MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in Book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if 550k is returned after the date stamped be10w. CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF IN-SERVICE EDUCATION, A STUDY OF A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IN-SERVICE EDUCATION ACTIVITIES By John Peter Couretas A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1980 ABSTRACT CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF IN-SERVICE EDUCATION: A STUDY OF A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IN-SERVICE EDUCATION ACTIVITIES By John Peter Couretas The purpose of this study was to: 1. develop a series of principles for successful in- service education as determined from the literature and to create a screening device through which the in-service education practices of a school district may be examined. 2. use the screening device in an attempt to determine if the Waverly School District, a local school district located in Lansing, Michigan, attended to the criteria in its conduct of in-service education programs from September 1, 1970, to June, 1979. 3. propose suggestions for the improvement of in- service education. The literature on in-service education was reviewed. Forty principles for successful in-service education were extracted and identified. From the forty principles for successful in-service education four criteria were developed as an evaluative John Peter Couretas screening device. Using the four-evaluative criteria of the screening device, the activities of the Waverly School District, a public local educational institution, were examined. 1. The school district should view in-service education as a mutual, collaborative effort between itself and various educational interests. 2. The school district administrators and mem- bers of the board of education should view the in-service education of the staff as a top priority item evidenced by an organiza- tional structure that encourages the initiation of in—service education programs, is well funded, contains provisions for long- term planning based on established goals and priorities, and includes other types of re- source allocations. 3. In-service education programs should show evidence of a broadly based planning effort built upon identified needs and established goals, with representation from those who are to participate. 4. In-service education programs should be evaluated and/or contain provisions for systematic follow-up. John Peter Couretas An in-depth data analysis was made of the formal and informal, official and unofficial records of the Waverly School District as they applied to the School District's in-service education activities. The data were studied for evidence related to each of the four evaluative criteria. Supporting evidence was presented for each of the four evaluative criteria. As a result of analyzing the data the following con- clusions can be drawn in relation to the purposes of the study: 1. Varying degrees of supporting evidence are found for all four of the evaluative criteria for successful in-service education programs. 2. The Waverly School District planned and carried out in-service education programs for its staff in a manner that showed its recognition of successful in-service educa- tion strategies. 3. Collaborative efforts with outside educa- tional interests were undertaken throughout the time span of this study. There are several recommendations which might be offered for school districts for their work in the field of in-service education, including the Waverly School District: 1. A school district should create an organiza- tional structure that facilitates and John Peter Couretas encourages the initiation of in-service education programs by all of its staff members. The organizational structure should particularly facilitate the initia- tion of such programs from its teaching staff. 2. The in-service education program of a school district, whose purpose is to serve its staff, must be built upon the needs and desires of those who are to partici- pate in the program. It is also important that a method of obtaining, keeping and up- dating an assessment of needs and desires be built into the school district's organi- zational structure. 3. The in-service education program of a school district should contain a decentralization component. This will allow the local build- ing unit or individual staff members to participate in in—service education activi- ties that are tailored for their idiosyncratic needs. Although this study has dealt with a single institution and its in-service education activities, the principles and criteria developed and the recommendations drawn apply to both educational and non-educational institutions that are interested in serving their clientele by means of in-service education programs. John Peter Couretas It is hoped that these findings will be used by people in educational and non-educational institutions. DEDICATION To my mother, whose love has been a source of comfort; and to my father, whose quest for knowledge, truth and the full life has been an inspiration to me. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A doctoral committee that is both a source of inspira- tion and a resource for information is indeed a pleasure to work with. To Dr. Peggy Riethmiller, the chairperson of my committee who guided me with sustained kindness and generosity; and to Drs. Ben Bohnhorst, Van Johnson and Richard Farace, my deep appreciation is expressed. Their role as my teachers and advisers will always be remembered. Also remembered will be the encouragement given by Dr. Troy L. Stearns, the person who started me on my doctoral work; and the contributions of time and knowledge given by the late Dr. Archibald Shaw. I am most grateful for the cooperation of the Waverly School District, especially that of Dr. Ken Burnley, in helping me to conduct this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapter I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . 1 Background of the Problem . 1 Purpose of the Study. . . 4 Importance of the Study . 5 Methodology . . . 6 Procedure . 6 Respondents 7 Data Analysis . . 7 Scope and Overview of the Study . 8 Overview of Literature on In- Service Education. . . . . . . . . 8 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Description of the Waverly School District . . . . . . . 13 Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . 15 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . 20 Principles for Successful In-Service Education. . . . . . . . . 22 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 III PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Summary of Chapter II . . . . . . . . . 95 Sources of Data . . . . . 96 Categories of Sources of Evidence . . . 97 Procedures for Data Collection. . . . . 98 Procedures for Analysis of the Data . . 99 IV PRESENTATION OF DATA. . . . . . . . . . . 100 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Supporting Evidence . . . . . . . . . . 101 iv Chapter Page Criterion One . . . . . . 101 Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion One . . . . 108 Criterion Two . . . . . . 109 Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Two . . . . 116 Criterion Three . . . . . 118 Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Three . . . 128 Criterion Four. . . . . . 129 Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Four. . . . 131 Summary of the Chapter. . . . . . . . . 131 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . 137 Summary of the Study. . . . . . . . . . 137 Conclusions . . . 139 Recommendations for School Districts, Including the Waverly School District. . . . . . . 142 Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . 144 Significance of This Study. . . . . . 145 Reflections . . . . . . . 146 Merits and Demerits of the Screening Instrument. . . . . . . . 146 The Concept of In-Service Education . . . . . . . . . . 146 Staff Development and In- Service Education. . . . . . . 147 The Waverly School District . . . . . 147 Concluding Statement. . . . . . . . . . 148 Selected Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . 150 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 SUMMARY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS' COLLABORATION WITH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ENTITIES . . . 24 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY No effort to solve current problems in the schools and improve the quality of education in America will succeed until substantial progress is made in the area of inservice education of teachers. Background of the Problem In-service education, in various forms, has been part of the American educational system for well over 150 years. Its purposes have fluctuated and changed as the pressures of a changing society exerted themselves. Wars, depressions, immigrations, lack of teachers, and acts of Congress have all had an impact upon the purposes and functions of in-service education.2 During the past ten to fifteen years a number of phe- nomena have occurred which are causing educators and interested laypersons to re-examine the role of in-service education within our educational institutions. These forces for change, revitalization, re-emphasis and/or modification are rooted in the changing trends within our society. As these societal trends have become more clearly identifiable, educators have responded, and are continuing to respond, with various programs and proposals to meet the demands of change. Even a cursory examination of these trends will indicate that those individuals concerned with the future of educational in-service, as with all phases of education, are justified in their call for intelligent, planned change. For the first time within recent history our society has an overabundance of certified teaching personnel. The demand for new teachers is low. In the past, when the demand was high, pre-service education was emphasized. Roy A. Edelfelt states, ". .1. inattention to inservice education is due largely to the primacy given these last 35 years to preservice teacher education and . . . little time, energy, or money was available for inservice education."3 Today, as the demand for teachers continues to decrease, in—service education has begun to grasp the attention of educators. As student enrollments drop, school districts are faced with the prospect of reducing the size of their instructional staffs. New staff members are added to existing staff in relatively small proportions. Large teacher turnover has become a phenomenon of the past. The overabundance of teachers, coupled with the lack of large teacher turnover and the decline of student enrollments, has led to a major alteration in the basic demographic make- up of the "average" staff of Michigan school districts. The Michigan Department of Education has stated: With declining student enrollments and provisions in most master contracts for layoffs to be made on a seniority basis, it is predicted that the professional work force will tend to include more persons: (1) with extended experience; (2) at the maximum salary level; and (3) with higher levels of college or university preparation than ever before. Since preparation tends to be completed within the first six years of employment, this same trend will produce a work force whose most recent higher education experience will be- come more distant with each passing year. As our society attempts to develop more successful schools and as the schools attempt to meet the many demands placed upon them by society, it will be imperative that instructional personnel are updated in terms of their knowledge and skills. "The Michigan Department of Education in recent years con- cluded that one of the missing links to success in develOping successful schools is the retraining and upgrading of staff."5 The Michigan Department of Education has listed six types of activities which it feels will improve the skills of school staffs. A. Graduate level college programs related to certification requirements or advanced degrees. B. Local and intermediate school district professional deve10pment activities. C. State and federal categorically funded professional deveIOpment activities for specific programs. D. The newly authorized regional advisory councils on professional development established within intermediate school districts. E. State-supported professional development centers, such as the Detroit Center, and other state-supported centers being planned. F. State-supported building-level professional develOpment focus. This is the state agency's experimental model for professional develop- ment on a building basis.6 Of the six types of activities advocated by the State Department of Education, four (B, C, D, and F above) involve the use, or are easily adapted to the techniques, of in- service education. In-service education has been a traditional practice in the American public school systems. Yet its potential for upgrading the skills of teachers, introducing innova- tions, maintaining competencies, and revitalizing stagnating systems has not been fully deve10ped. Within the next decade school districts which feel the need to keep up with the demanding pressures of change will undoubtedly turn to in- service education as a primary device to help them meet their needs. Purpose of the Study While many school districts have used, and will con- tinue to use, in-service education as a means to improve the instructional abilities of their staffs, many educators are aware that the rate of innovative ideas and practices in education is accelerating at an ever increasing pace. Thus, the need to establish co-ordinated, efficient and effective techniques for in-service education programs becomes more pressing each year. School districts need to examine their in-service practices, evaluate those practices, and then proceed to determine the purpose and direction of future in-service education. The purpose of this study was to: 1. develop a series of principles for successful in- service education as determined from the literature and to create a screening device through which the in-service education practices of a school district may be examined. 2. use the screening device in an attempt to determine if the Waverly School District, a local school district located in Lansing, Michigan, attended to the criteria in its conduct of in-service education programs from September 1, 1970, to June, 1979. 3. prOpose suggestions for the improvement of in-service education. Importance of the Study As the pressures for accountability, better discipline, and the call for vast student improvement in the "basic skills" continue to affect the schools of Michigan, educa- tors will be forced to react to these external pressures for change by retraining themselves. As teacher turnover decreases and the age of the "aver- age" staff member increases, educators will seek vehicles by which to maintain and improve their competencies. It is an assumption of this study that in-service edu- cation is a major method for retraining educators so that they may deal with both the external pressures for change and the internal desire to maintain and enhance their skills. This study is important because the categories of characteristics for successful in-service education, along with the accompanying principles, will form a framework from which one may extrapolate the "do's and don'ts" of in-service education. These principles may be helpful in introducing interested educators to the steps necessary for the conduct of successful in-service education programs. This study, by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of one school district's in-service education programs over a ten-year period of time, may help educators in assessing their own school district's activities in the field of in- service education. It is hOped that implications for successful in-service education programs in fields other than education may be drawn from this study. This study may create an awareness of the need for improved in-service education programs and stimulate the creation of such programs at all levels of the educational system. Methodology Procedure. This study is an historical descriptive 4¥case study. From a review of the literature, five categories of characteristics for successful in-service education were deveIOped for purposes of organization. Each category was selected because of its frequent mention in the literature of in-service education. The categories are: 1. Responsibility for In-Service Education. 2. The In-Service Education Program. 3. Time Commitments for In-Service Education. 4. Confluence of Theory and Practice. 5. Evaluation and/or Follow-Up. For each category there were developed a number of principles for successful in-service education programs. For each of the principles supportive evidence from the literature is cited. A series of evaluative criteria were also created and are presented with supporting evidence from the literature. The evaluative criteria acted as a tool by which the in-service education activities of the Waverly School District during a ten-year period of time were analyzed. Respondents. The data sources for this study are of two types, human and material. The author interviewed the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, and others who have played a significant role in in-service education in the Waverly School District. A complete examination was made of Board of Education records, Curriculum Committee records, the master contracts, district publications, and the records of the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for evidence to determine the practices of the Waverly School District in relation to in- service education. Data Analysis. Once the data were collected they were analyzed in terms of the evaluative criteria for successful in-service education. Supporting evidence for each of the criteria is presented. The resulting description reflects Waverly School District's knowledge of practices which are believed to result in successful in-service education accord- ing to the experts cited in the review of the literature. A summary and conclusions were drawn based on the five major categories of characteristics for successful in-service education. Suggestions for future in-service education at the Waverly School District were made and recommendations for future research in the field of in-service education were proposed. Scope and Overview of the Study This study was limited to Waverly School District's in-service education programs over the past decade, September 1, 1970, to June, 1979. Chapter Two of this study contains a review of the related literature combined with a list of principles for successful in-service education as derived from the litera- ture. Criteria for in-service education are also developed as an evaluative screening device. The nature of the screen- ing device is described. Chapter Three includes an explanation of the procedures used in gathering the data and a description of the process used to analyze the data. Chapter Four is a presentation of the data in relation to the evaluative criteria established in Chapter Two. Chapter Five contains a summary, conclusions, recom- mendations based on the data, suggestions for further research in the area of in-service education, a discussion of the significance of the study, reflections, and a concluding statement. Overview of Literature on In-Service Education Whose responsibility is in-service education? Who are the people involved in planning in-service education programs? Where and when are in-service education programs best conducted? Can in-service education bridge the gap between educational theory and educational practice? When and how can in-service education be evaluated? These are but some of the questions addressed by the literature and research on in-service education. As in most endeavors, leadership is a key ingredient to successful in-service education. Winterton states, ”There is no other way to say it - the principal is the key figure in the success of any inservice program within the school."7 Harris asserts: This is not to say that administrators should be 'experts' in every field that teachers repre— sent, but they should be competent engineers of the improvement process. Howey and Willie agree that administrators and curricular leaders are key personnel but add: Their management and curricular skills, while essential, are not enough to effect comprehen- sive change . . . principals themselves rarely engage in the develOpment of new teaching skills or major role modifications for their staff. Meade asserts that principals, for a number of reasons, cannot ". . . devote adequate attention to staff develop- ment."10 He then calls for the creation of a new role in education, the training specialist. "My argument here stems from a belief that retraining is sufficiently important to warrant its own kind of leadership agent."ll Howie and Willie CKDncur and suggest that the "training specialist" should, "- . . have an understanding of the interrelated dimensions ‘31? the change process and better coordinate the peOple neces- sary to implement the desired change."]'2 Edelfelt suggests, j4rl an article aimed at his colleagues in teacher education, t“flat "field agents, school-college coordinators of inservice EECluczation" may be needed.13 Agne and Ducharme call for the 5 r' 00“” 3—... b4 #1 w—-—.—..-_._. __ A _ v V . 10 formation of a group of "Inservice Education Associates" who would share their specialized skills with schools and colleges 14 Goddu, wishing to conduct in-service education programs. Crosby and Massey explain how one such group of specialists, The New England Proqram in Teacher Education, conducts in- service education programs.15 Field agents, specialists, coordinators, associates, whatever they are called, these specially trained educators are widely advocated in the literature of in-service education. Like any successful project much of the success of in- service education experiences depends on planning. Goddu, Crosby and Massey feel that planning is the ”key to effective inservice."16 They also argue that needs assessment is important but need not be long and laborious.17 Teacher involvement in the actual planning process is advocated by 18 19 Lippitt and Fox, and Hillman. Harris feels it is vital. From initial planning to final evaluation, the staff members must be intimately involved in the activities of a program in a meaningful way. Involvement is an important key to success. There are others perhaps, but none so basic nor more important.26 Hale says that one should, "Involve all types of person— fuel in the planning process, both professionals and para- "21 Hillman feels in-service education should Professionals. be planned by administrators and teachers working together a11<3 that students should be included in all phases of in- Sele‘vice education programs. 