muuimziwuiigmgiiuiiugw . . p - This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EVALUATIVE STUDY OF RESPONSIBLE AUTONOMY IN THE LANSING PUBLIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS presented by William Harris Haak has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Higher Education And Administration Major professor Date February 9, I978 0-7639 AN EVALUATIVE STUDY OF RESPONSIBLE AUTONOMY IN THE LANSING PUBLIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS By William Harris Haak A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education l978 ABSTRACT AN EVALUATIVE STUDY OF RESPONSIBLE AUTONOMY IN THE LANSING PUBLIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS By William Harris Haak The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effec- tiveness of the Lansing School District Model of Responsible Autonomy based on the involvement of building staffs in decision making at the building level. This decentralized organizational strategy was designed to provide decision-making alternatives for building level educators so they could effectively provide viable programs to meet the heterogeneous needs of urban students. The Responsible Autonomy practices available to building administrators and teachers include: (1) budgeting funds allocated to each school; (2) planning curricula designed for the specific student needs at each building; (3) assisting with the selection of new personnel; and (4) the involvement of parents and community mem- bers in educational program planning at each school. The study focused on how the five junior high staffs accepted and implemented localized Responsible Autonomy decision-making alternatives. Finally, the relationship between Responsible Autonomy and successful educational practices was examined. William Harris Haak In addition to the data from the surveys, achievement data from the Stanford Achievement Test were of value in responding to the following questions: To what extent is the observed commitment to the defini- tion of Responsible Autonomy related to the implementa- tion of Responsible Autonomy practices? To what extent does the implementation of Responsible Autonomy practices relate to student achievement in reading and mathematics? To what extent does the implementation of Responsible Autonomy practices relate to the implementation of "successful practices?" The conclusions drawn from this study on the decentralized model of Responsible Autonomy were: Responsible Autonomy has been accepted to a high degree by junior high school administrators and teachers. Practices of Responsible Autonomy are being implemented in the Lansing junior high schools. A significant relationship was found between the imple- mentation of Responsible Autonomy practices and commit- ment to Responsible Autonomy. The school highest in commitment to Responsible Autonomy was also highest in its implementation of Responsible Autonomy practices. Conversely, the same pattern held for the lowest school. Student achievement in reading was significantly higher in the school highest in implementing Responsible Auton- omy practices than in the school lowest in implementing Responsible Autonomy practices. No significant differ- ence was found for student achievement in mathematics between the two schools. The implementation of Responsible Autonomy practices did not account for more of the difference in student achieve- ment in junior high schools than did the implementation of "successful practices." DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to the loving members of my family-~my wife, Eva; and our children, Dave, Karen, Kristi, and Tom. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to gratefully acknowledge the encour— agement and support by the following people: To the teachers and administrators of the Lansing School District for their time and effort spent in completing the question- naires. To Dr. Richard Featherstone, committee chairman, for his generous counsel, friendship and effective support throughout this study. To Drs. Louis Romano, George Myers, and James McKee, members of the guidance committee, for sharing their time, guidance, and advice with me during this study. To Dr. I. Carl Candoli, Superintendent of the Lansing Public Schools, for sharing his expertise on decentralized school theory ancl for allowing me the opportunity to study Responsible Autonomy in Lansing. To Mr. Don Johnson, Principal of the Lansing Eastern High School, who, as my supervisor, encouraged and greatly facilitated my completion of this study. To Drs. Richard Benjamin and Duane Moore, central adminis- trators of the Lansing School District, for their time and effort in assisting me with the program design and evaluative strategies for this study. To Dr. Samuel Moore, whose expectations, as advisor of my master's degree program, provided me with a sound fundation to pre- pare for this endeavor. To Dr. Eric Gordon and Mr. David Buell for their assistance with the statistical measures used in this study. To Mr. Frank Reynolds for his efforts spent on editing this thesis. To Kay Sorenson, Ortencia Martinez, Virginia Ayres, Loreen Bisel, Karen Haak, and Nancy Heath, who provided valuable secretarial assistance during the various writing stages of this document. To Eva Haak, my wife, for her patience and loving support during this challenging and interesting experience. And to Charles and Pearl Haak, my parents, whose expectations and meaningful support provided the foundation for me to experience the fulfilling discipline of graduate study. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem . . . . . . . . . 5 The Decentralization Issue . . . . l0 A Description of the Lansing Public School System . . . . . . . . . l3 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . l4 Definition of Terms . . . . . . 15 Identification of Research Questions . . . . . l6 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . l7 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . l7 Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . l8 Overview of the Dissertation . . . . . . . 19 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 20 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 School Decentralization . . . . . . 22 Connotations of Decentralization . . . . . 23 Decision- -Making Parameters . . . . . . . 24 Two Types of Decentralization . . . . 25 The Need for Organizational Flexibility . . . 27 Community Participation . . . . . 29 Effective School Practices . . . . . . . . 30 Introduction . . . . . . 30 Generic Effective School Practices . . . 33 Supportive Practices for Affective Development . 36 Supportive Practices for Cognitive Development . 38 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4l Chapter III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . Population and Sample . . Procedures for Testing the Hypotheses Procedurel . . . . . . Procedure 2 Procedure 3 Procedure 4 Procedure 5 Summary IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . Hypothesis 1 Other Findings Related to Hypothesis I and . Responsible Autonomy Practices Other Findings Related to Hypothesis 1 and . Commitment to Responsible Autonomy. Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . Summary Conclusions . Implications Recommendations APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY . vi 67 67 68 71 74 76 IOZ Table IO. ll. l2. l3. LIST OF TABLES Matrix for School #500 Identified as the Highest in Practice's of Responsible Autonomy . . . Matrix for School #200 Identified as Second in Practice‘s of Responsible Autonomy . . . Matrix for School #lOO Identified as Third in Practice's of Responsible Autonomy . . Matrix for School #400 Identified as Fourth in Practice's of Responsible Autonomy . . . Matrix for School #300 Identified as the Lowest in Practice's of Responsible Autonomy . . School Means Ranked Highest to Lowest for Responsi- ble Autonomy Practices . . . . . . School Means Ranked Highest to Lowest for Commit- ment to Responsible Autonomy . . . . School Rankings for Responsible Autonomy Commit- ment and Practice . . . . . . . . Summary of the Responses from the Data Sources on Responsible Autonomy Practices . . . . Test of Significance for Administrator and Teacher Responsible Autonomy Practices Test of Significance for Building and Central Administrators for Responsible Autonomy Practices Test of Significance for Teacher Representatives and Central Administrators for Responsible Autonomy Practices . . . . . . . . . Summary of All Responses to the Commitment to Responsible Autonomy Questions . vii Page 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58 59 59 59 62 Table l4. l5. l6. l7. Responsible Autonomy Test of Significance-- Reading . . . . Responsible Autonomy Test of Significance-- Mathematics . . . . . . Mean Responses to Ten "Successful Practices" by the Highest and Lowest Junior High Schools in Practices of Responsible Autonomy . Testing Significance for Highest and Lowest Schools in "Successful Practices" . viii Page 63 64 65 65 Figure l. 2. LIST OF FIGURES Hypotheses of the Study Defined . Process for Identification of Schools in the Study ix Page l8 45 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Cover Letter and Questionnaire Sent to School Principals and LSEA Teacher Representatives B. Cover Letter and Questionnaire Sent to Central Office Administrators C. Cover Letter and Questionnaire Sent to the Staffs of the Highest and Lowest Junior Highs Identified D. Quotations from Respondents on Commitment to Responsible Autonomy . Page 77 83 9O 95 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction American education must see to it that intellectual opportu- nities are accessible to all societal members on equable and easy terms.1 John Dewey concludes this concept by stating, "It would be fatal to a society to stratify into separate classes.