THE EEacapmns HELD mt PROFESSORS or EDUCATION, paorassons m AREAS OTHER THAN EDUCATEON. AND scnom BOARD MEMBERS ON mum“ FACTORS WHICH MAYOR MAY NOT AFFECT THE QUALITY or AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM ‘ Thesis i‘or rha Damian ef’Ed. DE MICHIGAN STATE UNNERsm' Leonard. Edward, Kraft 29:52 ' * 1|;umywylgummung”W This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE PERCEPTIONS HELD BY PROFESSORS OF EDUCATION , PROFESSORS IN AREAS OTHER THAN EDUCATION, AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ON NINETY FACTORS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM presented by Leonard Edward Kraft has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mdegree in- Edgcagion LLMW, Major professor Date May 18. 1962 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan Sta 1:; University ABSTRACT THE PERCEPTIONS HELD BY PROFESSORS OF EDUCATION, PROFESSORS IN AREAS OTHER THAN EDUCATION, AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ON NINETY FACTORS WHICH NMY OR NMY NOT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM by Leonard Edward Kraft Problem The problem was threefold: (l) to determine the differences in the perceptions held by the three groups concerning factors relating to the following categories: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, Community Attitudes, Curriculum, Use of Facilities, Socio-cultural Composition of Community, Administration and Supervision, and The Teacher and Teaching thhods, (2) to determine the regional differences in perceptions held by the three grOUps concerning factors relating to the seven categories, and (3) to determine the level of agreement of these three groups--professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members-~on factors which may or may not affect the quality of an educational program. m3 Professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members from four regions 1 Leonard Edward Kraft (Northeast, North Central, South, West) of the united ate in the study. Two States were selected to particip fessors to be included criteria had to be met in order for pro in the study: (1) it was necessary that the institution offer at least a bachelor's degree and/hr a first pro- fessional degree, and (2) it was necessary that the individual be an assistant professor, associate professor, or professor in an accredited institution of higher learn— s of school board members were obtained by ing. The name the superintendent of each school dis- writing a letter to trict; school districts were U. 3. Office of Education.1 randomly selected from the Education Director of the h board member from the selected school district was Eac pond to the questionnaire. turns included in the study were as of education, 369 professors in and 397 school board members. asked to res The usable re follows: 475 professors areas other than education, The total sample consisted of 12bl persons. Procedures Procedures involved in the study were: (1) prepar- ation, distribution, and collection of a questionnaire composed of ninety factors identified by Rudman;2 (2) classifying the ninety factors under the seven cate- gories mentioned earlier, (3) tabulation of data from Leonard Edward Kraft questionnaires; (A) statistical treatment of the data through chi-square, analysis of variance, and percent of responses to individual factors by region. Conclusign The findings indicate that (1) there is a relation- ship between the group the individual was a member of and his perception of the factors, (2) there is a relationship between where an individual lives and his perception of the factors under the categories "Curriculum" and "The Teacher and Teaching Methods." The other five categories showed no relationship between geographic area and percep- tion of quality factors, (3) professors seem to attach more relevance to factors under the categories, "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, "Community Attitudes," and "Socio-cultural Composition than do school board mem- bers, (A) professors of education and school board members seem to attach more relevance to factors under the cate- gories, "Curriculum" "Administration and Supervision," and "The Teacher and Teaching Mbthods." than do professors in areas other than education, and (5) the three groups seem to attach more relevance to the factors in the so-called inside-the-classroom category i.e., "The Teacher and Teaching methods," and less relevance to the factors in the outside-the-classroom category i.e., "Socio-cultural Leonard Edward Kraft Composition of the Community." The knowledge that there is a significant relation- ship between the group the individual was a member of and his perception of the ninety factors should be of impor- tance to individuals and/hr organizations concerned with the quality of an educational pregram. 1Rudoph V. Thompson, £23231, Cit 23g Other Superintendents, ?. S. Office 8f Educat 0g, Pait II, Egg- cat on irectory washington: overnment rint ng Office i961), pp. -2 20 ’ 2Herbert C. Rudman, "The Relationship Between the Financial Support of Education and Quality of Educational Program as Expressed by Certain Related variables" (un- published report, Mfichigan State university, East Lansing, 1961). THE PERCEPTIONS HELD BY PROFESSORS OF EDUCATION, PROFESSORSV IN AREAS OTHER THAN EDUCATION, AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ON NINETY FACTORS WHICH.MAY 0R MAY NOT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM BY Leonard Edward Kraft A THESIS Submitted to thhigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1962 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Nhny people have encouraged and assisted in the development of this study. The author wishes to eXpress his sincere appreciation to Dr. Herbert C. Rudman who has advised, encouraged and inspired the author not only in this investigation but throughout his doctoral program. Other members of the guidance committee who offered helpful suggests were Drs. Wilbur B. Brookover, Clyde M. Campbell, and William V. Hicks. Their careful reading of the thesis was very valuable. Special appreciation is due to the hundreds of pro- fessors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members who responded to the questionnaire. Finally, a note of thanks is due to my wife, Wilma, and to my two sons Wayne and Kurt for their patience and sympathy that they exhibited during my doctoral study. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. THE PRCBLEM o e e e e e e e o 0 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . P‘ztnss of the Problem . . . . . . importance of the Problem . . . . . . . . . Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H} Wpo heses . . Scope and Limitations of the Study Definition of Terms . . . . Wzs'ization of the Remainder of the .Thesis RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . . Philosophical Statements . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . Related Empirical Studies . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Determining the Factors . . . . The Development and Administration of the Questionnaire. . . . The Pilot Study--Revision of the Instructions and the Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . Polling thhods . . . Selection--Professor of Education and in Areas Other than Education . . . . . . Selection of School Board Members . . Sample Size . . . . Mailing Procedures and Return . Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . Statistical Methods . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . An Analysis of the Seven Categories of Factors . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores for the Seven Categories by Groups and Regions . . . . . . . . . iii PAGE ‘J Ofinp‘ \lbt‘w...) habndbd 18 19 23 29 37 39 39 Al 43 #3 4h #6 L7 #7 b9 50 51 53 55 55 6a CHAPTER Analysis of responses by Groups I, II, and III on the ni.nety factors from RegionS' I, II, III, and IV . . . . . . Analysis of Responses on Factors Showing Significant Differences by Region . Analysis of Factors Showing No Significant Levels of Agreement . Differences in the Four Regions. Summary of the Chi-square results . Supplementary Analysis Summary of Tests of the Hypotheses V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary . . . Con Major findings . clusions . Recommendations for further research Implications of the study . BIBLIOGRAPHY . iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Regions and states within each region . . . . LO 2. Sources of usable returns . . . . . . . . . . 48 3. Number and sizes of school districts in the St udy I 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 49 h. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes" . . . . . 58 5. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Community Att itUdOS" e e e o e e e e e o e e e e e e 59 6. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Curriculum". . 6O 7. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Use of Facilities" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 8. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Socio- cultural Composition of Community". . . . . 62 9. Analysis of variance of reSponses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Administration and Supervision". . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 10. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "The Teacher 6A and Teaching Methods" . . . . . . . . . . . 11. mean scores for the seven categories by 65 groups 0 O O I C O O O O O O 0 0 O I O O O 12. Scores for mean ratings of the seven categories 66 by regions 0 I 0 O C O O O O O O I O O O O 13- Results of the summation chi-square analysis 68 of the ninety factors in the four regions . 14. Factors which showed significant differences between Groups I, II, and III . . . . . 69 V TABLE 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. between Groups I, II, and III . . . . . . . Factors which showed a level of agreement of 0 percent or more between Groups I, II, and III of "directly affects" . . . . . . . Factors which showed a level of agreement of percent or more between Groups I, II, and III of "indirectly affects" . . . . . . Factors which showed a level of agreement of 50 percent or more between two of the three groups of "directly affects". . . . . Factors which showed a level of agreement of 0 percent or more between two of the three groups of "indirectly affects" Factors which showed a level of agreement of 50 percent or more between two of the three groups of "does not affect" . . . . . vi PAGE 72 75 76 77 78 79 APPENDIX LIST OF APPENDICES PAGE QUALITY OF EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . 104 CATEGORIES AND THE FACTORS IN EACH CATEGORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENT . . . . . . 114 LETTER SENT TO PROFESSORS AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS. . . . . . . . . . 116 CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR INDIVIDUAL FACTORS IN REGIONS I, II, III, AND IT. . . . . . 117 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS SHOWING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE FOUR REGIONS . . . . . 170 FACTORS SHOWING A 50 PERCENT OR GREATER RESPONSE IN ANY OF THE THREE RESPONSE AREAS e e e e e g e e e e e e e e e e e 198 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Each new decade provides its special challenge. The 1950's were filled with spectacular events which reverber- ated throughout the world. After going through the post- WCrld war II period, the world witnessed the KOrean con- flict, Soviet and American space explorations, and many other notable achievements. They have all become history. In addition, this period marked a renewed interest by the American peOple in what their schools were doing to educate American youth. Throughout the United States people were talking about and looking at the quality of educational programs. No longer did there seem to be just the desire to promote the quantitative aspect of education but there was evidence that more attention was being given to the qualitative aspects as well. The Rockefeller Report on Education, one of a series "designed to assess the major problems and opportunities which are likely to confront the United States over the next fifteen years,"1 gives attention to this problem of quantity * 1Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., The Pursuit 9; Excel ence--Education and the Future of America, Special Sgugies Report, No. 5{_TNe§—YOrE: DouEIeday and Company, 5 , p. v.' versus quality in the following passage. Not only must our educators handle a huge increase in the number of students,they must offer higher quality in education. From time to time one still hears arguments over quantity versus quality educa- tion. Behind such arguments is the assumption that a society can choose to educate a few people exceedingly well or to educate a great number of people somewhat less well, but that it cannot do both. But a modern society such as ours cannot choose to do one or the other. It has no choice but to do both. Our kind of society calls for the maximum development of individual potentialities at all levels. Throughout the Rockefeller Report there is evidenced a challenge for the American people to seek and value intellectual excellence; a challenge to each individual to seek the highest quality in his endeavors. "we need quality and we need it in considerable quantity!"3 J. Lloyd Trump expresses a number of ideas to further the quest for quality in the secondary schools of the United States.“ Many, if not all, of the ideas might also be directed to the elementary school. Trump clearly points out the challenge facing America today in the field of education: A DEMOCRACY demands of its education both quantity and quality. Never before have so many been educated so well as in the united States. These achievements have been the result of constant efforts to experi- ment, spurred by a desire to improve. 21bid., p. 22. 31bid., p. 28. LJ. Lloyd Trump, Images g§_thg Future (Washington: National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 1959). The challenge of quantity has largely been met. Mbst of America's youth are in school and most classrooms have teachers. But the challenge of quality is now more difficult to meet than ever.... A superior school today may be an inferior school in a decade from now---unless bold, imaginative steps to improve quality are taken.5 Public concern is based upon a new sense of the relationship of education to the future of the united States. Education in the past was for the few. Education in the United States, today, is designed for the masses. Quality of education for the present should mean excellence in every field of endeavor for all individuals who attend schools and institutions of higher learning. Statement of the Problem The perceptions held by individuals, as to what constitutes a quality educational program, are of vital interest and importance if the United States is to meet the challenge of quality in education. It is important to know what people think constitutes a quality program. The concept of quality is a relative one which exists more in the mind of an individual than it does in a particular Fwogram. Therefore, it seems advisable to determine the perceptions held by several classes of individuals most *— 5Ibid., p. 5. f D ‘3 ‘I Vv'. lei m“. closely related to the formal process of education in the United States: professors of education (Group I), professors in areas other than education (Group II), and school board members (Group III). These three groups are good image makers in the United States-~makers of images concerning the values related to education. Hereafter, these groups will be referred to as Group I, Group II, and Group III. Purpose of the Problem The purpose of the problem is threefold: I. To determine the differences in the perceptions held by Group I, Group II, and Group III concerning factors relating to the following categories: (1) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (2) Community Attitudes, (3) Curriculum, (A) Use of Facilities, (5) Socio-cultural Composition of Community, (6) Administration and Supervision, and (7) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. 2. To determine the regional differences in percep- tions held by Group I, Group II, and Group III concerning factors relating to these categories. 3. To determine the level of agreement of these three groups-~Group I, Group II, and Group III-~on factors which may or may not affect quality. Importance of the Problem For years lay citizens and educators have attempted, by one means or another, to measure the scope and quality of public education. One method which some school systems have employed to evaluate the quality of education in their school system is based on locally defined educational objectives. These districts have applied tests for the evaluation of their effectiveness in meeting their stated objectives. According to Firman g£_gl.: A way in which a community may evaluate the quality of their schools is through comparison of its effectiveness with schools similar to it. This clearly necessitates definition, classification and development of normative data-~for without universal ground rules comparisons among schools have little meaning. The Quality Measurement Project hag begun to produce this kind of compara- tive data. Hirsch has indicated that the most logical approach would involve identifying and then measuring ingredients that make for good education.7 On that basis an index of quality of education could be developed. According to a National Education Association report: General excellence in education will be more fully achieved to the extent that we are able to 6William D. Firman et g_1_. "Procedures In School Quality Evaluation--A SecOnd—Report of the Quality Measurfg ment Project" (New York: The State Department, 19 1), Po - (Numeographed.) 7werner A. Hirsch "Analysis of the Rising 903‘s Of Public Education." A Study Paper #A, submitted t3 Jaintton' Emonomic Committee, 86th Congress lst Session, ( as as ° Government Printing Office, 1959)- identify and bring to bear all factors, including money, on its development.3 The Cooperative Study of Secondary School Standards was organized in 1933. One of its main purposes was to find practical means and methods to evaluate an educational program. The organization recognized that it was impossible to measure schools in relation to a fixed scale or pattern because of their many differences, such as size, location, and financial support; that there were many factors which must be considered in the evaluation of individual schools.9 Efforts by the COOperative Study have been directed from the beginning toward discovering characteristics of good secondary schools and developing means for evaluating schools more satisfactorily. The purpose has been to secure a sound appraisal of the quality of a given school and encourage the staff to seek better materials and procedures, in order that improvement will be a likely rISUIO° This purpose remains dominant in the 1960 s. The search for better means of evaluation continues. This study is intended to add to the body of knowledge con- cerned with the evaluation of an educational program. 8National Education Association, Research Division, "Better Schools Cost Mere." Research_Bnllstin. XXXVII (April. 1959). p. uni. 9American Council on Education, National Stud 2; I'm School W-Evaluative CriterIa Was ington: ”Prican CounciI on Education, 1965), p. 2. loIbid. Rationale Quality is perceived differently by each individual. Quality is a value. One is more inclined to agree with the perceptions of another if there is a similarity of experiences and interests. Judgments are dependent upon many factors. Combs and Snygg state: Once established, goals and values have intimate effects upon perceiving. Indeed, the peculiar patterns imposed upon perception by goals and values produces much of the uniqueness of behavior we have come to describe as the individual's personality. The goals, values, and techniques we have differen- tiated as leading to need satisfaction serve us, thereafter, as reference points to the achievement of adequacy. Once clearlyl differentiated thus, they markedly affect behavior. Allport defines perception as follows: As a first approximation let us say that it has something to do with our awareness of the objects or conditions about us. It is dependent to a large extent upon our senses. It is the way things look to us, or the way they sound, feel, taste, or smell. But perception also involves, to some degree, an understanding awareness, a "meaning" or "recognition" of these objects. . . . Thus we can include all the senses and can interpret perception as covering the awareness of complex envirigmental situations as well as of single Objects. Krech and Crutchfield suggest that individual percep- tions are composed of structural and functional factors. The structural factors are "derived solely from the nature -—__~ “Arthur W. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Behavior (New York: Harper 8:. Brothers, 1959 . P. l M 12Floyd H. All ort, Theories of Perception and the Concept of Structure {New’YOr: flWiley and Sons, Incorporated, I955), P 1h of the physical stimuli and the neural reaction they evoke in the nervous system of the individual."13 Functional factors are derived "from the needs and past experiences of the individual."14 These two sets of factors are a part of every individual perception. Gardner talked to many people through the country and asked them many questions pertaining to equality, the pursuit of excellence, and so on. He found that "excellence" is a curiously powerful word-~a word about which people feel strongly and deeply. But it a word that means different things to different people. It is a little like the ink- blots that psychologists use to assess personality.15 As the individual contemplates the word "excellence" he reads into it his own aspirations, his own conception of high standards, his hopes for a better world. And it brings powerfully to his mind evidence of the betrayal of excellence (as he conceives it). He thinks not only of the greatness we might achieve but of the mediocrity we have fallen into. . . . It isn't just that peOple have different Opinions about excellgnce. They see it from different vantage points.1 Gardner is concerned with the fate of excellence in 13David Krech and Richard S. Crutchfield, Theory and Problems 9; Social Psychology (New York: MCGraw-Hill BooE“ CompanY1 Inc's 1948): P- 10 ' lhlbld. 15John W. Gardner, Excellence (New York: Harper a Brothers, 1961), p. xii. 151b1d. " i“ p. ‘4. our kind of society. In addition, he is concerned with the social context in which excellence may survive or be smothered. Firman, 3; £1. indicate that "one of the major pro- blems in school quality research is that of discovering commonly acceptable definitions of quality. Every citizen describes a quality school in terms of his own set of educational objectives, and these descriptions are tre- mendously varied."17 They suggest that some people are satisfied with a school that does not cost too much money. Others are satisfied when the school limits its activities to teaching the "three R's." Still others are satisfied when schools provide academic training for college. What one individual or group would consider essential, another individual or groups might deem a frill.18 Bardell undertook to discover if agreement exists in the perceptions of teachers and citizens in regard to problems and issues related to educational viewpoint.19 The pOpulation of his study was the professional teaching staff and a randomly drawn sample of citizens from each of two communities in Wisconsin. In each of the two communi- 17Firman, gg‘gl., oc. 335., p. 1. 18Ibid. 19Roger W. Bardell, "Differences In Perce tion of Citizens and Teachers About Educational Issues" unpublished Ibctor's thesis, university of Wisconsin, Madison, 1960). lO ties, he found statistically significant differences in the perceptions of educational problems and issues between teachers and citizens, among teachers, among citizens, and between citizens in the two communities. There was no apparent statistically significant difference in the percep- tions of educational problems and issues between the groups of teachers in the two communities studied. The study by Bardell is an empirical study of how teachers and citizens perceive educational problems. The present study is an empirical study of how professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members perceive factors which may or may not affect the quality of an educational program. Labedz made an analysis of scholars' criticisms of public education in an effort to "demonstrate how an indi- vidual's educational training and the educational attitudes advanced by his colleagues may affect his determination of what the purpose of education should be."20 One area of the pUblic school curriculum which points up the disparity between the professional educator and the scholar is reflected by an observation made by Labedz. Professors of Education and education experts appear to be confident in their attempts at pro- viding students who can both responsibly fill their social roles as adults and grasp the basic funda- mentals emphasized by scholars. 0n the other hand, hh . ’ ZONicholas J. Labedz, "An Analysis of Scholars' (kdticism of Public Education" (unpublished Master's thesis, lfichigan State University, East Lansing, 195?), p. l. 'h n, I.” ht ll scholars are dubious of such methods, questioning the ability of students to determine their goals based on genuine needs, the qualification of edu- cators to distinguish between most useful needs and finally the danger that procedures in use might prohibit the child from experiencing actual problems which he may encounter as an adult. Unless educators can accomplish the aforementioned demangi, the consequences, scholars believe, can be fatal. Likewise, Reeder develops the thesis that there is a serious cleavage between professors of academic subjects and those of education. As a professor of education, he has heard many bitter attacks on the members of his pro- fession when faculty groups assembled, either informally or in committee or other meetings.22 It is his opinion that the fundamental cleavage that is basically responsible for the conflict of the two groups stems from the emphasis placed by the professors of education on the individual on the one hand, and the emphasis placed on subject matter by professors of academic subjects. Trow, in an Open letter to Professor Bestor and his academic colleagues, suggests that because professional educators refuse to direct educational objectives toward purely intellectual ends, scholars are convinced that nmthods employed in developing the public school curriculum n—h‘ 211bid., p. 73. 22Edwin H. Reeder, "The Quarrel Between Professors (M‘Academic Subjects and Professors of Education: An Analysis," American Association 2; Universit Professors Bulletin, Mutumn, 1953:). p- 555- M ~- N. (I) r" -— '5 12 are anti-intellectual.23 They also are of the opinion that colleges of education, under the direction of professors of education whose views oppose the sole emphasis on in- tellectualism, are by the nature of their theories and methods, anti-intellectual. Thus, it is the conviction of scholars that courses of study based upon the emphasis on academic skills tend to impart intellectual values to their recipients. Current types of curriculums, they believe, could never hope to achieve this end as long as emphasis Upon socialization factors exists.24 Curti reflects on the functions of scholars in a time of crisis in an address to the American Historical Associa- tion.25 He asserts that anti-intellectualism is not a uniquely American phenomenon. It is his belief that specialization of functions has increased the social dis- tance between intellectuals and the rest of the community to such an extent that viable relations have become all but impossible. In addition, he raises this question, "How can there be understanding in view of the depersonalized rela- tions between intellectuals and nonintellectuals in the 23William C. Trow, "Professional Education and the Disciplines: An Open Letter to Professor Bestor," Scienti- Qslanialz. LXXVI (March, 1953). pp. 11.9-52. 241cm. 25Merle Curti, "Intellectuals and Other People," 1.1.1.9.. Education Digest, XX (March, 1955). P. 8. 13 anonymous community of our time?"26 Of relevance to the rationale of this study and to its hypotheses is a statement concerning education in America. The National Association of Manufacturers, in an attempt to reduce the misunderstanding and suspicion between education and industry, held a meeting in January, 1952.27 Several leading educators were invited to discuss with the NAM Educational Advisory Committee the apparent deteriora- tion in relationships. Among causes for disagreement they found such factors as the proper boundaries of academic free— dom, objective teaching versus subjective indoc- trination, reaponsibility for teachers' actions and activities and the distinction between justifid able constructive criticism and malicious attacks.28 The group agreed that tolerant thinkers can find areas of agreement. They were quick to point out the follow- ing in their closing remarks pertaining to the purposes of education in America: Probably there never has been throughout all history any complete agreement as to what the goals of education should be. Aristotle wrote of "doubts concerning the business of it," all people do not agree in those things they would have a child taught, both with respect to improvement in virtue and a happy life; nor is it clear whether the object of 261bid., p. 10. 27Educational Advisory Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers, This W3 Believe About Education (New YOrk: National Association of Manufacturers, 1952 0 28Ibid., p. 7. 1A it should be to improve the reason or rectify the morals. From the present mode of education we cannot determine with certainty to which men incline, whether to instruct a child in what will be useful to him in life, or what tends to virtue, or what is excellent: for all these things have their separate defenders. So be it, today. Hypotheses The major concern of this study is the perceptions that individuals hold toward factors which affect the quality of an educational program. This concern has resulted in the development of the following major hypo- theses: H l: H 2: There is a difference between Group I, Group II, and Group III on factors which they identify as affecting quality directly, affecting quality indirectly, and not affecting quality at all, in the following categories: (1) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (2) Community Attitudes, (3) Curriculum, (A) Use of Facilities, (5) SociO-cultural Composition of Community, (6) Administration and Supervision, and (7) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. There are regional differences in how the 291bid., p. 10. l5 seven categories are perceived by Group I, Group II, and Group III. H 3: There is a difference between professors of education (Group I), professors in areas other than education (Group II), and school board members (Group III) on factors which they identify as affecting quality directly, affecting quality indirectly, and not affecting quality at all. The above major hypotheses will be tested in terms of a set of subhypotheses, which are stated in Chapter III. The subhypotheses will be stated and statistically tested, as well, in the analysis which follows in Chapter IV. Scope and Limitations of the Study 1. This investigation included professors of education, professors in areas Other than education, and school board members from all fifty states in the United States, plus the District of Columbia. 