times varying from three months to three years. The other universities make appointments for specific periods of nine months, ten months, twelve months, and thirteen months. Three of the universities indicated a desire to have the students remain on the survey staff for two or more years. Participation by the students usually includes data collection and analysis, first draft writing in many in- stances, and full staff assignment occasionally. The stipends for students vary from expenses only to $4,600. Most of the student appointments are for approximately half-time assign- ments. Academic course credit is given only rarely. 89 Occasionally a student is able to obtain research data from a particular project which is useful in his individual pro- gram. The personnel practices pertaining to graduate students are summarized in Table 4 for the Big Ten universities and Michigan State University. Table 4. Personnel Practices Pertaining to Graduate Assistants Personnel Practices Big Ten MS 2 students assigned to surveys 3 students assigned to surveys 4 students assigned to surveys Number of students varies during year X [UNI-’l—J Students assigned 9 months Students assigned 10 months Students assigned 12 months Students assigned 13 months Length of assignment varies NHHHH Stipend of expenses only Stipend Of $1,200 - $2,900 Stipend of $3,000 - $3.900 Stipend of $4,600 + Stipend is variable with assignment HHNHH >4 Clerical help for the school survey activity varies with each report. Each university has made arrangements so that at least one secretary is available for survey work. One uni- versity employs two full-time secretaries and a draftsman. Two of the universities employ part-time help for typing, editing, or art work as the need arises. All of the respondents reported 90 that other supportive services are available at their uni- versities. The use of graduate student assistants and various cate- gories of clerical help created a need for office space and equipment for these people. The author observed that each of the Big Ten universities supply some kind of space and equipment. The condition of the facilities varies tremena dously between the seven universities, but some basic simi- larities do appear. The fullntime faculty members assigned to the survey service have separate offices located somewhere near an area that can be used as office space by the graduate assist- ants. Desks, work tables or counters, files or storage space, one or more typewriters, and a calculator are available in the area used by the graduate students. 1H;some universities secre- tary or clerks are housed in this same space; others provide an outer or separate area for the clerical employees. The amount of space and equipment does not conform to any standard or pattern. The Big Ten universities usually conduct school surveys as an individual venture. Six of the respondents reported some attempts at cOOperative projects. Four respondents reported working cOOperatively with their respective state departments of public instruction. Two reported working with local govern- mental agencies; two reported projects with other state uni- versities or colleges; one reported COOperative projects with 91 state professional associations; one respondent reported a single venture with a commercial surveying agency. One uni- versity reported that it does not conduct surveys jointly or cooperatively with other agencies. The cooperative projects reported were considered to be exceptions and not general practice. Financing. The school survey service is supported by a dual source of finances at each of the Big Ten universities. The reapective institutions support the services at least up to the amount needed for salaries of the permanent staff mem- bers. The remaining costs are borne by the school systems under a fee system. The percentage of the support that each party bears varies from 75 per cent university - 25 per cent school districts to 25 per cent university - 75 per cent school districts. Four universities use the 25 per cent university m 75 per cent school districts breakdown, two use the 50 per cent university - 50 per cent school districts breakdown, and one uses a 75 per cent university - 25 per cent school districts breakdown. The fee charged the school districts by the four universities is based on a consultant per day stipend plus added actual expenses. Two universities base the fee on man days of consultant time plus a per pupil charge. One univer- sity charges a fee only to cover expenses incurred for data ‘collection. The university faculty members who are given school sur- vey service as a regular part of their assignment are not paid additional stipends. Four of the universities pay stipends to any additional consultants employed by the university for survey work. Such stipends range from $50 to 3100 per day. Three of the universities do not employ consultants outside of regular university personnel. The regular university per- sonnel involved by the latter three universities are compen- sated with reduced regular assignments. Only one of the universities uses a contract for all school surveys performed. The others use some form of a letter of intent and acceptance. The university, after pre- liminary meetings or discussions with the school district officials, prepares a formal proposal which states the extent of the study, completion date, areas of responsibility, and estimated cost to the district. The school district then sends a letter of acceptance or agreement to the university. One university uses a letter of intent arrangement for surveys up to 31,000 and a contract for surveys over $1,000. When a con» tract form is used, it contains the same items as the letter of proposal and is signed by both parties. Selection. The number of requests received for school surveys has increased at each of the universities in recent years, and only one reported fulfilling all requests. The num- ber of surveys conducted varies considerably depending on the types of surveys undertaken. The range in number of surveys conducted by each university was from three to thirty per year. 93 Each respondent indicated that his university maintains some form of selection policy with the director of the survey service responsible for the final selection. Criteria for selection of surveys includes: (1) availability of staff, (2) type of survey requested, (3) location of the school dis- trict, (4) potential as a training eXperience for graduate students, (5) receptivity of the local leadership, and (6) established need for the survey. Only one university has its criteria in written form which includes all six of the above listed criteria. One other university listed definite crite— ria, and the remaining respondents indicated that an informal selection policy is maintained. The requests for surveys are made by the superintendents of the school districts. A wide variety Of reasons is suggested for the requests with building needs and district reorganization being mentioned most frequently. Other reasons for school sure vey requests include assistance in solving specialized prob- lems, desire to have an objective appraisal made, curriculum improvement desired, procurement of factual data for setting realistic goals, and a need to reinforce administrative judgment. The majority of the requests are originated during the spring, summer, or fall; but requests are received throughout the year. Time allotment. A definite completion date for each school survey is set by the Big Ten universities. A commencement date is generally agreed on but may not be definitely set at the time 94 of acceptance of the request for a survey. Three factors were listed as the determinants for the length of any school survey-- staff availability, type of survey, and the characteristics of the district to be surveyed. The respondents indicated that these factors might result in a survey being conducted in three weeks or three years. The school districts most often surveyed have enrollments ranging from one thousand students to four thou- sand students, and the surveys are usually completed in one year or less. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The items in this section of the data collection instru- ment (Appendix B) were constructed to identify similarities and uniqueness in the actual field practices of the Big Ten uni- versities. The five areas were chosen to cover a whole range of school survey activity--types of surveys, how data are col- lected, how data are analyzed, reporting practices, and means of implementation. As might be expected, many similar practices and only a few unique practices were found. The practices, as identified by the respondents, will be reported under the five area headings. Types of surveys. The expert-type survey is conducted by all of the Big Ten universities and tends to be the predomi- nant type of survey in use today at these institutions. Six of the universities reported that the expertutype survey is used in 95 an overwhelming majority of the surveys conducted. The com- bination-type of survey is also conducted by six of the uni- versities, but in much lesser numbers. Two of the respondents noted that all four types of surveys are conducted by their staffs. One respondent made a special note of the stateowide, professional agency, cooperative surveys conducted by his uni- versity. Table 5 summarizes the number of universities con- ducting the different types of surveys. Table 5. Types of School Surveys Conducted by the Big Ten Universities Type of Survey Big Ten ~ MSU Expert Self-survey Citizen O\4>U"l-\] Combination ><><><>4 The school surveys conducted by the Big Ten universities are classified as partial surveys because they concentrate on specific problems or aspects of the local educational situa- tion, as opposed to examining the broad spectrum or all aspects in one survey. This does not mean that the surveys fail to look at many educational areas of concern, but it does indicate that a depth study of all areas is not completed with each survey. The areas most generally examined are curriculum 96 content, community setting, finances, buildings, sites, trans~ portation, and general organization. Other areas are usually examined superficially unless they are directly applicable to the specific problem under study. A truly comprehensive sur- vey is rarely conducted by any of the Big Ten universities. The sample copies of survey reports given to the author by the respondents did not include any comprehensive school surveys. Data collection. The three groups of people that are usually involved in collecting data include university faculty, graduate students, and local administrators. One university does not use graduate students for any phase of conducting school surveys. Another university uses only its own survey staff, consisting of faculty