“2 This unequivocal declaration is an important goal of our educational process. The antithesis of this goal is to assume our society will be benefited by restricting intellectual opportunities to the child- ren of a privileged class. Presently, many adult societal members are attempting to follow an ambivalent course in relation to the two conflicting goals above. This ambivalence is frequently exhibited by the verbal sup- port of providing equal access to educational opportunities for all children while these same societal members live in the largely homo- geneous environs of the suburbs or send their children to private schools. Speaking on this issue of the elite satisfying their own self-interests, President Carter recently stated: 1John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: MacMillan Company, l925), pp. lOT-IOZ. 2 Ibid. Too many have had to suffer at the hands of a political and economic elite. . . . When the public schools are inferior or torn by strife, their children go to exclu- sive private schools, and when the bureaucracy is bloated and confused, the powerful always manage to discover and occupy niches of special influence and privilege. Goldhammer, Candoli, and Cofer further clarify this condition by stating: "Words do not change school systems, actions of people do!"2 Some writers indicate this ambivalent behavior on the part of many adult decision makers is counterproductive and self defeat- ing. Paraphrasing Maslow, as long as adults attempt to enhance the position of themselves and their children by restricting access of culturally different children to educational opportunities, they will in the same measure be admitting they still need to overcome severe limitations to their own self-actualization. He concludes that it is better to live by growth (acceptance of ourselves and others) rather than fear (which manifests itself as anxiety, despair, intrinsic guilt and shame, and lack of identity).3 This societal reticence to associate with culturally differ- ent persons has been a problem of long standing. However many 1Jimmy Carter, "Democratic Nomination Acceptance Speech," New York Times, 16 July l969, p. lOA. zKeith Goldhammer, Carl Candoli, and Lloyd Cofer, "A Report on Decentralization of the Detroit Public Schools to the Detroit Task Force,” Detroit, l974. (Mimeographed.) 3Abraham H. Maslow, "Psychological Data and Value Theory," in New Knowledge in Human Values, ed. Abraham H. Maslow (New York: Harper and Row, 1959), p.—127. culturally different groups were able to take advantage of the occu- pational demands for their services as our country progressed from an agrarian society to an industrial, technological society. Many of the assimilation opportunities for current culturally different groups have disappeared with the current demand for technological specialists. One perspective on this point is that the "melting pot" theory is presently an euphemism.1 Inherent in the melting-pot theory is the belief that culturally different children are "infe- rior" and need to be conditioned to behave normally in a uniculture.2 Dewey refers to Smith's position above with the concept that it is desirable to have individualization on one hand and a broader community of interest on the other.3 This is a very complex goal when it is related to providing educational opportunities for culturally different children. An adult who supports this position needs to have a lot of courage. Presently, many adults choose not to participate in the process of improving conditions in our urban centers. Therefore, leaders in all positions of responsibility, who support association of all societal members, may be high risk takers. 1wimam L. Smith, “The Melting-Pot Theory: Demise of Euphemism," in Cultural Pluralism in Education: A Mandate for Change, ed. MadéTon D. Stent, et aTZTTNew York: Meredith Corpora- t1on, l973), p. T43. 21bid. 3Dewey, op. cit., p. lOl. Some authors believe that educational leaders should be aware of their values. Drucker addresses this point by stating: Defining the situation always requires a decision on objec- tives, that is, on values and their relationship. It always requires a decision on the risk the manager is will- ing to run. It always, in other words, requires judgement and a deliberate choice between values. The task is clear. Societal leaders need to decide if access to educational opportunities is for all children or for those of the elite. If they decide access to educational opportunities is for all children, then they have to be astute in dealing with strong vested interests which favor disassociation with culturally different societal members. Speaking to this point, W. E. B. DuBois challenges educators "to perceive education as a derivation; and in fact, a drawing out of human powers."2 These human powers can be used to meet the needs of all societal members. By knowing their values and accepting the risks of support- ing access of educational opportunities for all students, educational leaders need to continue to look for new solutions to solve current problems. They will be effective as they examine the degree to 1Peter F. Drucker, "On Making Decisions,” Duns Review and Modern Industry(August l974): 27. 2v. E. B. DuBois, The Education of Black People--Ten Critigues l906-l960, ed. Herbert Aptheker (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, l973), p. 9. which schools meet the purposes for which they are organized and financed.1 The Problem The evolutionary development of today's huge centralized educational bureaucracies followed the growth patterns of govern- mental, business, commercial and industrial organizations in the 2 United States. As population density increased, particularly in emerging urban centers, the demands upon these organizations multi- plied, and they were faced with the challenge of meeting the hetero- geneous needs of their clients.3 As educational organizations developed, they also closely paralled the development of Taylor's classical theory of management.4 Candoli and Leu further state: The influence of scientific management theory led to specialization, to hierarchical structure, to increased efficiency, and to increased depersonization of the edu- cational enterprise. As a result, large centralized school districts featured central office decision making with less and less response to individual student or community needs.5 1Goldhammer, Candoli, and Cofer, op. cit., p. 2. 21. Carl Candoli and Donald J. Leu, "Planning For Decentral- ized Educational Programs and Facilities," a position paper, September 1972, p. l. 3Charles R. Adrian, Governing Urban America (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., l96l), p. 7. 4Candoli and Leu, op. cit., p. l. 51bid., p. 2. Related to the above point is the development that, increas- ingly, over the past several years, charges and counter charges have been leveled against urban schools.1 Many of the critics, including Goodman, The Open Classroom; Kozol, Death At An Early Age; Jencks, Inequality; and Kohl, 36 Children, directed their charges at the inflexibility and insensitivity of rigidly organized urban schools. These critics insisted that education is a human enterprise and cannot be allowed to become remote and distant from its clients. The urban schools responded to these charges of organiza- tional rigidity by becoming more centralized in the early l960's. Instead of adjusting to the demands of serving heterogeneous needs of their clients, many urban schools attempted to deliver tradi- tional services designed to meet homogeneous student needs. These school systems, spawned and nurtured in the value sys- tem of middle class America, were simply unequipped to understand, much less respond to the educational needs of a multi-ethnic, culturally pluralistic clientele. By the mid l960's the school scene was shifting, as American culture went into a period of dis- location marked by conflicting priorities and dissonance.2 A large amount of research indicates that public schools have not been effective in coping with the pressure of serving the 1I. Carl Candoli, "The Organization and Management of the Urban School System," Theory into Practice (October l976): l. 2Jim Walsh and J. Peter Williams, Jr., "Statewide Reorgani- zation of Education?" Phi Delta Kappan (May T977): 693. heterogeneous needs of urban children. The Coleman Report findings indicate that Negro students on standardized achievement tests scored somewhat below white students at the first grade level, were about l.36 grades behind by the sixth grade, 2.4 years behind by the ninth grade, and were 3.3 grades behind by the twelfth grade.1 Coleman notes that one of the major implications of his report is that many schools ineffectively provide educational oppor— tunities for minority students which are responsive to their learn- ing needs.2 The development of these student skills is critical to their making a living and participating fully in modern society. Whatever may be the combination of nonschool factors--poverty, commu- nity attitude, low educational level of partents--which put minority children at a disadvantage in verbal and nonverbal skills when they enter the first grade, the fact is the schools have not enabled many urban children to overcome these educational limitations. One of the critical results of this situation is that a greater proportion of black students than while students drop out of school. The Coleman Report found that in the metropolitan North and West, black students were more than three times as likely to drop out of school than white students (20 percent compared to 6 per- cent).3 1James S. Coleman, et al., Equality of Educational Opportu- nity (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U. S. Office of Education, l966), p. 20. 