22 There is general agreement among the experts that in- SeIrvice education should provide for individualization. Hale 11 advocates this view.23 Choice is believed to be an important factor for successful in-service education. Our observations substantiate the need to provide teachers with choices about whether to attend, what to focus on, when to start, and who to use as a resource for professional growth.24 25 26 Many of the experts (Lippitt and Fox, Hillman, and Zigami, Betz and Jensen27) advocate in-service education carried on at the local building level with people who work together participating. "The best unit of organization of in-service education for most problems appears to be the "28 individual school faculty. These same experts feel that in-service education programs should utilize the school staff by using its members as resource people. Lippitt and Fox also assert that teachers need to become more skillful in doing their own in-service education.29 If in-service education is to be successful, a commit- ment of an appropriate amount of time must be made. "Time for inservice should become an expected, planning for, integral part of the teaching commitment," says Winterton.3o Allen,31 and Lippitt and Fox32 agree. Edelfelt sums it up. The working lives of teachers are too heavily scheduled with teaching students in classes to have much left for inservice education. If inservice education is to become an integral part of the teacher's job, it must be moved into the schedule of the day. In-service education should serve as a method to merge EBCiucational theory with educational practice, thus, eliminat— j~rlg what Brown calls the "theory-practice dilemma."34 12 Teachers in training are likely to discover a perplexing lack of agreement between the theory advocated by their professors of education and the practices demanded of them by the c00perating teachers selected by colleges of education to direct their student teaching experiences. . . . Even the best of teachers experience the theory- practice dilemma. Winterton cites Brown and proceeds to advocate in-service education as a means of resolving the theory-practice dilemma. The teacher needs both proficiency in handling the new skill as well as the ability to defend to self and colleagues the theoretical base for the new practice. . . . It is in this area that ’inservice both has its greatest poggntial and has suffered its greatest neglect. Lippitt and Fox also feel that, "The learning activities must link conceptual learning with action implications for the individual."37 Evaluation and "follow-up" procedures for in-service education are two areas that are sometimes mentioned in the literature but usually remain neglected. Bishop suggests that all educational projects should incorporate evaluation as an integral part. He calls for the use of both summative 38 Myrick and Moni and formative evaluation techniques. Iconclude sessions of their workshops by asking participants tC> practice what they have learned. A "follow-up" session 153 then held where the participants share their experiences.39 Bunker also uses "follow-up" sessions, held a number of weeks af‘lzer the initial in-service, so that the participants may e‘Ialuate and reinforce the experiences of the in-service.40 C3C>ddu, Crosby and Massey not only have constant feedback 13 built into their workshops, but reconvene the ". . . original planning group to review all information gathered during the total inservice effort."41 Definitions Edelfelt defines in-service education: . . . as any professional development activity that a teacher undertakes, singly, or with other teachers, after receiving his or her initial teaching certificate, 23d after be- ginning professional practice. Hite narrows the definition: Inservice Education consists of those experi- ences which are designed to help practicing teachers improve their services, to both clients and colleagues. Zigarmi, Betz and Jensen define in-service education as ". . . individually-planned and/or school-planned activities for the improvement of instruction and/or the professional development of staff members."44 Borrowing heavily from the above, in-service education, for the purposes of this study, will be defined as any activities planned by the district or subsections, thereof, for the improvement of instruction and/or the professional cievelopment of staff members. .2§fl§cription of the Waverly School District Consisting of approximately 15 square miles, the WEI\rerly School District is located on the west side of Leirising, Michigan. Geographically it encompasses parts of 1z'l'lll‘ee counties: four square miles of Clinton County, two Eirldi a half square miles of Ingham County and about ten 14 square miles of Eaton County. The District elected to become affiliated with the Ingham Intermediate School District. Three townships, Delta, Lansing and Windsor, are located in whole or in part within the District. Also located within the District is a very small section of the City of Lansing which contains about twelve residences. On February 23, 1960, four districts, Windemere, Bretton Woods, Stoner and Millett were consolidated into the Waverly School District. On December 13, 1961, Grove District was annexed, thus bringing the Waverly School District to its present size. Between 1960 and 1968 the Waverly School District experienced a period of rapid growth as evidenced by the construction of new facilities. In September, 1961, Waverly East Junior High School was opened. The High School opened in 1963, Winans Elementary in 1966, Elmwood Elementary in 1967 and Waverly West Junior High School in 1968. Until Waverly High School opened in 1963 the District's high school students attended Lansing School District's Sexton High School. As of the 1979-80 school year the IVaverly School District consists of five elementary and tfllree secondary schools. Grades 6 and 7 are housed in one building, 8 and 9 in another, while the High School includes Sllrades 10, 11, and 12. For the 1979-80 school year the IDistrict employed 225.42 full-time equivalent certified EDfiarsonnel, 185 non-certified full- and part-time staff and Iléis 17 building and Central Office administrators to serve :3 .822 students. M L! .10 15 Limitations of the Study There are a number of limitations inherent in this study. The effects of each of them may be minimized, if not totally eliminated, by the use of various procedures. Over the last five years there has been a major turn- over in personnel at the Administrative Center of the Waverly School District. As a result, the length of service of the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for Instruc- tion, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, and the Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs does not cover the ten- year time span of this study. To minimize the effects of this limitation, particularly on the early years of the study, every effort was made to interview past Administrative Center personnel of the Waverly School District involved with in-service education. During the time span of this study, especially during the past six years, the Waverly School District has experi- enced numerous millage defeats. Many millage proposals were placed on the ballot two and sometimes three times before they gained the approval of the community. Although no drastic cuts in program have resulted, the lack of prompt Ilassage of millages has created an "inability" to make -1<>ng-range plans. As a result, in-service education pro- SJITams scheduled for the summer months have often been canceled. The researcher has been a member of the Waverly High S(:hool faculty for the past eight years. As such, he has EDEirticipated in numerous in-service education programs. As 16 participants in an activity people tend to act subjectively. That subjectivity in later years may cloud the individuals' ability to objectively analyze the activity. It is the researcher's belief that by evaluating the Waverly School District's in-service education programs through the use of the criteria for successful in-service education he will be able to remain objective. FOOTNOTES 1Shirley A. Steele, "Study of Inservice Teacher Education," Inservice, September, 1976, p. 4. 2Ralph W. Tyler, "In-Service Education of Teachers: A Look at the Past and Future," Improving In-Service Education, Louis J. Rubin, ed., (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972): pp. 5-15. 3Roy A. Edelfelt, "The School of Education and Inservice Education," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March-April 1977), p. 10. 4Michigan Department of Education, Professional Development for School Staffs: The Michigan Approach, p. 3. 51bid., p. 1. 61bid., p. 9. 7Wayne Winterton, "Let's Get Serious About Inservice," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March-April 1977), p. 36. 8Ben M. Harris, Warland Bessent, and Kenneth E. McIntire, In-Service Education: A Guide to Better Practice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969). p. 7. 9Kenneth R. Howey and Reynold Willie, "A Missing Link in School Renewal: The Program and Staff Development Specialist," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March- .April 1977), p. 20. 10Edward J. Meade, Jr., "No Health In Us," Improving IIr—Service Education, Louis J. Rubin, ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971), p. 221. llIbid. 12 - - - Howey and Willie, op. Cit., p. 21. l3Edelfelt, 0p. cit., p. 14. 17 up.” T-._a EF ‘LL 18 "Rearranging 14Russell M. Agne and Edward R. Ducharme, A Modest PrOposal for Continuing and Inservice (March- the Parts: Education," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, April 1977). p. 18. 15Roland Goddu, Jeanie Crosby and Sara Massey, "1:risservice: The Professional Development of Educators," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March-April 1977) , pp - 24-30. lsIbid., p. 25. 17Ibid.. pp. 25-26. 18Ronald Lippitt and Robert Fox, bléahi_r1tenance of Effective Classroom Learning," Improving (Boston: Allyn ,I;r1-—£3ervice Education, Louis J. Rubin, ed., EiIICi Bacon, 1972), pp. 133-169. "In-Service Training: A Confluent 19Aaron W. Hillman, E36111 43Herbert Hite, "Inservice Education: Perceptions, t‘~,13t‘poses, and Practices," Planning Inservice Teacher Educa- ~<3=SEED= Promising Alternatives. Herbert Hite and Kenneth R. EOWey, (The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Mducation and The ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, ay, 1977), p. 6. 44 Zigarmi, Betz and Jensen, op. cit., p. 545. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The literature of in-service education may be divided into three major areas: (1) that which reports quantitative studies; (2) that which describes in-service education pro- grams; and (3) that which criticizes present practices and PrOposes changes designed to improve in-service education. Although there are a number of quantitative studies on various aspects of in-service education programs, they haVe not been emphasized in this review. The quantitative Studies, for the most part, dealt with specific in-service education outcomes as they related to improved teaching Ski 115 and not with the in-service education process itself. The researcher was interested in discovering the principles for successful in-service education programs as they were rep<>rted in the literature of in-service education most apt to be read by the public school educator: namely, the get1eral professional journal. Therefore, this review will deal with the latter two major areas of in-service education 1‘z'r‘lerature. Because of the abundance of literature on in- erVICG education, the literature rev1ewed is limited pri- maItily to the last five years. 20 21 This review has concentrated on authors who have con- tributed to the literature on in-service education. They have, explicitly or implicitly, characterized in—service education. From these writings were drawn a number of what may be called principles for successful in-service education. It should be understood that in many of the writings the material was not presented in a conscious attempt to create principles. Most of the authors concentrated on develOping theories, offering criticisms, reviewing research, or relat- ing their knowledge and experiences. But in so doing the Writers often exposed the reader to their vision of what characterizes a successful in-service education program. The fact that a significant number of writings suggested the same ideas, often in different context, justifies their inclusion in this study of the literature as principles for successful in~service education. The principles, for purposes of organization, were grouped into five major categories: 1. Responsibility for In-Service Education 2. The In-Service Education Program 3. Time Commitment for In-Service Education 4. The Confluence of Theory and Practice 5. Evaluation and/or Follow-Up for In-Service Education. The category of responsibility for in-service education il“eludes three subcategories: (l) collaboration with external and internal entities, (2) the role of the specialist, and (3) major school district responsibilities. The category of 22 time: in-service education program also includes three sub- categories: (1) purpose, (2) personnel, and (3) planning. Tfléa three remaining categories stand as they are. “The principles for successful in-service education as deve10ped from the literature follow with apprOpriate sup- po r tive references . Principles for Successful In-Service Education I.- IResponsibility for In-Service Education .Au Collaboration with External and Internal Entities l. In-service education should be the result of on-going collaborative efforts between the school district and various external entities. Su ort: Agne and Ducharme (p. 16), Beckerman (p. 530), Bell (p. 4), Berkey and Drake (p. 250), Bird (p. 22), Bottom (p. 39, 42), Boyer and Maertens (p. 313), Braun (p. 21), Bush (p. 6), Cawelti (p. 484), Cochran (p. 9), Delano (p. 523), Dillon (1974, p. 256), 1976, p. 168), Duke (p. 69), Edelfelt (1974, p. 250), (1977, p. 10, ll), Edelfelt and Johnson (pp. 6, 16), Falkenstein (p. 189), Fox and Griffin (p. 545), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (pp. 24, 25, 30), Horner and Douglass (p. 250), Hough (p. 307), Howie and Willie (p. 21), Jeffers and McDaniels (p. 24), Jenny (p. 23), Johnson, M. (p. 72), Kirby (p. 432), Larson (p. 505), Lutz (pp. 46, 47), Meers (p. 45), Miller (p. 53), Smith (1974, p. 253), (1975, p. 33). --where one of the external entities is a college of education. Su ort: Agne and Ducharme (p. 16), Beckerman (p. 530), Bell (p. 4), Bottom (pp. 39, 40), Boyer and Maertens (p. 313), Braun (p. 21), Bush (p. 6), Cochran (p. 9), Delano (p. 523), Dillon (1974, p. 256), (1976, p. 168), Duke (p. 69), Edelfelt (1974, p. 250), (1977, pp. 10, ll), Edelfelt and Johnson (p. 6), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 25), Hough (p. 307), Jeffers and McDaniels (p. 24), Johnson, M. (p. 72), Kirby (p. 432), Lutz (p. 47), Meers (p. 45), Miller (p. 53), Smith (1974, pp. 253, 254-255). 23 --where one of the external entities is the State Board of Education. Support: Bell (p. 4), Bottom (p. 39), Cochran (p. 9), Dillon (1974, p. 257), Edelfelt and Johnson (p. 6), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 25), Johnson, M. (p. 72), Meers (p. 45), Michigan Department of Education (p. 9), Miller (p. 53), Smith (p. 33). --where one of the external entities is an agency outside of the education profession. Support: Bell (p. 4), Falkenstein (p. 189), Howie and Willie (p. 21), Johnson, M. (p. 72), Larson (p. 505), Lutz (p. 47). 2. In-service education should be the result of on- going collaborative efforts between the school district and various internal entities. Support: Bell (p. 4), Bottom (pp. 33, 39), Cawelti (p. 487), Duke (p. 69), Edelfelt and Johnson (pp. 6, 16), Firth (p. 216), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 25), Jeffers and McDaniels (p. 24), Johnson, M. (p. 72), King, Hayes and Newman (p. 686), Larson (p. 503), Lutz (pp. 46, 47), Miller (p. 53), Smith (p. 33). --where one of the internal entities is the teachers' organization. Support: Bell (p. 4), Bottom (p. 39), Edelfelt and Johnson (p. 16), Firth (p. 216), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 25), Jeffers and McDaniels (p. 24), Johnson, M. (p. 72), Miller (p. 53), Smith (p. 33). --where one of the internal entities is the administrative staff. Su ort: Bell (p. 4), Bottom (p. 33), Cawelti (p. 483), Cochran (p. 9), Dillon (1974, p. 257), Duke (p. 69), Edelfelt and Johnson (p. 6), Firth (p. 216), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 25), Johnson, M. (p. 72), Larson (p. 503), Smith (p. 33). --where one of the internal entities is the member- ship of the local Board of Education Support: Larson (p. 503). Table One summarizes Criteria Al and A2. 24 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS' COLLABORATION WITH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ENTITIES State Board of Education Agency Outside of Education INTERNAL ENTITY Teachers' Organization Administrative Staff Local Board of Education A ne & Duc arme Bec erman x>< e ers & McDan e S r1 1: Elrson \ltzz GEers er ><><><>< >< XNXXXXXX NXXXXXD‘: XX xxxxxxxEXTERNAL ENTITY ><><><>< N N N X 25 B. The Role of Specialists 3. The school district should consult with in-service education specialists as well as encourage the development of such specialists among its staff. Support: Agne and Ducharme (pp. 17-18), Bec erman (pp. 530-531), Bird (p. 21), Bush (p. 67), Cawelti (p. 484), Daniels and O'Connell (pp. 355-359), Delano (p. 523), Dillon (1974, p. 257), Edelfelt (pp. 13, 14), Fox and Griffin (p. 546), Garrison (p. 19), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (pp. 24-30), Howie and Willie (pp. 21-22), Johnson, M. (p. 73), Katz (pp. 154-159), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), Larson (p. 504), Lippitt and Fox (p. 146), Manolakes (pp. 51-64), Meade (pp. 220-222), Perrone (pp. 50-52). In-service education specialists should possess change agent skills as well as expertise in the in-service education process. Su ort: Agne and Ducharme (p. 18), Beckerman p. 531), Daniels and O'Connell (pp. 355-359), Dillon (1974, p. 257), Frantz (p. 37), Hendee (p. 163), Jenny (p. 23), Katz (pp. 154-159), Macdonald (p. 13), Manolakes (pp. 51-64), Olivero (p. 197), Russell (p. 30). C. Major School District Responsibilities 5. Within the school district responsibility for program and staff develOpment as well as the coordination of in-service education programs ought to fall under the auspices of one indi- vidual. Support: Garrison (p. 19), Hendee (p. 163), Howie and Willie (p. 22), Larson (p. 504), Nadler (p. 202). In-service education should be viewed by the school district as a top priority item, evidenced by appropriate funding, established goals, and long-range planning. Su ort: ASCD Resolutions (1979, no page number), Bush (pp. 67-68), Delano (p. 523), Dillon (1974, p. 257), Duke (pp. 68-69), Garrison (p. 18), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (pp. 24-25), Horner and Douglass (p. 258), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (pp. 9-14), Johnson, M. (pp. 73, 75), King (pp. 686-687), Koble and 26 Gray (p. 41), Koehn and Casey (pp. 24-25), Larson (pp. 503, 504, 505), Lutz (p. 47), McLaughlin and Berman (pp. 191-194), Meade (pp. 221-222), Miller (pp. 52-58), Rubib (pp. 41, 48), Yeatts (p. 420). In-service education programs should be encouraged by an organizational structure that fosters personnel involvement in the creation of on-site programs. Su ort: Bell (p. 3), Daniels and O'Connell p. 355), Delano (pp. 520-521), Duke (p. 69), Hillman (p. 288), Labat (p. 18), Lawrence (p. 181), Lippitt and Fox (p. 140), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 194), Miller (p. 54), Yeatts (p. 420). In-service education programs should reflect community, school program, teacher, and student needs. Su ort: Agne and Ducharme (p. 17), Falkenstein (p. 189), Garrison (p. 19), Johnson, M. (pp. 73, 75), Larson (pp. 504-505), Lutz (p. 46), Mattleman (p. 755), Smith (1974, p. 253). II.. 'The In-Service Education Program A. Purpose 9. 10. ll. In-service education should be a means toward establishing well defined educational improve- ment activities. Support: Bottom (pp. 39, 42-43), Cobun (p. 126), Delano (pp. 520-521), King, Hayes and Newman (p. 687), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 192), Miller (p. 54). In-service education should be a means by which educators can meet their own goals for personal growth. §pppp££= Ainsworth (pp. 107-109), Bell (p. 4), Bottom (p. 30), Draba (p. 369), Duke (p. 67), Ingersoll (p. 173), Larson (pp. 502, 503), Lawrence (p. 181), Olivero (p. 197), Perrone (pp. 50-52). The activities during an in-service education program should be determined by the goals and content to be achieved. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27 Support: Duke (pp. 69-70), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 27), Harris (p. 7), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 11), King, Hayes and Newman (p. 687), Koehn and Casey (p. 25). Products desired as an outcome of in-service education programs should be identified during the planning stages. Support: Goddu, Crosby and Massey (pp. 26, 27), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), Lafayette (p. 672), Miller, M. (p. 54). Most in-service education activities should occur at the local building level with the peOple who work together participating. Support: Ainsworth (p. 103), Bird (pp. 21-22), Brimm and Tollett (p. 525), Daniels and O'Connell (p. 355), Fox and Griffin (p. 547), Hillman (p. 288), Lippitt and Fox (p. 140), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 194), Miller, M. (p. 54), Zenke (p. 179). In-service education programs should be directed toward and determined by student needs. Su ort: Agne and Ducharme (p. 17), Bottom (p. 39), Hillman (p. 288), Shingleton (p. 62). In-service education programs should provide participants with individualized instruction. Support; Arena (pp. 43-45), Bottom (p. 41), Brimm and Tollett (p. 525), Bush (1977, p. 7), Cobun (p. 130), Daniels and O'Connell (p. 356), Delano (p. 520), Dillon (1974, p. 256), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 29), Hale (p. 27), Horner and Douglass (p. 262), Ingersoll (p. 173), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 11), King, Hayes and Newman (p. 687), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), Lawrence (p. 181), Lippitt and Fox (p. 140), Miller, M. (p. 54), Olson (pp. 41-42), Shingleton (p. 62), Underwood and Underwood (p. 37). In-service education programs should offer participants a choice from a number of options. Support: Arena (pp. 43-45), Bunker (p. 33), Delano (p. 520), Firth (p. 218), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 26), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), 17. 28 Lawrence (p. 181), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 194), Miller, M. (p. 54), Olson (pp. 41-42). In-service education activities should be perceived by participants as being relevant to their job situation. Su ort: Ainsworth (p. 108), Bell (p. 3), Cobun (p. 126), Draba (p. 369), Ernst (p. 498), Firth (p. 218), Horner and Douglass (p. 258), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), Lafayette (p. 672), Perrone (p. 50), Shingleton (p. 62), Winterto (p. 36). ' B. Personnel 18. 19. 20. 21. Principals and curricular leaders should participate in in-service education programs but should not because of their position be automatically used as trainers for teachers, unless they are specially equipped with training skills. Support: Bottom (pp. 41, 43), Cochran (p. 10), Daniels and O'Connell (p. 355), Dillon (1974, p. 257), Hillman (p. 288), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 12), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 193), Miller, W. (pp. 32-33), Ruff (p. 507), Winterton (pp. 36, 37). The principal should set the atmosphere for successful in-service education within his/her building by adhering to democratic principles. Support: Dillon (1976, p. 167), Fox and Griffin (p. 547), Hentschel (p. 106), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (pp. 9-11), Koble and Gray (p. 40), Winterton (p. 36). Administrators and teachers should be involved in a cooperative effort for the planning and conduct of in-service education experiences. Support: Bottom (pp. 41, 43), Duke (p. 69), Hillman (p. 288), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 12), Koble and Gray (p. 40), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 194), Ruff (p. 507), Winterton (pp. 36, 37). In-service education programs should include teachers in the training as well as the learning functions. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 29 Support: Agne and Ducharme (p. 18), Daniels and O'Connell (pp. 355-359), Delano (p. 523), Dillon (1976, p. 167), Garrison (p. 19), Hendee (p. 163), Hillman (p. 288), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 12), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), Lafayette (p. 672), Lippitt and Fox (pp. 137, 147), Mattleman (pp. 754—755), Perrone (p. 52), Reily and Dembo (p. 126), Renzulli (p. 186), Zenke (p. 179). Consultants used for in-service education programs should be used on a continuing basis; the "one-shot" consultation should be avoided. Support: Duke (pp. 67-68), Garrison (p. 19), Lippitt and Fox (p. 147), Mangieri and McWilliams (p. 111), Renzulli (p. 186), Ruff (pp. 506-507, 508). Consultants and other resource personnel should be selected by the mutual agreement of the planning participants. Support: Delano (p. 523), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 26), Perrone (p. 52). In-service education programs should call upon the expertise of the local staff as/for resources. Support: Ainsworth (pp. 107, 108), Daniels and O'Connell (pp. 355-359), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 12), Koehn and Casey (pp. 24-25), Mattleman (p. 755), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 194), Perrone (pp. 50-52), Winterton (p. 37), Yeatts (p. 420), Zenke (p. 179). A11 school personnel should be involved in in-service education programs. Suppopp: Hillman (p. 288), Larson (p. 502). Students should be involved in all aspects of in-service education programs. Su ort: Hillman (p. 288), Smith (1974, p. 253). C. Planning 27. In-service education programs should be created only after a needs assessment and based largely on those needs identified by the participants in the program. 28. 29. 30. 30 Su ort: Adams (p. 25), Bunker (p. 32), Duke ( . 68), Edelfelt (p. 14), Garrison (p. 18), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 25), Horner and Douglass (p. 262), Ingersoll (pp. 169-173), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 11), King, Hayes and Newman (pp. 686-687), Koble and Gray (pp. 39—40), Koehn and Casey (p. 24), Lutz (p. 47), Mangieri and McWilliams (p. 110), Mattleman (p. 755). In-service education programs should proceed only after careful planning since it is the key to success. Su ort: Ainsworth (p. 109), Delano (pp. 521- 522), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 25), King, Hayes and Newman (p. 687), Miller, M. (p. 52). In-service education programs should be designed by the people who are responsible for conducting them. Support: Bottom (p. 33), Daniels and O'Connell (pp. 355-359). Commitment to the in-service education proceed- ings should be developed by involving the participants in all the phases of planning. Support: Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 10), Koble and Gray (p. 39), Koehn and Casey (p. 25), Larson (p. 505), Mangieri and McWilliams (p. 110), Mattleman (p. 755), Ruff (p. 507). 