AN INVESTIGATiON OF SELECTED ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS 0F CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS Thesis far fiw Dram-es 9‘? Ph. D. WWW“ STME WIVERSITY Eciward E. Birch 11969 ~ H M\\\\\\\ W \\\\\\\\\\\W \\\\\\\\\\\|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 3 129 10240 9699 This is to certify that the thesis entitled ssumptions of Chief Student Personnel Administrators presented by I Edward E. Birch has been accepted towards fulfilment. . ‘ of the requirements for h t Ph.D. degree in Admin. and Hi _________, ______*___ Education in}. gher Date November 12, 1969 _____________________ 0-169 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF SELECTED ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS OF CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS By Edward E. Birch The Problem It was recognized that there seems to be little understanding by chief student personnel administrators of the personal beliefs that prompt the decisions they make. Moreover, it was felt that there is some question as to the awareness of the degree of consistency with which personal beliefs which prompt response to issues critical to the profession and to the solution of campus problems, are held among chief student personnel administrators. Therefore, it was the purpose of this investigation to study the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators on selected contemporary issues in areas critical to their work. More specifically, the purposes of the study were to: 1. Identify the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators about critical issues relating to their responsibilities and administrative behavior, to the student and the educational process and to uni- versity governance and decision making. 2. Determine differences in the assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel administrators about critical issues relating to their responsibilities and administrative behavior, to the student and the educational process and to university governance and decision making. Differences will be analyzed with respect to type, location, and size of institution. Edward E. Birch Procedures The investigation was conducted in conjunction with a broader re- search project sponsored by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. The questionnaire and the sample of chief student per- sonnel administrators used for the NASPA project were used simultaneously with the present investigation. Statements included in the questionnaire consisted of contemporary issues directly affecting the role of the student personnel administrator. The contemporary issues were developed according to three dimensions: responsibility and administrative behavior, the student and the educational process and university governance and decision making. Questionnaires were sent to chief student personnel administrators of the 715 colleges and universities holding membership in the National 'Association of Student Personnel Administrators as of November, 1968. Sixty-four per cent of the total number of NASPA institutions participated in the study. Descriptive statistics (percentages) were employed in analyzing and describing the selected assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators. In addition, chi-square was used to test the null hypothesis that no differences existed according to the variable classifications of institutiona1.type, size and location. Edward E. Birch Major Findings of the Study It was pointed out that the findings from the investigation should be interpreted as reactions by the participants at the time of the study and do not necessarily represent trends in the profession. Furthermore, the findings represent the majority view of chief student personnel admin- istrators and their inner beliefs, but not their practices. 1. There is consensus of assumptions and beliefs among chief student personnel administrators according to type of institution, size of institu- tion and regional location of institution. 2. The chief student personnel administrator's primary commitment is to students. 3. Chief student personnel administrators representing larger insti- tutions tended to express less concern for personalization in student - CSPA and in student - institutional relationships. Although, it was recog- nized that this may be due, in part, to the fact that larger institutions, because of their size, require larger student personnel staffs. 4. Chief student personnel administrators are uncertain as to whether they should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. 5. The chief student personnel administrator perceives his effectiveefif mess to be evaluated by his president on the basis of his reputation with- in the academic community, his administrative competence and the degree to which he is able to maintain control and order. 6. Chief student personnel administrators believe that the main- tenance of reasonable control and order is the essential purpose of conduct regulation and that an academic community is a special community requiring that behavior be restricted in special ways. Edward E. Birch 7. Chief student personnel administrators feel that privacy for the individual student is essential to personalization in higher education. 8. Chief student personnel administrators feel that social maturity ‘and value development are integral to the students' intellectual attainment and should be of concern to the institution. 9. Chief student personnel administrators feel that students, by their nature, desire liberalization of regulations. Moreover, they feel that campus dissent is good for higher education. 10. Chief student personnel administrators see their role in the development of policy in student affairs as that of determining policy in consultation with faculty and staff. 11. Chief student personnel administrators feel that primarily faculty and administrators should be involved in decisions regarding academic matters and the employment and retention of faculty and staff. --12. Chief student personnel administrators feel that faculty, administrators and students should be involved in decisions regarding parietal rules and the adjudication of student social and academic conduct problems. 13. In decisions relating to student activity matters, chief student personnel administrators feel that students should play the dominant role. 14. Chief student personnel administrators feel that in decisions pertaining to institutional budgetary matters, administrators should be primarily involved. AN INVESTIGATION OF SELECTED ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS OF CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS BY Edward E. Birch A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1969 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, doctoral committee chairman, for his wise counsel, dedicated interest and continuing encouragement not only during the period of the study, but throughout the doctoral program as well. Appreciation is extended to doctoral committee members, Dr. Harold Grant, Dr. Max Raines, and Dr. Rollin Simonds for their guidance and cooperation. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Irvin J. Lehman for his helpful guidance, his time, and his interest throughout the investigation. The contribution of the Research and Publications Division of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators is noteworthy and very much appreciated. Without the interest and support of the division, the study would not have been possible. The writer is particularly indebted to Dr. Thomas B. Dutton, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at Oakland University. Dr. Dutton's patience, understanding and constant encouragement throughout the years of doctoral study shall long be acknowledged and appreciated.. A special expression of appreciation is reserved for the writer's wife, Suzanne, and daughters, Yvette and Michele, for their sacrifice, patience, understanding and support throughout the years of the doctoral program. TABLE OF CONTENTS AMMEDG mm S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 L I ST 0F TABI‘E S O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Purpose . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Student Personnel Administrator Assumptions and Beliefs . . . . . . . Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Study. . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . The Role of the Student Personnel Administrator Research Literature Related to the Role of the Chief Student Personnel Administrator . . . Literature Related to the Assumptions and Beliefs of Chief Student Personnel Administrators Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . . Development of the Questionnaire . . . . . Administration of the Questionnaire . . . Characteristics of the Sample . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 0 ii Page mNNChO‘O‘O‘J-‘LAUJH t-' \O 12 l6 18 20 20 20 21 24 25 27 28 28 Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibilities and Administrative Behavior . . The Student and the Educational Process . . . . University Governance and Decision Making . . . Academic Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parietal Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Activity Matters . . . . . . . . Employment and Retention of Faculty and Staff Institutional Budgetary Matters . . . . . Adjudication of Student Misconduct . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibility and Administrative Behavior The Student and the Educational Process . . University Governance and Decision Making . Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . B I BL IOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O O O O C O O O . iv Page 30 3O 42 52 57 59 62 62 63 64 65 70 70 72 73 77 79 83 85 89 Table 1. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Comparison of characteristics of participating institutions with characteristics of the total NASPA manberShip O O O O O O O O C O O I O O O O O O O C Type, size and regional location of institutions participating in the study . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses of all chief student personnel administrators pertaining to the responsibilities and administrative behavior of the chief student personnel administrator. . Significant differences in responses of chief student personnel administrators according to type, size and regional location of institution . . . . . . . . . . Chief student personnel administrators' perception of the criteria used by his president to evaluate his effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses of all chief student personnel administrators pertaining to the student and the educational process 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Significant differences in responses of CSPA's according to type, size and regional location Of institution 0 O O O C C O C O O C O C O C O O O 0 Response by chief student personnel administrators regarding the maturity of students for participation in decision making and governance . . . Chief student personnel administrators' primary reason for involving students in policy decisions . . . Preferred role of chief student personnel administrators in policy development in student affairs . . . . . . . Chief student personnel administrators' suggested involvement of members of the academic community in decisions pertaining to six areas . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22 26 33 39 41 43 46 S3 54 S6 61 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A Participants in the pilot study . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 B Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 C Cover letter sent to chief student personnel administrators 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 94 D Follow up card sent to chief student personnel adminiSCraCOrS o o o o o o o o o o O o o a O O O O O 97 E Response of chief student personnel administrators according to type, size and location of inatitution O O 0 ~ 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 99 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The task of the chief student personnel administrator in institu- tions of higher education is continually changing and becoming progres- sively more difficult and demanding. The transitional status of his role can be attributed in large part to broader changes in higher education including marked growth in student enrollment, depersonaliza- tion in administrative-student relationships brought on in part by this growth, expansion of and change in educational experiences as well as by increased freedom for students. In addition to prompting change, these factors have cast new light and from some quarters brought increased criticism on the role of the chief student personnel administrator. The traditional position taken by student personnel administra- tors in dealing with issues affecting the academic community is seemingly in flux. With traditional cleavages in student, adminis- trative, faculty relationships intensifying as a result of significant changes in higher education, individual groups within the academic community seek greater voice and involvement in issues affecting the community. Student groups, in their efforts to gain a greater voice in institutional affairs, manifest this thrust for increased involve- ment. As a result, the work, role, and the expectations of the student personnel administrator are being challenged to a greater degree. Moreover, the traditional decision making authority of the student personnel administrator, indeed the basis for his response to issues crucial to the institution, is being questioned. 2 It is suggested that in responding to new challenges and in- creased demands, the chief student personnel administrator must better understand the values, convictions and assumptions that deter- mine his behavior and ultimately his response to crucial issues (Dutton, 1968). Moreover, Kirk (1965, p.6) suggests that this can only be achieved "by looking inward to find out that which is in- ternally consistent." Regardless of how better understanding of the factors that determine behavior is achieved, it is apparent that there is need for a commitment by the chief student personnel adminiStrator to gain the insight necessary for responding in an intelligent manner to new issues, demands and problems existing on campuses today. In noting the paucity of research conducted in this area and of its importance to the profession, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators initiated an investigation aimed at better understanding how chief student personnel administrators feel about issues critical to the profession. The investigation not only centers on the identification of assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators on issues critical to the profession, but also on how these beliefs mesh with the beliefs of the total academic community on the same issues. The NASPA1 research project is entitled, "An Investigation of Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Community." The writer serves on the research team for the NASPA project and was involved in its design and implementation. The investigation currently under discussion is designed to be conducted in conjunction with this broad NASPA research project and to be concerned specifically with the assumptions and beliefs of 1Throughout the remainder of the study, NASPA refers to the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. 3 chief student personnel administrators in three areas that are partic— ularly critical to their work. The investigation is based on the prem- ise that regardless of academic training or background, chief student personnel administrators, with varying degrees of awareness, possess beliefs and make assumptions that influence behavior and responses to campus problems. The survey instrument and the sample of chief student personnel administrators used for the NASPA project will be used simul- taneously with the present investigation. Statement of the Problem There seems to be some question as to whether chief student per- sonnel administrators understand the personal beliefs that prompt the decisions they make. Moreover, there seems to be uncertainty as to the awareness of the degree of consistency with which personal beliefs, which prompt response to issues critical to the profession and to the resolution of campus problems, are held among chief student personnel administrators. In view of the concern frequently expressed by those ‘ inside and outside the academic community for the chief student per- sonnel administrator to respond to crucial issues with clarity and con- sistency, there is need for better understanding of personal assumptions and beliefs and of the degree to which these assumptions and beliefs are consistent with those of others within the profession. Rflth such understanding, the efficacy of the chief student personnel administrator as an educator and as an administrator should be enhanced. Statement of Purpose It is the purpose of this study to identify the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators on selected contempo- rary issues in three specific areas which are particularly critical to their work. Specifically, an attempt will be made to: 1. Identify the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators about critical issues relating to their responsibilities and administrative behavior, to the student and the educational process and to university governance and decision making. 2. Determine differences in the assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel admin- istrators about critical issues relating to their responsibilities and administrative behavior, to the student and the educational process and to university governance and decision making. Differences will be analyzed with respect to type, location, and size of institution. Need for the Study The need for the study of the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators is based on the notion that chief student personnel administrators know very little about their personal assumptions and beliefs and consequently, little about the basis for their decisions. In addition, there seems to be little understanding by professionals in the field of the degree to which personal beliefs are consistent among all chief student personnel administrators. This study is designed to aid chief student personnel administrators in the identification of their personal assumptions and beliefs as they pertain to issues crucial to PTc S the profession.. The results derived from a study of this type have the following implications. First, through better understanding of the assumptions and the / beliefs that guide behavior, student personnel administrators can be better prepared to respond to the effect of societal changes on higher education. Understanding of personal beliefs as they integrate with the beliefs of the profession and with the expectations of others inside and outside of the academic community provides a sounder base for response to new demands. Second, through knowledge of the assumptions and beliefs (according to the three dimensions studied) of members of the profession, a pro- fessional reference point can be established by which chief student personnel administrators can gauge their personal assumptions and beliefs. Through a review of beliefs of student personnel administrators in simi- lar positions and according to similar issues, the administrator can analyze, define and interpret his own response to issues within his own institution. It is important for a member of a profession to understand where he and his beliefs fit within the profession. Third, a study of this nature can provide assistance in the pro- fessional preparation of student personnel administrators. Those respon- sible for the graduate and in-service training of student personnel ad- ministrators can gain a better understanding and a clearer definition of the contemporary stance of the chief student personnel administrator on issues crucial to the profession. This can result in a better under- standing of the profession. ' Finally, by responding to issues critical to the student personnel profession on an individual basis, members of the profession are forced 6 to think through their personal rationale for their professional behavior. Many times, professionals are swept up in response to the day to day demands of their work and are reluctant to spend time better understand- ing their personal beliefs in areas crucial to the success of their work. As a result of more complete understanding of their personal beliefs, student personnel administrators are in a better position to help others to develop more appropriate bases for their response to campus issues. Definition of Terms Terms used in this study are defined as follows: CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR: The administrator who bears the immediate responsibility for the coordination and direction of the student personnel program in a college or university. For purposes of this study, the term is considered to be synonymous with "dean of students" or with "vice-president for student affairs." ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS: Anything taken for granted or believed or accepted as true by the chief student personnel administrator regard- less of whether the basis is reason or prejudice. In this study, chief student personnel administrator's assumptions and beliefs will be deter- mined for the following areas: responsibilities and administrative be- havior, the student and the educational process, and decision making and university governance. For purposes of this study, reference to "assump- tions and beliefs" will pertain only to assumptions and beliefs as deter- mined for the above mentioned three areas. RQLE; The expectations, perceptions, behaviors and responsibilities of the chief student personnel administrator. We '11 9U. 7 flypothesis It is the general hypothesis of this study that there are differ- ences in assumptions and beliefs (according to the three dimensions studied) among chief student personnel administrators. The sample is broken down and analyzed according to: type of institution, location of institution, and size of institution. Limitations of the Study There are two aspects to this study. The first includes an investi- gation of the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel admin- istrators. The second aspect includes investigation of the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators on the basis of geographical region and institutional size and type. It is asigmed that the responses to the items on the questionnaire will accurately reflect the true personal assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators participating in the study. The study is confined to those institutions having membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. It is assumed that NASPA member institutions provide an adequate sampling of all chief student pgtsonnel administrators. Chief student personnel ad- ministrators participating in the study are asgumed to be interested in honestly identifying their personal assumptions and beliefs, to be knowledgeable in the field of student personnel and interested in the improvement of themselves and their profession. A mailed questionnaire was used to collect the data for this in- vestigation. This method is perceived as a limitation due to assump- tions always present with the use of such a procedure. When using the questionnaire means of data collection, it must be assumed that the 8 original intent of each statement was understood by the reSpondent, that each respondent answered honestly and that the responses reflect the intent of the respondent. In addition, one of the difficulties in a study such as this is to properly account for factors of social direction that elicit responses according to social desirability and not necessarily according to personalteliefs. This must be noted as a limitation as there can be no guarantee that chief student personnel administrators participating in the study were not influenced by factors other than their personal beliefs. Organization of the Study Chapter I has served as an introduction to the problem by outlin- ing the purpose of this study, defining the need for such a study, speci- fying the limitations of the study and stating the general hypothesis for the study. Chapter II summarizes pertinent literature related to the nature of the study. Chapter III discusses the design of the study and the methodology followed in the conduct of the study. 'Chapter IV provides an analysis and interpretation of the data. Chapter V includes a summary of the findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, and appropriate recommendations for further study. ‘. III 1|. 