21bid. 31bid. The failure of the school system to provide black students with an adequate education was identified by the Kerner Commission Report as, "One of the persistent sources of grievance and resent- ment within the Negro community."1 The report also noted that the hostility of both black parents and students toward the school sys- tem was a factor contributing to racial conflict within many city schools, and to the general civil disorders in American cities. Goldhammer and Taylor summarized the criticism leveled at the education institutions during the l960's and l970's. The critics, in part, focused their attention upon the urban school organization. Goldhammer and Taylor's summary is: Studying the educational problems in the inner city led some educators and citizens to see the human wastage which results from the failure to adapt programs and instruction to the needs of all children regardless of their economic or social antecedents. Daily, children were subjected to studies which were beyond their powers of conceptualiza- tion, irrelevant to their needs for learning how to deal with the world about them an? inconsistent with patterns of development open to them. Faced with pressure resulting from dysfunctional goals and educational programs, school districts began to make organizational adjustments by the late l960's. A primary concern of the l970's has been to effectively accomplish the goal of providing for the heterogeneous needs of urban students. 1Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Dis- orders (Washington, D.C.: TGovernment Printing Office, 1968), p. 243. 2Keith Goldhammer and Robert E. Taylor, Career Education: Perspective and Promise (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, l972), p. 17. Campbell and his associates strongly support the need for effective urban public schools which derive strength from the heterogeneity of the clients served.1 In order to accomplish this task, urban schools will need to deal with increasing expectations by clients on one hand and decreasing resources with which to meet client demands for educational services on the other hand. Compli- cating factors such as physical, social, and emotional needs, which are prerequisites to learning, serve to further dilute the resource base. Many urban youngsters must be supplied with a variety of nutritional, health, psychological, and social services in order to function in an educational setting. These services are important, for without them, the student cannot hope to attain educational success. Yet, they do exert a severe drain on available resources.‘ As urban America becomes the haven for the poor and minority groups, schools in central cities strain and sometimes fail to provide diverse educational delivery systems with appropriate support services.2 These statements about the challenges which urban schools face are a sampling of the many critical and pervasive issues they encounter. Three of the most pressing and consuming issues, 1Roald F. Campbell, et al., The Organization and Control of American Schools (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Book, Inc., 1970), p. 440. 2U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in the Public Schools,,I (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, l965), pp. l4 and TB. -__.———.... IO according to Candoli, are: the desegregation issue; the financial issue; and the decentralization issue.1 Although the issues of desegregation and finance are impor- tant, the major emphasis of this dissertation is on decentralization. The focal point of this study is to determine the degree to which school decentralization has improved the ability of an urban school district to increase access to educational success by its student-clients. The Decentralization Issue One of the problems faced by educational decision makers, as cited by Coladarci and Getzels, is their tendency to rely upon leaders from other disciplines for guidance.2 The need for decisive action by educators is required now if the counterproductive develop- ments in urban centers are to be curtailed or eliminated. The Rand Report deals with this problem by suggesting ". . . that research indicated improvement in student outcomes, both cognitive and non- cognitive, may require sweeping changes in the organization, struc- ture, and conduct of educational experiences."3 1Candoli, op. cit., PP. 3-5. 2Arthur P. Coladarci and Jacob W. Getzels, Use of Theory in Educational Administration (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1955), p. 11. 3Harvey A. Averch, et al., How Effective is Schooling? A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research Findings (Santa Monica, Ca.: Rand, March, 1972), p. 158. ll One such emerging "sweeping change" over the last decade is the plan for decentralization of large centralized school systems. Writers such as Averch and March feel that bigness leads to remote- ness and remoteness leads to impersonalization which is inappropriate in an institution (education) that is based on human services. While the literature abounds with varying definitions of the term decentralization, many efforts are doomed to failure because the implications are not carefully thought through. In many instances, decentralization efforts are really a response to politi- cal pressures rather than attempts to effect meaningful educational change to better serve clients. A harsh reality is that often decentralization has been utilized to avoid compliance with civil rights laws in the area of student desegregation. Additionally, decentralization efforts have been resisted by central office admin- istrators who are reluctant to yield authority or to share their power. The real issue is not decentralization, but rather what functions are best highly centralized and what decisions are best made closest to the student.1 Many writers indicate that the gen- eric educational functions of planning, policy setting, implementa- tion of programs, managing human and financial resources, communications and evaluation often need to be restructured so educational services can be effectively and quickly delivered to students. Individual needs and local resources vary substantially 1Candoli, op. cit., p. 5. 12 and are frequently ignored by rigid centralized decision-making patterns. Goodman supported this position in 1964 when he criti- cized the inability of large rigid school organizations to meet I diverse student needs. His thesis is that urban clients feel power- less if it is impossible for them to become engaged in planning or deciding issues that affect them.2 In addition to urban schools responding to diverse student needs and the involvement of community members in decision making, the following needs must be addressed if decentralization is to be effective: 1. The staff of the urban school system needs to be reedu- cated to the realities of present day urban life. 2. The need for coordinated and comprehensive planning activities related to the effective delivery of educa- tional services to students. 3. Identify and gather resources to accomplish the massive educational task appropriate for urban center. 4. DevelOp the capacity of educational leaders to deal with emerging power groups. Some community groups have attacked the school system to develop a power base. 5. Deal with bureaucratic stagnation by evaluating pro- grams and policies as they relate to present objec- tives. The inclination to "add on" without replacing dysfunctional operations has often led to organizational ineffectiveness.3 1Paul Goodman, Compulsory Mis-Education and the Community of Scholars (New York: A Vintage Book, 1964), p. 11. 2Ibid.. p. 12. 3Candoli, op. cit., p. 5. 13 In conclusion, the urban school system must be flexible and dynamic to an effective degree if it hopes to solve the problems of providing greater access to equal educational opportunities, desegre- gation, staff training, working with emerging power groups, bureau- cratic stagnation, and decentralization. A Description of the Lansing Public School System The Lansing School District, similar to other urban centers, has experienced a change in the clientele served. From the late sixties to the present, there have been some changes in the distribu- tion of population with a movement of middle-class majority and nonmajority families to the surrounding suburbs and influx of lower socioeconomic families into the city.1 The District served over 28,000 students during the 1976-77 school year.2 At the elementary level, of 16,059 students, 1% are designated as American Indian, 69% are Caucasian, 10% as Latino, 19% as Black, 1% as Oriental—Asian and 1% as "other." At the second- ary level, of 12,528 students, 1% are designated as American Indian, 73% as Caucasian, 7% as Latino, 18% as Black, 1% as Oriental-Asian and 1% as "other.