members and graduate students, with an assist from local people rarely and usually for pOpu- lation spotting only. Local lay citizens are used occasionally by six of the universities. Two of the universities indicated all of the groups named (see Appendix B, section II, item 4) are used on some occasions, depending on the type of survey or the problem under study. Three universities reported help from other agencies in data collection (i.e., state department of public instruction, professional education associations, local governmental bodies). The survey staffs Of the Big Ten universities review many kinds of materials before making their first visit to a school district that is to be surveyed. Such materials I. 97 usually include maps, enrollment and census records, district organization records, curriculum data, personnel data, building data, financial records, and general information about the com- munity. This information is studied by all members of the staff who eXpect to work on the survey. Preliminary study of these materials before the first visit allows the survey staff to develop a cursory familiarity with the particular situation which can be expanded and completed during the data collection. The number of visits made to a district during a survey varies considerably, depending on the complexity of the sur- vey, size of the district, and the amount of information readily available. Three of the universities reported a wide variance in the number of visits with no general pattern. The others reported the usual number of visits as three days, six to eight days, six to eight days, and over fifteen days for data collec- tion. A chronological sequence for conducting the school sur» veys is followed by five of the universities. Two respondents said no general pattern is followed. The sequences followed are very similar in the five universities reporting such a pattern. The chronological sequence reported, with some minor variations, is as follows: 1. A preliminary meeting with the superintendent, some~ times including the board Of education, to determine the scope and procedures for the survey to be in- cluded in the contract or proposal. / 98 2. The proposal is prepared by the director and accepted by both parties. 3. The community structure, population data, student enrollments and census, and existing facilities are studied by the survey staff. 4. The educational program, personnel, administration, and district organization are studied by the survey staff. 5. The school buildings, present and proposed school sites, are studied and evaluated by the survey staff. 6. Financial conditions of the school district are studied by the survey staff. 7. Discussion meetings are held with the local admin- istrators and sometimes with local staff, citizens, or boards of education. 8. A final report is prepared by the survey staff and presented to the board of education. 9. Occasionally additional meetings will be held to report, or explain, the report to other local groups. The steps reported above may be altered in individual surveys, to meet local conditions or problems, but constitute a gener- ally accepted pattern as reported by the five universities. A variety of methods for collecting data are employed by the Big Ten universities. Three methods used universally are interviews or questionnaires, observations by the survey staff, and analysis of basic school records by the survey staff. Addi- tional methods employed occasionally include use of score cards or rating scales, standardized tests, experimental procedures, and eXpert opinion by specialists such as architects, engineers, or urban planners. Not all of these methods are used by all of the Big Ten universities, and not all of the methods are used V.) 99 in conducting any one survey. The methods most often used by the other publicly supported universities are also employed by Michigan State University. This comparison is shown in Table 6. Table 6. Methods Employed to Collect Data Method Big Ten MSU Interviews or questionnaires Observation by survey staff Analysis of school records Score cards or rating scales Standardized tests EXperimental procedures Expert Opinion Review of previous studies renamed-4x1 N >4 ><><$><>4 Some data collection for a school survey is facilitated by the use of certain forms. Each of the respondents indi~ cated a number of such forms are used by his survey staff. The forms used, although not standardized, are prepared to gather substantially the same kind of data at each university. The forms used usually include census or enrollment data, financial data, community factors (economic, sociological) data, and preliminary or introductory survey data. All of the forms are not used in each survey or by all of the universities, but each university uses some of the forms as applicable to a particular survey. The forms used may be completed by the survey staff or by local personnel with the survey director making the decision as to the appropriate procedure. 100 Data analysis. The analysis or interpretation of data is performed most often by university faculty members. How- ever, four of the universities indicated that graduate students usually assist in this function. Two other universities indi» cated that graduate students are allowed to assist in analyzing data occasionally. Local administrators and board of education members are allowed to assist in data analysis occasionally by two of the universities. Five of the universities involve local teachers and local citizens occasionally. Three of the universities indicated that on some occasions specialists such as architects, engineers, or city planners assist in the analy- sis of data. The methods used for evaluating data cover a wide range of standards and procedures. (See Appendix B, section IV, item 13.) The methods or standards indicated by six or more of the respondents include: comparison with generally accepted practice, comparison with outstanding practice, research results, national or state standards, national census statistics, opin- ion of educational eXperts, judgment of the survey staff, interpretation of trends or projections by the survey staff. Additional methods or standards employed by three or more uni- versities are: comparison with like-size districts, comparison // with neighboring districts, test standards, score card or rating scale standards. One university indicated it uses standards published by the National Council for Schoolhouse Construction; 101 and another respondent indicated a use of local zoning rules, codes, or regulations. The summary of the methods of evalua- tion is shown in Table 7 below. Table 7. Methods Employed to Evaluate Data Method Big Ten MSU Comparison with accepted practice* 7 X Comparison with outstanding practice* 7 X Results Of recent research 6 X National or state standards 7 X National census statistics 6 X Opinion of educational eXperts 6 X Judgment of the survey staff 7 X Interpretation of trends 7 X Comparison of like-size districts 4 X Comparison of neighboring districts 3 X Test standards 3 V Score card or rating standards 3 X National association guides 1 X Local codes or regulations 1 *Standards as set by the director or survey staff of each university. The evaluation of educational opportunityzwas applied to curriculum, instruction, or student achievement--is attempted by five of the universities. This phase of school survey work is accomplished by use of educational specialists and by using local tests and records at all five of the universities. Two of the universities also indicated they use materials pertain- ing to such things as teacher qualifications, teacher-pupil ratios, course offerings, educational services, and facilities and equipment for evaluating educational Opportunity. / 102 Reporting. The modern survey movement generally is characterized by the published survey report. The Big Ten universities follow this procedure also. Each school survey completed by a Big Ten university is reported in a published document. Sometimes the final report is supplemented by prem liminary reports and/or printed summaries. Each final published report is delivered to the board of education and is usually accompanied by an oral report or explanation. The final conclusions and recommendations contained in the oral report are almost invariably the responsibility of the survey director. The director usually has assistance from other university faculty members in formulating these conclu_ sions and recommendations. Five universities reported that graduate assistants usually aid the director in this task also. Four universities reported that lay citizens or educational specialists also assist in this function. Local administra- tors, board of education members, and local teachers also assist occasionally as reported by two universities for each group. The contents of the published school survey reports vary with the type of survey. In a majority of the reports the contents contain material in these major areas: community setting, educational program, educational facilities (including housing and equipment), school enrollments, school financing, V] transportation, and recommendations for future planning. Each 103 area is not always covered in each report, and the emphasis will change with the type of survey; however, these content headings are found in approximately 75 per cent of the school survey reports sampled from the Big Ten universities. Publicity concerning the school survey is usually the responsibility of the local school officials. Two of the universities report that they usually assist the local staff in this function. Help in writing news releases is the most popular form of assistance; four other universities reported occasional assistance of this type. Some assistance is also given in preparing brochures or by making copies of the rem ports available to newsmen. Attendance at public meetings for publicizing surveys is also reported. One of the univer- sities maintains a scrap book of news releases on all surveys conducted and makes this available to the local school officials. Implementation. The school survey is considered a basis for planning improvements in a school system. The planning and changes which follow the school survey are the responsi- bility Of the local school officials, but the Big Ten uni- versities do assist these Officials in implementing the school survey reports. Two of the universities report this as a usual occurrence, and five report it as happening occasionally. The process for providing assistance in implementation most Often takes the form of consultations on campus between the local Officials and the university personnel. One or two visits 104 to the local district after completion of the survey are not uncommon. One university reports that plans (steps) for im- plementation are often included in