Q Capyright by BRIAN JAMES FRANKCOMBE 1977 COMPARATIVE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN ELEMENTARY SOCIAL STUDIES/SOCIAL SCIENCE IN ALBERTA AND IN TASMANIA By Brian James Frankcombe A DISSERTATION _ Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiliment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1977 ABSTRACT COMPARATIVE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN ELEMENTARY SOCIAL STUDIES/SOCIAL SCIENCE IN ALBERTA AND IN TASMANIA By Brian James Frankcombe The Problem The study was about ways in which curriculum development in elementary social studies/social science is perceived by teachers, parents, university faculty, principals, Department staff, curricu- lum committee members, school-system administrators, and teacher organization representatives in Alberta and Tasmania. Education in Alberta is partially decentralized through locally elected school boards. In Tasmania, there is a centralized, State-run education system. Design and Conduct of the Study A questionnaire with forty questions about the curriculum guide, about the curriculum (with subsections on curriculum sources, texts/references, roles in curriculum development, and planning for program implementation) and about curriculum dissemination (with subsections on understanding the guide, use of the guide, teacher training, and diffusion of curriculum ideas) was administered to a random sample in the respondent groups. In Tasmania, the researcher. Brian James Frankcombe conducted an interview with most respondents, using the question- naire as the basis for the interview. Individuals who could not be reached for an interview were surveyed by mail. In Alberta, the survey was conducted by mail. Responses were organized to get des- criptive and comparative data for use in dealing with the two geo- graphical areas. Major Findings It is perceived by the respondents that: 1. Teachers should be given a greater role in the develop- ment of curriculum guides and of curriculum generally in both regions. 2. Pilot teachers were used in Tasmania with good effect. 3. Existing curriculum guides had limited prescription. 4. Greater prescription than existed would be useful. 5. Set texts had limited value. 6. Texts and reference materials for new curriculum ideas should be made available earlier than in the past. 7. The teacher organization gave very limited leadership in curriculum development in both areas. ~ 8. Principals and superintendents gave limited encouragement to teachers to develop curriculum. 9. Principals gave very limited supervision of teaching and monitoring of teacher planning. l0. Planning for the implementation of a new program was limited. Brian James Frankcombe ll. Planning for the implementation of a new program was chiefly the responsibility of curriculum committees, Departments of Education, and teachers. l2. Time was identified as an important need for teachers in improving planning, in reaching an understanding of the curriculum guide, and in training for use of the guide. l3. Reading the curriculum guide was ranked as the best way to understand it. 14. Ambiguity of language in curriculum guides posed a problem to understanding of it. l5. The curriculum guides were generally used extensively by teachers. 16. A lack of materials hindered teacher use of the curric- ulum guides. 17. Teacher training to use the guides was limited. l8. Workshops were seen as a major way to train teachers in service. l9. Curriculum committees should have a greater role in the diffusion of new curriculum ideas. 20. Subject meetings and staff meetings were ranked as the most important ways to diffuse new curriculum ideas in the school. 2l. The perceptions of teachers and principals were more alike than were those of these two groups and parents. 22. Parents perceived a greater role in curriculum develop- ment for the Department than did teachers. Brian James Frankcombe 23. School-based educators and teacher representatives agreed with each other's perceptions more than did the other non- school-based educators and teacher representatives. 24. There were similarities and differences in the per- ceptions of their own and others' roles in curriculum development among and between educators and others concerned with elementary social studies/social science in Alberta and in Tasmania. 25. Perceptions of Tasmanian respondents tended to reflect the continued centralization of control of education by the State. Dedicated to Bev for her patience and support. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks are offered to Dr. Cole Brembeck of Michigan State University for his guidance and assistance throughout. Com- mittee members Drs. Charles Blackman, David Heenan, and Gordon Stewart; volunteer typists Debbi Kuran, Theresa Awes, Kathy Miller, and Joyce McFarland; and M.S.U. personnel Ruth Hefflebower and Virginia Niseman are also thanked for their extra effort and help. Many others contributed suggestions, ideas, time, and co-operation. All are acknowledged with appreciation. All of the above added to the study; any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter l. THE PROBLEM ..................... Need ....................... Purpose ...................... Contexts of the Study ............... Introduction .................. General Factors ................. Organizational Structure of Education ...... Education Facts ................. Educational History ............... Educational Philosophy ............. Curriculum Processes for Elementary Social Studies/Social Science ............ Teacher Organization .............. Terms Used .................... Summary ...................... Overview ..................... 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. Introduction ................... Research Literature on Role Perceptions ...... Curriculum Sources ............... Roles in Curriculum Development ......... Planning for Program Implementation ....... Teacher Training ................ Diffusion of Curriculum Ideas .......... Curriculum Defined ................ Curriculum Development .............. Summary ...................... 3. DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF THE STUDY ........... Introduction ................... Design of the Study ................ - Sample ..................... Measures .................... Design ..................... Method of Analysis ............... Chapter Page Conduct of the Study ................ 63 Sources of Information .............. 63 Responses ..................... 65 Geographical Factors ............... 70 Summary ....................... 73 4. SURVEY RESULTS .................... 75 Introduction ..... ' ............... 75 Questions Related to the Curriculum Guide ...... 76 Questions Related to Curriculum ........... 92 Curriculum Sources ................ 92 Texts/References ................. 95 Roles in Curriculum Development .......... lO4 Planning for Program Implementation ........ ll3 Questions Related to Curriculum Dissemination . . . . ll9 Understanding the Guide .............. ll9 Use of the Guide ................. l27 Teacher Training ................. l3l Diffusion of Curriculum Ideas ........... l35 Summary ....................... l43 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................ l45 Introduction .................... l45 Summary ....................... 145 The Curriculum Guide ............... l45 The Curriculum .................. l48 Curriculum Dissemination ............. l54 Findings and Related Research ........... l60 Conclusions ..................... l65 General ...................... l65 Answers to Key Questions ............. l67 Suggestions on Use of Findings .......... l75 Matters Needing Further Study ........... l77 APPENDICES A. QUESTIONNAIRE: CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN ALBERTA/TASMANIA .................. l78 8. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS ................ l85 C. SUMMARY OF RESPONSE DATA ............... 186 LIST OF REFERENCES ...................... 264 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Nggg_ Individuals whose duties involve curriculum development face many problems, and it is through their efforts in solving these prob- lems that curriculum is made more effective. Nhen curriculum is defined as all the planned experiences that are offered to learners under the auspices of the school, as it is in this study, there is evident need for knowledge and understanding about curriculum, the ways it is developed, and the ways it is disseminated to teachers. The focus in curriculum development is upon the teacher, since learn- ing experiences flow through the teacher to children. Those who work with teachers in curriculum development, then, require advice and information about many aspects of it. The following are some of them.1 Those interested in curriculum development need information on teacher response to externally or internally developed curricula. It is important to know how teachers react when they have been involved in the development of curricula, compared with reactions when they have not been involved. The place of texts and reference 1The reader is referred to Chapter 2 for an overview of research that relates to the aspects of curriculum development given in this section. materials in curriculum development is another area needing an information base. It is valuable to know whether set texts are favored and how references should be timed in relation to a new cur- riculum. Leadership in curriculum development is an area that is important to those responsible for curricula. The roles of tradi- tional leaders, such as the school principal, should be known so that these leaders may be used when it is possible. Since effectiveness of any work involving more than one person usually depends upon cooperation and teamwork, knowledge of who is or should be taking leadership roles helps the curriculum planner to use all available resources. Teachers have to be well informed about new curriculum ideas before they can use those ideas effectively. It is important to know who should diffuse new ideas to teachers and whether there are some ways that are the best to train teachers to use new curricula. Information about whether teachers receive specific training or are given general training on the job is also of value, as it assists in planning for teacher training. Planning for the introduction of a new curriculum is a detailed process which calls for knowledge and understanding by the planner. Information about the extent of planning, who does it, and how, is needed by those responsible for introducing changes in exist- ing curricula or the establishment of new ones. Besides the areas of curriculum development noted above, those who are responsible for curriculum development require knowledge and understanding of other matters. They need to decide whether a curriculum guide is desirable as an articulation of the program, or whether it is better to have teachers Operate without a written guide. Knowledge of the ways in which educators and the "consumers" of education, such as parents, perceive their own roles and the roles of others in curriculum development is of value. This knowledge can be used to plan curriculum work so that key groups are involved, accenting c00peration from theestart,and preventing possible con- flicts that could develop later. The impact of social, political, cultural, linguistic, and economic factors upon curriculum development is important. Responsi- bility for curriculum development means that individuals have to seek to meet local needs. In doing so, the individuals should give due attention to the contexts of the region for which the curriculum is being planned. One factor that can change from place to place is the organizational structure of education. In some areas of the world, education is centrally controlled by the national or state government. In other areas, there has been partial decentralization of control so that locally elected school boards have much authority and responsibility for education. It is important for curriculum planners to know whether the organizational structure of education has_any significant effect(s) upon curriculum development. Purpose This study is intended to provide additional knowledge and information about a number of aspects of curriculum development for those who are responsible for curriculum development. Key ques- tions that are pursued through the study are: To what extent are there similarities and differences in the perspectives of various groups about their roles and the roles of others in curriculum development? Do responses from a region with a partially decentralized organization of education reflect that organization? Do responses from a region with a centralized organization of education reflect that organization? Who are the key personnel in curriculum development? What are the major ways in which curriculum development can be made most effective? These basic questions are examined in this study, so that there will be added data available for use in curriculum development, along with some insights into the effects of factors such as the organization of education. Contexts of the Study Introduction In order to study these basic questions and to gather infor- mation on the various areas of curriculum development noted under “Need,“ a questionnaire was used in Alberta, Canada, and Tasmania, Australia. The Province of Alberta has a partly decentralized organization of education with much authority and responsibility given to locally elected school boards. The State of Tasmania has a centralized organization of education, with authority and responsi- bility retained by the State, and all staff are civil servants. A new social studies curriculum was introduced in the elementary schools of Alberta during the early l970s. A new social science cur- riculum was introduced in the elementary schools of Tasmania during the early 19705. For these reasons, the questionnaire was adminis- tered to groups of educators and parents interested or involved in elementary social studies/social science in Alberta and in Tasmania. The questions that are used in the questionnaire are shown below. They are grouped according to the themes or categories used throughout the study. The complete questionnaire is given in Appendix A. The Curriculum Guide: 2. Whose thinking does the guide reflect? Whose thinking should the guide reflect? A Why should this be so? 01 0 Were you involved in the development of the guide? If so, how? 6. Should you have been involved in the development of the guide? If so, how? 7. Do you think that it is a "good" guide? ’ 8. Do you have any criticisms of the guide? 9. Check how the curriculum guide sets course content, texts/references, teaching methods, time on topics. (List of choices provided in questionnaire.) 10. 11. How is any obligation by the teacher to follow the guide enforced? To what extent should the guide prescribe social studies/social science for the Province/State? The Curriculum: 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. . Curriculum Sources Who actually sets curriculum? Who should plan the curriculum for social studies/ social science? . Texts/References Should there be set texts for social studies/social science? Why should there be set texts? (Why not?) Are the available text/reference books satisfactory? Why? (Why not?) Who writes/publishes books used in teaching social studies/social science? Do books lead, accompany, or follow new curriculum ideas? Which should they do? . Roles in Curriculum Development 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. To what extent does the teacher organization encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? To what extent do principals encourage curriculum devel0pment? To what extent do school-system administrators (superin- tendent, supervisor) encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? To what extent do principals actually supervise teaching of classroom teachers? To what extent do principals monitor daily/weekly plans of classroom teachers? . Planning for Program Implementation 26. How much is there integrated planning to ensure that facilities and resources accompany new curriculum ideas? 27. Who should provide integrated planning to ensure that resources accompany any new curriculum ideas? 28. In what ways could present planning be improved? Curriculum Dissemination: . Understanding the Guide 29. Do teachers understand the guide provided by the Province/State? 30. Rank the ways in which teachers came to understand the guide. (List of choices provided in questionnaire.) 31. What things hinder(ed) teachers from understanding the guide? 32. What ways would be best for teachers to come to under- stand the curriculum guide? ' . Use of the Guide 33. To what extent is the program given in the guide used in the classroom? 34. What are the things that hinder teachers most in using the program? . Teacher Training 35. Were teachers specifically trained to use the program? 36. Rank according to relative importance in training teach- ers for understanding and use of a new program. (List of choices provided in questionnaire.) . Diffusion of Curriculum Ideas 37. Who should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas? 38. To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? 39. To what extent do principals give leadership in spread- ing new curriculum ideas? 40. Rank according to which is best for spreading new cur- riculum ideas within a school. (List of choices pro- vided in questionnaire.) 4l. Rank according to which is best for spreading new cur- riculum ideas by the teacher organization. List of choices provided in questionnaire.) General Factors As a further step in providing contexts for the study, selected information about Alberta and Tasmania is given. The first section of this information deals with general factors, including physical environment, demography, history, economy, and politics, each with an introductory statement that relates it to this study. Following these are short descriptions of educational structure, facts, history, philoSOphy, curriculum processes, and the teacher organization in each area. Physical environment: Curriculum development involves plan- ning by and among people; curriculum ideas derive from many sources. The interaction of people within Alberta and Tasmania and between Alberta and Tasmania and neighboring countries/States/Provinces is affected to a great extent by the physical environment, with size, proximity to neighbors, climate, and terrain as important considera- tions. 3 is a State in Alberta2 is a Province in Canada; Tasmania Australia. The land area of Alberta is 248,800 square miles, plus 6,485 square miles of lakes. The total area of Tasmania is 26,2l5 square miles. Alberta extends from 49' to 60‘ north latitude and from 110‘ to 120‘ west longitude; Tasmania lies from 40'38' to 43'39' south latitude and from l44'35' to l48'23' east longitude. Alberta is surrounded by land--the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan to the west and east, respectively, the Canadian North- West Territories on the north, and the United States of America to the south. Tasmania is an island, bounded on the west and south by the Indian Ocean, on the east by the Tasman Sea, and on the north, separat- ing it from the mainland of Australia, by Bass Strait. The western part of Alberta is mountainous, but most of its terrain is grassland or grainland--flat or undulating. Tasmania is known as the Isle of Mountains from the high pr0portion of its area that is elevated. The highest point in Tasmania, Mt. Ossa, is l,6l7 metres high (5,305 feet). Alberta has many peaks over l0,000 feet in height. Rainfall in Tasmania varies from 26 inches per annum on the East Coast to over l40 inches on the West Coast. Precipitation in Northern Alberta and in the South East is below fifteen inches per year and consists mainly of snow; average annual precipitation else- where is up to about thirty inches per year, much of it snow. 2Data on Alberta from Margot J. Fawcett, ed., The T974 Corpus Almanac of Canada (Toronto: Corpus Publishers Services Ltd., T974); and from Encyc10paedia Britannica, Inc., l97l, pp. 525-27. 3Data on Tasmania are from Tasmanian Year Book No. 8: l974, Tasmanian Office, Australian Bureau of Statistics. 10 Thus, Alberta is larger in area than Tasmania, tending to impose greater difficulties for overall interaction, for widespread participation in curriculum develOpment, and for curriculum dissemi- nation. Alberta's climate is more severe than that of Tasmania, further accentuating problems. The relative physical isolation of Tasmania, surrounded as it is by oceans and seas, tends to reduce the impact of neighbors, unless their ideas are sought after. By con- trast, Albertans receive much United States culture, the common boundary leading to direct reception of many radio and television programs. The nature of the terrain in Tasmania is inclined to interfere with travel in the same way that distance does in Alberta, although the roads and highways of Alberta are so good that all-year travel is feasible, enabling people to interact quite well. The high country of Alberta is very sparsely papulated and most travelers can avoid the area; so the extreme heights do not impose extra problems for Albertans. Demography: Curriculum development should involve the shar- ing of ideas by concerned people: curriculum dissemination involves conveying curriculum ideas to others. Both depend upon communica- tions between and among people and effective communications are greatly affected by population. In such cases, population totals, the distribution of population, and whether the population is urban or-rural are all important. Alberta's population at the l97l Census was 1,627,874; Tasmania's p0pulation in the same year was 390,000. Alberta's population is distributed at the rate of 6.54 per square mile: 11 Tasmania's at 6 per square mile. In Alberta, two large cities-- Edmonton (the capital) and Calgary-~contain a high proportion of the population and there is an overall urban population that is 76.75 percent of the total. In Tasmania, the capital city, Hobart, has 33.29 percent of the population, with the urban total overall at 73.4 percent. Both Alberta and Tasmania have significant immigrant groups in the population. The greater population in Alberta makes direct participation in the development of a curriculum guide more difficult and accen- tuates problems in spreading new curriculum ideas. Concentrations of population help in reaching more teachers more quickly and should provide for more sharing of ideas by teachers. The two regions have similar percentages in urban areas, so little advantage should accrue to either. Their population density overall is also similar, giving neither a particular advantage. History: Language is a vital tool for planning curriculum and for spreading curriculum ideas. Ethnic origin is also important, particularly if the curriculum has to accommodate widely disparate cultures. Alberta was the original home of groups of Northern American Indians, Tasmania of Tasmanian Aborigines. The Indians still remain as a factor of Albertan life, while the Aborigines are gone from Tasmania, the last one dying in 1876. Alberta was settled as part of British North America and English is the chief language used. However, the evolution of Canada as a nation since 1867 has meant two languages in the country and 12 there are parts of Alberta where French is prominent. Tasmania began as a penal colony of Britain in 1803 and became part of the Common- wealth of Australia when it was formed in 1901. The official lan- guage is English and it is used for business, government, and educa- tion, and by the media. Curriculum planning in Alberta must take into account the Indian peOple, who are a continuing fact affecting both the content of teaching and how teaching is done. Although English is the chief language of instruction in Alberta, the Alberta Social Studies Cur- riculum Committee had two French-Canadians in its membership in 1970. The French fact in Canada adds an extra dimension to curric- ulum development in social studies in Alberta. The provision of French language resources for French-speaking students accentuates the usual problem of providing resources for a new curriculum. Although French-speaking students are a small percentage of the total Albertan school population, provision of opportunities for these students, equal to the opportunities for English-speaking students, is an important political consideration. Economy: The sections given above on physical environment, demography, and history point out some factors that influence curric- ulum development and curriculum dissemination. The fiscal resources available to an area can provide a means to overcome some of the problems associated with environment, demography, and history; or they can add to those problems by being too few to meet the needs of education. 13 Alberta's economy is enriched by extensive energy resources of oil, gas, and coal. These provide a sound fiscal base for the Province along with the agricultural, manufacturing, and other mineral products. Tasmania has had a limited population growth in recent years, has suffered from transportation difficulties in get- ting products to market, has a greater distance to send products to world markets, and is generally stable but not rich economically. Alberta has had rapid expansion since 1960; the growth in Tasmania has been much less. The relative wealth of Alberta has led to a superior network of roads. Funding for education has permitted the purchase of many resources, the develOpment of much audio-visual material, and the release of teachers for curriculum work. It is not possible to judge whether the extra money available in Alberta compared with that available in Tasmania has been enough to offset the extra problems of greater area, harsher climate, greater population, and greater ethnic and linguistic diversity. Politics: The nature of the government of a region has a marked effect upon curriculum development and dissemination. An autocratic system usually decrees and prescribes according to the wishes of one or a few, while a democratic system encourages wide- spread participation. ’ Both Alberta and Tasmania function under a British parlia- mentary system with regular election of representatives. Canada and Australia, of which Alberta and Tasmania are respectively a 14 part, both have a similar style of government and are regarded as demoCracies. In each, there is a desire to maintain a broad involvement in curriculum development and dissemination. The success of these efforts, as perceived by some groups, is indicated by the responses to the questionnaire. Organizational Structure of Education While there are similarities in the structures of the Provincial/State systems, with elected politicians as Ministers of Education and senior civil servants acting as their advisors and as administrators of the systems, there are also contrasts. The most notable difference occurs where local government bodies assume much responsibility for education, as in Alberta. By contrast, in Tasmania there is no locally elected body to assume responsibility. Local government receives its authority in Alberta through the School Act.4 This form of decentralization and delegation of responsibility and authority is common in North America. In Tasmania, however, the State Department retains control, so that all professional educators in the public schools are employees of the State. 4The School Act, 1970 (Edmonton: Queen's Printer, n.d.). 15 Education Facts5 Alberta: In 197243.5’7 Alberta schools enrolled 422,333 pupils, 347,728 in the public system and 74,605 in the separate 3 Included were 103,905 pupils in Edmonton and 102,601 system. pupils in Calgary. Tasmania: In 1972, Tasmanian schools enrolled 94,055 pupils, 79,957 in government schools and 14,098 in nongovernment schools. Teaching staff: Alberta: During 1972-73, Alberta schools employed a total of 22,272 teachers. Included were 5,430 teachers in Edmonton and 5,342 teachers in Calgary. The average pupil/teacher ratio in Alberta was 18.9:1. Tasmania: During 1972, Tasmanian government schools employed 3,946 full-time and 559 part—time teachers. The average teacher/ pupil ratio, allotting part-time teachers as half time, was 18.9:1. 5The Annual Review, 1973 (Edmonton: Alberta Education, 1974). 6The Department of Education in Alberta operates with a fis- cal year that runs from April 1 of one year to March 31 of the next and with a school year that runs September 1 of one year to August 31 of the next year. 71972 and 1972/73 were selected as the years for these figures because they were the latest figures available during the time of the study, in 1974. 8Under the School Act in Alberta, any group of electors who belong to a minority religious group may operate a "separate" school system within the area where a "public" school system operates. Most separate school jurisdictions are Catholic; at least one is Protestant. 16 Education costs: Alberta: The average annual cost of educating each pupil was $950.22. In the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1973, $333,721,334 was paid by the Province for the education of Albertan children, approximately 58.5 percent coming from general revenues of the Province. The remainder came from the provincial levy on property, at the rate of 28 mills. The average teacher salary in 1972-73 was $11,522, being set according to years of training and years of experience. Most teach— ers were university trained. Tasmania: The average annual cost of educating each pupil, from government funds,was $A390.00 (approximately $ Canadian 468.00). Teacher salaries varied according to years of experience and many teachers were trained in teacher-training colleges. Schools: Alberta: There were 1,394 schools in operation in Alberta during 1972-73 in 30 Divisions, 30 Counties, and 89 Districts. Tasmania: In 1972, Tasmania operated 282 schools, in a single system. Educational History Alberta: The educational history of Alberta parallels its social, economic, and political history. Most of the following 17 9 Settlement of information is gleaned from the work of Chalmers. western Canada was followed quite closely by clergymen, who erected churches. These churches often served as schools as well, with the pastors as teachers. Both Roman Catholic and Protestant schools were set up by the early 1800's. The Hudson Bay Company (united with the North West Company in 1821) was overseer of the whole area until 1869, when the government assumed control of many facets of the Hudson Bay Company's functions, including control of education. In so doing, the government inherited Company policies on education, namely: (1) Support of education is a legitimate function of government, (2) education is best administered by religious, not secular authorities, (3) educational segregation by sexes is regarded as normal, especially at upper levels, although local circum- stances may permit coeducation, (4) although children should be encouraged to attend school regularly, attendance need not be compulsory, (5) any person with a moderately good education is qualified to teach school. The first territorial support for schools in what is now Alberta occurred in 1880, with the first public school starting in 1882. After the elected assembly gained control from the Lieutenant Governor of the area, the education system became more Ontario-based than Quebec-based, in the 1890's. There were both separate and public schools, each type being paid for by its supporters through a system of taxation. When Alberta was formed in 1905, there were 560 school dis- tricts in the Province. This number grew to 1505 by 1910 and 3700 to 9John W. Chalmers, Schools of the Foothills Province (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967). lolbidu p. 9. 18 4000 by the late 1930's. Girls attended in greater numbers than had done so previously and their presence in especially small rural schools led to coeducation as the norm. In 1907, the first kinder- garten in Alberta was started. Recession, depression, and the fact of fewer school-age children all tended to keep children in school longer, through the 1920's and 1930's. The Alberta Teachers' Alliance, formed in 1918, received a government charter as the Alberta Teachers' Association in 1935 and was made subject to compulsory membership in 1936. Educational his- torians have related this fact to the election to office of a new government in 1935, referring to the successful lobbying of members of the Teachers' Alliance. Teacher shortages characterized Albertan education through several decades. By 1955, centralization of the many school dis- tricts led to the existence of 176 consolidated school districts, with a few remaining rural districts. The move towards centraliza- tion commenced with the creation of 11 divisions from 774 rural dis- tricts in 1937; by 1966, there were 59 divisions and counties, plus 16 rural public school districts in Alberta. In 1929, the present system of 6-3-3 organization for elementary-junior-senior high was established. The present "credit"11 program for senior high school subjects started in the late 1930's. nAlbertan students are required to complete twenty—five hours of schooling for each credit they receive in each subject throughout the senior high school (grades 10, 11, and 12). 19 The Cameron Commission report of 1959 included recommenda- tions on the establishment of Community Colleges for Alberta and on vocational education, both later receiving attention. In mid-1973, the Worth Report arose from concerns about the long-range plans needed for Albertan education facing the let century. In teacher training, there was a normal school set up in Calgary in 1906. Others followed, to prepare teachers for the schools and to improve on the meager training of early teachers. In 1930, the first graduates from the University of Alberta's new School of Education came to the schools; and from 1945 all teacher education became a function of the University of Alberta. Throughout a period of over thirty years from the mid-1930's, Alberta had a single party in power in the Provincial government. This provided relative political stability for the development of education. A similar political situation existed in Tasmania. In other respects, however, Tasmania and Alberta were less alike. Tasmania: As noted earlier, Tasmania became a State in 1856. In 1869, compulsory education was prescribed. Over the years, this was extended: in 1898, the ages of compulsory attendance were from 7 to 13 years; in 1912, it became 6 to 14 years; and in 1946, it became 6 to 16 years.]2 The first state high schools in Tasmania were opened in 1913, based on "an academic tradition made possible by a selective 12Tasmanian Year Book, 1974, op. cit. 20 '3 In 1944, the Schools Board of intake of students and staff." Tasmania was established to govern systems of awarding school cer- tificates. A Schools Board Certificate, awarded at the fourth year level of secondary education, was introduced in 1946. That year there was a reorganization of the education system to provide for graduation after three, four, or five years of secondary education. There was progressive abolition of the classification test used to select primary pupils for admission to secondary schools through the period 1956 to 1962, with English-type comprehensive high schools commencing in 1957. In 1969, two certificates were set up for secondary students "graduating"--the School Certificate, after four years, and the Higher School Certificate, after five or six years of secondary education. Both certificates consisted of a report on the student showing his/her results and listing all subjects taken.14 In 1962 matriculation colleges started in Tasmania, and the concept was extended to other larger population areas in subsequent years. In 1973 there was a new college opened near Hobart, "the first college in Australia specifically designed for fifth and sixth- "15 One important purpose of these matricu- year secondary students. lation colleges was to help bridge the gap between secondary and tertiary education. 13Tasmanian Matriculation Colleges (Hobart: Education Department, n.d.)l 14"EducationinTasmania, 1973." Tasmanian Year 300k. N0. 7, 1973 (Tasmanian Office, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1973). 15Tasmanian Matriculation Colleges, op. cit. 21 The population of Tasmania was largely rural in earlier times and, in an attempt to meet the needs of local areas, "area schools" were established. Commencing in 1935, these area schools numbered 35 in 1973.16 A characteristic of the schools was their concentration upon practical subjects at the secondary level. Most had a farm-type Operation as part of the school, used for study by the local students. In 1973, "district school" replaced the title "area school." Teacher education in Tasmania has been undertaken primarily by Provincially-run teacher colleges. These colleges were run by the Department to provide trained teachers as needed. A Faculty of Education was established at the University of Tasmania after World War II and provided a one-year program leading to a Diploma of Edu- 17 In cation for graduates from the faculties of Arts and Science. 1973, plans were being made to provide training for a Bachelor of Education degree at the University of Tasmania. Adult education was organized in Tasmania in 1914 and has been a part of Tasmanian education since that time. In 1969, pre- schools were established as a part of the education system. There has been considerable federal funding of education in Australia, despite the fact that States control education. A Common- wealth Office of Education was established in 1945. There was a change in the Federal Government early in the 1970's, leading to a 16The Educational Needs of Rural Areas (Hobart: Education Department of Tasmania, 1971). 17 Education in Tasmania, 1973, 0p. cit. 22 review of federal funding. A study was undertaken and it led to the Karmel Report. As a result of the Karmel Report, considerable federal money was put into education, beginning in 1974. From the brief historical sketch of education in each area, it can be seen that Alberta and Tasmania have some common features along with some quite different characteristics. The strength of the professional association of teachers in Alberta is not matched in Tasmania, where membership is voluntary. The organizational structure of schools through the school board system/State civil service system also constitutes notable differences. Educational Philosophy Alberta is part of a country that has been Canada for over 100 years. The United States of America, its southern neighbor, is very large and very influential. Many Albertan university staff train in or come from the United States. As well, texts in univer- sities and in schools, the general literature of education, and edu- cational philosophies largely originate in the United States. Printed materials and the products of other media from that country have a profound influence on education throughout Alberta. Overall, educational philosophy in Alberta reflects the educational philoso- phy of the United States of America. Tasmania is part of a country that has been the Commonwealth of Australia for over seventy years. While its own publishing industry is growing, it imports books and other printed resources 23 extensively from Britain. Immigrants from Britain maintain early ties with that area, continuing the British influence. The United States has had more influence in Tasmania since the Second World War but the greatest influence in education con- tinues to come from Britain. This influence is reflected in such practices as the use of school uniforms for students and in the development of kindergarten. Both regions have compulsory school attendance to age six- teen. Tasmania was the first colony in the British Empire to make education compulsory, in 1869. The Worth Report18 provides some insight into the thinking about education in Alberta in the early 1970's. Included in the report are recommendations stressing decentralization, defining some areas where centralization is the best approach, proposing life-long and early childhood education, and dealing with certification of teachers. These recommendations, which contribute to the educational philoSOphy of Alberta, arose from the input of many sources within Alberta. They will have varying effects upon future educational practice in Alberta. Some of the recommendations worthy of note are: On decentralization: The provincial educational structure must foster development of relatively independent local units of government and institutions highly responsive to the needs of their clients. 18A Choice of_Futures, Report of the Commission on Educational Planning (Edmonton: Government Printer, 1972). 24 Activities in governance to be performed at the provincial level must be limited to those that cannot be effectively performed at the local or institutional level. Boards of trustees must help to ensure that decentralization of authority also occurs within their jurisdictions. Consistent with the move toward more local control, it is only appropriate that decisions about designs of schools be made at the local level. Existing legislation will have to be extended so that boards of trustees can establish a school council for each school or group of schools within its jurisdiction. The Department of Education should continue to issue a diploma on a school's recommendation. There should be increased autonomy of the learner, reduced dominance of the teacher, and less pre-ordained structure for the learning transaction. On centralization and standardization: Priority will be given to providing the student with involve- ment in experiences which result in the student achieving mastery of basic skills and strategies, being excited with learning, and becom- ing imbued with a desire to continue learning, rather than with giving the student a core of factual information. The provincial authority should specify a basic length or minimum range for the school year and school day to safeguard the public interest and to provide a baseline for funding. 25 More time must be allocated to physical education, fine arts, and outdoor education to enhance creative capacity and personal autonomy. Environmental education must dominate future horizons. Educational planning should be correlated with general social and economic planning. The provincial government should assume fiscal responsi- bility for early and basic education, but with some opportunity for financial enrichment at the local level. On life-long learning: Educational planning must take life-long learning as a basic assumption. Employers and labor unions must be encouraged to negotiate day release periods so that schooling can become a part of regular work schedules. Boards of trustees and school councils should concern them- selves with both basic education and further education programs in community schools. 0n early childhood education: Schooling should begin at the earliest age at which a child can derive benefit and should have three major functions: stimula- tion, identification, socialization. Provision for and public funding of selective experiences for three and four year olds is advocated. Provision for and public funding of universal opportunity programs for five year olds is advocated. 26 Early education must be to help each child develop an image of himself which he finds satisfying and attractive. On certification of staff: School authorities should be granted the freedom to employ for special tasks whomever they wish,when no suitably qualified pro- fessional, trainee, or volunteer is available. Present regulations bar uncertified personnel from instructional roles in schools. Teaching certificates ought to be issued for a fixed time, ten years being the pr0posed period. In identifying specifics of educational philosophy in Tas- mania, it is best to cite the statements of the Education Department. A statement on the primary schools follows: In recent years the objectives of the primary school pro- gram have changed from what seemed to be the conventional expectations of schools that "train" children in academic learnings and which see as successful only those children who reach prescribed goals. They wish to foster social, artis- tic and moral, as well as intellectual development in children through their own activity and discovery. They want to help their personal growth, teach them that they are competent to learn, to grow, to trust themselves as well as others. Under- lying this is an emphasis on differences in children's tem- peraments, interests, abilities and modes of learning. One of the objectives is to have children get to know everyday phe- nomena through first-hand experience.“ Another aim of the curriculum is to have the child ques- tion thoughtfully and think for himself, making his own gen- eralizations and abstractions. In addition the learning of new skills and the solving of problems is emphasized. We encourage a child to express his feelings and sense of self through dramatic play, dance, graphic art, literature. At the same time, recognizing the increased complexity of the demands on teachers there is growing willingness for teachers to work cooperatively using individual talents and interests to the advantage of more than one class and providing a situa- tion where pupils can readily be regrouped in small or large groups, always with intensive or general supervision and assis- tance as the occasion demands. There will be a need for space 27 to store books, materials, equipment, teaching aids and many objects including the product of pupils' efforts: these will relate to art, craft, science and mathematical experiment. Within teaching areas flexibility is sought, not only to allow varied use at any given time, but to allow adaptation to different approaches and policies over the years. Accepting that classes do not need to work exclusively in their own defined areas there can be shared use of some facili- ties such as wet areas. As c00perative teaching and space sharing have gained acceptance,open-Space design has increasingly been adapted as in harmony with changing statement and school organization. A further statement of philosophy appeared in Edington's report: It is recognized by the Department of Education that "educa- tion from early childhood to adulthood is a continuous pro- cess with a continuously changing demand. It is the task of an education system to assess itself, and where necessary adapt itself to meet this demand at every level of learning." 