4.: - , ;-. ‘3‘ .._:. ;;;; THE FLINT COMMUNITY _~ SCHOOL DIRECTOR: 9 ' ANALYSIS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND EXPECTATIONS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FERMIN KEITHBLUE 1970 \M I' LIBRARY. 0213 6615 -' Michigan State 4 ~- Universrcy' This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Flintuq -- unity 'Sphool Director: ‘ Analysis of Role Conflict and Expectations - , presented by "“Fermin Keith Blue "has thee'nk‘aclcepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Administration and Ph.D. degree in Higher Education Date October 1, 1970 0-169 - __fifi__——___-____-_ - ABSTRACT THE FLINT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR: ANALYSIS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND EXPECTATIONS BY Fermin Keith Blue Some form of community education is being under- taken in a growing number of communities and school districts. Both the theory and practice of community education establish as a necessity a professional leader— ship position if this process is to prove successful. This leadership position, variously titled, but most commonly called the community school director, established in Flint, Michigan in the 1950's, has reached full development there as well as having been adopted in numerous other areas influenced by the Flint experience. The Problem The major purpose of this study was to identify the role expectations community school directors, parents, teachers, building principals, and two groups of school administrators hold for the position community school Fermin Keith Blue director.and make various comparisons of conflict and expectation differences which exist for this key staff position. ‘ Theory and concepts of role analysis were used to analyze the position of director which because of their multidisciplinary nature are well suited to studying social ‘ behavior in interaction and the functioning of organiza- tions. Three major questions were examined dealing with differences in conflict and differences in expectations for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the actual and perceived expectations of community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? . Teaching and released community school directors? B C. Perceived and actual? D. Role segments? E . Groups of role definers? Methods and Technigues Following an extensive review of literature con- cerning the director, community education, and role analysis, a questionnaire of operational statements of the community school director position was constructed, revised, and field tested. The final questionnaire consisted of Fermin Keith Blue sixty statements sampling expectations for four major role segments of directors. Flint's elementary schools were categorized into four classifications: inner-city with released director, inner-city with teaching director, non-inner-city with released director, and non-inner-city with teaching director. Three schools were selected at random from each category. Questionnaires were mailed to twelve principals, twelve community school directors, and a stratified random sample of involved parents and teachers. Each person indicated what he expected of the director with reference to each item. Directors were asked to record as well their perceived expectations on each item for parents, principals, and teachers. Major Findings Question I: There were no significant differences when comparing inner-city and non-inner-city conflict means, nor was this significant in any interaction of factors. No significant differences were found when comparing released and teaching directors, nor was this factor significant in any interaction. Perceived and actual conflict means were significantly different. Actual conflict exceeded perceived conflict for each of the four role segments, most noticeably with regard to teaching responsibilities. Differences in Fermin Keith Blue conflict for the various groups and four role segments were found, with generally greater conflict with teachers and parents in the areas of coordination of school- community relations and teaching duties. Question II: Significant differences were found to exist between the expectations of directors and the perceived expectations of others with director expectations exceeding the expectations.of others on all four role segments. Director perceived expectations differentiated only slightly among groups or among role segments. There was a tendency for the directors to perceive higher expec- tations from principals than from parents and teachers. Question III; Comparisons of inner-city and non- inner-city and released and teaching director expectations were not significant. Differences were found to exist among the groups of role definers and the four role segments. Principal and director expectations exceeded those of parents and teachers on all roles. Director and principal expectations for coordinator of school-community relations were considerably greater than for parents and teachers. Implications l. Differentiated expectations should be developed for teaching and released directors and communi- cated throughout the interaction system. Fermin Keith Blue Community school directors should be aware of the many reference groups which exert influence upon their position, the relative potency of each, and the areas of potential conflict. Mutually established priorities of expectations for the position should be communicated to all relevant groups. Improved communications between directors and the teaching staff appear to be needed. THE FLINT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR: ANALYSIS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND EXPECTATIONS BY Fermin Keith Blue A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 f' I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To mention and express my thanks to all of the individuals who have contributed to this project is not feasible. I will, however, take every opportunity to express my gratitude and return your kindness. Dr. Floyd G. Parker, my guidance committee chair- man, and Mary, my wife, hold places of first order magni- tude for their faith, encouragement, and unwavering support and share greatly in this achievement. The guidance of Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, Dr. William E. Sweetland, and Dr. James B. McKee, members of my doctoral committee, is acknowledged and appreciated. Thanks also to Mr. John Sweitzer, College of Education Office of Research Consulta- tion. This project could not have been undertaken without the ready cooperation of the Mott Programs Office of the Flint Board of Education and the teachers, administrators, community directors, and parents of Flint. Their willing- ness to be studied is a tribute to community education. Much credit is due my parents and others of my family for their sustaining efforts and unending support. ii Kenneth and Allison, your understanding was phenomenal and will not go unrewarded. And, thanks to Le and Skip for providing the professional example and stimulation to begin this study. iii LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O 0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . The Research Setting . . Problem Statement . . Importance of the Study Questions Investigated . Definition of Terms . . Overview of the Study . REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE Historical and Conceptual Development of Role Analysis . . . . . . Role Theory in Education . . Related Role Research in Education . Community Schools: Definition and Historical Development . . Community School Director: Authoritative Writing and Research . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . THE RESEARCH PROCEDURE . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . Description of the Instrument Role Segments of the Community Director's Position Research Population . Collection of Data . . Summary . . . . . . . iv 0.000)... 0000:... O O O O o O O O Page vi ix 32 53 61 71 82 97 100 100 102 104 106 110 117 118 CHAPTER Page IV 0 ANALYSIS OF DATA 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ll 9 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Demography of Respondents . . . . . . . 120 Examination of the Study Instrument .'. . 133 Presentation of Data With References to the Study Questions . . . . . . . . . . 134 Question I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Question II. .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Question III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Related Questions . . . . . . . . . 165 Summary of Written Comments and Parent Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Summary of Analysis of Data . . . . . . . 183 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 188 Summary . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . 188 Conclusions . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Implications and Discussion . . . . . . . 212 Recommendations for Further Research . . . 219 BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o o 222 APPENDICES B. CLASSIFICATIONS, DUTIES, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS IN FLINT, MICHIGAN o o c O o o o c o c c o o o o o c 235 C. LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . 240 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Page Distribution of Elementary Pupils--September, 1969 O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O I O O O O 114 Distribution owalementary Teachers-- september’ 1969 O O O O O O O I A O O O O O O 114 Summary of Number of Families, Teachers, Principals, and Directors in the Twelve Selected Study Schools . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Summary of Numbers of-Questionnaires Sent and Re turned 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O I I I 1 2 2 Summary of Usable Returns from Parents and TeaChers . I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 123 Directors Classified by Other School District Experience, Prior Teaching Experience, and Director Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Building Directors by Age, Marital Status, Family Composition, Educational Prepara- tion, and Educational Level . . . . . . . . 125 Directors Classified by Future Career Plans and Reaction to Career Choices . . . . . . . 126 Directors Classified by Administrative Aspirations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Parents, Teachers, and Principals Classified According to Years of Experience With a Community School Director . . . . . . . . . 127 Teachers C1assified_by Total Years Teaching Experience, Teaching Experience in Present School, Teaching Assignment, and Sex . . . . 128 Parents Classified by Number of Children in School, Years Residence in Flint, and Years at Present Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 vi TABLE Page 13. Opinions Concerning the Status of Community School Director Summarized by Directors' Actual and Perceived and Three Groups of Relevant Others . . .~. . . . . . . . . . . 130 14. Opinions on Amount of Time Director Should Devote to Teaching Summarized by Directors and Others I I O O O O I O O O I I O O O I 131 15. Opinions Regarding Teaching Area of Director Summarized by Directors, Actual and Per- ceived, and Three Groups of Relevant Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 16. Selected Operational Statements of Community School Director's Position Classified by Four Role Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 17. Analysis of Variance for Question I: Con- flict Associated With the Community School Director's Position . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 18. F Test Results from Analysis of Variance for Perceived and Actual Conflict . . . . . . . 142 19. F Test Result from Analysis of Variance for Three Groups of Role Definers . . . . . . . 144 20. Analysis of Variance for Question II: Actual and Perceived Expectations for Community School Director's Position Held by Commu- nity School Directors . . . . . . . . . . . 149 21. F Test Result from Analysis of Variance for Director Actual and Perceived Expecta- tions 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 152 22. Analysis of Variance for Question III: Perceptions Held for Community School Director's Position by Directors and Role Definers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 23. F Test Results from Analysis of Variance for Four Groups of Role Definers . . . . . . . 161 24. F Test Results from Analysis of Variance for Four Role Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 vii TABLE 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Page Correlation of Parents Expectations on Four Role Segments With Number of Children Attending School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Mean Expectations Held for Director's Position Classified by Directors and Two Groups of Administrators for Four Role Segments . . . 168 Mean Scores for Six Groups Role Definers for Four Role Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Summary of Actual and Perceived Conflict and Expectation Means Presented by Role Segments and Groups of Role Definers . . . . . . . . 172 Summary of Respondents Who Provided Written Comments Concerning Position of Director . . 173 viii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. First Order Interaction Effects for Perceived and Actual Conflict and Four Role Segments of the Position Community School Director . . 143 2. First Order Interaction Effects for Director Actual and Perceived Expectations'for Three . 154 Groups and Four Role Segments . . . . . . . 3. First Order Interaction Effects for Expecta- tions of Four Groups of Role Definers and Four Role Segments . . . . . . . . 163 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The history of the American Common School is rich in its emphasis upon the importance of education as the primary means of individual and national fulfillment. Henry Barnard was one among many prominent educational philosophers who stated that all citizens of a community must be involved-in the process of community living. He thought that schools were the primary instrument by which the social, moral, and economic state of all citizens could be improved. Recent years, with rising emphasis upon equality of Opportunity and social problems exacerbated by a society growing more complex, have witnessed increasing emphasis by educators, social scientists, and policy makers upon the» importance of school and community cooperation and mutual involvement in seeking solutions to educational and societal problems. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Flint Board of Education, and the citizens of Flint, Michigan have developed an unprecedented partnership to create in Flint a human development laboratory for the evolvement of a model community using the community school concept. The major purpose is to mobilize the human and institutional resources of a community in such a fashion that people of all classes and creeds are given necessary encouragement and opportunity to help themselves to a better life, and local institutions become genuinely responsive to human needs and wants.1 The community school director, a leadership posi- tion common to all Flint Community Schools and many other community school systems, is of central importance in the successful implementation of the community school concept. Success of the Flint community school program is dependent upon intelligent and dedicated leaders. Aside from.administrative heads, these leaders today are the school building directors, especially trained for the work.2 Recent support for this point of view is provided by Totten and Manley in describing the nature, organization, administration, and function of the community school in bringing about a high degree of community development. "Community Services Director" is a new title in educational literature. Although the title is new, the position has been in existence for some time. Such other designations as Community School Director, Community School Agent, Director of Community School 1Peter L. Clancy, The Flint Cgmmunity School Conce t (brochure distributed by the Board of Education, FIInt, Michigan, 1969), p. 2. 2Leo E. Buehring, "New Patterns--Community Schools," Nations Schools, LXI (1958), p. 37. Services, Community Action Director, and Assistant Principal for Community Education have been used. Community education, as conceived and practiced in the Flint, Michigan Public Schools, philosophically and organizationally defines the community school director as the professional staff position upon which the success of the program depends. This study was conceived and designed to further examine and clarify the professional roles of the community school director in two types of neighborhood settings in Flint. Continuing study and analysis of the key variables of local community school leadership is needed as the community school movement seeks maturity and situational effectiveness in a social milieu characterized by rapid change. Flint, Michigan serves as the research setting. Flint, a typical manufacturing-industrial city--a microcosm of urban America--and locus of much of the efforts of the Mott Foundation, has demonstrated over the years an interest in implementing a community school concept as the major vehicle of community involvement, social progress, and educational enrichment of its citizens. Flint has also accepted the challenge of serving as a national demonstra- tion and observation center for the dissemination of the lW. Fred Totten and Frank J. Manley, The Communit School, Basic Concepts,_Functign, and Organization lGaIien, Michigan:’ AlIied Educational CounciI, 1969), p.4144. community school concept and development of trained leadership. School facilities have been planned and constructed to facilitate community education and recreation programs. Each school administrative unit is staffed by a community school director with a variety of responsibilities in planning, coordinating, programming, and facilitating a wide variety of child, youth, and adult activities. School facilities are open to the neighborhood during the school day and through the afternoon and evening hours. Flint and other communities operating a community education program have found it necessary to create a special staff position to provide the unique administrative and leadership services. It is assumed that the quality of leadership by incumbents of the position of community school director will influence directly the sucCess of a cOmmunity school program. Does conflict exist to any significant degree for the various role segments of the position? What role segments does the director define as his major responsibilities? What do the various relevant‘ groups of principals, teachers, and parents.define as important role segments?‘ Does the director accurately perceive what is expected of him by these groups? Do expectations vary according to the school and neighborhood setting? Do expectations vary according to whether or not he is released-time or has teaching responSibilities? These and other related questions will be examined in this study. The Research Setting Flint, Michigan, the second largest city in Michigan and one of America's large urban centers, ranks 63rd in size among the nation's 231 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. It is considered medium sized by national standards and is located about sixty miles north- west of Detroit at the northern fringe of the country's traditional industrial belt.1 Originally incorporated as a city in 1855, Flint has a population of over 200,000 and serves as the urban center for another 200,000 residents in the remainder of Genesee County. Projected 1980 population for the county is 520,000.2 Unlike many central cities, Flint grew steadily in population through the 1950's, showing a population increase of 20.7% between 1950 and 1960. Population growth increase within the city limits has leveled off since 1960, but population growth in the county is continuing at a rapid 1A Com rehensive Demonstration Program for Genesee County, Part I lChicago: Social Planning Associates, Inc., prepared for Genesee County Model Cities Agency, May, 1969), Pp. 2-3. 2Census Tract Project, Flint and Genesee County (Flint: Council—for Social Agencies of Flint and Genesee County, 1963), p. 6. rate. Changes in population distribution over the past decade have been considerable. Fifty percent of the popu- 1ation moved at least once during the 1950-1960 period.1 With few exceptions, the most densely populated census tracts are those closest to the center of the city.2 Flint's economy is dominated by manufacturing industries. In the year ending July, 1968, manufacturing provided 80,600 jobs, equal to 54% of the 148,600 non- agricultural wage and salary jobs in the Flint Labor Market Area.3 The birthplace of General Motors Corporation, Flint has been particularly dependent on the automobile industry. The modern economic and sociological history of the area has been profoundly influenced by the growth patterns of auto-manufacturing. The Flint area's major industries include one or more plants of Buick, Chevrolet, AC Spark Plug, and Fisher Body, in addition to several General Motors regional and divisional headquarters. On December 31, 1968, these establishments accounted for 77,603 jobs, equaling 87% of all manufacturing employment lIbid., p. 5. 21bid., p. 45. 3U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Area Trends in Employment and Unem lo ent (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing OfEice, October, 1968), p. 35. according to the General Motors year end employment report of December, 1968. Flint area residents have a level of income well above the national average. The median family income in 1 Median income of the 1968 for Genesee County was $9,200. nonwhite population is lower than that of the county, State of Michigan, and the United States as a whole, but exceeds the median for all urban nonwhite families in the United States.2 A median of 10.9 years of school completed approxi- mates the State of Michigan and the remainder of the‘ country. A brochure distributed to visitors in Flint lists the following "significant statistics": Flint has: 292 churches serving 54 denomina- tions; 70,860 occupied housing units, of which more than 51,000 are individual homes, 73% owner occupied; 1,600 acres of park area; seven radio stations, a television station; seven hospitals with 2,404 beds; 3,000 retail stores and 277'wholesalers.3 Flint's unique College and Cultural Center is a blending of cultural and collegiate resources developed lU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Analysis of the Flint Housing Market (Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1968), p. 1. 2Census Tract Project, p. 79. 3"Look to Flint" (Flint: The Flint Chamber of Commerce and the Industrial Mutual Association, 1969), p. 2. by individual and corporate donations and tax funds. It contains a museum, an art center, a major planetarium, auditoriums, and theaters, and is functionally integrated with the campus of Flint Community Junior College and Flint Campus of the University of Michigan. Through the Council of Social Agencies and govern- ment agencies, Flint has a fairly wide range of social services. The Council of Sociaergencies.is comprised of ninety-nine volunteer and public agencies and operates from a new modern headquarters in the downtown area. The Charles Stewart Mott fortune, born of the same forces of rapid urbanization and industrialization which created both the amenities and pathologies of Flint, formed the basis of the Mott Foundation which grew in response to the challenges for social betterment and progress in the community. Established in 1926, the philosophical and finan- cial contribution of the Mott Foundation has had its most profound influence upon the City of Flint. Ranking in the top ten of the largest foundations in the country, it is the only foundation that has consistently expended most of its funds and efforts in a small geographic area. Beginning in 1935 with a grant of $6,000 to the Flint Board of Education to support a school- centered, after—hours program, the Mott Foundation has become the only foundation of substantial size in the United States that channels the vast bulk of its spending through the public school system of one community. Classifiable as a major foundation by virtue of its assets, as a family foundation by virtue of its trustee membership, the Mott Founda- tion is nevertheless most like a community founda- tion because of the abnormal extent to which it has involved the community in decision-making and in programming. A grant to the Flint Board of Education of $1,800,000 for the school year 1962-‘63 covers school-administered, school-centered programs in health care and education, adult eduCation and recreation, dental care and education, curriculum enrichment, youth delinquency prevention, and high school drop—out rehabilitation. In the course of an average week, more than 70,000 individuals take part in these self-help, school—centered programs. Development of the now vast range of programs took place gradually through the years in response to expressed wants and needs. Officials and trustees of the foundation claim the community school concept to be the ideal way for effective philanthropic spending. A statement of philosophy of the Mott Foundation is contained in Appendix A. During the 1935-1963 period it contributed more than $20 million to the Flint Board of Education with its share of the total school budget growing each year: from .8% in 1935-'36; 4.8% in 1945-‘46; 6.1% in 1955-'56: to 2 7.05% in the school year l962-'63. The Mott Programs expenditure for 1968-'69 was $4,927,000 of the $35,264,000 K-12 operating budget.3 1Peter L. Clancy, "The Contributions of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation to the Development of the Community School Program in Flint, Michigan" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963), pp. iii-iv. 2Ibid., pp. 223-225. 3Flint Board of Education, "Facts and Figures About Flint, 1969—1970" (unpublished paper). 10 Thus, starting with support of a school-based recreation program in 1935, the Foundation has moved to the support of‘a wide variety of programs utilizing the community schools as the vehicle. This complete saturation of effort has taken the form of a broad "Community School" program and officials of the Foundation now define the purposes of the Foundation as two-fold: 1) To build Flint into a model city through the instrument of the community school and 2) To thus demonstrate to other communities the desirability of this approach to social change.1 All Foundation sponsored programs are administered by the Mott Projects Office of the Flint Board of Education and include: Recreation Adult Education Bingrothers of Greater Flint Farm Program Mott Camp Stepping Stone Youth Development Better Tomorrow for the Urban Child Personalized Curriculum Program Mott Crime and Delinquency Prevention Program Mott Vocational Guidance Program Community Schools Community School Services Workshops and Visitations Mott Communications National Community School Education Association C. S. Mott Foundation Children's Health Center Family Life Education2 1 2The Mott Foundation Projects Annual Report 1967-1968 (Flint: The Foundation, 1968), P.41. Clancy, "Contributions of Mott Foundation," p. 1. 11 In addition some-twenty-three community based programs are listed in the l967-‘68 Annual Foundation Report.1 For the 1969-1970 school year Flint Community Schools served a kindergarten through grade twelve student membership of 46,946, housed in 4 senior high schools, 8 junior high schools, 42 elementary schools, and 200 primary and mobile units, with an operating budget in excess of $40 million. The City of Flint has a $19,000 per pupil valuation, compared to the Michigan average of $15,000 and presently has no bonded indebtedness.2 In 1951 Freeman Elementary School was especially designed and constructed to serve as a community school. Since that time all new schools constructed have included cemmunity meeting and activities areas, office space, and other features to facilitate a comprehensive community based program. All existing buildings have had community schools wings added to the original plants. From the modest beginning in 1952 when the first director was hired for Freeman School, the staff of the community school has grown to include a professional director for each of the district's administrative units plus supervisory, training, and coordinating personnel. lIbid. 2"Facts and Figures About Flint." 12 The 1969-‘70 personnel directory lists fifty—eight community school directors, four regional coordinators, and twenty-eight special service personnel working in the community school program of the Mott Projects Office. This is the community-and educational setting in which the Flint Community School director works to bring alive the community school concept. Problem Statement The major purpose of this study is to identify the role expectations community school directors, parents, teachers, and building principals hold for the professional staff position of community school director in two typical categories of elementary schools in Flint: those classi- fied as inner-city and those classified as non-inner-city. Expectations of the community school director's position will be categorized in the role segments of (1) coordinator of school-community relations, (2) administrator of the community school, (3) professional staff member, and (4) teacher. These expectancies, including those which community school directors believe these grOups hold, will be used to make variouscomparisons relative to convergence or divergence of the role expectations held by the relevant groups in the two categories of schools and whether the community school director is classified as teaching or released—time. 13 It is assumed that various key reference groups define the community school director's position differ- ently, place different emphases on the various role seg- ments, that the director may or may not perceive his role segments in the same way, and may or may not accurately perceive the expectations of others--thus creating situa— tions wherein role conflict may occur. It-is also assumed, using the emerging theory of role analysis, that rele conflict will create tensions which negatiVely-affect-role effectiveness. Role analysis' holds that role conflict decreases role value and that unclear role definitions reduce group produCtivity and produce defensive behaviOr on the part of group partici- pants. Perceived and actual conflict scores for the various role definers will be computed and analyzed for significance. It is further assumed that systematic study of the expressed and perceived expectations can provide information and insights into the position of community school director leading to strategies and decisions for resolution of conflict-resulting in improved position and organizational effectiveness and greater personal satis- faction of role incumbents. Community school directors need to understand the expectations ascribed to the position by the key reference 14 groups exerting influence upon it. Community school directors and others need to know the relative importance which reference groups attach to the various role segments of the position. Community school directors may hold expectations for the position which are in conflict with one or more of the key reference groups and may not accurately perceive and understand the expectations which others hold for the position. Administrators, reference groups, and community school directors need to know of conflicting expectations which cause confusion and tension in-the performance of role duties. This study will also be concerned with examining areas oprersisting role conflict-as identified in previous research by‘Cowanl and Crosby,2 and any areas of conflict emerging from the turbulent decade of the 1960's. In order to conduct the study it was necessary to define the duties and responsibilities commonly ascribed to the focal position in Flint and to organize and lAlton W. Cowan, "The Building Director: A Critical Study of Expectations Held for the Position by Principals, Adult Education Co-ordinators, Teachers, and Building Directors" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960). 2Jerry D. Crosby, "A Study of the Expectancies- Which Community School Directors and Related Others Have of the Community School Director's Roles in Serving Neighborhoods of Eight Inner-city Schools in the City of Flint, Michigan" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965). 15 categorize them into major role segments. This was accomplished through a variety of means including an extended internship in various community schools and the Mott Projects Office of the Flint Board of Education, and attendance at several state and national meetings of- community educators focuSing on the Flint program. Review of theoretical and operational writing including Totten and Manley,1 Mott Foundation Annual Report,2 Campbell,3 and publications of the Mott Projects Office, Flint Board of Education4 was also undertaken. lTotten and Manley, The Community School--Basict Concepts, Function, and Organization, pp. 161-166; W. Fred Totten, A Look at Flint's Community Schools (Flint:' Board of Education, 1968). 2Mott-Foundation-Projects Annual Report 1967-1968. 3Clyde M. Campbell (ed.), The Community;School and Its Administration, Vol. XI, No. 3-5’TMid1and, Michigan: Inter-InsEitutional Workshop, 1963, 1964). 4MottProjects Office, Communit Education-- Dissemination Program Manual (FIint: Board of Education, 1968); Flint Board of Education, The Role of the_ Communit .School Director in the Flint Community Schools (FIint: Board of Education, 1967); Flint Board of Education, The Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education (Flint: Board of Education, 1569); Flint Board of Education, CommunitySchool Directors Training Guide (Flint: Board of Education). 16 A review of related research on the position of community school director included studies by Berridge,1 Crosby,2 and Cowan.3 Using representative defined duties and respon- sibilities of the Community School Director's position, categorized into the major role segments of teacher, administrator of community school, professional staff member, and coordinator of school-community relations, this investigation examined and analyzed role expectations held for the position of community school director by directors and significant others in two typical classifi- cations of Flint elementary schools, inner—city and non- inner-city. The respondent population included building principals, community school directors, random sample of teachers, and stratified random sample of parents in the study schools, plus the three Directors of Elementary Education and the three Elementary Community School Regional Coordinators. Findings may be generalized to the population represented by this sample. To the extent 1Robert Berridge, "A Study of the Opinions of Community Education Leaders and Community School Directors Regarding-an Intensive Preparation Program for Community School Directors" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 2Crosby, "Expectancies of Community School." 3Cowan, "The Building Director." 17 to which the sample groups are similar to other popula- tions, the findings may have implications for a broader population. Importance of the Study The level of the individual community school director's comprehension of the expectations of signifi- cant reference groups and the degree to which reference groups and directors understand areas of agreement and disagreement will in large measure determine the effective- ness of his leadership in implementing the community school concept. Commenting upon the interdependence of related roles and the importance of shared frames of reference for effective communication, Newcomb stated: Such role familiarity means much more than merely knowing what one is "supposed to do" oneself. One cannot, in fact, even have an imaginary version of one's own role without a complementary version of the other's. Role familiarity is thus, strictly speaking, inter-role familiarity. Roles, like language, are dependent upon shared understandings.l The director's focal position of responsibility in community education is shaped by the expectations of others as he perceives them, his own beliefs toward his roles, and the administrative structure of the educational system lTheodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: Dryden Press, 1950), p. 283. 18 which carries institutionalized expectations for the role. As Gross observes, Three basic ideas which appear in most of the conceptualizations (of role analysis), if not in the definitions of role themselves, are that individuals: (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to expectations.1 Key reference groups, as defined either by commu- nity school philosophy or the formal and informal organiza- tional structures, include parents living within the attendance area, teachers, building principals, directors of elementary education, and regional community school coordinators. Solby, from his investigation of role, has hypothesized that role conflict decreases role value.2 Therefore, identification of areas of diverse expectations and resulting role conflict regarding the community school director's position is necessary as the basis for recom- mendations and understandings leading to the resolution of real, perceived, and potential conflict. Conflict resolu- tion will enhance the effectiveness of the position of director and, therefore, goal attainment of the community school in Flint and, potentially, other communities which look to Flint for leadership. 1Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. I7. 2Bruno Solby, "The Role Concept and Job Adjust- ment," Sociometry, VII (1944), p. 227. 19 On role analysis, Brookover and Gottlieb state: Recent studies demonstrate that status-role theory provides a framework for fruitful analysis of various positions in the school system as well as the relations between these positions and rela- tions with other segments of the society. Under- standing of the expectations held for teachers, administrators, and other positions in the school is an essential foundation for education of school personnel and the effective functioning of the school system. Systematic study of the status roles in the school system has only a brief history and, therefore, has produced a.very limited knowledge about them. Valid generalizations about the expecta- tions held for these positions and the factors which affect these expectations cannot yet be made. The data now available suggest many hypothesis and areas for fruitful research. With reference to Brookover's observation, studies in role analysis have the potential of providing valuable information regarding the internal functioning of an organization and that organization's relations with other segments of society. The community school model is struc- tured to provide the arena for the solution of sociological and educational problems via the release and interaction of individual potential, community and institutional resources. Careful study of the pivotal role position, therefore, can provide information for continuing refinement of community school organization: for example, through administrative action, pre- and in-service training for professional lWilbur B. Brookover and David Gottlieb, A_ §ociolo of Education (2nd ed.; New York: American Book 00., I9 4i, p. 353. 20 groups, human relations programs, and public information efforts. Flint is the widely recognized leader in the community school movement and serves as a laboratory, demonstration, training, and visitation center nationally and internationally. Several community school leadership training programs are located in Flint to prepare persons for several levels of staff and administrative responsi- bilities throughout the country. The Mott Inter-University Clinical Preparation Program, begun in 1964 with the financial support of-the Mott Foundation and the cooperative efforts of the Flint Board of Education and seven Michigan universities, brings approximately forty doctoral interns and thirty masters degree interns per year to live and intern in Flint's community schools. Flint provides the laboratory, instruc- tional, and administrative facilities; and the cooperating universities provide instructional personnel, library. resources, and research facilities. In addition to university classwork, seminars, and colloquia, each intern contacts school officials during the year for observation and participation in the duties and responsibilities of designated positions. As a result (of the intern program) community education programs are being established on an accelerated basis, and the supply of trained men is being expanded for employment in colleges and universities. lMott Foundation projects Report 1967-1968, p. 9. 21 Short Term Training Program provides two intensive six-week programs each year to prepare local leadership for community school programs throughout the United States and Canada.1 Concern for leadership training for the nation has not meant neglect for local educators who wish to earn a degree in community education. The Graduate Training Program in cooperation with Eastern Michigan University enrolled 1,631 graduate students in 1967-‘68. In addition to graduate programs, two-week workshops are conducted at colleges and universities throughout the country, and materials are prepared for use in community education in approximately 300 institutions.2 Many workshop leaders, writers, and college lecturers are current or past members of the Flint Community School staff. The Mott Foundation has supported the establish- ment of several regional university-demonstration centers, and plans call for increasing this number. Centers are in operation at Alma College, Olivet, Northern Michigan Uni- versity, Oakland University, Western Michigan University, and Eastern Michigan University in Michigan; and at Ball State University, Florida Atlantic University, Brigham lIbid., p. 11. 21bid. 22 Young University, and Arizona State University.1 Many staff members in these centers interned or worked in the Flint Community School. Other examples of special programs designed to transplant community education are the Mott Institute for Community Improvement and Mott Institute for Strengthening Community Institutions.2 The Conference and Visitations Program, organized in 1961, requires a full—time staff of four, and every member of the Mott Programs is expected to invest time and. effort in workshop and visitation programs.