the final report. Another university reports that it is striving to make social action a part of all of its surveys. Any additional materials sup- plied to the school district for the purpose of implementation usually are in the form of digests, brochures, or summaries of the final survey report. FORMS OF EVALUATION Every university must evaluate the many programs it sponsors in order to wisely determine the allocation of its resources--both human and material. Such evaluations are con~ ducted in many ways, formal and informal, to determine the value of a program. Such evaluations, or appraisals, also serve to uncover some problem areas within a program. The appraisals may even suggest improvements that might be made in the program. Section V of the data collection instrument (Appendix B) was designed to accomplish such purposes for the school survey activity at each of the Big Ten universities. The value, effectiveness, and obstacles encountered by the universities in providing school survey services will be de- scribed in this section Of the study. Value of the service. Selfmevaluation by a local teaching staff is generally believed to lead to improvements in a school 105 system, and the school survey is an instrument which tends to stimulate self-evaluation by the local teaching staff. There- fore, some of the universities have used this outcome of sur- veys performed as a form of evaluating the survey activity. Two of the Big Ten universities indicated selfmevaluations are a usual result while five indicated it happens occasionally. Such stimulation is valuable to any local system, and the school survey service should be attributed with this value. The training of graduate students is considered one of the values resulting from school survey service by six of the Big Ten universities. Most of the universities involve their students in the survey activity while some use the materials from the surveys in academic classes. Five universities use the school survey materials for case studies or as reference material for graduate classes in school administration. Three respondents reported that survey techniques are taught as a part of a course in school administration, and the students do some survey work as field experience for the course. One respondent said that a course in school (educational) survey- ing is taught at his university. Another respondent indicated that school survey materials and reports are used as reference material for a school buildings course. One university allows graduate students to observe the work of consultants. Thus, it is obvious that school survey activities are used in many and varied ways in the training of graduate students and render 106 a valuable service to the universities. The ways in which school surveys are used in the training of educators is de- picted in Table 8. Table 8. Use of School Surveys in the Training of Graduate Students in Education Training Aspects of School Surveys Big Ten MSU Serve on the school survey staff 6 X Survey materials used for reference 6 X Survey techniques taught as part of course 3 X Course in educational surveys taught 1 Students observe work of consultants 1 Survey provides in-service training X School survey activities also contribute to education in many other ways. The respondent from each of the univer- sities offered a list of general and specific contributions made to education by the school survey activity. These con- tributions are listed here under the two headings without trying to indicate how many universities mentioned each one because the lists are extensive, and many duplications appeared in the data. General contributions of school surveys have been: 1. To influence university teaching by providing pro- fessors with valuable contact with practical problems. 8. 107 To improve education generally through effective planning based on factual data. To improve the level of public support for edu- cation. TO improve curriculum content and teaching methods in the schools. To foster a general improvement in school housing. To encourage improvement in the problemmsolving and decision-making processes found in the local communities. To provide a field laboratory for training gradu- ate students in education. To generally improve the public image of the uni- versity as a service institution. Specific contributions of the school survey activity have been: 1. 2. To provide opportunities to strengthen local edu~ cational leadership. To act as a unifying agent in local community efforts to improve education. To furnish expert consultant services in many areas of educational endeavor. To strengthen educational administration in many local communities. To promote effective school district reorganization in many areas. To create a good public image for education with local people. To provide factual data for specific planning for school improvements. To encourage the local public to think more broadly on problems of education. To encourage local communities to take positive action on programs of educational improvement. 108 Effectiveness. Although the values of the school sur- vey activity are extolled and enumerated quite readily, only two of the respondents reported any formal studies that had been conducted to measure the effectiveness of the activity. Two doctoral theses were written at one university as an attempt to measure the effectiveness of the survey service. One doctoral and two master"s theses were written on survey effectiveness at another university. Two faculty members from one university conducted a formal appraisal of all surveys conducted by that university from 1950 to 1958. These six studies were the only formal appraisals submitted by the Big Ten reSpondents in answer to the author”s inquiry. The six studies all agreed, or strongly implied agreement, on these points: (1) survey staffs should spend more time in the class- room and more time studying curriculum for the purpose of improving educational programs, (2) survey staffs should pro- vide more follow-up services for implementing survey recom- mendations, and (3) surveys and published reports of surveys are an effective means of gaining public support for educa- tional improvement. Several of the respondents who indicated that no formal studies of effectiveness had been conducted did report some informal methods of appraisal. Contacts with school Officials in surveyed districts supplied some information relative to effectiveness. Certain reports by state agencies also gave ,/ v. 109 indirect measures of effectiveness, and some enrollment pro- jections were checked in later years against actual records. Generally, this might be considered an area of weakness in most of the Big Ten universities. Possible improvements. Many problems or Obstacles have been encountered which reduce the effectiveness of school sur» veys. These problems, as identified by the respondents, are listed as follows: 1. NQU'I‘P-‘UJ Inadequate staffing of the survey service or coordinating of faculty members" assignments to allow for survey service. Ineffectual communication between the survey staff and local citizens or school personnel. Improper clarification of problems to be studied. Inaccurate data or records. Lack of provisions for implementation. Inadequate financing of the school survey activity. Lack of proper evaluation of the school survey service. Suggestions for improving school survey services in- cluded: l. 2. Provide for a flexible service with maximum involve- ment of faculty in areas of genuine competence. Establish a survey staff with sufficient funds to recruit and train graduate students who can work with the faculty consultants. Conduct appropriate activities to insure that the proper type of survey is agreed upon and allow for a program of social action. 110 4. Provide for opportunities to work with local teachers, local lay citizens, and state depart- ment Of public instruction personnel as Often as possible and encourage local continuous self- evaluation. 5. Provide for use of appropriate specialists as consultants with a just compensation. 6. Establish an annual appraisal of the school sur- vey service. The foregoing problems and suggested improvements repre- sent the combined reports from the respondents of the Big Ten universities. If each university could study these suggestions and apply them to the school survey activity, education in the seven midwestern states would be improved immeasureably. SUMMARY The current practices of the Big Ten universities in school survey activities are described in this chapter. The similarities and the differences found in these universities have been presented. Each of the universities has noted cer- tain problems or obstacles in providing the survey service. Many suggestions are given for improving school surveys. Two points stand out in this description: The school survey serv- ice is considered to be a valuable program provided by the universities, but it should be evaluated more often and more systematically. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The general purpose of this study was to present a com- pilation of information concerning the methods and procedures used by the Big Ten universities in conducting school surveys. This general purpose has been achieved in the preceding chap- ters. The specific purposes of the study, however, included the presentation of recommendations for possible improvements /’ in the school survey service at Michigan State University. In order to formulate such recommendations, it was necessary to review and analyze the data received from the Big Ten uni- versities to provide a basis for the recommended improvements. When this analysis was made, certain conclusions were drawn; and these conclusions and recommendations formulated in this manner are presented in this chapter. The conclusions apply to the Big Ten universities' school survey practices, but the recommendations are meant to apply specifically to Michigan State University. THE BASIS FOR ANALYSIS The recommendations that are to be made in this study, although formulated from the conclusions drawn from the data on the Big Ten universities' school survey services, apply 111 112 specifically to Michigan State University. Each university maintains its own philosophy and purposes, and practices which are practical at one may not apply at other universities. Therefore, the basis for this analysis is drawn from the philosOphy and purposes which guide Michigan State University personnel in their school survey service. This philosophy and these purposes were interpreted by the author from his research for this study and his experiences at Michigan State University. The author constructed the data collection instru- ment to provide comprehensive information which could be ana- lyzed in light of the Michigan State University philosophy and purposes. Thus, the analysis is based on three points: 1. The philosOphy and purposes of Michigan State Uni— versity. 