AN INTERINSTITUTIONALAPPROACH , ' T0 III-SERVICE EDUCATION ~ , ‘FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSONNEL: THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL' _ f ‘ WORKSHOP 1971-1972 Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY KEITH W. WARD 1973 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN INTERINSITUTIONAL APPROACH TO IN-SERVICE EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSONNEL: THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP 1971-1972 presented by Keith W. Ward has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Educgt ion Charles A. 3151ch Major professor Date 11/14/72 0-7639 alumna av HOME 8: SIM 800K BINDERY INC! LIBRARY BINDERS ‘anlhfivopt. 'chan ‘JAII 1 ’N' Wye ABSTRACT AN INTERINSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO IN-SERVICE EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSONNEL: THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP 1971-1972 BY Keith w. Ward The purpose of this study was to describe the develoPment, Operation, and effects of an interinstitutional effort by four universities, a state department of education, and an intermediate school district, to provide an in-service education program for educators in Kent County, Michigan. The Kent Interinstitutional Worksh0p utilized an interinsti- tutional workshop model originally developed as part of an ESEA Title III Project in Wayne County, Michigan in 1967. Some unique features of the interinstitutional workshOp model are: 1. The workshop consisted of teams of educators representing schools or school districts. Team members had a choice of four universities from'Which they could receive 4 semester or 6 term hours of credit for their work. Thus, instead of school staff members going to separate universities for course work, they were brought together as a team to work on problems of common concern within their school. The Keith W. Ward The workshop's general focus was on assisting teams to develOp problem solving skills, and to utilize these skills toward solving their identified problem. Therefore, while the individual problem focus varied from team to team, there was a common general focus and a sharing of ideas and resources. The format of the workshop included 17 four-hour sessions, seven of which were held at a central location to focus on team building, problem solving, and a variety of topics of general interest. The remaining ten sessions were held in the schools of each team, permitting them to draw on the resources of their school, and to share ideas with staff members not enrolled in the workshop. In addition to their own resources, the teams had available to them the resources of the State Department of Education, the intermediate school district, four universities, and their own school district, to assist them in solving their identified problems. The workshop staff members from the four universities acted as consultants and resource coordinators to the teams regardless of the university, or universities, in which the team members had enrolled. The workshop was held over a fivermonth period, allowing teams to try out new ideas and refine or change them as necessary. following conclusions were drawn from.the study: Keith W. Ward 1. The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in fulfilling the stated purpose of the workshop: "to assist a team from a local school to utilize group effort in solving professional problems related to the educational offerings in their system." 2. The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in facilitating attitudinal and/or behavioral change by the participants. 3. The teamm'participation in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in facilitating program change ‘within their schools and school districts. 4. Participation in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in facilitating change within the cooperating universities. Several recommendations are made for the continued operation of the Kent Interinstitutional WOrkshop and for the diffusion of the interinstitutional workshop model. AN INTERINSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO IN-SERVICE EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSONNEL: THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP 1971-1972 BY .J( Keith W? Ward A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1973 'm an: an: \ a" I) ()1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of people helped make this study possible. I would particularly like to thank my chairman, Charles Blackman for his continued support and guidance throughout the writing of this thesis. To the other members of my doctoral committee, Mel Buschman, Bill Force, Peggy Miller,and Louise Sause, I wish to express my sincere appreciation for their willingness to give of their time. Their suggestions, support, and friendship have been helpful and appreciated. A special note of thanks is expressed to Barbara Bird, who in addition to doing an excellent job of coordinating the Kent Interinstitutional WOrkshop, subjected herself to numerous interviews and telephone calls by the author in order to provide much of the background data for this study. Both her assistance and friendship are valued. Last, but by no means least, I owe much to my wife, Marilyn and daughters Lynn and Lorie, for their patience and support during my graduate study and especially during the time required to write this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I II THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . The wayne Interinstitutional Worksh0p Objectives of the Workshop . . . Unique Features of the Workshop . Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . NEED FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY . .I. . . LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . SCOPE AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF INTERINSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . FACTORS FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS Increased Numbers . . . . . . . . Social Demands . . . . . . . Increased Costs . . . . . . . . . iii .viii Page . l . l . 4 . 6 . 7 9 10 . ll . 12 . 12 . l3 . 13 . 15 . 17 . l7 . 22 . 22 . 24 . 25 Chapter Pressure from Government . . . . . . . . . . FACTORS INHIBITING COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . Parochialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loss of Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems with Internal Coordination . . . . Increased Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERINSTITUTIONAL IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS . . . . . The Atlanta Area Teacher Education Service . The Cooperative Program.in Educational Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . The Carnegie Program . . . . . . . . . . . . Beginning Teacher Workshop . . . . . . . . . . C00perative Program in Elementary Education . Interinstitutional Workshop in Administration SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOURCES OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CATEGORIES OF SOURCES OF EVIDENCE . . . . . . PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . PROCEDURES FOR.ANALYZING THE DATA . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL m REHOP O O O O I O O O O C O O O O I O O O 0 iv _ Page 27 28 28 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 34 34 35 37 37 37 38 38 4o 41 42 42 42 Chapter Agreements by the Universities . THE WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS . OVERVIEW OF THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL MOD E1! 0 C 0 PURPOSE AND PHILOSOPHY Purpose of Workshop What Is a Workshop? ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Teams . . Team Topics Staff . Grade Reports CREDIT . . . COST . . . . GENERAL SESSIONS Format . . First General Session Second General Session Third General Session Fourth General Session Fifth General Session Sixth General Session Seventh General Session Evaluation of General Sessions . LOCAL SESSIONS STAFF MEETINGS WORKSHOP Page 49 S9 59 6O 6O 6O 61 61 62 65 67 68 7O 75 76 76 77 77 77 77 78 78 78 79 80 Chapter Staff Evaluation of the Workshop . MEETING WITH SUPERINTENDENTS . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V EFFECTS OF THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . EFFECTS UPON PARTICIPANTS . . . . Self Improvement . . . . . . . Teachers and Their Classrooms Administrators . . . . . . . . . Team Members . . . . . . . EFFECTS UPON SCHOOLS . . . Elementary Schools . . . . . Secondary Schools . . . . . . . SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . EFFECTS UPON THE STAFF . . EFFECTS UPON THE INSTITUTIONS . . Effects Upon the Cooperative Universities . . Effects Upon the Kent Intermediate School System Effects Upon the Michigan Department Education . . . . . . . . . SUWARY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . SUMMARY OF THE STUDY. . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . PERSONAL REACTIONS . . . . . . - - of vi Page 81 83 84 86 86 87 87 87 91 91 93 93 94 97 98 99 99 101 101 102 103 103 106 107 111 Chapter BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . Planning . Administrative Support Staff Commitment . The Coordinator vii Page 111 111 111 112 112 115 120 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Percentage of Participant's Completing Questionnaire . . 52 4.2 Demographic Characteristics of Participants in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop During the 1971-1972 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 A. Age of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B. Sex of Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 C. Employment of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . 53 D. Type of Teaching Certificate . . . . . . . . . . 56 E. Educational Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 F. Summary of Professional Experience . . . . . . . 58 4.3 Factors Influencing Participant's Decision to Enroll in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop . . . . . . . 71 A. Team.Approach to Solving Curriculum.Prob1ems . . 71 B. Tapic or Problem Identified by the Team . . . . . 71 C. University Credit Offered for Participation in the Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 D. Choice of Four Universities for Credit . . . . . 72 E. Tuition was Paid by Employer . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.4 Participants' Rating of Original Problem Selected by Their Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.5 Participants' Rating of the Amount of Coordinator or Consultant Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.6 Participants' Rating of the Quality of Coordinator or Consultant Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.7 Participants' Application of Credit Hours Earned in works hop . O O O O C O . C C C C . . O C O O I C C O 7 4 viii Table 4.8 4.9 4.10 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Participants' Rating of Workload in Comparison to c red 1t Earned O O O O O O C O O O O 0 Participants' Rating of General Sessions Participants' Rating of the Physical Facilities for General Session . . . . . . . . . . . Degree WOrkshop Efforts are Beneficial to Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . Degree WOrkshop Efforts are Beneficial to Pupils in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . Goals Implemented in the Classroom . . . Goals Implemented Within the School . . . Participants' Rating of Degree Workshop Efforts were Beneficial to Pupils in Their School . Participants' Rating of Degree WorkshOp Efforts were Beneficial to Their School District . Self Page CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Education is a continuous process. It is essential, therefore, to find ways and means to provide facilities and an environment in which the teacher will find new significance and new understanding and wherein hf will develop new insight into his work and programme. Within the last decade the educational profession and the public at large have become increasingly aware of the need for continuing education for professionals in the field of education. We have come to realize that the skills and knowledge gained during pre- service education, regardless of how rich in quality or great in quantity, can never be a substitute for continuous and continued professional education. One educator has stated: We ought . . . to think of teacher education less as advance preparation and more as a continuing experience covering many years in which the teacher is actually fully engaged in his professional career. Such continuing experience is likely to have much greater impact than the swm total of all pre-service professional preparation. Moreover, educators have begun to realize that significant change in school programs is brought about mainly through change in 1Raj Chilana Mulkh, In-Service Education of Elementary Teachers, (New Delhi, India: Indian Association of Teacher-Educators, 1968), p. 2. 2James E. Russell, Change and Challenge in.American Education, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), p. 95. 1 those responsible for the program; i.e., the educators themselves. Continued staff development, therefore, appears to be the key to more functional, effective, and relevant schools. . . . staff improvement depends upon an in-service training program that increases the skills of teachers. In-service education must be provided to prepare for the next steps in program development. . . . It is as important to help staff members acquire new skills before program changes are made as it is to purchase new materials to be used in the new program. Typically, continuing education programs have taken several forms: university-based programs usually leading to an advanced degree or advanced certification; local school-based in-service workshops or programs; and meetings or conferences. Mere recently, some school districts have contracted with outside consultants from universities or private consultant firms to provide their staff with in-service education.4 Although professional organizations, state departments of education, intermediate school districts, and local school districts play an important role in providing in-service programs, institutions of higher education have been among the most active in attempting to meet this growing need. Many colleges and departments of education offer graduate level courses in the evening and the summer to accom- modate teachers. 'More recently, they have become more active in providing off-campus classes and workshops. An examination of literature of institutions of higher learning reveals three areas in which these 3Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), pp. 24-25. , 4Charles Blackman, Importance of In-Service Education and Problems with Traditional Patterns, unpublished paper. p. l. institutions profess commitment: teaching, research, and service. Teaching and research are emphasized in almost all such institutions. Service appears to be gaining in importance. Land-grant institutions are involved in service because of the very nature of the legislation that established them. The agricultural extension service . . . has contributed to the dissemination of research findings. Application of the general extension service concept to edugation has expanded greatly within the last decade. As an example of this expansion, extension courses in education at Michigan State University accounted for 50 percent (562) of the 1,118 extension courses offered during the 1970-1971 school year. In addition, enrollment in education courses accounted for 45 percent (12,292) of the total enrollment in extension courses.6 In spite of the ever-increasing provision for continuing education through extension programs and on-campus courses, there still appears to be a need for alternative programs that better meet the needs of teachers. Fischer, in discussing this need, states: . . . we are on the threshold of a period of significant development in higher education--a period ianhich flex- ibility, cooperation, and innovation will be the keynote. Instead of trying to adapt the individual to some of the academic patterns of the past that are outmoded, we will be adapting the resources of the university to the needs of the individual and of the society in which he lives. Instead of always bringing the student to the institution for education, we will in effect be taking the institution to him--at times and places and under circumstances patterned to his requirements and needs. 5In-Service Education for School Administration, (Washington, D. 0., American Association of School Administration, 1963), p. 120. 9Annua1 Report Statistical Supplement, (Continuing Education Service/Michigan State University, 1970—1971), pp. 35-37. 7Floyd Fischer, "Inter-institutional Arrangements, Capitalizing on Differences in Resources", The Spectator, Vol. XXXVI, No. 6, (NOvember/December, 1971), pp. 25-28. Although university extension and continuing education have been supporting this concept for many years, Fischer believes that it (the university) must find new ways to become even more responsive to peoples' needs. . . . it can do so most efficiently only through coordination and cooperation among institutions, on a state-wide, regional, or in some cases even a national basis. A report by the Association of American Colleges points to some of the advantages of cooperative efforts. Why is interest in cooperation rising? Apparently the complexity of problems facing higher education has compelled colleges and universities . . . to search for new solutions. The desire to expand educational opportunity while deepening the meaning of higher learning . . . has led many educators to fix on cooperation as a possible solution. One example of a consortium.effort designed to respond to the need of teachers and local school districts for a more relevant approach to in-service education is the interinstitutional workshop model developed in Wayne County, Michigan. This workshop was the forerunner of the focus of this study, the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. The Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop. In the fall of 1967, representatives from the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan BIbid. 9Report by the Association of American Colleges as reported in wayne W. Anderson, Cooperation Within American Education, (Association of American Colleges, 1964), p. 4. University, Michigan State University and Wayne State University, the Michigan State Department of Education, and Wayne County Intermediate School District began a new approach to in-service teacher education. The idea of an interinstitutional workshop was developed in 1967 by Leo Dworkin, who at that time was part of a federal project in the wayne Intermediate School District entitled Consortium for Advanced Education Thinking. In an interview with the author, Dr. Dworkin stated: The idea itself developed from a brainstorming session. It seemed to me that when someone took classes they did so not according to the social environment of their school and the change processes within it, instead he took classes where he got credit. It seemed to us that this was a tremendous block in changing anything. One person would go off and take a class at wayne another to the University of Michigan. Each would do his own thing and so it would be only by accident that these people would get together. It seemed to make sense, therefore, that instead of sending teachers off to the separate universities, we should bring the universities and their resources to the teachers and schools. By breaking down this barrier, making education interinstitutional, you open up the doors for a community of educators to become a community of educators. I discussed this idea with a number of people,including Delmo DellaDora who was working with another federal project entitled The Chair of Innovation. Dr. DellaDora arranged a meeting in Brighton, Michigan with representatives from State [Michigan State University] , U of M, [University of Michigan], and Wayne [Wayne State University]. During that meeting the university representatives appeared to be reading their own rule books to each other. In other words, they kept telling us why it couldn't be done . . . By the end of the meeting, however, they all agreed it was a valid, exciting concept, andoin spite of the problems would find some way around it. 10Leo Dworkin, Telephone Interview, October 8, 1972. Although many people were instrumental in the development of the interinstitutional workshop, Dr. Dworkin felt that five people were particularly influential: One of the real sources of inspiration for the idea was Charles Blackman of Michigan State. He became a very heavy influence on my thinking about the change process. Stimulated by discussing with him, I began to look into different methods and models to bring about change. . . . The workshOp process was modeled after the workshop model developed by the late Earl Kelley in the early 1940's at Wayne State University. This is especially true of the emphasis placed on the interaction among the participants and the roles of the staff members. Robert Fox of the University of Michigan was a proponent of the idea of helping the teams focus on their problem, It was interesting to see him work with people in analyzing their problem. What they found more often than not was that they were focusing on symptoms of the problem or possibly a solution without a clear defin- ition of the problem. Delmo DellaDora and Dick Merrick of the wayne Intermediate office provided the leadership and coordinated the first Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop. Objectives of the workshop. A review of the original proposal reveals the following objectives of the interinstitutional workshop in relation to needs: The overall objective is to provide: EFFECTIVE IN-SERVICE EDUCATION IN A REALITY SETTING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION, PARTICULARLY FOR THE. DISADVANTAGED, IN THE SCHOOLS OF WAYNE COUNTY. Need: The Mayor's Committee for Human Resource Development (MCHRD) has identified massive areas of poverty in the city of Detroit. The Office of Economic Opportunity has identified 8 specific target areas of poverty throughout the county. School children in these areas need improved educational services. Specifically, this overall objective will be fulfilled by the followinggobjectives: 111b1d. I TO PROVIDE A MEANS BY WHICH THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF LOCAL SCHOOLS AND LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS CAN BE CONTINUALLY ASSESSED. Need: To conduct systemewide diagnostic efforts to deal ‘with pupil low achievement stemming from societal factors and health or nutritional deficiencies. II TO MEET THESE NEEDS BY CONDUCTING INTERDISCIPLINARY IN-SERVICE EDUCATION WHICH RECOGNIZES AND ACCEPTS INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AMONG EDUCATORS. Need: To eliminate the isolation in which most school systems and universities conduct in-service programs. III TO PROVIDE THE MEANS FOR THE GENERATION OF NEW IDEAS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF IN-SERVICE AND PRE-SERVICE EDUCATION. Need: To institutionalize the process by which new ideas are generated as indicated by the findings of the Chair of Innovation and Consortium, Title III, ESEA, during the year '67-'68. IV TO PROVIDE THE LINKAGE AND LIAISON BETWEEN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THE INTERMEDIATE OFFICE, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING, THE STATE.