1" p] t} a! 51 h a] P( B] Se 8: Vc re CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE There is a paucity of research designed to investigate assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators. Moreover, there are few studies which deal with the role of the chief student personnel administrator. Studies that are specifically relevant to the present investigation shall be reviewed in this chapter. In addition, studies not directly related but which have bearing on the current investiga- tion will be included. A summary of the contribution of studies having both direct and somewhat peripheral bearing on the investigation will provide a common frame of reference for better understanding the nature of the present investigation. The Role of the Student Personnel Administrator The role of the student personnel administrator in American higher education has been determined largely by changing societal demands on the institution and by the expression of new and diverse student needs and interests. Historically, it was not until the 19th century that specialized personnel (usually faculty) were deemed necessary in class- room, dormitory and,dining hall surveillance. This need was expanded ~’ around the turn of the century wdth the creation of the first full-time position in student personnel administration (DeFarrari, 1959, p. 76). Blaesser (1945) notes that the increased demand for student personnel services was created following the 19th century by essentially four groups: (1) humanitarians who tried to promote mental hygiene and vocation counseling, (2) administrators such as Gilman of Johns Hopkins and Harper of Chicago who emphasized programs of faculty advising and residential housing, (3) applied psychologists who began to identify 9 10 and measure individual differences and, (4) students who demanded an extra-curriculum. However, the development of an actual office headed by a chief student personnel administrator to coordinate and direct student personnel services did not occur until post-World war II (Long, 1944). The functions and consequently the role of the chief student personnel administrator in higher education has continued to change since the post-world war II origins of the position. The Dictionary 2f Occupa- tional Titles (1955) first noted the distinctiveness of the chief student personnel administrator by differentiating their role from that of the academic dean. The 1965 edition of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles describes the student personnel administrator in the following manner: Directs and coordinates student personnel programs of college or university: participates in formulation of student personnel policies and advises staff members such as president of the educational institution; registrar; and director of admissions on problems relating to policy, program, and administration. Directs and assists in planning social, recreational, and co-curricular programs. Provides individual or group counseling or advising services relative to personnel problems, educational and vocational objectives, social and recreational activities, and financial assistance. Responsible for supervision of student discipline regarding adherence to university rules and in instances concerning responsibility to public for student actions. Sponsors and supervises student organi- zations. Prepares budget and directs appropriations of student services unit. Represents university in community in matters pertaining to student personnel programs and activities. May teach. May direct admissions, foreign student services, health services, student union and testing services. May be in charge of women's activities and be designated Dean of women; or of men's activities and be designated Dean of Men. In large colleges and universities may delegate duties to staff members (p. 189). 11 While the position description for the chief student personnel administrator seems to have been narrowed over the years to a fairly concise group of expectations, it is not clear that chief student personnel administrators in fact function in a manner consistent with these expectations. The perceptions by others within the aca- demic community of student personnel administrators'functions and beliefs leads to a questioning of the clarity of communication between chief student personnel administrators and others within the academic community; all of which points to a need for role clarification. Dutton (1968) notes in a NASPA position paper titled Research Needs and Priorities ig_Student Personnel Work that: "The dean is con- fronted with the prodigious task of clarifying and redefining his role and objectivies in the face of increasing diffusion of institutional goals and programs, growing depersonalization and fragmentation of the academic community" (p.1). Dutton also indicates that the per- ’ ceptions others have of the chief student personnel administrator's role is not always consistent with the functions that are normally attributed to this position. Greenleaf (1968) in assessing the role of the chief student personnel administrator from the view of others wdthin the academic community notes that, "Students see student personnel administrators as members of the establishment, pretended baby sitters and obstacles to student power, faculty members regard administrators as alien tOxthe educational process and view the dean's role as a 'bank for red tape' " (p. 231). Kirk (I965) feels that while student personnel administrators need to clarify their role, this should be accomplished by examining personal values and beliefs. Research Literature Related to the Role of the Chief Student Personnel Administrator Although the present investigation is not specifically concerned with definition of the role of the student personnel administrator, research literature pertaining to role relates to the nature of the study. This investigation is designed, in part, to help the chief student personnel administrator clarify his role on the basis of his response to selected issues which serve to reveal his personal assump- tions and beliefs. A survey of literature reveals few studies which empirically define the role of the chief student personnel administrator. Reynolds '/ (1961), Rogers (1963), and Upcraft (1967), in independent investigations, surveyed the role of the chief student personnel administrator in various size institutions. All of these studies contribute to a more complete understanding of the chief student personnel administrator's functions and his role. Reynolds (1961), surveyed all liberal arts colleges below 2,000 students in enrollment in an effort to determine current practices of chief student personnel officers and to ascertain the degree of relationship of student personnel administrators to various student personnel functions. The following conclusions were stated: 1. Each of the 19 student personnel functions studied is performed by some of the respon- dents. Functions most often performed are personal counseling, discipline and student personnel records. 2. The student recruiting function is the only one not supervised by some of the respondents. The respondents generally consider most appropriate their relationship to the functions to the degree that they perform or supervise the functions. l3 3. Policy relationship to student personnel functions ‘ as well as final administrative authority for functions follow closely the pattern of performance and supervision. 4. Personal and institutional characteristics studied seem to be somewhat related to the degree of per- formance, supervision and policy relationships of the respondents to the student and personnel func- tions. More study of individual functions needs to be done in this area. The amount of graduate student personnel work and the amount of time devoted to student personnel work by the respon- dents seem to be related to the degree to which they consider their relationships to function appropriately. S. The expectation that the role of the chief student personnel officer in the size group studied would be different from that of such officers in larger institutions seems to have been justified. 6. In the size and type of group of institutions studied, there has been a steady growth in the establishment of offices headed by chief student personnel officers since World war II. There has been some tendency for the establishment of these offices to be associated with size. 7. Most of the respondents are male and married. They have a median of twenty semester hours of graduate student personnel work. The median of the reported amount of time devoted to student personnel work is seventy-five per cent. Most of the chief student personnel officers report to the president of the institution. 8. It would seem important to be concerned with ex- perience and training for such officers in the student personnel area where they personally perform or supervise to a high degree (p. v). Rogers (1963), also in a study concerned with role, investigated effective and ineffective behavior of the chief student personnel administrator in institutions of 2,000 to 10,000 students. A critical incident technique was used to identify specific behaviors which were critical to the work of the dean of students. The investigation re- vealed the following results: l4 1. Student Personnel Deans in smaller institutions do more counseling with students than their counterparts in larger institutions. 2. Student Personnel Deans in smaller institutions are comparatively ineffective in developing cooperative relationships. 3. Student Personnel Deans in larger institutions are more ineffective in conducting investiga- Otions of reports of student misconduct than their counterparts in smaller institutions. 4. Student Personnel Deans do not consistently take the initiative to provide leadership and informa- tion, particularly to students and student groups. 5. Student Personnel Deans do not consistently take the initiative in communicating the reasons for their decisions to all parties concerned. 6. Student Personnel Deans are consistently success- ful when working with individual students in disciplinary situations. 7. A majority of the Student Personnel Deans' con- tacts are with individual male students and he is generally successful with these individuals. 8. The wider the range of activities the Student Personnel Dean uses to resolve a problem, the more likely he is to be considered effective by his professional peers. 9. Public relations is the category in which the Student Personnel Dean is involved with a wide variety of people, particularly the press. There- fore, every contact he makes has implcations for his effectiveness in public relations (p. ii). Upcraft (1967), in a study similar to the investigation conducted by Reynolds, proposed to describe and analyze the role expectations of chief student personnel administrators in institutions of higher education with more than 10,000 students. A questionnaire was admin- istered to ninety-three chief student personnel administrators. The results were analyzed according to type and size of institution, degree held, type of training, recency of training, previous experience, 15 and the person to whom the administrator reports. The study concluded ”I that there is a consensus of expectations concerning the role of the chief student personnel administrator in the large university. A study conducted by Zook (1968),compared the chief student per- sonnel administrator in four-year colleges and in two-year colleges. The study disagreed with Reynold's findings that size of institution is an important factor in the functions of the chief student personnel administrator. The study also concluded that chief student personnel administrators spent comparatively little time with students and that they saw their function as one of coordinating, planning and administer- ing the student personnel program. Bailey (1968), in an historical analysis of the role of the dean of men, investigated the changing role of the dean in American higher educa- tion. It was the intent of the investigator to survey the personal feelings and attitudes of the dean about his position. The study con- cluded that background factors do affect the attitude of the dean toward student personnel and the educational process and that the role of the student personnel administrator has changed over the years. Despite the fact that Bailey's investigation was concerned with the dean of men, the findings have implications for the chief student personnel administrator as well. In summary, studies investigating role seem to point to the fact that the role of the chief student personnel administrator has changed and is continuing to change. Moreover, chief student personnel admin- strators are involved in typical administrative tasks at the expense of close interaction with students. There seems to be disagreement about the flmportance of the size of the institution to the functions lb of the chief student personnel administrator. There is general con- sensus as to the role expectations of chief student personnel adminis- trators although research tends to reveal that these attitudes, beliefs, and values are not being communicated effectively to others within the university community. Lgterature Related to the Assumptions and Beliefs of Chief Student Personnel Administrators A study conducted by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators is of specific relevance to the present investigation. The Research and Publications Division of NASPA conducted an explora- tory investigation of assumptions and beliefs of student personnel administrators (1966). This exploratory study provided the model from which the present investigation was developed. Impetus for the explora- tory investigation was based upon the notion that basic assumptions influence the professional behavior of the student personnel adminis- trator and that, therefore, the professional's role as an educator would be enhanced by examination of these assumptions and their implica- tions. Purposes of the investigation were four-fold: (1) toidentify assumptions and beliefs of members of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, (2) to determine how widely these are held, (3) to stimulate NASPA members to re-examine their assumptions and to discuss with their colleagues the issues that are raised, and (4) to identify topics for more extensive and systematic empirical investiga- tion. The data was gathered on the basis of a twenty-seven item question- naire with each item providing six forced-choice responses. The respondent, however, was asked to specify the nature of his reservations whenever 17 the alternative responses of "Agree with Reservation" or "Disagree with Reservation" was selected. The investigation included all persons on the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators' mailing list (691) and there was a return of 76%. The statements on the question- naire were developed so as to be grouped for analysis purposes under the headings "Perceptions of the Dean and His Responsibilities," "Standards of Behavior and Social Conduct Regulations," ”The Student and the Insti- tution," and "The Administrative Style of the Dean." As the investigation was exploratory in nature, the analysis consisted of a reporting of fre- quency distributions and percentage figures. The investigation concluded that there is greatest agreement among NASPA members on statements which indicate that: (l) the guarantee of an appellate hearing is an essential procedural safeguard against the possible abuse of authority, (2) it is the primary responsibility of the student personnel administrator to support consistently the central functions of the college or university which are teaching and research, (3) it is important for the student personnel administrator to maintain both his integrity and his loyalty to the central admini- stration even when the president, academic dean or business manager have made decisions which are unpopular with students, (4) the assump- tion that the student functions as a unit and cannot be separated into "intellect" and "the rest of the person" is the major justification for the claim to an educational role for student personnel administrators, and (5) the freedom to make personal decisions and to exercise the rights and shoulder the responsibilities of citizenship is an optimal condition for student maturation. Several questions and concerns are raised about this investigation. 11 18 These questions and concerns have particular relevance to the present investigation. Some concern must be raised as to the validity of the items contained in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed by'a small number of deans serving as the research and publications division of NASPA, many of whom only supported the inclusion of items which were consistent with their own particular biases. Moreover, in order to stimulate discussion, the statements were deliberately worded in a provocative fashion. It was noted by more than one dean when the results of this survey were first presented that many of the items were "loaded," "ambiguous,” and "situational" (Proceedings, 1966, p. 77). The questionnaire was limited and complete coverage of certain critical issues to the profession were not included. Moreover, the analysis of the data was not completed which meant that more careful scrutiny of the re- sults would not be possible. Summary There is a continuing pattern of change in the role of the chief aw/fi student personnel administrator. In addition to change in role, many suspect that the role of the chief student personnel administrator has become clouded and clarification is needed. The few studies which attempted to investigate the role of the chief student personnel adminis- trator lack sufficient consensus to enable any degree of conclusiveness. Moreover, most of the role investigations were designed to be applicable only to particular size institutions, thus making generalization of the results limited. Only one investigation was specifically relevant to the present investigation. The National Association of Student Personnel Adminis- trators conducted an exploratory study of the assumptions and beliefs 19 of student personnel administrators. This study serves as a basic model for the present investigation. Moreover, the analysis of the study was instrumental in the design of the present investigation. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The central purpose of this study is to investigate the assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel administrators on selected contemporary issues. The investigation was conducted in conjunction with a broader research project (Dutton, Appleton & Birch, 1969) sponsored by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. The NASPA study entitled, "An Investigation of Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Community," was designed to gain insight into the convictions and value orientations that determine how selected members of the academic community respond to important issues in higher education. The survey instrument and the sample of chief student personnel adminis- trators used for the NASPA project were used simultaneously with the pre- sent investigation. The investigator serves on the research team for the NASPA project and was involved in its design and implementation. The chapter consists of a discussion of the selection of the sample, the development of the questionnaire, the method of administering the question- naire, the characteristics of the sample, the statistical hypotheses, and a review of the method of analysis. Selection of the Sample The membership of the National Assocation of Student Personnel Adminis- trators was used in this investigation as representative of chief student personnel administrators. It was determined that member institutions of the “ National Association of Student Personnel Administrators would be suitable 20 for this study because: 1. Membership in the Association includes institutions of varying size, purpose and geographical location; 2. Chief student personnel administrators by virtue of employment in member institutions are presumed to have professional interest in better understanding the role of the student personnel administrator in higher education today; 3. The Association has continually manifested concern for a better understanding of the student personnel administrator and the basis for his behavior at various institutions of higher education. As of November, 1968, 715 institutions of higher education held membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. A membership list was obtained from the Association's central office. The list was divided by type of institution, location of institution and size of institution by referring to the September 1968 edition of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education (American Council on Educa- tion). These characteristics of NASPA membership institutions are shown in Table 1. Development of the Questionnaire The model for the questionnaire developed for use in this investiga- tion was first used in a preliminary study of assumptions and beliefs conducted by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators in 1966 (NASPA, 1966). The original instrument underwent major revision following an analysis of data obtained from the preliminary investigation. The Research and Publications Division of NASPA, including five chief student personnel administrators, an associate level student personnel administrator, a student personnel research director, and a student personnel educator, analyzed and modified the questionnaire. The questionnaire was reviewed 22 on three separate occasions. In addition, following the initial major revision, the questionnaire was reviewed by two Michigan State Univer- sity professors. One professor is involved in the training of student personnel administrators at the graduate level while the second professor is involved in institutional research and evaluation services. A pilot study was conducted using twenty chief student personnel administrators to determine the feasibility of the questionnaire. The pilot study participants were asked to offer comments and propose re- vision, if necessary, of the questionnaire. The suggested modifications TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL NASPA MEMBERSHIP TOTAL NASPA PARTICIPATING MEMBERSHIP INSTITUTIONS Number Per Cent Number Per Cent (N=715) (N=458) Type Public 260 36.4 162 35.0 Independent 143 20.0 93 20.0 Catholic 101 14.1 70 15.0 Protestant 138 19.3 83 18.0 Other 73 10.2 50 12.0 Size Less than 1,500 240 33.7 161 35.0 1,500 to 5,000 225 31.4 135 30.0 5,000 to 10,000 109 15.2 79 17.0 10,000 and more 141 19.7 83 18.0 Location New England' 212 29.6 125 28.0 Southern 142 19.9 188 20.0 North Central 286 40.0 91 41.0 western 75 10.5 50 11.0 23 were incorporated into the final design. Following final extensive review, the instrument was printed for use in this investigation as well as for use in the broader NASPA project. The statements selected for the questionnaire consisted of con- temporary issues affecting the role of the chief student personnel administrator. These items were designed to be consistent with pur- poses of the study and were grouped according to the following three areas or categories: Categogy I: Responsibilities and Administrative Behavior Category I contains twelve items which pertain to the.responsibi1ities nonmally attributed to the chief student personnel administrator and to the manner in which his affairs are conducted and direction and management are provided. Category II: The Student and the Educational Process Category II contains fifteen items each of which pertain to certain theoretical and philosophical understandings about the student and the educational process. Growth, ability, maturity, and the learning pro- cess and the factors that influence these phenomena form the basis for these items. Category III: University Governance and Decision Making Category III contains sixteen items each of which is directed at the involvement by various members of the academic community in decision- making and university governance. ‘The items are directed at decision- making relative to areas specifically within the scope of responsibili- ties normally reserved for the chief student personnel administrator, as well as decisiondmaking that directly affects the total university community. 