6 Curriculum Processes for Elementary Social Studies/Social Science In Alberta, there is a curriculum committee21 which develops a curriculum guide for elementary social studies. Membership of this committee includes Department staff, university staff, and teachers nominated by the Alberta Teachers' Association. Members of the Alberta Teachers' AssociatiOn who offer to serve on the committee include classroom teachers, school administrators, and system con- sultants in social studies. Membership of the committee is for a 19Primary Schools Statement of Philosophy (Roneod sheet received in 1973 from the Director of Primary Education). 20A Case Study of the Teaching Aids Centre, Tasmania, Australia, prepared by Mr. A. B.’Edington, Director of’Information and Research for the Centre for Educational Development Overseas, London, for presentation to the Commonwealth Ministers for Educa- tion, Jamaica, June 1974, p. 3. 2lThe writer was a member of the committee from 1968 to 1971. 28 three-year term. The most recent work of the committee culminated in the publication of a curriculum guide in 1971.22 The guide was published by the Department of Education after being approved by the necessary curriculum advisory bodies. Tasmanian educators undertook considerable thought and debate en route to the decision to designate social studies as social science. Swifte23 and Rodwell24 have provided written evi— dence of this process. The new curriculum guides in Tasmania were arrived at via an extended practical involvement by coopted teachers who spent a week in Hobart working as a team with Department staff in developing a draft. Teachers were then seconded from schools to spend time to develop the draft into a detailed guide. The guide was then tested in selected schools, using varying geographic and economic bases to give a diversity of trial situations. After the trial, the guide was revised and there were seminars held in centres throughout the State to provide other teachers with the background for its use. Constant revision was provided for and high local *interest and relevance was sought by having Tasmanian teachers write stories for inclusion in the guide.25 22Experiences in Decision Making, Elementary Social Studies Handbook (Edmonton: Queen's Printer, January 1971). . 23H. L. Swifte, "Aims and Means in Social Sciences," Tasmanian Journal of Education 6 (April 1972): 32-33. 24Grant Rodwell, "Putting Science Into Social Sciences," Tasmanian Journal of EdUCation 7 (July-August 1973): 39-43. 25Interview with George Holden, past chairman of Working Committee, July 1974. , 29 In Tasmania, the program was first introduced into kinder- garten. After that, Grades 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 used the program, in pairs of grades each time. The sequence for a new guide was as follows: in the first year there were limited trials in selected schools; in the second year the guide was available to all teachers but in tentative form; and in the third year the guide was 26 A published as an official course to be offered in all schools. similar progressive introduction occurred at the secondary level in Tasmania. Evaluation commenced with the publication of the first guide and stressed the effects of the program rather than evalua- tion of students. A report on First Year High School exemplifies this approach of stressing the effects of the program on students and teachers by concentrating on the attitudes and interests of 27 The Cur- pupils rather than on their knowledge of course content. riculum Branch published a series of Banks of Items for Primary Social Sciences in Grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 to assist and to guide teachers in the evaluation of the program. Implementation of the new curriculum guide for elementary social studies in Alberta was for Grades 1 to 6, with a heavy stress upon teacher inservice by Department staff. Seminars were held extensively throughout Alberta. Besides the work of the Department, there were Social Studies Council workshOps and seminars in many 26 27D. G. Palmer, The Attitudes and Interests offirst Year High School Pupils and Their Teachers (With Particular Reference to the New Social Sciences Courses) (Hobart: Education Department of Tasmania, March‘1973). Interview with Don Palmer, July 1974. 30 areas. The subject councils of the Alberta Teachers' Association provide opportunities for teachers to work cooperatively in areas of common interest. A member of the Comllittee planning the program in Tasmania was from the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This national radio-television network had personnel of its own staff working with a seconded Department staff member so that programs would be better 28 able to meet the needs of schools. In addition, the Department, through its Teaching Aids Branch, provided multi-media packages and printed many of the texts and other references used with the program.29 In Alberta, software such as audio and videotapes that were needed for the program were provided for teachers through the Audio Visual Services Branch. Educational radio and television programs were also provided through educational agencies but most references and texts were commercially produced. An important component in the planning of the curriculum guide in Tasmania was the spiral curriculum proposed by Hilda Taba.30 The same concept was used in planning the curriculum guide in 31 Alberta. The spiral curriculum, as proposed by Taba, consists of visualizing concepts that are going to be developed in social 28Interview with Hugh McIndow and Mr. Gleeson, July 1974. 29Interview with Graeme Foster, July 1974. 30Interview with Hugh Campbell, July 1974. 3Experiences in Decision Making, 0p. cit., p. 14. 31 studies as being "threads which appear over and over again in a spiral fashion but which always are moving to a higher level."32 Teacher Organization In Alberta, the Alberta Teachers' Association had a 1974 budget of $3,315,983.00. Its budget for Professional Development activities was $258,320.00.33 The Tasmanian Teachers' Federation budget for 1974 totalled $163,200.00, of which the sum of $8,000.00 was identified for "In-Service Education and Research."34 Teachers in Alberta are required by legislation to be mem- bers of the Alberta Teachers' Association. This compulsory member- 35 gives ship through the School Act and the Teaching Profession Act, the organization a very considerable status. In addition to its role in negotiating contracts for teachers, the Association gives much attention to Professional Development, largely through a network of Specialist Councils.36 A Specialist Council is an organization of educators having a common interest in a subject or program area. Funds for the operation of the organization are available from the 32Hilda Taba, Teachers' Handbook for Elementary Social Studies (Don Mills: Ontario: Addison-Wesley (Canada) Ltd., 1967), p. 14. 331976 Handbook, The Alberta Teachers' Association 59th Annual Representative Assembly, Part 2, p. 4. 34 35The School Act, 0p. cit.; The TeachingProfESSl'On ACt (Edmonton: Queen's Printer, 1955). Budget for 1974, Tasmanian Teachers' Federation. 36There were nineteen Councils in 1974. 32 Provincial Association as well as from fees paid by members of each council. Throughout the period following the introduction of the new Social Studies program in Alberta, the Social Studies Council had a membership of over 1,000 and was active in workshops/seminars to assist teachers with the program.37 Teachers in Tasmania also belong to internal subject organi- zations. Thus, a meeting of the Tasmanian Geography Teachers Asso- ciation Northern Branch was scheduled to discuss the new Social 38 Members of the Science Syllabus in April, 1971, in Launceston. Tasmanian Teachers' Federation may be in one or more of the fourteen or fifteen specialist groups that exist and must be in one of the thirty-four geographical subunits of the Federation.39 Terms Used Throughout this study, a number of names or terms are used that have particular meanings in Alberta and Tasmania. A brief des- cription of these is given below to assist the reader who may not be familiar with these regions. The curriculum committee is made up of educators who are charged with the development of a program of studies for the region. In Alberta, the curriculum committee is comprised of representatives from the Department of Education and from universities, along with a 37The writer was president in 1971 and 1972. 38The Tasmanian Teacher (Hobart: Education Department, March 1971), p.73. 39 Interview with Harry Leitch and May Backhouse, July 1974. 33 majority of members who are teachers or administrators chosen from a selected list of members of the Alberta Teachers' Association. In Tasmania, members are teachers or administrators, officials of the Department, or staff of the university or teacher training col- 40 from school lege. School-based personnel are usually seconded duties for curriculum committee work in Tasmania; in Alberta, their duties are performed on an ad hoc basis. The curriculum guide is the product of the curriculum com- mittee's work. The guide includes a written outline of the program of studies--content--along with advice about methods of teaching and evaluation--process. In an introduction to the guide in Alberta, the Department of Education indicates that the guide is suggestive only; the Tasmanian guide takes a similar approach. This means that teachers are not obliged to follow the guide slavishly, but may plan their own curriculum to develop the concepts, skills, and attitudes called for at each level. However, any teacher who is unable to plan an effective program or who appears unsuccessful in teaching the subject is referred to the guide. In such cases, administrators make the guide more than suggestive for a teacher. Within each guide there are parts that are required in a general sense in order to avoid undue repetition of topics and to provide a logical sequence. Thus, the Grade 5 child will study Canada or Australia but not necessarily through the content described 40A member of staff is seconded when working in another department or area for a fixed term or task, while being officially listed in his/her original position. . 34 in the guide. Both regions produce the curriculum guide as an official publication Of the Department. As a result, many educa- tors disbelieve the injunction that the guide is suggestive and treat it as prescriptive. Curriculum dissemination refers to the spreading of informa- tion about the references, the content, and the processes that are advocated/suggested/prescribed by the curriculum guide. The section on curriculum dissemination deals with questions that relate to teacher understanding of the guide, to the use of the guide by teachers, to the training of teachers for use Of the programs con— tained in the guide, and to ways in which curriculum ideas can or should be diffused to reach teachers. The Department is the Department of Education in Alberta and the Education Department in Tasmania. Each is responsible for edu- cation within the Province/State, under the federal division of powers. In Alberta, the School Act delegates much control of edu- cation to a locally elected board, council, or committee. The lat- ter hires staff to serve as teachers and administrators for the jurisdiction, Operates an annual budget, has powers over curriculum, within the general guidelines and under the general direction of the Department, and is able to determine the course of local education while remaining accountable to the Department, through the Act, for good fiscal and educational management. In Alberta, the Department operates a central Office which has branches for various facets of education, to monitor the accountability of school jurisdictions. In 1971, it established Regional Offices in six centres throughout 35 the Province. Besides providing consultative services to juris- dictions, the staff of these Offices serve as monitors of local education, checking that the Act and other provincially mandated educational decisions are followed. In Tasmania, the Department includes every employee of the public school system, including teachers, principals, and superin- tendents. Besides the central office in the capital, there is a cadre Of superintendents located in four regional offices. The role of superintendents in Tasmania is described as being supervisory rather than evaluative under this structure, but the hierarchical framework tends to make them evaluators. The professional organization in Alberta is the Alberta Teachers' Association. In Tasmania, the organization is the Tasma- nian Teachers' Federation. Membership in the Alberta organization is compulsory; in Tasmania, membership in voluntary. Teacher organization representatives include the elected officials of the Alberta Teachers' Association and executive Officers Of the Alberta Teachers' Association and of the Tasmanian Teachers' Federation. School-system administrators, as a group, are limited to Alberta, where School Board appointed superintendents of schools fall in this category, along with assistant superintendents and any other central office educational personnel. Whether called "superin- tendents" or "school system administrators" in this report of the study, they are unique to Alberta. However, Tasmanians confused 36 departmental superintendents with "school-system administrators" or superintendents in one place in the study. Principals include personnel variously designated as princi- pal, headmaster, headteacher, and the deputies or assistants of these offices. "Principal" is the chief term used throughout the study. School-based educators include the teachers and principals who responded to the questionnaire. Non-school-based educators are the Department, university, school-system administrator, teacher organization, and curriculum committee respondents. Bridging both groups, the curriculum com- mittee has a membership that is both school-based and non-school- based. For the purposes of the study, the curriculum committee group is included with non-school-based educators because of the number of university and Department members, the secondment to cur- riculum duties for Tasmanian teachers, and the presence of school- system personnel as teacher representatives in Alberta. Parents are members of the Parents' and Friends' Association in Tasmania or of the Home and School Association in Alberta. The organizations are established to provide for improved liaison between the school and the home and do their grassroots work at the level of the local school. There is also a Provincial/State body, which serves as a forum for common concerns and as a vehicle for political pressure or action. Those surveyed are officers in the Provincial/ State body of their organization, being elected from among the general membership. 37 Groups are the various categories of people who are surveyed. The sample is made up as follows: Number Surveyed Group Alberta Tasmania Teachers 40 40 Parents 8 6 University 7 4 Principals 20 20 Department 7 8 Curriculum Committee 8 l School-System Admin. 20 -- Teacher Rep. 3 2 Summary- The need for information and knowledge about curriculum development is noted, as is the need for data on the different situa- tions where curriculum development will occur. The purpose of the study is to address a list of basic questions on curriculum develOp- ment to generate information and knowledge about it. Following the statements of need and of purpose is a section on contexts of the study. Representing centralized organization and partly decentralized organizations, respectively, and having recently introduced curriculum in elementary social studies, Tasmania and Alberta are used for the study. Following a list of the spe- cific questions of the questionnaire, a context is set for the reader by the inclusion of some background information on both Alberta and Tasmania. Alberta has a larger area than Tasmania and its winter cli- mate is more severe than that of Tasmania. There are many more people in Alberta than in Tasmania and Alberta has both Indian and 38 French-speaking people, as well as English-speaking residents, in a country that uses two languages extensively. All these factors tend to make the interaction and communication processes that are basic to curriculum development and curriculum dissemination more dif- ficult in Alberta than in Tasmania. The relative isolation of Tasmania does not apply to Alberta, where there is influence from all its neighbors, and especially from the united States to the south. Traditional ties for Tasmania are more with Britain and British immigrants have tended to maintain them. Both areas have a high proportion of the population in urban settings and there is a similar density of population in each. Both operate under a democratic system of government. Although the mountains of Alberta reach greater heights than those in Tasmania, the latter has mountainous areas throughout, making travel in Tasmania more difficult than travel in Alberta. Alberta is a rich area and it provides communications systems and opportunities in education that are not available in Tasmania. Both regions have control of education delegated to them from their national governments. Alberta has further delegated much responsibility to local government authorities, while Tasmania retains centralized control. In education Alberta has a larger student body, more schools, a more numerous teaching force, a greater budget, and more per capita cost than does Tasmania. In addition, Alberta's teacher organization has more members, more strength, and more funds than its Tasmanian counterpart. 39 The next section contains terms that could be new to readers, with an explanation and a description. Included are: curriculum committee, curriculum guide, curriculum dissemination, the Depart- ment, professional organization, teacher organization representa- tives, school-system administrators, principals, school-based educators, non-school-based educators, parents, and groups. Overview A review of the literature is presented in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3 there are details about the sample, the measure used, the design of the study, and the method of analysis used. Chapter 4 is devoted to a description, analysis, and comparison of responses to the questionnaire on curriculum development and on dissemination of curriculum ideas in the two regions. A summary and conclusions from the survey are given in Chapter 5. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Included in this review of literature are studies that are germane to the inquiry of the thesis, namely, curriculum sources, roles in curriculum development, planning for program implementa- tion, teacher training, and diffusion of curriculum ideas. Since the focus throughout the study is on curriculum, a brief review of literature on the meaning of curriculum is included, and it leads to the definition of curriculum as "all of the planned experiences that are offered to learners under the auspices of the school." A short section referring to literature that defines cur- riculum development concludes the chapter. Research Literature on Role Perceptions Curriculum Sources The studies by Christoff, Flddten, Harris, and Sloan refer to the topics covered by questionnaire items 12 and 13,1 under the section on curriculum sources, as follows: 1Anton Edward Christoff, "A Study to Determine How Teachers in the Sheboygan Public Schools, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Perceive the Freedom They Have and the Freedom They Feel They Should Have to Make Instructional Decisions" (Ed.D. thesis, University of Northern Colo- rado, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts 1972-3, 7-8; Wayne Richard Fldaten, "The Role of the Elementary School Principal, Teachers, and Parents in the Area of Curriculum Improvement" (Ed.D. thesis, Brigham 4O 41 12. Rank according to who actuall sets curriculum now. (List given in questionnaire.1 13. Rank according to who should plan the curriculum for social studies/social science. (List given in ques- tionnaire.) Anton Edward Christoff2 found that teachers in the Sheboygan Public Schools in Wisconsin felt that they had considerable freedom to make instructional decisions and also that they felt that they should have the freedom. Some teachers wanted more freedom than they had, with the younger teachers generally wanting the most freedom. Wayne Richard Flaaten3 found that a jury of experts and a group of elementary school principals both felt that the experts and the principals §h9p1g_have more involvement, to enhance the curric- ulum of the elementary school. Juanita Edwards Harris4 found that the teachers selected for her study stressed aspects of curriculum development generally the same as did curriculum specialists. In doing so, the teachers Young University, 1972), Dissertation Abstracts 1972, 5-6; Juanita Edwards Harris, "A Study of the Opinions of Selected Teachers Con- cerning Curriculum Planning at the Regional Level in a Decentralized School System" (Ed.D. thesis, Wayne State University, 1972), Disser- tation Abstracts 1972, 5-6; Harold Richard Sloan, "Innovation an Change in Iowa Elementary Schools: Principals and Teachers' Percep- tions” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa, 1972), Dissertation Abstracts 1972-3, 11-12. 2 3 Christoff, op. cit. Flaaten, op. cit. 4Harris, Op. cit. 42 showed that they and curriculum specialists had similar perceptions of curriculum sources. Harold Richard Sloan5 found that both principals and teachers in Iowa Elementary Schools saw themselves and each other as being most important program proposers. These findings can be compared with the perceptions of principals, teachers, and curriculum committee members who responded to the questionnaire items on who actually sets and who should plan curriculum for social studies/social science. Comparisons are made as part of the summary and conclusions of the study in Chapter 5. Roles in Curriculum Develgpment Studies that relate to this tOpic generally fall into the area covered by question 21, which is: 21. To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in curriculum development? A study by William Douglas Ward6 is in this category. Ward7 found that teacher organizations place high priority on involvement in instructional policy development with school boards. He also found that the teacher organizations place low priority on teacher organization development and/or enforcement of 5 6William Douglas Ward, "The Role of Teacher Organizations in Professional Development and Instructional Improvement as Per- ceived by Selected Teacher Organization Leaders" (Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1973). 7Ihid. Sloan, op. cit. 43 performance standards by teachers. His findings would indicate perceptions of teacher organization leadership in the policy sense but not through a monitoring of members. ' Respondents to question 21 give their perceptions of the role of the teacher organization in curriculum development, permitting comparisons between Ward's findings and findings in this study. These comparisons are made in Chapter 5. Planning for Program Implementation Charles Nathan Dempsey8 found that teachers in Virginia expected effective instructional leadership from elementary school principals. This finding relates to question 27, which states: 27. Who should provide integrated planning to ensure that resources accompany new curriculum ideas? The extent to which respondents to question 27 state that principals are key planners in ensuring that resources accompany new curriculum ideas can be compared with Dempsey's finding. This com- parison is presented in Chapter 5. Teacher Training Reference to teacher training occurs in the study by Ward.9 He found that teacher organizations place high priority on local initiative and planning of in-service activities, with in-service to 8Charles Nathan Dempsey. "Patterns of Effectiveness and Ineffective Behavior of Elementary School Principals as Perceived by a Selected Group of Class-Room Teachers in Virginia" (Ed.D. thesis, University of Virginia, 1972), Dissertation Abstracts 1972-3, 7-8. 9Ward, Op. cit. 44 be funded by the public and not by dues. Ward's work on this theme is relevant to item 36, as fOllows: 36. Rank according to relative importance in training teachers for understanding and use of a new program. (List included in questionnaire.) A comparison between Ward's finding and the finding in this study on the matter of teacher training is given in Chapter 5. Diffusion of Curriculum Ideas Research literature on diffusion of curriculum ideas includes 10 work by Ward, Dempsey, Sloan, Easton, and Gourley and relates to questions 37, 38, 39, and 40, as follows: 37. Who should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas? 38. To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? 39. To what extent do principals give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? 40. Rank the following according to which is best for spreading new curriculum ideas. (List incluaed in questionnaire.) Ward“ found that teacher organizations give low priority to instructional improvement through the teacher organization. Since instructional leadership would logically include spreading new 10Ibid.; Dempsey, Op. cit.; Sloan, Op. cit.; Donald Louis Easton, "The Supervisory Role of the Elementary School Principal in Montana” (Ed.D. thesis, Montana State University, 1971), Dissertation Abstracts Vol. 32 9-10, p. 4870-A; Harold Eugene Gourley, “Issues at the Building Level as Perceived by Elementary Principals" (Ed.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1972), Dissertation Abstracts 1972-3, 11-12. ’ 11 Ward, op. cit. 45 curriculum ideas, his findings relate to questions 37 and 38, on responsibility for spreading new curriculum ideas and on teacher organization leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas. Dempsey12 reports a study that relates to question 37, on responsibility for spreading new curriculum ideas, when he found that teachers in Virginia expected effective instructional leader- ship from elementary school principals. Instructional leadership is taken to mean that there would be leadership given to teachers by principals so that the instruction of pupils would be most effective. In this sense, instructional leadership would logically have to include curriculum diffusion. Sloan13 reports that principals and teachers in Iowa saw themselves and each other as being most important program adopters, as well as program proposers. This finding is relevant to questions 37 and 39 on responsibility for spreading new curriculum ideas and on the extent of principals' leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas. '4 found that the three most signifi- Harold Eugene Gourley cant issues confronting building principals include curriculum innovation. This point relates most closely to question 39, which asks about the extent of leadership shown by principals in spreading new curriculum ideas. 12Dempsey, op. cit. 13Sloan, Op. cit. 14Gourley, Op. cit. 46 15 found that teachers stress the impor- Donald Louis Easton tance of administrative visits less than the visits are stressed by administrators themselves. His finding is most pertinent to ques- tion 40 on what is the best way to spread new curriculum ideas. The research on diffusion of curriculum ideas can be compared with findings in this study. The comparisons are made in Chapter 5. Curriculum Defined There are many descriptions of curriculum. Morris says, "Stemming from the Latin, curriculum literally means a 'race course' or a course of studies through which one 'runs' to reach the end, an end presumably of full knowledge, keen insight and mature citizen- 16 ship." Beauchamp expects that "the curriculum for the elementary school be a planned document, and that it be planned by the adult membership of the school community it is intended to serve."17 He adds: Curriculum has been defined as the design of a social group for the educational experiences of their children in school. It has been suggested that this curriculum consists of four parts: a statement of document interest, a statement of goal directgon, an instructional guide, and provisions for evalua- tion. 15 16Van Cleve Morris, Philosophy and the American School (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company,7196l), p. 88. 17George A. Beauchamp, Planning the Elementary School Cur- riculum (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1956). p. 275. 18 Easton, Op. cit. Ibid. 47 Ragan presents much the same view in stating, "Traditionally spr- riculum has meant the subjects taught in school or the course Of 19 and Hurley agrees: "Some think of the curriculum as the study," course of study and follow it slavishly. Others consider it synony- mous with the basic textbook. Still others consider curriculum to be definitive outlines for teaching separate subjects day by day."20 0011 differentiates between the traditional and the modern view of curriculum in the statement: "The commonly-accepted defini- tion of curriculum has changed from content of courses of study and lists of subjects and courses to all the experiences which are offered 2] Similar to learners under the auspices or direction Of the school." distinctions between curriculum as the course Of study, as courses offered, as subject matter content, and as planned experiences are made by Anderson.22 Crosby differentiates between subject-centred curricula ("founded upon the belief that the curriculum is composed Of separate and distinct subjects, each of which embraces a body of content and skills which will enable the learner to acquire knowledge 19W. B. Ragan, Modern Elementary Curriculum, rev. ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964). 208. D. Hurley, Curriculum for Elementary School Children (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957), p.579. 21R. C. Doll, Curriculum Improvement: Decision Making and Process, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon,*l970), p. 21. 22V. E. Anderson, Practices and Procedures of Curriculum Improvement (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956), pp. 4-5. 48 of himself and his world”),23 child-centred curricula ("the premise that the child is the center of the educational process and the cur- riculum should be built upon his interests, needs, abilities and purposes"),24 and problem-centred curricula ("conceived as the frame— work in which the child is guided toward maturity within the context of the social group").25 The definition of curriculum given by 0011, above, includes "all the experiences which are offered to learnersunder the auspices or direction of the school." Grobman agrees when he states, ". . . curriculum encompasses all school-oriented learning experi— ences of the child, including some unplanned ones that produce results diametrically opposed to the aims of the curriculum plan- 26 ners." This all-encompassing definition is limited by Hicks, Houston, Cheney and Marquard when they state that the curriculum of the school includes those experiences "for which the school accepts 27 responsibility." Burdin and McAuley also limit the definition but fail to clarify the extent of that limit. They state, "Curriculum 23Muriel Crosby, Curriculum Development for Elementary Schools in a Changing Society (Boston: 0. C. Heath and Company, 1964), p. 10. 24 25 26Halda Grobman, Evaluation Activities of Curriculum Projects: A Starting Point (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968), p. 5. 27William Vernon Hicks, W. Robert Houston, Bruce D. Cheney, and Richard L. Marquard, The New Elementary School Curriculum (New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold Company, 1970), p. 26. Ibid., p. l2. Ibid., p. 14. 49 to a large degree is what the teacher and pupils gp_in the class- room."28 In this definition, they stress process rather than content, as do others noted below. A number of writers emphasize student experience, like Doll cited above. Cay, for example, says curriculum is "the educational design of learning experiences for children, youth and adults in 29 school." Beck, Cook and Kearney note that curriculum is often defined as "the educational experiences that children have in school."30 Beauchamp states that "the most common way about thinking about curriculum is to define it as all of the experiences of chil- dren under the jurisdiction of the school" and ". . . curriculum . the sum of the experiences--the learnings, skills, habits, and attitudes that the child has made a part of himself, and that govern his behavior, as a result of the environment provided by the school."31 Dittman includes a definition of curriculum as "what happens in an 28J. L. Burdin and J. D. McAuley, Elementary School Curricu- lum and Instruction: The Teacher's Role (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1971). 29D. F. Cay, Curriculum: Design for Learning_(New York: The Bobbs Merrill Company, 1966), p. l. 30R. H. Beck, w. v. Cook, and N. c. Kearney, Curriculum in the Modern Elementarnychool, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,l1960), p.41. 316. A. Beauchamp, The Curriculum of the Elementary School (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1964), pp. 5-6. 50 educational environment."32 Crary says that "curriculum is the 33 program of intended learning devised by the school." Inslow des- cribes the curriculum as "the planned composite effort of any school to guide pupil learning toward predetermined learning outcomes."34 For the purposes Of this study, the general definition of Doll, with the limitation of planning suggested by such writers as Hicks, Houston, Cheney, and Marquard, Cay, and Crary is used. Thus, the curriculum is "all of the planned experiences that are offered to learners under the auspices of the school." Curriculum Development Perceptions about curriculum development are introduced by Frost and Rowland, Wright, Camp, Stosberg and Fleming, Pritzkau, Miel, and Richmond. Frost and Rowland state, “The effective curriculum, however, means planning from advance organizers and the executing of these plans by a specific teacher for a unique group of students in an educational encounter."35 They define advance organizers as includ- ing publishers, State Education Commissions, or major curriculum 32Laura L. Dittman, ed., Curriculum Is What ngpens (Washing- ton,)D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1970 , p. 4. 33R land W. Crary, Humanizing_the School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969 , p. 13. 34Gail M. Inslow, The Emengent in Curriculum (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 7. 35Joe L. Grost and G. Thomas Rowland, Curriculum for the Seventies (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, T969), p. 5. 51 development projects. They add that curriculum development is not complete until applied in the educational encounter. Wright, Camp, Stosberg, and Fleming say, "No curriculum has any meaning at all until teachers and students together, with new technology, and n36 information bring it to life. Pritzkau stresses that curriculum improvement is an integral and integrated factor with teaching itself, indicating that use of the classroom context for curriculum improve- 37 ment is vital. Miel is as definite about the process being more important than the content: If it is true that the curriculum is composed of the experi- ences children undergo, it follows as a corollary that the curriculum is the result of interaction of a complex ot‘?ac- tors, including the physical environment and the desires, beliefs, know1edge, attitudes andlskills of the persons served by and serving the school.55 A change of curriculum, according to Miel, would be a change of interactions not a change on paper. Richmond deals specifically with curriculum development when he contends that it is a deliberate. managed process rather than automatic change brought about by various 39 forces. The planning dimension that has received considerable attention above is also called for by Nerbovig, who indicates that 36Betty Atwell Wright, Lorrie T. Camp, William K. Stosberg, and Babette L. Fleming, Elementary School Curriculum (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971), p. v. 37Philo T. Pritzkau, Dynamics of Curriculum Improvement (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959). 38Alice Miel, Chapging the Curriculum (New York: Century Company, Inc., 1946), p. . 39W. Kenneth Richmond, The School Curriculum (London: Mbthuen and Company, Ltd., 1971), pp. 11-12. 52 planning involves selection of topic, selection of instructional goals and activities, including evaluation, and logistics, in which he includes, such as groups, space, time, movement, and materials.47 The planning element underlies curriculum development as it is referred to throughout the study. Summary The content of Chapter 2 is a review of the literature that relates to the study. Research reports dealing with role percep- tions are reviewed in the section, Research Literature on Role Perceptions. There is research relating to curriculum sources, roles in curriculum development, planning for curriculum implementa- tion, teacher training, and dissemination of curriculum ideas through role perceptions of Superintendents, principals, teachers, curricu- lum directors, "experts," and teacher organization leaders. Selected reports relevant to this study are related to particular questions of the questionnaire. The next section gives a review of the differing definitions of curriculum in the literature. A wide range Of definitions is noted and the writer arrives at the one that is used throughout the study. The final section deals with curriculum development, leading to the conclusion that planning is the necessary facet for develOp- ment to take place. 40Marcell H. Nerbovig, Unit Planning: A Model for Curriculum Devglopment (Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 53 The content of the section entitled Research Literature on Role Perceptions, about literature reported from research relating to this study, is quite limited. The writer was surprised at the paucity of research in this area and made extra attempts to find more, but to no avail. During the first writing of the report, he searched library resources for research reports, concentrating on the Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Review of Educational Research, Research in Education, the Educational Index, The Handbook of Research on Teaching, and on Dissertation Abstracts. A wide range of key words, including administrators, courses of study, curriculum, curriculum development, curriculum guide, curriculum planning, dissemination, elementary, in-service, perceptions, princi- pals, professional organization, role perceptions, roles, social studies, and teachers, were used in the search with limited results. Journals were searched with no results, there being a rare article on the subject but no research. The dissertations produced at Michigan State University were also searched, with very limited success. When in Tasmania, the writer visited the library at the University of Tasmania and searched indices and files. TheAustralian Educational Index was searched without success. For concentrated effort to complete the report with the availability of library facilities and the guidance of his advisor, the writer returned to the campus at Michigan State University. A further search of research was undertaken, concentrating on the ERIC system and reports from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum 54 Development. Using the descriptors curriculum, curriculum develop- ment, perceptions, and role perceptions, the writer searched ERIC sources. Some titles were sufficiently apprOpriate to warrant reference to the document résumé; some résumés appeared relevant enough to warrant reference to the documents. All such leads were unproductive when the thrust of this study was considered. As a result, it is concluded that the research dealing with role perceptions of educators and others in the area of curriculum development was quite limited up to the end of 1974, the period of . this study. Despite the general dearth of other research, however, it is pleasing to note that what is available is highly relevant. The relevance of the reported research to this study lies in the fact that both deal with topics and questions that are either the same or quite similar. Details of comparisons between responses in this study and findings in the reported research are given in Chapter 5. The summary given below is limited to brief statements of the research findings and to a reference to the particular questions yielding comparable data in this study. Christoff found that teachers have and want freedom to make instructional decisions. Responses to questions 12 and 13 in this 4' Flaaten found that survey can be matched against that finding. principals want more involvement in curriculum. Albertan and Tasmanian respondents have perceptions of the wishes of principals 4ISee Chapters 4 and 5. 55 42 Harris found that teachers stressed curriculum for involvement. and Sloan found that teachers and principals saw themselves as important program proposers. Responses to questions 12 and 13 show how the respondents in the study feel.43 Ward found that the teacher organization gave low priority to teacher standards and to instructional improvement through teacher organization channels, but high priority to local involvement and leadership in in-service. Dempsey found that teachers expect good leadership from principals, Sloan that teachers and principals saw themselves as program adopters, and Gourley that principals had problems in curriculum innovation. Responses to questions 21, 37, 44 39, and 40 all bear on these findings. Easton's findings that administrators stress the administrative visit more so than do teachers will be further explored in considering responses to question 40.45 42 43 44 45 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. CHAPTER 3 DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF THE STUDY Introduction Planning the study was complicated by several factors. Initial planning took place at Michigan State University, away from both of the geographical areas to be studied. The writer had recent acquaintance with education in Alberta but had been absent from Tasmania for ten years. This absence presented more difficulty in designing the questionnaire than in such activities as scheduling visits to schools and offices. The geographical distribution Of the three regions involved-- Alberta and Tasmania as the places to be studied, Michigan as the location of library, advisor, and courses--called for special plans. Costs involved in travelling to Tasmania and limitations on time available meant that only one visit could be scheduled. Considerable attention was given when planning the study to ensure that all fac- tors likely to relate to the study were included, so that a single visit would maximize findings. Work in Tasmania was conducted with the realization that omissions probably could not be remedied, since letters and telephone calls would be slow and would be difficult to co-ordinate, the apprOpriate people would be hard to reach, and a second visit was not possible. Work on the design of the study and on related research was undertaken in Michigan while the writer was 56 57 in residence at the University and had access to the library and his advisor. Neither was readily available during the research phase of the study, in Tasmania and in Alberta. The research in Alberta was made easier by several factors, including the fact that the writer resided there and could pursue any omissions; there was greater familiarity by the writer with education there; and the writer had already used the questionnaire in Tasmania, so felt more confidence in it. On the other hand, the use of random sampling meant that there could be no substitution if a selected person failed to respond; so there was pressure to have specific respondents reply. And, the use of the mail in conducting the survey was a new experience. The design of the study was affected by its subject, as well as by the geographical regions involved. Curriculum development involves planning of the experiences that students will have under the auspices of the school. Aspects of that planning include the present curriculum guide, curriculum sources, texts/references, roles in curriculum development, planning for program implementa- tion, understanding the guide, use of the guide, teacher training, and diffusion of curriculum ideas. These elements were all incor- porated in the questionnaire. Since no one person or group of people associated with cur- riculum development could provide final, definitive answers to ques- tions in the above categories, a survey was considered, to gather the perceptions Of various groups of interested respondents. By grouping respondents and by considering their region of origin, comparisons 58 of perceptions could be made, these comparisons being between and among the different groups in any one region, as well as between and among the different groups of the two regions. The factors of subject and geography noted above had a major effect on the design and on the conduct Of the study, as is indi- cated in the sections that follow. Design of the Study Sample Albertans and Tasmanians involved or interested in elemen- tary social studies in the following groups were surveyed: classroom teachers, school principals and head teachers, school system adminis- trators, Department of Education staff, teacher organization repre- sentatives, parents, personnel of curriculum committees, publishers, elected representatives, university and teacher-training college faculty, and "others." The number of people working with elementary social studies as Department Of Education staff, teacher organiza- tion representatives, personnel of curriculum committees, and uni- versity and college faculty in Alberta and in Tasmania was so small that virtually all individuals in these groups were surveyed. It should be noted that colleges referred to here are teacher-training colleges only. Parents were surveyed through the Provincial/State organization that represents parents on education matters. Pub- lishers were surveyed by taking a random sample Of 25 percent of the publishers whose books are listed for use in elementary social studies in each region. 