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND OTHER.APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCES TO ENHANCE THE PROFESSIONAL GROWTH OF EDUCATORS. Need: To provide solid support from professional colleagues and total school involvement so thatlin-service education results in improved school programs. Unique Features of the Workshop. In an article prepared for Educational Leadership, Robert S. FOx and Don A. Griffin described several unique features of the workshop as it presently exists in Wayne County: 1. Team members had a choice of four universities from which they could receive credit for their work. Thus, the teams 12A Pilot Program.to Improve the Quality of Education in the Wayne County Intermediate School District Through Consortia of Interinstitutional Arrangements for In-Service Education, submitted as part of the Michigan State Department of Education, Title III, Proposal to the U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D. C., pp. 5-6. were formed around areas of interest and not limited to members enrolled in one university. The workshop's focus was on the problems identified by each team; therefore, although there was occasional overlapping and sharing of ideas and resources, the agenda for the workshop varied from team to team. The format of the workshop was flexible in that within the framework of the 16 sessions, six were held at a central location to focus on team building, problem solving, and a variety of topics of general interest to the teams. The remaining 10 sessions were held in the schools of each team, allowing them to draw on the resources of their own school and school district and sharing of ideas with other staff members. Each of the six staff members from.the four universities acted as consultants and resource coordinators to these teams regardless of which university the team.members had enrolled in. Thus, the primary responsibility for problem identification, planning of sessions, etc., was shifted from the professor to the team, The workshop was held over an extended period of time (approximately five months), which allowed teams to try out ideas and refine or change them when necessary. In addition, they had time to keep the rest of their staff informed of their progress, which in many cases involved staff members not enrolled in the workshop in their planning. 6. Finally, the fact that four universities, a state department of education, an intermediate school district, and local school district were able to join together to provide support and resources for teacher's continuing education is in itself unique. This cooperation cut to a minimum the "red tape" involved in such an undertaking and provided for a more effective use of resources.13 Evaluation. Participants in the workshop have been involved in evaluating each of the five workshops, through questionnaires as well as rating their own objectives. Results of questionnaires revealed that 70 to 80 percent of the participants felt that the workshops had helped them, their team, their school, and their school system.14 The evaluations completed by the participants have resulted in the workshop model being altered each year. Changes included: (1) involvement with the teams prior to their entry into the workshop to assist them in problem identification and clarification, (2) reduction of the number of general sessions and an increase in the number of meetings within each school, (3) insistence that a principal or assistant principal be a member of a team or give his support in writing before a team.can join the workshop. (Early evaluations 13Robert S. Fox and Don.A. Griffin, "Toward a New'Model for In-Service Education-~An Interinstitutional Approach", (mimeographed) pre-publication copy submitted to Educational Leadership, pp. 5-9. 141b1d., pp. 9-10. 10 showed a higher rate of adoption for teams that included their principal.)15 Since its original develOpment, the Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop has progressed through five field trials, each a slight modification of the preceding one, and has spread to Kent County, Michigan.16 Need for the Study While the literature regarding interinstitutional cooperation is extensive, there are few accounts that report the assessment of programs. Even less is known about the responses of participants and the staffs of these programs to the program themselves. Patterson has stated: Consortia appear to have unlimited potential, but they need to document their worth with more comprehensive data. Questions which are in need of research include: (1) How effective are the consortia in accomplishing their stated purposes? (2) What impact do they have at the campus level and in the surrounding communities? (3) What are the benefits in proportion to the resources invested?17 This lack of data regarding interinstitutional cooperation is even more evident in the area of university extension and continuing education. A review of the literature reveals numerous articles that point to the need for interinstitutional cooperation, but a lack of 15Evaluation Summapy of Innovation Workshop for wayne County Educators, (mimeographed), May, 1968, p. 2. 16FOX, 22. Sit-o, pp. 1'11. 17Lewis D. Patterson, "The Potential of Consortia", Cgmpact, Vol. 5, No. 5, (October, 1971), p. 19. 11 published articles providing any comprehensive data regarding consortia activities in continuing education. There is a need, therefore, for a study of specific consortium programs. Mbre specifically, there is a need for comprehensive studies that: (1) describe the philosophy, development, and operation of consortia efforts, (2) report the effects of consortia programs, (3) report the responses of the participants and staff of these programs. This study is one effort to meet these needs. Purpose of the Study The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was the first attempt to adapt a model of in-service education originally developed in 1967 in Wayne County, Michigan, which is still in operation. The general purpose of this study is to present a detailed description of the Kent Interinstitutional WOrkshop. This program was conducted cooperatively by the Kent Intermediate School District, the Michigan State Department of Education, Central Michigan University, Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Western Michigan University during the 1971-1972 school year. More specifically, the purpose of this study is to: (1) describe the development and operation of the Kent Interinsti- tutional WOrkshop from its inception to its completion, (2) to report effects of the workshop upon the participants, the schools and/or school districts, the workshop staff, and their respective insti- tutions. 12 Methodology This project is a historical case study of the Kent Interin- stitutional WOrkshop, (KIW). The research draws upon official and unofficial written records of KIW since its inception, including minutes of meetings, newspaper articles, reports, evaluations of the workshop completed by the participants, etc. Also included are summaries of interviews with key persons involved in the development and operation of the workshop, group interviews with each team, individual interviews with members of the workshop staff, and interviews with administrators from.the universities, Kent Intermediate School District and the Michigan State Department of Education. The review of written materials and interviews with key persons provides a chronological description of the development and operation of KIW. The summary of evaluations completed by the participants, interviews with the teams, staff, and administrators, highlights the effects of the workshop upon the participants and the institutions they represent. Significance of the Study There have been few studies that describe in detail interin- stitutional cooperative programs for in-service education. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the understanding of the philosophy, development, operation, and effects of such an undertaking. Implications may be drawn from this study for the continued improvement of future Kent Interinstitutional Workshops. This study may stimulate the development of similar cooper- atively planned and managed in-service programs. 13 Limitations of the Study The study is limited to a description of the Kent Interin- stitutional Workshop from the time of its formation to its completion in a single school year. No attempt is made to study similar workshops, other than to provide background information in the review of literature. In the study, the KIW is described as an alternative model of continuing education. No attempt is made to compare its effec- tiveness with other modes of continuing education. The personal and program.changes reported are intended to describe the variety and quantity of changes that resulted from.the workshop. No attempt is made to evaluate the merits of these changes, nor to evaluate the effectiveness of teams or team members within the workshop. The author participated as a staff member with the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. The method of data collection and the descriptive nature of the study would negate the possibility of bias stemming from this association. Finally, this study is limited in that it is written from the point of view of higher education. In highlighting the role of higher education in this program there is no intent to diminish the importance of the role of the other institutions involved. Definition of Terms The following definitions apply to terms used in this chapter and throughout this study: 14 Administrator. Any person employed by a public school district or intermediate school district in the role of administrator-- including superintendents of schools, assistant superintendents of schools, curriculum coordinators or directors of instruction, principals and assistant principals. Consortia. Two or more institutions joining together in a common effort. In-service education, Any off-campus formal learning program undertaken by educators for the purpose of professional growth. Interinstitutional cooperation. See consortia. The following definitions apply specifically to the interin- stitutional workshOp model: Team leader. A.team.member (usually a teacher) who acted as coordinator of the team and as liaison between the team.and the KIW staff. General session. Workshop sessions in which all teams came together in a common meeting. Local session. Workshop meetings held in the school building of the participating teams. Kent Interinstitutional Workshop (KIW). An in-service workshop for teams of educators in the Kent County area held from.October 6, 1971 to February 29, 1972, staffed by representatives from Central Michigan University, Michigan State University, the University of 15 Michigan, Western Michigan University, the Michigan State Department of Education, and coordinated by a representative of the Kent Intermediate School District. Participants. Persons enrolled in the Kent Interinstitutional WOrkshop. Sggff. The representatives from.Central Michigan University (1), Michigan State University (2), the University of Michigan (1), Western Michigan University (2), the Kent Intermediate School District (1), and the Michigan State Department of Education (1), eight in all, who worked directly with the workshop. Teacher. Any person enrolled in the workshop holding a valid teaching certificate, including counselors, librarians, but excluding administrators . Team. .A group of five to fifteen teachers and administrators representing a school or school district working on a common problem. Scope and Overview of the Study This study is limited to a description of the development and operation of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop from August, 1971 to April, 1972 and to a report of the effects of the workshop as perceived by persons directly or indirectly involved. Chapter two of this study provides a review of literature pertaining to interinstitutional cooperation in higher education. Included in the review are: (1) a historical sketch of the growth of consortium efforts, (2) a description of factors that influence the development and functioning of consortium efforts, (3) a description 16 of consortium efforts that focus on in-service programs for educators. Chapter three is an account of the procedures used in the collection and analysis of the data. Chapter four contains an account of the findings regarding the development and operation of the Kent Interinstitutional WOrkshop. Chapter five contains an account of the findings regarding the effects of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop upon the participants, the staff, and the institutions they represent. Chapter six contains a summary, conclusions drawn from the interpretation of the data, recommendations, and suggestions for further research in the area of consortium efforts in continuing education. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The review of literature presented in this chapter focuses on three areas pertaining to interinstitutional cooperation in higher education. The growth of consortium.efforts from.a historical perspective, factors that either facilitate or inhibit the development and functioning of cooperative programs, and cooperative efforts in in-service training of educators. Historical Backggound of Interinstitutional Cooperation Interinstitutional cooperation.among colleges and universities is by no means a new endeavor. .As early as 600 AD, the University of Sankori in Timbuktu, Africa. exchanged professors with a Moorish University.1 During the twelfth century Oxford and Cambridge universities developed the first cluster college program, exchanging instructors and students. In the United States, Cornell University and the state of New YOrk entered into a cooperative enterprise in 1894, in.which the state college of agriculture was instituted at Cornell under a 1Terone Bennett, Jr., "The.African Past", Ebony, Vol. 16, (July, 1961), p. 35. 17 18 contract with the state.2 During the same period Harvard and MIT cooperated by agreeing to pursue separate academic emphases.3 Increased interest in promoting institutional cooperation among colleges began early in the twentieth century. John D. Rockefeller's support of the General Education Board's work in higher education for Negroes was instrumental in encouraging this development. Consolidation of small Negro colleges was projected by the board as a more economic means of operating. The board unsuccessfully attempted to bring Fisk University and‘Meharry Medical College together. Later, however, it succeeded in reorganizing Strait University, New Orleans University, and Flint-Goodridge Hospital as Dillard University.4 In the early thirties, cooperative acquisition of library holdings was begun between the University of North Carolina and Duke. The University Center in Georgia was founded in 1940 in an attempt to bring faculty members from eight institutions together, and in 1945 Radcliffe women began to get a major portion of their instruction in the same classes with Harvard men.5 In the period following WOrld War II a great surge in cooperation took place to accommodate returning veterans. This sharp increase in cooperation declined slightly in the mid-fifties when the 2Malcolm Carron, The Contract Colleges at Cornell University, (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1958). 3Lawrence C. Howard, Interinstitutional Cooperation in Higher Education, New pimensions in Higher Education, Number 21, (Washington, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, April, 1967), p. 5. 4Ibid., pp. 5-6. 5Merton W. Ertell, Interinstitutional Cooperation in Higher Education, (Albany, New York: University of the State of New York, 1957), pp. 5, 53. 19 bulge of students slimmed. In 1953, the Hill Foundation established a cooperative program for Hemline, Macalester, St. Thomas, and St. Catherine Colleges in Minnesota. The program provided for the sharing of faculty among the four universities and permitted a student to enroll for courses in any of the universities and receive credit in his home institution. In 1955, the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges was formed by colleges passed over by the Ford Foundation in its distribution of $260 million to 630 other insti- tutions.6 In a move to improve their educational program.and partially to prevent compulsory regional c00peration for the mid-western states, the Committee for Institutional Cooperation of the Big Ten and the University of Chicago (CIC) was begun in 1957'with a grant from the Carnegie Foundation.7 The popularity of consortia began to increase again in the sixties. An important stimulus came from the Higher Education.Act of 1965. Eighty-four cooperative programs between "developing" and "established" institutions in higher education were founded in 1966.8 The number of cooperative agreements has increased immensely over the years. A study reported in 1934 by Daniel Sanford of RAlfred T. Hill, "Cooperation Among Small Colleges", George F. Donson, ed., College and Universityilnterinstitutional Cooperation, (washington, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, April, 1967)! p0 50 7Stanley F. Solwak, "The Need for Cooperation and the CIC Response", Educational Record, Vol. 45, No. 3, (Summer, 1964), pp. 308-160 8Lawrence C. Howard, pp, cit., pp. 9-10. 20 Columbia Teachers College listed 115 interinstitutional agreements involving 51 colleges and universities.9 In 1966, a study conducted by Raymond Mbore for the United States Office of Education listed 1,296 consortia involving 1,500 colleges and universities. Included in this report are 637 bilateral arrangements, 596 consortia without a separate budget, and an undis- closed number of agreements for a single purpose such as library cooperation. In a later article in Current Issues in Education, Moore states, "this figure (1,296 consortia) is unquestionably conservative". He estimates that the number of interinstitutional cooperative efforts in 1966 exceeded 4,000.10 A more recent study reported in,A Directory of Voluntary Academic Cooperative Agrangements in Higher Education, published annually by the Kansas City Regional Council, lists 62 voluntary consortia involving 607 institutions. This figure doubled from 1967 to 1970. The current rate of increase of voluntary arrangements appears to be 10 to 12 per year.11 Further evidence of the popularity of cooperative arrangements is found in the increase of articles published about it. Merton W. Ertell points out that, between 1930 and 1957, 79 items represented 9Daniel S. Sanford, Jr., Interinstitutional Agreggent in Highs; Education, (New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934). 10Raymond Moore, "Interinstitutional Cooperation”, (American Association for Higher Education, National Education Association, Washington, D. 6.), pp. 272-276. 11A Directory of VoluntaryjAcademic Coopergtive Arraggements in Higher Education, as cited in Lewis D. Patterson, "The Potential of Consortia", Compact, Vol. 5, No. 5, (October, 1971), p. 19. 21 "the most important literature on institutional cooperation." Sixty- six of the 79 items were published between 1950 and 1957.12 Wittich points out that 70 items were published between 1957 and 1962.13 Neither Ertell nor Wittich attempted to classify the types of interinstitutional agreements described in the literature. Howard, in his review of literature pertaining to interinsti- tutional cooperation, includes an annotated bibliography of 80 articles, 72 of which were published between 1963 and 1966. Thirty- two of these articles include topics pertaining to the philosophy of interinstitutional cooperation or the advantages of these arrangements. Also included are ten entries described as case studies. Only two, however, provide detailed descriptions of the interinstitutional arrangements studied.14 As Howard points out: While the descriptive literature on interinstitu- tional cooperation is extensive, assessments of programs are few. Portrayals of successes, apparently prepared to please funding agencies, predominate. Little is recorded on interaction between colleges, its duration, intensity, or significance. Even less is known about the response of participating faculty members, admini- strators, or students. There is almost nothing on the results for society achieved through cooperative effort. 15 The author's own review of literature revealed 68 items pertaining to interinstitutional cooperation in higher education between 1967 and 1972. The breakdown according to types of articles 12Merton W. Ertell, "Toward a Philosophy of Interinstitu- tional Cooperation", Educational Record, Vol. 39, No. 2, (April, 1958), p. 138. 13John J. Wittich, "The College Center Movement Comes of Age”, Collegp and University Journal, Vol. 1, (Summer, 1962), p. 32. 14Howard, pp, gi£,, pp. 42-63. 151b1d. 22 was similar to that found in Howard's bibliography. There appears to be a slight increase in the number of articles (13) describing the operation of consortia programs. Ten of these descriptions are reports of consortia developed as the result of the Higher Education Act of 1965, none of which dealt with off-campus efforts. Factors Egcilitgting the Development and Operation of Cooperative Programs The recorded literature permits only a sketchy overview of interinstitutional cooperation; however, significant longitudinal data exist to reveal some factors that influence the development and operation of cooperative programe. Increased numbers. The development of autonomous institutions, especially public community and junior colleges, has increased markedly ‘within the last decade. The 1964 edition of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education listed 1,440 accredited colleges and universities in the United States.16 The 1972 edition of the same document listed 1,999 accredited institutions.17 This is an increase of over 38 percent within a period of eight years. Such a great increase in the number of institutions strains the abilities of existing resource facilities to service the individual schools. To overcome this, institutions form consortia to improve the quality of their programs. 16A9credited_Ipstitutions of Higher Education, The.American Council on Education, (washington, D. C., 1964). 17Agcredited Institutions of Higher Education, The American Council on Education, (Washington, D. C., 1972). 