2. Only those factors which were identified in two Idiot studies were used. 3. These factors were submitted in a questionnaire to a random proportionate sample of selected professors 0f education, professors in areas other than education, and School board members. The selection process is described in Chapter III. 16 A. The respondents were asked to indicate their feelings toward certain statements. the wording of the statements would evoke different inter- It was possible that pretations. Since the questionnaire was first tested in a pilot study, and since the present investigation included returns from hundreds of individuals in each group, the biasing factor was thought to be diminished sufficiently for valid returns. 5. There was no attempt to explore the predictive power of an opinion. The focus of this investigation was on discovering the differences in perceptions between pro- fessors of education, professors in areas other than educa- tion, and school board members by revealing their opinions about factors which affect the quality of an educational program. 6. Conclusions cannot be drawn beyond the popula- tions studied. Definition of Terms Certain terms constantly recur in this study. In order to facilitate the reader's understanding of the intended meanings, definitions are given below. Professor of education--an assistant professor, associate professor, or professor in an accredited institution of higher edpcation whose major teaching, research, and or service assignments are in the field‘of education. 17 Professor in an area other than education-~an assis- tant professor, associate professor, or pro- fessor in an institution of higher education whose major teaching, research and/or service assignments are not in the field of education. School board member-~an individual elected by his fellow citizens or appointed by a public official or body to serve on a board of educa- tion. Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis This chapter has presented a statement of the problem, the purpose of the problem, the importance of the problem, the rationale for the study, the basic hypotheses, the scape and limitations, and definitions of terms. Chapter II will be concerned with the review of literature which appears to be related to this study. Chapter III will be devoted to the sources of data, the methods and procedures used in obtaining the data, a statement of the subhypotheses to be tested, and the statistical methods to be employed in the analysis of the data. The analysis of the data will be reported in Chapter IV. Chapter V will contain a summary, the recommendations, and the conclusions of the total study. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE The significance of this study is apparent in view of past research in factors relating to the quality of an educational program. Therefore, one purpose of this chap- ter is to outline briefly the out studies related to this author's pattern this research has taken, and to point after a review of the liter- d which research. This investigator, ature, determined that no research had been reporte dealt specifically with differences in the way in which factors affecting the quality of an educational program are perceived by professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members. This survey of the literature did provide, however, a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the problems which are contiguous with the identification of factors which affect the quality of an educational program. The literature relating to this study is classified into three categories: (1) the philosophical statements of individuals and/hr organizations concerning qualit udies that pertain to the development of y in edu- cation, (2) the st instruments designed to measure various phases of an edu- and (3) the related empirical studies 18 cat ional program, .l—i l9 concerned with identifying quality in an educational pro- gram. Philosophical Statements Numerous statments and studies have been made in recent years regarding the concept of quality as it per- tains to education. Henry Hill, speaking before an audience of educators who assembled to discuss quality education, present and future, closed with these remarks which indicate his per- ceptions of quality education: Quality, then is something we need for the able, for the small group at the tOp, for those who have always been good. But I would extend quality edua cation to the average. Dr. J. C. Eaves, head of the mathematics Department here, used to teach a group of slow-learning eight-grade pupils who didn't know how to write a check and taught them elementary mathematics. He now teaches the top university students. His teaching in both cases is of high quality. The kind of things he was doing in the eighth grade twenty years ago was a forecast of ability on his part because that too is quality teaching. Let's have quality for as many as possible.1 Nelson, in a talk on effective teaching, quotes Dean Willard Olson as frequently stating that "the quality of learning is a function of the presence or absence of the ‘ Ffluiztion, University of Kentucky, P- . Mil— 20 kinds of desirable learning experiences to which the learner is exposed."2 In a panel discussion, Nelson made this statment concerning quality learning: It should be remembered that the quality of learning is not the function of numbers; it is rather, a function of the kinds of learning experiences available to the learner. The basis of our efforts will be right to the degree that they honor our commitment to the twin premises of quality of education and equality of opporgunity for Quality education for every boy and gir . Paul Mort, reporting on a survey study in West Virginia in 1945 involving some eighty-seven elementary schools and twenty-three high schools, concludes: There is something about a school, other than the specific things purchases with the money, that is related to quality. Part of that something has to do with the character and range of the knowledge taught and the methods utilized in giving young- sters a mastery of it.h A point of view on judging schools, relevant to the present study, was jointly expressed by the American Asso- 2Lester N. Nelson, "Effective Teaching or Else," Speech before the meeting of the Southern Wisconsin Edu- cation Association, Madison, Wisconsin, February 17, 1961. (Mfimeograph.) 3Lester N. Nelson, "How Small Schools Can Get The Kind of Help They Need," Panel discussion before the meeting 0f the American Association of School Administrators, San Francisco, California, February 28, 1961. (Mimeographed.) 4Paul R. Mort, "Cost-Quality Relationship In Education," Problems and Issues 1g Public School Einance, ed. R. J. Johns, and E. E. Morphet, {New Yerk: National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration, 1952), p. 28. 21 ciation of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association. The following remarks have direct bearing: Boards of education have a special responsibility for the evaluation of schools as trustees of the educational well-being of all the people; they must know the quality and quantity of the school's pro- ducts, as well as conditions which improve or mar the products. Evaluation is complex and difficult and, if undertaken without observing sound princi- ples and procedures, cooperatively determined, will likely be in error. Yet, through adequate evalua- tion and wise board action, accompanied by competent administration and teaching and adequate public support, the exceptional practices of today will become the common practices of tomorrow. The National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators firm- ly believe that there are identifiable criteria of excellence which should undergird any intelligent and critical appraisal of the public school.5 From the cooperative efforts of these organizations, there evolved a series of fourteen publications entitled Quest for Quality.6 These publications are descriptive reports of selected school districts in the United States. The Educational Policies Commissions, in an essay, has described some of the characteristics of high quality in public education and named certain essentials without 5American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association, Jud 1 Schools With Wis+om (washington: National Education fissociation, 1959), P 6American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association, Quest for 9%ality Washington. National Education Association, 19 22 which such quality cannot be obtained.7 The elementary curriculum, secondary curriculum, teaching, guidance, school. staff, size and composition of the staff, recruitment and retention, school board and school administrators are dis- cussed in terms of the characteristics needed to obtain quality. In addition, the Commission feels that a quality education program must be individualized, the staff should be professionally competent and of sufficient size and specialization, school leadership should seek improvement, the school district population should be large enough to support an effective high school, and there must be enough money. The essay suggests that the following factors aid in the attainment of quality in an educational program: (1) staff policies pursued over a long span of time, (2) size and composition of the professional staff, (3) wide variety of professional personnel, (A) over-all atmosphere of the home, (5) satisfactory salaries, (6) public recogni- tion of good work, and (7) good channels of communication. The concluding statements of the Educational Policies Commissions point up the vital need for exploration in the area of concern of the present study. The quality of an educational enterprise is largely determined in each locality. High quality in a school depends directly on the character of the community at large and on the abilities and I 7National Educational Policies Commission, An Essay 23.Qggli§1 In Public Education (Washington: NationEI ducation Association, 1959), PP- 6-25. 23 attitudes of the parents, the school board, the administrators, and the school staff. The attitudes as well as the decisions of local officials reflect the views of local citizens. Thus, the taproot of quality in a school is a vigorous public commitment to education based on understanding of what gducation can do and what good schools are like. Instrumentation As early as 1937, Mort and Cornell developed an instrument for use in their Pennsylvania study, to get at those facets of public understanding and expectancy of education which may be related to school quality.9 The instrument, entitled What Should Our Schools 99? consisted of one hundred statements which were designed to determine the sentiment of parents toward newer ideas in education.10 A significant relationship was found to exist between the median scores on this instrument and the capacity for adaptability of school systems as measured by‘A Guide for iii-Appraisal 9f gzhool Systgnsfil 81bid., p. 26. 9Paul R. Mort and Francis G. Cornell, American Schools in Transition (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941). 10Paul R. Mort, Francis G. Cornell and Norman Hinton, What Should 925 Schools 22? A Poll of Public Opinion on the SCEool Program (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1938). 11Paul R. Hort and Francis G. Cornell, A Guide for Self-Appraisal of School S stems (New York: Bureau of.” Publications, Tzachers College, Columbia University, 1937). 2A The Growinggggg_has been used by Mbrt and others in the field of education as a criterion by which the adapta- bility (the ability to change) of a school system can be measured.12 The general directions for using the instrument include the following comments: The process of measuring the adaptability of school systems by means of this instrument is based upon the observation of school practices which reflect the growing edge of American education. . . .Each item of the instrument is a description of a specific school practice. The High School Form consists of eighty-five items, the Elementary Form of sixty-four items. These items are a sampling of practices drawn from WHAT SCHOOLS CAN DO, a publication bringing together the results of the work of more than two hundred and fifty school people who made an intensive study of the practices existing in their schools. The particular items included in this instrument were chosen by a panel of trained educa- tors. A test of reliability made by the split-halves teachnique yielded a coefficient of reliability of .88 for the High School Form and .89 for the Elemen- tary School Form. . . .Some indication of the validity of the instrument is revealed by an intercorrelation of .68 between the two forms. The Growing Edge is organized around four major areas of educational purpose. They are (1) the teaching of the basic skills, (2) the teaching of the areas of knowledge, (3) the discovery and development of special aptitudes of _—__ lZPaul R. Mbrt, William 3. Vincent, and Clarence A. Nowell, The Growin Edge: An Instrument for Measuring the Adaptability of Schol Systems (New York: MetrOpolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, l9h6). 13Ibld., p. i. 1“Ibid” p. iii. 25 individuals through test and tryout, and (h) the development of gross behavior patterns like citizenship, character, and thinking. In 1953, two instruments known as A Stggy 92.2221l2 Opinion About Schools were deve10ped by Walling.15 They were designed to get at two aspects of public understanding con- cerning schools. Poll 1 was constructed as a measure of the public's understanding of what good schools look like. Poll 2 was aimed at determining the level of realistic understanding of what schools would do. Walling's instruments were applied in sixty metro- politan School Study Council communities in the New York City area. Krull found that the instruments are predictors of school quality.16 Poll 1 which measures peOples' under- standing of what good schools look like, is a good predic- tor of overall school system quality, as measured by Th3 Growing Edge. When five statements of Poll 1 are taken together, they predict composite school quality more accurately than does the entire instrument. When Poll 2 is scored by the method developed in Krull's study, it, too, 15w. Donald Walling, A_Stud of Public Opinion About Schools (New York: metropolitan Sc§63l Studfl Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952 . 15R. Pratt Krull, Jr. "Public Understanding and School Quality" (unpublished Doctor's project, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1956). —'.'___ 26 becomes a good predictor of school quality. Four of the sixteen statements of this instrument, when placed together, are also good predictors of composite school quality.17 Krtll correlated community scores with school quality. The criterion by which the collected data were evaluated was The Growing Edg . From his study he concluded that discrimination of judgment on the part of the public as to what schools can be expected to do is related to school quality. No reliability for these conclusions has been determined.18 Cornell, Lindvall, and Saupe made explorations in the development of an instrument in an attempt to measure differences in classrooms as a means of charac- terizing differences of school systems.19 Their measure- ment, a descriptive measurement of an institution, was developed in cooperation with administrators and teachers in school systems in Illinois. The major concern of their study centered around the behavioral characteristics of the classroom. The authors suggest that "there has deve- 17Ibid., p. 5. 18Ibid., p. 26. 19Francis 0. Cornell, Carl.M. Lindvall, and Joe L. Saupe, "An Exploratory Mbasurement of Individualities of Schools and Classrooms," Bulletin, Bureau of Educational Research, Colle e of Education University-3f Illinois $773333: I9§§TTEBL_6L_———-—___, '_--———_.“J 27 loped a wealth of techniques for determining some of the general characteristics of the educational program itself as a major aspect of defining a school system."20 The major concern was not the kind of product but the kind of school. They assumed that "the actual influences, the most direct impact of the school upon the child is in the classrooms."21 o Wilcox conducted a study intended to provide cri- teria apprOpriate for use by teachers, administrators, supervisors, laymen, and students of educational and vocational-industrial education in the qualitative evalua- tion of existing local programs of trade and industrial education.22 He made some interesting observations which have bearing on the present investigation: Probably one of the greatest hinderances to the evaluation of local programs of vocational education has been the semantics problem. Such words as industrial, meaning vocatigngl; technical, meaning specific vocational-industrial education; and manual traini , meaning industrial education have served to make clear thinking difficult and to make both writing and discussion ambiguous and confusing. The educator is, even today, somewhat uncertain in his use of terms when discussing vocational 2°Ibid., p. it. lebid. 22Glade W. Wilcox, "DeveIOpment of Criteria For the Evaluation of Local Programs of Trade and Industrial Education," (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1956), p. l. 28 and other forms of practical education.23 Semantics also will cause concern in the establish- ment of criteria to evaluate the quality of total educa- tional programs. However, despite the difficulty in appraisal because of problems in terminology, conditions must be found to bring about necessary, meaningful methods of evaluating the quality of an educational program. One can sense the influece that Mbrt has had over the years in the search for measuring instruments with which to judge the quality of an educational program. Mbrt and Vincent express their beliefs as to what constitutes a good school and how the quality of a school can be evaluated when they made thefollowing comments. The "good" school is the adaptable school. The good school recognizes its place in society and adapts its purposes and its olrriculum to changes which have occurred in the society it serves. The good school takes advantage of scientific insights and adapts its methods accordingly. The good school adapts its program to the new procedures and provisions which have been tested and proved by other good schools, and itself possesses an inventive staff able to create and test improved methods. The extent to which a school has adapted gives us a handy yardstick for judging quality.2h 23Ibid., p. 5. t Am :4Pau1 R. Mirt agd Williamufé‘Vinaegg, Introduction 0 er can Educat on ew or : c raw- 1 Book Company Ec'e $9516); p- 1640 ’ 29 Related Empirical Studies The state of New York has conducted several studies concerned with procedures for evaluating an educational program. In these studies it was determined that a working definition of quality is essential at the outset. A common acceptable definition of quality has always been one of the major problems in school-quality research. In their second report on quality measurement, Firman 33 El: indicate that one must recognize the limita- tion and fallibility of a simple classification system descriptive of school quality. For their purposes "the quality of a school must be described in terms of the quality of its parts."25 The Quality Measurement Project conducted by the state of New York established three criteria for the measurement of quality in an educational program. The first criterion was achievement in the basic skills, measured by the use of standardized achievement tests. The second criterion was called the individualization criterion. Instruments were being developed to measure the degree to which a school is successful in the discovery and development of individual abilities and talents. _.__ 25Firman 33 §;., gp.cit., p. 3. 30 The third criterion was called function skills criterion. Here again, the need for and the development of tests to measure and evaluate this criterion proved a major obsta- cle.25 It appears that the success of the state of New Ybrk in broadening its basis for the evaluation of its educational program hinges on the development of additional valid and reliable instruments. The findings of the Pennsylvania study were follow- ed by a cooperative research organization comprising twenty- seven school systems in the New York metropolitan Area, under Mort's guidance. Mbrt and his students at Columbia University have collaborated with this organization in a series of studies, many of which appear to be related to the present investigation. In one of these studies, Ebey attempted to reveal the factors or combinations of factors which were most condu- cive to adaptability among the regular white elementary schools in St. Louis, Missouri.27 The factors he selected for study were: (1) principal's educational Opinion, (2) median teacher educational opinion, (3) Percent of g 26Ibid., pp. h-7- 27George W. Ebey, Ada tabilit Amogg Elementary Schools (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers 0 lege, Columbia University 19h0)~ 31 teachers fifty-five and over, (A) recency of teacher training, (5) recency of principal's training, (6) parent participation, (7) building score, and (8) median rental. In the study of relationships between adaptability and pertinent measurable factors, Ebey revealed: (1) that the eight selected factors, as a measure, with a multi le correlation coefficient of .803, account for h.5 percent of the variance and 40.5 percent of the variability and (2) that by far the most contributive element to the adaptability is the principal since he is represented by the first and third most important measure (principal's educational opinion and recency of principal's training); that the character of the community, as reflected by median rental, makes the second greatest contribution; and that the educational opinions of teachers and the nature of the school's physical facilities, ranking fourth and fifth in order of importance, exert an approximately equal amount of influence upon the variation in adapt- ability.28 The Mbrt-Cornell-Hinton questionnaire, What Should 93g Schools 29229 and the Mbrt-Cornell instrument, A figigg Egg Self-Appraisal Q; School Systems}0 were used for evaluation in the St. Louis study. Another aspect of the use of the adaptability approach to the determination of a quality education program was studied by MbClellan. He used the data from the schools in the Metropolitan School Study Council to inquire into 28M” p. 35. 29Mbrt, g£_§;,,_gp. git. 3OMTort, and Cornell, 22-.2$£- 32 the relationship between organization pattern of a school and adaptability. He used The Growing Edge,31 a measure of current adaptability, and The Time Scale,32 an instru- ment reflecting the adaptability status as of the 1920's. The assumption here was that the difference between these' two scores could be taken as an index of growth in adaptability. MCClellan writes: This study shows a challenging relationship between certain organizational factors of a school system and, using adaptability growth as a measure, the quality of its education. Also, it adds the concept of adaptability growth to the tools for evaluating school administration. Furno used data from two clusters of communities in the metropolitan school study to determine the nature and character of the influence of expenditure level on school quality over a twenty-five year period.3h Evaluations with IE: Growing Edge were made in 1945 and in 1955. The major 31Mort, and Cornell, gp. gig. 32Paul R. Mbrt and Truman M. Pierce, A Time Scale for Measurin the Ada tabilit 2; School Systems (New York: The metropolitan School Study Council, Teachirs College, Columbia University, 19%?)- 33George B. McClellan, "The Relationship of Factors In the Organizational Pattern of School Systems and Adaptability" (abstract, unpublished Doctor's thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1952). 340r1ando F. Furno, "The Projection of School Quality From Expenditure Level" (unpublished Doctor's project, Columbia University, New York, 1956)- 33 finding was an "expenditure level-quality" relationship of around .60. He found that the maintenance of a high expen- diture level over a period of years influenced the quality of education in a school district for a subsequent decade., One of the main reasons for this, Furno suggested, was the likelihood of superior teachers being employed and retained in such systems. Hall, using the McClure revision of The Growing Eggg, sampled twenty-seven school systems in Illinois "in an effort to determine the type of improvements in ends of education-~namely instruction and learning-~that may be accomplished by modifications in the means to ends--name1y organization and processes."35 He found two relationships significant at the .05 level: (1) the relation of the extent of diffusion of administrative procedures to the quality of the educational program as measured by certain instruments, and (2) the relation of the level of expenditure per weighted pupil en- rolled to the quality of the educational program as measured in the study. The former two factors were found ——.~ 35Harold D. Hall, "Relationships of Selected Charac- teristics of Organization to Practices in School Systems: An EIploratory Measure of the Extent of Diffusion of Administrative Procedures and Staffing Practices and Their Relationships to Selected Characteristics of School Systems" (abstract, unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign, 1956)- 36Ibid. 34 to be the most closely related in the study. The results of this study suggest that certain characteristics of administrative operation are found in systems with limited programs. It was pointed out that this was an exploratory study and that there are different ways of regarding the quality of the educational program.36 In most of the basic research completed in recent years, investigators have concerned themselves with cer- tain special problems in measuring cost-quality relation- ship. The study of this relationship is part of a long- range plan to develop additional methods of evaluating the quality of an educational program. The closing comments of an article dealing with the question, "If we spend more, do we get better educational returns?" are pertinent to this study: Mbre money is not everything in obtaining quality education; it does not automatically produce better schools. On the other hand, high-quality education is seldom found in low expenditure school systems. General excellence in education will be more fully achieved to the extent that we are able to identify and to bring to bear all factors, including money, on its development.37 Another study which has reference to the work to 361bid. 37National Education Association, gp. cit., p. kl. 35 follow was developed by St. John.38 In his study to improve the educational program for the Hubbard Township School District, Trumbull County, Ohio, he decided that in order to prOperly develop a plan for improvement, the present organization must be reviewed and analyzed, criteria established with which present organization may be compared, and improvement suggested in light of such comparison. His study adheres to the following pattern of inquiry: The problem of improvement of educational pro- grams and services involves very careful analysis of several factors including the following: (a) the social factors which affect the educa- tional system (b) the number and size of the attendance units (c) the size and scope of the administrative unit (d) the curriculum and related services (e) the adequacy of the school plant (f) the financial ability of the district to provide the necessary educational services.39 A set of criteria was developed by St. John from a study of the literature, former school surveys, and education- al studies. He applied these criteria to determine the quality of the educational program. His study indicates the wide scope of factors which must be considered in determining the quality of an educational program. Also, -—__ 38Kenneth D. St. John, "A Plan for the Improvement of Educational Programs and Services of the Hubbard Exempted Villa e Public Schools, Hubbard Township, Trumbull County, Ohio" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Ifittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 1960)- 39Ibid., p. 51. e. .‘ Ll- ‘- ‘I I) ed 9 o_. (J (a I I 36 it points up the need for further research into methods and procedures by which individual school systems might analyze their educational programs. The study of differences in perception of factors affecting the quality of an educational program was sti- mulated further by recently reported research in educa- tional administration. Such reports included references to the situational variables that affect the school administrator as he meets the requirements of his position. Campbell describes some of the research on these variables.’+0 None of the research that he mentions relates specifically to the differences in perception of educational issues among professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members. It appears logical, nevertheless, that variables in perceptions about factors affecting quality of an educational program are important situational variables. Campbell recognizes that there are four different groups which influence administrative behavior: the school community or citizen group, the board of education (Group III of this study), the school organization, and the organized profession.Ll ——__ “Oneald F. Campbell, "Situational Factors in Educational Administration," Administrative Behavior in Education, ed. Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg—- New or : Harper & Brothers, 1957). P. 228. h11bid., pp. 231-33. .v—m _..4 *fi-—.—.f_r 37 Professors of education (Group I) and professors in areas other than education (Group II) of this study are important groups within the organized profession. The three groups studied by this investigator are, therefore, very influ- ential in the Operation of the American public schools. The differences that may exist in the way these three groups perceive various factors which affect the quality of an educational program seem to be important variables in the conceptual framework that Campbell provides for study of administrative behavior. The paucity of research in perception of a network of quality factors indicated the need for this exploratory study to uncover any basic differences in perception among these three highly influential groups concerned with the quality of educational programs. Summary The review of literature apparently related to the present study suggests the difficulty in attempting to define and measure the quality of an educational program. Various approaches to the evaluation of an educational program have been pursued and advocated by professional educators. There are certain kinds of objective factors present in the studies referred to in this chapter. Factors such as achievement in basic skills as measured by standarized 38 achievement tests, recency of training of the principal, high expenditure level per weighted pupil enrolled, and the percent of teachers age fifty-five and over can be measured with some objectivity. On the other hand, there are a number of factors, such as principal's educational opinion, median teacher's educational opinion, organization pattern, and/hr diffusion of administrative procedures which are primarily subjective. It seems that no one method has proven itself satisfactorily in the measurement of the total educational program. This reinforces the belief that quality is judged differently by different individuals. Within the limits of our present knowledge it is most difficult to become specific. There seems to be no common agreement as to what constitutes quality in an educational program. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY This chapter is concerned with the following phases of the study: (1) the technique employed in determining the factors which affect the quality of an educational pro- gram; (2) the develOpment and administration of the questionnaire; (3) the pilot study and subsequent revisions of the instructions and questionnaire; (4) the selection of the population used in the study; (5) the distribution and administration of materials for collecting data; (6) the treatment of data; and (7) the methods of analyzing the data. Determining the factors. As previously stated in Chapter I, the purposes of this study were: 1. To determine the differences in the perceptions held by Group I, Group II, and Group III concerning factors classified in seven categories: (1) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (2) Community Attitudes, (3) Curriculum, (A) Use of Facilities, (5) Socio-cultural Com- position of Community, (6) Administration and Supervision, and (7) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. 2. To determine the regional differences in per- ceptions held by Group I, Group II, and Group III concern- ing these seven categories. 39 ”we 3. To determine the level of agreement of Group I (professors of education), Group II (professors in areas other than education),,and Group III.(school board.members) on factors which directly affect, indirectly affect, and do not affect the quality of an educational program. In order to accomplish these objectives a question- naire was develOped.l Professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members from four regions of the united States were selected to participate in the study. Regions and states within each region are noted in Table 1.2 Table 1. Regions and states within each region Northeast North Central South West Connecticut Illinois Alabama Alaska Maine Indiana Arkansas Arizona Nassachusetts Iowa Delaware California New Hampshire Kansas Florida Colorado New Jersey Mfichigan Georgia Hawaii New York .Minnesota Kentucky Idaho Pennsylvania Missouri Louisiana antana Rhode Island Nebraska Maryland Nevada Vermont North Dakota Nfississippi New beico Ohio North Carolina Oregon South Dakota Oklahoma Utah Wisconsin South Carolina washington Tennessee Wyoming Texas Virginia 1See Appendix A, p.103. West Virginia District of Columbia 2Howard G. Brunsman, U. S. Census of Population: 1960, United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (Washington; Government Printing Office, 1960). p. 52. Al The development and administration 2; the question- pglgg. During the winter term, 1960-61, Rudman sent an informal request to members of the College of Education faculty, Michigan State University, asking their help in the identification of "quality factors" and "quality rela- ted factors."3 In response to this initial request some four hundred factors were submitted by the faculty. A study of the four hundred factors indicated considerable overlap. After careful evaluation, ninety distinct fac- tors were identified by the investigator. Once the ninety factors were identified, seven educators, working independently, were asked to cate- gorize them. The following categories were established from this classification procedure: (1) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (2) Community Attitudes, (3) Curriculum, (4) Use of Facilities, (5) Socio-cultural Com- position of Community, (6) Administration and Supervision, and (7) The Teacher and Teaching thhods. The categories and the factors in each category are listed in Appendix B. It was decided that the perceptions of Group I, Group II, and Group III concerning these factors could be ascertained by means of a questionnaire. Quality would be defined through an analysis of each group's choice among ‘ 3Herbert G. Rudman, "The Relationship Between the Financial Support of Education and Quality of Educational Program as Expressed by Certain Related Variables" (un- guglished report, Enchigan State University, East Lansing, 9 l . 42 the following three responses concerning each factor: (1) affects quality directly, (2) affects quality indirectly, and (3) does not affect quality. The assumption underlying this approach was that quality of an educational program resides more in the mind of the observer than in the in- herent structure of the program itself. What one considers quality ié quality, and what one sees within an educational program is judged according to his perception of quality. Support for this assumption comes from the early research into attitudes by Thurstone.4 Shortly thereafter, Thurstone and Chave developed scaling methods to measure attitudes based on a choice between agreement and dis- agreement with a series of statements.5 Later, Guttman observed that research in attitudes was largely based on verbal behavior.6 An opinion, he reasoned, was an expression of verbal behavior and as such could be used interchangeably with attitude, which he defined as predisposition to act in a certain way when dealing with verbal behavior. 4L. L. Thurstone, "A Law of Comparative Judgement," Psychological Review, XXXIV (1927), pp. 273 286. 5L. L. Thurstone and E. J. Chave, The Measurement 9; Attitude (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l929T. 6Samuel A. Stouffer, Louis Guttman, g£_al., "measure-- ment and Prediction, " Studies in Pa cholo in World war II, IV (Princeton: University Press, 1950, p #31 43 The questionnaire was designed to obtain: (1) per- deptions of the three groups on the ninety factors, and (2) regional differences in perceptions of these factors. The pilot study-~revision 9f the instructions and the questionnaire. Because of the importance of clarity of the questionnaire and the possible inclusion of addi- tional factors; to determine the length of time needed to complete the task assigned to each respondent; to deter- mine the amount of variance between the group responses-- for these reasons arrangements were made for personal inter- views with eight persons representing each group. This pilot study included professors from Michigan State Univer- sity and two school board members from each of four Michigan communities--Lansing, East Lansing, East Lansing, Okemos, and Laingsburg. These school board members represented a large city school district, a medium-sized suburban school, district, a small suburban school district, and a rural school district, respectively. The interviews with and the written reactions from these persons proved to be help- ful in clarifying several questions and statements in the instrument. Polling methods. One of two general methods may be employed by the researcher in determining the attitudes or opinions of a group of people on specific matters. The first method is to ask each person his opinion., This would obviously be an overwhelming task if the population 44 were large, g;g;, the peOple of a city, state, or nation. A second method is to determine the attitudes or opinions of a representative sample of individuals selected from the population. The latter method was employed in this study. Various techniques have been employed by researchers in order to insure an adequate sample: one is to select the sample on a random basis; the other is to stratify a sample so that it is representative of the population from which it was drawn. Thus, the sample drawn would be an exact miniature of the population which it represents. It would consist of elements in exactly the same proportion. This study followed the random, stratified, proportionate sampling procedure in the selection of the professors of education and professors in areas other than education. The selection of school board members was accomplished by employing the random, proportionate sampling process. It was felt that these procedures insured adequate representa- tive samples of the populations. Obviously, any sampling method which fails to accurately identify respondents and to obtain responses from them is inadequate. Every effort eas made in this study to do so. Selection-~professor§,_§ education and i§.§£2§§ 2122; than education. Two criteria had to be met in order for an individual to be included in the study: (1) it was necessary that the individual be an assistant professor, 45 associate professor, or professor in an accredited institu- tion of higher education, (2) it was necessary that the institution offer at least a bachelor's degree and/6r a first professional degree. A list of accredited institutions was secured from an annual bulletin published by the U. S. Office of Education.7 The type of institution was determined accord- ing to the levels of offerings noted in the Education Directory of the U.S. Office of Education.8 All institu- tions selected offered at least a bachelor's degree (level II), a master's degree (level III), and a doctor's degree (level IV). Individuals were selected randomly from each level in prOportion to the number of institutions in levels II, III, and IV in each region. All of the institutions in these levels were assigned numbers, and a table of random numbers was used to select the institutions to be included in the study. The institutions included in this study fall into one of the following classifications: (1) teacher preparatory, (2) both liberal arts, and general and teacher preparatory, (3) liberal arts and general, terminal-occupational, and teacher-preparatory, (4) pro- h 7Theresa Birch Wilkins, Accredited Higher Iggtitu- tions, U.S. Office of Education Bulletin 1960 XXIV was ington: Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 5~9A. . 8Theresa Birch Wilkins, Higher Education, Education Directory, Part III, U.S. Office of Education (washington: Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 9-185. 46 fessional or technical and teacher-preparatory, (5) liberal arts and general with one or two professional schools, and (6) liberal arts and general with three or more professional schools. Insofar as possible, two individuals from each group of professors were selected from institutions classified as level II, and five each from levels III and IV. The names used in the study were obtained from the official bulletins and/or catalogues of the institutions selected. The final classification of the professors included in this study was based upon their response to item 3 in the questionnaire: "Please check one of the following categories which best describes your present position." Selection 2; schogl board members. The names of the school board members were obtained by writing a letter to the superintendent of each school district;9 districts were randomly selected from the Education Directory of the U.S. Office of Education, which lists all school systems in the United States alphabetically and by state.10 It was assumed that each board of education would 9A copy of the letter is included in the Appendix C! p.113. 10 Rudoph V. Thompson Count Cit and Other Su erin- tendents, U.S. Office of Education, Part II‘ Education pirectogy (washington: Government Printing Office, l§6l), P .I 47 include an average of at least five members. Fifty school districts were asked to submit names of their school board members. The number of school boards selected from each state was determdned by the number of states in the particular geographic region. The actual number of school board members per board exceeded five. Each board member from the selected school district was asked to respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, the following number of boards of education were included in the study: Northeast (30), Nbrth Central (3h), South (36), and West (37). Sample‘gigg. The arithmetic mean and variance was determined from the responses on the pilot study of the instru- ment with each of the three groups. These data were then used in a statistical formmla to determine the sample size needed from each of the three groups, within each region. It was determined that approximately eighty to one-hundred respondents from each group, within each region, were needed to obtain significant differences. .Mailing procedures and ggtgggg. An envelope containing a covering letter, a copy of the questionnaire, and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope was sent on September 19, 1961, to each of the selected persons in the three groups.11 If Within three weeks of the mailing date no response had been rece- ived, a follow-up post card was sent to each nonrespondent. It was felt that a three-week span between mailings would give ample time for anyone to respond who desired to do so. This intensive followdup resulted in a return of 50 percent of the questionnaires. “ 11A copy of the covering letter is included in the APPendix D, p. 115. '0 If 48 A11 usable questionnaires returned on or before November 3, 1961, were included in the analysis of the data. This sampling procedure closely follows the process used by the National Education Association Research Division in its experimentation with small-sample techniques.12 The total number of returns, by group, in each region is reported in Table 2, along with the total national response. The study included all usable returns received within six weeks of the initial mailing. Table 2. Sources of usable returns =:: "*Group II Group II ‘I Group III Region Sent Ret- % Ret- Sent Ret- % Ret- Sent Ret- % Ret- __ ‘_Wurned urned urned urned urned urned_ I Northeast 2027 110 _53.lh 209, 80 ,38.27 203 92 45.32 II North . Central 20] 130 62.80 208 104 50.00 _§95 101 59.22_ III South 206 126 61.65 20: _97 ALJL 211+ 99 46.23 1! West ggi 109 54.12 207 88 1.2.51 207 105* 50.22 TOTALS 821 L75 57.85 829 369 44.51 829 397 47.89 —__ Note: Grand totals were: 2479 questionnaires sent; 1241 (50 percent) usable returns. The sizes of the school districts which the school board members were not identified prior to receiving their A.- 12National Education Association, Research Division, "Small-Sample Techniques," NEA Research Bulletin, XXXVIII (December, 1960), p. 9. L9 returned questionnaires. Their responses to item A of the questionnaire-~"Number of students served by the school district" are reported in Table 3. Table 3. Number and sizes of school districts in the study Number of Students Number of Per cent of I‘—— Served by School District Individuals Individuals Replying Replying less than l,h99 117 "'" 29.47 “I: 1,500:2,999 1 t 71? 28.46 3,000--5:;99 I— I_— 67 —I 16.88 LI 6,000--9:;99 32—I 8.06 " 10,000--l9,999 III 38 9.57 20,000--and over 30 7-56 TOTALS ‘897 100.00 u Treatment 9; data. The questionnaire was con- structed to utilize IBM processing procedures. This method was considered most efficient because of the number of questionnaires and the kind of analysis. The data were scored and coded for IBM tabulation. Responses were tabulted for the three groups of respondents according to the frequency of selection of each item by each group. Total group responses also were tabulated. 50 The percent of agreement on all ninety factors in the questionnaire was calculated from the responses by the three groups. In addition, the data were processed through the use of MISTIC (Michigan State Illiac Computer). Hypotheses tg_bg tested. The major hypotheseS' stated in Chapter waere tested. The hypotheses recorded below are in research form. Tests of these in the form of null hypotheses are reperted in Chapter IV. The null hypo- thesis presupposes no true differences between the variables. To prove that a difference is statistically significant the null hypothesis must be rejected. The rejection of a null hypothesis does not prove one group's perception of a factor over another, however; it only rules out, within a set limit of accuracy, the possibility that the differ- ences are due to chance. The first hypothesis is concerned with the difference between Group I, Group II, and Group III in their percep- tions of factors in seven specific categories: H 1: There is a difference between Groups I, II, and III on factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational pro- gram in the following categories: H la: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes. H lb: Community Attitudes. H lc: Curriculum. R 1d: Use of Facilities. H 1e: Socio-cultural Composition of Community. 5l H 1f: Administration and Supervision. H lg: The Teacher and Teacher Methods. The second major hypothesis is concerned with the regional differences between Group I, Group II, and Group III on the seven categories. H 2: There are regional differences in how the following seven categories are perceived by Groups I, II, and III. R 2a: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes. 2b: Community Attitudes. 20: Curriculum. 2d: Use or Facilities. 2e: Socio-cultural Composition of Community. 3:332:32: 2f: Administration and Supervision. B 2g: The Teacher and Teacher methods. The third hypothesis is concerned with differences in perception by professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members on factors which may or may not affect the quality of an educational program. H 3: There is a difference between professors of education (Group I). Professors in areas other than education (Group II), and school board members (Group III) on factors which they identify as affecting quality directly, affecting quality indirectly, and not affecting quality at all. Statistical Methods. The analysis of variance and the chi-square were the principal statistical tools used in the study. 52 Analysis of variance was the method used to test the significance of the difference between the several means calculated for each of the seven categories in which the ninety factors were grouped. When employing the analysis of variance, certain assumptions must be met; if not, the obtained differences may be the result of this failure to satisfy the assumptions. These assumptions are: 1. The subjects in each group are selected at random from the same population. This assump- tion was accepted in the present study on the basis of the randomization methods employed and explained in this chapter. 2. The distribution of scores within groups or cells is normally distributed. This assumption of normality of distribution is seldom tested and it was not tested in the present study. It has been shown by the Norton study that the F- distribution is relatively insensitive to the form of the distribution. 3 3. There is homogeniety of variances between cells. This assumption was tested in the present investigation by the Fmax (Hartley test) as described by walker and Lev.lh The chi-square technique was chosen to test the sig- nificance of the difference between the three groups, .— 13E. F. Lindquist, Design and Analysis 2; Eerri- ments in_Psychology and Education (Boston: Houghton in Company, 1953), p. 861 l“Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev, Statistical Inference (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953), p. 53 Group I, Group II, and Group III on the ninety factors individually. MCNemar pelnts out an important property of the chi-square which was used in this study in the calcula- tion of an overall chi-square for each region. The several chi-squares for independent tables may be summed to a total x2, with df equal to the sum of the df's for the chi squares being summed. . It is most useful when consistency is present among several comparisons, none of which taken singly possesses statistical significance. Summary A questionnaire was developed which sought an expression of opinion concerning the relationship of . various factors to the quality of an educational program. Each respondent was asked to indicate the significance of each of the ninety factors by checking one of three response categories: "affects quality directly," "affects quality indirectly," or "does not affect quality at all." To insure that the questionnaire would be presented to a representative sample of professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members, a random sample was obtained among each of these three groups within four geographic regions of the United States. The institutions of higher learning were selected through the use of.a table of random numbers. Professors from each group were randomly selected from bulletins and/er catalogues published by these selected institutions. The 5h names of school board members were obtained through a random selection process, by state, within each region. Each board member in each school district included in the study was asked to respond. A total of #75 professors of education, 369 pro- fessors in areas other than education, and 397 school board members responded to the questionnaire. Returned questionnaires total 1,241, an overall national response of 50 percent. Several hypotheses have been stated here in research form, and the analysis techniques by which each hypothesis was tested have been presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The analysis of data is presented in three main sections of this chapter. The first major section is con- cerned with the test of the general hypothesis dealing with the differences between Group I, Group II, and Group III in perception of the factors grouped into seven cate- gories. The first section also reports the test of the general hypothesis of regional differences between these three groups. The second major section is concerned with the test of the general hypothesis dealing with the differ- ences between professors of education (Group I), professors in areas other than education (Group II), and school board members (Group III), in each region, in their perceptions of the ninety individual factors. This section is divided into three subsections: two devoted to results obtained by the use of the chi-square technique, and one concerned with percentage of responses. The third major section is the summary of the results in relation to the hypotheses. An Analysis of the Seven Categories of Factors # Analysis of variance was selected asfthe most 55 f 56 appropriate test of the first and second major research This test permits the study of several p0pu— ine if they have equal 0 be tested were as hypotheses. lations simultaneously to determ means. The two major null hypotheses t follows: H1: There is no difference between Groups I, II, and III on factors which they identify as affecting quality directly, affecting quality indirectly, and not affecting uality at all in the following categories: 1) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (2) Community Attitudes (3) Curriculum, (A) Use of Facilities. (5) Socio-cultural Com- position of Community, (6) Administration and Supervision, and (7) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. H2: There are no regional differences in how the seven categories are perceived by Groups I, II, and III. Each of these two major null hypotheses were divided into seven subhypotheses. These null hypotheses were tested simultaneously; e.g., subhypothesis Hla under H1 was tested along with subhypothesis H2a under H2. In order to make comparisons, a score for each individual was determined by adding the numbers checked on questionnaire; number 1 corresponded to "directly affects quality," number 2 corresponded to "indirectly affects quality," and number 3 corresponded to "does not affect quality at all." This procedure identifies the lowest mean score as being the most relevant and the highest mean score as being the least relevant in the relationship of the factors in the category to quality. 57 Means were calculated for each category of factors. QQEEEQEI l: §£2Q22£L§ Level 9; Knowledge gag Attitudes. 0n the basis of the analysis (Table A) we would reject the null hypothesis: Hla: There is no difference between Groups I, II, and III on factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational pro- gram in the category, "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes." and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in the response patterns of these three groups. The data indicate that there is a relationship between the individual's group and his perception of the factors in this category. On the basis of this analysis we would accept the null hypothesis: ifferences in how H2a: There are no regional d the category, "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes," is perceived by Groups I, II, and III. and reject the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference between response patterns for the four regions on this category. No significant interaction was found. We may conclude that region was not an important variable for this category of factors. 58 Table 4. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes" Sum of Mean Source of Variation_v df Squares Square F ,_ P Groups I, II, III 2 5.065 2.532 17.237 .001 Regions I, II, III, IV 3 .226 .075 .51t NS Interaction 6 .522 .087 .592 Error 1227 .lh6 Categogy II. Community Attitudes. 0n the basis of the analysis (Table 5) we would reject the null hypothesis: Hlb: There is no difference between Groups I, II, and III on factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational pro- gram in the category, "Community Attitudes." and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in the response patterns of these three groups. The data indicate that there is a relationship between the individual's group and his perception of the factors in this category. On the basis of this analysis we would accept the null hypothesis: H2b: There are no regional differences in how the category "Community Attitudes," is perceived by Groups I, II, and III. and reject the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference between reaponse patterns for the four r'egilons on this category. No significant interaction was found. we may conclude that region was not an important Variable for this category of factors. 59 Table 5. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Community Attitudes" Sum of ‘Mean Source of Variation df Squares Square F P Groups I, II, III 2 b.022 2.011 9.838 .001 Regions I, II, III, IV 3 1.575 .525 2.568 NS Interaction 6 1.030 .171 .8h0 NS Error 1227 .20A Category 1;}. Curriculum. 0n the basis of the analysis (Table 6) we would reject the null hypothesis: ch: There is no difference between Groups I, II, and III on factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational program in the category, "Curriculum." and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signifi- cant difference in the response patterns of these three groups. The data indicate that there is a relationship between the individual's group and his perception of the factors in this category. On the basis of this analysis we would reject the null hypothesis: H2c: There are no regional differences in how the category, "Curriculum" is perceived by Groups I, II, and III. and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference between the response patterns for the four regions on this category. This would indicate that there is a relationship between the region where the group lived and their perceptions of the factors in this category. 60 No significant interaction was found. We may conclude that region was an important variable for this category of factors. Table 6. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Curriculum" Sum of Mean ngrce of Variation df Squares Square F P Groups I, II, III 2 7.162 3.581 33.01 .001 Regions I, II, III, IV 3 1.192 .397 3.66 .05 Interaction 6 .t16 .069 .639 NS Error 1227 .108 Categogy IX. 'Ugg 3; Facilities. On the basis of the analysis (Table 7) we would reject the null hypothesis: Hld: There is no difference between Groups I, II, and III on factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational pro- gram in the category, "Use of Facilities." and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in the response patterns of these three groups. This would indicate that there is a relationship between the individual's group and his perception of the factors in this category. 0n the basis of this analysis we would accept the null hypothesis: H2d: There are no regional differences in how the category, "Use of Facilities," is perceived by Groups I, II, and III. and reject the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in response patterns of the four regions on this category. 61 No significant interaction was found. we may conclude that region was not an important variable for this category of factors. Table 7. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Use of Facilities" Sum 0? Mean Source of Variation df Sggares Squares F P Groups I, II, III 2 .137 .068 6.123 .01 Regions I, II, III, IV 3 .082 .027 2.A61 NS Interaction 6 .054 .009 .816 NS Error 1227 .001 Category I. Socio-cultural Composition pf Community. 0n the basis of the analysis (Table 8) we would reject the null hypothesis: Hle: There is no difference between Groups I, II, and III on the factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational pro- gram in the category, "Socio-cultural Compo- sition of Community." and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in the response patterns of these three groups. This would indicate that there is a relationship between the individual's group and his perception of the factors in this category. 0n the basis of this analysis we would accept the null hypothesis: H2e: There are no regional differences in how the category "Socio-cultural Composition of Egmmunity," is perceived by Groups I, II, and I. . 62 and reject the research hypothesis that there is a signifi- cant difference in response patterns of the four regions on this category. No significant interaction was found. We may conclude that region was not an important variable for this category of factors. Table 8. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II. III in the category, "Socio- cultural Composition of Community" gum OI fiean Source of variation df Sgures Square F P Groups I, II, III 2 1.7L8 .87h 3.326 .05 Regions I, II, III, IV 3 1.1Ll -380 lohh7 NS Interaction 6 1.683 .280 1.067 NS Error 1227 .262 Categogz 1;. Administration and Supervision. 0n the basis of the analysis (Table 9) we would reject the null hypothesis: Hlf: There is no difference between Groups I, II, and III on the factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational program in the category, "Administration and Supervision." and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in the response patterns of these three groups. This would indicate that there is a relation- ship between the individual's group and his perception of the factors in this category. . 