1131 - Time Commitment for In-Service Education 31. 32. Time for in-service education activities should be scheduled into the school day. Support: Ainsworth (pp. 108-109), Brimm and Tollett (p. 525), Cobun (p. 133), Davis and Frank (p. 5), Delano (pp. 521-522), Draba (pp. 370-371), Duke (pp. 69, 71), Edelfelt (pp. 13, 14), Ehrenberg and Brandt (p. 209), Garrison (p. 19), Hillman (p. 288), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 12), Lippitt and Fox (pp. 139, 150), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 149), Miller, M. (p. 54), Seldin (p. 175), Winterton (pp. 36-37). In-service education activities scheduled during the summer, after school, or on weekends should be optional. 31 Support: Cobun (pp. 132-133), Draba (p. 369), Fiske (pp. 8-9), Garrison (p. 19), Miller, M. (p. 54), Winterton (p. 36). IV. Confluence of Theory and Practice 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. In-service education should incorporate research methods into its structure. Support: Adams (p. 25), Cochran (pp. 8, 9), Duke (p. 69), Edelfelt (p. 13), Lutz (p. 47), Russell (p. 30), Smith (1974, p. 253), Winterton (p. 37), Zingale (pp. 31-32). In-service education should be an integral part of curriculum development. Su ort: Duke (p. 69), Firth (p. 219), Lippitt and Fox (p. 131), Seldin (p. 175), Yeatts (p. 421). In-service education programs should include practices that have a basis in sound educational theory. Support: Cochran (p. 8), Delano (p. 520), Lippitt and Fox (p. 154), Plumleigh (p. 35), Winterton (p. 36). In-service education should be a means of assisting teachers with the task of remaining current with the latest deve10pments in education. Su ort: Duke (pp. 66-67), Edelfelt (1974, p. 252), McLaughlin and Berman (p. 191), Winterton (p. 37). Evaluation and/or Follow-Up for In-Service Education Evaluation and feedback should be an on-going occurrence during in-service education programs. Support: Bunker (pp. 34, 35), Draba (p. 371), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 27), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 12), King, Hayes and Newman (p. 687), Labat (p. 18), Miller, M. (p. 55), Olson (p. 42), Yeatts (p. 420). In-service education programs should allow participants to reflect upon their own learning during the in-service education activity. Support: Adams (p. 25), Goddu, Crosby and Massey (p. 29), Miller, M. (p. 55), Perrone (p. 52). 39. In-service education summative evaluations should not be conducted by those who conducted the in-service education program. Support: Bottom (p. 43). 40. In-service education programs should provide for follow-up support. Su ort: Cochran (p. 9), Daniels and O'Connell p. 358), Hillman (p. 288), Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi (p. 12), Labat (p. 18), Lippitt and Fox (p. 136), Lutz (p. 47), Miller, M. (p. 54), Plaster (p. 25). In order to evaluate the Waverly School District's j.r1-—:3ervice education activities, a series of four evalua- tzjlxree criteria were developed. The four evaluative criteria vveexree selected because of their frequent mention in the J.i.t:eerature and the importance attached to them by various authors of in-service education articles. They are also a Consolidation of the forty principles for successful in- 53621:"Vrice education and were selected from each of the five Ina-j or categories. Some of the four evaluative criteria are a combination of two or more of the forty principles for successful in-service education derived from the litera- t111:’€3!. Some, because they were deemed important, are little Chaim"l<,Jed. It was also felt that the evaluative criteria would be workable ones: ones for which evidence could be Obtained, measured and evaluated and, ultimately, the Vv1::i"t11zl I? evaluative criteria served as a screening device 4. 33 through which the activities of the Waverly School District with regard to in-service education practices will be described. With the following evaluative criteria it now becomes Exossible to examine the activities of a school district vvith regard to in-service education. 1. The school district should view in-service education as a mutual, collaborative effort between itself and various educational interests. The school district administrators and mem- bers of the board of education should view the in-service education of the staff as a top priority item evidenced by an organiza- tional structure that encourages the initiation of in-service education programs, is well funded, contains provisions for long-term planning based on established goals and priorities, and includes other types of resource allocations. In-service education programs should show evidence of a broadly based planning effort built upon identified needs and established goals, with representation from those who are to participate. In-service education programs should be evaluated and/or contain provisions for systematic follow-up. Selected quotations with references for each of the four ea"‘3'53-1uative criteria follow. 1. Criterion Reference The school district ASCD Resolutions, no page should view in-service number: "ASCD urges all education as a mutual, levels of government to place collaborative effort a high priority on staff devel- between itself and opment in appropriating funds various educational interests. 34 for education. Staff develop- ment deserves primary consideration when school districts seek funds from private agencies." Bell, p. 4: "Inservice educa- tion programs should be a shared responsibility. . . . The con— dition of our society and the programs of personnel develOp- ment are so complex that the challenge necessitates a c00perative venture embracing at a minimum those institu- tions and agencies addressed to educational advancement within states-~those agencies or corporations in the private sector which obviously have much to contribute both to the design of programs and to the actual conducting of programs. With- in states, local teachers, administrators, inservice education coordinating commit- tees, state staffs, state board of education, state advisory councils, local advisory commit- tees, and teacher education \ 35 institutions should all cooperate in the designing of inservice education programs to meet the needs of the state and in pro- viding the services required to deliver on the design." Bird, p. 22: Speaking of an Interinstitutional Workshop Model designed to, ". . . pro- vide the linkage and liaison between the local school dis- tricts, the Intermediate School Districts, institutions of higher learning, the State Department of Education, and other institutions and human resources to enhance the pro- fessional growth of educators." Bottoms, p. 38: "Thus, c00pera- tive endeavors among the four agencies (local school systems, state departments of education, colleges, and teacher organiza- tions)* are essential if a mean- ingful inservice program is to emerge." *Parentheses are part of the original text. 36 Boyer and Maertens, p. 313: "We believe the cooperation between the two entities fischools and universitie§7** rather than imposition of philosophies and practices of one on the other can be a more productive effort than what has been traditionally the case." Braun, p. 21: Speaking of the College of Education at the University of Hawaii's Manoa campus, "The present goal of our College is to provide one-third of our time in aiding teachers. Perhaps mainland teacher training institutions will look to our model and attempt to establish an in-service training program for their neighboring school districts." Bush, p. 6: ". . . we have learned that the school and the university must both participate in the training ..*~_‘_¥ t: **Brackets indicate this researcher's additions to the ext for purposes of clarification. 37 15f teachergY. Neither can do the job alone. Each brings a unique and essential contribu- tion. When either part is missing, the whole is seriously flawed. Lip service has been paid to the idea for a long time, but it has been the Teacher Corps' experience particularly that has demon- strated that this cooperation between local education agencies and institutes of higher educa- tion is not only essential but also possible. In preservice, the school has a much bigger role to play than past practice assumed. In inservice educa- tion, both the schools and the universities have different roles than in the past." Cawelti, p. 483: ". . . only the teacher component of the education system was involved in in-service, but now staff development activities increas- ingly include principals and 38 central office personnel, as well as teachers." p. 484: "If a local school district is too small to provide such super- visory personnel, intermediate or other kinds of larger dis- tricts or consortiums of schools can be formed." Cochran, p. 9: "Leadership, coordination, and participation are joint processes that must be shared by teacher educators, state department personnel, teachers, and administrators alike." "First, the inservice program cannot be designed in isolation. Teacher educators that sit in their 'ivory towers' are no more effective than class- room teachers who only look 'in- side their own classroom.' The expertise of both must be brought together in a logical, planned manner." "This partner- ship must be demonstrated in each phase of the inservice process. Steps must be taken 39 to ensure the effective utilization of all resources available in the community, region, or state." Dillon (1976), p. 168: "Many universities now are making strong attempts to assume a partnership role with school districts in staff development efforts." Dillon, p. 256: ". . . empha- size collaborative arrangements between school districts and college institutions. This implies jointly planned and implemented programs. No one particular sector should take more responsibility than another. An ideal setup would have a council from the public schools of a particular area and a council from the neigh- boring institution of higher education. They would jointly plan preservice and inservice education programs for the public schools of their area." p. 257: ". . . school districts must assume leadership in 40 designing and promoting pro- grams addressing their particular needs, and recruit whatever help might be desirable from the university. But the university should not take responsibility for local school district programs." Duke, p. 69: "The work-study team may be the answer. Con- sisting of Hoover lJunior High School7 teachers, teacher aides, and administrators plus Stanford professors (faculty advisors) and graduate students (research assistants), each work-study team attacks a particular area of concern." Edelfelt (1977), p. 10: Pro- gress in in-service education cannot proceed without collab- oration between colleges of education and public schools. p. 11: In-service education cannot be considered in isolation. 41 Edelfelt and Johnson, p. 6: "A collaborative effort, includ— ing teacher organizations, colleges and universities, state departments of education, and school administrators is essential to reconceptualize in-service teacher education." Falkenstein, p. 189: "Assist- ance from the community leadership would be necessary both in its zin-service model7 design and execution. Probably a cooperative board composed of business, civic, educational and parental representatives would be organized." Firth, p. 216: "If staff development is to be success- ful, administrators and teachers must collaborate to establish purposes that encourage teachers to improve their skills within a program that concurrently advances the school enterprise compatible with the intentions of the administration." 42 Goddu, Crosby and Massey, p. 24: "It gin-service educatiop7 is neither decision making by the university nor by the school administration, but rather mutual decision making by many parties. . . ." p. 25: "Control of most inservice programs becomes a shared responsibility which may in- clude university personnel, the school system's adminis- trators, teachers, professional association members, state department personnel, and individual consultants." Hough, p. 307: "Various con- sortia involving schools and universities may emerge as the most promising response to pre- and in-service needs in education." Howie and Willie, p. 21: "The coordinated effort of many different parties both within and without the pro- fession is necessary to effect comprehensive renewal." 43 Jenny, p. 24: ". . . in-service education is the responsibility of many people and agencies. Specifically I would place the responsibility upon the teacher first, the district second, and the college or university third." McLeod, pp. 322-323: Speaking of the Macomb County Teacher Education Council (MCTEC), "The purpose of this organi- zation is to provide a structure for representative decision-making process aimed at the on-going improvement of teacher training within Macomb County. It is intended that MCTEC be an organization that is responsible to changing needs in teacher training. . . . School districts and institu- tions by attaining membership in the Council signify their . . commitment to increasing the degree of genuinely shared responsibility and authority 44 for developing and implement- ing teacher training programs. Commitment to deve10pment of teacher training programs with strong field experience emphasis. . . . Commitment to genuine reciprocity in sharing mutual resources of facilities, personnel, mate- rials, and time." Meers, p. 45: "Teacher train- ing institutions, state departments of education, area resource centers, and local educational agencies mpgp work together to provide the necessary inservice experiences." Miller, p. 53: "Inservice training is a cooperative effort of the individual, local educational agency, state agpncy and teacher education. Implementing this . . . princi- ple provides a team approach and the necessary involvement to help create commitment to the change process." 45 Smith (1974), p. 253: ". . . it is hard to conceive of partnership without repre- sentation from community and student groups." pp. 254-255: "The full spectrum of institu- tions is needed in the consortium on a regular basis for what each can contribute in resources, fresh ideas, and practices. University faculpy from lib- eral arts as well as education contribute scholarship in updat- ing content, educational expertise in curriculum develop- ment and research, and an objectivity and catholocity about education issues that local teachers and/or admin- istration cannot provide because of being engrossed, and properly so, with commit- ments to the local scene. They also can provide assist- ance in developing evaluation and assessment procedures that are research based. School 46 administration with state agency support can provide a viable financial base for a varied inservice program and aid for resources and materials development, as well as a district or statewide view of educational planning. Community and student_groups help in the moral support and approval for innovation and the testing out of these new educational ideas. They are also important members of the consortium when evaluation of the impact of new programs and methods is to be made. But teachers are the key group, for they must pose questions and issues and present problems directly from school situations. They contribute classroom experience and expertise in considering and effecting solutions: they are the main agents for improvements. How- ever, they cannot do it alone, 47 nor should they be held solely accountable. All members of the consortium partnership contribute to the success or failure of the educational enterprise and are as account- able as teachers for their share. Indeed, where the new partnership is beginning to work, shared and voluntary plans of self-evaluation and team evaluation have become part of the consortium pro- gram." Smith (1975), p. 33: "The inservice education of public professional personnel must be determined and delivered through an open collaborative effort among those represent- ing the public, the university of scholars, school administra- tors, and teacher organizations at different levels of decision making, with different kinds of responsibility based on constituancy and expertise, 48 and in different modes of operation depending upon particular education settings." Yeatts, p. 420: In discussing the elements that have lead to the success of staff develop- ment in the Campbell County Schools. ". . . the coopera- tion of the colleges have certainly been determining factors. . . ." The school district administrators and members of the board of education should view the in-service education of the staff as a top priority item evidenced by an organizational struc- ture that encourages the initiation of in- service education programs, is well funded, contains provisions for long- term planning based on established goals and includes other types of resource allocations. 49 ASCD Resolutions, no page number: "ASCD supports the View that innovative, compre- hensive planning is essential to adequate staff development for today's educators. Developing, implementing and maintaining quality staff development should be an integral part of all educa- tional budget planning." "ASCD urges school districts and other educational insti- tutions to regularly allocate sufficient resources to support on-going staff development programs." Brimm and Tollett, p. 525: ". . . if teachers' profes- sional growth is to be taken seriously, public school administrators and teachers must pool their knowledge and resources and seek to make inservice education more responsive to the needs and interests of practicing classroom teachers." ". 50 Delano, p. 520: "Ongoing, continuous, in-service educa- tion must be part of every school system." Dillon, p. 257: "A suggested method of operation would be to (a) assist each building principal, (b) to become a staff development leader, and (c) find out how to over- come the problems of people traveling parallel routes without communicating or taking advantage of what we know to be effective practice." Speaking about the Lincoln, Nebraska, Public Schools ". . . our budget has increased yearly in spite of the econ- omic crunch, largely at the request of individual build- ing principals and building committees within our district. The budget increase is also due to the strong emphasis our administration places on staff development as a way of improving instruction." 51 Duke, p. 69: "Each work- study team has a budget and is responsible for setting its objectives and developing its own bi-weekly agenda." Ehrenberg and Brandt, p. 208: "Among the factors involved in implementation of a well- designed staff develOpment program are time, money, and commitment." p. 209: "Generally speaking, districts find the money to do the things they believe are most important, so one way to determine whether sufficient funds are available is to analyze each budget item in terms of its relative impor- tance in achieving district goals." Firth, p. 215: ". . . a much greater effort must be gener- ated at the local level. The major vehicle for meeting this challenge appears to be 52 assuming the form of staff deve10pment programs." "Fewer replacements and Opportunities for personnel to attend externally planned workshops place greater responsibility on the local school district for renewal of its own teaching force." p. 216: "Administrators must create an environment with long-range perspective that assumes that a change is merely a plateau enroute to another." p. 221: "The concept of staff development must be accepted as a long- term commitment by school officials and as a hallmark of professionalism by teachers." "Inducements must be estab- lished in which the school offers suitable rewards for teachers as they increase their skills for assignments judged appropriate by the school and the teachers." 53 Garrison, p. 20: "Genuine in-service is not a luxury, not a frill, but emphatically the opposite: it is a means of keeping an expensive and sophisticated instrument functioning at its best capacities, equipped to c0pe with change." Hendee, p. 163: "Money is important in providing per- sonnel with learning opportunities, but, in many districts, fund- ing in-service activities is a low priority. This is an example of being 'penny wise and pound foolish.‘ Although most of the school budget does go for salaries, funds expended to improve the skills of the work force are a good investment." Horner and Douglass, p. 258: "Commitment of . . . leader- ship is a prerequisite. Supervisory and teacher educa- tion staffs must be convinced 54 of the value of in—service education, to the extent of adjusting priorities, and thus dollar and staff resource allocation. . . ." Hull, p. 44: "In addition to time, a successful innovation installation inservice educa- tion program for teachers requires resources such as money, expertise, and some- times space and equipment." Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi, p. 10: "Securing administrator and school board support for in- service education is an important step in the process of organizing effective in- service programs. If the building principal has a strong personal commitment to inservice education, he should attempt to gain a similar commitment from upper level administrators and from members of the school board. This commitment is necessary 55 if personnel, time and money for inservice education are to be made available." King, Hayes and Newman, p. 687: "Our survey suggests, however, that the improvement of local IS/PR éfnservice/Professional Renewa17 to an effective level requires a sustained commitment of effort and resources on the part of the planners, sponsors, and implementers." p. 287: ". . . commitments must be made on behalf of the district and the teachers . . . many systems regularly commit certain resources to IS/PR while describing rights and responsibilities of the recipi- ents. Where such policy exists, there is a much better chance of refining inservice efforts year by year than where IS/PR is perfunctorily executed by overburdened administrators or approached S6 incidentally by ad hoc committees." Koble and Gray, p. 41: "The planning process and related inservice activities should be built into the organiza- tional structure." Koehn and Casey, p. 24: "Our experience has been that in- service and release time for it have held a low priority in the budget-building process because of competing demands for funds - yet good inservice does require money." Larson, p. 503: An organiza- tional plan should exist which allows in-service proj- ects to develop on-site. Speaking of the success of Portland's in-service program, "For many years, in-service education has had tOp priority in Portland. . . . The board of education and the adminis- trative staff have consistently allocated a generous portion 57 of each year's budget for in- service education." p. 505: "The availability of resources is a necessary component of any viable in-service program." Lutz, p. 47: PSchool district supervisors and teachers, college staff, community representatives, students and consultants should meet as members of a planning group." "Preparing a cost estimate is a . . . concern of program administration. Time, personnel and materials must be committed in order for successful training to result from the program, and those in positions of financial control must be able to plan for these kinds of invest- ments." McLaughlin and Berman, p. 194: Staff deve10pment needs to be emphasized because of low turnover in teaching staff. "But the best staff development 58 program will fail in the long run unless district central administrators explicitly see principals and teachers as professionals and visibly support their efforts to learn and grow. In the final analysis, effective staff development depends much more on the district's point of View about principals and teachers as learners than on the specifics of the staff development program." Miller, pp. 52-53: ". . . a long range plan of inservice education needs must be estab- lished. . . . Priorities, specific goals, and competencies should emerge as a result of this planning effort." p. 54: "Local agencies also have a financial obligation in pro- viding inservice education. According to recent National Education Association action, that organization believes 59 that inservice education should grow from evaluation and be financed by local districts. Certainly the commitment to free personnel to participate in inservice designed to strengthen local programs is a minimum expectation." Nadler, p. 204: "The HRD lHuman Resources Developmenp7 unit should have obvious and concrete managerial support." Plumleigh, p. 35: ". . . training should be ongoing, provided by the school dis- trict, and geared to its particular needs." Shingleton, p. 61: ". . . staff deve10pment should embody a spirit of acceptance, trust, communication, and experimentation. Authentic consultation and participa- tion are vital in this process." p. 65: "Resources must be provided so that staff im- provement becomes a 60 developmental process which is cooperatively planned as an integral part of educa- tion." Yeatts, p. 420: In discussing the elements that have lead to the success of staff develOp- ment in the Campbell County Schools. "Adequate local funding to supplement Title III monies. . . ." 