59 In Tasmania, the elected representative is the government member who is Minister of Education. There are no school-system administrators in Tasmania. In Alberta, elected representatives include all of the locally elected members of the various boards and school committees responsible for the running of school divisions, school districts, and counties, while school-system administrators consist of central office personnel of the various local jurisdic- tions. To get responses from elected representatives and school- system administrators in Alberta, the writer surveyed the Board Chairman and the superintendent of schools (or his designate) from a random sampling of twenty school jurisdictions operating in the Province. Classroom teachers in Tasmania were sampled by making a ran- dom sample of forty schools from the list of elementary schools in the State, using a table of random numbers (as listed by Walker and Lev).1 A classroom teacher from each of the forty schools was sur- veyed, alternating through the grades. Thus, the survey began with a teacher of grade one, followed by a teacher of grade two, and so on, for the forty schools. Another random sample of twenty schools was taken and the questionnaire was administered to the head teacher or principal of each. In Alberta, local jurisdictions were listed and a random sample of twenty taken. Schools having elementary classes in these twenty jurisdictions were listed in twenty lists, from each of which IHelen Walker and Joseph Lev, Statistical Inference (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953), pp. 484-85. 60 a random sampling of two schools was taken. One teacher from each Of the schools was surveyed, beginning with a teacher of grade one in the first school and proceeding through to grade six, for the forty schools. In any school where there was more than one teacher at a grade level, the questionnaire was completed either by an indi- vidual or by more than one, with a composite response. A further random sampling of one school from each of the twenty jurisdictions was used to determine the school principals to be surveyed in Alberta. In addition to the groups noted above, the questionnaires were completed by "other" individuals with an interest in elementary social studies. These other respondents were the President of the Alberta Social Studies Council, the Executive Director of the Alberta School Trustees Association, and a Tasmanian media employee seconded to work with educators in preparing audio-visual materials for social studies. All random sampling made use of a table of random numbers.2 Measures The survey was conducted through an interview and/or through a written questionnaire. The interview consisted of completion of the questionnaire with the interviewer present, which was the pro- cedure used with most of the seventy-one respondents in Tasmania. Eighty-nine questionnaires were completed in Alberta without the interviewer present. A covering letter served as an introduction Ibid. 61 to the questionnaire, especially in Alberta where simultaneous per- sonal contact was absent. The full questionnaire appears in Appendix A and a list of the actual questions, grouped according to the themes or categories used throughout the study and numbered as in the questionnaire, is given in Chapter 1. Babbie was used as a reference and guide in the construction and administration of the questionnaire.3 A first draft of the ques- tionnaire was field-tested in Michigan through the help of two local classroom teachers, during the spring of 1974. A second draft was field-tested in Alberta later that spring by a group of teachers and administrators in a small school jurisdiction. The writer spent some time analyzing each question with the teachers and administrators after they had responded, to check whether the questions were accu- rate and clear. The final content of the questionnaire was then determined. The organization and lay-out of the questionnaire was planned with a research analyst who is a member of the faculty of the Univer- sity of Lethbridge.4 This was done so that responses could be coded and transferred to a computer for analysis. Despite the preparation, there were some problems in using the questionnaire. Thus, for Question 23, Tasmanians categorized the superintendents as school-system administrators, although the latter 3Earl Babbie, Survey Research Methods (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973). 4 Dr. Vern Dravland. 62 group was defined for the study as being the locally appointed school jurisdiction central office personnel found only in Alberta. Question 41, dealing with ways in which the teacher organization could spread new curriculum ideas, was administered in Tasmania but, when it was found that some of the possible answers did not apply there, this question was eliminated from the survey report. When the writer originally left Tasmania in 1963, the chief administrator in each school was called Head Teacher or Head Master/Head Mistress and the questionnaire was constructed with these titles in mind. However, on arriving in Tasmania in 1974, the writer found that the term "principal" had gained wide acceptance. Design The approach in the study is descriptive and comparative in nature. There is a general description of education in the two areas, followed by an analysis Of curriculum development practices and of procedures for the dissemination of curriculum ideas in elementary social studies through the perceptions of individuals who are involved or interested. Method of Analysis The perceptions of respondents of their roles and of the roles of others in curriculum development and in the dissemination of curriculum ideas are analyzed by considering percentages of people having the different views. Thus, it is possible to determine the extent of overall agreement on answers to certain questions; of agreement according to groups of respondents on answers to certain 63 questions; and of agreement according to groups of respondents according to location in Alberta or in Tasmania on answers to cer- tain questions. The questionnaire was planned so that responses could be coded, then analyzed on a computer according to answers, groups, and regions. This was done at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, with the analysis providing percentages of responses by answer, by answer by group, and by answer by group by region. The analysis, and all the percentages given throughout this report of the study, is based upon the first answer by each respon- dent. For example, in Question 30, respondents are asked to rank the ways in which teachers came to understand the guide. There are thir- teen possible answers tO be ranked but only the one ranked first by each respondent is included in the analysis and in the percentages of responses. Conduct of the Study, Sources of Information It was possible to take random samples from lists of juris- dictions, schools, and teachers only through the co-operation and assistance of many peOple who provided the lists. Others helped in a variety of other ways. In Tasmania, the researcher received a list of the primary schools operating in the State through the curriculum branch Of the Department. Contact with the curriculum branch was facilitated by meetings of the writer with the Tasmanian Official who had been 64 seconded to spearhead the development of the Social Science curricu- lum, while that Official was visiting Alberta. The random sample was taken from the list as it was received from the Education Department. The Albertan Department of Education produces a list of the operating school jurisdictions in the Province. The writer received the list and took random samples from it to determine which super- intendents and board chairmen would be surveyed and which areas would provide teachers and principals to be surveyed. Superintendents co-Operated and assisted greatly. There was a very good response to the questionnaire from this group, who often feel that they receive too many questionnaires. When the twenty school jurisdictions that would provide the teachers and principals to be surveyed were selected at random, the superintendents provided a list of the schools in each jurisdiction and a list of the staff members in each school. In so doing, they authorized the writer to survey the staff members who were finally selected at random, increasing the likeli- hood that there would be positive response to the questionnaire by these peOple. Parent groups in both areas responded readily with names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the elected Officials when asked for them. This made it possible for questionnaires to be sent to officials in Alberta and for either mail contact or personal interviews in Tasmania. Those who were interviewed gave much time and thought to the interview. 65 The staff of the various branches of the Education Depart- ment in Tasmania made time available for interviews and suggested other people who were knowledgeable about elementary social science. It was through such advice that the writer learned of the integral part played by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in curriculum develOpment and the consequent availability of audio-visual materials through that agency. As a result of this information, there were interviews with the people directly involved. The Executive Secretary of the Tasmanian Teachers' Federa- tion and his assistant spent half a day providing the writer with up- to-date perceptions of education in Tasmania, as well as in respond- ing to the questionnaire. The above examples serve to indicate the dependence that this researcher had upon the good will and co-operation of many people in both Alberta and Tasmania. The writer acknowledges that assistance with gratitude. Responses The use of random sampling meant that there was no flexi- bility in the event that the planned sample was unavailable to respond. The inclusion of a substitute respondent for anyone selected at random who could not respond could have negated the randomness of selection, so the questionnaire was administered only to those chosen by the initial random sampling. As a result, some groups did not contain as many members as was originally planned. For example, potential responses of teachers fell below the forty 66 sampled in Alberta when one questionnaire was returned unanswered, since there was no class at the level indicated and when another questionnaire was directed by postal authorities to another province and a more accurate address for the appropriate Albertan teacher could not be found. One sample in Tasmania was eliminated when there was no teacher at the appropriate grade level. ‘ The Minister of Education in Tasmania was not available for an interview. As the only elected representative in that region, he was the sole member Of a group. His secretary was very courteous and promised that the questionnaire would be completed and returned. It was not. One Tasmanian principal was too busy for an interview. He graciously accepted a show of slides for his pupils and promised to complete and return the questionnaire within a week. Despite a reminder, he did not. The pattern of universal courtesy and/or cooperation that was offered in both areas was only broken once, an indication of the generally positive reception given to the researcher. Some Tasmanians who could not be interviewed personally or whose schedule precluded completion of the questionnaire in time for the writer to take it with him failed to follow through with promises to forward it later, so responses were not 100 percent there, as is shown below. Of the groups originally included, three have been dropped, two before percentages were calculated and one after that. Pub- lishers were dropped as a group when it was fOund that responses 67 were limited, that both government and private publishers were active in Tasmania, and that salesmen, rather than publishers themselves, were the visible group having contact with elementary social studies in each area. Elected representatives were dropped due to the very limited response from this group in Alberta. Only 30 percent returned ques- tionnaires that were completed, while another 15 percent indicated that they could/would not respond. There was only one potential respondent in this group in Tasmania, a very poor sample. A miscellaneous group, titled "other," was also dropped, since the group represented such a small and diverse sample that comparison with responses by other groups had no real significance. However, the decision to drOp this group came after computer analy- sis; so it ranks in the percentages and totals but is not reported as a separate group; The groups identified as respondents are not entirely dis- crete categories, since some randomly sampled teachers were also principals of their schools; some principals were also full- or part-time classroom teachers; curriculum committee members may have been from teacher, university, principal, Department, or school- system administrator groups; and teacher organization elected repre- sentatives were also either teachers or principals. In addition, samples in all other categories included parents, although that group is comprised, for this survey, of elected representatives of parent organizations. 68 A complete list of the various groups surveyed and Of the extent of responses is given in Appendix 8. From that Appendix, it can be seen that all seventeen groups5 included in the analysis responded at least at the rate of 62.5 percent. Of the total of seventeen groups in the two regions, the response rates were as follows: 60-69 percent--4 groups Albertan Parents (5 respondents) "Other" (2 respondents) Teacher Representatives (2 respondents) Tasmanian Parents (4 respondents) 70-79 percent--3 groups Albertan University (5 respondents) Department (5 respondents) Teachers (29 respondents) 80-89 percent--4 groups Albertan School System (16 respondents) Administrators (7 respondents) Curriculum Committee (7 respondents) Tasmanian Teachers (34 respondents) Department (7 respondents) 90-99 percent--2 groups Albertan Principals (18 respondents) Tasmanian Principals (18 respondents) lOO percent--4 groups Tasmanian University (4 respondents) Curriculum Committee (1 respondent) Teacher Representatives (2 respondents) "Other" 1 respondent) 5Including the "other" respondents from each region. 69 The overall response rate was 80.4 percent. In Alberta, it was 76.6 percent and in Tasmania it was 85.5 percent. Besides the rate of response, the nature of responses is important. The questions listed in the questionnaire have various characteristics which often determine the nature of responses. Some questions are closed questions, where the possible answers are listed. Included in this category are questions numbered 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, l6, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, 35, 38, and 39. However, some respondents replied to Question 29 by indicating that some teachers do and some do not understand the guide. These closed questions present no problem for coding, analysis, or reporting. Another group has questions that are almost closed, but the Open "other" category is included, leaving scope for a variety of answers. Included in this category are Questions 2, 3, 10, l2, 13, 27, 30, 32, 36, 37, and 40. In this study, these questions present no problem for coding, analysis, or reporting. One question, number 9, is closed in that it lists all pos- sible answers. However, the variety of possible answers is extensive and resulted in a total Of twenty-three different combinations being given by respondents. No major problem for coding, analysis, or reporting was experienced. The balance of the questions are "Open" questions, where the respondents supply the answers. Included in this category are Ques- tions 4, 5(a), 6(a), 8, l5, l7, 18, 28, 31, and 34. Answers to Questions 5(a) and 15 were limited in scope and could be grouped quite easily, at least for most responses. HOwever, the balance of 70 these questions provided such a variety of answers that the writer experienced difficulty in discerning categories. The coding pro- cess involved the recording of these responses and their grouping into like meanings, with some risk that the respondent's meaning would be changed. The nature of the survey and factors Of distance precluded any check with respondents to elaborate on their response in such cases. In the study, the questions presenting the greatest problems are numbers 4, 6(a), 8, 17, 18, 28, 31, and 34 because of the wide variety of answers that were given. The curriculum committee is a unique group in each area. In Tasmania, teachers are seconded to work on the curriculum committee. Following the development of a guide, they return to regular teaching duties. Thus, in 1974, there was only one respondent from Tasmania who was identified as being a curriculum committee member for elemen- tary social science. In Alberta, the committee that developed the 1971 curriculum guide had changed membership, through the three-year rotation of members, by late 1974. This fact could underlie the unexpected responses received from Albertan curriculum committee mem- bers to some questions. Geographical Factors The fact that Alberta and Tasmania are widely separated geographically caused some problems in conducting a survey in both of them. For the survey in Tasmania, the writer paid a visit during the summer of 1974. A schedule was worked out so that almost all of the randomly selected teachers and principals could be visited at 71 their schools. In the course of the personal interview, the items on the questionnaire were dealt with. The most common practice was for the respondent to read and to discuss each question, then indi- cate his/her response. The sample included one respondent who lived in a community on an island in Bass Strait. For this individual the questionnaire was mailed. Another teacher lived in an isolated mining conmunity in the northeast. A telephone interview was conducted from the nearest point of access on a good gravel road. An introductory letter, a COpy of the questionnaire, and a tentative "appointment" time was sent to each respondent ahead of the meeting. Despite their busy schedules, teachers and principals proved to be very accommodating, showing almost universal courtesy and desire to help. In the introductory letter, the writer offered to show color slides that had been taken in Europe and North America to the teacher's class as appreciation for the teacher's co-operation. Many teachers accepted the offer. Besides written communications, there was extensive telephone communication with teachers and principals. All teachers and princi- pals, especially in smaller schools where the principal was also a teacher, had classes to work with. The interviews took place before school, at recess or lunch times, after school, during preparation periods, or in class time, with pupils either set to work or under the supervision of a colleague. The interviews took place in staff- rooms, offices, classrooms, corridors, and homes. Dovetailed with interviews of the teachers and principals were interviews with parents, Department staff, university personnel, 72 teacher organization representatives, and curriculum committee mem- bers. From his years as a student and teacher in Tasmania, the writer had many contacts from whom to get the names of people hold- ing positions and offices in the various groups. All the other respondent groups besides teachers and principals tended to be located in the four largest centres, with a heavy concentration in the capital city. Excellent co-Operation was again received. In one or two cases, individuals could not be reached at their places of work because of commitments elsewhere. These people were reached by telephone. Despite the fact that it was mid—winter in Tasmania, the researcher was able to visit most areas quite readily. With an auto- mobile borrowed from relatives, he circled the State during the five weeks at his disposal and was able to contact all the people he wanted 'h3contact. Most responded to the questionnaire and many gave added insights into Tasmanian education through such activities as tours of the school and wide-ranging discussions. During the fall and winter of 1974—75, the survey was con- ducted in Alberta. The considerable distances involved and much more harsh climate in winter led the writer to use the mails as the chief means of conducting the survey. Many of the individuals who were university staff, Department personnel, curriculum committee members, school-system administrators, and teacher organization representatives were personally known to the writer. This likely helped in bringing a high level of response. The teachers and principals were contacted by name, thanks to the assistance of superintendents as noted above. 73 The use Of this more personal approach likely helped in bringing a high level of response from these groups. A letter of introduction and the questionnaire, together with a stamped, return addressed envelope, was sent to each of the people being surveyed. Each questionnaire assured anonymity, with the researcher using a key to check where the responses were from. A follow-up letter with a c0py of the questionnaire and another stamped envelope was sent to those not replying, on the assumption that the first letter had been lost in the mail. The letters stressed the importance of the response to the researcher and noted that random sampling made that individual's response the only one of value. There was a good response by all concerned, making use of the telephone as a follow-up a rare occur- rence and obviating the need for a protracted tour of Alberta to conduct personal interviews with each person. Summar The survey covered classroom teachers, school principals and head teachers, other administrators (school-system central Office personnel in Alberta), Department of Education staff, teacher organi- zation representatives, parents, personnel of curriculum committees, publishers, elected representatives (member of Parliament in Tasmania and school trustees in Alberta), university and teacher-training college staff, and "others." 74 Teachers and school and school-system administrators were selected by random sampling from the official lists of the Depart- ment or of the school jurisdiction. The survey was conducted through a questionnaire, which was completed in most instances in Tasmania with the writer present. In Alberta, the questionnaires were mailed to potential respondents with a covering letter. The questionnaire was field tested in Michi- gan and in Alberta as it was being developed and was organized to facilitate coding of responses for analysis. Findings are descriptive and comparative. Through analysis Of responses, percentages responding to each group from each region can be described and compared. The researcher found almost universal courtesy and met with ready co-operation and assistance in most places. The response rate to the survey is quite good, reflecting this co-operation. Following administration of the questionnaire, the groups made up of publishers and elected representatives were eliminated from the study. The "other" group was droppedafter the analysis was done. There is an overall average response rate of 80.4 percent for the study analysis.6 Some open-ended questions brought a wide variety of answers, making it difficult to code, analyze, and report on responses. Grouping of like answers was used in such cases. 6All percentages were computed with "other" included. CHAPTER 4 SURVEY RESULTS Introduction This chapter reports on the responses to the questionnaire, minus question number 41 and the category of "other." Question number 41 was dropped because there was no Tasmanian equivalent of some of the options listed. The category "other" was dropped from the report since there were only three persons in the group and they do not belong to an identifiable classification. However, all fig- ures were put through the computer and all calculations of percen- tages were made with the three "other" respondents of the survey included, prior to the decision to eliminate the group. The ratios and percentages given throughout the report of the study thus include these three, who represent 1.9 percent of all respondents. This chapter is limited to a report of the responses to the survey. Interpretations of the findings and conclusions drawn by the author appear in Chapter 5. The chapter is organized around the headings given in Chapter 1, with each part introduced by a very brief overview of central tendencies, followed by a more detailed report on each question. The report on responses to each question includes information about notable ratios of respondents giving 75 76 various answers, along with the ratios of responses by group, by region, and by group in each region. The first part deals with questions related to the curricu- lum guide. The second part stresses questions related to curriculum and is further divided into sections on curriculum sources, texts/ references, roles in curriculum development, and planning for program implementation. The third part deals with questions related to cur- riculum dissemination. It, too, is further divided into four parts, on understanding the guide, use of the guide, teacher training, and diffusion of curriculum ideas. Questions Related to the Curriculum Guide The written "curriculum guide" that is available to teachers in Alberta and in Tasmania is the focus of questions two through eleven. While there is a wide range of views on most questions, there are some evident central tendencies in the responses. Generally, the curriculum committee in each region is per- ceived as having set the existing curriculum guide and both teachers and curriculum committees are preferred as the source of the guide, with preferences for teachers in setting the guide less strong among parents, Department and university personnel. Chief reasons support- ing the choice of who should decide the guide are that teachers know pupils, that a practical, applicable, and suitable curriculum is needed, that curriculum should reflect society, and that there should be more teacher voice. About three-quarters of the respondents were npt_involved in setting the present guide. Involvement was higher for university and 77 Department groups than for others and for Tasmanians more than for Albertans. University and Department personnel were involved on curriculum committees, Tasmanian teachers as pilot teachers.1 About half of the respondents want to be involved, especially teach- ers. This involvement is sought through consultation, representation, or directly. University and Department personnel and parents are most anxious for direct involvement. Most respondents feel that it is a “good" guide. However, Albertan teachers and principals say that it is npp_a "good" guide at a ratio that is higher than the average.2 Many respondents have no criticisms of the guide. Criticism that the guide is too general cn~vague,and that it is hard to understand are the chief complaints, both being much more frequent among Albertans than among Tasmanians. The degree Of prescription in the guide is variously per- ceived. Most peOple perceive little specific prescription. A major- ity of these people believe that there is only general prescription and some peOple believe that there is little or no prescription. There is more prescription seen in Alberta than in Tasmania. There is also more perception of enforcement of prescription in Alberta than in Tasmania, chiefly through inspection by other than Department 1Pilot teachers are classroom teachers who are selected to "pilot" or to test a proposed curriculum, then to provide reactions and suggestions to the curriculum committee. 2Reference to "average ratio" is governed by two factors. For example: (a) if Albertans reply in a "higher than average ratio," Albertans as a group reply at a higher ratio than do all respondents as a single group; (b) if Tasmanian teachers respond at a "higher than average ratio," Tasmanian teachers respond at a higher ratio than do all Tasmanian respondents as a single group. 78 staff. Departmental inspection is felt to be more prevalent in Tasmania than in Alberta. However, many respondents see no enforce- ment, including about half the teachers. There is a tendency to want more prescription than exists, either moderate or extensive, with Albertans seeking extensive pre- scription more frequently than do Tasmanians. A more detailed report on responses to questions two through eleven follows: Question 2: Whose thinking does the guide reflect? Rank: l( ) teacher 5( ) principal 9( ) school-sys. adm. 2( ) parent 6( ) department 10( ) teacher organ. 3( ) university 7( ) elected rep. ll( ) other( ) 4( ) publisher 8( ) curric. comm. Almost two respondents in each three indicate that they per- ceive the guide as reflecting the thinking ofthe curriculum com- mittee. About two respondents in thirteen feel that the thinking of the Department of Education is reflected in the guide, while about one in sixteen sees teacher ideas there. The curriculum committee as the source of the ideas of the guide is ranked first by eight university staff in nine, and by over four principals in five. Other groups are in general accord with the average except parents (four in nine) and teacher representatives (nil). One teacher representative in two, one parent in three, one curriculum committee member in four, and one teacher and principal in nine cite the Department of Education as the source of ideas. One teacher in nine ranks teachers first when saying who set the guide. 79 Three Albertans in five and almost three Tasmanians in four rank the curriculum committee first when indicating whose thinking is reflected in the curriculum guide. Notable responses in this vein from groups are three Albertan parents in five (one Tasmanian parent in four); all Albertan university staff (three Tasmanians in four); two Albertan principals in three (all in Tasmania); two Albertan Department staff in five (almost three Tasmanians in four); and five Albertan curriculum committee members in nine (all in Tas- mania). Almost one Albertan in four ranks the Department of Educa- tion first as contributing the thinking reflected in the curriculum guide, to one Tasmanian in eighteen. All Albertan teacher repre- sentatives agree that the guide comes from the Department along with two Albertan Department staff in five and over one Albertan curricu- lum committee in four. As well, one Tasmanian teacher in seventeen sees the Department as the origin of the guide. One Tasmanian in nine and one Albertan in forty-five say that the guide reflects the thinking of teachers. Major responses to this effect are from teachers (one Tasmanian in seven, one Albertan in fourteen), teacher representatives (one Tasmanian in two), parents (one Tasmanian in four), and Department staff (one Tasmanian in seven). Ogestion 3: Whose thinking should the guide reflect? Rank: é?) )teacher 5( ) principal 9( ) school-sys. admin. ) parent 6( ) department 10( ) teacher organ. () university 7( elected rep. ll( ) other( ) 4( ) publisher 8( curric. comm. Over one respondent in three feels that the guide should reflect the thinking Of teachers and one in three says that the 80 guide should come from the curriculum committee. One in eighteen cites parents as the desired source of the curriculum guide. Ranking teachers first are over one teacher and curriculum committee member in three, one teacher representative in two, five principals in nine--but just one Department staff in twelve, two university personnel in nine, and one parent in nine. Most groups approach the average response in ranking of the curriculum committee, greatest variations coming from one Department staff in two, four university staff in nine, and one teacher representative in four. Parental determination of the guide is preferred especially by two parents in nine and by almost one school-system administrator in five. Question 4: Why should this be so? Giving reasons for the source Of curriculum ideas shown in answer to the previous question, respondents stress the following: Teachers know pupil needs (one respondent in six); practicality, applicability, and suitability of curriculum (over one respondent in seven); curriculum Should reflect all society, especially educa- tional society (less than one respondent in seven); and there should be more teacher voice in curriculum (one respondent in twelve). In addition, one in four gives no reply. There are sixteen different responses given to this Open-ended question. Significant group responses in the various categories are: One principal in four and two teachers in nine feel that teachers know pupil needs. Four parents in nine, one school-system 81 administrator in four and one teacher in nine regard practicality, applicability, and suitability of curriculum as of paramount impor- tance in determining who should set the curriculum guide. Three curriculum committee members in eight, one principal in six, and one teacher in eight cite societal concerns as the reason for their choice Of who should decide the curriculum guide. One principal in nine, one school-system administrator in eight, and one teacher in nine wants more teacher voice in setting the curriculum guide. Almost three Albertan responses in ten are "nil" on ques- tion 4, to about one in five in Tasmania. Teacher knowledge Of pupil needs is ranked first by one Albertan in twelve and by one Tasmanian in four, chiefly by teachers (one Albertan in six and over one Tas- manian in four) and principals (one Albertan in nine and almost two Tasmanians in five). Practical, applicable, and suitable curriculum is stressed by almost one Albertan in four and one Tasmanian in twenty-four, mainly by teachers (one Albertan in five, one Tasmanian in five) and curriculum committee members (almost three Albertans in ten, nil in Tasmania). Society being reflected in curriculum is ranked first by almost one Albertan in twelve to over one Tasmanian in five. Chief responses here are from principals (two Albertans in nine, one Tasmanian in nine), curriculum committee members (almost three Albertans in ten, all Tasmanians), and teachers (nil in Alberta, almost one Tasmanian in four). Greater teacher voice is called for by one Albertan in eleven and one Tasmanian in twelve, chiefly by teachers (about one Albertan in seven, one Tasmanian in 82 twelve), principals (one Albertan in nine, one Tasmanian in six), and school-system administrators (one Albertan in eight). Question 5: Were you involved in the development of the guide? Yes No Over three respondents in four indicate that they were not involved, while almost one in four replies that he/she was involved in the development of the guide. Involvement by the various groups was as follows (with the balance not involved in each case): teachers-~one in eight; parents--nil; university staff--two in three; curriculum committee members--five in eight; school-system administrators--one in sixteen; and teacher representatives--one in four. Over four Albertans in five were pp£_involved, to two in three in Tasmania. All Albertan groups except Department staff, university staff, and curriculum committee members were involved in a lower ratio than one in two. No parents were involved and fewer than one in ten Albertan teachers, principals, and school-system administrators were involved. In Tasmania, one teacher in five and one principal in three was involved. Both regions had higher involvement of university staff (three Albertans in five, three Tasmanians in four) and Department staff (three Albertans in five and almost three Tasmanians in four). Question 5A: If so, how? To the question asking how they were involved, over four respondents in five do not answer. One in nine says that he/she 83 had been a curriculum committee member and about one in thirty had been a pilot teacher. Those responding as having been a curriculum committee mem- ber include Department staff (almost three in five), university staff (four in nine), and curriculum committee members (one in two). The pilot teacher role is noted by one teacher in thirty, one princi- pal in thirty-six, and one Department staff in twelve. One Albertan in eleven had been a curriculum committee mem- ber, notably Department staff (three in five), curriculum committee member (over two in five), and university staff (one in five). Tasmanians cited membership on the curriculum committee in the ratio of one in seven, chiefly university staff (three in four), curriculum committee member (all), Department staff (over five in nine), principal (one in nine). All pilot teachers were Tasmanians (one Tasmanian in fourteen). These pilot teachers in Tasmania were Department staff (one in seven), teachers and principals (about one in eighteen). Question 6: Should you have been involved? Yes No One respondent in two feels there should have been involve- ment for them in development Of the guide, while almost two in five feel that they should not have been involved. The remainder omit an answer. All except teachers and school-system administrators reply . in at least the ratio Of one in two that they should have been involved. Teachers reply this way in the ratio of four in nine and 84 school-system administrators in the ratio of about one in three. Five school-system administrators in nine and four teachers in nine reply that they should not have been involved, as does one teacher representative in two. Fewer than one Albertan in two and just over one Tasmanian in two shares the view that he/she should have been involved. About four teachers in nine in each region feel this way. One Albertan principal in three (nearly three in four in Tasmania), high ratios of Albertan parents, university staff, and Department staff (but just under four in nine in Tasmania) and one school-system administrator in three also feel that they should have been involved. No Tasmanian teacher representative or curriculum committee members want involve- ment. Four teachers in nine in each region feel that they should not have been involved. Question 6A: If so, how? Almost three respondents in five give no response as to how they should have been involved. About one respondent in twelve feels that a questionnaire/consultant approach would have been best to give involvement; one in thirteen says that some form of representation is best for involvement; and one in nineteen wants to represent his/ her own group by direct involvement. A total of fourteen different responses are given to this question. Consultation is suggested by teachers (one in nine) and by principals (almost one in five). Representation is preferred by one principal in nine and by some in all other groups except 85 Department staff and teacher representatives. Direct involvement is sought by one Department staff and university staff in three and by one parent in nine. One Tasmanian in seven endorses consultation (one teacher in nine and one principal in three), to one Albertan in twenty-two (one teacher in ten and one principal in eighteen). Representation is suggested by one Albertan in ten, including two university staff in five and one principal hlsix,and by one Tasmanian in twenty-four. Direct involvement is proposed by about one Albertan in thirty, the main ones being one parent, university staff, and Department staff in five, and by one Tasmanian in twelve, including three Department staff in five and one university staff in two. Question 7: Do you think that it is a "good" guide? Yes No Seven respondents in ten indicate that they think it is a "good" guide, while about two in nine say that it is not. The bal- ance do not reply. Groups responding that it is a "good" guide in a ratio less than the average are teachers (almost two in three) and school-system administrators (five in eight). Almost three Albertans in five think that it is a "good" guide along with over four Tasmanians in five. The only group in either region with less than half the respondents saying it is a "good" guide are Albertan teachers (almost one in two). One Tasmanian teacher representative in two feels that it is a ”good" guide. The next least positive response comes from Albertan principals, with five in nine saying that it is a "good" guide. 86 Conversely, almost one Albertan in three says it is not good, to one Tasmanian in twelve. Two Albertan teachers, parents, and university staff in five are of this view. Question 8: DO you have any criticisms of the guide? Three respondents in eight give no answer when asked if they have any criticisms of the guide. Two in eleven say that the guide is too general or vague, one in nine says that teachers find it hard to understand, about one in eighteen registers "no criticism," one in twenty says that teachers need more direction than is given, and one in twenty-two says that content dates very quickly. There are eighteen different answers given for this question. Almost one Albertan in four says that the guide is too gen- eral or vague, the chief group being teachers (almost two in five). One Tasmanian in nine agrees, consisting of over one principal in four and one teacher in twelve. About one Albertan in five finds the guide hard to understand, to one Tasmanian in seventy. Those saying that the guide is hard to understand include almost three Albertan curriculum committee members in four, and one Albertan school-system administrator in two. One Albertan in eleven proposes more direction for teachers (nil in Tasmania). This response comes from six different groups. Concern about the content dating is expressed by about one Albertan in thirty and one Tasmanian in eighteen. The most common response in this vein comes from over one Tasmanian Department staff in four. 87 "No criticism" is the specific response Of about two Tas- manian teachers in eleven. No response is given by over one Albertan in three (including four teachers and principals in nine) and by two Tasmanians in five (including over two teachers in five and one principal in three). Question 9: Check how the curriculum guide sets the following: .. I 3112:2222? t- texts/ ‘ 3 5.293333" content: references: E q ( ) not at all ) not at all - ( ) in general . ( ) in general c' 1.2313529 ( ) in detail d' €3,312" ( ) in detail ' ( ) not at all ’ ( ) not at all Course content, texts/references, teaching methods, and time on topics are all perceived to be set in general terms only by about two respondents in five. This response is given about two and a half times as often as the next most common response. Perceptions that only general directions come from the guide are expressed by proportionately few teachers (just over a quarter of them), parents (one in three), and Department personnel (one in four). All Albertan groups include some who give the response that only general direc- tions are given, this answer coming from over half of the respondents in that region. In Tasmania, only about one in five agree. Only one in five Albertan parents responds that the guide gives general direction, and teacher responses in this vein fall below the overall ratio. Notable variations from the general proportion in Tasmania come from principals (just over one in four--and less than half the proportion of their Albertan counterparts), teachers (less than one 88 in six--and about one-third of the proportion of their Albertan coun- terparts), and parents (one in each twO--and over twice the proportion of their Albertan counterparts). The next most common response to the question is to the effect that the guide is perceived to set course content, texts/references, and teaching methods in general terms only but that time on tOpics receives no guidance. Most respondents in this category are school personnel, over half being teachers. About one teacher in four gives this answer. Answers vary according to region, however, as only one Albertan teacher in about fifteen gives this response, compared with over one in three in Tasmania, and principals in Tasmania give this reply twice as often as do those in Alberta. Of the twenty-one different combinations given in response to this question, the two most common account for over half of all responses. Question 10: How is any Obligation by the teacher to follow the guide enforced? II through SEt tEXtS 3( ) by inspection (department staff) 2( by inspection (other) 4( ) other ( ) Enforcement of the guide is variously perceived by respon- dents. Almost one in three feels that there is no enforcement. This response was written in as an alternative to the choices listed on the questionnaire, so it must be felt strongly. The most notable proportion citing no enforcement is in the teacher group, where almOSt one in two does so. Overall, Tasmanian respondents perceive 89 absence of enforcement about twice as frequently as do Albertan respondents. Over half the Tasmanian principals agree, to one in six in Alberta, and half of the Tasmanian university reSpondents feel the same way, to one in five in Alberta. Parents agree with this perception in a proportion of one in four, or less, in each region. One respondent in five says that enforcement of the guide comes through inspection by department staff. Overall, Tasmanian respondents give this answer almost three times as frequently as do the Albertans. In so doing, the Tasmanian respondents reduce the significance of their perceptions of freedom which is indicated by their perception of absence of enforcement noted above. Department inspection is perceived by only about one Albertan teacher in seven compared with over one in four in Tasmania. Except for the teachers, no Albertan group has more than a single respondent indicating that there is Department inspection. Percep- tions of inspection by the Department are noted by almost half of the principals in Tasmania and by a slightly lower ratio of Depart- ment staff there. A half Of the small sample of teacher representa- tives in each region also respond that the guide is enforced through departmental inspection. About one in seven of all respondents refers to other inspec- tion. When this response is linked with inspection by central office in Alberta and by principals in Tasmania, the frequency of response is about one in four. Ratio of response AlbertanszTasmanians is about five:one, reflecting the implications of decentralization: 9O centralization in organizational structure. .Enforcement by other school authorities besides the Department is perceived by about one Albertan teacher in four, to about one in seventeen in Tasmania; by over half Of the Albertan principals, to none in Tasmania; and by over half of the school-system administrators. Question 11: To what extent should the guide prescribe social studies/social science3 for the Province/State? l( ) not at all 3( ) somewhat 5( ) fully 2( ) little 4( ) extensively Almost half of all respondents indicate that they favor pre- scription by the guide in moderate measure ("somewhat"). There is a high degree of support for this answer, with over three in every four university staff and over one in each two Department staff respond- ing for moderate prescription. Slightly more Tasmanians than Alber- tans, proportionately, give this response. About one in fifteen calls for no prescription. Higher than average ratios of this view come from teachers and Department staff (about one in each twelve) and from curriculum committee members and teacher representatives (one in each four). Overall, Albertans call for no prescription in the ratio of about one in twelve respondents, to about one in sixteen from Tasmanians. However, the sole curricu- lum committee member in Tasmania gives this response, as do about one in twelve of the teachers. Albertan teachers respond in the same way 3The term "social studies" applies in Alberta; "social science" is used in Tasmania. 