‘ Three state and national community school conferences are held annually in Flint, and Flint is host city for a variety of other conferences and workshops. From a yearly average of 4,000 in the late 1950's to early 1960's, Visitations have grown to approximately 12,000 per year,3 representing an average of 33 states and 78 foreign countries annually.4 The National Community School Education Associa- tion, founded in 1966 and headquartered in Flint, offers a variety of services including consultative service, in- service workshops, research, publications, leadership Ihide ' pp. 12-15. Ibidc I pp. 11-12. wNH Ibid. 4LarryBriggs, Conferences and Visitations Pro ram Re ort (Flint: Mott Programs, Board of Education, 1962), p. e 23 training, job placement, and regiOnal and national conferences drawing upon Flint experience and resources. NCSEA records list over 330 community school districts in the United States and Canada, increased from 10 in 1963.1 Knowledge gained in the Flint laboratory clearly- has the potential to influence practice beyond the research setting. Flint Community School, as a function of its leadership training role, must continually recruit, train, and induct as efficiently as possible a large number of community school directors. Clarification of role and responsibilities may be incorporated into existing pre- and in-service training experiences. Two previOus studies have explored the community school director's role with the purpose of identifying, clarifying, and resolving possible role conflict. Cowan, in 1960, found areas of role conflict between community school directors and teachers.2 Crosby's study involved a small sample of inner—city parents and suggested further investigation to include a non-inner-city sample.3 lMott'Foundation Projects Report.l967-1968, p. 43; National Community School Education Association, Tracin the Growth of Community Schools, Historical Resumé (FIint: The Association, March, 1970). 2Cowan, "The Building Director," pp. 140-142. 3Crosby, "Expectancies of Community School Directors," p. 183. 24 Both recommended that further investigation be conducted in this area. Areas of persistent or shifting role con- flict need to be determined. Questions Investigated MajorQuestions I. II. Are there significant differences in conflict for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the actual and perceived expectations of community. school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner-city and-non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? C. Groups of role definers? D. Perceived and actual? E. Role segments? Are there significant differences in the expecta- tions held for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the community school directors, when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? III. 25 C. Groups of role definers? D. Perceived and actual? E. Role segments? Are there significant differences in the actual expectations held for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner—city and non-inner—city schools? B. Teaching and released community school: directors? C. Groups of role definers? D. Role segments? Relatedjgnestions 1. Are expectations held by parents for the role community school director in Flint elementary community schools related to the number of children they have enrolled in school? What are the expressed expectations for the posi- tion community school director of Directors of Elementary Education? What are the expressed expectations for the posi- tion community school director of Regional Community School Coordinators? 26 Definition of Terms. The definition of terms used in this study relating to the theory of role analysis is based to a great extent on the language of role analysis as conceptualized by Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, which has been used in much of the recent research in this area.1 Position: The location of an individual or class of individ- uals in a system of social relatiOnships. Role“expectation:‘ An evaluative standard applied to an incumbent of a position: i.e., what an individual is expected to do in a given situation in a normative rather than a predic- tive sense. Role: As used in the above definition, a role is a set of expectations or set of evaluative standards applied to an incumbent of a specific position and may be categorized into role segments. Role segments of the focal role of a community school director used in this study are: l. Coordinator of school-community relations 2. Administrator of community school 1Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role 27 3. Professional staff member 4. Teacher Role consensus: Exists when similar expectations are held for an occupant of a position. Role conflict: Exists when significant contradictory expectations are held for an occupant of a position. Communityyschool director's belief: An expression of how the community school director believes he should act in a described situation. Role‘perceptions of community school director: Refers to how the community school director defines the expectations of other groups significant to him. "Role perception may be thought of as.a sequence of behaviors in which the perceptual response is the first part of.a social act."l For the purposes of this study, groups of signifi- cant others are parents, building principals, teachers, directors of elementary education, and community school regional coordinators.- Expressed expectation of groups of significant others: Refers to how the significant other groups in this study--parents, teachers, building principals, directors 1Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1., ed. Gardner Lindzey TCambridge, Mass.: AddisOn-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), p. 283. 28 of elementary education, and community school regional coordinators--believe the community school director should perform in a described situation or role segment. Community school director: Designates the actor who occupies the professional staff position in each Flint school responsible for the supervision, organization, and administration of the optional after-school and evening portions of the commu- nity school program. The most universal title, although a variety of other titles are applied to the position in the theoretical and descriptive literature. Teaching community school director: The typical director teaches afternoons during the required classroom portion of the community school program. Released community school director: A community school director who has no classroom teachingresponsibilities. Usually applies to a director with three years of experience who devotes full-time to the duties of community school director. This designation is determined by the request of the principal and the nature of the particular school setting. Community school: For the purpose of this study-includes all the public elementary schools in Flint, Michigan. 29 Inner-city elementary school:. Elementary schools of Flint which qualify by local, state, or national criteria for compensatory educational programs such as ESEA, 1965 Title I; Middle Cities; Head Start: Follow Through; Better Tomorrow for Urban Youth; etc.; and are so designated by the school administration. Non-inner-cityielementaryjschool: All public elementary schools of Flint not desig- nated as inner-city elementary schools. Teacher: Refers to certificated staff personnel employed to instruct children in grades kindergarten through six or in special subject teaching assignments in the regular school program. Buildingjprincipal: The principal is the administrator with respon- sibility for the total school program in the schools described'above. Regional-coordinator of community schools: Regional community sChool coordinators are persons who occupy a line administrative position under assignment to the Director of Community School Programs and help coordinate the activities of community school directors, assist in pre- and in-service training of community school directors, and assist in the evaluation of programs in their assigned areas. 30 Director of elementary education: Directors of elementary education are persons who occupy a line administrative position under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of K-12, and are respon- sible for the general operation, organization, and manage- ment of the elementary schools assigned to their supervision. They interpret Board of Education policy and administrative procedures through the principals to all staff of the elementary schools assigned to them. Overview of the Study» This study of role analysis of the Flint community school director is presented in five chapters. Chapter I: Introduction Introduction, a description of research setting, problem statement, importance of the study, questions investigated, definition of terms, and an overview. Chapter II: Review of Related Research and Literature The summary of related research is divided into three major parts: (1) development of the concepts, theoretical framework, and research applications of role analysis; (2) philosophy and growth of community education; and (3) descriptive and research writing concerning-the position of community school director. 31 Chapter III: The Research Procedure Description of the study, categorization of director's role segments, development of the questionnaire, population, and a summary of the research procedures used to analyze the data. Chapter IV: Presentation and Analysis of Data Statistical methods relating the data to the questions being investigated, summary of respondents' open-end comments, and analysis of results. Chapter V: Summaryy Conclusions, and Recommendations Resumé of the study, discussion of conclusions, and implications for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE This review of related literature is concerned with three major topics related to the investigation: development of the concepts, theoretical framework, and research applications of role analysis; philosophy and ‘growthof-community education; and descriptive and research writing concerning the position of community school director. The role analysis section has two major foci: recapitulation of-the multidisciplinary nature and evolu- tion of role concepts and language, and role.analysis as it has been applied to the study of educational organiza- tions and positions within the education setting. Historical and Conceptual.Development of Role Analysis Role theory, an interdisciplinary approach drawing from the study fields of culture, personality, and society, has been refined to the point where it occupies a signifi- cant place in the theoretical and research literature and is one of the most widely used ideas of the social 32 33 sciences.1 Theodore Sarbin writes that "the broad conceptual units of the theory are role, the unit of culture; position, the unit of society; and self, the unit of personality." He defined position as a system of role expectations.2 Contained within the proliferation of writing concerning role theory are a number of rather stable concepts developed by certain writers and re- searchers recognized for their enduring contributions. This section is concentrated primarily upon these key concepts and the individuals who formulated them. Neiman and Hughes in 1951 did an extensive survey of the literature concerning the use of the concept "role" 1Frederick L. Bates, "Position, Role, and Status: A Reformation of Concepts," Social Forces, XXXIV (May, 1956), p. 313; Wilbur B. Brookover, "Research on Teacher and Administrator Roles," The Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXIX (September, 1955), p. 2; Maureen E. Cain, "Some Suggested Developments for Role and Reference Group Analysis," British Journal of Sociology, XIX (June, 1968), p. 191; Lionel J. Neiman and James W. Hughes, "The Problem of the Concept of Role," Social Forces, XXX (December, 1951), p. 149; William A. Rushing, "The Role Concept: Assump- tions and Their Methodological Implications," Sociolo and Social Research, LIX (October, 1964), p. 48; Theodore R. Sarbin and Vernon L. Allen, "Role ~ Theory," Handbook of Social Psycholo , Vol. 1, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson ( nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968), p. 488. 2 Ibid., p. 223. 34 as it has been used in various field of study in the 1 They reported that the fifty.year period 1900-1950. seeming hopeless mass of definitions and usages actually could be grouped into three broad categories: (1) the use of role to describe the_dynamic process of personality development, (2) definitions in terms of society as a whole, and (3) functional definitions which refer to specific groups within the larger social system. Using the Neiman and Hughes taxonomy the researcher finds that shortly before the turn of the century social psychologists began to use the concept of role as the basic factor in the process of socialization, the definition of self, and cultural patterns, all of which remain in popular usage today. Cottrell states: Personality, or the most significant part of it, is the organization of the roles the person plays in group life. . . . The role is the organization of habits and attitudes of the individual appropriate to a given position in a system of social relation- ships. . . . First in our use of the concept role we are prone to think of certain characteristic responses or tendencies to respond which the person makes or tends to make to persons or situations. As Cottrell continues he emphasizes one of the concepts which is recurrent in almost all discussion of 1Neiman and Hughes, "Problem of Concept of Role," pp. 141-149. 2Leonard S. Cottrell, "Roles and Marital Adjust- ment," Publications of the American Sociological Society, 35 role theory, that of the self-other interaction in role definition: Frequently we fail to recognize clearly enough what might be called expectations entertained by the subject as to the actions or responses which are to come from other persons. . . . There is no conception of one's role, conscious or unconscious, without a reference to what action is expected in the situation of which role is a part.1 In examining role in terms of society as a whole, it is considered in two sub-categories: role as a social norm and role as a synonym for behavior. In the first category where the typical usage refers to role as cul- turally defined social norms which dictate reciprocal action, Stouffer, using the terms social norm and roles interchangeably, states: (1) In any social group there exiSt norms and a strain for conformity to these norms. (2) Ordinarily, if the norms are clear and unambiguous the individual has no choice but to conform or take the consequences in group resentment.2 In the second category with role used as,a synonym for behavior, it has typically manifested the character- istic of lack of-definity or vagueness.3 At the third level of the taxonomy, definitions of role in terms of specific groups, are found the role theory constructs germain to this investigation. 11bido’ Pi 1080 2Samuel A. Stouffer, "An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms," American Sociological Review, XIV (December, 1949), p. 707. 3 Neiman and Hughes, "Problem of Concept of Role," p. 145. 36 Ralph Linton is commonly credited with formally introducing role theory concepts and terminology into the language of the social sciences.1 Linton postulates a status—role continuity in his discussion of the concept of role in association with the concept of status, one of the most frequently used associations in the literature. In discussing the nature of seciety, he points out that the functioning of any society depends upon the existence of patterns for reciprocal behavior between individuals or groups of individuals. A status, a collection of rights and duties, in the abstract sense is a position in a par- ticular pattern and is distinct from the individual who- occupies it. It is extremely hard for us to maintain_a dis- tinction in our thinking between statuSes and the people who hold them and exercise the rights and duties which constitute them. A role represents the dynamic aspect of a status. The individual is socially assigned to a status and occupies it with relation to other statuses. When he puts the rights and duties which constitute the statuses into effect, he is performing a role. Role and status are quite inseparable, and-the distinction between them is of only academic interest.2 Linton continues: Every individual has a series of roles deriving from the various patterns in which he participates and at the same time a role, general, iRalph Linton, The-Study ongan (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1936), p. 502; Bates, "Position, Role, and Status," p. 313; Rushing, "The Role Concept," p. 46. 2Linton, The Study_of Man, pp. 113-114. 37 which represents the sum total of these roles and determines what he does for his society and what he can expect from it. Role serves to reduce the ideal patterns for social life to individual terms. They become models for organizing the attitudes and be- havior of the individual so that these will be congruous with those of the other individuals par- ticipating in the expression of the pattern.1 Assignment of role and position at once limits and defines the actor's activities and establishes minimum acceptable levels of role performance. Parsons, in discussing attributes of the social system, has defined the fundamental terms and concepts of role analysis. He posits the participation of-an actor in a patterned interactive relationship as the most signifi- cant unit of the social system, with each actor participat- ing in a network of such relationships. Participation has two major features: Status--a positional factor designating where an actor is located in the social system relative to other actors} Role--a processnal factor of what the actor does in the context of functional significance for the social system.2 Another key point is his postulate that the basic condition on which a given interaction system stabilizes is the point lIbid., p. 114. 2Talcott Parsons, The Social S stem (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press of Glencoe, 195Ii, p. 575. . . . . t , _ . ' < .. , ,, I v . ' ‘ I . .. A I v, p \ . , I ~ I , . . , I ‘ , ' \ . i . . ‘ g I , t. , . - -. ,, - _ I. _ , . , , . I , . . I I I I g . ' . ‘ - ' 1 Ir . - ~ .I . . . - ~ - ~- , >7 ‘ ~ - . -- . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . A, - t . . h . I. . I ‘x . I ‘ I . ' ‘ _ 38 where the interest of the actors is bound to conformity with a grOup shared value-orientatidn system. A value pattern in this sense is always institu- tionalized in an interaction context. Therefore, there is always a double aspeCt of the expectatiOn system which is integrated in relation to it. On theyother hand there are the expectations which concern and in part set standards for the behavior of the actor, ego, who is taken as the point of reference; these are his "role expectations." On the other hand, from his point of view there is a set of eXpectatidns relative to the contigently probable reactions of others (alters)--these will be called "sanctions," which in turn may be subdivided into positive and negative according to whether theyI are felt by ego to be gratification-promoting or . depriving. The relation between role-expectations and sanctions then is clearly reciprocal.’ What are sanctions to ego are‘roleeexpectations to alter and vice-versa. A role then is a sector of the total orientation system of an individual actor which is organized about expectatibns in relation to a particular inter- action context, that is integrated with a particular set of value-standards which govern interaction with one orimore alters in the appropriate complementary roles. Comparing definitions of the key concepts of two of the most often quoted contributors to role theory pro- vides for convenient examination of the similarities. 3 furnish the basis for this comparison Sarbin2 and Bates of status or position, role and expectations or role prescriptions. lIbid., p. 38. 2Sarbin and Allen, "Role Theory," pp. 223-230. 3Bates, "Position, Role and Status," pp. 313-321. 39 Status or Position Sarbin--Position is a system of rights and duties and is the unit of society. It is a cognitive organization of interactive expectancies. That is, a person occupying a position learns to anticipate certain actions from others and that others expect certain actions from him. Batgsf-"A location in a social structure which is associated with a set of social norms."1 Role Sarbin--Role is the organized and learned action of an individual in a given position--a patterned sequence performed in an interaction situation. A role is normative and structural and not behavioral in nature. EEEEET‘"A part of a social system consisting of a more or less integrated or related sub—set of social norms which is distinguished from other sets of norms forming the same position."2 Expectations or Role Prescriptions Sarbin--An organized cognitive set of role expecta- tions is equivalent to a position in a social system lIbid., p. 314. 21bid. 40 and is classified in two general types: rights and obligations. Rights are expectations in which an actor anticipates certain performances from an actor in a reciprocal role, and obligations are expectations in+which the actor in a role anticipates certain performances directed toward the actor of the recipro- cal role. Rights and obligations can be studied in terms of actions, anticipated or overt, and qualities or characteristics of the actor. gatgsf-A norm is a patterned or commonltheld behavior expectation and is a learned response, held in common by members of a given group. Similar, though not identical, definitions are used by numerous writers and researchers drawing upon and utilizing the role theory frame of reference including 1 Getzels and Guba,2 and Parsons and Shils.3 In Argyle. addition a host of other theoretical and research efforts attest to the increasing importance of role theory in both sociology and social psychology. As Biddle has noted, 1Michael Argyle, "The Concepts of Role and Status," Sociological Review, XLIV (1952), pp. 39-52. 2J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Conflict and EffectiveneSs: An Empirical Study," American Socio- logical Review, XIX (1954), pp. 164-175. 3Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, (ed.), Toward a General Tneory of Action (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951). 41 Literally hundreds of titles have appeared in the literature in the last decade making reference to role theory. Major theoretical works appear which are based directly-upon or draw heavily from role theory. Empirical studies by the score, articles, monographs and dissertations demonstrate the useful- ness of this frame of reference in generating communicable data.l Biddle lists problems which stand in the way of role theory's becoming a truly theoretical structure: 1. Lack of agreement on concepts belonging within the theory. 2. Lack of agreement on labels for these concepts. 3. Lack of a logico-deductive structure based upon conceptual distinctions, and cites the almost universal recognition of this problem within the field. Biddle adds: A typical article in role theory proceeds from the recognition of-confusion to a redefinition of all previously used terms so as to express the legitimate insights of the author, thus adding still more connotations and confusion. Recently, however, there have been some serious attempts to clear up the problem.2 Among several authors cited by Biddle for their attempts to overcome the problems already mentioned was 1Bruce J. Biddle, Bibli ra hies on Role Terms, Role Conflict and the‘Role of'tEe Teacher, Vol. B: Studies in the Rdle of_the Public SchooI:Teacher TColumbia, Missouri: Social Psychology Laboratory, University of Missouri, 1961), p. l. 21bid., p. 2. 42 Gross, Mason, and McEachern whose concepts and definitions form the basis of this study.1 Gross, in dealing with the definitional problems of role theory, suggests that the various definitions’ reflect the particular discipline and viewpoint of the writer and that many of the differences are cases of the same concepts with different labels. Gross.concludes: "Three basic ideas which appear in most of the conceptualizations considered, if not in the definitions of role themselves, are that individuals: (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to expectations."2 Similarly Rushing in summarizing the assumptions of role concept stated: Consideration of the assumptions of prescription and complementarity indicates that, despite differences in the precise manner in which phenomena are labeled at the conceptual level, the role framework deals with the phenomena of uniform behavior and attitudes, social norms which prescribe these uniformities, and the expectations of-others.3 Yet another writer, Sargent, takes nearly the same view in discussing the excellent potentialities of role as an integrational concept in social psychology: 1 Analysis. 21bid., p. 17. 3 Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role Rushing, "The Role Concept," p. 55. 43 A person's role is a pattern or type of social behavior which seems situationally appropriate to him in terms of the demands and expectations of those in his group.1 He further suggests that while "roles" have ingredients of cultural, personality, and situational determination, a given role is never wholly cultural, wholly personal, or wholly situational, but as conceptual- ized and enacted is affected by differing degrees of these three ingredients. Sargent adds depth to his definition of role by further defining several of the terms used in the previous definition: Person's role emphasizes that roles are always enacted by individuals. Pattern ortypg_of social behavior suggests that roles are socially and culturally defined frames of reference within whose bounds latitude of behavior is permitted. Social behavior recognizes that roles have no meaning outside a context of interaction and inter- personal relationships. And situational appropriateness highlights the importance of perception. lS. Stansfeld Sargent, "Conceptions of Role and Ego in Contemporary Psychology," Social Psycholo y_at the Crossroads, ed. John H. Rohrer and Muzafer Sheri? (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 360. 44 One does not respond to a situation as defined objectively, but rather as he perceives or inter- prets it. One behaves in a way that is congruent with his subjective definition of the situation.1 Concluding the discussion of the first fifty years of the concept "role" in the various subdivisions of their classification schema, Neiman and Hughes identified several enduring elements common to the concept: First in all the definitions and usages of the concept there is involved either an individual definition of a Specific situation or an-individual acceptance of a group's definition of a specific situation. Second, role behavior, no matter how it is defined, or even when not defined, involves the assumption of a process of symbolic interaction or communication as a prerequisite, which leads then to a further generalization; namely, that man is the only role-playing animal and that this is one of the characteristics which distinguishes man from other animals. Third, human behavior cannot be explained or described by the use of traits or other atomized concepts, but must be viewed from the framework of organized and integrated patterns of behavior.2 Summarizing the most extensive survey of the literature of the concept "role," Neiman and Hughes conclude: l. Historically the greatest emphasis has been in the last decade as far-as the use of the concept is concerned. Prior to about 1940 the concept was more of an abstract generalization than a research tool. After 1940 more research involving the concept is in evidence. PP- lIbid., p. 360. 2Neiman and Hughes, "Problem of Concept of Role," 147-148. 45 2. In the early historical development, in the area of theoretical assumptions and implication, theI frame of reference was almost exclusively that of symbolic interactioniSm. This trend has con- tinued to the present day as exemplified by those who use the concept as a basic factor in the process of socialization. 3. In the literature of empirical research, by far the greatest amount of research has been in sociometry, but isolated studies have appeared elsewhere. 4. In spite of the confusion and lack of consensus, the concept role is at present an integral part of sociological vocabulary. 5. In the psychological literature, although the word, "role," may not itself be used, the implication is found in such concepts as "self"; "self-perception"; and "self-awareness." 6. The concept role is used as an ad hoc explana- tiOn of human behavior. 7. The concept role is reified.l Bates advanced ten postulates and corollaries in an attempt to clarify the concepts associated with role theory. He categorized his postulations around the internal structure of position, relationship between two different positions, and relationship between positions in the action process. Several of his positions touch upon areas not included in preceding formulations of role. Postulate: Within any given position there tends to be a strain towards consistency or adjustment between the various roles composing a position.2 Within an individual, tension will result when inconsist- ent or conflicting expectations exist with reference to the actor's behavior. Given the freedom to do so, the 11bid., p. 149. 2Bates, "Position, Role, and Status," p. 315. 46 actor will tend to redefine the role so as to reduce the tension.I Postulate: Each position contains certain dominant roles to which are adjusted certain recessive roles. A dominant role is‘a role which determines the structure of that part of the position in which it is found due to the relative inflexibility of.the norms which compose it. Dominance is a relative thing. Within each position, the less flexible roles become dominants and the more flexible ones recessives. A recessive role than is simply one which becomes changed or adjusted in relation to'a dominant role.1 Postulate: For each pair of functionally related positions, there exists at least one pair of roles, one within each position, which are composed of reciprocal norms requiring reciprocal behavior.2 This postulate provides the basis for the following: Postulate: There is a pressure towards adjustment between two positions such that when they are tangent with each other they~tend to become tangent at a point where two reciprocal roles are in contact.3 Bates does not, however, feel that-adjustment between positions to reduce tension and conflict is in- evitable. He does imply that this is a normal tendency, but in specific cases personality problems may interfere or peculiar situations may prevent tension reduction or, in fact, create additional tension.4 lIbid., p. 316. 21bid., p. 317. 31bid., p. 321. 41bid. 47 While not using Bates' term "peculiar situations," Bakke advances the theory that behavior in a system of roles can be classified according to the sources of the expectancies and that for any role there are several sets of expectancies: l. The expectancies which, as can be inferred from formulated and announced specifications and rules, the managers of the organization should hold with respect to their subordinates. (Organizational Task) 2. The expectancies which are held by the super- ordinate to whom the actor is subordinate. 3. The expectancies held by others with whom the actor is directly associated in tasks performed for the organization. (Cooperative Task) 4. The expectancies held by those belonging to a circle of participants with which the actor feels himself identified. (Group Task) 5. The expectancies which the actor has for himself. (Personal Act)l Bakke denies the traditional concept that the first two types be classified as formal behavior and the remain- der as informal and maintains that behavior is a fusion the actor makes to the several sources of expectancies.2 Biddle and Thomas, in a more current approach, classify role concepts and terms for application in role research. The authors use a system of four classes in ordering role concepts and definition of terms: lWright Bakke, "Concept of the Social Organiza- tion," Modgrn Organizatioanheory, ed. Mason Haire (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1959), p. 45. 2 Ibid. 48 I. Terms for Partitioning Persons deals with actor, alter, ego, other, person, and self. II. Terms for Partitioning Behaviors includes expectations, norm, performance, and sanction. III. Terms for Partitioning Sets of Persons and Behaviors with the sub—set of terms, position and role. IV. Terms for Relating Sets of Persons and Behavior containing such terms as rolei status, accuracy, consensus, and role conflict. This system offers promise in clarifying the numerous metaphors used in describing role and reference groupIphenomena. Even more recently Cain offers a classification system which attempts to answer the questions: Who are the role definers? What is the extent of the relative power of their role projections as determinants of ego's behavior? and What are the bases of this power?2 Cain utilizes the term counter-position, "to identify individuals, or collectives of those who stand in a similar structural relationship to ego, and whom ego perceives to be projecting role definitions."3 Dissensus, conflict, and related problems originate within a given counter-position or between counter- positions. She advances a classification system of reference groups: 1Bruce J. Biddle and Edwin J. Thomas, Role Theory: Concepts and Research (New York: John Wiley afid Sons, I pp. -12. 2 Cain, "Developments for Role," pp. 191-205. 31bid., pp. 192-193. 49 1. Identification groups which provide a source of values for the focal actor. 2. Normative reference groups which provide and maintain standards for the actor. 3. Audience groups which are seen as evaluating behavior. 4. Interactive groups which must be considered only to accomplish purposes. 5. Comparative groups which have value only because the identification group designates them as points of reference.1 These reference groups can be ranked on a con- tinuum from effective role definers, those in a position to provide normative expectations and usually possessing sanctions, to ineffective, those to whom ego is indiffer- ent. All reference groups are external, while self, usually an effective role definer, is considered internal. Further, ineffective role definers may be classified as latent and potential. Cain ranks the groups in descending order of potency in their influence on ego, with 4 and 5 being neutral. Also within each group there may be groups which can be ranked according to their power over ego. Differ- ences in power between counter-positions and the inter- dependence of ego and counter-positions are regarded as central concepts of role and reference group theory. Other variables influencing the relative potency of groups in particular situations are, for example, the visibility of potential behaviors, the legitimacy attributed to the identification group's expectations with reference to this lIbid., p. 196. 50 particular situation, the likelihood of sanctions being exercised and their probable nature, other needs and characteristics of ego's personality, and the centrality/peripherality of this particular area of behavior for the identification group itself.1 According to Sarbin and Allen role expectations are the rights and privileges, obligations and duties of any incumbent of a social position in relation to persons occupying other positions in the social structure. Expec- tations provide a conceptual bridge between social struc- ture and role behavior.2 Sarbin feels that measurement of expectations can take numerous forms including ques- tionnaires, interviews, and inferences from overt behavior and that knowledge of others' role expectations for an actor facilitates interaction with others regardless of whether his own conception of his role coincides with theirs. His hypothesis is that unclear role expectations are detrimental to a group in both the task and the social-emotional area.3 On the subject of role conflict, considered here for its application in this study, Biddle offers three selected meanings common to the area of role theory: 1. Inconsistent prescriptions (or other standards) held for a person by himself or by one or more others. lIbid., p. 197. 2Sarbin and Allen, "Role Theory," pp. 488-567. 31bid., pp. 501—503. 51 2. The attribution of inconsistent prescription (or standards) to others, applicable to one's self. 3. Feelings of unease resulting from the existences or assumption of inconsistent prescriptions (or standards).1 Sarbin identifies role conflict of two types-- interrole, due to the simultaneous occupancy of two or more positions having incompatible role expectations; and intrarole. Intrarole conflict involves contradictory expectations held by two or more relevant other groups regarding the same roles. Intrarole conflict can occur not only when there are conflicting expectations from different groups, but also may result when a single group holds simultaneously contradicting expectations for a role.2 Gross found that some degree of conflict is in- herent in certain positions which have several clearly defined reference groups: in their study of superintend- 3 ents, teachers, and school board members. It is intra- role conflict which is the concern of this study. Jacobson et_al. contend that conflict refers specifically to cultural discrepancies and Does not imply that the subject of the discrepant expectations necessarily perceives them or experi- ences psychological conflict as a result of them. The significance of identifying situations of role 1Biddle-and Thomas, Role Theory, p. 12. 2Sarbin and Allen, "Role Theory," p. 540. 3Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, pp. 248-249. 52 conflict lies in the fact that the situations are potential sources of psychological conflict.l The utility of role theory as an analytic tool in the study of organization and organizational behavior is amplyillustrated by such theorists and researchers as Palumbo,2 Rushing,3 Frank,4 Bakke,5 7 Levinson,8 Willis,9 Gross,10 Getzels,6 Julian, and Jacobson, Charters and lEugene Jacobson, W. W. Charters, Jr., and Seymour Lieberman, "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of. Complex Organization," Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951). PP. 22-23. 2Dennis J. Palumbo, "Power and Role Specificity in Organizational Theory," Public Administration Review, XXIX (May-June, 1969), pp. 237-246. 3Rushing, "The Role Concept," pp. 46-55. 4Andrew Gunder Frank, "Administrative Role Defini- tion and Social Change," Human Organization, XXII (Winter, 1963-1964): PP. 238-242. 5Bakke, "Concept of Social Organization," pp. 16-75. 6Jacob W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process," Administrative TheOry in Education, ed. Andrew Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administraiion Center, University of Chicago, 1958), pp. 150-165. 7Joseph Julian, "Some Determinants of Dissensus on Role Prescriptions Within and Between Four Organiza- tional Positions," The Sociological Quarterly, X (Spring, 1969), pp. 177-189. 8Daniel J. Levinson, "Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organizational Setting," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVIII (1959), pp. I70-I80. 9Faith Lynn Willis, "A Study of the Relationships Between Organizational Goals and Role Consensus," (un- published Ed.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1967). 10Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis. 53 Lieberman who state that their findings suggest that a more extensive application of role theory to the analysis of complex hierarchically structured organizations might lead to a better understanding of these organizations and of the determinants of the effectiveness and satisfactions of the individual members. And more important for a maturing theory, An analysis of-standard role prescriptions, role behaviors, and role relationships might also furnish fundamental data for predicting the attitudes, per- ceptions for understanding the success or failure of current organizational functioning, and for anticipating the responses in an organization to projected change programs.1 Role Theory in Education Just as role theory has been used extensively as a tool by various disciplines for analyzing interrela- tional systems, neither has its usefulness been lost on education, where it has been utilized just as extensively for studying the interrelationships of the many positions within the larger social system of the public schools. Waller, who conducted the first extensive observa- tional and clinical studies of teacher and student roles, regarded role as important to understanding and inter- preting life in the school.2 Commenting on role in the classroom context Waller explained: The role arises from that bipolar organization of the field of consciousness in which self and 1Jacobson, et al., "Use of Role Concept," pp. 18-27. 2Willard Waller, Sociology of Teaching (New York: Russell and Russell, 1961), p. 46 . 54 others, real or imagined, are given over against each other in experience. The action of the individual thus comes to be oriented with reference to an entire situation. Some insight into the attitudes of others is implied. From disparity between roles and group standards arise the phenomena of conflict between the individual and the group. Brookover, who has written extensively on the use of role for studying a variety oprositions in education, developed a conceptual schema to aid researchers in under- standing the relationships of the concepts known as role theory: An actor enters a situation with his previous experi- ence in related situation, personality needs and the meaning (for him) of the present situation. + Self~involvement by the actor is his image of the ends anticipatedifrom participation in the status as he projects his self-image into the role. + Definition is the actor's perception of what he thinks others expect of him in the role. »+ Actor's behavior in interaction with others which continually redefines role and actor's definition. 