.. r i ‘m P Q? (.1? '7; a F m w? “ if: 1.51.. _ t - ‘i “A v? I!" I. “' 1' ' " “ " ' x :w- «hffirq' .' I‘. r *3”- t t ‘ «2 1;"; 4.153 2? r ‘3 v- 5 u “I r m 4- . i $5"; “(via-c. E’Céy ‘ l This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF GOAL PRIORITIES FOR THE TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT presented by PHYLLIS MARIE BOYLE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH 0 D 0 degree in ADMINISTRATION / Major professor Date Nov. 11, 1982 M5 U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES v RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A STUDY OF GOAL PRIORITIES FOR THE TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT By Phyllis Marie Boyle A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF GOAL PRIORITIES FOR THE TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT By Phyllis Marie Boyle The purpose of this study was to determine which of the learner goals should receive priority attention in terms of curriculum planning and allocation of resources to meet learner needs. This study attempted to measure the learner goals and the extent to which they are being achieved by the schools based on the opinions of secondary-school stu- dents, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools in the city of Toledo. The instrument used to collect data was an l8-item questionnaire based on Harold Spears' Goals of Education. Participants were asked to score the goals on a l-S Likert scale to indicate (l) how much the schools §h931g_be helping each student with each goal and (2) how much the schools are ggw_helping students with each goal. The goals were ranked according to the discrepancies between the shgglg_and g9w_ responses. The goals with the largest discrepancies were ranked as first-priority goals. Six hypotheses were used to determine if there were significant differences between the should and'ggw_perceptions for each group Phyllis Marie Boyle on each goal. These hypotheses were tested with t-tests at the .05 significance level. Conclusions Relative to the Shoulds l. Students, educators, and nonparents agreed that "Reading, Writing & Listening" is the goal that §h9g1g_receive the greatest emphasis in working with students. 2. Parents of students in the Toledo Public Schools regarded "Pride in Work" and parents of students in private schools felt that "General Education" §h9u1g_be emphasized most. 3. When Opinions of all five groups were considered collec- tively, "Reading, Writing & Listening" was ranked as the highest should. Conclusions Relative to the News l. Students and educators agreed that "Reading, Writing & Listening" is ggw_being emphasized to the greatest extent by the schools. 2. Parents and parents of students in private schools agreed that "General Education" is M being emphasized to the greatest extent. 3. The composite group considered "General Education" the goal g9w_being emphasized. There were similarities in goal perceptions among students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools based on the first five priority rankings concerning g9w_ goal emphasis and shgglg_goal emphasis. These similarities indicate that representatives of the five groups may be able to work coopera- tively in terms of curriculum development. This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Bill, for his love, patience, and support; to my children, Wade, Wayne, and Jodi; and to my parents for their support through the many years of school- ing. Without their support this study would not have been possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her sincere appreciation to those who have contributed to the development of this study: To Dr. Louis Romano, committee chairman, for his excellent counsel, guidance, encouragement, and personal interest during the development and completion of this study. To Dr. Philip Marcus, member of the guidance committee, for his encouragement and assistance with the statistical aspects of the study. ' To Dr. John Suehr, member of the guidance committee, for his friendship and encouragement throughout the study. To Mrs. Terry Bush, typist and personal friend, for her excellent work. To Mark Henisen, Marketing and Management, The University of Toledo, who implemented the statistical program design. To my dear friends, Ned and Sue Skeldon, for their encourage- ment and support throughout this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................... Chapter I. NATURE OF THE STUDY ................... The Problem ...................... Introduction .................... Setting of the Study ................. Purpose of the Study ................. Hypotheses ...................... Questions for Study ..... p ............. Significance of the Problem .............. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study ....... Definition of Terms .................. Organization of the Study ............... II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............. Historical Review ................... Goal Perceptions and Priorities ............ Introduction .................... Historical Perspective ............... Results of Goal-Perception Studies ......... The Systems Approach to Developing Educational Goals and Objectives ................ Needs-Assessment Surveys ............... Introduction .................... Goal Setting and Long-Range Planning ......... Summary ........................ III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................... The Instrument .................... Validity ...................... Reliability ..................... Methods and Procedures ................ Sampling Techniques ................. Collection of Data .................. Treatment of Data ................... Summary ........................ iv Page IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ............ 57 Introduction ..................... 57 Descriptive Analysis ................. 58 Discussion of the Should Responses ......... 60 Discussion of the Now Responses ........... 62 Inferential Analysis— ................. 64 Hypothesis 1 .................... 64 Hypothesis 2 .................... 66 Hypothesis 3 .................... 68 Hypothesis 4 .................... 7O Hypothesis 5 .................... 7O Hypothesis 6 .................... 73 Ranking of Learner Goal Priorities .......... 76 Student Priorities ................. 76 Parent Priorities .................. 78 Educator Priorities ................. 78 Nonparent Priorities ................ Bl Parents of Students in Private Schools ....... 8l Composite Rankings ................. 84 Discussion of Priorities ............... 84 Summary of Goal Rankings ............... 88 Chi-Square Analysis of Demographic Data ........ 90 Four Most Important Goals by Sex .......... 90 Four Most Important Goals by Education ....... 91 Four Most Important Goals by Income ......... 93 Questions for Study .................. 93 Chapter Summary .................... 96 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ................... 97 Summary ........................ 97 Findings Relative to the Hypotheses .......... Demographic Information ............... 104 Recommendations .................... lO6 Suggestions for Further Study ............. 109 APPENDICES ........................... lll A. LEARNER GOAL QUESTIONNAIRE ............... ll2 B. LETTER FROM DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ............ l20 C. FOLLOW-UP LETTER FROM SUPERINTENDENT .......... l22 D. SPEARMAN CORRELATION .................. E. VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY LETTER ............ BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... vi Table CDNO‘U‘l-wa 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. LIST OF TABLES Learner Goals and Their Abbreviations .......... Item Analysis of Shgulg Responses ............ Item Analysis of N9w_Responses .............. Results of t—Tests for Students ............. Results of t-Tests for Parents .............. Results of t-Tests for Educators ............. Results of t-Tests for Nonparents ............ Results of t-Tests for Parents of Students in Private Schools ................... Results of t-Tests for Composite Group .......... Goal Priority Ranks: Students .............. Goal Priority Ranks: Parents ............... Goal Priority Ranks: Educators .............. Goal Priority Ranks: Nonparents ............. Goal Priority Ranks: Parents of Students in Private Schools ........................ Goal Priority Ranks: All Five Publics .......... Mean Differences Between Shoulds and N9w§_ ........ Three Priority Goals (Question 19) ............ Summary of Goal Rankings ................. Four Most Important Goals by Sex ............. Four Most Important Goals by Formal Education ...... Four Most Important Goals by Income ........... vii 72 74 77 79 8O 82 83 85 86 87 89 91 92 94 CHAPTER I NATURE OF THE STUDY The Problem Introduction An important change has taken place in what Americans expect of their public schools. The optimism about the value of education is still there and continues to be strong, but serious doubts have arisen about what students are learning in relation to monies expended. Public schools must strive for excellence as well as equality if they are to keep the middle class from fleeing to private schools, according to a recent National Institute of Education (NIE) study, “The Private High School Today." In a middle-class country, as the middle class goes, so goes public policy, the study warned. Since the middle class is willing to pay for what it perceives as a better education for its children, tax money may soon go to suppopt private education unless public school quality improves. Vincent Reed, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion, U.S. Department of Education, stated: . There are 16,000 school districts in this country with 4l million elementary and secondary school students. In 1981, this country Spent $ll8 billion on education, K through 12. Yet with that tremendous amount of expenditure for educa- tion, many school districts in this country are in trouble 1Sandra M. Long, "The 1980 Census: Implications for Education," Phi Delta Kappan 62 (May l98l): 620. l financially. . . . Decisions have to be made as to whether you cut for a political or an educational standpoint. You research the community. You must look to the business world, and you must look at the private sector, and you must look for thosp people who may be able to fund those cut programs for you. The shift in attitude becomes apparent through analysis of the questions being asked at hearings by elected officials of both parties at every level of government, from Congress to state legis- latures and local city councils. Questioners in the past were content to listen to accounts of resources allocated. Today the questions focus on results obtained for resources used; the public school system is being held accountable for results.2 This shift, noticed in 1970, is even more evident today as public schools face the revamping of the federal role in education as a result of the Reagan Administra- tion's views on tuition credits and block grants.3 According to Smith, The priorities of American secondary education as I per- ceive them are . . . from my 33 year vantage point as a teacher, principal and superintendent of schools. I think the greatest challenge we face is regaining public confidence. Considerable evidence exists demonstrating that public confidence in schools has eroded during the past few years. It appears that until confidence is restored it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain financial resources needed to move education into the 1990's. Let's examine some of the evidence that leads me to this conclusion. First of all, the '81 Gallup Poll indicates that only 9 per- cent of the public gives the schools an "A" rating. In 1974, 1Vincent Reed, "From the Local Perspective," NASSP Bulletin 66 (April 1982): 33. 2Leon Lessinger, "Engineering Accountability for Results in Public Education,“ Phi Delta Kappan 55 (December 1970): 217. 3David G. Savage, "Washington Report," Phi Delta Kappan 62 (May 1981): 621-22. 18 percent rated the schools "A." Now, if this trend is not reversed, where will it end? . . I think the second major impact on secondary education is going to be the explosion of knowledge. It's upon us today; it's been upon us for a good two to three decades; and it will continue to be upon us as we develOp increasingly sophisticated storage and retrieval systems. I think a complete reexamination of the curriculum is needed to help ensure that we have those things in our offering that the students are going to1need to prepare them for living in the 1990's and the 2000's. This climate of accountability makes necessary the clarifica- tion and prioritization of educational goals in each school district so that available resources can be directed toward the areas of greatest need. The expectations one has for the performance of school systems depend largely on the perspective from which one views them. The taxpayer concerned with what he is "buying" or the school administrator concerned with progress reporting will be concerned with fiscal accountability and reform; the parent may demand curriculum relevance or custodial competence; the lawmaker will consider seriously any discrepancies between performance and legal requirements. Educational goals become meaningful only as they are put into operation is a systematic manner leading to a curriculum aimed at student achievement. The fruits of these goals will be the revision of curriculum and school practices to include the goals in an approp- riate and relevant manner for each grade level. The effectiveness of any system, whether in business or educa- tion, is determined to a large degree by the goals that guide the system. "Goals prevent the system from having an 'all things to all 1George Smith, "From the State Perspective," NASSP Bulletin 66 (April 1982): 56. 2Gerald Zaltman, David H. Florio, and Linda A. Sikorski, Dynamic Educational Change (New York: The Free Press, 1977), pp. 13-14. men' appearance, and permit the resources of the system to be directed toward appropriate ends."1 How can you make sure your school system is the best it can be? Do you know what's right and what's wrong with instruction in your district? Those are hard questions, but school-board members increas- ingly face them as community groups and parents exert pressure for improved schools. Fredrick Henck, Managing Director of the Institute for Public Management in Chicago, suggested that educators "conduct surveys to determine how parents and teachers view the district's per- formance. Focus the parents' survey on the idea that the district hopes to give parents 'customer satisfaction.”2 The identification of appropriate ends or goals should be the joint responsibility of those persons directly involved in the educational process. Parents, students, and educators should partici- pate in the goal-setting endeavor, which will ultimately determine the directions schools take in program planning. Christian emphasized the importance of this task: It appears that clarifying the "goals" and "objectives" of public education is essential, and must necessarily be the first priority if public education is to enjoy the continued confidence and support of parents and students. 1Floyd T. Christian, "Goals for Education in Florida" (memo- randum to school board members, superintendents, instructional per- sonnel, parents, and pupils) (Tallahassee, Florida: August 17, 1971), p. 3. 2Fredrick H. Henck, "Make Your School System Accountable," The American School Board Journal (February 1982): 34. 3 Christian, "Goals for Education in Florida," p. 5. The purpose of the present study is to look at goal state- ments, as perceived by specific publics in the Toledo Public School District, and to make recommendations for changes in the present cur- riculum based on an analysis of the responses of these publics to a questionnaire developed for the study. Setting of the Study The Toledo Public School District, similar to other urban centers, has experienced a change in the clientele served. From the late 19605 to the present, there have been some changes in the distri- bution of population with a movement of middle-class majority and non- majority families to the surrounding suburbs and an influx of lower- socioeconomic families into the city.1 The district served more than 46,000 students during the 1981-82 school year. At the elementary level there were 23,202 students (in 46 elementary schools); at the junior-high level, 5,959 students (in eight junior high schools); at the high-school level, 13,402 students (in ten high schools); and in special education, 3,176 students. The ethnic composition of the student body was as follows: 62.1 percent white, 33.1 percent black, 4.1 percent Hispanic, .5 percent Asian, and .2 percent American Indian. The male/female percentage makeup of the students showed 51.7 percent male students and 48.3 percent female students. The average daily attendance was 41,489, 1Toledo City_P1an Commission Report, City of Toledo, May 8, 1981. and the average per-pupil cost from the general fund was $2,031. The ten-year enrollment projection data indicated a substantial loss of student population--7,162 students--between 1980 and 1991.1 The City of Toledo is the major center for Northwestern Ohio and Southeastern Michigan. Toledo is Ohio's fourth largest city and the center of a l4-county trading area. The 1980 Census data reported that Toledo has 143,296 house— holds, a growth of 23 percent since 1970. The number of households increased much faster than the population; the persons per household decreased to 2.6 in 1980 as compared to 3.1 in 1970. The population and households trends indicate the Toledo area is following a national trend toward smaller families and more one- and two-person households. Lucas County building permits further strengthen the indication of a trend toward small families. Between 1970 and 1980, 30,014 residential units were constructed; 60 percent or 17,943 were multiple-family dwelling units and 12,072 were single-family units. The unemployment rate was 10.4 percent in 1980 as compared to 5.8 percent in 1970. The total consumer spendable income per house- hold is $23,000. The community population characteristics, according to the 1980 United States Census, are as follows: white 273,263 (77.2 per- cent), black 61,750 (17.4 percent), Hispanic 10,667 (3.0 percent), and other-nonwhite 8,965 (2.5 percent).2 11980-1981 Toledo Public Schools Annual Report. In accordance with Section 3313.94, Ohio Revised'Code. 2"A Look at the Numbers That Make Up the Toledo Area." A Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce Report, 1981. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study is to obtain the opinions of students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools as to the following: (1) a priority ranking of the learner goals, (2) how much shgglg_the school help every student, and (3) how much is the school ngw_helping every student. Further study will focus on (1) whether the educator and parent groups differ in their ratings of the learner goals and (2) of the four most impor- tant goals, is there a relationship between the respondents and certain demographic data. Hypotheses The study was designed to test the following null hypotheses: Ho]: There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ngw_doing, as perceived by students. H02: There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ngw_doing, as perceived by parents. H03: There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ngw_doing, as perceived by educators. H04: There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ngw_doing, as perceived by nonparents. H05: There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are now doing, as perceived by parents of students in prTVEte schools. H06: There is no significant difference among the five groups of respondents in their perceptions of what the schools should be doing regarding the learner goals. H07: There is no significant relationship between the sex of the respondents and their opinions toward the fbur most important goals. H08: There is no significant relationship between the income of the respondents and their opinions toward the four most important goals. Hog: There is no significant relationship between the edu- cation of the respondents and their opinions toward the four most important goals. Questions for Study In addition to the nine hypotheses, the researcher will study the following research questions: 1. What are the goal priorities for the Toledo Public Schools as perceived by the students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools? 2. Do the educator and parent groups differ in their ratings of the 18 goals? 3. Do the responses of parents of students in public schools differ from those of parents of students in private schools? Significance of the Problem If the concepts and skills required by students to function in the American society remained constant, the schools would have a relatively easy task. But since the American society is in a state of fluctuation, the schools must teach an ever-increasing number of new concepts, and the old ones must undergo constant modification to remain useful. This means that educators must decide what changes should be made in their schools' programs and what priority should be assigned to each change.1 General shifts in prevailing public values and attitudes toward what is being taught in schools may also create per- formance gaps. The discrepancy between what is and what the public feels ought to be can act as a powerful force for change in education. School administrators in every district are faced with the task of developing systems and procedures that will produce overall educational improvements. Thomas stated that: The United States clearly is being challenged on a new front. For the first time in history, we are being challenged by the educational power of other nations, by the flow of graduates from their growing school systems. Perhaps we should be less concerned about the challenge of Russian ranks and more concerned about the competition of Russian schools. . . . Peter Drucker, the noted management authority, recently stated that "Attention in the United States is shifting back to schools and education as the central capital investment and infrastructure of a knowledge society." That is, the school system works not only as a social escalator for the motivated individual, but also as an economic generator for the entire society as well. Schools are not just agents of opportunity, but are also producers of economic progress and national power. Weischadle emphasized the importance of having clearly stated, acceptable goals: The first step in improving education is choosing and clearly stating appropriate goals-—all else follows. Efforts to improve our schools will not be effective if the goals are not clearly defined and spelled out. Goals must relate to specific courses of action. The goals are, of course, the major targets and they must be acceptable to the majority of the persons concerned 1Gerald Zaltman, "Forces for and Against Change in Education," pp. 21-47. 