91 in the ratio of about one in fifteen and teacher representatives, one in two. The next least restrictive, "little prescription," is called for by about one respondent in eight, including principals in the ratio of about one in six and Department staff in the ratio Of about one in five. Among Tasmanian respondents, almost one in five favors this response to about one in fifteen among Albertans. Only about one in ten of the Tasmanian teachers perceives little prescription (nil in Alberta), but principals perceive this in the ratio of over one in five (half that rate in Alberta), and Department staff by over two in five (nil in Alberta). Two Albertan parents in five give this response. A A call for extensive prescription comes from almost one respondent in three. A ratio higher than this average comes from principals (over two in five). Albertans favor extensive prescrip- tion almost twice as frequently as do Tasmanians. In the groups, Albertan teachers prefer extensive prescription in the ratio of over two in five (Tasmanians are fewer than one in four), principals by over one in two (Tasmanians by one in three), and parents by one in four (one in two in Tasmania). In addition, one Albertan teacher representative in two gives this response. Full prescription is preferred by no Tasmanians, but is called for by about one Albertan in twenty, including one parent in five. 92 Questions Related to Curriculum Curriculum is defined as all of the planned experiences that are offered to learners under the auspices of the school. In this section, there are four areas of inquiry: Curriculum Sources (questions 12 and 13), Texts/References (questions 14 through 20), Roles in Curriculum Development (questions 21 through 25), Planning for Program Implementation (questions 26 through 28) . Curriculum Sources The sources of the curriculum are the subject of questions twelve and thirteen. The most common responses to these questions are summarized below. In indicating their perceptions of "what is" and "what should be," respondents rate teachers, the curriculum committee, and the Department of Education as their top three curriculum sources. How- ever, teachers and the curriculum committee are ranked as being almost equal in the existing situation, while teachers are placed much higher than the curriculum committee in the desired situation. The Department is ranked less highly in response to the question on "what should be" than it is in response to the question on "what is" as sources of curriculum. So far as the existing situation is con— cerned, Tasmanian teachers believe teachers are more the source of curriculum than do Albertan teachers, and Albertan teachers rank the Department more highly than do Tasmanian teachers. When indi- cating who should plan curriculum, no Tasmanians rank the Department 93 of Education first and more Albertans than Tasmanians rank the cur- riculum committee first. Question 12: Rank according to who actually sets curriculum now: l( ) teacher 5( ) principal 9( ) school-sys. adm. 2( ) parent 6( ) department 10( ) teacher organ. 3( ) university 7( ) elected rep. ll( ) other ( ) 4( ) publisher 8( ) curric. comm. Perceptions of who actually sets curriculum now were sought in question 12. Over one in each three respondents rank teachers first, with almost as many stating that it is curriculum committee members. Of the remainder, about one in six ranks the Department of Education first. Of those ranking teachers first, notable variations from the average ratio occur with the Department staff and curriculum commit- tee members (each with one in two), and with parents (just one in nine). Two and a half times as many Tasmanian teachers as Albertan teachers rank teachers first--over one in two to about one in five. The ratio of principals ranking teachers first is slightly higher in Tasmania than in Alberta. In Alberta, teachers are ranked first by three university staff in five, by three Department staff in five, and by just over two curriculum committee members in five. The same view is held by over two Department staff in five in Tasmania and by one teacher representative in two there. Notable variations from the average ratio of one respondent in three giving the curriculum committee first ranking come from principals (over two in five), parents (over one in two), Department personnel (one in six), and curriculum committee members (one in 94 four). Between regions, a higher ratio of teachers in Alberta than in Tasmania ranks the curriculum committee first; the same applies for Department staff; but the opposite is the case for principals and for parents. While the ratio ranking the curriculum committee first is similar in Alberta and in Tasmania, the ratios of those ranking the Department of Education first differ widely between regions. In Alberta, almost one in four ranks the Department first, to less than one in eleven in Tasmania. Albertan school personnel reply at about the averate ratio but those in Tasmania vary, there being about one in nine of teacher responses and one in seventeen of principal responses in this category. Question 13: Rank according to who should plan the curriculum for social studies/social science: l( ) teacher 5( ) principal 9( ) school-sys. admin. 2( ) parent 6( ) department 10( ) teacher organ. 3( ) university 7( ) elected rep. ll( ) other( ) 4( ) publisher 8( ) curric. comm. Over half of all respondents rank teachers first when stat- ing who should set the curriculum. About one in four ranks the cur- riculum committee first and one in seventeen prefers the Department of Education. Groups ranking teachers first include all the teacher repre- sentatives, three in eight school-system administrators, and slightly over one in two of the teachers, principals, and Department staff. A similar ratio ranks teachers first in each region. Teachers and' principals in Tasmania, when grouped together, are more strongly of 95 this view than are their Albertan counterparts, in the ratio of about three to two. Department staff in each region rank teachers first in the ratio of about three in five, a similar ratio to the responses of school-system administrators. However, teachers are ranked first by three Albertan parents in five and by four Albertan university staff in five, to nil in Tasmania. The curriculum committee is ranked first by a higher ratio of Albertans than Tasmanians: about three to two. Over twice the ratio of Albertan teachers (just over one in three) give this rank- ing when compared with their Tasmanian counterparts. Principals in Alberta are also above average in ranking the curriculum committee first, almost two in five being of this view. Tasmanian parents agree in the ratio of three in four, to one in five in Alberta. Tasmanian university staff also rank the curriculum committee first in the ratio of three in four, to one in five in Alberta. Department staff responses ranking the curriculum committee first are one in five in Alberta (nil in Tasmania) and Albertan curriculum committee members agree in the ratio of about one in seven (nil in Tasmania). No Tasmanians give the Department of Education first ranking, all responses in this category coming from Albertans. The most promi- nent group giving this response is curriculum committee members, who favor it in the ratio of over two in five respondents. Texts/References The subject referred to in questions fourteen through twenty is texts/references in curriculum development.. The answers to the 96 questions show the perceptions of respondents about texts/references used in social studies/social science. The general direction of the answers is given below. A majority of respondents oppose set texts, more so in Tasmania than in Alberta. The most common reason given to justify views on whether there should not be set texts is that texts limit the scope of work, a point of view more strongly endorsed in Alberta than in Tasmania. Over half the respondents feel that existing texts are npt_satisfactory, with similar overall ratios having this view in each region. However, greater dissatisfaction, propor- tionately, comes from Albertan teachers, parents, and university personnel than from their Tasmanian counterparts. There are many comments about why the texts are satisfactory or not, chief being that there are too few texts available (by more Albertans than Tasmanians) and that texts are too difficult (by more Tasmanians than Albertans). Asked what are the sources of materials, respondents cite "various sources" (this answer is more common from Tasmanians than from Albertans), "publishing houses" (more Albertans than Tasmanians give this response), and "the Department of Education" (this answer comes from Tasmanians only). Nearly half the respondents feel that materials accompany new curriculum ideas; some think that materials follow new curriculum ideas; and a few, chiefly Albertans, think that the materials lead the ideas. Compared with answers to the previous question about whether materials accompany, follow, or lead new curriculum ideas, respondents to the question On what should occur 97 are more strongly in favor of having materials accompany the ideas. A similar ratio is each area gives this answer. There are also more people in favor of having materials leading ideas in the ideal, with more Albertans than Tasmanians having this view. Few peOple want materials to follow the ideas. Question 14: Should there be set texts for social studies/social science? Yes No Almost two respondents in three state that there should npt_ be set texts. Groups differing from this ratio to a notable extent, in Opposing set texts, are teachers (almost three in four), Depart- ment staff (over nine in ten), university staff (over three in four), school-system administrators (three in eight), teacher representa- tives (three in four), and parents (two in nine). Opposition to set texts comes from over four in five respon- dents in Tasmania to just over a half of all respondents in Alberta. Of the Tasmanian groups, teachers, principals, and Department staff oppose set texts with ratios slightly above the average, while one parent and teacher representative in two is in agreement. Albertan groups respond with school-system administrators and principals below the average ratio, and no parent responses oppose set texts. Teacher and curriculum committee groups reply with ratios slightly above the average and there is total commitment to this concept by all members of Department and teacher representative groups. Question 15: Why should there be set texts? (Why not?) Various reasons are given favoring or opposing set texts. The most common response, in opposition, by over one in two 98 respondents, is that set texts limit the scope of work in school. Next common answer, in favor, by about one in six, is that texts set the course more clearly. A particularly high ratio of Department and university per- sonnel (about three in four) answers against set texts by saying that such texts limit the scope of work in school. The same response comes from one parent in nine. Tasmanians perceive texts as limiting the scope of work in school almost twice as frequently as do Albertans. Only parents as a group in Tasmania respond in a ratio of less than one in two, being just one in four saying that set texts would limit the scope of school work. An average ratio of three Tasmanians in four has this perception, with teachers and Department staff respond- ing at ratios above the average. Albertans average about two in five with this reply and include just university staff (four in five), Department staff (three in five), curriculum committee members (under three in five), and teacher representatives (all respondents in the group), with a majority feeling that texts would limit the scope of school work. Albertan school-based personnel (teachers and principals) agree in the ratio of about one in three. One teacher in nine, about one principal in five, over two school-system administrators in five, and one parent in three favor set texts to set the course more clearly. About twice as many Albertans as Tasmanians give this answer, although over twice as many Tasmanian teachers as Albertan teachers do so. Notable groups (and ratios) favoring set texts to set the course more clearly are Albertan parents (three in five), principals (Over one in four), and 99 school-system administrators (over two in five). Tasmanian teachers give this response in the ratio of about one in seven. Texts are also favored because of the availability of suit- able and relevant materials, by about one respondent in sixteen. This response is given by four times as many Albertans as Tasmanians, chiefly by one Albertan teacher in five. Question 16: Are the available text/reference books satisfactory? Yes No Just over half the respondents say that texts/references that are available are not satisfactory, compared with about two in five saying that available texts/references are satisfactory. Principals state that texts are npt_satisfactory in the ratio of over three in five, at the same time as one in three of this group find them satis- factory. Other groups are more in agreement with the average responses. There is a similar ratio of Albertans and Tasmanians per- ceiving text/reference books as being satisfactory and a similar ratio in each area perceives them as being unsatisfactory. However, about three Albertan teachers in five feel that materials are unsatis- factory, compared with less than one in two Tasmanian teachers; four Albertan parents in five agree, to none in Tasmania; four Albertan university personnel in five think the same, to one in four in Tasmania; and just over two in five Albertan principals perceive materials as being unsatisfactory, hoover four out of five in Tasmania. The Opinion that materials are satisfactory comes from almost twice as many Tasmanian teachers, prOportionately, as Albertan 100 teachers, being held by over one in two Tasmanian teachers. Three in four Tasmanian parents perceive materials as being satisfactory, while none in Alberta do so. One Albertan principal in two is of this Opinion, to one in six in Tasmania. More than one in two school- system administrators in Alberta feels that materials are satisfactory. Question 17: Why? (Why not?) There are twelve different answers to the question of why? (Why not?) on available materials being satisfactory. Almost one respondent in five indicates that there are not enough materials available. About one in five says that materials are too difficult. About one in six expresses general satisfaction with materials. About one in twelve notes that materials are not appropriate. Just over one in five of those surveyed does not respond to this question. About twice as many teachers as the overall Albertan ratio indicate that there are not sufficient materials available, while about one-third of the teachers compared with the overall Tasmanian ratio do so. On the other hand, about one principal in eighteen in Alberta says that there are not enough materials, to one principal in two in Tasmania giving this response. The excessive difficulty of materials is cited two and a half times as frequently by Tasmanian respondents as by Albertans. Respondents in Tasmania who are teachers, principals, Department staff, and curriculum committee members say that materials are too difficult two and a half times as frequently, or more, as do Albertans in these groups. 101 Satisfaction with materials is expressed by about one Albertan in five, to about one in eight from Tasmania. One teacher in ten and one principal in three is of this view in Alberta. Over one teacher in four feels this way in Tasmania. Question 18: Who writes/publishes books used in teaching social studies/social science? There are fourteen different responses to this question. About one reply in three indicates that there are various writers/ publishers of texts; about one respondent in fourteen says that pub- lishing houses produce texts; and a further one in fifteen points to the Department of Education as the source of books used in teaching social studies/social science. About one Albertan in four feels that there are various writers/publishers, while about nine Tasmanians in twenty indicate this answer. Overall, those replying that there are various writers/ publishers, hithe ratio of one in three or higher, are teachers, principals, school-system administrators, Department staff, and cur- riculum committee members. Almost twice as many Tasmanian as Albertan teachers are of this view; over three times the ratio of Tasmanian to Albertan principals agree; and almost four times the Tasmanian to I the Albertan Department staff give the same response. All curriculum committee members and school-system administrators noting various publishers/writers are Albertans. Publishing houses as writers/publishers of books used in teaching social studies/social science is the response given by one principal in six. Overall responses with thisanswer are from one 102 . Albertan in ten, about four times the ratio of Tasmanians saying that ,publishing houses are the writers/publishers of books used. Twice the ratio of Albertan principals as those in Tasmania give this reply, in the ratio of two in each nine. The Department of Education is listed as the writer/publisher of books used in social studies/social science by Tasmanians only, in the ratio of about one Tasmanian in each seven. Among Tasmanian respondents, one teacher in five gives this reply, as does one parent in four and one university staff member in two. Question 19: Books may introduce new ideas; may be published simul- taneously with new ideas; or may be produced to reflect ideas being used. How do books used at present in social studies/social science relate to the curriculum ideas of the program? 1( ) lead 2( ) accompany 3( ) follow In the views of about four respondents in nine, the books used at present in social studies/social science accompany curricu- lum ideas of the program. About three respondents in ten see the books as following the ideas, while about one in thirteen says that the books lead the ideas. The highest ratio saying that books used at present in social studies/social science accompany curriculum ideas are teachers, in the ratio of three in five. Slightly under half Of all Albertans and Tasmanians share this view. Teachers in each area reply that the ideas and the books go together.‘hlthe ratio of about three in five. The next highest ratio with this answer comes from school-system administrators (Albertans). hithe ratio of one in two. 103 One principal in two, one Department staff member in two, four university personnel in nine, and about one school-system adminis- trator in three endorse the idea that the books used in social studies/social science follow new curriculum ideas. Principals respond in a Similar ratio in both areas; there are over twice as many Albertan Department staff as Tasmanian giving this answer; and three university staff in five in Alberta agree, to none in Tasmania. The books used in social studies/social science lead curricu- lum ideas, in the view of almost twice as many Albertans as Tasmanians. Albertan parents (two in five) and Albertan principals (about one in six) give this reply. Question 20: Which should they do? l( ) lead 2( ) accompany 3( ) follow Just over three respondents in five feel that books used in the program should accompany curriculum ideas. About one in seven prefers that books lead curriculum ideas and about one in twelve feels that books should follow curriculum ideas. Chief groups favoring books accompanying ideas are princi- pals (almost three in four), parents and Department personnel (two- in three), curriculum committee members (five in eight), teachers (about three in five), and university staff (five in nine). Responses that books should accompany curriculum ideas are fairly evenly balanced between Albertans and Tasmanians. In Alberta, only school- system administrators are less than one in two in favor of this 104 response; in Tasmania, only curriculum committee members are less than one in two in agreement with this response. One parent in three and almost one school-system administra- tor in five prefers that books lead curriculum ideas. About half as many again more Albertans than Tasmanians are in agreement with this view. One Tasmanian parent in two feels this way, as does one Albertan teacher in five. Roles in Curriculum Development Perceptions of roles in curriculum development are the subject Of questions twenty-one through twenty-five. Responses to the ques- tions point to the general summary of perceptions given below. Curriculum development leadership by the teacher organiza- tion is ranked quite similarly in each area, with the perception being that there is "little" rather than "extensive" curriculum development leadership by the teacher organization. Principals tend to give more extensive encouragement of curriculum development than does the teacher organization. Teachers and principals agree on this point. Much more encouragement of curriculum development by principals is seen in Tasmania than in Alberta. School-system administrators are seen as giving moderate encouragement of curricu- 1um development by classroom teachers. There are more Tasmanians than Albertans with this point of view.4 Principals are perceived by the total respondent group as doing very little actual supervision 4Tasmania has no local school-systems. Tasmanian respondents generally meant their superintendents, from the wording of the question. 105 .of teachers or monitoring of teacher plans. Principals themselves, in both areas, feel that there is more extensive supervision than do their teachers. Monitoring of teacher plans by principals is viewed as occurring more in Tasmania than in Alberta. Question 21: To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in curriculum development? l( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2( ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat Over two respondents in five feel that the teacher organiza- tions' leadership in curriculum development is moderate. About one in eighty sees full leadership, one in six sees extensive leadership, about one in three sees little, and one in twenty sees none. The ratio checking extensive or full leadership, compared with little or none, is less than one to two. Moderate5 leadership in curriculum development by the teacher organization is noted by all curriculum committee members, by just over one principal in two, by one school—system administrator in two, and by just over two teachers in five. Over one Albertan in two checks this response, to just under one Tasmanian in three. Besides all curriculum committee members in both areas and one school-system administrator in two in Alberta, the answer that the teacher organi- zation gives moderate leadership in curriculum development comes from over three Albertan principals in four (to just over one in four 5The category "somewhat" is interchanged with “moderate" throughout the report. 106 in Tasmania), and by about four Albertan teachers in nine (to under two in five in Tasmania). Significant6 leadership by the teacher organization in pro- viding curriculum develOpment is seen by one Department staff member in two and by one teacher organization representative in two. Apart from these groups, the highest ratio of respondents checking this response comes from Tasmanian principals (over one in four--to about one in eighteen in Alberta). A ratio of one in two of school-system administrators and of Department staff perceive little or no teacher organization leader- ship in curriculum development. Agreement with this point of view comes from four parents in nine, one university staff member in three, two teachers in five, and about three principals in ten. The extreme answer, that the teacher organization gives no leadership in curricu- lum development, is checked by one Albertan teacher in fourteen (the only Albertan respondents to check this) and by about one Tasmanian teacher in seven. One Albertan in three sees little or no leader- ship, as do about four Tasmanians in nine. One teacher representa- tive in two in Tasmania gives this answer; one Albertan school-system administrator in two does so; and parents in the ratio Of two in five (Alberta) and one in two (Tasmania) agree. So do four Tasmanian principals in nine (to less than one in three in Alberta). About two teachers in five in each area also indicate that they perceive little or 1K) leadership in curriculum development by the teacher organization. 6The categories "extensively“ and "fully," when combined, are summarized as "significant" throughout the report. 107 Question 22: To what extent do principals encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? 1( ) not at all 43 ) extensively 2( ) little 5 fully 3( ) somewhat Just over two respondents in five feel that principals encour- age curriculum development by teachers to a moderate extent. One in forty says there is no encouragement; just under one in four says there islittle encouragement; just over one in four says that encour- agement is extensive; and one in twenty says that encouragement is full. One in four says there is little or no encouragement; three in ten say that principals give extensive or full encouragement for cur- riculum development by classroom teachers. Moderate encouragement of curriculum development by classroom teachers from the principal is indicated by about a similar propor- tion of respondents in Alberta and in Tasmania. Overall, only one teacher and principal in three gives this response, compared with about four school-system administrators in nine; five parents and university personnel in nine; five curriculum committee members in eight; and two Department staff in three. One teacher in four, three school-system administrators and curriculum members in eight, and about one principal in five feel that there is little or no encouragement by principals for class- room teachers to develOp curriculum. Extensive or full encouragement by principals is perceived by almost one principal in two and by almost two teachers in five. 108 Teachers and principals in both Alberta and Tasmania check moderate encouragement in the ratio of about one in three. All other groups in Alberta and in Tasmania perceive moderate encourage- ment in the ratio of about one in two, or higher. One Albertan in three sees little or no encouragement of curriculum development by principals, to about one in seven in Tas- mania. Albertan teachers give this response in the ratio of over two in five (to one in seven in Tasmania) and all other Albertan groups make this a far more frequent response than do Tasmanians. The reverse is true for extensive or full encouragement, with Tasmanians overall citing significant principal leadership in over two cases in five, to only one in five in Alberta. About twice as many Tasmanian teachers as the overall ratio in Tasmania have this perception. One Tasmanian teacher in two feels this way. Principals give the answer of extensive or full leadership more uni- formly. One Tasmanian principal in two to over two Albertan princi- pals in five give this answer. Question 23: To what extent do school-system administrators (super- intendent, supervisor) encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? 1( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2( ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat Just over two respondents in five indicate that school-system administrators encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers to a moderate extent. Fewer than one in twenty feels there is no encouragement; one in five says that there is little encouragement; 109 over one in four indicates that encouragement is extensive; and about one in eight sees the encouragement as full. The highest propor- tion of respondents indicating that there is moderate encouragement Of curriculum development by school-system administrators are parents, with over three in four giving this response. Significant encourage- ment of curriculum development by school-system administrators is indicated by about one in three of principals, school-system adminis- trators, Department staff, university personnel, curriculum committee members, and teachers. "Little or no encouragement" is the response by about one in three teachers and principals and by one in four school-system administrators. Over one of every two Tasmanians responds that there is moderate encouragement of curriculum development by superintendents, compared with about two Albertans in each five giving this answer. Generally, Albertan respondents perceive less encouragement by school-system administrators than do Tasmanian respondents. Both responses that there is full encouragement come from Albertans. Extensive encouragement of curriculum development by superintendents is perceived by almost 50 percent more Tasmanian teachers, propor- tionately, than Albertan teachers. Most perceptions of no encourage- ment Of curriculum development come from Alberta with almost one teacher in five giving this answer. The ratio Of teachers perceiv- ing little encouragement is similar in Alberta and in Tasmania. Little encouragement is also perceived by two Albertan principals in five (to just over one in four in Tasmania) and by one school-system administrator in four. 110 Question 24: To what extent do principals actually supervise teach- ing of classroom teachers? 1( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2 ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat Just under one respondent in three perceives moderate super- vision of classroom teaching by principals. About one in twelve indicates that there is no supervision; over two in five say there is little supervision; about one in seven sees extensive supervision; and only one in 160 perceives full supervision. Moderate supervision is the response by one Department staff in two and by about two in five of principals and school-system administrators--to just over one teacher in five. Principals and curriculum committee members see significant supervision in the ratio of about one in four. Over three teachers in five perceive little or no supervision, as do two parents in three, five university personnel in nine, two school-system administrators in five, and almost one principal in three. Moderate supervision of classroom teaching by principals is perceived by a similar ratio overall in Alberta as in Tasmania, with variations between groups. Thus, almost two principals in five from Alberta give this response, to almost three in five from Tasmania, and four Albertan Department staff in five do so, to just over one in four in Tasmania. Full superviSion of classroom teachers by principals is per- ceived by no one in Alberta and by only one (a teacher, one in about thirty-five) in Tasmania. Almost one principal in four in each area 111 feels that there is extensive supervision of classroom teachers by principals but only one Tasmanian teacher in six and one Albertan teacher in twenty-eight agrees. All Albertan respondents indicating no supervision of class- room teachers by principals are teachers (over one in four), to about one in twelve from Tasmania. Little supervision is perceived by some respondents in almost all groups, including two Albertan parents in five (one in two in Tasmania); by almost two Albertan principals in five (just over one in five in Tasmania); and by one teacher repre- sentative in two in Alberta (all in Tasmania). Question 25: To what extent do principals monitor daily/weekly plans of classroom teachers? 1( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2( ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat About one respondent in four says that principals monitor the weekly/daily plans of classroom teachers to a moderate extent. One respondent in six perceives no monitoring of weekly/daily plans by principals and two respondents in five see little monitoring of plans. About one respondent in seven feels that there is extensive monitoring and only one in twenty perceives full monitoring of the plans of classroom teachers by principals. Those responding that there is little or no monitoring of plans by principals include more than one teacher in two, four school- system administrators in five, two parents in three, over half of the university staff, and all teacher organization representatives, but only two principals in five and one Department staff member in three. 112 Perceptions of significant monitoring of daily/weekly plans of classroom teachers come from about one in five of the teachers, principals, Department staff, and parents. Moderate monitoring of teacher plans by principals is per- ceived by one Tasmanian respondent in three, to one Albertan in six. No Albertans respond that there is full monitoring of plans, compared with one Tasmanian in ten, including one Tasmanian teacher in seven. About one Albertan in thirty, including one principal in nine, per- ceives extensive monitoring of plans. Tasmanians see extensive monitoring of plans by principals in the ratio of almost three in ten. Notable responses from groups in Tasmania, indicating exten- sive monitoring, are over one teacher in four, one parent in two, one principal in three, and almost three Department staff in ten. At the other extreme, perceiving no monitoring of teacher plans, is about one Albertan in four and one Tasmanian in eighteen. Over two Albertan teachers in five, one school-system administrator in five, and one principal in five share this view. In Tasmania, about one teacher in sixteen agrees that there is no monitoring of plans by principals, as does about one principal in thirty. Little monitoring of the daily/weekly plans is perceived by more than one Albertan in two, to about one in five in Tasmania. ‘This response comes from about two Albertan teachers in five, from all parents, from one principal in two, and from five school-system administrators in eight. By comparison, about one Tasmanian teacher in four, one parent in four, and one principal in nine agrees. 113 Planning for Program Implementation The planning that goes into program implementation is the subject of questions twenty-six through twenty-eight. This planning involves the provision of the necessary physical resources to accom- pany the introduction of a new program. A short survey of central tendencies in responses is given before each question is dealt with in more detail. The weight of Opinion about the extent of integrated planning to ensure that facilities and resources accompany new curriculum ideas is slightly towards "little" rather than "extensive." Albertans are more prominent than are Tasmanians with a perception of little planning and Albertans contribute all the responses that there is no planning. Responses place responsibility for planning on, in order of priority, the curriculum committee (this answer comes from more Tasmanians than Albertans), the Department (this answer comes from more Tasmanians than Albertans), teachers (this answer comes from more Albertans than Tasmanians), and principals (this answer comes from more Albertans than Tasmanians). Present planning could be improved, according to respondents, by providing more time for planning and teSting Of the proposed pro- gram (this response comes from more Albertans than Tasmanians); by allowing more teacher involvement in planning (this answer comes from more Albertans than Tasmanians); by providing better facilities/ Inore materials for the program (this answer comes from more Tasmanians than Albertans); and by improving communications so that teachers 114 become better informed about the program (this reply comes from more Tasmanians than Albertans). Question 26: How much is there integrated planning to ensure that facilities and resources accompany new curriculum ideas? l( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2( ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat One respondent in three replies that there is moderate inte- grated planning tO ensure that facilities and resources accompany new curriculum ideas. One in fourteen says there is no planning; almost one in three says that there is little planning; almost one in four feels that it is extensive; and less than one in fifty perceives full planning. About one in three teachers, principals, and school—system administrators sees moderate planning in this area. "Little" or "no" planning of facilities and resources to accompany new curricu- lum ideas is the response by one teacher in three, by two principals in five, and by five each of school-system administrators and parents in nine. The extreme position of no planning is most strongly perceived by school-system administrators in the ratio of one in four. Significant integrated planning to ensure that facilities and resources accompany new curriculum ideas is noted by about one teacher in three, by one Department staff member in two, and by one university respondent in three. Moderate planning to provide integration of facilities, resources, and curriculum ideas is seen by about two Albertans in 115 five, to almost one Tasmanian in three. These responses include one Albertan teacher in three (to one in four in Tasmania), about two Albertan principals in five (to one in three in Tasmania), and one school-system administrator in three. NO planning for integration is the response of one Albertan in eight, to none in Tasmania. One school-system administrator in four gives the response that there is no planning. Little inte- grated planning is perceived by one Albertan in three, compared with about three Tasmanians in ten. In Alberta, little planning is the answer of one teacher in five, three parents and university staff in five, two principals, curriculum committee members, and Department staff in five, and one school-system administrator in five. Tasmanian respondents citing little integrated planning of facilities, resources, and curriculum ideas include one teacher and principal in three, one parent in two, and one Department staff in seven, but no curriculum committee members or university staff. . Question 27: Who should provide integrated planning to ensure that resources accompany any new curriculum ideas? Rank: 1% ; teacher 5( ) principal 9( ) school sys. admin. 2 parent 6( ) department 10( ) teacher organ. 3( ) university 7( ) elected rep. ll( ) other ( ) 4( publisher 8 ) curric. comm. Integrated planning to ensure that resources accompany new curriculum ideas is perceived as being the first responsibility of the curriculum committee by over one respondent in four. The Depart- lnent of Education has first responsibility for this planning placed 116 on it by over one respondent in five, teachers by one respondent in five, and principals by about one respondent in seven. Those ranking the curriculum committee as having first responsibility for integrated planning include three teachers in ten, two Department personnel in five, over one principal in four, one university staff in three, and almost two curriculum members in five. The Department of Education is ranked first for undertaking this planning by four parents in nine, three school-system adminis- trators in eight, and one curriculum committee member in four, as well as by one Department staff in Six. Those ranking teachers as being primarily responsible are one parent and school-system administrator in three, almost one teacher in four, and one principal in six. Principals receive first ranking for the role of planner from one curriculum member in four, one principal in five, and one teacher in nine. The curriculum committee is ranked as being chiefly respon- sible for the integration of resources and curriculum ideas by almost two respondents in five in Tasmania and by about one in five in Alberta. About one Tasmanian in four ranks the Department of Educa- tion as being responsible, to one in five in Alberta. Those ranking the Department as having chief responsibility include three Tasmanian parents in four and two Albertan school-system administrators in five. Teachers are ranked as having first responsibility for plan- ning by about one Albertan in four, to one Tasmanian in six. Over one Albertan teacher in four, three Albertan parents in five, and 117 one school-system administrator in three give this response, along with one Tasmanian teacher in five and one Tasmanian principal in five. One Albertan in five places principals first when considering who should be responsible for integrated planning of resources and curriculum ideas, to just one Tasmanian in sixteen. Albertan groups giving this ranking include principals in the ratio of more than one in four and teachers in the ratio of one in five. Question 28: In what ways could present planning be improved? Ways perceived as best for the improvement of present plan- ning total eighteen. The most frequent responses to this question include calls for more time (by one respondent in six); for more teacher involvement (by a similar ratio); for better facilities/more materials (by a similar ratio); and for improved communications (by one respondent in sixteen). Those seeking more time for planning and testing of new curriculum ideas include three curriculum committee members in four, one School-system administrator in five, two parents in nine, and less than one teacher in ten. More teacher involvement is viewed as the best way to improve present planning for integra- tion of resources and curriculum ideas by one principal in five, one Department staff in three, one school—system administrator in four, and one teacher in seven. The provision of better facilities is the chief way to improve planning for integration, in the Opinions of two teachers and parents in nine. A call for improved communications as the best way to improve planning comes from one teacher in thirteen. 118 The matter of more time to effect improved planning is the response of almost one Albertan in four, to one Tasmanian in four- teen. Groups giving this answer include two Albertan parents in five, almost three Albertan curriculum committee members in four, and all teacher representatives. Teachers respond in this way in the ratio of one in seven in Alberta and one in sixteen in Tasmania. Teacher involvement is proposed as the first need in improv- ing planning by one Albertan in seven, to two Tasmanians in eleven. Teachers in Alberta respond in a ratio like that of the general group of Albertans, namely one in seven, while Tasmanian teachers also respond in the ratio of about one in seven. The answer that greater teacher involvement is needed to bring about improved plan- ning to integrate resources and curriculum ideas comes from one school-system administrator in four, one Albertan Department staff in five, and one Albertan principal in six. In Tasmania, this response comes from over two Department staff in five and from two principals in nine. Improved facilities/more materials are listed as being the chief need to effect improved planning by about one Tasmanian in three, to one Albertan in thirty. One Albertan teacher in fourteen gives this answer, as does one Tasmanian parent in two and about three Tasmanian teachers and principals in ten. The need for improved communications to improve planning is ranked first by one Tasmanian in nine, to one Albertan in forty. 0f the Albertans, one teacher in thirty and one Department staff in five give this response. In Tasmania, this answer comes from one 119 teacher representative in two, one university staff in four, and one teacher and principal in nine. Questions Related to Curriculum Dissemination In this section, there are four'areas of inquiry: Understanding the Guide (Questions 29 through 32), Use of the Guide (Questions 33 and 34), Teacher Training (Questions 35 and 36), Diffusion of Curriculum Ideas (Questions 37 through 40). Understanding the Guide Questionstwenty-nine through thirty-two focus on teacher understanding of the guide. This area of inquiry is important because the effect of the guide upon pupils in the classroom is determined largely by the extent to which classroom teachers under- stand the guide. Some central tendencies from responses are given, followed by a more detailed report on answers to each question. There are perceptions of a higher level of understanding of the guide in Tasmania than in Alberta. In the two areas combined, more than half the respondents feel that there is understanding, with high teacher understanding perceived by parents and the Depart- ment and much lower teacher understanding perceived by university staff, curriculum committee members, and school-system administrators. Respondents feel that teachers came to understand the present guide mainly through reading the guide, through Department workshops, ‘and through teacher organization workshops. The best ways to come to understand the guide are also ranked as being through reading the 120 guide, through Department workshops, and through teacher organization workshops. Both Albertans and Tasmanians rank reading the guide as of top priority in the existing situation and in what would be best for coming to understand the guide. Departmental workshops are ranked much more highly as helping understanding the guide in Tasmania than in Alberta. In the existing situation, understanding of the guide is perceived as stemming from departmental workshOps about fifteen times as frequently in Tasmania as in Alberta. In the ideal situa- tion, the ratio ranking Department workshops first by Albertans: Tasmanians is about twozone. For the existing situations, teacher organization workshops are ranked first in helping teachers to come to understand the guide about seven times as frequently in Alberta as in Tasmania. In the answers giving perceptions of the ideal way for teachers to come to understand the guide, there is almost equal distribution of Albertans/Tasmanians seeing teacher organization workshops as of first importance. Hindrances to teacher understanding of the guide include the lack of necessary time and the ambiguity of the guide (with Albertans giving these answers more frequently than do Tasmanians); the lack of help or training (with Tasmanians giving this answer more frequently than do Albertans); and the lack of training for teaching social studies (with this answer coming from both areas). Many respondents do not answer the question and some Tasmanians note that there is no hindrance to understanding the guide. 