A STUDY OF THE OPINIONS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION LEADERS AND COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS REGARDING AN INTENSIVE PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS ' Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ROBERT I. BERRIDGE 1969 .4013 "‘ J..- 117: OQIU ‘. IIII III III IIII III IIIIII IIII III IIIII IIII III III III II I , I , ”LIL—if {\AII .figan 3114.“? n.-- - - This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of the Opinions of Community Education Leaders and Community School Directors Regarding an Intensive Preparation Program for Community School Directors. presented by Robert I. Berridge has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed .D a degree in Edgflgtional Adminis tration 51/...g EV Date 5". " 0-169 I _ ____L.. :4)qu 31W,“ 7% t\\ o l I W’Qéy 8?; lxoz’u m 2W wan ’ ' M16915 .difltfi ABSTRACT A.STUDI OF THE OPINIONS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION LEADERS AND COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS REGARDING AN INTENSIVE PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS by Robert I. Berridge Statement of the Problem It was the purpose of this study to obtain the Opinions of a panel of experts and a nationwide sampling of community school directors to establish content areas consisting of categories and tepics, which might consti- tute a base for intensive preparation programs for community school directors. By studying the opinions of experts and directors it was believed that some insight might be derived concerning contemporary preparation programs in community education. Procedure and Methodglggz Two groups. 1) a panel of experts consisting of ten nationally recognized experts in the field of community education and 2) a stratified random sampling of 125 community school directors from 80 cities and 16 states. comprised the study. An instrument. listing ninety-two tapics for possible inclusion in preparation programs, was administered to both groups. Topics were grouped by categories and eight hypotheses were tested using T-tests to analyze the opinions of the respondents based on their training and experience. A mean of 3.60 R. Berridge was determined as the acceptance point for the inclusion of individual tOpics within categories. The categories and tOpics formed the content areas for the study. Findings of the Study The study indicated that while there were no significant differences in Opinions concerning choices of categories. there were apparent trends toward disagree- ment between the experts and the directors on their choices of individual tOpics. The following findings seem warranted in view of the results of the study: 1. The panel of experts was oriented toward the goal of community education-~the improvement of the educational environment of the community. 2. The directors were oriented toward the means to accomplishing the goa1--the programming of activities. 3. Formal preparation did not significantly change the Opinions of the directors toward the goal of community education. h. Experience (more than three years) did not significantly change the Opinions of the directors toward the goal of community education. The following content areas were identified in the study: R. Berridge History-Philosophy category: . history of the community school movement . comparison of the traditional vs. community school Social-Psychological category: . the concept of community . minority groups in society . current social problems of society . effects of racial. social, and economic isolation . identifying community resources Personal Skills category: . training in making home visitations . develOping group and individual participation . develOping leaders . the community develOpment process . develOping others self-concept Communication Skills category: . use of public relations . listening skills . discussion skills Organization category: . methods of orienting community leaders . methods of orienting staff members . conducting community surveys . using lay persons in the program . establishing neighborhood advisory boards B. Berridge Administration category: the role of the community school director the role of the principal the role of the superintendent Programming category: youth recreational prOgrams adult education programs Job training programs youth enrichment programs family programs senior citizen programs A STUDY OF THE OPINIONS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION LEADERS AND COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS REGARDING AN INTENSIVE PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTORS b ’31 A I) Robert Ii Berridge A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION The College of Education 1969 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the guidance and assistance given me during the completion of this study. I would first like to acknowledge the Opportunity to become involved in community education that was afforded me by the Mott Intra-university Clinical Preparation program sponsored by the Mott Foundation. The guidance given by my committee, consisting of Dr. David Smith (Chairman), Dr. Clyde Campbell. Dr. William Durr. and Dr. James McKee, is appreciated. The study could not have been completed without the OOOperation and understanding of my wife Joanne and of my children, Patricia, David, and John. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II.. III. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . The Need for the Study . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . Definitions of Terms . . . ./. . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . Type of Study. . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Thesis . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . The Use of the Schools by the Public: Colonial Times-1930's . . . . . The Community School Movement: 1930's- Present . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Changing Philosophy of Community SChOOl o o o e o o o The Educative Community . . . . . The Role of the School in Developing Educative Community . . . . . . The Community School Director. . . The Need . . . . . . . . . . . The Role . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Director Training of the Director. . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROCEDURES AND METHODS. . . . . . . . The Participants . . . . . . . . . The Sampling Method. . . . . . . . iii PAGE (DO\U'\UIl-‘I-' 10 11 ll 14 22 22 25 27 27 28 31 31 33 35 35 35 CHAPTER Developing and Pre-testing the Instrument. . . . The Instrument . . . Conversion of the Hypotheses Research Design . . Methodology Summary . IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 2A 2B 2c 3A 313 3c Hypothesis 4 Summary . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . Summary . Conclusions Hypothes BS Apparent Trends . Findings of the S tUdy a Content Areas for Intensive Preparation Programs . Implications . . . . Recommendations. . . iv IMPLICATIONS, PAGE 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 44 54 62 72 81 9O 99 108 117 126 126 127 127 129 133 134 135 137 CHAPTER PAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 139 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11+“ TABLE LIST OF TABLES T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the experts and the total group of directors. . . . . . . A listing of topics within each cate- gory for the experts and the total group of directors . . . . . . . . . T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the experts and the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience. . . A listing of topics within each cate- gory for the experts and the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience. . . . . . . . T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the experts and the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience. . . A listing of topics within each cate- gory for the experts and the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience. . . . . . . . vi PAGE 45 46 55 56 63 64 TABLE 10 11 PAGE T-test analysis of the reSponses by categories for the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience . . . . . . . . . 73 A listing of topics within each category for the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with formal prepara- tion and less than three years experi- ence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the experts and the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience . . . . 82 A listing of topics with each category for the experts and directors with in- formal preparation and more than three years experience . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 T-test analysis of the responses by categories by the experts and the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience . . 91 vii TABLE 12 13 14 15 16 A listing of topics within each cate- gory for the experts and the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience. T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience . A listing of topics within each cate- gory for the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the directors with no formal preparation and the directors with formal preparation. A listing of topics within each cate- gory for the total group of directors with formal preparation and the total group of directors with no formal preparation viii PAGE 92 100 101 109 110 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE A A Listing of the Panel of Experts. . . . 144 B Training Programs Questionnaire . . . . 146 C Cover Letter Sent to the Experts and the Community School Directors . . . 153 D Follow-up Letter Sent to the Experts ' and the Community School Directors. . 155 E A Summary of Topics Ranked at, Or Above, 3.60 by the Panel of Experts and the Total Group of Community School Directors . . . . . . . . . . 15? ix CHAPTER.I INTRODUCTION Pgrpose of the Stgdy Although many aspects of community education merit investigation. it was the purpose of this study to examine the Opinions of a panel of experts and a nation- wide sampling of community school directors concerning categories and tOpics to be included in intensive preparation programs for community school directors. To date. research has been limited to followbup evaluation studies of participants who have completed the intensive preparation programs in Flint, Michigan.1 It is hOped, therefore, that this research will provide information for school districts and universities in designing future preparation programs, and if needed, in restructuring present programs. The Need for the Study It appears that the awareness of, and the interest in. community schools will continue. As the concept has spread. "lighthouse" community school pro- grams throughout the United States have made more and more persons aware of the potentialities of community schools and community education. Many requests for 1William Becker, Program Coordinator. Mott Leadership Program. Interview. November 14. 1967. 2 information concerning the implementation of new programs are received weekly by the National Community School Education Association and by the colleges and universities now acting as resource centers for the development of community education.2 The awareness of the potentiality of the applica- tion of the concept of community schools is cited by several recent national studies. The President's Committee on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice reports: Another means of drawing pupils and parents closer to the school is the community school which remains open from morning to night and throughout the entire week and year for various educational as well as non-educational activities for parents and students. This is eSpecially likely to be a potent means for drawing parents, in depressed areas, closer to the schools, since they are most in need of educational and social programs that might be added to the traditional six-hour per day program for pupils. Additional extra curric- ular and educational activities should also be extended to pupils as a means for intensi- fying educational services and for drawing them closer to the schools. Finally, other social agencies might use the school facili- ties during the evening and weekend hours for extending services to an area. The intent of all such efforts is to cement the commitment of the community to the educational enterprise and process. 2Nicholas Pappadakis, Executive Secretary, N.C.S.E.A., Interview, April 16, 1968. 3Walter M. Schafer and Kenneth Polk, Appendix M, "Delinquency and the Schools," Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinguency and Youth Crime, The President's Committee on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, (Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 276. 3 A United States Office of Education report calls for the use of Title I funds of the Elementary and Secon- dary Education Act to pay for the administrative and maintenance cost of keeping schools open fifteen hours per day, six days a week, and throughout the summer, to provide an educational program sufficient to meet the needs of a community. It also stresses the need for the develOpment of a prepared staff to carry out the comprehensive program.“ Since the community school director is the key person to implement and administer a community school program, it is imperative that prepared directors be employed by districts involved in such programs. From 1935 to 1962, there were apparently only a few community school programs Operating in cities throughout the United States. Preparation of directors was not a major problem, for each district prepared its own personnel. and there were often more qualified persons than Jobs available to them. Since 1962, however, there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of school districts Operating community school programs. The need for prepared directors has increased accord- ingly, and the supply has not been able to meet the demand. During the past six years this problem has uIbid.. p. 279. 14. been particularly acute, and there is now a severe shortage of prepared community school directors.5 The manner in which most schools now receive monies to implement their programs further hinders the procuring of trained personnel. In many situations, the funds for the preparation of directors and the funds for the implementation of the program are re- ceived concurrently. Since the district is expected to implement a program as quickly as possible, there arises an immediate need for qualified persons to conduct a program. Thus, there is a need for an intensive preparation program. The intensive preparation program has been designed to meet the needs of a person assigned as a director who has not had previous community school preparation, but the intensive preparation program is intended only as the initial step in the preparation of the director. The need for an intensive preparation program, for the present, at least, seems apparent. Colleges and universities should provide the school districts with assistance in conducting these programs. while the intensive program is aimed at meeting the immediate needs of community education, the ultimate aim is to provide fully prepared professional community school directors through the graduate programs of universities. 5Pappadakis, loo. cit. 5 Limitations of the Study The purpose of the study is to identify content areas applicable for use in intensive preparation pro- grams for community school directors. In the development of such program, the expertise of many individuals and groups should be involved. However, since the review of the literature did not reveal any such attempts at the establishment of criteria, it was felt that professional persons should first be asked to identify content areas to which other groups could react. As a result, the study was limited to the opinions of a panel of experts and to a group of community school directors who were affiliated with the National Community School Education Association. Definition of Terms Panel of experts--The panel of experts consisted of ten professional educators, five from the college ranks and five from the public schools. All members of the panel were active in the organization and administration of community education programs, in the training of community school directors, or in writing in the field of community education. Community schQQl--The community school is one of the means of developing an educationally oriented community through the operation of the schools, 12-15 hours per day, 6-7 days per week, to meet the needs not only of youth, but also of the family and the community. 6 Community education--Community education unifies a community, under the leadership of the schools or some other community agency or institution, in coordinating all resources--physical, human and socia1--to the end of improving the educational environment of the commun- ity. Community school director-~The community school director is a professional member of the school staff who directs the activities of a community school and who also acts as the initiator in the process of develOping an educa- tive neighborhood and community. Formal preparationgprogram--The formal preparation pro- gram refers only to an approved college program taken for credit. Informal preparation program-~The informal preparation program is a type of program which might include on-the- Job training, supervised field experiences or non- sequential inservice programs, or any combinations of the above, but not including a formal prOgram. Hypotheses To achieve the purpose of this study the following hypotheses were examined: 1. There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the panel of experts and the community school directors on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. 2. 3. 7 A) There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. B) There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. C) There are no significant differences between the opinions of the directors with formal preparation and more than three years SXperience and the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. A) There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation pro- grams a 8 B) There are significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opin- ions of the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. C) There are significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years eXperience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. 4. There are significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with formal prepara- tion and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. Type of Study. The descriptive or normative-survey research technique was used to obtain data about the current condition or status of training of community school directors since extensive research has not been carried out in this area. ven Dalen states: Factual information about the existing status enables members of the profession to make more intelligent plans about future courses of action and helps them interpret educational problems more effectively to the public.5 The importance of the descriptive study is des- cribed by Borg: Descriptive studies serve several very important functions in education. First. in new sciences the body of knowledge is relatively small, and we are often confused with conflicting claims and theories. Under these conditions it is often of great value merely to know the current state of the science. Descriptive research provides us with a starting point, and, therefore, is often carried out as a preliminary step to be followed by research using more rigorous control and more objective methods. It is hOped that the data collected in this study will serve as a base upon which further research may be conducted. Questionnaires were sent to individuals within sixteen states and Canada: and to eighty different cities. Where there was a high concentration of directors. in such cities as Flint, Michigan: Atlanta, Georgia; and Miami, Florida, a randomly selected group was chosen. 6Diebold B. Van Dalen, Understandi Educational Research, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962), p. . 7Walter R. Borg, Educational Research, (New York: David McKay Company, Inc.. 19 3 . p. 202. 