61 In-service education Bell, p. 3: "Professional programs should show growth is a personal respon- evidence of a broadly sibility. . . . Consequently, based planning effort a variety of inservice educa- built upon identified tion strategies should be needs and established provided in order to enhance goals with representa- the probability of effective tion from those who are impact on participating to participate. personnel. . . . Inservice education programs must meet the needs of individuals." Brimm and Tollett, p. 525: "Determination of the needs of the teachers within the school system seems prereq- uisite to the planning of meaningful inservice educa- tion programs. Specific objectives should be devel- oped and follow-up procedures established to determine if these objectives have been realized." "Too often the membership of in-service planning committees is com- posed largely of school administrators. Such 62 committees should be recon- stituted to include a majority of classroom teachers." Cawelti, p. 483: Speaking of the shortcomings of in-service education and methods of deal- ing with them, "Too many assumptions were made about E2122 new goals were to be pursued, and thus we find needs assessment and participatory decision-making processes being refined." Cochran, p. 9: "The program must build upon the needs (perceived or real) of the group being served. In most cases, this is the very reason why the individual is involved in the program." Davis and Frank, p. 5: "Al- though planning was a major issue most principals said that obtaining released time was the major factor that kept them from attending inservice programs. The majority of principals preferred 63 inservice education programs that were scheduled during school hours." p. 23: "Those who would design an inservice program have an obligation to ascertain the preferences of their clientele before the inservice program is £33; accompli." Dillon (1976), p. 170: "As a result, most needs are assessed by the 'think' system. Fortunately, the thinking often involves - at the very least - representa- tives of the group for which the staff development activity is planned - a small step forward." Draba, p. 370: "Achieving a correlation between an activ- ity and problem requires that teachers participate in planning the activities of their inservice." Eddy, p. 511: "Teachers will take reform [through in-service 64 education activitie§7 seriously only when they are responsible for defining their own needs and receiving help on their own terms." Ehrenberg and Brandt, p. 205: ". . . approach staff develop- ment with a strategy in mind. By strategy, we mean a plan consisting of a sequence of actions involving coordination of things and people to achieve an objective for which there is a stated rationale." Ernst, p. 496: "A good work- shop embraces accepted goals that are feasible and explicit." Firth, p. 221: "Common pri- orities must be squared between those expected by the school officials and those accepted by the teachers." "Participation must be encour- aged in reasonable terms by the school to promote appro- priate improvement for individual teachers." 65 Fiske, p. 13: "In a system that increasingly emphasizes the merits of participation, any LEA that plans its in- service training without involving its teachers in the planning process is ask- ing for trouble." Garrison, p. 19: "All in- service programs should be faculty-originated, faculty- developed, and - to whatever extent possible - faculty- administered." Goddu, Crosby and Massey, p. 24: In-service education is ". . . mutual decision making by many parties, including repre- sentatives of participants." p. 25: "Decisions about what occurs, how and where as 'inservice' are a result of role groups, including par- ticipants and providers, meeting together to make decisions." 66 Hendee, p. 163: "Next, a committee should be estab- lished, composed of those persons who are to benefit from the growth. They should actively solicit suggestions from the entire staff." p. 164: ". . . making certain there is a well-thought-out approach clearly articulated, and including staff members in the planning and evaluat- ing of activities." Hentschel, p. 107: "Whether the innovation requires in- dividual adoption decision or a collective (group) decision, involvement strategies facili- tate the change process." Horner and Douglass, p. 262: "Expressed need is solid basis for in-service education." Houmes, p. 34: "Idea-sharing and thorough planning are the major requisites in developing change-oriented inservice training." 67 Ingersoll, p. 173: "Ultimately, inservice training must be relevant to teacher needs, demonstrative of solutions, and responsive to teacher input. . . . To ignore the teacher in the early stages of defining training needs fails to make sense for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the patron- izing effect upon teachers when academicians or admin- istrators are the primary source of decision making about teachers' professional training. . . . Also, there are clear motivational reasons for including teachers in the planning stages of training, material selection and develop- ment, since inclusion of the teachers at a primary 'choice point' will be more likely to lead to individual interest during actual training. It is also financially unsound 68 to invest funds in training that has little relevance to teacher needs." Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi, p. 11: "The first responsibility of the planning group working with the principal is to organize and conduct an in- service education needs assessment . . . most in- service programs should arise from a study of needs and problems as identified by teachers." "When the needs assessment is completed, the results should be reported to the entire staff and used as a basis for identifying one to three inservice goals for the school year." "It is desirable for the entire staff to be involved in the goal- setting process. Hopefully, goal setting can be done by consensus as total staff ownership." 69 King, Hayes and Newman, p. 686: ". . . systems with successful programs make a genuine effort to identify all local needs, ‘ wants, or problems that might possibly be met through effective inservicing. It is important that this determina- tion app be made unilaterally by an administrator, super- visor, or outside expert. Suggestions from outsiders are acceptable, but the suc- cessful program emphasizes suggestions from those who are to be the recipients." p. 687: ". . . commitment leads to planning and pro- gramming. Here the best advice is to rely on highly qualified individuals or groups, either insiders or outsiders; they in turn must consider the suggestions and preferences of the partici- pants." 70 Koble and Gray, p. 40 "One important dimension to consider is that affected staff should only be involved in those planning activities which relate to a genuine and per- ceived need which they may have." p. 41: ". . . involve the appropriate staff members and their immediate supervisors in designing performance based objectives which can be accom- plished as a result of their involvement in the planning process." Koehn and Casey, p. 25: "Determine where leadership potential exists among your teaching staff and involve these teachers in helping to select specific inservice topics. . . ." Larson, p. 502: Speaking of Portland's public schools, ”. . . the District has under- way a program which seeks to involve all personnel in the 71 planning and implementing of in-service projects which respond to the identified needs of schools and teachers." p. 503: ". . . the most effective in-service activities are those which are planned and implemented by the learners Lparticipantp7." Lawrence, p. 181: "School- based programs in which teachers participate as helpers to each other and planners of in-service activities tend to have greater success in accomplish- ing their objectives than do programs which are conducted by college or other outside personnel without the assist- ance of teachers." Lutz, p. 45: "The first step in program design is the deter- mination of needs for inservice training. One emphasis of needs assessment procedures should focus on actual local needs for training: another 72 emphasis should be placed upon the implementation of instructional improvement resulting from educational research and development efforts. . . . Staff members who will be responsible for implementing the new program should participate not only in the planning stage but also contribute to the setting of implementation strategies." p. 47: "It is very important that anticipations for train- ing be clearly specified through goal statements. These directions for development will give greater meaning to planned activities and will provide direction for evalua- tion." Mangieri and McWilliams, p. 110: "This commitment [to the goals and objectives of an in-service program by the staf£7 is, to a very large degree, contingent upon the amount of staff 73 involvement prevalent in the planning stages of the program." Mattleman, p. 755: "First of all, begin by asking, not telling. Carry out a needs assessment of your group to discover the areas of weak- ness; inquire as to its strengths for future use as resources." McLaughlin and Berman, p. 192: A key factor for successful in-service education programs is, ". . . On-line planning. By this we mean a kind of project planning that began a month or two before the project started and continued all the way through it, not just the first years. . . . This mode of planning allows project guidelines and methods to be revised over time, based on changing needs and experi- ence of project staff." Meers, p. 42: "Program goals and objectives must be 74 practical in theory and functional in base. They must be reflective of what is to be accomplished. A thorough needs assessment must be conducted in order for the goals and objectives to be accurate." Miller, p. 54: "Inservice education involves setting individual and group goals. . . . Clearly delineated goals at the beginning of the program provide a means for an ongoing evaluation effort." Miller, William, p. 32: ". . . it becomes clear that inservice must be: 1. pp: operative1y_planned (involving those who are to be affected by the experience) 2. Based on carefully and cooperatively conducted needs assessment 3. Focused on high intensity needs that are as central as possible (real versus peripheral) 75 instructional improvement needs of the group." Mohan and Hull, p. 42: "By involving participants in the planning stage, relevance is achieved not only in terms of objectives, but also in selecting materials and activities for the attainment of objectives . . . when teachers participate at the planning stage, they become committed to the learning goals of the inservice pro- gram." Nadler, p. 202: "In HRD AHuman Resource Developmenp7, content arises from the needs of the learner ZIn-service participanp7, not from a previously prepared curriculum into which the learner must fit." p. 204: "£In-servicg7 learning should be based on identified needs. . . Objectives should be clari- fied. . . . Content should be related to the needs of the 76 learner, not the availability of outside resources." Ruff, p. 507: "The school district's teachers should not only be consulted as to their needs but should also take an active part in sched- uling in-service programs." Yeatts, pp. 417-418: ". . . therefore, teachers have the major say in determining what their inservice program is to be." p. 420: In discussing the elements that have lead to the success of staff devel- Opment in the Campbell County Schools, ". . . the primary element has been the extent of teacher involvement." In-service education programs should be evaluated and/or contain provisions for systematic follow-up. 77 Brimm and Tollett, p. 524: Discussing Tennessee teachers' responses to "Teacher Atti- tude Toward In-Service Education Inventory,” "An overwhelming majority (93%) of the respondents stated that teachers need to be involved in the development of pur- poses, activities, and methods of evaluation for in-service programs." "There is appar- ently little or no follow-up of in-service activities to determine if they are effec- tive or if objectives of in-service education have been met. Indicative of this is the fact that just 13 percent of the teachers surveyed stated that there is adequate follow- up to determine the effects of in-service activities in their system." Cochran, p. 9: "Adequate attention must be given to . . . making provision for effective 78 follow-up and redesign activities." Dillon (1976), p. 170: "Be- cause of the activity, rising expectations, and increasing visibility associated with staff development, peOple are legitimately asking whether substantive changes are resulting from the invest- ment. It is very important to try to evaluate staff development efforts but it is extremely difficult to establish quantitative or qualitative criteria, espe- cially in terms of student achievement. At the present time, the vast majority of staff development activities are evaluated subjectively. Essentially, participants in most staff development pro- grams evaluate them in terms of personal usefulness." Draba, p. 371: "Mechanisms for evaluating the progress 79 of the £1n-servicp7 group should be an integral part of a viable program of inservice education." Duke, p. 71: "A positive attitude toward constructive criticism and program evalua- tion on the part of the faculty must be cultivated." Eherenberg and Brandt, p. 208: "The last step in the general planning strategy is to deter- mine what criteria and procedures will be used to evaluate whether or not the sequenced activities have achieved their purpose." Firth, p. 221: "Assessment must address both program inno- vations and teacher successes." Houmes, p. 33: "As difficult as it is to generate funds for inservice training and to marshall support for change, it would certainly be incum- bent upon inservice planners to conduct outcome evaluations 80 in something other than cava- lier fashion." p. 34: ". . . and continuous follow-up are key elements of the training process." Hull, p. 48: "An important follow-up activity to any inservice session with teachers is an assessment of the results of the meeting." Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi, p. 12: "Inservice programs should be continuous and ongoing and should be subjected to continu- ous evaluation and follow-up." King, Hayes and Newman, p. 687: "The . . . last step is evalua- tion. This process, though critical to the continued refinement of local inservice programs, is often denied the attention it deserves. The logical time to begin evalua- tion planning is when the original objectives are con- sidered. Decide then what use will be made of evaluation 81 results. Selection of the evaluation instrument, iden- tification of the evaluator(s), and determination of the process to be employed will vary according to the pur- poses evaluation is to serve. Inevitably appropriate evalua- tion not only reveals the extent to which participants have benefited from the pro- gram but suggests further inservice needs." Koehn and Casey, p. 25: "Evaluate the effectiveness of the present inservice pro- gram, taking into account that when evaluation takes place, the future direction of the district inservice program will become evident." Labat, p. 18: Speaking of a District of Columbia staff development program for de- centralization, "Evaluation was included as a critical aspect of each specific 82 program. Although we were encouraged by the results of each evaluation, we were more enthusiastic about the variety of staff development activi- ties generated at the local school and regional levels. This implies that there is adequate follow-up on the summer staff development effort." Lutz, p. 46: "The evaluation process should be designed as a complete, thorough and rigorous testing process. . . ." p. 47: The training program and "planned follow-up activities" make for better informed and trained teachers. "The evaluation scheme should include an appraisal of the effectiveness of each phase . . . of the program." Meers, p. 43: "The inservice directors must follow-up on these activities for two major reasons. First, to see if the 83 information they are providing is usable and worthwhile; and second, to see if teachers are able to transfer the techniques and knowledge to their own specific instructional setting. These follow-up activities could include discussion groups, mailed surveys, tele- phone surveys, on-site visits, etc." Miller, pp. 54-55: ". . . some form of group follow- up must be provided . . . individual help on a back- home basis must be provided." p. 55: "An evaluation plan is provided as an integral part of inservice education. Goals, individual and group, with their related criteria pro- vide the primary basis for evaluation . . . an adequate plan of evaluation provides a system to measure outcomes resulting from inservice programs. Both process and 84 product evaluation should be included in the process. . . . Evaluation must occur through- out the program to allow for process and ongoing product measurements. Feed-in should be obtained from participants as well as other local agency personnel. Results from what- ever procedures are used should be shared with parti- cipants and/or be evident in changes which result from these procedures." Miller, William, p. 32: ". . . it becomes clear that in-service must be: . . . Evaluated on the basis of the changes engendered in the individual's work situation (school or classroom) and on the impact of these new be- haviors on those with whom they work (faculty or students)." Mohan and Hull, p. 44: Evalua- tion should assess the extent . . . to which the program 85 is producing the desired changes in the participants." The follow-up should deal with the question, "To what extent are the participants applying those understandings, skills and behaviors which were pre- sented and practiced in the inservice program?" ". . . the follow-up should also include collection of data on student performance." Nadler, p. 202: "Evaluation of the iIn-servicg7 experience should be in observable job behavior." O'Connor, p. 360: ". . . evaluation on a regular basis keeps the program functional, effective, and open to experi- mentation." Plumleigh, p. 35: ". . . that follow-up assignments and assessment of teacher skills are vital parts of the program." Wilson and Winstanley, p. 38: "Evaluation of in-service is 86 difficult at best. Perhaps a multiphased evaluation provides the best insights into the effect of an in- service intervention." Yeatts, p. 420: "Evaluation of the program is on—going and conducted in several ways." The preceding four criteria are presented as a screen- ing device through which the activities of an educational institution with regard to in-service education practices may be examined. In the following chapter the procedures used for this study are described. FOOTNOTES lDewey A. Adams, "Significant Trends in Professional Development," American Vocational Journal, 51:7, (October 1976). 2Russell M. Agne and Edward R. Ducharme, "Rearranging the Parts: A Modest Proposal for Continuing and Inservice Education," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March- April 1977). 3Barbara Ainsworth, "Teachers Talk About Inservice Education," Journal of Teacher Education, 27:2, (Summer 1976). 4John E. Arena, "How to Individualize Inservice Training," Educational Technology, 14:11, (November 1974). 5Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, "1979 ASCD Resolutions," ASCD News Exchange, 21:3, (April 1979). 6Marvin M. Beckerman, "Educational Change Agents: An 'Inside - Outside' Team," Educational Leadership, 30:6, (March 1973). 7T. H. Bell, "Challenges for Inservice Vocational Education," Theory Into Practice, 14:1, (February 1975). 8Arthur Berkey and William Drake, "A Joint Approach to Meeting In-Service Needs," Agricultural Education, 48:11, (May 1976). 9Barbara Bird, "Interinstitutional WorkshOp: A Change Model of In-Service Education," New Campus 27, (Spring 1974). 10Gene Bottoms, "Responsibilities of Local School Systems, State Departments of Education, Institutions of Higher Education, And Professional Organizations for In- Service Education," Rethinking In-Service Education, Roy A. Edelfelt and Margo Johnson, eds. (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1975). 87 88 11James B. Boyer and Norbert Maertens, "School - University Coalitions for Reality - Based Instruction," Educational Leadership, 32:5, (February 1975). 12Frederick G. Braun, "The Education Professor as In- Service Leader," Educational Perspectives, 14:4, (December 1975). 13Jack L. Brimm and Daniel J. Tollett, "How Do Teachers Feel About In-Service Education?" Educational Leadership, 31:6, (March 1974). l4Mason R. Bunker, "Beyond Inservice: Toward Staff Renewal," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March- April 1977). 15Robert N. Bush, "We Know How to Train Teachers: Why Not Do Sol" Journal of Teacher Education, 28:6, (November-December 1977). 16Gordon Cawelti, "Must We Systematize Curriculum Building?" Educational Leadership, 31:6, (March 1974). l7Ted C. Cobun, "Inservice Education," International Journal of Instructional Media, 3:2 (1975-1976). 18Leslie H. Cochran, "Inservice Education: Passive - Complacent - Reality," Theory Into Practice, 14:1, (February 1975). 19Paul R. Daniels and Maurice J. O'Connell, "A 'Float- ing Faculty' - An Intensive Inservice Technique," Educational Leadership, 33:5, (February 1976). 20William J. Davis and Frederick P. Frank, "A Design for Inservice Professional Development for School Princi- pals," Catalyst for Change, 6:3, (Spring 1977). 21June S. Delano, "In-Service Change," Educational Leadership, 32:8, (May 1975). 22Betty Dillon, "Innovation and Collaboration - A Public School Educator Speaks," Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, 25:3, (Fall 1974). 23Elizabeth A. Dillon, "Staff Development: Bright Hope or Empty Promise?” Educational Leadership, 34:3 (December 1976). 24Robert E. Draba, "Guidelines for Viable Inservice Education," Journal of Reading, 18:5, (February 1975). 89 25Daniel Linden Duke, "Deve10ping a Comprehensive In- Service Program for School Improvement," NASSP Bulletin, 61:408, (April 1977). 26Wesley P. Eddy, "How Successful Are the British Teachers' Centers?" Educational Leadership, 31:6, (March 1974). 27Roy A. Edelfelt, "Inservice Education of Teachers: Priority for the Next Decade," Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, 25:3 (February 1974). 28Roy A. Edelfelt, "The School of Education and In- service Education," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March-April 1977). 29Roy A. Edelfelt and Gordon Lawrence, "In-Service Education: The State of the Art,“ Rethinking In-Service Education, Roy A. Edelfelt and Margo Johnson, eds. (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1975). 3oLyle M. Ehrenberg and Ronald S. Brandt, "Improved Student Learning: A Necessary Goal of Staff Development," Educational Leadership, 34:3, (December 1976). 31William Ernst, "What Makes a Workshop Jell?" Educational Leadership, 31:6, (March 1974). 32Lynda C. Falkenstein, "Action Learning: A Model for In-Service Teacher Education," Clearing House, 50:5, (January 1977). 33Gerald Firth, "Ten Issues on Staff Development," Educational Leadership, 35:3, (December 1977). 34Dudley Fiske, "In-Service Training: An LEA Appraisal, Trends in Education, 33, (May 1974). 35Robert 8. Fox and Don A. Griffin, "A New Model for In-Service: When Clients and Resources Cooperate for Growth," Educational LeadershiEj 31:6, (March 1974). 36Nevin R. Frantz Jr., "Inservice Education for Indi- vidualizing Instruction in Multioccupational Programs," Theory Into Practice, 14:1, (February 1975). 37Roger H. Garrison, "A Mini-Manual on In-Service," Community and Junior College Journal, 45:9, (June-July 1975). 90 38Roland Goddu, Jeanie Crosby and Sara Massey, "In- service: The Professional Development of Educators,“ Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March-April 1977). 39John M. Hale, Administrator's Guide to Training Paraprofessionals (Englewood Falls, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1972). 40Ben M. Harris, Warland Bessent, and Kenneth E. McIntire, In-Service Education: A Guide to Better Practice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969). 41Raymond Hendee, "Editorial - Toward Effective Staff Development Plans and Programs," Educational Leadership, 34:3, (December 1976). 42Doe Hentschel, "Change Theory Applied to Inservice Education," Planningyand Changing, 8:2, (Summer 1977). 