24 Administration of the Questionnaire The questionnaire designed for use in this study was administered in conjunction with the broad research project carried on by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Each university chief student personnel administrator, as NASPA institutional representative, was sent a personal letter over the signature of Dr. Thomas B. Dutton, Dean of Students, Oakland University and Director of the NASPA Division of Research and Publications. A copy of this letter is included in Appendix C. In addition, for purposes of the broad NASPA project, the chief student personnel administrator was asked to distribute packets containing the appropriate questionnaire to his president, a faculty member, editor of his campusls' student newspaper, and the president of his student body. Each participant was instructed to return the com- pleted questionnaire directly to the investigator. A self-addressed return envelope was included for each respondent. Materials were sent to the chief student personnel adminiStLuLuL of the 715 NASPA member institutions. There were 353 responses from the first mailing. A follow-up mailing was sent approximately one and a half months later and yielded an additional 108 usable questionnaires. A total of 458 questionnaires were returned. This return represented approximately sixty-four per cent of the total number of NASPA institu- tions as of November, 1968. Two incomplete questionnaires were returned and were not usable. A comparison by type, size and region was made between the chief student personnel administrators that participated in the study and the total membership of the National Association of Student Personnel Admini- strators in order to ascertain whether the results of the study could be P 25 applied to the total NASPA membership. The differences as presented in Table 1 would suggest that no marked differences exist. Characteristics of the Sample The breakdown of the total sample of student personnel administra- tors by institutional type, size and regional location is included in Table 2. In order to enable a clearer picture of the nature of those participating in the study, a brief analysis shall follow. Public universities made up the largest single group of partici- pants. Representative of Protestant, Catholic and independent liberal arts colleges followed in order of size. Teacher colleges, technical institutions and junior or community colleges which make up the "other" grouping, accounted for a total of 12% of the sample. Public liberal arts colleges accounted for only 9% of the participants. Chief student personnel administrators from institutions of less than 1,500 students made up approximately one-third (35%) of the sample according to size of institution while those representing the largest institutions with enrollments of more than 10,000 accounted for 18% of the total. ‘Middle size institutions with enrollments of from 1,500 to 5,000, and 5,000 to 10,000 accounted for 30% and 17% respectively of the total. From Table 2, one can see that 41% of the chief student personnel administrators participating in the investigation represented institu- tions included in the North Central region. Regional composition was determined by the various regional accrediting associations as listed in the Directory 2f Accredited Institutions 2f Higher Education (American Council on Education, 1969). Those representing institutions l P (h Vi 26 TABLE 2 TYPE, SIZE AND REGIONAL LOCATION OF INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY . [Per Cent Type Number (N=455) Public Liberal Arts College 43 9 University 116 26 Independent Liberal Arts College 69 15 university 24 5 Church Related College or Univ. (Catholic) 70 15 Church Related College or Univ. (Protestant) 83 18 Others Teachers College 20 5 Technical Institution 18 4 Junior College 12 3 Per Cent Size Number (N=458) Enrollment less than 1,500 161 35 Enrollment 1,500 to 5,000 135 30 Enrollment 5,000 to 10,000 79 17 Enrollment 10,000 or more 83 18 Per Cent Location Number (N=454) New England and Mid-Atlantic 125 28 North Central 188 41 Southern 91 20 western and Northwestern 50 ll ln 88 be C( 27 in the New England--Middle Atlantic regions accounted for 28% of the sample. Southern and western--Northwestern institutions accounted for 20% and lllvrespectively.1 Hypotheses The purpose of this study was to investigate the assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel administrators on selected contemporary issues particularly critical to their work. It was the general hypothesis as stated in Chapter I that differences exist in assumptions and beliefs among chief student personnel administrators. More specifically, these differences exist according to: type of institution, location of institution and size of institution. For purposes of analysis these were stated as null hypotheses and tested by use of chi square test of significance: 1. No differences in selected assumptions and beliefs exist among chief student personnel administrators in public institutions, private non-denominational institutions, Catholic institutions, Protestant institutions and "other” institutions. 2. No differences in selected assumptions and beliefs exist among chief student personnel administrators in institu- tions with less than 1,500 students, in institutions with from 1,500 to 5,000 students, in institutions with from 5,000 to 10,000 students, and in institutions with 191th respect to regional location, the following conventions will be adhered to throughout: New England will refer to New England--Midd1e Atlantic states, West will include Western and Northwestern states. 28 10,000 or more students. 3. No differences in selected assumptions and beliefs exist among chief student personnel administrators in insti- tutions located within the New England--Midd1e Atlantic accrediting association region, within the North Central accrediting association region, within the Southern accrediting association region and within the western-- Northwestern accrediting association region. Method of Analysis Chi square (X 2) was used to test the null hypothesis that no differences existed among chief student personnel administrators according to the variable classifications of institutional size, type and location. The .05 level of significance was established apriori to test the hypotheses of the study. In addition, descriptive statistics (percentages) were employed in analyzing and describing the selected assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators. For analysis purposes, items were grouped according to the three areas of assumptions and beliefs studied: responsibilities and administrative behavior, the student and the educational process, and university governance and decision making. Summary The present study was conducted in conjunction with a broad research project sponsored by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. The central purpose of this study was to 29 investigate selected assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel administrators. The population of the present study consisted of chief student personnel administrators in institutions of higher education. The sample was selected on the basis of membership in the National Associ- ation of Student Personnel Administrators as of November 1, 1968. A questionnaire was developed to serve the purposes of both the present investigation and a broad research project conducted by NASPA. The instrument used for the investigation was the result of major revision and modification of a questionnaire developed for use in an earlier similar investigation. The NASPA Division of Research and Publications, student personnel educators and research consultants assisted in the design of the instrument. In addition, a pilot study was conducted. The items selected for inclusion in the questionnaire could be grouped under three categories: (1) responsibilities and administrative behavior, (2) the student and the educational process, and (3) university governance and decision making. The data were collected in the fall and winter of 1968 and 1969. Sixty-four per cent of the 715 NASPA members returned the question- naire. It was hypothesized that differences exist in assumptions and beliefs among chief student personnel administrators according to type of institution, location of institution and size of institu- tion. Chi square was used to test the null hypotheses. Descriptive statistics (percentages) were employed in analyzing and describing the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The analysis of the results of the investigation is presented according to the three areas of assumptions and beliefs included in the study: responsibilities and administrative behavior, the student and the educational process, and university governance and decision ‘making. Response by the total sample of chief student personnel administrators to each of the statements included within the selected areas are analyzed. Tables are included which summarize the statistical information for the sample. Sub-sample responses by the variable classifications of institutional type, size and regional location are included in table form for only those statements containing statistically significant differences in the manner of response. Statistical infor- mation for all statements by the sub-samples of type, size and location are included in Appendix E. Responsibilities and Administrative Behavior Eleven statements (numbers 1-9, 11 and 22) were specifically designed to test assumptions and beliefs regarding the responsibili- ties and administrative behavior of the chief student personnel administrator. The category is defined in Chapter III. A twelfth item, although not specifically meeting the guidelines for this cate- gory, is pertinent to the administrative functioning of the chief student personnel administrator. Item number 32 asks the chief student personnel administrator to indicate from his personal perspective the criteria used to evaluate his effectiveness by the president of his 30 ins th: 88¢ of Ta an qu in 8c P? 3t di tc me in 31 institution. Tables 3 and 4 contain summaries of the important findings for this section. Table 3 contains the response by the total sample to each statement pertaining to the responsibilities and administrative behavior of the chief student personnel administrator. In addition, statistically significant differences as determined by use of X2 are indicated (asterisk) in this table for the three separate analyses of the sub-samples of type, size and location of institution. In Table 4, the separate sub-sample analyses by institutional type, size and location found to be statistically significant are presented. The following instructions appeared in the introduction to the questionnaire and applied to the eleven statements in the "responsibil- ities and administrative behavior" section and to the fifteen statements in the "student and the educational process" section. Instructions: Please respond to each statement by placing an (X) in the appropriate box denoting whether you agree or disagree with the statement. You should respond from the perspective of how you personnally feel about the statement. Please note that the title "dean of students," for purposes of this study, is synonomous with "chief student personnel administrator." Statement_1: From Table 3, it can be seen that chief student per- ”- sonnel administrators agree that their relationship with students has priority over administrative tasks. No significant differences existed among the participating in- stitutions according to type and location. However, significant differences as determined by use of chi square were found according to institutignsl*sige. As is evident in Table 4, the degree of agree- ‘ment tends to depend upon the size of the institution. The larger the institution the less agreement there seems to be that the chief student I l P? pri at tie to 511 IE 5+ if at , \d in is 32 paracnnel administrator's relationship with students should take priority over administrative tasks. A limited consensus (61.4%) of administrators representing institutions wdth enrollments over 10,000 agreed with the item. At the other extreme, 79.2% of administrators representing small institutions agreed with the item. Smaller institu- tions tend to support the importance of close relationships with students to a higher degree. This, of course, could be due to the fact that by the very size of the institution, CSPA's at smaller institutions deal more directly with students while CSPA's at larger institutions tend to direct staff that relate directly with students. Statement 2: As reported in Table 3, the sample conclusively supported the notion that counseling and discipline are interrelated responsibilities of the dean. There were no significant differences reported according to in- stitutional type, size and location. However, there were interest'ng tendencies in the responses according to type of institution. Protes- tant institution representatives were much more supportive of the item than were Catholic institution representatives. In fact, Catholic insti- tution CSPA's were less supportive of the item than CSPA's representing other type institutions. Statement 3: Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed 682.2%) that the dean of student's primary commitment should be to the individual needsof the student. The sub-samples of institutional type, size and location provided uniformity of support for a primary commitment to the needs of students as no significant differences in their response existed. 33 TABLE 3 RESPONSES OF ALL CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS PERTAINING TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR OF THE CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR. Item Agree Disagree Per Cent Per Cent 1. The dean of students availability and personal relationships with students should consistently take priority over the performance of administrative tasks. 73.8 26.2 * 2. Basically, counseling and discipline are interrelated responsibilities of the dean of students and serve the same ends. 77.8 22.2 3. The dean of students primary commitment should be to the individual needs of the student. 82.2 17.8 4. The dean of students responsibilities to the president should consistently take precedence over his personal convictions. 24.9 75.1 5. The dean of students is responsible for upholding certain standards which because of their sensitive nature cannot be stated in a specific code of regulations. 59.3 40.7 6. Even at the risk of jeopardizing his rapport with students, the dean of students must be willing to engage in direct and open conflict with them if he disagrees with their position on an issue. 90.8 9.2 7. In the interest of enabling students to feel that they have a "friend in court," it is important for the dean of students to disassociate himself from unpopular decisions made by the president, business manager, or academic dean. 6.0 94.0 8. The dean of student's effectiveness is reduced by over concern with the maintenance of control and order. 76.4 23.6 34 Table 3 (cont'd.) Item Agree Per Cent Disagree Per Cent ll. 22. In much of what he does, the dean of students should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. 40.9 A significant aspect of depersonalization in higher education is the tendency of the dean of students to allow and to encourage the inserting of more "professional staff" be- between himself and students. 60.4 Except for consideration of safety, there is no justification for the dean of students to violate the confidentiality of a counseling relationship. 90.1 59.1 * 39.6 * 9.9 *Significant differences exist at the .05 level of significance according to type, size or location of institution. Statement 4: CSPA's1 participating in the study clearly supported the importance of their personal convictions as opposed to responsibil- ities to their superior. sibilities to convictions. chief student varying type, president and the importance of personal convictions. ing, however, The administrators disagreed that their respon- the president should take precedence over their personal There were not significant differences in the way that personnel administrators representing institutions of size and location felt about their responsibility to the It is interest- .pm" ‘ that larger institutions seemed to be much more suppor- tive of deans of students responsibilities to their president. They seemed to be less convinced that personal convictions should take precedence over responsibilities to their president. ‘Moreover, 1Throughout the remainder of the study, CSPA refers to Chief Student Personnel Administrator. 35 Southern and North Central institutions tended to be more concerned about their responsibilities,to their president. Catholic institutions, however, were strongest in feeling that personal convictions should take precedence over responsibilities to presidents. Statement 5: Divergence of opinion is evident in regard to whether deans should uphold certain sensitive standards that cannot be specified in a code of regulations. CSPA's participating in the study seemed uncertain whether they should be responsible for uphold- ing standards not specified in a code of regulations. Although there seemed to be divergence among all chief student personnel administrators, there were no significant differences according to institutional response by type, size and location. However, larger institutions were much closer to splitting in their response than were small institutions who were more in agreement with the statement. Statement 6: It is reported in Table 3 that a significant consen- sus of the CSPA's (90.8%) felt that they must be willing to engage in conflict with students when they disagree with them--even at the risk of jeopardizing their rapport. The unanimity and strength of this response among all chief student personnel administrators is evidenced by the statistical test for differences as no significant differences were evident wdthin the sub-groups. Statement 7: Ninety-four per cent of the respondents rejected the notion that the dean should disassociate himself from unpopular decisions made by other administrators. CSPA's, therefore, rejected any thought that no matter the issue, it is most important to create the impression among students that they always have a "friend in court." Chief student 36 personnel administrators clearly indicated strong disagreement with the statement. Again, there were no significant differences in re- sponse among the sub-groups of institutional type, size and location. Statement 8: Table 3 reveals that 76.4% of the chief student personnel administrators participating in the study felt that the dean's effectiveness is reduced by over concern with control and order. Again, no significant differences existed according to type, size and location of institution. However, it is interesting to note that western and Catholic institution representatives more strongly supported the statement while independent and Southern institutions were much less supportive. Statement 9: Chief student personnel administrators were much less certain whether they should be concerned with enforcement of moral standards. Only 59.1% felt that they should not be concerned with enforcement of moral standards, thus indicating that uncertainty exists among the respondents on this item. Accordingly, the sub-samples of institutions as defined by regional location also manifested a high degree of divergence. Significant differences in the manner of response to the item were found. As is indicated in Table 4, those institutions located in the Southern region had the greatest proportion agreeing that the dean of students should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. It is interesting to note that while Southern institutions tended to agree with the item, New England and western institutions reported consensus in disagreement. North Central institutions, although also in disagreement with the item,were not as strong in disagreement and were more inclined toward 37 a split. Although significant differences according to size and type were not found, interesting tendencies could be noted. Protestant institu- tions tended to support the feeling expressed by Southern institutions that deans of students should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. The larger institutions, however, tended to be more supportive of the notion that deans of students should gg£.be concerned with the enforcement of the moral standards. Statement 11: As reported in Table 3, divergence again exists in response to the question of whether the insertion of staff between the dean and students contributes to depersonalization in higher education. Sixty per cent of the CSPA's agreed that the insertion of staff con- tributes to depersonalization. Significant differences in response to the statement existed among all three of the sub-groups. It is noteworthy, as reported in Table 4, that chief student personnel administrators representing public institu- tions tended to feel that the insertion of staff between their office and students did not necessarily lead to depersonalization. The response to public institution CSPA‘s was in marked disagreement with that by CSPA's from independent, Catholic, Protestant and "other" institutions; all of whom felt that the insertion of additional staff does contribute to depersonalization. Institutions of religious affiliation were strong- est in agreement in support of the statement. Significant differences also existed according to size and location of institution. Again, as in Statement 1, less support for agreement existed as the enrollment of institutions participating in the study increased. The largest of institutions tended to feel that insertion 38 of additional staff would not necessarily contribute to depersonaliza- tion while the smallest of institutions reported agreement that inser- tion of staff would contribute to depersonalization. Differences were recorded in the manner in which Southern and New England institutions responded to Statement 11. Southern institu- tions were split while New England institutions provided significant agreement that insertion of staff could result in depersonalization. .Western institutions, although tending to agree with the statement,also manifested a high degree of uncertainty. Statement 22: It is reported in Table 3 that substantial agreement (90.1%) exists among chief student personnel administrators in that the dean of students should not violate the confidentiality of a counsel- ing relationship. The degree of unanimity among the total sample is also evidenced among the sub-samples as no significant differences according to type, size and regional location of institution were recorded. Statement 32: Table 5 includes data obtained from the responses“ of chief student personnel administrators to the question: "What criteria do you feel your president uses to evaluate your effective- ness?" The responses to the open ended question were grouped under the ten headings included in Table 5. Student personnel administrators seemed to feel that the chief , criterion used by presidents is the manner in which they,as deans of, I” students,re1ate to others within the academic community. In essence, they belieVed that presidents determine dean's effectiveness on the basis of their reputation within the academic community. Chief student personnel administrators also highly supported "administrative competence and effectiveness" as an important criterion used by presidents. It is SIG ADM N Ste 11 39 TABLE 4 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES OF CHIEF STUDENT PERSONEL ADMINISTRATORS ACCORDING TO TYPE, SIZE AND REGIONAL LOCATION OF INSTITUTION. Statement Agree Disagree 2 Percent Percent X l. The dean of student's availability and personal relationships with students should consistently take priority over the performance of administrative tasks. Total Response 73.8 26.2 Size 10.255* Enrollment less than 1,500 79.2 20.8 Enrollment 1,500 to 5,000 77.0 23.0 Enrollment 5,000 to 10,000 70.1 29.9. Enrollment 10,000 or more 61.4 38.6 9. In much of what he does, the dean of students should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. Total Response 41.1 58.9 Region l3.952* Naw’England or Mid-Atlantic 33.9 66.1 North Central 40.0 59.1 Southern 57.3 42.7 western or Northwestern 31.9 68.1 11. A significant aspect of depersonal- ization in higher education is the tendency of the dean of students to allow and to encourage the insert- ing of more "professional staff" between himself and students. Total Response 60.4 39.6 TYpe 13.16S* Public 49.4 50.6 Independent 65.9 34.1 Catholic 67.6 32.4 Protestant 68.7 ' 31.3 Other 62.0 38.0 40 Table 4 (cont'd.) Agree Disagree 2 Percent Percent X Size Enrollment less than 1,500 67.5 32.5 16.471* Enrollment 1,500 to 5,000 66.7 33.3 Enrollment 5,000 to 10,000 51.9 48.1 Enrollment 10,000 or more 44.6 55.4 Region 7.941* New England or Mid-Atlantic 67.2 32.8 North Central 62.9 37.1 Southern 50.0 50.0 western or Northwestern 53.1 46.9 *Chi square value significant at or beyond the .05 level of significance. interesting to note, as recorded in Table 5, that the three most selected criterion center on aspects that have less direct relationship to students and their development. Although "contribution to student development and assessment of student needs," "creatiVe and innovative leadership," and "maintenance of campus morale" received relatively strong support, they clearly were not seen by a substantial percentage of CSPA's as signifi- cant criteria used in evaluation of their effectiveness. Also interesting, is that strong support was recorded for, "maintenance of control and order" as a criterion used in evaluation. The felt impor- tance of "keeping the lid on the campus" as a criterion consistent with ' the wishes of the president is indicated by the strong support for this response. Little support was given by CSPA's for "personal values and character" as an important criterion of effectiveness (in their estima- tion of how presidents evaluated them). R. A4 C I 41 TABLE 5 CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR‘S