121 Question 29: Do teachers understand the guide provided by the Province/State? Yes NO Five respondents in eight state that teachers understand the existing guide. Two in nine state that teachers do not understand the guide, while one in thirteen feels that some do and some do not understand the guide. Understanding of the guide is perceived by all respondent groups, chiefly by seven parents in nine and three Department staff in four. Teachers give this answer in the ratio of about seven in ten. One university staff in three, three curriculum committee members in eight, and four school-system administrators in nine share this view. Lack of understanding of the guide is cited by university staff in the ratio of four in nine, by three school-system adminis- trators in eight, by over one principal in four, and by one teacher in eight. Albertans perceive that there is understanding of the guide in the ratio of four in nine, Tasmanians in the ratio of over four in five. No Albertan university staff have this view. Groups having low ratios perceiving teacher understanding of the guide are Albertan curriculum committee members (one in four), and principals and school- system administrators (four in nine). In Tasmania, the minimum ratio perceiving understanding Of the guide comes from university staff, with three in four having this view. Over one Albertan in three perceives lack of teacher under- standing of the guide, to one Tasmanian in eighteen. Albertan 122 groups with this view include three university staff in five, four curriculum members and principals in nine, three school-system administrators in eight, and just over one teacher in four. In Tasmania, one university staff in four and one principal in nine also perceives an absence of teacher understanding of the guide. Respondents who perceive some understanding Of the guide by teachers are one Albertan in ten and one Tasmanian in twenty-four. This reply comes mainly from two Albertan university staff in five, two school-system administrators in eleven, and one Tasmanian prin- cipal in nine. Question 30: Rank the ways in which teachers came to understand the guide: l( ) colleague(s) 8( ) department publication 2( ) principal 9( ) university course 3( ) department staff 10$ ) department workshop 4( ) reading the guide 11 teacher organ. workshop 5( ) other reading 12( ) teacher organ. publication 6( ) school-sys. admin. 13( ) other ( 7( ) texts Teachers come to understand the guide first by reading it, according to four respondents in each nine. One respondent in seven says that understanding comes through a Department workshop and one in sixteen perceives understanding as coming through a teacher organi- zation workshOp. Reading the guide is cited as the first way in which teach- ers came to understand the guide by almost three teachers in five, by two parents in three, by one curriculum committee member in two, by three teacher representatives in four, by three school-system adminis- trators in eight, and by two principals in nine. Department workshops 123 are listed as the chief way to teacher understanding by over one principal in four, by one Department staff member in four, and by one teacher in ten. Teacher organization workshOps have first rank— ing in providing understanding with two university staff in nine, one principal in seven, and one teacher in thirty-one. Just over two in five Albertan and Tasmanian respondents rank reading the guide as the most important way in which teachers came to understand the guide. Just over one Albertan teacher in two, four Albertan parents in five, five curriculum committee members in nine, and all Albertan teacher representatives feel this way. Over three Tasmanian teachers in five and one parent and teacher repre- sentative in two also place reading the guide first. Departmental workshops are ranked first as the way in which teachers came to understand the guide by almost one Tasmanian in three and by one Albertan in forty-four. Three Tasmanian Department staff in five place the department workshop first, as do five Tasmanian principals in nine and two Tasmanian teachers in eleven. Teacher organization workshops are ranked first as giving teacher understanding of the guide by one Albertan in ten and by one Tasmanian in seventy. Two Albertan parents in five, two Albertan principals in nine, and one Albertan teacher in fifteen place teacher organization workshops first. ,Question 31: What things hinder(ed) teachers from understanding the guide? There are fourteen different answers given as things that hinder(ed) teachers from understanding the guide. One respondent in 124 five sees lack of time as the first hindrance; almost one in five .sees ambiguity and difficulty in understanding the guide as the chief deterrent to understanding; almost one in ten feels that the lack of understanding comes from lack of help/training for teachers; about one in fourteen cites lack of training in social studies as a hindrance to understanding; and another one in fourteen says that there is no hindrance to understanding. In addition, one respondent in four does not answer the question. The absence of enough time to read the guide, to follow the necessary approach to come to understand the guide, and to orient teachers to the program is noted by one teacher in five, by one principal in four, and by one school-system administrator in three. One Department staff member in three, one curriculum committee mem- ber in four, two university staff and parents in nine, and one teacher in five perceive ambiguity in the guide and general lack of understanding of the guide by teachers as the chief hindrance. Lack of help/training for teachers is given as the chief hindrance to teacher understanding of the guide by one teacher representative in two, by one principal in nine, and by one teacher in ten. Lack of training in social studies is listed as the hindrance to understand- ing by one Department staff in four, by two university personnel in nine, by one school-system administrator in eighty, and by one teacher in thirty-two. One Albertan in four cites lack of time as the chief hin- drance to understanding of the guide, as does one Tasmanian in eight. .Albertans giving this answer first place are chiefly one school-system 125 administrator in three, over one teacher in four, and almost one principal in four. Tasmanians noting lack of time as a hindrance to understanding of the guide are mainly one teacher in seven and one principal in eighteen. Ambiguity of the guide and general lack of understanding of it is noted by almost one Albertan in four and by one Tasmanian in nine. Four Albertan Department staff in five, two Albertan university staff and parents in five, almost three Albertan currriculum committee members in ten, and about one Albertan teacher in four perceive problems of ambiguity, as does one Tasmanian teacher in seven. Absence of help/training for teachers as the main hin- drance to teacher understanding of the guide is noted by one Albertan in thirteen and by one Tasmanian in nine. One teacher representa- tive in two in each region holds the view that an absence of help/ training is the problem. About one in fourteen respondents in each area gives lack of training in social studies as the chief hindrance. Over two in five Tasmanian Department staff give this response. The "nil" responses indicating that there is no hindrance to teacher understanding of the guide come from no Albertans and from two Tasmanians in thirteen, including over one teacher in four. Question 32: Which ways would be best for teachers to understand the curriculum guide? colleague(s) principal department staff AI ) department publication 3( 1 4( ) reading the guide 5( ) 5( ) 7( ) 8( ) 9( ) university course 0( ) department workshOp l( ) teacher organ. workshop 2% ) teacher organ. publication 3 l 1 other reading 1 1 other ( ) school-system admin. texts 126 The best ways for teachers to come to understand the guide are given as "reading the guide" (by over one respondent in four), "Department workshop" (by over one respondent in five), and “teacher organization workshop" (by about one respondent in eight). Reading the guide is ranked first by four parents in nine, by three curriculum committee members and school-system administra- tors in eight, and by one teacher in three. First ranking is given to Department workshop as the best way to get teacher understanding of the guide by one curriculum committee member in two, by one parent, principal, and university staff member in three, and by one teacher in eight. Teacher organization workshops are ranked first for effecting understanding of the guide, by three Department staff in eight, by almost one school-system administrator in five, by one principal in Six, and by one teacher in eight. No teacher rep- resentatives list teacher organization workshops first. Over one in four respondents from each region cites reading the guide as the best way to bring about teacher understanding of the guide. Those expressing this view include two Albertan curriculum committee members in five, three school-system administrators in eight, and just over one Albertan teacher in four, together with three Tasmanian parents in four and almost two Tasmanian teachers in five. Understanding of the guide through a Department workshop is ranked first by about one Tasmanian in three and by about one Albertan in seven. Two Albertan parents and curriculum committee members in five, one Albertan university and Department staff in five, and one AJbertan teacher in fourteen have this view, as do all Tasmanian 127 curriculum committee members, over one Tasmanian principal in two, one Tasmanian university staff in two, one Tasmanian parent in four, and less than one Tasmanian teacher in five. Teacher organization workshops are favored for bringing teacher understanding of the guide by one Albertan in seven and by one Tasmanian in nine. Albertan teachers rank teacher organization work- shops first in the ratio of one in five, as do Albertan principals (one in six) and school-system administrators (two in eleven). In Tasmania, over two Department staff in five respond this way, along with one principal in six and one teacher in eighteen. Use of the Guide Questions thirty-three and thirty-four deal with use of the present curriculum guide in classrooms. General points that are indicated by responses are given first, followed by a more detailed report of answers. On balance, the guide is perceived as being more used than not. Slightly more Tasmanians than Albertans note "little" use of the guide but Tasmanian perceptions of usage of the guide are higher than are Albertan perceptions of usage overall. Chief problems hindering use Of the guide are cited as being, in order of priority, a lack of materials, inappropriateness of the program, lack of understanding of the concepts, lack of knowledge of appropriate teaching methods, and lack of detail in the program. ,Each of these answers is ranked somewhat the same in both areas except that there is more stress on the lack of knowledge of approp- riate teaching methods in Alberta than in Tasmania. 128 Question 33: To what extent is the program given in the guide used in the classroom? l( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2( ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat Use of the program given in the existing guide in the class- room varies. About two respondents in five say that it is used "somewhat"; less than one in fifty sees it as not used at all; about one in ten says that the existing guide is little used; over two in five perceive it as being used extensively; and about one in seventy- five says that it is fully used. Those replying that the program is used moderately include almost one teacher in two, over one school-system administrator in two, one Department staff in two, four university staff in nine, and one principal in four. Little or no use of the program in the guide is perceived chiefly by one curriculum committee member in four and one teacher in five. Extensive or full use of the program is per- ceived by two principals in three, by five curriculum committee members in eight, by five parents in nine, and by three teachers in ten. Almost one in two Albertans mark "somewhat" as usage of the program, while just over one in four Tasmanians do so. All Albertan Department staff say that there is moderate usage, as do more than one in two Albertan teachers and school-system administrators. Almost two Tasmanian teachers in five agree with this answer. No usage of the program is cited by one Albertan principal irl nine and by one Tasmanian teacher in thirtyethree. Little usage 129 of the program is the response of one Albertan in eleven and of one Tasmanian in eight. Responses that there is little usage are scat- tered through groups in Alberta. In Tasmania, all of those giving this answer are from one group, being over one teacher in four. No Albertans check that usage of the program is full. One Tasmanian in thirty-six gives this answer, notably one parent in four. Extensive usage of the program given in the guide is listed by over one Albertan in three, to almost one Tasmanian in two. In Tasmania, over four Department staff in five, three parents and principals in four, and about three teachers in ten give this response. In Alberta, five principals and curriculum committee mem- bers in nine say that there is extensive usage of the program, as do less than one school-system administrator and teacher in three. Question 34: What are things that hinder teachers most in using the program? There are Sixteen answers to the question, indicating things that hinder teachers in using the program. Hindrances include a lack of resource materials (cited by over one respondent in four); inap- prOpriateness of the program (cited by one respondent in nine); a lack of understanding of concepts (cited by one respondent in twelve); and a lack of time and a lack of detail in the program (each cited by one respondent in fourteen). Lack of resource materials is ranked as the chief hindrance to teachers in using the program by over two principals in five and by about one Department staff and teacher in four. Inappropriate- ness of the program is the main hindrance to teachers, in the 130 perceptions of two university staff in nine and one teacher in five. One parent in three, one principal in nine, and one teacher in ten cites a lack of understanding of concepts as the chief hindrance to teacher use of the program given in the guide. A lack of knowledge of appropriate teaching methods is given as the chief hindrance by one Department staff in four, one school-system administrator in eight, and one teacher in sixteen. A lack of time is given as the chief hindrance by one principal in nine and one teacher in thirteen. A lack of detail in the program is cited first as a hindrance to use of the program by two school-system administrators in eleven and one teacher in sixteen. About one Albertan in four and one Tasmanian in three sees a lack of resource material as the chief hindrance to teachers in using the program. This view is shared by four Tasmanian principals in nine (to about two in five in Alberta), by almost one Tasmanian teacher in three (to about one in four in Alberta), and by over two Tasmanian Department staff in five (to nil in Alberta). Inappropriateness of the program is ranked as the main hindrance to its use by teachers by one Albertan in ten and by one Tasmanian in eight. Of these, two Albertan teachers in eleven and one Tasmanian teacher in five make up the major groups. Lack of understanding of concepts is given as the reason why the program is not easily used by one Albertan in nine and by one Tasmanian in twelve. Over two Albertan curriculum committee members in five feel this way, as do two Albertan parents in five and one school-system administrator in eight. NO Albertan teachers agree. 131 One Tasmanian principal in nine is in agreement, as is one Tasmanian teacher in twelve. About one Albertan in seven and one Tasmanian in thirty- three feels that teaching methods to use the program are not known. This answer is given by many groups in both Alberta and Tasmania, none being at a high ratio. Lack of time is cited as the main hindrance to use of the program by one Albertan in nine and by one Tasmanian in Seventy. Two Albertan principals in nine, one Albertan Department staff in five, and one Albertan teacher in seven make up the chief groups referring to lack of time as a hindrance. Deficiencies in detail in the program is listed as the first hindrance to teacher use of the program by one Albertan in thirteen and by one Tasmanian in eighteen. This response comes from two Albertan school-system administrators in eleven. Teacher Training, Questions thirty-five and thirty-six relate to the training of teachers to offer the program. A more detailed report of responses follows a short summary Of the central tendencies of answers to these questions. A majority of respondents feel that there is little or no specific training of teachers to use the guide, with the ratio giving this answer being about the same from each area. Perceptions of extensive training of teachers to use the program are higher in ‘Fasmania, especially with university and Department personnel. 132 Commitment by the teacher is ranked first as the way to have teachers trained for the program. Teachers themselves give this response less frequently than do the other groups. Organized workshops are the next most important way to train teachers for understanding and use of a new program, with a slightly higher pref- erence for this response in Tasmania than in Alberta. Time from work ranks next in importance as the best way to train teachers, being about equally listed in both areas. Question 35: Were teachers specifically trained to use the program? l( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2( ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat About three respondents in ten say that teachers had some specific training to use the program. One in five says that there was no training; almost two in five say there was little training; one in sixteen says the training was extensive; and one in 160 says that the training was full. Moderate training of teachers to use the program is ranked first by one school-system administrator and Department staff in two, by three teachers in ten, and by one principal in five. Significant training of teachers is indicated by one Department staff in four, two university staff in nine, one parent in nine, and by less than one teacher in twenty. Little or no specific training of teachers , is cited by three teacher representatives and principals in four, by five curriculum committee members in eight, and by three teachers in five, as well as by one university staff in three and one Department 133 staff in four. Over one teacher in four says that there was no specific training of teachers. One Albertan in three and one Tasmanian in four feels that there was moderate specific training of teachers to use the program. Of the Albertan respondents, one teacher in three, four Department staff in five, one school-system administrator in two, and two cur- riculum committee members in five share this view. Similar views of moderate training are held by over one Tasmanian teacher and Department staff in four. No training of teachers is indicated by about one respondent in five from each region. All Albertan teacher representatives give this answer, as do two curriculum committee members in five and one teacher in five. In Tasmania, one teacher in three says that there is no training. Little specific training of teachers is perceived by about two respondents in five from each region. Five Albertan principals in nine hold this view, along with one teacher in three. Two Tasmanian principals in three see little specific training and so does one Tasmanian teacher in three. Full training of teachers is checked by one Albertan in ninety and by one Albertan teacher in thirty. Extensive training of teachers is checked by one Albertan in ninety and by one Tasmanian in eight. The Tasmanians checking extensive training Of teachers include one university staff in two and two Department staff in five. 134 Question 36: Rank according to relative importance in training teachers for understanding and use Of a new program: ]( ) commitment by teacher 4( ) time from work 2 ) subsidy of direct costs 5( ) articles, books 3( ) organized workshops 6( ) other ( ) More than one respondent in two says that the most important need in training teachers for understanding and use of a new program is commitment by the teacher. Over one in four gives organized workshops as of first importance in training teachers, and one in nine says that the first need in training teachers is time from work. All groups give prominence to teacher commitment as the chief factor in training teachers for understanding and use of a new program, the lowest being teachers themselves, in the ratio of almost two in five. First ranking of organized workshops for train- ing teachers comes from over one teacher in three, from one univer- sity staff in three, and from more than one principal in four. Time from work is favored as the best way to train teachers for a new program by two principals in nine and by one teacher and school- system administrator in eight. Albertan respondents rank teacher commitment as the most important factor in training teachers for a new program in the ratio of three in five. Tasmanians give this answer in the ratio of about four in nine. All Albertan teacher representatives, Department staff, and university staff give this response, as do four parents in five and seven curriculum committee members in eight. One Albertan teacher in three agrees, while four in nine Tasmanian teachers do so. 135 Organized workshops are favored for training teachers by almost one Albertan in four and by over one Tasmanian in three. Two Albertan teachers in five feel this way but there are no Department staff, university staff, or parents with this view. In Tasmania, three university staff in four, one parent in two, and almost two principals in five give this response, as do fewer than three teach- ers and Department staff in ten. Just over one in nine Albertans lists time from work as the main factor in training teachers for a new program, as does one Tasmanian in eight. Albertans with this response include two princi- pals in nine and one school-system administrator and teacher in eight. Chief Tasmanians answering this way are two principals in nine and one teacher in nine. Diffusion of Curriculum Ideas Questions thirty-seven through forty focus on ways in which new curriculum ideas are, or should be, diffused. Detailed reporting of responses to each question is given following a short section that indicates central tendencies of answers to the questions. Respondents rank the curriculum committee, the Department, teachers, and principals, in that order, as being the group or organization that should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas. Tasmanians place greater stress on the curriculum committee than do Albertans but Albertans rank the Department more highly than dOITasmanians. Teachers are ranked first by Department staff and principals. 136 Teacher organization leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas is seen as tending toward the “little" or ”no" categories, especially by Tasmanians. More Albertans than Tasmanians perceive extensive leadership in this area. Leadership by principals in spreading new curriculum ideas is generally in the "somewhat" range, tending towards "little." Tasmanians perceive more leadership in this area than do Albertans. For the spreading of new curriculum ideas within a school, the following are ranked as best: subject meetings, staff meetings, informal discussion, and administrative visits. Albertans stress subject meetings as the best way to spread new curriculum ideas within a school more so than do Tasmanians; and there are more fre- quent responses from Tasmanians than from Albertans ranking informal discussion as of first importance in curriculum diffusion in a school. The ratios of responses from Albertans and Tasmanians favoring staff meetings and administrative visits for curriculum diffusion are simi- lar in each area. Question 37: Who should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas? 1( ) teacher 5( ) principal 9( ) school-sys. admin. 2( ) parent 6( ) department 10( ) teacher organ. 3( ) university 7( ) elected rep. ll( ) other ( ) 4( ) publisher 8( ) curric. comm. Over one respondent in four ranks the curriculum committee as having first responsibility for spreading new curriculum ideas. A ' further two in eleven rank the Department of Education first; over one in six cites teachers first; and one in nine makes principals 137 the first choice as being responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas. Responsibility of the curriculum committee to spread new curriculum ideas is ranked first by two principals in five, by just over one teacher in four, and by one Department staff and curricu- lum committee member in four. First ranking of the Department of Education for curriculum diffusion comes chiefly from five parents in nine, four school-system administrators in nine, three curriculum committee members in eight, one Department staff and teacher repre- sentative in four, and one teacher in nine. NO university staff place the Department first. The chief group saying that teachers should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas are teachers, in the ratio of over one in four. Principals are ranked as having chief responsibility for curriculum diffusion by one principal and Department staff in six and by almost one teacher in ten. That the curriculum committee should be responsible is the response of twice as many Tasmanians as Albertans, being given by almost two Tasmanians in five to nearly one Albertan in five. Alber- ‘ tan groups responding in this way include teachers (just over one in five), principals (one in three), and school-system administrators (one in eight). No Department staff give this answer. Tasmanian responses saying that the curriculum committee should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas come from teachers (one in three), principals (one in two), and Department staff (over two in five). The Department of Education is ranked first in desired responsibility for curriculum diffusion by aboUt one Albertan in 138 four and by one Tasmanian in ten. Included in the Albertans giving this answer are three parents and Department staff in five, over two curriculum committee members and school-system administrators in five, and about two teachers in eleven. Tasmanians citing the Department first include one parent and teacher representative in two and one principal in nine. Ranking teachers first as the group that should be respon- sible for spreading new curriculum ideas are about one in six Alber- tans and two in eleven Tasmanians. One Albertan teacher in four and one Albertan principal in three gives this answer, as does one Tasmanian teacher in three. One Tasmanian teacher representative in two agrees with this answer, while no Albertan teacher representa- tives do. One Albertan in eight and one Tasmanian in ten ranks princi- pals as having responsibility for curriculum diffusion. Chief groups responding in this way are teachers (one Albertan in six), princi- pals (one Albertan in nine and two Tasmanians in nine), and Department staff (two Tasmanians in five). Question 38: To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? ) not at all 4( ) extensively little 5( ) fully ( ) somewhat l 2 3 Over one respondent in three feels that the teacher organi- . zation gives leadership in Spreading new curriculum ideas to a moderate degree ("Somewhat"). About one in ten indicates no leader- ship; over one in three says "little"; one in Six feels the leadership 139 to be extensive; and one in 167 sees full leadership by the teacher organization. Moderate leadership by the teacher organization in spread- ing new curriculum ideas is perceived by two parents in three, by one curriculum committee member in two, and by about one teacher, principal, and school-system administrator in three. Little or no leadership is indicated by almost one teacher in two, two Depart- ment staff and principals in five, five university staff in nine, and one school-system administrator in two. "No leadership" by the teacher organization is the response of one teacher representative in two. Significant leadership by the teacher organization in cur- riculum diffusion is perceived by one Department staff and curriculum committee member in four, two principals in nine, and one teacher in seven. Perceptions Of moderate leadership in curriculum diffusion by the teacher organization are held by over two Albertans in five and by one Tasmanian in four. All groups except Tasmanian teacher representatives and Tasmanian curriculum committee members are included with this response. The response "not at all" is checked by one Albertan in thirty and by one Tasmanian in six. One Albertan teacher in sixteen answers this way, as does one Tasmanian teacher in five, almost three Tasmanian Department staff in ten, and all Tasmanian teacher representatives.' About three Albertans in ten and two Tasmanians in five check "little" as the leadership by the teacher organization. The ratio of AlbertanszTasmanians giving the answer "little leadership" is about three:four, and it is made up of 140 responses from teachers, principals, and university staff in each area. One school-system administrator in two also gives this response. Full leadership in curriculum diffusion by the teacher organization is perceived by one Albertan parent in five. Exten- sive teacher organization leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas is indicated by one Albertan in five and by one Tasmanian in eight. In Alberta, notable respondents citing extensive leadership are one teacher in five, two principals in nine, two Department staff in five, and one teacher representative in two. In Tasmania, responses noting extensive leadership are from two principals in nine, one Department staff in seven, and one teacher in twelve. Question 39: To what extent do principals give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? l( ) not at all 4( ) extensively 2( ) little 5( ) fully 3( ) somewhat The extent of the leadership of principals in spreading new curriculum ideas is perceived as moderate by over two respondents in five. One in twenty checks "not at all"; over one in four, "little"; two in nine, "extensively"; and about one in seventy-seven, "fully" as the response to the question on the extent of leadership given by principals in spreading new curriculum ideas. Moderate leadership by principals is perceived by two parents in three, five university staff in nine, over one principal in two, one curriculum committee member in two, and under two teachers and school-system administrators in five. 141 Little or no leadership in curriculum diffusion by princi- pals is the response of over one teacher in three, one school-system administrator in two, one Department staff in three, four university personnel in nine, and by one principal in seven. Significant leadership by principals is indicated by one teacher representative in two, one Department staff, parent, and principal in three, and one teacher in five. Over two respondents in five in each region check moderate as the extent of principals' leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas. Notable variations come from parents (all Albertans and one Tasmanian in four) and university staff (two Albertans in five and just over one Tasmanian in four). No leadership by principals is seen by one Albertan in eighteen and by one Tasmanian in twenty— four. One Albertan teacher in ten and one Tasmanian teacher in sixteen help make up this response. "Little leadership" by princi- pals in curriculum diffusion is the answer of over one Albertan in three to two Tasmanians in fifteen. Major variations from the norm, in Alberta, come from teacher representatives (one in two), principals (two in nine), and parents (nil); and variations in Tasmania come from teachers (one in five), Department staff (nearly three in ten), and principals (one in Sixteen). All responses of full leadership by principals come from Tasmanians (one in thirty- five), being from one parent in four and one principal in sixteen. Extensive leadership by principals is checked by one Albertan in seven and by almost one Tasmanian in three. Chief responses citing extensive principal leadership in curriculum diffusion come from 142 teachers (one Albertan in fourteen, one Tasmanian in three), princi- pals (Over one Albertan in four, one Tasmanian in three), Department staff (one Albertan in five, over two Tasmanians in five), and teacher representatives (one in two in each region). Question 40: Rank the following according to which is best for spreading new curriculum ideas within a school: l( ) staff meetings 4( ) admin. visits 7( ) informal disc. 2( ) subject meetings 5( ) magazines 8( ) lesson plan to adm. 3( ) school library 6( ) new resources 9( ) other( Ranked first as the best way to spread new curriculum ideas within a school are subject meetings (by three respondents in eight), staff meetings (by over one in four), informal discussion (by about one in six), and administrative visits (by one in eighteen). Subject meetings are ranked as the best way for in-school cur- riculum diffusion by three teacher representatives and school-system administrators in four, by one curriculum committee member in two, and by about one teacher and principal in three. One teacher in four ranks staff meetings first for spreading new curriculum ideas in a school, as do two principals in five, five Department staff in nine, and one parent in three. Informal discussion is preferred for cur- riculum diffusion by one curriculum committee member in four, one parent and teacher in eleven, and about one principal in five. There are scattered responses favoring administrative visits, with one teacher in sixteen selecting this response as the best way to spread new curriculum ideas in a school. Subject meetings are preferred as the way to effect curricu- lum diffusion by almost one Albertan in two and by two Tasmanians 143 in nine. All Albertan teacher representatives and three school- system administrators in four endorse this idea. In Tasmania, one teacher representative in two and over one teacher and Department staff in four agrees. Over one Tasmanian in three and two Albertans in nine cite staff meetings as of first importance in spreading new curriculum ideas within a school. Albertans giving this answer include Department staff (two in five), principals (five in nine), parents (one in two), and teachers (almost one in four). Over one Tasmanian in four and one Albertan in eleven select informal dis- cussion as the best way to spread ideas. Chief responses that infor- mal discussion is best to spread curriculum ideas are from teachers (one Albertan in sixteen, nearly two Tasmanians in five), parents (two Albertans in five, nil in Tasmania), and principals (one Albertan in six, two Tasmanians in nine). Administrative visits are ranked first for curriculum diffusion within a school by one Albertan in sixteen and one Tasmanian in twenty-four. One Albertan teacher in ten feels this way, as does one Albertan school-system administrator in sixteen and one Tasmanian principal in eighteen. Summary This report deals with a great diversity of responses. With forty questions, each having more than one possible answer and eight groups of respondents in each region, there is a mass of information on responses. The information is presented as ratios of respondents. More details, with overall percentages giving the most common answers, percentages by groups giving the most common answers, and percentages 144 by groups by regions giving the most common answers, appear in Appendix C. The diversity of responses is addressed further in Chapter 5, where the main themes of the questionnaire are used as a basis for the organization of the summary of the findings of the survey. In Chapter 4, the sections on the present curriculum guide, on curricu- lum, with subsections on curriculum sources, texts/references, roles in curriculum development, and planning for program implementation, and on curriculum dissemination, with subsections on understanding the guide, use of the guide, teacher training, and diffusion of curriculum ideas, are used as a means to organize the information available. Responses are dealt with in ratios. There are short summaries given at the beginning of each section, telling the central tendencies that are evident in the more detailed report of responses to each question. The questions themselves are listed to assist the reader in identifying the context of replies. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction The summary portion of the chapter includes sections on each of the themes explored in the study, as well as a section relating the research reported in Chapter 2. The approach in each section is to focus on a broad summary of central tendencies that are evident in responses. A detailed sumary of all responses is provided in Appendix C. For purposes of reporting, groups surveyed are combined to form school-based, non-school-based, and parent groups, in order to point out trends towards common points of view. In addition to summarizing, the writer adds comments about the findings where these seem appropriate. Following the summary, in the section on conclusions, the writer draws some general conclusions, relates conclusions to the five key questions cited in Chapter 1, and lists seven suggestions on how to use the findings to improve curriculum development. The final section includes questions that have been raised and that deserve further attention. m The Curriculum Guide The present guide receives focus in Questions 2 through 11. 145 146 Replies to the questionnaire indicate that the curriculum guide is perceived as coming chiefly from the curriculum committees. The ideal sources of the guide, according to respondents, are the curriculum committees and teachers. During the interviews with respondents in Tasmania, the writer found that parents regard the curriculum committee as representing the Department of Education. At the same time, school-based personnel see the curriculum committee as representing them in the development of curriculum. It is not clear how the other respondent groups in Tasmania identify the cur- riculum committees. Perceptions of Albertan respondents on this point are also unknown. There are also problems in knowing the precise perceptions of principals who strongly endorse teachers as the ideal source of the curriculum guide. It is not clear whether these principals regard themselves as teachers first and principals second, to be included in the curriculum development process, or whether they prefer others to prepare the guide. Since replies to Question 6, on whether they should have been involved in the development of the guide, include a majority of principals saying "yes," it must be concluded that principals include themselves as teachers when call- ing for teachers to set the curriculum guide. The people responsible for the development of the curriculum guides in Alberta and in Tasmania should note the importance given to teachers by respondents. Overall, there is very limited involvement in development of curriculum guides in each area. Ratios of people who were involved 147 are higher in Tasmania than in Alberta. There was much less actual involvement in the past than is desired for the future. Pilot teachers are part of the curriculum development pro- cess for guides in Tasmania in sufficient numbers to Show on the random sample. This process of involvement could well receive atten- tion in Alberta. If it were used there, it could meet the expressed wish for more involvement than applies at present and the expressed wish for a greater teacher voice in preparation of the guide. Increased involvement by teachers could also be expected to increase perceptions of teachers and principals that the guide is a "good" guide and to reduce the criticisms of the guide by these groups. There is a general perception of quite limited prescription in the existing guide, with higher prescription being perceived by more Albertan than Tasmanian respondents. This is an unexpected response, since the centralized nature of education in Tasmania should point to greater prescription there. Also unexpected is the weight of response favoring more prescription as a desirable direction. Twice the proportion of Albertans to Tasmanians call for more prescription, pointing to a reaction against the move to give more and more freedom to teachersin deciding curriculum. Teachers have found that practical considerations of curriculum development for their own classes have caused problems. In particular, there are always demands on teachers' time for detailed class preparation, making the time-consuming preparation of guides an onerous task. The time used in preparing guides tends to increase when the teachers are not trained in curriculum development. 148 In general, respondents to questions relating to the exist- ing curriculum guides in Alberta and in Tasmania in elementary social studies have provided comments that should cause the apprOpriate Officials in each area to consider alternative ways to develop and to apply these guides. The Curriculum There are four parts in the section on the curriculum: curriculum sources, texts and references, roles in curriculum develOp- ment, and planning for program implementation. Curriculum sources: Respondents are guided by a definition of curriculum as "all of the planned experiences that are offered to learners under the auspices of the school." Replies to Questions 12 and 13 indicate perceptions of the sources of curriculum. As noted in the previous section, Tasmanians who were inter- viewed tend to regard the curriculum committee in different ways according to their own group. Thus, parents see the curriculum com- mittee as representing the Department (and, ultimately, themselves), while school-based personnel regard the curriculum committee as rep- resenting them. These variations make interpretation of responses more difficult. Sources of the present curriculum are seen as being teachers and the curriculum comnittees, with the Department of Education ranked third. When considering who should set curriculum, respondents rank teachers first and place the Department of Education as a relatively low third choice, after the curriculum committees. 