23 Examples of activities designed to improve the quality of educational programs are: cooperative planning activities similar to those conducted by the Southern Regional Education Board, which studies the needs and facilities in major educational fields such as nursing, forestry, statistics, and mental health on a regional basis;18 cooperative research programs similar to those conducted by the University Center of Georgia in the area of social studies and humanities; or the Associated Colleges in the Midwest program, in which three faculty members from eadh of the ten colleges spent approximately 15 months at the Argonne National Laboratory. This program is supplemented by a semester program in which students are employed as research assistants and at the same time pursue their studies.19 Other examples of activities designed to improve the quality of educational programs are the joint utilization of visiting professors, lecturers, and consultants; and the acquisition of materials and equipment for shared use, such as laboratory and audio visual equipment.20 Ertell points out that joint classes in which students of one institution register for work in certain subject areas at another institution are becoming more popular. Examples of this type of cooperation are the Atlanta University Center and the Associate Colleges of Clairmont. In some cases, all the introductory work in 18Wittich, pp. 213., pp. 31-34. ”Ertell, pp. 93;, pp. 131-134. 20Henderson, pp. cit., p. 48. 24 a subject area is offered by each of the universities while the advanced work is offered at only one. In most cases, cross-tuition payments are also arranged.21 The traveling scholar program of the CIC, begun in 1963, permits a doctoral-level student to attend classes at one of the member institutions and apply the credit at his home institution. The program is intended to permit doctoral students to utilize specialized academic resources not available at their university. These resources may be a specific course offering an eminent faculty'member, a rare library collection or specialized laboratory or research facilities.22 §ocia1 demgnds. Society itself is experiencing great problems, especially in the urban areas. In addition, the expansion of scientific and technical knowledge has created what Alvin Toffler has called "Future Shock."23 Universities, in looking for new ways to meet these demands, are turning to activities that improve or increase services to the community. Examples of such activities are programs that focus on problems of the inner-city through administration of model cities' scholarship funds and cooperation with VISTA in the training and placement of students. Patterson believes, however, that consortia have not explored the great potential of cooperating with the 21Erte11, pp. _9_:l_._§_., p. 133. 22"The Committee on Institutional Cooperation", Educational Resources Information Centeg, (U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D. C., ED 033), pp. 10-19. 23Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, (New York: Random House, July, 1970). 25 community. ". . . and until institutions are better able to relate to each other they will find it awkward to regard it as one of their major concerns."24 Increased costs. The mounting cost required to support institutions and the increased competition for both public and private funds, especially among similar institutions, have resulted in increased financial uncertainty. The Commission on Financing Higher Education, and more recently, the Educational Policies Commission, have recommended cooperation among institutions as one method of reducing cost and creating more effective utilization of resources.25 A.more detailed statement is found in the preamble to the bylaws of the Mid-America State Universities Association: Being mindful of the increased costs of higher education in all of its phases, including but not limited to the ever-increasing requirements for expensive equip- ‘ment to properly conduct research programs, the competition ‘with other segments of society for competent staff members, and the explosive interest in student enrollments, the state univsgsities of‘Mid1America have entered into this agreement. The practice of using facilities jointly is one popular method for reducing cost, with the cooperative development of libraries perhaps the most frequent cooperative effort. In recent years, however, there has been a substantial increase in the joint development and use of other facilities such as computer centers 24Patterson, _p, cit., p. 21. 25John D. Millet, "Financing Higher Education", A Staff Report to the Commission on Financigg_Higher Education, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952). 251b1d. 26 similar to the one operated by North Carolina State University at Raleigh, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Duke University at Durham, North Carolina. In the area of communications are such projects as the Texas Educational Microwave Project, the 'Midwest Program on Airborne Television Instruction (no longer in existence), and the west Central Florida College Television Network. Harvard and Yale, along with ten other institutions, have developed the Lowell Institute Cooperative Radio and Television Network.27 The Grand Rapids University Center, a cooperative arrangement among the University of Michigan, Western Michigan University, and Michigan State University, was developed in 1965 for the purpose of providing extension classes in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. The center is housed in a single building with each university paying one-third (1/3) of the cost of the rent. In addition, the three universities share the cost of brochures and advertising for off- campus courses. The cost of purchased or leased office equipment and maintenance of a joint library are also shared.28 In addition to consortia formed to reduce costs, there are two types of coOperative activities designed for the specific purpose of fund-raising. The first is formed when the cooperating institutions wish to develop a program to seek outside funds for their development. Consortia of this type have an unusual potential for fund-raising. Their multi-involvement and change orientation are particularly 27Lawrence C. Howard, pp. cit., p. 17. 28Virginia Sorenson, An Analysis of gnterinstitutional Cooperption with Special Focus on Grand Rapids University Center, An unpublished paper--Muchigan State University, (March, 1970), pp. 34-35 . 27 attractive to philanthropic foundations and government funding organizations. Few of these programs are totally funded by external agencies without matching funds from.the recipients. Funding is usually in the form of "seed money" to stimulate the development of new programs.29 The second type of consortia activity is developed specifically for the purpose of raising funds. Wittich states that in excess of 40 state and regional organizations of higher education sent out teame, "wolfpacks" of college presidents, to obtain funds for the total group.30 Pressure from:gpvernment. Although most cooperation between institutions is voluntary, in recent years there has been a marked increase in cooperative efforts legislated by state governments. States encourage cooperation because of their growing financial commitments to higher education. The greatest impetus has been the. need to reduce the competition for funds among institutions of higher education within the same state. A survey of Higher Education in Michigan prepared for the Michigan Legislative Study Committee on Higher Education is an example of plans for cooperation at the state level. Dr. John Dale Russell, director of one of the surveys, advocated a central coordinating agency inMichigan.31 As a direct result of this study, the Michigan 29Patterson, _p, cit., Compact, p. 20. 30Wittich, pp, cit., p. 32. 31John Dale Russell, Higher Education in Michigan Final Report-~The Survey of Higher Education in‘Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, (September, 1958), p. 185. 28 Coordinating Council of State College Field Services was formed, composed of two representatives from each of the nine state-supported institutions. This committee in turn developed plans for extensive cooperation among the universities in the area of extension classes and programs.32 Factors Inhibiting Cooperation Parochialism. Although the number of cooperative activities is increasing, there are still many factors that block their development or decrease their effectiveness. Foremost is the attitude of parochialism exhibited by the individual institutions. Wittich has stated "to be expected: an inverse relationship exists between loyalty to Alma Mater and her involvement with others in cooperative ventures." He further states: Competition rather than cooperation has been the order of their day for a very long time. Each of these institutions . . . has its own peculiar and cherished qualities and no one wants to alter their distinctive identities. Each has pardonable prigg in its own achievements, both past and present. Loss of autonomy. Closely related to the attitude of paro- chialism is the fear that the institutions, or more realistically, the individuals within them will lose their autonomy. Hawley suggests 32M. M, Chambers, Voluntary78pptewide Coordination, (The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1961), p. 46. 33Wittich, pp, 555,, p. 34. 29 the problem of autonomy becomes greatest among organizations having similar goals. 3" Organizations attempt to gain control over their environment; in another sense, they attempt to maximize their own autonomy and to co-opt organizations with which they enter into relationships; Thus, inter- organizational analysis implies a continually moving equilibrium of relationships because the participating (and competing) units are continually 'jockeying for position.’ Conflict ig characteristic of many of these relationships. . . . 5 Problems with internal coordination. Cooperative activities have many ramifications for the internal operation of each of the participating institutions. Problems of coordination become particularly acute, requiring increased communications‘within the member institutions. There is a strain toward decentralization of power and a reduction of formal regulations. In other words, the problems of adjustment between institutions requires that each adopt a more relaxed structure to facilitate both internal and external coordination.36 Herbert W. K. Fitzroy (University Center in Virginia) explains: . . . The cooperative way is the difficult way. New patterns of thought on the part of administrators and new patterns of performance on the part of the faculty members must be developed. Countless conferences and endless committee meetings will be necessary. Lengthy consultations between institutional administrators 34Amos H. Hawley, Human Ecology, (New York: The Ronald Press, 1951). 35Jerald Rage, and Michael Aiken, "Program.Change and Organizational Properties: A Comparative Analysis",.&merican Journal of Sociology, (March, 1967). 36Ibid. 30 ‘must take place. The mere thought of the faculty- meeting debates is numbing, for here will be myriad. issues that will give small men far broader fields than they hay? ever known in which to exercise their 1 imitations . Increased cost. .Although the most frequently cited reason for consortium efforts is that of cost reduction, there is some evidence that consortium.activities do not save money but may, in fact, increase cost to the member institutions. Patterson, in discussing this topics, states. One of the few clear cut answers regarding financial implications of consortia is that an institution‘will increase its operational costs, not diminish them, as a result of joining a multi-purpose consortium. Experience has shown that the realization of actual dollar savings is usually limited to those programs specifically instigated to obtain these ends, such as joint purchasing of student insurance, food services, supplies . . . The majority of consortia programs involve additional efforts on the part of member institutions. One major expense in cooperation is an item already borne by the institutions: the time of personnel. However, expense for travel, food and lodging, correspondence, telephone calls, etc,--unless underwritten by external funding are additional expenses for insti- tutions. Hence, consortia are misconceived if viewed as a source of financial relief. Their more significant benefits come in the form of improved quality, efficiency, and economy gése, 'by getting more bang by spending an extra buck'. Wittich cautions administrators not to count the reduction of cost as a prime inducement to cooperate. ". . . The savings from cooperation," Wittich states, "are far more in getting better returns 37Herbert W. K. Fitzroy, as cited in Wittich, pp, cit., p. 32. 38Patterson,pp, pip., p. 20. 31 from money spent rather than actual savings which can be used elsewhere in the budget. . . ."39 Interinstitutional In-Service Programs The author's review of literature reveals few descriptions of cooperative programs designed for the professional growth of educators. This section highlights the few studies on this topic available in the literature since 1940. The Atlanta Area Teacher Education Service. The Atlanta (Georgia) Area Teacher Education Service was developed in 1945 by Emory University, the University of Georgia, and the public school systems of Atlanta, Decatur, Marietta, and Fulton County. It has since expanded to involve the Atlanta Teachers' Association and the Georgia State Department of Education.40 John Goodlad and Floyd Jordan described some unique features of the service: 1. Teachers enroll in the in-service course of their choice, with the instructor of their choice, and secure credit at one of two educational institutions without regard to the university affiliation of that instructor. 2. Teachers enrolled get more than the class services of the instructor. They may call upon him.or one of his colleagues for on-the-job assistance at any time. 39Wittich, pp. pip, p. 31. 40Lynn F. Shufelt, "A Cooperative In-Service Organization", The National Elementary School Principal, Vol. XLIV, No. 1, (September, 1964), pp. 43-45. 32 3. Individual teachers, groups of teachers, or entire school systems may secure specialized assistance completely free from the expense of consultative or travel fees. 4. The services of outstanding educational authorities from all parts of the country are made available for short periods of time--again without cost to the school system involved. 5. Staff members team up, regardless of their university affiliations, to bring together their respective competencies for attack.upon the problem at hand. 6. Regular faculty members of college education departments are kept constantly in close contact with teachers' current problems. Undoubtedly, there is a carry-over in prac- ticality to the campus courses of these instructors as a result of their participation in the in-service program.41 "The Service", Goodlad states, "is truly a service--it exists for the purpose of helping schools and teachers to do a better job."42 The Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. The Cooperative Program in Educational Administration was developed in 1951 under a grant from.the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and operated through regional centers at eight universities. Among the aims of CPEA was ". . . to create better opportunities for administrators to grow in understanding the place of education and the functions of 41John Goodlad and Floyd Jordan, "When School and College Cooperate", Educational Leadership, Vol. VII, No. 7, (April, 1950), pp 0 461 “4650 4211: id. 33 administration, and in developing abilities to work with people; . . . to encourage cooperative study of critical issues and problems as a basis for action programs."43 In-service programs for school administrators were conducted by commissioners of State Department of Education and faculty members engaged in graduate education from universities at each of the regional centers. The activities of the New England CPEA are an example of the variety of programs developed in all eight regions. Some examples of programs are: (l) a series of one-day drive-in conferences open to all superintendents in the region to focus on the possible contri- butions of the social sciences and to discover other needs of these administrators, (2) two one-week Advanced Administrative Institutes, each limited to 60 superintendents, (3) a year-round effort in continued professional development program.in which superintendents, State Department of Education personnel, and university faculty meet 44 monthly to discuss common concerns and develop action plans. The Carnegie Program. The Portland, Oregon, Public Schools, in cooperation with the Carnegie Corporation, have developed an in-service program offering over 100 courses and workshops. Cooperative arrangements have been made with Oregon colleges to assist in development and evaluation of courses. ‘Many of the courses are 43Francis 3. Chase, "Midwest CPEA Aims and Results", The School Executive, LXXIII, (March, 1954), pp. 94-97. 44Angelo Giaudrone, "New England CPEA Report on In-Service Professional Development", The School Executive, (March, 1955), PP 0 28‘45 o 34 accepted by the local colleges for credit toward fifth year certi- fication or graduate degrees.45 Egginninngeacher Workshop. The Beginning Teachers' workshop involves Andrews University (a private institution), Michigan State University, and Western Michigan University, and is coordinated by the concerns of beginning (first and second year) teachers. The workshop is staffed by representatives from each insti- tution. University, intermediate school district, and local school district personnel are utilized as resource people.46 Cooperative Program in Elementary Education. The Cooperative Program in Elementary Education of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools is a program of in-service education. The consortium includes university, public school, and Georgia State Department of Education. Plans for attacking a problem are developed by a school, usually under the leadership of the principal with assistance of an instructor. Plans usually include items such as time for group work, resources, and methods for evaluation. From these plans, programs are developed to meet the individual need of each team.47 Interinstitutional Workshop in.Administration. The Interin- stitutional Workshop, a c00perative program for administrators in the 45Victor W. Doherty, "Something New in In-Service Education: Portland's Carnegie Program", American School Board Journal, Vol. CL, No. 5, (May, 1965), p. 31. 46Sorenson, 22, cit., p. 19. 47Sara Divine, "Cooperative Program in Elementary Education", Educational Leadership, Vol. XVII, No. 6, (March, 1960), pp. 357-358. 35 Flint Public Schools, involves seven colleges and universities in Michigan and is funded by the Mott Foundation. The workshop staff consists of two instructors from each institution. Forty-five to fifty students (administrators) are selected for each year's class, each university having a limited number determined by a pre-arranged quota system. The format of the workshop includes lectures and large and small group discussions.48 Summary The review of literature presents an account of the historical growth of consortium efforts, the factors that influence the development and functioning of cooperative programs, and a review of cooperative efforts in in-service training of educators in higher education. Cooperation among colleges and universities, in the form of exchanging professors, took place as early as 600 AD. This continued to be the most popular form of cooperation over the years. Programs were later developed sharing library holdings and permitting students to enroll in other institutions for courses and receive credit at their home institution. The popularity of consortia surged in the sixties largely as a result of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Many factors have stimulated cooperation among institutions of higher education. The increased numbers of accredited colleges and universities in the past eight years has stimulated the need in order 48Clyde M. Campbell, "The Interinstitutional Workshop", The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. 1, No. 2, (1962), p. 31. 36 to provide quality programs with available resources. Society has placed a demand on universities to help solve the increasing problems of urban society. Increased costs have led to the need for sharing of facilities such as libraries and computer centers. Finally, state governments, in an attempt to reduce competition for funds by insti- tutions within the same state, have in some cases forced cooperation through legislation. Factors found to inhibit cooperation are parochialism on the part of many institutions, the fear of the institution that it will lose autonomy, problems with internal coordination, requiring increased communications within member institutions, and increased costs of food, lodging, correspondence, telephone calls, etc. The review of literature reveals few descriptions of programs designed for professional growth of educators. 0f the six programs described, two are for administrators, one for beginning teachers, and one for elementary education. The other two involve all levels of educators. These programs involve the cooperation of institutions of higher education, public school systems, State Departments of Education, and in one case a teacher's association. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES Introduction This study was designed to describe the development, operation and effects of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop conducted during the 1971-1972 school year. This chapter includes an accounting of the data sources, a description of the procedures followed in collecting the data, and an explanation of how the data were analyzed. Sources of Data The data for this study came from a variety of sources. These sources can be divided into two general divisions, human and material. Human resources include the participants and staff of KIW, and administrators from.Kent Intermediate School District, the Michigan State Department of Education, Central Michigan University, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Western Michigan University. Material resources include materials distributed to the participants, minutes and tape recordings of staff meetings, and of tape recorded interviews with the participants and staff, and questionnaires completed by the participants. 37 38 Categories of Sources of Evidence More specifically the sources of data are as follows: 1. Tape recorded interviews with staff members of the workshop, 2. Tape recorded group interviews with sixteen of the eighteen teams, 3. Tape recorded interviews with the superintendent of Kent Intermediate School District, 4. Tape recorded interviews or notes of interviews with the directors of extension service for each of the four universities involved in the workshOp, 5. Tape recordings of staff meetings, 6. Tape recordings of Kent County Superintendents' meeting, 7. Memorandums from the workshop coordinator to the staff,. 8. Announcements and other correspondence sent to the participating schools regarding the workshop, 9. Reports and summaries compiled by the teams, 10. Informal notes of staff meetings, 11. Proposals written by teams as a result of the workshop, 12. Questionnaires completed by the workshop participants. Procedures for Data Collection Data for the study were collected in several ways. Copies of all correspondence regarding the workshop were given to the author by the coordinator of the workshop. Copies of all materials given to the workshop participants were collected by the author. Notes of all staff meetings were made available to the author. In addition, tape recordings were made of the final two staff meetings. 