2Ibid., p. 27. 3Scott D. Thompson et al., "From the National Perspective," NASSP Bulletin 66 (April 1982): 17. 10 with them: The students, their parents, and the public that finances education, and the educators who are charged with see- ing that they are attained.1 Learner goals form the basis for identifying or developing learner objectives. When learner objectives have been established, evaluation methods can be formulated and implemented. The first step in this process is to establish appropriate and acceptable learner goals. This study provides data for making decisions about curriculum designed to meet learner needs. It also serves as a guide to what needs to be done in the Toledo Public Schools to improve the existing educational program as well as serving as a guideline for long-range curriculum improvement. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study The following limitations should be considered in interpret- ing the results of this study: 1. The instrument used in the study was developed and vali- dated between 1969 and 1972. Thus the instrument is ten years old. 2. The learner goal statements tend to be global in nature rather than being specific. Such statements may be open to various interpretations by the reader. 3. The information is limited to responses to a question- naire and is therefore subject to the difficulties inherent in this type of instrument. The confidence that can be placed in the opinions of those responding to the questionnaire and the reliability of the questionnaire itself are not above question. 1Mark A. Chesler, "Shared Power and Student Decision Making," Educational Leadership 27 (October 1970): 9. 11 4. This study was concerned with one selected school district; thus the results should not be generalized to other school districts. 5. Different respondents may have interpreted the instruc- tions differently and thus may not have answered the question that the questionnaire developers assumed was being asked.1 Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used throughout this study: Educators--The teachers, principals, assistant principals, and counselors at the secondary-school level. Learner goa1--A substance, object, or situation capable of satisfying a need and toward which motivated behavior is directed; achievement of the goal (sometimes called a reward or incentive) completes the motivated act.2 Needy-A concept, an idea, or an image of some desired set of behaviors and/or states; a need is a mental image of "what should be" according to the person or persons who hold the image.3 Nonparent--A taxpayer who resides in the city of Toledo and does not have any children enrolled in any public or private school in the city. 1Gerald Zaltman, David H. Florio, and Linda Sikorski, Dynamic Educational Change (New York: The Free Press, 1977), p. 216. 2Carter V. Good, ed., Dictionary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973). 3Zaltman et al., Dynamic Educational Change, p. 241. 12 0bjective--A measurable, Specific statement of what will be done to accomplish a goal.1 Opinion--In popular usage, a belief, judgment, idea, impres- sion, sentiment, or notion that has not been conclusively proved and lacks the weight of carefully reasoned judgment or certainty of con- viction; taken broadly, it represents probability rather than knowl- edge.2 Parentf-The adult accepted by the school as responsible for the student in grades 9 through 12. Perception--In its most limited sense, awareness of external objects, conditions, and relationships as a result of sensory stimula- tion; a continuous process of integration of present and past sensory . . 3 impre551ons. Parent of student in private school--A parent who has his/her <:r1ild enrolled in a private or parochial school in the city of Toledo. Planning--A systematic approach to accomplishing valid goals.4 Egbljgf-A person or group of people who have actual or poten- t'i a1 interest in and/or influence on an organization.5 Questionnaire--A list of planned, written questions related to a particular topic, with space provided for indicating the response 1 2 Ibid., p. 242. Good, Dictionary of Education, p. 399. 31bid., p. 413. 4Zaltman et al., Dynamic Educational Change, p. 127. 51bid., p. 7. 13 to each question, intended for submission to a number of persons for reply; commonly used in normative-survey studies and in measuring attitudes and opinions.1 Secondary--The grades included in a 9-12 educational program. Student--A member of the school roster who is engaged in study in grades 9 through 12 during the 1982-83 school year. Systems--The sum total of parts working together and inde- pendently to accomplish desired outcomes based on identified needs.2 Organization of the Study Chapter I contained an introduction to the study and a dis- cussion of the need for such a study. A description of the Toledo Public School District was followed by a statement about the purpose of the study and a list of the questions for which answers were sought. The limitations and underlying assumptions of the study were presented, and the special terms used in the study were defined. Chapter II is a review of selected literature on the follow- ing topics: (1) historical account of goal perceptions and priorities, (2) the systems approach to developing educational goals and objec- tives, (3) needs-assessment surveys, and (4) goal setting and long- range planning. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire, data- collection procedures, and the plan for analyzing the data are described in Chapter III. In the section of data-collection procedures, the 1Good, Dictionary of Education, p. 464. 2Zaltman et al., Dynamic Educational Change, p. 7. 14 administration of the questionnaire and methods of tabulating the data are explained. The plan for analysis describes the ways in which recommendations were examined. Chapter IV contains the presentation and analysis of the data. In Chapter V, the study is summarized and conclusions are drawn from the analysis of the data. Reconmendations are made for further study, and some possible improvements are suggested. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature that relates to the educational-goal-setting process, which involves the following areas: 1. A historical account of goal perceptions and priorities. 2. The systems approach to the development of educational goals and objectives. 3. The use of needs-assessment surveys as they relate to educational goals and objectives. 4. Goal setting and long-range planning in public institu- tions. Historical Review Educational goals, sometimes referred to as objectives, are not new on the American school scene. From the outset, community, church, and governmental leaders recognized that certain educational needs existed. Of all American institutions, it is the schools at every level that have most faithfully reflected the shifting desires, expectations, purposes, and objectives of the American character.1 1Henry Steele Commager, "The People and Their Schools," Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Fastback 79 (Bloomington, Ind.: The Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation, 1976), p. 7. 15 16 Hazlett noted the early colonial concern for education: In colonial America, religion was indeed a critical educa- tional concern, but political responsibility, variously defined, and vocational competence were also important objectives. Churches and church-related agencies displayed an interest in all three areas. By its acts of 1641 and 1647, theocratic Massachusetts mandated that children should receive instruction in the laws of the colony and learn a useful trade as well as be trained in the articles of faith.1 As early as colonial times, America was destined to surpass the Old World in enlarging the scope of public education. The Puritans led the way . . . they provided for the Bay Colony's first Latin school, then a College, then in two pio- neering laws, provision for the establishment of elementary schools in every town and of grammar schools that would pre- pare young men for the University in all towns of one hundred families. The curriculum of the Latin grammar school was designed for prospective ministers and politicians; the academics, dominating the educational scene by 1800, continued to cling hathe classical-oriented program of their predecessors with an emphasis on preparing scholars for college. The failure of these schools to provide a more practi- cal approach congruent with the needs of an expanding nation resulted in the establishment of the Boston English High School in 1821.3 As the high school became an accepted part of the public education system, various attempts were made to clarify its purposes. Religious dominance over the schools declined, and as the American 1Steven Hazlett, "Educational Objectives: An Historical Review," Compact (April 1971): 2. 2Commager, "The People and Their Schools," p. 9. 3Weldon Beckner and Joe D. Cornett, The Secondary School Cur- riculum: Content and Structure (Scranton, Pa.: Intext Educational PObliShers, 1972), p. 37. 17 economy shifted from a mercantile to a manufacturing one, the economy increasingly came to dominate the educational goals and objectives. The educational structures that emerged with the expansion of secondary education in the United States were compulsory, centralized, bureaucratic, and differentiated. As long as the economy could use child labor, education was voluntary. Not until the middle of the nineteenth century did business lead- ers begin to support public education. Their support appeared in a period of massive immigration, increasing labor unrest in the face of factory speedups, declining wages and periodic recessions marked by massive unemployment. In 1848, Horace Mann's Twelfth Annual Report cited health; economic growth; the elimination of poverty, vice, and crime; the abolition of class antagonism; and moral development as goals for education. 2 Goldman, in discussing the research relevant to the purposes of schools, listed five important goal statements: It is interesting to note that five major statements of educational purposes developed from 1918 to 1966 (NEA, Cardi- nal Principles of Secondary Education, 1918; Educational Poli- cies’CommisSion, The Purposes of Education in an American Democrac , 1938; Educational Policies Cbmmission, Education for All AfiErican Youth, 1954; L. M. Downey, The Task of Public Edu- cation) tend toward general agreement regarding those purposes. Although they differ in the terminology utilized and also in the specific number of objectives to be met, all of these statements delineate five general purposes for the schools, which can be listed as follows: 1. 2 3. 4 To assist students to develop an acceptable personal outlook on life (i.e., psychological maturity and stability). To assist students in the development of adequate social skills. To ensure that students are competent in the basic intellec- tual skills (i.e., reading, writing and computing). To ensure that students are prepared to enter the world of work or to continue their education. The Free Press, 1979), p. 36. 1Caroline Hodges Persell, Education and Inequality_(New York: 2Hazlett, "Educational Objectives," p. 2. 18 5. To ensure that youth are prepared to contribute to the main- tenance of our society (i.e., "to keep democracy working"). Goldman summarized his findings by concluding that, although educators and the public generally appear to accept these purposes, "there is absolutely no agreement on how these general purposes ought to be ordered in terms of priorities.2 Carpenter researched legislative acts and state-board rulings to build a conception of what American society expected to provide for its youths through the public schools. He concluded that every child has a right to attend a school in which: Free medical and dental inspections are provided. Organized play is considered a normal activity. The love of home and appreciation of beauty is taught. Cooperation in activities is encouraged. Appreciation of society and its struggles and victories are made personal. Training for a life or work is provided. Selection of a life work is not left to chance. 3 The problems of the school come from the problems of society. GJNON 01¢de o o o o o o o a One of the best-known reports on the purposes of public educa- tion is that of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, which recommended that health, command of fundamental pro- cesses, worthy use of leisure time, worthy home membership, vocational training, citizenship training, and ethical training should be the 4 guiding principles of the high schools. Beckner and Cornett stated 1Harvey Goldman, "Comments on Research," NASSP Bulletin 56 (January 1972): 100. 2 3W. W. Carpenter, "The Rights and Privileges of School Chil- dren," Peabodyydournal of Education 6 (September 1928): 81-82. 4 Ibid., p. 101. Hazlett, "Educational Objectives," p. 3. 19 that many people still consider these seven principles to be the most valid statements of the secondary school's purposes.1 In 1947, the American Association of School Administrators listed four basic goals of education. They also emphasized personal and social development.2 The assumptions upon which educational goals are based relate directly to student rights and privileges and the needs of society. As a young nation develops, the needs and desires of society change. Those changes are reflected in the changing demands placed on the public schools. A second concern related to public-school goals is student needs. During the 19605, students began complaining that the curricu- lum did not meet their needs. These complaints were justified in that the curriculum did not change at a pace commensurate with the rapidly increasing body of knowledge.3 By the late 19605, Americans became further concerned that the curriculum was not meeting the grim realities of society. Because of an increased awareness of the human and social problems facing youths, students, and ethnic and disadvantaged groups, the "system" was rejected by those who felt alienated. To meet the needs dictated 1Beckner and Cornett, Secondary School Curriculum, p. 158. 2American Association of School Administrators, Schools for a New World: Twenty-Fifth Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: AASA, 1947), p. 56. 3National Education Association, Schools for the 70's and Beyond: A Call to Action (Washington, D.C.: NEA, 1971), p. 43. 20 by such powerful social forces, educators attempted to initiate changes that would more fully accomplish the goals dictated by power- ful pressure groups, militant groups within society, best-selling books, and federal and state legislation, as well as the goals recog- nized by the profession itself.1 In response to increasingly vigorous and vocal criticism of American education, Butterfield proposed a new model for curriculum development—-a double triad that would combine the traditional coop- erative efforts of administrators, teachers, and school-board members with the involvement of the community, parents, and students. If curriculum is to become a viable force of relevance, he said, its development and implementation must involve those who are concerned with and will be directly affected by proposed changes.2 Given the current public dissatisfaction with education, educators can no longer afford to postpone the need for scientific evaluation of their educational efforts. The honeymoon is over. People no longer accept the belief that education is flawless. This critical attitude has been revealed most dramatically in the poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools, which is conducted annually by George H. Gallup. According to the major findings of this poll, the public is demonstrating an increased concern about 1Dennie Butterfield, "Relevance and Curriculum: Making the Five R's Meaningful" (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Regional Conference of the International Reading Asso- ciation, November 1980). ED 199 931. 2Ibid., p. 213. 21 and awareness of school curriculum. Listed as one of the public's major concerns was "poor curriculum."1 Curriculum continues to be a major problem facing American schools in the 19805. Poor curriculum was the third-ranked problem in the Thirteenth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.2 Most studies dealing with the goals of education have revealed that the public expects the public schools to assume re5pon5ibi1ities that in the past were borne by the home and the church. Among the six educational objectives included in the survey, "developing students' moral and ethical character" received the high- est vote.3 The general socialization purpoSes of education have changed little from colonial times to the present. However, the current prob- lems of local financing, federal funding, shifting student population, economic trends, technological innovations, and increased competi- tion for world markets have produced a sense of skepticism concerning the effectiveness and efficiency of the schools, which has given birth to the educational-accountability movement.4 Consequently, goals 1George H. Gallup, "The Tenth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan 60 (1978): 33-45. 2George H. Gallup, "The Thirteenth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan 63 (September 1981): 34. 3 4Ronald E. Kutscher, "Impact on Education--Economic and Labor Outlook," The School Administrator (February 1982): 16-17. Ibid., p. 38. 22 must be developed and agreed on by parents, students, and educators to guide the instructional programs of the schools so that they can meet the demands of a dynamic society. In the simplest form, public schools are just that--public. They belong to the public, i.e. the people, and exist as insti- tutions serving them. This means that the public decides on what they want from the schools--establishes the objectives and policies, delegates to the professionals the responsibility for implementing these policies, and reserves for itself the role of accountant, i.e., evaluating the results.1 Goal Perceptions and Priorities Introduction Campbell reported on three priorities discussed at the Inter- national Conference on Education: . . . Three priorities were discussed. The first was moral and ethical values--there wasn't a nation that did not say that we have neglected this important aspect of education. The second priority was the way we control the explosion of knowledge in science and technology before it controls us. The third priority was universal education. Sociological and technological advances in society have occurred at a substantially faster rate than public schools have changed to provide currently relevant programs. An increasingly more affluent society, comprising a variety of groups, is making greater and more complex demands on the schools. Educational leaders are faced with the challenge of identifying mutually acceptable goals 1Mario Fantini, "The People and Their Schools: Community Participation," Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Fastback 62. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa Education? Foundation, 1975), p. 8. 2Anne Campbell, "From the State Perspective," NASSP Bulletin 66 (April 1982): 62-63. 23 and are being held accountable for the direction of school and school-system curricula. ACCOUNTABILITY--Students, Parents and Educators. The only justification for the continued existence of public education is to hold schools accountable for educating children. And unless children receive an education, public education will continue to be questioned and criticized. Accountability must become a reality and all concerned (students, parents, and teachers) should be held accountable. General shifts in prevailing public values and attitudes toward what is being taught in schools may also create performance gaps. The discrepancy between what is and what the public feels ought to be can act as a powerful force for change in education.2 One of the most pressing problems schools must deal with is providing educational opportunities for minority students. An NBC commentary on "Our Failing Schools" pointed out that 40 percent of the urban community students receiving a high-school diploma were illiterate. If these figures are true, the schools are failing to educate far too many minority children for successful participation . . . 3 1n Amer1can soc1ety. Historical Perspective American society is pluralistic. It is not surprising that people with different cultural and/or economic backgrounds might have different perceptions of what the public schools should do for children. 1H. B. Pinckney, "What Raspberry Is Saying," NASSP Bulletin 66 (January 1982): 56. 2Gerald Zaltman, David H. Florio, and Linda Sikorski, Dynamic Educational Change (New York: The Free Press, 1977), p. 27. 3 Pinckney, "What Raspberry Is Saying," p. 56. 24 Moreover, it is not surprising that different individuals or groups may assign to commonly held goals a variety of priorities as far as curriculum development is concerned. In a study of the differences between the goal aspirations of deprived and affluent American youths, Gottlieb discovered that black youths were less likely than their white counterparts to possess the same educational aspirations as their teachers. Black students were less likely to have long-range goals or aspirations. He concluded that for deprived students, the educational emphasis should be on inme- diate benefits rather than on long-range plans.1 Shane expressed the same concern for developing educational goals that direct schools toward the needs of ethnic minorities.2 Gooler and Grotelueschen contended that the curriculum planner is obligated to consider the needs, goals, and expectations of special- interest groups as they relate to program-development decisions. He must know what people want and think in order to report, explain, or justify what has been done.3 It is within this framework of a pluralistic society that educators must deal with the accountability issue. Taxpayers are 1David Gottlieb, "Goal Aspirations and Goal Fulfillments: Differences Between Deprived and Affluent American Adolescents," reported in Educator, Complete ERIC Handbook, Phase One (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1967), p. 139. 2Harold G. Shane, "Reassessment of Educational Issues," IDE. Education Digest 38 (April 1973): 5. 3Dennis D. Gooler and A. D. Grotelueschen, "Curriculum Development Accountability," Educational Leadership 29 (November 1971): 165-68. 25 concerned that they are not getting their money's worth from educa- tional spending; minority groups tend to perceive their schooling as education for a society that, for them, does not exist; and students feel the schools are dehumanizing, and in some cases they have reacted with disturbances and demonstrations.1 The demand for educational accountability has evolved from this environment of differing concerns and goal perceptions. Thus, a number of goal-priority studies have been conducted to determine direction in educational planning. Powell presented three assumptions concerning goals: 1. Goals are derived from actual needs that people have, the most important need being to make sense of one's environ— ment. 2. Goals act as blueprints for the behaviors that people exhibit. 