149 These responses point to a wish that teachers should be able to make more decisions about what is happening in the classrooms. The apparent contradiction of the earlier response that there should be more prescription through the curriculum guide can be explained by recognition of the fact that the guide places emphasis on content but does not provide much detail of teaching process. In addition, it should be noted that Albertans call most strongly for more pre- scription--and that more Albertans than Tasmanians would prefer that the curriculum committee set the curriculum. Texts/references: The questions stressing texts/references are numbered 14 through 20 on the questionnaire. I Respondents are generally opposed to set texts, another apparent contradiction Of the call for more prescription in the guide. However, this need not represent a contradiction since there could well be a set guide to show course content--and obviate the need for much teacher time in building a sequential, planned outline Of content--without a prescription of the text book(s) to be used in teaching the content. There is less opposition to set texts in Alberta than in Tasmania; so responses to this question parallel those calling for more prescription through a guide. Opposition to set texts could well be based chiefly upon dissatisfaction with available texts rather than upon philosophy about prescription generally. The timing of books and references in relation to the intro- duction of new curriculum ideas represents a problem in curriculum development. About a half of the respondents feel that, at present, 150 materials are available at the same time as the new curriculum ideas. Over half want the materials to be available at the same time as the new ideas. In addition, many respondents want the materials to be available before they have to implement the new curriculum ideas. Ideally, then, there is a wish for materials to be available earlier than is the case now. It is also felt that these materials should be more numerous and more easily read by students. These points are important for the curriculum development leaders in each area. In Tasmania, many materials are produced by the Department of Education. Attempts should be made to direct the resources of the Department to early production of materials for new or changed courses. In Alberta, commercial publishers produce most of the materials. By the time committees decide upon curricu- lum changes, there is scarcely time for publishers to produce related materials. It would not seem feasible to delay implementation of decisions until materials are available, since the committee process itself is so slow that decisions seem to reach the stage of imple- mentation long after the arrival of the philosophy on which they are based. In fact, revisions usually seem in order before teachers become familiar with the new curriculum ideas. Given the constraints of time in the implementation of new curriculum ideas in Alberta and the need for having materials lead or accompany the new curriculum ideas, it seems that changes are needed in the provision of resources in Alberta. Possible answers to the dilemma could come from initia- tives of the Department of Education in having materials produced as part of or as a parallel to the develOpment of a new curriculum 151 guide. There could be authors hired to produce materials that would be published by the Department itself; or the Department could apprise commercial publishers of needs in time for the latter to produce relevant and appropriate materials. As noted above, diffi- culty with this latter course of action is one of time, since the committee process means that no clear decisions are reached until just prior to implementation. As a result, existing texts/references are usually adopted for use but they are not always suitable. In social studies, the recent use of multiple references rather than texts seems to have made the problem Of texts/references more notice- able because teachers have searched for materials but have had limited success. Roles in curriculum development: Questions 21 through 25 are concerned with various roles in the development of curriculum. The teacher organization provides very limited leadership in curriculum development in both Alberta and Tasmania, according to respondents. This is not surprising in Tasmania, where the budget of the teacher organization is quite small, its structure is rela- tively simple, and all educators are civil servants. In Alberta, however, the teacher organization has a considerable budget for professional development and has an extensive network of agencies that are active in curriculum work throughout the Province. The responses indicate that the focus of the Alberta Teachers' Associa- tion is upon union-type work rather than on activities of a profes- sional association. From the responses, there is possible need for the specialist subject council in Social Studies to review its 152 purposes and its effectiveness. At the same time, the matter of identity arises again. The writer is doubtful whether effective leadership by the Social Studies Council in Alberta would be iden- tified with the teacher organization, since it is likely that many teachers and others in education perceive the teacher organization as being limited to the formal structure of its executive members and its hired staff officers. It would be interesting to have answers to the question of teacher organization leadership in curriculum development after a period when activities by the specialist council were linked directly to the teacher organization. Principals give more attention to curriculum development than does the teacher organization, but not to an outstanding extent. School authorities in the Department of Education in Tasmania and in school systems in Alberta could review their expectations of princi- pals in this respect. A review of the role of the principal in supervision of teaching and in monitoring of teacher planning would also seem in order from the findings of the study that neither occurs very much. With only moderate encouragement of teachers to develop curriculum by superintendents and other school-system administrators, the gen- eral absence of teacher organization leadership, some leadership by principals but very limited principal supervision of teaching and monitoring of plans, it appears that teachers are seen as being highly independent and self-motivated. This is in keeping with the I more highly trained staff in schools in recent years and the trend towards a greater degree of professionalism. At the same time, the 153 present situation brings out the question of accountability in edu- cation that has been heard from the public during the past few years. Planning for_program implementation: The subject of Ques- tions 26 through 28 is the planning that goes into program imple- mentation. In considering existing planning, reSpondents feel that it is generally "little" rather than "extensive." Like the curriculum guide, planning is perceived as being chiefly the responsibility of the curriculum committees, the Department, and teachers. Stress for planning, however, is more on the formal structure of curriculum committees and the Department than is the development of the curricu- lum guide. Improvement of present planning could best be effected by more time, more teacher involvement, the provision of better facilities/ more materials, and improved communications, in that order. Of the four, more teacher involvement and improved communications would both involve teacher time, adding to the first ranking of "more time" as a means to improve planning. The writer regards time as a vital component in education, a priority borne out by this and other responses in the study. There is no clear conclusion known to the writer about the ideal length of time of a school year, since there are so many variables involved. The traditional years of schooling in Alberta and in Tasmania are subject to constant pressure for reduction as the time that the teacher and the student are in interaction is cut back to provide the teacher with the time needed for learning about new curriculum 154 ideas, participating in curriculum development, receiving informa- tion about plans, and so on. It seems that there is no money for extra pay for a longer school year, even if teachers agreed with it; and reductions in the teacher's class time with his/her students leads to public reaction, calls for accountability, and questions about whether the student is being treated fairly. At the same time, there are increasing pressures upon teachers that indicate the need for a greater amount of nonteaching time in order to be effective in the classroom. In curriculum development in general and planning for program implementation in particular, there is an urgent need for all inter- ested and involved parties to sit down and to work at finding realis- tic solutions to the problem of time. Curriculum Dissemination There are four parts in the section on curriculum dissemina- tion: understanding the guide, use of the guide, teacher training, and diffusion of curriculum ideas. Understanding the_guide: Questions 29 through 32 stress understanding the guide. While there is a general perception that the guide is under- stood by teachers, there is a higher perception of understanding in A Tasmania than in Alberta. The level of understanding is likely based upon involvement in development of the guide. This would pre- sent a further justification to Albertan authorities to seek to increase teacher involvement in the preparation of the curriculum guide. 155 Responses to questions about the best way in which teachers came to understand the existing guide and perceptions about what is the ideal way to reach understanding of a guide place reading the guide first. On the basis of this ranking, principals, school- system administrators, Department personnel, and university staff who have responsibility to ensure that teachers understand curriculum guides should focus on strategies and activities which ensure that the guide is read by teachers. In a school system, discussions at staff meetings, with pre-reading of the guide acting as a basis for participation by teachers, would appear to be a highly valuable and worthwhile exercise. Other routes to understanding are cited as being via work- shops run by the Department or by the teacher organization, with responses generally reflecting the teacher organization role in Alberta and the Department role in Tasmania. Hindrances to understanding are relatively numerous, with lack of time, ambiguity of the guide, and lack of help or training the major ones given. Comments are made above in the section on planning for pro- gram implementation on the question of time and the concerns expressed there apply in this situation. Ambiguity of the curriculum guide is an area of difficulty. I Those persons who serve on a curriculum committee have a special interest in the particular subject and often have extra training in it. When Department personnel and university staff provide major direction for the guide, their expertise and academic training lead 156 towards a sophisticated document. Rank and file members of the cur- riculum committee must read extensively on the subject and thereby tend to raise their levels of expertise and to become immersed in current literature, with its unique terminology. Add to the fore- going a consciousness that the curriculum committee will produce a document that represents educational thinking in the Province/State on the particular subject and there is a tendency to have curriculum guides that are difficult for nonspecialists to understand. In practice, the elementary teacher is most often a generalist. Given that the communication of ideas to teachers is the prime purpose of a curriculum guide and that there are problems Of ambiguity as noted by respondents, the writer urges producers of curriculum guides in Tasmania and in Alberta to concentrate on more straightforward language and better explanation of terms in future curriculum guides. The criticism of training points to the need for an examina- tion by universities/teacher training colleges of the adequacy of their programs for elementary teachers. There is also need for those hiring staff to ensure that the required qualifications are present in new teachers and that appropriate in-service training is planned for up-dating and/or upgrading of staff. Use of the guide: Questions 33 and 34 deal with use of the existing curriculum guide in classrooms. There is quite high usage of the guide, with a generally higher usage in Tasmania than in Alberta. At the same time, it is of interest to note that there are more respondents citing "little" usage 157 in Tasmania than would be expected in a centralized system. The extent to which the guide is used or not could be studied by educa- tion authorities in each area in relation to the authorities' per— ceptions of the purposes of the guide and their expectations that it would be used. Given the perceptions Of quite limited prescription in the guide, teachers use it more extensively than would be expected. Increased usage likely arises from the dearth of time to develop programs and/or the lack of training in social studies that teachers have noted. Difficulties in using the guide centre around the lack of materials, inappropriateness of the program, and general lack of teacher understanding of and/or preparation for the program. .The question of resources to accompany the program received comment in the section on texts/references. The perceptions noted in this section underscore the importance of materials and point to a need for well-considered action to remedy difficulties and deficiencies. Those responding that the program in the guide is inapprop- riate could be rejecting the underlying philOSOphy of the program, preferring the "old" approach and content, or commenting on the specific content of the guide. Whatever the reason, their responses are sufficiently numerous to suggest that education authorities in 4 Alberta and in Tasmania should inVestigate further to decide whether there is a need for positive action to improve perceptions of the apprOpriateness of the program that is outlined in the guide. 158 The tOpic of teacher preparation is dealt with below and that of teacher understanding of the guide was discussed in the pre- vious section. These tOpics will not be repeated here. Teacher training: Questions 35 and 36 refer to the training of teachers to offer the program that is contained in the curriculum guide. There is a general absence of training of teachers to use the guide, despite higher perceptions of university and department personnel that there is such training.' This would indicate that university and Department staff believe that they are preparing teachers to use the program, but that others, including teachers, do not agree. A review of existing programs and activities designed to lead teachers to knowledge of how to use the program is thus needed. While reviewing the training, university and Department staff should note the major response on the most important factors in training teachers for understanding and use of a new program, namely, commitment by the teacher. Less favored by teachers than by other groups, this answer points to the fact that training programs should be planned to meet teacher needs rather than being prescribed. Com- mitment by the teacher calls for the right timing of training pro- grams. Efforts that precede the release of a new curriculum guide by too wide a margin will fail to get maximum response because teach- ers are not yet concerned about the use of the guide in the classroom. Training that is tardy will have a backlog of teacher anxiety and frustration to overcome. 159 Other major elements in training teachers are cited as being organized workshops and time from work. Since most teachers are not new to staff each year, so cannot train for changes in pre-service, there is constant need for updating work. Replies to this question- naire rank workshops as a major avenue for training for changes, pointing the way for individuals charged with responsibility for training teachers to meet changes in curriculum guides. The matter of teacher time has been discussed earlier in this chapter. Diffusion of curriculum ideas: Questions 37 through 40 focus on ways in which new curriculum ideas are, or should be disseminated. The curriculum committee, the Department, teachers, and prin- cipals, in that order, are ranked as being the ideal ones to spread new curriculum ideas. Teachers tend to rank themselves as being responsible for spreading new ideas. The teacher organization does not rank highly as being responsible in the ideal for diffusing cur- riculum ideas and responses to questions on whether it actually gives leadership in this way point to a very limited role. The more active Albertan organization plays a larger part than does the teacher organization in Tasmania. Principals have more of a role than does the teacher organization, with more leadership by princi- pals in Tasmania than in Alberta. The prominence of the curriculum committee as an ideal in the diffusion of curriculum ideas would suggest that the Departments in Alberta and in Tasmania should examine ways by which the curricu- lum committee can be more involved in this prOcess. Appropriate 160 funding would be needed to release members and to permit their travel to workshops. In the school setting, preferred ways to spread new curricu- lum ideas are subject meetings, staff meetings, informal discussion, and administrative visits, in that order. The writer suggests that principals examine ways in which the generalist teachers of an ele- mentary school setting can be provided with Opportunities to learn about new curriculum ideas in a combination of the two most preferred ways. Thus, a portion of regularly scheduled staff meetings, at which all other business is kept to a minimum, could be devoted to a particular subject area. By using discussion guides that focus on having teachers read the curriculum guide with clear Objectives in view and by using a rotation of subjects throughout the year, the principal could well respond to a number Of the priorities and pref- erences that have been identified in this part of the study. Findings and Related Research In Chapter 3, it was reported that Christoff found that teachers feel that they have and that they want to have freedom to make instructional decisions; Flaaten found that "experts" and ele- mentary principals want more involvement in curriculum; Harris found that specialists and teachers stressed curriculum equally; and Sloan found that teachers and principals both saw that they had an impor- tant role as program proposers. These findings relate to Questions 12 and 13 of this survey and a comparison will be made to find whether the respondents in this study feel the same as did the respondents 161 in the times, places, and groups studied by Christoff, Flaaten, Harris, and Sloan. Responses to Question 12 Show that teachers feel that they have a very strong voice in setting curriculum, particularly when these teachers see teachers as a major force on the curriculum com- mittee. In Tasmania, over half of the teachers have the perception that teachers themselves have the freedom to make curriculum deci- sions, without going through a curriculum committee. When curriculum is defined as it has been for this study, it can be equated with Christoff's "instructional decisions," and his first finding is con- firmed. From the answers given to Question 12, it can be shown that teachers and curriculum committee members, the latter regarded here as the "specialists" of elementary social studies curriculum develop- ment and the equivalent of the "specialists" in the research by Harris, are viewed almost equally by all responses on who actually sets curriculum. This finding confirms that of Harris. From the answers given to Question 12, it can be shown that teachers are viewed as being very important program proposers by both teachers and principals, a finding similar to that Of Sloan. However, unlike Sloan, this study finds that principals are not ranked highly as program proposers by either teachers or principals. Responses to Question 13, dealing with who should plan the curriculum, place teachers to the fore. Over half of the teacher respondents identify teachers as the ideal planners of curriculum, concurring with the findings of Christoff that teachers want freedom to make instructional decisions. However, in viewing the curriculum 162 committee members as the "experts" of elementary social studies cur- riculum development and equating them to the "experts" in the study of Flaflten, we find that the curriculum committee is not highly rated as the ideal initiator of curriculum, especially by curricu- lum committee members themselves. Principals are not ranked highly, either, so the findings of Flaaten are not confirmed by this study. Responses to Question 21 Show that three teacher representa- tives in four perceive extensive teacher organization encouragement of curriculum development by classroom teachers, to one in four say- ing that there is little encouragement. In this finding, the survey relates to the research of Ward but lacks discrete classification of some of the categories he used. Thus, his finding that the teacher organization places high priority on involvement in instructional policy development with school boards could equate to the finding of this study, but this study did not refer to npy_the curriculum develOpment was going to be encouraged. On the other hand, his finding that the teacher organizations place low priority on teacher organization development of performance standards by teachers is not endorsed by this study, if performance standards by teachers are equated to curriculum development by teachers. In responding to Question 27, one teacher in nine ranks principals as the ones who should integrate planning for new curricu- lum ideas. Albertan teachers rank principals first in the ratio of one in five; Tasmanian teachers rank principals first in the ratio of about one in thirty-four. As reported in Chapter 3, Dempsey found that teachers expect good leadership from principals. On the basis 163 that planning to ensure that resources accompany new curriculum ideas is part of good leadership at the school level, the writer concludes that the teachers responding to this study do not strongly endorse Dempsey's finding. Replies to Question 36 show that three teacher representa- tives in four rank commitment by the teacher as the most important factor in training of teachers for understanding and use of a new program. The research by Ward that found teacher organizations plac- ing a high priority on local in-service is not strongly endorsed by teacher representatives in this study. In Chapter 3, Sloan is reported as having found that teachers and principals regard themselves and each other as being very impor- tant program aOOpters. The responses to Question 37 Show that, in this study, teachers rank themselves first more frequently than they rank any other single group as those responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas. The ratio of this response is just over one teacher in four. Teachers rank principals first in the ratio of about one in ten. In a ratio of one in six respondents, principals rank both teachers and themselves first as the ones who should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas. The conclusion that is reached is that teachers and principals do not rank them- selves and each other as being very important program adopters, as' Sloan found. The ratio of teachers citing principals as responsible for Spreading new curriculum ideas is about one in ten, as noted above. If spreading new curriculum ideas is good leadership, then the 164 response in this study does not strongly agree with the findings of Dempsey that teachers expect good leadership from principals. One teacher representative in four replies to Question 37 by indicating that the professional organization should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas. In this case, there is quite strong endorsement of the finding by Ward that teacher organizations place a low priority on instructional improvement through the teacher organization. To Question 38, one teacher representative in four says that teacher organization leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas is extensive; one in four says that it is medium; and two in four say that it is nil. This again gives quite strong endorsement of the finding by Ward noted above. However, the endorsement is different according to region. All Tasmanian teacher representatives place no priority on this activity, to agree with Ward in an extreme manner. The Albertan responses Show moderate and extensive teacher organi- zation leadership, so there is disagreement with the findings of Ward in this case. Responses to Question 39 show that teachers see principals as giving considerable leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas. One teacher in five perceives extensive or full leadership and almost two in five perceive moderate leadership. This response does not agree strongly with the finding of Gourley that principals have problems in curriculum innovation, although the presence of con- siderable success as is indicated by this study does not preclude the 165 presence of difficulties in making curriculum innovations, as indi- cated by Gourley. The ratio of teachers perceiving high leadership in spread- ing new curriculum ideas is more than matched by principals with similar views. In fact, over four principals in five perceive moder- ate, extensive, or full leadership. The finding by Sloan that teachers and principals regard themselves and each other highly as program adopters is not strongly endorsed by the variety of responses by the two groups in this study. Easton found that administrators regard administrative visits as being more effective than do teachers. The respondents to Ques- tion 40 did not rank administrative visits highly. Principals ranked administrative visits first in the ratio of about one in thirty-four; school-system administrators in the ratio of one in six- teen; and teachers in a similar ratio of one in sixteen. This means that respondents to this study show quite strong disagreement with the finding of Easton. Conclusions General This study uses the responses Of a sample of teachers, parents, university staff, principals, Department personnel, curriculum com- mittee members, school-system administrators, and teacher organiza- tion representatives in Alberta and in Tasmania to explore percep- tions on a variety of questions relating to curriculum development. 166 The subject area is social studies/social science and the level is the elementary school. The focus of the study is primarily on curriculum development, with the centralized system in Tasmania and the partly decentralized organization of education in Alberta as a secondary focus. It is concluded that much data on curriculum development has been generated and some worthwhile conclusions reached, within the limits of the study. Much of the data provides opportunities for searching com- parisons on particular questions, permitting comparisons of responses within each geographical area (for example, between Tasmanian teachers and Tasmanian parents), between similar groups (for example, between Tasmanian teachers and Albertan teachers), and between dif- ferent groups in each geographical area (for example, between Tas- manian teachers and Albertan parents). In most cases, these compari- sons have been limited, with data on central tendencies of responses receiving most attention. In this sense, the comparisons between Alberta and Tasmania have been a vehicle by which to explore curricu- lum development. The study of the effects of centralization/partial decentrali- zation has not brought a satisfying conclusion. While it is possible to identify some of the effects of continuing centralization on cur- riculum development in Tasmania, the study can draw no conclusions on the effects of partial decentralization in Alberta. This may be due to the unexpected influence of the Alberta Teachers' Associa- tion. Responses to a number of questions by Albertans could be explained by the existence of school boards, with school-based 167 personnel having the boards as their employers rather than being civil servants as in Tasmania. On the other hand, it seems more reasonable to believe that the greater role played by teachers and principals in Alberta than in Tasmania is due more to the relative position of the teacher organization in education in each area than to the organizational structure of education. The writer cannot resolve the matter of the impact of the teacher organization on reSponses on curriculum development and notes that this is an area needing further study. Answers to Kgy Questions There are five key questions that are identified in Chapter 1. The summary of the questionnaire categories covers the same general topics but with a different emphasis; so the findings Of the study will now be related directly to the key questions. Question 1: To what extent are there similarities and differences in the perceptions of various groups of their roles and the roles of others in curriculum development? Teachers and principals show similar perceptions in a number of areas. Responses to Question 4, that teachers know pupils best and that greater teacher voice is needed in the development of a curriculum guide; to Question 6, that consultation is best in pro- viding involvement in the development of a curriculum guide; to Question'HJ,on the lack of enforcement of the guide; to Question 19, that present text/reference books accompany new curriculum ideas; to Question 26, citing an absence of planning to ensure that resources 168 accompany new curriculum ideas; to Question 31, where more time is called for so teachers can come to understand the guide; to Ques- tion 34, that resource materials are a concern in using the program; to Question 35,on the limited amount of training of teachers to use the program; to Question 36,On the need for more time for training teachers to understand and to use the program; to Question 37, on the importance of professional educators in spreading new curricu- lum ideas; and to Question 40, that subject meetings are best for spreading new curriculum ideas within a school--all these responses tend to indicate similarity of perceptions by teachers and principals. There are examples of agreement between parents and teachers in responses to Question 24, on supervision of classroom teaching by principals, and to Question 30, on reading the guide as the best way for teachers to come to understand it, but these are limited. Parents, teachers, and principals are notably in accord on the matter of resource books accompanying ideas, in replying to Question 20. Replying to Question 2, a majority of parents cite the cur- riculum committee and the Department, together, as setting the guide. Teachers rank the curriculum committee and the Department slightly lower than do parents and rank the Department itself much lower than do parents when stating who sets the guide. Similar proportions of parents and teachers rank the curriculum committee first in answer to Question 3, but teachers rank teachers first by over three times the ratio Of parents doing so. In the answers to Question 12, there is a higher ratio of parents than of teachers listing the curriculum committee first. On the same question, more teachers than parents 169 rank the Department as actually setting the guide. The ratios saying that the Department sets the guide are about one teacher in five to one parent in nine. In response to Question 13, on who should set the curriculum, parents rank the curriculum committee first almost twice as often as do teachers, in the ratio of four parents in nine. On the same question, the Department is ranked first by about one teacher in thirty but by no parents. In responding to Question 27 about planning, four parents in nine rank the Department first, com- pared with about one teacher in six. On the same question, the cur- riculum committee is ranked first by almost one teacher in three and by one parent in nine. One parent in three and about one teacher in eight ranks Department workshop as the answer to Question 32, on the best way for teachers to understand the guide. Question 37, on responsibility for spreading new curriculum ideas, is responded to so that parents cite the Department first in five times the ratio that teachers do. Over half of the parents give this response. The curriculum committee is given almost equal status by the two groups. On the questions relating to involvement in the development of the present guide (Questions 2 through 11), there are similar perceptions by university and Department respondents about present involvement, desirable involvement, and methods of involvement. On the same questions there is agreement by university personnel and parents on desirable involvement and methods of involvement. On Question 10, university responses most closely endorse those Of school-based personnel on perceptions of the absence of enforcement of the guide. On Question 16, parents and university respondents 170 tend to share views on texts; le Question 18, especially school- based educators and the Department share the perception that there are various publishers; and Question 20 finds greatest agreement by respondents wanting books to accompany ideas. Although there are times when the university and the Depart- ment respondents are in agreement, this is not so clear for the other groups. In fact, there is more agreement between university staff and parents than there is between university personnel and school- system administrators. The writer has found a very much more diverse expression of views from the teacher representatives than was expected, reflecting some of the differences between teacher organizations in Alberta and in Tasmania. But going beyond those differences it is very surpris- ing to find, for example, that no teacher representatives list teacher organization workshops as the ideal way for teachers to come to understand the guide, especially in Alberta. In fact, there is more agreement between teachers and teacher representatives in Tasmania than in Alberta on some points. One example is in the replies to Question 37, on who should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas, where the teachers are ranked first more often by Tasmanian teachers and teacher representatives than by Albertans in these two groups. University, Department, teacher representative, curriculum committee, and superintendent respondents have proved to be widely disparate in their views, especially when broken into Albertan and Tasmanian respondents. 171 The examples of similarities and differences in the percep- tions of various groups of their roles and the roles of others in curriculum development indicate that there are many areas of agree- ment in perceptions and many areas of differences in perceptions. Question 2: Do responses from an area with a partially decentralized organization of education reflect that organization? Albertan respondents perceive very limited enforcement of the guide by either the Department or the local jurisdiction (Ques- tion 10); they tend to seek more prescription rather than less, to a surprising extent (Question 11); and there is notable Albertan response that seeks professional leadership rather than Depart- mental leadership, in answer to Questions 27, 30, 37, and 40. Since there is no indication as to the source Of the prescription in Question 11, neither the Department nor the local jurisdiction is preferred. On the basis of the above, it is evident that neither the central nor the local authority stands out significantly in the perceptions of Albertans. Indications are that the professional organization has a significantly higher role than does the provincial Department, insofar as the questions listed above are concerned. On the basis of replies to questions, it appears that many perceptions in the partly decentralized area are different from those in the centralized area. However, this study fails to deter- mine whether the differences are due to the partial decentralization or to other factors. It is suspected that the teacher organization is a major "other factor" that could, in fact, account for all or most of the differences. 172 Question 3: 00 responses from an area with a centralized organization of education reflect that organization? By virtue of the responses by Tasmanians to Questions 27, 30, 37, and 40, with the evident wish and expectation that the Department should and does give leadership, this question can be answered in the affirmative. The generally favorable reaction of Tasmanians to the guide, their greater involvement in its development, and their perceptions of the Education Department as the author/ publisher of many books are further signs of centralized organiza- tion and a tendency for respondents to look to the central organiza- tion for leadership and/or direction. While the general trend of responses reflects the centralized organization, there are examples to show that this reflection is not universal. When a higher ratio of Tasmanians than Albertans, especially teachers and principals, propose that the curriculum guide should reflect the thinking of teachers, they do not reflect the centralized organization in Tasmania. The strong Tasmanian response that there is no enforcement of the curriculum guide is a further example that does not reflect centralized organization. Question 4: Who are the key personnel in curriculum development? According to respondents, teachers and curriculum committee members have the greatest role in the formulation of curriculum guides and in determining what is planned for the classroom. Answers to Questions 2 through 11 suggest that university and Department personnel are highly represented on curriculum committees, although 173 the use of ratios inflates the impression when there are so many teachers to be represented and so few university and Department staff. Teachers stand out as key personnel in curriculum development in many ways. Teacher commitment is the most important element in training teachers for understanding and using a new program, accord- ing to responses to Question 36. Teacher reading of the guide is cited as the best way for reaching understanding Of the guide, in answers to Questions 30 and 32. Teachers are highly ranked for spreading new curriculum ideas (especially by teachers), in responses to Question 37 and by Albertans for planning for new curriculum ideas, in answers to Question 27. Principals have a key role, according to responses to Ques- tions 22, 24, 25, 37, 39, and 40. In some aspects, such as super- vision and monitoring of teacher plans, principals are said to be giving very limited leadership, but their efforts in encouraging curriculum development are rated as being higher. School-system administrators are ranked as giving some encouragement of curriculum development, so they have an important role. Members of curriculum committees have a key role in curricu- lum development through the formulation of guides, as noted above.' They are also looked to by especially Albertan respondents to Ques- tion 38 as the major group responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas. Along with the Department, the curriculum committee is seen as having an important part in providing for apprOpriate, sufficient, 174 and timely resources and references, teacher-training workshops, and integrated planning for new curriculum. The teacher organization is not a significant force in cur- riculum development, according to the study. Question 5: What are the major ways in which curriculum develgpment can be made most effective? From the study, it is indicated that there are a number of important factors that should be included in planning to make cur- riculum development most effective. Teacher involvement in the formulation of curriculum guides and teacher determination of much of what happens in classrooms is strongly endorsed and should be given maximum opportunity. This involvement could lead to a more positive attitude to the guide. Early reference materials, suitable for the pupils to read and in greater numbers than at present, are urgently needed with new or changed curricula. Teachers would then have more of the tools to use in utiliz- ing the curricula in their classes. There is a need for better planning for the introduction of new or changed curricula. The curriculum committee, the Department, and teachers are regarded as being the chief agents of this planning. One need in planning is to get new curriculum guides to teachers in time for them to read the guides carefully before having to teach the curriculum in class. Since reading the guide is a major way for teachers to come to understand it, the guide should be available early enough to permit this reading. 175 Subject or staff meetings and workshops organized by the Department or by the teacher organization are ranked as the best way to help teachers train for use of a new curriculum. Given that teacher commitment is ranked as the first need in training teachers for understanding and use of a new program, there should be care given to the timing of these activities. Some effective motivation of teachers is needed if the timing is not such that the teacher will participate with a high level of commitment. Teachers will be assisted in understanding the outline of a new program if there is little ambiguity or vagueness in the way it is written. They will also have need of time to study the program. Time is needed in many other ways, SO that teachers may undertake curriculum development in a variety of contexts for the benefit of the students. The next section, suggestions on use of findings, gives a list that will have relevance to this question. Suggestions on Use of Findings As a result of the study the writer has some suggestions to Offer to educators in order to effect improvements in curriculum develOpment. These suggestions arise, it should be noted, from the responses of a limited sample of people in only two geographical areas. Given those limitations, the following suggestions are offered: 176 1. There should be Provincial/State funds made available to increase the participation of teachers in curriculum development, particularly in the preparation of curriculum guides. 2. Ways must be found to get suitable and sufficient resources and materials to teachers who are to teach a new program. 3. Teacher organizations should review the public image Of their role as professional organizations (as distinct from unions), including their image with teachers. 4. Administrators at all levels should consider their place in curriculum development, to ensure that teachers are not left to "go it alone." 5. Teacher time needs to be reviewed in an attempt to prO- vide for planning, reading, and training to use the guide, without depriving students Of their due. 6. Workshops continue to be an important way to help teach- ers to understand a new curriculum. Timing of workshops to meet the needs of teachers is vital. 7. A strategy to help teachers' understanding and use of a new program is indicated by responses: Use a part of each staff or subject meeting or schedule special meetings to discuss each curriculum guide. Use of a set Of pre-set questions for the discussiou would provide teachers a reading guide to use when reading the program prior to the meeting. Familiarity with the contents and philoso- phy of each guide, developed progressively throughout the year, will lead to important curriculum development in elementary classes. 177 Matters Needing Further Study, AS a result of this study, the following are suggested as matters on which further study would be worthwhile: 1. Whether relationships exist between types of teacher organizations and the organizational structure of education in various A Countries or states. H . . 2. Because of the importance of role perceptions in rela- tionships within education and the absence of research on this topic, there is a need for many studies that will provide insights into role perceptions in education. These studies should each concen- trate on a limited number of groups, with a wide range of groups being covered by a series of studies. More detailed analysis of findings than is feasible in the present study would be possible through an approach that provides perceptions of a limited number of groups on Specific questions. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE: CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN ALBERTA/TASMANIA APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE: CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN ALBERTA/TASMANIA GENERAL DIRECTIONS: Please answer all Questions. If you are not a teacher, answer questions that seem to be directed at teachers according to your perception of the position of teach- ers. (For example, you would respond to question 30 by indlcating 55w you perceive that teachers came to understand the guide.) Refer specifically to social studies/social science in the elemen- tary school. Answers should provide ypur own perception of each situation. Rank by placing numbers in the spaces provided, beginning with the most important as number 1, next important as 2, etc. Ranking should include as many of the alternatives as you feel apprOpriate. (For example, Tasmania does not have school system administrators (local superintendents, supervisors) or elected representatives as trustees. Check, circleior write in numbers as appropriate; otherwise, write in answers. Definitions of groups in questions 2, 3, 12, 13, 27 and 37 are given in question 1. Differentiating between curriculum guide and curriculum and between what is and what should be is important. 1. You are (or identify with): l ( teacher (classroom teacher) ( parent (in local or area organization) ) university (or teacher-college faculty) ) publisher ) principal (or head teacher) ) department (of education) ) elected rep. (trustee, parliamentarian) ) curriculum comm. (member representing ) school-sys. admin. (local superintendent, supervisor) ) teacher organ. (elected or employed) ) other ( ) doom‘mmwa AAAAAAAAA add 178 179 The Province/State has a written curriculum guide that states the program for social studies/social science at the elementary level. Questions 2 through 11 refer to that guide. 2. Whose thinking does the guide reflect? Rank: 1 E ) teacher 5 E principal 9 ( ) school-sys. adm. 2 parent 6 department 10 E ) teacher organ. 3 E ) university 7 ( ) elected rep. ll ) other( 4 ) publisher 8 ( curric. comm. Whose thinking Should the guide reflect? Rank: ) teacher 5 ( ) principal 9 ( ) school-sys. adm. ) parent 6 ( ) department 10 ( ) teacher organ. ) university 7 ( ) elected rep. ll ( ) other( ) publisher 8 ( ) curric. comm. Why should this be so? Were you involved in the development of the guide? Yes No If so, how? Should you have been involved in the development Of the guide? Yes No If so, how? 00 you think that it is a "good" guide? Yes NO Do you have any criticisms of the guide? (Please list them.) 10. 11. 180 Check how the curriculum guide sets the following: ( ) in general ( ) suggested a. 23:223t. ( 1 in detail b' Ezéziénces. ( ) required ' ( ) not at all ' ( ) not at all ( ) in general . ( ) in general c. $22§3329 ( ) in detail d' Egmgcg? ( in detail ' ( ) not at all p ' ( ) not at all How is any obligation by the teacher to follow the guide enforced? 1 ) through set texts 3 ( ) by inspection (department staff 2 ) by inspection 4 ( ) other ( (other) To what extent Should the guide prescribe social studies/social science for the Province/State? l E ) not at all 3 ( ) somewhat 5 ( ) fully 2 ) little 4 ( ) extensively CURRICULUM can be defined as all of the planned experiences that are offered to learners under the auspices of the school. Questions 12 and 13 refer to curriculum with that meaning. 12. 13. Rank according to who actually sets curriculum now: 1 ( teacher 5 ( ) principal 9 ( ) school-sys. adm. 2 ( parent 6 ( ) department 10 ( ) teacher organ. 3 ( ) university 7 ( ) elected rep. ll ( ) other ( 4 ( ) publisher 8 ( ) curric. comm. Rank according to who should plan the curriculum for social studies/social science? 1 z ) teacher 5 ( 2 ) parent 6 ( 3 ( ) university 7 ( 4 ( ) publisher 8 ( ) principal 9 ( ) school-sys. adm. ) department 10 ( ) teacher organ. ) elected rep. ll ( ) other ( ) curric. comm. Questions 14 through 20 refer to text or reference books used in teaching social studies/social science. 14. Should there be set texts for social studies/ Yes No social science? 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 181 Why should there be set texts? (Why not?) Are the available text/reference books satisfactory? Yes No Why? (Why not?) Who writes/publishes books used in teaching social studies/ social science? Books may introduce new ideas; may be published simultaneously with new ideas; or may be produced to reflect ideas being used. How do books used at present in social studies/social science relate to the curriculum ideas of the program? 1 ( ) lead 2 ( ) accompany 3 ( ) follow Which should they do? 1 ( ) lead 2 ( ) accompany 3 ( ) follow Questions 21 through 25 refer to various roles in the development of curriculum (defined as the planned experiences Offered to learners). 21. 22. To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in curriculum development? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) little 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat To what extent do principals encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) little 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat 182 23. To what extent do school-system administrators (superintendent, supervisor) encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? l E ) not at all 4 ( extensively 2 little 5 ( fully 3 ( ) somewhat 24. To what extent do principals actually supervise teaching of classroom teachers? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) little 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat 25. To what extent do principals monitor daily/weekly plans of classroom teachers? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) little 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat Questions 26 through 28 refer to planning for physical resources to accompany the introduction of a new program. 26. To what extent is there integrated planning to ensure that facilities and resources accompany new curriculum ideas? 1 i not at all 4 ) extensively 2 little 5 ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat 27. Who should provide integrated planning to ensure that resources accompany any new curriculum ideas? Rank: l E teacher 5 ( ) principal 9 ( ) school sys. adm. 2 parent 6 ( ) department 10 ( ) teacher organ. 