PERCEPTION OF THE CRITERIA USED BY HIS PRESIDENT TO EVALUATE HIS EFFECTIVENESS. Perception of criteria used to (N=632) * evaluate CSPA's performance Frequency Per Cent Relations with members of the academic community 142 22.5 Administrative competence and effectiveness 125 19.8 Maintenance of control and order 80 12.7 Contribution to student development and assessment of student needs 60 9.5 Creative and innovative leadership 59 9.3 Support of campus policies and objectives 48 7.6 Maintenance of campus morale 45 7.1 Personal values and character 5 .8 unknown 59 9.3 Others 9 1.4 *N inflated by combination response. The first two responses from an individual were tabulated if more than one was recorded. It is noteworthy that nearly 10% of chief student personnel adminis- trators did not know or have any idea of criteria used by presidents in evaluating their effectiveness. The responses falling into the "unknown" category ranged from: "I wdsh I knew," and "Lord only knows" to "I'll be damned if I can figure it out...but it's probably whether he likes me or not (that's rather tenuousl)" 42 The Student and the Educational Proces§_ Fifteen statements (numbers 10, 12-21, 23, 24, 25 and 27) included in the questionnaire were concerned specifically with the student and the educational process. The category is defined in Chapter III. Tables 6 and 7 contain summaries of the important findings. The arrangement of tables and general procedure established in the previous section shall be used for this section. Statement 10: Table 6 records the fact that 76.4% of the chief student personnel administrators participating in the study agreed that the pur- pose of conduct regulation is to maintain control and order. No signi- ficant differences existed according to type, size and location of institution. However, it can be noted that independent, Southern and the smallest of institutions (less than 1500) more highly supported the statement than did other sub-samples. western institutions were the least most suppportive of the statement. Statement 12: Chief student personnel administrators tended to disagree with the statement (72.6%) that the only justification for con- duct regulation is that it prohibits behavior that interferes with student growth. Among the sub-samples, significant differences were present accord- ing to type of institution. Table 7 records the data describing the sig— nificant differences. The direction of response for each type of institu- tion was consistent with the direction of the total sample. However, the degree of response by type of institution is noteworthy. The two religious affiliated type institutions were polarized in the degree to which they disagreed with the statement. Protestant institution CSPA's were more 43 TABLE 6 RESPONSES OF ALL CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS PERTAINING TO THE STUDENT AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. Item Agree Per Cent Disagree Per Cent 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. The essential purpose of conduct regulations is to maintain reasonable control and order in the academic community. The only justification for student conduct regulation is that it prohibits behavior which interferes with student growth and development. Since an academic institution is a community established for a specific purpose, the behavior of the members of that community must be restricted in special ways. The institution should be concerned with the social maturity and value development of the individual student. Social maturity and value development are integral to the student's intellectual attainment. Exceptions to policy in the handling of specific student incidents are likely to constitute the reinforcement of unacceptable behavior. Attempts by the dean of students to protect the student from "defeating experiences" may actually hinder student growth. The dean of students should consciously attempt to manipulate certain aspects of the institutional environment in ways which support or promote development of individual students. Within the context of obvious individual differences in student ability and maturity, 76.7 27.4 75.9 98.7 90.1 21.8 88.5 84.6 23.3 72.6* 24.1* 1.3 9.9 78.2 11.5 15.4 Table 6 (cont'd.) Item Agree Disagree Per Cent Per Cent 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. 27. it is more desirable to err in the direction of over delegation of responsibility to students rather than in the direction of under delegation. 88.9 11.1 Students attain maturity to the extent that they are left free to make personal decisions and to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in the academic community. 89.5 10.5 An essential ingredient for personalization in higher education is provision for privacy of the individual student. 89.0 11.0* Attempts by deans of students to influence students to adopt values held to be important by the institution are question- able behaviors. 28.7 71.3 The essential ingredients of procedural due process are nothing more than a natural expression of the college's respect and concern for the individual student. 85.0 15.0 Students by their nature desire liberalization of campus regulations. 75.1 24.9* Although the results have been unfortunate in some instances, the present climate of dissent represents a significant positive development in higher education. 87.7 12.3* * - Significant differences exist at the .05 level of significance according to type, size or location of institution. strongly in disagreement with the statement that the only justification for conduct regulation is that it prohibits behavior that interferes ‘with student growth. On the other hand, CSPA's representing Catholic 45 institutions tended to be much less willing to disagree with the state- ‘ment. In fact, Catholic institution CSPA's were closer to supporting agreement with the statement than were representatives from any other type of institution. If one might conceive of a continuum of agree - disagree, it would appear that independent, Protestant and "other" institutions are nearer the disagree position while public and Catholic institutions are clustered nearer the agree position. Statement 13: Chief student personnel administrators tended to support the notion that wdthin the academic community there is need for special consideration in the restriction of behavior. They agreed (75.9%) that since an academic institution is a community established for a specific purpose the behavior of the members of that community should be restricted in special ways. Significant differences, as recorded in Table 7, existed according to the type of institution participating in the study. Protestant (84.3%), Catholic (79.4%), and independent institution CSPA's were clearly in strongest agreement that the behavior of community members must be restricted in special ways. Public institutions were much less in agreement (67.5%) with the statement. Although significant differences were not recorded according to size and location, the smallest of institutions (less than 1500) and Southern institutions were clearly most supportive of the statement. Statement 14: Significant consensus (98.7%) of chief student per- sonnel administrators agreed that institutions of higher education should be concerned with the social maturity and value development of the individual student. No significant differences existed according 46 to the sub-groups of institutional type, size and location. §tatement 15: Chief student personnel administrators also strongly agreed that social maturity and value development are integral to in- tellectual development. Ninety per cent of the sample agreed with the statement. Again, there were no significant differences among the participants according to type, size and location of institution. Although, it can be noted that Catholic and Protestant institutions were most supportive of the statement. Statement 16: Chief student personnel administrators disagreed with the notion that exception to policy would constitute reinforcement of unacceptable behavior. Seventy-eight per cent of the chief student personnel administrators participating in the study felt that exceptions to policy in the handling of specific student incidents would 22; con- stitute the reinforcement of unacceptable behavior. No significant differences existed according to type, size and location of institution. However, New England, and independent institutions were most strongly supportive in agreeing that exceptions to policy would‘ggghconstitute the reinforcement of unacceptable behavior. TABLE 7 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES OF CSPA'S ACCORDING TO TYPE, SIZE AND REGIONAL LOCATION OF INSTITUTION. W Agree Disagree Statement Percent Percent X2 12. The only justification for student conduct is that it prdhibits behavior which interferes with student growth and development. Total Response 27.4 72.6 47 Table 7 (cont'd.) Agree Disagree 2 Statement Percent Percent X Type 12.726* Public 31.3 68.8 Independent 24.4 75.6 Catholic 39.7 60.3 Protestant 20.5 79.5 Other 14.6 85.4 13. Since an academic institution is a community established for a specific purpose, the behavior of the members of that commun- ity must be restricted in special ways. Total Response 75.9 24.1 Type 10.678* Public 67.5 32.5 Independent 79.8 20.2 Catholic 79.4 20.6 Protestant 84.3 15.7 Other 77.6 22.4 21. An essential ingredient for personalization in higher education is provision for privacy of the individual student. Total Response 89.0 11.0 Region 9.133* New England or Mid-Atlantic 92.8 7.2 North Central 84.3 15.7 Southern 94.4 5.6 Western or Northwestern 85.7 14.3 25. Students by their nature desire liberalization of campus regu- lations. Total Response 75.1 24.9 Region l3.022* New England or Mid-Atlantic 84.4 15.6 North Central 67.2 32.8 48 Table 7 (cont'd.) -— Agree Disagree Statement Percent Percent X2 Southern 79.8 20.2 western_or Northwestern 72.9 27.1 27. Although the results have been unfortunate in some instances, the present climate of dissent represents a significant positive development in higher education. Total Response 87.7 12.3 Region 11.552* New England or Mid-Atlantic 95.2 4.8 North Central 85.4 14.6 Southern 80.5 19.5 western or Northwestern 89.4 10.6 * Chi square value significant at or beyond the .05 level of significance. Statement 17: Chief student personnel administrators clearly agree (88.5%) that any attempt on their part to protect students from defeats may hinder student growth. Accordingly, there were no signi- ficant differences recorded by type, size and location of institution. Western institutions did, however, tend to be more supportive of the statement than were the other sub-samples. Statement 18: While not wishing to protect students from defeats as it may hinder growth, chief student personnel administrators generally agreed (84.6%) that they should manipulate environment in ways which would promote student development. No significant differ- ences existed according to the sub-samples. It can be seen, though, 49 that CSPA's representing institutions between 5,000 to 10,000 students were much less supportive of agreement with the statement. Statement 19: On the matter of delegation of responsibility to students, administrators felt that within the context of individual differences in student ability and maturity, it is more desirable to err in the direction of over-delegation rather than in the direction of under-delegation. No significant differences, however, were found in the responses to this item according to type of institution, size of institution and regional location of institution. Statement 20: As is indicated in Table 6, chief student personnel. administrators clearly agree that maturity is attained through freedom to make personal decisions and to exercise citizenship rights and responsibility. No significant differences were recorded according to the nature of response by the sub-samples; type of institution, size of institution and location of institution. However, it is clear that CSPA's representing institutions with enrollments between 5,000 and 10,000 students were much less supportive of agreement with the state- ment . Statement 21: The provision for privacy was considered by chief student personnel administrators to be an important ingredient for personalization in higher education. Eighty-nine per cent of the chief student personnel administrators participating in the study agreed with the statement. Significant differences were not found among the responses accord- ing to type and size of institution. Differences did exist according to regional location. 50 Southern and New England institutions provided much stronger degrees of support for the privacy of students. CSPA's representing western and North Central institutions were not as supportive in their agree- ment. All of the institutions by regional location tended to agree with the statement. Statement 23: CSPA's tended to disagree with the statement that attempts to influence students to adopt values held to be important by the institution are questionable behaviors. Seventy-one per cent disagreed with the statement. Again, there were no significant differ- ences according to the sub-groups. However, it is interesting to note that the mmallest of institutions (less than 1500) were much less sure that attempts by deans to adopt values to be important by the institution were not questionable behaviors while Southern institutions were much more sure. Statement 24: Consensus of chief student personnel administrators was recorded in agreement with the statement that procedural due process is essentially a reflection of respect and concern for the individual. Eighty-five per cent of the administrators were in agreement in their support of the statement. No significant differences existed according to type, size and location of institution. Independent institutions did, however, evidence much less support for the statement than did other type institutions. Catholic institutions reported much more support. Statement 25: Three-quarters of the sample of chief student personnel administrators indicated support for the notion that students by their nature desire liberalization of regulations. No significant 51 differences existed according to the sub-samples of type and size of institution. As noted in Table 7, significant differences did exist according to regional location. New England region institutions were more supportive (84.4%) of the notion that students desire liberalization of regulations than were institutions representing other regions. Southern institutions also agreed strongly with the item. North Central institutions provided limited agreement with the statement. CSPA's representing western institutions more closely paralleled the limited degree of support by North Central participants. It is in- teresting to note that although no significant differences by type of institution occurred, Catholic and Protestant institutions were at opposite extremes in their response to the statement. Although all institutions agreed with the statement, Catholic institutions were much more in agreement wdth the notion that students desire liberalization of regulations than were all other "type" institutions. Protestant institutions were much less in agreement wdth the statement than were all other "type" institutions. Statement 27: Interestingly, strong agreement (87.7%) was evidenced for the positive aspects of student dissent. Chief student personnel administrators tended to agree that although there have been negative results, the present climate of dissent represents a positive develop- ment in higher education. There were no significant differences when the data were analyzed according to type and size of institution. However, in again noting Table 7, differences existed according to regional location of the 52 institutional representatives participating in the study. Institu- tions representing the New England region were again most strongly in agreement with the statement. New England region unanimity in support of student dissent is consistent with the strength of their support for the notion that students desire liberalization of regula- tions. western and North Central institutions were also highly sup- portive of the statement. Southern institutions were less agreeable in their support than were the other regions. It is interesting that CSPA's in institutions located in the eastern and the western most regions of the United States were most supportive of the statement and that those located in the middle states between the two frontiers were least supportive. Although significant differences did not exist according to type of institution, Catholic institutions were the strongest of all the sub-samples in their agreement that the present climate of dissent represents a significant positive development in higher education. ‘ygigersity Governance and Decision Making Sixteen statements (numbers 26, 28, 29, 30a-30k, 31a and 31b) which pertain to the degree of involvement by members of the academic community in decision making and governance were included in the questionnaire. Statement 26 sought an Agree--Disagree response while statements 28 and 29 asked the respondent to select one of four possible choices. Statements 30 and 31 included thirteen separate items, each-of which required a single response. Tables 8 - 11 con- tain summaries of the important findings. 53 With the exception of item 26 which was analyzed by chi square, there were insufficient size cells in the response to all other state- ments. Hence, chi square analysis of differences by institutional type, size and regional location was not possible. Statement 26: A significant consensus (88.9%) of the chief student personnel administrators participating in the study disagreed with the statement that students lack the maturity to participate in top level decisions. There were significant differences in the response of CSPA's according to type, size and location of institution. Large institutions (5,000 to 10,000 and 10,000 and above) and Protestant institutions did tend to be strongest in disagreement with the state- ment. "Other" institutions, however, were much more in agreement with the statement than were the other "type" institutions. TABLE 8 RESPONSE BY CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS REGARDING THE MATURITY OF STUDENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING AND GOVERNANCE. Statement Agree Disagree Per Cent Per Cent 26. Students should not be involved in top level institutional policy decisions because they lack . sufficient maturity. 11.1 88.9 Statement 28: The following instructions appeared in the intro- duction to the statement. "Rank in order of importance ( l - most important) the following reasons for involving students in policy 54 decisions." Table 9 records the information that student personnel administra- tors tend to feel that the primary reason for involving students in policy decisions is because they contribute to the probability of insight- ful decisions. A comparatively large percentage of chief student per- sonnel administrators also felt that involvement in decision making serves the purpose of educating students for leadership and citizenship. Much less support (12.5%) was given to the notion that participation in decision making would satisfy students' natural need for involvement and identification. It is interesting to note that only three or .7% of the total sample supported the lessening of the probability of student - administrative confrontation as the chief reason for involving students in decision making. TABLE 9 CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS' PRIMARY REASON FOR INVOLVING STUDENTS IN POLICY DECISIONS. * N Per Cent (u-ass) Item 28. A. Contribute to the probability of insightful decisions. 250 54.9 B. Educate students for leadership and citizenship. 145 31.9 C. Satisfy the student's need for involvement and identification. 57 12.5 D. Lessen the probability of student - administrative confrontation. 3 .7 * First choices only 55 The response of CSPA's according to the sub-samples of type, size and regional location of institution reveals that Protestant and western institutions tend to be much more supportive of the notion that students contribute to the probability of insightful decisions than was the total sample. Southern institutions tended to be much less supportive of this notion and more highly supportive of the rationale that the involvement of students would serve to educate them for leadership and citizenship. Although, in all cases, the direction of the response by sub-samples was consistent with the direction of the total sample. Statement 29: The following instructions appeared in the intro- duction to the statement: "What role should the dean of students per- form.in the development of policy in the area of student affairs?" Chief student personnel administrators were in almost total agree- ment that they should be a vital part with at least a vote in any policy development in student affairs. Fifty-four per cent felt that the CSPA should determine policy in consultation with students and faculty and 38.5% felt that the CSPA should participate as a voting member in a campus governance body. It is interesting to note, as shown in Table 10, that the least degree of support was generated for unilateral decision making by the CSPA without requirement to consult with others. At the other extreme, little interest was shown in the CSPA providing advice but not voting. The sub-sample response by type, size and regional location tended to be consistent with the response by the total sample except in a few isolated instances. Independent institution CSPA's preferred, in the development of policy, to be a voting member of a campus governance body. western institutions also tended to see the dean of students as 56 an equal voting member of a policydmaking group. However, "other" and Southern institutions were strongest of all the sub-samples in their sup- port for CSPA's to "determine policy in consultation with students and faculty." Moreover, "other" institutions were least supportive of dean's of students "providing advice, but not voting" on student affairs policy issues. TABLE 10 PREFERRED ROLE OF CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS IN POLICY DEVELOP- MENT IN STUDENT AFFAIRS. Per Cent N (N34S4) Item 29. A. Provide advice but not vote. 31 6.8 B. Participate as a voting member of a campus governance body. 175 38.5 C. Determine policy in consul-' _ tation with students and faculty. 246 54.2 D. Determine policy without any requirement to consult with students and faculty. 2 .5 STATEMENTS 30 AND 31: Chief student personnel administrators partic- ipating in the study were asked to indicate what groups or combination of groups should be involved in decisions affecting six areas, all of which tend to represent particularly important concerns to members of the academic community. The six areas were: academic matters, parietal rules, student activity matters, employment and retention of faculty and staff, institutional budgetary matters and the adjudication of social 57 misconduct and academic dishonesty. The following instructions appeared in the introduction to statements 30 and 31: Instructions: Indicate by checking the appropriate box, the degree to which you feel various members of the campus community should be involved in selected areas of decision making. ‘Response Code: 1. Primarily student; 2. Primarily administrative; 3. Prhmarily faculty; 4. Joint faculty-administrative with no student; 5. Primarily faculty-administrative with some student; 6. Joint faculty-student-administrative. Academic Matters As evident in Table 11, CSPA’s strongly supported "faculty-administrative with some student" involvement in academic matters specifically related to curriculum design. Strong support was given (23.3%) to "joint faculty- student-administrative" involvement and "2211 faculty" involvement in grading practices and academic standing matters. It is interesting to note that increasingly less support was manifested for "joint community" involvement and "student" involvement in decisions affecting grading practices and in decisions affecting academic standing. Conversely, support for "primarily faculty" involvement increased from 20.0% on the item "curriculum design" to 32.5% on the item; "grading practices" and to 33.2% on the item; "academic standing." Chief student personnel administrators' response according to type of institution, closely resembles the total sample response. All five types of institutions participating in the investigation strongly sup- ported the notion that "faculty and administrators with lesser number of students" should be involved in decisions pertaining to curriculum. Catholic and Protestant institutions were particularly strong in their agreement with this notion. Independent institutions were not nearly 58 as strong in their support as they tended to lean toward involving "221! faculty" in these decisions. In matters pertaining to grading practices and academic standing, independent institutions moved to strong support for "2211 faculty" involvement. Public institutions and "other" institutions continued to strongly support "faculty-administrative with some student" involvement in both of these areas. Catholic and Protestant institutions continued their strong support for "faculty- administrative and some student" involvement in matters pertaining to grading practices. They both, however, moved to strong support for ”gnly_faculty" involvement in academic standing matters. It is clear that whereas institutions were certain that there should be at least some student involvement in curriculum matters, there was less certainty that students should be involved in grading practices and academic standing matters . Response by chief student personnel administrators according to size of institution again revealed support for "faculty-administrative with some student" involvement in matters pertaining to curriculum. Institutions with enrollments of 5,000 or less supported "faculty- administrative with some student" involvement in matters pertaining to grading practices and curriculum design. However, these same institu- tions strongly supported "2211 faculty involvement" in matters pertaining to academic standing. Interestingly, institutions of from 5,000 to 10,000 students supported "faculty-administrative with some student" involvement for all three of the areas. The largest of institutions (10,000 and above), however, strongly supported 92211 faculty" involvement in matters pertaining to grading practices and to academic standing. 