2. The research and experience of the author. 3. The organization of the data collection instrua ment used to collect data concerning current practices at the other Big Ten universities. Each of these points will be explained in some detail. Philosophy and purposes. Michigan State University accepts the philosophy of research, teaching, and service as basic to the operation and function of the institution. As the pioneer land-grant university, great emphasis has been placed on the service aspect of this philosophy. The agri- culture extension service was begun very early in the history of the institution as a means of carrying out the commitment of service to the people of the state. The extension service 113 thus set an early precedent for all forms of service to the peOple in the local communities. This commitment to service has been explained in chapter III through quotations from speeches by President Hannah. The school survey service at Michigan State University is still based on this service philosophy. The connection between the Continuing Education division and the school survey service serves as evidence of this tie to the service philosophy. In addition to being service oriented, the school surm vey is also involved in the teaching aspect of this guiding philosophy. The development of the field service team and the use of other graduate students in conducting school sur- veys is based on the concept of the school survey service as an Opportunity for field experiences. This opportunity for field experience extends to the faculty members in the belief that such contacts will strengthen their academic endeavors. Thus, the school survey service is based on the teaching aspect of the basic philosophy. The school survey service at Michigan State Uni- versity has as one of its purposes the involvement of local citizens. Such involvement is based on the belief that an informed citizenry makes a strong democracy, and the American educational system is based on a belief in democracy. Presi- dent Hannah also implied this involvement of people when he said, ". . . our goal is to serve the people . . . by helping 114 them to make practical applications of that knowledge. . . ."1 Involvement of local citizens extends to school administrators, board of education members, teachers, and local lay citizens from all walks of life. The contacts through this involvement allow the university personnel to actually préctice the phi- losophy stated by Dr. Hannah and to make the land-grant philosOphy a very real and practical guideline in the school survey service. Research and experience. The philosophy and purposes of Michigan State University could only have meaning for this study if they were applied to the analysis of the data collec- ted. To make this application required some understanding on the part of the person making the analysis. To obtain such an understanding became a major objective of the author while conducting this study. Assignment to the field service team took on a new meaning as the study progressed because each additional experience helped to clarify or broaden the authorgs understanding of the Michigan State University philosophy and purposes. During two years of working with the field service team, the author had many opportunities to see the service philosophy applied by faculty members while conducting school surveys. Informal discussions with faculty members and team conferences during surveys provided firstuhand experiences at putting the philosophy and purposes to the test of practical 1 Hannah, Michigan State University Catalogue,_l963-64, p- 9. . 115 application. The experience gained in these situations was the object of discussions between the author, field service team director, and assistant dean for off-campus programs to enable the author to stabilize his understanding of the phi- losophy and purposes. The understandings thus gained served as the basis for developing concepts for analyzing the data collected. A systematic search of the available literature of the survey movement was also undertaken to provide background material for developing concepts to be used in the data analy- sis. Materials pertaining to the land-grant movement were searched to develop the service philosophy. Dr. Hannah’s speeches were examined for specific examples of the Michigan State University philosophy. Reports of school surveys cone ducted by Michigan State University were read and studied for content, involvement, and implications for philosophical applications. Survey reports and other literature pertain- ing to surveys were solicited from many universities through- out the nation as part of the research to determine the pure poses and procedures of a variety of institutions involved in school survey activity. The research for this study in- cluded attendance at conferences related to school survey work--the Big Ten Survey Directors annual conference, a sec- tional meeting on management surveys at the American Associa- tion of School Administrators conference, and a regional 116 conference of the National Council of Schoolhouse Construca tion. Each of these activities provided assistance in the data analysis for this study. Organization of the data collection instrument. The collection of data concerning the school survey service at each of the Big Ten universities was a central concern of this study. The data collected was to serve two purposescu to allow a description of current practices in school survey activities at the Big Ten universities (see chapter IV) and to provide a basis for recommending possible improvements in the survey service of Michigan State University. In order to achieve these purposes, the author searched for a comprem hensive instrument to use for the collection. No single instrument could be found, but some studies had been done on various aspects of the survey movement. The author then determined to construct an instrument which would combine some of the features of the early studies with some original design to obtain a comprehensive instrument covering many aspects of the survey services. To accomplish this purpose, the instrument (see Appendix B) was constructed to cover various areas of concern within the survey service and many aspects within the areas. The organization and degree of comprehensiveness of the instrument is shown in the following outline of its cone tent: 117 I. General Information (an area of concern). A. Identification ~ items 1-3 (an aspect of the area). B. Historical development - items 4a6. II. Philosophy and Purposes. A. Philosophy of the university - items l~2. B. Specific purposes and objectives of surveys - items 3-6. III. Organization and Administration. A. Direction Of the surveys - items 1-5. B. Personnel for the surveys - items 6«l4. C. Financing the survey service - items 15~l7. D. Selection policies of the university - items 18-25. E. Time allowed for surveys - items 26-29. IV. Methods and Procedures. A. Types of surveys conducted - items 1-3. B. Methods of data collection - items 4-12. C. Procedures for data analysis - items 13-16. D. Reporting practices - items l7u2l. E. Implementing the surveys - items 22-24. V. Forms of Evaluation. A. Value of survey services - items 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 11. B. Measuring effectiveness - items 5-6. C. Suggested improvements - items 3, 4, 10, 12. The instrument was constructed to elicit information which would show similarities and differences in the practices of the universities. Some items were constructed to call forth specific answers while others were open ended to allow the respondents an opportunity to describe unique practices. The interview form was also prepared for ease of use and allowed for a complete record of the data. The interview form was tested with several faculty members at Michigan State Univer- sity to assure reliability within the limits of the information called foreum.to prepare the author in the use of this specific 118 instrument. The construction and use of the instrument was planned to achieve as high a degree of comprehensiveness as possible within the limitations of the small population inter- viewed. The analysis procedure. The basis used for analyzing the data collected has been described in the preceding para- graphs. This basis was applied to the actual process of analysis by examining the data of each area and aspect of concern in light of four questions which reflect the philosou phy and purposes of Michigan State University. The questions asked were: 1. Will this practice allow for maximum service to the people of Michigan if applied to the school survey movement? 2. Will the school survey service offer maximum op- portunity for field experiences by graduate students and faculty members if this procedure is adopted? 3. Will local citizens be afforded maximum opportuni- ties tO grow in understanding if the school survey service employs these methods? 4. Will the use of such methods and procedures in the school survey service provide optimum improvements in education at the local level as well as in the university? The practices and procedures found at the Big Ten uni- versities were examined and compared with those currently in use at Michigan State University. From the examinations and comparisons, certain conclusions were drawn and further exam- inations performed. Those practices which were not currently 119 in use at Michigan State University, and which seemed to pro» vide a positive answer to the four questions, were then in- cluded in the recommendations for possible improvements in the survey activity at Michigan State University. CONCLUSIONS The various areas of concern in school survey services have been examined in five phases or sections, and the data for each section presented which represents the practices at the publicly supported Big Ten universities. When these data were examined and compared with the practices at Michigan State University, certain conclusions were reached. These conclusions will be presented here in the same order as the sections of the data collection instrument. The conclusions were drawn directly from the data presented in chapters III and IV and in most instances arreared to be quite apparent. To clarify some of the conclusions, material or tables show~ ing comparisons have been included. General information. This section refers to the length of service by the university and the respondent at his pres- ent university. The study revealed a high degree of stabil- ity in the survey services. The dates of establishing the services and the respondents‘ length of service is shown in Table 9 on the next page. Table 9. Beginning Dates for Formal Survey Activity and Respondents' Length of Service at Present University Universities Respondents 1912-21 1940-50 1950_6O 12-18 yrs 6w8 yrs 315 yrs Big Ten 3 3* 1 3 2 2 MSU x x *Including the University of Illinois The following conclusions are drawn from the information summarized in Table 9. l. The Big Ten universities have maintained school sur» vey services for many years and appear likely to continue this activity as a service to the schools in their states. 