43James T. Horner and Richard L. Douglass, "Individual- ize In-Service Education," Agricultural Education Magazine, 48:11, (May 1976). 44Wendell M. Hough, "School-University Partnership for Teacher Growth," Educational Leadership, 32:5, (February 1975). 4SGary Houmes, "Revitalizing Inservice Training for Change," Educational Technology, 14:12, (December 1974). 46Kenneth R. Howey and Reynold Willie, "A Missing Link in School Renewal: The Program and Staff Deve10pment Specialist," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March- April 1977). 47William L. Hull, "Installing Innovations Via In- service Education," Theornynto Practice, 14:1, (February 1975). 48Gary M. Ingersoll, "Assessing Inservice Training Needs Through Teachers Responses," Journal of Teacher Education, 27:2, (Summer 1976). 49John H. Jenny, "In-Service Education: Whose Responsibility?” Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, 45:5, (May 1974). 50Darrell Jensen, Loren Betz and Patricia Zigarmi, "If You Are Listening to Teachers, Here Is How You Will Organize Inservice," NASSP Bulletin, 62:417, (April 1978). 91 51Margo Johnson, "Looking Back at Thinking Ahead: 87 Educators in Session," Rethinking In-Service Education, Roy A. Edelfelt and Margo Johnson, eds. (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975). 52Stanley H. Jeffers and Doleres McDaniels, "Building A Preservice-In-Service Teacher Education Continuum: The Washington Experience," Rethinking In-Service Education, Roy A. Edelfelt and Margo Johnson, eds. (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975). 53Lilian G. Katz, "The Advisory Approach to Inservice Training," Journal of Teacher Education, 25:2, (Summer 1974). 54James C. King, Paul C. Hayes and Isadore Newman, "Some Requirements for Successful Inservice Education," Phi Delta Kappan, 58:9, (May 1977). 55Paul Kirby, "In-Service Education: The University's Role," Educational Leadership, 30:5, (February 1973). 56Daniel E. Koble Jr., and Kenney E. Gray, "The Plan- ning Process as an Inservice Activity," Theory Into Practice, 14:1, (February 1975). 57John J. Koehn and Judith R. Casey, "Beyond the Myth of Formal Inservice," Thrust for Educational Leadership, 6:5, (May 1977). 58Margaret G. Labat, "Problems and Issues of Staff Deve10pment,” Staff Development: Staff Liberation, . Charles W. Beegle and Roy A. Edelfelt, eds. (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, 1977). 59Robert C. Lafayette, "Planning and Implementing a Successful Worksh0p," Foreign Langpage Annals, 10:6, (December 1977). 60Vera M. Larson, "Portland's In-Service Involves All Professional Personnel," Educational Leadership, 31:6, (March 1974). 61Gordon Lawrence, "Patterns of Effective In-Service Education." Unpublished state of the art paper. Tallahassee, Florida: State Department of Education, 1974. 62Ronald Lippitt and Robert Fox, "Development and Maintenance of Effective Classroom Learning." Improving In-Service Education, Louis J. Rubin, ed., (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972). 92 63John E. Lutz, "Inservice Personnel Development: A Systematic Approach to Program Planning," Educational Technology, 16:4, (April 1976). 64James B. Macdonald, "Scene and Context: American Society Today," Staff Development: Staff Liberation, Charles W. Beegle and Roy A. Edelfelt, eds. (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1977). 65Theodore Manolakes, "The Advisory System and Super- vision," Professional Supervision for Professional Teachers, Thomas J. Sergiovanni, ed., (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1975). 66John N. Mangieri and David R. McWilliams, "Designing an Effective Inservice Program," Journal of Teacher Education, 27:2, (Summer 1976). 67Marciene S. Mattleman, "Staff Development: Band- Aid or Treatment?" Educational Leadership, 30:8, (May 1973). 68Milbrey McLaughlin and Paul Berman, "Retooling Staff Development in a Period of Retrenchment," Educational Leadership, 35:3, (December 1977). 69Pierce H. McLeod, "A New Move Toward Preservice and In-Service Teacher Education," Educational Leadership, 32:5, (February 1975). 70Edward J. Meade Jr., "No Health In Us," Improving In-Service Education, Louis J. Rubin, ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971). 71Gary D. Meers, "Inservice Programs for Preparing Special Needs Personnel," Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 14:4, (Summer 1977). 72Michigan Department of Education, Professional Development for School Staffs, The Michigan Approach. 73Melvin Miller, "A State Model for Vocational In- service Education,” Theory Into Practice, 14:1, (February 1975). 74William C. Miller, "What's Wrong With In-Service Education? It's Topless!" Educational Leadership, 35:1, (October 1977). 93 7SMadan Mohan and Ronald E. Hull, "A Model for In- service Education of Teachers," Educational Technology, 15:2, (February 1975). 76Leonard Nadler, "Learning From Non-School Staff DeveIOpment Activities," Educational Leadership, 34:3, (December 1976). 77Kevin O'Connor, "Initiating Program for Teacher Development," Notre Dame Journal of Education, 6:6, (Winter 1975). 78James L. Olovero, "Helping Teachers Grow Profession- ally," Educational Leadership, 34:3, (December 1976). 79Allan L. Olson, "Can We Individualize Inservice Education of Teachers?" Educational Technology, 14:11, (November 1974). 80Vito Perrone, et. al., "An Inservice Program for Teachers. The Teacher as a Student of Teaching," Today's Education, 65:4, (November-December 1976). 81William Plaster, "Providing Inservices," Thrust for Educational Leadership, 5:3, (January 1976). 82George Plumleigh, "How Los Alamitos Nurtures Its Own Crop of Competent Teachers," American School Board Journal, 164:1, (January 1977). 83Vera E. Reilly and Myron H. Dembo, "TeacherS' View of Inservice Education: A Question of Confidence," Phi Delta Kappan, 57:2, (October 1975). 84Joseph S. Renzulli, "Instructional Management Systems: A Model for Organizing and Developing In-Service Training Workshops," Gifted Child Quarterly, 21:2, (Summer 1977). 85Thomas P. Ruff, "How to Use the Consultant," Educa- tional Leadership, 31:6, (March 1974). 86Earl B. Russell, "Upgrading Curricula Through Change- Oriented Teachers," Theopnynto Practice, 14:1, (February 1975). 87Peter Seldin, "The Twenty Day Program," Clearing House, 49:4, (December 1975). 88Callie P. Shingleton, "Accountability and Staff Development," Staff Development: Staff Liberation, Charles W. Beegle and Roy A. Edelfelt, eds. (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1977). 94 89E. Brooks Smith, "Improvement of In-Service Educa- tion: A Collaborative Effort," Rethinking In-Service Education, Roy A. Edelfelt and Margo Johnson, eds. (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975). 90E. Brooks Smith, "Partnership in Teacher Education Revisited," Journal of Teacher Education, 25:3, (Fall 1974). 91Barbara Underwood and Robert Underwood, "Concerns of Jr. High School and Middle School Teachers: A Framework for In-Service," Clearing House, 51:1, (September 1977). 92Robert M. Wilson and Harold J. Winstanley, "In- Service Evaluation," Reading World, 16:1, (October 1976). 93Wayne Winterton, "Let's Get Serious About Inservice," Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2, (March-April 1977). 94Edward H. Yeatts, "Staff Development: A Teacher- Centered In-Service Design," Educational Leadership, 33:6, (March 1976). 95Larry Zenke, "Staff Development in Florida," Educa- tional Leadership, 34:3, (December 1976). 96Don Zingale, "Theory Into Practice: An In-Service Approach," Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 46:9, (November-December 1975). 97Patricia Zigarmi, Loren Betz and Darrell Jensen, "Teachers' Preferences in and Perceptions of In-Service Education," Educational Leadership, 34:7, (April 1977). CHAPTER III PROCEDURES This chapter includes a brief summary of Chapter 11, an investigation of the data sources, a listing of the data sources, a description of the procedures adhered to in col- lecting the data, and an explanation of the method used to analyze the data. Summapy of Chapter II From a review of the literature forty principles for successful in-service education were extracted. These principles, for purposes of organization, were grouped into five major categories: (1) responsibility for in-service education; (2) the in-service education program; (3) time commitment for in-service education; (4) the confluence of theory and practice; and (5) evaluation and/or follow-up for in-service education. Four evaluative criteria were then developed. The activities of a school district with regard to in-service education may be examined using these as a screening device: 1. The school district should view in-service education as a mutual, collaborative effort between itself and various educational interests. 95 96 2. The school district administrators and members of the board of education should view the in-service education of the staff as a top priority item evidenced by an organizational structure that encourages the initiation of in-service education programs, is well funded, contains provisions for long-term planning based on established goals and priorities, and includes other types of resource allocations. 3. In-service education programs should show evidence of a broadly based planning effort built upon identi- fied needs and established goals, with representation from those who are to participate. 4. In-service education programs should be evaluated and/or contain provisions for systematic follow-up. Sources of Data The data used in this study came from a number of sources. The sources may be classified into two major divisions, human and material. The people who acted as resources include most of those who have been closely affiliated with the in-service practices of the Waverly School District over the past ten years. Some of these staff members are no longer affiliated with the Waverly Schools but may still be considered worth- while sources of data. Material resources include progress reports from in- service education planners to the Superintendent, informal staff memorandums, coorespondence with agencies and individ- uals not employed with the Waverly School District, minutes from various staff meetings, minutes of the Board of 97 Education's meetings, minutes of various in-service edu- cation committees, district newsletters and other publications, needs assessments, evaluations of in-service education programs and reports to the Superintendent assessing in-service education activities. These materials are on file at the Educational Services and Administrative Center of the Waverly School District in Lansing, Michigan. Categpries of Sources of Evidence More specifically the sources of evidence are as follows: Board of Education Agendas Minutes of Board of Education Meetings Cumulative Files for In-Service, Division of Instruction Curriculum Development Committee Agendas Minutes of the Curriculum DevelOpment Committee's Meetings The Weekly Staff Newsletter Needs Assessment Survey Resource File of Topic Ideas for In-Service Education Teacher In-Service Planning Committee Agendas Teacher In-Service Planning Committee Minutes The District Newsletter Proposals for In-Service Programs Reports on Special Projects Formal Letters From Staff to Staff Staff Memorandums Staff Correspondence with Resource Personnel 98 Correspondence From Resource PeOple with Staff Preliminary Drafts of PrOposals for In-Service Programs Personal Interviews with Waverly Staff Personnel Personal Notes of Staff Members Personal Notes of the Writer District Goals and Objectives, 1978-1979 Procedures for Data Collection Data for this study were collected in several ways. Present Waverly School District personnel who have been active in the design and implementation of in-service edu- cation programs or who have had major responsibilities for such programs were interviewed. The Superintendent of the Waverly School District granted the writer permission to examine all pertinent material that the District had on file dealing with its in-service education programs. A number of visits were made to the Waverly School District's Educational Services and Administrative Center in Lansing, Michigan, where com- plete c00peration was given by the central administration staff in investigating the District's in-service education materials. A number of printed materials and personal notes of in-service meetings and planning sessions had been collected by the writer over a seven-year period. These were also used as data sources. 99 Procedures for Analysis of the Data The four criteria that composed the screening device were used to analyze the data. The data sources were investigated for evidence related to each of the criteria. Notes and direct quotes relating to each of the criterion of the screening device were taken from every source. Each of the criteria was focussed upon separately, not as a group. In order to determine possible changes in the Waverly School District's in-service education practices over the time span of this study attention was also given to the chronological order of the data. Every attempt was made to ascertain all the facts related to the Waverly School District's in-service educa- tion practices. Each data source was weighted equally. Unofficial sources of data were considered in the same light as the more formal, official evidence. Every attempt was made to discover the intentions of those who developed, implemented, evaluated or otherwise significantly participated in the in-service education programs of the Waverly School District. Chapter Four presents the four criteria with the data gathered as evidence for each. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction The in-service education activities of an educational institution, the Waverly School District, were examined through the use of a screening device. The screening device consisted of four criteria which had been developed as major characteristics for successful in-service education prac- tices. l. The screening device is as follows: The school district should view in-service education as a mutual, collaborative effort between itself and various educational interests. The school district administrators and mem- bers of the board of education should view the in-service education of the staff as a top priority item evidenced by an organi- zational structure that encourages the initiation of in-service education pro- grams, is well funded, contains provisions for long-term planning based on established goals and priorities, and includes other types of resource allocations. In-service education programs should show evidence of a broadly based planning effort built upon identified needs and established goals, with representation from those who are to participate. In-service education programs should be evaluated and/or contain provisions for systematic follow-up. 100 101 Evidence is provided for each criterion. In many cases the evidence supports more than one of the criteria. The evidence is presented in chronological order where possible. Supporting Evidence CRITERION ONE: THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD VIEW IN-SERVICE EDUCATION AS A MUTUAL, COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN ITSELF AND VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL INTERESTS. There is ample evidence to indicate that the Waverly School District, during the time span of this study, col- laborated with various educational interests in an attempt to provide in-service education programs for its staff. During the 1968-69 school year the Waverly School District undertook a massive study of its educational system, K through 12. The project was directed by Dr. James E. Heald and resulted in a three-volume document entitled The Waverly Schools Educational Study. The design of this study was to present the curriculum of the Waverly Schools in an organized manner. Major emphasis was given to the "curriculum as it currently exists in Waverly with- "1 Numerous staff members worked with out embellishments. consultants from Michigan State University in an attempt to assess the present state of the educational program at the Waverly School District. In-service released time was pro- vided for this purpose by the district.2 The study, although its major function was descrip- tive, did present to the Waverly School District certain 102 areas that needed improvement and recommendations on how to accomplish such. Throughout the study the use of in-service education released time is advocated. In the section deal- ing with "The Guidance And Pupil Personnel Services" the following was suggested: Provision should be made for in-service training of the entire faculty in the use of all personnel data regarding students in a manner Similar to that which has been developed for the standardized tests materials. . . . After the initial program has been completed, such in-service training should be a part of the orientation program for all new teachers who enter the system each year. 3 The same section of the report went on to recommend that the guidance staff report to work one week earlier than the teaching staff in order to "assist with teacher orientation and in-service training programs."4 At a meeting in April, 1969, the Waverly Board of Education recognized the importance of in-service educa- tion and attempted to establish guidelines for the conduct of in-service education activities as they related to the use of released time: Faculty seminars, training sessions, and meet- ings shall - whenever possible - be held at such times as will not interfere with regularly scheduled periods of classroom instruction and shall never be held at such times as require dismissal or cancellation of regularly sched- uled clasgroom instruction without prior Board approval. The school district acknowledged its obligation to co- operate with other educational interest groups within the district as well as with the federal government in a 1969 Board of Education motion dealing with the Learning Center 103 Program. The Learning Center was established for student use but was also to serve as an in-service education center for teachers. The Board motion, passed on August 13, 1969, states: The Waverly Schools shall continue their participation in the Learning Center Program for the 1969-70 year with the knowledge that further reductions in federal funding can be anticipated in the future. A committee shall be established of unbiased citizens of the district, with representatives of the Waverly staff, to study and become aware of the Opera- tion of the Learning Center, its costs and evaluate the program with resulting recom- mendations being made to the Superintendent.6 On a number of occasions during the time span of this study the Waverly School District cooperated with Michigan State University by offering summer workshops that also earned the participants college credit. The Waverly School system, in conjunction with MSU, will offer a two week summer workshop for Waverly elementary teachers. This class is designed as Ed. 882, section 107, at MSU . . . locatiop will be the Leapning Center at Bretton Woods Aelementary school/. In an in-service memo of April, 1970, it was recom- mended that the Waverly School District supplement its outside consultants with consultants from its own staff.8 The Mondangeport of March 22, 1971, illustrates the desire of the district to offer in-service education experi- ences for its teachers by again collaborating with Michigan State University. Teachers are encouraged to consider enrolling in an off-campus M.S.U. Course - Ed. 881 - Workshop in Education, 'DevelOping A Space - Science Curriculum.‘ This 3 credit seminar will be taught at the Space - Science Lab in Waverly-West Junior High. 104 A December, 1976, memorandum indicates that the Waverly School District collaborated with Michigan State University for a program that benefited both students and teachers. Dr. John Baldwin of Michigan State University presented the Metric Show to elementary students and then . . . The group (from MSU) will return from 3:30-4:30 to provide in-service help for teachers on Feb. 15. This will be one component of the in-service acifivities planned on that day at Waverly West. A September, 1977, letter focussed on the district's intent to cooperate further with Michigan State University. Enclosed is an honorarium as an expression of our appreciation. We hope you will visit Waverly whenever you have the opportunity. If I can ever help you in any way that you might want the resources of a c00perating school for your students, or in any other project of mutual cooperatigp, please do not hesitate to call on me. At the request of the staff a consultant was brought in to conduct a workshop for secondary school teachers of writing: Dr. George Hough, Chairman of the School of Journalism from M.S.U. spoke to the combined English departments about his philosophy of teaching writing, how they do it at M.S.U., and the writing deficiencies he sees in kids as they come to M.S.U. From my vantage point, he seemed well-received and spent about 45 minutes answering questions from the floor. . . . 12 At the February 7, 1977, meeting of the Curriculum Deve10pment Committee a considerable amount of time was spent discussing the possibility of allowing teachers to receive credit through Michigan State University for in- service education work they did on the district's curriculum management project.13 105 In 1977 six members of the high school staff were in- volved in a pilot project through Michigan State University. The project was funded by the Michigan Department of Educa- tion. A letter from the high school principal to the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction asked for release time and outlined the advantages to the district for staff participation: As you are aware, the high school is part of a pilot project involved in a state funded proposal entitled 'Employability Skills Project‘ with Michigan State University. One of the objectives of the project is to field test the training program on 500 educators throughout the state. The Lansing area worksh0p is being held at Michigan State University May 16 and 17, and I am recommending the following five staff members be given two days of release time so that they may attend. . . . Barb Atkins is one of the 30 state trainers and she will be head trainer for the workshop at Michigan State University which will in- clude approximately 35 educators from the area. There are many reasons why continued participa- tion at this time would be beneficial--(l) it is good public relations for the district and especially for the high school. (2) We will receive many of the materials and resources that have been developed through the project free of charge. (3) This is a similar type of curriculum that we are planning to develop and implement on a five-year plan in the high school, so we will have the unique opportunity to review the system before we actually develop our own. In 1979 the State Legislature of Michigan "appropriated $3,200,000 for a local entitlement program for staff develop- ment including Career Education."15 Section 97 of the 1979 State Aid Act presented school districts with three options: 106 (1) they could choose not to apply for any of the appro- priated funds; (2) they could choose to apply as a local school district; or (3) they could participate in the formation of a consortium.of school districts and apply for funds through that agency.16 Districts whose profes- sional staff numbered under 750 members were to receive "17 "$25.00 per professional staff member. Districts or a consortium with 750 or more professional staff members were to receive $35.00 per professional staff member.18 During August and September of 1979 the Waverly School District collaborated with other districts in the area to form.the Ingham County Professional Staff Development Con- sortiuml The decision to join the consortium was made by the administration of the Waverly School District and the leadership of the Waverly Education Association. Teacher representation on the Policy Board of the Consortium was established through legislation: It is critical for district administration and the leadership of the teacher collective bargain- ing agent to meet to discuss possible consortia and policy board membership . . . the local bargaining agent, by legislation, is responsible for appointing the policy board teacher represen- tatives. . . . The policy board is required by legislation to have at least 11 members with a majority of teachers selected by the local bar- gaining agent or elected by all teachers where there is no local bargaining agent. The remainder of the board shall be composed of local boards of education, administrators or other support person- nel. Representatives of higher education may be included on the policy board, but are not required. By participating in the consortium the Waverly School District indicated a willingness to practice many of the 107 criteria for successful in-service education as established from the literature. A broadly based planning effort built upon identified needs, teacher representation in the planning stages, the use of needs assessments, and collaboration with other agencies are all reflected in the following summary statement of the consortium's purpose: The purpose of the entitlement is for inter— mediate and local school districts or consortia of local school districts to plan and deliver staff development programs based on identified needs of teachers, administrators and other school personnel. The process for determining the focus of staff development programs is through the establishment of a policy board comprised of a majority of teachers. It is very important for the effective implementa- tion of the staff development program as described in this legislation that the policy board spend time developing procedures for planning. The most important aspect of the first year of Operation will be the emergence of the policy board as the body which deter- mines inservice priorities and plans programs based on identified needs. The intent of the language emphasizes a shared decision making approach to professional staff develOpment and utilization of existing resources including local and intermediate school districts, institutions of higher education and community colleges. The legislation offers an opportunity for educators to collaborate in the identifica- tion, planning and delivery of professional staff development programs. The Ingham County Professional Staff DevelOpment Con- sortium, and through it the Waverly School District, indicated the importance it placed upon identifying needs, teacher representation in the planning process, and the evaluation of in-service education programs by making pro- visions for these criteria in the Policy Board Constitution: 108 All proposed programs submitted for Policy Board approval must be based on needs identified by a needs assessment process involving those who would be affected. The people who are to be affected by the inservice should be involvgg in the plan- ning and evaluation of it. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion One.--The school district should view in-service education as a mutual, collaborative effort between itself and various educational interests. The collaboration of the Waverly School District with other educational interest groups was the result of a con- scious effort by the school district throughout the time span of this study. It was done by using consultants, offer- ing college credit workshops with Michigan State University, participating in State of Michigan, Department of Education projects, using citizen advisory groups, joining a profes- sional staff deve10pment consortium, and by c00perating with the teachers' collective bargaining agent. 109 CRITERION TWO: THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD VIEW IN- SERVICE EDUCATION OF THE STAFF AS A TOP PRIORITY ITEM EVIDENCED BY AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT ENCOURAGES THE INITIATION OF IN-SERVICE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, IS WELL FUNDED, CONTAINS PROVISIONS FOR LONG-TERM PLANNING BASED ON ESTABLISHED GOALS AND PRIORITIES, AND INCLUDES OTHER TYPES OF RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS. The district has seen in-service education as a top priority item since its inception. In its district goals for 1978-79, listed twelfth among nineteen, was the follow- ing: To assess, evaluate and implement the district comprehensive professionalzgevelopment inservice program for all personnel. The encouragement of the initiation of in-service educa- tion programs, short-term funding, and representation of various educational interest groups is reflected in Article XIII of the Master Agreement for Certified Teaching Personnel, 1979-81. In the interest of system-wide curriculum improvement, the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction and an advisory body of three teachers and one administrator shall c00perate as a committee to encourage and facilitate curriculum evaluation and change. Teacher members of the Curriculum Development Committee shall be selected by the Association. Additional ad hoc members may include, but not necessarily be limited to, one parent and one student. Ad hoc members of the committee shall be appointed by, and serve at the direction of, the committee. 110 Teachers, administrators, citizens or students wishing to pursue a specific and defined area of curriculum improvement may submit proposals for curriculum research and/or experimentation to the committee. Such proposals shall follow guides and restrictions established and pub- lished by the committee. Research and/or experimentation grants shall be allowed upon the recommendation of the com- mittee and the approval of the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction. Terms of the grant, including the expectations and obliga- tions of those receiving the grant shall be delineated in a written agreement prior to approving the grant. For the purpose of funding such grants, the Board of Education shall yearly provide up to eighty (80) teacher release days and up to $5,000. Proposals when carried through to completion, will be reported to and evaluated by the Curriculum DevelOpment Committee. Further study or recommended implementation will be at the discretion of the committee. The committee shall annually report an account- ing of theia activities to the Superintendent of Schools. 3 An article in the October 29, 1973, edition of the Monday Report encouraged the use of the Curriculum Develop- ment Committee as established in the Master Agreement. Curriculum Development Proposals . . . As provided in the WEA/Board Master Agreement (pp. 45-46), teachers, administrators, citizens or students are invited to submit prOposals for curriculum research and/or experimentation to the Curriculum Develop- ment Committee. Examples of recent projects sponsored by C.D.C. are the Waverly-West Reading Center, a "Mastery Check" system for intermediate science (ISCS), the Volunteer Aide Project and Elmwood performance objectives workshop. . . . Requests for projects involving "teacher release days" shoulg be submitted as soon as possible. . . . 111 Funding, for short-term projects required in-service education release time, is also available through the Curriculum DevelOpment Committee. A new account has been set up for the High School Curriculum Management Project. Efforts are being made to make budget adjustments so that sufficient money can be put into this account to cover the costs involved in the Steering Committee's released time request. The Cur- riculum Committee agreed, by concensus, that we would approve the request with the under- standing that every attempt will be made to make budget adjustments that will reserve some funding for other possible gistrict projects which may be prOposed.2 Funding from sources other than the district was also considered, especially for in-service education programs that were viewed as on-going over a period of years. Because we are seeking outside funding, the committee has seen fit not to allocate all its funds, but instead encourage the curriculum management people to continue their work. The reason for this position is that were we to allocate all funds, we would not have adequately been able to fund everyone and perhaps at the exclggion of others who had proposals of merit. A 1978 letter from the Superintendent to the adminis- trators and teachers of the district indicates that the district attempted to make long-term plans based on estab- lished goals and priorities. Our Inservice Program on Nov. 13 has been planned to evolve around the nineteen (l9) district-wide objectives approved by the Waverly Board of Education for the 1978-79 school year. In our second year of operation under an objective format, it was our intent to pro- vide greater opportunity for staff input and though we were unable to meet this goal in planning for 1978-79, it is hoped 112 that with the passage of the millage for the next two years, we will meet the goal of staff and community input in our planning for the coming year. I am hopeful that this inservice will provide you with an increased awareness of the Dis- trict objectives for 1978-79 while providing the administration and Board with your input as to how you perceive the process of objective setting and any suggestions or comments you might have regardigg the accomplishment of these objectives. Although the Curriculum Development Committee has been the major vehicle for teacher initiated projects requiring in-service education, often direct communication with the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction is the initial step in the process of establishing an in-service education program. A 1977 letter from a high school physical educa- tion teacher recommended, ". . . that a physical education curriculum study be instituted to develop a K-12 program."28 An attempt to institutionalize in-service education programs as well as provide time during the work day for them can be seen from the following memorandum to the Super- intendent dated December, 1973. We are all aware of the need for in-service time for staff members at the various levels of instruction. As we have introduced new programs in recent years the effectiveness of them has been limited because we have not provided the necessary orientation for the teachers. Staff members have expressed a desire for in-service programs. We have attempted to schedule some voluntary activities after school hours. This has some positive effect but does not reach all the pe0ple and does not assure positive results. A truely effective staff deve10pment program requires participation of all concerned in a 113 carefully planned structured workshop with clearly defined objectives and expectations. This really requires in-service time in half day or full day increments. The major mechanism for in-service education programs in the Waverly schools has been the use of teacher released time. The use of released time over the years indicates that the district views in-service education as a tOp priority item. The successful use of such time is predicated upon the availability of substitute teachers. During the 1978-79 school year acquiring substitutes became a serious problem.30 As early as 1974 the district began to receive indications that substitute teachers were no longer readily available: The availability of substitute teachers is such that it is difficult to bring subs for half- days, especially when we're using a relatively large number on the same day.3 During a November 3, 1976, meeting of the Curriculum Deve10pment Committee a discussion centered around the use of in-service education time for the development of curricu- lum.32 The Assistant Superintendent for Instruction agreed with committee members as to the need to better organize the process through which curriculum and in—service released time for its development was allocated: . . . we are seeking to have a more structured, orderly process with the Curriculum Development Committee having more responsibility as a dis- trict Steering Committee. 3 At the Waverly School District the Curriculum Develop- ment Committee has been the major agent through which teacher instituted released days for teacher planned 114 in-service education programs were acquired. In a letter to the members of this committee the Superintendent of Schools outlined the major responsibilities and functions of the committee as be viewed it. Its overall role in the organizational structure of the school district is best expressed in the following: I ask that the Curriculum Development Committee coordinate and monitor the progress of the various committees charged with accomplishing district curriculum objectives. Your committee will re- view their reports and prOposals and make recommendations to the Superintendent consistent with long-range district plans. You will also be involved in cooperation with parents, stu- dents, and other staff members in carrying out needs assessments which will lead to the deter- mination of short- and long-range district objectives. Your evaluation of committee pr0posals and analysis of various alternatives leading to decisions should be based upon concepts of: 1) providing the best possible education with finite resources, and 2) maintaining balance in allocation of personnel, facilities, and funds approgiiated to defined district priorities. The Curriculum Development Committee receives proposals for projects from staff members and determines which to fund and to what extent. Budgeting has consisted of $5,000 a year and 80 teacher release days.35 The projects accepted are on a one-year basis. Staff members who initiate a project are asked to appear before the committee for questions and discussion: The Curriculum Development Committee met on June 7 and discussed the proposal your departments have jointly submitted for sum- mer workshop time to work on the course of study in 'Survival.‘ Our committee would like to meet with representatives of your 115 group to discuss the project. . . . Please have representatives of your group present to meet with us at approximately 3:45 p.m. We shall try to keep it a brief session. Release time has also been used to allow staff members to plan for in-service education programs: As per our telephone conversation on Thursday, May 26, 1977, I would like to confirm 1 release day for the High School Curriculum Committee members to work on planning our summer curriculum workshop.37 During the 1978-79 school year the Waverly School Dis- trict created a Teacher Inservice Planning Committee. The basic purpose of this committee was to deal with the district- wide in-service time allotted by the Master Agreement.38 The following cover letter that was distributed to all mem- bers of the committee is indicative of the district's awareness of many of the criteria for successful in-service education programs: The literature indicates that the best in- services, and those which teachers view as most successful, are teacher-generated. In this regard, the importance of a teacher inservice planning committee is essential. The Planning Committee for Waverly Schools is presently representative of at least one teacher from each of our buildings. Some of the functions of a good inservice planning committee are (1) needs assessment of the teaching staff, (2) planning inservice objectives, (3) publicity prior to the in- service, (4) recommendation of resources to deliver the inservice, (5) evaluation of the inservice, and (6) follow up. Following is a more detailed look at each of the above functions: 116 1. Needs Assessment of the Teaching Staff. Each committee member is responsible for conducting a coordinated needs assessment of their building to find out what their colleagues need and desire in the way of staff deve10pment. 2. Planning of Inservice Objectives. Each member, working with the committee, assists in develop- ing objectives for each inservice, consistent with the needs assessment conducted. 3. Publicity Prior to the Inservice. Each committee member assumes the responsiblity in their building for coordinating publicity prior to the inservice, i.e. supplying information on the presenters, seeing that posters indicate the program to come, etc. 4. Recommendation of Resources to Deliver Inservice. Each committee member makes recommendations, where possible, for resources and resource personnel to assist each inservice. 5. Evaluation of the Inservice. Each committee member assists in establishing an evaluation instrument and coordinating the evaluation of their building. 6. Follow Up On Evaluation Indications. Each committee member uses the results of the evaluation to reassess future inservices. 7. Other. Additional committee functions, as needed, to help deliver quality inservice. 39 Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Typ.--The school district administrators and members of the board of education should view the in-service education of the staff as a tOp priority item evidenced by an organiza- tional structure that encourages the initiation of in-service education programs, is well funded, contains provisions for long-term planning based on established goals and priorities, and includes other types of resource allocations. 117 The Waverly School District recognized the importance of this criterion in its efforts to carry out in-service education programs. This criterion has been reflected in the district's goals and the Master Agreement. Articles in the district newsletter have encouraged in-service education activities, funding has been provided as part of the budgetary process, release days have been used, commit- tees have been established to facilitate in-service education projects, a permanent teacher based in-service planning committee has been created and release time for district- wide in-service days has been negotiated into the school calendar. An orderly process for acquiring in-service education time has been established and is being used. 118 CRITERION THREE: IN-SERVICE EDUCATION PROGRAMS SHOULD SHOW EVIDENCE OF A BROADLY BASED PLANNING EFFORT BUILT UPON IDENTIFIED NEEDS AND ESTABLISHED GOALS, WITH REPRESENTATION FROM THOSE WHO ARE TO PARTICIPATE. There is evidence to indicate that attempts were made to meet this criterion throughout the time span of this study. In a 1969 memorandum from the Director of Elementary Education to the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction time to discuss in-service needs was requested. At a future Administrative Council meeting, could a block of time be set aside so that the Council could discuss in-service need? as perceived by them through their staff. 0 Teachers were invited to have input into a series of in-service education programs, according to a memorandum of January, 1971. We have discussed the proposal for a series of in-service meetings concerned with reading im- provement with Mr. Dave Smoker. He has concurred with our suggestions and we would like to move on this as soon as possible. Will you please extend an invitation to your 6th grade teachers to meet with us at . . . to discuss this proposal. We do not want to finalize our plans with Mrs. Jacoby until we have discussed them with all 6th grade teachers to answer any questions they may have. The Monday Report of February 28, 1972, contains an article that indicates the district responded to the needs of the staff as assessed in a survey. Both a consultant and the district's own staff members were used to run the workshOps. 119 In response to the interest shown by approxi- mately 30 elementary teachers in the January survey, there will be an elementary Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) Workshop at Elmwood School on Saturday, March 11, 1972. Following a general session for all partici- pants, there will be small group sections based upon lower or upper elementary level Of instruction. The workshop is open to all Waverly teachers (K-6). It is being coordinated by Mr. Ralph Chapman. The M.S.U. consultant is Mr. David Tompkins, assisted by three Of our own capable Waverly teachers. There is no Expense to the participant, other than lunch.4 For a voluntary workshop held in the late summer of 1975 administrators were asked to offer suggestions as to "worthwhile inservice" activities.43 The elementary principals and I have had some preliminary discussion Of ideas for an invita- tional pre-school conference for professional staff members to be held two mornings in the week Of August 25. We are still grOping for ideas, but want to move ahead because many de- tails have to be finalized soon. Attached is a copy Of rough draft ideas which has already been amended. I hope your schedule will per- mit attendance at this meeting and I encourage you to come with ideas for a worthwhile in- service activity. You may want to gafiper suggestions from other staff members. The district's willingness to use its staff as resource personnel is expressed in an October 14, 1975, letter to the staff from the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction. One thing that stands out is the feeling Of appreciation for sharing the talents of fel- low staff member?5 as Opposed to bringing in outside experts. The December 8, 1976, in-service sessions held by the Waverly School District show evidence that the district not 120 only used outside consultants but employed members of its own staff as in-service education trainers. The in-service education programs consisted of two major components: a keynote address and small group sessions. Goals were set for each component and an evaluation based on those goals was established with the results published: 1. Keynote Speaker: The Objective Of the key- note address was tO start Off the program with something positive and motivational which every- one would share: to set the tone. Participants were asked to rate how effectively this objective was achieved on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high). The average rating was 9.03. 2. Art Instruction: Elementary teachers at levels 3-5 were given a presentation by Waverly art teachers. Three Objectives were defined which were evaluated on the l-10 scale as follows: (1) Give teachers examples Of projects apprOpriate for elementary art activity: the rating was 9.38. (2) Discuss the basic elements Of design which provide the rationale behind student projects; the rating was 8.54. (3) Increase the communication between teachers at various levels and buildings concerning art instruction; the rating was 7.96. 3. Career Education: Early primary teachers (K- 2) were given a presentation by members Of the Career Education Committee. Objectives and evaluation rating by participants were: (1) Teachers will learn how to use the Waverly Career Education Goals and Activities book - 7.5. (2) Teachers will learn to infuse the subjigt matter with Career Education - 7.4. 121 The value of in-service education planning by the participants themselves, as well as the Opportunity tO set individual and departmental goals is illustrated by the following comment by a staff member with regard to the in-service education program Of December 8, 1976: I thought it was very valuable not only to me individually, but for our department as a whole. Needs for working and planning together can be very well met in this way. Goals are valuable and refreshing and re-strengthening of goals is very useful. I saw this as a positive result Of today's in-service. The summary section Of the Evaluation of In-Service Program, December 8, 1976, not only capsulizes the results of the evaluation process but also shows evidence that the planners were aware Of the connection of participant involve- ment in planning tO the success Of in-service education programs: In general, evaluation responses indicate that the workshOp was a success. Negative reactions are helpful in determining what to emphasize or avoid in future activities of this kind. We trust that the practical value of in-service programs will improve as professional staff members become more involved in planning and organizing for them. A side effect which is difficult to measure but is nevertheless sig- nificant is that the faculty will become more cohesive and there will be better articulation Of Objectives and methods used to attain them as people work more closely together. We will have our successes and failures, but the over- all trend should be in a direction Of better quality and more effective results.48 The district has on a number Of occasions provided release time for teachers so that they may plan for in- service education programs. 122 Jerry Thompson, Ken Tschantz, Karen Miller and Frank Philip will be working on Tuesday, October 26 in Conference Room A at the Educational Services and Administration Building. They will be making plans and preparation for the In-Service program scheduled for November 10. I am asking Joan Piper to provide substitutes for these four art teachers on that date; no further action is required to provide substi- tutes. The cost Of substitutes for this day is to be charged t3 account # . . . - In-Service Elementary Teachers. 