39 In order to gather information about the participants, their reasons for enrolling in the workshop, and their perceptions of the experience.two questionnaires were distributed to the participants toward the end of the workshop. The first questionnaire was mailed to all participants along with a return.stamped envelope. Of the 168 questionnaires distributed.l45 were returned, yielding an 80 percent return. Due to the high rate of return no further mailings were made. Data from this questionnaire included personal information name, sex, and age; educational training; professional experience and reasons for enrolling in the workshop. An example of this questionnaire may be found in Appendix A. The second questionnaire was distributed to the participants at the last general session of the workshop. Of the 168 questionnaires distributed.l42 were returned,yielding a 79 percent return. The participants were asked in the questionnaire to rate on a scale from zero (low) to seven (high) several aspects of the workshop, including the physical facilities, the workshop load, the amount of and quality of coordinator assistance, the effectiveness of the workshop, and effect of the workshop upon the participants, the school and the school district. (An example of this questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.) During the period of May 10, l972--June 8, 1972 tape recorded interviews were conducted with sixteen of the eighteen participating teams. (All teams were scheduled to be interviewed; however, the last two teams cancelled their interview and were unable to meet with the author before their school term ended.) 40 An interview guide was developed by the author (See Appendix C) including questions designed to determine the participant's views of any direct or indirect effects of the workshop upon them, their school, or their school system. The guide was used by the author as only an outline for the interview. The exact wording varied from interview to interview. A meeting of the KIW staff was held April 25, 1972 to evaluate the workshop. A tape recording was made of this meeting. In addition, individual interviews were conducted with staff members to determine their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the workshop and any effects upon them or their institution. Individual interviews were held with the four directors of extension services in the Grand Rapids area. The interviews were designed to discover each director's perceptions of the workshop and the effects, if any, upon the institution they represented. An interview was conducted with the coordinator of the workshop to discover: (1) background information regarding the organization and development of the workshop,(2) her perceptions of its effec- tiveness, and.69 any effects the workshop may have had upon her or the Kent Intermediate School District. A.meeting with the superintendents of schools within the Kent Intermediate School District was held May 19, 1972 to discuss the evaluation of the workshop. This meeting was tape recorded and is used as part of the collected data. Procedures for Analyzing:the Data .All of the resources were carefully examined by the writer and organized into the following categories: (1) philosophy, 41 a) organization and development, 6) management and operation,(4) client population,(5) evaluation, and(6) effects and outcomes. The data were also analyzed with attention to the chronological development of the workshOp. Equal weight was given to all the collected data. Every attempt was made to discover all the facts, goals, and intentions of those who develOped, operated, and participated in KIW. Chapter IV contains the presentation of findings regarding the development and operation of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. Mere specifically it will include a chronological description of the development and operation of the workshop from the time the Kent Intermediate office became aware of this mode of in-service education, to the final staff meeting of the 1971-1972 workshop. Summary This chapter has included an accounting of the sources, a description of the procedures followed in collecting the data and an explanation of how the data were analyzed. The following chapter will describe the development and operation of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. CHAPTER IV THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP Introduction The data presented in this chapter describe the development and operation of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. Specifically, this chapter includes: 1. A description of the events in the development of the workshop, 2. Demographic data regarding the workshop participants, 3. A description of the organizational structure and operation of the workshop. Development of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop (KIW) was a direct outgrowth of the Wayne Interinstitutional WOrkshop (WIW) conducted since 1967 in Wayne County, Michigan, by Michigan State University, Eastern ‘Michigan University, Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Education, and the Wayne Intermediate School District.1 The staff of the Wayne workshop was interested in diffusing the interinstitutional model to other areas of the state. Among areas of 1See Chapter I for a description of the Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop. 42 43 Nfichigan discussed were the counties adjoining Wayne County (metropolitan Detroit) in eastern Michigan and Kent County (metro- politan Grand Rapids) in western Michigan. Among the advantages seen in Kent County were the existence of the university center in Grand Rapids, in.which the University of Michigan (U of M), Michigan State University (MSU), and Western Michigan University (WMU) were already working cooperatively, and the clustering of schools in the Kent County area.2 During the July 1, 1970 WIW staff meeting, the decision to further explore the possibility of initiating a similar workshop in Kent County was made.3 Based on that decision, the Michigan Department of Education consultant contacted the superintendent of Kent Intermediate School District to schedule a meeting (during the first week of August) between the superintendent and representatives of the WIW staff.4 The superintendent of Kent Intermediate in a later interview with the author discussed his initial reactions to the interinsti- tutional workshop model: . . . we were rather intrigued with the prospects of what this [the interinstitutional workshop] would do, particularly, in view of the fact that it seemed to cut across institutional lines so that the people needn't have fears of losing credits or being caught up in this process of transferring credits. If they were on a particular program at a university this would not in any 2Interviewwith Charles A. Blackman, Professor of Education, Michigan State University and staff member of both the Wayne and Kent Interinstitutional workshops. 3Minutes of the Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop staff meeting, July 1, 1970. 4Blackman, op. git. manner impair their progress of studies. Another thing that interested us highly was the prospect of teachers and administrators in a particular building being able to focus on a particular problem.that they had ident- ified as affecting them directly and then proceed to do something about it. At the conclusion of the meeting between the Kent superintendent and the representatives of the Wayne workshop staff, the superin- tendent indicated his interest in developing an interinstitutional workshop in Kent County and agreed to discuss the workshop concept with his staff. He subsequently assigned one of the curriculum consultants on his staff to pursue the discussion of a possible workshop with representatives of WIW.6 Between August 1970 and February 1971 some informal discussions took place between the Kent Curriculum consultant and various individuals from the WIW staff, but no formal meetings were held.7 Although the staff of WIW had hoped that a workshop in Kent County would begin during the 1970-1971 school year, the actual starting date of the Kent Interinstitutional WOrkshOp was October 5, 1971 (a year later than anticipated). The superintendent of Kent Intermediate explained that he felt his staff was too busy in 1970 to take on any additional projects. ". . . It took that long for one of the consultants to fit it into her schedule."8 5A1bert Deal, Superintendent of Kent Intermediate School District, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Personal interview, May 19, 1972. 61bid. 7Barbara Bird, Kent Intermediate School District Curriculum Consultant and Coordinator of the Kent Interinstitutional Worksh0p. Personal interview, May 19, 1972. 8Deal, pp, cit. 45 On March 29, 1971, a meeting was held with members of the Kent Intermediate School District, representatives from the Wayne workshop, and the extension directors of U of M, MSU, and WMU. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the interinstitutional workshop concept to the three extension directors and to further explore the possibility of developing a workshop in Kent County. It was decided at this meeting to meet with a representative group of local school district superintendents on April 19, 1971. This group voiced its support of the workshop concept and requested that it be described to the entire group of superintendents at their meeting April 21, 1971. Since the discussion of the possible workshop was not on the agenda for the superintendent's meeting, only a brief discussion was held. However, the group voiced interest in the concept and requested a more detailed presentation at their May 14, l97l,meeting, at which time they voiced their support of the workshop and requested that information be forwarded to them so they could discuss it with school staffs.9 On May 28, 1971, packets of materials (see Appendix D) describing the proposed workshop and registration materials were sent to each superintendent in Kent County from the KISD curriculum consultant's office with a request that the pre-registration foams 9Bird, pp, cit. 46 10 be returned by June 15, 1971. By the June 15th deadline the workshop had a preliminary enrollment of 14 teams involving 140 people.11 During the period of time between June 15, l971.and the next staff meeting on July 14, 1971, the KISD curriculum consultant became aware that there were some teachers who were enrolled at Central Michigan University who might be interested in participating in the workshop. As a result of this information, representatives of Central Michigan University (CMU) were invited to attend the July 14, 1971, staff meeting.12 During that meeting, the Dean of off-campus education of Central Michigan stated that his university was willing to assign an instructor to the workshOp even if none of their students were enrolled. In a later interview he explained this decision: . . . the decision for Central to join the interin- stitutional workshop was made for two reasons; first that we were just beginning to offer extension courses in the Grand Rapids area. Our participation in the workshop would make graduate students in the area [Kent County] aware that we were offering courses here. Secondly, the idea that the workshop was a cooperative effort among universities and the fact that it [the workshop] offered algervice to local schools also interested us . . . During the July 14, l97l,staff meeting the following decisions were made: 10Barbara Bird, letter to superintendents and schools in Kent County dated May 28, 1971. 11Bird, pp. cit., personal interview. 12Bird, pp. cit. 13J. D. Marcus, Dean Off-Campus Education, Central Michigan University, in phone conversation with author, August 30, 1972. 47 l. The workshop would begin Tuesday, October 5, 1971, and end Tuesday, February 29, 1972. 2. The workshop sessions would be held on Tuesday evenings between 4:30 and 8:30 p.m. 3. Seventeen workshop sessions would be held, consisting of: one session for team leaders and principals, six general sessions for all teams held at a central location, 10 sessions held at the building of each teams 4. The staff would tentatively consist of a coordinator from Kent Intermediate School District, one consultant from the Michigan Department of Education, two instructors (consultants) from WMU, one instructor (consultant) from U of M, one instructor (consultant) from.CMU, and two instructors (consultants) from MSU. 5. Kent Intermediate School District would act as financial agent, i.e., all checks for tuition and fees would be written to KISDu KISD would reimburse each university for tuition. 6. Each university would provide two guest speakers or consultants. Additional consultants would be paid through workshop funds. 7. The next staff meeting was scheduled for September 22, 1971.14 During the period of September 7, 1971, to September 21, 1971, registration materials from the participants were received and compiled 14Agenda, Planning Session for Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, July 14, 1971. 48 by the coordinator of the workshop. In addition, she received many telephone calls from teachers requesting more information about the workshop. At the same time, she began to receive complaints from teachers that they were having difficulty enrolling in the workshop due to the admissions' requirements of one of the four universities. That university required persons seeking admission to advanced program to submit their application three months in advance. No one was permitted to enroll in off-campus courses without having been admitted to an advanced degree program. As a result of this rule, a number of teachers either did not participate in the workshop or enrolled with one of the other three universities. The coordinator stated, "I would estimate that at least 40 teachers switched their enrollment to another university in order to participate in the workshop. . . I have no idea how many people decided not to enroll."15 The final staff meeting prior to the beginning of the workshop was held September 22, 1971. This meeting marked the first time the entire workshop staff was brought together. The following agenda items were discussed at this session: 1. The number of teams and participants had increased from 14 teams with 140 participants to 18 teams with 168 participants. 2. Each university staff member was assigned three teams to work with. In making these assignments, an attempt was made to match the tapics selected by the teams and the field of interest of each staff member. In addition, 15Bird, pp. pip. 49 some attention was paid to the distance between the teams' schools in order to cut the driving time for the instructor to a minimum. 3. Plans were made for the agenda of the team leader's meeting scheduled for October, 1971. The staff decided that each staff member would take some part in the discussion with the team leaders and principals. The purpose of that decision was to point out the "cooper- ativeness" of the workshop.16 Agreements by the universities. In order to facilitate the Operation of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, the staff and extension directors agreed to the following changes of existing university policy: 1. ADOPTION OF A COMMON CALENDAR FOR THE WORKSHOP, THAT DIFFERED FROM ALL FOUR UNIVERSITIES. The workshop extended over a 16 week period to allow the workshop teams time to try out their ideas and revise them when necessary. To facilitate this process a common calendar that differed from all four universities in the length of the term, the beginning and ending dates and the date of winter recess was adopted. In addition, the workshop met for four hours per session while most university courses met for three hours. 2. DEFERRED GRADES WERE GIVEN TO ALL MICHIGAN STATE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE WORKSHOP. 16Author's notes of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop staff meeting, September 22, 1971. 50 Since the workshop calendar overlapped two quarters at Michigan State University, students would receive deferred grades at the end of the first quarter (December). The deferred grades would be removed and grades assigned at the end of the workshop. 3. EACH STAFF MEMBER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORTING TO HIS UNIVERSITY THE GRADES OF THE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN. THAT UNIVERSITY BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF MEMBER ASSIGNED TO THAT STUDENT'S TEAM. Since the teams were made up of participants enrolled in different universities it was probable that (with the exception of Central Michigan with four students) the university representative would not even know all of the participants from his university. 4. A.COMMON FEE WOULD BE CHARGED TO THE PARTICIPANTS WITH KENT INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTING AS FINANCIAL AGENT FOR THESE FEES. Since the tuition for enrollment in the workshop varied among the universities, a common fee of $175.00 was charged to these participants. All fees would be paid to Kent Intermediate School District who in turn would pay the tuition of each participant to the university of his choice. The remaining monies would be used to pay for the participant's meals at the six general sessions and to pay the honorariums of consultants used in the workshop. The Workshop Participants A questionnaire (Appendix A) was distributed to the workshop participants in January 1972 to gather demographic data about the participants and their reasons for enrolling in the workshop. As 51 indicated in Table 4.1, of the 168 questionnaires distributed, 145 (85 percent) were returned. The following is a summary of the demographic characteristics of the participants found in Table 4.2. The age groups of the participants ranged from 26 persons in the 20-24 age group to three persons in the 60 to 65 age group. Ninety-five (66 percent) of the respondents were under 40 years of age. The respondents included eighty-three women and sixty-two men. Of the 145 respondents, 81 (56 percent) were elementary school personnel, 19 (13 percent) were middle school or junior high personnel, 35 (24 percent) were high school personnel, 7 (5 percent) were central administrators, and 3 (2 percent) were intermediate school district personnel. An investigation of the data regarding certification reveals that there were 86 respondents holding permanent certificates (46 elementary, 36 secondary, 4 both elementary and secondary), while 57 respondents (36 elementary, 20 secondary, 1 both elementary and secondary) held provisional certificates. Other certificates held were: college life (3) and special education (4). One respondent did not hold a certificate but was employed as part of a performance contract. 0f the participants responding to the questionnaire, thirty- four (23 percent) held bachelor's degrees, 65 (45 percent) had completed work beyond the B.A. but did not hold master's degrees, 12 (9 percent) had an M.A. or equivalent hours, 29 (19 percent) had accumulated credit hours beyond a master's degree but did not hold a higher degree, while four persons held an educational specialist or the equivalent and one person held a doctor's degree. The professional experience of the respondents ranged from 11 persons in their first year of teaching to one person in his forty- first year of teaching. The largest single group of respondents consisted of those in their second year of teaching (15 respondents) while 73 (50 percent) had 10 years or less experience. A similar pattern exists in the responses regarding years of employment experience in the present system. The largest single group of respondents (24) were first-year employees, while 51 percent (74) had four years or less tenure within their present school system, and five respondents had from 25 to 29 years experience within the same school system. Table 4.1 Percentage of Participants' Completing Questionnaire Number of Questionnaires Number of Questionnaires Percent of Return Distributed Returned 168 142 85 Table 4.2 Demographic Characteristics of Participants in the Kent 53 Interinstitutional Workshop During the 1971-72 School Year A. Age of Participants Age Range Frequency Age Range Frequency 20 - 24 25 25 - 29 8 30 - 34 19 50 - 54 14 35 - 39 22 55 - 59 7 40 — 44 18 60 - 65 3 45 - 49 7 No Response 1 B. Sex of Respondent Men women 62 83 C. Employment of Participants Grade Level Frequency Elementary Personnel Kindergarten 4 First 8 Second 10 Third 11 Fourth 8 Fifth 9 Sixth 9 Para-Professional (Cert. Teachers) 1 54 Table 4.2 C. (continued) Grade Level Frequency Lower Elementary Team 1 Music 3 Multi-aged Non-graded l Remedial Reading 2 Perceptual Development 1 Type A Teacher 2 Media Center Director 1 Elementary Principals 19 Total 81 Middle School or Junior High School Personnel Language Arts 4 Geography - History 1 Physical Science 1 Vocal Music 1 Science 1 Social Studies 1 Math 1 Math - Science 2 Industrial Arts 2 Home Economics 1 Principal 3 Assistant Principal IH Total 19 Table 4.2 C. (continued) Grade Level Frequency High School Personnel Mathematics 5 English 4 Humanities 4 Social Studies 8 Health - Physical Education 1 Chemistry - Physical Science 1 Business Education 1 Vocational Education 1 Industrial Education 3 Ninth Grade Teacher 1 Librarian 1 Counselor 2 High School Principals 2 High School Assistant Principal _1' Total 35 Administrative Personnel Superintendent 1 Director of Instruction 3 Assistant Superintendent of Business 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Director of Student Teachers 1 Total 7 Table 4.2 C. (continued) 56 = Grade Level Frequency Intermediate School District Personnel Assistant Superintendent for Special 1 (Ionia) Education Teacher - Counselor Physically l (Ionia) Handicapped Type C Consultant 1 (Kent) Total 3 D. Type of Teaching Certificate Certificate Frequency Elementary Provisional 36 Elementary Permanent 46 Secondary Provisional 20 Secondary Permanent 36 Elementary and Secondary Provisional 1 Elementary and Secondary Permanent 4 College Life 3 Special Education Provisional 2 Type A. K-12 2 Performance Contract (no certificate) 1 E. Educational Training Degree Frequency S or 34 Table 4.2 E. (continued) 57 Degree Frequency BS or BA+ l - 6 term hours 7 - 12 term hours 13 - 18 term hours 19 - 24 term hours 25 - 32 term hours 40 term.hours 42 term hours 50 term hours Total participants MA or equivplent MA;: 1 - 6 term hours 7 - 12 term hours 13 - 18 term hours 19 - 24 term hours 25 - 32 term hours 40 term hours 45 term hours Total participants with hours beyond BS - BA with hours beyond MA Educational Specialist or Equivalent 13 21 10 ll Table 4.2 E. (continued) Degree Frequency Doctorate l F. Summary of Professional Experience Years Experience Frequency Years Experience Frequency One 11 Seventeen 2 Two 15 Eighteen 3 Three 11 Nineteen 1 Four 9 Twenty 7 Five 11 Twenty-one 1 Six 7 Twenty-two 0 Seven 7 Twenty-three 1 Eight 3 Twenty-four 1 Nine 6 Twenty-five 0 Ten 2 Twenty-six 1 Eleven 7 Twenty-seven 2 Twelve 5 Twenty-eight 1 Thirteen 5 Twenty-nine l Fourteen 3 Thirty 1 Fifteen 8 Thirty-eight 2 Sixteen 3 Forty-one 1 No Response 3 Table 4.2 E. (continued) Years Employed Frequency Years Employed Frequency One 24 Sixteen 4 Two 18 Seventeen 2 Three 17 Eighteen 2 Four 15 Nineteen 2 Five 15 Twenty 1 Six 5 Twenty-one 0 Seven 9 Twenty-two 0 Eight 6 Twenty-three 1 Nine 4 Twenty-four 0 Ten 0 Twenty-five 1 Eleven 3 Twenty-six 0 Twelve 3 Twenty-seven 1 Thirteen 3 Twenty-eight 1 Fourteen l Twenty-nine 2 Fifteen 4 Thirty 0 No Response 3 Overview of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop Model The workshop consisted of 18 teams (168 participants) of teachers and administrators from schools and school districts in the Kent County (Michigan) area. During the course of 16 four-hour, once a week sessions, teams worked on a problem they had identified prior to enrolling in the workshop. The participants received 4 60 semester hours or 6 term hours of graduate credit from any of the four participating universities. Seven general sessions in which all teams were brought together to permit sharing of concerns and ideas were held periodically throughout the 16 weeks. The remaining sessions were held in team's schools to permit them to draw on local resources. The staff of the workshop was drawn from the four partici- pating universities, Kent Intermediate School District and the Michigan State Department of Education. Each university representative was assigned three teams with which he would act as facilitator and coordinator. The MDE representative acted as a resource person to the workshop as a whole. The entire workshop was coordinated by a representative from the Kent Intermediate School District. Purpose and Philosophy, A brief description of the purpose and philosophy of the workshop was distributed to each KIW participant during the first general session. In addition, these topics were discussed at the team leaders"meeting on October 5, 1971 and during the first general session on October 19, 1971. Purpose of workshop. To assist a team from.a local school to utilize group effort in solving professional problems related to the educational offerings in their system. What is a workshop? A workshOp is a group effort to solve problems; in this case professional problems related to the improvement of learning opportunities for pupils in school. The workshop assumes that: 61 1. Every participant is a resource person and that everyone is a learner. 