2 3. Motivation for learning springs from these goals. Goal-perception research by Downey revealed that college graduates and professional workers preferred the intellectual tasks of the school over the social, personal, and productive tasks. Blue- collar workers also preferred intellectual tasks, but they favored social and productive tasks almost as much. Downey concluded that occupation and level of schooling were strong predictors of how school goals would be perceived. Region, religion, and age were assessed to be fair predictors of goal perceptions.3 1Jeff West, "Beyond Accountability," Mail Ba (Florida Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development arch 1972): 1-7. 2Rolland 0. Powell, "Putting Goals to Work," Educational Leadership 27 (March 1971): 608. 3Lawrence W. Downey, The Task of Public Education, Studies in Educational Administration Monograph No. 7 (Chicago: Midwest Adm1n- istration Center, University of Chicago, 1960). 26 Kase conducted a similar study to identify students' educa- tional and cultural needs. He surveyed administrators, students, parents of students, and teachers to ascertain their perceptions of current educational practice as compared to expected outcomes. The curricular needs of highest priority, as measured by the discrepancy between desired and actual outcomes, were vocational education, social studies, and home economics. Students and adults tended to be satis- fied with school efforts, but administrators and special-service personnel seemed to feel more satisfied than students, teachers, and parents.1 Preising studied the goal perceptions of students, teachers, and parents in Santa Clara County, California. He found considerable agreement among the parents, students, and teachers on the most important need areas. The highest three priorities were given to drug education, family-life education, and communication skills. A sig- nificant theme running through all the data was that students dis- agreed substantially with parents and teachers. Students tended to approve school efforts more than did parents or teachers. Parents were the least approving of the three groups.2 Results of goal studies tend to show diversity about local educational priorities, but the studies meet the definite needs of 1Donald Kase, "Curricular Needs of North Bay Schools, A Study of Opinions Concerning Curricular Needs in the North Bay Counties of Marin, Napa, Sonoma and Solano" (Napa, Calif.: North Bay Pace Center, 1967). p. 2. ED 017 685. 2Paul P. Preising, "A Survey of the Educational Needs of Santa Clara County" (San Jose, Calif.: Supplementary Education Center, 1967). ED 018 509. 27 educational leaders. Ascher stated that the emphasis on accounta- bility has resulted in a general interest in educational goals. Several state legislatures have enacted accountability and assessment laws that require educators to collect reliable information about state and local district needs in an effort to improve instruction.1 In view of the need to determine goal perceptions and goal priorities for planning and resource allocation, models for community and professional involvement have been developed. Rose and others prepared one such model under the sponsorship of the United States Office of Education. The phases of the model provide strategies whereby educational goals can be ranked according to their order of importance, an assessment of how well current programs are meeting the goals can be made, and program-level performance objectives can be developed by the professional staff to meet the priority goals.2 A research-and-development project aimed at meeting educa- tional needs is in its tenth year in the metropolitan Portland, Oregon, area. In 1971, 55 school districts joined forces to create a system for defining measurable learning outcomes and to align the instructional and accountability systems of the participating districts. The Oregon and Washington State Boards of Education joined in the effort 1Gordon Ascher, "Individualized Instruction and Statewide Assessment: The New Jersey Educational Assessment Program" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 25-March l, 1973), p. 1. ED 073 530. 2Keith B. Rose, "Educational Goals and Objectives: A Model . Program for Community and Professional Involvement" (Chino: California State University, June 1972). ED 073 530. 28 in order to bring these products to all school districts in the Pacific Northwest. The long-range purpose was to bring consistency to the way school districts develop and to select goals for instruc- tional planning and evaluation. It provided a wide range of learning alternatives for school planners to consider in attempting to answer the questions, "What is to be learned?" and "Haw it been learned?"1 Results of Goal-Perception Studies Studies of goal perceptions have produced interesting results. The National Education Association researched the major opinion polls taken in 1950 and 1958. The Life Magazine national study conducted in 1950 by Elmo Roper revealed that 71.6 percent of the respondents were either very satisfied or fairly well satisfied with the public school system. These results were supported by local polls conducted in Baltimore, Maryland, and Denver, Colorado, in 1958. The educators surveyed tended to demand much more from the schools than did the American public in general.2 Some of the goal priorities have changed over the past decade, but the first priority of education has remained constant. In 1963, the National Education Association's tenth recommendation for schools of the 19605 stated: Priorities for the schools are the teaching of skills in reading, composition, listening, Speaking (both native and 1Victor W. Doherty and Linda B. Peters, Introduction to K-12 Course Goals for Educational Planning and Evaluation (Portland, Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1980). 2National Education Association, "Public Opinion on Educa- tion," Research Bulletin 36 (October 1958): 74. 29 foreign languages), and computation . . . ways of creative and disciplined thinking, including methods of inquiry and appli- cation of knowledge . . . competence in self-instruction and independent learning . . . fundamental understanding of the humanities and the arts, the social sciences and mathematics . . appreciation of and discriminating taste in literature, music and visual ar 5 . . . instruction in health education and physical education. The 1970 Gallup Survey of the public's attitude toward the schools indicated a high degree of satisfaction. However, a new mood of student dissatisfaction had emerged, and students as well as adults were beginning to question professional educators' judgments about the design of the curriculum. The survey concluded that the three major concerns of the public were discipline, integration/desegregation, and finances.2 The Gallup study of educational goals conducted in 1973 indi- cated only a slight difference in the public's attitude when compared with the results of the 1970 Gallup study. Lack of discipline, racial disorder, and financial problems still ranked as the three most serious issues facing the schools. Professional educators had basically the same concerns as the general public, but with some differences in priorities. Lack of financial support was ranked as the number-one problem. Pupil disinterest was also ranked among the top ten concerns. 1National Education Association, Schools for the 60's (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 32. 2George Gallup, "The Public's Attitude Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan 52 (October 1970): 39-51. 30 The top-priority goal for learners was the development of reading, writing, speaking, and listening ski11s.1 Discipline continues to head the list of major problems, according to the eighth Gallup poll. In fact, discipline has been named as a problem most often--seven times during the last eight years. Busing and integration was in second place, and in third place was "lack of proper financial support.“ These concerns were also named second and third, respectively, in last year's survey. The one significant change was the marked increase in the number of persons in the sample who cited a "poor curriculum" as a problem area. This trend was reinforced by the responses to the question concerning "How to Improve the Quality of the Public Schools?" Fifty-one percent of all respondents chose "devote more attention to the teaching of the basic skins."2 Discipline, use of drugs, and poor curriculum were the major problems confronting the public schools in 1981, according to the thirteenth Gallup poll. The question dealing with the most important problems as the public saw them was open-ended, which permitted respondents to give their views without benefit of a list. In response to a question concerning the amount of attention that should be given to six educational objectives, "developing students' moral 1George Gallup, "Fifth Annual Gallup Poll of Public Atti- tudes Toward Education," Phi Delta Kappan 55 (September 1973): 39-51. 2Vernon Smith and George H. Gallup, "What People Think About Their Schools: Gallup's Findings," Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foun- dation Fastback 94 (Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1977), pp. 21-25. and ethical character" received the highest vote. "teaching students to think" ranked second. This may spur present efforts to find procedures that improve thinking ability. a minister of cabinet rank to help improve the thinking abili- ties of students in that country. 31 According to Gallup, The concern for One nation, Venezuela, has appointed And both Great Britain and the United States are mounting promising efforts to improve the problem—solving abilities of students. The answers to the question "Does the high school in your area devote enough attention to the following areas?" were as follows: 1. Developing students' moral and ethical character. 2. Teaching students how to think. 3. Preparing students who do not go to college for a job or career after graduation. 4. Preparing students to become informed citizens prepared to vote at 18. 5. Preparing students for CO llege. Too Not Much Enough % w 2 62 2 59 2 56 2 55 3 43 6. Developing students' appre- ciation of art, music, and 7 37 other cultural interests. The following chart shows the views of three different publics in considering the goals of education: parents with children now attending the public schools, the age group (18-29) who have had the 1Gallup, "Thirteenth Annual Gallup Poll," p. 34. 2 Ibid., p. 38. 2 Right Don't Amount Know % % 21 15 25 14 29 13 28 15 39 15 41 15 32 most recent school experience, and educators. These three groups substantially agreed on the goals that need greater attention in the nation's high schools.1 Objectives That Received "Not Enough" Rating Public- 18-29 National School Age Total Parents Group Educators 1. Developing students' moral and ethical 62 66 63 64 character. 2. Teaching students to think. 59 58 58 62 3. Preparing students who do not go to college 56 56 56 56 for a job or career after graduation. 4. Preparing students to become informed citi- 55 54 58 61 zens ready to vote at 18. 5. Preparing students for college. 43 46 46 43 6. Developing students' appreciation of art, 37 37 43 43 music, and other cultural interests. Public-school officials and the lay public have vastly dif- ferent perceptions of the major problems facing United States public schools, according to Duea. He based his statement on the findings of a survey of administrators by Practical Research into Organizational Behavior and Effectiveness (PROBE). The questions used in the survey were designed to parallel those asked of the public in the 1979, 1Ibid., p. 39. 33 1980, and 1981 Gallup polls of public attitudes toward the public schools. the Our findings show that school officials and the lay public hold disparate views on some aspects of U.S. public education. For example, the lay public tends to see those school issues that have been widely covered by the mass media-~1ack of dis- cipline, students' use of drugs, poor curriculum/low standards, financial problems, and racial integration. By contrast, school officials tend to identify major problems from the perspective of school operations. Financial concern, enrollment declines, governmental interference, requirements for the education of the handicapped, and public relations are their top concerns. . . . School officials' concern with public relations may bode well for U.S. schools if it signals a new push to develop greater mutual understanding between educators and the public they serve. Thomas stated that schools are faced with many challenges in 19805: We must work vigorously to improve the quality of educa- tion, to keep our fair share of financial support, to fight against tax credits and vouchers, and to develop partnerships with new markets. Those markets include: unemployed youth, senior citizens, business and industry, adults seeking second careers, and parents of preschool children. Although the out- look for education is not altogether bright, public schools still arg our best hope for solving the problems of a dynamic society. The Systems Approach to Developing Educational ’Goals and Objectives Answers to questions concerning goals and values reflect a theory of society. They, in turn, raise further questions about the learning required for that society to function. Thus, in the 1Jerry Duea, "School Officials and the Public Hold Views on Education," Phi Delta Kappan 63 (March 1982): 477. 2M. Donald Thomas, "Brookings' Forecasts Are Relevant to Your Schools," The American School Board Journal 167 (September 1980): 11. 34 educational domain, questions of goals and values become: Education 1 for what? What kind of education? For whom? Answers to these and similar questions help to define the public responsibility in educa- tion and to distinguish the learning that is necessary for all.2 The public tends to feel that better management techniques can both improve achievement and reduce costs. Some of the tools needed to build an accountability system to accomplish those pur- poses have been found in comprehensive planning, systems management, and needs assessment. The Mississippi State Department of Education defined compre- hensive planning as follows: Comprehensive planning is the logical process of (l) estab- lishing goals and priorities which are based on given evidences of needs, (2) writing specifically stated objectives for achiev- ing each goal after developing and communicating strategies and techniques, (3) implementing the plan in consideration of diver- sified resources such as categorical aid programs and varying levels of manpower qualities and skills, (4) evaluating the results of the plan on the basis of the stated objectives, and (5) recycling the procedure as deemed necessary as a result of the evaluation. The concept of systems management, as it applies to curricu- lum, has had strong proponents and equally as strong adversaries. Some educators have accepted it as a panacea for all problems of education. Others have labeled it an inhumane and mechanistic 1Ernest House, Wendell River, and Daniel L. Stufflebeam, "An Assessment of the Michigan Accountability System," Phi Delta Kappan (June 1974): 181. 2Ibid., p. 163. 3General Education Needs Assessment in Mississippi (Jackson, Miss.: State Department oi Education, Office of Planning and Evalua- tion, July 1972), p. 2. 35 approach imposed on educators by the disciples of Taylor and his scientific—management principles. Curriculum development involves the processes of planning, organizing, communicating, and evaluating. If management can be accepted as an orderly, systematic method of planning curriculum, it may have a place in education.1 Clegg summarized the systems-management approach to curricu- lum as follows: In a systems or management approach, planning begins with the analysis of the overall situation and its needs and some ranking of these needs according to priorities. Next, specific objectives are defined, often in behavioral or performance terms to help make them more precise and measurable for evaluation purposes. Evaluation or program assessment in a systems approach is closely tied to program objectives. Curriculum content of the program is carefully selected to meet the particular objectives specified. Porter further stressed the important role of educational goals in the total accountability system. He reported that Michigan had developed a six-step accountability model that can be adapted for district, school, or classroom use. The six steps are (1) identifica- tion of goals, (2) development of objectives, (3) student needs assess- ment, (4) analysis of the instructional delivery system, (5) evaluation of the system, and (6) recommendations for change.3 Evaluation plays a vital role in systems management. Duncan listed six characteristics of an evaluation system: 1Marjorie Prentice, "Management: Curse, Cure-all, or Workable Concept," Educational Leadership 30 (January 1973): 310. 2Ambrose A. Clegg, Jr., "The Teacher as 'Manager' of the Cur- riculum," Educational Leadershjp_30 (January 1973): 308. 3John W. Porter, "Accountabilit : Challenge and Opportunity," Business Education Forum 27 (April 1973 : 38. 36 It should measure program effectiveness. It should report results on a multi-dimensional format to the interested public of the educational enterprise. It Should be a dynamic process that meets the needs of society and its own clientele. It should be related to comprehensive educational planning and show that programs generated are economical in terms of opportunity and costs. 5. The system . . . should also be flexible enough to provide input to regenerate the system through constant evaluation and feedback which serves as a guide to program formulation, revision or termination. 6. It phogld relate measurable educational goals to societal goa s. boom—I Guba emphasized that evaluation should assist the decision-making process by providing information about current status and possible new directions, discrepancies between present status and current goals, and information that weighs choices in terms of established criteria.2 Morrisett and Unruh illustrated the primary role of clearly stated goals. They felt that program development should be based on identified learner goals and evaluated in terms of student achieve- ment and cost effectiveness.3 A systematic-planning series for local education agencies was developed by Lee Boone and others under the sponsorship of the United States Office of Education in conjunction with the Alabama State 1Merlin G. Duncan, "An Assessment of Accountability: The State of the Art," Educational Technology(January 1971): 28. 2 p. 67. Zaltman, Florio, and Sikorski, Dynamic Educational Change, 3Irving Morrisett, "Accountability Needs Assessment and Social Studies," Social Education 38 (April 1973): 271-79; Glenys G. Unruh, "Beyond Sputnik,“Educational Leadership 30 (April 1973): 587-90. 37 Department of Education. The seven monographs in the series are: (1) Establishing Goals, (2) Assessing and Analyzing Needs, (3) Identi- fying Resources and Constraints and Prioritizing Needs, (4) Developing Objectives, (5) Generating/Analyzing Alternative Strategies, (6) For- mulating the Program Implementation Plan and Securing and Allocating Resources, and (7) Operating and Evaluating the Program. The series provided a step-by-step planning process that can aid local districts in making decisions based on student, teacher, educator, and community input.1 Kaufman listed five steps involved in planning that relate closely to the procedures outlined above. He also emphasized that prioritizing goals is important because "there never seems to be enough money and time (and other resources) for meeting all the iden- tified needs in any educational agency's realm of activity."2 The review of literature related to educational goals reflected the necessity of identifying and prioritizing goals before curriculum planning and revision are undertaken. Thus, this study represents the first step in identifying and prioritizing curriculum goals for the Toledo Public Schools. 1Lee Boone, Assessing and Analyzing Needs: Systematic Planning Series for Local Education A encies. Monograph’No. 2. MOntgomery: Alabama State Department of’ ucation, November 1977. ED 191 154. 2Roger A. Kaufman, Educational System Planning_(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979), p. 6. 38 Needs-Assessment Surveys Introduction The identification of educational needs has become a focal point in state legislatures across the nation. Legislatures and state departments of education have begun to state strongly their concern for immediate efforts in needs assessment. As of 1973, 40 states had passed legislation to fund various types of needs- assessment projects.1 By 1980, more than 19 state legislatures and numerous boards of education had mandated the development of goal- based planning and evaluation systems to satisfy the public's increas- ing demand to know what is happening in the schools.2 It has been emphasized that the capability to perform accu- rate assessment is critical to the effectiveness of education in the United States. Former President Nixon stated in an address to Congress, "The greatest need in the school systems of the nation is to begin the responsible open measurement of how well the educational process is actually working."3 In an exclusive article prepared for The School Administrator, President Reagan stated: . . . Our schools have been strongest when local authorities had the discretion to consider appropriate alternatives. . . . Working with state and local groups, you will have the 1Frank Wormer, "Developing a Large Scale Assessment Program" (Denver: Colorado State Department of Education, 1973), p. 6. 2Doherty and Peters, Introduction to K-12 Course Goals, 3Wormer, "Developing a Large Scale Assessment Program," 39 opportunity to devise the best means of fostering the growth of our future citizens. ’ Pressure from state legislatures for true accountability has mandated needs-assessment studies. Duncan stated, "Data from a study of needs should enable a legally responsible policy-making body to establish priorities among needs, thereby“finally giving direction to educational planning."2 A survey of the most recent literature showed that many and varied studies of comprehensive needs-assessment programs in educa- tion have been conducted. These range in scope from national and statewide surveys to studies encompassing data for a single institu- tion or school district. For the purpose of this paper, a review of needs—assessment studies dealing with goal setting and long-range planning will give the reader a broad overview of the subject. Goal Setting and Long-Range Planning As stated before, 40 states have recently been involved with some form of educational-needs-assessment study. The largest number of studies is in the area of goal setting. Within this category, there is great diversity in both focus and scope. The needs-assessment program in South Carolina's public school system consisted of the appointment of task forces; the development by these task forces of a needs—assessment model; the identification, 1Ronald Reagan, "Reagan: Strong Educational System Key to Presprvation of Liberties," The School Administrator 38 (September 1981 : 8. 