9 The issue Of facilitating long-term in-service programs was discussed at a January meeting of the Curriculum Develop- ment Committee in 1977. There was considerable discussion concerning the prOposal. Barbara Atkins and Elizabeth McRae explained the five-year plan for achieving a management system which they believe will sig- nificantly improve instruction at the senior high. This is the beginning of a long-range project which Committee members generally feel will lead to far better coordinagaon and ef- ficiency than we presently have. During the 1974-75 school year four of the district's major objectives, dealing with career education, reading, mathematics, and the two-year program at Waverly East Junior High School, were signaled out for special consideration.51 Broadly based planning was undertaken and in—service time was allocated so that the staff could work on the accomplish- ment of these goals. The suggested committee structure is defined to provide representation from a cross section of buildings and levels. We are limited by realistic restraints of number Of 'release days' but we certainly do not want to exclude anyone from submitting their concerns to any Of the committee. We expect that committee 123 Chairpersons will devise means of reporting tO other staff members and soliciting their input.5 The career education component Of the curriculum Ob- jectives for 1974-75 submitted as one of its goals the deve10pment Of ". . . a prOposal for a summer in-service workshOp for Waverly teachers on career education.53 In order to "formulate a career education plan which incorpor- ates minimal performance Objectives for all Waverly students, K-12"54 the career education prOposal also asked the Curricu- lum Development Committee for the ". . . allocation Of 12 "55 The equivalent teacher work-days for work sessions. Reading component of the prOposal asked for "22 equivalent teacher work-days for committee work sessions."56 The mathematics proposal57 and the Waverly East prOposal58 contained the same request. Although most in-service education activities have been conducted for the Waverly professional staff, students have on occasion participated. During a Board of Education meeting, Mr. Herman Brunke, the Waverly Board Student Repre- sentative, inquired into the feasibility Of having students participate in in-service education programs with teachers, especially when those programs were directed toward curricu- 59 lum improvement. His query drew the following response from the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction: Herman, you recently inquired about greater student participation in curriculum improve- ment. I suggested that you talk with Mr. Andros and Mr. Smink as tO how this might be facilitated within the high school. They will no doubt have suggestions. 124 Attached are outlines Of plans for curriculum activities affecting the total school system. Note that membership on each of the committees is partly defined and then permitting for expan- sion by including other persons. I suggest that you bring these programs to the attention of students who may be interested in participating on one of the committees. They could do this by contacting committee Chairpersons. The Career Education Planning Committee established during the 1974-75 school year used in-service education release time to plan a series of in-service education activities for the entire Waverly staff. The committee had teacher representation, formulated long-term plans, carried out a needs assessment and created a series of in- service education programs which included evaluation. Its initial charge was based upon the district's curriculum goals for 1974-75. Their prOposal for five half-day com- mittee sessions contains both a summary Of their activities and a projection Of their plans. It indicates an awareness Of the major criteria for successful in-service education programs: The Committee consisted of staff members from the high school, junior high, middle school, and elementary schools, along with one student representative. This Committee's primary task was to deal with the subject of career education and its future implementation in Waverly classrooms. In order to fulfill this objective members of the Plan- ning Committee were given four half-day work sessions during regularly scheduled school days. They also arranged subcommittee meetings on members' own time. Due to this combined allot- ment Of time, the Committee's tasks were completed. It has assessed the needs Of Waverly teachers in the area of career education through the use of a survey instru- ment. It has developed a district-wide plan 125 in career education. It has acted upon a prOposal for a summer workshop. The Committee now must take on new responsi- bilities. It is no longer a Planning Committee, but rather a-Steering Committee. As a Steering Committee, the Committee‘s direction changes. It is now concerned with the implementation of last year's plans. The primary goal of the Steering Committee is to see career education being taught in all classrooms in the district. As means of achieving this goal, several Objectives have been formulated. 1. The district shall identify a set of gen- eral career goals, which include both career preparation and career development. The district shall identify performance Objectives for at least part of their career preparation and career develop- ment goals. The district shall identify and implement, at least on a pilot basis, career educa- tion strategies which address selected performance Objectives. The district shall prepare a comprehensive plan for the time period July 1, 1976, and June 30, 1977, which shall include continua- tion, extension, and/or modification Of strategies to implement district goals. It is the Steering Committee's duty to see that these objectives are reached. The Committee proposes that in order to complete this task, release time is necessary. Legislation man- dates that our first three Objectives be realized by June 30, 1976. It would be dif- ficult, if not impossible, for the Committee to accomplish this task without Committee meeting time scheduled within the regular work day. Therefore, the Committee proposes that it be given five half-day work sessions, during regularly scheduled school days, as times when members can work together toward achieve- ment of Waverly's Career Education Objectives. The Committee proposes Egat one half-day work sessions be designated. 126 The same Career Education Planning Committee indicated its awareness that in-service education programs successfully introduce teachers to new materials and concepts. Objective 8 Of the Waverly Schools Career Educa- tion Plan states that in-service should be conducted for all teachers K-12 in the Waverly School District. If teachers are going to be expected to bring career education into their classrooms, then this Committee feels that in- service is imperative. Therefore, the Committee proposed that mini in-services be conducted within each school building for the express purpose Of aiding teachers in the area of career education. The in-service will focus upon the needs pertinent to that building. Coordination of each in-service will be done by Wes Stephens and the building coordinator. Times for this type of in-service might be during a faculty meeting, after school, or during a particular building's in-service allotment. Designation Of the time will be in accordance with building administrators' wishes. The Committee prOposes that these building in-services should be held during the time period from Monday, November 3, 1975, to Monday, January 26, 1976. By doing so, teachers would be able to begin initiating career education activities immediately after their in-service. This would give teachers the rest of the school year to experiment and evaluate the activities in which they decide to engage. Cost for the in-service would depend upon the nature of each particular one and the needs within each building. The Committee prOposes that such costs would include those for construction materials if an in- service involves working on teacher-made career education kits. Other costs to be considered might be paper for handout in- formation sheets or pamphlets. A possible additional cost might be paymggt of the fee of an outside consultant. 127 For the 1978-79 school year the Curriculum Development Committee funded a Talented Program Curriculum Project. "The project primarily provided time for training of coordina- «63 tors and overall program building. During a series of in-service education meetings between February and June Of 1979 coordinators were trained. Representation from the community was provided by parents. "The community was represented on two different occasions by three active with the Talented Program parents."64 On a number of occasions district-wide in-service sessions were the result of suggestions made by committees that were initially established to accomplish other goals. The November 10, 1976, in-service education session is one such example. The session on Career Education Activities for early primary teachers (K-2) was planned as a direct result of the Career Education Steering Committee having recommended at the conclusion of their June workshop that they would like time to make a presentation to the K-2 teachers. The 1975-76 Arts Study Committee had as one of its recommendations that elementary teachers be given in-service help in art instruction for the classroom teacher at the earliest possible Opportunity. This is regarded as an interim partial solution to the improvement of art in- struction for elementary children. It is not to be construed as the final implementation Of an elementary art program. The in-service on November 10 is in response to the Arts Study Committee's recommendation. Both the Career Education Steering Committee and the Arts Study Committee had representation from each building in the district, or each building had the Opportunity to have a representative on these committees. The decision for the secondary building facul- ties tO work on departmental curriculum Objectives during their block Of time at the 128 in-service came from verbal expressions from secondary teachers and principals that they desired time to work within departments on their course revisions and other matters re- lated to their curriculum Objectives for the year. This was not a formal recommendation, but it was heard frequently enough that the Curriculum Deve10pment Committee perceived it as gsdistrict-wide need at the secondary level. Summary of Supporting Evidence Relating to Criterion Tprgp.--In-service education programs should show evidence of a broadly based planning effort built upon identified needs and established goals, with representation from those who are to participate. The Waverly School District's in-service education programs have generally shown evidence of a broadly based planning effort with significant teacher input. This was done by conducting needs assessments, using the staff as consultants, setting goals, identifying needs, having teachers participate in the planning and evaluation com- ponents of the in-service education program and by occasionally having citizen and student participation. 129 CRITERION FOUR: IN-SERVICE EDUCATION PROGRAMS SHOULD BE EVALUATED AND/OR CONTAIN PROVISIONS FOR SYSTEMATIC FOLLOW-UP. During the time span Of this study there is some evi- dence to indicate that the Waverly School District was cognizant of the importance Of evaluation and/or follow-up provisions for in-service education programs. However, it was only during the last four years that systematic evalua- tion procedures were included as part Of the initial planning process. Before 1976 the evaluation component Of in-service education programs was provided through informal, usually verbal, communications by participants to those committee persons who had conducted the in-service education programs. The last item on the agenda for a 1970 workshop is indica- tive of this approach: Evaluation--Please communicate to one Of the committee members as to your reactions to this in-service day and its value to you. Your remarks will be used to determine the advisability Of future days such as this. Be sure to include ideas you may have which you feel should be included in the program.66 In response to a request for a Reading WorkshOp to be held in April of 1971 the Superintendent Of Schools asked a series of questions of the committee in charge of planning. He asked if the committee had "assurances that such a work- f,"67 and then: shOp would be welcomed by involved staf Is there a possiblity that a follow-up evaluation could be made a mongg or two after the workshop evaluation? 130 The need for follow-up provisions for in-service education workshops was not only recognized by the Super- intendent of Schools but was also recognized by the staff in response to the evaluation questionnaire distributed at the end of the workshop. The question, "What suggestions do you have for Waverly Administrators regarding future ?Il69 reading workshops elicited the following comment: A follow-up with materials on a district wide basis. and It should come at the beginning of the year with a follow-up in the middle of the year. In a 1976 summative report dealing with a December 8 in-service education session, "Participants were asked to express reactions positive or negative to any aspect of the in-service activity. . . ."71 Each in-service session had from two to three objectives. A rating scale was used to determine the degree to which each objective had been met. "Participants were asked to rate how effectively they felt this objective was achieved on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high)."72 The same report also indicated that partici- pants' input into future in-service sessions was sought: Participants were also requested to give suggestions for future in-service programs.73 On September 7, 1977, an in-service education program was held in order to familiarize the teaching staff with a new reporting system. In a letter to the in-service educa- tion planning committee members the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction indicated the need for and suggested the necessity of follow-up provisions: 131 During the coming year there will be a need for checking the effectiveness of our new reporting system and any problems incurred by teachers in using it. Some teachers will need help and encouragement or even, perhaps, some prodding. Anything we can do to share information will be helpful. Please keep me informed of any needs or problems that arise.74 Teachers also were aware of the need for follow-up provisions: Another expression of concern by a number of teachers was the need for more follow-up in- service related to the new reporting system after the teachers have had more experience with it. . . . The most frequently recurring suggestion was for the need for more follow- up in-service activities. Summary of Supportinngvidence Relating to Criterion Four:--In-service education programs should be evaluated and/or contain provisions for systematic follow-up. The Waverly School District showed concern for this element of in-service education programs as early as 1970. Throughout the time span of this study evaluations were conducted through the use of verbal communication by parti- cipants to the in-service trainers, the use of rating scales, and the use of written affective evaluation forms. Summary of the Chapter The in-service education activities of the Waverly School District, a public local educational institution, have been screened through the use of four criteria. Supporting evidence from.a number of sources has been pre- sented for each of the criteria. 132 By viewing the data as a whole the following comments may be made: 1. Supporting evidence is found for all four criteria. 2. The evidence supporting criterion four is present throughout the time span of the study but the greatest amount of it is found in the last three years. 3. Judging from the amount and quality of the evidence the Waverly School District seems to have considered criteria numbers two, viewing the in-service education of the staff as a top priority item, and three, having a broadly based planning effort with representation from those who are to participate, as most important to its activities. In Chapter Five a summary of the study is presented, conclusions from the data are drawn, recommendations for the Waverly School District and other institutions engaged in in-service education are made, and suggestions for further study are presented. FOOTNOTES 1The Waverly Schools Educational Study, Dr. James E. Heald, Director, Volume I, p. 1. 2121i- 3M” p. 176. 4&9, p. 186. 5"Board Notes, 1970-1971," Board of Education Policy Number 6113.2, April 9, 1969. 6"Board Notes, 1969-70," August 13, 1969. 7Monday Report, June 15, 1970. 8In-Service Memorandum, April 15, 1970. 9Monday Report, March 22, 1971. 10Memorandumto Elementary Principal (K-S) and Dr. John Baldwin, Department of Theater, Michigan State University, December 17, 1976. 11Letter to Dr. George Sherman from C. Marcus, September 23, 1977. 12Memorandum to Dr. Marcus from Fran Shelander, February 18, 1977. 13"Notes of the Curriculum Development Committee," February 7, 1977. 14Memorandum to Dr. Marcus from Mr. Smink, April 29, 1977. 15Letter to Intermediate and Local School District Superintendents from.Malcolm Katz, Deputy Superintendent, State of Michigan Department of Education, August 15, 1979. 16”Agenda Superintendents' Roundtable Meeting," August 31, 1979, p. 1. 133 134 17"Professional Staff Development Entitlement Fact Sheet," p. 1. 1812;9- 19l21g. 20Tbid., p. 3. 21Consortium of Schools In The Ingham Staff Development Consortium Policy Board Constitution, Article II, Section 1. 22"District Goals for 1978-79,” Number 12. 23Master Agreement for Certified Teachinngersonnel 1979-81' p. 360 24Monday Report, October 29, 1973. 25"Notes of the Curriculum Deve10pment Committee," December 1, 1977. 26Memorandum to the Curriculum Steering Committee from Kenneth Burnley, Chairman, Curriculum Development Committee, April 24, 1979. 27Letter to Teachers and Administrators from Dr. Vaughan, November 9, 1978. 28Letter to Dr. Marcus and Mr. Smink from Karen Jewell, February 23, 1977. 29Memorandum to Mr. Smoker from C. Marcus, December 26, 1973. 30Writer's personal notes of an interview with Joan Piper, April 8, 1980. 31Memorandum to West Stephens, Elaine Noffze, Jim Andros and Jayne Jones from Clifford M. Marcus, December 5, 1975. 32Minutes of the Waverly Schools Curriculum Development Committee, November 3, 1976. 33Ibid. 34Letter to Curriculum Development Committee Members from Dr. Thomas J. Vaughan, Superintendent. 35Master Agreement for Certified Teaching Personnel, 1979-81, p. 36. 135 36Memorandum to Joanne Mohre, John Forte and William Prahler from Clifford M. Marcus, Chairman, Curriculum Development Committee, June 8, 1977. 37Memorandum to Dr. Marcus, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction from Barb Atkins, Assistant Principal, May 27, 1977. 38Master Agreement for Certified Teaching Personnel, 1979-81, p. 54. 39"Teacher Inservice Planning Committee, 1978-79' Functions. 40Memorandum to Mr. Marcus from Dave Smoker, Director of Elementary Education, April 10, 1969. 41Memorandum to Bob Soderman and Bob Anderson from C. Marcus and Bill Randell, January 7, 1971. 42Monday Report, February 28, 1972. 43Memorandum to All Administrators from C. Marcus, July 10, 1975. 44Ibid. 45Letter to the Staff from C. Marcus, October 14, 1975. 46"Evaluation of In-Service Program," December 8: 1976, p. 1. 47Ibid., p. 2. 481bid., p. 3 49Memorandum to Mr. Smink and Craig Smith from C. Marcus, October 19, 1976. 50Minutes of the Waverly Schools Curriculum Development Committee, January 31, 1977. 51Memorandum to all Professional Staff Members from Cliff Marcus, November 18, 1974. 52Ibid. 53"Waverly Schools Curriculum Objectives, 1974-7S," Career Education, November 18, 1974. 54Ibid. SSIbid. 136 56"Waverly Schools Curriculum Objectives, 1974-75:" Reading, November 18, 1974. 57"Waverly Schools Curriculum Objectives. 1974-75:" Mathematics, November 18, 1974. 58"Waverly Schools Curriculum Objectives, 1974-75," An Evaluation of Program of Studies at Waverly East, November 18, 1974. 1974. 59Minutes of Board of Education Meeting, November 12, 60Memorandum to Mr. Herman Brunke, Waverly Board Student Representative, November 14, 1974. 61Memorandum to Curriculum Development Committee from the Career Education Steering Committee, Proposal for Five Half-Day Committee Sessions, August 29, 1975. 62Memorandum to Curriculum Development Committee from the Career Education Steering Committee, Proposal for Mini In-Services for all Waverly Teachers, August 29, 1975. 1979. 63Memorandum to Dr. Burnley from Dan Pappas, June 29, 64Ibid. 65Monday Report, November 1, 1976. 66"Second Year In-Service Workshop," March 25: 1970- 67Memorandum to C. Marcus and B. Randell from Dave Smoker, March, 1971. 681219: 69"Comments on Waverly In-Service, April 14, 1971." 7Ol§i§° 71"Evaluation of In-Service Programs, December 8, 1976." 72£2i9. 73£2i§° 74Letter to In-Service Planning Committee Members from Dr. C. Marcus, September 23, 1977. 1977. 75Memorandum to Dr. Vaughan from C. Marcus, October 7, CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This chapter contains a summary of the study, conclu- sions drawn from the data analysis, recommendations for the Waverly School District and other institutions engaged in in-service education, suggestions for further study, a dis- cussion of the significance of the study, reflections, and a concluding statement. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to: 1. develop a series of principles for successful in- service education as determined from the literature and to create a screening device through which the in-service education practices of a school district may be examined. use the screening device in an attempt to determine if the Waverly School District, a local school district located in Lansing, Michigan, attended to the criteria in its conduct of in-service education programs from September 1, 1970, to June, 1979. propose suggestions for the improvement of in- service education. 137 138 The literature on in-service education was reviewed. Forty principles for successful in-service education were extracted and identified. Supportive evidence for each was presented. From the forty principles for successful in-service education four criteria were developed as an evaluative screening device. Using the four evaluative criteria of the screening device, the activities of the Waverly School District, a public local educational institution, were examined. 1. The school district should View in-service education as a mutual, collaborative effort between itself and various educational interests. 2. The school district administrators and mem- bers of the board of education should view the in-service education of the staff as a t0p priority item evidenced by an organiza- tional structure that encourages the initiation of in-service education programs, is well funded, contains provisions for long- term planning based on established goals and priorities, and includes other types of re- source allocations. 3. 'In-service education programs should show evidence of a broadly based planning effort built upon identified needs and established 139 goals, with representation from those who are to participate. ~4. In-service education programs should be evaluated and/or contain provisions for systematic follow-up. An in-depth data analysis was made of the formal and in- formal, official and unofficial records of the Waverly School "- District as they applied to the School District's in-service education activities for the time span of this study. Inter- views were conducted with key individuals who had contributed to the in-service education activities of the Waverly School District. The data were studied for evidence related to each of the four evaluative criteria. Supporting evidence was presented for each of the four evaluative criteria. Conclusions As a result of analyzing the data the following con- clusions can be drawn in relation to the purposes of the study: 1. Varying degrees of supporting evidence are found for all four of the evaluative cri- teria for successful in-service education programs. 2. The Waverly School District planned and carried out in-service education programs for its staff in a manner that showed its recognition of successful in-service educa— tion strategies. 140 Collaborative efforts with outside educa- tional interests were undertaken throughout the time span of this study. These efforts tended to be for single program, non- continuing activities. No sustained, long- term collaborative effort was undertaken until the 1979-80 school year with Waverly School District's participation in the Ingham County Professional Staff Deve10p- ment Consortium. From the amount and quality of the evidence, the School District seems to have considered criterion number two, viewing the in-service education of the staff as a tOp priority item, and criterion number three, having representa- tion from those that are to participate, as the most crucial to its plans and activities. The long-term planning of in-service education programs seems to have been limited by the inability of the School District to establish multi-year budgets. Funds, during a number of the years covered by this study, were limited or not allocated because of numerous millage failures. Until the last few years the District did not appear to actively seek outside fund- ing that would enable it to better plan on a multi-year basis. 141 The organizational structure of the School District seems to encourage the initiation of in-service education programs by the staff. The vast majority of the in-service education programs conducted during the time span of this study were initiated by individuals or by committees that contained teacher repre- sentatives. Needs assessments for the planning of in- service education programs were conducted throughout the time span of this study. Most of them were limited to the building level unit. During the latter two years covered by this study a greater number of District- wide in-service education needs assessments have been conducted. The evaluation of in-service education activities as well as provisions for follow- up programs seem to have been more prominent during the latter half of the time span under study. Evaluation during the early years tended to be informal and subjective as compared to the more formal, objective evaluations of the last five years. During the last three years follow-up provisions seem to have become an integral part of some in-service education programs and are included in the planning stages. 