10 Organization of the Thesis Chapter II contained a review of related and pertinent literature relevant to the changing concept of community education, the role of the school in coordinating change, and a description of the role of the community school director. In Chapter III, the procedures and methods of planning and conducting the study and the design of the study were presented. Chapter IV was concerned with the presentation and treatment of data. Chapter V presented the summary, conclusions, implications and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Since most of the literature did not mention community schools, as such, until the period of the 1930's, the review of it included a brief summary of the use of the schools from colonial times to the 1930's and a more detailed review of community schools from the 1930's to the present. The review was concerned with how the community school concept evolved and clarified the differing philoSOphies of community schools through the years. This chapter also clarified the goal of community schools and community education and attempted to review the need, role, characteristics and preparation of community school directors. It might be noted that there was prolific writing in the period from the middle 1930's through the early post war period concerning community schools: however, following this period there was a noticeable absence of literature concerning the subject. For the present time few articles and texts were found relating to community schools, and apparently no literature on the preparation of community school directors existed. The Use of the Schools b the Public CoIonIaI Times-IgfiOls Using the term community education broadly, one might claim that all activities involving the public's 11 12 use of school facilities is community education. In this light, community education began in the colonial period in the northeastern United States. The precedent was set for the use of school facilities for general community purposes at this time, and it has carried over to the present.1 While activities were not wholly educative in nature, the concept of community education was involved, for any community activities related to education are educative. The first recorded use of school facilities for adult evening school was reported in Providence, Rhode Island, in 1810.2 Approximately thirty years later the Cincinnati Public Schools initiated adult programs, and these were followed by programs in Cleveland and Chicago.3 Public funds for the support of evening adult programs were first initiated, in 1865, by the Chicago Board of Education, and following their lead permissive laws were passed by several state legislatures for the purpose of providing public support for evening programs.“ 1Eleanor T. Glueck, The Communit Use of Schools, (Baltimore: Williams and Williams, 1927;. p. I. 2Ellwood P. Cubberly, Public Education in the United States, (Boston: Roughton-Mifflin Company, 93 , p. 5 7. BChicago Board of Education, A Historical Review of the Chica 0 Public Evenin Schools, (Chicago: Chicago Board 0? Education, I957), p. 3. (Mimeographed) “George C. Mann, "The DevelOpment of Public School Adult Education, Public School Adult Education, (Washington: National Association of Puinc Scfiool AduIt Education, 1956). Po 110 13 The period from 1900 through the early 1930's was significant in the later develOpment of community schools and community education, for writers of this period advocated the marriage of education and the community. For the first time the importance of the child's environment was discussed in relationship to his total education. In this light. Dewey wrote: The develOpment within the young of the attitudes and dispositions necessary to the continuous and progressive life of a society cannot take place by direct con- veyance of beliefs, emotions, and knowb ledge. It takes place through the intermediary of the environment. The environment consists of the sum total of conditions which are concerned in the execution of the activity characteristic of the living being. The social environ- ment consists of all the activities of fellow beings that are bound up in the carrying on the activities of any one of its members. It is truly educative in its effect, in its efforts. in the degree in which an individual appropriates the purposes which actuates it, becomes familiar with its methods and subject matters, acquires needed skill, and s saturated with its emotional Spirit. Hart, writing during the same period, emphasized the educative community as the major factor in the educa- tion of the child. He stressed that total education could not be produced by the schools alone, thus it had to be a joint Operation of schools and community. Hart wrote: 5John Dewey. Democrac and Education, (New York: MacMillan Company, 19 , p. 2 . 14 The problem within education is not in training children, but in the develOpment of a community in which children can grOw up to be democratic, intelligent, disci- plined to freedom, reverent to the goals of life, and eager to share in the tasks of the age. Schools cannot produce the resglt: nothing but the community can do so. Thus, the underlying principle of community education--school and community--was set during this periOd. As the economic situation changed in the United States during the end of the period, the schools became more actively engaged in meeting the needs of the peOple. As the depression deepened, schools became the center of the community in offering expanded programs of home economics, agriculture education and community improvement. Citizens became interested in "what the schools could do for them" and citizen planning councils became active. Evening schools were extended into new cate- gories, curricula were broadened and for the first time adult education administrators became common.7 The Community School Movement 1230's-Present Most community schools were recorded in the late 1930's. The concept may have been a result of the high value placed on the schools during the early depression 6Joseph K. Hart, The Discove of Intelli once, (New York: The Century Company. 1955;. P. 532. 7Mann. .1'9-2. 9-1-30 15 days and of the emerging philOSOphy of a democratic and social education. The book-centered, traditional, authoritarian education, which had become the American system of educa- tion, was described as undemocratic and not in keeping with the basic learning processes. Typical of the writings of the period was Everett's description of the active vs. passive role of the school in educating the child: All life is educative vs. education is gained only in formal institutions of learning. Education requires participa- tion vs. education is adequately gained through studying about life. Public school systems should be primarily con- cerned with the improvement of community living and the improvement of the social order vs. school systems should be pri- marily concerned with passing the cultural heritage. The curriculum should receive its social orientation from major problems and areas of community living vs. the curriculum should be oriented in relation to the sgecialized aims of the academic subject. Everett continued by calling for a more social education program: Social education works toward two inter- related ends: the one, to solve our immediate problems, and the other to build a more adequate social intelligence, and here the rising generations, as well as the Bresent citizens, are also in- volved. 8Samuel Everett, The Communit School, (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, I9§8), p. IO. . 91bid.. p. 425. 16 Dewey, writing the preface of Clapp's book, called for the develOpment of socially functioning skills within the students through involvement in the community.10 Some educators thus began to believe that experi- ence must precede "book learning" and adopted the philo- sophy that "you must have experience in an area before you can profit from it." In some schools, the community thus became the laboratory for the school. The salient features of the community schools of the period were summarized by Campbell: 1. Community schools in the early days were organized around legitimate communities, legitimate communities being defined by sociologists as communities where there is a doctor, dentist, hardware store and other institutions that cause peOple to come to the common center for special- istic services. 2. Most community schools were located in rural areas. 3. A commanding purpose of the community school in the past was to shore up the community. This was done in many ways. Leaders from the school assisted with plans to attract new industries to the community. In some instances the superintendent and his staff established or helped to establish a soils testing laboratory, a cannery, a freezer plant, an artificial breeders association, a milk testing laboratory, a farm account- ing system, a service bureau for business firms and a health center. Many peOple from the school, pupils as well. helped to beautify the community. 10Elsie R. Clapp, Communit Schools in Action, (New York: Viking Press, I939}, p. viii. 17 Frequently, the first step in community develOpment was to organize a community council, established primarily to give voice to all agencies. It has been reported that a high school principal made 290 personal visits calling on every family represented in his school. asking what in their Opinion the school might do to serve the community more adequately. 4. Learning in these early community schools was identified with community living. Students learned about state, national, and international problems and their solutions by drawing up analogies from life in the community. It was assumed that the human relations context in the community "II the same as that in other settings. Clapp defined a community school in one of the significant books on community schools written during the period as follows: A community school forgoes its separateness. It is influential because it belongs to its peOple. They share its ideas and ideals, and its work. It takes from them and gives to them. There are no bounds, as far as I can see, to what it could accomplish in social reconstruction if it had enough wisdom and insight, and devotion and energy. It demands all these, for changes in living and learning are not produced by imparting information about different conditions or by gathering statistical data about what exists, but by creating By peOple. with peOple. and for peOple.1 The democratic and social philosOphy of the school of the period was described by Cook: 11Clyde M. Campbell, The Communit School and Its Administration, 11:4, (December, I965). 12Clapp, loo. cit. 18 The role of the school was to educate youth by and for participation in the full range of basic life activities: to seek to demo- cratize life in the school and outside: to use the community resources in all aSpects of the school program: to actively cOOperate with other social agencies and groups in improving community life: and to function as a igrvice center for youth and adult groups. The philoSOphy stated by Cook was closely tied to the community school phiIOSOphy. Many schools actively pursued the community school philosophy: however, the philoSOphy did not encompass the largest percentage of the schools. No data were found estimating the number of community schools in Operation during this period. The community school concept continued to be applied until the outset of World War II. As America turned to total mobilization for the war effort, activi- ties turned toward the needs of the times. War production training programs deeply involved the community and the schools during the period. Descriptive literature of community school programs concerned activities aiding in the war effort. Much was written concerning community education at the end of World War II. Prominent among the authors was Olsen who reaffirmed the purposes of community education.aa they had been stated by Cook.1u 13Lloyd Allen Cook, "School and Community," The Enc clo edia of Educational Research, lst edition, (New Yor , c an ompany, , p. 91. 14 Edward G. Olsen, School and Communit , (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 1955). P. lI 19 The National Society for the Study of Education based its 44th Yearbook, in 1945, on "The Community School Emphasis in Post War Education." Seay, who edited the Yearbook, defined community school/community education: The community school maintains two dis- tinctive emphases-~service to the entire community, not merely to the children of school age: and discovery, develOpment and the use of resources of the community as part of the educational facilities of the school. The concern of the community school with local community is intended. not to restrict the schools attention to local matters, but to provide a focus from which to relate study and action in the larger community--the state, I26 region, the nation and the world. The A.S.C.D. Yearbook, of 1947, called for organi- zation of the schools to provide for OOOperative planning of a school-community program in which the school would 16 The writings of serve the needs of all the peOple. the immediate post war period closely reflected the philOSOphy of the writers prior to the war. Despite the abundance of writings at this time, apparently few schools adapted the community school pro- gram. The Flint, Michigan, Community Schools, which had initiated a community school program in 1935. remained 15Maurice Seay (ed.), "The Community School Emphasis in Post War Education," American Education in the Post War Period Curriculum Reconstruction, 55th YearBooE, Part I, National Society for the SEudy of Education, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1945), p. 304. 20c; 16Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment, "Organizing the Elementary School for Living and Learning," 1242 A.S.C.D. Yearbook, (Washington, D. C.: The A.S.C.D. of the N.E.A., 9 7 , p. 80. 20 as the only recorded community school program. The C. S. Mott Foundation had allocated funds to the Flint Board of Education with which it could conduct educational programs of an enrichment and compensatory nature--pro- grams above and beyond those normally undertaken by a public school system. Assuming that a child is molded and develOped by his total environment, the Foundation has underwritten a series of programs designed to uplift the entire pOpulation. Programs in health services for children, adult education, adult recreation, civic affairs, socialization and curriculum enrichment have been offered through the public school. Within this concept, the school became much more than a six-hour-a-day educational plant for youngsters only. It became a community educa- tion center with programs in health, recreation, adult education, enrichment and compensatory education for all residents of the neighborhood regardless of age, race, religion or social background.17 Harding Mott explained the community school philoSOphy in Flint as follows: After 25 years of experimentation, the Mott Foundation considers the public school the ideal instrument to achieve the end of community education, for the public school has played the traditional role of common denominator in our society, 17Peter L. Clancy, testimony presented before the Labor and Education Committee of the United States House of Representatives, January 26, 1965: and the Subcommittee on Education of the United States Senate Committee on Public Labor and Welfare, January 29, 1965. 21 and today is an institution truly repre- sentative of all classes. creeds and colors: the physical plants of the schools, representing a huge community investment, are perfectly suited for community rec- reation and education and the use of these facilities eliminates the need for a costly duplication of facilities: the schools are geographically suited to serve as neighborhood centers or recreation, education and democratic action and by their nature are readily accessible to every man, woman and child: and if experi- mental programs can be proved feasible with a school system, the transition from private support I8 public support is relatively easy. The American Association of School Administrators in 1959 credited the Flint Community Schools with the development of a community school program of remarkable effectiveness in the aspects of community involvement: hence, the Flint program has been the model for community school prOgrams throughout the United States.19 Ten to twelve thousand visitors per year have observed the Flint Community Schools over the last five years.20 Programs have Spread to many large cities such as Miami, Florida: New Haven, Connecticut: and Atlanta, Georgia. At present. there are more than 150 school districts involved in comprehensive community education programs throughout the nation and in Canada and Mexico. 18c. s. Harding Mott, "The Flint Community School Concept as I See It," Journal of Educational Sociology, 23:4:1959. PP. 141-161. 19American Association of School Administrators, "Educational Administration in the Changing Community," (Washington, D. 0.: National Education Association, 1959). 20Becker, loc. cit. 22 Summer of the Cha 1 Philos h of Community ScKOOI The role of the school in society has closely paralleled the social and economic phases of the history of the United States. Over the years the philOSOphy of community education has also changed. During the period of industrialization, schools were involved in content- oriented community programs. During the thirties, the emphasis shifted to programs characterized as oriented toward social welfare to meet the needs of the social crisis. The concept of community education has changed again since the late fifties to meet the social and educational problems which have arisen since the end of World War II. The purpose of contemporary community education programs has been the involvement of peOple in the develOp- ment of the educationally oriented community. Virtually all resources have been marshalled to the aid of educative institutions and agencies in building an environment conducive to education in which many individuals in the community have fulfilled their educational needs. The Educative Community The ultimate goal of community schools and of community education has been the develOpment of the educative community. For this reason a brief review of the literature concerning this area was included. 23 Boles stated that the average school child Spends two and one half times more hours, per year, in the community than he does in school. He also pointed out that the eighth grade drOpout, by the age seventy, would have spent one hundred and sixty-eight times more hours in the community than he would under the influence of the school.21 Melby contended: The educative influence of the community upon the individual is apparent. This influence includes all agencies and institutions with which the individual comes into contact. The learning the individual acquires in the community may be more satisfying, more penetrating and more lasting than that which occurs in the classroom. Hence learning is not something that stayts and steps when the school bell rings. 2 The concept of the educative community as described by McClusky suggested that more persons in the community have a potential, if not actual capacity, for education than had been realized. He also stated that these same persons should assume a responsibility for their educative role and implement that assumption by making their educa- tional contribution to the community as explicit and effective as possible.23 21Harold W. Boles, The Community School and Its Administration, 11:5 (May, 1964). 22Ernest O. Melby. The Communit School and Its Administration, III:ll (July, 1965). 23Howard A. McClusky, The Community School and Its Administration, V:9 (April. 1967). 24 Campbell also considered individuals in the community as educators and placed his emphasis on the influence of the family as a part of the educational team. He stated: The family must not be omitted from the reSponsibility of assuming its role, for man is born and reared, and functions in a family matrix. Each member of the family determines, in a large measure, what the child and each member will become: for the intimate experiences of the family help set the ideals, attitudes and behavior patterns for each member. Parents are, in reality, 54° community's most influential teachers. Goslin believed that the total educational process also involved parental support, for without this, the level of student motivation and discipline was at its lowest. He added that the school had little influ- ence without the active support of families in the community.25 The potentiality of the educative community was explained by Campbell: An educative community will enrich the homes and neighborhoods in an effort to improve the learning of youth. If it is true that the cultural climate controls the behavior, then it is the role of the school to attempt to improve the cultural climate, at tag same time that it educates the children. 