0n the basis of this analysis we would accept the null hypothesis: 63 H2f: There are no regional differences in how the category "Administration and Supervision," is perceived by Groups I, II, and III. and reject the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in response patterns of the four regions on this category. A significant interaction was found in the analysis of response patterns in this category. No significant region effect, but Group II in Region 3 feel this category of factors is even less rele- vant than do their fellow professors in other regions, thus a significant interaction. Table 9. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "Administration and Supervision" T '___—'_—__'_'_“‘-’—"'——_—_7§if737‘ Source of variation df Squares Square F P Groups I, II, III 2 10.262 5.131 33.902 .001 Interaction 6 2.147 .357 2.364 .05 Error 1227 .151 Categogy VII. The Tgacher and Teaching methods. 0n the basis of the analysis (Table 10) we would reject the null hypothesis: ng: There is no difference between Groups I, II, III on factors which they identify as affecting the quality of an educational program in the category, "The Teacher and Teaching Methods." and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in the response patterns of these three 64 groups. This would indicate that there is a relationshp between the individual's group and his perception of the factors in this category. On the basis of this analysis we would reject the null hypothesis: H2g: There are no regional differences in how the category, "The Teacher and Teaching methods," is perceived by Groups I, II, and III. and accept the research hypothesis that there is a signi- ficant difference in the response patterns for the four regions on this category. This would indicate that there is a relationship between the region where the group lived and their perception of the factors in this category. No significant interaction was found. We may conclude that region was an important variable for this category of factors. Table 10. Analysis of variance of responses of Groups I, II, III in the category, "The Teacher and Teaching thhods" Sum of *Mean Source g§_Variation df Sguares Sggares F P‘_ Groups I, II, III 2 20.309 10.154 33.307 .001 Regions I, II, III, IV 3 2.572 .857 2.812 .05 Interaction 6 1.724 .287 .942 NS Error 1227 .304 Mean Scores for the Seven Categories by Groups and Regions An additional analysis of the data is presented in Table 11 and 12. Table 11 presents the mean scores for 65 the seven categories by Groups I, II, and III. The lowest mean score indicates the greatest relevance and the highest mean score the least relevance to quality. Factors in Category 4 appear to be considered more relevant to the quality of an educational program by Group I than by any other group and least relevant to the quality of an edu- cational program by Group III. Table 11. mean scores for the seven categories by groups ‘If *Professors (RESTéssors in Schoof Category of Areas Other Board __ Education Than Education Mbmbers Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes (1) 19.76 19.67 21.09 Community Attitudes (2) 21.98 22.96 23.35 Curriculum (3) 17.11 18-93 17-58 Use of Facilities (4) 5.18 5.39 5-43 Socio-cultural Composition of Community (5) 28.36 28-24 29.10 Administration and Supervision (6) 20.84 22.80 20.83 The Teacher and Teaching Methods (7) 29.76 32.81 32.07 —‘__ Table 12 presents the mean scores for the seven categories by Regions I, II, II, and IV. The lowest mean score indicates the greatest relevance and the highest mean score the least relevance of the factors in the 66 category to quality of education. For example, the factors in Category 4 appear to be considered more relevant to the quality of an educational program in Region III than any other region and least relevant in Region I. Table 12. Scores for mean ratings of the seven categories by regions Category Region Region Region Region I II III IV Student's Level of (1) Knowledge and Attitudes 20.11 20.14 20.03 20.40 Community Attitudes(2) 22.93 23.26 23.37 22.49 Curriculum (3) 18.22 18.02 17.37 17.88 Use of Facilities (4) 5.47 5.30 5.24 5.33 Socio-cultural Compo-. sition of Community”) 29.05 28.52 28.20 28.49 Administration and Supervision (6) 21.64 21.64 21.46 21.21 The Teacher and Teaching Methods (7) 31.99 31.82 30.78 31.59 _ Analysis of responses by Groups I, II, and III on the ninety factors from Regions I, II, III, and IV The chi-square was the principal statistical tool used in this section. The primary purpose of the chi- square technique in this section was to test the difference between the three groups on responses to individual factors. In addition, the summation property of the chi-square was 67 used to test the null hypothesis when the ninety factors are summed. Individual chi-square values for each factor in each region are shown in Appendix E. A chi-square value of 9.49 was needed for significance at the 5 percent level of' confidence for individual factors. A chi-square value of 404.1 was needed for significance at the 5 percent level of confidence when the ninety factors are combined in each region. Table 13 presents the results of the chi-square analysis concerning the ninety factors in each region. On the basis of this analysis we would reject the null hypothesis for each of the four regions. H3: There is no difference between professors of education (Group I),professors in areas other than education (Group II), and school board members (Group III) on factors which they identify as affecting quality directly, affecting quality indirectly, and not affecting quality at all. We would accept the research hypothesis, concluding that a dependence existed between position and response on the ninety factors as a whole, and that there was a relation- ship between the group the individual was a member of and his perception of the factors. This indicates that there is a significant difference when we look at the ‘ ninety factors in each region, which means that professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members see these factors differently. \ 68 .This analysis verifies the results of the analysis of variance test on the general hypothesis H1. Table 13. Results of the summation chi-square analysis of the ninety factors in the four regions Sum of dTis Sum of 90 2 fiecision for Chi-Squares x .05 Concerning the Chi-Squares no I Northeast 360 1088.28 404.1 Reject II North Central 360 965.92 404.1 Reject III South 360 948.20 404.1 Reject IV west 360 1093.02 404.1 Reject Analysis gf Respgnses 29 Factor; Showing Significant Differences by figgigg. An analysis of responses showing significant differences between the three groups, as deter- mined by the chi-square method, was performed for each region in Appendix F. This analysis consisted of an inspection of the percentage calculation of the responses for each of the three groups on each factor. The denomi- nator used for each percentage calculation was the number of individuals responding from.each group. The percentage of responses for Groups I, II, and III on each of the ninety factors is reported along with the chi-square values in Appendix E. The seven categories, the number of factors under each category, the factors showing significant differences, and the percent of those showing significant differences in each category are presented for each of the four regions 69 Table 14. Factors which showed significant* differences between Groups I, II, and III It *— m Category Region Number of Factors showing %'°£ (factors 1 ant dif e ** rs 1 I 13 38.53.61.7184,86 46 Student ' s II 13 38 . 53 . 71 23 Level of III 13 7,23,38,39,?1 38 Knowledge IV 13 7.53.71 23 and Attitudes 2 I 13 18, 52, 62 ,63, 65.73.74 54 Community II 13 65.66.79 23 Attitudes III 13 18, 63, 64. 73 31 jg 13 74.78 15 3 I 12 6.48. 50.91.92 93 50 Curriculum II 12 6,36, 48. 50, 72. 92, 94 58 III 12 6, 10, 36,40, 50, 81,91 58 IV 12 6,110, 36, 40, 48, 50,72, 91, 92 92 _93. 9 ~ 4 ' I 3 25 33 Use of II 3 -- 0 Facilities III 3 25.49 67 IV 3 .49 33 __ 5 I 15 21. 41, 42. 80 0,83 33 Socio-cultural II 15 17. 21, 41, 42 ,76,77 1,0 Composition III 15 77.30.83 20 of Community _;V 15 11 7 6 I 13 15, 16, 30.47.46, 5L 55 54 Administra- II 13 16, 22, 26, 51. 55. 57 46 tion and III 13 15,16, 30, 44. 51. 55. 57 54 Supervision IV 13 15.1Q 30. 31, 43. 44. 46, 47 85 ___ .51 55. 57 I 21 9.11, 24. 27.32 34 35.37.54. 62 The Teacher 56.62 .6 79.90 and Teaching II 21 9.11.12.14.24. 27. 28.33.34. 81 Rbthods 35.37. 54. 5Q 60 ,67. 69. 90 III 21 9,11,14. 4. 27.2 28, 29. 32, 33, 81 34 35. 37.54. 5Q 6. .9 IV 21 9.11, 4. 4 W7 28 29. 33. 34. -81 __ 35 ’6.3L5t..56,6 62.69. 90 * Each factor is identified in “appendix **degrees of freedom (d. f.) at .05 = 9.49 required for significance 7O Forty-five factors or 50 percent in Region I, 42 factors or 47 percent in Region II, 45 factors or 50 percent in Region III,and 46 factors or 51 percent in Region IV were found to show significant differences at the 5 percent level. This means that approximately 50 percent of the factors in all four regions are viewed differently by Groups I, II, and III. An example of further interpretation of the data in Table 14 reveals the following: In Region I, significant differences were found on 46 percent of the factors under Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes; on 54 percent of the factors under Community Attitudes; on 50 percent of the factors under Curriculum; on 33 percent of the factors under Use of Facilities; on 33 percent of the factors under Socio-Cultural Composition of Community; on 54 percent of the factors under Administration and Supervision; and on 62 percent of the factors under The Teacher and Teaching Methods . 0f the ninety factors in the questionnaire, 20 percent were found to show significant differences in each of the four regions: under Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes (Category 1), factor 71; under Curriculum (category 3), factors 6 and 50; under Administration and Supervision (Category 6), factors 16, 51, and 55; and under The Teacher and Teaching methods (Category 7). factors 9.11,24,27,34,35,37,54,56,67,69, and 90. This indicates 71 more significant differences were found in response to the factors under Category 7 than in any other category. Analysis of Factors Shoging fig Significant Differ- ences in the Four Region . Of the ninety factors included in the questionnaire, those which showed no significant differences between the three groups are listed in Table 15. 72 Table 15. Factors which showed no significant* difference between Groups I, II, and III M Number of Factors showing no i of Category Region factors__s;gg;§icant differences** Factors_ 1 I 13 5,7,23,39,58,59,85 5h Student's II 13 5,7,23,39,58,59,61,8h,85,86 77 Level of III 13 5,53,58,59,61,8h,85,86 62 Knowledge and Iv 13 5.23.38.39,58,59.61.8a.85 77 Attitudes 86 2 I 13 l9,20,6h,66,78,79 A6 Community II 13 18,19,20,52,62,63,6h.73, 77 Attitudes 7h,78 III 13 19.20.52.62,65.66.7L.78.79 69 IV 13 18,19,20,52,62,63,6h,65,66 85 3 I 12 10.36.h0,72.81.9h 50 Curriculum II 12 10,h0,81,91,93 #2 III 12 h8,72,92,93,9h #2 ___ Iv 12 81 8 h I 3 h9,82 67 Use of II 3 25,h9,82 100 Facilities III 3 82 33 IV ___,2_ 25182 62 5 I 15 17,14r5,68,70,75,76,77,87,88, 67 Socio-cultural 89 COMPOSitiOD or II 15 #5168970975980183187988:89 60 Community III 15 ' 17,21,hl,h2.#5,68,70,75,76 80 87,88,89 Iv 15 21.b1.h2,45.68,70.75.76.77 93 80183187,88489 6 I 13 22.26.31.h3,4h.57 #6 Administration II 13 15.30.31.L3.hh.u6,h7 54 and Supervi- III 13 22,26,31,43,46,h7 A6 gion IV 13 22:26 12 7 I 21 8,12,13,1h,28,29,33,60 38 The Teacher II 21 8,13,29,32 l9 and Teaching III 21 8,12,13,60 19 Mbthods IV 21 8,12,13,32 19 * Each factor is identified in Agpendix E. . *tdegrees of freedom (d.f.) h, x required for significance at .05 = 9.49 73 Forty-five factors or 50 percent in Region I, #8 factors or 53 percent in Region II, #5 factors or 50 percent in Region III, and 4h factors or L9 percent in Region IV were found to show no significant differences at the 5 percent level. This means that Groups I, II, and III agree as to how approximately 50 percent of the factors affect the quality of an educational program. Table 15 can be interpreted further by using same process as for the previous table. 0f the ninety factors in the questionnaire, 18 percent were found to show no significant differences in each of the four regions: under Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes (category 1), factors 5,58,59, and 85; under Community Attitudes (category 2), factors 19 and 20; under Use of Facilities (category h), factor 82; under Socio- cultural Composition of Community (category 5), factors L5,68,70,75,87,88, and 89; and under The Teacher and Teaching methods (category 6), factors 8 and 13. This means that there is more agreement as to the affect of the factors under Category 5 on the quality of an educational Program than in any other category. Levels of agreement. An additional analysis of the individual factors was made. All factors in which 50 percent or more of the respondents chose one of the three response areas--directly affects quality, indirectly affects quality, and does not affect quality at all--have been recorded in 74 Appendix G. Among these factors, only those receiving such a response from at least two of the three groups were con- sidered to be significant in this study. A composite pic— ture of these data for all four regions is presented in the next five tables. None of the ninety factors showed a level of agree- ment at the 50 percent level or greater between Groups I, II, and III of "does not affect." 75 Table 16. Factors which showed a level of agreement of 50 percent or more between Groups I, II, and III of "directly affects." Number of Factors showing a level i of Category Region Factors of agreement of 50 per- Factors .1 cent or more 1 I 13 5,23,61,8L,86 38 II 13 5,23,61,8t,86 38 III 13 5.23.53.61.84.86 L6 ___.I.V 113 rwJ123161184.86 38 2 I 13 19.62 15 II 13 19 8 III 13 62 8 __IV 13 62 __ 8 3 I 12 10.36.h0.72.91.92.93 58 II 12 lO,36,hO,72,9l,92,93 58 III 12 10.36.40.72.9l.92.93 58 IV 12 10.50172191192193 50 .fi 1, I 3 82 33 II 3 '82 33 III 3 82 33 __, _IV 3 82 33 _ 5 I 15 41.75 13 II 15 75 7 III 15 -- 0 __,g_, IV 15;, -- 0 II 13 15.31.46 23 III 13 15.31.h6 23 __1 Iv 13;, 15.31146 23,__ 7 I 21 8,12,13,14.32,3h,54,90 38 ‘ ' II 21 8,12,13.lh.2b.32.3h.54,90 48 III 21 :61561391h12493293L935e54, 52 iv 21 8.i2.13.14.24.32.34.54.90 43, 76 Table 17. Factors which showed a level of agreement of 50 percent or more between Groups I, II, and III of "indirectly affects." 77::7 Number of Factors showing a level i of Category Region Factors of agreement of 50 per- Factors cent or more l I 13 7 8 II 13 -- 0 III 13 85 8 IL 13 7139158.” 31 2 I 13 18.52.61.66.73.78.79 5h II 13 18.20.63.6h.65.66.73 54 III 13 20,52,63,65,66,73.78.79 62 Iv 13 18,52,63,61,65,66,73,78, 69 79 3 I 12 9a 8 II 12 50,9A 17 III 12 50,91 17 IE; 12 ,_g 50 8 h I 3 25 33 II 3 25 33 III -- IV 3 25 33 5 I 15 17.45.68.77 27 II 15 17.21.41.42.h5 33 III 15 17.21.h2.h5.70.77.87 L7 IV 15 421.42.45.70.77.82 40 6 I 13 - hh.h7.57 23 II 13 hh.h7.57 23 III 13 30.11.17.57 31 Iv 13 __!17.55,68 23 . I 21 23.33 10 7 II 21 28.29.33 14 III 21 33.60 10 Iv 21 28,29,33 1h 77 Table 18. Factors which showed a level of agreement of 50 per- cent or more between two of the three groups of "directly affects." W J'fzactorsn—j—filshowing afivel-W Category Region Factors of agreement of 50 per- Factors cent or more II 13 53 3 III 13 -- 0 IV 13 53 3 2 I 13 .. 0 II 13 62 8 III 13 7h 8 IV 13 19.71 _;2 3 I 12 -- 0 II 12 -- 0 III 12 -- 0 1lX, 12 36 8 1+ I 3 -- 0 II 3 -- 0 III 3 -- 0 IV 3 -- 0 5 I' 15 -- 0 II 15 -_ 0 III 15 41 7 IV 15 75 7 6 I 13 16.51.55 23 II 13 13.51.55 23 III 13 £3.51.55 23 (IE_ l3_ 43.51 154_ 21 9,11,24,35,56 21 7 II 21 11,67,69 1t III 21 9,11,27,67,69 21 IV 21 9.35.56.67.69 24 78 Table 19. Factors which showed a level of agreement of 50 per- cent or more between two of the three groups of "indirectly affects." ——'— I Number off Factors showing a level‘% of Category Region Factors of agreement of 50 per- Factors cent or more - 1 I 13 58,85 15 II 13 7.39.71 23 III 13 7,58 15 IV 13 -- _ o__ 2 I 13 65.74 15 II 13 52.78.79 23 III 13 18,19,61 23 :Iv 13 20 8 3 I 12 6,18,50,81 .33 II 12 6,81 20 III 12 18 10 _Iy' 12 6.21 20 h I 3 -- 0 II 3 -- 0 III 3 25 33 IV 3 -- o I 15 21.h2.70.83.87 33 5 II 15 77,80,87 20 III 15 68,83,89 20 IV 15 17,11,80183 2: 6 13 26,13 15 II 13 12.26.30.13 3% III 13 2 __. IV 13 26.30.11 23 I 21 37 5 7 II 21 37,60 10 III 21 28,29,37 1 IV 21' 37 ° 5 79 Table 20. Factors which showed a level of agreement of 50 per- cent or more between 239 of the three groups of "does not affect." Number of Factors showing a level % of Category Region Factors of agreement of 50 per- Factors __g cent or more 4 I 3 L9 33 II 3 L9 33 III 3 -- O __, IV 3 49 33 5 I 15 88 7 II 15 88 7 III 15 88 7 IV 15 -- 0 Of the ninety factors in the questionnaire, 21 per- cent showed a 50-percent or greater response by Groups I, II, and III in the directly affects column in each of the four regions: under Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes (category 1), factors 5,23,61,81, and 86; under Curriculum (category 3), factors 10,10,72,91,92, and 93; under Use of Facilities (category A). factor 82; under Administration and Supervision (category 6) factors 15, and 31; and under The Teacher and Teaching methods (category 7). factors 8,12,13,14,32,3h.5h, and 90. This means that Groups I, II, and III agree at a level of 50 percent or greater, that these factors directly affect the quality of an educational program. Summagy of the Chi-square results. Data presented in this section indicate that the three groups assigned Varying degrees of importance to each of the ninety factors on the questionnaire. The null hypothesis (H3) was rejected 80 in each of the four regions when tested by the summation of the chi-squares. This indicates that when we look at the ninety factors there is a significant difference between Groups I, II, and III in the four regions. The data also indicated that there was closer agreement on some factors than on others, and that only two factors were considered not to have any effect on the quality of an educational program: "Extent to which school facilities are used for general community activities" and "religious distribution of the total population." The distribution of the factors was nearly evenly divided between "directly affects quality" and "indirectly affects quality." When the per; centage of rejections was considered for all four regions, more differences were found among the factors under The Teacher and Teaching Methods than in any other category. Categories which also showed a large number of differences were Curriculum and Administration and Supervision. Supplementary_Analysis An analysis was made to determine the differences in Perception of factors in the seven categories by school board members, in relation to the size of the school districts which they represented. While no specific hypothesis was formulated for these data, it was felt that the results of the test would provide valuable information. A one-way analysis of variance for the seven cate- 81 gories of factors failed to show any differences between the six sizes of school districts. Thus, the size of the school district does not appear to have had an important relation- ship to the school board members' opinions on whether the factors under the categories directly affect quality, indirectly affect quality, or do not affect quality at all. summary of Tests of the Hypotheses A summary of the results of the tests of the hypotheses appears in Table 21. On the basis of the analysis, two of the three research hypotheses are accepted. The results indicate that five of the seven subhypotheses under H2 showed no significant relationships between regions and the mean scores of Groups I, II, and III, for the follow- ing categories: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, Community Attitudes, Use of Facilities, Socio-cultural Composition of the Community, and Administration and Supervision. I 82 Table 21. Summary of tests of the hypotheses Hypothesis Test Used Rejected Accepted 1: 'Analysis of Variance 1! 1c " 1d II 10 I! 1f 1! RXMXNNN NH N 0 XXX (Region I) chi-square (Region II) " (Region III) " (Region IV) " mmmzmmmtcmtcmmscmuzmmrn N O X NXMNX CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter will summarize the study's purpose, pro- cedure, limitations, pertinent findings, and conclusions, and will offer suggestions for further research. Summary This study is an attempt to determine on a national range, the perceptions of professors of education (Group I), professors in areas other than education (Group II), and school board members (Group III) on ninety factors that may or may not affect the quality of an educational pro- gram. Such perceptions are of vital interest and importance if the United States is to meet the challenge to quality in education. The quality of education in the United States could very well determine the future of the country. The concept of quality is a relative one which exists more in the mind of an individual than in a particular program. I These three types of persons are significant builders of images of what quality education is in America today. There- fore, it was felt that their perceptions of the ninety factors would be of interest to those concerned with edu- cation in this country- Three major hypotheses were formulated concerning 83 8.4 the perception of the ninety factors by Groups I, II, and III, and a number of subhypotheses were constructed in order to test the first and second major hypotheses. They are stated in null form as follows: 1. There is no difference between Group I, Group II, and Group III on factors which they identify as affecting quality directly, affecting quality indirectly, and does not affect quality at all in the following categories: (1) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (2) Community Attitudes, (3) Curriculum, (A) Use of Facilities, (5) Socio-cultural Composition of Communit , (6) Administration and Supervision, and (7 The Teacher and Teaching Methods. 2. There are no regional differences on how the seven categories are perceived by Group I, Group II, and Group III. 3. There is no difference between Group I, Group II, and Group III on factors which they identify as affecting quality directly, affecting quality indirectly, and does not affect quality at all. In addition, this study attempted to determine the level of agreement of Group I, Group II, and Group III on the ninety factors. Design 2; the study. The study involved the selection of a sample; the development and distribution of a ques- tionnaire intended to elicit perceptions by Group I, Group II, and Group III concerning ninety factors which may or may not affect the quality of an educational program; and statistical treatment of the data obtained from completed \ questionnaires. I The sample. The names of the college professors were obtained by a random, stratified, proportionate sampling 85 procedure. Two criteria had to be met in order for the individual to be included in the study: (1) it was necessary that the individual to be an assistant professor, associate professor, or professor in an accredited insti- tution of higher learning, and (2) it was necessary that the institution offer at least a bachelor's degree and/hr first professional degree. The institutions were selected from the Education Directory published annually by the U.S. Office of Education. Individual names were obtained from.the official bulletins and/or catalogues of the institutions selected. The names of school board members were obtained by writing a letter to the superintendent of each school district; districts were selected from the Egggation Directory of the U.S. Office of Education. The questionnaire. A questionnaire of ninety factors which may or may not affect the quality of an educationai program was prepared from a list of factors determined by Rudman.1 Respondents were asked to place an "x" on the number under the statement which best described their attitude or perception of the factor as it related to the quality of an educational program. The ninety factors appeared in random order in the questionnaire, but were — 1Rudman, g£.cit. 86 divided into seven categories for a major portmmiof the analysis of the data. Mailing procedures. An enve10pe containing a covering letter, a c0py of the questionnaire, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope was sent on September 19, 1961, to each of the selected persons in the three groups. If with- in three weeks of the mailing date, no response had been received, a follow-up postcard was sent to each non- respondent. This intensive procedure resulted in a return of 50 percent of usable questionnaires. Treatment of data. The questionnaire was constructed to utilize IBM processing procedures. The data were scored and coded for IBM tabulation, and, in addition processed through the use of MISTIC (Michigan State Illiac Computer). Responses were tabulated in each of the three response categories according to the selection frequencies for each group and for each item. Total group responses also were tabulated. The percent of agreement on all ninety factors in the questionnaire was calculated from the responses‘by the three groups. Statistical methods utilized. Analysis of variance was the method used to test the significance of the differ- ence between the several means calculated for each of the seven categories in which the ninety factors were grouped. The Fmax test (Hartley test) of homogeneity was performed, rather than simply assuming that the variances were homo- geneous . 87 The chi-square technique was employed in testing and comparing the patterns of response of Groups I, II, and III on the ninety factors in the four geographical regions. An important property of the chi-square which was used in this study involved the calculation of an overall chi- square for each region. Limitations g; the study. There were two major limitations to this study: 1. The questionnaire technique imposed a fundamen- tal limiation--that of interpretation of written communica- tion. It is debatable whether a questionnaire is inter- preted by respondents as its author intends. . i The investigator attempted to overcome this limita- tion.by conducting a pilot study in which subjects from each of the populations studied were interviewed personally and asked to comment on the clarity of the questionnaire. Since the questionnaire was tested in a pilot study, and since the investigation included returns from hundreds of individuals in each group, the biasing factor was thought to be diminished. 2. It is difficult to generalize beyond the popula- tions studied. Although the difference in perceptions between Groups I, II, and III might well be found in other groups interested in education, such a generalization is only a hypothesis; it would have to be tested by examining the perceptions of the ninety factors by other groups of individuals. 88 Major finding_. Findings related to the three major hypotheses and the subhypotheses and to the percentage of agreement on the various factors are as follows: 1. All seven subhypotheses under Hl, that there would be no significant difference between group means, were rejected at the 5 percent level or greater. The results of the test indicate that there is a relationship between the individual's group and his perceptiOn of the factors in the seven categories. 2. Two of the seven subhypotheses under H2, that 'there would be no significant difference between regions, were rejected at the 5 percent level or greater. The results of the test indicate that there is a relationship between the region where the group lived and their percep- tions of the factors in two categories, "Curriculum" and "The Teacher and Teaching Methods." 3. An analysis of variance carried out on the seven categories of factors failed to show any differences between the six sizes of school districts and the responses of the individual school board members. A. The null hypothesis (H3) was rejected when the summation chi-square test was performed for respondents in each of the four regions on the ninety factors. 5. Significant differences at the 5 percent level were shown by 50 percent of the 90 factors in Region I, #7 percent of the 90 factors in Region II, 50 percent of 89 the 90 factors in Region III, and 51 percent of the 90 factors in Region IV. 6. ReSponses to 20 percent of the 90 factors in the questionnaire differed significantly in all four regions. When the percentage of rejection (significant differences) of the individual chi-squares was considered for all four regions, more differences were found in responses to the factors under "The Teacher and Teaching Methods" than in any other category. Categories which showed a high per- centage (significant differences) of rejection were "Curriculum" and "Administration and Supervision." 7. Responses to 18 percent of the 90 factors in the questionnaire did not differ significantly among the four regions. Categories with the highest percentage of factors showing no significant differences were (1) Socio-cultural Composition of Community, (2) Community Attitudes, and (3) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes. 8. The reaponse "directly affects" was made to ZA percent of the 90 factors by 50_percent or more of Groups I, II, and III in each of the four regions. A further analysis of these 24 percent showed that they fell primarily into the following three categories: (1) Curri- culum, (2) The Teacher and Teaching methods, and (3) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes. 9. Only two factors were considered not to have any affect on the quality of an educational program-~"Extent 90 to which school facilities are used for general community activities" and "Religious distribution of the total population"--according to the criterion of a 50 percent or more "does not affect" response by two of the three groups. Conclusions The following conclusions evolve from the evidence presented by this study: 1. From the fact that both the summation chi-square test on the individual factors and the results of the analysis of variance test on seven of the categories show a rejection of the null hypotheses (H1) and H3), it would appear that there is a relationship between the group (I, II, or III) the individual was a member of and his .perception of the factors. This finding seems consistent with the theory that an individual wishes to be identified with a group which is in harmony with his goals and values. The established goals and values of an individual are attained through the association with others. Combs and Snygg indicate that "once established, goals and values have intimate effects upon perceiving. . . they markedly affect behavior."2 2Combs, and Snygg, 22. g_i_t., p. 108. 