1. Role--Others' expectation of given actor in a given situation. f Status in Situation--Others' expectations of any actor in partiCular situation. .t. General Status--Others' expectations of any actor in broadly defined position, such as teacher.2 lIbid., pp. 322-323. 2Brookover, "Research on Roles," pp. 2-3. 55 Behavior in interaction, it should be noted, involves continual redefinition of role and actor's definitions which Brookover regards as significant. Be- havior is not fixed or static, but always in process and is a function of communication. "As communication occurs, new expectations and the actor's understanding of them replace previous expectations and understandings."l Further, Brookover's statement regarding teacher roles is interpreted as being relevant to this investiga- tionof the position of community school director: It would seem important to identify significant sub-groups of students with varied expectations of teachers. . . . We would hypothesize that teachers who are aware of the possible variations in the expectatidns which students have of them would be more likely to communicate effectively with their students. Brookover is consistent over time in his conten- tion that role theory is an important theoretical model for analyzing educational institutions and their constitu- ent positions.3 He recommended research on three levels of expectations which groups may hold for an actor: (1) general or normative expectations which apply to an actor in a general status, (2) status in situation lIbid., p. 7. 2Ibid., pp. 8-9. 31bid., pp. 2—13. Brookover and Gottlieb, Sociology of Education, p. 321. 56 expectations which apply to an actor occupying a status in a particular situation, and (3) a group's expectations of a particular situation.1 Brookover also suggested examining status-role expectations of-three types: (1) Differences in expecta- tions held by a number of the wide range of relevant groups which exist for most positions. He referred to these intra-group differences as divergence and similarities as convergence.‘ (2) Differences in the expectations held by several members of the same group. Degree of similarity within a group, he called consensus. (3) Differences in general expectations held for a position or status and expectations held for a specific person occupying the given role.2 Charters illustrated that role analysis can be fruitful in the sociological analysis of institutions where various interrelated roles are used to divide and coordinate the work involved in meeting organization ends and also in assessing the social psychological satisfac- tions and interpersonal relations (or problems). He lWilbur B. Brookover, "Public Images and Expecta- tions of Teachers," College of Education Quarterly (Michigan State University, 1957), p. 8. 2Brookover-and Gottlieb, Sociology of Education, pp.-331-332. 57 suggests studying relations between a wide variety of interrelationships of various school positions and roles.1 In some perceptive writing on teacher's roles Wilson concluded that all positions which contain role segments with a major commitment to peOple would be suscep- tible to considerable internal conflicts and insecurities and would arise primarily from a given actor's performance of several role segments which at times would contradict one another. He grouped these conflicts and insecurities in six broad and analytically useful categories: 1. Those inherent in the role because of its diverse obligations. 2. Those which derive from the diverse expectations of others whose activities impinge on the role. 3. Those arising from circumstances in which the role is marginal. 4. Those arising from circumstances in which the role is inadequately supported by the institu- tional framework in which it is performed. 5. Those arising from conflict between commitments to the role and commitments to the career line. 6. Those arising from divergent value-commitments of the role and the wider society.2 Goode viewed some degree of role conflict as an inherent part of all structures of reciprocal role rela- tionships.3 In developing a theory pertaining to role 1W. W. Charters, "The School as a Social System," Review of Educational Research, XXII (February, 1952), pp. 41- 43. 2Bryan R. Wilson, "The Teacher's Role," British v Journal of Sociology, XIII (March, 1962), p. 27. 3William J. Goode, "A Theory of Role Strain," American Sociological Review, XXV (August, 1960), pp. 483-496. Oi dc lrfx 58 strain he accepted dissensus, nonconformity, and conflicts among norms and roles as the usual state of affairs. An individual cannot satisfy all role demands and must con- tinuously engage in an ongoing series of decisions and role bargains in an attempt to adjust the conflicting demands. Biddle described conflict simply as the discrepan— cies which develop between pattern of behavior or cogni— tions of role which then pose problems for one or more of the participants in an interaction situation, but recognized the complexities involved when attempting to describe interactions involving more than one actor.l Sorenson, Husek, and Yu embarked upon a research project in an attempt to develop an instrument to predict teacher effectiveness through the use of role concepts and role-analysis.2 Among the major hypotheses which such an instrument could test are: 1. When teachers and students are paired according to role expectations, greater satisfaction will be experienced by teachers and students. 1Biddle, Bibliographies on Role Terms, p. 4. 2A. Garth Sorenson, T. R. Husek, and Constance Yu, "Divergent Concepts of Teacher Role: An Approach to the Measurement of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, LIV (1963), pp. 287- 294. 59 2. The effectiveness of a teacher may be predicted by discovering the role expectations of the teacher and his students. 3. The teaching behavior of a teacher or teacher candidate may be predicted from his role expecta- tions. The first form was designed to measure the six role dimensions of advisor, counselor, information giver, disciplinarian, motivator, and referrer-and was adminis- tered to 284 students. A factor analysis-confirmed the six dimensions. A revised form was given to ninety-four students, and the results factor analyzed. In the final form advisor and information giver were combined. Reli- ability estimates for the final scales range from .77 to .93 and show low to moderate intercorrelations. The results demonstrate that role expectations offer a fruitful approach to test many hypotheses regarding teacher roles.1 More recently, Wight, recognizing the theoretical role model as one of the most effective devices for col- lecting relevant.content and an integrating mechanism for organizing experience, suggests a role analysis model to be used as a technique by an individual in the school social sYstem to examine his relationships with significant lIbid., pp. 287-294. 60 others, cultural differences, and potential areas of conflict.1 Numerous other educational sociologists and theorists such as Bidwell, Seeman, and Getzels and Guba2 represent efforts to refine and clarify the diverse con- cepts of role into a useful research tool for the investi- gation of organization and group behavior, leadership roles, teacher roles, educational systems in general, and unique positions in a given context. The conceptualizations and role language of Gross, Mason, and McEachern are integrative and straight-forward in nature and for this reason their statements were chosen as the operational definitions for this study. 1Albert R. Wight, "Experimental Cross-Cultural Training,"Readin s in EducationalMethods and Philoso h (Estes Park, CoIorado: Center for Research and Education, 1970), PP. 17-20. . 2Charles E. Bidwell, "Some Effects of—Administra- tive Behavior: A Study in Role Theory," Administrative Science:Quarterly, II (1957-1958), pp. 161-168; Melvin Seeman, "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership," American Sociological Review, XVIII (August, 1953), PP. 373-380; Getzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict," pp. 164-175; J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "The Structure of Roles and Role Conflict in a Teaching Situation," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955), pp. 30-40. 61 Related Role Research in Education The studies reviewed in this section are a sampling, over time, of the broad array of institutional and individual research endeavors dealing with role analysis of positions in educational and school settings. Getzels formulated a subsequently much used model incorporating the interaction between an individual and his needs and the goal and expectations of the institution in which he occupies a position for studying the behavior 1 The nomethetic dimension of individuals in organizations. of a social system is composed of institution, role, and role-expectation; and the idiographic dimension is the individual, his personality, and his need-disposition. The analytic unit is the role expectation.2 In this scheme the behavior (role performance) of an individual in a social system (the school) is influenced both from expectations held for him by others and by his own person- ality needs. Conflict can be generated from three sources: discrepancies between expectations held for a role and the personality needs of the incumbent; lack of consensus among various persons or relevant groups holding expecta- tions; and differences in expectations between two roles 1J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," The School Review, LXV (Winter, 1957), pp. 423-441. 21bid., p. 429. 62 when they are occupied by an actor at the same time. Getzels hypothesized that the major task of administration is "to integrate the demands of the institution and the demands of the staff members in a way that is at once organizationally productive and individually fulfilling."l Other research by Getzels and Guba utilizing the nomethetic-idiographic model explored the teacher role extensively. In one such study a conflict instrument and personal questionnaire was administered to 344 elementary and secondary teachers in 18 schools in 6 school systems and applied role theory to theanalysisof relationships of role expectations, role conflict, and individual charac- teristics of-teachers.2 The study explored three role segments:* socio-economic, citizens, and professional. The proportion of return by schools ranged from 31 to 92% with an overall 48% responding. Selected major conclusions which were drawn include: 1. The teacher is defined both by core expectations common to the teaching role in general and by significantly varying expectations that are' generated by local school communities. 2. The teaching role is subject to many conflicts between the role segments. 11bid., p. 430. 2Getzels and Guba, "Structure of Roles," pp. 30-40. 63 3. The demonstrated role conflicts indicate that the teaching role is not well integrated with other role segments which likely results in personal frustration and decreased institutional efficiency. 4. Reactions of teachers to role conflict is system- atically related to certain personal character- istics. The authors identified three distinct patterns of conflict which they labeled situationally independent, situationally variant, and situationally specific. Campbell conducted research which bears out the formulations ofGetzels.l He hypothesized that (1) those teachers whose wants and needs were in agreement with their principals' expectations would express significantly higher job satisfaction than would those teachers whose wants were in conflict with the principals' definition of the teachers' role. (2) Those teachers whose wants and needs were similar to the expectations their principals held for them would be rated as more effective in the teaching situation. (3) Those teachers whose wants and needs were in agreement with what the principals expected would express more confidence in leadership than would 1Merton V. Campbell, "Teacher-Principal Agreement on the Teacher Role," Administrator's Notebook, VII (February, 1959). 64 teachers whose wants and needs were in conflict with the principals' expectations. The study involved 15 principals and 284 teachers in 8 elementary and secondary schools ranging in size from 182 to 735 pupils in two midwest states. Each principal responded to a list of sixty statements indicating his expectations for teachers on his staff. Each teacher responded to the same sixty items indicating his wants and needs in the teaching situation. Each principal also rated each teacher on effectiveness, and teachers rated their own satisfaction, effectiveness, and confidence in the leadership of the principal. The first and third hypothe— ses were substantiated and the second was rejected. Terrien selected the teacher's role to test his hypotheses that an occupation could channel the behavior of its members into a recognizable system on and off the job and could determine an occupational type among the members.1 Only the teachers' perception of community forces was considered in this particular study. Both hypotheses were substantiated, and he concluded that the status of teachers suffers particularly from the intangi- ble nature of their product and that teachers generally 1Frederic W. Terrien, "The Occupational Role of Teachers," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955): PP. 14-20. 65 lack positive concept of self, that is, the status of teachers remains unresolved. Smith examined the role expectation which teachers, administrators, board members, and citizens of three Michigan communities have of the teacher's role in school and in the community.1 He analyzed the results of inter- views of the various groups to determine areas and degree of conflict and agreement between teachers' perceived expectations and the actual expectations held and to compare the communities as to restrictiveness or liberalism in viewpoint toward the teacher role. Differences were found to exist among the various groups. Those ranging from liberal-to-restrictive were found to be secondary teachers, elementary teachers, citizens, administrators, and board members. Metropolitan citizens were most liberal, town-rural citizens next, and village-rural most restrictive. Thirty-seven specific items of conflict were found. All groups approved thirty- three items and disapproved seventeen items. Comparisons with the findings ofva similar study revealed that teachers and board members in 1960 were more liberal in attitudes toward teacher behavior than in the 1941 national study. 1Rex Beach Smith, "A Comparative Study of the Expectations Which Teachers, School Board Members, and Citizens of Three School Districts Have of the Teacher's Role in School and Community" (unpublished_Ed.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1960). 66 Other role studies concentrating on the focal role of teachers include Doyle's convergence-divergence of role expectations held by administrators, school board members, and parents for elementary teachers;1 Tomich's study comparing student and administrator role expectations for classroom teachers;2 Brown's role analysis involving student perceptions of secondary teachers inIGeorgia;3 and Fleming's role study of the student teacher-supervisor relationship.4 Role analysis has also been much used in research regarding leadership and administrative behavior in educa- tion in both line and staff positions. Bidwell suggested that role expectations held by teachers as an alter group for administrators and their perceptions of the actual behaviors of the administrators would vary with the l n D 0 Larry A. Doyle, Convergence and Divergence in the Role Expectations of Elementary Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958). 2Edward Tomich, "Teacher Cognitions and Behavioral Conformity" (unpublishevah.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1963). 3Iva Dinkins Brown, "Role Perceptions of Secondary Teachers as Related to Pupils' Perceptions of Teacher Behavioral Characteristics" (unpublished Ed.D. disserta- tion, University of Georgia, 1965). 4James Scott Fleming, "An Investigation of Role Expectations and the Communication Process Between Elementary School Student Teachers and Their Supervising Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968) . 67 teachers' job satisfaction level.l Two hypotheses based on this position were substantiated in a study of 102 teachers in a K-12 school district. He concluded that the nature of the subordinate-superordinate rela- tionship is a key factor associated with the subsequent evaluation of the job situation. A landmark study by Gross and associates explored the role expectations for school superintendents of school board members in about 50% of the school districts in Massachusettes using an original interview instrument requiring answers on a 5 point scale ranging from absolutely must to absolutely must not.2 Using the chi-square criterion, no differences in distributions were found for 37% of the items and significant differences on 63% of the items. They conclude that in school organi2a- tions there are inherent forces which create conflicts between policy makers (the board) and the administrator (superintendent).3 Craig, investigating the role of the elementary school principal in the State of Washington, found signifi- cant differences between the perception of degree of lBidwell, "Effects of Administrative Behavior." 2Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, p. 379. 31bid., p. 122. 68 responsibility for the elementary principal between the principals and central office administrators, and that improved communications resulted in a higher degree of consensus regarding the principals' responsibilities.l Representative role analysis studies of school administrative positions include: Hencley and Sweitzer-- superintendent's position;2 Morgan, Roberts, Galante, and Reid--principal's position;3 DeHelms--curriculum 1Lloyd Gene Craig, "A Study of Factors Related to Achievement of Congruency of Perception of the Role of Elementary School Principal" (unpublished Ed.D. disserta- tion, University of-Washington, 1967). 2Stephen P. Hencley,-"The Conflict Patterns of School Superintendents," Administrator's Notebook, VII (May. 1960). pp- 1-4: ' Robert E. Sweitzer, "The Superintendent's Role in Improving Instruction," Administrator's Notebook, VI 3Stanley Roy Morgan, "The Public School Principal- ship: Role Expectations by Relevant Groups" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1965; James N. Roberts, "Perceptions and Expectations of Superintendents, Principals, and Teachers Regarding Leadership BehaviOr of Elementary School Principals" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963); ’ Ferdinand Galante, "Perceptions of the Role of High School Principals in a Large Urban Industrial School District" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1964); John E. Reid, "Task Expectations of the Elementary Principal as Perceived by Principals, Superintendents, Teachers, School Boards and the Public" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967). 69 director's position;1 and Farrell-~elementary counselor's position.2 Quite recently role analysis studies which examine the unique interrelations of various educational positions in the context of collective negotiations have entered the literature. Talty undertook the study of role expectations in collective negotiations under a New York State Fair Employment Act.3 His research sought answers to the questions of whether the law mandated a specific role for the superintendent in negotiations, and the level of con- sensus on role expectations for the superintendent in negotiations among board members and teacher representa- tives. An analysis of the negotiations act revealed no stated role for the superintendent in.negotiations. An original 29 item questionnaire was mailed to 37 superin- tendents, 231 board members, and 222 teacher negotiators; 1David R. DeHelms, "A Study of the Degree of- Authority of the K-12 Curriculum Director as Perceived By Specific Role Groups in Selected School Districts" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 1968). 2James A. Farrell, "An Analysis of the Elementary School Counselor Position: The Role Expectations of Counselors, Principals, and Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1968). 3Michael R. Talty, "Role Expectations for the Superintendent in Collective Negotiations Between School Boards and Non-Union Teachers Organizations in New York State" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, St. John's University, 1968). 70 and the responses were tested by chi-square for signifi- cance. Board members and superintendents lacked consensus on four items; superintendents and teacher negotiators lacked consensus on eleven items; and teacher negotiators and board members lacked consensus on twenty-three items. Other recent negotiations studies examine various other focal roles and interactions.1 The previous three sections: historical and con- ceptual development of role analysis, role theory in education, and related role research in education, con- stitute a review of role concepts and role language in historical and interdisciplinary perspective. The work of numerous researchers and theorists.from the areas of anthropology, psychology, social psychology} sociology, and education was presented to illustrate the integration and evolution of numerous definitions into a useful and pOpular analytic theory for examining, understanding, and predicting individual and institutional behavior. Emphasis was given to the use of role research as it relates to positions in education. 1Gordon E. Eade, "A Study of the Role Expectations in Teacher Collective Negotiation in Selected School' Districts of Illinois" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1967); - John H. Pylman, "Expectations of High School Principals and Relevant Others for the Role of High School Principals in Teacher-Board Negotiations" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). 71 Community.Schoolsj Definition andiHistorIcal Development While the term community eduCatiOn has been in popular usage only since the 1930's, the process has existed for hundreds of years and includes the concepts of educative community, community development, and commu— nity action. In this form the school--now called a community school--assumes the role of facilitator in the process of social progress and individual fulfillment, group action, and problem solving. Muntyan points out that if there has ever existed a genuine community school, it could only have been in a culture so primitive as to eliminate the necessity for any formal educational institution and cites scholars from Plato, Luther, and Erasmus to Barnard and Dewey as serious cOmmentators on the processes of formal education which included elements of what is now called community educa- tion.1 Scanlon points out that the process now known as community education has taken many forms and names in different cultures, at different periods in history, and for varying purposes. The process which he calls cultural 1Milosh Muntyan, "Community-School Concepts:‘ A Critical Analysis," The Communit School, 52nd Yearbook, National Society for the Study 0 Education, Part II, ed. Nelson B. Henry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 31-32. 72 transformation was labeled fundamental education by UNESCO, basic and, later, social education by Gandhi, and commu- nity development by the British and Americans; while the implementation of the process in most cultures probably remained unnamed. Cultural transformation by force, as in the Inca, Roman, and Communist examples, illustrates the traditional use of this process.1 Recent thinking, especially in the United States, sees the process basically as one of voluntary, democratic participation: a partnership between citizens and some institution whose purpose is educative. Scanlon gives such examples of cultural transforma- tion as the Inca Empire in pre—Colonial South America; the expansion of the Roman Empire; religious orders in the Middle Ages; missionary education; worker cooperatives growing out of the Industrial Revolution; agricultural and mechanical societies in the 1700 and 1800's in the United States; the Chautauqua movement; land grant colleges and agricultural extension; numerous Utopian movements; mass education movements in China, the Philippines, Turkey, Mexico, India, and the U.S.S.R.; and UNESCO.2 1David Scanlon, "Historical Roots for the Develop- ment of Community Education," Communit Education, Principles and Practices from Worldwide Experience, 58th Yearbook for the National¥§ociety for the Study of Education, Part I, ed. Nelson B. Henry (Chicago: University of-Chicago Press, 1959), p. 38. 2 Ibido ' pp. 38-650 73 Since education has been a central function of all societies, and social progress and change, the major aims, the writing of educators and philosophers abound with references to the principles inherent in community educa- tion. It is clear that the definitions are broad enough to embrace the purposes of almost any society to meet almost any end. It is necessary to examine community education and community schools as they are used in contemporary United States. During the 18th and 19th Centuries in the United States, the Common School unquestionably served many of the functions of a community school for predominantly rural America in the sense that any community or citizen use of the school constituted community education. Drawing from Muntyan for a description of the features necessary for a true community school: To begin with, the community school serves a direct community function through helping solve the problems of the community. In doing this, it must also help develop a sense of community within the social group. Further, if this is not to be merely a temporary amelioration of a continuing situation, the school must also help the group develop the skills of the community process. It must utilize community activities and problems in its program and must take the school group into community life for the mutual benefit of both school and community. It must serve the total community--adults as well as pupils. Effective community can be developed and maintained only as the community relationship between the local, the regional, the national, and the international groups is recognized and furthered.l 1Muntyan, "Community-School Concepts," p. 47. 74 America has a long-tradition of community use of schools although it has waxed and waned in response to the needs of the times. During the early 1900's the forces of industrialization, urbanization, technological and social complexity, and unrest were building which prompted philosophers and social scientists to conceptualize and popularize an eduCative philosophy and institution capable of solving individual and community problems, furthering democratic ideals and life, and providing for ongoing self— and community renewal. John Dewey stressed the idea that education of the child should not be separated from the process of living and life outside the school.1 As the economic situation of the depression of the 1930's deepened, people turned to the schools for expanded programs and services to help solve immediate and long- range problems. It was during this period that the present community school movement was born and the concept began to receive extensive treatment in the literature. A bench mark in the transition from the book- centered, memoritor type schools to the life-centered school was the publication of'a book by Samuel Everett, the first to deal comprehensively with the community school.2 1John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: Macmillan Co., 1916), p. 164. 2Samuel Everett, The Community School (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1938). 75 In this work Everett presented a philOSOphic framework which remains relevant to the present and constitutes much of what has been written on the community school concept since that time. In capsule form: 1. All life is education as opposed to the idea that education is obtained only in institutions of formal learning. 2. Education requires participation as opposed to education gained through studying about life. 3. All persons have fundamental intereSt and purposes in both work and play, as opposed to children con- cerned with play and adults with work. 4. Schools should be primarily involved in the improve- ment of community living and the social order rather than merely transmitters of the cultural heritage. 5. The curriculum should grow out of major life and social problems rather than specialized aims of academic subjects. 6. Education should be founded upon and foster demo- cratic processes and ideals rather than an elitist view of the specialist providing basic education for the masses. 7. Public-schools should be responsible for the education of both children and adults.1 A detailed account of Flint's developing community school program is included as an example. Similar statements of philosophy were presented in other significant publications and include Clapp, Henry, and Olsen.2 r 11bid., pp. 191-192, and 414-430. 2Elsie R. ClapP: Community‘Schools in Action (New York: Viking Press, 1939); Henry (ed.), Community Education, Principles and Practices from worldwide Experience; Henry (ed.), The Community School; Edward G. Olsen (ed.), School and Community (New York: Prentice Hall, 1945), pp. 1-48. 76 In the late 1940's, again in response to the needs and forces of the times, there was another period of' activity and interest in community education. The 1947 ASCD Yearbook presented the guiding principles for commu- nity schools: The staff understands and appreciates the reciprocal relationship between school and community. The school explores the community, discovers its needs and problems, and utilizes existing resources to solve community problems. The school is organized for cooperative planning of a school and community program. The community creates a school that serves all the people.1 Soon after its founding, the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration issued a state- ment on the basic method and purposes of education, which is a reaffirmation of the principles of the community school concept.2 In 1957, Olsen, summarizing the activities by which groups and individuals strive to achieve a better life for themselves, wrote that all the "notable writings on the community school tend to make it an all embracing- concept" and includes efforts to make life better in the areas of health, food, shelter, recreation, race relations, lWillard E. Goslin (ch.), Organizing the Elementary School for Living and Learning, Yearbook 6? the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the National Education Association (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1947): PP. 78-118. 2John Lund, "Education Can Change Community Life," School Life, XXXI (November, 1948), pp. ll-12. 77 and international understanding as well as the nurture of the child.1 ‘He classified community school activities in four qualitive levels: 1. Efforts to make the school itself into an ideal democratic community. 2. Teachers and administrators efforts to relate what is learned verbally in school to what goes on in the community. 3. Efforts to bring objects and people from the community into the school building and of taking children into the community. 4. Practices of students, teachers, administrators, and lay people together attacking community problems in an effort to improve the quality of common living.2 During the post World War II period a notable attempt to implement a community school program, seldom mentioned in the literature, was the Michigan Community School Service Program begun in 1945 under the auspices of the State Board of Education and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.3 Several widely separated rural communities in Michigan participated in the program as a logical extension of the develOping potential of community eduCa- tion as a way of coordinating the efforts of a whole community to solve mutual problems. 1Edward G. Olsen, The Modern Communit School (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 19 3), p. 201. 2Ibid., pp. 201-203. 3Maurice F. Seay and Ferris N. Crawford, The; Community School and CommunitySelf-Improvement (Lansing, Michigan: Office ofMicHigan Superintendent of Public ”Instruction, 1954). 78 The authors cite many specific and positive changes in the participating communities and sense that the impact of the program will be felt for years to come through the ability of the communities to solve problems. They found that all the communities were interested in self-improvement and that excellent but latent leadership was present in all areas. There were many material, improvements and growth in human relationships as well. They reported that the program was inconsistent in its efforts to achieve improvement through the local school, although the local board and-school personnel provided the initial leadership. They insisted, however, that the test was incomplete.1v It is only within the last decade that consciously elaborated community school programs have been established on*a wide spread scale as attested to by figures of the National Community School Education Association cited in Chapter I. While most conceptualizations of a community school have attempted to incorporate citizen participation in the decision making process, actual operating examples have been rare even though citizen councils and advisory committees are standard fixtures of the community school. It is only in the second half of the decade of the 1960's that serious attempts have been made to involve the lIbid., pp. 186-187. 79 community in decision making. Legislation such as the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 have made citizen partici- pation an article of faith and a condition of existence of such programs. Concepts and movements such as decentrali- zation of schools, community action programs, and citizen policy advisory committees are vitally related to full maturity for the community school movement. An example of a community school program incorpo- rating citizen participation effectively is the recently approved community school program of the New Orleans City Demonstration Agency of the Model Cities Program, U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment.1 The project proposes to raiSe the standard of achievement of neighborhood students and provide a way in which the school can become a focal point ofcommunity activity. A community school coordinator is responsible for development, scheduling, and operation of the program. Citizen participation is a prerequisite and is described thus: 1Orleans Parish School Board, "Expansion of~ Community Schools“ (unpublished New Orleans City Demonstra- tion Agency Proposal to the U.S. Department_of Housing and Urban Development, Section 105 of Title I of the Demonstra- tion Cities MetrOpolitan Development Act of 1966, May, 1970). 80 The Three Neighborhood Councils through their education and social services committees will be the official body for citizen participation in the monitoring and evaluation of this project. The Councils will participate, or be represented in, the design and implementation of the City Demonstra- tion Agency information system and evaluation system. These Council committees will also be the official citizen participation mechaniSm for planning second action year projects and revising the long—range objectives and strategy in education and social services. The education and social services committees in the three Model Neighborhood Agencies will meet separately or jointly as appropriate to conduct their business and will be staffed out by the Model Cities planning team including three eduCation and social services planners--one from each neighborhood. These committees will be responsible for making regular written reports to their respective Neighbor~ hood Councils, and the CDA regarding education and social services projects and plans. These reportS» will be a part of the CDA management information system and will be a major input to project manage- ment, evaluation and continued planning.1 Levine, elaborating upon the vital role of the community school in ministering to the needs of low-income citizens, cites the following reasons for involving 'citizens consistent with ongoing community education philosophy: . Developing of civic skills . Developing a feeling of belonging . Making the school accountable Improving and strengthening the schools Improving self-image.2 U'InwaH lIbid., p. 3. 2Daniel U. Levine, "The Community School in Contemporary Perspective," Elementary Education Journal, LXIX (December, 1968). pp. 109—117. 81 Other contemporary views regarding community education are offered by Campbell, Melby, and Totten and Manley.l . Olsen very recently reaffirmed his often stated belief in the ability of community schools to contribute significantly to solving our nation's critical human problems: white racism, prevalent poverty, urban decay, and youth.rebellion, in an address in which he stated: Now there is general agreement that a community school is one which serves people of all ages throughout the day and the year; which helps them learn how to improve the quality of personal and group living; which organizes the core of the curriculum around the major problems they face; which uses-the inquiry method of teaching and through it uses all relevant learning resources of the community as well as the classroom; and which is planned, conducted and constantly evaluated by school and.community people together, including youth still in school. This concludes the brief examination of the philosophical foundations and historical development of community education and community schools. In the 1Clyde M. Campbell.(ed.), Toward Perfection in Learning (Midland, Michigan:‘ Pendell Publishing Co., 1 pp. 23-34; Ernest O. Melby, "Community Education: America's Social Imperative," The Role of the School in Community EducatiOn, ed. Howard W. Hickey and Curtis Van Voorhees (Midland, Michigan: PendellCo., 1969). pp. lO-lG. Totten and Manley, The Community School, pp. 1-21. 2Edward G. Olsen, "TheCommunity School, Pattern for Progress," Vital Speeches of the Day, XXXV (April, 1969), p.-372. 82 United States community education embraces democratic ideals, citizen involvement, and participation for all members of a community to the end of improving the quality of individual and group life in the immediate as well as the larger cOmmunity-of man. Byimplication each commu- nity school is situatiOnally unique, growing in response to specific needs and aspirations. Community education philosophy has been remarkably consistent, with changes occurring in methods, scope, and content, and implementa- tion contributing to maturity of the ideal. Presently community education emphasis is moving from its traditional rural past into urban centers, and indications are that it is being adopted by rapidly increasing numbers of school districts. Community School Directgr:. Authoritative Writing and Research The importance of leadership in community school programs was a recurring topic treated at length by all of the writers cited in the previous section but was, however, treated only from a philosophic perspective. In stressing the importance of leadership, the significant issue of assigning responsibility was treated only casually. It-was usually assumed that some dedicated teacher, coach, or administrator would emerge as a leader as had been the case in isolated and inspiring instances from previous times when the expectations of the schools were relatively 83 narrow and the community geographically and functionally distinct. Olsen recognized the leadership problem in 1953 when he wrote: It seems important to secure a sustained leadership if community school work is to move forward. One criticism frequently made is that community school activities are often transitory and ephemeral. The answer to these criticisms is to find ways to con- tinue the work once it has begun. A good technique is to see that responsibility for moving forward is centered in designated people.1 Campbell reaffirmed this when he commented upon the importance of a professionally trained community school director, "When everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible."2 Recognizing the need for sustaining leadership, Flint appointed its first community school director at~ 3 From that beginning each school Freeman School in 1952. in Flint has since been staffed with a director. As a result of Flint's leadership role in the rapidexpansion of community schools, this staff position, known by various titles, is a standard of most of the existing and projected programs. 1Olsen, Modern Community School, pp. 128-129. 2Clyde M. Campbell, The Community School and Its Administration, XX (November, 1933), p. . 3"Chronological Development of the Mott Founda- tion Program" (unpublished paper, Mott Programs Office, Flint, Michigan, 1969). 84 Much of what has been written on the position of community school director is descriptive and was recorded by peopleclosely associated with Mott programs. Only recently have research studies begun to appear in the literature. Biddle,.referring to the general role of community and human development leader, called the position the encourager or a nucleus—level worker.1 He lists such -traits of the encourager as imperturbable, confident, patient, nonpartisan, devoted to people, and skilled in group process. He summarizes by saying, A nucleus-worker is the central figure in the drama of community development. He is the instigator of the process. His responsibility is significant, but difficult, for he has a.role of paradoxes. He is.a central figure who seeks prominence for others.2 This description added to the continuity issue seems to bear some relationship to the role of an executive secre- tary-with community leadership in the counter-position of board of directors. Campbell has often stressed the importance and duties of this key position and the type of individual who should occupy it. In the emerging organization of educatiOn and the schools, he sees the community school 1William W. Biddle, The Community Development. Process (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1935), pp. 259-277. 2 Ibid., p. 259. 