“ 1Robert Chamberlain, et al., Comprehensive Planning Report of the Lansing_School District (Lansing: Lansing SChool District Press, Summer, 1977), p. 26. 2Glenn Burgett, "Ethnic Court Report" (Lansing: Office of Child Accounting, June 1977), p. l. 14 The district is made up of 47 elementary schools (various K-6 combinations and clusters), five junior high schools (7-9), and four senior high schools (10-12). After increasing in enrollment up to 33,000 students over many years, the district is now experiencing decreasing student p0pulation. The Lansing Public School District includes those communities within the city of Lansing and some smaller residential areas out— side the city boundaries. The district is surrounded by smaller middle-class communities. Most residents in the city, as well as the suburbs, are economically dependent upon business, governmental and industrial organizations in the Lansing area. Lansing serves as the state capital of Michigan and is 'located in the central part of the state. Purpose of the Study This evaluative study has analyzed the Lansing School Dis- trict's implementation of Responsible Autonomy to determine its capacity to provide educators with the flexibility to cope with and respond to the critical issues of urban education. One of the primary issues is to provide viable educational services and learn- ing opportunities to urban youth with heterogeneous learning needs and life styles. 15 Definition of Terms Decentralization is pushing down authority for decision making to the lowest possible level.1 Stated another way, decentral- ization is the effort to fix responsibility for educational decisions at the level where these decisions have the greatest impact.2 Responsible Autonomy is the concept of shaping a flexible organizational structure that can be responsive to the problem of developing an optimum learning environment for children with hetero- geneous learning needs. This concept is based on the thesis that schools will be most effective when educational participants have the ability to solve their unique problems.3 Centralization is an administrative process in which final authority and responsibility for all educational and managerial functions are under one control officer; responsible to one central board.4 Successful Practices are those variables which constitute effective sChool practices which may be isolated for assessment and evaluative purposes. 1Chris Argyris, Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness (Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962), p. 3. 2 Candoli and Leu, op. cit., p. 13. 31bid. 4Richard Featherstone and Frederick Hill, "Urban School Decentralization; Part II, Centralization vs. Decentralization, Pros and Cons,” American School and University (December 1968): 56. 16 Political Decentralization is an organizational strategy which gives political control over school operations to the citizens of a subpart of the total system.1 Administrative Decentralization is an organizational strategy which divides the organization into more manageable operating units to encourage the making of significant educational decisions as ' close to the student as possible.2 Identification of Research Questions The study consisted of an analysis of the degree of commit- ment to the definition of Responsible Autonomy and in fact whether or not practices of Responsible Autonomy were being implemented and at what level in the junior high schools of Lansing. A similar study was conducted earlier by Dr. Duane H. Moore in the elementary schools.3 If one of the implications of Responsible Autonomy was to improve the achievement level of students, it was necessary to examine the relationship of practices of Responsible Autonomy and the achievement scores of junior high school students. Many identified successful practices exist in public schools which impact the effectiveness of urban school systems. The wide latitude that Responsible Autonomy permits in the decision-making lGoldhammer, Candoli, and Cofer, op. cit., p. 2. 2 3Duane Moore, "An Evaluative Study of Responsible Autonomy in the Lansing Public Elementary Schools" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976). Ibid. l7 process should have a relationship with the level of implementation of these successful practices. The process used to identify important questions and assump- tions of this study is as follows. Assumptions 'Al: The ideal definition of Responsible Autonomy and its implementation are linked to successful practices in junior high schools. A2: Successful practices in junior high schools are linked to the achievement of students. Research Questions (Q1; To what extent is the idealized model of Responsible Autonomy, as defined, like the observed commitment to the definition? 92; To what extent is the observed commitment to the definition of Responsible Autonomy related to the implementation of practices of Responsible Autonomy? 93: To what extent does the implementation of practices of Responsible Autonomy relate to achievement? 94; To what extent does the implementation of practices of Responsible Autonomy relate to the implementation of successful practices? Hypotheses Based on the above research questions, the following hypothe- ses were developed: Hypothesis 1: The junior high school identified as having implemented more practices of Responsible Autonomy will have a higher commitment to the definition of Responsi- ble Autonomy than the school identified as lowest in implementing Responsible Autonomy practices. 18 Hypothesis 2: The junior high school identified as having implemented, to a higher degree, practices of Responsi- ble Autonomy will have students achieve higher results on the Stanford Achievement Test than the school identified as having the lowest degree of implementing practices of Responsible Autonomy. Hypothesis 3: The implementation of Responsible Autonomy practices will account for more of the difference in student achievement among the selected junior high schools than will the implementation of "successful practices." These hypotheses indicate that the relationship between the selected schools and the study variables will remain consistently high or low depending on the degree practices of Responsible Autonomy are implemented by these schools (Figure 1). Level of Attainment .: i? I 3 O ._l Practices of Student "Successful Responsible Autonomy Achievement Practices" H H 2 H 3 Key: Staffs low in Responsible Autonomy Commitment Staffs high in Responsible Autonomy Commitment Figure l.--Hypotheses of the Study Defined 19 Limitations of the Study The fundamental limitation of the study was that it did not address causative factors in the junior high schools examined. Fac- tors such as socio-economic status and ethnic composition of students were not considered in selection of the schools nor in the analysis of the data. Overview of the Dissertation In Chapter II the literature review provides an overview of two areas: decentralization of urban school systems, and character- istics of schools whose students have demonstrated success in aca- demic achievement. Chapter III presents the methods and procedures used in the study. Chapter IV is an analysis of the survey data as it related to the hypotheses presented in Chapter I and other issues that surfaced during the analysis of the data. Chapter V presents the summary, conclusions, and implica— tions of this study. Recommendations for future research are also presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Two critical topics related to urban students having access to educational opportunities are school decentralization and effective-school practices. The review of the literature focuses on these two educational components. Up through the mid-fifties, professional school administra— tion offered a tranquil environment in which administrators were treated with deference by their constituency and accomplished daily tasks routinely. But by 1965, Walsh and Williams observe that the school scene was shifting as the American culture went into a period of dislocation marked by dissonance and conflicting priorities.1 By the 1970's, very little about schools was either tranquil or pre- dictable. Today, school administration is under assault from a defiant public and remains crisis oriented.2 The traditional role of the schools was to serve particular societal purposes through systems linked to formal government struc- tures with defined units, i.e., school boards, possessing governing 1Walsh and Williams, op. cit., p. 693. 2Ibid. 20 21 reSponsibilities and serving as mechanisms for legitimizing educa- tional policies] As noted above, when the stress of societal con- flict and turmoil emerged in the mid-sixties, school administration became crisis oriented. Virtually every solution, from dollars to court intervention to physical force, has been thrown at the problems of education since Little Rock (1957). In order to survive, school administration needs to make adjustments to effectively manage these societal conflicts, pressures and solutions.2 In addition, school administration also faces the criticism of contemporary writers such as Toffler who charges that, ". . . education today, even in our 'best' schools, is a hopeless anachronism."3 In addition to external pressures, school administrators also face the organizational efforts of teachers. During the sev— enties, professional teacher organizations have emerged as a major force in the educational decision-making process. Lieberman pre- dicted this development as early as 1960. His basic premise was: .