59 Response according to regional location of institution indicated that all regions agreed that "faculty-administrative, and.§gmg students" should be involved in curriculum decisions. In decisions pertaining to grading practices, New England, North Central and Southern institutions felt that "faculty-administrative and 2222 students" should be involved. western institutions, however, strongly preferred UQQIXDfaculty" involve- ment. Interestingly, New England institutions continued to depart from the total sample response by again supporting "some student" participa- tion in academic standing issues as they did for grading practices and curriculum design. North Central and Southern institutions agreed that "2211 faculty" should be involved in matters pertaining to this area. It is clear that North Central and Southern institutions were more inclined toward only faculty participation in academic matters, espe- cially pertaining to academic standing issues. New England and western institutions, however, were more inclined toward "faculty- administrative with some student" involvement in all academic matters. Parietal Rules With respect to decision making in the areas of women's hours, visitation regulations and use of alcoholic beverages, chief student personnel administrators were most supportive of joint involvement by the various members of the academic community. However, strong support was also indicated for "primarily student" involvement in decisions pertaining to women's hours and visitation privileges but not for decisions pertaining to use of alcoholic beverages. In a reversal of feelings expressed regarding the groups that should be 60 involved in decisions affecting academic matters, very little support was given for "only faculty" involvement in decisions affecting parietal rules. Accordingly, in this area of decision making, higher degree of support was generated for "primarily student" involvement or at least "joint community" involvement. Analysis of the sub-sample response by type, size and regional loca- tion of institution revealed a high degree of consistency with the response by the total sample. Public, independent, Catholic, Protestant, and "other" type institutions all strongly supported "joint involvement of faculty-administrators and students" in parietal rule issues. There was also strong sentiment, especially pertaining to issues concerning women's hours, for "primarily student" involvement. .Public institutions, although preferring "joint involvement," were also particularly suppor- tive of the notion that "only students" be involved in these issues. Accordingly, sub-sample response by size and location of institution indicated preference for "joint faculty-administrative and student in- volvement" generally on issues relating to parietal rules. However, it is noted that institutions with from 5,000 to 10,000 students and located in western regions tended to more highly support "2211 student" involve- ment. This is particularly true of western institutions which tended to strongly feel that "2211 students" should be involved in decisions pertain- ing to women's hours and to visitation regulatiodain residence halls. It is interesting to note that western institutions,which tended to give strong 'only student" involvement in issues pertaining to women's support to ' hours and visitation regulations in residence halls, were equally as strong in supporting "joint administrative-faculty-student" involvement in issues 61 TABLE 11 CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS SUGGESTED INVOLVEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY IN DECISIONS PERTAINING TO SIX AREAS. (ITEMS 30 AND 31) p- m :> -H U m m > H oa u I u m u m 0H c: u c: J: O a: >‘ 44 §“' '3 u m c: H u '8 “E U a) c: o-a flu H m 'U -H s I o o m I m :3 E O >~m O> >s> u 'U m ins: m-H.u u-fl co <3 ha Fa: uaa:c ptu as: m 0 a m >» b» >. (3% >.H'U u H —4 pa .4 m —cu : m.u vi 0H *4 mac vim.u tu m u h H s h-H m 'H 2 2 E 2.: ES. :5 A EAS - vi *4 vi vi“ -H'§ 8 1H.s R u u u Chg ‘: o n. A: a. *1 m a ram % % % % % % Academic Matters Curriculum Design 0 7 2 2 Grading Practices .2 .2 32.5 5.7 38.7 22.6 Academic Standing 0 8 4 3 . . Parietal Rules women's hours 31.7 6.1 .2 .2 8.4 53.4 Visitation regulations in residence halls 25.6 8.1 0 .4 9 2 56.6 Use of alcoholic beverages 4.7 17.7 .2 1.6 17.3 58.5 Student Activity Matters Allocation of student activity fees 64.8 1.5 0 .2 3.5 29.9 Student government and activities 77.1 0 2 0 2.0 20.7 Student publications 61.1 .2 .2 0 2 0 36.5 Employment and Retention of Faculty and Staff 0 20.0 1.8 34.1' 38.7 5.5 Institutional Budgetary Matters 0 42.9 0 19.8 31.4 5.9 Adjudication of: Student Social conduct problems 25. .5 66.7 Student academic dishonesty 11. 1 61.6 NW \3 \O O U) U 0 m H UU‘I O 62 pertaining to use of alcoholic beverages. Student Activitijatters As could be expected, chief student personnel administrators tended to stress "primarily student” involvement in all divisions pertaining to student activity matters.. This was particularly true with respect to involvement in decisions affecting student government and activities. CSPA's felt that students should be at least equally involved and prefer- ably exclusively involved in all decisions pertaining to the allocation of student activities fees, to student government and activities and. to student publications. It is noteworthy, that in the area of student publications as contrasted with the other two areas, stronger support was given to "joint faculty-administrative-student" involvement and less support for "only student" involvement. With respect to comparisons by type, size, and regional location of institution; public, North Central, Southern and the larger institutions (5,000 to 10,000 and above) tended to provide less support for H2211 student" involvement and more support for "joint faculty-administrative- student" involvement than did the total sample. This was particularly true on issues pertaining to allocation of student activity fees and to student publications matters. Again, sub-sample responses were generally consistent with the total sample response. Employment and Retention of Faculty_and Staff Chief student personnel administrators were less supportive of the involvement of students in employment and retention of faculty and staff decisions. Administrators almost equally supported "faculty-administrative with some student" involvement and "faculty-administrative with‘gg 63 student" involvement in this area. No support was given for "primarily student" involvement and minimal support for equal involvement by the three groups. Accordingly, sub-samples of type, size and regional location all tended to prefer "faculty-administrative with 3222 student" and "faculty- administrative with 32 student" involvement. It is interesting to note that Southern institutions tended to split between "faculty-administrative with 3935 student" and "only administrative" involvement. Southern institutions were the strongest supporter of H2211 administrative" involvement while western institutions were the strongest supporter of "faculty-administrative and some student" involvement. Institutional Budgetary Matters The tendency to exclude students from involvement was also evident in CSPA's response to participation in institutional budgetary matters. No support was given for "primary student“ and little support for "joint academic community" involvement. However, strong support was reported for "primary administrative" and for "primary administrative-faculty with figmg student" involvement. Comparisons by type, size and regional location of institution revealed that the response by the sub-samples tended to be consistent with the response by the total sample. Independent, Catholic, Protestant and "other" type institutions all strongly preferred "only administrative" involvement in institutional budgetary matters. Public institutions, however, tended to prefer "faculty-administrative with some student'involve- ment. Interestingly, Catholic and Protestant institutions tended to prefer 64 less student involvement than other types. Larger institutions (5,000 to 10,000 and 10,000 and above) and western institutions tended to prefer "faculty-administrative with some student" involvement. However, smaller institutions (less than 5,000) and New England, North Central and Southern institutions tended to view institutional budgetary matters as purely a function of administrative personnel. It is apparent that chief student personnel administrators, in the areas of employment and retention of staff and institutional budgets, feel that decision making is primarily an administrative-faculty task and that if students are to be involved, it is to be only on a limited basis. Adjudication of Student Misconduct In the area of student misconduct, chief student personnel administra- tors seemed to feel that "joint faculty-administrative-student" decisions should prevail for both student social conduct and academic dishonesty problems. It is interesting to note that there was some support for "2211 student" involvement in decisions affecting this area. Less support, however, was evidenced for "only student" involvement in student academic dishonesty cases than in social misconduct problems. Analysis by type, size and regional location of institution reveals that "joint faculty-administrative-student" involvement is preferred in the adjudication of student social conduct and academic dishonesty problems. Protestant and independent institutions while preferring joint involvement, tended to manifest greater support for "2211 student" involvement than did other type institutions. Moreover, Southern institutions while also preferring joint involvement, gave greater support for 'only student" involvement than did institutions representing other regional locations. 65 Response by sub-samples very closely parallel response by the total sample as although all supported "joint" involvement they more strongly supported "only student“ involvement in adjudication of social conduct matters than in academic dishonesty matters. Summary The summary of Chapter IV includes only the major findings. Significant differences in response among the sub-samples of type, size and regional location of institution are reported. Chi square analysis of differences among the sub-samples was conducted for items 1 - 27. Significant differences among sub-samples could not be determined for items 28 - 32 due to inadequate cell size. Responsibilities and Administrative Behavior 1. Chief student personnel administrators agreed (73.8%) that their relationship with students has priority over admini- strative tasks. a. Significant differences existed according to size of institution. CSPA's representing institutions with less than 1,500 students were much more supportive of the statement than were those representing insti- tutions with enrollments of 10,000 or more. 2. Chief student personnel administrators agreed (77.8%) that .counseling and discipline are interrelated responsibilities. 3. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (82.2%) that their primary commitment is to the individual needs of the student. 4. Chief student personnel administrators disagreed (75.1%) that their responsibility to the president should take precedence over personal convictions. 5. Divergence existed among chief student personnel admini- strators as 59.3% agreed that they must assume responsibility for upholding sensitive standards that cannot be specified in a code of regulations. 10. 11. 12. 66 Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (90.8%) that they must be willing to engage in open conflict with students when they disagree, even though it means jeopardizing rapport with students. Chief student personnel administrators strongly disagreed (94.0%) that they should disassociate themselves from unpopular decisions made by other administrators so as to enable students to feel that they have a "friend in court." Chief student personnel administrators agreed (76.4%) that their effectiveness is reduced by over concern with the maintenance of control and order. Divergence existed among chief student personnel admini- strators as 59.1% disagreed that they should be concerned wdth the enforcement of moral standards. a. Significant differences existed according to regional location.' Southern institutions tended to agree (57.3%) while institutions representing other regions disagreed. Chief student personnel administrators tended to agree (60.4%) that the insertion of additional staff between their office and students contributes to depersonalization in higher education. a. Significant differences existed according to type of institution, size of institution and location of~ institution. Public institutions and those insti-‘ tutions with enrollments of 10,000 and over tended to disagree with the item. CSPA's representing Southern institutions were evenly split. Those from New England institutions were most supportive in agreement. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (90.1%) that there is no justification except for considerations of safety for violating the confidentiality of a counseling relationship. Chief student personnel administrators perceived that the ; president's criteria in evaluating their effectiveness included their relationship with members of the academic . community, their administrative competence and the degree ‘ to which themeaintained control and order on the campus. 67 The Student and the Educational Process 1. Chief student personnel administrators agreed (76.7%) that the purpose of conduct regulation is to maintain control and order. Chief student personnel administrators disagreed (72.6%) that the only justification for conduct regulation is that it prohibits behavior which interferes with student growth. a. Significant differences existed according to type of institution. CSPA's representing Catholic institutions were more in agreement than others. Protestant and independent institution CSPA's indicated strongest disagreement. Chief student personnel administrators agreed (75.9%) that the behavior of members of the academic community must be restricted in special ways. a. Significant differences existed according to type of institution. Public institutions were much less supportive of the item.than were other institutions. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (98.7%) that social maturity and value development should be institutional concerns. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (90.1%) that social maturity and value development are integral to intellectual attainment. Chief student personnel administrators disagreed (78.2%) that exceptions to policy in handling student incidents constitutes reinforcement of unacceptable behavior. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (88.5%) that their attempts to protect students from "defeating experiences" may hinder student growth. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (84.6%) that they should manipulate aspects of the institutional environment in ways which support individual student development. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (88.9%) that the over delegation of responsibility to students is more desirable than under delegation. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 68 Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (89.5%) that maturity is attained through freedom to make personal decisions and to exercise citizenship rights and responsibility. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (89.0%) that provision for privacy for the individual student is essential to personalization in higher education. a. Significant differences existed according to location of institution. CSPA's representing Southern institutions were stronger in agreement with the item than other institutional representatives. Chief student personnel administrators disagreed (71.3%) that their attempts to influence students to adopt institutional values are questionable behaviors. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (85%) that procedural due process is essentially a reflection of respect and concern for the individual. Chief student personnel administrators agreed (75.1%) that students by their nature desire liberalization of campus regulations. a. Significant differences existed according to location of institution. CSPA's from New England institutions were more supportive of the item. Chief student personnel administrators strongly agreed (87.7%) that although there have been some negative results, present climate of dissent has been a positive development in higher education. ‘ a. Significant differences existed according to location of institution as New England institutions were significantly more supportive of the statement. University Governance and Decision Making 1. 2. Chief student personnel administrators strongly disagreed (88.9%) that students lack maturity to participate in top level institutional policy decisions. Chief student personnel administrators felt that the chief reason for involving students in policy decisions is that they contribute to the probability of insightful decisions. 69 The preferred rele of chief student personnel administrators in policy development in student affairs is that of determining policy in consultation with students and faculty. Chief student personnel administrators felt that in decisions regarding academic matters and employment and retention of staff that primarily faculty and administrators be involved. Chief student personnel administrators felt that in decisions regarding parietal rules (women's hours, visitation privileges, use of alcoholic beverages) and the adjudication of student social and academic conduct problems that faculty, admini- strators and students be equally involved. Chief student personnel administrators felt that in decisions regarding student activity matters primarily students be involved. Chief student personnel administrators felt that in decisions regarding institutional budget matters primarily administrators be involved. ’ CHAPTER V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The Problem It was recognized that there is little understanding by chief student personnel administrators of the personal beliefs that prompt the decisions they make. Moreover, it was felt that there is little awareness of the degree of consistency with which personal beliefs which prompt response to issues critical to the profession and to the solution of campus problems are held among chief student personnel administrators. Therefore, it was the purpose of this study to investi- gate the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administra- tors on selected contemporary issues particularly critical to their work and according to three specific dimensions. Specific purposes of the study were to: 1. Identify the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators about critical issues relating to their responsibilities and administrative behavior, to the student and the educational process and to university governance and decision making. 2. Determine differences in the assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel administrators about critical issues relating to their responsibilities and administrative behavior, to the student and the educational process and to university governance and decision making. Differences were analyzed with respect to type, size and location of institution. Methodology The investigation was conducted in conjunction with a broader research project sponsored by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. The questionnaire and the sample of chief student personnel administrators used for the NASPA project were used simul- taneously with the present investigation. 71 A questionnaire originally used in an earlier NASPA study was revised and used for purposes of this investigation. Statements in- cluded in the questionnaire consisted of contemporary issues directly affecting the role of the chief student personnel administrator. The contemporary issues were developed according to three dimensions: responsibility and administrative behavior, the student and the educa- tional process and university governance and decision making. The NASPA Division of Research and Publications, student personnel educators and research consultants assisted in the design of the questionnaire. In addition, a pilot study was conducted. Questionnaires were sent to chief student personnel administrators of the 715 colleges and universities holding membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators as of November, 1968. Sixty-four per cent of the total number of NASPA institutions partici- pated in the study. hypotheses It was the general hypothesis of the study that differences exist in assumptions and beliefs among chief student personnel administrators. It was hypothesized that these differences exist according to: type of institution, location of institution and size of institution. ‘Chi square was used to test the following null hypotheses: 1. No difference in assumptions and beliefs exist among chief student personnel administrators in public institutions, private non-denominational institutions, Catholic insti- tutions, Protestant institutions and "other" institutions. 2. No difference in assumptions and beliefs exist among chief student personnel administrators in institutions with less than 1,500 students, in institutions with from 1,500 to 5,000 students, in institutions with from 5,000 to 10,000 students and in institutions with 10,000 or more students. 72 3. No differences in assumptions and beliefs exist among chief student personnel administrators in institutions located wdthin the New England-~Middle Atlantic Accrediting Associ- ation region, within the North Central Accrediting Associ- ation region, within the Southern Accrediting Association region, and within the Western or Northwestern Accrediting Association region. Descriptive statistics (percentages) were employed in analyzing and describing assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel admini- startors according to the three dimensions of: responsibilities and administrative behavior, the student and the educational process, and quiversity governance and decision making. Findings and Conclusions The purpose of the study was to investigate the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators. It was the general hypothesis that differences exist in the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators according to type of institution, size of institution, and regional location of institution. Null hypotheses were established for the three sub-groups. It can be concluded from analysis of the data that the general hypothesis is rejected and that there is consensus of assumptions and beliefs among chief student personnel administrators on the areas examined according to type of institution, size of institution and regional location of institution. The few significant differences that did exist were not sufficient to warrant rejection of the null hypotheses. The greatest number of differences did occur according to regional location of institution. However, these differences existed in less than 19% of the items examined. 