2Gerald Zaltman and Robert Duncan, Strate ies for Planned Change (New York: Wiley Interscience, 1977), p. 3. 40 after data collection and analysis, of the state's most pressing educational needs; and finally a schematic presentation of an imple- mentation procedure.1 The Northern California Program Development Center in Chico, California, was considering a program to measure and rank community educational needs, setting goals and objectives based entirely on the opinions of a cross-section of the community. Specific problem areas in which long-range planning was concerned included the development of programs and special services for the many rural isolated children of the state.2 In Florida, a published report defined five processes in the planning of that state's community colleges. The first of these processes related to needs assessment: (1) assessment of the condi- tions and environment of the community-college system and (2) an assessment of the societal needs the college should be responsible for considering. The purpose of these statements of commitment to needs assessment was to define community colleges' goals and to use them as the hub of the master plan for long-range college developmen- tal planning.3 The focus was somewhat different in Texas. Rather than study— ing the educational needs of an entire public school system, the Texas 1Raymond Trull, "Proposal for Implementation of Needs Assess- ment Model," Phi Delta Kappan 52 (December 1970): 210-15. 2Keith Rose, A Model Program for Community and Professional Involvement (Chico: California tateTUhiversity, 1971). 3Lee Henderson, A Plan for Planning for a State Community College System (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1973). 41 study was concerned with the needs of the system vis-a-vis proposed regional education centers. The hub of the Texas model was needs assessment and a statement of assessed needs in behavioral terms. Tasks in the planning phase included stating divisional objectives of all programs, selecting activities to achieve these objectives, developing a program-evaluation plan, and completing an evaluation guide. An additional task was implementing recommended procedures designed to accomplish the objectives and their evaluation.1 Walter Foley, as principal investigator of a Management Information System Project (MIS) under an Office of Education grant, was interested in developing a MIS covering all aspects of the edu- cational process. A specific area of interest in this system was titled "Missions and Goals Statement." In it, Foley was concerned with developing a system that would be responsive to the informational needs of decision makers. He recognized the need for developing and constructing a common data base and for making information gathering an on-going process.2 Along similar lines, Huron, South Dakota, has developed a computer simulation model called HELP (Higher Education Long-range Planning). The emphasis of this model is on determining philosophy and objectives, and because it is computerized, it may easily be 1R. Jerry Barger and Charles W. Benson, An Evaluation Accountability Model for Regional Educational Center (El Paso, Texas: n.p., 1972). 2Walter J. Foley, Principal Investigator, Management Infor- mation System Project, Utilization of Modern Management Techniques in School Administration (Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1972). 42 adapted to most college planning situations. The model can be used in the initial stages of college development or when an existing institution needs to reevaluate its goals.1 A Michigan study of needs assessment, the accountability model, was designed to aid elementary and secondary schools in forming goals, implementation, and feedback systems. Significantly, it was the needs-assessment portion that, in a 1974 evaluation of the model, was found to be wanting. The evaluators felt that the goals of the assessment model were too narrow and that testing every pupil, which was the method being used by those involved in needs assessment, amounted to "overkill." The evaluators recommended that students be selected by the matrix sampling technique instead and that each of the students be tested in only a few areas. Although this would not provide accurate data on individual students or schools, it would provide such data for the state as a whole. In addition, this proce- dure would provide better economy in terms of both cost and time.2 The National Laboratory for Higher Education has developed a tool for involving community groups in prioritizing educational goals. GOALS (Goal Setting for Organizational Accountability: A Leadership Strategy) emphasizes face-to-face communication with up to 30 par- ticipants representing community and college. Its purpose is to 'Bruce Milne, "First Step Is Awareness--South Dakota Needs Assessment," ompact 17 (1973). 2House, Rivers, and Stufflebeam, "An Assessment of the Michigan Accountability System." 43 reach consensus on the rank of overall-purpose goals, institutional ends, and management-support goals.1 Modeled after the National Assessment for Education, Minne- sota's educational assessment took a systems approach and incorporated a feature for periodically monitoring and reevaluating long-range goals. Broad goal setting and review procedures have also been incorporated as a part of recent assessments in at least ten states (Colorado, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Dakota, Georgia, Arkansas, and Florida).2 Prioritizing goals was emphasized in a study by the Kentucky State Department of Education in 1972. In Maryland, Atkinson stressed the long-range planning and eventual achievement of the goals. Com- parison with national goals became the major focus of a North Carolina study.3 Who sets educational goals is oftentimes a major question, and several Similar statewide studies have emphasized community involvement as well as involvement by students.4 One investigator used data analysis and coding responses to a questionnaire survey of secondary-school students, their teachers, and their parents concerning perceptions of the school and education. The results of this 1976-77 survey were compared with a similar survey 1Prentice, "Management: Curse, Cure-all, or Workable Concept," p. 298. 2Ibid., p. 310. 3George Dunterman, "Analysis of Data From North Carolina Statewide Assessment of Educational Progress" (Durham, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, February 1976). 4Ibid., p. 15. 44 that had been conducted in the same district in 1971-72. From the comparison it was evident that there had been a significant conserva- tive shift in attitudes among all three groups. The survey showed parent attitudes to be more negative toward education and school quality than those of the other two groups.1 The Stanford Research Institute developed a full-scale model for educational planning and the establishment of institutional goals and objectives. Their technique, termed the "objective scaling pro- cedure" (OSP), uses magnitude-estimation scaling, which is a syste- matic assessment of one's attitudes toward institutions and cultural phenomena. Provided with a list of objectives for a given educational institution, administrators, citizens, and planners then apply Stanford's OSP technique. Computer processing provides output, including objectives, in prioritized lists.2 English discussed the school board's responsibility for cur- riculum matters and attacked the traditional view that the school board should decide only policy matters, whereas the superintendent should demonstrate that policy. He defined the curriculum as every- thing that goes on in the schools and argued that it is the board's responsibility to ensure the reliability and validity of the 1Susanne M. Hunter, "Survey of Secondary School Perceptions" (research report, New York Board of Education, Willowdale, Ontario, August 1977). 2Fenwick W. English, "Your Board's Responsibility for Cur- riculum" (paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the National School Boards Association, San Francisco, Calif., April 10-13, 1976). 45 curriculum. This requires board involvement through the use of a needs-assessment survey, "Community Survey of Educational Goals."] Hedges used the Parent, Teacher, and Student Opinion Inven- tories published by the National Study of School evaluation to study attitudes toward education in 40 Florida high schools. He examined differences in attitudes toward the high-school program among the three groups surveyed.2 The Lake Washington School District compared the results of an assessment process conducted in 1977 with a follow-up 1980 assess- ment survey. Before taking the 1980 survey, students, their parents, educators, and other community members viewed a slide presentation that reviewed what needs had been identified in the first assessment and what had been done to meet them. According to Barbara Ryan, public information officer, "We added to our credibility" by explaining why some needs had not been addressed as expected.3 Summar The review of literature and related research presented in this chapter was divided into four sections, which constituted the theoretical framework of this study. The first section reviewed the 1 2William D. Hedges, "Attitudes of Parents, Teachers, and Students Towards Education in Florida High and Low Achieving Schools" (sponsored by the National Study of School Evaluation, Arlington, Va., December 1980). Ibid. 3Kathleen McCormic, "A Six-Step Plan to Gauge Support for Your)Schools," The American School Board Journal 168 (November 1981 : 36. 46 historical development of goals and objectives, the second section comprised research studies designed to introduce a systems approach to goal setting, the third section reviewed the research conducted in the area of needs-assessment surveys as they relate to goals and objectives, and the fourth section reviewed research in the area of goal setting and long-range planning. The value of surveys and needs assessment is an important component of the educational change process, as the research indi- cated. The value of surveys as the stimulus for problem identifi- cation is that it not only provides understanding of the per- ceptions held by various members of the system and environment, but also provides for a legitimization and acceptance of the data. The survey is designed to get the organization to make a self-analysis based on the members' own perceptions of phe technology. structure, and processes of the organization. 1Zaltman, Florio, and Sikorski, Dynamic Educational Change, pp. 149—50. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY This chapter contains a discussion of the instrument, its reliability and validity, sampling techniques used in the study, the population, and collection and treatment of the data. The Instrument A l9-item questionnaire was used to obtain data from parents of students in the Toledo Public Schools, parents of students in private schools, nonparents, students, and educators pertaining to the specific purposes of this study. The goal statements included in the instrument are the 18 goals of education identified by Spears in an opinion-poll survey for Phi Delta Kappa. This goal survey was part of the Chico model for community and school involvement originat- ing with the Program Development Center at California State University. Phi Delta Kappa took over distribution of the model, which consisted of structured materials for school district use, in April 1972. A feature of this program was a basic list of 18 goals for public schools.1 A pilot study was conducted to determine if the directions were clearly stated, keeping in mind that the questionnaire would be lHarold Spears, "Kappans Ponder the Goals of Education," Phi Delta Kappan 55 (September 1973): 29-32. 47 48 submitted to students, parents, and nonparents. Furthermore, each participant in the pilot study was asked to check each goal statement to determine if he/she understood the learning goal and the statements under each goal. Written comments were solicited. A self-addressed envelope was included. The participants in the pilot study included 10 parents, 10 nonparents, 10 parents of students in private schools, 10 educators, and 20 students. The student group was larger than the other groups because the researcher had some concern that the students might not be familiar with the wording in the questionnaire. All of the partici- pants were randomly selected. When the returns were received, the researcher called together a group representing each of the publics to approve any suggestions made by the pilot group. A few changes were suggested, and these were incorporated in the final questionnaire. To omit any biases on the part of the researcher, a table of random numbers was used to determine the order in which the goals were stated in the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to score each goal statement on a Likert scale from 1 through 5 (1 = very little, 5 = very much) indicating the extent to which the schools snpglg_help every student with each goal and the extent to which the schools are ngg_helping every student with each goal. The second part of the questionnaire, Item 19, asks the respondent to list 3 of the 18 goals, in the order of importance, that should serve to guide the school in working with students. 49 Validity The validity for this instrument was tested in the following manner: In 1969-70, the California School Boards Association sur- veyed all California school districts about their educational goals. They received over 200 responses to their survey. In 1970-71, a task force from CSBA, under Assistant Director Edmund Lewis, developed a list of 18 goal statements for the goals of education from the survey results and appropriate follow-up. Concurrently, in 1969-70, the Center for the Study of Evalua- tion (CSE) at UCLA developed the concept of 22 areas and 94 sub- areas for goals/objectives in education for use in their new needs assessment/planning model. These areas were publicly accepted as all-inclusive of educational needs/goals in California by the then-existing Association of School District Superintendents in the state. In 1971-72, the Northern California Program Development Center staff, under 8. Keith Rose, developed the 18 goals of education from these two prior efforts. Theng goals of education and their supporting clarifiers were essentially a revision of the CSBA goal statements, taking into account the CSE work, and insuring that the final 18 goal statements and their supporting clarifiers included everything pertinent from both sets of information. The Northern California PDC then developed a process for rating/ranking these goals based on a "forced—choice" individual goal-ranking process followed by a "forced-choice" consensus process. The 18 goals of education and the goals process was field tested that year and "fine tuned" based on the results of the experiences gained at seven first-year field test sites. The final version of the goals and clarifiers, and the process itself, was a simplified version which had been tested with a cross-section of various groups of community members and parents (including migrants and other minority group members). The method of goal development (including the two independent sets of goals, CSBA and CSE) speaks to the content validity of the goals of education. The field testing and clarification/revision process of both the goals and the whole system of the model speaks to the face validity of the goals/model. Furthermore, a factor analysis of 300 individuals' responses/ ranking of the goals from the first five field test sites indi- cated the 18 goals of education were all independent of one another--that 18 independent factors were involved in the set of statements (no factor loadings were greater than .30 for the set of goal statements used). 1Dr. Ira H. Nelken, Consultant for Butte County Superintendent of Schools, Oroville, California, to Phyllis M. Boyle, 19 July 1982. 50 Reliability Reliability of the instrument was tested as follows: Reliability relates to the extent to which a person would obtain the same relative score of ranking if the process were readministered (the extent to which the process is consistent in measuring what it measures). At each of the seven field test sites there were four observ- ers that verified (by talking to community participants after the process was completed) the consistency with which the participants' rating/ranking occurred. A week later, at a second meeting, par- ticipants were asked if they would respond differently if they were to redo the process now. The results of the interviews indi- cated very few minor rating changes would have occurred. Two years later, 50 individuals in the Chico area rated/ ranked the goals twice (two weeks apart from one another) using the goals process. A "test/retest" reliability coefficient of 0.9 was obtained from this study, indicating the individual ranking/rating within the goals process had good test/retest relia- bility. It was not possible to do a reliability study on the con- sensus portion pf the process as the process itself intervenes in the results. Methods and Procedures Sampling Techniques A random sample of students was chosen from grades 9 through 12 in the Toledo Public Schools. Boocock stated that The random sample, in which every case in a population has an equal likelihood of being included in the final sample, is the only kind that allows the researcher to make estimates about the total population and to compute the degree of confidence to be placed in his or her estimates.2 In other words, if one is to use sampling, as this investigator did at the secondary-school level, random selection should be used. The same method was used to select parents for the study as was used to select students. 1Ipid. 2Sarane Spence Boocock, Sociology of Education (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1980), p. 24. 51 The educators chosen to participate in the study included secondary-school teachers, counselors, and administrators. The Research Department of the Toledo Public Schools aided in obtaining the random sample of students (grades 9-12), parents, and educators for this study. The sample composition was as follows: (1) 5 percent of the educators, (2) 1 percent of the 9-12 student population, and (3) 1 percent of the parents of students in grades 9-12. A random sample of the population of the City of Toledo was obtained for two publics: (1) parents of students in private schools and (2) nonparents. The computer housed in the Toledo City Courthouse ran the random sample for this group, which totaled 500. The Toledo Public Schools 1979 survey response rate for nonparents was only 16 percent. Thus, a sample of 500 individuals was chosen to give the researcher reasonable assurance of having a minimum of 100 usable responses. Forty-six nonparents returned questionnaires with a note saying they did not want to participate in the study because they were not in the mainstream of education or had no feelings about what children should learn. A telephone follow-up was done on these returns, but only two persons agreed to participate in the study. The questionnaire returns were as follows: Group _Ji_ Returns .Jz Students 165 160 97 Parents of students in Toledo public schools 165 140 85 Parents of students in private schools 250 81 32 Nonparents 250 82 33 Educators 14§_ 122_ 89 Total 975 592 52 Collection of Data The following procedures were used to collect the data. All responses were intended to be anonymous. The questionnaires of parents of students in public schools were sent home, questionnaires of non parents and parents of private-school students were mailed, and the students and educators responded in group sessions. Parent data were collected with the assistance of the stu- dents. A letter from the Deputy Superintendent (see Appendix B) addressed to the selected parents formally requested their assistance in the study. The letter briefly explained the purposes of the study and the directions for completing and returning the Learner Goal Questionnaire (see Appendix A). The students representing each parent selected for participa- tion were assembled by grade level and asked to deliver a packet con- taining the letter and the instrument to their parents. The parents were requested to return the completed questionnaire to the school by the student within two days in an unmarked envelope that was provided. The envelopes were collected before school and at noon on two scheduled days. The names were crossed out when the envelopes were returned. For purposes of follow-up, the names of parents who had returned their envelopes were noted on a master list. After the first morning, all parents who had not returned the instrument were con- tacted by telephone to confirm that the student had taken the packet home. A follow-up letter (see Appendix C) was mailed to all parents who had not returned the Learner Goal Questionnaire within two days. 53 A second questionnaire and self-addressed stamped envelope were included with the letter. The researcher personally contacted each principal to arrange to collect the data from students and faculty members. Student questionnaires were distributed at the respective schools, according to a prearranged schedule convenient to the schools. Students were assembled in small groups according to grade level. The investigator explained the purposes of the study-and the direc- tions for completing the questionnaire. The students were requested to complete the questionnaire and return it to the investigator at the end of the session. Four separate sessions were required to collect the initial student data. One session was conducted for each grade level from 9 through 12. This procedure allowed personal contact with the respondents, which, according to Van Dalen, is the most desirable 1 Each means of reducing partial responses and refusals to reply. student checked his/her name off the student master list and turned in the questionnaire at the end of the session. All absent students were contacted individually and were asked to complete the question- naire. Data were collected from the educators at the respective schools and administrative offices according to schedules that prin- cipals had already approved. Teachers, counselors, and school-level administrators were assembled in faculty or staff groups at each 1Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational Researpp_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1966), p. 302. 