“Centralization will dramatize the weaknesses of teacher's organiza- tions and put in motion the forces that will eliminate these weak- nesses."4 l 2 Campbell, et al., op. cit., p. viii. Walsh and Williams, op. cit., p. 693. 3Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random House, Inc., 1970), p. 398. 4Myron Lieberman, The Future of Public Education (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 75. -1 l'ar aHI .4I-.NMIHI.1~ bl.IF|< M “P. All I lilo-Cui'lh 22 With school organizations becoming more bureaucratic and teachers becoming more professional, Campbell and Cunningham observe that the need to resolve the conflict between hierarchical and colleague control will intensify in the years ahead.1 Etzioni denotes that a new relationship evolves in an organi- zation where one sub-unit becomes more professional, i.e., the line- staff relationships may be reversed.2 Collectively, the above environmental components illustrate the complex challenges a school administrator encounters. If the administrator is to be effective, an understanding of school decen- tralization theory can prove beneficial as diverse client needs are defined. School Decentralization As environmental pressures become more complex, March and Simon imply that the need for decentralized planning and decision making is needed.3 The argument for decentralization depends upon the limits of data available to organizational participants and their abilities to apply data to influence behavior and outcomes.4 If one of the priorities of a school administrator is to enhance 1Campbell, et al., op. cit., p. 267. 2Amitai Etzioni, "Authoritive Structure and Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1959): 43. 3James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 210. 4Ibid. 23 student access to educational opportunities, Averch proposes that "Research tentatively suggests that improvement in student outcomes, cognitive and non-cognitive, may_require sweeping changes in the organization, structure, and conduct of educational experience."1 Connotations of Decentralization Decentralization has a variety of connotations. Dale observed that "decentralization, like politeness, means different things to different people."2 Decentralization, Argyris defines, is the ". . . pushing down authority and responsibility to the lowest possible level. The aim is to have decisions made at the lowest possible point in the organization."3 Becker and Gordon saw decentralization as "related to the degree of autonomy across organization units." This decentraliza- tion, as they used the term, referred to the "organization of autono- mous units around sets of different subgoals."4 Baker and France referred to the decentralization of decision making as: IAverch, op. cit., p. x. 2Ernest Dale, "A Study of the Problems of Centralization and Decentralization in Relation to Private Enterprise," in The Balance Between Centralization and Decentralization in Manag§§ial Controls, ed: H. J. Kruisinga (Leiden: ’H.'EZ'Stenfert Kroese N. V., 1954), p. 27. 3Chris Argyris, op. cit., p. 3. 4Selwyn W. Becker and Gerald Gordon, "An Entrepreneurial Theory of Formal Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly (December 1966): 337 and 339. 24 Decentralization is used in this study only in relation to administrative decentralization and is specifically defined as the minimization of decision making at the highest cen- tral point of authority and the maximization of the delega- tion of responsibility and authority in the making of decis- ions to lower levels of management. For decentralization to be effective, the various levels of the organization must have individuals who are technically and pro- fessionally competent. The organization must have policies that clearly spell out the lines of comnunication and authority.2 In school management, Candoli and Leu state that "Decentrali- zation is, in fact, the sharing of power once held at the central level with a broader variety of share holders in the educational enterprise."3 As decision-making authority is shared at the appro- priate organizational level, the organizational leaders "on top" will still be held re5ponsib1e for the good or poor decisions made autonomously at a lower level.4 Decision-Making Parameters Two of the greatest difficulties faced in decentralization are the determination of the appropriate level in the organization for decision-making and at what point will decision-making ability 1Helen Baker and Robert France, Centralization and Decentrali- zation in Industrial Relations (Princeton, N} J.: Princeton Uni- versity, 1954), p. 20. 2Luvern Cunningham, Governipg Schools: New Approaches To Old Ideas (Columbus, Ohio: Charles MerFilT'Publishing Company, 1971), p. 30. 3Candoli and Leu, op. cit., p. 13. 4Chris Argyris, op. cit., p. 3. 25 encourage participation, initiative, responsibility, and the internal- ization of organizational goals at the building or classroom level. At what level can decisions be assigned and still carry accounta- bility? Just where is the point of fine balance between centraliza- tion and decentralization? These questions cannot be answered for every organization or for every level. Communities vary; thus, flexibilities with account- ability are essential for decentralization. It is critical that with decentralization, parameters must be established and internalized for individual and group decision-making.1 The establishment of these decision-making parameters should be based on open superior-subordinate relations if decentralization is to work. Where trust between top management and subordinates is high and where conformity, fear, and dependence are held at a low level, experimentation and risk-taking are undertaken by members of the organization.2 This willingness to define problems and generate effective solutions is one of the advantages of effective organiza- tional decentralization. Two Types of Decentralization Effectiveness in decentralization refers to the degree to which schools meet the purposes for which they are organized and financed. To achieve these specified purposes of decentralization, 1Candoli and Leu, 0p. cit., p. 7. 2Argyris, 0p. cit., p. 4. 26 school systems can be classified according to two types of decen- tralization.l One is a political decentralization which gives political control over school operations to the citizens of a sub-part of the total system. The large decentralization plans of New York City, Detroit, and Richmond are examples of political decentralization. This point is clarified by Featherstone and Hill in their taxonomy of the New York City school political decentralization plan. Decision making is presented as residing in the hands of the local community boards of control. The professional responsibility for the execution of policy is in the hands of the local community head administrator.2 The second type of decentralization is administrative decentralization. This system divides the organization into more manageable operating units, the purpose of which is to encourage the making of significant educational decisions as close to the student as possible.3 The decentralization plan in Lansing ("Responsible Autonomy") is an example of administrative decentrali- zation. 1Goldhammer, Candoli, and Cofer, op. cit., p. 2. 2Richard L. Featherstone and Frederick W. Hill, "School Decentralization. Part 1: The Bundy Report--What It Really Means," American School and University_(0ctober 1968): 57. 3Goldhammer, Candoli, and Cofer, op. cit., p. 2. 27 The Need for Organizational Flexibility The inability of school organizations to respond to their changing environment is often due to organizational rigidity. Candoli lists the sources of rigidity as: 1. Too much centrality of decision—making. 2. Extreme standardization of organization structures and processes. 3. Routinization and standardization of client relation- ships. 4. Persistence of structures and procedures.1 Meranto pointed to the decentralization concept of school organization as a means of bringing about flexibility that is so desperately needed: Under a decentralized school system, innovation would be easier to achieve because the points of decision would be more visible and obstacles more readily identifiable-- greater community involvement would combat the alienation and distrust many ghetto parents and students harbor toward the schools since the schools would be more readily accountable to community residents.2 Gorman also claimed that changes in school organization are overdue, and drastic restructuring is needed to meet the demands of today's society:3 11. Carl Candoli, "State of the School System," a speech to the Lansing School Administrators in the M.S.U. Kiva, August 1973, p. 3. ' 2Phiiip J. Meranto, "School Politics in the Metropolis," in Metro olitan America: Its Government and Politics, ed. Allan K. CampEell (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E: MerFill Publishing Co., 1970, p. 71. 3Burton W. Gorman, "Change in the Secondary School: Why and How?" Phi Delta Kappan (May 1972): 566-67. 