85 director as a person who works intimately with parents, lay citizens, community agencies and leaders, and members of the educational establishment. To do this he says, "The community school director should be eminently well qualified to work with these people."1 Totten and Manley introduce the term community service director as a title more descriptive of the pro- fessional cOmmunity school leader'sroles.2 They outline the nature of the position as relating to all areas of instruction, administration, curricu- lum development, supervision, public relations, and community organization. The director is teacher, counselor, administrator, supervisor, salesman, leader, communicator and human relations builder.3 The list of traits they feel are necessary for appointment includes excellent health and vigor; warm, outgoing personality; enjoyment of people of all ages, creeds, and races; unprejudiced; dedicated; skilled in human relations and group process; interest and ability in sports and recreational activities; good command of English; professionally trained-as an educator; and possessing successful teaching experience.4 Campbell, Communitijchool, xx (November, 1963). Totten and Manley, The Community School, p. 144. Ibid. ' pp. 144-145. hUNH Ibid. I pp. 145-146. 86 Stressing the flexibility and freedom of the position, they cite community development as his primary- responsibility with program development as the major vehicle for his efforts.1 Finally, they describe the community school director's relationships with various others and, while not-using the language of role analysis, underscore the rich interactive nature of the position in developing, successful programs. Among the key groups with whom the director has either a close formal or an informal working relationship are.the school principal, professional staff members, school maintenance and service personnel, adult education coordinators, non-school agencies, pupils, and lay citizenry. They emphasize pre- and in-service profes- . sional development and the fostering of career opportunities in this field.2 The Role of the Community_School Director in the Flint Community Schools, a brochure widely distributed by the Mott Programs Office defines the position thus: The Mott Program of the Flint Board of Education, operating in each of the Flint Public Schools, is guided and supervised by a community school director. He is the man at the helm of after-school activities, coOperatively working with his principal who bears ultimate responsibility for the school and its programs. It is his responsibility to know the lIbid., pp. 148-153. 21bid., pp. 161-167. 87 children and the families living within the attendance boundary of his particular school. He must know the needs of the community as well as the human resources available within the community and the city at large. Moreover, he is enthusias— tic, understanding, innovative, and self-reliant. Through his personal efforts the community school director discovers the wishes of his community, and then attracts people and provides programs within his school locality to satisfy their desires. He becomes involved in the areas of juvenile delinquency, adult education, area improvement, enrichment courses, senior citizens, retraining for job upgrading, inter-racial harmony, recreation, and service agencies for children and adults.1 From 1952 until 1968 the position of cOmmunity school director in Flint was primarily that of a regular, certified member of the teaching staff of his school with a half-time teaching assignment. In August of 1968, the Flint Board of Education significantly altered that pattern in response to the broadening scope of the position and the need to provide career opportunities in the face of rapid personnel turnover.2 The action made official the practice of releasing certain directors from-the half-time teaching duties on the basis of established needs for full— time services in given schools, specifically to supervise community activities and to work more particularly on special community needs. 1Mott Programs Office, The Role of the Communit School Director in the Flint Community SchoOls (FIint: Board of Education, 1969i} 2Flint Board of Education Agenda of Regular Meeting, August 14, 1968, Section 1.12, Community School Directors-~Classifications, Prerequisites, Definitions and Methods of Compensation. Vol. XLIII (in files of the Board). 88 In short, the role of the community school director is rapidly changing as the incumbents of the position become more capable of assuming broader responsibility and as the definition of the position itself becomes more incompassing. To continue to define a community school director as a "teacher on special assignment" no longer seems an adequate definition.1 The action created the following levels of responsibilities and compensation: l. Trainee--A classroom teacher working on an hourly basis after school. 2. Community School Director I--Teaches half-time and supervises and coordinates community school programs the other half, and is eligible to become an official administrative trainee after three years of experience in the position. 3. Community School Director II—-Must have experi- ence as Community School Director I and is an administrative trainee. Devotes full-time to the community school, responsible Monday- Saturday, 48 weeks per year. 4. Community School Director III--Must hold an MA degree and five years experience as a community school director. Performs duties of community school director II with additional administra- tive responsibilities and is considered an administrator. 5. Director of Community Relations--This is a pilot program. He is considered an assistant principal with primary responsibility as a community school director and elementary counselor. He assists with planning, implementation, and evaluation of the community school program, and is responsible for in-service community education of the entire staff.2 Generalized responsibilities for all classes of directors include: planning all community and recreational activities, promoting community school programs, lIbid., p. 1. 21bid., pp. 59-63. 89 establishing a community advisory council, using broad knowledge of the community to plan and develop program, working closely with community leaders, and accepting responsibility for all activities designated as community related.1 Detailed job description for the several classes of directors is contained in Appendix B. The training guide for the preparation of Flint directors, also used in the.training programs for community school directors conducted in Flint for communities throughout the United States, categorizes the community school directorfs position as composed of public relations, school relations, professionalism, summer.programs, teen programs, adult education, recreation, team communications, community communications, civic education, and race rela- tions and enumerates various duties in each category.2 The training guide also stresses the nature of the individual who ocCupies the community school director role and the broad scope of his duties. The director is care- fully selected for leadership, personality, intelligence, training, loyalty, sincerity, and enthusiasm. The director's duties, in addition to teaching, include the organization and superVision of after—school activities lIbid. zMott Programs Office, Community School Directors Training Guide (Flint: Board of Education, 1969). 90 within the building and responsibility for planning and. carrying out the evening and Saturday programs. He plans the school's program with the assistance of the principal, other staff members, and representatives of community advisory groups.1 Legal recognition of the professional staff position of community school director came to Michigan in 1969 with the passage of a bill to implement community schools on a state wide basis.2 Community school programs are defined as the composite of services provided to the community, excepting those provided through regular instructional activities, for children five to nineteen years and may include among others, pre-school activities for children and their parents, continuing and remedial education for adults, cultural enrichment and recrea- tional activities for all citizens, and the use of school buildings by.and technical services to commu- nity groups engaged in solving economic and social problems. Moneys allocated were for compensation of community school. directors to conduct the program. Two studies of the position of community school director using role analysis appear in the literature. lIbid. ' Pp. 8-9. 2Michigan State Board of Education, "Policies for the Distribution of-Moneys_to School Districts for Commu-. nity School Programs in 1969-1970," in accordance with the Provisions of Act. 307, P.A. of 1969 and Senate Enrolled Bill 68 of 1969, as adopted by the State Board on October 1, 1969. 3Ibid., p. l. 91 Cowan, in 1960, attempted to identify and clarify role expectations held by principals, community school directors, adult education coordinators, and teachers for four selected role segments of the director's position.1‘ An original questionnaire consisting of 75 selected aspects of the director's professional roles Was mailed to all principals, adult education coordinators, and directors, and a strati- fied random sample of teachers in Flint of which 73.6% were returned. Based primarily upon the techniques of macro-analysis suggested by Gross,2 a number of comparisons were made with reference to the purposes and questions under examination in the study. The purpose of defining through direct observation, personal interviews, and review of literature the position of community school director was accomplished with the construction of the questionnaire. The basic testable hypothesis was that building directors and relevant others would hold different role expectations regarding the role segments creating possibilities of role conflict and that personal characteristics of the various groups would be systematically related to their expectations. An analysis of mean proportion of respondents actually holding expectations revealed that more principals ‘3 1Cowan, "The Building Director." 2Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role 92 actually held expectations than the other groups and that male respondents were better able to define expectations for the roles than were female respondents. Years of experience with a director revealed that principals with less experience were slightly higher in expectations held than those with more experience, adult education coordinators with more experience were higher, and teachers showed no significant difference. Analysis by the chi-square statistic of affirma- tive expectations held by the groups showed that directors and coordinators were in agreement 86.5% of the time; principals and directors, 82.5%; and teachers and directors, only 55.5% of the time. Directors were able to define affirmative expectations for coordinators, principals, and teachers 96.0%, 90.6%, and 79.8% of the time, respectively. The hypothesis that building directors and signifi- cant others hold different and conflicting expectations regarding the selected aspects of the position was con- firmed and showed that adult education coordinators and principals held a stronger image of the position than did teachers. Directors were better able to define the expectations held by principals and coordinators than of teachers. Affirmative expectations held and directors' perceived expectations followed the same pattern. The assumption that certain personal characteristics of role 93 definers would be systematically related to affirmative expectations was not supported by the evidence.1 Crosby, in 1965, using many of the techniques employed by Cowan, studied the role expectations of parents, selected community leaders, Mott Program administrators, and community school directors in eight inner-city elemen- tary schools of Flint relative to the role segments of social worker, teacher, administrator, professional staff member, and community and school relator.2 Crosby addressed his study to the analysis of differences of actual and perceived expectations of the position of community school director to identify areas of possible or potential role conflict. It was hypothesized that significant differences would exist-in the eight inner- city-schools. A 75 item questionnaire was administered to 14 Mott Program administrators, 22 selected community leaders, 18 community school directors, and 137 parents. Parents were randomly seleCted from school enrollment lists, and community leaders were identified by consensus of commu- nity school directors, parents, and community leaders in the study schools. Eighty percent of the questionnaires were returned and usable. 1Cowan, "The Building Director," pp. 127-132. 2Crosby, "A Study of Expectations," p. 5. 94 Analysis of mean expectations held by related others revealed that community leaders and Mott Program administrators held approximately the same level of expec- tations and were better able to define the roles than were” parents. Among parents there were no significant differ— ences between schools. The study assumed that there would be differences in the proportion of community school directors defining expectations held by related others. Analysis showed, however, that they perceived expectations for the three groups at about the same level and held extremely clear definitions of all three reference groups. Differences between the proportion of affirmative expectations held by directors for their positions classified according to personal variables of.assignment, age, educational prepa- ration, number of school systems in which they had taught, number of years of teaching experience, and number of years as a community school director revealed no significance. Analysis of convergence and divergence of expecta- tions by chi-square showed limited conflict of expectations between the directors and the three reference groups. Mott Program administrators and directors agreed at the 100% level in all classifications, 91.1% with community leaders, and 88.2% with parents. Community school directors per- ceived the reference group expectations at 100% for Mott 95 administrators, 98.4% for community leaders, and 88.2% for-parents. On an item by item analysis Crosby concluded that not all groups held expectations to the same extent, but deviations were not significant.1 Recently, Berridge conducted an investigation to establish content areas which might constitute a base for preparation programs for community school directors.2 He hypothesized that no differences would exist between a panel of nationally recognized community school experts and community school directors on categories to be included in preparation programs. Various comparisons were made to discover differences by years of formal preparation and years of experience of the community school directors. An original questionnaire of 92 items based on topics which might be included in an intensive training program was- sent to a panel of 10 experts, 5 in university work and 5 in the public schools, and to 125 community school directors selected at random from the membership roles of the National Community School Education Association. They were distributed to eighty cities in sixteen states. Eighty-two percent of the questionnaires were returned. lIbid., pp. 67-126. 2Berridge,i"A Study of the Opinions." 96 The following content areas were identified: History-Philosophy category: . history of the community school movement . comparison of the traditional vs. community school Social-Psychological category: . the concept of community . minority groups in society . current social problems of society . effects of racial, social, and economic isolation Personal Skills category: . training in making home Visitations . developing group and individual participation . developing leaders . the community development process . developing others selfeconcept Communication Skills category: . use of public relations . listening skills . discussion skills Organization category: . methods of orienting community leaders . methods of orienting staff members . conducting community surveys . using lay persons in the program establishing neighborhood advisory boards Administration category: 4 . the role of the community school director . the role of the principal . the role of the superintendent Programming category: . youth recreational programs adult education programs job training prdgrams youth enrichment programs family programs senior citizens programsl Respondents were asked to reply on a five point scale: must be included, desirable, uncertain, not desirable, and should not be included. 1Ibid., pp. 3-4 (abstract). 97 Findings revealed that the panel of experts was most oriented toward the gg§l_of community education-- improving the educational environment in the community, and the directors were most oriented toward the mggps or programming. The variables of formal preparation and experience of directors were not significantly related to their basic orientation. Summary The purpose of this chapter was to review the authoritative and research literature of role analysis, philosophy and development of community education, and the prOfessional leadership position in community education of the community school director as they relate to the present analysis of role relationships surrounding the position of community school director in inner-city and non-inner—city elementary schools in Flint. It was shown that earlier formulations of role reflected either the characteristics of the discipline represented or the particular perspective of the investi- gator, but that all were attempts to capture the inter- active and multidimensional nature of an individual with unique personality, needs, and drives; occupying various offices, statuses, and positions; and his relationships with groups of others in terms of individual and group goals. Evidence was presented that various role concepts 98 are converging to form an integrative, multidisciplinary approach for understanding and predicting the complex behaviors of individuals in social organizations. Illus- trations of investigations were given which incorporated the three major components of expectations between actors and significant others: the incumbent's expectations, and others' actual expectations. Role conflict and conflict resolution were shown to be centrally associated with role analysis. The literature of community education constitutes, either specifically or by inference, an extensive body of philosophy and practices. The review shows that while a philosophy of community education has deep historic roots and has in the United.States been integrated with the concepts of democratic ideals and individual worth, only recently has it been consciously elaborated and institu- tionalized in response to specific social needs. Con- temporary community education programs show a trend toward emphasis of-more active community and lay participation in planning and conducting programs. A major principle of the community school concept is that each community school should grow in response to specific community needs and each will, therefore, be situationally specific. Finally, the role of leadership in community education and community schools was examined. The few 99 research studies, which is perhaps a result of the relative newness of professional leadership positions in community schools, were reviewed. The major proportion of the literature'concerning the position of community school director is descriptive and nominatiVe in nature. The next chapter is a presentation of the procedures and methods applied in this study. CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH PROCEDURE Introduction The purpose of this study was to inVestigate the position of community school director by means of role analysis of position incumbents and selected key reference groups which constitute the interactional social system of community education in Flint, Michigan. Based upon the constructions of role analysis reviewed in Chapter II, the investigation assumed that any given act by a community school director will be viewed somewhat differently by various reference groups resulting in some degree of perceived or actual conflict. It was further assumed that if community education is true to its philosophical definition as a process of self-renewal, it will become situationally specific to the needs of a given community--in this study, the neighborhood elementary school. The investigation concentrated on the position of community school director because of the often stated . proposition that this professional staff leadership 100 101 position is central to the widespread implementation and success of community education. To accomplish this analysis of the position of community school director, it was necessary to identify the major duties, functions, and responsibilities associ- ated with the position. Operational statements represent- ing many specific aspects were developed and categorized according to major role segments of the community school director. Using the Operational aspect statements, the directors were asked to indicate their expectations for their position and their perceptions of the expectations which they believed principals, teachers, and parents held for the position. The questionnaire collected and recorded the actual expectations of these reference groups. Conflict scores, perceived and actual, were computed and tested for significance with reference to differences between inner-city and non-inner-city schools, released and teaching directors, the various reference groups, and major role segments. Expressed and perceived expectations were recorded and tested for significance with reference to differences between inner-city and non- inner-city, released and teaching, various reference groups, and major role segments. 102 Design of the Study The progress of the investigation was as follows: 1. Over a two year period the investigator became thoroughly familiar with the community school philosophy and concept and the position of community school director as it has developed in Flint. This was accomplished through an extended internship and associations with numerous community school directors, administrators, teachers, lay citizens, and college professors closely associated with community education. Extensive reading, attendance at local and national seminars and conferences, and participation in community school activities provided extended first-hand experience and knowledge of the theory and practice of community education. This activity re- sulted in a keen interest in the processes, implementation, administration and leadership functions of community schools. 2. Flint was selected as the research setting for reasons presented in Chapter I. Elementary schools were selected as the unit most closely approximating a geo- graphic and functional community. The schools were classified as inner-city and non-inner-city and further sub-classified according to whether they were staffed by a teaching or released-time community school director. 3. Drawing upon the first-hand experiences, formal and informal interviews with numerous Flint staff and 103 administrators in a variety of positions, close associa- tiOn with several community school directors and several inner-city schools, and extensive review of the literature and previous research on the position of community school director, a questionnaire was constructed and refined to elicit expectations for the position of community school director through operationally stated aspects of the position categorized into major role segments. 4. The questionnaire was administered to community school directors, principals, a sample of teachers and parents from each of the study schools and two groups of central administration personnel. 5. The data, reflecting the expectations directors held for themselves, their perceived expectations of others, and the expressed expectations of key reference groups, from twelve selected elementary schools was analyzed, combining the data of these schools in four categories as follows: a. Inner-city school with released director. b. Inner-city school with teaching director. c. Non-inner—city school with released director. d. Non-inner-city school with teaching director. 6. Statistical analysis was accomplished through the advice and assistance of the Office of Research Consulta- tion of the Michigan State University College of Education and the use of the Michigan State University computer 104 facilities. An analysis of variance statistic was selected as most appropriate for the major comparisons.and the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of correlation was used to compare the level of expectations of parents with number of children in school. Description of the Instrument The questionnaire developed for the present study generated from the instrument developed by Cowan and a format attributed to Doyle.l Cowan's role segment cate- gories were adopted after an extensive review of the literature and numerous discussions with community school leaders revealed that they remained as useful categories, true to the contemporary content of the director's profes- sional roles. Cues, stating or implying duties of the community school director, were supplied from many'sourCes and associations already mentioned in this or Chapter II. They were translated into operational aspects and roughly categorized into the four professional role segments of (1) coordinator of school-community relations, (2) adminis- trator of the community school, (3) professional staff member, and (4) teacher. lCowan, "The Building Director." Doyle, "Convergence and Divergence in Role." 105 Care was exercised to include statements reflecting the evolving nature of the position, especially the in- creased emphasis on coordinator of school—community rela- tions, facilitator, and human relations functions. Many of the statements used by Cowan.and Crosby were modified and incorporated in the first draft, although the social worker role used by Crosby was rejected because this role is performed by other staff specialists in the schools where this service is deemed necessary. All statements were carefully considered with regard to the stated philosophy and goals of the Flint Community Schools and community education in general. Care was also given to straightforward wording and reada- bility apprOpriate to the diverse backgrounds of the respondent groups. A preliminary form of ninety-four items containing a description of each role segment was mailed to twelve persons recognized for-their leadership in community educa- tion and knowledge of the Flint director‘s position who were identified with the assistance of the Executive Director of the National Community School Education Associa- tion. It asked for reactions, modifications, and additions to the instrument. Ten of the forms were returned, many with detailed critiques, suggested revisions, and additions. 106 A revised form was discussed at length with the director of research for the Flint School Board resulting in numerous minor refinements. A number of Cowan's items survived, in original or modified form, the numerous revisions of the instrument. This form was then tested with a group of teachers and administrators and with a group of parents and teachers, the principal, and the community school director of a Flint elementary school not a part of the study schools. The final form of the questionnaire contained sixty selected items categorized fifteen in each of the four role segments to be marked yes, don't know, or pg, The director's expectations for his own position contained only ygs_and pg responses on the assumption that the role incumbent should have a positive or negative reaction to each item. Each group responded to three additional general items regarding the position and a personal data section specific to each group. Role Segments of the Community~ School Director's Position Many-of-the descriptions of the community school director and the philosophical statements of community educatiOn leadership result in lists of traits and, although pertinent, do not represent major role categories. Examination of community school literature and intensive 107 association with numerous individuals and groups active in shaping the position and duties of the community school director suggested a categorization of role segments approximating Cowan's. Adoption of these role segments of (l) coordinator of school-community relations, (2) adminis- trator of community school, (3) professional staff member, and (4) teacher not only would provide accurate parameters of the segments but would also facilitate comparison of the results of previous studies in charting the trends and development of this leadership position in a rapidly changing social and economic milieu. Coordinatog_of School and Communitprelations The coordinator of school and community relations functions and responsibilities of the director include all activities which relate to liaison between school and the community, both the attendance area and the city at large. He interprets the total school program to individuals and groups in the community, surveys neighborhood needs, and translates them into programs, or makes them known to persons in policy positions. He coordinates school and social services; guides families to needed services and agencies; involves parents in planning, operating and evaluating the community school; and promotes under- standing, two-way communication, and cooperation between 108 school and home and among neighborhood groups. The director knows the school neighborhood and many of its individual members as well as the resources and leaders in the larger community of Flint. He is a model worthy of emulation and skilled in promoting good human relations. He is a facilitator and a catalyst in releasing human potential of school personnel, parents, and citizens for the identification of common needs and progress toward solution. He helps create an atmosphere and climate of mutual respect and trust where all members of the school and community can engage in democratic problem solving. Administrator of the Community School The administrator role of the community school director involves all those activities of an administrative nature which he shares with the principal and other super— visors or for which he is entirely responsible in the areas of planning, operation procedures, personnel, physical facilities, and decision making. This involves his overall responsibility to see that the community school moves toward fulfillment of its goals and potential and includes elements of both leadership and administration as defined by Lipham.1 1James M. Lipham, "Leadership and Administration," Behavioral Science and Edgcational Administration, 63rd Yearbodk oféthe National Society far the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 119-141. 109 Professional Staff Role The-professional staff role of the community school director involves those activities which promote unity of purpose and contribute to developing effective staff relationships. It includes his participation in the regular required day school program and his responsi- bility-of involving other staff members in the planning, operation, and evaluation of the community school program. This role segment also includes his professional associa- tion and interaction with supervisors, teachers, and those he serves and supervises in the community school. He is a professionally trained member of the education profession and certified member of the staff of the public schools. Teaching.Role Originally every community school director was eXpected to teach one-half time in the required part of the school program. More recently a director, in response to specific school requirements, may assume full-time responsibility as a community school director with adminis- trative rank, but he is, however, required to advance to this level by having demonstrated classroom teaching proficiency.“ However, a director's position, either teaching or released, retains similar elements of the teacher role apart from the half-time classroom duties of the teaching directors. 110 Elements common to all classes of directors involve his participation in and support of the entire instruc- tional program of the school, teaching skills and attitudes for liVing in a democracy, teaching opportunities which arise in all contacts and associations with children, and the utilization of community resources, parents, and citizens in providing growth opportunities for any member of the neighborhood, more especiallychildren and youth. The seleCted operational aspects of-the director's professional staff position were grOuped according to the preceding four major role segments. Methods and techniques of-question writing and questionnaire construction sug- gested by Backstrom and Hursh are reflected in the com- pleted instrument.l Research Population SeleCtion and Grouping_ .5? the Study Schools Flint's forty-three public elementary schools were first divided into inner-city and non-inner-city classifi- cations. An inner-city classification was determined on the basis of qualifications for participation in various local, state, and federal compensatory education programs and designations by the Flint administration as an inner- city school. 1Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, Survey Research.(Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern UniverSity 111 Schools selected as inner-city for this study are participants in three or more of the following programs: Loca1--Better Tomorrow for Urban Youth Better Tomorrow for Urban Youth Teacher Aides Breakfast Program Mott Institute for Community Improvement Urban Tutorial State--Middle Cities Program Elementary Intern Program in Urban Teaching Federal--Title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Head Start Follow Through Model Cities In consultation with the Flint administration twelve schools were excluded from consideration for special circumstances such as: experimental school, special educa- tion school, combination elementary-junior high, border- line (no clear designation as inner-city), or extremely small enrollment. The remaining schools were further subdivided according to teaching or released community school director. It was found that the inner-city/released director group contained three schools. Three schools were therefore drawn at random from each of the three remaining cate- gories. 112 I. Inner-City with Released Director A. Dewey Elementary SchoOl B. Doyle Elementary School C. Martin Elementary School II. Inner-City with Teaching Director A. Dort Elementary School B. Kennedy Elementary School C. Parkland Elementary School III. Non-Inner-City with Released Director A. Coolidge Elementary School B. Cody Elementary School C. Potter Elementary School IV. Non-Inner-City School with Teaching Director A. Bunche Elementary School B. Civic Park Elementary School C. Selby Elementary School The geOgraphic location of the two major cate- gories of study schools approximates the census tract description, High value housing is located near but inside the city limits. Deterioration of housing is most concentrated between Saginaw Street and the Flint River and in the older sections which surround the central business district.1 The inner-city schools lie along the north-to- south Saginaw Street axis from the central business 1Census Tract Project, p. 45. 113 district northward. The non-inner-city schools are located nearer the city boundaries, four on the west side, one on the east side, and one on the south side. Dewey, Dort, Doyle, Kennedy, Martin, and Parkland participate in the BTU and breakfast programs. Dort, Doyle, Kennedy, and Parkland are served by Title I, ESEA, and Middle Cities which also includes Dewey. Dewey, Doyle, and Parkland have the Elementary Intefh Program; Dort and Kennedy, Head Start; and Dort, Follow Through. Dewey, Parkland, and Martin are located in the Model Neighborhood Program Area; Dort, Kennedy, and Doyle are part of the Oak Park Urban Renewal Project; and Dewey is located in a Building Code Enforcement Area. Only Bunche and Cody of the non-inner-city schools have limited participation in the BTU aide program. In extended interviews with the twelve principals, all stressed overall staff strength with little turn-over from year to year. All inner-city principals reported predominantly black residential patterns with wage earners mostly in shop and service occupations, while most neigh- borhoods consist of mixed residential and business uses. Information regarding students and staff of the study schools is presented in Tables 1 and 2.1 1"Flint Public Schools Racial Distribution, K-12 Pupils and Teacher, Sept. 1969," (unpublished paper of Research Services Department, Flint Board of Education, November, 1969). 114 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF ELEMENTARY PUPILS--SEPTEMBER, 1969 School White. Negro Other Total % Negro Bunche 217 317 4 538 59 Civic Park 698 72 17 787 9 Cody 855 0 5 860 0 Coolidge 517 0 3 520 0 Dewey 34 802 2 838 96 Dort 42 1220 11 1273 96 Doyle 14 433 6 453 96 Kennedy 2 419 2 423 99 Martin 22 691 9 722 96 Parkland 2 446 0 448 99 Potter 926 3 7 936 0.3 Selby 569 4 l 574 0.7 TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS--SEPTEMBER, 1969 School White Negro Other Total % Negro Bunche 13.5 5 0 18.5 27 Civic Park 23.5 2 0 25.5 8 Cody 24.5 3.5 0 28 13 Coolidge- l6 2 0 18 ll Dewey 16.5 16.5 0 33 50 Dort 26.5 40 1 67.5 59 Doyle 11 14.5 0 25.5 57 Kennedy 11.5 12.5 0 24 52 Martin 10 18 0 28 64 Parkland 11 11.5 0 22.5 51 Potter 31.5 1 0 32.5 3 Selby ~16.5 1 0 17.5 6 115 Non-inner-city residential patterns were reported as predominantly white with the exception of-Bunche which was reported as approximately 25% Negro and characterized as middle-to—low income neighborhoods by the principals. Estimates of participation in community school activities range from broad participation to extremely active but limited numbers but did not follow an inner- city, non-inner-city pattern. Inner-city principals listed many special instruc- tional programs and social services as a result of the compensation programs while non—inner-city ones claimed few beyond the basic services provided for all schools in the district. Respondent Population The research population for this study included the principal, community school director, a random sample of certified teachers, and a stratified random sample of parents from each study school. In addition three regional coordinators of community schools and three directors of elementary education were included. Sample size was determined with the assistance of the Research Consultation Office of the College of Educa- tion, Michigan State University. Itwas decided that the sample of parents would be selected from a stratified group of involved parents 116 who could be expected to possess knowledge of the community school and the director. This was done on the assumption that director's expectations would be influenced largely by those role definers of whom he was most aware. In separate interviews principals and directors were asked to identify, from a family enrollment list, all parents they would consider as involved in the community school program. A typed list of typical community school activities taken from Totten and Manley was reviewed at the start of the interview.1 Care was taken to give identical directions to each person marking the family list. Parents selected by both the principal and director were included in the involved population. The table of random numbers from Freund was used to select eight involved parents from each study school.2 Twenty percent of the certified teaching staff of each of the study schools was randomly selected to receive questionnaires.3 Rounding to the next highest whole number was necessary in several instances. It was determined that a minimum of six teachers would be selected from each lTotten and Manley, The Community School, pp. 264-266. 2John E. Freund, Modern Elementary Statistics (3rd ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1967), pp. 393-396. 3 Ibid 0 117 school since several of the staffs were quite small in number. Collection of Data In late March, 1970, questionnaires were mailed to twelve principals, twelve community school directors, seventy-two parents, eighty teachers, and six central office administrators at their home addresses. Each envelope also contained a letter of transmittal so written to elicit maximum cooperation upon the authority of Borg.l COpies of all letters and questionnaires are contained in Appendix C. Questionnaires were coded for maintaining an accurate record of returns, and postage laden return envelopes were addressed to a post office box. One week prior to the general mailing, a post card containing a brief announcement of the investigation and a positively worded invitation to complete the questionnaire was sent to each parent. Follow-up letters were mailed three weeks after the initial mailing. An overall return of 83% was obtained. Two parents of the eight at each of the study schools also drawn at random were interviewed at home. These twenty-four were called in advance for an appointment and all agreed to participate. The interviews were for the 1Walter R. Borg, Educationgl Research, An Introduc- tion (New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1963), pp. 213-217. 118 purpose of gaining insight and nuances not obtainable through the mailing technique. Practice interviews were conducted with parents at a nonstudy school. The mailed instrument formed the basis of the interviews which were conducted using the procedures suggested by Borg.l Summary The essence of Chapter III was a description of the methods and procedures employed in conducting this investigation. Construction and refinement of the ques- tionnaire, which was the basic instrument of data collec- tion, was presented. Statements describing the major role segments of the Flint community school director were presented as the basis by which the questionnaire items were grouped. Detailed information relative to the classifica- tion and selection of study schools, methods of sampling the various groups of relevant others, and data collection procedures were cited. Chapter IV is concerned with the analysis of data with reference to the questions raised in Chapter I. lIbid., pp. 221-226. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction Statistical results relating to perceived and actual conflict and perceived and actual expectations held for the position of community school director in Flint, Michigan by community school directors and groups of rele- vant others are reported and discussed in this chapter. Results are presented contiguous with the major and related questions posed by the investigation with comparisons of innerdcity and non-inner-city schools, released-time and teaching directors, among groups of role definers, among four role segments, and perceived and actual expectations and conflict, and numerous related interactions. The first section categorizes and describes the reSpondents who provided the data for the studyvia a mailed questionnaire or personal interview on which were recorded expectations for the position community school director and personal information. Following this section the operational statements representing duties and respon- sibilities of community school directors are identified 119 120 according to the role segments of coordinator of school— community relations, administrator of the community school, professional staff member, and teacher. The major portion of the chapter is an analysis of the expectation data which was processed at the Michigan State University Computer Center by an analysis of variance program by Jennrich.l Closing the chapter is a discussion of the comments of the various role definers collected by an open-ended question and personal interview. Demography of Respondents The process of classifying and selecting the twelve elementary study schools was presented in detail in Chapter III. All Flint public elementary schools were classified into four major groups: 1. Inner-city with teaching director 2. Inner-city with released-time director 3. Non-inner-city with teaching director 4. Non—inner-city with released-time director. Several schools were eliminated due to special circumstances which rendered them nonrepresentative of any of the four categories. Table 3 describes the popula- tion of families, teachers, principals, and community school directors of the study schools. lRobert I. Jennrich, 3600 ANOVA, Technical RQQOrt 55, modified by-David J. Wright (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, May 3, 1966). 121 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF FAMILIES, TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, AND DIRECTORS IN THE TWELVE SELECTED STUDY SCHOOLS _ . School Families Teachers Principals Directors Inner-city Dewey 466 33 1 l Dort 570 61 l 1 Doyle 196 26 1 1 Kennedy 238 23 l 1 Martin 344 25 l 1 Parkland. 202 23 l l Subetotal 2016 191 6 6 Non-inner-city Bunche 311 19 1 1 Civic park 469 26 1 1 Cody 498 30 l l Coolidge 326 19 l l Potter. 565 33 l 1 Selby i347 18 1 l Sub-total ( 2516 145 6 6 Total 4532 336 12 12 122 Table 4 is a summary of usable questionnaires. returned by all respondent groups by the predetermined cut-off date of May 1, 1970. An overall response of 83.5% was obtained. A description of usable returns from parents and teachers by school and by inner-city and.non-inner-city classification is presented in Table 5. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF NUMBERS OF QUESTIONNAIRES SENT AND RETURNED Number Number Return Group. Sent. Returned Percentage Community School Directors 12 12 100 Principals 12 12 100 Teachers 80 69 86.2 Parents 96 74 77.1 Directors of Elementary Education 3 2 66.6 Regional Coordinators of Community Schools 1 3 3 100 Total 206 172 83.5 Twelve community school directors and twelve building principals responded representing 100% for each group. In each case parents' usable returns include two parents from each school who were interviewed in their homes. Questionnaires were overtly coded for reasons relating to statistical analysis andfollow-up efforts. One-person from each of the respondent groups--teachers, 123 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF USABLE RETURNS FROM PARENTS AND TEACHERS Parents Teachers School Sent Return. % Sent Return. % Inner-city Dewey 8 6 75 7 5 71.4 Dort 8 6 75 12 10 83.3 Doyle 8 5 62.5 6 5 83.3 Kennedy 8 5 62.5 6 5 83.3 Martin. 8 5 62.5 6 5 83.3 Parkland 8 6 75 6 5 83.3 Sub-total 48 33 68.8 43 35 81.4 Nonrinner-city Bunche 8 6 75 6 6 100 Civic Park 8 7 87.5 6 6 100 Cody 8 75 6 6 100 Coolidge 8 8 100 6 5 83.3 Potter 8 7 87.5 7 6 85.7 Selby 8- 7 37.5" 6 5 83.3 Sub-total 48 " 41 85.4 37 34 91.9 Total 96 74 77.1 80 69 86.2 124 parents, and administrators--defa¢ed the code, but were identifiable frOm the personal data section. Data relating to the prior professional education experiences of the twelve community school directors who participated in the.study is organized in Table 6, while Table 7 details the family composition and formal college preparation of the study directors. TABLE 6 DIRECTORS CLASSIFIED BY OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPERIENCE, PRIOR TEACHING EXPERIENCE, AND DIRECTOR EXPERIENCE es! Number School Number Years Number Years as Systems Employed Teaching Experience Community School Besides Flint , Before Director‘ Director No. No. No. None 7 None 1 1-2 3 l 1 1-3 7 3-4 6 2 3 4-6 3 5-6 2 3+ 1 7+ 1 7+- 1 Eight directors had served as community school director trainees prior to assignment as directors. Nine of the study.directors are presently serving in the posi- tion where they were originally assigned as directors; two have served in two schools; and one reported serving in more than four director assignments. } Table 8 contains information supplied by directors in response to questions relating to their future career 125 NH NH HH «H NH mHmuoe H umnuo ,m .moua Humansm . H +os H _+ as H H .mm .son H mus H emouo>Ha N amumm m a: .H H .pm suchssoo e mum cH pmHuuus N ennom a 4m 4 .pm‘Haonaam e . Huo H mHmch a mmumN .oz Hm>mq «2 dm coaumnmmmnm .oz casuaflso .oz usucum .02 com coaumoswm cowwmostm -Hmuwumz HN>MA.A420HH¢UDDm QZ¢-.ZOHBNM¢mmmm AflZOHBflUDQm .ZOHBHmomSOU HHHde .mDBflBm HdBHMfiZ ~m0¢.Nm meBUHMHD.UZHQHHDm h mflmdfi 126 TABLE 8- DIRECTORS CLASSIFIED BY FUTURE CAREER PLANS AND REACTION TO CAREER CHOICES Become Community Future Plans in Enter Education School Director Education Field Profession Again? Again? No. No. No. Expect to remain...8 Yes 11 YeS» 11 Expect to remain at least 5 yrs...3 No 0 No 0 May leave after 5 yrs............0 No response 1 No response 1 Plan to look for another job now..l ' Totals 12 12 12 plans and reaction to choosing to be a community school director again. Information relating to administrative position aspirations.of community school directors in the future.course of their educational careers is presented in Table 9. Only two community school directors, both non- innervcity, reside within the attendance areas of their assignments. Table 10 is a summary of the years of experience that the groups of relevant others--parents, teachers, and principals--have had on.a staff with a community school director. 127 TABLE 9 ' DIRECTORS CLASSIFIED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ASPIRATIONS Plans to Seek fl Administrative No. Positions Type of Administrative Position Aspired To Position Aspired To No. No. No. Yes 12 1-2 10 ,School Superintendent 3 High School Principal 2 No, will 3-4 1 Elementary Principal 9 remain a Assistant Principal 8 director 0 5-6 1 Adult Ed. Coordinator. 2 Other 2 Totals 12 12 TABLE 10 PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND PRINCIPALS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH A COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR Up to 3 Years 4 Years or More No Response Inner Non-I.) Inner Non-I. Inner Non-I. City City City City City City Parentsa 2 3 29 33 2 0 Teachers 11 11 23; 23 1 0 Principals 0 ' l 66 5 0 0 Total 13 15 58 66 3 0 aExpressedein years of residence in study school attendance area. 128 Information relating to total years teaching experience, number of years in the present location, teaching assignment, and sex of the teacher sample is presented by inner—city and non-inner—city elementary schools in Table 11. TABLE 11 TEACHERS CLASSIFIED BY TOTAL YEARS TEACHING EXPERIENCE, TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN PRESENT SCHOOL, TEACHING ASSIGNMENT, AND SEX Years Years Classroom Experience Teaching Present Teaching Experience School Assignment Sex a b IC NIC IC NIC IC NIC IC NIC 1—3 8 9 1-3 16 15 Low. El. 18 17 Male 8 4 4—6 11 7 4-6 10 9 Up. E1. 12 12 Female 27 30 7+ 15 18 7+ 8 10 Resource 0 3 NR 1 0 NR 1 0 Other 4 2 NR 1 0 aNumber in inner-city schools. bNumber in non-inner-city schools. cNo response. Table 12 is a description of the number of children presently in public school and residence information of the 96 sample families presented according to the inner-city/ non-inner—city classification. 129 TABLE 12 PARENTS CLASSIFIED BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN SCHOOL, YEARS RESIDENCE IN FLINT, AND YEARS AT PRESENT ADDRESS Number of Children Years_Residencet Years Residence in School in Flint Present Address Level Ica.NIcP 1c NIC, IC NIC- Lower Elem. 32 42 0-5 4 2 0-5 12 7 Upper Elem. 4o 33 6-10 1 2 6-10 10 13 Secondary 33 32 11-15 ' 9 5 11-15 6 9 No Response 1 16-20 8 4 16-20 1 3 21+ 10 28 21+ 3 4 No Response 1 No Response 1 aNumber ininner-city schools. bNumber in.non-inner-city schools. Tables 13, 14, and 15 summarize the responses to three multiple choice queStions relating to the status and teaching.responsibilities of the community school director. Each community school director, in addition, was asked to indicate how he perceived the preference of each reference group to each question. 61. I believe that the Community School Director should-- a. Be regarded as having the same status as teachers b. Be regarded as.an administrator 130 0. Be regarded as somewhere between administra— tive and teaching d. Be regarded as unique, not clearly adminis- trative or clearly teaching. TABLE 13 OPINIONS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR SUMMARIZED BY DIRECTORS' ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED AND THREE GROUPS OF RELEVANT OTHERS _ % Directors' % Perception Be Regarded Directors % % % As Actual Prin. Tchr. Par. Prin. Teacher Parent a.-Teacher 0 33 25 25 0 9 14 trator 50 17 8 33 25 10 19 c. Between 25 42 42 9 17 25 31 d. Unique 25 18 25 33 58 56 36 Directors established a clear pattern as to how they regard their own position with 50% seeing themselves as administrators and none regarding themselves as teachers. Only 25% associated themselves in anyway with the teacher position. Only a very small portion of any group accorded the director teacher status; whereas, at least 25% of the directors thought the groups saw them as teachers. Teachers and principals were reluctant to accord the director a clear-cut designation as either a teacher or administrator. Over half of the principals and teachers 131 and 36% of parents saw the director's position in a somewhat unique. ambiguous state by describing the position as As might be expected, parents were less sure of hOw to describe the director's position. .Perhaps more important--directors generally did not accurately perceive the status accorded them by others. 62. I believe that the Community School Director should-- a. Teach half—day sessions as well as administer the community school program. b. Teach fullsday sessions and administer.the community school programl c. Not teach during regular school day but spend full time with the community school program. As expected, Table 14 clearly establishes that the director TABLE 14 OPINIONS ON AMOUNT OF TIME DIRECTOR SHOULD DEVOTE T0 TEACHING SUMMARIZED BY DIRECTORS AND OTHERS‘ at r ‘ m % Directors' % (Perception- Director Directors ‘ % %3 % Should Actual Prin. Tchr. Par. Prin. Teacher Parent a. Teach. half? day 25 34 25 25 ’ 58 22 14 b . Teach full- day, 0 8 8 0 0 0 5 a. Not teach 75 53 67 ' 75 42 73 31 132 is not expected to teach full time and be responsible for after-school and evening activities. Seventy-five percent of directors felt that they should not have classroom teaching responsibilities at all. Directors fairly accurately perceived the fact that 42%, 78%, and 81% of principals, teachers, and parents respectively did not expect them to have classroom duties. However, it is noted that 58% of the principals preferred that directors teach one-half day. 63. Assuming that teaching is part of his job, the Community School Director should-- a. Teach physical education. b. Teach academic subjects c. Makes no difference what he teaches. As noted in Table 15, 82% of the directors regarded them- selves as exclusively teachers of physical education and none as exclusively academic teachers. Directors did not accurately judge the views of principals with 91% per- ceiving that principals saw them as physical education specialists.' Tradition survived in that no group saw directors as strictly academic teachers, although over half of teachers and principals felt that it made no difference what he taught. Many respondents indicated that it made no difference what a director taught by adding, "If he is qualified." 133 TABLE 15 OPINIONS REGARDING TEACHING AREA OF DIRECTOR SUMMARIZED BY DIRECTORS, ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED, AND THREE GROUPS OF RELEVANT OTHERS % Directors' ‘ % Perception Teaching Directors ’ % % % Area Actual Prin. Tchr. Par. Prin. Teacher Parent a. P.E. 82. 91 64 45 33 43 56 b. Academic 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 c. Makes no differ- ence 18 i 9 36 55 67 51 39 From Table 14 it is clear that directors no longer see themselves as teachers and when required to indicate a preference as in Table 15 assume the teaching role tradi- tionally asCribed to the building director. Examination of the Study Instrument Table 16 is a classification of the selected operational statements representing the four major role segments of the community school director under investiga- tion. There are fifteen statements each for the role segments:‘ coordinator of school-community relations, administrator of community school, professional staff member, and teacher. .Details concerning the marking of the instrument were presented in Chapter III. A copy of the 134 questionnaire, personal data sheets for each respondent group, and letters of transmittal are contained in Appendix C. TABLE 16 SELECTED OPERATIONAL STATEMENTS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR'S POSITION CLASSIFIED BY FOUR ROLE SEGMENTS Statement Role Segment Title Numbers Coordinator of Schooerommunity Relations 1 through 15 Administrator of Community School 16 through 30 Professional Staff Member 31 through 45 Teacher 46 through 60 Presentation of Data With References ‘ to the Study Questions This section consists of,a presentation of the statistically treated data collected from the various respondent groups, presented in relation to the questions raised by the study. Question I Are there significant differences in conflict for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the actual and perceived 135 expectations of community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? C. Role segments? D. Perceived and actual? E. Groups of role definers? Perceived and actual conflict scores were computed for the interactional social system of each of the twelve study schools. A yg§_answer was assigned a numerical value of 3; don't know, 2; and £2, a value of 1. For each of the sixty operational statements, the absolute difference between the director's value and the value assigned by each group was recorded. The same technique was applied to actual and perceived expectations of the directors and the .groups of others. Absolute differences for each item were added to obtain a conflict measure for-each of the four role segments. Perfect agreement would result in a con- flict score of 0, and maximum disagreement would result in a conflict score of 30. This procedure provided three perceived conflict scores and three actual conflict scores in four role segments for each of the twelve study schools. Analysis of variance statistic waszused to test overall significance for the five main effects and twenty- six interactions of means of Question I. The F test results are presented in Table 17. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR QUESTION I: 136 TABLE 17 WITH THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR'S POSITION CONFLICT ASSOCIATED Sums Degrees of of Mean F Source of Variance Squares Freedom quuares Ratio C. Inner-City & Non- InnereCity 56.18 1 56.18 1.36 D. Released-Time & Teaching Director. 6.13 6.13 .15 R. Four Role Segments' 116.37 3 38.79 2.56 E. Perceived & Actual a Conflict 401.39 1 401.39 7.89 P. Three Groups of 1b Role Definers 135.77 2 67.89 5.30 CD. InnerdCity/Non- Inner-City 8 Released-Time/ Teaching Director 38.72 1 38.72 .94 RC. Four Role Segments & Inner-City/Non- Inner-City 39.72 3 13.24 .87 RD. Four Role Segments & Released-Time/ Teaching Director 60.31 3 20.10 1.33 EC. Perceived/Actual Conflict & Inner- City/Non-Inner-City 36.98 1 36.98 .73 ED. Perceived/Actual - Conflict & Re- leased-Time/Teach- ing Director 39.01 1 ‘39.01 .77 ER. Perceived/Actual Conflict & Four b Role Segments 302.78 3 100.93 13.74 PC. Three Groups Role Definers & Inner- City/Non-Inner-City 45.52 2 22.76 1.78 137 TABLE'l7--Continued Source of Variance' Sums of, Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares Ratio PD. Three Groups Role Definers & Re— leased-Time/Teach- ing Director PR. Three Groups Role Definers_& Four Role Segments PE. Three Groups Role Definers & Perceived/Actual. Conflict Four Role Segments & Inner-City/Non- Inner-City & Re- leased-Time/Teach- ing Director Perceived/Actual. Conflict & Inner- City/Non-Inner-City & Released-Time/ Teaching Director Perceived/Actual Conflict & Four Role Segments & Inner-City/Non- Inner-City Perceived/Actual” Conflict & Four. Role Segments & -Released-Time/ Teaching Director Three Groups Role Definers & Inner- City/Non-Inner-City & Released—Time/ Teaching Director ECD. ERC. ERD. PCD. 19.05 64.38 42 .84. 128.16 39.31 3.18 12.91 4.28 9.53 10.73 42.72 39.31 1.06 4.30 .74 1.79 .80 2.82 .77 .14 .59 .17 138 TABLE 17--Continued . ; , . Sums Degrees of. of- Mean F Source of Variance Squares Freedom Squares Ratio PRC. Three Groups Role Definers & Four Role Segments.& Inner-City/Non— Inner-City 64.05 6 10.68- 1.78 PRD.. Three Groups Role Definers & Four Role Segments & Re- leased-Time/Teach— ing Director 33.17 6 5.53 .92 PEG. Three Groups Role Definers & Per— ceived/Actual Conflict & Inner- City/Non-Inner-City 88.94 2 44.47 1.65 PED. Three Groups Role Definers &'Per- ceived/Actual- Conflict & Re- leased-Time/Teach- ing Director .83 2 .41 .02 PER. Three Groups Role Definers & Per- ceived/Actual Conflict & Four Role Segments 107.58 6 17.93 3.30 ERCD. Perceived/Actual Conflict &.Four Role Segments & Inner-City/Non- Inner-City & Re- leased-Time/ . Teaching Director 23.65. 3 . 7.88 1.07' PRCD. Three Groups Role Definers & Four Role Segments & Inner~City/Non- Inner-City & Re- leased-Time/Teachr Director' 11.86 6 1.98 .33 139» TABLE 17--Continued Source of Variance Sums of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares Ratio PECD. PERC. PERD. PERCD. Three Groups Role Definers & Per- ceived/Actual. Conflict & Inner- City/Non-Inner- City & Released- Time/Teaching Director Three Groups Role Definers & Per- ceived/Actual. Conflict & Four Role Segments.& Inner—City/Non- Inner-City Three Groups Role Definers & Per- ceived/Actual Conflict & Four Role Segments & Released-Time/ Teaching Director Three Groups Role Definers & Per- ceived/Actual- Conflict & Four Role Segments & Inner-City/Non- Inner-City & Released-Time/ Teaching'Director 4.55 59.64 57.34 30.61. 2.28 9.94 9.56 5.10 .08 1.83 1.76“ .94 aSignificant at the .05 level of confidence. bSignificant at the .01 level of confidence. 140 Results from Table 17 Comparison of the mean conflict scores by the F test suggests that: 1. Significant differences exist between perceived and actual conflict. (Main Effect) Significant differences exist among the three groups of role definers. (Main Effect) No significant differences exist among the four role segments, but the F ratio approaches signifi— cance suggesting a possible relationship. (Main Effect) No significant differences exist between inner- city and non-inner-city or released-time and teaching directors. (Main Effects) Significant differences exist between perceived and actual_conflict and the four role segments. (First Order Interaction) Significant differences exist among three groups of role definers and perceived and actual conflict and four role segments. (Second Order Interaction) No significant differences exist for the remaining interactions among means. Results Relative to the Elements of Question I Are there significant differences in conflict for the position community school director in Flint elementary 141 community schools as defined by the actual and perceived expectations of community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? No significant differences were found to exist. B. Released-time and teaching community school directors? No significant differences were found to exist. C.‘ Role segments? 1. Coordinator of school—community relations 2. Administrator of the community school’ 3. Professional staff member 4. Teacher No significant difference was found to exist among role segments, but it is noted that the F value of 2.56 approached the .05 level of confidence value of 3.01. While considered non-significant in a statistical sense, differences in role segments assume significance in inter— action with other factors as will be noted in sections D and E which follow. D. Perceived and actual (conflict)? Table 18, following, comprises the F test results of significance of difference of mean scores between per- ceived and actual conflict (Main Effect) and perceived and actual conflict interacting with the four role segments (Primary Interaction), both of which displayed significance. 142 TABLE 18 F TEST RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL CONFLICT Sums Degrees of of Mean F Source of Variance Squares Freedom Squares Ratio E. Perceived & Actual a Conflict. 401.39 1 401.39 7.89 ER. Perceived & Actual Conflict & Four Role Segments 302.73 3 100.93 13.74b aSignificant at the .05 level of confidence. bSignificant—at the .01 level of confidence. Perceived and actual scores collapsed over all other factors were significant at the .05 level of con- fidence when testing the perceived conflict mean of 5.74 and the actual conflict mean of 8.10. Figure 1, first order interaction effects for peré ceived and actual conflict values for four role segments collapsed across role definers, inner-oity/non-inner-city schools and released-time/teaching directors, is a graphic representation of relationship of these means. Actual' conflict scores, it will be observed, were always higher than perceived conflict values. Differences in means were conspicuously greater for the teacher role segment. The strength of the.F values of this interaction, significant‘ ll, III! 1:11.11. I, ii If]! all! 143 12 (Actual Mean Conflict ll Conflict Scores Col- 10 lapsed Across Role Definers, 9 Inner-City/ Non-Inner- City & Re- leased-Time/ \/\ Teaching Directors Perceived Conflict CI—‘NUbU’IOSQw 1 l l I Role 1 Role 2 Role 3 Role 4 Coordi- Adminis- Profes- Teacher nator trator sional. Repeated Measures of Role Segments of the Community School Director Position Figure l.--First order interaction effects for per- ceived and actual conflict and four role segments of the position community school director. 144 at the .01 level of confidence, was observed to be 13.74 compared to the value of 4.72 necessary for this confidence level. E. Groups of role definers? Table 19 is a presentation of the F test result. of the analysis of variance of mean conflict scores for the three groups of significant other role definers. A sig- nificant difference was found to exist among the definers when the conflict scores were collapsed across role seg— ments, inner-city/non-inner-city and released-time/teaching director positions. The observed mean confliCt score.for principals was 5.95, for teachers 7.34, and parents 7.46. TABLE 19 F TEST RESULT FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THREE GROUPS OF ROLE DEFINERS Sums Degrees of of Mean - F. Source of Variance~ Squares. Freedom Squares Ratio P. Three Groups of . Role Definers . 135.77 2 67.89' 5.30 PER. Three Groups Role Definers & Per-. ceived/Actual. Conflict.& Four 1 Role Segments 107.58 ' 6 17.93 3.30 aSignificant at the .05 level of confidence. bSignificantat the .01 level of confidence. 145 In the secondary interaction (PER) among three groups of role definers, perceived and actual conflict and four role segments, it was observed that actual conflict means displayed a pattern of consistently greater values than perceived conflict means for all groups in all four role segments. The perceived and actual conflict means for principals showed the pattern of being consistently lower than the perceived and actual parent and teacher means for all four role segments. The actual conflict means for parents, 9.70, and teachers, 8.23, in the role segment of coordinator of school-community relations were among the highest means observed in this interaction, contrasted to the principal mean of 3.75 in this category, which was the lowest of the twenty-four means recorded in this secondary interaction. The actual conflict means respectively for parents, principals, and teachers of 10.02, 10.50, and 11.80 for the role.segment—-teacher were the three highest means recorded for (PER). In contrast the highest actual conflict mean for role definers alone was teacher with 7.34, and for the four role segments alone was teacher with 7.84. It was also observed that the lowest grouping of numerical values of means in the interaction comprising the three groups of role definers was for the perceived conflict in the teacher role segment. It would appear that while there is no significant differ- ence among the four roles when c0nsidered as a main effect 146 as noted in Table 17, when crossed with perceived and actual cOnflict and the three groups of-role definers, a relationship exists which is centered upon actual conflict in the teaching role segment when compared to the other role segments, and between the perceived and actual con- flict observed for the teacher role segment. This is consistent with the significant differences found to exist with reference to perceived and actual conflict and con- flict among reference groups (Main Effects), and the first order interaction between perceived and actual conflict and four-role segments in Figure 1. A review of the data tested by the analysis of variance technique concerning differences in perceived and actual cOnflict scores derived from the questionnaires of the respondent groups follows. Differences between inner—city-and non—inner-city schools were not found to be significant. Neither were differences between released-time and teaching community school directors. Further, neither of the above two distinctions appear as significant in any interaction of factors. Conflict differences among the four role segments were'not found to be significant when collapsed across other factors. However, role segments appeared in one primary interaction and one secondary interaction each of which showed significance at the .01 level of confidence. 147 Differences of mean conflict values for perceived and actual conflict were significant at the .05 level of- confidence with actual conflict registering the higher mean value of 8.10 contrasted to a perceived conflict value of' 5.74. When comparing groups of role definers, mean con- flict values showed significance at the .05 level of confidence with parent mean, teacher mean, and principal mean ranked in descending order of values of 7.46, 7.34, and 5.95 respectively. Perceived and actual conflict means interacting with four role segment means (Primary Interaction) dis- played significance at the .01 level of confidence with the major difference appearing between actual and perceived conflict associated with the teacher role segment. In this interaction actual conflict was greater than perceived conflict in each of the four roles. The above two dimensions, perceived and actual conflict and four role segments, interacting with three groups of role definers (Secondary Interaction) was significant at the .01 level of confidence where much of the observed difference appeared to be concentrated within the teacher role with actual conflict means of 10.02, 10.50, and-11.80 for parents, principals, and teachers respectively; and perceived conflict means of 5.33, 4.83, and 4.50 respectively. 74" lull.‘ 148 Question»II Are there significant differences in the expecta- tions held'for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the community school director when comparing: A. Inner—city and non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? C. Role segments? D. Perceived and actual? Director actual and perceived expectation scores were computed for each of the twelve study schools. Ygs answers were assigned a numerical value of 3; don't know, a value of 2; and pg, a value of 1. Numerical values were summed for each of the four role segments for each director and also his perceptions of the expectations held by the significant other groups of role definers: parents, principal, and teachers. Each role segment could, there- fore, assume a numerical value ranging from 15 minimum to 45 maximum for each director's actual and three perceived expectations. The analysis of variance statistic employed for analysis of Question I was applied to test the significance of differences of means for the four main effects and eleven interactions of Question II. F test results are presented in Table 20. 149 TABLE 20 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR QUESTION II: ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED EXPECTATIONS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR'S POSITION HELD BY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS Sums* Degrees of of. Mean F Source of Variance Squares Freedom Squares Ratio C. Inner-City & Non- Inner-City 15.19 1 15.19 .10 D. Released-Time & Teaching Director 10.08 1 10.08 .07 R. Four Role Segments 80.40 3 26.80 1.04 P. Director Actual & Perceived Expecta- a tions 260.85 3 86.95 3.92 CD. Inner-City/Nonr Inner-City & Released—Time/ Teaching Director 310.08 1 310.08 2.09 RC. Four Role Segments & Inner-City/Non- Inner-City 72.90' 3 24.30 .95 RD. Four Role Segments & Released-Time/r Teaching Director 11.67 3 3.89 .15 PC. Director Actual & Perceived Expecta- tions & Inner-City/ Non—Inner-City 146.52 3 48.84 2.20 PD. Director Actual & Perceived.Expecta-‘ tions & Released— Time/Teaching . Director 85.79 3 28.60 1.29 PR. Director Actual & Perceived Expecta-w tions & Four Role . Segments 74.40 9 8.27 1.76 150 TABLE 20--Continued Source of Variance Sums of" Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Squares Ratio RCD. PCD. PRC. PRD. PRCD. Four'Role'Segments & Inner-City/Non- Inner—City & Re- leased-Time Teaching Director Director Actual & Perceived Expecta- tions & Inner-City/ Non-Inner-City & Released—Time/' Teaching Director“ Director Actual.& Perceived Expecta— tions & Four Role. Segments &-Inner-— City/Non-Inner~City Director Actual.& Perceived Expecta- tions & Four Role Segments & Re- leased-Time/ Teaching Director Director Actual & Perceived.Expecta- tions & Four.Role~ Segments & Inneré City/an—Inner-City & Released-Time/ Teaching Director 25.67 28.63 46.04 55.29 9.54 5.12 4.68 6.14 .33 .43 1.09 1.00 1.31 aSignificant at the .05 level of cenfidence. 151 Results from Table 20 Comparison of mean actual expectations of directors and director perceptions of expectations of—parents, principals, and teachers suggest that: 1. Significant differences exist among the means of directors, parents, principals, and teachers. (Main Effect) No significant differences exist for differences between inner-city and non-inner-city, between released-time and teaching directors, or among the four role segments. (Main Effects) No significant differences exist between director expectations, actual and perceived, and four-role segments; but the F-ratio approaches significance, thereby suggesting a possible relationship. (First Order Interaction) No significant differences exist for the remaining interactions among means. Resultiselative to the Elements of Question II. Are there significant differences in the expecta- tions held for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the community school director when comparing: 152 A. Inner-city and nonrinner-city schools? No significant differences were found to exist. B. Released and.teaching community school directors? No significant differences were found to exist. C. Role segments?~ 1. Coordinator of schoolecommunity relations 2. Administrator of community school‘ 3. Professional staff member 4. Teacher No significant differences were found to exist. D. Perceived and actual (expectations)? Significant.differences were found to exist among the means of director actual and perceived expectations. Table 21vis a presentation of the F test result of this analysis. TABLE,21 F TEST RESULT FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIRECTOR ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED EXPECTATIONS- Sums Degrees of of Mean F Source of Variance~ Squares Freedom Squares Ratio P. Director Actual & Perceived-Expecta- a tions 260.85 3 86.95 3.92 PR. Director Actual &. Perceived.Expecta- tions & Four Role. Segments 74.40 9 8.27 1.76 aSignificantat the .05 level of confidence. 153 Difference in means for director aCtual and perceived expectations was significant at the .05 level of confidence. A close grouping of the parent, principal, and teacher means of 38.04, 38.77, and 38.44 respectively, was noted. The community school director mean, on the other hand, was 41.04. Director actual and perceived expectations inter- acting with four role segments, while not significant, approached the F table value of significance at the. .05 level of confidence. Viewed in association with main effect (P), director actual and perceived expectations may provide added meaning to the analysis. Figure 2 is-a graphic representation of the interacting means which‘ shows that director expectations are in every case of role segment greater-than the perceived expectations of others. Little difference is observed in teacher role with the major differences occurring in coordinator of school- community relations and to lesser degrees in the adminis- trator and professional staff member roles. A major difference is observed in the professional staff role between director actual and perceived expectations of parents.- It was also observed that the teaching role means registered less value than the other three role segments within each group. Expectation Level Scores Collapsed Across Inner-City/ Non-Inner- City & Re- leased-Time/ Teaching Directors 154 39 , H.‘ irectors “"“*=<:::r~——Teachers ‘Principals 37 4*4Parents 0 l l g 1 Role 1 Role 2 Role 3 Role 4 Coordi— Adminis- Profes- Teacher nator trator sional Repeated Measures of Role Segments of the Community School Director Position Figure 2.--First order interaction effects for director actual and perceived expectations for three groups and four role segments. . . . a.” 155 A review of the F test results of analysis of variance of mean expectation values of director actual and perceived expectations of three groups of relevant others for his position follows. No significant differences were found to exist when comparing inner-city and non-inner-city mean levels of expectations collapsed across all other factors. No significant differences were found to exist when comparing released-time and teaching directors collapsed across all other factors. Neither were significant differences found when the four role segments were compared collapsed across the other factors, although it was observed that the teacher role mean displayed the pattern of being low among roles in the main effect and the various interactions, none of which, however, possessed significance. Means of director actual expectations and the perceptions of the expectations of the relevant others-- parents, teachers, and principals (P) were found to differ significantly at the .05 level of confidence. Although not significant, the interaction of director actual and perceived expectations and four role segments (PR) approached significance, therefore, providing cues to the location of the differences observed in the main effect labeled P. 156 None of the remaining interactions were found to be significant, nor did any approach the .05 level of confidence value of F. Question III Are there significant differences in the actual expectations held for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? C. Groups of role definers? D. Role segments? Actual expectation values for directors, parents, principals, and teachers were established by the same procedure used in the analysis for Question II with the exception that for parents and teachers mean expectation levels were computed by dividing the total of values when yes I 3, don't know . 2, and pg_= l for each role segment by the number of teachers or parents responding for each of the twelve study schools. These computations provided an actual expectation value for each director, each principal, each group of teachers, and each group of< parents for each of the twelve interacting groups. Again, 157 each role segment score could assume a value ranging from a minimum of 15 to a maximum of 45. The same analysis of variance statistic used for the previous two questions was applied to test the significance of differences of means for the four main effects and eleven interactions of Question III. F test results of this analysis are pre- sented in Table 22. Results from Table 22 Comparison of the means of actual expectation scores for community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers suggests that: 1. Significant differences exist between the means of the four groups of role definers when collapsed across the factors of inner-city/non-inner-city, released-time/teaching directors and the four role segments. Significance was established at the .01 level of confidence. (Main Effect) 2. Significant differences exist between the means of the four role.segments when collapsed across the factors of type of school, type of director, and groups of role definers. Criteria of signifi- cance is at the .01 level of confidence. (Main Effect) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR QUESTION III: 158 TABLE 22 ‘FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR'S POSITION BY DIRECTORS AND ROLE DEFINERS PERCEPTIONS HELD Source of Variance Sums of Squares Degrees of Freedom Me an Squares PC. PD. CR. DR. PR. Inner-City & None Inner~City Released-Time.& Teaching Director. Four Groups Role Definers Four Role Segments Inner—City/Non— Inner-City & Re- leased-Time/ Teaching Director Four Groups Role Definers & Inner- City/Non-Inner- City' Four Groups Role Definers & Re- leased-Time/ Teaching Director“ Inner-City/Non— InnereCity & Four Role Segments' Released-Time/ Teaching Director & Four Role. Segments Four Groups.Role‘ Definers 8 Four. Role Segments 74.88 43.99 852.95 602.95 8.63 81.52 61.59 20.63- 15.47 156.30 74.88 43.99 284.32 200.98 8.63‘ 27.17 20.53 6.88 5.16 17.37 .40 1.25 .94 .93 .70 2.36"1 159 TABLE.22--Continued Source of Variance Sums of Squares Degrees, of Freedom Mean Squares Ratio PCD. CDR. PCR. PDR. PCDR. Four GroupS'Role. Definers & Inner- City/Non-Inner— City & Released-. Time/Teaching Director Inner-City/Non- Inner-City & Released-Time/ Teaching Director & Four Role Segments Four Groups Role Definers & Inner» City/Non-Inner- City & Four Role Segments Four Groups Role. Definers & Re- 1eased-Time/_ Teaching Director & Four Role Segments. Four Groups Role. Definers.& Inner- City/Nonrlnner- City & Released— Time/Teaching Director & Four Role Segments 56.43 103.75 24.87 53.38 12.31. 18.81 4.10 11s53 2.76 5.93 .87 .56 1.57 .38 .80 aSignificant at bSignificant at. the .05 level of confidence. .the .01 level of confidence. 160 3. Significant differences exist for the means of. four groups of role definers and four role segments at the .05 level of confidence. (Primary Inter— action) 4. No significant differences exist when comparing inner-city and non-inner—city elementary schools, noting, however, that the F value approached the .05 level of confidence criteria. (Main Effect) 5. No significant differences exist when comparing released-time and teaching directors. (Main Effect) 6. No significant differences exist for the remaining interactions not already mentioned. Results Relative to the Elements of Question III Are there significant differences in the actual expectations held for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? No significant differences were found to exist, but it was noted that the F value of this factor approached the criteria of significance, as the only instance so far recorded when comparing inner-city and non-inner-city schools. 161 B. Teaching and released community school directors? No significant differences were found to exist when.comparing director expectation means. C. Groups of role definers? Significant differences were found to exist among the actual expectation mean values for the four groups of role definers: directors, parents, principals, and teachers. Significance was established at the .01 level of confidence. Table 23 presents the results of this analysis. Mean scores of 36.29 for parents, 36.49 for teachers, 40.04 for principals, and 41.04 for community school directors represent two distinct groupings. The F ratio greatly.exceeded thesignificance value of 4.46 necessary for the .01 level of confidence.- TABLE 23 F TEST RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FOUR GROUPS OF ROLE DEFINERS Sums Degrees of of . Mean . F Source of Variance Squares. Freedom Squares. Ratio P. Four Groups Role b Definers 852.95 3 284.32 13.08 bSignificant at the .01 level of confidence. 162 D. Role segments? 