n ."‘ ""In I. II "III IEIIIIIInI? IIIIdIrw [I‘IIIIEE‘i’nnT'EITI‘F—VT' ' IIII‘IiIIt‘. Ian—II-III- LEIII'II—IEII‘Ix . _ III-I III—I ‘jw' m . I . II“ IIIIII IIIII III1 " II I I'III I III! I I IIIII IIII‘IIII I“ III III I ‘I I I I III\ Mum. I) w" InI‘II I'IIII In II “LII II" ' ”’“mI'II' :Jn"IInIInI..‘ IIIIII,‘ I 'Z'n‘ I I n . IIIInIII'III IIIII um I- IIIIIII III‘IIIIII'II‘I . IIIIII- II'I; III.g,II n, n n “II III II ' IIIIIII IIIIIIII” n (II‘II' I-II IIIIII IIInIII. ‘nnI'I I .,.,"I I . I .n I n- II .I' II J. II| 'n-n n I I "n‘II. 'l‘IIInI’ n III II n'n’l I‘ 'ngn‘ynw“ ~Inf~ 'IIIIn .- . ..‘ I .. .nnnI.-. 'I'nnnn‘nInInIII "”3“ ,;‘_ln“’ n 'I‘ n""' IN I 'I'I-l -IInnIinnI n H: ‘n' n. I .n' 5 n. n “'1" «n: .n n IIII :nI'” IIIIIII .IIIIQI IIIIIIII IIIII InIII IitInnII I: I ,I- I I‘In III.“ : III , 'n ,I ,.I .II “'mWn “M“ n n n. WnpnnI“ . mne: N'gflWVFW' E {III II.‘II",IIIII IIIn ,n n I 'IIInnn Inn IInI lVIII'III IIII II I‘ III I .III’n I IIIII'n :II', II II III I In nII'III II' n I I. n . _ I I I . In IIIIIIIIIIIInI MI”. II'“:' I‘ ’.I n I Inn I 'I . n 'I'n‘" IIoI,,I.I.III.In oII IIII I QIIIIIII IIIIII n .IIII “.IIII III“ II In I I nIIIlmIUI I I III. IIIIIIII'VII II‘II I I I II I _, II. I'j‘IInI ,I I’| I II'II II II nIHI' In‘I HIIII'IIWIII n“ I, "n I nn . n n. I "If. ‘n II, -.nI .nnn I'nIII . I .II III IIIInnnnnnn . IIIII n.. "n. [In’I'InInn .IInnn . .. _.: In: -.I IIIIIIIIII'W,nIn'II‘" ,I'I'III- 'I II’I.InII nI |nIIII ”III“; : I‘ I II": 'I“ ‘ ”Ln": —~:'. ,I'nn ' In,“ I" I nI , -7 ’ v In'I IlInnI I”, n _: .I. I _ n. IWWI ”IIIMII Inlfl n‘IiI 1'; in . 1:. fIII" ‘1‘ InnInnI : 'II :.n ‘ 312"; 51913.1'25'zennén}. - ,m I “n$mr” I’III'IIII ’IIIII II IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIn IIIIIII III .. WI' IHHI Fn" n'““. n”‘w¢%k£?rflfifz-§5 III” :i’n" _ I' n III' III III I n“”WW"n MN Ii“ uhdnnnwflv . IIIIIIHI IIIIlj'III IIIIII‘III III'III)’ IIIIIII IIII In II |I'n»I nn. .“IIIIIIIIII iIIIInInIIIm II nnIIIIIll I :IIIIInIn' IIII IIIII‘III IIIII.' IIIIIIIIIHII ‘ WI n'In'W , n'nnn “VIII I 1 ”nnnIn III II ' II n” " ":15. I'. F IA .. I'. ‘3 lnI ——.- ' \_.. .— _ w v“- A q‘, — A. H: . A _':FI)L2A J; V l ‘ 'n MI I (I ’ ' In .t “n ' .‘- n :' '.I l n , .. , ‘ " ‘n' ‘ "In, n'.‘ ‘,.".'I. .IIIII I" 6:. I'I'II'I ,"',"I..y’ J ‘I In III": fir— .INI "nyj" 35“ — ifi: a" 1.. .Q y f. I to 2.4%.-.. Ivl'r I. _l L_"_‘ A—_ ”+5" .w- # ‘d; _;___";‘ “a? InnIII' I ' InIn ‘ nInnInnn I" III I II I’II'I“ :II "In III Inn ”III In"I ”III 5‘“ iIIIIIIII ‘I‘tI'U ' "n“. . I! I' II" I I H I [ L‘T- . . '3 ' .. I I III IIIIIIIII II InI II JIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIII: II’IIIIIIII IIIAIJééiéq‘Ik 1w“ fig 13?an {9% gig”);- '-:I I Ifl‘nlinlnin'III|'n'nIn' ' ‘IannI n. .- '~I III! on thII'In nnl (.5 L3.'+ - :6): 3:1." l n . IIIII ”l I I: I.'.III| {III )‘IJ’IIO In' III“ Ito :,.I.‘-_..'{I3I II n. . “II “Ht J10 I 'IIIIIII ‘ I”: 13'} {git}; J“... _ . - . .fi . - I. -: d“1";‘IIIIII ‘I: I...'I" ' . .. . nII Ira/3% "I”? L: . I . 'IIémn .n V IInn" I'IFI'M -” ', -: IIIWI ””I'r‘ nIIn’II'II‘nInH‘II‘ II :: IIgaxnfi III Hg” I ”II [In :IIIII I'IigI Win W a ..' ”I n 6'"?- n—_":{.‘ a , ' '0’” ”Fol - .; :_.'-t I {WI WV III-1....I Innn‘nn .nnn ”IInnnIIL -'III:II.IIII n ”H mm n. IIIIII.I III “ml W IInII I. 3. I.’ n. I I "IIII ”“3”“ I_,I |IIIHI‘| ‘I III." II " ' " I VIII": ”“3"" TI}: I'| IlII'IIIIIIII 'IIIIIth I III}. I; WIIII "III” lIIIIflIit' IIIII 'II I IIII III. nIIW IIIIIIIIIIII W I ner III .flMn IIWI 1W”W“nIr'“” n'II ”IAMWII ‘ ”I” ”'1'5‘"IIL"'-‘ynnn‘nz"n In. “n. I “I 1n , Mfr“. ”IIIIIW'QIIIIII IIIIIIg, IwI'II'I“ ‘InlIr II. IIIn‘II’CT'tngI'N I QII'I‘III In I . I .‘ J'I’J'NI IIIInIII In. I I I‘MII“IM'”II.NE?'I I ‘ IILIII nn‘IVII .IInIIInIxI I'IIIIInn ‘. {IIIIquIIntIIIIInhI n “In IIIIIIIII 15$}. HE‘S“: This is to certify that the thesis entitled SELECTED FACTORS RELATED TO ELEMENTARY TEACHERS DECISIONS TO MAKE HOME VISITS presented by Alfred Edward Emmanuel Smith has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Secondar Education (Curriculum and Instruction) ajor professor Date 2/1 /80 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. Selected Factors Related to Elementary Teachers' Decisions to Make Home Visits By Alfred Edward Emmanuel Smith A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1980 ABSTRACT Selected Factors Related to Elementary Teachers' Decisions to Make Home Visits by Alfred Edward Emmanuel Smith The purpose of this study was to obtain, analyze, and evaluate data relevant to the elementary teachers of Rochester, New York, City School District making home visits to the parents of their classroom students. All elementary teachers in Rochester were surveyed to identify which of several selected factors might influence them in their deci- sion to visit the homes of their students. The teachers are not pre- sently required to make home visits, nor are they compensated for mak- ing such visits. A questionnaire, developed by the researcher, was administered in March, 1979, to 710 full-time elementary classroom teachers. Attitudi- nal questions were divided into five sections for purposes of analysis and evaluation: (1) perceived logistical difficulties, (2) personal fears, (3) contractual responsibilities, (4) professional role, and (5) psychological margin. The analysis of data, using correlation procedures, revealed the following results: 1. The elementary teachers in the Rochester City School District are basically an older and further-educated group with a larger per- centage of male elementary and minority teachers than the national Alfred Edward Emmanual Smith percentage. Thus, caution should be used in generalizing from the re- sults of this study to other districts or pOpulations. 2. About a third of the teachers responding report making at least one home visit a month. 3. Of those factors studied, none was shown to be significant in influencing the elementary teachers in the Rochester City School Dis- trict to make home visits, nor did any variables studied significantly relate to their attitudes as to the importance, appropriateness, and possibility of home visits. This study shows that while individual teachers seem to have iden~ tifiable attitudes which affect their frequency of home visits, there seems to be no significantly large group of teachers with similar at- titudes to aid the district in formulating policy for the Rochester area . DEDICATION People give us much, each in their own way. All of them possess a unique characteristic. It is this characteristic that inspires each of us, by those people being who they are. To my mother, Katherine E. Smith, for the practical ability to handle situations logically and to be open minded to all people. To my father, Frank A. Smith (posthumously), through my mother's devo- tion, for honesty and faith through performance which speaks loud- er than words. To my brother and sister, Frank and Kathy, for constant guidance and encouragement in dealing with life. To my brother-in-law and sister—in-law, Michael and Dolores, for their additions to the Smith family. And to all of my extended family both living and deceased for having instilled an understanding of my role in God's plan. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank all those who directly and indirectly influenced and assisted me in the attempting and completing of this dissertation. The following represent only a small portion of all those I wish to thank. To each of my committee members for their contributions to my per- sonal growth in this effort: Dr. Samuel Corl, IIL for his continuous encouragement and guidance. I am sincerely appreciative for the extra time he Spent with me at the expense of his personal time and, also, for accepting me for who I am. Dr. Howard Hickey for his Openness and clarity of direc— tion in bringing out the joy of learning in me and the appre- ciation of Community Education. Dr. Peggy Riethmiller for her personalization of efforts to show students their potential outside of education. Dr. Keith Anderson for his ability to instill a knowledge of American Educational History in people. To my graduate colleagues whose friendships and assistance have been important to me: Ken McLarty, Ralph Weeks, Marian Hosinger, Marie Anne Brochu, Susan Black, Jim Rumbolz, Carolyn Kinson, and Dennis Bybee. These few represent the many whose friendship will remain with me always. I am indebted to the administrators and teachers of the Perry, MiChigan, School District for their assistance with my pilot study. Especially, I am grateful to Dick Parker, the principal of the middle iii school, for his guidance and lasting friendship before, during, and after the study. I am grateful to Dr. John Franco, Ms. Elizabeth Brown, and Dr. David Weart, the administrators, principals, vice principals, and teach- ers of the Rochester, New York, City School DiStrict for their assis- tance in my dissertation. I am especially thankful to Dr. Weart, Admin- istrative Director of the Department of Planning, Research, and Evalua— tion, and his staff for their extended help and guidance in behalf of this paper. Also, I wish to thank Peter Ciurca and Cedric Lambert, two principals in the district, for their personal efforts on my behalf. I am appreciative for the help, guidance, and c00peration extended to me by the Rochester Teachers' Association. I thank Joseph Pasquarel- 1a, President, and David O'Keefe, Executive Director, for their personal efforts on behalf of this study. I wish to thank the faculty of Carthage School #8 in the Rochester City School District for allowing me to share in their friendship and professionalism. The professional association of this faculty gave me unending fortitude and desire to achieve the ultimate in teacher profes- sionalism. My desire is to find, in some degree, such an educational and personal atmosphere as I eXperienced with them. I am appreciative of all the cooperation and help given to me by the Parent Center, the Parent Leadership Council, and parents of the Rochester City School District who helped with my dissertation. In particular, I wish to thank Mary Ellen SinicrOpi, Cathy Spoto, Annie Brisbon, Marie Voelkl, Jim Smith, Carol Winters, and especially Norma DelVecchio whose continuous encouragement, assistance, and faith carried me through this effort. iv Finally, I wish to thank all my friends in Rochester who gave me assistance in the completion of this dissertation, particularly Arlene Smiroldo, William Muar, Joseph Hillmon and family, Nancy and Larry Chap- man, Janet Archibald, and Patricia Taliento. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I II PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Following Chapters . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Home, Parent, and Families . . Need for Parent and Teacher Communication . . . . Parent Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . Home Visits by Teachers as One Means of Increasing Parent/Teacher Communications . . . . . . . . . Teachers' Attitudes Toward Home Visits . . . . . . Summary vi 14 19 22 29 36 III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of the Instrument . . . . Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P0pu1ation Studied . . . . . . Administering the Teacher Questionnaires . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V CONCLUSION Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations to Rochester . . . . . . Personal Reflections of This Study . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . APPENDIX A O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . vii 38 38 38 4O 42 42 44 44 45 58 59 60 61 61 61 63 65 67 75 79 84 LIST OF TABLES Number 3-1 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-10 Initial Set of Factors Influencing Teachers' Decisions to Visit Homes as Identified by FOmer-TeaCher Panel 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o A Comparison of National and Rochester City School District Demographic Data . . . . . . Reported Frequency of Teacher Home Visits . . . . . Teachers' Perceptions of Maximum Possible Home Visits Correlations among Demographic Variables and Measures of Home Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Items from Questionnaire Included in Each Category for Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations among Eight Logistical Attitudes and Reported Frequency of Home Visits . . . . . . . . . Correlation among Six Personal Fear Variables and Reported Frequency of Home Visits . . . . . . . . Correlation among Six Contractual Expectations Vari- ables and Reported Frequency of Home Visits . . . . Correlation of Five Professional Roles and Skills and Reported Frequency of Home Visits . . . . . . . . . Correlation among Three Psychological Margin Variables and Reported Frequency of Home Visits . . . . . . viii 39 47 48 49 SO 52 54 54 55 55 56 CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Introduction Reports in the literature (Coleman, 1966; Jencks, 1972; etc.) indi- cate that the single greatest influence in a child's life is his par- ents. Still more literature indicates the importance of communication between individuals and groups of people in order to lessen tension, differences and frustrations. Yet, in city schools such as those in Rochester, New York, there appears to be a general attitude that the school and home function separately from each other. The researcher has ten years of teaching experience in Rochester city schools. This experience included the use of regular visitation to the home of every student as part of the instructional program. The results of these visits were: 1. A clearer picture of the students' individual academic needs, 2. A lessening of classroom discipline problems, 3. An increased percentage of classroom time for academic rather than disciplinary matters, and 4. A psychological reward for teacher and student in in- creased achievement. During these same ten years, this researcher observed and interacted with many other teachers who refrained from making home visits. This study concerned itself with some of the factors that may in- fluence teachers in the city of Rochester, New York, to make home visits through their own initiative. Statement of the Problem Preliminary inquires in Rochester, New York (1978), indicated that while some elementary classroom teachers make home visits, most do not. Also, those teachers who do make home visits seem to have only positive reports of the effects of such visits with regard to their own feelings of professionalism in school and in education. Furthermore, those par- ents who have been visited by teachers seem only to have positive things to say about the school and about the teachers' efforts. The problem, then, was to identify some of the factors motivating teachers to make home visits. Need for the Study American society is characterized by increasing disintegration of the family nucleus, unemployment, an increasing trend toward single and unwed parent families, increasing numbers of runaway children, de- clining student achievement as reflected in test scores, technology that changes rapidly and forces people to feel left behind or unable to influence their future, individuals' feelings of discontent with life and other people, and increasing demands by workers for other people to do the job for which they were hired (Horn, 1970; Toffler, 1970; Broudy, 1972; Gordon, 1977; etc.). These cultural characteris- tics involve and affect the teacher. Because teachers need to evaluate and respond to society's demands, a very important concern is the ap— proach teachers choose for communicating with their constituents. An analysis of why teachers will or will not make home visits is needed in light of the literature which indicates that home visits by teachers might be both the greatest factor for improving home-school relations and the greatest aid for the teacher in improving student achievement (Lortie, 1975; Broudy, 1972; Gordon, 1977; etc.). Wegener's and other studies dealing with home visits involved teachers who were allotted time and financial compensation for such activities. Yet, much of the literature makes little reference to the factors motivating teachers to make home visits on their own initiative Also, no study has assessed an entire, large city school district's elementary classroom teachers' self-motivational influences to see why they do or do not make home visits. This study can supplement present information in the literature. Purpose of This Study The literature shows that teachers' attitudes toward parents and parents' receptiveness of the teachers' efforts in and out of school influence the teachers in their work and the methods they use in com- municating with parents. It seemed reasonable, then, to look at one method schools use for communicating with and involving parents in school efforts concerning children and for improving public relations, that of home visits by elementary teachers. The purpose of this study was to identify some of the factors re— lated to how teachers view home visits in Rochester, New York. Research Question The major research question was: what factors, as indicated on a teacher survey, might encourage home visits by the teachers? The investigation centered on three areas: 1. Demographic characteristics were analyzed to determine if Rochester teachers appear to be similar to the national pOpulation as reported in the National Education Associa- tion study "Status of Schools--l975—76." This was done to help judge the extent to which results might be gen- eralized to other populations. 2. Demographic data were analyzed to determine the extent to which relationships exist between these characteris- tics and teachers' perceptions of the need for home visitations. 3. Data collected from individual teachers, using an instru— ment developed by the researcher, were analyzed to de- termine the extent to which teacher attitudes were re— lated to both the reported frequency of home visits and the extent to which teachers believe home visits to be practical and/or possible. The data on teacher attitudes were grouped to reflect five categories of variables: a. Perceived logistical difficulties b. Personal fears c. Contractual responsibilities d. Professional role e. Psychological margin The secondary research questions were: 1. Is there any relationship between the demographic data and teacher feelings toward home visits? 2. Is there any relationship between the selected variables and the frequency of home visits made by teachers? Design of the Study Elementary teachers in the city school district of Rochester, New York, were chosen as the pOpulation to be studied. A rough question- naire, including a variety of possible factors influencing teachers' decisions to make home visits, was pilot tested in a small, rural Michigan school district. The questionnaire was built, originally, from a pool of factors identified by a panel of former elementary school teachers, now engaged in full-time graduate study at Michigan State University. The refined questionnaire was given to all of the elementary teachers in Rochester during the second week in March, 1979. Questionnaires were collected by building principals and were returned by them in bulk packages through the school district's internal courier mail system. Analysis of Data Data were analyzed from all responses to try to determine factors that affect teachers in making home visits in the Rochester, New York, City School District. The data were analyzed at the Michigan State University Computer Center using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Pearson R. program. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined here to provide a common reference point for communicating the information contained in this study. In many cases those definitions used reflect common use in Rochester, New York. Rochester, New York: a city of 296,000 (1970 U.S. Census) in upstate New York. Rochester City School District (CSD): the designated legal name for the school district in which this study occurred. Home visit: a teacher's making a visit to one of his stu- dent's homes for the purpose of discussing the student's conduct, effort, and accomplishment during the course of a school year. Neighborhood school: any one of forty-five elementary schools located in Rochester CSD and operated by the CSD. Parent: the adult legal guardian of a child. Student/children/child: those peOple, ages approximately five to twelve years, who are required to attend school and who do so. II. Courier system: inter-city and school district Operated mail delivery system. Questionnaire: that instrument used to measure teacher feelings about home visits. Limitations of the Study Several notes of caution are warranted here: 1. Reliance on written and oral communications by princi— pals might not have conveyed properly to a vice princi— pal or helping teacher the method for administering the survey. There may be factors, not identified by this research, which influence home visit behavior to a greater extent than those reported here. Limitations could be caused by negative views held by some teachers towards questionnaires about their jobs. The unique nature (not in keeping with national norms) of the Rochester system is enough to make generaliza- tions beyond that community problematic. Overview of Following Chapters The literature relevant to the study will be discussed in Chapter A chronologically detailed description of the procedure of the study will be found in Chapter III. Chapter IV will consist of the analysis of data. Finally, Chapter V will include a summary, conclu— sions, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Education has been brought into the huge responsibility of righting society's ills without communicating on a regular, personal basis with parents (Broudy, 1972; Lortie, 1975). Parents demand that education live up to that expectation. Many of today's writers seem to lend sup- port to these expectations by stating that education is the path to suc- cess and the means of curing America's problems (i.e., poverty, dis- crimination, illiteracy, crime) (Brookover, 1975). The movement toward education for all of society has been making slow progress in America since the Revolution in the 1800's. The need for an educated populace was even seen by Jefferson and the country's other founders; but the "push" came with the Jacksonians, Horace Mann, state laws for compulsory education with force to back them, industrial city growth, child labor laws, World War 11, Supreme Court decisions, the "Great Society," the "Right to Read," etc.; until today every child has a right to learn and a law to make sure he obtains that right (Meyer, 1967; Lortie, 1975). The movement toward an education for all has brought to the inner city teachers who attempt to try to raise the standards of the urban poor through education. Many inner city teachers seem to have unique motivation for work- ing in that environment, of being needed most by those students (Cole- man, 1966; Jencks, 1972; Franks, 1972). 7 Franks found most teachers in the inner city to be motivated by what Broudy calls the mystique of teaching: ...teaching is an encounter of persons in which some mysterious change is undergone by both pupil and teacher. The change may be from ignorance to knowledge or from folly to wisdom, from darkness to light, from fuzziness to clarity, from inhibition to freedom (1972, p. 33). Further, this mystique which motivates such teachers can best be dis- played and/or satisfied by teaching in the inner-city, enhanced by the fact that men and women of the inner city realize the uplifting effect of education on their children's well-being (Coleman, 1966; Jencks, 1972; Brookover, 1975, etc.). This realization does not moti- vate the inner-city parent to visit the school. Also, there is a reluctance of teachers to meet with inner city parents in their homes. Chilman (1971) lends credibility to teachers' fears of parents and com- munity by pointing out that their "praise or blame" can strongly effect the teacher's job. These might be some of the factors contributing to the absence of home visits by inner-city teachers. This research intends to review some of the factors that may in- fluence elementary teachers (K-6) in Rochester, New York, to make home visits. The following review of literature is intended to explore the research prior to 1979 concerning factors which encourage or discourage home visits. The format used in this exploration was: the importance of home, parent, and families; the need for parent and teacher communi- cation; the effect of parent involvement; the negative effect of home visits; the use of recent studies directly concerned with this study's purpose; six citations of literature closest to this study; and a sum- mary. Importance of Home, Parent, and Families Coleman (1966) and Jencks (1972) indicate the parent is the single greatest motivating factor in a student's life, as found by large scale attempts to evaluate the most important elements affecting a stu- dent. In addition, further small scale studies have been done to de- termine the strengths of parental influence resulting in support for the findings of Coleman and Jencks. Two 1977 studies (Brookline Program and Fein) confirmed the impor- tance of the parent and family structure on the student's learning. Gordon (1969) has found that: Parents recognize a responsibility and more than that, they recognize that what they do in the direct instruction of the child influences how he will grow (p. 32). Yet Campbell (1978) says that unsatisfactory outcomes from pre- vious group programs on influencing the child led researchers to look for narrowly defined influences, specifically parenting and home en- vironment. Thomas (1974) states: It is generally agreed that the family is the setting in which the child's basic personality develOpment and early learning take place, motivation for learning take place; mo- tivation for learning and achievement behavior is also based on what the child observes in his home. The family communicates values, aspirations, and a way of life to the child (p. 5). Fusco (1966) states in reference to inner-city children: The vital importance of the home in shaping the educa- tional attitudes and behavior of the child is generally recognized. What happens or does not happen to the child at home largely determines what kind of pupil he Will be in school. School, after all, occupies a relatively small portion of the total time and attention of the child. Most of his time--weekends, holidays, summer vacations, and, of course, the formative preschool years--are spent under the influence of his home and neighborhood (p. 145). 10 Some other determinants might be (1) different speech models for children at home "who have minimal reinforcement for school achievement and who frequently come to school hungry and in need of medical and den- tal care" (White, 1962); and (2) each ethnic group's shaping the learn- ing environment of its children in a different way, creating in the children unique patterns of abilities (Wagner, 1975). Rankin (1967) summarizes the point of determinants that there may be a direct rela- tionship between parental behavior and the child's achievement, as do Hess, pp 2l° (1969) and Schienfield (1969). Gordon (1969, 1972, 1975, 1977), who has done many studies regard— ing parental influence on child achievement, lists five characteristics found in the home of a child who can be expected to do well in school. The home: 1. Has planned cultural activities within it 2. Has taken advantage of the variety of community resources such as nursery school and kindergarten, zoos and parks, museums and libraries 3. Provides the child with academic guidance in the home 4. Makes books, magazines, and other intellectual tools available 5. Includes the use of many abstractions and reasoning types of sentences in family language (1969, p. 30) Burney (1971) calls for an effort to help inner-city parents learn how to structure, organize, and express their goals and expectations to their children so both parent and child can feel success and control of their lives. These expectations can be expressed through sex roles. Stolz (1967) agrees with Parke and O'Leary (1975) that the father- mother relationship affects the differences between boys and girls. Coleman (1966) makes reference to some junior high schools that kept 11 statistical counts on the numbers of conflicts (especially minority con- flicts) and observed that girls were most actively involved. Maccoby and Janklin (1978) point out that sex differences between boys and girls are societally-influenced. Much of the literature makes reference to the inner city as a matriarcial society. Thus, observations by Coleman and Maccoby and Jacklin might imply a female-dominated hierarchy in the inner city family. Preliminary observations in Rochester, New York, point to this female-dominant hierarchy. Andrews (1975) indicates that the literature on the influence of home and parents on children is very significant since (1) "the mother or primary caretaker structured, provided and interpreted the early environment, and (2) "a major part of (the child's) waking hours were spent with his primary caretaker (mother)." Andrews continues that the way a mother structures her child's environment is a strong influence. Andrew's premise is based on Piaget's cognitive deveIOpment theory that says the mother has a direct effect on "the child's interaction with and active organization of his environment" (1975, p. 6). Andrews refers to studies that add support to the belief that the "natural environment provides a major force in the outcome of the child's development " (p. 8), especially when the studies found that "mothers of competent children do talk a lot to their children" (p. 8). In the inner-city the communication can be negative, as Andrews states: It seems that mothers, living in poverty, who experience the world as an illogical, irrational place, and who tend to have low self-concepts and little sense of mastery over their environment, transmit these same concepts to their children's effective motivation (p. 11). 12 Peterson (1976) points out that studies have shown the best ways to observe the stimuli influence between mother and child is in the home. Gordon (1969) says that the: ...homes of children who "make it" seem to be character- ized by a certain emotional climate. There is an order, consistency, and a set of home routines. The child has some predictability as how his behavior will be received. The chances are the mother (1) will be emotionally secure, (2) will have a good deal of self-esteem, (3) will trust the school, (4) will devote time to the child, and (5) will have a set or organized work habits (p. 32). Ainsworth (1969) and Andrews (1975) believe that a child will only venture out from ‘himself' if he has experienced a close and secure relationship with the mother or major guardian. The mother has been categorized as being one of the "most important persons for modeling words and action patterns during the child's (early) developmental per- iod" (Alschuler, 1971, p. 2). Gray agrees with Alschuler and adds that the mother is actually: ...the child's first teacher...thus, (1) she serves as controller of stimuli events; that is, she is the one with the most influence over the home environment...(2) she is the controller of the reward system... (p. 2). Gray continues by saying the potential reserve of the urban mother in goals and aspirations for her child is as great as if not greater than the affluent mother. In 1965, Hess and Shipman found a strong relationship between the mothers' style of discipline and speaking. They report that both fac- tors highly influenced child development, especially between three and six years of age. Along with Gordon (1969) and Bandura (1969), Hess and Shipman believe that if a mother feels she is not in control of her life and cannot do anything to gain control, she will set lower goals which directly affect her child in school. Coleman (1966) and Jencks 13 (1972) also found that a large portion of mothers and students from the inner city felt that they were not in control of their life nor could they gain control. Peterson (1967) and Rankin (1967) found that the attitudes and be- haviors of the parents are directly related to the child's achievement in the inner city school. Findings showed children were usually high achievers if their mothers possessed a positive attitude toward school and education and acted in positive ways in involving themselves in school—related activities. Other studies point out that the mother is not the only relevant influence, but many other influences do exist in the child's environment which need to be studied (Chilman, 1971). In 1974, Thomas refers to the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies as having "documented the importance of parental involvement in their children's educatiod'(p. 2), while providing stability and continuity over the years. Peterson (1967) refers to the "behavior of the parent (being) considered the basic ingredient in the successful treatment of the child's problem” (p. 3). Yet, many teachers seem reluctant to deal directly with the parent except by note or through parent-teacher con- ferences (Weikart, 1971). What these findings seem to suggest is thattfiuamother has to be communicated with, allowing the teachers to make recommendations to aid the child, such as (1) showing how the mother can fulfill her desires for the child, (2) helping the mother realize she is respected by the school, (3) assuring her that she is welcome if she comes to school, and (4) helping her feel she is the main factor in her child's learning. Also, these findings seem to suggest that the mother has to be com- municated with on a greater frequency by the teacher. The increase in 14 communication might permit some of the negative factors mentioned pre- viously to be overcome. Examples of these are (l) conflict involve- ments among children, (2) neighborhood environment, (3) low self-con- cepts, (4) non-consistent discipline tactics, (5) feeling of lack of control of one's own life, and (6) attitude toward school. The communi- cation, on the other hand, strengthensthe parent's positive factors: (1) how to structure, organize, and express goals and eXpectations to the children; (2) how to help the child; (3) how to structure, provide, and interpret the early childhood environment; (4) how to interact with the child; (5) how to talk more with the child; (6) how to offer se- curity feelings; and (7) how to convey a positive attitude. The need for communication with the mother to help her children might be accomplished by several means. The rest of this chapter will continue reviewing the literature as it pertains to accomplishing this needed communication. Need for Parent and Teacher Communication History shows that teachers knew and reflected the aspiration of the students' homes (Nineteenth Century) or neighborhood (early Twen- tieth Century) (Meyer, 1976; Good, 1956), especially during the era when the teacher lived in the parent's home and ate there as payment. Today, teachers no longer live with parents, or in their neighborhoods, for the most part; many even live outside the school district, often as a means of controlling the effects of parents on their lives outside the classroom (Broudy, 1972; Lortie, 1975). Teachers seem to be against making home visits for various reasons. Two often alluded to or stated by teachers are (1) they are 15 professionals who know best how to handle teaching, and (2) teaching is only part of their lives and no one has the right to require them to do anything that they don't deem their duty. This would be especially true of teachers who possess negative attitudes about their jobs and, thus, suffer depression when teaching inner city poor (Shelton, 1970). Niemeyer (1966) feels that some teacher depressions are caused by the belief that the families of the inner city poor instill hatred for teachers in their children. The reason for such expressions may be generated by the attitude held by much of middle class society as in- dicated by Strom (1966) who said: (1) teachers hold to middle class values which look at welfare peOple as the low rung of society, (2) the poor are to be pitied and given aid by the institution of education since the poor will never be any better off, (3) there is no use trying to help the poor beyond the confines of the teacher's job, and (4) a teacher's own welfare is in jeOpardy if he does help the poor. Niemeyer (1966) states that the teacher, above all other members of the educational system, is important to a student, since the teacher is the "critical point" that connects the student with the educational programs. The student and teacher are in direct contact in the class— room. This is not to say any other members of the educational system are not important, but to point out where the critical point is located One factor that upsets teachers who know they are the critical point is being left out of insights from special staff members who have worked with the child and have been to the child's home (Horn, 1970). This exclusion of the teacher does not add to the teacher's feeling of se— curity in his role, but becomes an additional factor reinforcing feel— ings of inadequacy (Barnes, 1969). l6 Chilman (1971) points out that this feeling of inadequacy is a reason teachers will not expose themselves through communications to parents. He continues that some research has shown teachers to be too "involved in their own personal satisfaction and dissatisfaction with living" (p. 121) so they convince themselves that communication with parents would be detrimental. 