28 It is the basic structure of the school program and organiza- tion that is most in need of change. Further, it must be changed to something that is simpler, more self-checking, than the present patterns. The weight of the school bureau- cracy itself absorbs so much of the psychic energy of all concerned that too little is left to serve the school's program. The school must so reorganize itself that many purposes now served only through formal organization are served informally. This means, among other things, that greater autonomy and power of decision making must be exercied by smaller subunits of the school, by individual teachers, and by individual pupils. The powers of judgment must be cultivated in all and strengthened by exercise. Thomas emphasized the need to give building administrators in a decentralized system the tools needed to solve problems. He wrote that decentralization must be comprehensive in the school system to allow problems to be solved at the lowest level. He called for decentralization of budgets, personnel selection, curricu- lum development, contract implementation, policy formulation and evaluation.1 Cunningham also lists the following design imperatives for viable decentralization in the urban school setting: 1. It must be responsible to the participation impulse. It must lead to improved education. It must meet equality of opportunity mandate. It must accommodate lay-professional antagonisms. 2 01-th It must be achieved politically. IDonald Thomas, "Decentralization as a Management Tool," an address to the American Management ASsociation, New York City, 3 August 1971. 2Cunningham, op. cit., p. 29. 29 Communitprarticipation As the critics have pointed out, there is within the urban schools a cultural diversity with needs that have been ill served by an unresponsive system. The need for school-building level citizen participation on such issues as school facilities, curriculum, discipline and person- nel has been expressed by citizen committees and students.1 A number of studies have been initiated by school authorities in response to community pressures. Citizens, teachers, students and building administrators are expressing a strong desire to be included, to be heard on such issues as community needs, curriculum and personnel. Cunningham reported citizens community meetings on . these issues in Rockford, Illinois; Washington Community Schools; Philadelphia; Altanta; and Detroit.2 Citizen and professional participation emerges in much of the literature as an important factor, affected not only by the size of the district in terms of number of people, but also by community units of purpose and common concern. Campbell and Cunningham state that a strong case: Can be made for heterogeneity in educational thinking--a situation marked by strong leadership representing compet- ing points of view which lead to extended exploration of policy alternatives. This cannot be a narrow process. The participation of minority groups in educational decision making is long l 2 Campbell, et al., op. cit., p. 532. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 162. 3O overdue, and Ameriaa can ill afford to deny such partici- pation any longer. With administrative decentralization, the goal is to enable organi- zational participants involvement in decision making at the level closest to the client. Organizational goals are product oriented and are not readily negotiable. The decentralization effort in education is mainly concerned with providing opportunities and assistance for the individual child to grow into a productive, participating citizen in a democratic society. These process objec- tives can be facilitated best by those adults who are in direct support of the student learner in a decentralized environment.2 Effective School Practices Introduction In order to determine the effectiveness of the implementa- tion of responsible autonomy (administrative decentralization), it is necessary to determine what constitutes effective school practices so these variables may be isolated for assessment and evaluative purposes. Neill observed that program evaluators are increasingly looking for hard evidence that a program can work if replicated in another site. Also, changes in cognitive scores or in attitude are l 2 Campbell, et al., op. cit., p. 440. Chamberlain, et al., op. cit., p. 6. 31 checked to insure they are not due to Hawthorne Effect or to a par- ticular setting and a particular teacher.1 The criteria for this “hard evidence" about student learn- ing levels are difficult to define. Christman posits that standard- ized testing is suspect as long as the issue is how human beings 2 She feels a develop and become possessors of skills and facts. great deal remains to be defined and analyzed. A corollary evalua- tion based on student outcomes is the question of how well teachers communicate and create a healthy and respectful learning climate.3 This discussion also raises the larger issue about which determin- ants have the most influence on student learning. Educational researchers represent a number of viewpoints. Averch and his associates at Rand completed a synthesis of over 200 studies on educational effectiveness with an emphasis on studies since 1950. Five different categorical research approaches were defined. They are input-output, process, organization, evaluation and experimental.4 The “input-output approach“ has been used extensively by educational researchers to analyze and explain that a student's educational outcome is determined by the quantities of resources IShirley Boes Neill, "The National Diffusion Network: A Success Story Ending?" Phi Delta Kappan (May 1976): 599. 2Patricia Christman, “Impact of Educational Research on Teaching and Learning," Educational Leadership (April 1976): 491. 31bid. 4Averch, op. cit., pp. v-vii. 32 his school makes available to him; by the personal, family and community characteristics that influence his learning. These characteristics are normally grouped under the term "background factors." The administrative strategy and school-classroom organi- zational patterns are often neglected. The conflicting viewpoints on the influence of background data versus school factors on student learning are represented by the Coleman-Jencks debate. Coleman maintains that school factors such as class size, teacher preparation, and per-pupil expenditures did have more of an influence on how minority children achieved than majority children. His overall conclusion was that the two significant factors influ- encing student learning were: the children's sense of control over their own fate or destiny, or their sense of self-worth; and the kind of socio-economic background of the children.1 Jencks counters by stating that a comprehensive picture of adult success reveals that schools do not influence this success as much as a child's family background, control over capital and the prevailing political traditions.2 With these introductory comments in mind, the following studies are presented on the premise that professionally, schools still have a responsibility to influence children to become 1James Coleman, et al., op. cit., p. 22. 2Christoperh Jencks, et al., Inequality (New York: Harper 8 Row. 1972). D. 159. 33 self-actualizino (and free to accent the innate value of oneself and others).1 Generic Effective School Practices Joseph Featherstone postulates that educational research data show that schools make little difference and, by certain crude measures, schools are very similar to one another.2 The following practices are presented to indicate how schools have made a differ- ence with their efforts to support their student-clients in the area of academic and affective achievement. In a comparative study, the Michigan Department of Educa- tion identified 11 positive characteristics and five negative characteristics of 33 high achieving and 33 low achieving state compensatory education projects: Positive 1. A district coordinator who spent time planning compensa- tory education reading programs. 2. Principals who express satisfaction with methods of decision-making process. 3. Number of hours teachers work at school. 4. Preparation of instructional materials selected by the teacher. 5. Use of periodicals as basic reading materials. 1Herbert Kohl, 36 Children (New York: The New American Library, 1968), p. 11. 2Joseph Featherstone, "Measuring What Schools Achieve," Phi Delta Kappan (March 1974): 449. 34 6. Training provided to teachers at onset of project. 7. Degree to which compensatory education students like school. 8. Teacher knows percent of students absent on a given day. 9. Number of classroom observations by reading specialists over last 12 months. 10. High teacher morale. 11. Commercial reading tests supplementary. Negative 1. Paraprofessionals helped the teacher. Non-paraprofessional tutorial part of the subject. Professional tutorial part of the project. Difficult reading material. 1 0'1th Teacher spending time on miscellaneous. In 1973, Klitgaard and Hall reported on the short comings of achievement scores as a measure of school effectiveness, and chose to concentrate their study on searching for effectiveness in the exceptional school instead of the average.2 Methodologically, they emphasized getting away from central tendencies and became concerned instead with the importance of outliners. They asked the question, "Do some schools consistently produce outstanding students even after allowance is made for the different initial endowments of 1Michigan Cost-Effectiveness_§tudy: An Executive Summary, Michigan Department of Education, 1975. 