91 2. When those factors showing significant differ- ences between the response patterns of the three groups were analyzed for all four regions, the following results were apparent: a. Professors attach more relevance to factors under the category, "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes," than do school board members. b. Professors attach more relevance to factors under the category, "Community Attitudes," than do school board members. c. Professors of education and school board members attach more relevance to factors under the category "Curriculum" than do professors in areas other than education. d. Factor 19 in the category, "Use of Facilities," which is believed to have no affect on the quality of an educational program in 50 percent or more of the responses of two of the three groups, are more relevant to professors of education than to professors in areas other than education or school board members. e. Professors attach more relevance to factors under the category, "Socio-cultural Composition of Community," than do school board members. f. Professors of education and school board members attach more relevance to factors under the category, "Administration and Supervision," than do professors in 92 areas other than education. . g. Professors of education and school board members attach more relevance to factors under the category, "The Teacher and Teaching Methods," than do professors in areas other than education. Professors in education attach more relevance to them than school board members. It is significant to observe that professors attach more relevance to factors under the categories, "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes," "Community Attitudes," and "Socio-cultural Composition of Community," than do school board members. One explanation for this finding, as in other areas of this study where we find differences between the professional educator and school board members, might be found in the following statement by Gross, "One set of problems that demands investigation stems from the possibility that school board members and professional educators are exposed to different sets of standards."3 These data tend to support Gross' hypothesis. It is meaningful to note that professors of education and school board members attach more relevance to factors under the categories, "Curriculum" "Administration and Supervision," and "The Teacher and Teaching methods," than do professors in areas other than education. It is * 3Neal Gross, "The Sociology of Education," Sociolo Today, eds. Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom.and LeonaFd s. Cottrell Jr. (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959). p. 115. 93 hypothesized that factors under these categories are more likely to be directly under discussion between professors of education and school board members or indirectly through school staff, than between professors of education and professors in areas other than education, or professors in areas other than education and school board members. 3. Professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members feel that the quality of an educational program is affected in large measure by what goes on inside the classroom and what happens to the child. For example, the three groups were more in agreement as to the relevance of the factors under the category "The Teacher and Teaching Methods" than in any other category. This in part, might well be attributed to the general demand of the society to obtain the most competent teachers for their children. In addition, it might reflect the attention being given to the teacher and teacher methods in our institutions of higher learning. 1. Professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members attach less relevance to the factors in the so-called outside-the-class- room category i.e., "Socio-cultural Composition of the Community." It is hypothesized that the image created by the expression "the teacher is the key to the learning process"has aided in assigning these factors to a lesser role i.e., "indirectly affecting" the quality of an edu- 94 cational program. There is an apparent recognition of the importance of these factors aiding in an indirect way the attainment of a quality program. 5. The fact that the analysis of variance test on the seven subhypotheses showed 2 rejections of the null hypothesis H2 indicates that there is a relationship between where an individual lives and his perception of the factors under these two particular categories. In the other 5 categories where a person lives is apparently not related to his perception of the factors. It is significant to note that the average mean score in both the "Curriculum" and "The Teacher and Teaching Mbthods" categories was smaller (more relevant) in Region III(South). It is hypothesized that the significant differences found between regions on these categories is, in part, attributable to Region III's feeling of a greater need of these factors, because of a relative inadequacy of them. In summary, two of the major research hypotheses (H1 and H3) were supported by the evidence. Hypothesis H2 was not supported by the evidence. The study has raised some questions and implications for further research. Recommendations for further research. The results of this study indicate the need for further research. Suggested directions for such research are as follows: 1. A replication of the study might identify additional factors to be added to the present list. 95 2. A replication of the study might be made by using other groups and/or organizations concerned with the quality of an educational program, i.e., teachers, members of civic organizations, students, teachers, and community leaders. 3. An instrument which included only those factors showing a high percentage of responses of "directly affects" and "does not affect," by any one of the three groups, might be submitted to the population from which that group was drawn for further comment and analysis. 1. Those factors showing significant differences between groups and which appear to represent differences in group perceptions should be studied further to learn the bases for them. Suggested methods for solving the . differences might result from such a study. 5. The fact that a much higher percentage of the factors in the category, "The Teacher and Teaching Methods" (factors inside the classroom),were considered by the three groups to directly affect quality, compared with the factors under the category, "Socio-cultural Composition of the Community" (factors outside the classroom), suggests a need for research in our teacher training institutions to determine whether or not factors inside the classroom are being given proper attention. Implicatigng Q; the gtudy. The quality of our educational programs depends in large measure upon the 96 perceptions these three groups hold concerning what con- stitutes quality in an educational program. Therefore, the fact that this investigation disclosed statistically signi- ficant differences in the ways professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members perceive these ninety factors has important impli- cations for all three groups.2 I l. The differences in perceptions as to the relative importance of the factors imply that there is a need for better communication among professional educators and between professional educators and school board members. 2. Professors of Education should realize that it is within the scope of their leadership to develop consis- tant perceptions concerning the factors which may or may not affect the quality of an educational program. 3. The educational leader in the local community must attempt to develop greater understanding of-the factors which affect the quality of an educational program if evaluation of the quality of the educational program is to be worthwhile. 1. Since only two of the seven categories showed any differences between regions, a national Educational Characteristics Criterion might be developed using those factors on which at least two of the three groups, from three of the four regions, showed a.50 percent agreement. Following this analysis, the instrument would include the 97 38 factors which were perceived to "directly affect" the quality of an educational program, and the 31 factors which were perceived to "indirectly affect" the quality of an educational program. 5. The knowledge that there is a significant relationship between the group the individual was a member of and his perception of the ninety factors should be of importance to individuals and/or organizations concerned with the quality of an educational program. Individuals responsible for the educational program in a community have further evidence to demonstrate the need to understand the divergent attitudes and values held by individuals in the community. Educational leaders who are aware of the perceptions held by the various "publics" concerning fac- tors which affect the quality of an educational program are more likely to give consideration to these perceptions when planning the educational program. BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association. Judgigg Schools With Wisdom. washington: National Education Association, 1959. . Qgest for Quality. washington: National ‘Education Association, 960. American Council on Education. National Study g£_Secondary . School Evaluation-Evaluative Criteria. washington: American Council on Education, 1960. Allport, Floyd H. Theories of Percgption and the Concept of Structure. New 103E: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I955 Bardell, Roger W. "Differences In Perception of Citizens , and Teachers About Educational Issues." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1960. Brunsman, Howard G. 1g;§. Census 2; Egpulation: 126 . United States Department of Commerce,_Bureau of Census. washington: Government Printing Office, 1960. Cam bell Roald F. and Russell T. Gregg (eds.). Admini- p strative’Behavior ig Educatigg. New York: Harper Brothers, 1957. Combs, Arthur W. and Donald Snygg. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers, I959. Cornell, Francis 6., Carl M. Lindvall, and Joe L. Saupe. "An Exploratory Measurement of Individualities of 1 Schools and Classrooms," Bulletin, Bureau of Educational Research, College of Education, Univer- sity of Illinois, L (June, 1953). Curti, Merle. "Intellectuals and Other Peeple," Th3 Education Digest, XX (March, 1955). 8-10. Dixon, Wilfrid J. and Frank J. Massey, Jr. Introduction E2 Statistical Anal sis. New York: Me raw- 00 Company, Inc., 1957. 98 99 Ebey, George W. Adaptability Amogg Elementary Schools. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1910. Educational Advisory Committee of the National Association of Manufactures. This We Believe About Education. Ngngork: NationaI Association of manufactures:— Edwards, Allen L. Stgggstical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195A. Firman, William D., 33 él- "Procedures In School Quality Evaluation-A Second Report of the Quality Measure Project." New York: The State Education Department, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Furno, Orlando F. "The Projection of School Quality From Expenditure Level." Unpublished Doctor's project, Columbia University, New York, 1956. Gardner, John W. Excellengg. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961. Gross Neal. "The Sociology of Education " Sociolo ' Today, eds. Robert K. Merton, Leondrd Broom and Leonard S. Cottrell Jr. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959. Hall, Harold D. "Relationships of Selected Characteristics of Organization to Practices in School Systems: An Exploratory Measure of the Extent of Diffusion of Administrative Procedure and Staffing Practices and Their Relationships to Selected Characteristics of School Systems." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Illinois, 1956. Hill, Henry H. "Quality Education--Present and Future," ea f School Service College Bulletin gf the Bur u __ ’I re ’ 2: Education, University 2: Egg§g§_z. 1959): S’Ih- Hirsch Werner A. "Analysis of the Rising Costs of Public ,Education." A Study Paper #1, Submitted to Joint Economic Committee, 86th Congress 1st Session. washington: Government Printing Office, 1959. Johns, R. J. and E. E. Morphet (eds.). Problems gag Issues ' ional i P b ic School Finance. New York. Nat anfgrince of Professors of Educational Administra- tion, 1952. 100 Krech, givid agdSRighird S.hC§utchfield. Theogy fipg_§fip- ems p_, oc a eye 0 ogy. New Yor : c raw- 11 530E Company, Inc., 191 . Krull, R. Pratt, Jr. "Public Understanding and School Quality." Unpublished Doctor's project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956. Labedz, Nicholas J. "An Analysis of Scholars' Criticism of Public Education." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1957. Mort, Paul R. and Francis G. Cornell. Aperican Schools 15 ngnsition. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1911. . Francis G. Cornell and Norman Hinton. What Should Our Schools 292 New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1938. . and Francis G. Cornell. A Guide for Self- Appraisal pf School Systems. New York: IBureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1937. . William 3. Vincent, and Clarence A. Newell. The Growipg E e. New York: Metropolitan School StudyCounci , eachers College, Columbia University, 1916. . and William 8. Vincent. Introduction to American Education. New York: Mo raw-Hill '61? Company, Ihc., 1951. . and Truman M. Pierce. A Time Scale for Measurin the Adaptability pf SEhool Systems. New Yorh: -The Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1917. McClellan, George B. "The Relationship of Factors In the Organizational Pattern of School Systems and Adaptability." Unpublished Doctor's project, Columbia University, 1952. MeNemar, Quinn. Ps cholo ical Statistics. New York: r- John Wiley and Sons, Ihc., I955. Nelson Lester W. "Effective Teaching or Else." Speech ’before the meeting of the Southern Wisconsin Educa- , tion Association, Madison, Wisconsin, February 17. 1961 . (Mimeographed . ) lOl . "How small Schools Can Get The Kind of Help They Need." Panel discussion before the meeting of the American Assoc1ation cf School Administrators, San Francisco, California, February 28, 1961. (Mimeographed.) National Educational Policies Commission. Ag Essay on ualit Ip_Public Education. Washington: NatIEnal ucation Association,1959. National Education Association, Research Division. "Better Schools Cost Mere." Research Bulletin, XXXVII (April, National Education Association, Research Division. "Small-« Sample Technigues." Research Bulletin, XXXVIII (December, 19 0), 99-101. Reeder, Edwin H. "The Quarrel Between Professors of Aca- demic Subjects and Professors of Education: An Analysis." American Association of University Professors Bulletin, XXXVII (Autumn, 1951), 506-521. Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. The Pursuit pf Excellence-- - Education and the Future piquerica. Special Studies ReportT-No. 5. New Yorh: Doubleday and Company, 1958. Rudman, Herbert C. "The Relationship Between the Financial Support of Education and Quality of Educational Program as Expressed by Certain Related Variables." Unpublished report, Nfichigan State University, East Lansing, 1961. Stouffer, Samuel A., Louis Guttman, pp. al. "Measurement and Prediction." Studies ip’PsychEIogy pp W0rld War II. Vol. IV Princeton: Princeton University PFEsET 1950, pp. 16-59o St. John, Kenneth D. "A Plan For the Improvement of Educational Programs and Services of the Hubbard Exempted Village Schools, Hubbard Township, Trumbull County, Ohio." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Univer- sity of Pittsburg, Pittsburg, 1960. Thom son Rudo h V. County, Cit Egg Other Superintendents. p United gtates 0 ce 0 Edhcation, Education Directory of the Office of Education Part II. washington: Government Printing Office, 1961. 102 Thurstone, L. L. "A Law of Com rative Judgment." Psychological Review. IV (1927), pp. 273-286. Attit d andcfii J. Cha;;. 2%; Measurement pf u e. cago: e Un versity of Chicago Press, I929. Trow, William C. "Professional Education and the Disci- plines: An Open Letter to Professor Bestor." Scientific Monthly, LXXVI (March, 1953). pp. 119-152. Trump Lloyd. Images pf the Future. washington: National ’ Associat on of Sechhdary-School Principals, 1959. Walling, Donald W. ‘A Study pf Public Opinion About Schoolg. New Yerk: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. Wilcox, Glade W. "Development of Criteria For the Evalua- tion of Local Programs of Trade and Industrial Education." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Indiana, Bloomington, 1956. Wilkins, Theresa Birch, Accredited Higher Institutions. United States Office of Education, hhlletin I960, Vol. XXIV washington: Government Printing Office, 1960. . Higher Education. United States Office of Education, ucation Directory of the Office of Education Part III washington: Government Printing Office, 1960. APPENDIX A QUALITY OF EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE JIM) QUALITY OF EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE Name 2. State Please check one of the following categories which best describes your present position: (l) Professor of Education (assistant, associate) (2) Professor in an area other than Education (assistant, associate) (3) School Board Member School Board Members only....Number of students served by the school district (Please check one). (I) less than 1,499 (2) 1,500 2,999 (3) 3.000 5.999 (A) 6,000 - 9.999 (5) I0,000 - I9,999 (6) 20,000 and over Desire abstract of the results. DIRECTIONS: Listed below are 90 factors. Please place an "X” on the number under the statement which best des- cribes your attitude or perception of the factor as it related to the quality of an educational pro- gram. Do not be concerned with whether the factor positively or negatively affects quality. Affects Affects Does not Factor Quality Quality Affect Directly Indirectly QMaI'tY 5. Level of academic achieve- I 2 3 ment actually attained by Student 6. Extent of educational services I 2 3 offered (e.g., guidance, hot lunch, supervision) 7. School Leaver rate (drOp-out l 2 3 and transfer) 8. Teachers' qualifications (educ- l 2 3 ation) 9. Teachers' qualifications (certi- l 2 3 fication) l0. Variety of course offerings l 2 3 ll. Degree of pupil planning in l 2 3 classrooms 12. Degree of pupil participation l 2 3 in classrooms I3. Evidence of experimentation l 2 3 (search for improvement of methods and materials by school staff) l4. Percent of experienced teachers I 2 3 in system IS. Qualifications of administra- l 2 3 tive staff (education) l6. Qualifications of administra- l 2 3 tive staff (certification) '7- Level and type of patron (those l 2 3 residents of a school district without school age children) and parent education JLOS Affects Affects Does not Factor Quality Quality Affect Directly Indirectly Quality_ l8. Value lag (what's taught in l 2 3 the schools vs what's prac- ticed in the community) l9. Value of education as per- I 2 3 ceived by parents and patrons 20. Knowledgeability about educ- l 2 3 ation (parents and patrons) 2l. Occupational status of I 2 3 parents and patrons 22. Length of school year I 2 3 23. Attitude of pupils toward l 2 3 scholastic work 24. COOperation among teachers I 2 3 25. Physical facilities of school system (building and equipment) I 2 3 26. Accreditation of school pro- l 2 3 gram (regional and state) 27. Degree of homework assigned 1 2 3 to students 28. Degree of pupil planning in l 2 3 all-school activities 29. Degree of pupil participation l 2 3 in all-school activities 30. Extent of explicit and de- l 2 3 tailed regulations govern- ing student conduct 3'. Pupil-teacher ratio I 2 3 32. Degree of freedom teachers I 2 3 have to teach what they con- sider to be Important 33. Degree of teacher partici- l 2 3 pation in social and poli- tical activities of commu- nity Affects Affects Does not Factor Quality Quality Affect Directly, Indirectly Quality 34. Extent of teachers' know- I 2 3 ledge of children 35. Degree of variety of l 2 3 instructional techniques used in classroom 36. Types and variety of instru- l 2 3 ctional materials available to teachers 37. Use of community for l 2 3 instructional purposes 38. Student's knowledge of l 2 3 self 39. Student's knowledge of I 2 3 educational and social Opportunities #0. Organization of educational I 2 3 program Al. Availability of cultural l 2 3 experiences in the community #2. Social status of teachers I 2 3 in the community #3. Degree to which teacher's l 2 3 judgments are used in the determination of educational policies #4. Extent of explicit and l 2 3 detailed regulations ~ governing personnel policies “5. Types of books purchased 1 2 3 and magazines subscribed to by parents and patrons of the community 106 #6. ‘l7. #8. 49. 50. 52. 53. 5h. 55. 56. Factor Degree to which professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service education (activities to increase the professional competence of staff members) The degree to which citizens are organized to discuss school problems Type of and sc0pe of educa- tional testing program available in the schools Extent to which school facil- ities are used for general community activities Degree to which the educa- tional program of the school reflects the aSpira- tions of parents for their children Qualifications of guidance and personnel services staff Attitudes of teachers, administrators, parents and patrons of the com- munity toward contemporary social and political issues IQ's of pupils enrolled in schools Degree to which teaching practices reflect a con- cern for and a knowledge of individual differences Type of professional help available to teachers (educational consultants, clinics) Degree to which teachers avail themseives of professional help Affects Quality Directly l Affects Quality Indirectly 2 Does not Affect Quality 3 57. 58. 59. 60. 6I. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. 68. Affects Factor Quality _erectly Degree to which lay members i of the community are in- volved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff Percentage of school gra- l duates engaged in post- secondary education Percentage of school gra- l duates who continue their education at the college or university level Degree to which the American I value system is taught or discussed in school Degree to which pupils value i academic activities more than sports activities Degree to which patrons and I parents value academic activities more than Sports activities Percentage of electorate I voting in school elections Presence of outstanding com- I munity leaders who exhibit great interest in school affairs Perceptions of purposes of l education on parts of patrons and parents in the community Degree of interest of local l newspaper in local school affairs Degree of freedom granted to l students to investigate any local, state, national or international issue Degree of stability of resudence in community Affects Quality indi rectll 2 Does not Affect Quality 3 11?? Affects Affects Does not ”5'0" Qua! ity Quality Affect Directly Indirectlyg Quality 59. Availability to students of l 2 3 materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of view 70. Degree of ethnic, racial and l 2 3 religious homogeneity of local population 7i. Pupil concern for aesthetic I 2 3 and artistic interests 72. Nature of school's expecta- l 2 3 tions of children 73. Community concern for l 2 3 aesthetic and artistic interests 74. The extent to which two-way l 2 3 communication exists between the home and the school 75. Type and extensivenss of l 2 3 home libraries 76. Percentage of high school I 2 3 students that own personal cars 77. Types of programs watched l 2 3 on home television sets 78. Parents' expectations of l 2 3 children concerning family chores 79. Parents' expectations of l 2 3 their children's social and dating behavior 80. Percentage of homes owning l 2 3 television sets 81. Emphasis of physical educa- l 2 3 tion program in the school. recreational or athletic 82. Degree to which school and l 2 3 community library is used by pupils Affects Affects Does not Factor Quality Quality Affect Directly Indirectly Quality 83. Type of p0pulation center i 2 3 (rural, urban or metropolitan) 8“. Level of educational achieve- I 2 3 ment held as norm by teachers and administrators 85. Level of educational achieve- I 2 3 ment held as norm by parents and patrons in the community 86. Level of educational achieve- l 2 3 ment held as norm by pupils in the community 87. Ethnic distribution of total I 2 3 pOpulation 88. Religious distribution of l 2 3 total population 89. Racial distribution of total I 2 3 population 90. Degree to which information I 2 3 gathered on child is under- stood and used by the teacher 9i. Degree to which teachers I 2 3 perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to curricular program 92. Degree of consensus among the l 2 3 staffs of the schools con- cerning the goals of the educational program 93. Degree to which a structure I 2 3 has been deveIOped that permits continual curriculum improve- ment 94. Degree to which outside groups, I 2 3 e.g., American Legion, Unions, Chamber of ComErce, Citizens Committee, permeates the content of the educational program APPENDIX B CATEGORIES AND THE FACTORS IN EACH CATEGORY 109 The following factors were included in the question- naire and classified in seven categories. Factor numbers indicate position in the questionnaire. Category I. Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes. 5. 7. 23. 38. 39. 53. 58. 59. 61. 71. 84. 85. 86. 18. 19. 20. 52. 62. 63. 64. 65. Level of academic achievement actually attained by student School leaver rate (drop-out and transfer) Attitude of pupils toward scholastic work Student's knowledge of self Student's knowledge of educational and social opportunities IQ's of pupils enrolled in schools Percentage of school graduates engaged in post- secondary education Percentage of school graduates who continue their education at the college or university level Degree to which pupils value academic activities more than sports activities Pupil concern for aesthetic and artistic interests Level of educational achievement held as norm by teachers and administrators Level of educational achievement held as norm by parents and patrons in the community Level of educational achievement held as norm by pupils in the community Category II. Community Attitudes Value lag (what's taught in the schools vs. what's practiced in the community) Value of education as perceived by parents and patrons Knowled eability about education (parents and patrons Attitudes of teachers, administrators, parents, and patrons of the community toward contemporary social and political issues Degree to which patrons and parents value aca- demic activities more than sports activities Percentage of electorate voting in school elections Presence of outstanding community leaders who exhibit great interest in school affairs Perceptions of purposes of education on parts of patrons and parents in the community 66. 73. 7A. 78. 79- 6. 10. 36. 40. #8. 50. 72. 81. 91. 92. 93. 94- 25- A9. 82. 110 Degree of interest of local newspaper in local school affairs Community concern for aesthetic and artistic interests The extent to which two-way communication exists between the home and the school Parents' expectations of children concerning family chores Parents' eXpectations of their children's social and dating behavior Category III. Curriculum Extent of educational services offered (ggg., guidance, hot lunch, supervision) Variety of courses Types and variety of instructional materials available to teachers Organization of educational program Type of and scope of educational testing pro- gram available in the schools Degree to which the educational program of the school reflects the aSpirations of parents for their children Nature of school's expectations of children Emphasis of physical education program in the school recreational or athletic Degree to which teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to curricular program Degree of consensus among the staffs of the schools concerning the goals of the educational program Degree to which a structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improvement Degree to which outside groups, ggg., American Legion, Unions, Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Committee, permeates the content of the educational program Category IV. Use of Facilities Physical facilities of school system (building and equipment) Extent to which school facilities are used for general community activities Degree to which school and community library is used by pupils 111 Category V. Socio-cultural Composition of Community 17- 21. 41. 42. 45. 68. 70. 75. 76. 77. 80. 83. 87. 88. 89. Level and type of patron (those residents of a school district without school age children) and parent education Occupational status of parents and patrons Availability of cultural experiences in the community Social status of teachers in the community Types of books purchased and magazines sub- scribed to by parents and patrons of the community Degree of stability of residence in community Degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homo- geneity of local population Type and extensiveness of home libraries Percentage of high school students that own personal cars Types of programs watched on home television sets Percentage of homes owning television sets Type of population center (rural, urban, or metropolitan) Ethnic distribution of total population Religious distribution of total population Racial distribution of total population Category VI. Administration and Supervision 15. 16. 22. 26. 30. 31. #3- #4. 46. L7. 51. Qualifications of administrative staff (educa- tion Qualifications of administrative staff (certifi- cation) Length of school year Accreditation of school program (regional and state) Extent of explicit and detailed regulations governing student conduct Pupil-teacher ratio Degree to which teacher's judgments are used in the determination of educational policies Extent of explicit and detailed regulations governing personnel policies Degree to which professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service education (activities to increase the professional competence of staff members) The degree to which citizens are organized to discuss school problems Qualifications of guidance and personnel ser- vices staff 55. 57. 112 Type of professional help available to teachers (educational consultants, clinics) Degree to which lay members of the community are involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff Category VII. The Teacher and Teaching Methods 1h. 2A. 27. 28. 29. 32. 33. 3h. 35. 37. 54. 56. 60. 67. 69. 