2. Significant learning is related to an individual's current concerns which he has aided in identifying. 3. Leadership which frees people and enables them to tap their unique capabilities will be most productive of: (a) effective problem solving, (b) the development of problem-solving skills, and (c) the development of the professional capabilities of school staff members. Organizationpl Structure 1552p. The 168 participants enrolled in the workshop were members of 18 teams from school districts in the Kent County area. The smallest team.consisted of five members, the largest had 15 members, with the average being nine team members. Each team had members from at least two universities. Criteria for selection of teams were described to participants in the original material sent from the workshop coordinator's office to the school districts May 28, 1971. (See Appendix D). CRITERION. A.TEAM'S MEMBERSHIP WAS TO CONSIST OF A MINIMUM OF FIVE MEMBERS AND A.MAXIMUM OF 12 MEMBERS FROM A SCHOOL OR SCHOOL DISTRICT. (TWO TEAMS EXCEEDED THE 12-MEMBER MAXIMUM). Rationale. The workshop staff felt that any team consisting of less than five members would have little effect in bringing about curriculum change within its school, while a team with more than 12 ‘members would be too large for effective group dynamics. 62 CRITERION. TEAMS WERE TO PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF A PROBLEM.PRIOR TO ENROLLING IN THE WORKSHOP. Rationale. This requirement was made to ensure that teams were formed to work on common problems. CRITERION. TEAMS WERE TO INCLUDE AN ADMINISTRATOR AS A MEMBER IF POSSIBLE. Rationale. The experience of the Wayne workshop indicated that teams with an administrator as a member had a higher rate of implementation. CRITERION. EACH TEAM WAS TO SELECT A TEAM LEADER (NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR) TO ACT AS LIAISON BETWEEN THE TEAM.AND THE WORKSHOP STAFF. Rationale. The hope of the workshop staff was that the administrator would become more of a team.member and have less inclination to run the group. As indicated in Table 4.3, 58 percent of the respondents felt that the workshop's team approach in solving curriculum.problems had a great deal of influence on their decision to enroll, while 6 percent felt it had no effect. Team topics. Prior to enrolling in the workshop, each team forwarded a description of the problem it had identified to the workshop coordinator. These descriptions varied in length from one page to one sentence or phrase. The following information regarding 63 team topics was distributed to the KIW staff prior to the workshop. (Numbers have been substituted by the author for the names of schools.) Flexible staffing for relevant curriculum. (Elementary team 1). The primary goal of our involvement must in the final analysis be the improved learning atmosphere for children. Our interest must, therefore, lie in exploring more effective ways in meeting the social, psychological, emotional, and academic needs of children in our community schools. Not only must we explore these new vehicles but must implement those that we feel are educationally sound. It is probable that before changes can be implemented to provide a more flexible program for children that considerable effort will have to be expelled in providing in-service programs that will help the school staff to become more flexible. Without a flexible staff, it is improbable that a flexible program for children will ever become a reality. Self analysis and behavior modification of teachers. (Elementary team 2). A vital part of individualizing is a teacher's flexibi- lity and a thorough knowledge and understanding of one's self in terms of how‘we relate to children. This thought was expressed and the response resulted in a high degree of unanimity. I shared my desires about being warm.and emphathetic with children and shared briefly some thoughts as to how I felt our recent sessions with resulted in a better understanding of myself and others ‘with whom I work. As a result of this discussion, it is the desire of our staff members to get involved with this kind of intro- spection and self-analysis which we anticipate, will result in a greater degree of feeling for children. This is where we feel good teaching begins. Our desire and proposal is that we secure the services of or someone of his calibre who is available to work with our team who can help us gain insights into our own behavior and activities as they relate to children. Model elementary curriculum. (Elementary team 3). Study of upper grade curriculum and program organization in order to seek and develop: 1. better adaptations of curriculum materials to developmental and maturity levels of students, 2. different organizational pattern for introducing educational change, new approaches to subject matter, and possible innovative methods, 3. greater continuity between elementary grades and junior high with the development of a "middle" school philosophy. Project should involve enough staff from one building to insure a full-fledged pilot program in one school. Representation of one or two key staff members from junior high and from other elementary school upper grades would be desirable to provide future feedback to other schools. ‘ Meet ingfithe needs of the exceptionpl child in the esprly elementary reading program. (Elementary team 4). Ipdividualized elementary progpam. (Elementary team 5) . Meetifl the special needs of children in the regular class- room. (Elementary team 6). Ipdividualized lurninLK-6. (Elementary team 7). Parent involvement in child's learning process. (Elementary team 8). School readiness identification. (Elementary team 9). Flexible progpam for 9th grade. (Secondary team 1). Team will study and evaluate the ninth grade curricular offerings in English, Social Studies, and Science. Out of this, hopefully, will come a more flexible program offering more options to the ninth grade. goblems relpted to the transition from a trpditional high school program to a new media centered high school. - (Secondary team 2). 65 Individualized learning K-12. (Secondary team 3). Teacher involvement in curricula K-12. (Secondary team.4). Convertingfia middle school curriculum.from a 7 = 64period time. (Secondary team 5). Independent study. (Secondary team.6). K-12 social studies program. (Secondary team 7). Middle school curriculum. (Secondary team 8). Among the factors identified as influencing the participants' decision to enroll in the workshop was the topic identified for study by their team. As indicated in Table 4.3, 61 percent of the respondents rated this factor 6 to 7 on a seven point scale. Although the original problem identified was usually redefined during the workshop, and in some cases completely changed, as shown in Table 4.4, upon completion of the workshop 67 percent of the respondents described their original problem selection as "ideal". Sppff. The staff of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop consisted of a curriculum consultant from the Kent Intermediate Office. a Title III consultant from the Michigan Department of Education and six university coordinators (instructors). The Kent Intermediate consultant acted as coordinator of the workshop. Among her responsibilities were initial contact of the school districts in Kent County, arranging staff meetings, facilities and meals for the seven general sessions and the team leaders' meeting, initiating and chairing staff meetings, collecting and dispursing of 66 monies, and acting as spokesman for Kent Intermediate School District in staff meetings. The Title III consultant from the Michigan Department of Education acted as liaison between the State Department of Education and the workshop, as contact person with Title III Project directors (some Title III Project directors acted as resource persons at two general sessions. In addition, some Title III Projects were visited by workshOp teams . ) Due to other commitments and demands upon the time of this staff member, she was unable to attend many staff meetings or general sessions. Through contact with other staff members, however, she ‘ was appraised of the development of the workshop and was able to make some input into the staff meetings. The six university staff members were each assigned to three teams as coordinator-consultants. Efforts were made to match the team topic to the experience and training of the staff member. In addition, an attempt was made to assign to the teams staff members living within a reasonable driving distance of the schools so that staff members could attend all of the meetings. Despite the effort by the staff to assign teams in the same geographic area to a staff member, problems still arose. Three of the six staff members found that if they were to meet with all three teams in one night they spent more time driving than they did meeting with any single team. To combat this problem these staff members devised a variety of schedules. Finally all three had at least two of their teams meet in a central location, thus cutting the driving time. 67 The amount of time staff members spent with each team.varied according to the need of the team (as perceived by the staff members). This meant that staff members may have met with a team for the entire night or not at all. In the latter case the staff members had contact either personally or by telephone with the team leader or principal for feedback regarding the meeting. As part of the workshop evaluation, participants were asked to rate the amount and quality of coordinator assistance. As indicated in Table 4.5, six percent of the respondents rated the amount of coordinator assistance 0 to 1 (too little), 13 percent rated it 6 to 7 (too much), while 52 percent rated it 4 to 5, and 26 percent gave a rating of 2 to 3. Forty-six percent of the respondents rated the quality of coordinator assistance as excellent, 31 percent rated it as better than average, while 4 percent rated the assistance as poor (Table 4.6). Grade reports. Since teams were made up of members enrolled in more than one university, the staff representative was responsible for assigning grades to all the members of his team regardless of their university affiliation. The following statement concerning grades and expectations was distributed to the participants at the first general session: Grades are the responsibility of the university staff members, with the aid of the other workshop staff. Group leaders of workshop teams have no responsibility for the formal evaluation of the work of participants. Each university staff member will have ultimate respon- sibility for the grades of students enrolled in his institution. 68 All participants have the responsibility to attend regularly and to contribute effectively to their teamis project. The staff urges that each participant assume some responsibility for the evaluation of his own growth, performance, and contributions in the workshop setting. If any participant wishes the staff to make judgments about the extent to which his workshop efforts represent more than a normal commitment and contribution to their team's goals, he is requested to provide some evidence for staff review. Such persons should take the initiative to submit to the university staff member who is working with their teams, two statements: 1. By November 9, a tentative plan describing his particular contribution to the accomplishment of his team's purposes. . . . (See Appendix E). 2. By February 22, evidence concerning the accomplishment of this plan. (It will be considered normal that the plan may have been modified as the needs of the project have evolved. If so, sharing of such modifications will be helpful.) This staff member, in consultation with the repre- sentative of the institution in which the individual is enrolled, will apprpye the plan and will be responsible for its evaluation. To facilitate the process of assigning grades, each staff representative kept the grade list for his own university. On the final night of the workshop the staff met with their grade lists and assigned grades for their university based on the recommendation of the staff representative who had worked with the team member. Credit A team member could enroll for graduate or undergraduate credit from any of the four universities participating in the workshop: (1) Central Michigan University--4 semester hours, (2) Michigan State University-~6 term.hours, (3) University of Michigan--4 semester hours, 17Statement of Grades and Expectations, (Distributed to participants of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop October 5, 1971). 69 (4) Western Michigan University--4 semester hours. Team members who did not wish to take the workshop for credit could enroll as auditing participants. As indicated in Table 4.7, 73 of the 145 respondents were applying the credit earned toward an advanced degree, while 36 were applying the credit toward advanced certification and 35 were using the credit toward a salary increment. In addition, seven persons indicated that they had enrolled in the workshop because of interest or self-improvement. A As part of the questionnaire distributed during the final workshop session, the participants were asked to rate the workload for the workshop and the working relations within the team. As indicated in Table 4.8, none of the respondents rated the workload too light (0 to 1) while 21 percent rated the workload 2 to 3, 61 percent rated it 4 to 5 and 10 percent rated it 6 to 7 (too heavy). Comments by the respondents included: "It was hard work but it was worth it." "The workload was heavy because I wanted to do it." "Sure it was hard work, but I liked it." As indicated in section C of Table 4.3, the fact that university credit was offered for participation in the workshop was very influential in 43 percent of the respondents' decision to enroll in the workshop, while 19 percent of the respondents rated this factor as not influential in their decision. However, section D reveals that 47 percent of the respondents indicated that having the choice of four universities for credit did not influence their decision to enroll. This response is similar to 70 that illustrated by section E, in which 47 percent of the respondents indicated that the fact that the workshOp was interinstitutional had no effect upon their decision to enroll. The information described in sections D and E appears to conflict with data described in sections A and C, which indicates that a team.approach to curriculum problem solving and the fact that university credit was offered for participating in the workshop did have an effect on their decision to enroll in the workshop. However, in later interviews, participants explained that the choice of four universities for credit was not important but the fact that the university they wished credit from was part of the workshop was important. Cost Since the tuition for each university was different, (MSU $132.00, CMU $120.00, WMU $130.00, and U of M $148.50), and there was a need for additional funds to cover the expenses of meals for the six general sessions, honorariums for the 29 consultants and speakers used by the workshop and other miscellaneous expenses, a common fee of $175.00 was paid to Kent Intermediate School District by the participants or their school district. Kent Intermediate, in turn, reimbursed the universities for tuition, paid honorariums for consultants and paid other miscellaneous expenses. The total visible cost of the workshop was $25,249.15.18 Not included in this figure is the expense absorbed by Kent Intermediate School District for professional staff time, secretarial service, 18Kent Interinstitutional Budget, March 21, 1972, pp. 1-3. 71 telephone calls, reproduction service, and other miscellaneous expenses. (No estimate of these costs is available.) Five school systems paid the entire cost for their teams' participation in the workshop. In addition, one school system reimbursed its teachers upon completion of the workshop. School systems, therefore, financed the cost of the workshop for 119 (68 percent) of the participants (64 percent of the respondents). However, as indicated in section F of Table 4.3, 64 percent of the respondents felt that the payment of fees had little or no effect upon their decision to enroll in the workshop. Table 4.3 Factors Influencing Participants' Decision to Enroll in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop A. Team Approach to Solving Curriculum.Prob1ems ================================= =============== Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (None) 10 6 2 — 3 14 10 4 - 5 36 25 6 - 7 (Completely) 85 58 No Response 0 0 B. Topic or Problem Identified by the Team o - 1 (None) 9 6 2 - 3 1o _7 4 - 5 36 25 Table 4.3 B. (continued) 72 J: i n Rank Frequency Percentage 6 - 7 (Completely) 88 58 No Response 2 l C. University Credit Offered for Participation in the Workshop 0 - 1 (None) 28 19 2 - 3 17 12 4 - 5 30 21 6 - 7 (Completely) 63 43 No Response 7 5 D. Choice of Four Universities for Credit 0 - 1 (None) 68 47 2 - 3 19 13 4 - 5 24 17 6 - 7 (Completely) 29 20 No Response 9 6 E. Tuition was Paid by Employer 0 - 1 (None) 93 64 2 - 3 20 13 4 - 5 15 10 6 - 7 (Completely) 14 10 No Response 3 3 Table 4.4 Participants' Rating of Original Problem Selected by Their Teams Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - l (Inappropriate) 3 2 2 - 3 6 4 4 - 5 30 21 6 - 7 (Ideal) 95 67 No Response 8 6 Table 4.5 Participants' Rating of the Amount of Coordinator or Consultant Assistance Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (Too Little) 8 6 2 - 3 37 26 4 - 5 72 52 6 - 7 (Too Heavy) l8 13 No Response 7 3 74 Table 4.6 Participants' Rating of the Quality of Coordinator or Consultant Assistance Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (Poor) 6 4 2 - 3 22 15 4 - 5 44 31 6 - 7 (Excellent) 64 46 No Response 6 4 Table 4.7 Participants' Application of Credit Hours Earned in Workshop Jr is: i]: Hours Used Toward Frequency Advanced Degree 73 Certification 36 Salary Increment 35 To Keep up with Trends in Education 2 Interest 3 Self-Improvement 2 75 Table 4.8 Participants' Rating of Workload in Comparison to Credit Earned Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (Too Light) 0 0 2 - 3 30 21 4 - 5 91 61 6 - 7 (Too Heavy) 14 10 No Response 7 S General Sessions Seven general sessions were held at Wege Center on the campus of Aquinas College in East Grand Rapids. The facilities at Wege Center consisted of an auditorium (seating capacity approximately 300), a meeting room (capable of seating approximately 50 to 60 persons), a lounge in which 2 to 3 groups could meet, and a cafeteria that was used for meals and informal discussions. A small dining room was used by the team leaders and staff to plan future general sessions during the dinner hour. Meetings of the entire workshop were held in the auditorium. When activities required meeting in small groups, 5 to 7 groups met in different parts of the auditorium- Other groups met in the meeting room in an adjacent hall and the lounge. Table 4.8 lists the respondents' rating of the physical facilities for the general sessions. Thirty-four percent of the participants rated the facilities 6 to 7 (excellent) on a seven-point scale. Comments of these participants consisted of "just fine" or 76 "they were OK”. Forty-one percent rated the facilities 4 to 5. Comments of this group were similar to those rating the facilities, i.e., good, OK, etc. Twenty-two percent of the respondents gave the facilities 2 to 3. Comments of this group included: When we met in small groups in the auditorium I was bothered by the noise from the other groups. The chairs were too hard. Poor facilities for small group meetings. Three percent of the responding participants rated the facilities 0 to 1 (poor). This group also commented on the poor facilities for small group meetings at the general sessions. Format. The agenda of the general sessions varied from meeting to meeting; however, the following is a typical format: 4:30-4:45 Coffee and distribution of any material to the participants. 4:45-5:00 General announcements and description of evening's agenda. 5:00-6:00 Some type of formal presentation to all teams. 6:00-7:00 Dinner (held in the cafeteria of Wege Center, the cost of which was covered in the initial registration fee). 7:00-8:30 Either a continuation of the 5:00-6:00 session or teams met with their university coordinator. 8:30 Adjournment. First ggneral session. The agenda for the first session October 19, 1971, included university registration, welcoming speech by the deputy superintendent of Kent Intermediate School District, description of the workshop format by a staff member of the workshop, and a description of force-field analysis, a problem solving technique the teams were to use during the session following dinner. 