3 ( ) university 7 ( ) elected rep. ll ( ) other ( 4 ( ) publisher 8 ( ) curric. comm. 28. In what ways could present planning be improved? Questions 29 through 32 refer to teacher understanding of the written curriculum guide for social studies/social science. 29. 00 teachers understand the guide provided by Y the Province/State? 95 N0 30. 31. 32. 183 Rank the ways in which teachers came to understand the guide: l ( ) colleague(s) 8 ( ) department publication 2 principal 9 z ) university course 3 ( department staff 10 ) department workshop 4 ( ) reading the guide 11 E ) teacher organ. workshOp 5 ( ) other reading 12 ) teacher organ. publication 6 ( ) school-sys. admin. 13 ( ) other ( 7 ( ) texts What things hinder(ed) teachers from understanding the guide? Which ways would be best for teachers to understand the cur- riculum guide? l ( ) colleague(s) 8 ( ) department publication 2 ( ) principal 9 ( ) university course 3 ( ) department staff 10 ( ) department workshop 4 ( ) reading the guide 11 ( ) teacher organ. workshop 5 ( ) other reading 12 ( ) teacher organ. publication 6 ( school-sys. admin. 13 ( ) other ( 7 ( ) texts Questions 33 and 34 refer to use Of the program given in the curric- ulum guide. 33. 34. TO what extent is the program given in the guide used in the classroom? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) little 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat What are the things that hinder teachers most in using the program? Questions 35 and 36 refer to the training of teachers to use the program given in the curriculum guide. 35. Were teachers Specifically trained to use the program? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) llttle 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat 184 36. Rank according to relative importance in training teachers for understanding and use Of a new program: ) commitment by teacher 4 ( ) time from work 2( )subsidy of direct costs 5 ( ) articles, books )organized workshOps 6 ( ) other ( ) Questions 37 through 41 refer to the diffusion of curriculum ideas-- curriculum being the planned experiences Offered to learners by the school. 37. Who should be responsible for spreading new curriculum ideas? 1 ( ) teacher 5 ( ) principal 9 ( ) school-sys. adm. 2 ( ) parent 6 ( ) department 10 ( ) teacher organ. 3 ( 3 university 7 ( ) elected rep. ll ( ) other ( ) 4 ( publisher 8 ( curric. comm. 38. To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) little 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat 39. To what extent do principals give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? 1 ( ) not at all 4 ( ) extensively 2 ( ) little 5 ( ) fully 3 ( ) somewhat 40. Rank the following according to which is best for spreading new curriculum ideas within a school: 1 ( ) staff meetings 4 ( ) admin. visits 7 ( ) informal dis. 2 g ) subject meetings 5 ( ) magazines 8 ( ) lesson plan 3 school library 6 ( ) new resources to admin. 9 ( ) other ( ) 41. Rank the following according to which is best for spreading new curriculum ideas by the teacher organization? ) annual convention 5 ( ) prof. development--local 2)specia1ist council-- 6 ( ) prof. development-- province consultants 3 ( ) specialist council-- 7E publication region 8 other( ) 4 ( ) library APPENDIX 8 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS APPENDIX 8 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS Alberta Tasmania Group No. in NO. Percent No. in No. Percent Survey Reply Reply Survey Reply Reply Teachers 40 29 72.5 40 34 85.0 Parents 8 5 62.5 6 4 66.7 University 7 5 71.4 4 4 100.0 Publisher 11 ea 54.5 . - - -— Principals 20 18 90.0 20 18 90.0 Department 7 5 71.4 8 7 87.5 Elected rep. 20 6(9)“b 30(45) 1 0 0.0 Egilliilfim a 7 87.5 1 1 100.0 333131533315 20 ‘6 80-0 - - -- Teacher organ. 3 2 66.7 2 2 100.0 Other 3 2c 66.7 l lc 100.0 101(104)a 71 aNot included in this study, making response for this survey total 89. bIncludes replies that the questionnaire could/would not be completed. cDropped after calculation of percentages. Included in per- centages and totals but not included as a group in the survey report. 185 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF RESPONSE DATA APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF RESPONSE DATA The data, presented for each question, are given below with the following organization: (A) each response to each question, with percentages Of the total group; (8) each response listed with the number responding in each of the categories/groups used in the questionnaire, such as teacher, parent, university; and (C) responses listed with numbers responding on a geographical basis, separating Albertan and Tasmanian replies by group and by answer. The data that are given include all the respondents listed in Appendix 8, except publishers and elected representatives. Per- centages and total responses include the "other" group but that group has not been included as a separate group or category in the reporting of responses by group. Responses that make up most answers or are the most significant are given; so subtotals do not always match totals. Each percentage given refers to the group pre- ceding it. Thus, under A, a percentage after an answer is a per- centage of all respondents; under 8, a percentage after teachers is a percentage of all teachers in the group; and under C, a percentage after Albertans is a percentage Of all Albertan respondents, while a percentage after teachers under the subheading Albertans is a per- centage of all Albertan teacher respondents. 186 187 Question 2: Whose thinking does the guide reflect: A. Curriculum Committee : 105 respondents (65.6 percent) Department Of Education : 24 respondents (15.0 percent) Teachers : 10 respondents ( 6.3 percent) University, : 5 respondents ( 3.1 percent) NO Answer : 9 respondents ( 5.6 percent) 8. Curriculum Committee : 39 teachers (61.9 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 8 university (88.9 percent), 30 principals (83.3 percent), 7 department (58.3 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 10 school-system administrators (62.5 percent). Department of Education : 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 4 principals (11.1 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 teacher organization (50 percent). Teachers : 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 teacher organization (25 percent). C. Curriculum Committee : 54 Albertans (60.7 percent)-- 17 teachers (58.6 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 5 university (100 percent), 12 principals (66.7 percent), 2 department (40 per- cent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 10 school-system administrators (62.5 percent). 51 Tasmanians (71.8 percent)-- 22 teachers (64.7 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 18 principals (100 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 5 department (71.4 per- cent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). 188 Department of Education : 20 Albertans (22.5 percent)-- 2 department (40 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 5 teachers (17.2 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.7 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.9 percent), 2 parents (50 percent). Teachers : 2 Albertans (2.2 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent). 8 Tasmanians (11.3 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Question 3: Whose thinking should the guide reflect? A. Teachers : 58 respondents (36.3 percent) Curriculum Committee : 54 respondents (33.8 percent) Parents : 9 respondents ( 5.6 percent) Blank Replies : 13 respondents ( 8.1 percent) 8. Teachers : 23 teachers (36.5 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 21 principals (58.3 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 4 school-system administrators (25 percent), 2 teacher organization (50 percent). Curriculum Committee : 21 teachers (33 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 10 principals 189 (27.8 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 5 school-system administrators (31.3 percent), 1 teacher organization (25 percent). Parents : 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 1 principal (2.8 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent). C. Teachers : 29 Albertans (32.6 percent)-- 9 principals (50 percent), 9 teachers (31 percent), 4 school-system administrators (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 3 curriculum com- mittee (42.9 percent). 29 Tasmanians (40.6 percent)-- 12 principals (66.7 percent), 14 teachers (41.2 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), no parent, no university. Curriculum Committee : 3O Albertans (33.7 percent)-- 9 teachers (31 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 5 school- system administrators (31.3 percent), 2 parents (40 percent). 24 Tasmanians (33.8 percent)-- 12 teachers (35.3 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), no teacher representative. 190 In addition, 7 Albertans and 2 Tasmanians listed parents as first. These were: Albertans--2 teachers (6.9 percent), 1 princi- pal (5.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), and no parents. Tasmanians--2 parents (50 percent). Question 4: Why Should this be so? A. Teachers know pupil needs: 26 respondents (16.3 percent) Practicality, applicability and suitability of curriculum: 24 respondents (15 percent) Reflect all society : 22 respondents (13.8 percent) More teacher voice in curriculum: 14 respondents (8.8 percent) Nil response : 40 respondents (25 percent) 8. Teachers know pupil needs: 14 teachers (22 percent), 9 principals (25 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent). Practical, applicable, suitable curriculum: 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 4 school-system adminis- trators (25 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Societal concerns : 8 teachers (12.7 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent). 191 More teacher voice : 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 5 principals (13.9 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). C. Nil Returns : 26 Albertans (29.2 percent) l4 Tasmanians (19.7 percent) Teachers know pupils best: 8 Albertans (8.9 percent)-- 5 teachers (17.2 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 18 Tasmanians (25.3 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 1 depart- ment (14.3 percent). Practical, applicable, suitable: 21 Albertans (23.6 percent) --6 teachers (20.6 percent), 4 school-system administrators (25 per- cent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 2 cur- riculum committee (28.6 percent). 3 Tasmanians (4.2 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), no curriculum committee. Societal concerns : 7 Albertans (7.9 percent)-- 1 parent (20 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent). 15 Tasmanians (21.1 percent)-- 8 teachers (23.5 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum 192 committee (100 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 2 university (50 percent). More teacher voice : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 2 school- system administrators (12.5 percent). 6 Tasmanians (8.5 percent)-- 3 teachers (8.8 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent). _Question 5: Were you involved in the development of the guide? A. Ng_ : 123 respondents (76.9 percent) Yep. : 37 respondents (23.1 percent) 8. No . : 55 teachers (87.3 percent), 9 parents (100 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 29 principals (80.6 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 15 school-system administrators (93.8 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent). leg : 8 teachers (12.7 percent), 6 university (66.7 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 8 depart- ment (66.7 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 1 school- system administrator (6.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. N0 : 75 Albertans (84.3 percent)-- 5 parents (100 percent), 28 teachers (96.6 percent), 17 principals (94.4 percent), 15 school-system administrators (93.8 percent), 193 2 department (40 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 48 Tasmanians (67.6 percent)-- 27 teachers (79.4 percent), 4 parents (100 percent), 12 principals (66.7 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 1 univer- sity (25 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent). 133g : l4 Albertans (15.7 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.5 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 3 department (60'percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 23 Tasmanians (32.4 percent)—- 7 teachers (20.6 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 5 department (71.4 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). Question 5A: If so, how? A. No Answer : 130 respondents (81.2 percent) Curriculum Committee member:18 respondents (11.3 percent) ' Pilot teacher : 5 respondents (3.1 percent) 8. Curriculum Committee : 7 department (58.3 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 4 curriculum (50 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent), 1 schoOl-system administrator (6.3 percent). Pilot Teachers : 2 teachers (3.2 percent), l principal (2.8 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). 194 C. Curriculum Committee : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 1 university (20 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). 10 Tasmanians (14.1 percent)-- 3 university (75 percent), 4 department (57.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent). Pilot Teachers : 5 Tasmanians (7 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.9 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Question 6: Should you have been involved? A. Ye§_ : 80 respondents (50 percent) Np_ : 62 respondents (38.8 percent) NO Reply : 17 respondents (10.6 percent) 8. Y§§_ : 28 teachers (44.4 percent), 19 principals (52.8 percent), 7 parents (77.8 percent), 7 university (77.8 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 5 school-system adminis- trators (31.3 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Np_ : 28 teachers (44.4 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 9 school-system administrators (56.3 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent). 195 C. Y§§_ : 42 Albertans (47.2 percent)-- 13 teachers (44.8 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 4 parents (80 percent), 4 university (80 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 5 school-system administrators (31.3 percent). 38 Tasmanians (53.5 percent)-- 15 teachers (44.1 percent), 13 principals (72.2 percent), 3 parents (75 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 3 department (42.9 per- cent), no curriculum committee or teacher representatives. Ng_ : 39 Albertans (43.8 percent)-- 13 teachers (44.8 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 10 princi- pals (55.6 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 9 school-system adminis- trators (56.3 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent). 23 Tasmanians (32.4 percent)-- 15 teachers (44.4 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 university (25 percent). Question 6A: If so, how? A. No reply : 93 respondents (58.1 percent) By questionnaire/consultation: 14 respondents (8.8 percent) By representation : 12 respondents (7.5 percent) Directly : 9 respondents (5.6 percent) 196 B. By consultation : 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent). By representation : 4 principals (11.1 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 teacher (1.6 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). Directly : 4 department (33.3 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 principal (2.8 percent). C. By consultation : 4 Albertans (4.5 percent)-- 3 teachers (10.3 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). 10 Tasmanians (14.1 percent)-- 4 teachers (11.8 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent). By representation : 9 Albertans (10.1 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). 3 Tasmanians (4.2 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Directly : 3 Albertans (3.3 percent)-— 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent). I 6 Tasmanians (8.5 percent)-- 2 university (50 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 3 department (60 percent). 197 Question 7: Do you think that it is a good guide? A. Ye§_ : 112 respondents (70 percent) phy : 36 respondents (22.5 percent) NO reply : 9 respondents (5.6 percent) 8. leg_ : 41 teachers (65.1 percent), 26 principals (72.2 percent), 10 school-system administrators (62.5 percent), 9 department (75 percent), 7 parents (77.8 percent), 7 university (77.8 percent), 7 curriculum committee (87.5 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent). Ng_ : 17 teachers (27 percent), 8 principals (22.2 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent). C. Ye§_ : 53 Albertans (59.6 percent)-- 14 teachers (48.3 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 4 department (80 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 10 school-system adminis- trators (62.5 percent), 6 curriculum committee (85.7 percent). 59 Tasmanians (83.1 percent)-- 27 teachers (79.4 percent), 16 principals (88.9 percent), 4 parents (100 percent), 4 university (100 percent), 5 department (71.4 per- cent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). Np_ : 27 Albertans (30.3 percent)-- 12 teachers (41.4 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 2 parents 198 (40 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent). 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent). Question 8: Do you have any criticisms of the guide? A. No Answer : 60 respondents (37.5 percent) Too vague7general : 29 respondents (18.1 percent) Hard to understand : 18 respondents (11.3 percent) No criticism : 9 respondents ( 5.6 percent) More direction needed : 8 respondents ( 5.0 percent) Content dates quickly : 7 respondents ( 4.4 percent) 8. Too vaguejgeneral : 13 teachers (20.6 percent), 9 principals (25 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 curriculum comlli ttee (12 . 5 percent). Hard to understand : 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 1 teacher (1.6 percent), no principals. No criticism : 7 teachers (11.1 percent). More direction needed : 2 teachers ( 3.2 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent). Content dates quickly : 2 teachers ( 3.2 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). 199 C. TOO vague[general : 21 Albertans (23.6 percent)-- 10 teachers (38 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 school-system administra- tor (6.3 percent). 8 Tasmanians (11.3 percent)-- 3 teachers (8.8 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent). Hard to understand : 17 Albertans (19.1 percent)-- 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 5 curriculum committee (71.4 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 parent (20 percent). 1 Tasmanian (1.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent). More direction needed : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 univer- sity (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent), no parents. Content dates quickly : 3 Albertans (3.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.6 percent)-- 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). No criticism : l Albertan (1.1 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent). 200 8 Tasmanians (11.1 percent)-- 6 teachers (17.6 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). No response : 32 Albertans (36 percent)-- 13 teachers (44.8 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 6 school- system administrators (37.6 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 28 Tasmanians (39.4 percent)-- 14 teachers (41.2 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 4 parents (100 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 2 teacher representa- tives (100 percent). Question 9: Check how the curriculum guide sets course content, A. texts/references, teaching methods and time on topics. In general in all areas : 62 respondents (38.8 percent) Nil on time and ingeneral in other areas: 24 respondents (15.0 percent) Nil on timey texts/references and in' general in other' two: 14 respondents ( 8.8 percent) Content in detail,_general in other areas: 12 respondents ( 7.5 percent) No answer : 11 respondents ( 6.9 percent) Twenty-one different combinations were given altogether. 201 B. In general in all areas : 17 teachers (27 percent), l7 principals (47.2 percent), 12 school-system administrators (75 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 3 department (25 percent). Nil on time and inygeneral in other areas: 15 teachers (23.8 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent). 1. Nil on time and texts, general in other two: 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 3 principals (8.4 percent). Content in detail, general in other areas: 6 teachers (9.5 percent), 5 principals (15.9 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). C. In general in all areas : 48 Albertans (53.9 percent)-- 12 teachers (41.3 percent), 12 principals (66.7 percent), 12 school- system administrators (75 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 3 univer- sity (60 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent). 14 Tasmanians (19.7 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Nil on time and in:general in other areas: 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)--2 teachers (6.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 202 18 Tasmanians (25.3 percent)-- 13 teachers (38.3 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 depart- ment (14.3 percent). Nil on time and texts, general in other two: 4 Albertans (4.5 percent)--2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). 10 Tasmanians (14.1 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.8 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). Content in detail, general in other areas: 2 Albertans (2.2 percent)--2 teachers (6.8 percent). 10 Tasmanians (14.1 percent)-- 4 teachers (11.8 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 1 department (20 percent). Question 10: How is any obligation to follow the guide enforced? A. No enforcement : 49 respondents (30.6 percent) Inspection by department : 32 respondents (20 percent) Other inspection : 24 respondents (15 percent) Peer pressure : 12 respondents (7.5 percent) Central Office : 12 respondents (7.5 percent) NO answer : 11 respondents (6.9 percent) 8. No enforcement : 28 teachers (44.4 percent), 8 principals (22.2 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 3 department 203 (25 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). Department inspection : 13 teachers (20.6 percent), 9 principals (25 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Other inspection : 8 principals (22.2 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 5 teachers (7.9 per- cent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Peer pressure : 5 principals (13.9 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent). C. No enforcement : 19 Albertans (21 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.6 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 curriculum com- mittee (14.3 percent). 30 Tasmanians (42.2 percent)-- 20 teachers (58.8 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 2 univer- sity (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). Department inspection : lO Albertans (11.2 percent)-- 1 parent (20 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 4 teachers 204 (13.8 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 school- system administrator (6.3 percent). 22 Tasmanians (30.4 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 3 depart- ment (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). Other inspection and central office: 31 Albertans (35 per- cent)--7 teachers (24.1 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 9 school-system administrators (56.3 percent), 2 curriculum commit- tee (28.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 university (20 per- cent). 5 Tasmanians (7 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.8 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), no principals. Peerypressure : 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). 6 Tasmanians (8.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent). 205 Question 11: To what extent should the guide prescribe social studies/social science for the Province/State? A. le_ : 11 respondents ( 6.9 percent) tjjnflgg : 19 respondents (11.9 percent) Somewhat : 71 respondents (44.4 percent) Extensively : 51 respondents (31.9 percent) .Eully} : 4 respondents ( 2.5 percent) 8. Somewhat : 28 teachers (44.4 percent), 13 principals (36.1 percent), 7 university (77.8 percent), 7 depart— ment (58.3 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Extensively and fully, : 23 teachers (36.5 percent), 16 principals (44.4 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 per- cent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 per- cent). Little and nil : 9 teachers (14.3 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 2 curric- ulum committee (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent). C. Somewhat : 36 Albertans (40.4 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 4 university (80 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 206 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 7 school-system adminis- trators (58.3 percent). 35 Tasmanians (49.3 percent)-- 17 teachers (50 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 4 department (57.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Enlly : 4 Albertans (4.5 percent)-- 1 parent (20 percent), 2 teachers (6.9 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). 0 Tasmanians Extensively, : 35 Albertans (39.3 percent)-- 13 teachers (44.8 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 16 Tasmanians (22.5 percent)-- 8 teachers (23.5 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 2 parents (50 percent). Little_ : 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)-- 2 principals (11.1 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent), no teachers or department. 13 Tasmanians (18.3 percent)-- 4 teachers (11.8 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 university (25 percent). 207 N11_ : 7 Albertans (7.9 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.6 percent)-- 3 teachers (8.8 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). Question 12: Who actually sets curriculum now? A. Teachers : 60 respondents (37.5 percent) Curriculum Committee : 57 respondents (35.6 percent) Department : 27 respondents (16.9 percent) Principals : 3 respondents ( 1.9 percent) Publishers : 2 respondents ( 1.3 percent) No answer : 9 respondents ( 5.6 percent) 8. Teachers : 24 teachers (38.1 percent), 14 principals (38.9 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 4 curric— ulum committee (50 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Curriculum Committee : 22 teachers (34.9 percent), 16 principals (44.4 percent), 5 parents (55.5 percent), 5 school- system administrators (31.3 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent). 208 Department : 12 teachers (19 percent), 5 principals (13.9 percent), 4 school-system administrators (25 per- cent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). Principals : 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Publishers : 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. Teachers : 29 Albertans (32.6 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 6 school- system administrators (37.5 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), no teacher representative. 31 Tasmanians (43.7 percent)-- 18 teachers (52.9 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 3 depart- ment (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 cur- riculum committee (100 percent). Curriculum Committee : 31 Albertans (34.9 percent)-- 12 teachers (41.4 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 1 depart- ment (20 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 5 school-system administra- tors (31.3 percent). 26 Tasmanians (36.6 percent)-- 10 teachers (29.4 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 3 parents (75 percent), 2 university (50 percent). 209 Department : 21 Albertans (23.6 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.6 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 4 school- system administrators (25 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 6 Tasmanians (8.5 percent)-- 4 teachers (11.8 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). Principals : 3 Tasmanians (4.2 percent)-- 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Publishers : 2 Albertans (2.2 percent)-- 1 parent (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Question 13: Who should plan the curriculum for social studies/ social science? . A. Teachers : 85 respondents (53.1 percent) Curriculum Committee : 41 respondents (25.6 percent) Department : 9 respondents ( 5.6 percent) 8. Teachers : 34 teachers (54 percent), 19 principals (54.8 percent), 10 school-system administrators (62.5 percent), 7 department (58.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 4 teacher representatives (100 percent), 4 univer- sity (44.4 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent). Curriculum Committee : 15 teachers (23.8 percent), ll principals (30.6 percent), 4 school-system administrators 210 (25 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent). Department : 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 principal (2.8 percent). C. Teachers : 44 Albertans (49.4 percent)-- 12 teachers (41.3 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 3 depart- ment (60 percent), 10 school-system administrators (62.5 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 4 university (80 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent). 41-Tasmanians (57.7 percent)-- 22 teachers (64.7 percent), 11 principals (61.1 percent), 4 depart- ment (57.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), no parents or university. Curriculum Committee : 26 Albertans (30 percent)-- 10 teachers (34.4 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 4 school- system administrators (25 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 university (20 percent). 15 Tasmanians (21.1 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 3 parents (75 percent), 3 university (75 percent), no department or curriculum committee. Department : 9 Albertans (10.1 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 3 curriculum committee (43.9 percent), 211 l department (20 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 school- system administrator (6.3 percent). Question 14: Should there be set texts for social studies/ social science? A. Ng_ : 105 respondents (65.6 percent) Ye§_ : 49 respondents (30.6 percent) 8. NO : 46 teachers (73 percent), 22 principals (61.1 percent), 11 department (91.7 percent), 7 uni- versity (77.8 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 3 teacher repre- sentatives (75 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent). Ygg. : 16 teachers (25.4 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 9 school-system administrators (56.3 percent), 7 parents (77.8 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). C. Ng- : 47 Albertans (52.8 percent)-- 17 teachers (58.6 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 6 school- system administrators (37.5 percent), 5 department (100 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 4 university (80 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), no parents. 58 Tasmanians (81.7 percent)-- 29 teachers (85.3 percent), 15 principals (83.3 percent), 6 depart- ment (85.7 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 3 university 212 (75 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). .13; : 37 Albertans (41.6 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 5 parents (100 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 9 school-system administrators (50 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent),l university (20 percent). 12 Tasmanians (16.9 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Question 15: Why should there be set texts? (Why not?) A. Limit the scope of work : 87 respondents (54.4 percent) Set course more clearly : 25 respondents (15.6 percent) Materials suitable and relevant: 10 respondents (6.3 percent) NO reply : 14 respondents (8.8 percent) 8. Limit the scope of work : 37 teachers (58.7 percent), 17 principals (47.2 percent), 9 department (75 percent), 7 school- System administrators (43.8 percent), 7 university (77.8 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent). Set course more clearly : 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent). 213 Materials suitable and relevant: 6 teachers (9.5 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 1 principal (2.8 percent). C. Limit the scope of work : 35 Albertans (39.3 percent)-- 4 university (80 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 10 teachers (34.4 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 7 school- system administrators (43.8 percent). 52 Tasmanians (73.2 percent)-- 27 teachers (79.4 percent), 12 principals (66.7 percent), 6 depart- ment (85.7 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 1 curriculum com- mittee (100 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). Set course more clearly»: l8 Albertans (20.2 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 1 university (20 percent). 7 Tasmanians (9.9 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), no parents. Materials suitable and relevant: 8 Albertans (9 percent)-— 6 teachers (20.6 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 2 Tasmanians (2.7 percent)-- 1 parent (25 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), no teachers. Texts lack necessary content: 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 214 Texts reduce costs : 4 Albertans (4.5 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 school- system administrator (6.3 percent). Question 16: Are the available texts/reference books satisfactory? A. Np_ : 84 respondents (52.5 percent) Xe§_ : 63 respondents (39.4 percent) No answer : 12 respondents ( 7.5 percent) 8. Np_ : 33 teachers (52.4 percent), 23 principals (63.9 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 5 university (55.6 percent), 5 department (41.7 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Yp§_ : 26 teachers (41.3 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 9 school system administrators (56.3 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 1 university (11.1 per- cent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. Ng_ : 45 Albertans (50.6 percent)-- 17 teachers (58.6 percent), 4 parents (80 percent), 4 university (80 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent). 39 Tasmanians (54.9 percent)-- 16 teachers (47.1 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 15 principals 215 (83.3 percent), 4 department (57.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), no parents. Ye; : 35 Albertans (39.3 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.6 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 9 school-system administrators (56.3 percent), no parents. 28 Tasmanians (39.4 percent)-- 18 teachers (52.9 percent), 3 parents (75 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 university (25 per- cent), no teacher representatives. Question 17: Why? (Why Not?) A. Not enough materials : 30 respondents (18.8 percent) Materials too difficult : 29 respondents (18.1 percent) Good references available: 27 respondents (16.9 percent) Materials not appropriate: 13 respondents ( 8.1 percent) No response : 35 respondents (21.9 percent) 8. Not enough materials : 12 teachers (19 percent), 10 principals (27.8 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent). Materials too difficult : 12 teachers (19 percent), 6 prin- cipals (16.7 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 4 curriculum com- mittee (50 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). 216 Good references available: 12 teachers (19 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Materials not appropriate: 5 teachers (7.9 percent), 4 principals (11.1 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). C. Not enough materials : 14 Albertans (15.7 percent)-- 9 teachers (31 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent). 16 Tasmanians (22.5 percent)-- 3 teachers (8.8 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Materials too difficult : lO Albertans (11.2 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). 19 Tasmanians (26.8 percent)-- 10 teachers (29.4 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 3 depart- ment (42.9 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). Good references available: 18 Albertans (20.2 percent)-- 3 teachers (10.3 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 2 depart- ment (40 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 3 school- system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 217 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent). Materials not appropriate: 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)-- 2 university (40 percent), 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 parent (20 percent). 7 Tasmanians (9.9 percent)-- 4 teachers (11.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 depart- ment (14.3 percent). Question 18: Who writes/publishes books used in teaching social studies/social science? A. Various writers/publishers: 54 respondents (38.8 percent) Publishing Houses : 11 respondents ( 6.9 percent) Department : 10 respondents ( 6.3 percent) No answer : 47 respondents (29.4 percent) 8. Various writers/publishers: 23 teachers (36.5 percent), 13 principals (36.1 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 6 department (60 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent). Publishing Houses : 6 principals (16.7 percent), 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 depart- ment (8.3 percent). Department : 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). 218 C. Various writers/publishers: 22 Albertans (24.7 percent)-- 7 teachers (24.1 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 32 Tasmanians (45.1 percent)-- 16 teachers (47.1 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 5 depart- ment (71.4 percent), 1 university (25 percent). Publishing Houses : 9 Albertans (10.1 percent)-- 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 teachers (6.9 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent). 2 Tasmanians (2.8 percent)-- 2 principals (11.1 percent). Department : 10 Tasmanians (14.1 percent)-- 7 teachers (20.6 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). Question 19: 00 books lead, accompany or follow new curriculum ideas? A. Accompany : 72 respondents (42 percent) Follow : 52 respondents (32 percent) Lead : 12 respondents (7.5 percent) No answer : 16 respondents (10 percent) 8. Accompany : 38 teachers (60.3 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 4 department (33.3 per- cent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent). 219 fpllpn_ : 12 teachers (19 percent), 18 principals (50 percent), 5 department (50 percent), 5 school- system administrators (31.3 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Lepg_ : 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 4 principals (11.1 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent). C. Accompany : 38 Albertans (42.7 percent)-- 18 teachers (62.1 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 8 school- system administrators (50 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 depart- ment (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 34 Tasmanians (47.9 percent)-- 20 teachers (58.8 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 3 univer- sity (75 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). .Eglyny : 3O Albertans (33.7 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 5 school-system administra- tors (31.3 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 parent (20 percent). 22 Tasmanians (31 percent)-- 8 teachers (23.5 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 220 ‘ugpg_ : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 2 parents (40 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 school-system adminis- trator (6.3 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.6 percent)-- 1 parent (25 percent), 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Question 20: Which should they do? A. Accompany : 97 respondents (60.6 percent) Lead : 23 respondents (14.4 percent) Follow : 14 respondents ( 8.8 percent) 8. Accompany : 37 teachers (58.7 percent), 26 principals (72.2 percent), 8 department (66.7 percent), 6 school- system administrators (37.5 percent), 6 parents (66.7 percent), 5 university (55.5 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Lepg_ : 8 teachers (12.9 percent), 3 principals (8.3 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 3 school- system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). fgllgn. : 5 teachers (8.1 percent), 4 principals (11.1 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). 221 C. Accompany : 55 Albertans (61.8 percent)-- 19 teachers (65.5 percent), 12 principals (66.7 percent), 6 school- system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 parents (80 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 5 curriculum committee (71.4 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 42 Tasmanians (60 percent)-- 18 teachers (52.9 percent), 14 principals (77.8 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 5 department (71.4 per- cent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Legg. : 15 Albertans (16.9 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 parent (20 percent). 8 Tasmanians (11.4 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.9 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). fpllpu_ : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 3 principals (16.7 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), no teachers. 6 Tasmanians (8.6 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). 222 QuestiOn 21: To what extent does the teacher organization encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? A. Nil_ : 8 respondents ( 5.0 percent) tittlg_ : 53 respondents (33.1 percent) Somewhat : 69 respondents (43.1 percent) Extensively, : 26 respondents (16.3 percent) fully : 2 respondents ( 1.3 percent) 8. Somewhat : 26 teachers (41.3 percent), 19 principals (52.8 percent), 8 curriculum committee (100 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 3 parents (33.3 per- cent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Extensively or Fully : 11 teachers (17.4 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 1 univer- sity (11.1 percent). Little or Nil : 25 teachers (39.7 percent), ll principals (30.6 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 8 school- system administrators (50 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. Somewhat : 47 Albertans (52.8 percent)-- 13 teachers (44.4 percent), 14 principals (77.8 percent), 7 curric- ulum committee (100 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 3 university (60 percent). 223 22 Tasmanians (31 percent)-- 13 teachers (38.2 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 1 curric- ulum committee (100 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). fully : 2 Albertans (2.2 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent). Extensively : lO Albertans (11.2 percent)-- 3 teachers (10.3 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent). 16 Tasmanians (22.6 percent)-- 6 teachers (17.7 percent), 4 department (57.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent). £31335; : 28 Albertans (31.5 percent)-- 9 teachers (31 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 1 univer- sity (20 percent), 3 department (60 percent). 25 Tasmanians (35.2 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 2 university (50 percent). le_ : 2 Albertans (2.3 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent). 6 Tasmanians (8.5 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent). 224 Question 22: To what extent do principals encourage curriculum development by classroom teachers? A. le_ : 4 respondents ( 2.5 percent) Little : 36 respondents (22.5 percent) Somewhat : 66 respondents (41.3 percent) Extensively : 41 respondents (25.6 percent) §u11y_ : 8 respondents ( 5.0 percent) 8. Somewhat : 21 teachers (33.3 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 8 department (66.7 percent), 7 school- system administrators (43.8 percent), 5 parents (55.6 percent), 5 university (55.6 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Extensively or Fully : 24 teachers (38.1 percent), l7 principals (47.2 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Little or Nil : 17 teachers (27 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent). C. Somewhat : 38 Albertans (42.7 percent)-- 3 department (60 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 10 teachers (34.5 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 225 28 Tasmanians (39.4 percent)-- 5 department (71.4 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 11 teachers (32.3 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representa- tive (50 percent). Extensively or Fully, : 18 Albertans (20.2 percent)-- 7 teachers (24.1 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), no parents or department (includes 3 noting "full"-- all teachers). 31 Tasmanians (43.7 percent)-- 17 teachers (50 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent) (includes 5 noting "full"--3 teachers, 1 principal, 1 teacher representative). Little or Nil : 30 Albertans (33.7 percent)-- 12 teachers (41.4 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent) (includes 3 noting "none"--2 teachers, 1 school-system administra- tor). lO Tasmanians (14.1 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 university (25 percent), no parents or department (includes 1 noting "none"-- 1 teacher). 226 Question 23: To what extent do school-system administrators (super- intendent, supervisor) encourage curriculum develop- ment by classroom teachers? A. le_ : 7 respondents ( 4.4 percent) ijflflji : 32 respondents (20.0 percent) Somewhat : 71 respondents (44.4 percent) Extensively, : 45 respondents (28.1 percent) Fully : 2 respondents ( 1.3 percent) 8. Somewhat : 27 teachers (42.9 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 7 parents (77.8 percent), 7 depart- ment (58.5 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent). Extensively or Fully : 17 teachers (27 percent), ll principals (30.6 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Little or Nil : 18 teachers (28.6 percent), l3 principals (36.1 percent), 4 school-system administrators (25 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). C. Somewhat : 34 Albertans (38.2 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 1 teacher representative 227 (50 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 2 uni- versity (40 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent). 