90. Teachers' qualifications (education) Teachers' qualifications (certification) Degree of pupil planning in classrooms Degree of pupil participation in classrooms Evidence of experimentation (search for improve- ment of methods and materials by school staff) Per cent of experienced teachers in system Cooperation among teachers Degree of homework assigned to students Degree of pupil planning in all-school activities ‘ Degree of pupil participation in all-school activities Degree of freedom teachers have to teach what they consider to be important Degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of community Extent of teachers' knowledge of children Degree of variety of instructional techniques used in classroom Use of community for instructional purposes Degree to which teaching practices reflect a concern for and a knowledge of individual differences Degree to which teachers avail themselves of pro- fessional help Degree to which the American value system is taught or discussed in school Degree of freedom granted to students to investigate any local, state, national,or international issue Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociologi- cal points of view Degree to which information gathered on child is understood and used by the teacher APPENDIX C LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENT 111i: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF EDUCATION The College of Education, Michigan State University is conducting several national studies concerned with the identification and measurement of quality in an educational program. The purpose of this study is to identify those factors which directly affect the quality of an education program, and those that indirectly affect quality. From this data items may be developed for inclusion into an instrument which will attempt to measure the quality of an educational program. The school board members of your district are to be included in this study. Would you be good enough -to send us the names and addresses of each of your board members? In order to begin this study promptly we would like to have your list of names and addresses by September 1 , 1961 . We would sincerely appreciate this extra professional task that we are asking you to perform. We would be delighted to send you an abstract of the results if you would so indicate to us on your enclosed list. Cordially yours , Herbert C. Rudman Associate Professor HCR/bc APPENDIX D LETTER SENT TO PROFESSORS AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS 116 DAICIIICLADJ STYVTE IJDLFVEIISLTY'BMHIANmNG COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS September 19, 1961 Dr. Lelwyn C. Breen Assistant Professor of Education University of Alaska College, Alaska Dear Dr. Breen: The enclosed questionnaire is one of several studies being conducted in the College of Education, Michigan State University, concerned with the identi- fication and measurement of quality in an educational program. The purpose of this study is to identify those factors which directly affect the quality of an educational program, and those that indirectly affect quality. From this data items may be developed for inclusion into an instrument which will attempt to measure the quality of an educational program. The ninety factors that you will be asked to review were selected from an original set of four hundred items. These ninety represent a refinement of many more items less explicit and/or repetitive. You represent one of three types of populations that are being sampled on a national basis. I h0pe, sincerely, that you will contribute to this study. The questionnaire has been completed in about thirty minutes in earlier trials, although, of course, you may take as much time as you wish. In order to complete this study on schedule, would you please return the questionnaire by October a, 1961? A stamped, self-addressed envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. A short abstract of the results will be sent to each respondent upon request. Cordially yours, /I’ f 1 (I; /‘4 'I 1" ,-' vies (iwiflfimel;.l Herbert CIIRudman Associate Professor HCR/ar Enclosure APPENDIX E CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR INDIVIDUAL FACTORS IN REGIONS I, II, III,AND IV o¢.a u no. mw.s.-m mHnoeuomhm Has: one no uncommon no homosvonh it h anoApomhn Ham: on» udeuo< ii huHHnsv goofing pom neon ii an a genome one on AcHHess museums AHeoosHeaH i- aH . mmavcoanon nomads he covwbHu hocccwenm in Auwaesv museums hapoehwn ii <9 m A an wm An Hm HHH ‘ MH 0H Hm am we as HH 1 *m~.A m n An He co co H pmthcmec ceases Ho ApoHseA .OH _ m m mm om mm mm HHH Hm AH mm on He mm HH xeoHeeeHHHesocv **AA.AH A m on as an om H peoHeecHHHHesu .pneneeca .o o o e e em mm HHH o o H H mm AA HH *OA.H o o m m AA AOH H .ecHeeesecv eecHeeoHHHHesv .mtegeeoe .m mm mm Hm Am Hm om mH HHH 1. mm AH on as «N AH HH Anonpcetu use *OA.~ 0H AH An me AN mm H esciaceev cease soseeH Hccncm .A e e as He Hm es HHH AcerHsecase .EecsH om eH me He .mN mm . HH pee .eceeeHew ..m.e. assumes ecoo.- e m em an we as H eeeHscce HeeOHeecsec me access .6 HH 0H AH AH 0A we HHH _ H H eH MH mm so HH access» Ac eccHepee AHHesece ee~.m m m AH AH om mm H acescscane eHsceeee no Hesse .m ennsmm Has a A a A a A cacao Apnoea E [EWII (HI (Inn whooomu home 5 Auneonunozv newsman dwancowu H: on» Mo coHuaoonod nHono H coumom cH HHH new .HH .H masonu each on» wchmep nocam> ohmsunuHso 119 moHpmosce peeked AH AH AA HA 0N 4N HHH use .eeeeHHac eweiHecnce seesaw: HH A mm As HA 4N HH ucHeeuHe Hocnep e no epeoeHect *AA.o m A As SA AN AN H emcee. seeped mo cAA» use HcscH .AH 0H A A4 AA A: A4 HHH mm ON 44 mm an em HH AmoapmonHuhoov Human eeHA.NN A 4 NA em As we H cAHeesppHcHaee Ho eecHeeeHHHeeo .eH H H 4H AH Am «A HHH e A aA AN Ac oA HH AeoHceesee. weep» ecHA.AH o 0 0H AH em NA H eeHeenpeHeHsee no eccHeeeHuHHesa .AH A A mH 0H AA NA HHH o 0 ma NH mm mm HH Sepmhm cw tom.A N A AN AN AA om H meaneecp eeeethche mo enceeom .AH .Aeepe N N AA 0A As An HHH Hoocce Ac mHeHeepcs use escapes m 4 mm mm 00 we HH Ho ucoso>onaew now season. «Ae.e H H AN NA AA AA H :cheeccsHteAxe no ecceeesm .AH A A om wH AA no HHH b A 0A 4N so HA HH toe.m H H AN AN eA em H coHceAHcHepeA HHAsA He acumen .NH oH A 4A 0A em oA HHH HN 0H 04 HA AA oA HH eacoseeeHe «*eA.A w A Ne es 0A 4A H an weHeceHa HHAsA no acumen .HH Ohms—mm «so A m R A R A Asoka homomm 35 £8 Lfi pH HA AH NH AA HA NA AN HHH A e No AA AA eN HH .eeoaAHsAo eee mcHeHHsc. aceeAm eteA.HH N N AA AA AA Ne H Hopsce Ac cheHHHceA HeeHeAnA .AN A A HA AN co co HHH A e AA AA AA AA HH eeNo.eH H H AN 0A NA AA H nuances» wecee eoHeeAcAcco .AN H H SH AH AA AA HHH H H A A 0A NA HH nee: eHuaaHonou eAN.N H H w A HA ooH H cease» eHHasA Ac eeseHeee .AN on AA AA AA AN HN HHH eN HN AA HA AA AN HH eHA.A AA AA AA AA AN AN H tecA Hocnee Ac newsoH .NN NN oN AA AA AN AN HHH Mw A A HA on on NA HH ecoseeA use 1. eeHA.eH m A AA eA AN AN H enactea me access HeecHeeaseco .HN A A Ne AA A: As HHH m 0 A4 Am m4 mm HH Ammonpsm use numencm coHpno *AA.H e e A: AA AA oA H -seo ences AcHHHcec eeHzan .oN A A AA AA AA NA HHH a A mm 0m mm A4 HH mconpna can unsound An emH.A N N oA oe No we H eesHececa me ecHeecsee Ho esHe> .AH mH 0H mm we AN 0N HHH AApchaaoo on» :H A A 0A oe He Nm HH vooHposnm n.0nn3 .m> nHoonom on» eeoe.HH A A NA AA A4 As H eH pence» e.gensv meH esHe> .AH mama—mm Ii Hso A A A A A A cacao cceoeA eccHeeco lumw AH .Amwii AA AA AA AA AH AH HHH . AuHcsESoo mo AN NN AA AA oH A HH mmHuH>Hpom HAoHpHHoA can HaHoom =H *NA.A AN AN AA 0A A A H :OprAHothAa honouap Ho Acumen .AA A A AA AA AA AA HHH unauhonaH an on nouHuaoo o 0 AH AH Hm Ac HH Aug» wag: scoop on ova: Aumnowon *AAA.AH A A NN AN AA NA H Auosoaop aouoouu no ooumoa .NA A A AH AH NA AA HHH H H HN AH AA No HH «AA.A H H AN oA NA AA H oHpau uoaomounHHAsN .HA m A AA AA AA 0A HHH _ unaccoo 0N 0H 00 AA oN AH HH accuse» wchpo>om AcOHpAHsmoh «AAA.AH AN AN AA AA AN HA H AoHHuooA AAA AHOHHAxo go unauxm .0A a AH AH AA AA AA HA HHH 1. NH 0H AA AA AA AN HH noHuH>HpoA HoononuHHA uH *HA.A OH OH AA AA NA AA H coHpAAHoHAunA HHasA no acumen .AN AH AH AA HA AN AN HHH AH AH AA AA AN HN HH noHuH>HpoA HoosouuHHa AAA.A AH HH AA AA AA AA H AH AcHacmHA HE:A no oopmon .AN AH NH AA AA AA 0A HHH A A AN NN AA AA HH Auaousuu op AAAA.AA AN HA AA AA AN oA H cocAHmma xuozoaos mo gunman .AN AH NH AA AA AA AA HHH 0H A AA AA AA AN HH Aouwpn unm Hu:0Hmouv AAA.N A A HA AA HA AA H amumoua Hoonon no noHuauHAvoUA .AN onwnum Hno a A a A A A Asoka panama moamwumo, “Hamil AH An 122 0H A AA HA AA NA HHH . o A AA AA AA AA HH AuHcsaaoo may :H noocoH *AAA.AN o A AA NA AA AA H -uoaxa HanspHsu no AAAHHAAHHA>< .HA A A 0N AH AA AA HHH A A NA 0N A0 HA HH Sanmoua *AN.A o o AN AN AA AA H HmcoHquauo no :oHAANHnmwpo .AA A A AA AA oA AA HHH AoHpHnspquAo H H AA AA 0A 0A HH HmHooA cam HanoHqu AAA.A A A AA NA AA AA H -AA» mo oAuonocx ”.AAAAAAA .AA AH AH AA AA AA AA HHH A N AA AA AA NA HH AAAA.AH A A AA AA HA AA H AHou mo oAuonoax A.u:musum .AA HA AN AA AA HN AH HHH AH AH AA NA AN NN HH nonoaaan HmcoHp «AAA.HA o A AA AA AA AA H -osgumcH you ApHcsaaoo no on: .AA A A AA AA AA NA HHH uuogowc» op A A AA HA AA AA HH oHAmHAm>A AHAHuopms HaaoHp AAA.A H H AA AA AA AA H -oaupmcfl no ApoHum> cam AoAAA .AA A A NA 0A 0A AA HHH aoounano A A AA AA AA AA HH cH com: mmstnsoo» HaaoHp AAAA.AH H H AN AN AA AA H -oapumaH no Apofiua> no ooumoa .AA N N AN AN AA AA HHH N N AA AN AA NA HH couvHHso mo AAAA.AN o o A A AA AAH H AAAAHzocx .Auoaoaou Ho Acopxm .AA «gunmm HAO A A A A A A guano uopoum co: «AAA r. ill-ll, A A AA HA AA AA HHH AHoonoA on» AH NH 0A 0A AA AN HH cH oHnAHHA>A BANAONQ wcHunup *«AA.AH N N HA AA AA NA H HaaoHAAosAo Mo oaoom can no «AAA .AA 0N AH NA AA AH AH HHH AaAHAona AN AH NA AA AH NH HH HOOSoA AAaoAHc op voanAmuo **ow.AH A A AA AA AH AH H AAA unoNHuHo noHsz op oohwav ans .AA aoHquzua A A AA 0A AA AA HHH oothomucH aH Ao>Ho>cH oHA A A AA AA AA AA HH aoanAm Hooson on» no Human *AAA.NH H H AN HA 0A AA H HmaoHnnomopA soHns op ooumoa .AA AuHcaaaoo a; A A AA HA AN AN HHH on» no Aaouuma Ana AugmuAm A; A A AA HA HA AN HH An op conHaomnsm AoaHumwms a. AAA.N N N HA AA AN oA H Asa Aommnousa mnoon mo AoAAH .AA NH HH NA AA AN AN HHH AoHoHHoA AH AH AA AA AN 0N HH Hancomhcn mctho>ow AcOHuAHaMOA «AA.A AH 0N AA NA AH AH H AoHHmuov can uHoHHaxo no vacuum .AA A 0 AA AA AA HA HHH AoHoHHoA HanoHpmosvo no :oHpAc o 0 HA NA AA AA HH -Hahopou on» :H AAA: cum npnAa AAA.A o 0 HA AA AA AA H -AAAn A.uonomop AOHns o» oouwoa .AA AN AN AA NA AN AN HHH . A A AA AA AA HA HH Apchaaoo an» **NA.AN A A AA AA AN AN H :H Anonomoa no Acumen HAHoom .NA mpmzum Hno R A a m A A nacho houomh umcHApno JLBm» \mMWI‘ <9 124 m m mm mm mm Hm HHH .noHaHHo .upnapHnuaoo o m mm 5H mm mm HH HaaoHpaosuov nuosoaop on .Haa *Hmo.oH o o mH «H No me H -HH«>H “Hos HuaonaoHoua Ho «HHH .mm mooaoAOMHHu H m mm om mm mm HHH HuzuH>HccH Ho omuquoaa a ucm H m cm Hm om om HH Hon chooaoo a poonoh nooHpomnn «*Hm.m~ o o m w mm «OH H maHnomoH :oHs: op ooumon .Hm NH HH 0H NH «H mm HHH m N am 0H mm «o HH aHoonom **m~.m~ NH mH Hm mm Hm om H cH uwHHouao HHHgsa Ho n.oH .mm ”manna HonuHHoa can HmHoon hhwhoaaou om Hm Hm mH mm Hm HHH .:00 unmzop Hqunasoo on» no HH 9 om mm mm Hm HH acoupaa cam .mucouaq .nuopaupm «amo.m~ m m No we mm.« mm H -HcHaua .maoaoao» Ho nonaHHHHH .mm H H «m om Hm no HHH HH 0 mH mm HH mm HH HHHHm mooH>umn Hoacomuoq new «*m0.m~ o 0 NH oH mm Ho H oocmuHaw Ho ncoHHHOHHHHmso .Hm couvHHso uHanp HH 0H 0H mm 0H mH HHH you nucmumg Ho mcoHHHpHamm map ma mH Hm NH mm HN HH muomammu Hoonom onu mo adamana HHOH.wH m m mm mm mm mm H HanoHpmosco an» HOng o» acumen .Om Ho om mm mm m m HHH moHpH>HHoa um m4 mm mm m 0 HH zpwnsasoo Hmuccom you vows and «mo.H 0H Hm 0H Hm m m H naHpHHHoaH Hoonom HoHs: op vacuum .mH ohaaam Hao R m w H u H Huang souowm voaHapno an aH Hg 41' 125 0H 0 mm mm mm Hm HHH noHpH>Hpom apnea» gang ouoa N m mm om mo mm HH noapwbwuow unsavmom usaab npaouwa «*mm.m N a HH mH mm mm H new «Hogan; Host on ooumoa .NH 0H 0 mm on mm mm HHH noHpraaom mphoan H H m~ o~ Hm mm HH can» egos moHuH>Huom oHaouaom *Hmo.mH m m Hm mm Ho cm H osHm> nHHasa HOHH: op oaumoq .H@ mm mm 0H «H mm mm HHH Hoonou nH Hm mH om HH ow mH HH vmmnaonHu no unwaap ”H aopmmu HmH.m mH oH mH mm mm OH H osHu> caoHuuaH on» noHH: op ooumoa .00 HH mH mH mH mm Hm HHH HcpoH HHHnuo>Ha= go omoHHoo can om 0H 0H om Hm Hm HH Hm coHpaozco uHonp oanucoo cg: .Hmm.H 0H 5H mm mm Hm Hm H nopwsuauw Hoogo» Ho unaccooaom .mm mm mm MH 0H mm mm HHH nowucosvo HN mH mm HH Hm oH HH Hgmuaoowm-umoq «H vowquo *mm.H ma Hm mm mm mm mm H mopwavmum Hoonon Ho owduaoouom .mm Human Hoonon on» And: mm Hm mm oH Hm mm HHH «Haow HmcoHuuosuo Ho mchaqu om 0H 00 wH om 0H HH on» cH uo>Ho>:H wan upwqaaaoo on» *mH.m NH mH mm mm HH mH H Ho ”panama HHH HOHHz op ooumon .mm m m Hm mm Ho mm HHH m H mH mm mH mm HH aHo: HmcoHnnuHoua Ho nopHcmaoHH *Hmm.mH o o om mm om mm H HHm>m numsomau HOHH: op ooumoa .em auqaam «no a m a m R m @5090 houomm umcHappo z a «a g 126 do zme mo mpnuoa Huowmoa OH OH Om ON mN HHH -oHoou OOH HHOHHHHOO Ho among» 0 m mH Om OH Om HH HHH HOOHHou page nHwHuouua *HNO.mN H H mm mm me OH H H0 mucousum OH HHHHHOHHHH>< .OO mH HH Hm cm Hm wN HHH O O OH mH Hm mN HH muHasaaoo :H cocoa *Oo.m O m Om mm HH OH H -Hmmu Ho HHHHHOHHO Ho omuwon .OO osmmw Hmaowumc mH NH mm Om Nm ON HHH -LOHOH no .HmcoHpma .auaun .HHOOH OH O mH Om mH Om HH mew cummHHmo>cH o» upcouspm «*NO.HH H m NH OH Hm Om H on Ompcmum aouomum Ho oouwoo .mo OH OH mm Nm mm mm HHH muHmmmw HH HH mo Nm OH mH HH Hoonon HNOOH OH nonmanzo: *mN.m OH HH Hm mm OH HN H HNOOH Ho pmuumpaH Ho oouwoa .OO NH OH NH mH Om mm HHH muHcsaaoo OH» :H mucouma OH O Om mH Hm mN HH OOH Occupaa Ho magma co aOHpmu *HNm.mH m m Nm mm mH OH H uaum Ho monoapsa Ho OOOHHOmouom .mO NH HH Nm OH Om mm HHH ogHmHHm Hoonom :H HmouopaH NH OH OO OH ON NN HH ammum HHOano on: muaOOOH «00.0 H m He no mm mm H upwcdsaoo wcHucmpmpao Ho mozmnuum .Ho HH OH HH OH NH HH HHH OH Hm mH mm mH OH HH m:OHHOOHo Hoonom OH **NO.mH NN HN NO mm HH NH H mcHHo> «HHHOHOOHo Ho owmpcoouom .mO . ommzmm HHO m H a O a H anuO panama uoanpOO 127 ON OH mm OH ON mN HHH OH mH mm HH ON mN HH upon :OHnH>0Hou «so: HOO.H OH HH HO OO ON Nm H so cannon: maaumoua Ho OOOOH .OO ON HN mm Om HH Om HHH ON mN HH mm Om HN HH OOOO HOOOOOOO :30 pas» macaw «OH.H Om mm NH OH ON Hm H uapn Hoonom OOH: Ho ammuzoouom .OO O O OH Om Nm OH HHH H H mH Hm Om mH HH Omahwhnwa *OH.O H H OH mm Hm Om H ago: No unocopHuaopxo can OOOH .mO m m Om mm Om Hm HHH Hoonom an» cam uses on» O m mm HH Om Hm HH amospon manxo OOHOOOHnsaaoo *OOm.OH H H Hm Om OH mm H Omz-o3» OOHsz on pnouxo one .HO mN HN NO Om mH HH HHH O O mO Nm ON HN HH OOOOOOOOH OHOOHOLO Oaw *HOO.NN m m mO mO NN HN H OHOOOOOOO OOH Ouoocoo Oansaaoo .mO O O ON mN OO Om HHH H H ON NN HO Om HH copOHHOo Ho *O0.0 N N NN HN OO HO H OCOHHOHOOQXO O.Hoonom Mo ohzowz .NO mN HN OH mH ON ON HHH O O Om Hm Nm NH HH OHOOOOHOH OHHOHOOO can **OO.mN H H Om mm OH Hm H OHOOHOOOO OOH gumozoo HHOOO .HO mm Om Nm OH mH HH HHH OOHOOHOOOO HOOOH 0N HN OH OH OH Ha HH «0 OpHocmwoaon OsonHHoh «Nm.m Om mm OH Hm HN ON H cam .HOHOOO .OHOOOO Ho OOOOOO .OO mmhgdm Hno R m a m R m macho Hannah wwOHOHHO [lgfir. OH HO 128 O O Om OH mH OH HHH OuHasasoo on» OH Ozouaaa H m OH Om Om OH HH Oaw ”panama On anon aw OHOO *O0.0 H H Om NO mH OH H pawao>OHnoa HOOOHOOOOOO Ho Ho>OH .mO H H mN HN mO OO HHH uuoumuuanHaOO H H mH OH OO OO HH Ono muogOOOO On ago: ma OHo: *«HH.HH O O ON ON HO HO H pcoao>0Hnom HOOOprosuo Ho HO>OH .HO Nm Om OH HH ON OH HHH OH mH Hm mH Om HN HH HOOHHHOOouHoa no .OOOHO *OOm.OH OH OH Om HO ON Hm H .Hmusuv nopaoo OOHOOHOOOO Ho OOOH .mO H H ON ON OO HO HHH OHHOOO H H mN OH OO HO HH OO no»: OH OOOOOHH OOHasaaoo *Oo.m H H OH HN OO OO H Ocm H8O...O OOng O» ooumon .NO ON OH OH NH mm Om HHH OHOOHOOO no HOOOH» NH 0H Om HH mm ON HH nachoonncHoonon an» a« BOAOOhA *mH.m O OH Om HO mm Om H OOHOOosuo HOOHOOOO Ho OHOOHOaH .HO HH OH OH NH OH O HHH Hm ON mH Om HN OH HH mama OOHOHOOHOO *HOO.OH Nm mm Om mO O OH H Ocano moses Ho Ommpcoouom .OO HH OH Om mm ON ON HHH poH>mnon ON OH Hm HH ON mN HH OOHOOO new HOHOOO O.OOOOHHOO OOH.O HH NH HO OO OH ON H OHOHO Ho OOOHHOOOOONO .OOOOOOO .OO ON ON Hm OH ON OH HHH ON HN mm NH HN OH HH mogono OHHaOH OOHOOOopoo nouOHHOo *HN.N mN mN HO OO OH OH H mo OOOHHOOOOOxO .OOOOOOO .OO 9H gum J Ono R h R h macho R m f Hopomm 1; BOHOOAO N N HN NN HO OO HHH HOOOHpOonoo on» Ho OHOOO as» NH 0H Om om Om 0H HH waHahooaoo OHoonon on» no uumapm **NH.NN H H ON Nm HO OO H on» macaw usmcomcoo Oo OOOOOO .NO awumoua H H NN ON OO HO HHH OOHOOHOOOO op onspoapum Ocean O m HH Hm 0O Om HH -thooo cam unchmnoo O obHao *OHN.HN O O ON Nm HO OO H -uoa muonoaop OOHOx op oouwon .HO H H Om Hm NO Om HHH panama» an» OO can: Oca O O O Hm mN OO OH HH Oooumuouna OH OHHHO co OOOOHOOO **Nm.ON O O OH OH HO NO H OOHumauomcH OOHHO o» oaamon .OO w mm Hm Nm ON mH NH HHH 1. Om Hm mH Om OH mH HH OOHOOHOOOO *H0.0 Om NH OH Nm mH OH H HOOOO mo OOHOOOHOOOHO HOHOOO .OO HO Om ON ON HH OH HHH OH Om NH Hm OH O HH OOHOOHOOOO Hugo» *OO.H Om mm HH mH O OH H H0 OOHOOOHOOOHO ”OOHOHHOO .OO HH Om OH NH NH HH HHH Hm ON Om OH HH O HH :OHHOHnnoq *mN.N Hm Om Hm Om NH mH H HOOOO no OOHOOOHOOOHO OHOOOO .OO O O HH Om Nm OH HHH thcsaaoo on» N N ON mN OO mm HH cH OHHOSO On anon Ow OHO: oaoa *OOH.OH H H Om mm OO OO H uo>OHHoO HOOOHpOosOo Ho HOOOH .OO .OOOAOW HsO O O O O O O Osouo OOOOOO 130 .swpwoum HOQOHpOonum an» no pcopcoo an» Omuwoapma .ooupmfifioo NN ON mm Hm mN HN HHH OOONHOHO .oopmasoo Ho nonammp wH mH Hm OH mm ON HH .OOOHOO .OOHOOH OOOHuoaH .. .o *HO.m H mH Hm Om mm Om H .OOOOOO OOHOOOO OOan op OOOOOO .HO N N HH mH HO OO HHH pcoam>ouaaH aszOHhuao Hmschcoo H m Hm ON NO OH HH OHHELOQ swap OOOOHO>OO coon *Om0.0H o 0 HH OH OO mO H mm: ohauoaupm O :Oan o» omuwwa .mO mummmm Hno O m R b O m Ozone houoah mocHOOOO up OH HO OH.O u mo.mwo.H I MU OHOonpomOn HHzn man co m an ** omnonmwh Ho houwsvopm I: h OHmonuonOa HHH: on» unoOOO In * OOHHmsa 9009mm no: moon it an nouomm on» on OHHHOaO mucouum OHuooAHuaH :1 nH mauuconnou amass: On OOOHOHO OoaodOon nu O OHHHOSO Ouoommm OHuoohHa an «a O O Om Om HO NO HHH NH NH mm mm mm Hm HH *NO.m m O Om Om mO HO H ”OOHHOHHO omasoo Ho OOOHOOO .OH OH OH ON ON HO mO HHH ON ON Om Om HH HH HH AGOHHOOHHthmoV *OHm.OH O O mH Om OH HO H maoHOOOHHHHOOO .nuonoaoa .O H H H H mO OO HHH H H m m OO OO HH A:OHHOoavov *HO.H O O N m OO ONH H oonOOOHmHHOOO .muosomoa .O 1. ON ON OH OH mN mN HHH a, HN HN Hm Nm mN mN HH HOOOOOOOO cum .1 *OO.m OH ON mm OO Hm OH H u:o-gouu. camp OOOOOH Hoonom .O m m mH mH Nm mm HHH HOOHOHOOOOOO .noczH mH HH mO HO HN HN HH OOH .mocmuHsm ..O.uv OOOOHHO *OOO.ON H N Om HO HH Nm H OOOHOOOO HOOOHOOosOo Ho unopxm .O O O mH mH HO OO HHH N N HH HH HO OO HH OOOOOOO OO OOOHOOOO OHHOOOOO pave *HO.H H m OH HN OO OO H -OOOHHOO OHaoumoO Ho Ho>OH .m GAS—mm «:0 R m R m R m macho Manama mmawmpmm mm mm mm “H E Ouououm OpoaH: on» Ho cOHuaooHoa uwogo :H .HOOOOOO Oppoz. HH OOHOOO OH HHH Ocm .HH .H OOOOOO coozuon aHnn:0HoaHou on» wcHummp OOSHwb ouOSOOIHzo 132 :OHpOoaOo pamgmn cam AuanOHHno mww Hoonon ozoanz HOHMHOHO Hoozom O Ho OuamOHmcH ouonuv :ouuwm Mo anOu Oaw Ho>oq .OH .OOHOOOHOHOOOOO Human O>HOOOHOHOH3OO Ho O=OHOOOHHHHOOO .OH AGOHumosvov mmwpn 0>HuwupchHeOO mo unoHoOOHHHHmso .OH BouOOO cw Onmnowop Ooocmemaxo mo unmoucm .HH HHHOHO Hoonom On OHOHHOHOE cam Ocospoa no pam80>ouaaw pom nohmomv :oHuOvcoEHpcaxa Mo monouH>m .mH . OBooanOHo aH COHanHoHuHOa HHQsO Ho acumen .NH anouOmOHo qH wchcmHa HHmsq Ho mauwma .HH OH OH OO OO HH HH HHH HH HH OO OO HO HO HH *OOO.mH O HH OO OO Nm HH H 0H 0H HH HH OH OH HHH HN HN HO NO ON ON HH **HO.HN O OH OO OO mm mH H N N HN HN HO OO HHH m m mm Hm HO OO HH *O0.0 o o HN Hm OO OO H m O OH OH HO NO HHH o 0 ON HN ow MO HH **o0.0H N N Om OH HO CO H m m ON ON OO OO HHH m m ON ON OO HO HH *OH.N N N Hm OH HO mO H m m OH OH OO OO HHH H H Hm Nm OO OO HH **ON.HH H H OH HN mm OOH H O O NH NH mO NO HHH ON ON OH OH mm Hm HH **OH.OH O NH Om OH mO OO H OuOsmO Hno R O O m R m nacho houowm E ‘Jh H H HO OO NH NH HHH O O HO OO OH OH HH .pnaeaHsOo and maHOHHzn. sameo *O0.0 H H OO OO OH 0O H Hoogon Ho OOHOHHHoOO HOoHuOHO .ON 0 0 ON ON oO HO HHH m m 0H HH OO OO HH OOOO.OH H H ON HO HO OO H muonomop macaw coHpmpoaooo .HN O O O O OO OO HHH o o O O OO OO HH Hue: oHuOOHonom *OO.O H H O O OO ONH H chase» mHHOaO Ho mOsOHOHH .ON On On ON ON Om Om HHH ON ON Om OO Om Om HH *OOo.NH OH HN Om HH OH OO H OOOO Hoonom «0 HOOOOH .NN .1 HN HN OO OO ON ON HHH nu O O OO 0O ON ON HH mnoupmn vnm **H0.OH O NH OO OO OH NH H OOOOOOO no magma» HaaoHmesooo .HN N N , NO mO OH OH HHH H H NO HO HH OH HH Ancouuwa cam mucoumOv OOH.O H H OO HO NH OO H OOHpOoscm OsoOO OOHHHOOOOOOHzogH .ON H H OH OH HO NO HHH O O O NH mH NO HO HH mcoupma vam mpcmpmm On *O0.0 H H OH 0O OO OO H Oo>HOoumO mm coHOOosca Ho osHOO .OH 0H OH HO HO Om Om HHH HOOHcsaaoo as» O O OO OO Om Om HH :H OmoHpomua n.9mn3 m> mHoosom *OO.N O O OH HO OH OO H as» :H unmsmu m.pmnz. OOH msHOO .OH oumnum I: Hno O O O O O O Osage OoHomO nmmmmmupo .hzn OH Hp ON ON OO HO 0N oN HHH OpHcsaaoo no OOH» HO OO OO OO HH NH HH -HpHpoO HOOHOHHoO Ocm HOHuou cH *OOO.ON O oH HO OO OH ON H :oHOmOHoHpOOO panama» no acumen .OO O O OO OO OO 0O HHH paupuoOaH on n O O OH oN OO HO HH o» nouHmnoo Oona OOH: new.» 0» O OOH.O H O ON OO OO HO H o>mn «panama» aouooum mo acumen .NO 4 N N HN HN HO OO HHH H H OH OH HO HO HH ONO.O H H ON OO HO OO H oHpmu posommuuHHOOO .HO HH HH OH OH OO OO HHH posvcoo ON ON OO OO ON HN HH Osmuapm Ocano>oO maoHomHamou w *No.O HN ON NO OO ON OO H OOHHOOOO cam OHOHHOxO no Onooxm .oO .4 OH OH OO OO HO HO HHH OH OH OH OO OO ON ON HH OOHOH>HOOO HoononuHHO OOH.O O HH oO OO NH HO H :H aoHpOOHOHOuOO HHOsO mo oauwon .ON OH OH OO OO NO NO HHH OH OH OO 0O NN ON HH OOHOHOHOOO Hoonom-HHm «ONO.0H O O OO OO OO OH H OH OancmHO HHO5O mo amuwmn .ON OH OH OO OO HH HH HHH HH HH ON GO 0O NO HH uuaovapm *OHN.HH OH ON OH 0O OO OH H on OOOOHOOO xgozmaog no mauwoa .ON OH OH HH OH HH HH HHH 0H 0H OO OO OO OO HH %opapm gum Haaonopv swam *OHN.HH O O OO OO ON mm H non Hoonom Mo :oHpmaHuchoo< .ON ohmsam Hno O O O O O O Ozouo Oopoum .oaHOu.. ,. O .. 3f 135 «*O0.0 *00.0 *OH.O **H0.0H «*Om.HH *OOO.HH *«mm.NN *ONO.HN (NO HON NNQ N“ N Flt-i HHO Ohm HNN Mom N OO OO ON OH OH OO HH OH 0O OO HN Om O HO OH ON O OO OO HHH HH NH HH OH HO H OO 0O HHH OO OO HH HO HO H OH OH HHH HH NH HH NH HO H HH OH HHH NH NH HH OO OO H OO OO HHH OH OH HH OO OO H HO HO HHH HO OO HH HO NO H OO OO HHH 0O 0O HH OO OO H OO HO HHH NO HO HH HO NNH H OoHnsaBoo on» :H noo:OH nuoaxo HanauHso mo OpHHHOOHHw>< BOOOOHQ choHumosua Ho coHuwaHadwuo nopraau change HwHoom Onw HOflOHuwo navu Mo owvoHsonx m.u:oc:pm MHOO mo OOOOHsocx m.puovaum monomuaq HOQOH» sosupmcH Lou Opanaaoo mo on: navaowop op oHOwHHO>O meHpouma HOGOHH unsupmcH mo OumHuab can Omaha uaoounano :H can: noannsoop HOQOH» noshpmuH mo OuoHum> Mo acumen cmnOHHno mo omvazocx .mhonowwu Ho paopxm .HH .OH .Om .Om .OO .Om .Hm ioumamm R en oaomm a: O» o a . H O OH OH OH OH HHH . mHoonon _ O O HO OO OO OO HH on» :O OHOOHHO>O aOOOoOO Ochmop _ *OOO.OH o o OH OO OO HO H HmaoHOOosuo Oo onoom new Oo oOOH .OH OH OH HO OO ON ON HHH mamHOoua OH OH NO OO OH OH HH Hoonom unsonHO 0» OouHaaOOo *OH.O O O OO OO OH HN H oOO OzoOHpHo noan on ooOOoO one .OH Amuvnaoa Human mo oonouoaaoo Hanonmom noun on» ommouocw op moHpH>HpoOv N N NO NO OO OO HHH coHumosOo OOH>OonuqH OH Oo>Ho>cH O O OH NH OO OO HH OOH aOOOOm Hoonom on» H0 OOOOO *mO.N m H Nm HH OO OO H HmaonmouoOa nons op ouumoa .OH ,0 Opanaaoo a; O O OO OO OO OO HHH «HO «0 OOoOOmO Oam OOOOOOO 1. O O OO NO OO OO HH On op OOOHOonnzm mocHOOOOa *NN.H O O NO HO NO NH H cam Oommnousa mOooO Ho OOOOO .OH ON ON HO NO ON ON HHH OOHoHHoa Henson ON ON OO OO ON ON HH -OOO wanuo>oO mcoHuOHsOou *OO.H OH NN OO OO HN HO H OOHHOOOO new OHOHHOxo Oo vacuum .HH 0 o OO OO NH HH HHH OOHOHHoO HaaoHOOoauo Oo aoHpOOHa o 0 OH OH MO oO HH thou-O on» :H van: mum Opamawvan «oO.N o 0 0O HO oO HO H O.Oonomop OOHOO op acumen .OH HN HN NO OO HN HN HHH O O mO OO Om Om HH OpHcsa600 on» OOOH.ON O H OO OO ON OO H :H muonomop Oo «sump» HOHooO .NH OOOOOO Hgo O O O O O O Osouo OouoOO OocHOpno zmaw OH HO N N OH OH NO OO HHH .moHaHHo .npnwuHsuaoo oH OH NO HO OO OO HH HacoHpmosuo. muogomou op oHOa *OOO.OH H H OH NO HO OO H -HHOOO OHon HmcowmmoOoOO Oo oOOO .OO moocmuomuHO N N ON ON OO 0O HHH HascHOHvaH mo omOononx m H H ON ON NO MO HH UGO MOM Shoodoo m woOHHOH mmoau *OOo.ON o o O O OO HNH H -oaOO wcHsoaop OOHOO op ooumon .HO ON ON OO OO OH OH HHH H H HN ON NO OO HH mHoonou *OOH.OH HH OH ON NO HO OO H :O OoHHoan OHOOsO Ho m.OH .OO . moumnH‘ HmoHpHHoO cam HmHoom Oumuoaaop HH HH HO NO ON ON HHH -coo cumsou OuHcsaaou on» me O O HO mO 0m Hm HH mcoupma vcm mucouaa .muopmhun w” *O0.0 OH OH OH OO OO OH H -HcHaOa .mponomop mo mouspHpuO .NO 1 N N OO OO 0O HO HHH HH HH OH OH HH NH HH Human mooH>Oom Hocnonnoa *Ooo.OH N N OO HO OO OO H cam oocOOOsm Oo mcoHpaoHOHHmso .HO coOOHHno OHosu OH OH OO OO ON ON HHH you mucohma mo m:0pruHamw on» OH OH HO 0O 0O HO HH muoaHOoO Hoogom on» no smpmoOO *iHm.HH O O OO OO Om OH H HmcoHumozco 0:» down: 0» ooumoa .OO OO OO OO OO O O HHH moHOHOHpom OpHnsaaoo OO OO 0H HH O O HH Hmuocmw 90% tom: ohm mqu *H0.0 OH OO OH OO 0H NH H -OHHOOO Hoonom nngz Op unouxm .OH oumnam «HO O O O O O O OsoOO OoOoOO OoaHOOOo 2a aH Ha nowud> O O OO OO OO OO HHH -Huom apnea» can» egos moHuHO O O Om HH mO OO HH -Huoa UHSoOuom usHm> mucouma *OO.N O O OH OO OH mO H van unoppdn 50Hs3 on owhwca .NO O O ON ON OO OO .HHH moHpH>Hpom mupoam O O ON HN HO HO HH can» once uoHOHOHuoa oHaoana OOo.H O O OO OH oO OO H oaHOO mHHOnO OoHns op cognac .HO OH OH HO oO HO HO HHH Hoogom cO common ON oO OH OH NN NN HH -OHO no pnmsmu OH acumOm .OHOO *OOO.NH NH OH OO HO HO OH H conOoEH on» Ooan o» ooumoa .OO Ho>oH ON ON HH OH HO HO HHH OuHmOo>Hcs no omoHHoo ms» nu OH OH OH OH OO OO HH :oHpmosuo uHonp cacOpcoo on: m” *OO.N OH HN 0O OO HO OH H mvasumum Hoogom Ho owmpcoouom .OO 1.. On OO HH HH OH OH HHH :OHpmosOo ON ON OH OH ON ON HH Opancooomnpmoa cH cowamco *O0.0 0O OO OH HO NN ON H Oopmsumum Hoonou «0 owmpaooOoO .OO OOOOO Hooao» on» OOH: OH OH 0O HO HN HN HHH ”Hmom HanoHOwoscm Ho waHnaaHO NN NN OO HO OH OH HH on» cH coOHoOOH OOO OaHnuaaoo on» OOOO.OH HH HH OO OO HH OH H «o mOoOsua OOH OOHOO op ooumon .OO N N OO OO OO HO HHH OH oH OH OH OH OH HH OHoO HmconnoOoOO no mo>HonaoOp *OOO.ON o 0 HO OH OO 0O H HHOOO muonomou HOHOO on acumen .OO oumaum III Han O O O O Ra O Ozone honowm Q vocfimuno an 30H> Mo mucHoa HMOHMOH OH OH OH OH NH NH HHH -OHoom Oca HOOHOHHoO no mucus» O O OH HH OO OO HH HHO pooHOoO OOH» OHOHOoan *OOH.OH O H NH HO OO NO H mo mucouspm on OOHHHOOHHOOH .OO OH OH OH OH OH OH HHH O O OH 0O OH OH HH OpanesOo :H 00:06 *HH.O O O OO OO Om OH H -Hmwu no OuHHHOOpm mo oOOmoa .OO 09mmH O OH OH OH OH OO OO HHH HwaoprcOoch Oo HmcoHpO: .opuum O O HH NH OO HO HH . .HOUOH Ocm OOOOHpmoOOH op macaw *OOH.ON H O OO HO OO HO H -OO» op OOOOOOO aoOcoOO Oo ooOOoO .OO a OH OH OH OO OO ON ON HHH OOHOOOO 1. ON HN OO HO ON HN HH Hoosom HOOOH :H OOOmOmzo: *OH.O O OH OO HO NN ON H HmooH Oo pmauoch mo ooOwoO .OO NH NH HO HO HO HO HHH OOHcsssoo map OH OOOOOOO O O OO NO Om Om HH Ocm Occupma Mo magma :o aoHpOo OOON.NH N N HO HO HO HH H -OO» O0 momoOOOO Oo mcoHpOooOuO .OO O O OO OO Om OO HHH OOHOOOO Hoonom :H an» HH HH OO OO ON OO HH -OoucH OOoOO OHOano on: mOoOOoH *OO.N O O HO OO NO HH H Oqusssoo OOHOOOOOOOO mo cocomoOO .HO OO OO OO OO OH OH HHH OH HH OO HO OH OH HH mcoOuooHo Hoosom :O *O0.0 ON OO OO OO HH OH H Oano> omeoOOOHo Oo .OmpcooOoO .OO oumzum 41 HOO O O O O O O OsoOO OouumO mochuODO an DH HQ v|L|I|v OH OH OH HH NH NH HHH OH HH OO NO OO OO HH upon :onHOOHoO «so: *OOO.OH OH OH HO HO HN ON H so Oogoamz OaOOOoOO Oo noOOO .OO ON ON OO oO OH OH HHH ON ON OO OO OH OH HH OOOo HacomOoO use page macaw OOOO.HH HN OO OO HO ON OO H 1:0» Hoosom OOH; Oo owmpaouOoO .OO O O NH NH_ OO HO HHH N N OO HH OO HO HH OOOOOOOOH *HO.N H O OH OO OO. OO H oaon Oo OOOOOOOOOOOOo Ocm oOOO .OO HH HH HH HH OH OH HHH Hooaom an» Haw uses on» O O OH OH OH OH HH cmmzpun muona :oOOOOanaaoo *OH.O N O OH OO OO HO H Omz1osp OoOO: op pcopxo one .HO OH OH OO OO ON ON HHH mw OH OH 00 N0 Om Hm HH mummhovcH Odpmwvhm UGO 1. OOH.H O O NO HO HO OH H OHOoOOOoO OoO cumocou OpHasaaoO .OO O O NO NO OO OO HHH O O HO OO OO OO HH OOOOHOOo Oo OOOH.OO H H OH OH OO NHH H maoOpmpooOxm O.Hoozom Ho unaumz .NO OH OH OO HO HO HO HHH O O OO OO NH OH HH OOOOOOOOH OHOOHOOO cam *OOO.O O O HH OO OO OO H owuonpmom OoO aOmocoo HHOOO .HO ON ON Om Om HO HO HHH GOHpOHsnoO ON ON HO NO HN ON HH HmooH Oo Opflmcomoaon msoHOHHOO *OO.H ON OO OH OO ON 1NO H new .HOOOOO .OHazpo Oo omOOOO .OO 111oummum Hno .HO .OH O OH O .m 9.5.5 .Houomh mochOmo mm OH HO 1km; NH NH OH OH OH OH HHH OOHOOaaoo OOH OH mOoOOOO OOO O O OH OO OH OH HH npOoOOO OO OOOO OO OHOO uOoa OOO.H H O OO HO OH OO H 1o>oHOoO HOOoHOOoOOo Ho HOOOH .OO O O HN HN OO HO HHH , mOouOOumHOHOOO OOH O O OH OH HO OO HH OOoOoOoO OO OOoO Om OHOO pOoO OOO.O O H ON OO HO OO H 1o>mHOoO HOOoHOOoOOo Ho Ho>oH .HO NO NO OH HH ON ON HHH ON ON OH OH HO NO HH .OOOHHoOoOOoa Oo OOOOO .HOOOO. *NO.O ON OO OO OO OH ON H OouOuo OoHOOHOOoO Ho «OOO .OO N N OH OH OO OO HHH OHHOOO H H OH OH NO OO HH On Own: OH OOOOOHH.OOHOOaaoo *OO.H O H ON HO HO NO H OOO HooOom OOH:3 op oOOOoO .NO 1 HH HH NO NO HO HO HHH 03023 .3 HOOOHH .4 O O OH OH HH OH HH -OopooO .Hoonom mg» OH OOOOoOO 1. *OH.O NH OH OO OO HO OH H OoHuOoOOO HOonOOO Oo OHOOOOOO .HO OO OO OH OH OH OH HHH HO NO HO OO OH OH HH OHOO OoHnH>onp OOH.O ON HO OO OO HH OH H OOHOzo mmOoO Ho OOOHOooOmO .OO HH HH OH OH Om OO HHH O0H>O£on HH HH HO OO ON ON HH OOHOOO OOO HOHoom O.OOOOHHOo *ONH.OH OH ON HO HO OH ON H OHoOO Ho nOoHOOOOOOxo .mpOoOOO .OO ON ON OH OH ON ON HHH 1 OH OH O OO ON ON HH monono OHHSOH mchhoonoo OOOOHHno *OH.O HN ON NO HO OH OH H Ho OOoHOOHOOOxo .OOOOOOO .OO «OOH—dd HOO O O O O O O OOoOO OoHoOO OomHOmOO zO OH . BOAMOOQ HmcoHpmosuo on» no OHmom on» O O HN HN OO OO HHH O m Om Om On On HH wdficuoocou «Hoonon on» he mummy» *«OO.HH H H ON OO NO OO H on» Ocean nnmcomcoo no acumen .NO . EOANOhQ N N HO HO OO OO HHH OOHOOHOOOO op ousaosuum OOOOO m m mm Om NO OO HH navhooo cam unchonoo a obwmo *H0.0 H H NN ON .OO OOH H uuoO nuonomou OOHO: o» acumen .HO O O OO OO OO HO HHH genome» on» OO Om»: Oca H H OO OO OO NO HH OOOOOOOOOO OH OHHOO co Oouonpmm *OOO.OH O O NN ON OO NOH H OOHOOEOOOOH OOHO: op oouOOO .OO “4 OH OO OH OH OH OH HHH .4 OH #4 OH O4 HO HO HH cowuwasaoa 1. *HO.H OO OH OO OO OH OH H HOOOO Ho OOHOOOHOOOHO HOHOOO .OO HO OO OO OO O O HHH OO OO OO OO O O HH OOHOOHOOOO Hana» *O0.0 OH NO OH OO O O H mo OOHOOOHOOOHO OOOHOHHoO .OO OO OO OO OH OH OH HHH Om Om .OH HO mH ma HH cowpwaaqoa OOO.H NO NH OO HO OH OH H HOOOO Oo OOHOOOHOOOHO OHOOOO .OO O O HO HO OO OO HHH OOchssoo on» O O ON ON OO NO HH cw OHHOOO OO anon OO OHOO Ones *Oa.¢ m 4 mm Om OO 0O H nobmanom Hmcowpmosvo Ho H0>va .OO oumzum HOO O O O O O O OOOOO nonomm IOOOHOOOO 2O.:, OH HO 1&3 aOuwonm HOGOHpmosvo 03» Mo vamp unoo on» mwpmmahom .ooupwaaoo mN ON HO NO ON ON HHH chquHo .uohmaaoo mo nunam OH OH NO HO NO OO HH .OOOHOO .OOHOOH OOOHOosO ..m.o *OOO.O O NH HO OO ON HO H .OOOOOO OOHOOOO OOHO: op OOAOOO .HO N N OH OH 0O HO HHH pcoao>ouaaH SSHOOHAOSO HmacHu H 0 ON ON NO OO HH ncoo OuHauom pan» OoOOH0>ou comp *No.m H H ON ON OO moH H mm: opsposupm a gown: on acumen .mO oumdmm «:0 O m R b O m nacho houomm vochano 29 OH .nwHO Ooamddaum nu O OOHHOSO mpoomuw OHpooOHo In «a O O NN HN OO OO HHH O O OO OO OO HO HH OOHO.OH N H OO OH OO NO H ”OOHOOOOO OmOOoo Ho OOOHOOO .OH OH OH ON ON HO NO HHH OH OH NH OH OH HH HH AOOHOOOHOHOOOOV OOOOWOH O H OO OH OO OO H OOOHOOOHHHHOOO .OOOOOOOO .O o o H H OO OO HHH H H O O HO HO HH .OoHOOoOOoO «OO.O O O N O OO ONH H OOOHOOOHHHHOOO .OOOOOOOO .O .4 ON HN OH OO HO NO HHH Om NN HN OO NO ON NN HH AOOOOOOOO OOO *OOO.OH OH NH OO OO HO NH H OOo-OOOOO OOOO OO>OOH HOOOOO .O H H HO OO OO OO HHH OOOHOH>OOOOO .OOOOH O O OH HO OO HO HH OoO .OoOOOHOO ..O.m. OoOoOOo OOHO.ON H H HO OO OH OO H OOOH>OOO HOOOHOOOOOO Oo OOopxm .O O O ON HN OO OO HHH H H OH OH 0O OO HH pnmvzpm On OoaHmppm OHstpom *ON.O N O OH OH OO HOH H OOOOO>OHO0O OHOOOOoO mo Ho>OH .O oumaam HOO O O O O O O OOOOO OopoOO WOOHOOOO OO.