77 Second general session. At the second general session, held the following week (October 26, 1971), a distinguished professor from one of the universities spoke, followed by a question and answer period. After dinner the teams met to further identify their problems and make plans for the next meeting to be held at their schools. Third_ggneral session. During the third general session held November 16, 1971, a variety of options were available to the parti- cipants. These options included developing instructional material for the classroom, techniques for individualizing the classroom, evaluation, and student produced film presentation. The same programs were presented during the second session to allow participants the opportunity to become involved in two programs. Fourthvgeneral session. The focus of the fourth general session held December 14, 197waas on providing options for students within classrooms and schools. The format for this session was similar to the previous session providing four separate presentations that the participants could attend. Presentations were made on modular scheduling for the high school, creating options within the middle school, the open classroom (elementary school) and using cross-age helpers in the elementary school. Following the dinner hour the same presentations were made, which allowed the participants to attend two presentations during the evening. Fifthggeneral session. The fifth general session held on January 4, 1972 involved the participants in a series of achievement motivation strategies conducted by a consultant from one of the four universities. 78 gixthjgenerpl session. The sixth general session was held February 22, l972,for the participants to assess the group process of their team. During the first hour, teams were separated into 18 groups. Workshop staff members and graduate students from one of the univer- sities acted as group facilitators. Discussion in those groups centered on the working relation- ships and effectiveness of the teams. These groups were composed of members from different teams; therefore, the staff hoped that the discussions would be more candid. Following dinner, the participants met within their teams with a facilitator to discuss and evaluate their own group process. Seventh general session. The seventh general session was held February 29, 1972. During the first hour team members completed a questionnaire designed to assess their perceptions of the workshop. Upon completion of the questionnaire this information was shared and discussed within each team. In the session following dinner, teams had the opportunity to discuss highlights of their team's effort. Evaluation of general sessions. During the last general session the participants were asked to list; (1) the general sessions they felt were valuable and (2) general sessions they felt were of little or no value. Tables 4.9 and 4.10 indicate the participants' responses to these questions. 79 The participants rated sessions 3, 4 (presentations on a variety of topics), and 5 (achievement motivation) as valuable while they rated the rest of the sessions of little or no value. Table 4.9 Participants' Rating of General Sessions Session Number Valuable Little or No Value l 7 34 2 16 16 3 52 2 4 56 3 5 43 3 6 5 l7 7 Not Rated Not Rated All 2 8 None 12 5 Local Sessions Ten workshop sessions were held in the schools of the individual teams. These sessions were designed to permit the teams to include staff members in their meetings and to use the resources of the school. The workshop's focus was on the problems identified by each team; therefore, although there was occasional overlapping and sharing of resources, the agenda for the individual sessions varied from team to team. The following list is only a representative list of the local session activities: 80 1. discussion of the identified problem within team, 2. meetings with parents, 3. meeting with other faculty members, 4. meeting with superintendent of schools, 5. joint session.with another workshop team, 6. presentation on the open classroom by a Title III consultant, 7. meeting with representatives from junior high school to discuss transition from elementary school, 8. meeting with consultant on learning disabilities, 9. review of instructional materials. Table 4.10 Participants' Rating of the Physical Facilities for the General Session Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (Poor) 4 3 2 - 3 32 22 4 - 5 58 41 6 - 7 (Excellent) 48 34 No Response 0 0 Staff Meetings Four staff meetings to plan general sessions and discuss common problems were scheduled during the course of the workshop: In addition, brief informal meetings were held during the general sessions. However, one staff meeting was cancelled while the other three were attended by only six of the eight staff members. 81 It should be pointed out that the same two members were absent from.each staff meeting. The first was the MDE consultant who was kept from attending by meetings and other commitments at the state level. Her involvement in the workshop was on her own time not compensated for by the department. The other absent staff member felt he could not attend the meetings due to demands of his university job, and the driving distance from his university (125 miles). In addition, he stated that he should be paid for attending the meetings since it was over and above the regular commitments of teaching an off-campus course. (One other staff member from another university received extra compensation from her university for attending the staff meetings.) Staff evaluation of the workshop. A follow-up staff meeting was held April 25, 1971 (two months after the workshop ended) to review the participants' evaluations of the workshop, for the staff to evaluate the workshop effort, and to discuss future plans. Although not part of the agenda, discussion during the first part of the meeting centered around two problems with grades for the participants. Approximately six weeks after the final workshop session, the workshop coordinator began to receive calls from some of the parti- cipants complaining that some of the participants had not received their grades from the workshop. At about the same time the author began his interviews with the teams. He received the same complaint and promised to follow-up on it. A check with the university representative responsible for assigning those grades revealed that the grades had been reported to 82 the registrar's office. Howeven,for some reason, some of the grades were not mailed to the students. It was later discovered that the problem was caused by some of the procedures within the registrar's office. These procedures were later changed. In addition, new grade reports were sent to all participants in the workshOp that had enrolled with that university. The following comments were made by the staff members at the follow-up sessions: "I found that I was in a different role with each of my three teams. . . .the team could have done their work without me. Although I met with them and made occasional suggestions, I felt they had better ideas than I did . . . on the otherhand, I worked with the team quite a bit . . . in fact, I may have given them too much help." "I don't think my teams understood what my role with them was. I felt they expected me to run the show for them. I explained to them that I couldn't and wouldn't work that way, but I still think most of the team.members wanted me to lecture and be their leader." "If I'm involved in this workshop next year, I plan to spend a great deal of time in the first few sessions with the teams discussing my role and why I choose to operate in this way." "We need more feedback from our teams before we plan general sessions. . . . I felt we sometimes had general sessions just because we had them scheduled. . . . most of them weren't based on the needs of the participants." 83 "I felt the strong point of the workshop was within the teams themselves. Given an opportunity to work together they can really produce!" "1 was never satisfied with the amount of time I spent with my teams. I would just get involved with what they were doing when I'd have to leave to meet another team." In later interviews with the staff, the following evaluative comments were made. "I don't think the workshop staff drew on their own resources or the resources of the other institutions to any great extent. With few exceptions the workshop staff worked alone with their three teams. I don't know of an instance when one staff member worked with another staff member's team." "Our greatest problem was the lack of communications, both to and from the teams. The participants never understood how the money they paid above the cost of tuition was used. . . . We didn't explain to the participants that one course number from University gave only pass/fail grades . . . I don't think many of the participants understood the role the staff member was to play." In discussing the evaluation of the workshop by the partici» pants the staff suggested that it would be worthwhile to report this information to the Kent area superintendents. Meetinggwith Superintendents The final follow-up activity of the 1971-1972 Kent Interinsti- tutional WOrkshop was to report to the Kent Area Superintendent's Organization on May 19, 1972. Each superintendent was provided with a summary of the questionnaires completed by the participants which was reviewed with them by a workshop staff member. Questions from the superintendents centered around clarifi- cation of the questionnaire responses. In addition, the following statements were made by some superintendents: "I'm.enthusiastic about the effects of this type of activity. I would hope that in future sessions the people assigned to the local schools again would be people who had practical experience, who had their feet on the ground." "I would like to underscore 's comment regarding the university instructors chosen to work.with our schools. It seems to me that if the universities send some randomly selected professor to teach in a program like this you're doomed to failure . . . I hape we can continue to get the kind of help we need. . . ." "One area I'm very concerned with is that of . . . individua- lization. Our workshop team did a great deal of work in this area, but we still need to expand this to other members of the staff. I hope future workshops will include the concept of individualization as a major part of its agenda." Summary This chapter has included data regarding a description of the events in the development of the workshop, demographic data regarding the participants, and a description of the organizational structure and operation of the workshop. Chapter five will include a description of the effects of the workshop upon the participants, the staff, and their respective institutions. 85 CHAPTER V EFFECTS OF THE KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP Introduction The purpose of the Kent Interinstitutional WorkshOp was to assist local schools and school districts in the improvement of their educational programs. As is the case in most programs that include interaction among persons and institutions, many changes took place through the vehicle of the workshOp that were neither planned nor predicted prior to the workshop. In order to gather information regarding the variety of change that took place as a result of the workshop, the author reviewed reports written by the teams, conducted tape recorded interviews with the teams three months after the completion of the workshop, and reviewed notes and tape recordings of the workshop staff meetings. The reports of the effects of the workshop were organized into five general categories. These categories are: 1. Effects upon the participants, 2. Effects upon the schools, 3. Effects upon the school systems, 4. Effects upon workshop staff, 5. Effects upon the cooperating institutions. A representative sample of supporting evidence is provided for each of the five categories. 86 87 Effects Upon Participants Self improvement. As part of the workshop evaluation the participants were asked to rate the degree their workshop efforts were beneficial,to self-improvement. As indicated in Table 5.1, 64 percent (91) of the respondents felt their efforts were extremely .beneficial rating this question 6 to 7, while 32 percent rated it 4 to 5. In later interviews the following comments were made in regard to self improvement: "I have become more open with my opinions and values." "I feel I am more open with other staff members." While others felt they were more "open" to new ideas: "It is very difficult for me to accept the fact that I could be wrong about most things, but through this involvement, I am able to realize this possibility and to come to realize it isn't so terribly bad to be wrong once in a while. As you can see it's still a short-coming of mine." "I now see the importance of periodic brainstorming with colleagues. Discussion of new materials, methods, ideas, etc., is a very effective means of communication." "I'm.more aware that not everything works, that much has to be tried." Teachers and their classrooms. Two questions dealt with the effects of the workshop upon the students and the participant's classrooms. As indicated in Table 5.2, 56 percent of the respondents felt their efforts were extremely beneficial to pupils in their 88 classroom. In addition, as indicated in Table 5.3, 32 percent of the respondents felt they had implemented their goals in their classrooms to a high degree. Table 5.1 Degree WOrkshop Efforts are Beneficial to Self Improvement Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (None) 0 0 2 - 3 6 4 4 - 5 45 32 6 - 7 (Extremely) 91 64 No Response 0 0 Table 5.2 Degree WOrkshop Efforts are Beneficial to Pupils in the Classroom ===============================================fi saga“, Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (None) 5 4 2 - 3 5 4 4 4 - 5 41 29 6 - 7 (Extremely) 91 56 No Response 12 7 89 Table 5.3 Goals Implemented in the Classroom Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (None) 9 6 2 - 3 15 10 4 - 5 54 38 6 - 7 (Extremely) 47 32 No Response l7 14 Table 5.4 Goals Implemented Within the School m Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (None) , 8 6 2 - 3 13 9 4 - 5 56 39 6 - 7 (Extremely) 58 41 No Response 7 5 Thirty-eight percent rated the implementation 4 to 5 on the seven- point scale. Respondents that rated this question less than 4 indicated either that their project did not deal directly with their classroom or their program.had not yet been implemented. During the interviews conducted by the author, teachers reported a variety of change in how they operated in the classroom: 90 "I dared to openly start an Open.Classroom." "I've begun to try some of the things I've believed in for a long time, but felt were not traditional enough for this system a year ago. (Open Classroom)." "I feel that I am a better teacher without feeling pressured within myself." "I encouraged and experienced visitations in my Open.Class- room--from staff members from.ather schools, from the superintendent, from parents." "I did much more group decisiondmaking. I am trying to individualize more-~find I'm not too efficient yet." "More positive attitude toward myself and my class." "Further willingness to try a more open classroom experiment within the room, involve the students in planning and coordinating activities." "Realizing a need in the classroom for a more relaxed atmos- phere, physically and mentally." "I enjoy teaching more. The school district has given us more freedom in our classroom. We now can work with what the students have, not what someone tells us they should have." "I have again become more aware of childrens' individual growth patterns, and the need for more individualization." Teacher's perceptions of administrators. In addition, teachers reported changes in their attitude towards the administrators on their team: 91 "Our principal seems more interested in what we're doing and the methods used. He spends more time on informal classroom visits than before. I think this is important for mutual understanding." "The principal has become more open--gives more direct answers. He has an interest in trying new things--open classroom, materials center. I think being the only principal in the group was good for his ego." "I feel I have greater rapport with the principal and superintendent." "I'm more aware that pp}: principal is concerned about _l§_i_d_p and not with principalligg." Administrators. Similarly the administrators felt greater acceptance by teachers: "I feel I can freely walk into the classrooms of any of the team members without causing them to get 'uptight' ." "We are now part of an educational team now not teacher vs. administrators." One administrator stated: "I'm.more observant of what is going on in classrooms that I visit--are individual needs being met? My job is to help teachers meet some of these differences in needs." Team members. In addition to descriptions of changes within themselves, team members also reported changes in their fellow team members or within their own team: "There is an awareness that regular classroom teachers, special education teachers, and county intermediate consultants hold the same 92 general education goals (meeting individual needs) for students but each have different and unique approach to meeting these needs. We can and must work together." "We gained respect for each other's abilities." "We share a support and often migrate toward each other when in other group settings." "The individuals seem to have gained more confidence to do their 'own thing' regardless of what is happening across the hall." "You can tell who the team members are in our school, they're the ones with the open doors." "People from the Intermediate Office feel more involved and useful. The Special Education teachers have always felt sort of shot- down. I don't believe they do anymore--they know that teachers in the regular classrooms feel they are doing a good job and wouldn't dare trade places with them." "I feel that our peOple have become more aggressive»especially in looking for new ways of teaching. Looking more at the individual- ization of each student rather than a textbook sort of accomplishment. Personalities have emerged to a better point of leadership." However,some participants saw little or no change in their fellow team members: "There was not much of a change as for working together in a cooperative educational effort." "Some individuals changed temporarily and now seem to be returning to the previous pattern of teaching." 93 Effects Upon Schools At the school level, 41 percent of the respondents stated that they had completely implemented their team's goals within their school (Table 5.4) while 39 percent indicated that they had implemented their goal to some degree. In a closely related question described in Table 5.5, 58 percent of the respondents thought that their efforts were extremely beneficial to the pupils in their schools. Elementary schools. Changes within elementary schools are reflected in the following statements: "Children are allowed to present petitions for change in curriculum." "We are listening to children more, there is more child input." "We have initiated a cross-age tutoring program. There is evidence of teacher-made materials and games, more sharing of ideas and materials, more reading of professional materials, an awareness of a variety of programs and techniques being used in other schools, and more individualized planning." "Parents are now involved in planning future program changes." "We plan to provide options for parents and children next year in grades 1-3,--differentiated staffing; traditional, the differentiated staffing program will incorporate student teachers, parent volunteers, aides and much individualization." "We have begun a materials center in our building which each teacher contributed to." 94 "we have initiated a new reporting system.that substitutes grade reports for parent-teacher conferences." "Many changes within classrooms are taking place offering children more individualized learning, more choices and more activities for free movement." Another example of change within schools reported by the participants is found in this article in the Kent School News: The school is now characterized by a warm humane atmosphere with the goal of developing the child's feeling of self worth to the greatest potential. The curriculum has changed from a teacher centered, textbook oriented program to one that is child centered, teacher directed and interest oriented. The seating arrangements have been altered in the rooms, and interest centers with highly motivating materials have been developed. A cross age helper program aids in implementing the program. The results of our change have been outstanding. Teachers, children and parents are all reflecting the happy, open, humane atmosphere. . . . ' Secondary schools. Some examples of changes at the secondary school level are as follows: 1Don Chrysler, "Grandville Public Schools East Elementary A Better Way," The Kent School News, Vol. 3, No. 6, (April, 1972), pp. 1-2. 95 Table 5.5 Participants' Rating of Degree Workshop Efforts were Beneficial to Pupils in Their School ===============================:============ET" ‘7]- Rank Frequency Percentage 0 - 1 (None) 3 2 2 - 6 5 4 - 41 29 6 - 7 (Extremely) 83 58 No Response 9 6 One of the spin-off effects of our participation in the workshop is a new scheduling system that we ‘will start next year. This was not a direct result of the workshop but developed only after we had completed work on our ninth grade humanities curriculum. Previously all ninth graders were required to take humanities. Through our participation in the workshop we dropped this requirement and increased the number and type of courses offered. The result of this change was that instead of scheduling humanities students chose other courses. . . . this community has prided itself on the fact that 95 percent of our kids go on to college . . . these kids are choosing courses that are more vocationally oriented. For example, we have had to increase our shop, home economics, and typing classes by two class periods. Our team looked at the entire middle school curriculum . . . one thing that developed out of this was that on two different days we piloted an activity period for students. Students were allowed to choose from a number of options that were staffed by teachers and parents. Although we have not had any formal evaluation of the two activity periods, we think they were by-in-large successful. We hope to continue and expand the program next year . 