1. Coordinator of school-community relations 2. Administrator of the community school 3. Professional staff member 4. Teacher Differences among means for the four role segments being examined were found to be significant at the .01 level of confidence. Mean scores of 39.33 for the coordi- nator of school-community relations role segment, 39.89 for administrator role segment, 39.23 for professional staff responsibilities, and 35.43 for the teacher role segment were observed with teacher role falling well below the close grouping of means for the first three role seg- ments.' Table 24 shows the F test results for the main effect. The F ratio of 27.32 establishing significance at the .01 level of confidence exceeded the criteria value of 3.98 by nearly seven times. Figure 3 is a graphic representation of the inter- action of expectation means for four groups of role definers and four role segments which was found to be .significant at the .05 level of confidence reported in Table 24. Both elements as main effects were found to differ significantly. Generally, it will be observed that principal and director expectation levels always exceed those of parents and teachers. The configuration also Expectation Leve1.Scores Collapsed Across Inner-City/ Non-Inner- City & Re- leased-Time/ Teaching DirectOrs 0 163 Directors \ I O 'Prlnc1pals \ \ \.Parents Teachers I Role 1 Role 2 Role 3 Role 4 Coordi- Adminis- Profes- Teacher nator trator sional Repeated Measures of Role Segments of the Community School Director Position Figure 3.--First order interaction effects for expectations of four groups of role definers and four role segments. 164 TABLE 24 F TEST RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FOUR ROLE SEGMENTS . Sums Degrees of. of~ Mean F Source of Variance Squares‘ Freedom Squares Ratio R. Four Role Segments 602.95 3 200.93 27.32b PR. Four Groups Role Definers & Four . a Role Segments 146.30 9 J 17.37 2.36 , _ . . 1 aSignificant at the .05 level of confidence. bSignificant at the .01 level of confidence. shows means for the teaching role lowest for each of the four groups with the teacher value of 31.93 for the teach- ing role the lowest mean observed in the interaction. Director and principal means for all four role segments essentially present like patterns with the exception of the coordinator role segment. The greatest interaction is observed in the coordinator of school-community relations role with teacher and parent means descending in value as principal and director means ascend, to establish the highest means of the interaction. A review of the F test results of analysis of variance of actual mean expectation values held by commu- nity school directors, parents, principals, and teachers 165 for four role segments of the community school director's position follows. Significant differences exist among the four groups of role definers collapsed across all other factors and among four role segments collapsed across all other factors. In addition, the interaction of the means of the above two main effects was found to be significantly differ— ent. Examination of the interaction indicated the greatest difference occurred within the coordinator of school- community relations role segment wherein principal and director means ascended while teacher and parent means descended in value. No significant differences were found to exist when comparing inner-city and non-inner-cityelementary schools, although the F ratio approached the .05 level of confidence. No significant differences were found to exist when comparing released-time and teaching directors col- lapsed across all other factors. No other interactions relating to actual expecta— tion levels were found to be significant. Related Questions 1. Are expectations held by parents for the role community school director in Flint elementary community schools related to the number of children they have enrolled in school? 166 Pearson Product Moment coefficient of correlations (r) were calculated for the number of children each of the seventy—four study families had enrolled in school with expectations for each of the four role segments. Table 25 presents these correlations, none of which were statisti- cally significant at the .05 level of confidence. TABLE 25 CORRELATION OF PARENTS EXPECTATIONS ON FOUR ROLE SEGMENTS WITH NUMBER OF CHILDREN ATTENDING'SCHOOL .L Coordinator of _ Professional School-Community Staff. Relations Administrator Member . Teacher .070 .075 .069 .049 None significant at the .05 level of confidence. Maximum expectation values of 25, 28, 27, and 23 were recorded for the role segments--coordinator of school- community relations, administrator of the community school, professional staff member, and teacher respectively. Maximum values of 45 were recorded for all four role segments. Minimum and maximum values for number of children in school ranged from 1 through 9 with a mean of 3.19. Using a correlation coefficient value scale of .6000 as "strong," .5000 to .6000 as "moderate," .4000 to 167 .5000 as "limited," and .3000 to .4000 as "suggestive"; it is noted that none of the correlation values in this analysis approached the value of .1000, well below the "suggestive" band of the scale. In reference to Related Question 1, it may be stated that there is very limited relationship between the level of expectation parents have for the role segments of the community school director and the number of children enrolled in school. It was assumed that the greater the number of children in a family participating in various activities-with multiple contacts with the community school director and community school programs would facilitate communication with the home thereby influencing the parents'-views of the scope and nature of the community school director's responsibilities. This assumption would have to be rejected on the basis of the r values in this analysis. 2. What are the expressed expectations for the position community school director of Directors of Elementary Education? 3. What are the expressed expectations for the posi- tion community school director of Regional Community School Directors? Two groups of central office administrators, directors of elementary education and regional community 168 school directors, are hierarchial positions of responsi- bility, which, relative to community school director's position, qualifies them as significant others. Each Director of Elementary Education is administratively responsible for one-third of the city's elementary schools; likewise, each elementary Regional Community School Director is administratively responsible for the community school program at one-third of the elementary schools. Each person's responsibility cuts across the inner-oity/non-inner-city classification of this study. Questionnaires were returned by five of the six persons in the two groups, results of which are classified in Table 26 along.with the mean expectation values which directors hold for their position; TABLE 26 MEAN EXPECTATIONS HELD FOR DIRECTOR'S POSITION CLASSIFIED BY DIRECTORS AND TWO GROUPS OF ADMINISTRATORS FOR FOUR ROLE SEGMENTS Regional Community Director Community School Elementary School Role Director Means Education Means Director Means Segments N -.12 N = 2 N a 3 Coordinator. 42.00 44.00 43.66 Administrator 41.67 41.50 43.66 Professional 41.83 42.00 41.33 Teacher 38.67 37.50 40.33 169 It is observed that both groups generally hold expectations for the four role segments which exceed the directors mean values and also hold to the same general pattern of descending values for the four role segments. Figure 3 illustrated the significant differences which were found to exist among the expectations of four groups of role definers over four role segments wherein directors and principals always exceeded the means of the parents and teachers. It was also observed that the teacher role was defined least strongly by each group and that on the coordinator of school-community relations role segment directors and principals increased in value as parents and teachers decreased, accounting for much of the observed differences in means. The expectations for the two groups of administrative definers follow the same general pattern, either approximating or exceeding the means of all other groups in the process. Table 27, showing all the means for six groups over four role seg- ments, illustrates this point. As read from the top of Table 27 to the bottom over role definers and from left to right across role segments, means generally decrease in value. The greatest spread is observed in the coordinator role, less in teacher, administrator, and professional role segments in that order. It appears that central administrators have 170 the highest expectations for the director's position and that the directors' expectations.follow more closely. those of-groups-of others who are clearly superordinate in the administrative organization.of the school system. There are indications, at least, that both groups of central administrators.define the director's position essentially the same way, that they differ only slightly" from the director's.definition of his own role, and differ considerably from.parents and teachers on the coordinator of school-community relations role-segment. TABLEJ27 MEAN SCORES FOR SIX GROUPS ROLE’DEFINERS FOR ~FOUR ROLE SEGMENTS Role R1. R2 ’ R3 ‘ R4 Definers Coordinator AdministratorlProfessional Teacher Director Elementary Education-. 44.00 41.50 42.00 37.50 Regional- . Community School. Director. 43.66 43.66 41.33. 40.33 Community School Directors 42.00 41.67 41.83- 38.67 Principals.' 42.42 40.53 40.25 36.92 Teachers 37.30 39.54 37.19 31.93 Parentsu 35.60 37.75 37.60 34.19 171 Table 28 is a summary of actual and perceived conflict and expectation means which were found to be significantly different in interactions or which approached significant differences in interaction presented by role segments--Role 1-coordinator of school-community relations, Role 2-administrator of the community school, Role 3- professional staff member, and Role 4-teacher; and groups of role definers. Various relationships between conflict and differences in expectations will be discussed in Chapter V. Summar of Written Comments and Parent Interviews This section consists of a summary and examples of. responses to an open-ended question inviting respondents to express their points of view concerning the position of community school director. Table 29 is a summary of the number of persons responding to this invitation. Of 172 persons responding to the questionnaire, 80 or 47% provided comments ranging in length from a phrase to a full page. Twenty-four parent questionnaires, two at each school, were completed in an interview situation, in which the interviewer was readily able to elicit additional comments after the structured questions. This reduces the- number of parents commenting via the mailed questionnaire to 13 or 18% of the total. Interviewer comments will be discussed in the section reporting parent comments. 172 .oocsoflmasmdm corosonmmo nowfia mcoauomnoucH mmmZHhmD "WHOM m0 (mmbomw Ga -mBZHEUWm 30% Nm .DHBZNEQ .ngtZQHBKBUMQNM flaw BUHAMZOU QEHmUmmm 92¢ 945.504 .mO Ngbm mm Manda. A .rocoHuoonmncH ucconHcmHmo a~.om eo.om w ao.om so.om. so.oo Se.om.eo.He oa.o , Ho.o oo.m Hosea oH.sm n~.em ma.Hm . Ne.om ma.om No.5neo.om mo.oH oo.HH . omao oo.em no.5m aH.em _ eH.am mm.oe na.om mo.He oo.o ‘ om.o om.m 7 . me.em m~.om om.om me.om .om.oe om.am eo9Ho ae.e ‘ mo.o oo.o oo.mm oo.om om.em me.am Ne.~4 ,eo.om oo.~1 .oe.e m~.o mm.e . -_ 3 , 3 . - 3 G D X 3d .d D X 3d d D X Dd a 3.... “CV de. W09 W9 NOV de W09 W9 NOV. dev. 09 W9 X... 9U3 993 9UJ 91 9U3 993 9U: 91 9U3%93 U1 9.1 d9 3 91339349133 93 91.1. 933. 91.3 93 91:1. 31. 1:3 93 W93 9 UTfinu U1.“ UT.9 U9 UT.“ UH...“ U719 U9 UT.“ U1.“ .19 U9 93.... find 37:9 899 ST??? 8.... 81.9 S99 ST??? ST? 8.1.9 399 9T.._l. 8.... 91.0 O 93.1 9.4.1 93A QA 93.... 9.4.1 93A asA 93T. 91.7.. 3A qA U91 9T .3. T. 1.9 9 1. T. 1.9 9 1. T. 3.9 9 3...... U9 0 .D. D. O p D. O D. D. 0......V. 1. U U U .03 S - ".m Hound noooooa .4mmwosanm .m. 173 TABLE 29 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS WHO PROVIDED WRITTEN COMMENTS CONCERNING POSITION OF DIRECTOR " ' . m ‘Ft m .rtm >. m m m H *‘n ‘ H .o14 sacsq n. .v m ‘0. o :13 ruc>o .4 a s .c -a: .u 044 44.1» 3 o 2 ‘o o I) win c410 3 «u a 0 two mass 0 . m 0 -d $4 0’s Ec>n a ' m £4 a -a aha mciw n. o a .4110 . ham N 74 69 12 12 3 2 172 Number Responding 37 27 7 4 3 l 80 % Responding 50 39 58 42 100 50 47 Director*Comments Of the five directors who providedadditional comments, four were assigned to non—inner-city schools and three were released-time. All comments were short. Three centered upon the related areas of released-time and demands of the position. Two felt a director should not be required to teach in a classroom at any time after his assignment as a director; while one suggested that he be released as soon as he "knows his community." There were two suggestions that assistant directors or additional help be provided, one specifying that the director work 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with an assistant supervising evenings and Saturdays. Another comment stressed the importance of orientation and communication programs for other school 174 personnel to inform them about the community school concept. One director proposed greatly expanded administrative responsibilities for directors. Principal Comments Most of the principal comments, five non—inner-city and two inner-city, indicated that they were willing to delegate broad responsibilities to the community school director variable with his experience and maturity and contingent upon a background of successful classroom teaching experience. Most discussed the vital part the director plays asfa professional team member, providing gentle reminders that the principal is the team leader who shoulders final responsibility. None of the principals commenting had served as a community school director. Representative comments are: I have great expectations for the community school director's position. It requires great energy, planning, organizing, and leadership. He is a key person for knowing the politics of the community. As now job description is too vague. While-many responsibilities are delegated to him as the person most responsible for after-school and Saturday activities, the final responsibility is the principal's. No one person could possibly be all this to all of_his community. The role of the community school director is dependent on the person chosen to fill that role. 175 I prefer to think of the community school director and principal as a team working for the same goals in the community, constantly aware of problems in the school and the community. It is important that both principal and director have an opportunity to choose each other. Teacher Comments About 50% of the non-inner-city teachers and 30% of the inner-city teachers provided generally thoughtful comments, mostly constructive and positive, but ranging to critical in a few cases. Representative statements and generalizations are presented under four headings following. General: Several of the comments were very general in content and theirtone probably reflects the teachers' overall attitudes concerning the community school director. Representative comment: Each community school director whom I have come in contact with is highly respected and very resource— ful. I admire the intelligent young men who are so interested in making our city a better place in which to live. Should be a high caliber man. Every community school director I have met has been a physical education instructor. I do not think the duties of the director require this physical education background. I think there should be more training before a director is put in a school. I believe most community school directors do not have enough experience to organize a community council, help plan staff meetings, or serve as.a resource person to teachers in the classroom. 176 To me the community school director should teach half-time so that he will never lose sight of the priorities and problems of teachers, will have a cOntact with children other than only that of extra- curricular activities, and will fully understand that the school has always been and should always be set' up with children's education first and foremost in mind, and extra-curricular activities of children and adults secondary. WOmen should definitely be considered for commu- nity school directorships. Community Relations: The largest constellation of comments centered upon the importance of-home-school and community relation functions, with repeated references about sacrificing this function either to teaching in general or physical education in particular. Sample comments: I feel his job should be that of a community director. This means he would be released from teaching and devote his energies to incorporating a good school-community relationship. WOnder if too much emphasis is placed on the gym teacher role and gym supervisor? Community needs are of prime importance--human-relations, social economic, and school-community interaction and need trained men in these fields. Hire gym teachers for gym super- visors. I believe he would be more useful if relieved of teaching during regular school day. I believe a community school director should serve as an enrichment source for the community. This means' he deals with adults and children in bringing about greater awareness of community.needs. His responsi- bilities are not those of teachers. The community school director should not be required to teach during the regular school day, but spend full time with the community school program. He has a big responsibility and should not have to do everything. 177 The community school director should be better trained preferably in social work, urban problems, and community organization; freer from house-keeping responsibilities: and answerable less to the educae tional establishment and more to the community he serves. The community school director should not teach academic subjects because he would have to spend too much time planning. By teaching P.E. he would have the opportunity to work with small groups and would know the students in the community better. Role Clarification and Coordination: Still other comments dealt with concepts of clarifying community school director's areas of responsibility and coordination with other specialized services. Sample comments: The community school director's position is truly unique. Not enough time has been taken to define just what his responsibilities are. He should be an executive, with home-school" counselors.and others working under his supervision. The extent of the community school director's job depends largely on how many other community service‘ personnel are available. I differentiate between the home counselor who helps with the various social agencies when a family is in trouble and the community school director who offers programs in relation to general community needs and demands. I think the community school director is a valuable addition to the school and is effective only as much as he is accepted in both school and community. I feel he should work with the principal to the extent that programs won't overlap. Staff Relations and Communication: Finally, a number of teachers concerned themselves with matters of. 178 communication and understanding between directors and teaching staff. Representative comments: He-should be informed as to what the teachers think and consider their ideas. Teachers should help in any way they can as suggest programs, encourage students and parents to participate in activities and work on community relation committees. In other words, teachers need and should know what the commu-r nity concept is all about and should be told, better than they are being told and by the community director. I don't think that the majority of teaching staffs are totally aware of-responsibilities and achievements of their community school directors. This is an important link between school and community and care should be taken choosing community school directors and staffs should be aware of what they are doing for the school. I believe the community school director should make clear just how-widespread his activities are. Too many believe he is chiefly in charge of after- school classes. I have had very little contact with our community school director. I have a limited knowledge of their jobs and responsibilities. It seems to me it downgrades the classroom teacher's influence. Parent~Comments Including interview comments 50% of both inner- city and non-inner-city parentssupplied comments, which have been categorized and generalized following. Evaluative: Most of the recorded comments were either evaluative of particular community school directors or community school activities in general, with many 179 becoming lauditory. Comments centered upon how effective and helpful present and past directors have been, how muCh the children respect the director, a model for emulation, and his high level of concern for children and parents. Sample comments: We need more like him throughout entire school system, particularly in the inner-city. He's a joy to work with. I hate to see you find out how good he is. He's supervision material, but wg_want him.l He has a full time job trying to coordinate the community activities without being required to be a full-time teacher and social worker. Our director is doing an excellent job and is admired and appreciated by all. Our community school director does so many things for each of our groups, I don't know how he finds the time. We can count on him for everything we ask of him. I don't know what our school would do without him. Responsibility: Numerous references were made to the demands of the job with suggestions for reduced scope of responsibilities or additional help for the director. Opinions differed on major areas of responsibility. Repre— sentatiVe comments: He is not a counselor or.a teacher, but a coordi- nator for school activities. I appreciate activities for my children, but he should stay out of social services. Would rather see him there during school days and not in evenings. His duties should include kids and adults. He should be a counselor to all children with problems and be able to contact parents about them. 180 He does a wonderful job but he should work in the school and not out in the community. He should concentrate on after-school and evening services with an expanded staff to handle a broader range of problems. Communities are different and he should serve the needs of the community.' There is a limit to his time. He should be a friend to the neighborhood and available to all. He should make the school the center of community activity. His hours are terrible. He should be basically after school and only incidentally with regular school. Don't overload him. Community school director is closer to parents than teachers and children have high regard for him. Community school directors should be the kind of' persons who can get along with all kinds of people in the community. He should spend some time in school and some in the community. Accessibility: A number expressed-the feeling that they felt'free to call or see the community school director at any time and that they always felt welcome. Parent Interview Observations Two involved parents from each of the study schools selected at random were interviewed in their homes. Interviews ranged from twenty to thirty minutes in length, with the modal timebeing twenty-five minutes. Interviewer impressions and observations are herein reported in an attempt to lend additional meaning to the analysis. Several continuing themes emerged during the course of the interview schedule. Perhaps overshadowing all else 181 was the willingness of parents to participate in the study and the thoughtfulness and seriousness applied to answering the interview questions. A second major trend was the reservoir of loyalty and pride parents hold in general for their schools and the community school directors in par- ticular. Parents were generally well-informed about the school, were proud of the community school program in Flint, and referred to the neighborhOod school in posses- sive terms. Many of the interviews developed into family affairs with the children or other adults observing, although in most cases the mother took responsibility for answering the questions. There were repeated references to expecting the community school director to do too much. In association ’ with the expectations regarding the teaching role, several expressed the opinion that directors had more important responsibilities and should not be expected to do what they saw as the teacher's job. Several of the interviewees appeared nervous during the initial stages but were reacting openly as it progressed. Many times theybecame quite talkative after pencil and interview forms were put aside. Many were concerned about improving human rela- tions and race relations through the schools. A number of parents were critical of the great number of other parents 182 who will not participate or become involved in school activities, while others said there were limits on what schools could be expected to accomplish and reaffirmed family responsibility. General views of the community school director saw him concerned primarily with school related issues" and problems, with several stating that organizing a community council was the parents' or principal's job. There were many references to traits the community school director should have, most of which referred to human relations and group processes. Most parents saw the community school director as primarily concerned with children and youth. A quite unexpected pattern developed from responses to the question, "Do you expect the community school direc- tor to visit children'shomes to get to know the families, their needs, and interests?" Of the twenty-four parents, nineteen said, "No." Two held no opinion and only three said, "Yes." Answers did not, however, refer to invasion of privacy or reluctance to have a visit. Most parents added comments of the nature that he wouldn't have time for anything else, he should only go if there is a problem, I see him frequently at school, or I have never thought about.that. No general impressions or patterns developed with regard to inner-city/non-inner-city, with the exception 183 that numbers of non-inner—city parents would add-that their schools didn't need certain services with reference to the coordinator role segment statements. Summary of Analysis of Data Statistical analysis of data collected by question- naire from a stratified random sample of community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers‘owalint community schools was presented with reference to three major questions and three related questions raised by the study. Personal and demographic data for the various respondent groups was organized and presented in an effort to provide additional meaning and depth to the analysis. It was observed that directors arerelatively young, nine of twelve being under thirty-five years of age: are family men; and seventy-five percent have served four years or‘ less as-community school directors. Eleven of twelve directors aspire to beCome educational administrators eventually. The great majority of parents and teachers have been associated for four or more years with a direc- tor, and most teachers.have had more than four years_ teaching experience in an elementary classroom. It was also observed that most of the parents-have lived at their present address more than sixyears. 184 In response to three multiple choice questions regarding the status and teaching responsibilities of community school directors, it was observed that directors identify themselves more with administrators than with teachers; teachers were reluctant to accord the directors a clearécut-designation as either a teacher or adminis- trator; and directors did not accurately perceive the status accOrded them by others. In addition, most direc- tors felt they should not have classroom teaching responsibilities, and they fairly accurately perceived that_42%, 78%, and 81% of principals, teachers, and parents did not expect them to have classroom duties. Of directors, 82% saw themselves as exclusively teachers of physical education and did not accurately judge the views of" principals, with 91% perceiving that principals saw them as such, when, in fact, only 33% of principals regarded them as exclusively physical education teachers. In Question I, the analysis of data relative to. conflict associated with the role segments of the community school director, it was observed that while conflict is always present in some degree, it was not significant when comparing inner-city and non-inner-city means, released and teaching community school director means, and means for the various role segments: although the latter did approach the .05 level of significance. Perceived and actual conflict collapsed over all other factors was 185 significant at the .05 level of confidence when testing the perceived conflict mean of 5.74 and the actual conflict mean of 8.10. Significant difference at the .05 level of cOnfidence existed among the three conflict means of groups of role definers. Differences at the .01 level of con- fidence existed for the interaction of perceived and actual conflict and four role segments. It was illustrated that the greatest difference occurred between a high actual conflict mean and a low perceived mean for the teaching role segment. Analysis of Question II, dealing with differences between director actual and perceived expectations of others, revealed no significant differences between inner- city and non-inner-city means, between released and teach- ing directors, nor among means for the various role segments. Significant differences were found to exist among the means of director expectations for self and the perceived expectation of others, with the director mean of 41.04 comparing to parent, principal, and teacher means of 38.04, 38.77, and 38.44 respectively. Further analysis indicated that directors expected most of themselves in the coordinator of school-community relations role segment, while perceiving that other groups expect less from them in this role segment: and that director expectations are high in the professional staff role segment compared with quite low perceived expectations of parents. 186 Data analyzed for Question III, exploring rela- tionships between the expectations of directors and actual expectations of three groups of others, nosignificant differences among means were found when comparing inner- city and non-inner—city and released and teaching directors. Significant differences were found, however, among the four groups of role definers and also among the means for the four role segments. (Main Effects) Mean scores of 36.29 for parents, 36.49 for teachers, 40.04 for principals, and 41.04 for community school directors represented two distinct groupings. Mean scores of 39.33 for coordinator of school—community relations role segment, 39.89 for administrator, 39.23 for professional staff role segment, and 35.43 for the teacher role segment were observed with the teacher role segment falling well below the close grouping of means for the other three role segments. The first order interaction among the four groups of role definers and four role segments was significant at the .0l level of confidence and further illuminated the main effect differences previously discussed. Thatis, princi- pal and director expectations always exceeded those of parents and teachers over all role-segments, that princi- pals and directors held highest expectations for the coordinator of school-community relations role with parent and teacher expectation means much lower, and with each 187 group recording the lowest mean value for expectations for the teacher role segment. It is noted that in the analysis of variance treatment of data for.the three major questions, in no instance did innerécity and non-inner-city and teaching/ released-time variables achieve significance in a main effect or interaction comparison. The variables of per- ceived and actual conflict, groups of role definers, and role segments were’found to be significant in various main effect comparisons and interactions. Examination of the related questions reveal: (1) very low correlations between parents' expectations and number of children in school,.and (2 and 3) that two groups of central administrators hold expectations for directors in all four role segments which are generally higher than for any other group sampled. Closing the chapter was an analysis and summary of eighty written comments by various groups concerning the director's position and interviewer impressions gathered during twenty-four parent interviews. Chapter V consists of a summary of the investiga- tion, conclusions, implications and discussion, and suggestions for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Concluding the study, Chapter V consists of an abstracted summary of the investigation, conclusions generated from analysis-of-the data, implications and discussion of the study findings, and recommendations for further study. Summary Recent years, with rising emphasis upon equality of Opportunity and social problems exacerbated by a society growing more complex, have witnessed increasing emphasis by educators, social scientists, and various institutions upon the importance of school and community cooperation and mutual involvement in seeking solutions to educational and societal problems. Since the 1930's the Charles Stewart Mott Founda- tion, the Flint Board of Education, and the citizenry of Flint, Michigan have worked to create a human development laboratory for the evolvement of a model community using as the vehicle the concept of the community school. This 188 189 concept, the philosophy and various programs having paralleled the development of the American Common School, has come to be closely identified with the Flint system. Experience has shown that trained, professional leadership is necessary for the successful functioning and continuity of community education on a broad scale. Commu- nity eduCation, as conceived and practiced in Flint, philosophically and organizationally defines the community school director as the professional staff position upon which depends the_success of the endeavor. The position, also variously known as community school agent, director of community school services, community action director, and assistant principal for community education, waS~ created in Flint in the 1950's to meet the need for pro- fessionally trained leadership. This studvaas conceived-and designed to further examine and clarify the professional roles of the community school director in two types of neighborhood school settings, inner-city and noneinner-city, and according to various other variables and comparisons. Continuing. study and analysis of key variables of-local community school leadership is needed as the community school move- ment seeks maturity and situational effectiveness in a social milieu characterized by rapid change and as the position of community school director develops within the 190 organizational structure of the school and'the neighborhood setting. Flint was selected as the research settingfor several reasons. It is a typical manufacturing-industrial city, ranks 63rd in size among the nation's 231 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and represents in many ways a microcosm of urban America, its potentials, challenges, and problems. Theglocus of most of the efforts of one of America's largest philanthrOpic foundations, Flint has demonstrated over the years an interest in implementing a community school concept as the means of community involve- ment, social progress, and educational improvement-and enrichment for its citizens. In addition, Flint has accepted the challenge and serves.as a national and inter- national demonstration and observation center for the dissemination of the community school concept and develop- ment of trained leadership for-afrapidly“growinghnumberwofh communities with programs founded on the Flint model. -Flint and the other communities operating community school programs have found it necessary to create this special staff position to provide theunique administrative services, leadership, and human relations functions neces- sary to meet stated and implied objectives. This study assumed that the quality of leadership by incumbents of, community school director position influences directly the success of the community school program in Flint and 191 indirectly the growth, development, and success of similar programs everywhere which look to Flint for leadership. Theory and concepts of role analysis were chosen to analyze the position of community school director which, because of their.multidisciplinary nature, are well suited to studying social systems, human behavior in interaction, and the functioning of organizations. The utility of role theory as an analytic tool in the study of individuals and organizations was thoroughly discussed in Chapter II from a number of disciplinary perspectives. It was found that role theory has developed rapidly over the last seventy years reaching a particularly high level of activity within the last decade. It was noted that concepts and abstractions have becomehighly complex, with sometimes contradictory.results. It waS- concluded, however, that serious attempts to resolve intra- theory conflict are being made as role theory emerges as a truly logico-deductive structure based upon-sound concep— tual distinctions. It was found that variOus definitions reflect the particular discipline and vieWpoint of the writer and that many of the present differences are cases of the same concepts with different labels. The foundation cOncepts employ the idea that-the role structure deals with the phenomena of uniform behavior and attitudes, social norms which determine these 192 uniformities, and the expectations of others with roles or role segments tangent to one's own role segments. As cited previously, Gross et_al. conclude that: Three basic ideas which appear in most of the con- ceptualizations considered, if not in the definitions of role themselves, are that individuals (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to expectations.1 The conceptualizations of Gross, Mason, and McEachern were utilized in this study because of their interdisciplinary nature, their straightforwardness, and general utility demonstrated by their widespread use in role research. The major purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the role expectations community school direc- tors, parents, principals, and teachers hold for the professional staff position of community school director in innerecity/non-inner-city schools, and for teaching and released directors. In addition, the expectations of two groups of central office administrators, directors of elementary education and regional coordinators of community school, were identified and analyzed. These particular reference groups were chosen after an extensive association with community education in Flint and a review of the philosophy and literature indicated that within the complex structure of relevant and related others associated with 1Gross, Mason, and McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, p. 17. 193 the community school director's position these groups comprised the nucleus of the interaction system. It was assumed, according to the tenants of-role theory, that various key reference groups define the community school director's position differently, that position incumbents may.or may not perceive accurately the expectations of others, and that various groups place different emphasis on the various role segments, thereby creating situations wherein role conflict may occur. Role theory further assumes that role conflict, perceived or actual, will create tensions which negatively affect role effectiveness. Role conflict decreases role value, and unclear role definition reduces group produc- tivity and produces defensive behavior on the part of group participants. This study advanced on the premise that identifica- tion and analysis of actual and perceived role conflict and role definitions was the first necessary.step in the process of resolution. Systematic study of the expressed and perceived expectations can provide information and insights into the position of Community school director leading to strategies and decisions for reducing conflict to manageable levels, thereby enhancing position and. organizational effectiveness and personal satisfaction of role incumbents. 194- After an extensive review of literature concerning the community school director position and role research, a questionnaire of sixty operationally stated aspects of the community school director position was constructed, submitted to a panel of experts, revised, field tested, and further revised. The sample ofOperational statements was categorized into four major role segments: 1. Coordinator of school-community relations 2. Administrator-of the community school 3. Professional staff member 4. Teacher. In addition there were three multiple choice questions‘ concerning the director's general status and teaching duties and a personal data sheet specific to each respond- ent group. Flint's forty-three public elementary schools were categorized into four groups: 1. Inner-city with released director 2. Inner-city with teaching director 3. Non-inner-city with released director 4. Non—inner-city with teaching director. Three schools were selected at random from each category. In late March, 1970, the questionnaires were mailed to twelve principals, twelve community school directors, seventy-two involved parents, and eighty teachers repre- senting a stratified random sample, plus six central office 195 administrators. Follow-up letters were mailed three weeks later. An overall return of 83% was-obtained. Each group was asked to respond to each item on a Yes, Don't Know, N2 scale. The don't know response was omitted from the director's questionnaire, and they were asked to indicate also their perceived expectation on each item for parents, principals, and teachers. Perceived and actual conflict scores and perceived and actual expectation scores were hand tallied, data transferred to punch cards, and analyzed by an analysis of variance program at the Michigan State University Computer Center for significance of differences among the means with reference to three major questions. Question I ..» --~ N16» Are theirJSignificant_differences in conflict for M’- the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the actual and perceived expectations of community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? C. Role segments? D. Perceived and actual? E. Groups of role definers? 