54 school. Following an explanation of the purposes of the study and the directions for completing the questionnaire, the educators were asked to fill out the instrument and return it at the end of the session. One session was required at each of the schools. The investigator contacted all absent educators and asked them to fill out the questionnaire. A cover letter (Appendix B), the finalized instrument (Appen- dix A), and a return—addressed stamped envelope were mailed to the two publics in the survey: (1) parents of students in private schools and (2) nonparents. After one week, a second mailing of the cover letter and instrument was made. Each questionnaire was numbered so that an accurate record of respondents could be kept for follow-up tabulation. Treatment of Data An IBM 4341 computer, made available by the University of Toledo Data Processing Center, was used to analyze the information obtained from respondents to the Learner Goal Questionnaire. Philip Marcus, Professor of Sociology and Director of Social Sciences and Research Bureau at Michigan State University, directed the treatment of data using the computer program--Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The first six hypotheses stated in this study were tested with the t-test statistical method. Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 were tested with the chi-square analysis to determine if any relationships existed between the opinions of the respondents and certain demographic information--sex, income, and education--associated with the four most important goals. 55 The questionnaire responses were analyzed for each goal by using the t-test to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean scores on the pppplg_and ppp_responses. This tech- nique was employed to test the differences in the mean scores for each of the five groups separately and for the five groups collec- tively. An item analysis was conducted on each goal and score category to determine the percentage of respondents giving each response. The mean score response and the standard deviation were determined for each goal. A Likert-type scale from 1 = very little to 5 = very much was used to obtain a score for each respondent on each goal. The .05 alpha level was used to determine if the differences in mean scores were significant. In Chapter IV, the statistical treatment of the data is pre- sented in tables showing the discrepancy between the average scores for the gppplg_and ppp responses as a method of ranking the goals. The data are presented for each group separately and for all five groups collectively for each goal. The responses to Question 19, concerning the top three goals, based on the number of choices for each category, are presented in tabular form. The first, second, and third priorities were determined by a weighting system. The first choice was given a weight of three, the second choice received a weight of two, and the third choice was given a weighted value of one. Furthermore, these data were analyzed to determine goal choices on the basis of sex, formal education, and income of the respondents. 56 Summar A questionnaire was used to determine which of the 18 learner goals should receive priority attention. The opinions of students, educators, parents of students in the Toledo Public Schools, non- parents, and parents of students in private schools were sought to determine how much the schools pppplg_help every student and how much the schools ppg_helping every student in regard to the learner goals. The Learner Goal Questionnaires were administered to the educators in staff meetings at each school and to students in group sessions at each school. The students themselves hand-delivered questionnaires randomly to the selected parents of students in the Toledo Public Schools; nonparents and parents of students in private schools received their questionnaires in the mail. The methodology employed to test the research questions for this study was also described in this chapter. The t-test was used to test the hypotheses stated in this study. The hypotheses were stated in the null form. A chi-square analysis was also used to determine if any relationship existed between the opinions of the respondents and certain demographic characteristics. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction This chapter presents descriptive and inferential analyses of the data collected in accordance with the research design outlined in Chapter III. An IBM 4341 computer was used to analyze the data obtained from 592 respondents to the Learner Goal Questionnaire. The SPSS programs for item analysis, t-tests, chi-square, and analysis of variance were used in the analysis prOcedures.1 Three basic concerns were considered in the study: (1) To what extent pppplp_the schools help every student with each goal? (2) To what extent are the schools ppp_helping every student with each goal? and (3) What are the learner goal priorities as determined by the discrepancies between the gppplg_and ppp_responses? Since two responses were solicited from the same respondent for each goal, it was necessary for testing purposes to combine Ques- tions 1 and 2 into a single hypothesis for each group. Therefore, a null hypothesis of no significant difference between gppplg_and ppp_ responses on each goal was formulated for students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. A t-test was 1Norman H. Nie et al., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Boék Co., 1975). 57 58 used to test each of these hypotheses (Hol-Ho6) for each of the 18 learner goals. After determining if there was a significant difference between the pppplp and ppp means for each goal, the one-way analysis of variance statistical procedure was used to analyze total goal perception on Questions 1 and 2 separately. Two grand averages were calculated for each of the five respondent groups: students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. The first grand mean was derived from a sum of the mean scores on the pppplg_responses divided by the number of goals (18). The second grand mean was calculated in the same manner using the means of the ppp_responses. Priorities were determined for students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools, and for the composite group. It was not necessary to formulate hypotheses to answer this question; therefore, no statistical proce- dures were required. The goal rankings are presented in tables indi- cating the priorities of the five respondent groups. Table 1 identifies the 18 learner goals as stated in the questionnaire with an abbreviated form that was used when necessary for ease of presentation. For example, the full goal statement (1), "Learn to respect and get along with people with whom we work and live," was abbreviated to "Get Along With People." Descriptive Analysis This section presents a descriptive analysis of the responses collected for all 18 goals in the Learner Goal Questionnaire. A 59 Table l.--Learner goals and their abbreviations. Abbreviated Form Full Name of Goal Statement Get Along With People Manager of Money & Resources Examine & Use Information Job-Selection Information General Education Skills of Family Living Citizenship Respect for Differences Aesthetic Appreciation Understand/Practice Democracy World Changes Reading, Writing & Listening Desire for Learning Leisure Time Pride in Work & Self Job-Entry Skills Health & Safety Character & Self-Worth 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. . Learn to respect and get along with people with whom we work and live . Learn how to be a good manager of money, property and resources . Learn how to examine and use infor- mation . Gain information needed to make job selections . Gain a general education . Understand and practice the skills of family living . Learn how to be a good citizen . Learn how to respect and get along with people who think, dress and act differently . Appreciate culture and beauty in the world Understand and practice democratic ideas and ideals Learn about and try to understand the changes that take place in the world Develop skills in reading, writing and listening Develop a desire for learning now and in the future Learn how to use leisure time Develop pride in work and a feeling of self-worth Develop skills to enter a specific field of work Practice and understand the ideas of health and safety Develop good character and self- respect 60 discussion of the item analysis relative to the should goal responses is followed by a similar discussion of the ppp_goal responses. Discussion of the Should Respdnses An item analysis was performed on the data collected from all 592 respondents. This analysis determined the mean, standard deviation, and percentage of respondents associated with each choice category for all of the goal statements. Table 2 presents the goal numbers and the associated means and standard deviations for the 18 pppplg_goals. Also shown are the five response levels and the percentage of total subjects who selected each particular response. The response levels have the following meanings in terms of how much the school gppplg_help or is ppp_help- ing every student: 1 = very little, 2 = little, 3 = sometimes, 4 = much, and 5 = very much. Table 2 reveals that more than half of the subjects selected response levels 4 or 5 for all 18 pppplp_goals. For ten of the goals, more than 50 percent of the respondents selected level 5, "very much." Fewer than 10 percent selected response levels 1 or 2 for all except Goal 14 (Learn how to use leisure time). This accounts for a gen- erally high mean for the 18 pppplp goals. There is an inverse relationship between the size of the standard deviation of the means and the amount of consensus among the respondents. A higher standard deviation represents more varia- bility in the scores contributing to the mean. A lower standard deviation represents less dispersion. Consequently, a higher standard Table 2.--Item analysis of should responses. 61 «53.3.1.2: 32:23:23.. 5 1 4.434 0.886 1.4 2.2 8.8 25.3 62.0 2 4.318 0.877 1.9 1.7 9.6 35.6 51.0 3 4.426 0.852 1.5 1.2 6.3 32.8 57.8 4 4.299 0.991 2.0 2.5 10.3 29.6 54.7 5 4.576 0.873 2.5 0.5 4.1 20.1 72.3 6 3.865 1.070 1.5 7.9 23.5 32.4 33.8 7 4.252 0.964 1.7 2.4 11.3 34.1 49.7 8 4.179 0.981 2.0 3.4 13.3 34.6 46.1 9 4.007 1.014 3.4 3.9 15.7 41.0 35.6 10 4.056 0.955 2.4 3.2 15.7 42.2 36.1 11 4.147 0.914 1.0 3.0 13.5 41.7 40.0 12 4.654 0.819 1.0 1.9 3.7 14.2 78.5 13 4.473 0.836 0.7 2.0 5.7 30.4 60.6 14 3.733 1.176 2.9 11.5 24.2 27.4 33.1 15 4.375 0.965 1.9 2.0 7.4 29.1 58.6 16 4.296 0.952 1.4 2.4 12.8 28.9 53.9 17 4.054 0.979 1.5 3.5 13.7 44.6 35.5 18 4.353 0.885 1.0 1.5 10.3 32.1 54.4 aFor complete goal statements, see Table l, p. 59. bResponse level 1 = very little, 2 = little, 3 = sometimes, 4 = much, and 5 = very much. 62 deviation indicates less consensus among the respondents, and a lower standard deviation represents a higher amount of agreement.1 As indicated in Table 2, the largest degree of consensus was associated with "Develop Skills in Reading, Writing and Listening" (Goal 12). The mean was 4.654 and the standard deviation was .819. The least amount of consensus was attached to "Learn How to Use Leisure Time" (Goal 14). It had a mean of 3.733 and a standard deviation of 1.176. A mean of 4.0 or greater was produced for 16 of the 18 pppplg_goals. This indicates that there was general agreement that these goals are appropriate and that the school should help every student achieve them. Discussion of the Now Responses Table 3 contains the goal numbers, means, standard deviations, and percentage of total subjects associated with each response level for the 18 ppp_goals. A majority of the responses were clustered at the "little” (2), "sometimes" (3), and "much" (4) levels. Table 3 reveals that 36 to 46 percent of the respondents chose "sometimes" (3) for all 18 goals. The standard deviations shown in Table 3 indicate that there was considerably less consensus among the respondents on how much the schools are pp! helping every student with the goals than there was on how much the schools pppplg_be helping every student with the goals (see Table 2). The goal receiving the largest amount of consensus in 1George A. Ferguson, Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Bock Co., 1976). 63 Table 3.--Item analysis of ppp_responses. Goal a Mean Standard Response Levelb Number DeV1at1on 2 3 4 5 1 2.887 1.032 11.1 19.4 43.9 19.8 5.6 2 2.809 1.040 10.6 21.3 46.6 14.4 6.1 3 3.132 1.004 4.2 17.2 44.3 24.7 8.6 4 3.086 1.072 7.6 15.9 41.4 25.5 8.6 5 3.326 1.066 5.6 11.0 40.0 28.7 14.0 6 2.701 1.016 12.5 25.3 44.8 11.8 5.1 7 2.904 1.119 9.8 22.0 39.2 19.4 8.3 8 2.819 1.131 14.2 21.1 37.3 19.9 6.8 9 2.681 1.151 19.8 20.8 36.5 16.7 6.1 10 2.939 1.065 9.0 18.6 42.9 22.0 6.3 11 2.953 1.021 6.4 22.3 42.1 22.1 5.9 12 3.211 1.157 6.8 14.2 39.0 23.6 14.9 13 2.861 1.054 10.1 22.5 40.5 20.6 5.4 14 2.696 1.151 17.1 19.8 39.5 16.2 5.9 15 2.841 1.114 10.6 22.8 37.8 20.8 6.3 16 2.988 1.109 10.1 15.5 40.5 25.3 6.9 17 3.035 1.034 5.2 20.8 39.2 27.2 6.1 18 2.772 1.076 10.5 21.8 46.1 13.2 6.4 aFor complete goal statements, see Table l, p. 59. bResponse level 1 = very much, 2 = little, 3 = sometimes, 4 = much, and 5 = very much. 64 Table 3 was "Learn How to Examine and Use Information" (Goal 3). The mean was 3.132 and the standard deviation was 1.004. The least consensus was associated with "DevelOp Skills in Reading, Writing and Listening" (Goal 12). It had a mean of 3.211 and a standard deviation of 1.157. A mean of 3.00 or greater was produced by only five of the ppp_goals. This indicates that the respondents felt that the schools are ppp_helping every student to achieve the goals to an average degree on only five goals: 3, 4, 5, 12, and 17. Inferential Analysis Five hypotheses of this study made comparisons between the independent variable of group membership, represented by students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools, and the dependent variables, listed as learner goals. A correlated t-test was used to test Hypotheses 1 through 5. Hypothesis 1 There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ppp_doing, as perceived by students. Analysis.--Tab1e 4 presents the results of the correlated t-tests performed on the should and ppp_means of all 18 learner goals, as perceived by students. The t-value resulting from a com- parison of the difference between the means and the associated proba- bility (p) is presented for each goal. All of the probabilities fell below the .05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected for each of the 18 goals. These results indicate that 65 Table 4.--Results of t-tests for students. 5°31 322:1“ MESA. DV$i2r. t'TESt p 1. Get Along With People 4.1772 2.9494 1.2278 11.36 0.000 2' gigggfigegf ”°"ey & 4.2025 3.0570 1.1456 10.83 0.000 3. Examine 8 Use Information 4.1962 3.3291 0.8671 7.26 0.000 4. Job-Selection Information 4.2532 3.3608 0.8924 7.82 0.000 5. General Education 4.4430 3.5380 0.9051 7.92 0.000 6. Skills of Family Living 3.6139 2.8481 0.7658 6.46 0 000 7. Citizenship 4.0190 2.8771 1.1519 9.67 0.000 8. Respect for Differences 4.0506 2.6772 1.3734 10.14 0.000 9. Aesthetic Appreciation 3.7595 2.6772 1.0823 8.59 0 000 '0' gggggfigggd/P'aCtlce 3.7911 2.9557 0.8354 8.26 0.000 11. World Changes 4.0759 3.0063 1.0696 8.28 0.000 ‘2' Eggggggagwr't'"9 & 4.5506 3.5823 0.9684 8.44 0 000 13. Desire for Learning 4.2658 3.1139 1.1519 9.95 0 000 14. Leisure Time 3.5633 2.6962 0.8671 6.60 0.000 15. Pride in Work 8 Self 4.1772 3.0063 1.1709 9.82 0.000 16. Job-Entry Skills 4.2848 3.3291 0.9557 8.04 0.000 17. Health & Safety 3.9747 3.0949 0.8797 8.75 0.000 18. Character 8 Self-Worth 4.1203 2.8165 1.3038 11.05 0 000 66 there was a significant difference between the amount of help students gppplg_receive on each goal and the amount of help they are ppp_ receiving. Students perceived goal emphasis at less than their desired level. As indicated in Table 4, every pppplg_mean was higher than every ppp_mean. The highest gppplp_mean of 4.5506 was associated with "Reading, Writing & Listening." The lowest pppplp_mean of 3.5633 was associated with "Leisure Time." The highest ppp_mean of 3.5823 was associated with "Reading, Writing & Listening." The lowest ppp mean of 2.6772 was associated with "Get Along With People" EflKl "Aesthetic Appreciation." Hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference between what the schools pppplg_be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ppp_doing, as perceived by parents. Analysis.--The results of the t-tests for Hypothesis 2 are shown in Table 5. The table presents the means, the dis- crepancies between the means, the t-values, and the associated probabilities for all 18 learner goals. An examination of the table reveals that the t-values derived from discrepancies between the pppplg_and ppp_means were significant for all 18 goals at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected for each of the 18 goals. These results indicate that there was a significant differ- ence between the amount of help students sppplg_receive on each goal and the amount of help they are ppp_receiving. Parents perceived goal emphasis at less than their desired level. As indicated in Table 5, every should mean was higher than every now mean. Table 5.--Results of t-tests for parents. 67 5°3'S 3223;“ M:::s DYIigr. t'TFSt P 1. Get Along with People 4.4726 2.8836 1.5890 14.82 0 000 2' giggafigegf ”°"ey & 4.5068 2.8219 1.6849 17.10 0.000 3. Examine & Use Information 4.5411 3.0890 1.4521 13.20 0.000 4. Job-Selection Information 4.4658 3.1301 1.3356 12.18 0 000 5. General Education 4.6370 3.2945 1.3425 13.33 0.000 6. Skills of Family Living 4.1438 2.6644 1.4795 12.59 0.000 7. Citizenship 4.4041 2.8493 1.5548 14.85 0.000 8. Respect for Differences 4.2123 2.8493 1.3630 10.15 0.000 9. Aesthetic Appreciation 4.0411 2.8356 1.2055 9.30 0.000 10' gggggigggd/PFBCt'CF 4.0068 2.9384 1.0685 9.85 0.000 11. World Changes 4.2603 3.0616 1.1986 10.79 0 000 '2' Efigggggagwr't1”9 & 4.7192 3.2055 1.5137 13.39 0.000 13. Desire for Learning 4.7671 2.7671 2.0000 20.58 0 000 14. Leisure Time 3.9041 2.6781 1.2260 9.25 0 000 15. Pride in Work 8 Self 4.4795 2.8493 1.6301 14.43 0.000 16. Job-Entry Skills 4.5616 2.7123 1.8493 16.99 0.000 17. Health 8 Safety 4.0890 2.8219 1.2671 13.50 0.000 18. Character 8 Self-Worth 4.5479 2.6781 1.8699 17.62 0 000 68 The highest gppplg_mean of 4.7671 was associated with "Pride in Work & Self." The lowest §p9p1g_mean of 3.9041 was associated with "Leisure Time." This low mean score for "Leisure Time" indicates that parents attached the lowest value to this goal in comparison to the other 17 goals. The highest ppp_mean (3.2945) corresponded to "General Education" (Goal 5). The lowest ppp_mean (2.6644) corres- ponded to "Skills of Family Living" (Goal 6). Hypothesis 3 There is no Significant difference between what the schools pppplg_be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ppp_d0ing, as perceived by educators. Analysis.--Table 6 presents the results of the t-tests for the educators. The gppplg_and ppp_means, mean differences, t-values, and associated probabilities fell below the .05 level of significance; thus the null hypothesis was rejected for all 18 goals. The results indicate that there was a statistically significant dif- ference between the desired level of emphasis and the actual level of emphasis placed on each goal by the school, as perceived by educators. As shown in Table 6, the highest pppplg_mean (4.7953) related to "Reading, Writing & Listening" (Goal 12). In this regard, educators were in agreement with students (see Table 4). For educators, "Leisure Time" (Goal 14) received the lowest sppplp_mean (see Table 6). The ppp_ means indicate that educators felt the greatest emphasis was placed on "Reading, Writing & Listening" (Goal 12), with a mean of 3.3858. The lowest pp! mean score (2.6378) was for Goal 9, "Aesthetic Apprecia- tion." 69 Table 6.--Results 0f t-tests for educators. Goals figpgld Mggxs DViigr. t'TESt p 1. GetAlong With People 4.6378 3.1969 1.4409 16.28 0.000 2' Qgggflfigegf M°"ey & 4.2598 2.8189 1.4409 14.09 0.000 3. Examine 8 Use Information 4.5827 3.2520 1.3307 16.04 0.000 4. Job-Selection Information 4.1890 3.0315 1.1575 11.40 0.000 5. General Education 4.6535 3.4567 1.1969 14.43 0.000 6. Skills of Family Living 3.9764 2.7559 1.2205 11.99 0.000 7. Citizenship 4.4409 3.3622 1.0787 12.19 0.000 8. Respect for Differences 4.4409 3.1339 1.3071 13.19 0 000 9. Aesthetic Appreciation 4.1732 2.6378 1.5354 15.09 0.000 10. gggggigggd/Practlce 4.3465 3.1102 1.2362 12.18 0.000 11. World Changes 4.3150 3.0630 1.2520 12.60 0.000 12- Efigglggagwr't1"9 & 4.7953 3.3858 1.4094 14.15 0.000 13. Desire for Learning 4.4803 2.9213 1.5591 17.21 0.000 14. Leisure Time 3.8189 2.7165 1.1024 8.59 0.000 15. Pride in Work 8 Self 4.4409 2 9213 1.5197 14.67 0.000 16. Job-Entry Skills 4.0236 3.0630 0.9606 9.96 0 000 17. Health 8 Safety 4.2283 3.1732 1.0551 11.26 0.000 18. Character 8 Self-Worth 4.5354 2.9370 1.5984 14.89 0.000 70 Hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are ppp_doing, as perceived by nonparents. Analysis.--The results of the t-tests for Hypothesis 4 are shown in Table 7. The table presents the means, the dis- crepancies between the means, the t-values, and the associated probabilities for all 18 learner goals. An examination of the table reveals that the t-values derived from discrepancies between the .sppplp_and ppp_means were significant for all 18 goals at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected for each of the 18 goals. These results indicate that there was a significant differ- ence between the amount of help students gppplp_receive on each goal and the amount of help they are ppp_receiving. Nonparents perceived goal emphasis at less than their desired level. As indicated in Table 7, every gppplg_mean was higher than every ppp_mean. The highest gppplg_mean of 4.6265 was associated with "Reading, Writing & Listening." The lowest pppplg_mean of 3.7229 was associated with "Leisure Time." The highest ppy_mean (3.0361) corresponded to "Health & Safety." The lowest ppp mean (2.4578) corresponded to "Skills of Family Living." Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding learner goals and what they are now doing, as perceived by parents of students in private schools. Analysis.--The results of the t-tests for Hypothesis 5 are Shown in Table 8. The table presents the means, the 71 Table 7.--Results 0f t—tests for nonparents. 5°3'5 32§§ld M2225 0?:22r. t‘TBSt p 1. Get Along With People 4.3494 2.5904 1.7590 11.58 0.000 2' Sggggfigegf ”°"ey & 4.2530 2.5301 1.7229 10.88 0.000 3. Examine & Use Information 4.3012 2.8916 1.4096 11.99 0.000 4. Job-Selection Information 4.2892 2.8193 1.4699 8.60 0.000 5. General Education 4.4578 2.9639 1.4940 11.04 0.000 6. Skills of Family Living 3.7831 2.4578 1.3253 9.10 0.000 7. Citizenship 4.3012 2.5422 1.7590 11.16 0 000 8. Respect for Differences 4.1928 2.8193 1.3735 9.33 0.000 9. Aesthetic Appreciation 4.0361 2.6386 1.3976 9.12 0.000 '0' gggggigggd/P'aCt'ce 4.2771 2.8675 1.4096 9.76 0.000 11. World Changes 4.0964 2.7831 1.3133 9.30 0 000 12' Eggggggagwrlting & 4.6265 2.6386 1.9880 14.01 0.000 13. Desire for Learning 4.3133 2.7590 1.5542 12.31 0.000 14. Leisure Time 3.7229 2.6988 1.0241 6.41 0.000 15. Pride in Work 8 Self 4.2410 2.5542 1.6867 9.94 0.000 16. Job-Entry Skills 4.3976 2.8193 1.5783 10.35 0 000 17. Health 8 Safety 4.0482 3.0361 1.0120 5.64 0.000 18. Character 8 Self-Worth 4.1205 2.6867 1.4337 9.23 0.000 72 Table 8.