2“Campbell, loc. cit. 25David A. Goslin, The School in Canton orar Societ , (Fairlawn, N. J.: Scott Foresman and Company, 1955) 9 Po 55o 26Clyde M. Campbell, The CommunitySchOOl and Its Administratigg, 1:? (April, 1965). 25 Biddle stated that the involvement of peOple brings a sense of community to them, and as they are involved a conviction grows that they are able to con- tribute to the social improvement of the community. The develOpment of the educative community thus involves the involvement of people.27 Melby has also stated the need for an educative community: Education.must become the central endeavor of every community, and of the nation as a whole,2éf we are to preserve our freedom. The community can become an educative community by, as Manley stated, "getting the peOple in, getting them informed, getting them interested, and they become involved."29 It was assumed through the review of literature that education of youth is not, and cannot be, the sole reaponsibility of educational institutions. The Role of the School in DeveIgpigg -__—'__EETEdhcativeICahmunIEy As society has changed, the school has been assigned greater reaponsibilities in the develOpment of 27William Biddle, The Communit Develo ment Pro- cess: The Rediscove of LocaI Initiafiive, (New YorE: RineHaFE E UinsEon, Inc.. 1965), p. 7?. 28Ernest O. Melby, "The Price of Freedom," An address to the National School Board Association, Houston, Texas, April 26, 1964. 29J. M. First, "The Community School Concept," Michigan Education Journal, (April. 1960), p. 503. 26 youth and of citizens in the community, thus the litera- ture concerning the role of the school in develOping an educative community has been reviewed. According to Goslin: The school is charged with the responsibility of inculcating basic social norms. the res- ponsibility of providing the new members of the society with information to assume their proper role in the democratic process, the responsibility to prepare individuals for job Opportunities and the responsibility for the basic education of youth and the reeducation of adults. The school cannot perform these tasks alone: however, these objectives may be fulfilled by the dgyelOp- ment of a truly educative community. Melby stated that the school is but one institu- tion in the community, but that it, along with the family, exerts the most influence. He further stated that the school is in a unique position to function as the coordinator of all community agencies and institu- tions by providing leadership, direction and support. Any contribution that a single agency can make is partial in its therapy: however, the coordinated efforts of all agencies could make a difference in the cultural and educational environment of the community. He concluded by saying that some peOple feel that a fully mobilized community would take over the professional functions of the schools, but instead of de-emphasizing education in the schools, a new vitality and emphasis would result.31 30Goslin, loc. cit. 31Ernest 0. Melby, Administerin Communit Educa- tion, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. I953). P. 219. 27 Yaeger has succinctly summarized the role of the school in the develOpment of the educative community: As the eye cannot get along without the hand, neither can the school without the home, nor the school and the home without the community. Each becomes necessary to the welfare of the others: all must work together in the interests of childhood and of desirable living for all men in every community. Although the leadership belongs to public education, the responsi- bility belongs to all.32 The community school, Operating morning to night throughout the week and year, is a potent factor in drawing the school and community together. The Community School Director The literature in its description of community schools also included a description of the needs, the role, the characteristics and the training of the community school director. The pertinent literature has been included and reviewed. The need Campbell stressed the need for a community school director when he stated: There must be a full time person acting as the community school director in each school Operating as a center. Where such a person does not exist the work is left undone or assigned to full time teachers or administrators. The full time personnel are usually assigned the job on an overload basis and frequently display a lack of 32william A. Yaeger, School-Communit Relations, New York: The Dryden Press, 195T). p. 18. 28 interest, involvement or preparation. The lack of a full tigg person results in a disjointed program. Biddle also emphasized this point as he stated that the community school concept must be implemented by a profes- sional person, one who is a full-fledged and adequately recognized encourager.3u Young, in reviewing the history of the community school program in the Flint, Michigan, Community Schools, lays the success of the program to the community school director. He stated that the director was the key to the community centered functions of the school.35 The director, according to the literature, is imperative as the encourager or initiator for each community education school site. The role The role of the community school director varied among localities: however, the three major roles of the director as outlined by the Flint. Michigan, program may be used as an example of the typical program. 1. School-community relations A. promotes the community school concept B. knows the peOple in the community C. determines the make up of the community D. utilizes community resources E. creates and maintains a friendly atmosphere 33Campbell. 199.- cit. 3LIBiddle. pp. 933., p. 258. 35Clarence H. Young and William A. Quinn. Founda- tions for Livigg, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963). Po . 29 F. publicizes programs G. participates in school and community services 2. Organization, administration and supervision A. organizes and administers the program B. supervises assigned instructional activities 3. Leadership and democratic procedures A. exerts personal leadership B. engages in personal develOpment C. provides community leaderggip D. promotes staff leadership Sumption further defined the role of the director as he stated: Constructive community participation can best be achieved through organized effort. The structure of the organization must be mutually acceptable to the entire community. Such a structure is a bridge over which the school and the community travel in the ex- change of ideas, needs and aspirations. The bridge should be Open to all. It is only by such an organized approach to school-community relations that a school may expect to achieve the larger benefits of active participation. The major purpose of thg participation is to improve educa- tion. 7 Sumption further described communication as one of the by-products of total participation. He said that the director should provide peOple with information about the schools and in turn should provide the school with infor- mation about the community. He continued by stating 36Flint Board of Education, "The Community School Director and His Role in the Flint Community Schools," Prepared and distributed by the Mott Program. 1961. 37Merle R. Sumption and Yvonne Engstrom, School Communit Relations: A New A roach, (New York: THe Dryden Press, I951, p. 258. 30 that through communication, the director must build and maintain public confidence in the schools and gain their support for the school and its program. The director develops, said Sumption, a commonality of purpose. effort and achievement.38 Campbell wrote that communication may be achieved by bringing peOple together to discuss their personal problems, neighborhood issues and the ways that they might relate themselves to the improvement of the larger community.39 Biddle stated that the director should meet with the peOple wherever they are--at home. in the church, on the playground, in the factory, or in an environment in which peOple feel comfortable. He also expands the role of the director to include the roles of an: encourager, friend, source of inspiration, observer, analyst, commentator, participant in discussions, participant in some action, expert, advisor and expe- ditor.’+0 Boles continued by stating: The director works with other social. economic, and religious agencies to become informed about common problems and to elicit mutual understanding and cOOper- ation. This information is then used to further the planning for the educative community. 38Ibid.. p. 104. 39Clyde M. Campbell, The Community School and Its Administration, IV:2 (October, 1965). 40Biddle. loc. cit. 31 He is interested in changing the emotional orientation of the citizen, from despair to hOpefulness, from self-centered values to neighbor and community-centered values,u1 from timidity to courage to venture forth. Campbell summarized the role of the director by stating that it should be aimed at making enduring changes in the peOple--participation should lead to deep involve- ment. communication should be with equalitarian ideas, and mutual experiences should foster closer spiritual relationships.”2 Characterisgygs of the director The literature was reviewed in an attempt to ascertain a set of characteristics unique to community school directors. Several listings were found: however, they proved to be broad in nature and could have been applied to the good teacher, the good administrator, or the good social worker. No listing therefore was included in the study. Training of the director Campbell stated that the triadic equation of dedication, wisdom. and skill leads to the success of the community school director. He further stated that while dedication no doubt was the most important, the director must have a deep understanding of the social scene, the nlBoles, loc. cit. uzClyde M. Campbell. The Communit School and Its Administration, IV:9 (May. 1966). 32 relationship of man to the social scene and the role of education as a catalitic agent between the two. 43 Yaeger listed the following training needed by a person working in this role: training in community surveys, studies, and organizations knowledge of, and contact with, public and private agencies, their organization. function. and services training as an able discussion leader, Speaker, and publicist knowledge of current sociological trends in such fields as crime prevention, character education, health, housing. recreation, education. and adult educa- tion, and an unbiased objective attitude toward problems in community planning training to initiate community activities and thfifi to stimulate widespread partici- pation From the literature it appeared that the training of community school directors closely paralleled that of the training of the community develOper. The criteria listed by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs demonstrated this point: broad background of human behavior. of society, and basic economic principles knowledge and skill applied to the program in its general aspects, including methods of reaching people 43Campbell, _1_qe. cit . uuYaeger, loc. cit. 33 . Specific kflowledge and skills particular to service 5 ' The literature did not reveal any published con- temporary programs. None were listed in the study. Summary The purpose of this chapter was to review the literature in the field. The review revealed: however, no description of a person Specifically designated as a community school director until the Flint Community Schools initiated the position. Prior to this time it appeared that it was the responsibility of the school administrator to carry out this type of work. There seemed to be a limited amount of literature concerning the community school director and training programs for the director. It was deemed necessary to trace the history of the use of the schools by the public to Show how the community school concept evolved and to follow the philOSOphy of community schools to clarify the concept. The educative community was also reviewed to add to the understanding of the ultimate goal of the community school and community education. Finally. the literature was reviewed concerning the need. role, characteristics and training of community school directors. “5United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, "Study Kit on Training for Community DevelOpment," (New York: United Nations. 1958), p. 14. 34 Chapter III presented the procedures and methods employed in the study. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODS This chapter provided a description of the planning and conduct of the study. The following areas were covered: description of the participants, description of the sampling method, develOpment of the instrument. explanation of the instrument, and the research design employed to analyze the data. The Participants Two groups comprised the study. The first group consisted of nationally recOgnized experts in the field of community education. The panel of experts was made up of five persons from the college ranks and five from the public schools. All had written extensively in the field, or had been instrumental in implementing community education programs in large cities throughout the country. Refer to the list of experts in Appendix A. The second group consisted of 125 practicing community school directors from localities throughout the nation. These peOple had been active participants in the daily task of administering community school prOgrams and in the develOpment of educative communities. The SampIing Method The membership role of the National Community School Education Association was obtained and all 35 36 community school directors as members were noted. A nation-wide sampling was obtained by first compiling the list of communities emplOying directors. Eighty cities were listed. In large communities such as Flint. Michigan: Miami, Florida: and Atlanta, Georgia, one half of the directors were randomly selected so as not to bias the study in favor of one large community. DevelOping and Pro-testing the Instrument Since a nationwide survey was desired. it was felt that the use of the questionnaire was a feasible method for gathering data. The questionnaire survey has been the most widely used in education, Since it can be a very valuable technique in helping to under- stand the current situation in some particular educa- tional area.1 The value of the questionnaire survey was emphasized by Barnes: A survey frequently becomes more than a mere fact finding device. It may also result in important hypotheses or con- clusions that help to solve current problems, and it may provide basic information for comparison studies and for identifying trends.2 The instrument was based on "topics which might be included in an intensive training program." The lsorg. _c_>p_. cit. .1 2John B. Barnes, The Dynamics of Educational Research. (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona tate o ege, 958), p. 7. 37 review of the literature was completed and interviews with forty-six of the participants at the National Con- vention of the National Community School Education Association in Miami, in December, 1967, were held prior to the initial stages of the develOpment of the instrument. All suggested tOpics obtained from the review of literature and from the interviews were listed. The tOpics were then grouped into the following general categories. . History-Philosophy . Social-Psychological' . Personal Skills . Communication Skills . Institution-Agency COOperation . Organization . Administration . Programming . Evaluation Refinements were made and a sample questionnaire was submitted to the Research Department of Michigan State University for review. At that time, the response categories were revised, allowing four degrees of positive reaction and one negative, as follows: . Must be included . Desirable, but not necessary . Uncertain 38 . Not desirable, but could be included . Should not be included The suggestions of the Research Department were employed. and the first instrument was constructed. The instrument was pro-tested by members of the Mott Intern group, who were studying community education in Flint, and also by several staff members of Michigan State University. The results of the pre-test were compiled and revisions were made: some tOpics were deleted, some were added as a result of comments on the pre-test, sentences were rephrased, and vague and ambiguous words were replaced. The pre-test was reviewed with the Research Department, and with apprOpriate changes in wording and format, the final instrument was constructed. The_;nstrument The final form consisted of ninety-two tOpics, listed without the major category headings so as not to bias the respondents in any way. (See Appendix B) The same questionnaire was sent to the panel of experts and to the community school directors. 0f the 125 question- naires sent, eighty cities were represented in Canada and the following states: Michigan. Ohio, Oregon, Minnesota, California, Illinois, Florida, Georgia. Washington, Connecticut, Indiana, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Missouri and Tennessee. 39 A letter of explanation (See Appendix C) was enclosed with the instrument. After a 65 per cent response had been received, a follow up letter (See Appendix D) and a capy of the instrument was sent. A 15 per cent response was gained from the follow up letters. and the remaining two per cent came from the original letters. A total of 105 questionnaires were returned by the cut off date. Upon examination, 102 or 82 per cent of the questionnaires were usable. Conversion of the Hypotheses In order to test the hypotheses presented earlier, the null form was adapted, enabling the investi- gator to detect differences through the search for similarities. AS a result of the conversion, the hypotheses were stated as follows: 1. There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the panel of eXperts and the community school directors on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. 2. A) There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and less than three 3. B) C) 40 years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation pro- grams. There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience and the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. A) There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. B) There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with no 41 formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. C) There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience and the Opinions of the directors with no formal prepara- tion and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. 4. There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. Research Design The Research Department of Michigan State Univer- sity was also consulted concerning the research design of the study. A design was formulated to determine categories and tOpics which might be included in intensive prepara- tion programs. Since the groups varied in size, from ten to 102 respondents, the small sample theory, employing T-tests was deemed applicable to test the hypotheses. Two-tailed tests of significance were used since no 42 hypothesis regarding the direction of Opinions had been posited. The .05 significance level was also set. An assumption was made that where no significant differences in Opinions of the reSpondents concerning individual categories were found--the category would be included in the intensive preparation program. It was also assumed that where significant differences occurred. the category would not be included. Once the categories were established, topics were then assigned to the categories on the basis of the respondents Opinions. A mean acceptance level was deter- mined to establish such topics for inclusion. After examining the results of the pre-test with the Research Department and identifying trends in the reSpondent's replies, a minimum acceptance level of 3.60 was established. Thus, only tOpics assigned a 3.60, or above, by both respondent groups were considered for inclusion in the study. Methodology The response categories were assigned the following numerical values for the purpose of analysis: Must be included - 4 Desirable. but not necessary - 3 Uncertain - 2 Not desirable, but could be included - 1 Should not be included - 0 43 The individual responses were tallied and the mean com- puted for each category, for each respondent group. T-tests were then computed and applied to the eight hypotheses. Individual responses were also tallied and the mean computed for each of the ninety-two individual tOpics. for each reSpondent group. The mean acceptance level was then applied to the mean of each topic, for each reSpondent group. Summayy This chapter provided a description of the plan- ning and conduct of the study. A description of the respondents and the method of sampling was discussed. The develOpment and pro-test of the instrument was included. and the instrument was explained. The hypo- theses were converted from research to statistical form through the use of the null form. Finally. the research design of the study was described. Chapter IV presented the treatment and analysis of the data. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of the chapter was to present and analyze the data and to identify content areas that might be included in intensive preparation programs. Categories were tested by applying T-tests to the means of the categories for each respondent group. The assumption stated in Chapter 3. "where no signifi- cant differences in Opinions of the respondents con- cerning individual categories were found--the category would be included in the intensive preparation program." was applied to determine which categories would be included. The mean acceptance level of 3.60 was then applied to the ninety-two individual tOpics for each reSpondent group to ascertain tOpics which would be included within ‘ categories. The data for each hypothesis was presented, analyzed. and summarized as follows: Hypothesis 1 In hypothesis 1, the responses of the panel of experts were compared to the total group of community school directors. Hypothesisw; Ho: There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the panel of 44 45 experts and the Opinions of the total group of community school directors on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. No significant differences of Opinion were revealed from the analysis of the data for any of the categories.. The lack of difference was further emphasized by the fact that there was only a .03 difference in the cumulative means between the groups. (Table l) Employing the assumption stated in Chapter 3, all categories were considered to be accepted by both groups. Table 1 T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the experts and the total group of directors. COmmunity Panel of School Categories Experts Directors "t" p History-PhilOSOphy 3.24 3.26 -0.044 NS Social-Psychological 3.07 3.07 0.000 NS Personal Skills 3.28 3.29 0.089 NS Communication Skills 3.15 3.30 -0.369 NS Institution-Agency COOperation 2.78 2.71 0.153 NS Administration 3.24 3.48 -0.615 NS Organization 3.28 3.53 -0.681 NS Programming 3.33 3.53 -0.825 NS Evaluation 2.40 2.48 -0.l66 NS Totals 3.19 3.22 -0.043 NS 46 When the mean level of 3.60 was applied to Specific tOpics within categories, some disagreement was apparent. (Table 2) Table 2 A listing of tOpics within each category for the experts and the total group of directors. Rank by Rank by Mean for Mean for TOpic number Directors Experts Directgps. Expert§_ History-PhIIQSOphy 1 7 7 2.41 2.00 2 1 5-6 3.74 3.10 3 2 5-6 3.61 3.10 4 6 4 2.73 3.30 5 3 3 3.58 3.50 6 5 l 3.43 3.90 7 4 2 3.48 3.60 Social-Peychological 8 2 2 3.65 3.80 9 10 7 2.97 3.30 10 3 8 3.54 3.10 11 6 4-5 3.25 3.60 12 4 3 3.48 3.70 13 5 4-5 3.36 3.60 14 11 9 2.87 2.90 15 8 6 3.05 3.40 16 1 1 3.85 4.00 1? 13 10 2.64 2.80 18 14 14 2.58 2.20 Table 2 (continued) A7 ‘fRank by Directors Tppic number Social-Psychological continued Experts Bank by Mean for Directors Experts ‘Mean for 19 15 15 1.90 2.10 20 12 11 2.83 2.70 21 7 12-13 3.06 2.40 22 9 12-13 3.03 2.40 Personal skills 23 7-8 8-9-10 3.14 3.00 24 4 6 3.52 3.30 25 10 8-9-10 2.90 3.00 26 11 12 2.85 2.40 27 12 8-9-10 2.80 3.00 28 9 7 3.11 3.10 29 7-8 11 3.14 2.80 30 5 3-4 3.40 3.70 31 2-3 1 3.64 3.90 32 2-3 3-4 3.64 3.70 33 1 5 3.66 3.60 3h 6 2 3.21 3.80 Communication skills 35 5 9-10 3.39 2.80 36 2 3 3.53 3.50 37 7-8 9-10 3.25 2.80 38 6 8 3.33 2.90 39 9 6 3.23 3.10 Table 2 (continued) 48 —Rank by Topic number Communication Skills continued Directors Rink by Mean for Egperts Directors Eyperts Mean for 40 4 4 3.42 3.40 41 5 3.48 3.30 42 1 7 3.74 3.00 43 11 11 2.60 2.40 44 10 2 3.02 3.60 45 7-8 1 3.25 3.80 Institution-Agency 46 11 2.36 2.40 47 6 6-7-8 2.58 2.70 48 3 1-2-3 3.14 3.20 49 ll 12 2.24 2.30 50 5 2.73 2.60 51 2 4 3.22 3.10 52 4 6-7-8 2.93 2.70 53 1 6-7-8 3.25 2.70 54 12 10 2.23 2.50 55 10 5 2.29 2.80 56 8 1-2-3 2.45 3.20 57 7 1-2-3 2.55 3.20 Organization 58 3 7 3.68 3.30 59 4-5 3-4-5 3.57 3.67 60 7 2 3.46 3.70 Table 2 (continued) Rank 8; Rank by Mean for Mean for 49 Tepic number Directors Experts Directors Egperts Organization I continued 61 2 l 3.70 3.90 62 1 3-4-5 3.78 3.60 63 4-5 3-4-5 3.67 3.60 64 6 6 3.59 3.40 65 8 8-9 3.44 2.70 66 10 8-9 2.99 2.70 67 9 10 3.22 2.30 Administration 68 5 6 3.50 3.10 69 1 3 3.99 3.80 70 2 1-2 3.80 3.90 71 3 4 3.62 3.50 72 4 5 3.54 3.40 73 7 7 3.34 3.00 74 6 1-2 3.42 3.90 75 9 8-9 2.92 2.30 76 8 8-9 3.15 2.30 77 6 12 3.56 3.00 78 4 6-7 3.71 3.30 79 1 2-3 3.84 3.60 80 5 1 3.63 3.70 31 3 5 3.73 3.40 82 7-8 6-7 3.49 3.30 50 Table 2 (continued) Rank by Rank by Mean for7 Mean for Tppgc number Directors Experts Directors Experts Programmipg 83 7-8 2-3 3.49 3.60 84 9 8 3.43 3.20 85 12 9-10-11 3.29 3.10 86 10 9-10-11 3.41 3.10 87 ll 9-10-11 3.34 3.10 88 2 4 3.74 3.50 Eyaluation 89 2 1-2 2.54 2.60 90 1 1-2 2.72 2.60 91 4 3-4 2.17 2.20 92 3 3-4 2.27 2.20 In the History—PhiloSOphy category, no topics attained the 3.60 mean level. The experts did. however. indicate a mean of 3.60, or above, for tOpic 6, "effects of racial. social and socio-economic isolation," and tOpic 7, "comparison of the traditional vs. community school." The directors, in turn, indicated a mean of 3.60, or above, for tOpic 2. "history of the community school movement," and tOpic 3. "history of community education." The means of eight tOpics were above the 3.60 mean in the Social-Psychological category. The tOpics achieving the 3.60 mean by both groups were: 51 . tOpic 8 - ”the concept of community" . topic 16 - "identifying community resources" The directors did not attain a mean of 3.60 for any other topics: however, the experts did for the following topics: . tOpic ll - "minority groups in society" . tOpic 12 - "current social problems of society" . tOpic l3 - "effects of segregation” The tOpics that were chosen in the Personal Skills category were as follows:‘ . tOpic 31 - "develOping individual and group participation" . tOpic 32 - ”develOping leaders" . tOpic 33 - "the community develOpment process" The directors did not attain the 3.60 mean on any topics in the Personal Skills category, but the experts did so for tOpic 30. I'training in making home visitations," and topic 34, "develOping others self-concept." The experts and directors did not indicate a 3.60 mean for any common topics in the Communications Skills category. The experts did assign the 3.60 mean to tOpic 44, "listening skills," and tOpic 45. "discussion skills," while the directors ranked tOpic 42, ”use of public relations." Analysis of the Institution-Agency OOOperation category revealed that both groups failed to attain a mean at. or above. 3.60 for any tOpic. 52 In the Organization category. four of the ten topics were assigned a mean of 3.60. or above, by both groups. The tOpics were: . tOpic 59 - "methods of orienting staff members" . tOpic 61 - "using lay persons in the program" . tOpic 62 - "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" . tOpic 63 - "establishing community advisory boards" TOpics above the mean agreement level were tOpic 58, "methods of orienting community leaders," by the directors and topic 60, "conducting community surveys," by the experts. The experts and directors assigned the mean of 3.60 to two tOpics in the Administration category. The topics were: . tOpic 69 - "the role of the community school director" . tOpic 70 - "the role of the principal" The directors also favored the inclusion of tOpic 71. "the role of the superintendent," while the experts favored tOpic 74, "the role of the lay person." Only two tOpics in the Programming category achieved the 3.60 mean level for both groups: however, four other tOpics reached that level independently. The selected tOpics were: . tOpic 79 - "adult education programs" . tOpic 80 - "job training programs" 53 Three tOpics achieved the mean of 3.60 for the directors as follows: tOpic 78, "youth recreational programs," tOpic 81, "youth enrichment programs," and tOpic 88, "senior citizen programs." The experts assigned the 3.60 mean only to tOpic 74, "the role of the lay person." No tOpics attained the 3.60 mean by either group in the Evaluation category. Nine categories and the cumulative mean were tested. The analysis of the data revealed that there were no significant differences in the Opinions of both groups on any category or on the cumulative mean. The hypothesis was, therefore, accepted. While there was no significant differences regarding categories. some general disagreement did occur in the selection of tOpics within categories as follows: 1. The experts assigned the 3.60 mean level to five tOpics within the Social-Psychological and Personal Skills categories while the directors only chose two tOpics. at that level. in each category. 2. The directors assessed six tOpics, at the 3.60 level. in the Programming category while the directors chose only three. Hypotheses 2A-ZC In hypotheses 2A-2C, the reSponses of directors with formal preparation and more than three years experi- ence were compared to the responses of directors with 54 formal preparation and less than three years experience: the reSponses of each of these two groups of directors were independently compared to the responses of the experts. Hypothesis 24 H There are no significant differences between 0: the Opinions of the panel of experts and the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences in the Opinions of the experts and the directors on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. (Table 3) The Organization category and the Programming category received the highest mean for both groups, while the Institution Agency COOperation and Evaluation categories received the lowest by both groups. The means of six of the nine categories were within .15 of each other. while the remaining categories were within .29 of each other. There was also only a .02 difference in the cumulative mean for both groups. Since there were no significant differences in the T-test analysis of categories, the assumption stated in Chapter 3 was employed. The analysis of each tOpic was shown in Table 4. 55 Table 3 T-test analysis of the responses by categories, for the experts and the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience. COEmunity Panel of School Categories Egpepts Directors "t" p___, History-Philosophy 3.24 3.26 -0.024 NS Social-Psychological 3.07 2.98 0.101 NS Personal Skills 3.28 3.14 0.156 NS Communication Skills 3.15 3.27 -0.l69 NS Institution-Agency COOperation 2.78 2.81 -0.034 NS Administration 3.24 3.48 -0.366 NS Organization 3.28 3.57 -0.432 NS Programming 3.33 3.54 -0.341 NS Evaluation 2.40 2.25 0.187 NS Totals 3.19 3.17 0.023 NS No tOpics in the History-PhilOSOphy category met the 3.60 mean level for both groups. A mean of 3.60. or above, was assigned by the directors to tOpic 2, "history of the community School movement," tOpic 3. "history of the community education," and tOpic 5. "the philOSOphy of community school-historic." The experts assigned a mean of 3.60, or above. to tOpic 6, "effects of racial, social and socio-economic isolation," and tOpic 7, "comparison of the traditional vs. community school." 56 Table 4 A listing of tOpics within each category for the experts and the directors with formal prepara- tion and less than three years experience. Rank by Bank by Mean for Mean for [Eppyg number Directors Experts Directors Experts Histogy-PhiloSOphy 1 7 7 2.07 2.00 2 3 5-6 3.71 3.10 3 1 5-6 3.93 3.10 4 6 4 2.64 3.30 5 2 3 3.79 3.50 6 5 1 3.29 3.90 7 4 2 3.50 3.60 Social-Psychological 8 2 2 3.52 3.80 9 8-9 7 2.71 3.30 10 8-9 8 2.71 3.10 11 4 4-5 3.11 3.60 12 3 3 3.43 3.70 13 10-11 4-5 2.57 3.60 l4 l3 9 2.50 2.90 15 6 6 2.86 3.40 16 l l 3.79 4.00 17 14 10 2.39 2.80 18 10-11 14 2.57 2.20 19 15 15 1.75 2.10 20 12 11 2.53 2.70 21 7 12-13 2.81 2.40 22 5 12-13 2.93 2.40 57 Table 4 (continued) Rank by Topic number IDTrectors Experts Personal skills _.______ “WM“ ”“”" “ Directors Experts Mean—fer 23 6-7 8-9-10 3.00 3.00 24 2 6 3.52 3.30 25 10-11-12 8-9-10 2.79 3.00 26 9 12 2.81 2.40 27 10-11-12 8-9-10 2.79 3.00 28 10-11-12 7 2.79 3.10 29 6-7 11 3.00 2.80 30 4 3-4 3.43 3.70 31 1 1 3.68 3.90 32 3 3-4 3.50 3.70 33 5 5 3.36 3.60 34 8 2 2.96 3.80 Communication skiTTg 35 8-9-10 9-10 3.18 2.80 36 3 3 3.46 3.50 37 6 9-10 3.25 2.80 38 2 8 3.54 2.90 39 7 6 3.21 3.10 40 4-5 4 3.39 3.40 41 4-5 5 3.39 3.30 42 l 7 3.68 3.00 43 11 11 2.53 2.40 44 8-9-10 2 3.18 3.60 45 8-9-10 1 3.18 3.80 Table 4 (continued) 58 Mean for =‘iank by fink by Wain for gopic number Directors Experts Directors EXperts institution-Agency 46 9 11 2.64 2.40 47 5-6 6-7-8 2.75 2.70 48 1 1-2-3 3.18 3.20 49 ll 12 2.43 2.30 50 4 9 2.89 2.60 51 5-6 4 2.75 3.10 52 2 6-7-8 3.11 2.70 53 3 6-7-8 2.93 2.70 54 12 10 2.36 2.50 55 7-8 5 2.68 2.80 56 10 1-2-3 2.53 3.20 57 7-8 1-2-3 2.68 3.20 Organization 58 2 7 3.79 3.30 59 3 3-4-5 3.71 3.67 60 9 2 3.18 3.70 61 5 1 3.61 3.90 62 1 3-4-5 3.86 3.60 63 6-7 3-4-5 3.57 3.60 64 4 6 3.64 3.40 65 6-7 8-9 3.57 2.70 66 8 8-9 3.52 2.70 67 10 10 2.96 2.30 Table 4 (continued) 59 Bank by Bank by Mean for Mean for Togic number Directors Experts fgirgctors Eggggtg Matrat ion 68 5 6 3.50 3.10 69 1 3 3.96 3.80 70 2 1-2 3.75 3.90 71 3 4 3.64 3.50 72 4 5 3.57 3.40 73 8 7 2.75 3.00 74 6 1-2 3.36 3.90 75 7 8-9 3.04 2.30 76 9 8-9 2.71 2.30 Programming 77 5-6 12 3.57 3.00 78 3-4 6-7 3.71 3.30 79 3-4 2-3 3.71 3.60 80 5-6 1 3.57 3.70 81 7 5 3.29 3.40 82 8 6-7 3.21 3.30 83 1 2-3 3.79 3.60 84 11 8 3.00 3.20 85 12 9-10-11 2.79 3.10 86 9-10 9-10-11 3.18 3.10 87 9-10 9-10-11 3.18 3.10 88 2 4 3.75 3.50 60 Table 4 (continued) Bank by ibnk by Mean TSr Mean fEr Topic number Directors Experts Directors Experts Evaluation 89 2 1-2 2.32 2.60 90 1 1-2 2.61 2.60 91 4 3-4 2.00 2.20 92 3 3-4 2.07 2.20 In the Social-Psychological category only tOpic l6, "identifying community resources," had a mean above 3.60 for both groups. The directors did not assign the mean of 3.60 to any tOpic; however, the experts did for the following: . tOpic ll - "minority groups in the society" . tOpic 12 - "current social problems of society" . tOpic 13 - "effects of racial. social and economic isolation" Only one tOpic achieved the 3.60 mean for both groups in the Personal Skills category. The tOpic to be included was tOpic 31. "develOping individual and group participation." The experts appeared to feel rather strongly about this category as they assigned the 3.60 mean to four additional tOpics; however, the directors did not assign this mean to any tOpics. The topics assigned the 3.60 mean by the experts were: . tOpic 30 - "training in making home visitations" . tOpic 32 - "developing leaders" 61 . tOpic 33 - "the community develOpment process" . tOpic 34 - "develOping other self-concept" No tOpics were assigned the 3.60 mean by each group in the Communication Skills category. The eXperts assigned the 3.60 mean to tOpic 44. "listening skills," and tOpic 45. "discussion skills." while the directors did to tOpic 42. "use of public relations." The mean of 3.60 was not reached by either group in the Institution-Agency oOOperation category. Three tOpics were agreed upon in the Organization category while four others were assigned a mean of 3.60 by each group. The tOpics included were as follows: . tOpic 59 - "methods of orienting staff members" . tOpic 6l - "using lay persons in the program" . tOpic 62 - "establishing community advisory boards" TOpic 58, "methods of orienting community leaders." and tOpic 64, "local financing," were assigned the mean of 3.60 by the directors. The experts assigned the 3.60 mean to tOpic 60. "conducting community surveys," and tOpic 63. "establishing community advisory boards." The directors and experts agreed on the 3.60 mean for two of the tOpics in the Administration cate- gory as follows: . tOpic 69 - "the role of the director" . tOpic 7O - "the role of the principal" The directors also assigned the mean level of 3.60 to 62 tOpic 71. "the role of the superintendent." and the experts did to tOpic 74. "the role of the lay person." 0f the five topics achieving the 3.60 mean in the Programming category only two were mutually agreed upon by both groups. These were: . tOpic 79 - "adult education" . tOpic 83 - "family programs" The directors chose tOpic 78. "youth recreational programs," and topic 88. "senior citizens programs." at the 3.60 mean level, while the experts chose tOpic 80, "Job training programs." In the Evaluation category no tOpics achieved the 3.60 mean level. Even though there were no significant differences in the Opinions of both groups on the categories some general disagreement did occur in the selection of topics within categories as follows: 1. The directors assessed only one tOpic at the 3.60 level, but the experts assessed five at that level in the Social-Psychological and Personal Skills categories. Hypothesis 2B Ho: There are no significant differences be- tween the Opinions of the panel of experts and the Opinions of the community school directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories 63 to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences between the opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the community school directors who had formal training and more than three years experience. (Table 5) Table 5 T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the eXperts and the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience. Panel of School Categpries Experts Directors "t" p; History-PhiIOSOphy 3.24 3.15 0.118 NS Social-Psychological 3.07 3.01 0.087 NS Personal Skills 3.28 3.12 0.224 NS Communication Skills 3.15 3.32 -O.296 NS Institution-Agency COOperation 2.78 2.46 1.392 NS Organization 3.28 3.68 -0.829 NS Administration 3.24 3.29 -0.075 NS Programming 3.33 3.56 -0.448 NS Evaluation 2.40 2.38 0.021 NS Totals 3.19 3.18 0.105 NS ‘4— 1 x A; There was close agreement on all of the nine cate- gories with six categories having a difference in mean of less than .17 and the remaining three having a difference in mean of less than .40. The difference in the cumulative 64 mean was only .01. The Organization and Programming categories had the highest mean for both groups while the Institution-Agency COOperation and Evaluation categories had the lowest. Since there were no significant differences in the T-test analysis of categories. the 3.60 mean was applied to all topics. (Table 6) Table 6 A listing of tOpics within each category for the experts and the directors with formal prepara- tion and more than three years experience. Bank by Mean for Bank by Mean for Tapic number yDirectors Experts Directors Experts gistory-Philosophy 1 7 7 1.92 2.00 2 2-3 5-6 3.54 3.10 3 4 5-6 3.46 3.10 4 6 4 2.69 3.30 5 2-3 3 3.54 3.50 6 5 1 3.23 3.90 7 l 2 3.69 3.60 Social-Psychological 8 2 2 3.92 3.80 9 7 7 3.08 3.30 10 3 8 3.77 3.10 11 5-6 4-5 3.23 3.60 12 3 3.31 3.70 13 5-6 4-5 3.23 3.60 l4 l3 9 2.61 2.90 65 Table 6 (continued) :Ank by Bank by ean for ‘ean for Tppic number Directors Experts Directors Expertg Social-Psychological pppplnued 15 8 6 3.00 3.40 16 1 1 4.00 4.00 17 11-12 10 2.69 2.80 18 14 14 2.08 2.20 19 15 15 1.69 2.10 20 11-12 11 2.69 2.70 21 9-10 12-13 2.85 2.40 22 9-10 12-13 2.85 2.40 Personal skills 23 9 8-9-10 2.91 3.00 24 4-5 6 3.31 3.30 25 7-8 8-9-10 3.00 3.00 26 11 12 2.77 2.40 27 12 8-9-10 2.31 3.00 28 7-8 7 3.00 3.10 29 10 11 2.85 2.80 30 3 3-4 3.46 3.70 31 2 1 3.62 3.90 32 1 3-4 3.69 3.70 33 4-5 5 3.31 3.60 34 6 2 3.15 3.80 Communication skills 35 10 9-10 3.15 2.80 66 Table 6 (continued) Bank by Bank by Mean for Mean for TOpio number Directors Experts Directors Experts Communication skills continued 36 2 3 3.77 3.50 37 5-6 9-10 3.31 2.80 38 3-4 8 3.38 2.90 39 3-4 6 3.38 3.10 40 7-8-9 4 3.23 3.40 41 5-6 5 3.31 3.30 42 1 7 3.85 3.00 43 11 11 2.69 2.40 44 7-8-9 2 3.23 3.60 45 7-8-9 1 3.23 3.80 Institution-Agency 46 8 11 2.08 2.40 47 2-3 6-7-8 3.23 2.70 48 1 1-2-3 3.31 3.20 49 12 2.31 2.30 50 6 9 2.85 2.60 51 2-3 4 3.23 3.10 52 5 6-7-8 3.00 2.70 53 4 6-7-8 3.15 2.70 54 12 10 1.69 2.50 55 ll 5 1.85 2.80 56 9-10 1-2-3 2.00 3.20 5? 