}, jymm. .HO 1: muouowm OOOOH: may mo :0Hunoohma nHonp OH .OOOOO. HHH OOHOOO OH HHH OOO .HH .H OOOoOO coazumn OHSOGOHHOHOO one mchmop mosz> onwzumano lh5 OOHuwosco unauqn NH NH OO mO mN NN HHH .ch AcoavHHno owd Hoosom puoanz HH HH 0O OO ON ON HH pOHOunHO HoosOm a Mo mpamOHnoh OHH.O O OH OO HO OO HH H OnoOOO OOOOOO Ho OOOO OOO Ho>oH .OH OH OH OH OO OH OH HHH OH OH OO OO ON ON HH .OOHOOOHOHOOoo. HHOOO OOOO.ON H O OH OO OO NO H OOHOOOOOHOHOOO mo nOOHOOOHOHHOOO .OH N N OH OH HO OO . HHH O O NO HO OO HO HH OOOHOOoOOo. HOOOO OOOO.HH O O HN ON OO OO H opHOOOOOHOHaOO Oo OOOHOOOHOHHOOO .OH H H HH HH OO NO HHH O O OH OH HO HO HH OOOOOO OH *OOH.HN H O HO OH NO OO H OOOOOOOO OooOoHOOOxO Oo OO00OOO .HH AHHOOO N N OO OO NO OO HHH Hoonon OO OHOHOOOOO OOO OOoOOoO H H mm Hm HO OO HH Mo pcmsw>0haaH you gunman. «OO.N H N NO OH OO HO H OOHOOOOoOHOOOxO Ho OoOOOH>O .OH O O ON ON OO OO HHH H H HN ON NO OO HH maooummOHo OH ONO.O N N OH ON OO HOH H OOHOOOHOHOOOO HHOOO Oo OOOOOO .NH HH OH HO OO OO OO HHH OH HH OH OH OO OO HH naooummmHo *OOH.OH H O OO OH OO OO H OH OOHOOOHO HHOOO Ho OOOOOO .HH ohmmmO LI, 1: HOO O O O O O O OOOOO OOOOOO mOOHOOOO 2O OO[, «O 146 O O OH NH NO OO HHH O O OO HO OO OO HH AOOOOOHOOO OOO OOHOHHOOV OOOOOO OOOO.O O O HO OO OH OO H HOOOOO HO OOHOHHHOOH HOOHOOOO .ON O O NH NH OO NO HHH H H OO OO OO HO HH *OHO.OH H H OH ON HO NOH H OOOOOOOO OOOOO OOHHOOOOOOO .HN O O OH OH HO HO HHH H H m O HO mm HH ago: OHHOwHonom *OOO.HH O O O O OO OHH H OOOOOO OHHOOO no OOOOHOOH .ON ON ON ON NN HO OH HHH OH OH OO OO OH OH HH *OO.O OH OH OO OH OH HO H OOOO HOOOOm mo OOOOOH .NN OH OH HO OO ON NN HHH NH HH OO OO ON ON HH OOOOOOO OOO ONO.N OH OH NO OO ON OO H OOOOOOO Ho OOOOOO HOOOHOOOOOOO .HN O O NO oO OH OH HHH m O OO NO HH mm HH Annouuma vam upcouma. *OO.H N N OO OO OH HO H OOprosOO OOOOO OOHHHOOOOOOHOOOO .ON O O NO OO OH HH HHH H H MO HO OH NH HH Ocouoma van Ouamuwa On OOO.H N N OH HO OO OO H OO>HO0OOO OO OOHpmosOO HO OOHOO .OH O O OO OO ON ON HHH AOOHOOOOOO OOH OH OH O OO OO Om Nm HH OOOHuomuq m.um:3 O> mHoonom can *OOH.OH O O OH OO HO OO H OH OOOOOH O.OOO2. OOH OOHO> .OH oumzmm HOO O O O O O O OOOOO OOOOOO vmchoQo 2Q QH <0 147 HN ON 00 OO OH OH HHH OOHOsaaoo mo ON NN NO OO OH HH HH OOHOH>HOoO HOOHOHHOO OOO HOHOOO OH OOOO.HH O NH OO OO OH OH H OOHuOOHOHpuOO nosowOO mo oouwoa .OO H O HN HO OO OO HHH OOOOOOOOH an H N OH ON OO .OO HH on OOOHOOOO OOOO OOO: Ouwou on «*HO.NH N H OO NO OO OO H o>OO OOoOoOOO OOOOOOO mo OOOOOO .NO N N NH NH OO HO HHH H H ON OH OO OO HH ONH.O H H ON OO OO HO H OHOOO OOOoOOO-HHOOO .HO O O NO CO CH Om HHH poavcoo OH OH 00 OO NN HN HH pcovspm wchno>oO OOOHustme *OHH.HH HN ON OO NO NN ON H OOHHOOOO OOO OHOHHOxo no pOopr .OO O O OO OO OO OO HHH O O OO OO HO OO HH OOHOH>HOOO HOOOOO-HHO OH *OOH.OH O O OO OH OO OO H OOHOOOHOHOOOO HHOOO Ho OOOOOO .ON HH OH HH NH OH OH HHH OH OH OO OO ON ON HH OOHOH>HO0O HOOOomnHHO OOOO.OH O O HO HO OH HO H OH OOHOOOHO HHOOO OO OOOOOO .ON NH HH OO NO OO OO HHH O O HO Om OO OO HH Opcmusum *OHH.OH HN ON OH OO OO OH H on OOOOHOOO xOozosOO Ho OOOOOO .ON NH HH OH OO OH OH HHH O O OO OO HO OO HH AOOOOO OOO HOOOHOOO. OOH.O O O OO NO OO OH H OOOOOOO HOOOOm Oo OOHOOOHOOOOOH .ON ohmsum HOO O O O O O O OOOOO OOOOOO OOOHOOOO 2O OH HO O O NO HO NH HH HHH O O OH HH NO OO HH OOHOOOOOO OOO OH mooOOHOOOxO *O0.0 O O OH OO OO OO H HOOOOHOO Oo OOHHHOOHHO>H .HH O O OH OH HO OO HHH H H mm NO OO HO HH EOOOOOA *OOO.OH O O OO HH OO NO H HOOOHpmosuo Oo OOHOOOHOOOOO .OH H H HO NO NH HH HHH OOHOHOOO OH OH HO OH ON Om HH unoamo HmHooO can HOOOpro OOOO.HH N N OH OO OO OO H -OO» O0 OOOOHOOOH n.OOOOOOO .OO OH OH OH OO OH OH HHH O O OH HH OH OH HH *OOO.OH N O OO OH HO OO H OHOO Oo OOOOHOOOO O.OOOOO»O .OO HO OH OH OO OO ON ON HHH O; OH OH OO OO NO HO HH OOOOOOOO HOOOHO *OOH.ON O O OO OH OO HO H toshpmcH OOH Oanzsaoo mo an: .Om H H ON ON NO HO HHH OOOOOOOO H H HH OH OO OO HH op OHOOHHO>O OHOHOOOOO HOOOHO OOOH.OH O 0 ON NO OO HO H soOOpOOH Oo OOOHOO> OOO OOOOO .OO H H ON ON OO OO HHH sooummeo O O OO OO OO HO HH OH OOOO OOOOHOOOOO HOOOHO *OOH.OH O O ON ON OO OO H -OOOOOOH Ho OOOHOOO Ho OOOOOO .OO H H OH OH OO OO HHH ‘ N N ON ON HO OO HH OOOOHHno mo *OOO.HH o 0 HH HH OO NHH H OOOOHzoOx .Ouonomoo mo ucopxm .HO mnwnum I. L: .I HOO O O O O O O OOOOO OOOOOO U"WWGHMMMO an QH «Q h. Ii llllllhl 149 O O NH HH HO oO HHH OHoonom O O OO HO HH 0H HH on» OH @HanHO>O aahmoun wdeOOp *O0.0 N N NO OO OH OO H HOOOHOmoOOo Oo OOOOO OOO Ho OOOO .OH O O OO OO ON ON HHH mOOHOOOO HOOOOn 0H OH HO OO OH OH HH OnzuuHu on cauHOmwOo opw OOH.H_ O O OO OO ON OO H OOOOHOHO OOHO: op OOOOOO OOO .OH Anyonaoa «Oman Ho oocmuomaoo HOOOHOOOM noun 0:» ommouocH on mmHuH>Hpomv N N HN HN OO OO HHH OOHuwono 00H>OomncH OH O0>Ho>aH m O On On OO OO HH ohm aopmhm Hoonom an» no Human OHH.O H H ON OO OO OO H HOOOHOOOOOOO OOHO: OH OOOOOO .OH Oqusaaoo O O HO OO ON ON HHH on» Mo ncopuma cam upcouaa HH HH HO NO OO HO HH OO O» OOOHOOOOOO OOOHOOOOO *H0.0 H O OO OO ON OO H OOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOO Oo OOOOO .OH OH OH OO OO ON ON HHH OOHOHHOO ON HN OO HO OH OH HH Hoccomhoa wchOo>om mcoHuMHzmuh *OO0.0 NH OH HO OO OH NN H coHHmpuu can pHoHHaxm Ho pampxm .HH OOHOHHOQ \o 0 OO NO HH 0H HHH HOGOHpOosuo mo OOHuwcHaumuwv o 0 HH OO OO OO HH as» OH van: Ohm Opamamvsn *H0.0 o 0 OO OH NO OO H O.Ownomvp nOHn3 op ooumon .OH 0H 0H OO HO HN ON HHH OH OH OO OO HO OO HH OOHOOEOOO OOO OH *O0.0 O O OO 0O Hm mm H Oumnowmu mo Ospmum HOHoom .NH OOOJOO Lu Hno O O O O O O Ozone houomO mOchuno ‘29 .Jph[ «a O O Om Om OO OO HHH AOOHOHHO .OuzmaHsmaoo HmaoHpmo O O OO OH HH OH HH usuov muonomoo on «HOOHHO>O HM *HOH.OH H H OO OH OO OO H OHOO HOOOHOOOMOOO Ho mOOa .OO O mooOOOOOOHO HOOOH> I O O NN HN NO OO HHH uHOOH mo OOOOHzoOx m OOO you L H H OO ON OO OO HH OncoOoo a pomHmop OOOHOOOOO m *«O0.00 o o O O HO OHH H OaHsowop OOHOO op omummo .HO OH OH OO OO HO NO HHH O O ON ON OO HO HH mHoonom *OO.H NH OH Om HH OO OO H OH OOHHouca OHHOsO no O.OH .OO nonan HOOHpHHoa OOm HwHuom OOOOOO O O OO OO HO OO HHH nacuOoo Ouwxop OuHOOaaoo on» nu HH HH OO HO HO Om HH mo OOoOOOO OOO OOOOOOO .Ououmupu ”n HHH.H O O OO OO OH HO H -HOHOOO .Ouogowop no OOOOOHOOH .NO N N ON ON OO OO HHH O O OH OH OH HH HH OOOOO OOOH>Oom HoOOomOOO «*OO.OH N N HO Om OO OO H Ocm mocauHsO mo mcoHOOOHOHHaao .HO OOOOHHOO OHOOO O O OO NO Om HO HHH pom OHcOOOO no anHpmuHOOO on» OH OH \OO OO ON HN HH OHOOHOOO Hoosom on» no EOOOOOO *HHO.OH H O HO OO NO OH H HmOoHpmuOOw on» OOHO3 op OOOOOO .OO OH OH OH OH O O HHH OOHpH>Hpom OO OO OO OO H H HH OOHOOEEOO HOOOOOO OOH can: mum OOOH.HH HO OH OO OO O H H OOHHHHHOOO Hoonom OOHO: op pcopxm .OH OOOOMO HOO O O O O O O OOOOO uouumO OOOMOMmO} an OH. HO ON ON OO NO OH HH HHH OO NO OO OO O O HH nOoHOOOHu HooOom OH OOHO.OH ON ON OO OO ON ON H OOHHop opmpopoOHo no owmpsoonom .OO O O OO OO OO HO HHH OOHuH>HpoO Ochoa» can» once H H NO HO HO NO HH OOHOH>HOOO uHaavmom oOHwb nuOoOOO *ON.O H H NH OO OO NO H Oam Onouumq OoHHz 0» ooumon .NO O O ON ON OO OO HHH OOHquHuom apnea» O O HN ON HO NO HH Own» 0908 OOHOH>HOOO OHEOOOOO *OO.N O H ON OO HO OO H OsHa> OHHO=O Haas: op ouumon .HO OH OH OO OO ON ON HHH Hoonom OH Oommso OH HH OO HO ON ON HH -OHO no pawsap OH OOOOOO osHO> . *O0.0 O O OO OO OH OH H :OoHOoaH an» noHO: op mouwoa .OO ‘O OH OH OH OH Om HO HHH Ho>OH OOHOOO>HOO no OOOHHoo an» .9 OH OH OH HH OO HO HH 9O OoHuOoOOm OHOOO OOOHuOoo on: .; *OH.N OH HN OO OO ON Om H Omumscauw Hoogon mo ommpzooumm .OO ON ON OO HO OH OH HHH OOHuOoavo ON ON OH HH HN ON HH Oumucooomnumoa cH Oomamco #OH.N ON OO NO OO OH HN H mmumnumuw Hoonom mo mmmpOmoOOO .OO mama» Hoonom as» OOH: OH OH OO HO ON ON HHH mHmom HwOoHumuOOm mo MOHOOOHO OH OH OO OO OH OH HH OOu OH OO>HO>OH mum OOHOOESOO an» OOOH.NH O O HO HO ON ON H mo OOOOsoa OOH OOng op OOOOOO .OO N N OO ON OO OO HHH OHOO O O HO Om OO OO HH Hmcofimmomoaa mo OO>HOOOOOO *OHO.NH H H HN OO OO OO H HHO>O mOmOoOou OOan O» omumma ,.OO mammam HOO O O O O O O OOOOO OopoOO OOOHOOOOI‘ ‘29, pH KO ON NN HO OH ON ON HHH coHOOHOOoO OH OH OO OH OO Nm HH HOooH Ho OpHaauOoaon OOOHOHHOO *HH.m HN om HO OO ON Hm H OOO HOHoaa .OHOOOO no acumen .OO 30H» Mo OOOHOO HOOHOOH HH HH mO HO Om Om HHH -oHoom Haw HOOHHHHoO Oo mocmz» m O OH. Om OO OO HH HHO OOOHOOO pun» nHaHumpma *OOO.HH O O OO OH OO HO H O0 uncanny» op OOHHHOOHHO>< .OO O O OO HO HH OH HHH O O OO mO OO Om HH Oquaaaoo OH OOH.O N O OH OO OO mO H oonouHmmO mo OOHHHOOHO mo ooumon .OO OOOOH HOOOHOOOOOOOH .4 NN HN HH OH OO OO HHH no HOOOHOOO.OOOOO .HmooH nu O O OO Om NO OO HH OOO oquHpmo>nH op mucouapu *OOO.NN m H Om OH OO mO H on OOOOOOO aoOOOOO mo ooumon .OO OH OH HO HO ON NN HHH OOHOOOO OH OH NO OO OH OH HH Hoonom HaooH OH OOOOOOOO: *H0.0 H O NO OO HN OO H HOooH no OOOOOOOH mo OOOOOO .OO O O HO OO Hm mm HHH OpHassaoo on» :H mucoumn O O OO OO ON ON HH OOO OOOOOOO Mo manna Oo OOHOOO *O0.0 N O OO OO OH HO H IOOO no OOOOOOOO MO nOOHpOOoOOO .OO OH O OH HH OH HH HHH OOHOOOO HOOOOO OH OOOOOOOH ammuw O O OO OO ON HN HH OHOHOxo on: OOOOOOH OOHcsaaoo *OON.OH m O OO OO OO OH H OOHOcmpOpso mo monomoum .HO OOOOOO HOO O O O O O O OOOOO OopumO OoaHOpOO 2O OH «O ON NN 0O OO OH .OH HHH ON ON OO OO OH OH HH nogoso OHHaOO OzHauoocoo couu : *OO.H OH HN OO OO HN ON H . -HHOo mo anHpOHooaxo .mpcouwm .OO _ o o HO OO ON ON HHH M OH OH mO HO HO om HH upon aoHnH>oHou oaog «*HO.OH HH OH OO OO ON OO H no Oonopmz namuwonq no OOOOO .OO ON HN OO HO OH OO HHH ON. HN Om OO OO Om HH mama Haaonuoa :30 was» aacuc _ *HO.H Nm HH OH ‘ OO ON Om H -zpm Hoonom OOH: Oo owwucoouom .OO O O OH OH OH OH HHH . H H HO NO NH HH HH OOHOOOOHH use: _ *HO.O H H NH mO OO NO H «0 OOOOO>HOOOOxo cam «OOH .OO H H NH OH HO NO HHH HOOOOO «Op OOO use: an» O” O m NO OO OH OH HH amazuon Ouono aoHOOoHssaaoo 1. *OO.O H H Om OH NO OO H Omz-ozp OOan op pumpxa age .HO OH OH OO OO OH OH HHH O O OO NO \ ON On HH OHOOOOHOH OHOOHHOO cam *4HO.NH O O HO OO HO OH H OHOOOOOOO OOH OOOoOoo OOHOOEEOO .OO H H . ON ON OO OO HHH O O HN ON HO OO HH OOOOHHOO mo OOOHO *OO.O o O HN ON OO OOH H -mpuoaxm O.Hoonom mo «papa: .NO OH OH OO mO OH OH HHH , O O OH OH OH HH HH numououcH OHOOHOOO ch *ONO.OO m H OH HO HO OO H HHHOOHOOO OOO cgoocoo HHOOO .HO OOOOOO HHO O O O O O O. OzoOO OouomO OOHOOOO 154 O O HO OO OO HO HHH OuHaqasou O O ON ON OO OO HH on» cH OHHasO On anon OH OHoH *OO.N O O NO HH OO OO H pcoao>ngoO HOOoHpOosua Ho HOOOH .OO N O OO HO OH OH HHH OpHasaaoo can aH OnouHOO O O OO OO OO Om HH Ona OpaoumO On anon um OHon *HO.H O O OO HO HH NO H pamao>OHnoO Hanofipmosuo Ho Ho>OH .OO H H HN ON OO OO HHH OOoOOOOOHaHaOO Oam H H OH OH OO OO HH Ononommp On ago: On OHOH anon HOH.O N O OO HH OO NO H uo>OHnom HOcoHpOosOm mo Ho>oH .HO ON ON NH HH Hm OO HHH HN ON HO OH ON ON HH HOOOHHoOoppoa ho sang: .HOOOO. *OOO.HH OH OH HO OO HN ON H nouamo :oHOOHaOoO Ho OOOO .OO N N ON ON HO OO HHH OHHOsO H H OH OH NO OO HH On Own: OH OOOOOHH OOHanaaoo *OO.O O O HN ON OO OO H qu Hoogon HOng op moumon .NO OH OH OH OH Om Hm HHH OHOOHOOO go HOOoHOOouoou O O OH OH OH OH HH .Hoonom o p :H amumoua **OO.O O O OH OO OH OO H :oHpOosOo HOOHOOH Ho OHOOHOaO .HO OO OO OO OO HN ON HHH \ HO OO OH OH OH OH HH Opom cOHOH>OHOO *OOO.O ON ON OO OO OH NN H OcHszo Omson Oo oOOpnoouoO .OO OH OH OO OO NO HO HHH NH NH OO OO ON HN HH OOH>OHOO OOHOOO OOO HOHooO «OO.H HH OH OO OO ON Om H m.:OOOHHno Oo anHOOOOOOxo .mpcouOO .OO mummum 11 HHO O O O O O O anuO OopuOO OOOHOOOO zO OH HO . O O OH OH OO OO HHH pamao>oanH asH=OHuuso HOOOHH H H OH OH mO OO HH .:00 OOHaOOO page OOOoHo>cO coon *O0.0 O O HH HH OO NHH H OOH ousposuom O OOng op acumen, .OO adthhO H H 0N OH 0O OO HHH HOOOprosuo on» no meow Os» O O OO ON OO OO HH muchooqoo OHoonou on» Ho OHHOHO *O0.0 O O HN ON OO OO H on» Once» Osuzomaoo Ho coumoo .NO BOOMOOQ H H OH OH HO OO HHH OOHOOHOOOO on ouspoappm OOpOa O O OO ON OO OO HH -HOOOOO Ocm 9:090:00 a o>Hoo OOOO.HH O O OH NN NO OOH H -OOO Onmnoaop OOan op acumen .HO u” N N ON HN OO HO HHH nonomwa on» On com: cum .; H H OH OO OO OO HH Ooopmumcna OH OHHzo no Ooumnamm **O0.0N O O OH OH OO OOH H coHpOauoOaH OOHns op omuwon .OO OO ON OH OH HN ON HHH ON ON 0O OO OH NH HH QOHuanmoa HOH.O OO HH OO OO HH OH H Hmpou Oo OOHOHOHOOOHO HOHoOO .OO OO HO OO OO O O HHH OH OH NH OH O O HH OOHOOHsOoO Hugo» *OO.N HH OO OH OO O NH H O0 OOHOOOHOOOHO OsoHOHHoO .OO ON ON OO HO OH HH HHH ON ON OO OO OH OH HH QOHpmaaqom *O0.0 ON HO OO OO OH HN _H HOpop Oo :osznHOpOHO OchOO .OO anmnmm HOO O O O O O O Osaka popuOO OOOHOOOO 2O OH HO 156 .ampmona HmcoHpmusvo an» no panacea map nonwoapmq .mmupwsaoo OH OH NO HO OO ON HHH OOOOHHHO .ooguasoo Ho nonamww HH HH OO OO Om ON HH .anHcO .coHOOH smeanoaH .. .o *O0.0 0H NH NO OO OO OH H .OQSOOM ouHmpso SOng 0» magma: .Ho mhmaam Hgo O O O O O O Osouo OopomO OocHOuOO \OO OIOH HO F _ r ‘— 04.0 I mo.mw .duhv nHmmnpomhn HHsc 0:» comm nn ** wmnoamwu no honosumum nn m uHmonooahs HHS: map paouo< nu * thstv 900mmw no: mcoa nu za Hopomm on» on muHstv uncommm haooouHccH nu 9H maaucoanou Hogan: >2 covH>Hc honmavmum nu & upwamsu upcommm hauomHHn nn .OH NH mH mN oN 00 no HHH NN mN NH on Hm NN HH AnoHaonHHonou. *HNH.Hm H H NH 0H Hm mm H aoHpmoHHHHmau .muonomos .N o o H H om HOH HHH H H H n mm mm HH AQOHOMonvoV *Om.N o o H H 0N HOH H muoHHNOHHHHasu .muonomoa .m 0N NN mm mm NH mH HHH m“ 0N NH Hm NH 0N HN HH .uuumaaup cna .n *Hmm.HH m 0H No we oN Hm H anonaouuv «can po>moH Hoosom .N m m mH NH Nm mm HHH HaonHpuonam .nonsH 0H HH mo Hm HN mH HH pen .oonmcHzm ..w.a. couoHHo *Hoo.Hm m m cm Ho HH HH H no0H>pmm HacOHpmoaco Ho pcmpxm .o m m HN mN HN HN HHH m m HN ON HN Ho HH ucmuspn No umchpum NHHmnpom Hoo.N m m 0H 0H oN Hm H paosm>mHnom oHamcmom Ho Ho>oH .m mumaam ‘ «:0 R m R m R m macho Houowm nwmchuno za aH Ha muouomm hoocH: one No :oHuaoouma NHHHH :H Humuzv NH :onmm cH HHH can .HH .H quouo aomspmn aHnmcoHumHmu on» mawpmmp moaaw> mumsomano 58 l :oHumosvm pcmuwa 0H HH me we NN mN HHH Ham AcouuHHno ow» Hoonom psoans MN 0N 9H mH mN HN HH pOHHanv H0030» m Ho uncouHNOH **mH.mH N N «0 ON mN 0m H omega. coupaa Ho cab» cam Ho>oH .NH OH OH mm mm Nm oo HHH 0N NN Nm HH NN NH HH .noHumoHHHpuoo. Human *NOH.mN m 0H NH Hm HH NH H o>HpmppmHnHavw «0 m:0Huw0HHHszo .OH H H NH MH Nm Ha HHH o o NN HN No on HH Aaoprozuov Hump» *iHm.oH o o mN mN NN Hm H m>HpmHuchHscw Ho mGOHuonMHHmad .mH o o mH 0H mm mm HHH m m 0H NH 0N No HH ampmNn :H **N¢.NN N N mm NH 00 no H mumnommu vmocwHuoaxa Ho pcooHom .HH “Human Hooaom H H Hm mm mo HN HHH Np mHmHumpms vcm muonuma H H Hm NN we on HH Ho unwao>opaaH you noumomv *mo.o H H Hm mm we HN H :OHumucoaHuomxm no occavH>m .mH H H HN NN mN 0N HHH m N mN 0N mo 00 HH *NN.H N N HN mN NN Hm H coHumaHOHpuaa HHgsa Ho magmas .NH H m HH NH Hm cm HHH NH HH HH mm NH cm HH nsooummeo «Hmo.0H N m cm mm Nm Ho H :H wchcaHm HE:Q Ho oouwan .HH mhwamw Hno R h R m R N macho hooomm cochumo zpn QH nulu Hm 159 H H Hm Nm NH HH HHH N N 0N mm Nm NN HH .NcNaNHsao New NaHNHHaN. sauna» *NN.H m m mm mN Nm HH H H85m Ho uoHNHHHoNH HNoHuNHN .mN o 0 NH NH NN NN HHH m m NH Nm mm NH HH *Nmm.0N H H HN 0N mN Nm H nuonowcp macaw GOHpmhoaooo .HN H H mH. HH NN om HHH o 0 NH mH mN mN HH Hue: oHmeHogoo *NH.N o o N N Hm NOH H Nuazou NHHasa Ho ocsquuH .mN NN om NN NN NH NH HHH NN HN 0H mm mm oN HH *oN.N NN Nm HH mH Nm Nm H umoN Hoosun Ho NpmcoH .NN mH NH mN NN NN mN HHH HH 0H cm NH mm 0N HH nachpma cad *Nm.N N N NN mN mN mN H mpcmuma Ho «sump» HmcoHomaaouo .HN H N 0m Nm NH Hm HHH N N am Hm Hm om HH .Ncoupma NcN mucouaav *NN.N N N NH Nm Nm Hm H NOHpmosNo psopm NNHHHNNNNNoHsoaH .NN m m NH NH NH Nm HHH H H HH om mm NH HH mnonpma and upcohma Np *Nm.N o 0 0H HH 0N mN H Nm>Huopma mm coHNmoaNo Ho NaHNN .NH mH HH Nm Nm Hm Nm HHH .NoHaaaaoo on» HH NH Nm mH 0m 0N HH :H cooHuowun N.pmnz ab uHoonom *No.N N N Hm Nm NH mH H as» :H NNNsmN «.NNNzH NNH osHNN .NH GHQ-Hum Hno N H a N N N Nacho popomm wwchpmp 2n pH Hp I'll“ NH NH NN NN HH mH HHH NNHnsasoo Ho NoHNH>HuoN mm NN Nm Om OH N HH HaoHNHHoO Nam HNHuoN cH «*HN.N NH NH HN NN NH mH H :oHNNOHoHNpNO uosowop Ho ooNNNO .mm N N Nm Hm HN HN HHH NcmpOoOaH on on m H mm MN No He HH Hmchaoo has» wuss comma op m>m£ *Nm.N H H mm Nm HN NN H numnoaoo socoouH Ho ouNNoO .Nm m m NH NH NN mN HHH N N mH HH mN mN HH *Nmm.HH m m Hm Hm NN NN H OHNNN pogommanHOsO .Hm m m mm Nm NH HH HHH panacea NN mN NH NH NN mN HH Naouapn NcHauo>oN acoHNmHsmon «*NN.HN NH NH Nm NN mN NN H NNHHNNNN NON NHNHHOxo Ho Naoaxm .Om m N N NN mN Om Nm HHH .; HN HN Nm Hm NH NH HH NNHNHNHNNN HoogomnHHm *NHH.NN H H Nm HN OH mH H nH soHNNOHoHNLNO HHOsO Ho oouNoO .NN OH OH Nm NN Hm mm HHH NN mN Nm 0m NH HH HH NoHuH>Hvow Hoonom *HNm.ON N N Nm NN mm Nm H -HHN OH NquaNHO HHOsO Ho oouNoO .NN N N NH Om HH NH HHH NH 0H Hm NN Nm 0m HH mpnmvspm *NNN.mm Om Nm mH NH mN NN H op NNONHNNN xuososon Ho NouNoO .NN N OH mH NH NH NH HHH HH oH om NH mm NN HH ANHNHN Nam Hmconouv *HN.N H H NH HN OH mH H sNNNoOO Hoogom No coHNmNHONONNH .NN thmmm HNO N O N O N O Nacho uoaomm wmeMWMO nun” .zO OH HO In. \llll |I|4 161 m m HN HN Hm Nm HHH m H Nm NH mH Nm HH ONHOsaaoo on» OH muucoHuoOxo «mm.N N N mH NH mm Nm H Hmuszao Ho OHHHHNNHHN>N .HH O O ON HN ON HN HHH H m Nm NN Ho om HH aduwoun *NNm.NH N N mm Nm mN NN H HNOOHNNNONN Ho aoHpNuHamNOO .OH m m Nm mm mH NH HHH N N Hm NH Nm Hm HH uoHpHnapuoOOo HmHoon Nam *NN.m m m mm Nm HH NH H quoHpmosNo Ho oNNonoax n.pnmuspm .Nm N N Hm Nm Nm OH HHH N N NH mH mH Nm HH *ON.m H m NH mH Hm Nm H HHom Ho oNNonoON N.»:ouapm .Nm mH mH Nm HN NN NN HHH ON NH Nm NH mN ON HH moNoOOsO HNOoHp *NNO.NN m m NH Om Hm Nm H nonpumcH OoH_NNH::aaou H0 mm: .Nm H H NN NN HN mN HHH NONNNNNN o» o m mH OH NH mH HH mHanHm>m mHmHHoumS HNGOHH *NmN.NH O O NN Nm HN NN H nonpumaH Ho ONHNON> NON «NOON .Nm H H NN NN No MN HHH 8009 N N NH HH mH OH HH -mmmHo OH Nuns NNNNHONNNN HanoHH *NmN.NN O O HN mN NN mN H -NNONNOH Ho ONNHON> Ho ooONoO .mm m m NH NH HN mN HHH m H mN NN ON NN HH ONONHHOO no «*Om.NH O O HH NH NN NN H oNNononx .Numsoamp Ho pcmuxm .Hm mhmamw HON N O N O N O Osopo OoNomO NNOHNNNO nOHH OH! HO 162 N N NH NH NH Om HHH uHoosou NH HH Nm NH Nm NN HH NON OH oHNNHHNON aNONoOO NchmoN . *NHm.mH m m OH HH mm ON H HanoHHaosum Ho NOoom New Ho NOON .NH HH NH NN HN HN NN HHH uamHnoOO mH mH ON NN mH mH HH HooNNN masoNHN op NoNHONNOo **NH.mH N N NN NN NN NN H NON NaoNHpHo noan on cmhmov 039 .NH .Hmuonaaa «map» No mocmpmaaoo HNHOHNnom noun 0:» mmwouoaH op N0H0H>Huowv N N NN NN NN HN HHH :OHuaosNo ooH>OmNncH :H vobHo>nH N N Nm mm mm NH HH ohm aopnNN Hoonom 0:» mo Human *NmH.OH H H mN NN HN ON H HmconmoOoOO NOHNO op coONaO .NH NpHnnaaoo N N Nm Nm mm Nm HHH on» Ho NaoONNO New «NONONO N N mm NH Nm Nm HH Np on NNNHOoNsz mmcHNwwms *NO.N H m ON NN NN NN H New NmeNoOsO ”Noon Ho «NOON .mH N N mm Nm Nm Nm HHH mmHoHHON mN NN NH HH NN mN HH chcomuma NcHsum>oN N:0prHamoh «*HN.HN HH NH ON NN NH ON H NNHHNNNN Nam HHoHHOxm Oo pcopxm .HH m m Nm Nm Nm HH HHH NNHUHHON HanoHpmost Ho :OHHN: o o Nm Hm HN Hm HH anpmumN on» :H van: mpm mucus *NNm.HH H H NH Om Om mm H -NN2H N.OoNoNoH ONHNO op ooONaO .mH NH HH Nm NN NN NN HHH HH 0H Nm Om Nm NN HH NpHcseaoo on» *NN.N H H HN 0N Nm mm H :H mpmzommp mo szwom HNHooN .NH NONSNN Hno a N N N N N Nacho hopomN umcprno 29 NH N *ONN.ON H H Nm mm NN mN H OHNO HNOoHNNNHoOO Ho NOOH .mm NNNON H H NN Om NN ON HHH uuouuHN HNaquchH Ho NNNonosx N N Om NN NN ON HH N NON you apoocoo N NNNH NO *ONo.mN O O N N NN NN H NNNHNNNON NanuNNp soan on NN.H NO .Hm NH ON Om Hm Hm mm HHH N m NN HN NN Nm HH NHoonoN *NNm.HH NH NH OH mH HH NH H OH NNHHoOON NHHOOO Ho N.OH .mm NNNNNH HNNHHHHoN NON HNHooN OH HH ON mN Om Hm HHH NONONNBNNONN NuNxop Nanaaaoo Nap .1 N m Om HH HH Nm HH Ho NaouuNN NON NNNNONN .NuopNOaN ”m *NN.N N N NH Om NH Nm H nHOHONN .NONONNNN Ho NNNONHHHH .Nm N N Nm Hm NN NN HHH N N Nm Om mm Hm HH OHNNN NNNHOONN HNOONNONO NNNO.Hm N N NN NN HN NN H NON NoONNHON Ho mOoHpNoHHHHNOO .Hm .NNONHHno OHan mH mH mm mm Hm mm HHH ONH NHONONO Ho mOoHNNOHONN NON NH HH ON mm HN HN HH NNNNHNNO Hoonum NS» No ENONNON *NHm.NH m m Nm Nm mH NH H HNONHHNNNNN Nap ONng on NNONNO .Om mm Nm OH NH m m HHH NNHNH>HHNN ON mm Nm NN N N HH NHHNSESNN HNONNNN you ONO: NON OONH.NH Nm mm Nm HN N OH H NNHNHHHNNM HoonNm SOHO: op uaNuHN .NH NONmmN HBO N N N N N N Nacho HouoNN .memwmmmbuuuuuuuuwaunuuquNHHunuuuuuuNmriu!n_u; .u gig 16h Hm Nm Hm mm mH NH HHH NN HN Nm Nm HH NH HH NOoHpNNHN HNNONN OH u..NH.N HN mN Nm NN NN HN H NNHuo> NpNOouoNHN Ho NNNNNNNONN .mN m m mH mH Nm mm HHH NNHNHOHONN NNOoON ONO» NOoO N N HH Nm Nm Om HH NNHNHOHONO NHONNONO NOHNO NOONONO Nmm.H m m Nm NH Nm HN H NON mOoONNO ONHO: o» NNONNO .NN N N HN Nm HN HN HHH NNHNH>HHNN NNANNN H H Hm NN NN ON HH anN NONE NNHNH>HHNN NHENNNNN NmH.m N N Hm Hm mN NN H NOHNO NHHOOO ONHO: op NNONNO .HN NH NH NH NH OH OH HHH . HooOuN OH NNNNON Om mN NH NH HN NH HH -NHN ON OONONN NH ONNNON NOHNO *ONN.NN m m mm Nm NH mH H ONNHONOH NON ONHO3 o» NNONNO .ON NH NH Nm ON mN NN HHH HNONH ONHNONOHOO Oo NNNHHoo NON HH NH ON Nm NN mN HH ON :oHuNNNNN OHNON NncHucoo on: Nmm.N HH NH mN NN HN NN H NNONONNON HNNONN Ho NNNNONNONO .Nm NN Om Hm Nm NH NH HHH _ OOHONN NN HN Nm Om mH mH HH nave NONucoonnuNoN NH ONNNNNN *Nm.N HN NN HN NN mH NH H NNNNONNON HooOoN ON NNNOONNONO .Nm HONNN HooONN NON OOH: NH ON ON mN HN NN HHH NHNoN HOONHNNNONN Ho NOHOONHO mN ON ON mm NH mH HH Nap OH NN>Ho>aH NON NpHcaaaoo Nap HHON.HH N N NN HN NN NN H Ho NONOONO ONH ONHOO op NNONNO .Nm N N mH mH mm Nm HHH N N NH NH NH HH HH NHos HNcoHNNNmoON No NN>HNNENAN HOOm.NH N 4N mNA NN mN ON H HHNON NONONNNN ONHO: op NNONNO .Nm rrNONsmN , Hno N N N N N N Nsouu houoNN ONOHNHOO OO O HO NH NH NN NN NH NH HHH :oHHNHsaoN Nm NN Nm mH NH. HH HH HNOOH Ho NuHocaNosog gOHNHHE *mO.N ON NN Nm HN mN mN H new HNHowp .oHan»o Ho oouNaO .ON 3OH> Mo NuaHoa HNOHNOH N m NN mN mm mm HHH -OHOON New HNOHpHHom Ho mocwsu m H Nm Nm Nm Om HH HHN pooHHou HNNH.NHNHucuNa *NHm.NH m m OH HH Nm NN H Ho upcouzam o» NHHHHNNHHN>H .NN N N Hm mm NH HH HHH N m Nm NH Nm Hm HH Nansasoo cH oocou *Nm.H H H mm ON HH mH H -Hmou Ho NHHHHNNHN Ho oouNoO .NN osmmH HNaOHpmc :, NH mH mm mm mm Nm HHH uuoonH no HN¢OHch .Nuapm .HNoOH Um m H Nm mm Nm Hm HH Nam oHNNHHmo>cH on mucouapn **NH.HH N N OH HH Hm Nm H op NaucauN accoouu Ho «NuNoO .NN HH mH mN NN mN HN HHH HH OH HN NN NH NH HH NuHNmmm Hoonun HNOOH cH umammmzcn «mN.H OH HH NN HN HN NN H HmooH Ho ammuoch Ho oomea .NN H H Nm NN Nm Nm HHH Nansasoo on» cH mucouma Nam N N HN mm mm NN HH Ncoupma mo magma :o :oHuNosuo *NH.N O O Nm HN HH mH H No ammoapsg Ho N=OHHNoouoN .mN m m HN HN Hm mm HHH muHNHHN Hoosom nH mH HH NN Hm mN NN HH HmmpoucH HNNHN HHNHaxo on: NNNNNNH *NN.N N N Na MN Nm OH H thcsasou Nchcmprso no Nocmmmpm .HN oumnum ‘I HNO N N N N N N Nacho nouomm NocHNuNO 2a OH H: E“ |.l ‘T III! E “a 166 mN HN Nm ON ON HN HHH mN NN Nm NH mN ON HH nmnoso NHHsNH Nchuoocoo noun **mH.OH HH NH NN NN NH NH H -HHHO Ho mcoprpomOxo .npaonmm .NN mH HH HN HN NN NN HHH NH mH Nm NH Hm NN HH moon NOHmeoHou macs *HN.m NH NH HN ON ON NN H no Oosoumz maNuNopO mo «NONN .NN NH NH Nm Nn NH NH HHH Nude Hwaomnon NN mN Nm mm Nm Hm HH :20 was» NHONNOHN Hooaou *HH.N HN mN NH NN Hm mm H HooOon ONH: Ho owaucoonom .NN N N mH NH NH Hm HHH N m NN mN NN Nm HH NNHNNNNHH *NH.N H H mH NH Hm Nm H Neon Ho mmc=m>Hmaono Nam oNNN .mN _ m m NH HH mm Nm HHH Hoonom as» new «son on» N N NH NH HH mm HH coazumn upNon OOHuNOHazaaoo *NmO.HH O O mH NH mm ON H Nw:-ozu OOng op pamuxo OOH .HN NH NH NN NN NH NH HHH HH OH Nm Hm Hm NN HH mpmopoch OHONHHNN NON *Nm.N OH HH Nm mN Nm mm H oHOoOumoN NOH Ouoonoo NOHOssaoo .mN H H Hm mm NN mN HHH m m NN NH NN mN HH OmuNHHno Ho *NNN.HH O O NH ON HN NN H NcOHpNuomOxm N.Hoonom Ho waspwz .NN HN NN mm mm NN NN HHH N N Nm Hm mm NH HH NONNHNHOH OHONHHON NON *NMNemN H m NH Nm NH Nm H OHONOHNNN you :umocou HHOnm .HN NNNOON . HOO N m N N R N macho houowm .mmNHNONO 2O OH HO 167 H H Nm Nm ON mN HHH NOHOOasoo NO» OH m H NN mN NN Nm HH NHHOOO NO OOoO NN NHNO OONO «Hm.N N N mm Nm mN HN H -N>NHONN HNOOHONNONN Ho HN>NH .NN m m NH 0H NH Hm HHH NOHOOBSOO one OH NOOOHNO NON H H NH mH NH HH HH NOONONO NO OOOO NN NHNO NONE *NN.N O O ON mN OH HH H -N>NHONN HNOOHONNONN Ho HN>NH .mN O O mm mm NN ON HHH NOOONOONHOHONN NON N N MN ON mN NN HH mhmnomoo Np aha: ma OHon uOoa *mN.N O O NN NN HN HN H no>NHOoN HNOoHONoONN Ho HN>NH .HN Om Nm HH mH NN Om HHH NH NH Nm mH NN mN HH “ONOHHOOOOONO Oo ONNOO .HNOOOH NON.m mN NN Om mm mN NN H ONOONN OoHONHOOoO Ho NONN .mN O O NN NN mN NN HHH NHHOOO O O NH NH NN NN HH NO Non: NH NONOOHH NOHOOOONN NOH.H H H NN NN NN NN H NON HoOOoN ONHOO op NNONNO .NN OH HH Hm Nm Nm Nm HHH OHONHOON Oo HNOOHpNouoon HH NH mH Nm mH Nm HH .HooOoN NON OH ONONNOO *mN.N OH HH NH Hm mH NH H OOHuNosOo HNOHNNOO Ho NHNNOOEM .HN mm mm mm Nm NH NH HHH mm Hm NH NH NH mH HH NONN OOHNH>NHNO *Nm.m HN NN mN NN mH HH H NOHOzo NNOOO «0 NNNOONNONO .ON OH OH ON MN Om Nm HHH p0H>mson mH HH mm NH Nm NN HH NOHONN NON HNHNON N.ONONHHOO NmH.N m m NN HN NN NN H OHNOO Ho mOOHONOoNOxo .NOONONO .NN NONONN HOO N N N O N O OOOOO OOONNO NNOHNOOO 2O OH, HO O O OH OH ON mN HHH OONON>NOOOH OOHONHOOON HNOOHO H H HN HN mN NN HH -Ooo NOHOONO ONO» NNOoHN>NN ONNO NNNm.OH O O HH mH NN HN H mNO NOONNOOON N ONHOO on NNONNO .mN adumoum HNOOHONO H H HN HN NN ON HHH -ONN NO» ON NHNoN OOO NOHOONN mH HH mm Hm Nm NH HH -Ooo NHooOoN NO» Ho NHHNNN NO» . NNmm.Om O O NN NN HN HN H NON NOoON NONONNOoo Ho NNONNO .NN ENANOHO H H mN HN NN ON HHH ONHONHOOON op NOOONOOON NNONO N N Nm Hm mm NH HH -HNOooo NON OONONONN N N>HNN NNNO.NH H H NH HN ON NN H -ONO NONONNNO ONHOO op NNONNO .HN HO O O Om Hm ON HN HHH ONONNNO NO» NO NON: NON ,o N N Nm NN HN mm HH Ooopmhwvnd NH NHHOO Oo Ouuonpmw 1.**NO.ON H H NH NH mN OO H OOHHNBOOHOH OOHOS op woumoa .00 HH NH NH Hm OH OH HHH mm Hm Hm HH OH 0 HH OOHONHOOOO *NN.O Nm OH NH Nm mH HH H HNOop Ho OoHOOOHOONHN HNHNNN .NN NH NH NH NH N N HHH NH NH NH NH H m HH OoHNNHOOoO HNNNN *NN.m OH HH Om Hm OH HH H H0 ONHOOOHOONHN NONHNHHNN .NN NN NN Nm Nm NH NH HHH Om NN HN mm m N HH OOHONHOOOO NHN.N NN Hm Nm HN NH NH H HNOo».Ho ONHOONHOONHN NHOOOO .NN OONJMN HOO N N N N N O OOoOO OoOoNO 169 BNANOOQ HNOOHpNosvo an» no pOOpOoo on» mouNoame .ompuHaaoo NH NH HN NN ON HN HHH NcNNHpHO .oouoasoo Ho nonammw NH HH NH OH HH Nm HH .NOOHOO .OOHMOH ONOHONSH .. .o **m0.0N H H NN HN NN Hm H .NOOOON NOHNOOO OOng O» OOOMNO .Hm opmnum H30 N m N m N m macho honomm ONOHNONO - 2O OH HO APPENDIX F ANALYSIS OF FACTORS SHOWING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE FOUR REGIONS 171 REGION I Cate o “I. Student's Level of Knowle e and Attitudes. ‘s’gfpaccors 5,7,73,33735,37,"§5 '."59'.%1:;‘.712‘8478'5‘.36T’ For factors 5.7.23,39,58,59, and 85, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. in the and 86: Cate c There were significant differences at the .05 level patterns of response for factors 38,53,6l,7l,84, Factor38"Student's knowledge of self,"appeared to be less important to Group III, than to Group I or II. Factor 53, "IQ's of pupils enrolled in schools" appeared to‘be more'important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 61, "Degree to which pupils value academic activities more than sports activities" appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 71, "Pupil concern for aesthetic and artis- tic interests" appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 84, "Level of educational achievement held as norm by teachers and administrators" appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 86, "Level of educational achievement held as norm by pupils in the community" appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. II. Communit Attitudes. Factors I3,I9,20,5§,52,5§,64,65,66.73,7h,73.79) For factors l9,20,64,66,78, and 79 there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. in the and 7h: There were significant differences at the .05 level patterns of response for factors 18,52,62,63,65,73, 172 Factor 18, "value lag" (what's taught in the schools vs what's practiced in the community) appeared to be ‘ less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 52, "Attitudes of teachers, administrators, parents and patrons of the community toward contem- porary social and political issues," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Groups I or II. Factor 62, "Degree to which pupils value academic ‘activities more than sports activities," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 63, "Percentage of electorate voting in school elections," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 65, "Perceptions of purposes of education on parts of patrons and parents in the community," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 73, "Community concern for aesthetic and . artistic interests," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 74, "The extent to which two-way communication exists between the home and the schools," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. EgggggngIII. Curriculum. actors-67I5776730,48,50,72,81,92,93.94) For factors lO,36,hO,72,8l, and 9h there were no differ- ences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 6,h8,50,9l,92, and 93: Factor 6, "Extent of educational services offered (e.g., guidance, hot lunch, supervision), appeared \ to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. 173 Factor L8, "Type of and scepe of educational testing program available in the schools," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 50, "Degree to which the educational program of the school reflects the aspirations of parents for their children," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 91, "Degree to which teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to curricular program," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 92, "Degree of consensus among the staffs of the schools concerning the goals of the educational program," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 93, "Degree to which a structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improve ment," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Gate or ‘21. Use 9; Facilities Factors 25, 49,82) For factors L9. and 82, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factor 25: Factor 25, "Physical facilities of school system," (building and equipment) appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Gate or X, Socio-cultural composition of community. {Factors l7,21,41,42,45.68,70,75,75777,30,83{37,88,89) For factors 17,45,68,70,75,76,77,87,88, and 89 there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 21,41,L2,80, and 83: 17A Factor 21, "Occupational status of parents and patrons," appears to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I. Factor 41, "Availability of cultural experiences in the community," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 42, "Social status of teachers in the community," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I. Factor 80, "Percentage of homes owning television sets," appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 83, "Type of population center," (rural, urban or metropolitan) appeared to be less impor- tant to Group III than to Group I or II. Categogy VI. Administration and Supervision Factors 13,16,22,26735731,43.533L5ZL7,51,55,57) For factors 22,26,31,43,hh, and 57 there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. in the and 55: There were significant differences at the .05 level patterns of reaponse for factors 15,16,30,h7,a6,51, Factor 15, "Qualifications of administrative staff," (education) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. . Factor 16, "Qualifications of administrative staf ," (certification) agpeared to be less important to Group II than to roup I or III. ‘ Factor 30, "Extent of explicit and detailed regula- tions governing student conduct," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor L6, "Degree to which professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service education," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. 175 Factor #7, "The degree to which citizens are organ- ized to discuss school problems," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 51, "Qualifications of guidance and personnel services staff," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared more important to Group I than to Group II. Factor 55. "Type of professional help available to teachers," (educational consultants, clinics) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. ‘ Categor¥ XII. The Teacher and Teachigg methods. Factorsfi,m,E—l ,2 ,23,§g,32,33 )34‘, 35.37.54.56.60.67.59.9o) For factors 8,12,13,1h,28,29,33, and 60, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 9,11,2h,27,32,34,35, 37,5b.56,67,69, and 90: Factor 9, "Teachers qualifications" (certification) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 11, "Degree of pupil planning in classrooms," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 2h, "Cooperation among teachers," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 27, "Degree of homework assigned to students," appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I. Factor 32, "Degree of freedom teachers have to teach what they consider to be important," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. 