0n the other hand, Broudy (1972) feels that American society is in the position of determining the present teacher attitudes. He says that American society's ideals and expectations are not clear in just what they demand: ...in the way of competence and the sort of training that would insure such competence...More concretely, the modern teacher is eXpected to bezaperson with a good general educa- tion..."act" as a professional...and all the while act as a warm, child-loving father, mother, brother surrogate who relates to human beings (p. 54). With the above—mentioned pressures, lack of security in role, avoidance of communications and societal expectations, it is little wonder that some teachers display, as Shelton (1973) indicates, an "attitudinally disadvantaged teacher syndrome." What, then, are the attitude factors of parents and teachers? Attitudes are mental and neural states of readiness or— ganized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which he is related (Allport, 1935, in Strom, p. 23). In 1963 Davis pointed out that a high correlation exists between high achievement on tests and the "middle class emphasis on getting ahead through education." As mentioned previously by Chilman and Cole- man, the poor inner-city parent does see education as a means for his children's getting ahead; but many of them cannot give the middle 17 class kind of mental incentive to their children since they are caught up with basic survival-~the day—to—day effort just to get enough food, clothing, and shelter (Williams, 1965). This basic emphasis on survi- val is reflected in the children of the disadvantaged by their state- ments of "hating school" by fourth grade; they have had their desire to learn destroyed by the demands of their environment (Williams, 1965L Still, Williams says, many therapists continue to spend their time on the child only at school while not working to influence his environ- ment outside the school. Thus, it is the home environment with its consistency, degrees of permissiveness, variability of discipline, and attitudes about formal education which brings to bear on the child the forces which partially determine his achievement in school (Shelton, 1973; Thomas, 1974; Ware, 1974). An additional influence is the congruence between home and school experience which is directly correlated with the child's achievement (Thomas, 1974). Alschular (1971) says: ...a number of studies suggest that an important condi— tion for learning and cognitive development is sustained at- tention to verbal stimuli...ln addition to contributing in- formation with or without a visual event, speech orients a child Spatially and temporally to a learning situation. Piaget's theory (1967) suggests that attention to verbal stim- uli is necessary if the stimuli are to become part of and help form existing cognitive schemata (p. l). Alschuler points to the level of parents' socio—economic status as af- fecting the differences in language development; thus, the lower class parent, concerned with basic survival, cannot provide the five charac- teristics of Gordon's good home as readily as higher income parents. 18 Shelton (1973) finds previous studies refer to an anti-intellectual- ism on the part of those parents not involved in the educational system prevailing in the inner city, regarding the acquiring of knowledge for its own sake. Broudy (1972) points out that: ...the positive in education makes for dull reading. As a consequence, interest perks up only when the schools malfunction...For teachers and parents, information about programs and procedures, calendars and timetables, daily routines and routine triumphs are "interesting reading," but not to the uninvolved citizen and certainly not to the editor of the front page of the daily newspaper (p. 5). Ware (1974) indicates that there is hope in helping parentscflflower socio-economic status to help their children because the parent can change and grow educationally, in turn having a direct positive influ- ence on the child's development. Andrews (1975) adds to Ware's point: The mother needs to learn about the importance of and techniques for actively participating in and encouraging her child's activities, especially language and conceptual activ- ities (p. 14). Fusco (1966) says: In light of the great weight of evidence that the intel- lectually and culturally restricted home life of socially dis- advantaged children places hearby (sic.) obstacles in their path for succeeding in school, many believe that the inner- city schools should make extraordinary efforts to assist par- ents in overcoming such obstacles (p. 154). Bernal (1974) and Campbell and Everett (1974) cite studies that in- volved parents, teachers, children, and using the home environment as having the longest lasting impact toward helping the child. Improved communication between home and school is impera— tive if parents and teachers are to meet (their mutual goals. By) working together, parents and teachers can enhance a child's likelihood for success in his school experience (Burney, 1971, p. 10). 19 Parent Involvement The child can do well when, through communications, parent and teacher maintain an awareness of each other's expectations of the child through awareness of what is expected of each (Thomas, 1974). Parent and teacher communication and cooperation will directly benefit the child since these are the two parties which have the great- est association with the child on a day-to-day basis (Bronfenbrenner, 1974). The call, then, might be to get teachers to make their school neighborhoods their second communities. There are aspects of this call which might be examined more closely before regular home visits as a means of parental involvement can be begun on a regular basis by ele- mentary teachers. Grisson (1971) has pointed out that effective communication cannot occur until we understand the community. He says the Antipoverty Pro— gram brought on the motivation necessary to make educators try to un- derstand and "confront the crisis of hOpelessness that affects many of the poor and minority groups" in the inner city. Federal regulations for the Follow Through program state that: ...parents shall be involved in policy making and in various ways which not only influence the program but also enhance their own development (Gordon, 1977, p. 1). However, the involvement of parents in their children's education has been resisted by teachers. The idea of inner city parents' having something worthwhile to say and wanting to say it to teachers without being treated as a temporary nuisance proved threatening to teachers (Grissom, 1971). Grissom pointed out that inner city parents: 20 ...no longer accept the calumny that denies they have aspirations and expectations for their children...parents in impoverished ghetto neighborhoods often have greater con— cern for their children and sometimes greater awareness of their children's needs than do parents of the middle class (p. 139). Chezney (1967) says the problem that arises between teachers and parents from economically deprived areas usually stems from the cultural set each child brings to the classroom through his personal backgrounds. If teachers are to suceed in efforts to bring about school achieve— ment in children, they need continuing parental support (Niemeyen 1966). Gray (1971) found that mothers could give the parental support teachers need if the mothers were trained to be effective teachers or educational change agents; thus, the teachers assist the mothers to become more effective in c0ping with other life demands. Gordon (1974) adds that many studies and programs were designed to enhance the mother's view of herself in being her child's first teacher and to provide her with ways to instill such a view in the child. Thomas (1974) refers to many of the Head Start programs which tried to develop the mother's concept as her child's first teacher. Head Start found the tactic of allowing the mother to first express her feelings and vent her grievances as helpful in expediting the development of the mother's self-concept. Shelton (1973) has found that some studies show a positive correla- tion between parental involvement and parental attitudes toward school as an institution. Thus, Shelton calls for effective communication that will result in parental participation in school, thereby furthering the child's positive attitudes toward education and allowing the child to benefit from positive attitudinal changes on the part of teachers. 21 Leavitt and Cohen (1976) invited parents into regular classroom settings, accompanied by extern staff members who could answer questions without interrupting the teacher or the class. The Ferguson-Florissant (1974) project found: ...parent assistance in the classroom serves a dual pur- pose. It aids in improving the instructional program for the child by providing increased learning experiences, and it involves the parent in actually working with children and observing the uniqueness of each child. Besides this, it gives the parent a feeling of involvement, achievement, and satisfaction (p. 8). Peterson (1967) says that this training of parents to cope with life's demands and to be effective teachersijsthe treatment necessary for improvement in the academic achievement of the child and for pro- viding support for teachers in the inner city. Newbury (1967) found some things not occurring that teachers feared would occur from parent involvement: 1. Parents do not think less of teachers because of close association 2. Their understanding of the complex nature of teaching and learning increases as does their regard for teachers. 3. Parents do not tell educators how to teach. 4. Parents do not believe that the only important results of schooling are tests and grades. Newbury found "teachers and parents became real people to each other through home visits" which resulted in (1) teachers' finding it easier to get parent volunteers for instructional activities, and (2) a per- sonal kind of accountability's resulting between parent and teacher. Gordon (1977) found much of the parental involvement to be both positive for the parents, teachers, and children's self-worth concepts and in creating a positive educational learning atmosphere by 22 maintaining parent involvement as keyed to teaching one's own child in school and at home. He adds that the whole involvement effort serves the educational institution in a positive fashion. Home Visits by Teachers as One Means of Increasing_Parent/Teacher Communication In 1965, Williams gave a reason why home visits are necessary: There are scheduled parent conferences during the regu- lar school year. However, the parents invited were the ones that usually did not come for conferences. These culturally disadvantaged parents didn't come to school because they had small children at home. The parents were embarrassed by the . clothes they had to wear. Often, the parents' own school experiences had been unpleasant. If schools are to be suc- cessful in helping disadvantaged children, maybe teachers should go to children's homes instead of asking parents to come to school (p. 12). The Williams experience found mothers' wanting and needing to first talk about their personal problems, as did the Head Start project (Thomas, 1974). In 1966, Fusco gave more information about how the culturally disadvantaged parent felt about visiting schools (all of these studies occurred before the wave of right to read and learn laws): They are self-conscious about their attire, speech pat- terns, and undeveloped social skills. As a result, they are often reluctant to visit the school and associate on invitation for a conference with a member of the school staff as a summons for discussion of the child's (sic) be- havioral or academic difficulties. Typically, such par- ents are highly reluctant to intervene with school author- ities on behalf of their children and are often suspicious and ever hostile toward school personnel (p. 152). Fusco calls for parent-teacher contact through home visits, school con- ferences and non-formal times to increase communication, thus breaking down barriers to understanding and cooperation through a level of mutual concern and interest in the child. Peterson (1967) adds that behavior modification in the home must be used with parents since the: 23 ...parental environment is primarily responsible for the development of both acceptable and deviant behaviors exhibited by the child (p. 2). Strom (1967) found that future teachers make very good teachers for inner city schools if they are trained for (1) handling inner city par- ents and their environments, (2) visiting welfare homes with a case worker, and (3) discussing their own self-frustrations and fears. In a North Carolina experience, Landsberger (1973) indicates that the most rewarding activity for improving home-school communications was the home visit by teachers. In addition, a study by Shelton (1973) identified home visits by teachers as creating the greatest positive attitude by parents toward schools over any other activity. Upon com- pletion of an effort to improve home-school communications, another school district reported that: ...the value of home visits cannot be underestimated, for the teacher sees the child as a part of the total family; and the teacher, through her knowledge of the child and his development, shows the parents (a) personal concern- for their child and his progress (Ferguson-Florissant, 1974, p. 11). Gordon (1974), in his Home Learning Center Approach, says that home visits were " ...designed to enhance the parents' sense of control over the environment and self-esteem" (p. 4). Even with the popularity of home visits on the part of parents, a teacher needs to expend a con- siderable amount of time per family in home visits, as compared with other methods of cummunication (Zuelow, 1965). Horn (1970) tells about the VIP program in Omaha public schools during the 1969-70 school year in which some teachers volunteered to make home visits. Most of those who did make home visits were elemen— tary teachers. Horn makes reference to the fact that approximately ten 24 percent of school districts seem to want teachers to make home visits but few elementary teachers will. As does Wegener (1975), Horn says home visits in Omaha before the school year began seemed to allow par- ents, children, and teachers to start the school year on a comfortable note. He also makes reference to the Minneapolis Outreach Program where teachers were given school time to visit homes; yet, the teachers' feel— ings were mixed and some teachers were still "violently opposed" to home visits as reported by administrators (1970, p. 45). Horn has found inner city administrators generally saying there is a need for home visits by teachers because the children often get little educational support. Those teachers who favor home visits believe that the visits result in (1) better understanding of children, (2) school problems which are easier to handle, (3) parent volunteer helpers which are easier to find, and (4) good public relation tactics which prevent many "nasty" letters from being written. In this writing, Horn indicated six factors which might be influ- ences for teachers' not making home visits: 1. Busing makes home visits unmanageable. 2. Working mothers eliminate home visits in the afternoons. 3. Administrators say there is union concern about overlap- ping jurisdiction. 4. Administrators say it is dangerous to let untrained per- sonnel make home visits. 5. Teachers over age thirty are generally the ones who make home visits. 6. Older teachers who make home visits cannot understand why younger ones shy away from home visits. In his study of home visits in the inner-city, Weikart (1971) points out two lessons teachers learned were: 25 l. Mbst mothers value an attentive and curious child who tries to learn, to reach out to the environment and to others, and 2. Teacher actions must be determined by the individual needs of each family (pp. 135-136). ‘ Grissom (1971) says a teacher can learn much and teach much in meeting with immature parents by helping both the child and the parents learn together. He concluded that the key for a teacher is to go into a con- ference with an open mind, trying not to manipulate the parent, but listening to reach an understanding. Conant (1971) says home visits overcome many of the negative influencing factors in a child's home en- vironment which affect achievement, by encouraging parental involvement. Honig (1972) observes that some programs use parents as paraprofession- als to continue the home visitation efforts of the program and to help the teacher. Landsberger (1973) found home visits to reveal two more influences on a child, in addition to Weikart's: 1. Particular needs and potentials in the central part of the child's life, his family, and 2. Home-school partnership is formed which is necessary for the child's healthy development as it is for the healthy operation of a school in its community. Landsberger adds that such a partnership can lessen a child's learning disadvantages. Shelton (1973) has found similar results to Landsber- ger's, plus a positive effect on the child's grade point average. Shel- ton says this increase in achievement might be a result of the child's feeling his teacher really (1) cares about him, and (2) demonstrates it by showing an interest in him. Erickson (1973) reported on a home visit study that showed (1) seventy-three percent of parents, seventy- five to eighty—three percent of teachers, and seventy-seven percent of 26 students viewed home visits as positive; and (2) sixty-eight percent of the students with problems in school previous to the home visitations were now getting along with teachers and their peers in school. This study by Erickson concerning positive views and alienation is enhanced by Thomas' (1974) reference to studies which found that when working with the mother, one would not see substantial results for a year or two since the family environment and parallel improvement in younger siblings takes time. Thomas also found that the greater the parent contact through home visits and meetings, the lower the alienation score on the "How I See Myself Measure of Alienation" plus 3 correspond- ing higher score by the student. Home visits by teachers in some early childhood programs offer par- ents suggestions on how to stimulate their youngsters' natural urges to learn and how to set realistic expectations for the children (Jew, 1974). Such efforts with parents of children in Follow Through programs have resulted in parents' spending more time with their children after the program was over than they did prior to its start (Ware, 1974). Bronfenbrenner (1974) says that: ...the evidence indicates that the family is the most ef- fective and economical system for fostering and sustaining the development of the child. The evidence indicates further that the involvement of the child's family as an active participant is critical to the success of any intervention program (i.e., home visits) (p. 17). Campbell (1974) reminds us that home visits (intervention programs) can only occur if the parent is willing to allow the visitation, and the visit must be conducted in a manner showing respect for the dignity of the parents no matter what their socio-economic status. The Ferguson- Florinant School District Project (1974) concluded that the "home is the 27 most powerful source of stimulation and motivation for the child" (p. 2) thus giving the reacher reason during a home visit to take time and to instruct the parent. Campbell found a large number of projects having the intent of working with mothers to make them effective educational change agents. The University of California's Culturally Democratic Learning Experience Model gave a spiraling effect by having teachers learn "the children's cultural background that influences the way they think and learn" through home visits and then use this background knowl- edge "in the teaching process so the children will learn more effec- tively" (Thomas, 1974, p. 16). Zuelow (1975) made the following recommendations and observations concerning effective home visits: A well-planned and executed home visit is a satisfying and effectual teaching method. It is a helping relationship between the family and the teacher in a give-and-listen situ- ation. Home visitation is a teaching technique that can be improved through practice and appraisal. The teacher's de- cision to personally contact a family or family members by a home visit should be based on one or more of the following reasons: 1. To introduce ideas or to teach a skill 2. To encourage cooperation and participation 3. To stimulate thinking 4. To give the family information necessary for decision making 5. To accomplish a specific purpose (p. 16). Andrews (1975) points out that for any home visit which is to be successful at increasing parental involvement and making the parent an effective educational change agent, it must be well-designed in advance. Atkins (1975) mentions how a Philadelphia project for increasing parent- al involvement used home visits as a promotional technique. 