9-10 1-2-3 2.00 3.20 Table 6 (continued) 7‘8ank by “NHRa”. by“ can for Mean or ‘gppic number Directors Experts Directors erts Organization 58 9 7 3.54 3.30 59 8 3-4-5 3.62 3.67 60 10 2 3.38 3.70 61 1-2 1 3.92 3.90 62 1-2 3-4-5 3.92 3.60 63 4-5-6-7 3-4-5 3.69 3.60 64 4-5-6-7 6 3.69 3.40 65 4-5-6-7 8-9 3.69 2.70 66 4-5-6-7 8-9 3.69 2.70 67 3 10 3.85 2.30 Administration 68 5-6 6 3.46 3.10 69 l 3 4.00 3.80 70 2 1-2 3.85 3.90 71 3 4 3.69 3.50 72 4 5 3.54 3.40 73 7 7 3.38 3.00 74 5-6 1-2 3.46 3.90 75 8 8-9 3.31 2.30 76 9 8-9 3.23 2.30 Programmipg f 77 7-8 12 3.54 3.00 78 7-8 6-7 3.54 3.30 Table 6 (continued) n;.n’for Topic number Directors Experts Directors Experts Programming continued 79 1 2-3 3.92 3.60 80 3-4 1 3.77 3.70 81 3-4 5 3.77 3.40 82 5-6 6-7 3.69 3.30 83 5-5 2-3 3.69 3.60 84 9 8 3.31 3.20 85 10-11 9-10-11 3.23 3.10 86 10-11 9-10-11 3.23 3.10* 87 12 9-10-11 3.15 3.10‘ 88 2 4 3.85 3.50 Evaluation 89 1-2 1-2 2.61 2.60 90 1-2 1-2 2.61 2.60 91 3-4 3-4 2.15 2.20 92 3-4 3-4 2.15 2.20 In the History-Philosophy category. no tOpics were assigned the 3.60 mean by the directors; hence. no tOpics were included in the category. The experts chose tOpic 6. "effects of racial. social and socio-economic isola- tion." and tOpic 7. "comparison of the traditional vs. community school." at the 3.60 level. 69 In the Social-PsychOIOgical category. two tOpics did receive the 3.60 mean level by both groups and four others did so independently. The tOpics agreed upon are as follows: . topic 8 - "the concept of community" . topic 16 - "identifying community resources" The directors assigned topic 10. "power structure of the community." a mean of 3.60: while the experts assigned a mean of 3.60 to tOpic ll. "minority groups." tOpic 12. "current social problems of society." and tOpic 7. "effects of segregation." The directors and experts exceeded the 3.60 mean for two topics in the Personal Skills category as follows: . tOpic 31 - "develOping individual and group participation" . tOpic 32 - "develOping leaders" TOpic 30. "training in making home visitation." tOpic 33. "the community develOpment process." and tOpic 34. "develOping others self-concept." also exceeded the mean in choices by the experts. The directors. however. did not name any other tOpics at the mean acceptance level. Four individual tOpics gained the mean of 3.60 by both groups in the Communication Skills category; however. there were no tOpics ranked by both groups. The directors chose tOpic 36. "staff communications." and topic 42. "use of public relations." The experts chose tOpic 44. "listening skills." and topic 45. "dis- cussion skills." 70 In the Institution-Agency OOOperation category no topics achieved the 3.60 mean level. Nine of the tOpics in the Organization category were at. or above. the 3.60 level. The following tOpics were mutually agreed upon: tOpic 59 e tOpic 61 topic tOpic 62 63 "methods of orienting staff members" "using lay persons in the program" "establishing community advisory boards" "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" The experts also chose tOpic 60. "conducting community surveys." while the directors also chose the tOpics shown below: tOpic tOpic tOpic tOpic 64 65 66 67 "local financing" "state financing" "federal financing" "local. state and federal taxation" In the Administration category tOpic 69. "the role of the director." and tOpic 70. "the role of the principal." achieved the 3.60 level of agreement. In addition. tOpic 71. "the role of the superintendent." was above the mean acceptance level for the directors; and tOpic 74. "the role of the lay person." was above for the experts. Six tOpics were at. or above. the 3.60 mean level by the directors in the Programming category; however. the experts only named four tOpics at that level. 71 Mutual rankings occurred on the tOpics listed below: . tOpic 79 - "adult education programs" . tOpic 80 - "Job training programs" . tOpic 83 - "family programs" . tOpic 88 - "senior citizen programs" The directors also named tOpic 81. "youth enrichment pro- grams." and tOpic 82. "summer programs." No tOpics were assigned the 3.60 level in the Evaluation category. While there were no significant differences regarding categories. some general disagreement did occur in the selection of tOpics within categories as follows: 1. The experts assessed the 3.60 mean level to five topics in the Social-Psychological category while the directors assessed only two at that level. 2. Five tOpics were chosen by the experts in the Personal Skills category while the directors chose only two. 3. The directors chose eight tOpics in the Organization category while the directors chose only three. 4. The directors assigned the 3.60 mean level to twice as many tOpics in the Programming category as did the experts. 72 Hypothesis 2C HO: There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the community school direct- ors with formal preparation and more than three years experience and the Opinions of the community school directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be in- cluded in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences in the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation regard- less of their experience. The cumulative mean score of both groups differed by only .01. (Table 7) The Organization and Programming categories received the highest mean by both groups while the lowest means were recorded in the Social-Psychological and Institution-Agency COOperation categories. There was close agreement between both groups in the Program- ming and Personal Skills categories. Since the T-test analysis indicated no signifi- cant disagreement by the directors with formal training and more than three years experience and the directors with the same preparation and less than three years experience on all nine categories. all tOpics were analyzed in Table 8. 73 T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience. firecfiors ‘Directorg; more than less than Table 7 Categories .3 years 3 years "t" p History-PhilosOphy 3.15 3.26 -0.139 NS Social-Psychological 3.01 2.98 0.036 NS Personal Skills 3.12 3.14 -0.028 NS Communication Skills 3.32 3.27 0.080 NS Institution-Agency COOperation 2.46 2.81 -0.881 NS Organization 3.68 3.57 0.199 NS Administration 3.29 3.48 -0.286 NS Programming 3.56 3.54 0.036 NS Evaluation 2.38 2.25 0.159 NS Totals 3.18 3.17 0.012 NS Table 8 A listing of tOpics within each category for the directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience. Bank by Bank by Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors o ic number lus minus lus 3 minus 3 History-PhilosOphy 1 7 1.92 2.07 2 2-3 3 3.54 3.71 3 1 3.46 3.93 4 6 2.69 2.64 74 Table 8 (continued) flank by Bank by Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors TOpic number plus 3 ‘pinus 3 pplus3 minus 3 History-PhilosOphy 2221112141 5 2-3 2 3.54 3.79 6 3.23 3.29 7 1 4 3.69 3.50 Social-Psychological 8 2 2 3.92 3.52 9 7 8-9 3.08 2.71 10 3 8-9 3.77 2.71 11 5-6 4 3.23 3.11 12 4 3 3.31 3.43 13 5-6 10-11 3.23 2.57 14 13 13 2.61 2.50 15 8 6 3.00 2.86 16 l 1 4.00 3.79 17 11-12 14 2.69 2.39 18 14 10-11 2.08 2.57 19 15 15 1.69 1.75 20 11-12 12 2.69 2.53 21 8-10 7 2.85 2.81 22 9-10 5 2.85 2.93 Personal skills 23 9 6-7 2.91 3.00 24 4-5 2 3.31 3.52 75 Table 8 (continued) gffiank by Bank by ‘Mean far ‘Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors TOpic number plus3 minus 3 plus 3 minus 2 Personal skills continued 25 7-8 10-11-12 3.00 2.79 26 11 9 2.77 2.81 27 12 10-11-12 2.31 2.79 28 7-8 10-11-12 3.00 2.79 29 10 6-7 2.85 3.00 30 3 4 3.46 3.43 31 2 l 3.62 3.68 32 l 3 3.69 3.50 33 4-5 5 3.31 3.36 34 6 8 3.15 2.96 Qppmunication skllls 35 10 8-9-10 3.15 3.18 36 2 3 3.77 3.46 37 5-6 6 3.31 3.25 38 3-4 2 3.38 3.54 39 3-4 7 3.38 3.21 40 7-8-9 4-5 3.23 3.39 41 5-6 4-5 3.31 3.39 42 l l 3.85 3.68 43 11 11 2.69 2.53 44 7-8-9 8-9-10 3.23 3.18 45 7-8-9 8-9-10 3.23 3.18 Table 8 (continued) 76 ‘;§Enk by Bank by ‘Mean fOr ‘Mban for Directors Directors Directors Directors TOpic number (plus 3 minus 3 plpsl3 minus 3 Institution-Agency 46 8 9 2.08 2.64 47 2-3 5-6 3.23 2.75 48 1 l 3.31 3.18 49 7 11 2.31 2.43 50 6 4 2.85 2.89 51 2-3 5-6 3.23 2.75 52 5 2 3.00 3.11 53 4 3 3.15 2.93 54 12 12 1.69 2.36 55 11 7-8 1.85 2.68 56 9-10 10 2.00 2.53 57 9-10 7-8 2.00 2.68 Organization 58 9 2 3.54 3.79 . 59 8 3 3.62 3.71 60 10 9 3.38 3.18 61 1-2 5 3.92 3.61 62 1-2 1 3.92 3.86 63 4-5-6-7 6-7 3.69 3.57 64 4-5-6-7 4 3.69 3.64 65 4-5-6-7 6-7 3.69 3.57 66 4-5-6-7 8 3.69 3.52 67 3 10 3.85 2.96 77 Table 8 (continued) fiank by fianx by Mean for “Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors TOpic number ‘plus 3 mlnus 3 plus 3 minus 3 Administration 68 5-6 5 3.46 3.50 69 l l 4.00 3.96 70 2 2 3.85 3.75 71 3 3 3.69 3.64 72 4 4 3.54 3.57 73 7 8 3.38 2.75 74 5-6 6 3.46 3.36 75 8 7 3.31 3.04 76 9 9 3.23 2.71 Pppgramming 77 7-8 5-6 3.54 3.57 78 7-8 3-4 3.54 3.71 79 1 3-4 3.92 3.71 80 3-4 5-6 3.77 3.57 81 3-4 7 3.77 3.29 82 5-6 8 3.69 3.21 83 5-6 1 3.69 3.79 84 9 11 3.31 3.00 85 10-11 12 3.23 2.79 86 10-11 9-10 3.23 3.18 87 12 9-10 3.15 3.18 88 2 2 3.85 3.75 78 Table 8 (continued) :fiink by fiank by Mean TOr ‘Méan for Directors Directors Directors Directors Topic number plus 3 minus 3 .2143 3 :minus 3 mum 89 1-2 2 2.61 2.32 90 1-2 1 2.61 2.61 91 3-4 4 2.15 2.00 92 3-4 3 2.15 2.07 In the History-PhilosOphy category four topics were assigned the mean 3.60. or above. by both groups: however. no tOpics were mutually agreed upon. The direct- ors with formal preparation and more than three years experience chose tOpic 7. "comparison of the traditional vs. community school." while the directors with less than three years experience chose at the 3.60 level tOpic 2. "history of the community school movement." topic 3. "history of community education." and tOpic 5. "the philosOphy of the community school." In the Social-Psychological category only tOpic l6. "identifying community resources" gained the 3.60 level for both groups. The directors with less than three years experience did not assess any additional tOpics at this level. while the directors with more than three years experience assessed tOpic 8. "the concept of community." and tOpic 10. "power structure of the community." at. or above. the 3.60 level. '11 (- 79 Both groups agreed on only one tOpic in the Personal Skills category and only one other topic also exceeded the 3.60 mean. Topic 31. "develOping individual and group participation." was chosen by both. TOpic 32. "develOping leaders." was chosen by the directors with more than three years experience. TOpic 42. "use of public relations." achieved the 3.60 mean level by both groups in the Communication Skills category. The directors with three years experi- ence also chose tOpic 36. "staff communications." In the Institution-Agency COOperation category there were no tOpics assessed at. or above. the 3.60 level by either group. Nine tOpics gained the 3.60 level in the Organi- zation category by both groups: however. only the four shown below were mutually listed by both: . tOpic 59 - "methods of orienting staff members" . tOpic 61 - "using lay persons in the program" . tOpic 62 - "establishing community advisory boards" . tOpic 64 - "local financing" The directors with more than three years experience also chose the following tOpics: 63. "establishing neighborhood advisory boards." 65. "state financing." 66. "federal financing." and 67. "local. state and federal taxation." The directors with less than three years experience chose tOpic 58. "methods of orienting community leaders." 80 In the Administration category both groups assessed the same three tOpics at. or above. the 3.60 mean level. The tOpics included were: . topic 69 - "the role of the director" . tOpic 70 - "the role of the principal" . tOpic 71 - "the role of the superintenden " Three tOpics were assessed at the 3.60 level in the Programming category as follows: . tOpic 79 - "adult education programs" . topic 83 - "family programs" . tOpic 88 - "senior citizen programs" The directors with three or more years experience also chose tOpic 80. "Job training programs." tOpic 81. "youth enrichment programs." and tOpic 82. "summer programs." The directors with less than three years experience chose tOpic 78. "youth recreational programs." No topics in the Evaluation category were assessed at. or above. 3.60 by either group. While there were no significant differences regarding categories some general disagreement did occur in the selection of tOpics within categories as follows: 1. The directors with less than three years experience assigned the 3.60 level to three tOpics in the History-PhilOSOphy category while the directors with more than three years experience chose only one at that level. 81 2. In the Social-Psychological category the directors with more than three years experi- ence chose three tOpics to only one for the other group. H otheses A- In hypotheses 3A-3C the responses of directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience were compared to the responses of directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience; the responses of each of these two groups of directors were independently compared to the responses of the experts. Hypothesis 3A Ho: There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the panel of experts and the Opinions of the community school directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with no formal training and more than three years experie ence. The cumulative mean difference for both groups was only .10. (Table 9) The Programming category. which had the highest mean of all categories for the directors. also showed the greatest difference in means for both groups. The 82 Table 9 T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the experts and the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience. EOmmunity Panel of School Categories Experts Dlrectprs ”t" p History-Philosophy 3.24 3.21 0.039 NS Social-Psychological 3.07 3.21 -0.019 NS Personal Skills 3.28 3.38 -0.l42 NS Communication Skills 3.15 3.44 -0.457 NS Institution-Agency Cooperation 2.78 2.69 0.122 NS Organization 3.28 3.58 -0.507 NS Administration 3.28 3.12 0.498 NS Programming 3.33 3.70 -1.010 NS Evaluation 2.40 2.64 -0.297 NS Totals 3.19 3.29 -0.l40 NS means for five of the categories had a .16 difference or less while the remaining categories fell into the group with a difference not greater than .37. The Programming category had the highest mean while the Evaluation cate- gory had the lowest. The T-test analysis revealed no significant differences in the opinions of both groups concerning the categories to be included: hence. all categories were analyzed in Table 10 to determine which topics would be included. 83 Table 10 A listing of tOpics within each category for the experts and directors with informal preparation and more than three years experience. ‘fiifii78y fifiank by *Mean fer *Mean f3? TOpic number .erectors Experts Directors Experts History-Philosophy_ 1 7 7 2.04 2.00 2 1 5-6 3.91 3.10 3 3 5-6 3.54 3.10 4 6 4 2.46 3.30 5 2 3 3.58 3.50 6 4 l 3.46 3.90 7 5 2 3.42 3.60 Social-Psychological 8 3 2 3.63 3.80 9 7-8 7 3.13 3.30 10 2 8 3.75 3.10 11 5 4-5 3.33 3.60 12 10 3 2.96 3.70 13 9 4-5 3.08 3.60 14 11 2.91 2.90 15 4 3.50 3.40 16 l l 3.91 4.00 17 12 10 2.88 2.80 18 l4 14 2.58 2.20 19 15 15 2.00 2.10 20 13 11 2.79 2.70 84 Table 10 (continued) ____I 4—_§Efik by ‘fiank by Méan for 7Meangf3§ Topic number Directors Experts Directors Experts Social-Psychological pppplnued 21 6 12-13 3.21 2.40 22 7-8 12-13 3.13 2.40 Pgrsonal skllls 23 8 8-9-10 3.25 3.00 24 3 6 3.66 3.30 25 ll 8-9-10 2.91 3.00 26 12 12 2.75 2.40 27 9 8-9-10 3.17 3.00 28 7 7 3.33 3.10 29 10 11 2.96 2.80 30 6 3-4 3.50 3.70 31 2 1 3.70 3.90 32 1 3-4 3.75 3.70 33 5 5 3.58 3.60 34 4 2 3.63 3.80 Communication skills f 35 3 9-10 3.66 2.80 36 4'5 3 3.50 3.50 37 8-9-10 9-10 3.25 2.80 38 8-9-10 8 3.25 2.90 39 8-9-10 6 3.25 3.10 40 7 4 3.33 3.40 41 2 5 3.79 3.30 an A: C Table 10 (continued) 85 annkby M by FM ‘lpplgnumber Dlxgctors Experts Dlxectors Expexp§_ Communication skills continued 42 l 7 3.88 3.00 43 11 11 2.96 2.40 44 6 2 3.42 3.60 45 4-5 1 3.50 3.80 Institution-Agency 46 12 11 2.15 2.40 47 10 6-7-8 2.33 2.70 48 4 1-2-3 2.96 3.20 49 ll 12 2.19 2.30 50 8 9 2.58 2.60 51 3 4 3.08 3.10 52 2 6-7-8 3.17 2.70 53 1 6-7-8 3.33 2.70 54 9 10 2.45 2.50 55 6 5 2.67 2.80 56 7 1-2-3 2.58 3.20 57 5 1-2-3 2.83 3.20 Organization 58 5 7 3.66 3.30 59 10 3-4-5 2.96 3.67 60 7 2 3.37 3.70 61 l 1 3.83 3.90 62 2-3-4 3—4-5 3.70 3.60 Table 10 (continued) 86 fiank by ’fiank by Mean for Mean for Tpplc number Directors Experts Directors Expgxpx__ Organization continued 63 2-3-4 3-4-5 3.70 3.60 64 2-3-4 6 3.70 3.40 65 8 8-9 3.33 2.70 66 6 8-9 3.46 2.70 67 9 10 3.00 2.30 Administration 68 4-5 6 3.66 3.10 69 l 3 4.00 3.80 70 2 1-2 3.88 3.90 71 4-5 4 3.66 3.50 72 6 5 3.58 3.40 73 3 7 3.83 3.00 74 8 1-2 2.96 3.90 75 9 8-9 2.91 2.30 76 7 8-9 3.25 2.30 Programming 77 7 12 3.58 3.00 78 3 6-7 3.88 3.30 79 1-2 2-3 3.91 3.60 80 6 1 3.66 3.70 81 12 5 3.00 3.40 82 1-2 6-7 3.91 3.30 83 4-5 2-3 3.83 3.60 Table 10 (continued) 87 flank by gffiank by ‘Mean for Mean for lpplcflnumber Dlxectors Experts Directors Programming continued 84 11 8 3.13 3.20 85 8-9-10 9-10-11 3.42 3.10 86 8-9-10 9-10-11 3.42 3.10 87 8-9-10 9-10-11 3.42 3.10 88 4-5 4 3.83 3.50 Agygluation 89 2 1-2 2.67 2.60 90 1 1-2 2.88 2.60 91 3 3-4 2.58 2.20 92 4 3-4 2.41 2.20 There was no mutual agreement on any tOpic at the 3.60 level: however. three topics did achieve that level by both groups in the History-PhilosOphy category. The directors assigned a 3.60 mean to tOpic 2. "history of the community school movement." while the experts assigned that level to topic 6. "effects of racial. social and socio-economic isolation." and tOpic 7. "comparison of the traditional vs. community school." In the Social-Psychological category two tOpics were mutually assigned the 3.60. or above. mean level by both groups. The tOpics identified for inclusion were: . topic 8 - "the concept of community" 88 . tOpic l6 - "identifying community resources" The directors also assessed tOpic 10. "power structure of the community." at. or above. 3.60. The experts assessed tOpic ll. "minority groups in the society." tOpic 12. "current social problems of society." and tOpic 13. "effects of segregation." at. or above. the 3.60 level. Three tOpics received a 3.60 level. or above. in the Personal Skills category. The tOpics were: . tOpic 31 - "develOping individual and group participation" . tOpic 32 - "develOping leaders" . topic 34 - "develOping others self-concept" The directors also chose tOpic 24. "dynamics of group relations." The experts chose two other tOpics: 30. "training in making home visitations." and 33. "the commun- ity develOpment process." In the Communication Skills category there were no tOpics mutually agreed upon by both groups: however. five topics did achieve the 3.60 level. The directors assigned the 3.60 level to tOpic 35. "public Speaking." topic 41. "conducting meetings." and tOpic 42. "use of public relations." The experts assigned it to tOpic 44. "listening skills." and tOpic 45. "discussion skills." No tOpics gained the 3.60 mean level in the Institution-Agency COOperation category. The eXperts and the directors assessed three tOpics au,or above. the 3.60 level in the Organization category as follows: 89 . tOpic 61 - "using lay persons in the program" . tOpic 62 - "establishing community advisory boards" . tOpic 63 - "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" Four other tOpics were also assessed at that level by the two groups. The directors assessed tOpic 58. "methods of orienting community leaders." and tOpic 64. "local financing." while the experts assessed tOpic 59. "methods of orienting staff members." and tOpic 60. "conducting community surveys." In the Administration category two topics received a 3.60. or above. rating by both groups. The tOpics that were chosen were: tOpic 69. "the role of the director." and tOpic 70. "the role of the principal." In addition the directors rated three tOpics: 68. "the role of the supervisor or directors." 