96 Another school within the same system had also made plans for an activity period at their middle school. At the time of the inter- view they had not attempted to pilot a program. In addition, they had just received word that the school board had decided to bus ninth grade students from the high school to their school for part of the day. The team indicated that this change would keep them from implementing the activity period. In addition, to program changes participants at all levels mentioned changes of a more personal level: "We are more aware of educational changes." "There have been more visitations to other schools on the part of our entire staff." "The classroom doors are now left opened, each teacher is more ready to share with the staff." "There is a willingness to cooperate and share materials." "We have a better understanding of the problems of children at different age levels, and the problems teachers confront who teach these children. Our problems have been discussed at our after and before school sessions, and a better feeling of need to know each other's problems have been brought out in the open. Suggestions and helpful solutions have been offered." "Some teachers (those not involved) showed anxiety." "There seemed to be some tension between staff members on the team.and those not involved . . . this has dissipated since the workshop is over." 97 "Although participation in the workshop was open to all staff members, we have had questions such as 'how were you chosen to be on the team} 'how do you rate' etc." - "There was some initial negative reaction by fellow staff members regarding our participation in the workshop. Some felt they should be involved because they needed the college credit; however, we argued that the people involved in the change should be directly involved in the workshop. . . . Some still feel that they were shut out of the team." School District As indicated in Table 5.6, 70 percent of the respondents thought that their workshop efforts were beneficial to their school district. Table 5.6 Participants' Rating of Degree WOrkshop Efforts were Beneficial to Their School District 1L 4========== Rank Frequency Percentage 'o - 1 (None) 4 3 2 - 3 3 A 2 4 - 5 29 20 6 - 7 (Extremely) 99 70 No Response 7 5 Some examples of district wide change are: "Within the district we have developed a cross-age helper program in.which high school students go to three of the elementary 98 schools and work with younger children. This seems to be a program that is beneficial to both the high school and elementary students." "We have a better understanding of the concerns of teachers at other grade levels." "There is more building autonomy regarding selection of materials and budgeting." "Communication between other schools in our district has increased: Example: teachers exchanging ideas, students visi- tation, discussion on not having to follow each other in subject matter." ". . . we interviewed students and parents at all grade levels to find how they viewed the school and how they would like to see it change. . . . we included students from the elementary school too . . . we were surprised with the valuable ideas that even 10 and 11 year olds had . . . It was an eye-opener." "Since only a few of us had an opportunity to be involved in the workshop, our school board paid for a two day session for our entire staff at Walden Woods Conference Center. We used an in-service day on Friday and a Saturday of our own time. For the first time school board members, administrators, and teachers spent two days getting acquainted, and discussing where we were and where we wanted to go in our school district." Effects Upon the Staff The effects of the worksh0p reported by staff members do not appear to be in the area of behavioral or attitudinal change 99 but rather a reinforcement or broadening of those behaviors and beliefs already held. Comments from the staff included: "My involvement in the workshop gave me a chance to put theory into practice. In other words, could I carry out what I believed and taught. I found it is a lot easier to talk about change than it is to put it into operation." "I think one important outcome for me was that this khe workshofl gave me a chance to become closely involved with a school district for the first time in two or three years. . . . I think it was good for me to become involved with the every day problems of a school and the peOple who work there." "The workshop helped me clarify some ideas about working ‘with people and what helping people really means. I found that I had to operate differently with each of my three groups." Effects Upon the Institutions The following description of the effects upon the institutions cooperating in the Kent Interinstitutional WOrkshop is taken from interviews with the workshop staff and university extension directors. Effects upon the cooperative universities. A variety of changes took place within the universities as a result of their participation in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. The following information is taken from interviews with the workshop staff and the three university extension directors from.Grand Rapids Center. Changg in course offeringp. "The Kent Interinstitutional. Workshop had part in developing a new approach . . . a new commitment 100 in the kinds of courses and the manner in which it made its resources available to the community." "This . . . was a contract course, it was not defined, the staff defined it. Since the workshop, our university center has increased the number of contract courses to a point that over one- third of our business will be done through contract courses." "I feel that the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop contributed to University's confidence in this way of working. It wasn't solely responsible for this change in attitude, but it was influential." Increase further cooperation. "The workshop also encouraged our university to increase its cooperation with the universities other than within the Grand Rapids University Center to a point where very soon this may become in truth a University Center, with its own staff, apart from any university. Part of the agreement is that students could exchange credits without limit. Change in university registration policy. "During the initial enrollment of participants in the workshop, the coordinator discovered that some people could not enroll in the workshop because they had missed the deadline at one of the universities for registering in a graduate program or that they could not take courses until they had been.admitted to a graduate program." "The coordinator of the workshop wrote to one of the vice presidents of the university and also discussed the problem with another university administrator. As a result, the policy was modified to eliminate the dead lines for registration." 101 "In speaking of the change in registration procedure the director of extension of that university said, ". . . that it enhanced the university's ability to serve its students . . . it also enhanced the cooperation among universities." Effects Upon the Kent Intermediate School System The following information is taken from an interview with the workshop coordinator. "1 think we made teachers more aware of the Intermediate office as a source of information . . . we communicated at the teacher level . . . . It has enhanced our communication. The types of requests for assistance lead us to believe the initial information came from someone who had been in KIW. For example, I have received calls from schools not enrolled in the worksh0p requesting information regarding schools that want to visit other parts of the state. These have been the same school teams from KIW visits. In addition, I've had requests for some of the consultants we used to talk to parent groups and groups of teachers. We have planned in-service programs for schools and entire school systems based on the interest generated by one or two of the workshop teams." Effects upon the Michiggn Department of Education The following information is based on an interview with the staff member who had represented the MDE in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. At the time of the interview she was no longer employed with the Department. "The effects of the workshop upon the Department were minimal." 102 "Some of the administrators were aware of the workshOp; however, it was not perceived as top priority of all of the tasks for which the Department was responsible. Consequently, the Department didn't make a real commitment to the workshop." "The Department of Education does not believe that service to educators based on field-centered needs is any longer its major role. This change in the philosophy and role of the Department was partially responsible for less than desirable commitment and respon- sibility to the workshop." She further stated, "If the Department would increase its commitment to the workshop there could be a greater tie between workshop teams and Department resources including instructional specialists, ESEA Title III projects, etc." Summary This chapter has included a description of the effects of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop upon the participants, the staff, and their respective institutions. The final chapter of this study will include a summary of the study, conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for further study. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This chapter contains a sunmary of the study, conclusions drawn from.the data analysis, as well as recommendations for interinstitutional in-service projects, and suggestions for further study. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to present a detailed description of the development, operation and effects of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, an in-service program conducted during the 1971-1972 school year for educators in the Kent County, Michign area. The interinstitutional workshop concept was originally developed in Wayne County, Michigan in 1967 and is still in operation there. The Kent Workshop was the first attempt to develop the model in another area of the state. Literature on interinstitutional cooperation was reviewed with focus on the growth of consortium efforts, factors influencing the develOpment and functioning of cooperative programs, and a review of cooperative programs designed to provide in-service programs for educators. Data for the study were gathered through the review of written material, including minutes of staff meetings, correspondence 103 104 to and from the coordinator of the workshop, reports written by teams, and through tape recorded interviews with participants and staff members. The data were organized in order to provide a description of: (1) the development of the workshop, (2) the operation of the workshop, (3) the effects upon the participants, the staff, and their respective institutions. The development of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop took place over a period of one year through a series of informal and formal discussions with representatives of the wayne Inter- institutional WOrkshop, Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, the University of Michigan, Central Michigan University, the Kent Intermediate School District, the Michigan Department of Education and the local school districts. Unique features of the workshop included: 1. TEAM APPROACH--The participants in the workshop were teams of educators who represented schools or school districts. 2. CHOICE OF UNIVERSITIES-flew members had a choice of four universities from which they could receive 4 semester or 6 term hours of credit for their work. Thus, instead of school staff members attending separate universities for course work, they were brought together as a team to work on problems of common concern within their school. 3. FOCUS ON PROBLEM SOLVING--The workshop focused on assisting teams to develop problem solving skills, and to utilize these skills toward solving their identified 105 problem. Therefore, although the individual problem focus varied from team to team. there was a common general focus and a sharing of ideas and resources. 4. FLEXIBLE FORMAT--The format of the workshop which consisted of 17 sessions provided a variety of activities. Seven sessions were held at a central location to focus on team building, problem solving, and a variety of topics of general interest such as develoPing instructional materials, the open classroom, and values clarification. The remaining 10 sessions were held in the schools of each team. permitting them to draw on the resources of their school, and to share ideas with staff members not enrolled in the workshop. 5. EXTENSIVE RESOURCES--The resources of the State Department of Education, the Intermediate School District, four universities and their own school district, were available to the team, to assist them in solving their identified problems. 6. CONSULTANT-COORDINATORS--The workshop staff members from the four universities acted as consultants and resource coordinators to the teams regardless of which universities the team.members had enrolled in. 7. EXTENDED TIME--The workshop was held over a five month period, allowing teams to try out new ideas and refine or change them where they found it appropriate. The 168 participants enrolled in the workshop were members of 18 teams from school districts in the Kent County area. The 106 participants represented a wide variety of age groups, educational training and professional experience. While the specific topic or problem focus differed from team to team their general focus was on creating greater flexibility within educational programs, and individualizing instruction. Factors that appear to have influenced the participants to enroll in the workshop are: (1) participants could receive credit from the university of their choice, (2) the workshop emphasized a team approach to solving curriculum problems, (3) the participants were interested in the specific problem identified by their team. The workshop provided a vehicle for change on the part of the participants, staff and their respective institutions. The changes reported by the participants were generally toward a greater openness to new ideas and a greater sharing of ideas and resources among the team members. In general, the staff members of the workshop saw their participation in the workshop as a chance to put theory into practice and to work closely with teachers in the local school setting. The effects upon the schools (both elementary and secondary) were toward greater individualization of learning and creating greater options for students. Changes at the university level were toward being more responsive to the needs of the off-campus student. Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn from the data presented in this study: 107 The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in fulfilling the stated purpose of the workshop: "to assist a team from a local school to utilize group effort in solving professional problems related to the educational offerings in their system". The Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in facilitating attitudinal and/or behavioral change by participants. The teams' participation in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in facilitating program change within their schools and school districts. Participation in the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop was effective in facilitating change within the cooperating universities. Recommendations The following recommendations are made regarding the diffusion of the interinstitutional workshop model: 1. THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP MODEL SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO OTHER GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF MICHIGAN. OTHER DISCIPLINES IN HIGHER EDUCATION SHOULD CONSIDER THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP MODEL AS A METHOD OF PROVIDING EXTENSION COURSES AND OTHER OFF-CAMPUS ACTIVITIES. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS MODEL SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS IN WHICH THERE HAS BEEN A DISPOSITION TO WORK COOPERATIVELY ON THE PART OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. The universities and staff members of both the Wayne 108 and Kent Interinstitutional workshops had previously worked together in a variety of educational programs. This is especially true in Kent County where three of the universities had worked cooperatively since 1965 through the university center in Grand Rapids. NEW INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOPS SHOULD INCLUDE SOME MEMBERS FROM OTHER WORKSHOPS ON THEIR STAFF. The use of experienced staff members would be especially helpful in the initial stages of the workshop's development. THE SUPPORT OF LOCAL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD BE ENLISTED PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERINSTI- TUTIONAL WORKSHOP. The support of local school administrators is crucial to the success of the workshop. In the case of the Kent Workshop many schools provided substitute teachers to permit teachers to visit other schools and in some cases paid the tuition and fees for their teachers. PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY ON THE PART OF ALL INSTITUTIONS AND PERSONS INVOLVED. The importance of the voluntary nature of the entire workshop cannot be over emphasized. All of the institutions involved in the workshop including Kent Intermediate School District, the Michigan Department of Education, the four universities, and the local school districts, became involved in the workshop due to the interest of certain staff members in the project. In addition, the entire staff of the workshop were not 109 assigned to the workshop but were either asked or volunteered to participate in the project. Finally, the participants enrolled in the workshop because of their interest in the workshop and the topic or problem focus of their team. Several recommendations can be made for the continued operation of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. 1. THE WORKSHOP STAFF SHOULD ENTER INTO ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN STAFF DEVELOPMENT, i.e., improving communications, resource sharing, and team building. One vehicle for this activity should be a two or three day retreat prior to the beginning of the workshop. THE WORKSHOP STAFF SHOULD DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE METHOD OF RECEIVING FEEDBACK FROM THE TEAMS REGARDING THEIR NEEDS AND TO DEVELOP GENERAL SESSIONS BASED ON THESE NEEDS. STAFF MEMBERS SHOULD UTILIZE THE EXPERTISE OF FELLOW STAFF MEMBERS AND THE RESOURCES OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN ASSISTING THEIR TEAMS. In general the workshop staff worked only with their three assigned teams during the local sessions. EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO UTILIZE THE AVAILABLE INSTI- TUTIONAL RESOURCES, especially those of the intermediate school district and of the State Department of Edutation. THE WORKSHOP STAFF SHOULD INVOLVE GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE WORKSHOP. The utilization of graduate students 10. 110 working in the area of staff and program.develOpment would provide valuable field experience for the students in addition to assisting the workshop. These students might be assigned to staff members as interns or graduate assistants. THE WORKSHOP STAFF SHOULD ASSIST TEAMS IN THE IDENTI- FICATION OF PROBLEMS, PRIOR TO THEIR ENROLLMENT IN THE WORKSHOP. Although this assistance would be time consuming, it would reduce the dissonance and changing of topics during the first few weeks of the workshop. THE WORKSHOP SHOULD PROVIDE A LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR TEAM LEADERS PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF THE WORKSHOP. THE UNIVERSITIES SHOULD CONSIDER CHANGING FROM A LETTER OR NUMERICAL GRADING SYSTEM TO A CREDIT, NOwCREDIT OR PASS/FAIL GRADING SYSTEM FOR THE WORKSHOP. THE UNIVERSITIES SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO INSURE THAT THE WORKSHOP NOT BECOME THE EXCLUSIVE PROGRAM OF ONE DEPARTMENT OR GROUP WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY. THE WORKSHOP STAFF MEMBERS REPRESENTING UNIVERSITIES SHOULD MAKE EFFORTS TO INFORM THEIR COLLEAGUES AS TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE WORKSHOP AND TO ENCOURAGE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY AS PART OF THE GRADUATE PROGRAMS OF OFF-CAMPUS STUDENTS. 111 Personal Reactions The following personal reactions are based on the author's experience in the dual role as researcher and staff member with the 1971-1972 Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. These reactions are presented in the hope that they will assist those persons who wish tO develop a similar cooperative program. There are several factors that contributed to the success of the workshop. Planning. First, a great deal of time was spent by representatives of the participating institutions in exploring the idea of the workshOp and later in describing this concept to area administrators. Administrative support. The area administrator's statement Of support of the workshop was a second and extremely important factor contributing to the workshop's success. This support was based more on trust in the persons presenting the proposal than on the proposal itself. Staff commitment. Although official commitment for interin- stitutional cooperation may have come from high in the administrative hiarchy of each institution, the success of the workshop was based almost entirely on the ability of the staff members to cooperate and their willingness to commit extra time and energy toward making it a success. 112 The coordinator. Finally, if there was any one key to the success of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop it was the person who served as its coordinator. To her fell the many time consuming tasks required to make the workshop run smoothly. Suggestions for Further Study There are several suggestions which can be made for persons interested in studying an interinstitutional model of in-service education. 1. A STUDY OF THE DIFFUSION OF THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP MODEL THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN WOULD BE A DESIRABLE AREA OF RESEARCH. At the present time at least three intermediate school districts in Michigan are considering the Interinstitutional Workshop model for use in their areas. A study of the diffusion of the model might study the various methods of implementing the model as compared to their degree of success. A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF INTERINSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION UPON THE MEMBER INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE VALUABLE. A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE ATTITUDINAL AND/OR BEHAVIORAL CHANGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE WORKSHOP WOULD BE HELPFUL IN FURTHER ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT. A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE PROGRAM.CHANCES WITHIN THE PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS WOULD PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE WORKSHOP. 5. 