196 There were no significant differences when com- paring inner-city and non-inner-city conflict scores, nor did this factor appear as significant in interaction with any other factors. No significant differences were found when comparing released and teaching directors, nor did this factor achieve significance in interaction with any other factor. When comparing conflict means for four role segments, no significant differences were found, but the F value approached the .05 level of confidence. This factor did achieve significance in interaction with other factors. When comparing perceived and actual conflict means, significant differences were found to exist at the .05 level of confidence. An actual conflict-mean of 8.10 was significantly greater than the perceived conflict mean of 5.74 for all groups and all roles. The interaction of perceived and actual conflict means with four role segments was found to be significant at the .01 level of confidence. Actual conflict exceeded perceived conflict for each of the four roles with most of the difference manifesting itself in the teacher role with actual conflict greatly exceeding perceived conflict. When comparing-conflict means for the groups of role definers--parents, principals, and teachers, signifi- cant differences were found to exist at the .05 level of 197 significance. The observed mean conflict score for principals was 5.95: for teachers, 7.34; and parents, 7.46. The interaction of conflict means for three groups of role definers, perceived and actual conflict, and four. role segments was significantly different at the .01 level of confidence. Actual conflict means exceeded perceived conflict means on all four role segments, significant at the .01 level of confidence. In interaction with princi— pal, parent, and teacher conflict means, teacher and parent actual conflict means always exceeded the perceived con- flict means of the three groups and, except for the teacher role segment, they exceeded the actual conflict means of principals. The lowest level of actual conflict was with principals on the coordinator of school-community relations role segment which was lower than the perceived conflict of the director for all three groups. Actual conflict on coordinator role segment was greatest with teacher, with both parents and teachers exceeding the perceived conflict on this role. The most graphic interaction was associated with the teacher role. Directors perceived a low level of conflict with all three groups when, in fact, actual conflict for all three groups constituted the three highest means in the interaction: teachers, principals, and parents in descending order. Director perceived conflict 198 and principal actual conflict.for the administrator role segment nearly converged in value. Directors perceived more conflict_with parents than with principals and teachers on the professional staff role. The differences among groups and between actual and perceived conflict were generally slight for the role segments of adminis- trator and professional staff member, remembering, however, that actual conflict exceeded perceived conflict. Question II Are there significant differences in the expecta- tions held for the position community school director in Flint elementary community schools as defined by the commu- nity school director when comparing: 'A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? C. Role segments? D. Perceived and actual? No significant differences were found when com- paring inner-city and non-inner-city expectation means collapsed across all other factors. Neither were there significant differences when comparing released and teaching director expectations collapsed across all other factors, nor when comparing four role segments alone. Further, none of these factors appeared in any signifi- cantly different interactions in this analysis. 199 Significant differences were found to exist among the expectation means for directors and the perceived expectations of parents, principals, and teachers signifi- cant at the .05 level of confidence. Expectation means of parents, principals, and teachers were closely grouped at 38.04, 38.77, and 38.44 respectively compared to direc- tor expectation with a mean value of 41.04. Director actual and perceived expectations interacting across four role segments, while not significant in a statistical sense, did approach the value of significance at the .05 level of confidence. This interaction showed director expectations exceeding their perceptions of expectations of all three groups on all four roles; however, there was little difference on the teacher role. There was a tendency for the director to perceive higher expectations from the principal than from parents and teachers. Question III Are there significant differences inthe actual expectations held for the position community school direc- tor in Flint elementary community schools as defined by community school directors, parents, principals, and teachers, when comparing: A. Inner-city and non-inner-city schools? B. Teaching and released community school directors? 200 C. Groups of role definers? D. Role segments? When comparing the expectations for the position of community school director, for inner-city and non- inner-city schools, no significant differences were found to exist; as was also true when comparing released and teaching directors collapsed across all other factors. Again, neither of these two factors achieved significance in any interaction of factors. Significant differences were found to exist among the actual expectation means for the groups of role definers: directors, parents, principals, and teachers at the .01 level of confidence. Mean scores of 36.29 for parents, 36.49 for teachers, 40.04 for principals, and 41.04 for community school directors were recorded. Differences among expectation means for the four role segments collapsed across all other factors were significant at the .01 level of confidence. Mean scores of 39.33 for the coordinator of school-community relations role, 39.89 for the administrator role, 39.23 for the professional staff member role, and 35.43 for the teacher role segment were obtained. Interaction of the above two significant main effects, four groups of role definers and four.role seg- ments, was significant at the .05 level of confidence. Analysis revealed that principal and director expectations 201 exceeded expectations of parents and teachers on all role segments. Differences were less for the administrator and professional staff role segments. The greatest interaction was located within the coordinator of school-community relations'role segment wherein principals and directors expected more than for any other role departing noticeably from the teacher and parent expectations for this role segment. The expectations for the teacher role segment were lowest within each group. The greatest difference was between the teachers' low expectations and the direc- tors' high expectations for the teacher role segment. Related Questions 1. Are expectations held by parents for the role community school director in Flint elementary community schools related to the number of children they have enrolled in school? Pearson product moment coefficient of correlations (r) were calculated for the number of children each of the seventy-four families had enrolled in school with expecta- tions for each of the four role segments. None of the correlations achieved even "suggestive" strength suggesting that_parent levels of expectations are influenced by other factors or that communication and contacts with a community school director are not increased according to the number of children attending school. 202 2. What are the expressed expectations for the position community school director of Directors of Elementary Education? 3. What are the expressed expectations for the position community school director of Regional Community School Directors? These two groups of central office administrators holding line-of-authority positions superordinate to the community school director position are considered to be significant others whose expectations influence the posi- tion of community school director. Comparing expectations held by these groups for the position community school director reveals that both groups generally hold expecta- tions for the four role segments which exceed the mean expectations of directors. It will be recalled that directors generally held higher expectations than princi- pals, parents, and teachers- Mean expectations followed the same general pattern in that they held lower expecta- tions for the teacher role than for the remaining three role segments. Directors of elementary education had a mean of 37.50 and regional community school directors, a mean of 40.33, compared to a director mean of 38.67 on the teacher role segment. There is an indication that both groups of-central office administrators define the director's role segments essentially the same way, that they differ only slightly from the director definitions, 203 and differ considerably from parents and teachers on the coordinator of school-community relations role segment. Concerning general status expectations, 50% of directors.accorded themselves administrative status: 25% described the position as unique in status. At least 25% of directors perceived that others accorded them teacher status when, in fact, no principal, 9% of the teachers, and 14% of parents saw them as teachers. Teachers and principals were reluctant to accord the director a clear- cut designation as either a teacher or administrator. More than half of the principals and teachers and 36% of parents saw the director's position in a somewhat ambiguous state by describing it as unique. Parents were least sure of how to describe the director's status and, more. important, directors generally did not accurately perceive the status accorded them by others. Seventy-five percent of the directors felt that they should not have classroom teaching responsibilities at all. Directors accurately perceived that 42%, 78%, and 81% of principals, teachers, and parents respectively did not expect them to have classroom responsibilities. It was noted, however, that 58% of principals preferred that directors teach one-half day. It was found that directors no longer see them- selves as teachers and, when required to indicate a prefer- ence for either physical education, classroom, or makes no 204 difference, 82% selected the physical education assignment. Of the principals, 67% said it made no difference what a director taught, along with 51% of the teachers. All persons were asked to respond with open-ended comments which would describe their opinions about the position of community school director. Eighty persons or 47% responded. This number includes twenty-four parents who were interviewed in their homes. The comments of five directors were short and centered upon the heavy work load and the related topic of half-time teaching. There were suggestions for addi- tional staff or revised staff utilization and scheduling. Seven principals provided comments with generalized references to the valuable contributions of community school directors to overall program, ideas about teamwork, and gentle reminders that the principal is the educational team leader with final responsibility. Approximately 40% of the teachers commented on a wide range of topics, mostly lauditory and constructive, but ranging to critical in some cases. Comments clustered around several central topics. Teachers generally stressed the importance of the director's community relations responsibility and felt that it should not be sacrificed to other duties, especially teaching duties. Other comments suggested clarification of responsibilities and coordination with specialized services. Finally, there 205 were several suggestions calling for better communication ‘with directors and more cooperation between director and teaching staff. Teacher comments indicated that the respondents had definite ideas about the position. About 50% of parents supplied comments dealing with a wide spectrum of ideas. Many of the comments. revealed a good generalized view of the director's position but limited knowledge of specific duties and responsibili- ties. There was tendency to think that the director's job was too much for one person, especially if he taught. Many comments praised the director; there were many refer- ences to his easy accessibility: and criticism was almost nonexistent. Conclusions Within the scope and limitations of this investiga- tion the following conclusions are presented. The con- clusions may be generalized to the population represented in the research design. Findings may be applicable to other community school systems to the extent that they are similar to the research setting. General 1. Inner-Cit andNon-Inner-City: Differences in levels 0 Iconflict and levels of expectations associated with the position of community school director were not significantly different when comparing inner-city and non-inner-city- 206 elementary schools of Flint. Neither did this factor enter into any comparison with groups of role definers, with any of the four role segments, between perceived or actual, or released and teaching directors. a. Conflict, perceived and actual, with principals was not related to an inner-city/non-inner-city comparison. b. Conflict, perceived and actual, with teachers was not related to an inner-city/non-inner-city comparison. c. Conflict, perceived and actual, with parents was not related to an inner-city/non-inner-city comparison. d. Director, parent, principal, and teacher actual expectations were not related to an inner- city/non-inner-city comparison. e. Director perceived expectations were not related to an inner-oity/non-inner-city comparison. f. Different expectations and level of conflict for four role segments were not related to an inner-oity/non-inner-city comparison. Teachin and Released Time Director: Levels of- conflict and levels of expectations associated with the position of community school director were not significantly different when comparing teaching directors with released directors. Neither did this factor enter into any comparison with groups of role definers, with the four role segments, between perceived and actual, or inner- city/non-inner-city. -a. Perceived and actual conflict with teachers was not related to whether a director was released or teaching. b. Perceived and actual conflict with principals was not related to whether a director was released or teaching. c. Perceived and actual conflict with parents was not related to whether a director was released or.teaching. 207 d. Director, parent, principal, and teacher actual expectations were not related to whether a director was released or teaching. e. Director perceived expectations were not related to whether a director was released or teaching. Four Role Segments: Overall levels of conflict among four role segments were not statistically different, but measurable conflict was suggested, which became meaningful when viewed according to whether it was perceived or actual, and which group was defining expectations. On four role segments differences between the. director expectations and the perceived expecta- tions of all others were not significant. However, measurable differences were discovered when considering the perceived expectations of each group separately for each role segment. Generally directors and principals held higher expectations for directors than parents and teachers. More specific relationships were dis- covered when considering each relevant group with each role segment separately. Directors generally perceived less conflict than actually exists. This holds in some degree for each of the four role segments. More specific relationships were discovered when considering relevant groups, perceived and actual conflict, and four role segments together. Generally, directors' mean level of expectations exceeded what they perceived others' expectations to be. More meaningful relationships were observed when considering perceived expectations for each of four role segments. There are different levels of actual expectations held for the four role segments. More specific relationships were discovered when considering. relevant groups separately for each role segment. All of the statistically meaningful differences of conflict and levels of expectations involved the elements of perceived and actual differences, role segments, groups of-role definers, and various interrelations of these elements. 208 Generally, the actual conflict differences accruing to each of the role segments resulted from differences due to director expectations which were higher than others' expectations especially those of parents and teachers. Generally, the perceived conflict differences accruing to each of the role segments resulted from director expectations which were higher than their perceived expectations for parents, principals, and teachers. Coordinator-of school-community relations: There was more actual conflict for the coordinator of school-community relations role segment than directors perceived, even though the directors perceived slightly more conflict for this role segment than for the other four role segments. When examined by groups, there was an extremely low level of conflict with principals, less than for any other measure of conflict or any role segment, and less than directors perceived. This was the only instance where directors perceived more conflict than actually existed. The conflict for this role segment, then, appeared to be mostly between the director and parents and to a lesser degree between directors and teachers. Directors perceived all three groups' expectations at approximately the same level. Their own and actual expectations of principals, with almost identical values, were higher than for any other role segment. Parents expected less than any group for this role. Administrator of the community school: Commu— nity~school directors very accurately perceived a low level of conflict with principals for this role segment and perceived fairly accurately a-moderate level of conflict with teachers. The greatest difference between perceived and actual conflict for the adminis— trator role was with parents. Directors perceived that all three groups held expecta- tions at about the same level. In fact, directors and principals expected most for this particular role segment, and parents expected least. No group defined this role segment as either the most important or least 10. ll. 12._ 209 important, and conflict could be described as moderate. e. Professional staff member: Directors fairly accurately perceived a moderate level of conflict with parents for this role segment. The greatest conflict difference was with teachers where directors perceived considerably less conflict than was measured. Directors expected much-of themselves and correctly perceived that parents expected less of them. No group defined this role segment as either the most important or least important, and existing conflict could be described as moderate. f. Teacher: This role segment was the locus of much of the differences in perceived and actual conflict and levels of expectations. Actual conflict with each group of others was higher than for any other role segment or comparison. Directors perceived the least conflict for this role segment for all three groups of others. The greatest difference was with teachers, with actual conflict the greatest and perceived conflict the least observed. Directors did not accurately perceive this conflict. While defining the teacher role as least important accOrding to their expectations in this area, which was markedly lower than their expecta- tions for the other role segments; they thought all groups of others expected slightly less. The conflict was generated when all three groups of others, in fact, held markedly lower expectations for teaching duties than for any other role segment. Teachers held the lowest expectations for teaching duties, followed by parents, and then principals. Expectations of-groups of others discriminated among the role segments. Teachers and principals were reluctant to classify directors as teachers or administrators with over half of each group regarding the position as unique. Parents were least sure of how to describe the general status of directors. Slightly more than half of the principals felt directors should teach half time at least the first years as a director. Seventy-five percent 13. 14. 15. 16. 210 or more of directors, parents, and teachers felt directors should not teach in the classroom. Directors fairly accurately perceived the prefer- ences of others on this matter. Level of general cooperation, percentage of ques- tionnaires returned, written and interview comments, and hospitality of interviewees revealed a high level of pride in the community school and much good will and loyalty toward community school directors. A typical parent, principal, and teacher responded from a perspective of more than four years experi- ence with the community school director position. The position of community school director is no longer "new" but well established within the institutional framework of the Flint schools, the institutional framework of community education, and with the various groups of significant others with role sectors tangent to those of the community school director. I"There are many indications that the interaction system associated with the focal role of community school director is an open and flexible one, susceptible to innovation and change;/ I Directors 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Directors considered teaching duties to be their least important area of responsibility. Director perceived expectations discriminated only moderately among groups and among role segments. Director actual expectations discriminated among role segments with teaching being rated markedly less important and coordinator of school-community relations rated highest. Director and principal expectations were most nearly alike; although directors were not always able to perceive this accurately. Directors were inclined to see themselves as administrators but-were unsure of-how others regard them in terms of general status. 22. 23. 24 o". 25. 26. 211 Directors continued to assign themselves the classroom position of physical education teacher, along with a large percentage of others; however, others were willing to have them teach in any area in which they are qualified if required to teach. Directors once assigned were generally not mobile within the school system. qA typical director taught one to three years before becoming a community school director trainee, has been a director from three to four years, is between twenty-five and twenty-nine years of age, is married, has two or three children, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in physical education or a subject matter areal/g Directors as a group would choose to enter educa- tion and the community school directorship again and expect to remain in the education profession. Directors eventually plan to seek positions in school administration. 27./”Director comments and responses indicated a high level of expectations and dedication to the position.4 / .1 Significant Others 28. 29. 30. 31. The number of children a family had participating in school activities did not affect the level of expectations which parents held for the community school director. Directors of Elementary Education and Regional Community School Directors held exceedingly high expectations for community school director but defined coordinator of school-community relations as the most important and teacher role segment as the least important. A typical teacher responded from a perspective of classroom teaching experience of more than four years duration. A typical parent responded from a perspective of five or more years residence at his present address. ‘ 212 32. Comments of others stressed a high level of expectations, broad responsibilities~for the position, suggestions for improvement, and sometimes contradictory references to a given situation. Implications and Discussion The findings of this study indicate that the posi- tion community school director is well established and integrated into the pattern of roles and role relationships of the public elementary schools of Flint and can no longer be thought of as a "new" position. It is achieving stability, and as it does, certain issues need to be con- sidered with regard to maintaining the original enthusiasm and dedication of the pioneer directors while adapting to meet changing needs, new role relationships, and maintain- ing stable role relationships already established. fResults of previous studies and the present investigation indicate that expectations of the community school director have increased over time and that, due to the nature of community education itself, the position has become very broad in scopegwith the probable result that directors will have difficulty fulfilling all of the diverse expectations of the numerous reference groups. The data indicates that, in general, expectations and related conflict do not vary according to an inner-city or non-inner-city elementary school comparison; and that needs and aspirations, and therefore expectations, in 213 general are more similar than dissimilar. Differences may be more in degree than in kind. The lack of significant differences between expec- tations for released and teaching directors should not be interpreted to mean that this is not an important dimension in the assignment of directors. Indications are that with expectations high for all directors, groups of others do not discriminate accurately between directors who are released and those who are teaching. It also appears that directors do not modify their expectations with reference to the time they have available or from inner-city to non- inner-city assignments. Repeated references to the heavy work load of directors show a general awareness of the demands placed upon all incumbents, however. High expectations for the coordinator of school- community relations and lower expectations for the teacher role segment suggest a general trend for the director's position. Official actions of the Flint Board of Education and the generally lower expectation levels for the teacher role indicate that this role segment is becoming a reces- sive function of directors, especially in the minds of teachers and parents. It would appear that this is a result of heightened expectations in other areas, rather than reflecting a feeling of intrusion upon the teaching position. Since the operational aspects statements did not reflect entirely upon classroom duties, but also upon ‘214 general mentor and model relationships with children, it is not clear whether respondents were reflecting upon classroom duties or upon the overall relationship between directors and students. It is noted, however, that parents value highly a close personal relationship between their children and the community school director. The civil rights movement, anti-poverty efforts, compensatory education programs, tax—payer sensitivity, and emphasis upon greater parent participation in govern— ing as well as the programs of the schools are reflected in high expectations which administrators and directors hold for the coordinator role segment. It would seem that efforts to communicate the growing emphasis upon community relations activities for directors to parents and teachers in the Flint schools would be in order. Efforts to improve the participation of community members should be continued by the Flint administration. It has been generally estab- lished that active parent participation, while not changing the goals of the school, sometimes results in not entirely predictable decisions. Care should be taken that directors are not operating with undue fear of sanctions resulting- from legitimate parent participation which they have nurtured. The high level of expectations held by school administrators and directors indicates the belief that parent participation, individually and through parent 215 councils, serves the purposes and ends of community education. Conflict as defined by the instrument and treat- ment of data for this study does not necessarily equalv conflict, but indicates at least areas of potential con- flict situations. Only to the extent that conflict situations are identified and analyzed will these findings be useful. Role theory presupposes that conflict produces tension which reduces role effectiveness and that location of conflict is an absolute necessity as the first step toward resolution. Conversely, areas which showed little differences in conflict do not mean there is no conflict, only that the conflict may be unsystematic or was not identified due to the nature of the study instrument. The expectations of directors and groups of others with an organizationally superordinate relationship to the director were most similar and showed less conflict. This may be due to several factors. Cain ranked role definers from effective to ineffective, with most effective groups generally holding greater power of sanctions.1 It may be for this reason that director expectations are closest to administrators'. Most directors aspire to become adminis- trators and, in fact, see the community school directorship as an administrative position, which could account for the 1Cain, "Developments for Role," p. 193. 216 similarity in expectations. In any event, it is clear that the administrators possess the means to influence the position of community school director and the network of role relationships within the school system and the neighborhood with reference to the implications of this study. Specific implications are offered for considera- tion: 1. Examination of the expectations various groups hold for the director within the field of goals and objectives of community education and the setting of priorities due various areas of— responsibility may be worthwhile. Administrative adjustments where necessary to promote the successful performance of-the director would follow. In establishing priorities or clearer role prescription, care should be exercised to maintain the necessary flexibility for directors to develop community school programs unique to community needs. fThe position should retain those elements which have made it an outlet for the vitality, energies, and dedication of the individuals who choose to become community school directorsu/- 2. Areas of potential conflict identified herein should serve as starting points for study and consideration by administrators and supervisors of the community school program in their con- tinuing efforts to refine and improve the evel of services by community school directors It has been shown that role analysis has been successfully employed in studying complex organiza- tions of educational systems. 3. KCommunity school directors should be aware of the many reference groups which exert influence on their position, the relative potency of each, and the areas of potential conflict. At the building level it should be their obligation to identify specific areas of conflict and initiate action for resolution. I!" 217 Consideration of the number of superordinate reference groups should be made with the intent of streamlining the line-of-responsibility if it is judged that the community school director is responsible to too many others. Established priorities for the position should be communicated to all groups in the community school director interaction system. This could be in the nature of continued or even increased efforts at pre- and in-service training of directors, public information programs for citizens, and communica-7 tion with the teaching staff.’fEfforts to involve relevant others in defining the position of commu- nity school director at the policy level would serve the goals of community education/’ As well- informed as parents appear to be concerning the community school director, there is a tendency for them to hold expectations relating more strongly to services, recreation, children, and youth rather than in a broader perspective more in keeping with the potential with which others define the position. 'Improved communications between director and teaching staff appear to be needed in order to coordinate the efforts of all involved in commu- nity educationgand to overcome any division of purpose resulting from the collective negotiations process. Efforts to establish the directorship as a career position should be continued and perhaps intensi- fied in view of the finding that directors, in general, enter at an early age and leave after a few years. This may involve modification of work schedule and career incentives other than material rewards. {Efforts to help a director reach maximum levels of efficiency and effectiveness as quickly as possible would help counteract the problem of rapid turnover in the position;/' Directors should be responsible for maintaining adequate two-way communications with relevant groups at the building level since conflicting expectations are often a result of insufficient communications between one or more groups of individuals. /"’"‘ . 9. Ongoing evaluation programs to determine the degree to which community education is achieving 218 its goals would provide feedback important in helping directors and others redefine position responsibilities and in establishing expectations which enhance the success of community educatiOn}/ 10. Content of training programs should be geared to prepare directors to satisfy the mutually estab- lished goals of-community education and the resulting expectations for directors. In view of the expectations placed on the coOrdinator of school-community relations role segment, it would seem necessary to place high priorities on developing human relations and group process skills of directors. 11. It appears that selection and placement practices have contributed a great deal to the success of community education and the reservoir of goodwill which directors have in the community. Being competent and a good human relator were often mentioned as vital traits of'a community school director. Efforts at finding the "right man" for each neighborhood should be continued. Much responsibility is incumbent upon administra- tors in defining responsibilities of directors, in allo- cating resources to accomplish objectives, in evaluating and rewarding successful performance, and in relating and coordinating various parts of an organization to efficient and effective accomplishment of goals--in this case, the successful implementation of community education. Expecta- tions established through official policies and expectations of administrators exert a powerful influence upon the position of director. Awareness of potential conflict, its location and nature, followed by appropriate action toward resolution, is a necessary prerequisite for the success of the director at the building level. 219 Also, much responsibility for the resolution of conflict lies with the community school director and actions he initiates at the building and neighborhood level. His knowledge of areas of potential conflict and his awareness of and sensitivity to his various reference groups are necessary to the continued success of this key leadership position. The training of directors should prepare them to identify relevant role definers, perceive and consider expectations, successfully adapt to the many'and sometimes conflicting expectations, and maintain acceptable person- ality adjustment. One of the principles of role theory states that individuals who are aware of variations in expectations are more likely to communicate effectively with legitimate reference groups and reduce tensions which may exist. Another states that there is a natural tendency towards adjustment between two_roles at their point of tangency, and while far from being inevitable, at least gives promise of success when conscious efforts at reduc- tion of role tension are exerted. Recommendations for Further Research This role analysis of the professional leadership position of the community schOol director was suggestive of several related areas of potentially fruitful research. 220 The very nature of successful community education produces changes in role relationships over time. Changing role relationships are also a product of a complex organizational structure represented in this case by the public school system. Efforts to effect educational reform, collective negotiations, the civil rights movement, and other contemporary societal forces produce rapid and sometimes un- predictable change in a public school interaction system. It seems appropriate then that periodic, detailed study of this key leadership position is a prerequisite for planned changes and its maintenance as a vital element in community development. One test of a theory, such as role analysis, is: its predictive value. Investigations into the ways role conflict is successfully resolved, once identified, should be undertaken so that they may then be selectively applied in conflict situations. Conflict is endemic to social interaction systems. Research to determine under what combination of conditions and levels of intensity conflict: seriously reduces organizational effectiveness and produces individual tension should be under- taken. A related area would be to determine if a certain degree of conflict is produCtive or stimulating in a given situation. Micro-analysis of selected neighborhood school settings in Flint would be helpful in identifying factors such as what activities or role segments contribute most in achieving the goals of commu- nity education, what training and competencies are most valuable to a director, how role expecta- tions are formulated and communicated among relevant groups, and the actual impact of a professional community education leader upon community goal setting and achievement. Study to determine and define what constitutes participation and involvement of parents in commu- nity education activities would be helpful in evaluating the success of community education. It appears that physical presence or activities attended is not a definitive measure. Various leadership styles, staffing patterns, and role prescriptions of community school directors should be tried and evaluated to determine their 221 effectiveness in the promotion of successful community education. Studies of the relationship which exists between the rated effectiveness of a community council and its members' expectations for the position commu- nity school director could provide interesting insights into the community education process. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Backstrom, Charles H., and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Research. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, l963. Biddle, Bruce J. Studies in the Role of the Public School Teacher. VoI. B of Bibliographies onHRole Terms, Role Conflict and the Role of thegeacher. Columbia, Mo.: Social Psychology Laboratory, University of Missouri, 1961. , and Thomas, Edwin J. Role Theory:jConcepts and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Biddle, William W. The Community Development ngcess. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research, An Introduction. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1963. Brookover, Wilbur B., and Gottlieb, David. A Sociolo of Education. New York: American Book Co., 1964. Campbell, Clyde M. (ed.). Toward Perfection_in Learning. Midland, Mich.: PendeII Publishing Co., 1969. Clapp, Elsie R. Community Schools in Action. New York: Viking Press, 1939. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: MacMilIan Co., 1916. Everett, Samuel. The Communit School. New York: D. Appleton+Century-Co., I938. Freund, John E. Modern Elementary Statistics. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. 222 223 Goslin, Willard E. (ch). Or anizing the Elementary School for Livingand Learning. Yearbook’oifthe Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the N.E.A. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1947. Griffiths, Daniel E. (ed). Behavioral Science and Educa- tional Administration. 63rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Gross, Neal: Mason, Ward 8.: and McEachern, Alexander W. Exploratiqgs in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Haire, Mason (ed.). Modern Organizational Theory. London: John Wiley and Sons, 1959. Halpin, Andrew (ed.). Administrative Thegry in Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958. Henry, Nelson B. (ed.). Communitnyducation, Principles and Practices from Worldwide Experience. 58th Yeafbookiior the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. . The Community School. 52nd Yearbook for the National SoEiety for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Hickey, Howard W., and Van Voorhees, Curtis (ed.). The Role of the Schooi in Community Education. Midland, Mich.: Pendell Co., 1969. Jennrich, Robert I. 3600 ANOVA, Technical Report 55. Modified by David J. Wright. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, May 3, 1966. Lindzey, Gardner (ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1954. , and Aronson, Elliot (ed.). Handbook of Social Ps cholo . Vol. I. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968. 224 Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality. ‘- New York: D. Appleton—Century, Co., 1945. . The Study of Man. New York: D. Appleton- Century Co., 1936. Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology, Assisted by W. W. Charters. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. Olsen, Edward G. The Modern Community School. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Ill. Free Press ofG Glencoe, 1951. , and Shils, Edward A. (ed. ). ‘ Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951. Readings i-n Educational Methods and Philosophy. Estes Park, Colo.: Center for Research and Education, 1970. Rohrer, John H., and Sherif, Muzafer (ed.). Social Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Seay, Maurice F., and Crawford, Ferris N. The Community School and Community Self-Improvement. Lansing, Mich.: Office of Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1954. / Totten, W. Fred, and Manley, Frank J. The Community School--Basic Concepts, Function, and Organization. GaIien, Mich.: Allied Educational Council, 1969. y U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Analysis of the Flint Housing Market. Washington, D. C.: Federal Housing Administration, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968. U. S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Area Trends in Emgloyment and Unemployment. Washington, D.C.: Unite States Government Printing Office, 1968. Waller, Willard. Sociology of Teaching. New York: Russell and Russell, 1961. Young, Clarence H., and Quinn, William A. Foundation for Living. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 225 Periodicals Argyle, Michael. "The Concepts of Role and Status." Sociolcgical Review, XLIV (1952), 39-52. Bates, Frederick L. "Position, Role, and Status: A Reformation of Concepts." Social Forces, XXXIV (May, 1956), 313-321. Bidwell, Charles E. "Some Effects of Administrative Behavior: A Study in Role Theory." .Administrative Scienceguarterly, II (1957-1958), 161:181. Brookover, Wilbur B. "Public Images and Expectations of Teachers." College of Education Quarterly. Michigan State University, 1957. . "Research on Teacher and Administrator Roles." The Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX TSéptember, 1955), 2—13. Buehring, Leo E. "New Patterns-~Community Schools." Nation's Schools, LXI (1958), p. 37. Cain, Maureen E. "Some Suggested Developments for Role and Reference Group Analysis." British Journal of Sociology, XIX (June, 1968), 191-205. Campbell, Clyde M. The Community School and Its Adminis— tration, XI (3, 4, 5) and XX (November,i1963). Midland, Mich.: Inter-Institutional Workshop. Campbell, Merton V. "Teacher-Principal Agreement on the Teacher Role." Administrator's Notebook, VII (February, 1959), 1-4. Charters, W. W. "The School as a Social System." Review of Educational Research, XII (February, 19525, 41-44. Cottrell, Leonard S. "Roles and Marital Adjustment." Publications of the American Sociological Society, XXVII (May, 1933), 107-115. Frank, Andrew Gunder. "Administrative Role Definition and Social Change." Human Orggnization, XXII (Winter, l963-l964), 238-242. 226 Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. "Role, Role Conflict and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study." American Sociological Review, XIX (1954), 164-175. "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process." The School Review, LXV (Winter, 1957), "The Structure of Roles and Role Conflict in a Teaching Situation." Journal of EducatiOnal Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955), 30-40. Goode, William J. "A Theory of Role Strain." American Sociological Review, XXV (August, 1960), 483-496. Hencley, Stephen P. "The Conflict Patterns of School Superintendents." Administrator's Notebook, VIII (May, 1960), l-4. Jacobson, Eugene; Charters, W. W.; and Lieberman, Seymour. "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Complex Organizations." Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 18-27. Julian, Joseph. "Some Determinants of Dissensus on Role Prescriptions Within and Between Four Organiza— tional Positions." The Sociolcgicalguarterly, X' (Spring, 1969), 177-189. iLevine, Daniel U. "The Community School in Contemporary Perspective." Elementarnyducation Journal, LXIX (December, 1968), 109-117. Levinson, Daniel J. "Role, Personality, and Social Struc- _ture in the Organizational Setting." Journal of Abnormal and Social-Psychology, LVIII (1959), 170-180. Lund, John. "Education Can Change Community Life." School Life, XXXI (November, 1948), ll-12. Neiman, Lionel J., and Hughes, James W. "The Problem of— the Concept of Role." Social Forces, XXX (December, 1951), 141-149. Olsen, Edward G. "The Community School, Pattern for Progress." Vital Speeches of the Day, XXXV (April, 1969), 370-373. 227 Palumbo, Dennis J. "Power and Role Specificity in Organizational Theory." Public Administration Review, XXIX (May-June, 1969), 237-246. Rushing, William A. "The Role Concept: Assumptions and Their Methodological ImplicatiOns." Sociolo . and Social Research, LIX (October, 19645, 46-55. Seeman, Melvin. "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leader- ship." American Sociological Review, XVIII~ (August, 19535, 373-390. Solby, Bruno. "The-Role Concept and Job Adjustment." Sorenson, A. Garth: Husek, T. R.: and Yu, Constance. "Divergent Concepts of Teacher Role: An Approach to the Measurement of Teacher Effectiveness." Journal-of Educational.Psychology, LIV (1963), 287-294. Stouffer, Samuel A. "An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms." American Sociological.Review, XIV (December, 1949), p. 797} Sweitzer, Robert E. "The Superintendent's Role in Improving Instruction." Administrator's Notebook, Terrien, Frederic W. "The Occupational Role of Teachers." Journal of EducationalSociology, XXIX (September, Wilson, Bryan R. "The Teacher's Role." British Journal of Sociology, XIII (March, 1962), pp. 15532. Unpublished Materials Berridge, Robert. "A Study of the Opinions of-Community Education Leaders and Community School Directors Regarding an Intensive Preparation Program for Community School Directors." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, MichiganState University, 1969. Briggs, Larry. "Conferences and Visitations Program Report." Flint, Mich.: Mott Programs Office of Flint Board of Education, 1965. (Mimeographed.) 228 Brown, Iva Dinkins. "Role Perceptions of Secondary Teachers as Related to Pupils' Perceptions of Teacher Behavioral Characteristics." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, 1965. "Census Tract Project, Flint and Genesee County." Flint: Council for Social Agencies of Flint and Genesee County, 1963. (Mimeographed.) lClancy, Peter L. "The Contributions of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation to the Development of the Community School Program in Flint, Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. fCowan, Alton W. "The Building Director: A Critical Study of Expectations Held for the Position by Princi- pals, Adult Education Co-ordinators, Teachers, and Building Directors." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1960. Craig, Lloyd Gene. "A Study of Factors Related to Achievement of Congruency of Perception of the Role of Elementary School Principal." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1967. ”Crosby, Jerry D. "A Study of the Expectancies Which Commu— nity School Directors and Related Others Have of the Community School Director's Roles in Serving Neighborhoods of Eight Inner-city Schools in the City of Flint, Michigan." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. De Helms, David R. "A Study of the Degree of Authority of the K-12 Curriculum Director as Perceived by Specific Role Groups in Selected School Districts." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 1968. Doyle, Larry A. "Convergence and Divergence in the Role Expectations of Elementary Teachers." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Eade, Gordon E. ”A Study of the Role Expectations in Teacher Collective Negotiation in Selected School Districts of Illinois." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1967. 229 Farrell, James A. "An Analysis of the Elementary School Counselor Position: The Role Expectations of Counselors, Principals, and Teachers." Un- published Ed.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1968. Fleming, James Scott. "An Investigation of Role Expecta- tions and the Communication Process Between Elementary School Student Teachers and Their Supervising Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968. AFlint Board oanducation. "Facts and Figures About Flint." 1969-1970. (Mimeographed.) . "Flint Public Schools Racial Distribution, K-12 Pupils and Teachers, September, 1969." Research Services Department, November, 1969. . Minutes of Regular Meeting. VXLIII, Section 1.13 Community School Directors: Classifications, Prerequisites, Definitions and Methods of Compensa- tion, August 14, 1968. (Mimeographed.) Galante, Ferdinand. "Perceptions of the Role of High School Principals in a Large Urban Industrial School District." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1964. Michigan State Board of Education. "Policies for the Distribution of Moneys to School Districts for Community School Programs in 1969-1970." In accordance with the Provisions of Act. 307, P.A. of 1969 and Senate Enrolled Bill 68 of 1969, as adopted by the State Board on October 1, 1969. Morgan, Stanley Roy. "The Public School Principalship: Role Expectations by Relevant Groups." Un- published Ed.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1965. Mott Programs Office. "Chronological Development of the Mott Foundation Program." Flint: Board of Education, 1969. (Mimeographed.) Orleans Parish School Board. "Expansion of Community Schools." Unpublished New Orleans City Demonstra- tion Agency Proposal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Section 105 of‘ Title I of the Demonstration Cities Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, May, 1970. 230 Pylman, John H. "Expectations of High School Principals and Relevant Others for the Role of High School Principals in Teacher-Board Negotiations." Un- published Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Reid, John E. "Task Expectations of the Elementary Princi— pal as Perceived by Principals, Superintendents, Teachers, School Boards, and the Public." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. Roberts, James N. "Perceptions and Expectations of Superintendents, Principals, and Teachers Regarding Leadership Behavior of Elementary School Principals." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963. Smith, Rex Beach. "A Comparative Study of the Expecta- tions Which Teachers, School Board Members, and Citizens of Three School Districts Have of the Teacher's Role in School and Community." Un- published Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. Talty, Michael R. "Role Expectations for the Superintendent in Collective Negotiations Between School Boards and Non-Union Teachers Organizations in New York State." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, St. John's University, 1968. Tomich, Edward. "Teacher Cognitions and Behavioral Con- formity." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1963. Willis, Faith Lynn. "A Study of the Relationships Between Organizational Goals and Role Consensus." Un— published Ed.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1967. Pamphlets Clancy, Peter L. The Flint Community_School Concept. Flint: Board of Education, n.d.W A Comprehensive Demonstration Program for Genesee County. Part I. Chicago: SociaiiPlanning Associates, Inc., prepared for Genesee County Model Cities Agency, May, 1969. 231 Look to Flint. Flint: The Flint Chamber of Commerce and the Industrial Mutual Association, 1969. Mott Foundation. The Mott Foundatign Projects Annual Report 1967-1968. Flint: The Foundation, 1968. Mott Programs Office. Community Education--Dissemination Program Manual. Flint: BOard ofiEducation, 1968. . Community School Directors Training Guide. Flint:* Board of Education,:"n.d.'r . The Mott Program of the Flint Board of Educa— tion. ‘Elint: Board ofiEducation, 1969. . The Role of the Community School Director in the Flint Community Schools. Flint: Board of Education, 1969. Nationaltgommunity_§chool Egucation Association Information Brochure. Flint: The Association, 1968. Totten, W. Fred. A Look at Flint's Community Schools. Flint: Board of Education, 1968. Turabian, Kate L. A_Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. ed. revised. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PHILOSOPHY OF THE MOTT FOUNDATION PHILOSOPHY OF THE MOTT FOUNDATION The philosophical purpose of the Mott Foundation is to increase the strength and stature of character in individuals and thereby also strengthen our free enterprise system of society. The goal should be first to produce citizens of strength and quality, each of whom accepts his full responsibility as a citizen. The goal that should follow is that these citizens work effectively together in a democratic society of free enterprise toward a better community. Obviously the Mott Foundation cannot support such efforts for the whole country. So the purpose of the Mott Foundation will be to learn how to do this in Flint--he1p to make Flint the laboratory and proving grounds, and let other communities observe and hopefully adopt these programs. To do this it is necessary to increase education, recreation, physical fitness, children's health, under- standing of basic economics, social service, spiritual values, self-reliance and useful living. In our opinion the best way by which these objec- tives can be promoted by the Mott Foundation is to con- ceive, research, test, and support demonstration of the programs that accomplish these objectives in Flint. We will then invite to Flint interested people from all over-the world, and support workshops demonstrat- ing what has been and can be accomplished. We will also support training of people in the understanding and accomplishment of these programs so they can manage the programs in other places. Where other places need financial help to get started and to prove themselves in the community, the Mott Foundation is willing to consider some assistance for a limited period in the expectation that the local 232 233 community will sustain its own program. It is our desire to see that what we have supported shall be perpetuated. To increase education we will support programs of innovation, research, test and development intended to improve educational methods and intelligence and to greatly increase the individual's desire and opportunities for education. We will also support research and effort to eliminate conditions that deter educational desires and opportunities for the individual. i To increase recreation we will support programs of good, sound recreational activities and help them be available for maximum participation, young and old. L To increase physical fitness we will support programs of education, health and recreation, and assist organizations who have this objective. To increase children's health, we will support child health programs. We will also support in Flint a clinic for the health problems of indigent children. This facility will also do research, both basic and applied, which will be of education and assistance to the medical and dental profession in the cure, prevention and elimina- tion of the ills of the child. We plan to work through established medical institutions and professional people. All children completely healthy is our goal. To increase the understanding of the individual in basic economics we will support the development of training material and the teaching of this material, including the training of the teacher. We believe this understanding is the basis for the future of our successful free enterprise way of life. We believe this teaching should commence at a very early age. To increase our spiritual values we believe it is necessary to develop individuals of integrity and character and understanding, to eliminate bigotry and bias and hatreds. We will support programs to do this. To increase social service we will support innova- tions, research, test and development for improved social service methods. We will assist in the training of people for this purpose. All of the objectives mentioned so far should result in the building of strong individuals with self- reliance. This in turn will create a very strong society 234 because the strength of‘a society is the sum total of the strength of its individual members. Such a strong individual will be dedicated to useful living. He will contribute to society by being a doer, an enterpriser who will support himself and achieve' his security through a dedication to useful effort. This is desperately needed to counteract the weakening Of our nation by the ever increasing tendency to depend on government, business_and industry to estab- lish security programs that relieve the individual of responsibility. So we hope the result of our objectives will be "Strong and Self-Reliant Individuals dedicated to Useful Living, working together in a Free Enterprise-Society."1 lThe Mott Foundation Projects Annual Report 1967-1968 (Flint: Mott Foundation, 1968), pp. 1-2. APPENDIX B CLASSIFICATIONS, DUTIES, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS IN FLINT, MICHIGAN CLASSIFICATIONS, DUTIES, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS IN FLINT, MICHIGAN Trainee Duties This is a dual staff position as a.full-time teacher and community school director-in-training. Persons assigned as Trainee will be under the general super- vision of a Community School Director during the trainee experience. The trainee will be expected to spend approximately 12 to 15 hours per week in commu- nity-related activities. If jobs are available, a person assigned as Trainee will be eligible for summer employment. The employee performs the following functions: 1. Fulfills all responsibilities of a full-time teacher. 2. Deve10ps ideas and techniques in preparation for future responsibilities as a community school director. 3. Assists community school director in planning, implementing, and evaluating programs. 4. Participates actively in training sessions con- ducted by the Director of Community Schools program. 5. Performs such other related duties and responsi- bilities as assigned or as appropriate. Qualification 1. Education: Bachelor's degree and Michigan certification. 2. Experience: Flint Board of Education employee. 235 3. 236 Skills: Knowledgeable grasp of social condi- tions affecting school and community life. Ability to communicate effectively both in writing and orally. Community Director I Duties This is a dual staff position under assignment to the building principal, the Community Director I will teach half time and coordinate theCommunity School Program of the school to which he is assigned. In this capacity, he performs the following functions: 1. 2. Performs all duties of a half-time teacher. Programs, with the assistance of the school princi- pal, all community activities relating to the school, including: a) elementary, youth, and adult enrichment activities; b) organization of school- related clubs, such as Teen Club, Women's Club, and Men's Club. (These examples are not intended to be all-inclusive nor are they meant to be restrictive.) Promotes, publicizes, and interprets existing and~ planned programs to the school staff and community. Accepts responsibility for all activities normally designated as community related. Establishes rapport with lay leaders of the commu- nity (business, religious, and social). Becomes familiar with the social and economic structure of the community and applies this knowledge to program development. Establishes, in cooPeration with the principal, a community advisory council for the purpose of community program development and evaluation. Assists in a constant evaluation of activities for the purpose of upgrading existing programs and implementing new ideas. B. 237 9. Establishes budget necessary for operation of the community school program. 10. Prepares and submits reports required by the Director of Community School Programs. 11. Establishes and operates a summer program to meet the needs of the community. 12. Performs such other related duties and responsi- bilities as assigned or as appropriate. Qualification 1. Education: Bachelor's degree and Michigan certification. 2. Experience: Two years of teaching experience desirable. Previous experience as Trainee I or II or internship preferred. Community School Director II Duties This is the staff position of a full-time Community School Director released from teaching responsibilities. Under assignment to the building principal, the Commu- nity School Director II performs the following functions: 1. Programs, with the assistance of the school principal, all community activities relating to the school, including: a) elementary, youth, and adult enrichment activities; b) organization of school-related clubs, such as Teen Club, Women's Club and Men's Club. (These examples are not intended to be all-inclusive nor are they meant to be restrictive.) Promotes, publicizes, and interprets existing and planned programs to the school staff and community. Accepts responsibility for all activities normally designated as community related. B. 10. 11. 238 Establishes rapport with lay leaders of the community (business, religious, and social). Becomes familiar with the social and economic structure of the community and applies this knowledge to program development. Establishes, in cooperation with the principal, a community advisory council for the purpose of community program development and evaluation. Assists in a constant evaluation of activities for the purpose of upgrading existing programs and implementing new ideas. Establishes budget necessary for operation of the community school program. Prepares and submits reports as required by the Coordinator of Community School Programs. Establishes a summer enrichment and recreation program to meet the needs of the community. Performs such other related duties and responsi- bilities as assigned or as appropriate. Qualification 1. 2. Education: Master's degree in Communitvaducation or a Bachelor's degree plus a minimum of 15 semester hours in Community Education, and Michigan certification. Experience: Minimum of 2 years as Community School’ Director I. Recommendation from the principal desired. Exceptionally successful past effort in community programs. Director_gf Community Relations Pilot Program Duties This is a line position. Under assignment to the Elementary School Principal and the Coordinator of Community School Directors' Program, the Director of 239 Community Relations serves as both Community School Director and Elementary Counselor. In this capacity, he supervises the Community School Director I assigned to the building and performs the following functions: 1. Assists the building principal in the community- related K-6 programs. 2. Performs counseling services for the elementary children assigned to the school. 3. Assists with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the Community School program. 4. Is responsible for in-service community education of the school staff. 5. Performs such other related duties and responsi- bilities as assigned or as appropriate. Qualification 1. Education: 2. Experience: NOTE: Master's degree in Community Educa- tion plus-a minimum of six semester hours in counseling and guidance preferred, and Michigan certification. Three years in community school work with a total of five year minimum experience in public school assign- ments. Position contingent upon recommenda- _ tion of building principal and demands of community school program.1 1 Flint Board of Education, Community School Direc— tors Training Guide (Flint: Board of Education), pp; 6-i9. APPENDIX C Letters and Questionnaire {Q;é {Wflitgyflm or THE FLINT soaso or EDUCATION 92! EAIT KEARSLEY STREET 0 FLINT. MICHIGAN 4.502 - CE I-IOJI March 19, 1970 You no doubt remember the post card you received several days ago inviting you to take part in a study of the duties of a community school director in the elementary schools of Flint. This letter is to ask your help by marking the enclosed check list. Mr. Keith Blue of Michigan State University is doing the study which has the approval of the Flint school administration. As you know, Flint is nationally known for its leadership in Community Education which makes school buildings and services available to all citizens of the city. You as a parent can be proud of your part in making community education such a success that it is spreading throughout the country. Since you and your children take part in community school activities, you can help us gain a better understanding of what parents expect of a person who serves as a-community school director. It will take about twenty minutes to mark all the items. When the results of the check list are included in the written report, neither your name nor the name of your school will be used. We would appreciate it very much if you could return the marked check list in the stamped enve10pe within the next two or three days. Thank you for your time and interest. Sincere yours, affix? Dr. Peter L. Clancy Associate Superintendent for the Mott Program Mr. Keith Blue Michigan State University 240 241 March 19, 1970 The purpose of this letter is to introduce you to a study being conducted by Mr. Keith Blue relating to the topic: "Role Expectations of the Position of Community School Director Held by Building Principals, Teachers, and Parents in Flint's Elementary Schools." This project has the approval of the Department of Research, Flint Community Schools, and the Associate Superintendent for Mott Programs. Since Flint is nationally recognized as the center of the comunity school movement, you as a professional staff member have assumed a unique leadership role in influencing the development of this concept. The success of any such program depends to a large extent upon the most effec- tive use of the resources on your staff. Therefore, gaining information regarding the organizational structure of the Community School in Flint provides the basic motivation for conducting this study. In order to conduct the study, we need your response to a check list questionnaire regarding aspects of the community school director's position with which you are familiar. Your contribution will help provide a better understanding and clarification of the emerging role of the community school director in the educational structure of our schools. An investment of approximately twenty minutes of your time will be needed to complete the check list. Although the check lists are coded in order to maintain records of responses, all identification will be gremoved after data has been recorded. Your responses will not be presented in any form that will identify you, and at no time will the data be presented as an evaluation of the work of current or previous community school directors. Because a sampling process has been used, only a small number of questionnaires have been issued. Therefore, in order to successfully complete the study, a high percentage of return is needed. we hope you will be able to return your part of the study by March 31. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Keith Blue Michigan State University DIRECTOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE Community School Director's Position in Flint Elementary Schools The following statements refer to some aspects of the Community School Director's position in the Flint Community Schools. First of all, would you indicate whether or not you sincerely believe a director should actually do what is indicated in each statement. You may do thisiby circlin in the left margin the Y (yes) if you believe you should, or the N {no} If you believe you should not. We would also like to know what you think other relevant persons expect of you in this position. You may indicate whether or not you think the Parents, Principals, and Teachers actually expect you to do each of the things listed. You may do this by circling in the columns to the right a Y (yes), DK (don't know), or N (no). YOU MAY FEEL THAT NEARLY ALL THE THINGS SHOULD BE DONE BY SOMEONE, BUT YOU SHOULD MARK THE LEFT COLUMN IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE YOU SHOULD DO AND THE RIGHT COLUMNS IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU THINK THE THREE GROUPS ACTUALLY EXPECT YOU TO DO IN YOUR SCHOOL AREA IN THE TIME YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR JOB. I BELIEVE Parents Principals Teachers I SHOULD: expect expect expect me to: me to: . me to: Y N 1. Give leadership in the formation of N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y block clubs or action teams. Y N 2. Know, understand, and work for solu- N DR Y N DK Y N DK Y tions to problems of various national or racial groups. Y N 3. Explain the regular school program to N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y parents and other adults. Y N 4. Learn all sides of community issues N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y and help work toward fair solutions. Y N 5. Let the community council help plan N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y and evaluate the community school program. Y N 6. Get adults in need of more education N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y to re-enter school or adult education classes for more training. Y N 7. Promote the school as the center for N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y community meetings and activities. Y N 8. When a family is in need of some N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y community service such as health, housing, legal aid, welfare, help them locate the proper office or person. 242 1243 I BELIEVE Parents Principals Teachers I SHOULD: expect expect expect me to: me to: me to: Y N 9. Get peOple to vote at election time. N DR Y N DR Y N DK Y Y N 10. Help new residents adjust to the N DX Y N DK Y N DK Y neighborhood and school. Y N 11. Give help to community groups who are N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y trying to solve community problems. Y N 12. Coordinate the work of the many N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y service groups who serve the community. Y N 13. Visit children's homes to get to know N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y the families, their needs, and interests. Y N 14. Plan activities to keep down delin- N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y quency among children of the community. Y N 15. Promote the school as the best lace N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y for bringing about better understansing among people and for solving community problems. Y N 16. Be responsible for coordinating work N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y of home counselors and school social workers in serving the community. Y N 17. Try to create better understanding N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y among people by planning activities that bring different religious, social, and racial groups toqether. Y N 18. Have authority to suspend children N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y from after-school and evening activities. Y N 19. Be responsible for school building N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y and equipment during the after-school and evening hours. Y N 20. Recommend policy and rule changes to N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y the principal and other supervisors. Y N 21. Organize a community council and help N DK Y N DK Y N'DK Y deveIOp leadership among its members. Y N 22. Know and enforce school board poli- N DK Y N‘DK Y N DK Y cies and rules for persons using the school. Y N 23. Have authority to use all school N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y facilities and equipment to give adults evening academic training and recreation. Y N 24. Schedule community school activities N DK Y N DK Y N DK Y on Saturdays. 244 I BELIEVE I SHOULD: 25. Schedule community school activities during school vacations. 26. Be responsible for surveying commu- nity needs and planning programs to meet them. 27. Be responsible for scheduling and supervising all parts of the after-school and evening program. 28. Plan the after-school and evening activities with the help of the community council, teachers, administrators, and students. 29. Have veto power over adult education teachers sent to my building. 30. Consult often with the principal in matters of planning, scheduling, and operating the after-school and evening program. 31. Help plan school policies by taking part in study committees and being a member of the principal's administrative staff. 32. Join and support professional educa- tion groups. 33. Support negotiations for the improve- ment of working conditions for all teachers and members of the education profession. 34. Continue my education by attending college classes and workshops. 35. Take part as a regular staff member in all parts of the school program. 36. Have a broad knowledge of educational problems outside my own field of study. 37. Explain the after-school and evening programs to fellow teachers and seek their help and support. 38. Inform the principal, supervisors, and others of community needs and problems. 39. Involve teachers and principals in planning and evaluating community school programs. Parents expect me to: N DK Y N DK Y 2 DK Y 2 DK Y Principals expect me to: N DK Y N DK Y Teachers expect me to: N DK Y N DK Y 245 r BELIEVE I SHOULD: Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 40. Be responsible for getting teachers interested in community needs and problems. 41. Help select and train all persons who work in the after-school and evening program. 42. Teach new teachers about community school aims and activities. 43. Make school space available to groups such as Boy Scouts, Urban League, Health Department, who serve the community. 44. Be responsible to the principal for the operation of the community school programs. 45. Help the principal plan staff meet- ings and in-service for the building teaching staff. 46. Ask the help of local businessmen in providing materials, supplies, and help for regular school activities, such as talking to a class or loaning items for display. 47. Serve as a resource person to teachers in their classroom teaching. 48. Help teachers in getting services from groups such as Red Cross, YMCA, Urban League. 49. Counsel youngsters sent to me as ”trouble makers" by teachers or the principal. 50. Teach game rules, fair play, and sportsmanship in my gym class or recrea- tion program. 51. Take regular school classes on field trips on week-ends or holidays. 52. Use my contacts with children to en- courage them to do better work in school. 53. Bring parents into regular classrooms as resource persons to talk about their jobs, hobbies, or travels. 54. Provide tutors and a place for children to do their homework. Parents expect me to: N DK Y Principals expect me to: N DK Y N DK Y Teachers expect me to: N DK Y 246 I BELIEVE Parents Principals Teachers I SHOULD: expect expect expect me to: me to: me to: Y N 55. Help teachers with such things as N DR Y N DR Y N DR Y teaching folk dances during a social studies unit or helping with a Christmas program. Y N 56. Let children share in planning N DR Y N DR Y N DR Y activities and what to study during the times they are under my direction. Y N 57. Use my contacts with children to N DR Y N DR Y N DR Y teach good human relations and respect of others. Y N 58. Take time for children to discuss N DR Y N DR Y N DR Y their problems with me. Y N 59. Take children on field trips to N DR Y N DR Y 4N DR Y museum, Mott Farm, etc., during school day. Y N 60. Discuss community needs and problems N DR Y N DR Y N DR Y in teaching situations. 61. I believe that the Community School Director should-- CIRCLE ONE a. Be regarded as having the same status as teachers a. b. Be regarded as an administrator b. c. Be regarded as somewhere between administrative and teaching c. d. Be regarded as unigue, not clearly administrative or clearly d. teaching Which of the above do you think would be selected by-- CIRCLE ONE EACH 1. Building Principals 2. Teachers 3. Parents a a a 62. I believe that the Community School Director should-- a. Teach half-day sessions as well as administer the b. community school program Teach full-day sessions and administer the community school program with the community school program . Not teach during regular school day but spend full time b c d b c d b c d CIRCLE ONE a. b. c. Which of the above do you think would be selected by-- CIRCLE ONE EACH 1. Building Principals 2. Teachers 3. Parents a a a O'U'O' 000 0:00- 63. 64. 247 Assuming that teaching is part of his job, the Community CIRCLE ONE School Director should-- a. Teach physical education a. b. Teach academic subjects b. c. Makes no difference what he teaches c. Which of the above do you think would be selected by-- CIRCLE ONE EACH 1. Building Principals a b c d 2. Teachers a b c d 3. Parents a b c d Do you have any comments which would help you express your point of view concerning the Community School Director’s position? (continue on back of page) DATA SHEET 1. 2. 7. What is your age? What is your marital status? single '_—___ married divorced widowed other How many children do you have? Do you live in the elementary attendance area in which you work? Yes No What is the highest academic degree attained? Bachelor's Master's Other In what areas did you, or are you preparing? A. Undergraduate Majors Minors B. Graduate Majors Minors Number of credit hours of academic preparation in community education? Sem Qt 9. 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2248 In how many school systems other than Flint have you worked? __ none I :2 __ 3 __ 4 or more Number of years of full-time classroom teaching experience? Did you serve as a trainee prior to assignment as a community school director? Yes No How many years of teaching experience did you have prior to becoming a community school director? Including this school year, how many years of experience do you have as a community school director in Flint? Including this year, the number of years you have worked as a teaching director in Flint? Including this year, the number of years you have worked as a full-time or released director in Flint? How many elementary schools have you worked in as a community school director? What are your future plans in the field of education? a. Fully expect to remain in the field a. b. Expect to remain at least five years b. c. May leave after five years c. d. Plan to look for another job this year d. e. Other (please explain) Would you enter the educational profession again if you were to start over? Yes No Do you have any desire to obtain any of the following administrative positions within the field of education? Yes No, I expect to remain a director If you answered yes, please indicate by circling all the positions that you would accept n the following list: a. school superintendent a. b. high school principal b. c. elementary school principal c. d. assistant principal d. e. adult education coordinator e. f. other (please explain) Would you become a Community School Director again if you were to start over? Yes No Check if you would like a summary of this data. Dear Director, This was a lengthy questionnaire..... Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful effort. Reith Blue I .III I.‘ I! 1249 62. I believe that the Community School Director should-- CIRCLE ONE a. Teach half-day sessions as well as administer the a. community school program. b. Teach full-day sessions and administer the community b. school program c. Not teach during regular school day but spend full time c. with the community school program 63. Assuming that teaching is part of his job, the Community CIRCLE ONE School Director should-- 1 a. Teach physical education .a. b. Teach academic subjects b. c. Makes no difference what he teaches c. -“1 64. Do you have any comments which would help you express your point of view concerning the Community School Director's position? (continue on back of page) PARENT DATA SHEET 1. How many children do you have attending Flint Community Schools? 2. Check grade levels in which you now have children. Kdg 3rd 6th lst 4th Jr. High 2nd 5th Sr. High 3. How many years have you lived in Flint? years 4. How many years have you lived at this address? years 5. If you know the name of the Community School Director where your children attend elementary sChool, please write it here: 6. Person marking this check list. CHECK ONE Mother Other (please explain) Father ‘ Mother and Father THANK YOU VERY MUCH 250 62. I believe that the Community School Director should-- a. Teach half-day sessions as well as administer the community school program. b. Teach full-day sessions and administer the community school program c. Not teach during regular school day but spend full time with the community school program 63. Assuming that teaching is part of his job, the Community School Director should-- a. Teach physical education b. Teach academic subjects c. Makes no difference what he teaches CIRCLE ONE a. b. CHECK ONE 64. Do you have any comments which would help you express your point of view concerning the Community School Director's position? (continue on back of page) TEACHER DATA SHEET 1. Number of years of full-time classroom teaching experience? 2. Number of the above years in Flint? 3. Number of years in the building to which you are now assigned? 4. Your present teaching assignment: Subject (s) Grade Level (s) 5. Male Female 6. Number of years you have worked on a teaching staff with a community school director? 7. Please check if you would like a summary of this data. THANK YOU VERY MUCH 62. I believe that the Community School Director should-- CIRCLE ONE a. Teach half-day sessions as well as administer the a. community school program. b. Teach full-day sessions and administer the community b. school program. c. Not teach during regular school day but spend full time c. with the community school program. 63. Assuming that teaching is part of his job, the Community CIRCLE ONE School Director should-- a. Teach physical education a. b. Teach academic subjects ' b. c. Makes no difference what he teaches c. 64. Do you have any comments which help you express your point of view concerning the Community School Director's position? (continue on back of page) PRINCIPAL DATA SHEET 1. Number of years classroom teaching experience in Flint? 2. Total number of years you worked on the same staff with a community school director while you were a teacher. 3. Were you ever a community school director? Yes No 4. If yes, number of years as a community school director? 5. Number of years as an elementary principal in Flint? 6. Number of years as principal in your present building? 7. Number of years you have had a teaching community school director on your staff? 8. Number of years you have had a released community school director on your staff? 9. Please check if you would like a summary of this data. 251. THANK YOU VERY MUCH 'IICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 11ll"WII“m1“IW"“HWI1""HINIIHIWWII 31293102136615