28 Newbury (1976) describes how another school district initiated and structured a home visit program in its district to develop a genuine community education outlook: When the idea of home visits began, the superintendent and central administrators did it first. Principals fol- lowed that lead by setting aside a half day a week for a year (to make their own visits). Then teachers were helped to gain confidence and commitment through combined workshop and visitation days. Home visitation by teachers (resulted) as a frequent, organized, and institutionalized practice in all elementary and junior high schools. The basis, principal, is that if you want residents to reach out to schools, then reach out to the residents (p. 342). Home visits were instituted in an organized and structured way across the country reported by Dade County, 1977; Lolly and Honig, 1977; Gabi- net in Cleveland, 1977; and Kapper in El Paso, 1977. Each project aimed at change in the home environment through training mothers and, thus, the family. The National Home Start Evaluation (Grogan, 1977), the Community Collaborator in Charlottesville, Virginia (Hager, 1977), and the Florida Follow Through (Vacante, 1977) offer pamphlets on how to make home visits. Gordon (1977) has added new aspects to home visits--vertica1 dif- fusion and career development which benefits the child, parents, school and community by training local unemployed-outside-the-home parents to be paraprofessionals. The paraprofessionals aid the teacher as a liai- son to other parents. This aspect allows the paraprofessional to be- come a teacher of his own children and to develop a partnership between the school and community. The paraprofessionals visit the homes to work with children and/or mothers and work in the classroom with teach- ers. A phenomenon of vertical diffusion has resulted in members of families other than the target child's being affected by the program. 29 Preliminary findings from the first set of sites indicate impact in the area of career development for low income per- sons in paraprofessional and nonprofessional positions. By providing jobs and training for low income persons, the pro- gram has helped poor families become self-sufficient. This has occurred in many programs, not just Follow Through, and in all our communities (Gordon, 1977, p- 11)- Small and Whitfield (1977) found home visitations and the travel- ing involved from going to each home as beneficial in getting rural families to participate in attending a center for and welcoming into their home members of a local health clinic trying to train parents to practice good health care habits with their families. Teachers' Attitudes Toward Home Visits Many teachers do not make home visits, perhaps because of what Broudy (1972) describes as: ...the negative tone pervading educational writing is that, for most people, discontent is the normal state. The moments of contentment--not to be confused with moments of ineffable joy or ecstasy—-are brief interludes between the struggles to achieve (them). Perhaps this is inevitable, perhaps it is even a definition of what it means to be human, but in any event discontent with life goes hand in hand with discontent with schools (p. 5). Another reason Chilman (1971) gives for teachers' reluctance to visit homes is that some teachers feel inadequate on the socio—economic status ladder when dealing with a parent several rungs above them, especially when the parent is in the community system as part of the local power structure. The school systems often do not provide an acceptable lo- cation and time for teacher and parents to meet. These weaknesses are mixed with the teacher's own personality structure which is brought in- to any communication with parents along with the emotional involvement found to be strong in teachers involved with little children (Chilman, 1971). Grissom (1971) points out that even with the above—mentioned 30 teacher personalities brought into a parent conference, the benefits of the conference might be helpful in evaluating the plans as to the apprOpriateness for the child's special needs. Parents have a right to know about all aspects of their children's education. Parent-teacher conferences must be meetings of equals who display mutual respect (Grissom, 1971). Conant (1971) believes such displays of teacher respect can best be shown by going to parents in their homes in order to work with, talk with, and listen to the parent as an equal. In one school district (Ferguson-Florisant, 1974), it was found that by going to the home, teachers developed a relationship on the parents' homeground, thus changing the teacher's role from that of position to one of acceptance and personal warmth. The child was, in turn, benefiting from the new relationship between parent and teacher. Horn (1970) adds that: ...teachers who make home visits are quick to point out that phone calls and notes have a disadvantage: the teacher doesn't see the home environment (p. 45). Fusco (1966) refers to educational administrative efforts as being fruitless in encouraging school-home cooperation in inner city neighbor- hoods. Horn did a spot check around the country in 1970 and found home visits to be rare, with less than ten percent of school districts' en- couraging them. He stated that apparently home visits by classroom teachers is "one of those practices more honored in the breach than in the observance" (p. 44). The two means usually relied on by teachers to communicate with parents are notes or parents' nights at school. But Chilman (1971) says neither provided "...the right Opportunity for real communication" (p. 122). 31 When the early childhood programs of the 1960's and 1970's were started, the programs moved right into the home to begin working with the infants through the mothers (Wagner, 1975). A reciprocal feeling of importance was held by parents' regarding the school as a total social, educational, guidance, and leadership institution from which parents sought help, not pity (Williams, 1965). Still, most educators avoid any substantial parent contact and involvement (Broudy, 1972). Newbury (1976) believes: ...(the principles of Open) communications and a will- ingness to move in new directions haven't changed much. They are supported by efforts to achieve maximum face-to- face contact, policies aimed at high levels of involvement, practices which develop a climate of trust between peOple, and a persistent willingness to risk that good professional observation and judgment are at least as good as quantified data (p. 340). Strom (1966) referred to the middle class "fiction" of the condi- tion and ability of the urban poor which has strongly perpetuated it- self generation after generation. This attitude has progressed to the point where, according to Klein (1976), the middle class teacher thinks of the urban poor as: ...unclean, indifferent, unmotivated, lacking aspira— tion, and ungrateful; thus, they should be distrusted, feared, and shunned (p. 117). Klein wonders how much of this myth is the reason that educators are "often loath to encourage" true parent involvement in the schools. Yet, educators: ...profess to believe that the most effective program for children creates a partnership between home and school (Ware, 1974, p. 3). Williams (1965), a teacher, found in dealing with inner city par- ents that they welcomed teachers warmly into their homes and eXpressed 32 their feelings freely concerning the confidence they had in school and in teachers. Thus, parents and teachers may learn from each other, but the blocks to their communicating must be removed. These blocks in— clude: ...intense feelings, ego involvements, deeply held atti— tudes and values, past histories, and current concerns that parents, teachers and children bring to the communication and behavior drama (Chilman, 1971, p. 24). The teacher's habit of discouraging home teaching by parents must stop and be turned around by bringing parents into classrooms to help and to learn what materials and approaches are most effective (Conant, 1971). Parental involvement in education and communication with teachers are necessary influences on a child's acheivement in school, according to the literature reviewed on the preceeding pages. However, research- ers still find many teachers' not communicating, visiting the home, and encouraging parental involvement. The review of literature includes citations dating from 1956 to 1978. Two ERIC searches (December 1, 1978, and July 9, 1979) and one dissertation search (July 9, 1979) were made. Very little direct in- formation was found concerning the factors that influence elementary teachers to make home visits. Much of the literature expounds on the benefits teachers and school systems can derive from using home visits. A.largepercentage of the literature is based on research involving fed- eral or other funds to pay or compensate (1) teachers, (2) paraprofes— sionals, (3) home visitors, (4) counselors, (5) social workers, and (6) clinicians for making home visits. The reviewed literature was narrowed to the six most direct cita- tions which bear on this study. Of the factors that influence elemen- tary teachers to make home visits, the following items were used to 33 eliminate the peripheral literature: volunteers paid or somehow com- pensated, early-childhood or day care, teachers other than elementary classroom, school with grades other than K-6, supportive staff used in- stead Of teachers, researchers making the visits, American society, American history, medical efforts. The six citations chosen as closest to the direct concerns of this study follow. A Study of the Opinions of Home Economics Teachers Regardinngome Visits with Implications for Programs in Kentucky; Sarah Tabb Henry, Ed.D.; University of Kentucky, 1977 The study used a questionnaire with a Likert-type scale, as de- veloped by the researcher. Similarities to this study in both influ- ences and questionnaire types are in the areas of (1) values of home visits, (2) acceptance of home visits, (3) constraints experienced by teachers in making home visits, and (4) demographics--(a) number of years of teaching experience, (b) length of extended employment, (c) hours of graduate work, and (d) location of school. The study's findings as pertaining to this study are: 1. "Parents and students should be informed prior to a home visit." 2. "Teachers did not feel uncomfortable visiting students whose race or culture are different from their own." 3. "In-service programs, services, and activities to help teachers do a better job of home visiting have been inadequate." 4. "Social changes affecting homes and families adversely affected home visitation..." 5. "Differences were found in the Opinions of teachers toward home visits according to the demographic factors: 34 a. The location of students' homes showed the largest number of differences, and b. Teachers whose students were from rural homes had more positive attitudes toward the purposes and values of home visits." The Effect of Teacher Home Visits on Parental, Faculty, and Student Attitudes within a Selected Iowa School District; John Milton Barron, Ph.D.; Iowa State University, 1975 The study used three standard attitude surveys which revealed: 1. "Teachers would be willing to conduct home visits and parents would be willing to participate in (them)..." 2. "...the majority Of the differences (among) groups was generally between students and parents or students and teachers and not between teachers and parents." 3. "Opinion differences between teachers and parents were generally minor..." A Description and Evaluation of a Program Designed to Enhance Home-School Relations; Dallas Delano Wegener, Ph.DL; Michigan State University, 1975 The study began in the summer with twenty paid teacher volunteers who, after training, "visited 358 families during the course of the 1974-75 school year." Then the teachers (seventeen) and parents (209) completed an evaluation instrument. The evaluation "clearly indicated that teachers and families profited by the visitation experience." The study revealed that participating teachers should use their own discretion concerning the use of short and open-ended questions during the home visit. Recommendations of each of the above studies indicated (1) that all families concerned with a school or program should be included in a visitation program; (2) teachers should volunteer for such a program; 35 and (3) teachers, not administrators, should plan and design the pro- gram. Published Reports on the Use of Home Visits Anthony J. DeLellis, Waynesboro Public Schools, Waynesboro, Vir- ginia; chapter four of Community Involvement for Classroom Teachers by Donna L. Hager and others, Charlottesville, Virginia, July 1977. DeLellis states three reasons that he has found why teachers might not make home visits: 1. 3. "Teachers have had little, if any, training for home visitations or, for that matter, little training in establishing relationships with parents in any setting." "Only five state education agencies reported" to the Center for the Study of Parent Involvement "that they required training or demonstration of competence on the part of teachers regarding working with parents, to say nothing of working with them in their homes." An internal constraint in talking in the homes of par- ents exists. Hackensack Public Schools, New Jersey, Home-School Interaction: Project LEM, 1973. This project was: with ...a program designed for multiage groupings in Open space schools...(as)...a multifaceted informational ap- proach to help assure...good public relations... parents. The results were: 1. 2. 3. One-fourth of the families in the schools were visited at home. If the families were a problem, teachers decided if the home should be visited. One home visit substituted for two parent-teacher con- ferences in school. Helen K. Macintosh and others, Educating Disadvantaged Children under Six, 1965, Disadvantaged Children Series Number 1. 36 The brochure reflects...the findings of staff members of the Elementary Schools Organization Section of the Office of Education in their visits to sixteen (major) cities... from programs with disadvantaged primary children. The study found teachers cannot deal with inner-city children of fami- lies if the teacher feels "that the child is not worthy and whose be- havior may differ greatly" from the type of child the teacher associ- ates with historically and, now, personally. Each of these citations is a how—to guide for teachers to initiate home visitations. m Fusco (1966) describes the reason or purpose for teacher home visits when he says: ...that COOperative relationships between parent and teacher developed through face-to-face contacts (are) a key factor in improving school-home ties. As the person who has close and regular contact with pupils, the classroom teacher is the key agent for establishing and maintaining close working relationships with parents. She carries out this responsibility by making home visits, by conducting individual and group conferences with parents at school; by maintaining a working alliance with pupil personnel workers, and by any other means that will give her sharper insights into home conditions that influence the learning and behavior of children in charge (p. 160). Support for the teacher must be given by administrators, colleges "...if the teachers of education, and government educational agencies are to succeed in efforts to bring about change” (Neimeyer, 1966, p. 7). He emphasizes that the attitudinal factor on the part of teach— ers must change before new methods of teaching and materials can have a substantial impact. Attitudes must be known before the strategy for encouraging teach— er home visits can be formulated in flexible detail. The attitudes 37 must be known across the total school community. For each separate school community, a new body of knowledge is required with which to design the strategy for each individual set of circumstances. The an- swer lies in knowing all the relevant factors, says Halliday (1970), concerning the attitudes of all elements of the community. The above analysis has viewed the attitudes of parents and teachers toward home visits and the need to study the attitudes of the school community. Home visits are shown to be necessary, for teachers and par- ents are the key factors in the achievement of a student. No education- al system can or will run smoothly until both parents and teachers work together, especially in the inner city. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction In this chapter the various steps in developing the questionnaire, the selection of the teachers to be surveyed, the research methodology, and the analysis of data will be explained in detail. Procedure The initial steps of the study began in November, 1978, and lasted through early January, 1979. These steps consisted of communicating, meeting, and negotiating with the City School District's Director of Planning, Programming, and Evaluation (DPPE); the Union's Executive Director of the Rochester Teachers‘ Association (ED of RTA); the Super- intendent of the School District of Perry, Michigan; and the principals of the Perry School District who were to be involved with the pilot study. All these parties gave their approval for the formal and pilot studies. Development of the Instrument The researcher Obtained factors for consideration by asking a panel of five former elementary school teachers who were doing their graduate work at Michigan State University to list those factors they felt influence teachers to make home visits. Two of the panel members 38 39 were former presidents of their local unions. A compendium of those factors identified by these graduate students is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Initial Set of Factors Influencing Teachers' Decisions to Visit Homes as Identified by Former—Teacher Panel Reasons Why Teachers Made Home Visits Parent and teacher knew each other socially outside of school. Parent and teacher knew each other socially through school acti- vities (PTA committees, volunteer chaperones, cake-bakers, teachers had children and/or was same age as parents visited. Parent made special effort to invite teacher. Part of teacher's personal/professional style was home visitations. Student was seriously ill and teacher made social call. Student was ill and teacher took make-up work home. Student had a special project going at home which was too cumber- some to move (science project involving radiation and chick embryos). Child was serious behavior problem and immediate report to parents seemed imperative. Teacher was doing a case study for course in graduate school. Teacher followed-up a parent-teacher conference on a particular problem at request of parent. Reasons Why Teachers Did not Make Home Visits Teacher had no training in home visit skills. No emphasis was placed on skills or need in teacher-training. Home visits did not satisfy any of the goals of the school. PTA was very active. All the children were doing very well without further home-school interaction. 40 Parents were never home--they worked evenings and went to cottages on weekends. Neighborhood was hostile to another race. Neighborhood crime rate made venturing there dangerous. Dangerous family situation-—or pathetically beyond help--or too many other social workers already working with family. Home visits handled adequately by support persons or staff. The school building had too many faculty and committee meetings after school and evenings. During the Christmas break (December 9 to January 3), the research- er deveIOped a preliminary questionnaire based on these factors. Forty- two questions were deveIOped to be addressed to teachers. The questions regarding home visits covered demographic information, number of home visits made, feelings toward doing home visits, feelings toward benefits for home visits, and feelings toward supportive groups such as PTA, staff, and administration. COpies of the questionnaire were sent to various faculty members at Michigan State University and several admin- istrators in the Rochester, New York, School District so they might make recommendations for change. After meeting with these persons, the re- searcher made and implemented a list of alterations to the question“ naire. Pilot Study Perry, Michigan, was chosen because of convenience to the Michigan State University campus and the limited time for a pilot study. The time available for the pilot study was dictated by the combination of 41 the prearranged dates for the actual study set by the CSD and the logis- tics necessary for the study's completion. In January the researcher met with the elementary school and middle school principals of Perry, Michigan, to set dates and procedures for doing the pilot study. The purpose of the pilot study was to clarify the wording of the questionnaire. The fact that Perry was a very small, rural district not at all similar to the district used for the major re— search project was not seen as an issue, given the limited goals of the pilot study. It was arranged that the questionnaires and answer sheets would be delivered on Monday, January 22, for distribution by the prin- cipals. The principals would use a one—to-one contact approach with each of the teachers, K—6, requesting COOperation. The administering of the questionnaires at a regular faculty meeting was not done due to several factors: (1) school days lost to closing because of snow, (2) the lengthy procedures required to place items on a faculty's meeting agenda, and (3) the time which was too short to allow the use of a fa- culty meeting if the actual study was to be done according to the time arranged with the Rochester City School District (CSD). The teachers were given the Option to volunteer to carry out and critique the sur— vey. They were also given a few days to complete their efforts. The only directions given by the principals to the teachers were (1) use a number two pencil when filling in the answer sheet, (2) follow the di- rections on the questionnaire, and (3) critique all parts of the ques- tionnaire by writing on the questionnaire. February 2 was the date for the return of thetdjtn:questionnaires. Over the two-week period prior to that date, school sessions had been interrupted by several snow day closings and meeting schedule changes. 42 The data and critiques were summarized in order to be presented for analysis and implementation of recommended changes. Twelve teachers completed the pilot study questionnaires. Copies of the revised ques- tionnaires from the pilot study results were mailed to the Rochester City School District; the Director of Planning, Programming, and Evalua- tion; and the Executive Director of the Rochester Teachers' Association so they might be kept informed and state any recommendations. Population Studied Questionnaires were distributed to the entire pOpulation of 710 full—time, classroom, elementary teachers, K—6, assigned to the forty- five elementary schools under the direction of the Board of Education for the City School District of Rochester, New York. The questionnaire was administered to all 710 teachers on March 14, 1979, during the reg" ular Wednesday faculty meeting. Of those surveyed, 555 teachers ac— tually returned completed questionnaires. The 155 non-respondents in- cluded the entire staff of one elementary school who declined to parti- cipate (twenty-seven teachers) and four other schools whose question- naires were apparently lost in the district's inter—school mail system (forty-nine teachers). Administering the Teacher Questionnaires The teacher questionnaires and answer sheets were received by all principals by March 12 for distribution on March 14 at the regular Wed- nesday faculty meeting. As mentioned previously, the principals had been approached on January 12, 1979, at their city-wide meeting to sup- port and cooperate with the study. Also, the principals had received 43 two reminders during February about the date of the study and who was to be surveyed. Only one principal requested to have his school excluded from the survey. For the most part, the principals passed out the question- naires at the March 14 meetings, giving all K—6 classroom teachers fif- teen to twenty minutes to complete them. The principals then collected the completed forms and returned them to the researcher. Some princi- pals requested advice as to another time they might administer the questionnaires since circumstances prevented them from doing so during the Wednesday faculty meetings. The principals were advised they could administer the questionnaires to the teachers as they reported to work on Wednesday morning, if the principals collected the completed forms before the teachers left school that day. The answer sheets from the survey were checked for proper marking with number two pencils and for double answers so that they could be scored and placed on a computer tape by the Michigan State University scoring office. The data were then tabulated to give totals for each possible response to each question. The tabulated data were mailed to the Parent Center; the Director of Planning, Programming, and Evalua- tion; and the Executive Director of the Rochester Teachers' Association. Also at this time, thank you letters were mailed to the Rochester City School District's Superintendent; the Director of Planning, Pro- gramming, and Evaluation; each principal who participated; the Parent Center; and others who helped with the study. Earlier in February, thank you letters were mailed to the superintendent and three princi- pals in the Perry, Michigan, school district. 44 Analysis of Data Of forty-five possible schools, forty-four were surveyed to Ob— tain teachers' feelings regarding home visits. Once the questionnaires were finished, the principals mailed them via the CSD courier system to the researcher. Most of the survey envelopes were received by MOn- day, March 19, 1979. Those not received were picked up on April 2, 1979, and consisted of eight envelopes. The computer data were analyzed at the Michigan State University Computer Center using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), and data were analyzed by using Pearson correlation coefficients for each question. Summary On the previous pages the population, sample, and methodology have been reviewed concerning this study which seeks to identify some of the factors which influence elementary teachers K-6 to make home visits in Rochester, New York. The population was the total 710 elementary teachers K-6 assigned to the total forty—five elementary schools in the city of Rochester. The sample used in the study of the population was the total popu- lation of 710 elementary teachers K-6. The research was conducted on March 14, 1979. Questionnaires which used a Likert-type scale were administered to measure teachers' feelings about home visits. The results were analyzed using an SPSS Pearson R computer pro- gram. The analysis of the data will be reported in the next chapter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This chapter will: 1. Present demographic data and analyze the sample sur- veyed to determine if Rochester teachers appear to be similar to the national pOpulation. This will be done to help us judge the extent to which results may be generalized to other pOpulations. 2. Analyze demographic data to determine the extent to which relationships exist between population charac- teristics and teadhers' perceptions of the need for home visitations and the extent to which they feel that such visits should be conducted. 3. Analyze data on teachers' attitudes about selected vari- ables in the following groups: a. Perceived logistical difficulties b. Personal fears c. Contractual responsibilities d. Professional role e. Psychological margin The secondary research questions were: 1. Is there a relationship between selected attitudes and demographic data and the extent to which teachers feel that home visits are appropriate? 2. Is there a relationship between selected attitudes and demographic data and the extent to which teachers re- port having made home visits? Summaries of responses to each item included in the survey in- strument will be found in the appendix. Only selected items and analyses which seemed to be central to the major findings of this study are discussed in detail in this chapter. 45 46 Table 1 shows the comparison of the demographic survey data with national demographic figures for 1979. This table presents data from the questionnaires given to all elementary teachers in the city of Rochester, New York. The total teacher population of the district (K—6) was estimated at 710 based on the October, 1978, EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) report. One school's principal notified the researcher prior to the printing of the questionnaires that his school would be unable to participate in the study. That situation, together with minor non-response levels in the other schools, reduced the total respondent population to 555 out of a possible 710 teachers, a return rate of 78%. Table 1 shows that the teachers in the Rochester City School Dis- trict are basically an older and more educated group with a larger per- centage of male elementary and minority teachers than the national per- centage. Also, a greater percentage of Rochester teachers have chil- dren and live outside the district than the national percentage. Cau- tion should be used, given these unique characteristics of the Rochester teachers, in generalizing from the results of this study to other dis- tricts or populations. Relationships Between Home Visit Behavior and ,Expectations of Various Teacher Attitudes It was important in this study to determine if any demographic variables were related to the reported frequency of teacher home visits or to teachers' perceptions of possible frequency of home visits. Two items were included on the questionnaire that were designed to measure the frequency of home visits presently conducted in the 47 W I . . .1” . . __ " .m"“ .m . . m M. ...H. _ 1 em I. _. m a 1 w w . m .m M “1 w m. m _ 1 m m .M .1 m m m .. _ M . m . m w _ . m _ i . m . t m 1 _ w i ._ my“ w m . “_ .. ...l... m.mmwa.mq m.~m_n.mq H.Huoaltmwafiamom oaos uwmfi> om Hoo. womo. om. Hoo. momo. NH. ufima> wowuooA%uaoomwv xomoaoo muons om moo. cqao. NH.I ONH. oaoo. co.l ooosuonnmfioa mo mummmm mm owa. oHoo. «0.: mmm. oooo. mo. Hoonom uamw> muamuma cons homes: NN Hoo. ammo. NH.I Hoo. ommo. oa.n msoe Ouow uo:OOOu oaooaoa oaoos muoowmo Hm .me me u .wfim Nu u ma 0 oH o muwmw> oEOm mo aoooowoum emuuomom woo woanmwum> noon Hmoomuom me macaw cowumaouuoo "u wanna Hoo. omoo. oN.I Hoo. coco. N~.I ouowuouofi muoOEuflEEOO Hmcomuoo me «am. sooo. No. mom. oHoo. so. agenda: me «am os Hoo. mwmo. mm. Hoo. omHo. «a. mooooummaoo owmuooomfiv mufimw> mm Hoo. ooqo. om. Hoo. ooqo. oN. whom memo ou couoawno O>mn HO£OOOu mooo mm Hao. omoo. oo. Hoo. coco. mm. oooauonnwfioc mowmuoo wofi>HH muooosum mo uooouoo ma mno. oqoo. no. 500. oqoo. wo.u neon wcwon .muoowmo mo ooonfiaoxaa NH on. wooo. No. NmH. mmoo. mo. mmmao Bonn muaoooum mo coauoaoo m Hoe. oooo. oo. mmH. mmoo. no. mmmflo Ou mucoooum 30a mo coauwoom w .w m H u . a N mam Nu u ma 0 oH o muHmH> oaom mo zooosvoum oouuomom woo mooSuHuu< Hmowumwwoq unwfim wooem maowumaouuoo no OHnOH 55 mod. oaoo. so. omm. oooo. mo. mucoumo was Honomou somsuoo oomucoo umaowou aouw uamooon couoawno mm qoo. ccHo. NH. Hoo. «Nmo. ma. oafieo m uoonm ouoa ham monomOu m comma uoc HHH3 mufimfi> mac: om moo. «coo. mo. ooa. oaoo. qo. moooufiuum .muocomou mm uamuuooaw mm mum monouauum uaoumo om moo. sumo. «N.- Hoo. «who. m~.- mesmEuOLHma wcacumma cH oofiouomMfio m Oxma ow muwmw> oaon mm omH. oHoo. «0.: ~00. ooao. mH.I wuwmfi> macs o>wuoowwo am Oxma Ou so: aocx 50% oo om .wwm Nu u .wwm N9 u ma 0 OH O muwmfi> oEo: mo mocoovoum omupomom mom mHHfixm can moaom Hmcowmmmwoum o>fim mo oowumaouuoo no waan Hoo. osmo. «N. Hoo. Homo. Hm. uomuuaoo «0 upon uoa mm mmm. oooo. mo. Hoo. mNNo. ma. muwma> owmuooocm u.omooo uowuumwo mm Hoo. onmo. cm. Hoo. ooqo. om. wuonomOu you .mmmum uuoooom no homo om Hoo. «Noa. mm. Hoo. omoo. om. Hoo:om Ou oaoo oasonm mucoumo «N woo. «woo. mo. ado. ooHo. oH. mean one now haco oumwuaouoom muamfi> oaon MN .me mu u .me N» n ma 0 ea c muHmH> 0503 Ho >oamovoum oouuomom ocm moaomfium> msoquuoooxm amouomuucoo xfim wooam coaumaouuoo no OHQOH 56 Hoo. Hoo. Hoo. .wfim ommo. omoo. ooao. ma 0 mm. cm. «H. Hoo. Hoo. qoo. .wfim ommo. osmo. HNHo. NH So «N. «N. HH. Hooeom emumm oopau OOu ma HO£OOOu oo Ou mwafinu ucmuuoosfi whoa mm: Honooou muHmH> oaon cuaa muoquuaH mwcfiuooa mama OOu mufimw> maom mo hocooooum ocuuomom was moHnmflum> afiwumz HOOHwOHO£O%mm mouse wcoam coaumamuuoo nod canoe Ho Hm om 57 This study identified no common factors influencing the elementary teachers in the Rochester City School District to make home visits. Reasons why this study came out as it did might be: the unique nature of the Rochester City School District to make home visits, the individual characteristics of the teachers, the factors chosen to study, and/or the environment present in each school at the time the study was administered. To this researcher, the strongest reason for the results seems to be the individual characteristics of each teacher as shown by the data. The individual characteristics of teachers refers to their attitudes toward home visits. Looking only at question 10, the data show 186 respondents indi- cate they make one or more home visits presently. The researcher can conclude that he is not alone in making home visits. Yet, Of the 186, only forty-six make three or more monthly home visits. Thus, the data show the researcher to be part of a small minority of teachers who see home visitations as a regular part of the teaching job. The response to question 18 seems to indicate there is a large number of teachers (249) who would like to make or increase home visi- tations as part of the teaching job. Perhaps, if the proper motiva— tional approach were used, more teachers would make home visits in Rochester, New York. Thus, the data might be implying that the teacher pOpulation is so diversified that it should be considered on an individual or small group basis. In approaching the teacher pOpulation to encourage home visits, a person might analyze individual and small groups of teachers. Thus, to encourage home visits, a person should remember that this study indicates no one common factor is influential to all the 58 teachers' views of home visits in Rochester, New York. A person who is assigned to encourage home visits must analyze each teacher in his en- vironment before proceeding to encourage and assist the teacher to make home visits. Summary This study has demonstrated that none of the variables studied seems importantly related either to reported home visit frequencies or to teachers' perceptions of how many home visits they could reasonably expect to make. Questions 10 and 18 seem to indicate that while very few home visits are now being made, some teachers are not adverse to increasing that level. The use of the Pearson R correlation to discov- er what individual variables might be related to the number of home visits made seems to indicate that while none of the variables is sig- nificantly enough to be used for formulating policy with respect to the general pOpulation of teachers in Rochester, New York, specific varia- bles may prove to be of significance in dealing with individual teach- ers. Conclusions for policy formulation in the Rochester school dis- trict, based on these findings, will be discussed in Chapter V, along with a general summary of the study and recommendations for further re- search. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION We The purpose of this study was to identify some of the factors re- lated to how elementary teachers view home visits in Rochester;New York. All full-time elementary classroom teachers, K—6, in the City School District of Rochester, New York, were surveyed. It was hOped that this survey of the entire teacher population would give a strong indication of those factors influencing teachers' views of home vists. The reason for choosing home visits was based on the researcher's ten years of teaching experience with home visits. The researcher hoped to partially understand how fellow professionals viewed home visits. The surveying of several graduate students in education at Michi- gan State University, all of whom were former elementary teachers, was done to elicit their perceptions of what influences teachers to make home visits. The researcher then compiled the graduate students' re- commendations and devised a questionnaire to be used in surveying teachers. The questionnaire relied on responses of viewpoints using a Likert-type scale as a measure. The questionnaire was pilot tested in the school district of Perry, Michigan. Teachers' reactions from the pilot study were incorporated into the questionnaire used in the major study. On March 14, 1979, the actual survey was conducted in all 59 60 forty-four elementary schools in the City School District of Rochester, New York. The responses were analyzed at the Michigan State University Com- puter Center using the Pearson correlation coefficients to examine various relationships between selected attitudes and characteristics of teachers and home visit data. Statement Of Problem Some of the elementary teachers of Rochester, New York, have in- dicated they feel only positive things about home visitations. The problem was to identify some factors related to teachers' decisions to make home visits. ResearchpQuestion The major research question was: what factors, as indicated on a teacher survey, might encourage home visits by the teachers? The inves- tigation centered on three areas: 1. Demographic characteristics were analyzed to determine if Rochester teachers appear to be similar to the nation- al pOpulation as reported in the National Educational Association's "Status of Schools-—l975-76." This was done to help judge the extent to which results might be generalized to other populations. 2. Demographic data were analyzed to determinetfluaextent to which relationships exist between these characteristics and teachers' perceptions of the need for home visita— tions. 3. Data collected from individual teachers, using an instru- ment deveIOped by the researcher, were analyzed to dew termine the extent to which teachers' attitudes were re- lated to both the reported frequency of home visits and the extent to which teachers believe home visits to be practical and/or possible. The data on teachers' atti- tudes were grouped to reflect five categories of vari- ables: 61 a. Perceived Logistical Difficulties b. Personal Fears c. Contractual Responsibilities d. Professional Role e. Psychological Margin The secondary research questions were: 1. Is there any relationship between the demographic data and teacher feelings toward home visits? 2. Is there any relationship between the selected variables and the frequency of home visits made by teachers? Conclusions The analysis of data revealed no educationally significant factors related to teachers' decisions to make home visits. The lack of any educational significance was based on Borg and Gall's (1977) statement that correlations of +.35 to -.35 are of no value in either individual or group prediction. However, one should not assume that any of these factors individually or in groups are totally insignificant to seeking an answer as to what motivates teachers to make home visits in Roches- ter, New York. Recommendations to Rochester The Rochester City School District states in its "Philosophy and Goals" (#10): We believe it is imperative that there exist improved relations among all racial, religious, and economic groups leading to a more humane atmOSphere in our schools. Specific Opportunities for interaction among students, teachers, staff, parents, and the community will be develOped to provide for a continuing exchange of ideas and understand- ings (p. iv). The above statement would indicate that the City School District of R0- chester, New York, believes in (l) closer contact between school and parents, (2) parental involvement, and (3) home visitation by teachers. 62 If Rochester does wish to improve relations through interaction of all groups in the community for a more humane atmosphere in the schools, than encouraging home visitations would be beneficial. The data have led the researcher to conclude that the City School District of Rochester, New York, is made up of many individual teachers who do not fall into any type of general group with regard to home visits. The 33.6 percent of teachers who are presently making home visits in Rochester could be used as a core group to work on expanding visita- tions. These teachers, if given attention by encouragement, articles in City School District papers/bulletins, and time to speak at in- service activities might be able to strongly promote home visits by other teachers. Their enthusiasm could be the selling element to other teachers, along with positive assistance by the City School District. Thus, it is recommended that, if the City School District of Ro- chester, New York, wishes to encourage home visitations by elementary teachers, it should: 1. Survey only those teachers presently making home visits to see why they do so. In order to establish conditions conducive to encouraging home visits. 2. Design in-service education programs to meet the distinct needs of individuals or groups of teachers who make home visits or show an interest in making them. 3. Train an individual in each building (principal, vice- principal, or a home visit consultant) who will work with those teachers presently making home visits and encourage and support teachers who indicate a willingness or in- terest in beginning or increasing their making of home visits. 4. Formally recognize the extra effort and time involved in home visitation in teacher evaluations. 63 5. Give home visitations priority when scheduling conflicts occur with other school or district meetings. Personal Reflections of This Study During this past year at Michigan State University, the researcher has met many educators, read about and heard of many school districts across the country. The Michigan State University experience has led the researcher to believe that his own school district of Rochester, New York, is one of the overall best school districts in the country to work for. The Rochester City School District has an impressive department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. This department's growing utiliza- tion of computers provides services to the educational professionals of the school district, hOpefully resulting in better educated students. The original dissertation prOposal included a parent questionnaire to allow a comparison between parentsenuiteachers' attitudes concerning home visits. This intent and effort ran into many problems, such as: 1. Difficulty of getting parent volunteers from each school; 2. Snow storms occurring on each of the three scheduled training days for the volunteers. 3. Confusion on the part of parents who were unable to at- tend a training session to learn about their roles. 4. Confusion at schools as to which parent was to receive the survey material. 5. Some surveyors not receiving parental acceptance to be surveyed agreement slips. 6. Threat of a law suit against the researcher from a par- ent who said he did not want to be in the survey. 7. Surveyor's car's being damaged. 8. Only eighteen of forty—five schools could Obtain parent volunteers. 64 9. Of the one hundred responses recieved, thirty-six came from three schools. 10. Parents' reSponding who were not part of the randomly chosen sample. The researcher thus decided against the use of the parents' question- naire data because the data were so contaminated by the various inter- ferences with the collection process. Efforts to do a parental survey did teach the researcher that the Rochester City School District has a potentially vital structure to ini- tiate parental surveys. This study was the first of its kind for the Parent Leadership Council (made up of representatives of all recognized parent groups in the city school district) and the Parent Center of the City School District. For a future study to be successful, a researcher must spend a greater amount of time on the site to manage organization, to provide training schedules adaptive to volunteers' needs, and to answer questions. The researcher also learned about the reactions of teachers who feel threatened by such surveys. Even though the District and Roches— ter Teachers' Association wrote letters encouraging teacher COOpera- tion and support, many teachers reacted to the survey as an invasion of their privacy or professional competency. Some teachers felt the survey was an effort by the District to add a home visitation require- ment to the master agreement. These reactions were told directly by teachersanuiadministrators to the researcher. The researcher is still needled by teachers in the district, ten months after the study, as being the one who sent out "that questionnaire" on home visits. Principals and vice principals displayed a strong degree of coop— eration with the researcher in allowing time for the study during 65 their in-service time. Several principals extended themselves beyond the COOperation that was asked of them. They did this by attending parent training sessions, offering suggestions on how the questionnaire might be better received by teachers, and telling the researcher if any questionnaire envelOpes were lacking materials. The principals pre- sented themselves as a very effective group for disseminating informa- tion and materials. Finally, the researcher is grateful for having Observed the inter- action and functioning of several of the School District's departments. This kind of observation would not have occurred while the researcher was still a classroom teacher. Recommendations for Further Research 1. One method of analysis that might be used in a similar study is the multiple regression equation. Borg and Call (1977) say that: The multiple regression equation combines the predictive value of several tests or measures into a single formula in order to make as improved prediction. Several predictive instruments, each having fifteen percent or more variance's being predicted, can, when combined, yield a satisfactory prediction provided that they measure different aspects of the predicted behavior. The multiple regression equation weighs each variable in terms of its importance in making the desired prediction (p. 349). Such an analysis would identify any strong pattern which occurred among items influencing teachers to make home visits. 2. An in-depth study of one or more of the five categories of variables from this study might be done. If, for instance, "logical difficulties" were chosen for further and closer study, the researcher might ask the interpretations possible for answering a question. This 66 narrowing of the interpretations would allow a closer look at the ele— ments of each logistical difficulty factor surveyed in this study. 3. Choose a school district whose teachers are reflective of the national norms for elementary teachers. This early designation would permit the generalizing of the study beyond the sample used. The study would also use the break down of the national norm-reference in design- ing the demographic questions. Such a study might then be compared with data common to other studies whose pOpulations reflect the national norms. 4. An interview study might be done of teachers who presently make home visits. Such a study would permit in-depth follow-up to responses given by teachers to the trained interviewer's questions. This follow- up questioning might give insight as to how and what factors influence teachers to make home visits. 5. Another interview study might be done of teachers who present- ly do not make home visits. Such a study might clearly show how and what factors influence teachers not to make home visits. 6. A study might be done using both recommendations above (4 & 5) in the same school district to see if clear, contrasting factors exist between teachers who do and do not make home visits. 7. A study of administrators could be done to study their atti- tudes on home visits in conjunction or separately from one of the above mentioned studies. Such a study might reveal some influencing factors which would not Otherwise come to light by just interviewing teachers. Such a study might show how much administrators (especially principals) are a strong factor in the teachers' making home visits. APPENDIX A Question 1: Number of years employed in the district 1 1-3 4-6 7-10 Total responses: 13 34 117 136 % of total responses received: 2.3 6.1 21.2 24.5 Question 2: Number of years teachingpexperience 1 1-3 4-6 7-10 Total responses: 4 26 86 126 % of total responses received: .7 4.7 15.5 22.7 Question 3: Grade level of teachers K lst 2—3 4th Total responses: 43 96 177 79 % of total responses received: 7.7 17.3 31.9 11.2 Question 4: Highest level of academic achievement Bach. B+15 B+30 B+45 Mast. Total responses: 76 75 114 190 % of total responses received: 13.7 13.5 20.5 34.2 Question 5: Age of teachers 24 24-29 30-36 37-44 Total responses: 7 82 172 90 % of total responses received: 1.3 .14.8 31.0 16.2 67 11+ 253-553 45.6 11+ 311—553 56.0 5-6 155-550 27.9 B+60 M+15 98-553 17.7 45+ 131—482 23.6 NA NA NA 73 13.1 68 Question 6: Number of Years Living in thepRochester Area 1 1-3 4-6 7-10 11+ NA Total responses: 9 18 53 77 329-486 69 % of total responses received: 1.6 3.2 9.5 13.9 59.3 12.4 Question 7: Ethnic Background a: c> E- c a: n o H. Him to 3 m m o H o h‘ m n : Q-H- n 2 E5? 3 5'8 3' x‘ o-a‘ ea 5 a H NA Total responses: 75 24 2 10 366-477 78 % of total responses received: 13.4 4.3 .36 1.8 65.94 14.0 Questions 8 & 9: Additions to or Deletions from a Classroom (Additions) 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+ NA Total responses: 258 173 28 9 10-478 77 % of total responses received: 46.5 31.2 5.0 1.6 1.8 13.9 (Deletions) Total responses: 262 125 37 22 32-478 77 % of total responses received: 47.2 22.5 6.7 4.0 5.8 13.9 Question 10: Number of Home Visits Made Presently by Teacher 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7+ NA Total responses: 360 140 32 7 7-546 9 % of total responses received: 64.9 25.2 5.8 1.3 1.3 1.6 Question 11: Marital Status Sin. Mar. Div. Sep. NA Total responses: 148 331 48 18 545 10 % of total responses received: 26.7 59.7 8.6 3.2 1.8 Question 12: Sex of Total responses: % of total responses 69 Respondents Male Female 86 441 527 received: 15.5 79.5 ,Question 13: Teachers Who Have Children of Their Own Total responses: % of total responses Yes No 313 228 541 received: 56.4 41.1 Question 14: Teachers Raised in the Rochester Area Total responses: % of total responses Question 15: Number Total responses: % of total responses Question 16: Number Total responses: % of total responses Yes No 227 317 544 received: 40.9 57.1 of Teachers Who Attended Undergraduate College in the Rochester Area Yes NO 278 270 548 received: 43.1 55.9 of Teachers Living in the Cipy of Rochester Yes No 239 310 549 received: 43.1 55.9 NA 28 5.0 NA 14 2.5 NA 14 2.0 NA 1.1 NA 1.1 70 Question 17: Do Teachers Believe Parents Will Be Home if the Teacher Wishes to Visit Them with Advanced Notice Yes NO NA Total responses: 395 54 449 106 % of total responses received: 71.2 9.7 19.1 Question 18: Maximum Number Teachers Feel Might Be Made a Month l 2 3 4 5+ NA Total responses: 259 122 54 33 40-—508 47 % of total responses received: 46.7 22.0 9.7 5.9 7.2 8.5 Question 19: Percentage of Students Living Outside the Neighborhood none 10% 10-25 26—50 50+ NA Total responses: 325 116 23 22 57--543 12 % of total reSponses recieved: 58.6 20.9 4.1 4.0 10.3 2.1 Question 20: Teachers Know How to Make an Effective Home Visit Yes No NA Total reSponses: 456 81 537 18 % of total responses received: 82.2 14.6 3.2 Question 21: Teachers Feeling for Being Welcomed into the Home of a Student by a Parent ' SA A UN D so NA Total responses: 137 230 118 42 19--546 9 % of total responses received: 24.7 41.4 21.3 7.6 3.4 1.6 Question 22: Teachers Feeling Uneasy When Visited in School by Parent SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 27 34 56 214 217-—548 7 % Of total responses received: 4.9 6.1 10.1 38.6 39.1 1.3 71 Question 23: Teachers Feeling of Home Visits' Being Made Only When Children Are "Bad" SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 25 29 42 211 238—-545 10 % of total responses received: 4.5 5.2 7.6 38.0 42.9 1.8 Question 24: Teachers Feeling It Is the Duty of Parents to Come to School for Meeting SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 120 97 90 154 88--549 6 % of total responses received: 21.6 17.5 16.2 27.7 15.9 1.1 Question 25: Teachers Feeling Home Visits Make a Difference in a Child's Learning Performance SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 77 153 194 67 50--54l 14 Z of total responses received: 13.9 27.6 35.0 12.1 9.0 2.5 Question 26: Teachers Feeling Home Visits Are the Job of Supportive Staff SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 44 81 136 199 82-—542 l3 % of total responses received: 7.9 14.6 24.5 35.9 14.8 2.3 Question 27: Teachers Feeling the School Neighborhood Is Safe to Make Home Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 60 153 98 121 144—-546 9 % of total responses received: 10.8 27.6 17.7 21.8 20.5 1.6 72 Question 28: Teachers Feel the City School District Does Not Encourage Home Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 32 104 109 226 75-—546 9 % of total responses received: 5.8 18.7 19.6 ' 40.7 13.5 1.6 Question 29: Teacher Feeling for Another Faculty Member to Accompany Them on a Home Visit SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 99 134 83 157 71-544 11 % of total responses received: 17.8 24.1 15.0 28.3 12.8 2.0 Question 30: Teachers Feel after School Meetings Prevent Home Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 95 136 76 191 41-545 10 % of total responses received: 17.1 24.5 13.7 34.4 8.5 (1.8 Question 31: Teachers Feel They Have More Important Things to Do Than Taking Time to Make Home Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 65 103 88 198 89-543 12 % of total responses received: 11.7 18.6 15.9 35.7 16.0 2.2 Question 32: Teachers Feelings that Since Home Visits Are Not Part of the Contract, They Do Not Make the Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 48 64 68 238 123-541 14 % of total responses received: 8.6 11.5 12.3 42.9 22.2 2.5 73 Question 33: Teachers Have Children to Care for at Home after School Making Home Visits Impossible SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 63 69 56 189 152-529 26 % of total responses received: 11.4 12.4 10.1 34.1 27.4 4.7 Question 34: Teachers Feeling Uneasy or Nervous in Visiting the Parents' Home SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 34 62 64 229 154-543 12 % of total responses received: 6.1 11.1 11.5 41.3 27.7 2.2 Question 35: Teachers Feelings about Home Visits Discouraging Parent Attendance at Parent—Teacher Conferences SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 109 118 94 151 77—549 6 % of total responses received: 19.6 21.3 16.9 27.2 13.9 1.1 Question 36: Parent Attitudes Are as Important as Teacher Attitudes in a Child's View Toward Learning SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 406 107 ll 14 16-554 1 % of total responses received: 73.2 19.3 2.0 2.5 2.9 .2 Question 37: Teachers Feeling Afraid of Being Accused of Improper Sexual Behavior by a Parent During a Home Visit SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 20 15 49 128 326-538 17 % of total responses received: 3.6 2.7 8.8 23.1 58.7 3.1 74 Question 38: Teachers Cannot Learn More about Students by Making Home Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 30 20 45 211 237-543 12 % of total responses received: 5.4 3.6 3.1 38.0 42.7 2.2 Question 39: Parent—Teacher Contact Is of Benefit to Children SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 305 186 30 16 12-549 6 % of total responses received: 55.0 33.5 5.4 2.9 2.2 1.1 Question 40: The PTA Is a Helpful Group at My School SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 71 168 117 104 88-548 7 % of total responses received: 12.8 30.3 21.1 18.7 15.9 1.3 Question 41: Teachers Feel too Tired after School to Make Home Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 124 136 80 143 62-545 10 % of total responses received: 22.3 24.5 14.4 25.8 11.1 1.8 Question 42: Teachers Feelings Toward Adjusting Their Personal Commitments to Make Home Visits SA A UN D SD NA Total responses: 57 212 93 102 73—537 18 % of total responses received: 10.3 38.2 16.8 18.4 13.2 3.2 APPENDIX B TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE March 14, 1979 Dear Elementary Teacher: Your help is needed in a research project to find out what factors influence you to make home visits. A random sample of twenty parents from each neighborhood school will be surveyed to find out how they feel about teachers making home visits. Every elementary classroom teacher in the City School District of Rochester is being surveyed today. This questionnaire was designed to provide you the Opportunity to express your Opinions on making home visits. There are no right or wrong answers. Just your honest Opinions are sought. Please, use only a number two pencil when filling in the answer sheet. The only information that will be placed on the computer sheet is that indicated by you. One extra responses, number 43, will be filled in by me to indicate from which school neighborhood the survey was done. Your name will not be used in any way whatever. Your answers will be combined with other City School District Elementary Teachers respond- ing to the survey. Please, do notgplace your name on the survey or answer sheet. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this project. Sincerely, Alfred E. Smith an Intermediate Teacher from Carthage #8, RCSD; on sabbatical leave at MSU 75 76 Directions on how to indicate your responses: 0 1 2 3 4 1. How many years have you been employed in this school system? 1 1-3 4-6 7-9 11+ If your answer is 4—6, mark on answer sheet: 1. 0 l C 3 4 14. What is your ethnic background? Bla Span Orie Amer Other Surn ntal Indi If your answer is Caucasian, mark other: 14.0 1 2 3 0’ 15. Do you live in the City of Rochester? Yes No If your answer is No, mark 1: 15. 0 O 2 SA A UN D SD If you strongly agree with the statement, mark as such: 19. O l 2 3 4 If you agree with the statement, mark as such: 23. 0 O 2 3 4 If you are undecided about your opinion regarding the statement, mark as such: 30. 0 1 O 3 4 If you disagree with the statement, mark as such: 38. 0 l 2 O 4 If you strongly disagree with the state- ment, mark as such: 42. 0 l 2 3 O 0 1 2 3 4 1. How many years have you been employed in this school system? 1 1-3 4-6 7—10 11+ 2. How many years of teaching experience do you have? 1 1-3 4-6 7—10 11+ 3. What approximate grade level do you teach? (majority of your students) K lst 2-3 4th 5-6 4. What is your level of academic achievement? Bach B+15 B+30 B+45 B+60 B Mas Mas+ 5. What is your sex? Male Female 6. What is your age? 24 24-29 30-36 37—44 45+ 7. Marital status? Sin. Mar. Div. Sep. 8. Do you have children of your own? Yes No 9. Were you raised in the Rochester area (Monroe County)? Yes No 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 77 Did you go to college (undergraduate) in the Rochester area? How long have you lived in the Rochester area? (years) During the course of the school year, how many children were added to your original group? During the course of the school year, how many children left your original group? What is your ethnic background? Do you live in the city of Rochester? How many monthly home visits do you make on the average? Recognizing the difficulties and de- mands a teacher faces during the school year, what would you think is the maxi- mum home visits per month a teacher might make? What percentage of your classroom stu- -dents live outside the school neighbor- hood? (about) Parents are usually home if they know I will be visiting them at home. The parents of my students would welcome me into their homes. I feel uneasy when being visited by parents in the school. Teachers should make home visits only if children are "bad" in school. I do not know how to make an effective home visit. I should not be expected to visit the homes of my students because it is the duty of the parent to come to school for a meeting. Home visits by me do make a difference in the learning performance of a child in the classroom. Home visits are the duty of the support staff in the school rather than the teachers. The school neighborhood that I teach in is a safe place for me to make home visits. The city school district does not en- courage teachers to make home visits. I prefer another faculty member accom- pany me when I make a home visit. I have too many meetings to attend after school, preventing me from making home visits. 0 1 2 3 4 Yes No 1 1-3 4-6 7-10 11+ 5 6—10 11-15 16—20 21+ 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+ Bla Span Orien Amer Othe Surn tal Indi Yes No 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7+ 1 2 3 4 5+ 0 10% 10-25 26-50 50+ Yes No SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD Yes No SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD SA A UN D SD 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 78 I have more important things to do than taking time to make home visits. Home visits are not part of the con— tract; therefore, I do not make them. I have to be home to pick up my children and/or to baby sit, making home vists impossible. Meeting parents in their homes makes me feel uneasy or nervous. If I make home visits, parents are not likely to come to school for parent- teacher conferences any more. Parent attitudes are as important as teacher attitudes in a child's view toward learning. I am afraid of being accused of seeking improper sexual behavior by the parent if I visit the home. I cannot learn any more about a student in my room by visiting the home. Children benefit from regular contact between teacher and parent. I am too tired after school to make home visits. My personal commitments after school can be adjusted to make home visits. The PTA is a positive force at my school toward helping me (in various ways). 0 2 4 SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD SA UN SD APPENDIX C LETTERS OF COMMUNICATION Owen Graduate Hall E-28 Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 February 1, 1979 Dear Principal: This letter is a reminder and a clarification. It is a reminder of my request for your assistance with my doctoral dissertation survey (during your January 12, 1979, meeting at School No. 6). The clarifi- cation consists of your role in the survey and the steps involved in the survey touching your school's neighborhood. Clarification: 1. Feb. 12, 1979 Al Smith will train 45 parent volunteers on & how to conduct the parent survey in 20 random— Feb. 26, 1979 1y chosen homes in each school neighborhood. 2. March 5, 1979 I request your permission to have a "Parent Willingness to Participate" slip sent home with the oldest child of each of the 20 ran- domly chosen homes in your school neighbor- hood. The slip is to be returned by the par- ent by March 9 to the school for the parent volunteer. 3. March 12, 1979 Parent Volunteers begin visiting the homes & of the parents who indicated their willing- March 16, 1979 mess to be surveyed. The parent volunteer will send in the surveys (20) done and/or not done by March 19, 1979. 4. March 14, 1979 Principals pass out survey to elementary classroom teachers (K-6) during the faculty meeting (preferably at the first part of the meeting), allowing 15-20 minutes for comple- tion. Surveys are then placed, after collec— tion the same day, in the envelope provided for pick up by the RCSD courier. Your cooperation and help will be most appreciated. Please, allow thegparent volunteer to interrupt your busy schedule now and then for brief moments of advice which they may seek from you. Thank you. Sincerely, Alfred E. Smith Intermediate Teacher on sabbatical from #8 school. We, the undersigned, request your cooperation with this survey. MON 79 ‘ W 80 Owen Graduate Hall E-28 Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 February 24, 1979 Dear Principal: This note is to clarify your role in my dissertation survey that requested your help with. On March 14, please just hand out the questionnaire and the com— puter answer sheets to all your K through 6th grade, full time class— room teachers. **** Please, allow 15-20 minutes of the faculty meeting to com- plete. **** Have the teachers return them to you before leaving the meeting. Please do not allow the teachers to take the questionnaire home. Please, place them in the enveIOpe (that the questionnaires came in on Monday, the 12th) and return them to Dr. Weart's office - 410 Alexander Street - by way of RCSD Courier. Thank you, Sincerely, Alfred E. Smith P.S. The Parent Volunteer will handle the surveys with the parents, exclusively. 81 March 6, 1979 Dear Principal: Please remember to: 1. Use a Number Two (2) pencil on computer answer sheets. 2. Make no marks on computer sheets other than answers. 3. Tell teachers to read directions, please. 4. Give 15-20 minutes. 5. Return all envelopes as soon as surveys are completed and/or by March 19. 6. Survey can only be conducted on the day of March 14. 7. If you have any questions during the week of March 12-16, you can reach me at 325-4560, ext. 363. When you have finished the survey, please place the answer sheets and remaining questionnaires in the manila envelope and return to me, in care of the return address indicated on the envelope (From:). Please cross out your name and change "From" to "To." Thank you. AS/mrv 82 rochester teachers association 277 Alexander Street 0 Rochester. New York 14607 0 716-546-2681 February 26, 1979 b Dear Colleague: Alfred Smith, a member of RTA, is currently on sabbatical leave from School No. 8, studying at Michigan State University. As a part of 1.. his studies, Al is conducting a research project about teacher atti- tudes towards home visits. q '-_A‘-h.l~ " This project provides an opportunity for teachers to share percep- tions and eXperiences regarding contacts with parents in their homes. With the c00peration of your principal, 15-20 minutes will be set aside during your faculty meeting on March 14 to fill out a questionnaire. On behalf of Al, I ask for your cooperation and assistance in filling out the survey form during your meeting. Results of this re- search project will be made available both to RTA as well as individual teachers and should provide us with useful data concerning the topic of home visits. Sincerely, 6 eph PasquarelZ JP . 1m President Local 616—Affilieted with New York State United Teachers - AFT (AF L/ CIO) ‘9' 83 CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF INSTRUCTION 410 ALEXANDER STREET ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14607 February 22, 1979 Dear Colleague: This letter will confirm City School District approval of Mr. Alfred E. Smith's research study in Rochester. This approval grants permission to Mr. Smith to ask your participation in his project to find out how you feel about teachers making home visits. Mr. Smith is an intermediate grades teacher studying this year at Michigan State University on sabbatical leave from the School No. 8 staff. His study offers the potential of very helpful information about the value of teacher home visits. We hOpe that you will be willing to participate in the study by answering a short survey. YOur COOperation and help will be appreciated. Sincerely, BALM). OM David N. Weart Administrative Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation DNW:Vp B IBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A creative approachtx>special staffing problems: staffing for better schools under Title I. Washington: Educational Service Bureau, 1970. Added dimensions to parent and preschool education (early childhood "H education): manual for teachers and administrators. Lakewood, Colorado: Jefferson County Public Schools, 1977. Ade, W., & Hoot, J. L. Parent involvement: motivation vs. alienation. Day care and early education, Nov./Dec., 1976, 4, 2, 19-20. Alschuler, I. A parent education program for increasing young chil— ‘ dren's sustained attention to verbal stimuli. ERIC, 1971. Andrews, S. B., & others. Fourth year report: New Orleans parent- child develOpment center. Washington: Office of Child DeveIOp- ment, March, 1975. Atkins, J., & others. Report of supportive services and parent invol— vement in follow through in Philadelphia, 1974-75, Report No. 7769. Washington: Office of Education (HEW), December, 1975. Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Barnes, S. M. The reactions of selected elementary teachers to the training for and implementation of the science curriculum improve- ment study in selected schools in Michigan. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Barron, J. M. The effect of teacher home visits on parental, faculty, and student attitudes within a selected Iowa school district. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, 1975. Bayer, H., & Ray, M. Analysis of home environment and development of parent intervention. ERIC, May, 1969. Beebe, M. K. Teachers and parents together. Today's education, Sept:- Oct., 1976, 62, 3, 74-9. Berglund, J. B., & others. Family education program for families of preschool hearing impaired children in rural Alaska. Anchorage: Alaska Treatment Center for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., 1973. 84 85 Bernal, M. E., & others. Cross-validation and excuses and cooperation as possible measures for identification of clinic dropouts and continuers. American Journal of Communitnysychology, 1974. Bernal, M. E., & others. Excuses and cooperation as possible measures for identification of clinic dropouts. Paper presented at the Blst Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Mon- treal, Canada, August 27-31, 1973. Bertram, C. L., & others. Social and educational characteristics of the families of Appalachian preschool children as a basis for home-bound education. Charleston, West Virginia: Appalachia Edu- cational Laboratory, 1976. Bloom, B. S. New views of.the learner: implications for instruction and curriculum. Educational leadership, April, 1978, 35, 7, 563. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. Educational research: an introduction. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1979. Braun, S. J., & Reiser, N. R. Teacher-parent work in the home: an aspect of child guidance clinic services. Journal of American Child Psychiatry, July, 1970,.9, 3, 495-514. Bronfenbrenner, U. Is early intervention effective? Day care and early education. New York: Behavioral Publications, November, 1974. The Brookline program for infants and their families: the first opera— tional year, Brookline program schools. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Carnegie Corps of New York, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, July, 1977. Brookover, W. B., & Erickson, E. L. Sociology of education, 2nd edi- tion. Illinois, 1975. Brooks, B. D. An Open home night-~a worthwhile communication vehicle. Journal of Educational Communication, September-October, l975,_l, 2, 18~19. Broudy, H. S. The real world of the public schools. New York, 1972. Burney, V. K. Home visitation and parent involvement. Today's educa- tion, October, 1971, 69, 7, 10-11. Campbell, S. D., & Everett, L. M. In-home early childhood project. Alberta, Canada: Alberta University at Edmonton, Department of Elementary Education, October, 1974. ' Carey, J. H., & Weinberg, J. (Eds.) The social fabric: American life from the Civil War to the present. Boston: Little Brown and Com- pany, 19751 86 Chameleons in the community. London: Times educational supplement, April 28, 1978, 20-1. Cheyney, A. B. Teaching culturally disadvantaged in the elementary school. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1967. Chilman, C. 8. Some angles on parent—teacher learning. Childhood edu- cation, December, 1971, 119-125. Coleman, J. S-:.EE.§l° Equality of educational opportunity. Washing- ton: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Coleman, J. S. The evaluation of equality of educational opportunity. In On equality of educational opportunity, F. Mostiller & D. P. Moynihan (Eds.). New York: Random House, 1972. Conant, M. M. Teachers and parents: changing roles and goals. Child- hood education, December, 1971, 114-118. Conley, V. R. Come on, parents, participate. Paper presented at—- Toward the competent parent: an interdisciplinary conference on parenting, Atlanta, Georgia, February 21-22, 1977. Cross'd with adversity: the education of socially disadvantaged chil- dren in secondary schools. Working paper 27. Swansen, Wales: Schools Council Research and Development Project in Compensatory Education, 1970. Dade County Public Schools. Evaluation of the area student services program, 1976-77. Miami, Florida: Department of Planning and Evaluation, April, 1977. Dady, M. B., & others. An in-service training manual for teacher-aides Kentucky: Morehead State University, 1969. Ball, A. L. Infant development through enriching activities at home, Project I. D.E.A. Final Project Report. California: Santa Bar- bara County Schools, June, 1973. David, E. D., & George, L. Y.‘ Effecting change in inner-city schools: some reflections. The Journal of Negro Education, Winter, 1970, 32, l, 4. Davis. R. T. The identification and measurement of environmental pro- cess variables that are related to educational achievement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1963. Dempsey, R. A. An analysis of teachers' expressed judgments of bar- riers to curriculum change in relation to the factor of individual readiness to change. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1963. 87 Dubzinski, D., & Peters, D. L. Home based programs: a growing alter- native. Child care quarterly, Spring, 1977, 6, 1, 61-71. Egermeter, J. C. Project vision: a final report. Stillwater, Okla- homa: State University, July 1, 1968. Erickson, E. & others. Final report of the evaluation of the 1970-71 school-home contact program. New York: New York State Urban Education, Teaching and Learning Research Corporation, 1971. Erickson, E. L. & others. Final report of the evaluation of the 1971- 72 school-home contact program. New York: Teaching and Learning Corporation, 1972. Erickson, E. & others. School-home contact program, 1972-73 final report. New York: Teaching and Learning Research Corporation, 1973. Families: parental attitudes to family assessment in a child psychia— try setting. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, January, l978,_19, 1, 33-41. Farmer, E. J. Influence of teacher home visitation upon students' achievement and their attitudes toward school. Ph.D. disserta- tion, United States International University, 1969. Fein, G. G. The social context of mother-infant relations: a study of home-based education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 4-8, 1977. Ferguson—Florissant School District. Saturday school: a success story. A school and home learning program for four year olds. Florissant, Missouri, 1972. The Florida parent education model. Prepared for the Atlanta Follow- through Workshop. Gainesville: Univeristy of Florida, October 10-12, 1968. Florida parent education program. Program summary. Berkeley, Cali- fornia: Far West Lab for Educational Research and Development, November, 1971. Fowler, W., & Kahn, N. Illusion and reality in community research on day care. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1976. Fraiberg, S. Intervention in infancy: a program for blind infants. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, July, 1971, 19, 3, 381-405. Franks, G. W. A descriptive study of certain personality differences and teacher satisfaction among teachers in economically 88 distressed schools. Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State Univer- sity, 1972. Fusco, G. C. The inner-city classroom: teacher behavior. Stron, R. D. (Ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill's Instructional Education Series, 1966. Cabinet, L. The parenting program for the prevention of child abuse. Ohio: Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital, May, 1977. Gant, W. L., & Gustavson, G. I. Home-school-community: a catalist. Journal of International Assessment of Pupil Personnel Workers, March, 1974,_1§, 2, 124-130. Golob, L. A. An examination of the attitudes of a secondary school staff concerning certain educational problems. Ph.D. disserta- tion. Michigan State University, 1970. Good, H. G. A history of American education. New York: 1956. Gordon, E. W., & others. Ira Gordon follow through. New York: Columbia University, ERIC Clearinghouse on the Urban Disadvan- taged, 1972. Gordon, I. J. Self help approach: parents as teachers. Compact, December, 1969, 132. Gordon, I. J., & Guinagh, B. J. A home learning center approach to early stimulation. Final report. Florida: Florida University Institute for Development of Human Resources, November, 1974. Gordon, I. J., & others. Continuity between home and school: aspects of parental involvement in follow through. Journal of Educational Communication, 1977, 3, 1, 10-11. Gordon, 1. J. & others. Instructional strategies in infant stimula- tion. Florida: Florida University, Institute for Development of Human Resources, 1970. Gray, S. W. The child's first teacher. Childhood Education, Decem- ber, 1971, 127-29. Greenwood, G. E., & others. Assistance to local follow through pro- grams. Annual report. Gainesville: Florida Educational Re- search and Development Council, Institute for Development of Human Resources, December, 1972. Grissom, C. E. Listening beyond words: learning from parents in conferences. Childhood Education, December, 1971, 139-42. Grogan, M., & others. National home start education. The homesbook: what home-based programs can do with children and families. Washington: Office of Child DeveIOpment (HEW), June, 1977. 89 Grotherg, E. H. Needed types of parental guidance and cooperation be- tween home and school. Paper presented at annual convention of International Reading Association, Detroit, May 10-13, 1972. Guinagh, B. J., & Gordon, I. J. School performance as a function of early stimulation. Final report. Gainesville: Florida Univer- sity Institute for Development of Human Resources, December, 1976. Hackensack Public Schools. Home-school interaction: project LEM. New Jersey: 1973. Hager, D. L., & others. Community involvement for classroom teachers. Charlottesville, Virginia: Community Collaborators, July, 1977. Halliday, M. F. An investigation of parent attitudes and teacher morale in relationship to community unrest. Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, 1970. r Henderson, R. W., & Swanson, R. The socialization of intellectual skills in Papago children: the effects of a parent training pro- gram. Arizona: Arizone University Center for Educational Re- search and Development, July, 1973. Henry, S. T. A study of the Opinions of home economics teachers re- garding home visits with implications for programs in Kentucky. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Kentucky, 1977. Hess, R. D., & Shipman, V. C. Early experience and the socialization of cognitive modes in children. Child development, 1965, 3, 4, 869-886. Hicks, L. B. An experiment in school-community relation. West Vir- ginia: State Commission on Mental Retardation, August, 1967. Home visiting handbook. Lakewood, Colorado: Jefferson County Public Schools, 1976. Honig, A. 8. Infant development research: problems in intervention. Paper presented at Merrill-Palmer Institute Conference on Re- search and Training of Infant Development, Detroit, February 1972. Honig, A. S. The family development research program: with emphasis on the children's center curriculum. Washington: Office of Child Development (HEW), June, 1972. Hope, E. A. Fantasy or reality? Education in the inner-city. The Clearing House, February, 1970,‘44, 6, 357. Horn, G. Home visits. Today's education, September, 1970, 22, 6, 44-6. Iowa State Department of Public Instruction. Reporting pupil progress in special classes for the mentally retarded. Special education 90 curriculum development center: an inservice training program. Des Moines: Iowa University, Cotober, 1968. Jencks, C., ed. Inequality, a reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: 1972. Jew, W. Helping handicapped infants and their families. Children today, May/June, 1974, 3, 3, 7-10. Jones, E. Involving parents in children's learning. Childhood educa- tion, December, 1970, 41, 3, 126-130. F; Kapfer, S. Report of selected sessions from the parents, children, and continuity conference, El Paso, Texas, May 22-25, 1977. Washington: May, 1977. Kerensky, V. M., & Melby, E. 0. Education II--revisitedy a social h imperative. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1975. I Khlief, B. B. The schooling careers of military dependents: a socio- cultural study. Washington: U. S. Department of Education, 1970. Klein, D. Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to change: the defender role. The planning of change, 3rd edition, Bennis, W.(3” Benne, K. D., Chin, R., Corey, K. E. (Eds.) New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1976. Knezevich, S. J. Administration of public education, 2nd edition. New York: 1969. Lally, J. R., & Honig, A. S. The family development research program: a program for parental, infant, and early childhood enrichment. Final report. Washington: Children's Bureau, HEW, April, 1977. LamOnt, K., & Rice, N. Guidance awareness programs: narrowing the gap between home and school. Final report. Oregon: Bond school district, June, 1975. Landsberger, B. H. Home environment and school performance: the North Carolina experience. Children today, September/October, 1973, 2, 5, 10-14. Learning: a cooperative adventure. A resource guide for working with young children. Arizona: State Department of Education, September, 1975. Leflore County Schools. Vision of suparplums. Greenwood, Mississippi: May, 1972. Letts, O. I. A study of the roles of women teachers in the elemen— tary schools, with emphasis on teachers with children under eighteen years of age. Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State Uni- versity, 1975. 91 Levenstein, P. Third grade effects of the mother-child home program. Developmental continuity consortium follow-up study. Final re— port. Freeport, New York: Verbal Interaction Project, 1978. Levitt, E., & Cohen, S. Educating parents of children with special needs--approaches and issues. Young children, May, 1976, 263-272. Lolis, K. Evaluation of a method of school-to-home telephone instruc- tion of physically handicapped, homebound adolescents. New York: Board of Education, Bureau of Educational Research, June, 1968. Lortie, D. C. School teacher: a sociological study. Chicago: 1975. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. The psychology of sex differences; Vol. I/text. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1978. Macintosh, H. K., & others. Educating disadvantaged children under six. Disadvantaged children service, number I. Washington: Office of Education (HEW), Bureau of Research and DeveIOpment, 1965. McCutcheon, D. E. An investigation of the effect of a planned program of home visitation by teachers on student attitudes, attendance, and achievement of selected groups of students in school. Ed.D. dissertation. University of Kansas, 1965. Merton, R. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957. Meyer, A. E. An educational history of the American pegple, 2nd edi- tion. New York: 1967. Miller, D. W., & Starr, M. K. The structure of human decisions. New Jersey: 1967. Minzey, J. D., & LeTarte, C. Communigy education: from program to process. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1972. Murphy, C. National adult education survey. Interim report. Dublin, Ireland: Ministry of Education, 1970. National Education Association, Association of Classroom Teachers. WOrking with parents, a guide for classroom teachers and other educators. Washington: 1968. Newbury, D. N. Community education: strategy for district-wide pro- grams. Educational leadership, February, 1976, 340. Nicholls, J. Home visiting: a note of caution. English in education, Spring, 1976, 10, 1, 24-28. 92 Niemeyer, J. H. The inner-city classroom: teacher behavior. Strom, R. D. (Ed.) Columbus, Ohio: Merrill's International Education Series, 1966. Office of Education (HEW). Follow through: promising approaches to early childhood education, school year 1970-71. Washington: 1971. Orhan, S., & Radin, N. Teaching mother to teach: a home counseling program for low-income parents. Ann Arbor, Michigan: School of Social Work, University of Michigan, November, 1968. Paige, M. Respite care for the retarded: an interval of relief for families. Washington: Rehabilitation Services Administration (HEW), 1971. Parke, R. D., & O'Leary, S. Father-mother-infant interaction in the newborn period: some findings, some observations, and some un- resolved issues. In K. Riegel and J. Meachm (Eds.), The develop- ing individual in a chapging world (Vol. II). Social and environ- mental issues. The Hague: Morton, 1975. Peterson, M. L. The effects of a career guidance program involving teachers and parents of tenth grade students. Final report. Utah: Logan City Board of Education, December, 1974. Peterson, R. T. Expanding the behavior laboratory--from clinic to home. ERIC, September, 1967. Pieper, A. M. Parents as teachers: the effects of a home visit parent education program on the information processing ability and the attitude toward learning of academically disadvantaged kindergar- ten children. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland, 1973. Polsby, N. W. Community power and political theory. New Haven: 1963. PorFin (Program organizing related family instruction in the neighbor- hood). Washington: Office of Education (HEW), 1971. PorFin (Program organizing related family instruction in the neighbor- hood). Washington: Office of Education (HEW), 1978. Power, M. T. A survey of home and school relationships in the Catholic elementary schools of a number of selected dioceses. Ph.D. dis- sertation. The Catholic University of America, 1951. Rabinowitz, M. In the beginning: a parent guide of activities and ex- periences for infants from birth to six months. Book I. New Orleans: Parent Child Development Center, 1973. Radin, N. Piaget, Skinner, and an intensive preschool program for lower class children and their mothers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council of Exceptional Children, New York, April, 1968. Michigan: Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1968.- 93 Rash, D. Know your new counselees before school begins. School coun- selor, November, 1970, 18, 2, 133-134. Richards, M. J. Early childhood education at home. West Virginia: Berkeley County Board of Education at Martinsburg, 1973. Richardland School District, Shafter, California. Bulletins for teach- ers of the migratory pupil, 1967. Ringers, J., Jr. Community/schools and interagency programs, a guide. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1976. Sayler, M. L. Parents: active partners in education. A study/action publication. Washington: American Association of Elementary, Kindergarten, and Nursery Education, 1971. Selakovich, D. Social studies for disadvantaged. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970. Serrano, T. G. Project to improve equality of educational opportuni- ties in Redlands, school year, 1969-70. Title IV Evaluation. California: Redlands Unified School District, November 16, 1970. Shelton, J. E. An analysis of a family involvement-communication sys- tem in a Title I elementary school. Final report. Stillwater, Oklahoma: July 15, 1973. Shepard, F. G., Jr. An analysis of variables of self-perception and personal ambition in overseas-experienced American teenagers: implications for curriculum planning. Ph.D. dissertation. Michi- gan State University, 1976. Shively, J. E., & others. Four field studies of Appalachian parents of young children. Charleston, West Virginia: Appalachian Educa- tional Lab, August, 1975. Shively, J. E., & others. Study of effectiveness of materials for Ap- palachian parents. Charleston, West Virginia: Appalachia Educa- tional Lab, January, 1975. Siebel, C. C. The developmental influences and educational implica- tions of two differing pre-nursery school programs. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Associa- tion, Anaheim, California, April, 1973. Small, L. H., & Whitfield, T. J. Meeting the heath care needs of rural families. Children today, November/December, 1977, 6, 6, 2-6. Sollie, C. R., & Linder, W. W. Creating and using systematic links among low-income families. Paper prepared for the 1969 annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, San Francisco. Missis- sippi: State University, State College, 1969. 94 Stack, P. M. In our program, everyone gets into the act. Volta review, October, 1973, 15, 7, 425-30. Strom, R. D. The preface plan, a new concept of inservice training for teachers newly assigned to urban neighborhoods of low income. Final report. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, August,l96Z. Strom, R. Teaching in the slum school. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965. Strom, R. D. The inner-city classroom: teacher behaviors. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill's International Education Series, 1966. Taylor, J. H. Summer institute of psychological-sociological problems of school desegregation: 80 school administrators, supervisors, principals, and teachers in ten Florida counties. Final report. Daytona Beach: Bethune-Crokman College, March 28, 1968. Thomas, S. B., & Bowermaster, J. The continuity of educational develop- ment. ERIC Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education, Urbana, Illinois. Washington: National Institute of Education, October, 1974. Vacant, L. Parent-generated home-school activities. Washington: Office of Education (HEW), 1977. Valenstein, T., & others. At home with children. A resource book for family day care--part I. Summary report: educational day care consultation project, part 2. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan School of Social Work, 1975. Walder, L. O., & others. Teaching parents and others principles of be- havioral control for modifying the behavior of children. Final report. Silver Spring, Maryland: Institute for Behavioral Re- search, December 15, 1968. Wagner, B., & others. Parent and child--what's the score? Parental preparation of learning environments for delayed and non-delayed infants. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Technical University, April, 1975. Ware, W. B., & others. Assistance to local follow through programs. Annual report. Gainesville, Florida: Florida Educational Re- search and Development Council. Florida University Institute for Development of Human Resources, December, 1973. Ware, W. B., & others. Assistance to local follow through programs. Annual report. Washington: Office of Education (HEW), December, 1974. Washington State migrant programs. Annual report and evaluation, 1970‘ 71. Olympia, Washington: Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1971. 95 Watson, L. 8., Jr. The relative effectiveness of academic and practi- cum training on developing behavior modification skills in parents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (82nd), New Orleans, August 30-September 3, 1974. Watts, B. H., & Henry, M. B. Focus on parent/child: extending the teaching competence of urban aboriginal mothers. Brisbane, Aus- tralia: Queensland University, 1978. Weber, E. Perspectives in change. Early childhood education, 1970. Weeks, R. Attacking education problems in rural schools. Florence, Arizona: Pinal County Schools, 1972. Wegener, D. D. A description and evaluation of a program designed to enhance home-school relations. Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, 1975. Weikart, D. P. Learning through parents: lessons for teachers. Childhood education, December, 1971, fig, 3, 135-37. Weisfeld, D., & Laser, M. S. Residential treatment and weekend visits home. Social work, September, 1976,-21, 5, 398-400. White, B.,_gg_§l. Preschool project: child rearing practices and the development of competence. Final report of OEO Grant No. 06-9909 A/Z, September, 1972. White, W. F. Affective dimensions of teachers of disadvantaged chil- dren in six majority Negro school districts. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Georgia, 1969. Wiener, G., & others. New Orleans parent child development center. New Orleans: Parent Child Development Center, April, 1973. Williams, A. A teacher visits the home of disadvantaged children. The Teachers' College Journal, October, 1965, 31, 1, 12-13. Wirt, C. Communication through home visits by teachers. Biennial Southeastern Conference on Human Development, April, 1978. Jour- nal of Educational Communication, 1977, 3, 1, 10-11. Wolfensberger, W., & Kurtz, R. A. (Eds.) Management of the family of the mentally retarded: a book of reading. Chicago: Follett Edu- cational Corporation, 1969. Yurchak, M., Yurchak, J. H., & others. Infant-toddler curriculum of the Brookline early education project. Winchester, Massachusetts: Brookline Public Schools, MASBO Cooperative Corporation, 1975. Zuelow, M. J. Methods and materials for bilingual education. Student guide for education 193. Bethel, Alaska: Kuskokwin Community College, June, 1975. HICHIGRN ST ATE UNIV. LIBRARIES WNIWIWWWIHHIWHH1| 0643471 13110 “W! 13