37 Tasmanians (52.1 percent)-- 16 teachers (47.1 percent), 4 parents (100 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 4 department (57.2 percent), 2 teacher representa- tives (100 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 1 curriculum com- mittee (100 percent). Fully : 2 Albertans (2.2 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). Extensively, : 24 Albertans (27.1 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 5 school- system administrators (31.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 parent (20 percent). 21 Tasmanians (29 percent)-- 10 teachers (29.4 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 3 depart- ment (42.9 percent), 2 university (50 percent). Nil, : 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)-- 5 teachers (17.2 percent), 1 parent (20 percent). 1 Tasmanian (1.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent). tjjnfln; . : 21 Albertans (23.6 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 4 school- system administrators (25 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 228 ll Tasmanians (15.5 percent)-- 6 teachers (17.7 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent). Question 24: TO what extent do principals actually supervise teach- ing of classroom teachers? A. ‘Nil : 12 respondents ( 7.5 percent) Little : 69 respondents (43.1 percent) Somewhat : 52 respondents (32.5 percent) ExtensiveLy : 22 respondents (13.8 percent) ‘Eully : 1 respondent ( 0.6 percent) 8. Somewhat : 14 teachers (22.2 percent), 17 principals (47.2 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Extensively or Fully : 8 teachers (12.7 percent), 8 principals (22.2 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 2 curric- ulum committee (25 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). Little or Nil : 39 teachers (61.9 percent), ll principals (30.6 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 6 parents (66.7 percent), 5 university (55.6 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent). C. Somewhat : 30 Albertans (33.7 percent)-- 7 principals (38.9 percent), 4 department (80 percent), 7 school-system 229 administrators (43.8 percent), 8 teachers (27.5 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 22 Tasmanians (31 percent)-- 10 principals (55.6 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 6 teachers (17.6 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). fully : l Tasmanian (1.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent). Extensively : 10 Albertans (11.2 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.5 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 per- cent), no department. 12 Tasmanians (16.9 percent)-- 6 teachers (17.7 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent). giggle : 39 Albertans (43.8 percent)-- 12 teachers (41.4 percent), 4 parents (80 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent). 30 Tasmanians (42.3 percent)-- 16 teachers (47.1 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 3 depart- ment (42.9 percent), 2 university (50 percent). 230 311. : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.6 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.7 percent)-- 3 teachers (8.8 percent), 1 university (25 percent). Question 25: To what extent do principals monitor weekly/daily plans of classroom teachers? A. le_ : 26 respondents (16.3 percent) tittlg_ : 64 respondents (40.0 percent) Somewhat : 37 respondents (23.1 percent) Extensively : 23 respondents (14.4 percent) fully, : 7 respondents ( 4.4 percent) 8. Somewhat : 14 teachers (22.2 percent), 11 principals (30.6 percent), 5 department (41.7 percent), 3 school- system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). Extensively or Fully, : 14 teachers (22.2 percent), 8 principals (22.2 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent). Little or Nil : 34 teachers (54 percent), 16 principals (44.5 percent), 13 school-system administrators (81.3 percent), 6 parents (66.7 percent), 5 university (55.6 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 4 teacher representatives (100 percent). 231 C. Somewhat : 13 Albertans (14.6 percent)-- 5 teachers (17.2 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 3 school-syStem administrators (18.8 percent), 1 cur- riculum committee (14.3 percent). 24 Tasmanians (33.8 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 4 department (57.1 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). ,[ulLy : 7 Tasmanians (9.9 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent). Extensively : 3 Albertans (3.4 percent)-- l principal (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), no teachers. 20 Tasmanians (28.2 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). ‘Littlp_ : 50 Albertans (56.2 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 5 parents (100 percent), 4 university (80 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 4 department (80 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 10 school-system adminis- trators (62.5 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent). 14 Tasmanians (19.7 percent)-- 8 teachers (23.5 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), no department. 232 le_ : 22 Albertans (24.7 percent)-- 13 teachers (44.8 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 3 school- System administrators (18.8 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.6 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.9 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Question 26: How much is there integrated planning to ensure that facilities and resources accompany new curriculum ideas? A. le_ : 11 respondents ( 6.9 percent) tittlg_ : 51 respondents (31.9 percent) Somewhat : 53 respondents (33.1 percent) Extensively, : 37 respondents (23.1 percent) fully : 3 respondnets ( 1.9 percent) 8. Somewhat : 19 teachers (30.2 percent), 13 principals (36.1 percent), 5 school-system administrators (31.3 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). Extensively and Fully : 20 teachers (31.7 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent). Little or Nil : 21 teachers (33.3 percent), 15 principals (41.7 percent), 9 school-system administrators (56.3 percent), 5 parents (55.6 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 233 3 department (25 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). C. Somewhat : 33 Albertans (37.1 percent)-- 10 teachers (34.5 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 5 school- system administrators (31.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 20 Tasmanians (28.2 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). fully : 2 Albertans (2.3 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent). 1 Tasmanian (1.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent). Extensively, : ll Albertans (12.4 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). . 26 Tasmanians (36.6 percent)-- 11 teachers (32.4 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 5 depart- ment (71.4 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). thtlp_ : 3O Albertans (33.7 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 234 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 5 school-system administra- tors (31.3 percent). 21 Tasmanians (29.6 percent)-- 11 teachers (32.4 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representa- tive (50 percent), no university. le_ : ll Albertans (12.4 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 4 school-system administrators (25 percent). Question 27: Who should provide integrated planning to ensure that resources accompany new curriculum ideas? A. Curriculum committee : 44 respondents (27.5 percent) Department : 34 respondents (21.3 percent) Teachers : 32 respondents (20.0 percent) Principals : 22 respondents (13.8 percent) No answer : 14 respondents ( 8.8 percent) 8. Curriculum committee : 19 teachers (30.2 percent), 10 principals (27.8 percent), 5 department (41.7 percent), 3 cur- riculum committee (37.5 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). Department : 11 teachers (17.5 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 per- cent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). 3F=5Emflfie 235 Teachers : 15 teachers (23.8 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 5 school-system administrators (31.3 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent), 3 parents (60 percent). Principals : 8 principals (22.2 percent), 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. Curriculum committee : l6 Albertans (18.2 percent)-- 7 teachers (24.1 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 2 school-system administrators (13.3 percent). 28 Tasmanians (39.4 percent)-- 12 teachers (35.3 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 4 department (57.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). Department : 17 Albertans (19.3 percent)-- 3 teachers (10.3 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 6 school-system administrators (40 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 2 curricu- lum committee (28.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 17 Tasmanians (23.9 percent)-- 8 teachers (23.5 percent), 3 parents (75 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representa- tive (50 percent). Teachers : 21 Albertans (23.9 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.6 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 2 university 236 (40 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 5 school-system adminis- trators (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 11 Tasmanians (15.5 percent)-- 7 teachers (20.6 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), no parents. Principals : 18 Albertans (20.5 percent)-- 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.6 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent). Question 28: What are ways in which present planning could be improved? A. Time for,planning : 26 respondents (16.3 percent) More teacher involvement: 25 respondents (15.6 percent) Better facilitiesZmore materials: 25 respondents (15.6 percent) Improved communications : 10 respondents ( 6.3 percent) No answer : 39 respondents (24.4 percent) 8. Time for planning : 6 teachers (9.5 percent), 6 curriculum committee (75 percent), 5 principals (13.8 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 parents (22.2 per- cent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent). 237 More teacher involvement: 9 teachers (14.3 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 4 school- system administrators (25 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent). . Better facilities/more materials: 14 teachers (22.2 percent), 5 principals (13.9 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent). , Improved communications : 5 teachers (7.9 percent), 2 prin- cipals (5.6 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. Time foryplanning : 21 Albertans (23.6 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 5 curriculum com- mittee (71.4 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 5 Tasmanians (7 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). More teacher involvement: 12 Albertans (13.5 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 4 school-system administrators (25 percent). 13 Tasmanians (18.3 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 university (25 percent). Better facilities/more materials: 3 Albertans (3.4 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 238 22 Tasmanians (31 percent)-- 12 teachers (35.3 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Improved communications : 2 Albertans (2.3 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 8 Tasmanians (11.3 percent)-- 4 teachers (11.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Question 29: 00 teachers understand the guide provided by the Province/State? A. Xe§_ : 100 respondents (62.5 percent) Ng_ : 36 respondents (22.5 percent) Some : 12 respondents ( 7.5 percent) 8. ,leg : 44 teachers (69.8 percent), 22 principals (61.1 percent), 9 department (75 percent), 7 parents (77.8 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent). Ng_ : 8 teachers (12.7 percent), 10 principals (27.8 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). nge_ : 3 principals (8.3 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 teachers (3.2 239 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent). C. 1331 : 4O Albertans (44.5 percent)-- 8 principals (44.4 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.6 percent), 15 teachers (51.7 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 60 Tasmanians (84.5 percent)-- 29 teachers (85.3 percent), 4 parents (100 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 14 principals (77.8 percent), 6 department (85.7 per- cent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 2 teacher representa- tives (100 percent). Np. : 32 Albertans (36 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.6 percent), 3 university (60 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.6 percent)-- 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Sgne, : 9 Albertans (10.1 percent)-- 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 university (40 per- cent), 2 curriculum committee (28.7 percent), 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). 3 Tasmanians (4.2 percent)-- 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 teacher (2.9 percent). 240 Question 30: Rank the ways in which teachers came to understand the guide. A. Reading the,guide : 69 respondents (43.1 percent) Department workshop : 24 respondents (15.0 percent) Teacher organization workshop: 10 respondents (6.3 percent) No answer : 19 respondents (11.9 percent) 8. Reading the guide : 37 teachers (58.7 percent), 8 principals (22.2 percent), 6 parents (66.7 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent), 3 department (25 percent). erartment workshop : 10 principals (27.8 percent), 6 teachers (9.5 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). Teacher organization workshop: 5 principals (13.9 percent), 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). C. Reading the_guide : 38 Albertans (42.7 percent)-- 15 teachers (51.7 percent), 4 parents (80 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 6 school-system administrators (39.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 31 Tasmanians (43.7 percent)-- 22 teachers (64.7 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 1 teacher 241 representative (50 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent). Department workshgp : 2 Albertans (2.3 percent)-- 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). 22 Tasmanians (31 percent)-- 6 teachers (17.6 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 parent (25 per- cent), 1 university (25 percent). Teacher organization workshop: 9 Albertans (10.1 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). A l Tasmanian (1.4 percent)-- 1 principal (5.6 percent). Question 31: What things hinder(ed) teachers from understanding the guide? A. Lack of time : 32 respondents (20.0 percent) Lack of understanding (ambiguity): 29 respondents (18.1 percent) Lack of helpjtraining, : 15 respondents ( 9.4 percent) Lack of trainim in social: 11 respondents ( 6.9 percent) Nil and did not answer : 50 respondents (31.3 percent) 8. Lack of time : 13 teachers (20.6 percent), 9 principals (25 percent), 5 school—system administrators (31.3 per- cent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 curric- ulum committee (12.5 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). . .f c .- .. A - '-\_ 242 Lack of understandingjambiguity: 12 teachers (19 percent), 4 principals (11.1 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 3 school- system administrators (18.8 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 uni- versity (22.2 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent). Lack of help/training : 6 teachers (9.5 percent), 4 princi- pals (11.1 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent), 1 depart- ment (8.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent). Lack of training,in social: 3 department (25 percent), 2 uni- versity (22.2 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 2 teachers (3.2 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum com- mittee (12.5 percent). C. Lack of time : 23 Albertans (25.8 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.5 percent), 7 principals (24.1 percent), 5 school- system administrators (31.3 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent). Lack of understanding/ambiguity: 21 Albertans (23.6 percent)-- 7 teachers (24.1 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 4 department (80 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). 8 Tasmanians (11.3 percent)-- 5 teachers (14.7 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), no parents, university, or department. 243 Lack of help/training : 7 Albertans (7.9 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 teacher rep- resentative (50 percent). 8 Tasmanians (11.3 percent)-- 4 teachers (11.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Lack of training in social: 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 per- cent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 2 school-system adminis- trators (12.5 percent). 5 Tasmanians (7 percent)-- 3 department (42.9 percent). le_ : ll Tasmanians (15.5 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Question 32: Which ways would be best for teachers to come to understand the curriculum guide? A. Reading theguide : 44 respondents (27.5 percent) Department workshop, : 35 respondents (21.9 percent) Teacher organization workshOp: 21 respondents (13.1 percent) No answer : 23 respondents (14.4 percent) 8. Reading,the guide : 21 teachers (33.3 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 parents (44.4 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 244 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). Department workshop : 12 principals (33.3 percent), 8 teachers (12.7 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Teacher organization workshop: 8 teachers (12.7 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 3 department (37.5 percent), 3 school- system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), no parents, curriculum committee, or teacher representatives. C. Reading the guide : 25 Albertans (28.1 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.5 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 6 school- system administrators (37.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 19 Tasmanians (26.8 percent)-- 13 teachers (38.3 percent), 3 parents (75 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Department workshop : l3 Albertans (14.6 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 1 university (20‘ percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). 22 Tasmanians (31 percent)-- 6 teachers (17.6 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 2 university *u .1 :— WM“ 245 (50 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 1 department (14.3 per- cent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent). Teacher organization workshop: 13 Albertans (14.6 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.6 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 3 school- system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 university (20 percent), no department. 8 Tasmanians (11.3 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.6 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent). Question 33: To what extent is the program given in the guide used in the classroom? A. le_ : 3 respondents ( 1.9 percent) Little. : 17 respondents (10.6 percent) Somewhat : 63 respondents (39.4 percent) Extensively : 67 respondents (41.9 percent) fully, : 2 respondents ( 1.3 percent) 8. Somewhat : 30 teachers (47.6 percent), 9 principals (25 percent), 9 school-system administrators (56.3 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 4 university (44.4 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Little or Nil : 12 teachers (19 percent), 3 prin- cipals (8.3 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 2 school- ' system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). Extensively or Fully : 19 teachers (30.2 percent), 24 principals (66.7 percent), 6 department (50 percent), 5 parents 246 (55.6 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 percent), 5 school-system administrators (31.1 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). C. Somewhat : 43 Albertans (48.3 percent)-- 17 teachers (58.6 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 5 department (100 percent), 9 school-system administrators (56.3 percent), 3 uni- 23:": A 3 E -. versity (60 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee mg: "i (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 20 Tasmanians (28.2 percent)-- 13 teachers (38.2 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 university (25 percent). fully : 2 Tasmanians (2.8 percent)-- 1 parent (25 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Extensively : 32 Albertans (36 percent)-- 9 teachers (31 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 1 teacher repre- sentative (50 percent), 5 school-system administrators (31.3 percent), 1 university (20 percent), no department. 35 Tasmanians (49.3 percent)-- 10 teachers (29.4 percent), 3 parents (75 percent), 13 principals (72.2 percent), 6 department (85.7 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 university (25 percent). tjjnflu; : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent), 247 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 parent (20 percent). 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent). ‘flil : 2 Albertans (2.3 percent)-- 2 principals (11.1 percent). 1 Tasmanian (1.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent). Question 34: What are things that hinder teachers most in using the program? A. Lack of resource materials: 46 respondents (28.8 percent) Inappropriateness of program: 18 respondents (11.3 percent) Lack of understanding of concepts: 16 respondents (10.0 percent) Lack of right teaching methods: 14 respondents ( 8.8 percent) Lack of time : 11 respondents ( 6.9 percent) Lack of detail in program : 11 respondents ( 6.9 percent) No answer : 23 respondents (14.4 percent) 8. Lack of resource materials: 17 teachers (27 percent), 15 principals (41.7 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). Inappropriateness of program: 12 teachers (19 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent). -: “1A.: _. .‘_tvf-&. ; 248 Lack of understandingyof concepts: 3 teachers (4.8 percent), 3 principals (8.3 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 2 school- system administrators (12.5 percent). Lack of right teachingmethodsz 4 teachers (6.3 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent), 2 school- system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). .flgm . I I 0 Lack of time : 5 teachers (7.9 percent), 4 principals (11.1 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent), 1 school- system administrator (6.3 percent). Lack of detail inyprggram: 4 teachers (6.3 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 principal (2.8 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). C. Lack of resource material: 22 Albertans (24.7 percent)-- 7 teachers (24.1 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), no department. 24 Tasmanians (33.8 percent)-- 10 teachers (29.4 percent), 8 principals (44.4 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 university (25 percent). 249 Inapprgpriateness ofyprogram: 9 Albertans (10.1 percent)-- 5 teachers (17.2 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 7 teachers (20.6 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (20 percent). Lack of understandingeof concepts: 10 Albertans (11.2 percent)-- 2 parents (40 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 3 curriculum com- mittee (42.9 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent), no teachers. 6 Tasmanians (8.5 percent)-- 3 teachers (8.8 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 university (25 percent), no parents. Lack of right teaching methods: 12 Albertans (13.5 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent). 2 Tasmanians (2.8 percent)-- 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Lack of time : lO Albertans (11.2 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). 1 Tasmanian (1.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent). 250 Lack of detail in program: 7 Albertans (7.9 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 3 school-system administrators (18.8 per- cent), 1 department (20 percent). 4 Tasmanians (5.6 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.8 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Question 35: Were teachers specifically trained to use the program? A. Nil_ : 34 respondents (21.3 percent) tittie_ : 61 respondents (38.1 percent) Somewhat : 49 respondents (30.6 percent) Extensively : 10 respondents ( 6.3 percent) ,Eully_ : l respondent ( 0.6 percent) 8. Somewhat : 19 teachers (30.2 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 7 principals (19.4 per- cent), 6 department (50 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 per- cent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Extensively or Fully : 3 teachers (4.8 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 principals (5.6 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent), 2 parents (11.1 percent). Little or Nil : 38 teachers (60.3 percent), 27 principals (75 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 5 parents (55.6 percent), 5 curriculum committee (62.5 251 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 3 department (25 percent). C. Somewhat : 31 Albertans (34.8 percent)-- 10 teachers (34.5 percent), 4 department (80 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 2 university (40 percent). 18 Tasmanians (25.4 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 university (25 percent). 5211!. : l Albertan (1.1 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent). Extensively, : l Albertan (1.1 percent)-- l principal (5.6 percent). 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 3 department (42.9 percent), 2 university (50 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 2 teachers (5.9 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Littie_ : 34 Albertans (38.2 percent)-- 10 teachers (34.5 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 6 school-system adminis- trators (37.5 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 curriculum com- mittee (14.3 percent). 27 Tasmanians (38 percent)-- 11 teachers (32.4 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 12 principals 252 (66.7 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), no university. Nil, : 19 Albertans (21.4 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 per- cent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent). 15 Tasmanians (21.1 percent)-- 11 teachers (32.4 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), no parents, university, or teacher representatives. Question 36: Rank according to relative importance in training teachers for understanding and use of a new program. A. Commitment by the teacher: 85 respondents (53.1 percent) Organized workshgps : 45 respondents (28.1 percent) Time from work : 19 respondents (11.9 percent) No answer : 8 respondents ( 5.0 percent) 8. Commitment by the teacher: 24 teachers (38.2 percent), 18 principals (50 percent), 11 school-system administrators (68.8 percent), 9 department (75 percent), 7 curriculum committee (87.5 percent), 6 parents (66.7 percent), 5 university (55.6 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75.0 percent). Organized workshops : 22 teachers (34.9 percent), 10 principals (27.8 percent), 3 school—system administrators (18.8 253 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Time from work : 8 teachers (12.7 percent), 8 principals (22.2 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 department (8.3 percent). C. Commitment by the teacher: 54 Albertans (60.7 percent)-- 9 teachers (31 percent), 4 parents (80 percent), 5 university (100 percent), 11 principals (61.1 percent), 5 department (100 percent), 6 curriculum committee (85.7 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 11 school-system administrators (68.8 percent). 31 Tasmanians (43.7 percent)-- 15 teachers (44.1 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 4 department (57.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), no university. Organized workshops : 20 Albertans (22.5 percent)-- 12 teachers (41.4 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 3 school- system administrators (18.8 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), no department, university, or parents. 25 Tasmanians (35.2 percent)-- 10 teachers (29.4 percent), 7 principals (38.9 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Time from work : lO Albertans (11.2 percent)-- 4 teachers (13.8 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 school- system administrators (12.5 percent). 254 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 4 teachers (ll.8 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent). Subsidy of direct costs : 2 Albertans (both teachers). Articles, books : 1 Tasmanian (a teacher). Question 37: Who should be reSponSible for spreading new curriculum ideas? A. Curriculum Committee : 44 respondents (27.5 percent) Department : 29 respondents (18.1 percent) Teachers : 28 respondents (17.5 percent) Principals : 18 respondents (11.3 percent) No answer : 22 respondents (13.8 percent) 8. Curriculum Committee : 17 teachers (27 percent), 15 principals (41.7 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent). Department : 7 teachers (11.1 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 5 parents (55.6 per- cent), 3 principals (8.3 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 3 cur- riculum committee (37.5 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 per- cent), no university. Teachers : 18 teachers (28.6 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). 255 Principals : 6 teachers (9.5 percent), 6 principals (16.7 percent), 2 department (16.7 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. Curriculum Committee : 17 Albertans (19.1 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.6 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 2 school- system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 cur- riculum committee (14.3 percent), no department. 27 Tasmanians (38 percent)-- 11 teachers (32.4 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 university (25 percent). Départment : 22 Albertans (24.7 percent)-- 5 teachers (17.2 percent), 3 parents (60 percent), 3 department (60 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). 7 Tasmanians (9.9 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.8 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Teachers : 15 Albertans (16.9 percent)-- 7 teachers (24.1 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent), no parents or teacher representatives. 256 13 Tasmanians (18.3 percent)-- 11 teachers (32.4 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 1 teacher repre- sentative (50 percent). Principals : ll Albertans (12.5 percent)-- 5 teachers (17.2 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). 7 Tasmanians (9.9 percent)-- 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 1 teacher (2.9 percent). Teacher organization : 3 Albertans (3.4 percent)-- 1 teacher (3.4 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 teacher repre- sentative (50 percent). 3 Tasmanians (4.3 percent)-- 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Question 38: To what extent does the teacher organization give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? A. Nil_ : 15 respondents ( 9.4 percent) “Little_ : 55 respondents (34.4 percent) Somewhat : 57 respondents (35.6 percent) Extensively : 27 respondents (16.9 percent) fully_ : l respondent ’( O.6 percent) 8. Somewhat : 20 teachers (31.8 percent), 13 principals (36.1 percent), 6 parents (66.7 percent), 6 school- 257 system administrators (37.5 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 3 university (33.3 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Extensively or Fuliy, : 9 teachers (14.3 percent), 8 principals (22.2 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 2 school-system adminiStrators (12.5 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 teacher rep- resentative (25 percent). Little or Nil : 30 teachers (47.6 percent), 15 principals (41.7 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 per- cent), 5 university (55.6 percent), 5 department (41.7 percent), 2 teacher representatives (50 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent). C. Somewhat : 39 Albertans (43.8 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 4 parents (80 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 4 curriculum committee (57.1 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent). 18 Tasmanians (25.4 percent)—- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 1 university (25 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 department (28.3 percent). 5211!. : l Albertan (1.1 percent)-- 1 parent (20 percent). Extensively : l8 Albertans (20.2 percent)-- 6 teachers (20.7 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 2 department 258 (40 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent), 1 university (20 percent). 9 Tasmanians (12.7 percent)-- 3 teachers (8.8 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 1 department (14.3 percent), 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), no teacher representative. £13312. : 26 Albertans (29.2 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.6 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 1 depart- ment (20 percent), 2 curriculum committee (28.6 percent). 29 Tasmanians (40.9 percent)-- 13 teachers (38.2 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). Nil_ : 3 Albertans (3.4 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). 12 Tasmanians (16.9 percent)-- 7 teachers (20.6 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Question 39: To what extent do principals give leadership in spreading new curriculum ideas? A. Nil : 8 respondents ( 5.0 percent) Little : 42 respondents (26.3 percent) Somewhat : 69 respondents (43.1 percent) 259 Extensively : 36 respondents (22.5 percent) Fully : 2 respondents ( 1.3 percent) 8. Somewhat : 24 teachers (38.1 percent), 19 principals (52.8 percent), 6 parents (66.7 percent), 6 school- system administrators (37.5 percent), 5 university (55.6 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Extensively or Fully, : 13 teachers (20.6 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent). Little or Nil : 23 teachers (36.5 percent), 8 school-system administrators (50 percent), 5 principals (13.9 percent), 4 department (33.3 percent), 4 university (33.3 percent), 3 curriculum committee (37.5 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). C. Somewhat : 38 Albertans (42.7 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 5 parents (100 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 9 principals (50 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 6 school-system administrators (37.5 percent), 3 curriculum commit- tee (42.9 percent). 31 Tasmanians (43.7 percent)-- 13 teachers (38.2 percent), 1 parent (25 percent), 3 university (75 percent), 10 principals (55.6 percent), 2 department (28.6 260 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 1 curriculum com- mittee (100 percent). fully, : 2 Tasmanians (2.8 percent)-- 1 parent (25 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Extensively : l3 Albertans (14.6 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.9 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 1 department (20 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 2 school-system administrators (12.5 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 23 Tasmanians (32.4 percent)-- 11 teachers (32.4 percent), 6 principals (33.3 percent), 3 department (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 2 parents (50 percent). Little_ : 31 Albertans (34.8 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 3 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), 7 school-system administrators (43.8 percent), 2 university (40 per- cent), 2 department (40 percent). 11 Tasmanians (15.5 percent)-- 7 teachers (20.6 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 principal (5.6 percent). Nil. : 5 Albertans (5.6 percent)-- 3 teachers (10.3 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent), 1 university (20 percent), no principals. 3 Tasmanians (4.2 percent)-- 2 teachers (5.9 percent), 1 university (25 percent), no principals. 261 Question 40: Which is best in spreading new curriculum ideas within a school? A. Subject meetings : 60 respondents (37.5 percent) Staff meetings : 46 respondents (28.8 percent) Informal discussion : 27 respondents (16.9 percent) Administrative visits : 9 respondents ( 5.6 percent) No answer : 8 respondents ( 5.0 percent) 8. Subject meetings : 20 teachers (31.7 percent), 12 principals (33.3 percent), 12 school-system administrators (75 per- cent), 4 curriculum committee (50 percent), 3 teacher representatives (75 percent), 3 department (25 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 university (22.2 percent). Staff meetings : 16 teachers (25.4 percent), 15 principals (41.7 percent), 7 department (58.3 percent), 3 parents (33.3 percent), 2 school-system administrators (13.5 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent). Informal discussion : 15 teachers (23.8 percent), 7 principals (19.4 percent), 2 parents (22.2 percent), 2 curriculum committee (25 percent), 1 teacher representative (25 percent). Administrative visits : 4 teachers (6.3 percent), 1 parent (11.1 percent), 1 university (11.1 percent), 1 principal (2.8 percent), 1 curriculum committee (12.5 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 percent). C. Subject meeting§_ : 44 Albertans (49.4 percent)-- 11 teachers (37.9 percent), 2 university (40 percent), 10 principals 262 (55.6 percent), 4 curriculum committee (42.9 percent), 12 school- system administrators (75 percent), 2 teacher representatives (100 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 1 department (20 percent). 16 Tasmanians (22.5 percent)-- 9 teachers (26.5 percent), 2 department (28.6 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent), 2 principals (11.1 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). Staff meetings : 20 Albertans (22.5 percent)-- 8 teachers (27.5 percent), 1 parent (20 percent), 5 principals (27.8 percent), 2 department (40 percent), 2 school-system adminis- trators (12.5 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 26 Tasmanians (36.6 percent)-- 8 teachers (23.5 percent), 2 parents (50 percent), 10 principals (71.4 percent), 5 department (71.4 percent), 1 university (25 percent). Informal discussion : 8 Albertans (9 percent)-- 2 teachers (6.8 percent), 2 parents (40 percent), 3 principals (16.7 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 percent). 19 Tasmanians (26.7 percent)-- 13 teachers (38.2 percent), 4 principals (22.2 percent), no parents, 1 curriculum committee (100 percent), 1 teacher representative (50 percent). Administrative visits : 6 Albertans (6.7 percent)-- 3 teachers (10.3 percent), 1 school-system administrator (6.3 per- cent), 1 university (20 percent), 1 curriculum committee (14.3 per- cent), no principals. 263 3 Tasmanians (4.2 percent)-- 1 principal (5.6 percent), 1 teacher (2.9 percent), 1 parent (25 percent). LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, V. E. Practices and Procegures of Curriculum Improvement. New York: ’The Ronald Press Company,ll956. Annual Review, 1973. Edmonton: Alberta Education, 1974. Babbie, Earl. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973. Beauchamp, G. A. The Curriculum of the Elementary School. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1964. . Planning the E1ementary,School CurriCulum. Boston: Allyn an acon, Inc., 1956. Beck, R. H.; Cook, W. W.; and Kearney, N. C. Curriculum in the Modern Elementary School. 2nd ed. Englewood'Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,*1960. Burdin, J. L., and McAuley, J. 0. Elementary School Curriculum and the Teacher's Role. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1971. Cay, D. F. Curriculum: Design for Learning, New York: The Bobbs- Merrill Company, 1966. Chalmers, John W. Schools of the Foothills Province. Toronto: University OflToronto Press, 1967. A Choice of Futures. Report of the Commission on Educational Plan- ning. Edmonton: Government Printer, 1972. Christoff, Anton Edward. "A Study to Determine How Teachers in the Sheboygan Public Schools, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Perceive the Freedom They Have and the Freedom They Feel They Should Have to Make Instructional Decisions." Ed.D. thesis, The Univer- 1972 p; Ngrghern Colorado, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts Crary, Ryland W. Humanizingthe School. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969. Crosby, Muriel. Curriculum Development for Elementary Schools in a Changing Society. Boston: 0. C. Heath and Company, 1964. 264 265 Dempsey, Charles Nathan. "Patterns of Effectiveness and Ineffec- tive Behavior of Elementary School Principals as Perceived by a Selected Group of Class-Room Teachers in Virginia." Ed.D. thesis, The University of Virginia, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts 1972-3, 7-8. Dittman, Laura L., ed. Curriculum Is What Happens. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1970. 0011, R. C. Curriculum Improvement: Decision Makingand Process. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970. Easton, Donald Louis. "The Supervisory Role of the Elementary School Principal in Montana." Ed.D. thesis, Montana State University, 1971. Dissertation Abstracts, Volume 39, 9-10. Edington, A. B. "A Case Study of the Teaching Aids Centre, Tasmania, Australia.“ Paper presented to the Commonwealth Ministers for Education, Jamaica, June 1974. The Educational Needs of Rural Areas. Hobart: Education Depart- ment,’197l. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1971. Experiences in Decision Makin . Elementary Social Studies Handbook. Edmonton: Queenls rinter, 1971. Fawcett, Margot J., ed. The 1974 Corpus Almanac of Canada. Toronto: Corpus PubliShers Services, Ltd., 1974. Flaaten, Wayne Richard. "The Role of the Elementary School Princi- pal, Teachers and Parents in the Area of Curriculum Improvement.” Ed.D. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts 1972, 5-6. Frost, Joe L., and Rowland, Thomas G. Curriculum for the Seventies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,l969. Gourley, Harold Eugene. "Issues at the Building Level as Perceived by Elementary Principals." Ed.D. thesis, Indiana Univer- sity, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts 1972-3, ll-12. Grobman, Halda. Evaluation Activities of Curriculun_Projectsruu Starting Point. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 19 8. Harris, Juanita Edwards. "A Study of the Opinions of Selected Teachers Concerning Curriculum Planning at the Regional Level in a Decentralized School System." Ed.D. thesis, Wayne State University, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts 1972, 5-6. 266 Hicks, Wm. Vernon; Houston, W. Robert; Cheney, Bruce 0.; and Marquard, Richard L. The New Elementary School Curriculum. New York: Van Nostrand ReinhOld Company, 1970. Hurley, 8. D. 'Curriculum for Elementary School Children. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957. Inslow, Gail M. The Emergent in Curriculum. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Miel, Alice. Changing,the Curriculum. New York: Century Company, Inc., 1946. Morris, Van Cleve. Philosophy and the American School. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1961. Nerbovig, Marcell H. Unit Planning: A Model for Curriculum Development. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company,l970. 1976 Handbook. The Alberta Teachers' Association 59th Annual Representative Assembly. Palmer, 0. G. The Attitudes and Interests of First_!ear High School Pupils anleheir Teachers (With Particular Reference to the New SoCial Sciences CourseS). Hobart: Education Department, 1973. Pritzkau, Philo T. Dynamics Of Curriculum Improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,51959. Ragan, W. 8. Modern Elementary Curriculum. Rev. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Richmond, Kenneth W. The School Curriculum. London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1971. Rodwell, Grant. "Putting Science Into Social Sciences." Tasmanian Journal of Education 7 (July-August 1973). The School Act,,1970. Edmonton: Queen's Printer, n.d. Sloan, Harold Richard. "Innovation and Change in Iowa Elementary Schools: Principals and Teachers' Perceptions." Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts 1972-3, 11-12. Swifte, H. L. "Aims and Means in Social Sciences." Tasmanian Journal of Education 6 (April 1972). 267 Taba, Hilda. Teacher's Handbook for Elementary Social Studies. Don Mills, Ontario: *AddiSOn-Wesley (Canada), Ltd., 1967. Tasmanian Matriculation Colleges. Hobart: Education Department, n.d. The Tasmanian Teacher. Hobart: Education Department, March 1971. Tasmanian Year Book. NO. 7: 1973. Tasmanian Office, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Tasmanian Year Book. No. 8: 1974. Tasmanian Office, Australian Bureau Of Statistics. The Teaching Profession Act. Edmonton: Queen's Printer, 1955. Walker, Helen, and Lev, Joseph. Statistical Inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953. Ward, William Douglas. "The Role of Teacher Organizations in Pro- fessional Development and Instructional Improvement as Perceived by Selected Teacher Organization Leaders." Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1973. Wright, Betty Atwell; Camp, Lorrie T.; Stosberg, William K.; and Fleming, Babette L. Elementary School Curriculum. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971. "Illlt'fltl'ltittltitl