142 Recommendations for School Districts, Including the Waverly School DiStrict There are several recommendations which might be offered for school districts for their work in the field of in-service education, including the Waverly School District: 1. A school district should create an organiza- tional structure that facilitates and encourages the initiation of in-service education programs by all of its staff members. The organizational structure should particularly facilitate the initia- tion of such programs from its teaching staff. 2. The in-service education program of a school district, whose purpose is to serve its staff, must be built upon the needs and desires of those who are to partici- pate in the program. It is also important that a method of obtaining, keeping and up- dating an assessment of needs and desires be built into the school district's organi- zational structure. 3. As a school district becomes more stable and as the school population levels off or starts to decrease, concern with staff education should become greater and more 143 emphasis should be given to in-service education programs. The in-service education program of a school district should contain a decentralization component. This will allow the local build- ing unit or individual staff members to participate in in-service education activi- ties that are tailored for their idiosyncratic needs. The school district should view the funding of in-service education programs as a neces- sary cost and should allocate a fixed percentage of its budget for that purpose. Renewal, retraining and reeducation as provided by in-service education programs must be viewed as an integral part of the school district's purpose. The school district should develop a pro— gram that will make its goals and objectives with regard to in-service education programs known to its staff, those who are to be served. A school district should develop and carry out a program that will measure both the short-term and long-range impact and effectiveness of in-service education programs. C 8. 144 A method of keeping records of in-service education projects should be established so that the district may minimize the duplication of projects. This would also facilitate the dissemination of informa- tion gathered as a result of in-service education programs to other interested parties. Suggestions for Further Study Several suggestions are offered here for further study of the in-service education process: 1. The long-range change in participant behavior as a result of in-service education programs should be studied. The effectiveness of in-service education programs as a means of inducing change in participant behavior should be compared with other methods of staff deve10pment. A study comparing the short- and long-range results of in-service education programs conducted under the auspices of in-service education specialists with those of in-service education programs conducted without the aid of such specialists should be undertaken. A study to determine the affective changes in participants toward the institution that 145 delivered the in-service program would be useful. 5. Further study on the impact of in-service education programs on individual partici- pants would be a desirable area of research. 6. The changes that result in the structure of an institution that has incorporated in- 0 service education programs as part of its purpose need to be examined. Significance of This Study This study is significant in that the screening device may be used by interested school districts to help them determine the state of their in-service education programs. It may also be used as a set of guidelines to help a dis- trict establish an in-service education program. The principles formed in Chapter II for successful in-service education programs may be used as a framework from which one may extrapolate the "do's and don'ts" of in-service education. This study showed that the methods used to gather the data and the analysis of that data can be carried out at the local school district level with little if any cost to the district. Finally, this study showed that a school district can determine what it has done in the past and may use this information to help it establish the future of its in-service education programs. 146 Reflections Merits and Demerits of the Screening Instrument. The screening device develOped for this study allows the researcher to concentrate on those activities which provide the frame- work for successful in-service education practices. It enables one to separate the results of in-service education programs, whether they be material products or cognitive and affective changes in behavior, from the basic processes involved in conducting such programs. Thus, a local school district could use the screening device as a set of guide- lines to help it establish successful in-service education programs. The screening device, on the other hand, does not deal with nor measure the outcomes of specific in-service education programs, a measurement that would certainly be of interest to the local school district. The instrument is also a generalized tool that does not allow its user to determine the quality of the evidence ascertained with an objective degree of accuracy but rather calls for subjective judgments upon the user's part in determining the relevancy of the evidence. The Concept of In-Service Education. Although there is an ample supply of literature on all aspects of in- service education, there is a lack of a substantial body of literature that challenges the very concept of in—service education. Educators, by and large, have accepted the con- cept of in-service education as a given and have focussed I‘- 147 upon debating the merits and demerits, advantages and dis- advantages, of one form versus another. It is not unlikely that as the financial situation of public schools becomes less lucrative the very concept of in-service education will be examined in the literature. Staff Develgpment and In-Service Education. Staff development refers to all those activities engaged in by the professional educator which help enhance his or her skills related to job performance. Included in this concept is in- service education. Certain aspects of staff deve10pment have traditionally been the financial responsibility of the individual professional educator. Subscriptions to profes- sional journals, professional association memberships, and enrollment in college classes fall into this category. Other aspects of staff development have been financed by the school district. Conferences are the primary example of activities which fall into this category. In-service education programs have sometimes been financed by the employee and at other times by the employer. The issue of who is responsible for the financing of staff develop- ment, including in-service education programs, has not at this point in time been clearly decided. The resolution will vary from district to district depending on the out- comes of the negotiation process and the phi1030phy that prevails. The Waverly School District. The Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction of the Waverly "~ 148 School District have both exhibited a knowledge of the princi- ples related to successful in-service education programs. They have also been able to translate these principles into a working program through their leadership abilities. The support of the educational leaders of a school district plays a vital part in the success of any program. It is an element that is needed in order to facilitate the initiation of new programs as well as to insure the continuation of established ones. The success of the Waverly School District's in- service education programs is in no small part due to the leadership that has been provided. The Waverly School District has been fortunate in that it has an unusual financial situation. The district, unlike many in the State of Michigan, does not rely upon nor receive a substantial amount of state aid. Its financial resources are derived almost totally from local millage taxes. The district is therefore not drastically affected by the financial fluctuations that occur on the state level and that often lead to the abolition of "fringe" programs like in-service education. Concluding,Statement Although this study has dealt with a single institution and its in-service education activities, the principles and criteria developed in Chapter Two and the recommendations drawn in Chapter Five apply to both educational and non- educational institutions that are interested in serving their clientele by means of in-service education programs. at o n 0‘ 149 It is hOped that these findings will be used by people in educational and non-educational institutions. 4.. SELECTED SOURCES 4" SELECTED SOURCES Adams, Dewey A. "Significant Trends in Professional Develop- 'ment.' American Vocational Journal, LI, 7 (October, 1976), 22426. Agne, Russell M., and Ducharme, Edward R. "Rearranging the Parts: A Modest Proposal for Continuing and Inservice Education." Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2 (March- April, 1977), 16119T Ainsworth, Barbara. "Teachers Talk About Inservice Education. Journal of Teacher Education, XXVII, 2 (Summer, 1976), 107-09. Allen, Dwight W. "In-Service Teacher Training: A Modest Proposal." Improving In-Service Education. Edited by Louis J. Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972. Arena, John E. "How to Individualize Inservice Training." Educational Technology, XIV, 11 (November, 1974), 43-45. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1979 ASCD Resolutions. ASCD News Exchange, XXI, 3 (April, 1979). Beckerman, Marvin M. "Educational Change Agents: An Inside- Outside Team." Educational Leadership, XXX, 6 (March, 1973), 530-32. Bell, T.H. "Challenges for Inservice Vocational Education." Theory Into Practice, XIV, 1 (February, 1975), 1-4. Berkey, Arthur, and Drake, William. "A Joint Approach to Meeting In-Service Needs." Agricultural Education, XLVIII, 11 (May, 1976), 250, 253. Bird, Barbara. "Interinstitutional Workshop. A Change Model of In-Service Education." New Campus, XXVII (September, 1974), 21-24. Bishop, Leslie J. Staff Development and Instructional Improvement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1976. 150 0‘ 151 Bottoms, Gene. "Responsibilities of Local School Systems, State Departments of Education, Institutions of Higher Education, and Professional Organizations for In- Service Education." Rethinking In-Service Education. Edited by Roy A. Edelfélt and Margo JOHfison. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. Boyer, James B., and Maertens, Norbert. "School-University Coalitions for Reality-Based Instruction." Educational Leadership, XXXII, 5 (February, 1975). Braun, Frederick G. "The Education Professor as an In-Service Leader." Educational Perspectives, XLV, 4 (December, 1975) 9 19-21. Brimm, Jack L., and Tollett, Daniel J. "How do Teachers Feel About In-Service Education?" Educational Leadership, XXXI, 6 (March, 1974), 521-25. Brown, Bob Burton. The Experimental Mind in Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Bunker, R. Mason. "Beyond Inservice: Toward Staff Renewal." Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2 (March-April, 1977), 31-34. Bush, Robert N. "Curriculum-Proof Teachers: Who Does What to Whom." Improving In-Service Education. Edited by Louis J. Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Bush, Robert N. "We Know How to Train Teachers: Why Not Do So!" Journal of Teacher Education, XXVIII, 6 (NovemberéDecember, 1977), 5:9. Cawelti, Gordon. "Must We Systematize Curriculum Building?" Educational Leadership, XXXI, 6 (March, 1974), 483-84. Cobun, Ted C. "Inservice Education.’ International Journal of Instructional Media, III, 2, 125-36, 75-76. Cochran, Leslie H. "Inservice Education: Passive-Complacent- Reality." Theory Into Practice, XIV, 1 (February, 1975), 5-10. Daniels, Paul R., and O'Connell, Maurice J. "A 'Floating Faculty' - An Intensive Inservice Technique.” Educa- tional Leadership, XXXIII, 5 (February, 1976), 355-59. Davis, William J., and Frank, Frederick P. "A Design for Inservice Professional Development Programs for School Principals." Catalyst for Changg, VI, 3 (September, 1977), 4-7, 23. 152 Delano, June 8. "In-Service for Change." Educational Leadership, XXXII, 8, 520-23. Dillon, Betty. "Innovation and Collaboration - A Public School Educator Speaks." Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, XXXV, 3 (Fall, 1974), 256¥57. Dillon, Elizabeth A. "Staff Development: Bright Hope or Empty Promise?" Educational Leadership, XXXIV, 3 (December, 1976), 165¥70. Draba, Robert E. "Guidelines for Viable Inservice Educa- tion." Journal of Reading, XVIII, 5 (February, 1975), 368-71. 3 Duke, Daniel Linden. "Developing a Comprehensive Inservice Program for School Improvement." NASSP Bulletin, LXI, 408 (April, 1977), 66-71. Eddy, Wesley P. "How Successful Are the British Teachers' Centers?" Educational Leadership, XXXI, 6 (March, 1974), 509-ll1 Edelfelt, Roy A. "Inservice Education of Teachers: Priority for the Next Decade." Journal of Teacher Education, XXV, 3 (February, l974),7250-52. Edelfelt, Roy A. "The School of Education and Inservice Education." Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2 (March- April, 1977), lU-IZC Edelfelt, Roy A., and Lawrence, Gordon. "In—Service Educa- tion: The State of the Art." RethinkingIn-Service Education. Edited by Roy A. Edelfelt and Margo Johnson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. Ehrenberg, Lyle M., and Brandt, Ronald S. "Improved Student Learning: A Necessary Goal of Staff Development." Educational Leadership, XXXIV, 3 (December, 1976), 205-09} Ernst, William. "What Makes a Workshop Jell?" Educational Leadership, XXXI, 6 (March, 1974), 496-501. Falkenstein, Lynda C. "Action Learning: A Model for In- Service Teacher Education." Clearing House, L, 5 (January, 1977), 188-91. Firth, Gerald. "Ten Issues on Staff Development." Educa- tional Leadership, XXXV, 3 (December, 1977), 215-21. 153 Fiske, Dudley. "In-Service Training: An LEA Appraisal." Trends in Education, XXXIII (May, 1974), 8-13. Fox, Robert S., and Griffin, Don A. "A New Model for In- Service: When Clients and Resources Cooperate for Growth." Educational Leadership, XXXI, 6 (March, 1974), 545-47. Frantz, Nevin R., Jr. "Inservice Education for Individual- izing Instruction in Multioccupational Programs." Theory into Practice, XIV, 1 (February, 1975), 32-38. Garrison, Roger H. "A Mini—Manual on In-Service." Communit and Junior College Journal, XLV, 9 (June-July, 19755, 18-20. Goddu, Roland; Crosby, Jeanie; and Massey, Sara. "Inservice: The Professional Development of Educators." Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2 (March-April, 1977), 24-30l Hale, John M. Administrator's Guide to Training Paraprofes- sionals. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Harris, Ben M.; Bessent, Wailand; and McIntyre, Kenneth E. In-Service Education: A Guide to Better Practice. EnglewoOdlCliffs, N.J.: iPrenticeéHa11,llnc., 1969. Hendee, Raymond. "Editorial - Toward Effective Staff Develop— ment Plans and Programs." Educational Leadership, XXXIV, 3 (December, 1976), 163-64. Hentschel, Doe. "Change Theory Applied to Inservice Educa- tion." Planning and Changing, VIII, 2 (Summer, 1977), 103-14. Hillman, Aaron W. "Inservice Training: A Confluent Educa- tion Model." Educational Chan e. Edited by Ray Eiben and Al Milliren. EaJoIla, California: University Associates, Inc., 1976. Hite, Herbert, and Howey, Kenneth R. Planning Inservice Teacher Education: Promising Alternatives. The American Association oflColleges for Teacher Education and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education (May, 1977). Horner, James T., and Douglass, Richard L. "Individualize In-Service Education." Agricultural Education Magazine, XLVIII, 11 (May, 1976), 258, 262. Hough, Wendell M. "School-University Partnership for Teacher Growth.” Educational Leadership, XXXII, 5 (February, 1975), 307-09. " 154 Houmes, Gary. "Revitalizing Inservice Training for Change." Educational Technology, XIV, 12 (December, 1974), 33134. Howey, Kenneth R., and Willie, Reynold. "A Missing Link in School Renewal: The Program and Staff Development Specialist." Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2 (March-April, 1977), 20-22. Hull, William L. "Installing Innovations Via Inservice Education." Theory Into Practice, XIV, 1 (February, 1975), 43-48. Ingersoll, Gary M. "Assessing Inservice Training Needs Through Teacher Responses." Journal of Teacher Education, XXVII, 2 (Summer, , - Jenny, John H. "In-Service Education: Whose Responsibility?" Journal of HealthL Physical Educationg Recreation, XLV, 5 (May, 1974), 23-24. Jensen, Darrell; Betz, Loren; and Zigarmi, Patricia. "If You Are Listening to Teachers, Here Is HOW'YOU Will Organize Inservice." NASSP Bulletin, LXII, 417 (April, 1978), 9-14. Johnson, Margo. "Looking Back at Thinking Ahead: 87 Educa- tors in Session." Rethinking In-Service Education. Edited by Roy Edelfelt and Margo Johnson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. Jeffers, Stanley H., and McDaniels, Dolores. "Building a Preservice - In-Service Teacher Education Continuum: The Washington Experience." Rethinking In-Service Education. Edited by Roy A. Edelfelt and Margo J0hnson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. Katz, Lilian G. ”The Advisory Approach to Inservice Train- ing." Journal of Teacher Education, XXV, 2 (Summer, 1974), 154-592 * ~ King, James C.; Hayes, Paul C.; and Newman, Isadore. "Some Requirements for Successful Inservice Education." Phi Delta Kappan, LVIII, 9 (May, 1977), 686-87. Kirby, Paul W. "In-Service Education: The University's Role." Educational Leadership, XXX, 5 (February, 1973), 431-33. Koble, Daniel E., Jr., and Gray, Kenney E. "The Planning Process as an Inservice Activity." Theory Into Practice, XIV, 1 (February, 1975), 39-42. 155 Koehn, John J., and Casey, Judith R. "Beyond the Myth of Formal Inservice." Thrust for Educational Leadership, VI, 5 (May, 1977), 24-25, 27. Labat, Margaret G. "Problems and Issues of Staff Deve10pment." Staff Development: Staff Liberation. Edited by Charles W. Beegle and Roy A. Edelfelt. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1977. Lafayette, Robert C. "Planning and Implementing a Success- ful Workshop." Foreign Language Annals, X, 6 (December, 1977), 671-75. Larson, Vera M. "Portland's In-Service Involves All Profes- sional Personnel." Educational Leadership, XXXI, 6 (March, 1974), 502-05T Lawrence, Gordon. "Patterns of Effective In-Service Educa- tion." Unpublished State of the Art Paper. Tallahassee, Florida: State Department of Education, 1974. In Zenke, Larry. "Staff Development in Florida." Educa- tional Leadership, XXXIV, 3 (December, 1976), 177-81. Lippitt, Ronald, and Fox, Robert. "Development and Maintenance of Effective Classroom Learning." Improving In-Service Education. Edited by Louis J. Rubin. lBoston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Lutz, John E. "Inservice Personnel Development: A Systematic Approach to Program Planning." Educational Technology, XVI, 4 (April, 1976), 44-47. Macdonald, James B. "Scene and Context: American Society Today." Staff Development: Staff Liberation. Edited by Charles WT’BEegle and Roy A. Edelfelt. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1977. Manolakes, Theodore. "The Advisory System and Supervision." Professional Supervision for Professional Teachers. Edited By Thomas J. Sefgiovanni. Washington,’D.CT: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1975. Mangieri, John N. and McWilliams, David R. "Designing an Effective Inservice Programw" Journal of Teacher Education, XXVII, 2 (Summer, 1976), 110:12. Mattleman, Marciene S. "Staff Development: Band-Aid or Treatment?" Educational Leadership, XXX, 8 (May, 1973), 754-55. .’ 156 McLaughlin, Milbrey, and Berman, Paul. "Retooling Staff Development in a Period of Retrenchment." Educational Leadership, XXXV, 3 (December, 1977), 191-94. McLeod, Pierce H. "A New Move Toward Preservice and In- Service Teacher Education." Educational Leadership, XXXII, 5 (February, 1975), 322-25. Meade, Edward J., Jr. "No Health In Us.” Im rovin In- Service Education. Edited by Louis J. Euhin. Boston: Allyn andlBacon, Inc., 1971. Meers, Gary D. "Inservice Programs for Preparing Special Needs Personnel.” Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, XIV, 4 (Summer, 1977), 41-45. " Michigan Department of Education. Professional Development for School Staffs: The MichiganiApproach. N5 other publication data. Miller, Melvin. "A State Model for Vocational Inservice Education." Theory Into Practice, XIV, 1 (February, 1975), 52-58. Miller, William C. "What's Wrong With In-Service Education? It's Topless!" Educational Leadership, XXXV, 1 (October, 1977), 31-341 Moffitt, John Clifton. In-Service Education for Teachers. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963. Mohan, Madan, and Hull, Ronald. "A Model for Inservice Education of Teachers." Educational Technology, XV, 2 (February, 1975), 41-44. Myrick, Robert D., and Moni, Linda S. "The Counselor's Workshop: Teacher In-Service Workshops." Educational Chan e: A Humanistic A roach. Edited by Roy Eihen and AI Milliren. EaJoIEa, California: University Associates, Inc., 1976. Nadler, Leonard. "Learning from Non-School Staff Development Activities." Educational Leadership, XXXIV, 3 (December, 1976), 201-04. O'Connor, Kevin. "Initiating Program for Teacher Development." Notre Dame Journal of Education, VI, 6 (Winter, 1975), 353-61. Olivero, James L. "Helping Teachers Grow Professionally." Educational Leadership, XXXIV, 3 (December, 1976), 194-200. 157 Olson, Allan L. "Can We Individualize Inservice Education of Teachers?" Educational Technology, XIV, 11 (November, 1974), 41-42. Perrone, Vito, et. al. "An Inservice Program for Teachers. The Teacher as a Student of Teaching." Today's Educa- tion, LXV, 4 (November-December, 1976), 50-56. Plaster, William. ”Providing Inservices. Thrust for Educational Leadership, V, 3 (January, 1976), 24-25. Plumleigh, George. "How Los Alamitos Nurtures Its Own Crop of Competent Teachers.” American School Board Journal, CLXIV, 1 (January, 1977), 34-35. Reilly, Vera E., and Dembo, Myron H. "Teachers' View of Inservice Education: A Question of Confidence." Phi Delta Kappan, LVII, 2 (October, 1975), 126. Renzulli, Joseph S. "Instructional Management Systems: A Model for Organizing and Developing In- Service Training Workshops.’ Gifted Child Quarterly, XXI, 2 (Summer, 1977), 186- 95. Ruff, Thomas P. "How to Use the Consultant." Educational Leadership, XXXI, 6 (March, 1974), 506-08. Russell, Earl B. "Upgrading Curricula Through Change-Oriented Teachers." Theory Into Practice, XIV, 1 (February, 1975), 27-31. Seldin, Peter. "The Twenty Day Program." Clearing House, XLIX, 4 (December, 1975), 175-78. Shingleton, Callie P. "Accountability and Staff Development." Staff Development: Staff Liberation. Edited by Charles W. Beegle and Roy A: Edelfelt. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Development, 1977. Smith, E. Brooks. "Improvement of In-Service Education: A Collaborative Effort." Rethinking In-Service Education. Edited by Roy A. Edelfelt and’Mar 0 Johnson. Washington: National Education Association, 1 75. Smith, E. Brooks. "Partnership in Teacher Education Revisited. " Journal of Teacher Education, XXV, 3 (Fall, 1974), 253-55. Steele, Shirley A. "Study of Inservice Teacher Education." Inservice, (September, 1976), 4 158 Tyler, Ralph W. "In-Service Education of Teachers: A Look at the Past and Future." Improving In-Service Education. Edited by Louis J. Rubin. lBoston: Allyn andiBacon, Inc., 1971. Underwood, Barbara, and Underwood, Robert. "Concerns of Junior High School and Middle School Teachers: A Framework for In-Service." Clearing House, LI, 1 (September, 1977), 36-37. Wilson, Robert M., and Winstanley, Harold J. "In-Service Evaluation." Reading World, XVI, 1 (October, 1976), 35-38. Winterton, Wayne. "Let's Get Serious About Inservice." Journal of Teacher Education, 28:2 (March-April, 1977), 35137: Yeatts, Edward H. "Staff Development: A Teacher-Centered In-Service Design." Educational Leadership, XXXIV, 6 (March, 1976), 417-21. Zenke, Larry. "Staff Development in Florida." Educational Leadership, XXXIV, 3 (December, 1976), 177-81. Zigarmi, Patricia; Betz, Loren; and Jensen, Darrell. "Teachers' Preferences in and Perceptions of In-Service Education." Educational Leadership, 34:7 (April, 1977), 545-51. Zingale, Don. "Theory Into Practice: An In-service Approach." Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, XLVI, 9 (November-December, 1975), 31:32. 3.0 In. .. --l I I!“i.‘EHwo«‘n.¢.-.oJununflcl‘ao:l. .0! "‘111111‘41111111ES