2R. E. Klitgaard and G. R. Hall, A_§tatistical Search for Unusually Effective Schools (Santa Monica, Ca.: Rand, 1973), pp. 69-70. 35 their students and for chance variations?" Part of the results of their study indicates that outstanding Michigan schools tended to be rural and white, even after controlling for region and racial compo- sition. Even after eliminating rural schools from consideration and using a minority enrollment dummy, the top Michigan schools were found to have: 1. 2. 3. Smaller class sizes; More teachers earning $11,000 or more annually; And more teachers with five or more years of experience.1 Earlier this year, Trump presented questions related to the performance of teachers in a school designed to meet a wide variety of student needs. Over time, he indicates that a school should reSpond to the programmatical quesions with significant data: l. #00“) 0'1 0 What curriculum changes have occurred? Is there more precise evaluation of pupil progress? 15 there increased use of community resources? What different teaching materials has the staff developed? 00 teachers spend less time on clerical duties? Have teachers been released for more productive work through the help of instructional assistants? What new materials, professional articles, new methods, and the like, have teachers produced? Have teachers found and are teachers using their own special interests and performance in areas where they have special talents? 'Ibid. 36 9. How much time do teachers spend with individual students as contrasted with groups of students.1 Goalsetting has been associated with effective school practices by Manning. His research indicates that six concepts related to increasing school effectiveness are: 1. Engage in some form of major goal-directed activity. Use a multiple-offense approach. Produce demonstrable results. Reaffirm its concern for the well-being of each child. Demonstrate a flexible and enlightened administrator. 0301th Report student progress.2 Supportive Practices for Affective Development Miller proposes that effective practices promotive of cultural pluralism (increase student affective skills) in suburban schools are: 1. Providing in-service experiences for all staff to include the modeling of desired behavior characteristics by them in their support of students. 2. Hire staff who represent different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. 3. Examine existing instruction materials to verify fair representation. 4. Initiate intensive curriculum revision efforts aimed at including the concept of cultural pluralism at all grade levels and in all content areas. 1J. Lloyd Trump, A School for Everypne (Reston, Va.: NASSP, 1977). p. 220. 2Duane Manning, The Qualitative Elementary School (New York: Harper Row, 1963), p. 143. 37 Provide shared learning experiences in which children with different cultural backgrounds can work together to solve common problems.1 Administrative support of staff development can enhance the teaching of critical and creative thinking by staff in several ways. Pinkney proposed that a program can be open, dynamic, and conducive to student learning at all levels with the implementation of these points: 1. Encourage administrators and teachers to end social and economic segregation, both in the classroom and in school activities wherever they exist. Encourage educators to obtain community participation in decision making. Encourage administrators and teachers to have more respect and maintain a high level of expectations for low-status students. Encourage the implementation of more meaningful planning, thereby improving instructional methods in the classroom by. a. Killing the lecture method. b. Nurturing individual instructional techniques. c. Building openness in the traditional classroom. d. Being flexible in class requirements. Encourage and plan for administrators, teachers, and students to become directly involved in the planning and evaluation of educational programs. Encourage administrators and teachers to become more sensitive to racial and social differences. William C. Miller, "Fostering A Commitment to Cultural Pluralism," Educational Leadership (December 1976): 225. 38 7. Encourage administrators and teachers to become builders of human relations in the classroom and school environ- ment. 8. Encourage educators at all levels to utilize their listening skills.) Supportive Practices for Cognitive Development Proposed criteria for recognizing a successful school include the fbllowing six questions by Thomas: 1. What are the schools basic measurement purposes? 2. What degree of respect for children does the school exhibit? 3. What alternatives in learning opportunities does the school offer? 4. What kinds of self-concepts do the children exhibit? 5. How positive are the attitudes exhibited in the school toward the school? 6. What kind of home-school relationship does the school maintain?2 Related to these questions is a study of two high achieving and two low achieving high schools in Chicago. Powell and Eash identified the following characteristics in this study: Positive 1. Focus and emphasis on instruction. 2. Active programs of instructional leadership. 1H. B. Pickney, "Decentralization and Staff Development," in Staff Development: Staff Liberation, ed: Charles W. Beegle and Roy A. Edelfelt (Washington, D.C.: ASCD, 1977), p. 220. 2M. Donald Thomas, "How to Recognize a Gem of a School When You See One," American School Board Journal (March 1975): 98. 39 3. Concern for maintaining a climate free of disruption. 4. Remedial work emphasized. 5. AtmOSphere where students are treated with respect. Negative 1. Each student separately determined direction. 2. Students seemed to have little understanding of what was expected of them. 3. Inadequate attention to student attendance.1 Due to the unique developmental patterns of pre-adolescent children, a junior high school or middle school program should relate to these developments. Romano observes that: Flexibility in grouping, in schedules, in planning, and in any other activity related to teaching and learning is the key word. The teacher no longer stands before the group to lecture, but becomes more a diagnostician, one who studies the needs of each student and then provides a stimulating learning environment.2 Romano suggests this dynamic learning environment can be developed by using the following guidelines for program planning by staffs: 1. Learn how to plan in a team situation. 2. Define objectives behaviorally. 3. Learn to use pre-assessment and post-assessment tools. 1Daniel Powell and Maurice J. Eash, "Secondary School Cases," in Evaluatin Educational Performance, ed: Herbert J. Walberg (Chicago: Mc utchan, 1974), pp. 291-92. 2Louis Romano, "A Revolution in Middle School Education-- Individually Guided Education," in The Middle School, ed. Louis G. Romano, et al. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall7C0., 1973), pp. 308-09. 40 Learn the techniques employed in critiquing the work of the teaching team. Learn how to ungrade the skills taught in reading, mathematics and spelling. Develop a unit based upon the ideas listed above.1 Middle-year schools need to be flexible to respond to diverse pre-adolescent student needs. At the same time, these schools need to be adaptive to the K-12 educational program articu- lation needs. The expectations of elementary and senior high school staffs often differ and middle-year schools should coordinate pro- grams related to both levels. Finally, John Porter suggests the following "Accountability Model" to serve as a guide for the development of responsive educa- tional practices: 1. hours: Establish educational goals. Translate goals into specific performance objectives. Conduct a needs assessment. Develop instructional programs and delivery systems. Evaluate the program of delivery system. Make recommendations for improvement.2 'Ibid.. pp. 305-08. 2John W. Porter, "Better Education Through Accountability, Research, Program Budgeting," Michigan Challenge (Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, April, 1973), p. 8. 41 SUMMARY One of the major challenges confronting urban school dis- tricts is responding to the diverse learning needs of its student- clients. The review of the literature has disclosed the need for school organizations to be flexible in order to cope with shifting societal developments and expectations. School decentralization is one strategy designed to provide decision making at the lowest organizational level where client services are delivered. If policies are properly planned, decentral- ization can result in a higher degree of organizational flexibility supportive of organizational survival and effectiveness. In order to verify the influence of administrative decentral- ization strategies in this study, literature was also reviewed on effective school practices. The characteristics of effective school practices are used for the survey on "successful practices." The major conclusions for successful practices included goal setting, staff participation in decision making, community involvement and evaluation. In summary, Goldhammer, Candoli, and Cofer observe that since children are often the victims of adult conflicts, children will be helped when adults put their efforts together in a coopera- tive and coordinated fashion to improve the education of all children in the community.1 1Goldhammer, Candoli, and Cofer, op. cit., p. l. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The purposes of the study procedures were to determine the degree to which junior high school teachers and administrators: (1) had a commitment to Responsible Autonomy; (2) implemented Responsi- ble Autonomy practices; and (3) utilized "successful practices" in their school programs. Population and Sample The population study consisted of personnel from the five Lansing School District junior high schools: Principals (5) Assistant Principals (l4) LSEA1 Teacher Representative (21) Central Office Administrators (10) Sample of Junior High Teachers (142) All schools were assigned a code number for retrieval and reporting purposes. 1(LSEA) refers to the Lansing Schools Education Association. 42 43 Procedures for Testing the Hypotheses Procedure 1 All junior high administrators and LSEA teacher representa- tives were surveyed. The purposes of this survey were: (1) to determine the degree of commitment to Responsible Autonomy by these staff members; and (2) to determine the degree of their implementa- tion of Responsible Autonomy practices. The questionnaire returns by data source group were: Group (N) Returns Percent LSEA Teacher Representatives 21 18 86 Junior High Administrators _l_9_ _l_9_ 100 TOTALS 40 37 93 The assessment of commitment to the ideal definition was accomplished by asking the subjects to respond to the following questions. 1. As a professional in your present position, to what extent do you feel autonomy in your work? 2. Do you feel that Responsible Autonomy can enhance the educational opportunities for students in the Lansing junior high schools? 3. Do you feel that Responsible Autonomy can assist you in being more effective in your job? 4. Do you feel that as a result of Responsible Auton- omy you could be more satisfied with your job? 5. In your opinion can Responsible Autonomy result in an improvement in the operation of the district? 44 6. Do you feel that Responsible Autonomy allows you to be a facilator in the learning process? 7. In your Opinion can Responsible Autonomy allow parents a greater voice in the decision-making process for the Lansing schools? To assess the degree of implementation of practices of Responsible Autonomy in the five junior high schools, the survey asked the principals and LSEA representatives to assess the level of implementation at their school on the following criteria: (1) Degree of staff involvement in the budgeting process, (2) Degree of staff involvement in the curriculum decision making process, (3) Degree of staff involvement in hiring of personnel, and (4) Degree of community input in building decision making process. The four criteria were based on the definition of Responsible Autonomy as the basic essentials of this decentralization effort. Procedure 2 The superintendent and his immediate subordinates (9) were requested to complete a survey on each of the junior high schools based on their degree of implementation of practices of Responsible Autonomy. All ten central administrators returned questionnaires. Procedure 3’ Based on the data received from the two previous surveys, the highest and lowest schools in practices of Responsible Autonomy were identified. Figure 2 illustrates procedures 1, 2, and 3. 45 A. Questionnaire to LSEA school representatives 1. 2. 3. 4 Degree of staff involvement in budgeting process Degree of staff involvement in curriculum decisions Degree of staff involvement in hiring personnel Degree of community input into building decision-making process B. Questionnaire to school principals l. 2. 3. 4 Degree of staff involvement in budgeting process Degree of staff involvement in curriculum decisions Degree of staff involvement in hiring personnel Degree of community input into building decision making C. Questionnaire to superintendent and his immediate subordinates for each of the five junior highs l. 2. 3. 4 Degree of staff involvement in budgeting process Degree of staff involvement in curriculum decisions Degree of staff involvement in hiring personnel Degree of community input into building decision-making process. Figure 2.--Process for Identification of Schools in the Study 46 A matrix of the data from the first survey for each school was examined to determine the schools highest and lowest in prac- tices of Responsible Autonomy. Questions and issues which needed to be addressed in the analysis were: Are all sources of equal significance in the analysis of the matrix? Are all criteria of equal significance? Are the perceptions of one source consistently lower or higher than others? Procedure 4 Teachers and principals in this survey were those from the highest and lowest schools selected in procedure 3. The questionnaire to the teachers and principals was a survey to examine "successful practices" operating in their junior high schools. This questionnaire was developed based on the review of the literature and addressed the following topics: 1. Statement of objectives 2 . Parental involvement 3. Individualized instruction 4. Planning process 5. Alternatives in learning opportunities 6. Climate 7. Teacher expectations for students 8. Progress reporting of students 9. Perceived principal's expectations for students 10. Program articulation 47 The questionnaire returns by data source group were: Group (N) ‘ Returns Percent SCHOOI #500 72 60 83 School #300 _tflg _jfi; _tyt TOTALS 142 112 79 Procedure 5 The achievement data were obtained from the May 1977 Stan- ford Achievement Test results. The data utilized were the mathe- matics and reading raw scores of students in the junior high schools highest and lowest in implementing Responsible Autonomy practices. The achievement data were necessary to examine the hypotheses. Summary The study processes indicate the survey in Procedure 1 pro- vided data to assess the degree of corrmitment to Responsible Autonomy in the five junior high schools. From this information, the schools highest and lowest in practices of Responsible Autonomy were identified. Finally, a survey to determine the degree of implementation of "successful practices" was administered to the highest and lowest schools in practices of Responsible Autonomy and analyzed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this chapter is to present an analysis of data collected in this study. The hypotheses tested are presented in the order they appeared in Chapter I. Data relevant to each hypothesis are presented following the hypothesis. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1: The junior high school identified as having implemented more practices of Responsible Autonomy will have a higher commitment to the definition of Responsible Autonomy than the school identified as lowest in imple- menting Responsible Autonomy practices. The data collected on Responsible Autonomy practices in the five junior high schools from teachers, principals and central admin- istrators are presented for each school (Tables 1-5). These data are then presented from the highest school (500) to the lowest school (300) for Responsible Autonomy practices in Table 6. School 500 had the highest mean (4.2) and school 300 had the lowest mean (3.6) on a scale of 1 to 5. Of the three data sources, the building administrators had the highest mean (4.3). Teacher representatives had the next high- est mean (3.8). Central administrators had the lowest mean (3.7) for their perceptions on how the five junior high schools are 48 49 pach “cocoa u e copuuopmm mwoum u m mcwccmpq Eapzuwsgzu u N mcwccmpa ummuam n _ "mecmuwguu x x x a x x x m x x x N x x x — «mwgmuweu u: m o: m p u: m p new» cos: oeoo_s »ww»s oeoz new» cos: opoo_u www>s oeoz “eon nos: apnoea Mww>4 oeoz prccomcwa mummwo Focucmuv Amm>wumpcommgamm smzumohv Amcouacummcwsv< mc_u~w=mv u mucsom m mucaom < mocaom onc0p=< opnmmcoqmmm mo m.muwuumca cw pmmzmwz on» ma umwmwucmum oom* poonum gem stumztu.p u4m4 mcoz “you 50:: m—uuPA wwwwwg «:02 “mm” sun: mpuuPA wwwwwg mcoz “_mccomcma mowmmo Pmcpcouv Amm>wuoucommcaw¢ cozummhv Angoumcumwc_sc< mcpupwsmv u mucaom m muszom < mugaom Asocous< mpnwmcoqmma mo m.ou_uuwsa cw acouom mm vowmwpcmvm OCN* Foogum Low stumziu.N m4ms oeoz new” gas: o_poes o»ww»u oeoz “mm” gas: seeped owwwws oeoz prccomema muwwwo pmgucmuv Amm>wumucmmmcamm gmcommhv Angoumgummcwse< mcpc—wzmv u muszom m mogaom < mugaom xsocoa=< mpnmmcoamwm mo m.mowpuosm cw ugwgh mm ummmpucoum oop* poogum com xwguazii.m m4ms oeoz “up” eosz o_ooeu o»ww»s oeoz “WM” eon: uppers oVWWWS oeoz Apmccomcma movemo Pmcpcmuv Amm>wuop=mmmgama Legumopv Amcoumcumwcp5v< mcwcppzmv u mucaom m mucaom < mucaom xEocouz< o—npmcoammm we m.mumuomga pm sense; we vopmmucovm cc¢* Foosum sow xwgumzui.e m4mmumucommsawm Locummhv Angoumsumwcmsv< mcpupwamv u mugaom m ougaom < ougaom zsocou=< mpnwmconmwm we m.muwuomga cw amuse; mg» mm vowwpucouu oom* poocom Low xwgpm211.m mgm me u :03: mm W mpuumg “N u $3.va >.L¢> mp u 9.52 umwspm> wmcoamwmt as S t 8 3&8 Mml E. N. a «A m 0 am m 2 m e 3 S 2 e 2 m a e e H 2 NF m 8 8 8 mm 2 m 2 2 m N Na 2 2 e a m S 2 2 m _ aeeooeeu m. m m n. a w m. a m n. M w m, an m n m an. m. o .u.. n o .u. m. o m n o w m. o m m o m I. N N. .I I. N «m. .1 I. N a .l n I... n I? n I? 238 m n m n m. n 25:: m m. m. Amcouecumwc_su< Focucmuv Amm>wpmucommcama cmgumohv Amgoumcpmwcweu< mcpup_=mv u mucaom m oueaom < oucaom mmuwuumca xsocoua< «pawmcoammm co mmugaom sumo esp soc» momcoammm mg» mo Newsszmut.m m4m