2. The men directing the school survey activities have many years Of experience and give stability to the service. Philosophy and purposes. Although each university accepts a general philosophy and five have adopted a statement of philosophy, printed documents setting forth the philosophy of the universities were not readily available. Two of the universities did have available a statement of purposes for the school survey activity. The following conclusion was drawn: 1. Although a printed statement or pamphlet setting forth the philosophy, purposes, and survey services of the university in concise terms would be a useful instrument to 121 keep readily available at each university, no such compre~ hensive and informative documents were available. Organization and administration. There are many simim larities and some differences in the personnel practices of the universities pertaining to school survey activities. Some of these practices were determined and are shown in Table 10. Table 10. Personnel Practices Pertaining to School Survey Staffing Personnel Practices Big Ten MSU 12+ faculty on staff 2 2 faculty on staff 4 1 faculty on staff 1 X Use graduate students 6 X Specialists given stipends* 4 Specialists given released time* 3 X Hire clerical, supportive staff 7 X *This refers to an educational specialist who may be a university faculty member but who is not regularly assigned to the survey staff. Conclusions drawn from the data concerning personnel practices are: 1. Each of the universities appoints one faculty mem~ ber to direct the school survey service. This usually results in: 122 a. The person directing the school survey servu ice is given academic rank in the university. b. The title given to the person directing the survey service is usually descriptive of his responsibilities with the university of which the survey service is only a part. c. The director of the school survey service maintains a direct connection with the depart~ ment of school administration. 2. Educational specialists are used in school survey work by all of the universities, and four universities award a stipend when such work is in addition to their regular uni- versity assignment. 3. Graduate students are considered valuable survey staff members, and this work offers excellent field experi- ences as a part of the students“ training. 4. The Big Ten universities provide office Space and equipment for the graduate assistants and clerical employees of the school survey service. Such facilities are considered essential to the maintenance of this activity as a part of the total service program of the university. The financial data conclusion is that: 5. The financial support of the school survey service is obtained from general university funds and from fees charged to the recipient schools. The percentage of support from each source is an internal matter that must be decided independently by each university. 123 The Big Ten universities all followed some kind of selection process for determining which surveys they would conduct. The variance in this practice is shown in Table 11. Table 11. Use of Criteria for Selecting Survey Reports Use of Criteria Big Ten MSU Use definite, written criteria 1 Use definite, unwritten criteria 1 Use informal selection policy 5 X The conclusions drawn from the selection data are: 6. A criteria for selection of those survey requests which are to be conducted is acknowledged by each university. Such criteria are not all in writing and formally adopted by the administering officials. 7. Staff availability is an important factor in the number of requests for surveys accepted and in the amount of time allotted for the completion of surveys. Methods and procedures. School surveys are conducted along similar patterns by the Big Ten universities. Each of the universities has a few unique interpretations which are appropriate for its purposes or philosophy. The data con- cerning types and patterns of surveys led to these conclusions: 124 l. The Big Ten universities conduct all types of school surveys with the expertutype, partial survey used in a large majority of the surveys conducted. 2. The general pattern and sequence followed in con- ducting a school survey is very similar for each of the Big Ten universities with variations dependent upon occasional special problems or an occasional unique type of survey. Various groups of people are involved in collecting data for school surveys, and this degree of involvement is presented in Table 12. Table 12. Frequency of Involvement of Various PeOple in Data Collection Usually Occasionally Never Group Involved Big Ten MSU Big Ten MSU Big Ten MSU University faculty 7 X Graduate students 1 Local administrators 5 X l 1 Board of Education 3 X 4 Local teachers 1 3 3 Local lay citizens l X 6 Other; educational 3 X l specialists From the data collection information it is concluded that: 125 3. Data collection for school surveys is conducted by a wide variety of people with available time being a deciding factor in most cases. 4. The methods employed by Big Ten universities to collect data for school surveys are very similar in each institution. Data analysis is usually considered a professional activity, and the degree of involvement of various groups is considerably different; see Table 13. Table 13. Frequency of Involvement of Various People in Data Analysis Usually Occasionally Never Group Involved Big Ten MSU Big Ten MSU Big Ten MSU University faculty 7 X Graduate students 4 X 2 1 Local administrators l 3 X 3 Board of Education 2 5 X Local teachers 4 X 3 Local lay citizens X 4 3 Other; educational 4 X specialists The information from Table 13 above and from chapter IV on data evaluation supports this conclusion: 126 5. Data analysis in a school survey is considered professional work by the Big Ten universities and as such is most often executed by university faculty members with some assistance by advanced graduate students. a. Evaluation of data is accomplished in each of the Big Ten universities through the use of methods or standards which are employed quite universally by these institutions. School surveys are usually completed with the presen- tation of a written report. Practices in the Big Ten uni- versities support the conclusions that: 6. The content and format for school survey reports follow a general pattern in the Big Ten universities and vary only according to the type of survey being conducted, and a. The summaries or supplementary brochures which are provided for some surveys tend to show greater variety in format between the universities. 7. Publicity and implementation of school surveys have been considered the responsibility of local school Officials; however, the Big Ten universities are tending to offer more assistance in these areas. Forms of evaluation. The school survey service at each of the Big Ten universities has undergone some form of appraise al, but this phase of the activity has received the least amount of formal attention. This study has shown that in the Big Ten universities: 127 1. School survey activities are generally considered to make valuable contributions to the advancement or improve» ment of educational practices, but only a few formal appraisals have been made by the Big Ten universities. 2. There is a general agreement on a need for research studies to measure the general and specific contributions and effectiveness of school survey activities. 3. The training of graduate students is considered a valuable aspect of the school survey activity. RECOMMENDATIONS The school survey movement has been a significant develn Opment in university programs since early in this century, and some of the Big Ten universities have been among the early leaders in this movement. Improvements and refinements have been instituted in school surveys which have allowed the movement to make continuous contributions to the development of the whole field of education. Michigan State University is a comparatively recent member of the Big Ten group of unim versities and to the formal school survey movement. Being a newcomer may sharpen the desire for improvements in any enm deavor on the part of Michigan State University. Regardless of the reason, the desire for improvement is present; and this study is one small effort toward fulfilling that desire. Therefore, recommendations for possible improvements in the Michigan State University school survey service will be presented. 128 The following recommendations have been carefully formu- lated from the examination of the data on the current status of school survey practices at Michigan State University and the other publicly supported Big Ten universities. They are presented as possible additions to, or modifications of, practices or policies based on the guiding philosophy of Michi- gan State University. It is understood that these recommenda- tions are given as suggestions for possible improvements; and the only request is that they be given careful consideration by those persons responsible for administering, directing, or conducting school surveys for Michigan State University. The recommendations for possible improvement in the Michigan State University survey service are as follows: 1. A complete historical record of the school survey service should be maintained and revised periodically. a. This record should include a chronological re- port of any changes made in the service, names of the coordinator and faculty members working on the surveys, a complete listing of all sur- vey reports, a chronological list of graduate assistants assigned to the service, and any other data pertinent to such a record. 2. A printed pamphlet or booklet which would contain a concise statement of the philosophy of the university, the purposes and objectives of school surveys, the policy concern- ing acceptance of requests, explanation of the fee system, and description of services available should be developed for general distribution. 129 a. The development of this booklet assumes agree- ment on and adoption of the necessary policies which govern the items to be included. b. This booklet should be distributed to anyone interested in obtaining survey services and should be used in orienting graduate students who are to become field service team members. 