113 A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE METHOD OF OPERATION AMONG STAFF MEMBERS ASSIGNED TO TEAMS IN THE WORKSHOP AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS MIGHT PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION FOR STAFFING OF FUTURE WORKSHOPS. A STUDY OF THE SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN KENT COUNTY THAT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKSHOP AND THEIR REASONS FOR NOT PARTICIPATING MIGHT PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION FOR MEETING THE NEEDS OF THESE SYSTEMS FOR IN-SERVICE EDUCATION. B IBL IOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Carron, Malcolm. The Contract Colleges at Cornell University. New York: Cornell University Press, 1958. Ertell, Merton W. Interinstitutional Cooperation in Higher Education. Albany, New York: University of the State of New York, 1957. Hawley, Amos H. Human Ecology. New York: The Ronald Press, 1951. Hill, Alfred T. "COOperation Among Small Colleges", George F. Donson, ed. College and University Interinstitutional Cooperation. Washington, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, April, 1967. In-Service Education for School Administration. Washington, D. C.,: American Association of School Administration, 1963. Kelley, Earl C. The Workshpp Way of Learning. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Kimball, Wiles. Supervision for Better Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. ~ Moore, Raymond. Interinstitutional Cooperation. American.Association for Higher Education, National Education Association, Washington, D. C. Mulkh, Raj Chilana. In-Service Education of Elementary Teachers. New Delhi, India: Indian Association of Teacher-Educators, 1968. Report by the Association of American.Colleges as Reported in Wayne W. Anderson, COOperation Within American Education. Associa- tion of American Colleges, 1964. Russell, James E. Change and Challenge in American Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965. Sanford, Daniel 8., Jr. Interinstitutional Agreement in Higher Education. New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. Random House, July, 1970. 115 116 PERIODICALS Bennett, Terone, Jr. "The African Past", Ebony, Vol. 16, (July, 1961). Campbell, Clyde M. "The Interinstitutional Workshop", The Community School and Its Administration, Vol. 1, NO. 2, (1962). Chase, Francis S. "Midwest CPEA Aims and Results", The School Executive, LXXIII, (March, 1954). Chrysler, Don. "Grandville Public Schools East Elementary A Better Way", The Kent School News, Vol. 3, No. 6, (April, 1972). Coppact, Vol. 6, No. 3, (June, 1972). Divine, Sara. "Cooperative Program in Elementary Education", Educational Leadership, Vol. XVII, No. 6, (March, 1960). Doherty, Victor W. "Something New in In-Service Education: Portland's Carnegie Program", American School Board Journal, Vol. CL, No. 5, OMay, 1965). Ertell, Merton W. "Toward a Philosophy of Interinstitutional Cooper- ation", Educational Record, Vol. 39, No. 2, (April, 1958). Fischer, Floyd. "Inter-institutional Arrangements, Capitalizing on Differences in Resources", The Spectator, Vol. XXXVI, No. 6, (November/December, 1971). Giaudrone, Angelo. "New England CPEA Report on In-Service Professional Development", The School Executive, (March, 1955). Goodlad, John and Jordan, Floyd. "When School and College Cooperate", Educational Leadership, Vol. VII, No. 7, (April, 1950). Hage, Jerald and Aiken, Michael. "Program Change and Organizational Properties: A Comparative Analysis, American Journal of Sociology, (March, 1967). Patterson, Lewis D. "The Potential of Consortia", Compact, Vol. 5, No. 5, (October, 1971). Shufelt, Lynn F. "A Cooperative In-Service Organization", The National Elementary School Principal, Vol. XLIV, No. 1, (September, 1964). Solwak, Stanley F. "The Need for Cooperation and the CIC Response", Educational Record, Vol. 45, No. 3, (Summer, 1964). Wittich, John J. "The College Center Mbvement Comes of Age", College and University Journal, Vol. 1, (Summer, 1962). 117 OTHER SOURCES A Pilot Program to Improve the Quality of Education in the Wayne County Intermediate School District through Consortia of Interinsti- tutional Arrangements for In-Service Education, submitted as part of the Michigan State Department of Education, Title III, Preposal to the U. 8. Office of Education, Washington, D. C. Agenda, Planning Session for Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, July 14, 1971. Author's notes of Kent Interinstitutional Workshop, September 22, 1971. Bird, Barbara, Kent Intermediate School District Curriculum Consultant and Coordinator of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop. Personal interview, May 19, 1972. Bird, Barbara, letter to superintendents and schools in Kent County, dated May 28, 1971. Blackman, Charles A., Professor of Education, Michigan State University, and staff member of both the Wayne and Kent Interinstitutional Workshops. Personal interview. Deal, Albert, Superintendent of Kent Intermediate School District, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Personal interview, May 19, 1972. Evaluation Summary of Innovation Workshop for Wayne County Eduopgprs, mimeographed , (May, 1968) . Fox, Robert S. and Griffin, Don A. et. al., "Toward a New Model For In-Service Educationr-An Interinstitutional Approach, (mimeo- graphed) Submitted for publication to Educational Leadership. Howard, Lawrence C. Interinstitutional Cooperation in Higher Education, New Dimensions in Higher Education, Number 21, (Washington, D. C. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, April, 1967). Kent Interinstitutional Budget, March 21, 1972. Marcus, J. D., Dean Off-Campus Registration, Central Michigan Univer- sity, in telephone conversation with author, August 30, 1972. Minutes of the Wayne Interinstitutional Workshop staff meeting, July 1, 1970. Sorenson, Virginia. Ap.Analysis of Interinstitutional Cooperation with Special Focus on Grand Rppids University Center, unpublished thesis--Michigan State University, (March, 1970). 118 PAMPHLETS AND REPORTS Accredited Institutions of Higher Education, The American Council on Education. (washington, D. C., 1964). Accredited Institutions of Higher Education, The American Council on Education. (Washington, D. C., 1972). Chamber, M. M. Voluntary Statewide Coordination. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1961. Millet, John D. "Financing Higher Education", A Staff Report to the Commission on Financinngigher Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Russell, John Dale. Higher Education in Michigan Final Report--The Survey of Higher Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan, (September, 1958). APPENDICES APPENDIX A KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP Participant Survey Name Sex - M. F School District Present Position (teachers include grade and/or subject taught) Years experience in education including this year Years employed by present school system including this year Type of certificate Elementary Provisional ______Secondary Provisional Elementary Permanent ______Secondary Permanent Other (please explain) Place a check beside the university from which you are receiving credit for this workshop. _____ Central Michigan University _____ University of Michigan Michigan State University _____ Western Michigan University Educational training __ BA or BS __ BA plus ____ hours MA or equivalent hours ______MA plus ______hours Educational Specialist _____.Ph. D. or DE. D. Age- ______20 - 24 ._____ 25 - 29 _____ 30 - 34 _____ 35 - 39 ___40-44____45-49___50-54_____55-59 _____.60 - 65 120 10. ll. 12. 121 Are the hours earned in this workshop being applied toward: a. an advanced degree b. certification c. salary increment d. other (please explain) e. none of the above How did you learn of the Kent Interinstitutional Workshop? From a (an): a. teacher b. principal c. superintendent d. Kent Intermediate consultant e. announcement from the Kent Intermediate office f. staff of University Extension g. brochure from University Extension h. University advisor 1. other (please explain) Listed below are some continuing education activities that many educators become involved in during their careers. In the space provided beside each activity indicate the approximate number of times you have been involved in it within the last five years. in-service‘workshops weekend conferences or retreats professional conferences (state) professional conferences (national) visitations to other schools or programs university extension courses (indicate number of courses) on-campus courses (indicate number of courses) travel for educational purposes other (please explain) 122 The following scales are designed to assess your reasons for enrolling in this workshop. Place a check on each scale to indicate the degree of influence the statement above it had on your enrollment in the workshop. For example, in the first scale if your school system is paying your tuition and that is your sole reason for enrolling you would check numbers p or Z. If they are paying but you had planned to enroll anyway you might mark numbers 9.0r 1. If your system is not paying you would check 9. In all cases where the statement does not apply to you place a check on the Q. How much did the following factors influence your decision to enroll in this workshop? 1. Full payment of tuition or promise of reimbursement by my employer. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Partial payment of tuition or promise of partial reimbursement by my employer. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Credit toward certification. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Credit toward advanced degree. 5. The topic or problem identified by the team. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Four semesters has (6 term hours) of credit. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Team approach to solving curriculum problem. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Encouragement or pressure from fellow teachers. 10. ll. 12. Encouragement or pressure from an administrator. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Choice of four universities for credit. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 University credit was offered for participation in the workshop. 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 The workshop was Interinstitutional. 123 APPENDIX B KENT INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE Team School District How would you rate the physical facilities for the general session? Poor Excellent 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: How would you rate the physical facilities for local school sessions? Poor Excellent 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: How would you rate the dinner arrangements for the general session? Poor Excellent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: 124 8. 10. 11. 125 How would you rate the quality of coordinator or consultant assistance? Poor Excellent 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: Which of the general sessions (if any) were helpful to you and/ pr your team? Please explain: Which Of the general sessions (if any) were of little or no help to you or your team? Please Explain: To what degree have you implemented your goals for the workshop in your classroom? None Completely 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: 4. 126 How many general sessions should be scheduled? (Six were scheduled for this workshop) . Comments: How many local sessions should be scheduled? (Ten were scheduled for this workshop) . Comments: How would you rate the workload you had in the workshop in terms of the amount of credit earned? Too Light Too Heavy l 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: How would you rate the amount of coordinator or consultant assistance? Too Little Too Much 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: 12. 13. 14. 15. 127 To what degree do you feel your workshop efforts are beneficial to pupils in your classroom? None Extremely O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: To what degree do you feel your workshop efforts are beneficial to self-improvement? None Extremely O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: To what degree has your team implemented its goals within your school? None Completely 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: To what degree do you think your team’s efforts are beneficial to pupils in your school? None Extremely 0 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 Comments: 16. 17. 18. 19. 128 How‘would you rate the working relations within your team? Poor Excellent Comments: How would you rate the working relations between your team and the rest of your staff? Poor Excellent Comments: To what degree do you feel your workshop efforts are beneficial to your school district? None Extremely 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: How do you NOW rate the problem selected by your team? Inappropriate Ideal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: wwmwereeel 20. 21. 22. 129 In the space provided below describe other items of interest or concern that your team effort generated. Are there any system wide issues (concerns) which have emerged since the beginning of the workshop? (Please describe). How do they relate to what your team has been doing? In what way might you evaluate the effects of your efforts during this workshop? 130 23. In what way might you evaluate your proposals this year? 24. To what extent do you feel you know what your next steps should be for implementing your workshop efforts? Have quit trying Positive 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: 131 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW GUIDE* 1. What direct or indirect effect, if any, has your team’s participa- tion in the workshop had on your school? 2. What direct or indirect effect, if any, has your team's partici- pation in the workshop had on your school system? 3. What direct or indirect effects, if any, has the participation in the workshop had upon the other members of your team? 4. What direct or indirect effects, if any, has the participation in the workshop had upon you? * The questions listed in this guide were used as an outline for interviews with the teams. The questions were elaborated on in order to clarify some of the answers by the team members. 132 ent intermediate school district Albert L. Deal, Superintendent APPENDIX D May 28, 1971 In response to the interest shown by the Superintendents at the May 14, 1971 meeting of Kent County Superintendent's Association we are pursuing plans for an Interinstitutional WOrkshop for the 1971-1972 school year. This workshop is a new venture in curriculum and staff development where we will utilize the resources of several universities. We would like to invite you to form a team.from you school staff to participate in this Interinstitutional WOrkshop for improving school programs. In this workshop local school educators receive credit for seeking solutions to problems they identify as existing in their own school building or system. The Kent Intermediate School District, as a service to you, has accepted the responsibility for notifying each local school district of the workshop and coordinating all activities related to it. To assist us in planning, will you please review the enclosed materials with your staff and return the pre-registration form by June 15, 1971. If you would like to have one of the local extension center directors, Tony Anttonen of M.S.U. or Geoffrey Smith of U. of M. or Barrett Vorce of W.M.U. or Maurice M. Gillender or Barbara Bird of Kent Intermediate Schools meet with your administrative staff to discuss the Interinstitutional Workshop, please contact me. Sincerely, Barbara Bird Curriculum Consultant 2650 East Beltline S. E., Grand Rapids, Michlgan 49506 ’Phone 949-7270 133 KENT INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2650 East Beltline, S.E. Grand Rapids, Michigan KENT COUNTY INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP for IMPROVING SCHOOL PROGRAMS WHAT IS A WORKSHOP? A workshop is a group effort to solve problems; in this case profes- sional problems related to the improvement of learning opportunities for pupils in school. The workshop assumes that: 1. Every participant is a resource person and that everyone is a learner. 2. Significant learning is related to an individual's current concerns which he has aided in identifying. 3. Leadership which frees people and enables them to tap their unique capabilities will be most productive of (a) effective problem solving, (b) the deveIOpment of problem-solving skills, and (c) the development of the professional capabilities of school staff members. PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP: To assist a team from a local school to utilize group effort in solving professional problems related to the educational offerings in their system. UNIQUENESS OF WORKSHOP: 1. Participants are members of SCHOOL TEAMS. Their focus is upon system or building level curriculum or instruction problems. They provide a support system for one another in facilitating program improvements. 2. Administrators are members of the team. To the extent that implementation rests with the building principal, he has an opportunity to examine this responsibility and to plan appropriate action. 134 3. LOCATION of the workshop sessions permits sharing of concerns and a chance for general sessions (COMMON MEETING PLACE) and an opportunity to draw upon school staff ‘members not enrolled in the workshop (LOCAL SCHOOL AS MEETING PLACE). 4. RESOURCES are drawn from three types of institutions: INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND UNIVERSITIES. 5. Enrollment for credit is possible at M.S.U., U. of M., and W.M.U. GENERAL INFORMATION ENROLLMENT: Official enrollment and payment fees will take place at the central location on Tuesday, October 19, 1971. Pre-registration materials will be sent to each participant from the university of his choice. SESSIONS: There will be a total of seventeen sessions, one session on Tuesday, October 5, 1971 will be only for team leaders. Seven general sessions will take place at Wege Center. All other team meetings will be conducted at your school unless team needs warrant grouping to more adequately meet needs. The workshops will terminate on Tuesday, February 29, 1972. CREDIT: A team member may enroll for graduate or undergraduate credit from the university of his choice: CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY (4) Semester hours of credit (ED 408) MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (6) Term hours of credit (ED 881 or ED 884) UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN - (4) Semester hours of credit (ED D-506 or D-508) WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY (4) Semester hours of credit (ED 502) 135 COST: The total fee for participation in the workshop will be $175.00. This includes tuition and dinner for the seven general sessions. All checks should be made out to: Kent Intermediate School District, not the university. NON-CREDIT: Team members who do not wish to take the workshop for credit will pay the stipulated fee and enroll as auditing participants. TEAM MEMBERS: Each enrollee must be a member of a team from the school district in which he is employed. Anyone who is not a member of a team will not be permitted to participate in the workshop. TEAM LEADERS: Each school will select its own team leader (not necessarily an admin- istrator) to assist in planning workshops. Educators from Central Michiyn University, University of Michigan, Western Michigan University, Michigan Department of Education, and Kent Intermediate School District will aid in staffing this Inter- institutional WOrkshop for Improving School Programs: 1. The workshop staff members will serve as coordinators and will identify pertinent research findings and other sources of information as well as providing expertise in group dynamics, problem identification, problem solving techniques, and change process. 2. The workshop staff members will identify common elements in the problems identified by the teams and make presen- tations based upon the common elements identified. One technique for identifying common elements is to establish a team representative council which could be charged with providing continual feedback and evaluation to the staff as well as assisting in planning the workshop's general sessions. 3. Staff members of the Kent Intermediate School District and local university extension center directors have agreed to serve as resource people during the workshop. They are available for problem identification and other pre-planning activities and for follow-up activities on a request basis. l. 136 4. Appropriate resource people will also be secured from other agencies, institutions and organizations if needed by teams. FORMAT OF WORKSHOP The workshop will meet on Tuesdays from 4:30 to 8:30 with dinner an integral part of the workshop. The first session will commence on Tuesday, October 19, 1971. The first two sessions will take place at a central location. These two sessions will be for general information and problem identification. Five additional general sessions will be announced. later. All other team meetings will be conducted at your school. A typical session at the central location may follow this format: 4:30 - 4:45 Participants sign attendance forms. Team.leaders pick up and distribute newsletters and other materials to team members. 4:45 - 5:00 General announcements and sharing of items of interest to all. 5:00 - 5:30 WOrkshop professors make formal presentations of topics pertinent to all. 5:30 - 6:30 Dinner--Team.representatives meet with professors to plan topics for general sessions. 6:30 - 8:30 Individual teams meet with professors to work on their specific problem or area of interest. When teams meet at their own schools, the major responsibility for planning and arranging for a successful session rests with the team.leader and he may utilize the peOple on the team or other members of his school district. The professor or intern assigned to each team will work out a schedule for visitation. 137 PRE-REG ISTRATION FORM For the INTERINSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL PROGRAMS Name of School District Name of School Building Name of Contact Person Telephone number Name of school building to be used by workshop team when not meeting in the central location: Please state the problem your team has selected and will attempt to solve. (Be as specific as possible). Tentative number in team: Teams shall consist of a minimum of five (5) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members. If more than twelve (12) members from a school district wish to participate, two or more teams of at least (5) members each may be formed. An initial meeting of team leaders and a person identified to assist in planning the general sessions and evaluations will be held on Tuesday, October 5, 1971 from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. The site to be announced later. PLEASE RETURN BY JUNE 15, 1971 TO: Barbara Bird, Curriculum Consultant Kent Intermediate School District 2650 East Beltline, S.E. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 138 APPENDIX E Rpous 31: FOR EVALUAT ION (Return by November 9) NAME TEAM (School) WITH WHICH INSTITUTION ARE YOU ENROLLED? I am.interested in submitting to the staff for their evaluation, evidence regarding my personal commitment and contribution to the project undertaken by our team. My plans are as follows: By February 22, I expect to submit such evidence as the following: U 1293 03178 0327 ll'llll'“ mlmllmlll 3 " H III. H II HI 1 I