--Results of t-tests for parents of students in private schools. 60315 3233? 033:5 piiigr. “est P 1. Get Along With People 4.6923 2.6410 2.0513 13.95 0.000 2' Eggggfigegf M°”ey & 4.3590 2.5641 1.7949 12.77 0 000 3. Examine 8 Use Information 4.5513 2.8718 1.6795 13.22 0.000 4. Job-Selection Information 4.2821 2.8205 1.4615 10.73 0.000 5. General Education 4.7303 3.1282 1.6026 11.31 0.000 6. Skills of Family Living 3.7564 2.5410 1.1154 7.52 0.000 7. Citizenship 4.0769 2.7179 1.3590 8.66 0.000 8. Respect for Differences 3.9359 2.5385 1.3974 7.50 0.000 9. Aesthetic Appreciation 4.1410 2.5128 1.6282 10.66 0.000 10' gggggfigggd/PraCtlce 3.9744 2.7051 1.2692 10.41 0 000 11. World Changes 3.8590 2.6410 1.2179 8.00 0.000 12' Efigggggagwr'tlng & 4.5385 2.7949 1.7436 11.64 0.000 13. Desire for Learning 4.4231 2.5385 1.8846 11.34 0.000 14. Leisure Time 3.6282 2.5923 0.9359 5.09 0.000 15. Pride in Work 8 Self 4.6154 2.6557 1.9487 14.16 0.000 15. Job-Entry Skills 4.1538 2.8718 1.2821 9.08 0 000 17. Health 8 Safety 3.8845 3.0897 0.7949 5.35 0 000 18. Character 8 Self-Worth 4.4103 2.5795 1.7308 10.76 0 000 73 discrepancies between the means, the t-values, and the associated probabilities for all 18 learner goals. An examination of the table reveals that the t-values derived from the discrepancies between the §p9p1g_and ppp means were significant for all 18 goals at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected for all 18 goals. These results indicate that there was a significant difference between the amount of help students pppplg_receive on each goal and the amount of help they are ppp_receiving. Parents of students in private schools perceived goal emphasis at less than their desired level. As indicated in Table 8, every sppplg_mean was higher than every ppp_mean. The highest pppplg_mean of 4.7308 was associated with "General Education" (Goal 5). The lowest §p9p1g_mean of 3.6282 was associated with "Leisure Time" (Goal 14). The highest ppp_mean (3.1282) was associated with "General Education" (Goal 5), and the lowest ppp_ mean (2.5128) was associated with "Aesthetic Appreciation" (Goal 9). Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference between what the schools should be doing regarding each goal and what they are ppp_doing, as perceived by all five groups of respondents together. Analysis.--The analysis of the discrepancies between the should and ppp_perceptions of the composite group is presented in Table 9. It should be noted that nonparents and parents of students in private schools had a disproportionate influence on these results. The responses of the five basic groups were considered equally in calculating the means; however, these two publics represented a much 74 Table 9.--Results of t-tests for composite group. Should Now Mean 60315 Means Means Differ. t'TESt p 1. Get Along Wlth People 4.4409 2.8953 1.5456 29.10 0.000 2' gigggfigegf M°"ey & 4.3176 2.8091 1.5084 28.56 0.000 3. Examine & Use Information 4.4257 3.1318 1.2939 24.74 0.000 4. Job-Selection Information 4.3007 3.0861 1.2145 21.84 0.000 5. General Education 4.5760 3.3260 1.2500 24.26 0.000 6. SklllS Of Family Living 3.8649 2.7010 1.1639 20.52 0.000 7. Citizenship 4.2517 2.9037 1.3480 24.46 0.000 8. Respect for Differences 4.1791 2.8193 1.3598 21.89 0.000 9. Aesthetic Appreciation 4.0068 2.6807 1.3260 22.27 0.000 10' ggggzfigggd/P'aCt'ce 4.0057 2.9392 1.1155 21.74 0.000 11. World Changes 4.1470 2.9527 1.1943 21.18 0.000 12' Efigggggagwrlting & 4.6537 3.2111 1.4426 25.77 0 000 13. Desire for Learning 4.4628 2.8615 1.6014 29.95 0.000 14. Leisure Time 3.7331 2.6959 1.0372 16.10 0.000 15. Pride in Work & Self 4.3750 2.8412 1.5338 26.85 0.000 16. Job-Entry Skills 4.2956 2.9882 1.3074 23.19 0.000 17. Health 8 Safety 4.0557 3.0355 1.0203 19.62 0.000 18. Character & Self-Worth 4.3530 2.7720 1.5811 27.99 0.000 75 sma11er popu1ation than that represented by students, parents, and educators. Tab1e 9 presents the means, the discrepancies between the means, and the t-va1ues with their re1ated probabi1ities. A11 of the t-va1ues had associated probabi1ities of 1ess than the .05 1eve1. Consequent1y, the nu11 hypothesis was rejected for a11 18 goa1s. There was a statistica11y significant difference between the §g901g_ and ggw_means. These resu1ts indicate that when the perceptions of students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schoo1s were considered c011ective1y, there was genera1 agreement that greater emphasis shou1d be p1aced on a11 18 goa1s. The means for a11 of the should goa1s were higher than the means for a11 of the now_ goa1s. This does not necessari1y represent a negative assessment of the emphasis current1y p1aced on each goa1 by the schooT. Tab1e 9 shows that five of the n9w_means equa11ed or exceeded 3.00. The consensus appeared to be that the schoo1s are he1ping students to achieve the five goa1s at an average or above-average 1eve1. The highest shoulg_mean (4.6537) re1ated to "Reading, Writing & Listening" (Goa1 12). The 1owest shoulg_mean (3.7331) re1ated to "Leisure Time" (Goa1 14). The highest ggw_mean of 3.3260 re1ated to "Genera1 Education" (Goa1 5). The 1owest ngw_mean of 2.6807 re1ated to "Aesthetic Appreciation" (Goa1 9). 76 Ranking of Learner Goal Priorities The 18 1earner goals were ranked in priority order, based on the discrepancies between the shoulg_and ngw_responses of students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. The goals were ranked in descending order: A rank of 1 was assigned to the goal with the largest difference between the means, and a rank of 18 was assigned to the goal with the least dif- ference between the means. Differences between the means are reported to four decimal places. Tables 10-14 present the goal numbers as they appear in the questionnaire and the abbreviated goal statements. Also presented are the priority ranks and the correSponding mean discrepancies. Student Priorities Table 10 presents the goal ranks based on student perceptions. The largest discrepancy between the shoulg_and ggw_means (.3734) was associated with "Respect for Differences" (Goal 8). This indicates that, according to student perceptions, the largest increase in school effort should be directed toward helping students develop an appre- ciation and awareness of cultural, political, and social patterns of races and nations. A low priority rank, based on the difference between the should. and no! means, indicates that the emphasis currently being placed on a goal closely approximates the emphasis that should be directed toward that goal. The goal of lowest priority for students was "Skills of Family Living" (Goal 6) with a discrepancy of .7658. Students 77 Table 10.--Goal priority ranks: students. Goal Number AbbreViated Goal Statement Rank 7'-Xn 8 Respect for Differences 1 1.3734 18 Character & Self-Worth 2 1.3038 1 Get Along With People 3 1.2278 15 Pride in Work & Self 4 1.1709 13 Desire for Learning 5 1.1519 7 Citizenship 6 1.1519 2 Manager of Money & Resources 7 1.1456 9 Aesthetic Appreciation 8 1.0823 11 World Changes 9 1.0696 12 Reading, Writing & Listening 10 0.9684 16 Job-Entry Skills 11 0.9557 5 General Education 12 0.9051 4 Job-Selection Information 13 0.8924 17 Health & Safety 14 0.8797 14 Lesiure Time 15 0.8761 3 Examine & Use Information 16 0.8671 10 Understand/Practice Democracy 17 0.8354 6 Skills of Family Living 18 0.7658 Key: 7; = shoulg_mean 7' = ggw_mean 78 tended to feel that school efforts in this area most nearly reached the level of emphasis they desired. Parent Priorities The learner goa1 priorities, based on parent perceptions, are shown in Table 11. An examination of the data revealed that parents selected "Desire for Learning" (Goa1 13) as the first priority for schools. The difference between the should_and ngw_means (2.000) was greater than that for any of the remaining 17 goals. Parents evi- dently felt that the area in which schools most need to place an increased emphasis is that of developing positive attitudes toward learning in the students they teach. According to parent perceptions, the lowest priority was "Understand/Practice Democracy" (Goa1 10) with a discrepancy between the ghgg1g_and ggw_means of 1.0685. This indicates that parents perceived the least difference between actual and desired goal emphasis for that goal . Educator Priorities Table 12 presents the goal rankings as perceived by the edu- cator group. The largest difference between the should and ngw_means (1.5984) was associated with "Character and Self-Worth" (Goal 18). This difference between the amount of emphasis currently being placed on Goal 18 and the amount of emphasis that educators felt should be placed on this goal exceeded the difference for any of the remaining goals. Thus, it was ranked as the top-priority item. The least difference between desired school emphasis and actual school emphasis was found for "Job-Entry Skills" (Goa1 16). 79 Table ll.--Goal priority ranks: parents. Nagglr Abbreviated Goal Statement Rank X'-Xh 13 Desire for Learning 1 .0000 18 Character & Self-Worth 2 .8699 16 Job-Entry Skills 3 .8493 2 Manager of Money & Resources 4 .6849 15 Pride in Work & Self 5 .6301 1 Get Along With People 6 .5890 7 Citizenship 7 .5548 12 Reading, Writing & Listening 8 .5137 6 Skills of Family Living: 9 .4795 3 Examine & Use Information 10 .4521 8 Respect for Differences 11 .3630 5 General Education 12 .3425 4 Job—Selection Information 13 .3356 17 Health & Safety 14 .2671 14 Leisure Time 15 .2260 9 Aesthetic Appreciation 16 .2055 11 World Changes 17 .1986 10 Understand/Practice Democracy 18 .0685 Key: 7; = shoulg_mean Y = no_w_mean 80 Table 12.--Goal priority ranks: educators. Nagglr Abbreviated Goal Statement Rank Yg-Xh 18 Character & Self-Worth 1 1.5984 13 Desire for Learning 2 1.5591 9 Aesthetic Appreciation 3 1.5354 15 Pride in Work & Self 4 1.5197 12 Reading, Writing & Listening 5 1,4094 1 Get Along With People 6 1.4409 2 Manager of Money & Resources 7 1,4409 3 Examine & Use Information 8 1.3307 8 Respect for Differences 9 1.3071 11 World Changes 10 1.2520 10 Understand/Practice Democracy 11 1.2362 6 Skills of Family Living 12 1.2205 5 General Education 13 1.1969 4 Job-Selection Information 14 1.5750 14 Leisure Time 15 1.1024 7 Citizenship 16 1.0787 17 Health & Safety 17 1.0551 16 Job-Entry Skills 18 0.9606 Key: 7; = shoulg_mean Y = pow mean 81 This low discrepancy between the means (0.9606) indicated that, according to educators, schools are helping students with this goal at a level that most approximates the desired level of emphasis. Nonparent Priorities The learner goa1s based on the nonparent perceptions are shown in Table 13. The largest discrepancy between the shgglg and M means (1.9880) was associated with "Reading, Writing & Listening" (Goa1 12). This indicates that, according to nonparents' perceptions, the largest increase in effort should be directed toward helping stu- dents develop basic skills in reading and writing. A low priority rank, based on the differences between the shgglg_and fl9w_means, indicates that the emphasis currently being placed on a goal closely approximates the emphasis that should be directed toward that goal. The goal of lowest priority for nonparents was "Health & Safety" (Goa1 17) with a discrepancy of 1.0120. Parents of Students in Private Schools Table 14 shows the learner goals based on the perceptions of parents of students in private schools. The largest discrepancy between the shgglg_and ggw_means (2.0513) was associated with "Get Along With People" (Goal 1). This indicates that parents of students in private schools felt the largest increase in school effort should be directed toward helping students develop a cooperative attitude toward living and working with others. A low priority rank, based on the differences between the should and ggw_means, indicates that the emphasis currently being 82 Table l3.--Goal priority ranks: nonparents. Nfigglr Abbreviated Goal Statement Rank Kg-Xh 12 Reading, Writing & Listening 1 1.9880 7 Citizenship 2 1.7590 1 Get Along With People 3 1.7590 2 Manager of Money & Resources 4 1.7229 15 Pride in Work & Self 5 1.6867 16 Job-Entry Skills 6 1.5783 13 Desire for Learning 7 1.5542 5 General Education 8 1.4940 4 Job-Selection Information 9 1.4699 18 Character & Self-Worth 10 1.4337 10 Understand/Practice Democracy 11 1.4096 3 Examine & Use Information 12 1.4096 9 Aesthetic Appreciation 13 1.3976 8 Respect for Differences 14 1.3735 5 Skills of Family Living 15 1.3253 11 World Changes 16 1.3133 14 Leisure Time 17 1.0241 17 Health & Safety 18 1.0120 Key: 7; = shgylg_mean 7 = nowmean 83 Table l4.--Goal priority ranks: parents of students in private schools. Nfigglr Abbreviated Goal Statement Rank Yg-Yh 1 Get Along With People 1 2.0513 15 Pride in Work & Self 2 1.9487 13 Desire for Learning 3 1.8846 2 Manager of Money & Resources 4 1.7949 12 Reading, Writing & Listening 5 1.7436 18 Character & Self-Worth 6 1.7308 3 Examine & Use Information 7 1.6795 9 Aesthetic Appreciation 8 1.6282 5 General Education 9 1.6026 4 Job-Selection Information 10 1.4615 8 Respect for Differences 11 1.3974 7 Citizenship 12 1.3590 16 Job-Entry Skills 13 1.2821 10 Understand/Practice Democracy 14 1.2692 11 World Changes 15 1.2179 6 Skills of Family Living 16 1.1154 14 Leisure Time 17 0.9359 17 Health & Safety 18 0.7949 Key: 7; = shoulg_mean 7' = ngw_mean 84 placed on a goal closely approximates the emphasis that should be directed to that goal. This respondent group's mean of 0.7949 for the goal "Health & Safety" (Goal 17) agreed with the nonparents' perception of that goal. Composite Rankings The learner goals based on the rankings of all five publics-- students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools—-are listed in Table 15. The largest discrepancy between the §h931g_and 39! means (1.6014) was related to "Desire for Learning" (Goal 13). The goal with the lowest discrepancy (1.0203) was "Health & Safety" (Goal 17). Table 16 indicates that educators (.6378) were most satisfied with the way the Toledo Public Schools were accomplishing the 18 learner goals. Parents (.9315) and nonparents (.9760) tended to agree on how the schools were meeting the learner goals. The groups that were least satisfied with how the schools were doing in regard to the learner goals were the students (1.2976) and the parents of students in private schools (1.2564). Discussion of Priorities In Question 19, participants were asked to list 3 of the 18 goals in the questionnaire, in order of priority, that should guide the schools in working with students. Analysis of this question involved a weighting system that was applied to the responses of the students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. Three points were awarded for each first choice, two 85 Table 15.--Goal priority ranks: all five publics. Goal Number Abbreviated Goal Statement Rank X'—Xh l3 Desire for Learning 1 .6014 18 Character & Self-Worth 2 .5811 1 Get Along With People 3 .5338 15 Pride in Work & Self 4 .5456 2 Manager of Money & Resources 5 .5084 12 Reading, Writing & Listening 6 .4426 8 Respect for Differences 7 .3598 7 Citizenship 8 .3480 9 Aesthetic Appreciation ' 9 .3260 16 Job-Entry Skills 10 .3074 3 Examine & Use Information 11 .2939 5 General Education 12 .2500 4 Job-Selection Information 13 .2145 11 World Changes 14 .1943 6 Skills of Family Living 15 .1639 10 Understand/Practice Democracy 16 .1166 14 Leisure Time 17 .0372 17 Health & Safety 18 .0203 Key: 7; = ghggld mean Y = mmean 86 Table l6.--Mean differences between sh0ulds and nows. Group High Low Difference Between Means Means Shoulds and Nows Students 1.3734 0.7658 1.2976 Parents 2.0000 1.0685 .9315 Educators 1.5984 0.9606 .6378 Nonparents 1.9880 1.0120 .9760 Parents of students in private schools 2.0513 0.7949 1.2564 Compos1te of all five 1.6014 1.0203 .5811 publics points were awarded for each second choice, and one point was awarded for the third choice. Table 17 shows the results for Question 19. Twenty-one and five-tenths percent of the students, 26 percent of the parents, 29.9 percent of the educators, and 34.6 percent of the parents of students in private schools chose "Reading, Writing & Listening" (Goal 12) as their first-priority goal. These four publics felt that "Reading, Writing & Listening" was the basic goal that should guide the school in making curriculum decisions. as their first priority. Nonparents chose "Job-Entry Skills" The second most important goal that should guide the schools in working with students was perceived by 22.6 percent of the parents to be "Pride in Work & Self." Parents of students in private schools felt that the number-two goal should be a "General Education." 87 amp amp mcweagmes mcwcapmws Ne_ amp 3 mewewez a mewuwaz wewecaas mppwxm .mcpummm .mcwcmmm 20$ mgwmmo xuucmlnoo acmugoasw ugm xmp gym amp am. fiom asp cusozumpmm mmucmcmemwo cowumozum sugo318Pmm gugoznepmm gucoz-mpwm a $3285 com 383mm Emcmu a 238.225 a .8322”. w .8322”. amp coppmuscm Pogocmw amp &F_ :3 a v:53 NS 3753 a? wave; gpcozuepmm zgucuuaoa am: §~ “SN a 236265 a: 26285 EN mcwcmumw4 Rum mcwcmmeJ mcwcmumPJ xmm zumcuoswo a 8.5.23 8:833. a 2.5.23 a 25.2: :8 w to: 8.562;. .ocwummm pmgmcoo .mcwcmmm .mcwummm cw muvga \ccmumgmuca m fiem m xmm m Rom m gem m amm cwcwumwg cwcmpmvg flaw cvcmummJ cwcwumwg cvcmumwg a mcweecz a acwgwez mp_wxm a mewpwcz a meeeecz a mcwuwzz pcaeeoaew pm_ .mcpvmmm .mcwummm xgucmnnow .mcpcmmm .mcwcmmm .mcwumwa m oo o mowpaza mwo>dgw ~F< we :P mucw : mucmgmacoz mcoamosum mucosa; mpcmczum _oow mpwmo u we mucmgma .Amp cowummaov mpwom xgwcowcg mmgzpnu.np mpnmk 88 Students felt that "Job-Entry Skills" and "Understand/Practice Democ- racy," both 11.4 percent, were second in importance. Educators and nonparents chose "Reading, Writing & Listening," 23.6 percent and 24.1 percent, respectively, as priority number two. The third goal to direct the schools in working with students was "Character and Self-Worth," chosen by three publics: parents at 19.9 percent, students at 16.5 percent, and educators at 12.6 per- cent. Parents of students in private schools chose "Respect for Differences" (20.5 percent), and nonparents chose "General Education" (17 percent). Summary of Goal Rankings Table 18 presents the abbreviated goal statements in rank order for each of the five respondent groups. An examination of the table reveals several trends in the ranking of goals. When the top five priorities of the five groups (students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools) were considered, several goals dominated the rankings. All five groups ranked "Pride in Work & Self" in the top five. Parents, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools chose "Manager of Money and Resources" as one of their top five priorities. Edu- cators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools chose "Reading, Writing & Listening" in the top five. Four groups-- students, parents, educators, and parents of students in private schools-~ranked "Desire for Learning" among the top five goals. Students and parents of students in private schools ranked "Get Along With People" in the top five. €39 upprxm xgucm1aoa xumu6m a gu—6m: aw=6=6~wu_u 62?» 6626664 .Egowcm co_aowpmm-noa :o6u6usvu p6gmcmw 9:5 56.66 66 6:36. zomguosmo mowuumcaxncmumgmucz mwmcazu v_goz moucmgmwmeo to» womamom .sgowcu mm: a mewsmxu mmocaommm a mocoz to me6:62 6.6666 6663 6=6_< 666 665666636 6 6666.6: .66_666¢ mpwm a ago: :6 meme; :o6u6pomgga< ovumnumo< mcvcgoma so» mgwmoo 66663-6_6m 6 666666666 mummum a gup6oz were mgamwmg mmmcmsu tree: 9.5: 6:666 66 6:26 mmocmgwmwwo Lou uumgmmm co_u6wumggg< owuozumm< .Egomcm mm: a mcms6xm xuoguoeoo momuo6ca\u:6umgoc:: gugoz-m_om w Lmuumgosu .Egow:~ cowuompmmnaoa :omuooaum —6gocoo mcwcguog to» «Lemma 6__,xm 66666-666 Crow a ago: :_ ones; mmocsomom a annex mo sumacmz 6,6666 :36: meop< 666 aegm=6~_6_u acmcmumwa 6 6666,63 .6626666 8?: 6:566 66 6:36 sungUOEoo momuumga\cc6umgmnc= .Egomcm mm: a mews6xu os_P acamwmg 66666m 6 66,66: .Ecomcw cowuuwpmmlnoa cowu6o=vu p6eocmu 6P._6m 66666-666 mcwcmpmmg a 66,6663 .6636666 mmmcagu upgoz co_u6mumgan< ovumgumm< mmocao66m a xmcoz mo gmmocmz aegme6~muwu mcpcgawg to» mcwmmo 6p6m 6 666: =_ 66P66 6,6666 666: 6=6P< 666 66663-6p6m 6 666666666 mmocmuomywa so» uuoammm auommm a gu~6m= we?» ogampo; 9.3.5 2.2.6.; mo 35% mmmcmgu upgoz aunguoeoo mupuumga\ucmumgou== mppexm 66666-666 6.6666~euwu mmucmgmwmva com pumamom .Egowcn copuom—wmuaoa cowuauauu F6memo cowuavumgaa< opumgumm< .sgomc~ mm: a ocws6xm saxo318—mm a L63265 mcpcoumwd a 6=_6_6= .6626666 mwogaommm a zone: mo me6c6z mcpcgowg Lem mnemoo wpmm a xeo: :6 wave; 6P666a =66: 666_< 666 munguoEma mowuumga\u:6umgmuc: mmmcmcu upgoz co_u6wuwgan< uwumgumm< oewp og:m_64 xum$6m a zu—6w: .Ecow=~ cowuumpmm1now co_u6o:cm pagwcou mmocwgmmmwo Low uuoamwm .585 6.6.: a 655me 9.3.: 2.2.66. .6 6:3 66,666666 6 663626: .6=_666¢ 63666666666 6_6666 66': 6=6~< 666 CF66 6 666: a. 66666 mmogaommm a xucoz mo me6caz 6_~,xm 66666-666 6666:-cp6m 6 666666666 mcwcg6mg to» mcwmmo «sou6uzum mucmcmacoz 1‘ 66:66:66 ‘1 11! .110 11.1 mpoozum mu6>wga cw mucmuzum we mucmgmm mucwg6a .mmcvxcmg poem mo aumssamlu.mp opn6p 90 Considering the priority rankings of all five groups revealed a measure of consensus for several of the goals in the top five pri- ority positions. Since the goals were ranked according to the dis- crepancies between the perceived amount of emphasis schools should place on each goal and the actual amount of emphasis currently placed on each goal, a high rank indicated a need for increased emphasis. Conversely, a low rank indicated that the schools were he1ping stu- dents with the goal at a level that was close to the expected level of emphasis. Chi-Square Analysis of Demographic Data This section includes the results of the testing to deter- mine if there was any association between certain demographic vari- ables (sex, education, and income) and the opinions of the respondents on the four most important goals. The significance level was set at .05. Four Most Important Goals by Sex Table 19 shows that 322 or 54.4 percent of the respondents were female and 270 or 45.6 percent were male. The table further shows that both the female and male populations viewed these four goals as equally important. A chi-square analysis showed no signifi- cant relationship between the sex of the respondents and their opinions toward the four most important goals. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. 91 Table l9.--Four most important goals by sex. Goal Female Male Total in No. % No. % Sample Total respondents 322 54.4 270 45.6 592 Goal 12: Reading, Writing 8: Listening 166 56.3 129 43.7 295 Goal 15: Pride in Work & Self 90 54.5 75 45.5 165 Goal 5: General Education 73 52.5 66 47.5 139 Goal l8: Character & Self-Worth 107 53.5 93 46.5 200 Four Most Important Goals bnyducation Table 20 shows that approximately two-thirds of the respond- ents who replied to the question on formal educational attainment were either high-school or college graduates. The table further shows that Goal 12, "Reading, Writing & Listening," was selected as one of the three most important goals by at least 50 percent of the respondents in every educational category. Further analysis shows that Goal 18, "Character and Self-Worth," was also frequently chosen as one of the top three goals; at least 25 percent of every group included this goal in the top three. 