3. The person responsible for directing the school sur- vey service at Michigan State University should be a faculty member from the Department of Administration and Higher Edu- cation and could use the title coordinator of school surveys. a. This appointment would be in keeping with the practice at the other Big Ten universities. b. The title would be descriptive of the position as practiced at Michigan State University in its implied coordination of the efforts of many people involved in conducting school sur- veys. 4. The primary responsibility for coordinating school surveys should remain in the Department of Administration and Higher Education, but the survey activity should include mem» bers from all departments of the College of Education who may be given partial assignments as consultants in the school sure vey service; members of other University faculties should be asked and encouraged to serve as consultants on specific sur- veys when their particular competencies are needed. Each survey that is conducted should have the services of two or more such consultants in addition to the coordinator of school surveys. 5. The coordinator of school surveys should identify the needs and recommend the resources required to conduct each 130 survey. The services of any specialists needed to enhance the conduct of a survey may be obtained either from within or out- side the University. 8-. This provision should be interpreted to include specialists in subject fields in the College of Education, specialists in other disciplines within the University, and specialists from out- side agencies such as architects, engineers, urban planners, or others as appropriate. This recommendation should also be interpreted as encouraging greater cooperation with and support from all colleges, divisions, depart- ments, or institutes within the University, as well as with state agencies such as the Depart- ment of Public Instruction. 6. Survey reports, the descriptive booklet described in recommendation two, and an annual summary of the survey activi- ty should be distributed through the colleges and divisions of the University; and copies should be available through the Uni- versity library and the reference library in the College of Education. 7. The number of graduate students serving on the field service team should be increased and a closer working relation- ship established with other departments in the College of Education so that their graduate assistants may share in the field experiences whenever appropriate. 8.. The area of curriculum development is especially important in school surveys, and graduate assist- ants from this area could serve very appropriately as members of survey teams. The administration interest area is uniquely ap~ propriate to furnish leadership in developing this type of field experience because of its overall interest in all phases of the education program. 8. 131 A stronger program of orientation and supervision of graduate assistants should be develOped which would pro- vide better trained personnel for conducting the surveys and would enhance the value of the survey as a field experience. 9. a. The recommended orientation could be conducted for the members of the field service team during the summer by giving them twelve-month appoint- ments. A file of reference and resource materials per- taining to school survey practices could be developed and maintained which would serve for a series of orientation sessions for graduate assistants from other departments prior to any service on a survey staff. A contractual agreement to conduct a school survey should not be made without a thorough preliminary investiga- tion of the requested survey. 10. a. The preliminary investigation should usually include discussion with the superintendent, board of education members, and possibly teachers or local lay citizens. This can best be accomplished by a visit to the local school and community. The preliminary investigation should establish the magnitude of the study needed, the type of survey which would be most effective, the po- tential for effective service by the university, and if the survey would serve the other pure poses of the school survey service. The selection of surveys to be conducted should include a wide variety of experiences for the graduate assistants but should continue to in~ volve as many local people as possible when this improves the local educational climate. Each school survey that is conducted should serve as a form of applied research, and a scientific approach or 132 attitude should be utilized throughout the conduct of all school surveys. a. This recommendation should be interpreted to mean that in each survey, problems and possiw ble solutions should be identified, complete data should be gathered utilizing all possible scientific methods and procedures, the data should be carefully and thoroughly analyzed in light of all the known possible solutions, and the conclusions and recommendations should be presented as clearly and concisely as possible with supporting data. 11. A greater variety of illustrative material should be included in the survey reports to improve their readability and to provide greater clarity in the content. a. To achieve the desired effect of this recommen- dation may require greater use of the support= ive services of the University (such as printing, audio-visual, etc.) or employment of specialized clerical help. 12. Implementation of survey recommendations should receive much greater emphasis. a. Implementation in this sense could mean assist- ance in activities such as planning a bond issue, selecting an architect, developing edu- cational specifications, conducting curriculum improvement seminars, setting up a public rela~ tions program, or any other apprOpriate endeavor. b. The original budget should allow for at least one consultation or visit to the local com- munity following the presentation of the final report. 13. The fees charged the school system being surveyed should include all expense of the survey except the salary of the full-time faculty members who are assigned to the school survey staff. /. 133 a. The local schools may charge this to research in their school budgets and would thus be sharing with the university the cost of im- proving education.‘ 14. Research studies should be conducted to determine which practices or procedures are most effective in the sur- vey service and to validate the effectiveness of the rec— ommendations made and procedures followed in each survey. a. Various procedures such as pupil projection techniques, building evaluation processes, or teacher qualification evaluations should be tested for appropriateness and validity. b. Approximately every three years a study should be conducted to determine how effective past y surveys have been in providing educational im- provements in the schools surveyed. 15. The value of the school survey service should be ascertained through repeated studies and appraisals. a. Such appraisal should determine the value of the total survey activity as a part of the V University's service programs. SUMMARY This study was conceived as an effort to provide infor~ mation which will be useful in improving school survey services. The information has been presented in an historical develop- ment of the school survey movement, a description of current practices in school survey services at Big Ten universities, and as recommendations for possible improvements at Michigan State University. The nature and design of the study were chosen to be as descriptive and comprehensive as possible in 134 the hope that this study would generate some future studies that may provide depth in specific phases of school survey activities. Many similar and some unique practices have been reported. Many strengths and a few weaknesses have been pointed out. The last request is for thoughtful men to read the study carefully and make whatever applications seem advisable at their universities for the improvement of education generally. BIBLIOGRAPHY amiss. Almack, John C. (ed.). Modern School Administration. New York: Houghton MiffIin Company, 1933. Blair, Lyle, and Kuhn, Madison. A Short Histor of Michi an State. East Lansing: Michigan State ColIege Press, 1955. Bliss, Don C. Methods and Standards fg; Local School Sur- vey . Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1918. Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. Drake, William E. The American School in Transition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. Good, Carter V., Barr, A. S., and Scates, Douglas E. The - Methodology_of Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Cefitury-Crofts, Inc.,1941. Good, H. G. A Histor of American Education. New York: The MacMIIIan Company, 1962. Harper, Aaron.W., and Wittrock, Merlin C. Guide for Plan- nigg Your Educational Prograg. DanvilIe, IIIinois: e Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1960. Herrick, John H., et a1. From School Prggram to School Plant. New Tori: Henry HOlt and Company,Il956. Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State, The First Hundred Years 1855-12E5. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 955. McQuade, Walter (ed.). Schoolhouse. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958. Moehlman, Arthur B., and van Zwoll, James A. School Public Relations. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 7. 135 136 Morphet, Edgar L., Johns, R. L., and Reller, Theodore L. Educational Administration: Concepts, Practices, and Issues. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1959. Pond, Millard 2., and Wakefield, Howard. Citizens Survey Their School Needs. Columbus: The Ohio State Uni- versity, 1954. Sears, Jesse B. The School Survey. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925. Sumption, Merle R. How to Conduct a Citizens School Survey. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. Sumption, Merle R., and Landes, Jack L. P1anning_Functional School Buildings. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research. New York: McGraw-HiIl Book Company, Inc., 1962. Reports Ayers, Leonard P. "A Survey of School Surveys," Second Annual Conference on Educatggnal Measurements, Bulletin of the ExtensionDIvisIOn, XIII, NO. 11. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1915. Connecticut Governor's Fact-Finding Commission on Education. Do Citizens and Education Mix? Norwalk, Connecticut: The O'BrIen Suburban Press, n.d. Conner, Forrest E., et a1. Management Surveys for Schools. Washington: American Association Of SchoOl Adminis- trators, 1964. Judd, Charles H. "Contributions of School Surveys," Tpg Scientific Movement in Education. Thirty-seventh Yearbook offthe National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1938. "Summary of Typical School Surveys," Plans for 9rganizing_School Surveys with a Summary of Typical School Surve s. Tilrteenth Yearbook of the National SOciety for Ihe Study of Education, Part II. Bloom- ington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1914. Marsh, C. S. "General Methods: The Social Survey and the Study of Communities," The Scientific Movement in Education. Thirty-seventh Yearbook of the National SOOiety for the Study of Education, Part II. Bloom- ington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1938. Smith, H. L. "Plans for Organizing School Surveys," Plans for Organizing Schqpl_Surveys with a Summary of Typi- caI School Surveys. Thirteenth Yearbook of the Nation— a1 Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Bloom- ington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1914. Articles and Periodicals Arnold, William E. "Are School Surveys Worthwhile?", The American School Board Journal, CXI, No. 4 (October, 19457. Branson, Ernest P. "Standard Tests Used in School Surveys," School and Society, VIII, No. 207 (December, 1918). Caswell, Hollis L. "Survey Techniques," Educatipnal Admin- istration and Supervision, XIX, No. 6 (September, 1933). Church, Harold H., and Lewis, Melvin S. "An Appraisal of the School Surveys Conducted by the School of Educa- tion, Indiana University," Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, XXXV, No. 5 (September, 1959). Cooking, Walter D. "The School Survey and Its Social Impli- cations," Educational Research Bulletin, XXX, No. 7 (October, 1951). Hannah, John A. "We Believe," Michigan State University Catalogue 1963-64, LVII, No. 9 (February, 1963). Harap, Henry. "Do School Surveys Produce Results?", The Nation's Schools, XLIX, No. 3 (March, 1952). Holy, T. C. "Some Contributions of School Surveys in Ohio," Educational Research Bulletin, XX}, No. 7 (October, I951). Morphet, Edgar L. "How to Conduct a School Survey," School Executive, LXVII, No. 8 (April, 1948). 138 Rasmussen, Gerald R. "The Educational Consultant and Edu- cational Planning," The American School Board Journal, CXLVII, NO. 3 (September, 1963): Reckewey, Rex K. "The Role of the University and Recent Trends in the Conduct of School Surveys," Dissertation Abstracts, XIV, No. 8, Part 2 (August-December, 1954). Reller, Theodore L. "Shall We Have a Status, Deliberative, or Implementative Study of Our Schools?", The American School Board Journal, CIV, No. 4 (April, 1942). Sumption, Merle R. "A Survey of Surveys," The Nation‘s Schools, LVII, No. 3 (March, 1956). Engyclopedia Articles Cooper, Dan H. "School Surveys," March, 1958, Encyclopedia of Educatiopal Research. Edited by Chester W. Harris. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960. Unpublished Materials Benben, John S. "Changing Concepts of School Administration as Revealed in City School Surveys, 1916-1950." Unpub- lished Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1953. Brieve, Fred. "A Follow-up Study of Selected Contract Field Studies Conducted in Various Michigan Public Schools by Michigan State University." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Dakin, William R. "A Summary and Critical Evaluation of Twenty-one School Building Surveys of Twenty Ohio Cities." Unpublished Master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, 1954. Cuba, Egon G. "Research, Teaching, and Services." Bulletin of The Bureau of Educational Research and Service. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1962. Husbands, Kenneth L. "A Comparative Study of a Selfmsurvey and an EXpert Survey of an Elementary School Curriculum." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1952. 139 Landes, Jack L. "A Study of Variations in Group Perceptions of School Buildings." Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Illinois, 1953. Lucas, John T. "A Follow-up Study of the Recommendations Made in School Building Surveys by The Bureau of Edu- cational Research at Twenty Exempted Village and Local Schools." Unpublished Master"s thesis, The Ohio State University, 1954. Miller, Harry K. "A Study of the Field Service and Research Units of Ten Schools of Education." Unpublished Doc- toral dissertation, Stanford University, 1958. O'Neal, Harold L. "Adequacy and Changes Associated with Con» ducting Selected COOperative School Building Surveys." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1953. Roe, W. H. "Field Service Team Concept." Interoffice Memo- randum, December, 1960. Root, Bill M. "A Follow-up Study of School Plant Surveys Completed by The Bureau of Educational Research and Service Between the Years 1946 and 1956." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1958. Thomas, Kenneth R. "Analysis and Disposition of the Recommen- dations Found in the University of Pittsburgh School Surveys that Pertain to School Plants and Facilities." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pitts~ burgh, 1955 o Other Sources Interview with Clyde M. Campbell, Professor of Education, Michigan State University, January 2, 1964. Hannah, John A. "The Challenge to Education in a World Like This," Hannah Speeches. East Lansing: Michigan State University Library, 1948. . "The Third Challenge," Hannah Speeches. East Lansing: Michigan State University Library, 1950-51. Interview with William H. Roe, Professor of Education, Michigan State University, November 27, 1963. APPENDIX A SAMPLE LETTER OF INTRODUCTION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansingv COlIege of Education January 2, 1964 Dr. Howard Jones, Dean College of Education State University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa Dear Howard We are attempting to evaluate our school survey service here at Michigan State University. One of the initial steps is an understanding of the survey services in the Big Ten publicly supported universities. Mr. Jim Giddis, a member of our sur- vey staff for the past two years, has continually expressed a desire to conduct such a study as a part of his doctoral re- search activity. With your permission, Mr. Giddis will plan to visit with you and others designated by you for one or possibly two days in the near future. The actual interviews will require approximately 45 minutes. It is our desire to make available to you the data collected in this study and also to share with you the findings and recommendations resulting from the study. We would be pleased to make such findings available at a future meeting of the Big Ten Survey Directors if the group so desires. Please be assured that the basic data from each institution will be treated with confidence. I personally hope that you and your staff will be interested in this project and that all of us may gain some insights and ideas for improvement from such a cOOperative endeavor. We should appreciate an early reply regarding your interest and cOOperation in this study. Sincerely Floyd G. Parker Associate Professor of Education 409 Erickson Hall dlg 140 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW FORM FOR A STUDY OF THE METHODS AND PROCEDURES USED BY THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES IN CONDUCTING SCHOOL SURVEYS I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of the University 2. Name of Respondent Address Academic Rank or Position Area of responsibility in the school survey activity 3. How long have you participated in school survey activities at this University? 4. How long has this University provided school survey services? 5. Is there a printed document describing the survey services available at this University? (If so, please attach cOpy.) YES NO 6. Will you please describe briefly the history of the survey services at this University? (If written, please attach OOpy.) 7. Would you like a cOpy of the summary of this study? YES NO 141 142 II. PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSES Has this University adOpted a statement of philOSOphy? YES NO COMMENT If your answer to item 1 is YES, please attach a OOpy of the statement or briefly describe its content. Have there been any additional statements of philos0phy or policy adOpted which apply directly to school survey acti- vity? YES NO If your answer to item 3 is YES, please attach a OOpy of the statement or briefly describe its content. What are the major objectives of school survey service at this University? Check which of the following best describes the purpose of school surveys conducted by this University. (Mark all that are appropriate.) a. solely for evaluation of present program or facilities b. solely for accreditation by a state or regional agency c. evaluative for short term planning of Specific projects 143 d. evaluative for long term planning of general improvements e. other (specify) III. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION What College or School within this University provides the school survey services? Is the administration of the school survey service at this University a part of an academic department or a separate bureau or department? ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT SEPARATE Please describe (or chart) the organizational relation- ships of the office providing the school survey service to the rest of the College or University. Is the school survey service directed by one person appointed for more than one year or is the responsibility shifted each year? APPOINTED SHIFTED COMMENT. What is the title and academic rank of the person pri- marily responsible for directing the school survey service? Do you have a permanent staff or faculty members who usually conduct your school surveys? YES NO COMMENT 10° ll. l2. 13. 144 If your answer to item 6 is NO, please describe how per- sonnel is obtained for conducting school surveys, their rank, and other duties. How many professional peOple from the University are usually involved in conducting a school survey? COMMENT Please check the disciplines from which you have used Uni- versity personnel in the conduct of a school survey. a. AnthrOpology f. Psychology b. Architecture g. Sociology 0. Business Administration h. Urban Planning d. Education 1. Other (Specify) Are graduate students from your University involved in con» ducting school surveys? YES NO If your answer to item 10 is YES, please describe their degree of involvement. (Include duties, responsibilities, remuneration, relationship to faculty staff members, credit granted, etc.) How many peOple are employed as clerical help for the sur- vey service? (e.g., ty ing, editing, printing, binding, art - full or part-time Does your survey staff ever conduct surveys jointly with other agencies? YES NO l4. l5. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 145 If your answer to item 13 is YES, please name the agencies most often involved. (educ.