71. "the role of the superin- tendent." and 73. "the role of the building director as a classroom teacher." The experts rated only one additional topic. number 74. "the role of the lay person." There was mutual agreement on three tOpics at the 3.60 level in the Programming category. The tOpics were: . tOpic 79 - "adult education programs" . tOpic 80 - "Job training prOgrams" . tOpic 83 - "family programs" The experts did not assign the 3.60 level to any other tOpics in this category: however. the directors did assign the level to the following tOpics: 90 . tOpic 78 - "youth recreational programs" . tOpic 82 - "summer programs" . tOpic 88 - "senior citizen programs" No topics in the Evaluation category gained the 3.60 level by either the directors or the experts. No significant differences were noted on the nine categories: however. some disagreement did occur in the selection of tOpics. as follows: 1. The experts chose five topics in the Personal Skills category. while the directors chose only one. 2. The eXperts assigned the 3.60 mean level to only three tOpics in the Programming category. but the directors assigned that level to seven tOpics. Hypothesisu3§ Ho: There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the panel of experts and the Opinions of the community school directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience on cate- gories to be included in intensive prepara- tion programs. There were no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the directors concerning categories to be included in intensive preparation pro— grams. There was a difference of less than .10 in the (K) rt 91 means of five categories. and the difference in the cumu- lative mean for both groups was only .03. (Table 11) Table 11 T-test analysis of the reSponses by categories by the experts and the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience. ‘Ebmmunity Panel of School Categories Experts Directors "t" p History-PhilosoPhy 3.24 3.32 -0.132 NS Social-Psychological 3.07 3.15 -0.090 NS Personal Skills 3.28 3.22 0.065 NS Communication Skills 3.15 3.24 -O.100 NS Institution-Agency COOperation 2.78 2.70 0.097 NS Organization 3.28 3.58 -0.434 NS Administration 3.24 3.39 -0.178 NS PrOgramming 3.33 3.55 -0.322 NS Evaluation 2.40 2.58 -0.182 NS Totals 3.19 3.22 -0.033 NS The Programming and Organization categories had the highest mean for both groups. while the lowest mean was reflected in the Institution-Agency COOperation cate- gory and in the Evaluation category. The T-test analysis showed no significant differ- ences in the Opinions of both groups concerning categories to be included: thus all categories were analyzed in Table 12. 92 Table 12 A listing of topics within each category for the experts and the directors with informal prepara- tion and less than three years experience. ‘Ifiank by fiank by Mean for Mean for Topic number Directors Experts Directors Experts History-PhiloSOphy 1 7 7 2.51 2.00 2 1 5-6 3.70 3.10 3 3-4 5-6 3.54 3.10 4 6 4 2.92 3.30 5 2 3 3.65 3.50 6 3-4 1 3.54 3.90 7 5 2 3.40 3.60 Social-Psychological 8 2-3 2 3.62 3.80 9 9 7 3.05 3.30 10 4 8 3.54 3.10 11 6 4-5 3.27 3.60 12 5 3 3.49 3.70 13 2-3 4-5 3.62 3.60 14 11 2.92 2.90 15 12 2.84 3.40 16 1 l 3.80 4.00 17 14 10 2.65 2.80 18 13 14 2.78 2.20 19 15 15 2.03 2.10 20 10 11 2.95 2.70 93 Table 12 (continued) 835E by Bank by Mean for Mean for lpplc number Directors Experts Dlxpgpgrs Experts Social-Psychological continued 21 7 12-13 3.24 2.40 22 8 12-13 3.14 2.40 Personal skills 23 8-9-10 3.24 3.00 24 6 3.49 3.30 25 ll 8-9-10 2.87 3.00 26 10 12 2.90 2.40 27 12 8-9-10 2.78 3.00 28 8 7 3.16 3.10 29 7 11 3.19 2.80 30 6 3-4 3.32 3.70 31 2 1 3.54 3.90 32 1 3-4 3.65 3.70 33 3 5 3.41 3.60 34 9 2 3.11 3.80 Communication skills 35 6 9-10 3.30 2.80 36 2 3 3.59 3.50 37 7 9-10 3.24 2.80 38 3-4-5 8 3.54 2.90 39 8 6 3.19 3.10 40 3-4-5 4 3.54 3.40 41 3-4-5 5 3.54 3.30 94 Table 12 (continued) :fiank by IIfiank by Mean for Mean for TOpic number Directors Experts Directors Experts Communication skills continued 42 l 7 3.70 3.00 43 11 11 2.51 2.40 44 10 2 2.65 3.60 45 9 1 3.14 3.80 lpstituthn-Agency 46 10 11 2.41 2.40 47 6-7 6-7-8 2.57 2.70 48 4 1-2-3 3.08 3.20 49 6-7 12 2.57 2.30 50 5 9 2.72 2.60 51 l 4 3.27 3.10 52 3 6-7-8 3.11 2.70 53 2 6-7-8 3.22 2.70 54 12 10 2.19 2.50 55 ll 5 2.38 2.80 56 9 1-2-3 2.46 3.20 57 8 l-2-3 2.49 3.20 nganization 58 2-3 7 3.73 3.30 59 3-4-5 3.68 3.60 60 2 3.59 3.70 61 2-3 1 3.73 3.90 62 1 3-4-5 3.80 2.60 95 Table 12 (continued) flank by A—_§ank by Mean fer Mean for TOpic number Directors Experts Directors Experts Organization continued 63 4 3-4-5 3.70 3.60 64 8 6 3.49 3.40 65 9 8-9 3.38 2.70 66 7 8-9 3.51 2.70 67 10 10 3.19 2.30 Administration 68 5 6 3.46 3.10 69 l 3 4.00 3.80 70 2 1-2 3.80 3.90 71 3 4 3.60 3.50 72 4 5 3.49 3.40 73 7 7 3.02 3.00 74 6 1-2 3.44 3.90 75 9 8-9 2.72 2.30 76 8 8-9 3.02 2.30 Exogramming 77 ll 12 3.16 3.00 78 5 6-7 3.65 3.30 79 2 2-3 3.76 3.60 80 6-7 1 3.62 3.70 81 1 5 3.78 3.40 82 3-4 6-7 3.70 3.30 83 3-4 2-3 3.70 3.60 96 Table 12 (continued) Bank by Bank by fiean for Mean for TOpic number Directors Experts Directors Experts Programming continued 84 10 8 3.27 3.20 85 9 9-10-11 3.30 3.10 86 12 9-10-11 3.14 3.10 87 8 9-10-11 3.35 3.10 88 6-7 4 3.62 3.50 Eypluation 89 2 1-2 2.62 2.60 90 1 1-2 2.81 2.60 91 3 3-4 2.54 2.20 92 4 3-4 2.38 2.20 No tOpics were mutually ranked at the 3.60 level in the History-PhilOSOphy category; however. four tOpics did gain this level. The directors assessed tOpic 2. "history of the community school movement." and tOpic 5. "the philosOphy of the community school-historic." at. or above the 3.60 level. The experts assessed tOpic 6. "effects of racial. social. and economic isolation." and tOpic 7. "comparison of the traditional vs. community school." at. or above. the 3.60 level. In the Social-Psychological category three tOpics achieved the 3.60 mean as follows: . topic 8 - "the concept of community" 97 . tOpic l3 - "effects of segregation" . tOpic l6 - "identifying community resources" The directors did not choose any other tOpics: however. the experts did choose tOpic ll. "minority groups in the society." and topic 12. "current social problems of society." Only one tOpic. number 32. "develOping leaders." gained the 3.60 level by the directors and the experts in the Personal Skills category. The experts also assigned the 3.60 level to four additional tOpics: 30. "training in making home visitations." 31. "develOping individual and group participation." 33. "the community develOpment process." and 34. "develOping other self-concept." No tOpics mutually achieved the 3.60 level by either group in the Communication Skills category. The directors did assign that level to tOpic 42. "use of public relations." while the experts assigned it to tOpic 44. "listening skills." and tOpic 45. "discussion skills." In the Institution-Agency COOperation category no topics gained the 3.60 level by either group. In the Organization category the following four tOpics were chosen at 3.60. or above. by both groups: . tOpic 59 - "methods of orienting staff members" . tOpic 61 - "using lay persons in the program" . topic 62 - "establishing community advisory boards" . tOpic 63 - "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" 98 Each group also chose one other tOpic. The directors chose tOpic 58. "methods of orienting community leaders." and the experts chose topic 60. "conducting community surveys." Of the four categories assessed at. or above. 3.60 in the Administration category the groups mutually agreed on the two listed below: . tOpic 69 - "the role of the director" . tOpic 7O - "the role of the principal" The directors also assessed tOpic 71. "the role of the superintendent." while the experts rated tOpic 74. "the role of the lay person." at the 3.60 level. Seven tOpics received the 3.60 mean in the Pro- gramming category: however. only three were mutual for both groups. The tOpics were: . tOpic 79 - "adult education programs" . tOpic 80 - "Job training programs" . tOpic 83 - "family programs" The experts did not assign the 3.60 level to any other tOpics in the category. but the directors assigned that level to the four shown below: . tOpic 78 - "youth recreational programs" . tOpic 81 - "youth enrichment programs" . tOpic 82 - "summer programs" . tOpic 88 - "senior citizen prOgrams" No tOpics gained the 3.60 level by either group in the Evaluation category. 99 There were no significant differences between groups concerning categories: however. some disagreement did occur in the selection of tOpics within categories as follows: 1. The directors chose seven tOpics in the Programming category. while the experts chose only three. gypothesisg3§ Ho: There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the community school direct- ors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience and the Opinions of the community school directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences on any categories in the Opinions of both groups of directors. (Table 13) The Programming and Organization categories had the highest mean for both groups. while the Evaluation and Institution-Agency categories had the lowest means. The cumulative mean for both groups differed only by .07. The T-test analysis indicated no significant differences in the Opinions of both groups of directors; thus all categories were analyzed in Table 14. 100 Table 13 T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience u Community Panel of School Categories Experts ‘Dlrectors "t" p History-PhilosOphy 3.21 3.32 -0.216 NS Social-Psychological 3.21 3.14 0.090 NS Personal Skills 3.38 3.22 0.246 NS Communication Skills 3.44 3.24 0.319 NS Institution-Agency COOperation 2.69 2.70 -0.0l6 NS Organization 3.58 3.58 0.000 NS Administration 3.12 3.39 -0.358 NS Programming 3.70 3.55 0.341 NS Evaluation 2.64 2.58 0.110 NS Totals 3.29 3.22 0.107 NS In the History-Philosophy category only one tOpic. number 2. "history of the community school movement." achieved the 3.60 mean level by both groups. The directors with more than three years experience did not assess any other tOpics at that level: however. the directors with less than three years experience assessed tOpic 5. "the philosOphy of community school-historic." at. or above. the 3.60 level. Four tOpics achieved the 3.60 level in the Social-Psychological category; however. only the following 101 Table 14 A listing of tOpics within each category for the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience and the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience. Mean for fiean ?or WEEK}: by ”Ram Directors Directors Directors Directors TOpic number plus 3 minus 3 plus 3 minus 3 History-Philospphy 1 7 7 2.04 2.51 2 l l 3.91 3.70 3 3 3-4 3.54 3.54 4 6 6 2.46 2.92 5 2 2 3.58 3.65 6 4 3-4 3.46 3.54 7 5 5 3.42 3.40 Social-PsychOlOgical 8 3 2-3 3.63 3.62 9 7-8 9 3.13 3.05 10 2 4 3.75 3.54 11 5 6 3.33 3.27 12 1o 5 2.96 3.49 13 9 2-3 3.08 3.62 14 11 11 2.91 2.92 15 4 12 3.50 2.84 16 l l 3.91 3.80 17 12 14 2.88 2.65 18 l4 13 2.58 2.78 19 15 15 2.00 2.03 20 13 10 2.79 2.95 102 Table 14 (continued) Mean for Mean for Bank by Rank is? Directors Directors Directors Directors Tppic number .plus‘3 minus 3 .plus 3 minus 3 Social-Psychological continued 21 6 7 3.21 3.24 22 7-8 8 3.13 3.14 Pprsonal skills 23 8 3.25 3.24 24 3 4 3.66 3.49 25 11 11 2.91 2.87 26 12 10 2.75 2.90 27 9 12 3.17 2.78 28 7 8 3.33 3.16 29 10 7 2.96 3.19 30 6 6 3.50 3.32 31 2 2 3.70 3.54 32 l 1 3.75 3.65 33 5 3 3.58 3.41 34 4 9 3.63 3.11 gpmmunication skills 35 3 6 3.66 3.30 36 4-5 2 3.50 3.59 37 8-9-10 7 3.25 3.24 38 8-9-10 3-4-5 3.25 3.54 39 8-9-10 8 3.25 3.19 40 7 3-4-5 3.33 3.54 Table 14 (continued) 103 Bank by Bank by Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors TOpic number plus 3_. minus 3. plus 3. minus 3 Communication skills ppntinued 41 2 3-4-5 3.79 3.54 42 l l 3.88 3.70 43 11 11 2.96 2.51 44 6 10 3.42 2.65 45 4-5 9 3.50 3.14 Institution-Agency cooperaplpn 46 12 10 2.15 2.41 47 10 6-7 2.33 2.57 48 4 4 2.96 3.08 49 11 6-7 2.19 2.57 50 8 5 2.58 2.72 51 3 1 3.08 3.27 52 2 3 3.17 3.11 53 1 2 3.33 3.22 54 9 12 2.45 2.19 55 6 11 2.67 2.38 56 7 9 2.58 2.46 57 5 8 2.83 2.49 Organization 58 5 2-3 3.66 3.73 59 10 5 2.96 3.68 60 7 6 3.37 3.59 104 Table 14 (continued) Bank by Bank by M62: for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors Toplc number _p1us_3 minus 3 plus 3 minus 3 Organization continued 61 l 2-3 3.83 3.73 62 2-3-4 1 3.70 3.80 63 2-3-4 4 3.70 3.70 64 2-3-4 8 3.70 3.49 65 8 9 3.33 3.38 66 6 7 3.46 3.51 67 9 10 3.00 3.19 xgplplstration 68 4-5 5 3.66 3.46 69 l l 4.00 4.00 70 2 2 3.88 3.80 71 4-5 3 3.66 3.60 72 6 4 3.58 3.49 73 3 7 3.83' 3.02 74 8 6 2.96 3.44 75 9 9 2.91 2.72 76 7 8 3.25 ' 3.02 Pgogramming 77 7 11 3.58 3.16 78 3 5 3.88 3.65 79 1-2 2 3.91 3.76 80 6 6-7 3.66 3.62 105 Table 14 (continued) Bank by Bank by Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors lopic number puma 3 minus 3 Aplus_3 minus_3 Programming continued 81 12 1 3.00 3.78 82 1-2 3-4 3.91 3.70 83 4~5 3-4 3.83 3.70 84 ll 10 3.13 3.27 85 8-9-10 9 3.42 3.30 86 8-9-10 12 3.42 3.14 87 8-9-10 8 3.42 3.35 88 4-5 6-7 3.83 3.62 Evaluation 89 2 2 2.67 2.62 90 l l 2.88 2.81 91 3 3 2.58 2.54 92 4 4 2.41 2.38 tOpics were mutually agreed upon by both groups: . tOpic 8 - "the concept of community" . tOpic 16 - "identifying community resources" The directors with more than three years eXperience chose tOpic 10. "power structure of the community" while the directors with less eXperience chose tOpic 13. "effects of racial. social. and economic isolation." 106 Both groups assessed. at or above. the 3.60 level tOpic 32. "develOping leaders." in the Personal Skills category. The group with less eXperience did not assign that level to any other tOpics but the group with three or more years eXperience did assign the 3.60 mean to the following: . tOpic 24 - "dynamics of group relations" . tOpic 31 - "develOping individual and group participation" . tOpic 34 - "develOping others self-concept" In the Communications Skills category only tOpic 42. "use of public relations" gained the 3.60 level for both groups. The directors with greater experience assessed tOpic 35. "public speaking." and tOpic 41. "conducting meetings." at that level. The group with less eXperience did not assess any additional tOpics that high. No tOpics gained the 3.60 level for either group in the Institution-Agency COOperation category. Four tOpics mutually received the 3.60 level in the Organization category. The tOpics were: . tOpic 58 - "methods of orienting community leaders" . tOpic 61 - "using lay persons in the program" . tOpic 62 - "establishing community advisory boards" . tOpic 63 - "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" In addition. the directors with more than three years 107 experience assessed tOpic 64. "local financing." and the other group assessed tOpic 59. "methods of orienting staff members." at the 3.60 level. Both groups mutually assigned the agreement level to three tOpics in the Administration category as follows: . tOpic 69 - "the role of the director" . tOpic 70 - "the role of the principal" . tOpic 71 - "the role of the superintendent" The directors with less than three years experience did not choose any other tOpics. but the directors with greater experience chose tOpic 68. "the role of the super- visor of directors." and tOpic 73. "the role of the building director as a classroom teacher." In the Programming category six tOpics were assessed at. or above. the 3.60 level by both groups. They were: . tOpic 78 - "youth recreational programs" . tOpic 79 - "adult education programs" . tOpic 80 - "Job training programs" . tOpic 82 - "summer programs" . tOpic 83 - "family programs" . tOpic 88 - "senior citizen programs" Topic 81. "youth enrichment programs." was also assessed at the 3.60 level by the directors with less than three years experience. No tOpics gained the 3.60 level in the Evaluation category. 108 There was no disagreement between the groups on the selection Of categories: however. some disagreement did occur in the selection of tOpics. as follows: 1. In the Personal Skills category the directors with more than three years experience chose four tOpics while the directors with less than three years experience chose only one. 2. A similar situation occurred in the Communica- tion Skills category where the directors with more than three years experience assessed three tOpics at the 3.60 level. and the directors with less than three years experi- ence assessed only one tOpic at that level. Hypothgplsfi4 In the final hypothesis. the Opinions of two groups were compared. those directors with formal pre- paration and those with no formal preparation. Hypothesis 4 Ho: There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences in the Opinions of the directors with formal training and in 109 the Opinions of the directors with no formal training on any of the categories. (Table 15) Table 15 T-test analysis of the responses by categories for the directors with no formal preparation and the directors with formal preparation. Directors Directors formal no formal Categories training txaining "t" p History-PhilOSOphy 3.22 3.28 -0.l3l NS Social-Psychological 2.92 3.17 -0.355 NS Personal Skills 3.13 3.28 -0.243 NS Communication Skills 3.51 3.30 0.393 NS Institution-Agency COOperation 2.73 2.68 0.078 NS Organization 3.60 3.57 0.063 NS Administration 3.51 3.46 0.092 NS Programming 3.56 3.61 -0.129 NS Evaluation 2.29 2.60 -0.729 NS Total 3.18 3.25 -0.107 NS The Organization. Programming and Administration categories had the highest means for both groups. The lowest means for categories were in the Evaluation and Institution-Agency categories; however the cumulative mean difference for both groups was only .07. The T-test analysis indicated that there were no significant differences in the Opinions of either group concerning the categories to be included in the intensive llO preparation program; hence each category was analyzed in Table 16. Table 16 A listing of topics within each category for the total group of directors with formal preparation and the total group of directors with no formal preparation. . iRank by flank by MW Directors Directors Directors Directors lpplc number formal; informal formgl, informal ‘Hlptory-PhilOSOphy_ l 7 7 2.07 2.34 2 2 l 3.66 3.79 3 1 4 3.73 3.52 u 6 6 2.71 2.74 5 5 2 2.80 3.61 6 4 3 3.36 3.54 7 3 4 3.59 3.41 Social-Psychological 8 1 3 3.68 3.64 9 8 10 2.85 3.08 10 3 2 3.46 3.65 11 5 6 3.22 3.36 12 4 4 3.39 3.54 13 6 5 3.07 3.52 14 10 11 2.59 3.03 15 7 8 2.90 3.15 16 2 l 3.60 3.84 17 13 14 2.49 2.51 18 14 13 2.44 2.69 111 Table 16 (continued) Rank b§7 Bank by Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors TOpic number formal informal formal informal Social-Psychological continued 19 15 15 1.76 2.02 20 ll 12 2.56 3.00 21 9 7 2.80 3.21 22 12 9 2.54 3.11 prgpnal skills 23 ll 9 2.66 3.25 24 3 3 3.39 3.57 25 7 11 2.88 2.90 26 8-9 12 2.82 2.84 27 10 10 2.69 2.92 28 8-9 7-8 2.82 3.26 29 6 7-8 2.95 3.26 30 4 5 3.41 3.36 31 1 2 3.66 3.59 32 2 1 3.56 3.67 33 4 4 3.36 3.48 34 5 6 3.02 3.31 Communication skllls 35 6-7-8 5 3.27 3.44 36 2 3 3.53 3.52 37 6-7-8 8 3.27 3.23 38 3 7 3.44 3.25 112 Table 16 (continued) Bank by Bank by Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors lpplp_number TOIEEl__, informal formal informgl_ Communication skills continued 39 6-7-8 9 3.27 3.20 40 4-5 4 3.33 3.46 41 4-5 2 3.33 3.57 42 l l 3.77 3.72 43 11 11 2.52 2.67 44 10 10 3.19 2.92 45 9 6 3.25 3.28 Institution-Agency pppppxation 46 7-8 11-12 2.47 2.28 47 6 9 2.76 2.46 48 2-3 4 3.22 3.03 49 10 10 2.38 2.39 50 5 5 2.91 2.64 51 2-3 2 3.22 3.18 52 4 3 3.07 3.11 53 1 1 3.25 3.31 54 12 11-12 2.13 2.28 55 9 7 2.41 2.49 56 11 8 2.34 2.48 57 7-8 6 2.47 2.59 113 Table 16 (continued) :fiank by ifiank by ‘Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors lppic numbexp formal informal formal informgl_ Organization 58 6 4 3.62 3.72 59 1-2 5 3.68 3.65 60 9 8 3.44 3.47 61 1-2 1-2 3.68 3.75 62 7 1-2 3.60 3.75 63 4-5 3 3.63 3.74 64 3 6 3.66 3.54 65 4-5 9 3.63 3.34 66 8 7 3.57 3.49 67 10 10 3.25 3.25 Administration 68 5 6 3.50 3.51 69 l 1 3.93 4.00 70 2 2 3.79 3.82 71 3 3 3.66 3.61 72 4 5 3.62 3.52 73 7 7 3.33 3.34 74 6 4 3.39 3.59 75 9 9 3.13 2.80 76 8 8 3.22 3.11 Programming 77 8 7 3.56 3.57 78 4-5 12 3.66 2.98 114 Table 16 (continued) RankLby Bank by Mean for Mean for Directors Directors Directors Directors Topic number formal informal formal informal Programming continued 79 6 l 3.64 3.82 80 7 6 3.62 3.61 81 4-5 2 3.66 3.81 82 3 3 3.71 3.79 83 2 4 3.77 3.77 84 9 8 3.41 3.43 85 11-12 11 3.22 3.36 86 10 9 3.25 3.41 87 11-12 10 3.22 3.38 88 l 5 3.80 3.65 Evaluation 89 2 2 2.41 2.47 90 l l 2.59 2.82 91 4 3 2.03 2.34 92 3 4 2.11 2.09 Only one tOpic gained the 3.60 level for both groups in the History-Philosophy category. The agreed on tOpic was number 2. "history of the community school movement." The directors with formal training also assigned the 3.60 level to tOpic 3. "history of community education." while the directors with no formal training 115 assigned that level to tOpic 5. "the philosOphy of the community school-historic." In the Social-Psychological category the following two tOpics gained the 3.60 level by both groups: . tOpic 8 - "the concept of community" . tOpic l6 - "identifying community resources" Only one other tOpic in the category was assessed that high. The directors with no formal training chose tOpic 10. "power structure of the community." No tOpics mutually gained the 3.60 level for both groups in the Personal Skills category. although two tOpics gained that level independently. The direct- ors with formal preparation chose tOpic 31. "develOping individual and group participation." while the other group chose tOpic 32. "develOping leaders." In the Communication Skills category only one tOpic achieved the 3.60 level. and it was chosen by both groups. The chosen tOpic was number 42. "use of public relations." No tOpics received 3.60. or above. by either group in the Institution-Agency COOperation category. Seven tOpics were assessed at. or above. the mean level in the Organization category. The mutually chosen tOpics were: . tOpic 59 - "orienting staff members" . tOpic 6l - "using lay persons in the program" . tOpic 62 - "establishing community advisory boards" 116 . tOpic 63 - "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" In addition. the directors with formal training chose tOpics 64. "local financing." and 65. "state financing." The directors without formal training chose tOpic 58. "methods of orienting community leaders." In the Administration category. the following topics achieved the 3.60 level: . tOpic 69 - "the role of the director" . tOpic 70 - "the role of the principal" . tOpic 71 - "the role of the superintendent" The directors with formal preparation also chose tOpic 72. "the role of the school board." The other group did not choose any other tOpics at that level. Six tOpics were mutually assessed at. or above. 