0n the average, the college-graduate category was most con- sistent in selecting the top three goals, with 36.83 percent of the population selecting one of the four goals shown in Table 20. Respondents in the high-school-graduate category were the second most consistent, with an average of 34.4 percent, whereas those in 92 .mucmuzum unapo:_ go: 666 mpmxp6c6 mege6 om.¢m mm.mm om.mm om.om wo.mm m~.Fm mm6cm>< o¢.P¢ 6m up.mm om mm.m~ m m¢.pm 66 mm.mm FF oo.m~ v sucozumpmm a empomcmcu "mp Pmow m~.wp mp om.- om mm.m~ m mm.mm ow mo.m~ o mn.w_ m cowu6o=um P6memu ”m ~6oc mm.pm mF 6N.m~ um No.0N m oo.mm m6 mm.~m FF m~.wp m wpmm a 32°: cw 666;; "mp Fmoo o_.om we No.mm o“ mm.mm mp me.pm Nu oo.om m— om.~o op mcwcmumVA a 6666363 .6626666 "up _6ow om.mp mm om.om Fmp om.o om om.~m oep om.“ 6m o~.m op mucmucoammm ~6uoh u .02 fl .oz & .oz & .02 N .oz a .02 mpmszco Foosum x2e: mumaumgw wmmppou Foozum com: ounce sum Paco mumsumgo unoppou meow sup: meow cmzh mm64 m .copu6oauo pmsgom x5 mpmom gc6ugoasw umoe Lsomul.o~ «Pam» 93 the less-than-eighth-grade category were the least consistent, with an average of 31.25 percent. A chi-square analysis showed no significant relationship was found between the income of the respondents and their opinions toward the four most important goals. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. Four Most Important Goals by Income Table 21 shows that a majority of the respondents who reported their income in the survey were in the $10,000-S20,000 category (43.1 percent). The distribution of responses is very similar to a bell curve. Thirty and five-tenths percent of the respondents made less than $10,000, and 26.5 percent made more than $20,000. Goal 12, "Reading, Writing & Listening,“ proved to be the most popular among all the categories. At least 49.44 percent of the respondents in every income bracket selected Goal 12, "Reading, Writing & Listening,“ among the top three rankings. A chi-square analysis showed no significant relationship between the formal education of the respondents and their opinions toward the four most important goals. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. Questions for Study, This section is a summary of the study as it relates to the questions for study posed in Chapter I. 94 .66266666 6636666 no: 666 66666626 66666 66.66 66 66 66.66 66.66 66.66 6666666 66.66 6 66.66 66 66.66 66 66.66 66 66.66 66 66666-6666 6 666666666 "66 6666 66.66 6 66.66 66 66.66 66 66.66 66 66.66 6 666666666 6666666 6m pwow 66.66 6 66.66 66 66.66 66 66.66 66 66.66 66 6666 6 6663 66 66666 "66 6666 66.66 66 66.66 66 66.66 666 66.66 66 66.66 66 666666666 6 6666663 .6666666 "66 6666 66.6 66 66 66 66 66.66 666 66.66 66 66.6 66 66666666666 66666 6 .62 6 .62 6 .62 6 .62 6 .62 666.66 666.66 666.66 666.66 666.66 6666 -666.666 -666.666 -666.666 -666.66 66666 m .650666 66 66666 6:666o656 umos 6=o6-1.- 6666» 95 1. What are the goal priorities for the Toledo Public Schools as perceived by the students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools? Table 18 showed a summary of goal rankings for students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. Conclusions are as follows: "Pride in Work & Self" was ranked among the top five posi- tions by all five publics. Students, parents, educators, and parents of students in private schools ranked "Desire for Learning" among the top five goals, while nonparents ranked this goal as number seven. "Reading, Writing & Listening" was ranked in the top five by the educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools, while parents of public-school students and students ranked this goal eighth and tenth, respec- tively. "Manager of Money & Resources" was ranked in the top five goal statements by all groups except educators, who ranked it number seven. 2. Do the educator and parent groups differ in their ratings of the 18 goals? (See Tables 11, 12, and 14.) The educators and parents ranked "Character & Self-Worth" and "Desire for Learning" in the first two priority posi- tions. The parents of students in private schools p1aced "Desire for Learning" in position three and "Character & Self-Worth" in position six. All three groups ranked "Pride in Work & Self" in the top five priority rankings. Parents of students in the Toledo Public Schools ranked "Job-Entry Skills“ number three, parents of private-school students ranked this goal thirteenth, while the educators ranked it eighteenth. 96 3. Do the responses of parents of students in public schools differ from those of parents of students in private schools? (See Tables 11 and 14.) Parents of students in Toledo Public Schools and parents of students in private schools agreed on the rankings of two goals. Both groups chose "Manager of Money & Resources" as priority goa1 four and "Respect for Differences" as priority goa1 eleven. Chapter Summacx The purpose of this chapter was to analyze and report the data collected in this study. The data were reported as follows: The t-test was used to determine whether Hypotheses 1 through 6 were accepted or rejected. The chi-square analysis was used for Hypothe- ses 7, 8, and 9. The next section related to the data collected for Question 19, concerning goal priorities. The last section related to the three questions for study posed in Chapter I. A summary of the study, discussion, implications for educa- tion, and recommendations for future research are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This chapter contains a brief summary of the purposes and procedures of the study, the conclusions resulting from the analysis of the data, recommendations resulting from the project, and sugges- tions for further study. Summar The primary purpose of this study was to obtain the opinions of secondary students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools as to the following: (1) a priority ranking of the learner goals, (2) how much the school §h9u1g_help every student, and (3) how much the school is ngw_helping every student. Further study focused on (1) whether the educator and parent groups differ in their ratings of the learner goals and (2) of the four most important goals, is there a relationship between the respondents and certain demographic data. The instrument used to collect the data was an 18-item ques- tionnaire based on Spears' Goals of Education. Participants were asked to score the goals on a 5-point Likert scale to indicate: (1) how much the schools shgulg_help students with each goal and (2) how much the schools are now helping students with each goal. 97 98 The goals were ranked according to the discrepancies between the shgulg_and ngw_responses. The goals with the largest discrepancies were ranked as first-priority goals. Item 19 on the questionnaire requested participants to list 3 of the 18 goals in order of impor- tance to guide the schools in working with students. The populations from which the samples were drawn included parents of secondary-school students, students, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. The educator sample comprised 145 secondary-school teachers, counselors, and administra- tors in the Toledo Public Schools. Random sampling procedures were used to select 165 secondary-school students and 165 parents of secondary-school students in the Toledo Public Schools. This same procedure was used to select the nonparents and the parents of stu- dents in private schools in the city of Toledo (250 for each sample). A total of 975 participants was selected to respond to the Learner Goal Questionnaire. Five hundred ninety-two usable instruments were returned, for a response rate of 61 percent. Six hypotheses were formulated to determine if there was a significant difference between should and now goal perceptions for each group on each goal. These hypotheses were tested with the t—tests. Findings Relative to the Hypotheses The findings of this study were based on the analysis of the data presented in Chapter IV. The t-test was used to test the hypotheses. A chi-square analysis was also used to determine if 99 any relationship existed between the opinions of the respondents and certain demographic data. The first hypothesis data showed the perceptions of students for each of the learner goals. A mean score was calculated for both the shguld and ngw_responses. It was observed that in every case the shgulg_mean was higher than the g9w_mean. The results of the statistical analysis indicated that all 18 of these differences were significant at the .05 level of confidence. Therefore, Ho], which hypothesized no significant difference between the means, was rejected. According to student perceptions, schools should place greater empha- sis on all 18 of the learner goals. The second hypothesis stated that there was no significant difference between desired goal emphasis and actual goa1 emphasis as perceived by parents. The mean scores for the shgulg responses were found to be higher than those for the ngw_responses for all 18 goals. Thus, H02 was rejected for all 18 goals. Parents felt that schools should place greater emphasis on all of the learner goals. The third hypothesis was rejected at the .05 confidence level for all 18 goals as perceived by educators. Educators felt the schools should place greater emphasis on all 18 goals. The perceptions of nonparents were tested in the fourth hypothesis. The comparison of means revealed that all 18 of the §h9u1g_means exceeded the now means. Consequently, Ho4 was rejected for all 18 1earner goals. The fifth hypothesis was rejected at the .05 confidence level for all 18 goals as perceived by parents of students in private 100 schools, indicating they felt the schools should place greater empha- sis on all of the learner goals. The sixth hypothesis was rejected at the .05 confidence level for all 18 goals, as perceived by all five publics. Thus, there was general agreement that the schools should place greater emphasis on all learner goals. The seventh hypothesis was accepted at the .05 confidence level between the male and female respondents on the four most important goals, namely, "Reading, Writing & Listening,“ "Pride in Work & Self," "General Education," and "Character and Self-Worth." The eighth hypothesis was accepted at the .05 confidence level between the various income levels of the respondents and the four most important goals, namely "Reading, Writing & Listening," "Pride in Work & Self," "General Education," and "Character and Self-Worth." The ninth hypothesis was accepted at the .05 confidence level between the education levels of the respondents and the four most important goals, namely, "Reading, Writing & Listening," "Pride in Work & Self," "General Education," and "Character and Self-Worth." Because this study was limited to an investigation of the goal perceptions of individuals representing five groups in one school district, the implications and generalizations drawn from this research may not be applicable to other school districts. The following conclusions were drawn from the data collected and analyzed. Conclusion 1. Determining how much the schools should emphasize the learner goals was based on the responses to the should 101 questions in the Learner Goal Questionnaire. Those responses indi- cated agreement among secondary-school students, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools in the City of Toledo that students should be helped with all of the goals to a greater extent than is ngw_occurring. Specific conclusions relative to this question are as follows: a. Students, educators, and nonparents agreed that "Reading, Writing & Listening" is the goal that §h9u1g_receive the greatest emphasis in working with students. b. Parents regarded "Pride in Work & Self" as the most important goal in terms of what the schools shgulg_emphasize in work- ing with students. c. Parents of students in private schools felt that "General Education"1 shoulg_be emphasized most. d. When the opinions of all five groups were considered col- lectively, "Reading, Writing 5 Listening" was ranked as within the first five shoulg_goals. Discussion: "Reading, Writing 8 Listening" may have been ranked in the first five should goals for all five publics because of the pressure and emphasis created by the news and television media as thee publicize national, state, and local norms in reading such as the Toledo Public Schools publicize the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. 1"General Education" refers to (1) developing background in skill in the use of numbers, natural sciences, math, and social sciences; (2) developing a fund of information concepts; and (3) developing special interests and abilities. 102 This thrust is further emphasized by the Ohio State Department as it publicizes the need for competencies in the basic skill areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. Conclusion 2. In regard to how much the schools ngw_help students with the goals, there was general agreement among the five groups that the schools ngw_help students with all the goals at the 3 level on the Likert scale. Specific conclusions relative to this topic are as follows: a. Students and educators agreed that "Reading, Writing & Listening" is ngw_being emphasized by the schools. b. Parents and parents of students in private schools agreed that "General Education" is ggw being emphasized by the schools. c. Nonparents felt that "Health & Safety" is now being emphasized by the schools. d. The composite group considered "General Education" the goal ggw being emphasized by the schools. Discussion: Students and educators chose "Reading, Writing & Listening" as the goal emphasized by the schools. It is interest- ing that these two publics are the ones that are closely involved in the educational mainstream of the curriculum. Thus, their assessment of the curriculum shows an emphasis on the Toledo Public Schools‘ attempt to meet the needs of students regarding this goal. The choice of "General Education" by all five groups may reflect the higher scores students have achieved in the last two years on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in the Toledo Public Schools. 103 Conclusion 3. The third area this investigator examined was learner goal priorities. The goal rankings resulted from the discrep- ancies between the §h9u1g_and now goal_responses. The following con- clusions were based on the top five priority goals of the five respondent groups. a. "Character & Self-Worth" and "Pride in Work & Self" were considered top priorities. All five publics ranked these goals as one of the top five positions. b. "Desire for Learning" was a top priority of students, parents, educators, and parents of students in private schools. c. "Reading, Writing & Listening" was considered a top pri- ority, according to educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. d. "Manager of Money & Resources" was a top-priority goal for parents, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools. e. "Get Along With People'I was selected as the first priority by parents of students in private schools and as the third priority by students and nonparents. f. There were similarities in goal perceptions among stu- dents, parents, educators, nonparents, and parents of students in private schools, based on the first five priority goal rankings con- cerning actual goal emphasis and desired goal emphasis. Discussion: "Character & Self-Worth" and "Pride in Work & Self" were top priorities for all five publics. Selection of these goals was in concert with the 1982 International Conference on 104 Education, which selected moral and ethical values as the top- priority aspect of education for the 19805. Drugs, crime, vandalism, and a disregard for law and order seem to be universal problems faced by the peoples of the world. Thus, schools are being asked to stress and reinforce a common value system that reflects the society as a whole. Demographic Information The following demographic information was collected for parents of students in public schools, parents of students in private schools, nonparents, and educators. §g5,—-0f the 592 respondents surveyed, 322 (54.4 percent) were female and 270 (45.6 percent) were male. Table 19 included the students in the 592 respondents. Because of a 3.8 percent discrep- ancy between the highest and lowest priority goals for both females and males, it can be concluded that both sexes felt that all four goals--"Reading, Writing & Listening," "Pride in Work & Self," "General Education," and "Character & Self-Worth"--should serve as priority goals to direct the schools in working with students. In a test of significance, no significant differences were found between the sexes. Discussion: It is interesting that the highest-ranking goal for females was I'Reading, Writing & Listening" (56.3 percent), and the lowest percentage ranking was "General Education" at 52.5 percent. The male population chose the opposite for their highest and lowest priority: "General Education" (47.5 percent) as the highest and 105 "Reading, Writing & Listening" (43.7 percent) as the lowest. This may reflect a preference of the sexes toward the disciplines of reading and mathematics. Level of education.—-The levels of education attained by the largest percentage of respondents were high-school graduate (32.3 percent) and college graduate (30.3 percent). This survey included the educators; thus the high percentage would be expected at the college-graduate level. Respondents at all educational levels chose "Reading, Writing 8 Listening" as a priority goal by 50 percent or more. In addition, 62.5 percent of the respondents in the less-than- eighth-grade education category chose this goal, too. The next highest percentage was found in the college-graduate level at 58.02 percent. Respondents at all educational levels chose "Character & Self-Worth" as the second highest priority goal. In a test of sig- nificance, no significant differences were found between the levels of education. Discussion: The results of the survey regarding all levels of education showed a concerted desire that all adults have similar priorities for their children. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that all students regardless of income should be taught "Reading, Writing & Listening," "Pride in Work & Self," “General Education," and "Character and Self-Worth." Igggme,-—The income range resembled a bell-shaped curve, with 43.1 percent of the respondents in the $10,001-$20,000 range. "Reading, Writing & Listening'I was chosen as top priority by respond- ents at all income levels. The average of each of the income levels 106 for the four most important goals was only 3.8 percentage points from the highest to the lowest average. Thus, all of the respondents in all of the income brackets felt these were the most important goals that should serve as directives to the schools in working with students. In a test of significance, no significant differences were found between the levels of income. Discussion: Adult awareness of goals for the Toledo Public Schools is not affected by their income bracket. Respondents at all income levels chose "Reading, Writing & Listening" as their top priority. It is interesting that these results show that the under- privileged as well as affluent or middle-class parents have common goals for their children. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study and the conclusions reached as a result of the findings, the following recommendations are pre- sented for consideration. 1. It is recommended that an examination be made of the goal statements in detail so as to determine whether they are being imple— mented at the present time. All groups were in agreement that all of these goal statements should be implemented to a greater extent than is happening within the schools. It is recommended that "Reading, Writing & Listening" should receive the greatest emphasis, which may call for a reexamination of the reading program, and to take the necessary steps to insure that each of the components in reading-- namely, reading, writing, and listening--be carefully defined within the program of learning for the students. 107 2. It is recommended that the board of education and its administrators consider the ranking of these goals so as to allocate available resources, keeping in mind that more resources may be needed to meet the high-priority 1earner goals. 3. It is recommended that these learner goals be used to plan the overall curricular program and specific instructional activities that will help these students gain success in the achieve- 1. ment of these goals. 4. Although the data showed that the various groups were in agreement as to the goals to be implemented, it is recommended that representative parents and students be involved with educators in developing and implementing plans to reduce the discrepancies in 1earner goals. 5. It is recommended that specific learner goal objectives be developed for each priority goal to provide a measure of objective evaluation of student progress. The learner goals as expressed by the various groups pointed out the need to include all goals within the instructional program. 6. It is recommended that performance objectives be written to establish a focus for designing new or revising existing programs or courses of instruction to include the goal priorities identified in this study. This procedure might insure that the learning experiences and activities at the classroom level are directed to the achievement of the learner goals. 7. It is recommended that inservice training for administra- tors and teachers have a basic understanding of the learner goals 108 and the perceptions of the various publics as to how they feel about the acquisition of these goals. 8. Because of the interest and the desires of the various publics in the implementation of these learner goals, it is recom- mended that channels of communication be kept open so that the various publics can be informed as to the attainment of the learner goals within the educational program. 9. It is recommended that since four of the priorities-- "Pride in Work & Self," "Get Along With People," "Character & Self- Worth," and "Desire for Learning"--re1ate to value concepts, a committee be directed to research these goals in relation to the total curriculum, thus providing directives, methodology, and implementa- tion of the value concepts for K-12. Further, it is recommended that this committee be composed of business leaders, parents, students, senior citizens, and educators. 10. It is recommended that the Toledo Public Schools revise the curriculum with emphasis on the basic skills to include (a) iden- tified core of basic curriculum subjects; (b) written curriculum objectives, scope, and sequence by grade level; and (c) achievement standards set for each subject area by grade level. 