—commercial) Please describe how the University finances the school sur- vey service. (Include salaries, travel, subsistence, printing, etc.) If the local district pays any of the above costs, please describe how these are determined and the method of payment. Please describe briefly the contents or attach a sample OOpy of the contract used between the University and the local district. Are you selective in accepting requests for school surveys? YES NO If your answer to item 18 is YES, please describe the crite- ria or policy for selection. Who is responsible for the final selection of the school surveys to be conducted? Title COMMENT 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. On the average, how many school surveys per year are re- ceived and conducted by this University? RECEIVED CONDUCTED COMMENT When are requests for school surveys usually received? FALL WINTER SPRING SUMMER ALL OF THESE COMMENT Who usually initiates the request for a school survey? What reasons are given by the local district for initiating the request for school survey? Do the given reasons correlate with the final purposes of the study? :— Are definite dates set for starting and completing of all schoOl surveys? YES NO What factors determine the time allowed for conducting a school survey? What do you consider minimum and maximum time allotments for conducting a school survey? MINIMUM MAXIMUM COMMENT 29. FJ 4:. “4 Rank, by student enrollment, the size of the school sys- tems in which you conduct school surveys. (1 most often, 5 least often) a. O - 500 c. 1001 - 2000 3. over 4000 b. 501 - 1000 d. 2001 - 4000 COMMENT IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Check the types of school surveys conducted by this Uni- versity. a. Expert: using University personnel only b. Self Survey: local faculty with University consultation 0. Citizen: conducted by citizens with Univer- sity consultation d. Combination: involving COOperatively local faculty, citizens, and University personnel e. Other: (describe) Are the school surveys conducted by this University most often considered as comprehensive or partial surveys? COMPREHENSIVE PARTIAL COMMENT Check the areas of concern that are usually covered in a school survey conducted by this University. a. Curriculum content 1. Business manage- b. Educational achievement ment 0. Instructional methods j. Buildings d. Teacher qualifications k. Sites e. General organization 1. School finance and administration m. Equipment or facili- f. Pupil services ties g. TranSportation n. Community factors h. District reorganization or setting 0. Public relations p. Other (describe) 148 Please indicate who is involved in the collection of data and how frequently. Usually Occasionally Never University faculty Graduate students Local administrators Board of Education Local teachers Local lay citizens Other (Specify) Does your survey staff review any materials before making their first visit to the district to be surveyed? YES NO If your answer to item 5 is YES, please describe the pre- liminary work considered important to most school surveys.‘ How many days are usually Spent in visiting the local district for data collection? (Total days regardless of number of staff involved per visit) 1 - 5 days 13 - 15 days 6 - 8 days over 15 days 9 - 12 days varies considerably COMMENT DO you have a chronological sequence or pattern that is followed in conducting most school surveys? YES NO If your answer to item 8 is YES, please describe the pattern in chronological order. 10. 11° 12. 13. 149 Please check the methods used by your survey staff for securing data. a. Analysis of available basic data (records, cen- sus, etc.) b. Score cards or rating scales 0. Standard tests of student achievement or intelligence d. Case study of pupils or personnel 9. EXperimental procedures using equated or comparable groups f. Interviews or questionnaires g. Observations (including use of check lists) h. Other (describe) Does your survey staff use printed instruments or forms for collecting or analyzing data? YES NO If your answer to item 11 is YES, please provide cOpies of these forms if available (payment will be made where appli- cable, Or describe format and contents of those usually used. Please indicate the methods or standards used for evaluating the data. a. Comparisons of units in the system b. Comparison with comparable-size districts 0. Comparison with neighboring districts d. Comparison with generally accepted practice e. Comparison with outstanding practice f. Equated groups g. Test standards h. Score card or rating scale standards 1. Research results j. National or state records k. National census statistics 1. Opinion of educational eXperts m. Judgment of the survey staff n. Interpretation of trends or projections by staff 0. Other (specify) 14. 15. 16. 17. 150 Please indicate who analyzes the data and how frequently they are involved in this process. Usually Occasionally Never University faculty Graduate students Local administrators Board of Education Local teachers Local lay citizens Other (Specify) Do you evaluate quality of educational opportunity? (e.g., curriculum, instruction, student achievement) YES NO If your answer to item 15 is YES, please describe briefly the techniques or instruments used in this evaluation. Please indicate who helps in formulating final conclusions and recommendations. ' Usually Occasionally Never University faculty Graduate students Local administrators Board of Education Local teachers Local lay citizens Other (specify) 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 151 Please indicate who has the final reSponsibility for deciding what recommendations will be reported to the Board of Education. Usually Occasionally Never University faculty Graduate students Local administrators Local teachers Local lay citizens Other (specify) Will you please make available to the interviewer cOpies of three different survey reports typical of the reports pre- pared by your staff. If these are not available, please list the major content headings of a typical report. Does anyone from the survey staff assist the district offi- cials with publicity concerning the school survey, either during or following the survey? USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER If the answer to item 20 is affirmative, please describe briefly the type of activities involved. Do you assist the district Officials in formulating or exe- cuting plans for implementing the recommendations of the survey report? USUALLY OCCASIONALLY 1...“... NEVER 23. 24. 152 Do you supply the district surveyed with additional materials besides the final report for the purposes of implementing the study? USUALLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER If your answer to item 23 is affirmative, please describe briefly the kinds of materials supplied to the district. (Attach samples if available.) V. FORMS OF EVALUATION Do you find that a formal school survey tends to stimulate self evaluation or self study by a local teaching staff? USUALLY OCCASIONALLY y NEVER If your answer to item 1 is NEVER, will you please indicate why this is so. What do you consider to be the major problems encountered in conducting or directing a school survey? What methods or procedures are most effective in overcoming these problems? 153 Have any studies been conducted to determine the effective- ness of the school survey at this University? YES NO If your answer to item 5 is YES, please describe these briefly indicating how often, by whom, methods employed, and how used for improving the survey service. Are the data collected by the school survey staff used in any way in the teaching or training function of this Uni- versity. YES NO If your answer to item 7 is YES, please describe briefly how such data are used. What do you consider to be the best (most effective) prac- tices carried on through the survey service? (e.g., Specific areas of study in the survey, types of surveys, financing, reporting, implementing) 154 10. Please describe briefly any activities carried on by this University to implement or supplement the school survey service not already indicated. 11. What contributions does the school survey make to education on the local level, University, or generally? 12. What would your suggestions be for improving survey serv~ ices,anywhere? APPENDIX C SAMPLE CONTRACT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan College of Education Continuing Education Program CONTRACT Project No. Coordinator AGREEMENT made this day of l9_ , by and between the Collegeo of Education, Michigan Sta te University, hereinafter called the College, and the , hereinafter caIIed the District. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the District is involved in an educational improvement program and has requested consultative service from the College, AND WHEREAS, the College represents that its personnel are ex- perienced in and capable of providing consultative service; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: FIRST: The College agrees to provide professional consultative service to the District in the work as hereinafter set forth, and to consult with the authorized agents of the District from , l9 , to , 19 ___1. Assistance in school dis- _4. Assistance in financial trict reorganization. study of district(s). ___2. Assistance in the study ‘___5. Assistance in school of the educational com- plant study. munity. ___6. Assistance in instruc- ___3. Assistance in enrollment tional improvement. and pOpulation forecasting. ___7. Assistance in program planning. 8. Other (Specify) Recommendations are to be made by with technical assistance provided by the College. Reports shall be written by , edited by . Printing or reproduction cost shall be borne by as a part of the contractual budget. 155 156 SECOND: The District agrees to pay the College a fee of for the above service. Such fee Shall’constitute the total cost of a minimum of and a maximum of consultations. THIRD: (The District agrees to make payment to the College for each day of consultation during the duration of‘the contract. FOURTH: The District agrees to make payment of the fee as provided in SECOND and/or THIRD above as follows: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first above set forth. FOR THE COLLEGE: AssiStant Dean for Continuing Education Dean of Education Vice President and Treasurer FOR THE DISTRICT: Superintendent Authorized Agent, Board of Education .TV.5.. V? .‘ vaYO-fuvsr‘VOV v.5... not s0:l.9.v»oav ...Q.. ¢.Q .9 $9013.95”? . . . i 1.4 9... o..\V4 .I lal‘uallnfi\ . 9.01%....nw 9 ea 30.1.9 .L.\:!.. - .lc... . TL; _ . ...........—41...... f .3536. ......1. 3.3.3 . .rmflfkyrene Heb—I‘LL“ ahb1kT¢5En Iv”?! :9”... .v. 7 ..... .... r 4|; .. .TK N r... i... r ... t.. . 9 . uvaoh. r as... o... . r» 9 9.90. .«n! I o .c .54'MVVO..’..O. eat..luew?r.:v JO‘Ooesvvau.) ,ltrto.....!_£.8..Jva.I-o..090¢.$_e1 .1. III ..r...o.-C..Q...._'.. . .. .. . . . . . 3:34... I... a .t . .43.. «3.1... . . . . . . . 17.12:. .2... t. 3. .6). it's.— girth. 3.1.1 e all... .wI/er .p... . . . .. . .. . .1‘!!!¢...Q.~.. J;.$O-V-.. . filiéifihUfiefiilLH‘AE 0...»...7v . . . .51... ct» I . . . a... M'Tl11filfi1fi11lslflfililmll1WWIWHYIHLHWEs 3 1293 0306] 3560