3.60. in the Programming category. The tOpics were: . tOpic 79 - "adult education programs" . topic 80 - "Job training programs" . tOpic 81 - "youth enrichment programs" . tOpic 82 - "summer programs" . tOpic 83 - "family programs" . tOpic 88 - "senior citizen programs" The directors with formal training also assessed tOpic 78. "youth.recreational programs." at that level. In the Evaluation category no tOpics received the liecessary level to be included in intensive preparation I>rOgrams. 117 The choices of both groups of directors were quite similar. No significant differences were apparent in their choices of categories and no trends were appar- ent in their choices of tOpics. Summaxy In this chapter the data was presented and ana- lyzed and categories and tOpics were identified that would be included in intensive preparation programs. The chapter was summarized by restating each hypothesis. and by listing tOpics which were assigned the 3.60 mean level by both groups. Hypothesis_l There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the panel of experts and the total group of community school directors on categories to be included in intensive pre- paration programs. There were no significant differences between both groups on any of the nine categories; hence. all categories were included. When the 3.60 mean level was applied to the ninety-two individual tOpics the following were assessed at. or above. that level by both groups: . "concept of community" . "identifying community resources" . "develOping individual and group participation" 118 "develOping leaders" "methods of orienting staff members" "using lay persons in the program" "establishing community advisory boards" "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" "the role of the director" "the role of the principal" "adult education programs" "Job training programs" The mean level was also assigned to other tOpics inde- pendently by both groups. The complete listing of all tOpics attaining the 3.60 level can be found in Appendix E. Hypothesis 2A There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the panel of experts and the opinions of the community school directors with formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences of Opinion between the experts and the directors on any of the nine categories. All categories were accepted. The following tOpics were assessed at. or above. the 3.60 mean level by both groups: . "identifying community resources" 119 "develOping individual and group participation" "methods of orienting staff members" "using lay persons in the program" "establishing community advisory boards" "the role of the director" "the role Of the principal" "adult education programs" "family programs" Hypothesis 28 There are no significant differences between the opinions of the panel of experts and the Opinions of the community school directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive pre- paration programs. For all nine categories there were no significant differences in Opinion between the experts and the direct- ors: hence. the categories were accepted. When the 3.60 mean level was applied to the ninety- two individual tOpics. the following tOpics were assessed at. or above. that level by both groups: . "comparison of the traditional vs. community school" "the concept of community" "identifying community resources" "develOping individual and group participation" "develOping leaders" 120 . "methods of orienting staff members" . "using lay persons in the program" . "establishing community advisory boards" . "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" . "the role of the director" . "the role of the principal" . "adult education programs" . "Job training programs" . "family programs" Hypothesis 20 between gories 0 There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the community school directors with formal preparation and more than three years experience and the Opinions of the community school directors with formal preparation and less than three years eXperience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences of Opinion both groups of directors on any of the nine cate- All the categories were accepted. The following tOpics were assessed at. or above. the 3.60 level by both groups: . "identifying community resources" . "develOping individual and group participation" . "methods of orienting staff members" . "using lay persons in the program" 121 "establishing community advisory boards" "local financing" "the role of the director" "the role of the principal" "the role of the superintendent" "adult education programs" "family programs" "senior citizen programs" Hypothesis 3A There are no significant differences between the opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. For all nine categories there were no significant differences of Opinion between both groups; hence. the categories were accepted. When the 3.60 mean level was applied to the ninety—two individual tOpics the following tOpics were assessed at. or above. that level by both groups: "the concept of community" "identifying community resources" "develOping individual and group participation" "develOping leaders" "develOping other self-concept" "using lay persons in the program" O 122 "establishing community advisory boards" "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" "the role of the director" "the role of the principal" "adult education programs" "job training programs" "family programs" Hypothesis 3p There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the experts and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences of Opinion between both groups on any of the nine categories. The categories were accepted. The following tOpics were assessed at. or above. the 3.60 level by both groups: "the concept of community" "identifying community resources" "effects of racial. social and economic iso- lation" "develOping leaders" "methods of orienting staff members" "using lay persons in the program" "establishing community advisory boards" "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" 123 "the role of the director" "the role of the principal" "adult education programs" "Job training programs" . "family programs" Hypothesis 39 There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with no formal prepara- tion and more than three years experience and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience on categories to be included in intensive preparation prOgrams. For all nine categories there were no significant differences of Opinion between both groups: hence. the categories were accepted. When the 3.60 mean level was applied to the ninety-two individual topics the following tOpics were assessed at or above. that level by both groups: "history of the community school movement" "the concept of community" "identifying community resources" "develOping leaders" "use of public relations" "methods of orienting staff members" "using lay persons in the program" 124 "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" "establishing community advisory boards" "the role of the director" "the role of the principal" "the role of the superintendent" "youth recreational programs" "adult education programs" "Job training programs" "summer programs" "family programs" "senior citizen programs" Hypothesis 4 There are no significant differences between the Opinions of the directors with formal preparation and the Opinions of the directors with no formal preparation on categories to be included in intensive preparation programs. There were no significant differences of Opinion between both groups of directors on any of the nine categories. All categories were accepted. The following tOpics were assessed at. or above. the 3.60 level by both groups: "history of the community school movement" "the concept of community" "identifying community resources" "use of public relations" 125 "methods of orienting staff members" "using lay persons in the program" "establishing community advisory boards" "establishing neighborhood advisory boards" "the role of the director" "the role of the principal" "the role of the superintendent" "adult education programs" "Job training programs" "youth enrichment programs" "summer programs" "family prOgrams" "senior citizen programs" Chapter V presented the summary. conclusions. implications. and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary It was the purpose of this study to obtain the Opinions of a panel of experts and a nationwide sampling of community school directors to establish content areas consisting of categories and tOpics which might consti- tute an intensive preparation program for community school directors. The need for such a study was illustrated through interviews with persons in community education and a review of the literature in the field. A compre- hensive review of the literature failed to reveal any similar studies concerning the content of prepara- tion programs for community school directors. An instrument was designed listing ninety-two topics which might be included in intensive preparation programs. It was administered to the panel of experts and to the selected group of community school directors in eighty cities throughout the United States. Broad categories were ascertained by applying computed T-scores to the eight hypotheses. The deter- mination of individual topics was accomplished by applying the established 3.60 mean acceptance level to each of the ninety-two topics. The categories and topics formed the content areas for an intensive preparation program. 126 127 W The conclusions of the study were presented in four sections. 1) the hypotheses were reviewed to deter- mine their acceptance or rejection. 2) the apparent trends were discussed. 3) the findings were listed. and 4) the identified content areas were presented. Hyppthesis 1 The panel of experts and the total group of community school directors did not significantly dis- agree on any of the categories to be included in an intensive preparation program: thus. the hypothesis was accepted. Hyppthesis 2A-2B The opinions of the directors with formal prep- aration and varying years of experience were compared to the opinions of the experts. It was hypothesized that as a result of formal preparation the opinions of the directors toward the categories would not signifi- cantly differ from those of the experts. Since no significant differences of opinion did occur. the hypo- theses were accepted. Hyppthesis 2C Both groups of directors with formal preparation but with varying years of experience were compared. It had been hypothesized that there would be no significant differences of opinion between both groups because of 128 their formal preparation. There were no significant differences of opinion: hence. the hypothesis was accepted. Hyppthesis 3A The opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and more than three years experience were compared to the experts to determine if experience offset the lack of formal preparation. The hypothesis had been stated that there would be no significant differences of opinion between both groups. Since no statistical differences occurred. the hypothesis was accepted. H thesis B The opinions of the directors with no formal preparation and less than three years experience were compared to the experts. It had been hypothesized that there would be significant differences in opinion due to the lack of the formal preparation of the directors. The hypothesis was rejected. however. since no statisti- cally significant differences occurred. Hyppthesis 3C Both groups of directors with no formal prepara- tion and varying years of experience were compared to ascertain differences of opinion which might occur with differing experience. It had been hypothesized that there would be significant differences of opinion. There were. however. no significant differences of opinion: hence. the hypothesis was rejected. 129 Hyppthesis 4 Two groups of directors were compared in the final hypothesis--directors with formal preparation and directors with no formal preparation. It had been hypothesized that there would be significant differences in opinion between these groups. The differences did not occur in the statistical analysis: hence. the hypothesis was rejected. Apparent trends Despite the fact that there were no significant differences of opinion on categories among the expert group and the various groups of directors in the study. the trends in the selection of topics indicated a differ- ence in orientation between the experts and the directors. The trend in the selection of topics by the experts indicated that they were oriented toward the concept of community education: however. the trends in the selection of topics by the directors indicated that they were oriented toward the action phase of the concept-- the programming of activities. Basically. the directors emphasized the "means". while the experts emphasized the "end." The definitions of community school and community education were restated. as they appeared in Chapter I. to clarify the discussion of the trends which emerged in the study. 130 Community school-~The community school is one of the means of developing an educationally-oriented community through the operation of the schools. 12-15 hours per day. 6-7 days per week. to meet the needs not only of youth. but also of the family and the community. Community education--Community education unifies a community. under the leadership of the schools or some other community agency or institution in coordinating all resources--physical. human and social--to the end of improving the educational environment of the commun- ity. The most notable differences in trends. between the experts and the directors. occurred in the Social- psychological category. where the directors chose only two topics. while the experts chose five topics. They both agreed on the basic topics. ”the concept of commun- ity” and ”identifying community resources:" but the experts also indicated the need for the additional topics. "minority groups in the society." "the effects of racial. social. and economic isolation.” and "current social problems of society." The choices of the addi- tional topics strongly indicated the orientation of the experts toward the community education concept. The fact also that the directors did not select the same or similar topics indicated that they were not oriented toward that area of study. 131 The trend of the experts in their selection of topics was also demonstrated in other categories. They indicated a need for such topics as. "making home visi- tations." "conducting community surveys.” and the "com- munity development process:" while the directors. in turn. did not select any of these topics. The selection of topics by the experts indicated their desire for an intensive preparation program which was structured to provide the director with the necessary knowledge. tools and skills to enable him to work toward the end of improving the educational environment of the community. The trend throughout the study. for the directors. was toward the programming of activities in the community school. This was indicated by the fact that the largest percentage of their selections were in the categories of administration, organization and programming. They chose such topics as "local financing." ”the role of the princi- pal.” ”youth recreation programs." "youth enrichment pro- grams.“ and "summer programs.” They. in turn. chose few topics in the Social-Psychological. Personal Skills and Communication Skills categories--the subject areas that would give them the knowledge and tools to carry on the process of developing an educative community. If the directors had envisioned their roles. as change agents. they surely would not have limited their choices of topics to the programming of activities. 132 In effect. the directors defined their role--that of administering and organizing programs. It was concluded that the directors were ignorant of. or were not convinced of their role in developing the educative community. The statistical analysis and the trends in the study indicated no significant differences in opinion between the directors with formal preparation and the directors with no formal preparation. The trends in the selection of individual topics also indicated the simi- larity of opinions of both groups. It had been assumed that the formal preparation of a director would have brought him closer to the opinions of the experts: however. this was not indicated. The study was not designed to delve into the objectives of the formal preparation programs: however. it was apparent that if the preparation programs were designed to effect changes in the opinions of directors. the pro- grams had not been effective. Also. if the preparation programs were designed only to produce community school programmers. then the purpose of the formal preparation program needed to be questioned. Added experience did not significantly change the opinions of the directors. Two groups of directors were compared in the study--those with less than three years experience and those with more than three years experi- ence. It had been assumed that the directors with three 133 or more years of experience would have gained insight toward the needs and problems of people and thus would be oriented toward the concept of community education. That assumption did not hold. however. for there were no significant differences of opinion between both groups in the statistical analysis or in the trends which emerged in the selection of individual topics. Findings of the study Based on the analysis of the data and the appar- ent trends which evolved in the study. the findings of the study were: 1. The panel of experts was oriented toward the goal of community education--the improve- ment of the educational environment of the community. 2. The directors were oriented toward the means to accomplishing the goal-~the programming of activities. 3. Formal preparation did not significantly change the opinions of the directors toward the goal of community education. 4. Experience (more than three years) did not significantly change the opinions of the directors toward the goal of community education. 