73 In addition to analysis by advanced statistical means, the data was examined through the use of descriptive statistics (percentages). The individual responses were grouped and analyzed according to the major categories of: responsibilities and administrative behavior, the student and the educational process and university governance and decision making. The more significant findings are presented according to the above noted categories. Important findings derived from analysis of the specific sub-samples are also presented and discussed. Discussion follows the listing of major findings for each category. It is important to note that the findings represent reactions by the participants at the time of the study and do not necessarily represent trends in the profession. Moreover, the findings represent the inner beliefs of the CSPA and not his practices. In addition, the findings represent only the majority View of those participating. Responsibilitygand Administrative Behavibr l. The chief student personnel administrator's primary commitment is to students. 2. Chief student personnel administrators representing larger insti- tutions tended to express less concern for personalization in student - CSPA and in student - institutional relationships. 3. Personal convictions are important to the chief student personnel administrator and should be followed even though they may be unpopular, may alienate students and may be contrary to the wishes of the preSident. 4. Counseling and discipline are felt to be interrelated respon- sibilities of the chief student personnel administrator and serve the same ends. 74 5. Except for considerations of safety, CSPA's feel that there is no justification for the violation of the confidentiality of a counseling relationship. 6. Chief student personnel administrators feel that over concern with the maintenance of control and order tends to reduce the effective- ness of the chief student personnel administrator. 7. Chief student personnel administrators are uncertain as to whether they should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. 8. Chief student personnel administrators are not certain whether the insertion of "professional staff" between themselves and students is a significant aspect of depersonalization in higher education. 9. Chief student personnel administrators are uncertain as to whether they should uphold standards not stated in a code of regulations. 10. The chief student personnel administrator perceives his effec- ‘ ‘ z 1 ,1 tiveness to be evaluated by his president on the'basis of his reputation? within the academic community, his administrative competence and the degree to which he is able to maintain control and order. With respect to their responsibilities and administrative behavior, chief student personnel administrators expressed a strong commitment to students. Administrative tasks were deemed to be of lesser importance. This finding does not support the results of a study conducted by Zook in 1968. look (1968) concluded that chief student personnel administrators spend comparatively little time with students and saw as their chief function the coordinating, planning and administering of the student personnel program. Not surprising was the fact that larger institutions tended to be less supportive than were other institutions of a primary commitment to students. The tendency for larger institution CSPA's to be perhaps 75 more impersonal and less committed to close relationships with students supports Rogers' (1963) earlier investigation.' Rogers found that student personnel deans in smaller institutions have closer relationships and do more counseling with students than their counterparts in larger institu- tions. In terms of personal style, chief student personnel administrators felt that even though their rapport with students was important, they must be willing to engage in direct and open conflict with students if they disagreed with their position. Moreover, CSPA's seemed to feel that they should not disassociate themselves from unpopular decisions made by others within the academic community, even if by doing so it would mean that students would have a "friend in court." The importance of the CSPA's personal convictions in guiding behavior is clearly indi- cated by their feeling that personal convictions should take precedence over responsibilities to their president. 7 Although chief student personnel administrators supported the notion that conduct regulation was necessary and that counseling and discipline were interrelated functions, they were sensitive to the human side of control and order. They supported the need to protect the individual through due process, the need to make exceptions to policy when in the best interes: of the student, and the importance of_dissent in the academic community. Chief student personnel administrators were uncertain about their role with reference to the enforcement of moral standards and the upholding of unspecified sensitive standards. It is interesting to note that Southern in5titution chief student personnel administrators 76 tended to evidence greater concern for the enforcement of moral standards than did CSPA's representing institutions from other regions. Although greater concern was evidenced, there was still a sizeable number of Southern institution CSPA's that did not support concern from moral standards. It is significant to note that contrary to general belief, chief student personnel administrators representing Southern institutions were not significantly different in their responses to statements contained in the questionnaire from those representing institutions in other regional locations. Although Southern institutions tended to exhibit greater concern for the enforcement of moral standards, there was not noticeable evidence which would support conservative, liberal or other tendencies which might be construed as particular to the Southern CSPA. It is interesting to note that while chief student personnel admini- strators perceive their effectiveness to be evaluated by their president on the basis of their relations with members of the academic community, their administrative competence and the degree to which they are able to maintain control and order, they do not personally include these criterion as the most important aspects of their work. In contrast, CSPA's believe that: (l) irrespective of relationships with members of the community, personal convictions should dictate their behavior, (2) their primary commitment is to the student and his needs and not to the per- formance of administrative tasks, and (3) their over concern with ’77 maintenance of control and order would result in a reduction of their effectiveness. It is clear that CSPA's tend to place personal emphasis on different aspects of their work than those which they perceive are /,,»“ being used by their president to evaluate effectivenss. Furthermore, it is interesting that while chief student personnel administrators talk about the mmportance of such factors as creative and innovative leadership and contribution to student development and assess- ment of student needs, they nevertheless feel that relatively little ‘ importance is attached to these factors by their presidents. J The fact that a relatively high number of chief student personnel administrators expressed complete unawareness of how their presidents evaluate their effectiveness supports the notion that many CSPA's really do not know what is expected of them» The Student and the Educational Process 11. Chief student personnel administrators feel that procedural due process is essentially a reflection of respect and concern for the individual. 12. Chief student personnel administrators believe that the main- tenance of reasonable control and order is the essential purpose of con- duct regulation and that an academic community is a special community reQuiring that behavior be restricted in special ways. 13. Chief student personnel administrators feel that privacy for the individual student is essential to personalization in higher education. 14. The institutional environment may be manipulated ip ways which promote the development of individual‘students. 78 15. Students should not be protected from "defeating experiences." 16. Chief student personnel administrators feel that social maturity and value development are integral to the students' intellec- tual attainment and should be of concern to the institution. 17. Student maturity is felt by chief student personnel admini- strators to be attained through freedom to make personal decisions and to exercise citizenship rights and responsibility. 18. Chief student personnel administrators feel that students, by their nature, desire liberalization of regulations. 19. Chief student personnel administrators feel that current campus dissent is good for higher education. It is clear that chief student personnel administrators agree in their beliefs on several aspects of their work with students. In the area of control, it was felt that "reasonable" control and order admini- stered in special ways because of the nature of the community is desired. Moreover, CSPA's felt that student desire for freedom was a manifestation of their nature. Although chief student personnel administrators are increasingly on the "firing line," they still highly support the notion that campus dissent is good for higher education. A comparison of the beliefs of chief student personnel admini- strators in 1969 regarding control and regulations with their beliefs as noted in the 1966 NASPA assumptions and beliefs study reveals that although they are giving less attention to conduct and regulation now, they are clearer as to their beliefs. In 1966, CSPA's expressed un- certainty about the purpose of regulations. In 1969, CSPA's clearly supported the notion that the purpose of regulations is to maintain reasonable control and order wdthin the academic community. 79 Chief student personnel administrators stressed the need for per- sonalized student experiences in higher education. Privacy for the individual student and flexibility in working with the individual student were felt to be essential ingredients of personalization. CSPA's strongly supported flexibility in the administering of policy while dealing with specific student incidents. This marks a major change from the 1966 study when CSPA's were split in their response. Based on a comparison of the results of the two studies, it is apparent that chief student personnel administrators have become more aware of the impersonalization that has resulted from the significant growth in enrollment at institutions of higher education. The notion of manipulation was well received by chief student personnel administrators especially as it applies to student develop- ment. However, as was the case in the 1966 study, chief student per- sonnel administrators felt that manipulation should not include the protection of the student from "defeating experiences." In essence, CSPA's feel in 1969 as they felt in 1966 that the student should have the freedom to fail as this can be a positive contribution to student growth. yniversity Governance and Decision Making 19. Chief student personnel administrators feel that students possess the necessary maturity for the delegation of many responsibilities, including participation in top level decision making. 20. Chief student personnel administrators feel that the inclusion of students in decision making educates students for leadership and 80 citizenship and results in more insightful decisions. 21. Chief student personnel administrators see their role in the ~ development of policy in student affairs as that of determining policy in consultation with faculty and staff. 22. Chief student personnel administrators feel that primarily faculty and administrators should be involved in decisions regarding academic matters and the employment and retention of faculty and staff. 23. Chief student personnel administrators feel that faculty, administrators and students should be involved in decisions regarding parietal rules and the adjudication of student social and academic conduct problems. 24. In decisions relating to student activity matters, chief student personnel administrators feel that students should play the dominant role. 25. Chief student personnel administrators feel that in decisions pertaining to institutional budgetary matters, administrators should be primarily involved. The results of the study indicate that the chief student personnel administrator is in the vanguard of support for community decision making including student involvement. Chief student personnel admini- strators, however, while expressing strong sentiment for greater student voice in institutional affairs, were less inclined to support full student involvement in those areas which have traditionally been delegated to specific groups within the institution and where information is generally not public. Specifically, this would include academic matters, institu- tional financial affairs, and faculty selection and retention. 81 Chief student personnel administrators stress primary student in- volvement in decisions relating to those areas normally included in what could generally be defined as the "student life area." This would include student activities and rules and regulations that govern students' social and residence hall activity. It is also clear, from the results of the study, that CSPA's see their role in decision making as part of a joint decision making process with others sharing in final decisions with either consultative or full voting privileges. The CSPA does not prefer unilateral decision making responsibilities nor does he prefer to serve in an "advice providing-~but not voting" capacity. Chief student personnel administrators with respect to academic matters tend to be consistent with the traditional response by the academic community. The academic program has been one of the hardest areas within the academic comunity for faculty and administrators to accept as a legitimate area for student involvement. Although indicating need for token student involvement particularly with respect to curriculum design, chief student personnel administrators tend to be consistent with the traditional stance taken by the academic community by supporting faculty and administrative control. A recent survey of deans' of students feelings about student involve- ‘ment in institutional decision making and governance supports the findings of this study (College Management, 1969). The survey concludes that deans support greater student voice in institutional affairs generally; however, they express doubt on full student involvanent in academic matters and selection and retention of faculty and staff. 82 While taking into consideration the full impact of the results of the present investigation, it seems clear-that CSPA's support greater freedom for students and advocate greater concern for student needs including a more significant role in institutional decision making. At the same time, they advocate for themselves a role in decision making in student affairs that is in many respects at least equal with others. There seems to be several questions that emerge as a result of findings pertaining to university governance and decision making. If the assumption can be made that CSPA's are honest in their intent to implement community involvement in decision making, particularly as it applies to the area of student affairs, then are-they also being honest with themselves in fully understanding that one of the consequences of invalvement of the community may be decisions that are totally contrary to their beliefs and philosophies? Again, with the possibility of full community involvement, can chief student personnel administrators accept a non-policy making or non-leadership role in decision making in student affairs? Are they willing to place themselves.in positions of implementing and defending decisions that may be totally inconsistent with their most revered beliefs? Indeed, are CSPA's willing to permit and support decisions that may be contrary to what they believe to be in the best interests of student development? It is not the purpose of this investigation to raise questions about the professed assumptions and beliefs of the chief student personnel admini- strators participating in this study. However, the few questions pre- sented in the preceeding paragraph point to the need for full understand- ing of the implications that assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators present for their role. 83 Implications for FUrther Research The study suggests areas for further research. First, it seems that in view of the general findings of the present investigation sub- sequent research should delimit the scope of assumptions and beliefs under consideration to correspond with one specific area of responsi- bility or concern of the chief student personnel administrator. This would allow for more in depth analysis of the area and, therefore, a fuller understanding of the beliefs that guide decision making and behavior of the chief student personnel administrator. Second, the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators should be matched with their training, age, and experience. It would seem that this could be particularly useful in the development of student personnel training programs, and in better understanding differences and similarities in the assumptions and beliefs of chief student personnel administrators. Third, the relationship of the chief student personnel administrator with his staff should be investigated more thoroughly. In addition to CSPA's learning more about their own assumptions and beliefs, it would seem important for them to know'more about how their staffs respond on critical issues and the assumptions and beliefs that they possess which serve to dictate their behavior. The degree to which the beliefs of chief student personnel administrators and their staffs mesh plays a major role in the development of viable staff-~CSPA relationships. Fourth, the degree of relationship between the beliefs of chief student personnel administrators and of others in the university community 84 on issues affecting the total university community should be investigated." Much has been said about the fact that the CSPA'd beliefs are not con- sistent with those of other members of the university community--that the CSPA is apart from the mainstream of academic community activity. The degree of compatibility of beliefs within the community would determine whether the CSPA is indeed in the mainstream.of thinking in higher education. A Fifth, the role of the chief student personnel administrator as counselor of students should be investigated more thoroughly. The results of the study indicate that chief student personnel administrators are unsure of the degree of responsibility they should assume for counseling of students. Sixth, the role of the chief student personnel administrator in the enforcement of moral standards should be investigated. Considerable divergence existed in the present study as to whether the CSPA should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. Seventh, the degree of consistency between the beliefs of the chief 0/” student personnel administrator and the manner in which he actually re- sponds should be studied. The results of the present study raise the question whether conclusions of studies such as this portray a true picture of the CSPA in action or‘merely of the CSPA in thought? ‘Moreover, do the results of the work of chief student personnel administrators on their campuses support the beliefs that they profess? It would seem that investigation of these questions would be useful to the profession. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Acheson, Eunice. The Personal and Professional Characteristics of Deans of Women. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1932. American Council on Education. Accredited Institutions of Higher Education. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, February, 1969. Ayers, Archie, Trip, Philip, & Russel, John. Student Services Administration in Higher Education. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. vBailey, Walter R. "The Changing Role of the Dean of Men in American Higher Education: an Analysis of Influencing_Factors."Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1968. v/Elaesser, Willard.Student Personnel Work in the Postwar College. Washington: American Council on Education. Series VI, 6, 1945. Blaesser, Willard. The Future of Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Madison, Wisconsin: The university of Wisconsin Press, 1949. College Management. "Governing a College: How Much Should Students Have to say?" College Management, May, 1969, 30 - 39. Corsell, Paul T. "Student Personnel Workers on the Spot." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Fall, 1962, 232 - 237. Cottingham, Harold. ”Roles, Functions and Training Levels for College Student Personnel Workers." Personnel and Guidance Journal, May, 1955, 534 - 538. DeFarrari, Roy. College Organization and Administration. Washington: The Catholic University Press, 1959. Dutton, Thomas, Appleton, James, & Birch, Edward. "An Investigation of Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Community: a Preliminary Report." Unpublished report of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1969. Dutton, Thomas. UResearch Needs and Priorities in Student Personnel Work." Unpublished position paper of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators - Division of Research and Publications, 1968. 86 87 Dykes, Archie. Faculty Participation in Academic Decision Making. Washington: American Council ongEducation, 1968. Fitzgerald, Laurine. "A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Functions." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, HHchigan State University, 1959. Greenleaf, Betty. ”How others See Us." Journal of College Student Personnel, July, 1968, 225 - 231. Hawks, Herbert. Through a Dean's Qpen Door; A Guide for Students, Parents and Counselors. , Institute for Student Personnel Administrators. "Approaches to the Study of Administrators in Student Personnel work." Institute for Student Personnel Administrators. Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1960. Johnson, Walter, "Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Services." unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College,l968. Kennane, Mary. "Evolving Role of Deans of Students." Catholic Educational Review, Sept., 1963, 403 - 407. Kirk, Barbara. "Identity Crises." unpublished address to American Personnel and Guidance Association Convention, Minneapolis, April, 1965. Klopf, Gordon..(Ed.) College Student Personnel in the Years Ahead. Washington: American College Personnel Association, Student Personnel Series No.7, 1966. Leonard, Eugenie As Origins of Personnel Services in American Higher Education, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1959. / ”Long, Lawrence. Evolution of the Dean of Students." Journal of Higger Education, October, 1944, 383 - 384. Mayhew, Lewis. Higher Education in the Revolutionary Degades. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp.,1968. Mueller, Kate. Student Personnel work in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Proceedings-- Forty-Eighth Anniversary Conference. Seattle: National.Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1966. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Division of Research and Publications. "An Exploratory Investigation of Selected Assumptions and Beliefs of Student Personnel Administrators: A.Preliminary Report." unpublished report , The Hational.Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1966. 88 Perry, Richard. "Administrative Behavior and the Vice President for Student Affairs." The NASPA Journal, October, 1966, 7S - 79. Reynolds, William. "The Role of the Chief Student Personnel Officer in the Small Liberal Arts College."Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Rogers, Allan. "An Investigation of the Critical Aspects of the Function of the Student Personnel Dean as seen by his Professional Peers Using the Critical Incident Technique." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Sellers, Daniel, & Peder, Daniel. "Attitudes of General and Student Personnel Administrators Toward Student Probleme." Journal of College Student Personnel, March, 1964. Shaffer, Robert. "Issues and Problems in the Organization, Administration and Development of College Student Personnel Programs in the Years Ahead."College Student Personnel in the Years Ahead. No. 7, 1966, l - 9. Shaffer, Robert, & Martinson, William. Student Personnel Services in Higher Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1966. United States Department of Labor. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Third Edition. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965. United States Department of Labor. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Second Edition. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955. Upcraft, M. Lee. "Role Expectations for Chief Student Personnel Administrators in Large Universities." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. nil/Willey, Harold. "The Role of the Dean of Men in Institutions of Higher Learning." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennesee, 1959. Williamson, E.G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw - Hill 00., 1961. Williamson, E.G., & Cowan, John. The American Student's Freedom of Expression. Minneapolis: The Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1966. P/Eook, Fredric. “A Comparative Study of the Chief Student Personnel Administrators in Public two and Four year Colleges of the Midwest." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1968. APPENDIX A Participants in the Pilot Study 90 O.D. Roberts Dean of Men Purdue University Mark W. Smith Dean of Men Denison University Earl W. Clifford Dean of Student Affairs Rutgers University 'Peter H. Armacost President Ottawa University Richard Siggelkow Vice President for Student Affairs State university of N.Y. - Buffalo Carl W. Knox Dean of Students Florida Atlantic University Richard E. Hulet Vice President for Student Services Illinois State University Gilbert G. MacDonald Vice President for Student Affairs Northeastern university Preston Parr Dean of Student Life Lehigh University Arden 0. French Dean of Men Louisiana State university Chester Peters Vice President for Student Affairs Kansas State university John W. Truitt Vice President for Student Affairs Indiana State University Channing'Briggs Dean of Students Portland State College Stanley Benz Dean of Students San Jose State College ‘Merrill C. Beyerl Vice President for Student Affairs Ball State University John L. Blackburn Dean for Student Development university of Alabama Wfllliam.A. Yardley Dean of Students university of Houston T. Roger Nudd Dean of Students California State College Glen W. Johnson Dean of Students Augsburg College Harold Lavender Vice President for Student Affairs University of New Mexico APPENDIX B Questionnaire 92 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS Division of Research and Publications AN INVESTIGATION OF ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS OF SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY FORM A The purpose of this study is to gather data on basic assumptions and beliefs of selected members of the academic community regarding significant issues and concerns in higher educa- tion. The data collected should help institutions gain greater understanding of some of the sources of conflict and differences in position among members of the academic community, and how colleges and universities might respond more effectively to campus problems and strengthen their contributions to student development. An important dimension of the study focuses on perceptions held by members of the aca- demic community concerning the chief student personnel officer's role and functions, and his assumptions and educational orientation. It is hoped that information of this type will offer a point of reference for institutions as well as student personnel administrators in evaluat- ing the activities and practices of student personnel administrators, how they respond to cam- pus issues and how they might more effectively participate in the learning process. So that respondents may feel free to be frank in their expressions, be assured that you will remain anonymous. When you have completed the instrument, please return it to Dr. Thomas B. Dutton, Direc- tor, NASPA Division of Research and Publications, 202 Wilson Hall, Oakland University, Roches- ter, Michigan. In view of the importance of the data to institutions and to student personnel adminis- trators, your cooperation in providing the information requested would be greatly appreciated. 1. Title of person completing this questionnaire . 2. Type of institution: Public Liberal Arts College Public University Independent Liberal Arts College Independent University Catholic Institution Protestant Institution Teachers College Technical Institution 3. Total Enrollment: Less than 1,500 1,500 to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 More than 10,000 4. Regional Accrediting Association: New England or Middle Atlantic North Central Southern Western or Northwestern llll DIRECTIONS: Please respond to each statement by placing an (X) in the appropriate box denoting whether you agree or disagree with the statement. You should respond from the perspective of how you personally feel about the statement. Please note that the title "Dean of Students," for purposes of this study, is synonomous with "Chief Student Personnel Administrator." 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. The dean of student's availability and personal relationships with students should consistently take priority over the performance of administrative tasks. Basically, counseling and discipline are interrelated responsibilities of the dean of students and serve the same ends. The dean of student's primary commitment should be to the individual needs of the student. The dean of student's responsibilities to the president should consistently take precedence over his personal convictions. The dean of students is responsible for upholding certain standards which be- cause of their sensitive nature cannot be stated in a Specific code of regulations. Even at the risk of jeopardizing his rapport with students, the dean of stu- dents must be willing to engage in direct and open conflict with them if he disagrees with their position on an issue. In the interest of enabling students to feel that they have a "friend in court," it is important for the dean of students to disassociate himself from unpopular decisions made by the president, business manager, or academic dean. The dean of student's effectiveness is reduced by over concern with the maintenance of control and order. In much of what he does, the dean of students should be concerned with the enforcement of moral standards. The essential purpose of conduct regulations is to maintain reasonable con- trol and order in the academic community. A significant aspect of depersonalization in higher education is the ten- dency of the dean of students to allow and to encourage the inserting of more "professional staff" between himself and students. The only justification for student conduct regulation is that it prohibits behavior which interferes with student growth and development. Since an academic institution is a community established for a Specific purpose the behavior of the members of that community must be restricted in Special ways. The institution should be concerned with the social maturity and value development of the individual student. INDICATE HOW YOU PERSONALLY FEEL ABOUT THE STATEMENT. YES NO [:1 YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES [EMEI YES NO YES NO [:1 YES NO EEC] YES NO CECE YES NO [3C3 YES NO YES NO [SE] YES NO INDICATE HOW YOU PERSONALLY FEEL ABOUT THE STATEMENT. 15. Social maturity and value development are integral to the student's intellectual attainment . [:3 YES NO 16. Exceptions to policy in the handling of specific student incidents are likely to constitute the reinforcement of unacceptable behavior. YES NO 17. Attempts by the dean of students to protect the student from "defeating experiences" may actually hinder student growth. YES NO 18. The dean of students should consciously attempt to manipulate certain as— pects of the institutional environment in ways which support or promote [:::] [:::] development of individual students. YES NO [9. Within the context of obvious individual differences in student ability and ' maturity, it is more desirable to err in the direction of over delegation [:::J [:::J of responsibility to students rather than in the direction of under delegation. YES NO 20. Students attain maturity to the extent that they are left free to make per— sonal decisions and to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizen— [:::] [:::] ship in the academic community. , YES N0 21. An essential ingredient for personalization in higher education is provi- sion for privacy of the individual student. [:::] [:::3 YES NO 22. Except for considerations of safety, there is no justification for the dean of students to violate the confidentiality of a counseling relationship. [:::] YES NO 23. Attempts by deans of students to influence students to adopt values held to be important by the institution are questionable behaviors. YES NO 24. The essential ingredients of procedural due process are nothing more than a natural expression of the college's respect and concern for the individual [:::] [:::] student. YES NO 25. Students by their nature desire liberalization of campus regulations. YES NO 26. Students should not be involved in top level institutional policy deci— sions because they lack sufficient maturity. YES NO 27. Although the results have been unfortunate in some instances, the present climate of dissent represents a significant positive development in higher education. YES NO 28. Rank in order of importance (l=most important) the following reasons for involving students in policy decisions: a. Contribute to the probability of insightful decisions. b. Educate students for leadership and citizenship. c. Satisfy the student's need for involvement and identification. d. Lessen the possibility of student-administrative confrontation. -4- 29. What role should the dean of students perform in the development of policy in the area of student affairs? (Check one.) a. Provide advice but not vote. b. Participate as a voting member of a campus governance body. c. Determine policy in consultation with students and faculty. d. Determine policy without any requirement to consult with students and faculty. 30 - 31 DIRECTIONS: Indicate by checking the appropriate box, the degree to which you feel various members of the campus community should be involved in selected areas of decision making. Use the following code: O‘U‘IL‘WNH 30. Involvement in decisions affecting: a. Curriculum design. b. Visitation regulations for residence halls. c. Women's hours. d. Academic grading practices. e. Use of alcoholic beverages. f. Employment and retention of faculty and administrative staff. 3. The institution's budget. h. Student government and activities. 1. Student publications and procedures related therein. j. Academic standing. k. Allocation and expenditure of student activity fees. 31. Adjudication of: a. Student social conduct problems. b. Student academic dishonesty. Primarily student Primarily administrative . Primarily faculty Joint faculty-administrative with §g_student Primarily faculty-administrative with some student . Joint faculty-student-administrative 1 2 3 4 5 6 BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBDB BBBBBB 32. What criteria do you feel that your president uses to evaluate your effectiveness. Please return to Thomas B. Dutton, Director of Research and Publications, NASPA, 202 Wilson Hall, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan 48063. APPENDIX C Cover Letter Sent to Chief Student Personnel Administrators Nam “HE I'vm an H' :IUIZ '1 ‘32“! ' i123!" w, In (We'll “M 'A' in: t “in!!! ‘ .nirvuit, ' wwwn r - mu w Iran w {mm 1 h Lt...“ I, 3. iii H i‘rr INA: (huh. h FLUSH .1.- Zj-u.‘ u: l .5]? \ 'E'LY" 13.1.1)”, 5! l e?“ 1. HM ‘fmpm 3m: >‘. n» U Enrfisrr (HI. Firm <. Few M“. it) \jii "lie rm . Ni ii «R £31m; .fi. lime“ R Venn! kid‘s; ELRFHT ‘fl il‘r. m} ‘3’Fkil L m 3‘ . . an i .1. “an 1 Notional Association ot btudent t’ersonnet Administrators (IHE ASSOCIATION OF DEANS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF STUDENT AFFAIRS FOUNDED IN I919) ____._..-~.__ - ... -~.—.—.:--.-:-=-..-- - s. .-:-:;.:;-.~'sis:=r* Wm_.r-:=:rr+f-:‘—=:-~ * .. -._ --+ ._._.__..._ l a w. 9..-- I‘rnntrnt n. n. mutants 95 than of Men I (Purdue 'l hirinraibyqo’ 4a ayrtte, It: runs - I'n-mlrutllrn'mmtr November 18, 1968 MARK W. SMITH “can at Mon "(llt'tflfl University (Srnttvitlr, ”hi0 4.10.33 t 'uttltrrm r ('01 'hm‘n mart PilARLI'I' W. ("IJI'X‘EDRD km: 0 Stu: rllt airs Rutgers University T0: NASPA mmbers New ltrttnswu‘k, New Jersey 08903 I'I'L‘I'ER II. AllhlAt'US'l' - . ()ttr:;mlm:rrsity Q 4;," ”I 5 W ‘t""“':§i§2??ft'wf'7 FROM: Thomas B. Dutton, Director VAN-$1.32!?.2!‘.é‘.‘..':.'.‘.'.‘.‘ft}’na.. Division of Research and Publications State University at New York lhtflalo. New York 142” t‘rmtrollrr 't. non MARSH n}.'.'.‘.;°§':'.f.’. $133333?” In January 1966, the Division of Research and Publications 13:333.?}‘i.'.'..'.":}'-'..'.35?i. initiated a study of the convictions and values of student fufifl‘fivjnmm . personnel administrators. Using this study as a foundation, .3313 3,',:;"".r:;..‘.'.'.2'§.{21:2' the division has developed a new investigation dealing with mf.’i'f(.3§"{.;f’fi'{fifm- the assumptions and beliefs of not only student personnel w"'ifi'iit'ainat'fi;‘i'v'xi'ffl.g;‘;"'madministrators but also other members of the academic comunity. 32mm}°,,',!,'.‘,"‘,'.‘:,f,-']};,',, The purpose of the study is to gain insight. into the convictions Gum-RT“flufmmn, and value orientations that determine how selected members of the ““"mi'k'"'"fs'm'emMW" academic community respond to important issues in higher education. Northeastern University “W°""',“;W""'¢m The inquiry is based on the premise that regardless of academic ,{c’fffffgmdgfifk training or background administrators, faculty and students, with Mbkgfiixgcgfjmg‘ti; mm varying degrees of awareness, make assumptions and hold beliefs “MIN {fwmm that influence behavior and responses to campus problems. Knowl- "ran 6‘1“"? ' edge of these assumptions and beliefs should assist institutions Louisiana State University a..." Rounxe.,lp:nisia--a7ntios in gaining a better understanding of some of the sources of cunsmzn n. versus conflict and differences in position among members of the academic Vice President for Student Affairs KnnsnaStntcUniversity community and how institutions might deal more effectively with Manhattan. Kansas 4.4.50.2 . . ’ campus difficulties. 101”! \V. TRUITT ' Vice President tnr Stmlrnt Aflairs Indiana State University Trrrcltsntc.ltulinna~t7809 Another important dimension of the study focuses on the percep- I’I cummm: tmmcs tions that others in the institution have of the student personnel we'r'fiililJ’fsg'cgdégfi'm. administrator. It seems clear that various factions on the campus ""'“"d"""'"°""7“'7 perceive him in different ways and that it is important for him to “3.2.? 2:213sz be aware of those perceptions that might interfere with his ability 353.“?.12;‘°.-§.‘.°}:;.S:'5;5r.. to assist students in their personal, intellectual, and social manninnuzl‘3557.55.13.12’1'3},.,,,.-,,,,,,-,,,development. It is our hope that increased knowledge of such v,“fi'.l‘;.'f,§§fi,',;",,,‘,"Sfififi,f,f§“,{}hm perceptions will provide insights that will be of value to insti- ,fijfi'f,if“:f",'fi;:§;°;;‘,‘,{6 tutions and deans of students in evaluating the activities and P'""”"“"'."fig;f;;""*‘““ practices of student personnel administrators, how they respond to .Sta 1mm l.. "LACKUURN o the learnin Deat‘t’fantmlt-ntf m.....,...,,,,, issues, and how they might more effectively contribute t g ni .1 AH»: ‘ Univcgirty',yA?aIuntn'h 3:?“ process ° It‘rsmnlt and Publirutinu THOMAS n. DU’I‘TON rc“"“fi:'nc";‘g"=d"'fflimte In the packet of material that you have received, instruments have a 0 . tl t'lIl nmflfifl'f'hfi'figgiggm been provided for you, your president, a faculty member holding 11mm»: I'rnmutrl and Smite: WILLIAM A. YARDLEY "can of Students University of Houston llostston. Texas 77004 Almbnr- ut- [mac 1'. "(KERR NUIH) Executive ('onunittce Secretary "can of Students Wanna State ('ntlm at Functi- I'ullrrton. California 926.“ JAMES DULL Arjuna "an of Students Gut-ma Institute at ch Atlanta. Coaxial 30332 cm." w. unseat ' ream" m ung ate]. awareamna. II: t . ge ° Emma.“ 'f‘ffl’kfi‘“ 5 1st Anniversary Cont J H N l ' n I C an VhJ'tc-ai-km for Student Alain a .1 , a e c a nan 96 NASPA Members -2- November 18, 1968 the highest or a high elected position in your faculty senate or comparable body, the editor of your student newspaper, and the president of your student body. I would like to request that the envelope containing the inStrument be given directly to each of these persons, that you explain the purpose of the study to them, and that you ask them to return the instrument directly to me in the self- addressed envelope provided. The success of the study depends on a good return from them; accordingly, your direct contact and encouragement is most vital. I would like to request that you record the names and addresses of the persons .to whom you give the packets on the enclosed card. This will permit us to communicate directly with the persons listed if we do not hear from them. ,It is our hope that the data will be received in time to permit the prepara- tion of a report for the NASPA meeting in New Orleans. Your help would be greatly appreciated. .TBD/mm Enclosures APPENDIX D Follow Up Card Sent to Chief Student Personnel Administrators 98 T0: NASPA Members FROM: Thomas B. Dutton, Director, Division of Research and Publications If you have not returned the questionnaire used in the assump- tions and beliefs research, please do so as soon as possible. Would you please also contact your president, student body president, student newspaper editor, and the faculty member who received the questionnaire to determdne if their forms have been returned. To date the return has been good, but more forms must be secured to make the data most worthwhile. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. January 6, 1969 mm APPENDIX E Response of Chief Student Personnel Administrators According to Type, Size and Location of Institution 100 .num.u ow loco-nu. uo snowmen n mow: eucnuuuaawae mo Ho>e~ no. one us: x we osfis> one .souuauaunca no down.» was on“. you « .mw¢.m s cm a o e>o . one as N o os~w> one .eoauauau-aa me some you a“ sooesuu uo snowman a new: no: can“ a u a H no a u unsouuacuam I a «.mu m.os away-es N.¢~ m.n~ . muosusom ¢.s~ o.- . .asuuaoo :uwoz ~mo.o m.a~ ~.ns woodman new . nouns“ o.mn ¢.~o o>oa¢ can ooo.oH Tau 12 822 3 8o.“ 92 oi 8o; 3 8n; «mm~.o~ m.o~ ~.a~ cem.u can» econ seam o.e~ o.cm useuo n.o~ m.an usau-ououm m.- n.- ouaosu-o m.- ~.wm uaomaodovan Nem.m ~.~m m.no caspam sexy mmzommmm mgmzem i mam ~.o~ m.mn someones“ ass mo uses no» N usoo pom ammo was N ooumoaan oouw< .mxmmu m>aumauchHEnm mo mommauowaam one uo>o zuwuoaum exmu maucoumamaoo canosa aucovaum seas emanacouumaou ammomuom mam xuwaanmfiwm>m a.ucom=um mo ammo sea .H nausea-um 101 no snowmen n new: oocaoauwcmao mo Ho>oH no. one on .naw.n ow aovoouu x no osma> on» .aouusuauaca mo aoawou was on“. pom N .mw¢.m «a sovoouu mo noouwov a saws oocaoamacmaa «0 ~o>sa mo. ago an N «0 soau> one .eOauauwuuca mo some new N unmouuacmam I * aumu o.nm auouuo3 m.- n.- ,auosusom . ~.mH m.om anuucoo :uuoz mmm H m mu ~.q~ .vsaawcm 3oz couwox oHNN H.5n o>ons can ooo.o~ m.o~ use 23.2 8 806 . fix 3: 8°.“ 3 8m; mmN n mN 5.05 cow.“ cane smog seam anon o.mu uozuo m.mH H.¢w ucmuaauoum mam «.8 0:238 . . 0.0m uasvsoaovcH mwn n m NN ~.~m uaapam same mmzommmm mamzdw i mam 11‘ N.N~ w.nn neocoomom gas mo ammo new x acoo Ham ucoo use N seawaaao oouw< swam one mo mmwuafifinamcommou woumaouumucH oum.oea~mwom«v was wcaammesoo .mHHmuawmm 4N acoawuaum .mmmm mama ecu m>umm mam mucomaum wo 102 .nHm.s aw someouu mo nooumov n new: oucnoHuchHu mo Ho>oH no. use an x mo ome> ecu .cowuauwuncu mo :oneu was ouH. How « .wms. a -H sovoouu mo nooumov a euHs eucaUHchmHe mo He>oH no. emu an N mo oaHe> ecu .coHu=UHun:H uo ammo you « unnuauchHm I I. «.mu m.o~ anon-ea H.H~ m.mn ehosusom . «.9H m.mm Huuucuu nuuoz oHa o m.mH H.0m vamecN sex conoM m.mH . m.Hm asap» was ooo.oH s.nH o.sm coo.oH cu coo.“ . ~.H~ m.ma coo.m as con.H HHm H m.mH ~.am cem.H case noon «sum «HoH w.mm wonuo m.nH H.em ucauoououm m.o~ H.mm oHHosuoo . a NH o.~m uaovcomovcu mNH m H.o~ m.m~ uwannm ease, mmzommmm mqmzHmcH mzu OD on vHaosm ucmsuuHEEou humeHum m.muemm:um no case «as .m uaoaouuum 103 .nHm.s aw aovooum mo noouwav m and: eucauHuchHu mo Ho>oH no. one an N we oaHu> any .aouusuauucH no dogma» was oan.uom N .mma.m .H savanna mo snowman a euHs oocsuHmHemH- no Ho>oH no. emu as N no osHo> on» .eoHusuuu-ea uo sumo you a A acauauacmHm i s w.Hm «.mH spouses a.no o.~m anonusom m.mu ~.o~ Hauucoo nuuoz. oho.m o.m~ t o.H~ uschau_ssz aoHuom m.mo. H.om o>ope was ooo.oH ~.oe m.mm ooo.oH as coo.“ m.ah m.o~ coo.n ou.oon.H mao.o m.m~ ~.H~ oom.H easy snag . auHm o.~a o.m~ nocuo m.m~ m.o~ urea-ououm m.mm ~.oH owHocueo o.on H.mN unaccomovcn oao.¢ o.~u o.m~ oHHnam some mmzommmm mamzcoo Hchmuom a“: uo>o moconoomum oxuu zHucoumHmcoo vHaoSm pamvaoum use Ou mmHuHHHnHmcommmu m.ucovsum no menu sea .e nausea-um 104 .nHw.n ow abvoowu uo aeouwov m sea: oocaonHawHo no Ho>oH no. use us x no oaHn> one .aoauauauacH mo aonou can ouHa Mom a .mms.m uH aocooum mo noouwov a suaz eocsuHuchHo mo Ho>oH no. ecu u. N no oaHo> on» .coHusuHuncH «0 new» you , « acouHmHawam i s mime n.0n abouuoa oJHe «.mm auosusom 0.0a o.oo Huuusoo :uuoz mom.o ~.am m.oo mauHmam 3oz :onoM o.om «.me o>ona was ooo.oH «.ms 0.0m ooo.oH as coo.n m.o¢ n.mm ooo.m cu oom.H smH.s s.sm o.ma cem.H can“ once ouHm m.Hn H.wo uoxuo o.mm o.Ho ucmuuououm m.¢m “.mm oHHonueo o.oa o.oo uaomcoaomcH oom.n ~.as m.~m oaHasm some wmzommmm mamz¢m i mam n.0e m.mm noncoanom HHo «0 uses ham x uaoo new aeoo use N osuwouHo oouw< .mcoHumszmu mo omoo OHMHoomm m cH veumum on access maven: m>HuHmcmm uHmcu mo wmsmomn suHs3 mnamncmum chuumo wchHonas you mHnHmcomwou mH mucmvSum mo came any .n ucoamumum 105 .mHo.n nu some-nu x no oaHu> on» .eoHusuauncH mo acumen was onus you mo snowman n suds socioauaewwo uo Hs>oH no. sea as." .mme.a so an a o o>o 0. one an N no oaHu> one .coHuauHuosH no same you a« someouu mo ooouwom a new: so: HuH H u H H n « ucauHuHsuHm I a «.mH m.hm . changes a.“ n.~m auonuaom o.m o.Hm H-uueoo nuuoz nwm.o w.o N.om vs-chu sex aonom a.w o.Ho o>oas use ooo.oH Q: can 893 3 80.... «.2 0.3 So; 3 8n; wom.H m.n m.~m cem.H coca neoH ouHm ~.oH m.aw nonuo o.o o.¢m ucuuoououm o.mH o.uw uHHogueo o.n ¢.~a unomcooovcH qu.~ m.¢ H.om oHHpsm some mmzommum.mnmz4m i mam; 111 . ~.m m.oa , concedoom HHa mo were new x uaoo new acoo use N souwsaun oouw< .msuuH an no coHuHuod uHonu nuHs moouwmmHv on MH amen sues uoHHmaoo memo was uomaae :H owmweo ou mcaHst up nose ouaovsua mo euov one .auaoosum nqu uuoddau aHe maHuavawmomn mo meu sea as co>m .o nausea-um 106 .mHm.N nu savanna uo asouwou n new: oucsoauchH- no Ho>oH no. can on N no 09H.» one .aouuauHuecH mo :onou new ouHu you . N .mm¢.m eH aovooum no oooumuv e suHs oocoUHmHamNu «0 Ho>oH no. on» on N no osHu> one .aoHuauHuacH uo some you , N “aquamaawam i s wnHm N.w anon-ea n.ma N.o anoeuoom . H.aa m.n Hnuuaeo :uwoz mNN H m mm H.q vaoncm 302 :onom Numm m.a o>ops use ooo.oH e.ma s.o ooo.oH ou coo.“ . n.nm m s coo.m as oom.H ace H a Na «.5 con.H seen some ouHm ouom o.¢ nonuo o.¢m 0.0 acounuuoum o.Nm ¢.N oHHonuuo . ¢.¢m o.n unaccomovcH NNo m mm N.o ouHaam oohw mmzommum ugmzms menu umsu Homm ou mace .uowmama mmmcHasn .ucoeHmoua one nausea mo came one now ucmuuomeH vane waHHnmco mo ummuouaH msu :H .N ucaaouuem 107 .nHo.N nu abalowm mo essence n suds socioauaawae mo Ho>eH we: as» an N no esHe> on» .soausuau-aH mo conon man ouHo non . « .mae.a so am a o o>e . a u an o as w> ecu .coausuwunaa mo some now .a savanna «o .ooumun s anus on: sea a a H H «o a «u a H acquaaaauam i s m.oH, N.nm ensues: H.Hn . m.wo auoeuoom N.ON n.aN ,. Hnuucoo nuuoz 00¢.m o.oN o.¢m .vamuwcm 332 conom n.0N m.mn o>onm ecu ooo.o~ H.m~ «.05 coo.oH on coo.“ ~.n~ m.a~ ooc.n as oom.H one. H.¢N m.na oom.H eons snag «saw o.on o.oN nonuo N.MN m.oN oceanououm m.HH ~.mm oaHoguuo m.aN N.ON ucomaonovcH NNH.m m.MN m.on Ouannm came Nmzommmm u4m24m.i mam aoaaooaom HHQ no uaoo uom o.n~ s.o~ x uaoo ham econ use N souwuaHa ooum< .aovuo cam Houuaoo mo soaaaouaHma ecu nuHa aumoaoo um>o an vmosmmu uH acoao>auosmmo m.ucmmsua mo dame sea .w uaoemuaum 108 no usauwov n :uHs oucaoHuchHu mo Ho>oH no. emu an uH Bovooum mo noouwov a nuHs oocuoHMHcmHu mo Ho>oH no. one an N .nHw.N aw savanna x No oaHa> one .aoHusuHuncH mo conou was ouH- uom .mw¢.m N no oaHo> one .coHuauHuocH No name new usaoaaacwam i « H.wo m.Hm chooses N.N¢ m.Nm cuesuaom . H.om m.o¢ Huuucoo nuuoz «Nmm mH H.oo m.mm oconcu soz . aonom mnmo m.om opens can ooo.oH m.He N.wm ooo.oH ou coo.n . a an m.o¢ ooo.n as con.H HHm n o.Nn o.me cem.H case noon oan HHNm m.N¢ nonuo o.N¢ o.mm ecsuaououm m.mm N.Hq oHHonuoo . m.No H.Nm usovaonowcH mMN N o ac 0.0m oNHnam mama mmzommmm mqmzoH no. on» an x no oaHs> one .ooHusuauncH mo conou can ouHa uom N .ome.m .a someone so .ouumon e nus: coauuamaama. we HossH no. one a. x no osHus as“ .cOauauHuaca no «say can « acauauaawam i * NHaN . w.oN ease-ea m.mH N.om . anonusom . H.mN a.oN Huuueoo suuoz mam H a NN o.NN. vaeHmam aez aonom mHnN H.¢N o>ons was ooo.oH o.nN ¢.¢N . ooo.oH cu ooo.m . N.om n.m~ ooo.n ou oon.H com m H mH m.Hw oom.H case some , ouHm oHoN o.ow noeuo m.nN N.en ucsuoououm m.mm N.aN uHHoeuao . m.Hm . uaomeooo an HHo m m.NN m.NN omesm oaha mmzomwum MANZ¢¢ i now aeocodoom HHo mo aces sum n.mN N.on x uaoo use ”coo use N seams-HQ oouw< .huucsasoo oHaoumum may cH Macao can Houucoo oHnmeOmmou chuchE cu m« meoNumHawmu uonmaoo mo wmomusm HmHucwmmm mnH .oH unmaououm 110 .mnw.h ow abvooum No oesumov n new: soauoauchHu mo Ho>oH no. one u. N no ean> one .aoHuauHuucH mo seamen mas oan uom N .mw<.m oH aovosuu mo snowmen a no“: cocooHuuemHa mo Ho>oH no. can u. Nu mo oaHo> on» .coHuauHummwuwwammmw you A . ' spouses m.oa H.mm unusuaom o.om 0.0m Huuueou nuuoz . H.Nn m.No vcmHmam sea 3 .3 . a m . um N . $ scams” «Hmm ouqe o>onw can ooo.c~ fine m 3 89.2 3 8o.