11. It is recommended that an inservice program be developed and implemented to improve teachers' skills in the following areas: (a) instruction in the basic skills (especially in grades 7—12) and (b) integrating the following value concepts identified in this study-- "Pride in Work & Self," "Get Along With People," "Character & 109 Self-Worth," and "Desire for Learning"-—into K-12 teachers' delivery system for each of the disciplines. Suggestions for Further Study 1. It is recommended that, in an urban school district, surveys be conducted in specific schools so as to define goals con- sistent with the needs of each attendance area. 2. It is recommended that, in a similar study, a series of open-ended questions be added to the survey instrument. Follow-up telephone calls to respondents in this study indicated a need to voice their opinions not related to curriculum but important to school-district policy makers. These open-ended questions could be analyzed to determine if there is a real need for changes in other aspects of the educational program. 3. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study in the nearby suburb of Toledo to determine if there is a significant difference in learner goals between urban and suburban populations. 4. An ethnographic study of the plans for implementing the expressed learner goals should prove to be worthwhile. Far too often, a survey study presents important suggestions for improvements in the school curriculum that are usually discussed but very little action taken. 5. A study should be conducted to define a set of learner goals written in more specific terms rather than the somewhat global terminology of the present tool. These learner goals could be expressed in behavioral objectives. 110 6. A study should be conducted on a regional basis to deter- mine if these learner goals are similar in the northern, southern, western, and eastern parts of this country. Often we find genera1 1earner goals defined by various organizations with the assumption that these represent the goals for everyone. APPENDICES 111 APPENDIX A LEARNER GOAL QUESTIONNAIRE 112 LEARNER GOAL QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer both questions (#1 on the LEFT and #2 on the RIGHT) by putting a circle around the number which tells how you feel about each Learner Goal below. The meaning of each number is. 1 = Very Little 2 = Little 3 = Sometimes 4 = Much 5 = Very Much Question #1 Question #2 How much SHOULD the How much is the school school help every NOW helping every student. LEARNER GOALS 1 2 3 4 5 (1) LEARN TO RESPECT AND GET ALONG 1 2 3 4 5 WITH PEOPLE WITH WHOM WE WORK AND LIVE. A. Develop appreciation and respect for the worth and dignity of individuals. B. Develop respect for individual worth and understanding of minority opinions and acceptance. C. Develop a cooperative attitude toward living and working with others. 1 2 3 4 5 (2) LEARN HOW TO BE A GOOD MANAGER 0F 1 2 3 4 5 MONEY, PROPERTY AND RESOURCES. A. Develop an understanding of economic principles and responsibility. 3. Develop ability and under- standing in personal buying, selling and investment. C. Develop skills in management of natural and human resources and man's environment. 1 2 3 4 5 (3) LEARN HOW TO EXAMINE AND USE I 2 3 4 5 INFORMATION. A. Develop ability to examine constructively and creatively. 8. Develop ability to use scientific methods. C. Develop reasoning abilities. 0. Develop skills to think and proceed logically. 113 114 Question #1 Question #2 How much SHOULD the ‘ How much is the school school help every NOW helping every student. LEARNER GOALS 1 2 3 4 5 (4) GAIN INFORMATION NEEDED TO MAKE 1 2 3 4 5 JOB SELECTIONS. A. Promote self-understanding and self-direction in relation to student's occupational interests. 8. Develop the ability to use information and counseling services related to the selection of a job. C. Develop a knowledge of specific information about a particular vocation. 4 2 3 4 5 (5) GAIN A GENERAL EDUCATION. 1 2 3 4 5 A. Develop background and skills in the use of numbers, natural sciences, mathematics, and social sciences. 8. Develop a fund of informa- tion and concepts. C. Deve10p special interests and abilities. I 2 3 4 5 (6) UNDERSTAND AND PRACTICE THE SKILLS 1 2 3 4 5 OF FAMILY LIVING. A. Develop understanding and appreciation of the princi- ples of living in the family group. B. Develop attitudes leading to acceptance of responsibili- ties as family members. C. Develop an awareness of future family responsibil- ities and achievement of skills in preparing to accept them. 115 Question #1 How much SHOULD the school help every student. I 2 3 4 5 (7) 12345(8) 1 2 3 4 5 (9) LEARNER GOALS LEARN HOW TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN. A. Develop an awareness of civic rights and respon- sibilities. Develop attitudes for productive citizenship in a democracy. Develop an attitude of respect for personal and public property. Develop an understanding of the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship. LEARN HOW TO RESPECT AND GET ALONG WITH PEOPLE WHO THINK, DRESS AND ACT DIFFERENTLY. A. Develop an appreciation for and an understanding of other people and other cultures. Develop an understanding of political, economics and social patterns of the rest of the world. . Develop awareness of the interdependence of races, creeds, nations and cultures. Develop an awareness of the processes of group relation- ships. APPRECIATE CULTURE AND BEAUTY IN THE WORLD. A. Develop abilities for effec- tive expression of ideas and cultural appreciation (fine arts). Cultivate appreciation for beauty in various forms. Develop creative self- expression through various media (art, music, writing, etc.). Develop special talents in music, art, literature and foreign languages. Question #2 How much is the school NOW helping every I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 116 Question #1 How much SHOULD the school help every Question #2 How much is the school NOW helping every student. LEARNER GOALS I 2 3 4 5 (IO) UNDERSTAND AND PRACTICE 1 2 3 4 5 DEMOCRATIC IDEAS AND IDEALS. A. Develop loyalty to American democratic ideals. 8. Develop patriotism and loyalty to ideas of democracy. C. Develop knowledge and appreciation of the rights and privileges in our democracy. 0. Develop an understanding of our American heritage. 1 2 3 4 5 (11) LEARN ABOUT AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND 1 2 3 4 5 THE CHANGES THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE WORLD. A. Develop ability to adjust to changing demands of society. 8. Develop an awareness and the ability to adjust to a changing world and its prob- lems. C. Develop understanding of the past, identify with the present, and the ability to meet the future. 1 2 3 4 5 (12) DEVELOP SKILLS IN READING, WRITING 1 2 3 4 5 AND LISTENING. A. Develop ability to comnu- nicate. 8. Develop skills in oral and written English. 1 2 3 4 5 (13) DEVELOP A DESIRE FOR LEARNING NOW 1 2 3 4 5 AND IN THE FUTURE. A. Develop intellectual coriosity and eagerness for lifelong learning. 8. Develop a positive attitude toward learning. C. Develop a positive attitude toward continuing independent education. 117 Question #1 How much SHOULD the school help every student. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 (14) (15) (16) (17) Question #2 How much is the school NOW helping every LEARNER GOALS LEARN HOW TO USE LEISURE TIME. 1 2 3 4 5 A. Develop ability to use leisure time productively. 8. Develop a positive attitude toward participation in a range of leisure time activities--physical, intellectual and creative. C. Develop appreciation and interests which will lead to wise and enjoyable use of leisure time. DEVELOP PRIDE IN WORK AND A 1 2 3 4 5 FEELING OF SELF- WORTH. A. Develop a feeling of student pride in his achievements and progress. 8. Develop self-understanding and self-awareness. C. Develop the student's feeling of positive self- worth, security, and self-assurance. DEVELOP SKILLS TO ENTER A 1 2 3 4 5 SPECIFIC FIELD OF WORK. A. Develop abilities and skills needed for immed- iate emplqyment. 8. Develop an awareness of opportunities and require- ments related to a specific field of work. C. Develop an appreciation of good workmanship. PRACTICE AND UNDERSTAND THE 1 2 3 4 5 IDEAS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY. A. Establish an effective indi- vidual physical fitness program. 8. Develop an understanding of good physical health and well being. C. Establish sound personal health habits and infonmation. 0. Develop a concern for public health and safety. 118 Question #1 Question #2 How much SHOULD the _ How much is the school school help every NOW he1ping every student. LEARNER GOALS 1 2 3 4 5 (18) DEVELOP GOOD CHARACTER AND 1 2 3 4 5 (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) SELF- RESPECT. A. Develop moral responsibility and a sound ethical and moral behavior. 8. Develop the student's capacity to disciline him- self to work, study and play constructively. C. Develop a moral and ethical sense of values, goals, and processes of free society. D. Develop standards of personal character and ideas. List three goals from the above that should guide the school in working with students. (Goal number only) 8. MOST IMPORTANT b. 2ND IMPORTANT c. 3RD IMPORTANT BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 00 you have a child in the Toledo Public Schools? Yes No Do you have a child in a private school? Yes No Do you have a child in either private or public schools in Toledo? Yes _ No __ Are you a student in the Toledo Public Schools? Yes No Are you an educator in the Toledo Public Schools? Yes No 119 (25) Female Male (26) What is your annual gross income? 1. Under $5,000 2. $ 5,000 - 10,000 3. __ $10,001 - 20,000 4. ,____ $20,002 - 30,000 5. _____ $30,002 - 50,000 (27) Which of the following best describes your fonnal educational attainment? I. _____ Less than 8th grade 2. ____. Some high school 3. .____ High school graduate 4. __ Some college 5. _____ College graduate 6. Graduate work APPENDIX B LETTER FROM DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT 120 TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS MANHATTAN AND ELM TOLEDO. omo noon Dear Citizen: A survey is being conducted in the Toledo Public Schools to learn what you feel the public schools should be doing. These are your schools, and your thinking is important to us. Here is a list of educational goals. We are asking you to RANK or list in the order of importance these goals. Your assis- tance will help the educators in making decisions which should result in a better program for your children. Please complete the survey form and return it in the enclosed self-addressed envelope within two days. All responses will be anonymous. Do not sign the form or the envelope. We appreciate your assistance. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Phyllis Boyle Russell A. Working Principal Deputy Superintendent McKinely School Toledo Public Schools Toledo Public Schools 121 APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP LETTER FROM SUPERINTENDENT 122 TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS MANHATTAN AND ELM TOLEDO. 00-010 0.“ mm 720-0200 Board of Education. Hugh 1. CIUMIflln. Jr. Michael J Dumas. Promdoni SUMI'MOOMM 0' SCOOP" Kenneth J Perry. VIC. President Edward 8 Foster. Jr. Linda J Furnoy Judy A Jones Dear Citizen: During the past two weeks a number of selected parents were asked to take part in a study of learner goals being conducted by Phyllis Boyle, a graduate student at Michigan State University. Each parent was sent a questionnaire like the one enclosed with this letter. Because your opinions are valued, you were selected to participate in the study and your son or daughter was asked to give you a questionnaire to be filled out and returned. The success of this study depends on obtaining your opinions. If you have not filled out the questionnaire, please complete it and return it in the enclosed envelope. All responses will be anonymous. - Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Hugh T. Caumartin, Jr. Superintendent of Schools 123 APPENDIX D SPEARMAN CORRELATION 124 .66 6666 .6 66666 :6 66:66 66 66s 6666566666 6666 6666asou .66>66 6666666666 mo. 666 66 6666666666 6666666666666 663 6666666 666 66 6666 66662 125 OP 0— n— m.m~ NF @— 6 6 6 6 6.6 66 up up «F m.w mp mp m.m_. mp mp VP .3. m_. 6.6 6 6.6 6 6 66 w #6 mp mp mp m— mp w— mp m— mp NF n m.m FF 0 0 pp up FF m m NF op m.m N m.~ m m m 6.66 6.6 66 6.66 66 6 m_. n o m.o_. m.N N 6 6 6.6 6 6 6 66 66 66 66 66 6 op w w m.o_. #6 m m.m m m m.@ OF N op up mp Np m P 6666666662 666666666 mucwuzum 6thwuwm WW6mqu6mm 6666666 6wmumz .6666» 66666666606 66566666--.Puo 66666 APPENDIX E VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY LETTER 126 / DUANE G. POWERS BUTTE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS INSTRUCTIONAL SERVIcEs DEPARTMENT 1859 Bird Street Oroville, CA 95965 RESEARCH. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION (916) 534-4502 July 19; I982 Mr. Louis Romano Michigan STaTe UnlverslTy College of Educaflon DeparTmenT of Admlnlsfraflon and Higher EducaTlon Jackson Hall EasT Lansing, Michigan 48824 Dear Mr. Romano: In regard To you leTTer of July 16, 1982, enclosed please flnd my response To your quesTlons on Valiley and Reliability on The 18 Goals of EducaTlon. I hope This will be of value To you. Sincerely, q:7£&§fll jZQCLJéDé1163; lra H. Nelken, Ph.0. ConsulTanT lHN/lb enc/ 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of School Administrators. Schools for a New World: Twenty-Fifth Yearbook. Washington, . .: , Ascher, Gordon. "Individualized Instruction and Statewide Assessment: The New Jersey Educational Assessment Program.“ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research égsgggagggn, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 25-March l, 1973. Barber, Jerry R., and Benson, Charles N. An Evaluation Accountability Model for Regional Educational Center. El Paso, Texas: n.p., 1972. Beckner, Weldon, and Cornett, Joe D. The Secondary School Curricu- lum: Content and Structure. .Scranton, Pa.: Intext Educational Publisher, 1972. Boocock, Sarane Spence. Sociology of Education. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1980. Boone, Lee. Assessing and Analyging Needs: Systematic Plannin Series for Local’Eaucation A encies. Monograph No. 2. ontgomery: Alabama State Department of ducation, November 1977. ED 191 154. Butterfield, Dennie. "Relevance and Curriculum: Making the Five R's Meaningful.“ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Regional Conference of the International Reading Asso- ciation, l980. ED 199 931. Campbell, Anne. "From the State Perspective." NASSP Bulletin 66 (April l982). Carpenter, w. w. "The Rights and Privileges of School Children." Peabody Journal of Education 6 (September l928). Charters, w. w., Jr. "An Approach to the Formal Organization of the School.“ The Sixty-Third YearbOOk of the National Survey for the Study of Education. ChiCago: *The University of Chicago Press, l964. Chesler, Mark A. "Shared Power and Student Decision Making." Educa- tional Leadership 27 (October 1970): 9-l4. 129 130 Christian, Floyd T. "Goals for Education in Florida." Memorandum to school board members, superintendents, instructional person- nel, parents, and pupils. August 17, 1971. Clegg. Ambrose A., Jr. "The Teacher as 'Manager' of the Curriculum?" Educational Leadership_30 (January 1972). Commager, Henry Steele. "The People and Their Schools." Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Fastback 79. Bloomington, Ina.: The Phi De1ta Kappan Educational Foundation, 1976. Conover, W. J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980. Doherty, Victor W., and Peters, Linda B. Introduction to K-12 Course Goals for Educational Planning and Evaluation. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1980. Downey, Lawrence V. The Task of Public Education. Studies in Educa- tional Administration MOnograph No. 7. iChicago: Midwest Admin- istration, University of Chicago, 1960. Duea, Jerry. "School Officials and the Public Hold Views on Educa- tion.“ Phi Delta Kappan 63 (March 1982). Duncan, Merlin C. "An Assessment of Accountability: The State of the Art." Educational Technology_(January 1972). Dunterman, George. "Analysis of Data From North Carolina Statewide Assessment of Educational Progress." Durham, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, February 1976. English, Fenwick W. "Your Board's Responsibility for Curriculum." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National School Boards Association, San Francisco, California, April 10-13, 1976. Fantini, Mario. "The People and Their Schools: Community Participa- tion." Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Fastback 62. Bloomington, Ihd.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1975. Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1976. Foley, Walter J., Principal Investigator, Management Information . System Project. Utilization of Modern Mana ement Techniques in School Administration. Iowa City: UniverSIty of Iowa, T972. Gallup, George. "Fifth Annual Gallup Poll of Public Attitudes Toward Education." Phi Delta Kappan 55 (September 1973). 131 . "The Fourteenth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Atti- tgggs Tgward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 64 (September : 2. . "The Public's Attitude Toward the Public Schools." Ehj_ Delta Kappan 52 (October 1970). . "The Tenth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes loward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 60 (1978). _________. "The Thirteenth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Atti- tudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 63 (1981). Genck, Fredric H. "Make Your School System Accountable." The American School Board Journal (February 1982): 34. General Education Needs Assessment in Mississippi. Jackson, Miss.: State Department of’EducatiOn, Office of Planning and Evaluation, 1972. Goldmag, Harvey. "Comments on Research." NASSP Bulletin 56 (January 72 . Goode, William J., and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952. Gooler, Dennis D., and Grotelueschen, A. D. "Curriculum Develo ment Accountability." Educational Leadership 29 (November 19711 Gottlieb, David. "Goal Aspirations and Goal Fulfillments: Differences Between Deprived and Affluent American Adolescents." Reported in Educator, Complete ERIC Handbook, Phase One. Englewood Cliffs, N.JL: PrenticeéHall, 1967. Hays, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981. Hazlett, Steven. "Educational Objectives: An Historical Review." Compact (April 1971). Hedges, William D. "Attitudes of Parents, Teachers, and Students Toward Education in Florida High and Low Achieving Schools." Sponsored by the National Study of School Evaluation, Arlington, Virginia, December 1980. Henderson, Lee. A Plan for Planning for a State Community College System. Tallahassee: FlOFida StateiUniversity, 1976. House, Ernest R.; Rivers, Wendell; and Stufflebeam, Daniel L. "An Assessment of the Michigan Accountability System." Phi Delta Kappan (June 1974). 132 Hunter, Susanne M. "Survey of Secondary School Perceptions." Research Report, New York Board of Education, Wiliowdale, Ontario, August 1977. Kase, Donald. "Curricular Needs of North Bay Schools, A Study of Opinions Concerning Curricular Needs in the North Bay Counties of Marin, Napa, Sonoma and Solano." Napa, Calif.: North Bay Pace Center, 1967. ED 017 685. Kaufman, Roger A. Education System Planning, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Kutscher, Ronald E. "Impact on Education--Education and Labor Outlook." The School Administrator (February 1982). Lessinger, Leon. "Engineering Accountability for Results in Public Education." Phi Delta Kappan (December 1970): 217. Long, Sandra M. "The 1980 Census: Implications for Education." Phi_ Delta Kappan 62 (May 1981). "A Look at the Numbers That Make Up the Toledo Area." A Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce Report. 1981. Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1962. Marascuilo, Leonard A., and McSweeney, Maryellen. Nonparametric and Distribution-Free Methods for the Social Sciences. MOnterey, Calif.: Brooks-COle, 1977. McCormic, Kathleen. "A Six-Step Plan to Gauge Support for Your Schools." The American School Board Journal 168 (November 1981). Milne, Bruce. "First Step Is Awareness--South Dakota Needs Assess- ment." Compact 17 (1973). Morrisett, Irvin. "Accountability, Needs Assessment and Social Studies." Social Education (April 1973). National Education Association. "Public Opinion on Education." Research Bulletin 36 (October 1958): 74-75. Schools for the 60's. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. 1980-1981 Toledo Public Schools Annual Report. In accordance with Section 3313.94,'Dhio Revised Code. Paul, Regina H. "Are You Out on a Limb?" Educational Leadership (January 1982). 133 Persell, Caroline Hodges. Education and Inequality. New York: The Free Press, 1979. Pinckey, H. B. "What Raspberry Is Saying." NASSP Bulletin 66 (January 1982). Porter, John W. "Accountability: Challenge and Opportunity." Business Education Forum 27 (April 1973). Powell, Rolland 0. "Putting Goals to Work." Educational Leadership 27 (March 1971). Preising, Paul P. "A Survey of the Educational Needs of Santa Clara County." San Jose, Calif.: Supplementary Education Center, 1967. ED 018 509. Prentice, Marjorie. "Management: Curse, Cure—all, or Workable Con- cept." Educational Leadership 30 (January 1973). Rabbi, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973. Reagan, Ronald. "Reagan: Strong Educational System Key to Preservation of Liberties." The School Administrator 38 (September 1981). Reed, Vincent. "From the Local Perspective." NASSP Bulletin 66 (April 1982): 17. Rose, Keith 8. "Educational Goals and Objectives: A Model Program for Community and Professional Involvement." Chino: California State University, June 1972. ED 073 530. Shane, Harold G. “Reassessment of Educational Issues." The Education Digest 38 (April 1973). Smith, Chauncey W., and Chapman, Reuben. Accountability: A Manage- ment Tool for Teachers. Prepared for the Michigan Department of EdUcation, n.H. Smith, George. "From the State Perspective.‘ NASSP Bulletin 66 (April 1982): 56. ‘ Smith, Vernon, and Gallup, George H. "What People Think About Their Schools: Gallup's Findings." Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foun- dation Fastback 94. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappan Educa- tional FDundation, 1977. Spears, Harold. "Kappans Ponder the Goals of Education." Phi Delta Kappan 55 (September 1973): 29-32. 134 Thomas, M. Donald. “Brookings' Forecasts Are Relevant to Your Schools." The American School Board Journal l57 (September l980). . "Whose Responsibility to Ensure That Public Education Has a Future." NASSP Bulletin 66 (January 1982). Thompson, Scott D., et al. "From the National Perspective." NASSP Bulletin 66 (April l982): 27. Toledo City Plan Commission Report. Toledo: May 8, l98l. Unruh, Glenys G. "Beyond Sputnik." Educational Leadership 30 (April 1973). Van Dalen, Deobold B. UnderstandinggEducational Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1966. West, Jeff. "Beyond Accountability.“ Mail Ba (Florida Association for Supervision and Curriculum Deve opment (March l972): l-7. Zaltman, Gerald, and Duncan, Robert. Strategies for Planned Change. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1977. Zaltman, Gerald; Florio, David H.; and Sikorski, Linda A. Dynamic Educational Change. New York: The Free Press, 1977.