176 Factor 3h, "Extent of teachers‘ knowledge of chil- dren," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 35, "Degree of vareity of instructional techniques used in classroom," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. This factor appeared to be more important to -Group III than to Group II. Factor 37, "Use of community for instructional purfigses," appeared to be more important to Group I t n to Group II or III. Factor 5h, "Degree to which teaching practices reflect a concern for and a knowledge of individual differences," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 56, "Degree to which teachers avail themselves of professional help," appeared to be less impor- tant to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 67, "Degree of freedom granted to students to investigate any local, state, national or inter- national issue," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 69, "Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociolo- gical points of view," appeared to be more impor- tant to Group I than to Group II or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group III. Factor 90, "Degree to which information gathered on child is understood and used by the teacher," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or Group III. Group II attached more importance than did Group I or III to the six factors which showed significant differences of Opinion under "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes." Groups I and II attached more importance than did Group III to the seven factors which showed significant 177 differences of opinion under "Community Attitudes." Groups I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the six factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Curriculum." Groups I and II attached more importance than did Group III to the factor (25) which showed significant differences of opinion under "Use of Facilities." Groups I and II attached more importance than did Group III to the five factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Socio-Cultural Composition of Community." Groups I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the seven factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Administration and Super- vision." ' Group I attached more importance than did Group II or III to the thirteen factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "The Teacher and Teaching Methods." 178 Region II Cate o I. Student's Level of Knowlegge and Attitudes. (Factors 5,7,23,38,§§.37.5 .59. 1.71:3L.35.35) For factors 5,7,23,39,58,59,61,84,85, and 86, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 38,53, and 71: Factor 38, "Student's knowledge of self," appeared to be more important to Group I then to Group II or III. Factor 53. "IQ's of pupils enrolled in schools," appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group III. Factor 71, "Pupil concern for aesthetic and artistic interest," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Cate or II. Communit Attitudes. (Factors l8,I9,%O,55,52,53.6h.65.66.73.7h.73.79) For factors 18,19,20,52,62,63,6h,73,7h and 78, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 65,66, and 79: Factor 65, "Perceptions of purposes of education on parts of patrons and parents in the community," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 66, "Degree of interest of local newspaper in local school affairs," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 79, "Types of programs watched on home television sets," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. 179 Gate or III. Curriculum. “J “(Factors 6,10,36,40,1.8,50,72,81,91,92,93.94) For factors 10,h0,81,9l, and 93 there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. in the and 94: Gate 0 There were significant differences at the .05 level patterns of response for factors 6,36,h8,50,72,92, Factor 6, "Extent of educational services offered," (e.g., guidance, hot lunch, supervision) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I. Factor 36, "Types and variety of instructional materials available to teachers," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 48, "Type of and scOpe of educational pro- gram available in the schools," appeared to be ' less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 50, "Degree to which the educational program of the school reflects the aspirations of parents for their children," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 72, "Nature of echool's expectations of children," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 92, "Degree of consensus among the staffs of the schools concerning the goals of the educational program," appeared to be less impor- tant to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 9h, "Degree to which outside groups, e.g. American Legion, Unions, Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Committee, permeates the content of the educational program," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. IX. Use of Facilities. Factors 25:39, 2 180 For factors h5,68,70,75,80,83,87,88, and 89, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors l7,21,hl,h2,76, and 77: Factor 17, "Level and type of patron (those residents of a school district without school age children) and parent education," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 21, "Occupational status of parents and patrons," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II. Factor 41, "Availability of cultural experiences in the community," appeared to be less important to Group III than to GroupI or II. Factor a2, "Social status of teachers in the community," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I. Factor 76, "Percentage of high school students that own personal cars," appeared to be less impor- tant to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 77. "Types of programs watched on home television sets," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Gate or VI. Administration and Su ervision “Limermamlmmmsw For factors 15,30,31,b3,hk,46, and #7, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 16,22,26, 510559 and 57: 181 Factor 16, "Qualifications of administrative staff," (certification) appeared to less important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I. Factor 22, "Length of school year," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 26, "Accreditation of school program," (regional and state), appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 51, "Qualifications of guidance and personnel services staff," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 55, "Type of professional help available to teachers (educational consultants, clinics) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 57, "Degree to which lay members of the community are involved in the planning of educational goals with school staff," appears to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Category XII. The Teacher and Teaching Methods. FaCtorS 8,9,11,12,1714 21+,27’ 8929,325339314135, 37,5a,66,6o,67.é9 and 90) For factors 8,13,29, and 32, there were no differ- ences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 9,11,12,1h,2h, 27.28.33.3h.35.37.5#,66,60,67.69 and 90: Factor 9, "Teachers qualifications," (certification) appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II. Factor 11, "Degree of pupil planning in classrooms," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 12, "Degree of pupil participation in class- rooms," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. 182 Factor 1a, "Percent of experienced teachers in system," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 24, "Cooperation among teachers," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 27, "Degree of homework assigned to students," appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 28, "Degree of pupil planning in all-school activities," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 33, "Degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of community," appeared more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 90, "Degree to which information gathered on child is understood and used by the teacher," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Groups I and II attached more importance than did Group III to the three factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes." Group I and II attached more importance than did Group III to the three factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Community Attitudes." Group I attached more importance than did Group II to the seven factors which showed significant differences of Opinion under "Curriculum." Group I attached more importance to them than did Group III. None of the factors under "Use of Facilities" were significant. 183 Groups I and II attached more importance than did Group III to the six factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Socio-Cultural Composition of Community." Groups I and III attached more importance to them than did Group II to the six factors which showed signifi- cant differences of opinion under "Administration and Supervision." Group III attached more importance to them than did Group I. Groups I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the seventeen factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "The Teacher and Teaching Methods." 18b Region III Category I. Student's Level of Knowlegge and Attitudes. TFactors 5.7.23.33.39.37. . . .7173!” . For factors 5,53,58,59,6l,8h,85, and 86, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. in the There were significant differences at the .05 level patterns of response for factors 7,23,38,39, and 71: Factor 7, "School leaver rate" (drOp-out and trans- fer) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group III. Factor 23, "Attitude of pupils toward scholastic 'work," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 38, "Student's knowiedge of self," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 39, "Student's knowledge of educational and social opportunities," appeared to be less impor- tant to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 71, "Pupil concern for aesthetic and artistic interests," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Cate or II. Communit Attitudes. (Factors I8,l9,20,52,62,63,6h,65,66.73.7h,78.79) For factors 19,20,52,62,65,66,74,78, and 79. there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of reSponse for factors 18,63,6h, and 73: Factor 18, "Value lag" (what's taught in the schools vs what's practiced in the community) appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. I85 Factor 63, "Percentage of electorate voting in school elections," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 64, "Presence of outstanding community leaders who exhibit great interest in school affairs," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 73, "Community concern for aesthetic and artistic interests," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Category III. Curriculum. (Factors6,10,36,h0,48,50,72,81,9l,92,93,9h) For factors 48,72,92,93, and 9h. there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. in the and 91: There were significant differences at the .05 level patterns of response for factors 7,10,36,a0,50,8l Factor 6, "Extent of educational services offered," (e.g., guidance, hot lunch, supervision) appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II. Factor 10, "Variety of course offerings," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or I. Factor 36, "Types and variety of instructional materials available to teachers," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 40, "Organization of educational program," appeared to more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 50, "Degree to which the educational program of the school reflects the aspirations of parents for their children," appeared to less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 81, "Emphasis of physical education program in the school, recreational or athletic," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I 186 Factor 91, "Degree to which teachers perceive a coherent and.coordinated structure to curricular program," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group I or III. Gate 0 ‘31. Use of Facilities. Factors-25739, For factor 82 there was no difference at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 25, and A9: Factor 25, "Physical facilities of school system," (building and equipment) appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor #9, "Extent to which school facilities are used for general community activities," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Qégggggy E. Socio-cultural Comgosition of Community. Factors 179:1 Kieazehse ’70, ’76) i 9 :87, 33,395 For factors l7.21,A1,L2,h5,68,70,75,76,87,88, and 89, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 77. 80, and 83: Factor 77. "Types of programs watched on home television sets," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 80, "Percentage of homes owning television sets," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 83, "Type of population center," (rural, urban or metropolitan), appeared to be more impor- tant to Group I than to Group II or III. 187 Category VI. Administration and Supervision. Factors 15. 15, 25. 26. 30, 31, #3. 4h. £6.47, 51, 55. 57) For factors 22,26,31,h3,46, and #7. there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. in the and 57: There were significant differences at the .05 level patterns of response for factors 15,16,30,44,51,55, Factor 15, "Qualifications of administrative staf , (education), appeared to be less important to Group II than Group I or III. Factor 16, "Qualifications of administrative staff," (certification), appeared to be less important to Group II than Group I or III. Factor 30, "Extent of explicit and detailed regula- tions governing student conduct," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor AA, "Extent of explicit and detailed regu- lations governing personnel policies," appeared less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 51, "Qualifications of guidance and personnel services staff," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 55, "Type of professional help available to teachers," (educational consultants, clinics), appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 57, "Degree to which lay members of the community are involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Gate 0 4111- The Teacherm and Ta aching methods. (Factors—3:9.II. I2. Wk. 2 . 907. 8. 29. 35.3 3. 3h. 35. 37 54, 56,@ W67 For factors 8,12,13 and 60, there were no differ- ences which were signficant at the .05 level. 188 There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 9,11,14,24,27,28 29:32:33’3hg35g37,59,56,67,69, and 902 Factor 9, "Teachers' Qualifications" (education) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 11, "Degree of pupil planning in classrooms," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 14, "Percent of experienced teachers in system," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 24, "Cooperation among teachers," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 27, "Degree of homework assigned to students," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 28, "Degree of pupil planning in all-school activities," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 29, "Degree of pupil participation in all- school activities," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 32, "Degree of freedom teachers have to teach what they consider to be important," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 33, "Degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of community," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 34, "Extent of teachers' knowledge of children," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 35. "Degree of variety of instructional techniques used in classrooms," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. 189 Factor 37, "Use of community for instructional purposes," appeared to be more important to Group I than to.Group II or III. Factor 54, "Degree to which teaching practices reflect a concern for and a knowledge of individual differences," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 56, "Degree to which teachers avail them, selves of professional help," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 67, "Degree of freedom granted to students to investigate any local, state, national, or international issue," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 69, "Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and socio- logical points of view," appeared to be less impor- tant to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 90, "Degree to which information gathered on child is understood and used by the teacher," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. This factor appeared more impor- tant to Group III than to Group II. Group I attached more importance than did Group II or III to the five factors which showed significant differ- ences of opinion under "Student's level of Knowledge and Attitudes." Groups I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the four factors which showed significant differ- ences of Opinion under "Community Attitudes." Group I attached more importance than did Group III. Group I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the seven factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Curriculum." Group III attached more importance than did Group I. 190 One factor (25) under "Use of Facilities" was more important to Group III than to Group I or II. One factor (49) was more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Group I attached more importance than did Group II or III to the three factors which showed significant differences under "Socio-cultural Composition of Community." Groups I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the seven factors which showed significant differences of opinion under"Administration and Supervi- sion." Group I attached more importance than did Group III to the seventeen factors which showed significant differ- ences of opinion under "The Teacher and Teaching methods." 191 Region IV Cate o I, Student's Level of Knowle e and Attitudes. (Factors 5,7723333.3§.53.5 .5 . 1.7ITEA.35.35) For factors 5,23,38,39,58,59,61,84,85, and 86 there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 7,53, and 71: Factor 7 "School leaver rate," (drop-out and transfer) appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or Group III. Factor 53. "IQ's of pupils enrolled in schools," appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 71, "Pupil concern for aesthetic and artistic interests," appeared to be less impor- tant to Group III than to Group I or II. Cate O II. Communit Attitudes. Factors 1 . ,20,52,62,63,64,65,66,73,74,78,79) For factors 18,19,20,52,62,63,64,65.66,73. and 79. there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 74 and 78: Factor 74, "The extent to which two-way communica- tion exists between the home and the school," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 78, "Parents' expectations of children concerning family chores," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. C€t°§°£¥.lll- Curriculum. FaCtors 6,I6,§63h0,h8,50,72,81g91992e9359h) 192 For factor 81 there was no difference at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 6,10,36,40,48,50, 72.91.92,93, and 94: Factor 6, "Extent of educational services offered," (e.g., guidance, hot lunch, supervision) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I. Factor 10, "variety of course offerings," appeared go be more important to Group III than to Group or I . Factor 36, "Types and variety of instructional materials available to teachers," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 40, "Organization of educational program," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 48, "Type of and scOpe of educational testing program available in the schools," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 50, "Degree to which the educational program of the school reflects the aspirations of parents for their children," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 72, "Nature of school's expectations of children," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 91, "Degree to which teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to curricular program," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 92, "Degree of consensus among the staffs of the schools concerning the goals of the edu- cational program," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. 193 / Factor 93, "Degree to which a structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improve- ment," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 94. "Degree to which outside groups, e.g., American Legion, Onions, Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Committee, permeates the content of the educational program," appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group III. Gate 0 IE. Use of Facilities. Factors—25749 , 2 For factors 25, and 82, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There was a significant difference at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factor 49: Factor 49, "Extent to which school facilities are used for general community activities," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. . Gate 0 V. Socio-cultural Com osition of Communit . (Factors $3521.41.42.45.83.75.75.7'5.77.35.33.87.88. For factors 21,41,42,4S,68,70,75,76,77,80,83,87,88, and 89, there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There was a significant difference at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factor 17: gactor 17, "Level and type of patron (those resi- ents of a school district wit out school age children) and parent education," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. 194 Cate 0 VI. Administration and Su ervision. —_E'£(——Factor—Ts 5',"‘6"T‘6‘1 ,2 ,2 36751.4 .4 .4 .47.51.55.57) For factors 22 and 26 there were no differences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns of response for factors 15,16,30,3l,43,44, 46,47,51,55. and 57: Factor 15, "Qualifications of administrative staff," (education) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I. Factor 16, "Qualifications of administrative staff," (certification) appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I. Factor 30, "Extent Of explicit and detailed regula- tions governing student conduct," appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 31, "Pupil-teacher ratio," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 43, "Degree to which teacher's judgments are used in the determination of educational policies," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I. Factor 44, "Extent of explicit and detailed regula- tions governing personnel policies," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I Factor 46, "Degree tO which professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service edu- cation (activities to increase the professional competence of staff members)," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 47, "The degree to which citizens are organized to discuss school problems," agpeared to be more important to Group I than to roup II or III. 195 Factor 51, "Qualifications of guidance and personnel services staff," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 55, "Type of professional help available to Teachers (educational consultants, clinics) appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 57, "Degree to which lay members of the community are involved in the planning of educa- tional goals with the school staff," appeared to Eglmore important to Group I than to Group II or Categoquyll. The Teacher and Teaching Methods. FaCtorS-E—9.11,I2,lj—:Ihg215,27, 8,59,32,33’313’, 35.37.54.56.60.67.69.90) For factors 8,12,13, and 32 there were no differ- ences which were significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences at the .05 level in the patterns Of response for factors 9,11,14,24,27,28, 29.33.34.35.37.54.56.60.67.69. and 90: Factor 9, "Teachers' qualifications" (certification) appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I or II. This factor appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II. Factor 11, "Degree of pupil planning in classrooms," appeared to be more important to Group I than to, Group II or III. Factor 14, "Percent of experienced teachers in system," appeared to be less important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 24, "Cooperation among teachers," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 27, "Degree of homework assigned to students, appeared to be more important to Group II than to Group I or III. This factor appeared to be more important to Group III than to Group I. '1 196 Factor 28, "Degree of pupil planni . ng in all-school activities " appeared to be less in rta t t II than tO’Group I or III. W n 0 Group Factor 29, "Degree Of pupil participation in all- school activities," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 33, "Degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of community," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 34, "Extent of teachers' knowledge of children," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 35, "Degree of variety of instructional techniques used in classroom," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 37, "Use Of community for instructional purposes," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 54. "Degree to which teaching practices reflect a concern for and a knowledge of individual differences," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 56, "Degree to which teachers avail themselves of professional help," appeared to be more impor- tant to Group I than to Group II or III. Factor 60, "Degree to which the American value system is taught or discussed in school," appeared to be less important to Group II than to Group I or III. Factor 67, "Degree of freedom granted to students to investigate any local, state, national or inter- national issue," aspeared to be less important to Group III than to roup I or II. Factor 69, "Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of view," appeared to be less important to Group III than to Group I or II. Factor 90, "Degree to which information gathered on child is understood and used by the teacher," appeared to be more important to Group I than to Group II or III. 197 .Groups I and II attached more importance than did Group III to the three factors which appear to show sig- nificant differences of Opinion under "Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes." ' One factor (74) under "Community Attitudes," was more important to Group II than to Group I or III. One factor (78) was more important to Group I than to Group II or III. Groups I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the eleven factors which showed significant differences of opinion under "Curriculum." One factor (49) under "Use of Facilities" was more important to Group I than to Group II or III. One factor (17) under "Socio-cultural Composition of Community" was more important to Groups I and III than to Group II. Groups I and III attached more importance than did Group II to the eleven factors which showed significant differences of Opinion under "Administration and Supervi— sion." Group I attached more importance than did Group II or III to the seventeen factors which showed significant differences of Opinion under "The Teacher and Teaching Methods." Group III attached more importance to them than Group II. APPENDIX G FACTORS SHOWING A 50 PERCENT OR GREATER RESPONSE IN ANY OF THE THREE RESPONSE AREAS 199 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region I agree "directly affects quality" -; -—‘ Factor Group I Group II Group III H w xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx w x xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx w r xxxxxx xxxxx VI PM: O\ 00 xxxxxxxxxx xx xx xx xxxxxx xxxxx xx xx \lfl NP x xx 0) N xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx \0 H xxxxx wwwww ZOO Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region I agree "indirectly affects quality" Factor Group I Group II Group III xx H on xxxxxxxxx xx xxwwwwwwww x M) Q xxx Jr P x x .1:- \n xxxxxxxx xxxx \n \1 xx xxxxxxxxxxx x a a x xxxx x xxx xxxxx x s s xxxxxxxxxxxx x.x xxxxx'x xxx x xx x 201 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region I agree "does not affect quality at all" I Factor Group I Group II Group III #9 x x 88 x x 89 x 202 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region II agree "directly affects" quality Factor Group I Group II Group III I: \OQO‘UI xxxxxxxxx x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx x 3 C xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxx xxx xxx x xxxxxx x g xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx 203 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region II agree "indirectly affects" quality Factor Group I Group II Group III N H xxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx p w xxxxxxx xxxxxx v: 0 x p- O) xxxxxxxx xx ‘9 xxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxx x cc H xxxxxxxxxxxx x 204 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region II agree "does not affect" quality Factor Group I Group II Group III 49 x x 88 ‘ x x 205 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region III agree "directly affects" quality Factor Group I Group II Group III x x x xxxxxxxxxx H w xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx x it) xx xx xxxxx n) \J x xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x :0) xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxx x x 0‘ cc «xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx 206 (continued) Factor Group I Group II Group III 91 x x x 92 x x x 93 x x x 207 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region III agree "indirectly affects" quality t 1 371.: T TEIL Factor Group I Group II Group III 6 x x g... \I x xxxxx to N O U: xx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :3 5t? xxxxxxx x xxxx x xxxxxxxxxxx \h \n xxxx xx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx x xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx \1 m xxx xxx 208 (continued) Factor Group I Group II Group III & xxxxxx xxxxx xx 209 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region III agree "does not affect" quality W Factor Group I Group II Group III 49 x 88 x x 210 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region IV agree "directly affects" quality Factor Group I . Group II Group III 5 x x x 6 x 8 x x x 9 x x 10 x x x 11 x 12 x x x 13 x x x 14 x x x 15 x x x 16 X 19 X x 20 x 23 x x x 24 x x x 27 x 31 x x x 32 x X x 34 x x x 35 X x 36 x x 37 I 38 x 40 X x x 41 X 43 X x 46 x X x 48 x 51 x x 53 x x 54 x x x 55 X 56 x x 61 x x x 62 x x x 67 x x 69 x X 71 x 72 x x " 71. x " 75 X x 82 x x x 84 x 1 x 86 x X x 90 x x " 91 x x x 92 x x x 93 x x " 211 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region IV agree "indirectly affects" quality Factor Group I Group II Group III u: n) to \o cc 0 x xxxxxxx xx xx xxxxxxx xxx p H xxx 5 x xx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx x a» \n xxx p \0 xx x 0‘ w x xxxxxxxx \1 O x xxx x x xxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx Q \1 xxx 212 (continued) W Factor Group I Group II Group III 79 x x x 80 x x 81 x 83 x x. 85 x 87 x x x 88 x 89 x 94 X x 213 Factors which 50 percent or more of Group I, II, or III in Region IV agree "do not affect" quality Factor Group I Group II Group III 49 x x JV. t I Q . ‘ I 1‘ e 1 l \' '5' ' f ’- . . . a . I O * - . O I 4. .0 A, 'D e' . , K. ,. . ‘5 9 I t "I11111111111111.1111;S