134 Content areas for intensive preparation programs The content areas for intensive preparation pro- grams were established through the analysis of the statis- tical data and were listed below by categories: History-Philosophy category . history of the community school movement . comparison of the traditional vs. community school Social-Psychological category . the concept of community . minority groups in society . current social problems of society . effects of racial. social and economic iso- lation . effects of segregation . identifying community resources Personal Skills category . training in making home visitations . developing group and individual participation . developing leaders . the community development process . developing others self-concept Communication Skills category . use of public relations . listening skills . discussion skills Organization Skills category . methods of orienting community leaders 135 methods of orienting staff members conducting community surveys using lay persons in the program establishing neighborhood advisory boards Administrative Skills category the role of the community school director the role of the principal the role of the superintendent Programming Skills category youth recreational programs adult education programs job training programs youth enrichment programs family programs senior citizen programs In lications The study indicated that the practitioners. in the field. did not share the concept of community educa- tion as held by the experts. The implications drawn from the study were: 1. The formal preparation of the directors was based on the programming aSpect of community education. The role assigned to the director and the criteria used to evaluate the role of the director by the supervisors. was one of pro- gramming of activities. 136 The preparation of directors, as programmers, was implied since the directors defined their role, in the study, through their choices of topics. It had been assumed that if the directors had been exposed to topics dealing with the broad sociological aspects of their role that they would have responded to these topics in the instrument. It was implied, therefore, that the concept of community education was not included or was not empha- sized in the contemporary formal preparation programs. The role expectation of the director may have been the major factor in the directors choices of topics. If the director was only assigned the role of programming of activities, and if his personal evaluation was based solely on the number of programs operated, then he would respond in that manner to the instrument. If the above assumptions were true, it was implied that the adminis- trators and supervisors of directors did not share the concept of community education with the experts. The need for the restructuring of intensive pre- paration programs and the need for in-service programs for practitioners were implied in the study. The pro- grams should emphasize the study of, and the potential of, community education. Through the awareness of the basic objectives of community education, the directors could be motivated into the study or procedures and methods of meeting objectives. From the identification of procedures and methods, the directors could be led 137 into the study of specific skills or service behaviors needed by them to carry out programs to meet the basic objectives. The basis of the sequential study could be the content areas established in this study. Recommendations for Further Study In the study, opinions of a panel of experts and a nation-wide sampling of directors were combined to establish content areas for intensive preparation programs. Even though a large group of professionals were represented in the establishment of the content areas, this does not necessarily prove that this set of categories and topics is superior to those already in existence. It is, therefore, necessary that research be conducted into contemporary intensive preparation programs to answer the following questions: 1. What are the basic objectives of the programs? 2. What is the format of the programs? 3. What content is being presented? 4. What methods and procedures are being employed? 5. What changes in behavior of the partici- pants is sought? Participants in the contemporary program should be both pre and post tested to determine the effective- ness of the program in meeting the basic objectives of the program. Following the suggested research, an 138 intensive preparation program which utilizes the re- search and the criteria established in this study should be developed. Similar tests should be used and a compari- son of the programs be made. Study is also needed in the area of the role expectations of the director. It is implied throughout the study that the role of the director is not clearly defined. It is imperative, therefore, that further research be conducted to establish a basic definition of the role of the community school director. Upon this basic role definition, educational preparation programs and criteria for evaluating the job performance of indi- vidual directors, can be established. Further research is also recommended to determine the extent of the awareness of the community education concept among all persons active in community school and community education. It was implied in the study that there was some misunderstanding of the relationship of community schools to community education. This study could also be used to determine the need for continuing inservice education programs for all persons in community education. Much research is needed in community education to determine its present state. It is hoped that this study has provided a base for future research. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ”Organizing the Elementary School for Living and Learning," 2&2 A.S.C.D. Yearboo , Washington, D. C.: The A.S.C.D. of the National Education Association, 1947, p. 80. Barnes, John B. The D amics of Educational Research, Temge, Arizona: Arizona State College, 195 , p. 7. Biddle, William. The Community Development Process: 2mg Rediscovery of Local Initiative. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.. p. 258, 276. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Company, 1933, p. 202. Clapp, Elsie R. Community Schools in Action. New York: Viking Press, 1939, p. viii. Cook, Lloyd A. "School and Community,” The Encyclopedia of Educational Research, lst edition. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 1945, p. 11. Cubberly, Ellwood P. Public Education in the United States. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1935: P0 587- Dewey, John. Democrac and Education. New York: MacMillan Company, 1913, p. 26. Everett, Samuel. The Community School. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938, p. 10. Glueck, Eleanore T. The Community Use cg Schools. Baltimore: Williams, 1927, p. l. Goslin, David A. The School in Contemporary Society. Fairlawn, N. J.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1965! P0 550 Hart, Joseph K. Th9 Discovery of Intelligence. New York: Century Company, 192 , p. 3 2. Melby, Ernest O. Administering Community Education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 1955, p. 219. iuo 141 Nelson, Lowrey, Ramsey, Charles and Verner Coolie. Community Structure and Change, New York: MacMillan Co., 19 0, p. 7. Olsen, Edward G. School and Community. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 19 5, p. 11. Seay, Maurice (ed.). "The Community School Emphasis in Post War Education,” American Education in the Post War Period: Curriculum Reconstruction. 55th Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19h5, p. 204. Smith, B. Othanel, Morphet, Edgar L. (ed.), Desigmimg Education for the Future No 2. New York: Citation Press, 1937, p. 137. Sumption, Merle R. and Engstrom, Yvonne. School Commun- it Relations: A New A roach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1935, p. 258. van Dalen, Diebold B. Understanding Educational Re- search. New York: McGraw-Rill Book Company, 1952, p. 182. Yeager, William A. School-Community Relations. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951, p. 1 . Articles and Periodicals Boles, Harold W. The Community School and Its Adminis- tration. V01. II, NO. 5, Janmy' l9 0 Campbell, Clyde M. The Community School and Its Admin- . The Communit School and Its inistration, Vol. II, No. 3, (November, 19335. . The Communit School and Its Administration, Vol. II, No. 8, (April, 19355. . The Communit School and Its Adm n strati n, Vol. II, No. , ecember, 19 3 . . The Communit School and Its Administration, Vol. IV, No. 2, (October, 1955,. . The Community Schgol and Its Amministration, Vol. IV, No. 9, May, 19 . 1&2 First, J. M. "The Community School Concept," Michigan Education Journal, (April, 1960). Mann, George C. "The Development of Public School Adult Education,“ Public School Adult Education. Washington: National Education Association of Public School Adult Education, 1956, p. 11. McClusky, Howard A. "The Educative Community,“ The Community School and Its Administration. Vol. V, No. 9. May. 19 7 - Melby, Ernest 0. The Communit School and Its Adminis- tration. Vol. 3, No. 2, (July, 19655. Mott, C. S. Harding, "The Flint Community School Concept as I See It," Journal of Educational Sociolo , 23:4:1959, pp. 151-161. mm American Association of School Administrators, "Educa- tional Administration in the Changing Community,” Washington, D. C.: National Education Associa- tion, 1959, p. 12. Chicago Board of Education, A Historical Review of the Chica 0 Public Evenin Schools, A Report prepared by the Chicago Board of Education, Chicago: 1937: P- 3- Flint Board of Education. The Community School Director and His Role in the Flint Progmam. A Report prepared by the Flint Board of Education, 1961. Schafer, Walter M. and Polk, Kenneth. Appendix M.. ”Delinquency and the Schools," Task Force Repgrt: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. The President's Committee on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Washington: U. S, Government Printing Office, 1967, p. 276. Other Sources Becker, William. Program Coordinator, Mott Leadership Program, Interview, November IA, 1967. Clancy, Peter. Testimony presented before the Labor and Education Committee of the United States House of Representatives, January 26, 1965: and the Sub- committee on Education of the United States Com- mittee on Public Labor and Welfare, January 29, 1965. 103 Melby, Ernest 0. Address to the National School Board Association, Houston, Texas, April, l96h. Pappadakis, Nicholas, Executive Secretary, N.C.S.E.A., Interview, April 16, 1968. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ”Study Kit on Training for Community Deveiopment,” New York: United Nations, 1957, p.1. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PANEL OF EXPERTS Dr. Clyde M. Campbell Director, Mott Institute for Community Improvement Michigan State University Dr. David J. Doherty Director, Center for Community Affairs Oakland University Mr. Ralph Goglia Director of Community Schools New Haven, Connecticut Dr. V. M. Kerensky Professor of Education Florida Atlantic University Mr. Alan R. Koth Director of Community Schools Atlanta, Georgia Dr. Frank Manley Director, Mott Foundation Flint, Michigan Dr. Gerald Martin Professor of Education Western Michigan University Dr. Ernest 0. Melby Professor of Education Michigan State University Mr. Louis Piotrowski Director of Community Schools Chattanooga, Tennessee Mr. Louis Tasse Supervisor of Community School Programs Dade County, Florida 145 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B TRAINING PROGRAMS QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions for completing the questionnaire. The following topics might be included in an intensified or sequential inservice training program. Please, evaluate each topic based on your feeling about its inclusion in such a program. Do not base your evaluation on the total training needs of the Community School Director. Each topic should be evaluated in one of these ways: 1. = Must be included 2. a Desirable, but not necessary 3. a Uncertain h. = Not desirable, but could be included 5. = Should not be included At the end of the listing, space has been provided for you to add topics you feel should be included. TOPIC (Circle one) 1. history of education in the United States 1 2 3 4 5 2. history of the Community School movement 1 2 3 4 5 3. history of Community Education 1 2 3 u 5 h. philosophy of American education 1 2 3 4 5 5. the philosophy of the community school-- historic 1 2 3 4 5 6. effects of racial, social and socio- economic isolation 1 2 3 4 5 7. comparison of the traditional vs. community school 1 2 3 4 5 8. the concept of community 1 2 3 4 5 9. social stratification in society 1 2 3 4 5 10. power structure of the community 1 2 3 h 5 11. minority groups in the society 1 2 3 h 5 12. current social problems of society 1 2 3 A 5 147 148 1. = Must be included 2. a Desirable, but not necessary 3. = Uncertain 4. a Not desirable, but could be included 5. - Should not be included TOPIC (Circle one) 13. effects of racial, social and economic isolation 1 2 3 4 5 14. peer relationships and influences 1 2 3 4 5 15. study of the family and its relationship to society 1 2 3 4 5 16. identifying community resources 1 2 3 4 5 17. the socialization process 1 2 3 4 5 18. case work techniques 1 2 3 4 5 l9. marriage counseling 1 2 3 4 5 20. psychology of adolescence 1 2 3 4 5 21. psychology of the adult 1 2 3 4 5 22. psychology of the aged person 1 2 3 4 5 23. problem analysis techniques 1 2 3 4 5 24. dynamics of group relations 1 2 3 4 5 25. diffusion of innovation 1 2 3 4 5 26. sensitivity training 1 2 3 4 5 27. personality development 1 2 3 4 5 28. counseling techniques 1 2 3 4 5 29. interviewing techniques 1 2 3 4 5 30. training in making home visitations 1 2 3 4 5 31. developing individual and group participation 1 2 3 5 32. developing leaders 1 2 3 4 33. the community development process 1 2 3 4 5 149 l. 2 Must be included 2. = Desirable, but not necessary 13:: : gggedggigabis. but could be included 5. = Should not be included TOPIC (Circle one) 34. developing others self-concept 1 2 3 4 5 35. public speaking 1 2 3 4 5 36. staff communications 1 2 3 4 5 37. use of neighborhood bulletins l 2 3 4 5 38. news releases 1 2 3 4 5 39. report writing 1 2 3 4 5 40. relating to formal and informal groups 1 2 3 4 5 41. conducting meetings 1 2 3 4 5 42. use of public relations 1 2 3 4 5 43. use of audio-visuals 1 2 3 4 5 44. listening skills 1 2 3 4 5 45. discussion skills 1 2 3 4 5 46. the history of community institutions 1 2 3 4 5 47. the philosophy of community institutions 1 2 3 4 5 48. the role of community institutions in C. E. 49. the history of community agencies 50. the philosophy of community agencies 51. the role of community agencies in C. E. 52. the functions of community institutions 53. the functions of community agencies F‘ :4 F‘ +4 :4 F' +4 NNNNNNN wuuwuuu a- #7 4r ~s' #- tr tr \n u. \n ux \n u: \n 54. the study of formal groups 55. the role of the individual in formal groups 1 2 3 4:- U't 150 1. = Must be included 2. = Desirable, but not necessary 3. = Uncertain 4. = Not desirable, but could be included 5. 2 Should not be included TOPIC (Circle one) 56. the study of informal groups 1 2 3 4 5 57. the role of the individual in informal groups 1 2 3 4 5 58. methods of orienting community leaders 1 2 3 4 5 59. methods of orienting staff members 1 2 3 4 5 60. conducting community surveys 1 2 3 4 5 61. using lay persons in the program 1 2 3 4 5 62. establishing community advisory boards 1 2 3 4 5 63. establishing neighborhood advisory boards 1 2 3 4 5 64. local financing 1 2 3 4 5 65. state financing 1 2 3 4 5 66. federal financing 1 2 3 4 5 67. local, state and federal taxation 1 2 3 4 5 68. the role of the Supervisor of Directors 1 2 3 4 5 69. the role of the Community School Director 1 2 3 4 5 70. the role of the principal I 2 3 4 5 71. the role of the superintendent 1 2 3 4 5 72. the role of the School Board 1 2 3 4 5 73. the role of the building Director as a classroom teacher 1 2 3 4 5 74. the role of the lay person 1 2 3 4 5 75. organizational models 1 2 3 4 5 76. school law 1 2 3 4 5 77. preschool programs 1 2 3 4 5 78. 79. 80. 81.. ‘ 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 9o. 91. 92. Below is space for adding topics which have not already been mentioned, but which you feel should be mentioned. Apply the scoring key to each item you list. 151 1. Must be included 2. a. a Uncertain = Desirable, but not necessary . a Not desirable, but could be included 5. = Should not be included TOPIC youth recreational programs Adult Education programs job training programs (youth enrichment programs summer programs family programs service club programs institutional sponsored programs agency sponsored programs business sponsored programs senior citizens programs educational research social research introductory statistics introductory measurement (Circle 2 r4 :4 F‘ r4 :4 F‘ +4 id #1 r4 i4 k4 r4 F’ F4 a: to a: :c n: :c a: to a: to a: to n: to U UUUUUUUUUUWUU #t-Pk-P-lr-k-P-F'k-(r-fi'k-‘r mmmmmmmmmmmmumm 3 :- one) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 152 Personal Data Please check the statement which most fits your training, experience or academic background. 1. I am in the age group: ____21-30 ____31-40 ____41 and over 2. I have been in education: 0-3 years ____4-7 years ____7 or more years 3. Prior to entering Community School work, my experience was in : ____e1ementary school ____secondary school 4. I have been in Community School work: ____1ess than 3 years ____more than 3 years 5. I received my Community School training through: participation in a six-week program participation in a full year internship supervised field experience on-the-job training with little academic training APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Dear N.C.S.E.A. Member: I am surveying members of the National Community School Education Association to develop a basic criteria of topics which should be included in a concentrated train- ing program or in a sequential inservice type training program. The concentrated program might be offered during a 6-8 week period during the school year or in the summer. The inservice program, consisting of the same topics, could be extended for a full year. Assuming that the class work would encompass approximately 100 hours and field experiences would take the remainder of the time, you are asked to identify the basic topics as criterion that should be included in the class time blocke The approach would be mainly multidisciplinary, in that all topics would be overlapping, however some topics would be discussed for one or more blocks of time. A program of this type is intended to equip the new Community School Director with the necessary skills to function in his role. This type of program, while ful- filling a need, is not intended to complete the total training of the Director. The results of the study will be made available to the N.C.S.E.A. and will be included in their resource file to be used by any interested parties. The attached questionnaire will take approximately fifteen minutes of your time. Please read the directions on the front page of the questionnaire carefully. When the instrument has been completed, seal it inside the stamped addressed envelope, which is enclosed, and place it in any United States mail box. Your cooperation in returning the questionnaire as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, Robert I. Berridge 154 APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Dear N.C.S.E.A. Member: Attached, you will find a copy of the same questionnaire I mailed to you in March. I have received a good response from the N.C.S.E.A. members, however a high percentage of reSponses is needed to verify the Study 0 The purpose of the study is to survey the practicing Community School Directors, holding membership in the N.C.S.E.A., to determine their opinions as to just what should be included in an intensive six-week training program. The compilation of the_survey will be of value to the Association and to School districts starting new Community Education programs. Your practical experience will be invaluable in this study. I hope that you will find the time to return the questionnaire, in the enclosed addressed stamped envelope, by April 15. Yours truly, Robert I. Berridge 156 APPENDIX E APPENDIX E A summary of topics ranked at, or above, 3.60 by the panel of experts and the total group of community school directors. Panel C.S.D. of total Tppic number empgmts gppmp_ History-Phiiosophy 2 3.74 3 3.61 6 3.90 7 3.60 Social-Psychological 8 3.80 3.65 11 3.60 12 3.70 13 3.60 16 4.00 3.85 Personal skiils 30 3.70 31 3.90 3.64 32 3.70 3.64 33 3.60 3.66 34 3.80 Communication skills 42 3.74 44 3.60 45 3.80 158 159 Appendix E, continued Panel C.S.D. of total Topic number experts group Institution- enc No topics were ranked within this category Organization 58 3.68 59 3.67 3.67 60 3.70 61 3.90 3.70 62 3.60 3.78 63 3.60 3.6? Administration 69 3.80 3.99 70 3.90 3.80 71 3.62 74 3.90 Progmamming_ 78 3.71 79 3.60 3.84 80 3.70 3.63 81 3.73 83 3.60 88 3.74 Evaluation No topics were ranked within this category