“ . m mm N.oo coo.n ou oon.H « Hue oH m.Nn m.No oom.H cone sued . . .ouHm onmm o.No wonuo m.Hm N.wo ucmuuououm e.Nm o.Nc ouHoauso . H «n m.no uaowsooowaH smoH MH o.om ¢.m¢ oannm mama mmzommmm mamzem i mam r» o.mm ¢.oo ouuaomaom HHn mo uses new x ucoo Mom econ use N ouuwaan oouwt .mucmmsum was mHomENe awesome :mmmum Hmconmmmoum: muoe mo waHuummcH any ammuaouom on man soHHm ou muammaum no case use mo mocomcmu ecu mH coHumoamm HosmHn :H doaumNHHmcomuommv mo uooamm acmonwcme m. .HH unoaeuuum 111 no eooumou n sums,oo:ioHuHeuHu no Ho>oH no..o:u as ea aovoouu mo aoouwov a suds ooaooHuHamNn uo.Ho>oH no. one u- .nHm-N e«.aovoouu x no oaHe> one .eoHusuHu-cH uo coamou was and. you N .mmc.o AM no osHes any .aoHuauuueaa uo same no» N acooauucmam I s 11 «:2 RS 53:: a.nN H.0N unusuaom fun «.8 H3353 fiuoz HmH.o n.HN N.wN caeHwam 3oz . coumom n.NN N.NN o>onw was ooo.oN «.2 «.2 823 3 8o.“ N.HN w.mN ooo.n ou can.” NmH.H m.HN n.wN oom.u away mood ouHm ¢.mw o.¢H _uonuo n.¢N n.0N unannououm m.oo N.mn oHHosuuo o.mn ¢.¢N uaovcoaevcn soNN.NH w.mo m.Hm oNanm 0959 mmzommmm mqmz¢m i mam o.NN ¢.NN noncommmm HHw mo ucou Hum x ucou as» uaoo use N commean oouw< .uamaaon>mv can nuaoum ucmmsum saws mmummuwuaH soHna u0H>m£on uanHnoum uH umsu «N GOHumHaweu uoavcou uaaosum now coHumonwumsfl mHoo mnH .NH uaeaououm 112 .mHm.N nu aovoauu mo assumes n new: oocauHuHawHu mo Hu>oH no. one an x no o=Ho> ecu .coNuauHuncH mo cowwou use ouHe you N .mmc.m .a Because no .uoumuc a nun: «ocuoauacwa. «o Ho>aH no. on“ a. x no osHos «as .:0au=aau.ca «a use” can N usuoauacmam i a 0.6m ¢.mo abouuok N.0N m.mN auosusom . m.NN N.NN Huuucou suuoz owN N o.oN o.¢N maeHmau soz coumom o.mN ¢.¢N o>ono was ooo.oH a.~n H.~o ooo.oH on coo.n . H oN m.ma coo.n o» con.H «Ha a N.NH m.~m con.H saga ..oa «sum ¢.NN o.NN noguo N.mH m.¢w unannououm o.o~ s.a~ uHHosunu . N.ON w.mm ucevcoaovcH smnm 0H m.Nm m.no oufinsm mama Mmzommmm wAMZ4m i mam H.¢N m.mN noncooaem HHe mo econ new x ucou uom ucoo was N oouwmoHn souwm .mama HmHuodw cH kuoauumou on umaa muHcaasoo umsu mo muonswa use no uoH>esop one mmomusd oHMHuwdm w you vmanHnmumm muHcoeaoo m mH aoHusuHumcH uaEmvmom cm much .2 unease-um 113 _.mHm.N nu Bovoouw no nooumov n nuHs soauoHuchH. mo.Ho>oH no. one on .N no eaHn> on» .aoHuauHuacH mo aoamou was ouH. uom N .mwc.m «H aovoouu no neouwov c nuHs soc-onchHe uo Ho>oH no. one an N uo ooHo>.o:u .eoHuauHuacH mo some now N acouHmacmam i s oHN o.ma cuouuos H.H m.wm caucusom . H.H o.ma Huuucoo euuoz mom 0 o H ¢.wm vauHmsm 302 conom one ouooH o>op¢ can ooo.oH o.N a.Na ooo.oH ou coo.m Nm¢.m M.W w.Nm ooo.n ou oom.H a mo cem.H saga noon swam ono o.OOH useuo o.o c.00H acme-ououm M.M m.wa oHHocueo . N.cm ueovsoosvan NNa a N.H m.wm oansm some mmzommmm mannem i mam m.H N.wm seasonaom HHe no ucoo new x ucoo pom ucoo you N ooummaan oouw4 .ucmvoum HmavH>HmcH one no pcmEQOHm>mv mnHm> new quusums HmHuom may nqu umcumucou mp mHaosm coHusuHumcH mnH .qH unease-um .nHm.N ea souooum mo.-oouuee.n mugs eoeeoauueuHs.uo Hu>aH no..oAu an x_ue oanbtoeu .aoausuauaeH no seamen new swan non N .335 . use an a o s>o o. on» us .N,uo o=He> one .aoHusuaunaN me some non oH neuoouu no neouuov c su«s_ao «ma. N u. H H m N . unsoumuouum I I H.c to.na ensues: H.0H .a.mm aheausom . o.m ¢.Ha. . . . Hwhuaoo Auuoz neH.n N.na n.mw I oawumnn_tiz oonom ¢.¢o o.Ha obese can ooo.oH Q2 «.3 o8.3 3 8a.... a.» «.8 8o.“ 3 8n; Na¢.n ¢.m o.oa con.u can» noon . 4 on; .n . oi 9.8 ~28 a.¢ H.nm noun-ououm mun Hmao uNHocuoo . .. o.nH o Nm unseeooovcu some mmzommme .353 i new m.m .H.om omucoaoom HHo uo acou_uom x ease you econ use N oouwnuHa eouw< .uaesaHuuus HosuuoHHouaw.aeuaovauu as» ou Hnuweunw sun uaeamoHo>mo esHm> was meanness Haauom JmH uneaeuuum 115 .mHm.N IN sovosuu x No o=Hn> one .coNuauuuocH mo coumou can one. uom N .mms.a N no oaHo> as» .soNuauHuacH «0 some uom uo noouwov n saws oocaoHuHewHo uo Ho>oH no. one a. nu aovoeuu mo nooumov a new: oocsouuuemua mo Ho>oH no. sea as N scuuuuucwum i « c.0N ¢.mN, cuoueos o.mN ¢.¢N muonuoom . m.NN N.NN Hauucoo nuuoz meH H m.Hw N.mH msoncm 3oz conoN n.aN NdoN s>onu was coo.cH 0.0m o.o~ ooo.oH on coo.“ «.mN o.HN coo.n o» con.H Hee.o c.0N a.nN oom.H cage anon ouHm o.NN ¢.NN unsuo m.mN n.oN uceuaououm H.mN m.0N oHHosuoo N.Nm w.NH uaovcoaovcH mNm.H H.wN m.HN oNHnsm omhw mmzommmm mHmz¢m i mom NimN. m.HN noncommom HHn mo acme uom x ucou uom . ucoo use N oouwamHn oouw< .uou>mzon eHnmuamouoe: mo uamemouowchu ecu wusuuumcou ou mmeHH mum mucmvuocH ucovsum onHoomm mo mcHchmn one cu moHHom cu meoHumeuxm .wH Nassau-um .nHm.N nu aovoouu mo noouwov n sums ooceoNuHawNo mo Ho>oH no. one an N no ean> one .aouusuuuucH mo sowmou was onus uom 116 N .mme.m nu aovoouu mo noouwev a nuHs ooauoNMNawHa mo Ho>oH mo. one as N «o oaHo> one .couuauaunsH mo «aha uom N acouqmucwam I s H.o a.mm eueunos N . HH m . an 50:38 . o.mH o.mw Huuucoo suuoz mom a a.» 18 engine 2% aonoN m.N N.Nm o>opn can ooo.oH 1m 22 08.2 3 8o.“ 2: 13 8o; 3 8m; NeN.m n.¢H m.mm con.H menu noon «sum N.oH mam uofio m.mH N.om unauoououm H.mH H.am oNHonueu o.HH o.mw unovcoaovuu .Noq.N a.m 0.0m oNHnsm came mmzommmm uqmzoH no. age on N mo ooHu> ecu .ooquauHuacH mo moumou one saw. uom mo noouwoo m seas N .wms.a nu sooouum mo assuwoo e nous ooeoonHamHa mo Ha>oH no. one as N.uo osHo> ecu .aouuouuunoH uo coma uom N uouoamaowwm I s e.onw one ooo.oH o.sN o.eN ooo.ou as coo.“ , . e.m2 0.0m coo.n o» oom.H men n o.sH s.mm con.H sues anon U 03m 1 28 o.ow uofio N.NH w.Nm uceuuououm o.mH «.0m uuHonuau N.wH m.Hm uaooooooocu mNa.N m.¢H m.mm oNHnsN some umzommmm mqmz¢m i mam ¢.nH o.qw . neocoouom HHo mo uoou uom N ucoo uom acoo use N oouwsoua oouw< .uoaoaum HoaoH>uocH use mo ucmBoon>oo muoaouo uo uuooasm nouns mama :H uemaoouH>oo HmcoHusuHuch one mo muommmm aHmuuoo muMHschma ou unsouum mHmaoHomcou oHaosm mucmoaum mo ammo any .mH unassuoum 118 no noouwoo n new: ooaaoHuHest no Ho>oH no. emu .nfim.n on Eoveouu on x no e=Hu> ogu .ooNusuHuacN mo :onou one onus uoh . N 0N aoooouu mo noouwoo a nuHs ooaouHmucwHa uo Ho>aH no. use an .wneno N no oaHa> one .aoHusuHua:H mo some uou assauuucmum I s Hun m.nm mucous: H.oH m.om muonuoom . m.oH N.mm ,Houuooo :uuoz mNN N n «H n.nw oconau aoz oonux onm ¢.om o>opm moo ooo.oH m.¢H Nuns ooo.oH on coo.n omm. m.w N Ha coo.m on oom.H N 9 NH c.Nm oon.H sane snug ouHm mHnH N.mw uonuo o.¢ ¢.om acquaououm a N o.Nm oNHosuoo ¢.¢H o.nm uaoocoaeoaH men n m.m H.om oNHnsm some mmzommmm mgm24m i mom ,H.HH m.mw nooaooasm HHs No Name uom x ucoo uom uooo use N . oouwmnwn oouw< .coHummemo umoos mo cowuoouHo one :H omzu unsumu mummoSUm ou zuHHHnHmcommou mo aoNumonwo uo>o mo oOHuoouHo ecu cu uum Ou mHnmuNwoo muoB mH uN .NUHusums mom NDHHHnm uowoouw cN mmocmummmNo HmooH>HocN mo uxmucoo one cusuwz .mH uaoaouuum 119 .nHm.N 0N abououm uo «acumen m saws ouooonchHa mo Hs>uH no. use an x no ooHu> one .ooausuuuacH no coumau one onus uom N .mwc.o ea aoooouu mo noouwoo a :uHB cocooawucan mo Ho>oH no. can u. N no o=Ho> ecu .ooHuauNunaN mo some uom . N ucoouwucwwm I s NHNH w.Nw :uoueoz M.MH N.nm muonusom . . N.Ho Hmuuoou :uuoz HoN H n oH n.am ocechu soz conoN one o.qm ¢>op~ can ooo.oH W.MH eHNm ooo.oH o» coo.m wom.N . a Na . ooo.n 0» oon.H H NH m.Nw oon.H away noon ouNm oHnH o.ew unnuo o.oH o.om ucuuaououm N.N w.Nm ouaosuwo. . o.mH ¢.nm uooocoooocu Now m m m N.Hm oNHpam some mmzommmm nomadm i mom n.oH n.mw neocoduom HHo no ucoo uom x ucoo uom ucoo use N ovumoauo oouw< .muucaaaoo udemomom mnu cH mHemcmuHuNo mo mowuuHHnNmaoammu oom muswuu ecu mmHoumxo cu mam accumuooo Hchmumm axes cu mmum ummH mum menu umnu uowuxm ecu ou muHuouma cumuum mucoosum .oN ucosounum 120 .nHm.N 0N aoveoum uo aoauwoo n saw: socuouuucwuo mo Ho>oH no. one an x No v=Hw> emu .ooNusuNuocN mo aouwou van onus uom N .wm¢.o uH aoooouu «o assumev a sea: soaauumucwHu mo Ho>oH no. one an N no osHo> use .couusuuunnu uo coma uom N uauuHuHcmHm I « m.¢H N.nm auuu-os o.n ¢.¢o muonusom N.mH m.¢m kuucuu nuuoz .22 .m N.N mNa 2535 .52 acumen o.oH N.aw o>oas was ooo.oH o.nH ¢.¢w ooo.oH ou ooo.n . H.» N.Ha ooo.n ou can.H Non N ¢.HH o.om oon.H coca 000A ouum o.» o.Nm uoeuo o.oH ¢.nm unnuuououm o.n H.¢o oNHoSuwo N.nH o.om ucoocoooocu nNN.n m.a H.oo oNHpom some mmzommmm mamzmm i mom o.HH o.mm noncoaoom HH- mo aces uem N ucoo uom uaoo use N oouwu-No oouw< .ucaoaum HonoN>HoeH one mo mom>Hum uON conH>oum mH aoHumuoom uoszz cu coNumNNHmcomumm uom ucmHomuwau Hmuuammmo o<.HN uooaouuum 121 .nHw.N ow Bovouum mo maouwoo m suns mocmonchNo mo Ho>oH no. as» um x no o=Ho> use .coHuauHumcH mo :onou vow onHa uom . N , .wmc.m «N aooooum mo mooumoo a nuHs oocoonNcme mo Ho>oH no. one as N «o osHm> use .coHusuHunmN mo mama uom N accouuucmum I I enoH n.am cuounos o.oH o.om cuosuoom I . N.HH w.wm . . Hmuuooo :uuoz cue H N N w.Nm oconcm 3oz aonom cum o.Hm . I>onu can ooo.oH M.M ”.mm ooo.mH cu oooum . . 000 n ou oon H mmm o 0 0H «.mw OOn.H cosy nuoH ouum o.w o.Nm uoguo oneH n.nm ucmuueuoum ¢.¢ o.nm oNHosuoo . o.MH o.Nw ucoocoaoocH oeH o H m a.Hm oHHpom some umzommmm mqmzdm I mom m.a H.om . mongoose“ HHo mo uceu uem x uooo uom ucmo uwo N oouwoaHo uouwd .mHnmooHumHmu chHmmcsou m we NuHHmHucmoneoo one mumHou> cu mucmooum mo ammo use uow coHumoHuHumon om wN mumnu .Nummmw mo mcoNumumoncoo uom unmoxm .NN uceaouuum 122 .nHm.N a“ abououm mo aoouwoo m nuHs oocouHuchHo mo He>oH no. one um x no oaHu> one .coHuauHuacH uo coumou one onus uom N .mmc.o uH aoooouu mo aoouwoo a suHs oucoonchHa mo Ho>oH no. one as N no osHo> one .c0uusuHuacu No name uom N uoouuwwcwwm I I Hume m.Hm museums W.MN mme cuozuoom 2m; . o a 2 H328 5qu a NN o.NN ocancm 302 conom mum mHmN 26% E... 95.2 .2: 0.8 892 3 8o.“ :36 . a NN 8o; 3 com; m do N.nn oon.N case noon ouum anN n.qN uoeuo o.NN o.mN ucauaououm N.Nn m.Nm uNHonuno aNm. N.mo w.om ucoocoooocu H o NN ¢.NN ONHpom some mmzommwm mgmzm5wn anmcoNummsc mum coauaUHumca mzu an ucmuuome . . H an OD one mmsHm> umoom ou muowosuw mocmoHMCH cu mucwooum mo women an muoemuu< .MN ucoaounum 123 .nHm.N 0N aooooum no noouwov n can: oocuuuuHowNe mo No>oH no. use us x no ooHo> on» .soNusuNunaN No :onou one onus uom N .mme.o nu soooouu mo noouwuo 0 sun: oocuoumucmua uo Ho>oH no. one u. N no oaHo> one .coHusuNuosu uo some uom N uaoonNchm I s ean 0.Hm euouaos m.m H.Ha ouosuoom . H.NH m.Nm Houueoo :uuoz 2: n a 2 2% . ueonau 3% coumom mHmH Nam 26% was 25.3 N.mH o.om ooo.oH cu ooo.n . o.N2 o.mm oco.m ou oom.u one N s 0H 0.mm oon.H some anon ouum oHNH o.wm uosuo «.mH 0.0m acmuuououm “.MN m.Hm oHHosuoo . . m.0N uooocoooonu mHm N a eH H.nw oNHnsm soak . mmzommmm mumxN0cH ecu uOM cuoocoo 0cm uumomou m.mmeHou one no :onmouoxw Hmusum: a mono muos wcHnuoe mum wmmooum moo Hmuaomooum mo mucmNomumcH HmNucmmmm one .eN ucoaououm 124 .nHw.N aH Bovoouu mo neouwoo n squ oocooHuHewHa mo Ho>oH no. one an x uo.o=Ha> can .soHusuHuucH mo conou one euH- uom , N .mm0.o w 3 ounce cm a o o>o no. «so on N no osHes on» .couusuuuoeH no coma uom oH aoooouu No ooou so a :uH HNH H u H H N . acooHuchHm I I H.NN m.NN suouous N.0N 0.mN muonusom m.Nm N.N0 Heuuaoo suuoz «NNo.mH 0.nH ¢.¢m ocuncm aoz aonom c.0N ¢.NN I>opI can ooo.oH a.oN H.NN ooo.oH ou coo.“ q.mH o.om ooo.n cu oom.H 0wH.m N.NN N.NN OOn.H Gaza nova oNHm o.¢N 0.0N uocuo H.am m.n0 accumououm H.mH o.om OHHogumu N.qN w.nN uaoocwooocH HmH.n e.mN 0.0N oHHpo some mmzommwm mqm24m I mom ii; m.qN H.mN mmmcoamom HHc No News uum x uceo uem acme use N mmumeaHn mouwd .mCONumHsmmu msafimu 00 couumNHHmumDHH muHmmo muauma uHmLu No mnemoSum .nN ucmamumum 125 we nocuuov a saw: ouciouuuawao mo ~o>o~ nc. ecu N nu abvoouu mo aooumov c sue: ooauuamuumun «o ~o>oN no. Gnu a. .nuw.n aw aovooum an x we o=~a> on» .aoausuuuocu no common can one. new .wm¢.a N no oaau> us» .coNusuNuuaN no nah» you acuoauaswum u « hndm mum auou..= m.am N ca auosusom N n. c.wm «.NN Nauucou :uuoz N o a mm H.- oa-fimnu aaz acumen muma H.o «>03. and ooc.cu ~.oa n.m ooo.o~ on coo.n . n.5m h.- coo.“ cu oom.~ N~¢ m N on n.n~ can.u can» wood ouum cums ¢.oN unnuo m.Nm N.N unauuououm ”.mw ~.n~ oaaosuao . N.H~ una coco a mom 0 o.om ¢.a v uuamnm cake umzcmmum uqmz¢m - mam m.mw ~.HH ouoaoauom Na. «0 nova you x 0600 won name new N oouwuuun couw< xmsu mmamuma chxmB cowmwumv .zuuusume uamwuwwmsm xuma ~m>ma mou ca om>~o>cg up you wagonm mucmvsum .oN uauaou-um 126 .m~n.~ on lovocuu we uoaumov n :u«3.uucaoauuawuu no No>ou no. as» an x no o=~o> any .aouuauwu-cu mo nauwuu on. can. pom N .wme.a nu savanna no uoouwov c nuua.oo=¢o«mucmwu mo Hu>oN no. can u. Nvmo us~o> on» .aoNuauwuncw no anhu wow « acuufiuacmum a a owed «.mm :uounoz M.M# m.om Buosuaom . ¢.mm unuucoo suuoz *Nmn Ha m.¢ «.mm vaouwcm 2az newwqu mum ~.oa «>0». can ooo.o~ n.5H N.Nm ooo.o~ cu coo.n . a.a H.om coo.n 0» con." coo m N ma w.ow can.“ sing noon onwm oH¢H o.em yonuo o.¢a «.mm acauoououm M.MH N.Nm ouaonuuo . m.nm ucuvsonavuu m¢m o o.¢~ «.mw uwuasm onhh umzommmm u4m24m - mam m.- N.Nw nonconuom man no acou you x uauo uom acme you N «chad-«n nouw< .coaumusnm umnmwn cw ucmsaon>mn m>auwmom ucwuwwwcwwm m mucmmmummu ucmmmwv mo mumsfifiu ucmmmua mnu .mmocmuwca meow ca mumcduuowcs cmmn m>ms mufizmmu may nwsocufid .NN unvaUu-um .naqu :Nouuoo so «nu. Naoo mudavovucu cu can cacuahouuv on yo: vaaou aoanafiouazu can macaw caucuuoumav uauowuacwam 127 o n.NN m.NN o.¢o cuouoos ~.~ N.a~ ~.nn N.¢¢ cuususom m. N.o~ ~.on N.mm Nuuucoo suuoz w. w.a 0.0m $.Nn vanawnm 302 acuuum o m.e~ n.nN a.sn 0>on¢ vac ooo.o~ c w.~ N.mn N.Nn ooc.o~ ou ooo.m «é «.2 9: «.S 8.: 3 com; o 9: «.2 9% 8m; :2: 83 «sum 0 o.NH o.¢n c.cm nonuo o o.- e.¢N o.¢o ucuuoauoum o m.- N.mn o.om ouaosuuo o m .2 m . R a .3 “co—.5935 w.~ m.n~ ~.aN w.mm uaansm «aha mmzcmmmm mamzNumuuuN .aONuuoN .ucowuwoov unwavu u ucocauo umuucova can ucga .ngnncouauwo van . Hauunwfiuca mo zuuawnmnoun uu>~o>ca now now: awnauovwoa you no huaawnunoua ucu summon aucmvsuu xwowuom oucovsum aumosvm cu vusnauucoo .monmHomQ onuom zH mHzmmme ozH>AO>zH mom ZOm¢mm >m¢zumm .mm094MHmHZHZQ4 Hmzzommmm Hzmnbhm mmHmo .mN ucmEOumum 128 .aEwuN caauuau co mafia Huoo ouunvovucu cu 05v vaCNEHUumv an ac: canon oofimauunnsn onu_wcoew omucauwwmuv ucduamaawam o m.¢¢ m.¢¢ N.oa cuuuofla o m.¢o m.~n m.n auonuaom o o.¢n m.mn m.» flouucoo nuuoz o.H m.on N.oq ¢.n vcoamcu zmz acawom o N.¢n n.5n c.» w>onn can ooo.o~ o H.Nm ¢.on n.o ooo.o~ cu oOm.m m.H m.Hm m.mm «.5 ooo.m 0» oom.H o fi.nm «.mn N.m oom.~ can“ «no; «Nam o q.HN n.0N o.~ nosuo o o.on m.m¢ H.o uamuuauoum o w.He m.om «.5 oafionuuo H.H o.m¢ n.5q a.» “cacauaoucH o. N.¢n m.nm m.n ogansm maze mmzommmm mumz¢m - mam m. N.¢m m.mm m.o monsoauum Ham mo “emu gum .mquuo .mvon nuwa ustcou.0u .mucvvsum vac xuasoum Lugs cowuuufismcou aw howaoa «Cwshouwn ucmEouwsku unocuwa mowfioa wcHBumqu wu5m5pw>ow mo umnEoB wcwuo> .muo> uoc usn mm vumauowuuum oufi>vm mvw>oum WUHAOm mo wmdemm< HzmeHm mo «mad MmH 2H zm2m04m>ma MIR zH Emommmm mhzmmphm mo z¢mo mzk Ddsomm maom H¢I3 .aN ucmEmumum .uaouw cauuuou co cum. afioo «unsumvocw cu mow vocashouav on uoc vfisou ooflnauunnan «nu macaw mounuummmav ucauqmacmsm 129 «.ma H.mm o.o m.oN o.o o.o cuouooa «.mfi m.¢m ¢.¢ H.mN H.N o.o .cuocuaom N.m~ N.Nm o.H m.HN m.o o.o Huuucoo nuuoz 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0000000 3.2 coamom 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 H.H 0.0 .0000 00. 000.00 0.w~ m.m¢ ~.m m.o~ o.o o.o ooo.o~ cu coo.n 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 000.0 00 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.00 .000 ouwm 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 .0000 0.0H 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 1000000000 m.o~ w.Ho m.~ m.w« 0.0 0.0 ofiaosu-u n.0m m.mq H.H m.m~ H.H o.o ucovcmmovcH N.NN 0.00 0.H m.m~ ~.H o.o agapsm cams mmzommmx mqmzdm . mum m.mm w.mm N.N. m.o~ 0.0 0.0 . mmacoamam “a. mo ucoo now .0000 n.Ev¢ .vsum mEom .vnum oz o>NumuumN n.0wm .aw¢n.umm .8n4u.uum unwav< xufisuum . ucmvnum 0wfimmo 55H5000uso "0000002 onmn4u< .m¢mm< me OH quszHmmm monmHomQ zH VHHZDZZOU WHHmmm>Hzm mxh no mmmmzmz mo Hzm2m>go>zH Gmywmoomm mMOHdMHmHszn<.umzzommmm Hzmnbhm mmHmU 2¢om ucoeou-um . .0800“ 0000010 do 0000 0000 ouasvmvacu 00 05v vocwsuouov on 006 canoe nuamauonnno 0:0 macaw moucmuum00v accouchmum 130 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0000003 n.0m 0.00 0.0 o.o N.a 0.00 .auosuaom 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0000000 00002 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.m 0.00 vauawcm 30% co0wom 0 .00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 .5000 00. 000.00 n.00 0.00 m.0 0.0 0.0 0.0m ooo.oH 00 ooo.n 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 000.0 00 000.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 000.0 0000 0000 Guam 0.00 030 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00000 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 c.00 0.00 Lcouomuoum 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00000000 0.00 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.00 ucmvaonowcH 0.w¢ m.m m.0 o.o 0.n 0.0m 00000m «may mmzommmx 00mzHuwuumw u.omm .Bn "00000 000000<0 .mdmm< NHm OH oszHdemm monmHomG 2H VHHZDZZOU rhwmmm>uzn mmh mo mammzmz mo Hzmzm>ao>zH awkwmuobm mmOH¢MHmHzHXQ< Amzzommmm Hzmmbhm mmumu mzxuucoeounum 131 .03000 0000000 no 0000 0000 0000000000 00 0:0;0000auouuv on 000 00:00 «000500-000 000 00080 00000000000 00000000000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0000003 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 .00000000 0H00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.~N 0000000 00000 0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0000000 300 000000 0H00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 «>000 000.000.00 0.00 0H0 0H0 0.0 0.0 0.00 000.00 a» 000.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 000.0 o0 000.0 0 00 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0m 000.0 can» 0000 0000 0H00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 ;¢000 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.w N.NN Lcuuuououm 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0m 000osuuo 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 00000000000 0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 000 0.00 000030 oaxa mmzommmx 000200 - 000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 000000000 000 no 0000 pom .0000 -.80¢ .0000 0800 .0000 02 o>0000000 [.000 . .BvHZQ mmh mo mammzmz mo Hzmzm>uo>zH anmNQUDm mmOHoau as. ooo.o~ w.o~ m.~¢ w.~ o.m~ o.o o.o ooo.c~ ou coo.m m.c~ o.H¢ m.¢ o.mn o.o o.o coo.“ cu oom.~ d mu o.on m.o m.¢~ o.o o.o con.” easy .uag Guam on¢~ o.c¢ o.¢H o.o~ o.o o.o ‘¢;uo ~.nH o.¢¢ 0.0 o.wm ~.H o.o .suuoououm w.mm mnmm «.mfi ~.mH o.o o.o oafionuau ~.- m.fim m.¢ m.~¢ o.o H.~ “coucaauvcH o “N m an ~.m ~.mm 0.0 0.0 odfipsm cams mmzommmx mgmzfluflhumw -.oam .aw<-.oom .aw<-.uum -awac< aufiauum “amusum mmofiuumum wcflwmuo "mMMHH¢z onmnHzm Mme mo mmmmzmz mo Hzmzm>go>zH nmemmowsm mmOH¢MHmHzHZQ¢ Hmzzommmm szQDBm mmH:u_ mom acmemuoum .QHUuu cuouuto .60 cu“. muoo ounavovacu a» one vaaaauouov on no: canon nowmaiuuaau on» manna nounououuuv acouwuucwum 133 1mm «.3 o.~ c6 «.3 N2: 5333 can «5“ ed a; 0.3 n.n .Eofiaom a.on ¢.o~ ~.~ o.o «.md 0.” _uuu=.o nauoz m.~o c.n~ o.~ o.o «nod n.o vaufiuga aux acumen “.mo ¢.¢~ ~.~ ¢.o a.» H.o .>oa¢ can ooc.ou o.~o m.ou o.~ o.o ~.m m.o ooo.o~ on coo.n «.Ho o.n~ m.o m.o ~.a~ n.n occ.n o» con.~ «.me ¢.°~ a.~ o.o n.o~ n.~ can." qua“ ..¢a Clam m.o¢ m.¢~ o.o o.o ~.~m o.~ ‘esuo ~.m¢ o.- ~.~ o.o m.o~ ~.H . .auu.ououm c.5c ~.m~ o.o o.o «.nd a.m cauonu-u «an «.3 a.“ ad «.2 04. 33:3qu m.~w_ m.n~ n.~ o.o ~.o~ o.n odfipam came 528%... 5.2% - n3. m.mm m.- o.H ~.o N.NH ~.¢ . .o.=oa.ou ”g. mo asap no» .oaum o.au< .vaum 080m .vsum oz o>uunuuou -.u.m .ac¢-.uum .au4-.uom -ngau< zufisuum acouaum .mwwmum>wm oaaosoua¢ «c was "mmgbm AdeHmAO>2H GuamHUODm machgmuzg Hmzzowxmm Hzmn—bam EH10 .mom unison-um .nlbau cuuuuto no ou«« uaou «unavovch ou one vocuauouov up you canoe saunaiouaac on» ucoai nouaououuuv unauuuucmum 134 m.¢~ o.Hn m.¢~ o.c ~.c~ o.o auoucoa «nu ~H¢n o.w~ ~.~ c.¢n o.o .cuosuaom e.n ~.nn «.en s.~ ¢.c~ c.o nouuaoo sauna m w o c¢ o.o¢ o.~ ¢.n~ o.o newsman 302 acumen e.» o.~¢ «.w~ ¢.~ n.n~ o.c .>oa- on. ooc.on n.w c.~¢ u.nn n.~ o.n~ o.o ooo.cu ou coo.“ ~.~ n.c¢ n.5n 5.0 e.a~ o.o oco.n on com.u ~.o ~.un n.mn m.~ ~.o~ o.o con.~ gas» «on; Guam o.o o.on o.~¢ o.o o.ou c.o s¢suo mn¢ n.5n n.o~ ¢.~ a.m~ c.o gcuuuououm «.5 n.mn m.om m.~ ~.a~ o.c owfiocu-o ~.~ c.~n ~.c¢ ~.~ o.a~ o.c acovcoaoncH n a o.~¢ a.on a.~ o.ou o.o oudnam , came umzommmx mgmzauuuuou -.oam .au4-.uom .au<-.unm unwavd xuflsuum anywaum .mmHHZDZZGU tummmshza ”EH mo 95ng mo Hagnogm EHmWUQDm mMOHEHmHsznd AMZZOmE Hzmnbam “ammo .hom ucoaouuum . .uaouu cucuuuu no and. afiou ouuavovaca cu 09v vocuBHOuou on no: canoe uo~QEU¢upau any wcoaw noucououuwv accouuacwwm 135 ~.o~ a.~¢ c.9H o.o o.on o.o _ annuaos m.n a.a~ o.~u o.o “.mc o.o . auosuaom m.¢ m.o~ n.- o.o «.n¢ o.o .ouuaoo sauna «.5 o.nn m.- o.c o.~¢ o.c enuHmcm 3oz guano: o.» o.H¢ n.e~ . o.o n.o~ o.o ‘ e>ona can ooo.c~ ¢.o~ n.o¢ «.md o.o ~.Hn o.o coo.o~ 0» coo.n o.n c.on o.od o.o o.cm one ooc.n ou com.~ ~.c o.mu a.m~ c.o m.om o.c con." saga coca Guam o.¢ o.ou o.¢~ o.o o.oa o.o .esuo o.o a.- o.oH o.o mén o.o $3.395 a.m m.m~ n.m~ o.o H.~¢ o.o ufifloguao N .~ m .3 n .3 o.o w. 3 o6 2.4.3335 o.m ~.o¢ H.a~ o.o n.Hm o.o oflgasm onxa 328%.. 3.2%. - n3. m.m ¢.~m m.m~ o.o a.~¢ . o.o . «aaaoaoam ”flu no “cam ”om .nsum u.ab¢ .vsum 080m .v3um oz u>uu¢uuaw n.0wm .atHZD NIH m0 mmmmzmz ho H2NZW>AO>ZH amemmooam mMOHdMHmHszndvamzzommwm Hzmanm mmHmU .mxzuucoEOuUum 136 .aavuu agauuou so ouwu Hgou uuunaovwcw cu out vocaahuuov an ac: wfisou mosaBUuunsu can wcoau naucuuuuuwu ucdouuucwam «.ou o.o o.o o.o o.o o.m~ :uouoos m.- ¢.m o.o H.“ o.o «.mo .cuoguaom «.afl ~.m o.o o.o o.o «.55 Huuucao suuoz n.wH o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 m.Hm waofimcm 2oz cagwom m.m~ ~.H o.o o.o o.o m.m~ «>0». cc. ooo.oa ~.- o.~ o.o o.o o.o m.o~ ooo.o~ cu ooo.m m.a~ m.~ o.o o.o o.o ~.m~ coo.“ ou con.~ o.o~ a.H o.o o.o o.o n.h~ con.H can“ .aoa ouwm o.m~ o.o o.o o.o 0.0 o.m~ .¢;uo m.a~ m.q o.o o.o o.o m.m~ .cuuumuoum «.ofi m.~ o.o 0.0 o.o H.Nm ufiflosuao a.m~ H.H 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.m~ unocamamwcH o.o~ ¢.H o.o 0.0 o.o m.mn oafipsm came mmzommmx mgmzwuuuumu u.omm .svwuu< Ucm unmadum>oo ucvaum “mMmHH43 MHH>HHU< Hzmanm .mdmm4 me OH quszHmmm monmHomQ zH waHZszoo whwmmm>Hzm umh mo mmmmzmz ho Hzm2m>ao>zH amemmUUDm mmOH¢MHmHzHZQ< szzommmm Hzmabwm mmHmU kauucwemuuum .QBUuw cuduuuu so an“. “woo auasvmvacu cu «at nocaauouov an ace canoe nouaauuunau as» macaw «mucouuuuav ucuuuuucmwm 137 “Hon o.o o.o o.o o.o m.me auouuou “.mn «.m o.o H.~ c.o «.wn .nuonusom ~.c< “UN o.o owo n.c n.on uuuucoo nuuoz c «N m o o.o 0.0 c.c c.ch uniswnm 302 cowwoz «Ham Nufi o.o o.o o.o o.~¢ c>oau can ooo.on m.mn m a o.o owe c.o ~.an coo.o~ ou cco.n cyan o.n o.o o.o w.o n.¢o ooo.n cu can.~ s an m.~ o.o 9.0 o.o m.mo oom.~ gang once ouum mnum ~.N o.o o.o o.o ¢.co .csuo m.mm o.m o.o o.o o.o o.mn gcauuououm ntnm n.~ o.o o.o n.~ w.Ho uaaocuwo m.mu ~.~ o.o o.o o.c o.mo ucovcoaomcu o Hq ~.d 0.0 9.0 0.0 ~.nm ou~nsm onus umzommmx mamzdm u mam 90m o.~ o.o ~.o «.0 3.3 8233a So «o 250 3m .vaum u.ab< .vsum meow .vaum oz ¢>auquuow n.0uh .abdu.unm .auHHu< Hzmnaam .mwuuuuau n.0um .Bv091 can ooc.oa gnmm «.m o.o o.o 9.5 H.5n cco.o~ ou ooc.n 9.55 o.m 5.o o.o m.H «.55 coo.n ou con.~ 9 Na H.m o.o o.o m.~ 5.55 con.“ can» name mafia oH9~ o.o o.o 0.0 0.9 9.05 xcsuo m.m~ 9mm 0.9 0.0 0.9 H.95 Lacuoououm 0.95 9.9 o.o o.o m.~ 9.59 cauonuao «.53 3 H H.H o.o 5.5 m.m5 “covcaaoccH 9 59 5.9 o.o 0.0 9.0 n.09 oufinsm came umzommmx mgmzauuuuaa n.0um .69dn.unm .awHuo¢ ucmwsum mo coflumuoaa< "mmm99HHo< Hzmnnam .wsz mmw mo mammzmz mo Hzmzm>uo>2H awammoosm mmOH¢MHmHZHznd.Amzzommmm HzmeHm mMHmU .szuucoeauoum .93099 :9ouuou 90o «unavouoc9 ou 0:9 9099599909 on you 99:00 9099auunaan 0:9 wooed noucououm99 aca09u9awwm 140 so «~90 9 9H59 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 5.99 :uuuuos 0.99 9mm 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.99 .cuonusom 0.09 0.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.99 9uuucuo :uuoz 9 95 0 0 9.0 0.9 9.9 9.99 90.9999 302 909909 9H99 5H9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.09 c>o9u 0a. 999.09 9.59 0.5 9.9 9.9 0.9 0.99 990.09 on 999.9 9.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.99 000.9 00 009.9 9 99 9 9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.99 999.9 0.90 .009 ou9m 0H55 9H09 9.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 $¢9uo 9.99 0.9 099 9.0 0.9 9.99 Lcauoououm 9.95 0.9 0H9 0.9 9.9 0.99 u99osuo9 0.09 9.9 9 0 0.9 9.9 0.99 00090000909 0 09 0 9 9.9 9.9 0.0 9.99 099929 09%H mmzommmz 99mz¢w u 999 5.00 0.9 0.0 9.0 9.9 0.99 . 000000009 99: no usoo pom .9000 u.ah< .9999 0809 .9999 oz o>9uuuuu9 u.uom .BbHHZDZZOU VPHmmm>HZD Hwy ho mammzmz mo Hzmzm>90>zH amemmoosm mflOHdMHmHzH2h¢VHMZZOmmmm Hzmnbhm mmHmo .¢:Mnucuavuuum .08009 0900000 00 0090 9900 0000009009 00 009 9009800009 09 000 99000 0090800n900 090 90080 00000009999 00009990999 141 9.05 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 000 0 0 o o “‘0‘ 0.99 9.09 9 9 9 0 9.9 5.99 .000500ow 9.99 9.99 9.9 9H99 9.9 9.9 9000000 00009 5 59 0 9 9 9 9.9 9.9 0.99 9009909 309 009909 0H99 9H99 9H9 9.99 9.9 9.9 «>090 900 999.99 9.99 9.99 9 9 9.0 9.9 0.9 000.09 00 000.9 0.99 9.99 5H9 9.0 9.9 5.99 999.9 00 999.9 9 99 9 99 0 9 9.5 9.9 9.99 999.9 0090 0009 0099 9.95 9.99 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 04 O o O O guo 5.99 9.0 9.9 9 9 9.9 9.09 0000000000 9.99 0.09 9.9 0.0 9.9 9.9 09900009 9.99 9.9 9.9 5.5 9.9 5.99 00090000999 9 99 9 99 9 9 9.99 9.9 0.0 099900 0009 Mmzommmx mamZdw n 999 5.00 9.9 0.0 9.0 9.9 9.99 . $2880 990 0o 008 .30 .9009 u.a9< .9009 0609 .9009 oz 0>9000009 n.0wm .B9HZD mmh mo mammzmz ho Hzm2m>qo>29 QMHmmOODm mMOH